[00:00:02]
>> MARCH MEETING FOR THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS.
[1. CALL TO ORDER / ROLL CALL / DETERMINATION OF QUORUM]
WELCOME MEMBERS OF THE PANEL AND THE STAFF AS WELL AS THE GENERAL PUBLIC.AT THIS TIME, I'D LIKE TO DO A PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.
>> VICE CHAIR OLIVA IS ABSENT.
>> CORRECT. JUST FOR RECORD KEEPING, WE ARE SEATING KELLY POWERS AS THE NEW ALTERNATE NUMBER 1 AND MISS MARGARET DAVIS AS ALTERNATE NUMBER 2.
AS WE GET STARTED HERE, I'LL ASK THE BOARD IF WE HAVE ANY EX PARTE COMMUNICATIONS WITH ANYBODY THROUGHOUT THIS PROCESS FROM THE LAST MEETING REGARDING THIS CASE.
>> CHAIR PAPKE, WE CAN SIT MS. POWERS AS A VOTING MEMBER SINCE MR. OLIVA.
>> THAT'S TRUE. WE CAN ACTUALLY. THAT'S A GOOD POINT. THANK YOU.
AS WE NORMALLY DO EVERY MONTH, WE HAVE MS. TAMMY BACH GIVE US OUR QUASI JUDICIAL PROCEDURES.
>> WELCOME TO OUR NEW MEMBERS, MS. POWERS, MS. DAVIS.
TONIGHT WE HAVE ONE CASE ON THE AGENDA AND WE WILL BE CONDUCTING A QUASI JUDICIAL HEARING TO HEAR EVIDENCE IN THE CASE AND TO DELIBERATE AND MAKE A DECISION.
QUASI JUDICIAL HEARING STARTS FIRST WITH CITY STAFF IS GOING TO MAKE A PRESENTATION AND INTRODUCE EVIDENCE INTO THE RECORD.
IN YOUR PACKETS YOU HAVE A STAFF REPORT AND YOU HAVE BACKUP DOCUMENTATION INCLUDING PICTURES OF THE PROPERTY.
YOU ALSO HAVE AN APPLICATION FOR A VARIANCE FROM THE APPLICANT.
ALL OF THOSE DOCUMENTS ARE BEING MADE PART OF THE RECORD.
TONIGHT WE'RE CREATING A RECORD, AUDIO AND VIDEO RECORDING, AND WE DON'T HAVE A COURT REPORTER HERE TO TRANSCRIBE IT, BUT OUR RECORD WILL BE OUR AUDIO AND VIDEO RECORDING.
ALL OF THE DOCUMENTS WILL ACCOMPANY THAT AS PART OF THAT, YOU HAVE CURRENTLY IN FRONT OF YOU THAT WERE ON THE WEBSITE AND AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC.
TONIGHT, MS. GIBSON WITH CITY STAFF IS GOING TO INTRODUCE HER STAFF REPORT AND HER FINDINGS BASED ON THE CRITERIA FOR VARIANCE.
ALL OF THE CRITERIA FOR VARIANCE MUST BE FOUND IN THE AFFIRMATIVE, AND IN OTHER WORDS, AS YOU GO THROUGH THOSE CRITERIA, YOU HAVE TO ANSWER YES TO EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM IN ORDER TO GRANT A VARIANCE.
THERE'S A MOTION TO APPROVE THE VARIANCE, TONIGHT I DID LOOK AT THE STAFF REPORT BEFORE THE MEETING AND THERE ARE A COUPLE OF CRITERIA THAT STAFF FOUND HAVE NOT BEEN MET.
IF THIS BOARD DECIDES THAT THEY WISH TO GRANT THE VARIANCE, YOU NEED TO STATE THE REASONS WHY YOU DISAGREE WITH STAFF AND THE CRITERIA THAT STAFF BELIEVED WERE NOT MET HAVE BEEN MET AND ARTICULATE YOUR REASONS FOR THE RECORD AND ALSO AS PART OF YOUR MOTION, THAT'S THE BEST PRACTICE.
IF YOU AGREE WITH STAFF THAT ALL THE CRITERIA HAVE NOT BEEN MET, YOU MUST DENY THE VARIANCE.
IN ORDER TO DENY A VARIANCE, A MOTION IS TO DENY THE CASE AND THE VARIANCE, AND IT REQUIRES A SIMPLE MAJORITY VOTE OF THREE TO PASS THAT MOTION.
THE MOTION BEFORE TO APPROVE, I FAILED TO MENTION, REQUIRES FOUR OUT OF THE FIVE VOTING MEMBERS.
THERE ARE SIX UP HERE TONIGHT.
MS. DAVIS IS NOT VOTING, BUT SHE'S WELCOME TO DISCUSS THE CASE WITH THE OTHER MEMBERS, SO THERE ARE FIVE VOTING MEMBERS.
FOUR OUT OF THE FIVE AT LEAST WOULD HAVE TO SAY YES TO A MOTION TO APPROVE THE VARIANCE, STATING THE CRITERIA WHY THEY DISAGREE WITH STAFF.
THAT IS BASICALLY HOW IT GOES AFTER STAFF, OF COURSE, THE APPLICANT AND OR THEIR AGENT COMES UP, PRESENTS EVIDENCE AND TESTIMONY ON THE RECORD.
BY THE WAY, ANYTHING THAT'S NOT IN FRONT OF YOU CAN BE INTRODUCED HERE TONIGHT.
IF STAFF OR THE APPLICANT OR ANY AFFECTED PARTIES, WHICH MEANS YOU LIVE IN THE CITY, YOU DON'T GET ANY TIME LIMIT ON THE AMOUNT OF TIME YOU GET TO SPEAK, BUT ANYBODY CAN INTRODUCE EVIDENCE RIGHT HERE AT THE HEARING.
WE CAN'T TAKE EVIDENCE SUCH AS EMAILS OR OTHER THINGS IF THE PERSON THAT DRAFTED THE LETTERS OR EMAILS IS NOT HERE AND AVAILABLE FOR CROSS EXAMINATION, WHICH MY NEXT POINT IS STAFF, THE PARTY OR APPLICANT, ANY AFFECTED PARTIES ARE ALLOWED TO CALL THEIR OWN WITNESSES AND CROSS EXAMINE OR ASK QUESTIONS OF THE OTHER PARTIES AND WITNESSES.
THAT IS HOW THE FLOW OF THE HEARING WILL GO AFTER THE APPLICANT, MR. CHAIR, PLEASE ASK IF THERE ARE ANY AFFECTED PARTIES THAT WISH TO TESTIFY AND WE CAN HAVE THEM COME UP.
[00:05:02]
STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS AND YOU'LL GET TO TESTIFY AS WELL.DON'T FORGET ANYBODY THAT GETS TO SPEAK OR DOES SPEAK TONIGHT WILL TAKE AN OATH AND WE DO THAT ALL AT THE BEGINNING.
EVEN IF YOU'RE NOT SURE YOU WANT TO SPEAK, GO AHEAD AND TAKE THE OATH.
IT'S PRETTY SIMPLE AND THEN WE'LL GET YOU ON THE RECORD. ANY QUESTIONS? THIS IS THE FINAL DECISION OF THE CITY THAT THIS BOARD MAKES TONIGHT AD IF ANYBODY WISHES TO APPEAL THAT DECISION, YOU HAVE THE SHORT 30 DAY WINDOW OF TIME TO APPEAL THAT TO THE CIRCUIT COURT. THANK YOU.
>> MS. PAPKE, APPRECIATE THAT.
SYLVIE, WOULD YOU LIKE TO ADMINISTER THE OATH, PLEASE?
>> ALL PARTIES WISH TO SPEAK TONIGHT STAND UP, RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND.
DO YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM THAT THE ORAL AND OR WRITTEN TESTIMONY YOU'RE ALLOWED TO GIVE WILL BE THE TRUTH OF TRUTH AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH?
>> OUR FAVORITE TIME IS APPROVAL OF THE PREVIOUS MINUTES.
[3. APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES]
ANYBODY HAVE A CHANCE TO GO THROUGH THOSE MINUTES AND REVIEW THEM HERE ON THE BOARD?>> ANYTHING WE NEED TO BRING UP?
>> IT WAS A PRETTY ARTICULATE SUMMARY OF OUR CONVERSATION.
THERE IS PROBABLY A CORRECTION IN THE SPELLING OF SOMEONE'S NAME. LET'S SEE.
IT'S JUST ABOUT THE ACTION TAKEN AND IT SAYS MEMBER OF AVILA, IT'S OLIVA.
ALSO IN THE ACTION TAKEN, A MOTION WAS MADE.
IT'S CALLED THE PLAIN READING OF LVC.
I THINK THE WORD READING WAS LEFT OUT IN THE ACTION AND ALSO IN THE ACTION TAKEN WHEN THE MOTION FAILED, IT'S AGAIN THE PLAIN READING OF THE LVC.
>> THAT'S ALL I FOUND AND THAT'S GREAT.
>> IS THERE ANYTHING TO TRUMP UP?
>> YEAH, I FOUND A FEW. BUT THE WORD PLAY WAS THE ONE THAT STOOD OUT TO ME, AND AS FAR AS THE OTHERS, THERE ARE LIKE FIVE TYPOS THROUGHOUT THIS, BUT I'M GOING TO JUST GIVE THAT TO THE STAFF.
I'M NO SENSE IN GOING THROUGH WORDS THERE SHOULD BE PLURAL IN OR SINGER, JUST STUPID.
>> FOR THE CONTENT THOUGH, WE'RE GOOD WITH IT OR NOT? MR. PAGNUCCO, ANYTHING ANY COMMENTS? KELLY ANYTHING? CAN YOU GET A MOTION ON THAT?
>> MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES?
>> THAT MOTION WILL BE TO MODIFY THE MINUTES BASED ON THE CONVERSATION THAT WE JUST HAD.
>> YES. KELLY, ARE YOU READY TO PRESENT?
[4.1 BOA 2024-0001 - GILLETTE & ASSOCIATES, AGENT FOR MICHAEL GIBBS, 1110 S. 13TH STREET]
>> THIS EVENING THE BOARD IS CONSIDERING BOA CASE 2024-0001.
THIS IS A APPLICANT REQUEST BY MR. HERTSLET GILLETTE ON BEHALF OF MR. MICHAEL GIBBS FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 11:10 SOUTH 13TH STREET.
FOR THE RECORD, ALL OF THE APPLICATION MATERIALS HAVE BEEN RECEIVED, ALL FEES HAVE BEEN PAID, AND ALL REQUIRED NOTICES HAVE BEEN MADE.
THE STAFF REPORT, ALL OF THE BACKUP MATERIALS PROVIDED AS PART OF THE AGENDA PUBLISHED FOR THIS MEETING ARE MADE PART OF THE RECORD AS WELL AS THE PRESENTATION THIS EVENING.
IN AN EFFORT TO CORRECT THE STAFF REPORT, THERE WAS A TYPO WITH RESPECT TO IDENTIFYING THE ZONING AND LAND USE.
IT IDENTIFIED IT ORIGINALLY AS R1, AND LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL IS IN FACT R3 AND HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL.
I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THAT IS VERY CLEAR.
I WILL SHOW A MAP OF THAT INDICATING IT AS WELL SO THAT IT IS CLEAR FOR THE RECORD, AND ALL OF THE STATEMENTS WITHIN THE STAFF REPORT DO REFLECT CONSISTENCY WITH THE HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL R3 ZONING STANDARDS FOR TOWN HOME DEVELOPMENT.
THE REQUESTED ACTION THIS EVENING IS A VARIANCE FROM LDC SECTION 4.04 0.02 SUBSECTION E, THAT REQUIRES THE SUBDIVISION TO HAVE AT LEAST TWO VEHICULAR ACCESS POINTS TO AN IMPROVED RIGHT OF WAY.
ON THE PROPERTY TODAY, THERE'S NOTHING, IT'S VACANT LAND TODAY.
THE SUBJECT PROPERTY ITSELF IS 1.31 TOTAL ACRES OF LAND, AGAIN, LOCATED ON SOUTH 13TH STREET.
THE PROPOSED PROJECT IS CONSTRUCTION OF FOUR 2-UNIT TOWN HOMES AND ONE DETACHED SINGLE-FAMILY HOME TO TOTAL FIVE STRUCTURES ON THE 1.31 ACRES OF LAND.
[00:10:02]
THE PROPOSAL ITSELF ALIGNS WITH THE R-3 ZONING DISTRICT STANDARDS FOR TOWNHOME DEVELOPMENT WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE ACCESS REQUIREMENT.THE VARIANCE BEING CONSIDERED THIS EVENING IS TO DEVIATE FROM THOSE TWO VEHICULAR ACCESS POINTS.
THE REASONING BEHIND THE REQUEST AS SUMMARIZED IS LIMITED SPACE GIVEN THE RIGHT OF WAY WITHIN THAT AREA FOR THE PARCEL OF PROPERTY, AND NO ADDITIONAL OPPORTUNITY FOR ACCESS ON THE EASTERN BOUNDARY.
THE DESIGN ITSELF WAS PROPOSED WITH THE EMPHASIS TO PROTECT THE MATURE TREES THROUGH THE TOWNHOME-STYLE STRUCTURES AND THROUGH COMMON GREEN SPACE THAT IS PROVIDED.
ADDITIONALLY, THE DESIGN SOUGHT TO REALLY RETAIN THE TREES THAT ARE LOCATED AROUND THE PROPERTY BOUNDARY, AND I'LL BE ABLE TO BETTER IDENTIFY THAT THROUGH SOME GRAPHICS PROVIDED IN THE PRESENTATION.
TO PROVIDE A LITTLE BIT OF BACKGROUND WITHIN THE STAFF REPORT AND AGAIN THIS EVENING, IN DEVELOPING THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, THIS ISSUE IS ACTUALLY SOMETHING THAT HAD BEEN IDENTIFIED BACK IN 2007.
THE PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD RECOGNIZED THAT THERE WAS A RESTRICTION THAT WAS IMPOSED ON SMALLER PARCELS OF LAND BY REQUIRING TWO POINTS OF ACCESS IN SMALL SUBDIVISIONS.
UNFORTUNATELY, THERE WAS NO RESOLUTION TO THAT ALTHOUGH IT WAS DIRECTED THAT SOMETHING BE RETURNED AT A LATER POINT.
AS A RESULT, THERE IS NO ESTABLISHED PROCESS OTHER THAN THROUGH BENEFIT OF RECEIVING A VARIANCE RIGHT NOW, SO THE CODE STILL REQUIRES THE VEHICULAR ACCESS FOR TWO POINTS, WHICH IS WHY WE'RE HERE THIS EVENING.
TO REITERATE, THE PROPERTY IS ZONED R-3, AND THE SURROUNDING PROPERTIES ARE DEVELOPED IN A VARIETY OF FASHIONS INCLUDING APARTMENTS WITHIN AN R-3 PUD DEVELOPMENT, COMMERCIAL AND RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ALONG THE SOUTH 14TH STREET SIDE, AS WELL AS ALONG LIME STREET.
THEN THERE ARE APARTMENT HOMES ALONG 13TH STREET IN AN R-2 ZONING DISTRICT, AND VACANT LAND ADJOINS THIS PROPERTY.
IT IS DIFFICULT TO SEE ON HERE, BUT THE TINY DOTS ON THE PROPERTY HERE DO IDENTIFY TREE LOCATIONS.
THE SQUIGGLY LINES ARE THE TOPOGRAPHY, AND SO IT GIVES YOU A SENSE OF SOME OF THE ELEVATION CHANGES AS WELL AS WHERE YOU CAN SEE THE MAJORITY OF TREES THAT ARE ON THAT SUBJECT PROPERTY.
THEN THE PROPOSED DESIGN ASSOCIATED WITH THE PROJECT PROVIDED FOR A COMPLETE T-TURNAROUND POINT TO NAVIGATE ACCESS FOR BOTH FIRE RESCUE AS WELL AS DELIVERY SERVICES AND SANITATION.
THEN THE TOWNHOMES SITES THEMSELVES, THE FOUR TOWNHOMES AS WELL AS THE SINGLE-FAMILY HOME PROVIDED.
YOU SEE THE DRAINAGE FEATURES ON THIS EXHIBIT AS WELL.
WHERE TREES ARE TO BE REMOVED AS WELL AS RETAINED, THEY HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED WITHIN THE COMMON AREAS AS WELL AS THE HOME SITES AND NEW TREES TO BE PLANTED IN AN EFFORT TO SUPPORT THE CITY'S LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENTS.
WITH THAT, I'LL GET INTO THE CRITERIA.
WITH RESPECT TO SPECIAL CONDITIONS, STAFF FINDS THAT THERE ARE NOT CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH ARE PECULIAR TO THE LAND OR BUILDING INVOLVED AND ARE NOT APPLICABLE TO OTHER LANDS OR STRUCTURES.
THE APPLICANT COULD MEET THE CITY'S VEHICULAR ACCESS REQUIREMENT WITHOUT THE NEED FOR VARIANCE.
OF COURSE, THIS WOULD REQUIRE A DIFFERENT DESIGN TO DO SO.
WITH RESPECT TO SPECIAL PRIVILEGE, STAFF DOES FIND THAT THERE IS NOT A SPECIAL PRIVILEGE DENIED BY THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE TO OTHER LANDS OR STRUCTURES FOR BUILDINGS WITHIN A SIMILARLY SITUATED DISTRICT.
UNDER LITERAL INTERPRETATION, THIS IS ANOTHER AREA WHERE IT DOES NOT MEET THE LITERAL INTERPRETATION OF THE CODE, WOULD NOT DEPRIVE THE APPLICANT OF RIGHTS ENJOYED BY OTHERS IN THE SAME ZONING DISTRICT.
ALTERNATIVE DESIGN OPTIONS EXIST SUCH AS CONSIDERATION OF A SINGLE MULTI-FAMILY BUILDING WITHIN THE SAME ZONING DISTRICT.
THE MINIMUM VARIANCE CRITERIA IS ACHIEVED, AS WELL AS GENERAL HARMONY.
WITH RESPECT TO GENERAL HARMONY, IT IS THE INTENT OF THIS SECTION TO PROVIDE FOR ADEQUATE VEHICULAR ACCESS AND CONNECTIVITY TO AN IMPROVED RIGHT OF WAY FOR ALL OF THE PROPERTIES WITHIN THE SUBDIVISION.
HOWEVER, GIVEN THE LIMITED SIZE OF THE DEVELOPMENT, THE INTENT COULD BE MET WITH A SINGLE POINT OF INGRESS OR EGRESS, WHICH IS WHY IT IS FOUND TO BE IN GENERAL HARMONY AND THE INDIVIDUAL SITES CREATED THROUGH A SEPARATE ACTION WHICH WOULD BE A BENEFIT OF A PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLAT ACTION WOULD PROVIDE FOR THAT ACCESS POINT AS WELL.
[00:15:03]
STAFF DOES FIND THAT IT IS ALSO CONSISTENT WITH THE PUBLIC INTEREST CRITERIA.ONE ENTRANCE OR EXIT IS THE PREFERENCE OF STAFF TO AVOID CONSECUTIVE DRIVEWAY CUTS ONTO 13TH STREET.
ANOTHER CONSIDERATION OF DESIGN MAY BE HAVING A NUMBER OF HOMES WHICH FRONT 13TH STREET HAVING ADDITIONAL DRIVEWAY CUTS ONTO THAT SAME RIGHT OF WAY.
STAFF FINDS THE REQUESTED ACTION AS PRESENTED DOES NOT MEET ALL SIX OF THE CRITERIA.
CRITERIA 1 AND 3 FOR SPECIAL CONDITIONS AND LITERAL INTERPRETATION ARE NOT ACHIEVED, AND AS SUCH MUST RECOMMEND DENIAL FOR THE APPLICATION.
I'M AVAILABLE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
>> ANYBODY HAVE ANY QUESTIONS?
>> YEAH, I HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT THE ACCESS REQUIRING A SECOND ENTRANCE OR EXIT.
I THOUGHT THAT THAT WAS DUE TO SAFETY IF ONE WAS BLOCKED, AMBULANCES GETTING IN OR PEOPLE GETTING OUT IF THERE'S A FIRE.
I DIDN'T KNOW THAT WAS JUST DUE TO VEHICULAR ACCESS AND CONNECTIVITY.
DOES SAFETY HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH THAT REQUIREMENT?
>> I THINK THAT'S NOT WELL DEFINED WITHIN THE CODE WHETHER IT'S DIRECT TO SAFETY.
I THINK THAT THAT IS IMPLIED THAT THERE IS A POINT OF PUBLIC SAFETY THAT IS OF CONCERN WHEN YOU HAVE SUBDIVISIONS THAT ARE OCCURRING TO BE ABLE TO NAVIGATE CORRECTLY.
IT DOES ALSO SPEAK TO SITE CIRCULATION OVERALL.
BUT I THINK THAT GIVEN THE HISTORY OF THIS PARTICULAR LANGUAGE, THERE'S SOME LEVEL OF RECOGNITION THAT THERE SHOULD BE A THRESHOLD FOR WHICH THAT SECOND ACCESS MIGHT BE CONSIDERED.
>> MISS GIBSON, AFTER TECHNICAL REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETINGS, IS THERE SOMEONE FROM THE FIRE DEPARTMENT OR THE SAFETY HAD THEY MENTIONED?
>> THERE HAS NOT BEEN ANY CONCERN TIED TO IT.
IN FACT, THIS T-TURNAROUND DESIGN IS SOMETHING THAT THEY HAVE INDICATED WOULD BE SUFFICIENT.
>> IS IT OKAY TO REFERENCE ANOTHER PROPERTY? IT JUST REMINDS ME OF SOMETHING ELSE THAT HICKORY RIDGE, THERE'S THE DESIGN.
THERE'S A DRIVEWAY WITH HOUSES THAT GO ALONG WITH A LITTLE CUL-DE-SAC AT THE END WHICH IS OFF 13TH AS WELL.
I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S HELPFUL, BUT TO ME IT JUST REMINDS ME OF THAT.
>> OKAY. DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING? [INAUDIBLE] .
>> [OVERLAPPING] FIRST UNLESS YOU HAVE ANY MORE QUESTIONS.
>> HERTSLET, WOULD YOU LIKE TO SPEAK? PLEASE COME UP TO THE PODIUM.
STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS PLEASE.
>> HERTSLET GILLETTE, GILLETTE & ASSOCIATES, 31 SOUTH FOURTH STREET, FERNANDINA.
MAY I PASS SOME DOCUMENTS OUT TO THE BOARD IF YOU DON'T MIND JUST FOR CLARIFICATION PURPOSES.
>> MAKE SURE TO GIVE A COPY TO KELLY TOO.
>> YES, MA'AM. YOU MAY HAVE TO SHARE.
>> WHAT I'M HANDING YOU ARE JUST FOUR SHEETS FROM THE ORIGINAL SET OF ENGINEERING DOCUMENTS.
I JUST WANTED TO GIVE THESE TWO GUYS JUST SO YOU CAN SEE IT A LITTLE BETTER, ALTHOUGH IT'S NOT MUCH EASIER.
>> WHAT I WANTED TO DO FIRST WAS LOOK AT THE TWO CRITERIA THAT WE DON'T MEET, WHICH CRITERIA 1 AND CRITERIA 3.
I WAS GOING TO SUMMARIZE THESE TWO IN A WAY BECAUSE AS FAR AS SPECIAL CONDITIONS AND LITERAL INTERPRETATION, I CAN'T ARGUE IN THE SENSE OF SPECIAL CONDITIONS LISTS EXISTS WITH THE PROPERTY EXCEPT FOR THE FACT THAT I THINK THERE NEEDS TO BE SOME FORM OF LIMIT TO REQUIRING TWO MEANS OF EGRESS AND INGRESS.
ALSO, AS FAR AS TRYING TO LOOK AT OTHER OPTIONS, WE LOOKED AT SEVERAL OTHER OPTIONS FOR THIS PROPERTY.
WE LOOKED AT ONE WAY IN, ONE WAY OUT, WE LOOKED AT A SINGLE BUILDING CONTAINING ALL OF THE UNITS, VARIOUS SCENARIOS, WE TRIED TO MAXIMIZE OUR DENSITY, WHICH IS 14 UNITS, WE LEARNED EARLY ON WE WEREN'T EVEN GOING TO COME CLOSE TO THAT,
[00:20:04]
WE TRIED TO GET TO 12, THAT DIDN'T WORK, WE TRIED TO GET TO 10, THAT DIDN'T WORK.WE ENDED UP GETTING KILLED EITHER BY FIRE TRUCK, VEHICULAR APPARATUS ACCESS INTO AND OUT OF THE SITE, OR GARBAGE TRUCK INGRESS AND EGRESS IN AND OUT OF THE SITE, OR WE ENDED UP WITH PARKING REQUIREMENTS THAT ENDED UP TAKING UP TOO MANY TREES.
WE JUST COULDN'T GET IT TO WORK.
THE BEST SOLUTION THAT WE CAME UP TO ON THIS WAS A SINGLE ENTRANCE.
BY DOING A COMBINATION OF TOWN HOMES IN A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE, AT THAT POINT WE COULD SPREAD THINGS OUT, SAVE TREES, AND MEET OUR PARKING REQUIREMENTS.
HOWEVER, WE COULDN'T MEET THE TWO MEANS OF IN AND OUT.
WE HAVE LOOKED AT OTHER OPTIONS IN REGARDS TO THIS, AND THIS IS THE MOST FEASIBLE THING.
WE'VE GONE FROM A MAXIMUM OF WHAT COULD BE 14 UNITS DOWN TO NINE UNITS.
THAT TAKES US TO A DENSITY OF 10 UNITS PER ACRE DOWN TO ABOUT SIX UNITS PER ACRE, WHICH MATCHES YOUR DENSITY FOR THE R-2 SYSTEMS THAT ARE ALL AROUND US.
AT THE END OF THE DAY, WE'RE NOT PACKING THE LOT WITH MORE UNITS THAN WHAT WOULD BE PRETTY MUCH ALLOWED WITH THE COMMUNITY THAT'S AROUND US FOR THE MOST PART.
I DON'T FEEL LIKE WE'RE TRYING TO CRAM THE SQUARE PEG IN THE ROUND HOLE, SO TO SPEAK.I FEEL LIKE THAT EVERYTHING'S SPREAD OUT AND WORKABLE, AND YOU CAN SEE THOSE ON THE SITES.
THE SITES HAS BEEN DESIGNED SO THAT EVERY LOT, EVERY PARCEL HAS ITS OWN SEPARATE TREE MITIGATION, HAS ITS OWN SEPARATE DRAINAGE.
AS IT GETS BUILT IT'S NOT DEPENDENT UPON A COMMON DRAINAGE SYSTEM, THE SYSTEMS ARE INCORPORATED WITHIN THE LOTS.
THE ROADWAY SYSTEM HAS ITS OWN COMMON DRAINAGE SYSTEM, WHICH IS LOCATED ON A PARCEL OF THE LAND THAT WE HAD TO GIVE UP TWO UNITS FOR.
THAT ALSO ALLOWED US TO SAVE TREES TO PRESERVE CANOPY AND EVERYTHING IN BETWEEN.
AS YOU CAN SEE ON THERE, IT'S HARD TO READ ON THE TREE MITIGATION SHEET, BUT WE'RE SAVING AN OVERALL FOR THE LAND OF ABOUT 46% OF THE TREES.
WE ARE PLANTING BACK IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LANDSCAPE SHEET.
WE'RE PROPOSING PLANTINGS ON EACH INDIVIDUAL LOT AS WELL AS WITHIN THE RIGHT OF WAY AREAS.
WE JUST FEEL THAT IF WE HAVE TO ADD ANOTHER ENTRANCE TO THIS, THE REDESIGN IS GOING TO FORCE US TO PROBABLY TAKE MORE TREES OUT AT THE END OF THE DAY AND I DON'T REALLY FEEL WHAT WE'RE GAINING IS GOING TO SOLVE ANYTHING OR WHAT WE'RE GOING TO PUT DOWN THERE IS GOING TO REALLY SOLVE ANYTHING.
WE'VE BEEN THROUGH TRC, WE'VE GOT APPROVALS OBVIOUSLY WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THIS.
THE FIRE MARSHAL, JASON IS ON BOARD WITH IT, HE'S FINE WITH IT.
WE'VE GIVEN HIM A TURNAROUND T AND ACCESS IN AND OUT.
WE FEEL A SINGLE DRIVEWAY CUT WILL FACILITATE THIS BETTER THAN MULTIPLE DRIVEWAY CUTS, AND I THINK IT WOULD OFFER AN ELEMENT OF SAFETY FOR YOUR ROADWAY SYSTEMS TOO AS FAR AS GETTING IN AND OUT.
OTHER THAN THAT, I WOULD LIKE TO MENTION ALSO THAT FOR WHAT IT'S WORTH, NASSAU COUNTY REQUIRES TWO ENTRANCES IN AND OUT OF A SUBDIVISION IF IT'S OVER 25 LOTS.
IF YOU DO A SUBDIVISION IN NASSAU COUNTY AND YOU'RE 25 LOTS OR LESS, YOU ONLY NEED ONE MEANS OF INGRESS AND EGRESS. I'M AT NINE.
AGAIN, WE'RE NOT NASSAU COUNTY, WERE CITY OF FERNANDINA BEACH, BUT I JUST THOUGHT I'D BRING THAT UP AS JUST AN EXAMPLE OF WHAT AN ADJACENT MUNICIPALITY DOES.
I'LL ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU MAY HAVE. YES, SIR.
>> WHY DO YOU HAVE ALL THESE PONDS SURROUNDING THE PROPERTY?
THOSE ARE DRY PONDS USED FOR OUR STORMWATER RETENTION FOR EACH INDIVIDUAL UNIT.
>> YES, SIR. THAT GAVE US THE BEST ABILITY TO SAVE TREES.
>> I KNOW. I'M A TRAFFIC ENGINEER MYSELF, BUT I DON'T SEE ANY REASON WHY YOU WANT TO HAVE TWO ENTRANCES INTO THIS THING WITHIN THE 200 FEET OR SO YOU'D HAVE LEFT IN BETWEEN THE PONDS EITHER ON THE NORTH AND SOUTH SIDE OF THE PROPERTY.
>> BECAUSE THAT'S AN IMPEDIMENT TO TRAFFIC ON THE ROAD WHEN YOU GOT PEOPLE COMING IN AND OUT THAT CLOSE TOGETHER.
>> I KNOW IN OUR DEVELOPMENT, FOR INSTANCE, WE WEREN'T SUPPOSED TO HAVE SEPARATE DRIVEWAYS, WE'RE SUPPOSED TO PUT SOME IN AND SPLIT THEM TO DIFFERENT LOTS.
IT SEEMS TO ME IT'D BE A BETTER PLAN NOT TO, AND YOU DON'T HAVE ANY ACCESS SO IT DOESN'T LOOK LIKE TO GO TO THE EAST BECAUSE THERE'S PROPERTY BACK THERE THAT YOU COULDN'T PUT A ROAD BACK.
>> YEAH, THERE'S NO CROSS ACCESS ALLOWED SO WE WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO EXTEND THE ROADWAY THROUGH.
AS AN ENGINEERING, IT'S A BETTER PRINCIPLE TO GET AS MUCH OFF OF THE ROAD AS YOU CAN AS OPPOSED TO HAVING MULTIPLE CONNECTIONS ON THE ROAD.
>> ANYBODY ELSE WHO HAVE ANY QUESTIONS TO RAISE?
>> YES. FOR THE EVIDENCE OF THIS CASE, THE 38 UNIT COMPLEX ACROSS THE STREET HAS TWO ENTRANCES?
[00:25:03]
>> HOW MANY OTHER PARCELS ACCESS 13TH STREET IN THE BLOCK BETWEEN LIME AND JASMINE? IT MUST BE CLOSE TO THE CHURCH.
>> THERE'S MAY BE ON JASMINE, ALTHOUGH WE HAVE DONE A FEASIBILITY FOR THEM TO ACCESS 13TH STREET TO EXPAND THEIR SYSTEM.
OTHER THAN THAT, IT WOULD BE THE PEOPLE ACROSS THE STREET WOULD BE THE ONLY OTHER ONES.
>> THAT IS LIKE PRACTICALLY NO ONE USES THAT STREET.
>> I DON'T HAVE TRAFFIC COUNTS ON THAT, SO I WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION AS FAR ANALYTICALLY.
I CAN TELL YOU I'VE CUT THROUGH THERE QUITE A BIT IF I HAVE TO GET FROM LIME TO JASMINE TO EITHER GET AROUND THE SCHOOL.
THAT'S MY OWN PERSONAL, BUT I DON'T HAVE TRAFFIC COUNTS.
>> IF YOU'RE THINKING ABOUT IT FROM THE DEVELOPMENT THAT'S ACROSS THE STREET ON AN ACCOUNT OF HOUSES THAT ARE IN THAT PLUS THIS, REALLY ON SUNDAY MORNING WHEN YOU HAVE CHURCH, THAT'S REALLY WHEN THE ROAD GETS THE MOST DENSE. ANYBODY ELSE?
>> FIRST, I APPRECIATE ALL THE EFFORTS TO TRY TO MAXIMIZE SAVING TREES AND ALSO I DO APPRECIATE THAT THIS IS ZONED R-3 AND YOU'RE TRYING TO DO A PLAN TO R-2.
BUT WHEN YOU WERE LOOKING AT ALL THE ALTERNATIVES IN ORDER TO COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS, DID YOU LOOK AT ALTERNATIVES USING THE DENSITY AND OR FOR R-3 ZONING OR WERE YOU ONLY CONSIDERING R-2?
>> NO, MA'AM. WE CONSIDERED R-3.
OUR GOAL INITIALLY, OBVIOUSLY, WAS TO MAXIMIZE DENSITY.
IT BECAME APPARENT EARLY ON WE WEREN'T GOING TO BE ABLE TO DO THAT.
I ONLY MENTIONED THE R-2 AS A COMPARISON.
IT WASN'T USED AS PART OF DESIGN.
>> TO GO UP, IT LOOKS LIKE THE MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT IS 45 FEET.
>> BUT THE REASON WHY YOU DIDN'T PURSUE THAT MODEL WAS BECAUSE OF THE FIRE TRUCK?
>> NO. THE REASON WE DIDN'T DO THAT IS THE CITY'S LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE REQUIRES TWO PARKING SPACES FOR EVERY RESIDENTIAL UNIT.
THEREFORE, I HAVE TO HAVE A PARKING LOT.
IN ORDER TO SATISFY THAT PARKING LOT, IN ORDER TO MAKE GEOMETRY WORK, I WIPED TREES OUT LIKE CRAZY.
THERE WAS NO WAY FOR ME TO FIT A 45-FOOT TALL SINGLE BUILDING AND ALL THE ASSOCIATED PARKING WITH IT WITHOUT JUST WIPING THE LOT.
IT JUST CAN'T PHYSICALLY MAKE IT WORK.
>> THE PERCENTAGE OF PERVIOUS SURFACE IS 40%?
>> OUR PROPOSED IMPERVIOUS AREA RIGHT NOW IS 43%.
CORRECT. WHICH WOULD HAVE PROBABLY BEEN HIGHER UTILIZING A PARKING LOT.
>> YEAH. IT COULD CERTAINLY BE WORSE.
ANYBODY ELSE? YOU'LL CALL THEM BACK. DO YOU WANT TO LET THEM GO? [OVERLAPPING].
>> WOULD YOU LIKE TO SPEAK, SIR? SURE. GO AHEAD.
>> YEAH, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE DISCUSSION. ANYBODY ELSE FROM THE PUBLIC WANT TO SPEAK? I'LL CLOSE THIS PORTION OF THE PUBLIC HEARING SIDE.
BOARD MEMBERS, WHAT WOULD YOU LIKE TO SAY?
>> JAG'S READY TO SAY SOMETHING.
>> I THINK THEY'VE DONE A GREAT JOB WITH TRYING TO SAVE THE TREES AND I'M ASSUMING THEY'RE MEETING THE IMPERVIOUS SURFACE REQUIREMENT.
THANKS FOR SAVING THE TREES. [LAUGHTER]
>> ANYBODY ELSE? ANY OTHER BOARD DISCUSSION?
>> WELL, I THINK IT'S CERTAINLY A REASONABLE PLAN THAT THEY PUT OUT HERE AND I DON'T REALLY SEE ANY OBJECTIONS TO IT.
I COULD PROBABLY EXPLAIN AWAY THE TWO ONES THAT THE STAFF DIDN'T LIKE.
BUT, MISS ROSS IS PROBABLY BETTER EXPLAINING THINGS THAN I'M.
SHE WANTED TO MAKE A MOTION. I'D BE GLAD TO SECOND.
>> BEFORE WE GET THERE IS THERE SOMETHING YOU WANT TO ADD?
>> YEAH. MY ONLY COMMENT IS WE HAVE THIS BEFORE US.
THE LDC, THIS AMENDMENT THAT WE'RE AT ISSUE HERE WAS PUT IN PLACE IN 2007.
[00:30:07]
THEY GAVE US THE HISTORY OF IT, AND AS MR. GILLETTE AND OURSELVES ARE IN AGREEMENT THAT IT'S REALLY ESPECIALLY IN A LOT OF THE SMALL, IT DOESN'T WORK WELL, BUT OUR JOB IS TO DEAL WITH WHAT THE CODE IS AS IT IS, AND WE CAN'T CHANGE THE CODE.AND SO, I MEAN, IT SEEMS LIKE IT'S ALSO IMPORTANT TO TAKE THIS TO THE PLANNING BOARD OR SOMETHING ALTHOUGH I DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S BEEN ANY CASE LIKE THIS THAT'S COME UP IN THE INTERVENING, I CAN'T DO THE MATH. IT'S 14 YEARS.
>> WE'VE HAD ONE CASE THAT CAME UP.
>> I UNDERSTAND WE DON'T DO PRECEDENT, BUT I'M JUST SAYING ONLY FOR SAYING IF THIS IS A PROBLEM, AND THEY EVEN IN 2007 THOUGHT IT MIGHT BE WHY HAS THE CODE NOT BEEN THAT MAYBE THIS NEEDS TO BE ADDRESSED.
WE'RE JUST TIED TO USING THE CODE AS IT IS.
>> WE ARE THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT.
>> WE ARE THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT SO THE CODE REALLY DOES NOT COME INTO PLAY AS FAR AS OUR DECISION.
THAT'S WHY WE ARE THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT.
I THINK THIS IS BASED ON THIS PROPERTY.
THEY'VE DONE THE BEST THAT THEY CAN DO WITH THIS PROPERTY, NOT IMPALING OUR TREES.
>> JUST BECAUSE THE CODE MAY SAY WE HAVE TO ACCESS IN AND OUT OF THIS PROPERTY AND THE WAY THEY'VE DESIGNED THIS, I THINK IT WORKS FOR OUR COMMUTER AND IT'S ABOUT OUR COMMUTER.
>> I'M GOING TO MAKE A MOTION.
>> ALL RIGHT. I MOVED TO APPROVE POA CASE NUMBER 20240001 AND MOVE THAT THE BOA, MAKE THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSION OF LAW PART OF THE RECORD; THE BOARD FINDS ONE, A SPECIAL CONDITION DOES EXIST.
THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED ON A QUIET NARROW STREET WITH LITTLE TRAFFIC.
THE SIZE OF THE PROPERTY IS LIMITED TO 1.31 ACRES, WHICH PLACES AN EXCESSIVELY HIGH PERCENTAGE OF ACCESS SPACE UPON A SMALL PROPERTY.
THE PROPERTY IS ALSO HEAVILY VEGETATED WITH A SIGNIFICANT NUMBER OF TREES.
THE APPLICATION STATES THAT THE PROPOSED SITE PLAN IS LIMITED TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF NINE UNITS.
NO SPECIAL PRIVILEGE WILL BE CONFERRED TO THE APPLICANTS AND SEVERAL HIGH DENSITY PROPERTIES ARE LARGER THAN 1.31 ACRES.
NUMBER 3, THOUGH THE LITTLE INTERPRETATION OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE WOULD NOT PROVIDE THE APPLICANT OF RIGHTS ENJOYED BY OTHERS IN THE SAME ZONING DISTRICT, IT IS IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST OF SAFETY TO GRANT THE VARIANCE TO AVOID CONSECUTIVE DRIVEWAY CUTS.
NUMBER 4, THE VARIANCE GRANTED IS THE MINIMUM REQUIRED TO PROVIDE A REASONABLE USE OF THE LAND IN COMPLIANCE WITH COMPREHENSIVE PLANS INTENT TO ALLEVIATE VEHICULAR CONGESTION.
NUMBER 5, THE DEVELOPMENT WITH NINE UNITS WILL BE IN HARMONY WITH THE APARTMENT COMPLEX ACROSS THE STREET WHICH CONTAINS 38 UNITS WHICH HAS TWO ENTRANCES.
NUMBER 6, THE GRANTED VARIANCE IS IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES, POLICY 2.072.
THE MULTIMODAL NETWORK SHALL BE DESIGNED TO AVOID MINIMIZE ADVERSE IMPACT UPON THE CULTURAL, NATURAL AND HISTORIC RESOURCES AND SCENIC QUALITY DURING THE SITING DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION OPERATION, AND MAINTENANCE OF THE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM.
POLICY 2.0711, THE CITY SHALL DEVELOP AND APPLY ACCESS MANAGEMENT STANDARDS TO MINIMIZE THE FREQUENCY OF INDIVIDUALIZED DRIVEWAYS AND INTERSECTIONS THROUGH THE CONSOLIDATION OF EXISTING DRIVEWAYS.
POLICY 2.0310 RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS OF 25 UNITS OR MORE IN SIZE OR THAT
[00:35:08]
GENERATE MORE THAN 250 DAILY TRIPS SHALL PROVIDE A MINIMUM OF TWO FUNCTIONAL ACCESS POINTS, IT'S 25 UNITS.EXCEPTIONS FOR SECONDARY ACCESS ARE PERMITTED WHERE INFEASIBLE DUE TO ORIGINAL TRACK DIMENSIONS.
HOWEVER, TO FURTHER PROTECT THE PUBLIC INTEREST IN GRANTING THIS VARIANCE, THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE INCORPORATED.
I LIKE YOU, JERRY, WORRIED ABOUT THE FIRE DEPARTMENT.
NUMBER 1, A LETTER FROM THE FIRE DEPARTMENT OF ACCEPTABLE FIRE AND SAFETY ACCESS FOR THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT SHALL BE PLACED IN THE PLANNING DIRECTOR'S PLANNING FILE.
THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE PARCEL, AS STATED IN THIS APPLICATION, SHALL NOT EXCEED NINE UNITS AND ALL FURTHER LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE REQUIREMENTS WILL BE FULLY MET.
IT'S USUALLY SOMETHING STAFF REQUIRES.
>> WE'VE GOT A BAR MOTION THAT IS MUCH HIGHER THAN YOU'VE EVER HAD.
>> WE'RE GOING TO KEEP GETTING SUED.
I WANT TO MAKE SURE WE HAVE SOMETHING ON THE RECORD.
>> WE HAVE A SECOND. SYLVIA, CAN YOU CALL A VOTE?
I WANT TO MAKE SURE WE HAD A CHANCE TO VOTE BEFORE YOU HAD A CHANCE TO SPEAK, DO YOU WANT TO SPEAK ANYMORE?
>> MISS ROSS, WOULD IT BE ACCEPTABLE I CAN GET A LETTER FROM JASON, BUT WOULD A DEVELOPMENT ORDER SUFFICE FOR THAT TOO?
>> THAT'S FINE. I'LL GET JASON TO GET A LETTER FOR YOU. NO PROBLEM. THANK YOU.
>> ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU ALL. SO THAT CARRIES.
[5. BOARD BUSINESS]
DO WE HAVE ANY OLD BUSINESS THAT WE NEED TO ADDRESS.>> ON THE AGENDA PACKET, WHY DO WE HAVE THESE TWO ITEMS DOWN THE BOTTOM OF THIS? THE ORDINANCE AMENDING LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE IS ATTACHED TO THIS.
>> IT'S PART OF THE WHOLE SUM.
>> I DON'T KNOW WHAT'S ON IT'S A PART OF THE SUBMISSIONS.
>> ON A TIMES TONIGHT AND CHECK.
>> MAYBE PUT IT UP IF YOU DON'T MIND.
>> IT WAS IT WAS JUST BACK UP MATERIAL IS THE TIME WHERE THE LAND DEVELOPMENT.
>> IT'S AS DRAWINGS AND THEN REMEMBER ACTUALLY.
>> NO THEY DON'T NORMALLY THE LC IN 2007.
>> THAT'S THE POINT OF REFERENCE.
>> ANYTHING ELSE ON THE BOARD? WELL, THAT WAS AN EASY ONE. THANK YOU ALL. I APPRECIATE IT.
CLOSE, THAT'S 5:30.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.