YES, WE'RE READY. OK, THANK YOU.
[00:00:03]
WE'LL CALL THIS MEETING OF THE GALVESTON PLANNING COMMISSION TO ORDER REGULAR MEETING AT[1. Call Meeting To Order ]
3:30 P.M. TUESDAY, DECEMBER 7TH.THIS IS A VIRTUAL MEETING AND WE'LL START WITH TAKING ATTENDANCE, PLEASE.
[2. Attendance ]
MR. HUMPHREY HAS INDICATED HE'LL BE ABSENT.AND IN ATTENDANCE IN PERSON IS CATHERINE GORMAN, OUR ASSISTANT DIRECTOR AND HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER, AS WELL AS MYSELF, PATRICK COLLINS, PLANNING TECHNICIAN AND THEN ON THE CALL IS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR TIM TIETJENS, PLANNING MANAGER ADRIAN MONTALVAN, SENIOR PLANNER DANIEL LUNSFORD, COASTAL RESOURCES MANAGER BRANDON HILL, ASSISTANT COASTAL RESOURCES MANAGER RUSSELL COLE AND ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY DONNA FAIRWEATHER.
COMMISSIONERS, DOES ANYONE HAVE A CONFLICT OF INTEREST IN THIS MEETING?
[3. Conflict Of Interest]
COMMISSIONER WALLA I HAVE A CONFLICT WITH 21P-065 AND I HAVE SOME QUALIFIED PROFESSIONALS REPRESENTING US IN THIS, BUT THERE COULD BE SOME QUESTIONS THAT THEY MAY NOT HAVE THE ANSWERS TO. SO I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S APPROPRIATE, IF SUCH A SITUATION ARISE WHERE I NEEDED TO OR THERE WAS A QUESTION THAT REQUIRED MY ANSWER IF THAT'S SOMETHING THAT IS APPROPRIATE. SO I'M JUST POSING THE QUESTION, DONNA.SO IN THIS CASE, WHEN THAT CASE IS CALLED, YOUR SCREEN WOULD LITERALLY GO DARK.
YOU'D BE ABLE TO PARTICIPATE AS AN APPLICANT IN YOUR IN THIS CASE, IN THE CASE THAT YOU ARE DECLARING A CONFLICT FOR.
SO YOU CANNOT REPRESENT YOURSELF AS A COMMISSIONER OF THE BOARD; YOU BASICALLY JUST IDENTIFY YOURSELF AS WHO YOU ARE PERTAINING TO THIS CASE.
YOUR SCREEN WOULD BE DARK AND THE COMMISSIONERS CAN ASK QUESTIONS OF YOUR REPRESENTATIVES AND OR YOU IF THAT'S THE WAY YOU WANT TO GO WITH IT.
BUT YES, YOU CAN PARTICIPATE IN THIS MATTER AS WELL.
I DON'T ANTICIPATE HAVING TO BE A PART OF THAT, I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE IF THAT SITUATION ARISE TO A NEW PROBLEM, BASICALLY COMMISSIONER WALLA MY UNDERSTANDING THAT YOU WOULD YOU YOU'RE ALLOWED TO PARTICIPATE IN THE SAME WAY THAT ANY OTHER APPLICANT WOULD BE IN THIS. IN THAT SITUATION, YOU'RE AFFORDED THAT SAME OPPORTUNITY JUST AS AN APPLICANT, NOT A COMMISSIONER.
MEETING FORMAT, WOULD YOU LIKE TO HANDLE THAT MS.
[4. Meeting Format (Staff) ]
GORMAN? WE JUST HAVE OUR STANDARD MEETING REMINDERS THAT IT'S BEST TO WATCH THE MEETING IN GALLERY VIEW AND SEE ALL OF YOUR COMMISSIONERS AT THE SAME TIME AND THAT'S HOW IT'S SHOWN TO THE PUBLIC.WE ASK THAT YOU REMAIN MUTED UNLESS SPEAKING TO CUT DOWN ON BACKGROUND NOISE.
WE ALSO ASK THAT YOU PHYSICALLY RAISE YOUR HAND TO GET THE CHAIR'S ATTENTION BEFORE SPEAKING OR MAKING A MOTION.
WE'LL BE DOING ALL THE VOTES BY ROLL CALL AND FOR MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC WHO ARE PARTICIPATING IN THE MEETING.
I WILL ASK THAT YOU USE THE RAISE HAND FUNCTION TO INDICATE THAT YOU'D LIKE TO SPEAK.
AND CATHERINE, CAN YOU REMIND ME, PLEASE, WE DON'T HAVE ANOTHER MEETING IN DECEMBER, WE HAVE OUR JANUARY 4TH MEETING.
IS THIS OUR FINAL VIRTUAL MEETING AS CALLED BY COUNCIL? WILL OUR JANUARY 4TH MEETING BE BACK IN PERSON IN COUNCIL CHAMBERS? THE JANUARY 4TH MEETING WILL BE THE LAST VIRTUAL MEETING THAT THE MOTION THE ORDER BY THE COUNCIL ALLOWS FOR VIRTUAL MEETINGS THROUGH THE END OF JANUARY OF 2022.
SO WE'LL BE BACK IN PERSON FOR THE FEBRUARY MEETINGS.
OK, WE'LL SEE WHAT YOU DO TO US, COUNCIL MEMBER LISTOWSKI.
[CHUCKLING] BETTER NOT BE COUGHING.
[00:05:02]
ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU.NEXT, WE HAVE OUR APPROVAL MINUTES COMMISSIONERS.
[5. Approval Of Minutes ]
WE HAD ONE MINOR SPELLING CORRECTION ON OUR NOVEMBER 16 MINUTES, AND I KNOW THAT MR. COLLINS HAS ALREADY CHANGED THAT.DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER ADDITIONS, CORRECTIONS TO OUR NOVEMBER 16TH MINUTES? SEEING NONE WILL ACCEPT THOSE AS WRITTEN.
PUBLIC COMMENT, WE HAVE SEVERAL WAYS TO ACCEPT PUBLIC COMMENT TODAY BY ZOOM OR IN WRITING . I WANT TO ASSURE THE PUBLIC THAT ANY PUBLIC COMMENT THAT WAS RECEIVED IN WRITING PRIOR TO NOON TODAY HAS BEEN SENT OUT TO ALL COMMISSIONERS.
WE RECEIVED THOSE AND WE HAVE HAD AMPLE TIME TO READ THEM.
IF YOU WANT TO COMMENT ON-AGENDA ITEMS, YOU MAY DO THAT AT THE TIME THAT WE CALL THE AGENDA ITEMS BY USING THE RAISE HAND FUNCTION.
AS I SAID, IF YOU DID THAT IN WRITING EARLIER, WE HAVE RECEIVED THOSE AND THOSE WILL BE INCORPORATED INTO THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING.
NON-AGENDA ITEMS YOU MAY COMMENT ON NOW, IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO.
CATHERINE, WE ASK THAT ANY MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC WISHING TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS USE THE RAISE HAND FEATURE THAT CAN BE FOUND AT THE BOTTOM OF YOUR SCREEN. NONE.
FIRST ORDER OF BUSINESS ARE PUBLIC HEARINGS.
FIRST THING WE HAVE ARE SOME PLATS.
I WOULD LIKE TO SAY THAT THESE PLATS ARE MINISTERIAL RE-PLATS AND THAT THOSE COME BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION, WHEN ALL OF THE REGULATORY COMMISSIONS ARE MET.
NO ACTIONS ARE REQUIRED TO BE TAKEN BY A PLANNING COMMISSION.
IT'S JUST A COURTESY TO THE PUBLIC FOR TRANSPARENCY THAT WE HEAR THESE IN PUBLIC AND WE WILL HEAR THE CASE REPORT.
THE COMMISSIONERS WILL BE ALLOWED TO ASK QUESTIONS IF THEY HAVE ANY.
THEN THE APPLICANT WILL BE ALLOWED TO SPEAK AND THEN THE PUBLIC MAY SPEAK.
THIS IS NOT A QUESTION AND ANSWER PERIOD.
IT'S JUST A THREE MINUTE COMMENT PERIOD.
IF ANYONE HAS ANY COMMENTS THAT THEY'D LIKE TO GIVE.
THE FIRST CASE THAT WE'LL HEAR IS 21P-067.
[7.A.1. 21P-067 (2001 61st Street, 6111 Heards Lane, 6113 Heards Lane, And Adjacent Vacant Parcel) Request For A Replat In Order To Combine The Number Of Lots From Eleven To One. The Properties Are Legally Described As: Lots 2 Through 7 & Part Of 1 (2-0), Block 3, H.M. Truehearts Addition; Lot 8 And East 7 Feet Of Lot 9, Block 3, H.M. Truehearts Addition; West 18 Feet Of Lot 9 And East 12 Feet Of Lot 10 (9-1), Block 3, H.M. Truehearts Addition; And West 13 Feet Of Lot 10 And East 17 Feet Of Lot 11 (10- 1), Block 3, H.M. Truehearts Addition; In The City And County Of Galveston, Texas. Applicant: Windrose Land Services Property Owner: Heards 61st LLC]
THANK YOU. 21P-067, THIS IS AT 2001 61ST ST.6111 HEARDS LANE, 6113 HEARDS LANE AND ADJACENT VACANT PARCELS.
THIS IS A REQUEST FOR REPLAT FROM 12 LOTS INTO ONE LOT.
THERE WERE 26 PUBLIC NOTICES SENT.
WRITTEN PUBLIC NOTICE OF THE REQUEST IS REQUIRED, AS COMMISSIONER HILL MENTIONED, THEY'RE SENT TO ALL PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN TWO HUNDRED FEET OF THE SUBJECT SITE.
THERE WERE NO CITY DEPARTMENT COMMENTS OR CONCERNS NOTED.
THE APPLICANT'S REQUESTING A REPLY TO DECREASE THE NUMBER OF LAWSUITS FROM 12 TO 1.
THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS NEAR 61ST STREET, CURRENTLY CONTAINING A SMALL RETAIL SHOPPING CENTER AND THE PROPERTIES TO THE WEST ARE UNDEVELOPED.
OF COURSE, LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE CHAPTER 212.015 REQUIRES A PUBLIC HEARING FOR RE-PLATS, WHICH INVOLVE MORE THAN FOUR LOTS, REGARDLESS OF WHAT THE BASE ZONING MAY BE, PLEASE NOTE THE ZONING AND LAND USE OF THE SUBJECT PARCEL AND SURROUNDING AND THE STAFF REPORT THE SUBJECT. PARCELS ARE PARTIALLY DEVELOPED, INCLUDING EXISTING RETAIL STRUCTURE BUILT CIRCA 1968 [INAUDIBLE] 61ST STREET IS AT THE CORNER OF 61ST AND HEARDS LANE.
THE REMAINDER OF THE PARCELS ARE UNDEVELOPED AND HAVE ACCESS TO HEARDS LANE, ALL THE PROPERTY IS ZONED COMMERCIAL.
THE LOT WILL HAVE ACCESS TO EXISTING MUNICIPAL WATER AND SANITARY SEWER SERVICE LOCATED IN HEARDS LANE RIGHT OF WAY.
THERE'S ALSO A WATER LINE IN THE 61ST STREET RIGHT OF WAY.
NEITHER ENGINEERING NOR PUBLIC WORKS RETURN ANY OBJECTIONS TO THE PROPOSED REPLAT COMMERCIAL ZONING DISTRICT LOT REQUIREMENT IN THIS AREA, ARE A MINIMUM OF 40 FEET WIDE, [INAUDIBLE] 100 FOOT LONG [INAUDIBLE] FOUR THOUSAND SQUARE FOOT.
THE REPLAT SEES MINIMUM STANDARDS FOR LOTS IN THE COMMERCIAL ZONING DISTRICT.
THE LOT WILL BE OVER ONE HUNDRED TWENTY FOOT WIDE, OVER TWO HUNDRED AND FORTY FOUR FOOT LONG, AND APPROXIMATELY THIRTY ONE THOUSAND TWO HUNDRED EIGHTY EIGHT SQUARE FOOT IN AREA.
SO THE PLAT WILL BE APPROVED WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SPECIFIC CONDITIONS ONE THROUGH TWO STANDARD CONDITIONS THREE THROUGH FOUR.
I THINK WE MAY HAVE A PRESENTATION.
SO THIS IS A SUBJECT PROPERTY AND IT'S FOUR ADDRESS LOTS, BUT IT'S ACTUALLY MULTIPLE
[00:10:07]
LEGAL SUBDIVIDED LOTS MORE THAN FOUR, WHICH IS WHY WE HAVE THE PUBLIC HEARING TODAY.IF THERE WERE LESS THAN FIVE, IT WOULD HAVE BEEN ADMINISTRATIVE.
NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. SO HERE WE HAVE THE EXISTING SURVEY SHOWING THE LOTS INVOLVED IN THE LOCATION OF THE EXISTING RETAIL CENTER AND PARKING STRUCTURES AND THE PROPOSED REPLAT, WHICH WILL JUST BE TAKING ALL THOSE PARCELS AND COMBINING THEM FOR REDEVELOPMENT.
I BELIEVE THAT CONCLUDES STAFF'S REPORT.
THANK YOU, MR. LUNSFORD, COMMISSIONER CITY.
SEEING NONE WE'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AND IS THE APPLICANT WITH US TODAY? IF THE APPLICANT'S ON THE CALL, WE ASK THAT YOU USE THE RACE HAND FEATURE IN ORDER TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION.
OKAY, THANK YOU. ARE THERE ANY MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC WHO WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION ON THIS MATTER? THAT WOULD BE THE SAME. IF YOU'D LIKE TO SPEAK, PLEASE USE THE RAISE HAND FUNCTION.
THANK YOU. WE'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS MATTER AT THREE FORTY TWO PM AND WE'LL MOVE ON TO CASE 21P-069.
[7.A.2. 21P-069 (2401 103rd Street) Request For A Replat In Order To Increase The Number Of Lots From One To Two. The Property Is Legally Described As Lot 1 Neumann Addition (2020) Abstract 121, In The City And County Of Galveston, Texas. Applicant: Joe Broussard, Neumann Investments, LLC. Property Owner: Neumann Investments, LLC. ]
WHO IS THE CASE MANAGER FOR THIS CASE? I'M AFRAID I DON'T REMEMBER OFFHAND.IT SAYS DANIEL AND DANIEL YOU'RE MUTED.
NO PROBLEM. ALL RIGHT, LET ME TRY IT AGAIN.
ALL RIGHT, 21P-069, THIS IS 2401 103RD ST IT'S REQUEST FOR REPLAT FROM ONE LOT INTO TWO.
ONCE AGAIN, THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING.
THERE WERE NO CONCERNS NOTED FROM CITY DEPARTMENT REVIEWS.
IN THIS CASE, THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A REPLAT TO INCREASE THE NUMBER OF LAWSUITS FROM ONE TO TWO.
THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS CURRENTLY UNDEVELOPED.
THE TEXAS LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE CHAPTER 212.015 REQUIRES A PUBLIC HEARING FOR REPLATS THAT INCREASE THE NUMBER OF LOTS IN A SINGLE FAMILY ZONING DISTRICT.
IN THIS CASE, THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS R-1.
PLEASE NOTE THAT AND THE ZONING AND LAND USE OF THE SURROUNDING PARCELS IN THE STAFF REPORT.
THE PROPERTY AND THE PROPERTIES TO THE EAST AND SOUTH ARE UNDEVELOPED.
THE PROPERTIES TO THE NORTH AND WEST CONTAIN SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES.
BOTH LOTS WILL HAVE ACCESS TO EXISTING MUNICIPAL WATER AND SEWER LINES LOCATED IN THE WERN RD RIGHT OF WAY.
MUNICIPAL WATER AND SEWER LINES ARE ALSO PRESENT IN THE 130RD STREET RIGHT OF WAY.
NEITHER ENGINEERING NOR PUBLIC WORKS RETURNING OBJECTIONS TO THE PROPOSED REPLAT.
THIS IS RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY ZONING DISTRICT LOT REQUIREMENTS IN THIS AREA ARE MINIMUM OF FIFTY FOOT WIDE, MINIMUM OF ONE HUNDRED FOOT LONG AND A MINIMUM OF 5000 SQUARE FOOT. THE REPLAT EXCEEDS THE MINIMUM STANDARDS FOR LOTS IN THE ZONING DISTRICT PER ARTICLE THREE OF OUR LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS, BOTH LOTS WILL BE AT LEAST EIGHTY SEVEN FOOT WIDE AT LEAST ONE HUNDRED TWELVE POINT FIVE FEET LONG AND AT LEAST NINE THOUSAND SEVEN HUNDRED EIGHTY SEVEN SQUARE FOOT IN AREA, AS SHOWN IN THE STAFF REPORT.
THE PLAT WILL BE APPROVED WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SPECIFIC CONDITIONS ONE IN TWO IN STANDARD CONDITIONS THREE AND FOUR, AND I BELIEVE WE HAVE A PRESENTATION.
SO HERE'S THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.
YOU CAN SEE THE WERN ROAD RIGHT OF WAY AND 103RD STREET.
NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. HERE ON THE LEFT, WE HAVE THE EXISTING SURVEY AND ON THE RIGHT, WE HAVE THE PROPOSED REPLAT SHOWING A LOT AT THE CORNER OF 103RD STREET AND WERN ROAD AND THEN A SLIGHTLY LARGER, SOMEWHAT LARGER LOT THAT WOULD BE RE-PLATTED BEHIND THAT FRONTING WERN ROAD.
NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. ALL RIGHT.
I GUESS THIS CONCLUDES STAFF REPORT.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MR. LUNSFORD.
COMMISSIONERS, ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF.
SEEING NONE WE WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 3:46 SIX P.M.
IS THE APPLICANT WITH US TODAY? IF THE APPLICANT'S ON THE CALL, WE ASK THAT USE THE RACE HAND FUNCTION IN ORDER TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION. SEEING NONE.
[00:15:05]
THANK YOU. DO WE HAVE ANY MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC WHO WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION ON THIS MATTER? YES, IT LOOKS LIKE WE HAVE ONE SPEAKER, TRICIA CAMPBELL.YOU'VE BEEN UNMUTED ON OUR END.
YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO UNMUTE AND ADDRESS THE COMMISSION.
HELLO, MRS. CAMPBELL. YOU HAVE THREE MINUTES TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION.
THANK YOU. MY NAME IS TRICIA CAMPBELL.
I LIVE AT 2319 103RD ST, TWO LOTS AWAY FROM THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.
THANK YOU FOR HEARING MY COMMENTS.
I DID PROVIDE A FOUR PAGE LETTER IN RESPONSE TO THE MEETING REQUEST, BUT I WILL KEEP MY COMMENTS BRIEF. THE REPLAT AT 2401 103RD ST SHOULD BE DENIED BECAUSE ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT ON THE LOTS ALONG WERN ROAD WILL ADVERSELY IMPACT THE ADJACENT PROPERTIES.
THE CURRENT PROPERTY FLOODS MY YARD AT 2319 103RD ST, FLOODS MY NEIGHBOR'S YARD AT 2325 103RD ST AND ALSO IMPACTS THE MARSH THAT'S ON THE WEST END OF THE PROPERTY.
TO MY KNOWLEDGE, THE APPLICANT DID NOT COORDINATE WITH THE U.S.
ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 404 OF THE CLEAN WATER ACT REGARDING MARSHLAND. THESE AREAS IF RE-PLATTED ARE GOING TO CAUSE ADDITIONAL FILL TO BE BROUGHT INTO THE AREA, WHICH IS GOING TO CAUSE EVEN WORSE, FLOODING IN THE AREA.
I BELIEVE THAT THE APPLICANT DID NOT MEET REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS.
I BELIEVE THAT HIS DRAINAGE PLAN WAS INADEQUATE.
I'VE TRIED OVER THE PAST SEVERAL MONTHS TO CONTACT DIFFERENT PEOPLE.
I CONTACTED HIS REALTOR WHO DIDN'T RETURN MY CALL.
I CONTACTED MR. [INAUDIBLE], WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS.
FOR ME, THAT WAS BACK IN JULY, BUT HE HASN'T GOT BACK TO ME EITHER.
I HAVE CONCERNS WITH THIS REPLAT THAT IT WILL CAUSE ADDITIONAL FLOODING IN OUR YARDS.
THE FLOODING THAT WE ARE EXPERIENCING IS BEYOND A TYPICAL RAIN EVENT IN GALVESTON IS A DIRECT RESULT OF THE APPLICANT'S ACTIONS.
I PROPOSE THAT ANY FURTHER ACTIONS AND ANY FURTHER CONDITIONS IN THE REPLAT REQUEST REQUIRE CORPS OF ENGINEER APPROVAL FOR THE MARSH THAT IS SHOWN ON THE WEST EDGE OF THE PROPERTY ON THAT SURVEY PLOT.
I AM CONCERNED ABOUT THE FUTURE DEVELOPMENT, BUT ALTHOUGH I AM CONCERNED I'M NOT TOTALLY AGAINST DEVELOPMENT, I APPRECIATE SINGLE FAMILY HOMES AS OPPOSED TO COMMERCIAL VENTURES OR APARTMENT COMPLEXES.
BUT ANY DRAINAGE PLAN THAT ROUTES ADDITIONAL WATER ONTO EXISTING PROPERTIES SHOULD BE DISAPPROVED. I DO NOT AGREE WITH THIS REPLAT.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND ALLOWING ME TO SPEAK.
THANK YOU, MS. CAMPBELL. THANK YOU FOR BEING WITH US TODAY.
AS STATED EARLIER, THIS IS NOT AN ACTION ITEM ON OUR PART, SIMPLY A PUBLIC HEARING.
THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE, MS. GORMAN. ANYBODY ELSE WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK, PLEASE USE THE RACE HAND FUNCTION.
WE'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING ON ITEM 21P-069 AT 3:49 PM.
THANK YOU. WE'LL NOW OPEN WILL NOW HEAR CASE 21P-070.
THIS PUBLIC HEARING FOR A REPLAT IS AT 30801 THROUGH 30825 EL LAGO.
THIS IS A REQUEST TO REPLAT SEVEN LOTS INTO NINE LOTS.
THERE WERE NO CONCERNS OR COMMENTS, NO FROM CITY DEPARTMENTS.
NOW THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING REPLAT TO INCREASE THE NUMBER OF LOTS FROM SEVEN TO NINE.
ALL OF THESE SUBJECT TRACKS ARE CURRENTLY UNDEVELOPED.
ONCE AGAIN, THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT CHAPTER 212.015 REQUIRES A PUBLIC HEARING FOR REPLATS, INCREASING THE NUMBER OF LOTS IN SINGLE FAMILY ZONING DISTRICTS.
PLEASE NOTE THE ZONING AND LAND USE IN YOUR STAFF REPORT, THE AREA IS GENERALLY ALL SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL.
[INAUDIBLE] PARCELS ARE ALL UNDEVELOPED AND LAND IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT IS LIKEWISE UNDEVELOPED IN ALL DIRECTIONS.
GENERALLY SPEAKING, THE AREA IS KNOWN FOR SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED RESIDENCES.
ALL OF US WILL HAVE ACCESS TO EXISTING MUNICIPAL WATER AND SANITARY SEWER LOCATED IN THE EL LAGO RIGHT OF WAY. NEITHER ENGINEER NOR PUBLIC WORKS RETURNED ANY OBJECTIONS TO THE PROPOSED REPLAT.
THE RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY ZONING REQUIREMENTS IN THIS AREA ARE MINIMUM 50 FEET WIDE, A MINIMUM OF 100 FOOT LONG AND MINIMUM OF FIVE THOUSAND SQUARE FEET.
THE REPLAT EXCEEDS THE MINIMUM STANDARDS FOR LOTS IN RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY ZONING DISTRICT, PER ARTICLE THREE OF OUR LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS.
ALL LOTS WILL BE AT LEAST FIFTY ONE POINT NINETY SEVEN FEET WIDE, AT LEAST ONE HUNDRED AND TWENTY TWO FOOT LONG, AND AT LEAST SIX THOUSAND EIGHT HUNDRED SEVEN SQUARE FOOT IN AREA, AS SHOWN IN ATTACHMENT B OF THE STAFF REPORT.
THE PLAT WILL BE APPROVED FOR THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS A SPECIFIC CONDITION ONE IN STANDARD CONDITIONS TWO AND THREE.
I BELIEVE WE HAVE A PRESENTATION.
[00:20:08]
SO HERE WE HAVE THE AERIAL VIEW SHOWING THE PARCELS IN QUESTION.NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. HERE WE HAVE THE PROPOSED REPLAT, AND YOU CAN SEE THAT THEY'RE TAKING THE EXISTING.
SEVEN LOTS RECONFIGURING THEM SLIGHTLY TO MAKE A TOTAL OF NINE, SLIGHTLY SMALLER LOTS.
NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE AND THIS CONCLUDES STAFF'S REPORT.
THANK YOU, MR. LUNSFORD. COMMISSIONERS, ANY QUESTIONS? SEEING NINE, WE'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 3:51 PM.
IS THE APPLICANT WITH US TODAY.
IF THE APPLICANT'S ON THE CALL, IF YOU COULD USE THE RAISE HAND FUNCTION.
DO WE HAVE ANYONE ELSE WHO WOULD LIKE TO MAKE PUBLIC COMMENT ON THIS CASE? IF THERE'S ANY MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK.
PLEASE USE THE RACE HAND FUNCTION.
OK, WE HAVE ONE. LAUREN [INAUDIBLE] OK, YOU'VE BEEN UNMUTED ON OUR END.
YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION.
GOOD AFTERNOON, WELCOME AND YOU HAVE THREE MINUTES.
WELL, THANK YOU. I DO APPRECIATE YOU GIVING ME A PLATFORM WHERE [INAUDIBLE] CAN BE HEARD.
I DO LIVE AT 3914 EL LAGO STREET AND ALTHOUGH I DO HAVE A LOT OF QUESTIONS, I REALIZE THIS IS NOT A PLATFORM FOR THAT.
I DID SPEAK WITH MR. LUNSFORD LAST MONDAY, NOVEMBER 39TH.
HE WAS NICE ENOUGH OVER THE PHONE AND HE DIDN'T WANT TO DISCOURAGE OUR EFFORTS AND THAT THIS MEETING WAS JUST A FORMALITY AND THERE'S BASICALLY NOTHING THAT WE COULD DO, AND IT WOULD BE PROVED BECAUSE OF HB 3167.
I DO REALIZE THAT IT DOES MEET MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS FOR THIS TO BE RE-PLATTED.
HOWEVER, ACCORDING TO SOME OF MY UNDERSTANDING TO THIS, HE IS INCORRECT TO SAY THAT THERE'S NOTHING I CAN DO AND IT WILL BE APPROVED BECAUSE THIS LAW, BECAUSE WHAT THE BILL STATES, IS THAT A RESPONSE IS REQUIRED, WHICH MEANS THAT A RESPONSE CAN BE APPROVED OR IT CAN BE DENIED.
IF I'M INCORRECT, PLEASE LET ME KNOW.
MR. LUNSFORD WAS CORRECT IN SAYING THAT THERE'S NOTHING I AND MY FELLOW NEIGHBORS CAN DO REGARDING THIS DIVIDING OF THE LOT, SO THE POWER TO VOTE ON THIS IS NOT WITH US AND IT IS OUT OF OUR HANDS.
THEREFORE, I DO LOOK AT ALL OF YOU WHO ARE IN FRONT OF ME ON THE SCREEN AND WHO ARE NOT VISIBLE THAT YOU GUYS, YOU HOLD THE POWER MAKING THIS DECISION FOR US.
WE DO PLEAD TO YOU ALL TO FIND IN FAVOR OF YOUR PERMANENT RESIDENCE HERE IN PALM BEACH.
WE PLEAD TO YOU THAT YOU PROTECT THE INTEGRITY OF OUR QUIET LITTLE SLICE OF ISLAND PARADISE AND PREVENT FURTHER GREED AND WHAT HAS NOW BECOME A DEVELOPER'S PARADISE.
WHILE WE DO NOT HAVE THE ASSISTANCE OF AN HOA HERE, WE DO PLEAD WITH YOU ALL HERE TO SUPPORT US. THIS DEVELOPER PLANS TO BUILD THE EXACT SAME LITTLE HOUSE ON EACH LOT, WITH JUST THE EXCEPTION OF A COLOR.
WE MAY NOT HAVE THE ABILITY TO PREVENT THIS DEVELOPER FROM BUILDING WHAT IS DESIGNED TO BE A SHORT TERM VACATION RENTAL ON THESE SEVEN LOTS OF QUESTIONS, BUT WE CAN AT LEAST DECREASE THE AMOUNT HE IS ABLE TO REPRODUCE.
SOMETHING THAT HAS COME TO MIND LATELY IS A SOLID LITTLE BOX THAT Y'ALL MIGHT BE FAMILIAR WITH IT. SOME OF THE LYRICS ON HERE ARE SHORT AND SWEET.
THERE'S A LITTLE PINK ONE AND A LITTLE GREEN ONE AND A LITTLE BLUE ONE AND A YELLOW ONE AND THEY'RE ALL MADE OUT OF TICKY TACKY, AND THEY ALL LOOK JUST THE SAME.
I ASK THAT YOU TAKE A MOMENT AND CONSIDER YOUR GALVESTON CITIZENS LIKE US HERE IN PALM BEACH. THIS IS NOT SOMETHING WE WANT TO LIVE NEXT TO, AND I'M WILLING TO BET THAT THIS IS SOMETHING THAT YOU WOULDN'T WANT IN YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD, EITHER.
THERE IS NOTHING BUT A MONEY VENTURE FOR THIS DEVELOPER AT THE EXPENSE OF THE PEOPLE WHO LIVE HERE, WHICH IS US, THE FULL TIME RESIDENTS WHO MAKE THIS LITTLE FLOATING SANDBAR OUR HOME. THIS IS WHERE WE LIVE, GUYS.
WE LIVE HERE AND THE POINT IS THIS DEVELOPER DOESN'T.
OWNING A HOUSE THAT YOU MAY VISIT EVERY FEW MONTHS FOR A DAY OR SO REALLY DOESN'T COUNT.
AGAIN, I WON'T TAKE UP ANY OF YOUR TIME.
THANK YOU AND I REALLY HOPE THAT YOU WILL CONSIDER US THE PERMANENT RESIDENTS OF GALVESTON WHEN YOU DO MAKE YOUR VOTE AND THAT'S ALL.
AGAIN, THIS IS NOT AN ACTION ITEM ON OUR PART.
WE DO NOT VOTE ON THIS MATTER.
IT IS SIMPLY A PUBLIC HEARING AND A MATTER BROUGHT TO US AND YOU ALL FOR TRANSPARENCY SAKE, NOT AN ACTIONABLE ITEM ON OUR PART.
SO IS THERE ANYONE ELSE MS. GORMAN WHO WANTS TO SPEAK ON THIS MATTER? THERE'S ANYBODY ELSE WHO WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION AND PLEASE USE THE RACE HAND FUNCTION. SEEING NONE.
OH, I'M SORRY. SHERRY [INAUDIBLE].
[00:25:04]
OK, I'M GETTING AN ERROR NOTICE THAT MS. [INAUDIBLE] IS USING AN OLDER VERSION OF ZOOM, SO I HAVE TO DO A COUPLE OF STEPS IN ORDER TO GIVE HER PERMISSION TO SPEAK.SO IT MIGHT TAKE ME A MINUTE OR TWO.
THAT'S FINE. OK, THAT WASN'T TOO BAD.
OK, MS. [INAUDIBLE], YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO UNMUTE ON YOUR END AND ADDRESS THE COMMISSION.
MS. [INAUDIBLE] ARE YOU THERE? HELLO.
YES WE CAN HEAR YOU, IF YOU'D LIKE TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION, YOU'LL HAVE THREE MINUTES.
THANK YOU. HONESTLY, LAUREN DID A FABULOUS JOB OF EXPRESSING OUR SENTIMENTS.
I UNDERSTAND, WEREN'T ALLOWED TO ASK QUESTIONS AT THIS MEETING, BUT I I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY THIS IS NOT ACTIONABLE AND WHO MADE THAT DECISION THAT IT ISN'T ACTIONABLE.
I DO UNDERSTAND ABOUT THE HOUSE BILL AND I JUST REALLY DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW THIS COULD BE TOTALLY DECIDED ARBITRARILY, IT SEEMS TO ME [INAUDIBLE] IT SHOULD NOT BE ARBITRARY.
SO IT'S VERY DISAPPOINTING AND IT DOES AFFECT OUR FUTURE AND OUR VALUES, AND IT IS OF GREAT CONCERN TO THIS NEIGHBORHOOD.
IS THERE ANYONE ELSE, CATHERINE? IF THERE'S ANOTHER MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK, PLEASE USE THE RAISE HAND FUNCTION. SEEING NONE.
THANK YOU, I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING ON 21P-070 AT 3:58 P.M..
DONNA, IS THERE ANYTHING THAT YOU WOULD LIKE TO SAY ABOUT ALL OF THESE REPLATS AND THE MINISTERIAL FUNCTION OVERALL ABOUT THESE AND WHY THEY ARE HEARD RATHER THAN ACTIONABLE, AND THAT IT'S BEEN A DECISION OF THIS COMMISSION TO EVEN HEAR THEM AS AS A MATTER, OF COURSE, FOR TRANSPARENCY, SAY, MAYBE YOU CAN SAY IT DIFFERENTLY THAN I HAVE.
WELL, I'LL REAFFIRM WHAT HAS ALREADY BEEN SAID ADEQUATELY BY MS. CHAIRWOMAN, AS WELL AS WHEN DANIEL WAS PRESENTING THE CASES.
WHAT THE PUBLIC NEEDS TO BE MADE AWARE OF IS THAT THE LEGISLATURE MADE CHANGES BACK IN 2019 AND THOSE CHANGES HAVE REGULATED THE ABILITY OF CITIES TO REVIEW THESE CASES PRIOR TO 2019, WHERE CITIES HAD A LITTLE BIT MORE TEETH IN THE REVIEW PROCESS. THERE IS A TIME FRAME THAT HAS BEEN INSTITUTED IN THE LEGISLATIVE PROCESS NOW.
THERE IS A NO MORE THAN 30 DAY REQUIREMENT.
I WILL MAKE A BRIEF COMMENT ON THE ABILITY OF THE COMMISSIONERS TO HEAR THESE CASES.
THE PLANNING COMMISSION SPECIFICALLY WANTED THE PUBLIC TO HEAR THESE CASES, EVEN THOUGH THE MEMBERS UNDERSTOOD THAT IT WAS AN ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS.
THEY WANTED THE TRANSPARENCY OF THESE CASES TO BE SEEN SO THAT CONSTITUENTS, RESIDENTS, ANYONE OF INTEREST CAN MAKE THEIR COMMENTS AND ALSO BE MADE AWARE OF WHAT MAY BE COMING INTO THEIR NEIGHBORHOODS AND IT IS SOMETHING THAT UNLESS THE COMMISSIONERS CHOOSE TO NOT SEE THESE CASES IN THE FUTURE, IT WILL BE A PROCESS THAT WILL CONTINUE FORWARD AND I DO WANT TO COMMEND THE COMMISSIONERS FOR WANTING TO MAKE SURE THAT THERE IS UTMOST TRANSPARENCY IN THIS PROCESS.
WE HAVE SEEN IN CASES WHERE APPLICANTS HAVE LISTENED TO COMMENTS HAVE CHANGED THEIR PLANS REGARDING SOME OF THE COMMENTS AND MADE MODIFICATIONS HAVE SPOKEN TO THE COMMUNITIES THAT MAY BE AFFECTED, AND I BELIEVE THOSE ARE ALL POSITIVES.
BUT ULTIMATELY, WHEN AN ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS IS IN PLACE, THE ABILITY OF THE COMMISSIONERS TO MAKE ANY CHANGES TO THAT, WHETHER OR NOT IT'S TO APPROVE OR DISAPPROVE, IT IS ONLY BASED ON WHETHER OR NOT THOSE REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS ARE MET AND IN THIS CASE, THE REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS, THE MINIMUM PLAT SIZES, LOT SIZES HAVE BEEN MET, AND THAT'S WHY IT IS SOLELY AN ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS.
THANK YOU, DONNA. HOPEFULLY, WE'VE EXPLAINED NOW ADEQUATELY AND TO THE PEOPLE WHO WERE
[00:30:07]
KIND ENOUGH AND INVOLVED ENOUGH TO BE HERE AND MAKE PUBLIC COMMENT.WE TOO ARE ALSO ALL PERMANENT RESIDENTS AND WE HAVE THE SAME INTERESTS THAT YOU DO IN MAINTAINING THE CHARACTER OF OUR ISLAND, WHICH IS WHY WE CHOSE TO HAVE THESE CASES AT LEAST HEARD AND FOR YOU TO BE NOTICED ABOUT WHAT'S HAPPENING IN YOUR NEIGHBORHOODS PRIOR TO IT HAPPENING.
OTHERWISE, THIS WOULD JUST HAPPEN AND YOU'D NEVER EVEN KNOW ABOUT IT UNTIL AFTER IT HAPPENED. SO AT LEAST THIS KEEPS YOU IN THE LOOP.
SO PERHAPS YOU CAN AT LEAST HAVE A DISCUSSION PRIOR TO WITH THE DEVELOPERS PRIOR TO ALL OF THIS HAPPENING.
SO THANK YOU AND I THINK TO CITY STAFF, I THINK THERE WERE A COUPLE OF COMMENTS ON HERE IN THE CHAT FUNCTION.
IF YOU ALL MIGHT FOLLOW UP WITH WHOEVER WAS IN THE CHAT FUNCTION ABOUT SOME QUESTIONS THAT THEY HAD, PLEASE, WE SURE WILL.
THANK YOU. I APPRECIATE IT, CATHERINE, NOW WE'LL MOVE ON TO CASE 21P-007, PLEASE.
[8.A.1. 21P-007 (4235 Las Palmas Blvd) Request For Beachfront Construction Certificate And Dune Protection Permit For Construction Of A Single-Family Dwelling With A Driveway. Property Is Legally Described As Abstract 121, Page 41, Lot 81, Block 1, Palm Beach, In The City And County Of Galveston, Texas. Applicant And Property Owner: Bendel Seveil Rushing Jr And Lori Ann Rushing - Trustees Of The Bendel & Lori Rushing Revocable Trust ]
ALL RIGHT. 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 FIBERCRETE DRIVEWAY AND A FIBERCRETE PAD BENEATH THE HABITABLE STRUCTURE.
THE ADDRESS IS 11603 BEACHSIDE DRIVE.
THE LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPERTY IS ABSTRACT 121 PAGE 41, LOT 81, BLOCK 1 PALM BEACH. THE PLANNING COMMISSION PREVIOUSLY HOSTED A PUBLIC HEARING FOR DUNE MITIGATION IN JULY 2019.
IN JULY 2021, THE APPLICANT RECEIVED A BEACHFRONT CONSTRUCTION CERTIFICATE AND DUNE PROTECTION PERMIT APPLICATION TO COMPENSATE FOR ADVERSE IMPACTS TO SIX HUNDRED AND EIGHTY TWO SQUARE FEET OF DUNE VEGETATION OFF SITE.
THE SUBJECT SITE IS LOCATED IN THE PALM BEACH SUBDIVISION, SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS ARE LOCATED TO THE NORTH AND EAST.
LAS PALMAS DR IS LOCATED TO THE WEST 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 FIVE TO SIX FEET PER YEAR.
THE PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION OF THE ADDITIONS ARE APPROXIMATELY ONE FOOT FROM THE NORTH TOE OF THE CRITICAL DUNE AREA AND FIFTY ONE FEET FROM THE LINE OF VEGETATION.
THE PROPOSED SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE IS LOCATED PARTIALLY WITHIN THE DUNE CONSERVATION AREA WITHIN THE ENHANCED CONSTRUCTION ZONE AND WITHIN 200 FEET LANDWARD OF THE LINE OF VEGETATION, WHICH IS TWO HUNDRED FEET FROM MEAN LOW TIDE IN THIS AREA.
ACCORDING TO THE APPLICATION MATERIALS, THE PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES DO NOT APPEAR TO BE SEAWARD OF CURRENT DUNES OR DUNE VEGETATION.
THEREFORE, MITIGATION ACTIVITIES ARE NOT PROPOSED UPON CONSIDERATION OF ALL PERTINENT COMPONENTS OF CHAPTER TWENTY NINE PLANNING, BEACH ACCESS, DUNE PROTECTION AND BEACH RECONSTRUCTION, AND THE GLO'S COMMENTS RECEIVED IN THE COURSE OF CONSIDERING THIS PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION.
STAFF WILL GLADLY SHARE OUR KNOWLEDGE OF THE CASE AND INSIGHTS REGARDING THE APPLICATION OF COASTAL POLICY AND PROCESS.
HOWEVER, DUE TO THE COMPLEX AND SENSITIVE NATURE OF THIS CASE STAFF SEEKS THE FEEDBACK FROM AND DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION AS THEY ARE ULTIMATELY THE ONES WITH GRANTING ABILITY TO GRANT EXEMPTIONS TO CONSTRUCTION WITHIN THE DCA IN GRANTING COASTAL PERMITS OF THIS NATURE.
THE APPLICANT HAS PROVIDED AMPLE NARRATIVE REGARDING THE LENGTHS TO WHICH HE HAS GONE TO PROPOSE THE CONSTRUCTION OF THIS HOME, A SPECIAL EXEMPTION WAS GRANTED FROM THE ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT TO ALLOW THE HOME TO MOVE CLOSER TO THE PARCEL LINE ON THE NORTH SIDE. A MITIGATION PLAN FOR THE IMPACTS OF THE DUNE WAS GRANTED AND THE APPLICANT HAS PROPOSED SEVERAL ITERATIONS OF THE HOME ON THE LOT.
A SIGNIFICANT PORTION OF THE HOME IS LOCATED SEAWARD OF THE PRE-IMPACT DUNE PROTECTION LINE. ALTERNATIVE LOCATIONS OR STRUCTURAL DESIGNS FOR THE HOME MAY EXIST, WHICH FURTHER REMOVE IT FROM THE DUNE CONSERVATION AREA.
PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL OF THIS CASE WOULD RESULT IN STAFF'S INCLUSION OF THE GLO'S COMMENT LETTER WITH THE CITY'S ACTION LETTER, WHICH SERVES AS A BEACHFRONT CONSTRUCTION CERTIFICATE AND DUNE PROTECTION PERMIT STAFF REPORT PAGES TWO THROUGH THREE LISTS THE CURRENT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL.
NOW STAFF HAS PREPARED PHOTOS OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY FOR YOUR REVIEW.
[00:35:07]
ALL RIGHTY. FIRST, WE SEE AERIALS OF THE PARTIAL IN QUESTION SHOWN TO BE IN THE AREA, ERODING AT THE PREVIOUSLY DESCRIBED RATE OF FIVE TO SIX FEET PER YEAR, AS WELL AS IN THE BASE FLOOD ELEVATION ZONES OF 17 AND 18 FEET.ON THE NEXT SLIDE, WE HAVE THE APPLICANT SUBMITTED SATELLITE IMAGERY OF THE LOT IN QUESTION ABOVE AND ANGLED FROM THE NORTHWEST.
ON THE NEXT SLIDE ,WE HAVE THE SITE SURVEY CONDUCTED AUGUST 24TH OF THIS YEAR, INDICATING A, THE LOCATION OF THE DUNES PRIOR TO THE UNPERMITTED IMPACTS B, THE CURRENT LOCATION OF THE DUNES ADJACENT TO THE SITE AND C, THE TWENTY FIVE FOOT OFFSET FROM THE NORTH TOE OF THE DUNES PRIOR TO THEIR UNPERMITTED IMPACTS.
THIS LINE C IS THE LINE WHICH DEFINES THE EDGE OF THE DUNE CONSERVATION ARE, THE DCA AND SUBSEQUENTLY THE AREA WITHIN WHICH THE APPLICANT REQUIRES AN EXEMPTION FROM THE PLANNING PERMISSION TO BUILD.
IN THE APPLICANT'S LATEST SUBMISSION, AS SHOWN HERE, THERE ARE NINE PILINGS AND A PORTION OF FIBERCRETE WITHIN THE DCA.
NO FIBERCRETE IS PERMITTED WITHIN THE DCA, BUT THE PLANNING COMMISSION MAY PROVIDE AN EXEMPTION FOR ANY OR ALL PILINGS.
I WILL ALSO NOTE HERE THAT WHILE THE MOST SOUTHEAST PILING OF THE HOUSE IS WITHIN AREA A INDICATING THE PREVIOUS LOCATION OF THE CRITICAL DUNE AREA, THIS AREA IS ALREADY BEING MITIGATED FOR AS HAVING BEEN IMPACTED UNLESS I HAVE CONFIRMED WITH THE GLOW THAT THIS MAY BE CONSIDERED SIMILARLY AS WITHIN THE DCA AND NOT AS WITHIN THE CRITICAL DUNE AREA.
SO ESSENTIALLY THE SAME AS THE OTHER PILINGS SOUTH OF THAT BLUE LINE, C.
ON THE NEXT TWO SLIDES, FIRST, WELL, WE SEE THE SIDE PROFILES OF THE HOUSE DISPLAYING THE ABSENCE OF ENCLOSURES WITHIN THE DCA AND THE DECK AND PORTION OF THE HOUSE ABOVE THE DCA.
WE SEE THE GROUND FLOOR PLAN, AS WELL AS THE FLOORPLAN OVERLAID WITH A SURVEY INDICATING THE CURRENT STATE OF THE DUNES, WHICH IS ONLY TO INDICATE THE RELATION AS TO WHAT IS CURRENTLY PRESENT.
ON THE NEXT SLIDE, WE HAVE THE TOPOGRAPHICAL SURVEY OF THE CURRENT STATE OF THE LOT ALSO, FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES, AS WELL AS THE DRAINAGE PLAN THE APPLICANT HAS PROVIDED, WHICH INDICATES DRAINAGE TOWARDS THE BAY AS REQUIRED AND ALSO TO THE NORTHWEST THERE TO LA PALMAS. ON THE NEXT SLIDE, WE HAVE PREVIOUS ITERATIONS OF THIS PLAN WHICH WERE SUBSEQUENTLY ALTERED TO REDUCE THE AMOUNT OF HOUSE AND THE NUMBER OF PILINGS WITHIN THE DCA IN COMPARISON TO THE CURRENT PLAN, THE ONE ON THE FAR RIGHT THERE, WHICH HAS NINE PILINGS WITHIN THE DCA, I BELIEVE VERSIONS ONE AND TWO HAD 12 AND 13 PILINGS RESPECTIVELY, AND THE APPLICANT MAY BE ABLE TO DISCUSS THE SQUARE FOOTAGE REDUCTIONS. I'LL LET YOU TAKE A MOMENT THERE TO EVALUATE THE COMPARISONS, AND I BELIEVE YOU MAY SEE FROM VERSION ONE TO TWO WHERE THE ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS EXEMPTION WAS GRANTED TO MOVE IT MORE NORTHWARD.
FOR THE FOLLOWING SLIDES, THE APPLICANT HAS PROVIDED DESCRIPTIONS OF THE PHOTOS HIMSELF, WHICH I WILL NOW PRESENT READING THESE DESCRIPTIONS.
FOR ONE AND TWO, THE NORTH BOUNDARY OF THE PROPOSED HOME PUSHED AS FAR NORTH AS POSSIBLE, AS REQUESTED BY GLO AND CITY OF GALVESTON.
THE PROPERTY LINE IS A SMALL STAKE NEXT TO THE LARGE BLOCK PILING AND SEWER TIE IN, WHICH I'VE HIGHLIGHTED HERE. THE EXISTING HOME IS BUILT ESSENTIALLY ON THE PROPERTY LINE THAT PUTS FIVE FEET BETWEEN STRUCTURES.
BEING PERMITTED TO MOVE THE PROPOSAL 10 FEET INTO THE 20 FOOT BUILDING LINE MINIMIZES THE AMOUNT OF FOOTAGE THAT IS FIVE FOOT APART.
NEXT SLIDE. APPROXIMATE BORDER OF THE SOUTH END OF THE PROPOSED HOME, WHICH WOULD LIE WITHIN THE DCA.
THE DECK IS 10 FEET AND ALL THAT WOULD BE IN THE MARKED AREA ARE THE POSTS SUPPORTING THE DECK. THE CORNER CLOSEST TO THE STREET IS APPROXIMATELY TWENTY EIGHT FEET FROM THE SOUTH PROPERTY LINE, AND THE CORNER CLOSEST IS APPROXIMATELY 32 FEET FROM THE PROPERTY LINE.
[00:40:01]
NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. THE PLACEMENT OF THE HOME RELATIVE TO THE EXISTING HOMES TO THE WEST SHOWS HOW MUCH FURTHER INLAND THIS HOME WOULD BE BUILT.NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. NUMBER FIVE IS THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE PROPERTY LINE IS THE SMALL STAKE NEXT TO THE LEFT SIDE OF THE POWER POLE.
THE HOME TO THE NORTH LIES CLOSE TO THAT NORTH LINE.
DRAWN AN ARROW THERE FOR VIEWING AND THEN SIX THROUGH NINE, WHICH WILL CYCLE THROUGH ARE ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF THE FOOTPRINT OF THE PROPOSED HOME AND ITS LOCATION RELATIVE TO OTHER HOMES. NEXT, PLEASE.
TEN IS ADJACENT HOME TO THE EAST, PROPOSED HOME WILL BE BUILT 15 TO 18 FEET FURTHER LANDWARD THAN THAT HOUSE.
THE NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. FINALLY, ALMOST DONE, WE HAVE A FEW ADDITIONAL PHOTOS STAFF HAS TAKEN TODAY SHOWING THE CURRENT STATE OF THE LAW AND ADDITIONAL PERSPECTIVES.
HERE FIRST SHOWING THE ADJACENT BEACH ACCESS POINT TO THE LOT FROM THE WEST.
NEXT TO THAT AGAIN, THE NORTHWEST PROPERTY BOUNDARY MARKER SHOWING THE PROXIMITY TO THE HOME TO THE NORTH.
NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE AND FINALLY, SHOWING ANGLED VIEWS OF THE LOT FROM THE BEACH AND THE DUNES THERE. THIS CONCLUDES THE STAFF'S REPORT, AND I THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME.
ALL RIGHT, COMMISSIONERS WHO HAS QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? WE'LL START WITH VICE CHAIR BROWN.
YEAH, ON ONE OF THE MAPS, I DON'T KNOW HOW TO DESCRIBE IT, BUT IT INDICATED THAT THE FIBERCRETE WAS GOING TO BE OUTSIDE OF THE TWENTY FIVE FOOT OFFSET.
AND IS THAT CORRECT? BECAUSE THERE WAS SOME CONFLICTING INFORMATION THERE.
SOME OF THE MAPS WERE NOT DRAWN IN AGREEMENT WITH ONE ANOTHER, I THINK IS THAT RIGHT? THAT THERE WILL BE NO FIBERCRETE INSIDE THE DUNE PROTECTION AREA? THIS HAS BEEN DESCRIBED BY THE APPLICANT AS A DISCREPANCY BETWEEN THE ARCHITECTURAL DRAWINGS AND THE SURVEY OF THE PRODUCTION LINE.
THE APPLICANT HAS IN EMAILS, CONFIRMED THAT THIS WILL BE UPDATED TO BE SURE, NO FIBERCRETE WILL BE WITHIN THIS ZONE, THAT IT WILL BE MOVED BACK BEHIND THAT LINE THERE.
BUT THIS IS SOMETHING THAT MIGHT MAKE A GOOD FRIENDLY AMENDMENT TO CONFIRM THAT.
SO WE NEED TO CONFIRM THAT, RIGHT? THAT'S STILL KIND OF UP IN THE AIR, RIGHT? YES, IT IS PENDING THE UPDATED VERSION OF THIS DRAWING.
OK, AND THE SOUTHEAST CORNER COLUMN THERE IS THAT IN YOUR REPORT THERE, YOU SAY THE DISTANCE OF THE STRUCTURE FROM THE NORTH OF THE DUNE IS ONE FOOT.
IS THAT IS THAT SOUTHEAST CORNER? THAT COLUMN THERE ON THE DRAWING IS THAT ONE FOOT FROM THE NORTH OF THE DUNE? IS THAT RIGHT? YES, SIR.
SO THAT IS ONE FOOT FROM THE CURRENT DUNE, SO THAT IS WHAT I MENTIONED, HAVING SPOKEN TO THE GLO ACTUALLY EARLIER TODAY.
SO THE APPLICANT IS BEING HELD TO THE SETBACKS FROM THE DUNE AS IT EXISTED PRIOR TO IMPACTS. HOWEVER, THE WAY IT WAS EXPLAINED TO ME, AND I'LL SEE IF I CAN LAY THIS OUT STRAIGHT, AS YOU ARE FAMILIAR, THE PLANNING COMMISSION IS ALLOWED TO MAKE EXEMPTIONS TO WHERE AN APPLICANT COULD EVEN BUILD WITHIN THE CRITICAL DUNE AREA.
HOWEVER, AS YOU MAY RECALL, IF THAT OCCURS, AN APPLICANT MUST MITIGATE FOR THAT DAMAGE.
IN THIS CASE, THE DAMAGE HAS ALREADY OCCURRED.
THE APPLICANT IS ALREADY MITIGATING FOR THAT DAMAGE.
SO EVEN THOUGH THIS IS WITHIN THE AREA THAT DUNES PREVIOUSLY EXISTED WHERE THAT CORNER PILING IS.
IT'S ESSENTIALLY ALREADY BEING COMPENSATED FOR AND SO FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION, IT MAY BE CONSIDERED THE SAME AS BEING IN THE DUNE CONSERVATION AREA, BUT NOT WITHIN THE CRITICAL
[00:45:06]
DUNE AREA. SO FUNCTIONALLY THE SAME AS THE REST OF THOSE PILINGS.SO IT'S ONE FOOT FROM THE CURRENT DUNES.
OK, I GOT THAT AND THEY THEY HAVE ALREADY THEY HAVE THAT PERMIT THAT JULY 2021 BEACHFRONT CONSTRUCTION CERTIFICATE AND DUNE PROTECTION PERMIT.
HAVE THEY STARTED ANY WORK TOWARDS THAT YET? IS THAT STILL A GOOD PERMIT? NO CHANGES TO IT. THERE ARE NO CHANGES TO THAT PERMIT.
IT IS ONE YEAR FROM JULY 2021 THAT THEY WILL HAVE TO START WORK AND THEN THEY'LL HAVE THREE YEARS FROM THAT.
THEY WILL HAVE TO HAVE THE WORK COMPLETED.
THE APPLICANT HAS STATED THAT THEY WANTED TO WAIT UNTIL HURRICANE SEASON WAS OVER, THAT THEY PLAN ON STARTING, I BELIEVE THEY STATED BEGINNING OF THIS COMING YEAR, THERE IS A REQUIREMENT THAT ANY CONSTRUCTION WOULD HAVE TO BE AFTER THE I BELIEVE IT'S AFTER THE COMPLETION OF THE DUNE MITIGATION AND IF NOT THAT THE APPLICANT WOULD HAVE TO SHOW EVIDENCE OF FINANCIAL CAPABILITY OF COMPLETING THAT.
SO THERE ARE RESTRICTIONS IN PLACE TO ENSURE THAT THE DUNE IS DONE OR THERE'S THE ABILITY TO COMPLETE IT BEFORE ANY CONSTRUCTION COULD MOVE FORWARD.
OK, I HAD JUST A COUPLE MORE QUESTIONS AND I'LL BE DONE.
ON PAGE TWO OF THE STAFF REPORT SAYS IN ACCORDANCE WITH CHAPTER TWENTY NINE, PLANNING BEACH ACCESS DUNE PROTECTION OF BEACHFRONT CONSTRUCTION, YOU'VE GOT SIX POINT ONE TWO THREE FOUR FIVE SIX POINTS AND THREE OF THOSE SIX POINTS ARE CHECKED.
DOES THAT MEAN THE OTHER THREE CONDITIONS ARE NOT BEING MET? ONE MOMENT WHILE I PULL THIS UP, BUT I BELIEVE THAT IS A CORRECT INTERPRETATION, SO THAT IS CORRECT, WE MADE SOME BULLET POINTS UNDER THOSE AS TO WHY THOSE ARE NOT BEING MET.
SO THE FIRST ONE, THE STANDARD IS THAT IT'S NOT A PROHIBITED ACTIVITY.
SO THIS IS WITHIN THE DUNE CONSERVATION AREA, SO IT WOULD REQUIRE AN EXEMPTION.
THE SECOND THAT THERE'S NO PRACTICABLE ALTERNATIVES.
THIS IS A POINT WHERE, AS I MENTIONED, THE APPLICANT HAS PROVIDED A NARRATIVE WHICH I BELIEVE WAS INCLUDED IN THE STAFF PACKET, WHICH INCLUDES THE HISTORY OF THIS CASE AND HOW THE APPLICANT FEELS THAT THERE IS NO OTHER PRACTICAL ALTERNATIVES AS SHOWN.
THERE HAVE BEEN SEVERAL ITERATIONS OF THIS THAT WERE DONE TO REDUCE THE FOOTPRINT OF THIS HOUSE AND REDUCE THE AMOUNT OF HOUSE WITHIN THE DUNE CONSERVATION AREA.
IT IS POSSIBLE THAT ALTERNATE LOCATIONS OR STRUCTURE DESIGNS OF THE HOME MAY EXIST, WHICH WOULD FURTHER REMOVE IT FROM THE DUNE CONSERVATION AREA.
SO THIS IS SOMETHING WE ARE LEAVING UP TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO DECIDE AND THE SAME THING FOR THE THIRD POINT THAT IS UNCHECKED, THAT THE STRUCTURE IS LOCATED AS FAR LANDWARD AS PRACTICABLE.
IT IS AS FAR LANDWARD AS PRACTICABLE IN THE SENSE THAT IT WENT AS FAR BACKWARDS AS IT COULD BE, AND THEN IT EVEN GOT AN EXEMPTION TO GO FARTHER BACK.
HOWEVER, AGAIN, IT IS POSSIBLE THAT PORTIONS OF THE HOUSE THAT ARE MORE SEAWARD COULD BE REMOVED OR REARRANGED OR REDESIGNED SOMEHOW TO REMOVE IT FURTHER FROM THE DUNE CONSERVATION AREA.
OK, ARE YOU THINKING OF SOMETHING IN PARTICULAR ABOUT HOW THAT MIGHT BE DONE THAT DOESN'T MOVE IT FURTHER LANDWARD? IT'S GOT A DECK ON IT.
DO THEY NEED A DECK TO LIVE IN IT? NO. SO THIS IS SOMETHING THE PLANNING COMMISSIONERS MAY BRING UP WITH THE APPLICANT.
THIS IS NOT SOMETHING THAT WE HAVE EXPERTISE IN, ONLY THAT WE ARE LOOKING AT THE FOOTPRINT AND SEE THAT IT IS OVER AND IT'S SOMETHING THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION MAY CONSIDER. SO YOU THINK THAT THERE'S SOMETHING ABOUT THIS HOUSE THAT COULD EASILY BE MOVED MORE LANDWARD TO GET IT FURTHER OUT OF THE DCA? THE APPLICANT DOES NOT FEEL THAT WAY.
IT IS POSSIBLE THAT THERE ARE ALTERNATIVES THAT MAY BE EXPLORED, AND THIS IS WHERE WE ARE DEFERRING TO Y'ALL'S EXPERTISE.
ALL RIGHT, THAT'S ALL. THANK YOU.
[00:50:01]
WELL, WHAT I THINK IS SIGNIFICANT, BOB, AND I THINK THAT YOU'VE JUST, YOU KNOW, LET US ALL DOWN THE PATH, BOB, IS WHAT I THINK IS REALLY SIGNIFICANT ABOUT THIS STAFF REPORT IS THAT WE HAVE TWO PLACES IN THIS STAFF REPORT, AND I DON'T KNOW THAT I HAVE EVER SEEN THIS IN A STAFF REPORT IN MY FOUR PLUS YEARS ON THIS COMMISSION, WHERE WE HAVE SEEN THE SAME SENTENCE TWICE ALTERNATIVE LOCATIONS OR STRUCTURAL DESIGNS FOR THE HOME MAY EXIST, WHICH WILL REMOVE IT FURTHER FROM THE DCA.YOU KNOW, WHETHER IT IS TO TAKE THE DECK OFF, RECONFIGURE IT, MOVE IT OUT.
YOU KNOW, IT LOOKS LIKE TO ME AND I'M NO JUST ONE SECOND, DAVID, WHETHER I YOU KNOW AND I'M NO ARCHITECT, BUT WHETHER IT COULD BE MOVED FARTHER OVER TO THE EAST OR WHATEVER.
BUT, YOU KNOW, IT SEEMS LIKE THERE ARE OTHER ROUTES THAT COULD BE TAKEN.
BUT THIS IS DEFINITELY I'M SEEING SOME THINGS IN THIS STAFF REPORT THAT I HAVE NEVER SEEN BEFORE THAT MAKE ME DEFINITELY TAKE A BIG STEP BACK AND LOOK AT SOME DIFFERENT THINGS.
SO, DAVID, GO AHEAD, PLEASE, SIR.
OH, ONE CLARIFICATION IN THE APPLICANT'S NARRATIVE, THEY REFERENCE A MEETING AND APPROVAL BY THE ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ON AUGUST 4TH THAT ALLOWED THEM A TEN FOOT SPECIAL EXEMPTION TO THE 20 FOOT BUILDING LINE.
I JUST WANTED STAFF TO GIVE ME THE VERBAL APPROVAL THAT YES, THAT IS IN FACT TRUE.
YES, WE CAN VERIFY THAT WAS RECEIVED BY THE ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS.
OK AND THEN THE OTHER POINT THAT I WANTED TO MAKE COMMISSIONER HILL CHAIRMAN HILL, IS THAT IT'S NOT JUST THE DECK THAT IS IN THE DCA, BUT A PORTION OF THE SECOND LEVEL AND OCCUPANCY OF THE HOUSES AT DCA AS WELL.
ABSOLUTELY. OK, SO I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT YOU WERE AWARE OF THAT.
BUT I'M JUST SAYING THAT IN AND OF ITSELF, YOU KNOW, JUST YOU KNOW HOW I ALWAYS LOSE MY MIND OVER A DECK, YOU KNOW, OVER A DECK IN THE DCA.
I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE YOU WERE AWARE OF THAT.
SO I HAD THAT THE COMMENT THAT WE COULD MINIMIZE FURTHER THE NINE PILINGS.
SO I THINK WE'VE COVERED ALL OF MY QUESTIONS.
COMMISSIONERS, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? SEEING NONE.
WE WILL NOW OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 4:24 P.M AND IS THE APPLICANT WITH US TODAY.
YES, THE APPLICANT IS ON THE CALL, I WILL UNMUTE HIM ON OUR END.
OK, YOU'VE BEEN UNMUTED ON OUR END.
YOU CAN UNMUTE ON YOUR END AND ADDRESS THE COMMISSION.
HI, EVERYBODY, MY NAME IS BENDALL RUSHING AND I WANT TO THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND ATTENTION TODAY AND I'VE WATCHED A LOT OF YOUR MEETINGS, SO I TRULY WISH WE WERE HAVING THIS DISCUSSION FACE TO FACE, AS I BELIEVE THAT'S THE FORMAT THAT YOU KNOW IS BEST AND THAT THIS FORMAT DIMINISHES THE PERSONAL ASPECTS OF THESE SITUATIONS.
I ASKED MYSELF IN PREPARING FOR TODAY, WHAT MAKES EACH OF YOU WANT TO SERVE IN THIS CAPACITY TO DECIDE ON SOMETHING LIKE THIS? AND I BELIEVE THAT IT'S BECAUSE YOU CARE, YOU CARE ABOUT YOUR COMMUNITY, YOUR NEIGHBORS, THE LONG TERM HEALTH OF THE CITY.
BUT I ALSO BELIEVE IT REQUIRES EMPATHY, AS WELL AS THE TECHNICAL EXPERTISE THAT EACH OF YOU SEPARATELY BRING TO THAT COLLECTIVE.
I WANT YOU TO KNOW THAT I CARE ABOUT ALL THOSE THINGS AS WELL.
THE WEST END OF GALVESTON HAS BEEN A PART OF ME AND MY FAMILY SINCE MY GRANDPARENTS BUILT THE FIRST OF TWO CABINS THERE IN NINETEEN SIXTY, AND THAT'S WHERE I SPENT ALL MY SUMMERS.
I WAS FORTUNATE TO HAVE MET IN PERSON WITH THIS BODY ON JULY THE 20TH IN PRESENTING MY PLAN FOR MITIGATING THE DAMAGE TO THE VEGETATION [INAUDIBLE] CAUSED BACK IN JULY OF 2019.
COINCIDENTALLY, I WAS EARLY TO THAT MEETING, JUST LIKE I WAS TO THIS, AND I DIDN'T REALIZE Y'ALL TALKED SO MUCH ABOUT FOOD TRUCKS, BUT I NOTICED THERE ARE SOME NEW FACES THAT WERE NOT A PART OF THAT MEETING.
AND SO I'D LIKE TO REITERATE A LITTLE BIT OF THE HISTORY.
I THOUGHT RUSSELL DID A REALLY GOOD JOB, BUT THIS PROPERTY WAS PURCHASED IN 1977 BY MY
[00:55:05]
MOM. IT WAS ALWAYS HER INTENT TO BUILD A HOME ON IT AND LIVE, BUT FINANCIAL CIRCUMSTANCES IN HER LIFE PREVENTED THAT.SO IN FACT, FOR THE LAST 18 YEARS OF HER LIFE, I SUPPORTED HER AND ACTUALLY PAID THE TAXES MYSELF ON THIS, EVEN THOUGH I DIDN'T OWN IT.
PRIOR TO HURRICANE IKE LAS PALMAS STREET, THE STREET THAT IT FRONTS THERE TURNED THE CORNER AND JOINED THE PARALLEL STREET OVER ON THE EAST SIDE, WHICH IS VISTA.
SO IT'S TECHNICALLY A CORNER LOT.
PEOPLE WOULD PARK ALL OVER THE LOT.
SO WE INSTALLED WOODEN POST, MARKING THE PROPERTY LINE TO TRY TO PREVENT THAT IN THOSE POSTS ARE STILL THERE TODAY.
IN 2008, HURRICANE IKE DESTROYED THE DUNES AND ALL THE SAND WAS WASHED LANDWARD AND COVERING THE ROADS AFTER THE STORM.
THE ASPHALT, FOR THAT PART, JOINING THOSE TWO ROADS WAS WASHED AWAY AND WHEN THE CITY OR THE COUNTY NOT SURE WHICH STARTED RETURNING SAND TO THE BEACH DUNE AREA, THEY DUMPED IT WHERE THE STREET HAD ORIGINALLY BEEN AND IN THE PROCESS, THEY DUMPED SAND ON THE SOUTH END OF THIS LOT. IF YOU HAVE A BIRD'S EYE VIEW OF THE DUNE LINE, IT'S A PRETTY STRAIGHT LINE, EXCEPT IN THIS AREA WHERE THIS LOT SITS.
IN 2008, WE DIDN'T VIEW IT AS A PROBLEM BECAUSE GALVESTON HAD MUCH BIGGER ISSUES.
IN 2019, I GOT A NOTICE OF APPRAISAL FROM GALVESTON COUNTY, WHERE THEY HAD INCREASED THE TAX RATE ON THIS PROPERTY FROM $7 TO $20 A SQUARE FOOT AND THAT'S ALMOST 300 PERCENT INCREASE, AND I PROTESTED, BUT I DIDN'T RECEIVE ANY RELIEF BECAUSE I WAS TOLD AND IT'S ALMOST A QUOTE THAT PROPERTY IS BEACHFRONT.
IT'S VALUABLE, DESIRABLE AND BUILDABLE, AND I DECIDED THE TIME HAD COME TO BUILD.
SO THE FIRST THING I THOUGHT I NEEDED TO DO WAS GET THAT SAND OFF THE LOT THAT SHOULD HAVE NEVER BEEN PUT THERE AND THAT'S WHAT I WAS DOING IN JULY OF 2019 WHEN I GOT STOPPED AND I LEARNED IT WASN'T AS SIMPLE AS THAT JUST TO TELL YOU I'M A PERSON THAT TRIES TO FOLLOW THE RULES.
THAT'S A PRODUCT OF MY UPBRINGING, MY 10 YEARS AS AN AIR FORCE OFFICER AND FIGHTER PILOT, 30 YEARS OF FLYING TWO HUNDRED AND FORTY PASSENGERS ACROSS THE POND AND AROUND THE WORLD, AS WELL AS MY POSITION AS A SCOUT MASTER GOING ON TWENTY THREE YEARS.
SO OVER THE PAST TWO YEARS, I'VE TRIED TO NAVIGATE THE PROCESS, DOING EVERYTHING THE RIGHT WAY IN AN ATTEMPT TO BUILD.
IT'S BEEN CHALLENGING WHEN I SPENT SOME OF THAT TIME WATCHING THIS BODY IN AN ATTEMPT TO GAIN INSIGHT INTO WHAT I NEEDED TO DO TO SATISFY YOU FOLKS IN THE PROCESS.
THE WORK OF A&M WETLANDS RESULTED IN THE DOCUMENTS I PRESENTED IN JULY, AS WELL AS THE PROPERTY WITH THE PLACEMENT OF THE PROPOSED HOME.
IT SHOWS ALL THE LINES MARKING THE DUNE LINES, VEGETATION DAMAGE AND 25 FOOT OFFSET FROM THE ORIGINAL AREA PRIOR TO THE DAMAGE THAT I'LL BE MITIGATING.
IT'S ACTUALLY ON MY BOY SCOUT CALENDAR TO DO THIS IN THE SPRING SO THAT I HAD MY SCOUTS PARTICIPATE IN THIS CONSERVATION PROJECT.
IN DESIGNING A HOME FOR THE LOT, I WAS INFORMED THAT I HAD TO CONSIDER THE 25 FOOT OFFSET LINE THAT EXISTED PRIOR TO MY UNAUTHORIZED ACTIVITIES FOR THE PURPOSE OF WHERE I COULD PLACE FIBERCRETE. THEY GAVE ME VERY LITTLE AREA TO ACTUALLY DO THAT.
ANOTHER MAJOR PROBLEM I FACE IS THE HOME TO THE NORTH, AS RUSSELL STATED, IS BUILT RIGHT ON THE PROPERTY LINE.
MY ONLY OPTION WAS TO APPLY TO THE ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND ASK FOR A SPECIAL EXEMPTION TO MOVE THE STRUCTURE TO THE WEST 10 FEET.
NOW THAT GAVE ME ENOUGH GROUND TO PUT FIBERCRETE UNDER IT, TO HAVE THE ENTRANCE, A GARAGE AND OUTSIDE SHOWER.
FROM THAT ORIGINAL DESIGN, WE'VE MADE AT LEAST THREE MAJOR DESIGN CHANGES, INCLUDING REDUCING THE NUMBER OF PILINGS IN THE 25 FOOT OFFSET FROM EITHER 13 OR 14 TO EITHER EIGHT OR NINE, DEPENDING ON WHICH SURVEY YOU USE.
WE ALSO REDUCED THE NORTHERN WIDTH FROM THIRTY FIVE FEET TO TWENTY SEVEN FEET, AND THAT ALLOWED US TO REMOVE AN ENTIRE ROW OF PILINGS IN THE 25 FOOT OFFSET AND REDUCE THE OVERLAP WITH A NEIGHBORING HOUSE TO APPROXIMATELY 15 FEET.
I UNDERSTAND THIS COMES DOWN TO WHETHER THIS BODY BELIEVES THAT THIS PROJECT QUALIFIES FOR AN EXEMPTION, THE REQUIREMENT STATES THAT I MUST DEMONSTRATE THAT THERE ARE NO PRACTICABLE ALTERNATIVES TO CONSTRUCTION WITHIN OR SEAWARD OF THE DUNE PROTECTION AREA.
I KINDLY ASK THAT YOU LISTEN AND BELIEVE THAT THE WORD PRACTICABLE WAS CHOSEN RATHER THAN ANOTHER WORD LIKE POSSIBLE.
IT IS SO IMPORTANT, I BELIEVE, THAT IT WAS INCLUDED IN THIS STAFF REPORT, AND THE DEFINITION PRACTICABLE MEANS AVAILABLE AND CAPABLE OF BEING DONE AFTER TAKING INTO
[01:00:03]
CONSIDERATION EXISTING BUILDING PRACTICES, SITING ALTERNATIVES AND THE FOOTPRINT OF THE STRUCTURE IN RELATION TO THE AREA OF THE BUILDING PORTION OF THE LOT.I HAVE A DUNE ON MY LOT THAT MOTHER NATURE DIDN'T PLACE THERE.
I DIDN'T HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH IT, AND IT'S CAUSED ME TO LOOK FOR PROFITABLE ALTERNATIVES. WITHOUT THAT SAND, I WOULD HAVE NO REASON FOR PLACING ANYTHING IN THE 25 FOOT OFFSET AREA.
BUT IT'S THERE TO MY NORTH, I HAVE A HOME THAT IS BUILT ON THE PROPERTY LINE, GOOD BUILDING PRACTICES WOULD DIRECT YOU NOT PLAN TO BUILD HOMES FIVE FEET APART AND MINIMIZE THAT WHEN PRACTICABLE.
IF ONE OF THEM CATCHES FIRE, THEY BOTH BURN.
WITH RESPECT TO SITING ALTERNATIVES, ALMOST 60 PERCENT OF THE LOT ITSELF IS ENCUMBERED IN SOME WAY. NOT ALL OF THE 40 PERCENT IS ACTUALLY USABLE.
EVERY SUBMITTED VERSION OF THE HOUSE SITE PLANS USE THE DOCUMENT THAT A&M WETLANDS CREATED. THAT WAS WHAT DUSTIN AND HIS STAFF HAD DIRECTED.
I PAY FOR THREE SURVEYS IN THIS TWO YEARS.
BRANDON INFORMED ME THAT WE NEEDED THE 200 FOOT LINE OR THE 25 FOOT OFFSET LINE FROM THE NORTH TOE ON THE SURVEY THAT I HAD DONE A COUPLE OF MONTHS AGO TO PRESENT TO THIS BODY.
THAT WAS THE FIRST TIME I'VE BEEN ASKED TO PROVIDE THAT.
A&M WETLANDS DOCUMENT SHOWING THAT INFORMATION WAS WHAT I WAS INSTRUCTED TO USE FOR EACH OF THOSE ITERATIONS.
IF CONSTRUCTED AS PROPOSED, IT'LL BE THE MOST LANDWARD FRONT ROW HOME IN PIRATES PALM BEACH AND PIRATES WEST.
15 FEET FURTHER LANDWARD THAN THE ADJACENT HOME TO THE EAST.
AS YOU CAN SEE FROM THE PHOTOS THAT I TOOK THE PLACE FROM THE STRUCTURE ON THE LOT, THE CLOSEST PILING THAT SOUTHEAST PILING IS SEVEN TO EIGHT FEET FROM THE DUNE STRUCTURE THAT MOTHER NATURE HAS NOT CHANGED IN SIZE OR SHAPE SINCE THE SAND WAS PLACED THERE, INCLUDING DURING NUMEROUS STORMS. THAT'S BECAUSE IT'S FURTHER LANDWARD THAN THE SURROUNDING DUNES.
THERE IS AN ALTERNATIVE THAT IS POSSIBLE, BUT IT'S NOT PRACTICABLE IF I'M NOT ALLOWED TO HAVE PILINGS IN THE 25 FOOT OFFSET, I WOULD HAVE ENOUGH AREA TO BUILD ABOUT A 1500 SQUARE FOOT STRUCTURE WITH NO DECK.
I LOOKED AT THE POSSIBILITY OF A CANTILEVER DECK.
THE ENGINEER I SPOKE WITH SAID IT CAN'T BE USED WITH ANY SORT OF COVER AND WE'D GAIN ONLY ABOUT THREE FEET.
I HAVE SEVEN GOING ON NINE GRANDKIDS AND RECENTLY RETIRED.
IT'S MY DESIRE TO HAVE THEM ENJOY THE BEACH LIKE I DID GROWING UP, AND I BELIEVE THERE ARE NO PRACTICABLE ALTERNATIVES OTHER THAN WHAT I'VE PRESENTED TO YOU THAT KEEPS ME OUT OF THE DUNE PROTECTION AREA.
I DON'T SEE ANY SIDING ALTERNATIVES THAT DO NOT REQUIRE BUILDING AS FAR LANDWARD AS REQUIRED BY THE GLO AND AT THE SAME TIME MINIMIZING THE FIVE FOOT OVERLAP BETWEEN THE HOMES AND I UNDERSTAND, YOU KNOW, YOU'VE GOT CONCERNS ABOUT THE DECK AND THE ONLY THING I'LL SAY IS I'VE BEEN DOWN THERE, YOU KNOW, YOU KNOW, DRIVING ON THE WEST END FOR ALMOST 50 YEARS.
I WASN'T DRIVING WHEN I WAS YOUNG, BUT I DON'T KNOW OF A SINGLE HOUSE ON THE WEST END THAT DOESN'T HAVE A DECK.
IT'S ALMOST AS IMPORTANT AS HAVING A BATHROOM BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT PEOPLE GO TO THE WEST END FOR. SO I APPRECIATE YOUR TIME.
I RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION.
I'LL BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
COMMISSIONERS, DOES ANYONE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR MR. RUSHING AT THIS TIME? YES, COMMISSIONER EDWARDS.
I'M CURIOUS TO KNOW YOU SAID THAT THE CITY OR THE COUNTY PUT DIRT ON YOUR PROPERTY OR SAND ON YOUR PROPERTY.
CAN YOU EXPLAIN TO US, I'M LOOKING AT THE DRAWINGS HERE EXACTLY WHERE IF I'M LOOKING AT THE DRAWINGS WITH LAS PALMAS ON MY LEFT, WHERE EXACTLY DID THEY PUT THE SAND ON YOUR PROPERTY? WELL, THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION.
ALL OF THAT SAND THAT'S ON THAT PROPERTY.
SO THE ROAD, THIS WAS A CORNER LOT AND THE ROAD THAT CONNECTED LAS PALMAS AND VISTA, ONCE THAT WAS WASHED AWAY AND THERE WAS NO SAND THERE, I MEAN FROM, YOU KNOW, THERE WERE NO DUNES AT ALL AND WHEN THEY STARTED PUSHING THE SAND BACK AND DUMPING THE SAND, THEY DUMPED IT ON THE ROAD THAT HAD BEEN THERE, ENSURING THAT ROAD WOULD NEVER EXIST AGAIN AND AT THE SAME TIME, THEY DUMPED SAND ON THE SOUTHERN END OF THAT LOT.
SO IF YOU LOOK AT THE A&M WETLANDS WITH ALL THE HASH MARKS, ALL OF THOSE HASH MARKS ARE SAND THAT THEY PUT THERE AND WHEN I MET THE ZONING BOARD, ONE OF THE MEMBERS OF THE ZONING BOARD SAID, WHY DON'T YOU JUST GET THAT SAND MOVED?
[01:05:06]
AND I OFFERED TO HIRE HIM IF HE COULD MAKE THAT HAPPEN.SO, YOU KNOW, LIKE I SAID, I'M TRYING TO DO THINGS THE RIGHT WAY AND BUT I'M LEFT WITH, YOU KNOW, I'M LEFT WITH A TWO FRONT ATTACK.
THE HOUSE TO THE NORTH IS RIGHT ON THE PROPERTY LINE AND I'VE GOT A DUNE STRUCTURE THAT PUSHES ME TWENTY FIVE FEET FURTHER IN WHICH IF THAT DUNE WASN'T THERE, I WOULDN'T EVEN HAVE THIS PROBLEM.
WE WOULDN'T EVEN BE TALKING ABOUT ANYTHING IN THE DUNE PROTECTION AREA.
THANK YOU, ANYTHING ELSE, COMMISSIONER EDWARDS? NO, THANK YOU.
COMMISSIONERS, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? YES, VICE CHAIR BROWN? YES, MR. RUSHING.
I'M LOOKING AT A PLAN AND I'M NOT SURE WHAT TO CALL IT, BUT IT DOES HAVE EIGHT PILINGS IN THE DCA AND IT LOOKS LIKE THERE IS NO FIBERCRETE PLANNED IN THE DCA.
IS THIS THE ONE THAT IS THE CORRECT ONE? YOU ACTUALLY PLAN NO FIBERCRETE IN THE DCA.
IS THAT RIGHT? YOU ARE ABSOLUTELY CORRECT AND HERE'S WHAT HAPPENED.
EVERY ONE OF THE SITE PLANS THAT I PREPARED USE THE A&M WETLANDS SURVEYING THAT THEY THE EXTENSIVE WORK THAT THEY DID IN DRAWING THAT LINE BECAUSE THE SURVEY THROUGH TLTS IS JUST BASICALLY, I WOULD SAY, A MEAN OF, YOU KNOW, IT DOESN'T SHOW THE SAME DETAIL.
SO THAT'S WHAT WE HAD BEEN USING.
SO ON YOUR REPORT, YOU HAVE THE A&M WETLANDS ONE AND YOU HAVE THE TLTS SURVEY ONE, BUT YOU ARE CORRECT, THERE WILL BE NO FIBERCRETE AT ALL AND I WILL MAKE SURE THAT AND WE'LL ADJUST DEPENDING ON WHICH SURVEY SITE PLAN WE USE.
I'LL MAKE SURE THAT DOESN'T HAPPEN.
AND IS IT CORRECT THAT THERE WOULD BE EIGHT PILINGS IN THE DCA? YES, SIR, THE ORIGINAL PLAN WHEN WE MADE IT, I BELIEVE IT HAD 13 OR 14 PILINGS AND WHEN I WENT TO THE ARCHITECT AND SAID, YOU KNOW, BECAUSE I WATCHED YOUR MEETINGS, I KNOW EXACTLY, YOU KNOW WHAT YOU GUYS ARE LOOKING FOR AND SO I SAID, I NEED TO REDUCE IT TO THE MINIMUM AND HE SAID IF WE REDUCE THE FOOTPRINT OF THE HOUSE TO TWENTY SEVEN FEET WIDE, WE CAN TAKE OUT A WHOLE ROAD.
WE CAN SQUARE OFF THE END WHERE IT WAS GOING TO BE ANGLED LIKE THE BEACH WAS.
WE CAN REDUCE THAT NUMBER TO EIGHT AND I SAID, LET'S DO IT.
WELL, I APPRECIATE ALL OF YOUR DUE DILIGENCE AND ALL THESE ITERATIONS YOU HAD TO DO TO TRY TO GET THIS INTO THE REGULATIONS.
WELL, AND I WOULD ALSO LIKE, YOU KNOW, PART OF THE PROBLEM, I KNEW IT WAS A DOUBLE EDGED SWORD. PART OF THE PROBLEM WAS THAT EVERYTHING I WAS DOING, YOU SIX PEOPLE DIDN'T KNOW ABOUT.
SO I DIDN'T WANT TO BRING IT TO YOU AND YOU GO NOW 14 POSTS? NO, THAT AIN'T GOING TO WORK.
SO EVERYTHING THAT I WAS DOING WAS TRYING TO LEAD TO THIS POINT SO THAT I COULD SHOW YOU THE THIS IS NOT, YOU KNOW, THIS WASN'T MY FIRST CHOICE OF HOW I WAS GOING TO DO THIS HOME. I WANTED THE HOME TO BE ON THE EAST SIDE OF THE LOT SO THAT IT WAS IN EFFECTIVELY THE BACKYARD OF THE NORTHERN HOME THERE FACING TO THE SOUTHWEST.
BUT OBVIOUSLY THAT DID YOU KNOW, I CAN'T DO THAT BECAUSE OF THE DUNE MITIGATION AND THE DAMAGE THAT I DID.
SO THAT'S WHAT CAUSED ME TO DRIVE IT TO THE WEST AND THEN TO ASK FOR THE SPECIAL EXEMPTION FROM THE ZONING BOARD AND SO THE HOUSE HAS GOTTEN A LOT SMALLER.
IT'S NOT EXACTLY WHAT I WANTED, BUT TO ME, IT IS THE PRACTICABLE ALTERNATIVE.
COMMISSIONERS, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? OKAY SEEING NONE, MS. GORMAN, DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER PUBLIC COMMENT ON THIS CASE? IF THERE'S ANY MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC ON THE CALL WHO WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION, PLEASE USE THE RAISE HAND FUNCTION.
[01:10:01]
SEEING NONE. THANK YOU, WE'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING ON CASE 21P-007 AT 4:41 P.M AND I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION ON THIS CASE.THAT'S FINE, I'LL MAKE A MOTION FOR DENIAL OF 21P-007.
DO I HAVE A SECOND? COMMISSIONER WALLA. I'M SORRY, YOU'RE MUTED.
I'LL SECOND THE MOTION. THANK YOU, I HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND, SO DISCUSSION.
I'M REALLY SORRY TO HAVE TO TO VOTE.
I MEAN, TO HAVE TO MAKE A MOTION FOR DENIAL FOR, OH, SO MANY REASONS, BUT YOU KNOW, BECAUSE I THINK THAT MR. RUSHING HAS TRIED REALLY HARD, BUT I SEE TOO MANY THINGS OF CONCERN WITH THIS IN A CONSERVATION AREA.
I SEE TOO MANY THINGS THAT HAVE TO DO ON THIS CASE THAT ARE ABSOLUTELY INCONSISTENT WITH HOW WE HAVE TREATED OTHER APPLICANTS AND ABOVE ALL, I THINK WE HAVE TO BE CONSISTENT IN HOW WE HANDLE THESE BEACHFRONT CONSTRUCTION PERMITS AND THIS ONE IS ABSOLUTELY NOT CONSISTENT. SO THAT'S ALL I HAVE TO SAY.
ANYONE ELSE HAVE ANYTHING TO SAY ON THIS? YES, COMMISSIONER WALLA.
MY SENTIMENT EXACTLY, JEFFREY, I'M GLAD YOU MADE THE MOTION, SO I DIDN'T HAVE TO, BUT THIS IS THIS IS A TOUGH ONE AND YOU KNOW, IT'S ALL THE WAY IN THERE AND I DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S A MAGIC NUMBER WHERE WE GIVE THE GUYS SOME RELIEF.
BUT I MEAN, HE'S RIGHT ON THE TOE OF THE DUNE AND THAT'S, YOU KNOW, I'M SYMPATHETIC TO HIS SITUATION.
YOU KNOW, AND ONE THING I WOULD LIKE FOR US TO DISCUSS, AND I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S APPROPRIATE JUST SO WE CAN GIVE HIM SOME LEEWAY.
I MEAN, I'M SURE IF HE BROUGHT US ANOTHER PLAN.
OBVIOUSLY, WE WANT HIM TO STAY OUT OF IT.
I MEAN, WE MAKE PEOPLE TOTALLY REDO THEIR HOUSE PLANS.
I'VE SEEN IT MORE THAN ONE TIME, MANY TIMES, BUT HE HAS A VERY DIFFERENT SITUATION HERE THAN THAN A LOT OF OTHER PEOPLE DO.
THE HOUSE BEING BUILT RIGHT ON THE PROPERTY LINE BEHIND HIM IS, YOU KNOW, THAT'S ONE OF THEM. SO, YOU KNOW, I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE MAGIC NUMBER IS.
I DON'T KNOW. I JUST I'M EMPATHETIC TO HIS SITUATION AND I WISH IT WAS DIFFERENT.
RIGHT, AND I WOULD ENCOURAGE HIM TO WORK WITH OUR KNOWLEDGEABLE STAFF.
SO ANYONE ELSE? YES, VICE CHAIR BROWN.
YOU KNOW, THIS IS AGAIN, LIKE YOU SAY THIS IS A REALLY HARD ONE, BUT YOU KNOW, I THINK HE'S BEEN BACK TO THE DRAWING BOARD, I GUESS SEVERAL TIMES ALREADY AND I'M JUST THINKING, IF YOU KNOW, IF THIS IS NOT GOING TO WORK, WE'RE JUST SAYING THAT THE LAW IS NOT BUILDABLE BECAUSE THERE'S NO OTHER WAY TO BUILD ON IT IN A PRACTICAL, PRACTICAL WAY.
SO I MEAN, I THINK THAT'S WHAT WE'RE SAYING TO HIM; BY DENYING THIS, WE'RE JUST SAYING THAT YOU CAN'T BUILD ON THIS LOT.
BUT I'M NOT SURE ABOUT THAT, BUT ANYWAY, COMMISSIONER FINKLEA.
SO, BOB, I HEAR YOU OR COMMISSIONER BROWN, I HEAR YOU.
I MEAN, YOU KNOW WHAT'S A MINIMUM NUMBER OF PILINGS THAT THE COMMISSION WOULD ALLOW IN THE PROTECTION AREA? I MEAN, THE APPLICANT HAS BEEN AT IT FOR OVER TWO YEARS, HE'S ALREADY GOT APPROVAL FROM THE ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT.
HE'S BEEN ADVISED BY THE CITY, PROBABLY MULTIPLE TIMES SPENT HOW MANY THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS ON ENGINEERING AND ARCHITECTURAL DRAWINGS TO BE ADVISED BY THE CITY TIME AND TIME AGAIN AND HE'S COMING FORWARD WITH WHAT HE BELIEVES IS THE MOST PRACTICAL SOLUTION.
YOU KNOW, IF WE GO THROUGH AND REJECT THIS, THE CITY AND BY THAT, I ALSO MEAN THE
[01:15:01]
PLANNING COMMISSION. WE'VE GOT TO GIVE THEM SOME SORT OF GUIDANCE IN TERMS OF WHAT THE SOLUTION IS TO SIMPLY REJECT IT FOR ALL ACCOUNTS AND THEN SAY THE PROPERTY IS NOT BUILDABLE, I THINK GOES DOWN A DANGEROUS SLOPE.THAT COMMISSION, I DON'T KNOW THAT WE REALLY WANT TO DO AND I WOULD ASK THE CITY LEGAL COUNSEL TO ADVISE ON THAT AS WELL.
THOSE ARE MY COMMENTS. COMMISSIONER HILL, YOU'RE MUTED.
THANK YOU, I'M NOT SAYING THAT THE LOT'S NOT BUILDABLE AND I AM NOT SURE THAT I AM QUALIFIED, NOR AM I OBLIGATED TO TELL HIM WHAT HE NEEDS TO DO TO FIX THIS.
BUT I WILL DEFER TO DONNA ON THAT.
DONNA, WOULD YOU LIKE TO COMMENT AND THEN REJONE YOU'RE NEXT UP AFTER DONNA COMMENTS ON THAT? I'M NOT SURE IF THERE'S AN APPROPRIATE COMMENT, THERE'S AN ACTIVE MOTION ON THE TABLE AND IT'S UP TO THE COMMISSIONERS TO MAKE THE DISCUSSIONS.
THE COMMENT REGARDING THE LOT BEING BUILDABLE IS A COMMENT THAT WAS MADE BY COMMISSIONER BROWN AND SO THAT'S AN OPINION AND THAT'S WHAT THIS WHOLE BOARD, THE MEMBERS ARE MADE UP OF DIFFERENT OPINIONS.
SO I WOULD JUST ENCOURAGE THE DISCUSSION.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER EDWARDS.
I GUESS MY MAIN CONCERN IS THAT I FEEL LIKE IN SOME WAYS, THE CITY FAILED MR. RUSHING BECAUSE WHEN BACK IN THE DAY WHEN THE SAND WAS INITIALLY PUT ON HIS LOT, WHICH IS WHAT'S LIMITING HIM FROM BUILDING THE HOUSE, THAT IS SOMETHING THAT SHOULD, IN MY OPINION, THAT SHOULD BE READDRESSED BECAUSE IF THE DUNES HAVE GROWN THROUGH SOMETHING THAT WASN'T ORIGINALLY A DUNE AND IT WAS CREATED BASED ON, YOU KNOW, NEW SAND BEING PUT THERE, I THINK THAT HE NEEDS TO HAVE THE BENEFIT OF THE DOUBT FOR THAT BECAUSE I AGREE YOU CAN HAVE A LOT.
YOU CAN'T DO ANYTHING WITH IT, BUT HE'S PAYING TAXES ON IT.
SO I THINK IN SOME WAYS HE HAS TO GO BACK TO THE DRAWING BOARD.
BUT I THINK THE CITY SHOULD ALSO OR WHOMEVER PUT THE SAND THERE, HE SHOULD ALSO BE TALKING WITH THOSE PEOPLE.
THANK YOU. ANYTHING ELSE, COMMISSIONERS? SEEING NO FURTHER COMMENT.
THE A MOTION THAT'S ON THE TABLE IS FOR DENY--OH, EXCUSE ME.
COUNCIL MEMBER LISTOWSKI DID YOU HAVE SOMETHING YOU WANTED TO SAY? YES, I'LL TRY TO GET IT IN MY INTERNET CONNECTION BEING SO POOR.
YOU KNOW, IT'S DISAPPOINTING TO SEE SOMEONE WHO HAS DONE THIS MUCH WORK AND PUT IN THIS KIND OF EFFORT TO JUST GET DENIED ON A CASE LIKE THIS.
YOU KNOW, THIS REMINDS ME BACK IN THE DAYS WHEN WE HAD A PROCESS THAT PLANNING COMMISSION AND COUNCIL DEVELOPERS AND PROPERTY OWNERS HAD TO COME THROUGH THIS PROCESS, AND IT'S ON KIND OF A BIT OF A WHIM OF THE COUNCIL OR THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO APPROVE OR DENY.
AFTER ALL, THIS WORK WAS PUT IN.
WE CHANGED THAT IN OUR NEW ELDERS TO TRY TO STOP THAT FROM HAPPENING.
BUT IN THIS CASE, WE STILL HAVE THESE SITUATIONS LIKE THIS THAT THAT IS POSSIBLE AND SO YOU KNOW THIS CRITICAL ZONE GIVES THE COMMISSION THE ABILITY TO SHOW SOME LEEWAY IN IT AND IT'S JUST UNFORTUNATE THAT HOMEOWNERS PUT IN ALL THIS EFFORT, GO THROUGH ALL THESE STEPS AND THEN GET DENIED AND HAVE NO REAL RECOURSE TO TRY TO MITIGATE THIS BESIDES COMPLETELY STAY OUT OF THAT ZONE AND IT IS THEIR CHOICE TO DO THAT.
I UNDERSTAND THAT, BUT IT'S REALLY UNFORTUNATE, IN MY VIEW, TO HAVE THIS PROCESS, HAVE PEOPLE GO THROUGH IT AND GET DENIED BECAUSE THEY'RE IN THAT CRITICAL AREA.
I MEAN, I'VE SEEN THIS ON SEVERAL CASES AND IT'S MORE, YOU KNOW, UNFORTUNATELY RIGHT NOW OR FORTUNATELY, EITHER WAY, THE VIEW OF THE COMMISSION CURRENTLY IS TO TOTALLY STAY OUT OF THIS AREA AND THAT'S FINE.
THAT'S THE POLICY THAT'S KIND OF BEING SET FORTH, BUT, YOU KNOW, I HATE TO SEND PEOPLE
[01:20:06]
AWAY WITH THE ONLY ADVICE IS STAY OUT OF THAT AREA.[INAUDIBLE] AND, YOU KNOW, HE MAY NOT GET DENIED HE.
AND SO COMMISSIONER PEÑA. COMMISSIONER PEÑA.
I JUST WANTED TO KIND OF CONCUR WITH WHAT COUNCILMAN LISTOWSKI SAID, IT IS VERY I COMPLETELY EMPATHIZE FOR FOR THE THE AMOUNT OF WORK THAT THIS GENTLEMAN HAS PUT IN AND PUT FORWARD AND THE AMOUNT OF EFFORT AND ENERGY.
AND BUT, YOU KNOW, I DON'T I CAN'T I'M NOT IN A PLACE TO BE ABLE TO TELL HIM, WELL, COME BACK WITH ONE PYLONS OR TWO PYLONS AND I DON'T KNOW.
YOU KNOW, IT'S KIND OF A TRICKY SPOT TO BE IN FOR FOR US AS A PLANNING COMMISSION TO TO GIVE THOSE RECOMMENDATIONS SOMEWHAT.
I DON'T KNOW WHERE THAT WOULD COME FROM.
IT'S NOT FUN TO BE TO BE IN THIS PREDICAMENT RIGHT HERE WHERE WE ARE FOR FOR SOMEBODY WHO HAS WORKED SO HARD AND BUT IT'S JUST DOESN'T FIT AND IT DOES NOT ABIDE BY WHAT WE'VE HELD OTHERS TO IN IN BUILDING IN THAT ZONE.
THANK YOU. ANY FURTHER COMMENT BEFORE WE HAVE OUR VOTE? OK, THANK YOU.
OK. AGAIN, THE VOTE IS FOR DENIAL, SO AN AFFIRMATIVE VOTE IS TO IS TO DENY THE.
IS TO DENY THE BEACHFRONT CONSTRUCTION PERMIT AND THE EXEMPTION.
SO, YES, PATRICK, IF YOU CALL THE VOTE, PLEASE.
I'M FOR IT. COMMISSIONER FINKLEA.
FOR. WE HAVE FOUR VOTES IN FAVOR TWO OPPOSE THE MOTION PASSES.
THANK YOU. NEXT, WE'RE GOING TO HEAR OUT OF ORDER, WE'RE GOING TO HEAR THE LICENSE TO USE
[8.C.1. 21P-066 (Adjacent To 1726 21st Street) Request For A License To Use To Place A Rail Support In The City Of Galveston Right-Of-Way. Adjacent Property Is Legally Described As M.B. Menard Survey, Lots 12 – 14, Northwest Block 69, Galveston Outlots, In The City And County Of Galveston, Texas. Applicant: Laura Tacquard Adjacent Property Owners: Sunshine Training Center, Inc. Easement Holder: City Of Galveston C. LICENSE TO USE 1. 21P-066 (Adjacent To 1726 21st Street) Request For A License To Use To Place A Rail Support In The City Of Galveston Right-Of-Way. Adjacent Property Is Legally Described As M.B. Menard Survey, Lots 12 – 14, Northwest Block 69, Galveston Outlots, In The City And County Of Galveston, Texas. Applicant: Laura Tacquard Adjacent Property Owners: Sunshine Training Center, Inc. Easement Holder: City Of Galveston ]
21P-066 AND THEN WE WILL HEAR THE PUD, SO.VICE CHAIR BROWN, IF YOU WILL CHAIR 21P-066, PLEASE, SIR, I NEED TO STEP AWAY FOR A MOMENT. OK.
ALL RIGHT. IF STAFF WOULD PLEASE GIVE US A REPORT ON 21P-066.
IT'S ADJACENT TO SEVENTEEN TWENTY SIX 21ST STREET.
THIS IS A REQUEST FOR PERMANENT LICENSE TO USE THE CITY RIGHT OF WAY.
THERE WERE 40 PUBLIC NOTICES SENT.
NONE OF THOSE RETURNED THIS CASE.
THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO PLACE A RAIL SUPPORT IN THE 21ST STREET RIGHT OF WAY, ADJACENT TO SEVENTEEN TWENTY SIX 21ST STREET.
THE PURPOSE OF THE RAIL SUPPORT IS TO ASSIST THEIR CLIENTS WITH DISABILITIES AND THE ELDERLY TO SAFELY NAVIGATE THE CURB.
THE PROPOSED RAIL SUPPORT WILL BE THREE FEET TALL AND FOUR FEET IN LENGTH, AS SHOWN IN EXHIBIT B. STAFF RECOMMENDS CASE 21P-066 BE APPROVED THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS, AND THOSE CONDITIONS ARE LISTED AS ONE THROUGH NINE ON YOUR REPORT AND NOW WE HAVE SOME PHOTOGRAPHS.
SORRY ADRIEL, MY COMPUTER'S BEING VERY SLOW.
SHOULD BE COMING UP IN JUST A SECOND.
THIS IS AN AERIAL VIEW OF THE SUBJECT SITE.
[01:25:01]
NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. THESE ARE THE PROPERTIES, THE SURROUNDING PROPERTIES TO THE NORTH, SOUTH, EAST AND WEST, AND THAT CONCLUDES STAFF'S REPORT.THERE'S ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF ON P-066.
IS THEY SAY, IS THIS JUST A METAL RAILING OF ROUND METAL TUBE MADE GALVANIZED? IS THAT ALL IT IS? YEAH, I MEAN, THERE WERE NO SPECIFICS, BUT I MEAN, IT WOULD IT WOULD HAVE TO COMPLY WITH OUR BUILDING CODE REQUIREMENTS.
ANYBODY ELSE HAVE ANYTHING FOR STAFF? OK, WELL, WE'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING.
ANYBODY HERE REPRESENTING THE THE PROJECT? APPLICANTS ARE ON THE CALL, YOU COULD USE THE RAISE HAND FUNCTION, OK I SEE LAURA [INAUDIBLE]. OK, YOU'VE BEEN UNMUTED, YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION.
YES, YES, THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME.
WE HAVE THE I AM LAURA [INAUDIBLE] THE BOARD PRESIDENT.
WE HAVE STEPHANIE CARMONA HERE, THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR AND WE HAVE JOANIE STEINHAUS, WHO'S GOING TO HELP US HER AND HER HUSBAND WITH THE CONSTRUCTION.
OUR CLIENTS KIND OF STRUGGLE WITH THE CURB EVERY DAY.
SOME OF THEM USE CANES, SOME OF THEM USE WALKERS AND SOME OF THEM WALK PERFECTLY FINE AND SOME HAVE SOME DISABILITIES WHEN THEY WALK AND SOMETIMES THEY WALK FASTER THAN THEY SHOULD. SO IF YOU EVER SIT THERE AND WATCH THEM STRUGGLE UP AND DOWN THESE STAIRS, I MEAN UP AND DOWN THIS CURB, YOU WOULD SEE WHY THIS WAS IMPORTANT, BUT WE APPRECIATE YOUR TIME.
THANK YOU. IT LOOKS LIKE STEPHANIE CARMONA WOULD ALSO LIKE TO SPEAK.
OK, YOU'VE BEEN UNMUTED. YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION.
YES, I'M STEPHANIE CARMONA, I'M THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR.
AND JUST TO REPEAT, WHAT LAURA SAID IS, YOU KNOW, WE SERVE ADULTS WITH DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES AND SOME OF THEM HAVE LIMITED MOBILITY.
THEY HAVE THERE'S INDIVIDUALS WITH CEREBRAL PALSY, SOME WITH DOWN SYNDROME.
WE HAVE SOME SOME OF OUR CLIENTS ARE GETTING OLDER BECAUSE THEY COME TO SUNSHINE BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, A DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITY ISN'T SOMETHING THAT IS CURED OR GOES AWAY.
SO THEY'RE GOING TO COME UNTIL THEY EITHER, YOU KNOW, GET OLDER, MOVE OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. SO WE HAVE SOME OLDER CLIENTS THAT HAVE OSTEOPOROSIS.
SO IF THEY WERE TO FALL AND HURT THEMSELVES, THAT WOULD BE VERY TRAGIC.
SO WE JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE HAVE AS SAFE OF A FACILITY AS POSSIBLE TO ACCOMMODATE THEM AND ALLOW THEM TO COME IN AND DO THE ACTIVITIES OR DAY REHABILITATION ACTIVITIES AND TO SOCIALIZE AND AND JUST ENHANCE THEIR LIFE.
AND THIS RAIL IS VERY VITAL FOR THEM TO DO THAT SAFELY.
ANYBODY ELSE? LOOKS LIKE JOANIE STEINHAUS WOULD ALSO LIKE TO SPEAK.
SHOULD BE ABLE TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION.
THANK YOU. CAN YOU HEAR ME? YES.
THANK YOU. I JUST WANTED TO ASSURE YOU THAT WE ARE GOING TO USE GALVANIZED STEEL PIPE AS SHOWN IN THE DRAWING. IT'LL BE 48 INCHES IN LENGTH, THIRTY EIGHT INCHES ABOVE THE GROUND AND 12 INCHES SUNKEN CONCRETE.
SO IT'S VERY SECURE FOR THEIR CLIENTS.
GREAT. SOUNDS GOOD. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU. ANYBODY ELSE? OK, I GUESS.
WE CAN CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND BRING IT BACK TO HEAR A MOTION.
IS IT OK, STEVEN WANNA MAKE A MOTION? YES, I WILL MAKE A MOTION THAT WE APPROVE CASE 21P-006 AS WRITTEN . I SECOND IT.
OK, REJONE SECOND. ALL IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION.
PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND AND SAY AYE.
OK, EXCUSE ME. VICE CHAIRPERSON BROWN.
IN FAVOR. COMMISSIONER EDWARDS.
IN FAVOR. ALL IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION PASSES.
JEFFREY, YOU HAVE THE WHEEL BACK.
ALL RIGHT. WE'RE GOING TO CALL 21P-065 AND WE'RE GOING TO ALL WAVE GOODBYE TO RUSTY.
[8.B.1. 21P-065 (23500 FM 3005) Request For A Planned Unit Development (PUD) Overlay District To Establish A Mixed-Use Development Consisting Of Single-Family Dwellings, Passenger Motor Vehicle Sales And Rental, And Agricultural Urban Farming Land Uses. Property Is Legally Described As Lot 2R (2-18), 10.3127 Acres, Galveston Island RV Resort Replat (2021), In The City And County Of Galveston Texas. Applicant: Brax Easterwood, AIA Property Owner: Galveston Island RV Resort LP]
GOING TO THE DARK SIDE.[01:30:03]
ALL RIGHT. CASE 21P-065, ADRIEL, YOU'RE UP.21P-065, TWO THREE FIVE ZERO ZERO ST.
LOUIS PASS ROAD [INAUDIBLE] 3005.
SO REQUEST FOR A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT PD IN ACCORDANCE WITH ARTICLE FOUR OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS, THERE WERE 30 PUBLIC NOTICES SENT.
SIX OF THOSE WERE RETURNED, ALL OPPOSED.
A LITTLE BIT OF BACKGROUND IN THIS CASE, IN 2014, THERE WAS A GENERAL LAND USE PLAN GLUP THAT WAS APPROVED TO ESTABLISH AN RV PARK AND ASSOCIATED AMENITIES OF THE SUBJECT SITE.
YOU KNOW, AT THAT TIME, THE PROPERTY WAS ON PLAN DEVELOPMENT, WHICH IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE 1991 STANDARDS, IT REQUIRED A GLUP FOR THE PROPOSED USES IN THAT DISTRICT.
A GLUP IS ESSENTIALLY WAS ESSENTIALLY A SITE PLAN REVIEW PROCESS THAT REQUIRED THE APPROVAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
LATER IN DECEMBER OF 2020, A YEAR AGO.
THE SUBJECT SITE WAS SUBDIVIDED TO INCREASE THE NUMBER OF LOTS FROM ONE TO TWO, WHICH RESULTED IN THE CURRENT CONFIGURATION SEPARATING THE DEVELOPED PORTION OF THE RV PARK FROM THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.
HOWEVER, NOTWITHSTANDING THE DIVISION OF PROPERTY, IT WAS DETERMINED BY THE CITY THAT THE GLUP REMAINED IN EFFECT.
THEREFORE, THE APPLICANT MAY CHOOSE TO DEVELOP THE REMAINDER OF THE FACES OF THE RV PARK.
BUILD SOMETHING ELSE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CURRENT STANDARD THE LDR OR A COMBINATION OF THE TWO.
THIS REQUEST IS TO INCORPORATE A PUD OVERLAY TO A RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY R1 BASE ZONING DISTRICT TO ESTABLISH A MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT CONSISTING OF SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS, PASSENGER MOTOR VEHICLE SALES AND RENTAL FOR THE OPERATION OF GOLF CART RENTALS AND AGRICULTURAL OR URBAN FARMING LAND USES IN ORDER TO ESTABLISH AN APIARY.
THE INTENT OF THE PUD IS TO DEVIATE FROM THE MINIMUM LOT AREA IN THE R1.
ALLOW FOR PRIVATE STREET, REDUCE THE WIDTH OF A PRIVATE STREET FROM 60 TO TWENTY EIGHT FEET. DEVIATE FROM ARTICLE TWO OF THE LDR PERTAINING TO AGRICULTURE URBAN FARMING, WHICH REQUIRES FIVE ACRES AND THEY ARE PLANNING PROPOSING TO REDUCE IT TO FOUR POINT SIXTY FIVE AND TO ALLOW FOR PASSENGER MOTOR VEHICLE SALES OR RENTAL LAND USE IN OPERATION FOR THE OPERATION OF A GOLF CART RENTAL BUSINESS.
THE GOLF CART RENTAL BUSINESS MODEL CONSISTS OF DELIVERY AND PICKUP OF CARTS ONLY.
THE BUSINESS HAS NOT RECEIVED CUSTOMERS ON SITE, WITH ALL BOOKINGS OF GOLF CARTS CONDUCTED ONLINE OR BY PHONE.
SUBJECT SIDE IS ROUGHLY A 10 ACRE TRACT ADJACENT A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL IN THE BAY HARBOR AND MIRAMAR SUBDIVISIONS.
THERE ARE CURRENTLY TWO RV SLIPS ON THE PROPERTY IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE GLUP APPROVAL.
STAFF FINDS THAT THE RESIDENTIAL COMPONENT OF THE MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT IS COMPATIBLE WITH SURROUNDING LAND USES TO THE FACT THAT DEVELOPMENT IS SURROUNDED BY RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS TO THE EAST AND SOUTH OF THE PROPERTY.
THE COMMERCIAL AGRICULTURAL LAND USES IN THIS PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ARE ALSO GENERALLY COMPATIBLE, AS THOSE DO NOT FURTHER INTENSIFY THE COMMERCIAL OPERATION OF THE RV PARK.
THE COMMERCIAL USE IN FORM OF THE GOLF CART RENTAL IS APPROPRIATELY SCALED TO ENSURE AN EFFECTIVE TRANSITION FROM THE COMMERCIAL OPERATION TO THE PROPOSED AND EXISTING SURROUNDING RESIDENTIAL USES.
PLEASE NOTE, THE DETAILS AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN ON PAGES THREE AND FOUR OF YOUR STAFF REPORT, AS WELL AS THE CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL ON PAGE FIVE IN THIS CASE, STAFF IS RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT REQUEST, WITH THE CONDITIONS LISTED ON THE REPORT AS ONE THROUGH NINE.
THIS IS A AERIAL VIEW OF THE SUBJECT SITE.
NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. THIS IS THE REPLAT SURVEY IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE DIVISION OF PROPERTY THAT OCCURRED ABOUT A YEAR AGO.
NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. THIS IS THE SITE PLAN, WHICH I LIKE TO NOTE JUST A MINOR DISCREPANCY IN THE STORAGE AND THE GOLF CART EQUIPMENT BUILDING SHOWN A LOT D, IT IS ACTUALLY NOT GOING TO BE INSIDE OF THE THE EASEMENT THAT WAS SHOWN ON YOUR ON YOUR FILE AND YOUR DOCUMENTS. IT'S GOING TO BE SLIGHTLY TO THE WEST OF THAT.
NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. THIS IS THE SUBJECT SITE.
NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. THESE ARE THE SURROUNDING PROPERTIES TO THE NORTH, SOUTH, EAST AND
[01:35:07]
WEST, AND THAT CONCLUDES STAFF'S REPORT.MAKE SURE EVERYBODY UNDERSTANDS ALL THE LAYERS.
WE HAD WHEN WE STARTED OUT, THIS WAS A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT.
THEN IT WAS ZONED R1, AND NOW WE'RE GOING TO PUT A PUD ON TOP OF IT, RIGHT? THAT YES, THAT'S THAT WOULD BE IT WOULD BE FAIRLY ACCURATE, YES.
WHAT CAN NOW HAPPEN ON THAT PROPERTY CAN BE ANY OF THOSE THINGS.
WELL, I THINK THAT IN ACCORDANCE WITH HOW IT IS NOW, AS I MENTIONED EARLIER, THE DIVISION OF PROPERTY DID NOT PRECLUDE THE APPLICANT FROM MOVING ON OR CARRYING ON WITH THE RV AS APPROVED FOR THE GLUP.
HOWEVER, IF THIS PUD IS ULTIMATELY APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL, I THINK I THINK THE, YOU KNOW, STAFF'S POSITION AND THE CITY'S POSITION WOULD BE THAT THE PUD IS NOW IT'S NOW THE IT GOVERNS OVER THE PROPERTY, THE SUBJECT SITE.
THAT'S TRUE. OK, SO THE PUD WOULD TAKE PRECEDENCE OVER EVERYTHING, ALL OF THE PROPERTY.
AS APPROVED, OF COURSE, AND OBVIOUSLY THE R1 BASED DISTRICT, IT STILL WOULD STILL REMAIN.
AND AS DESCRIBED IN THE PUD NARRATIVE, THE APPLICANT IS NOT ELIMINATING ANY OF THOSE USES THAT ARE ALLOWED IN THE R1 DISTRICT.
RIGHT. SO LET'S JUST SAY WE HAVE SEEN HYPOTHETICALLY, WE HAVE SEEN SITUATIONS IN THE CITY WHERE PUD HAS BEEN RESCINDED FOR SOME REASON OR ANOTHER.
IF THE PUD WERE RESCINDED, THEN IT WOULD REVERT BACK IN AND THE GLUP COULD COME BACK INTO PLAY. IT WOULDN'T JUST GO BACK TO THE R1.
THE GLUP COULD COME BACK INTO PLAY, RIGHT? YOU KNOW, THAT'S AN INTERESTING QUESTION, I THINK I'M GOING TO ASK FOR DONNA'S INPUT ON THIS AS WELL AS SEE WHAT MAYBE LEGAL'S INPUT IS ON THAT PARTICULAR QUESTION.
IF THE PUD IS RESCINDED AS I UNDERSTAND IT, IT WOULD FALL BACK TO THE PREVIOUS ZONING AND IF THE PREVIOUS ZONING WAS A GLUP WITH THE R1, AND THAT'S WHAT IT WOULD FALL BACK TO.
I'M KIND OF WARY ON THE WORD RESCINDED IF THERE WERE REASONS WHY PUD WAS NOT ENACTED.
IT WOULD BE EASIER FOR ME TO SAY IT JUST IF IT'S NEVER ENACTED, THEN THEY'VE NEVER FOLLOWED THROUGH ON THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE ZONING TO FOR THE.
FOR THE REQUEST IN THAT ZONING.
BUT ONCE THAT THE ZONING IS CHANGED, YOU KNOW YOU, YOU DON'T NECESSARILY RESCIND THE ZONING, YOU WOULD HAVE TO CHANGE THE ZONING AGAIN.
WELL, NOW WE'VE HAD WELL, YEAH, OK, WELL, WE'VE HAD SITUATIONS.
WE'VE HAD SITUATIONS IN THE CITY WHERE SOMEONE'S HAD A PUD AND SOMETHING'S HAPPENED IN THE PUD HAS BEEN PULLED AWAY.
THEY DIDN'T MEET THE REQUIREMENTS TO FOLLOW THROUGH REPLATING OR WHATEVER IT WAS.
SO THAT'S WHY I'M JUST MAKING THAT SLIGHT LITTLE DISTINCTION.
CAN YOU TELL ME FROM LOOKING AT THE PLAT WHEREVER THE SCREEN SHARE WAS OF THE SITE PLAN.
LET'S LOOK AT THE SITE PLAN OF THE THE PROJECT.
CAN YOU TELL ME WHERE THAT 12 FOOT WIDE PEDESTRIAN ACCESS EASEMENT IS? THAT WE PLATED IN IN 2020?
[01:40:03]
YES, IT RUNS PARALLEL WITH THE WITH THE PROPERTY BOUNDARY ADJACENT TO FM 3005.CAN YOU CAN YOU SHOW IT TO ME ON THE SITE? CATHERINE, CAN WE GO BACK TO THE THE, I BELIEVE, THE SECOND OR THIRD SLIDE? SURE CAN. SO I'M NOT I DON'T THINK WE COULD ZOOM IN, BUT ESSENTIALLY IT WOULD BE IN THAT AREA BETWEEN THE 25 FOOT BUILDING LINE AND AS CATHERINE IS HOVERING OVER WITH THE CURSOR.
OK, AND I'LL ASK THE APPLICANT WHERE THAT IS IN RELATION TO THE FENCE THAT THEY HAVE UP THERE NOW WHEN WE GET TO THAT.
OH. DO YOU HAVE ANY IDEA, ADRIEL? THEY HAVE WRITTEN IN THE APPLICANTS NARRATIVE ABOUT THE THEIR ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION THAT THEY'RE GOING TO USE THE AVOIDANCE APPROACH? WHAT DOES THAT LOOK LIKE? AVOIDANCE APPROACH ON FOR WETLANDS? HOW DO YOU HOW DO THEY DO THAT WHEN THEY'RE GOING TO BE DOING SO MUCH CONSTRUCTION ON THAT? DO YOU HAVE ANY IDEA HOW THAT PLAYS OUT? THE APPLICANT IS ON THE LINE CHAIRWOMAN, AND THAT'S THAT WOULD BE AN APPROPRIATE QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT. OK, LET ME SEE IF I HAVE ANYTHING ELSE THAT APPLIES TO YOU.
I DO NOT. WHAT ABOUT ANY OTHER COMMISSIONERS? OH, WAIT I SEE THE THE COUNCIL MEMBER HAS HIS HAND UP.
I JUST WANTED TO GET SOME CLARIFICATION ON ONE OF YOUR QUESTIONS WHEN IT CAME TO THE ZONING AND THE PUD.
THE PUD IS OVERLYING ZONING OF EXISTING ZONING.
SO IF IT WAS SO, THE QUESTION BEFORE WAS IF THE PUD WAS RESCINDED, THE UNDERLINING ZONING STILL IS IS IN PLACE.
IT'S AN ISSUE WITH THE VERBIAGE OF RESCINDED THERE ARE REASONS WHY, YOU KNOW, A ZONING CHANGE WOULD BE RESCINDED, AND USUALLY IT'S IF THEY DIDN'T MEET A CERTAIN REQUIREMENT OR THEY HAVE CHANGED THEIR MIND ON GOING FORWARD WITH WHATEVER THEY WANTED TO GO FORWARD AND MADE A REQUEST TO NOW RESCIND THE ZONING THAT HAD BEEN GRANTED.
YEAH. AND SO WE'VE SEEN A COUPLE OF THESE IN THE PAST YEAR OR SO WHERE PUDS JUST DIDN'T MEET THEIR TIME REQUIREMENTS AND THAT PROJECT WASN'T MOVED FORWARD, SO THE CITY RESCINDED. IS THAT THE CORRECT WORD WE SHOULD USE RESCIND? IT'S GIVE ME. I MEAN, THE ORDINANCE WILL SAY RESCIND AND OTHER DESCRIPTORS OF JUST MAKING IT NULL AND VOID. OK.
I THINK SHE'S NOT LIKING OUR USE OF RESCIND.
I USE I USE IT MORE THAN THAT IN THE ORDINANCE, SO.
I WISH SHE'D GIVE US A BETTER WORD TO USE.
TO GO BACK TO SOME OF THE ORDINANCES THAT I DID SEE, WHAT DID I USE IN THE PAST? GIVE US A BETTER WORD AND WE'LL HAPPILY USE IT.
I'LL LOOK THAT UP AS THIS MEETING CONTINUES.
ANYONE ELSE HAVE A QUESTION FOR STAFF? VICE CHAIR BROWN? YEAH, IN THE FIRST PAGE OF STAFF REPORT, THE FIRE MARSHAL COMMENT WAS, IF THERE WILL, HE'S OK WITH EVERYTHING, IF THERE WILL BE TWENTY SIX FEET OF UNOBSTRUCTED DRIVE. HE HAS NO OBJECTION.
AND ONE OF THE PURPOSES OF THE PUD WAS TO REDUCE THE REQUIRED WIDTH OF THE STREET FROM 60 FEET TO TWENTY EIGHT FEET.
AND SO I ASSUME THAT WHAT THAT MEANS IS THERE WILL BE NO ON STREET PARKING.
IS THAT RIGHT? I DIDN'T SEE THAT ANYWHERE.
YEAH, THE THE FIRE MARSHAL'S COMMENT.
I MEAN, THE APPLICANT IS PROVIDING A TWENTY EIGHT FOOT DRIVE SO THAT THAT SHOULD SUFFICE THAT.
SO THAT MEANS NONE OF THESE CARS WILL BE ABLE TO BE PARKED ON THE STREET.
THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE TO BE IN IN THE DRIVEWAY.
YEAH I MEAN, THAT COULD BE THAT COULD BE, YOU KNOW, SOMETHING THAT COULD COME DOWN TO TO A, YOU KNOW, FORCIBLE ACTION.
I'M NOT SURE HOW YOU EXACTLY REGULATE, YOU KNOW, FOLKS NOT PARKING ON THE STREET.
BUT BUT YEAH, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE FIRE MARSHAL'S COMMENT.
[01:45:01]
YEAH. IT WOULD HAVE TO BE A TWENTY SIX FEET UNOBSTRUCTED DRIVE.AND THEN I ALSO READ, I BELIEVE, YEAH, CIRCULATION FLOWS IN ONE DIRECTION.
IT LOOKS LIKE FROM WEST TO EAST, I THINK.
AND ALSO THERE'S TWO DRIVEWAYS, SO THERE'S WAY IN AND A WAY OUT.
AND SO I GUESS I GUESS I'LL HAVE TO VERIFY THIS WITH THE APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE THAT THAT'S THE CASE. IT'S ONE WAY.
I GUESS ONE WAY WITH NO PARKING ON THE STREET, AND THAT'S ABOUT THE ONLY WAY THE FIRE MARSHAL WOULD ACTUALLY APPROVE IT.
IT WILL BE AN APPROPRIATE QUESTION FOR HIM.
YES, SIR. OK, ONE MORE QUESTION.
IT SAYS THERE'S A PROPOSED GOLF CART RENTAL MODEL, PICKUP AND DELIVERY OF GOLF CART CARS ONLY. SO I ASSUME THAT THERE'S NO FUEL DEPOT, NO FUELING OF GOLF CARTS AND NO MAINTENANCE OF GOLF CARTS. IS THAT RIGHT? THAT WAS NOT THAT WAS NOT DESCRIBED IN THE NARRATIVE, SIR.
I MEAN, IF THERE WAS, WOULD THEY HAVE TO HAVE ANOTHER DESIGNATION OR ANOTHER TYPE OF ZONING REQUEST FOR THAT ACTIVITY? I MEAN, SURE THEY WOULD, YOU KNOW, IF THEY WANTED THAT, THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN INCORPORATED INTO THE REQUEST.
YES. OK, THAT'S THAT'S THAT'S SOMETHING DIFFERENT THAN WHAT IS REQUESTED SO FAR.
OK LET'S THAT'S ALL MY QUESTIONS FOR RIGHT NOW, THANKS.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF COMMISSIONERS? OK, GREAT.
I SUPPOSE WE WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 5:17 P.M.
AND IS OUR APPLICANT WITH US? APPLICANT IS ON THE LINE. WE'LL GO AHEAD AND ACTIVATE HIM.
HE SHOULD BE ABLE TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION.
YES, MA'AM, CAN YOU HEAR ME? WE CERTAINLY CAN.
HOW ARE YOU TODAY, SIR? I'M DOING VERY WELL. THANK YOU.
I DON'T HAVE A VISUAL PRESENTATION.
I'M JUST GOING TO TALK WITH YOU.
I THINK THAT THE PLANS THAT ARE INCLUDED IN THE PACKET PRETTY MUCH EXPLAIN EXPLAIN THE PROJECT PRETTY WELL.
BUT I'D JUST LIKE TO START BY THANKING THE COMMISSION, OF COURSE, AND ALSO THANK YOU TO STAFF FOR ADRIEL, ESPECIALLY YOU, YOUR HARD WORK AND OF COURSE, YOUR RECOMMENDATION.
SO THIS IS A THIS IS A CHANGE INTO A DEVELOPMENT PLAN LIKE YOU, YOU GUYS HAVE ALREADY STARTED THE DISCUSSION FROM THE GLUP TO THIS PUD.
A LOWERING OF DENSITY FROM 40 UNITS DOWN TO TO 25 UNITS.
AND IN ORDER TO DO THAT, WE'RE WE'RE REQUESTING A PUD IN ORDER TO TO DO A FEW THINGS.
AND I KNOW THAT SOME OF THIS IS REPETITIVE, BUT I FIGURE IT CAN'T HURT TO HAVE EVERYTHING ON THE RECORD. BUT ANYWAY, SO WE'RE ASKING FOR RELIEF AND EXCEPTIONS FOR A REDUCTION IN THE MINIMUM LOT SQUARE FOOTAGE AND IN LIEU OF FIVE THOUSAND SQUARE FOOT LOT.
THEY VARY FROM A COUPLE THAT ARE 4000 SQUARE FEET UP TO FORTY EIGHT HUNDRED, SO ABOUT FO RTY FIVE HUNDRED SQUARE FEET A LOT WITH IN LIEU OF FIFTY THREE FEET FEET WHERE WE'RE PROPOSING LOTS THAT ARE 40 FEET WIDE.
THE DRIVE LANE, AS YOU GUYS PICKED UP ON IS ONLY TWENTY EIGHT FEET WIDE AND I'LL ADDRESS BOB'S CONCERNS IN A SECOND AND THEN THE USE OF THE OF THE RENTAL IN R1 DISTRICT PASSENGER MOTOR VEHICLES.
AND AGAIN, I'LL ADDRESS BOB'S CONCERNS THERE AND THEN A DEVIATION FROM LIMITED USE STANDARDS TO ALLOW URBAN FARMING TO OCCUR ON THE FOUR POINT SIXTY FIVE ACRE LOT IN LIEU OF A FIVE ACRE LOT.
SO THOSE ARE THE THOSE ARE THE VARIATIONS THAT WE ARE REQUESTING IN IN IN OUR PUD.
IN THIS CASE HAS KIND OF BEEN KICKED AROUND FOR A LITTLE WHILE WITH RUSTY AND AND STAFF AS WELL. WE'VE LOOKED AT THIS PLAN FOR A WHILE AND AND THERE HAVE BEEN THERE ARE OTHER WAYS TO ACCOMPLISH IT THROUGH ZONING CHANGES, WHICH I WASN'T PART OF A CASE THAT CAME BEFORE YOU LAST YEAR, BUT WAS DENIED.
AND SO HE'S BEEN ENCOURAGED BOTH BY ME AND BY STAFF TO TAKE THIS ROUTE WHERE WE ACTUALLY CREATE A SUBDIVISION THAT HAS PLATED BUILDING LOTS RATHER THAN TRYING TO BUILD TWENTY
[01:50:03]
FIVE UNITS ON ONE LOT AND AND POTENTIALLY CHANGING THE ZONING TO A MULTIFAMILY.THIS IS A MUCH BETTER AND MUCH GIVES THE COMMISSION AND THE CITY A LOT MORE CONTROL OVER PLACE AND CONDITIONS AND CONTROL OVER OVER THE PROJECT IN MY MIND.
AND ADRIEL HAD ALREADY TALKED ABOUT THE PREVIOUS GLUP APPROVAL FOR 40 SITES ON RV AS AN EXTENSION OF THE RV PARK.
THE HIGHLIGHTS OF THIS PROJECT ARE THE TWENTY FIVE UNITS THEY'RE ABOUT.
THERE ARE CLOSE TO NINE HUNDRED SQUARE FEET APIECE.
AND THEY'RE THEY'RE ALL VERY SIMILAR.
THEY USE SOME VARIATION ON THE FACADES AND THE MATERIALITY, BUT THE PLANS ARE ESSENTIALLY THE SAME A TWO BEDROOM, TWO BATH IN EACH ONE.
AND THEY WILL BE MANAGED BY AN HOA AND HAVE A DEED RESTRICTIONS PLACED ON THEM.
IN SOME WAYS, THIS CASE IS IS VERY SIMILAR TO A PUD RECENT CASE THAT CAME BEFORE YOU ALL.
I KNOW THERE'S SOME NEW NEW MEMBERS, BUT BUT THERE WAS A CASE.
MAYBE SOME OF THE OLDER COMMISSIONERS CAN CAN REMIND OR INFORM THE NEWER ONES, THEY THEY WERE REQUIRING THE SIMILAR RELIEF FROM THE MINIMUM STANDARDS OF A LOT SIZE.
THEY ALSO HAD A PRIVATE ROAD SIMILAR TO THIS DEVELOPMENT.
AND SO THAT THAT PUD WAS RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL AS WELL.
SOME OF THE QUESTIONS THAT HAVE COME UP, LET ME ADDRESS THOSE.
WELL, LET ME JUST KEEP GOING WITH THE USES BECAUSE THE THERE ARE TWO SPACES THAT'S BEEN NOTED THAT ARE PART OF THAT WERE PART OF THE PUD, NOT PUD APPROVAL, GLUP APPROVAL.
AND THOSE WILL REMAIN AND THOSE ARE FOR SEASONAL WORKERS.
THEY'RE NOT THERE TO PROVIDE HOUSING.
THEY'RE THERE FOR SEASONAL WORKERS IN THOSE TWO RV SPOTS.
AND THEN THE OTHER USE IS THE THE GOLF CART RENTAL.
AND ORIGINALLY, ACTUALLY, WE HAD SUBMITTED THAT AS PART OF THE PUD AS A HOME BASED OCCUPATION BECAUSE WE WERE REALLY NOT INTENDING FOR THERE TO BE ANY RETAIL COMPONENT TO THIS. THEY'RE NOT GOING TO BE FIXING GOLF CARTS OUT THERE.
THERE'S NO REPAIR OF GOLF CARTS OUT THERE OTHER THAN THEIR OWN MAINTENANCE OF THE GOLF CARTS. AND SO REALLY, IT'S SOMETHING THAT THEY DO NOW AS AN AMENITY IN THE RV PARK.
THIS WOULD JUST PROVIDE A BETTER, A BETTER WAY OF TAKING CARE OF THEM, AND THEY WOULD STILL BE BOOKED ONLINE AND DELIVERED AND THEN PICKED UP FROM WHEREVER THEY WERE LEFT.
SO IT'S INTENDED TO BE AS AS LOW IMPACT AS POSSIBLE TO THE NEIGHBORS IN THAT AREA, ESPECIALLY THOSE IN BAY HARBOR.
THERE IS A 60 FOOT DRAINAGE DITCH AND THEN ANOTHER 16 FOOT SANITARY SEWER EASEMENT THERE THAT PROVIDES PRETTY GOOD BUFFER BETWEEN BETWEEN THAT BUILDING AND THE AND THE NEAREST NEIGHBORS TO THE EAST.
THERE ARE THERE ARE NEIGHBORS TO THE SOUTH.
THERE ARE 10 HOUSES ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF FM 3005 THAT ARE ADJACENT NEIGHBORS, AND THOSE ARE ALL ON THE SHORT TERM RENTAL REGISTRY.
SO OUR PROPOSAL WITH THESE SMALL HOUSES IS A COMBINATION OF SELLING THEM AND THEN ALSO SHORT TERM RENTALS.
AND THE SHORT TERM RENTALS WOULD BE MANAGED BY THE HOA UNDER A DEED RESTRICTION, AS WOULD ANY SHORT TERM RENTAL BY A PRIVATE OWNER.
ALSO BE COORDINATED AND MANAGED BY ON SITE HOA MAINTENANCE AND MANAGEMENT.
SEE IF I'VE GOT ANYTHING ELSE.
OH, THERE WAS TO ADDRESS SOME OF THE QUESTIONS TO GO BACK TO THAT.
THERE IS AN ACCESS EASEMENT ALONG THE FRONT EDGE OF THE PROPERTY THAT IS ALONG 3005 THAT THERE'S BEEN SOME QUESTIONING OF.
WHETHER THAT'S BEEN ACCESSIBLE TO THE PUBLIC OR NOT.
IT IS. IT ACTUALLY IS MANAGED BY THE THE RV CAMPGROUND, SO KOA MANAGES THAT.
THERE'S BEEN SOME ISSUES WITH THEM NOT BEING ABLE TO MOW IT PROPERLY.
[01:55:02]
BUT TO ADDRESS JEFFREY, YOUR QUESTION ABOUT WHERE THAT OCCURS RELATIVE TO THE FENCE, IT'S OUTSIDE OF THE FENCE, IT'S ON THE ON THE STREET SIDE OF THE FENCE.AND THERE HAS BEEN A SIGN PUT UP FOR NO TRESPASSING THAT'S FURTHER BACK INTO THE PROPERTY. IT'S ABOUT 25 FEET INTO THE PROPERTY BECAUSE IT WASN'T BEING MOWED AND MAINTAINED BY THE KOA.
FOLKS WERE TAKING AN EASIER ROUTE THROUGH THE PROPERTY AND AND SO WE WERE TRYING TO AVOID THAT AND GET KOA TO ACTUALLY MAINTAIN THAT STRIP OF GRASS THERE.
THERE ARE NO, NO AND THERE ARE NO PROPOSED CHANGES TO THAT ACCESS EASEMENT IN OUR PLAN, EITHER. SO THAT WILL REMAIN IN PLACE.
GOING BACK TO THE AVOIDANCE THAT IS JUST EXACTLY HAS AS IT SOUNDS, JEFFREY, THE NOTION IS NOT TO IMPACT ANY ANY DELINEATED WETLANDS THERE.
THERE'S GOING TO HAVE TO BE SOME AVOIDANCE IN TERMS OF SOME CARE GIVEN TO TO DEVELOPMENT WHILE THAT'S OCCURRING, OF COURSE, JUST LIKE THOSE TWO SPOTS, YOU KNOW, REQUIRE SOME SENSITIVITY, SOME SILT FENCING AND THOSE SORTS OF THINGS TO TO AVOID THE IMPACTS TO THOSE. SO THE IDEA IS JUST NOT TO PUT A FOOTPRINT ON TOP OF ANY WETLANDS.
LET'S SEE THE BOB ON ON YOUR QUESTION ABOUT THE STREET WIDTH.
WE'VE WORKED WITH THE FIRE MARSHAL, THEY HAD SOME QUESTIONS ABOUT SPRINKLERING.
WE ARE GOING TO SPRINKLE THE THE GOLF CART BUILDING WITH THE RESIDENTS ABOVE.
AND AND THEN THEY ALSO WERE QUESTIONING LOCATION OF FIRE HYDRANTS.
BUT THERE'S A WE HAVE A DRAWING THAT MAPS ALL THOSE OUT ALONG 3005.
WE DID HAVE SOME BACK AND FORTH WITH THE FIRE MARSHAL ON THAT.
AND AND LIKE YOU SEE THE COMMENT THAT HE MADE AS LONG AS THE STREET WAS WIDE ENOUGH THAT HE DIDN'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH WITH THE PLAN AND IT WILL BE A ONE WAY STREET, BUT IT'LL BE FROM THE OTHER DIRECTION.
AND THEN YOU WERE THINKING, BOB, IT'LL COME.
IT'LL GO FROM THE EAST TO THE WEST AND EXIT OUT THROUGH THE CAMPGROUND DRIVEWAY THERE.
AND THE REASON FOR THAT IS JUST TO KEEP KEEP TRAFFIC FROM GOING BOTH BOTH DIRECTIONS AND KEEP TRAFFIC FROM THE RV PARK OUT OF THE OUT OF THE BUNGALOW DEVELOPMENT.
SO THAT'S THAT'S WHAT WE'RE DOING THERE.
AND THEN THERE WON'T BE ANY STREET, ANY STREET PARKING AT ALL.
I IMAGINE THAT WILL BE REQUIRED TO PAINT A STRIPE ALL ALONG THE EDGE OF THAT ROAD THAT SAYS THAT OR AT LEAST PUT UP SOME SIGNAGE.
LIGHTING IS GOING TO BE ALL LOW IMPACT, YOU KNOW, DARK SKY LIGHTING, OF COURSE, TO COMPLY WITH THE WITH THE LIGHTING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY AND MANAGEMENT OF THE SHORT TERM RENTAL IS A STRATEGY THAT THE RUSTY WOULD LIKE TO USE IN ORDER TO KEEP, KEEP, KEEP THE HOUSES FROM BECOMING PARTY HOUSES AND LIMIT THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE THAT CAN THAT CAN STAY IN IN THESE UNITS OUT ON THE WEST END.
SO THERE IS SOME CONSIDERATION GIVEN GIVEN TO THE NUMBER OF CARS THAT COULD BE PARKED OUT THERE WHILE THERE'S WHILE THERE ARE FOUR CARS PERMITTED, POTENTIALLY IT'S UNLIKELY THAT THAT YOU WOULD. WELL, IT'S NOT UNLIKELY.
IT'S POSSIBLE THAT YOU COULD HAVE FOUR CARS THERE, BUT NOT NECESSARILY AS I GUESS.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS I'D BE HAPPY TO ANSWER.
THERE ARE SOME THERE'S SOME LANGUAGE IN OUR SUBMITTAL ABOUT SIGNAGE THAT COMPLIES WITH THE WITH THE SIGN ORDINANCE, AND SCREENING AND LANDSCAPING.
SO HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
AND AGAIN, I THANK YOU GUYS FOR LISTENING, SO I'LL OPEN UP YOUR QUESTIONS OR IF IF RUSTY WANTS TO ADD ANYTHING TO THIS.
RUSTY, DID YOU WANT TO ADD ANYTHING BEFORE WE OPEN IT UP FOR BEFORE WE START ASKING QUESTIONS? NO, I THINK BRACKS HAS DONE A GREAT JOB.
THANK YOU. OK, BRACKS, DO YOU HAVE ANY RENDERINGS OF THE GOLF CART HOUSE OR IS THE POOL AND PLAYGROUND? IT IS.
I DO NOT HAVE ANYTHING FOR THE POOL AND PLAYGROUND.
[02:00:01]
POOL AND PLAYGROUND IS GOING TO BE A FUTURE A FUTURE DESIGN.BUT THERE IS EXHIBIT D IN YOUR IN YOUR PACKET IS ELEVATIONS OF THE GOLF CART. IT'S ACTUALLY A SIDE ELEVATION OF ONE OF THE ONE OF THE BUNGALOWS AND THEN THE GOLF CART BEHIND IT.
ADRIEL, CAN YOU? I'M NOT KNOWING WHICH ONE IS D.
I'VE GOT IT, I'VE GOT IT, I'VE GOT IT.
SO. SO THE ONE THAT'S DEEPER IS THE I GET IT IS THE GOLF CART.
WHEN SO THEN BRACKS, HOW MANY? HOW MANY GOLF CARTS WOULD FIT UNDER THERE? OK, SO CURRENTLY THEY THEY THEY RENT BETWEEN 20 AND THEN AT THE PEAK OF THE SUMMER, 30 GOLF CARTS.
BUT MOST OF THEM ARE OUT AT THAT TIME, SO THEY'RE NEVER GOING TO BE 30 GOLF CARTS THERE.
BUT I COULD IMAGINE I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY HE'S GOT RENTED OUT RIGHT NOW, BUT I WOULD IMAGINE, YOU KNOW, A DOZEN TO A DOZEN TO 18.
PROBABLY RIGHT RIGHT NOW, MAYBE.
YOU KNOW, WE DURING THIS TIME OF YEAR IS WHEN WE WOULD ACTUALLY WE WE HAVE MOST OF OUR CARTS IN STORAGE DURING THE SUMMER SEASON, THEY'RE OUT ON RENTALS, SO THEY'RE THEY'RE NOT ON THE PROPERTY AND THE STRUCTURE THAT WE HAVE THERE IS DESIGNED TO HOUSE ABOUT 20 GOLF CARTS, YOU KNOW, UNDERNEATH THAT BUILDING.
AND KEEP IN MIND THAT THAT WOULD ALL BE ENCLOSED WITH, YOU KNOW, LOUVERED WALLS, SO THEY WOULD BE BASICALLY STORED INDOORS.
OK, SO WOULD WE HAVE A, OK, IS THERE SO THERE WOULD NOT BE A LIMIT OF THE NUMBER THAT WOULD BE HOUSED THERE? WE DIDN'T DETERMINE A LIMIT.
IT'S SOMETHING THAT YOU GUYS COULD COULD PUT A CONDITION ON, I ASSUME.
AND I WOULD JUST GO BACK TO THAT POINT, I GUESS NOT NECESSARILY JUST ABOUT THE THE THE GOLF CARTS, BUT WHATEVER YOU WANTED TO CONDITION.
I MEAN, YOU GUYS HAVE HEARD PUDS BEFORE.
YOU KNOW THAT THIS IS AN OPPORTUNITY TO PUT AS MANY CONDITIONS AS YOU WANT ON A PROJECT.
IT WOULD BE, HOWEVER, MANY I THINK WE WOULD WANT TO LIMIT IT TO WHATEVER WOULD FIT UNDER THERE. WE WOULDN'T WANT TO HAVE THEM SPILLING OUT IN.
OH, CORRECT. DID YOU ALL SEE THE OK, LET ME GO BACK.
DID YOU ALL SEE THE REST OF YOU DID, BECAUSE I KNOW YOU GOT IT? THE LETTER FROM ONE OF THE ONE OF THE PEOPLE WHO WAS NOTICED ACROSS 3005 MISTY VENTURA, DID YOU READ IT? I DID.
I THOUGHT SHE BROUGHT UP SOME VERY, VERY, VERY GOOD POINTS.
THE STARTING SOME OF THE BUNGALOW UNITS BEFORE THE GOLF CART HOUSE WAS BUILT AND THINGS LIKE THAT, CAN YOU TALK TO ME ABOUT THE ORDER IN WHICH THESE THINGS WOULD BE DONE? WOULD YOU? ARE YOU GOING TO DO THE GOLF CART HOUSE AND THE RESIDENTIAL UNITS SIMULTANEOUSLY? HOW IS THAT GOING TO BE DONE? WELL, THEY'RE THE PHASING WOULD BE SUCH THAT THE GOLF CART FACILITY AND THE AND ABOUT, I THINK I THINK WE SAID 10 TO 15 OF THE BUNGALOWS WOULD BOTH BE BUILT IN THE FIRST PHASE.
SECOND PHASE WOULD INCLUDE THE OTHER AMENITIES AND THE OTHER THE OTHER BUNGALOWS THE REMAINING 10.
OK, SO THAT WOULD NOT BE A PROBLEM IF WE WANTED TO PUT A CONDITION ON FOR THE FOR THE FIRST PHASE TO INCLUDE RESIDENTIAL BUNGALOWS PLUS THE GOLF CART?
[02:05:01]
NO, THAT'S FINE.THE. LET'S SEE, WHILE I GO THROUGH THESE. WHO ELSE HAS QUESTIONS? WHO ELSE IS READY FOR QUESTIONS FOR BRACKS? VICE CHAIR BROWN? I JUST HAD ONE QUICK QUESTION.
A LITTLE BIT CONFUSED AS TO THE SETBACKS.
YOU GOT TWENTY FIVE FRONT, TWENTY FIVE REAR AND AS THE SIDE SET BACK THREE AND A HALF FEET? THE SIDE, THE SIDE SETBACK TO THE TO THE BUILDINGS IS IS ABOUT EIGHT FEET.
WHAT'S THAT THREE AND A HALF FEET MEAN IS IN YOUR? LET ME SEE IF I FIND WHAT YOU'RE LOOKING AT.
IT'S UNDER NUMBER E ON YOUR LETTER, IT SAYS BUILDING SETBACKS ARE TWENTY FIVE FRONT, TWENTY FIVE REAR AND THREE AND A HALF FOOT.
TO THE STAIR. YEAH, THERE'S A STAIR.
YEAH. AND THAT'S THERE CAN BE RECONFIGURED TO BE WHATEVER, WHATEVER WE NEED TO BE.
BUT YEAH, THAT'S THREE POINT FIVE FEET TO THE STAIR.
OK, EIGHT FEET TO THE BUILDING.
YEAH. AND I BROUGHT THAT UP WHEN I WAS REVIEWING THIS FOR THE PUD APPLICATION AND AND WE CAN MEET THE REQUIRED SETBACKS JUST WITH A LITTLE BIT OF REDESIGN OF THAT STAIR.
OK, CAN YOU SAY THAT AGAIN, PLEASE? WE CAN RECONFIGURE THE STAIR TO MEET ANY KIND OF SETBACKS THAT WE NEED TO, BUT RIGHT NOW THE WAY AND I DIDN'T DESIGN THESE BUNGALOWS.
SO AND I'M NOT, IT DOESN'T REALLY MATTER.
BUT AS I LOOKED AT THE DESIGN, I REALIZED THAT THAT WE COULD REDESIGN THE STAIR TO BE WITHIN THE SAME ZONE, ESSENTIALLY AS THE HOUSE AND MEET THE SAME SETBACK.
YEAH, THAT COULD BE VERY EASILY DONE TO DOUBLE THE STAIR BACK IN THE FRONT, YOU GOT SET BACK RIGHT THERE. EXACTLY.
IF I COULD INTERJECT, BOB, IT'S IT IS EIGHT FOOT TO THE PROPERTY LINE.
THE BUNGALOWS ARE TWENTY FOUR FEET WIDE, SO 16 FOOT BETWEEN EACH BUILDING.
OK, I GOTCHA. AND THAT'S REALLY WHAT THE INTENT WAS.
I THINK WITH THAT DESIGN, BOB IS SO THAT THEY COULD MAINTAIN SOME VIEW CORRIDORS BETWEEN THE FRONT UNITS AND STILL GET A PRETTY GOOD VIEW OF THE WATER, OR AT LEAST THE OTHER SIDE OF 3005.
OTHER COMMISSIONERS, COMMISSIONERS, OTHER COMMENTS, QUESTIONS? YES, COMMISSIONER FINKLEA.
SO EITHER TO THE APPLICANT OR TO MR. EASTERWOOD. ARE THESE ALL INTENDED TO BE SHORT TERM RENTALS? AND SO TO THAT END, ARE EACH ONE OF THE, EACH ONE OF THE PROPERTIES GOING TO BE INDIVIDUALLY PLATED OR THINK I SAW THE ZONING FOR THEM? BUT. AND THEN THE OTHER QUESTION I HAD WAS GIVEN THAT THEY'RE ALL IF THEY ARE ALL SHORT TERM RENTALS, ARE THERE ANY REQUIREMENTS FOR SPRINKLERING THE INDIVIDUAL RESIDENCES? AND I DIDN'T KNOW IF THEY WERE 16 FEET APART MIGHT BE FAR ENOUGH.
YOU DON'T HAVE TO DO THAT. SO THOSE ARE MY QUESTIONS.
YEAH, I'LL ANSWER THOSE DAVID, GOOD QUESTIONS, YES, THEY ARE 16 FEET APART, WHICH GIVES THEM ENOUGH FIRE SEPARATION FOR A TYPICAL SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE.
THE INTENTION IS TO PUT PUT EACH OF THESE ON A PLATED LOT LIKE YOU SUGGESTED.
AND SO THEY WILL HAVE THEIR OWN INDIVIDUAL PIECES OF PROPERTY.
THEY WILL HAVE THEIR OWN CAD NUMBERS, THEY WILL PAY THEIR OWN TAXES.
BUT SOME MAY BE RETAINED FOR THE OWNER TO USE AS SHORT TERM RENTAL, AND SOME MAY BE SOLD AND IN THE END MAY BE USED AS SHORT TERM RENTALS AS WELL.
HOWEVER, THE DEED RESTRICTIONS WILL REQUIRE THE MANAGEMENT TO BE DONE BY THE HOA OF EACH OF THOSE INDIVIDUAL SHORT TERM RENTALS IS THE BUSINESS PLAN.
SO IF THEY ARE SHORT TERM RENTALS, THE HOA MANAGES THEM, IF THEY.
RIGHT. IF THEY ARE SINGLE OCCUPANCY, THEN THEY'RE JUST SUBJECT TO WHATEVER HOA REQUIREMENTS. EXACTLY, EXACTLY.
AND WE DID HAVE THE FIRE SPRINKLER DISCUSSION WITH THE WITH THE FIRE MARSHAL AND WE'LL WE'LL DO WHATEVER HE ULTIMATELY WANTS.
BUT WE DID COME TO AN AGREEMENT TO JUST JUST SPRINKLER THE RV.
OR NOT THE RV, THE GOLF CART FACILITY.
YEAH. AND THE RESIDENCE ABOVE THAT.
[02:10:02]
RIGHT. AND I WOULD THINK JUST ONE LITTLE COMMENT ON THE FIRE LINE.I FULLY EXPECT THAT IF HE'S LOOKING FOR A TWENTY SIX FOOT CLEAR THAT HE'S GOING TO WANT YOU TO RED STRIPE RED STRIPE BOTH SIDES.
YEAH, THOSE ARE QUESTIONS TOO.
CORRECT. ONCE YOU STRIKE A FIRE LINE, IT'S STRIPE AS A FIRE LANE THAT INDICATES THERE IS NO PARKING POSSIBLE IN THE FIRE LINE.
SO THAT MEANS THEN THAT'S HOW THE FIRE MARSHAL GETS HIS TWENTY SIX FOOT CLEAR.
SO THEN THAT'S NOT ANYTHING WE NEED TO PUT AS A SPECIFIC CONDITION, THE FIRE MARSHAL WILL TAKE CARE OF THAT. WE DON'T NEED TO TAKE CARE OF THAT.
WHENEVER THEY GO IN FOR A PERMIT AND THE FIRE MARSHAL REVIEWS THAT THEY SHOULD PICK THAT UP. I LOVE IT WHEN WE DON'T HAVE TO HANDLE THAT.
JUST TOOK THAT AWAY FROM US, TOOK THAT AWAY FROM US.
OK, ANYTHING ELSE, COMMISSIONERS? ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? ANYTHING ELSE? GOING ONCE GOING AND BRACKS THE DARK SKIY STANDARDS IS ON EVERYTHING.
INCLUDING RUSTY AND HIS BEEKEEPER SUIT.
I WAS HOPING ADRIEL WOULD DO A LITTLE MEME OF RUSTY IN HIS BEE SUIT.
I'M GOING TO DRIVE OUT THERE JUST YET.
I'M DYING TO SEE RUSTY AND HIS BEEKEEPER SUIT.
WE'RE GOING TO ALL PAY MONEY FOR THAT.
THERE YOU GO. WE'RE WAITING TO SEE IT.
OK. NO OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT.
THANK YOU. CONTINUE WITH OUR PUBLIC HEARING AND OPEN IT UP TO REMAINDER OF THE PUBLIC.
IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO MAKE PUBLIC COMMENT, PLEASE USE THE RAISE HAND FUNCTION.
MS. GORMAN. THAT IS CORRECT, AND WE HAVE A COUPLE OF FOLKS WITH THEIR HANDS UP.
OK, YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO UNMUTE AND ADDRESS THE COMMISSION.
TWO THREE SIX THREE ONE SAN LOUIS PASS ROAD.
I AM AN OWNER ACROSS THE STREET FROM THIS PROPERTY.
MY PROPERTY WAS PURCHASED IN 2018 AND IT HAS NOT BEEN RENTED SINCE ITS.
IT WAS PURCHASED, SO IT SHOULD NOT BE ON ANY RENTAL REGISTRY.
I AM IN SUPPORT OF THE VARIATIONS THAT THE APPLICANT REQUESTS, THE DEVIATIONS RELATED TO LOT AREA AND LOT WITH.
I THINK AFFORDABLE HOUSING IS IMPORTANT AND I THINK THESE TYPES OF UNITS PROVIDE AN AFFORDABLE HOUSING PRODUCT.
I WAS VERY EXCITED TO SEE THE BOTH FOR SALE AND FOR RENT COMPONENT REFERENCED IN THE STAFF REPORT.
I DO, HOWEVER, HAVE GRAVE CONCERNS RELATED TO THE COMMERCIAL USE, PARTICULARLY WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE SITE PLAN AND NOTE THAT TRACT D OR PARCEL D DOESN'T HAVE ANY RIGHT OF WAY SHOWN ON IT. AND SO WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE STAFF REPORT EARLIER IN THIS MEETING AND THEY SHOW THAT THE BUILDING FOR THIS COMMERCIAL USE IS SHIFTED TO THE WEST BEHIND LOT ONE IN ORDER TO KEEP IT OUT OF THE DRAINAGE AREA.
IT BEGS THE QUESTION OF HOW YOU'RE GOING TO ACCESS THAT COMMERCIAL USE.
I AM ALSO CONCERNED THAT WHEN YOU'VE GOT A FOR SALE PRODUCT ON A PRIVATE STREET THAT'S ONLY TWENTY EIGHT FEET WIDE, THAT CREATES SAFETY CONCERNS.
SO THE TWO THINGS THAT I WOULD RESPECTFULLY REQUEST THIS COMMISSION ADDRESS IS THE SAFETY CONCERNS BY INCREASING THE PRIVATE STREET WIDTH TO A STANDARD PUBLIC STREET OR SOMETHING GREATER THAN 28 FEET AND TO UPDATE THE SITE PLAN, SO THAT IT'S CLEAR HOW THE COMMERCIAL USE ON PARCEL D IS GOING TO BE ACCESSED FROM A FIRE SAFETY PERSPECTIVE.
IN ADDITION TO THAT, IF YOU'RE GOING TO ALLOW A COMMERCIAL USE IN AN R1 RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD AS AN OVERLAY, I WOULD LIKE TO SEE MORE RESTRICTIONS PUT ON THAT USE, PARTICULARLY RELATED TO THE HOURS OF OPERATION AND TO MAKE CLEAR THAT ANY COMMERCIAL VEHICLES, EVEN IF THEY'RE USED BY THE OWNER OR LIMITED TO A MAXIMUM NUMBER THREE, FIVE.
WHATEVER THE COMMISSION THINKS IS REASONABLE BUT NOT OPEN ENDED.
WHATEVER THE OWNERS USING, THE OWNER GETS TO STORE OUTSIDE ON THAT LOT, AND I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THOSE TYPES OF CONDITIONS REFERENCED IN THE LETTER PROVIDED TO THE COMMISSION
[02:15:03]
INCORPORATED INTO THE PUD OVERLAY.I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THE COMMISSION HAS, BUT THOSE ARE MY REQUESTS.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MS. VENTURA. I APPRECIATE YOUR COMMENTS AND I APPRECIATE YOUR LETTER.
ANY OTHERS? YES. JEFF STERLING HAS HIS HAND UP, WE WILL ACTIVATE HIM.
YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO UNMUTE ON YOUR END AND ADDRESS THE COMMISSION.
GOOD AFTERNOON. GOOD AFTERNOON.
I'D LIKE TO THANK THE PLANNING COMMISSION, THE CITY OFFICIALS AND THE CITY STAFF FOR THIS OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK.
MY NAME IS JEFF STERLING AND I LIVE AT 24047 SAN LOUIS PASS ROAD AND KATHY AND I OWN OUR HOME AND WE LIVE IN IT FULL TIME.
WE'RE APPROXIMATELY TWO HUNDRED AND FIFTEEN FEET FROM THE BOUNDARY OF THE PROPERTY THAT'S BEING REVIEWED HERE TODAY.
WE REQUEST THAT THIS CHANGE NOT BE APPROVED.
SPECIFICALLY, THE GOLF CART SALES AND RENTAL ARE A COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY AND ARE NOT COMPATIBLE WITH THE EXISTING R1 NEIGHBORHOODS TO THE SOUTH AND THE EAST, AND IT'S NOT COMPATIBLE, OBVIOUSLY, WITH THE ZONING OF THE PROPERTY TODAY.
ALSO, THAT THIS PROPERTY HAD A REZONING REQUEST IN 2020, IT WAS CASE 20P -021. THIS REZONING REQUEST WAS TO RESORT RECREATIONAL AND THIS WOULD HAVE ALLOWED COMMERCIAL USES.
THE CITY COUNCIL DENIED THIS REQUEST WITH A FOUR TWO VOTE AT THE AUGUST 13, 2020 MEETING.
ALSO, I'D LIKE TO CORRECT SOMETHING, MR. EASTERWOOD SAID EARLIER.
IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THE GOLF CART RENTAL BUSINESS WAS OPERATING IN THE KOA RV PARK IN AUGUST 2021 THE CITY MARSHAL ISSUED A CEASE AND DESIST ORDER ON GOLF CART RENTALS.
IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THESE ARE NOT ALLOWED BY THE GLUP.
SO IF THIS WERE APPROVED, IF THIS CASE WAS APPROVED, WE HAVE THE CONCERN THAT THAT THE OWNER WILL START UP THE GOLF CART BUSINESS AND NEVER FOLLOW THROUGH ON THE SINGLE FAMILY UNITS, SO THAT THE EARLIER DISCUSSION ABOUT PUTTING A CONDITION THAT SOME SINGLE FAMILY UNITS BE COMPLETED PRIOR TO THE START OF THE GOLF CART BUSINESS IS SOMETHING THAT WE WOULD REQUEST.
WE'RE WE'RE ALSO CONCERNED THAT THERE'S A LOT OF RULES AND PROMISES HERE TO KEEP THE GOLF CARTS OUT OF VIEW, NO SIGNAGE.
AND AT THE END OF THE DAY, YOU'VE GOT A PARCEL OF LAND PARCEL D, THAT ZONED PASSENGER MOTOR VEHICLE SALES AND RENTAL.
SO IF THE OWNER CAN'T FOLLOW THESE RULES OR IF HE SELLS THIS BUSINESS TO SOMEBODY ELSE, THERE'S NOT A LOT OF GOOD RULE ENFORCEMENT IN GALVESTON.
IN CASE YOU HAVEN'T NOTICED, THE THE LAST THING I'D LIKE TO TALK ABOUT IS THE THE PUBLIC EASEMENT. THE THREE MINUTES IS UP.
I'M SORRY, MR. STERLING. YOUR THREE MINUTES ARE UP, OK.
FEEL FREE TO READ MY COMMENTS AND MY LETTER I WROTE ON THE PUBLIC EASEMENT.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
ANY OTHER PUBLIC COMMENTS? IF ANYBODY ELSE, WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION, PLEASE USE THE RAISE HAND FUNCTION.
WE'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 5:50.
I NEED SOMETHING CLARIFIED, PLEASE, WITH STAFF BEFORE WE.
WELL, WE'LL GO AHEAD AND I NEED SOME TO CLARIFY WITH STAFF BEFORE WE ENTERTAIN A MOTION.
MAY I SEE THE REVISED MAP OF WHERE THE GOLF CART EQUIPMENT STORAGE BUILDING WAS MOVED, PLEASE? IS IT OR JUST TELL ME, IS IT STILL ON PARCEL D OR HAS IT BEEN MOVED TO PARCEL A? IT IS STILL ON PARCEL D. PARCEL D IS APPROXIMATELY ONE HUNDRED AND FORTY SEVEN FEET.
[02:20:02]
I BELIEVE IF I RECALL CORRECTLY AND THE EASEMENTS AS EARLIER MENTIONED THERE, RESPECTIVELY. SIXTY FEET AND SIXTY AND 16 FEET, WHICH ADDS UP TO SEVENTY SIX FEET.THAT STILL LEAVES PLENTY OF ROOM TO PLACED OR ERECT THAT BUILDING ON THAT PARCEL D.
OK, I'M GOING TO MAKE A MOTION.
I'M GOING TO MAKE A MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF.
21P-065 WITH ADDITIONAL SPECIFIC CONDITIONS.
FIRST ONE BEING THAT PHASE ONE MUST INCLUDE A SIMULTANEOUS CONSTRUCTION OF FIFTEEN BUNGALOWS HANG ON SOMEBODY'S NOT MUTED.
FIFTEEN BUNGALOWS WITH THE GOLF CART RENTAL UNIT.
IF I MAY, IF I MAY CHAIRWOMAN, IF I MAY JUST ADD SOMETHING BRIEFLY BEFORE YOU CONTINUE ON WITH WITH YOUR CONDITIONS.
SO BASED ON THE PUD PLAN, WHICH IS BINDING FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS REQUEST, THE APPLICANT HAS STATED IN THE PUD PLAN, WHICH WILL BECOME PART OF THE ORDINANCE, THAT PHASE ONE WILL INCLUDE 10 TO 12 SINGLE FAMILY UNITS.
SO THAT I'M JUST TRYING TO SHED SOME LIGHT HERE ON ON ON THE FACT THAT THAT IS ALREADY COVERED. OF COURSE, YOU KNOW, THIS COMMISSION MAY PLACE ADDITIONAL STANDARDS, BUT I JUST WANTED TO MAKE THAT NOTE THAT FOR THE RECORD.
THEY SAY IT WILL BE DONE SIMULTANEOUSLY WITH THE GOLF CART.
SPECIFICALLY STATES THAT THE FIRST PHASE WILL INCLUDE 10 TO 12 OF THE SINGLE FAMILY UNITS AND THE EQUIPMENT BUILDING.
THAT IS PART OF THE PUD PLAN AGAIN, WHICH BECOMES PART OF THE ORDINANCE.
OK. IS THAT I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE, OK.
I THINK IF I MAY PUT THE WORD SIMULTANEOUS, I THINK IF YOU WHEN YOU BREAK IT DOWN, IF THEY BUILD THE 10 TO 12 BUNGALOWS FIRST AND THEN THE EQUIPMENT UNIT SECOND, WOULD THAT BE CONSIDERED SIMULTANEOUS? JUST BECAUSE THERE'S A THERE'S A PLAN, THERE'S A PLAN, THERE'S A PROCESS IN BUILDING PROPERTY. AND SO ARE YOU SAYING THAT THEY HAVE TO THESE TWO SEPARATE TYPES OF BUILDINGS HAVE TO BE BUILT AT THE SAME TIME, BUT JUST IN THE SAME PHASE.
WHAT I WANT TO MAKE SURE OF DONNA IS THAT THEY DON'T BUILD THE GOLF CART BUILDING AND THEN WAIT A YEAR OR TWO BEFORE THEY.
OR NEVER. AND THEN THEY BUILD A GOLF CART THING AND THEN NEVER BUILD THE RESIDENTIAL.
AND SO PHASE ONE IS NOT COMPLETED, IN OTHER WORDS.
SO IS THE WAY THE PUD IS CURRENTLY WORDED IS IT IS THAT ARE WE PROTECTED FROM THAT? CAN YOU READ THAT LANGUAGE AGAIN, PLEASE? THE PUD PLAN STATES ON THEIR FACE PHASING OR SCHEDULING OF THE PROJECT.
THE STATS OF THE PROJECT WOULD LIKELY BE DONE IN TWO PHASES.
THE FIRST PHASE WILL INCLUDE 10 TO 12 OF THE SINGLE FAMILY UNITS AND THE EQUIPMENT BUILDING AND THEN APPROVALS ANTICIPATED CONSTRUCTION COULD BEGIN IN SPRING 2022, WITH THE SECOND PHASE BEGINNING AS SOON AS FALL OF 2022.
THIS IS A DIFFICULT ONE JUST BECAUSE I THINK THE LANGUAGE DOES MEET THE NEED.
WHAT YOU'RE REALLY TALKING ABOUT IS WHEN A PROJECT BECOMES DORMANT AND IF WE'RE LOOKING AT A DORMANT PROJECT, THERE ARE RULES AND REGULATIONS REQUIRING WHAT TO DO WHEN A PROJECT BECOMES DORMANT. SO YOU CAN'T JUST BUILD THE GOLF CART AND THEN REST ON YOUR LAURELS LIKE FIVE YEARS OR SIX YEARS, IF YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN.
BUT THEN OTHER RULES AND REGULATIONS CAN COME INTO PLAY.
OTHER PROTECTIONS, I SHOULD SAY, CAN COME INTO PLAY.
AM I PROTECTED, DONNA? YES OR NO? YOU'RE PROTECTED IN MANY RESPECTS AS FAR AS THE LEGISLATURE AND OUR CITY ORDINANCES ARE GOING TO ALLOW US TO BE PROTECTED.
I'M NOT QUITE SURE IF WE CAN GET ANY STRONGER THAN THAT.
OK, SO ARE YOU TELLING ME THAT I DON'T NEED THAT SPECIFIC CONDITION?
[02:25:04]
IT'S GOING TO BE A CONDITION OF THE ORDINANCE ALREADY.SO IT'S IN THE ORDINANCE ALREADY, SO I'LL STRIKE THAT SPECIFIC CONDITION.
OK, SO THEN MY FIRST ADDITIONAL SPECIFIC CONDITION WILL BE.
PROHIBIT OUTSIDE STORAGE OF GOLF CARTS AND EQUIPMENT ON ALL PARCELS OTHER THAN PARCEL D AND LIMIT THE STORAGE OF GOLF CARTS AND EQUIPMENT TO THE AREA BELOW THE LONG TERM HOUSING UNIT PLANNED FOR PARCEL D, LIMIT THE HOURS OF GOLF CART HOURS TO SEVEN A.M.
THEN THE SECOND CONDITION TO ADD IS AND BOB I MIGHT NEED YOUR HELP ON THIS ONE.
REDESIGN THE STAIRS TO MAINTAIN THE VIEW CORRIDOR.
HOW DO I DO THAT ONE? I THINK ALL YOU HAVE TO DO.
ALL YOU HAVE TO DO IS, SAY, REDESIGN STAIRS TO MAINTAIN EIGHT FOOT CLEAR SIDE YARD SETBACK. OK, SO THAT WOULD BE THE SECOND OF MY TWO SPECIFIC CONDITIONS.
AND IF I MAY CHAIRWOMAN, YOU KNOW, THE CITY'S PLANNING STANDARDS FOR THE R1 DISTRICT PERTAINING TO SETBACKS IS ONLY THREE FEET.
WELL, HE'S GOT ON HIS PLANS, THE EIGHT FOOT THE EIGHT FOOT CLEAR SIDE YARD SETBACK IS INTENDED TO BE A VIEW CORRIDOR.
IT'S BIGGER THAN WHAT'S REQUIRED BY THE CITY, BUT.
I UNDERSTAND THAT, COMMISSIONER BROWN, I'M JUST SAYING WHAT THE CITY'S REGULATIONS ARE CURRENTLY PRESCRIBING, YEAH.
JOE, CAN I ASK YOU A QUESTION? REGARDING THE SEVEN TO SEVEN GOLF CART OPERATION? ARE THERE ANY REGULATIONS THAT WE HAVE ELSEWHERE REGARDING HOURLY GOLF CART OPERATION? WELL, I'D SAY THAT, YOU KNOW, HOURS OF OPERATION.
IT'S NOT UNCOMMON FOR OTHER LIMITED USES IN THE CITY.
HOWEVER, IN REGARD TO THE STORAGE COMPONENT OF THE BUSINESS, I THINK THAT MIGHT BE COVERED UNDER SPECIFIC CONDITION 2A WHICH CLEARLY STATES THAT ALL BUSINESS OPERATIONS AND ANY STORAGE SHALL BE INDOORS.
NO OUTDOOR DISPLAY OF GOLF CARTS PERMITTED.
DOES THAT MEET? IT DOESN'T MEET IN THE HOURS.
IT ONLY MAKES A REFERENCE TO THE STORAGE.
CORRECT. SO I GUESS MY QUESTION IS REGARDING THE HOURS SINCE THIS IS A RENTAL WHICH IS GOING IN, THE CARTS ARE GOING TO BE PICKED UP OFFSITE, ET CETERA, ET CETERA.
ARE YOU SAYING THAT YOU CAN ONLY HAVE WORKERS WORKING BETWEEN THE HOURS OF SEVEN TO SEVEN? HE'S JUST SAID HE CAN HAVE UP TO SEVEN UP TO 20 GOLF CARTS HERE, SO HE'S NOT SAYING THEY'RE ALWAYS GOING TO BE OFF SITE, DONNA.
BUT I'M REALLY SPEAKING TO THE HOURS THAT HE CAN CONDUCT HIS BUSINESS, I GUESS, AND SEVEN TO SEVEN.
I'M NOT QUITE SURE IF WE IF WE'VE LIMITED OTHER GOLF CART RENTAL SERVICES TO THAT TIME FRAME. IT'S I MEAN, I DON'T KNOW.
I'M JUST THROWING IT OUT THERE.
SOME PEOPLE MAY WANT TO RENT A GOLF CART AT SIX O'CLOCK IN THE MORNING AND PICK IT UP OFF SITE BECAUSE THEY WANT TO TAKE IN A MORNING GOLF SESSION.
I'M NOT QUITE SURE. AND THIS IS NOT, IF I MAY ADD, THIS IS NOT A TRADITIONAL BUSINESS MODEL, AS WE SEE THROUGHOUT THE CITY FOR THIS TYPE OF OPERATION WHERE IT'S, YOU KNOW, YOUR TRADITIONAL BRICK AND MORTAR FACILITY AND THEY RENT THOSE THOSE, YOU KNOW, THOSE GOLF CARTS, YOU KNOW, THIS IS STRICTLY A ONLINE BUSINESS AND PHONE BOOKINGS.
CAN'T WE PUT LIMITATIONS ON IT THAT WE THINK ARE RELEVANT TO THIS SPECIFIC SITUATION? YES, MA'AM. I WAS THINKING MORE ALONG OF ENFORCEMENT.
HOW WOULD YOU ENFORCE SOMEONE FROM RENTING A GOLF CART IF IT WAS AT 6:30 IN THE MORNING AS OPPOSED TO 7:30 IN THE MORNING? WELL, IN THIS SITUATION, THEY'RE NOT GOING TO BE COMING THERE TO PICK IT UP OR OR DROP IT OFF. IT'S SUPPOSED TO BE ONLINE, SO IT'S GOING TO BE TAKEN FROM THERE IN A TRAILER OR OR DROPPED OFF AND PICKED UP FROM THERE IN A TRAILER.
IT'S AN ONLINE BOOKING, SO YOU'RE REALLY GOING TO BE HEARING THE TRAILER LEAVING THERE OR
[02:30:06]
COMING BACK THERE.THAT'S ALL YOU'RE GOING TO BE HEARING.
THEN I THINK THAT'S WHERE WE NEED TO SPECIFY IT THEN.
YOU JUST SAID GOLF CART HOURS SEVEN TO SEVEN, BUT I THINK MAKING THAT A LITTLE BIT MORE SPECIFIC AS YOU MEAN THE TRAFFIC COMPONENT, I THINK THAT'S REALLY WHERE NEED TO HONE IN ON. OK.
I DON'T UNDER SO, SO WORD IT HOW HOW YOU FEEL LIKE IT SHOULD BE WORRIED, THEN PLEASE.
WELL, ALL I HEARD WAS GOLF CART HOURS SEVEN TO SEVEN.
AND MY QUESTION WAS, CAN WE BE A LITTLE BIT MORE SPECIFIC AS TO WHAT YOU MEAN BY THAT? AND I THINK YOU IN THIS DISCUSSION, YOU'VE ANSWERED WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT, THE TRAFFIC, THE NOISE.
SO I THINK THAT'S WHAT YOU REALLY MEAN.
OK. DO I NEED TO SAY DO I NEED TO CLARIFY ANYTHING FURTHER? YES, MA'AM. I'M NOT SURE THAT I UNDERSTAND WHAT IS BEING REQUESTED.
PROHIBITS DELIVERY AND DROP OFF OF GOLF CARTS BEFORE 7:00 AND AFTER 7:00 P.M.
IS THERE A SECOND? I'M SORRY, BUT BEFORE YOU GUYS MAKE THE SECOND, I'M SORRY TO GET INVOLVED HERE FURTHER, BUT THE LOCATION OF THE BUILDING AS OF RIGHT NOW IN THE OFFICIAL SUBMITTAL, IT'S STILL ON THE EASEMENT THERE WAS, I GUESS, A RESUBMITTAL THAT SHOWED IT BEING MOVED TO THE WEST.
BUT IS THAT SOMETHING YOU WANTED TO CONDITION? ARE YOU? ARE YOU TELLING ME THAT YOU THAT I NEED TO ADD A CONDITION TO APPROVE THE MOVE OF THE BUILDING OUT OF THE EASEMENT? YES, I THINK SO.
WHAT WAS OFFICIALLY SUBMITTED WAS THE BUILDING SHOWN WITHIN THAT EASEMENT.
OK. THERE WAS A COMMITMENT TO MOVE IT TO THE WEST.
BUT AND I THINK THERE WAS A SKETCH SHOWING IT, PERHAPS, BUT I WOULD, YOU KNOW, I WOULD CONDITION IT. YES.
AND WE HAVE A WE HAVE A REVISED SITE PLAN THAT SHOWS THAT OUTSIDE OF THAT, SO.
IT'S IMPORTANT FOR THAT SITE PLAN.
AND TO AND TO APPROVE THE REVISED SITE PLAN FOR THE COMMERCIAL BUILDING.
SO IS THERE A SECOND? VICE CHAIR BROWN.
YEAH, BUT I WOULD LIKE TO PUT ONE MORE FRIENDLY AMENDMENT ON THERE, IF I COULD.
SURE. I DON'T KNOW IF WE'RE GOING TO IF WE'RE DOING THIS EXACTLY CORRECTLY, BUT GO AHEAD AND TOSS ANOTHER AMENDMENT IN THERE BEFORE WE DO A SECOND.
OK. VERY SIMPLY, I WOULD JUST WANT I JUST WANT TO PROHIBIT ALL ON STREET PARKING ON THE PRIVATE STREET.
IT'S NOT CONDITIONED ANYWHERE IN THE STAFF REPORT, BUT I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT.
JUST SAY PROHIBIT ALL ON STREET PARKING IN THE PRIVATE STREET.
SURE, WE'LL GO AHEAD AND ADD IT, EVEN THOUGH DAVID TOLD ME THAT THE FIRE MARSHAL IS GOING TO DO IT ANYWAY, DAVID TOLD ME THAT WE DON'T HAVE TO DO IT, THAT THE FIRE MARSHAL IS GOING TO DO IT, BUT SURE, WE'LL GO AHEAD AND DO IT.
OK, THANK YOU. OK, SO WE HAVE THAT ADDED AS A AS A SPECIFIC CONDITION NOW, DO WE HAVE A SECOND? AND I'LL SECOND IT TOO.
ALL RIGHT. AND A SECOND TO BOOT.
ALL RIGHT. SO WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.
IS THERE DISCUSSION? OH, WHAT? THERE'S NO DISCUSSION.
AND THERE'S NO DISCUSSION, WE HAVE A MOTION A SECOND, NO DISCUSSION, SO LET'S CALL THE VOTE. VICE CHAIRPERSON BROWN.
IN FAVOR. COMMISSIONER EDWARDS.
[02:35:02]
OH, NO, NO, COMMISSIONER WALLA VOTING.ALL IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION PASSES.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH, COMMISSIONERS.
AND WE CAN BRING COMMISSIONER WALLA BACK IN NOW.
AND IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE MS. GORMAN? THAT CONCLUDES THE BUSINESS FOR THE AGENDA TODAY.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH AND FOR MY CHRISTMAS PRESENT, I WANT A PICTURE OF COMMISSIONER WALLA IN HIS BEEKEEPING GEAR.
IF YOU WOULD SEND THAT TO MS. GORMAN AND SHE WILL CIRCULATE IT TO EVERYBODY OR SEND IT TO PATRICK AND SHE WILL CIRCULATE IT TO EVERYBODY AND THIS AGENDA.
21P-065 WILL GO BEFORE COUNCIL FOR FINAL APPROVAL AND THE DATE ON THAT MS. GORMAN.
OK, AND WITHOUT ANYTHING, FURTHER ANYTHING FURTHER COMMISSIONERS? NEXT MEETING IS JANUARY 4TH.
BYE. BYE.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.