Feb 04, 2025 Planning Commission

[1. Call Meeting To Order]

[00:00:06]

ALL RIGHT. GOOD AFTERNOON. WE'LL CALL THE CITY OF GALVESTON PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TO ORDER.

WE'VE SIGNED IN, AND WE HAVE A QUORUM. MATTER OF FACT, WE HAVE EVERYBODY HERE.

SO HAPPY NEW YEARS. GOOD TO SEE EVERYBODY. ARE THERE ANY CONFLICTS OF INTEREST?

[4. Approval Of Minutes]

WERE THERE ANY ADDITIONS OR COMMENTS OR CHANGES TO THOSE? SEEING NONE, WE WILL APPROVE THE MINUTES AS PRESENTED.

THIS IS THE PUBLIC COMMENT SECTION IF YOU'RE HERE TO SPEAK ON A NON AGENDA ITEM.

SO IF IT'S SOMETHING YOU'D LIKE TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION AND IT'S NOT ON THE AGENDA, THIS WOULD BE YOUR OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK.

WOULD ANYBODY LIKE TO COME TALK TO US. ALL RIGHT THEN MOVING ON, WE'RE GOING TO GO TO OUR FIRST ITEM

[6.A.1. 24BF-016 (415 East Beach Drive) Notice Of Mitigation For Disturbance Of Dunes And Dune Vegetation. Property Is Legally Described As Islander East Condo, A Subdivision In The City And County Of Galveston, Texas. Applicant: John Weldon – J.A. Weldon Construction Property Owner: Islander East Association]

SO IT'S JUST A PUBLIC HEARING. SO HAVE AT IT HUNTER.

ALL RIGHT. GOOD AFTERNOON, PLANNING COMMISSIONERS.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. THIS IS A NOTICE OF MITIGATION FOR DISTURBANCES OF DUNES AND DUNE VEGETATION.

THE ADDRESS IS 415 EAST BEACH DRIVE. THE PROPERTY IS LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS ISLANDER EAST CONDO, A SUBDIVISION IN THE CITY AND COUNTY OF GALVESTON, TEXAS.

THE SUBJECT SITE IS LOCATED AT ISLANDER EAST CONDOS.

NO STRUCTURES TO THE EAST AND WEST ARE ABUTTING THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.

A BEACH AND DUNE SYSTEM ARE LOCATED TO THE SOUTH OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.

ACCORDING TO THE BUREAU OF ECONOMIC GEOLOGY, THIS AREA IS ACCRETING.

STAFF HAS PREPARED PHOTOS OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY FOR YOUR VIEWING.

FIRST, WE HAVE A FIRM AND BEG MAP SHOWING THE DISTANCE OF THE STRUCTURE FROM THE DUNE SYSTEM AND ITS POSITION RELATIVE TO ADJACENT PROPERTIES.

ON THE NEXT SLIDE IS THE IS THE PROPERTY SURVEY PARTIALLY ZOOMED IN? FOR CLARITY, ON THE FOLLOWING SLIDE, WE HAVE THE PROPOSED SITE PLAN FOR THE PROPOSED NEW WALKOVER AND DEMOLITION OF THE EXISTING WALKOVER.

NEXT IS THE CROSS SECTION OF THE PROPOSED WALKOVER.

NEXT IS A MITIGATION VISUAL AID. THE PHOTO IS AN AERIAL VIEW FROM THE BEACH LOOKING NORTH.

NEXT IS ANOTHER MITIGATION VISUAL AID. THE PHOTO IS AN AERIAL VIEW FROM DIRECTLY ABOVE LOOKING DOWN.

THE BLUE SQUARE INDICATES THE 18FT² OF REQUIRED MITIGATION.

THE TWO LARGER RED BOXES INDICATE THE 375FT² OF INCIDENTAL MITIGATION THAT WILL ONLY BE INSTALLED AFTER INSPECTION AND VERIFICATION OF DAMAGES WITHIN THE CONSTRUCTION CORRIDOR. INCIDENTAL MITIGATION WILL NOT BE REQUIRED IF NO ADVERSE IMPACTS OR DAMAGES OCCUR.

THE FOLLOWING THREE SLIDES ARE IMAGES OF THE 18 SQUARE FOOT MITIGATION.

THE MITIGATION IS INTENDED TO BE PERFORMED IN THE BARREN VEGETATION PATH THAT WAS THE WAS THE ORIGINAL FOOTPATH FOR THE EXISTING WALKOVER.

THERE IS THE FIRST PHOTO. THE SECOND PHOTO. THE THIRD PHOTO.

THE FOLLOWING TWO SLIDES ARE IMAGES OF THE 375 SQUARE FOOT.

INCIDENTAL MITIGATION. THE MITIGATION, IF REQUIRED, WILL BE INSTALLED IN THE SECONDARY FOOTPATH OF THE EXISTING WALKOVER.

FIRST PHOTO. AND THE SECOND PHOTO. FINALLY, WE HAVE A PHOTO FROM THE BEACH LOOKING AT BOTH THE WESTERN AND EASTERN FOOTPATHS.

AND WITH THAT, THE COASTAL RESOURCE DIVISION AND THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT SENT OUT 109 NOTICES OF THE MITIGATION AND RECEIVED NINE DIGITAL EMAIL RESPONSES IN FAVOR OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT. AS A REMINDER, THIS ITEM IS ONLY FOR PUBLIC COMMENT.

NO ACTION BY COMMISSIONERS IS REQUIRED. THIS CONCLUDES STAFF'S REPORT AND I THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME.

THANK YOU, HUNTER. ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? I HAVE A COUPLE HUNTER.

I SAW WHERE THERE WAS A COUPLE OF COMMENTS FROM GLO ABOUT THE OBSERVATION DECK AND WHERE THAT ENDS.

IS THAT ALL INCORPORATED INTO THE PLAN? SO WHEN IT CAME TO THE OBSERVATION DECK, THAT WAS DONE BECAUSE FOR A PUBLIC WALKOVER THAT'S SERVICING THIS MANY PEOPLE, IT WAS DEEMED AS A ALTERNATIVE DESIGN THAT WE COULD AUTHORIZE.

SO WE COULD DO THAT OBSERVATION DECK THROUGH THERE.

OKAY. SO THERE, I GUESS WHAT I'M JUST SAYING THAT'S AN INSUFFICIENT HEIGHT.

AND THEN IT'S TALKING ABOUT WHERE IT LOOKS LIKE THE PLAN THAT THE DOOM WALKOVER ENDS.

IT NEEDS TO BE EXTENDED PAST THE DUNE. THAT'S WHAT I'M LOOKING AT ON PAGE TWO AT THE TOP OF PAGE TWO OF THERE.

AND THE ONLY REASON I ASK IS, YOU KNOW, USUALLY WHEN WE SEE THESE AND WE TAKE ACTION ON THEM.

YEAH, THOSE WILL BE INCORPORATED INTO IT. AND THAT'S THE ONLY REASON I'M ASKING.

YEAH. WE DID IT AS AN ALTERNATIVE DESIGN BECAUSE IT'S SERVICING SO MANY UNITS.

SO WE VIEWED IT AS A PUBLIC WALKOVER. NOT THAT IT'S DESIGNATED PUBLIC, BUT SERVING THE PUBLIC.

OKAY. SO BEING THAT WE WERE ABLE TO DO AN ALTERNATIVE DESIGN WHICH ALLOWS US TO DO THE 12 FOOT BY 12 FOOT OBSERVATION DECK.

GOTCHA. SO THE MATTER OF IS IT HIGH ENOUGH IS MORE JUST DISCRETIONARY.

[00:05:07]

THAT'S KIND OF PART OF WHAT THAT INCIDENTAL MITIGATION IS A PART OF.

GOTCHA. OKAY. THANK YOU. YES. HUNTER. SO THE EXISTING WALKOVERS IS ALL WOOD? CORRECT. OKAY. SO COULD YOU JUST TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THIS CONCRETE PATH? IS THAT HOW IS IT GOING TO BE GRADED? IS IT THE SAME WIDTH FIVE FEET WIDE.

YEAH. SAME. SAME. SAME WIDTH. THEY WERE ABLE TO GO FURTHER WITH THE EXISTING ONE ALREADY HAS A CONCRETE PATH TO IT TO SOME DEGREE.

THIS ONE'S JUST GOING FURTHER. BECAUSE IT WAS NORTH OF OUR 25 FOOT, OFFSET BY A DECENT AMOUNT.

THEY WERE ABLE TO DO THAT AS PART OF AN ALTERNATIVE DESIGN.

SO. AND WE WERE TRYING TO IT'S THE GLO ALLOWS THAT PATH FOR ADA.

AND SO THE PREMISE OF THE WALKOVER WAS TO ENHANCE AN ADA THAT WASN'T CURRENTLY THERE.

SO THAT CONCRETE PATH IS WHAT WAS REQUESTED. AND WHAT'S THE THICKNESS? THICKNESS SHOULD BE FOUR INCHES, WHICH IS PRETTY STANDARD, RIGHT? RIGHT. OKAY. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? ALL RIGHT. SEEING NONE, WE'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING.

SO IF YOU'RE HERE TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM PLEASE COME FORWARD AND STATE YOUR NAME AND YOU'LL SIGN IN.

ANYBODY ON THIS SIDE OF THE ROOM HERE TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM? NO. WHAT ABOUT ON THIS SIDE? ALL RIGHT. LOOKS LIKE THERE'S NO COMMENT FROM THE PUBLIC.

WE'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND MOVE ON TO OUR NEXT ITEM.

24BF-32. 132. 132 I'M

[7.A.1. 24BF-132 (11345 Beachside Drive) Request For Beachfront Construction Certificate And Dune Protection Permit To Include Proposed Construction Of A Large-Scale Single-Family Residence With Unreinforced Fibercrete Paving Beneath The Footprint Of The Structure And An Unreinforced Fibercrete Driveway. Property Is Legally Described As Lot 909, Beachside Village Section 9 (2024), Beachside Village, A Subdivision In The City And County Of Galveston, Texas. Applicant: Alejandra Lorenzo Property Owner: Debbie Ann Walcott]

THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. THIS IS A REQUEST TO CONSTRUCT A LARGE SCALE, SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE WITH UNREINFORCED CONCRETE PAVING BENEATH THE FOOTPRINT OF THE STRUCTURE AND AN UNREINFORCED [INAUDIBLE] DRIVEWAY.

THE ADDRESS IS 11345 BEACHSIDE DRIVE. THE PROPERTY IS LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOT 909, BEACHSIDE VILLAGE, SECTION NINE, 2024 BEACHSIDE VILLAGE, A SUBDIVISION LOCATED IN THE CITY AND COUNTY OF GALVESTON, TEXAS. THE SUBJECT SITE IS LOCATED IN THE BEACHSIDE VILLAGE SUBDIVISION.

SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS ARE NOT ADJACENT TO THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.

A BEACH AND DUNE SYSTEM ARE LOCATED TO THE SOUTH OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY, AND ACCORDING TO THE BUREAU OF ECONOMIC GEOLOGY, THIS AREA IS ERODING AT A RATE OF 8 TO 9FT PER YEAR. STAFF HAS PREPARED PHOTOS OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY FOR YOUR VIEWING.

FIRST, WE HAVE A FIRM AND BEG MAP SHOWING THE DISTANCE OF THE STRUCTURE FROM THE DUNE SYSTEM AND ITS POSITION RELATIVE TO ADJACENT PROPERTIES.

ON THE NEXT SLIDE IS THE PROPERTY SURVEY. THE PROPOSED STRUCTURES, DISTANCE TO THE NORTH TOE OF THE DUNE IS 31FT AND 103FT FROM THE LINE OF VEGETATION.

ON THE FOLLOWING SLIDE WE HAVE THE PROPOSED PROJECT SITE PLAN. THE PROJECT PROPOSES FIBER CREEP FOR BOTH SLAB AND DRIVEWAY.

THE SITE PLAN ALSO CONTAINS THE DRAINAGE PLAN.

THE NEXT SLIDE IS THE IMPERVIOUS PERVIOUS MAP THAT'S INCLUDED DUE TO LARGE SCALE CONSTRUCTION STATUS.

TOTAL IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE IS 30.82%, WHICH IS UNDER THE MAXIMUM THRESHOLD OF 40%.

NEXT SLIDE IS THE FOUNDATION OF PILING. NEXT SLIDE IS THE FOUNDATION PILING LAYOUT PLAN.

AND THEN WE HAVE ON THE GROUND FLOOR PLAN. THIS ONE IS DIFFERENT FROM THE FOUNDATION BECAUSE IT DETAILS WALL LAYOUT AND TELLS US THAT THE FIRST FLOOR WALLS WILL BE BUILT BREAKAWAY. THE FOLLOWING SLIDES SHOW THE EXTERNAL SIDE VIEWS OF THE RESIDENCE FIRST FROM THE FRONT AND REAR, THEN FROM THE LEFT AND FROM THE RIGHT. AND FINALLY WE HAVE FIVE PHOTOS OF THE SITE.

FIRST LOOKING NORTH, EAST, SOUTH, WEST AND THEN LOOKING AT THE LINE OF VEGETATION.

THIS CONCLUDES STAFF'S REPORT AND I THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. THANK YOU, HUNTER.

ANY QUESTIONS FROM COMMISSIONERS FOR STAFF? ALL RIGHT.

SEEING NONE, WE'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. IS THERE ANYBODY HERE WOULD LIKE TO, IS THE APPLICANT HERE? ALL RIGHT.

WOULD ANYBODY LIKE TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION ON THIS ITEM? ALL RIGHT. SEEING NONE, WE'LL OPEN AND CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING, AND WE'LL BRING THIS BACK TO COMMISSION FOR ACTION.

SO I'LL MAKE A MOTION THAT WE APPROVE 24 BF DASH 132 WITH STAFF COMMENTS.

I SECOND. SO WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND TO APPROVE.

20 4-1 32 IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION? I'LL JUST MAKE ONE COMMENT.

WE HAVE. OUR GLOW LETTER HAS NO COMMENT, SO IT'S NICE TO SEE ONE OF THOSE.

THAT'S MY ONLY. I JUST THOUGHT THAT WAS AN INTERESTING OBSERVATION.

ALL RIGHT. SO IF THERE'S NO DISCUSSION, WE'LL TAKE THE VOTE. THOSE IN FAVOR?

[00:10:02]

[7.B.1. 25P-004 (2712-2928 11 Mile Road) Request For A Change Of Zoning In Order To Designate The Sea Breeze Subdivision As A Restricted Residential, Single-Family (R-0) Zoning District. Properties Are Legally Described As Abstract 121 Page 48 Lots 1 Through 11 Sea Breeze And Abstract 121 Page 48 North 75 Feet Of Lot 12 (12-1) Sea Breeze, In The City And County Of Galveston, Texas. Applicant: Development Services Department]

DO YOU STILL WORK HERE? WE HAVEN'T SEEN YOU IN A LONG TIME.

WHERE HAVE YOU BEEN? I'M BUSY WORKING, MR. CHAIR.

YOU'RE BUSY WORKING? I HAVE NO DOUBT AT ALL ABOUT THAT, PETE.

IT'S GOOD TO SEE YOU. GOOD AFTERNOON CHAIR AND OTHER ATTENDING MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION.

MY GLASSES. CASE 25P-004 IS A REQUEST FOR A CHANGE OF ZONING.

THE ADDRESSES RANGE FROM 2712 THROUGH 2928 11 MILE ROAD.

THE REQUEST IS FOR A CHANGE OF ZONING IN ORDER TO DESIGNATE THE AREA AS A RESTRICTED RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY ARE A ZERO ZONING DISTRICT AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS FOR APPROVAL. OF THE PUBLIC NOTICES, WE SENT 19, WE HAD THREE RETURNED, AND THOSE THREE WERE IN FAVOR.

I'D LIKE TO HIGHLIGHT THE SECTION OF THE STAFF REPORT THAT ADDRESSES THE CRITERIA FOR REQUESTING THE R0.

AND THESE PARTICULAR CASES REQUIRE THAT 75% OF THE DWELLINGS IN THE PROPOSED AREA MUST FIRST BE SINGLE FAMILY OWNER OCCUPIED, AND THEN SECONDLY, THAT 75% OF THE PROPERTY OWNERS SHALL INITIATE THIS REQUEST.

SO FOR THIS PARTICULAR REQUEST, 75% OF THE DWELLINGS ARE OWNER OCCUPIED.

AND THIS REQUEST WAS INITIATED BY 83% OF THE PROPERTY OWNERS.

NOTE IN THE STAFF REPORT THE CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL AS WELL AS CONFORMANCE WITH THIS REQUEST AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION AGAIN IS FOR APPROVAL AND THIS CASE WILL HAVE FINAL DECISION AUTHORITY BY THE CITY COUNCIL.

AND THAT MEETING IS SCHEDULED FOR FEBRUARY THE 27TH OF 25.

AND WE HAVE SOME SLIDES. THE FIRST SLIDE IS OF THE SUBJECT SITE.

YOU CAN SEE THE BOUNDARY IN RED. THIS SITE WAS OBTAINED FROM GOOGLE MAPS.

THIS IS A VIEW LOOKING NORTH. SO IT'S IT'S THE THE AREA.

SO THE FIRST HOUSE THAT YOU SEE TO THE RIGHT OF THE SCREEN AND THEN THE OTHER HOMES ARE BEHIND IT.

YOU CAN'T SEE IT. IT'S OBSTRUCTED BY THAT FIRST HOME.

AND HERE'S AN AERIAL OF THE SUBJECT SITE. AND THAT CONCLUDES STAFF'S REPORT.

ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, PETE. ANY QUESTIONS FROM COMMISSION? YES, TOM. SO THESE OTHER HOMES DOWN HERE THAT'S ALL R1.

CORRECT. OKAY. AND THEN EVERYTHING ELSE AROUND, IT'S R1 AS WELL.

WELL NOT EXCEPT FOR THE ARTIST BOAT PROPERTY, I SUPPOSE.

RIGHT, SO IN THE STAFF REPORT WHERE IT SAYS ZONING AND LAND USE.

SO THE SUBJECT SITE, AND AS YOU MENTIONED, THE PROPERTIES BELOW ARE R1 SO THE AREA TO THE NORTH IS R1.

THE AREAS TO THE SOUTH, THE R1, THE WETLANDS TO THE EAST ARE R1.

YEP. YOU'RE CORRECT. THEY ARE ALL ONE. THANK YOU.

DIFFERENT LAND USES. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? ALL RIGHT PETE, I HAVE A FEW.

YOU KNOW, THIS IS MY FAVORITE TOPIC, AND WE HAVEN'T SEEN ONE OF THESE IN A WHILE.

AND JUST SO THAT JUST TO KIND OF I KNOW THAT YOU HAVEN'T SEEN THESE, TOM.

SO I ALWAYS WANT TO ASK SOME QUESTIONS, PROBABLY FOR ALL OF OUR BENEFIT.

SO WHEN WE DO THESE, YOU KNOW, WE'RE TRYING TO DETERMINE THESE THIS OWNER OCCUPIED.

SO GIVE ME A QUICK RUNDOWN OF HOW WE DETERMINE OWNER OCCUPIED AND HOW THESE PEOPLE ARE CONTACTED.

OKAY. FOR OWNER OCCUPIED WHAT WE THE PRECEDENCE THAT'S BEEN SET IS THAT WE FIRST START WITH THOSE THAT ARE HOMESTEADED WITHIN THE SUBJECT AREA. OKAY. NOW WHAT OUR LEGAL DEPARTMENT HAS AUTHORIZED US TO DO. AND IN CASES WHERE FAMILIES USE A HOME EXCLUSIVELY AS THEIR OWN, AND IT'S NOT USED FOR ANY TYPE OF VACATION RENTALS OR ANY TYPE OF OTHER USES BEYOND THEIR FAMILY, THEN THAT CAN BE CONSIDERED OWNER OCCUPIED.

ALTHOUGH IT MAY NOT NECESSARILY BE LISTED AS THEIR HOMESTEAD WITH THE GALVESTON COUNTY APPRAISAL DISTRICT.

ARE YOU GETTING THOSE? I KNOW WHEN WE DID THIS ONCE BEFORE, YOU GOT LIKE A SOMETHING IN WRITING FROM THOSE PEOPLE.

DID WE GET THAT CORRECT AS WELL? SO FOR US TO IDENTIFY THOSE PERSONS, WE DO HAVE AN AFFIDAVIT FORM THAT THOSE PROPERTY OWNERS WOULD

[00:15:07]

BUT THERE'S ONE LOT THAT'S UNDEVELOPED. SO IF YOU OWN A LOT, THERE'S NO WAY THAT YOU CAN HAVE BE OWNER OCCUPIED BECAUSE IT IS IT'S VACANT. SO HOW ARE WE HOW DO WE TREAT HOW DO WE TREAT THOSE PROPERTY OWNERS? THOSE PROPERTY OWNERS WOULD BE TREATED THE SAME AS IF THERE WERE A STRUCTURE THERE.

THEY'D BE NOTIFIED THEY'D HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO PARTICIPATE.

BUT IN THIS CASE WITH THERE NOT BEING A STRUCTURE, THEN THEY WOULD JUST BY DEFAULT FALL TO THE WILL OF THE MAJORITY OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. OKAY. SO OKAY, SO IN ESSENCE, IF YOU HAVE A LOT AND YOU, YOUR NEIGHBORS, YOU KIND OF GET A VOTE, BUT YOU DON'T. BUT THAT'S OKAY.

WE'LL CROSS THAT LATER. SO IF YOU IF ONE OF THESE HOMES WERE AN STR, A CURRENTLY REGISTERED STR, WOULD THEY BE GRANDFATHERED OR WOULD THEY, WOULD THEY STILL.

BECAUSE I KNOW YOU GUYS DON'T LIKE THE GRANDFATHERED TERM.

SO I JUST WANT SOME CLARIFICATION ON THIS. I DO HAPPEN TO KNOW, BECAUSE I DID ASK STAFF THAT THERE ARE CURRENTLY NO REGISTERED STRS IN HERE.

BUT JUST FOR THE RECORD, IF THERE WERE A REGISTERED STR IN HERE, WHAT WOULD HAPPEN TO THAT REGISTERED STR? SO FOR ANY REGISTERED STR, THEY STILL HAVE TO MAINTAIN THEIR REGISTRATION AS AN STR AND COMPLY WITH ALL THOSE RULES IN THE STR ORDINANCE. SO IF WE WERE TO SAY THERE WAS A PROPERTY THAT WAS ALREADY AN STR, THEY WOULD JUST OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD. FOR SOME OF THE STR REQUIREMENTS, YOU HAVE TO PAY A FEE, YOU HAVE TO PAY TAXES ON IT. EVEN IF IT'S AN EMPTY LOT.

AND THOSE THINGS WOULD HAVE TO BE DONE BEFORE THIS, BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPTS A CHANGE.

ONCE A ZONING CHANGE IS ADOPTED FROM AN R ONE TO AN R0.

IN THIS CASE, THERE CANNOT BE ANY GRANDFATHERING.

SOMEBODY CANNOT COME BACK AFTER THE FACT AND BUILD A PROPERTY ON THAT VACANT LOT.

AS I JUST HEARD AND SAY, THEY NOW WANT TO HAVE AN STR IN PLACE.

THE ZONING HAS CHANGED. THAT CANNOT HAPPEN. ANY PROPERTIES THAT HAVE THAT ALREADY HAVE STRUCTURES ON IT, THEY CAN NOW NOT SAY I WANT TO BE AN STR AND GO AND PAY AN STR REGISTRATION FEE, AND THEY'RE PROHIBITED FROM DOING THAT.

THAT IS THE MAIN CRUX OF GOING FROM AN R1 TO AN R0.

SO THERE IS NO GRANDFATHERING IN ORDER TO MAINTAIN AN ACTIVE STR.

IT WOULD HAVE TO BE AN ACTIVE STR ALREADY IN PLACE.

THAT WOULD REQUIRE, AT A MINIMUM, THE APPLICATION AND THE DESIGNATION AS AN STR READY SO THAT YOU CAN PAY THE APPROPRIATE TAXES TO THE CITY. PAY THE APPROPRIATE FEES TO THE CITY, ETC..

THIS CASE IS IS SIMPLE BECAUSE THERE AREN'T ANY REGISTERED STRS.

AND I'M DOING THIS FOR TWO REASONS ONE. WE HAVEN'T SEEN ONE OF THESE IN A WHILE, AND TWO, JUST AS A REFRESHER FOR SOME OF OUR NEWER MEMBERS.

SO IF YOU HAVE A VACANT LOT, THERE'S NO WAY TO GET AN STR REGISTRATION.

IS THAT CORRECT? CORRECT. OKAY. STR REQUIRES IT TO BE A HABITABLE SPACE.

OKAY. IF YOU HAD A REGISTERED STR THERE AND THE ZONING CHANGED FROM R1 TO R0, WE'RE NO LONGER PERMITTED. AND YOU SOLD YOUR PROPERTY WITH THE NEW OWNERS NOT BE ABLE TO DO AN STR, WOULD IT END AT THE SALE OF THE PROPERTY? WOULD NOT END AUTOMATICALLY AT THE SALE OF A PROPERTY.

HOWEVER, THE NEW OWNER NEEDS TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY'RE IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE STR REGULATIONS.

OKAY, BUT THE NEW OWNER KEEP REGISTERING. YES.

SO THE NEW OWNER WOULD BE ABLE. SO BECAUSE I KNOW THERE'S BEEN A LITTLE OBSCURITY ABOUT THIS, ABOUT WHETHER A NEW OWNER WOULD BE ABLE TO GO REGISTER THE STR IN THEIR NAME.

SO YOUR COMMENT TODAY IS THAT THEY WOULD BE ABLE TO DO THAT.

GRANTED, WE DON'T HAVE THIS IN THIS SCENARIO, BUT I'M TRYING TO PREVENT A FLOOD OF THIS HAPPENING AGAIN AND EVEN TAKE IT A LITTLE BIT

[00:20:03]

YADA YADA YADA. THEY SELL THE PROPERTY AND THE NEW OWNERS USE IT AS THEIR HOMESTEAD, AS THEIR HOME.

BUT A YEAR OR SO LATER, THEY DON'T LIKE THE SNOW ON THE BEACHES.

THEY WANT TO SELL THE PROPERTY. CAN THEY NOW SELL IT TO SOMEBODY WHO SAID, OH, WHEN YOU BOUGHT THE PROPERTY TWO YEARS AGO, IT WAS AN STR. CAN I NOW USE IT AS AN STR? THE ANSWER IS NO.

GOT IT. OKAY. SO ANY EXISTING. SO IF YOU GO FROM R1 TO R ZERO, ANY EXISTING STRS FOR THE MOST PART, PROVIDED THEY MAINTAIN THEIR REGISTRATION AND MAINTAIN THE RULES, THEY DON'T GO AWAY. STRS STAY IN THAT ZONE IN THAT SPECIFIC AREA EVEN THOUGH THE ZONING HAS CHANGED.

SO IT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT GOES AND MAKES STRS DISAPPEAR IN YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD.

OKAY. PREEXISTING USE, IT'S A PREEXISTING USE.

SO I JUST AND THAT'S REALLY WHAT I WANT TO GET AT, IS THAT IF YOU HAVE A NEIGHBORHOOD AND YOU GO DO THIS AND THIS AND YOU GET YOUR ZONING CHANGED. THIS DOESN'T PARTICULARLY FIX YOUR PROBLEM OF THINKING.

YOU'RE GOING TO MAKE STRS GO AWAY IN YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD OVERNIGHT.

THAT DOES NOT HAPPEN. WOULD THAT BE A CORRECT STATEMENT? IF THAT STRS IS COMPLIANT WITH THE STR REGULATIONS, THEN IT CAN REMAIN OKAY.

ALL RIGHT. THAT'S ALL I HAVE. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

ANY OTHER? YES, SIR. SORRY YOU HAD ONE MORE QUESTION.

SO I NOTICED THAT IT SAYS 83% OF THE PROPERTY OWNERS WERE A PART OF THE PETITION.

DO WE HAVE, LIKE, A AFFIRMATIVE, ONE WAY OR THE OTHER? ON THE OTHER TWO THAT DID THEY JUST NOT RESPOND? DO WE KNOW IF THEY WERE YOU KNOW, WE HAVE NO INFORMATION ON THE OTHERS.

THANK YOU. CERTAINLY. SO JUST MY CURIOSITY IS PIQUED NOW.

ARE THESE TWO AREAS DISTINCT? SEPARATE SUBDIVISIONS? THE TOP AND THE BOTTOM HALF? THE INITIAL PLAT? YES, THE INITIAL PLAT WAS OF THE AREA THAT'S WITHIN THE SUBJECT OF THIS REQUEST.

IT WAS DIFFERENT FROM THE PLANNING OF THE SECONDARY PROPERTIES TO THE SOUTH.

OKAY. I WAS JUST CURIOUS BECAUSE. BECAUSE THE WHOLE THING IS ABOUT 30 LOTS.

SO OUT OF THE 12, ONLY ONE IS AN EMPTY LOT. YES.

IT APPEARS IT MAY BELONG TO THE SAME PROPERTY OWNER.

I'M NOT SURE. OKAY. CORRECT. IF YOU LOOK THIS SECOND HALF, IF YOU LOOK AT THE VERY TOP, THE SECOND HOUSE FROM THE NORTH COMING DOWN, THERE'S A LOT BETWEEN THE SECOND AND THE THIRD AND THE WAY THAT THEY'RE ADDRESSED.

THE SECOND HOUSE IS ADDRESSED WITH THAT LOT. SO IT'S POSSIBLE THAT THAT'S THE SAME PROPERTY OWNER.

BUT I DON'T KNOW THAT FOR CERTAIN. I'M JUST MAKING AN ASSUMPTION HERE.

A LOT OF VACANT LOTS HERE. OKAY. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? I'M SORRY. ARE YOU DONE? NO. YEAH. OKAY. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT.

IF THERE'S NO OTHER QUESTIONS, WE'LL MOVE ON. WE'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. IS THERE ANYBODY HERE LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM? ALL RIGHT, THEN WE'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND BRING THIS BACK TO ACTION.

COMMISSION FOR ACTION. OKAY, I'LL DO IT. I'LL MAKE A MOTION THAT WE APPROVE 25 004.

SECOND. SO WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND TO APPROVE.

20 5-004. IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION? I'M JUST GOING TO MAKE A I CAN'T HELP.

I'M NOT THAT I CAN'T HELP MYSELF. I JUST THINK IT'S IMPORTANT WE SAW I KNOW THAT THERE'S SOME SEVERAL OF YOU WHO ARE NOT HERE.

WE SAW QUITE A FEW OF THESE SEVERAL YEARS AGO, AND IT WAS SOMEWHAT OF A MISNOMER THAT THIS WAS GOING TO FIX YOUR STR PROBLEM. AND IN FACT, IT DOES NOT. IT IT'S IT JUST DOESN'T.

AND SO WE HAD PEOPLE COME. THERE WERE SOME CHANGES MADE.

YOU KNOW, I DON'T MIND TELLING YOU I WAS NOT A PROPONENT OF THE CHANGES BECAUSE THEY ARE PERMANENT.

BUT I JUST WANT TO MAKE CERTAIN THAT, YOU KNOW, IF THERE ARE OTHERS OUT THERE, YOU KNOW, IT'S NOT JUST US HERE IN THIS ROOM.

THERE ARE OTHER PEOPLE LISTENING THAT I WANT TO MAKE CERTAIN THAT FOLKS KNOW.

THIS IS AN UNUSUAL CIRCUMSTANCE WHERE EVERY PRETTY MUCH THE COMMUNITY IS BUILT OUT.

THE MAJORITY OF THE PEOPLE WOULD LIKE A CHANGE, AND THERE CURRENTLY ARE NOT ANY REGISTERED STRS IN THESE OTHER NEIGHBORHOODS.

IT WAS NOT LIKE THAT. SO I JUST I JUST WANT TO MAKE THOSE COMMENTS SO THAT THOSE OF YOU WHO ARE NOT HERE ARE AWARE OF THAT.

[00:25:04]

BUT ON THE WHOLE, THAT'S NORMALLY NOT THE WAY IT IS.

ALL RIGHT. ANY OTHER. ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? ALL RIGHT.

SEEING NONE, WE'LL TAKE THE VOTE. THOSE IN FAVOR? AND THAT'S UNANIMOUS. SO THAT WOULD BE 24 004 IS APPROVED.

SO THIS IS ACTUALLY A RECOMMENDATION FROM PLANNING COMMISSION.

SO I DO HAVE A QUESTION. SO EVEN THOUGH IT'S AN APPROVAL, SHOULD WE INDICATE TO COUNCIL THAT WE'RE APPROVING THESE BECAUSE OF SOME OF THE ITEMS THAT WE DISCUSSED? YOU KNOW, THE LINES ARE AROUND A SEPARATELY PLATTED AREA.

THERE'S NO STRS REGISTERED IN THE AREA. IT'S THE MAJORITY OF THE PEOPLE THAT LIVE THERE.

I MEAN, IT IS A RECOMMENDATION. IT'S NOT REALLY AN APPROVAL.

HOW DO YOU HOW DO HOW WOULD YOU LIKE TO DO THAT? I'M SORRY. I WOULD JUST SAY ALL THAT'S GOING TO BE IN THE DEPARTMENT REPORT? OKAY. I MEAN, IT'LL ALL BE LISTED. YOU KNOW, I DON'T THINK IT'S NECESSARY FOR YOU GUYS TO GET INTO THAT LEVEL OF DETAIL.

WE'LL BE DOING THAT. OKAY. WELL, THEY'RE CERTAINLY INTERESTED IN YOUR RECOMMENDATION.

YEAH. AND I AND I JUST WANT TO POINT OUT WE HAD A CASE LAST TIME WHEN I WASN'T HERE.

REMEMBER, GUYS, THESE ARE. YEAH. SO THESE ARE.

YEAH. SO THESE ARE THESE ARE RECOMMENDATIONS.

YOU KNOW, CITY COUNCIL HAS THE FINAL APPROVAL AND THAT WILL BE HEARD.

ON WHAT DATE CATHERINE. FEBRUARY 27TH. ALRIGHT.

[7.C.1. 25P-003 (Adjacent To 312 17th Street) Request For A License To Use In Order To Construct Stairs. Adjacent Property Is Legally Described As M.B. Menard Survey, South 35-1 Feet Of Lot 1(1-3), Block 556, In The City And County Of Galveston, Texas. Applicant: Jeremy Slade, Stonewater Inc. Adjacent Property Owner: Linda Jonjock Easement Holder: City Of Galveston]

25 NOTICES WERE SENT. ZERO RETURNED. NO OBJECTION FROM CITY DEPARTMENTS OR PRIVATE UTILITIES.

THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A LICENSE TO USE THE CITY RIGHT OF WAY TO CONSTRUCT STAIRS.

DUE TO THE PROXIMITY OF THE STRUCTURE TO THE WEST PROPERTY LINE.

THE PROPOSED STAIRS WILL ENCROACH APPROXIMATELY SIX FEET SIX INCHES INTO THE 17TH STREET RIGHT OF WAY.

THE PROPOSED STAIRS ARE LOCATED ALONG THE WEST SIDE OF THE STRUCTURE, ORIENTED PARALLEL TO THE NORTH PROPERTY LINE.

THE SUBJECT PROPERTY HAS UNDERGONE AN EXTENSIVE RENOVATION, INCLUDING THE ELEVATION OF THE PROPERTY TO MEET FLOODPLAIN REGULATIONS.

DUE TO THE INCREASED HEIGHT OF THE STRUCTURE, THE STAIR LENGTH HAS INCREASED.

BECAUSE THE PROPERTY IS IN THE EAST END HISTORIC DISTRICT, THE LANDMARK COMMISSION MAKES A RECOMMENDATION TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION. LANDMARK COMMISSION REVIEWED YESTERDAY AND IS RECOMMENDING APPROVAL.

STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS ONE AND TWO AND STANDARD CONDITIONS THREE THROUGH EIGHT.

WE HAVE SOME PHOTOS. HERE'S THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.

YOU CAN SEE THAT THE STAIRS HAVE BEEN CONSTRUCTED.

HERE IS A PICTURE SHOWING THE ENCROACHMENT INTO THE RIGHT OF WAY.

THE PROPERTY, THE APPLICATION NOTES THAT THAT'S SIX FEET, SIX INCHES, BUT STAFF DOESN'T THINK THAT THAT'S AN ACCURATE DISTANCE.

SO WE'LL BE ASKING FOR AN UPDATED SITE PLAN FOR THE APPLICANTS BEFORE WE FINALIZE THE L2.

AND HERE'S WHAT WAS GIVEN TO US AS A SITE PLAN.

AND THEN WE HAVE THE PROPERTIES TO THE NORTH, TO THE SOUTH AND TO THE WEST.

AND THAT CONCLUDES STAFF'S REPORT. ALL RIGHT.

ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? YES, JOHN. SO THE RIGHT OF WAY IS ACTUALLY THE FRONT YARD OF THE HOUSE.

IT REALLY IS. YEAH. WHERE THOSE POSTS ARE IS WHERE THE PROPERTY LINE IS.

AND THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY MAINTAINS THAT AREA.

CORRECT. THEY DO. OKAY. THANK YOU, CATHERINE, DO YOU KNOW IF THE IF THERE ARE ANY LTUS TO THE ON THE HOUSE, TO THE NORTH. TO THE NORTH? NOT THAT I'M AWARE OF.

NO. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. YES, SIR. AND WOULD THE STAIRS PREVENT SOMEBODY, WHETHER THE CURRENT OWNER OR THE FUTURE OWNER FROM PUTTING IN A SIDEWALK? NO IT WOULDN'T. NOW THERE'S STILL PLENTY OF ROOM FOR PEDESTRIAN ACCESS THERE.

THANK YOU. JOHN. OH, THAT WAS TOM STOLE MY QUESTION.

SHAME ON HIM. I KNOW, TERRIBLE, ISN'T IT? BUT I DID HAVE ANOTHER QUESTION, THOUGH.

I WONDER IF YOU LOOK AT THE NEIGHBORING HOUSES, THEY COULD HAVE BUILT THAT A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENTLY.

BACK TO THE STANDARD THAT THE HOUSE WAS BEFORE, SO AS NOT TO BE ENCROACHING.

SO I'M WONDERING, DO THEY HAVE PLANS FOR IT OR DID THEY JUST BUILD IT? WE HAD THIS HAS BEEN AN ONGOING COMPLIANCE PROBLEM WITH BOTH THE PLANNING DIVISION AND THE BUILDING DIVISION.

SO THEY WORKED REALLY CLOSELY WITH THE BUILDING DIVISION ON THIS CONFIGURATION, BECAUSE THEY HAVE TO STAY SO MANY FEET OFF OF THE PROPERTY LINE.

SO THEY DIDN'T THEY ORIGINALLY HAD IT IN OTHER CONFIGURATIONS.

BUT THIS IS WHAT WORKED BEST FOR OUR REGULATIONS AND BUILDINGS.

[00:30:01]

YES, SIR. QUESTION. BUT I THINK IT'S MAYBE A MAYBE A LITTLE CLOSER TO JUST MY OWN PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE.

YOU KNOW, I JUST WANT TO KNOW. SO WHEN YOU RENOVATE A PROPERTY LIKE THAT, IS THERE ANY REQUIREMENT TO PUT IN A SIDEWALK OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT? I MEAN, NOT FOR RENOVATION, FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION.

OKAY. IF YOU'RE BUILDING A NEW HOUSE FROM THE GROUND UP, THEN YOU HAVE TO PUT IN A SIDEWALK. THANK YOU.

ALL RIGHT. ANYBODY ELSE? COMMISSIONER, I'LL QUICKLY ADD THAT IT'S LIKELY THAT WE WILL BE GETTING, YOU KNOW, MORE AND MORE FOLKS THAT WANT TO RAISE THEIR ELEVATION OF THEIR PROPERTY AND THEIR HOUSING UNITS.

SO, THIS IS SOMETHING THAT'S PROBABLY COMING DOWN THE PIKE FOR US IN THE FUTURE.

OKAY. YOU KNOW WHAT? AND IN THAT NOTE, AN LTU GRANTS THEM THE RIGHT TO USE THAT.

HOWEVER IT CAN BE REVOKED AND WITH 90 DAYS NOTICE.

SO IT'S NOT LIKE THIS. THE CITY'S GRANTING THEM THE PRIVILEGE TO USE IT, BUT IT ENDS THERE, RIGHT? YEAH. SO IT CAN BE REVOKED AT 90 DAYS NOTICE BY EITHER PARTY.

OKAY. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. ANYBODY ELSE WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING? ANYBODY HERE LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM? ALL RIGHT.

SEEING NONE, WE'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND BRING THIS BACK TO COMMISSION FOR ACTION.

I'LL MAKE A MOTION THAT WE APPROVE 25P-003 WITH STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS.

SECOND. ALL RIGHT. SO WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND TO APPROVE 25P- 003 WITH STAFF'S RECOMMENDATIONS.

ANY DISCUSSION? SEEING NONE WE'LL TAKE THE VOTE.

THOSE IN FAVOR? AND THAT IS UNANIMOUS. SO, 25P-003 IS APPROVED.

[7.D.1. 25P-001 (13722-14000 San Luis Pass Road/FM 3005) Request For A Planned Unit Development (PUD) Overlay District For A “Auto Fueling Station”. Property Is Legally Described As Part Of Lots 32 And 45 (45-5), And Adjacent Abandoned Street, Trimble And Lindsey Survey, Section 3, In The City And County Of Galveston, Texas. Applicant: Nasser Zia Property Owner: Beach Three LLC Series 5]

IT'S A REQUEST FOR A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT.

19 NOTICES WERE SENT. ZERO RETURNED. NO OBJECTION FROM CITY DEPARTMENTS OR THE PRIVATE UTILITIES.

THIS IS A REQUEST FOR A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY DISTRICT TO ESTABLISH AUTO FUELING STATION LAND USE IN THE COMMERCIAL ZONING DISTRICT.

THE PURPOSE OF THE PUD IS TO DEVIATE FROM THE MINIMUM DISTANCE REQUIREMENT FROM SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICT STIPULATED BY SECTION 2.308 OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS. THE REQUIREMENT IS THAT AN AUTO FUELING STATION LAND USE SHALL BE LOCATED AT LEAST 200FT FROM RESIDENTIAL USE OR RESIDENTIAL ZONING.

DISTRICT BOUNDARY. THE LOCATION OF THE PROPOSED AUTO FUELING STATION IS LOCATED ADJACENT TO RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICT BOUNDARY.

THE SITE PREVIOUSLY OPERATED AS AUTO FUELING STATION.

HOWEVER, THE GASOLINE SALES CEASED IN 2020 SINCE THE USE HAS LAPSED FOR MORE THAN 365 DAYS, THE NEW REGULATIONS MUST BE MET. PLEASE NOTE THE REMAINDER OF THE STAFF REPORT, INCLUDING THE PUD DETAILS AND THE SITE DESCRIPTION AND CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION. STAFF FINDS THE PROPOSED PUD REQUEST CONFORMS TO THE CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL.

THE USES AND THE CHARACTER OF DEVELOPMENT THAT IS PROPOSED ARE COMPATIBLE WITH THE PROPERTIES IN THE IMMEDIATE VICINITY OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.

THE SITE IS LOCATED AT A COMMERCIAL NODE, WHICH IS INTENDED TO SERVE THE NEEDS OF WEST END RESIDENTS AND VISITORS.

OTHER LAND USES AT THIS INTERSECTION INCLUDE OFFICE, FITNESS FACILITY, LIQUOR STORE, AND BANK.

PRIOR TO CEASING OPERATION IN 2020, THE SUBJECT SITE LONG OPERATED AS AN AUTO FUELING STATION WITH NO HISTORY OF NUISANCE COMPLAINTS.

THE SITE DOES NOT CONFORM TO THE CURRENT LANDSCAPE SCREENING REQUIREMENTS AND THE LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS.

IN ORDER TO BUFFER THE AUTO FUELING STATION FROM ANY POTENTIAL RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ON THE ADJACENT RESIDENTIAL ZONING AND THE TRAVELING PUBLIC.

STAFF RECOMMENDS THAT THE RIGHT OF WAY SCREENING AND VISUAL SCREENING PER SECTIONS, THREE POINT.

I'M SORRY 9.301 B AND D BE INSTALLED. THE SCREENING REQUIRES A FOUR FOOT WIDE PLANTING STRIP CONSISTING OF SHRUBS, HEDGES AND TREES. THE RIGHT OF WAY SCREENING WOULD BE REQUIRED BETWEEN ANY PARKING OR LOADING AREA AND ANY STREET RIGHTS OF WAY ABUTTING THE SITE, INCLUDING SAN LUIS PASS ROAD AND BUCCANEER BOULEVARD.

THE VISUAL SCREENING SHALL BE INSTALLED AND MAINTAINED BETWEEN THE PARKING OR LOADING AREAS AND DRIVEWAYS IN THE RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICT.

STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS ONE THROUGH FOUR ARE SPECIFIC CONDITIONS AND THEN FIVE THROUGH EIGHT ARE STANDARD.

CITY COUNCIL HAS A FINAL DECISION REGARDING THIS PUD REQUEST, AND THE COUNCIL WILL HEAR THIS REQUEST ON FEBRUARY 27TH, 2025. AND WE HAVE A COUPLE OF PICTURES. THIS IS THE SUBJECT SITE FROM BUCCANEER.

AND THEN THIS IS THE IS THE ISLAND WHERE THE FUELING USED TO TAKE PLACE UNTIL 2020.

[00:35:05]

THIS IS THE SUBJECT SITE ALONG 3005. THIS IS THE SITE PLAN THAT WAS INCLUDED.

YOU CAN SEE THE LOCATION OF THE NEW CANOPY BETWEEN THE COMMERCIAL BUILDING AND THE 305.

AND THIS IS THE RESIDENTIALLY ZONED PROPERTY TO THE NORTH.

THIS IS THE PROPERTY TO THE EAST AND THAT'S TO THE SOUTH.

AND THEN WE HAVE THE WEST. AND THAT CONCLUDES STAFF'S REPORT.

ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, CATHERINE . ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? SURE. HOW CLOSE IS THAT TO THE WATER AGAIN. TO THE WATER, WELL, IT'S ON THE OTHER SIDE OF 3005.

SO ON THE OTHER SIDE, IT LOOKED LIKE I GUESS.

THERE'S A LAKE THERE. YEAH, THERE'S A LAKE TO THE NORTH.

YES. SO RIGHT BEHIND THAT BERM IN THE PROPERTY TO THE NORTH, THERE IS AN ARTIFICIAL LAKE.

OH, OKAY. THAT'S WHAT I WAS ASKING. BUT THEN TO THE BEACH. IT'S PRETTY FAR BECAUSE IT'S GOT ALL OF PIRATE'S BEACH.

YEAH, WELL, I'M JUST CURIOUS ABOUT THE RUNOFF.

I WAS READING ABOUT THE RUNOFF AND HOW THAT WAS MITIGATED.

DO WE KNOW HOW THAT'S MITIGATED? I'VE NEVER I MEAN, WE'VE ONLY I THINK WE'VE ONLY HAD, LIKE, ONE GAS STATION, BUT IT'S NOT BEEN A REUSE OF A PAST USE, I GUESS.

RIGHT. SO BECAUSE IT'S A PAST USE THERE'S NOT GOING TO BE ANY NEW PAVING ASSOCIATED WITH IT, SO THERE WOULDN'T BE ANY NEW RUNOFF REGULATIONS.

OKAY. AND I TELL YOU WHAT, IT SHOULD BE NOTED, THOUGH, IN THOSE PHOTOGRAPHS, WHEN YOU'RE LOOKING TO THE EAST, THAT'S COMMERCIAL AS WELL. THAT'S NOT THERE ARE NO HOUSES CURRENTLY CONSTRUCTED ADJACENT TO THIS.

CATHERINE, PRIOR TO WHAT WERE THE DISTANCE REQUIREMENTS FOR THIS TO HAVE A GAS STATION BEFORE THE CHANGE? DO YOU KNOW OFFHAND? BEFORE THE LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS? YES. SO UNDER THE ZONING STANDARDS, WHICH PREDATED THE LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS, I DON'T RECALL THAT THERE WAS ONE.

OKAY. IT WOULD HAVE JUST BEEN PERMITTED BY. RIGHT. AND SO THAT'S HOW THIS WAS DONE ORIGINALLY BECAUSE THAT'S BEEN THERE A WHILE. SO THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN UNDER THE LDRS, NOT LDRS, BUT THE ZONING REGULATIONS WOULD HAVE BEEN UNDER THE ZONING REGULATIONS THAT PREDATED THE LDRS AND DID HAVE A DISTANCE REQUIREMENT.

OKAY. SO WHEN WE HAVE THIS 200FT, IT'S NOT 200FT TO THE ACTIVITY.

IT'S 200FT TO THE PROPERTY LINE. IS THAT CORRECT? YES, IT'S TO THE PROPERTY LINE. AND SO, AND IT'S WELL IT'S TO EITHER.

SO THE REQUIREMENT IS TO BOTH A RESIDENTIAL USE.

THAT WOULD BE THE PROPERTY LINE. AND IT'S ALSO TO THE ZONING DISTRICT BOUNDARY.

OKAY. SO THEN WE'D BE LOOKING AT THE ZONING DISTRICT BOUNDARY, WHICH MOST OF THE TIME IS ALONG A PROPERTY LINE, BUT IF YOU'RE SEPARATED BY A STREET, IT'S IN THE MIDDLE OF THE STREET. OKAY.

AND IN YOUR RECOMMENDATIONS, THERE'S THE LIGHTING WILL BE.

YEAH. THEY HAVEN'T. THE ONLY DEVIATION THEY'RE REQUESTING IS FROM THE PROPERTY LINE.

FROM THAT DISTANCE, THE LIGHTING WOULD HAVE TO BE COMPLIANCE WITH THE CURRENT LDR.

RIGHT. EVERYTHING ELSE HAS TO BE IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE CURRENT LDR. OKAY.

SOUNDS GOOD. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? ALL RIGHT, STAN, YOU'RE AT THE READY.

YEAH. SO THE TRYING TO DO THE WHAT DO YOU CALL IT? WERE YOU TRYING TO HIDE IT FROM THE FROM THE RESIDENTIAL SITE? SCREENING. SCREENING. OKAY. SO THEY'RE NOT GOING TO BE REQUIRED TO HAVE SCREENING.

IS THAT CORRECT? THEY ARE NOT REQUIRED TO HAVE SCREENING RIGHT NOW.

THEY ARE GRANDFATHERED FROM SCREENING, BUT STAFF IS MAKING THE RECOMMENDATION THAT THEY PROVIDE THE SCREENING TO BUFFER FROM ANY POTENTIAL RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT THAT MAY OCCUR ON THOSE ON THOSE SITES.

OKAY. SO AT THAT POINT, WE WOULD HAVE WHEN WE GET TO THE POINT THAT WE'RE MAKING A MOTION ON THIS, IF THAT IS SOMETHING THAT YOU WANT TO MAKE CERTAIN THAT YOUR MOTION INCLUDES THE STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS.

SO THAT'S INCLUDED AS STAFF RECOMMENDATION NUMBER THREE.

DID I READ THAT IT. OH NO I'M SORRY IT'S NUMBER FOUR.

NO, THAT THERE WAS SOME TYPE OF SCREENING FOR THE GAS FOR THE GAS STATION.

I THOUGHT THERE WAS A SCREENING FOR LIKE FOR THIS.

THE GAS PART ITSELF. IS THAT NOT WHAT I WAS READING? NO, THERE'S SCREENING REQUIRED FOR ANY NEW COMMERCIAL USES.

IT'S NOT SPECIFIC TO GAS STATION. IT'S FOR ANY COMMERCIAL USE.

SO YOU MENTIONED IT IS TO THE RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICT BOUNDARY.

SO THE CLOSEST RESIDENCE IS REALLY ACROSS 3005.

[00:40:01]

RIGHT, RIGHT. HEY, CATHERINE. ZONING DISTRICT BOUNDARY DIRECTLY ADJACENT TO THE NORTH AND TO THE WEST.

OKAY. SO WITH REGARD TO THE SCREENING, I KNOW IT'S A RECOMMENDATION.

IS THIS PLANTS, IS THIS FENCING? IT'S THERE'S IT'S SPECIFIED WITHIN THE LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS.

WHAT HAS TO BE IN WITHIN IT. AND IT IS BOTH FENCING AND LANDSCAPING.

LANDSCAPING. FOR THE VISUAL SCREENING FOR THE RIGHT OF WAY SCREENING IT'S SHRUBS, HEDGES AND TREES.

OKAY. THANK YOU. SO TO CLARIFY THAT A LITTLE BIT MORE.

IS THIS SCREEN THAT YOU'RE RECOMMENDING JUST ON THE WHAT WOULD BE JUST ON THE WEST SIDE OF THE PROPERTY.

ARE YOU RECOMMENDING SCREENING AROUND THE WEST AND THE NORTH PART OF THE PROPERTY, AROUND THE ENTIRE PROPERTY.

RIGHT. SO THE NORTH AND THE WEST ARE DIRECTLY ADJACENT TO RESIDENTIAL ZONING.

SO WE'RE RECOMMENDING VISUAL SCREENING THERE.

AND THEN RIGHT OF WAY SCREENING IS A DIFFERENT TYPE OF SCREENING IS REQUIRED WHENEVER PARKING IS VISIBLE FROM THE RIGHT OF WAY.

SO WE'RE RECOMMENDING THAT ALONG THE EAST AND THE SOUTH.

WILL YOU DO ME A FAVOR. CAN YOU PULL THAT AERIAL UP JUST SO THAT BECAUSE THAT I DON'T THINK I PUT AN AERIAL IN? SO MAYBE WE CAN JUST PULL UP A GOOGLE AERIAL AND HAVE A LOOK AT THAT, JUST SO THAT WE'RE ALL CLEAR ON EXACTLY WHAT YOU'RE DOING, BECAUSE THAT SITE PLAN IS ACTUALLY ORIENTED THE WRONG DIRECTION, I THINK.

OR I CAN JUST. DO YOU GUYS UNDERSTAND WHAT THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT? SO WE'LL PULL UP AN AREA TO THE TO THE WEST. IT'S NO I THINK I HEAR WHERE YOU'RE GOING BECAUSE IT'S THE GAS STATION IS ON THE IS ON THE SOUTH SIDE ON THE 3005 SIDE, BUT IT'S ALSO REALLY ADJOINS THE WEST PART OF THE PROPERTY AND THERE'S OTHER USES THAT ARE THERE, BUT THE BUSINESS OWNER IS BEING ASKED TO DO SOMETHING ON THE WEST AND THE NORTH AND THE NORTH, NOTHING TO DO WITH THE NORTH SIDE OF THE BUILDING. YEAH, RIGHT.

SO I MEAN, IS THAT DOES SOMEONE ELSE OWN THE COMMERCIAL BUILDING ITSELF? I DON'T KNOW IF THE SAME GUY OWNS ALL OF IT. ALL OF IT.

THAT'S A GOOD IT JUST SEEMS LIKE A LITTLE UNFAIR. I WOULD HAVE TO SAY THAT MOST LIKELY THE APPLICANT WOULD BE THE BUILDING OR PROPERTY OWNER.

WHETHER HE'S THE BUSINESS OWNER. THAT COULD BE DIFFERENT.

OKAY. SO IT SHOWS SAME BEACH THREE SERIES LLC.

IT'S SHOWING THE SAME OWNERSHIP, SO IT COULD BE THE SAME.

IT VERY WELL COULD BE BECAUSE THERE ARE OTHER THERE ARE OTHER USES IN THERE.

AND I DID WANT TO JUST HAVE SOME CLARIFICATION ON THAT.

I THINK I KNOW THE ANSWER, BUT, YOU KNOW, LET ME ASK YOU, TIM.

SO IF THIS IF WE'RE ASKING FOR A POD THAT'S JUST FOR THE GAS STUFF, IT DOES NOT AFFECT ANY OF THE OTHER USES THAT ARE CURRENTLY IN EFFECT FOR THAT PROPERTY. THIS WOULD JUST KIND OF BE AN OVERLAY ON THE COMMERCIAL TO PROVE THE GAS STATION CHANGE.

IS THAT YOUR QUESTION? YEAH. WELL, ACTUALLY IT'S MORE LIKE A STATEMENT. I JUST WANT TO JUST SAY, HEY, IS THAT RIGHT? YEAH. YEAH. I MEAN, THE PUD IS ALWAYS BASICALLY AN OVERLAY TO THE BASE ZONING AND WITH WHATEVER ADDITIONAL, IT'S NOT GOING TO CHANGE ANY OF HIS OTHER USES ON THE PROPERTY.

JUST NO, NO GAS STATION, IN FACT, THAT I DON'T THINK THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO CHANGE ANYTHING.

OTHER JUST THAT. OKAY. SO. ON THE WEST SIDE DOWN WHERE YOUR CURSOR IS, THAT'S YOU'RE WANTING LANDSCAPING THERE AND ON THE NORTH.

SO THAT'S STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION. OKAY. BECAUSE ALL OF THIS IS ALL OF EVERYTHING THAT'S BEIGE IS ZONED R1, SO IT'S POTENTIAL RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT. WE'RE RECOMMENDING VISUAL SCREENING ALONG THE WEST PROPERTY LINE AND THE NORTH PROPERTY LINE.

OKAY. AND THEN RIGHT OF WAY SCREENING ALONG THE EAST PROPERTY LINE AND THE SOUTH PROPERTY LINE.

SO SCREENING ON THE EAST AND THE SOUTH. YEAH.

SO BASICALLY ALONG ALL FOUR SIDES, IT'S JUST TWO DIFFERENT KINDS OF SCREENING, VISUAL SCREENING WHICH IS REQUIRED WHEN COMMERCIALS.

I GOT YOU. SO BASICALLY IT'S A FENCE AND SHRUBS.

AND THEN ON THE, ON THE EAST AND THE SOUTH IT'S SHRUBS AND TREES.

YEAH. IT'S JUST A RECOMMENDATION. IT'S JUST A RECOMMENDATION.

AND THE PLANNING COMMISSION IS CERTAINLY CAN MAKE A DIFFERENT RECOMMENDATION.

OKAY. ALL RIGHT. WE'LL DISCUSS THIS WHEN WE GET TO DISCUSSION.

ALL RIGHT. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? ALL RIGHT, WE'LL OPEN THIS UP FOR THE PUBLIC HEARING.

IS THE APPLICANT PRESENT? YOU GUYS WANT TO COME?

[00:45:03]

IT IS A SHOPPING CENTER AT THE ENTRANCE TO PIRATE'S BEACH.

AND WE HAVE FIVE USES IN THERE. THERE IS A SEAFOOD SHOP.

THERE IS SAND AND SEA PROPERTIES, AND THAT'S THE BUSINESS THAT WE OPERATE.

MY FAMILY. AND THEN THERE IS A LIQUOR STORE. THERE'S A MARIO'S PIZZA.

AND THEN FINALLY THERE IS FRESCO MART AND FRESCO MART.

THESE GENTLEMEN BACK HERE BOUGHT FRESCO MART FROM HUMMEL'S, WHICH USED TO BE SASSER'S AND AS YOU KNOW, HAD GASOLINE ALL THOSE YEARS. AND CATHERINE, IT'S INTERESTING BECAUSE THERE WAS SCREENING ALONG 305 FIVE.

WAY BACK WHEN WITH SASSERS. WHEN THEY RAN THE GASOLINE THERE.

MY QUESTION TO YOU IS, IS I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND.

Y'ALL WANT THE ENTIRE PROPERTY LINED WITH VISUAL SCREENING.

I UNDERSTOOD THE PART ABOUT THE NORTH AND THE WEST, BECAUSE IT ABUTS THAT AREA THAT PEOPLE HAVE BOUGHT TO DEVELOP A SUBDIVISION, BUT YOU'RE SAYING THE REST OF IT ALSO IS YOUR RECOMMENDATION.

THAT'S STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION WAS FOR VISUAL SCREENING ALONG THE NORTH AND THE WEST, AND THEN RIGHT OF WAY SCREENING ALONG THE SOUTH AND THE EAST, AND THAT SHRUBS AND TREES AND THAT SHRUBS AND TREES.

OKAY. GOT IT. SO CLEAR, NUMBER ONE, IF YOU DON'T MIND, I NEED YOU GUYS TO SIGN IN, BUT.

OH TWO, THIS IS SO MY QUESTION. SO HERE'S NUMBER ONE.

I'M CERTAIN THAT FOLKS ARE GOING TO BE EXCITED IN THE AREA TO SEE SOME GAS OVER THERE.

I MEAN, WE WERE CONCERNED ABOUT PEOPLE DRIVING FIVE BLOCKS HERE.

THEY GOT TO DRIVE THREE MILES THERE. SO THAT'S GOING TO DEFINITELY BE APPRECIATED BY THE COMMUNITY.

AND WITHOUT QUESTION, I CERTAINLY SEE SOME SCREENING THAT WOULD BE.

APPROPRIATE ON THE WEST SIDE WHERE, YOU KNOW, IT'S THE PARKING LOTS.

RIGHT THERE. AND I WOULD SAY, YOU KNOW, ON THE BACKSIDE IF YOU COULD DO.

SOMETHING WAS PROBABLY BE GOOD. I MEAN, I DON'T KNOW THAT ANYBODY'S EVER COMPLAINED ABOUT THAT.

AND IT'S, IT'S I'VE NEVER NOTICED IT AS AN EYESORE.

BUT I GUESS MY QUESTION TO YOU IS I KNOW WHAT STAFF'S TRYING TO DO AND, YOU KNOW, AND GRANTED, CITY COUNCIL GETS THE FINAL SAY ON THIS, NOT US.

AND THEY MAY ASK FOR SOMETHING TOTALLY DIFFERENT THAN WHAT WE RECOMMEND.

BUT AS THE PROPERTY OWNER, I DON'T PARTICULARLY LIKE THE IDEA OF US PUTTING SOME UNFAIR BURDEN ON YOU, BUT IT WOULD BE NICE TO SEE SOME BECAUSE THERE IS SOME LANDSCAPING RIGHT THERE ON THE CORNER IF I'M NOT MISTAKEN.

I THINK THERE'S SOME TREES AND SOME STUFF RIGHT THERE ON THE CORNER, AND THERE'S A LITTLE BIT ON BUCCANEER, BUT THERE'S NOT MUCH ACROSS THE FRONT OF THE PROPERTY.

AND A LOT OF THAT HAS CHANGED OVER THE YEARS.

YOU KNOW, THE STATE'S COME AND DUG THE DITCH OUT. THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF STUFF THAT'S CHANGED THERE. SO I'M JUST GOING TO ASK YOU AS THE PROPERTY OWNER IS THAT SOMETHING THAT YOU'D BE WILLING TO. WOULD THAT BE SOMETHING THAT YOU'D BE WILLING TO DO? I MEAN, YOU'RE GONNA HAVE TO SPEND SOME MONEY TO DO IT. NOBODY LIKES TO DO THAT, AND I, I DON'T WANT TO PUT A RESTRICTION ON YOU AND SAY, HEY, HERE'S WHAT WE WANT YOU TO DO. I'D LIKE TO HEAR WHAT YOU THINK.

YOU WOULD BE FAIR AND APPROPRIATE, AND THEN LET US MAKE A DECISION FROM THERE.

ARE YOU GUYS OKAY WITH THAT? YEAH. YOU KNOW, I'M GOING TO HAVE TO GO BACK TO MY OTHER TWO OWNERS AND CHECK WITH THEM.

WE INITIALLY WHEN WE READ THIS, WE IT MADE SENSE.

SENSE TO US, THE WEST AND THE NORTH SIDE THAT MADE SENSE TO US.

WHAT I'M HEARING TODAY, THOUGH, IS A LITTLE BIT MORE THAN I HAD EXPECTED, AND I'M THINKING ABOUT WHAT IT WILL LOOK LIKE.

I'D HAVE TO GO BACK WITH MR. ZIA AND WALK IT AND COME BACK TO YOU.

I REALLY WOULD. I REALLY WOULD, BUT WE ARE NOT OPPOSED TO THE FIRST TWO THAT WE UNDERSTOOD THE WEST AND THE NORTH.

WE UNDERSTAND THAT. WE UNDERSTAND THAT THERE MAY BE A RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION THERE.

WELL, AND YOU'VE GOT TO REMEMBER TOO, CLAIRE, IT'S A PUD.

SO PUDS ARE THE RARE CHANCE THAT THIS COMMISSION GETS TO ASK YOU FOR SOMETHING.

YOU KNOW, IT'S KIND OF LIKE A TIT FOR TAT. AND IT SURE PUMPS AGAIN, BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW. ON THE ONE SIDE, IF IT'S EVEN POSSIBLE, WE COULD WE COULD PHRASE IT WHERE WE JUST SAY FOR WITH THE EXCEPTION OF.

YEAH. SEE? WEST AND NORTH. SEE, THERE'S. AND WHAT HAS HAPPENED IS, IS THEY'VE CHANGED THE DITCH.

I MEAN, A LOT HAS CHANGED THERE SINCE THAT WAS FIRST DONE.

SO IS IT EVEN POSSIBLE? AND I'M NOT I DON'T KNOW.

WE WOULD HAVE TO WALK IT A DRAINAGE DITCH. OKAY.

THINK ABOUT THAT, CLAIRE. FOR US, IF YOU WOULD.

AND TALK TO YOUR OTHER. I MEAN, WE'RE NOT. AGAIN.

CITY COUNCIL HAS THE FINAL SAY ON THIS. WE'LL TALK ABOUT THIS A LITTLE MORE WHEN WE GET INTO THE DISCUSSION PART, BUT I DON'T I DON'T WANT TO PUT SOMETHING UNDUE ON YOU GUYS

[00:50:07]

SO THAT'S GOING TO HELP US ALL. FAIR ENOUGH. TOM, WHAT KIND OF SIGNAGE DO Y'ALL HAVE AROUND THAT? I GUESS MY CONCERN, IF WE WERE TO PUT A BUNCH OF TREES AND STUFF IS NOBODY'D SEE YOUR BUSINESS THERE.

I MEAN, IS THERE SIGNAGE INDICATING THAT SAND AND SEA AND THE.

IT'S ON THE BUILDINGS. OKAY. IT'S ON THE BUILDING.

AND THERE'S ONE ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE WHITE CAR.

OKAY, I SEE THAT THERE. AND THEN FRESCO MART HAS A SIGN UP ON THE BUILDING EACH OF THE BUILDINGS DO ALONG THE BROWN, THE BEIGE, IF YOU CAN SEE THAT ON THE LEFT. YEAH.

THAT'S WHAT I WAS WONDERING, IS LIKE THE STREET SIDE OF THE.

BUT YEAH, WE WOULD DEFINITELY WANT TO TAKE THAT INTO CONSIDERATION BECAUSE WE WANT PEOPLE TO SEE IT.

IS THE SHRUBS SUPPOSED TO BE THE PRIVACY OR WHATEVER? THE CANVAS. FOUR FEET. CANOPY. CANOPY FOUR FEET.

SHRUBS. YEAH. OH THE SHRUBS. SHRUBS FOUR FEET.

WITH REGARD TO THE TANK, IS THE TANK GOING TO BE IN THE SAME PLACE AS THE EXISTING.

OKAY. IN THE GROUND. OKAY. AND IS THAT A STANDARD SIZE FOR THE CANOPY? IT JUST SEEMS LARGE TO ME.

BUT A 24 FOOT WIDE CANOPY. THAT'S. AM I READING THAT RIGHT? THAT'S NOT. THAT'S PRETTY STANDARD. YEAH, THAT'S PRETTY STANDARD.

OKAY. 24FT IS THE WIDTH OF A TYPICAL GARAGE. OKAY.

YOU DON'T WANT TO GET RAINED ON. YEAH. YOU'RE GOING TO GET IF IT'S RAINING OUT THERE YOU MIGHT NOT GET WET, BUT YOU PROBABLY WILL. OKAY. NO. YEAH. NO. WELL, YEAH.

IT'S NEEDED. SO GOOD LUCK. ALL RIGHT. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? THANK YOU GUYS SO MUCH. THANK YOU.

ANYBODY ELSE LIKE TO COMMENT ON THIS? ALRIGHT, WE'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND BRING THIS BACK TO COMMISSION FOR ACTION.

I MAKE A MOTION. WE APPROVE 24P- 001 WITH STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS AND BOUNDARY.

VEGETATION TO BE DETERMINED. WELL, WITH STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS DETERMINED.

THAT'S IT. WHY DON'T WE DO THIS? DO IT WITH STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS. WE'LL HAVE A DISCUSSION. IF WE CHANGE THAT, WE'LL DO AN AMENDMENT. LIKE HE SAID. FAIR ENOUGH.

OKAY. OKAY. SECOND. ALL RIGHT. SO WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND TO APPROVE 25P-001.

SO DONNA WITH STAFF RECOMMENDATION. SO DONNA, I GOT A QUESTION FOR YOU.

HOW WOULD YOU AND TIM, HOW WOULD YOU RECOMMEND US PHRASE THIS SO THAT WE LET HER GO TALK TO HER BUSINESS PARTNERS. BUT WHEN SHE GOES TO CITY COUNCIL, CITY COUNCIL KNOWS THAT, HEY, WE'D LIKE FOR THEM, WE'D REALLY LIKE FOR THEM TO DO SOMETHING, ESPECIALLY ON THE SOUTH SIDE. SO HOW DO WE HOW DO WE DO THAT? WE'RE GOING TO LET CITY COUNCIL. I WANT CITY COUNCIL TO MAKE THE CALL ON THAT.

INSTEAD OF US DOING THAT NOW, IT WOULD BE A DIFFERENT A VARIANCE FROM STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION AND THE POSSIBLY THOSE LDR REQUIREMENTS.

SO IT'S KIND OF WADING IN SOME MURKY WATERS. I WILL SAY WHEN I PRESENT THE ORDINANCE BASED ON PLANNING COMMISSION'S RECOMMENDATION, AND I'M GOING TO GO OFF OF ACTUALLY LET ME BACK UP IF PLANNING COMMISSION IS NOT RECOMMENDING ALL OF STAFF'S RECOMMENDATIONS, THEY NEED TO MAKE IT PLAIN IN THE MOTION OR WHATEVER THE DECISION IS. IF IT'S DIFFERENT FROM STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS, THAT WILL BE NOTED IN THE ORDINANCE, AND IT MAY BE NOTED IN THE STAFF REPORT FROM DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, I DON'T KNOW, BUT IT WILL BE NOTED THAT THERE THAT PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDS THESE ITEMS AND THEY DID NOT RECOMMEND THIS.

[00:55:03]

AND I SUSPECT THAT THERE'S GOING TO BE ENOUGH TIME FOR THE APPLICANT TO GET WITH THEIR FOLKS AND THE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES PEOPLE.

OH NOPE, NOPE, NOPE. NOPE NO. THAT'S THE OUR NEXT MEETING IS THE 18TH.

AND SO THAT'S THE DAY BEFORE THE INTERNAL DEADLINE.

NO, I MEANT OFF OF THE IF WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT DEFERRAL, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT JUST BETWEEN NOW AND THE COUNCIL MEETING.

SO. BUT I'M THINKING THE APPLICANT AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES CAN SAY, YES, WE'RE OKAY WITH THE BUFFERING, THE VISUAL SCREENING, OR THEY'LL SAY IT REALLY CAN'T WORK.

THE DITCH IS THERE OR WHATEVER. AND THEN MAYBE THE COMMUNICATION FIGURE OUT WHAT CAN HAPPEN, I DON'T KNOW. HERE'S A SUGGESTION. HAVING BEEN THERE, DONE THAT, UNDERSTAND.

BUT HAVING BEEN THERE, DONE THAT, I KNOW THAT I'VE HAD CASES THAT HAD RESTRICTIONS ON THEM.

AND WHEN WE GOT TO COUNCIL, WE MADE A REQUEST FOR THE CHANGE.

SO ONE THING WE COULD DO IS, IS WE COULD APPROVE IT WITH STAFF'S RECOMMENDATIONS.

THAT DOESN'T MEAN THAT CITY COUNCIL'S GOING TO DO THAT.

THAT WOULD GIVE HER AN OPPORTUNITY TO GO GET WITH HER PARTNERS AND FIGURE OUT, HEY, THIS IS WHAT WE WANT TO DO.

THERE'S GOING TO BE SOME COMMENTS THAT WE OUR DESIRE IS NOT TO PLACE ANY UNDUE BURDEN ON THE PROPERTY OWNER, BUT WE WOULD LIKE FOR THEM TO SEE IF THEY CAN HELP US OUT WITH THIS.

AND SHE CAN BRING FORTH A SOME IDEAS AND SAY, HEY, THIS IS WHAT WE WANT TO DO.

THIS IS A DEVIATION FROM WHAT WAS APPROVED BY PLANNING.

BUT WE'VE DONE THAT. I'VE DONE THAT. I'VE SEEN THAT HAPPEN.

I WOULD SUGGEST ACTUALLY THE INVERSE OF THAT.

OKAY. I WOULD SUGGEST THAT IF YOU HAVE CONCERNS ABOUT THE FRONT NOT BEING PHYSICALLY ABLE TO HANDLE THE LANDSCAPING, WHICH I'M NOT EXACTLY SURE OF. YOU CERTAINLY COULD PUT A HEDGEROW IN THEIR TREES.

PERHAPS NOT. BUT I WOULD SUGGEST THAT YOU. YOU VOTE YOUR CONSCIENCE NOW, AS IT AS IT IS.

AND WHAT I'M HEARING GENERALLY FROM YOU IS THAT YOU'RE OKAY WITH THE LANDSCAPING ON THE WEST SIDE AND THE NORTH SIDE, THE SOUTH AND EAST, WHERE IT ISN'T TECHNICALLY, YOU KNOW, SCREENING BUFFERING A SUBDIVISION OR RESIDENTIAL USE.

YOU KNOW, PERHAPS I THINK YOU DEVIATE FROM OUR RECOMMENDATION AND ALLOW THE OWNER THE OPTION OF THAT, AND THEN AND THEN AND THEN PERHAPS WHAT YOU CAN DO IN, IN MAYBE EVEN A SEPARATE MEMO OR SOMETHING TO COUNCIL IS SAY, YOU KNOW, WE DIDN'T WANT TO IMPOSE THAT REQUIREMENT FOR WHATEVER REASON.

AND, AND THEN AND SORT OF DIRECT IT MORE TOWARD A, JUST A NEGOTIATION BETWEEN THE STAFF AND THE OWNER.

RIGHT. I LIKE THAT IDEA. TIM. BECAUSE. YES, JOHN, HOW WOULD YOU WORD THAT WORD? I WOULD LIKE TO SAY FOR THE RECORD, THAT I THINK THAT IT IS A NECESSARY BURDEN.

AND, YOU KNOW, IF YOU DO REQUIRE THAT AND THEY PUT IT IN, YOU KNOW, THERE'S NO REQUIREMENT TO MAINTAIN.

AND WHAT YOU SEE OVER TIME IS PUTTING IT IN. YEAH.

IT BECOMES WHETHER IT IS A REQUIREMENT TO MAINTAIN.

EXACTLY. THERE IS ORDINANCE. BUT TO WHAT LEVEL I MEAN.

WELL, TO THE ORIGINAL PLANTING LEVEL. BUT YOU KNOW, ENFORCEMENT OF THAT IS, YOU KNOW, SOMETIMES DIFFICULT.

OKAY. THE OTHER SIDE OF IT IS IF YOU LOOK AT THE TWO PROPERTIES ON THE ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF 3005, THERE'S NO LANDSCAPING. AND, YOU KNOW, THEY LOOK NICE.

SO WHY NOT BE CONSISTENT, KEEP IT IN UNIFORMITY WITH THE AREA.

I LIKE THAT IDEA. AND I THINK YOU'RE EXACTLY RIGHT.

AND IF THEY JUST WANT TO BRING SOMETHING AND SAY, HEY LOOK, WE WANT TO SPEND A LITTLE MONEY, WE'RE GOING TO DO THIS. KUDOS TO THEM. THAT'S CORRECT.

SO I GET THAT. THAT'S A GOOD IDEA. SO, WE'VE HAD A MOTION.

WE'VE HAD A MOTION AND DISCUSSION. SO I'M GOING TO MAKE A MOTION TO AMEND THE ORIGINAL MOTION SO THAT THE STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION REGARDING LANDSCAPING AND ITEM NUMBER FOUR DOES NOT INCLUDE THE EAST NOR THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE OF THE PROPERTY.

SO THAT'S THE MOTION. I NEED A SECOND. SECOND.

ALL RIGHT. SO WE HAVE A MOTION A SECOND TO AMEND THE MOTION TO.

EXCLUDE THE SOUTH AND THE EAST SIDE FROM ANY LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENTS.

[01:00:04]

WELL IT WOULD BE AN AMENDMENT TO ITEM FOUR. YOU'RE GETTING ALL THIS, CATHERINE.

I MEAN SORRY, I'M TRYING TO, I'M KIND OF GOING ABOUT THIS A LONG WAY, BUT I THINK EVERYBODY UNDERSTANDS WHERE WE'RE AT.

ALL RIGHT, SO LET ME START ALL OVER. WE HAVE AN AMENDED MOTION TO APPROVE WITH STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION, WITH THE AMENDMENT OF ITEM NUMBER FOUR, WHICH WOULD EXCLUDE A LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENT FOR THE SOUTH AND EAST SIDE OF THE PROPERTY.

SOUNDS GOOD. SO THAT'S THE MOTION. NEED A SECOND.

SECOND. SECONDED. ANY DISCUSSION? SEEING NONE.

WE'LL TAKE THE VOTE. THAT'S UNANIMOUS. DONE. GOOD LUCK WITH THAT, CLAIRE.

SORRY ABOUT THAT. I'M JUST TRYING TO. NO, NO, IT'S.

WE GOT IT. ALL RIGHT. IS THERE ANY OTHER BUSINESS? SEEING NONE, WE'LL BE ADJOURNED. 4:31. HOW ABOUT THAT.

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.