IT BEING THE APPOINTED TIME AND PLACE, JULY 19TH, 5 P.M.
[00:00:07]
AND THIS IS THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT.AND I'LL CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER.
[1. CALL TO ORDER / ROLL CALL / DETERMINATION OF QUORUM]
FIRST OF ALL, I'D LIKE TO INVITE EVERYBODY TO JOIN ME IN THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS ONE NATION UNDER GOD, INDIVISIBLE, WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL.
THANK YOU. IF WE COULD CALL THE ROLL, PLEASE.
WE DON'T NEED TO SEE ANY OF THE ALTERNATES.
I'D ASK THE BOARD MEMBERS IF THEY'VE HAD ANY EX PARTE COMMUNICATIONS.
THANK YOU. THIS IS THE CITY OF FERNANDINA BEACH BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT.
BUT IT IS A QUASI JUDICIAL AND SHE'LL EXPLAIN THAT.
SO THERE ARE SOME RULES AND PROCESSES AND PROCEDURES, INCLUDING IF YOU'RE GOING TO ADDRESS THE BOARD, YOU YOU'LL BE SWORN IN BECAUSE IT IS SWORN TESTIMONY.
SO WITH THAT, I'LL ASK YOU, TAMMI, IF YOU COULD EXPAND ON THAT.
YEAH, WE HAVE ONE CASE TONIGHT FOR REQUEST FOR VARIANCE.
AND SO THAT CASE, THE BOARD WILL HEAR THAT AND IT'S QUASI JUDICIAL CAPACITY.
WHAT THAT MEANS IS FIRST, MS. HARTMANN WITH CITY STAFF WILL MAKE A PRESENTATION AND INTRODUCE EVIDENCE AND TESTIMONY INTO THE RECORD, AND SHE'S ALLOWED TO DO THAT AFTER SHE GETS SWORN AS CHAIR GRANT SAID, ANYBODY THAT WISHES TO SPEAK SHOULD STAND AND BE SWORN.
EVERYBODY GETS SWORN AT THE SAME TIME.
AFTER MS. HARTMANN MAKES HER PRESENTATION AND INTRODUCES HER EVIDENCE AND TESTIMONY INTO THE RECORD, THEN THE APPLICANT AND OR THEIR AGENT WILL COME TO THE PODIUM FIRST, STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS, AND YOU WILL ALSO BE GIVING EVIDENCE AND TESTIMONY ON THE RECORD.
THE RECORD, AS I REFER TO, IS AN AUDIO AND VIDEO RECORDING OF THE PROCEEDINGS.
WE DO NOT HAVE A COURT REPORTER HERE AND WE DON'T CREATE A TRANSCRIPT OF THE HEARING.
YOU HAVE TO DO THAT ON YOUR OWN IF YOU WISH.
AND THEN ANY AFFECTED PARTIES, WHICH MEANS YOU'RE A RESIDENT OF THE CITY.
YOU MAY ALSO MAKE A PRESENTATION AND INTRODUCE EVIDENCE INTO THE RECORD.
THE BOARD THEN WILL GET THE CASE TO START DELIBERATING.
YOU MAY ASK QUESTIONS OF ANYBODY DURING THEIR TESTIMONY AND ALSO THE PARTIES.
THE PARTIES INCLUDE THE CITY AND THE APPLICANT.
THEY MAY AND AFFECTED PARTIES MAY CROSS-EXAMINE EACH OTHER AND EACH OTHER'S WITNESSES, MEANING YOU CAN ASK QUESTIONS OF THE OTHER PARTIES THAT TESTIFY. SO THEN THE BOARD, YOU GET THE DECISION TO MAKE AND THE DECISION IS BASED ON CRITERIA THAT ARE IN OUR LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE.
AND YOU HAVE TO FIND THAT ALL OF THE CRITERIA HAVE BEEN MET.
IF STAFF AND I HAVEN'T LOOKED AT THE CASE, IF STAFF HAS MADE A RECOMMENDATION OF DENIAL BECAUSE SOME CRITERIA ARE NOT MET AND YOU WISH TO APPROVE IT OR YOU THINK WE SHOULD APPROVE IT, YOU NEED TO ARTICULATE WHICH OF THOSE CRITERIA AT LEAST STAFF HAS SAID HAVE NOT BEEN MET THAT YOU BELIEVE ARE.
IN OTHER WORDS, YOU HAVE TO ARTICULATE WHY ALL SIX CRITERIA HAVE BEEN MET.
SO REMEMBER THAT THE TESTIMONY TONIGHT THAT YOU GET FROM THE CITY STAFF IS CONSIDERED, AND I'VE EXPLAINED THE REASONS BEFORE, IS CONSIDERED EXPERT TESTIMONY.
THE TESTIMONY THAT YOU RECEIVE FROM A LAYPERSON THAT COMES TO THE PODIUM HERE THAT DOES NOT SAY THAT THEY'RE AN EXPERT AND WHY IS SUPPOSED TO BE WEIGHED LESS THAN AN EXPERT.
THAT DOESN'T MATTER IF IT WAS A CITY STAFF EXPERT OR THE APPLICANT OR AN AFFECTED PARTIES EXPERT, THOSE EXPERT THAT EXPERT TESTIMONY IS SUPPOSED TO BE WEIGHED MORE HEAVILY THAN LAY PERSON TESTIMONY.
REMEMBER THAT ALL TESTIMONY NEEDS TO B RELEVANT TO THE CASE AND ANYBODY CAN EXPRESS THEIR OPINIONS.
[00:05:04]
BUT YOU DON'T STAND UP HERE ALL NIGHT AND EXPRESS YOUR OPINION SO GRANT KNOWS HOW TO KIND OF REIN THAT IN IF YOU NEED TO.SO REMEMBER, HARDSHIPS ARE THE BASIS FOR GRANTING A VARIANCE.
A HARDSHIP HAS TO BE PROVEN HERE TONIGHT, AND THAT BURDEN IS ON THE APPLICANT.
ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS? FOR THOSE OF YOU THAT HAVEN'T SEEN OUR PROCEEDINGS BEFORE OR READ OUR RULES, IT TAKES FOUR YES VOTES TO APPROVE A VARIANCE.
SO A SUPERMAJORITY OF THE VOTING MEMBERS, FIVE OF THE MEMBERS TONIGHT WILL BE VOTING.
SO YOU NEED TO GET FOUR OUT OF THE FIVE TO VOTE IN FAVOR OF A VARIANCE.
SIMPLE MAJORITY TO DENY THAT IS IN THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE.
IF THERE IS AN APPEAL OF THIS BOARD'S DECISION TONIGHT, THAT APPEAL HAS TO BE FILED WITHIN 30 DAYS OF THE WRITTEN FINDINGS OF FACT, WHICH MR. GRANT USUALLY SIGNS WITHIN A COUPLE OF BUSINESS DAYS.
SO 30 PLUS A COUPLE OF BUSINESS DAYS IS YOUR TIME TO APPEAL THE CASE.
AFTER THAT, THERE IS NO CHANCE TO APPEAL THE CASE.
THAT APPEAL GOES TO THE CIRCUIT COURT.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH, TAMMI. BEFORE WE GET INTO THE FIRST CASE BEFORE US, THE NEW CASE BEFORE US, WE NEED TO LOOK AND APPROVE AT THE MEETING MINUTES FROM BOTH MARCH AND JANUARY.
CHAIR GRANT, SORRY, WE NEED TO GIVE THE OATH TO PARTIES.
I WAS GOING TO WAIT. OH, WE GOT INTO THAT.
YES. ALL THOSE WHO THINK THAT THEY'RE GOING TO PROVIDE TESTIMONY.
IF YOU COULD STAND RIGHT NOW AND WE'LL ADMINISTER THE OATH FOR ANYBODY ELSE WHO WANTS TO THINKS LATER ON THAT THEY WANT TO PROVIDE TESTIMONY, IT'S NOT A PROBLEM. WE CAN SWEAR YOU IN AT THAT TIME IF THAT'S WHAT YOU WANT TO DO.
BUT FOR RIGHT NOW, THOSE THAT INTEND TO GO AHEAD.
RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND. DO YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM THAT THE ORAL AND OR WRITTEN TESTIMONY YOU'RE ABOUT TO GIVE WILL BE THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH? YES. YES, YES.
THANK YOU. NOW WE'LL TALK ABOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE MEETING MINUTES.
[3. APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES]
ANY. MARY, YOU'RE USUALLY THE.IT'S BEEN TOO LONG. IT'S HARD READING THREE OF THEM, YOU KNOW.
I'D LIKE TO SEE SOME ANSWERS TO SOME OF THE QUESTIONS THAT YOU PUT IN HERE.
THAT'S ABOUT ALL I HAVE TO SAY ABOUT IT.
THAT'S A GOOD POINT. OKAY, LET'S DO JANUARY 1ST.
THEN WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE.
A MOTION TO APPROVE. I'LL SECOND.
OKAY. WHAT ABOUT THE MARCH MEETING? ANY COMMENTS.
MOTION. WE'RE DOING THE WORKSHOP TOO, RIGHT? YES. WHICH ONE ARE WE DOING FIRST? WE'LL DO THE WORKSHOP FIRST.
SOMEONE ELSE WILL PROVE THAT. I'LL MAKE A MOTION FOR APPROVAL.
SECOND. WE CAN CALL THE VOTE FOR THE WORKSHOP.
ANY COMMENTS ON THAT? MOTION TO APPROVE. SECOND MOTION.
[4.1 BOA 2023-0021 - BOHLER ENGINEERING FL, LLC, AGENT FOR ISLAND WALK STATION LLC, 1421 SADLER ROAD]
BOA 2023-0021.WE HAVE ONE VARIANCE REQUEST TONIGHT AND IT IS CASE 2023-0021 BOHLER ENGINEERING, FLORIDA LLC IS ACTING AS AGENT FOR ISLAND WALK STATION, LLC, WHO IS THE PROPERTY OWNER.
[00:10:01]
THE SUBJECT PROPERTY CURRENTLY CONTAINS A COMMERCIAL STRUCTURE OF APPROXIMATELY 213,000FT² AND WAS ORIGINALLY DEVELOPED IN 1987.IN FEBRUARY OF THIS YEAR, THE CITY COMMISSION HELD A JOINT MEETING WITH THE PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD TO DISCUSS THE CHALLENGES POSED BY CURRENT LIMITATIONS ON LARGE SCALE REDEVELOPMENT. COMMERCIAL REDEVELOPMENT EXCUSE ME.
TODAY THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING ONE VARIANCE FROM LDC SECTION 4.02.01J TO DEVIATE FROM THE MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE IMPERVIOUS LOT COVERAGE OF 60%.
THE LDC ALLOWS FOR THE SHOPPING CENTER TO REMAIN EXACTLY AS IT IS INDEFINITELY.
HOWEVER, THE APPLICANT'S PROPOSED SITE PLAN WILL CORRECT A CURRENT NONCONFORMITY RELATING TO LDC SECTION 4.05 .07D2, WHICH IS RELATED TO THE NUMBER OF CONTIGUOUS PARKING SPACES WITHOUT A PLANTING AREA.
THE PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS WILL ALSO REDUCE THE CURRENT IMPERVIOUS LOT COVERAGE BY APPROXIMATELY 13,000FT², AND THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST FOR THIS VARIANCE DOES ALIGN WITH THE OBJECTIVES OUTLINED DURING THE JOINT MEETING AND SUBSEQUENT MEETINGS.
THIS IS THE PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS IN AREA OF PROPOSED WORK TO BE DONE.
AND HERE ARE THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AS WELL AS THE SURROUNDING PARCELS AND THEIR ZONING DISTRICTS.
SO WITH REGARD TO THE SIX CRITERIA FOR GRANTING A VARIANCE, STAFF FINDS THE FOLLOWING THAT SPECIAL CONDITIONS DO EXIST AS THEY RELATE TO THE LAND. THE SUBJECT COMMERCIAL CENTER WAS CODE COMPLIANT AT THE TIME OF ITS CONSTRUCTION AND WAS ONLY RENDERED ILLEGAL NONCONFORMITY DUE TO CODE CHANGES ADOPTED DECADES LATER BEYOND THE APPLICANT'S CONTROL.
THE VARIANCE REQUESTED IS THE MINIMUM VARIANCE NEEDED TO MAKE REASONABLE USE OF THE LAND POSSIBLE.
BOTH SUPPORT ENVIRONMENTALLY CONSCIOUS REDEVELOPMENT, REVITALIZATION OF EXISTING CONSTRUCTION AND IMPROVING SITE CONDITIONS OF CURRENT LEGAL NON-CONFORMITIES.
GRANTING THE VARIANCE IS COMPATIBLE WITH THE SURROUNDING PROPERTIES MAY NOT CAUSE INJURY TO THE AREA INVOLVED OR OTHERWISE BE DETRIMENTAL TO THE PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY, WELFARE OR ENVIRONMENT.
THE SHOPPING CENTER IS A WELL ESTABLISHED COMMUNITY RESOURCE AND THE PROPOSED PLAN WILL ONLY SERVE TO IMPROVE THE CURRENT CONDITIONS, INCLUDING PEDESTRIAN SAFETY AND INCREASE IMPERVIOUS SURFACE AREA AND BETTER STORMWATER MANAGEMENT.
[00:15:04]
STAFF DOES FIND THAT THE REQUESTED ACTION AS PRESENTED MEETS ALL SIX CRITERIA FOR GRANTING A VARIANCE AND RECOMMENDS APPROVAL.THANK YOU. I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
TAYLOR DOES THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE PROPOSED CHANGES THAT ARE BEING REVIEWED BY THE CITY COMMISSION MAKE ANY AMENDS TO THIS IF THEY WERE ALREADY APPROVED, WOULD THIS VARIANCE BE NECESSARY? THIS PARTICULAR VARIANCE WOULD STILL BE NECESSARY BECAUSE IMPERVIOUS LOT COVERAGE HASN'T BEEN ADDRESSED YET.
OKAY. IS IT AND I THINK YOU HAVE HAD A FIRST READING AND NOW THEY'RE OFF IN THE...
NOT IN THIS CURRENT BATCH OF PROPOSED AMENDMENTS.
NO, IT'S ONLY RELATED TO LARGE SCALE REDEVELOPMENT, WHICH IS A PARTICULAR SECTION OF CODE.
THE PERVIOUS LOT COVERAGE OR IMPERVIOUS LOT COVERAGE RELATES TO AN ENTIRE ZONING DISTRICT ITSELF.
SO IT'S TWO DIFFERENT SECTIONS OF CODE THAT WOULD HAVE TO BE TOUCHED.
ANOTHER QUESTION, THE SIZE OF THE STRUCTURE ITSELF, IS IT INCREASING OR DECREASING OR WHAT? THE ACTUAL STORE OF PUBLIX.
AS OF RIGHT NOW, THERE IS A PROPOSED INCREASE OF ABOUT 2,000FT², BUT THAT IS NOT RELEVANT TO THIS PARTICULAR VARIANCE REQUEST.
AND HOW MANY MORE PARKING SPACES ARE REQUIRED FOR AN ADDITIONAL 2,000FT²? THAT HASN'T BEEN CALCULATED BECAUSE IT'S NOT PART OF THIS REQUEST.
ALL RIGHT. GOING BACK TO THE WHAT THE PROPOSED CHANGES WERE TO THE LDC AND THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
SO BUT I DON'T HAVE THE ACTUAL WORDING CHANGES.
I JUST HAVE THE PAB CASE HERE.
BUT IT DOES SAY 21311 REQUIREMENTS FOR PERVIOUS PARKING MATERIALS AS PART OF WHAT WAS BEING REQUESTED TO BE CHANGED IN THE LDC.
CORRECT. RIGHT NOW FOR REDEVELOPMENT OF OR ANY SORT OF DEVELOPMENT, OUR CODE DOES REQUIRE 75% OF THE PARKING BE DONE IN PERVIOUS MATERIALS AND THAT IS ONE OF THE PROPOSED CHANGES.
SO I THINK THAT'S WHAT YOU WERE ASKING IS ARE THE CHANGES THAT HAVE BEEN PROPOSED, WOULD THEY COVER THIS ISSUE? IT SOUNDS LIKE THEY WOULD NOT.
THE VARIANCE REQUEST BEING REQUESTED TODAY.
TODAY, IT'S ASKING FOR A DEVIATION FROM THE MAXIMUM PERVIOUS LOT COVERAGE OF AN ENTIRE SITE OF 60%.
SO IT'S NOT PERVIOUS AREAS, PERVIOUS COVERAGE? IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE.
RIGHT. RIGHT NOW, THE SITE SITS AT APPROXIMATELY 80% AND THE PROPOSED SITE PLAN IS LOOKING TO DECREASE THAT BY ABOUT 13,000FT². BUT THEY'RE STILL GOING TO BE OVER THE ALLOTTED 60%.
SO THAT'S WHERE THE REQUEST FOR RELIEF IS COMING.
THEY'LL END UP AT HOW MUCH? WHAT PERCENTAGE? I'M SORRY? WHAT PERCENTAGE? I DIDN'T SEE THAT IN HERE.
AND THIS IS BEING DRIVEN BECAUSE OF PARKING SPACES OR A DESIRE TO SHIFT FROM TO REDUCE THE IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE.
I'M SORRY, WHAT IS THE VARIANCE REQUEST IS BEING DRIVEN.
YES. TO FOR RELIEF FROM THE IMPERVIOUS LOT COVERAGE REQUIREMENT OF HAVING TO TEAR UP APPROXIMATELY 20 PLUS PERCENT OF THE EXISTING SITE.
I UNDERSTAND. BUT AS YOU SAID IN YOUR OPENING, THE LOT AND THE STORES COULD REMAIN AS IS.
SO. YES, SO WHAT IS DRIVING THE REDUCTION OF IMPERVIOUS TO PERVIOUS IS IT PARKING? THAT'S SOMETHING I'LL LET THE APPLICANT SPEAK TO THE MOTIVATION FOR REDEVELOPMENT.
OKAY. MISS HARTMANN, WHERE DOES THE STORMWATER GO NOW? HOW IS IT BEING CARED FOR? CURRENTLY I CAN'T SPEAK INTO DETAILS WITH OUR STORMWATER MANAGEMENT, BUT THERE IS AN ENTIRE STORMWATER MANAGEMENT SITE PLAN THAT WOULD BE AVAILABLE, YOU KNOW, AS PART OF PUBLIC RECORD, BUT AS NOT A PROFESSIONAL IN STORMWATER MANAGEMENT.
I CAN'T TELL YOU EXACTLY HOW IT FLOWS.
[00:20:01]
COST GOES TO THE TAXPAYERS.SO I'M NOT SURE WHERE THIS IS ALL GOING TO END UP.
YOU KNOW, IT'S IMPORTANT THAT IT STAY ON THE SITE AND FROM MY PERSPECTIVE AND THEY TREAT IT.
YES. AND THE LDC REQUIRES THAT EACH INDIVIDUAL SITE, WHETHER COMMERCIAL OR RESIDENTIAL, MAINTAIN STORMWATER ON SITE UNLESS THERE IS SOME SORT OF UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT, WHICH THIS WOULD THE STORMWATER WOULD BE MAINTAINED ON SITE.
AND I THINK MAYBE THOSE ARE QUESTIONS THAT THE APPLICANT COULD PROBABLY ASK.
CAN I ASK TAMMI A QUESTION? YES. YES, YOU MAY.
IF THE IF THE VARIANCE IS APPROVED OR THEY SOMEHOW DIDN'T GET APPROVED AND CHANGED THEIR PLAN, IS THIS TYPE OF REDEVELOPMENT SOMETHING THAT THE TRC REVIEWS? YES, IT IS. SO STORM WATER JUST TO BE CLEAR AND ENGINEERING AND ALL OF THAT'S GOING TO BE REVIEWED BY OUR CITY STAFF.
GOOD POINT. OTHER QUESTIONS? ONE MORE. IT SAYS IN THE REQUEST FOR THE VARIANCE THAT THERE IS A REQUEST TO ELIMINATE THE IMPERVIOUS SURFACE VARIANCE FROM THE ACTUAL REQUEST.
AND I'D LIKE TO MAKE SURE THAT IT SAYS THAT WE ARE JUST GIVING THEM A VARIANCE FOR THIS NUMBER OF SQUARE FEET, NOT ELIMINATING THE IMPERVIOUS SURFACE RATIO REQUIREMENT.
SO ARE YOU REFERENCING THE LETTER OF INTENT LANGUAGE? YES. YES, I DO SEE WHERE IT SAYS ELIMINATED, AND THAT WOULD CERTAINLY BE UP TO THE BOARD IN A MOTION TO CLARIFY THAT IT WOULD BE, IT'S NOT ELIMINATED, ONLY APPLICABLE TO THE SITE PLAN AS SUBMITTED OR WHATEVER THE VERBIAGE THE BOARD DECIDED ON.
I'LL PROBABLY ASK THIS OF THE APPLICANT, BUT BUT WE'RE ONLY LOOKING AT THE PARKING AREA RIGHT IN FRONT OF PUBLIX. IS THAT RIGHT? YOU ARE ONLY LOOKING AT THE IMPERVIOUS LOT COVERAGE OF THE SITE ITSELF.
THE WHOLE SITE. THE WHOLE SITE.
IT'S THE ENTIRE IT'S GOING ALL THE WAY DOWN.
THE OTHER 150,000FT² OF STORES.
SO IT IS CONSIDERED ONE ENTIRE SITE BY OUR CODE.
BUT FOR THE FOR THE IMPERVIOUS LOT COVERAGE, IT DOES TAKE INTO ACCOUNT TWO LARGE PARCELS.
OKAY. I CAN PUT ON A DIFFERENT AND THE QUESTION ALSO IS THEN I NOTICED THAT THE HANDOUT THAT I ASSUME CAME FROM THE ENGINEERING COMPANY, IT SAYS THAT THERE'S AN IMPERVIOUS SURFACE RATIO WITH THIS 13,000FT² OF 76.45.
WOULD THAT BE FOR ANY OTHER DEVELOPMENT THAT THEY DID IN THE ENTIRE SITE? WOULD THEY GET THAT IMPERVIOUS SURFACE RATIO FOR THE ENTIRE SHOPPING CENTER IF THEY DID SOMETHING ELSE THERE LATER ON? NO. IF THERE ARE ANY DEVELOPMENT WERE TO TAKE PLACE AT ANY OTHER TIME WITHIN THE SHOPPING CENTER, SUCH AS ANOTHER TEAR DOWN AND REBUILD, IF THEY WEREN'T GOING TO COME INTO FULL COMPLIANCE WITH WHATEVER THE CODE WAS AT THAT TIME, THEY WOULD HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE VARIANCE PROCESS AGAIN AS WELL.
OKAY. THIS WOULD ONLY STAND TO THIS PROJECT.
DID YOU SAY THAT THE CITY IS GOING TO CHANGE THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE FROM FROM 80% TO 60% IMPERVIOUS? NO, NO, NO.
THE CURRENT LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE HAS A 60% IMPERVIOUS MAXIMUM LOT COVERAGE.
THIS SITE NOW SITS AT APPROXIMATELY 80% IMPERVIOUS LOT COVERAGE.
WELL, AS THE CITY THOUGHT ABOUT CHANGING THAT TO A LOWER PERCENTAGE THAN 60, BECAUSE I THINK WHEN WE TALKED A FEW MEETINGS AGO, YOU COULD ONLY THINK OF LIKE ONE PROPERTY IN TOWN THAT MET THIS 60%.
I KNOW THAT IMPERVIOUS LOT COVERAGE PERCENTAGES HAVE COME UP JUST IN CONVERSATION IN THE PAST, BUT AS OF RIGHT NOW, THERE IS NO DIRECTION FROM THE CITY COMMISSION TO FOR STAFF TO RESEARCH THAT AND PROVIDE RECOMMENDATIONS.
OKAY. TRYING TO GET THIS STRAIGHT IN MY HEAD.
[00:25:07]
PUBLIX. BECAUSE WE KEEP TALKING ABOUT SITE.AND I MEAN, SO WHAT ARE WE REALLY TALKING ABOUT? THE ENTIRE PARKING LOT THAT GOES IN FRONT OF THE REST OF THOSE STORES.
WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE ENTIRE PARCEL.
IT'S NOT THE PARKING, JUST THE PARKING.
AND I REALIZE WITH OUR COMMERCIAL.
LET ME I'M TRYING TO I WANT TO SHOW THIS IS A BETTER VIEW IN HERE.
I WANT TO SEE IF I CAN MAYBE HELP BECAUSE I WAS, TAYLOR YOU IF YOU WOULD CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, I WANT TO SEE IF I CAN HELP JUST KIND OF FRAME THIS BECAUSE I FEEL LIKE SOME OF THE BOARD MEMBERS ARE TRYING TO GET THEIR HEADS AROUND THIS, AS I HAVE WHENEVER THERE IS A NEED TO COME TO THE CITY TO GET A BUILDING PERMIT OR ANY TYPE OF PERMIT, THAT'S WHAT TRIGGERS THIS TYPE OF REVIEW.
BUT THEY WANT TO REDO THE PARKING AREA.
SO THAT ALL REQUIRES PERMITTING THROUGH THE CITY.
ONCE THAT HAPPENS, THEY COME TO PLANNING AND THEY REALIZE THAT YOU ALREADY ARE A NON-CONFORMING USE.
AND WE DON'T UNLESS IT'S AN EMERGENCY.
YOU HAVE TO PUT YOUR ROOF BACK ON OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
WHEN WE TALK ABOUT COVERAGE, WE'RE THE ENTIRE COMMONLY OWNED PROPERTY WHICH INCLUDES BELLS, PUBLIX, THE WHOLE SHOPPING CENTER ALL THE WAY AROUND IN LOOKING AT LOT COVERAGE FOR IMPERVIOUS.
ALL OF THAT CALCULATED TODAY IS ABOUT 80% OF THE SITE COVERAGE WITHOUT ANY IMPROVEMENTS BEING MADE.
IN ORDER FOR THEM TO MAKE THE IMPROVEMENTS AND TO HAVE MEET PARTS OF OUR CODE WHERE THEY NEED TO PUT LANDSCAPE ISLANDS IN BETWEEN SPOTS THAT WE DON'T SEE THERE TODAY, THEY'RE THEY'RE GOING TO NEED A PERMIT AND PLANNING REVIEWS AND APPROVALS.
SO WHAT THEY'RE ASKING TO DO IS I UNDERSTAND IT IS THEY WANT TO MAKE THESE IMPROVEMENTS, BUT THEY'RE NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO COME INTO 60% CONFORMANCE WITH OUR CODE, BUT THEY ARE GOING TO BE REDUCING IT FROM I'M NOT LOOKING AT THE PAPER APPROXIMATELY 80% DOWN TO 74% WITH WHAT THEY'RE GOING TO END UP WITH, WHICH INCLUDES SOME LOSS OF PARKING SPACES.
SO DID I GET THAT RIGHT? OKAY. DOES THAT HELP AT ALL, MR. CHAIR? YES.
I WANT TO ASK YOU TO GO DO IT AGAIN.
NO, WE WE HAD A SIMILAR AND I KNOW THESE ARE ALL SEPARATE ON THEIR MERITS, BUT WE HAD A SIMILAR CASE IN JANUARY AND THE STAFF ANSWERED NO TO SEVERAL OF THE CRITERIA.
AND IN MY EFFORT TO UNDERSTAND CONSISTENCY IN THE ANALYSIS, YOU PROBABLY REMEMBER THAT ONE.
IT WAS ANOTHER SHOPPING CENTER.
YEAH. WHERE NUMBER TWO, THREE AND FOUR WERE WERE NOS.
THE STAFF SAID THAT THOSE WERE NO, IN FACT SPECIAL PRIVILEGE WAS BEING.
TO USE LITERAL INTERPRETATION AND VARIANTS.
CAN YOU HELP ME UNDERSTAND THE DIFFERENCE? I KNOW THE OTHER ONE WAS AN EXPANSION OF INCLUDED AN EXPANSION OF THE ONE MAJOR STORE THERE, WHICH SOUNDS LIKE THIS IS GOING TO BE THE PLAN HERE FOR THE CURRENT PUBLIX.
SO CAN YOU MAYBE HELP ME A LITTLE BIT UNDERSTAND WHY THESE ARE YESES? WHICH NUMBERS? TWO, THREE AND FOUR. SO NUMBER TWO, GRANTING THE VARIANCE DOES NOT CONFER UPON THE APPLICANT A SPECIAL PRIVILEGE.
I THIS IS SOMETHING THAT'S BEEN RECOGNIZED BY STAFF, AS YOU KNOW.
IT COULD BE AND CERTAINLY ARGUED MANY WAYS.
[00:30:04]
BUT THE OVERALL INTENT AND GIVEN GIVEN THAT SORT OF CONFUSION WITH SPECIAL PRIVILEGE, ARE REALLY TRYING TO FIGURE OUT THE INTENT BEHIND THESE CRITERIA. THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE HAS AN ENTIRE CHAPTER, CHAPTER TEN, DEDICATED TO ALLOWING OR PROVIDING MECHANISMS FOR OBTAINING RELIEF FROM DESIGN ELEMENTS.SO LOOKING AT THE OVERALL INTENT AND READING THAT, I DON'T BELIEVE IN MY ANALYSIS THAT THIS IS A SPECIAL PRIVILEGE BECAUSE WE HAVE AN ENTIRE CHAPTER DEDICATED TO ALLOWING RELIEF FOR CERTAIN SITUATIONS FOR REDEVELOPMENT OR NEW DEVELOPMENT.
SO THIS IS NOT SOMETHING THAT'S ONLY EXCLUSIVE TO ONE APPLICANT, ONE SECTION OF THE CITY, ONE ZONING DISTRICT.
ANYBODY LOOKING TO SEEK A DEVIATION FROM OUR CODE HAS CHAPTER TEN TO RELY ON AND THE DIFFERENT AVENUES FOR NUMBER THREE LITERAL INTERPRETATION.
I BELIEVE THAT IF YOU DO TAKE THE LITERAL INTERPRETATION OF THE CODE, YOU DON'T SEE THAT IT HAS ANY ALLOWANCE FOR OR ANY DISTINCTION BETWEEN GREENFIELD DEVELOPMENT AND REDEVELOPMENT OF PROPERTIES.
LITERALLY, THERE IS DEFINITELY A DIFFERENCE AND A HIGHER BURDEN PLACED ON REDEVELOPMENT VERSUS STARTING FROM THE DIRT, SO TO SPEAK.
SOME WOULD SAY IT'S A BURDEN BECAUSE YOU COULDN'T BUILD THIS YOU COULDN'T BUILD THE SHOPPING CENTER UNDER THE CURRENT LDC. RIGHT.
SOME MIGHT SAY THAT YOU CAN BUILD IT UNDER THE SAME SET OF STANDARDS.
YOU CAN DEFINITELY BUILD A SHOPPING CENTER.
80,000FT² IS THE MAXIMUM THAT IS BEING CURRENTLY.
OKAY. I JUST SAID WHEN YOU SAID THE BENEFIT TO SOMEBODY CAME IN AND APPLIED FOR 200,000 SQUARE FOOT SHOPPING CENTER TODAY, THE LDC WOULD SAY, NO, YOU CAN'T DO THAT.
CORRECT. OKAY. THAT MIGHT BE AN ILL CHOSEN WORD.
LOOKING AT. YEAH. AND NUMBER FOUR, JUST TELL ME ON THAT ONE, TOO.
THIS IS ONLY ONE VARIANCE REQUIRED IN ORDER TO IMPROVE CURRENT SITE CONDITIONS AND BRING IT MORE INTO COMPLIANCE WITH OUR CURRENT CODE THAN AS IT WOULD BE IF IT REMAINED THE WAY IT IS TODAY.
THEY'RE NOT ASKING FOR AN EXPANSION.
THERE WERE MULTIPLE REQUESTS IN THAT PRIOR.
HOWEVER, THE APPLICANTS I'LL ASK THE QUESTION OF THE APPLICANT BECAUSE IT TALKS ABOUT A TEAR DOWN AND REBUILD AND EXPANSION OF THE GROCERY STORE, ALTHOUGH IT'S NOT THE VARIANCE BEFORE US.
THIS AN EXPANSION OF ANYTHING IS NOT PART OF THIS APPLICATION WHATSOEVER.
ANYBODY ELSE THROWING DOWN TOO LONG? OKAY. I'LL ASK THE APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE IF THEY'D LIKE TO ADDRESS THE BOARD WITH THE [INAUDIBLE] . GOOD EVENING. MY NAME IS NICHOLAS HAYGOOD, REPRESENTING BULLER ENGINEERING, LOCATED AT 1900 NORTHWEST CORPORATE BOULEVARD, SUITE 101 E, BOCA
[00:35:02]
RATON, FLORIDA, 33431.IT'S IN THE ISLAND WALK SHOPPING CENTER.
IS THE EXISTING BUILDING CONDITION, AS YOU'RE AWARE, I BELIEVE IT WAS INITIALLY CONSTRUCTED IN 1978, SO OR 87.
MY APOLOGIES. SO THE MAIN FOCUS OF THIS PROJECT AND THE REASON WHY WE'RE DOING THIS PROJECT IS THAT THE PLAN IS TO TEAR DOWN AND REBUILD THE EXISTING PUBLIX WITH NEW, MORE MODERN STORE.
PUBLIX EACH YEAR UPDATES THEIR THEIR STORE ROOM BUILDINGS.
HERE WE'VE GOT THE EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS.
AND AS TAYLOR WAS SPEAKING TO, THIS VARIANCE DOES REFLECT THE IMPERVIOUS SURFACE RATIO FOR THE OVERALL SITE, AND THAT INCLUDES THE WHOLE SITE, NOT JUST THE PUBLIX AND THE PARKING FIELD IMMEDIATELY IN FRONT OF IT.
SO I KNOW THAT WAS ONE OF THE CONCERNS IT IS PERTAINING TO THE OVERALL SITE AT LARGE.
AND AS TAYLOR WAS SPEAKING TO, THERE ARE OTHER EXISTING NON-CONFORMITIES ON THE SITE, SUCH AS THE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF CONSECUTIVE PARKING SPACES IN A ROW WITHOUT INCLUDING AN INTERMEDIATE LANDSCAPE ISLAND.
SO WE BELIEVE THAT THIS REDEVELOPMENT PROVIDES SOME SERVICES TO THE COMMUNITY.
WE'RE ENHANCING THE LANDSCAPE FEATURES QUITE A BIT IN THE MAIN PARKING FIELDS.
IN ADDITION TO THAT, AS MS. HARTMANN WAS SPEAKING TO, WE ARE IMPROVING THE, YOU KNOW, THE EXISTING NONCONFORMITY OF THE PARKING SPACES IN A ROW WITHOUT A LANDSCAPE ISLAND.
WE'RE ADDING A LOT MORE LANDSCAPE ISLANDS AND BY VIRTUE OF THAT, ADDING, YOU KNOW, INCREASING THE TOTAL NUMBER OF LANDSCAPE OR THE TOTAL LANDSCAPE AREA AND DECREASING THE IMPERVIOUS SURFACE AREA.
OVERALL, WE'RE SORT OF RESTORING AND REFRESHING THE PLAZA IN PARTICULAR THE PAVEMENT AREAS.
WE'RE GOING TO BE MILLING AND RESURFACING AND RESTRIPING ALL OF THE PAVEMENT ON SITE.
SO EVERYTHING'S GOING TO HAVE SORT OF A CLEAN NEW FINISH.
WE'RE GOING TO BE REPLACING ALL OF THE CURBS.
SO EVERYTHING'S GOING TO BE ALL CLEAN AND NICE AND NEW.
IT'S GOING TO LOOK A LOT BETTER.
I'VE GOT HERE JUST A COMPARISON OF SOME OF THE EXISTING VERSUS PROPOSED CONDITIONS.
AS YOU CAN SEE, THE BUILDING AREA, BECAUSE WE ARE TEARING DOWN THE PUBLIX AND REPLACING IT WITH A NEWER MODEL, THAT NEWER BUILDING PROTOTYPE IS SLIGHTLY LARGER THAN THE ONE WE'RE TEARING DOWN. SO WE ARE INCREASING THE TOTAL BUILDING SQUARE FOOTAGE IN THE PLAZA BY ABOUT 1,700 SQUARE FEET.
THAT'S ABOUT A 0.8% INCREASE TO THE BUILDING AREA ON SITE.
I KNOW THE NUMBERS THAT TAYLOR READ OUT WERE CLOSER TO 80% EXISTING AND 74% PROPOSED.
SINCE SUBMITTING THIS APPLICATION, WE INCREASED THE EFFICIENCY.
THESE SHOULD BE PRETTY EXACT NUMBERS.
I'VE GOT THAT REFLECTED ON THIS SLIDE AS WELL.
[00:40:05]
AS THE ADA REQUIREMENT.SO OUR VARIANCE REQUESTED IS TO ELIMINATE OR I GUESS POTENTIALLY IF IT MIGHT BE MORE PALATABLE TO THE BOARD REVISE THE REQUIREMENT FOR THE MAXIMUM IMPERVIOUS SURFACE RATIO AS MS. HARTMANN WAS SPEAKING ABOUT, BECAUSE OF THE EXISTING DEVELOPMENT ON THE SITE, THERE'S NO FEASIBLE WAY FOR US TO REACH 60% IMPERVIOUS OR LESS. ULTIMATELY, WITH THE AMOUNT OF PARKING ON SITE, WITH THE AMOUNT OF BUILDING SPACE ON SITE, THERE'S NO FEASIBLE WAY TO DO THAT.
AND SO OUR REQUEST IS THAT THE REQUIREMENT BE LIFTED SO THAT WE'RE ABLE TO REDEVELOP THE SITE.
YOU ALSO HAVE THE BENEFIT OF HEAT ISLAND.
YOU'RE GOING TO TAKE SOME OF THAT REFLECTANCE AND THE HEAT.
YES, THAT'S THAT'S TRUE AS WELL.
ALL RIGHT. ANY OF YOUR STORES? IS THERE A SECOND STOREY? ANY PUBLIX? HAVE YOU EVER BUILT A PUBLIX THAT HAS SOME SORT OF SECOND STORY? NO, WE HAVE NOT. I DON'T BELIEVE I PERSONALLY HAVE NOT WORKED ON ONE.
OKAY. YOU MENTIONED THAT THE EXTRA 2,000FT² IS FOR STORAGE, MORE EFFICIENT STORAGE.
I CAN'T SPEAK EXACTLY TO THE OPERATIONS WITHIN THE STORE.
I DO KNOW THAT THE OBVIOUSLY THE LAYOUTS HAVE CHANGED QUITE A BIT SINCE THIS WAS CONSTRUCTED.
SO I BELIEVE THAT THE LANGUAGE IN THE REQUEST WAS PROBABLY THE INCREASED SIZE TO THE STORE ROOM.
THE STORE ROOM IS THE JUST THE LANGUAGE THAT'S USED TO DESCRIBE THE BUILDING.
YES. YOU ALSO MENTIONED THAT YOU WERE EXCEEDING THE PARKING REQUIREMENT.
YES. SO YOU DON'T NEED AS MANY PARKING SPACES AS IS REQUIRED BY THE CITY. WHAT I WAS REFERRING TO WAS THAT WE ARE MEETING THE REQUIRED NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES BY THE CITY.
SO WE WOULD BE MEETING THE REQUIREMENT.
OKAY. THEY'RE POSITIVE BY THREE.
IS IT ALL RIGHT IF WE ADOPT THESE NUMBERS INTO THE RECORD THAT THEY'RE PROVIDED BY AS PART OF THE PRESENTATION? OKAY. AND I APOLOGIZE.
I WOULD LIKE TO ALSO I REMEMBER THAT YOU HAD A CONCERN ABOUT THE STORMWATER.
I WANTED TO CLARIFY A COUPLE OF THINGS ON THAT.
WE ARE HANDLING THE STORMWATER.
WE'RE BEGINNING PERMITTING THROUGH SAINT JOHN, SAINT JOHNS RIVER WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT.
BUT THE STORMWATER AS IT STANDS RIGHT NOW IS ALREADY RETAINED AND TREATED ON SITE AND HAS AN ALLOWABLE LEGAL DISCHARGE TO THE POND AREA TO THE NORTH FOLLOWING TREATMENT OF THE STORMWATER.
AND MY CURIOSITY QUESTION HOW DO YOU TREAT THE STORMWATER? THE STORMWATER IS TREATED BY RETENTION IN A WHAT'S CALLED A DRY POND.
SO WHAT THAT IS, IS JUST SORT OF A DEPRESSED AREA IN THE IN THE LAND.
AND WHEN THE WATER SORT OF STAGES UP THERE, THAT'S THE SYSTEM IS DESIGNED TO DIRECT THE WATER TO THESE THESE DRY PONDS WHERE THEN THE WATER WILL INFILTRATE INTO THE GROUND.
AND IT'S SORT OF IT'S REFERRED TO AS TREATMENT BECAUSE IT REMOVES SOME OF THE POLLUTANTS AND IT REMOVES SOME OF THE THINGS THAT COULD HARM THE BODIES OF WATER THAT THE WATER IS FLOWING INTO, SUCH AS NITROGEN AND PHOSPHORUS.
I WAS WONDERING ABOUT THE TREATMENT PART.
QUESTION, SIR. WHAT IS THE TIMETABLE ON THIS PROJECT? TIMETABLE ON THE PROJECT.
THAT'S. APPROXIMATELY ONE ONE YEAR.
SO WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT, I THINK THAT GENERALLY COULD YOU BE A LITTLE BIT MORE SPECIFIC WITH LIKE THE TIMETABLE OF OF WHEN THIS PROJECT WOULD BE COMPLETED, HOW LONG IT WILL TAKE? IS TEAR DOWN GOING TO HAPPEN IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE PROPOSAL THAT WE ARE LOOKING
[00:45:08]
AT? YES, THAT'S CORRECT.IT WILL BE COMPLETED IN ONE PHASE IN GENERAL.
ONE PHASE? YES. IT'LL ALL BE WITHIN ONE PHASE.
AND GENERALLY THAT TAKES ABOUT A YEAR.
SO. OKAY, SO WE HAVE NO PLACE TO SHOP FOR A YEAR.
I SUPPOSE BEYOND THE CONSIDERATIONS HERE, THERE ARE PLENTY OF PLACES TO SHOP.
ANYTHING ELSE? IS THAT GOOD? YEAH, THAT'S GOOD. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
ALL RIGHT. WHAT OTHER YOU MENTIONED THAT MAYBE CORRECTION OF OTHER NON CONFORMANCES.
OKAY. ARE ALL THE CHANGES THAT YOU'RE PROPOSING GOING TO TAKE PLACE IN FRONT OF THE PUBLIX AND NOT OVER IN FRONT OF THE OTHER STORES? I CAN'T REALLY TELL FROM.
YES, THERE WILL BE SMALL CHANGES.
SO YOU CAN SEE UP HERE BASICALLY ANYTHING THAT'S SHOWN DARK.
WHAT WE'VE GOT UP RIGHT NOW IS THE LANDSCAPE PLAN.
AND IT SHOWS EVERYWHERE THAT YOU SEE THOSE THOSE RIGHT THERE.
I KNOW IT'S A LITTLE BIT DIFFICULT TO SEE ON THE PRESENTATION, BUT THOSE WILL BE NEW TREES.
NO. YEAH. SO IF WE COULD ACTUALLY GO BACK A COUPLE SLIDES TO THE SURVEY.
OKAY. TALKING ABOUT THAT, HOW IS THIS GOING TO IMPACT THE CURRENT RETAIL OPERATIONS OF THE SHOPPING CENTER? YES. SO THIS THIS STYLE OF PROJECT, THE TEARDOWN AND REBUILDS IS SOMETHING THAT PUBLIX DOES A GOOD NUMBER OF.
IT'S IT'S A COMMON PROJECT FOR THEM.
EVERY TENANT OTHER THAN THE PUBLIX SHOULD BE ABLE TO CONTINUE TO OPERATE.
OKAY. THEY ASKED THIS OF THE STAFF, BUT SO THIS ACTIVITY, THE VARIANCE REQUEST IN FRONT OF US, IMPERVIOUS VERSUS IMPERVIOUS. BUT IT IS PART OF A LARGER PROJECT WHICH IS GOING TO BE THE TEARDOWN AND RESTORATION OF THE BUILDING, RIGHT? YES, THAT'S CORRECT.
LET ME ASK THE STAFF REAL QUICK THEN.
IF THEY WERE GOING TO EXPAND THE PUBLIC, THEY WOULD HAVE TO COME BACK FOR A VARIANCE REQUEST.
CORRECT. OR WHAT IS NOW POPULATING OR CIRCULATING THROUGH THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS WITH STATE OR COMMISSION OR WHATEVER WOULD HAVE TO BE APPROVED, CORRECT? RIGHT. ONE OF THE TWO.
OKAY. SO IF THAT DIDN'T GET APPROVED, IF THE STATE SAID NO, I DON'T KNOW WHY, BUT IF THAT OR THE CITY COMMISSION DECIDES NOT TO ADOPT THOSE TWO CHANGES TO THE LDC, THEN THEY WOULD EITHER HAVE TO CANCEL THE PROJECT OR COME BACK TO THE BOA FOR A VARIANCE REQUEST FOR EXPANSION OR MODIFY SO THAT IT OR MODIFY EXPANSION.
OKAY. JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE ABOUT THAT, I GUESS.
WHY ARE YOU DOING THIS? NOT THAT NOT THE STORE PART, BUT THE PARKING LOT, BECAUSE AS THE STAFF SAID, YOU COULD LEAVE THE PARKING LOT THE WAY IT IS TODAY.
YES, IT WAS IT WAS REQUESTED BY THE CITY THAT WE ADDRESS THIS CONCERN OF THE EXISTING NONCONFORMITIES OF THE THE PARKING SPACES THROUGHOUT THE SITE CONSECUTIVE OBVIOUSLY WITHOUT AN ISLAND, AS AS WE'VE DISCUSSED, IT WAS A REQUEST BY THE CITY THAT WE ADDRESS THAT NONCONFORMITY TO THE EXTENT THAT WE ARE ABLE TO, WHICH WAS THAT, YOU KNOW, OBVIOUSLY WE'RE TAKING AWAY EVERY EVERY AREA IN WHICH THAT CONDITION EXISTS.
SO THE REASON WHY IS BECAUSE IT WAS REQUESTED BY THE CITY.
AND A LOT OF THE TIME WHEN PUBLIX DOES THESE SORT OF TEAR DOWN AND REBUILD PROJECTS, THEY DO LIKE TO REFRESH THE OVERALL PLAZA AND MAKE EVERYTHING LOOK NICE AND NEW AS WELL.
SO I THINK YOU SAID THAT IT WAS NOT POSSIBLE OR TO CREATE MORE PERVIOUS PARKING SPACES HERE. I MEAN, WHY CAN'T YOU TAKE OUT ASPHALT AND PUT IN PAVERS? I MEAN, WHAT'S IMPOSSIBLE ABOUT DOING THAT? IT'S NOT IMPOSSIBLE.
BUT TO TAKE OUT EXISTING PAVEMENT AND REPLACE IT WITH PERVIOUS PAVEMENT IS IT'S VERY EXPENSIVE.
[00:50:02]
AND ON TOP OF THAT, THOSE PERVIOUS PAVERS GENERALLY NEED A LOT OF MAINTENANCE EVERY FEW YEARS.OTHERWISE ULTIMATELY THEY END UP BEING JUST THE SAME AS AS REGULAR ASPHALT.
SO THE PROJECT WOULD BE FINANCIALLY, I DON'T NECESSARILY HAVE THE INFORMATION TO BE ABLE TO SAY FOR SURE THE PROJECT WOULD BE FINANCIALLY UNVIABLE IF REPLACING THE EXISTING PAVEMENT WITH PERVIOUS PAVEMENT WAS TO BE THE THE IDEA.
BUT I WOULD SAY FINANCIALLY IT WOULD NOT IT WOULDN'T BE A GREAT DEAL FOR THE DEVELOPER.
IT'S A MATTER OF THE MONEY, BASICALLY.
YEAH. AND IT'S NOT A REQUIREMENT.
SO THAT'S WHY THEY WERE ASKING FOR A VARIANCE.
YES. SO AND IF I READ CORRECTLY, IT'S 76% PERVIOUS TOTAL AREA ROUGHLY.
WE CAN BRING THE SLIDE TO GET IT TO 60%.
YOU WOULD LOSE ENOUGH PARKING SPACES THAT YOU WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO MEET THE MINIMUM PARKING? YES, THAT'S CORRECT.
IS THAT BASED ON THE RETAIL CODE OF THE BUILDING? YES. OF THE ENTIRE MERCANTILE? OF THE? OR IS IT JUST PUBLIX THAT YOU'RE CONCERNED? OF ALL OF THE RETAIL ON SITE? THE PARKING REQUIREMENT BASED ON THE BUILDING SQUARE FOOTAGE IS 719 SPACES.
AS YOU CAN SEE, WE ARE MEETING THAT, BUT ONLY BY AN ADDITIONAL THREE SPACES IN ORDER TO REMOVE.
WHAT WOULD BE EFFECTIVELY ANOTHER 17% OF THE IMPERVIOUS ON SITE.
YOU HAVE TO REMOVE TOO MANY ISLANDS TO DO THAT.
RIGHT. SO THERE'S A TECHNICAL AND FEASIBILITY TO GET TO CODE MINIMUM.
STILL MEET THE MINIMUM PARKING.
YES. THAT'S THE CRITERIA THAT ARE SETTING WHERE YOU ARE TODAY.
THOSE TWO. ADDING MORE ISLANDS AND MORE TREES.
YOU GUYS AREN'T TEARING DOWN ANY OF THE HERITAGE OAKS OR NOT REALLY.
I DON'T THINK THERE ARE ANY HERITAGE OAKS IN THAT PLAZA, BUT THERE ARE SOME PRETTY BIG TREES THERE.
PRETTY BIG TREES. I DON'T BELIEVE THAT WE ARE PROPOSING TO REMOVE ANY TREES WITHIN THE MAIN PLAZA.
WE CAN BRING THE LANDSCAPE PLAN BACK UP.
AND COULD WE MAKE THAT A RECOMMENDATION? YEAH. I DON'T THINK THEY ARE THOUGH.
I'M JUST WANTING HIM TO VALIDATE THAT ON THE RECORD.
WE'VE GOT OBVIOUSLY A LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT WORKING ON THIS PROJECT AS WELL.
AND WE CAN HAVE HIM EVALUATE THE WORK THAT WE'RE DOING WITH THAT LANDSCAPE PLAN AND MAKE SURE THAT NONE OF THE TREES, IF WE ARE PROPOSING TO REMOVE TREES, THAT NONE OF THEM ARE ANY OF THE HERITAGE OAKS OR ANY OTHER HIGH VALUE TREES.
AND YES, YOU CAN MAKE THAT A CONDITION IF THERE'S AN APPROVAL OF THE VARIANCE.
JUST LIKE THAT. THEY'RE NOT HERITAGE OAKS.
THEY'RE DIFFERENT. THEY'RE DIFFERENT.
YEAH. ONCE AGAIN, AND JUST SO I'M CLEAR, THE 719 SPACES IS A CALCULATION BASED UPON THE ENTIRE RETAIL CENTER.
BECAUSE THERE'S A BUNCH OF UNUSED PARKING ON THE EAST SIDE OF THE EASTSIDE OF THAT PARKING LOT.
THAT GOES TO THE QUESTION I WAS ASKING BECAUSE I KNOW THAT THE BUILDING CODE NOW IS TRYING TO REDUCE THE NUMBER SO WE AVOID THIS SITUATION IN THE FUTURE AS WE DEVELOP BUILDINGS FROM A PARKING PERSPECTIVE.
AS IT STANDS RIGHT NOW, THE CODE IS WHAT IT IS WITH REGARD TO PARKING TAYLOR.
SO AS OF RIGHT NOW, THIS IS THE REQUIRED PARKING.
AND BECAUSE AGAIN, THAT SITE HAS TO BE LOOKED AT IN ITS ENTIRETY, EVEN THOUGH THERE ARE SOME PARKING SPACES THAT MAY NOT BE USED VERY OFTEN, THEY ARE BY OUR CODE RIGHT NOW REQUIRED.
IT'S LIKE THE CITY, THE BLOOD BUS PARKS OUT THERE AND NOBODY PARKS ON THAT LINE ALONGSIDE OTHER.
[00:55:05]
IT'S JUST A GIVEN. YEAH.SO YOU'RE DOING THIS BECAUSE THE CITY ASKED YOU TO? IT'S A REQUIREMENT FOR GETTING A PERMIT.
THANK YOU, NICHOLAS. ALL RIGHT.
THANK YOU. ANYBODY ELSE HAVE ANY COMMENTS? QUESTIONS? IF NOT, I'M GOING TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC PORTION AND THE BOARD WILL HAVE ITS OWN DISCUSSION UP HERE.
OKAY. PUBLIC PUBLIC PORTION IS CLOSED.
ANYBODY WANT TO JUMP IN? ABSENT ANY QUESTIONS, THEN I HAVE TO AGREE WITH THE STAFF ANALYSIS.
I THINK IT'S FOR THE BETTERMENT OF THE PROPERTY.
IT'S FOR THE BETTERMENT OF THE CITY.
IT'S GOING TO BE REQUIRED REGARDLESS.
OH, SOMEONE WANTS TO PUT CONDITIONS ON THIS.
LIKE YOU MIGHT HAVE SUGGESTED THAT MAYBE YOU SHOULD MAKE THE MOTION.
AM I PERMITTED TO MAKE? NO. YOU SEE, THAT'S MY, I'M NOT SEATED, SO.
BUT WE HEARD WHAT YOUR IDEAS ARE, SO THANK YOU.
I THINK IT'S A GOOD IDEA TO APPROVE.
WELL, IT CERTAINLY SEEMS LIKE IT'S ALIGNED OR ALIGNING WITH WHERE THE CITY COMMISSION AND THE PAB AND CITY STAFF ARE MOVING AS FAR AS REDEVELOPMENT AND REPURPOSE.
AND I FORGET WHAT WERE THE OTHER WORDS THAT HAVE BEEN USED, TAMMI? REPURPOSE? REDEVELOPMENT? WELL, THE NEW CODE CHANGES WILL CREATE DEFINITIONS FOR REDEVELOPMENT, NEW DEVELOPMENT AND REUSE, REUSE, USE.
AND I THINK THAT AS FAR AS REQUIREMENTS FOR MAINTAINING THE EXISTING TREES, YOU KNOW, THIS PLAN PLAN CALLS FOR PUTTING IN A LARGE NUMBER OF TREES. SO I DON'T KNOW THAT THERE'S REALLY LIKE A TASTE FOR CUTTING DOWN THOSE EXISTING TREES.
YOU KNOW, THE THE LANDSCAPED AREAS OF THE EXISTING PARKING LOT FROM THE PUBLIX IS PROBABLY LARGELY GOING TO LOOK THE WAY IT LOOKS, EXCEPT WITH ADDITIONAL HIGHLIGHTS WITH ADDITIONAL TREES IN IT.
SO THAT SEEMS LIKE A GOOD FAITH GESTURE.
OKAY. I GUESS FROM MY PERSONAL POINT OF VIEW, I'D LIKE TO SEE SOME LANGUAGE IN IT THAT SAYS THAT WE'RE NOT ELIMINATING THE IMPERVIOUS SURFACE RATIO REQUIREMENT AS REQUESTED IN THE VARIANCE AND THE CONDITION THAT ANY HIGH VALUE TREES BE RETAINED ON THE SITE IS HIGH VALUED TREE.
THE TERM OF ART OR I DON'T KNOW WHAT'S THE HOW WOULD WE KNOW WHAT THAT IS? I'M NOT SURE TO DEFINE IT AS A CALIBER OF A TREE.
A CALIBER THAT'S THE SIZE OF THE TREE.
OKAY. ANY SUGGESTIONS? IF I CAN JUST THROW OUT OUR, THE LDC QUALIFIES A HERITAGE TREE AS LONG AS IT'S NATIVE SHADE TREE OF 36IN IN DIAMETER AT CHEST HEIGHT OR LARGER.
NONE OF THESE OUT THERE, NONE OF THE.
THAT'S JUST THESE ARE ALL PROBABLY IN THE 30 FOOT RANGE, BUT MAYBE 12 TO 15.
AND THERE'S VARIOUS TYPES HERE OF MAGNOLIAS.
I LIKE YOUR IDEA, THOUGH. OTHER COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS.
[01:00:07]
KNOW THAT I AGREE THAT THE WITH THE STAFF CONCLUSIONS AND THEIR ANALYSIS ON A COUPLE OF THESE THINGS.I DON'T, I THINK THAT THEY'RE SURMOUNTABLE BUT I'M NOT SURE I AGREE WITH THE THE ANALYSIS ITSELF.
I DON'T THINK I HAVE ANY MORE QUESTIONS FOR.
OKAY. NO MORE QUESTIONS, NO MORE DISCUSSION AND NEED A MOTION.
I'LL MAKE A MOTION. I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE CASE NUMBER 2023-0021.
AND I MOVE THAT THE BOA MAKE THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF THE LAW PART OF THE RECORD THAT THE BOA CASE 2023-0021 AS PRESENTED IS SUBSTANTIALLY COMPLIANT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE TO WARRANT APPROVAL AT THIS TIME.
AND I TEND TO BASE THAT ON THE AGREE AGREEMENT WITH STAFF ON THEIR ASSESSMENT THAT IT MEETS THE MINIMUM CRITERIA FOR THEIR VARIANCE.
I'D LIKE TO ADD THE CONDITIONS OF THE TREE CALIBER TO MAINTAIN EXISTING TREES WHERE FEASIBLE, PRACTICAL, AND THAT THEY HAVE TO BE OF A MINIMUM CALIBER OF, I'LL JUST SAY 12IN.
I'LL LEAVE IT AT THAT. SECOND, JUST AS A REMINDER, MR. PAPKE ELIMINATION COMPLETELY OF THE IMPERVIOUS REQUIREMENT.
YES. THAT'S ALREADY ESTABLISHED.
IT'S GOING TO BE VOTED THROUGH THE BUILDING PERMIT ANYWAY.
SO I'M NOT I DON'T THINK THAT'S AN ISSUE.
NO, I WOULD IMAGINE THAT THERE ARE SITUATIONS WE HAVE A MOTION.
WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.
. THANK YOU. THE APPLICATION IS FOR.
THE VARIANCE HAS BEEN APPROVED.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR PARTICIPATION IN ATTENDANCE.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
OKAY, NOW ON TO BOARD BUSINESS.
[5. BOARD BUSINESS]
AND, TAYLOR, WE'LL WAIT FOR PEOPLE TO.THANK YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR TIME.
APPRECIATE IT. SO WE'RE ON TO 5.1.
AND YOU WANT TO EXPLAIN FOR THE OTHER MEMBERS THAT HAVEN'T HAD THE DISCUSSION WHY WE'RE DOING THAT.
THE ELECTION OF THE VICE CHAIR BECAUSE IN JANUARY, VICE CHAIR PAPKE WAS NOT HERE, BUT HE WAS NOMINATED AND THE BOARD DID VOTE TO KEEP HIM OR RETAIN HIM AS VICE CHAIR, BUT IT WAS IN ABSENTIA.
SO WE JUST NEED MEMBER PAPKE TO FORMALLY ACCEPT AND THE BOARD TO AGAIN AGREE.
WE JUST NEED. SO DO WE HAVE TO DO THE NOMINATION? DO WE DO A NOMINATION AND A MOTION? IF WE CAN JUST REPEAT IT SO THAT WE HAVE MEMBER PAPKE HERE FORMALLY ACCEPTING? YES, PLEASE.
SO I MOVED TO APPOINT MEMBER PAPKE AS VICE CHAIRPERSON.
OKAY. IF WE CALL THE VOTE ON THAT.
I DON'T SEE ANY MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC.
I JUST HAVE AN ANNOUNCEMENT THAT THAT BEARS ON THAT PARTICULAR.
I AM RETIRING OR RESIGNING MY MEMBERSHIP IN THE BOARD AND MY CHAIRMANSHIP OF THE BOARD.
[01:05:09]
I CAN'T DO THAT UNLESS I COULDN'T DO THAT, UNLESS IT WAS ACTUALLY ON THE AGENDA AND IT'S NOT ON THE AGENDA.SO THAT'LL BE SOMETHING FOR THE REMAINING BOARD MEMBERS TO DEAL WITH.
AND AND YOU WILL BE AT LEAST CHAIRING THAT ONE.
BUT I WOULD I THINK IT WOULD BE HELPFUL IF WE JUST GO ONE STEP FURTHER WITHOUT A FORMAL VOTE, AND THAT IS ARE THERE WE CAN TAKE NOMINATIONS THAT CAN BE CONSIDERED BEFORE THE IN OTHER WORDS, YOU ALL CAN CHEW ON WHO MIGHT BE INTERESTED IN CHAIRING HAS TO BE A REGULAR VOTING MEMBER.
ARE THERE ANY NOMINATIONS? IF NOBODY'S RAISING THEIR HAND AND JUMPING UP TO DO IT THIS WAY, WE'LL NOMINATE THE CURRENT VICE CHAIR TO BE THE CHAIR.
AND UNLESS KNOW WE'RE NOT GOING TO VOTE ON IT.
NO, WE'RE NOT VOTING. YOU'RE NOT OBJECTING TO THAT, STEVE.
OKAY. SO THEN SOMEBODY ELSE WOULD NEED TO CONSIDER BEING THE VICE CHAIR.
RAISE YOUR HAND IF YOU'RE INTERESTED.
AGAIN, IT HAS TO BE A VOTING MEMBER.
OR IF YOU NOMINATE THEM, IF THEY'RE NOT JUMPING UP, THEY'RE NOT JUMPING UP.
THEN I NOMINATE CHUCK BECAUSE HE'S GETTING BACK.
SO WE HAVE WE'RE IN THIS TOGETHER.
WE WE ACTUALLY HAVE NAMES AND A PLAN AND IT SHOULD GO VERY QUICKLY.
VERY, VERY. THANK YOU FOR THAT.
I DIDN'T KNOW I WAS GOING TO BE ALLOWED TO DO THAT.
BE SEATED UNTIL WE HAVE ANOTHER APPLICATION.
AND YES, SIR, THANK YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE.
SEATED PERMANENTLY. AND I BELIEVE THE NUMBER BECOMES FAITH IS THE FIRST ALTERNATE.
YEAH. THERE WE GO. OKAY, GOOD.
ANY OTHER BUSINESS BEFORE US? NO, SIR. NO STAFF REPORT.
OKAY, WELL, BEST OF LUCK TO YOU ALL.
IT'S BEEN AN INTERESTING COUPLE OF YEARS.
THANKS. HOW LONG WERE YOU WERE YOU ON THE BOARD BEFORE YOU BECAME CHAIRPERSON? YEAR? YEAH, I CAME IN AT THE SAME TIME.
WOW. YEAH, ABOUT PRETTY CLOSE.
YEAH. TIME FLIES. OKAY WITH THAT.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU. YOU'RE.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.