[00:00:02] OKAY. I WOULD LIKE TO CALL THIS MEETING TO ORDER. [Zoning Board of Adjustments on January 8, 2025.] IT'S 3:30 P.M.. WELCOME TO THE GALVESTON ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING OF JANUARY 8TH, 2025. THIS MEETING IS RECORDED AND AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC ON THE CITY'S WEBSITE. PLEASE SPEAK CLEARLY AND DIRECTLY INTO THE MICROPHONES. DO WE HAVE THE ATTENDANCE SHEET SOMEWHERE HERE? OKAY. SO THE ATTENDANCE HAS BEEN TAKEN, AND DO WE HAVE ANYBODY ABSENT TODAY? NO. OKAY. A QUORUM IS PRESENT. I WOULD LIKE TO ASK IF THERE ARE ANY CONFLICTS OF INTEREST FOR ANY OF THE CASES TODAY. I SEE NONE. ARE THERE ANY CORRECTIONS FOR THE MEETING? MINUTES FROM LAST TIME. SO NOBODY I ACTUALLY DIDN'T SUBMIT ANY. THEY WILL BE SUBMITTED AT THE NEXT MEETING. OKAY, THANKS. YEAH, I SAW THEM THAT NOT BEING ON THE AGENDA TODAY, BUT. OKAY. THANKS. OKAY. IS THERE ANYONE WHO WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION ON AGENDA ITEMS WITHOUT PUBLIC HEARINGS OR NON-AGENDA ITEMS? I SEE NONE. SO WE'RE GOING TO MOVE TO NEW BUSINESS AND ASSOCIATED PUBLIC HEARINGS. SO I WOULD LIKE TO WE HAVE FOUR CASES TODAY AND I WOULD LIKE TO MOVE CASE 24Z-014 TO BE THE THIRD ONE ON THE LIST, AND THEN CASE NUMBER C24Z-013 TO BE THE FOURTH CASE TODAY. OKAY. WE'LL BEGIN WITH 24Z-011. STAFF REPORT, PLEASE. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. SO THIS IS AT 2627 BROADWAY. THIS IS A VARIANCE REQUEST FOR LOT WIDTH, DEPTH AND LOT AREA ON TWO, TWO SEPARATE LOTS UNDER THE SAME SORT OF PROPOSAL. THERE WERE 22 PUBLIC NOTICES SENT. NONE OF THOSE WERE RETURNED. PLEASE NOTE THE CITY DEPARTMENT RESPONSES AND PRIVATE UTILITY RESPONSES ON PAGE ONE OF THE STAFF REPORT. SO THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A VARIANCE FROM ARTICLE THREE ADDENDUM IN ORDER TO REDUCE THE REQUIRED MINIMUM LOT AREA, DEPTH, WIDTH, AND SQUARE FOOTAGE. THE LOT CURRENTLY HOLDS TWO INDIVIDUAL STRUCTURES A COMMERCIAL STRIP CENTER FACING BROADWAY. SMALLER DETACHED RESIDENTIAL BUILDING FACING 27TH STREET SOUTH OF THAT. THE APPLICANT PROPOSES TO REDUCE MINIMUM LOT DEPTH ON THE NORTHERNMOST LOT AND TO REDUCE THE LOT WIDTH, DEPTH AND SQUARE FOOTAGE ON THE SOUTHERNMOST LOT. THIS WOULD PLACE EACH BUILDING WITH THEIR SEPARATE LAND USES ON A SEPARATE PARCEL. THE LOT IS CURRENTLY 85.83FT WIDE, 120 FOOT DEEP, WITH AN AREA OF 10,289.6FT². EXHIBIT A SHOWS A SITE PLAN AND PROPOSED REPLAT. SO FOR THE NORTHERNMOST LOT, WHICH IS CALLED LOT 1R IN THE EXHIBITS, THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING A 9.13FT VARIANCE ON LENGTH ONLY ON LOT 2R, WHICH IS THE SOUTHERNMOST LOT WHERE THE SMALLER BUILDING IS AT. THEY ARE REQUESTING A 1500 SQUARE FOOT VARIANCE FROM LOT AREA, A 10.87FT VARIANCE ON LOT WIDTH, AND A 14.17FT VARIANCE ON THE LOT LENGTH OR DEPTH FROM FRONT TO BACK. PLEASE NOTE THE LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATION REQUIREMENTS FOR VARIANCES AND THE APPLICANT'S JUSTIFICATION IN YOUR STAFF REPORT, AND WE HAVE SOME PHOTOS HERE. SO HERE WE HAVE THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AS IT SITS TODAY AND YOU CAN SEE THE TWO BUILDINGS THE STRIP CENTER AND THEN THE SMALLER BUILDING TO THE SOUTH. NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. HERE WE HAVE A GIS AERIAL MAP WITH THE PROPOSED BOUNDARIES OVERLAY TO SHOW HOW THOSE TWO BUILDINGS WOULD THEN BECOME ON TWO SEPARATE LOTS. WE ALSO HAVE A PHOTO SHOWING WHERE THOSE TWO BUILDINGS KIND OF LAY IN RELATION TO EACH OTHER. IT'S LOOKING EAST FROM 27TH STREET. NEXT SLIDE PLEASE, AND SO THEN WE HAVE THE SUBJECT PROPERTY LOOKING FROM BROADWAY, THE PROPERTIES TO THE NORTH, ACROSS BROADWAY, PROPERTY TO THE EAST, AND THE PROPERTY TO THE WEST, AND THIS CONCLUDES STAFF'S REPORT. THANK YOU. ANYBODY HAS ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? OKAY. IN THAT CASE, WE'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR CASE 24Z-011. [00:05:06] THE PUBLIC HEARING IS OPEN AND THE STAFF REPORT IS MADE A PART OF THE PUBLIC HEARING. IS THE APPLICANT PRESENT? YES. PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND SIGN FOR THE RECORD. SURE. I'M JANAK PATEL. I'M THE PROPERTY OWNER. AS PART OF THE CORPORATION JANAK NISHA, LLC. I'M THE PRESIDENT OF THE COMPANY, AND I DON'T KNOW IF YOU WANT ME TO EXPLAIN THE RATIONALE FOR THE REQUEST? I KNOW THE STAFF PRESENTED IT WELL, BUT I ACQUIRED THIS PROPERTY A COUPLE OF YEARS BACK. IT'S A SINGLE PROPERTY, BUT IT HAS TWO DIFFERENT USAGE IN TERMS OF THE PROPERTY. THE FRONT IS A RETAIL CENTER. THE BACK IS ACTUALLY A HOUSE. THE HOUSE WAS VACANT WHEN I BOUGHT IT. SO NOW, WITH CITY PERMITTING, OBVIOUSLY I HAVE REFURBISHED AND RENOVATED THE HOUSE COMPLETELY. SO NOW THEY HAVE SEPARATE USAGES. ONE IS RESIDENTIAL AND ONE IS COMMERCIAL, AND THAT'S THE REASON I WANTED TO SEPARATE IT OUT. PERHAPS FOR FUTURE USE SALE, WHATEVER, AND SO I'M NOT BUILDING ANY NEW PROPERTY THERE. I'M JUST HAVING EXISTING PROPERTY SPLIT INTO TWO, AND I GUESS WHEN YOU DO THAT, THERE IS SOME VARIANCE. YOU KNOW, THAT WE RUN AGAINST VARIANCE REQUEST MAY NEED TO BE MADE BECAUSE WE MAY RUN AGAINST SOME OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR SETBACKS AND ALL THOSE THINGS. SO THE BACK SIDE IS AGAIN READY TO BE OCCUPIED BY RESIDENTIAL, YOU KNOW, FOLKS, AND THE FRONT SIDE COMMERCIAL STRIP IS FULLY OCCUPIED RIGHT NOW. THANK YOU. DOES THE COMMISSION HAS ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND IT. I MEAN, SO THE REAR RESIDENTIAL LOT IS ON 2500FT². THE REAR BUILDING? YES. OR STRUCTURE, AND IT MEETS THE STANDARDS OF THE CITY. RIGHT? YES. SO THE VARIANCE IS FOR THE COMMERCIAL SIDE ON THE FRONT. THAT DOES NOT MEET. IS THAT CORRECT? I THINK THE STAFF MAY HAVE TO TELL ME WHICH PART I'M RUNNING AGAINST. RIGHT. SO WE'VE GOT HERE ON THE SCREEN WE SEE THE TWO PROPOSED TRACKS. THIS IS A PROPOSED SUBDIVISION THAT THE APPLICANT WOULD LIKE TO GET THE NORTHERNMOST TRACK FACING BROADWAY, THE RETAIL CENTER. HE NEEDS A HE IS NOT QUITE 100 FOOT FRONT TO BACK AND THAT'S THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENT FOR COMMERCIAL LOT. SO THAT IS A VARIANCE ON THAT PROPERTY. THE PROPERTY TO THE SOUTH DOES NOT MEET OUR CURRENT STANDARDS FOR NEW LOTS AND COMMERCIAL ZONING ON SQUARE FOOTAGE AND LENGTH AND WIDTH. SO THAT WOULD BE A VARIANCE OF THREE THINGS. SO WHAT THIS SAYS HERE IS NOT CORRECT. SO WE'RE LOOKING AT THE STAFF REPORT. THE REGULATION IS 4000 SQUARE FOOT ON THE REGULATION COLUMN THAT SHOWS WHAT IT NEEDS TO BE THE MINIMUM, AND THEN THE PROPOSED VARIANCE LISTS WHAT THE APPLICANT WILL HAVE AND THEN THE AMOUNT THAT THEY'RE VARYING FROM. MAY I SPEAK? SURE. JIM, THIS IS ZONED COMMERCIAL. IT'S NOT ZONED RESIDENTIAL. SO THAT'S WHY YOU SEE A 4000 SQUARE FOOT REQUIREMENT, RATHER THAN WHAT YOU MIGHT SEE AS A 2500 SQUARE FOOT REQUIREMENT IN A TRADITIONAL NEIGHBORHOOD OR URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD, FOR EXAMPLE. YES. YEAH, I UNDERSTAND. OKAY. DO WE HAVE MORE QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? OKAY. WELL, NO, I MEAN IT IS HAS A RESIDENTIAL USE. IT'S THE REQUEST IS TO SEPARATE OUT THE FRONT COMMERCIAL BUILDING FROM THE REAR RESIDENTIAL BUILDING. RIGHT. SO IT'S NOT GOING TO BE ZONED. SO, YEAH, TO CLARIFY FURTHER. THAT'S NOT TYPICALLY SOMETHING THIS BOARD SEES. THE LAND USE MAY BE RESIDENTIAL ON THE BACK PROPERTY, BUT THE ZONING IS COMMERCIAL, AND THAT'S WHAT WE GO BY THE BASE ZONING IN THESE CASES. OKAY. [00:10:04] DO WE HAVE ANY MORE QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU. DO WE HAVE ANYBODY FROM THE PUBLIC THAT WISHES TO SPEAK ON THIS CASE? IN THAT CASE, THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR CASE 24Z-011 IS CLOSED, AND THE CASE IS RETURNED TO THE COMMISSION FOR CONSIDERATION. DO WE HAVE A MOTION? I'LL MAKE A MOTION FOR APPROVAL. TURN ON YOUR MIC. IS YOUR MIC ON? NO. JIM. THE SPECIAL CONDITIONS NOT EXPLICITLY STATED IN THIS REQUEST FOR A SPECIAL CONDITION. SO, CAN I OFFER YOU ONE? WELL, THERE'S NO DEFINED SPECIAL CONDITION HERE. IT'S UP TO THE BOARD TO DETERMINE WHAT THE SPECIAL CONDITION IS, AND TYPICALLY IT'S BEEN PROVIDED BY THE APPLICANT IN IN THEIR JUSTIFICATION. YEAH, I KNOW, AND IT'S NOT REALLY DEFINED CLEARLY AS A SPECIAL CONDITION IN HERE FOR ME TO CONTINUE READING HERE AND APPLY THE SPECIAL CONDITION THAT EXISTS ON THE PROPERTY DOES NOT GENERALLY EXIST OF OTHER PROPERTIES IN THE SAME ZONING DISTRICT, AND THE SPECIAL CONDITION IS 2500FT², IS THE ONLY SPECIAL CONDITION I SEE ON THERE. I'M MAKING A MOTION TO APPROVE. IT'S BEEN SECONDED. WELL, YEAH, YOU'RE MAKING A MOTION, AND IT HAS TO INCLUDE WHAT THE SPECIAL CONDITION IS. THE SPECIAL CONDITION IS TO MAKE IT 2500FT². THE SPECIAL CONDITION IS TYPICALLY SOME PHYSICAL CONSTRAINT ON THE PROPERTY THAT DOESN'T ALLOW THEM TO MEET THE STANDARD. SO WHAT WE OFTEN SEE WITH THESE KINDS OF CASES IS THAT THERE ARE EXISTING STRUCTURES ON THE PROPERTY. OKAY. EXISTING STRUCTURES, FOR EXAMPLE, THAT WERE IN PLACE BEFORE THE ADOPTION OF THE LDRS. SO YOUR DEFINITION OF THE SPECIAL CONDITION IS. WELL, IT'S UP TO THE BOARD TO DETERMINE WHAT THAT IS. SO WE'VE GIVEN YOU AN EXAMPLE OF WHAT SOMETHING IS TYPICALLY. CAN I OFFER YOU A SPECIAL CONDITION. ALL RIGHT. READ THAT. THAT'S THE SPECIAL CONDITION. WHERE'D YOU FIND THAT? OKAY. THE SPECIAL CONDITION IS THE PARCEL IN QUESTION IS ZONED COMMERCIAL, BUT CONTAINS SEPARATE COMMERCIAL AND RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS. THE REPLAT AND TWO PARCELS, EACH POSSESSING A SINGULAR USE, IS REQUESTED. THE ACTION CANNOT BE ACCOMMODATED WITHOUT A VARIANCE PERTAINING TO PARCEL SIZE, WIDTH, AND DEPTH AS DEFINED IN THE 2015 LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS FOR COMMERCIAL PARCELS. THESE STANDARDS ARE NOT IN EFFECT WHEN THE ORIGINAL PARCEL WAS DEVELOPED. DUE TO THAT SPECIAL CONDITION, THE ENFORCEMENT OF THE STRICT TERMS OF THESE REGULATIONS WOULD IMPOSE AN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP ON THE APPLICANT. THE VARIANCE IS NOT CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST IN THAT THE HARDSHIP IS NOT SELF-IMPOSED. THE HARDSHIP IS NOT BASED SOLELY ON FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS, CONVENIENCE OR INCONVENIENCE. THERE IS NOT CONDITIONS THAT ARE ALLEGED TO BE SPECIAL, BUT ARE ACTUALLY COMMON TO MANY PROPERTIES WITHIN THE SAME ZONING DISTRICT. THE REQUESTED VARIANCE DOES NOT HAVE A DETRIMENTAL IMPACT UPON THE CURRENT OR FUTURE USE OF THE ADJACENT PROPERTIES FOR PURPOSES FOR WHICH THEY ARE ZONED, PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE OR SERVICES, AND PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY, MORALS AND GENERAL WELFARE OF THE COMMUNITY. THE DEGREE OF VARIANCE ALLOWED FROM THESE REGULATIONS IS THE LEAST THAT IS NECESSARY TO GRANT RELIEF FROM THE IDENTIFIED UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. THE VARIANCE WILL NOT BE USED TO CIRCUMVENT OTHER PROCEDURES AND STANDARDS OF THESE REGULATIONS THAT WOULD BE USED FOR THE SAME OR COMPARABLE [00:15:07] EFFECT, AND BY GRANTING THE VARIANCE, THE SPIRIT OF THESE REGULATIONS IS OBSERVED AND SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE IS DONE. I SECOND. THANK YOU. OKAY. WE HAVE A MOTION FOR APPROVAL AND A SECOND DISCUSSION. IS THERE ANYTHING? ANYBODY? NO? OKAY. IN THAT CASE LET'S VOTE. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? NONE OPPOSED. SO THE MOTION PASSES. OKAY. WE'RE GOING TO MOVE TO THE NEXT CASE NOW. CASE 24Z012. ALRIGHTY. THANK YOU. SO 24Z-012. THIS IS AT 3503 PETITE CIRCLE, 3504 PETITE CIRCLE AND 3506 PETITE CIRCLE OR PETITE I'M NOT SURE HOW IT'S SUPPOSED TO BE PRONOUNCED. THIS IS A LOT OF VARIANCE. THERE WERE 12 PUBLIC NOTICES SENT, THREE RETURNED. ALL THREE OF THOSE IN FAVOR? NOTE THE CITY DEPARTMENT AND PUBLIC UTILITY REVIEW RESPONSES ON PAGE ONE OF THE STAFF REPORT. SO WE SEE THIS QUITE A BIT IN SOME OF THE WESTERN SUBDIVISIONS. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A VARIANCE FROM ARTICLE THREE ADDENDUM IN ORDER TO REDUCE THE REQUIRED MINIMUM LOT LENGTH DEPTH, WHICH WOULD BE THE FRONT TO BACK DIMENSION IN A RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY ZONING DISTRICT. THIS REQUEST INVOLVES THREE LOTS, TWO LOTS OWNED INDIVIDUALLY BY THE APPLICANTS, AND THE THIRD LOT THE APPLICANTS' PURCHASED JOINTLY IN ORDER TO SUBDIVIDE AND INCLUDE WITH THEIR EXISTING LOTS. HOWEVER, BECAUSE THE PIRATES COVE LOTS WERE PLANNED WITH AN 80 FOOT DEPTH IN 1968, THE VARIANCE FOR LOT DEPTH IS REQUIRED TO SUBDIVIDE THE THREE TRACKS INTO TWO. NOTE THAT IN THIS CASE, THERE IS A CANAL ON THE BACKSIDE OF THE PROPERTIES, AND THEN THE STREET ON THE FRONT SIDE. NOTE THAT THE HOUSE PREVIOUSLY LOCATED IN THE MIDDLE LOT AT 3504 PETITE CIRCLE, WAS DEMOLISHED IN LATE 2024. THAT LOT IS NOW VACANT. SO IN THIS CASE, THE REGULATION FOR NEW LOTS IN R-1 ZONING IS 100FT, BUT THE APPLICANTS ONLY HAVE 80, SO THEY ARE REQUESTING AN 80 FOOT--A 20 FOOT VARIANCE, I'M SORRY--FROM THE FRONT TO BACK DIMENSION. NOTE THE LAND THE LAND DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS FOR VARIANCES AND THE APPLICANTS' JUSTIFICATION IN THE STAFF REPORT. WE HAVE SOME PHOTOS HERE. SO THIS IS THE PROPOSED REPLAT SHOWING HOW THE TWO LOTS WOULD BE. ONCE EVERYTHING IS REPLANTED. NEXT SLIDE PLEASE, AND HERE WE CAN SEE THE EXISTING LOT LINES. YOU CAN SEE THOSE THREE LOTS THE BIGGER LOT TO THE WEST AND THEN THE SMALLER LOTS TO THE EAST AND THEN IN THE MIDDLE THERE'S A THIRD LOT WHICH WOULD BE SPLIT DOWN THE MIDDLE, AND THAT WOULD RESULT IN TWO VERY LARGE LOTS THAT WOULD OTHERWISE MEET ALL OF OUR STANDARDS. NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. HERE WE HAVE THE SUBJECT PROPERTY SHOWING THE VACANT LOT IN THE MIDDLE WHERE THE DEMOLITION TOOK PLACE, AND THEN THE HOUSES TO THE WEST AND THE EAST THAT THE APPLICANTS OR THE APPLICANTS, AND THIS CONCLUDES STAFF'S REPORT. THANK YOU. DOES THE COMMISSION HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE STAFF? DANIEL, HELP ME OUT HERE. EXCUSE ME. WE HAVE TWO APPLICANTS, RIGHT? CORRECT. THAT WOULD BE THE PEOPLE ON EITHER SIDE OF THIS MIDDLE LOT. THEY BOUGHT THE THIRD LOT IN THE MIDDLE JOINTLY AND ARE PROPOSING TO SPLIT THAT UP. SO OUR DECISION AFFECTS BOTH PLATS, THE REPLATS? YEAH, THEY WOULD REPLAT. THEY REQUIRE THE VARIANCE BECAUSE THEY ONLY HAVE 80 FOOT FRONT TO BACK. YES. THANK YOU. OKAY. THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR CASE 24Z-012 IS OPEN, AND THE STAFF REPORT IS MADE A PART OF THE PUBLIC HEARING. IS THE APPLICANT PRESENT? OKAY. PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND SIGN. MICHAEL CRAGIN, AND I'M THE OWNER OF 3506 PETITE. YOU WERE CLOSE. I THINK HIS DESCRIPTION WAS PRETTY SUCCINCT ON WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO. THE CLARKES OWN 3503. WE OWN 3506. 3504 WAS IN THE MIDDLE. IT WAS FOR SALE. WE PURCHASED IT JOINTLY WITH THE INTENT OF SUBDIVIDING IT. GOT TO THE POINT WHERE WE HAD THE SITE PLAN AND THE NEW PLAT, AND THEN WE'RE TOLD THAT WE NEEDED TO GET A VARIANCE BECAUSE THE LOTS WERE NOT DEEP ENOUGH. [00:20:03] THEY DIDN'T CONVERT. THEY DIDN'T THEY ACT WITH THE SAME AS 2015 AS THEY WERE IN 1968. SO THEY SO WE'RE ASKING FOR A VARIANCE TO THE 100 FOOT DEPTH BACK TO THE 80 FOOT DEPTH. THANK YOU. ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? NONE. THANK YOU SIR. OKAY. DO WE HAVE ANYBODY FROM THE PUBLIC THAT WISHES TO SPEAK ON THIS CASE? HI, MARIE ROBB 4101 RUM BAY, AND I'D LIKE TO SPEAK IN FAVOR OF THIS CASE. IT MAKES TOTAL SENSE TO ME. THANK YOU. CAN YOU PLEASE SIGN YOUR NAME? OH, THERE IT IS. THANK YOU. OKAY. PUBLIC HEARING FOR CASE 24Z-012 IS CLOSED AND THE CASE IS RETURNED TO THE COMMISSION FOR CONSIDERATION. DO WE HAVE A MOTION? I MOVE APPROVAL DUE TO THE SPECIAL CONDITIONS THAT EXIST ON THE PROPERTY, THAT DON'T GENERALLY EXIST ON OTHER PROPERTIES IN THE SAME ZONING DISTRICT, AND THAT SPECIAL CONDITION IS MEET. CAN YOU JUST CHECK IF YOUR MIC IS ON? OH I'M SORRY. IT IS ON I JUST. OKAY. OKAY. DO I HAVE TO START ALL OVER AGAIN? YOU HAVE TO SPEAK INTO IT. NO, I GOT IT. THAT SPECIAL CONDITION IS THAT THE LOTS WERE PLATTED IN 1968. BEFORE THE 19 BEFORE THE 2015 LDRS WENT INTO EFFECT. SO DUE TO THAT SPECIAL CONDITION, THE ENFORCEMENT OF THE STRICT TERMS OF THESE REGULATIONS WOULD IMPOSE AN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP ON THE APPLICANTS. THE VARIANCE ISN'T CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST IN THAT THE HARDSHIP'S NOT SELF-IMPOSED. IT'S NOT BASED SOLELY ON FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS, CONVENIENCE OR INCONVENIENCE, AND THESE ARE THEY ARE NOT CONDITIONS THAT ARE ALLEGED TO BE SPECIAL, BUT ARE ACTUALLY COMMON TO MANY PROPERTIES WITHIN THE SAME ZONING DISTRICT. THE REQUESTED VARIANCE DOES NOT HAVE A DETRIMENTAL IMPACT UPON THE CURRENT OR FUTURE USE OF THE ADJACENT PROPERTIES FOR PURPOSES FOR WHICH THEY ARE ZONED, PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE OR SERVICES, AND PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY, MORALS AND GENERAL WELFARE OF THE COMMUNITY. THE DEGREE OF VARIANCE ALLOWED FROM THESE REGULATIONS IS THE LEAST THAT IS NECESSARY TO GRANT RELIEF FROM THE IDENTIFIED UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. THE VARIANCE WILL NOT BE USED TO CIRCUMVENT OTHER PROCEDURES AND STANDARDS OF THESE REGULATIONS THAT COULD BE USED FOR THE SAME OR COMPARABLE EFFECT, AND BY GRANTING THE VARIANCE, THE SPIRIT OF THESE REGULATIONS IS OBSERVED AND SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE IS DONE. THANK YOU. DO WE HAVE A SECOND? SECOND. CAN YOU SAY THAT, PLEASE? I SECOND. THANK YOU. DISCUSSION? NOTHING. THEN WE'LL CALL FOR A VOTE. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? NONE OPPOSED. SO MOTION PASSES. THANK YOU. OKAY, NOW WE'RE GOING TO MOVE. WE'RE GOING TO COME BACK TO 24Z-013. AFTER, BUT NOW WE'RE GOING TO MOVE WITH CASE 24Z-014. STAFF REPORT, PLEASE. THANK YOU. 24Z-014, THIS IS 12824 EAST TOLEDO, AND THIS IS ANOTHER VARIANCE ON LOT DEPTH THAT'S GOING TO BE VERY SIMILAR TO THE PREVIOUS CASE AND OTHERS YOU'VE SEEN IN THE PAST. THERE ARE 22 PUBLIC NOTICES SENT, THREE RETURNED. ALL THREE OF THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE NOTE CITY DEPARTMENT AND PRIVATE UTILITY REVIEW RESPONSES IN THE STAFF REPORT, AND SO THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A VARIANCE FROM ARTICLE THREE ADDENDUM IN ORDER TO REDUCE THE REQUIRED MINIMUM LOT LENGTH DEPTH IN A RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY ZONING DISTRICT. THIS REQUEST INVOLVES TWO LOTS THAT THE APPLICANT OWNS. BOTH HE WISHES TO REPLANT THESE TWO TOGETHER TO FACILITATE EXPANSION OF THE EXISTING HOUSE. HOWEVER, BECAUSE THE LAWS DO NOT MEET THE CURRENT LOT DEPTH REQUIREMENT, A VARIANCE IS REQUIRED ONCE AGAIN VERY SIMILAR TO THE PREVIOUS CASE, AND ONCE AGAIN, THE REGULATION FRONT BACK IS 100FT, BUT THE APPLICANT ONLY HAS 80 BECAUSE OF THE STREET IN THE FRONT AND THE CANAL IN THE BACK. PLEASE NOTE THE LAND DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS FOR VARIANCES AND THE APPLICANT'S JUSTIFICATION IN YOUR STAFF REPORT. [00:25:04] SO HERE WE HAVE THIS IS THE SURVEY SHOWING THE EXISTING LOT LINES. THE PARCEL WHERE THE HOUSE IS LOCATED IN THE ONE LOT 57, RIGHT BESIDE IT. NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. HERE IS THE PROPOSED REPLAT THAT WOULD THEN COMBINE THOSE TWO LOTS INTO ONE MUCH BIGGER LOT WHICH WOULD MEET ALL OF OUR STANDARDS, EXCEPT OF COURSE THE LOT DEPTH YOU CAN SEE THERE IN THE BOTTOM. IT HAS THE METES AND BOUNDS THAT ONLY SHOWS 80 FOOT OF DEPTH. NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. HERE WE HAVE THE SUBJECT. THEY'RE ALL SUBJECT PROPERTIES. BASICALLY THERE'S THE SUBJECT. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY WHERE THE HOUSE IS THE VACANT LOT THAT THE APPLICANT WISHES TO COMBINE, AND THEN JUST A GENERAL PHOTO FROM THAT VACANT LOT LOOKING DOWN THE STREET THERE, AND THAT CONCLUDES STAFF'S REPORT. THANK YOU. DO WE HAVE ANY? IS IT? COULD YOU GO BACK TO THE PHOTOGRAPH? OKAY. ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? OKAY. NONE. SO WE'LL THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR CASE 24Z-014 IS OPEN AND THE STAFF REPORT IS MADE A PART OF THE PUBLIC HEARING. DO WE HAVE THE APPLICANT PRESENT? GOOD AFTERNOON. I'M MICHAEL GAERTNER. I'M THE ARCHITECT REPRESENTING MR. SCHULTZ, WHO'S PRESENT IN THE AUDIENCE AS WELL, AND DANIEL DID A GREAT JOB ON THE STAFF REPORT. I CAN'T ADD ANYTHING TO IT, BUT I'LL BE GLAD TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU MAY HAVE IF YOU HAVE ANY. THANK YOU. DO WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? THANK YOU ALL VERY MUCH. THANK YOU. YOU TOO. DO WE HAVE ANYBODY FROM THE PUBLIC THAT WISHES TO SPEAK ON THIS CASE? NONE. OKAY. THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR CASE 24Z-014 IS CLOSED, AND THE CASE IS RETURNED TO THE COMMISSION FOR CONSIDERATION. DO WE HAVE A MOTION? I MOVE TO APPROVE THE REQUEST. PUT YOUR MICROPHONE ON. HERE. I MOVE TO APPROVE THIS REQUEST. THIS MOTION, THIS REQUEST FOR VARIANCE IS ROOTED IN SPECIAL CONDITIONS THAT DO NOT GENERALLY EXIST ON OTHER PROPERTIES IN THE SAME ZONING DISTRICT, AND THESE THESE RESTRICTIONS INVOLVE PHYSICAL CONSTRAINTS OR CANAL. WHICH MAKES IT IMPOSSIBLE FOR THE 100 FOOT DEPTH REQUIREMENT TO BE MET, AND THIS THESE CONDITIONS WELL, DUE TO THESE SAID SPECIAL CONDITIONS, THE LITERAL, LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE STRICT TERMS OF THE LDR WOULD IMPOSE AN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP ON THE APPLICANT. THIS VARIANCE IS NOT CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST BECAUSE THE HARDSHIP IS NOT SELF-IMPOSED. THE HARDSHIP IS NOT BASED SOLELY ON FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS, CONVENIENCE OR INCONVENIENCE, AND THERE ARE NOT CONDITIONS THAT ARE ALLEGED TO BE SPECIAL, BUT ARE ACTUALLY COMMON TO MANY PROPERTIES IN THE SAME ZONING DISTRICT. THE REQUESTED VARIANCE DOES NOT HAVE A DETRIMENTAL IMPACT ON THE CURRENT OR FUTURE USE OF ADJACENT PROPERTIES FOR PURPOSES FOR WHICH THEY ARE ZONED FOR PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE OR SERVICES AND PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY, MORALS AND GENERAL WELFARE. WELFARE OF THE COMMUNITY. THE DEGREE OF VARIANCE THAT THESE REGULATIONS ALLOW IS THE LEAST THAT IS NECESSARY TO GRANT RELIEF FROM THE PHYSICAL UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP OF THE PROPERTY. THE VARIANCE WILL NOT BE USED TO CIRCUMVENT OTHER PROCEDURES AND STANDARDS OF THESE REGULATIONS THAT COULD BE USED FOR THE SAME OR COMPARABLE EFFECT, AND [00:30:08] BY GRANTING THE GRANTING THE VARIANCE, THE SPIRIT OF THESE REGULATIONS IS OBSERVED AND SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE IS DONE. THANK YOU. DO WE HAVE A SECOND? SECOND. THANKS. ANY DISCUSSION? NO? IN THAT CASE, WE'LL VOTE. EVERYBODY IN FAVOR? OKAY. MOTION PASSES. THANK YOU. OKAY. MOVING ON TO THE LAST CASE FOR TODAY. THAT'S CASE 24Z-013. STAFF REPORT, PLEASE. THIS IS 24Z-013. IT'S FOR 10717 SAN LUIS PASS ROAD. THE REQUEST IS A VARIANCE FROM THE HDD. THE HEIGHT AND DENSITY DEVELOPMENT ZONE STANDARDS. REGARDING STREET EDGE STANDARDS, 257 NOTICES WERE SENT, 33 WERE RETURNED, ONE IN FAVOR, 31 OPPOSED, AND ONE NO COMMENT. THAT'S TWO ADDITIONAL OPPOSITIONS THAT WERE RECEIVED AFTER THE PUBLIC COMMENT REPORT WAS SENT OUT TO YOU EARLIER TODAY, AND KARINA HAS PROVIDED COPIES OF THOSE AT YOUR SEATS. NO OBJECTION FROM CITY DEPARTMENTS OR PRIVATE UTILITIES. THE SUMMARY THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A VARIANCE FROM THE STREET EDGE STANDARDS REQUIRED BY THE HEIGHT AND DENSITY DEVELOPMENT ZONE REGULATIONS. THESE STANDARDS MANDATE THAT THE GROUND FLOOR OF NEW BUILDINGS FEATURE ACTIVE STOREFRONT USES, SUCH AS COMMERCIAL OR OFFICE SPACES, AND INCORPORATE DECORATIVE ARCHITECTURAL ELEMENTS. THE INTENT OF THESE REGULATIONS IS TO ENHANCE THE VISUAL APPEAL AND PEDESTRIAN EXPERIENCE ALONG STREETSCAPES, WHILE PREVENTING THE CREATION OF BLANK, UNINVITING FACADES FACING PUBLIC STREETS. HOWEVER, THE APPLICANT IS UNABLE TO COMPLY WITH THIS REGULATION DUE TO RESTRICTIONS IMPOSED BY FLOODPLAIN REGULATIONS. THE PROPERTY IS SITUATED WITHIN A WITHIN A VELOCITY FLOOD ZONE, WHICH IS SUBJECT TO STRINGENT REQUIREMENTS TO MITIGATE FLOOD RISKS. IN THIS ZONE, FLOODPLAIN REGULATIONS PROHIBIT ACTIVE USES BELOW THE BASE FLOOD ELEVATION, BFE, WHICH AT THIS LOCATION IS SET AT 18.5FT ABOVE SEA LEVEL. BELOW THE BFE, THE ONLY PERMISSIBLE USES ARE PARKING AND LIMITED STORAGE AREAS, AS ACTIVE USES IN THESE AREAS WOULD POSE SAFETY AND COMPLIANCE CONCERNS. AS A RESULT, THE APPLICANT IS SEEKING A VARIANCE TO ELIMINATE THE REQUIREMENT FOR ACTIVE STOREFRONT USES ON THE GROUND FLOOR. PLEASE NOTE THE LAND DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS AND THE JUSTIFICATION FROM THE APPLICANT IN YOUR STAFF REPORT, AND WE HAVE SOME PHOTOS. THIS IS THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS OUTLINED IN BLUE ON THIS AERIAL, AND THIS IS A PICTURE OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. IT'S CURRENTLY UNDEVELOPED, AND WE HAVE A SITE PLAN THAT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT, AND ONE MORE SITE PLAN SHOWING ONLY THE AREAS OF THE GROUND FLOOR, AND THEN KARINA IS GOING TO BE PASSING OUT A RENDERING OF THE FRONT ELEVATION THAT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT THIS AFTERNOON, AND THAT CONCLUDES STAFF'S REPORT. THANK YOU. DO WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? YES. WOULD YOU PLEASE REPEAT? HOW MANY PUBLIC NOTICES WERE SENT, RECEIVED AND THEIR POSITIONS, PLEASE? IT WAS 257 SENT, 33 RETURNED, ONE IN FAVOR, 31 OPPOSED, AND ONE NO COMMENT. THANK YOU, AND THEN CAN WE ZOOM IN ON THE SITE PLAN, PLEASE? IN THAT GREEN AREA, CAN WE MAKE THAT LARGER? IS THERE A WAY WE CAN TRY THAT? I DON'T KNOW HOW SUCCESSFUL WE'LL BE, BUT WE'LL SEE IF WE CAN. WELL, I'M PARTICULARLY INTERESTED IN THE GREEN AREA. THAT HALF OF THE IMAGE. THERE YOU GO. NOW PULL IT DOWN. CAN YOU MAKE IT LARGER AGAIN? I'M INTERESTED IN THAT AREA THAT'S COMING OFF OF SEAWALL BOULEVARD RIGHT THERE. THE NORTHWEST. I MEAN, NOT THE TOP LEFT CORNER, NOT THE NORTHWEST. THAT'S THE WRONG ONE. MAYBE IT WOULD BE EASIER TO SEE ON ANOTHER. DISPLAY. MAYBE THE FIRST ONE. IS THERE SOME LETTERING THERE? ARE YOU CURIOUS ABOUT THAT? I'M SORRY. THERE'S SOME LETTERING THERE. [00:35:01] ARE YOU CURIOUS ABOUT THAT, PLEASE? SURE. SO THE ROUND PORTION IS LABELED PUBLIC OPEN COURTYARD, AND THEN THE OTHER WORDING IS FOR SALE. LOCAL ARTIST EXHIBITION WALL DISPLAY FOR SALE. FOR SALE. IT SAYS FOR SALE. LOCAL ARTIST EXHIBITION WALL DISPLAY. ARTIST. OKAY. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. DO WE HAVE AN ELEVATION FOR THE STREET SIDE? WHAT'S BEEN PROVIDED IS THE BEACH SIDE? YEAH. OH, WELL, THAT'S NOT HELPFUL, IS IT? THAT'S THE GULF SIDE, RIGHT? OKAY. THANK YOU. ANY MORE QUESTIONS FROM COMMISSION? DO WE HAVE ANY MORE QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? OKAY. PUBLIC HEARING FOR CASE 24Z-013 IS OPEN AND THE STAFF REPORT IS MADE PART OF THE PUBLIC HEARING. DO WE HAVE THE APPLICANT PRESENT? PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND SIGN IN FOR RECORD. GOOD AFTERNOON, MADAM CHAIR. MY NAME IS PATTI KNUDSON JOINER WITH KNUDSON, AND WE REPRESENT THE APPLICANT. WE HAVE DAVID BARNETT WITH EDI HERE WHO WILL BE SUPPLEMENTING ANY QUESTIONS THE CBA MIGHT HAVE AND WE HAVE OUR DEVELOPER, DRU KAHLENBERG AS WELL TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. THE REASON THAT WE'RE ASKING FOR THIS VARIANCE IS BECAUSE YOU HAVE A CONFLICT BETWEEN YOUR BUILDING CODE AND YOUR, YOUR ZONING ORDINANCE. THE REASON THAT WE CAME UP WITH THE IDEA OF THE RETAIL SPACE ON THAT NORTH AND WEST CORNER IS THAT IF YOU GO TO MOSQUITO GRILL, YOU CAN LITERALLY USE A QR CODE AND BUY ART AT MOSQUITO GRILL. THE ARTISTS SHOW AND THEY DISPLAY. SO WHAT WE THOUGHT WE COULD DO INITIALLY WAS CREATE AN ARTIST WALL, WORK WITH THE GALVESTON ARTS ALLIANCE AND FIGURE OUT HOW WE COULD DECORATE THIS. WHAT THE PLANNERS HAVE BEEN TRYING TO DO IS TRYING TO ARTIFICIALLY INDUCE FIRST FLOOR RETAIL, FIRST FLOOR OFFICE, FIRST FLOOR RESTAURANTS, BUT BECAUSE WE HAVE A CONFLICT WITH OUR BASE FLOOD ELEVATION, WE CAN'T PUT OCCUPIABLE SPACE ON THAT FIRST FLOOR. SO WE ARE ASKING FOR AN EXCEPTION BECAUSE WE DO WANT TO COMPLY WITH THE BASE FLOOD ELEVATION, THE HEIGHT OF THE BUILDING. SO THAT'S THE PURPOSE OF THE EXCEPTION TODAY. THAT'S THE ONLY THING THAT WE CAN'T COMPLY WITH OTHERWISE. WE'VE DESIGNED A BUILDING. IT'S HALF THE SIZE OF WHAT IT WAS SIX MONTHS AGO. IT'S 44 UNITS. WE'VE BEEN WORKING ON THE ACCESS. WE'RE GOING TO HAVE A JOINT DRIVEWAY BETWEEN TIERRA AND OUR PROJECT BECAUSE TXDOT ONLY WANTS TO HAVE THE DRIVEWAY AT THE ESPLANADE OPENING, SO WE AGREE WITH THAT. INITIALLY WE WANT TO DO A CONCRETE DRIVEWAY. INITIALLY TIERRA HAD AN ASPHALT DRIVEWAY, BUT WE'VE CONFIRMED WITH STEVE BEAGLE THAT THEY ARE GOING TO DO A CONCRETE DRIVEWAY ON THEIR PART, AND SO WE ARE COMPLYING WITH THE FIRE LANE, AND THEN HE HAS SOME IDEAS ON SOME OTHER THINGS FOR MITIGATION, AND BECAUSE WE'RE IN THE VERY BEGINNING OF THIS, THERE'S NOTHING TO REALLY SHARE ABOUT THOSE KIND OF IDEAS BECAUSE WE DON'T KNOW WHAT THOSE ARE. WE JUST TALKED TO HIM FRIDAY, SATURDAY, MONDAY AND TUESDAY. SO WE DON'T HAVE ANY IDEAS ON HOW TO MITIGATE SOME OF HIS CONCERNS. THANK YOU. DO WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? HI THERE. HI THERE. NOW, WHAT IS IT EXACTLY ARE YOU ASKING FOR? WE ARE. WE ARE ASKING FOR NOT TO BE TO BE REQUIRED TO MAINTAIN THE STOREFRONT ON THAT. THIS NORTH END, WEST CORNER OF THE OF THE BUILDING, THAT'S WHERE OUR RAMP COMES UP, WHERE WE GO INTO IT. WE CAN'T HAVE RETAIL RESTAURANTS ON THE FIRST FLOOR BECAUSE IT WILL FLOOD. SO IF I UNDERSTAND YOU CORRECTLY, YOU ARE ASKING FOR A VARIANCE FROM SECTION 10.30 8A1. THAT'S CORRECT. OKAY. WHAT ABOUT A2? I'M SORRY. COULD YOU EXPLAIN YOUR ROLE WITH THIS GROUP, PLEASE? DID YOU WRITE THIS? YES. YES, WE WROTE IT. WE'RE THE APPLICANT WE WORK FOR. YOU WROTE IT BECAUSE NOW I CAN QUIZ YOU ON IT. YEAH, ABSOLUTELY. OKAY. THANK YOU. SO WHAT? SO YOU'RE ONLY ASKING FOR A VARIANCE FROM 1030881, AND MY ISSUE IS WITH 1030882. OKAY. [00:40:03] I'M TRYING TO FIND WHERE YOU'RE READING. WELL, I'M READING FROM THE STREET EDGE STANDARDS REGULATION THAT SAYS THAT THESE REGULATIONS INTEND TO ENHANCE THE EXPERIENCE OF THE TRAVELING PUBLIC AND THE FOLLOWING VISUAL INTEREST ELEMENTS SHALL BE REQUIRED ALONG ANY STREET EDGE. ONE IS THE ACTIVE STOREFRONTS. TWO IS THE DECORATIVE ARCHITECTURAL SURFACES, AND THERE ARE SOME EXAMPLES GIVEN IN THAT REGULATION, SUCH AS PUBLIC ART OR MURALS AND OR PORCHES, GALLERIES OR ARCADES. AS FAR AS I CAN TELL, OUR INTEREST HERE TODAY IS MAINTAINING THE EXPERIENCE OF THE TRAVELING PUBLIC. OKAY, AND WE AGREE WITH THAT, AND WE ARE PROPOSING TO USE THAT WALL AS A DECORATIVE MURAL, BUT WE HAVE TO WORK WITH THE ART ALLIANCE TO GET A PROGRAM STARTED, AND WORK WITH THEM, BUT WE DO WANT TO HAVE THE TRAVELING PUBLIC HAVE A, A NICE ESTHETIC WALL THAT WHEN YOU DRIVE IN DOWN 3005, AT LEAST, IT CAN BE EITHER LANDSCAPED COLORED MURALS. YOU KNOW, SOMETHING THAT WE CAN WORK WITH. LIKE I SAID, THE ART ALLIANCE WITH THE DOWNTOWN GROUP TO ARE YOU GOING TO DO ABOUT THE REST OF THE PARKING GARAGE, THE UNDERGROUND PARKING? WE DON'T HAVE. WELL, YOU HAVE UNDER BUILDING PARKING. AREN'T THOSE PARKING LOTS, I MEAN LANES RIGHT THERE? PARKING SPACES? AM I NOT SEEING. AM I NOT READING THIS CORRECTLY? ON YOUR SITE, PLAN THE FIRST ONE. CAN I HELP? MY NAME IS DAVE BARNHART. I WORK WITH THE ARCHITECT'S OFFICE. OKAY, I PREPARED THAT. THANK YOU, AND YOU'RE RIGHT. IT'S ONLY POINT ONE THAT WE'RE ASKING FOR THE VARIANCE ON BECAUSE WE CAN'T RESOLVE BASE FLOOD ELEVATION MEANS BEING 18 FOOT HIGHER FOR AT GRADE COMMERCIAL OR OFFICE USE, BUT WE CAN DO POINT TWO. IT HASN'T BEEN FULLY VETTED YET AND DESIGNED BECAUSE WE'RE TRYING TO FIRST GET APPROVAL. IF WE CAN EVEN DO THIS, TO RESOLVE THAT, WHICH IS REALLY ALL WE'RE ASKING FOR RIGHT NOW, IS A WAIVER IN THAT .1. .2, WE'LL MAKE IT ESTHETICALLY PLEASING, AND THE THOUGHT WAS, IS THAT WE TAKE THAT NORTHWEST CORNER AND PROVIDE A PEDESTRIAN ACCESS RIGHT OFF OF THE PUBLIC SIDEWALK THAT WE HAVE TO PUT IN ANYWAY WHERE WE COULD PROVIDE SEATING, BENCH SEATING AND LOCAL ART OR WHATEVER TO TRY TO ENHANCE, LIKE YOU SAY, THE VISUAL EXPERIENCE ALONG FM 3005, AND FOR THE REMAINDER OF THAT WALK, I DON'T KNOW BECAUSE WE HAVEN'T REALLY GOT THAT FAR YET, BUT WE'LL COMPLY. I MEAN, I CAN GO ALL THE WAY ACROSS THE FRONTAGE OF THE PROPERTY AS NEED BE, BECAUSE EVERYTHING YOU SEE IN GREEN IS EITHER LANDSCAPED OR LEFT UNDEVELOPED, WHERE YOU SEE THE YELLOW DOWN BELOW. THAT'S THE BEACH AREA THAT WE DO NOT WANT TO DEVELOP, AND WE CANNOT DEVELOP IT BECAUSE THAT'S OFF OF THAT DUNE. SO IT'S JUST YET TO BE DETERMINED. RIGHT NOW, I'M JUST TRYING TO GET TO A POINT WHERE, HOW DO I RESOLVE THE CODE CONFLICT OF THE BFE, AND AN OFFICE OR COMMERCIAL USE AT GRADE? I JUST CAN'T IT DOESN'T I CAN'T DO THAT. I MEAN, SO I FIGURED AT LEAST I COULD GIVE YOU A COMMERCIAL SPACE OUTSIDE, BUT I CAN'T PUT ELECTRICAL, I CAN'T PUT PLUMBING. I CAN'T DO THAT BY CODE. SO DOES THAT HELP? I'M VERY CONFUSED ABOUT THE FOR SALE STATEMENT AT THE TOP OF THE. SO IF PEOPLE WANT TO VISIT. IF YOU COULD. I'M SORRY FOR THE RECORDING, YOU HAVE TO SPEAK INTO THE MICROPHONE. SO WE'RE PROVIDING. OOPS. SORRY, DAVID. WE'RE PROVIDING THE WALKWAY. SO IF PEOPLE ARE WALKING ALONG 3005, THEY CAN COME UP AND LOOK AT THE MURAL. THEY CAN IF THEY'RE VISITING SOLARIS, THEY CAN WALK OUT THERE AND SIT AT THE BENCH AND THE PARKLET THAT WE'RE PROVIDING, AND THEY CAN LOOK AT THE MURAL AND THEN THEY CAN PUT THEIR QR CODE AND THEY CAN BUY IT. WE WANT TO MAKE IT AS SIMPLE AS POSSIBLE FOR PEOPLE TO HAVE A VISUAL, ESTHETICALLY PLEASING MURAL AND LANDSCAPING AND PARKLET, AND THEN IF SOMEBODY WOULD LIKE TO BUY SOMETHING, WE WANT TO CREATE THAT OPPORTUNITY. OKAY. I THOUGHT THAT SPACE WAS FOR SALE. NO, IT'S JUST IF PEOPLE WANTED TO ADVERTISE THEIR MURALS, THEIR ARTWORK, THEY COULD DO THAT. OKAY AND SELL IT DOWNTOWN. SELL IT DURING ART WALK. I'M SORRY. HANG ON. I WANT TO OFFER ONE OTHER THING. THIS IS JUST A FIRST BLUSH IDEA OF A WAY WE COULD INCORPORATE A STREETSCAPE THAT ENHANCES THE STREET. [00:45:06] IT'S NOT STRUCK IN STONE, WHETHER IT'S FOR SALE ART OR ART, OR EVEN IF IT'S A GALLERY. WE'RE JUST SAYING THIS IS A WAY WE FEEL WE HOPEFULLY COULD MEET YOU HALFWAY IN TERMS OF AN ORDINANCE OF THE STREET AND STANDARDS FOR ITEM NUMBER TWO. OKAY, AND DRU WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS ANY OF YOUR QUESTIONS. LET ME SIGN. I'M NOT DONE YET. YEAH. YOU GUYS STAY. OH, OKAY. I'M SORRY. UNLESS SOMEBODY ELSE WANTS TO. NO. GO AHEAD. ALL RIGHT. FIRST, I'M GALEN DRU KAHLENBERG, CEO OF CLEAR LAKE ASSET MANAGEMENT AND THE OWNER AND DEVELOPER OF SOLARIS. THANK YOU FOR HEARING WHAT WE'RE DOING HERE, BECAUSE WE'RE WE'RE GOING THROUGH A LONG PROCESS TO TRY TO FIT INTO GALVESTON AND PUT SOMETHING WONDERFUL HERE ON THE BEACH. I THINK WE'RE ALL FOCUSING ON THAT ART FRONT, AND IT WAS IMPORTANT TO ME TO PUT SOMETHING WITH THE ARTISTS HERE, AND WE WERE ALWAYS THINKING ABOUT THIS FROM THE BEGINNING, TO HAVE SOME SORT OF A DISPLAY OR SOME SORT OF AN AREA THAT IS VERY ARTISTIC, AND I THINK YOUR ZONING LOOKS AT ARTISTIC OR PLEASANT VIEWS PASSING BY. IT'S IMPORTANT, BUT FOR ME, I'M A BELIEVER IN THE ARTS, AND I THINK THAT I LIKE TO SUPPORT THE ARTISTS THEMSELVES. SO WE DO LIKE TO SUPPORT THE VIEWERS GOING PAST, BUT I LIKE TO SUPPORT ALSO THE ART AND THE PEOPLE WHO CREATE THAT. THIS IS IMPORTANT TO ME FOR THE ART DISPLAYS WHETHER IT'S FOR SALE OR JUST DISPLAYS, IT REALLY IS THINGS THAT GO ON LATER ON, BUT YOU KNOW, I THINK THIS IS A REACH OUT TO TRY TO GET SOMETHING IN THE FRONT THAT, I MEAN, WE CAN PUT BUSHES AND WE CAN MAKE EVERYTHING PRETTY AND WE CAN OFFER ALL SORTS OF THINGS THAT WE CAN DO IN LANDSCAPING AND SAY, THIS IS A BEAUTIFUL FRONT OF THE BUILDING, BUT TO ME, IT'S IMPORTANT TO HAVE THAT ARTISTIC SUPPORT. SO, I MEAN, THIS IS ASIDE FROM WHAT WE'RE ASKING FOR, AND WE STILL GO THROUGH THE DESIGN PROCESS OF THIS, BUT A BUILDING OF THIS SIZE CAN AFFORD TO PUT IN SOME ARTISTIC SUPPORT AND THINGS IN THERE. SO I DO BELIEVE IN THAT. YEAH, AND SO YOU CAN ASK THESE QUESTIONS CONTINUING, BUT IF I CAN INTERJECT ANY TIME TO HELP, I'LL INTERJECT IF YOU CAN, BUT THANK YOU. THANK YOU. I HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT THE SECOND ITEM ON THE APPROVAL STANDARDS. THE APPLICANT'S JUSTIFICATION. THERE'S A STATEMENT SAYS THAT SAYS THE SPEAKS TO THE WALL PLAIN ARTICULATION AS BEING THE AS AS BEING APPROPRIATE FOR ADDRESSING THESE THE SECOND PART OF THE STREET STANDARDS, STREET EDGE STANDARDS. I HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THAT. WHEN YOU'RE DRIVING, WHEN WE'RE LOOKING AT THE DRIVING PUBLIC AND WE'RE ON THE IN OUR CARS, RIGHT. DRIVING ALONG SEAWALL, YOUR WALL ARTICULATION IS GOING TO BE 20 STARTS, 20FT IN THE AIR. WE'RE NOT GOING TO SEE THAT IN OUR VEHICLES, AND ONE OF THE THINGS I THINK THE SPIRIT OF THE OF THE STANDARD IS TO IMPROVE THE VISUAL ENHANCEMENT OF OF THE WHAT THE DRIVING PUBLIC IS SEEING, AND WHEN YOU'RE ON THE MAIN SEAWALL, YOU DON'T SEE CARS UNDERNEATH BUILDINGS BECAUSE THEY'RE BEHIND THEM, RIGHT, BUT WE HAVE THIS PARTICULAR LITTLE QUIRK WITH THE HDDZ IN ZONE SIX THAT ALLOWS US TO SEE THOSE VEHICLES, AND I THINK THE SPIRIT OF THE STANDARD IS THAT WE DON'T WANT TO SEE THEM GIVE US SOMETHING THAT WE CAN THAT GIVES US SOME KIND OF ESTHETIC INSTEAD OF LOOK, YES, A BUFFER OR A SCREEN OF SOME KIND AND AN ARTISTIC OR ARCHITECTURAL SCREENING IS BEAUTIFUL. WE HAVE BREAKAWAY WALLS, RIGHT? SO YOU COULD HAVE BREAKAWAY SCREENING. YEAH, AND, YOU KNOW WITH THE BUILDING. EXCUSE ME. I'M SORRY. COMMISSIONERS, IF I CAN JUST SUGGEST THAT WE FOCUS ON WHAT THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST IS FOR. THERE ARE ITEMS THAT ARE BEING DISCUSSED THAT EITHER HAVE NOT BEEN FULLY FORMULATED AND PRESENTED AS SUCH TO THIS COMMISSION. [00:50:01] THEY HAVE BEEN PRESENTED. I'M SORRY, DONNA. THEY ARE PRESENTED IN THE APPLICANT'S JUSTIFICATION. IF I MAY FINISH. IF I MAY FINISH. THAT IS NOT THE BASIS OF THE REQUEST, AND SO I DON'T WANT THE COMMISSIONERS TO GO TOO FAR AFIELD WHEN THE REQUEST IS REALLY TO FIGURE OUT THE CONFLICT WITH THE FLOODPLAIN BFE AND THE CITY'S REGULATION FOR THE WALL ARTICULATION. IT'S NOT NECESSARILY WHAT A PERSON CAN SEE IF THERE'S PARKING OR EVEN THE MURAL. THAT'S SOMETHING THAT'S GOING TO COME LATER. I JUST WANT THE COMMISSIONERS TO FOCUS ON THE REQUEST. WELL, I'M SORRY, DONNA; I'M GOING TO DISAGREE WITH YOU THERE BECAUSE THE APPLICANT INTRODUCED BOTH SECTIONS OF THE STREET EDGE STANDARDS IN THEIR APPLICATION. THEY ADDRESS A1 AND THEY ALSO ADDRESS A2, WHICH IS THE VISUAL DECORATIVE ARCHITECTURAL SURFACES. WE WOULD NOT BE TALKING ABOUT A2 RIGHT NOW IF THE APPLICANT HAD NOT INTRODUCED IT. I AM CONCERNED THAT I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHAT THEY'RE ASKING FOR, BECAUSE WHAT I WHEN I READ THE APPLICANT'S JUSTIFICATION, IT SOUNDS TO ME AS THOUGH THERE'S GOING TO BE A VARIANCE FOR THE WHOLE 10.308. THAT'S WHY I'M CONFUSED. WE'RE JUST NOW TALKING TO THE APPLICANT FOR THE FIRST TIME, AND I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND EXACTLY WHAT THEY'RE ASKING FOR, BECAUSE I DON'T SEE IT SPECIFICALLY STATED IN THIS APPLICATION. THAT'S WHY I'M ASKING THESE QUESTIONS IN THE REQUESTED VARIANCE SECTION. IT'S STATED THAT THE STREET EDGE STANDARDS ARE WHAT'S BEING VARIED FROM THE HDDZ REQUIREMENT IS ACTIVE STOREFRONTS CONTAINING COMMERCIAL OR OFFICE USES, AND THE REQUEST IS TO ELIMINATE THAT REQUIREMENT. SO WE'RE ONLY TALKING ABOUT ONE ACTIVE STOREFRONT, A1. THAT'S ALL THAT'S BEEN REQUESTED IS A1. I WISH THAT HAD SAID THAT. I MEAN, WE NEED TO KNOW EXACTLY WHAT WE'RE DEALING WITH. SURE, AND IT'S LISTED IN THE REQUESTED VARIANCE SECTION. EIGHT? WHERE DO YOU SEE EIGHT? IT'S IN THE STANDARD HERE. NO. DO WE HAVE MORE QUESTIONS? CAN I JUST CONTINUE TO MAKE A CLARIFICATION ON OUR A1 APPLICATION? JUST A MOMENT. I DON'T KNOW HOW MUCH TIME I HAVE TO SPEAK OR WHAT THE LEGALITIES ARE. WHEN WE STARTED DESIGNING THIS PROJECT MONTHS AND MONTHS AGO ONE OF THE KEY POINTS WAS HOW IT WOULD BE LOOKED AT FROM THE STREET. WE WANTED AN ICONIC BUILDING, AND IF YOU LOOK AT OUR OLD DESIGNS AND THAT'S ALL PUBLIC INFORMATION, IT WAS SOMETHING THAT WHERE YOU DROVE UP, THERE WAS A PORTE COCHERE, AND THERE WAS ALL THESE THINGS IN THE FRONT SIDE, AND COMMERCIAL IS GREAT ON THE SEA LEVEL. IT WAS IMPORTANT FOR ME TO HAVE PEOPLE DRIVE UP AND SAY THAT BUILDING IS THE ONE I LIVE IN. IT'S NOT A BLACK WALL, IT'S NOT LITTLE, YOU KNOW, WHATEVER IT IS, IT'S SOMETHING THAT BECAUSE NOBODY SEES THE OCEANSIDE, THAT'S JUST FOR THE RESIDENTS, BASICALLY, AND PEOPLE TRYING TO STRUGGLE TO GET OUT ONTO THE BEACH. SO IT WAS IT'S ALWAYS BEEN ON MY MIND WHEN WE HAD TO BOTTLE UP AND BACK OUR PROJECT INTO A ZONING SITUATION WITHOUT ASKING FOR TOO MANY FAVORS HERE. WE PUT IT TO CODE, AND WE BUILD THE BUILDING TO CODE. WE, YOU KNOW, WE'RE AT A DESIGN PHASE THAT FITS WITHIN CODE, AND THERE'S ONLY ONE CONFLICT. WE DO AND WILL DESIGN THE BUILDING TO MEET THE STREET EDGE STANDARD AS FAR AS ARTICULATION AND MURALS AND THINGS EITHER WAY. I WANT TO INTEGRATE THAT AND THE ARTICULATION WILL BE MET ON THIS BUILDING ON THE STREET SIDE. I'M ALWAYS AWARE OF WHAT WE'RE DOING. I'M ALWAYS AWARE OF WHAT THE PUBLIC TALKS ABOUT. WE TOOK INTO MAJOR CONSIDERATIONS. ALMOST EVERY PROBLEM THAT THE NEIGHBORS EXPRESSED IN OUR OLD MEETINGS TO DESIGN THAT BUILDING. ONCE WE RAN ACROSS AN ISSUE THAT SAYS, HEY, WE JUST YOU CAN'T RESOLVE SOMETHING THAT IS COMPLETELY IN CONFLICT. YOU KNOW, AND I CERTAINLY DON'T WANT TO MESS WITH FLOOD ZONES. I'M NOT INTERESTED IN PUTTING ELECTRICAL OR ANYTHING ON THE FIRST FLOOR ANYWAYS. NOBODY WOULD WANT TO DO THAT. THAT'S JUST UNSAFE. THE REQUEST BASICALLY IS TO SAY, OKAY, YOU KNOW, WE'RE GOING TO GO FORWARD WITH SOME SORT OF A, YOU KNOW, IT'S GOING TO BE, YOU KNOW, LET ME JUST SAY COMMERCIAL. FOR ME, IT'S NOT COMMERCIAL FOR ENGINEERING AND FOR LIAISON AND FOR EVERYBODY ELSE, YOU KNOW, HEY, GET A COMMERCIAL THING THERE, AND IT HELPS. [00:55:03] FOR ME, IT'S MORE OF DISPLAYING ARTISTS ON THEIR WORK ON DISPLAY. IF THEY CAN MAKE MAKE A PROFIT ON SELLING SOMETHING THERE, MORE POWER TO THEM, AND THAT'S FREE FOR ME TO GIVE THAT SPACE. I'M NOT I'M NOT CHARGING ANYTHING FOR THAT BECAUSE I BELIEVE IN SUPPORTING THE COMMUNITY AND THE STREET FRONT STANDARDS. IT ALL. IT ALL MAKES SENSE WHEN YOU RUN INTO A CONFLICT WHERE YOU ARE FORCED TO PUT IN SOME IN SOME COMMERCIAL ON THE FLOOR WHERE YOU JUST CAN'T YOU JUST CAN'T DO IT. THAT'S THE REASON FOR THE REQUEST. YOU KNOW, WE'VE BEEN PUSHING FORWARD AND PLANNING GOING FORWARD WITH THIS BUILDING, AND IT WILL BE JUST AS NICE LOOKING ON THE STREET SIDE AS IT IS IN THE FRONT SIDE, BUT AS YOU ALL KNOW, EVERY RENDER I DO COSTS ABOUT $8,000, AND EVERY MEETING WE MEET HERE COSTS ABOUT 40,000. SO I CONTINUE TO GO DOWN THIS PATH TO MAKE A PROJECT SUCCESSFUL HERE, AND I THINK WE'RE AT A SPOT WHERE IT FITS IN WITH WHAT THE NEIGHBORS COMPLAINED ABOUT THROUGHOUT THE BEGINNING. YOU KNOW, IT SEEMS TO MAKE THAT SOLVED, AND NOW WE JUST NEED TO SOLVE IT WITH THE ZONING. YEAH. SO THANKS FOR THAT. I LIKE TO FILIBUSTER A LOT, SO SORRY. ANYTHING ELSE? ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? ANY OTHER QUESTIONS YOU GOT FOR ME? GO FOR IT. I THINK THAT'S ALL THE QUESTIONS WE HAVE, RIGHT? AND YOU GUYS. IS THERE ANYBODY ELSE FROM THE PUBLIC THAT WISHES TO SPEAK? I WANT TO ASK SOMETHING ON THIS. I MEAN, FOR CLARIFICATION, FOR MY CLARIFICATION TO ME. ARE YOU TALKING TO THE APPLICANT? OKAY. THIS VARIANCE IS BASED ON THE BASE FLOOD ELEVATION, THE 6.5FT ELEVATION OF THE PROPERTY, AND BECAUSE OF THAT, YOU CAN'T PROVIDE WHAT YOUR SOLUTION TO APPEASE THE STANDARDS IS TO COME UP WITH SOME KIND OF ARTISTIC WALL OR WHATEVER, BUT, I MEAN, IT SAYS, YOU KNOW, THAT YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO DEVELOP MAYBE BUSINESSES AND THINGS LIKE THAT WHERE YOU'RE SAYING THAT'S PHYSICALLY NOT POSSIBLE BECAUSE OF OTHER RESTRICTIONS BASED ON ELEVATIONS AND FLOOD ELEVATION. CORRECT. YOU CAN'T BUILD ON THAT LEVEL. PERIOD. I MEAN, YOU CAN'T BUILD A RETAIL OR COMMERCIAL OR RESTAURANT OR SOMETHING ON THAT LEVEL TO EASE THAT. THE OTHER ONES, WE CAN COMPLY ASKING FOR A VARIANCE JUST ON THE RETAIL SIDE OF THE REQUIREMENT. CORRECT. BECAUSE YOU DON'T WANT TO GO, I MEAN, 20FT FOR 18FT RETAIL AND THEN ANOTHER 20FT, ANOTHER 20FT OR 10FT AND TEN FEET UP OR SOMETHING. SO OKAY, I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT. RIGHT. OKAY. THANK YOU. PLEASE. OKAY. DO I NEED TO SIGN IN AGAIN? OKAY. HI. MARIE ROBB 4101 RUM BAY, AND I AM HERE TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION OF THIS VARIANCE. WHEN IT COMES TO SOLARIS, PRETTY MUCH ALL WE HEAR IS VARIANCE, VARIANCE, VARIANCE. WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A PROPERTY THAT SITS ON ONE OF THE HIGHEST EROSIVE SPOTS ON THE CITY, THAT THE FEMA FLOODPLAIN IS 19FT. THE VERY BACK OF THE PROPERTY IS 17FT, BUT IT'S 19FT, WHICH MEANS BUILDING WOULD HAVE TO BE TWO FEET HIGHER THAN THAT. ADDITIONALLY, WHEN YOU SEE THIS RENDERING, I'M SORT OF APPALLED THAT AN APPLICATION WOULD COME IN WITHOUT ANY ELEVATIONS ON IT. THEY ALSO SPEAK ABOUT HAVING NO OBJECTIONS, BUT LET'S JUST TALK ABOUT COASTAL RESOURCES. COASTAL RESOURCES HAVE NO OBJECTIONS BECAUSE THEY'VE NEVER THEY'VE BEEN TOLD FROM THE BEGINNING THEY NEED TO PUT A DUNE IN PLACE AND THEY HAVE NOT DONE THAT. SO TO SAY NO ONE HAS OBJECTIONS, AND IF YOU LOOK AT THAT DRIVEWAY, I FIND IT HARD TO BELIEVE THAT THEY WENT BACK TO THE FIRE MARSHAL, AND THERE IS NO OBJECTION, BECAUSE THERE'S NO WAY YOU'RE GOING TO GET A LADDER TRUCK THROUGH THAT AND AROUND. WE HAVE DIFFICULTIES ON THE WEST END ON JUST CUL DE SACS. SO I QUESTION THE SAFETY. [01:00:02] IN READING THROUGH THIS, IT'S ONE OF THE MOST VAGUEST APPLICATIONS I HAVE EVER SEEN, AND AGAIN, I'M HERE TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION, AND THANK YOU. THANK YOU. HI. I'M JEFFREY HILL. I LIVE ON LAFITTE POINT IN GALVESTON. THIS PROJECT, THEY'RE HERE TO YOU TODAY FOR STREET EDGE STANDARDS, WHICH APPLIES TO DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE HDDZ AND IS TO ENHANCE THE EXPERIENCE OF THE TRAVELING PUBLIC. I AM THAT TRAVELING PUBLIC. I DRIVE BY THIS BUILDING OR WHAT? WHERE THIS BUILDING WILL BE ON A DAILY BASIS, AND I FIND IT APPALLING, AS COUNCILWOMAN ROBB DID, THAT THEY DID NOT EVEN PROVIDE A 3005 ELEVATION TO YOU ALL TO MAKE A DECISION ON THIS. I UNDERSTAND THAT IT'S EXPENSIVE, BUT THAT'S PART OF THE COST OF DOING BUSINESS. YOU'RE COMING BEFORE A CITY BODY, A BOARD ASKING YOU FOR A VARIANCE, AND IT DOESN'T SEEM TO ME THAT THEY HAVE PROVIDED YOU EVERYTHING THAT YOU NEED TO MAKE A QUALIFIED DECISION IN THIS INSTANCE. WE WANT SOMETHING WITH AN ENHANCED VISUAL APPEAL. IT SEEMS TO ME THAT WHEN COUNCIL APPROVED THE ELDERS THAT ARE IN PLACE NOW, THEY CLEARLY WANTED TO ADOPT A PORTION OF THE ELDERS TO IMPROVE THE APPEARANCE OF LARGE DEVELOPMENTS LIKE THIS FOR THE TRAVELING PUBLIC, AND I WOULD URGE YOU ALL TO PLEASE THINK ABOUT THE SPIRIT OF THAT COUNCIL WHEN THEY APPROVED THOSE ELDERS. IF YOU ARE NOT PREPARED TO SAY WE DON'T WANT TO DISAPPROVE THIS BECAUSE OF THE CONFLICT WITHIN FLOODPLAIN PROBLEMS AND THE ELDERS, THEN AT LEAST DEFER IT. CONSIDER DEFERRING IT AND ASKING THEM TO COME BACK AND SHOW YOU WHAT THEY'RE THINKING ABOUT DOING BEFORE YOU APPROVE IT, BECAUSE THE DECISION YOU MAKE HERE WILL IMPACT PEOPLE LIKE ME, PEOPLE LIKE THEIR NEIGHBORS WHO DIDN'T HAVE A CHANCE TO SEE A FRONT ELEVATION BEFORE THEY VOTED AND WEIGHED IN ON THIS. THEY WERE CONFUSED. THEY DIDN'T KNOW WHAT TO DO BECAUSE THEY HAVEN'T SEEN ANYTHING. SO IF YOU HAVE A PROBLEM WITH OUTRIGHT OPPOSING THIS BECAUSE WE HAVEN'T SEEN AN ELEVATION, THEN PLEASE AT LEAST CONSIDER DEFERRING IT UNTIL THEY CAN PROVIDE YOU THE INFORMATION THAT IT SEEMS LIKE YOU NEED. THANK YOU, THANK YOU. DO WE HAVE ANYBODY ELSE FROM THE PUBLIC? GOOD EVENING, MADAM CHAIRWOMAN, AND THE BOARD. MY NAME IS STEVEN BEAGLE. I AM THE ARCHITECT ON TIARA. I RUN THE ARCHITECTURAL DIVISION OF PLACE DESIGNERS IN HOUSTON, AND I'M HERE REPRESENTING THE NEIGHBOR TIERRA ON THE BEACH DEVELOPMENT. WE'VE LOOKED AT THIS, AND WE'VE ACTUALLY SPENT A FAIR AMOUNT OF TIME TALKING TO OUR NEIGHBOR TO THE WEST, AND WE'RE FINDING THIS IS A MUCH BETTER PROPOSAL THAN WHAT WE'VE SEEN IN THE PAST, WITH THE 80 PLUS UNITS AND THE TEN STORY, 12 STORY BUILDING, WE'RE NOW DOWN TO FOUR ON TOP OF A PODIUM, 44 UNITS, AND TO THEIR CREDIT, THEY HAVE SET BACK THE ENTIRE STRUCTURE TOWARD THE NORTH TO SAN LUIS PASS ROAD. THEY ARE PROTECTING WHAT LITTLE BEACH THERE IS, AND THEY'VE DONE A GOOD JOB PROTECTING THE VIEWS EAST AND WEST BECAUSE OF THE SETBACK. THIS IS FAR LESS IMPOSING THAN IT WAS, AND THE MERE FACT THAT THEY'VE SET THE BUILDING BACK TO THE NORTH MAKES THAT ISSUE OF THE STREETSCAPE ON SAN LUIS PASS ROAD MORE IMPORTANT. IT IS IN YOUR FACE, GOING UP AND DOWN 3005. THE CONFLICT THAT THEY'VE REQUESTED IS REALLY CLEAR THAT THEY WANT CLARIFICATION FROM THIS [01:05:01] BOARD ON A VERY SIMPLE THING. THEY WANT TO NOT BE FORCED TO PROVIDE COMMERCIAL RETAIL SPACE IN A PLACE WHERE THEY CAN'T. IT'S A CONFLICT IN THE ORDINANCE. IT'S REALLY THAT SIMPLE. THE OTHER ISSUES OF SCREENING, WE HAD TO DEAL WITH IT AT TIERRA. WE HAD BREAKAWAY SCREENING. WE WERE UNDER CONSTRUCTION. THANK YOU ALL VERY MUCH. WE'RE UNDER CONSTRUCTION, SO I DON'T SEE GOING FORWARD THAT SOLARIS WILL HAVE ANY ISSUES IN THEIR DESIGN PHASE. THIS IS ALL PRECURSOR TO DESIGN. THIS IS SIMPLY MODIFYING A ZONING CONDITION THAT ALLOWS THEM TO GO FORWARD. THERE ARE DEFICIENCIES IN THIS APPLICATION. MARIE ROBB WAS RIGHT. THERE ARE NO ELEVATIONS. THERE ARE NO CROSS-SECTIONS. I CAN'T TELL HOW HIGH THEY'RE GOING OTHER THAN THE RESTRICTION OF 70FT. I KNOW THAT THEY'RE NOT GOING TO EXCEED THAT, BUT THEY HAVEN'T ASKED FOR A VARIANCE FROM THAT. THEY ARE SET BACK SUFFICIENTLY FROM THE BEACH THAT THEY'RE NO LONGER IMPEDING OUR VIEWS. SO HOW COULD WE OBJECT? BUT REGARDLESS OF WHAT OUR OBJECTIONS MIGHT BE TO THE ISSUE, I THINK THE THREE MINUTE LIMIT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. I WAS GOING TO MAKE A COMMENT. DO WE HAVE ANYBODY ELSE FROM THE PUBLIC? AFTER PUBLIC COMMENT IS OVER, ONLY THE APPLICANTS CAN COME UP AND ADDRESS THE COMMISSION AGAIN IF THERE ARE ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS, BUT WE CAN'T GO BACK AND FORTH WITH THE PEOPLE WHO COME UP TO MAKE A COMMENT. AGAIN, ONLY THE APPLICANT AND HIS PEOPLE CAN COME UP AND TALK. THANK YOU. DOES THE APPLICANT WISH TO COME UP AND SAY SOMETHING FURTHER? WELL, HAVE YOU CLOSED THE PUBLIC HEARING? JUST A SECOND. WE HAVE NOBODY ELSE FROM THE PUBLIC THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK. RIGHT? OKAY. PUBLIC HEARING FOR CASE 24Z-013 IS CLOSED, AND THE CASE IS RETURNED TO THE COMMISSION ITS RETURN TO THE APPLICANT. OKAY. GO AHEAD. OKAY. IT'S A COMPLEX THING TO BUILD ON THE BEACH, AND WE'VE LISTENED FROM THE VERY BEGINNING TO EVERYBODY THAT OPPOSED THE PROJECT AND PRETTY MUCH SOLVED EVERYTHING THAT THEY SAID. SETBACKS, HEIGHTS, FRONTS, BACKS. I CONTINUE AND I UNDERSTAND YEAH. YOU KNOW, WE SHOULDN'T. WE SHOULDN'T SAY. WELL, IT'S WE'RE 8000 HERE, 10,000 THERE. WE'RE GOING TO SAVE THIS AND SAVE THAT, BUT THERE IS A PROCESS. WE STILL HAVE HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS TO INVEST JUST IN THE ENGINEERING SIDE, AND I STILL LISTEN TO EVERYBODY THAT TALKS TO ME. I'M NOT A PERSON THAT WILL NOT RECEIVE A PHONE CALL OR UNDERSTAND FROM THE POINT OF THE RESIDENCE. I HAVE A HOME IN SUNNY BEACH. I'M CONCERNED WITH EVERYTHING THAT GOES ON THERE. THANK GOSH THEY GOT THE DRAINAGE UNDER CONTROL, BUT. ASIDE FROM THAT, AND AS AN APPLICANT WE RUN INTO A CONFLICT. THE CONFLICT IS SOMETHING THAT'S ABSOLUTELY IMPOSSIBLE TO GET PAST. IT'S NOT LIKE A DECISION THAT I CAN SAY, WELL, YOU KNOW, LET'S NEGOTIATE SOMETHING. NO, IT'S WRITTEN IN STONE. YOU CAN'T BUILD COMMERCIAL OR RETAIL ON THE FIRST AREA THERE, AND I WOULDN'T BE WOULDN'T BE ADVISED TO DO THAT ANYWAYS, EVEN IF WE DO AN ART FRONT OR SCREENS. THERE'S NO ELECTRICAL WIRING AND THINGS THAT WE'RE GOING TO PUT DOWN IN THAT LEVEL. AS YOU CAN SEE BY THE BEACHSIDE, THIS IS NOT AN A BUILDING THAT IS PLAIN OR DIFFICULT TO LOOK AT. WE'VE SPENT A LOT OF MONEY THINKING ABOUT HOW THE DESIGN OF THIS LOOKS WITH TERRACES AND GREENSCAPES, AND THAT STILL IS IN THE FRONT. WE'RE GOING TO STEP THE BUILDING BACK. WE'RE GOING TO HAVE THE ARTICULATION, AND IT'S ALL FALLS DOWN TO MAKING A BEAUTIFUL BUILDING. YOU DON'T SELL UNITS IN A BUILDING THAT ISN'T BEAUTIFUL. SO YOU DON'T MAKE AN IMPACT. WE'RE TRYING TO MAKE AN IMPACT. WE TRIED WITH THE ORIGINAL IDEA, AND THAT WAS A FINANCIAL SITUATION. YOU HAVE TO GET UP TO A CERTAIN POINT TO PAY FOR ALL THE LOWER END INFRASTRUCTURE AND FIXED. THERE'S A LEVEL YOU NEED TO BE AT TO GET TO GET TO THAT. THIS ONE FITS IN IT'S ZONE. IT'S 44 UNITS, IT'S SMALLER. [01:10:02] IT DOESN'T REQUIRE EXTRA PARKING. SECOND FLOOR PARKING. A COMPLEX SITUATION LIKE THAT, AND IT'S JUST NOT IN YOUR FACE. STEVE REACHED OUT TO US IN THE FIRST BUILDING. YOU'RE, LIKE, REALLY FAR FORWARD. YOU'RE A GIGANTIC BUILDING, YOU KNOW, AND THINGS LIKE THAT, AND IT'S LIKE, OH, OKAY. YOU KNOW, LET ME RETHINK THIS. WE RETHOUGHT IT, TOOK IT ALL INTO ACCOUNT. MARIE ROBB'S COMMENTS. WE TOOK HERS INTO ACCOUNT. IT'S JUST BEING A TOO BIG OF A BUILDING AND IT WAS A BIG BUILDING. THERE WAS NO DOUBT. IN MY WORDS, IT WAS A BIG ASK, BUT NOW IT'S REALLY ABOUT, YOU KNOW, HOW DO WE GET PAST THAT ZONING CONFLICT? AND YOU'RE THE BOARD, AND WE REQUIRE YOUR WISDOM ON THAT, AND HOPEFULLY YOU'LL SEE THAT THIS SMALL MOMENT OF CONFLICT CAN BE RESOLVED AND WE MOVE FORWARD WITH A BEAUTIFUL BUILDING ON THE BEACHSIDE. SO THANK YOU. APPRECIATE YOUR TIME, I REALLY DO. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, AGAIN, FOR THE APPLICANT? NO? OKAY. OKAY. NOW, IN THAT CASE WE'RE GONNA BRING THE CASE BACK TO THE COMMISSION FOR CONSIDERATION AND MOTION. ARE WE ALLOWED TO DISCUSS BEFORE WE HAVE A MOTION? I THINK WE NEED TO MAKE A MOTION THEN DISCUSS, RIGHT. OKAY. I MEAN, I HEARD A LOT OF DISCUSSION ABOUT A LOT OF DIFFERENT THINGS THAT WEREN'T EVEN RELATIVE TO WHAT WHAT THIS VARIANCE WAS ABOUT. IS THERE A SECOND TO THE MOTION? IF. I'M SORRY, IF WE COULD HAVE THE DATE AND THE REASON. MARCH MEETING. OKAY, AND THE REASON FOR DEFERRAL? BECAUSE THEY HAVEN'T PROVIDED AN ELEVATION OF THE FRONT VIEW FROM THE STREET OF WHAT THIS PROPERTY WOULD LOOK LIKE. IT'S LIKE A LOT OF THINGS HAVE BEEN THROWN OUT OF IDEAS, BUT IT'S NOT REALLY BEEN DEFINED AND I THINK IN TWO MONTHS THEY SHOULD BE ABLE TO COME UP WITH SOMETHING THAT'S, YOU KNOW, COMPARABLE TO THIS, BUT WITH THE STREET VIEW, WHAT ARE PEOPLE GOING TO SEE GOING DOWN THE STREET? OKAY. I'LL SECOND THAT. I'M WAITING FOR THE MOTION. OKAY. SECONDED. OKAY. MADAM CHAIR TIM TIETJENS WITH THE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR THERE HAS BEEN MENTIONED THAT THIS PROJECT IS COMPLEX. IT IS BOTH BY MR. KAHLENBERG AND AS WELL BY THE TIERRA REPRESENTATIVE AS WELL. MR. BEAGLE AND THESE PROJECTS PROCEDURES AND PROCESS THROUGH THE SYSTEM IN, IN A CERTAIN SEQUENCE SITE PLANNING AND THOSE APPROVALS ALWAYS COME AFTER THE INITIAL FACTORS THAT WEIGH IN HERE, AND IN FACT, THIS CASE THIS APPLICANT IS TRYING TO DETERMINE SOMETHING THAT IS A MAKE OR BREAK ISSUE HERE. IT CAN IT HAPPEN OR NOT? WITHOUT THIS VARIANCE, IT CAN'T HAPPEN. SO WITH THE VARIANCE THEY'RE SIMPLY SEEKING, IS IT MORE IMPORTANT, YOU KNOW, TO BASICALLY IF YOU HAVE TO CHOOSE BETWEEN THE TWO REGULATIONS, IS IT MORE IMPORTANT TO BASICALLY CONTEND WITH OUR FLOODPLAIN STANDARDS, WHICH ARE LIFE SAFETY ISSUES? AND THE MORE YOU KNOW, ESOTERIC CONSIDERATIONS OF THE DESIGN, THOSE DESIGN CRITERIA ARE CERTAINLY IMPORTANT, BUT THE CITY IN ITS RECOGNITION OF THE FLOODPLAIN STANDARDS HAS A WHAT THEY CALL A COMMUNITY RATING SYSTEM, WHICH IS THE IMPLEMENTATION OF ALL THAT, AND THE CITY IS NOT WILLING TO WAIVE ANYTHING REGARDING FLOODPLAIN STANDARDS. SO AND LIFE SAFETY STANDARDS OF THAT IMPACT. SO THE ONLY RESOLUTION THAT CAN REALLY COME OF THIS BEFORE WE GET INTO THINGS LIKE PROPERTY TAKINGS IS WHAT RELIEF ON THESE TWO CONFLICTING STATUTES SHOOTS CAN BE CAN CAN BE SORT OF IRONED OUT IN THIS FORUM. IT'S EITHER THE FLOODPLAIN REGULATIONS THAT, THAT WE WOULDN'T ABIDE BY OR THE HDDZ STANDARDS THAT [01:15:05] WOULDN'T BE ABIDED BY. CLEARLY FROM THE STANDPOINT OF THE STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION, AND I KNOW WE DON'T RECOMMEND IN THIS PARTICULAR SITUATION, BUT I'M GOING TO SAY THAT THE CITY ISN'T WILLING TO CONSIDER ANY FORM OF ACQUIESCENCE ON ON THE FLOODPLAIN STANDARDS. OKAY. SO THE ONLY THING THAT CAN LITERALLY BE DONE IS THE HDDZ STANDARDS, AND AS CATHERINE MENTIONED, THAT'S THE REQUESTED VARIANCE TO ELIMINATE THE REQUIREMENT FOR THE ACTIVE STOREFRONT CONTAINING COMMERCIAL OR OTHER OFFICE USES. NOW, DO YOU NEED YOU NEED AN ELEVATION TO SEE THAT? IT WOULD. PERHAPS IT WOULD BE BENEFICIAL, BUT IT'S REALLY A USE THING. IT'S A USE ISSUE. IS THAT SECOND STORY ELEVATED PORTION OF THE BUILDING GOING TO BE IT'S GOING TO BE AT ITS ELEVATION OF THE BASE FLOOD ELEVATION, AND THE REQUIREMENT TO HAVE THE STOREFRONTS BELOW THAT IS IMPOSSIBLE. SO IT'S REALLY NOT A REALLY A CONDITION OF WHAT IS BEING WHAT'S HAPPENING WITH THAT STOREFRONT. IT'S THE FACT THAT A STOREFRONT EXISTS OR NOT, AND THAT'S REALLY ALL THEY'RE ASKING FOR IS DETERMINATION ON THE NARROW CONSIDERATION OF DOES A STOREFRONT IS A STOREFRONT REQUIRED ON THE GROUND FLOOR. IN THIS CIRCUMSTANCE, THAT'S WHAT THIS IS REALLY ABOUT. THANK YOU. I THINK WE'RE IN THE DISCUSSION ALREADY. I JUST HAVE A QUESTION. SO WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IS THAT PAST THIS, THERE'S TONS OF MORE PLANNING THAT'S GOING TO BE HAPPENING. YES, ABSOLUTELY. THE SITE PLAN. JUST GO BUILD WHATEVER YOU WANT. WE'RE JUST SAYING THE SITE PLAN STILL HAS TO BE TWEAKED. THE OBJECTIONS THAT ARE ARE NOTED IN THIS REPORT ARE SIMPLY OBJECTIONS OR NON OBJECTIONS IN THIS CASE TO THE FACT THAT THERE'S A VARIANCE REQUEST. IT'S NARROW IN ITS COMPOSITION. IT'S THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE CONSIDERING HERE TODAY IS THAT NARROW ISSUE, AND I'M, I'M GOING TO GOING TO SPEAK TO THE BOARD. YEAH, WE'RE IN DISCUSSION NOW. COMMISSIONER FAGAN. HE'S NOT PART OF THE DISCUSSION. I KNOW, GO AHEAD, MR. FAGAN. I'M SORRY. I'M GOING TO SPEAK TO THE BOARD AS TO THE DUTIES OF THE BOARD. I'M GOING TO REMIND THE BOARD THAT THIS IS A QUASI JUDICIAL BOARD. THAT MEANS THAT THEY HAVE TO MAKE YOU GUYS HAVE TO MAKE A DECISION, BUT MORE IMPORTANTLY, THEY'RE IF THE DECISION IS SUCH THAT IT CAN BE CONCEIVED AS ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS, BECAUSE WHATEVER DECISION HERE, IF THERE IS AN OBJECTION TO IT, IT DOESN'T GO TO CITY COUNCIL, IT DOESN'T GO TO PLANNING COMMISSION. IT GOES TO A HIGHER COURT, A DISTRICT COURT, A COUNTY COURT, AND SO BE VERY SPECIFIC, WHICH IS WHY WE ASK FOR SPECIFIC CONDITIONS GRANTING A GRANTING A VARIANCE. A SITE ELEVATION IS NOT NEEDED FOR THIS VARIANCE DETERMINATION. IT'S JUST NOT NOT AT THIS TIME, AND SO AGAIN, YOU ARE SPECIAL COMMISSIONERS BECAUSE THIS IS A SPECIAL BOARD. THERE'S ONLY ONE OF YOU AND IT'S A FINAL DECISION MAKING BOARD. PLEASE UNDERSTAND THAT. THANK YOU FOR THAT. SURE. I MEAN I AGREE WITH WHAT YOU JUST SAID. THANK YOU. OKAY. I MEAN, I DO I AGREE WITH WHAT YOU SAID, AND THE ONLY I NEED TO I THINK THERE'S MORE THOUGHT THAT NEEDS TO BE PUT INTO THIS BY THIS BOARD. OKAY, AND I MADE THE MOTION TO DEFER IT TO MARCH TO MAKE THAT FINAL DECISION, AND I MEAN UNDERSTAND BASE FLOOD ELEVATIONS. I MEAN, WHAT YOU TALKED ABOUT AND I KNOW NOBODY'S GOING TO LET ANYBODY BUILD ANYTHING THAT DOESN'T MEET BASE FLOOD [01:20:03] ELEVATION. YOU KNOW, I MEAN, THAT'S A BASIC REQUIREMENT IN THE GULF COAST NOW, AND SO I WANTED TO DEFER IT SO PEOPLE COULD GET THIS, AND I NEEDED A REASON. I NEED AN ELEVATION. IF AN ELEVATION COULD BE PROVIDED FROM THE STREET SIDE, THEN MAYBE THAT WOULD HELP PEOPLE UNDERSTAND VISUALLY WHAT IT WOULD LOOK LIKE FROM THE STREET SIDE, BECAUSE THE VARIANCE IS BASED ON THE STREET SIDE OF THIS. IT'S NOT BASED ON THE GULF SIDE. I MEAN, THERE WAS MENTIONED ABOUT DUNES. I I MEAN, I SEE ON THE PROPERTY, I LOOK AT THE ONE THAT'S BEING DEVELOPED NEXT DOOR. I DON'T SEE WHERE YOU KNOW THIS. I CALL IT A PRE-FEED PLANNING LAYOUT. DOES ANYTHING TO DEVIATE FROM WHAT'S ALREADY BEEN APPROVED BY THE CITY FOR THE FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF TIERRA NEXT DOOR, AND I MEAN, THE DUNES ARE BEING KEPT THE SAME. EVERYTHING OKAY? BUT THE ONLY QUESTION WAS THE STREET SIDE. YES, AND THE, AND WE'RE NOT DISCUSSING WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN IN THAT PARTICULAR AREA. RIGHT. SO WE ARE JUST ASKED TO ELIMINATE THE REQUIREMENT. THAT'S NOT POSSIBLE BASICALLY TO HAPPEN. SO LET'S SAY WE SAY WE DON'T ELIMINATE THEN WHAT HAPPENS? I THINK THIS IS IT'S MY OPINION THAT THIS REALLY LIKE WE DON'T EVEN HAVE A CHOICE REALLY, AT THIS POINT, LIKE YOU SAID, BETWEEN THE CITY IS NOT GOING TO DO ANYTHING ABOUT THE FLOOD REQUIREMENT, WHICH IS THE PRIORITY. WE DO WE REALLY HAVE A CHOICE. I MEAN, WHAT IF WE DON'T ALLOW IT TO HAPPEN? LIKE. IF YOU ASK ME, IT'S LIKE I AGREE WITH YOU IN THAT REGARD. HOWEVER, THE WAY THIS APPLICATION IS WRITTEN IS SO AMBIGUOUS. IF YOU READ THROUGH IT, THERE ARE STATEMENTS THAT SAY THE DEVELOPER IS UNABLE TO COMPLY WITH SECTION 10.308 AND IS UNABLE TO DEVELOP THE PROPERTY WITHOUT A VARIANCE APPROVAL FROM THE ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT. IT DOESN'T SAY 10.308A1. IT JUST SAYS 10.308. THERE ARE NUMEROUS EXAMPLES THAT I COULD READ YOU IN THE APPLICATION. ALL I'M DOING IS READING IT. I DIDN'T WRITE IT AND I WOULD LIKE TO SEE. I WOULD HOPE IF WE DEFER THIS CASE, THEN WE COULD SEE AN APPLICATION THAT IS CLEAN, THAT IS SPECIFIC TO 10.308A1 THAT DOES NOT GIVE ANYONE THE IDEA THAT WE ARE WE ARE ALLOWING AN EXCEPTION TO 10.308A2. THAT'S MY ONLY CASE. THIS IS SO POORLY WRITTEN THAT I CANNOT. I HAVE TROUBLE UNDERSTANDING WHAT IS BEING ASKED NOW. TODAY IN THE IN THE TESTIMONY, I'M HEARING SOMETHING VERY, VERY SPECIFIC, BUT I DIDN'T READ IT WHEN I WAS PREPARING FOR THIS MEETING, I DID NOT READ IT IN THE CASE. I DID NOT SEE AN ELEVATION. WHAT I SAW, WHAT I READ WAS THAT THERE'S WALL ARTICULATION THAT ABSOLUTELY ADDRESSES THAT REQUIREMENT OF A2. I DON'T CARE ABOUT THE WALL ARTICULATION. WHY WOULD THAT HAVE BEEN INCLUDED IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE IF WE WERE NOT CONSIDERING THE ENTIRE REGULATION? IF YOU'RE ONLY TALKING ABOUT A1, THEN TALK ABOUT A1. DON'T GET IT CONFUSED WITH THE ENTIRE REGULATION. I WANT TO SEE A CASE THAT I CAN SUPPORT, AND IF I VOTE ON THIS TODAY, I AM. I DON'T KNOW WHAT I'M VOTING FOR. I HAVE SEEN NOTHING. I HAVE SEEN NOTHING THAT GIVES ME AN IDEA THAT EVERY INTENTION OF A2 WILL BE MET. SO, CAROL, THROUGHOUT THIS THING IT SAYS 10.308 A1. REPEATEDLY. YES IT DOES. THERE ARE THREE THREE DIFFERENT INSTANCES. YES. IT REFERENCES THAT SPECIFICALLY. SO I NEVER EVEN KNEW ABOUT A2. SO ONLY THING. DID YOU NOT READ THE REGULATION? NO I DIDN'T AS A MATTER OF FACT, WE'RE STILL HAVING. CAN WE GENTLEMEN? [01:25:02] THIS CAN BE REALLY SIMPLE. THE MOTION IS SPECIFIC AS TO A1 THEN THAT'S WHAT IT APPLIES TO, AND IF THAT'S THE ISSUE THAT THERE ARE OTHER SECTIONS THAT COULD BE CONCEIVED OR PERCEIVED TO BE INVOLVED. MAKE THE MOTION SPECIFIC TO THE A1. IT'S VERY SIMPLE. WE HAVE A MOTION ON THE FLOOR, AND YOU DO HAVE AN ACTIVE MOTION ON THE FLOOR, AND NO SECOND, AND JUST A QUESTION. IF THERE IS A DEFERRAL TO AN APPLICATION, ARE THEY ABLE TO CHANGE THE APPLICATION ITSELF TILL THE DEFERRAL OR IT HAS TO BE A NEW APPLICATION? IF I'M UNDERSTANDING WHAT THE DEFERRAL THE REQUEST FOR DEFERRAL IS TO PROVIDE ELEVATION, I BELIEVE THAT'S WHAT I HEARD. THAT'S NOT A PART OF THE DISCUSSION, NOT A PART OF WHAT'S NEEDED FOR THE DISCREPANCY. SO THEY CAN COME BACK WITH THE SAME, AND REMEMBER, THE APPLICATION IS JUST THEIR NARRATIVE, BUT IT'S ALSO THE STAFF REPORT THAT'S ATTACHED TO IT. I MEAN, THEY MAKE REFERENCES TO THE SPECIFIC SECTION. DO YOU WANT THEM TO MAKE MORE REFERENCES TO THE SPECIFIC SECTION? YOU'RE ASKING FOR STUFF THAT'S NOT NEEDED, AT LEAST NOT AT THIS TIME, AND AGAIN, WHETHER OR NOT IT'S ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS, THAT'S WHAT REALLY YOU GUYS NEED TO THINK ABOUT. I AGREE, I THINK IT'S ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS FOR US TO GO OFF ONTO RABBIT HOLES WHEN IT'S A VERY SIMPLE ISSUE OF YOU GOT TWO THINGS IN CONFLICT, YOU CAN'T POSSIBLY DO ONE. SO LET'S GIVE THEM A VARIANCE SO THEY CAN DO THE OTHER. OKAY. SO AS OF RIGHT NOW WE HAVE MOTION FOR DEFERRAL AND A SECOND AND WE'RE GOING TO VOTE. THE DEFERRAL IS FOR MARCH MEETING. ACTUALLY, IS THERE NOT A FEBRUARY MEETING? CATHERINE. YES, THERE'S A FEBRUARY MEETING. I BELIEVE A DEFERRAL WILL HAVE TO BE TO THE NEXT MEETING. I DON'T THINK THERE'S A RESTRICTION ON THAT. THANK YOU. YES, MA'AM. OKAY. OKAY. IN THAT CASE I MEAN, WE HAVE MOTION FOR DEFERRAL TO MARCH MEETING AND THE SECOND. LET'S SEE WHO'S IN FAVOR. OKAY. OPPOSED? THE MOTION FAILS. NOW WE'RE GOING TO BE BACK HERE FOR ANOTHER MOTION. DO WE HAVE ANOTHER MOTION TODAY? THIS IS A QUASI JUDICIAL BOARD. YOU NEED TO HAVE A VOTE, AND I CAN. WE CAN'T DISCUSS UNTIL WE GET A MOTION. IS THAT RIGHT? YES. OKAY. SO I MOVE APPROVAL. I THINK YOUR MIC IS YOUR MIC ON? I'M SORRY. I MOVE APPROVAL FOR WHAT? FOR THE SPECIAL CONDITION OF THIS PROPERTY THAT DOES NOT GENERALLY EXIST ON OTHER PROPERTIES IN THE SAME ZONING DISTRICT, AND THAT SPECIAL CONDITION IS THAT WE'VE GOT TWO LDRS CONSIDERATIONS. MAYBE ONE'S ONLY, I GUESS, FLOODPLAIN. I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S IN THE LDR. THAT'S SOME OTHER THING. TWO THINGS THAT ARE IN CONFLICT WITH ONE ANOTHER AND ONLY ONE CAN PASS. ONE CAN OCCUR, AND WE ALL KNOW THAT. OKAY. WELL I THINK THAT I'VE JUST STATED OKAY AT THAT. SO DUE TO THAT SPECIAL CONDITION, THE ENFORCEMENT OF THE STRICT TERMS OF THESE REGULATIONS WOULD IMPOSE AN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP ON THE APPLICANT. THE VARIANCE IS NOT CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST, AND THAT THE HARDSHIP IS NOT SELF-IMPOSED OR BASED ON FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS, CONVENIENCE OR INCONVENIENCE. THEY ARE NOT CONDITIONS THAT ARE ALLEGED TO BE SPECIAL, BUT ARE ACTUALLY COMMON TO MANY PROPERTIES WITHIN THE SAME ZONING DISTRICT. THE REQUESTED VARIANCE DOES NOT HAVE A DETRIMENTAL IMPACT UPON THE CURRENT OR FUTURE USE OF THE ADJACENT PROPERTIES FOR PURPOSES FOR WHICH THEY ARE ZONED. PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES AND PUBLIC HEALTH. SAFETY, MORALS AND GENERAL WELFARE OF THE COMMUNITY. THE DEGREE OF VARIANCE ALLOWED FROM THESE REGULATIONS IS THE LEAST THAT IS NECESSARY TO GRANT RELIEF FROM THE IDENTIFIED UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. THE VARIANCE WILL NOT BE USED TO CIRCUMVENT OTHER PROCEDURES AND STANDARDS OF THESE REGULATIONS THAT COULD BE USED FOR THE SAME OR COMPARABLE EFFECT, AND BY GRANTING THE VARIANCE, THE SPIRIT OF THESE REGULATIONS IS OBSERVED AND SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE IS DONE. THANK YOU. [01:30:01] I SECOND. MAY I MAKE A SUGGESTION AS WELL? AS I'VE LISTENED. IF THE VARIANCE IS SPECIFIC TO SECTION 10.308, THAT WOULD BE GOOD TO ADD. OKAY, AND CAN I ADD THIS AT THE END, AND THIS VARIANCE IS SPECIFIC TO 10.308A1 OF THE LDR, NOTHING ELSE. THANK YOU. DO WE HAVE A SECOND? I SECOND THE MOTION. THANK YOU. OKAY, BACK TO THE VOTING. OR IS THERE DO WE HAVE A DISCUSSION AT THIS POINT? SO I'LL DISCUSS FURTHER. I THINK THIS IS A SIMPLE ISSUE. IT'S LIKE A IT'S BLACK AND WHITE. IT'S A OR B IT'S NOT DISCUSSION ABOUT ALL KINDS OF OTHER THINGS ABOUT I DON'T NEED AN ELEVATION TO BE ABLE TO MAKE A DECISION THAT THESE TWO THINGS ARE IN CONFLICT, AND ONLY ONE CAN MAKE SENSE. SO WHY ARE WE I AGREE IN CONDITIONS THAT THE SPECIAL CONDITION IS THAT THERE'S A REQUIREMENT ABOUT FLOODING THAT HAS TO BE MET, AND THERE'S A REQUIREMENT FOR STOREFRONTS THAT CAN'T BE MET IF YOU MEET THE REQUIREMENTS FOR FLOODING. SO IT'S I MEAN, YOU CAN'T EVEN DO THE STOREFRONTS. THAT'S JUST NOT EVEN UNDER CONSIDERATION. SO WHY ARE WE MAKING AN ISSUE OF THIS? LET'S JUST LET THESE PEOPLE MOVE FORWARD. I AGREE, AND NOW THAT WE MADE IT SPECIFIC TO THREE 10.308A1 SHOULD CLARIFY THINGS AND UNTIL THIS POINT THAT HAD NOT BEEN CLARIFIED. GOOD, AND I WOULD LIKE TO GO ON RECORD AS SAYING I HAVE NEVER, IN MY EXPERIENCE HERE ON THE ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, EVER HEARD PLANNING STAFF ADVOCATE FOR A CLIENT, AN APPLICANT? AS MUCH AS I HAVE HEARD TODAY. I AM SURPRISED. GENERALLY, IT IS THE APPLICANT'S DUTY, IN MY EXPERIENCE, TO DEFEND THEIR POSITION AND STAFF, GENERALLY BECAUSE STAFF IS REQUIRED TO UPHOLD THE LDRS GENERALLY ADVOCATES FOR THE ELDERS AND FOR STAFF, FOR CITY REGULATIONS THAT HAVE BEEN ADOPTED AND ARE ENFORCED AND TODAY I HEAR SOMETHING THAT I HAVE NEVER HEARD BEFORE. YOU CAN RING MY ARM, YOU KNOW, IF YOU CHOOSE TO, BUT I'M GOING TO CALL YOU OUT ON IT, AND I AM VERY SURPRISED AND VERY DISAPPOINTED, AND THAT'S WHAT I HAVE TO SAY ABOUT THAT. MADAM CHAIRMAN, MAY I MAKE A COMMENT? COMMISSIONER HOLLAWAY. I APPRECIATE YOUR FEEDBACK AND YOUR COMMENTS ON THIS. I'D LIKE TO OFFER A COUNTER ON THIS. BASED UPON MY TIME ON THE PLANNING COMMISSION AS WELL AS ON CITY COUNCIL. THE CITY STAFF HAS A RESPONSIBILITY TO PRESENT THE POSITION OF THE APPLICANT, DESCRIBE THE DIFFERENCES OR VARIANCES THAT ARE BEING ASKED FOR, TO CLARIFY THEM WITH DUE DILIGENCE, AND TO ALSO MAKE VERY CLEAR TO THE COMMISSION THE POINTS OR POINT THAT WE ARE SUPPOSED TO UNDERTAKE. WE MAY, AS A COMMISSION OR CITY COUNCIL, MAY AGREE OR DISAGREE WITH THAT, BUT IN MY TIME ON PLANNING COMMISSION AS WELL, AND THE CITY COUNCIL, I HAVE NOT SEEN THE EVIDENCE THAT YOU SAY RELATED TO CLEAR AND OVERREACHING ADVOCACY FOR A PARTICULAR POSITION. THANK YOU. ANYTHING ELSE TO DISCUSS? OR IN THAT CASE, WE CAN VOTE FOR THE MOTION TO APPROVE THIS CASE, THIS VARIANCE. EVERYBODY IN FAVOR? MOTION PASSES. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. THAT'S GREAT. THANK YOU. OKAY. WE STILL HAVE. [01:35:02] OH, WE DON'T HAVE ANYTHING ELSE. SO THAT'S IT. OKAY. MOTION TO ADJOURN. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 5:05. THANK YOU. I JUST WANTED TO SAY THANK YOU FOR THAT. * This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.