[1. Call Meeting To Order]
[00:00:03]
IT'S 3:30 PM TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 16TH.CALL THIS REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO ORDER.
EVEN STAN HAS ON BLUE, BOB, YOU DIDN'T GET THE MEMO, MAN.
>> RAJON, DO YOU HAVE ON BLUE? NO SHE HAS ON WHITE.
WE'LL TAKE ATTENDANCE NOW, PLEASE.
[2. Attendance]
>> COMMISSIONER HUMPHREY. HE'S ABSENT.
>> WE'RE STILL WAITING ON COUNCIL MEMBER, LASTALSKI.
>> OKAY. HE DID COME IN DURING OUR LAST MEETING, PATRICK.
I DON'T KNOW IF YOU ALL NOTED THAT OR NOT, BUT HE DID COME IN DURING THAT MEETING.
I DON'T KNOW IF SOMEBODY NOTED THAT, AND ON THE STAFF SIDE, EXCUSE ME, I INTERRUPTED.
>> ON THE STAFF SIDE IN PERSON, WE HAVE MYSELF, CATHERINE GORMAN, AND PLANNING TECH PETRA COLLINS.
ON THE CALL, WE HAVE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR TIM TISIANS, PLANNING MANAGER, ADRIAN MONTEBON, SPECIAL PROJECTS COORDINATOR, PETE MELBOURNE, SENIOR PLANNER, DANIEL LUNSFORD.
LET'S SEE IF BRANDON HILL'S STILL HERE, YES.
COASTAL RESOURCES MANAGER, BRANDON HILL, ASSISTANT COASTAL RESOURCES MANAGER, RUSSELL COLE, AND ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY, DONNA FAIRWEATHER.
>> THANK YOU. COMMISSIONERS, DO WE HAVE ANY CONFLICTS OF INTERESTS?
[3. Conflict Of Interest]
SEEING NONE, WE'LL MOVE ALONG.YOU'VE ALL HAD A CHANCE TO REVIEW THE MINUTES OF OUR NOVEMBER SECOND MEETING.
[4. Approval Of Minutes]
ARE THERE ANY CHANGES, ADDITIONS, CORRECTIONS, DELETIONS TO THOSE MINUTES? SEEING NONE, WE'LL ACCEPT THOSE MINUTES AS WRITTEN.MS. GORMAN, WOULD YOU LIKE TO GO OVER THE MEETING FORMAT?
[5. Meeting Format (Staff)]
>> [OVERLAPPING] JUST STANDARD MEETING REMINDERS THAT [OVERLAPPING] SOMEBODY NEEDS [OVERLAPPING] TO MUTE.
ONE OF OUR REMINDERS IS TO KEEP YOURSELF MUTED UNLESS YOU'RE SPEAKING IN ORDER TO CUT DOWN ON BACKGROUND NOISE.
IT'S BEST TO WATCH THE MEETING IN GALLERY VIEW, SO YOU CAN SEE ALL YOUR COMMISSIONERS AT THE SAME TIME.
WE'LL ASK THAT YOU PHYSICALLY RAISE YOUR HAND TO GET THE CHAIR'S ATTENTION BEFORE SPEAKING OR MAKING A MOTION.
WE'LL TAKE THE VOTES BY ROLL-CALL.
TO ALL MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC IN ATTENDANCE ON THE CALL, WE'LL ASK IF THEY'D LIKE TO SPEAK TO USE THE RAISE HAND FUNCTION WHEN THEY'RE ASKED.
LET'S DO NOTE THAT COUNCIL MEMBER LASTALSKI IS PRESENT AND JOIN THE CALL AT 3:33.
[6. Public Comment]
WE HAVE SEVERAL WAYS THAT THE PUBLIC CAN COMMENT, EVEN THOUGH WE ARE ON ZOOM.THEY COULD HAVE SUBMITTED COMMENTS IN WRITING AND NONE WERE SUBMITTED.
IF THEY HAD BEEN SUBMITTED IN WRITING, THEY WOULD HAVE BEEN DISTRIBUTED TO THE COMMISSIONERS PRIOR TO THE MEETING.
PEOPLE CAN MAKE COMMENTS ON THE CALL TODAY BY USING THE RAISE HAND FUNCTION ON AGENDA AND NON-AGENDA ITEMS IN AN OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE THOSE COMMENTS NOW OR ON AGENDA ITEMS DURING THE TIME THAT THAT AGENDA ITEM IS CALLED.
DO WE HAVE ANY PUBLIC COMMENTS THAT ANYONE WOULD LIKE TO MAKE AT THIS TIME? IF SO, USE THE RAISE HAND FUNCTION NOW.
>> LOOKS LIKE WE HAVE ONE PERSON.
I'LL GO AHEAD AND ENABLE THEM TO SPEAK.
OKAY. YOU CAN ADDRESS THE COMMISSION AND YOU'LL HAVE THREE MINUTES.
>> HI, I DID TRY AND SUBMIT IT ON FORM 87 WORK.
MY NAME IS JUSTINE AND I'M IN THE DISTRICT 3.
I ACTUALLY RECENTLY NOTICED THERE WAS POTENTIAL FOR THE SPILLWAY LAND TO BE DEVELOPED INTO OUR FIRST PURCHASE FROM THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AND THEN SECOND THERE WAS DISCUSSION ABOUT IT, THE POTENTIAL FOR IT TO BE DEVELOPED.
I JUST WANTED TO RAISE THE CONCERN FROM A RESIDENT STANDPOINT CONSIDERING MY BACKYARD DOES FACE THAT WAY AND I WOULD BE CONCERNED FOR MY PROPERTY VALUES.
BUT REALLY TO THE POINT OF ENVIRONMENTALLY, I KNOW THAT THERE ARE A LOT OF BIRDS THAT A BUNCH OF PEOPLE COME DOWN FOR FEATHER FEST TO SEE,
[00:05:02]
AND I KNOW THAT THAT'S ONE OF THEIR HABITATS AS WELL AS THE COYOTES.THE OTHER THING I JUST WANTED TO SUBMIT, WAS I BELIEVE IT'S ON THE AGENDA TO DISCUSS ABOUT SHORT-TERM RENTALS AND JUST IF THERE IS ANY POSSIBILITY OF PUTTING A CAP ON IT.
I KNOW THEY'RE ECONOMICALLY BENEFICIAL, BUT JUST CONSIDERING HOW MORE THAN HALF OF THEM DON'T PAY THEIR HOT TAXES.
IT'S INCREASING THE COST OF LIVING FOR OUR RESIDENTS.
I'M WONDERING IF THERE'S A SEALING FOR THAT ECONOMIC BENEFIT, AND WHAT PLANS THERE MIGHT BE TO PUT CAPS ON IT.
WE APPRECIATE YOU BEING HERE AND WE APPRECIATE YOUR COMMENTS.
WE WILL DO OUR BEST TO ADDRESS YOUR COMMENTS ABOUT SHORT-TERM RENTALS HERE IN A LITTLE BIT.
>> ANYONE ELSE WHO WANTED TO COMMENT AT THIS TIME? SEE ANYBODY, CATHERINE?
WE WILL GO TO OUR NEXT AGENDA ITEM, WHICH IS NUMBER 7.
THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING ONLY COMMISSIONERS.
>> ALL RIGHT. SORRY ABOUT THAT.
I WAS EXPECTING CONSENT AGENDA, I WASN'T PAYING ATTENTION,
[7.A.1. 21P-063 (13727 Windlass Circle) Request For A Replat In Order To Increase The Number Of Lots From One To Two. The Property Is Legally Described As Hall And Jones Survey, Lots 102 And 103 Block 2 Pirates Cove Section 6 AKA Lot 1, 13727 Windlass Circle Subdivision, In The City And County Of Galveston, Texas. Applicant: Darren Seigel Property Owners: Darren And Heidi Seigel]
21P-063, THIS IS AT 13727 WINDLESS CIRCLE.THIS IS A REQUEST TO REPLANT FROM ONE LOT INTO TWO.
BASICALLY, A OWNER IN THE PAST HAD PLANTED TWO ADJACENT LOTS TOGETHER.
THEY'RE ESSENTIALLY RETURNING TO THAT PREVIOUS CONFIGURATION IN ORDER TO SELL THE OTHER PROPERTY.
BOTH OF THESE RESULTING LOTS WILL MEET OUR MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS FOR LOTS IN R1 ZONING DISTRICT.
THERE WERE 24 PUBLIC NOTICES SENT.
THANK YOU, KATHERINE. THIS IS JUST THE PHOTO OF THE VACANT AREA IN THE RE-PLAN AND THE EXISTING HOUSES ADJACENT.
OF COURSE, WE HAVE THE EXISTING SURVEY ON THE LEFT, AND THE PROPOSED REPLANT ON THE RIGHT, AND THIS CONCLUDES STAFF'S REPORT.
>> THANK YOU, DANIEL. I HEARD YOU SAY 24 NOTICES.
DAN, DID YOU SAY ANYTHING ABOUT HOW MANY RETURN?
COMMISSIONERS, ANY QUESTIONS? YES SIR, VICE-CHAIR BROWN.
>> YEAH, I WAS CURIOUS ABOUT THE PROPERTY LINE OR THE NEW PROPERTY LINE DOWN THE MIDDLE OF THE LOT, IT'S VERY CLOSE TO THE EXISTING HOUSE.
IS THAT THE REASON FOR THAT COMMENT FROM THE CITY DEPARTMENT NOTIFICATION RESPONSE THAT THE CONSTRUCTION ZONE WHICH APPLY TO TABLE R302.11 OF THE 2012 IRC EXTERIOR WALLS AT LESS THAN FIVE PEOPLE ON THE PROPERTY LINE? IS THAT WHAT THAT'S ABOUT?
>> THAT'S CORRECT, THAT'S A PRETTY STANDARD COMMENT FROM OUR BILLING DEPARTMENT.
ANYTIME A PROPOSED OR EXISTING CONSTRUCTION ENDS UP WITHIN FIVE-FOOT OF A COMMON PROPERTY LINE, SO THAT'S EXACTLY RIGHT.
>> THERE'S NO DIMENSION ON, BUT IF I WAS TO GUESS, I'D SAY IT'S ABOUT THREE FEET OR SO.
>> YEAH, IT COULD WELL BE, AND APPARENTLY IT LOOKS LIKE OUR CHIEF BUILDING OFFICIAL REVIEWED IT, AND HAD THAT CONCERN AS WELL, SO YES, YOU'RE CORRECT ABOUT THAT. YES, SIR.
>> THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, COMMISSIONERS? SEEING NONE, I'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING ON 21P-063 AT 3:39 PM, IS THE APPLICANT WITH US?
>> LOOKS LIKE DARON SIEGEL IS HERE AND HAS RAISED HIS HAND, WE'LL GO AHEAD AND ALLOW HIM TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION.
>> HELLO, MR. SIEGEL, IS THERE ANYTHING THAT YOU WOULD LIKE TO SAY TO THE COMMISSION?
>> NO, THIS WAS TWO LOTS, WE MADE IT ONE LOT FOR HOME SEPARATE FACILITIES YEARS AGO, BUT NOW WE'RE SELLING THE HOUSE AND THE LOT SEPARATELY.
MAYBE SOMEONE WILL BUY THEM BOTH, I HOPE SOMEBODY JUST BUYS THEM BOTH, OR THE NEXT-DOOR NEIGHBOR, MIGHT BUY IT ON THE OTHER SIDE HE HAS EXPRESSED INTEREST IN, BUT WE'RE JUST PUTTING IT BACK TO THE WAY IT WAS BEFORE.
>> OKAY, GREAT, COMMISSIONERS ANY QUESTIONS?
[00:10:03]
ALL RIGHT, I DON'T SEE ANY, THANK YOU.ANY OTHER MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC WHO HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? PLEASE USE THE RAISE HAND FUNCTION.
>> THANK YOU, WE'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 3:40, AND THAT'S IT, WE'LL CLOSE THE HEARING AT 3:40.
>> I JUST HAD A QUESTION FOR STAFF.
SORRY, I SHOULD HAVE ASKED EARLIER, ON THE COMMENT ABOUT THE BUILDING CONSTRUCTION [INAUDIBLE] WITH THE TABLE IN THE RC, ARE THEY WANTING THE OWNER TO GO BACK AND COMPLY WITH THAT TABLE ON THE EXISTING STRUCTURE?
>> I'M NOT ENTIRELY SURE WHAT BUILDING DEPARTMENTS PROCESS WOULD BE IN THIS CASE.
IT COULD BE THAT THEY'RE JUST NOTING THAT THAT IS A CONCERN.
A LOT OF TIMES WITH THESE REPLANTS, THERE'S BUILDING THAT'S ASSOCIATED WITH THE REQUEST, AND IT'S VERY EASY TO CATCH THAT DURING THE BUILDING PERMIT PROCESS.
THESE CASES, I'M NOT CERTAIN WHAT BUILDING DEPARTMENTS PROCESS WOULD BE.
>> [INAUDIBLE], COUNCILMAN. I DON'T BELIEVE THAT'S THE CASE.
I BELIEVE THAT WOULD BE APPLICABLE TO FUTURE CONSTRUCTION, THAT WE'LL HAVE TO BUILD THE PROPER FIRING WALL IF IT WAS WITHIN THE DISTANCE THAT REQUIRED IT.
>> I JUST WANT TO MAKE IT CLEAR BECAUSE IT'S A LITTLE CONFUSING IN THE STAFF REPORT, ACTUALLY MAKE IT CLEAR THAT THE EXISTING HOUSE DOES NOT HAVE TO COMPLY SINCE IT'S ONLY THREE AND A HALF FEET AWAY FROM THE NEW PROPERTY LINE.
>> YEAH TYPICALLY, THAT WOULD JUST BE A CO-FACTOR RELATED TO NEW CONSTRUCTION, THAT HAPPENS TO GO WITHIN THAT LINEAGE.
>> OKAY, THANKS FOR CLEARING THAT.
>> THANK YOU, WE'LL CLOSE THAT ITEM.
[8.A.1. 21P-061 (11603 Beachside Drive) Request For Beachfront Construction Certificate And Dune Protection Permit To Include A Request To Construct A Single-Family Residence With A Fibercrete Driveway And Fibercrete Paving Beneath The Habitable Structure. The Property Is Legally Described As Beachside Village (2004) ABST 121, Lot 142 Acres .390, In The City And County Of Galveston, Texas. Applicant: MFR 78 LLC, Matt And Mike Roll Property Owner: Same]
WHICH IS 21P-061 BEACHFRONT CONSTRUCTION CERTIFICATE DAM PROTECTION PERMIT.>> HOW ARE YOU PLANNING, COMMISSIONERS? THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME TODAY.
THIS IS A REQUEST FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE WITH A FIBER CREED DRIVEWAY, AND FIBER CREED PAVING BENEATH THE HABITABLE STRUCTURE.
THE ADDRESS IS 11603 BEACH SIDE DRIVE.
THE LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPERTY IS BEACH SIDE VILLAGE 2004 ABSTRACT, 121, LOT 142 ACRES, 0.309.
THE SUBJECT SITE IS LOCATED IN THE BEACH SIDE VILLAGE SUBDIVISION.
SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLINGS ARE LOCATED TO THE NORTH AND WEST.
A PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS POINT IS LOCATED AND TO THE EAST, AND A BEACH AND DUNE SYSTEM ARE LOCATED TO THE SOUTH OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.
ACCORDING TO THE BUREAU OF ECONOMIC GEOLOGY, THIS AREA IS ERODING AT A RATE OF SEVEN TO EIGHT FEET PER YEAR.
MOST CONSTRUCTIONS OF THE ADDITIONS ARE APPROXIMATELY 25 FEET FROM THE NORTH CORE OF THE CRITICAL DUNE AREA, AND 68 AND A QUARTER FEET FROM THE LINE OF VEGETATION.
THIS IS LANDWARD OF THE DUNE PROTECTION LINE AND WAS IN THE PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW AREA.
ACCORDING TO THE APPLICATION MATERIALS, THE PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES DO NOT APPEAR TO BE SEAWARD OF THE DUNES AND DUNE VEGETATION.
THEREFORE, MITIGATION ACTIVITIES ARE NOT PROPOSED.
UPON CONSIDERATION OF ALL COMPONENTS OF CHAPTER 29, PLANNING, BEACH ACCESS, DUNE PROTECTION, AND BEACHFRONT CONSTRUCTION AND THE GLO'S COMMENTS RECEIVED IN THE COURSE OF THIS CONSIDER CONSTRUCTION.
STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THIS APPLICATION WITH CONDITIONS.
THE REQUEST CONFORMS TO THE CITY OF GALVESTON DUNE'S PROTECTION AND BEACH ACCESS PLAN AND EROSION PLAN.
STAFF WILL INCLUDE THE GLO'S COMMENT LETTER WOULD THE ACTION LETTER WHICH SERVES AS A BEACHFRONT CONSTRUCTION CERTIFICATE AND DUNE PROTECTION PERMIT.
STAFF REPORT PAGE 2 LISTS THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL AND STAFF HAS PREPARED PHOTOS OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY FOR YOUR REVIEW.
ONE MOMENT AS I CHANGE MY SCREEN SIZE.
FIRST, WE SEE THE PROPOSED SITE LOCATION,
[00:15:03]
AS WELL AS THE GENERAL OVERVIEW OF THE SHAPE OF THE HOUSE.YOU WILL SEE THAT FROM THE BEG MAP THE AREA IS ERODING SLIGHTLY, AND YOU'LL SEE THE HEALTHY DUNE SYSTEM HERE.
ON THE NEXT SLIDE, YOU'LL SEE THE PROPOSED SITE PLAN IN RELATION TO THE PROPERTY BOUNDARIES, THE LOCATIONS OF THE NORTH TOW OF THE DUNE AREA, AND THE DISTANCE TO THE CORNER, THE EASTERN SEAWARD CORNER OF THE HOUSE, SOUTH TOW OF THE DUNE, AND OTHER RELEVANT DISTANCES.
THEN ON THE RIGHT, YOU WILL SEE THE GROUND FLOOR PLAN INCLUDING THE ENTRANCES, EXITS, AND PILINGS.
ONE THING THAT WAS POINTED OUT WAS THAT THE GROUND FLOOR PLAN HERE INCLUDES PRESCRIPTIONS FOR ELEVATED SLABS.
IT HAS BEEN CONFIRMED THAT THIS WILL BE DONE WITH FILL DIRT BELOW THE REQUIRED FIBERCRETE, WHICH I HAVE CONFIRMED WITH OUR ENGINEERS, OUR BUILDING DEPARTMENT HERE THAT THIS IS SOMETHING THAT IS ALLOWABLE AND DOES OCCUR.
TO ALLEVIATE CONCERNS ON THAT.
ON THE NEXT SLIDE, WE SEE THE DUNES THEMSELVES, THE LOT FROM SEVERAL PERSPECTIVES, FROM THE WATER LOOKING TOWARDS THE LOT AND GENERALLY WHERE THE HOUSE WILL BE LOCATED.
THIS CONCLUDES THE STAFF REPORT, AND THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME.
COMMISSIONERS, DO WE HAVE QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? VICE-CHAIR BROWN?
>> COULD YOU EXPLAIN THAT ELEVATED SLAB TO ME ONE MORE TIME I'M NOT SURE I GOT IT.
>> PROGRESSING TOWARDS THE BOTTOM OF YOUR SCREEN, THE SLAB IS DESCRIBED AS ELEVATED WHICH IS JUST THAT IT'S GOING TO BE MORE OF A RAISED PLATFORM STYLE.
IF THIS WAS NOT IN BEACHFRONT AREA, THIS WOULD JUST BE CONCRETE THAT WAS POURED HIGHER.
HOWEVER, HERE BECAUSE CONCRETE REINFORCED IS NOT ALLOWED, WHAT'S GOING TO BE DONE, AND YOU CAN SEE WHERE THE STAIRS ARE LOCATED THROUGH THE CENTER, THE SHORT TWO-STEP ONES.
THEY ARE GOING TO BE HAVING FIBERCRETE SITTING ON TOP OF FIELD DIRT TO RAISE IT UP.
THERE WAS A CONCERN EXPRESSED THAT THIS MIGHT NOT BE POSSIBLE OR MAKING SURE THAT THE APPLICANT UNDERSTOOD THAT CONCRETE WAS NOT PERMITTED AND CONCERN AS TO WHETHER THIS WAS POSSIBLE WITH FIBERCRETE.
I AM CONFIRMING THAT THIS IS POSSIBLE THAT IT'S NOT BEING DONE WITH CONCRETE AND THAT THE METHODS ARE PERMITTED.
>> NOW THE REST OF IT WILL SIMPLY BE FIBERCRETE ON THE ROOM, I GUESS.
>> CORRECT, THAT IS MY UNDERSTANDING.
>> FISSURES? YES, COMMISSIONER PEÑA.
>> THANK YOU. PART OF THE CONDITION ON HERE IS THAT THE WALLS ARE BREAKAWAY ALL OVER.
>> WELL, THAT IS OUTSIDE THE PURVIEW OF THE COASTAL RESOURCES AND THIS COMMISSION.
I HAVE CONFIRMED ALSO THAT BREAKAWAY ELEVATOR WALLS ARE POSSIBLE.
THE APPLICANT WOULD BE WORKING WITH THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT TO ENSURE THAT THAT IS IN COMPLIANCE.
BUT THAT IS ALSO A POSSIBILITY.
>> YES. COUNCIL MEMBER LESDOWSKI.
>> QUICK QUESTION ABOUT THE BUILDING LINE.
I GUESS IN BEACHSIDE VILLAGE, YOU'RE ALLOWED TO PUT THE STAIRS IN THE BUILDING LINE SETBACK. IS THAT CORRECT?
>> YEAH. I CAN HELP YOU WITH THAT, RUSSELL. YES. IN BEACHSIDE VILLAGE AND THE OTHER TRADITIONAL NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENTS, YOU CAN PLACE THE STAIRS IN THE BUILDING LINE.
[00:20:02]
>> OTHER QUESTIONS, COMMISSIONERS? I HAVE A QUESTION.
RUSSELL, IN ONE OF THE GLM COMMENTS, OF COURSE, IS A STANDARD COMMENT THAT THEY MAKE ABOUT ANYTHING THAT WOULD INCREASE FLOOD DAMAGE OR RESULT IN A RUNOFF OR DRAINAGE PROBLEM.
HAVE THE OTHER HOUSES IN THAT AREA, DO THEY HAVE THAT ELEVATED SLAB AND WOULD THAT HOUSE HAVING THAT ELEVATED SLAB CREATE ANY MORE OF A RUNOFF OR DRAINAGE PROBLEM FOR THE OTHER PEOPLE WHO ARE NEARBY?
>> ACCORDING TO THE OWNER, WHEN I ASKED ABOUT THIS.
THIS ELEVATED SLAB PRACTICE IS STANDARD WITHIN THE NEIGHBORHOOD, THOUGH THEY MIGHT BE MORE EQUIPPED TO ANSWER THIS.
MY OTHER QUESTION HERE IS, IN THIS PARTICULAR STAFF REPORT, SINCE WE'VE JUST GONE THROUGH THIS EXERCISE EARLIER TODAY, WHERE WE HAVE OUR SIX CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS STANDARDS.
THESE ARE NOT ADDRESSED IN ANY FASHION WHATSOEVER, ABBREVIATED, EXPANDED, UPSIDE DOWN, SIDEWAYS OR BACKWARDS HERE.
IT IS INCUMBENT UPON THE SEVEN OF US TO ENSURE THAT THEY HAVE BEEN MET.
>> THAT WAS IN THE PROCESS OF CREATING THIS NEW DOCUMENT, AND THAT WAS ON MY PART THAT I MISSED THE TRANSFERENCE THERE.
HOWEVER, I CAN GIVE YOU A VERBAL CONFIRMATION THAT ALL SIX OF THESE CONDITIONS WERE MET.
REFERRING TO THE MITIGATION CONDITION, MITIGATION IS NOT REQUIRED, SO THAT ONE IS NOT NECESSARY.
BUT OTHERWISE, ALL CONDITIONS THAT YOU NEED TO BE CONCERNED WITH HERE HAVE BEEN MET AND THAT WE'RE PRESENTING BECAUSE OF THAT.
>> I'M GOING TO ASK THE COMMISSIONERS.
LET'S SAY, DOES ANYONE FEEL LIKE THEY NEED TO GO THROUGH THESE ONE BY ONE? DO WE FEEL LIKE WE NEED TO GO THROUGH THESE ONE BY ONE? I'M SEEING A NO, NO, WE FEEL LIKE EVERYBODY'S GOOD, WE'VE SEEN IT WITH HAVING A REPRESENTATION.
WE'LL ASK FOR THE SAME THING ON THE NEXT ONE.
ANYTHING ELSE COMMISSIONERS ON THIS? ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR RUSSELL? THANK YOU.
MR. COLE, WILL NOW OPEN UP THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 3:53 PM.
ISN'T THE APPLICANT WITH US TODAY?
>> YES. LOOKS LIKE THEY'VE SIGNED IN, WILL GO AHEAD AND ALLOW THEM TO SPEAK.
MR. ROLL, YOU CAN ADDRESS THE COMMISSION.
>> THANK YOU FOR THE MEETING AND OUR TIME TODAY.
>> YEAH. WE'VE BUILT A COUPLE MORE ON THE BEACHFRONT JUST LIKE THIS OR SIMILAR TO IT AND WE'RE NOT KNOWLEDGE TO THE PROCESS.
THANKS FOR SOME OF YOUR KIND WORDS HERE AND WE'RE READY TO GO.
>> COMMISSIONERS, SPECIFIC QUESTIONS FOR MR. ROLL? YES, SIR, VICE CHAIR BROWN.
>> YES, MR. ROLL, IT WAS BROUGHT UP ABOUT THE ELEVATOR SHAFT BEING A BREAKAWAY WALL, IS THAT ANYTHING NEW TO YOU?
THAT'S PROBABLY THE ONLY PART THAT IS NOT BREAKAWAY, IT CAN BE BUILT THAT WAY.
BUT TO BUILD WITH AN ELEVATOR YOU NEED FIRMNESS AS FAR AS MOVEMENTS UP AND DOWN AND WE HAVE NOT BEEN ASKED TO BUILD THE BREAKAWAY IN THE PAST.
>> IF I COULD JUMP IN JUST REAL BRIEFLY.
WHAT RUSSELL INDICATED WAS CORRECT.
UPON HAVING THAT QUESTION RAISED EARLIER ON IN THE REVIEW OF THIS PROCESS, WE DID COORDINATE WITH THE BUILDING OFFICIAL WHO INFORMED US, AS MR. ROLL HAS JUST MADE CLEAR,
[00:25:01]
THAT THE ELEVATOR SHAFT ITSELF IS NOT BREAKAWAY AND THAT THERE ARE CONDITIONS THAT HAVE TO BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT, SUCH AS MOVING THE MECHANICAL PORTIONS OF IT UP TO THE HIGHER FLOORS THAT ARE ACTUALLY RUNNING THE ELEVATOR.BUT THE WALLS SURROUNDING IT CAN BE MADE BREAKAWAY, AND WE CONFIRMED THAT THIS WOULD BE ACCEPTABLE WITH MR. [INAUDIBLE] PRIOR TO PRESENTING THIS TO YOU ALL.
JUST WANTED TO MAKE THAT POINT CLEAR BECAUSE I KNOW THAT IT IS A POINT OF DISCUSSION.
>> WE WILL COME BACK TO THAT, MR. HILL, AND I THINK WE'LL NEED TO FIGURE OUT A WAY TO PUT A SPECIFIC CONDITION AND ABOUT THAT, WHEN WE GET TO THAT.
DID WE HAVE ANYTHING ELSE FOR MR. ROLL, COMMISSIONERS? THANK YOU, SIR. I APPRECIATE THAT.
ANY OTHER PUBLIC COMMENT ON THIS CASE? MS. GORMAN.
>> ANYBODY ELSE WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A COMMENT, PLEASE INDICATE BY USING THE RAISE HAND FUNCTION. SEEING NONE.
THEN WE WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING ON 21P-061 AT 3:56 PM.
COMMISSIONERS, I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION ON THIS ON 21P-061.
I'M GOING TO MAKE THE MOTION BECAUSE I'M GOING TO WANT TO ADD SOME SPECIFIC CONDITIONS.
I'D LIKE TO MOVE FOR APPROVAL OF 21P-061, WITH CONDITIONS AS WRITTEN BY STAFF, AS WELL AS ADDITIONAL SPECIFIC CONDITIONS.
ONE, FOR FILL DIRT ONLY BELOW THE FIBER-CRETE AS INDICATED, HELP ME OUT HERE YOU CONSTRUCTION PEOPLE, AS ELEVATED SLAB.
SECOND SPECIFIC CONDITION, APPROVAL OF THE ELEVATOR ONLY IF SURROUNDED BY A BREAKAWAY WALL, AND THREE, THAT THERE WILL BE NO SIGNIFICANT CHANGE IN THE RUNOFF OR DRAINAGE PATTERNS DUE TO THE ELEVATED SLAB AS BUILT BY THE FILL DIRT BELOW FIBERCRETE.
>> CHAIRWOMAN, IF I MAY, I DO HAVE A LITTLE BIT OF A CONCERN WITH THE SECOND CONDITION, WHETHER OR NOT THAT IS SOMETHING THAT THIS COMMISSION CAN CONDITION, WHICH IS APPROVAL OF THE ELEVATOR ONLY SURROUNDED BY A BREAKAWAY WALL.
THIS CONDITION DOESN'T MAKE APPROVALS ON THOSE TYPES OF BUILDING DECISIONS, AND SO MAYBE THAT CONDITION CAN BE REPHRASED.
>> [OVERLAPPING] THE GLO SAYS THAT ANY ENCLOSURES UNDERNEATH THE HABITABLE STRUCTURE CAN ONLY HAVE BREAKAWAY OR LOUVERED WALLS.
>> WELL, AS I WAS SAYING, MAYBE THAT CAN BE RE-PHRASED A LITTLE BIT.
IT'S JUST THE WAY IT WAS PHRASED THAT THE APPROVAL OF THE ELEVATOR CAN ONLY BE IF THERE'S A BREAKAWAY WALL.
THERE MAY BE OTHER REASONS TO APPROVE OR DISAPPROVE THE ELEVATOR.
>> THE SECOND CONDITION WOULD BE, ALL ENCLOSURES BENEATH THE HABITABLE STRUCTURE MUST BE BREAKAWAY OR LOUVERED WALLS CONSISTENT WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM.
DOES THAT WORK, MS. FAIRWEATHER?
>> THAT ABSOLUTELY WORKS FOR ME.
>> THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER FINGERLE.
[00:30:02]
>> REGARDING YOUR FIRST REQUEST FOR THE USE OF FILL MATERIAL BELOW THE ELEVATED SLAB?
>> THERE HASN'T BEEN A SECOND ON THAT MOTION, SO I INTERRUPTED BEFORE A SECOND.
>> OKAY. COMMISSIONER [INAUDIBLE] HAS A SECOND.
WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND, SO NOW WE CAN HAVE DISCUSSION, COMMISSIONER FINGERLE.
>> ON THE FIRST POINT, I'D LIKE TO ASK STAFF TO OPINE ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT THAT STATEMENT GETS INTO MEANS AND METHODS FOR CONSTRUCTION.
SPECIFICALLY, I WOULD BELIEVE THAT THE FULL SET OF CONSTRUCTION DRAWINGS THAT ARE BEING ISSUED FOR PERMIT WOULD INDICATE WHAT TYPE OF EITHER FILL MATERIAL, OR SELECT FILL MATERIAL IS SUPPOSED TO BE USED UNDERNEATH THE ELEVATED SLAB.
I'M CONCERNED THAT WE, AS A COMMISSION, WOULD BE TAKING RESPONSIBILITY, OR RECOMMENDATIONS FOR MEANS AND METHODS WHEN ACTUALLY THAT PROCESS WILL BE REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY CITY STAFF.
PERHAPS WE NEED TO GO THE SAME ROUTE, COMMISSIONER FINGERLE, ON THE FIRST ONE THAT WE WENT ON THE ELEVATOR, AND THAT WE SIMPLY SAY, ON THAT FIRST ONE, THAT WE JUST REITERATE THAT THEY ONLY USE UNREINFORCED FIBERCRETE IN FOUR BY FOUR SECTIONS, FOUR INCHES THICK, AND JUST STOP AT THAT.
BECAUSE THE WHOLE ELEVATED SLAB THING IS WHAT GIVES ME PAUSE, IT IS AS IF THEY'RE GOING TO POUR SOMETHING LIKE THIS, AND I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE ARE ONLY GOING TO HAVE OUR FOUR BY FOUR BY FOUR.
I WILL AMEND MY MOTION ON THE FIRST SPECIFIC CONDITION TO READ UNREINFORCED FIBERCRETE AND FOUR-FOOT BY FOUR-FOOT SECTIONS, FOUR INCHES THICK, WITH SECTIONS SEPARATED BY EXPANSION JOINTS ONLY UNDER THE HABITABLE STRUCTURE, AND FOR DRIVEWAYS CONNECTING THE HABITABLE STRUCTURE AND THE STREET? WITHOUT OBJECTION? NO OBJECTION, SO THAT'S THE WAY THAT FIRST SPECIFIC CONDITION WOULD READ, WHICH IS EXACTLY AS THE GLL LETTER SAYS.
WE'RE JUST MAKING A SPECIFIC CONDITION FOR SOMETHING THAT'S ALREADY INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE.
ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? YES, COMMISSIONER EDWARDS.
>> I THINK THAT ON THE ELEVATOR SHAFT ON THE BREAK-AWAY WALLS, THE ELEVATOR STARTS AT THE BOTTOM, BUT MOST TIMES IT'S THIS AT THE TOP, HAVING BUILT THESE TYPE OF HOUSES BEFORE, NOT NECESSARILY ON THE BEACH, BUT WITH SOME OF THESE SAME REQUIREMENTS, USUALLY WHAT THEY'VE ASKED US FOR IN THE PAST HAS NOT BEEN LOUVERED WALLS, AS IT GOES UP, IT'S BEEN A FIREWALL.
MY GUESSES IS THAT THEY DON'T NECESSARILY MEAN THERE'S GOING TO BE A BREAKAWAY WALL DOWN AT THE BOTTOM UNLESS THE BOTTOM IS OPEN, BECAUSE IF IT'S ALREADY ENCLOSED, THAT WILL JUST CONNECT TO THE ELEVATOR SHAFT AS A SIDE WALL.
BUT I WOULD SAY THAT I THINK THAT PERHAPS THE DRAWINGS AGAIN SPEAK TO THIS PARTICULAR ISSUE OF THE ELEVATOR SHAFT, AND WE DON'T NECESSARILY NEED TO SPECIFY BUILDING REQUIREMENTS WHEN IT COMES TO HOW THE ELEVATOR SHAFT IS INSTALLED.
>> RIGHT, BUT THE GLM SAYS THAT EVERYTHING THAT'S ON THE GROUND LEVEL HAS TO BE BREAK-AWAY WALLS OR LOUVERED..
>> WELL, I COULD TELL YOU THAT THEY SAY THAT, BUT THE PLANNING COMMISSION IS PROBABLY GOING TO HAVE A LITTLE LEEWAY WHEN IT COMES TO THAT, BECAUSE THAT IS A MAIN STRUCTURE, THE ELEVATOR, EVEN IF YOU HAVE A BREAKAWAY WALL,
[00:35:01]
THEN WHAT YOU'RE LEAVING IS THE ELEVATOR BARE.WE HAD A HURRICANE AND 10 FOOT OF WATER SWELL.
ONCE THE WATER SWELLS IN THERE AND BREAKS AWAY THE WALL AROUND THAT ELEVATED, NOW YOU'D LET A PRETTY BIG SIZABLE PIECE OF EQUIPMENT TO GET WASHED AWAY.
I'M NOT SURE IF THAT'S THE INTENT.
>> WELL, I THINK IT'S [OVERLAPPING] A FEMUR REQUIREMENT.
BREAKAWAY OR LOUVERED WALL IS A FEMUR REQUIREMENT WHEN IT'S ON THE BEACH LIKE THIS.
THAT'S ACCORDING TO THE GLM, BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT THEY SAY IN THEIR LETTER.
IT'S A REQUIREMENT OF THE NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM.
WHEN I INCORPORATED AS A SPECIFIC CONDITION, ALL THREE OF THESE ARE ACTUALLY ALREADY PULLED IN, AND INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE ABOUT WHAT BRANDON AND RUSTLE DID IN ITEM, HOLD ON, CONDITION 2.
I'M JUST SPECIFYING THEM SEPARATELY.
>> IT'S JUST BELT AND SUSPENDERS. THAT'S ALL.
>> OKAY. STEPH, I'M SORRY, GO AHEAD, [INAUDIBLE] ANOTHER [INAUDIBLE].
>> I WAS JUST GOING TO SAY ADDITIONAL DISCUSSION, GO AHEAD.
>> STEPH, WHAT'S THE SIZE OF AN ELEVATED WALL OR FLOOR, ELEVATED FOUNDATION? WHAT IS THE HEIGHT OF THAT?
>> GIVE ME MOMENT THAT I CAN FIND THAT FOR YOU.
>> I'M LOOKING FOR IT TOO [INAUDIBLE].
>> MS. EDWARDS, WAS THE QUESTION, WHAT IS THE SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THE ELEVATOR FOUNDATION OR WAS THE QUESTION, WHAT'S THE FINISHED FLOOR HEIGHT OF THE ELEVATOR SHAFT?
>> THE QUESTION WAS NOT THE ELEVATOR PAD, BUT THE PAD UNDER THE HOUSE ITSELF.
WHAT'S THE ELEVATED SIZE OF IT? WHAT'S THE HEIGHT?
>> [NOISE] WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE ELEVATED SLAB, DAVID.
>> IS THAT IT'S THREE RISERS ON THE PLAN AND THE ELEVATION.
THAT'S ANYWHERE BETWEEN 21 AND 24 INCHES.
IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE SEEING, COMMISSIONER FINKLEY ON THOSE STEPS? [OVERLAPPING].
>> I HAVEN'T FOUND IT YET, STILL [INAUDIBLE].
>> YEAH. ELEVATED SLAB, I THINK THAT'S WHERE YOU GET 22 [INAUDIBLE].
ANY OTHER DISCUSSION COMMISSIONERS? THEN WE'LL CALL THE VOTE PLEASE.
>> ALL IN FAVOR. THE MOTION PASSES.
WE DIDN'T CALL IT [OVERLAPPING].
>> ALL RIGHT. NOTED. COMMISSIONER FINKLEY IN FAVOR, COMMISSIONER HUMPHREY IN FAVOR.
>> COMMISSIONER HUMPHREY, WAS THAT YOUR VOTE?
>> OKAY. THANK YOU. I WAS GOING TO SAY I ONLY TALLIED FIVE AND THERE ARE SEVEN NOSES HERE.
WE'LL MOVE ON AND WE'LL NEXT CONSIDER 21P-064,
[8.A.2. 21P-064 (23623 FM 3005) Request For Beachfront Construction Certificate And Dune Protection Permit To Include Proposed Extension Of A Deck On A Single-Family Home. Property Is Legally Described Lot 14, Miramar Beach, Acres .521, In The City And County Of Galveston, Texas. Applicant: Lee Overstreet Property Owner: Robert James Baker And Jacquelyn O. Baker]
ANOTHER BEACH FRONT CONSTRUCTION CERTIFICATE.[00:40:01]
THANK YOU AGAIN PLANNING COMMISSIONERS FOR YOUR TIME TODAY.THIS IS A REQUEST FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A DECK EXPANSION.
THE LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPERTY IS LOT 14, MAGHERMORE BEACH, ACRES 0.521.
SUBJECT SITE IS LOCATED IN MAGHERMORE SUBDIVISION, SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLINGS LOCATED TO THE EAST AND WEST, AND THE BEACH AND DUNES SYSTEM ARE LOCATED TO THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.
ACCORDING TO BUREAU OF ECONOMIC GEOLOGY, THIS AREA IS ERODING AT A RATE OF 1-2 FEET PER YEAR.
THE PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION OF THE ADDITIONS ARE APPROXIMATELY 60 FEET FROM THE NORTH TO THE CRITICAL DUNE AREA AND 151 FEET FROM THE LINE OF VEGETATION.
THIS IS LANDWARD OF THE DUNE PROTECTION LINE AND WITHIN THE PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW AREA.
ACCORDING TO THE APPLICATION MATERIALS, THE PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES APPEAR TO BE LANDWARD OF THE DUNES AND DUNE VEGETATION AND THEREFORE, MITIGATION ACTIVITIES ARE NOT PROPOSED.
UPON CONSIDERATION OF ALL PERTINENT COMPONENTS OF CHAPTER 29, PLANNING, BEACH ACCESS, DUNE PROTECTION AND BEACHFRONT CONSTRUCTION AND THE GLO'S COMMENTS RECEIVED IN THE COURSE OF CONSIDERING THIS PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION, STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THIS APPLICATION WITH CONDITIONS.
THIS REQUEST CONFORMS TO THE CITY OF GALVESTON TO PROTECTION BEACH ACCESS PLAN, EROSION RESPONSE PLAN.
STAFF WILL INCLUDE THE GLO'S [INAUDIBLE] LETTER WITH THE ACTION LETTER WHICH SERVES AS SPEECH FOR CONSTRUCTION CERTIFICATE AND DUNE PROTECTION PERMIT.
STAFF REPORT PAGE TO LIST THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL, AND STAFF HAS PREPARED PHOTOS OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY FOR YOUR REVIEW.
FIRST, WE SEE THE PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION SITE WITH THE PROPOSED ADDITION OF THE DECK, WHICH WILL BE A 10 FOOT ADDITION SEAWARD OF THE CURRENT DECK AREA.
PLEASE NOTE THAT THERE WILL BE NO PAVING OR CONCRETE UNDERNEATH THE DECK.
THEN NEXT TO THAT, JUST THE AERIAL OF THE SITE. THANK YOU.
ON THE NEXT SLIDE, YOU SEE HERE DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVES OF THE SITE.
STARTING AT THE TOP-LEFT CORNER, GOING CLOCKWISE, LOOKING FROM THE DECK TOWARDS THE BEACH.
THEN UP FROM THE BEACH OR WALK OVER THAT NEXT DOOR TO THAT, TOWARDS THE DECK ITSELF, LOOKING OVER THE DUNES.
DOWN IN THE BOTTOM RIGHT CORNER, BACK FROM THE DUNES, LOOKING TOWARDS THE HOUSE.
THEN UNDERNEATH THE DECK, APPROXIMATELY WHERE IT WILL BE EXPANDED TO AND THEN FROM UNDERNEATH WHERE THERE IS CURRENTLY FIBER [INAUDIBLE], WHICH MORPH HIERARCHY WILL NOT BE ADDED.
THEN MORE LOOKING TOWARDS DUNES WHERE THE DECK WILL BE EXPANDED.
ONE POINT THAT THE APPLICANT REQUESTED THAT WE INCLUDE BECAUSE ONE OF THE GLO'S FEW COMMENTS ON THIS ONE WAS TO ENSURE THAT IT DID NOT IMPACT RUNOFF OR FLOODING OR DRAINAGE, ETC HERE OR ON NEIGHBORS PROPERTIES.
THE APPLICANT WANTED TO INCLUDE THE STATEMENT THAT'S GOING ABOVE AND BEYOND, THE SPACING WILL BE A QUARTER OF AN INCH, AT LEAST BETWEEN ALL OF THE BOARDS SO THAT IT MAY RUN THROUGH WITHOUT CAUSING ANY SIGNIFICANT RUNOFF OR EDGE LINES RIPPING, ETC.
GOING ABOVE AND BEYOND TO ENSURE ALL CONDITIONS ARE MET.
THIS CONCLUDES THE STAFF'S REPORT. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME.
COMMISSIONERS, DO WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF. VICE CHAIR, BROWN.
>> I WAS JUST CURIOUS AS TO THE SURVEY HERE AS IT WAS PROVIDED.
IS THERE A REQUIREMENT THAT THIS SURVEY BE DONE BY PROFESSIONAL SURVEYOR OR IS JUST WHAT YOU HAVE OKAY GIVEN THE LOCATION? I'M TALKING ABOUT IN TERMS OF LOCATING THE CRITICAL DIMENSIONS LIKE AN ORTHO AND THE CRITICAL DUNE AND THE VEGETATION LINE AND ALL THAT.
>> THE REQUIREMENT IS THAT THE DATA OR THE SURVEY IS ACCURATE.
NO, IT DOES NOT NECESSARILY HAVE TO BE DONE BY A PROFESSIONAL SURVEYOR.
[00:45:04]
>> I WAS JUST LOOKING AT YOUR APPLICATION FORM, THE NEW ONE THAT BRANDON GAVE US THAT SAY FOR CONSTRUCTION.
COMMERCIAL ADDITIONS ARE REAL LOCATIONS AND SURVEYOR BUY A LICENSE.
SURVEYOR IDENTIFYING THE SITE PLUS LEGAL DESCRIPTION WHERE APPLICABLE ON THE LANDWARD AND SEAWARD LIMITS OF [INAUDIBLE] AND HENCE CONSTRUCTION DONE, SO ON AND SO FORTH.
I WAS JUST CONFUSED AS TO WHAT THE DIFFERENCE WAS IN THE TYPE OF APPLICATION AND WHETHER OR NOT IT WOULD HAVE TO BE DONE BY A PROFESSIONAL LICENSED SURVEYOR OR NOT.
THIS DOESN'T SEEM TO BE LIKE A VERY BIG PROJECT RIGHT NOW.
>> IT'S NOT. WHILE WE TRIED TO HAVE THE MOST CLEAR AND CONCISE OR REGULATIONS ON ALL POINTS, ULTIMATELY, IN THIS ENVIRONMENT, A LOT OF THINGS ARE DONE ON A CASE-BY-CASE BASIS.
IN THIS INSTANCE, THE PROVIDED SURVEY, IT LOOKS LIKE HERE WAS DONE BY A TITLE COMPANY, AND IT LOOKS LIKE THE MEASUREMENTS WERE CONDUCTED BASED ON THE SCALE PROVIDED THE APPLICANT MAY BE ABLE TO COMMENT FURTHER ON THAT.
IT WAS DETERMINED TO BE AN ACCURATE INTERPRETATION OF THE DISTANCES HERE AND OVERALL, WE DETERMINED THAT IT WOULD NOT HAVE ANY UNREASONABLE IMPACTS ON THE DUNE SYSTEM.
>> HOLD ON DAVID, WE LOST YOU.
>> THERE WE GO. ON PAGE TWO, THE STAFF REPORT THE PROPOSED STRUCTURE DISTANCE FROM THE NORTH TO THE DUNES SURVEYED 60 FEET.
HOWEVER, ON THE TITLE COMPANIES SURVEY, THEY'RE SHOWING THAT THE DISTANCE TO THE PROPOSED ADDITION IS 29 FEET.
CAN I GET A CLARIFICATION ON THAT?
>> THAT LOOKS TO HAVE BEEN AN ERROR ON STAFF'S PART.
IT WOULD THEN HAVE BEEN THE SURVEY DISTANCE OF 29 FEET.
THIS DOESN'T CHANGE THE CATEGORIZATION OF IT.
BUT I APOLOGIZE FOR THAT DISCREPANCY.
>> NO, THAT'S GREAT. JUST CHECKING, APPRECIATE IT. THANKS.
>> THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION TO DETAIL.
>> THANK YOU ANYTHING ELSE, COMMISSIONERS? ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? GREAT. THEN WE WILL OPEN UP THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 4:18 P.M. IS THE APPLICANT WITH US TODAY?
>> YES. LOOKS LIKE THE APPLICANTLY OVERSTREET AND THE HOMEOWNER ARE HERE.
YOU CAN ACTIVATE IT ON OUR END, YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION.
>> GOOD AFTERNOON, COMMISSIONERS. THIS IS BOB BAKER.
THANK YOU FOR CONSIDERING THIS APPLICATION.
I CAN TELL YOU THAT THERE WAS A SECOND SURVEY THAT WAS DONE, DIDN'T APPEAR TO BE INCLUDED IN THE PACKAGE THAT YOU RECEIVED.
IN OUR INITIAL PLANNING PHASE, YOU GET THE MESSAGE THAT THE TITLE SURVEY WAS PROBABLY NOT ADEQUATE BECAUSE OF THE LACK OF TOPOGRAPHICAL INFORMATION.
ACTUALLY, A SECOND SURVEY WAS COMMISSIONED AT A COST OF $1,250 [LAUGHTER] TO GET THE NECESSARY INFORMATION.
IT SHOULD BE SOMEWHERE IN THE FILE, BUT JUST THOUGHT INCORPORATED INTO THE PACKET.
ALSO I'D LIKE TO SAY QUICKLY THAT TO GIVE US PERHAPS A DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVE ON SHORT-TERM RENTALS, MY WIFE AND I RENTED A HOUSE IN GALVESTON IN THEIR SUMMER FOR THE LAST 20 YEARS.
WE'VE ACTUALLY RENTED THIS HOUSE IN 2020 AND FELL IN LOVE WITH IT.
WHEN WE FOUND THAT IT HAD COME ON THE MARKET, WE SNAPPED IT UP 10 DAYS AFTER IT HIT THE MARKET AND WE PLANNED ONCE WE RETIRE A YEAR AND A HALF, WE WEREN'T BLI, BUT WE'RE VERY EXCITED ABOUT BECOMING ISLANDERS BY CHOICE.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION AND I LOOK FORWARD TO BECOMING ELSE DIAPERS.
I HAVE A DIFFERENT DEFINITION OF BLI.
[00:50:03]
I SAY BLI IS BOUGHT ON THE ISLAND.AS FAR AS I'M CONCERNED, YOU CAN BE A BLI YOU CAN BE BOUGHT ON THE ISLAND.
>> MR. ROBERT STREET DID HAVE SOMETHING TO ADD, SIR?
>> I'LL JUST ADD TO WHAT BOB HAS ALREADY ALLUDED, HE DID HAVE A SECOND SURVEY DONE BY HIGH TIDE SURVEYING.
TO RUSSELL'S POINT, IT DID IDENTIFY THE ORTHO WITH THE DUNE AND BY SCALE ON THE SURVEY, THAT'S HOW WE OBTAIN THE 60 FEET SETBACK FROM AN ORTHO WITH THE DUNE.
I'D ALSO LIKE TO ADD THAT THIS WOULD BE THE THIRD ONE THAT WE'VE DONE IN A QUARTER MILE RADIUS WITH VERY SIMILAR SETBACKS FROM AN ORTHO WITH THE DUNE.
WE HAVE NOT NOTICED ANY ADVERSE IMPACTS TO THE DUNES OR ANY NEGATIVE IMPACTS TO THE NATURAL FLOOD PROTECTION.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH, COMMISSIONERS. [OVERLAPPING] I'M SORRY.
>> MAY I INTERRUPT YOU QUICK? I APOLOGIZE. CATHERINE, CAN YOU ALLOW ME TO SHARE MY SCREEN REAL QUICK?
>> SURE. YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO.
>> THANK YOU. THIS IS THE SCRIPT SURVEY TO WHICH THEY'RE REFERRING. I DID MAKE A MISTAKE.
IT WASN'T WITH THE DISTANCE IT WAS NOT INCLUDING THIS IN YOUR STUFF PACKET.
ONCE AGAIN, I APOLOGIZE THIS IS THE BEAUTIFUL SURVEY.
YOU ARE CORRECT THAT THIS IS MORE TO WHAT WE LOOK FOR AND HERE IS THE 60 FOOT DISTANCE WHICH THEY WERE REFERRING.
>> RUSSELL COULD DO ZOOM IN ON THAT JUST A LITTLE BIT. [OVERLAPPING]
>> AS I WAS SAYING, THE 60 FEET FROM THE NORTH OF THE DUNE HERE, AND 25 FOOT OFFSET IS HERE, WHICH IS THE PROHIBITED CONSTRUCTION AREA SO THEY'RE FAR OUTSIDE OF THAT.
REFERENCING THEIR COMMENTS, APOLOGIES AGAIN FOR THAT MISTAKE.
THANK YOU FOR BRINGING THAT UP. I'LL STOP SHARING NOW.
>> OH, NEVER STOP SHARING RUSSELL WE LOVE SHARING YOUR PLANNING COMMISSION.
COMMISSIONERS DID ANYONE HAVE QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANTS? I DON'T SEE ANY.
DO WE HAVE OTHER PUBLIC COMMENT ON THIS CASE, MS. GORMAN?
>> IF THERE'S ANY MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC WHO'S ON THE CALL WHO WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION PLEASE USE THE RAISE HAND FUNCTION. SEEING NONE.
WITH THAT, I'M GOING TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 4.23.
BEFORE I ENTERTAIN A MOTION, I'M GOING TO GO BACK TO STAFF BECAUSE I NEGLECTED TO DO SOMETHING.
THIS IS THE SECOND BEACH FRONT CONSTRUCTION PERMIT.
WHAT WE DIDN'T ADDRESS RUSSELL, WE DIDN'T ADDRESS OUR SIX POINTS AND I JUST WANT TO VERBALLY COVER THOSE AGAIN, OUR SIX CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS STANDARDS.
WOULD YOU MAKE A VERBAL REPRESENTATION ON THOSE, PLEASE SIR? SINCE THEY'RE NOT COVERED IN THE PACKET THIS TIME, BEFORE WE ENTERTAIN A MOTION?
>> YES MA'AM. AS WITH ALL APPLICATIONS THAT WE BRING INTO PLANNING COMMISSION, ALL SIX POINTS HAVE BEEN MET BEFORE BEING BROUGHT TO YOU HERE, AND SO THIS APPLICATION SATISFIES ALL THE CRITERIA PREVIOUSLY DISCUSSED.
COMMISSIONERS, I WILL NOW ENTERTAIN A MOTION ON PAGE 21P-064 COMMISSIONER WALLA.
>> MAKE A MOTION THAT WE APPROVE.
I'M LOOKING FOR THE NUMBER 21P-64 AS PRESENTED.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH TO HAVE A SECOND.
I HAVE A SECOND FROM COMMISSIONER HUMPHREY.
DO WE HAVE DISCUSSION, COMMISSIONERS? I SEE NO DISCUSSION.
WE'LL CALL THE VOTE THEN, PLEASE.
>> ALL IN FAVOR. THE MOTION PASSES.
[00:55:03]
ALL RIGHT, COMMISSIONERS WERE MOVING RIGHT ALONG HERE.
[8.B.1. 21P-062 (Adjacent To 828 Postoffice / Avenue E) Request For A Permanent License To Use To Encroach A Street Right-Of-Way With An Overhead Parking Structure Extending Across Postoffice / Avenue E, Between 8th And 9th Street. Adjacent Property Is Legally Described As Lots 9 – 13, And Part Of Lot 9 And South Half Of Adjacent Alley, Block 488, In The City And County Of Galveston, Texas. Adjacent Property Owner: Shriners Hospital For Children Applicant: Kirksey Architecture, C/O Rick De La Cruz Easement Holder: City Of Galveston]
NEXT WE HAVE AN LTU.>> THIS IS ADJACENT TO A20A POST OFFICE, ALSO KNOWN AS NEE, OR 22 PUBLIC NOTICES SENT.
NONE OF THOSE RETURNED. BACKGROUND ON THIS PROJECT.
THIS PROJECT WAS ACTUALLY INTRODUCED TO THE GULFS OF CITY COUNCIL ON APRIL 22ND OF THIS YEAR FOR THEIR REVIEW AND FEEDBACK.
DUE TO THE LARGE SCALE OF THIS PROJECT AND THE CITY COUNCIL POSITIVELY REVIEW THE PROPOSAL TO MOVE FORWARD, AS PRESENTED IN EXHIBIT B, THIS REQUEST, THE APPLICANT IS ASKING FOR A PERMANENT LICENSE TO USE TO ERECT A NON GRADE LEVEL PORTION OF A PARKING GARAGE STRUCTURE THAT WILL EXTEND ACROSS POST-OFFICE BETWEEN 8TH AND 9TH STREET.
THE PROPOSED PARKING STRUCTURE WILL INCREASE PARKING CAPACITY NEEDED TO SERVE SHRINAS HOSPITAL.
PLEASE NOTE THE LAST EXCUSE REQUIREMENTS ON PAGE 2 OF THIS REPORT.
IN THIS CASE ESTABLISHED RECOMMENDING APPROVAL WITH THE SPECIFIC CONDITIONS LISTED IN YOUR REPORT AS 1, 2 AND 3, IN STANDARD CONDITIONS FOUR THROUGH NINE.
NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. THESE ARE THE SURROUNDING PROPERTIES TO THE SOUTH, TO THE WEST AND EAST.
THAT CONCLUDES STAFF'S REPORT.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH ADRIEL.
COUNCIL MEMBER LETOSKI, IS THERE ANYTHING THAT YOU WANT TO SAY ABOUT THIS ONE SINCE THIS HAS COME THROUGH COUNCIL?
>> I LOVE THE PROJECT AND DEFINITELY I WANT TO WORK WITH THESE GUYS TO MAKE THIS HAPPEN.
I DON'T THINK ANYBODY IN COUNCIL AT THAT TIME THAT ANY PROBLEMS AT ALL WITH WHAT THEY WANT DO OUT THERE.
COMMISSIONERS, DOES ANYONE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF ABOUT THIS? YES, SIR. VICE CHAIR BROWN.
>> I WAS JUST WONDERING HOW THE 14 FOOT CLEARANCE, I GUESS THAT'S FROM THE MIDDLE OF THE STREET TO THE BOTTOM OF THE STRUCTURE, COMPARES TO THE EXISTING PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE ON THE OTHER SIDE OF FRYERS ON THE NORTH SIDE OF FRYERS THAT GOES ACROSS PARKING STREET.
ALSO TO THE OTHER ROUTE IS A LITTLE EAST OF WHERE THIS ONE'S GOING TO BE.
IT GOES FROM REBECCA FREELY TO THE REBECCA FREELY PARKING GARAGE.
>> SURE I HAVE THAT INFORMATION FOR YOU, COMMISSIONER BROWN.
I WILL SAY THAT WITH THE CLEARANCE PROVIDED AND NONE OF OUR EXPERTS IN THIS FIELD, INCLUDING THE FARM MARSHALL HAD AN OBJECTION TO THIS.
>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, COMMISSIONERS? YES, COMMISSIONER FINKLE.
>> ONCE YOU GOT CLEAR INTO THE BOTTOM OF THE STRUCTURE, I'D BE INTERESTED TO HEAR FROM [NOISE] THE APPLICANT RELATED TO HOW THEY ESTABLISH THAT.
WHAT STANDARDS WERE USED? BASED UPON MY BACKGROUND IN DOING FREEWAY AND HIGHWAY DESIGN, WHICH I KNOW THAT THIS IS NOT.
WHAT I HAVE DONE SOME HISTORY IN BRIDGES BEFORE.
WE WERE USING A MINIMUM CLEARANCE OF 16 FEET.
I'D LIKE TO KNOW WHAT THE JUSTIFICATION FOR THAT IS.
GO AHEAD, ADRIAN AND I INTERRUPTED.
>> CHAIRPERSON, I WAS JUST GOING TO SAY THAT THE APPLICANT IS AVAILABLE TO ANSWER QUESTIONS.
>> GREAT. WHEN WE OPENED UP PUBLIC HEARING, WE'LL HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO HEAR FROM THEM.
ANYTHING ELSE FROM STAFF, COMMISSIONERS? SEEING NOTHING ELSE FOR STAFF, WE WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING ON 21P-062 AT 4:29 PM.
>> HE IS AND WE'LL GO AHEAD AND ACTIVATE HIM.
MR. DE LA CRUZ, YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION.
>> GOOD AFTERNOON, COMMISSION. MY NAME IS RICK DE LA CRUZ.
I'M WITH COURTESY ARCHITECTURE HERE ON BEHALF OF THE SHRINERS HOSPITAL FOR CHILDREN.
TO THE QUESTION FROM MR. BROWN AND MR. FINKLE.
PRIOR TO ESTABLISH IN THAT HIDE, WE WENT DIRECTLY TO THE FIRE MARSHAL AND ASKED FOR A MINIMUM CLEARANCE FOR THE STRUCTURE.
SINCE IT'S A MINOR ROADWAY AND THE DIMENSION THAT WE WERE GIVEN AS A MINIMUM WAS 14 FEET, SO THAT'S HOW WE ESTABLISH THAT DIMENSION THERE.
[01:00:03]
>> RIGHT. THANK YOU. APPRECIATE THAT.
>> THANK YOU. VICE CHAIR BROWN.
DID YOU HAVE A QUESTION FOR MR. DE LA CRUZ?
>> YES. MR. DE LA CRUZ, I'M JUST WONDERING, DO YOU KNOW WHAT THE CLEARANCE IS? IT'S A REBECCA'S DAILY BRIDGE OR THE OTHER SHRINER'S HOSPITAL BRIDGE?
I WOULD ASSUME JUST LOOKING AT SOME IMAGERY ONLINE AND ALSO SOME OF MY SITE VISITS, I BELIEVE THAT'S ABOUT 16 FEET TO THE BOTTOM OF THAT STRUCTURE THERE.
THAT'S JUST GOING OFF OF A DESTINATION REALLY.
I HAVEN'T GONE ON THERE TO VERIFY THAT, BUT I CAN IF THAT INFORMATION IS NEEDED TO MAKE A DECISION.
>> THIS IS NOT ON THOSE AREAS?
>> THANK YOU. MR. DE LA CRUZ WAS THERE ANYTHING ELSE THAT YOU WANTED TO PARTICULARLY ADDRESS WITH THE COMMISSION?
>> SURE THING. WITH YOUR PERMISSION, I THINK I'D LIKE TO SHARE MY SCREEN AND GIVE YOU A QUICK WALK-THROUGH OF THE PROPOSED DESIGN, IF YOU GUYS DON'T MIND.
>> PERFECT. LET ME DO THAT NOW.
DO I HAVE THAT OPTION CATHERINE?
>> LET'S SEE, IT'S ONLY FOUR PANELISTS.
WAIT, I THINK WE CAN PROMOTE YOU TO BECOME A PANELIST.
>> WELL, HE'S GETTING A PROMOTION. [OVERLAPPING]
>> YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO SHARE YOUR SCREEN NOW.
>> THERE WE GO. LET ME SHARE MY SCREEN.
IT'LL BE A QUICK FIVE-MINUTE WALK THROUGH THE DESIGN.
I DON'T WANT TO KEEP YOU FOR TOO LONG. CAN YOU SEE MY SCREEN?
>> LOOKS LIKE WE'RE GETTING CLOSE.
>> PERFECT. QUICKLY WALK YOU THROUGH THE DESIGN HERE.
LET'S SEE. HOPEFULLY THIS TURNS OUT WELL.
DESIGN QUESTION FOR TODAY'S MEETING OF THE BOX IMMEDIATELY SOUTH OF THE SHRINERS HOSPITAL AND SOUTH THE POST OFFICE STREET.
SINCE OUR LAST MEETING WITH CITY COUNCIL, THE CLIENT, SHRINERS HAS PURCHASED THE PROPERTIES ON THE NORTHEAST CORNER, THE OLD BAPTIST BUILDING IN SOUTHEAST CORNER, RESTAURANT BUILDING ON THE SOUTHWEST CORNER, AND IT'S A RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE CURRENTLY.
SITE PLAN. OUR DESIGN GOALS ARE CLEAR FROM THE ONSET.
SHRINERS SERVES A VULNERABLE POPULATION AND OUR FOCUS REALLY WAS TO MITIGATE RISK FROM TRAFFIC AND EXPOSURE.
WHAT YOU SEE ON THE SCREEN NOW IS BUILDING ON SITE DESIGN THAT PROVIDES COVER, PROXIMITY, AND REDUCES OR AT LEAST TRIES TO ELIMINATE PEDESTRIAN AND VEHICULAR INTERACTION.
THAT WAS THE GOAL OF THE SITE AND BUILDING DESIGN.
NOW THIS IS AN INSULAR CAMPUS LIKE DESIGN THAT SERVES PATIENTS, FAMILIES, VISITORS, STAFF, AND THE GREATER PUBLIC.
SIMILAR TO THE UTMB CAMPUS TO THE NORTH.
AGAIN, THIS IS A FULL SITE DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT WITH THE GOAL OF BEAUTIFICATION AND STORM DRAINAGE AND MITIGATION.
WHAT YOU SEE HERE, THIS IS WHAT YOU'LL SEE LINING THE PERIMETER OF THE EXISTING SITE, BOTH NORTH AND SOUTH OF POST OFFICE STREET.
YOU SEE THE DESIGN WE ARE PROPOSING STANDING THE PARKING STRUCTURE OF POST OFFICE.
THIS MAXIMIZES SAFETY PROXIMITY AND ALSO SHRINER'S PARKING NEEDS AS WELL.
TO THAT END, JUST KNOW THAT WE ARE NOT OBSTRUCTING POST OFFICE WHATSOEVER, AND WE DO ALLOW FOR EMERGENCY VEHICLE ACCESS TO THE GARAGE SET AT 14 FEET.
WE'RE TRYING TO OFFER A STATEMENT DESIGN HERE WITH MATERIAL IS BRICK CAST-IN-PLACE CONCRETE AND OUR PRIMARY FEATURE ARE THESE KINETIC SEAL SCREENS THAT ARE ALL LINE THE PERIMETER OF THE GARAGE.
BECAUSE WE'RE MAKING SUCH A DRAMATIC MOVE ON POST OFFICE WE WANTED TO OFFER THE STATEMENT PIECE TO THE CITY.
THAT WAY, IT DOESN'T LOOK LIKE AN EYESORE SPANNING TWO BLOCKS ACROSS POST OFFICE.
AGAIN, THIS IS TOTAL CAMPUS, WE HAVE THE GARAGE AND WE ALSO HAD A 40 UNIT PATIENT HOUSING ON THE SIDE MIMICKING THE GALVESTON BINOCULAR.
NOW THIS ISN'T PART OF THE LICENSE WE USE BUT JUST WANTED TO GIVE YOU FULL VIEW OF WHAT THIS PROJECT ENCOMPASSES.
AGAIN, QUICK WALK-THROUGH THE DESIGN.
WE UNDERSTAND THAT THE INTERVENTION ALONG POST OFFICE IS BIG AND JUST HOPE TO RECEIVE YOUR APPROVAL AND DATA MOVE FORWARD.
THANK YOU. WITH THAT, I'LL STOP SHARING MY SCREEN.
>> IT WAS ALWAYS NICE TO SEE AN OVERALL VIEW OF A PROJECT WHEN WE'RE MAKING A DECISION.
[01:05:05]
>> ABSOLUTELY, IT'S IMPORTANT.
>> COMMISSIONERS, DID THAT CREATE ANY QUESTIONS FOR MR. DE LA CRUZ? ANY OTHER ONES? YES VICE CHAIR BROWN.
>> UNDERSTAND ONE QUICK QUESTION.
THAT COVERS ALMOST HALF OF THE POST OFFICE STREET.
I ASSUME YOU HAVE SOME LIGHTING UNDER THERE OTHERWISE, WILL BE PRETTY DARK UNDERNEATH THAT THING BELOW POST OFFICE STREET.
>> CORRECT. WE HAVE LIGHTING BENEATH THE STRUCTURE.
WE HAVE THESE FINE CIRCULAR LIGHT THAT WILL SERVE TO LIGHT THE STREET AND ALSO SERVE AS A DECORATIVE PURPOSE, BUT ALSO WE HAVE ON POLE LIGHTS RUNNING THE FULL LENGTH OF THE COVER.
THERE WILL BE PLENTY OF LIGHT FROM THE TOP AND ALSO AT STREET LEVEL.
>> YES, SIR. COUNCILMAN [INAUDIBLE].
>> ONE QUESTION ABOUT THE SIDEWALKS ALONG POST OFFICE.
THOSE SIDEWALKS WILL CONTINUE THE FULL LENGTH OF POST OFFICE THROUGH THE WALKOVER?
>> ON YOUR [OVERLAPPING] MODEL.
IT DIDN'T REALLY SEEM THAT WAY BUT LOOKING ON YOUR SITE PLANS AND STUFF, IT DOES.
>> THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, COMMISSIONERS? THANK YOU. MS. GORMAN, ANY OTHER PUBLIC COMMENT ON THIS CASE?
>> WE ASK IF THERE'S ANY MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK, USE THE RAISE HAND FUNCTION.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. IN THAT CASE, I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING ON CASE 21P-062 AT 4:37 PM.
I WILL BRING IT BACK FOR A MOTION, COMMISSIONERS? VICE CHAIR BROWN?
>> MOVE. WE APPROVE 21P-062 AS PRESENTED.
>> [NOISE] THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER, EDWARDS DO YOU HAVE A SECOND?
>> THE SECOND FROM COMMISSIONER EDWARDS.
IS THERE DISCUSSION, COMMISSIONERS? YES, COMMISSIONER FINKLE.
>> I'D LIKE TO VOICE MY OBJECTION TO USE THE 14 FOOT MINIMUM CLEARANCE.
THAT IS A MINIMUM CLEARANCE AS ESTABLISHED BY AASHTO, WHICH IS A NATIONAL GUIDELINE FOR HIGHWAY DESIGN.
THE 14 FEET APPLIES BOTH TO URBAN AND RURAL AREAS AND WHILE I UNDERSTAND THE ARCHITECT GAINED APPROVAL FROM THE FIRE MARSHALL.
I JUST WOULD LIKE TO STATE THE USE OF MINIMUM STANDARDS FOR DESIGN, IS SOMETHING THAT WE AS A COMMISSION SHOULD BE AWARE OF.
>> THANK YOU. I APPRECIATE THAT.
ANY OTHER DISCUSSION OR COMMENTS, COMMISSIONERS? SEEING NONE. WE'LL CALL THE VOTE THEN.
>> WE HAVE SIX VOTES IN FAVOR, ONE OPPOSED. THE MOTION PASSES.
TO STAFF, I'D LIKE TO HEAR MORE IN THE FUTURE, ABOUT WHAT COMMISSIONER FINKEL JUST SAID AND DIG A LITTLE BIT DEEPER ON THAT AS A DISCUSSION ITEM MAY BE IN THE FUTURE, I KNOW THAT WE'RE HEAVY AND DEEP INTO DISCUSSION ITEMS. EVERY TIME WE COME TO A MEETING I SAY, CAN WE HEAR ABOUT THIS OR THAT, BUT MAYBE JUST BRIEFLY HAVE A COMMENT ABOUT WHAT COMMISSIONER FINKEL SAID BECAUSE I DO THINK THAT'S AN IMPORTANT POINT.
IF WE'RE LOOKING AT A MINIMUM ON SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
IT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT WE'RE GOING TO SEE A LOT OF BUT IT IS AN IMPORTANT POINT.
MAYBE WE COULD JUST ADDRESS THAT.
>> SURE CHAIRWOMAN. AS I STATED EARLIER, WE RELY ON THE EXPERTS IN THIS FIELD, THE LDR DOES NOT COVER A MINIMUM DISTANCE IN TERMS OF THE BRIDGE OR CONNECTOR BRIDGE IN THIS CASE.
[01:10:06]
WE RELY ON THE EXPERTS IN THE FIELD, WHICH WOULD BE OUR ENGINEERING FOLKS, AS WELL AS OUR TRAFFIC DIVISION HERE AT THE CITY AND THE FIRE MARSHAL AND THOSE FOLKS WERE SENT A COPY OF THE SAME SITE PLAN, AND OTHER DOCUMENTS THAT YOU RECEIVED, AND UNDER REVIEW, THEY FOUND OBJECTION TO THE PROPOSAL.>> OKAY, THANK YOU, ADRIAN. I APPRECIATE THAT.
I GUESS THAT'S ALL WE CAN DO IS JUST GO BY THEIR SUGGESTIONS AND THEIR APPROVALS AND DENIALS.
NOW WE'LL MOVE ON TO DISCUSSION AND ACTION ITEMS FIRST,
[9.A. Discussion Accessory Structures Including Boat Houses And Piers (Hill)]
WE'RE GOING TO TALK ABOUT THE BOATHOUSES IN PEERS.I THINK WE WERE GOING TO PETE, ARE YOU THERE?
>> YES, I AM HERE. [OVERLAPPING]
>> AS I RECALL, WE WERE GOING TO DELVE INTO WHAT OTHER WATERFRONT COMMUNITIES WERE DOING.
WE WERE GOING TO DELVE INTO NUISANCE COMPLAINTS, THINGS LIKE THAT.
WHAT HAVE WE FOUND OUT, MR. MILLER?
>> OKAY. OUR LAST DISCUSSION WAS ON OCTOBER 19TH AT THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AND WE DISCUSSED THE ACCESSORY STRUCTURES, INCLUDING BOTH HOUSES IN PEERS.
PLANNING COMMISSION'S DIRECTION TO STAFF WAS TO CREATE A NEW LAND USE, PROVIDE A DEFINITION, AS WELL AS THE SET OF CRITERIA FOR REGULATING SAID LAND USE.
THIS IS PARTICULARLY FOR STANDALONE STRUCTURES SUCH AS PEERS BOTH HOUSES, AND BOTH HOUSES AND DOCS FOR LATZ WITH WATER OR SHORELINE FRONTAGE.
I'VE PREPARED A LITTLE PRESENTATION HERE.
IT IS SHORTENED FROM WHAT WE HAD AT THE PREVIOUS MEETING.
I THINK THE DISCUSSION WAS SO FRUITFUL, THAT WE HAVE NOW NARROWED IT DOWN AND IS MUCH MORE FOCUSED.
ARE WE ABLE TO PROCEED WITH THE PRESENTATION KATHERINE?
>> OKAY. I THINK THERE'S A LITTLE LAG OVER HERE ON MY END.
WE'RE GOING TO START WITH THE SECOND SLIDE, WHICH IS THE OUTLINE TO GUIDE US THROUGH THIS DISCUSSION.
WE'RE GOING TO TALK ABOUT THE CURRENT REGULATIONS, NUMBER 2, THE CONCERNS AND ADVERSE CONSEQUENCES.
THREE, WE HAVE SOME DRAFTS STANDARDS AND WE'RE GOING TO OPEN IT UP FOR THE DISCUSSION.
AGAIN, THE CURRENT REGULATIONS ON HOW THE LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS ADDRESSES SENSORY BUILDINGS OR ANY TYPE OF STANDALONE STRUCTURE, THAT IS NOT A PRIMARY PRINCIPLE BUILDING OR WHAT WE UNDERSTAND AS BEING THE HOME.
IT BASICALLY SAYS THAT IT'S NOT ALLOWED PER THE LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS.
THIS LISTENED TO THE COMBINATION OF STAFF CONCERNS, AND SOME OF THE ITEMS THAT CAME UP DURING THE LAST DISCUSSION, AND THOSE CONCERNS ON POTENTIAL ADVERSE CONSEQUENCES WERE NUISANCES, VAGRANTS, TRESPASS OR SANITATION FACILITIES, SCALE, FENCING, SIGNAGE, PARKING, CAMPING, AND LIGHTING.
NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. WE HAVE TWO PHOTOS HERE.
THIS WAS USED TO GIVE US AN EXAMPLE OF A PEER, A BOATHOUSE, A DOCK, WHAT COULD POTENTIALLY GO OUT INTO THE WATER.
THEN THE SECOND PHOTO TO THE RIGHT WAS USED TO DISPLAY WHAT COULD POTENTIALLY, BE ON THE LAND SIDE OF THE STANDALONE STRUCTURE.
IT JUST SHOWS SOME CAMPING AND OTHER THINGS TAKING PLACE ADJACENT TO SOME RESIDENTIAL LAND USE THERE.
FROM OUR DISCUSSION, WE CAN GO ON TO THE NEXT SLIDE HERE AND WE CAN SEE WHAT DRAFT THE STAFF HAS COME UP WITH.
IT IS THE APPROACH OF PROVIDING
[01:15:01]
THE NEW LAND USE AND THE LAND USE WOULD BE CALLED RECREATION, OUTDOOR AND PRIVATE.BECAUSE IT WOULD BE RESIDENTIAL LAND USE, IT WOULD BE SLIDED, IN THE RESIDENTIAL LAND USES TABLE BETWEEN PERSONAL CARE HOMES AND SHORT-TERM RENTAL RESIDENTIAL DWELLINGS.
WE WOULD EXPECT THAT THIS USE WOULD BE BEST FIT TO BE A LIMITED USE.
WE DO HAVE THE STANDARDS OF WHAT THOSE LIMITED USE STANDARDS WOULD BE. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE.
ALSO, STAFF HAS PROVIDED FROM PLANNING COMMISSION'S DIRECTION, THE NEW DEFINITION.
WHAT WE WANTED TO DO WAS CREATE A BIT OF A SEAMLESS INSERTION INTO THE LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS, IS SOMETHING THAT WOULD FIT AND BE RECOGNIZABLE WITH WHAT THE CURRENT LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS LANGUAGE STATES FOR RECREATION OUTDOOR.
THE PREVIOUS MEETING, WE DISCUSSED THE CURRENT DEFINITION OF RECREATION OUTDOOR.
IT ALLOWS THE RECREATION OPPORTUNITIES WITHIN SUBDIVISIONS FOR THE RESIDENTS OF THAT SUBDIVISION, AND IT'S OPEN TO THE PUBLIC OR THE COMMUNITY, AND IT SHOWS WHAT THOSE PARTICULAR USES WOULD BE IN RELATION TO THAT DEFINITION.
IN THE PROPOSED NEW DEFINITION, THE LANGUAGE IS WORDED VERY SIMILARLY.
BUT WE THINK THAT IT ADDRESSES WHAT WE WILL WANT TO INCLUDE SPECIFICALLY FOR BOTH HOUSES ABOUT INEFFICIENT PEERS.
RECREATION, OUTDOOR, PRIVATE, MEANS USES THAT PROVIDE RECREATION OPPORTUNITIES OUTDOORS FOR PRIVATE PROPERTY OWNERS, WHICH ARE NOT COMMERCIAL IN NATURE.
THE PHRASE INCLUDES PRIVATE STRUCTURES USED FOR ACTIVE OR PASSIVE RECREATIONAL ACTIVITIES, INCLUDING BOTH HOUSES, DOTS, AND FISHING PEERS.
THAT WOULD BE THE NEW DEFINITION FOR THAT NEW LAND USE.
THE NEXT SLIDE IS WHAT WE'VE ALL COME TO SEE, WHAT THOSE LIMITED USE STANDARDS WOULD BE.
HERE ON THE NEXT SLIDE, RECREATION, OUTDOOR, PRIVATE, DELIMITED USE STANDARDS.
NOW, PLANNING COMMISSION, CHAIR, TELL ME HOW YOU WANT TO PROCEED THROUGH THESE.
WE CAN TAKE EACH ONE INDIVIDUAL OR WE CAN GO THROUGH ALL OF THEM AND THEN GO BACK AND REVISIT EACH ONE, AND HOWEVER YOU PREFER TO MOVE THROUGH THIS.
>> RAISE YOUR HAND IF YOU WANT TO GO ONE AT A TIME.
OKAY, ARE WE GOING ONE AT A TIME?
>> I THINK YOU GOT FOUR HANDS, FOR ONE AT A TIME.
>> OKAY, WE'RE GOING ONE AT A TIME, PETE.
>> OKAY, LET'S GO ONE AT A TIME.
LET'S START WITH THE FIRST, USE LIMITATIONS.
YOU SHALL INVOLVE PEERS, DOCKS, AND BOTH HOUSES CONSTRUCTED ADJACENT TO A VACANT LOT.
THE VACANT LOT MUST HAVE A MINIMUM OF 10 FEET OF SHORELINE FRONTAGE, BEACHFRONT LOTS ARE EXCLUDED FROM THIS PROVISION.
NO ADDITIONAL ACCESSORY STRUCTURES SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED ON THE LOT.
THE USE DOES NOT REQUIRE AN EXISTING RESIDENTIAL USE, ON THE PROPERTY.
>> ANY COMMENTS, COMMISSIONERS?
>> NUMBER TWO, HOURS OF OPERATION NEAR RESIDENTIAL USE.
THE USE SHALL NOT OPERATE BETWEEN THE HOURS OF 10:00 PM AND 6:00 AM WHEN ADJACENT TO A RESIDENTIAL USE.
>> ANY PROBLEMS, ANY DISCUSSION?
>> HOLD ON. COUNCIL MEMBER, LESTOWSKI, HOLD ON ONE SECOND.
I SAW COMMISSIONER HUMPHREY'S HAND UP AND THEN YOU HAVE SOMETHING YOU WANT TO SAY, JOHN PAUL?
>> WELL, THE HOURS, THIS POSES TO ME
[01:20:04]
A LITTLE BIT OF AN ISSUE WITH SOMEBODY THAT'S A FISHERMAN WHO WANT TO GET OUT ON THEIR BOAT, PRE OR POST THAT TIME.SOMEBODY WHO WANTS TO GET OUT AFTER 10:00 PM, SOMEBODY WHO WANTS TO GET OUT BEFORE 6:00 AM, DOES THAT USE DEFINE ON A BOATHOUSE, THAT USE DEFINE THAT THEY CAN'T BE OUT THERE?
>> OKAY. IS THAT WHERE YOU WERE GOING TO COUNCIL MEMBER LESTOWSKI?
I MEAN, IF YOU'RE A FISHERMAN, YOU MIGHT BE OUT THERE AT NIGHT FISHING OR YOU MIGHT GET IN YOUR BOAT EARLY IN THE MORNING TO GO FISHING AND THEN YOU'D BE BREAKING THE ORDINANCE, SO I DON'T REALLY LIKE THAT.
I MEAN, WE HAVE NOISE ORDINANCE IN THE CITY ALREADY THOUGH.
IF YOU'RE HAVING A PARTY OUT THERE, YOU CAN ALWAYS BE TICKETED FOR NOISE OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
THAT'S REALLY AN ISSUE AND THAT'S WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO KEEP FROM HAPPENING.
I DON'T REALLY THINK THIS IS NECESSARY.
>> I'M SORRY, COMMISSIONER, AND PETER ALSO SAY THAT THIS IS STILL A PRIVATE, RECREATION OUTDOOR USE, AND SO I'D BE CAREFUL ABOUT REGULATING WHAT PEOPLE DO ON THEIR PRIVATE USES.
AS COUNCILMAN LESTOWSKI STATED WE DO HAVE OTHER REGULATIONS IN PLACE, NOISE ORDINANCE AND SUCH.
THAT SHOULD BE ABLE TO TAKE CARE OF ANY NUISANCE ISSUES OR VIOLATIONS, NOISE, ETC.
I'D BE CAREFUL ABOUT LIMITING WHAT PEOPLE CAN DO WHEN WE'RE GIVING THEM A PRIVATE USE.
>> WELL, IF I MAY JUST DOVETAIL REAL QUICK, IT LOOKS LIKE NUMBER THREE IS GOING TO TAKE CARE OF ANY ISSUES THAT WOULD BE BROUGHT ABOUT BY NUMBER TWO.
>> THE NOISE AND SO ON AND SO FORTH.
WELL, LET'S, FOR NOW, PETE, LET'S STRIKE TWO AND MOVE ON TO THREE.
I JUST WANT TO MAKE A COMMENT TO RAJON AND BOB AND STEPHEN.
NOW JUST RAJON AND BOB, YOU-ALL ARE HIDDEN ON MY SCREEN BECAUSE OF THE WAY MY SCREEN IS SET UP, SO YOU-ALL WANT TO SAY SOMETHING, YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO SAY JEFFREY, JEFFREY, JEFFREY, OR USE YOUR RAISE HAND FEATURE WHICH WILL SCOOT YOU UP TO THE TOP.
THERE ROJAN HAS A RAISE HAND-ON, YES.
COMMISSIONER EDWARDS, YOU ARE UP.
I'M GOING TO GO BACK AGAIN BECAUSE I'M CONFUSED.
IF YOU'RE BUILDING ON YOUR OWN PROPERTY, A PIER, A DOCK OR A BOATHOUSE, THESE RULES DON'T APPLY? THESE RULES ONLY APPLY IF IT'S A VACANT LOT NEXT TO A VACANT LOT?
>> THAT IS CORRECT. WELL, NOT NECESSARILY NEXT TO A VACANT LOT.
IT JUST SIMPLY HAS TO BE A VACANT LOT.
>> COMMISSIONER EDWARDS, IF YOU PREVIOUSLY OR CURRENTLY IF YOU WANT TO BUILD A BOATHOUSE OR A PIER, YOU MUST FIRST HAVE A HOME ON YOUR LOT.
YOU MAY NOT BUILD AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE, BOATHOUSE OR A PIER UNLESS YOU HAVE A PRIMARY STRUCTURE FIRST.
WE'RE NOW EXPLORING THE POSSIBILITY OF SEEING IF WE WOULD ALLOW PEOPLE TO BUILD A BOATHOUSE OR A PIER WITHOUT FIRST BUILDING A PRIMARY STRUCTURE ON THEIR LOT.
I GUESS WHAT CONFUSED ME WAS THE ADJACENT TO A VACANT LOT.
I GUESS MY NEXT QUESTION TO DOVETAIL ONTO THIS, IF WE DO THIS FOR RECREATIONAL USE, IS THIS GOING TO ALSO APPLY LATER TO GARAGES ON VACANT LOTS BECAUSE I KNOW YOU CAN'T BUILD A GARAGE WITHOUT A PRIMARY STRUCTURE ON THE VACANT LOT EITHER?
ARE WE OPENING THE DOOR TO SOMETHING ELSE? WHAT DOES STAFF THINK OF THAT? ARE WE OPENING THE DOOR TO SOMETHING OUT ELSE AT THIS TIME? RIGHT NOW WE'RE NOT.
RIGHT NOW THIS IS RECREATION OUTDOOR THAT INVOLVES ONLY PIERS, DOCKS, AND BOATHOUSES CONSTRUCTED ADJACENT TO RIGHT OFF OF A VACANT LOT.
[01:25:02]
RIGHT NOW THIS IS ALL WE'RE OPENING OUR DOORS TO, ARE THESE PIERS, DOCKS AND BOATHOUSES.>> RIGHT. YES, WELL, LET ME SEE HOW I CAN WORK THIS.
SO FAR, THIS CHANGE IN LAND USE, IT WOULD BE FOR PROPERTIES THAT ARE CURRENTLY ADJACENT TO WATER OR HAVE SOME TYPE OF SHORELINE.
IN THE EVENT OF LANDLOCKED LOTS, THEN IF SOMEONE WAS TO PRESENT THE REQUEST TO CHANGE OUR REGULATIONS, THEN POTENTIALLY THIS COULD BE THE PRECEDENT, THAT'S REFERENCED.
>> [OVERLAPPING] YES, THAT WAS MY THOUGHT AS WELL.
>> YES, AND THIS ONLY HAS TO DO RIGHT NOW WITH PIERS, DOCKS, AND BOATHOUSES.
>> PETE, I HAVE A QUESTION IF I MAY.
DO WE HAVE A DEFINITION OF A BOATHOUSE? PART OF MY QUERY IS COULD SOMEONE, LET'S SAY [INAUDIBLE] A SCHOOL BUS AND PARK IT OUT THERE AND CALL IT A BOATHOUSE?
>> I'M LOOKING THROUGH THE STANDARD, [OVERLAPPING].
>> THERE MAY NOT BE ONE IN THE ADRS.
BUT WE MAY BE ABLE TO REFERENCE THE PLANNING DICTIONARY TO SEE HOW BOATHOUSES ARE LISTED IN THE AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION DICTIONARY.
>> THAT IS A REALLY GOOD QUESTION.
>> YEAH, THAT'S A GREAT POINT, DONNA.
>> I TRY BEING LIBERAL [LAUGHTER], WE HAVE SOME INTERESTING STRUCTURES ON THE ISLAND AND IF WE PUT A DEFINITION OF A BOATHOUSE IN THERE, I THINK THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL TO US.
>> YEAH. JOHN BRINGS A GOOD POINT, WITH SOMEONE WANT TO BUILD A GARAGE AND CALL IT A BOATHOUSE.
THAT'S WHERE MY BOAT IS HOUSED.
I THINK WE DEFINITELY NEED A DEFINITION WHERE WE DON'T SEE GARAGES POP UP ON ADJACENT LOTS, EVEN IF THEY'RE ADJACENT TO WATER WITHOUT A STRUCTURE THERE.
I MEAN, MY INTENT HERE IS THAT THE BOATHOUSE WOULD BE OVER WATER AND A TYPICAL WHAT YOU WOULD THINK OF AND WHAT WE SEE AROUND THE ISLAND AS A BOATHOUSE ON A PEER OR UP AGAINST A BULKHEAD, OVER THE WATER. [OVERLAPPING]
>> FOR MY DEPARTMENT, I THINK THAT'S ONE OF THE THINGS THAT ONE WOULD BE ADDING INTO THAT DEFINITION IS THAT SOME PERCENTAGE OR GREAT PERCENTAGE OF THAT STRUCTURE WOULD BE REQUIRED TO BE OVER THE WATER TO BE DECLARED, ONE OF THOSE THREE ITEMS.
>> [OVERLAPPING] OKAY, GREAT. PETE, THAT'S AN ADD.
WE HAVE A DELETE ONTO, WE'VE GOT AN ADD-ON THE DEFINITION.
>> IF WE'RE READY, LET'S MOVE ON TO NUMBER 3.
>> OKAY, GREAT. NO NUISANCE CREATED.
>> NUMBER 3, NO NUISANCE CREATED.
THE USE SHALL NOT CREATE, I'M SORRY, OR CAUSE ANY PERCEPTIBLE NOISE, ODOR, SMOKE, ELECTRICAL INTERFERENCE, OR VIBRATIONS THAT CONSTITUTE A NUISANCE TO THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES.
CAMPFIRES, GRILLS, OR ANY OTHER WOOD, GAS, OR OTHER LIKE COMBUSTIBLE MATERIAL IS PROHIBITED.
ALL TRASH, LITTER, AND DEBRIS SHALL BE REMOVED FROM THE LOT.
>> COMMISSIONERS? COUNCILMEMBER LISTOWSKI? [SPANISH].
>> DO WE CURRENTLY HAVE A NUISANCE ORDINATES?
>> WE DO. NUISANCE ARE GENERALLY ADDRESSED THROUGH OUR MUNICIPAL CODE.
>> THIS IS A VERY LIMITED STANDARD.
ALMOST ALL OF THE LIMITED STANDARDS INCLUDE NO NUISANCE CREATED.
>> I DON'T KNOW IF SOME OF THESE THINGS ARE A NUISANCE.
THAT'S WHY I ASKED THAT QUESTION.
A GRILL ON YOUR BOAT DOCK, I DON'T KNOW WHETHER THAT'S SAFE OR NOT OR WOULDN'T PUT DOCK.
BUT WOULD YOUR NEIGHBOR COMPLAIN ABOUT
[01:30:02]
THAT IF YOU ARE GRILLING OUT SOME HOT DOGS OUT THERE, AND HAVING A FOURTH OF JULY WEEKEND? YOU'D BE, TECHNICALLY, IF I READ THIS RIGHT, YOU'D BE CREATING A NUISANCE BY DOING THAT.IF WE HAVE THESE THINGS ALREADY IN OUR ORDINANCE AS I HATE PUTTING MORE STUFF IN THERE, THAT EITHER CONFLICT WITH OUR EXISTING ORDINANCES OR CREATE SOMETHING THAT PROBABLY ISN'T A PROBLEM.
I KNOW WE WANT TO TRY TO GET ALL THE ISSUES SORTED HERE AND NOT HAVE TO COME BACK WHEN WE DO FIND AN ISSUE LATER DOWN THE ROAD.
BUT THAT SEEMS A LITTLE OVERCOMPLICATING IT.
>> IT MAY JUST BE SIMPLE, JUST TO SAY NO NUISANCE CREATED PER CITY CODE, BECAUSE ESPECIALLY WHEN YOU HAVE THE WORD PERCEPTIBLE IN THERE, YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE SOME NEIGHBORS THAT ARE JUST GOING TO CALL BECAUSE THEIR FOLKS ARE OUT THERE.
MAYBE, PETE YOU, AND I CAN WORK TOGETHER ON THAT VERBIAGE BECAUSE I DO THINK IT'S IMPORTANT THAT PEOPLE KNOW THAT THERE ARE RULES AND REGULATIONS TO GO BY IF THEY'RE USING IT OUT THERE.
I'M NOT QUITE SURE ABOUT THE CAMPFIRES, GRILLS, OR ANY OF THE WOOD GAS.
I MEAN, CAN YOU HAVE A METAL PIER OUT THERE? IF SO, WOULDN'T YOU BE ABLE TO MAKE SOME S'MORES OUT THERE?
>> WELL, I MEAN, IF THIS IS THE DIRECTION THAT WE WANT TO GO, SURE, CERTAINLY.
BUT IT WAS STAFF'S UNDERSTANDING THAT WE WANTED TO HAVE SOMETHING THAT WAS MORE RESTRICTIVE, THAT WOULD JUST LIMIT THE USE TO BE USED JUST FOR THE PURPOSE OF GOING OUT ON A BOAT, USING MATERIALS OR THE DOCK, OR FISHING.
>> YEAH, THE OTHER THING THAT I THINK, THAT ALL TRASH, LITTER, AND DEBRIS SHALL BE REMOVED FROM THE LOT.
WE WANT TO ALSO MAKE SURE THAT THESE STRUCTURES DON'T GET ISSUED CITY TRASH BANS TOO, OR DO WE? I MEAN ALL TRASH, LITTER, AND DEBRIS SHALL BE REMOVED FROM THE LOT.
>> THEY COULD PROBABLY GET A TRASH BIN IF THEY PAY A WATER BILL, AND THEY PROBABLY WILL PAY A WATER BILL BECAUSE THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE TO WASH THEIR BOAT OFF.
I THINK THEY WOULD BE ELIGIBLE TO GET A TRASH BIN ON A LOT LIKE THIS IF THEY HAD A WATER METER.
I LIKE THE LANGUAGE HERE AND I'M FINE WITH THIS.
I MEAN, I JUST DON'T WANT TO CREATE OTHER PROBLEMS FOR US, BUT I'M FINE WITH LIMITING THIS BECAUSE WE ARE CREATING THIS SPECIAL CATEGORY HERE, FOR OUR RESIDENTS HERE IN TOWN OR OUR PROPERTY OWNERS, SO I'M FINE WITH BEING MORE RESTRICTIVE.
I JUST DON'T WANT TO CAUSE A CONFLICT BETWEEN OUR ORDINANCES.
THEN IN THE PERCEPTIBLE NOISE, WE HAVEN'T ALWAYS ORIENTED, SO THAT'S SOMETHING THAT SHOULD JUST MIRROR ON ALL THE ORDINATES.
>> YEAH, I LIKE BEING VERY RESTRICTIVE ON THIS TOO, COUNCIL MEMBER AND PROBABLY MORE RESTRICTIVE ON THIS TOO BECAUSE I THINK IT'S RIGHT FOR ABUSE.
I THINK THIS SITUATION IS JUST RIGHT FOR ABUSE, NO OTHER WAY TO PUT IT.
>>I'D JUST LIKE TO REITERATE WHAT CATHERINE MENTIONED IS THAT, THAT LANGUAGE AND A LOT OF THIS LANGUAGE THAT WE USED IN THESE LIMITED STANDARDS IS CURRENTLY USED IN THE LDRS OR IN THE MUNICIPAL CODE.
I JUST DID A QUICK SEARCH OF PRECIPITABLE.
IT SHOWS UP 21 TIMES IN OUR MUNICIPAL CODE IN REFERENCE TO NOISE.
>> THANKS. DONNA, YOU'LL WORK WITH PETE AND MAKE SURE THAT YOU'RE HAPPY WITH IT BEFORE WE GET TO SOMETHING THAT'S FINAL.
>> YEAH, IT'S JUST VERY IMPORTANT FOR THE CITY TO BE ABLE TO ENFORCE THIS.
BEING REMINDED THAT REALLY THE USE IS JUST A LIMITED USE WAS HELPFUL.
>> ARE WE READY TO MOVE ON TO THE PARKING? I DON'T SEE ANY HANDS UP.
NO NEW OR EXPANDED SURFACE PARKING PERMITTED FOR THIS USE.
NO VEHICLES, LAND, OR WATER SHALL BE STORED ON THE LOT.
A MAXIMUM LIMIT OF THREE MOTORIZED VEHICLES SHALL BE ALLOWED ON THE LOT DURING THE HOURS OF USE.
[01:35:06]
THAT'S NUMBER FOUR PARKING.>> WHY THREE? SORRY [LAUGHTER]
>> STAFF TRIED TO THINK OF A REASONABLE NUMBER TO MAKE A POOR SUCCESSFUL BOATING TRIP.
STAFF THOUGHT, IF YOU HAD A DAD AND THE TRUCK WITH THE TRAILER, AND THE MOM AND ANOTHER VEHICLE, AND PERHAPS THE GRANDPARENTS JOINING, THEN THAT WOULD BE THREE VEHICLES.
THAT'S THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD THAT THE STAFF USED TO COME UP WITH THE THREE MOTORIZED VEHICLES.
>> PETE WAS THINKING ABOUT SUNDAY ON THE WATER SO I'M GOING TO COME BACK TO THAT.
I WANT TO COME BACK TO THE PARKING, BUT I WANT TO ASK COMMISSIONER EDWARDS HAS HER HAND UP, I WANT TO LET HER ASK HER A QUESTION AND THEN I WANT TO COME BACK TO THAT ONE.
>> IF I'M TO UNDERSTAND IT'S YOUR OWN LOT, YOU OWN IT.
ARE WE TRYING TO SAY THAT I CAN'T HAVE A PARTY ON THIS LOT? IS THAT WHAT THIS PARKING IS MEANT TO CONTROL? BECAUSE I WAS ON THE IMPRESSION EVEN IF I USED IT AS A BOATHOUSE OR I PUT A PIER ON IT OR WHATEVER I DID ON IT, I CAN STILL HAVE WHATEVER, HOWEVER MANY PEOPLE I WANT TO HAVE ON THE LOT.
>> IF YOU'RE LOOKING FOR STAFF'S RESPONSE TO THAT QUESTION, THEN STAFF'S RESPONSE WOULD BE CURRENTLY, IT'S NOT ALLOWED.
THEN THERE WAS A REQUEST THAT HAD GONE THROUGH PLANNING COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL TO MAKE SOME CHANGES OR SOME EXCEPTIONS.
THEN THERE WAS DIRECTION FROM PLANNING COMMISSION FOR STAFF TO FIND A WAY IN ORDER FOR PEOPLE TO BE ABLE TO USE THEIR PRIVATE PROPERTY FOR THE PURPOSE OF GETTING A BOAT OUT ONTO THE WATER OR FISHING FROM A PIER OR A DOCK BUT A LIMITED USE.
BEING THAT RIGHT NOW IT'S CURRENTLY NOT ALLOWED.
IF WE'RE GOING TO TRY TO FIND A WAY IN ORDER TO MAKE THIS USE ALLOWED AND BE AS LESS IMPACTFUL TO EXISTING RESIDENCES, THEN THIS IS WHAT THESE LIMITED USE STANDARDS.
THIS IS HOW THEY WERE FORMULATED.
>> IF I UNDERSTAND YOU CORRECTLY, THE LIMITED LAND USE IS GOING TO CONFLICT WITH EVERYDAY USE OF YOUR OWN PARKING LAND.
IS THAT WHAT YOU ARE SAYING OR I MIGHT BE MISUNDERSTANDING YOU?
>> CURRENTLY, THERE AREN'T ANY USES THAT WOULD BE.
I DON'T BELIEVE. DONALD, YOU CAN HELP ME WITH THIS WOULD WE NOW ALLOW FOR PARTY-TYPE SITUATIONS ON VACANT LOTS?
>> I THINK THE REAL QUESTION IS, THIS USE HAS BEEN POSED TO THE COMMISSIONERS.
HOW DO THE COMMISSIONERS SEE AND ADVISE STAFF ON HOW THEY WANT THIS AREA TO BE USED? COMING BACK TO SAY, WELL, DO WE SEE THIS? I THINK BASED OF SOME OF THE COMMENTS THE COMMISSIONERS GAVE LAST TIME, WE'RE JUST TRYING TO DRILL DOWN ON IT.
THE QUESTION COMMISSIONER EDWARDS SHOULD BE POSED TO YOUR FELLOW COMMISSIONERS.
HOW DO WE SEE THE USE OF THIS LOT? DO WE WANT TO JUST KEEP IT AS PIERS, DOCKS, AND BOAT HOUSES.
AGAIN, I GO BACK TO THAT BOAT HOUSE DEFINITION.
PEOPLE HAVE PARTIES IN THEIR BOATHOUSES ALL THE TIME.
I THINK INSTEAD OF ASKING STAFF, I'M GOING TO THROW IT RIGHT BACK TO THE COMMISSIONERS.
[OVERLAPPING] AT ALL AND RUN WITH IT.
>> I'VE GOT IT SO AND I APOLOGIZE, I HAVE TO LEAVE AT 5:15 BUT I WANTED TO ASK IS THIS IS PARKING ON THE LOT NOT LIKE ON THE CURB OR JUST ON REGULAR STREET PARKING.
ANOTHER QUESTION TO THAT IS, ISN'T THERE A CITY MODE ON GRASS PARKING OR ANYTHING ON THE PARKING LIKE THAT ALREADY?
[01:40:02]
>> THAT WAS EXACTLY MY POINT, STEVEN, AND I THINK YOU'RE ABSOLUTELY RIGHT ON THAT.
I THINK THERE IS AN ORDINATES AGAINST PARKING ON GRASS, PERIOD.
>> WHY? YOU HAVE TO PACK IN AN IMPROVED SURFACE.
>> THAT WOULD TAKE CARE OF THE PARKING ISSUE IF THAT'S THE ANSWER TO COMMISSIONER EDWARDS'S QUESTION BUT I'M NOT QUITE SURE IF THAT WAS THE FULL PART OF QUESTION. [LAUGHTER]
>> I JUST THINK THAT TO GO THAT DOES APPLY THOUGH TO THIS WHOLE PARKING ISSUE HERE ABOUT THIS PARKING THING THAT WE'RE NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO HAVE EXPANDED PARKING BUT TO GO TO YOUR POINT ABOUT NOT BEING ABLE TO HAVE A PARTY REJON OR WHETHER OR NOT YOU CAN HAVE A PARTY.
>> I DON'T THINK IT REALLY APPLIES TO WHETHER OR NOT YOU CAN HAVE A PARTY.
I THINK YOU NEVER PARTY ON THE LOT, DON'T YOU ALL THINK? NOBODY'S TELLING ME YOU CAN NOT HAVE A PARTY ON THE LOT.
YOU CAN HAVE A PARTY ON THE LOT TODAY WHETHER OR NOT YOU HAVE A BOATHOUSE, COULDN'T YOU?
>> IT'S [INAUDIBLE] IN AS LONG AS THEY ON THE STREET.
>> YOU JUST CAN'T HAVE A BUNCH OF PEOPLE PARK AND ON THE LOT.
>> YES, MA'AM. JUST BEAR IN MIND THAT WITH AN IMPROVEMENT LIKE THAT, FOLKS CAN COME IN AND APPLY FOR A DRIVEWAY PERMANENT.
THERE COULD BE PARKING ON THE LOT IF THAT'S THE WAY THAT YOU END UP GOING WITH IT.
DON'T ASSUME THAT PEOPLE WON'T BE PARKING ON THE LOT BECAUSE THEY MAY, GIVEN THAT THEY CONSTRUCT THIS IMPROVEMENT, AND THEN THEREFORE JUSTIFIED TO SUBMIT AN APPLICATION FOR A DRIVEWAY.
>> BUT PETE HAS WRITTEN ON HERE, WRITTEN IN HERE, NO NEW OR EXPANDED SURFACE PARKING PERMITTED FOR THIS USE.
>> [OVERLAPPING] WITH THAT, THAT'S CORRECT.
IF THAT'S WHERE WE'RE GOING WITH THIS AND IF WE STICK TO LIMITING THE VEHICLES TO WHAT'S ON THE LINE NOW OR ON THE STREET.
IT'S JUST SOMETHING THAT COULD EVOLVE AND A LOT OF FOLKS DON'T PAVE THINGS IN THE MIDDLE OF A WEEKEND WHEN WE'RE NOT LOOKING AND THINGS LIKE THAT IT JUST KNOW HOW THESE THINGS TEND TO EVOLVE OVER TIME.
>> WOULD YOU NEED A CERTAIN PART OF THE LOT TO BE EITHER GRAVELED IF YOU'RE GOING TO USE IT OR YOU'RE THOSE WAVE RUNNERS OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
IS THAT WHAT YOU WOULD STORE ON A BOAT HOUSE OR IS IT JUST A BOAT HOUSE, JUST A REGULAR.
>> [OVERLAPPING] YOU WOULD STORE YOUR WATER CRAFT IN THE VOTE HOUSE.
WHAT PETE HAS WRITTEN HERE UNDER PARKING IS NO VEHICLES, LAND, OR WATER SHALL BE STORED ON A LOT.
I'M IN TOTAL AGREEMENT WITH THAT.
I'M IN TOTAL AGREEMENT WITH NO NEW OR EXPANDED SURFACE PARKING OR FOR THAT MATTER, NOT JUST SURFACE PARKING, BUT CONCRETE PADS OF ANY NATURE SHALL BE PERMITTED FOR THIS USE? YES. COUNCIL MEMBER [INAUDIBLE].
>> I SEE YOUR POINT WITH THAT, AND I THINK I UNDERSTAND WHERE PENA, IS COMING FROM WITH THIS, BUT I THINK THAT MOST OF OUR USES IN TOWN, WE REQUIRE OFF-STREET PARKING.
I DON'T KNOW WHY WE WOULDN'T REQUIRE OFF-STREET PARKING FOR SOMETHING LIKE THIS AS WELL.
I THINK THEY COULD GO IN THERE AND PUT A PARKING PAD OR A GATE TO PARK THEIR VEHICLE OFF THE STREET. I PERSONALLY DON'T LIKE.
IF SOMEONE IS ABLE TO PARK ON THEIR OWN PROPERTY, I WOULD RATHER SEE HIM PARKING ON THE PROPERTY THAN PARK ON THE STREET AND CAUSE SOME HAZARD JUST IN THE STREET.
I WOULD BE FINE WITH GIVING THEM SOME TYPE OF PERCENTAGE OF SURFACE AREA THAT THEY COULD PARK ON OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
MAYBE PERCENTAGE MIGHT BE GOOD BECAUSE WHO KNOWS THE SIZE OF THESE LOTS? A SMALL LOT THEN YOU REQUIRE LESS PARKING AND IF IT'S LARGER THEN MAYBE THEY NEED SOME MORE PARKING.
I THINK PARKING IS SOMETHING I WOULD ACTUALLY ALLOW ON SOMETHING LIKE THIS.
>> MAYBE WE CAN SPLIT THIS UP A LITTLE BIT, SEPARATE THE PARKING FROM THE STORING? THAT MAY BE AN EASIER WAY TO FIGURE THIS ONE OUT?
TO DO PARKING AND WATERCRAFT AND VEHICLES STORAGE AS TWO DIFFERENT ITEMS. WE CAN ALL AGREE RIGHT OFF THE BERTH NO VEHICLES, LAND OR WATER, SHALL BE STORED ON THE LOT.
[01:45:01]
EVERYBODY AGREE? STAN'S HAND IS UP.>> THAT'S OKAY. IT HAS BEEN UP FOR A WHILE.
[LAUGHTER] ARE WE LOOKING AT THIS AS A PERMANENT TYPE OR TEMPORARY AS FAR AS USING IT FOR RECREATION.
IS IT A PERMANENT IE IS IT OKAY? THE GUY IS GOING TO BUILD A HOUSE ON IT IN TWO YEARS, FIVE YEARS?
>> COMMISSIONER HUMPHREY, THE WAY YOU HAVE TO LOOK AT IT IS WHAT YOU PERMIT TODAY IS THE WAY IT'S GOING TO STAY FOREVER.
>> YOU HAVE TO THINK ABOUT IT AS IT'S NEVER GOING TO CHANGE ON SOMETHING LIKE THIS.
AS OPPOSED TO A CHANGE IN ZONING FOR ONE THING, IT MIGHT BE YOUR RESTAURANT TODAY, BUT IT COULD BE SOME OTHER COMMERCIAL USE TOMORROW.
BUT ON SOMETHING LIKE THIS, YOU HAVE TO FIGURE IT OUT.
THERE'S NEVER GOING TO BE A PERMANENT STRUCTURE WITH IT.
IT'S JUST GOING TO BE THIS FOREVER.
EVENTUALLY, THERE COULD BE A PERMANENT STRUCTURE WITH IT AS IS REPRESENTED IN THE CASE THAT BROUGHT ALL OF THIS FORWARD.
BUT WE DON'T KNOW FOR SURE THAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN.
CIRCUMSTANCES CHANGE. I DON'T KNOW.
HOW DOES THAT COME INTO PLAY IN WHAT YOU'RE ASKING?
>> WELL, WHAT I'M THINKING OF IS, IF IT IS ON A TEMPORARY BASIS, THEN WHEN YOU'RE ADDRESSING THE PARKING, EVERYTHING, THAT WILL CHANGE.
BUT IF WE'RE LOOKING AT IT ON A PERMANENT BASIS, THEN YOU'RE LOOKING AT SOMEONE THAT'S GOING TO WARRANT MORE PERMANENTS ON HOW TO PARK AND WHERE TO PARK.
LIKE WE WERE TALKING PREVIOUSLY, BEING ALLOWED TO PARK, IS IT'S GOING TO ALLOW THEM TO HAVE A BOAT RAMP?
>> NOTE, IT'S A BOATHOUSE ONLY, NOT A RAMP.
IT'S FOR A PIER, DOCK, AND BOATHOUSE.
>> NO RAMP. PIER, DOCK, AND BOATHOUSE.
>> OKAY. AGAIN, THINKING LONG-TERM SHOULD NOT BE SPECIFIED WHEN WE START TALKING ABOUT THIS BECAUSE THERE WILL BE SOMEBODY THAT'LL SAY, "I WOULD LIKE TO PUT A RAMP RIGHT HERE ADJACENT TO MY BOATHOUSE."
>> NOW, WITH THIS IT'S NOT SPECIFIED AS THIS IS BUILT FOR A BOAT RAMP.
THIS IS NOT BOAT RAMP [INAUDIBLE].
WE'RE NOT GOING TO SAY PIERS, DOCKS, AND BOATHOUSE.
NO BOAT RAMP [LAUGHTER] IT'S JUST PIERS, DOCKS, AND BOATHOUSES.
[NOISE] AS FAR AS THIS GOES, IF WE BREAK OUT PARKING AND STORAGE, AND WE AGREE THAT NO VEHICLES, LAND, OR WATER SHALL BE STORED ON THE LOT.
>> IS IT A BOATHOUSE WHERE YOU CAN STORE SOME OF YOUR VEHICLES THOUGH? THAT WAS MY QUESTION.
>> WE'RE PARKING ON THE LOT, DON'T KNOW.
>> UNLESS IT'S ENCLOSED IS WHAT I'M HEARING, BECAUSE IF IT'S IN THE BOATHOUSE.
>> IF IT'S IN THE BOATHOUSE, THAT'S FINE.
NO VEHICLES, LAND, OR WATER SHALL BE STORED ON THE LOT.
IF THERE'S A BOAT, IT HAS TO BE IN THE BOATHOUSE.
IF THERE'S WATERCRAFT, IT HAS TO BE IN THE BOATHOUSE, OR ATTACHED TO THE BOATHOUSE.
>> WE'RE GOING BACK TO THE DEFINITION OF A BOATHOUSE.
THERE'S DEFINITIONS FOR A LOT OF THINGS IN THIS.
LOOKING AT THE DEFINITIONS HERE.
BUT I DIDN'T SEE ANYTHING ABOUT A BOATHOUSE.
>> RIGHT, WELL HE IS GOING TO DEFINE A BOATHOUSE, RIGHT PENA?
>> NO VEHICLES CAN BE STORED ON THE LOT.
NOW, WE HAVE A DIFFERENCE OF OPINION, IT SEEMS LIKE ABOUT, WHETHER WE'RE GOING TO ALLOW NEW OR EXPANDED CIRCUS PARKING TO BE PERMITTED ON THE LOT.
ARE WE GOING TO ALLOW A QUAD SURFACE ON THE LOT ITSELF?
[01:50:03]
PARKING, THE WAY WE HAVE IT, HERE SAYS, "NO.">> I THINK THEY SHOULD BE ABLE TO PUT DOWN GRAVEL TO BE ABLE TO GET IN.
>> I SAID I THINK THEY SHOULD BE ABLE TO PUT GRAVEL DOWN SO THEY CAN ENTER THE LOT.
SOMETIMES THERE'S MUDDY OR NASTY AND THE BOATS GET STUCK OR WHATEVER.
IF THEY CAN PUT DOWN GRAVEL AS A DRIVEWAY, I THINK IT WOULD BE.
>> THE BOAT IS NOT GOING TO COME IN AND OUT OF THAT LOT, ANYWAY OTHER THAN ON THE WATER BECAUSE THE BOATS OUT THERE ARE ON THE WATER, THERE'S NOT A RAMP THERE.
THE BOAT IS NOT EVER GOING TO BE COMING IN AND OUT ON IT.
THE TRAILER WOULD BE THE ONLY THING AND THE TRAILER, WE DON'T WANT STORED ON THE LOT.
YOU KNOW WHAT, PENA? THAT, PIERS THAT WE NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT IT'S NOT JUST VEHICLES, LAND, OR WATER SHALL BE STORED ON THE LOT.
WE NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT THAT INCLUDES BOTH TRAILERS.
DO WE WANT IT TO BE GRAVELED? DO WE WANT IT TO BE PAVED? DO WE WANT TO ALLOW THEM TO HAVE A DRIVEWAY? DO WE WANT TO LET THEM HAVE A PARKING SPACE? DO WE WANT TO LET THEM HAVE ANY OF THAT? ARE WE INVITING A NUISANCE? ARE WE INVITING PARTY CENTRAL? WHAT DO YOU ALL WANT TO DO? YOU'LL KNOW WHAT I WANTED TO DO? I DON'T WANT TO ALLOW ANY OF IT. COUNCIL MEMBER?
>> LET ME ASK. I HAVE A QUESTION, ON RESIDENTIAL LOT.
WHAT IS ALLOWED ON RESIDENTIAL LOT? CAN I GO AND PUT A DRIVEWAY IF I WANTED TO? I CAN DEFINITELY PUT UP A FENCE.
COULD I PUT DRIVEWAY? IF I FENCED IT COULD I HAVE A TRAILER ON IT?
>> PENA, CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG.
I THINK THE ISSUE THAT WAS HAPPENING IN THE CITY, WAS THAT PEOPLE WERE STORING THEIR VEHICLES ON THESE LOTS THAT WERE EITHER NEXT TO A VACANT LOT AND OR EVEN ADJACENT TO A RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE.
BUT THE CITY WANTED THAT TO BE ENCLOSED OR FENCED IN OR SOMEHOW REMOVED FROM VIEW AS IT WAS.
IT REALLY DOESN'T [INAUDIBLE] PEOPLE JUST BASICALLY PUTTING THINGS ON LOTS AND VEHICLES, ESPECIALLY [OVERLAPPING].
>> ABSOLUTELY. PENA, MAYBE IF I GET AN ANSWER ON IT.
WHAT IS ALLOWED CURRENTLY ON A VACANT LOT?
CATHERINE, HELP ME OUT ON THIS ONE.
WE DON'T ALLOW DRIVEWAYS FROM PARKING PADS.
YOU HAVE TO HAVE AN IMPROVED LOT IF YOU'RE GOING TO BE STORING SOMETHING THERE.
REALLY, THE ONLY STRUCTURES THAT CAN BE PLACED ON A VACANT LOT IS A FENCE.
>> IT SHOULDN'T BE ANY DIFFERENCE IN THAT, SHOULD IT?
>> WELL, LET ME JUST MAKE SURE I'M CLEAR ON THAT.
IF I HAVE A VACANT LOT WITH A FENCE AROUND IT, I CANNOT STORE ANYTHING ON THAT LOT.
>> NO. IT'S NOT ALLOWED BY CITY CODE.
>> WITHOUT THE PRIMARY STRUCTURE.
>> WITHOUT THE PRIMARY STRUCTURE. THAT'S FINE, AND LET'S KEEP IT LIKE THAT.
I WOULD TAKE IT TO THE NEXT STEP ON SOMETHING LIKE THIS WITH PARKING BECAUSE AGAIN, I WOULD WANT RATHER PEOPLE PARK OFF OF THE STREET THAN ON-STREET PARKING.
IT ONLY TAKES UP SPACE FOR YOUR NEIGHBORS IF THEY'RE HAVING PEOPLE OVER AND THERE IS LIMITED AMOUNT OF PARKING YOU HAVE OUT THERE FOR OTHER PEOPLE.
THAT'S THE ONLY THING I WOULD DO, AND I WOULD DO A PERCENTAGE OR SOMETHING TO SCALE THAT DOWN, MAKE SURE THEY DON'T PAY THE WHOLE LOT, JUST SO THEY CAN PULL OFF OF THE STREET.
NO STORAGE ON THAT LOT, NO TRAILERS, NO, WHAT IS THAT? YOU CAN'T HAVE A VEHICLE IN THE SAME SPOT FOR MORE THAN 48 HOURS OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
I WOULD PROBABLY USE SOME LANGUAGE LIKE THAT, THAT IF YOU GETTING YOUR BOAT AT 2:00 IN THE MORNING AND YOU TAKE AN OFFSHORE TRIP,
[01:55:05]
YOU BETTER BE BACK WITHIN 48 HOURS TO GET YOUR CAR OFF THE LOT OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.I WOULD USE SOME OF OUR EXISTING ORDINANCES TO FORMULATE THAT REGULATION.
>> COMMISSIONER, VICE-CHAIR BROWN.
>> I WANT US TO TRY TO GET BACK TO THE PROBLEM, WHAT'S THE PROBLEM WE'RE TRYING TO SOLVE? I RECALL FROM OUR LAST MEETING THAT THE PEOPLE GOING TO BRING BACK SOME ACCOUNTING OR THE COMPLAINTS, OF LOSING LOTS OF PIERS AND NO PRIMARY STRUCTURE.
SO WE CAN GET SOME KIND OF IDEA OF THE TYPE AND THE MAGNITUDE OF THE PROBLEM WE'RE TRYING TO SOLVE.
MAYBE WE CAN TRY TO GET BACK THE FOCUS ON WHAT EXACTLY WE ARE TRYING TO DO.
I DON'T HAVE AN IDEA YET REALLY WHAT THE ACTUAL PROBLEM IS OR THE MAGNITUDE OF THE PROBLEM.
>> OKAY. WELL THEN I GUESS IT'S-
>> MAYBE WE CAN HAVE THAT THE NEXT TIME WHEN WE COME BACK WITH A TWEAKED DRAFT.
>> I DON'T THINK THAT DATA IS OUT THERE.
>> COMMISSIONERS THIS WASN'T NECESSARILY AN ISSUE BROUGHT FORTH BECAUSE THERE HAD BEEN VIOLATIONS OR PEOPLE HAVE BEEN DISRUPTIVE OR WHATEVER.
THIS WAS, IF I REMEMBER CORRECTLY, A REQUEST FOR AN ACCOMMODATION OF SORTS FOR PEOPLE WHO OWN RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY, AND THEN THEY CAN PARK ACROSS THE ROAD AND THEY WANT TO BUILD A PIER OR A DOCK.
IS THERE A REASON WHY WE'RE ADDING BOAT HOUSES TO THIS AND NOT JUST KEEPING IT SIMPLE PIERS AND DOCKS?
>> YES. [OVERLAPPING] BECAUSE...
>> MOST PEOPLE WHEN THEY SPEND AS MUCH AS A BOAT COSTS WANT TO KEEP IT UNDERCOVER AND LIFT IT OUT OF WATER.
YOU DON'T WANT TO LEAVE YOUR BOAT SITTING IN THE WATER.
>> SO IT IS GOING TO HAVE A LIFT BASICALLY?
>> YES. MOST PEOPLE WANT TO GET IT UP OUT OF THE WATER.
WE HAD TALKED TO DONNA AT THE LAST MEETING ABOUT GETTING SOME OF THESE NUISANCE.
WE HAD TALKED ABOUT THAT, I BELIEVE COUNCIL MEMBER LISCAUSKY HAD ASKED PETE TO SEE IF THERE WAS ANY INFORMATION ABOUT NUISANCE COMPLAINTS IN SOME OF THESE NEIGHBORHOODS THAT HAD SITUATIONS WHERE THE BOAT HOUSES WERE NOT ATTACHED TO THE LOTS AS I RECALL.
THAT WAS SOMETHING THAT HAD BEEN REQUESTED.
I AM ABSOLUTELY RELUCTANT TO GIVE A LOT WITH A BOAT HOUSE, PIER OR DOCK ANY DIFFERENT TREATMENT ABOUT PARKING, THAN A VACANT LOT.
THAT'S JUST ME. COMMISSIONER WALLA.
>> I AGREE WITH YOU A LITTLE BIT, JEFFREY.
I DON'T THINK WHAT ANY OF US, THE INTENT OF THIS ANY WAYS, THAT'S WHAT I'M THINKING, IS, I KNOW I WOULDN'T WANT SOMEBODY COME IN AND BUILDING A BOAT HOUSE IN A VACANT LOT NEXT TO ME AND EVERY WEEKEND THERE IS 20 CARS THERE.
I WOULD SUGGEST HAVING THEM DO A MINIMUM OF TWO OFF-STREET PARKING SPACES ON THE LOT, AND I WOULDN'T PERMIT THAT IF THEY WANT TO PARK, I WOULD LIMIT IT, THREE IS PROBABLY FINE.
BUT I WOULDN'T LET THEM USE OFF-STREET PARKING TO GO USE THEIR BOAT HOUSE.
YOU WOULDN'T LET ME BUILD A HOME AND USE OFF-STREET PARKING FOR MY HOUSE.
>> YOU MEAN ON-STREET PARKING.
YOU WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO DO THAT IF YOU WERE BUILDING A HOME OR A BUSINESS OR ANYTHING ELSE.
I THINK WE NEED TO REQUIRE THAT.
I'M JUST WEIGHING IN ON THIS, I DON'T THINK WE WANT TO TURN THIS INTO WHERE IT BECOMES DATA ON NUISANCES AND COMPLAINTS ASSOCIATED WITH THIS.
I THINK WE'VE GOT TO KEEP TO SCALE DOWN.
THAT'S JUST MY TWO SENSE ON IT.
>> WELL, IF I MAY ADDRESS THE DATA.
AT THE LAST PRESENTATION ON THIS INFORMATION, I PRESENTED THE CONCERNS AND POTENTIAL ADVERSE IMPACTS.
[02:00:06]
I PRESENTED THOSE AS STAFF'S CONCERNS.THIS LAND USE DOES NOT CURRENTLY EXIST.
THERE ISN'T ANY VIOLATIONS THAT ARE CURRENTLY OCCURRING BECAUSE THE LAND USE DOESN'T EXIST AND I'VE MENTIONED THIS TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION AT THE LAST MEETING, THERE'S NOT A LIKELIHOOD THAT THERE WILL BE DATA THAT'S GOING TO GIVE US ANY INFORMATION RELATING TO WHAT'S CURRENTLY HAPPENING WITH PIERS, DOCKS AND BOAT HOUSES BECAUSE IT'S SIMPLY DOESN'T EXIST.
>> WE REALLY HIT A SNAG ON THIS PARKING THING.
WE NEED TO REACH A CONSENSUS OF SOME SORT, YOU GUYS.
I CAN SEE 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. WHO CAN I NOT SEE? I CAN'T SEE DAVID. THERE YOU ARE.
I HAVE TO FLIP DOWN HERE TO SEE YOU? I'M GOING TO THROW SOMETHING OUT THERE.
I DON'T WANT IT. I'M GOING TO THROW OUT THERE ONE.
WHAT'S THAT? BOB, TELL ME WHAT'S THE SIZE OF A REGULAR PARKING SPOT?
>> THE STANDARD IS 9 FEET BY 20 FEET.
DO WE WANT TO REQUIRE ONE AND ALLOW UP TO THREE? DO WE WANT TO REQUIRE ANY? TALK TO ME PETE?
>> ARE WE TRYING TO INVENT SOMETHING THAT'S ALREADY BEEN INVENTED SOMEWHERE ELSE.
WE'RE NOT THE ONLY CITY THAT'S EXCLUSIVELY ON THE WATER AND HAS LOTS ON THE WATER ON THE BACK BAY AREAS.
THERE'S GOT TO BE AN EXAMPLE SOMEWHERE ELSE ON HOW THEY'VE DEALT WITH THIS, BECAUSE I'M PRETTY SURE THAT A LOT OF OTHER SMALLER TOWNS, LARGER TOWNS HAVE DEALT WITH UNIMPROVED LOTS AND PEOPLE DESIRING TO PUT BOAT HOUSES ON THEM OR HAVING BOAT HOUSES OR FOR IN FACT, A HURRICANE WIPES OUT THEIR BOAT OR THEIR HOUSE, BUT THEY STILL HAVE A PIER OR A BOATHOUSE.
THERE'S GOT TO BE SOME EXAMPLES IN LOUISIANA OR SOMEWHERE DOWN IN THE SOUTH PADRE AREA, SOMEWHERE BACK THERE.
WE HAVE THOSE AREAS OF INTEREST?
>> PETE, DID YOU FIND ANYTHING? DID YOU LOOK?
>> WELL, MOST OF WHAT WE SAW PROHIBITED STAND ALONE STRUCTURES AND THIS WAS ALL THE RESEARCH THAT WAS PRESENTED AT THE LAST MEETING.
NOW WE DID FIND THERE WAS THE THE LAKE AREA NEAR FORT WORTH, AND THIS WAS A MORE RURAL AREA AND IT WAS AN AREA THAT WAS DESIGNED FOR VACATIONING THAT ALLOWED FOR PIERS TO GO OUT INTO THE WATER ADJACENT TO VACANT LOTS.
BUT THERE WERE VERY MINIMAL STANDARDS ASSOCIATED WITH THAT PEER OTHER THAN DISTANCE, THE PIER COULD PROJECT IN RELATION TO THE LINEAR FOOTAGE OF THE SHORELINE. SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
>> ANYBODY HAVE ANYTHING ON PARKING IN PARTICULAR, PETE?
>> NO. THERE MAYBE SOMETHING OUT THERE BUT WE DIDN'T FIND ANYTHING IN OUR RESEARCH.
>> UNFORTUNATELY, COMMISSIONER HUMPHREY, THAT ONE'S NOT GOING TO HELP US OUT.
COUNCIL MEMBER [INAUDIBLE], HE SAID HE THINKS WE SHOULD ALLOW PARKING.
IF I WERE TO HAVE A RESIDENTIAL LOT WITH NO STRUCTURE ON IT, I WOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO HAVE PARKING.
COMMISSIONER WALLACE SAID HE THINKS WE SHOULD ALLOW PARKING, TWO TO THREE SPOTS.
IS THAT WHAT YOU SAID RUSTY? TWO TO THREE SPOTS.
I'M GOING TO PUT YOU ON THE SPOT.
I'M JUST GOING TO WORK MY WAY DOWN THE SCREEN.
COMMISSIONER EDWARDS, THOUGHTS?
>> I BELIEVE THEY SHOULD BE ABLE TO PARK ON THE LOT
[02:05:02]
AND I THINK THEY SHOULD BE ABLE TO PUT A GRAVEL DRIVEWAY DOWN.>> IT'S SO HARD TO SAY HOW MANY SPOTS, BECAUSE IF YOU HAVE A BUNCH OF FRIENDS, ALL Y'ALL GOING OUT ON A BOAT.
I UNDERSTAND THE REASONING BEHIND THE THREE, BUT I CAN ALSO UNDERSTAND IF YOU GOT A BIGGER BOAT AND YOU GOT 10 FRIENDS GOING AND WHERE THEY PARK.
DO WE WANT ON ONE THE STREET? I DON'T KNOW. I DON'T HAVE A CLEAR VISION FOR THIS.
I JUST KNOW THAT I CAN SEE WHERE THERE COULD BE GOOD AND BAD, THE PROS AND CONS ON BOTH SIDES.
I GUESS WE STICK IT SOMEWHERE IN THE MIDDLE.
>> VICE-CHAIR BROWN, THOUGHTS?
>> I REALLY I DON'T THINK THERE SHOULD BE AN ANY MARKING ON THE LOT.
YOU CAN GO OUT LOAD AND UNLOAD IF YOU WANT, BUT THAT WILL EMBARK ON THE LOT.
WE REALLY DON'T HAVE A LOT OF GO-BY'S ON THIS THING SO WHATEVER WE DO IS GOING TO BE A SHOT IN THE DARK.
WE'RE JUST GOING TO HAVE TO DO IT, TRY IT OUT AND SEE HOW IT WORKS.
I THINK THIS THING IS GROWING A LITTLE OUTER PORTION TO WHAT OUR ORIGINAL INTENT WAS WHICH WAS SIMPLY TO NOMINATE IT UP HERE.
THAT'S ALL WE'RE REALLY TRYING TO DO HERE.
I DON'T WANT TO [INAUDIBLE] THE STAFF WE HAVE BEEN RIDING ONTO IT AND I THINK WE DON'T PARK ON THE LOT.
WE JUST BUILD A FENCE AND THEN A PUT A PEAR IN AND [INAUDIBLE].
COMMISSIONER HUMPHREY, YOU GOT THE THOUGHT?
>> WELL I LEAN TOWARDS ALLOWING PARKING ON THE LOT.
I THINK SHOULD BE DETERMINED BY LOT SIZE.
I THINK IT SHOULD BE CASE-BY-CASE CAUSE YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE SOME PEOPLE THAT HAVE DOUBLE LOGIC AND HAVE PEOPLE THAT DON'T.
LIKE MISS EDWARD SAID, YOU GET BOTH SIZES.
LEAVE IT UP TO THE DISCRETION OR GIVES SOME DISCRETIONARY AND LEEWAY ON THAT.
BUT I THINK PARKING SHOULD BE ALLOWED ON THE LOT.
>> NO, THINK ABOUT HOW YOU'D FEEL IF YOU LIVED NEXT DOOR TO THAT.
COMMISSIONER FANKLY, YOU'RE UP MAN.
>> I THINK THAT THE PROPERTY OWNER SHOULD ENJOY THE FREE OR THE USE OF THEIR LAND TO THE EXTENT THAT THEY ARE ALLOWED.
WITH THAT, I THINK THAT PARKING ON THE LOT WOULD BE A INTENDED USE.
I TEND TO LEAN TOWARDS COMMISSIONER EDWARDS IN SAYING THAT THE NUMBER IS NO MORE THAN THREE.
BUT THEN AGAIN, I LIKE COMMISSIONER HUMPHREY STATEMENT OF IT NEEDS TO BE AT A CASE-BY-CASE BASIS AND TIE BACK TO LOT SIZE, BUT WE SHOULDN'T, I GUESS THE RIGHT WORD IS IMPINGE ON THE PROPERTY OWNERS' RIGHT TO WITHDRAW THEIR PROPERTY.
>> PEAK, YOU KNOW WHERE THEY WANT TO GO WITH IT, RIGHT?
>> IT SOUNDS LIKE THE MAJORITY OF THE COMMISSION WANTS TO GO WITH ALLOWING SOME TYPE OF SURFACE PARKING, EITHER WHAT? A GRAVEL OR PAVED.
I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE RATIO, HOW YOU'D FIGURE A RATIO THAT WOULD BE RELATIVE TO THE SIZE OF THE LOT.
IF IT'S A SMALL LITTLE LOT THEN IT WOULDN'T GET THREE GREAT BIG PARKING SPACES, BUT IF IT'S A BIG LOT, MAYBE THEY COULD HAVE THREE BIG PARKING LOTS.
>> REMEMBER, WE GOING TO MAKE A DISTINCTION BETWEEN STORAGE ON THE LOT, SO THE CARS HOPEFULLY SHOULD BE REMOVED EACH DAY, EACH NIGHT OR WHATEVER.
>> YEAH. NO VEHICLES, LAND OR WATER OR TRAILERS WILL BE STORED ON THE LOT, OVERNIGHT, WHATEVER.
BUT THERE NEEDS TO BE SOME TYPE OF RATIO ON THE PARKING.
HOPEFULLY THERE'S A PLANNING STANDARDS SOMEWHERE THAT Y'ALL CAN ADOPT FOR THAT.
>> BUT THERE REALLY ISN'T THAT STANDARD AS SUCH AND IT MAKES IT A LITTLE BIT DIFFICULT FOR US TO ADMINISTER ON BOTH SIDE SO THEY DON'T WANT TO BUILD
[02:10:01]
HIS BOAT HOUSE AND THAT'S WHEN THEY REQUIRE A LITTLE LOT.I WOULD RATHER SUPPLY A NUMBER OF SUCH, BUT WE WANT TO DO SOME RATIO AS SUCH BUT ARE WE STILL TALKING ABOUT THAT IN THE SENSE THAT THERE WILL BE A MAXIMUM?
YEAH, CAN Y'ALL GET HAPPY IF WE JUST SAY THREE? CAN WE JUST SAY THREE? [NOISE] MAXIMUM OF THREE? [OVERLAPPING] I'VE SEEN NO NODDING HEADS.
I FEEL LIKE [LAUGHTER] BOB ON THIS.
COMMISSIONER HUMPHREY IS AT LEAST PUTTING HIS FINGERS UP AND SAYING THREE.
I'M SEEING COMMISSIONER WALLACE HAS GIVEN THAT A THUMBS UP.
I FEEL LIKE COMMISSIONER BROWN, THAT WE'RE WAY DOWN IN THE WEEDS ON THIS ON THE PARKING.
NOT AT ALL SOMETHING THAT WE SET OUT TO DO.
WE WERE SETTING OUT TO TO TALK ABOUT BOTH HOUSES.
YES COMMISSIONER BROWN, SORRY, MY SCREEN WAS TOTALLY OFF OF THIS.
YES. VICE-CHAIR BROWN YOU'RE UP.
>> DID I MISUNDERSTAND? I THOUGHT CATHERINE SAID EARLIER THAT YOU COULD HAVE DRIVEWAYS OR PARKING PADS ALLOWED ON A VACANT LOT EVEN IF IT WAS BEHIND A FENCE?
>> THAT'S RIGHT FOR VACANT LOT.
>> THAT'S FOR REGULAR LOT NOT VACANT ANYMORE.
>> IS WE PUTTING SOMETHING ON IT?
>> WE'LL RAP ANYTHING ON THE LOT, WE PUT THAT DOWN ON THE WATER.
>> STOPS IN BOTH HOUSES WOULD BE ON THE LOT, RIGHT?
>> YEAH. RIGHT. THE LAND USE WOULD APPLY TO THE LOT.
>> THE LAND WOULD NO LONGER BE VACANT.
LAND USE ASSOCIATED WITH THE LOT WOULD BE RECREATION OUTDOOR PRIVATE.
>> OH, SORRY. ONCE YOU BUILD BOTH HOUSE AND APPEAR.
>> THEN IT'S NO LONGER VACANT.
>> THAT'S CORRECT. NOW BEAR IN MIND THAT SOME OF THE LOTS IN CERTAIN INSTANCES [INAUDIBLE] DOWN INTO THE WATER, THEY HAVE ACTUAL WATER.
THEY'RE WHITED OUT THERE I SHOULD SAY.
>> THE LOT IS PLATED OUT HALFWAY INTO THE CANAL.
>> MAY I MAKE A SUGGESTION JUST TO MOVE THIS ALONG?
>> WE EITHER KEEP THE THREE THAT'S BEEN SUGGESTED OR POSSIBLY THE FIVE. I KNOW.
WHAT I'M SAYING IS THIS IS STILL GOING TO BE REVIEWED IN AN OPEN SETTING AND SO MAYBE WE CAN INVITE THE PUBLIC FOR THEIR THOUGHTS ON THE MATTER.
BUT I THINK THREE IS A DOABLE NUMBER, A MAXIMUM OF THREE IF THERE IS A PUSH BACK OR ADDITIONAL FEEDBACK FROM THE COMMUNITY MEMBERS WHO THIS ORDERNESS WOULD ACTUALLY AFFECT AND SAY, "HEY, YOU KNOW WHAT? WE REALLY NEED, FOUR OR THREE IS JUST FINE OR TWO ACTUALLY.
WE'RE NOT CONSIDERING MORE THAN TWO," THAT MAY BE A GOOD WAY TO GO, BUT I THINK WE NEED TO COME UP WITH A NUMBER SO WE CAN MOVE FORWARD A LITTLE BIT.
>> WE'RE STILL SUPPOSED TO TALK ABOUT SOMETHING ELSE BEYOND THIS, SO YES.
LET'S JUST SAY THREE FOR NOW, GO WITH THE STANDARD SIZE 9 BY 20 AND LET'S MAXIMUM OFF AND LET'S MOVE ON FROM THERE AND SPLIT IT OUT PARKING AND STORAGE.
DO YOU WANT TO SPEAK ON THIS BEFORE WE MOVE ON OR WE DID WE COVER WHAT YOU WANTED TO COVER?
>> NO. WE'VE COVERED WHAT I WANTED TO COVER.
I FORGOT TO TAKE MY HAND DOWN.
>> ALL RIGHT, GREAT. NOW LET'S MOVE ON TO CAMPING.
OVERNIGHT CAMPING OF ANY KIND SHALL BE PROHIBITED.
>> OKAY. DO WE NEED TO ADDRESS FENCING? NUMBER 5?
>> FENCING. SORRY, I SKIPPED IT.
>> NUMBER 5, FENCING. "TO PREVENT THE PUBLIC FROM ACCESSING THE SITE.
A FENCE SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED TO ENCLOSE THE ENTIRE LOT AND TO DENY ACCESS TO ANY STRUCTURE ASSOCIATED WITH THE LOT.
FENCING SHALL BE A MINIMUM OF FIVE FEET AND HEIGHT AND MAY BE CONSTRUCTED OF CHAIN LINK, A CYCLONE, OR WOOD, OR AS REQUIRED BY DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS.
GATES SHALL BE INSTALLED AT ALL VEHICULAR AND PEDESTRIAN ENTRANCE POINTS." THAT'S NUMBER 5, FENCING.
>> CAN I COMMENT ON THAT PRETTY QUICK? [OVERLAPPING]
[02:15:02]
>> I DO SEE ONE ISSUE WITH THAT IN THAT ENCLOSING THE ENTIRE LOT MAY CONFLICT WITH SEVERAL HOAD RESTRICTIONS WHERE THEY DON'T ALLOW A FENCE [INAUDIBLE] OF ANY BUILDING ON IT.
SO I DON'T KNOW THAT WE'LL BE ABLE TO LOAD THE ENTIRE WEIGHT.
>> THE STATEMENT THERE WHERE IT SAYS, "REQUIRED BY DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS," DOES THAT NOT TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE SUBDIVISION DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS OR [OVERLAPPING] YOU HAVE TO ADD?
>> IF IT'S ASSOCIATED WITH THE SENTENCE ABOVE IT, YES.
>> BECAUSE THE CITY DOESN'T ENFORCE DATA RESTRICTIONS.
>> BUT WE'RE TRYING NOT TO HAVE FOLKS BREAK.
THEY DID RESTRICTIONS AS WELL.
[OVERLAPPING] I THINK YOU SHOULD SAY SOMETHING LIKE YOU JUST MENTIONED, JOHN, EITHER CONSTRUCT THEM TO IMPOSE THE ENTIRE LAW OF ALLOWABLE BY THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, OR READ THE RESTRICTIONS OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
OTHERWISE, TO THE EXTENT ALLOWED.
>> I THINK THAT'S FINE. I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH THAT.
COMMISSIONERS. ANYBODY HAVE A PROBLEM? COMMISSIONER WALLA?
I JUST WANTED TO MAKE A COMMENT ON THE HEIGHT OF THE FENCE.
[INAUDIBLE] HEIGHTS BECAUSE I HAVE A VINYL FENCE AND MOST PEOPLE IN MY NEIGHBORHOOD DO.
I THINK THOSE FENCES ARE ONLY FOUR FEET TALL.
>> THE CITY'S FENCE REGULATION WILL LET YOU GO UP TO FIVE FEET IF IT'S PRIMARILY OPEN.
>> COMMISSIONER [INAUDIBLE] YOU HAD YOUR HAND UP?
>> YEAH. IT'S COMMISSIONER WALLA THERE, YOU CAN BUY SPEND SOME [INAUDIBLE] ROLLS UP TO 130 FEET.
>> IF THAT'S NOT ALLOWABLE IN THEIR NEIGHBORHOOD, IF THEIR NEIGHBORHOOD ONLY ALLOWS FOUR FEET, THEN WE WOULD GO WITH WHATEVER THEIR NEIGHBORHOOD ALLOWS.
>> I'M GOOD WITH THAT. IT WAS JUST A QUESTION. THANK YOU.
>> ALL RIGHT. WE'RE GOOD ON THE FENCING? EVERYBODY GOOD? CAMPING. OVERNIGHT CAMPING OF ANY KIND SHALL BE PROHIBITED.
ANYBODY HAVE A PROBLEM? NO PROBLEMS. SIGNAGE. YOU WANT TO TAKE THAT ONE P? [OVERLAPPING]
A LOW TRESPASSING SIGN SHALL BE ATTACHED EITHER TO THE FENCE SURROUNDING THE LOT, OR A SIGNPOST AND SHALL BE VISIBLE FROM THE STREET RIGHT-OF-WAY.
THE OVERALL HEIGHT OF THE ENTIRE SIGN, INCLUDING THE SIGNPOSTS, SHALL NOT EXCEED FIVE FEET.
THE ILLUMINATION OF THE SIGN IN ANY MANNER SHALL BE PROHIBITED.
SIGNS ARE NOT TO EXCEED 22 INCHES BY 33 INCHES.
>> ANYBODY HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THAT? I DON'T SEE ANY PROBLEMS WITH THAT. LIGHTING?
>> LIGHTING SHALL COMPLY WITH SECTION 7.104 AND SECTION 7.105 OF ARTICLE 7, OUTDOOR LIGHTING.
THOSE SECTIONS [NOISE] WILL JUST BE A LITTLE BIT TOO LARGE TO INCLUDE ANY EXCERPTS.
[NOISE] IT WAS JUST TOO LARGE.
WE THOUGHT IT BEST TO JUST CITE WHERE THOSE STANDARDS CAN BE FOUND.
THAT'S OUR LIGHTING STANDARDS AND THE LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS.
>> MR. MELBOURNE, WE'RE NOT GOING TO WORRY ABOUT ANY LIGHTS OUT ON THE DARK ITSELF, RIGHT?
>> IT DOES ADDRESS THE LIGHTS THAT ARE USED FOR FISHING LIGHTS, IT ADDRESSES LIGHTS THAT ARE ADJACENT TO A CANAL.
SECTION 7.104, IS A SECTION THAT ADDRESSES SINGLE-FAMILY AND TWO-FAMILY LIGHTING OUTDOORS.
[02:20:05]
THEN SECTION 7.105 ARE STANDARDS NEAR BEACHES AND OPEN WATER.IT'S A PRETTY SIGNIFICANT AND ROBUST LIGHTING STANDARDS TO ADDRESS LIGHTING ADJACENT TO WATER.
>> ALL RIGHT. ANYBODY HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THAT? IT LOOKS LIKE WE'RE ON A ROLL. KEEP GOING.
MR. MILLER, EVEN FASTER [LAUGHTER].
>> NUMBER 9. JURISDICTIONAL REVIEW.
THIS IS JUST STATING THAT A COPY OF THE US ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION, PERMIT APPLICATION, BAN, OR MATERIALS REQUIRED FOR THE PROPOSED PROJECT SHALL BE PROVIDED AND OR A LEASE WITH THE TEXAS GENERAL LAND OFFICE.
THAT'S HOW [OVERLAPPING] [INAUDIBLE] JURISDICTIONAL REVIEW.
>> ANYBODY HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THAT? YES, COMMISSIONER MILLER?
>> IN MY NEIGHBORHOOD, LIKE YOUR [INAUDIBLE] IS, OUR BEADS GO OUT INTO THE WATER.
WE WOULD HAVE TO HAVE EITHER ONE OF THOSE, NOT A DOG THERE.
I THINK IT JUST NEEDS TO BE HAPPENING.
>> THERE WOULD BE IF APPLICABLE.
>> WHAT'S NEXT, MR. MELBOURNE?
>> THE NEXT SLIDE IS A PHOTO OF THE FOUNDERS AND WHAT THEY WOULD LOOK LIKE.
LASTLY, THERE'S DISCUSSION, BUT I THINK WE'VE COMPLETED THAT PART. [OVERLAPPING]
>> WE'VE BEEN IN THAT HOUSE? [LAUGHTER]
>> THAT CONCLUDES THE DISCUSSION FOR BOTH HOUSES AND PEERS.
>> NEXT, P, WHAT HAPPENS NEXT? DO YOU REDRAFT? DO WE WORKSHOP IT SO THAT WE INVITE THE PUBLIC TO COMMENT? WELL, IT WILL BE THE DESIRE FOR THE PLANNING COMMISSION BUT CATHERINE, DO YOU WANT TO WEIGH IN ON WHAT WE DO WITH NEW ANALYST WITH LAND USERS?
>> WE CAN BRING IT BACK AS A CASE AND THAT WOULD BE PROVIDED FOR PUBLIC HEARING.
THEN YOU WOULD BE ABLE TO ACT ON IT AND TAKE IT ON UP TO CITY COUNCIL.
>> ARE YOU GOOD WITH THAT COUNCIL MEMBER [INAUDIBLE] DOES THAT SUIT YOU SINCE IT'S GOING TO COUNSEL AFTER IT GOES THROUGH THE PLANNING COMMISSION?
>> YEAH, THAT WOULD BE GREAT BECAUSE THAT WOULD GIVE US ALL AN OPPORTUNITY HERE AT PLANNING TO TALK ABOUT A LITTLE MORE TIME, AND THEN IF WE DO HAVE A PROBLEM, WE CAN ALWAYS DEFER IT, BUT IF WE DON'T, WE CAN MOVE IT ON.
>> OKAY. COMMISSIONERS, ARE WE ALL GOOD ON THAT? THANK YOU VERY MUCH. MR. MELBOURNE.
I KNOW YOU'VE WORKED HARD ON THAT AND I KNOW IT'S BEEN NOT A SUPER FUN PROJECT.
>> GLAD TO MEET THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S EXPECTATIONS AND [INAUDIBLE]
>> THANK YOU. NOW I KNOW WE'RE SUPPOSED TO HAVE ONE MORE ITEM, WE'VE ALREADY DELIVERED AT ONCE, SO I WANT TO GET TO IT.
I HOPE YOU ALL CAN STICK TO IT.
SHOOT! IF WE DON'T LIVE LIKE REALLY SUPER FAST, WE'RE GOING TO MISS SEEING SPACE STATION GO OVER TONIGHT.
[9.B. Discussion Of R-0 Zoning And Short-Term Rentals (Hill)]
DISCUSSION OF RC ROWS ZONING AND SHORT-TERM RENTALS.I KNOW THAT WE HAD A COUPLE OF THINGS THAT WE WANTED TO TALK ABOUT, OWNER-OCCUPIED, WE HAD TALKED ABOUT TO THE EXCLUSION OF A RENTER AND THEN RC ROW VERSUS AN ALTERNATIVE MEANS TO CONTROL DENSITY.
WE HAD THE FARTHEST BECAUSE VICE-CHAIR BROWN WASN'T HERE LAST TIME.
BOB, I KNOW YOU HAD A FEW THINGS THAT YOU SPECIFICALLY WANTED TO DISCUSS WITH THE COMMISSION.
WE WAITED FOR YOU AND WE'D LIKE TO TURN IT OVER TO YOU UNLESS THERE'S SOMEONE ON
[02:25:01]
STAFF WHO GOT SOMETHING THAT THEY'D LIKE TO SAY FIRST? CATHERINE.>> NO, THIS WAS A COMMISSION-LED DISCUSSION ITEM.
>> WELL, I NOW THAT EVERYBODY IS ALL WORN OUT [LAUGHTER].
IT'S PARTICULARLY AN ISSUE FOR ME IN THE EAST END BECAUSE THE SHORT-TERM RENTALS HAVE CAUSED A LOT OF HAVOC HERE.
I'VE BEEN HEARING FROM A LOT OF MY NEIGHBORS ABOUT THIS AS WELL.
NOW I'VE TALKED TO MY COUNCIL PERSON AND MAYOR ABOUT IT.
TO ME, THERE'S AT LEAST THREE PRESSING ISSUES THAT HAVEN'T BEEN HAVING A NEGATIVE IMPACT, AT LEAST IN MY NEIGHBORHOOD.
THE FIRST ONE IS THE NOISE, PARKING, THE TRASH, AND THE GENERAL NEIGHBORHOOD AND NOISE.
THAT'S WHAT YOU GENERALLY HEAR A LOT IN THE NEWS AND FROM EVERYWHERE ELSE.
THE OTHER ONE IS, I GUESS TO ME IS MOST IMPORTANT ONE IS THE DEGRADATION OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD CULTURE.
I LIVE IN A GOOD NEIGHBORHOOD, WHICH YOU'RE REALLY TALKING ABOUT IS YOUR NEIGHBORS AND OTHER PEOPLE THAT YOU SEE EVERY DAY AND WHO HAS YOUR BACK AND SO ON AND SO FORTH.
THEN A THIRD ONE THAT IS NOT TALKED ABOUT MUCH IS THAT THE RUN ON THE PURCHASE OF THESE HOUSES AND THIS HOUSE HERE PUZZLES FOR SHORT-TERM RENTAL WAS DRIVING UP THE PRICES AND THE NEIGHBORHOOD ARTIFICIALLY, WHICH IS MAKING IT REALLY HARD FOR THE LOCAL PEOPLE HERE TO EITHER BUY OR RENT HOUSES.
THESE ARE THE LEVEL OF PEOPLE THAT ARE IN THE WORKFORCE HERE IN TOWN.
IT'S HARD FOR THEM TO AFFORD EITHER THE RED OR TO BUY HOUSES, ESPECIALLY HERE AT EAST.
THEN WE'RE UTMB HAS A REQUIREMENT FOR A HUGE WORKLOADS AND IT'S HARD FOR THEM TO BE ABLE TO AFFORD THESE HOUSES BECAUSE OF THE RUN ON THE SHORT-TERM RENTALS IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD THAT'S DRIVING THEM UP.
IN ORDER TO RESPECT EVERYBODY'S TIME AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE.
LIKE I SAID, I'VE BEEN TALKING TO MY COUNCIL PERSON IN THE MAYOR ABOUT THIS.
I THINK YOU ALL ARE GOING TO TALK ABOUT THIS AGAIN ON THURSDAY, BUT I'M JUST GOING TO BRIEFLY READ TO YOU WHAT THE MESSAGE I SENT TO THEM JUST SO I CAN MAKE AN ASSISTANT MY MESSAGE AND SAY GOODBYE SOME TIME.
THIS WAS PART OF A EMAIL I SENT CRAIG BROWN AND ALSO DAVID COLLINS.
[NOISE] THIS WAS ABOUT SHORT-TERM RENTALS.
IT SAYS, I UNDERSTAND THAT THE SHORT TERM RENTALS IS ON THE WORKSHOP AGENDA FOR DISCUSSION TOMORROW.
THIS WAS THE LAST COUNCIL MEETING THEY DISCUSSED IT.
I HOPE YOU WILL SUPPORT SOME TYPE OF CONTROL OVER THE NUMBER OF STRS IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD.
THERE'S CURRENTLY NO CONTROL OVER DENSITY AND STRS ARE TRANSFORMING MINE AND OTHER NEIGHBORHOODS, ESPECIALLY IN THE EAST END IS SCORED DISTRICT WHERE A MANAGING SUCH AS THE BEACH, UTMB AND DOWNTOWN ARE ALL WITHIN WALKING DISTANCE AND A SMALL RESIDENTIAL SCALE HOUSING IS AVAILABLE IN REASONABLY PRICED COMPARED TO OTHER COASTAL LOCATIONS.
WHAT WE THINK OF AS A GOOD NEIGHBORHOOD IS BASED ON THE PEOPLE THAT LIVE IN IT AND TAKE PRIDE IN THEIR PROPERTY.
THE PEOPLE YOU SEE EVERY DAY AROUND THEIR HOUSE AND YOUR WORK THAT YOU CAN COUNT ON.
STR IS TAKE THAT AWAY AND LEAVE ME WITH LOUD, TRASHY STRANGERS WHO DON'T CARE ABOUT THE HOUSE THEY'RE STAYING IN OR YOURS.
MOST OF THE DISCUSSION ABOUT PROBLEMS OF STRS IN A NOISY GARBAGE AND PARKING.
BUT FROM MY PERSPECTIVE IS LOSING THE CULTURE OF A TRUE NEIGHBORHOOD.
PEOPLE BUILDING ALIVE BY OWNING AND LIVING IN A HOUSE, INTERACTING WITH NEIGHBORS, BEING PART OF THE COMMUNITY, WATCHING OUT FOR ONE ANOTHER, VOLUNTARY AND SHOPPING, WORKING LOCALLY, WALKING THE NEIGHBORHOOD IS ALL PART OF BECOMING PART OF A NEIGHBORHOOD CULTURE THIS LOST WHEN THE HOMES AROUND YOU THAT ARE CONVERTED, THE SHORT-TERM RENTALS IN AN UNCONTROLLED WAY.
NEIGHBORS WHO, WAVE TO YOU AND COUNT ON ARE REPLACED BY STRANGERS LOOKING IT UP ON A WEEKEND.
THOSE NEIGHBORS AND NEIGHBORHOODS THAT COULD HAVE TAKEN ACTION TO BAR STRS THROUGH ZONING.
BUT THIS IS A BLOCK AND CLUMSY TOOL THAT CAN NOT BE PRACTICALLY UTILIZED BY NEIGHBORHOODS THAT REALLY NEED THE CONTROLLED MOST LIKELY TO USE GENDERED HISTORICAL DISTRICT.
CONTROLLING STRS IS NOT ROCKET SCIENCE.
OTHER MUNICIPALITIES AROUND THE COUNTRY ARE DOING IT OFTEN WHEN I BRING IT UP, I GET THE RESPONSE THAT BLUE AUSTIN TRIED THAT AND THEY GOT SUED BY THE STATE OF TEXAS OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
THEY MAY HAVE THAT AUSTIN NEVERTHELESS FOUND A WAY TO CONTROL THE DENSITY OF THEIR SDRS AND THEIR MOST SENSITIVE RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS.
THEY'RE NO LONGER ISSUING PERMITS FOR STRS IN THEIR RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS, FOR NON OWNER OCCUPIED PROPERTY.
THAT'S TIED TO AND THEY'VE CATEGORIZED THREE DIFFERENT TYPES OF SHORT-TERM RENTALS.
TYPE 2, ARE THE RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES IN RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS THAT ARE NON OWNER OCCUPIED.
THAT'S MOSTLY WHAT'S GOING ON HERE IN THE EAST END.
THEY ADDRESSED WHAT THEY THOUGHT WAS THEIR MOST SENSITIVE AREA NEIGHBORS AND THEY GOT IT UNDER CONTROL.
THAT HAS DRIVEN A LOT OF THE STRS OUT INTO THE SUBURBS AROUND ALL.
THEY'VE ALSO GOTTEN SOME THINGS UNDER CONTROL.
THE CITY OF LIGHTWEIGHT HAS A HARD NUMBER,
[02:30:02]
ONLY 25 STR IS ONLY ALLOWED IN THE WHOLE CITY AND THERE'S A TWO-YEAR WAITING LIST.WE ARE QUICKLY LOSING THE CHARACTER OF OUR NEIGHBORHOODS AS HOUSING PRICES, WE'RE ARTIFICIALLY ESCALATED BY STRS, MAKING IT EVEN MORE DIFFICULT FOR THE LOCAL WORKFORCE TO FIND AFFORDABLE ROOM OR PROPERTY TO PURCHASE.
WE HEARD THAT RIGHT AT THE TOP OF THE MEETING TODAY FROM THE FIRST COMMENT RENAME WAS JUST SAINT SIR.
I THINK DISTRICT 3 TALKING ABOUT HOW IT WAS ROUTED, THE PRICES.
THERE'S YOUR VERIFICATION RIGHT NOW OF WHAT I JUST SAID.
BUT ANYWAY, I I SENT THIS TO BOTH MY REPRESENTATIVES AND THEY'RE GOING TO MEET, DISCUSS THURSDAY.
I HAVEN'T SEEN THE AGENDA YET.
I JUST TALKED TO CRAIG COUPLE DAYS AGO ABOUT IT.
BUT THIS IS A REAL CONCERN IN THE EAST END.
IT MAY NOT MAKE FOR SOME OF YOU WHO LIVE IN OTHER NEIGHBORHOODS, YOU DON'T SEE THIS.
BUT FOR MY AREA IT REALLY IS A CONCERN AND I HOPE THAT WE CAN GET SOME CITY STAFF LOOKING AT IT.
I GOT A LOT OF BACKGROUND FROM OTHER AREAS IN AND AROUND AUSTIN.
I'VE SENT ALL OF THAT DATA TO CRAIG AND DAVID COLLINS AND THEY SENT IT ONTO CITY STUFF.
HOPEFULLY WE'LL GET SOME ACTION AND MAYBE HOPEFULLY SOME ADHOC COMMITTEE OR SOMETHING LOOKING AT THIS AND WE CAN GET SOME ACTION.
IDEALLY, WE WANT TO GET SOME REGULATION.
KNOW THAT SCARES EVERYBODY BECAUSE THEY'RE AFRAID OF THEM.
TEXAS LEGISLATOR TO GO AND SHOW THEM DOWN.
BUT I THINK THAT'S NOT A VERY INTEGRATED RESPONSE.
WELL, HOPE WE GET SOMETHING GOING. THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU, BOB. I DO THINK IT IS A VERY LARGE CONCERN ALL OVER THE ISLAND.
I DON'T THINK IT'S JUST THE WEST END JUST THE EAST END.
I THINK IT IS A SHORT-TERM RENTALS ARE PERVASIVE ALL OVER THE WHOLE ISLAND AND MY NEIGHBORHOOD IS LUCKY THAT WE WERE ABLE TO INSTITUTE BARS.
IS IT GOING TO HELP US IN SIX MONTHS OR A YEAR? I DON'T KNOW.
BUT ARE WE THE NEIGHBORHOOD THAT YOU WOULD NORMALLY THINK WOULD BE BIG RENTAL NEIGHBORHOOD, MAYBE NOT, BUT YOU KNOW, THAT'S CHANGING.
SOME OF THESE BIG BEACH BOX RENTALS ARE TURNING CLOSETS INTO BEDROOMS AND THEY'RE SLEEPING 40 PEOPLE IN ONE HOUSE.
I THINK WE'VE GOT A REAL PROBLEM AND I'M REALLY APPRECIATIVE THAT COUNCIL IS GOING TO TRY ADDRESSING IT AND TRYING SOME CREATIVE THINGS.
PLANNING COMMISSION IS HERE TO TRY TO HELP YOU ALL IN DOING WHATEVER WE CAN COUNCIL MEMBER, IF WE CAN IN ANY WAY, WE'LL SUPPORT YOU ALL IN TRYING TO DO WHENEVER WE CAN.
I DON'T KNOW THAT IT'S SOMETHING THAT IS GOING TO BE SOLVED AT THE COUNCIL LEVELS OR THE PLANNING COMMISSION LEVEL OR IT'S GOING TO BE SOLVED IN AUSTIN, I DON'T KNOW.
BUT WE'LL HELP IN ANY WAY THAT WE CAN, YOU KNOW THAT.
DOES ANYBODY ELSE HAVE ANYTHING TO ADD ON THAT? OH, I DIDN'T WANT TO SAY COMMISSIONER WALLEN ON THE OWNER OCCUPIED.
I THINK THAT ON THAT TO GO THAT TO LOOK AT THAT.
I THINK THAT THE WAY THAT IT IS LOOKED AT AS PROBABLY AT THE CENSUS BUREAU LEVEL AND DOESN'T REALLY HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH HOMESTEAD.
THE WAY THAT IT'S MIT IT'S IS OWNER-OCCUPIED TO THE EXCLUSION OF A RENTER.
IT'S EITHER AN OWNER OR RENTER OR IT'S VACANT.
WHO KNOWS, SO IT IS SOMETHING THAT PROBABLY NEEDS TO BE DEFINED BETTER IN RZ ROW.
A SURVIVOR LIVES TO TELL THE TALE.
ANYTHING ELSE, COMMISSIONERS, OR DO I GET TO GO SEE THE SPACE STATION FLY OVERHEAD?
>> ONE QUICK THING. BY SHEER ROUND, YOU HAD MENTIONED THAT THERE WAS SOME MATERIAL THAT THE MAYOR AND COUNCILOR CARLOS HAD DISTRIBUTED TO STAFF. WHO THAT WENT TO?
>> ARE YOU SPEAKING ABOUT THE MATERIAL, THE RECENT MATERIAL I SENT TO DAVID?
>> I SENT THAT TO DAVID COLLINS AND CRAIG BROWN.
>> USE OTHER BASED ON ANONYMOUS SOME STAFF MEMBERS?
>> THAT THEY MIGHT HAVE, I'M NOT SURE.
>> I'VE NOT RECEIVED ANYTHING.
[02:35:02]
CATHERINE, HAVE YOU?>> NO. I HAVEN'T RECEIVED ANYTHING.
>> I WILL EN-QUIRE YOU AFTERWARDS.
POSSIBLY YOU CAN SEND THAT TO US.
>> NO SURE. I'M GOING TO SEND THE BACKGROUND INFORMATION I SENT.
>> NO, NOT AT ALL. I'LL CERTAINLY SEND THEM TO LISTEN TO IT ALL YOU THEN.
>> YEAH. IF YOU'D GOTTEN ME ON THAT TOO, WOULD BE GREAT.
>> ALL RIGHT. ANYTHING ELSE? THANK YOU ALL FOR HANGING IN THERE TODAY.
>> THE TIME TO MESSAGE TO REPLY OVER.
>> IT GOES FROM 10 DEGREES ABOVE SOUTH, SOUTHWEST TO 26 ABOVE EAST, NORTH EAST FOR FIVE MINUTES TONIGHT.
>> I'LL JUST MENTION THAT PETE MELBOURNE AND I HAVE BOTH GOTTEN INTO WATCHING THE SPACE STATION IN THE LAST YEAR AND A HALF. IT'S A LOT OF FUN.
>> DID YOU WATCH IT LAST NIGHT?
>> NO, I FORGOT, BUT I'M GOING TO WATCH IT TONIGHT.
IT JUST WINDED A STRAIGHT LINE, JUST STRAIGHT UP.
WE'RE SUCH NERDS, WE WATCH IT EVERY CHANCE WE GET.
>> ALRIGHT. FIVE, WE STAND ADJOURNED. GOODNIGHT.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.