Third time a charm for second reading
Special use permit for higher density finally moves ahead
BY PHIL REYNOLDS SOUTH JETTY REPORTER

A controversial building project off Avenue A near Oleander Street made it past the second city council reading on a special use permit on Thursday, Aug. 16, but not without some discussion - little of which had to do with the merits of the project.

It was the project's third attempt to get past the second reading of an ordinance granting a special use permit. Two earlier attempts had resulted in failure and a subsequent tabling of the question until all seven council members could be present.

The special use permit is required because, though the developer's proposed short-term rentals would be allowed under the current R-2 multi-family residential zoning, shortterm rentals aren't permitted under the density for which the property is platted.

Because owners of more than 20 percent of the surrounding properties objected, 75 percent of the council would have had to vote in favor if the project were to make it to third reading. However, Councilman Rick Pratt wasn't at either the June or July council meeting; the question failed to gain a 75 percent vote at either of those meetings.

City Planning and Projects Director David Parsons told the city council that the staff closed a poll of neighbors who opposed the project at 5 p.m. on Aug. 16.

He said the poll was mailed to the eight people who originally objected. In the new poll, four responded still opposing and four did not respond, Parsons said. Two previous positive votes switched to opposition.

That computed to six property owners in opposition, or 15.2 percent, Parsons said.

"It would make more sense to poll the whole neighborhood instead of just the ones in opposition," said Councilman Charles Bujan. "Maybe somebody wanted to change their vote."

"We were specifically directed to re-poll the opposition votes, and that's what we did," City Manager Michael Kovacs said.

"I have a map here with names on it, and I don't see a lot of these names on here," Bujan said.

"But they didn't respond the first time," Mayor Claude Brown explained.

"That's what I'm saying," Bujan said. "That would make a lot more sense."

"We originally polled eight … sorry, the original opposition was eight," Brown said.

"And we only re-polled a third of the 36 (who responded to the original poll)," Bujan said.

"I think the mayor was saying let's see if the people opposed to it are still opposed," said Kovacs. "The staff was told to see if they were still in opposition after some of the (developer's concessions), like a pool in the center, plantings, etc."

"There were other issues," Councilman Bubba Jensen said. "We knew some of the neighbors opposed, so we sent this back out because (otherwise) we wouldn't have it in writing that they no longer opposed."

"State law says only written comments are counted in opposition," Parsons noted.

"The letter (sent with the re-poll) says the council directed the city manager to re-poll opposed votes to see if they remain in opposition," said Councilman Keith Donley. "I thought earlier you said if they didn't return it … ."

"That's on the form," Parsons explained. "It says if written protest is filed by owners of more than 20 percent of the land affected, the proposal will not take effect. The way the form reads, if you're still in opposition, you check."

"I think we should have polled everybody," Donley said.

"I think we shouldn't have sent out a second poll, though I voted for it," said Councilman Mike Hall. "It seemed the way the feeling was going."

"I agree it should have gone to everybody, but I've spent quite a bit of time talking with developer," Donley said. "As I said in the original motion (to pass the ordinance), the developer has worked a lot with (the planning and zoning commission) and has gone to great lengths to satisfy people around it. I feel it will benefit the neighborhood much more than a boat facility or trailer park so I'll support it."

(The project is proposed for the property formerly occupied by Island One Marine.)

Jensen moved to pass the ordinance on second reading and Councilman Keith McMullin seconded. Bujan voted against the passage.

Developer Tom Culp asked the council to call a special meeting for the third reading on the ordinance, pointing out that the project had been delayed twice already.

The council voted later in the meeting to put the question on the agenda for a special meeting on Aug. 23, originally set as a public hearing on the city's proposed new budget and tax rate.