Link

Social

Embed

Download

Download
Download Transcript

[1. CALL TO ORDER / ROLL CALL / DETERMINATION OF QUORUM]

[00:00:10]

OF FERNANDINA BEACH MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT IS NOW IN SESSION. SILVY, WILL YOU CALL THE ROLL, WE'RE GOING TO DISPENS WITH THE PLEDGE WHILE WE'RE IN THIS

FORUM. >> MEMBER MOCK, ABSENT.

MEMBER DADD, ABSENT. MEMBER SHEF HERTSLET, HERE.

MEMBER PAPKE, HERE. MEMBER GLEASON, HERE.

MEMBER MOCK IS ABSENT. MEMBER DADD.

>> MEMBER GLEASON IS AN ALTERNATE AND NEEDS TO BE

SEATED. >> MR. COOK HOW ARE YOU LINKED INTO THIS MEETING, ARE YOU ON THE PHONE OR ON THE COMPUTER?

>> I'M ON THE COMPUTER ON A MAKC COMPUTER LAPTOP.

I JUST E- >> I JUST DID THE SAME THING YOU

MIGHT HAVE TO CLICK START VIDEO. >> HE MOVED OVER FROM 716-911 --

>> CAN YOU HEAR ME? >> I CAN LAYER YOU.

HEAR YOU. >> WHO WAS THAT?

>> THAT SOUNDED LIKE -- >> THAT'S ANN.

>> BUT I'M NOT SHOWING UP ON THE SCREEN.

I DON'T KNOW WHAT IT IS. >> ALL RIGHT, SO WE GOT MARCI MR

MARCY TOO. >> YOU GUYS ARE CONFUSING ME.

>> HANSEN IS A SPEAKER ON ONE OF THE CASES.

>> THAT'S MS. ANN HANSON, CORRECT?

>> YES, SIR. >> ALL RIGHT, SO ANY OF OUR BOARD MEMBERS HAS THERE BEEN ANY EX PARTE COMMUNICATION?

>> NO. >> ALL RIGHT OF SYLVIA LET'S BE SURE WE PUT THAT DOWN IN THE MINUTES.

I KNOW WE'RE STRUGGLING ON THIS GUYS, IF WE CAN GET UP A FEW MINUTES BEFORE 5, IF WE'RE STILL IN THIS FORECAST, SO WE DON'T HAVE OUR CITIZENS WAITING ON US TO WORK ON OUR CHALLENGES.

I KNOW THERE ARE A LOT OF THINGS WE ARE TRYING TO WORK THROUGH BUT I KNOW IT WILL BE GREAT TO TRY TO DO THAT.

IT IS A LEARNING CURVE FOR ME AS WELL.

MS. HENSON CAN YOU HEAR ME FINE? >> YES I CAN HEAR YOU, THANK

YOU. >> YOU HAD SENT IN AN E-MAIL ON

THAT. >> YES.

>> WE'RE NOT GOING TO GET INTO THAT.

AND MS. BACH WILL EXPLAIN THAT TO YOU FURTHER.

WE'RE NOT IGNORING THAT. THE WAY OUR BOARD IS SET UP IN THE CITY WE CANNOT ACCEPT ANY SORT OF TESTIMONY LIKE THAT.

BUT YOU HERE, SO YOU CAN JUST DISCUSS WHATEVER YOUR CONCERNS ARE, AND IN THAT FORMAT, THAT LEAVES IT SO THAT IF THERE'S NERCH ELSEANYONE ELSE THAT WOULO ASK YOU A QUESTION ON THAT THAT IS THE FORM OF DIALOGUE. WE'RE NOT IGNORING THAT ON

THERE.% >> ALL RIGHT.

>> MS. BACH WOULD YOU GO THROUGH OUR PROCEDURES?

>> SURE, WE HAVE TWO CASES TONIGHT.

ON THE AGENDA. THAT WILL BE CONDUCTED AS QUASIJUDICIAL HEARINGS AND WHAT THAT MEANS IS FIRST, A CITY STAFF MEMBER, EITHER MS. FOREHAND, SHE WILL BE DOING BOTH OF OUR CASES, DAPHNE FOREHAND WILL PRODUCE EVIDENCE AN TESTIMONY ON BEHALF OF THE CITY AND THEN THE APPLICANT AND OR THEIR AGENT WILL COME TO THE MIDDLE OF THE ROOM, THAT SPACESHIP TYPE SPEAKER THAT'S WHERE YOU'RE SPEAKING TOWARDS, EVERYBODY HERE VIRTUALLY CAN HEAR YOU.

YOU'LL IT PRESENT EVIDENCE AND TESTIMONY INTO THE RECORD.

YOU MAY CALL WITNESSES, BOTH CITY STAFF MS. FOREHAND AND THE APPLICANT MAY CROSS EXAMINE EACH OTHER.

THEY MAY CROSS EXAMINE EACH OTHER'S WITNESSES.

[00:05:03]

EVERYBODY WHO IS GOING TO BE PRESENTING TESTIMONY WILL TAKE AN OATH BEFORE YOU SPEAK. ALL DID EVIDENCE AND TESTIMONY IS BEING RECORDED BOTH VIDEO AND AUDIO, WHICH WILL BE THE RECORD IN THIS CASE. AND IF THERE ARE ANY AFFECTED PEARTPARTIES HERE WHICH MEANS YE A RESIDENT OF THE CITY IN ACCORDANCE TO THE CITY'S DFINITION, YOU ARE NOT LIMITED BY THE AMOUNT OF TIME YOU CAN SPEAK AND YOU CAN PRESENT EVIDENCE INTO THE RECORD AS WELL.

YOU CAN DO CROSS EXAMINATION AS WELL.

YOU JUST IDENTIFY YOURSELF AS AN AFFECTED PARTY AND YOU WILL BE INTRODUCING EVIDENCE AND TESTIMONY.

YOU ALSO HAVE TO TAKE AN OATH. IF THERE IS AN APPEAL TO BE FILED OF ANY OF THE DECISIONS, THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MAKES THIS EVENING, THAT APPEAL MUST BE MADE WITHIN 30 DAYS FROM THIS BOARD'S WRITTEN FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW.

THAT IS EXR SIGNED WITHIN THREE TO FIVE DAYS SO ABOUT 33 TO 35 BUSINESS DAYS YOU MUST FILE AN MALE IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OR YOU WILL BE BARRED FOREVER. SO IF THERE ARE ANY QUESTIONS I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER THEM. AND I KNOW MS. SIL T SILLVY HAE

OATH. >> MS. BACH HOW ARE WE SQUARING

EVERYBODY ONLINE? >> IT'S THE HONOR SYSTEM.

IF THEY ARE GOING TO SPEAK, INCLUDING THE APPLICANT OR AGENT THAT'S ONLINE JUST RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND, SAY IF YOU DON'T MIND, TAKE YOUR MICROPHONES OFF OF MUTE, IT CAUSES A LITTLE BIT OF -- BUT I'D RATHER HAVE IT THAT WAY, AND GO AHEAD AND TAKE THE OATH WITH EVERYBODY ELSE HERE IN THE ROOM.

>> OKAY. JACOB, DO WE KNOW HOW MANY

PEOPLE ARE ONLINE? >> YES, WE HAVE AN ANONYMOUS LISTED, MS. ANN HENSON AND THEN MS. PAM MEYER IS PHONED IN.

>> OKAY. >> AND WHOEVER IS ATTENDING THE MEETING ANONYMOUSLY YOU ARE GOING TO HAVE TO INTRODUCE YOURSELF NOW BY NAME, IF YOU ARE GOING TO PRESENT TESTIMONY.

OTHERWISE YOU'RE JUST LISTENING IN WHICH IS JUST FINE.

>> WE KNOW WE HAVE GOT MS. HENSON.

MS. HENSON? >> YES.

>> OKAY WAS THERE ANYONE ELSE ONLINE THAT IS GOING TO WANT TO

SPEAK? >> AND MS. PAM MEYER.

>> PAM MILE-PER-HOUR. MIESH.

MEYER. I'M AN APPLICANT.

>> RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND. DO YOU SWEAR AND FIRM THAT THE ORAL AND/OR WRITTEN TESTIMONY YOU ARE ABOUT TO GIVE WILL BE THE TRUTH, THE WITH WHOLE TRUTH AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH?

>> I DO. >> I DO.

>> THANK YOU SO MUCH GUYS. LET'S LOOK AT THE MINUTES FROM

[3. APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES]

LAST MONTH. HAS EVERYBODY LOOKED AT THAT? IS THERE ANY CORRECTIONS OR ANY NOTES THAT WE NEED TO ENTER IN THAT BEFORE WE GET A MOTION ON IT?

>> I LOOKED AT THEM AND THEY LOOKED GOOD TO ME.

>> OKAY, ANY OTHER BOARD MEMBERS HAVE ANY OTHER THOUGHTS ON THAT?

>> THE ONLY ADDITION OR SUBTRACTION I WOULD SUGGEST IS WE DIDN'T DO THE PLEDGE. THAT'S A MINOR THING.

>> SHOULDN'T BE IN THE MINUTES THEN.

>> YES, THAT'S EXACTLY RIGHT. WE WANT TO STRIVE TO KEEP THESE JUST AS ACCURATE AS POSSIBLE. SO I'LL JUST MANUALLY STRIKE THOSE. CAN I GET A MOTION TO APPROVE THESE MINUTES FROM LAST MONTH PLEASE?

>> I MOVE TO APPROVE THE MINUTES FROM LAST MONTH.

>> I GOT A FIRST. >> SECOND.

>> AND BARRY GAVE ME A SECOND. SYLVIA WILL YOU CALL THAT?

>> MR. COOK? OKAY.

MEMBER PAPKE. YES.

MEMBER HERTSLET, YES. MEMBER COOK, YES.

MEMBER GLEASON. YES, CHAIR MILLER, YES.

>> AND THAT MOTION PASSES. ALL RIGHT DAPHNE ARE YOU READY?

[4. NEW BUSINESS 1 BOA 2020-0008: PAMELA MEYER, 2203 CEDAR STREET Variance from LDC Section 5.01.01(C) There shall be no more than (1) detached accessory dwelling and not more than a total of two (2) other detached accessory buildings on a lot. ]

>> I'M READY. >> SO LET'S DIVE RIGHT INTO IT

AND SEE WHERE THIS LEADS US. >> TONIGHT'S BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS CASE IS 2020-08 OR PAMELA MEYER.

THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 2203 CEDAR STREET, ZONED R-1 LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL. THE REQUESTED ACTION IS VARIANCE FROM LDS 5.01.03C. NO MORE THAN TWO OTHER DETACHED ACCESSORY BUILDINGS ON THE LOT. FOR THE RECORD, ALL FEES HAVE

[00:10:02]

BEEN RECEIVED, ALL REQUIRED NOTICES HAVE BEEN MADE.

SO GETTING INTO THE SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION. THE APPLICANT SEEKING A VARIANCE TO ALLOW FOR TWO ADDITIONAL, 320 SQUARE FOOT DETACHED ACCESSORY STRUCTURES FOR A TOTAL 700 SQUARE FOOT.

DECEMBER NEITHER ARE ACCESSORY DWELLINGS.

THE OWNER WOULD LIKE TO PRESERVE THE ORIGINAL DOG TROT TYPE OF VERNACULAR, TYPE OF HOME ORIGINALLY CONSTRUCTED IN 1900.

THE PROPOSED STRUCTURES WOULD ALLOW FOR HISTORIC CONSTRUCTION.

I ALSO WANTED TO NOTE THE FOOTPRINT OF THE EXISTING AND THE PROPOSED STRUCTURES IS 1856 SQUARE FEET AND WOULD NOT EXCEED THE 1875 SQUARE FOOT CUMULATIVE FOOTPRINT OF ALLOWABLE ACCESSORY STRUCTURES OR DWELLINGS PER LDS 5.01.03C.

AND I'VE ADDED A SURVEY HERE WITH THE PROPOSED STRUCTURES.

SO JUST GETTING INTO THE CONSISTENCY WITH THE SIX CRITERIA FOR GRANTING A VARIANCE.

SPECIAL CONDITIONS. YES, SPECIAL CONDITIONS OR CIRCUMSTANCES DO EXIST AS IT RELATES TO THE LAND STRUCTURE OR BUILDINGS INVOLVED WHICH ARE NOT APPLICABLE TO OTHER LAND STRUCTURES OR BUILDINGS IN THE SAME ZONING DISTRICT.

AS YOU CAN SEE, THIS LOT IS QUITE LARGE.

THE PROPERTY SITS ON 3.06 ACRES OF LAND AS OPPOSED TO THE .22 OR .30 SIZE LOTS FOUND IN SIMILARLY ZONED AREAS.

SPECIAL PRIVILEGE. NOTE, GRANTING THE VARIANCE DOES CONFER SPECIAL PRIVILEGE THAT IS DENIED TO THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE TO OTHER STRUCTURES IN THE SAME ZONING DISTRICT.

ALL RESIDENTIAL REGARDLESS OF THE SIZE OF THE PLOT.

HOWEVER THE SIZE OF THIS PARCEL IS UNIQUE IN SIZE AND LOCATION.

LITERAL INTERPRETATION, NOTE LITERAL INTERPRETATION OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, PROPERTIES IN THE SAME ZONING DISTRICT BECAUSE ALL PROPERTIES ARE LIMITED IN THE NUMBER AND SIZE OF ACCESSORY STRUCTURES.

MINIMUM VARIANCE, YES, THE REQUESTED VARIANCE IS THE MINIMUM VARIANCE THAT WILL MAKE REASONABLE USE OF THE LAND STRUCTURE OR BUILDING, ALSO, WANTED TO NOTE AGAIN AS I MENTIONED PREVIOUSLY, THE CUMULATIVE FOOTPRINT OF THE EXISTING AND THE PROPOSED STRUCTURES IS LESS THAN THE TOTAL CUFN F CUMULATIVE FOOTPRIF ALLOWABLE STRUCTURES AND DWELLINGS. GENERAL HARMONY, YES, GRANTING THE VARIANCE WILL BE IN HARMONY OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN GIVEN FACT THAT THE HOUSE WAS BUILT IN 1900 AND THE OWNER IS LOOKING TO PRESERVE THE ARCHITECTURAL CHARACTER OF THE PRIMARY STRUCTURE WITH THEIR DESIGN. PUBLIC INTEREST, YES.

GRANTING THE VARIANCE IS COMPATIBLE WITH NEARBY DEVELOPMENT AND THE CHARACTER OF SURROUNDING PROPERTIES.

IT WOULD NOT CAUSE INJURY TO THE AREA INVOLVED OR OTHERWISE BE DETRIMENTAL TO THE HEALTH, WELFARE OR ENVIRONMENT.

SO FOR MY ANALYSIS, THE APPLICANT APPEARS TO MEET CRITERIA 1, 4, 5 AND 6 BUT DOES NOT MEET CRITERIA 2 OR 3 FOR GRANTING A VARIANCE, THEREFORE STAFF MUST RECOMMEND DENIAL OF BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS CASE 2020-08.

AND I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS ANYONE HAS ANY TO THE

BEST OF MIABILITY. >> THANK YOU DAPHNE THAT WAS A

VERY GOOD START. >> THANK YOU.

>> TO YOUR CAREER HERE AT THE CITY OF FERNANDINA BEACH.

HAVE ALL THE NOTICES BEEN SIGNED AND EVERYTHING?

>> YES. >> ANY BOARD MEMBERS HAVE ANY

QUESTIONS FOR DAPHNE? >> WELL, ON THE SUMMARY DAPHNE SAYS THE OWNER WANTS TO PRESERVE A DOG TROT CRACK VERNACULAR.

WHAT IS THAT? >> THAT IS TYPE OF HOME, THE ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN OF THE HOME.

>> WELL, THEY'LL PROBABLY EXPLAIN.

I JUST NEVER HEARD THAT EXPRESSION BEFORE.

>> YES, I HAD TO RESEARCH IT A LITTLE BIT MYSELF TOO.

>> THAT'S A BIG PIECE OF PROPERTY DAPHNE.

>> IT IS, IT'S HUGE. >> SO IS THERE UNDERLYING CITY LOTS THERE OR IS THAT -- DOES SHE JUST OWN THE LARGER PARCEL OR COULD THAT BE DEVELOPED IN THE FUTURE?

SUBDIVIDED OR SOMETHING ON THAT? >> I'M NOT 100% SURE ON THAT.

I DON'T KNOW IF I CAN REFER TO JAKE ON THAT QUESTION.

HE MAY BE ABLE TO ANSWER. >> YES SO THERE ARE UNDERLYING LOTS OF RECORD. IT IS A BIGGER TRACT THAT HAS CONSTRAINTS ON SUBDIVIDE AWAYIN. WE HAVE PROVISIONS THAT YOU

[00:15:03]

BUILD CREDIT LOTS, WOULD LET THE APPLICANT SPEAK TO THEIR PLANS FOR THE FUTURE ON THE PROPERTY, BUT I DO NOT BELIEVE THERE IS ANY INTENT ON THE NORTHERN SIDE OF CEDAR STREET, TO SUBDIVIDE ANY OF THAT PROPERTY. IT'S I BELIEVE A 1900 STRUCTURE, THAT PART OF TOWN LOOKING BACK AT OLD AERIALS, THERE WAS A LOT OF FARMING IN THAT SECTION OF TOWN.

AND THAT STRUCTURE DATES BACK TO THAT PERIOD.

>> OKAY, SO WHAT SHE'S PLANNING TO DO THEN, SHE IS NOT GOING ACROSS UNDERLYING LOTS OF RECORD, WOULD THAT BE FAIR TO

SAY? >> SYLVIA -- EXCUSE ME DAPHNE WOULD YOU MIND SCROLLING UP TO LOOK AT THE SURVEY? SO EVERYBODY CAN SEE THAT FOR US.

SO CORRECT. >> OKAY.

>> THAT PARCEL IS LOT 12. AS YOU MOVE WEST TO EAST IN THE CITY SUBDIVISION PLOT, THE ORIGINAL PLAT, THE LOTS GOT LARGER. I MEAN THIS IS A LARGER TRACT,

LARGER LOT OF RECORD, EXCUSE ME. >> THE BOARD MEMBERS THAT ARE AT HOME, DOES YOUR SCREEN SHOW THIS PLAT?

ARE YOU ABLE TO SEE THAT? >> YES.

>> YES. >> OKAY.

ALL RIGHT. DAPHNE CAN YOU PUT THAT ON TO

GIS OR JUST MAP IT? >> SURE.

>> SO EVERYBODY CAN SEE EXACTLY WHERE IT IS.

IF YOU PAN OUT TO THE LEFT THERE DAPHNE, GIVE ME SOMETHING THAT'S CLOSE BY THAT I CAN REFERENCE OFF OF.

THAT LOOKS LIKE -- IS THAT IF HIGH SCHOOL?

>> YES. THE

HIGH SCHOOL? >> YES.

>> YOU ARE ONLY SHARING THE PRESENTATION RIGHT NOW.

>> OKAY, CAN YOU SEE THAT? >> YES, THANK YOU.

>> GOOD. ALL RIGHT.

ANY BOARD MEMBERS HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR DAPHNE OR ANY NOT BEFORE WE MOVE ON TO HEAR FROM THE APPLICANT?

OKAY. >> I'M HERE.

>> ALL RIGHT MS. MEYERS OR -- >> YES.

>> YES, MA'AM, GO AHEAD PLEASE. >> I'M SORRY, DID YOU ASK A QUESTION? I MISSED THAT?

>> NO MA'AM I DID NOT ASK A QUESTION.

BUT IF THERE'S ANYTHING THAT YOU WOULD LIKE TO SAY THE FLOOR IS

YOURS. >> OKAY.

YES, SIR, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >> SURE.

>> MY INTENT AS YOU READ THROUGH HERE IS TO ADD A STORAGE SHED TO THE PROPERTY. ONE WAS TAKEN DOWN AND THEN THE EXISTING GARAGE WAS ADDED. THE GARAGE IS ATTACHED TO A WALKWAY WHICH IS ATTACHED TO THE MAIN HOUSE.

AND SO WHEN THAT STORAGE SHED WAS REMOVED I ENDED UP HAVING TO STORE THINGS IN THE EXISTING GARAGE WHICH WOULD I LIKE TO DEDICATE THAT TO MY CARS. THE OTHER IS AN ART STUDIO THAT I WOULD LIKE TO BUILD. THEY ARE FAIRLY CLOSE IN PROXIMITY. WHAT SEPARATES THEM IS A LARGE TREE THAT I WANTED TO PRESERVE. AND I THINK I'VE STATED SOME OF THESE QUALITIES BEFORE WHERE THE PROPERTY IS NOT, I MEAN THESE HAVE NOT EXCEEDED THE ESTABLISHED 60% OF IMPERVIOUS SURFACE RATIO LIMIT. EACH STRUCTURE IS 320 SQUARE FEET APPROXIMATELY. THE OTHER STRUCTURE IS A DIRT-FLOORED SHED, AND THEN THE GARAGE WHICH IS ATTACHED TO THE HOUSE, VIA THE WALKWAY, SO THOSE WOULD BE THE TWO STRUCTURES, AND THEN THE HOUSE WOULD BE THE RESIDENCE AND THEN THIS WOULD BE REQUESTING AN ADDITIONAL TWO STORAGE, ONE STORAGE AND ONE

STUDIO. >> OKAY.

AND YOU'RE ABLE TO DO THAT WITHOUT GETTING TOWARDS ANY OF THE SETBACKS OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT, CORRECT?

>> THAT'S CORRECT. >> THAT'S A BIG, BIG PIECE OF

PROPERTY THERE. >> IT IS.

[00:20:01]

>> OKAY. >> NONFUN TO MOW.

>> FUN TO MOW, YES, MA'AM. WAS THERE ANY COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD MEMBERS THAT THEY WOULD LIKE TO TALK TO MS. MEYERS

ABOUT? >> IS YOUR PROPERTY FENCED ALL THE WAY AROUND WHERE OTHER NEIGHBORS WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO SEE WHAT YOU'RE PLANNING ON DOING THERE?

>> THAT'S CORRECT. IT'S FENCED ON THREE SIDES, AND NOT FENCED ON THE EAKINS CREEK SIDE.

>> THANK YOU. >> SO WHERE THESE ARE GOING TO GO IS ON THE CEDAR STREET SIDE AND THERE IS A FENCE THERE ALONG

WITH SOME THICK VEGETATION. >> ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU MS. MEYERS. DESTINANY OTHER BOARD MEMBERS HY QUESTIONS ON THAT? ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU SO VERY MUCH, MS. MEYERS. YOU MAY HAVE A CHANCE TO COME BACK AND SPEAK AGAIN IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO.

IS THERE ANY AFFECTED PARTIES OR ANYBODY FROM THE PUBLIC EITHER IN PERSON OR ONLINE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK? ALL RIGHT S SILVIE JUST NOTE NOBODY WANTED TO SAY ANYTHING.

IS THERE ANYTHING THE ELSE YOU WOULD LIKE TO NOTE ON THE RECORD BEFORE THE BOARD DELIBERATES ON THIS?

>> I COULD REITERATE THAT THE FINISHED FOOTPRINT WOULD BE CONSISTENT WITH ALLOWABLE, 1875 IT WOULD FALL QUELL WELL WITHIN.

AS I NOTED IT'S A LARK PROPERTY, PRETTY SECLUDED.

MANY DON'T KNOW ABOUT IT, DON'T SEE THE PROPERTY VERY MUCH.

I DON'T FEEL I WOULD BE IMPOSING UPON ANYONE AT ALL.

I CERTAINLY HAVE A NEED FOR THE TWO STRUCTURES.

>> OKAY POP. >> DEFINITELY THE SHED AND THE ART STUDIO, BACK TO WHAT I DID SEVERAL YEARS AGO.

I HAVE NO PLANS TO DEVELOP. I HEARD SOMEBODY ASK ABOUT THAT BUT I HAVE NO PLANS TO DEVELOP IN THE FUTURE.

>> YES, MA'AM, I THINK ONE OF OUR BOARD MEMBERS, MR. PAPKE ASKED IF THESE ARE ALL SINGLE STORY STRUCTURES.

IS THAT RIGHT STEVEN? >> THAT'S CORRECT, THEY ARE.

>> ALL RIGHT THANK YOU MS. MEYERS.

WE WILL CLOSE OUT THAT PART OF THE MEETING WITH THE APPLICANT AND NO COMMENT FROM ANY AFFECTED PARTIES FOR THE PUBLIC.

LET'S TALK ABOUT IT, BOARD MEMBERS.

WHAT DO YOU THINK BARRY? >> WELL, I LOOKED AT THE PROPERTY TODAY, AND IT'S DOWN THE END OF A DEAD END STREET.

AND THERE'S JUST ONE NEIGHBOR THAT'S REALLY FACING THE OTHER DIRECTION, THERE'S A FENCE ALL AROUND IT.

WHERE SHE WANTS TO PUT THE TWO STRUCTURES.

AND ON THREE ACRES, PUTTING AN ADDITIONAL TWO ADDITIONAL SMALL IS STRUCTURES THERE I DON'T SEE ANY PROBLEM WITH THAT AT ALL.

>> OKAY. HOW ABOUT THE BOARD MEMBERS THAT ARE ONLINE? SAY THAT AGAIN SIR?

>> CAN I TALK? STEVE.

>> YES, SIR, GO AHEAD. >> OKAY, COUPLE OF THINGS THAT HIT ME IS, ONE, IT'S A LARGE LOT.

AND THEREFORE, YOU'RE NOT, THE APPARENT DENSITY, YOU KNOW AS FAR AS THAT ASPECT GOES, IS NOT REALLY INCREASING ABOVE WHAT THE ZONING CATEGORY WOULD ALLOW. I THINK IT'S ANOTHER POINT THAT SHE COULD TAKE DOWN STRUCTURES AND REBUILD BUT I THINK THAT WOULD BE HARMFUL TO WHAT SHE'S TRYING TO ACHIEVE.

I THINK THE AMBIENCE OF WHAT SHE'S DOING AND WHAT SHE'S TRYING TO ACHIEVE IS RIGHT IN SYNC WITH WHAT WE WOULD LIKE TO HAVE IN THE CITY. I DON'T HAVE ANY PROBLEM WITH

THIS AT ALL. >> ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU SIR.

ANYBODY ELSE WANT TO WEIGH IN ON THAT?

>> I WOULD LIKE TO ASK. DO I HAVE A QUESTION.

WOULD ANY OF THESE STRUCTURES HAVE ANY KIND OF UTILITIES OR WATER OR HEATING OR COOLING OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT, THAT WOULD MAKE THEM UTILIZE TO LIVE IN OR LIVE OUT OF?

>> NO, THEY WOULD BE UTILIZED TO LIVE IN, BUT THERE WOULD BE ELECTRIC. FOR LIGHTS.

>> OKAY, YES, I DON'T SEE A PROBLEM WITH IT.

I JUST WONDERED ABOUT THAT. IT LOOKS LIKE A VERY GOOD USE OF

THE PROPERTY TO ME. >> OKAY MARK THANKS.

STEVEN HOW ABOUT YOU? HOW DO YOU SEE IT?

>> I DON'T SEE ANY ISSUES WITH THIS AT ALL.

[00:25:01]

>> AND I'M GOING TO BE THERE WITH EVERYBODY ELSE.

SHE'S CERTAINLY GOT A LARGE PARCEL AND WHAT SHE'S ASKING FOR IS REASONABLE. I DON'T HAVE ANY ISSUES WITH IT WHATSOEVER. AND CERTAINLY, EVERYONE ALL OF HER NEIGHBORS, IF THEY HAD ANY ISSUES WITH IT, THEY WOULD HAVE HAD A CHANCE TO SPEAK UP. SO WOULD ANYBODY TON BOARD LIKE

ON THE BOARDLIKE TO MAKE A MOTI? >> I'LL MAKE A MOTION.

>> ALL RIGHT BARRY GO AHEAD. >> I MOVE TO APPROVE THE CASE NUMBER 2020-08 AND I NOTE THAT THE BOA MAKE THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIOS OF LAW OF RECORD, THAT THE CASE 2020-08 AS PRESENTED IS SUBSTANTIALLY COMPLIANT WITH THE CODE, TO GRANT APPROVAL AT THIS TIME.

AND BOA CASE 2020-08, MEETS THE FOLLOWING CRITERIA FOR GRANTING A VARIANCE, SPECIAL CONDITION, SPECIAL PRIVILEGE LITERAL INTERPRETATIONS, GENERAL HARMONY AND PUBLIC INTEREST AND I WOULD SAY THAT THE TWO OF THESE, THAT THE STAFF DID NOT AGREE WITH, BECAUSE OF THE SIZE OF THE PROPERTY AND THE FACT THERE AREN'T REALLY ANY NEIGHBORS, IT SHOULDN'T BE A PROBLEM IN CONSTRUCTING THESE TWO BUILDINGS.

>> BARRY'S GOT A FIRST, CAN SOMEBODY SECOND THAT MOTION IF

YOU WOULD LIKE? >> I'LL SECOND IT.

>> OKAY, I GOT A SECOND. >> DID YOU GET THAT SILVY?

>> I DON'T KNOW WHO'S SECONDED IT.

I CAN'T SEE WHO'S TALKING. >> IS THAT MARK WITH THE SECOND?

>> STEVE. >> SORRY ABOUT THAT.

>> OKAY NO PROBLEM. >> ABOUT THE TIME WE GET OVER THIS VIRUS WE'LL HAVE IT FIGURED OUT.

>> MEMBER GLEASON. >> YES.

>> MEMEMBER COOK? YES.

MEMBER PAPKE, YES. IS MEMBER HERTSLET, YES, AND

CHAIR MILLER, YES. >> OKAY MS. MEYERS, SO YOU'RE GOOD TO GO. IF YOU'LL JUST GIVE JACOB A FEW DAYS AND HE'LL GET ALL OF YOUR PAPERWORK READY, IF YOU'LL JUST

REACH OUT TO HIM. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

I APPRECIATE IT. >> YES, MA'AM, THANK YOU, GOOD

LUCK WITH YOUR PROJECT. >> THANK YOU.

HAVE A GOOD DAY. >> THANK YOU, MA'AM.

WELL DAPHNE YOU GOT ONE, YOU DID ONE.

>> ONE DOWN, ONE DO GO. >> IT'S ALL DOWN HILL FROM HERE.

[Items 4.2 & 8]

ALL RIGHT LET'S GO WITH THE NEXT ONE THEN.

>> ALL RIGHT. >> IC SEE YOU NOW.

>> >> I CAN SEE YOU NOW.

>> BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS 2020-09, PRESENTED BY EMILY PIERCE FOR ROGERS TOWERS. 218 NORTH SIXTH STREET,ING MEDIUM DENSITY LAND USE. THEIR REQUEST IS A VARIANCE FROM LDS SECTION 4.02.03E, BUILDING HEIGHTS AND SET BACKS.

FOR THE RECORD ALL APPLICATION MATERIALS HAVE BEEN RECEIVED, ALL FEES HAVE BEEN PAID AND ALL REQUIRED NOTICES HAVE BEEN MADE.

SO GETTING INTO THE SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST.

AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION. THE APPLICANT IS SEEKING A VARIANCE TO REDUCE THE SIDE BACK SET BACK REQUIREMENT BY FIVE FEET TO PERMIT THE CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE.

THERE IS A LARGE BAND OF WETLANDS THAT ARE PRESENT, AND DUE TO THE LOCATION AND PRESENCE OF WETLANDS THE APPLICANT SEEKS A REDUCTION OF THE SIDE YARD SET BACK TO AVOID WET LAND AND WET LAND BUFFER IMPACTS. HERE IS THE SITE PLAN WITH THE PROPOSED TWO STORY SINGLE FAMILY HOME.

AND GETTING INTO THE CONSISTENCY WITH THE SIX CRITERIA FOR GRANTING A VARIANCE, SPECIAL CONDITIONS.

YES, SPECIAL CONDITIONS OR CIRCUMSTANCES DO EXIST WHICH ARE PARTICULAR TO THE LAND STRUCTURES OR BUILDINGS INVOLVED AND WHICH ARE NOT APPLICABLE TO OTHER LAND STRUCTURES OR BUILDINGS IN THE SAME ZONING DISTRICT.

AS I MENTIONED PREVIOUSLY THIS PROPERTY HAS A LARGE BAND OF WETLANDS ALONG THE EASTERN HALF THAT RESULT IN A VERY SMALL DEVELOPABLE PROPERTY. SPECIAL CONDITIONS OR CIRCUMSTANCES DO NOT RESULT, AND NOT BASED ON THE DESIRE TO REDUCE DEVELOPMENT COST. SPECIAL PRIVILEGE, NO, GRANTING THE VARIANCE DOES GRANT SPECIAL PRIVILEGE TO OTHER LAND

[00:30:02]

STRUCTURES OR BUILDINGS IN THE SAME DISTRICT.

MUST MAINGTD A MINIMUM SIDE YARD SET BACK EQUAL TO 10% OF THE LOT WIDTH AS REQUIRED IN LDS 4.02.03 E, ALSO WANTED TO NOTE THAT THE R-2 ZONING DISTRICT HAS A 50 FOOT LOT MINIMUM REQUIREMENT, HOWEVER WITH THE CITY'S RESTRICTION OF NET DENSITY, OTHERWISE ALLOW THE STRUCTURE TO BE COMPLIANT WITH A FIVE FOOT SIDE YARD SETTLE BACK. SET BACK.

LITERALLY INTERPRETATION, YES. LITERAL INTERPRETATION, YES.

CLOSER TO THE PROPERTY LINE AS A RESULT OF THE EXISTING WETLANDS.

THE APPLICANT IS REQUIRED TO MEET WET LAND BUFFER IMPACTS, SET FORTH IN 3.03.03B 1. MINIMUM VARIANCE, YES, THE REQUESTED VARIANCE IS THE MINIMUM VARIANCE NEED THEY'D WOULD MAKE REASONABLE USE OF THE LAND STRUCTURE OR BUILDING.

THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST SEEKS TO AVOID DEVELOMENT WITHIN IF ESTABLISHED BUFFER OF 25 FEET. GENERAL HARMONY, YES, GRANTING THE VARIANCE WILL BE IN HARMONY WITH THE GENERAL INTENT AND PURPLE OF THE GENERAL DEVELOPMENT CODE AND COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. THE PROPOSED SIDE SET BACK WOULD BE IN HARMONY WITH THE EXISTING GOALS OF THE WETLANDS WHILE MAKING EXISTING USE OF THE PROPERTY.

PUBLIC INTEREST, YES, GRANTING THE VARIANCE IS COMPATIBLE WITH NEARBY DEVELOPMENT AND THE CHARACTER OF THE SURROUNDING PROPERTIES. IT WILL NOT CAUSE INJURY TO THE AREA INVOLVED OR OTHERWISE BE DETRIMENT TO THE HEALTH SAFETY WELFARE OR ENVIRONMENT. THE HIM IS IN KEEPING WITH THE SURROUNDING PROPERTIES. AND FOR MY ANALYSIS, THE APPLICANT APPEARS TO MEET CRITERIA 1, THROUGH 4, 5 AND 6, BUT DOES NOT MEET CRITERIA 2 FOR GRANTING A VARIANCE.

THEREFORE STAFF MUST RECOMMEND DENIAL OF BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS 2020-09. AND I'M HAPPY TO ANSWERFULLY

QUESTIONS. >> DAPHNE WOULD YOU PUT THAT ON

THE BOARD FOR US PLEASE. >> SURE.

>> CAN EVERYONE SEE THE MAP? >> CAN YOU GUYS AT HOME SEE THE

PLAN? >> YES.

SAME ONE FROM THE PREVIOUS CASE. THERE YOU GO.

>> ALL RIGHT DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR DAPHNE BEFORE WE HEAR FROM THE APPLICANT OR FROM MS. PIERCE?

ALL RIGHT MS. PIERCE. >> I'M GOING TO ACTUALLY LET THE LAND OWNER AND ARCHITECTS BE FIRST IF THAT'S OKAY WITH YOU.

>> ABSOLUTELY FINE WITH ME. THANK YOU.

>> YOU WANT ME RIGHT HERE? >> THE FIRST CHAIR IS THE BEST,

I KNOW IT SEEMS STRANGE. >> WHERE WAS I ON THE NIGHT OF

THE 13TH, RIGHT? >> THAT'S OKAY, AND STEVE.

>> I'M LOU GARDNER, I OWN THE LOT AND ALSO OWN THE HOUSE NEXT DOOR WHICH WE PURCHASED IN 2016 YOU.

IT'S 224. I LIVE PERMANENTLY IN PITTSBURG, WE USED THE HOUSE IN 224 AS A SECOND HOME AND PLAN TO MOVE TO FERNANDINA BEACH AS SOON AS MY 12-YEAR-OLD'S CAP AND GOWN IS OFF, SIX OR SEVEN YEARS FROM NOW, WHEN WE SAW THAT THIS LOT BECAME AVAILABLE FOR SALE, WE HAVE A PRETTY SMALL HOUSE AND THOUGHT THAT WE MIGHT JUST LIKE THE NEIGHBORHOOD, WE LIKE THE STREET, WE'LL BUY THAT LOT AND BUILD A LARGER HOUSE.

I DO FEEL, I FEEL A LITTLE BIT LIKE I OUGHT TO EXPLAIN WHY I BOUGHT A PIECE OF PROPERTY WITH A BUNCH OF WETLANDS ON IT.

NOT THAT IT'S NECESSARILY TECHNICALLY RELEVANT TO YOUR CONSIDERATIONS. THERE IS A HUGE WET LAND ON IT AND SORT OF WANT TO EXPLAIN HOW THAT CAME ABOUT.

WE DID DO SOME DUE DILIGENCE, HIRED AN ENGINEER WHO I GUEST JUST LOOKED AT MAPS. DIDN'T ACTUALLY GO OUT TO THE PROPERTY, HE TELLS US THAT IN A REPORT THAT IT WAS SUITABLE FOR A SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT. SO THAT'S HOW WE GOT THE LOT TO BEGIN WITH. THEN WHEN WE WEBSITE THROUGH PROCESS FOR GETTING WHAT WE THOUGHT WOULD BE A LARGER HOUSE

[00:35:05]

WE DISCOVERED WETLANDS. THIS IS IN SOME WAYS A PLAN B.

IT'S A WAY OF MAKING SOME USE OF THE PROPERTY AND STILL GETTING US A LITTLE BIT OF ADDITIONAL SPACE.

WE OBVIOUSLY DIDN'T WANT TO ASK FOR A RELIEF FROM THE BUFFER AGAINST THE WET LAND AND THEN THE FACT THAT IT'S A DOUBLE LOT KIND OF COMPLICATED THINGS AND REQUIRED US TO GIVE THIS SETUP.

WE'RE NOT -- WE'RE GOING TO USE IT AS A -- FOR FAMILY, FRIENDS, I MIGHT USE IT AS A HOME OFFICE. IT WILL BE FULLY EQUIPPED.

I'LL PROBABLY GET KICKED OUT OF THE MAIN HOUSE AND HAVE TO SPEND SOME TIME THERE AS WELL. IT'S ONLY GOING TO BE IDEA OF FOR OUR OWN PURPOSES. WE'LL HAVE A DOUBLE GARAGE ON THE BOTTOM WHICH WE THINK WILL ALLEVIATE SOME CONGESTION FROM THE STREET. I THINK THAT'S ABOUT IT.

I DID TALK TO THE NEIGHBORS AND MS. SIMPSON IS HERE.

SHE HAD A CONCERN I THINK ABOUT THE HEIGHT.

WE HAD AN ANSWER WHICH ADDRESSES THAT, THE HEIGHT IS REALLY NOT 32 FEET, IT'S 24-1, I THINK THERE'S A MISTAKE.

THAT'S IT. >> OKAY.

ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU SIR. >> IF I'M NOT LOUD ENOUGH LET ME KNOW, NOT PRACTICED IN MASK-SPEAKING YET.

>> GIVE ME YOUR NAME. >> I'M VICK BOSCENO, PLANTATION HOUSING. THE GARDNERS ASKED US TO TAKE A LOOK AT DESIGNING A HOME ON THIS CHALLENGING HOME SITE WITH THE WETLANDS. AND LOOKING AT THE SITE PLAN YOU CAN SEE THERE'S NOT MUCH ROOM ON THE SITE TO DO TOO MUCH.

SO IN DESIGNING AND KEEPING IT OUT OF THE WETLANDS, AND KEEPING IT OUT OF THE BUFFER, SO IN DESIGNING THE GARAGE AND THE LIVING QUARTERS ABOVE, WE HAD TO HAVE THE GARAGE DEEP ENOUGH TO PUT A CAR IN THERE. AND -- OR CARS IN THERE AND THEN SOME OFFSITE PARKING WHICH IS THE DRIVEWAY.

BECAUSE THAT STREET'S YOU KNOW REALLY GOT A LOT OF PEOPLE PARKING ON THE STREET. AND THIS WILL ALLOW THE GARDNERS TO BE ABLE TO GET THEIR CARS OFF.

SO THE OTHER THING ASK, THE HEIGHT IS UNDER 25 FEET SO IT MEETS THAT REQUIREMENT. AND THE ONLY WAY TO MAKE IT WORK WAS TO GET -- TO ASK FOR A FIVE-FOOT VARIANCE ON THE SIDE.

AND IT IS COMPATIBLE WITH THE ARCHITECTURE AS NOTED BY STAFF.

AND WE PLAN ON -- OR THE GARTD GARDNERS PLAN ON LANDSCAPING HEAVILY NEXT TO THE NEIGHBOR WHICH WOULD BE TO THE SOUTH AND LANDSCAPING THE FRONT, AS WELL. SO IT'S IN HARMONY WITH EXISTING

STREET. >> OKAY, ANYTHING ELSE SIR?

>> THAT'S IT. >> OKAY, ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU SIR. MS. PIERCE.

>> THANK YOU. DAPHNE COULD YOU PUT

(INAUDIBLE). >> THANK YOU.

AGAIN I KNOW I DON'T SPEAK LOUD ENOUGH SO IF I NEED TO SPEAK UP

LET ME KNOW. >> SURE.

>> EMILY PIERCE, 1301 RIVER PLACE BOULEVARD AND I'M REPRESENTING THE GARDNERS. THE STAFF REPORT FINDS THAT WE MEET FOUR OUT OF FIVE OF THE CRITERIA.

SO FOR BREVITY I'M NOT GOING TO GO THROUGH THOSE FOUR.

I'M ONLY GOING TO GO THROUGH CRITERIA 2 WHICH IS THE SPECIAL HE PRIVILEGE CRITERIA. SO WITH REGARD TO CRITERIA 2 WE RESPECTFULLY DISAGREE WITH S STF WE THINK THAT THE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES AND CONDITIONS PARTICULAR TO THIS LOT DEMONSTRATE THAT THE GRANTING OF THE VARIANCE DOESN'T CONFER A SPECIAL PRIVILEGE THAT IS DENIED BY THE DEVELOPMENT CODE, IN FACT WE THINK IT PROVIDES RELIEF FROM THIS VERY UNUSUAL CIRCUMSTANCE.

IF YOU LOOK, IT'S A LITTLE HARD TO TELL ON THE SITE PLAN BUT THE RED LINE IS THE WET LAND. AND THIN THE DOTTED DASH LINE IS THE WETLANDS SET BACK WHICH IS 25 FEET.

THERE IS ESSENTIALLY NO DEVELOPABLE PROPERTY IN THE --

WHICH IS MORE PO WHICH FACE? >> NORTH IS ON THE BOTTOM POP.

>> NORTH IS ON THE BOTTOM. THERE IS NO DEVELOPABLE PROPERTY IN THAT SMALL TRIANGLE TO THE NORTH.

IF YOU TOOK THIS HOME WHICH IS 416 SQUARE FEET AND TRIED TO PUT

[00:40:02]

IT ON THE NORTH IT'S GOING TO GO INTO THE BUFFER WHICH YOU KNOW WE ALL KNOW THAT THE CITY IS SIMPLY NOT ONLY NOT GOING TO ALLOW BUT WOULD VERY MUCH FROWN ON US TRYING TO ENCOURAGE ON THE UPLAND BUFFER. THAT IS A VERY IMPORTANT PART OF THE CITY'S WETLANDS AND BUFFERS. VICK HAD AN UNG ENVIABLE TASK OF TRYING TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO BUILD THIS.

THE PROPERTY WAS WITHIN THE MDR FUTURE AND R 2 ALLOWS SINGLE FAMILY AND TRIPLEXES. THIS IS THE ONLY UNDEVELOPED LOT ON THIS BLOCK. AND ALL OF THE OTHER LOTS ON THIS BLOCK ARE 50 FEET WIDE. SO ALL OF THE OTHER LOTS ON THIS BLOCK HAD FIVE FOOT SIDE YARD SETTLE BACKS.

WE ARE THE ONLY ONE WITH A TEN FOOT.

AS DAPHNE POINTED OUT IN HER PRESENTATION, WE COULD SPLIT THE LOT BUT OTHER CITY RULES SAYS YOU CAN'T CONSIDER WETLANDS TOWARDS YOUR DENSITY. WE COULD HAVE HAD TWO 50-FOOT LOTS TWO SINGLE FAMILY HOMES. FIVE FOOT SETBACKS WE WOULD HAVE BEEN FINE. WE CAN'T SPLIT THE LOT BECAUSE WE DO NOT ACTUALLY MEET THE ACREAGE CRITERIA BECAUSE THE WETLANDS TAKE UP SO MUCH OF THE PROPERTY.

SO WE ARE STUCK WITH A 100 FOOT WIDE LOT.

IT'S A BEAUTIFUL LOT BUT WE HAVE VERY LITTLE ROOM TO WORK WITHIN.

AS I MENTIONED, EVERYONE ELSE ON THIS BLOCK HAS 50 FOOT WIDE LOTS AND FIVE FOOT SETBACKS. WE THINK THAT -- WE DON'T BELIEVE THAT THE GRANTING OF THIS VARIANCE RESULTS IN A SPECIAL PRIVILEGE TO THE OWNER. WE ARE ASKING TO BUILD A SMALL BUT FUNCTIONAL HOME EXACTLY LIKE WHAT IS ALLOWED UNDER R-2, EXACTLY LIKE WHAT HAS BEEN BUILT ASKING FOR A REDUCTION IN ONLY ONE SIDE YARD SET BACK TO FIVE FEET, TO THE SAME SET BACK THAT EVERYBODY ELSE ON THE AREA HAS. SO THIS IS THE MINIMUM VARIANCE WE COULD ASK FOR IN ORDER TO MAKE ANY USE OF THIS PROPERTY.

THE PROPOSED USE IS SUBSTANTIALLY COMPLIANT, WITH BOTH THE PLAN AND THE DEVELOPMENT CODE AND IF THE VARIANCE IS NOT GRANTED THE OWNER CANNOT USE THIS PROPERTY.

ANY QUESTIONS? >> ANY BOARD MEMBERS --

>> I HAVE GOT A QUESTION. I BELIEVE THE SITE PLAN I'M SEEING ON MY SCREEN, THE NORTH IS TO THE SUIT, SOUTH AND ON THR MAP NORTH WAS UPRIGHT. SO I'M THINKING THAT THIS STRUCTURE, PROPOSED STRUCTURE, IS NOT ADJACENT TO THE APPLICANT'S EXISTING HOUSE, IS THAT CORRECT?

>> THAT IS CORRECT. THERE IS NOT ENOUGH ROOM -- THERE IS NOT ENOUGH DEVELOPABLE PROPERTY NEXT TO THE EXISTING HOUSE TO BUILD ANYTHING. SO THE ONLY DEVELOPABLE PROPERTY IS ON THE SIDE AWAY FROM THE EXISTING HOUSE.

>> OKAY, THANK YOU. >> IS IT POSSIBLE TO SLIDE THE HOUSE NORTHWARD ON THE PAGE OR DOWN ON THE PAGE THAT WE ARE LOOKING AT, THE FIVE FEET AND OFFSET WITH WHATEVER B BALCONY R STAIRS THERE? TO REALIZE THE ADDITIONAL FIVE

FOOT SET BACK? >> SO IF WE MOVED THE HOUSE AT ALL WE WOULD END UP -- THE STAIRS WOULD END UP IN THE UPLAND WET LAND SET BACK. IN THE WET LAND SET BACK.

SO IN ORDER TO DO THAT YOU GUYS WOULD HAVE TO GRANT US A VARIANCE TO PUT THE STAIRS WITHIN THE WET LAND SET BACK.

>> THAT'S NOT THE ONLY CONFIGURATION OF THE STAIRS HOWEVER. THAT'S JUST A STRAIGHT RUN.

>> YES. >> I WOULD THINK IT WOULD PROBABLY BE MORE ADVANTAGEOUS TO HAVE YOUR SET BACK, YOUR PROPOSED VARIANCE, CLOSE TO THE EXISTING HOUSE, NOT NEXT TO YOUR

NEIGHBOR'S HOUSE. >> WE CAN'T PUT IT NEXT TO THE EXISTING HOUSE BECAUSE OF THE AMOUNT OF DEVELOPABLE LAND THAT'S THERE. WE ALSO HAVE TO MEET THE TURNING RADIUS TO COME INTO THE GARAGE. WE HAVE -- VICK, OUR ARCHITECT, SPENT DAYS AND DAYS WORKING ON VARIOUS DIFFERENT CONFIGURATIONS TRYING TO COME UP WITH SOMETHING.

THE GARAGE HAS GOT TO BE LONG ENOUGH FOR A CAR.

THE LIVABLE -- THE HABITABLE SPACE NEEDS TO BE BIG ENOUGH TO HOUSE A RESTROOM A SMALL KITCHEN AND HAVE SOME ACTUAL SPACE THERE. THIS HOUSE IS SLIGHTLY LARGER THAN THE HAMPTON INN ROOMS ACROSS THE STREET.

[00:45:03]

SO TO MEET THE TURNING RADIUS, STAY OUT OF THE WETLANDS, MEET THE STAIR RISE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE STAIRS, THIS IS WHAT WE --

>> YOU WOULD GET A BARE MINIMUM --

>> I THINK YOU COULD EASILY TAKE, AND EXCUSE ME ON THIS, YOU MAY BE ABLE TO SEE THIS, YOU MAY BE ABLE TO NOT, I'M PUTTING A LINE, THAT SAME SIDE SEAT THAT YOU'RE DISCUSSING, INCREASING THE SET BACK THAT'S NORMAL, YOU COULD ALSO CHANGE THAT SAME SIZE, AGAIN YOU'RE TALKING AN ARM'S WIDTH AWAY TO MAKE YOUR HOUSE AND YOUR PAVERS AND ALL OF THIS WORKS, RECONFIGURING THE STAIRS IS NOT THE END OF THE WORLD.

IT DOESN'T CHANGE THE HOUSE PLAN, DOESN'T CHANGE ANYTHING YOU GUYS ARE PROPOSING, IT JUST ELIMINATES THE REASON FOR HAVING

A VARIANCE. >> LET ME ASK OUR CONTRACTOR

HERE TO ADDRESS THAT. >> IF YOU SLIDE -- I'M SORRY -- IF YOU SLIDE THE BUILDING TO THE NORTH, YOU'LL BE IN THE SET BACK. AND THE OTHER PROBLEM IS, YOU CAN'T MAKE YOUR -- YOU CAN'T MAKE YOUR DRIVEWAY WORK.

BECAUSE YOU GOT TO MAKE THE TURN.

SO IT WILL BE -- >> I THINK IF YOU TILTED THE HOUSE 45° YOU WOULD COME MORE DIRECTLY INTO THE GARAGE.

YOU JUST NEED TO RECONFIGURE THAT STRUCTURE BUT YOU COULD PIVOT THAT AND GET AWAY FROM THE SQUARE SHAPE PARTICULARLY, COULD

YOU MAKE IT WORK. >> BUT I DON'T THINK THEY'RE GOING COULD LET US PUT THE GARAGE DOORS FACING THE ROAD.

AND IF YOU MOVE IT ON A 45, IT WILL BE FACING THE ROAD.

>> SO THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE SAYS THAT FRONT FACING GARAGES CANNOT -- HAVE TO BE SET BACK 25 FEET.

SO THAT PUTS US SMACK DAB INTO THE MIDDLE OF THE UPLAND BUFFER

AT THAT POINT. >> SO COULDN'T YOU HAVE REQUESTED A VARIANCE TO TAKE THAT TO 20 FEET FOR INSTANCE? RATHER THAN INFRINGE ON YOUR NEIGHBOR'S PROPERTY AND SET BACK OVER THERE, AND GET THE SAME SIZE STRUCTURE.

>> THAT IS AN ALTERNATIVE. OF PUTTING IT IN THE UPLAND BUFFER THAT IS GREATLY FROWNED UPON BY THE CITY.

AND OF THE -- THIS SEEMED TO BE THE MOST -- THE SMALLEST VARIANCE THAT WE COULD ASK FOR. CY WOULD LOOK TO TAMMY IF IT'S THIS BOARD'S DECISION THAT THEY WOULD INSTEAD GRANT A VARIANCE TO THE UPLAND BUFFER I SUPPOSE THAT WE COULD SLIDE IT INTO THE UPLAND BUFFER ARE. BUT CAN YOU EVEN GRANT A

VARIANCE FROM THAT? >> NOT TONIGHT.

WE COULDN'T TONIGHT BECAUSE YOU HAVEN'T PUT ANYBODY ON NOTICE.

BUT THAT'S THE VARIANCE. SO WE CAN'T DO IT TONIGHT.

>> WE WOULD LIKELY END UP WITH ABOUT 200 PEOPLE IN THIS ROOM IF WE TRIED TO ENCROACH ON ANY ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATIONS THAT

ARE GOVERNED BY THIS CITY. >> WHEN YOU ARE CALLING UPLAND BUFFER JUST EXPLAIN THAT TO ME. BETWEEN THE STRUCTURE THAT YOU'RE GOING TO BUILD AND THE ROAD WHY DO THEY CALL THAT -- WHAT IS THAT TERMINOLOGY MEAN WELL,.

>> JAKE CAN PROBABLY EXPLAIN THAT BETTER BUT THE WETLANDS ARE THE RED LINE AND THE CITY HAS A REQUIREMENT THAT YOU PUT A BUFFER, AN UNDEVELOPED NATURAL BUFFER 25 FEET OFF OF THE EDGE OF THE RED LINE. SO WE'VE GOT TO DRAW, YOU HAVE THE RED LINE AND YOU HAVE THE DASH LINE.

WE HAVE GOT TO GO A FULL 25 FEET AND CANNOT DEVELOP OR PUT ANYTHING WITHIN THAT BUFFER. SO BELIEVE ME, THIS IS NOT -- WE HAVE NOT COME TO YOU WITHOUT HAVING TRIED PRETTY MUCH EVERY ITERATION THAT WE COULD ON FITTING THIS HERE.

BUT HE ALSO NEEDS TO BE ABLE TO USE HIS PROPERTY IN SOME WAY.

AND THIS GIVES YOU A SMALL HABITABLE SINGLE SYSTEM HOUSE, IT'S GOT TO QUALIFY AS A PRIMARY STRUCTURE SO IT'S GOT TO HAVE A KITCHEN, IT'S GOT TO HAVE A BATHROOM AND IT'S GOT TO HAVE SOME LIVABLE SPACE IN IT. WE THOUGHT THAT PUTTING IT OVER THE TWO CAR GARAGE MADE A LOT OF SENSE NOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD BECAUSE THERE ARE PARKING ISSUES ALL UP AND DOWN THIS STREET.

SO THAT HELPS SOLVE SOME OF THE PROBLEMS THAT HAPPEN IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD IS PUTTING IT OVER A TWO CAR GARAGE.

IF WE PUT IT AT GROUND LEVEL WE WOULD STILL HAVE TO SUPPLY

PARKING PLUS IT WOULDN'T HELP. >> OKAY MILLI APPROXIMATELY ANYR BOARD MEMBERS HAVE ANY THOUGHTS BEFORE WE HEAR FROM THE PUBLIC? ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. AND YOU CAN ALWAYS SPEAK FURTHER

[00:50:02]

IF THAT NEED BE. >> AND WOULD I SAY WE ACTUALLY HAVE TALKED WITH MOST OF THE NEIGHBORS.

I'M NOT SURE WHAT OUR NEXT DOOR NEIGHBOR IS GOING TO SAY BUT WE HAVE ACTUALLY, THESE TWO SPENT QUITE A BIT OF TIME TALKING WITH

THE NEIGHBORS. >> SO WE'LL NOW OPEN IT UP TO THE PUBLIC OR ANY AFFECTED PARTIES.

IS THERE ANYBODY IN THE ROOM THAT WOULD CONSIDER THEMSELVES THAT? HOW ABOUT ONLINE, WE HAVE GOT

MS. HENSON. >> YES.

>> YOU HAVE THE FLOOR. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH, ANN HENSON, 212 NORTH 5TH STREET, APOLOGIZE IN THE GLITCH IN THE VISUAL. I OWN THE PROPERTY ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE APPLICANT'S PROPERTY THAT'S REQUESTING THE FIVE FOOT SIDE YARD SET BACK. I ASSUME THAT THE BOARD HAS READ MY E-MAIL SO I WILL JUST -- I WILL NOT REVISIT THE COMMENTS IN ENTIRETY. I MIGHT ADD THAT JACOB IN HELPING ME TO CLARIFY SOME OF THOSE QUESTIONS I HAD.

THREE POINTS I'D LIKE TO MAKE. ESSENTIALLY THAT THERE IS A 100 FEET OF FRONTAGE. AND I KNOW THE UNUSABILITY PART OF IT. BUT THERE'S 100 FEET AND YET THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING AN ADDITIONAL 5 FEET.

TO DO THE PROJECT. IF THE EMPHASIS IS MADE A TWO STORY STRUCTURE WILL BE FIVE FEET CLOSER TO MY PROPERTY.

I HAVE A LONG PROPERTY, HORIZONTAL, INSTEAD OF -- IT GOES EAST TO -- NORTH TO SOUTH NOT EAST TO WEST.

SO MY PROPERTY RUNS WIDE. AND SO I'M ALSO THINKING OF WHAE FEET CLOSER TO ME WILL DO TO MY PROPERTY VALUE, WHAT WILL HAPPEN AT RESALE JUST CONCERNED ABOUT THAT.

AND ALSO, YOU KNOW, I THINK MYSELF AND THE NEIGHBORS WE CAN DEAL WITH THE STRUCTURE BEING A LITTLE CLOSER TO THE ROAD.

BUT WE LIVE ON A DIRT ROAD THAT SORT OF MEANDERS AND I DON'T KNOW THAT ANYBODY HAS ASKED THIS IDEA BUT DON'T KNOW IF ANY OF THE OTHERS HAVE ASKED SPECIFICALLY OR SHARED THEIR CONCERNS THAT THE ROAD, WE'RE STILL NOT QUITE SURE WHERE THE SET BACK WOULD BEGIN. AND THAT WE ARE CONCERNED THAT BECAUSE IT SEEMS CLOSER TO THE ROAD, THAT IT WOULD VISUALLY PROTRUDE AS YOU GO UP AND DOWN THAT STREET.

BUT THAT -- MY FIRST TWO POINTS ARE MY PRIMARY ISSUE.

I THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >> OKAY.

ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU. IS THERE ANYBODY ELSE ONLINE? JACOB? OKAY.

SO THAT'S OUR ONLY PARTY. ARE THERE ANY BOARD MEMBERS THAT WOULD LIKE TO ASK SOMETHING FROM MS. HENSON?

>> I WOULD LIKE TO ASK IF HER PROPERTY IS FIVE FEET FROM THE

NORTHERN SIDE OF HER PROPERTY. >> YES.

I'M ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF WHAT WOULD BE THE BUILDING.

>> THANK YOU. >> OKAY.

ALL RIGHT. AND THERE'S NO ONE ELSE SILVIE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THAT.

SO IF YOU WOULD -- >> CAN I MAKE ONE COMMENT?

>> SURE. >> YES, SIR, THE FIVE FEET WILL BE MEASURED FROM OUR PROPERTY BOUNDARY.

IT'S -- THAT'S THE CITY'S RULES. AND THE FRONT OF THE BUILDING IS GOING TO BE IN LINE WITH THE OTHER BUILDINGS, THE OTHER HOMES THAT ARE ON THAT STREET. SO IT'S NOT GOING TO BE FOR -- IT'S THE AVERAGE OF WHAT THE HOMES ARE, IT'S FURTHER BACK THAN SOME, IT'S CLOSER THAN OTHERS.

BUT IT'S IN LINE WITH THAT BLOCK.

>> OKAY. >> SO -- AND THAT'S NOT ACTUALLY BEFORE YOU TODAY THE FRONT SET BACK BUT THE SIDE SETBACKS.

>> ARE YOU GOING TO HAVE AN ISSUE WITH THE FRONT SET BACK?

>> WE'VE ASKED FOR A CONTACT-SENSE FIF REVIEW OF THE FRONT TO PUT IT IN LINE WITH THE OTHER HOUSES.

>> OKAY, ALL RIGHT. >> BUT WE'RE NOT ASKING FOR ANYTHING LESS THAN WHAT THE OTHER HOUSES ON THE STREET HAVE.

>> SURE, OKAY. THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU. >> IF YOU DON'T MIND I COULD ADD. JACOB PLAT, SENIOR PLANNER HERE.

I TALKED WITH MS. HENSON, ONE OF THE CONCERNS SHE JUST OUTLINED, I'M SORRY, I AM SUPPOSED TO BE SPEAKING TOWARDS THAT.

ONE OF THE CONCERNS SHE'S OUTLINED, THE ROAD MEANDERS TWOORND HERITAGE TREES AND HAS SHIFTED TO THE EAST.

SO THE ROAD IS NOT WITHIN THE CENTER OF THE RIGHT-OF-WAY.

SO THAT SECTION OF THE ROAD IS CLOSEST TO THIS PROPERTY WITHIN

[00:55:07]

THE RIGHT-OF-WAY. BUT IT WILL NOT OBE ANY CLOSER TO THE FRONT PROPERTY LINE THAN THE AVERAGE OF ALL THE HOMES ON

THE BLOCK FACE. >> ALL RIGHT THANK YOU JACOB.

IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE WOULD YOU LIKE TO ADD?

>> NO, WE WOULD JUST ASK THAT YOU GRANT THIS VARIANCE.

>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FROM ANY OF THE BOARD MEMBERS BEFORE WE CLOSE OUT THAT PART OF THE MEETING? ALL RIGHT. SO ALL THAT'S CLOSED OUT.

LET'S HAVE A LITTLE BIT OF DISCUSSION ON THAT.

HOW DO YOU READ THIS, GUYS? WHO WANTS TO GO FIRST?

>> I'LL GO FIRST. THIS IS STEVE.

COUPLE OF THINGS THAT I SEE. NUMBER 1, WHEN YOU HAVE GOT THAT FIVE FOOT SET BACK, AND JACOB CAN COLLABORATE, OR BASICALLY, MAKE SURE THAT I'M SAYING THE RIGHT THING THERE.

YOU'VE GOT A FEW THINGS THAT CAN INTRUDE INTO THAT FIVE-FOOT SET BACK, BY CODE, SO IT'S NOT NECESSARILY FIVE FOOT BLANK WALL. BUT YOU CAN INTRUDE IN THERE WITH CERTAIN OVERHANGS AND SITUATIONS.

SO IT'S GOING TO BE CLOSER TO THE NEIGHBOR THAN IT APPEARS.

I ALSO THINK THAT IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE, THIS IS IN OPPOSITION TO WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO ACHIEVE IN THE CITY WHICH IS TO PROTECT OUR WETLANDS AND OUR NATURAL AREAS.

AND IF THE GENTLEMAN BOUGHT THE PROPERTY AND KNEW WHAT WAS THERE, I THINK HE NEEDS TO ACCEPT THE FACT THAT HE BASICALLY HAS A CONSERVATION OF AREA RIGHT THERE.

I DON'T KNOW THAT THIS IS YOU IN KEEPING WITH WHAT THE CITY WANTS AS FAR AS PRESERVING THEIR WETLANDS BY TRYING TO SQUEEZE A LITTLE BUILDING IN ON THE CORNER OF IT.

I ALSO DON'T AGREE THAT THE SPECIAL CONDITIONS, THEY SAY NO SPECIAL CONDITIONS WITH OTHER R-2.

WELL, EVERYBODY ELSE WITH AN R-2 BASICALLY HAS TO COMPLY WITH THE WETLANDS BUFFER AND THE WETLANDS DEFINITION.

SO BEHA BASICALLY, I DON'T THIND LIKE PARTICULARLY WHAT GETS

PROPOSED HERE. >> AND I JUST -- I WILL YOU CLARIFY AS FAR AS THE BUILDING ENENCROACHMENTS.

THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE DOES ALLOW FOR CERTAIN ENENCROACHMENTS INTO SIDE YARD SET BACKS.

WITHIN THE CAN SIDE YARD, THE ONLY ENCROACHMENT WOULD BE A 24 INCH EAVE PROJECTION. AS FAR AS WET LAND COMPONENT, IN DISCUSSING THE APPLICANT AND THEIR AGENTS, LOOKING AT THESE VARIANCE CRITERIA, THE COMPREHENSIVE LAND AND DEVELOPMENT CODE HAVE LOTS OF OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES FOR PRESERVING WETLANDS AND WET LAND BUFFERS.

SO IN OUR MIND, REDUCING ANY KIND OF MINIMUM BUFFER REQUIREMENT WAS NOT AN APPROPRIATE AVENUE.

IT'S AN AVENUE THAT THEY COULD HAVE SOUGHT.

THE REAL KICKER HERE IS THAT THE MINIMUM LOT WI WIDTH FOR THE R-2 ZONING DISTRICTS IS 50 FEET. AND IT IS THE CITY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DEFINITION OF DENSITY, WHICH SECLUDES THE EXCE INCORPORATION INTO THE DENSITY CLASS.

OTHER HE WISE THE PROPERTY AS IN ALL PROPERTIES ON THE STREET COULD BE 50 FEET WIDE AND THEREFORE ALLOW FOR A FIVE FOOT SET BACK. AS FAR AS SPECIAL CONDITIONS, THERE ARE MULTIPLE THINGS, AND THE AVENUES OF THE CODE THAT APY THAT ARE FORCING THE ONLY USABLE PIECE OF THE PROPERTY TO BE

BROUGHT BEFORE YOU TONIGHT. >> SO JACOB IS WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IS THAT THEY WENT BACK TO THE ORIGINAL 50 FOOT LOTS, THEN THIS WOULD WORK WITHOUT A VARIANCE?

>> CORRECT. AND IT'S THE CITY'S DEFINITION OF NET DENSITY THAT PROHIBITS THAT.

OTHEY'RE STILL ABLE TO BUILD AS A BUILDABLE LOT BUT YOU CANNOT SUBDIVIDE PROPERTY WITHIN THE CITY THAT HAS WET LANDERS OR

[01:00:02]

COUNT DENSITY FOR PROPERTIES THAT HAVE WETLANDS OR FLOOD PLANES. WHICH IS A GREAT PROVISION FOR KEEPING DEVELOPMENT OUT OF HAZARD AREAS AND OTHER SITUATIONS. IS BUT IT ALSO HAS OTHER

CONSEQUENCES. >> OKAY, THANK YOU JACOB.

WHO WANTS TO GO NEXT? >> CAN I ASK A QUESTION JAKE? CAN YOU EXPLAIN MORE? I'M NOT SURE I UNDERSTAND WHAT IS GOING ON WITH THE POSSIBILITY OF HAVING MORE ROOM ON THE FRON.

WHAT IS THAT PROCESS? AND IF THEY'RE APPROVED FOR THAT CAN THEY MOVE THIS STRUCTURE CLOSER TO THE ROAD WHERE THEY

MIGHT NOT NEED THE SET BACK? >> SO THE SITE PLAN THAT YOU HAVE UP ON THE SCREEN HERE SHOWS A TEN FOOT FRONT YARD SET BACK.

THE CITY'S LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AND WE'VE KIND OF TALKED ABOUT IT, TOUCHED BASE ON THIS SECTION AND OTHER CODES, IT HAS AN ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS CALLED CONTACT SENSITIVE REVIEWING FOR MISSILE REDUCING FRONT YARD SETBACKS TO A LINE WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF ADJOINING PROPERTIES. FIVE FOOT SET BACK AN MISSING E-ADMINISTRATIVE APPLICATION WOULD BE SUBMITTED SHOWING THE SETBACKS OF ALL THE STRUCTURES ON THE EAST SIDE OF NORTH SIXTH STREET. CITY STAFF WILL PROVIDE AN AVERAGE OF THAT, POST THE PROPERTY NOR TEN DAYS AND THAT ESTABLISHES THAT CONTEXT-SENSITIVE FRONT YARD SET BACK BASED ON THE AVERAGE, REDUCING IT FROM THE MINIMUM, OR THE MORE SUBURBAN STYLE, 25-FOOT FRONT YARD SET BACK, TO THE TEN-FOOT WHICH IS MORE IN KEEPING WITH THE CHARACTER OF THIS NEIGHBORHOOD AND THE DEVELOPMENT PATTERN OF OUR DOWNTOWN AREA, WHERE HISTORICALLY YOU HAD STRUCTURES A LOT CLOSER TO THE STREET. DID I ANSWER YOUR QUESTION OR

RAMBLE PAST IT? >> YES, I THINK SO.

BASICALLY THEY NEED APPROVAL FOR BOTH OF THESE TO MAKE THIS WORK.

>> YES, SIR. BUT THE FRONT YARD SET BACK IS

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS ONLY. >> WHO DECIDES THAT?

>> CITY STAFF DOES AN ANALYSIS. WE POST THE PROPERTY FOR TEN DAYS. IF -- IT IS AN APPEALABLE PROCESS. THAT APPEAL WOULD COME BEFORE YOU GUYS AS THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT.

MY FIVE YEARS WITH THE CITY WE HAVE NOT HAD ANY APPEALS OF CONTACT SENSITIVE REVIEWS. IT IS A NOTICE REQUIREMENT.

TYPICALLY WE WILL GET A QUESTION OR A CALL AND SAY WHAT'S GOING ON HERE AND EXPLAIN THE SITUATION.

BUT THE CITY STAFF PROCESSES THAT APPLICATION.

>> DOES THE CITY STAFF APPROVE THAT OR DOES IT THEN HAVE DO GO TO THE CITY MANAGER, THE CAN MISSIOCOMMISSION OR ANYBODY ELS?

>> IT'S UNDER THE CITY PLANNING STAFF.

>> JACOB IS THIS A RECENT CHANGE? BECAUSE I REMEMBER SOME CONTEXTURAL REVIEWS ON PAST PROCESS WHERE THEY CAME BEFORE THE BOARD AND ONE OF THE ASPECTS WAS, DOES IT FIT WITHIN THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

AND THAT WAS PART OF THE VARIANCE ADJUSTMENT.

COULD YOU EXPLAIN THAT? >> SURE.

THAT CONTEXT SENSITIVE REVIEW, WE'VE PROBABLY HAD VARIANCES FOR FRONT SET BACK REDUCTIONS. THAT PARTICULAR REQUEST ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS HAS VERY STRICT CRITERIA ON WHEN IT CAN BE APPLIED. SO THAT CANNOT OCCUR THROUGHOUT THE CITY. IT CAN ONLY OCCUR WHEN YOU HAVE 50% OF THE DEVELOPED BLOCK WITH A NONCONFORMING FRONT YARD SET BACK. SO IT'S A VERY STRICT SET OF CRITERIA, NARROW WINDOW WHERE IT APPLIES.

SO THAT'S WHY THE AVENUE FOR ALLOWING CITY STAFF TO MAKE THAT DECISION BASED ON A REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL'S IDENTIFICATION OF THE FRONT YARD SET BACK OF THE ADJOINING PROPERTIES CAN OCCUR.

SO YOU HAVE TO MEET MULTIPLE SECTIONS OF CRITERIA.

IT'S IN CHAPTER 4 OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE.

IS BUT IT'S NOT JUST A BLANKET WIDE, YOU CAN APPLY THIS

THROUGHOUT THE CITY. >> ALL RIGHT, OTHER QUESTION I HAD, I'M TRYING TO MAKE SURE I UNDERSTAND BECAUSE IT GETS CONFUSING. IT LOOKS LIKE THERE'S A 50 FOOT RIGHT-OF-WAY, AND THAT, AM I CORRECT, THAT IS A GRAVEL ROAD, AND THEN THAT'S ADJACENT TO NORTH 6TH STREET WHICH IS

PAVED? >> SO NORTH 6TH STREET IS A 60 FOOT RIGHT-OF-WAY. DAPHNE IF YOU COULD GO TO THE PROPERTY APPRAISER AND GO TO THE STREET VIEW, I THINK THAT WOULD

[01:05:01]

BE HELPFUL TO SEE. THAT SHOWS THE CENTER LINE OF THE ROAD AND IT SHOWS THE GRAVEL ROAD SHIFTED TO THE EAST.

CAN AND SO WHAT YOU WILL SEE IS YOU HAVE A 60 FOOT CAN RIGHT-OF-WAY WITH A GRAVEL ROAD THAT MEANDERS TO THE EAST AROUND TWO HERITAGE OAK TREES ON THE WEST SIDE OF THE STREET.

THE GRAVEL ROAD IS WITHIN THE 60 FOOT RIGHT-OF-WAY BUT OFFCENTER.

THE CENTER OF THE RIGHT-OF-WAY IS JUST OFF TO THE SIDE OF THAT

LARGE OAK TREE. >> THE PROPERTY IS TO THE RIGHT

OF THAT OAK TREE RIGHT? >> YES, SIR, THE PROPERTY IS ON THE RIGHT-HAND SIDE OF THE SCREEN.

>> NORTH SIXTH STREET IS A GRAVEL ROAD, THE ENTIRE ROAD IS

GRAVEL ROAD? >> IT IS.

IS WELL, THIS SECTION OF NORTH 6TH STREET, CONSUME.

AGAIN BROOME AND CALHOUN AND I BELIEVE GOING FURTHER.

BUT TO THE SOUTH, IT IS TO THE SOUTH OF THIS BLOCK IT'S ASPHALT ROAD. THIS SECTION IS, THIS BLOCK IS GRAVEL ROAD. I.

>> THIS LOOKS LIKE IT'S A VERY WELL-WOODED LOT.

DO WE HAVE ANY -- WHERE THEY'RE PLANNING TO PUT THEIR BUILDING DO THEY HAVE ANY MAJOR TREES THERE, DO WE KNOW THAT? I DIDN'T SEE A DEGREE SURVEY OR TREE SURVEY ORANYTHING LIKE THA.

>> THE TREES ARE I BELIEVE ON THE SURVEY, THERE WILL CERTAINLY BE I BELIEVE A COUPLE OF TREES THAT WILL HAVE TO COME DOWN BUT IN TOTAL THERE'S GOING TO BE NOWHERE NEAR THE MITIGATION, AND YES THERE WILL BE TREE REMOVAL BUT THE MAJORITY OF THE PROPERTY

WILL REMAIN TREED. >> A COUPLE OF HICKORIES.

>> IT LOOKS LIKE IF THAT CONTACT SENSITIVE REVIEW IS APPROVED THAT WOULD BE TEN FEET. WHAT IF THEY ASK FOR A LITTLE BIT MORE, AND SO THAT THEY COULD GO A LITTLE BIT MORE TO THE FRONT, WOULD THEY POSSIBLY THEN BE ABLE TO FIT IT DOWN AND PUT IT ADJACENT TO THE CURRENT HOUSE?

>> I HAVEN'T STUDIED THE CONTEXT SENSITIVE REVIEW BUT I DO NOT BELIEVE, I'M ALMOST CERTAIN THAT THE AVERAGE OF THAT BLOCK FACE IS NOT GOING TO BE LESS THAN TEN FEET.

SO IT'S NOT -- THE AVERAGE OF THE HOMES THERE IS NOT LIKE FIVE FEET, WHERE THEY COULD MATCH THAT AVERAGE AT FIVE FEET.

SHIFTING IT FURTHER FORWARD. IT'S BASICALLY --

>> CAN THEY GET A VARIANCE ON THE FRONT TO TRY TO GET A LITTLE BIT MORE ROOM OR DOES HAVE IT TO BE THAT CEVMENTD REVIEW REQUEST?

CONTEXT REVIEW REQUEST? >> THEY WOULD HAVE TO SEEK A VARIANCE TO REDUCE IT GREATER THAN WHAT THE CONTEXT SENSITIVE

PROVISION WOULD ALLOW. >> SO BACK TO WHERE I GUESS WE FIRST STARTED AFTER CIRCULATING ALL THE WAY BACK TO STEVE PEANG'S QUESTION. PAPKE'S QUESTION.

IF THEY ASKED FOR THAT VARIANCE, THEY MIGHT BE ABLE TO FIT IT EVEN IF IT WAS JUST A FEW MORE FEET AND EVEN IF THREE REDUCE THE STRUCTURE REMOVE THE STAIRS, THEY COULD FIT IT ADJACENT TO

THEIR OWN HOUSE. >> I CAN MAKE IT WORK TON OPPOSITE SIDE AS WELL, I BELIEVE IT'S ABOUT NINE FEET.

I DON'T THINK I CAN PULL TEN BUT IT DEFINITELY LOOKS LIKE IT CAN BE NINE. JUST SLIDING IT NORTHWARD.

RECONFIGURING THE STAIRS TO THE STAIR THAT'S A SWITCH BACK STAIR KEEPS IT WITHIN THE WETLANDS SET BACK.

AND AGAIN I'M NOT PROPOSING HOW TO DESIGN SOMETHING.

I'M JUST TRYING TO PROVIDE A SOLUTION THAT I THINK WOULD

AVOID THE VARIANCE ALTOGETHER. >> IT DOESN'T DO THE TURN FOR

CARS. >> OKAY STEVEN SHE'S SAYING THEY'RE PRETTY WELL COMMITTED TO THIS DESIGN.

>> WE CAN'T MAKE THE TURN FOR THE CARS IF WE TRY AND MOVE IT

TO THE OTHER LOCATION. >> GOOD.

I SEE WHAT YOU'RE TRYING TO DO STEVEN BUT I THINK THEY'RE PRETTY WELL COMMITTED THAT THIS IS WHAT THEY WANT.

REQUEST YES. >> WHICH WE'VE HAD TESTIMONY FROM THE ADJOINING NEIGHBOR THAT IT MIGHT BE A LITTLE CLOSE FOR

HER COMFORT. >> YES, SIR.

>> WOULD THERE BE A REASONABLE -- DISAF ANY COULD -- DAPHNE COULD YOUPUT THEIR P? ON THIS GRAPHIC WHERE IT SAYS

[01:10:01]

FIVE FEET DETACHED SIDE SET BACK GARAGE.

THAT IS ABOUT THE SAME OFFSET THAT IS BETWEEN THE EDGE OF THE PAVEMENT THAT IS SHOWN IN THE CENTER LINE OF THE PROPERTY.

MY SUGGESTION, IF FIVE FEET IS TO ALLEVIATE THE CONCERN OF THE NEIGHBOR, CAN YOU SLIDE THIS NORTHWARD THREE OR FOUR FEET, INSTEAD OF TRYING TO GO THE WHOLE FIVE FEET, MAYBE YOU GET AN EIGHT FOOT SET BACK WHICH IS STILL BETTER THAN FIVE, BUT COULD YOU COMPROMISE HOW THIS THING IS ORIENTED? YOU ARE NOT GOING TO CHANGE THE RELATIONSHIP OF THE DRIVE.

>> RIGHT. >> I SEE THAT WORK JUST FINE.

>> IS THERE A WAY TO RECONFIGURE THE STAIRS, TO OMOVE TWO FEET

FURTHER DOWN? >> AND STILL STAY AT TEN FEET?

>> NO NO NO. >> IN THE FRONT?

>> IN THE FRONT, COULD WE GET SEVEN ON THE SIDE, COULD YOU

RECONFIGURE THE STAIRS -- >> YOU COULD SEE WHERE THE

CORNER OF THE BUILDING IS. >> HOW MANY FEET DO YOU --

>> ALL YOU'RE DOING IS REDUCING YOUR RADIUS, YOUR TURN RADIUS.

>> RIGHT, THAT POSSIBILITY -- HOW MANY FEET DO YOU HAVE OFF THE BOTTOM OF THAT BUILDING THERE?

>> SEEMS TO WORK JUST FINE. >> ALSO YOU DON'T NECESSARILY NEED TO STICK WITH A STRICTLY RECTANGULAR SHIEPPED STRUCTURE.

SHAPED SPHRUR. YOU COULD WORK WITHIN THE CONFINES OF THE SET BACKS TO MAKE THIS THING WORK FOR YOUR SQUARE FOOTAGE. YOU DON'T NECESSARILY NEED TO PUT A SQUARE BLOCK OR A RECTANGULAR BLOCK IN THERE.

>> BUT WE'VE GOT THE LENGTH FOR THE CARS.

YOU HAVE CARS COMING IN SIDE ENTRY, WE'VE GOT TO HAVE LONG ENOUGH FOR CARS, THE CAR'S LENGTH.

>> WE'RE ARGUING SEMANTICS. BECAUSE WE'RE NOT ASKING

(INAUDIBLE). >> LET'S DO THIS GUYS IF IT

PLEASES THE BOARD. >> CAN WE DEFER THIS TO NEXT WEEK -- OR TO NEXT MONTH AND LOOK AT THE SUGGESTION ABOUT MOVING IT TO SEE HOW MANY FEET THAT IS? BECAUSE LOOKING AT THIS WE DO NOT KNOW.

AND SEE ABOUT RECONFIGURING THE STAIRS.

I KNOW WE CAN'T GET TEN ON THAT SIDE BUT MAYBE WE COULD GET SEVEN. I DON'T KNOW.

AND WE'VE GOT TO LOOK AT THE TURN RADIUS.

IT IS NOT SOMETHING WE CAN DO ON THE FLOOR HERE.

BUT I'D ASK THAT WE MOVE IT TO AUGUST SO WE CAN LOOK AT THAT

SUGGESTION. >> OKAY SO YOU'VE GOT -- WITH WHAT I'M SAYING HERE YOU'VE GOT SEVERAL POPULATIONS AND IT'S

YOUR CHOICE. >> RIGHT.

>> THE FIRST ONE BEING IF I'M UNDERSTAND BEING WHAT YOU'RE SAYING THAT THAT IS YOUR PREFERENCE.

THAT WOULD BE WHAT YOU WOULD LIKE TO HAVE.

>> CORRECT. >> SO WE DON'T KNOW HOW THE

BOARD IS GOING TO VOTE. >> CORRECT.

>> BUT IF THE BOARD WERE TO DENY YOUR VARIANCE AND YOU WERE ABLE TO REDESIGN THAT TO BE WITHIN THE GUIDELINES THAT THE CITY ARE GOING TO ENFORCE THAT WOULD HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH WHETHER YOU

GOT THE VARIANCE OR NOT. >> SO TAMMY IF WE CAME BACK WITH A VARIANCE THAT IS POTENTIALLY ONE FOOT DIFFERENT THAN WHAT WE GOT IS THAT DIFFERENCE ENOUGH? TO PUT IN ANOTHER APPLICATION?

>> NO, I THINK THAT YOU CAN ASK FOR -- WHAT YOU WOULD DO IS, YOUR APPLICATION TODAY IS ASK FOR APPROVAL VARIANCE BASED ON THE SITE PLAN. SO WHAT YOU I THINK YOU WOULD BE DOING BASED ON OUR CONVERSATIONS TODAY IS IF YOU CHOOSE, TO SAY I AM NOW AMENDING OUR APPLICATION, TO -- AND ASKING FOR A CONTINUANCE TO NEXT MONTH'S MEETING, AND THEN YES, IF YOU HAVE TO SHIFT THE STRUCTURE A LITTLE BIT, YOU HEARD THE COMMENTS, I THINK THAT'S TOTALLY ACCEPTABLE.

>> I UNDERSTAND THAT WE DON'T HAVE A VOTE YET AND WE DON'T KNOW HOW THIS BOARD IS GOING TO VOTE BUT I ALSO RESPECT THE OPINIONS OF THE BOARD MEMBERS THAT HAVE SPOKEN.

IN THAT MAYBE WE HAVE A FOOT OR TWO THAT WE COULD WORK WITH, THAT WE COULD AMEND. ONE, IT WOULD AT LEAST GO TO SOME EXTENT IN HELPING ADDRESS THE ISSUES THAT THE NEIGHBOR ROSE, BUT WE CAN'T DO THE ENGINEERING AND SEE IF WE CAN MEET THE TURNING RADIUS AND ALL WITH THAT.

IF WE CAN'T WE'LL BE BACK HERE IN AUGUST WITH THIS EXACT SAME PLAN. AND AT LEAST WE CAN ANSWER THE QUESTIONS TELLING YOU WHY WE COULDN'T DO IT.

BUT IF WE CAN, IT SHOULDN'T TAKE OUR CONTRACTOR VERY LONG TO GO BACK AND LOOK AT IT AND DECIDE WHETHER OR NOT WE CAN DO IT.

IN WHICH CASE WE CAN GO AHEAD AND AMEND IT AND GET ALL THAT INFORMATION OUT TO THIS BOARD BEFORE WE COME BACK IN AUGUST.

>> I MEAN FROM A PROCEDURAL STANDPOINT THAT'S FINE WITH ME.

AND WITH JACOB AND DISAF ANY. >> YOU GUYS BE CONTINUING IT TO

A DATE CERTAIN ON AUGUST 20? >> OKAY, SO MS. HENSON DID YOU

HEAR ALL OF THAT? >> YES, I DID.

>> OKAY, SO WHAT JACOB WAS SAYING IS IF WE CONTINUE IT TO A

[01:15:01]

DATE, PLACE AND TIME CERTAIN, YOU'RE NOT GOING TO GET ANOTHER

NOTICE. >> OKAY.

>> OKAY? SO IT WILL COME UP AGAIN AND CAN YOU SEE WHAT THEY'RE PROPOSING AND YOU CAN SEE THAT AT THAT

TIME. >> WE'LL NOTIFY HER, SHE'S OUR

NEIGHBOR. >> WE'LL ENTER THIS IN THE RECORD, MS. SILVIE, WE'RE GOING TO CONTINUE THIS UNTIL NEXT

MONTH. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

>> THIS IS FOR YOU BECAUSE YOU'RE THE APPLICANT.

DO YOU WANT THEM TO MAKE A MOTION TO THAT EFFECT?

>> I'M FINE WITH THIS. >> OKAY.

>> ARE YOU OKAY WITH THAT? >> I'M FINE WITH IT, TO BE

CONTINUED. >> THANK YOU.

>> OKAY THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU ALL.

>> ALL RIGHT, WAS THERE ANY NEW OR OLD BUSINESS? WE NEED TO WELCOME DAPHNE WHO DID A GREAT JOB HER FIRST TIME.

>> THANK YOU. >> DAPHNE, GOOD JOB.

>> GOOD JOB. >> THANKS.

>> WOULD I JUST LIKE TO ADD, I'M IMPRESSED WITH HER PRESENTATION.

I THINK THE FORMAT WAS A LOT INTERNAL ME SCROLLING THROUGH MY STAFF REPORT, IT'S A LOT MORE PROFESSIONAL LOOKING.

I DID WANT TO SAY NICE JOB ON THIS.

>> I WANTED TO SAY SOMETHING ELSE FROM A LEGAL STANDPOINT REGARDING HER PRESENTATION WHICH I ALSO WAS IMPRESSED WITH.

I KNOW THAT I'VE SAT HERE OVER THE YEARS AND SAID, AND IT'S NOT JUST THIS BOARD, PLANNING BOARD, HISTORIC DISTRICT COUNCIL, AND IT'S REALLY WE ALWAYS HAVE A STAFF REPORT.

IT'S KIND OF NEW THAT WE HAVE THESE POWERPOINTS OVER THE LAST COUPLE OF YEARS. I'VE HEARD NOTHING BUT POSITIVE FEEDBACK, BUT WITH THESE QUASIJUDICIAL HEARINGS WHEN WE ARE TRYING TO PRESERVE A RECORD, IF THERE IS TO BE ANY APPEAL AND TO MAKE OUR RECORD AS COMPLETE AS WE CAN, WITH HOW YOU PRESENTED IT, SOMEHOW DAPHNE AND THIS IS A REALLY ULTIMATE COMPLIMENT TO YOU, IS YOU PRESENTED IT, I DIDN'T FEEL LIKE I WAS BEING READ TO, I DON'T KNOW WHY.

>> THANK YOU. >> I THOUGHT DID YOU A GREAT JOB. YOU WERE READING THE REPORT AND FROM A LEGAL STANDPOINT THAT IS ACTUALLY BETTER THAN IF YOU SPEAK FROM OFF THE CUFF. BECAUSE WHAT YOU'RE TRYING TO DO IS YOU'RE MAKING THE CASE. YOU PUT UP ALL THE CRITERIA AND THE REASONS THAT YOU FOUND OR DIDN'T FIND THOSE CRITERIA WERE MET. AND THAT'S WHAT THESE QUASIJUDICIAL HEARINGS AND VARIANCES IN PARTICULAR ARE ALL ABOUT. SO I THOUGHT THAT WAS A GOOD JOB. AND IF YOU HAVE ANOTHER PLANNER WE HOPE THAT SOMEBODY ELSE WILL JOIN THE TEAM AT SOME POINT SOON THAT THEY WILL ALSO DO THEIR QUASIJUDICIAL PRESENTATIONS THAT WAY. BECAUSE IT IS MOST HELPFUL FOR

THE RECORD. >> GREAT, GOOD TO KNOW.

>> I THOUGHT IT WENT WELL. >> AND THE RESEARCH ON THE DOG TROT VERNACULAR WAS VERY GOOD TOO.

>> THANK YOU. >> CAN I ASK A 86 QUESTION? DOES CHECKING THE DOCUMENTS OUT OF THEIR LEGAL CONTEXT AFFECT THE ABILITY TO KEEP THE RECORD RECORDED PROPERLY?

>> ARE YOU ASKING TAMMY? >> YES.

>> OH WHOA. I'M SORRY, I WAS DISTRACTED BY

STEVE'S WINE. >> SAY THAT ONE MORE TIME.

>> SO THE FIRST THING I SAID TO DAPHNE IN A PRIVATE MESSAGE IS WOW I LIKE THE NEW FORMAT AND I RECOGNIZE THAT WE ARE GOING WITH A DIGITAL SUBMISSION OF THOSE COMMENTS, I SEE THOSE AS WELL WHICH IS ALL GREAT. BUT DOES DID WAY THAT JACOB HAS PRESENTED US IN THE PAST WITH THE RECORD DOCUMENTS IS TAKING THEM OUT OF THAT CONTEXT AND PUTTING THEM IN A QUOTE UNQUOTE POWERPOINT FORMAT, PRESENTATION STYLE FORMAT, DOES IT CHANGE THE ABILITY TO RECORD THE DOCUMENTS IN ANY WAY?

>> NO. >> DO WE HAVE ANY ISSUE WITH THAT? .

>> DPLO, THERE IS NO ISSUE WITH THAT WHATSOEVER.

WHENEVER, IF WE EVER HAD TO TRANSTHESE RECORDS TO AN APPELLATE COURT, THEY ARE ALL TRANSMITTED ELECTRONICALLY AND THE POWERPOINT FORMAT WORKS PERFECTLY IN ANY MICROSOFT THING. NO.

IT'S THE SAME AS IF YOU WERE DOING A WORD DOCUMENT OR PDF.

>> WANTED TO CONFIRM THAT THANK YOU.

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.