6.1 Pre-Application Discussion - Matt Poling, Trenam Law, 1750 S. 14th St. - To discuss the possibility of splitting the northern lot from this commercial parcel. The property is zoned C-1.

[6.1 Pre-Application Discussion - Matt Poling, Trenam Law, 1750 S. 14th St. - To discuss the possibility of splitting the northern lot from this commercial parcel. The property is zoned C-1. ]

WITH THAT WE WILL GO INTO OUR FIRST DISCUSSION ITEM WHICH IS 6.1.

4A, PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1750 SOUTH 14TH STREET, DISCUSSING THE POSSIBILITY OF SPLITTING THE NORTHERN LOT OF THE COMMERCIAL PROPERTY. IT IS ZONED C-1.

I HAVE SOME OF THE DETAILS FOR THAT HERE. IS THERE ANYONE HERE TO DISCUSS THAT ITEM? I CAN JUST GENERALLY COVER MY KNOWLEDGE OF IT BASED ON THE PRE-APPLICATION FORM SO IT HAS BEEN COVERED. THIS IS THE BANK AT 1750 SOUTH 14TH STREET. BASED ON THE INQUIRIES I RECEIVED PREVIOUSLY THEY ARE LOOKING TO SPLIT LOT 2 FROM THE OVERALL BANK SITE. YOU CAN SEE WHERE A PORTION OF THE PROPERTY WAS PREVIOUSLY IMPROVED. IT INCLUDES THE PARKING AREA AND DRIVE AISLE AND THERE IS A PROPOSED ACCESS TO THE LOT SPLIT.

THERE IS A PORTION OF THE PROPERTY THAT WAS PREVIOUSLY CLEARED AND MAINTAINED.

AND THE REAR PORTION OF THE PROPERTY IS PART OF THE DRY RETENTION POND THAT SERVED THE SITE. TO MY KNOWLEDGE THAT IS NOT ANYONE WHO HAS PARTICULAR DEVELOPMENT PLANS FOR THE PROPERTY. I THINK THE INQUIRY IS WHETHER OR NOT THIS LOT COULD BE SPLIT SPUR SUNT TO CODE. PURSUANT TO CODE.

WE ASK THAT THE BOARD REVIEW AND CONSIDER IT. BASED ON THE FACT THAT THERE IS INFRASTRUCTURE WHICH IS THE REMAINING PARK -- THE REMAINING PARCEL RELIES ON FOR THE STORM WATER PERMIT, I AM NOT SURE WITHOUT HAVING SOME LEGAL DOCUMENTATION IS

SOMETHING WE CAN SUPPORT. >> YOU WOULD HAVE TO CREATE AN ASSOCIATION TO ALLOW FOR THE MAINTENANCE OF THE COMMON FEATURES. I BELIEVE THERE ARE SEWER INFRO -- SEWER INFRASTRUCTURE THERE AS WELL. THAT WOULD NEED TO BE FORMALIZED. I DON'T KNOW IS THIS A -- WHAT LEVEL OF APPROVAL IS THIS?

IS THIS STAFF APPROVAL? >> IT WOULD GO THROUGH STAFF APPROVAL TO CONSIDER THE LOT SPLIT. I HAVE CONCERNS ABOUT THE INFRASTRUCTURE THAT IS NOW

SHARED ACROSS THE LOT LINES. >> I THINK WE PROBABLY NEED TO SEE DRAFT DOCUMENTS.

BECAUSE THIS IS A DISTRICT PERMIT THEY HAVE LANGUAGE AND THEY REQUIRE FOR ASSOCIATION DOCUMENTS FOR MAINTENANCE ISSUES MORE SO THAN JUST ONE PRIVATE OWNER.

I THINK YOU HAVE TO GO THROUGH THAT PROCESS THAT WOULD BE MY ONLY CONCERN WITH THAT.

IF YOU ARE NOT CREATING AN ISSUE WITH THE LOT SIZE OR ANYTHING ELSE FOR I'M PEER

[00:05:09]

VEE -- IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE I DON'T SEE AN ISSUE WITH IT. >> ISN'T THAT PORTION IN THE

BACK OF THE LOT A RETENTION? >> YES. THAT SHOULD BE CHANGED.

THAT'S DONE BY THE PERMIT. >> DO WE HAVE ANYONE HERE FROM TREMEL TO REPRESENT THE PROPERTY? WANT TO MAKE SURE. IT DOESN'T LOOK LIKE IT.

IN TERMS OF CRIME STANDARDS THEY COULDN'T HAVE IT WITHOUT DEVELOPMENT OF A VARIANCE.

SO TAKING ADVANTAGE OF THE IMPROVED AREA WITH SOMETHING -- WOULD CREATE POTENTIALLY NONCONFORMING RETENTION. WE WOULD HAVE TO SEE DOCUMENTS

TO SEE WHAT THEY WOULD DO TO IMPROVE THAT MOVING FORWARD. >> I'M ASSUMING THERE WAS A MASTER PLAN FOR THIS THAT INDICATED WHAT THE SQUARE FOOTAGE PLAN WAS AND THE USE

OF PARKING WAS. >> AND MAKING SURE THE BANK SITE MAINTAINS THE PARKING.

>> AND THE PARKING AGREEMENTS NECESSARY. IT DOES LOOK LIKE THERE IS

OVER FLOW ON THE SITE. >> I THINK THEY ARE FINE WITH THE PARKING CALCULATION.

IT IS JUST AN AN AN -- AN OVERIMPROVEMENT. >> MY QUESTION IS WHETHER WE WOULD NEED TO REQUIRE THAT IN ADVANCE OF THE LOT SPLIT OR THAT WOULD BE ABLE TO BE

LOOKED AT. >> IT IS MORE OF ANING -- AN ACKNOWLEDGEMENT.

MAYBE WHEN IT CAN BE RETAINED. DOES ANYONE HAVE ANY THOUGHTS OR COMMENTS? WE WILL BE ABLE TO PUT THIS INTO NOTES AND SHARE IT WITH THEM. SO MOVING ON WE HAVE A DEVELOPMENT INQUIRY

[6.2 Pre-Application Discussion - Dan McCranie, McCranie & Associates: 3420 1st Ave. - To discuss the construction of 4 townhome buildings utilizing the 25 x 100 foot platted lots of record. This property is zoned R-3. ]

PRE-APPLICATION DISCUSSION ITEM FOR A PROPERTY OFF 1ST AVENUE FOR THE DISCUSSION OF TOWNHOMES ON ORIGINALLY PLOTTED LOTS OF RECORD AND IT WOULD BE A TOTAL OF 9 TOWNHOME UNITS. WE DO HAVE MR. MCCRANIE HERE TO PROVIDE AN OVERVIEW OF THE PROJECT AND WE CAN PROVIDE HIM WITH SOME INITIAL FEEDBACK SO HE CAN TAKE THAT INTO CONSIDERATION AS PART OF THEIR DUE DILIGENCE AND DESIGN. HE HAS PROVIDED AN AERIAL OF THE PROPERTY. THERE ARE A FEW PROPERTIES TO THE NORTH AND MANATEE PROPERTY TO THE SOUTH. THERE ARE A LISTING OF TOWNHOMES ON THAT SOUTH END.

IF YOU LOOK FURTHER TO THE NORTH YOU CAN SEE A TOWNHOME DEVELOPMENT THERE AS WELL.

>> THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU. >> THERE IS A PRELIMINARY

DRAINAGE JUST FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES. >> THANK YOU.

>> THE DOCUMENT WE HAVE LOADED ONLINE HAS BEEN UPDATED? >> SLIGHTLY.

WE GOT A FORM FROM A DEVELOPMENT GROUP TO DEVELOP SOME PROPERTY ON 1ST AVENUE. THERE IS A TOTAL OF 9, 25-FOOT LOTS.

THERE ARE UNDEVELOPED AND HAS SOME INTERESTING CHARACTER TO IT AND SO YOU HAVE A BUNCH OF CHANGE IN ELEVATION. WE CAN SEE WHAT THE TOWNHOMES WOULD LOOK LIKE IN A RENDERING. JOHN CAME UP WITH A WONDERFUL DWRD THAT WE -- IDEA THAT WE ARE GOING TO BUILD IT UP ON STILTS SO WE ARE NOT -- WELL, FIRST OFF, WE MET WITH KELLY AND WE ALSO MET WITH JACOB AND I AM TRYING TO UNDERSTAND WHERE THE CODE IS TODAY AND WHERE THE DESIGN INTENT FOR THE DIRECTION THE CITY WOULD LIKE TO GO IN.

[00:10:04]

WE BROUGHT THAT INFORMATION TO JOHN AND WE CAN COME OUT AND WIPE OUT ALL OF THE TREES AND FILL THE LOT UP TO GREG. YOUR ROADWAY GRADE VARIES FROM ELEVATION 17 AND GOES UP TO ABOUT 18 AND A HALF OR 19 AND THEN GOES DOWN TO 16 AS YOU COME THROUGH THERE.

AND THE LOT GRADE, SOME SPOTS DROP DOWN TO AN ELEVATION OF EIGHT OR 9.

RIGHT WHERE IT SAYS THAT 12. IT MIGHT ACTUALLY GO DOWN TO 10 OR SO.

THERE IS A TROUGH DOWN THERE, TOP LEFT. YES RIGHT THERE.

THERE IS A TROUGH DOWN THERE. THE HOUSE TO THE NORTH OF THE PROPERTY, THEY BUILT A LOWER LEVEL SO WE ARE GOING TO MAKE SURE THAT THEIR WATER CAN STILL DRAIN ON TO OUR PROPERTY SO WE ARE NOT CHANGING THE TOPOGRAPHY EXCEPT FOR THE FRONT OF THE PROPERTY.

SO IF YOU LOOK AT THE DRAINAGE PLAN YOU CAN SEE THAT THOSE ARE EXISTING CONTOURS THAT WE WANT TO KEEP. AND THEN HAVE ALL OF THE STORM WATER INFILTRATE AND WE WILL SHOW YOU THOSE CALCULATIONS AND THE SOILS. I'M CERTAIN WE -- WE WILL NOT

HAVE RETENTION PROBLEMS. >> IS THAT A RETAINING WALL ON THE PROPERTY LINE TO THE

EAST? >> YES. EXACTLY.

>> THERE ARE A COUPLE OF POOL -- POLES THERE. >> YEAH.

THAT RED LINE IS OFF SOMEHOW. THAT RETAINING WALL IS RIGHT ON THE PROPERTY LINE.

>> IT DOES LOOK LIKE SOME OF THOSE PROPERTIES DO DRAIN BACK TOWARD THE SITE SO JUST KIND OF TAKE THAT INTO ACCOUNT. IT DOESN'T LOOK LIKE YOU WILL HAVE PROBLEMS WITH RETENTION.

>> YEAH, BUT MOST OF THEM HAVE RETAINING WALLS THAT STOP EVERYTHING, IF YOU NOTICE.

YES. I'VE GOT A LITTLE BIT OF AREA, BUT ACCORDING TO THE TRUE --

IT DOESN'T. WE'LL LOOK AT THAT. >> LOOK CLOSELY AT THE CORNER LOT. THE LOT TO THE NORTH. I WORKED WITH THAT BUILDER, AND THERE IS SOME DRAINAGE DESIGNED TO BYPASS AROUND THAT STRUCTURE TO GET BACK TO THIS LOWER AREA THAT IS EVEN COMING OFF OF MANTANAS. THERE MAY BE MORE OFF SITE

AREAS THERE AS WELL. >> OKAY. GOING BACK TO THE SITE PLAN, WE HAVE PROPOSED PARKING IN THE FRONT AND NOT HAVING GARAGES, THE INTENDED PROPERTY WILL MORE THAN LIKELY BE SHORT-TERM RENTAL. IT WILL BE RESORT RENTAL.

WE QUILL -- WE WILL BE ASKING FOR A VARIANCE FOR PARKING IN THE FRONT.

WE TRIED TO DESIGN IT TO TRY TO PUT THE PARKING IN THE REAR WITH FIVE YARDS -- ACTUALLY TWO AND A HALF FOOT WIDE SETBACKS ARE REQUIRED AND WE ARE PUTTING FIVE.

THERE IS NO ROOM TO BE ABLE TO PUT -- YOU KNOW, TO PUT A DRIVE BACK THERE AND EVEN IF THERE WAS, WE LOOKED AT IT AND TRYING TO GET CARS BACK THERE WOULD MEAN WE WOULD HAVE TO FILL THE LOT AND DRIVE BACK THERE TO GET THERE. I TRIED WITH THREE ITERATIONS OF GETTING PARKING IN THE REAR AND IT IS NOT POSSIBLE. I DESIGNED IF -- I DESIGNED IT WITH PARKING IN THE FRONT. SOMETIMES IT CROSSES OVER LOT LINES AND THAT WILL BE ANOTHER VARIANCE REQUEST. I DID THAT SO THAT YOU CAN SEE THE 28-INCH AND THE 21-INCH THOSE WE WANT TO SAVE. THEY ARE RIGHT UP FRONT. IF YOU GO TO THE STREET VIEW OF THE PROPERTY YOU'LL SEE THOSE TWO. YES, THOSE TWO.

WE WILL BE WORKING AROUND NOSE -- THOSE TWO TREES UP FRONT ALONG WITH A BUNCH OF TREES IN THE BACK AND SOME ON THE SIDE YARDS WHERE WE CAN MEET THE TREE ORDINANCE TO SAVE THE REQUIRED INCHES -- TREES WITHOUT HAVING TO PLANT MORE.

[00:15:07]

ANOTHER VARIANCE WE WILL REQUEST IS DRIVEWAY WIDTH. I'VE GOT, YOU KNOW, ONE -- A UNIT OF THREE WILL HAVE SIX PARKING SPACES ALTOGETHER. I HAVE 54 FEET AND WE COULD SHIFT THE PARKING SPACES AND MAKE THEM 24 AND THEN SOME SPACE AND THEN 24 AND THEN SOME SPACE. IF I DID THAT I WOULD HAVE TO TAKE OUT THE TWO TREES, 28 AND 21, TO SHIFT THINGS. SO IT'S DOABLE, BUT I THINK THIS IS A BETTER PLAN OF CLUSTER OF PARKING IN FRONT OF THE UNITS. IT WILL MAKE IT EASIER IF I SHOWED YOU THE DESIGN INTENT. WE ARE GOING TO NEED TO BUILD RETAINING WALLS ALONG HERE BECAUSE WE ARE GOING TO KEEP THE NATURAL GRADE. YOU CAN SEE THE CONTOURS DROP DOWN. THIS IS ELEVATION 16 AND IT DROPS DOWN TO 12.

WE ARE GOING TO HAVE TO KEEP THIS BILLED FOR PARKING AND THEN WE WILL HAVE WALKWAYS THAT GO TO THE HOUSE ELEVATION THAT IS RAISED UP. BASICALLY YOU ARE UP IN THE AIR. THAT WAS THE ONLY WAY WE COULD SEE SAVING THE TREES AND

MAKING SURE THE DRAINAGE WORKS AND EVERYTHING ELSE. >> AT SOME POINT YOUR SEWER

LINES ARE GOING TO BE HANGING FROM THE ELEVATED STRUCTURE? >> EXACTLY.

AND THAT WILL BE THE NEXT THING I AM TALKING ABOUT. WE MAY HAVE TO GO TO CAST IRON BECAUSE IT WILL BE EXPOSED. WE WILL DO SOMETHING TO MAKE IT AESTHETICALLY PLEASING, BUT WE WANT TO PROTECT IT SO IT DOESN'T GET BROKEN. IT WILL SORT OF POP OUT OF THE -- THROUGH THE RETAINING WALL AND GOING THROUGH AND THEN GOING UNDER THE HOUSE.

AT SOME POINT, YES, IT IS GOING TO BE EXPOSED. I DON'T SEE ANYWAY AROUND IT.

IF I AM TRYING TO KEEP THE EXISTING TOPOGRAPHY, THAT'S WHERE I WOULD ASK FOR THE WATER AND SEWER SYSTEM. WE DO NOT HAVE -- SO YOU HAVE A SEWER MANHOLE HERE, AND THEN WHENEVER THESE THREE TOWNHOMES WERE BUILT, THEY BUILT -- THEY EXTEND TENDED -- EXTENDED IT OFF AND DID A TRIPLE SERVICE OFF OF IT. WE WILL NEED TO EXTEND TO A MANHOLE TO AROUND HERE TO BE ABLE TO SERVE THESE FOUR AND THEN THERE IS ANOTHER MANHOLE THAT COMES HERE AND COMES IN THIS DIRECTION. THE MANHOLE IS AROUND HERE.

I CAN SERVE THE SEWER HERE. I THINK IT SHOWS UP ON THE REVISED PLAN.

YOU CAN SEE HOW WE WILL SERVE THE WATER AND SEWER. ONE OF THE QUESTIONS IS DOES THE CITY -- CAN WE GET A QUOTE FROM THE CITY TO PUT IN THAT SEWER LINE, SEWER EXTENSION,

OR IS THAT SOMETHING WE NEED TO DO? >> I BELIEVE WE CAN PROVIDE A QUOTE TO DO THAT. WE MIGHT NEED TO SINCE IT IS A MAIN EXTENSION WE MIGHT NEED YOU TO HANDLE THE PERMITTING. THAT'S SOMETHING WE CAN TAKE A LOOK AT WHEN WE GET IN A LITTLE MORE DETAIL. THE WATERMAIN I AM NOT -- THE INITIAL MAP SHOWS ON THE OTHER

SIDE OF THE ROAD WHAT WE HAVE, A FIRE HYDRANT THERE. >> I AM FAIRLY CERTAIN THE WATERMAIN IS ON THAT SIDE. THAT ONE DRAWING YOU SENT OVER SHOWS THAT THE WATERMAIN IS ON THE EASTSIDE BECAUSE WHEN THE SEWER SERVICE WAS PUT IN IN 17, 18, 19, THEY WENT UNDER THE WATERMAIN. THE WATER SERVICE WILL BE EASY , YOU'LL SEE.

I WILL HAVE TO MOVE THAT ONE HYDRANT WHICH IS ON LOT 20. IT IS NOT SHOWN THERE, BUT IT IS SHOWN ON THIS. WE WILL HAVE TO SHIFT THAT, BUT WE'LL HAVE GOOD ACCESS TO THE HYDRANT AND GOOD ACCESS TO THE WATER AND SEWER EXCEPT ONE EXTENSION.

>> I DON'T SEE AN ISSUE WITH IT. WE CAN LOOK IN MORE DETAIL WHEN WE GET THE ELEVATIONS FIGURED OUT WITH THE SEWER. WITH REGARD TO THE SERVICES BEING EXPOSED, AT THAT POINT IT WILL BE ON THE PROPERTY SITE AND BUILDING CODE WILL

[00:20:06]

DICTATE WHAT YOU DO WITH THAT. THAT WILL BE A BUILDING ISSUE. I DON'T SEE ANY ISSUE WITH DRAINAGE OR UTILITIES.

>> WE HILLARY -- WILL RESURFACE 1ST AVENUE FROM LOT 19 TO LOT 29?

>> WHY WOULD WE DO THAT? >> YOU ARE GOING TO HAVE TO ADD SERVICES AND EVERYTHING WILL CUT UP ALL OF 1ST AVENUE IN THAT AREA. WE WOULD PREFER IT BE MILLED

AND RESURFACED. >> IS THE MANHOLE IN THE ROAD OR OFF ON THE SIDE?

>> IT IS IN THE ROAD. >> THE ROADWAY STAN DEFERRED -- STANDARD HAD, IT REQUIRES A 50-FOOT OVER LAY FOR A ROAD CUT. WE HAVE TO LOOK AT WHERE THE SERVICES HAVE TO BE PUT IN AND WHAT THE MINIMUM IS TO MEET STANDARDS TO DO AN OVERLAY SO

WE ARE NOT JUST PATCHING TRENCHES. >> RIGHT.

WITH THIS MASSIVE CUT THAT'S WHAT I WOULD REQUIRE. >> RIGHT NOW WE ARE TRYING TO GET SITE PLAN APPROVAL. OUR INTENT IS NOT TO BUILD ALL OF THESE.

WE WILL SELL THEM TO INDIVIDUALS. TRYING TO GET ALL OF THIS DONE TOGETHER. SO IT IS A UNIFORM PLAN AND DESIGN.

I WOULD JUST ASK IF THAT HAS BEEN YOUR STANDARD, THAT ANYBODY THAT GETS A SERVICE TO A SEWER LINE HAD TO OVERLAY THE ROAD, THEN YES. I AM CONCERNED ABOUT COST.

IF THAT HAS BEEN THE STANDARD, I TOTALLY UNDERSTAND. IF THAT'S NOT THE STANDARD, WE WOULDN'T WANT TO PAY TO DO THAT. YOU KNOW, IT IS AN EXPENSE

THING. IT IS MONEY. >> I GUESS THE TIMING WOULD DEPEND ON IF YOU ARE INSTALLING INFRASTRUCTURE TO SUPPORT THESE, OR IF IT IS EXISTING LINES THAT THE BUILDER OR HOMEOWNER WOULD APPLY FOR.

>> AND NOW IS THE TIME. >> IDEALLY IF WE ARE IN THERE DOING EXTENSION WORK, IT MAKES SENSE TO GO AHEAD AND SERVICE IT BECAUSE WE KNOW WHERE IT WILL BE.

THAT'S SOMETHING WE HAVE TO LOOK AT TIMING WISE. I UNDERSTAND IT IS A COST, BUT

THAT COULD BE PASSED ON TO THE EVENTUAL HOMEOWNER. >> YES, BUT THEY START TO SNOWBALL COST AFTER COST AFTER COST AND IT IS REALLY HARD. I COULD SEE WHERE WE -- WHERE I AM EXTENDING THE SEWER MAIN, TOTALLY UNDERSTANDABLE. WE WILL BE CUTTING THAT WHOLE DAY AND WILL HAVE TO REPAVE THROUGH THERE. THAT WOULD BE LOTS 20, 21, 22 AND 23. IT IS JUST I DON'T BELIEVE -- IT KIND OF DEPENDS HOW WE WILL DO SEWER SERVICES IF THEY ARE TRULY SERVICES TO AN EXISTING MAIN WE MIGHT NOT WANT TO

SPEND THAT MUCH MONEY. WE CAN LOOK AT THAT AND SEE. >> YOU HAVE SEVEN CUTS?

>> WELL, YEAH. I WOULD ARGUE THEY SHOULD HAVE BEEN DONE WHENEVER THE LINES WERE PUT IN. THAT WAS DONE IN THE 40S AND 50S.

>> THE OTHER THING I WANT TO BRING UP ALSO IS WHERE IS THE SIDEWALK?

>> THERE ARE NONE. >> I WOULD THINK WE SHOULD REQUIRE SIDEWALKS TO BE INSTALLED THERE. ISN'T THERE A SIDEWALK TO THE NORTH OF THERE?

>> NO SIDEWALKS ON EITHER SIDE OF THE ROAD. >> WE HAVE TO START SOMEWHERE. I THINK THERE ARE SIDEWALKS TO THE NORTH NOT TOO FAR.

>> NOT 1ST AVENUE. I DON'T KNOW OF ANY SIDEWALKS.

I HAVE ONE WITH THAT BUILDING GROUPING AND THAT MIGHT BE THE ONLY ONE IN THE ENTIRE AREA.

>> IF THERE ARE SIDEWALKS ADDED THERE, IF THE CITY EVER GETS IN A POSITION TO WHERE WE

CAN ADD MORE SIDEWALKS, THAT WOULD ALREADY BE DONE. >> I DON'T THINK YOU WILL EVER DO THAT. JUST KNOWING THE CITY, Y'ALL ARE NOT GONNA SPEND MONEY ON

SIDEWALKS. >> WITH THE AMOUNT OF DRIVEWAYS, YOU ARE 75% THERE ON SIDEWALKS. SO IF THOSE AREN'T BEING BUILT UNTIL THE UNITS ARE BEING BUILT, EXTENDING A LITTLE CONCRETE TO THE PROPERTY LINE I DON'T THINK IS A HUGE ASK.

ONE THING I WOULD SAY ON THOSE , IF THE FRONT PARKING IS APPROVED WITHIN THE RIGHT OF WAY WE WOULD LIKE TO KEEP THAT STANDARD MATERIALS, CONCRETE, ASPHALT.

>> YEAH. YOU DON'T HAVE MUCH ROOM. THE ROAD ITSELF, 1ST

[00:25:05]

AVENUE, IS NOT BUILD -- BUILT DOWN THE CENTER LINE. YOU HAVE ROUGHLY EIGHT FEET FROM THE EDGE OF THE PAVEMENT TO THE PROPERTY LINE. YOU HAVE POWER POLES IN THE WAY. I MEAN, WE COULD BUILD A SIDEWALK, BUT IT WOULD GO

RIGHT THROUGH THE POWER POLE. >> THE POWER CAN BE PUT BELOW GROUND.

>> WE ARE NOT MOVING THE POWER POLE THOUGH. THAT WOULD BE EX10 -- EXPENSIVE. AND THEN THE SIDEWALK WOULD BE RIGHT NEXT TO THE ROADWAY.

WE WILL DISCUSS THAT IN FINAL DESIGN. WE WILL ONLY PUT SIDEWALKS IF YOUR CODE REQUIRES IT. 1ST AVENUE IS -- I MEAN IT IS A BEAUTIFUL ROAD.

I DON'T SEE -- NO ONE IS HINDERED IN WALKING DOWN IT BECAUSE OF LACK OF SIDEWALKS.

AGAIN, I TRY TO LOOK OUT FOR THE EXPENSE OF THINGS. IF IT IS REQUIRED, WE'LL DO IT. IF IT IS NOT REQUIRED, WE WON'T DO IT.

>> I WOULD SAY IT SHOULD BE REQUIRED. WHAT ABOUT ADA AND TRASH

SERVICE? >> TRASH SERVICE WILL BE NORMAL GARBAGE CAN THAT'S WILL BE TAKEN TO THE ROAD. ADA, WE WILL FOLLOW THE REQUIRED CODE FOR ACCESS.

IT IS NOT A COMMERCIAL BUILDING SO I DON'T HAVE TO MAKE EVERY HOUSE ADA ACCESSIBLE. ESPECIALLY WITH THE CHANGE IN LOT GRADE AND CHANGE IN ELEVATION. IT WOULD BE NEARLY IMPOSSIBLE TO MAKE SOME OF THESE ADA COMPLIANT BECAUSE IT WOULD MAKE THE STAIRS ON SOME OF THE RAMPS GO.

I CANNOT RAISE THE FINISHED FLOOR HIGHER. I THINK WE HAVE A REVISED FINISHED FLOORS. WE HAVE AVERAGE LOT GRADES AND FINISHED ELEVATIONS ON EACH OF THESE. AND I RAISED THE FINISHED FLOOR AS HIGH AS I CAN WHILE MEETING YOUR SIDE YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENTS AND HEIGHT REQUIREMENTS AND THE WAY YOU CALCULATE AVERAGE LOT GRADES. MY ELEVATION IS PROBABLY TWO FEET BELOW WHERE MY FINISHED FLOOR IS GOING TO BE. THAT'S HOW THE CODE READS AND THAT'S HOW WE FOLLOW.

WE ARE ATTEMPTING BETWEEN BUILDINGS. WE UNDERSTAND IN BETWEEN THE SHARED LOT LINES THAT THERE WILL BE NO PENETRATION AND IT WOULD BE A SOLID WALL.

IT IS A COMMON, CONSTRUCTION ALLEY INDEPENDENT -- CONSTRUCTIONAL INDEPENDENT

WALL TO MEET THE FIRE CODE. >> MICHELLE, IS THE REQUIREMENT FOR RESIDENTIAL TO

HAVE DUMPSTERS IN A SCREENED AREA. >> YOU BEAT ME TO IT.

YEAH. MY CONCERN ESPECIALLY WITH ONE OF THEM NOT NECESSARILY SCREENED, BUT IT NEEDS TO BE OUT OF THE RIGHT OF WAY. PREFERABLY NOT SEEN, BUT THE UNIT ON LOT 27, WHERE ARE THEY GOING TO STORE THEIR TOTES? ALL OF THE OTHERS YOU CAN DO IT PROBABLY ON THE SIDE, BUT THAT ONE, WHERE ARE THEY GOING TO STORE IT?

>> YEAH, I JUST DON'T KNOW. MORE THAN LIKELY WE COULD HAVE SOME AGREEMENT WITH LOT 28 TO BE ABLE TO TAKE IT UNDERNEATH THE BUILDING. SINCE WE ARE GOING TO HAVE SPACE UNDERNEATH I GOTTA FIGURE OUT WHERE. WE CAN BUILD A LITTLE AREA BECAUSE THIS LOT GROUPING IS GOING TO BE SHARING PARKING AND IT IS SHIFTING.

WE COULD BUILD A QUAT RANT OVER -- QUADRANT OVER HERE. WE COULD BUILD SOMETHING HERE TO HOLD THOSE, AND OTHERWISE WE WILL HAVE TO FIND AREAS IN WHICH THEY CAN PUT THEIR

[00:30:05]

GARBAGE. >> WELL, NOT IN THE RIGHT OF WAY AND IF THEY DO RESORT RENTAL, IT IS MANDATORY ROLLOUT, ROLL BACK SERVICE WHICH MEANS THAT ADVANCE IS GOING TO GO AND GET THE TOTES AND BRING THEM OUT AND DUMP THEM AND PUT THEM BACK.

THAT HAS TO BE CONSIDERED AS WELL. >> OKAY.

>> AND THE CODE DOES REQUIRE IT BE SCREENED AND LANDSCAPED. YOU WILL WANT AN ENCLOSURE.

>> OKAY. YEAH. WITH THAT I MIGHT HAVE TO DO A LITTLE -- RIGHT BY THE PARKING AREA DO A LITTLE OFF SHOOTS TO HOUSE THEM AND THEN LANDSCAPE

AROUND THEM. >> I MEAN, IF THEY CAN GO UNDERNEATH --

>> YEAH. I AM JUST CONCERNED IF WE BUILD UNDERNEATH, HOW FAR ARE WE DROPPING DOWN AND IS THE GARBAGE SERVICE REALLY GOING TO COME AND GET THOSE?

>> THAT'S NUMBER ONE. AND NUMBER TWO IF YOU HAVE MATURE PEOPLE OF AGE, ARE THEY

GOING TO BE ABLE TO PULL THAT UP? >> EXACTLY.

>> ALL OF THOSE ARE CONSIDERATIONS. >> WE CAN PUT IT SOMEWHERE.

I CAN SEE HAVING TO TAKE THE WALL OUT AND CREATING AREAS ONE AND ONE AND ONE AND ONE AND ONE AND ONE. AND THEN ALL THREE OVER THERE.

WE CAN FIGURE SOMETHING OUT. >> JUST KEEP THAT IN MIND FOR YOUR PLANS.

>> I CAN JUST ADD REAL QUICK THERE IS A MANDATORY CODE REQUIREMENT ON THE SIDEWALK.

I CAN GIVE UH CODE REFERENCE. AND FOR PURPOSES OF CLARIFICATION ON THE NEED FOR VARIANCES THAT WE PREVIOUSLY DISCUSSED TOGETHER, IF THESE ARE BEING SIMPLE SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES WITHOUT INTENT TO DO RESORT RENTAL AS ALLOWED BY RIGHT WITH ZONING THERE WOULD BE NO CONCERN AT ALL WITH HAVING FRONT LOADED PARKING FOR RESIDENTIAL.

HOWEVER, IT IS THE RESORT RENTAL USE ITSELF THAT IS FORCING THE NEED FOR VARIANCE

IN THIS SCENARIO. >> YES. >> JUST FOR PURPOSES OF CLARIFYING THAT. THE OTHER PIECE WAS THE EXTENDED DRIVEWAY CUT IN ORDER TO PROVIDE FOR THE PARKING THAT IS FORCING A VARIANCE REQUEST AS WELL.

IT EXCEEDS THE RESIDENTIAL ALLOWANCE OF 20 FEET, I BELIEVE, IN SOME OF THOSE AREAS. I WANTED TO PROVIDE THAT LITTLE CLARIFICATION.

I KNOW MR. MCCRENIE IS WOK -- WORKING HARD WITH THE CODE FOR TREE PRESERVATION AND WORKING WITH THE COASTAL PROTECTION ZONE TO MAINTAIN THE TOPOGRAPHY AND THE DESIGN DOES SERVE TO REFLECT THAT INTENT OVERALL WITH THE CODE. IT UNFORTUNATELY PUSHES SOME

OTHER DESIGN CHALLENGES AS WELL. >> YES.

IT HAS BEEN VERY TRICKY. ABOUT THAT RESORT RENTAL PARKING IN THE FRONT, WE HAVE REQUESTED -- WE ARE IN THE PROCESS OF GETTING -- THE RULE WAS PUT IN IN 2006.

I'M NOT CERTAIN HOW OFTEN IT HAS BEEN FOLLOWED. WE ARE GOING TO ASK FOR THE VARIANCE UP FRONT INSTEAD OF AFTERWARD. SO WE HAVE A REQUEST TO FIND OUT HOW MANY RESORT RENTALS HAVE BEEN APPROVED SINCE 2006 WITH PARKING IN FRONT THAT

WOULD SUPPORT OUR REQUEST. >> SO IF THESE ARE BEING BUILT WITH THE INTENTION OF RESORT

RENTAL, THEN THEY WOULDN'T BE TRANSIENT HOUSING? >> NO.

IT IS SINGLE-FAMILY OWNED. >> BUT THE RESORT RENTAL PART THROWS IN THERE IF YOU'VE GOT HOUSING THAT IS -- AGAIN IN BUILDING CODE WE TALK ABOUT TRANSIENT HOUSING LIKE HOTELS, NOW YOU NEED TO PROVIDE ACCESSIBILITY, THE WAY IT READS HERE -- WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT RESIDENTIAL UNITS THAT ARE OTHER THAN SINGLE-FAMILY -- IF YOU ARE SINGLE-FAMILY YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTING THEM OUT WEEK TO WEEK AS A HOTEL OR MOTEL OR RESORT RENTAL BUSINESS. IT PUTS IT INTO A DIFFERENT CATEGORY.

THREE-SING GEM -- THREE-SINGLE NONTRANSIENT. >> IF YOU CAN SHOW ME EVERY

RENTAL IS WITH THAT CODE? >> THERE ARE A LOT OF RESORT RENTALS THAT HAVE MORPHED INTO RENTALS THAT ARE CORRECT. IF YOU BUILD IT TO BE TRANSIENT HOUSING IT IS NOT

REALLY R3 AND IT IS R2. >> WE ARE BUILDING THIS AS SINGLE-FAMILY AND KNOWING IT

COULD BE R3. >> IF YOU BUILD IT TO BE SINGLE-FAMILY, SINGLE-FAMILY IS SINGLE-FAMILY. IF YOU WANT TO MAKE IT INTO TRANSIENT HOUSING WHERE YOU

[00:35:01]

RENT IT OUT WEEK BY WEEK AND MONTH BY MONTH, THAT'S A DIFFERENT CATEGORY.

>> YOU WOULD HAVE TO SHOW ME. IT HAS BEEN DONE IN EVERY MANNER BEFORE US.

>> I HAVE TO SHOW YOU IF IT IS EVERY MANNER BEFORE. IF IT WASN'T THE CODE AND WASN'T IN FORCE NOW IT DOESN'T STOP ME FROM ENFORCING IT NOW.

>> FINE. WE WILL DO SINGLE-FAMILY TOWNHOMES AND FOLLOW WHATEVER BUILDING CODE IS REQUIRED THERE. THEN THAT OWNER MAY OR MAY NOT

ASK FOR R3 RESORT RENTAL. >> THE REASON I MENTION THAT IS OWNERS THAT ARE BUILDING CURRENTLY HAVE COME TO US AND SAID, HEY, WE MAY DO RESORT RENTAL.

WHEN THEY ARE DESIGNING THE HOUSE THEY HAVE TO MAKE SURE THERE IS THE PROPER FIRE SEPARATION. IN OTHER WORDS, IN A SINGLE-FAMILY HOUSE THEY WANT THREE UNITS AND THEY NEED PROPER ELECTRICAL REQUIREMENTS FOR THE INDIVIDUAL UNITS.

I CAN'T SPEAK ABOUT THE PAST, BUT IF SOMEONE WANTS TO LEGALLY DO A RESORT RENTAL AND BUILDING THERE ARE REQUIREMENTS FOR LIFE SAFETY IN THE BUILDING CODE BE MET.

WHEN YOU BUILD WITH THE INTENTION OF -- YOU KNOW, SAY THAT -- I WOULD SAY YOU WOULD WANT TO MEET THEM IF YOU WANT RESORT RENTAL AND NOT GET IN THE POSITION THAT, SORRY IT WASN'T BUILT CORRECTLY AND NOW YOU NEED MODIFICATION. TALK -- TALKING ABOUT ENFORCEMENT OF RESORT RENTAL. I DON'T THINK IT HAS BEEN STRONG IN ANY MUNICIPALITY.

I THINK IT IS A NEW THING. WITH REGARD TO THAT YOU WOULD HAVE THE CODE SAYS HERE IN THE ACCESSIBILITY THAT THE RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNIT WE WOULD NEED AT LEAST ONE PRIMARY ENTRANCE THAT COMPLIES WITH SECTION 44. YOU NEED ONE ACCESSIBLE ENTRANCE INTO THE BUILDING. YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT HOUSING THAT IS OTHER THAN SINGLE-FAMILY YOU MAY HAVE THOSE CONSIDERATIONS TO MAKE IF YOU HAVE THE INTENTION OF

MAKING IT RESORTS. >> WE POTENTIALLY ARGUE WE CAN HAVE ONE ADA COMPLIANT OUT OF THE 9 UNITS. HOWEVER, THERE IS NO WAY YOU COULD MAKE SOME OF THESE

OTHERS BECAUSE OF OTHER CODE REQUIREMENTS. >> I THINK YOU CAN DO THAT IF THEY ARE CLASSIFIED AS CONDOS OR MULTI-FAMILY WHERE THEY ARE ALL ONE ENTITY LIKE A CONDOMINIUM COMPLEX WHERE A CERTAIN AMOUNT ARE ACCESSIBLE.

IF THEY ARE SOLD INDEPENDENT WITH THE INTENTION OF RESORT RENTAL, THEN THE BUILDING CODE

DEFINES TRANSIENT-TYPE HOUSING AND IT IS NOT R3. >> WE WILL ARGUE THAT IT IS NOT TRANSIENT BUILDING. WE ARE GOING TO FOLLOW YOUR BUILDING CODE AS IS WRITTEN.

>> SO IF YOU APPLY AS AN R3 SINGLE-FAMILY THEN YOU WOULD BE OKAY.

>> YES. AND THAT'S WHAT IT IS. AND THEN AFTER THE FACT WE ARE GOING TO APPLY FOR RESORT RENTAL ABILITIES IF THE OWNERS -- SO THE OWNER CANS RENT THEM

OUT. >> THE QUESTION IS BEING ABLE TO MOVE THE CODE REQUIREMENT.

THEN YOU PUSH US INTO A CORNER. INDIVIDUALLY THOSE HOMEOWNERS WILL HAVE TO COME AND SEEK A VARIANCE FROM THE CODE TO DO RESORT RENTALS SINCE THEY HAVE FRONT LOADED PARKING AND THERE

ARE OTHER REQUIREMENTS THAT ARE NOT MET EITHER. >> SO ARE YOU TELLING ME THAT EVERYBODY WHO APPLIES FOR RESORT RENTAL HAS THEN -- HAS TO ALSO MAKE SURE THAT THEIR

HOUSE IS FULLY ADA ACCESSIBLE WITH AT LEAST ONE DOOR? >> I WILL ASK MICHELLE ON THIS. APPLYING FOR RESORT RENTALS MOVING FORWARD, THERE ARE DEFINITELY REQUIREMENTS FOR INSPECTIONS AND FOR THINGS TO BE LOOKED AT.

HISTORICALLY THE CITY HAS NOT BEEN DOING THAT. I DON'T KNOW IF THAT WILL STAY THE SAME. WHEN PEOPLE ARE APPLYING FOR RESORT RENTALS THERE ARE REQUIREMENTS THAT IT HAS TO BE USED THAT WAY. SO THAT MAY BE SOMETHING THAT CHANGES. I THINK AS PEOPLE START TO APPLY FOR RESORT RENTALS WE NEED TO MAKE SURE IT IS SAFE. IF PEOPLE ARE TAKING A SINGLE FAMILY HOUSE THAT THEY HAVE DIVIDED INTO THREE APARTMENTS AND PUTTING THEM ON AIRBNB WE COULD DENY THE RESORT RENTAL

BECAUSE IT IS NOT A SAFE PROPERTY TO USE THAT WAY. >> I UNDERSTAND.

THESE WILL BE POTENTIALLY INDIVIDUALLY OWNED. YOU CAN OWN ONE HALF OF A TOWNHOME AND THEN THAT PERSON WOULD COME AND WHAT WE WANT TO DO IS MAKE SURE THEY HAVE THE ABILITY TO COME TO THE CITY AND GET THAT RESORT RENTAL PERMIT.

IF YOUR RESORT RENTAL CHECKLIST SAYS EVERYTHING MUST BE ADA ACCESSIBLE, I DON'T THINK IT IS IN THERE. CERTAINLY IT IS NOT IN OUR RESEARCH.

[00:40:02]

>> IT MAY NOT BE. >> AND WE HAVE MADE AN INVESTMENT UNDERSTANDING YOUR RULES TODAY. IF YOU START TO CHANGE THE RULES --

>> BUT YOU ARE MAKING THE INVESTMENT AS AN R3 SINGLE-FAMILY HOUSE.

THAT'S WHAT YOU SAID. >> I SAID THIS IS GOING TO BE RESORT RENTAL.

>> YOU SAID YOU ARE GOING TO MEET THE CODE AND APPLY IT AS AN R3.

AND THAT'S FINE AND YOU CAN DO THAT AND IT IS OKAY. IF THEY DECIDE THEN TO APPLY FOR RESORT RENTAL LATER AND WE HAPPEN TO START REQUIRING THESE INSPECTIONS THAT LOOK FOR SAFE USE OF THE BUILDINGS, THEN THEY MAY NOT BE ABLE TO GET IT.

>> I GET THE SAFE USE. TOTALLY WANT SAFETY. BUT IF YOU START CHANGING YOUR CHECKLIST AND CHANGING YOUR REQUIREMENTS AND ADDING THINGS LIKE OH THEY HAVE TO BE ALL ADA ACCESSIBLE, THAT WOULD CREATE A PROBLEM AND WE WILL LOOK TO WHAT YOU HAVE DONE AS

PRECEDENCE FOR EVERY SINGLE ONE ELSE. >> MAY I ADDRESS THIS?

>> YES. >> I WILL SPEAK ON WHAT HAS BEEN DONE IN THE PAST AND WHAT IS CURRENTLY BEING DONE. IN THE PAST CODE ENFORCEMENT ACTUALLY WENT OUT AND DID ALL OF THE INSPECTIONS FOR RESORT RENTALS. WHEN THEY REVAMPED THE PROCEDURES, IT WAS DECIDED THAT CODE ENFORCEMENT COULD DO IT, BUT IT WAS PREFERABLE FOR THE PROPERTY OWNER TO HIRE A HOME WITH AN INSPECTOR USING OUR CHECKLIST WHICH IS LIFE SAFETY ISSUES. THERE IS NO ADA REQUIREMENTS ON THE CHECKLIST AT PRESENT.

TO MY KNOWLEDGE THAT HAS NOT BEEN CHANGED. AS FAR AS WHAT REQUIREMENTS ARE NEEDED IF YOU KNOW RIGHT NOW THAT'S WHAT YOU ARE GOING TO DO, THAT'S A WHOLE DIFFERENT ISSUE. THAT WOULD BE PLANNING AND I GUESS BUILDING.

JUST TO ADDRESS THE ADA STUFF DOES NOT EXIST ON THAT CHECKLIST.

>> I WANT TO PUT MY COMMENTS AS, AGAIN IF YOUR INTENT IS TO USE IN THAT MANNER WHEN YOU BUILD NEW YOU HAVE TO MEET THOSE REQUIREMENTS. IF YOU ARE GOING TO TAKE AN EXISTING BUILDING AND APPLY LATER, THEN THERE IS SOME ALLOWANCES MADE FOR THE EXISTING BUILDING.

WHEN YOU READ THE BUILDING CODE RESIDENTIAL GROUP R2 REQUIRED -- LISTS THINGS LIKE APARTMENT HOUSES AND BOARDING HOUSES AND CONGREGATE LIVING, HOTELS, FRATERNITIES, MOTELS AND VACATION TIME SHARE PROPERTIES.

>> THIS IS NONE OF THOSE. >> THIS IS NONE OF THOSE.

>> SO THEN R3 IS OWNER OCCUPIED LODGING HOUSES WITH FIVE OR FEWER GUEST ROOMS AND 10 OR FEWER OCCUPANTS.

THAT'S THE DEFINITION OF R3, OWNER OCCUPIED.

IF YOU ARE RENTING IT OUT WEEK TO WEEK OR MONTH TO MONTH,

THAT'S NOT OWNER OCCUPIED. >> YOU ARE ALLOWED IN YOUR CITY'S CODE IN R3 TO BUILD A TWO-UNIT TOWNHOME.

>> UNDER THE CITY ZONING PROVISIONS UNDER THE R3 ZONING DISTRICT IT DOES ALLOW FOR WEEKLY RENTAL.

WHERE YOU GO TO CONSTRUCT THAT TYPE OF UNIT YOU HAVE TO COMPLY WITH ALL OF THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE FLORIDA

BUILDING CODE. >> TRUE.

UNDER WHAT THE HOUSE IS GOING TO BE.

A SINGLE-FAMILY HOUSE WITH THE ABILITY TO RENT IT OUT.

>> BUT IT IS FUNCTIONALLY OPERATING -- THE INTENT IS TO BUILD THEM FOR SHORT-TERM RENTAL, IS IT NOT?

>> THE USE IS CERTAINLY THERE -- CERTAINLY THAT.

WHAT MAY HAPPEN IS SOMEBODY BUYS A TWO-UNIT COMPLEX AND LIVES IN ONE AND RENTS OUT THE OTHER.

OR LIVES IN ONE SOME OF THE TIME BECAUSE THEY MAY LIVE JUST OUT IN ANOTHER STATE AND RENT IT OUT SHORT-TERM WHEN

THEY ARE NOT HERE. >> AND IN ORDER TO DO THAT YOU WOULD NEED TO COMPLY WITH THE FLORIDA BUILDING CODE FOR THAT TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION. IT WOULD ALLOW FOR THEM TO DO THAT WITHOUT ANY ISSUE MOVING FORWARD.

THAT'S WHAT YOU ARE REALLY AFTER.

YOU DON'T WANT TO CREATE A HEADACHE FOR YOUR BUYER.

>> AND LET ME CLARIFY AGAIN. YOU ARE CORRECT IN THAT YOU COULD BUILD THEM R3 AND YOU COULD POTENTIALLY RENT SOMETHING OUT WHETHER IT IS SIX MONTHS OR A YEAR, RIGHT? OUR CURRENT RESORT RENTAL REQUIREMENTS DON'T HAVE THIS THERE. BUT I AM SAYING FROM A DESIGN STANDPOINT THAT IF YOUR INTENT IS TO MAKE IT THAT MAYBE IS

[00:45:04]

POTENTIALLY RENTED OUT WEEK BY WEEK BY WEEK.

IF YOU ARE BUILDING IT TO BE THAT, THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WOULD BE REQUIRED IN THAT TYPE OF OCCUPANCY.

SO OUR RESORT RENTAL CODES MAY NOT CHANGE AND THEY MAY CHANGE. I AM JUST SAYING FROM WHAT I SEE, THE WHOLE RESORT RENTAL THING IS KIND OF SOMETHING THAT CONSTANTLY CHANGING. I KNOW THAT WE AS A CITY ARE GOING TO AND ARE STARTING TO TAKE A A MORE PRO ACTIVE ROLE IN FINDING THESE RENTAL THAT'S ARE NOT REPORTED TO US AND REQUIRE THEM TO BE LISTED AS RENTALS AND DO THE PROPER INSPECTIONS. RIGHT NOW WE ARE DOING IT BASICALLY SOMEBODY COMES IN AND INSPECTS IT AND SAYS IT IS

SAFE. >> I AM COMPLETELY -- THE WHOLE CODE ABOUT SAFETY AND EVERYTHING ELSE, WE CAN MEET IT AND WE WILL MEET IT. IT IS TRYING TO -- MY STICKING POINT IS I KNOW IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO MEET THE ADA COMPLIANCE FOR EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THESE BUILDINGS.

IT CAN BE DONE WITH THE CODE YOU HAVE IN PLACE.

>> THEN I WOULD SAY WHEN YOU GO TO APPLY FOR BUILDINGS IT WILL BE AN R3 OCCUPANCY. AGAIN, IN MY OPINION WHEN I SEE SOMEONE WANTS TO BUILD SOMETHING FOR THE INTENT OF IT BEING TRANSIENT HOUSING, THAT'S R2.

THERE ARE DIFFERENT REQUIREMENTS FOR R2.

>> I GUESS WE WILL -- I NEED TO BETTER UNDERSTAND THE DEFINITION OF TRANSIENT HOUSING TO FIND OUT IF THIS

FALLS UNDER IT. >> AND JUST TO CLARIFY, WE CAN'T TOUCH OUR RESORT RENTAL ORDINANCE, LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE. WE CAN'T TOUCH IT.

IF BE TOUCH IT RIGHT NOW THE WAY THE STATE LAW READS AND/OR -- ANYWAY, IF YOU DO, YOU LOSE THAT ABILITY COMPLETELY TO REGULATE SHORT-TERM.

WE CANNOT TOUCH IT UNTIL THAT IS OVERTURNED AND THEY HAVE BEEN TRYING TO DO THAT FOR AWHILE AND IT IS NOT HAPPENING. I JUST WANT TO PUT THAT OUT THERE THAT BE CAN'T MESS WITH IT.

>> IT MAKES A HUGE DIFFERENCE IN THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY, AND WE CERTAINLY WOULDN'T HAVE BOTHERED TO DO WHAT WE WANTED

TO DO. >> IS THERE ANY OTHER COMMENTS YOU WANT TO PROVIDE AS FAR AS THE INITIAL DESIGN INSPIRATION

HERE? >> I HAVE YOUR ADDRESSES.

>> OH, YOU DO? >> IF YOU WANT THEM.

YOU CAN JUST HAVE IT. IT IS A COPY.

>> OKAY. THANK YOU.

>> DID YOU HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? CAN WE PROVIDE YOU WITH INFORMATION?

>> NO. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

>> THE NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS TO CONSIDER A CHANGE OF USE

[6.3 Pre-Application Discussion - Asa Gillette, Gillette & Associates, Inc., 604 North 14th Street - To discuss site compliance for mixed used occupancy for an existing commercial building. The property is zoned C-1. ]

FOR A PROPERTY LOCATED AT 604 NORTH 14TH STREET.

THIS IS AT THE CORNER OF FRANKLIN AND NORTH 14TH STREET AND I DO HAVE THE PROPERTY PULLED UP HERE.

IS THERE SOMEBODY HERE TO REPRESENT THIS PROJECT PERCHANCE? OH, YES.

WELCOME. >> I WILL SIT NEXT TO ASA.

WE HAVE BEEN TALKING TO EACH OTHER.

>> SO THIS IS -- >> THANK YOU.

>> IF YOU WANT TO JUST PROVIDE US WITH A BIT OF AN OVER VIEW HERE ON WHAT THE REQUEST IS. THIS IS 406 ASH STREET AND

UNIT FOR THE APPLICANT. >> ASA JAW LET AND -- GILLETTE AND GILLETTE AND ASSOCIATES, ENGINEER.

>> THIS PROPERTY WAS PURCHASED SEVERAL YEARS AGO.

THEY HAVE TRIED TO FIGURE OUT THE VARIOUS ISSUES.

THE OWNER MOVED IN TO THE PROMOTIONAL SIDE AND THE OWNER HAS BEEN CITED FOR HAVING BUILDINGS WITHOUT OCCUPATIONAL LICENSES. MY CLIENT IS THE APPLICANT.

MICHELLE HAS GRACIOUSLY GIVEN US AN EXTENSION TO COME INTO COMPLIANCE. WE HAD ILLEGAL SIGNS ON THE PROPERTY. WE HAD VARIOUS COMMERCIAL USES IN THERE THAT HAVE NOT BEEN PROPERLY HAVE NOT HAD

COMMERCIAL LICENSES. >> LOCAL BUSINESS TAX

LICENSE. >> THE LOCAL BUSINESS TAX LICENSE. AND THE BUILDING HAS NOT BEEN

[00:50:05]

-- HAS NOT MET THAT. TODAY WE ARE HERE TO TALK ABOUT WHAT IS ON THE COMMERCIAL SIDE AND WHAT WE INTEND TO DO AND GIVE YOU AN OVER VIEW OF HOW WE TO SATISFY THIS. AND TO THAT END, ASA.

>> THIS PARTICULAR PROPERTY, WE ARE NOT LOOKING TO -- EXTEND ANYTHING. WE JUST WANT TO MAKE IT TO COME INTO COMPLIANCE. I DON'T KNOW IF ANY OF THE STAFF WAS HERE WHEN WE CAME IN ONE TIME BEFORE?

>> I WAS HERE. >> WERE YOU HERE?

>> UH-HUH. >> AT ONE POINT WE HAD GONE THROUGH THIS AND IT NEVER MATERIALIZED.

WE WENT BACK TO REVISIT ALONG THE SAME LINES OF WHAT WE HAD DONE BEFORE WHICH IS TO PLACE PARKING OUT FRONT WHICH IS WHAT THEY ARE USING IT FOR NOW AND THEN THERE IS ADDITIONAL PARKING IN THE BACK TO ACCOMMODATE THIS -- THE USES AS WE CAN SEE IT NOW, THE NORTHERN HALF WOULD BE PROFESSIONAL OFFICE AND THE SOUTHERN HALF WOULD BE ARTISON. AND THERE IS NO REAL TRAFFIC COMING IN AND OUT. THE OTHER IS A GEO TECHNICAL FIRM. THEY HAVE A SOUTHERN DIVISION DOWN HERE. THEY HAVE A PROFESSIONAL OFFICE. THEY HAVE THE LUXE OF TAKING -- THE LUXURY OF TAKING VEHICLES AND PARKING THEM AROUND BACK. WE DO OUR BEST TO CLEAN UP THE FRONT A LITTLE BIT AND TAKE A LITTLE BIT OF -- TAKE A LITTLE PARKING SPACE OUT TO FREE UP THE VISIBILITY ON FRANKLIN AND 14TH AND ADD AN ADA SPACE THAT IS COMPLIANT TO THE ADA ACCESS TO THE FRONT OF THE BUILDING.

UNFORTUNATELY IN DOING THIS PART OF THE PARKING SPACE DOES GO TO THE RIGHT OF WAY. AS IT STANDS RIGHT NOW, THEY ARE LOSING THAT. IT IS NOT MUCH.

IT IS JUST THE WAY THE BUILDING HAS BEEN POSITIONED OVER THE YEARS AND WE ARE TRYING TO FOLLOW THE SAME

PATH. >> YOU KNOW THAT IS -- YOU

KNOW THAT IS A COUNTY RUN? >> 14TH.

>> THERE IS LIKE A SITE PLAN IN YOUR PACKET.

>> WE DID A PRE-DEVELOPED AND POST-DEVELOPED AND YOU CAN SEE THAT THERE IS MORE GREEN SPACE AND CLEANING UP THE VISIBILITY. WE ARE TRYING TO REUSE AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE TRYING TO MAKE IT ADA COMPLY -- ADA COMPLY YEBT -- COMPLIANT. NOTHING HAS BEEN TACKLED

INSIDE THE BUILDING. >> YOU SAID ARTISON AND THEN SURFBOARD. MAKING SURFBOARDS, FIBERGLASS? I DON'T KNOW WHAT THEY USE

BEFORE THEY GLASS IT. >> WE WOULD HAVE TO CROSS THAT

BRIDGE. >> PROBABLY AN F1 WITH THAT.

>> AND WE UNDERSTAND THAT THERE IS GOING TO BE SOME DIFFICULTIES THAT WE WILL HAVE TO ADDRESS INSIDE THE BUILDING BASE I HAD -- BASED ON USE AND ADA AND WE WILL CROSS THAT

BRIDGE. >> YEAH, WHAT THE APPLICANT IS TRYING TO DO, HE IS JUST TRYING TO DETERMINE IF IT IS GOING TO BE FINANCIALLY SENSIBLE TO ALLOW THE ARTISONS TO STAY OR IF HE WILL HAVE TO VACATE THE BUILDING AND GO A

DIFFERENT DIRECTION. >> AND HE MAY HAVE TO.

ONCE THE ARCHITECT COMES BACK AND SAYS THIS IS WHAT YOU NEED TO DO, IT MAY NOT BE COST FEASIBLE.

>> THE PERSON IN THERE IS NOT ZONED FOR ANYTHING.

IT IS JUST SHAPING BOARDS AND THINGS LIKE THAT.

THERE IS NOT A LOT OF TRAFFIC THERE.

>> IT MIGHT JUST BE A MATTER OF HAVING THE RIGHT SEPARATION BETWEEN THE BUILDINGS AND THAT'S IT.

THAT COULD BE A VERY SIMPLE THING TO DO TOO.

>> YEAH BECAUSE IT IS A VERY LARGE SPACE AND WE WALKED WITH THE CLIENT, AND YES, IT COULD JUST BE A SEPARATION.

>> YEAH, THERE ARE SOME BUILDING INTERIOR COMPLIANCE

ISSUES. >> IS IT ONE SERVICE --

UTILITY SERVICE? >> FOR COMMERCIAL SPACE, YES.

>> FOR THE WATER. NOT FOR THE ELECTRICAL.

>> YES. >> AND I KNOW AT ONE POINT

THERE WAS A RESTAURANT. >> IS THERE ANY INCREASE IN SEWER USAGE FOR OFFICE AND SO I DON'T THINK THERE IS AN

[00:55:05]

IMPACT. >> THERE IS ACTUALLY REDUCTION

IN USE. >> YEAH.

I DON'T SEE ADDITIONAL FEES. >> WE HAVE A REDUCTION IN ALL

SORTS OF ISSUES. >> FROM A DRAINAGE AND UTILITY PER SPEC STIFF, I DON'T -- PERSPECTIVE, WE DON'T HAVE ANY

ISSUES. >> WE DON'T HAVE A TREE SURVEY. WE HAVE SOME OPEN SPACE WITH THE ADDITIONAL PARKING IN THE BACK AND WE MAY HAVE TO

RECONFIGURE THAT. >> I'M SORRY.

THE GRAVEL IS NOT THERE. I THOUGHT THAT AREA WAS ALL

HARD? >> PART THEY DIDN'T DO.

THEY PUT PART OF IT IN AND WE WILL HAVE TO GO BACK THERE.

>> WE WILL HAVE TO SEE IF THAT GENERATES --

>> WE WILL TAKE A LOOK. WE GOT 20 OF THEM BACK.

>> I DON'T SEE THAT AS BEING AN ISSUE.

>> WHERE THE ISSUE IS GOING TO BE IS THE PARKING IN THE

FRONT. >> UNDERSTANDABLE.

>> WITH THE COUNTY ALLOWING YOU TO BACK OUT INTO THEIR DRIVEWAY. THAT'S WHERE THE ISSUE WILL BE. THAT IS A HANDICAPPED PARKING SPACE AND WE NEED TO ASSURE THAT THE EXISTING PAVEMENT

WILL MEET ADA REQUIREMENTS. >> AND IT IS GOING TO BE COMPLETELY COMMERCIAL AND NO RESIDENTIAL, IS THAT CORRECT?

>> NOT IN THAT BUILDING. >> RIGHT, THAT BUILDING IS

TOTALLY -- >> YEAH, THAT'S THE ONLY ONE I AM WORRIED ABOUT. I KNOW THE OTHERS ARE NONCONFORMING AND IT HAS BEEN RESIDENTIAL FOR QULEERS.

>> THAT'S NOT PART OF THE SCOPE.

>> IS THERE A PLANNED DUMPSTER AROUND BACK?

>> I DON'T SEE A DUMPSTER. >> THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION.

>> THE ONLY PERSON THAT MAY NEED THAT IS THE ARTISON GUY.

THE REST SHOULD HANDLE IT. LET ME CHECK THAT FOR YOU.

>> JUST HAVE TO MAKE SURE THAT THE TRUCK CAN GET DOWN THERE AND ACCESS IT. I KNOW THAT THERE IS TREES AND STUFF BACK THERE. IT IS JUST A CONSIDERATION.

>> IT HASN'T CAUSED A PROBLEM YET.

>> I DON'T THINK THERE IS A DUMPSTER BACK THERE.

IS THERE? >> OH, OKAY.

I DIDN'T NOTICE IT. >> I DIDN'T EITHER.

>> CAN YOU SEE IT IN THE AERIAL?

>> YEAH, LET ME PULL IT UP. >> WHERE IS IT?

>> THAT'S OKAY. I KNOW [INAUDIBLE].

>> AND THEN ZOOM IN RIGHT ABOUT THERE.

>> LOOK AT THAT. GOOD EYE.

>> SO AGAIN, THEY HAVE TO BE ENCLOSED AND LANDSCAPED.

THAT'S IF THEY KEEP IT OR WHATEVER THEY DO FOR GARBAGE.

>> SO THE ARTISON IS IN THE SPACE I HAVE HIGHLIGHTED

HERE? >> NO.

HE IS ON THE SOUTHERN. IT IS A REALLY LARGE SPACE.

>> SO ALL OF THE DOORS ON THE OTHER SIDE AND ON THE -- AND THEN ON THE SOUTH SIDE THERE IS A DOOR.

WHAT IS GOING ON WITH THOSE DOORS?

>> WE HAVEN'T GOT THROUGH THESE INTERIOR SPACES.

THE -- IT IS WHERE THE PATH IS LEADING.

>> WE CAN GO TO THE SAME SPACE AND THE ONES ON THE BACK.

THERE IS A STORAGE ON HERE. THERE IS LIKE THREE DOORS OR

SOMETHING. >> IT IS HALF THE DISTANCE REQUIREMENTS. AND YOU ARE USING THE WHOLE SOUTH END AND YOU HAVE THE RESIDENTIAL.

I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE DISTANCE IS BETWEEN BUILDINGS.

[01:00:03]

THERE MAY BE OPENINGS. >> ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT BUILDING SEPARATION INCIDENCES?

>> ARE THERE CODES? >> IF YOU ARE DOING A CHANGE OF USE IN AN AREA -- I MEAN IF ARE YOU DOING A CHANGE IN USE AND THE FIRE SEPARATION FOR THAT, THEN YOU HAVE TO CONSIDER THE SEPARATION BETWEEN THEM AND THAT'S ANOTHER BUILDING THERE. IT MAY BE A CLOSING OF WINDOWS. IT IS PROBABLY A MATTER OF WHETHER YOU WILL HAVE THE OPENINGS ALLOWED OR NOT.

IT IS A NONSPRINKLER BUILDING?

>> NONSPRINKLER. IF YOU DO IT ONE MORE TIME.

>> YOU PROBABLY HAVE THE DISTANCE TO BE FINE.

>> THIS IS THE DISTANCE. GOOD JOB.

>> IT COULD BE SOMETHING WHERE WE HAVE A WALL AND THEN TAKE OUT AN OPENING WINDOW AND PUT IN A BLOCK WINDOW.

>> COVER IT WITH SHUDDERS. >> AND THAT'S WHERE WE ARE AT. HE WAS CITED FOR NOT PROPERLY CHANGING THE USE AND NOW HE IS LOOKING INTO WHETHER OR NOT IT IS WORTH IT TO TRY AND DO THIS.

A LOT OF THESE CHANGES WE TRIED TO EXPLAIN TO HIM.

RIGHT NOW IT IS AN ARTISON SURFBOARD MAKER WITHOUT ANY SALES. IT IS A LOT OF WORK.

SO WE WILL JUST LOOK AT IT. AND LOOKING AT THESE CHANGES IF THERE ARE OTHER INTERESTS THAT WOULD BE LESS.

>> KELLY DO YOU FEEL WE NEED -- [INAUDIBLE].

>> I DON'T GET TO MAKE THAT CALL.

LEE, IT IS UP TO THE BOARD. >> I WILL SAY THAT FROM A PARKING PERSPECTIVE, CERTAINLY IN MAKING IMPROVEMENTS WHICH ONLY CONTINUE THE NONCONFORMING SITUATION WE HAVE FOR PARKING, RATHER THAN MAKING IMPROVEMENTS WHICH WOULD BE CONSISTENT WITH OUR CODE, I WOULD RATHER SEE THE FOCUS OF THOSE IMPROVEMENTS MADE TO THE SIDE OR THE REAR OF THE STRUCTURE SO IT IS CLOSER TO COMPLIANCE.

>> SO IT IS BEING SHOWN ON THE LEFT.

>> SO IF YOU DO HAVE ENTRY INTO THIS AREA HERE, YOU KNOW, WHILE PROTECTING THE TREES, I THINK MAKING SOME IMPROVEMENTS TO THE SIDE OR THE REAR OF THE STRUCTURE WHICH SERVE TO MEET

OUR CODE WOULD BE PREFERRED. >> YOU CAN GET IT.

>> ADA COMPLIANCE WILL NOT BE [INAUDIBLE] ON THE SOUTH SIDE -- I MEAN THEY MAY HAVE A HARD TIME GETTING THROUGH.

>> RIGHT. IF WE CAN TRY TO REDUCE THE AMOUNT OF NEW IMPROVEMENTS AND INVESTMENTS THAT ARE GOING IN WHICH IS NONCOMPLIANT I WOULD RATHER SEE THAT EFFORT MADE

FIRST. >> AND IF THE COUNTY DOES NOT ADD THE PARKING WE CAN GO TO PARALLEL.

I DON'T KNOW IF I HAVE SEEN A PARALLEL HANDICAPPED SPACE.

>> YOU ARE STILL BACKING OUT OF THE COUNTY DRIVEWAY.

>> I THINK I WOULD -- MY PREFERENCE WOULD BE TO SEE THIS COME BACK IN A PRE-APPLICATION DISCUSSION BASED ON THE FINDINGS WHAT YOU RECEIVE FROM NASSAU COUNTY AND TALK ABOUT NEXT STEPS TOGETHER AND MAKING SOME OF THE MODIFICATIONS BEFORE IT GOES TO PERMITTING.

THEN YOU CAN SEE THE ENCLOSURES, WHERE THAT WILL BE, AS WELL AS ANY OTHER SITE IMPROVEMENTS.

>> AND YOU MIGHT HAVE A BETTER IDEA OF WHAT'S GOING TO OCCUPY

THE SPACE. >> RIGHT.

[01:05:08]

>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? >> IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE?

>> I THINK YOU HAVE A LONG ENOUGH LIST.

>> YES, WE DO. >> SO WE WILL SEE THIS COME BACK AT SOME POINT WHEN YOU ARE READY.

>> YEAH, I THINK IT WILL BE JANUARY, AFTER THE HOLIDAYS.

I WILL HAVE TO TALK WITH CODE ENFORCEMENT ON WHAT WE NEED TO DO, AND WE WILL DO THAT, AND WE'LL BE BACK.

>> THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU SO MUCH.

>> THANK YOU. >> THE NEXT ITEM ON OUR AGENDA

[6.4 Pre-Application Discussion - John Hillman, 3163 Bailey Rd. - To discuss adapting a warehouse building into a woodworking shop. This property is zoned I-1. ]

IS TO CONSIDER A CHANGE OF USE FOR A PROPERTY LOCATED OFF OF BAILEY ROAD. IT IS INDUSTRIALLY ZONED AND I HAVE MR. HILLMAN HERE REPRESENTING THE PROJECT.

LET'S GET THE PLAT PULLED UP. THIS IS BAILEY AND GREEN ISLAND DRIVE AND IT IS A REUSE OF A STRUCTURE TO CREATE ARTISON MANUFACTURING. I AM NOT ENTIRELY CERTAIN WHICH BUILDING THIS IS. MAYBE YOU CAN HELP POINT IT

OUT. >> IT IS THE 3169.

AND FOR THE RECORD, JOHN HILLMAN, APARTMENT 12.

SO TO GIVE YOU A LITTLE BACKGROUND, THIS WAS A COUNTY MAINTENANCE YARD, AS YOU ALL KNOW.

THAT BUILDING LOOKS LIKE IT HAD A HISTORY OF SPARE PARTS AND MAINTENANCE IN THAT BUILDING.

THERE WAS A BIG GARAGE DOOR BAY.

IT HAS BEEN SITTING IDLE. WE WERE STORING ITEMS IN IT, LIGHTS AND OTHER SUPPLIES. WHAT WE WOULD LOVE TO DO IN THIS BUILDING WITH ALL OF THE DETAILS PUTTING ON OUR HOMES THERE IS A NEED FOR CARPENTRY SERVICES WHETHER IT IS MAKING DOORS, SHUDDERS AND THE CORE MOLDS UP ON THE HOUSES TO MIMIC WHAT WE SEE HERE DOWNTOWN.

THERE IS A ARTIST THAT WOULD LOVE TO HAVE PAINTERS AND BASICALLY EQUIPMENT IN THERE TO MAKE THIS -- MAKE THESE ITEMS. WE CREATE LITTLE JOBS AND IT WOULD CREATE A BRAND AROUND THE DETAILS AND WHAT WE ARE TRYING TO DO. INSTEAD OF BUYING IT FROM GOD KNOWS WHERE WE CAN MAKE IT RIGHT.

THAT WAS SORT OF THE IDEA AND THERE IS NO PLAN TO ADD ANYTHING PHYSICALLY ON THE INSIDE.

WE JUST WANT TO USE THIS SPACE.

THAT WOULD BE IT. >> FROM A USE PERSPECTIVE OF SOMETHING THAT IS USEFUL AND IN OUR CODE REQUIREMENTS THIS IS COMING BEFORE THE BOARD BECAUSE IT IS FROM THE PRIOR MAINTENANCE AND GARAGE THAT WAS UNDER THE COUNTY'S OWNERSHIP PREVIOUSLY. IF THERE IS ANY COMMENTS?

>> I'M ASSUME THRG IS A RESTROOM -- I'M ASSUME THRG IS

A RESTROOM FACILITY THERE? >> THERE IS.

>> I DON'T THINK THERE WILL BE A CHANGE IN WASTE WATER FLOW FROM PREVIOUS USES OF A MECHANIC SHOP/GARAGE TO A SMALL FACILITY. SO FROM A UTILITIES AND STORM WATER PERSPECTIVE I DON'T SEE ISSUES WITH THE CHANGE.

I WILL SEE IF IT IS EXPHG WE NEED TO -- IF IT IS SOMETHING WE NEED TO DOCUMENT FOR SERVICE.

I THINK WE WILL AT LEAST NEED TO TAKE THAT STEP.

DOES IT HAVE ITS OWN METER AND UTILITY ACCOUNT, DO YOU KNOW?

>> I THINK IT IS ACTUALLY TIED TO MY BUILDING WHERE I AM AT.

>> IT DOES HAVE A METER. >> IT HAS A METER IN THE

BACK. >> I BELIEVE YOU'RE RIGHT.

>> GARBAGE, WHAT ARE YOU USING?

>> WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO USE? >> IT IS WHERE IT NEEDS TO BE. IT IS SCRAP WOOD AND MINOR GARBAGE FROM THE ONE OR TWO PEOPLE.

IS THERE A REQUIREMENT? >> YEAH, ARE YOU GOING TO NEED TO ENCLOSE IT AND LANDSCAPE IT.

REGARDLESS OF WHAT IT IS. IT SOUNDS LIKE YOU ARE PROBABLY GOING TO -- YOU MIGHT NEED A SMALL ROLLOFF.

IF YOU WILL HAVE CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS IN THERE, THAT'S PROBABLY WHAT YOU ARE GOING TO NEED.

>> YOU CAN PROBABLY PUT IT ON THE WEST SIDE OF THE BUILDING SO IT IS NOT VISIBLE FROM THE STREET.

[01:10:05]

>> THERE WILL BE A CHANGE IN USE IN THE BUILDING CODE.

IT IS FROM A CARPENTRY, CABINET TREE SHOP IS LISTED AS AN F1. THERE MAY NOT BE A LOT OF REQUIREMENTS FOR YOU OTHER THAN JUST REVISITING YOUR HEATING AND VENTILATION FOR THE SPACE.

BEING A SEPARATE BUILDING LIKE THAT, I DON'T -- IT LOOKS LIKE YOU WOULD MEET ANY FIRE SEPARATION REQUIREMENTS, THINGS LIKE THAT. IT IS CLEARLY AN F1 AND IT COULD HAVE BEEN A UTILITY OR AN S2 LOW HAZARD-TYPE OCCUPANCY WITH THE MECHANIC-TYPE THING.

I DON'T KNOW FOR SURE WHAT IT WAS.

IT IS PROBABLY A CHANGE TO AN F1 BECAUSE F1 DOES NOT INCLUDE WHAT WAS JUST DESCRIBED AS WHAT WAS THERE BEFORE.

AGAIN, ARE YOU LOOKING AT THINGS MAKING SURE YOU HAVE THE REST OF THE FACILITIES AND MAKING SURE THERE ARE RESTROOM FACILITY. IF THEY ARE NOT THERE, YOU WOULD HAVE TO MAKE SURE THEY ARE ACCESSIBLE.

YOU GET THE ONE BECAUSE THERE IS NOT ENOUGH OCCUPANCY.

THAT'S ABOUT ALL I CAN THINK OF THAT WOULD BE THAT PENALTY.

>> SOUNDS LIKE WE DO THE PAPERWORK AND YOU COME OUT FOR AN INSPECTION. WHAT IS THE PROCESS?

>> SHOW A FLOOR PLAN OF WHAT IS THERE.

WE WILL LOOK AT IT JUST TO CONFIRM THE CHANGE IN OCCUPANCY AND CHANGE OF USE AND JUST TO MAKE SURE -- I KNOW THE ACCESSIBILITY WILL KICK IN.

SO AN ACCESSIBLE RESTROOM OR ACCESS TO.

SO EVEN IF YOU -- IT IS ALL THE SAME OWNER, RIGHT? IF IT DOESN'T HAVE AN ACCESSIBLE FACILITY AND YOU HAVE IT IN THE SALES OFFICE AND IT IS IN THAT ENVIRONMENT, YOU COULD PUT AN ACCESSIBLE PATH AND PROVIDE IT THERE.

IT IS GOING TO BE REQUIRED, BUT WHERE YOU PROVIDE IT, YOU

HAVE SOME OPTIONS. >> IT WOULD MEET THAT REQUIREMENT. AND WOULD IT BE PUBLIC

[INAUDIBLE] >> ARE THE ADDRESSES THE SAME OR ARE THEY TWO SEPARATE ADDRESSES?

>> TWO SEPARATE ADDRESSES. >> THEN YOU WOULD NEED AN ADDITIONAL MULTI-BUSINESS TAX RECEIPT.

>> I KNEW YOU WERE GOING TO SAY THAT.

>> IT IS 5250. IT IS $ 52.50.

IT IS NOT GOING TO BREAK THE BANK.

IT IS TWO ADDRESSES. >> IT IS POSSIBLE.

AND F1 LOOKS LIKE REBUILDING ENGINES IS F1.

YOU SAY IT WAS MAINTENANCE FOR THE COUNTY.

IF THEY USED IT FOR THINGS LIKE THAT, THEN THERE MAY NOT

BE A CHANGE OF USE. >> THERE WERE OLD BOLTS IN

THERE FOR A LIFT. >> THERE MAY NOT BE CHANGES.

NOT KNOWING EXACTLY WHAT THE USE WAS.

>> IT WAS A GARAGE FOR THIS SIDE OF THE COUNTY.

THEY REPAIRED VEHICLES. >> THEN IT WOULD BE.

THAT'S AUTOMOTIVE AND OTHER TYPES OF WORK.

>> IS THE RECYCLE CENTER STILL IN OPERATION OR IS THAT CLOSED

DOWN? >> IT IS AT THE MOMENT.

>> IT IS GOING TO COME TO A STOP?

>> AT SOME POINT IT WILL. DEPENDING IF THERE IS A FUTURE

USE OF THE LAND. >> AND WHAT IS THAT FUTURE

USE? >> THERE IS NO IMMEDIATE PLAN.

>> WELL, THE REASON I AM ASKING IS BECAUSE THERE IS A HUGE PARKING ISSUE RIGHT THERE AT THAT PARK AREA.

IT WOULD BE NICE IF SOME OF THAT OVER FLOW PARKING COULD

PARK OVER THERE. >> IT WOULD BE BETTER FOR EVERYBODY IF WE DID SOMETHING LIKE THAT.

I WOULD BE HAPPY TO TALK AND COORDINATE WITH ANYBODY.

IT IS AN EXTENSION. YOU ARE DRIVING DOWN AND CARS ON BOTH SIDES OF THE STREET AND IT IS DANGEROUS.

WE WOULD BE QUICK TO HAVE THAT CONVERSATION.

>> THAT'S NOT ME. I KNOW THE NEED.

>> WHO WOULD THAT BE? >> I WOULD SUSPECT THE

RECREATION DEPARTMENT. >> OKAY.

YEAH. I WOULD LIKE TO GET THE CARS

OFF THE ROAD. >> WELL, THE REASON I ASK WHAT IS THE FUTURE USE OF THE PROPERTY IS BECAUSE ON THE VERY WEST END OF THAT PROPERTY THERE IS NO TELLING WHAT IS BURIED THERE OR PRETTY MUCH ANYWHERE ON THE PROPERTY.

[01:15:10]

>> YOU SEE THAT RIGHT THERE? >> SO SAME USE?

>> YES, SO SAME USE. THERE WOULD BE NO NEED OF RESTROOMS. IT IS SAME USE.

>> YES. I WILL COME OUT AND DO AN INSPECTION AND ALL THAT GOOD STUFF.

IT WILL TAKE ABOUT TWO SECONDS.

>> AND THERE IS NO GENERAL PUBLIC ACCESS INTO THIS STRUCTURE? EVERYTHING IS THROUGH THE SALES OFFICE THAT IS CURRENTLY THERE AND HAS ADA AND RESTROOMS THAT WOULD BE ABLE TO BE ACCESSIBLE?

>> WE MET ALL THOSE REQUIREMENTS WHEN WE REBUILT

IT. >> PERFECT.

I THINK THAT'S IT. SO THIS WILL MOVE FORWARD TO PERMITTING? YOU FEEL COMFORTABLE WITH

THAT? >> YEAH, THEY WILL BE LOOKING AT WHATEVER TRASH SITUATION YOU ARE GOING TO DO TO MAKE SURE IT IS ENCLOSED AND LANDSCAPED.

>> AND IF IT IS A SEPARATE METER, JUST TRANSFER THAT ACCOUNT IF IT HASN'T BEEN ALREADY.

IF IT IS TO THE ACTIVE. >> I WILL STATE THE OBVIOUS.

I GUESS IF YOU ARE GOING TO INSTALL NEW ELECTRICAL FOR SPECIFIC EQUIPMENT AND STUFF LIKE THAT, YOU PROBABLY HAVE TO GET AN ELECTRICAL PERMIT APPLICATION.

THEY WILL WANT TO PUT, I ASSUME, SPECIFIC OUTLETS AND THINGS FOR SPECIFIC EQUIPMENT.

>> THANK YOU EVERYBODY. >> THANK YOU.

[6.5 Change of Use: 311 Centre St. - Kelly Purko to discuss opening a retail space in a former real estate location. This property is zoned C-3. ]

>> AND I THINK WE HAVE ONE LAST ITEM ON OUR AGENDA AND THIS IS A CHANGE OF USE DISCUSSION ITEM FOR 311CENTRE STREET TO DISCUSS OPENING A RETAIL SPACE IN A FORMER REAL ESTATE OFFICE. IF ANYONE IS HERE TO SPEAK TO THAT PROJECT, PLEASE WELCOME. I HAVE YOUR BEFORE AND AFTER THAT YOU PROVIDED AS FAR AS THE APPLICATION MATERIALS.

I WILL ZOOM INTO THAT FOR YOU.

HERE IS THE PROPERTY LOCATION ON CENTRE IN THE MIDDLE OF THE OVERALL BLOCK. AND IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO INTRODUCE THE PROJECT, AND THEN I HAVE THE GRAPHICS HERE THAT I CAN SPEAK TO AND I AM HAPPY TO GO BACK AND FORTH

BETWEEN THE TWO. >> OKAY.

I AM KELLY PURKO. THIS IS A CALDWELL BANKER'S BUILDING CURRENTLY. WE WANT TO CHANGE IT FROM THAT OFFICE SPACE TO RETAIL SPACE FOR A WOMEN'S BOUTIQUE.

SO WE ARE NOT DOING A WHOLE LOT TO THE INSIDE.

WE JUST WANT TO -- >> SORRY.

>> RIGHT THERE. >> SO THE RIGHT SIDE AND YOU CAN SEE THE WALLS WHERE THE 121 SQUARE FEET 142 AND 148, THOSE ARE GOING TO COME DOWN. I AM JUST TRYING TO GET A PERMIT FOR THAT AND THAT'S THE ONLY CHANGES.

>> THEY ARE NONLOAD BEARING WALLS.

THEY DON'T EVEN GO ALL THE WAY TO THE CEILING.

NO MECHANICAL COMPONENTS SHOULD BE DISTURBED.

THEY DON'T GO TO THE CEILING. THE CEILING WILL STAY LIKE THIS. THE PERMIT IS BEING PULLED.