Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Crawfish Kayak Feasibility topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission hears feasibility report on Crawfish/Kayak development; drainage and rezoning concerns raised
Summary
Planning staff presented a feasibility study for the Crawfish/Kayak proposal (dev. no. 2509), detailing water/wastewater projections and required impact‑fee and drainage studies; commissioners pressed the developer’s pending choice between a special‑use permit and full rezoning and asked to see engineered drainage plans before any construction.
Planning staff presented the utility and economic feasibility study for a proposed development referenced in the packet as Crawfish/Kayak (development no. 2509), describing the site behind Jim Harbor and near city hall and outlining capacity considerations for water and wastewater.
Staff told commissioners the project’s estimated average daily water demand is about 7,000 gallons and wastewater about 4,500 gallons; ongoing projects (a Plant 3 addition and the Plant 4 design) are meant to provide capacity into the late 2020s and early 2030s. Staff said the developer could pursue either a temporary special‑use permit (as used previously for short‑term cabins) or seek rezoning for a permanent commercial use, and that a special‑use permit would terminate if the commercial phase ceased.
Commissioners raised several substantive concerns. One commissioner described repeated flooding and deep ravines on neighboring lots and urged the commission to require engineering solutions: "They were flooded 3 or 4 times before anything was collected," said Commissioner (Speaker 1), citing neighbors’ experiences. Staff replied that the developer is required to submit plans, specifications and a drainage study demonstrating no detrimental impacts and that county drainage criteria were recently updated in August 2025.
Commissioners also questioned road conditions and driveway geometry, and staff said existing driveway spacing in the neighborhood would likely require variances for the site access radii. Staff confirmed that sidewalks and drainage plans would be required and that commercial plans typically would not return to P&Z for administrative plan approvals but would be reviewed by building plan reviewers and the city engineer.
No formal action was taken; the commission requested staff forward the discussion and concerns to City Council and asked to see engineered drainage plans and final site plans before construction. The developer had not yet submitted final plans as of the meeting.
