[Call meeting to order]
[00:00:11]
GOOD AFTERNOON. WE'RE GOING TO GO AHEAD AND CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER. IF YOU WOULDN'T MIND STANDING, WE WILL SAY THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.
>> I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STAND, ONE NATION, UNDER GOD, INDIVISIBLE WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL.
>> DR. HILSENBECK, WILL YOU PLEASE READ THE PUBLIC NOTICE STATEMENT?
>> THIS IS SAY PROPERLY NOTICED PUBLIC HEARING HELD IN CONCURRENCE WITH REQUIREMENTS OF FLORIDA LAW. THE PUBLIC WILL BE GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY TO COMMENT ON TOPICS RELEVANT TO THE AGENCY'S AREA OF JURISDICTION AND BE GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY TO OFFER COMMENT AT A DESIGNATED TIME DURING THE HEARING.
THE PUBLIC SHALL SPEAK AT A TIME DURING THE MEETING ON EACH ITEM AND FOR A LENGTH OF TIME AS DESIGNATED BY THE CHAIRMAN WHICH SHALL BE THREE MINUTES. SPEAKERS SHOULD IDENTIFY THEMSELVES, WHO THEY REPRESENT AND THEN STATE THEIR ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD. SPEAKERS MAY OFFER SWORN TESTIMONY. IF THEY DO NOT, THE FACT THAT THE TESTIMONY IS NOT SWORN MAY BE CONSIDERED BY THE AGENCY IN DETERMINING THE WEIGHT OR TRUTHFULNESS OF THE TESTIMONY. IF A PERSON DECIDES TO APPEAL ANY DECISION MADE WITH RESPECT TO ANY MATTER CONSIDERED AT THE HEARING, SUCH PERSON WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS AND MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO IN REVIEW OF APPEA RELATING TO THEM. AGENCY MEMBERS ARE REMINDED THAT IN THE BEGINNING OF EACH ITEM THEY SHOULD STATE IF THEY HAD ANY COMMUNICATION WITH THE APPLICANT OR ANY OTHER PERSON REGARDING THE SUBSTANCE OF THE ITEM OUTSIDE OF THE FORMAL HEARING OF THE AGENCY.
IF SUCH COMMUNICATION HAS OCCURRED THE AGENCY MEMBER SHOULD THEN IDENTIFY THE PERSONS INVOLVED AND THE MATERIEL CONTENT OF THE COMMUNICATION.
CIVILITY CLAUSE. WE WILL BE RESPECTFUL OF ONE ANOTHER EVEN WHEN WE DISAGREE. WE WILL DIRECT ALL COMMENTS TO THE ISSUES. WE WILL AVOID
[Public Comments]
PERSONAL ATTACKS. >> ALL RIGHT.
THANK YOU, DR. HILSENBECK. WE WILL MOVE ON TO PUBLIC COMMENT. IS THERE ANYONE IN THE
[5. MINMOD 2025-03 St. Johns Parkway Antenna Tower (aka TOWER 2025-02). Request for a Minor Modification to the Durbin Crossing PUD (Ord. 2004-07, as amended) to allow for the construction of a 170- foot Monopole Antenna Tower, specifically located at 2050 Saint Johns Parkway.]
AUDIENCE HERE TO SPEAK ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA? IF SO, PLEASE COME FORWARD. SEEING NONE, WE WILL GO OUT OF ORDER TO ACCOMMODATE A SCHEDULING ISSUE.SO WE'LL CALL ITEM NUMBER FIVE FIRST ON THE AGENDA WITH THE APPLICANT PLEASE COME FO MR. LABANOWSKI?
>> YES, MADAM CHAIR, I DID VISIT THE SITE AND SEVERAL EMAILS.
>> I VISITED THE SITE YESTERDAY.
>> HI. THANK YOU FOR ALLOWING US TO GO FIRST. WE HAVE OUR THIRD PARTY HAS TO GET TO TALLAHASSEE IN A TIMELY MANNER THIS AFTERNOON, SO I APPRECIATE THIS AND THE OTHER ITEMS ON THE AGENDA FOR ALLOWING US TO COME AND BE FIRST. NAME IS BRAD WESTER OF DRIER MCAFEE, HAWTHORNE AND DIEBENOW.
>> HERE TO REPRESENT MINMOD 2025-03 AND TOWER 2025- 02, IT IS IN FOR THE DURBIN CROSSING PUD FOR THE 170- FOOT TOWER. TOWERS ARE AN ALLOWED USE ON THE PROPERTY IN THE PUD AND IT IS CELL TOWER PER MDB- 2017 AND I'LL GET INTO THAT IN A MINUTE. THE PROPOSED TOWER IS WITHIN 250 FEET OF OR- ZONED LAND, OPEN RURAL WHICH INCLUDES THE ST. JOHN'S PARKWAY RIGHT OF WAY. AGAIN, I HAVE A MAP THAT DEPICTS THAT. AS A RESULT OF THE PROXIMITY, THE PROPOSED TOWER ON THE APPROVED CELL TOWER EQUIPMENT SITE A WILL BE REVIEWED AS A MIDMOD TO THE PUD.
THE PROPERTY ABOVE ST. JOHNS PARKWAY ACCOUNTS FOR APPROXIMATELY 150 FEET OF THE REQUIRED 250- FOOT DISTANCE FROM OR. THE PROPOSED TOWER ABUT THES THE PALMS PROFESSIONAL PARK COMMERCIAL CENTER AND IS APPROXIMATELY 905 FEET FROM THE NEAREST RESIDENTIAL LOT TO THE NORTH. 1,025 FEET FROM THE RESIDENTIAL LOT TO THE WEST, AND I'LL SHOW THAT IN A DIAGRAM.
THERE'S ALSO NO RESIDENTIAL LOT ABUTTING TO THE EAST OF THE ST. JOHNS RIGHT OF WAY.
THERE ARE NO ADVERSE IMPACTS FOR THE PROPOSED TOWER USE ON THE DESIGNATED TOWER SITE.
[00:05:02]
HERE'S THE LOCATION MAP. YOU CAN SEE THE DIFFERENT ROADWAYS IN THE AREA LONG LEAF PINE PARKWAY AND THE PUDS ARE RATE THERE ABUTTING AND THIS IS AN AERIAL DEPICTION OF THE VICINITY MAP THERE.CLOSER VIEW OF THE AERIAL. YOU CAN SEE THE TREE LINE THERE, AND I'LL DESCRIBE THAT SIGNIFICANCE OF THE TREE LINE IN A SECOND. THIS IS THE PALMS PROFESSIONAL PARK TO THE NORTH. ACCESS WOULD BE THROUGH THE PALMS PROFESSIONAL PARK THROUGH AN EASEMENT ACCESS POINT THROUGH THE CELL TOWER SITE AND THAT'S LISTED IN THE PUD, AS WELL.
LAND USE AND ZONING. IT'S CURRENTLY RESIDENTIAL C, COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FUTURE LAND USE AND IN THE PUD AS DESCRIBED. YOU CAN SEE THERE, THE OR- ZONED LAND. THIS IS THE ST. JOHNS PARKWAY RIGHT OF WAY AND THE OPEN ZONED RURAL LAND ACROSS THE STREET.
THIS IS THE RESIDENTIAL DISTANCES AND THIS IS TAKEN FROM THE STAFF REPORT AND SOMETHING SIMILAR IS PROVIDED WITH THE APPLICATION.
YOU CAN SEE 905 FEET APPROXIMATELY TO THE NEAREST RESIDENTIAL LOT IN THAT CUL-DE- SAC TO THE NORTH.
1300 FEET ACCORDINGLY TO THE NORTHWEST, IF YOU WILL, AND THEN MORE TO THE WEST 1,025 FEET TO THE OTHER NEAREST RESIDENTIAL LOT. THIS IS A -- THIS IS OUR BUFFER.
THE NORTHWEST SECTOR REQUIRES A 500-FOOTNOTEIFICATION FOR NOTIFICATIONS FOR THE PLANNING PARTICIPATION MEETING, AND SO THIS ACCOUNTED FOR SIX ADVERTISEMENT NOTIFICATIONS AND ONLY THREE OF THOSE WERE PRIVATE PARTIES. THE REST WERE ESSENTIALLY JEA, THE EXISTING PALMS PROFESSIONAL PARK AND THEN ST. JOHNS COUNTY. FOUR PRIVATE PARTY, IF YOU WILL THAT ARE IN THIS. ESSENTIALLY THE BARCA FAMILY CHARITABLE TRUST AND THE PROPERTIES ARE THE THREE NOTIFIED THAT AREN'T EITHER PUBLIC OR A PART OF THIS PROPOSAL.
THIS IS AN EXCERPT FROM THE MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN PUD MAP, AND YOU CAN SEE, HERE IS THE CELL TOWER SITE, AND YOU CAN SEE DESIGNATED THERE CELL TOWER SITE A IN THE SHADED AREA. THIS IS OUR SITE PLAN. IT SHOWS WHERE THE CELL TOWER WOULD BE LOCATED RIGHT THERE AND THE DIFFERENT GEOMETRY AND DIMENSIONS ASSOCIATED WITH IT. HERE IT IS IN THE AERIAL DEPICTION. YOU CAN SEE THE ACCESS ROAD. SO THIS WILL UTILIZE THE EXISTING PALMS PROFESSIONAL PARK ACCESS POINT AND THE SMALL ACCESS ROAD ON THE SITE AND THEN IT GOES TO THE ABUTTING RIGHT OF WAY THERE IN THE ST. JOHNS PARKWAY. HERE IS THE PROFILE, CROSS SECTION OF THE TOWER ITSELF, AND THAT'S REQUIRED FOR THE CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS, BUT THE SUBMITTAL THAT WE MADE FOR THE TOWER. HERE IS THE FIRST YEAR HANDOFF SITES. THIS IS A PROXIMITY OF OTHER TOWERS IN THE AREA.
YOU CAN SEE THE DIFFERENT MILEAGE IN THE AREAS FOR THE ADJACENCY OF OTHER TOWERS. SAME THING.
THESE ARE REQUIRED AND THEY ARE THE PHOTO RENDERINGS OF HOW THE TOWER WOULD LOOK FROM VARIOUS POINTS THROUGHOUT THE AREA. YOU CAN SEE THAT TREE LINE'S MASKING THE TOWER AGAIN. THIS ONE LOOKING WEST.
COMING DOWN ST. JOHNS PARKWAY, YOU CAN SEE THE TOWER OVER THE TREE LINE.
YOU CAN SEE THERE FROM THE GROVER CLINIC THERE.
YOU CAN SEE IT IN THE BACKGROUND. THIS IS THE DEPICTION FROM THE NEAREST RESIDENTIAL. AGAIN, IN CONCERT WITH THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE PHOTO SIMULATIONS.
ANOTHER ONE FROM THE NEAREST CUL-DE-SAC. THIS IS THE PROPERTY IN THE NORTH APPROXIMATELY 900 FEET AWAY.
YOU CAN SEE THE CUL-DE- SAC AND THE POWER LINES THERE.
THERE IS A SIGNIFICANT POWER LINE EASEMENT BEFORE THAT THAT OPENS UP THE VISTAS ACROSS THE PALMS PROFESSIONAL PARK.
>> AGAIN, THERE'S PALMS PROFESSIONAL PARK SIGNAGE AND THEN, THINK, THE TOWER. TOWERS AREN'T ALIGNED USE AND THE PUBLIC PARTICIPATION MEETINGMEETING WAS HELD IN JULY 1ST, AND IT WAS IN THE PALMS PROFESSIONALPROFESS IONAL PARK.
NO OPPOSITION EXPRESSED AT THAT MEETING AND ONLY SEVERAL QUESTIONS AND A CONCERN ABOUT THE DEVELOPMENT EDGE, AND AFTER FURTHER DISCUSSION AND REVIEW THE APPLICANT REVISED THE PLANS WHICH BASICALLY ALLOWED US TO INCORPORATE THE 30- FOOT TREE LINE BUFFER TO REMAIN.
[00:10:01]
WE HAD A LANDSCAPE PLAN FOR THE CODE TO REMOVE THAT TREETREE AND PLANT ASK IS UP MRMENT A BUFFER PER THE CODE, BUT STAFF WORKED WITH US TO KEEP THAT MATURE PINE BUFFER WHICH IS ABOUT 30 FEET WIDE THERE IN LIEU OF A TYPICAL LANDSCAPING PLANT AND THAT WAS A CONCERN BROUGHT UP BY THE FINANCIAL STOCKS AT THE NORTHWEST SECTOR MEETING AND THE ST. JOHNS COUNTY CELL TOWER EXPERT CONSULTANT, OCG, HAS CONFIRMED THE COVERAGE PREDICTION MODELS THAT WE SUPPLIED TO BE SUBSTANTIALLY ACCURATE AND TAKES NO EXCEPTION TO THE FINDINGS OF OUR TECHNICAL PARAMETERS. AND WITH THAT, I'M TRYING TO BE TIMELY, SO I'LL TURN IT BACK TO YOU FOR ANY QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS. I'VE GOT MY CLIENT, THE OWNER HERE FROM NEXT TOWER AND THE THIRD-PARTY CONSULTANT AS NEEDED. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.>> JUST A QUICK QUESTION. I WENT BY THERE, AND I NOTICED THAT THE AREA THERE IS PRETTY LOW. WHAT IS THE DRAINAGE THROUGH THAT? IS THERE A DRAINAGE?
THERA THERE'S A MASTER DRAINAGE SYSTEM FOR THE PALMS PROFESSIONAL PARK AND BRINGING THE GENERATORS AND UTILITIES THAT GO WITHIT. WE WILL CERTAINLY ACCOMMODATE THAT WITH THE DRAINAGE.
THERE ARE A NUMBER OF DRIVER TENSION SWALS IN THAT AREA AND THEN A MASTER SYSTEM. WE'RE GOING TO INCORPORATE THAT AND WE WON'T DO ANYTHING NEW, AND IT IS ESSENTIALLY A
MODIFICATION. >> IT'S ALMOST THREE FEET DOWN FROM THE DRIVEWAY.
>> IT DOES. IF YOU LOOK AT ST. JOHNS PARKWAY, THEY HAD TO BRING IT UP FROM WHAT WAS THE PREVIOUS PROFESSIONAL GRADE AND WE WILL DO THE SAME. WE WILL HAVE AN ACCESS ROAD THAT WILL NEED TO BE BROUGHT UP TO THEN ACCESS THE SITE AND THEN THE PAD ITSELF, BUT AGAIN, IT WILL BE PERMITTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT AND STATE RULES AND TIE INTO THE NATURAL SYSTEM OUT THERE.
YOU'RE WELCOME. >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS?
>> SEEING NONE. IS THERE ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE HERE TO SPEAK ON ITEM NUMBER 5?
WE ARE BACK TO THE AGENCY FOR A MOTION.
>> I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE MINOR MODIFICATION 2025- 03 ST. JOHNS PARKWAY ANTENNA TOWER SUBJECT TO TEN CONDITIONS AS PROVIDED WITHIN THE STAFF REPORT.
>> WE HAVE A MOTION FOR APPROVAL.
ANY DISCUSSION? SEEING NONE, LET'S REGISTER THE VOTE.
[1. SUPMAJ 2025-17 Commanders Shellfish Camp 4COP. Request for a Special Use Permit, pursuant to Section 2.03.02 of the Land Development Code, to allow for an increase in series for the on-site sale and consumption of Alcoholic Beverages under the State of Florida from Type 2COP/SFS to 4COP/SFS beverage license in connection with an existing restaurant, located within Commercial Highway Tourist (CHT) zoning, specifically located at 7579 A1A South.]
>> ALL RIGHT. THAT MOTION PASSES.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. APPRECIATE IT.
>> ON ITEM NUMBER 1 IS THERE ANY EX PARTE FOR AGENCY NUMBERS? MR.
I VISIT THE SITE AND I TALKED TO THE MANAGER WHO WAS ON DUTY AT THE TIME, BROOKE.
>> YES, MADAM CHAIR, I JUST DID THE
OLSON? >> YES, VISITED THE SITE ON NOVEMBER 3RD.
>> I'VE BEEN TO THE RESTAURANT, BUT I DIDN'T GO SPECIFICALLY FOR THIS PURPOSE.
WOULD THE APPLICANT PLEASE COME FORWARD?
>> MICHAEL SULLIVAN, 1521ST STREET SOUTH JACKSONVILLE BEACH.
HERE TO TRY TO GET A LICENSE FOR THE 4COP LICENSE.
I'M HERE WITH MY WIFE HAPPENED TODAY AS OWNERS OF THE COMMANDERS SHELLFISH CAMP, LOCATED IN 7579 A1A SOUTH IN CRESCENT BEACH. WE ARE OPEN WEDNESDAY THROUGH SUNDAY FROM 11:30 A.M. TO 8:30 P.M. CURRENT ZONING IS CHT, COMMERCIAL HIGHWAY TOURIST WITH A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN OF FUTURE USE RESIDENTIAL, AND YOU SEE THE TWO LOTS HIGHLIGHTED THERE. OUR MENU IS FARM TO TABLE MENU FEATURING LOCAL SHELLFISH WE GROW THERE FROM THE METANSAS RIVER AS WELL AS SAUSAGE, FISH AND CRAB. CURRENTLY OUR FOOD SALES ARE 80% OF OUR TOTAL SALES. WE HAVE PERMITTED 126 SEATS ON THE ROOF. WE HAVE THE MAIN RESTAURANT WITH 72 SEATS, THAT'S LETTER A UP
[00:15:04]
THERE, NUMBER A AND 52 ON THE OBSERVATION DECK.THE MAIN RESTAURANT INSIDE HAS 12 BAR SEATS AND 28 BOOTH AND TABLE SEATS.
THE MAIN RESTAURANT OUTSIDE HAS 32 TABLE SEATS, AND THE OBSERVATION DECK OVERLOOKING THE RIVER HAS 54 PICNIC TABLE SEATS. SO THAT'S ALL I HAVE FOR THAT.
>> ALL RIGHT. WE ARE STARTING OFF VERY QUIET.
IS THERE ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE HERE TO SPEAK ON ITEM NUMBER 1? SEEING NONE.
WE ARE BACK TO THE AGENCY FOR A MOTION.
>> MADAM CHAIR, I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE SUPMAJ 2025- 17 COMMANDERS SHELLFISH CAMP BASED ON EIGHT FINDINGS OF FACT AND 11 CONDITIONS AS PROVIDED BY THE STAFF.
>> SECOND. >> WE HAVE A MOTION FOR APPROVAL AND A SECOND. ANY DISCUSSION? SEEING NONE. LET'S REGISTER THE VOTE.
[2. ZVAR 2025-12 6951 Charles Street. ZVAR 2025-12 6951 Charles Street, request for a Zoning Variance to Section 6.01.03.E.3 of the Land Development Code to allow for a reduced second Front Yard setback of three (3) feet in lieu of the required 15 feet for a Corner Lot located in Residential, Single Family (RS-2) zoning to accommodate construction of a detached garage, and Section 2.02.04.B.12 of the Land Development Code to allow for a wall height of eight (8) feet in lieu of the six (6) foot requirement, specifically located at 6951 Charles Street.]
ALL RIGHT. THAT MOTION PASSES. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.>> ALL RIGHT. ON TO ITEM NUMBER 2, IS THERE ANY EX PARTE?
>> I DID DO A VISIT IN HANCOCK. THE OWNER WAS THERE, AND HE DID SHOW ME AROUND AND THERE WERE SEVERAL MORE EMAILS THAT ARRIVED
TODAY. >> I VISITED THE SITE WHEN THIS WAS ON THE AGENDA THE LAST TIME, AND I ALSO FORWARDED THE ITEM TO PAT HAMILTON LETTING HIM KNOW THIS WAS GOING TO BE ON THE AGENDA FOR TODAY'S MEETING.
>> I VISITED THE SITE AFTER THE LAST AGENDA AND AGAIN ON THE 3RD OF NOVEMBER, RECEIVED EMAILS FROM TWO PARTIESPARTIES OPPOSITION, AND IT LOOKS LIKE TODAY WE HAVE A NUMBER EVER OTHER EMAILS THAT CAME INTO THETHE OFFICE.
>> YES. I VISITED THE SITE AND ALSO RECEIVED THREE EMAILS PLUS ADDITIONAL EMAILS FROM
STAFF. >> WOULD THE APPLICANT PLEASE COME FORWARD?
>> NICK SEAVER, FROM ST. AUGUSTINE, FLORIDA, HERE TODAY REQUESTING THE VARIANCE ON A SECONDARY SETBACK FOR 6951 CHARLES STREET.
>> 6951 CHARLES STREET. WE ARE LOOKING TO TRANSPORT THE PROPERTY TO A SUITABLE HOME SITE AND IT WAS A NON- CONFORMING PARCEL IN RS- 2, A REGULAR LOT.
WE ARE AN OLDER NEIGHBORHOOD AND WITH VARYING OPINIONS.
WE ARE TRYING TO BE MINDFUL OF THE CONCERNS OF THE ADJACENT NEIGHBORS AND THE EXPERIENCE FOR THE SECONDARY SETBACK WITH GRACY STREET AND ADDITIONALLY, AN EIGHT-FOOT BLOCK FENCE, AND I KNOW THERE'S SOME CONCERN HERE FROM THE RESIDENCES, AND THIS IS INTENDED FOR A SINGLE- FAMILY HOME AND NOT A RENTAL. SO LET'S MAKE THAT, AND THIS IS OVERVIEW SITE AND WE ARE REQUESTING APPROVAL TO APPROVE A SECONDARY SETBACK ALONG GRACY STREET ALLOWING THE STRUCTURE FB SEVEN FEET, AND I KNOW THERE ARE STAIRS AND THAT'S WHY IT'S IMPORTANT. GRACIE STREET IS 60 FEET PAST THE LENGTH OF CHARLES STREET, AND THE TWO AFFECTING PROPERTIES AND 295 AND 290 GRACIE STREET ARE WHO WE HAVE BEEN IN CONTACT WITH FOR THIS VARIANCE BOTH OF WHICH HAVE WRITTEN APPROVAL LETTERS AND HAVE NO PROBLEM OR ISSUE WITH US WITH THIS VARIANCE. 6951 CHARLES STREET HAS 56 FEET OF FRONTAGE UP TO 47 FEET AND THESE DIMENSIONS CONSTRAINT SIGNIFICANTLY LIMITS OUR PARK, DRAINAGE AND THE OVERALL FUNCTION ABILITY AND THAT'S THE NEED FOR THIS VARIANCE REQUEST. THIS ILLUSTRATES WHAT IT WOULDWOULD LOOK LIKE IF WE DID GO WITH THE
[00:20:01]
15- FOOT SETBACK WHICH IS NOW IN PLACE.IT WOULD BE POSITIONED IN THE MIDDLE OF THE PROPERTY WITH THE WALL DOWN ON CHARLES STREET. THIS WOULD AFFECT OUR DRAINAGE FOR TYPE B AND DUE TO LIMITED ACCESS AND A LEGAL POINT OF DISCHARGE.
THIS DESIGN WOULD ALSO LACK SUFFICIENT DRIVEWAY SPACE AND A SAFE, FUNCTIONAL VEHICLE ACCESS. THERE WOULD BE NO ADEQUATE TURNAROUND RADIUS TO EXIT THE PROPERTY SAFELY AND THE LAYOUT WOULD OBSTRUCT THE FRONT DOOR AFFECTING SAFETY. THIS IS THE VACATED ROW COMING IN GRACIE AND SHOWING THE 15- FOOT WIDTH BETWEEN THE POLES. OUR DISTANCE EXTENDS THE GRAVEL TO THE SURFACE WHICH IS A SHARED DRIVEWAY WITH 290 AND 295 GRACIE STREET. THIS CONSTRAINT WOULD LIKELY FORCE DRIVERS TO TURNAROUND ARE AROUND IN NEIGHBORING DRIVEWAYS, AND BACK DOWN GRACIE STREET TO REACH CHARLES STREET CREATING TRAVEL AND SAFETY CONFLICTS WITH RESIDENTS AND VISITORS ENTERING THIS DRIVEWAY.
THIS IS ILLUSTRATED AS IT WOULD BE NOW WITH THE DESIGNATED TURNAROUND AND A 16- FOOT WIDE DRIVEWAY, AND IT WOULD BE SUFFICIENT SPACE FOR VEHICLES AND IT WOULD REQUIRE VEHICLES TO ALLOW THE PARKING SPACE, AND LIMITED PARKING SPACE.
A DUSHLLY, THE SITE WOULD ALSO LIMIT OUR ABILITY FOR DRAINAGE DRAINING INTO OUR NEIGHBOR'S PROPERTY INSTEAD OF DRAINING OUT TO CHARLES STREET FOR DRAINAGE.
THESE ARE THE LETTERS FROM OUR NEIGHBORS.
JOSEPH PERRY AND DON KEELY. WE'VE COME TO AN AGREEMENT TO MOVE OUR WALL BACK WITHIN 18 INCHES OF THEIRS SO THAT THE GARAGE POSITIONED LEFT OF THIS PHOTO IS SUITABLE FOR ENTERING THEIR PROPERTY.
THIS IS THE PROPOSED SITE PLAN WITH THE VARIANCE SETBACKS.
THIS WOULD ALLOW US FOR TYPE B DRAINAGE TO GO IN BACK OF THE PROPERTY AND IT WOULD ALLOW OUR SET DESIGN, AS LONG IT WOULD ENSURE THAT IT WOULD BE TOWARD IMPACTS, WITH TWO LEGAL POINTS OF IMPACT. THIS HAS BEEN DESIGNED AND ENHANCED AND IT WILL NOT NEGATIVELY IMPACT THE CHANGE AND REGULATION.
IT ALLOWS FOR PROPER DRAINAGE AND MAINTAINS FUNCTIONALITY.
VEHICLE TURNAROUND AND THIS DRIVER LAYOUT WOULD PROVIDE SUFFICIENT SPACE FOR VEHICLES TO ENTER THE PROPERTY SAFELY, TURN AROUND EAST AND WEST AND ALLOWS THE VEHICLES TO HAVE A CLEAR VIEW OF ONCOMING TRAVENLG TRAFFIC AND INTO THE INTERSECTION.
THIS INDICATES THE RELOCATION FROM THE BLOCK CALL FROM OUR NEIGHBOR'S DRIVEWAY WITH JOSEPH PER PERRY AND THIS WOULD BE IN DESIGN COMPLIANCE WITH THE COVERAGE. THIS WOULD BE HOW IT WOULD LOOK WITH THE LAYOUT AND IT WOULD ALLOW VEHICLES TO DRIVEDRIVE PASS THE GARAGE, PARK AT AN ANGLE, KEEP THE GARAGE ENTRANCE CLEAR AND IT WOULD ALLOW VEHICLES TO BACK UP INTO A TURNAROUND AND EXIT CHARLES STREET WITH A CLEAR VIEW OF TRAFFIC.
>> THIS WOULD ALLOW FOR TYPE B DRAINAGE WITH ALL SURFACE WATER WOULD BE DIRECTED TO THE HINGE POINT AND MAINTAIN DRAINAGE CODE AND COMPLIANCE AND THAT'S THE LANDSCAPING.
THIS IS MORE ABOUT THE DRAINAGE WHERE THE HINGE POINT WOULD BE. IF WE WERE ABLE TO GET THIS VARIANCE WE COULD GET THIS HINGE POINT TO WHERE 70% OF THE STORM WATER FROM THE HINGE POINT WOULD FALL TO THE BACK AND JUST THE TWO FOOT WOULD FALL TO THE FRONT AT 30% AND THAT WOULD HELP US TO NEGATIVELY IMPACT -- TO NOT NEGATIVELY IMPACT CHARLES STREET AND MAKE IT POSSIBLE FOR THE -- TO ACHIEVE THE SECONDARY SETBACK REQUIREMENTS.
THIS IS WHAT THAT WOULD LOOK LIKE WITH THE ENTRANCE FROM
[00:25:04]
CHARLES STREET AND THE GARAGE WITHIN THAT SECONDARY SETBACK.IT WOULD PROVIDE A SAFER, FUNCTIONAL ACCESS TO THE PROPERTY. IT WOULD OFFER SIGNIFICANTLY MORE SPACE AND A PROPER AREA FOR VEHICLES THAT WOULD ADDRESS THE DRAINAGE CONCERNS AND MITIGATED TO THE POINTS OF DISCHARGE. IT WOULD AVOID IMPACTING NEIGHBORS' PROPERTIES AND IT WOULD MAINTAIN A VISUALLY APPEALING STREETSCAPE AND A CLEAR VIEW FROM THE FRONT DOOR AND THE SAFE. THIS IS KIND OF A SUMMARY OF WHAT WE FEEL ARE THE ADVANTAGES TO HAVING THIS ON THESE NON- CONFORMING LOTS. IT DOESN'T IMPEDE THE NEIGHBORS OF 290 AND 295. IT MEETS DRAINAGE REQUIREMENTS AND MEETS REQUIRED VEHICLE TURNAROUND AND OVERALL FUNCTIONALITY. OVER HERE WITH HOW IT IS NOW IT IMPEDES THE PROPERTY OF 290 AND 295 CAUSING ALL RESIDENTS TO USE THE SMALL ENTRYWAY ON GRACIE, AND IT WOULD NOT MEET DRAINAGE REQUIREMENTS, AND LACKS SPACE FOR SAFE VEHICLE MANEUVERABILITY AND THE HOMESTEAD. THIS LAST BIT HERE, I KNOW THAT THERE IS SOME QUESTIONS REGARDING OUR EIGHT-FOOT BLOCK WALL, BUT WE'VE WORKED THOSE OUT.
WE ORIGINALLY OBTAINED A CLEARANCE FOR A SMALL RETAINING WALL AFTER CLEARING THE LOT AND EVALUATING THE SITE CONDITION, WE REQUIRED THE WALL TO BE REVISED TO ACCOMMODATE THE FINAL SITE RAID, AND IF THERE WAS A GRANGE OF GRADE WITHIN 20 FEET OF THE PROPERTY OF THE ADJOINING PROPERTY AND THE FENCE WOULD BE CONSTRUCTED AND THE FENCE WOULD BE CONSTRUCTED TO A MAXIMUM EIGHT FEET WHICH IS WHERE WE'RE AT AND THE CURRENT ELEVATION ON AVERAGE SIX AND A HALF AND THE BLOCK FOOTER WAS RAISED AND IT WAS A FOUR TO FIVE- FOOT FENCE AND AFTER THIS BLOCK WALL WAS ACTING AS A PRIVACY BARRIER AND ELIMINATE THE RUNOFF FROM 6951 CHARLES STREET ON TO NEIGHBORS PROPERTIES. THIS CONCLUDES THE PRESENTATION.
ANY QUESTIONS? >> ANY QUESTIONS, MR. OLSON?
>> I GUESS MY FIRST QUESTION, DO YOU HAVE A SITE PLAN THAT SHOWS THE LESS DESIRABLE OPTION THAT MEETS ALL OF THE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS? YOU SHOWED AN ILLUSTRATION, BUT I'D LIKE TO COMPARE THE SITE PLAN WITH THE ONE THAT YOU ARE REQUESTING.
>> THIS IS THE ILLUSTRATION AND I DON'T KNOW WHAT MIGHT HAVE BEEN UNLOADED AND THIS WOULD BE OVER WHAT IT WOULD BE NOW AND THE ILLUSTRATION WOULD BE WITHOUT THE SETBACK.
I GUESS THIS IS FOR THE PLANNING STAFF AND THE QUESTION, IS THE NONPREFERRED OPTION THAT DOESN'T REQUIRE ANY ADDITIONAL VARIANCES OR APPROVALS AND IS THAT SOMETHING? IS THAT TRUE, THAT OPTION THAT IT CAN BE BUILT WITHOUT CURRENT ZONING AND SETBACK REQUIREMENTS.
>> JACOB SMITH WITH MANAGEMENT. WE HAVE NOT REVIEWED A SITE CHECK, BUT I WOULD SAY THAT GENERALLY SPEAKING WHAT HE'S PRESENTING ON THE SCREEN THERE IS LIKELY TO MEET IT BASED ON THE
SETBACKS. >> THOSE WERE OUR APPROVED SITE PLAN. WE HAVE APPROVED SITE PLANS FOR
THIS. >> OTHERS HAVE QUESTIONS SO I'LL DEFER.
>> HOW MANY HOUSES ARE -- THIS IS ONE -- THIS IS ONE RESIDENCE WITH THAT BEING THE GARAGE AND WITH OFFICE SPACE ABOVE AND YOU SEE IT ON THE OVERALL AND THAT'STHAT'S THE GARAGE TO THE HOUSE.
>> SIR, ARE YOU READY FOR MY QUESTION?
>> YES, SIR. >> HOW MANY HOUSES ARE ON CHARLES STREET?
>> I'M NOT SURE. SEVEN OR EIGHT.
[00:30:01]
>> THAT'S CORRECT. >> SO PEOPLE VISITING THIS -- THIS HOME ARE GOING TO COME DOWN GRACIE AND MAKE A LEFT ON CHARLES÷÷ AND THEN MAKE A RIGHT INTO THIS DRIVEWAY?
THE CORNER. >> WOULDN'T THE DRIVEWAY FROM GRAUSIE GIVE A MAMMOTH GARAGE AND NOT SEE THE FRONT DOOR.
>> IF YOU COME BACK TO THE SITE PLAN, IF YOU SEE THE ENTRYWAY AT THE CORNER WHERE GRACIE IS, ALL OF THE HOSES INCLUDING OF THE HOUSES AND 295 AND 290 AND ALSO THAT ONE ON THE CORNER AND EVERYONE WOULD BE SHARING THAT LITTLE SMALL SPACE WHICH LOOKS LIKE THIS TO COME IN AND OUT OF THE HOUSE WHEREAS THE ENTRYWAY FROM CHARLES STREET WOULD MAKE IT MUCH MORE EASIER ACCESS POINT FOR THIS HOUSE SINGULARLY AND IT'S NOT AFFECTING THE HOUSE ACROSS THE STREET. WE'RE WITHIN OUR RIGHT TO HAVE AN ACCESS POINT FROM CHARLES STREET AND THIS IS A VARIANCE FOR THE GARAGE BEING ON THE SECONDARY SETBACK BECAUSE GRACIE IS THE REASON FOR THE SECONDARY SETBACK.
IF YOU WANT TO HAVE IT, WE'RE WITHIN OUR RIGHTS TO HAVE THE DRIVEWAY OFF OF CHARLES STREET.
WE'RE ONLY ASKING FOR THE VARIANCE FOR THE GARAGE TO BE MOVED TO THE SITE AND NEIGHBORS THAT WE'RE AFFECTING WITH US ONBOARD MOVING IT TO THE PROPERTY. THE NEIGHBOR, I THINK, THAT HAVE AN OPPOSITION THAT ARE HERE TODAY, IT IS NOT AFFECTING THEM WHERE THE GARAGE GOES AND THEY WOULD RATHER US NOT HAVE A GARAGE OFF OF CHARLES STREET AND THAT'S NOT WHAT THE VARIANCE IS FOR.
OUR VARIANCE IS TO MOVE THE GARAGE.
>> ARE YOU CLAIMING A HARDSHIP IN THIS CASE FOR THE
VARIANCE? >> YES, SIR, IN A WAY BECAUSE IT'S CREATING HARDSHIP -- LIKE I SAID, THE DRAINAGE TO THE NEIGHBOR'S PROPERTY AND BACK TO ACCESS WITH THREE NEIGHBORS WITH THAT ACCESS ALL SHARING THAT ACCESS POINT FOR THE SAFETY VEHICLE. ANYTHING TRYING TO GET IN AND OUT OF THAT PROPERTY, HAVING TO GO BETWEEN THOSE TWO TELEPHONE POLES AND THAT DRIVEWAY.
>> ALL RIGHT. ARE YOU THE OWNER AND THE CONTRACTOR?
>> I AM THE OWNER. I AM NOT THE CONTRACTOR.
>> OKAY. WHO BUILT THE EIGHT- FOOT WALL?
>> ENTIRE INC. , THE CONTRACTOR.
>> HOW LONG HAVE THEY BEEN IN ST. JOHNS COUNTY.
>> THEY DIDN'T KNOW EIGHT FEET WAS NOT ALLOWED?
>> WELL, LIKE I SAID, WE DIDN'T HAVE IT LAST TIME, BUT IT IS ACTUALLY ALLOWED.
THIS IS THE CODE AND THE ORDINANCE ALLOWING IT.
>> WELL, YOU HAVE TO COME BEFORE US TO GET THAT SQUARED AWAY. SO YOU ARE CLAIMING THERE IS A GRADE CHANGE OF MORE THAN TWO FEET?
>> OR IS THIS GOING TO BE AFTER YOUR FELL IS PLACED INSIDE THE
WALL. >> THERE IS A GREAT CHANGE WITH THE FILL.
>> WITH THE FILL, BUT NOT WITHOUT THE FILL?
>> WITH THE FILL IT WAS A TWO FOOT -- I BELIEVE IT WAS SIX AND A HALF.
>> YOU SAID YOUR AVERAGE ELEVATION IS 6 1/2.
>> I DON'T THINK THERE IS A GRADE OF TWO FEET.
I DON'T THINK YOU DEMONSTRATED THAT TO ME.
I DIDN'T SEE IT OR YOU DIDN'T SHOW IT.
>> I DON'T KNOW IF WE HAVE THOSE PICTURES HERE, BUT THAT -- THAT IS WHAT I'VE BEEN TOLD IS THAT WE HAD THAT GRADE.
SO WHY DID YOU WHY LEAVE THE FENCE WALL, CONCRETE BLOCKBLOCK AT FOUR FEET IN THE FRONT? FOR AESTHETIC PURPOSES?
THE STREET? >> ALL RIGHT. IF YOU WERE PEGGY COOK WHO LIVED JUST SOUTH OF YOUR PROPERTY WOULD YOU WELCOME THAT EIGHT-FOOT WALL RIGHT ALONG THE PROPERTY LINE ON
HER SIDE? >> I BELIEVE IT'S TO HER BENEFIT, SPECIALLY WITH THE RUNOFF TO HAVE THAT BLOCK WALL. WE SPENT A LOT OF MONEY FOR DRAINAGE TO NOT HAVE IT AFFECT HER PROPERTY AT ALL. THE ADJACENT HOUSE THAT WAS BUILT AT 290 WAS ALREADY CONSTRUCTED TWO YEARS AGO, AND WHERE THEIR FILL WAS AT TO WHERE OURS WAS WE HAD TO COME UP TO OUR LEVEL OR ELSE WE WERE GOING TO BE
AFFECTED. >> BUT YOU'RE FILLING INSIDE OUR
[00:35:01]
INSIDE OUR WALL.>> BUT WHAT SHE'S LOOKING AT ON HER SIDE IS EIGHT FEET FROM HER GROUND LEVEL TO THE TOP OF THE WALL IS EIGHT FEET.
>> I WOULDN'T PARTICULARLY LIKE THAT IF IT WERE MY HOUSE IF I LIVED NEXT DOOR AND SOMEBODY DID
THAT. >> YOU WOULD WANT A SIX FOOT?
>> YES. THAT WOULD BE PREFERABLE.
>> A COUPLE OF MORE QUESTIONS FOR YOU, SORRY, SIR.
>> SO I WAS OUT THERE, AND I SAW YOUR FINISHED FLOOR ELEVATION IS PRETTY HIGH.
YOU HAVE YOUR BASIC FOUNDATION THERE AND THEN WHAT IS AN EIGHT- FOOT WALL ON THE NEIGHBOR'S SIDE IS ONLY ABOUT FIVE FEET, I GUESS, FROM WHERE I COULD SEE, BUT WHEREVER THE HOUSE STARTS IT'S REALLY ONLY GOING TO BE TWO OR THREE FEET OF WALL, SO FOR PRIVACY REASONS IT'S REALLY NOT GOING TO BE A PRIVACY WALL AS FAR AS I COULD
TELL. >> THAT'S THE STEM WALL. OUR FINISHED ELEVATION OF THE STEM WALL OF THE HOUSE IS ONLY HALF OF THAT.
SO I THINK OUR FINISHED ELEVATION SHOULD BE SIX FEET FOR
THE WALL. >> SO MY WONDERING IS IT'S A BIG, MASSIVE HOUSE AND THAT WALL.
I DIDN'T SEE ANYTHING ELSE LIKE THAT. THERE'S AN EIGHT- FOOT FENCE ON CHARLES STREET THAT IS JUST A LITTLE JARRING.
SO MY THOUGHT IS COULD THAT BE KNOCKED DOWN TO SIX FEET? I DID KIND OF GO AROUND TO THE OTHER NEIGHBORS. I DIDN'T WANT TO TRESPASS ON HER PROPERTY, BUT I DID SEE SHE HAS A LOT OF VEGETATION ON THATTED SIDE, AND I DO UNDERSTAND YOU ARE PLANNING TO STUCCO THAT WALL?
>> COULD THAT SIDE BE KNOCKED DOWN SINCE IT'S NOT GOING TO PROVIDE MUCH SECURITY TO MITIGATE FOR THE LARGENESS OF
IT? >> I BELIEVE IT'S POSSIBLE.
LIKE I SAID, THE FINISHED ELEVATION ON OUR SIDE ISN'T GOING TO BE AS HIGH AND REALLY THE WALL WAS MORE -- IT'S FOR
DRAINAGE. >> IT'S A FUNCTIONAL THING. WHICH I THINK IS GOOD.
I DO APPRECIATE THAT, AND I DO THINK YOU ARE GOING TO BE CHANNELING THE WATER THAT ISN'T GOING TO AFFECT CHARLES STREET, AND THAT'S A BENEFIT.
MY OTHER QUESTION IS FOR STAFF. WHEN I LOOKED AT THE FLOOR PLAN, DOES DRIVEWAY NOT COUNT AS IMPERVIOUS SURFACE, MR. SMITH? I'M SORRY.
>> SORRY, MISS SPIEGEL. CAN YOU REPEAT THAT?
>> YES. DOES THE DRIVEWAY NOT COUNT AS IMPERVIOUS SURFACE?
>> ANY PAVED SURFACE OR HARDSCAPE COUNTS AS
IMPERVIOUS. >> BECAUSE THIS SEEMS TO ME TO BE MORE THANTHAN 70% OF THE PROPERTY AND THAT'S
A CONCERN TO ME. >> I BELIEVE IT WILL BE LIKE PAVERS.
>> BUT EVEN PAVERS ARE STILL COUNTED AS IMPERVIOUS.
>> THAT'S CORRECT. ALL HARDSCAPING IS COUNTED AS IMPERVIOUS.
>> CHANCES ARE EVEN IF WE DID APPROVE THAT VARIANCE THEY WOULD HAVE TO MAKE MODIFICATIONS.
I WAS UNDER THE UNDERSTANDING T WAS GOING TO BE GRAVEL, AND I JUST DON'T LIKE THE IDEA OF CONCRETING OVER SO MUCH OF THIS SMALL LITTLE PARCEL RATE ON RIVER, SO THAT'S A CONCERN FOR
ME. >> WHATEVER THE REQUIREMENTS ARE, WE'LL MEET THEM.
>> OKAY. SO WILL YOU CONSIDER KNOCKING THAT ONE SIDE OF THE WALL DOWN TO SIX FEET?
>> GRADE CHANGE WITHOUT THE FILLER. WITH THE FILL, I DON'T KNOW THAT YOU'VE DEMONSTRATED TO MY SATISFACTION THAT THERE IS A TWO-FOOT GRADE CHANGE. PERHAPS THERE IS, PERHAPS THERE ISN'T, BUT --
>> I THINK WE HAVE IT IN THIS -- HOLD ON.
I BELIEVE IT WOULD BE AT NINE FEET HERE AND IT WOULD FALL TO SEVEN.
>> SO IT'S FROM THE PROP FRONT OF THE PROPERTY TO THE BACK OF THE PROPERTY AND NOT ONE SIDE TO THE OTHER.
OKAY. AND THE FOUR- FOOT PORTION OF THE WALL, THAT'S BY CODE, RIGHT? YOU CAN ONLY HAVE 25 FEET, MR. SMITH?
>> I'M GOING TO BACK UP REALLY QUICK AND TALK ABOUT THE EIGHT- FOOT GRADE CHANGE. SO THE CODE TELLS US THAT WHEN WE HAVE ADJOINING PROPERTIES, AS WE ARE ADJACENT TO THEM, WITHIN 20 FEET, IF YOU HAVE A GRADE CHANGE OF MORE THAN TWO FEET YOU CAN HAVE EXTRA HEIGHT, RIGHT? STAFF IS NOT CONCERNED AND IT'S BEEN DEMONSTRATED FOR THAT, AND JUST TO CLEAR THAT UP, THAT'S NOT BEEN SHOWN OR DEMONSTRATED IN ANY WAY.
>> IF YOU DIDDID IT, AND THE FOUR FOOT REQUIREMENTS AND WITHOUT THE HEIGHT PROP ARE THE I, THE FOUR FOOT WAS THE STANDARD.
>> THOSE ARE MY QUESTIONS. I THINK IT WILL BE A LOVELY HOME, AND I DON'T KNOW THAT I REALLY HAVE A PROBLEM.
[00:40:02]
I DO UNDERSTAND THAT LITTLELITTLE SMALL GRACIE IS ONLY FOR YOU, I UNDERSTAND THE HARDSHIP HERE.I THINK THIS IS A SAFETY ISSUE. YOU'RE RIGHT, AT THE BEGINNING OF CHARLES STREET YOU'RE NOT PULLING OUT IN FRONT OF ANYBODY ELSE'S DRIVEWAY. THAT DOESN'T BOTHER ME. PAVING OVER SO MUCH, AND IT IS A LARGE HOUSE AND IT IS YOUR PROPERTY AND YOU ARE ENTITLED TO DO THAT IF YOU CAN DO THAT LEGALLY. I'M NOT OPPOSED. THESE TWO SIDEWALKS ARE COMING UP AND THEY'RE A WRINKLE IN OUR CODE, BUT IN THIS CASE, I DON'T SEE IT'S A HUGE PROBLEM.
>> JUST A QUICK QUESTION. THE DIAGRAM YOU HAVE UP THERE RIGHT NOW, THE HINGE POINT, YOU CURRENTLY HAVE PARTIAL WALL ON THE NEW HOME IN THERE RIGHT NOW.
>> YES, SIR. IS THAT ALMOST YOUR FINAL GRADE?
>> IT'S NOT QUITE AT OUR FINAL GRADE.
NO, SIR. >> IT'S NOT GOING TO VARY THAT MUCH, THOUGH?
>> YES. LISTENING TO ALL THE DISCUSSION I AM JUST NOW THINKING BASED ON THE APPLICANT'S TESTIMONY, APPARENTLY THE WALL BECAUSE OF THE GRADE ISSUES MEETS THE - - POSSIBLY MEETS NOT CONFIRMED BY THE COUNTY YET MEETS THE REQUIREMENTS AND DOES NOT REQUIRE A VARIANCE IF THAT'S THE CASE, AND IF THE OTHER ASPECTS OF THE VARIANCE AND THE SETBACKS ARE NOT GRANTED AND THEN THE MAIN DIFFERENCE IS THAT THE PROPERTY IS ENTERED OFF GRACIE STREET INSTEAD OF CHARLES STREET WHICH I'M NOT SURE THAT MAY BE MORE DESIRABLE RATHER THAN HAVING IN AND OUT ON CHARLES STREET. SO I GUESS MY QUESTION IN MY MIND NOW IS SHOULD ANY OF THESE -- SHOULD EITHER OF THE VARIANCES BE GRANTED BECAUSE THERE MAY BE A BETTER SOLUTION TO NOT? I'M THROWING THAT OUT.
>> I GUESS WHAT I AM HEARING IS MY OPINION OF OWNING THE PROPERTY IS IT'S MORE DESIRABLE ON CHARLES STREET BECAUSE THE BOTTLENECK ON GRACIE WITH SEVERAL HOMES GOING IN AND OUT OF THAT PARTICULAR DRIVEWAY.
>> THOSE HOMES ARE SUPPORTIVE.
>> THEY'RE SUPPORTIVE OF THE VARIANCE.
THE OPPOSITION HERE I THINK DOESN'T WANT TO HAVE ANOTHER DRIVEWAY ON CHARLES STREET.
I AM WITHIN MY RIGHT TO HAVE A DRIVEWAY ON CHARLES STREET. THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT THE SECONDARY SETBACK.
>> YOU'RE TALKING THREE HOMES VERSUS THE ACTIVITY ON CHARLES STREET.
I DON'T KNOW. I'M JUST -- I'M JUST THINKING ABOUT WHAT I -- SO.
>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? ALL RIGHT. WE'LL MOVE ON TO PUBLIC COMMENT TO SIT DOWN. IS ANYONE HERE TO SPEAK ON ITEM 2? IF SO, PLEASE COME FORWARD.
>> MY NAME IS PATRICK HAMILTON 6989 CHARLES STREET.
I'VE LIVED IN MY HOUSE THREE DOWN FROM THIS ONE FOR THE PAST 30 YEARS, AND I AM ONE OF THE NEWCOMERS WHO ARE HERE TODAY AND IT'S ONE OF THE FEW HISTORIC NEIGHBORHOODS ON THE SOUTH BEACHES. LOTS OF THE HOUSES WERE BUILT PRIOR TO THE 1920S WHEN THEY PUT IN THE BRIDGE AT CRESCENT BEACH. IT'S GOT A WHOLE FLAVOR.
THIS PROPOSAL IS A 40- SOME IF THE WIDE LOT.
IT WOULD BE PERFECT FOR A COTTAGE, OKAY? IF YOU BUILD SOMETHING THAT IS THE XIMUM THAT YOU POSSIBLY CAN DO AND THEN YOU NEED VARIANCES FOR IT BECAUSE YOU DESIGNED SOMETHING BIGGER THAN WHAT IT SHOULD ALLOW, IT'S NOT A HARDSHIP. NOW, IT SEEMS TO ME THAT THE REAL -- IF GRACIE STREET, IF YOU COME DOWN MIDDLETON AVENUE INTO GRACIE STREET, YOU GO STRAIGHT DOWN AND YOU PASS CHARLES STREET AND THAT'S WHERE YOUR ENTRANCE IS.
TWO NEIGHBORS NEXT DOOR, THEY SAID WE'RE NOT GOING HAVE ANYBODY COME DOWN GRACIE STREET AND YOU TURN LEFT AND IMMEDIATELY TURN RIGHT AND IT IS ONLY TEN FEET WIDE.
I MEAN, THE GARBAGE TRUCKS FUSS AND THE GAS TRUCKS FUSS BECAUSE OUR STREET IS SO NARROW, AND IF YOU HAVE TO TAKE A 90- DEGREE AS SOON AS YOU TAKE A LEFT
[00:45:04]
AND AN IMMEDIATE RIGHT IT WILL BE AN ISSUE AND PEOPLE HIT THE POST WHERE DAUGHTER ANDAND ALL LIVE? IT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE TO IMPOSE ON THE NEIGHBORS WHEN IT'S NOT ALLOWED AND IT'S GOING TO CHANGE THE CHARACTER OF THE YOU HAVE THESE BIG FENCES COME UP EXPECT THESETHESE BIG HOUSES AS BIG AS THE LOT WAS TO FIND.A LOT OF -- I UNDERSTOOD, AND I'VE BEEN A REAL ESTATE BROKER FOR MANY, MANY YEARS. THIS COULD BE MARKETED AS A SHORT-TERM RENTAL AND THERE SAY SPACE ABOVE THE GARAGE WHICH IS NOT SHOWN AS LIVING SPACE, BUT IT WOULD TAKE ABOUT A MINUTE TO TURN IT INTO ANOTHER RENTAL AND WHAT, BY CHANGING IT FROM COMING OFF OF GRACIE AND COMING OFFOFF CHARLES IS THAT YOU GET ADDITIONAL PARKING. SO NOT ONLY ARE SHORT- TERM RENTALS A NUISANCE, BUT YOU'RE GOING TO INCREASE THE NUISANCE EVEN MORE THAN IT COULD BE.
SO, AND TO HAVE AN EIGHT- FOOT FENCE NEXT TO PEGGY COOK'S HOUSE WHO HAS BEEN THERE FOR AGES AND HAS GOT A BIG, BEAUTIFUL AREA.
I MEAN, IT'S UNCONSCIONABLE, AND IF YOU RUN THAT WATER TO GRACIE STREET, I MEAN, TO CHARLES WHICH IS DIRT, IT'S GOING TO FLOW IN OUR YARDS AND IT'S GOT NOWHERE ELSE TO GO, ANDAND ASK YOU TO DENY IT, PLEASE.
>> THANK YOU, SIR. ANYONE ELSE?
>> IF YOU PUT THEM IN THE MIDDLE THEY'LL BE ABLE TO ZOOM IN. YES, SIR.
>> OKAY. MY NAME IS BILL HAMILTON, AND I LIVE AT 7000 CHARLES STREET. I'VE BEEN THERE FOR 30- PLUS YEARS. I AM HERE TODAY AS AN ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER AND REQUESTING THAT YOU DENY THE ZONING VARIANCE. AS STATED IN THE NOTICE, COMPETENT SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE, FACT- BASED TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE PRESENTED AS PART OF THE HEARING CAN BE FROM ACCEPTABLE CITIZEN TESTIMONY INCLUDE, BUT NOT LIMITED TO FIRSTHAND KNOWLEDGE OF THE AREA AND QUALITY OF LIFE OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD OVERTIME INCLUDING NUISANCES. SO THIS IS A SHOT OF MIDDLETON COMING IN GRACIE TO THE PROPOSED BUILDING LOT, MR. SIEVERT. IT'S A STRAIGHT SHOT IN.
THIS PART OF GRACIE STREET HAS NOT BEEN VACATED. THAT IS GRACIE STREET AND IT'S A PUBLIC ACCESS. THE PEOPLE WHO ARE ON OAR IN SUPPORT OF THIS WHO HAVE MADE AGREEMENTS ARE ON BOTH SIDES OF GRACIE STREET, AND THEY DON'T WANT TO HAVE TO USE SOMEONE ELSE USING WHAT THEY CONSIDER TO BE THEIR PRIVATE ROAD.
IT'S NOT THEIR PRIVATE ROAD ROAD. IT'S OPEN TO THE PUBLIC. AS YOU CAN SEE, GRACIE STREET IS TWICE AS WIDE AS CHARLES STREET AND THE SAFEST THING IS TO GO STRAIGHT IN. THERE'S NO HARDSHIP HERE.
HE CAN BUILD THE HOUSE THAT HE WANTS AND HE JUST CAN'T BUILD BIGGER THAN IT'S ALLOWED AND IT REMINDS ME OF TWIN GRANDDAUGHTERS WHO SAY I WANT THIS, AND THEY CLAIM IT'S A HARDSHIP AND THEY DON'T GET IT.
WELL, HE CAN BUILD THIS WITHOUT HAVING US COME TO THIS MEETING AND SPEAK ONON BEHALF OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. I LIVE RIGHT THERE. PAT LIVES RIGHT THERE. COKIE SMITH LIVES RIGHT THERE.
THIS IS THE PROPOSED BUILDINGBUILDING LOT. THIS IS WHAT IS BEING PROPOSED AND IF HE BUILDS THE HOUSE WITHOUT THE GARAGE WE DON'T NEED TO BE HERE. HE CAN DO IT.
IT'S NOT A HARDSIP. THIS IS GRACIE STREET LOOKING WEST. FROM HERE STRAIGHT DOWN TO CHARLES STREET IT'S A STRAIGHT SHOT. IT'S THE WIDEST PART.
IT'S A ONE- LANE ROAD THAT'S MAINTAINED BY THE OWNERS.
THIS IS THE -- THIS IS THE CORNER, AND THAT'S THE METAL POLE THAT GETS RUN OVER ROUTINELY WHEN PEOPLE TRY TO MAKE THAT CORNER. THERE'S KIDS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD. THE PEOPLE WHO LIVE AT THE CORNER HAVE TWO YOUNG DAUGHTERS, CAKEY SMITH HAS GRANDDAUGHTERS. THE PERRYS HAVE THREE KIDS. THIS IS A SAFETY ISSUE.
YOU HAVE KIDS RUNNING UP AND DOWN THE ROAD WITH DOG, RIDING THEIR BICYCLES AND YOU ARE PROPOSING TO PUT IN A DRIVEWAY THAT DUMPS TONS MORE TRAFFIC
[00:50:02]
ON TO CHARLES STREET. IT'S A SAFETY ISSUE, AND I ASK THAT YOU DENY IT.>> GOOD AFTERNOON. MY NAME'S PEGGY COOK.
I LIVE AT 6975 CHARLES STREET. I'VE LIVED THERE SINCE 1983, 42 YEARS. I HAVE THREE GROWN DAUGHTERS THAT ALL LIVE IN THE CRESCENT BEACH NEIGHBORHOOD. I HAVE TWO MAJOR CONCERNS.
ONE IS FLOODING WHICH I'VE ASKED THE BUILDERS IF THEY PLAN TOTO IN TWO FEET OF FILL. I DON'T KNOW IF THEY'RE GOING TO DO THAT OR WANT, BUT IF THEY DO THAT IT WILL CAUSE A LOT OF FLOODING FOR THE PEOPLE ACROSS THE STREET AND THE OTHER THING IS THEY ALREADY BUILT THIS EIGHT- FOOT, VERY UNSIGHTLY CONCRETE BLOCK WALL. I HAVE 201 FEET OF COMMON PROPERTY LINE, AND THIS LOOKS LIKE A PRISON WALL, AND I ASKED THE BUILDERS IF THEY PLAN TO FINISH THE WALL, AND HE SAID YES WITH MAYBE WHITE STUCCO, THEN II ASKED IF HE WAS PLANNING TO FINISH MY SIDE WHICH HAS CONCRETE ALL OVER THE GROUND FROM WHEN THEY BUILT IT. THE CONCRETE IS ALL OVER THE GROUND, AND HE SAID WE HAVEN'T GOTTEN THERE YET.
SO I DON'T WANT TO LOOK AT AN EIGHT-FOOT PRISON WALL.
SO I HOPE THAT YOU WILL -- AND THE OTHER ISSUE IS THE TRAFFIC ISSUE. THE CORNER THERE WHERE THEY WANT THE CARS TO COME DOWN GRACIE, MAKE A SHARP TURN AND THEN ANOTHER SHARP TURN ON TO -- ON CHARLES STREET IS VERY DIFFICULT.
TRADITIONALLY, EVERY OTHER -- THERE HAVE BEEN TWO OTHER HOUSES ON THIS PROPERTY AND THEIR ENTRY INTO THEIR PROPERTY WAS ALWAYS GRACIE STREET AND NEVER FROM CHARLES STREET. SO I ASK THAT YOU DENY THE VARIANCES. THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION AND YOUR CONCERN WITH OUR
NEIGHBORHOOD. >> THANK YOU, MA'AM.
>> HI, MY NAME IS CAKEY SMITH, AND I LIVE AT 7940 CHARLES STREET FOR OVER 40 YEARS.
MY CONCERN AND MY DAUGHTER HAS A HOUSE ON THE CORNER AND WHEN THEY EXIT, IF WE HAVE THIS TYPE OF DRIVEWAY INTO WHAT IS REALLY CHARLES STREET IS THE DRIVEWAY. TEN FEET WIDE AND TWO CARS CAN'T PASS EACH OTHER AND THE CORNER THERE IS WHICH HAS BEEN HIT A LOT OF TIMES SO WHAT THEY DON'T SHOW YOU IS THAT WHEN YOU COME DOWN THE STREET AND YOU'LL TURN INTO CHARLES STREET FROM GRACIE THERE IS A 90- DEGREE LEFT- HAND TURN, AND THEN THEY HAVE ANOTHER 90- DEGREE RIGHT HAND TURN GOING INTO IT AND THE SAME WAY GOING IN AND OUT. THERE'S A LOT OF CHILDREN IN THERE.
ELDER PEOPLE LIKE ME. I DON'T WALK THE STREET, BUT THERE ARE A LOT OF PEOPLE IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD THAT WALK THE STREET AND THERE ARE 11 HOUSES ON THERE AND THIS AFFECTS ALL OF US. DON'T MIND THEM MAKING MONEY ON THIS PROJECT, BUT NOT AT THE EXPENSE OF EVERYBODY ELSE DOWN THE ROAD, AND EVEN THOUGH THE TWO WHICH ARE TO THE NORTH OF WHERE THEY WANT TO BUILD THE HOUSE WOULD AGREE TO IT, THE OTHER 11 PEOPLE DOWN THE ROAD HAVE NOT BECAUSE THEY'VE BEEN THERE LONG ENOUGH TO SEE THE PROBLEM ON IT.
SO MY CONCERN IS BECAUSE MY GRANDDAUGHTER'S LIVING RIGHT THERE, AND ALSO EXITING THE PROPOSED DRIVEWAY, THEIR HEADLIGHTS WOULD GO RIGHT INTO THE HOUSE AND THE BEDROOMS OF THE HOUSE THAT WE HAVE THERE.
WE HAVE TWO HOUSES IN THE FAMILY. SO THIS IS A SAFETY ISSUE FOR
[00:55:02]
US BECAUSE WE'VE SEEN WHAT'S HAPPENED.WE HAVE ONE HOUSE THAT'S AN AIRBNB AND THE TRAFFIC HAS ALMOST DOUBLED SINCE THAT GOT IN THERE, AND THAT'S THE SAME REASON WHY WE'RE -- WE DON'T LIKE THE IDEA OF THEM HAVING A STRAIGHT APARTMENT IN THERE BECAUSE SOMEONE CAN COME IN AND BUY THE HOUSE THAT THEY SAY IS RESIDENTIAL AND TURN IT INTO AN AIRBNB AND THEY'LL HAVE TWO PLACES AND THE MAIN THING IS THE SAFETY ON THAT. YOU SAW FROM THE PICTURE OF MR. HAMILTON, HOW MANY TIMES IT'S BEEN HIT.
WE PUT IN HE BIG INSURANCE CLAIMS FROM THE OPPER OF THE PROPERTY BEING HIT EVEN THOUGH THERE'S A SIX ANCHORED INTO THE GROUND AND WE'VE HAD TO DIG IT UP TWICE AND REPOSITION IT AND STRAIGHTEN AND WE DID IT A YEAR AGO, AND IT'S ALREADY BEEN AGAIN. SO THERE IS A PROBLEM ON THAT AND IT'S TOO SHORT OF AN AREA TO DO IT, AND IF THE CONTRACTOR IS WORRIED ABOUT A TELEPHONE POLE. THEY MOVE TELEPHONE POLES ALL OF THE TIME FOR THE SAME REASON.
>> GOOD AFTERNOON. I'M KATHLEEN BELLVILLE, 7001 CHARLES STREET. WE ARE ASKING THAT YOU DENY THE REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE BECAUSE WE ONLY HAVE ONE WAY IN AND OUT OF OUR PROPERTY.
IN AN EMERGENCY THAT TEN- FOOT ROAD DEAD ENDS SO WE HAVE TO EXIT.
SO HIS POINT ABOUT BRINGING IN FILL AND HAVING IT DRAIN TO CHARLES STREET JUST CREATES, IN MY MIND, A BIGGER FLOODING ISSUE POTENTIALLY ON THE ONLY ACCESS POINT WE HAVE IN AND OUT OF OUR HOUSE, AND I KNOW WE HAVE -- WE HAVE A SMALLER BOAT AND TRYING TO MAKE THAT TURN IS VERY DIFFICULT AS IT IS, AND I THINK WITH EMERGENCY VEHICLES NEEDING TO BE ABLE TO COME ARNE THE CORNER, IT IS A VERY TOUGH, TOUGH TURN TO MAKE. WHEN WE'RE LEAVING, WE HAVE TIMETIME TO TAKE OUR TIME, BUT IN AN EMERGENCY, BEING ABLE TO MAKE THIS TURN, I THINK,S IS TOUGH. THE PROPERTY -- THE SETBACKS WERE ALL IN MRAUS. WE'RE NOT ASKING, ESTABLISHED FOR THAT PROPERTY. SO WHEN YOU ARE BUILDING A PROPERTY YOU BUILD IT WITHIN THE GUIDELINES, AND IT SEEMS THAT YOU CAN BUILD A VERY NICE HOME.
MAYBE WITHOUT THE GARAGE OR AA GARAGE AND NOT REALLY AFFECT YOUR SETBACKS FOR THE OTHER NEIGHBORS BECAUSE RAISING THE PROPERTY AND HAVE IT DRAIN TOWARDS CHARLES STREET IS GOING TO BECOME A HARDSHIP FOR US BECAUSE WE CAN'T GET OUT ANY OTHER WAY, AND I DO FEEL THAT, YOU KNOW, THEY HAVE THE RIGHT TO BUILD ON THEIR PROPERTY, BUT IDEALLY WITHIN THE SETBACKS THAT WERE IN PLACE WHEN THEY PURCHASED THE PROPERTY. SO I DO ASK THAT YOU DENY THE REQUEST FOR VARIANCE.
IS THERE ANYONE ELSE HERE TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM?
>> I DON'T KNOW THE FORMALITY OF THIS HEARING? CAN I BE GRANTED THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF THE
THIS IS PUBLIC COMMENT. STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD AND YOU HAVE THREE MINUTES.
>> ABSOLUTELY. MY NAME IS DYLAN HANCOCK, AND I LIVE HERE IN ST. AUGUSTINE. OUR HARDSHIP FOR THIS BILL IS ONE DRAINAGE.
OUR TWO LEGAL POINTS WAS DISCHARGE AND CHARLES STREET AND THE METANSES RIVER.
WE WILL DISCHARGE OVER 70% INTO THE RIVER TRYING TO MITIGATE AS MUCH DISCHARGE ON TO CHARLES STREET AS POSSIBLE.
WITH THE DRIVEWAY POSITION ON GRACIE STREET, WE CAN OBTAIN OUR LEGAL POINT OF DISCHARGE ON TO CHARLES EVEN IF WE CONSIDERED PUTTING WEED POLES IN, OUR FOOTER CAN
JUST CREATE ISSUES. >> LET ME STOP YOU.
>> I'M WITH THE BUILDING COMPANY, YES.
[01:00:05]
>> THIS IS A NON-CONFORMING LOT. WHEN IT COMES TO DESIGN WE ARE TRYING TO BUILD A FUNCTIONAL HOMESTEAD AS BEST WE CAN. OUR HOME IS ONLY 27 FEET ININ WIDTH. WE ARE DOING OUR BEST FOR DESIGN. BEFORE WE BROKE GROUND WE TALKED TO JOSEPH PERRY AND DONALD KEELY AND THIS IS WHAT WE CAME UP TO SOLVE THE FUNCTIONALITY PROBLEMS. JOSEPH PERRY HAS THREE SONS WHO LAY IN HIS FRONT PLAY IN HIS FRONT YARD ALL OF THE TIME. HIS WIFE HAS ACCESS TO THEIR GARAGE DOOR AND COMING OFF GRACIE AND GOING DIRECTLY LEFT IN THE DRIVEWAY THE VEHICLES WOULD HAVE TO SWING OUT WIDE TO MAKE THAT ENTRANCE.
AND SO WE'RE DOING OUR BEST. WE UNDERSTAND THIS IS AN OLDER NEIGHBORHOOD, AND WE'RE DOING OUR BEST TO ADDRESS EVERYONE'S CONCERNS THE BEST WE CAN, SO THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU, SIR. IS THERE ANY OTHER PUBLIC COMMENT FOR THIS ITEM? ALL RIGHT. SEEING NONE WITH THE APPLICANT FEEL FREE TO COME BACK OVER, AND WE MAY HAVE SOME QUESTIONS FOR YOUR BUILDER.
WHAT WOULD YOU LIKE TO RESPOND?
>> YEAH. I WOULD LIKE TO, YOU KNOW, WE ARE WORKING WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD, BUT THE VARIANCE IS JUST TO MOVE THE GARAGE. WE ARE WELL WITHIN OUR RIGHT TO HAVE÷÷ OUR DRIVEWAY ON TO CHARLES STREET. THE ADDRESS IS CHARLES STREET. THEY DON'T LIKE IT, BUT THAT'S WITHIN OUR FRONTAGE AND OUR RIGHT TO HAVE THE DRIVEWAY THERE AND THAT'S NOT WHAT THE VARIANCE IS ABOUT. WE'RE JUST MOVING OUR GARAGE INTO THE SECONDARY SETBACK BECAUSE OF GRACIE STREET NEIGHBORS THAT WOULD BE AFFECTED HAVE WRITTEN LETTERS OF ACCEPTANCE AND THAT'S WHAT THEY WOULD LIKE AS WELL.
SO I UNDERSTAND THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND THE AGE OF IT, BUT THIS IS A LOT THAT'S GOING TO BE BUILT ON. LIKE I SAID, WE CONSULTED WITH THE NEIGHBORS IN TRYING TO BUILD SOMETHING AND EVERYTHING THAT WE HAVE HAS BEEN DONE WITHIN THE CODE AND WITHIN THE SETBACKS. THIS IS JUST THAT VARIANCE BECAUSE OF THAT SECONDARY SETBACK
>> I'M SORRY. I DON'T REMEMBER YOUR BUILDER'S NAME, BUT CAN HE COME BACK UP, PLEASE? I'M SORRY. WHAT WAS YOUR NAME AGAIN?
>> OKAY. EXPLAIN TO ME WHY CAN'T YOU MOVE THAT GARAGE IN FRONT OF THE HOUSE CLOSER TO THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE PROPERTY AND STILL GET AN ENTRANCE OFF OF CHARLES STREET AND ACHIEVE YOUR DRAINAGE. WHY DOES THAT IMPEDE YOUR DRAINAGE MOVING IT TOWARD THE OTHER SIDE OF THE PROPERTY?
>> WHEN CONSIDERING A TURNAROUND RADIUS AND HOW VEHICLES CAN MANEUVER, WE DON'T HAVE THE SPACE TO DO THAT AND THE TELEPHONE POLE'S POSITIONED RIGHT AT THE CORNER OF THE
PROPERTY. >> SO LOOKING AT THAT LAYOUT RIGHT THERE. YOU'RE TELLING ME THERE'S NO WAY TO TURNAROUND IN THAT
DRIVEWAY. >> WHEN CONSIDERING PEOPLE PARKING IN FRONT OF THE GARAGE, ONE VEHICLE WOULD HAVE TO EXIT FOR ANOTHER ONE TO LEAVE THE
RESIDENCE. >> RIGHT, BUT I AM ONE OF THOSE PEOPLE THAT PARK IN MY GARAGE.
SO I'M ASSUMING YOU CAN FIT TWO VEHICLES IN THAT GARAGE, RIGHT?
>> SO HOW LIKELY ARE YOU TO HAVE MORE THAN TWO VEHICLES? DO YOU HAVE MORE THAN THAT? I MEAN, HOW OFTEN IS THAT SITUATION GOING TO COME UP?
>> I DON'T -- I GUESS I DON'T HAVE A FIRM ANSWER FOR, THAT BUT CONSIDERING THE LAYOUT OF THIS, EVEN IF THERE IS TWO VEHICLES IN THE GARAGE, IF A GUEST IS THERE, IF IT'S THANKSGIVING, WHAT HAVE YOU --
>> I GET IT MAY COME UP, BUT, OKAY. SO THAT'S ONE ARGUMENT, BUT HOW DOES THAT BLOCK -- CAN YOU GO BACK TO THE OTHER ONE?
>> HOW DOES THAT SITUATION BLOCK YOUR DRAINAGE RIGHT THERE? YOU JUST EXPLAINED HOW IT COULD PREVENT BACKING UP AND HAVE A PILE-UP, AND I GET THAT, BUT HOW DOES THAT SITUATION RIGHT THERE, BUILDING YOUR GARAGE.
>> THE GRADE FROM THE DRIVEWAY, IT WOULD BE GRADED AWAY FROM THE HOUSE AND GRADED TOWARD
GRACIE. >> THE LEGAL POINT OF DISCHARGE IS THE METANSAS RIVER ON CHARLES STREET.
>> RIGHT. YOU WOULD HAVE TO BUILT THE LOT TO THAT STANDARD. IF IT'S APPROVED BY THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT FOR THE LAYOUT, ASSUMINGLY, IT CAN DRAIN ALREADY. THE FRONT PORTION OF THE LOT IS DRAINING TOWARD CHARLES STREET AND THE BACK PORTION IS TOWARD THE RIVER?
Ú>> CORRECT. >> THIS IS APPROVED.
>> THE BUILDING FOR THE HOUSE HAS BEEN APPROVED.
>> SO IT IS ACHIEVABLE AND IT WOULDN'T IMPEDE THE DRAINAGE?
>> WE WOULD HAVE TO. THE DRAINAGE WOULD HAVE TO GO FROM GRACIE STREET -- IT WOULD EXIT ON TO GRACIE TREAT AND THE LEGAL POINT OF DISCHARGE
[01:05:01]
IS CHARLES. WITH THIS LAYOUT THE BLOCK WALL WOULD BE BLOCKING OUR POINT OF DISCHARGE.>> RIGHT, BUT AT THIS POINT YOUR BLOCK W■ALL S LLEGAL BECAUSE YOU HAVEN'T SHOWN US IF THERE IS A TWO- FOOT GRADE CHANGE. SO IF YOU DIDN'T HAVE THAT BLOCK WALL HOW ARE YOU GOING TO ACCOUNT FOR THAT DRAINAGE? YOU'VE GOT TO ACCOUNT FOR IT ANYWAY. THIS IS ALREADY APPROVED.
YOU'VE GONE THROUGH THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT SO THEY'VE LOOKED AT THE DRAINAGE.
WHAT AM I MISSING HERE? THERE'S NO HARDSHIP IS REALLY WHAT I')M GETTING AT. I DON'T SEE A HARDSHIP AND YOU CAME UP HERE AND HAD A CONVINCING ARGUMENT FOR DRAINAGE AS TO WHY THAT WOULD BE A HARDSHIP, BUT I DON'T SEE IT, SPECIALLY IF IT'S ALREADY APPROVED. DOES THAT MAKE SENSE?
>> OUR TYPE B DRAINAGE IS APPROVED.
WE HAVE NO WAY OF DRAINING OUT OF CHARLES STREET IF THE BLOCK WALL IS DRAINING OFF THE PROPERTY. LET ME ASK A QUESTION OF STAFF.
MR. SMITH, IF THIS SITE PLAN IS APPROVED AND IT'S GONE THROUGH THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT THEN THEY'VE ACCOUNTED FOR THE DRAINAGE AND HOW IT'S GOING TO AFFECT THEIR PROPERTY AND NOT ONLY THEIR PROPERTY, BUT OTHER PEOPLE'S PROPERTY, CORRECT?
>> YES, MA'AM. THE SITUATION WITH THIS PROPERTY IS THERE'S AN APPROVED SITE PLAN. IT'S NOT THIS APPROVED SITE
PLAN. >> IT'S NOT THE ONE WE'RE LOOKING AT RIGHT NOW?
>> WELL, IT'S THE BACK HALF OF IT. IT DOESN'T INCLUDE THE GARAGE. THEY DO NOT HAVE AN APPROVED SITE PLAN WITH THE GARAGE.
>> OKAY. OKAY. THAT MAKES MORE SENSE.
OKAY. SO IF WE -- IF WE DENY IT AND GO BACK THEY'D HAVE TO APPLY APPLYFOR SITE PLAN TO BE CHANGED AND HAVE THAT GARAGE ON THE SITE
>> WHICH MIGHT EVEN -- THEORETICALLY, WE MIGHT HAVE TO GO OFF OF CHARLES STREET
REGARDLESS. >> I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THE DRIVEWAY LOCATION. I'M GETTING TO THE PROBLEM GETTING TO THE POINT WHERE YOU HAVE A HARDSHIP.
THAT'S WHERE MY ISSUE IS. IF ORDER FOR ME TO A PPROVE THIS THAT SHOULD
BE CONSIDERED. >> OUR HARDSHIP IS TO FIGURE OUT THE DRAINAGE WITH THIS LOCATION AND THE DRIVEWAY ACCESS WITH THE OTHER NEIGHBORS ALL THROUGH GRACIE AS OPPOSED TO CHARLES
I THINK WE HAVE A COUPLE MORE QUESTIONS AND MISS SIEGEL?
>> YEAH. I WANTED TO ASK A QUESTION OF STAFF. IT WAS MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THE SPACE ABOVE THE GARAGE IS NOT GOING TO BE LIVING SPACE. IT'S OFFICE SPACE BECAUSE IT CAN'T BE AN ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT OR IS THAT POSSIBLE THAT IT COULD BE A RENTABLE APARTMENT?
>> AS PART OF THIS VARIANCE APPLICATION THE FLOOR PLAN WAS ACTUALLY INCLUDED FOR THE GARAGE.
THE LIVING SPACE OR THE QUOTE, UNQUOTE, LIVING SPACE FOR THE GARAGE WAS NOT INTENDED TO BE A DWELLING UNIT OR AN ACCESSIBLE FAMILY UNIT WITH THE INFORMATION THAT THE APPLICANT HAS GIVEN US.
>> OKAY. SO IS THAT SOMETHING THAT COULD HAPPEN? IF IT'S HOMESTEADED THEN IT COULD BECOME --
>> IN THE FUTURE, THE PROPERTY OWNER COULD CONCEIVABLY ASKASK WHAT WE CALL AN ACCESSORY FAMILY UNIT AND AT THAT POINT MAKE A CONVERSION FOR FAMILY MEMBERS TO LIVE IN THAT UPSTAIRS SPACE.
>> WE DON'T HAVE A METHOD FOR THAT CURRENTLY.
CURRENTLY. >> THERE'S OTHER PEOPLE IN LINE.
>> JUST BASED ON THE MOST IMMEDIATE DISCUSSION THAT JUST TOOK PLACE, I WANTED TO POINT OUT THAT IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT FLORIDA LAW THAT HAS NOW PREEMPTED A LOCAL LAW IN REGULATION OF VACATION RENTALS AND THEY'RE ALLOWED, FULLY ALLOWED IN OUR THREE ZONES AND THIS IS NOT A FULL -- IT DOESN'T HAVE A KITCHEN, SO IT ISN'T A FULL LIVING UNIT AND IT IS STILL IN MY VIEW, BASED ON WHAT YOU WOULD ALLOW THE PREEMPTINGS.
IT'S STILL AT SOME POINT, THE CURRENT OWNERS MAY NOT HAVE ANY PLANS, BUT IT COULD WELL BE A VACATION RENTAL OPPORTUNITY.
>> I WOULD JUST POINT THAT OUT BECAUSE WHEN I WAS REVIEWING THIS I WAS SEEING THAT THAT COULD CAUSE MORE CARS FOR ME TO PARK AND COME IN AND OUT OF THAT SITE AT SOME POINT.
AGAIN, THE OWNERS MAY NOT HAVE CURRENT PLANS FOR THAT.
[01:10:04]
>> OKAY. IS THE LENGTH OF THE PROPERTY ALONG GRACIE 50 FEET?
>> IS THE LENGTH OF THE PROPERTY ALONG CHARLES SLIGHTLY UNDER 57 FEET? IT'S SLIGHTLY OVER, I BELIEVE.
>> AND THE GARAGE IS A SQUARE,
YES, SIR. >> SO THEORETICALLY, THE GARAGE COULD SIT IN THE MIDDLE OF THIS LOT AND WHAT'S TO STAFF, WHAT'S THE SETBACK ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF THIS LOT?
>> I BELIEVE SETBACK IS EIGHT FEET, SIR.
>> OKAY. IT'S GOT TO HAVE 23 FEET OF SETBACK. IT'S GOT 33 FEET TO FIT THIS GARAGE.
>> ALL RIGHT. CAN YOU GO TO THE PICTURE OF THE GRACIE LANE STANDING TO THE EAST OF IT THAT SHOWS THE POLES? SO WHAT'S TO KEEP YOU FROM PUTTING POLES UNDERGROUND AND IMPROVING GRACIE LANE TO MAKE IT INVITING AND NICER?
>> I DON'T HAVE THE ANSWERS TO THAT QUESTION OTHER THAN IT STILL DOESN'T SOLVE OUR BOTTLENECK PROBLEM OF HOW MANY CARS ARE GOING IN AND OUT OF THIS ONE SMALL CORNER. EVERYBODY UP HERE HAS NOT BEEN ONE UP WITH HARLES STREET AND WE'RE TALKING ABOUT 15 FEET FURTHER DOWN THE LINE WHERE IT'S ENTERING THE HOUSE SO I'M NOT REALLY UNDERSTANDING WHERE IT'S A HARDSHIP FOR THEM DOWN THERE AND MORE THAN A HARDSHIP FOR EVERYONE TRYING TO ACCESS THIS POINT. WE'RE TALKING ABOUT ENTRY POINTS AND PROPERTY RIGHTS. THE VARIANCE WITH THE SECONDARY SETBACK WITH GRACIE STREET AND A NON-CONFORMING LOT IS WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE AND IT'S NOT THE NORMAL FRONT AND BACK SETBACKS AND ON THIS OTHER SIDE IT BECOMES 15 FEET BECAUSE OF THAT FRONTAGE OF GRACIE STREET THAT SQUEEZES US IN THERE.
>> AND POSITIONING THE GARAGE TO THE RIGHT WOULD ALLOW BETTER MANEUVERABILITY ENTERING AND EXITING THE RESIDENCE.
>> WE FEEL IS SAFER THAN THIS BECAUSE YOU CAN COME IN AND TORNADO AROUND WITH THE SPACE FOR CARS TO DRIVE IN AND OUT OF IT GOING FORWARD INSTEAD OF BACKING OUT AND MORE PARKING THIS WAY.
>> DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FROM
>> I HEARD YOU STATE EARLIER THAT YOU WOULD POSSIBLY LOOK AT REDUCING THAT
>> ARE YOU WILLING TO REDUCE THAT WALL TO
SIX FEET? >> WE ARE WILLING TO DO THAT IF IT'S, YOU KNOW, LIKE I SAID I'M HERE TODAY TRYING TO, YOU KNOW ADHERE AND TRY TO BE NEIGHBORLY.
I'M NOT HERE TO TRY AND BUTT HEADS WITH EVERYONE.
YOU KNOW, SOME OF THE PEOPLE HERE ARE TRYING TO TELL US WHAT WE CAN AND CAN'T DO WITH A PROPERTY THAT I PURCHASED AND A LOT OF THE MONEY THAT I'M SPENDING, BUT I'M ALSO HERE TRYING TO BE NEIGHBORLY BECAUSE THIS -- HONEST OPINION, THIS IS THE MOST EFFECTIVE WAY TO HELP THE NEIGHBORS IN THAT CORNER GETTING IN AND OUT AND IT'S THE SAFEST WAY TO UTILIZE THIS PROPERTY AND THAT COMES DOWN TRYING TO HELP WITH THE WALL, LIKE I SAID, PARTICULARLY I THINK THE WALL COST A LOT OF MONEY, BUT IT ALSO HELPED HER WITH ALL OF THE DRAINAGE TO STAY OFF OF HER PROPERTY. IF SHE DOESN'T WANT IT THAT TALL AND DOESN'T WANT TO SEE MORE OF THE HOUSE, I WOULD BE WILLING TO
COME DOWN ON THE WALL. >> I UNDERSTAND BECAUSE I LOOKED AT THAT WALL FROM THE ROADWAY THERE. IT LOOKS LIKE A WALL A GIANT
WALL. >> RIGHT NOW IT'S A CONCRETE BLOCK WALL, BUT EVENTUALLY IT WILL BE STUCCOED AND MARCHING THE HOUSE.
>> IT'S STILL A HUGE WALL THAT'S RIGHT THERE ON THAT PROPERTY AND THAT'S WHAT THEY HAVE TO LOOK AT. SO THAT'S MY CONCERN THERE.
THE OTHER CONCERN IS THE IMPERVIOUS SURFACE.
IT LOOKS LIKE YOU'RE COVERING A LOT OF THAT PROPERTY
BUT WHATEVER THE -- WHATEVER THE REQUIREMENTS ARE, THAT'S WHAT WE WOULD STAY WITHIN? SO THE DRIVEWAY AND THE PARKING AREA MAY CHANGE.
>> CORRECT. WHATEVER THE REQUIREMENTS ARE FOR IMPERVIOUS SURFACE.
>> WHY A TYPICAL GARAGE WOULD BE 20 TO 22 FEET WIDE AND ABOUT THE SAME DEPTH. WHY IS THIS 2626 26? WHAT IS THE EXTRA FOUR TO SIX FEET IF ARE?
[01:15:03]
>> WE'LL BE PLACING WATER HEATERS AND A UTILITY SINK IN THE BACK OF THE GARAGE AREA. THE EXTRA DEPTH ALLOWS THAT AND TO ALSO ALLOW STORAGE TO THE LEFT AND RIGHT OF THE GARAGE.
THERE IS NO OTHER QUESTIONS AND WE ARE BACK TO THE AGENCY FOR A MOTION.
>> I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO DENY ZONING VARIANCE 2025- 12 BASED ON FOUR FINDINGS OF FACT AS PROVIDED IN THE STAFF REPORT AND JUST TO ADD WHY I'M MAKING THAT MOTION RELATIVE TO HARDSHIP, IT'S BASED ON WHAT EVERYONE HAS SAID.
IT SEEMS THAT REASONABLE USE OF A PROPERTY CAN BE MADE WITHOUT VARIANCES, AND THE MATTER OF THE FENCE APPARENTLY, ACCORDING TO THE TESTIMONY OF THE APPLICANT SOUNDS LIKE THEY CAN WORK WITH THE COUNTY BASED ON THE GRADING ISSUES YOU DESCRIBED TO GET THAT UNDER COMPLIANCE CURRENTLY WITH A VARIANCE AND ALSO BASED ON THE NEGATIVE IMPACT TO CHARLES STREET WHICH IS THE TIGHTER, NARROWER STREET REQUIRING AN ADDITIONAL TURN.
SO FOR THOSE REASON, I MAKE THAT MOTION.
>> OKAY. >> WE HAVE A MOTION FOR DENIAL.
WE HAVE A SECOND. ANY DISCUSSION? ALL RIGHT. LET'S REGISTER THE VOTE -- A YES VOTE IS A VOTE TO DENY. ALL RIGHT.
THAT VARIANCE IS DENIED. I'M SORRY.
[3. ZVAR 2025-25 Hansel Garage. Request for a Zoning Variance to Section 2.02.04.B.4 of the Land Development Code to allow for the construction of a detached accessory garage for personal use & storage that will be larger in size and taller in eave height than the existing Main Use Structure, located specifically at 8875 A1A S.]
>> THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. >> THANK YOU.
ALL RIGHT. ON TO ITEM NUMBER 3? IS THERE ANY EX PARTE?
>> MISS SPIEGEL? YES. I HAD A PHONE CALL WITH BRIAN AMERSON AND A PHONE CALL WP PROPERTY OWNER AND I DID A PROPERTY VISIT AND THEY WERE BOTH THERE I SPOKE TO THEM AS
WELL. >> I DID THE SAME VISIT?
>> I'VE DRIVEN BY THIS PROPERTY MANY TIMES AND IT'S DISTINCTIVE WITH THE BLUE HOUSE ON IT. I'VE SEEN IT, WITH THE ENTRANCE ON A1A.
>> I VISITED THE SITE ON NOVEMBER 3RD.
WOULD THE APPLICANT PLEASE COME FORWARD?
>> MY NAME IS BRIAN AMERSON AND OWNER OF AMERSON CONSTRUCTION GROUP, AND I AM HERE TODAY TO PRESENT THIS VARIANCE FOR MR. HANSEL. THIS IS THE OWNER JEFF HANSEL AND WE ARE REQUESTING A ZONING VARIANCE FOR 2.02.04.B. 4 FOR A DETACHED ACCESSORY GARAGE FOR PERSONAL USE AND STORAGE THAT WILL BE HIGH LARGER IN SIZE AND TALLER IN THAN THE EXISTING MAIN USE STRUCTURE.
IT'S A OLDER HOUSE AND A SINGLE-STORY HOUSE AND MOST OF THE HOMES IS A LOT LARGER THAN THERE, AND HE HAS NO PLACE TO STORE HIS VEHICLE OR YARD EQUIPMENT OF THAT NATURE. ALSO PART OF THE ISSUE THAT WE HAVE IS THE CURRENT EXISTING STRUCTURE IS WELL BELOW THE FEMA FLOOD PLAIN CURRENTLY THE CURRENT FEMA FLOOD PLAN IS A SEVEN. SO ANYTHING HE WOULD POTENTIALLY ADD WOULD BE AT LEAST EIGHT FOOT AS FAR AS THE ELEVATION. WHAT WE'RE LOOKING TO DO IS BUILD A GARAGE IN FRONT OF THE PROPERTY AND WE HAVE A LARGE AREA AND YOU CAN SEE THE EXISTING DRIVEWAY THAT'S THERE NOW ACTUALLY GOES TO THE AREA WHERE WE'RE GOING TO PUT THE GARAGE THERE AS IT LEAKS OVER THE HOUSE.
THAT'S JUST THE OVERVIEW, AND THIS KIND OF SHOWS THE FLOODING ZONE. SO THIS SHOWS YOU WHAT OUR PROPOSAL IS AS FAR AS THE GARAGE IS CONCERNED ON THE FRONT. SO CURRENTLY, RIGHT NOW THERE IS NOTHING AS FAR AS STORAGE FOR HIM AND WE'RE LOOKING TO DO THAT. ALSO EVENTUALLY DOWN THE ROAD BECAUSE OF THE ELEVATION OF THE HOUSE AND THIS HOUSE HAS FLOODED TWICE PREVIOUSLY WITHIN THE PAST SEVEN YEARS WITH STORMS IN THE HOUSE. HE'S LOOKING TO
[01:20:01]
EVENTUALLY KNOCK THE÷÷ HOUSE DOWN AND PUT A NEW HOUSE UP. SO AS PART OF WHILE HE'S DOING THAT, WE'LL PUT A BEDROOM ON TOP OF THE BARRAGE GARAGE SO THEY CAN STAY THERE AND STILL ENJOY THEPROPERTY. >> HERE IS THE PROPOSED PLAN OF THE HOUSE, AS YOU CAN SEE, AND THE GARAGE ITSELF BELOW AND THERE'S A DECK AREA WITH STORAGE UNDERNEATH, AND THIS IS THE CURRENT, EXISTING HOUSE NOW.
YOU CAN SEE VERY MINIMAL IN WHAT THEY HAVE AS SPACE AND WHAT THEY CAN AND CAN'T DO THERE. AS FOR AS THAT'S CONCERNED, IF YOU GUYS HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR ME. ? OKAY. ANY QUESTIONS? NONE.
IS THERE ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE HERE TO SPEAK ON ITEM NUMBER 3? ALL RIGHT. SEEING NONE, MISS SPIEGEL, DID YOU HAVE A QUESTION?
>> OH, I'M SORRY. >> I WAS BEING PATIENT.
I FOUND ONE. MR. HANSON, WHAT ARE YOUR -- IF YOU LOOK AT A TIMELINE, WHAT ARE YOU THINKING ABOUT HOW LONG BEFORE YOU DID ACTUALLY REDO THE HOUSES THAT ARE ON YOUR RADAR? IT'S ON YOUR RADAR? OKAY. AND IS THIS GOING TO BE A PRIMARY RESIDENCE? IT WILL BE YOUR PRIMARY RESIDENCE? PLANNING ON MOVING UP HERE? OKAY, AND YOU SAID THAT IT'S A PRETTY BIG GARAGE.
THERE'S A LOT OF STORAGE AND A LITTLE ROOM AND IT IS A BIG LOT AND THERE'S ROOM FOR IT, DEFINITELY. SO -- ARE YOU THINKING MAYBE FIVE YEARS? WITHIN FIVE YEARS? PROBABLY MORE.
>> OKAY. THAT WAS KIND OF MY QUESTION WAS JUST HOW LONG ARE YOU NEEDING THIS VARIANCE FOR BECAUSE ONCE THE HOUSE IS BUILT IT WILL NO LONGER BE NEEDED, CORRECT? BECAUSE THE HOUSE WILL BE TALLER THAN THE
>> YEAH. WE'RE KIND OF THE SHORT MEN ON THE TOTEM POLE.
>> MASSIVE, 36 FEET, AT LEAST.
>> THAT'S A CUTE LITTLE HOUSE. I WAS EXPECTING SOMETHING SMALL AND OLD AND IT IS, BUT IT'S ADORABLE. OKAY.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >> MR. LABANOWSKI?
>> YEAH. JUST ONE QUICK QUESTION.
HAVE YOU TALKED TO THE NEIGHBOR TO THE NORTH OF YOU ABOUT THE GARAGE GOING IN THERE? THE REASON I'M ASKING YOU HAVE A THIRD-LEVEL DECKING UP THERE, SO I DON'T KNOW IF YOU'VE TALKED TO
>> I'VE DONE WORK FOR THE GENTLEMAN TO THE RIGHT.
HE HAS A BAR AND YES, HE HAS NO PROBLEM WITH WHAT WE'RE DOING IN REGARD TO THE SCENARIO.
>> I WAS JUST WONDERING WOULD THE PLAN BE TO BUILD A TWO-STORY HOUSE?
>> I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION. A MOTION IT APPROVE VARIANCE FOR THE HANSEL GARAGE BASED ON CONDITIONS AS PROVIDED IN THE STAFF REPORT.
>> WE HAVE A MOTION FOR APPROVAL AND A SECOND.
>> I JUST THINK IT'S USEFUL TO STATE THAT THIS STRUCTURE IS IN KEEPING WITH THE OTHER STRUCK ARE STRUCTURES IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND THE SIZE OF THE LOT AS OPPOSED TO THE PREVIOUS VARIANCE REQUEST WHICH WE LOOKED LOOKED AND OBVIOUSLY THE SETBACKS ARE MET AND THINK, ULTIMATELY WHEN THE APPLICANT BUILDS A TWO-STORY HOUSE IT WILL BE IN COMPLIANCE.
ALL OF THOSE THINGS ARE FACTORS AND MY DECISION FOR VOTING YES FOR THIS, AND I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO INDICATE THAT PERHAPS THE HARDSHIP MORE THAN ANYTHING IS THE FACT THAT THEY NEED A PLACE TO STAY BECAUSE THEY HAVE TO REBUILD THE EXISTING HOUSE ON THE FLOOD PLAIN BECAUSE WE KNOW FLOOD PLAINS AREN'T GETTING BETTER. THEY DON'T SEEM TO BE DECREASING AND ARE ONLY GOING UP. THAT'S THE REASON WHY I'M VOTING FOR THIS.
>> OKAY. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? SEEING NONE. LET'S REGISTER THE VOTE.
[4. NZVAR 2025-10 U-Haul of Mill Creek Wall Signs. Request for a Non-Zoning Variance, pursuant to Section 7.02.04.B.6 of the Land Development Code, to allow for an Advertising Display Area (ADA) of 745.9 square feet on Building A and 566.8 square feet on Building B in lieu of the required maximum of 200 square feet for walls signs per building, as prescribed in the Bridle Ridge PUD, located at 6235 County Road 16A.]
ALL RIGHT. THATMOTION PASSES. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR
TIME. >> ON TO ITEM NUMBER 4, IS THERE ANY EX PARTE?
I JUST DID A SITE VISIT. THANK YOU,
MADAM CHAIR. >> MR. LABANOWSKI?
>> YES. I DID A SITE VISIT AND TWO EMAILS.
>> SITE VISIT AND THREE EMAILS, IT LOOKS LEAK.
[01:25:10]
>> MY NAME IS BRIAN MANN, HERE TO REQUEST A NON- ZONING VARIANCE TO INCREASE THE SIGNAGE FROM 200 SQUARE FEET OF BUILDING TO 745 FEET ON BUILDING A AND 566 FEET ON BUILDING B.
THESE ARE ARTIST RENDERINGS OF WHAT THE SIGNS WOULD LOOK LIKELIKE WITH THE BUILDINGS. THE BUILDINGS HAVE BEEN BUIT.
THIS IS A CORNER FROM 16 AND 16A RIGHT THERE. IT DOESN'T SHOW ANY OF THE LANDSCAPING OR ANYTHING ON THE ARTIST RENDERINGS.
WE'VE PLANTED OVER 100 TREES AND OVER 350 BUSHES AND SHRUBS, AS WELL. THIS IS HEADING TOWARDS THAT CORNER AT 1616A FROM STATE ROADROAD 16. YOUR TOP BUILDING IS THE PREVIOUS SLIDE, BASICALLY, AND YOUR BOTTOM IS LOOKING FROM OUR PARKING LOT. WE HAVE ROUGHLY 14 ACRES THERE, SO WE DO HAVE A LARGE PARKING LOT.
A MAJORITY OF THE INCREASE OF THE SQUARE FOOT IS SIGNAGE AND IT'S GOING TO BE FACING OUR PARKING LOT. THESE ARE THE BOTTOM ONES ARE SOUTH ELEVATION SO THAT WOULD BE FACING STATE ROAD 16, TOP ONE'S NORTH ELEVATION FOR THE SMALLER BUILDING FACING OUR PARKING LOT, AS WELL. THE EASTEL ELEVATION ON THE TOP RIGHTHAND CORNER IS THE CORNER OF 1616, PRETTY MUCH, THAT FIRST SLIDE. THE BOTTOM LEFT BUILDING IS SOUTHERN ELEVATION LIKE THE SAME SMALLER BUILDING WHICH IS STATE ROUTE 16, AS WELL. AND I THINK THAT'S ABOUT IT.
>> WOW, YOU PLANTED A LOT OF TREES AND PLANTED A LOT OF SHRUBS. I HOPE THEY FILL IN BETTER BECAUSE IT'S PRETTY SPARSE OUT
WE LOST A FEW AND HAD TO REPLACE A FEW AND IT'S BEEN A CONSTANT BATTLE OVER THE PAST YEAR.
LOOKS LIKE -- >> IT'S LIT UP SO
YOU, SIR. >> IT LOOKS LIKE A CHALLENGE,
INDEED. >> I DID GO BACK AND LOOK OVER YOUR ORIGINAL APPLICATION.
>> YES, MA'AM, AND A COUPLE OF THINGS JUMPED OUT AT ME, AND IT DID TALK ABOUT, WILL YOU HAVE MONUMENT SIGNS OR ROAD SIGNS?
>> ALL OF THE SIGNAGE WILL BE IN THE BUILDING EVEN THOUGH IT WOULD BE ALONG 16A, IS THAT
CORRECT? >> WE WOULD NOT BE USING THOSE SIGNS.
>> ALL RATE. IN THE STAFF REPORT THERE WAS A COMMENT THAT SAID THAT THERE HAVE BEEN NO OTHER REQUESTS FOR VARIANCE IN THAT AREA FOR INCREASED SIGNAGE. I DID A PRETTY SIGNIFICANT DRIVE AROUND AND LOOKING AT SIGNS.
THIS IS A BIG ASK. YOU'RE ASKING FOR A 400% INCREASE IN BOTH BUILDINGS IT LOOKS TO ME, APPROXIMATELY, AND THIS BUILDING ALREADY IS --
>> IT'S BIG. AND YOU ALSO HAVE ADDITIONAL SIGNAGE WITH ALL OF THE U- HAUL TRUCKS IN THE PARKING LOT AND NEW YORK IS PROBABLY GOING TO BE SENDING A WHOLE BUNCH MORE U-HAULS SO YOU WILL GET A WHOLE LOT MORE ADVERTISING, RIGHT?
>> THAT DEPENDS AND THAT DOES VARY DEPENDING ON WHAT DAY, WEEKEND, TIME OF MONTH.
UNDERSTAND. >> SOMETIMES THE LOTS ARE FULL AND SOMETIMES IT'S NOT.
>> IT'S BETTER FOR BUSINESS WHEN IT'S
NOT FULL. >> TREE ADVERTISING.
I HEARD GREG WILL TAKE ON U-HAUL AS HIS SPONSOR.
PEOPLE FROM NEW YORK. HE'S HERE FROM NEW YORK.
ANYWAY, SO, OKAY, SO MY THINKING IS --
>> I DO UNDERSTAND THE IDEA OF A BIGGER SIGN, BUT PART OF THE REASON FOR VARIANCE IN MY OPINION AND WE'LL BE TALKING ABOUT SIGNS LATER IS THAT IT'S A MATTER OF VISIBILITY FROM THE ROAD. MORE THAN BRANDING OR PROPORTION TO THE SIZE. I DON'T THINK THAT THE SIZE OF THE INSTRUCTIONAL THINGS, DRIVING, STORAGE AND ALL OF THAT. I DON'T THINK THOSE NEED TO BE THAT BIG BECAUSE THAT'S NOT GOING TO BE A FACTOR.
IT MIGHT BE A DIRECTIONAL THING, BUT I THINK THOSE ARE TOO BIG.
THE LETTERING -- I THINK THAT'S UNNECESSARY THAT THOSE BE AS LARGE AS THEY ARE AND THEN YOU'VE GOT THIS OTHER THING. I DON'T THINK I SAW IN THE PACKET THAT SAID - -
[01:30:01]
>> UBOX IS ONE OF OUR PRODUCTS.
>> THAT'S ONE OF THOSE THINGS THAT THEY COME PICK UP LIKE A POD?
>> YES, MA'AM. I CAN'T SAY THAT WORD, BUT YES, MA'AM.
>> WE'RE IN LITIGATION ON THAT ONE.
>> SO I'LL ZIP IT THEN. IN MY OPINION, WHICH DOESN'T REALLY MATTER FOR MUCH. I THINK THIS IS TOO BIG OF AN ASK. I MIGHT BE WILLING TO APPROVE HALF OF THAT SIZE INCREASE BECAUSE I DON'T THINK THERE'S ANY DOUBT THAT THERE IS SAY U-HAUL STORAGE PLACE ON THAT CORNER. NO MATTER WHO YOU ARE OR HOW FAST YOU'RE DRIVING BY, I THINK THAT THERE IS NO DOUBT THAT THAT IS A U- HAUL STORAGE PLACE, AND I THINK THE FACT, AND THE FACT IT'S THERE AND THE NEIGHBORS DON'T LIKE IT IS SAD, BUT IT'S TRUE AND YOU'RE ALLOWED TO HAVE YOUR BUSINESS, AND I SAW HIM SIGN OFF ON YOUR REQUEST, BUT THAT'S JUST MY OPINION IS THAT I DON'T THINK IT'S NECESSARY TO HAVE THAT BIG OF AN INCREASE IN YOUR SIGNAGE, JUST BY THE FACT THAT IT'S A LARGE BUILDING.
>> MY COLLEAGUES LARGELY MIGHT
DISAGREE. >> AND I 1 HUN% 00% AGREE WITH YOU, AND I DON'T KNOW HOW PEOPLE MISS US THERE, AND I HAVE TALKED TO MANAGEMENT AND SHE'S HAD PEOPLE COME IN AND DIDN'T REALIZE I WAS THERE, AND I COULDN'T TELL YOU HOW MANY TRUCKS WERE ON THE LOT.
>> THE REASON WE'RE ASKING FOR SUCH A LARGE INCREASE IS THE MAIN BUILDING IS IT'S GOT A 60,000-SQUARE-FOOT BUILDING.
>> IT'S A BIG BUILDING, BUT LOOKING AT THE STORES IN THE AREAS AND YOU GO TO THE STRIP MALLS AND THEY'RE LARGE BUILDINGS AND THEY ALL MANAGE TO HAVE SMALL SIGNS.
THERE IS THE -- CUBE SMART RIGHT DOWN SILVER LEAF AND IT'S A SMALL LITTLE SIGN AND PROPORTIONAL AND IS LESS GLARING. I'M WORRIED ABOUT ADDING GLARING TO GLARING AND I'M TRYING TO BE COMMUNITY-MINDED, GOOD NEIGHBOR THAT COULD PROVIDE SOME DIRECTION. MY COLLEAGUES MIGHT NOT AGREE, BUT THAT'S MY -- SAY.
>> PERHAPS EX PARTE I SHOULD HAVE SAID I HAVE DRIVEN BY THE SITE AND YOU CANNOT MISS THOSE STRUCTURES. THEY ARE HUGE. THEY'RE GIGANTIC. AGAIN, OOUL AGREE WITH MISS SPIEGEL THEY THINK THEY'RE WAY TOO LARGE AND 400% AND WAY OUT OF PROPORTION OF WHAT YOU NEED, I AGREE. THE UBOX MOVING CONTAINERS OUT THERE IS PROBABLY UNNECESSARY TO PUT ON THAT SIGN, BUT I THINK THEY ARE FAR TOO LARGE FOR THAT. DO YOU HAVE ANY POSSIBLE RENDERINGS OF ARTIST RENDERINGS OF SIGNS THAT ARE SMALLER THAN THAT TO SHOW?
>> NO, SIR, I DON'T. NOT CURRENTLY.
ALL RIGHT. WELL, I CAN'T SUPPORT THE ITEM AS PRESENTED TO US TODAY.
>> YES. I JUST -- SORT OF THE SAME SENTIMENTS THAT YOU JUST HEARD, BUT I DON'T BELIEVE WE SHOULD BE ACTUALLY INCENTIVIZING IN THIS AREA, BIG SIGNS ON BIG BUILDINGS AND THIS AREA SURROUNDED BY MASTER PLANNED COMMUNITIES AND THAT'S REALLY TRYING TO ACHIEVE A VERY HIGH QUALITY LOOK. I REALLY THINK THAT INSTEAD OF INCENTIVIZING BY GRANTING VARIANCES FOR LARGER ON BUILDING SIGNS, WE SHOULD BE, INSTEAD, URGING MONUMENT SIGNS THAT ARE REALLY FROM AN URBAN DESIGN STANDPOINT FOR SUBURBAN AUTO- ORIENTED COMMUNITIES LIKE THIS AR THE DESIRE FOR ACHIEVING GOOD, QUALITY, URBAN DESIGN. SO I KNOW YOU PROBABLY CAN WITHOUT A VARIANCE BUILD SOME TYPE OF SIGN ON THESE BUILDINGS, BUT I BELIEVE THAT IF WE GRANT VARIANCES AND WE'RE INCENTIVIZING THE SIGNS ON BUILDINGS INSTEAD OF THE HIGHER QUALITY LOOK FOR THE AREA OF THE GROUND- BASED MONUMENT SIZE.
>> SO YOU WOULD RECOMMEND A MONUMENT SIGN?
[01:35:01]
>> OH, YEAH, THERE ARE VERY PLEASING LOOKS TO THESE, AND THEY'RE VIED FROM BEING PURCHASE MORE DESIRABLE THAN A DESIGN STAFF.
>> AFTER WHAT MR. OLTSON JUST SAID I WOULD HAVE TO AGREE WITH THE MONUMENT SIGN, DEFINITELY. I DRIVE UP AND DOWN THAT ROAD CONSTANTLY, AND A SMALL SIGN CAN BE THAT SIZE ON THE TOP OF THAT BUILDING AND PEOPLE WOULD KNOW IT WAS U- HAUL BECAUSE THAT THING IS SO MASSIVE I CAN'T JUSTIFY GIVING A VARIANCE ON THAT THING, BUT THE MONUMENT OF A SMALL MONUMENT SIGN, NOT SOMETHING 30 FEET IN THE AIR, AND A MONUMENT SIGN WOULD LOOK GOOD THERE AND FIT IN REAL WELL.
SO I WOULD HIGHLY RECOMMEND THAT.
>> YES. I HAVE A QUESTION FOR STAFF ON THAT. THIS IS SAY NON- ZONING VARIANCE. IF THEY ALREADY HAVE SIGNS, GROUND SIGNS APPROVED IN THEIR ORDINANCE, COULD THEY ADJUST FROM WHAT THEY HAVE APPROVED TWO MONUMENT SIGNS WITHOUT NEEDING TO COME BACK TO US.
IS THAT A SMALL ENOUGH CHANGE THAT THEY COULD GO THROUGH
STAFF? >> TO MISS SPIEGEL'S QUESTION, IT IS COMING THROUGH STAFF FOR ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL AND WHETHER THERE ARE SIGNS AND THEY HAVE TO MEET THOSE REGULATIONS. IT'S CERTAINLY UP TO THEM TO PURSUE THAT OPTION.
>> OKAY. YOU DO HAVE APPROVAL HERE FOR THREE SIGNS? FOUR SIGNS?
CORRECT. WE SHOULD -- FROM MY UNDERSTANDING WE'LL BE ABLE TO GO 200 SQUARE FEET PER BUILDING AND PLUS THE MONUMENT SIGN, AS WELL.
>> UP TO 200 FEET PER BUILDING, RIGHT?
>> IS THERE ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE HERE TO SPEAK ON ITEM NUMBER 4?
>> SHANE MORRIS 6335, 16A. IT SEEMS LIKE THEY'RE ALREADY OVER ON THE SIGNAGE AS IT IS.
I DEFINITELY DO NOT WANT ANY EXTRA SIGNAGE AND I WONDER IF THEY CAN DO ANYTHING WITH THE LIGHTING INSIDE OF ALL OF THE WINDOWS.
AT NIGHT IT IS LIT AND I DON'T KNOW IF THEY CAN TINT THE WINDOWS OR WHAT THEY CAN DO. THE SIGNAGE IS BAD AND THAT'S ONE THING, BUT THE LIGHTS COMING OUT OF ALL OF THE WINDOWS IS BRIGHT. I WAS WONDERING IF THEY COULD DO ANYTHING ABOUT TINTING THOSE WINDOWS OR ANYTHING
>> MR. BURNETT, DO YOU HAVE A PUBLIC COMMENT?
>> THANK YOU. DOUG BURNETT, MAIN STREET AND ST. AUGUSTINE, FLORIDA, AND IT IS PROBABLY ODD ME BEING UP HERE COMMENTING.
I WANT TO ADD THE PICTURES YOU'RE SEEING AREN'T RECONCILING WITH YOUR VERSION OF WHAT'S THERE BECAUSE WHERE YOU SEE GLASS IN THESE PHOTOS IS ORANGE. YES, IT'S GLASS.
IN REAL LIFE IT'S NOT GLASS. IT'S THE ORANGE DOORS.
THE PROBLEM WITH ALL OF THIS ADDS UP TO THE LOGO.
ALL OF THE ORANGE DOORS ADD UP TO PART OF THE LOGO, AND IF YOU COUNT ON THE PROPERTY APPRAISAL'S AREA FOR THE SITE THERE ARE 88, 88 U- HAUL VANS, TRUCK, TRACTOR TRAILER- TYPE TRUCKS WITH THE CUBES ON THEM AND BOX TRUCKS ON THIS SITE AND THAT'S PROBABLY WHERE YOU RECONCILE OR HAVE A PROBLEM RECONCILING THAT ISSUE AND IT'S MORE OF THE BRANDING AND ONE FINAL THING AND THIS COMES UP WITH THE SIGNAGE YOU THINK OF AS A LOT OF THE TIMES THAT YOU'RE GOING TO PASS IT.
SO HIGH- SPEED ROADWAYS RATHER THAN 45 MILE PER HOUR SPEED LIMIT AND THAT'S ALL MY COMMENT. THANK YOU.
>> MR. MANN? WELL, THERE ARE SOME --
>> THAT SNAPSHOT FROM THERE SAY MOMENT IN TIME.
WE HAVE THE PROPERTY THAT HAVE CHANGED DAY IN, DAY OUT, WEEK IN, WEEK OUT, MONTH IN, MONTH OUT. THE GLASS WE WRUZ USE IS COMPLETELY CLEAR, NO IRON OR LET FOR THAT REASON. IT WAS ALL PASSED THROUGH THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT, WHENEVER WE BUILT THE BUILDING.
>> I MEAN, WE COULD, BUT I DON'T FORESEE US DOING THAT, TO
[01:40:03]
BE HONEST WITHYOU. >> THANK YOU FOR YOUR HONESTY.
ALL RIGHT. SOME OF YOU SEEM TO BE -- A LOT OF YOU DO NOT SEEM TO BE IN FAVOR OF THIS.
IF YOU'RE IN FAVOR OF THIS, WOULD YOU GUYS WANT HIM TO COME BACK WITH A DIFFERENT VERSION? SMALLER SIGNS INCLUDING THE SIGNS THAT HE IS ALLOWED TO HAVE ROAD SIGN, MONUMENT SIGNS AND THAT COMPILED TOGETHER AND GIVE US A COMPARISON OF WHAT IT WOULDWOULD LIKE, A VERSION OF WHAT IT WOULD LOOK LIKE ABIDING BY THE SQUARE FOOT PER BUILDING AND THEN IF YOU'RE ASKING ABOUT THAT DO A COMPARISON FROM THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THAT? THAT'S AN OPTION. I DON'T KNOW IF ANYBODY ON THIS BOARD SIDE OPEN TO THAT? OKAY. SO WE COULD POTENTIALLY TAKE A VOTE RIGHT NOW, AND IT COULD POTENTIALLY BE DENIED AND WE CAN MOVE FOR A CONTINUANCE AND ALLOW YOU SOME TIME TO KIND OF COME BACK TO US AND GO BACK TO THE DRAWING BOARD AND MAYBE REDUCE THE SIGNAGE A LITTLE BIT AND MAYBA AD THE MONUMENT SIGNS AND THAT'S LEGAL AND THAT'S ALLOWED, BUT GET YOU WHAT YOU WANT AND ALSO WHEN WE'RE LOOKING FOR, AS WELL. IS THAT OKAY?
>> I MEAN, SURE. I CAN GET THAT DRAFTED UP.
>> HOW LONG DO YOU THINK IT WILL TAKE FOR YOU TO -- AND IT DEPENDS ON STAFF SCHEDULE, BUT DO YOU NEED TWO WEEKS? FOUR WEEKS?
>> I THINK FOUR WEEKS WOULD DEFINITELY BE MORE THAN ENOUGH.
>> MADAM CHAIR, BASED ON THE CURRENT SCHEDULE, THE MOST LIKELY DATE WE WOULD HAVE GOING FORWARD WOULD PROBABLY BE IN JANUARY.
>> YES, MR. OLSON? >> I'M WONDERING WHETHER -- YOUR SUGGESTION IS VERY THOUGHTFUL, BUT I'M WONDERING IF THERE IS A PATH FORWARD RIGHT NOW SINCE I UNDERSTAND THAT YOU DO HAVE APPROVAL FOR -- YOU CAN -- THERE'S SOME SIZE THAT YOU CAN PUT ON THIS VARIANCE.
>> AND YOU DO HAVE APPROVAL, I THINK YOU SAID FOR TWO MONUMENT SIGNS AND THERE ARE TWO MAIN THOROUGH FARES INTERSECTING THERE.
>> THE SITE PLAN HAS THREE ENTRANCES.
>> OKAY. SO THE NO- ACTION ALTERNATIVE WOULD BE THEY WOULD BE ABLE TO DO THE SIGNAGE.
>> I DON'T KNOW IF THAT WOULD BE ACCEPTABLE TO YOU
TO JUST -- >> I WANT TO GIVE THEM AN OPPORTUNITY TO GO BACK AND SEE IF THAT WILL FIT THEIR MODEL AND WILL IF THEY'RE OKAY WITH THAT.
>> THERE'S AN OPTION. I THINK IT'S A LITTLE BIT BIG, BUT I NEED TO SEE AND COMPARE THE 200 SQUARE FOOT TO WHAT THEY'RE WILLING TO GO DOWN TO AND ABOVE THE 200.
>> IF WE DO A CONTINUANCE AND THEY DON'T COME BACK THEY'LL FEEL THEY DON'T NEED TO COME BACK OR DON'T WANT TO.
THANKS. SO IF ANYBODY IS ONBOARD I'LL MACK A MOTION MAKE A MOTION TO CONTINUE THIS UNTIL JANUARY 15TH? YOU ARE OKAY WITH THAT?
>> WE HAVE A MOTION FOR A CONTINUANCE AND SECOND.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? TAKE A VOICE VOTE.
[6. MINMOD 2025-16 Silverleaf Waiver (Alcohol Sales within 300' of Church). Request for a Minor Modification to the Silverleaf Planned Unit Development (Ordinance 2006-117, as amended) to add a sitespecific waiver to allow Alcohol Sales within 300 feet of an established Church site in lieu of the required 1,000 feet of separation as required per Section 2.03.02.A of the Land Development Code, specifically located on the northwest corner of County Road 16A and Silverleaf Parkway.]
>> THAT MOTION PASSES. WE'LL SEE YOU IN JANUARY. DOES ANYONE NEED A BREAK? OKAY. ON TO ITEM NUMBER 6. IS THERE ANY EX
PARTE? >> MR. OLSON? ⌞> YES. I VISITED THE SITE YESTERDAY AND ALSO YESTERDAY I HAD A CALL FROM MISS AVERY SMITH, AND I HAD A BRIEF DISCUSSION WITH HER AND I HAD AN EMAIL FROM JOHN
MISS SPIEGEL? >> I'VE BEEN BY THE SITE PREVIOUSLY, AND I DID HAVE A CALL WITH AVERY SMITH AND I DID RETURN FIRST CALL AND NOT THE SECOND, BUT WE
NEVER CONNECTED. >> MR. LABANOWSKI?
>> I TALKED TO AVERY SMITH, AND I ZZED THE SITE AS WELL AS THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH AND SAW WHAT THEY PLANNED ON IN TERMS OF THE EXPANSION WITH THAT AREA.
>> I HAD A CONVERSATION WITH MISS SMITH ABOUT THE PROPOSAL.
[01:45:01]
>> THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR AND BOARD MEMBERS.
GOOD TO SEE YOU THIS AFTERNOON.
>> ELLEN AVERY- SMITH IN ST. AUGUSTINE AND WITH ME ARE KIM ASK BRIAN HUDSON WHICH ARE THE DEVELOPERS FROM THE SILVER LEAF COMMUNITY. JUST TO ORIENT EVERYONE WE ARE ONLY TALKING ABOUT ONE PARCEL WITHIN THE ENTIRETY OF SILVERLEAF WHICH IS WHY THIS IS A MODERATE MODIFICATION AND THAT IS THE THE CORNER OF 16A AND SILVERLEAF PARKWAY AND IT'S OUTLINED IN RED ON THIS AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH AND THEN GOING FORWARD, THE FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION OF THE PROPERTY AND THE SURROUNDING LAND WITHIN SILVERLEAF, AND I SHOULD GO BACK A MINUTE.
WE CAN TALK ABOUT THE ESTABLISHED EPISCOPAL CHURCH RIGHT IN THIS AREA AND YOU CAN SEE THE ESTABLISHED BUILDING RIGHT HERE AND THAT IS WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES OF SILVERLEAF.
SO GOING FORWARD WITH THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP ALL OF THIS AREA OF SELLER HAVELEAF THEY HAVE FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION, AND THEN, OF COURSE, YOU CAN SEE THIS IS ALL THE SILVERLEAF LAND USE DEVELOPMENT INCLUDING THIS PARCEL HERE, BUT THE PROPERTY AGAIN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IS THIS PARCEL HERE. SO AS YOU ALL KNOW, THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE SECTION 2.03.
02 RELATES TO THE PROVISION OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES AND DISTANCED SEPARATIONS FROM CHURCHES AND SCHOOLS.
AND SO THIS APPLICATION IS TO ALLOW FOR THE LOCATION OF A GROCERY-AFFILIATED LIQUOR STORE, AND I WANT TO UNDERLINE GROCERY AFFILIATED AND I WANT TO SHOW YOU THE SITE PLAN IN A MINUTE AND THE SITE RESTAURANTS WITHIN THE PARCEL THAT WILL SERVE BEER, WINE AND OTHER ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES FOR ON- PREMISE CONSUMPTION MEANING THE RESTAURANTS CAN SERVE ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES FOR ON- PREMISE CONSUMPTION AND THE LIQUOR STORE. ? THIS SITE IS LOCATED WITHIN A THOUSAND FEET AND THE ESTABLISHED CHURCH AND I WANT TO UNDERLINE THE WORD ESTABLISHED AND MEANING IT IS OPERATIONAL TODAY AND THAT IS WHAT THAT MEETING IS IN THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AND I'LL EXPLAIN THAT WHY THAT'S IMPORTANT AS WE GO FORWARD.
ALL OF THE PROPERTY INCLUDING THEES THEES EPISCOPAL CHURCH. AGAIN, THIS SECTION ALLOWS FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES AND THE LOCATION'S WITHIN A THOUSAND FEET OF AGAIN, AN ESTABLISHED CHURCH MEANING EXISTING OR ALREADY CONSTRUCTED.
AND SO THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH IS LOCATED A LITTLE MORE THAN 300 FEET AND THAT'S MEASURED FROM PROPERTY LINE TO PROPERTY LINE UNDER THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AND THAT'S WHY WE'RE SAYING A MINIMUM OF 300 FEET RELATED TO CHURCHES. AND SO THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH HAS WRITTEN A LETTER OF NO OPPOSITION TO THIS APPLICATION, AND SO I'LL -- I'LL SHOW YOU THAT LETTER IN A MINUTE, AND IT'S ALSO IN YOUR APPLICATION PACKAGE. SO YOU SEE BY THIS DRAWING.
HERE'S APPROXIMATELY 2200- ACRE PARCEL.
YOU SEE THIS 200 FOOT DISTANCE SEPARATION AND THIS IS THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH PROPERTY AND SO YOU SEE THOSE ESTABLISHMENTS. THIS MORNING WE HEARD FROM THE FRUIT COVE BAPTIST CHURCH WHICH OWNS THIS PROPERTY. THERE IS NO ESTABLISHED CHURCH OR SCHOOL ON THAT PROPERTY.
WE DID HEAR FROM THE CHURCH AND THERE ARE GENTLEMEN IN THE AUDIENCE THAT WILL SPEAK TO YOU ABOUT THAT, AND SO WE MAY BE TALKING A LITTLE BIT LATER ABOUT SOME POTENTIAL MODIFICATION TO OUR REQUEST, BUT WE'LL LET THEM TALK ABOUT THEIR REQUEST FIRST.
HERE IS THE LETTER FROM TRINITY EPISCOPAL. AGAIN, THE ESTABLISHED CHURCH IN THE AREA AND NOT OBJECTING TO THE APPLICATION, AND SO HERE IS A SHOT -- HERE IS A MASTER PLAN OF THIS PARCEL. THIS IS THE LOCATION AGAIN SHOWING SILVERLEAF PARKWAY WITH 16A AND STATE ROAD 16.
HERE IS THE SITE PLAN AND HERE'S COUNTY ROAD 16A AND THESE ARE THE OUT PARCELS WHERE RESTAURANTS MIGHT BE LOCATED. HERE IS THE GROCERY STORE THAT'S PLAN PLANNED. AND HERE IS THE LIQUOR STORE.
HERE IS THE MULTI- FAMILY THAT IS PLANNED AND HERE IS THE SITE PLAN FOR THE BIGGER PARCEL AROUND IT AND THEN YOU CAN SEE THIS IS THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH'S PROPERTY WITH THE EXISTING CHURCH THAT HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED AND SO YOU SEE THERE WILL BE DEVELOPMENT BETWEEN THIS CHURCH AND THE GROCERY- AFFILIATED LIQUOR STORE AND HERE ARE WHERE SOME OF THE RESTAURANTS COULD BE LOCATED. AND SO AGAIN, GOING TO
[01:50:02]
THE CODE REQUIREMENTS THE REQUEST IS NOT CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST OR SPIRIT OR INTENT OF THE CODE. IT IS NOT DUE TO ANY FINANCIAL DIFFICULTY OR CREATED BY ANY HARDSHIPS THAT ARE AN ACT OF THE OWNER, AND IT IS NECESSARY DUE TO THE LOCATION, AGAIN, OF THE EXISTING EPISCOPAL CHURCH WITHIN 300 FEET OF THIS PROPERTY. AGAIN, MEASURED FROM PROPERTY LINE TO PROPERTY LINE AND SO THAT IS THE END OF THE PRESENTATION.I WILL COME UP TO ADDRESS AND YOU WILL HEAR FROM THE GENTLEMEN FROM FRUIT COVE BAPTIST CHURCH AND HOPEFULLY WE CAN COME UP WITH A GOOD SOLUTION THAT HELPS EVERYONE WITH THE HELP OF YOUR BOARD SO THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
>> GOOD AFTERNOON. MY NAME IS HEATH AND I'M THE PASTOR AT FRUIT COVE. LAST YEAR OUR CHURCH BOUGHT LAND THAT WE INITIALLY OWNED ON STATE ROUTE 16. SO NOW WE'RE THE LAND OWNERS ARE 6351 AND 6490 ON STATE ROAD 16 AND HAVE FRONTAGE 16A ACROSS THE STREET. IN ESSENCE, ALL OF THE AGRICULTURAL LAND AROUND THE U- HAUL FACILITY THAT YOU WERE JUST TALKING ABOUT. I'M NOT HERE TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION OF IT AT ALL, AND WE WANT TO BE GOOD NEIGHBORS AND LIKE THE DEVELOPMENT IS COMING. WE'RE IN THE MASTER PLANNING CONVERSATION ABOUT HOW WE WANT TO USE THE 30 ACRES THAT WE HAVE THAT HAVE FRONTAGE ON 16 AND 16A. OUR PROPERTY FALLS WITHIN THE 300- FOOT DISTANCE THAT THE HUDSON CORPORATION IS ASKING FOR. WE ARE ROUGHLY 278 FEET AWAY, AND SO MY CONCERN IS IF WE MOVE FORWARD TODAY WITH THE 300 FEET AND THEN WE COME IN TO REQUEST THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A CHURCH AND POTENTIALLY A CHRISTIAN SCHOOL.
WE ARE IN CONVERSATION ABOUT ESTABLISHING A CHRISTIAN HIGH SCHOOL ON THAT PROPERTY, AS WELL.
THAT 300 FEET WOULD PUT US WITHIN THAT BUFFER.
OUR REQUEST IS IF THERE IS A WAY TO ALLOW THIS TO CONTINUE WITHOUT PROHIBITING WHAT WE MAY WANT TO DO IN THE COMING YEARS BY ESTABLISHING A CHURCH AND A SCHOOL THERE. WE KNOW WE'RE NOT AN ESTABLISHED CHURCH ON THIS PROPERTY, BUT WE'RE AN ESTABLISHED CHURCH IN ST. JOHNS COUNTY AND WE WANT TO EXPAND TO THIS AREA AND DON'T WANT TO CREATE A HURDLE DOWN THE ROAD IF WE CAN ELIMINATE THAT TODAY IN THIS MEETING.
>> THANK YOU. >> ANYONE ELSE WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS WOMAN?
>> ALL RIGHT. WOULD YOU MIND COMING BACK UP? WE HAVE A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS.
>> YES. JUST IN COMMENT, I APPRECIATE FRUIT COVE BAPTIST CHURCH THIS MORNING AND MEETING US HERE SO WE CAN LOOK AT PLAN, AND I WANT TO -- WELL, LET ME ADDRESS ANY QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD, AND THEN I WANT TO PROPOSE A SLIGHT MODIFICATION TO THE APPLICATION WITH THE APPROVAL OF THE BOARD AND THE COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE.
>> ANY QUESTIONS SO FAR? I THINK MY ONLY QUESTION IS HIS CONCERN IS WHEN HE COMES BACK AND BUILDS A SCHOOL HE WOULD HAVE TO APPLY AS IT STANDS RIGHT NOW, HE WOULD HAVE TO APPLY FOR A WAIVER OF THAT DISTANCE, IS THAT RIGHT? WHATEVER IT IS?
>> YES, HE WOULD. SO MY PROPOSAL WOULD BE TO GO TO YOUR POINT, MADAM CHAIR, AND THIS IS ROUGH, SO I WANT TO - - AND THIS MAP SHOWS UP A LITTLE BIT MORE CLEARLY THAN IN THE POWERPOINT, BUT IT'S THE SAME MAP. THIS SAYS 278 FEET.
WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO PROPOSE IS CAN WE MODIFY THIS APPLICATION TO ALLOW IT TO GO FORWARD WITH A MINIMUM SEPARATION, I'M GOING TO SAY OF 270 FEET TO INCLUDE THE PROPERTY OWNED BY THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH AND THE PROPERTY OWNED BY FRUIT COVE BAPTIST CHURCH IN THIS LOCATION SO THAT FRUIT COVE BAPPIST CHURCH WOULD BE INCLUDED AND THEY WOULD NOT HAVE TO SPEND THE EY FOR VARIANCE BECAUSE THEY WANT TO ESTABLISH A SCHOOL FROM AN EXISTING APPROVED PROJECT. WOULD THAT WORK FOR EVERYONE?
>> IS THERE ANY OTHER AFFECTED PROPERTY IN THE SAME RADIUS? OR IS IT JUST THE U-HAUL?
>> NOT THAT I KNOW OF. HERE IS ANOTHER CHURCH PARCEL, BUT THAT'S MORE THAN A THOUSAND FEET AWAY.
>> OKAY. >> SO THOSE ARE THE ONLY CHURCHES AND SCHOOLS THAT WE WERE LOOKING AT WHEN WE STARTED THIS APPLICATION, AND AGAIN, LOOKING AT WHAT WAS ESTABLISHED VERSUS WHAT WAS NOT
[01:55:05]
ESTABLISHED BECAUSE THAT'S WATT HAT THE CODE REQUIRES AND IF WE CAN REACH A WIN- WIN AND RECOGNIZE THEM NOT AS AN STEAKED, BUT A POTENTIAL ESTABLISHED CHURCH ND SCHOOL AND HOPEFULLY THAT SAVES THEM MONEY AND THEY CAN THANK MR. HUDSON FOR PAYING THEIR APPLICATION FEE.>> I DON'T HAVE AN OBJECTION IF THAT'S WHAT THE BOARD DECIDES TO DO. I'M OKAY.
OLSON, DO YOU HAVE -- >> AN OBSERVATIONOBSERVATION THAT -- GIVEN THE FRUIT COVE CHURCH HAS BEEN COMMUNICATING WITH YOU AND IS SUPPORTIVE OF THE CONCEPT YOU JUST INTRODUCED AND GIVEN THAT, I THINK A SHORTER DISTANCE TO 70 FEET, THAT IS ACROSS A ROAD THAT'S GOING TO BE COMING VERY BUSY IS IN ITSELF MORE OF A BARRIER, AND YOU CAN SAY DISTANCE CREATOR. SO I PERSONALLY DON'T HAVE ANY ISSUES RELATIVE TO THE SOLUTION.
WOULD YOU LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION?
>> SO I WILL MOVE THE APPROVAL OF A MINI MODIFICATION 2025- 16 BASED ON FIVE FINDINGS OF FACT AND TEN CONDITIONS, AND I GUESS, DO I NEED TO AMEND THAT IN SOME WAY BECAUSE OF THE DISTANCE ISSUE OR NOT? HOW DO I NEED TO STATE IT?
>> WITH THE AMENDMENT TO THE 270 FEET, IS THAT WHAT YOU SAID? ? YES.
TO AN ESTABLISHED OR -- WE'LL CALL IT A MINIMUM OF 270 FEET TO THE NEAREST CHURCH- OWNED
PROPERTY. >> AS LONG AS YOU ACCEPT THAT AS THE MOTION, THAT'S SO MOVED.
>> SECOND. >> YOU HAVE A MOTION FOR APPROVAL AND A SECOND. SEEING NONE, LET'S REGISTER THE VOTE. ALL RIGHT.
THAT MOTION PASSES 5 TO 1. THANK YOU.
[7. WH 2025-01 Sebastian Oaks. Request to amend the conditions of REZ 2023-16 (Ordinance 2024-09) to eliminate the requirement to construct a roundabout at the southern intersection of Old Lewis Speedway and Lewis Speedway and replace it with a condition that the developer shall adhere to St. Johns County's standard requirement for proportionate fair share transportation mitigation, as outlined within Part 11.09.00 of the Land Development Code.]
ALL RIGHT. ON TO ITEM NUMBER 7 IS THERE ANY EX PARTE?>> MADAM CHAIR, SITE VISIT AND A COUPLE
OF, MAILS. EMAILS. >> PREVIOUSLY WHEN WE WERE CONSIDERING THIS ITEM IN 2024 I DROVE UP AND DOWN THERE EXTENSIVELY ON SPEEDWAY.
>> WERE YOU SPEEDING ON THE SPEEDWAY?
>> JUST SEVERAL EMAILS. I DID NOT VISIT THETHE SITE.
>> I HATE TO COUNT THE NUMBER OF TIMES I'VE DRIVEN PAST THIS SITE, AND THEN I DID HAVE TWO EMAILS.
>> EXCUSE ME, ONE MORE. I DID SEND THE ITEM VIA TEXT TO CARLA MAXWELL PORTO. I DID SEND IT TO HER BECAUSE SHE WAS VOCAL ABOUT THIS PREVIOUSLY, AND I SEE HER IN THE AUDIENCE. THAT REMINDED ME.
>> MY VISION ISN'T AS GOOD AS ITIT TO BE. I DIDN'T SEE THE FOLKS SITTING OVER THERE.
MY QUICK PRESENTATION. I DON'T HAVE A POWER POINT TODAY, DOUG BURNETT, ST. JOHNS LAW GROUP IN ST.
AUGUSTINE, FLORIDA. MY QUICK PRESENTATION IS TO TELL YOU THAT MY CLIENT IS MOVING FORWARD WITH THAT DEVELOPMENT.
PART OF THE PROCESS AND BY THE WAY, IT IS KB HOME, TECHNICALLY OWNS THE LAND. THEY CURRENTLY HAVE OTHER PROJECTS IN THE COUNTRY, AND A PRETTY WELL- KNOWN PLAYER. IN WORKING WITH THE PROCESS WITH COUNTY STAFF MOVING TOWARDS DEVELOPING THE SITE AND BY THE WAY, FROM ORIGINAL APPROVAL, WAS THERE SOME HESS HESITATION FROM COUNTY STAFF OVER HAVING THAT COMMISSION AND ONE OF THE COMMISSIONERS THOUGHT IT WAS A GOOD IDEA AND ULTIMATELY GOING THROUGH THE PROCESS.
COUNTY STAFF HAVE VOICED TO US THROUGH THE PROCESS, PARTICULARLY THE ENGINEERS AND KB THAT THEY WOULD PREFER NOT HAVE THE ROUNDABOUT, AND THEY WOULD RATHER HAVE THE PROPORTIONATE FAIR SHARE OF
[02:00:03]
PAYMENTEN PAYMENT INSTEAD OF THE CONSTRUCTION AND THERE ARE A NUMBER OF REASON YES THAT IS.FUNDING IS BETTER AND THERE ARE REASONS WITH THE ROUNDABOUT HAVING IT CONSTRUCTED AND LONG- TERM MAINTENANCE AND HOW IT INTERRUPTS THE ROAD TO THE SHERIFF'S OFFICE AND THE FIRE STATION. SO WITH THAT, THAT'S THE QUICK START AND END OF MY PRESENTATION.
WHAT'S BEFORE YOU IS SIMPLY TO ELIMINATE THE ROUNDABOUT AND SUBSTITUTE THAT IT WOULD BE A PROPORTIONATE FAIR SHARE AND IT STILL HAS TO GO TO THE COUNTY COMMISSION AND THE FAIR SHARE AGREEMENTS TO GO TO THE COUNTY COMMISSION, AS WELL FOR APPROVAL. SO THAT'S WHAT'S BEFORE YOU TODAY.
>> OKAY. WE HAVE A FEW QUESTIONS. DR. HILSENBECK.
>> I APOLOGIZE. ONE FINAL THING IS WE'VE HAD EXTENSIVE DISCUSSIONS WITH YOUR ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT BOTH IN PLANNING AND ON THE ENGINEERING SIDE, AND THEY HAVE VOICED STRONGLY THEY DON'T WANT A ROUNDABOUT.
THEY MUCH RATHER PREFER A PAYMENT.
THANK YOU. >> I HAVE SOME QUESTIONS.
YOU SAID JUST A SECOND AGO THAT FUNDING IS BETTER.
DID YOU MEAN THAT THE PROPORTIONATE FAIR SHARE OF THE COUNTY WOULD PREFER TO HAVE THE PROPORTIONATE FAIR SHARE OF THE MONEY THAN HAVE THE CLIENT BUILD IT?
>> YES, BECAUSE AS I UNDERSTAND IT THERE ARE OTHERS ON WOOD LAWN THAT THIS MONEY COULD BE USED FOR. THEY WOULD MUCH RATHER HAVE IT THERE, AN IMPROVEMENT THAT, FOR EXAMPLE, DOESN'T HELP WITH CAPACITY ON THE ROADWAY.
>> DO YOU KNOW IF THOSE PLANNED IMPROVEMENTS ARE TARGETED IMPROVEMENTS ON SPEEDWAY.
>> THEY HAVE IMPROVEMENTS TO GO ON WOOD LAWN.
>> I'M JUST CURIOUS. I DIDN'T SEE THIS IN THE ITEM WITH THE COUNTY. I DID SEE SOMETHING THAT THE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT OR THE TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT THOUGHT THAT THE CONSTRUCTION OF A ROUNDABOUT WOULD HOLD UP, AND IT WOULD CREATE A BOTTLENECK FOR EMERGENCY VEHICLES, POLICE AND FIRE TO GET THROUGH THERE, AND SO I SAW THAT, BUT I DIDN'T REALIZE THAT THE COUNTY WAS THE ENTITY REQUESTING THIS CHANGE.
WE'RE THE APPLICANT, BUT IT DOES STEM FROM. IT'S BENEFICIAL FROM MY CLIENT BECAUSE THEY DON'T HAVE TO OVERSEE THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE ROUNDABOUT.
IT'S BENEFICIAL FROM THE COUNTY BECAUSE THE COUNTY GETS THE MONEY AND THE COUNTY STAFF CAN PROGRAM THAT MONEY FOR SOMETHING THAT WHAT THEY BELIEVE IS FAR MORE BENEFICIAL AND BETTER AND THE SAME COUNTY STAFF WERE VOICING CONCERNS ABOUT THE ROUNDABOUT NATIONALLY.
>> I NEVER HEARD OF THOSE. I NEVER HEARD OF THOSE.
>> IT WAS VERY CLEARLY AN ISSUE.
>> STAFF WAS NOT IN FAVOR OF THE ROUNDABOUT. STAFF DID HAVE HESITATIONS FOR THAT. OF COURSE, WE JUST BRING OUR RECOMMENDATIONS.
THE BOARD MAKES THE DECISIONS THROUGH THE PROCESS AS DOUG HAS ALLUDED TO. WE FOUND IT WAS A CON STRUCTION ISSUE BASED OFF THE STANDARDS BASED OFF OF WARRANTING AND SUCH AS A ROUNDABOUT AND THAT PLUS THE FACT THAT THOSE MONIES CAN BE BETTER SPENT ON EXISTING CIPS OR POTENTIALLY FUTURE CIPS IT'S MORE ADVANTAGEOUS FOR THE COUNTRY TO DEPLOY CASH THAN IT IS TO HAVE A ROUNDABOUT CONSTRUCTED IN AN AREA WHERE IT IS NOT WARRANTED.
>> I WONDER WHAT THE PEOPLE ON HORSE SHOE ROAD IS?
>> THEY'RE BASED ON ENGINEERING STANDARDS AND IT IS NOT WARRANTED.
>> RIGHT. THEY'RE NOT EXPERTS. ANOTHER QUESTION, SO DID YOU PRESENT YOUR OBJECTIONS TO THE BOARD OF PUBLIC COMMISSIONERS OR TO THE PCA OR BOTH BECAUSE I DON'T REMEMBER THERE BEING AN OBJECTION TO IT? I THOUGHT HERE WAS THE SOLUTION AND NOW WITH THIS PROVISION OF A ROUNDABOUT THAT THIS WAS THE MAGIC BULLET TO ALLOW APPROVAL OF THIS PARTICULAR WORKFORCE
HOUSING? >> AND SO I CAN SPEAK PERSONALLY IN THAT I RAISED THE OBJECTION TO IT TO EVERY INDIVIDUAL COMMISSIONER DURING BRIEFINGS.
>> YES. AND I DO NOT RECALL WHETHER THAT DISCUSSION CAME UP AT THE PLANNING OR ZONING AGENCY, BASED OFF OF THE BEST RECOLLECTION I HAVE, THAT IS IN THE STAFF REPORT THAT THE STAFF FELT IT WASN'T÷÷ WARRANTED AND THE STAFF HAD EXPECTATIONS AND THINK, I'M LEAVING THAT DECISION UP TO THOSE THAT MAKE SOME.
[02:05:02]
>> ARE THE TARGET IMPROVEMENTS THAT YOU'RE THINKING ABOUT, ARE THEY IN THE NEARBY AREA? THAT'S THE FIRST PART, AND THEN NUMBER TWO, DO YOU HAVE ANY UPGRADES FOR SPEEDWAY AND THAT CURVE -- DANGEROUS CURVE UNDER CONSIDERATION OR IN PROGRESS NOW?
>> SO THERE ARE EXISTING CIP PROJECTS WITHIN THE IMPACT AREA.
MOST SPECIFICALLY WOOD LAWN ROAD AS DOUG ALLUDED TO.
WE ALSO HAVE IMPROVEMENTS ON FOUR MILE. THEY WOULD SIT THERE GENERALLY IF THEY'RE NOT IN THE IMPACT FEE ZONE TO FALL INTO FUTURE PROJECTS. THERE ARE NO FUTURE IMPROVEMENTS ON LEWIS SPEEDWAY.
WHILE PEOPLE DO SAY THAT'S AN INTERSECTION AND DANGEROUS CURVE, WE DO NOT HAVE ACTUAL EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THAT FROM AN ENGINEERING ASPECT TO SAY THAT WE NEED TO DO SOME SORT OF MASSIVE IMPROVEMENT ON ANYTHING THAT'S GOING ON CURRENTLY OUT THERE.
I LIKE THAT ANSWER, BUT I THINK THE RESIDENTS MIGHT HAVE SOME STATISTICS OR FACTS ABOUT ACCIDENTS ON THAT ROAD, BUT I CAN'T RECALL WHAT I WAS GOING TO ASK YOU.
THANK YOU. I'LL THINK OF IT IN A MINUTE.
>> YES. AGAIN, A QUESTION FOR THE COUNTY. THERE MUST HAVE BEEN SOME REASON, AND I WASN'T AROUND WHEN THIS WAS APPROVED.
THERE MUST HAVE BEEN SOME REASON QUITE COMPELLING THATTHAT ROUNDABOUT WAS DOING SOMETHING GOOD AND WAS A REASON THAT THE PROJECT RECEIVED SUPPORT.
WHAT WAS THAT REASON IF IT WASN'T THE TRAFFIC ENGINEERING REASON? WAS THERE ANOTHER
REASON? - >> I DON'T KNOW THAT THE COUNTY WOULD BE THE BEST PERSON TO ANSWER THAT QUESTION.
AGAIN, FROM STAFF'S PERSPECTIVE, WE DON'T NECESSARILY WANT TO SEE A ROUNDABOUT OR ANY IMPROVEMENT AT THAT LOCATION AND THE ONLY IMPROVEMENTS THAT WE REALLY WANTED TO SEE WERE THE SITE ACCESS IMPROVEMENTS RELATED TO THE DIRECT ACCESS LOCATION.
SO PROBABLY NOT AN ANSWER FOR STAFF.
>> OKAY. OKAY. IS THERE ANY OTHER INFORMATION ASK WE MIGHT HAVE TO UNDERSTAND WHY THE ROUNDABOUT WAS THOUGHT TO BE A DESIRED AND AGAIN, THAT'S MORE A QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT. THAT'S NOT STAFF'S PURVIEW.
AGAIN, WE MADE OUR STATEMENTS TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS IN THEIR BRIEFINGS AND THEN THE DECISIONS WERE MADE OUTSIDE OF THAT.
>> OF COURSE, I REMEMBERED WITHIN TWO SECONDS OF NOT BEING ABLE TO COME UP WITH IT.
>> DID YOU -- DID YOU EVEN THINK ABOUT ANY COST DIFFERENTIALS BETWEEN THE PROPORTIONATE FAIR SHARE AMOUNT OF WHAT WAS IT? $9,022,215 AND THE ROUNDABOUT AND DO YOU KNOW WHAT THE DIFFERENCE MIGHT NUMBER.
>> WE NEVER REQUESTED A COST ESTIMATE.
I'VE SEEN A NUMBER THROWN AROUND OF 1. 4 MILLION. THAT CANNOT BE CONFIRMED BY STAFF. WE DID NOT GET IT FROM APPLICANT. SO THEY WOULD HAVE RECEIVED $1.4 MILLION WORTH OF IMPACT FEE CREDITS NO MATTER WHAT, WHETHER THEY USE IT OR NOT. IT IS MUCH MORE ADVANTAGEOUS FOR THIS PARTICULAR INSTANCE TO HAVE THAT $900,000 PAYMENT THAT CAN BE UTILIZED AS NECESSARY, AND I BELIEVE AT SOME POINT, DOUG MIGHT BETTER BE ABLE TO SPEAK FOR HIS APPLICANT. I DON'T KNOW WHAT THEIR EXPECTED IMPACT FEES WOULD BE FOR THE NUMBER OF UNITS THEY HAVE OUT THERE. IF IT IS LARGER THAN THE 900 THOUSAND AND THEY'RE STILL PAYING THOSE IMPACT FEES AND IT IS AT THAT POINT, A MATTER OF TIMING VERSUS AN UP- FRONT PAYMENT VERSUS THE BUILDING. SO THE COST DIFFERENCE DOESN'T REALLY PLAY INTO ANY OF THAT DECISION MAKING.
IT'S MORE OF A NEED VERSUS A USEABILITY OF THOSE FUNDS.
>> OKAY. AND ONE OTHER QUICK QUESTION.
I HAVE MY OWN OPINIONS ABOUT ROUNDABOUTS AND THEIR EFFICACY AND IMPROVING TRAFFIC AND TRAFFIC FLOW, BUT ARE YOU GENERALLY NOT IF FAVOR OF ROUNDABOUTS IN THE COUNTY OR IS IT JUST A ROUNDABOUT AT THIS PARTICULAR LOCATION?
>> A ROUNDABOUT IN THIS PARTICULAR LOCATION IS NOT WARRANTED AND WOULD NOT SERVE A PURPOSE OF IMPROVING ANY SORT OF TRAFFIC VERSUS OTHER LOCATIONS WHERE IT CERTAINLY IS ADVANTAGEOUS. WHETHER IT'S A ROUNDABOUT OR A TRADITIONAL INTERSECTION. AN
[02:10:01]
INNOVATIVE INTERSECTION DESIGN. IF CONTROL IS NECESSARY THEN STAFF WOULD BE IN SUPPORT OF THAT SO LONG AS AS HAVE THE WARRANTS MET FOR THOSE IMPROVEMENTS AND WHATEVER IS THE MOST EFFECTIVE IMPROVEMENT IS WHAT STAFF IS GOING TO BE IN FAVOR OF.>> WOULD THE ROUNDABOUT SLOW TRAFFIC DOWN ON THAT SECTION OF SPEEDWAY.
>> SLOW TRAFFIC DOWN. THAT'S THE PAIN POINT IS TO SLOW THE TRAFFIC DOWN TO MAKE THOSE TURNING MOVEMENTS OCCUR WITHIN THE ROUNDABOUT.
>> THANK YOU. I APPRECIATE IT. WE'LL MOVE ON TO PUBLIC COMMENT. MR. MCENERNY?
>> JOE M CENERNY, 1005 BLACK BURN LANE. SHAME ON ME.
I SHOULD HAVE READ THE STAFF REPORT MORE CLEARLY TO SEE THE TECHNICAL NOT RECOMMENDING THE ROUNDABOUT.
I THOUGHT THIS WAS ENTIRELY ON KB HOMES.
THIS IS NOT AN ISSUE ABOUT A ROUNDABOUT, BELIEVE IT OR NOT. THE COUNTY HAS DONE A GOOD JOB.
MR. DE SOUZA HAS DONE A GOOD JOB OF CONFUSING YOU AS HAS MR. DE SOUZA AND THE STAFF. I SAY THAT BECAUSE THIS IS A PROJECT WITH A HISTORY OF DENIAL AND A HISTORY OF CHANGES. IT CAME FORWARD AS MILLS PLACE WITH 92 HOMES AND IT WAS DENIED BY THE PZA ON MARCH 3, 2022. IT MOVED FORWARD ANYWAY TO THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS WHERE IT WAS DENIED ON 10/18/22.
IT CAME BACK A YEAR LATER AS MILLS PLACE WORK HOUSING AND NOW SEBASTIAN HOUSING, WITH 23 UNITS AND WITH A WORKFORCE AND WITHOUT A ROUNDABOUT. ESSENTIALLY, IT CAME TO YOU THEN AS IT'S COMING TO YOU RIGHT NOW. IF THE ROUNDABOUT IS REMOVED IT IS THE PLAN THAT THIS PZA LOOKED AT IN DECEMBER 21ST '23 AND DENIED, AND DENIED, AND IT WAS ONLY BECAUSE OF THAT DENIAL THAT THE ROUNDABOUT WAS ADDED, AND LET ME JUST SAY THE REASON FOR THE DENIAL IS THAT THIS IS STILL AN AREA WITH ONE ACRE, TWO- ACRE LOTS. THIS APPLICANT WAS PROPOSING A FAR, FAR HIGHER DENSITY AND NOTNOT ONCE, BUT TWICE, THIS PZA VOTED NO. YOU'RE LOOKING AT THE PROJECT THAT TWO YEARS AGO YOU VOTED NO ON. IF THIS ROUNDABOUT IS GONE IT IS EXACTLY THE SAME PROJECT YOU VOTED ON.
SO WHAT HAPPENED? IT WAS KB HOMES THAT OFFERED TO DESIGN AND BUILD A ROUNDABOUT ON LEWIS SPEEDWAY. WHY? MR. BURNETT SAYS CONCERN FOR TRAFFIC. OKAY.
THE COST? KIMLY HORN ESTIMATED THE COST AT 1. 1.4, I DON'T KNOW WHY THAT'S NOT CREDIBLE FOR MR. DE SOUZA? WHAT'S CREDIBLE TODAY? THIS IS WHAT WHERE I THOUGHT WE WERE AT AND IT LOOKED LUKE A LOOK A WINDFALL PROFIT FOR KB HOME AND IT'S FOR THE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT. THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS NEVER HEARD A CONCERN. IN PUBLIC, I ATTENDED THE MEETING AND NEVER HEARD A CONCERN FROM MR. DE SOUZA AND OTHERS ABOUT THIS NOT BEING WARRANTED AND THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS HEARD MR. BURNETT SPEAK AND THEY BOUGHT IT, AND INTRODUCED CONDITION NUMBER FOUR WHICH WAS THIS IS APPROVED WITH A ROUNDABOUT.
SO I'M JUST HERE TO SAY THAT THIS IS -- THIS IS MUCH BIGGER THAN A ROUNDABOUT, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN. I MEAN, IF THE ROUNDABOUT IS GONE I'M PUTTING IT TO YOU THAT THIS PROJECT SHOULD BE GONE. PUTTING IT TO YOU THIS PROJECT SHOULD BE GONE. YOU VOTED NOT ONCE, BUT TWICE ON THIS PLAN THAT YOU HAVE IN FRONT OF YOU NOW. YOU'VE VOTED TWICE TO DENYDENY AND I DON'T SEE WHY THIS SHOULD NOT BE THE THIRD TIME.
>> GOOD AFTERNOON. MY NAME IS DEBBIE JAMES.
557 NORTH HORSESHOE ROAD. CAN YOU HEAR ME? A LITTLE BIT. IS THAT BETTER? TOO LOUD? MY NAME IS DEBBIE JAMES.
I'M AT 557 NORTH HORSESHOE ROAD. I'VE LIVED THERE SINCE 1976 AND LOTS OF CHANGES JUST LIKE ALL OF YOU HAVE SEEN, TOO.OF I DON'T KNOW WHERE THIS GENTLEMAN -- HE WAS JUST HERE. IS HE STILL
>> OKAY. HE SAID THAT ARE LEWIS SPEEDWAY IS SAFE. WHAT A STATEMENT, AND HE SAID THERE'S NO ACCIDENTS, THERE'S NOTHING.
[02:15:04]
THIS IS A FOLDER FULL OF PICTURES I'VE BROUGHT TO THE ZONE, BROUGHT TO THE COUNTY.PICTURES OF ACCIDENTS. MY NEIGHBOR WAS HIT HEAD- ON ON THE CURB AND PUSHED INTO ANOTHER CAR.
SHE LOST HER JOB. SHE'S HAD SEVERAL OPERATIONS, AND THE GALL TO SAY IT'S NOT -- THIS IS SAFE? YOU KNOW WHEN YOU DRIVE ON LEWIS SPEEDWAY, GO AROUND THAT CURVE 35 MILES AN HOUR IT'S SUPPOSED TO BE. I'M GOING 35 AND THEY'RE ON MY TAIL, AND THEY GO ALL OF THE WAY UP TO THE COURTHOUSE -- NOT THE COURTHOUSE, THE POLICE STATION. THEY'RE GOING 35, 40. IT'S LEWIS SPEEDWAY. THAT'S WHAT IT IS.
SO, ANYWAY, I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE, IF YOU WANT TO LOOK AT MY PICTURES AND SEE THE LETTERS THAT I HAVE, I WILL BE GLAD TO GIVE IT TO HIM.
SO LET'S GET BACK. THIS IS WHAT I WROTE.
THE FAMILIES OF THE LEWIS SPEEDWAY AREA HAVE COME TOGETHER FOR MANY YEARS. WE VOICED OUROUR FOR TRAFFIC, SAFETY AND DENIAL OF THIS DEVELOPMENT.
CHANGING THE NAME TO SEBASTIAN OAKS WORKFORCE HOUSING AND ADDING ADDITIONAL HOUSES DOES NOT MAKE LEWIS SPEEDWAY SAFER. THE PCA DENIED THE MILLS PLACE PROJECT BECAUSE OF THIS ISSUE ON DECEMBER 21, 2023. OUR GROUP WENT TO THE SCHEDULED COUNTY COMMISSIONER MEETING ON FEBRUARY 6, 2024, BUT MR. BURCHETT REQUESTED A CONTINUANCE TO LOOK AT A ROUNDABOUT. A ROUNDABOUT.
THIS IS NOT FAIR TO THE PEOPLE WHO CAN'T GET OFF WORK TO MAKE THEIR VOICES HEARD OR TO US WHO CAN COME, AND NOW HE'S BACKING DOWN, CONCERNING HIS COMMITMENT TO BUILD A ROUNDABOUT.
WHEN THE CC APPROVED THE ZONING, I SENT EMAIL TO THEM ASKING THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, DO YOU HAVE TO HAVE A ROUNDABOUT IN ORDER FOR THIS TO BE APPROVED? DOES HE HAVE TO BE A ROUNDABOUT.
I CALLED THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT AND THEY DID A PRIEF TO ME.
THERE HAS TOBACCO A ROUNDABOUT FOR THE DEVELOPMENT TO
BE BUILT. >> MOST OF US DO NOT WANT A ROUNDABOUT AND I DON'T WANT 200 OTHER CARS ON THE SPEEDWAY AND TO GO OFF THE FLYING CURVE. I ASK YOU THAT YOU DENY THIS, AND I WANT YOU TO REMEMBER TO NEVER COMPROMISE SAFETY. THANK YOU.
I HAD A WHOLE THING PLANNED, BUT AFTER HEARING MR. BURNETT, I JUST WANT TO SAY REGARDLESS IF COUNTY STAFF WOULD PREFER THE PROPORTIONATE FAIR SHARE THERE DOLLARS IT STILL DOES NOT DEAL WITH THE PROJECT SAFETY ISSUE, PLUS THIS PROPOSED PROJECT WOULD ADD OVER 1100 CARS DAILY AND OVER 100 PEAK TRIPS TO THIS LOCAL ROADWAY THAT IS ALREADY CRITICAL. YES, WOOD LAWN NEEDS UPGRIDDING DESPERATELY, BUT WE'RE STILL NOT ADDRESSING THE SAME ISSUE THAT'S BEEN CAUSING DENIAL FOR QUARTER PROJECT AND MILLS PLACE FOR THE LAST FIVE YEARS. THE TRAFFIC SAFETY ISSUE ON THE CURVE ON LEWIS SPEEDWAY FOR HORSESHOE AND OLD LEWIS TRAFFIC AND THE INCOMPATIBILITY STILL EXISTS. THIS DIAGRAM RIGHT HERE, EVERYTHING IN BLUE SHOWS YOU THE LARGE LOT, OPEN, RURAL AREAS SURROUNDING THIS PROPOSED PROJECT, AND THE FEEL OF LEWIS SPEEDWAY IS OPEN RURAL.
IT'S NOT HIGH DENSITY. WE ALL AGREE THE NEED AND VALUE OF WORKFORCE HOUSING, BUT NOT AT THE SACRIFICE OF COMPATIBILITY AND SAFETY. IN CONCLUSION, PLEASE DENY THIS PROJECT AND ANY OTHERS UNTIL THIS -- THERE IS A PLAN THAT IS COMPATIBLE AND SAFE.
>> MY NAME IS FRAN MITCHELL. 525 NORTH HORSESHOE ROAD.
I'VE LIVED ON HORSESHOE FOR OVER LOVE THE AREA.
[02:20:01]
SITUATION. I JUST WANT TO MENTION SOMETHING ABOUT ROUNDABOUTS. I VISIT COLORADO A LOT.THEY HAVE ROUND B A LOT ABOUTS A LOT. AT FIRST, I DIDN'T LIKE THEM. IT DOES APPEAR TO DO THE JOB, PEOPLE RUNNING RED LIGHTS AND EVERYTHING. THEY ARE WORSE THAN DOING INTERSTATE CONSTRUCTION THAN WE ARE, BELIEVE IT OR NOT, BUT ANYWAY, THE TRAFFIC IS HORRENDOUS ESPECIALLY WITH THE FIRE TRUCKS, PEOPLE GETTING OFF WORK, THE SCHOOL BUSSES AND EVERYTHING. IF WE HAVE 200+ HOMES WITH NO IMPROVEMENT ON THAT ROAD IT'S GOING TO BE EXTREMELY DANGEROUS AND THESE PEOPLE WILL HAVE TO ACCEPT THE RESPONSIBILITY OF WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN.
I FEEL BAD THAT THIS HAS DRAGGED ON SO LONG AND IT'S NOT NECESSARY ADDING NEW HOMES, UNLESS YOU DO CONSTRUCTION TO THE ROAD IT IS TOO DANGEROUS.
A ROUNDABOUT WOULD WORK, AND THERE ARE NO LIGHTS ON THE ROUNDABOUT, AND THEY ARE EXPENSIVE, BUT THEY SEEM TO DO THE JOB IF THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE GOING TO AGREE TO, BUT WE REALLY DON'T NEED THE HOMES. THANK YOU.
>> I APOLOGIZE. MAYBE I SHOULD HAVE GONE TO THE POWERPOINT PRESENTATION TO EXPLAIN THIS MORE CLEARLY.
>> SOMETIMES WORD GETS OUT THAT A PROJECT IS COMING BEFORE YOU AND IT'S A QUESTION OF APPROVAL OR DENIAL. THIS PROJECT IS APPROVED. THERE ARE SUBDIVISION CONSTRUCTION PLAN. THIS PROJECT WILL BE BUILT. KB HOME ISN'T SPECULATING. IT IS A PURCHASED PROPERTY. THEY ARE GOING TO DEVELOP THIS PROJECT FOR WORKFORCE HOUSING. THAT'S NOT REALLY THE ISSUE.
DR. ILSENBECK, YOU HAD ASKED QUESTIONS PREVIOUSLY IT WAS KNOWN THAT STAFF OBJECTED. BY THE WAY, LET ME ADDRESS ONE THING. WHEN THIS CAME BEFORE YOU AT PZA THIS DID NOT RECEIVE A QUOTE, UNQUOTE, DENIAL AS POST PEOPLE MAY THINK OF IT. IT RECEIVED A 3- 3 VOTE WITH ONE PZA MEMBER ABSENT WHICH IS A TECHNICAL DENIAL.
SO IT'S NOT LIKE IT WAS A 7-0, GO AWAY.
AND THAT'S WHAT WOUND UP GOING TO THE COUNTY COMMISSION. THE -- YOUR STAFF DID RAISE IN THE STAFF REPORT TO THE BCC AND THIS IS IN CONNECTION WITH REZ 2023- 16, MILLS WORKFORCE HOUSING AND THIS WAS REGULAR AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 4, MARCH MARCH 5, 2024.
THERE'S LANGUAGE IN THERE WHERE STAFF SPECIFICALLY IS QUESTIONING THE ROUNDABOUT, AND I THINK IT WAS MR. DE SOUZA'S WRITING. I RECALL THIS BEING HIS ISSUE, SO I ASSUME THIS WAS EITHER HIS WRITING OR WRITTEN ON HIS DIRECTION. IN THE STAFF REPORT HE SAYS THERE IS CURRENTLY AN IMPROVEMENT PROEKT J THROUGH WHITE HOUSE READ AND THE ANTICIPATED COST OF THIS IS 8 MILLION WITH ONLY 6.5 MILLION BUDGETED AND LEAVING A DEFICIT OF 1.5 MILLION AND THE PROJECT IS WITHIN THE THE UP PACT AREA OF THE WOODS PROJECT, AND THERE'S OTHER LANGUAGE PEPPERED THROUGHOUT THE STAFF REPORT.
>> THAT WAS TO THE COUNTY COMMISSION AND NOT TO
THE PZA. >> I PULLED THE BCC STAFF REPORT. I'M NOT SURE WHETHER THAT'S IN THE PZA STAFF REPORT OR NOT. I DIDN'T PULL THAT ONE. I WILL TELL YOU THERE ARE ALL KINDS OF ISSUES, TOO, RELATED TO THE BANK OF THE ROAD AND TOPO AND THAT KIND OF THING AND IT'S NOT THE IDEAL ROUNDABOUT SITUATION FROM WHEN YOUR COUNTY ENGINEERS ARE LOOKING AT IT. BECAUSE OF THE MAKE OF THE ROAD, THE EXISTING CONDITIONS IT'S NOT LIKE A TYPICAL PUT A ROUNDABOUT IN THE MIDDLE OF A FLAT AREA TO WHERE IT'S VERY EASY FOR DIFFERENT APPROACHES. THERE IS AILS LSO AN OFF- ANGLE APPROACH THAT WOULD COME INTO THE ROUNDABOUT.
IT IS NOT SIMPLY A PERFECT SCENARIO AND IT'S CERTAINLY NOT A NEW DEVELOPMENT WHERE YOU'RE PUTTING IT IN THE MIDDLEST PUD SUBDIVISIONS.
THAT'S ABOUT ALL I CAN SAY RELATED TO RELATED TO PRESENTATION.
YES, IT DESERVE THE DEVELOPER AND SERVES THE COUNTY, AND I
[02:25:01]
THINK WHAT YOU'RE GETTING FROM THE STAFF REPORT IS IT'S IN THE COUNTY'S BEST INTEREST FOR THIS TO HAPPEN AND THE APPLICANT WOULD, OF COURSE, RATHER PAY A PROPORTION AT FAIR SHARE THAN CONSTRUCT AN IMPROVEMENT.YOU KNOW WHAT YOU'RE GETTING YOURSELF INTO WITH THE PROPORTION OF FAIR SHARE.
CONSTRUCTION ALWAYS HAS THE UNKNOWN TO IF AND THAT'S WHY WE HAVE CONTINGENCIES IN CONSTRUCTION AND AS MR. DE SOUZA ADDED, WHETHER IT'S A PROP SHARE OR THE ROUNDABOUT, THE APPLICANT GETS IMPACT FEE CREDITS, BASICALLY DOLLAR FOR DOLLAR, AND THAT GETS OFFSET AND NOW THAT IT'S TRANSFERABLE AND IT'S AN NOTITY NOTICE OF KB HOME AND IT IS VERY CLOSE WITH THE IMPACT FEES.
WITH THAT, I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER QUESTIONS.
IT IS A PROJECT THAT IS GOING TO EXIST REGARDLESS OF ANY DECISION THAT TAKES PLACE HERE OR AT THE COUNTY COMMISSION IN CONNECTION WITH THIS APPLICATION. IT WILL BE A SUBDIVISION THERE.
>> DOES EVERYBODY UNDERSTAND THAT?
DR. HILSENBECK. >> AS IT STANDS RIGHT NOW THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS APPROVED THE PROJECT WITH A ROUNDABOUT, AND THIS IS NOW -- I'M CONFUSED. THIS IS ABOVE MY HUGE PAY GRADE THAT I GET ON THIS BOARD. SO I THINK -- I CAN'T RECOMMEND THIS IN GOOD FAITH. THEY DECDED TO GO FORWARD AND APPROVE THE PROJECT WITH THE ROUNDABOUT, THE KB HOMES PROJECT. I THINK THEY'LL ULTIMATELY DECIDE THIS ANYWAY.
>> ONE DISTINGUISHING FACTOR, IF I MAY?
>> AND I THINK THE CURRENT COMMISSION WOULD PROBABLY POINT THAT OUT, AND I DON'T MEAN TO SPEAK ABOVE MY PAY GRADE, BUT I WILL POINT OUT THAT IT'S NOT THE CURRENT COMMISSION THAT APPROVED THIS PROJECT.
>> SO YOU DO HAVE THAT DYNAMIC,
AS WELL. >> IT WAS A DIFFERENT MAKEUP OF COMMISSION COMMISSION.
>> AND A DIFFERENT MAKEUP OF THE PZA HERE, AS WELL.
>> I DON'T KNOW. THIS IS TOUGH. I MEAN, I APPRECIATE THE PEOPLE COMING OUT AND I AM REALLY ALL ABOUT COMMUNITY, BUT IT SAYS RIGHT HERE THAT STAFF RECOMMENDS THAT THIS BE REMOVED AS A CONDITION, AND I KNOW THERE ARE ANECDOTAL STORIES. I DID HEAR ABOUT THAT ONE BEAUTIFUL NEIGHBOR THAT GOT HURT A FEW YEARS AGO AND SHE'S BEEN -- IT'S IMPACTED HER LIFE.
PERHAPS WE HAVE AN ANSWER TO THE PROBLEM AND IT MIGHT BE THE BEST ANSWER TO THE PROBLEM AND SOMEONE SAID LEN 1100 TRIPS A DAY. I COULDN'T FIND NUMBERS ON
THAT. >> THAT MAY BE TOTAL TRIPS AND THAT'S THE AM AND PM PEAK HOUR.
>> STILL, IT'S TEN TRIPS PER UNIT AND I CAN'T SPEAK TO THAT. SO THIS IS A TOUGH ONE, AND IT WILL BE THE COMMISSION THAT'S GOING TO ULTIMATELY DECIDE IT, BUT I'M IN FAVOR OF ALLOWING THIS BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, I THINK THE STAFF IS LOOKING AT THIS MORE FROM A CLINICAL PERSPECTIVE THAN AN EMOTIONAL PERSPECTIVE, AND I THINK THAT THAT'S IMPORTANT. SO WE'LL RECOMMEND IT.
MOTION? >> I'LL MACH A MOTION.
MOTION TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF WORKFORCE HOUSING 2025- 01 SEBASTIAN OAKS BASED UPON FOUR FINDINGS OF FACTS AS PROVIDED IN THE STAFF REPORT.
>> YES, I DO. MR. DE SOUZA TESTIFIED WHEN HE WAS STANDING UP HERE ALTHOUGH HE COULDN'T SAY HE SPOKE IN FRONT OF THE PZA OR IN FRONT OF THE BOARD MEMBERS.
HE SAID HE MET WITH THEM INDIVIDUALLY AND ADVISED THEM AND AN AUDIENCE MEMBER CAME UP HERE AND SAID MR. DE SOUZA DID NOT INFORM THE BOARD MEMBERS, AND I JUST WANT TO TELL MR. DE SOUZA I AM VERY GRATEFUL FOR YOUR SERVICE AND I AM CONFIDENT THAT YOU DID ADVISE THE BOARD MEMBERS. THANK YOU, SIR.
>> THANK YOU. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? SEEING NONE. LET'S REGISTER THE VOTE.
ALL RIGHT. THAT MOTION IS TECHNICALLY A
[02:30:01]
DENIAL. 3-3.SORRY. BUT IT WILL GO ON TO -- IT WILL
[8. Sign Size Discussion. The Planning and Zoning Agency (PZA) has directed staff to include a discussion topic on sign size and sign non-zoning variances as an agenda item. Planning staff have researched and provided analysis on past sign variances for PZA review and discussion, as provided within the attached staff report.]
GO ON TO THE BCC AND IT WILL BE HEARD AT THAT LEVEL, OKAY? THANK YOU ALL FOR COMING. ON TO ITEM NUMBER 8.>> THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR. FOR ITEM NUMBER 8, THE PZA HAD ASKED STAFF TO DO SOME RESEARCH REGARDING SIGN VARIANCE, NON- ZONING VARIANCES FOR SIGN, AND SO I GAVE YOU GUYS A STAFF REPORT WHICH OUTLINES SOME OF THE THINGS THAT THIS -- THAT THIS BOARD OR AT LEAST IN THE PAST FOUR YEARS HAVE GONE OVER. ONE OF THE THINGS I WANTED TO POINT OUT TO START THE CONVERSATION WAS THAT IN THE PAST THREE OR FOUR YEARS WE'VE DEALT WITH ABOUT 15 NON- ZONING VARIANTS THAT HAVE COME BEFORE THIS BOARD.
THE MAJORITY OF THOSE ARE APPROVED AND A VAST MAJORITY OF THOSE ARE FROM PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENTS. THE REASON I WANTED TO POINT THAT OUT IS WHEN PLANNEDPLANNED DEVELOPMENTS ARE CREATED, THEY HAVE AN OPTION TO CREATE EFFECTIVELY THEIR OWN SIGN CODE.
THAT'S CALLED A UNIFIED SIGN PLAN, AND ESSENTIALLY ALL OF THESE INSTANCES THAT EITHER DIDN'T EXIST OR THEY'RE COMING TO EXCEED THEIR OWN SIGN REGULATIONS THAT THEY PLACED ON THEMSELVES AND THEY'RE NOT STRICTLY LAND REGULATIONS THOUGH THEY ARE MODELED AFTER THEM. THE BULK OF THE SIGNS WERE WALL SIGNS AS OPPOSED TO MONUMENT SIGNS AND THEN I PROVIDED, AS AN ADDENDUM TO THIS, A BREAKDOWN OF WHAT EVERYTHING WAS AND IT'S THE ATTACHMENT AS PART OF THE STAFF REPORT. SO I'M HAPPY TO HAVE SOME DISCUSSION WITH THE BOARD, SEE WHERE WE WANT TO GO WITH THIS. I CAN PROVIDE MY PROFESSIONAL OPINION IF YOU WANT TO HEAR IT, BUT I'LL KICK IT BACK TO YOU, MADAM CHAIR, TO GO WHERE YOU WOULD LIKE.
>> OKAY. DOES ANYONE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS?
>> I'D LIKE TO HEAR JACOB'S PROFESSIONAL OPINION.
>> THANK YOU, DR. HILSENBECK. MY OPINION IS THAT OUR SIGN REGULATIONS ARE MODEST. THEY DON'T ALLOW FOR EXCESSIVE SIGN SIZE, BUT THEY DO ALLOW FOR A REASONABLY SIZED SIGN. THE COUNTY HAS ANOTHER ZONING DISTRICT AND PONTE VEDRA, AND IT'S MINISCULE. THE TYPICAL SIGN SIZE IS 32 SQUARE FEET FOR A GROUNDGROUND SIGN.
SO JUST TO PUT THAT IN A LITTLE BIT OF PERSPECTIVE.
>> I THINK THAT THE PROCESS THAT WE HAVE TO REVIEW OVERSIZED SIGNS SEEMS TO WORK EFFECTIVE LEAVE. IT GIVES A PANEL, A SET OF EYES ON IT TO DETERMINE IF IT FITS THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD OR IS APPROPRIATE FOR A SITE, I THINK THAT IF WE INCREASED THE SIZE OF SIGNS OVER WHAT WE CURRENTLY HAVE THAT WE WOULD STILL CONTINUE TO HAVE PEOPLE REQUESTING NON- ZONING VARIANCE AND ALL THE WHILE WE WOULD JUST BE ESSENTIALLY CREATING SIGN POLLUTION IN ALL THE INSTANCES WHERE PEOPLE WEREN'T BEING ABLE TO JUDGE IT AND STAFF WERE JUST ABLE TO APPROVE IT.
>> OKAY. I WAS THINKING BECAUSE NAME, BECAUSE WE GET SO MANY OF THESE REQUESTS AND SOME ARE OUTRAGEOUS AND SOME ARE REASONABLE THAT WE COULD PUMP UP THE ALLOWABLE SIGNAGE BY SOMETHING LIKE 15 OR 25% AND JUST -- THAT WOULD HAVE MADE IT INTO AN ORDINANCE, RIGHT? THE COUNTY COMMISSION WOULD HAVE TO VOTE THAT IN, BUT -- AND THEN THE PZA, PERHAPS, THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS WOULD TAKE A HARDER LINE ON GRANTING A LOT OF THESE REQUESTS, IF WE ALREADYALREADY THE LIMIT OF THE SIGNS UP, AND I DIDN'T REALIZE THAT PONTE VEDRA HAD THE SIGNS, AND IT LOOKS PRETTY NICE WITHOUT THOSE BIG SIGNS.
LARGE SIGNS TO ME ARE GARISH AND THEY ARE IMPACTFUL TO THE AESTHETICS OF THE ENVIRONMENT AND THE BUILT AND NATURAL ENVIRONMENT. I'D STILL BE AMENABLE TO INCREASING THE ALLOWABLE SIGNSSIGNS SIZE, SQUARE FOOTAGE TO SOME REASONABLE LIMIT AND MOVING IT UP.
>> SO I THOUGHT ABOUT IT AND WE WOULDN'T BE DISCUSSING IT IF THIS WASN'T THE INTENT. THE MAJORITY OF THE
[02:35:04]
SIGN REQUESTS THAT WE GET ARE FOR BUILDING SIGNS AND IT'S REALLY TO THE SPECIFIC PROVISION OF THE CAP OF 150 SQUARE FEET BECAUSE THE CODE SAYS HEY, IT'S BASED ON THE FRONTAGE OF THE BUILDING AT 1 1/2 SQUARE FEET PER LINEAR FRONT AND THEN IT JUST STOPS ONCE YOU GET TO A 150-SQUARE 150-SQUARE- FOOT SIGN. WE CLEARLY SEE THAT THE BUILDINGS DON'T WORK WITH, BUT THEN AGAIN, WE ALSO SEE THAT IF YOU TAKE THAT 1 1/2 SQUARE FEET AND HAVE A THOUSAND SQUARE-FOOT-BUILDING ALL OF OF A SUDDEN THE SIGN IS GIGANTIC AND IT IS OUT OF KILTER, TOO. WE HAD BUMPED UP THE MAXIMUMS MAXIMUMS WHERE THEY SIT CURRENTLY TO 200 SQUARE FEET. AND THE 200 SQUARE FOOT WALL SIGN AND THEY WOULD ADD AN ADDITIONAL 50 SQUARE FOOT AS WELL FOR THE OVERALL MAXIMUM SO THE OVERALL MAXIMUM IS 250. THAT'S AN OVERALL MODEST BUMP FOR BOTH OF THOSE AND TRYING TO KEEP IT ON BUILDING SIGNS TO KIND OF BEING IN THE VEIN OF, AGAIN, A BIG BOX STORE AS OPPOSED TO INCREASING ALL SIGNS AND MONUMENT SIGNS AND JUST STAYING TO THE BUILDING BECAUSE THAT WAS THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE TYPE OF APPLICATIONS WE HADSEEN. >> I THINK THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL TO GET THAT. MISS SPIEGEL, YOU'RE THE ONE THAT INITIATED THIS CONVERSATION.
>> I WOULD. THE REASON I INITIATED THIS IS BECAUSE WE SEEM TO HAVE SOME DISPARAGING -- WHATEVER, DIFFERENT VIEW, AND I JUST WANTED TO HEAR WHAT YOU ALL THOUGHT BECAUSE TO ME, I GET THE BIG BOXES. WE DO HAVE THE BIG BOX STORES AND WE ALSO LIVE IN AN ERA WHERE THERE'S GPS AND IT'S NOT LIKE THEY'RE NOT GOING TO FIND IT. YOU KNOW, PONTE VEDRA, PALM COAST HAS LIMITED SIGN ORDINANCES, AS WELL.
PEOPLE FIND THE PLACES AND THERE DON'T HAVE TO BE A BIG, MASSIVE SIGN AND IT SEEMS LIKE IT'S MORE OF A BRANDING THING AND THAT WE'RE JUST -- I DON'T KNOW, ANYWAY, SO THAT'S JUST MY OPINION, BUT I ALSO WANTED TO KNOW ANOTHER PEOPLE'S OPINIONS, AS WELL.
>> YEAH. I THINK THE SIGN VARIATION DEFINITELY DEPENDS ON THE UNIT ITSELF AND THE LOCATION OF THAT UNIT. IF YOU TAKE THE ONE THAT JUST HAD THE U- HAUL, IT SITS RIGHT THERE ON THE ROADWAY SO YOU DON'T NEED THAT HUGE, MASSIVE SIGN AND THE VARIATION THERE, BUT IF YOU TAKE SOME PLACE WHERE YOU DID THE CHURCH NOT TOO LONG AGO. AGAIN, IT WAS VISIBLE FAR ENOUGH BACK, BUT IT WAS STILL VISIBLE FROM THE STREET. SO I THINK WE NEED TO HAVE, NOT INCREASE IT, IF ANYTHING, DECREASE IT AND LET THEM COME IN FROM THE VARIATION SO WE DON'T HAVE THE SIGN CLEAR UTTER OUT THERE.
WE HAVE A LOT OF SIGN CLUTTER. PERFECT EXAMPLE, BASS PRO SHOP. IF YOU LOOK AT THAT, YOU WOULD THINK THE WHOLE BUILDING IS A GIANT SIGN.
>> IF YOU'RE GOING 90 ON 95 --
>> YOU CAN GO BY IT AND YOU CAN
THERE SHOULD BE EXCEPTIONS FOR ROADWAYS LIKE THAT.
THE VARIATIONS SHOULD BE ALLOWED FOR -- IF YOU'RE SITTING ON 95, BUT ONCE YOU GET AWAY FROM THE MAIN HIGHWAY LIKE THAT IT SHOULD BE REDUCED.
WE SHOULDN'T ALLOW IT TO BE INCREASED.
>> EVERYONE'S BEING VERY ELOQUENT IN THEIR REFLECTION ON THIS. I GUESS, BEING NEW, STILL NEW, IS THE -- ONE OF THE BENEFITS OF THE INCREASING SIGN WOULD BE TO REDUCE THE NUMBER OF VARIANCE REQUEST COMING FORWARD. IS THAT THE
MAIN THING? >> I THINK WE SEE A LOT OF THEM AND THAT'S MAYBE WHERE THE IDEA IS HEARD FROM AND A LOT OF THEM ARE PUD, AND THAT'S SELF-IMPOSED. I'M NOT SURE IF INCREASING THE LIMIT WOULD DECREASE THOSE ASKS, BUT AT LEAST WE WOULD HAVE A LITTLE BIT MORE OF AN INCREASE IN THE STANDARD SO THAT WE COULD SAY OKAY, WE ALREADY INCREASED IT THROUGH THE LDP AND YOU CAN COME IN AND ASK FOR A VARIANCE FOR YOUR PUD AND THE SIGN, BUT WE WILL PROBABLY NOT GRANT IT BECAUSE THERE'S LENIENCY THAT WE ADDED INTO THE CODE.
>> I GUESS I JUST WONDER -- I MEAN, THERE'S A LOT OF SIGNAGE THAT'S MUCH MORE IDENTIFYING A BUSINESS, AND I THINK THE U- HAUL IS AN
[02:40:02]
EXAMPLE. THEY HAVE HUGE SIGNS IDENTIFYING BEYOND WHAT THIS IS U-HAUL. YOU CAN DO YOUR STORAGE HERE.YOU CAN GET YOUR BOXES HERE. I'M NOT SURE IF THAT KIND OF COMMUNICATION IS NEEDED. I GUESS I WORRY ABOUT THE COMPARISON OF BEING IN A RESTAURANT AND IT'S VERY NOISY AND EVERYBODY IS TALKING LOUD AND RATCHETING UP SO THEY COULD BE HEARD AND SUDDENLY THE OVERALL LEVEL OF NOISE IS INCREASING BECAUSE EVERYONE'S TRYING TO SHOUT TO BE LOUDER AND TO BE HEARD AMONG THE NOISE.
SO I DON'T KNOW -- I GUESS ONE QUESTION IS IT'S SO EASY TO DO NOW WITH AI TECHNOLOGY IS TO LOOK AT BEST PRACTICES.
I KNOW WHEN I WAS ON THE AIRPORT AUTHORITY, AND I VERY FREQUENTLY LOOKED AT BEST PRACTICES AND OTHER GENERAL AVIATION AIRPORT FOR DIFFERENT ISSUES.
I DON'T KNOW. WE LOOKED AT WHAT THE BEST ORDINANCES ARE AROUND FLORIDA FOR COMMUNITIES THAT WE THINK DO HAVE CONTROL OF AESTHETICS AND YET HAVE A LOT OF BUSINESS ACTIVITY.
TRADITIONALLY, BOCA RATON IS THOUGHT TO BE ONE OF THE BEST PLANNED COMMUNITIES, AND HAVE ACTUALLY SHOWN THAT IT CREATES VALUE TO THE PROPERTIES OF BEING PART OF A COMMUNITY AND IT REALLY SPANS A LOT OF TIME GIVEN THE STATUS. THAT'S -- I DON'T HAVE ANY MORE THOUGHTS OTHER THAN SHARING
THOSE. >> I APPRECIATE THAT, AND THAT'S KIND OF MY THINKING IS THAT, OKAY, WHAT DO WE WANT THIS COUNTY TO LOOK LIKE? I KNOW THERE'S A LOT THAT'S ALREADY THERE, BUT GOING FORWARD, MR. MATOVINA MIDDLE I DON'T HAVE ANY PROBLEM AT ALL WP THE ITEM.
I GUESS THAT'S OKAY, BUT JUST A DIFFERENCE OF THINKING.
YOU KNOW, WE'RE PLANNING, DR. HILSENBECK WE'RE PLANNING, WE'RE THE PLANNING PART OF PLANNING AND ZONING, AND THIS IS WHY I WANTED TO HAVE THIS DISCUSSION IN PUBLIC. IS THERE A WAY OF THINKING GOING FORWARD WHERE WE'RE KIND OF AT LEAST HEADING IN THE SAME DIRECTION WHERE WE HAVE AN IDEA OF WHAT WE WANT AND DON'T WANT AND WE DON'T WANT IT TO LOOK LIKE LAS VEGAS, MAYBE, BUT YOU KNOW -- BUT IA, APPRECIATE MR. OLSON'S COMMENTS AND THE PLAN UNIT, THAT HE HAS A SIDE, KOS HEESIVE LOOK AND SOMETHING THAT WE WANT IN ADVANCE AND IT'S TO MAINTAIN THE SAME THEME.
THAT'S WHERE I WANTED TO FOR YOUR FEEDBACK AND JUST GOING FORWARD, THERE ARE THINGS THAT WE CAN HELP CONTROL TO MAKE THINGS MORE COHESIVE IN THE
COUNTY. >> I HAVE TWO BRIEF COMMENTS.
ONE, ADVERTISING AND MARKETING HAS REALLY ALWAYS BEEN A LITTLE BIT OUT OF MY LEAGUE, BUT I DO KNOW THAT FOR THESE BIG ENTITIES BRANDING IS IMPORTANT, AND I EXPECT THEIR DESIRE IS TO GET TO A POINT OF BRANDING WHERE YOU SEE THEIR LOGO AND YOU IMMEDIATELY KNOW WHO THAT IS.
THAT'S A STARBUCKS. IT DOESN'T MATTER WHETHER THERE ARE LERS LETTERS UP OR NOT.
YOU CAN ASK CRACKER BARREL. SO I THINK IF YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT SIGNAGE, YOU KNOW, WE PROBABLY NEED TO MAKE SOME ALLOWANCES FOR -- I GUESS MY SECOND POINT IS WE'RE NOT HEARING FROM THE CONSTITUENTS IN THIS CASE WHICH IS THE CORPORATE BRANDING PEOPLE WHO WOULD TELL YOU WHAT IS AND WHAT IS NOT IMPORTANT, SO I WOULD THINK THAT WE WOULD WANT TO HEAR FROM CORPORATE BRANDING PEOPLE, AND EMA DEVELOPER.
I MEAN A STARBUCKS PERSON OR A CRACKER BARREL PERSON AND HAVE THEM TELL US BECAUSE I DON'T -- REALLY, WHEN WE VOTED ON THE SIGNAGE FOR -- WHAT WERE WE JUST TALKING ABOUT? THE OTHER ONE. BASS PRO SHOP, WHEN WE VOTED ON THE SIGNAGE FOR THAT THEY WERE ALREADY HERE, BUT I WOULD HAVE HATE FOR THEM TO HAVE COME FOR THE SIGNAGE REQUEST
[02:45:01]
BEFORE THEY WERE HERE AND THEN DECIDE THEY WERE NOT GOING TO MOVE HERE AND THAT WOULD BE A DISSERVICE TO ST. JOHNS COUNTY AND I THINK WE NEED TO HEAR FROM THOSE PEOPLE TO MAKE SOME DECISIONS.>> ANYWAY. SO WHATEVER, I'M NOT COMPARING US TO ANYONE ELSE. WE ARE A UNIQUE GEM IN AMERICA, AND IT DESERVES A UNIQUE PERSPECTIVE. THAT'S JUST ALL I WANTED TO SAY. CHARLIE?
VERY SHORT. >> -- TO FIND SOMETHING -- YOU'D MISS
IT, RIGHT? >> THE THING IS IF YOU'RE LOOKING FOR SOMETHING YOU'LL SEE IT, BUT THE SIGNS AREN'T TO THE CEILING.
THEY'RE A LOW- PROFILE TYPE SIGN WHICH --
>> IT MAKES SENSE TO GET AWAY FROM THE HUGE SIGN CLUTTER AND THAT'S RIGHT OFF OF 95.
>> I CAN TELL YOU, I HATE GOING OFF THE EXIT BECAUSE I CANNOT FIND IT, AND IF IT CAN BE BIGGERBIGGER I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING AND I DON'T DISAGREE, BUT THERE COULD BE SOMETHING ELSE --
>> I AGREE ALSO, AND THAT'S NOT ONLY TO USE ANOTHER EXAMPLE ANDAND A STORAGE UNIT RIGHT FROM÷÷ WHERE I LIVE AND THAT'S GOT A MONSTROUS SIGN THAT SITS RIGHT THERE ON 16, AND THERE WAS NO NEED FOR THAT MONSTROUS SIGN AND THAT WAS WITHIN -- THEY'RE WITHIN THEIR RIGHTS TO PUT THE SIGN UP AND NO VARIANCE NEEDED, BUT TO HAVE SOMETHING THAT HUGE FOR A SINGLE- STORY STORAGE UNIT.
YEAH. >> IT DEPENDS ON WHAT YOUR DAY TO DAY TRAFFIC IS. I DRIVE ON U.S.- 1, Y'ALL.
SO THIS IS IN MY FACE ALL OF THE TIME.
IF YOU HAVE A NICE, LEISURELY DRIVE ON THE NORTHWEST SECTOR AND IT'S NICE AND PRETTY THEN IT PROBABLY DOESN'T AFFECT YOU AS MUCH. I HAVE TO LIVE WITH THIS EVERY
DAY. >> I APPRECIATE YOU TAKING THE TIME TO INDULGE ME ON THIS ONE. GOOD CONVERSATION.
>> YOU KNOW, I STILL DON'T WANT TO TAKE IT OUT OF THE PURVIEW OF THE PZA AND DISCUSSIONS, MR. LABANOWSKI SAID THERE ARE SO MANY FACTORS THAT GO INTO THE ROADWAY AND THE CAPACITY AND THE SPEED AND ALL SORTS OF THINGS AND HOW FAR OFF THE BUSINESS IS OFF OF THE ROADWAY, SO WE'D STILL HAVE CONTROL OVER THOSE KIND OF THINGS IN OUR DISCUSSIONS, BUT SO I BET NOTHING GETS DONE TODAY.
I DON'T KNOW. >> WE'LL LEAVE IT THE WAY IT IS.
>> I THINK WE CAN CONTINUE TO HAVE THAT CONVERSATION WHEN OTHER ITEMS COME UP, YOU KNOW, WE CAN BRING UP CERTAIN POINTS THAT MAYBE PERTAIN TO THE ITEM THAT WE HAVEN'T SEEN BEFORE. DID YOU HAVE SOMETHING YOU WANTED TO SAY?
>> YEAH. I HAVE A HIGH- LEVEL MECHANICAL OBSERVATION THAT'S NOT ABOUT NECESSARILY ANY SUBJECTIVE THING. THESE ARE NON- ZONING VARIANCES THAT ARE COMING BEFORE YOU AND FOR EVERY OTHER NON- ZONING VARIANCE AND THOSE COME OUT OF THIS BOARD AS RECOMMENDATIONS AND THEY GO TO THE BOARD FOR FINAL DISPOSITION.
THIS IS SOMETHING WHERE THE BOARD HAS GIVEN -- THE BOARD HAS GIVEN THIS COMMISSION, DELEGATED AUTHORITY TO MAKE FINAL DECISIONS ON THESE SIGN QUESTIONS, AND BECAUSE THEY ARE VERY SITE SPECIFIC, THEY WANT YOU TO GO THROUGH THE ANALYSIS SIDE BY SIDE AND TRY TO USE YOUR BEST JUDGMENT TO COME TO THOSE DISCUSSIONS BECAUSE I DON'T THINK THEY REALLY WANT TO SEE APPEALS GOING TO THE BOARD.
AND SO -- TO THAT EXTENT, IF YOU GUYS CAN KIND OF COME TO SOME SORT OF CONSENSUSCONSENSUS SOME -- SOME THINGS THAT YOU THINK WORK AND SOME THINGS THAT DON'T, I THINK THAT MECHANICALLY, YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO BE SEEING LOTS OF THESE BECAUSE THEY ARE SO SITE SPECIFIC, AND WHEN YOU GET SENT FARTHER OFF THE ROAD A BIGGER SIGN MAKES MORE SENSE, YOU DON'T WANT THAT BIG SIGN AND THEN THERE'S EVERYTHING IN BETWEEN AND HOW FAST ARE THE ROADS AND OTHER THINGS? SO YOU'RE GOING TO SEE A LOT OF THEM, I THINK, BECAUSE IT'S DESIGNED MECHANICALLY TO HAVE VARIANCE REQUESTS ESPECIALLY FOR
[02:50:01]
LARGER PEOPLE THAT CAN AFFORD TO MAKE THOSE RADIUS REQUESTS AND I DON'T THINK THEY REALLY WANT THE APPEALS GOING TO THE BOARD EITHER.THEY WANT YOU GUYS TO BE THE FINAL DECIDERS ON THESE.
THE CONVERSATION IS HEALTHY AND I DO THINK THAT YOU GUYS ARE TALKING ABOUT ALL OF THE RIGHT THINGS AND I JUST WANT THE CONTEXT TO BE THAT THEY DELEGATED FINAL AUTHORITY ON THIS TO YOU, AND ONE OF THE REASONS THEY DO THAT IS THEY EXPECT TO GET A BUNCH OF THEM AND THEY DON'T WANT TO SEE THEM. THEY WANT THERE TO BE A LOCAL BODY TO MAKE THE DECISIONS ON THEM THAT THEY CAN RELY UPON.
>> LEX, I WOULD ALSO CHIME IN. A LOT OF THIS CONTEXT IS HOW MANY SIGN APPLICATIONS WE'RE SEEING, RIGHT? WE DID THAT BREAKDOWN HERE AND SO WE'LL TAKE WHAT LOOKS LIKE THE BUSIEST YEAR, 2023, THERE WERE SIX. AND SO WHEN WE HAVE 20 MEETINGS AIARY A YEAR UP TO EIGHT ITEMS SIX SIGNS ARE NOT A PARTICULARLY LARGE AMOUNT OF WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT, AND I DID A REAL BRIEF RUN THROUGH. I THREW OUT ADDING 60 SQUARE FEET TO THE SIGNS JUST AS A NUMBER. WHEN I LOOK THROUGH THE MATRIX OF THE APPROVALS THAT WE'VE DONE, THAT MAY HAVE STOPPED TWO -- TWO OF THE 15 SIGNS? SO IT WOULDN'T -- BECAUSE EVERYTHING, AGAIN, IS UNIQUE AND MOST OF THE TIME THEY'RE COMING IN FOR TRULY UNIQUE SITES WHERE THEY'RE ASKING FOR A LOT MORE THAN 50 SQUARE FEET, AND SO AGAIN, EVEN IF WE DID THAT AND IT WAS RETROACTIVE THAT WOULD HAVE STOPPED FROM COMING TO YOU, SO NOT A HUGE IMPACT.
? WELL, I JUST -- WE CAN'T ASK, WHY DID YOU VOTE THAT? I JUST WANTED TO HEAR WHAT PEOPLE WERE THINKING, YOU KNOW, AND THAT WAS REALLY THE BIGGEST THING.
ARE WE, LIKE, ON DIFFERENT PLANETS OR KIND OF IN THE SAME GENERAL AREA AND HAVE A DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVE AND I APPRECIATE MR. MAT VINO'S COMMENT ABOUT MARKETING, AND I GET IT, BUT OF COURSE, MR. WILSON'S COMMENT ABOUT MINE IS BIGGER THAN YOURS AND YOU KNOW, JONESES COMPETING WITH EACH OTHER.
>> THAT'S HOW IT LOOKS, AND --
>> WE WANT THIS HUGE W AND THAT'S 12 FEET TALL, AND I THINK THAT'S THE WAY THEY THINK.
I DON'T KNOW THAT FOR A PACK, BUT I THINK THAT'S IT.
>> I THINK THAT'S THE WAY 1122 HAS GONE.
THEY HAVE A CERTAIN LOOK THEY'RE AFTER AND THEY WENT DOWN SOME AND I DON'T THINK IT DID ANY HARM. THAT'S FINE.
>> CAN I ASK A QUESTION TO STAFF ON SIGNS? PROBABLY NOT YOUR RESPONSIBILITY. WHAT CAN WE DO ABOUT THESE
>> HENRY JAMES COMMISSIONER SIGN
THAT'S STILL -- >> THERE ARE TEMPORARY SIGNS THAT FOR ALLOWED AND I'LL CALL THEM SNIPE SIGN, LITTLE THINGS YOU CAN STICK IN THE GROUND AND WAVY FLAGS AND THINGS LIKE THAT, BROADLY SPEAKING, THOSE WILL BE PROHIBITED IN MOST INSTANCES.
UNFORTUNATELY, THAT'S A CODE ENFORCEMENT ACTION AND THAT WOULD BE SOMETHING TO YOU HAVE TO SAY HEY, THIS IS AN ILLEGAL
SIGN. >> UNFORTUNATELY, CODE ENFORCEMENT HAD TO GO OUT AND TAKE CARE OF THINGS AND THAT IS ALL THEY WOULD DO BECAUSE I HAVE NEVER SEEN SO MANY SIGN, AND I KNOW THEY'RE TRYING TO SELL HOMES OR THEIR SERVICES AND WHATEVER, BUT THEY LEAVE THEM OUT THERE FOR MONTHS AT A TIME.
OPEN HOUSE HAS BEEN SITTING OUT THERE FOR MONTHS AT A TIME.
I'VE BEEN TOLD, JUST GO AHEAD AND PICK IT UP.
>> DID YOU KNOW THE SILVERLEAF, DID YOU NOTICE THE OLD P, Z ASSIGN ASSIGN THAT WAS BROKE OWN BOTH SIDES? IT WAS UP THERE FOREVER.
>> KRISTEN WINEHURST AND HENRY DEAN SIGNS AND BILLBOARDS GOING DOWN. GEORGE AND I SAW THEM THE OTHER DAY AND LAUGHED. I THOUGHT WERE SUPPOSED TO BE GONE BY NOW, BUT ANYWAY. GOOD TALK.
>> NO STAFF REPORT, MADAM CHAIR?
>>
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.