[00:00:08]
OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING. LIKE TO GO AHEAD AND START.
WITH CALLING THE MEETING TO ORDER.
IF -- IS THERE ANYBODY WHO HAS ANY EX PARTE COMMUNICATION?
LET'S DO THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.
>> CHAIR PAPKE COULD WE HAVE A ROLL CALL FIRST FOR THE RECORD?
>> SURE, FOLLOWING THE ORDER. LET'S DO A ROLL CALL PLEASE.
TAYLOR PLEASE. >> MEMBER HERTSLET, MEMBER GLEASON, MEMBER GRANT, MEMBER SKULMIS, VICE CHAIR PAPKE.
CHAIR MILLER. >> CAN WE DO THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE?
>> SO TONIGHT WE'RE GOING TO SEAT TWO TERNLTS, MR. SKULMIS AND MR, DO I DO ANYTHING UNIQUE TAYLOR?
>> JUST ACKNOWLEDGING IT FOR THE RECORD.
AND START TONIGHT WITH ASKING THE CITY ATTORNEY TO GO AHEAD AND FULFILL THE QUASIJUDICIAL PROCEDURES PLEASE.
>> YES, TODAY WE WILL HAVE TWO ITEMS ON THE AGENDA, QUASIJUDICIAL. MS. FOREHAND WILL INTRODUCE EVIDENCE INTO THE RECORD. YOU'LL SEE SLIDES, A STAFF REPORT, I BELIEVE SHE'LL ENTER THOSE INTO THE RECORD ALL TO START. THE APPLICANTS WILL COME UP, ONE CASE AT A TIME AND THEY WILL PRESENT EVIDENCE AND TESTIMONY ON THEIR OWN BEHALF. THEY MAY CALL WITNESSES, STAFF MAY CALL WITNESSES AND ANY AFFECTED PARTIES, ANY RESIDENT OF THE CITY, YOU CAN INTRODUCE EVIDENCE INTO THE RECORD.
YOU NEED TO TAKE AN OATH WHEN IT'S TIME AND MS. HARTMAN GIVES THE OATH AND EVERYBODY AT THE SAME TIME.
WITH THAT IF THERE IS AN APPEAL OF EITHER OF THE DECISIONS MADE TONIGHT BY THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, IS THESE ARE FILED WITHIN 30 DAYS WITH FINDINGS OF FACT TO THE CIRCUIT COURT.
DO I REMIND YOU, I DO THIS MAYBE NOT EVERY TIME BUT I'LL REMIND YOU ABOUT OUR QUASIJUDICIAL PROCEDURES AND HOW WE WEIGH THE EVIDENCE. THE EVIDENCE THAT YOU ARE TO CONSIDER TONIGHT TO MAKE YOUR DECISION, THAT WOULD BE UPHELD BY A COURT, IS COMPETENT, SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE.
SO WE HAVE TO AFFORD PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS.
WE GIVE EVERYBODY THE CHANCE TO SPEAK.
WE DO NOT LIMIT THE AMOUNT OF TIME THAT YOU GET TO SPEAK.
AND WE CREATE A RECORD HERE, EVERYBODY'S TESTIFYING UNDER OATH AND WE BASE YOUR DECISION TONIGHT ON COMPETENT, SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE. SO LAY OPINION, FOR EXAMPLE, THIS PROJECT CAUSES TOO MUCH TRAFFIC IN MY NEIGHBORHOOD, I DON'T LIKE IT, UNLESS THAT PERSON HAS SOMETHING OTHER THAN THEY DON'T LIKE IT, IT CAUSES TOO MUCH TRAFFIC THEN THAT'S PROBABLY NOT EVIDENCE THAT YOU WOULD WEIGH HEAVILY ON YOUR DECISION. THAT WOULD NOT BE COMPETENT, SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE. SO ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THAT? OKAY, THAT'S ALL I HAVE, THANK
YOU. >> OKAY, THANK YOU TAMMI.
TAYLOR, WOULD YOU LIKE TO SWEAR EVERYBODY IN PLEASE, TAKE OATH.
>> SURE. ANYBODY WISHING TO SPEAK IF YOU COULD PLEASE STAND AND RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND.
DO YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM THAT THE ORAL AND/OR WRITTEN TESTIMONY YOU ARE ABOUT TO GIVE WILL BE THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH AND
NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH? >> ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU.
SO LET'S LOOK AT THE MEETING MINUTES FROM LAST MONTH.
[3. APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES]
START WITH THE ONE THAT KIND OF GOES TO CITIES PRETTY THOROUGHLY, I'VE GONE THROUGH THEM.DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANY -- >> DID YOU NOTICE ANYTHING ABOUT YOUR NAME IN THE WORKSHOP MINUTES?
>> NOW THAT YOU BRING IT UP -- >> IT NEEDS A PARENTHESES AT THE
END OF THE VICE CHAIRMAN. >> I NOTICED MY NAME WAS OKAY BUT I DIDN'T NOTICE THAT, A TYPO.
>> YES, A TYPO. ANY OTHER COMMENTS?
>> I HAVE A COMMENT ON THE SECOND ONE.
>> ALL RIGHT. LET'S GO AHEAD AND WE'LL VOTE
[00:05:03]
THROUGH EACH ONE, YES? WORKSHOP AND THEN -- BECAUSE THE WORKSHOP WAS VOLUNTARY WASN'T IT TAMMI?>> PARDON? >> THE WORKSHOP LAST WEEK OR LAST MONTH WAS VOLUNTARY, DO WE NEED TO VOTE ON THAT?
>> ALL RIGHT. >> TAYLOR WROTE YOU CALL THE
VOTE. >> MEMBER HERTSLET, YES, MEMBER GLEASON, YES, MEMBER GRANT, MEMBER OLIVA, YES, MEMBER
SKULMIS, VICE CHAIR PAPKE. >> I FORGOT TO ADD ONE MORE THING HOW THE VOTES WILL HAVE TO GO, A SUPERMAJORITY, FOUR OUT OF THE FIVE VOTING MEMBERS HAVE TO VOTE TO APPROVE A MOTION TO APPROVE A VARIANCE. TO DENY A VARIANCE IT ONLY TAKES THREE OUT OF FIVE TO PASS THAT MOTION.
>> THANK YOU FOR THAT CLARIFICATION.
ALL RIGHT, SO THE WORKSHOP HAS BEEN APPROVED.
LET'S GO TO THE MEETING MINUTES FROM LAST MONTH.
ANY REVIEW OF THIS? ANY DEE EDITING MISSING?
>> I HAVE A QUESTION. WHERE DO WE FIND THE AMENDED MINUTES ON THE CITY'S WEBSITE? BECAUSE ON THE DECEMBER MEETING, WE CONNECTED THE NOVEMBER MEETING VOTES.
BUT THEN NOW ARE WE -- AND WE SAID IT WOULD BE APPROVED BASED UPON THAT EDIT. WHERE CAN I SEE THE EDIT?
>> ONCE IS MINUTES ARE SIGNED, THE MINUTES DO HAVE TO BE SIGNED, ONCE THEY'RE AMENDED AND THEN THEY'RE SENT TO OUR CITY CY CLERK'S OFFICE AND THEY ARE UPLOADED INTO OUR RECORDS.
>> I COULDN'T FIND IT ON THE WEBSITE THOUGH.
>> THEY STILL HAVE TO BE SIGNED AS AMENDED.
THEY WERE APPROVED BUT THEY HAVE TO BE SIGNED AT THE FOLLOWING
MEETING, AT THIS MEETING. >> AT THIS MEETING THEY GET
SIGNED. >> CORRECT BECAUSE THEY WERE
AMENDED AT LAST MEETINGS. >> GOOD, BECAUSE THE REASONING WAS WHAT I SAW, I DON'T REMEMBER WHERE I SAW IT NOW, WAS IT AMENDED MY VOTE BUT THEN IT SAID MEMBER, AND THEN IT DIDN'T SAY ANYTHING ELSE AND I THINK IT NEEDED TO SAY MEMBER OLIVA NEEDED TO BE AN AYE INSTEAD OF A NAY.
>> OKAY. >> I'M SURE THAT'S CONFUSING BU-
>> DO YOU HAPPEN TO KNOW WHICH CASE IT WAS?
THERE WAS TWO LAST -- >> IT WAS FROM THE NOVEMBER
MEETING. >> WE DON'T HAVE ACCESS TO THAT
>> I SAID I DON'T THINK WE HAVE ACCESS TO IT RIGHT NOW.
>> NO, I'M SAYING IN THE -- LET ME SEE, HAVING GONE THROUGH THIS, IT WAS NOTED THAT AI MADE A COMMENT ABOUT THE DECEMBER
MEETING. >> CORRECT 3.2 AT THE TOP OOF
>> 3.2, IT WAS NEVER NOTED THAT HE VOTED NAY AND MEMBER.
PERIOD. THERE SHOULD BE SOMETHING AFTER
>> IS WHAT I'M SAYING. >> SO DO WE WANT TO MAKE THAT EDIT? REVISIT THE NOTES?
>> YES, I WILL. >> EXCUSE ME TAMMI, I NEED TO ASK YOU. IF THEY'RE GOING TO EDIT THE NOTES ON THE MINUTES THAT DON'T GET APPROVED, WE DON'T VOTE ON
THEM, DO WE? >> VOTE ON THE AMENDMENTS? YOU SHOULD VOTE TO APPROVE THE ABOUT AMENDMENTS.
>> I MEANT MINUTES. >> YOU SHOULD VOTE ON THE MINUTES AND IF YOU ARE GOING TO MAKE CHANGES OTO THE MINUTES YOU NEED TO VOTE AS A BODY TO APPROVE THOSE CHANGES.
>> ALL RIGHT. >> EVEN IF THEY'RE MINUTES THAT YOU APPROVED BEFORE AND NOW YOU NOTICE THAT THERE ARE CHANGES
NEEDED, YOU CAN AMEND THOSE. >> BUT DOES IT REQUIRE A VOTE?
>> SO THEN CAN I GET A MOTION ON THIS?
>> I HAVE A QUESTION. >> SURE.
>> HAD YOU TALKING ABOUT THE LAST OF NOVEMBER?
>> YES, ON 3.2 OF THE NOTES FROM DECEMBER IT IDENTIFIES THAT THE STATEMENTS SAY MEMBER GRANT NOTED THAT HE VOTED NAY ON ADJUSTMENT CASE, AND THEN IT SAYS AND MEMBER AND IT DOESN'T
FINISH THE SENTENCE. >> VICE CHAIR PAPKE, THAT APPEARS TO BE A PRIOR DRAFT. BECAUSE THE FINALIZED DRAFT THAT I HAVE HERE DOES NOT HAVE THAT ADDITION.
IT ENDS WHERE ITS SAYS VOTED ON BOA 2020-00 ONE 1.
THE FINAL PRINTED VERSION SHOULD ALSO REFLECT THAT CORRECTION.
[00:10:07]
>> OKAY. >> INTERSECT THE CORRECTION OF
THE VOTE. >> IT INCLUDES THE CORRECTION OF
YOUR VOTE. >> IT NEEDS THE CORRECTION OF
>> ALL RIGHT, ANY COMMENTS ON THIS, ANY ADDITIONAL COMMENTS ON
THIS? >> I BROUGHT THAT UP LAST NIGHT.
I WAS PRETTY SURE I DIDN'T WANT TO SPEAK FOR BUT YOU VOTED AYE.
IT'S NOW IN THE MINUTES AS A NAY.
WE SHOULD GET HIS CHANGES >> I AGREE..
>> ARE WE TALKING ABOUT THE REGULAR MEETING MINUTES FROM
DECEMBER? >> FROM DECEMBER, YES.
>> I HAD ANOTHER QUESTION. >> GO AHEAD.
>> I'M NOT PICKING ON YOU OR ANYTHING BUT I THINK THERE MAY BE A TYPO BECAUSE UNDER 5.1 NEW BUSINESS MEMBER PAPKE STATED THIS WAS NOT AN OBTUSE REQUEST. AND I'M NOT SURE IF OBTUSE WAS
THE WORD YOU MEANT. >> WOULD BE SOMETHING I WOULD SAY.
>> SADLY. >> WELL, THE DICTIONARY
DOESN'T -- >> OBTUSE MEAN NOT NORMAL.
>> OKAY, FINE. >> SADLY, I PROBABLY HAVE TO
ACKNOWLEDGE I DID SAY THAT. >> SO WE'RE DONE WITH CORRECTING THE VOTES FROM THE NOTICE OF MEETING?
>> CORRECT. >> SO I RECOMMEND WE PASS THESE
>> THE ONES FROM DECEMBER MEETING.
>> THE AMENDED. >> THE REGULAR MEETING.
>> OKAY. WHAT OTHER QUESTION -- WE ACTUALLY ON THE -- I THINK IT WAS ON 0012, THERE WAS ACTUALLY
A MOTION THAT WAS NOT SECONDED. >> NO, THAT WAS THE SECOND ONE.
>> OKAY SECOND ONE. >> I DON'T THINK THAT GOT RECORD HE AS ME MAKING THE MOTION AND THEN IT GETTING DENIED THE FIRST TIME AROUND BECAUSE THAT DIDN'T HOLD ANY SIGNIFICANCE.
WE DID A SECOND MOTION AND THEN THAT GOT APPROVED.
>> OKAY. AS I KNOW THERE'S A VIDEO RECORD OF IT, BUT I DIDN'T KNOW IF THE MINUTES NEEDED TO REFLECT THAT THERE WAS A MOTION AND THEN -- AND THERE WAS NO SECOND --
>> IT'S WORTH ASKING. TAMMI, I HAVE TO DEFER TO YOU, I
>> LAST MONTH WHEN MIRANDA PRESENTED, I MADE A MOTION TO GET IT APPROVED, WE GOT FOUR NAYS RIGHT OFF THE BACK.
WE MADE MORE DISCUSSION ABOUT THE CASE AND EVENTUALLY I ENDED UP MAKING THE SAME MOTION THE SECOND TIME BUT IT WAS APPROVED.
THE MINUTES DID NOT REFLECT -- >> I WOULD HAVE TO WATCH THE
VIDEO TO KNOW, I DON'T REMEMBER. >> IT WAS A NO VOTE.
ABOUT ITS WAS NOBODY SECONDED YOUR MOTION.
>> THANK YOU. >> THE MINUTES DON'T REFLECT THE REASON WHY EVERYONE WAS HESITANT.
THERE'S NOTHING IN THE MINUTES ABOUT A GENERAL -- WHAT I PERCEIVED TO BE A GENERAL FEELING OF WONDERING AT WHAT POINT DURING THE DESIGN PROCESS OF THAT PORCH DID JOSE SAY OH, WE NEED TWO EXTRA FEET. I THINK THAT WAS A CONCERN, OF A COUPLE OF PEOPLE UP HERE, THAT THAT WAS MAYBE SOMETHING THAT WAS MAYBE PART OF THE PLANNING FROM THE BEGINNING.
>> SO -- >> JUST SO YOU KNOW WHAT THE LEGAL REQUIREMENTS ARE OF MINUTES.
THE ONLY REQUIREMENT ARE THAT THE ACTIONS THAT ARE TAKEN, ACTUALLY BE RECORDED IN THE MINUTES.
SO A MOTION THAT DOESN'T GET A SECOND IS NOT ACTION.
>> OKAY. >> IT WOULD ONLY BE IF IT GOT A SECOND AND WAS VOTED UP OFFER ON THAT WOULD BE RECORDED.
YOU'RE ALSO GOING TO SEE LOTS OF DETAIL THAT IS MISSING.
THERE WAS TIMES THAT STAFF SPENT TWICE OR THREE TIMES THE AMOUNT THEY DO FOR THE MINUTES. THERE ARE SO MANY OTHER THINGS FOR CLERK'S OFFICE TO DO THAT WE SCALED IT BACK AND A SHORTER MORE SUMMARY VERSION OF THE MINUTES IS NOW PRESENTED.
WE DO REALLY HAVE, ARCHIVE FOREVER, WE HAVE IDEA YOA? AND AUDIORECORDINGS OF THE MEETINGS.
AND THAT'S FOR ANYBODY IN THE PUBLIC, TOO.
>> AND JUST TO CLARIFY THAT PARTICULAR CASE, I DID GO OUT AND LOOK AT IT AFTER OUR MEETING.
AND THE EIGHT FOOT CONCRETE PAD WAS AS THEY SAID, POURED.
THE ROOF WAS TWO FEET MORE, THEY WERE WAITING ON OUR APPROVAL, SO
[00:15:02]
EVERYTHING WAS FINE. >> I MAKE A MOTION.
>> I SECOND. >> DO YOU WANT TO CALL THE ROLL.
>> MEMBER PAPKE, MEMBER COOK, MEMBER GLEASON, MEMBER HERTSLET.
[5.1 BOA 2020-0005 - MATTHEW MILLER 416 FIR STREET Request for Variance from LDC Section 5.01.03(J) to construct an accessory structure that exceeds the maximum building footprint of 625 SQ FT. (Quasi-Judicial)]
>> ARE THE, SO LET'S PRESENT CASE, STEPHANIE ARE YOU READY?
>> YES. >> LET'S PRESENT CASE 2020-0005.
>> SO THIS IS BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS 2020-05, MILLER, THE ADDRESS IS 416 FIR STREET, CURRENTLY ZONED R-2, WITH THE USE OF MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL.
REQUESTED ACTION TONIGHT IS A VARIANCE FROM SECTION 5.01.03 (J), THE EXISTING USES ON THE SITE ARE SINGLE FAMILY HOME.
FOR THE RECORD, ALL DERLS HAVE BEEN RECEIVED, ALL FEES HAVE BEEN PAID AND ALL REQUIRED NOTIFICATIONS HAVE BEEN MADE.
THE REQUEST IS TO INCREASE THE 625 MAXIMUM BUILDING FOOTPRINT.
USED FOR BOAT STORAGE AND TOTALS 1206 SQUARE FEET, WITH 216 FEET OF THAT BEING COVERED PORCH. MEETING ALL REQUIREMENTS OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AND WOULD NOT EXCEED THE REQUIRED 60% IMPERVIOUS RATIO FOR THE LOT. THE APPLICANT ACQUIRED THIS PROPERTY IN 2012, AT WHICH TIME IT WAS ZONED I-1-12 ZONING.
INCONSISTENCY ON THE ZONING MAP. ZONING CONSISTENT WITH THE UNDERAPPLYING LAND USE OF RESIDENTIAL.
STAFF ULTIMATELY DETERMINED THAT THE UNDERLYING FEATURE USE DESIGNATION WAS ACCURATE. AT THAT TIME A ZONING CATEGORY OF R-2 WAS ASSIGNED. THUS APPLICANT REQUESTED TO INCREASE THE SQUARE FOOTAGE REQUIREMENT FOR ACCESSORY STRUCTURES AND RESIDENTIALLY DISOANLD PROPERTIES.
ZONED PROPERTIES. THIS IS A DRAWING OF THE STRUCTURE AND SOME OF THE TREES ON THE LOT.
SO GETTING INTO THE SIX CRITERIA FOR GRANTING A VARIANCE, CONDITIONS OR CIRCUMSTANCES DO EXIST ALTHOUGH ALL R-2 ZONED PROPERTIES MUST ADHERE TO THE MAXIMUM BUILDING PERMIT, SPECIAL CONDITIONS EXIST SLILTS TO LAND. AS A RESULT TO OTHE LAND. THE PROPERTY WAS SUBSEQUENTLY REDISOABD AND IS A ZONING CATEGORY OF R-2 MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL. THESE CONDITIONS DO NOT RESULT FROM ACTIONS AT THE OUTSET AND ARE NOT BASED ON THE DESIRE TO REDUCE DEVELOPMENT COST. SPECIAL PRIVILEGE, NO, GRANTING THE VARIANCE DOES NOT CONFER UPON THE APPLICANT SPECIAL PRIVILEGE. LIMITED TO BUILDING NEW ACCESSORY STRUCTURES WITH THE MAXIMUM BUILDING FOOTPRINT OF 625 SQUARE FEET. LITERALLY INTERPRETATION, NO.
LITERALLY INLITERAL INTERPRETATL PROPERTIES WITHIN THE R-2 ZONING DISTRICT ARE RYE THE SAME MAXIMUM ACCESSORY STRUCTURE, 625 SQUARE FEET. MINIMUM VARIANCE, YES.
THE VARIANCE REQUESTED IS THE MINIMUM VARIANCE NEEDED TO MAKE REASONABLE USE OF THE LAND STRUCTURE OR BUILDING.
THE REPLACED STRUCTURE WILL PROVIDE NEEDED STORAGE SPACE FOR THE APPLICANT AND IN ADDITION ACT AS A BARRIER TO THE ADJACENT I-1 INDUSTRIALLY ZONED PROPERTY WHICH HAS ZERO SET BACKS CURRENTLY. GENERAL HARMONY, YES, GRANTING THE VARIANCE WILL BE PART OF THE GENERAL INTENT AND PURPOSE OF LANDFILL CODE AND COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, AS APPROVAL OF THE VARIANCE WOULD CONVEY PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS.
PUBLIC INTEREST, YES, COMPATIBLE WITH THE SURROUNDING PROPERTIES,
[00:20:04]
WILL NOT CAUSE INJURY TOT SURROUNDING PROPERTIES, THE PROPOSED ACCESSORY STRUCTURE WILL NOT EXCEED THE 60% ALLOWABLE IMPERVIOUS SERVICE RATIO ALTHOUGH IF THE BUILDING FOOTPRINT WAS MINIMIZED FOR EXISTING TREES, THE TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY WAS NOT SUBMITTED AS PART OF THIS APPLICATION.THE IF REQUEST PRESENTED DOES NOT MEET ALL SIX CRITERIA AS SUCH STAFF MUST RECOMMEND DENIAL OF 2020-05.
AND I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
>> ANY QUESTIONS AMONGST THE BOARD?
>> A COUPLE. IN SPECIAL CONDITIONS, WHY IS THIS A SPECIAL CONDITION? I UNDERSTAND THE TIME LINE.
BUT ONCE IT WAS REZONED AS R-2, THEN IT'S A RESIDENTIAL PIECE OF PROPERTY. SO ONCE THAT HAPPENED, THEN WHAT DOES THE REST OF THIS HAVE TO DO WITH A SPECIAL CONDITION?
>> SO SPECIAL CONDITIONS RELATE TO THE LAND.
WHEN IT WAS ACQUIRED, THE PLANS FOR THESE STRUCTURES WERE ALREADY IN THE WORKS AND AS A RESULT, YOU KNOW, IT WAS REZONED, AND THAT WAS NOT ANYTHING THAT THE APPLICANT HAD AS A PART OF REDUCING DEVELOPMENT COST OR ANYTHING THAT THEY DID FOR THEMSELVES. AND SO I INTERPRETED THIS AS A SPECIAL CONDITION AS IT RELATES TO LAND BECAUSE OF THE FACT THAT IT WAS PURCHASED WITH THE INTENT, THE INTENT WAS KNOWN TO BUILD THE ACCESSORY STRUCTURE ON THE INDUSTRIALLY ZONED LOT.
AND THAT'S REFLECTED IN THE MINUTES.
I WENT BACK AND DID A LOT OF RESEARCH ON THIS.
ALL THIS IS REFLECTED IN THE REFLECTED IN THEMINUTES FROM THD IN THAT YEAR SO ALL THE INFORMATION IS REFLECTED IN THE BASIS FOR THE SPECIAL CONDITION FOR THE LAND.
>> OKAY. IF IT STAYED, IF IT IS LIGHT INDUSTRIAL, YOU COULDN'T BUILD A HOUSE THERE.
CONTRADICT? >> YOU COULD, YOU COULD BUILD A HOUSE. THE ISSUE IS THE ACCESSORY STRUCTURE WAS CONSIDERED A COMMERCIAL STRUCTURE.
AND SO AFTER IT WAS REZONED, THEY HAD TO GO THROUGH THE VARIANCE PROCESS IN ORDER TO GET IT.
BUT YOU COULD, ESSENTIALLY. >> YOU CAN BUILD IT, A HOME FOR
OCCUPANCY ON -- >> I BELIEVE SO.
I'LL HAVE TO GO BACK AND VERIFY THAT.
>> SO IT SAYS THAT THE INTENT FOR PUTTING UP THESE STRUCTURES WAS KNOWN. THAT IS DOCUMENTED THAT THOSE --
>> THAT IS DOCUMENTED YES. THAT IS DOCUMENTED AND THE PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD UNDERWENT THE PROCESS OF THE
>> AND DISCUSSION. >> YES, UNDER MINIMUM VARIANCE, STAFF, CAN YOU EXPLAIN THAT? I READ THIS HERE BUT I'M NOT
SURE WHY THAT. >> SO THIS IS A MINIMUM VARIANCE REQUESTED TO MAKE REASONABLE USE OF THE LAND.
IS A THSO THIS IS A PRETTY LARG. HE DOES GO THROUGH WITH THAT AND COMBINES EVEN LARGER LOT, AND ADJACENT TO HERE IS AMERICAN LEGION, INDUSTRIALLY ZONED PROPERTY THAT CURRENT HAS ZERO SETBACKS AND THEY CAN GO UP TO A HEIGHT OF 45.
AND WILL PROVIDE STORAGE SPACE FOR HIS BOAT WHICH IS CURRENTLY -- IT'S NOT -- IT'S NOT ABLE TO BE STORED CORRECTLY.
AND ADDITIONALLY, IT WOULD ACT AS A A BUFFER TO THAT INDUSTRIALLY ZONED PROPERTY. WHICH AGAIN IS AMERICAN LEGION AND THAT HAS ZERO SETBACKS. SO IF THEY DECIDED THEY WANTED TO INCREASE OR DO ANY ADDITIONS TO THAT, IT COULD AFFECT HIS PROPERTY. SO THAT WOULD ACT AS A BUFFER
FOR THAT. >> RIGHT NOW IS A PARKING LOT THERE AND I THINK A LOT OF THE GREEN IN BETWEEN BUT YOU'RE
SAYING IN THE FUTURE -- >> IN THE FUTURE IF THEY DECIDE TO MAKE ANY IMPROVEMENTS KNOWN THAT COULD POTENTIALLY AFFECT
HIS PROPERTY. >> THE ONLY REASON I'M ASKING
[00:25:03]
THIS IS BECAUSE IN NOVEMBER WHEN WE WERE LOOKING AT A CASE, THE>> TO THAT. I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TWO. SO IT HAS TO DO WITH THE
ABUTMENT TO -- >> IN THIS CASE, YES.
IN THIS CASE I WOULD CONSIDER THIS A MINIMUM VARIANCE TO MAKE REASONABLE USE OF THAT BECAUSE ABOUT OF THE FACT THAT THEY COULD POTENTIALLY IN THE FUTURE IMRF IT AND IF IT CREATES SOME
ISSUES. >> I THINK THIS IS THIS CRITERIA IS MORE OR LESS STAFF'S OPINION, ISN'T IT?
>> IT'S STAFF'S INTERPRETATION, YES.
>> YES. >> MAY WE HEAR FROM THE
APPLICANT OR -- >> DURING THE APPLICANT THAT THIS -- HOW DO WE CONSIDER APPLICATION OF THE LDC TO PROPERTIES THAT HAVE, WHAT APPEAR TO BE MULTIPLE BUILDABLE LOTS, I GUESS? IN THIS CASE IT LOOKS LIKE THERE'S FOUR LOTS DESIGNATED. SO ARE THE RULES APPLIED PER LOT? OR PER PARCEL OR PROPERTY?
>> SO IT WOULD BE PER LOT. IN THIS CASE, WITH THE ACCESSORY STRUCTURE, THIS WOULD COMBINE THE LOTS TOGETHER.
AND SO YOU WOULD HAVE TO MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THAT SINGLE LOT. SO YES, PER LOT.
>> OKAY. SO THERE ARE FOUR LOTS THERE, ONE THAT HAS -- THAT'S BUILT UPON, THREE OTHERS, ONE OF
WHICH, OR IS IT TWO OF WHICH -- >> TWO ARE BUILT.
>> SO THESE ARE UNDERLYING IN THIS CASE THESE ARE UNDERLYING LOTS OF RECORD. AND YOU COULD -- I'LL PULL IT UP HERE. SINGLE LOT CURRENTLY.
YOU CAN SEE THE SEPARATION FROM THE UNDERLYING LOTS.
BUT THE L DFORTC WOULD APPLY TO THIS ENTIRE LOT. LDC WOULD APPLS
ENTIRE LOT. >> ALL RIGHT, THANKS.
>> ANYTHING ELSE? ALL RIGHT LET'S HEAR FROM THE APPLICANT. MAKE SURE YOU STATE YOUR NAME
AND YOUR ADDRESS PLEASE SIR. >> MATTHEW MILLER, 416 FIR STREET. THIS PROJECT HAS BEEN SITTING ON THE BACK BURNER FOR A LITTLE WHILE AND DAPHNE KIND OF INHERITED THAT, SHE SPENT SOME TIME GOING BACK THROUGH THE FILE AND I THINK SHE DID A VERY GOOD JOB BRINGING THE BOARD UP TO DATE ON THAT. I WANT TO THANK HER FOR THAT.
I DON'T THINK I COULD ADD ANYTHING FURTHER.
I'LL BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT THE BOARD MAY
SO THE LOT, THE PROPERTY WAS PURCHASED, IN 2012, AND THE CITY
CHANGED THE ZONING IN 2013. >> OKAY I'LL TRY TO MAKE THIS AS FLUID AS I CAN, JUST HIT THE HIGH SPOTS.
THE 2013 IS INCORRECT. I BELIEVE THAT SHOULD BE 2018 OR MAYBE 2019. BECAUSE IT JUST GOT REZONED ON
THAT MS. DAPHNE. >> UNDER THE REZONING PROCESS IN 2013 BUT IT'S NOT OFFICIALLY REZONED UNTIL THEN.
>> THERE YOU GO. >> THAT'S WHEN THE PROCESS
STARTED INITIALLY, WAS IN 2013. >> IT JUST CONFUSED ME EVEN
MORE. >> I BUY ALL OF THAT PROPERTY ALL AT ONCE, IT TOOK ME A YEAR OR SO BEFORE I ULTIMATELY WAS ABLE TO PUT THAT WHOLE PARCEL TOGETHER.
ULTIMATELY I HAD SIX LOTS. I SOLD TWO LOTS.
AND WHEN I SOLD THOSE, THAT IS NOT AN INDUSTRIAL AREA.
IT'S A RESIDENTIAL AREA. SO WHEN I SOLD THOSE I PUT DEED RESTRICTIONS ON THERE THAT IT COULD ONLY BE A SINGLE FAMILY HOME AND SUBSEQUENTLY THE CITY DID REZONE THAT.
SO I KEPT MY FOUR. AND WHEN I WAS TRYING TO FIND A PROPERTY THAT I COULD DO EVERYTHING THAT I WANTED ON THERE, MY END GOAL WAS TO LEAVE A HOUSE TO MY FAMILY.
I'VE HAD FOUR GENERATIONS OF MY FAMILY THAT HAVE WALKED DOWN CENTER STREET. SO I WAS TRYING TO FIND MY LITTLE PIECE OF PARADISE AND BUILD SOMETHING THAT WOULD PASS DOWN THROUGH YEARS. AND WE'RE ALL BOATERS, FISHERMEN, SCUBA DIVERS AND ALL THAT AND I NEEDED SOMEWHERE TO
[00:30:02]
KEEP ALL MY JUNK. AND THIS PIECE OF PROPERTY WAS PERFECT FOR THAT. BECAUSE IT WAS ZONED INDUSTRIAL AND I COULD DO WHAT I WANTED TO. AS I BEGAN TO AREA THOSE PARCELS I HAD FOUR SEPARATE MEETINGS OVER THE TIME I BOUGHT THOSE SIX PARCELS WITH CITY STAFF. EACH TIME, IT WAS A WAVE OF THE HAND, IT'S ZONED INDUSTRIAL, BUILD WHATEVER YOU WANT TO ON THERE. SO WE BEGAN TO BUILD.THE CORNER LOT WAS REZONED RESIDENTIAL WHEN I STARTED PUTTING THE HOUSE ON THERE BUT I KEPT INDUSTRIAL ZONING ON THE OTHER THREE LOTS SO I COULD PUT MY BOAT STORAGE ON THERE.
THIS BUILDING AS IT SITS WAS APPROVED BY TRC WITH ONE EXCEPTION. THEY WANTED ME TO PUT IN A HANDICAPPED BATHROOM AND I'M WITHIN 20 FEET OF A BATHROOM THAT'S IN MY HOUSE. THAT'S A DEAD END STREET SO THE UTILITIES AREN'T THERE. SO WE WOULD HAVE TO DIG UP THE STREET PAY THE IMPACT FEES AND PAY THE FEES FOR PUTTING A BATHROOM IN FOR SOMETHING THAT WE DON'T NEED.
AT THAT TIME THAT WAS A DEAD ISSUE AND WE BEGAN TO TRY TO FIND A SOLUTION FOR THAT. THE CITY SUBSEQUENT, THERE WERE OTHER ISSUES GOING ON IN THE CITY, THAT DIDN'T PERTAIN TO ME BUT THEY WERE TRYING TO CLEAN UP ZONING.
AND THE CITY REZONED THAT. THEY DID NOT SEEK MY APPROVAL, THEY DID NOT OPEN UP A DIALOGUE WITH ME.
THEY SENT ME A LETTER IN THE MAIL.
I APPROACHED THE PLANNING BOARD AND WAS TOLD BY THE CHAIRMAN THAT I HAD NO SAY IN THE MATTER, THAT THE CITY WAS GOING TO REZONE THAT AND THAT WAS THE END OF IT.
SO WE BEGAN TO LOOK FOR WAYS TO STILL WORK THIS OUT.
THROUGH MANY CONVERSATIONS WITH MS. BACH WHO WAS VERY GENEROUS WE HER TIME, ACTUALLY REZONING ITS WAS NOT BAD FOR MY END GOAL BECAUSE I WOULD BE ABLE TO COMBINE ALL FOUR LOTS INTO WITH ONE PARCEL AND THAT WOULD ALSO NEGATE HAVING THE HANDICAPPED BATHROOM. BUT I WOULD HAVE TO APPROACH THIS BOARD TO GET A VARIANCE FOR THAT.
SO ULTIMATELY WE'RE GOING WHERE WE WANTED TO GO, JUST KIND OF IN AA ROUND ABOUT WAY. SO MY NEIGHBOR IS THE AMERICAN LEGION, WHICH I AM A MEMBER, AND THEIR ZONING IS INDUSTRIAL LIKE MINE USED TO BE. BUT AS MS. DAPHNE SAID, ZERO FOOTS SET BACK. NOW I'VE GOT A RESIDENTIAL LOT SITTING RIGHT UP NEXT TO A AN INDUSTRIAL PROPERTY.
THAT DOESN'T BOTHER ME. I KNEW WHAT THAT LAND WAS WHEN I BOUGHT IT, I KNEW FULL WILL, BUT THE MASTER PLAN ALWAYS HAD THE BOAT HOUSE AS KIND OF A BUFFER IN BETWEEN THE TWO, SORT OF A STEP-DOWN ZONING ON THAT IF YOU WILL.
>> THANKS. SO THE LOT THAT THE HOME CURRENTLY IS ON DID GET REZONED AS R-2?
>> YES, SIR. SO THE INDUSTRIAL ZONING GAVE ME A FEW PERKS THAT I WANTED, COY HAVE AN EIGHT FOOT HIGH PRIVACY FENCE. SO SOME THINGS WERE PERMITTED AND THEN ONCE WE STARTED WITH THE HOUSE, THE CITY REZONED THAT FOR ME AT NO COST TO ME. YES, SIR.
>> IT MAKES A LOT MORE SENSE BECAUSE I WAS GOING TO ASK A QUESTION ABOUT THE EIGHT FOOT FENCE.
>> THIS LAST BEEN GOING ON FOR A WHILE.
>> SO THAT WAS ERECTED WHEN IT WAS STILL --
>> INDUSTRIAL. >> -- INDUSTRIAL.
>> I MISSED THE WHOLE THING ABOUT THE HANDICAPPED BATHROOM.
THAT WAS A REQUIREMENT FROM PLANNING WHEN IT WAS INDUSTRIAL?
>> YES, SIR. WHEN YOU THINK ABOUT IT FOR MY NEEDS THAT SEEMS OVERKILL BUT WHEN YOU THINK ABOUT IT FROM THEIRS, THEY'RE LOOKING AT WELL IT'S ZONED INDUSTRIAL SO WE HAVE TO HAVE IT. IT JUST DIDN'T QUITE WORK.
BUT IN THE END, I THINK WHERE WE'RE AT RIGHT NOW IS WHERE IT
NEEDS TO BE. >> SO THE FIRST STRUCTURE THAT WAS PUT IN WAS THE 16 BY 12, IS THAT RIGHT? THE SMALLER -- I THINK IT'S -- I DON'T KNOW WHAT IT'S CALLED.
INTERI'M -- HMM I'M NOT SURE ON THAT, SIR.
>> OR WAS IT WHAT'S CURRENTLY KIND OF A GARAGE? I'M KIND OF TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHAT ALL OF THESE ARE, THREE ARE ALL WITHIN AT THAT TIME THE R-2 FOOTPRINT.
>> YES, SIR. >> SO THE FRAMED BUILDING, THE
16 BY 12, WAS PUT IN FIRST? >> YES, SIR.
SO AS I BEGAN TO BUY THAT, I GOT THE CORNER LOT FIRST.
AND THEN DEVELOPED MY MASTER PLAN WITH THAT, AND SO THAT KIND
[00:35:03]
OF STARTED FIRST. AND EVERYTHING BALLOONED OUT AS IT WAS ABLE TO ACQUIRE THOSE OTHER LOTS.>> THE OTHER, I DON'T KNOW, 16 BY 34.
>> YES, SIR. >> THAT WAS -- WAS THAT GOING TO
BE A -- WAS THAT A RESIDENCE? >> NO, SIR.
THAT IS A SINGLE CAR GARAGE. AND IN THE BACK OF THERE IT'S GOT A SHELTER ON THE BACK THAT'S GOT THE POOL, HEATER AND PUMPS AND ALL THAT UNDER THE BACK AND IT'S JUST AN UNFINISHED BONUS
>> THAT WAS SUPPOSED TO BE A MOTHER-IN-LAW SUITE OR SOMETHING AS I GOT OLDER OR CARE TAKE AEER SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
>> SO RIGHT NOW, THAT -- AND THEN SUBSEQUENT TO THOSE AND THE POOL WAS THE LAST THING THAT GOT BUILT, THE RESIDENCE?
>> YES, SIR. >> BUT THEY'RE ALL PERMITTED, A LITTLE BIT OF KNOWLEDGE IS DANGEROUS FOR ME BUT I WAS READING THE LDC TRYING TO FIGURE OUT HOW THOSE THINGS GOT BUILT
WITHOUT A RESIDENCE THERE FIRST. >> SO -- AND MS. FOREHAND MIGHT SHED SOME LIGHT ON THAT. I HAD TO GO AHEAD AND COME UP WITH MY MASTER PLAN AND GO AHEAD AND BUY THE PERMIT AND THE LETTER OF THE LAW AS I UNDERSTAND IT, I HAD TO GET AN INSPECTION EVERY SIX MONTHS TO KEEP THAT IMPACTED.
SO I COULDN'T DIG THE POOL UNTIL I GOT HOUSE PERMIT.
SO THERE WAS A LOT OF JUGGLING OTO TRY TO GET IT GOING BUT YES,
SIR, YOU ARE RIGHT, YES, SIR. >> SO ARE THERE THREE ACCESSORY BUILDINGS THEN? DOES THE POOL COUNT AS A
ACCESSORY? >> I COULDN'T SPEAK TO THAT SIR.
>> POOL DOES NOT COUNT AS AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE, NO.
>> OKAY. >> ANY OTHER COMMENTS FOR THE APPLICANT? WE CAN OPEN IT UP TO THE PUBLIC THEN. ANYBODY HERE WISH TO SPEAK?
>> WE HAVE TWO PEOPLE ON THE PHONE.
I DON'T KNOW IF WE WANTS TO DO THIS FIRST OR WE WANT TO WAIT FOR THE PEOPLE HERE TO SPEAK FIRST.
WE DO HAVE TWO PEOPLE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THE MATTER.
>> DOESN'T MATTER. IF YOU ARE READY TO SPEAK NOW WE CAN GO AHEAD. STATE YOUR NAME AND YOUR ADDRESS
SIR. >> DAVID WALDO, 728 SOUTH 6TH STREET. I'M A NEIGHBOR OF MR. MILLER'S AND I HAVE NO PROBLEM OR SEE NO PROBLEM OF HIM BUILDING ANOTHER STRUCTURE ON THAT PROPERTY, AS FAR AS WE'RE CONCERNED.
>> ALL RIGHT. APPRECIATE THAT, THANK YOU FOR YOUR FEEDBACK. ANYBODY HAVE ANY COMMENTS FOR HIM? ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU SIR.
>> JOSH BAKER, 515 FIRST STREET. I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH HIM BUILDING, I THINK IT WOULD BE A GOOD ADDITION TO THE
NEIGHBORHOOD. >> ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU.
>> I'M BRUCE PALMER, 2162 WHITE SANDS WAY.
I OWN A PROPERTY ACROSS FIRST STREET FROM MR. MILLER'S PROPERTY AND I'LL SPEAK IN SUPPORT OF THE VARIANCE THAT HE'S REQUESTING IN ORDER TO DO THE CONSTRUCTION HE WANTS TO DO IN HIS MASTER PLANS, FINE WITH ME.
>> FINE, THANK YOU. DAPHNE, YOU SEE IF THE ATTENDEES
ONLINE ARE AVAILABLE. >> SO OI WILL ASK PHONE NUMBER ENDING IN ZERO 136 TO PLEASE UNMUTE YOURSELF.
>> HELLO, PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND YOUR ADDRESS.
>> MY NAME IS MARY FRITCHE, I LIVE AT FERNANDINA BEACH AND FERNANDINA SHORES AT 6335. I'M CALLING TODAY AS POWER OF ATTORNEY FOR MY MOTHER, WHO LIVES ACROSS THE STREET FROM MATT MILLER. AND I WANTED TO SAY MOTHER AND I HAVE WATCHED WITH ADMIRATION AS THE MIRLS HAVE BUILT AND LANDSCAPED THEIR HOME, WHICH HAS BECOME A WONDERFUL ADDITION AND PILLAR OF THEIR NEIGHBORHOOD. MOTHER IS FULLY SUPPORTIVE OF THEM AND HER PROPERTY IS DIRECTLY ACROSS FROM THE PARCEL ON WHICH THE GARAGE WOULD BE BUILD.
[00:40:03]
>> I BELIEVE WE HAVE LOST AN ATTENDEE.
>> OKAY. >> NEXT CASE I THINK.
>> OKAY. IS THERE ANYBODY ELSE WHO WISHES TO SPEAK ON THE MATTER FROM THE PUBLIC? ALL RIGHT WE'LL GO AHEAD AND CLOSE THIS PORTION OF THE PUBLIC SESSION UP. ANY COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD?
>> WELTWELL, I GUESS BASICALLY U WANT TO BUILD A STRUCTURE TWICE THE SIZE AS WHAT WOULD NORMALLY BE PERMITTED IN THIS CASE.
YOU'RE ASKING FOR A VARIANCE TO PUT A BOAT IN THERE, CORRECT?
>> YES, SIR. >> AND IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND I LOOKED AT IT, I DON'T SEE ANY SITUATION PARTICULARLY WITH YOUR EIGHT FOOT DEPENDENCE AROUND THERE THAT WOULD CAUSE ANY KIND OF A PROBLEM WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
>> GIVEN THE FACT THAT THERE WAS A PLAN OF RECORD WHEN IT WAS PURCHASED AND IT MET ALL THE REQUIREMENTS AT THE TIME, THAT
IS THE ONLY REASON WE ARE HERE. >> I AGREE WITH THAT BUT I THINK WE HAVE TO BE SENSITIVE WITH THE WHOLE IDEA OF REZONING USES OUT FROM UNDER PEOPLE, I JUST FEEL LIKE.
BUT THAT DOES GO BACK TO -- BECAUSE IT'S FLIP FLOPPED, KEEPING AS INDUSTRIAL, KEEPING IT AS RESIDENTIAL.
THAT'S WHY I ASKED THE QUESTION CAN YOU IN FACT BUILD A RESIDENCE, ON SOMETHING THAT'S ZONED.
I HEARD YOU CAN BUILD ANYTHING YOU WANT BUT THAT'S --
>> RIGHT. YOUR QUESTION IS CAN YOU BUILD A
RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE. >> YES.
>> SO LET ME JUST LOOK BACK ON OUR LDC SO MAKE SURE I'M ANSWERING CORRECTLY. I'M NOT SURE EXACTLY WHAT THE REQUIREMENTS WERE AT THAT TIME, THERE HAVE BEEN CHANGES.
SO WE'LL JUST GO AND LET THEM SEE WHAT'S ALLOWABLE.
>> BUT TO GO BACK AND ASK THE APPLICANT AGAIN, SO THE MASTER PLAN IT WAS BOUGHT AS INDUSTRIAL BUT WAS THE MASTER PLAN EVENTUALLY THE GET IT CHANGED TO RESIDENTIAL, SO YOU COULD PUT A HOUSE ON IT OR WAS IT TO PUT A HOUSE ON IT STILL ZONED AS
JUST GOING FROM MEMORY WHICH IS QUITE DANGEROUS FOR A MAN OF MY AGE, I BELIEVE THAT WE HAD TO REZONE THAT, BEFORE THE CITY WOULD ISSUE THAT PARTICULAR PERMIT.
I WAS ABLE TO START ON OTHER THINGS THAT KEPT US BUSY DOWN THERE. I BELIEVE TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE THE CITY WOULD REZONE BEFORE THEY ISSUED THE PERMIT.
WE APPLIED FOR THE PERMIT AND THE PERMIT WAS READY, I COULD BE WRONG ABOUT THAT BUT THAT IS MY MEMORY SIR.
>> IF THE ORIGINAL INTENT WAS TO USE THAT PARCEL AS STORAGE, BOAT STORAGE, WHATEVER, MY UNDERSTANDING IS YOU WOULDN'T HAVE BEEN ABLE TO BUILD A RESIDENCE THERE.
UNLESS IT GOT CHANGED TO AN R-1, R-2 OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
>> I COULDN'T SPEAK DEFINITELY TO THAT.
BUT I KNOW THAT MINE ON THE CORNER WAS REZONED.
BUT I ONLY REDISO REZONED THE OT AND NOT THE THREE SO THAT I
COULD CONTINUE WITH MY PROJECT. >> BUT UNTIL THEN THE CITY SUBSEQUENT TO THAT, WITHIN A YEAR OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT --
>> YES, THERE WAS SOME WINDS BLOWING AROUND IN THE CITY THAT CAUSED SOME ISSUES WITH OTHER PROPERTIES.
AND I WAS JUST LASSOED IN WITH THOSE, YES, SIR.
CHAIR PAPKE I HAVE ONE OTHER NEIGHBOR HERE THAT WANTED TO
>> BEFORE YOU GET FINISHED SIR. >> THANK YOU.
I'LL GO AHEAD AND OPEN THE PUBLIC BACK UP AGAIN SIR.
>> YES I'M OKAY. >> THANK YOU SIR.
>> WE DO HAVE THE PERSON ORIGINALLY WHO WAS ON, BACK ON.
>> I DON'T BELIEVE I'VE SAID -- >> CAN YOU STATE YOUR NAME AND
ADDRESS PLEASE? >> PHONE NUMBER ENDING IN 7309,
[00:45:01]
WILL YOU PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS?>> YOU HAVE TO UNMUTE FIRST. >> ASK HIM TO UNMUTE AND I'M NOT
SURE WHAT'S GOING ON. >> COULD BE HAVING DIFFICULTY ON
THEIR END. >> MIGHT WANT TO CHAT AND HAVE
THEM AT LEASE ACKNOWLEDGE. >> CAN YOU HEAR ME NOW?
>> YES. >> I'M HERE FOR THE NEXT ONE NOT
>> ALL RIGHT EXCELLENT, THANK YOU.
ALL RIGHT. SO PUBLIC HEARING ASPECTS ARE COMPLETE. MATT, YOU'VE HAD YOUR FINAL SAY? ANYTHING ELSE TO ADD? RELATIVE TO THESE COMMENTS?
>> NO, SIR. I DON'T HAVE ANYTHING FURTHER TO ADD. I THINK DAPHNE DID A GREAT JOB OF KIND OF UNWINDING THIS FOR US.
YES, SIR. >> ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU.
>> SO THE OFFENSE, I'M SORRY MATT, SO THE FENCE WAS -- THAT WOULD BE NONCONFORMING IN THE RESIDENTIAL AREA.
>> THAT IS TRUE, YES, SIR. >> SO IT WAS ERECTED WHEN IT WAS INDUSTRIAL. NOW THAT IT'S ZONED R-2 BUT IT'S GRANDFATHERED I TAKE IT THAT YOU DON'T HAVE TO DO ANYTHING WITH
IT. >> THAT IS MY UNDERSTANDING.
BUT I COULD NOT SPEAK ON THE CITY'S BEHALF.
>> OKAY, IT ALL HAD TO DO WITH ME TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHAT THE TIME LINE FOR ALL THESE THINGS WERE.
>> YES, SIR, AND I'M NOT SURE EXACTLY HOW ALL THAT UNFOLDED.
BUT THE EIGHT 72ND HIGH EIGHT FY FENCE WAS ONE OF THE FIRST THINGS WE PUT UP BECAUSE IT WAS UNDER THAT ZONING.
>> ANY ADDITIONAL BOARD DISCUSSION ON THIS CASE? ANYONE WANT TO MAKE A MOTION? INTERNAL DISCUSSION UP HERE?
>> MOTIONS. SO MOTION TO APPROVE -- WHAT'S
>> MOTION TO APPROVE 2020-05. >> CORRECT.
AND WHEN YOU GO THROUGH THIS -- >> YOU HAVE TO READ THE WHOLE --
>> THERE IS A STATEMENT YOU READ AT THE END OF --
>> WHERE IS THE STATEMENT? >> RIGHT THERE, THAT PART.
>> I MOVE TO APPROVE BOA CASE NUMBER 2020-05, AND I MOVE THAT THE BOA MAKE THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, PART OF THE RECORD. THAT BOA CASE 2025-05, ITEM AS PRESENTED, IS DID COMPLIANT WITH COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, AND LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, TO WARRANT APPROVAL AT THIS TIME.
>> AND TYPICALLY OR HISTORICALLY, TAMMI HAS REQUESTED US TO GENERATE OUR REASONING TO GIVE A COUPLE OF EXAMPLES OF WHY WE'RE GOING AGAINST THE CITY'S RECOMMENDATION. STAFF RECOMMENDATION.
>> APPROVAL BECAUSE ESSENTIALLY WHEN THE PROPERTY WAS PURCHASED, THE ZONING WAS CONSISTENT WITH THE INTENT.
AND ADDITIONALLY, THERE ARE NO -- ADDITIONALLY, THE PLANNED STRUCTURE IS CONSISTENT WITH ALL OF THE SURROUNDING AREAS.
SO THERE IS NO ADVERSE IMPACT. >> EXCELLENT.
>> SECOND. >> ALL RIGHT WE GOT A SECOND.
TAYLOR WOULD YOU PLEASE CALL THE VOTE.
>> MEMBER HERTSLET, YES, MEMBER GRANT, NO.
MEMBER OLIVA, YES. MEMBER SKULMIS.
ALL RIGHT. MOVING AHEAD TO THE NEXT CASE.
[00:50:15]
>> GIVER ME ONE SECOND. GIVE ME ONE SECOND, I'M JUST TRYING TO MAKE THE SCREEN NOT COMPLETELY -- OKAY.
[5.2 BOA 2020-0014 - RENEE VILA 2020 SADLER ROAD Request for Variance from LDC Section 5.03.09 to install a sign that exceeds the maximum 8' requirement. (Quasi-Judicial)]
SO THE NEXT CASE IS BOA 2020-14, THE APPLICANT IS RENEE VILA AGENT FOR KIM BRIDGE HOLDER LLC. THE LOCATION IS 2020 SADLER ROAD, ZONED C-2 GENERAL COMMERCIAL AND THE REQUEST FOR ACTION TONIGHT IS A VARIANCE FROM LDC SECTION 5.03.09 (D), THE EXISTING USES FOR THE SITE ARE STORAGE.ALL FEES HAVE BEEN PAID AND ALL REQUIRED NOTICES HAVE BEEN MADE.
THE APPLICANT IS SEEKING A VARIANCE TO INCREASE THE EIGHT FOOT HEIGHT REQUIREMENT FOR FREE STANDING SIGNS TO ALLOW FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 15-FOOT SIGN. THE EXISTING SIGN OFTEN THE PROPERTY IS NONCONFORMING WITH AN OVERALL HEIGHT OF 25 FEET.
THE APPLICANT'S REQUESTING AN INCREASE IN HEIGHT TO ACCOMMODATE VISIBILITY WHILE PROTECTING THE NATURAL VEGETATION SURROUNDING THE INTERSECTION.
AND HERE, WE HAVE THE EXISTING NONCONFORMING SIGN, AGAIN, 25 FEET OVERALL HEIGHT, AND THE PROPOSED SIGN, 15 FEET.
GETTING INTO THE CONSISTENCY FOR THE EXPRESSED AREA FOR GRANTING A VARIANCE. NO, CIRCUMSTANCES DO NOT EXIST WHICH ARE NOT APPLICABLE TO OTHER STRUCTURES FOR BUILDING IN THE EXISTING ZONING DISTRICT. EXISTING VEGETATION COULD BE MAINTAINED ALLOWING FOR GREATER VISIBILITY.
SPECIAL PRIVILEGE, NO. GRANTING THE VARIANCE DOES CONFER UPON THE APPLICANT SPECIAL PRIVILEGE THAT IS NOT DEVELOPMENT CODE FOR PORTER STRUCTURES OR BUILDINGS IN THE SAME ZONING DISTRICT. ALL C-2 STRUCTURES, EXISTING NONCONFORMING SIGNS THAT STATE THAT UPON CHANGE OF BUSINESS, BUSINESS OWNERSHIP OR BUSINESS NAME THAT USE SHALL IMMEDIATELY TERMINATE. LITERAL INTERPRETATION, NO.
WOULD NOT DEPRIVE THE APPLICANT OF RIGHTS COMMONLY ENJOYED BY OTHER PROPERTIES IN THE SAME ZONING DISTRICT.
AGAIN ALL C-2 ZONED PROPERTIES MUST ADHERE FOR THE EIGHT FOOT REQUIREMENT. MINIMUM VARIANCE, NO.
THE REQUESTED VARIANCE IS NOT THE MINIMUM VARIANCE, THE PROPOSED STRUCTURE WOULD BE NONCONFORMING AND COULD BE A CHANGE OF EXISTING VEGETATION. GENERAL HARMONY, NO, GRANTING THE VARIANCE WILL NOT BE IN HARMONY WITH THE GENERAL INTENT, PURPOSE OF LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AND COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
CODE PROHIBITS THE REESTABLISHMENT OF SIGNS UNLESS TO SUCH AN EXTENT THAT THE COST TO REPAIR AND RECONSTRUCTION EXCEEDS 50%. PUBLIC INTEREST, YES, GRANTING THE VARIANCE IS COMPATIBLE WITH SURROUNDING PROPERTIES AND WILL NOT CAUSE INJURY TO THE AREA INVOLVED OR OTHERWISE BE DETRIMENTAL TO THE PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE OR THE ENVIRONMENT. THE SIGN IS COMPATIBLE WITH THE SURROUNDING BUSINESSES AND WOULD ALLOW THE EXISTING VEG DAYS TO PRAIM AS IS. THE PROPOSAL DOES NOT MEET ALL
SIX REQUIREMENTS. >> THANK YOU, CAN DAPHNE.
IS THERE ANYBODY HERE -- >> I HAVE A QUESTION FOR DAPHNE.
>> GO AHEAD. >> SO THIS EIGHT FOOT REQUIREMENT, IS THAT SOLELY THE HEIGHT OF THE SIGN? IT DOESN'T MAKE ANY DIFFERENCE HOW BIG THE SIGN IS WITHIN THAT
HEIGHT? >> THERE ARE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE ISSUE BUT IT IS OF THE SIGN FACE AS WELL.
THEY ARE WITHIN THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE SIGN FACE.
THE ONLY ISSUE HERE IS THE SIGN HEIGHT.
>> I KNOW THERE ARE A LOT OF CODE NONCONFORMING SIGNS IN THAT
SAME AREA. >> YES, SO ALL THOSE NONCONFORMING SIGNS THEY CAN REMAIN NONCONFORMING.
BUT IF THEY DO CHANGE BUSINESS IN THIS CASE THIS IS GOING FROM A FLASH FOODS TO A CIRCLE K THEY WOULD NEED TO COME INTO CODE SO THAT NONCONFORMING USE EXPIRES, AFTER THEY CHANGE BUSINESS NAME OWNERSHIP OR IF THEY CHOOSE TO CHANGE THEIR SIGN IN ANY WAY THEY WILL HAVE TO COME INTO OUR CITY'S CURRENT CODE.
>> NOW DOES THE NEW SIGN IF THEY'RE REQUIRED TO CHANGE IT DOES THAT HAVE TO GO IN THE SAME LOCATION AS THE OLD ONE?
>> IT DOES NOT HAVE TO GO IF THE EXACT SAME LOCATION NO.
WE JUST HAVE TO MEET THE SET BACK REQUIREMENTS AND ENSURE
[00:55:03]
THAT IT'S NOT WITHIN THE VISIBILITY TRIANGLE.SO THERE ARE A COUPLE OF THINGS WE'LL LOOK AT BUT GENERALLY SPEAKING THAT WOULD BE THE BEST LOCATION PROBABLY FOR THAT SIGN.
>> THIS MIGHT BE OBVIOUS, IT'S NOT OBVIOUS TO ME.
NONCONFORMING IS I CURRENTLY NONCONFORMING AS IT CONFORMS WHEN THE SIGN WENT UP AND THE RULES CHANGED AFTERWARDS?
>> RIGHT. IT COULD HAVE BEEN CONSTRUCTED, I'M NOT SURE WHEN IT WAS ORIGINALLY CONSTRUCTED BUT IT COULD HAVE BEEN CONSTRUCTED BEFORE WE HAD THIS REQUIREMENT.
SO THAT COULD HAVE BEEN THE CASE OR NEW REPLY NAMED INTO THE CITY, I'M NOT SURE WHAT IS THE CASE BUT IT IS CONSIDERED NONCONFORMING TO OUR STANDARDS AS WE HAVE TODAY.
>> ALL RIGHT. >> HAVE THERE BEEN ANY OTHER CASES WHERE PEOPLE HAVE CHANGED BUSINESSES AND HAVE CHANGED THEIR SIGNS TO COME INTO COMPLIANCE?
AND THAT IS THE INTENT OF THIS PORTION OF THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT CODE, TO ENSURE THAT BUSINESSES THAT ARE CHANGING OWNERSHIP OR 96 LIKE THAT, TO COME INTO CODE.
THERE ARE PROBABLY SOME OUTS THERE THAT HAVEN'T COME INTO CODE YET BUT THAT IS THE INTENT OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE.
>> IDON'T SEE ANYBODY IN CHAMBERS FROM THE PUBLIC SIDE TO SPEAK ON THIS. IS THERE ANYBODY ONLINE?
>> YES, WE HAVE APPLICANT ONLINE WHENEVER YOU'RE READY FOR HER.
>> LET'S GO AHEAD AND OPEN IT UP TO PUBLIC PLEASE.
>> OKAY, RENEE IF YO.IF YOU WOUD UNMUTE YOURSELF PLEASE.
>> I'M HERE. >> STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS
PLEASE. >> RENEE VILA, 610 NORTH LEE
STREET, KINGSLAND, GEORGIA. >> ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU.
DO YOU HAVE A CASE TO PRESENT OR ARE YOU JUST IN RESPONSE TO --
>> I DON'T REALLY HAVE ANYTHING TO ADD, OTHER THAN IN ADDITION TO THE MILKS THERE IS A POWER BOX AT THAT INTERSECTION, THAT EVEN IF THE VEGETATION IS CUT DOWN IT BLOCKS THE VIEW FROM THE INTERSECTION WHICH IS THE MAIN FOCAL POINT FOR THAT SIGN.
AND THEN I WAS ADVISED THAT THE CITY MAINTAINS THE VEGETATION.
SO IS THAT SOMETHING THAT A CUSTOMER CAN WORK OUT WITH THE
CITY TO KEEP IT CUT BACK? >> ABSOLUTELY.
EVERYTHING PRETTY MUCH. >> AM I CORRECT IN UNDERSTANDING THAT THE DIGITAL SIGN IS TWO-SIDED, FACING EAST AND WEST?
IS THERE ANY ADDITIONAL BOARD DISCUSSION?
ANY QUESTIONS TO BE -- >> I HAVE.
>> GO AHEAD. >> YES, I LOOK, DROVE AROUND, I MEAN WE ALL DO BUT NORMALLY, AND THERE ARE CERTAINLY A LOT OF NONCONFORMING SIGNS IN THE CITY. THEY'VE BEEN THERE FOR A WHILE, MOST OF THEM. THERE ARE CERTAINLY A LOT OF OF CONFORMING SIGNS THAT ARE IN THE CITY AS WELL.
THERE'S A GAS STATION THAT'S JUST DOWN THE STREET FROM THIS ONE THAT HAS A YORMI CONFORMINGN AS AN EXAMPLE.
AND I NOTED TOO, THE INTENT, WHENEVER THIS WAS PUT INTO THE LDC I NEVER REALIZED THERE WERE SO MANY REQUIREMENTS ON SIGNS.
THE -- BUT THE INTENT HERE FOR NONCONFORMING SIGNS, AND I THINK THAT WAS COVERED, BUT THE INTENT OF THE COMMISSION AND THE LDC WAS NOT TO ENCOURAGE THEIR SURVIVAL.
SO THE INTENTS OF NONCONFORMING SIGNS IS RECOGNIZING THAT THEY'RE THERE BUT NOT ENCOURAGE THEIR SURVIVAL.
AND SUCH SIGNS ARE HEREBY DECLARED TO BE UNCOMPATIBLE WITH THE OVERALL INTENT OF THE CHAPTER.
I THINK IT'S AN OPPORTUNITY TO SAY PUT IN A CONFORMING SIGN.
AND I DON'T KNOW -- IT'S CERTAINLY AN IMPROVEMENT OVER WHAT'S THERE. BUT I DON'T THINK THAT'S REALLY THE ISSUE. IT'S AN OPPORTUNITY FOR -- YOU KNOW, TO MEET THE INTENT OF THE LDC ON SIGNAGE.
>> TAMMI GO AHEAD AND SPEAK. >> MAY I.
JUST TO BE CLEAR I'M NOT TESTIFYING.
I DID NOT TAKE AN OATH BUT I'M THE BOARD ATTORNEY AND I'M ALSO
[01:00:02]
THE CITY ATTORNEY. I HAVE THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE INTERSECTION. THIS WAS THE INTERSECTION OF HARMODY. BOTH OF THE ROADS AND INTERSECTIONS ARE NASSAU COUNTY MAINTAINED PROCEEDS AND RIGHTS OF WAY. THERE WAS AT THE CORNER I BELIEVE THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT WHICH IS THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THAT INTERSECTION, WHERE THE GAS STATION IS AND THE CONVENIENCE STORE. AND DAPHNE SENT PICTURES AND ASKED IF I COULD CALL THE COUNTY MANAGER OR COUNTY ATTORNEY AND HAVE IT'S MOSTLY, I'M NOT A PLANT EXPERT BUT IT'S MOSTLY SAW PALMETTOS, VERY THICK. I TOOK PICTURES, TO THE COUNTY'S CREDIT THEY WERE OUT THERE THE NEXT DAY AND THEY LEVELED IT.THE PROBLEM IS THOSE SAW PAWPALMETTOS ARE LIKE WEESDZ.
I DRWEEDS.THEY ARE THERE BUT THT THEM DOWN WHEN YOU ASK.
>> SO DOES THE APPLICANT HAVE ANY RESPONSE TO THE QUESTION FROM THE BOARD? OR THE STATEMENTS FROM THE BOARD ABOUT BRINGING IT INTO A CONFORMING SIGN?
>> NO, I DON'T HAVE ANY QUESTIONS REGARDING THAT.
WE KNEW THIS GOING INTO IT, CIRCLE K CORPORATE IS THE ONE REQUESTING THAT IT BE THE 15-FOOT SIGN.
THE ONLY CONCERN THE CUSTOMER HAS IS HOW WELL THE VEGETATION WILL BE MAINTAINED. AND THE FACT THAT IT IS A FOOD STORE FUEL STATION, AND UNDERSTANDING MULTIPLE BUSINESSES WILL GO IN AND OUT BUT IT WILL ALWAYS BE A FUEL STATION. SO IT DOESN'T HAVE THE SAME POTENTIAL TO CHANGE INTO A DIFFERENT TYPE BUSINESS AS WALGREENS DOWN THE STREET WHICH IS NONCONFORMING OR THE CLOSETS DOWN THE STREET WHICH BUSINESSES CHANGE CONSTANTLY.
THOSE ARE THE ONLY CONCERN. >> ALL RIGHT, SINCE THERE'S NOBODY ELSE HERE FROM THE PUBLIC WE'LL GO AHEAD AND CLOSE THAT PORTION UP. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION AMONGST
THE BOARD? >> I DON'T THINK THAT THE VEG DAYS OR THE FACT THAT THE NEW SIGN IS GOING TO LOOK BETTER BECAUSE IT'S LOWER THAN THE ONE THAT'S THERE NOW, OR THE ELECTRIC POWER BOX IS THE REASON TO GET AWAY FROM THIS EIGHT-FOOT REQUIREMENT. SO I WOULD RECOMMEND THIS BE
ANY -- >> YEAH, IF THE EFFORT IS TO GET THE -- IS TO GET SIGNS THAT CONFORM, THEN APPROVING THIS WOULD NOT BE THE FIRST STEP IN THAT DIRECTION, THAT'S OBVIOUS.
>> ALL RIGHT. UNDERSTANDING HOW THIS IS GOING -- DOES SOMEBODY WANT TO MAKE A MOTION?
>> I'LL MOVE TO DENY BOA CASE NUMBER 2020-14.
AND I MOVE THAT THE BOA MAKE THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW PART OF THE RECORD.
BOA CASE 2020-14 AS PRESENTED IS NOT SUBSTANTIALLY COMPLIANT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE TO WARRANT APPROVAL AT THIS TIME. I THINK WE WELL STATED THE BASIS BOTH THE INTENT OF THE LDC AND THE FACT THAT A DIFFERENT SIGN THAT CONFORMS COULD BE PLACED THERE.
>> ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU. >> I SECOND.
>> TAYLOR CALL THE VOTE PLEASE. >> MEMBER HERTSLET.
>> YES DENY. >> MEMBER GRANT, YES.
>> VICE CHAIR PAPKE? >> THE ANSWER IS TO DENY.
I DON'T KNOW IF THE RIGHT RESPONSE IS YES.
JUST TO BE SURE, YOUR VOTE IS TO DENY?
>> TO DENY. >> ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU.
ALL RIGHT SO MOVING AHEAD. IS THERE ANY BUSINESS OR AGENDA THAT WE NEED TO DISCUSS, NEW BUSINESS? DESANY DISCUSSION FROM THE PUBLC WORKS? PUBLIC?ALL RIGHT, HEARING NONE,S WE CAN ADJOURN THIS MEETING.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.