Oct 06, 2026 Planning and Zoning Board (PZB)

[1. Roll Call]

[00:00:08]

MEETING TO ORDER. YOU TAKE A ROLL CALL, PLEASE. SUSAN JONES HERE. CHARLES PAPPAS PRESENT.

MIKE DAVIS HERE. BLOW HERE. DAN KELLY HERE. WILLIAM TUNSTALL HERE. ZACHARY TUCKER HERE. OKAY.

ANY PUBLIC COMMENTS FOR ITEMS THAT ARE NOT ON THE AGENDA? OKAY. HEARING NONE. THE FIRST

[3. Approval of Minutes ]

[4. Modification and Approval of Agenda ]

[5.a) PZB2026-0074 Kevin M Marks - Applicant c/o Shoreland Home Builders Ron and Pam Bowman - Owner Pelican Reef Dr / PID #158573-0010 To approve the removal of a significant tree and the construction of a retaining wall within Conservation Overlay Zone 2. ]

SURE. KEVIN MARKS, 794 CYPRESS ROAD, SAINT AUGUSTINE. IS THERE A STAFF REPORT? DO YOU SOLEMNLY SWEAR OR AFFIRM THE TESTIMONY YOU'RE ABOUT TO GIVE? IS THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH? I DO. IS THERE A STAFF REPORT? YES, CHAIRPERSON AND MEMBERS OF THE BOARD. THIS IS A REQUEST FOR CONSERVATION OVERLAY ZONE DEVELOPMENT TO REMOVE ONE SIGNIFICANT TREE AND CONSTRUCT A RETAINING WALL WITHIN CONSERVATION OVERLAY ZONES TWO AND THREE AT 201 PELICAN REEF DRIVE. THE APPROVAL OF THIS APPLICATION WOULD ALLOW FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF RETAINING WALL AT THE LANDWARD EDGE OF THE TEN FOOT CONSERVATION EASEMENT ADJACENT TO THE WETLANDS. THE PROPERTY PREVIOUSLY APPEARED BEFORE THE PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD ON MAY 6TH, 2025, FOR THE REMOVAL OF 17 SIGNIFICANT TREES FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW HOME AND WAS APPROVED. REVIEW OF SECTION 1129 IS RESPONSIBILITY OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD FOR THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT. THANK YOU. DOES THE APPLICANT HAVE ANYTHING TO ADD? I DO NOT AT THIS TIME UNLESS YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR ME. OKAY. ANY EX PARTE AND MR. VISITED THE SITE, VISITED THE SITE, VISITED THE SITE. I HAVE NONE. NONE. NONE.

NONE. OKAY. FILES ON APPLICATION. TEN WERE SENT OUT. ONE WAS RECEIVED IN FAVOR OF THE APPLICATION. ANY QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD? WELL, MADAM CHAIR, WANT ME TO START? YOU

[00:05:06]

THE HOA HAD AS WELL. SO IT'S THAT WAS A REQUEST I MADE TO THEM YESTERDAY. SO WE'RE. LET ME ASK STAFF. I MEAN, DO WE HAVE. I MEAN, I THINK WE HAVE ACTUAL CRITERIA FOR PROTECTED TREES WHERE YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO BARRICADE THEM OFF A CERTAIN DISTANCE FROM THE TRUNK AND PROTECT THAT ROOT SYSTEM, BECAUSE IT'S REALLY POINTLESS TO PROTECT THE TREE. IF YOU PILE A BUNCH OF STUFF ON TOP OF THE ROOTS AND PARK ON IT AND ALL THAT, SO THAT, YOU KNOW, I FOUND THAT KIND OF DISTRESSING WHEN I WENT OUT TO LOOK AT YOUR, YOUR APPLICATION. YEAH, WE'VE BEEN MINDFUL TO KEEP THAT STUFF UP FURTHER TOWARDS THE HOUSE WHERE IT'S MORE ACCESSIBLE FOR THE WORK THAT THEY'RE DOING. SO THERE SHOULDN'T BE ANYTHING STORED DAILY. I'M SORRY. I SAID, DO YOU GO OUT TO THE I DO MYSELF AND OR MY PROJECT MANAGER ARE OUT THERE DAILY.

OKAY. SO THAT STUFF, THERE SHOULD BE NOTHING IMMEDIATELY, YOU KNOW, WITHIN THE SORT OF THE ROOT SYSTEMS, IF YOU WILL, OF THOSE TREES UP FRONT. WE DO HAVE THE EROSION FENCING THERE.

IT'S JUST BECAUSE OF THE SLOPE OF THE PROPERTY THERE TOO. IT'S NOT. WELL, LIKE I SAY, I'M NAVIGATE WHAT I, WHAT I NOTICED ON THE SITE WAS THAT THE PROTECTED TREES ADJACENT TO THE RIGHT OF WAY WEREN'T BEING PROTECTED. AND WE CAN ABSOLUTELY INSTALL SOME

[00:10:03]

OKAY. MISS KELLY, HOW MANY TREES HAVE YOU COME BEFORE THE BOARD TO REMOVE WITH THIS PROJECT? AND IS IT BECAUSE THE PROJECT CHANGED? IT DID NOT. SO THE ORIGINAL PLAN WAS WE ALWAYS LOOK TO MAINTAIN. KEEP AS MANY TREES AS WE CAN. THE TREES IN QUESTION THAT WERE ORIGINALLY REMOVED LAST YEAR WERE IMMEDIATELY WITHIN THE FOOTPRINT OR WERE RIGHT OUTSIDE OF. I THINK THERE WERE TEN TOTAL, MAYBE EIGHT, I THINK EIGHT, POSSIBLY. I'D HAVE TO GO BACK AND LOOK AT THE NOTES ON THAT PROPERTY. OUR PLAN, OUR HOPES WERE TO SLOPE BACK TO MORE OF A NATURAL GRADE AT THE CONSERVATION AREA. THE LAST COUPLE FULL MOONS AND NOR'EASTERS THAT WE'VE HAD. I'VE GOT SOME PHOTOS HERE THAT I SUBMITTED AS WELL, SHOW A LOT OF TIDAL FLOODING BEHIND THIS HOUSE. OUR CONCERN LONG TERM IS THE STABILITY OF THE GRADE BACK THERE. THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES ALL HAVE RETAINING WALLS ON THEM. MOST OF THEM HAVE THE SAME REQUESTED COMPACT LANDSCAPE BLOCK THAT WE'RE LOOKING TO PUT IN. WE'VE PERSONALLY INSTALLED THIS RETAINING WALL ON ONE OF THE OTHER LOTS IN THERE. I THINK THERE'S FOUR HOMES IN THIS FINAL PHASE OF PELICAN REEF THAT HAVE THAT RETAINING WALL.

SO IT WAS A REQUEST TO STABILIZE AND FORTIFY THE PROPERTY AND THEN ALSO TO HELP PROTECT THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES AS WELL WITH THE WALLS THAT THEY'VE PUT UP. BUT TO DO THAT, UNFORTUNATELY, WE'RE WE HAVE THAT ONE TREE. THAT'S THE ROOT SYSTEMS REALLY IN THE CROSSHAIRS OF WHAT WE WHAT WE NEED TO DO. SO THE TEN TREES THAT YOU REMOVED, IS THAT WHERE THE RETAINING WALL IS GOING? NO, NO, THE ORIGINAL TREES THAT WERE REMOVED. AND ACTUALLY, IF YOU LOOK AT THIS SITE PLAN, THIS IS THE COPY THAT WAS APPROVED ALONG WITH THE BUILDING PERMITS BY DEVELOPMENTAL. THE RED DOTS SHOW THE TREES THAT WE REMOVED ORIGINALLY. THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN LAST YEAR WHEN THE SITE WAS. WE BROUGHT IN SOME FILL DIRT AND PREPARED THE LOT. SO THEY WERE DIRECTLY WITHIN THE FOOTPRINT OF THE HOME OR THE DRIVEWAY, OR IMMEDIATELY OUTSIDE OF THE FOUNDATION. AND THEN WE'VE GOT AN AREA WHERE WE'RE COMING BACK IN WITH SOME NEW CEDAR SAPLINGS ALONG THIS SIDE. AND THEN OF COURSE, LANDSCAPE TO MATCH THE HOA APPROVED PLANS. THANK YOU SIR. SURE. IS THERE AN ARBORIST REPORT ON THAT TREE? THERE IS. IT WAS SUBMITTED ALONG WITH THAT. IT WAS ALONG WITH THE ORIGINAL SUBMISSION WHEN WE DID THE LOT CLEARING. AND THEN WE ACTUALLY HAD THE ARBORIST COME BACK AND UPDATE THAT AS WELL. SO THE TREE WAS NOTED AS HAVING AREAS OF DECAY. BUT HE LISTED THE REMAINING TRUNK IN FAIR CONDITION, I BELIEVE. AND SO THE CONCERN IS THAT WITH THE RETAINING WALL BETWEEN THE TREE AND THE TREE MAY FALL. BUT THAT'S ALL SPECULATIVE. WELL, POTENTIALLY. YEAH. I CAN'T REALLY DO THE RETAINING WALL WITH THE TREE. I CAN, BUT IT IS GOING TO AFFECT THE TREE. SO THE TREE ITSELF IS JUST OUTSIDE OF THE RETAINING WALL. BUT DEVELOPMENTAL HAS REQUESTED THAT WE STEP THAT WALL BACK A CERTAIN DISTANCE FROM THE TREE TO PROTECT IT. AND IT PUTS THE WALL BASICALLY UP AGAINST THE HOUSE. SO IT'S UNFORTUNATELY, IT DOESN'T WORK WITH THE FOUNDATION DESIGN OF THE HOUSE, THAT AREA WHERE THE WALL NEEDS TO GO. THAT'S OUR ONE OBSTACLE IS THAT THAT PARTICULAR TREE. AND IF IT WERE TO FALL, CERTAINLY SPECULATIVE, BUT, YOU KNOW, BASED ON THE CONDITION OF THE TREE, IT'S DEFINITELY NOT A HEALTHY TREE. BUT AS IT'S PROPOSED RIGHT NOW, THE TREE IS NOT BLOCKING THE PROPOSED RETAINING WALL, WHICH YOU'RE JUST CONCERNED THAT THE TREE MAY FALL AS A RESULT. NO, IT IS IT IS DEVELOPMENTAL HAS REQUESTED THAT WE BASICALLY AVOID THE TREE TO PRESERVE THE TREE. BUT IN DOING SO, IT DOESN'T ALLOW US TO INSTALL THE WALL. SO UNFORTUNATELY FOR US TO INSTALL AND SORT OF FORTIFY THIS PROPERTY, THE TREE WOULD NEED TO GO AND BE REPLACED. MR. PAPPAS, ANY QUESTIONS? YEAH, I'M A LITTLE CONCERNED. I DON'T HAVE MEASUREMENTS, SO I CAN'T FIGURE OUT EXACTLY WHAT WE'RE TALKING MOVING BACK AND FORTH. BUT I'LL TAKE YOUR WORD FOR IT.

HOW DOES THE WALL AFFECT THE ADJACENT PROPERTY? UNFORTUNATELY, I WASN'T ABLE TO GO OUT AND LOOK. OH, SO ALL OF THE THE TWO ADJOINING PROPERTIES AND THEN THE ONES ACROSS THE STREET, WHICH ARE SORT OF IRRELEVANT HERE, BUT THE TWO ADJOINING PROPERTIES ALREADY HAVE RETAINING WALLS INSTALLED. THIS ONE DOES NOT. SO THE CONCERN FOR OUR CLIENT AS WELL AS THE NEIGHBORS IS EROSION TO THIS PROPERTY IF WE DON'T INSTALL SOME TYPE OF WALL.

SO IT'S ALSO COLLECTIVE EFFORT TO SORT OF FORTIFY THE ADJOINING PROPERTIES BECAUSE

[00:15:05]

AND I'M SURE WITH THE RAIN WE'VE HAD, WE'RE HAVING SIGNIFICANT RUNOFF. CARL, HOW ABOUT IF YOU PUT IN YOUR MOTION THAT THE TREE CAN'T BE REMOVED UNTIL THE OTHER TREES ARE PROPERLY PROTECTED? THAT'S A GOOD IDEA. SO POTENTIAL CONTINGENT APPROVAL BASED ON THAT. WE WOULD CONTINUE IT FOR 30 DAYS, I GUESS UNTIL OR NO YOU UP TO WE COULD WE WOULD APPROVE IT. YEAH. SO YOU CAN'T REMOVE THE TREE UNTIL THE OTHER TREES ARE PROTECTED. IT JUST HAS TO FOLLOW STEPS. YEAH. OTHERWISE IT'D BE A THEN IT BECOMES CODE ENFORCEMENT. IF HE DOESN'T. ALL RIGHT. WHATEVER I LIKE I SAY IT WAS JUST AN IDEA TO FLOAT WITH MY FELLOW BOARD MEMBERS. AND WE WOULD BE FINE INSTALLING THE ADDITIONAL EROSION CONTROL AND THEN HAVING THAT INSPECTED PRIOR TO THE REMOVAL OF TREE OR CONSTRUCTION OF THE BLOCK. NO, YOU'RE BETTER AT IT. YOU GO AHEAD. ONE COMMENT, KEVIN, YOU USUALLY COME BEFORE US AND WE GET A LOT MORE INFORMATION. I STRUGGLED WITH THIS ONE, JUST TRYING TO FIGURE OUT ONE WHAT TREE IT WAS AND WHY. SO THE NEXT TIME YOU COME, COULD YOU JUST GIVE US THAT INFORMATION? I THINK IT'LL MAKE IT A WHOLE LOT EASIER. DO YOU HAVE CAN I SEE THE COPY THAT YOU HAVE? BECAUSE I'M WORRIED THAT MAYBE YOU DON'T HAVE. IT'S THE COPY YOU HAVE. IT'S JUST WHAT HAPPENS IS WHEN YOU SEND IN A COPY, IT GETS SHRUNK DOWN TO AN EIGHT AND A HALF BY 11, AND YOURS WAS IN A LANDSCAPE FORMAT, AND SO IT SHRUNK IT EVEN SMALLER. OKAY, SO IT'S REALLY DIFFICULT TO FIGURE OUT, AND I COULDN'T FIND CLEARLY ON IT WHERE IT WAS MARKED. THIS IS THE TREE I WANT TO REMOVE. SO IF IN THE FUTURE YOU CAN GIVE US A LITTLE MORE INFORMATION THAT IS A LITTLE EASIER FOR US TO READ, I THINK IT WAS LABELED IT'S NOT NUMBERED TREE AND IT WAS

[00:20:03]

IT'S NOT A VERY BIG PIECE OF PROPERTY. SO SARAH COMMENTS. I MEAN, THAT'S UP TO THE BOARD IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO AND LOOKING, YOU CAN LOOK AT THE PLAN AND SEE IF YOU THINK THEY'LL FIT. I DID PUT MY STAFF REPORT. THEY WOULD HAVE TO AT LEAST REPLACE THE ONE THEY'RE TAKING TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THOSE TEN TREES, BUT IF YOU WANTED IT WOULD BE 11. IF YOU ADDED ONE MORE OR IF YOU WANTED, YOU COULD PUT IT BECAUSE HE'S REMOVING A CEDAR. SO TO REPLACE IT, HE'D BE BACK UP TO TEN. AND IF YOU ADDED ANOTHER, IT'D BE AT 11. I THINK, YOU KNOW, I GO BACK TO LOOKING AT THAT 11 TREES, TEN TREES IS IS PLENTY ON A LOT THAT SIZE. IT'S JUST NOT A VERY BIG LOT.

SO BACK TO MR. PAPPAS'S COMMENT. CAN WE MAKE A REQUIREMENT THAT THE NEW TREE HAVE A CERTAIN DIAMETER? I THINK THEY ALL I THINK THEY ALL HAVE A 2 TO 3 OR 3 TO 4 INCH MINIMUM REQUIREMENT ON OUR SAPLING, EIGHT INCHES. WELL, YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT A CEDAR TREE THOUGH. HUGE. I THINK THEY ONLY, AS FAR AS NURSERY GROWN, COME TO A MAXIMUM OF WHAT I AGREE THERE.

YOU'RE NOT GOING TO GET SIGNIFICANTLY BIGGER THAN THAT. SO I THINK I DON'T WANT TO COMPLICATE IT. NO I DON'T EITHER. I AGREE. ALL RIGHT. MOTION PLEASE. CAN YOU I GOT MY VOICE PLEASE. I MAKE A MOTION THAT WE APPROVE. PCSB 2026 007 FOR APPLICATION TO REMOVE THE SIGNIFICANT TREE AND THE CONSTRUCTION OF RETAINING WALL WITHIN CONSERVATION OVERLAY ZONE TWO, PROVIDED THAT BEFORE THE TREE IS REMOVED AND BEFORE THE WALL IS BUILT, THE EXISTING TREES THAT ARE SIGNIFICANT TREES ARE PROTECTED ON THE SITE. I'LL SECOND THAT VOTE, PLEASE.

MIKE DAVIS YES. CHARLES PAPPAS YES. ZACHARY TUCKER. YES. WILLIAM TUNSTALL YES. ANN KELLY.

YES. YES. SUSAN JONES YES, THANK YOU, THANK YOU. NEXT MATTER IS PCB 2026 0065. AN APPLICATION TO APPROVE THE REMOVAL OF SIGNIFICANT TREES. AND AREN'T WE GOING TO DO. OH YEAH. WE WERE GOING TO 5G. OKAY. 5G. SO WE HAVE PCB 2026 0093, AN APPLICATION TO APPROVE THE REMOVAL OF SIGNIFICANT TREES WITHIN CONSERVATION OVERLAY ZONES TWO AND THREE AT PELICAN REEF DRIVE, AND IS THE APPLICANT PRESENT? YES. OKAY. HE IS SWORN IN. STAFF REPORT PLEASE. YES. THIS IS A REQUEST FOR CONSERVATION OVERLAY ZONE DEVELOPMENT TO REMOVE SIGNIFICANT TREES WITHIN CONSERVATION OVERLAY ZONE TWO AND THREE AT PELICAN REEF DRIVE.

ID 158573-0100. THE APPROVAL OF THIS APPLICATION WILL ALLOW FOR THE REMOVAL OF 40 TREES, 28 SIGNIFICANT TREES WHILE RETAINING TEN TREES, SIX SIGNIFICANT TREES FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE FAMILY HOME. THE APPLICATION DOES SHOW THAT'S CONSISTENT WITH THE TEN CEDAR TREES FOR PELICAN REEF AND WITH CHAPTER 25. HOWEVER, WHEN YOU TAKE OUT THE DEAD TREES FROM THE ARBORIST REPORT, THEY ARE SHORT FOR BOTH AND THOSE ARE NOTED IN THE STAFF REPORT. AND THEN CONSERVATION OVERLAY ZONE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW. SECTION 1129 IS RESPONSIBILITY OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD. ANY RESPONSE, ANY PRESENTATION FOR THE BOARD

[00:25:02]

BUT THE GEOTECH ENGINEERS HAVE RECOMMENDED WE DO A SITE SURCHARGE. WE'VE COME IN FRONT OF THE BOARD FOR APPROVAL ON SOME OF THE OTHER LOTS IN THERE BEFORE, AND IT'S JUST SIMPLY THE PROCESS OF BRINGING IN AND COMPACTING FILL DIRT IN PREPARATION FOR CONSTRUCTION.

THIS WILL BE A MONITORED SERVICE THAT WILL HELP TO KIND OF OFFSET ANY POTENTIAL SETTLEMENT ISSUES BEFORE CONSTRUCTION STARTS. ONE OF FEW LOTS IN THERE THAT DOESN'T REQUIRE PILINGS BECAUSE THE CONDITIONS ARE FAVORABLE, BUT THE SURCHARGE NEEDS TO BE COMPLETED AND THE DIRT NEEDS TO BE ALLOWED TO SORT OF SETTLE PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. THE PLANS ARE ARCHITECTURAL, ARE COMPLETE. WE'RE WORKING ON STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING AND LANDSCAPE PLANS NOW AND ANTICIPATE THAT WITH THE APPROVAL FOR A SURCHARGE, THAT'LL HAVE SIGNIFICANT TIME TO SETTLE WHILE WE NAVIGATE THE REST OF THE ENGINEERING AND PERMITTING PHASE. ANY PUBLIC COMMENT? YES. WE HAVE. STOOD UP, BUT I DON'T KNOW IF SHE WANTS TO SAY SOMETHING. SO NINE NOTICES WERE SENT OUT, TWO IN FAVOR WERE RECEIVED AND ONE HAD COMMENTS. IN FAVOR. FAVOR, ONE IN FAVOR HAD COMMENTS THAT IT'S NOT UNCOMMON FOR THIS AREA OF PELICAN REEF TO HAVE MORE TREES THAN OTHER AREAS. THE GROUND ORIGINAL WAS HIGHER AND PROTECTED FROM THE HIGH WINDS ON THE SOUTH SIDE. THOSE ARE THE ONLY COMMENTS. NO PUBLIC COMMENT. OKAY. QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD. MR. TURNSTYLE. HOW DIFFICULT WOULD IT BE TO GO TO A SINGLE DRIVEWAY? I'M SORRY. HOW DIFFICULT WOULD IT BE TO GO TO A SINGLE DRIVEWAY? THAT WOULD BE SOMETHING I WOULD NEED TO QUESTION WITH THE THE NEIGHBORHOOD A OR B, BECAUSE THEY DO HAVE DESIGN REQUIREMENTS, SIDE ENTRY GARAGES, I BELIEVE ON THESE LOTS. AND THE COVENANTS DO VARY BASED ON THE PHASES. BUT MY UNDERSTANDING IS THERE'S TWO POINTS OF EGRESS ON ON THOSE PROPERTIES. BUT I MAY BE WRONG. AND OBVIOUSLY PART OF THE DESIGN ESTHETIC AS WELL, BUT IT'S SOMETHING I'D HAVE TO QUESTION WITH THE ARB. MR. DAVIS. I, I KIND OF AGREE WITH MR. TUNSTALL ON THAT. IF THERE'S A WAY TO REWORK THE DRIVEWAY, I MEAN, YOU SAVE A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF TREES IN THE IN THE FRONT OF THE HOUSE, ALL THE ONES IN THE HOUSE AND ALL THE ONES ON THE SIDE DRIVEWAY. UNFORTUNATELY, I DON'T SEE A WAY TO SAVE THOSE, BUT THERE'S NICE CLUSTER THERE IN THE FRONT AND I JUST, I DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S A WAY TO, TO REWORK THAT DRIVEWAY THAT ALLOWS YOU TO, TO SAVE SOME OF THOSE TREES. SO. MR. BLOW, THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR. YEAH, I TEND TO AGREE WITH MR. DAVIS AND MR. TUNSTALL THAT IF WE OR IF THEY COULD REWORK THE DRIVEWAY, THEY COULD PROBABLY SAVE SOME MORE TREES. I'M. I DIDN'T QUITE HEAR YOU BECAUSE THE A C IS KIND OF LOUD, BUT YOU SAID THE SITE NEEDED TO BE SURCHARGED. IT DOES. CORRECT. OKAY, SO YOUR SURCHARGE IS JUST THE FOUNDATION AREA, CORRECT? YEAH. WE TYPICALLY JUST DO THE FOOTPRINT OF THE HOME AND THEN WE GO USUALLY RECOMMENDED TO GO ABOUT FIVE FEET BEYOND THAT AND THEN TAPER DOWN FROM THERE. SO THE FINISHED FLOOR ON THIS ONE'S WELL THE YARD IS GOING TO BE CONSIDERABLY LOWER. LOWER.

IT'S A STEM WALL FOUNDATION. THE GARAGE WILL BE AT NINE TO AVOID HAVING FLOOD VENTS IN THE GARAGE. AND THEN THE HOME IS PROPOSED AT 12 ON THE. SO TO SERVE THE FINISH WE PUT. FIVE FEET SURCHARGE WILL BE ABOUT FIVE FEET OF FILL AT THIS POINT. ABOVE THAT ABOVE. NO, IT'LL ACTUALLY BE. THE GRADE IS ABOUT FIVE FEET RIGHT NOW AND GEOTECH RECOMMENDED SURCHARGING TO TEN FEET. THEN ONCE THE STEM WALL IS CONSTRUCTED, THE REST OF THE DIRT WILL GO BACK IN AT THAT TIME, SO IT WOULD BE SURCHARGE TO TEN, WHICH IS DRAWN ON THE PLAN THERE. AND WE CAN ABSOLUTELY PROTECT AND AVOID THAT FRONT SECTION. IF YOU WANT TO CONTINUE THE CONVERSATION ON THE DRIVEWAY, BECAUSE THAT REALLY ISN'T AN AFFECTED AREA THAT WE'RE GOING TO PUT ANY FILL DIRT AT THIS TIME. YEAH, BECAUSE YOU CAN CERTAINLY REVISIT THOSE GOING THAT CLOSE TO IN THE FRONT YARD WITH YOUR WITH. YEAH, WE'RE REALLY LOOKING AGAIN, IT'S JUST THE FOOTPRINT OF THE DWELLING. AND THEN WE TAPER OFF JUST OUTSIDE OF THAT. SO IF YOU COULD REWORK

[00:30:03]

THIS IS PROBABLY THE MOST WOODED LOT. I THINK THE NEXT ONE WAS LOT FOUR. AND THE BOARD HAD APPROVED THAT A COUPLE OF YEARS AGO FOR CLEARING AND DEVELOPMENT. BUT THIS IS BY COMPARISON, ACROSS THE STREET. THE ONE WE SPOKE ABOUT PREVIOUSLY HAD EIGHT TREES MAYBE THAT CAME OUT. AND THIS HAS UNFORTUNATELY 40 ISH. SAY IT AGAIN, THIS ONE HAS ABOUT 40 TREES THAT WOULD NEED TO BE REMOVED. I THINK IN TOTAL THERE'S MAYBE 60 TREES ON THE PROPERTY, BUT THEY SHOULD ALL BE NOTED ON THE ARBORIST REPORT AS WELL. MR. TUCKER, I HAVE NOTHING. OKAY. SO WOULD YOU LIKE A CONTINUANCE UNTIL NOVEMBER? LET ME TRY TO CRAFT SOMETHING THAT MAYBE HELPS HIM OUT. RIGHT. SO. AND I'M LOOKING AT THE TREES WERE SAVING, WHICH I THINK ARE AND AGAIN, THIS IS SO SMALL, IT'S LIKE SEVEN AND EIGHT. BUT BOTH OF THOSE ARE IN THE MIDDLE OF THAT ARCH IN THE DRIVEWAY. AND BOTH OF THOSE ARE CEDAR TREES THAT ARE IN BAD SHAPE. IF I'M READING THE ARBORIST REPORT CORRECTLY. SO IF THAT'S THE CASE, IF WE WERE TO LOSE THOSE, RIGHT, THE DRIVEWAY MIGHT HAVE TO MOVE A LITTLE TO THE EAST WHERE YOU COME IN ON THAT SIDE WHERE THE GARAGE IS. AND THAT CIRCLE MAY BE A LITTLE BIT SMALLER, BUT YOU COULD SAVE THAT CLUSTER OF TREES UP ON THE TOP LEFT, WHICH WOULD BE GREAT IF WE COULD DO THAT. SO TO GIVE MR. MARKS TIME TO DO THAT, I DO NOT HAVE A PROBLEM APPROVING THIS WITH THE STIPULATION THAT NONE OF THOSE TREES ARE TO BE TAKEN DOWN UNTIL THE DRIVEWAYS REWORKED, IF DRIVEWAYS REWORKED, AND IT DOESN'T TOUCH THOSE TREES AND IT TOUCHES THE OTHER TWO THAT ARE IN THAT RIGHT NOW, LIKE I SAID, THE CENTER OF THAT ARC ON THAT NORTH PROPERTY LINE, I DON'T KNOW IF WE'RE TAKING THOSE TWO OUT AND SAVING THAT OTHER CLUSTER. I'M HAPPY WITH THAT. BUT YOU JUST GOT TO, YOU KNOW, YOU HAVE TO TALK TO YOUR CLIENTS AND FIGURE OUT IF THAT DRIVEWAY WORKS FOR THEM AND IS A VIABLE KIND OF OPTION RATHER THAN TRYING TO DO THAT. BUT THAT WOULD ALLOW YOU TO CLEAR WHERE THE HOUSE IS AND WHERE THE DRIVEWAY IS. SO YOU COULD SURCHARGE THAT PART OF THE PROPERTY THAT WOULD WORK THAT YOU KNOW WHAT, MADAM CHAIR? IF IF YOU COULD MARK UP THIS SITE PLAN AND SHOW THE AREA THAT YOU'RE I MEAN, YOU'RE I THINK I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING, BUT BASICALLY, AND MAYBE WE PUT IT ON THE OVERHEAD AND BASICALLY THIS THIS AREA, WHICH I GUESS WOULD BE THE NORTHWEST CORNER IS WHERE A BUNCH OF THESE RED DOTS ARE THAT WE'D WANT TO SAVE THOSE TREES. ARE YOU DOING IT FOR OTHER APPLICANTS? WE'VE HAD THEM GO BACK AND BRING US REVISED DRAWINGS FOR US TO LOOK AT WITHOUT THE BOARD RECONFIGURING FOR THEM. OKAY. I'M SORRY, I GOT IT. WE CAN. KNOWING WE'LL NEED A FLOODPLAIN PERMIT FOR THE SURCHARGE. WE CAN, OF COURSE, SUBMIT A REVISED PLAN SHOWING THE TREES THAT ARE BEING SAVED FOR FURTHER REVIEW AND APPROVAL BEFORE UNTIL THAT PERMIT IS ISSUED. WE CAN'T LEGALLY CLEAR ANY TREES OR BRING IN ANY DIRT ANYWAY, I THINK I MEAN, THE CHAIR IS RIGHT. WE HAVE OTHER APPLICANTS WHO BASICALLY THEY GO BACK AND BRING BACK THEIR OWN DRAWINGS. AND I THINK IN THIS CASE, IN ORDER TO BE FAIR TO EVERYONE, MY ONLY MY ONLY CONCERN IS IF THERE IS STIPULATION IN THE COVENANTS THAT WOULD REQUIRE

[00:35:07]

AND IF THE REQUIREMENTS IN THE DEVELOPMENT REQUIRE THAT THERE BE TWO POINTS OF ENTRY ON THE DRIVEWAY, THAT WOULD BE INFORMATION THAT YOU WOULD SHARE WITH US, AND WE WOULD CONSIDER THAT AS WELL. BUT RIGHT NOW, LOOKING AT THE JUSTIFICATION FOR THE ACTION REQUESTED AND NOT BEING A CONTRACTOR, THAT DOESN'T TELL ME WHY THOSE TREES NEED TO BE REMOVED. SO. SO WOULD YOU LIKE A CONTINUANCE UNTIL NEXT MONTH? YEAH, UNLESS WE CAN GET PARTIAL APPROVAL FOR SURCHARGE AND NOT THE TREE REMOVAL AND, WELL, I GUESS THAT'S A QUESTION FOR A MOTION TO DENY THIS WITHOUT MORE INFORMATION. HOW ABOUT I'LL MAKE A MOTION. WE CONTINUE IT TO. WHAT IS IT? NOVEMBER. NOVEMBER 3RD. THREE. OH ELECTION DAY. I'LL SECOND THAT.

VOTE, PLEASE. CARL. BLOW. YES. SUSAN. JONES. ZACHARY TUCKER. YES. WILLIAM. TUNSTALL. YES.

JAN KELLY. YES. MIKE DAVIS. YES. AND CHARLES PAPPAS. YES. THANK YOU. WE WILL SEE YOU NEXT MONTH.

ALL RIGHT. OKAY. THE NEXT ITEM IS PCB 2026 0065. AN APPLICATION TO APPROVE THE

[5.b) PZB2026-0065 Heather Garvey - Applicant c/o BETNR Construction Paul J Thompson - Owner c/o Thompson Bros. Realty, Inc 1400 Plantation Island Dr S To approve the removal of significant trees and significant tree canopy within Conservation Overlay Zone 3.]

MY QUESTIONS ARE AS FOLLOWED. I WOULD LIKE TO DETERMINE IF THE BOARD IS ADOPTING THE DEVELOPER SUBMISSION AND STAFF REVIEW AS THEIR OWN FINDINGS. NUMBER TWO, PURSUANT TO CODE 25-58. WHAT EFFORTS AND MEASURES HAVE BEEN TAKEN BY THE BOARD'S AUTHORITY TO LOCATE STRUCTURES, PARKING AREAS AND OTHER IMPROVEMENTS TO RETAIN SIGNIFICANT TREES? NUMBER THREE, WHAT INFORMATION IS BEING USED TO DETERMINE OR THAT SUPERSEDES CMN POLICY? 2.1.2 STATING PERMITS WITHIN

[00:40:07]

AND IS THE BOARD FOREGOING THEIR AUTHORITY IF THEY APPROVE, TO IMPOSE LIMITATIONS TO THE NATURE AND MANNER OF CONSTRUCTION AS TO AVOID THESE ISSUES. NUMBER FOUR WHAT SPECIFIC CODE IS THE BOARD FOLLOWING TO SUPERSEDE POLICY? 2.1.2 THAT STATES THAT DEVELOPMENT AND CONSERVATION OVERLAY ZONE THREE MUST RETAIN EITHER AT LEAST 25% OF THE TREES ON THE SITE, AND ALL HEALTHY TREES LARGER THAN 12IN, OR 50% OF THE TREES ON THE SITE.

NUMBER FIVE I DID NOT SEE IN THE STAFF REPORT. IF APPROVED, IS THE BOARD FOREGOING THE 18 QUESTIONS IN CMN, 2.1.3 THAT SHALL BE ANSWERED AND USED TO EVALUATE APPLICATIONS FOR DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE CONSERVATION ZONE. SPECIFICALLY, WHAT INFORMATION IS BEING USED TO DETERMINE NATURAL AND PROPOSED DRAINAGE PATTERNS, POTENTIAL FOR CONTAMINATED DRAINAGE AND IMPACT OF DEVELOPMENT ON VEGETATIVE AND ANIMAL COMMUNITIES. IMPACT OF DEVELOPMENT ON PLANT AND ANIMAL HABITAT, STORAGE OF POLLUTANTS AND THE USE OF POISONOUS CHEMICALS AND MATERIALS. IMPACT OF DEVELOPMENT ON WATER QUALITY AND IS THE BOARD FOREGOING THE REQUIREMENT TO OBTAIN A WILDLIFE HABITAT SURVEY? NUMBER SIX IS THE BOARD FOREGOING, IF APPROVED, PUBLIC NOTICE MINIMUMS ON ZONING, SIGNAGE ON THE PROPERTY AND NUMBER SEVEN, IF APPROVED, WHAT INFORMATION IS BEING USED BY THE BOARD TO CERTIFY THAT PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 25-58, THE APPLICANT HAS DEMONSTRATED COMPLIANCE TO THESE CODES OR THAT IT WOULD BE AN IMPOSSIBILITY OR CARS, CAR AND CAUSE HARDSHIP TO THE OWNER. OR IS THE BOARD FOREGOING THE APPLICATION'S BURDEN TO APPROVE SUCH. THANK YOU, THANK YOU. ANY EX PARTE. PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS AND BE SWORN IN. THE MICROPHONES ADJUSTABLE. SO IF YOU WANT TO JUST PUSH IT DOWN. THERE YOU GO. MAUREEN LONG, 1821 CASTILE STREET, MENENDEZ PARK. DO YOU SOLEMNLY SWEAR OR AFFIRM THAT THE TESTIMONY YOU'RE ABOUT TO GIVE IS THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH? I AM? HI THERE. I'D LIKE TO BRING YOUR ATTENTION TO SOME INACCURACIES AND INCONSISTENCIES. INCONSISTENCIES WITHIN THE APPLICATION APPLICANT'S SUBMITTAL PACKET. FIRST, ON PAGE 24, THE TREE INVENTORY.

THE ASSESSMENT MAP IDENTIFIES SIX OF THESE TREES THAT ARE ON THE OUTSIDE OF THE SUBJECT'S PARCEL. THESE ARE. THESE ARE THE SIX TREES THAT THEY ARE. AND THIS ONE HERE, NUMBER 6164, IS THE SIGNIFICANT TREE. THESE OTHER TREES THAT ARE THERE ARE ON THE ADJACENT PARCEL. I'LL GO BACK AND SHOW YOU ON THAT THERE YOU CAN SEE THEY'RE THERE AND THEY'RE THEY'RE OUTSIDE THE LINE. OKAY. THEN ON PAGE 38, THE TREE REMOVAL PLAN, LET'S SEE THE NUMBERING OF IT. YOU CAN SEE IT JUMPS FROM 152 TO 163 AND 164. THEN WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE TOTAL NUMBER THAT THEY HAVE OF THEIR TREES, IT'S 193. WELL, IF YOU MINUS THOSE SIX THAT ARE NOT ON THAT PROPERTY OR ON THAT DEVELOPMENT, IT BRINGS THE TREE NUMBER DOWN TO 187. I COUNTED THESE OUT AND THERE'S 24 SAVED TREES. AGAIN, IF YOU TAKE THE SIX OFF THAT ARE OUTSIDE THE BOUNDARY LINE, THAT LEAVES YOU WITH 18 TREES. ON PAGE 35, IT SHOWS 23 TREES ARE RETAINED. AND I ENLARGED THIS MAP TO SEE IF YOU CAN SEE THOSE TREES AGAIN. MADE THEM IN YELLOW. I WORKED THIS ON THE COMPUTER AND ENLARGED IT TO 200 SO THAT I COULD SEE IT. SO WITH THE CORRECTED DATA, IT BRINGS THINGS A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENTLY. SO LET'S SEE. IN SHORT, THE APPLICANT'S ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION MAP IS COMPROMISED. THE PACKET PROVIDES TWO CONFLICTING COUNTS FOR SAVE TREES. IT FEATURES A FLAWED NUMBER SYSTEM AND CLAIMS SIX OFFSITE TREES, INCLUDING A SIGNIFICANT SPECIMEN TO INFLATE ITS PRESERVATION CREDITS. I RESPECTFULLY REQUEST THAT YOU FIND THIS APPLICATION INACCURATE AND INCOMPLETE. REQUIRE THE APPLICANT TO RETURN AFTER SUBMITTING A REVISED SUBMITTAL PACKET BASED STRICTLY WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES OF ITS DEVELOPMENT PARCEL. THANK YOU FOR YOUR DILIGENCE IN PROTECTING OUR LOCAL TREE

[00:45:01]

WOULD THE APPLICANT LIKE TO ADDRESS THE. LET ME GO THROUGH. THE NOTICES WERE SENT OUT.

THREE IN FAVOR WERE RECEIVED. ONE IS OPPOSED. LET'S SEE WHAT THE COMMENTS ARE HERE. THERE IS A LETTER FROM MISS SMITH AT FISH ISLAND PLACE. REGARDING INACCURACIES IN THE TREE INVENTORY SIMILAR TO AS WERE JUST PRESENTED. THIS PAGE TURNED. AND ANOTHER ONE JUST GENERALLY IMPOSED OPPOSED WITHOUT COMMENT. ANOTHER COMMENT REGARDING INACCURACIES REGARDING THE TREE INVENTORY. DO YOU WANT TO ADDRESS THE VARIOUS COMMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN MADE? WELL, CERTAINLY. SO LET'S START WITH THE ACCURACY OF THE TREE INVENTORY. SO THE THE TREES WERE ACTUALLY GPS COORDINATE COORDINATE COORDINATE IDENTIFIED. AND THAT INFORMATION WAS INPUT INTO OUR CAD FILE. AND THE TREES DO FALL WITHIN THE PROPERTY. YOU KNOW, JUST I UNDERSTAND THAT THE EXHIBIT MAY NOT APPEAR THAT WAY, BUT YOU'RE ALSO TALKING ABOUT, YOU KNOW, TAKING AN AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH AND ESTIMATING WHERE, YOU KNOW, WHERE YOU THINK THE PROPERTY LINE IS. AND SO, BUT WHEN WE INPUT THOSE THAT DATA INTO THE COMPUTER, YOU KNOW, THE, THE TREES IN QUESTION ARE ON THE PROPERTY. AND THOSE TREES ALONG THAT BUFFER ARE BEING SAVED. THE THE OTHER QUESTIONS, YOU KNOW, QUITE FRANKLY, I'M NOT QUITE CERTAIN OF, YOU KNOW, WITHOUT HAVING THE CODE IN FRONT OF ME, ALL OF THE SECTIONS OF THE CODE THE YOUNG LADY SPOKE ABOUT. BUT WE HAVE LOOKED AT THE PROPERTY. WE HAD OUR LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT LOOK AT THE PROPERTY TO SEE IF THERE WERE ANY OTHER WAYS THAT WE COULD SAVE ADDITIONAL TREES.

RIGHT NOW, WHAT WHAT WE HAVE DONE IS WE HAVE, YOU KNOW, THE. THE DEVELOPMENT COULD HAVE BEEN LARGER. WE ARE ALLOWED A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF IMPERVIOUS AREA FOR THIS PIECE OF DEVELOPMENT PROPERTY. HOW MUCH? 75%, 75%. AND WE, WE DID NOT FULLY DEVELOP THE PROPERTY. AND SO WHAT WE DID IS PUSHED EVERYTHING, THE ENTIRE DEVELOPMENT UP TOWARDS THE EXISTING DEVELOPED AREA, WHICH IS THE RETENTION POND THAT SERVES THIS SITE. AND SO WE, WE KEPT OUR DEVELOPMENT TO THE NORTH SO THAT WE COULD CREATE A KIND OF LIKE A CORRIDOR OF EXISTING VEGETATION THAT IS IN ONE COHESIVE AREA TO TRY AND SAVE THAT HABITAT AS A WHOLE RATHER THAN, YOU KNOW, SPORADICALLY, YOU KNOW, SAVE IT THROUGHOUT THE, YOU KNOW, VARIOUS PARTS OF THE SITE. SO WE FELT THAT THAT WAS ACTUALLY A BENEFIT TO SAVING TREES AND PROVIDING THAT UPLAND HABITAT. AND WE'VE, YOU KNOW, TRIED TO LOCATE OUR, OUR ENTRANCES SO THAT THEY'RE AS FAR NORTH AS THEY CAN BE. AND THEN AS FAR EAST TO AGAIN, PRESERVE THAT, THAT POCKET OF VEGETATION. AS STATED IN THE STAFF REPORT, YOU KNOW, WE'VE WE ARE PRESERVING, I THINK, SOMETHING LIKE 54 CREDITS. AND WE ARE PLANTING ADDITIONAL CREDITS AND WE ARE WORKING WITH STAFF. I MEAN, WE STILL DO HAVE A DEFICIT, BUT WE ARE WORKING WITH STAFF TO, YOU KNOW, TO EITHER ACCOMPLISH THAT DEFICIT THROUGH REPLANTING OR, OR SOME OTHER FORM OF MITIGATION. SO WE'RE WORKING WITH STAFF TO, TO FINALIZE THOSE OPTIONS. BUT, YOU KNOW,

[00:50:01]

I'M NOT REALLY SURE IF THEY FALL ON THE PROPERTY LINE HOW THAT ACTUALLY WORKS. BUT. ONE TWO THIS ONE FALLS ON THE PROPERTY LINE. THAT ONE'S ON THE PROPERTY LINE. AND THEN SO I THINK IT'S I THINK IT'S FOUR. I THINK IT'S FOUR FOUR TREES HERE. YOU CAN MOVE THE MICROPHONE UP. SO I THINK YOU'RE A LITTLE TALL AND IT'S NOT CATCHING YOU. THANK YOU.

YOU CAN REPEAT THAT. I BELIEVE IT'S IT'S FOUR TREES THAT APPEAR TO BE FULLY OUTSIDE OF THE PROPERTY LINE. AND IT APPEARS THAT TWO OF THE OTHER ONES ARE THEY SHARE THEY SHARE THE PROPERTY BOUNDARY. I GUESS. SO IF YOU COULD UPDATE THE INVENTORY, I THINK THAT'D BE HELPFUL FOR EVERYONE. I GUESS. CLARIFICATION ON THE WHAT IF IT'S HALF THE TREE IS ON THE LIKE I DON'T REALLY SORRY MY IGNORANCE OF WHEN IT ACTUALLY. SO TYPICALLY. YEAH. SO TYPICALLY IF THE TREE FALLS ON THE PROPERTY LINE, IT IS CONSIDERED ON THE PROPERTY SIMPLY BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE THE RIGHT TO TAKE IT DOWN THE TRUNK OR JUST OR THE ROOT BALL.

LIKE, I MEAN, CANOPY IS KIND OF BIG, SO YOU'D ASSUME, RIGHT? I MEAN, IT'S YEAH, THE TRUNK AND THE ROOT BALL. THAT'S NOT RIGHT. RIGHT. SO I GUESS YEAH. SO IT'S, YOU KNOW, IT WOULD NEED TO EITHER BE PRESERVED BY US OR BY THE ADJACENT PROPERTY WHEN IT DEVELOPS. SO SINCE WE'RE COMING IN FIRST, IT WOULD BE OUR RESPONSIBILITY TO SAVE THAT TREE. SO OTHER THAN THE DISCREPANCY REGARDING THE NUMBER OF TREES THAT ARE SAVED AND THE NUMBER OF TREES REQUIRED FOR THE FOR MITIGATION, ARE ALL OF THE TREES PROPOSED TO BE REMOVED WITHIN THE FOOTPRINT OF THE BUILDING THAT'S BEING PROPOSED? IT'S WITHIN THE BUILDING AND THE PARKING. MISS KELLY, ANY QUESTIONS? I HAVE A QUESTION FOR STAFF. CM TWO ZONING HAS A MAXIMUM LOT COVERAGE OF 75% ADJACENT. DEVELOP CM TWO PROPERTY ALONG THE THREE. 12 CORRIDORS HAVE REMOVED SIMILAR OR HIGHER LEVELS OF TREE CANOPY, RESULTING IN NO TREE CANOPY. SO HOW DOES THAT WORK WITH CONSERVATION ZONE THREE UPLAND AND URBAN RESIDENTIAL AREAS, THOSE UNDEVELOPED AREAS CONSIDERED TO BE SPECIAL FLOOD HAZARD AND SIGNIFICANT TREE CANOPY AREAS. SO THE WAY CHAPTER 11 IS CONSTRUCTED IS THAT WE HAVE THREE ZONES. WE HAVE CONSERVATION OVERLAY ZONE ONE, TWO AND THREE, ONE BEING WATER WORD OF THE JURISDICTIONAL WETLAND LINE TWO BEING 100FT LANDWARD OF THE JURISDICTIONAL WETLAND LINE AND THREE BEING EVERYTHING ELSE. THE ONLY TIME AN APPLICATION APPEARS BEFORE THE BOARD. IF

[00:55:01]

OR MISS DOHERTY. MR. PAPPAS, ANY QUESTIONS? NO. JUST LOOKING AT THE THE TREE COUNT THAT NEEDS TO BE REDONE BECAUSE I SEE FIVE OUTSIDE THE LINES ON THAT. I MEAN, ONCE THIS WAS ZONED COMMERCIAL, WE PRETTY MUCH DOOMED THE TREES. AND WE HAVE LIMITED ABILITY TO SAVE A LOT OF THAT CANOPY. I MEAN, ETHICALLY IT BOTHERS ME, BUT LEGALLY I'M NOT SURE HOW MUCH I CAN DO ON THAT. I MEAN, IT'S NOT BEING FULLY DEVELOPED. SO THEY'VE DONE SOME ON SAVING ON THAT. MY ONLY CONCERN IS TO MAKE SURE THAT THE TREE COUNTS ARE ACCURATE. MR. BLOW, I AGREE WITH MR. PAPPAS THAT WE NEED TO MAKE SURE THE TREE COUNTS ARE ACCURATE. AND ALSO, I JUST WANTED TO CONFIRM BECAUSE ONE OF THE MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC BROUGHT UP, I THINK, STORMWATER ISSUES. I BELIEVE THIS WHOLE DEVELOPMENT IS UNDER A MASTER PERMIT WITH THE WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT, RIGHT? YES. THAT'S CORRECT. IT'S UNDER A MASTER MASTER, STORMWATER PUD AND THE STORMWATER POND THAT IS JUST TO THE NORTHWEST OF OUR OR NORTH OF THE PROJECT HERE ON OUR ON OUR CORNER IS THE STORMWATER POND THAT THAT THIS PARCEL IS SUPPOSED TO DRAIN TO.

IN OTHER WORDS. YEAH, THIS THIS, THIS PARCEL IS IT'S STORMWATER IS TREATED AND THAT IT IS TREATED AND ATTENUATED IN THAT STORMWATER POND. AND WE'RE ALLOWED 75% IMPERVIOUS AREA AND WE'RE ONLY PERMITTING, I BELIEVE IT'S 62 OR 65% IMPERVIOUS. I DON'T HAVE THE NUMBER IN FRONT OF ME. SORRY. OKAY. DO YOU HAVE A MR. DAVIS? WE DO HAVE OUR SAINT JOHN'S PERMIT IN HAND. YES, I AGREE WITH MR. PAPPAS'S COMMENTS ON ONE SUCH COMMERCIAL. IT PRETTY MUCH DOOMS THE TREES AND THE OTHER IS AN ELEVATION ISSUE. I'M ASSUMING FINAL GRADE ELEVATION IS GOING TO BE MUCH HIGHER THAN WHAT THE EXISTING GRADE IS RIGHT NOW. GIVE ME A MOMENT. MY. MY FINISHED FLOOR ELEVATION IS SET TO ELEVATION NINE AND THE EXISTING GRADES ON SITE, I BELIEVE ARE IN THE SEVEN AND EIGHTS. SO WE'RE NOT NOT, YOU KNOW, INCREDIBLY HIGHER. THAT'S GOOD. YEAH, YEAH. AND I, I LOOKED AT THIS AND I'D LOVE TO SAVE THAT POCKET OF TREES, WHICH IS IN THE SOUTHWEST CORNER, BUT I'M ASSUMING THE DRIVEWAY HAS TO BE AS FAR AWAY FROM THE INTERSECTION AS POSSIBLE. AND THAT'S WHAT'S DRIVING THAT.

THAT WAS OUR INTENT. YEAH. WHICH, WHICH THE CLOSER YOU GET TO THE INTERSECTION, THE MORE DANGEROUS THAT BECOMES. SO YEAH, I, I THINK WE, I AGREE WITH MY BOARD, YOU NEED TO GET THE TREE COUNT CORRECT AND THEN FIGURE OUT RIGHT NOW YOU'RE AT A 56 TREE DEFICIT. THAT'S A PRETTY GOOD DEFICIT OF HOW YOU'RE GOING TO SOLVE THAT. AND IF YOU COULD LET US KNOW THAT NEXT MEETING, THAT WOULD BE THAT'D BE GREAT. I AGREE WITH ALL THE OTHER BOARD MEMBERS. I DON'T HAVE ANY QUESTIONS. OKAY, SO WE HAVE A MOTION FOR THIS ONE. WELL, I GUESS WE GOT TO CONTINUE IT, RIGHT? SO WE FIGURE OUT THE TWO. I'M SORRY. I GUESS WE GOT TO CONTINUE THIS ANOTHER 30 DAYS. SO IS THERE ANY WAY TO DO A CONTINGENT APPROVAL TO ALLOW THIS PROJECT TO KEEP MOVING FORWARD? I DON'T THINK SO. I MEAN, THAT'S JUST MY OPINION, BUT I'M LOOKING AT THE REST OF THE BOARD. MR. BLOW, WE'RE BARELY PICKING YOU UP. AND YEAH, I WOULD SAY AS WELL.

SO IF YOU CAN JUST GET CLOSER TO YOUR MICROPHONE, THAT'S UP TO THE REST OF THE BOARD, WHETHER THERE'S ANY SORT OF WAY TO ALLOW YOU TO DO ANY WORK, WE'D BE PUTTING THE ONUS ON THE STAFF TO DOUBLE CHECK THE TREE COUNT AND TO SATISFY THAT THEY MEET THEIR DEFICIT. THAT'S I MEAN, IT'S BEEN DONE BEFORE. IT'S UP TO THE REST OF THE BOARD MEMBERS. WELL, WE JUST HAD ONE WHERE WE WE TOLD THE APPLICANT THEY NEEDED TO COME BACK TO US, THAT WE THERE WAS NO MIDDLE GROUND. SO I WOULD GUESS WE NEED TO CONTINUE THIS. I'M LESS CONCERNED ABOUT TREE COUNT WHEN IT DOESN'T IMPACT THE TREES THAT ARE BEING REMOVED. IT JUST DETERMINES THE NUMBER THAT NEED TO BE REPLACED OR MITIGATED. YEAH. BECAUSE IN THIS CASE, WE'RE NOT ASKING THEM TO REWORK ANYTHING AS IN THE PREVIOUS APP. WE'RE JUST MAKING SURE OUR NUMBERS ARE RIGHT. BUT I'M OPEN TO WHATEVER. AND THEY HAVE A RECOURSE, RIGHT? THEY'VE EITHER GOT TO PLANT

[01:00:03]

IF STAFF DOESN'T AGREE WITH IT, IT WILL COME BACK TO US AS A BOARD, BUT IF THEY AGREE WITH IT, THEN THEY ONCE THEY GET ALL THEIR APPROVALS, THEY CAN. THEY CAN BEGIN CONSTRUCTION, BUT YOU GOT TO GET ALL YOUR APPROVALS AND YOU GOT TO GET STAFF TO AGREE WITH IT. AND IT'S GOT TO BE THE ACCURATE COUNT AND THAT THEY'LL MEET THE DEFICIT WITH STAFF. CORRECT. THAT WILL MEET THE DEFICIT AS PER OUR EXISTING CODE. I'LL SECOND THAT ROLL CALL, PLEASE. MIKE DAVIS YES, YES. ZACHARY TUCKER YES. WILLIAM TUNSTALL. YES. JAN KELLY NO. CARL BLOW YES. AND SUSAN JOHNSON, YES. THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU. SO THE NEXT ITEM IS PB 2026 0081. AN

[5.c) PZB2026-0081 Ryan Carter - Applicant c/o Carter Environmental Services Cabe Nolan - Owner 17 Salt Run Ct To approve the construction of a dock within Conservation Overlay Zones 1 & 2.]

GET HERE. CAN I GET THOSE FROM YOU AFTER THE MEETING TO GET HOME? IT'S RAINING. YOU MIGHT NEED THEM. YOU ALREADY PROMISED. DON'T YOU HAVE YOUR SURFBOARD? NO SURFBOARD. I DO HAVE ONE IN THE BACK OF THE TRUCK. IS THERE A STAFF REPORT ON THIS ONE? THIS IS A REQUEST FOR CONSERVATION OVERLAY ZONE DEVELOPMENT TO CONSTRUCT A DOCK AND CONSERVATION OVERLAY. ZONES ONE AND TWO AT 17 SALT RUN COURT. THE APPROVAL OF THIS APPLICATION WOULD ALLOW FOR A DOCK 291FT LONG, WITH A BOATLIFT FLOATING DOCK AND GANGWAY. THE PROPOSED DOCK LOCATION WOULD CROSS A RIGHT OF WAY AND REQUIRE A LICENSING AGREEMENT, NOT A LEASE AGREEMENT. AS STATED IN THE STAFF REPORT APPROVAL. THIS APPLICATION WOULD ALLOW THE APPLICANT TO REQUEST THIS LICENSING AGREEMENT FROM CITY COMMISSION. REVIEW OF SECTION 1129 IS RESPONSIBILITY OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A DOCK AND CONSERVATION OVERLAY ZONE THREE. OKAY. THANK YOU. OKAY. WELL, THIS IS IN SALT RUN. IT IS.

WELL, I'LL GET TO THE AERIAL HERE. SO AS YOU CAN SEE, THIS HAD IT PREVIOUSLY HAD A DOCK AND THE APPLICANT IS IS I BELIEVE IS HERE. I DON'T NEVER MET HIM. HE'S IN THE BACK. BUT THERE HE IS IN CASE THERE'S ANY QUESTIONS WITH HIM. BUT IN ANY EVENT, WHEN WE LOOK AT THIS PROPERTY IT'S ON A CORNER IN SALT RUN. AND YOU CAN SEE THERE WAS OR THERE STILL IS PILINGS FROM WHERE THERE WAS A PREVIOUS DOCK RIGHT IN THIS ALIGNMENT. AND WE, WE, OUR DOCK PROPOSED IS IN THAT EXACT SAME ALIGNMENT. SO I JUST WANT TO MENTION THAT THERE WAS A DOCK HERE PREVIOUSLY, AND IT WAS PROBABLY DAMAGED FROM MATTHEW. ALSO THIS DOCK TO THE TO THE WEST OR NORTH. WE PERMITTED THAT WITH THE BOARD IN 2020, I THINK, OR. 21. AND THEN OF COURSE, THIS DOCK HAS BEEN HERE FOR A VERY LONG TIME. SO THAT'S KIND OF THE LAY OF THE LAND. SARAH HAD MENTIONED THE LICENSING AGREEMENT, WHICH WILL HAVE TO GO IN FRONT OF THE BOARD FOR. I THINK THAT'S A CONSENT AGENDA ITEM. YEAH. AND THAT IS BECAUSE THERE'S AN OLD PLAT THAT COMES THROUGH HERE, AND THE BOARDWALK OF THE DOCK WILL CROSS THAT OLD PLAT IN A COUPLE PLACES, I BELIEVE, AND THE DOCK AND THE BOARDWALK WILL CROSS THAT. SO WE'LL HAVE TO DEAL WITH THAT WITH THE BOARD IN THE FUTURE. YOU MEAN WITH THE CITY COMMISSION, NOT THIS BOARD.

YEAH. THANK YOU. TRYING TO GET THAT WHOLE PAGE VIEW. OKAY, SO HERE'S THE PROPOSED DOCK AND I'LL ZOOM BACK IN. AS MENTIONED, YOU CAN SEE THE SHADOW OF THE EXISTING PILES THAT ARE STILL

[01:05:05]

WE I THINK WE'RE AT IT'S IN THE APPLICATION. IT'S PROBABLY SEVEN FEET ABOVE MEAN HIGH IS THE PROPOSED BOARDWALK AND DOCK STRUCTURES. AND I THINK THAT CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION. I'M HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. THANK YOU. ANY EX PARTE. NONE FAMILIAR WITH THIS SITE. NONE FOR ME. NONE. NONE. VISITED THE SITE. 30 LETTERS WERE SENT OUT, SIX IN FAVOR, ZERO OPPOSED TO WITH COMMENTS. THE OWNER OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY, AS WELL AS THE OWNER OF THE ADJACENT PROPERTY IS IN FAVOR. ISN'T THERE ANOTHER PERSON? OKAY, MADAM CHAIR, DO WE? WHEN YOU SAY THE ADJACENT PROPERTY, IS IT THE PROPERTY TO THE LEFT WAS 16FT, OR IS IT THE PROPERTY TO THE RIGHT WITH 26FT? IT IS AT SIX SANCHEZ COURT AND I DO NOT KNOW. WELL, DELORENZO IS ON THE IS THE 25FT. MR. CARTER, DO YOU KNOW WHICH THE. DOES IT HAVE HIS NAME? HUFNAGEL IS THE ONE TO THE WEST AND THEN THE ONE TO THE EAST IS DELORENZO. THIS IS BY THE SAME PERSON. THE TWO OF TWO OF THEM ARE THE SAME PERSON. NOLAN. THAT'S THE APPLICANT. AND THE OWNER APPLICANT IS THE ONE THAT'S IN FAVOR. YOU SAID HE'S TO THE LEFT WITH THE 16 FOOT. YEAH. OKAY. THAT'S JUST TRYING TO CLARIFY WHICH ONE. THANK YOU. OKAY, LET'S SEE IF WE ASK FOR PUBLIC COMMENT. ANY PUBLIC COMMENT ON THIS ONE? YEAH. CONFUSION IS THAT I ALSO OWN ANOTHER PROPERTY. OH I'M SORRY. SAY YOUR NAME. YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS, PLEASE. NOLAN. AND I'M AT SIX SANCHEZ COVE, SAINT AUGUSTINE, FLORIDA, 32080. AND WHAT DO YOU DO? YOU SOLEMNLY SWEAR OR AFFIRM THAT THE TESTIMONY YOU'RE ABOUT TO GIVE IS THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH I DO.

I THINK THE CONFUSION THERE IS I, I OWN A PROPERTY ADJACENT. SO I SENT IN A COMMENT

[01:10:02]

ANY PUBLIC COMMENT? OKAY. HEARING NONE. BOARD DISCUSSION. ANYBODY FOR LEADING THIS ONE OFF? I VISITED THE SITE AND YOU CAN CLEARLY SEE THE ENTRY TO THE ORIGINAL DOCK. AND LOOKS I MEAN, LOOKS PRETTY STRAIGHTFORWARD TO ME. YEAH. I DON'T KNOW IF BOTH NEIGHBORS ARE OKAY WITH THIS. I DON'T HAVE ANY ISSUE WITH THIS APPLICATION. I WAS ONLY CONCERNED ABOUT THE NEIGHBOR TO THE LEFT, BUT IF HE'S FINE WITH IT AND HE'S GOT TO LIVE WITH IT, I'M GOOD WITH IT, MR. BARLOW. WELL, I AGREE WITH MR. CARTER. THERE'S A WATER DEPTH PROBLEM HERE. THIS THIS PARTICULAR LOCATION IS PRETTY FAR FROM THE CHANNEL. AND SO THESE GUYS NEED TO GET OUT AS FAR AS THEY CAN. AND I GUESS THE LIFT IS COMPARABLE TO THE DE LORENZO LIFT AS FAR AS SIZE. YEAH. IT'S AND IT'S A CRADLE LIFT. WELL I THINK MICHAEL HAS HE HAS TWO LIFTS. BUT YEAH, I MEAN THAT FOOTPRINT THE SIZE OF THE BOAT. YEAH. 32FT. YEAH. I DON'T KNOW IF HE I DON'T THINK HE'S EVEN GOING TO GO THAT BIG. BUT HE WANTED TO BE ABLE TO WALK AROUND THE DOCK TO SERVICE IT. SO THAT'S WHY WE WENT 32. WELL I AGREE WITH MY MR. DAVIS AND MR. TUNSTALL. IF IF THE OWNER TO THE WEST DOESN'T HAVE AN ISSUE WITH IT AND HE'S SEEN THE DRAWING, THEN I DON'T HAVE ANY COMMENTS. AND IT APPEARS TO BE BASED UPON THE PRIOR DOCK, WHICH IS AN EXTENSION BASED UPON THE WATER. I DON'T HAVE ANY PROBLEMS WITH THAT EITHER.

SAME HERE. MISS KELLY, I HAVE A QUESTION FOR YOU. JUST A BASIC UNDERSTANDING FOR ME. WHEN THE MARINE SOURCE RESOURCES GIS INDICATE SALT MARSH HABITAT AND OYSTER BEDS WITHIN THE AREA, WHAT DOES THAT MEAN FOR YOU AS THE DEVELOPER OR PLANNER OF THE SITE? WELL, THE ON THE MAIN HERE IT'S A GOOD QUESTION. SO YOU CAN SEE ON THIS AERIAL IN THIS AREA. YEAH, YOU CAN SEE IT WHERE MY HAND IS. THE BOARDWALK HAS TO CROSS THE MANGROVES. IF THERE'S A GAP IN THE MANGROVES, JUST NATURALLY WE WOULD WANT TO PUT THE BOARDWALK ALIGNMENT THERE. SO WE'RE NOT CUTTING DOWN ANY MANGROVES IN ORDER TO PUT THE ALIGNMENT OF THE BOARDWALK THERE. HOWEVER, IN THIS CASE, WELL, AND IN THIS CASE, WE ALREADY HAVE AN EXISTING ALIGNMENT BECAUSE THERE WAS A PREVIOUS DOCK IN THAT SAME FOOTPRINT. SO THE DOCK HAS BEEN DAMAGED. BUT THERE'S STILL THE EVIDENCE OF THE FOOTPRINT THROUGH THE MANGROVES. SO IT'S THE LEAST IMPACTFUL ALIGNMENT. AND THAT'S WHAT THE DEP IS GOING TO WANT TO SEE US DO. THAT'S FROM THE MANGROVE STANDPOINT AS IT RELATES TO THE OYSTER BEDS. AGAIN, SAME THING. IF THERE'S AN OPPORTUNITY TO DEMONSTRATE MINIMIZATION TO THE RESOURCES, THEN WE WANT TO DO THAT. IN THIS INSTANCE, THERE'S ALREADY AN ALIGNMENT. SO IT MAKES SENSE TO JUST USE THAT EXISTING ALIGNMENT BECAUSE IT WAS PREVIOUSLY THERE. BUT IF WE HAD A BLANK SLATE, WE WERE WE WE LOOK AT WHERE WE WOULD ALIGN THE, THE DOCK AND WE COULD AVOID OYSTER BEDS OR MARSH OR MANGROVES TO MINIMIZE THOSE IMPACTS ON THOSE RESOURCES. WE WOULD. THANK YOU. DO YOU HAVE A SORRY. WHAT'S THE DEMOLITION PROCESS FOR THE REMNANTS OF THE OLD DOCK THAT'S THERE NOW, I DON'T KNOW WHAT THEIR PLAN IS. YOU KNOW, SOMETIMES IF THE PILINGS ARE USABLE, THEY'LL REPURPOSE THEM. BUT OTHERWISE THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE TO PULL THEM OUT. THAT'S OBVIOUSLY IN UTILIZE IDEALLY THE SAME HOLE. BUT I DON'T KNOW. I'M NOT A CONTRACTOR. I'M NOT BUILDING THAT. OKAY. THANKS. MR. TUCKER. YEAH, I WAS JUST HOPING TO MAYBE GET SOME EDUCATION HERE.

SO YOU HAVE YOUR RIPARIAN LINES GOING OUTWARD AND THEN YOU HAVE WHAT I I'M READING AS LIKE INGRESS EGRESS FOR THE BOATS. IS THAT LIKE, I MEAN, DID YOU GUYS DESIGN THAT FOR OPTIMAL INGRESS EGRESS OR LIKE, WHY WOULD YOU NOT PIVOT THE DOCK, THE GOING OUTWARD TO BE MORE ORIENTED ALONG THE RIPARIAN LINES? JUST A QUESTION. YEAH, NO, IT'S A GREAT QUESTION AND GOOD TO SEE YOU ON THE BOARD. THANK YOU. AND FOR THE FOR EVERYONE'S RECORD, IF I'M NOT MISTAKEN, MR. TUCKER IS A SURVEYOR, SO NOT LICENSED. I'VE STUDIED SURVEYING. OKAY. OKAY.

SO IT'S A GREAT QUESTION. IF WE IF WE CAN'T AGAIN, TRYING TO KEEP THAT SAME ALIGNMENT OF THE

[01:15:01]

[5.d) PZB2026-0084 Ryan Carter - Applicant c/o Carter Environmental Services Toll Southeast LP Company Inc - Owner 928 Pantano Dr To approve the removal of significant trees within Conservation Overlay Zones 2 & 3. ]

SIGNIFICANT TREE AND SIGNIFICANT TREE CANOPY REMOVAL WITHIN CONSERVATION OVERLAY ZONES TWO AND THREE FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE FAMILY HOME AT 928 PANTANO DRIVE. AND THE APPLICANT IS HERE AND WE HAVE TWO APPLICANTS. YEAH, WE COULD WE COULD SWEAR IN NATE.

NATE BIDDLE, 40 EVEREST LANE. DO YOU SOLEMNLY SWEAR OR AFFIRM THAT THE TESTIMONY YOU'RE ABOUT TO GIVE IS THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH I DO. IS THERE A STAFF REPORT? YES, CHAIRPERSON AND MEMBERS OF THE BOARD. THIS IS A REQUEST FOR CONSERVATION OVERLAY ZONE DEVELOPMENT FOR SIGNIFICANT TREE AND SIGNIFICANT TREE CANOPY REMOVAL WITHIN CONSERVATION OVERLAY ZONES TWO AND THREE FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE FAMILY HOME AT 928 PANTANO DRIVE. THE SITE PLAN PROPOSES THE REMOVAL OF 28 TREES, INCLUDING NINE SIGNIFICANT TREES. THREE SIGNIFICANT TREES ARE PROPOSED TO REMAIN ON SITE. REVIEW OF SECTION 11-29 IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD FOR THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT WITHIN CONSERVATION OVERLAY ZONES TWO AND THREE. OKAY. THANK YOU, I WILL. I WILL ALSO MENTION HE TOOK HIS SHOES AND SOCKS AND ROLLED HIS PANTS UP TO GET ACROSS GRANADA. THAT'S JUST FUNNY. OKAY, THIS IS A NEW ONE. WE'VE NEVER HAD THIS ONE BEFORE.

THE NEXT TWO ON THE AGENDA. I'M PRETTY SURE THAT THEY'VE BEEN REVIEWED BEFORE. SO THIS IS IN THE NORTHEAST SECTION OF THE DEVELOPMENT ON THE MARSH. AND I'LL JUST KIND OF ZOOM IN TO GIVE YOU AN AERIAL OVERVIEW. SO YOU CAN SEE HERE IS THAT LOT. HERE IS THE TREE REMOVAL AND SAVE MAP, WHICH I'LL ZOOM IN. I THINK WE HAVE 19 REMOVED, PROTECTED REMOVED 22 PROTECTED

[01:20:12]

SO THAT'S THE I THINK THAT COMPLETES MY PRESENTATION. UNLESS YOU HAVE ANYTHING ELSE TO ADD. AND WE'RE HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. THANK YOU. EX PARTE NONE DROVE OUT THERE, LOOKED AROUND. FAMILIAR WITH THE SITE, BEEN BY THE SITE? NO, NO. OKAY. ANY PUBLIC COMMENT? OKAY. HEARING NONE. PUBLIC COMMENT IS CLOSED. LET'S SEE. LETTERS ON FILE. THREE. WE HAVE ZERO RESPONSES TO LETTERS ON FILE. QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD. MISS KELLY. MR. TUCKER. NONE.

MR. PAPPAS. LOOKING AT THE SITE, I DON'T REALLY HAVE ANY. MR. NONE. I WISH THEY HAD DIVIDED THESE LOTS DIFFERENTLY. BUT THIS IS JUST ONE OF THOSE LOTS WHERE THERE'S A LOT OF TREES THAT WE'RE GOING TO LOSE, BUT THERE'S NOT MUCH WE CAN DO ABOUT THAT. AND IT'S UNFORTUNATE, BUT THAT IS THAT IS THE WAY THAT IT IS. AND I THINK YOU GUYS HAVE DONE A GOOD JOB IN THE PAST OF TRYING TO SAVE TREES. UNFORTUNATELY, THESE ARE ALL RIGHT SMACK IN THE MIDDLE OF THE LOT. MR. PLOW. WELL, I AM NORMALLY OR TYPICALLY HAVE NO SYMPATHY FOR LARGE NATIONAL BUILDERS, BUT I WANT TO SAY THAT ESPECIALLY ON THIS NEXT ONE, I SAW EVIDENCE OF THE TOLL BROTHERS REALLY MAKING AN EFFORT TO PROTECT THE PROTECTED TREES. AND SO LOOKING AT THIS PARTICULAR ONE, AND BASED ON THE AMOUNT OF FILL YOU HAVE TO BRING IN FOR THE HOUSE, THERE'S ONE TREE HERE, A SIX INCH CEDAR. IT WOULD BE ON THE NORTH EAST CORNER OF THE FOOTPRINT OF THE HOUSE. AM I READING THAT RIGHT? YOU SEE THAT GREEN DOT? YEP. YOU'VE GOT THAT. YOU'RE GOING TO PRESERVE THAT, I BELIEVE. RIGHT. AND THE THAT'S PROBABLY ONE WHERE YOU'LL NEED TO BUILD ONE OF THOSE MASONRY RETAINING WALLS. AND I THOUGHT I SAW DOWN AT THE OTHER ONE. BUT OTHER THAN THAT, I LIKE MY FELLOW BOARD MEMBERS FOR SAYING THE REST OF THEM ARE PRETTY MUCH IN THE FOOTPRINT. BUT BUT YEAH, THAT ONE, HOPEFULLY YOU CAN. WE DON'T HAVE TO REVISIT THAT ONE AND IT MAKES IT. BUT BUT I AM I WAS IMPRESSED AT THE WORK THAT YOU'VE DONE ON THE OTHER ONE AS FAR AS SAVING TREES. THANK YOU. IT'S NOT IT'S NOT EASY. IT'S NOT LIKE AN EVERYDAY COMMUNITY. SO I APPRECIATE YOU SAYING THAT. I HAVE NO QUESTIONS EITHER. AND I WOULD MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE APPLICATION. PB 2026 0084. I'LL SECOND THAT. VOTE

[01:25:05]

[5.e) PZB2026-0087 Ryan Carter - Applicant c/o Carter Environmental Services Toll Southeast LP Company Inc - Owner 876 Pantano Dr To approve the removal of significant trees within Conservation Overlay Zones 2 & 3.]

APPRECIATE YOUR TIME. WANTED TO TALK A LITTLE ABOUT. WELL, WE'VE BEEN HERE MULTIPLE TIMES.

WE SIGNED. COME THIS MARCH, I BELIEVE WE'RE GOING TO BE ON CONTRACT FOR ABOUT TWO YEARS NOW. SO WE'RE WE'RE PROBABLY GOING TO BE AT THE TWO YEAR MARK WHEN IT'S DONE. BUT LOOKING AT THE PROPERTY SO FAR, IT'S BEEN WORTH IT. WE LOOKED FOR TWO YEARS. WE'VE BEEN HERE SINCE 2007. FOUND IT AREA PICKED THAT AREA BECAUSE OF THE TREES AND MR. BLOW. WE WORKED HARD TO SAVE AS MANY TREES AS WE COULD. AND LIKE YOU MENTIONED EARLIER, ONCE YOU GET TO PLAN, ONCE YOU GET TO FOUNDATION, THEN YOU GET TO CLEARING DONE. YOU START GOING VERTICAL, YOU SEE SOME OTHER CONFLICTS. AND THAT'S WHAT BROUGHT US BACK HERE. THERE ARE FIVE MORE TREES THAT WE'RE ASKING TO BE REMOVED WITH THIS PROCESS. AND SHOULD I SHOW THIS STUFF NOW? YOU CAN JUMP. YOU CAN JUMP. OKAY. YEAH. RIGHT. HERE'S TWO CEDARS. THE ONE DIRECTLY BEHIND THE HOUSE IS GOING TO IMPACT OUR POOL GOING IN. AND THE ENCLOSURE, THE OTHER ONE THERE, YOU CAN SEE IT IS LEANING VERY HARD OVER TOP OF THE HOUSE. AND THAT'S ONE OF THOSE ONES YOU SEE ON THE THE MAP, THE TREE MAP. BUT YOU DON'T SEE IT REALLY UNTIL YOU GO OUT THERE AND LOOKING AT IT. THE IMPACT THERE ON THAT ONE, THIS ONE HERE IS AN OAK. IT'S AN OAK TREE, BUT IT'S MORE LIKE AN OAK STICK BECAUSE THERE'S NOT A WHOLE LOT OF LIMBS COMING OFF OF THAT THING, BUT YOU CAN TOUCH THAT OUT OF THE PRIMARY BEDROOM WINDOW. I SHOULD HAVE PUT A DISCLAIMER OBJECTS ARE CLOSER THAN THEY APPEAR IN THESE PICTURES ON HERE. BUT OUR BIG CONCERN WITH THAT TREE IS HOW CLOSE IT IS TO THE HOUSE. WITH THAT ONE. THIS ONE HERE IS THE TWO MAGNOLIAS THAT ARE UP FRONT. YOU CAN SEE THERE'S A LITTLE INSET POPPED OUT THERE.

IF YOU LOOK AT THE ELEVATION DIFFERENCE THERE FROM THE BASE OF THE TREE UP TO THE CURRENT ELEVATION, THERE IT IS OVER 40IN. WE DO HAVE A TREE. WELL, THAT MR. BLOW MENTIONED ON A FEW OF THE TREES ALREADY. THE CONCERN IS IF WE PUT A TREE WELL HERE WE'RE WORRIED ABOUT OUR GRANDKIDS CARS GETTING SUED BY DELIVERY PERSON. MY WIFE'S DRIVING GOING, OH, THIS IS RECORDED, ISN'T IT? OH, THIS IS RECORDED. NEVER MIND. I LOVE YOU, BABE. NO, BUT BUT THE BIG THING IS THE SAFETY FACTOR THERE. AND AGAIN, WE DID TRY TO SAVE AS MANY TREES AS POSSIBLE.

THESE ARE OUR LAST FIVE WE HOPE. AND JUST SO Y'ALL KNOW, WE DO PLAN ON ONCE THE ELEVATION. IF

[01:30:05]

WELL, THAT'S A SUMMARY. I, I HAVE SOME PHOTOS AS WELL. OOPS. SO THERE'S A PHOTO OF THE MAGNOLIA THAT HE JUST REFERENCED. IT'S PRETTY CLOSE. ALL RIGHT. LET'S JUST GO THROUGH THIS QUICKLY HERE. SO THERE IT IS AGAIN. THIS IS A GOOD ONE SIMPLY TO MENTION WHAT MR. BLOW WAS TALKING ABOUT. SO BUILDING THESE KIND OF TREE PROTECTION WELLS, YOU DON'T SEE THAT BY NATIONAL BUILDER. OBVIOUSLY. WE'VE ALREADY TALKED ABOUT HOW THEY'RE DOING THE BEST THEY CAN. AND THIS IS A PERFECT EXAMPLE. I MEAN THAT'S NOT COMMON. SO THIS IS AND WE'RE ON STEM WALL HERE. SO I JUST THOUGHT I'D MENTION THAT IF I CAN JUST JUMP. YEAH. I MEAN BASICALLY THE TREE TO THE RIGHT WE NEED YOU WANT TO TAKE OUT. BUT THEN YOU'RE RETAINING THE TREE TO THE LEFT. YEAH. A BIGGER, NICER TREE. SO YEAH, IT'S MR. DAVIS MENTIONED THE FIRST TIME WE WERE HERE. THIS IS THE KIND OF THING. AND WE'RE TRYING TO GET BETTER AND BETTER AT IDENTIFYING WHERE THEY LEAN. AND THEY'RE NOT JUST THE DOT THAT WAS MENTIONED FROM A PREVIOUS APPLICANT TODAY. SO. IT AND THEN AS MR. TRIPLETT MENTIONED, ONCE YOU CLEAR THE SITE AND YOU GET IT OPEN, THEN YOU COULD FINALLY SEE KIND OF HOW THE HOUSE AND YOU START TO BUILD. YOU CAN SEE WHAT WHAT THERE'S GOING TO BE AN INTERFERENCE. SO WE'RE TRYING.

THERE'S A CEDAR, HERE'S THE OTHER CEDAR. THESE ARE SOME SMALL TREES, OBVIOUSLY, AGAIN, LEANING. SO LET'S JUST SKIP AHEAD HERE. THE FIVE THAT'S MENTIONED ARE RED AND YELLOW.

SO THAT'S THIS MAG. THESE COUPLE THERE'S A MAGNOLIA HERE. AND THEN THERE'S THESE YELLOW HERE YELLOW HERE. AND I THINK THERE'S THERE'S A COUPLE MORE IN THERE SOMEWHERE. YEAH A RED ONE RIGHT THERE. YEP. THAT'S IT. SO THAT'S WHAT I THINK. THAT CONCLUDES OUR PRESENTATION.

UNLESS YOU HAVE ANYTHING MORE TO ADD. OKAY. WE'RE HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. THANK YOU.

THANKS. THE SAME AS BEFORE FOR EVERYBODY. NONE NONE FAMILIAR WITH THE SITE. BEEN BY THE SITE.

I THINK THIS IS ACTUALLY ONE I TOOK THE PICTURES OF WHERE I SAID YOU WERE DOING SUCH A GREAT JOB SAVING TREES. NONE. NONE. SORRY. ANY PUBLIC COMMENTS? I ASK FOR THAT ALREADY. OKAY. LETTERS ON FILE. I THINK LETTERS THREE WERE SENT OUT. NOTHING WAS RECEIVED IN RETURN. WAIT, YOU DID OPEN IT UP FOR PUBLIC COMMENT. OKAY, OKAY. IS THERE ANY. I THOUGHT MAYBE I'M I FORGOT, I WASN'T SURE ANY PUBLIC COMMENT. THERE BEING NONE. QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD. I DON'T KNOW WHAT WE'RE DOING. MR. TUCKER. LEAD IT OFF, PLEASE. I GUESS I JUST WANTED CLARIFICATION. SO THE ONES THAT YOU WERE POINTING OUT WITH THE BARRIER, IF I'M LOOKING AT THE PROPOSED TREE REMOVAL PLAN, WHICH IS UP THERE, I'D BE THE FOUR INCH MAG AND THE 12 INCH MAG. YEAH. IN ADDITION, UP HERE, THERE'S HERE, I'LL PAN THIS DOWN, DO THAT. IN ADDITION, THERE'S THIS NINE INCH CEDAR. SEVEN INCH CEDAR, AND THE 18 INCH OAK AND THE 18 INCH OAK, WHICH IS, WHICH IS YEAH, THIS YELLOW RIGHT HERE. GOTCHA. YEAH. I WAS JUST THINKING OF THE, THE ONES YOU CALLED OUT SPECIFICALLY WITH THE BARRIER PLANNED, BUT NOW WANTING TO REMOVE THEM BARRIER IS THE THE BARRIERS ARE ON THE 30 INCH LIVE OAK AND THE FOUR INCH, I THINK THAT'S A HOLLY. AND THEN THERE'S ALSO BARRIER THAT PROBABLY WASN'T IN THE PICTURES AROUND THE CEDAR. ON THE LEFT HAND SIDE, WE'RE ALSO BUILDING A BARRIER. THERE'S A CONSERVATION EASEMENT. THERE'S THAT SWALE THAT GOES OUT TO THE INTERCOASTAL. WE'RE INSTALLING A RETAINING WALL THERE AS WELL ON BOTH SIDES, TO KIND OF CLEAN UP THAT BANK AND PROTECT ANY THE SLOPE FROM RUNNING OFF. JUST SO I UNDERSTAND THE RISKS OF THE APPLICANTS AUTOMOBILE.

WHAT'S THE SLOPE OF THAT DRIVEWAY TOWARDS THOSE TWO TREES? SO THE MAGNOLIA, I HAVE PICTURES OF IT. IT'S SOMETHING LIKE I THINK HE SAID 40IN. I DON'T KNOW IF THIS, IF THAT, IF

[01:35:06]

IF YOU WERE LOOKING AT IT STRAIGHT ON, YOU CAN SEE HOW THAT THE MAGS ARE ALMOST IN LINE WITH THE GARAGE DOOR OPENING, WHICH IS REALLY THE, THE CONCERN. OKAY. IT'S KIND OF A YEAH, ANGLED IN A WEIRD SPOT. YEAH, BUT IT'S TOO CLOSE FOR COMFORT. GOTCHA. OKAY. THANK YOU, MISS KELLY. NOTHING. MR. PAPPAS, I DON'T HAVE ANY ISSUES WITH IT. I MEAN, I COULD ARGUE ON THE MAGNOLIA, BUT I CAN UNDERSTAND THAT. WHO WANTS ALL THOSE BIG SEEDS ON YOUR DRIVEWAY? AND IF WE DIDN'T GRANT IT, THIS WOULD BE ONE OF THOSE CASES WITH STATE LAW. THE OWNER COULD PROVE RIGHT OF LIFE OR DAMAGE TO PROPERTY WITH THEM LEANING OVER THE HOUSE. WELL, MY COMMENT IS IT'S NOT. I MEAN, WE'RE DOING THE BEST WE CAN IN THESE IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD, AND THIS DEVELOPER IS DOING A GOOD JOB BUILDING A LOT OF GOOD RAPPORT WITH THIS BOARD. BUT, YOU KNOW, WE'VE ALSO GOT TO LOOK AT ONCE WE'RE DONE WITH THIS, THE OWNER HAS TO GET INSURANCE, AND IT WON'T TAKE LONG FOR AN INSURANCE COMPANY TO COME IN AND GO. TREES ARE TOO CLOSE TO THE HOUSE. WE WANT YOU TO TAKE THEM DOWN. SO I JUST WHEN YOU LOOK AT THAT PROSPECT AS WELL, FOR SOME OF THEM IN THE PROXIMITY OF THE HOUSE, IT'S BETTER TO GET IT DONE NOW THAN HAVE TO DO IT LATER. MR. WELL, JUST, YOU KNOW, JUST TO REMIND YOU GUYS AND YOUR THAT THIS WHOLE MADEIRA PROJECT WENT THROUGH EXTENSIVE LITIGATION WHEN IT WAS FIRST DEVELOPED AND THERE WAS AN AGREEMENT THAT WAS ULTIMATELY REACHED ABOUT THE PROCESS OF HOW THIS SECTION WOULD BE DEVELOPED AS FAR AS AND, AND HOW THE EFFORT WOULD BE MADE TO SAVE TREES. AND I THINK LOOKING AT THIS APPLICATION, IT IT MEETS THE SPIRIT OF THAT ORIGINAL SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT. SO I DON'T HAVE ANY PROBLEM WITH IT. MR. TUNSTALL. I JUST HAVE A QUESTION THAT THE TREE. WELL, THE BLOCK TREE. WELL, IS THAT TEMPORARY? NO, THAT'S THE CAPS NOT ON IT BECAUSE IT WOULD GET KNOCKED OFF. SO WHAT WE DO IS WHEN WE BUILD THE PAD, THE TREE WELL RETAIN WALL VENDOR COMES IN AND BUILDS IT ENOUGH TO HOLD THE PAD UP AND BUILD THE HOME. AND THEN WHEN WE FIND GRADE, WE'LL COME BACK AND THERE'S A LIKE A WALL CAP THAT GOES ON AND TIES ALL IT IN WHEN WE LANDSCAPE AND YOU'LL FILL ALL THE CELLS ON THAT. YEAH.

THE THAT'S ACTUALLY A TRIMMER ON BLOCK, BUT IT DOESN'T NEED TO SELL. OKAY. SOMETIMES THERE'S GEOGRID IF IT'S TALL ENOUGH. SO IT JUST DEPENDS ON HOW IT'S ENGINEERED IN THE HEIGHT. I HAVE NO OTHER QUESTIONS. I DON'T HAVE ANY QUESTIONS. ANYONE FOR A MOTION? YEAH, I'LL MAKE A MOTION. IS IT PB 2026 0087. TO APPROVE THE REMOVAL OF SIGNIFICANT TREES WITHIN CONSERVATION OVERLAY ZONE TWO AND THREE, I'LL SECOND THAT VOTE PLEASE. JOANNE. KELLY.

YES. CHARLES PAPPAS YES. ZACHARY TUCKER YES. WILLIAM TUNSTALL YES. MIKE DAVIS. YES.

CARL BLOW YES. SUSAN JOHNS YES. OKAY. NEXT ITEM IS PB 2026 0089. TO APPROVE THE REMOVAL OF

[5.f) PZB2026-0089 Ryan Carter - Applicant c/o Carter Environmental Services Toll Southeast LP Company Inc - Owner 862 Pantano Dr To approve the removal of significant trees within Conservation Overlay Zones 2 & 3.]

REVIEW OF SECTION 11. DASH 29 IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD FOR THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT WITHIN CONSERVATION OVERLAY ZONES TWO AND THREE. THANK YOU. I'LL ASK FOR ANY PUBLIC COMMENT NOW. THERE BEING NONE, DO YOU HAVE A PRESENTATION? YES I DO, SO THIS IS ANOTHER ONE THAT'S ON THE MARSH SIDE. I'LL JUST KIND OF GIVE AN AERIAL VIEW. SO. THERE IT IS. LET'S SEE. I'LL KEEP GOING. ALL RIGHT. HERE'S THE REMOVAL PLAN. RETAIN PLAN. SO

[01:40:07]

I DON'T HAVE ANY ISSUES WITH IT. I WILL SAY, BY MOVING IT FORWARD AND THE DIRECTION YOU DID. SAVING TREES BEHIND TOWARD THE MARSH IS A BETTER ENVIRONMENTAL DECISION THAN JUST HAVING TREES IN FRONT FOR US TO LOOK AT, BECAUSE THAT HELPS THE WILDLIFE. I'M FINE WITH THIS AS WELL. MR. YEAH, I DON'T HAVE ANY ISSUES. I'M JUST A QUICK QUESTION. SCREEN ENCLOSURES FOR A POOL IN MADEIRA. THERE'S NO REASON THEY'D HAVE TO COME BACK TO US FOR SCREEN ENCLOSURE FOR THIS LOT, WOULD THEY? I DON'T THINK SO. UNLESS THERE WAS SOME SORT OF SETBACK, UNLESS IT GOT INTO THE SETBACK OR SOMETHING, WHICH IT DOESN'T. OKAY, THAT'S ALL I HAVE. OKAY. I HAVE NO ISSUE WITH THIS APPLICATION. NO ISSUES. NO. OKAY. NO ISSUES.

MOTION, PLEASE. WELL, MADAM CHAIR, I'LL MAKE A MOTION THAT WE APPROVE THE TREE REMOVAL FOR 2000. WAIT A MINUTE. I'M JUST GIVING YOU THE 2026. YEAH. 2026-0089. I'LL SECOND THAT ROLL CALL, PLEASE. CARL. YES. CHARLES PAPPAS. YES. ZACHARY TUCKER. YES. WILLIAM TUNSTALL.

YES. JAN KELLY. YES. MIKE DAVIS YES. SUSAN JONES YES. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU, THANK YOU.

WE'LL SEE YOU AGAIN. OKAY. SO THE NEXT ITEM HAS BEEN ADDRESSED ALREADY. AND NOW

[6.a) PZB2026-0080 Thomas Gelson - Applicant & Owner c/o ROCKEFELLER REALTY LLC 342 Charlotte St To approve a variance to the side yard setback requirement and to the maximum square footage of a guest house.]

[01:45:05]

THANK YOU. ANY PUBLIC COMMENT REGARDING THIS MATTER? COME ON UP. I'VE GOT SOME PHOTOS I WOULD LIKE TO SHOW YOU.

MY NAME IS FRED HATHORN. I LIVE AT 335 SAINT GEORGE STREET. THIS HOUSE, ALTHOUGH IT'S ON. DO YOU SOLEMNLY SWEAR OR AFFIRM THAT THE TESTIMONY YOU'RE ABOUT TO GIVE IS THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH I DO. I LIVE AT THREE, THREE, FIVE SAINT GEORGE STREET, WHICH IS ACTUALLY TWO HOUSES JUST NORTH OF THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION. I'M NOT SURE IF THE BOARD REALIZES IT OR NOT, BUT YOU'RE NOT BEING ASKED TO APPROVE A CHANGE TO A RESIDENTIAL, SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING OWNER. THIS IS A COMMERCIAL PROPERTY. IT HAS BEEN A COMMERCIAL PROPERTY SINCE 19, SINCE 2023, WHEN IT WAS SOLD BY THE PREVIOUS OWNER, PAM PAUL. IT IS NOW BEING RENTED ALMOST WEEKLY, AND IT CAUSES ALL KINDS OF COMMOTION IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD. I BELIEVE, MADAM CHAIRMAN, YOU SHOULD HAVE GOTTEN SOME. SOMEBODY HAD A PETITION GOING AROUND OUR NEIGHBORHOOD OPPOSING THIS, THIS APPROVAL OF THIS VARIANCE REQUEST. SO YOU SHOULD HAVE I THINK SOME OF THEM WERE SENT IN TO YOU. AND IN ANY EVENT. IT'S USED FOR SHORT TERM. IT'S USED FOR SHORT TERM RENTAL. THERE ARE CARS PARKING IN THE STREET ALMOST ALL THE TIME. IN FACT, THIS MORNING THERE WERE THREE CARS, FOUR CARS OUT ON THE PROPERTY BECAUSE IT'S PRESUMABLY BEING RENTED. AS I SAID, WE'RE ONLY TWO HOUSES AWAY. THE PROPERTY HAS A SWIMMING POOL. THEY MAKE A LOT OF NOISE WHEN THEY'RE IN THIS SWIMMING POOL, AND THE GUEST HOUSE IS ON ONE SIDE OF THE POOL, AND THE HOUSE. HOUSE IS ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE POOL. MY NEIGHBORS COMPLAIN ABOUT THE NOISE. WE CAN HEAR IT FROM OUR HOUSE AND WE'RE TWO HOUSES AWAY. AS I SAID, THERE'S A LOT OF PARKING PROBLEMS WITH IT. NOW I WANT TO POINT OUT THAT THE PROPERTY IS. LISTED AS OWNED BY ROCKEFELLER REALTY, BUT THE APPLICATION REALLY DOESN'T DISCLOSE THIS. IF YOU LOOK AT THE APPLICATION AND I'VE GOT A PICTURE OF IT UP ON THE SCREEN THERE, YOU SEE THE NAME OF THE APPLICANT IS THOMAS M GLEASON, BUT THE BUSINESS IS, IF APPLICABLE, THERE'S NO BUSINESS LISTED, BUT IT IS LISTED AS A BUSINESS PROPERTY. IF YOU LOOK AT THE OWNERSHIP OF IT. NOW, I WANT TO SHOW YOU THIS PICTURE THAT I TOOK THIS MORNING. I'M NOT SEEING WHAT'S ON THOSE PRESENTING OVERHEADS. NOT OKAY. THIS IS A PICTURE THAT I TOOK THIS MORNING. THIS IS THE PROPERTY THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT, THE LITTLE HOUSE THERE, IT'S CURRENTLY 500FT■!S. AND THERE WE GO, 500FT■!S INSIDE. N, I WANT YOU TO OBSERVE A COUPLE OF THINGS BY THIS. FIRST OF ALL, THIS THIS SIGN RIGHT HERE, IT SAYS THIS IS HOSTED BY FEDORA VACATION RENTALS, AND THERE'S A ADDRESS FOR IT, A EMAIL, A WEBSITE RESERVE PARKING FOR THE LANDSCAPE STUDIO. NOW, THEORETICALLY, THEY'RE SUPPOSED TO HAVE A SHORT TERM RENTAL IS SUPPOSED TO HAVE SEVERAL PARKING PLACES. THIS HOUSE HAS THREE, I'M TOLD, BUT I NEVER SEE ANYBODY PARKING IN THE GARAGES. THEY ALWAYS PARK ON THE STREET AND. WHOOPS, SORRY, THIS IS THE STREET SCENE THIS MORNING. THIS MORNING RIGHT BEFORE I CAME HERE. YOU'RE THREE MINUTES. OKAY. THANK YOU.

IS IT POSSIBLE? I HAVE MORE I COULD SAY? YEAH, BECAUSE I DON'T IT'S UP TO ME IF THE BOARD WILL AGREE. I WOULD ALLOW HIM TO CONTINUE TO SERVE THIS. YOU CAN COME ON BACK. THREE MORE MINUTES, PLEASE. I'D LIKE TO POINT OUT THAT THE STAFF REPORT SAYS THE SPACE WILL NOT BE USED AS A SEPARATE DWELLING UNIT. HOW IS THIS POSSIBLE? IF THE UNIT CAN BE RENTED ON A

[01:50:05]

SO 15 NOTICE. DO YOU WANT TO GO. YOU'RE THE APPLICANT, CORRECT. OKAY. SO IT'S 15 NOTICES WERE SENT OUT AND FIVE CAME BACK. OPPOSED ZERO IN FAVOR, 48 WITH COMMENTS. AND THEY ALL I HAVE NOT GONE THROUGH EACH ONE, BUT THEY ALL APPEARED TO BE PART OF THAT PETITION TO DENY THE APPLICATION. SO DO YOU WANT TO RESPOND? YEAH. GOOD AFTERNOON. THANKS FOR THANKS FOR YOUR TIME.

FIRST OF ALL, I'M TOM GJELTEN. I AM THE OWNER, AND THAT WAS MY TRUCK PARKED OUT OF THE HOUSE THIS MORNING. IT'S INCORRECT THAT WE DO NOT OCCUPY THE HOUSE. FIRST OF ALL, ROCKEFELLER REALTY IS JUST AN LLC SET UP. WE HAVE THEM FOR OTHER PROPERTIES THAT WE OWN.

ROCKEFELLER IS ACTUALLY MY DOG. SO THAT'S AGAIN, IT'S AN LLC. WE ARE. IT IS OUR WE'RE SNOWBIRDS. WE DO SPEND THE WINTERS HERE. AND THIS ACCOMMODATION IS FOR IT'S NOT FOR TO DO THE STAIRS IS TO PUT AN ELEVATOR IN FOR MY MOTHER IN LAW WHO LIVES IN STEWART, WHO IS IN A WHEELCHAIR AND SHE WANTS TO COME VISIT. AND A LONG TERM GOAL IS FOR US TO AGE IN PLACE ON THE PROPERTY. AND YOU HAVE SUBMITTED THE PROPERTY OWNER'S RESPONSE TO PUBLIC COMMENT? I DID I DID SUBMIT THAT TO THE BOARD AND I SENT IT TO YOU. OKAY. AND I MEAN, AGAIN, I'M NOT HERE TO ADDRESS STR RULES AND REGULATIONS, BUT TODAY WE'VE NEVER HAD ONE COMPLAINT FROM THE CITY OF SAINT AUGUSTINE OR ANY, ANY VIOLATIONS. THAT SIGN YOU SAW NEXT TO THE GUEST HOUSE IS A PROFESSIONAL PROPERTY MANAGEMENT COMPANY. OKAY. ANY EX PARTE ON THIS VISITED THE SITE I'M FAMILIAR WITH THE SITE, VISITED THE SITE, GENERALLY FAMILIAR WITH THE SITE, FAMILIAR WITH THE SITE, LIVE RIGHT AROUND THE AREA. FAMILIAR WITH THE SITE. OKAY. BOARD DISCUSSION. MR. TUNSTALL VISITED THE SITE AND SAW THE PROPERTY MANAGEMENT SIGN AND. SORT OF SOME OF THOSE ASPECTS THAT WERE BROUGHT UP. I DON'T REALLY HAVE ANY QUESTIONS RIGHT NOW. MR. DAVIS. YEAH, JUST A COUPLE BEFORE WE GET INTO THE THE BUILDING AND THE SETBACK. SO YOU'RE A SHORT TERM RENTAL. YOU'RE REGISTERED AS A SHORT TERM RENTAL WITH THE CITY. OKAY. AND THEY MAY NOT HAVE ANY COMPLAINTS, BUT YOU MANAGED TO GET 48, WHICH IS THE HIGHEST NUMBER I'VE SEEN IN SEVEN YEARS ON THIS BOARD OF PEOPLE THAT WROTE AND SAID THEY HAVE A COMMENT. YEAH, I GUESS, I MEAN, MAYBE THEY DIDN'T LOOK AT THE APPLICATION, BUT WHAT I'M TRYING TO DO HERE IS I'M ACTUALLY THIS CARRIAGE HOUSE WILL NO LONGER BE A SHORT TERM RENTAL, SO THEY SHOULD BE SOMEWHAT GOING IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION. AND I HEAR YOU WITH THAT, AND I WANT TO BELIEVE YOU WITH THAT. BUT SOME OF THE TIMES WE HAVE NOT BEEN WE HAVE NOT BEEN TOLD THE TRUTH. SO I AND I'M NOT ACCUSING YOU OF THAT. I'M JUST SIMPLY TELLING YOU OUR SKEPTICISM AS A BOARD IS COLORED BY WHAT HAS BEEN TOLD TO US IN THE PAST AND NOT DONE. YEAH, BUT WE'RE NOT EVEN WITH THIS CHANGE. WE'RE NOT WE'RE NOT ADDING ANY ADDITIONAL BEDROOMS OR OCCUPANCY. IT'S IF ANYTHING, IT'S STAYING FLAT. SO I GUESS IF YOU DON'T TAKE ME FOR MY WORD, THEN WE'RE NOT CHANGING THE STR PROPERTY MAKEUP OF THIS PROPERTY. SAY THAT AGAIN TO ME SLOWER SO I UNDERSTAND. SORRY ABOUT THAT.

IT'S CURRENTLY A ONE BEDROOM ABOVE THE GARAGE. THE PROPOSED CARRIAGE HOUSE IS STILL A ONE BEDROOM. WE'RE JUST MODERNIZING IT, BRINGING IN MORE ESTHETICALLY PLEASING TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD. WE LOOK AT THE CURRENT CAR GARAGE VERSUS WHAT WE PROPOSE. IT'S GOING TO CHANGE THE ESTHETIC LOOK OF THE PROPERTY AND THE VISTA OF OF THE LAKE. SO, ALL RIGHT, I'LL RESERVE OTHER COMMENTS WHEN WE GET BACK AROUND, MR. BLAIR. THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR. SO YOUR THIS YOUR REQUEST IS FOR VARIANCE IN ORDER TO REMODEL A GUEST HOUSE, IS THAT CORRECT? CORRECT. OKAY. NOW I'M LOOKING AT THE DEFINITION. THIS IS THE STAFF OF THE GUEST HOUSE. AND

[01:55:05]

YEAH. BUT THE KITCHEN, YOU CAN HAVE A KITCHEN. YOU JUST CAN'T HAVE COOKING FACILITIES. YOU'RE GETTING HUNG UP BETWEEN THE LAYMAN'S TERM KITCHEN AND THE LEGAL TERM KITCHEN. ALL RIGHT.

WELL, LET ME ASK YOU UNDERSTAND THAT WE WILL NOT HAVE A COOKING FACILITY THERE. WE DON'T WE DON'T CURRENTLY HAVE ONE. YEAH. FOLLOWING UP ON MR. DAVIS'S OBSERVATION ABOUT THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE THAT SUBMITTED OBJECTIONS TO THIS, ARE YOU PREPARED TO ABANDON YOUR SHORT TERM RENTAL REGISTRATION AND GO BACK TO AN RS ONE ZONE PROPERTY WITH A HOMESTEAD EXEMPTION? AT SOME POINT WHEN WE GET. I'M NOT READY. BUT ARE YOU READY TO DO IT NOW? NO, I'M NOT OKAY. THANK YOU. OKAY. MR. PAPPAS, I'M PRETTY CONSISTENT WITH THE GUEST HOUSES OF NOT GOING ABOVE OUR SIZE UNLESS THERE'S A SPECIFIC REASON FOR IT ON THIS. YOU KNOW, IF IT WAS COVERING STAIRS OR SOMETHING, I. I CAN UNDERSTAND THAT, BUT GETTING THE SQUARE FOOTAGE UP UNTIL THE STATE GIVES US BACK CONTROL. I STAND BY OUR OUR BYLAWS ON THIS. AND, AND I, I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THE, THE SETBACK, BUT AND IT LOOKS BEAUTIFUL, I LIKE IT. BUT ONE OF OUR VARIANCE CRITERIA IS GRANTED, THE VARIANCE WILL NOT BE CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST.

AND I CAN'T ARGUE AGAINST ALL THE RESIDENTS IN THE AREA. AND THAT WOULD BE THE PUBLIC INTEREST. SO BECAUSE OF THAT, I CAN'T SUPPORT IT. IF YOU BROUGHT IT DOWN TO THE SIZE I COULD. YEAH, WE BRING IT DOWN TO THE SIZE. WE WON'T BE ABLE TO PUT THE ELEVATOR IN. THAT'S TEN SQUARE FEET. YEAH. PLUS MAKE IT A HANDICAP ACCESSIBLE FOR LIVING SPACES. AGAIN, THE ONLY OTHER OPTION WOULD YOU TRY TO DO IT TO THE MAIN HOUSE. BUT WE JUST COULDN'T ACCOMMODATE IT UP IN THE MAIN HOUSE WITHOUT KNOCKING IT DOWN. THANK YOU, MISS KELLY, WERE YOU PLANNING ON KNOCKING DOWN THE GUEST HOUSE? NO, JUST KEEP THE FOOTPRINT. JUST EXPAND IT, OKAY? THANK YOU, MR. TUCKER. I DON'T HAVE ANYTHING RIGHT NOW, MR. TUNSTALL. I'VE GOT NOTHING.

OKAY. HEY, THE PICTURE LOOKS BEAUTIFUL. I AM CONCERNED ABOUT THE NUMBER OF LETTERS THAT WERE SUBMITTED IN OPPOSITION. RESPECTFULLY. WAS IT OPPOSITION TO SHORT TERM RENTALS OR TO THE ACTUAL PROJECT? WELL, I'LL LEAVE THE SHORT TERM RENTAL OUT OF IT. I MADE MY COMMENT ABOUT THAT. I'M GOOD. MY ISSUE IS WE HAVE A VERY HARD RULE ABOUT GUEST HOUSES. I HAD A NEIGHBOR WHO WANTED TO MOVE IN WITH HER KIDS, AND I HAD TO TELL HER THE RULE SAYS, NO, YOU CANNOT HAVE A GUEST HOUSE THAT SIZE. AND SO PEOPLE THAT ARE ABIDING BY THAT RULE ARE NOT ABLE TO DO THIS.

IF YOU CAME AND YOU SAID, I WANT TO ADD AN ELEVATOR AND IT'S 25FT■!S, YOU KNOW, FIVE BY FIVE, THAT AND IT'S FOR SOMEBODY TO HAVE HANDICAP ACCESS TO THE EXISTING ONE. I MIGHT LOOK AT THAT DIFFERENTLY, BUT ALLOWING YOU TO EXPAND THAT WHEN WE'VE TOLD SO MANY OTHER PEOPLE NO, FOR THE SAME SQUARE FOOTAGE ISSUE, I CAN'T DO THAT. I CAN'T TREAT YOU DIFFERENTLY THAN WE TREAT EVERYBODY ELSE. I KNOW YOU MIGHT HAVE A GREAT CAUSE FOR THAT. AND BUT I JUST WHEN I JUST LOOKED AT ONE OF MY NEIGHBORS AND SAID, THE CODE WON'T LET YOU DO THAT, AND THEY WENT AND FOUND A DIFFERENT WAY TO. THEY'RE NOW MOVING IN WITH THEIR KIDS INSTEAD OF BUILDING A GUEST HOUSE. SO I CAN'T IN GOOD CONSCIENCE MAKE AN EXCEPTION ON THIS WHEN WE'VE.

WE'VE BEEN PRETTY HARD AND FAST ON THIS NUMEROUS TIMES ON THIS BOARD. OKAY, JUST ONE LAST COMMENT. THE YOUR SUBMITTAL PACKAGE IS VERY, VERY COMPLETE. AND PARTICULARLY THE, THE ELEVATION SHOWING THE STREET SIDE AND THE TWO GARAGE DOORS. BUT ONE FRUSTRATING THING FOR, FOR AT LEAST FOR ME, IS WITH A VARIANCE, THERE'S NO GUARANTEE YOU'RE GOING TO BUILD THIS NICE LOOKING STRUCTURE WITH THE ARCHED GARAGE DOORS. SO I WOULD PUT THAT IN WRITING. WELL WE IT DOESN'T I DON'T THINK WE CAN'T TIE A VARIANCE TO A DRAWING LIKE THIS. CORRECT. PARDON ME.

GENERALLY NOT SOMETIMES IF IT'S SITE PLAN RELATED AND YOU APPROVE THE SITE PLAN, THAT IS ESSENTIALLY AN EXHIBIT TO THE APPLICATION. YOU COULD WORK THROUGH THAT. BUT GENERALLY JUST LIKE ARCHITECTURAL FINISHES AND THINGS LIKE THAT WOULD NOT BE BUT SORT OF SITE

[02:00:04]

RIGHT. IT'S ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES. WE CANNOT DO LIKE THIS. OKAY. THAT'S ALL I HAVE.

I'LL GO AHEAD AND MAKE A MOTION TO DENY PCB 2026 0080. THE APPLICANT HAS NOT SHOWN THAT THIS PARTICULAR PROPERTY, BECAUSE IT'S SIZE OF SHAPE OR OTHER PHYSICAL CONDITIONS, SUFFERS ANY DISADVANTAGE SINCE THEY CAN STILL OPERATE WITH A. WITH A. THE GARAGE CURRENTLY IS BEING USED FOR THE SAME PURPOSE, SO THERE IS NO DISADVANTAGE THERE, AND THAT GRANTING OF THIS VARIANCE IS CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST. AS THE PUBLIC HAS DISPLAYED. ROLL CALL.

VOTE PLEASE. I'LL. SECOND. SECOND. I'LL. SECOND. ROLL CALL, PLEASE. CHARLES PAPPAS. YES.

MIKE. DAVIS. YES. ZACHARY TUCKER. YES. WILLIAM. TUNSTALL. YES. JAN. KELLY. YES. CARL.

BLOW. YES. SUSAN JOHNS. YES. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. I MAKE A COMMENT TO CARL. OH OH NO NO.

IT'S A I INTO OUR STAFF INTO OUR ATTORNEY. AT SOME POINT WE NEED TO CATCH UP. THE LEGAL DEFINITION OF A KITCHEN. BECAUSE WITH TODAY'S APPLIANCES, YOU DON'T NEED A STOVE TO HAVE A KITCHEN. AND SO YOU CAN SLIDE INTO IT. AND THEN WE PUT OURSELVES UP AGAINST SENATE BILL 180. SO THAT'S, THAT'S WHERE WE ARE. YES. THAT'S NOT GOING TO BE HAPPENING ANYTIME

[6.b) PZB2026-0088 Jacob Kline - Applicant & Owner c/o Inkline Homes LLC Rio Vista Dr / PID #124180-0010 (Southeastern Portion of Lot 8 / PID #124180-0000) To approve a variance to the side yard setback requirement. ]

HERE. WE SUBMITTED A SITE PLAN ACTUALLY, THAT JUST SHOWED ONE FOOT ENCROACHMENT ON THE SETBACK ON THE NORTH SIDE, WHICH I'M USED TO WORKING IN SAINT JOHNS COUNTY, WHERE SETBACKS ARE MEASURED FROM THE WALL, THE VERTICAL WALL. SO THIS IS ACTUALLY PLUS A FOOT AND A HALF ON EACH SIDE IS WHAT WE'RE REQUESTING FOR THE EAVE OVERHANG ON THE HOUSE. SO I

[02:05:04]

IT HANDICAPS THE LOTS POTENTIAL DESIGN AND THE IRREGULAR SHAPE EXISTS. PREEXISTED MY OWNERSHIP OF THE PROPERTY. WHAT WE'VE DONE SO FAR TO MINIMIZE THE IMPACT IS WE'RE NOT GOING TO BE BRINGING ANY EXCESSIVE FILL INTO THE PROPERTY. THIS IS GOING TO BE A STEM WALL FOUNDATION WE'RE STAYING UNDER, YOU KNOW, THE DENSITY REQUIREMENT FOR RS TWO. WE, AS YOU CAN SEE IN THIS DIAGRAM, MODIFIED THE BACK CORNER OF THE PROPERTY THERE, THE HOUSE THAT WE'RE GOING TO BUILD TO REDUCE THE IMPACT ON THE SETBACK. AND WE ALSO MOVED THE HOUSE FORWARD TO REDUCE THE IMPACT ON THE SETBACK AS WELL. AND THAT THAT CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION.

APPRECIATE YOU GUYS. TIME AND OPEN ANY QUESTIONS. PUBLIC COMMENT PLEASE. MILLARD COOLEY, 28, RIO VISTA DRIVE. DO YOU SOLEMNLY SWEAR OR AFFIRM THAT THE TESTIMONY YOU'RE ABOUT TO GIVE IS THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH? YES, MA'AM. SO I'VE UNFORTUNATELY BEEN TASKED BY THE NEIGHBORHOOD TO OPPOSE THIS VARIANCE. I DO REPRESENT MYSELF AND OUR OTHER TWO NEIGHBORS. UNFORTUNATELY, SHE'S ON A FLIGHT AND CAN'T REPRESENT HERSELF. SHE IS THE NORTHSIDE PROPERTY ON THE SOUTH SIDE. PROPERTY OWNER. WE ARE OPPOSING FOR A COUPLE OF DIFFERENT REASONS. IT IS VERY CLEAR THAT A SETBACK, A VARIANCE FOR SETBACKS IS TO ACCOMMODATE A HARDSHIP. THERE'S NO HARDSHIP. IT'S NOT LIKE WE'RE PUTTING IN A HANDICAP ACCESS RAMP. NOTHING LIKE THAT. THAT LOT THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IS ACTUALLY A LOT THAT HAS BEEN, FOR LACK OF A BETTER TERM, BASTARDIZED BY AN EXISTING LOT. THAT WAS 0.32 ACRES, SO THAT LOT SHOULDN'T EVEN EXIST. IT WAS BACKDOORED AND SEPARATED FROM THE PREVIOUS HOMEOWNER ON THE NORTH PROPERTY, AND I AM NOT OPPOSED AT ALL OF BUILDING ON THAT BROKEN OFF LOT.

IT'S HAPPENING ALL OVER THE AIKEN TRACK. USED TO BE BIG, BEAUTIFUL .32 ACRE LOTS. NOW THEY'RE ALL TOUCHING EACH OTHER'S BATHROOM WINDOWS. SO MY OBJECTION IS YOU CAN BUILD ON THE LOT, BUT DO NOT PUT THE SETBACKS IN THE VIOLATION. LET'S JUST KEEP THE EXISTING SETBACKS. GO BACK TO YOUR DRAWING BOARD. SHRINK THE HOUSE DOWN A LITTLE BIT. GIVE US THE SPACE BECAUSE THERE IS ALREADY NO SPACE. THE HOUSE I BOUGHT IS, YOU KNOW, ALMOST A HUNDRED YEARS OLD AND IT'S ALREADY PACKED IN THERE. SO FOR US TO GO FORWARD AND START PACKING THEM IN OVER AND OVER AND OVER, I THINK IT'S JUST A LITTLE COUNTERPRODUCTIVE FOR WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO THERE. AND UNFORTUNATELY, WE'RE NOT MENTIONING ANY WILDLIFE AT ALL WITH THESE. THIS SHOULD HAVE BEEN JUST A MEETING FOR CUTTING DOWN TREES AND CONSERVATION EASEMENTS. NOBODY'S MENTIONING BIRD LIFE. NOBODY'S MENTIONING GOPHER TORTOISE ARMADILLOS. WE ACTUALLY HAVE ARMADILLOS THAT HAVE MADE HOMES WHERE HE'S PLANNING TO BUILD. SO I WOULD IMPLORE THE CITY, THE BOARD, TO NOT GO FORWARD WITH THE VARIANCE APPROVAL AND JUST HAVE MR. KLEIN SHRINK IT DOWN A LITTLE BIT AND MEET THE SETBACKS, BECAUSE WE'RE ALREADY PACKED IN THERE ENOUGH. AND THANK YOU. THAT'S ALL I GOT. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER PUBLIC COMMENT? 14 NOTICES WERE SENT OUT. ZERO WERE RECEIVED. THAT'S NOT TRUE. WE ALL SENT OURS BACK.

YEAH, SURE. I'M NOT SURE WHY YOU DON'T HAVE THEM. WE ALL SENT THEM BACK AND WE WERE ALL.

I KNOW AT LEAST SIX WERE SENT BACK VIA EMAIL AND WE ALL WENT AGAINST THE VARIANCE. SO I DON'T KNOW WHY WE DON'T HAVE THEM. OKAY. WHEN WERE THEY SENT? OVER THE COURSE OF THE INITIAL CERTIFIED LETTER WE RECEIVED. OKAY. AND THEY WERE ALL SENT VIA EMAIL. SO NOT SURE WHAT HAPPENED THERE. WE DO HAVE A CUT OFF TO YEAH, THE CUT OFF WAS YESTERDAY. SUMMARIZE EVERYTHING AND PRINT THEM OUT. WELL, THE CUT OFF WAS YESTERDAY. OH I'LL DEFINITELY LOOK INTO THAT. YEAH PLEASE DO. BECAUSE UNFORTUNATELY WE'RE NOT BEING REPRESENTED BY OUR OUR RESPONSES TODAY. I DON'T KNOW WHY THAT HAPPENED, BUT IT SEEMS TO BE THE ONLY CASE TODAY WHERE

[02:10:02]

THANK YOU, THANK YOU. APPLICANT HAVE ANY RESPONSE OR COMMENTS? YES. I WOULD JUST MAINTAIN THAT WE STILL HAVE A HARDSHIP ON THE PROPERTY DUE TO, YOU KNOW, THE NORTHWEST CORNERS CUT OUT THE WIDTH OF THE PROPERTY AT THE FRONTAGE. IF WE MAINTAINED THAT WIDTH ALL THE WAY BACK.

ESSENTIALLY, I'M BEING TALKED TO RIGHT NOW WHILE HE'S RESPONDING. IF WE COULD JUST WAIT FOR A SECOND SO I CAN HEAR WHAT HE'S TRYING TO SAY HERE. JACOB, IF YOU COULD START OVER, I APPRECIATE IT. I'M JUST GOING TO CONTINUE. BUT BASICALLY, IF WE HAD THE WIDTH OF THE PROPERTY AS AS IT WAS AT THE FRONTAGE, WHICH IS ABOUT 60FT ALL THE WAY BACK, IF WE DID NOT HAVE THIS HARDSHIP, WE WOULD BE WELL WITHIN THE SETBACKS ON THE PROPERTY HERE, YOU KNOW, AND AND WE'RE DOING EVERYTHING THAT WE CAN TO WORK WITHIN THAT. I, I DIDN'T BRING WITH ME THE PLANS, BUT WE'VE WE'VE SHRUNK A BATHROOM DOWN TO A WIDTH OF FIVE FEET, WHICH MR. DAVIS WOULD KNOW THAT THAT IS EXTREMELY TIGHT. WE HAVE, YOU KNOW, SHRUNK THE AISLE IN THE MAIN LIVING AREA DOWN TO THREE FOOT SIX INCHES, YOU KNOW, FROM COUNTERTOP TO COUNTERTOP, WHICH IS AGAIN, VERY TIGHT. WE'VE EVEN GONE VERTICAL WITH THE CONSTRUCTION HERE TO GO TO ONE AND A HALF STORIES ON THE PROPERTY IN ORDER TO BUILD SOMETHING ADEQUATE TO THE OTHER HOMES IN THE AREA. SO THANK YOU. FOR I THINK WE'VE HEARD YOUR RESPONSE. ANY EX PARTE HERE.

NONE. NONE. JUST FAMILIAR WITH THE AREA. I HAVE NONE, NONE NONE NONE. OKAY. BOARD DISCUSSION. MR. PAPPAS, WOULD YOU LIKE TO LEAD US? LEAD US OFF. THAT'S FINE. WHAT IS THE SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THE FOOTPRINT? I SAVED ME FROM FLIPPING BACK. YES, THE FOOTPRINT WOULD BE.

LET ME. LET ME GET IT EXACTLY FOR YOU. OH, WOW. IT'S EXTREMELY SMALL ON HERE, BUT I THINK IT WAS 1250. WAS THE FOOTPRINT. OKAY, OKAY. THAT'S ALL I NEEDED. SO IT'S ACTUALLY YOU KNOW WHAT? THAT'S NOT CORRECT. I THINK IT MAY BE IT MAY BE MORE LIKE 1600, BUT IT WAS AT 20%, 26% LOT COVERAGE. SO I COULD RUN THE CALCULATION ON THAT REAL QUICK FOR YOU. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. I ACTUALLY HAVE THAT IN THE STAFF REPORT. IT'S A SAID IT WAS 1445FT■!S. AD

[02:15:04]

OKAY. MR. TUNSTALL YEAH, I THINK YOU GUYS HAVE SUMMED IT UP WELL. THOSE ARE CONCERNS OF MINE AS WELL, NOT HAVING THOSE IN FRONT OF ME. I AGREE WITH MISS KELLY'S STATEMENTS AS WELL.

I DON'T REALLY HAVE MUCH TO ADD OR QUESTIONS BEYOND THAT. MR. DAVIS. YEAH. SO QUESTION FOR FOR STAFF. SO THIS WAS ONE LOT TO BEGIN WITH AND HAS BEEN SUBDIVIDED. HAS IT BEEN SUBDIVIDED INTO A NON-CONFORMING LOT OR A CONFORMING LOT. THIS IS A CONFORMING LOT. SO IT'S A CONFORMING LOT. SO WE DON'T HAVE A THE OWN. SO IT'S A CONFORMING LOT EVEN THOUGH IT HAS PART OF THAT PIECE TAKEN OUT OF IT. YES. OKAY. ALL RIGHT.

SO THAT'S KIND OF WHERE, YOU KNOW, IF THIS LOT HAD BEEN PLATTED FOR YEARS, I'D PROBABLY HAVE A LITTLE MORE LEEWAY AND GOING, OKAY, THIS IS AN EXISTING LOT THAT WAS PLATTED.

IT WAS PLATTED, KIND OF AN ODDBALL WAY. AND I COULD SEE THAT. BUT WHEN YOU'RE CARVING IT OUT FROM AN EXISTING LOT TO DO THAT, IT'S A LITTLE HARDER FOR ME TO, TO GET OVER THAT, THAT HURDLE. SO THAT'S, THAT'S MY HARD THING ABOUT THIS. I DON'T, I THINK THE HOUSE IS, I DON'T KNOW HOW YOU CAN ALMOST GET IN COMPLIANCE PRETTY EASILY AND GET ALL THE HOUSE INSIDE OF THE SETBACK. I HAVE LESS ISSUE WITH THE OVERHANG THAN I DO WITH THE HOUSE ITSELF. SO. MR. BLOW, THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR. YEAH, I MEAN, BASICALLY IT'S A CONFORMING LOT, NOT A NON-CONFORMING LOT. IT'S VACANT. I KNOW IN THE PAST WE'VE GRANTED VARIANCES ON NON-CONFORMING LOTS WHERE THERE WAS AN EXISTING STRUCTURE THAT THE PERSON WAS REMODELING AND ENLARGING. BUT THIS IS A VACANT LOT, SO I DON'T SEE WHERE IT JUSTIFIES A VARIANCE. I MEAN, IT APPEARS TO ME YOU CAN BUILD A SUITABLE HOME ON THIS LOT WITHOUT A VARIANCE. OKAY. I WANT TO MAKE A MOTION ON THIS ONE. WELL, I'LL BE THE BAD GUY. ASK ONE QUESTION, MR. DAVIS, YOU SAID THAT YOU WERE NOT AS CONCERNED ABOUT THE EAVES. THAT IS, YOU KNOW, A BIG POINT HERE FOR US THAT BASICALLY, WITH THE EAVES BEING 18IN ON EACH SIDE OF THE HOUSE, THAT'S THREE FEET.

SO IF WE WERE ABLE TO MAKE A CONSIDERATION HERE FOR THE SETBACK FROM THE VERTICAL WALLS OF THE SIDE OF THE HOUSE, IT WOULD BE POSSIBLE FOR US TO SQUEEZE IT IN. ESSENTIALLY, IF WE GET RID OF ONE THING IN THE KITCHEN AND WHAT I WOULD BE WILLING TO DO IT WITH THAT WOULD BE TO DO GUTTERS ON THE SIDES OF THE HOUSE WITH DOWNSPOUTS AND POP UP DRAINS

[02:20:06]

HOW ABOUT THIS? SINCE WE DIDN'T GET THE PUBLIC RESPONSES AND SINCE YOU'VE GOT A POSSIBLE COUNTER DESIGN, WHY DON'T WE CONTINUE THIS FOR 30 DAYS? THAT WAY WE'LL HAVE THE PUBLIC RESPONSES NEXT TIME. AND THAT GIVES YOU AN OPPORTUNITY TO MODIFY YOUR APPLICATION. DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? IS THAT OKAY WITH YOU? YES. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. MR. FLOW, I HAVE A QUESTION. HAVE YOU SEEN JENNIFER? EXCUSE ME, MISS THOMPSON, THE EMAILS AND WERE THEY POSITIVE OR NEGATIVE? WE DON'T HAVE THOSE EMAILS. EVERYTHING WE RECEIVE, WE PROVIDE TO THE BOARD. OKAY. THE ONLY THING I CAN THINK IS POSSIBLY THEY GOT BLOCKED. OUR IT DEPARTMENT HAS INSTALLED SOME NEW SOFTWARE THAT HAS BEEN BLOCKING EMAILS FROM TRUSTED SENDERS, SO WE'D HAVE TO LOOK INTO THAT TO SEE IF MAYBE THEY DID GET BLOCKED IN SOME WAY, OR POSSIBLY IT WAS JUST SENT TO THE WRONG EMAIL. I'M. I'M REALLY NOT SURE WHAT HAPPENED.

THANK YOU. I THOUGHT THEY WERE SUBMITTED AFTER THE DATE THAT YOU PRINT EVERYTHING. NOT TO MY KNOWLEDGE. NO THANK YOU. I AGREE WITH MR. BLOW'S SUGGESTION. OKAY. I DID WANT TO SAY THAT WE WON'T RE-ADVERTISE FOR A CONTINUATION SO THERE WOULDN'T BE ANYTHING PROMPTING ADDITIONAL COMMENT, BUT WE WOULD HAVE TIME TO LOOK FOR THOSE EMAILS. AND IF ANYONE LISTENING KNOWS THEY SENT AN EMAIL, THEY COULD RESEND IT. BUT SO WE CAN LOOK INTO IT. BUT I JUST WANTED TO BE CLEAR, THERE WON'T BE ANY ADVERTISEMENT OF A CONTINUATION IF THERE WERE IN FACT THOSE EMAILS OR SO, AND WE CAN FIND THEM, WE WILL HAVE THEM FOR NEXT TIME. WELL, I KIND OF I DON'T KNOW, I FEEL LIKE IT'S ON THE CITY'S RESPONSIBILITY TO RE NOTICE THIS ONE. IF THE EMAILS WERE SENT AND WE DIDN'T GET THEM AND THEY'RE HUNG UP IN SPAM SOMEWHERE, IT'S THE CITY'S SPAM FILTER. AND I KNOW YOU NORMALLY DON'T REISSUE THEM BECAUSE IT'S A COST OF MONEY, BUT I FEEL LIKE THAT THE CITY SYSTEM DIDN'T GET THE RESPONSES THAT PEOPLE TRIED TO SEND, AND WE OUGHT TO MAKE AN EFFORT TO GET THOSE BY RE NOTICING THIS ONE AT THE CITY'S EXPENSE, NOT THE APPLICANT'S. I WOULD ALSO SAY I DON'T WANT TO SET SOME PRECEDENT HERE WHERE AND I TOTALLY BELIEVE THIS GENTLEMAN'S COMMENTS THAT THEY WERE SUBMITTED AND WE DIDN'T GET THEM, BUT TO HOLD UP ANYTHING BECAUSE OF ONE PERSON'S COMMENTS ABOUT SUBMISSIONS, THAT THE INDIVIDUALS ARE NOT HERE TO VERIFY OR ATTEST TO, THAT IT'S MAYBE SOMETHING WE SHOULD BE AWARE OF. YEAH, WELL, I'LL BE HONEST. IF IF MR. COOLEY HADN'T SHOWED UP, I WOULD HAVE HAD A HARD TIME APPROVING THIS SIMPLY BECAUSE IT'S A VACANT LOT. SO I JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY BECAUSE I BROUGHT UP THE OTHER POINT.

SO I DIDN'T WANT TO, YOU KNOW, BUT YOU'RE A SLIPPERY SLOPE. YEAH. I MEAN, THAT'S ALWAYS TRICKY THAT WE'LL MESS UP AND SET SOME PRECEDENT THAT WILL COME BACK TO BITE US. HOWEVER, UNDER THE LAW, AREN'T WE NOT SUPPOSED TO TAKE INTO FULL ACCOUNT NEIGHBORS COMMUNICATION WITH US, WHETHER THEY'RE FOR IT OR AGAINST IT? THAT IS JUST ONE FACTOR IN THE WHOLE DECISION.

JUST A REMINDER. SO IT SIMPLY A PREFERENCE IS NOT COMPETENT, SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE, BUT NOT HAVING SEEN THE COMMUNICATION, THEY MAY HAVE UNDERLYING FACTS, FACT BASED TESTIMONY IN THEIR SUBMITTALS THAT THE APPLICANT SHOULD ALSO HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW TO BE ABLE TO REBUT AS WELL. SO AGAIN, WE'RE SPECULATING BECAUSE WE HAVEN'T SEEN THE DOCUMENTS, BUT POTENTIALLY THERE COULD BE SOME FACT BASED EVIDENCE IN THOSE LETTERS. SO CAN YOU RE-ADVERTISE. I WOULD ASSUME. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. I JUST I THINK WHEN THE PUBLIC MAKES AN EFFORT AND WE HAVE SO MANY THINGS THAT COME UP BEFORE US THAT NO ONE'S HERE TO COMMENT ON WHEN THEY MAKE AN EFFORT AND WE DON'T GET TO SEE WHAT THEY HAVE TO SAY. I FEEL LIKE THEY'VE BEEN SHORT CHANGED AND I WANT TO GIVE THEM THAT OPPORTUNITY. SO AND I AGREE WITH MISS LOPEZ. MR. KLEIN DESERVES THE OPPORTUNITY TO TO SEE WHAT THEY HAVE TO SAY. OKAY.

SO THEN IS THERE A MOTION TO CONTINUE? I GUESS I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO CONTINUE. PCB 2026 0088 TO THE MEETING ON NOVEMBER 3RD. I'LL SECOND. ALL IN FAVOR. AYE, AYE, I DO ROLL CALL. ROLL

[02:25:06]

YES. JAN. KELLY. YES. CARLO. YES. CHARLES PAPPAS. YES. THANK YOU, THANK YOU. SHE HAD A BREAK.

DO YOU WANT TO. I DON'T CARE WANT TO BREAK? THAT WOULD BE GREAT. WANT TO BREAK? ALL RIGHT.

LET'S TAKE A QUICK BREAK. IT'S ABOUT 327. COME BACK AROUND 340, TEN MINUTES.

[6.d) PZB2026-0092 Darcy Stanford - Applicant c/o Stanford Restoration Deborah Cooper - Owner 108 Oglethorpe Blvd To approve a variance to the rear yard setback requirement for a pool screen enclosure.]

AN APPLICATION TO APPROVE A VARIANCE TO THE REAR YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENT FOR A POOL SCREEN ENCLOSURE AT 108 OGLETHORPE BOULEVARD. IS THE APPLICANT PRESENT? PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS AND BE SWORN IN. I'M DARCY STANFORD, I LIVE AT 3160 COUNTRY CREEK LANE, SAINT AUGUSTINE. DO YOU SOLEMNLY SWEAR OR AFFIRM THAT THE TESTIMONY YOU'RE ABOUT TO GIVE IS THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH? YES, I DO. OKAY. STAFF REPORT PLEASE. YES. THIS IS AN APPLICATION. THIS APPLICATION IS A VARIANCE REQUEST TO REDUCE THE REAR YARD SETBACK. AND RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY ONE ZONING DISTRICT AT 108 OGLETHORPE BOULEVARD. THE APPROVAL OF THIS REQUEST WOULD DECREASE THE REAR YARD SETBACK FROM 20FT TO 10FT TO ALLOW FOR THE INSTALLATION OF A SCREEN ENCLOSURE OVER THE EXISTING POOL. BASED ON A REVIEW OF SECTION 2829 STAFF FINDS THE BOARD CAN APPROVE THIS VARIANCE REQUEST TO REDUCE THE REAR YARD SETBACK AS THE VARIANCE CRITERIA ARE MET, OR CONTINUE UNTIL THE APPLICANT PROVIDES MORE INFORMATION. OKAY, ANY PUBLIC COMMENT? COMMENT, HEARING NONE. ANY EX PARTE ON THIS VISITED THE SITE. FAMILIAR WITH THE SITE, FAMILIAR WITH THE SITE. NONE. NONE NONE NONE. OKAY. AND ON THIS MATTER, LET'S SEE. 13 NOTICES WERE SENT OUT.

ONE WAS RECEIVED IN FAVOR OF THE APPLICATION. SO I'M GOING TO START CHECKING THESE TO MAKE SURE THAT THE PEOPLE RESPONDING IN FAVOR ARE NOT THE APPLICANTS THEMSELVES. SO. I JUST DID AN OVERHEAD AERIAL AND JUST ABOUT EVERY HOUSE ON THAT BACK ALLEYWAY. I DON'T KNOW IF THEY APPLIED FOR A VARIANCE OR IT WAS BEFORE THE SETBACK WAS IN PLACE, BUT THERE'S A LOT OF STRUCTURES THAT JUST RIGHT NEXT DOOR. I MADE A LIST 200, 102 18 OGLETHORPE. THEY ALL THE MAIN STRUCTURE IS WITHIN TEN FEET OF THAT PROPERTY LINE BECAUSE THEY HAVE THE ALLEYWAY BEHIND THERE.

IT'S THEY'RE CONSIDERED TO HAVE TWO FRONTS. SO IN A SCREENED ENCLOSURE, IF IT'S ATTACHED TO THE HOUSE IS NOT CONSIDERED AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE. IT'S CONSIDERED PART OF THE THE HOUSE. SO IT'S KIND OF I FEEL LIKE IT'S DEFINITELY A HARDSHIP. ANY QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD? YEAH, I GOT ONE. SO WHAT'S THE AND I KNOW IT'S IN THE STAFF REPORT. SO I'M GOING TO APOLOGIZE. BUT THE EXIST THE SETBACK IS WHAT WHAT DISTANCE 25 IS 25 IN THE BACK 25 IN THE FRONT AND 25 IN THE IN THE BACK FRONT AND THE BACK, BECAUSE YOU'RE CONSIDERED TO HAVE TWO FRONTS. IT'S 20FT. IT'S CLOSE. IT'S 20FT. IT'S RS ONE. IT ISN'T A SECONDARY FRONT BECAUSE IT'S UNNAMED ALLEY. HOWEVER, THE FRONT AND REAR ARE THE SAME. SO IT'S 20FT 20. SORRY. AND IN A. NORMALLY WE DON'T HAVE 20 FOOT SETBACKS IN THE BACKYARD OR DO WE HAVE. I'M JUST TRYING TO. TYPICALLY RS ONE HAS A 20 FOOT REAR YARD SETBACK. YES, SAME AS THE FRONT. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. AND HOW FAR INTO THE SETBACK ARE WE ENCROACHING? THE SCREEN. THE SCREEN ENCLOSURE WILL BE 12FT, JUST OVER 12FT FROM THE PROPERTY LINE. FROM THE PROPERTY LINE. OKAY. AND THE POOL WERE ALSO BUILDING A POOL IS RIGHT AT 18 TO THE WATER LINE. WE REMOVED A SCREEN

[02:30:01]

AND PRIOR TO ADOPTING THE AGGREGATE LOT ORDINANCE, YOU COULD HAVE TORN THIS HOUSE DOWN AND THEORETICALLY DONE THREE HOUSES. SO THIS IS WHAT KIND OF TRIGGERED THAT WHOLE EFFORT WAY BACK WHEN WAS, YOU KNOW, AS A COMMUNITY, WE REALIZED THAT IF WE DIDN'T ADDRESS THAT ISSUE, WE'D HAVE NO CONTROL OVER DENSITY, BASICALLY. AND SO BUT YEAH, THAT'S, I GUESS IN DAVIS SHORES, YOU LIVE IN DAVIS SHORES. JUST ABOUT EVERYBODY HAS TWO LOTS, AT LEAST ON THEIR SOME HOUSE, THERE'S A MORE THAN WHAT YOU WOULD THINK. YEAH. AND SOME OF THEM HAVE JUST VERY SKINNY PIECES OF GLASS. SO. YEAH. BUT THIS, THIS WAS THE, THE ONE THAT REALLY JUMPED OUT WAS THE ALONG OGLETHORPE BOULEVARD, WHICH I GUESS WAS ORIGINALLY PLANNED BY MR. DAVIS.

NO RELATION TO THIS, MR. DAVIS. NO, REALLY. FOUR LANE ROAD. MR. PAPPAS I DON'T HAVE ANY ISSUES WITH THIS, MISS KELLY. I DON'T HAVE ANY ISSUES AS WELL. I'M NOT SURE IF WE DID PUBLIC COMMENT, BUT CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, I THINK I DON'T REMEMBER. DID I HAVE A PUBLIC COMMENT? YES WE DID. ALL RIGHT. OUR CLERK IS SAYING YES, I APOLOGIZE. IT'S GETTING LATE.

IT'S GETTING LATE. YOU WANT A MOTION? YES, PLEASE. I'LL MAKE A MOTION. WE APPROVE PCB 2026 0092108 OGLETHORPE BOULEVARD. TO APPROVE A VARIANCE TO THE REAR YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENT FOR A POOL SCREEN ENCLOSURE. I'LL SECOND THAT. VOTE, PLEASE. MIKE DAVIS YES. CHARLES PAPPAS YES. ZACHARY TUCKER. YES. WILLIAM TUNSTALL YES. JAN KELLY YES. ROB LOWE YES. SUSAN JONES.

YES. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. OKAY. THANK YOU. THE NEXT ITEM IS PCB 2026 0095. TO APPROVE A

[6.e) PZB2026-0095 Steven Mendoza - Applicant c/o Bog Brewing Company Bog Brewing Company - Owner 218 W King St To approve a variance to the side yard setback requirement. ]

[02:35:12]

MISS DUNN, I NEED SOMETHING TO SHOW ON THE OVERHEAD. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THAT'S WHERE WE'RE TALKING. CONTINUE UNTIL APPLICANT PROVIDES MORE INFORMATION. THIS PROPERTY OWNER IN 2017 SHOULD HAVE KNOWN THE LIMITATIONS OF THE OF HIS LOT. THIS VARIANCE WILL AFFECT THE PRESENT AND FUTURE OWNER OF PROPERTY TO THE EAST, WHICH IS NOW AN OIL COMPANY. THIS IS NOT THE RIGHT PLACE FOR A COOLER. REMOVE THE FOOD TRUCK OR THE OUTDOOR SEATING TO THE NORTH. I DON'T KNOW IN YOUR PICTURES IF YOU GOT ANYTHING BEHIND THE MAIN BUILDING, BUT THAT'S WHAT'S BEHIND THE BUILDING. A FOOD TRUCK AND OUTDOOR SEATING TO THE NORTH. PHOTO. OKAY. I DON'T KNOW WHEN THIS WAS PUT IN IT. THE BUILDING. HE GOT IT. PHOTO SHOWS FENCE, WHICH HAS BEEN CONSTRUCTED SINCE 2024. WHICH WAS YOUR OTHER? A PICTURE THAT WAS SHOWN. CHECK WITH PLANT I CHECKING WITH THE PLANNING AND BUILDING STAFF. THERE WAS NO PERMIT FOR THIS FENCE THAT'S ALREADY BEEN PUT UP. IT MAY BE IN THIS LAST YEAR OR THIS YEAR ITSELF. CHECK.

OKAY, THERE IS A FOOD TRUCK ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THE MAIN BUILDING NEXT TO THE PROPERTY LINE THAT THEY WANT A VARIANCE ON TO THE EAST. THE OKAY. THERE IS OUTDOOR SEATING ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THE BUILDING NEXT TO THE FOOD TRUCK. THERE IS PARKING ON THE WEST SIDE OF THIS BUILDING. SO. YOU GET CHOICES. THIS IS NOT THE RIGHT PLACE FOR A COOLER AND THERE'S OTHER ELECTRICAL BUILDING, NOT BUILDINGS, BUT THINGS IN THE BACK OF THE MAIN BUILDING. OKAY.

YOU CAN'T SEE THE FOOD TRUCK. FOOD TRUCK IS RIGHT NEXT TO THE PROPERTY LINE THAT THEY WANT A VARIANCE ON. SO THIS IS NOT THE RIGHT PLACE FOR A COOLER. CONTINUE UNTIL THE APPLICANT PROVIDES MORE INFORMATION. OR YOU COULD DENY THIS APPLICATION. SO I KNOW YOU'RE TRYING TO IMPROVE WEST CITY AND WEST KING STREET, BUT THIS IS NOT THE WAY TO DO IT. HE KNEW WHAT HE HAD AND THAT WAS A WHAT YOU CALLED IT. HIS TRASH CANS HAVE BEEN PUT BACK AND FORTH. BUT FOR HIM TO GO AHEAD NOW AND WANT TO DO THIS AND SHOW YOU THIS IS HOW IT'S GOING TO LOOK, WHO APPROVED THIS FENCE AND WHEN WAS THIS FENCE APPROVED? AND IT'S TOO CLOSE TO THE EAST SIDE OF THE PROPERTY. THEY'VE GOT PLENTY OF ROOM IN THE BACK. IF THEY GET RID OF SOME OF THE THINGS THAT THEY'VE ADDED BACK THERE AND TO THE WEST TO WHERE THERE'S PARKING. SO I'M OPPOSED TO THIS UNLESS THEY CAN SHOW YOU WHY THEY NEED THIS. AND THESE PICTURES ARE IN YOUR PACKETS THERE. THANK YOU, THANK YOU. ANY OTHER PUBLIC COMMENT? AND I WILL NOTE THAT 15 NOTICES WERE SENT OUT. THREE WERE RECEIVED IN FAVOR. ONE WITH A PUBLIC COMMENT AND FULL SUPPORT OF THE VARIANCE REQUEST. THE APPLICANT DOES THE APPLICANT HAVE A PRESENTATION OR INFORMATION TO SHARE WITH US? YES, MA'AM. WE DO HAVE A PRESENTATION. HE WANTED TO ADDRESS SOME OF THE PUBLIC COMMENTS FIRST. YES, ON THE WEST SIDE THERE IS A PUBLIC PARKING LOT. I BELIEVE THE CITY HAS AN ARRANGEMENT WITH THAT PRIVATE PROPERTY OWNER. THAT IS NOT OUR LOT. FOR TEN YEARS NOW. EVERYONE ASSUMES THAT'S OUR LOT. I DO GENERALLY MAINTAIN IT AND PICK UP THE TRASH ON A WEEKLY BASIS IN IT. BUT THAT IS NOT OUR LOT. THAT IS NOT AN APPLICABLE PLACE TO PUT A WALK IN. SHE ALSO BROUGHT UP THE NORTH SIDE, WHERE WE DO HAVE OUTDOOR SEATING AND A FOOD TRUCK. WE ALSO HAVE A NEIGHBOR BEHIND US THAT IS ON THE SAME LOT, THE CANVAS SHOP AND WHAT I'VE DONE WITH THEM. WE'VE ALWAYS BEEN GOOD NEIGHBORS. IS TRYING NOT TO BLOCK THEIR VISIBILITY BECAUSE THEY ARE A, YOU KNOW, A CUSTOMER SERVICE BASED INDUSTRY. YOU KNOW, I'VE NEVER PUT UP A FENCE TO BLOCK THEM AND TO PUT A COOLER THERE WOULD BLOCK THEIR VISIBILITY. AND I THINK IT WOULD KIND OF MESS UP THE VISUAL ESTHETICS OF

[02:40:05]

THEN UNLESS THE STAFF HAS ANY COMMENTS FOR US. SO WHAT WILL THE SETBACK BE IF THE COOLER GOES IN? YEAH. SO WE WERE ASKING FOR JUST A ZERO SETBACK BECAUSE IT'S EXTREMELY CLOSE TO THAT HISTORIC LOT LINE. AND I'VE DONE PERSONALLY DONE A LOT OF WORK IN THIS AREA. AND A LOT OF THOSE, THOSE FENCES KIND OF MEANDER. SO WE'RE A LITTLE BIT WORRIED THAT, YOU KNOW, THE FENCE CROSSES IN DIFFERENT PARTS. SO WITH IT BEING LIKE 19IN FROM THE FENCE LINE, WE'D WANT A JUST A ZERO SETBACK. SO WE CAN JUST ESTABLISH THAT AREA. AND JUST IT SHOULD BE. AND ALSO, WE WANTED TO NOTE THAT THE THE NEIGHBOR NEXT DOOR IS A DIFFORD'S FUEL, AND THEY HAVE A CHAIN LINK FENCE THAT GOES RIGHT ALONG THE PROPERTY LINE. AND MOST OF WHAT'S ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THAT FENCE IS A LOT OF STORAGE, STORAGE FOR TRUCKS, GAS TANKS, THOSE SORT OF INDUSTRIAL PRODUCTS. ANY EX PARTE VERY FAMILIAR WITH THE SITE, FAMILIAR WITH THE SITE, FAMILIAR WITH THE SITE, FAMILIAR WITH THE SITE, FAMILIAR WITH THE SITE, FAMILIAR WITH THE SITE. FAMILIAR WITH. OKAY. DISCUSSION. ANYONE WANT TO LEAD IT OFF? GO AHEAD, MR. BLOW. WELL, ON THE STAFF REPORT, THE AND I DON'T HAVE THE PAGE NUMBER. IT'S PAGE FOUR, I GUESS, IN THE HARD COPY. BUT STAFF ASKED THE QUESTION. IT SAYS IT DOES NOT LIST THE DISTANCE OF THE WALK IN COOLER TO THE PROPERTY LINE, AND SHOULD PROVIDE THE DISTANCE REQUESTED PRIOR TO GRANTING OF THE VARIANCE REQUEST. SO IS THAT 19IN OR IS THAT ZERO WHAT, 19IN, 19IN? AND THAT'S ON THE SIDE, RIGHT. THAT'S ON THE SIDE. SO THERE'S A THERE'S A CHAIN LINK FENCE IN BETWEEN DEE FORD'S FUEL AND BOGGS PROPERTY, WHICH IS ESSENTIALLY RIGHT ON THE PROPERTY LINE. BUT AGAIN, WE DON'T KNOW, SOMETIME THE FENCES GOES A LITTLE WAY.

THAT'S WHY WE'RE KIND OF ASKING FOR THE FULL ZERO SETBACK, BECAUSE EVEN THOUGH IT'S 19IN FROM THERE, YOU KNOW, WE DON'T WANT TO GET INTO AN ENCROACHMENT ISSUE LATER ON. WE JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE ABLE TO GO TO THE PROPERTY LINE. OKAY. AND ON THE THE DISTANCE FROM THE COOLER TO THE RIGHT OF WAY OF KING STREET, HOW FAR IS THAT? THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION. I'D HAVE TO ESTIMATE, I WOULD SAY 4 TO 6FT. OKAY. WELL, IT THE RIGHT OF WAY FOR

[02:45:06]

YEAH, YEAH. I DON'T KNOW WHY IT WAS A HISTORICAL DRIVEWAY EASEMENT THAT'S NO LONGER IN USE. SO IN BETWEEN THAT SIDE OF THE PROPERTY, I GUESS ORIGINALLY WAS THE THAT, DO THEY OWN THAT OR DOES THAT BELONG TO DOT? THEY OWN IT. IT WAS A DRIVEWAY EASEMENT FOR THE DRIVEWAY SERVING THE BOG PROPERTY. SO YOU DON'T HAVE AN ISSUE WITH DOT THEN. OKAY. SO AS FAR AS THAT SETBACK FROM THE DOT RIGHT OF WAY, IT'S IT'S WITHIN CODE. YES, YES. OKAY.

ALL RIGHT. THANKS. COMMENTS. MR. TURNSTILE, I HAVE NO ISSUE WITH IT. I'VE WATCHED STEVE OPERATE FOR YEARS AND WATCHED HIM EXPLORE EVERY OPTION WITH HIS NEIGHBORS, AND I THINK HE'S IN THE BEST INTEREST OF WEST KING STREET. HE'S PUT A LOT OF EFFORT IN. SO, MR. DAVIS, I THINK IF WE WANT WEST KING STREET TO DEVELOP, WE GOT TO BE CREATIVE OVER THERE. RIGHT? A LOT OF THESE BUILDINGS ARE RIGHT ON THE PROPERTY. WE'VE GOT PARKING ISSUES, WE'VE GOT SPACE ISSUES. SO I DON'T HAVE AN ISSUE WITH THIS APPLICATION. OKAY, MR. PAPPAS, IT'S A COMMON THING, YOU KNOW, AT RESTAURANTS AND IN THESE OLD COMMERCIAL ZONES, I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH IT. AND IF FIRE SAFETY DOESN'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH IT, I. THAT WOULD ONLY BE MY ONLY CONCERN IS IF WE DO A ZERO SETBACK, YOU KNOW, ARE WE GETTING IN TROUBLE LATER? ON THE SIDE? HAVE WE EVER, EVER BUILT OR ANYTHING? SO THE BIGGEST QUESTION THEY WOULD HAVE TO DEAL WITH FROM A CODE STANDPOINT IS THE CLOSER YOU GET TO THAT SETBACK IS FIRE RATING. THAT STRUCTURE. SO THAT WOULD BE YOUR I MEAN, I DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU'LL FIND WHEN YOU GET TO THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT AND HOW THEY WILL LOOK AT THAT IN THE FIRE DEPARTMENT. BUT TYPICALLY, THE CLOSER YOU GET TO THE PROPERTY LINE, THEY WANT TO HIRE FIRE RATING ON THAT. SO YOU MIGHT HAVE TO BUILD A CONCRETE WALL AND PUT THE COOLER INSIDE OF THAT. I DON'T KNOW WHAT THEY'LL COME UP. THEY MAY LOOK AT IT AND SAY, IT'S A COOLER. IT'S NOT AN ISSUE. IT'S NOT A LIVABLE SPACE, BUT IT'S JUST SOMETHING YOU MAY ENCOUNTER. I WAS ALSO THINKING OF ACCESS BETWEEN THE COOLER AND THE CHAIN LINK FENCE, BUT I DON'T HAVE AN ISSUE WITH IT.

JUST A QUICK QUESTION WHERE WAS YOUR COOLER BEFORE? THIS IS AN AUXILIARY COOLER. WE HAVE ONE THAT EXISTS INSIDE THE BUILDING AS WELL. THAT ONE IS COBBLED TOGETHER FROM PARTS WE BOUGHT USED WHEN WE FIRST OPENED. AND SO PART OF THIS IS TO KIND OF HEDGE OUR BETS AGAINST I MEAN, THAT ONE'S BEEN I'VE SPENT MORE KEEPING IT RUNNING IN THE PAST TWO YEARS, PROBABLY THAN I EVER SPENT PUTTING IT TOGETHER. SO THIS IS KIND OF OUR WAY TO TRY AND MITIGATE. IF IT GOES DOWN, WE HAVE AUXILIARY STORAGE TO KEEP EVERYTHING. THANK YOU, MR. TUCKER. I DON'T WANT TO. YEAH.

I GUESS MY MY QUESTION WOULD BE IS THAT INGRESS EGRESS EASEMENT FOR YOUR PARCEL. YES. IT'S FOR IT'S FOR OUR PARCEL. NO, NO. OKAY. AND THE OTHER QUESTION WAS, SO IS THIS A CONSIDERED A PERMANENT STRUCTURE OR IS IT LIKE ON SKIDS THAT YOU COULD LIKE HOW DOES IT GET THERE? DO THEY BUILD IT ON SITE OR IS IT LIKE BROUGHT IN? IT'S A PANELED PROJECT. SO YEAH, IT GETS ASSEMBLED ON SITE. IT'S NOT TECHNICALLY A PERMANENT STRUCTURE. IT CAN BE DISASSEMBLED IF YOU KNOW, YOU KNOW, IF WE SOLD THE BUILDING AND YOU KNOW, WHICH I HAVE NO PLANS OF DOING, OF GOING ANYWHERE, BUT IT COULD BE DISASSEMBLED AND IT WOULD BE LIKE IT WAS NEVER THERE. COOL. THANK YOU. A MOTION? YEAH, SURE. YEAH. I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION.

OH. GO AHEAD. I'M SORRY. YOU MADE ME THINK ABOUT IT. IF WE DO THE SETBACK, IT'S PERMANENT TO THAT PLOT. SO THAT COULD BECOME A ROOM SOMEDAY. WHICH JUST BOTHERS ME ABOUT THE ZERO SETBACK. AND COULD IT ALSO EXTEND THE LENGTH OF THE BUILDING? NOT JUST THE NOT JUST THE COOLER? IT WOULD MAKE AN ARGUMENT IN THE FUTURE TO DO SOMETHING LIKE THAT. BUT OTHER THAN THAT, I REALLY DON'T HAVE. SO LET ME ASK YOU THIS. IF WE MAKE IT TO ONE FOOT OFF THE PROPERTY LINE, ARE YOU. WE PREFER THE ZERO. COULD WE LIMIT IT TO JUST THE ACCESSORY USE STRUCTURE? MR. TURNER, IN THEORY, AND I'M JUST BASING THIS ON THE TESTIMONY. I THINK I HEARD THAT IT'S NOT IT'S A POTENTIALLY MOVABLE STRUCTURE. SO IF THAT'S SOMETHING THAT THE APPLICANT IS WILLING TO AGREE AS A TERM OF THE APPROVAL, THAT HYPOTHETICALLY, IF IT'S NOT BEING USED AS A COOLER, THAT IT WOULD HAVE TO BE REMOVED AND A NEW OWNER WOULD HAVE TO COME

[02:50:05]

I'LL SECOND THAT. ROLL CALL, PLEASE. MIKE DAVIS YES, YES. ZACHARY TUCKER YES. WILLIAM TUNSTALL YES. GENE KELLY YES. YES. SUSAN JOHNS YES, THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU. THANK YOU

[6.f) PZB2026-0100 Kyle Campbell - Applicant c/o Lincolnville Listening Room LLC Four G Partners RLLP - Owner 111 King St To approve a variance to eliminate the required off-street parking.]

PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND BE SWORN IN. KYLE CAMPBELL. OKAY, DO YOU SOLEMNLY SWEAR OR AFFIRM THAT THE TESTIMONY YOU'RE ABOUT TO GIVE IS THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH? I DO. STAFF REPORT PLEASE. YES. THIS APPLICATION IS A VARIANCE REQUEST TO ELIMINATE THE PARKING REQUIREMENTS FOR A NEW PROPOSED RETAIL USE AND JUICE BAR LOCATED AT 111 KING STREET IN THE COMMERCIAL ONE ZONING DISTRICT. THIS NEW BUSINESS WILL BE LOCATED INSIDE THE SAME AS THE EXISTING MIDNIGHT MOON BOOKSTORE. IN THE APPLICATION, THE APPLICANT STATES THAT THE REQUIRED PARKING WOULD BE 12 SPACES. HOWEVER, BASED OFF OF PARKING CREDITS FOR THE EXISTING USES ON SITE, THE REQUIRED PARKING FOR THIS NEW BUSINESS WOULD BE NINE PARKING SPACES. BASED ON A REVIEW OF SECTION 28-29, STAFF FIND THAT THE BOARD CAN APPROVE AS VARIANCE CRITERIA IS MET FOR A VARIANCE TO ELIMINATE THE PARKING REQUIREMENTS FOR NEW BUSINESS. LOCATED AT 111 KING STREET. WE HAVE A PRESENTATION I DON'T OKAY, ANY INFORMATION THAT YOU WANT TO SHARE WITH US? EXCITED ABOUT DOING IT. HOPING FOR SOME SUPPORT, I. I DID SPEND A FEW MONTHS TRYING TO ACQUIRE PARKING NEARBY IN THE 400FT, AS IS EXPLAINED IN THE APPLICATION, AND IT JUST CAME UP SHORT. THEY JUST NOBODY HAD ANY PARKING. I JUST THERE WASN'T ANY OTHER ALTERNATIVES TO IT. AND YEAH, I'M EXCITED TO BRING IT TO THE COMMUNITY AND REALLY LEAN INTO THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND THE COLLEGE KIDS AND THE WALKABILITY, YOU KNOW, REDUCING CARBON FOOTPRINT. THERE'S ALREADY A LOT OF CARS DOWNTOWN, SO WE'LL BE ONE OF THE BUSINESSES THAT IS ENCOURAGING LESS CARS, YOU KNOW, MORE WALKABILITY AND COMMUNITY PUBLIC COMMENT. PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND YOU'LL BE SWORN IN. JACKIE HEARD 122 LAQUINTA PLACE IN AUGUSTINE 32084. DO YOU SOLEMNLY SWEAR OR AFFIRM

[02:55:06]

WHEN YOU CHANGE A REQUIREMENT AND YOU REDUCE THE REQUIREMENT, ELIMINATE IT, MODIFY IT, OR WHATEVER, YOU CREATE A NEGATIVE EFFECT. YOU DON'T GET RID OF THE NEED. IN THIS CASE, PARKING.

YOU CREATED A NEED NUMBER THAT HAD TO BE MET. IF YOU GET RID OF THAT NUMBER, YOU DON'T GET RID OF THE PROBLEM. YOU JUST TRANSFER IT SOMEWHERE ELSE. AND IN THIS CASE, EVERYTHING YOU DO ON KING STREET, WHEN YOU TRANSFER PARKING REQUIREMENTS, WHEN YOU ELIMINATE AND REDUCE THEM, YOU'RE TRANSFERRING THEM TO THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES. AND MOST OF THOSE NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES ARE RESIDENTIAL. SO IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE, I ASK YOU NOT TO GET RID OF, ELIMINATE, REDUCE PARKING FOR OFF STREET REQUIREMENTS BECAUSE YOU AFFECT THE NEIGHBORS, THE RESIDENTS OF THIS CITY, MORE THAN YOU IMPROVE THE REQUIREMENT FOR THE BUSINESS OWNER. THANK YOU. VIRGINIA WHETSTONE, DO YOU SOLEMNLY SWEAR OR AFFIRM THAT THE

[03:00:11]

I AM ADAMANTLY OPPOSED TO THAT BECAUSE ALL YOU'RE DOING IS FORCING THOSE CARS TO COME TO MY LOT, WHICH I PROBABLY HAVE THE MOST PRIVATE PARKING SPACES ON THAT STREET. AND THAT'S NOT THAT FAR FROM 111 KING STREET DOWN TO 139149 KING STREET, FOR PEOPLE TO PARK AND WALK RIGHT ON DOWN THERE. SO I OPPOSE THIS REDUCTION IN PARKING, AND THIS BOARD HAS GOT TO STOP ELIMINATING OR REDUCING ON SITE PROPERTIES FOR BUSINESSES IN DOWNTOWN SAINT AUGUSTINE. IT'S UNFAIR. THANK YOU, THANK YOU. ANYBODY ELSE? OKAY. WE HAVE WHAT? TEN WERE SENT OUT, TEN NOTICES WERE SENT OUT. NOTHING WAS RECEIVED IN RESPONSE TO THIS. AND DO YOU WANT TO ADDRESS THE COMMENTS THAT WERE JUST MADE? YEAH, ABSOLUTELY. IT WAS TALKING A LOT ABOUT, YOU KNOW, WE'RE NOT REDUCING THE NEED OR WE'RE NOT FIXING THE PROBLEM FOR THE NEED. AND MY BUSINESS REALLY IS PROMOTING THAT. IT REALLY IS PROMOTING WALKABILITY. WE'RE DOING MEMBERSHIP WITH THE COLLEGE AND DEVELOP A RELATIONSHIP WITH FLAGLER AS WELL AS THE CHURCH THAT IS RIGHT ACROSS KING STREET. THEY DO HAVE PARKING. THEY JUST WERE NOT ABLE TO ALLOCATE IT DIRECTLY FOR ME. BUT THEY SAID, YOU KNOW, IT'S PAID. YOU CAN SCAN THE QR CODE.

THERE'S 15 SPACES ACROSS THE STREET THAT ARE THERE. SO, YOU KNOW, IT IS THERE. AND MY BUSINESS, I MEAN, WE'RE, WE'RE PARTNERING WITH THE TROLLEY TO DO, YOU KNOW, TO BE A STOP.

IT'S JUST A BLOCK AWAY. SO WE REALLY ARE GETTING INTO THAT, YOU KNOW, COMMUNITY ORIENTED WALKABILITY. I'M EXCITED THAT IT'S STILL RIGHT IN LINCOLNVILLE PROPER RIGHT ON THAT NORTH CORRIDOR OF IT. AND WE'RE DEFINITELY GOING TO BE ADDRESSING THAT. IT'S NOT JUST CREATING THIS BIG NEED AND TELLING PEOPLE TO FIGURE IT OUT. SO IT WILL BE ADVERTISED AND PROMOTED AS SUCH. ARE YOU REQUESTING THAT THAT THE PARKING BE LIMITED TO ZERO? YEAH. OKAY. I START THIS. NO, I DON'T WANT TO START SINCE IT'S PARKING SEEMS TO BE ALWAYS UP IN MY PURVIEW OF PARKING AND WALKABILITY. I APPLAUD YOU FOR DOING YOUR HOMEWORK AND ACTUALLY LOOKING FOR PARKING SPACES. YOU KNOW, WE HAVE THESE BUILDINGS THAT HAVE NO PARKING.

YOU KNOW, THIS IS THE WAY THEY WERE BUILT. PARKING AT THAT TIME WAS ON THE STREET. CARS WERE NOT AS BIG. SO WE HAVE TO SAY, WHAT DO WE DO WITH THESE BUILDINGS? WE DON'T WANT THEM VACANT. SO THE BEST THING TO DO IS FILL THEM WITH BUSINESSES THAT ARE ATTRACTING CUSTOMERS THAT ARE ALREADY THERE. AND I GOT TO SAY, THIS TYPE OF BUSINESS APPEARS THAT IT'S GOING TO BE GOING AFTER THE NEIGHBORS, THE COLLEGE STUDENTS, THE TOURISTS, AND NOT PEOPLE WHO ARE LOOKING TO DRIVE THERE FOR IT. THEY'LL PROBABLY FIND PRETTY QUICKLY THAT IF THEY DO GO THERE TO DRIVE, THEY PROBABLY WON'T GO BACK BECAUSE THERE IS NO PARKING. SO SO TO GET BACK TO DOT'S THING IS, THAT'S BASED ON THE ASSUMPTION THAT EVERY BUSINESS GOES. THEN IT REQUIRES PEOPLE TO PARK. AND ONE THING WE'VE BEEN PUSHING WITH THIS CITY IS ATTRACTING BUSINESSES THAT ARE DRAWING FROM WHAT'S HERE. SO WE DON'T ADD MORE PEOPLE PARKING. SO I THINK IT'S MORE IMPORTANT TO BE FILLING THESE STORES WITH THE RIGHT TYPE OF BUSINESSES. AND I THINK IN THIS CASE IT IS. AND IF IT ISN'T STRONG BELIEVER OF CAPITALISM, IF IT ISN'T, IT'LL BE MOOT BECAUSE THAT BUSINESS WILL GO OUT OF BUSINESS. IF YOU'RE ATTRACTING CUSTOMERS THAT HAVE TO DRIVE THERE, THERE'S A LOT OF CHOICES. SO I DON'T SEE PEOPLE, YOU KNOW, UNLESS YOU'RE DOING SOMETHING SUPER SPECTACULAR THAT'S NOT AVAILABLE ANYWHERE ELSE IN THE

[03:05:03]

REZONING. YEAH, YEAH, YEAH. GOOD TO SEE YOU GUYS AGAIN. SORRY IF I MISSED IT IN THE APPLICATION, BUT THERE WAS REFERENCE TO ALTERNATIVE HOURS WITH THE SURROUNDING BUSINESSES.

COULD YOU ELABORATE ON THAT? YEAH. ESSENTIALLY THE IDEA IS, YOU KNOW, IF, IF WE WOULD LIKE WHEN OUR BIGGEST NEED FOR PARKING WOULD BE WHEN WE HAVE MORE PEOPLE WOULD BE EVENING EVENTS. IF WE DO LIKE, YOU KNOW, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT LIKE AN OPEN MIC POETRY NIGHT. HAVING SOME LOCAL MUSICIANS COME, ANYTHING LIKE THAT. A LOT OF THE BUSINESSES SURROUNDING ME ARE ALL CLOSED AT THE TIME. WE WOULD, YOU KNOW, THOSE PEOPLE WOULD BE SHOWING UP. SO IT'S NOT INTERFERING WITH THEM. IT'S NOT INTERFERING WITH THE CHURCH. IT'S IT'S A VERY DIFFERENT THAN THE COLLEGE HOURS OR THE NADINE'S CAFE AND THE PIZZA PLACE AND THINGS LIKE THAT. SO IT'S BUT THERE'S NO AGREEMENT WITH THOSE SURROUNDING BUSINESSES TO GRANT YOU PARKING IN THOSE ALTERNATE HOURS. THERE IS THE CHURCH HAS ALREADY SAID, YOU KNOW, YOU'RE WELCOME TO PARK HERE. THE COLLEGE HAS SAID AFTER SIX, THEY'RE WELCOME TO PARK HERE. AND THEY WILL JUST SCAN THE QR CODE AND PAY THEM THE COMPANY THAT ALREADY RUNS IT. SO AGAIN, IT IS PARKING AVAILABLE. IT IS JUST NOT ABLE TO BE, YOU KNOW, ALLOCATED FOR ME AND MY BUSINESS SPECIFICALLY.

IT'S LIKE PRIVATE PARKING. WILL YOU DO ANYTHING TO TRY TO DIRECT CUSTOMERS WHO ARE DRIVING TO THOSE PARKING SPACES? WELL, WITH THE, WHAT WE'RE DOING WITH THE MEMBERSHIP AND KIND OF ENCOURAGING THAT COMMUNITY, IT'S A LOT OF IT WILL BE WORD OF MOUTH AND THEN THE WEBSITE WILL WILL ADVERTISE THAT, YOU KNOW, FOR THE PEOPLE THAT ARE NEEDING AND PARKING, IT'S AVAILABLE AT THE CHURCH ACROSS THE STREET, YOU KNOW, SO WE'LL BE ANNOUNCING THAT ON THE WEBSITE AND ANY, ANYTHING THAT GOES OUT LIKE GOOGLE, GOOGLE BUSINESS, YOU KNOW, OKAY. MR. TUNSTALL. WHAT DO YOU GUYS ANTICIPATE FOR THESE? IT'S A MUSIC VENUE, RIGHT? OR YOU'LL, YOU'LL BE HAVING VENUE. IT'S, IT'S, IT'S A RECORD STORE WITH, WITH A CAFE KIND OF WI-FI CAFE, YOU KNOW, LIKE A HOTEL LOBBY, BAR TYPE FEEL PLUG INS FOR THE KIDS TO WORK ON THEIR LAPTOPS.

SO THAT'S KIND OF THE, THE NICHE OF IT AS FAR AS LIKE A VENUE THAT WOULD BE A LITTLE MORE LIMITED SETUPS LIKE ACOUSTIC PERFORMERS IN THE CORNER TYPE THING. SO REALLY THE FOCUS IS THE RECORD STORE. IT'S A CONSIGNMENT RECORD STORE WHERE PEOPLE CAN BRING IN THEIR OLD RECORDS AND WE SELL IT FOR THEM. AND THEN AGAIN, A NONALCOHOLIC, YOU KNOW, LISTENING ROOM FOR THE VINYL RECORDS. OR YOU CAN ADVERTISE AS A MUSIC VENUE, THOUGH, RIGHT ON THE EXTERIOR OF THE BUILDING. WHAT IS THAT YOU GUYS HAVE ARE ADVERTISED AS A MUSIC VENUE ON THE EXTERIOR OF THE BUILDING. I THOUGHT I SAW THAT WHEN I STOPPED BY TODAY. THAT COULD BE CORRECT IF IT SAYS VENUE. YEAH. YEAH. I'M JUST TRYING TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO WEIGH BOTH SIDES OF THIS. SO YOU'VE GOT A BUILDING THAT, AS CHARLES RILEY POINTED OUT, DOESN'T HAVE A USE ANYMORE.

IT USED TO BE A HARDWARE STORE. IT WAS A GREAT HARDWARE STORE. AND SO IT HAD ZERO PARKING BACK THEN. AND MOST PEOPLE WALKED TO IT OR FIGURED OUT SOMEPLACE AROUND TOWN TO PARK TO GET TO THAT HARDWARE STORE OBVIOUSLY COULDN'T SURVIVE. SO NOW YOU'VE GOT OTHER VENUES IN THERE. I GUESS KIND OF PART OF MINE IS STAFF SAYS WE'RE REMOVING NINE PARKING SPACES. THE APPLICANT SAYS 12. AND SO WHICH WHICH IS IT? IT IS NINE. SO THIS STORE WAS PREVIOUSLY ANTOINETTE'S BATH HOUSE. WHAT IS IT CALLED? WELL, APOTHECARY. SO IT WAS A RETAIL STORE. SO ONCE MIDNIGHT MOON MOVED IN THERE IT WAS GRANDFATHERED IN WITH, YOU KNOW, THE ZERO PARKING SPACES FOR RETAIL BECAUSE IT WENT RETAIL TO RETAIL. SO BECAUSE A PORTION THAT THE LINCOLNVILLE LISTENING ROOM IS GOING TO BE TAKING UP IS GOING TO BE RETAIL ONLY, HE GOT EXTRA CREDIT FOR THOSE THREE PARKING SPOTS. OKAY, SO IT IS NINE. IT'S NINE. OKAY. BUT THE BUILDING ITSELF HAS 0 OR 3 ZERO PARKING SPOTS THAT WE WOULD COUNT BECAUSE YOU'RE NOT ALLOWED TO BACK OUT ONTO A PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY. SO THERE ARE, I THINK, 2 OR 3 PARKING SPACES BEHIND THE BUILDING, BUT IT DOES BACK OUT INTO AN ALLEYWAY. SO THOSE CANNOT BE COUNTED. OKAY. YEAH, I'M JUST TRYING TO FIGURE THAT OUT. SO. MR. BLOW. WELL, WE'VE BEEN HERE BEFORE ON THIS DEBATE ON THIS

[03:10:10]

THANK YOU. THANK YOU. HAS THE APPLICANT HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW THOSE DOCUMENTS? THANK YOU. SO I RECOGNIZE THE CONCERNS OF THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY OWNERS WHO DO HAVE PARKING AVAILABLE AT THEIR AT THEIR LOCATIONS. BUT PART OF THE CONCERN IS GOING TO BE THE INCREASED TRAFFIC. IF PEOPLE ARE GOING TO BE DRIVING AROUND LOOKING FOR STREET PARKING. BUT BASED UPON MY OWN EXPERIENCE, WHEN THAT'S WHAT I HAVE TO DO, I FIND A WAY TO LIMIT MY TRIPS OR WALK UP AND KEEP THAT IN MIND, WHICH MAY IMPACT THE SUCCESS OF THE BUSINESS. AND I GUESS I DO THINK THAT WE DO WE WANT TO ENCOURAGE THE CITY BEING MORE WALKABLE AND REDUCING THE NUMBER OF CARS. AND OVERALL, IF THERE IS NOT ADEQUATE PARKING, I THINK PEOPLE WOULD THINK TWICE ABOUT TRYING TO DRIVE AROUND AIMLESSLY LOOKING FOR A PARKING SPOT. SO I, I UNDERSTAND THE CONCERNS OF THE OTHER PROPERTY OWNERS WHO DO HAVE PROPERTY, AND I HOPE THAT PEOPLE RESPECT THEIR RIGHTS TO ONLY HAVE PATRONS PARKING IN THEIR LOTS, BUT I, I'M INCLINED TO BE IN FAVOR OF THIS APPLICATION. ANYBODY ELSE? YEAH.

THE VENUE THAT YOU HAVE, SIR, IS IT GOING TO BE AT MUSIC AT NIGHT? YEAH. THERE WILL BE SOME MUSIC. YEAH. OKAY. AND WHAT ARE THE HOURS OF OPERATION FOR THAT AREA THAT I'M NOT SURE YET. I'M STILL GOING THROUGH THIS SIDE OF IT YET. WE HAVEN'T GONE INTO THOSE DETAILS YET. OKAY. THANK YOU. LOOKING FORWARD TO THAT. MR. TUCKER. SORRY, I'VE GOT A FROG IN MY THROAT, BUT I HAVE

[03:15:07]

AND THIS IS DEFINITELY NOT A DESTINATION BUSINESS. WE'RE YOU GET IN, THAT'S WHERE YOU'RE GOING. THAT'S THE ONLY PLACE YOU'RE GOING. THIS TENDS TO BE MORE OF A COMPLEMENTARY BUSINESS TO WHAT WE HAVE DOWN THERE, WHICH IS WHY I DON'T HAVE A CONCERN FOR THIS AS FAR AS, YOU KNOW, PEOPLE PARKING AND OTHER PEOPLE'S LOTS, CODE VIOLATIONS, PARKING ILLEGALLY, WE WE CAN'T CONTROL THAT. WE CAN'T CONTROL BEHAVIOR. THE BUSINESS CAN IF IT DOES BECOME A PROBLEM. AND I GOT TO TELL YOU, FOR ABOUT 45 YEARS, I OWNED A PIECE OF PROPERTY WHERE I HAD MY BUSINESS. IT WAS THE ONLY BUILDING WITH A PARKING LOT WITHIN A COMMERCIAL DISTRICT THAT WAS ABOUT A HALF MILE LONG. AND AT FIRST I ALWAYS WOULD GET WORKED UP ABOUT IT. WHEN CUSTOMERS WOULD PARK IN THERE. EVENTUALLY, I LEARNED GOODWILL WENT A LOT FURTHER THAN GETTING WORKED UP WITH IT. THEY WEREN'T TAKING THEIR CUSTOMERS, WEREN'T TAKING AWAY MY CUSTOMERS, BUT THEY ACTUALLY BROUGHT OTHER CUSTOMERS THROUGH GOODWILL. SO, YOU KNOW, IN A COMMUNITY, AN OLDER COMMUNITY WITH THE SAME THING WAS AN OLDER COMMUNITY WHERE THE BUILDINGS WERE BUILT ON THE AVENUE AND THEY WERE BUILT WITHOUT PARKING. WE JUST NEED TO FIND WAYS TO KEEP THOSE BUILDINGS FILLED. YOU KNOW, IF THIS WAS A RESTAURANT COMING IN, YOU WOULDN'T HAVE MY SUPPORT AT ALL BECAUSE THAT'S A DESTINATION THAT BRINGS MULTIPLE CARS. THIS SEEMS LIKE IT'LL FIT IN WITH THE TOURISTS. IT'LL FIT IN WITH THE THE COLLEGE STUDENTS, IT'LL FIT IN WITH THE HOTELS. SO IT DOES HAVE MY SUPPORT. ANYBODY ELSE? WELL, WE JUST REAL QUICK IS WE, WE HEARD FROM THE PUBLIC THAT WE HAD ONE OF THE PUBLIC WAS MISHEARD. WHO'S I THINK HER ISSUE NOT TO PUT WORDS IN HER MOUTH, BUT SHE IS CONCERNED ABOUT HER QUALITY OF LIFE AND LIVING IN HER HOUSE. AND IF I HEARD HER CORRECTLY, HER CONCERNS IS PEOPLE BLOCKING HER DRIVEWAY ON THAT WHAT'S CALLED ALLEY STREET OR THE ALLEY VERSUS MISS WHETSTONE'S CONCERN ABOUT, YOU KNOW, PEOPLE USING HER PARKING SPACES THAT AREN'T CUSTOMERS. SO I'M WONDERING, IS THERE ANYTHING WE CAN DO TO IMPROVE THAT? I DON'T, I DON'T WE CAN'T DO ANYTHING ABOUT THIS. OR LET ME LET ME PUT IT THIS WAY. IS THERE ANYTHING WE CAN DO TO ADDRESS MISS HEARD'S PROBLEM AS FAR AS BLOCKING HER ACCESS TO HER HOUSE? I'M JUST THROWING THAT OUT AS AN IDEA. I MEAN, THAT'S A CITY RIGHT OF WAY. DO YOU GUYS ENFORCE NO PARKING? CORRECT. SO IT'S IT'S PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY. ANYBODY WHO WOULD BE BLOCKING IT OR ILLEGALLY PARKING ON THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY WOULD BE SUBJECT TO TICKETING AND TOWING POTENTIALLY IF THEY'RE BLOCKING BACK THERE, BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, THAT'S A POSSIBILITY, IT'D BE SOMETHING TO TAKE UP WITH PUBLIC WORKS TO SEE IF THERE'S ADDITIONAL SIGNAGE, IF THAT'S A CONCERN, BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT THE PICTURES THAT WERE JUST HANDED OUT IS. WHAT I'M SEEING IS, IS MISS HEARD'S GOT HER ACCESS ONTO THIS STREET, BUT SHE'S HAVING PROBLEMS WITH PEOPLE BECAUSE IT DOESN'T LOOK LIKE A CITY STREET. IT JUST LOOKS LIKE A THE BACK OF THOSE BUILDINGS WHERE YOU COULD PARK. SO ANYWAY, I'M JUST THROWING THAT OUT. AND WHAT SHE WOULD HAVE TO DO IS, IS CONTACT PUBLIC WORKS OR THE CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE OR. YEAH. AND IF IT'S, IF SHE WANTS TO SORT OF PLACE SOME SIGNAGE ON HER OWN PROPERTY REGARDING, PLEASE DON'T BLOCK MY DRIVEWAY. I'M SURE THAT'S NOT A PROBLEM EITHER. BUT IF THE ISSUE IS PEOPLE TRULY PARKING IN THE RIGHT OF WAY, THEN YEAH, THAT WOULD PROBABLY BE THE BEST IDEA IS TO GET A HOLD OF PUBLIC WORKS OR MR. FRANKLIN, WHO'S THE ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER, AND SEE IF THERE'S A WAY TO DO BETTER SIGNAGE THERE AND BETTER ENFORCEMENT IF THAT'S AN ONGOING CONCERN, IF IT'S NOISE AND COMPLAINTS AND LOUDNESS, WE CAN PUT RESTRICTIONS ON LATE HOURS. THAT'S, YOU KNOW, ALWAYS A LITTLE BIT OF THE CHALLENGE BECAUSE THIS IS A VARIANCE. SO YOU'D CERTAINLY WANT TO CUSTOMIZE YOUR MOTION AND THE TERMS OF THIS VARIANCE TO

[03:20:04]

SO YOU'D REALLY WANT TO WORK ON HOW YOU, YOU PHRASE THE TERMS OF, IF YOU'RE SO INCLINED TO GRANT IT, TO MAKE SURE YOU'RE TYING IT DOWN TO WHAT THIS APPLICATION IS REQUESTING, IF WE TIE IT TO THESE TWO PARTICULAR BUSINESSES, IF ONE WAS TO FAIL AND PARTNER UP WITH A DIFFERENT ONE, THAT MIGHT BE REQUIRING MORE PARKING OR MORE DENSE OF USE. NO, THAT WAS YOUR POINT IS IF IF THE LISTENING ROOM WENT AWAY AND IT BECAME JUST A REGULAR BAR, THE AMOUNT OF TRAFFIC WOULD INCREASE. IN THEORY, OF COURSE, THE BAR WOULD BE DIFFERENT. BUT YEAH, IF IT CAME, IT BECAME SOMETHING OTHER THAN WHAT WAS LISTED IN THE APPLICATION THAN A LISTENING ROOM THAT WOULD ATTRACT MORE CARS VERSUS MORE OF THE THE LOCAL. SO A MOTION TO APPROVE THE VARIANCE AT PCB 2026 ZERO 100 TO ELIMINATE THE REQUIRED OFF STREET PARKING ALTOGETHER, BASED UPON THE APPLICATION PRESENTED WITH THE APPLICANT BEING A PART OF A RETAIL ESTABLISHMENT, WHICH WAS GRANT, WHICH HAD THREE PARKING SPOTS, THREE CREDITED, THREE CREDITED PARKING SPOTS GRANDFATHERED TO IT. AND I THINK IT'S NINE PARKING SPACES THAT WOULD BE GRANTED IN YOUR MOTION, CORRECT? NO MORE THAN THAT. MORE THAN NINE. I'LL SECOND THAT. CAN WE HAVE AN AMENDMENT THAT SAYS IT'S FOR THIS APPLICANT ONLY, AND IF IT CHANGES TO A DIFFERENT OWNER, DIFFERENT APPLICANT THAT IT DOES NOT APPLY? MY SECOND APPLIES. I'LL AMEND THAT MOTION TO SO STATE I MUDDY UP THE ORDER SOME MORE. HE STATED THAT HE WASN'T GOING TO SERVE ALCOHOL. DO WE WANT TO PUT A RESTRICTION ON ALCOHOL SALES? IN OTHER WORDS, THIS VARIANCE IS BASED ON THE. THERE'S NO ALCOHOL SALES. WELL, WE'RE TYING IT SPECIFICALLY TO THE APPLICATION THAT LISTS WHAT TYPE OF BUSINESSES THEY ARE. SO IT'S RESTRICTED TO THAT NONALCOHOLIC BUSINESS AS LISTED IN THE APPLICATION. OKAY. I DIDN'T KNOW IF HE SAID NOT. I KNOW HE TESTIFIED TO IT. NOW WE JUST PUT IT IN THE MOTION NONALCOHOLIC. GOOD. GOTCHA. AND MY SECOND STANCE. OKAY. ANYBODY ELSE VOTE PLEASE. ROLL CALL.

SUSAN JONES. YES. CHARLES PAPPAS. YES. ZACHARY TUCKER. YES. WILLIAM. TUNSTALL. YES.

JAN KELLY. YES. MIKE. DAVIS. YES. CARL. BLOW. YES. THANK YOU, THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. NEXT ITEM

[7.a) PZB2026-0083 Leneah Hearn - Applicant c/o Velvet & Venom Tom Law - Owner 110 Anastasia Blvd To approve a use by exception for a special event venue. ]

CHAIRPERSON. MEMBERS OF THE BOARD. THIS IS A REQUEST FOR A USE BY EXCEPTION FOR A SPECIAL EVENT VENUE AND COMMERCIAL. TWO ZONING DISTRICT AT 110 ANASTASIA BOULEVARD. BASED ON A REVIEW OF SECTION 2829 STAFF FIND THAT THE BOARD CAN APPROVE OR APPROVE WITH CONDITIONS A USE BY EXCEPTION FOR THE SPECIAL EVENT VENUE. OKAY. ANY PUBLIC COMMENT? I WILL FIRST SURE GO AHEAD WITH YOUR PRESENTATION. HELLO. GOOD AFTERNOON. THANK YOU FOR TAKING

[03:25:04]

QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD. WELL, I'M SURPRISED SHE EVEN NEEDS A SPECIAL EVENT. THANK YOU. I MEAN, I HATE TO SAY THAT, BUT I MEAN, IT SOUNDS ITS OWN. CCL2 AND YOU'RE NOT SERVING ALCOHOL.

YOU'RE NOT SERVING. WE ARE IN THE PROCESS OF OF GETTING OUR BEER AND WINE. WE ARE APPROVED BY THE CITY OF SAINT AUGUSTINE SO FAR, AND IT JUST NEEDS TO BE MAILED OUT TO THE STATE. OKAY, SO AND THAT IS FOR IT. NO BAR SEATING. IT'S FOR TO. ACCOMMODATE WHILE HAVING CLASSES LIKE A MIMOSA FOR A MORNING CLASS FOR, YOU KNOW, I'M TRYING TO COVER MY BASES OF EVERYTHING. SO. ANY LIVE MUSIC? NO. WELL, I MEAN, ANASTASIA BOULEVARD'S IN A TRANSITION, WHICH I THINK IS A POSITIVE TRANSITION BASED ON WHAT IT LOOKED LIKE WHEN I MOVED, CAN YOU GET A LITTLE BIT CLOSER TO THE MICROPHONE? ANASTASIA BOULEVARD IS IN A TRANSITION, WHICH APPEARS TO ME TO BE A POSITIVE TRANSITION BASED ON WHAT IT LOOKED LIKE WHEN I MOVED HERE IN 1998. SO AND WE HAVE A, YOU KNOW, A SIGNIFICANT ARTIST COMMUNITY HERE. AND WHAT

[03:30:02]

WE'RE NOT OPEN ON WEDNESDAY, SATURDAY. FRIDAY IS 10 TO 6. SATURDAY IS 11 TO 6. AND SUNDAY IS 11 TO 5. I MEAN, BASICALLY JUST TO THE SOUTH OF THEM IS WHAT'S THE NAME OF THAT PLACE.

THEY'RE THEY'RE OPEN TILL ONE THE BREWING COMPANY. YEAH. YEAH. HORNSEY. YEAH. THEY'RE OPEN TILL ONE. AND THAT'S, THAT'S THEIR BEER AND WINE. I DON'T KNOW IF THEY HAVE A. SO I MEAN LOOKING AT THE HOURS I MEAN GEEZ YOU'RE CLOSING AT SIX. ODD BIRDS, BIRDS, BIRDS, BIRDS.

YEAH. THEY'RE THEY'RE A FULL BAR RIGHT. YEAH. YEAH. CAN WE LIMIT THIS ONE AS WE DID THE LAST ONE TO THE APPLICATION. YES. ACTUALLY FOR USE BY EXCEPTION YOU CAN ADD ALL SORTS OF CRITERIA. SO HOURS MUSIC. IN TERMS OF CORRECT CLASSES, ANY REASONABLE CONDITION RELATED TO THE CRITERIA. THAT'S WHAT I WAS GOING TO SUGGEST. I MEAN THIS ONE'S TO ME PRETTY SIMPLE BECAUSE WE CAN LIMIT THE SIZE, WE CAN LIMIT THE TYPE OF EVENT, LIMIT THE HOURS. THE HOURS ARE ACTUALLY JUST GO BY HER HOURS. WE WERE FINE. AND THAT WILL KEEP, I THINK THE PERSON WHO SENT THE OPPOSED EVENT VENUE, EVENT VENUE, EXCUSE ME, AND I WOULD. IF I WAS A NEIGHBOR, I'D PROBABLY SAY NO TO AS SOON AS I SEE EVENT VENUE. BUT THIS IS MORE OF CLASSES. SO IF WE CAN PUT THAT IN THERE AS OPPOSED TO WHAT WE MIGHT THINK AN EVENT IS, I WOULD HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH IT.

WOULD WOULD YOUR CLASSES BE IN THE SAME HOURS AS YOUR OPERATING HOURS OR OUTSIDE OF IT, JUST TO MAKE SURE FOR I'M JUST A SMALL TOWN GIRL FROM OHIO TRYING THE BEST I CAN, I.

WHEN WE MOVED HERE, I. I SAW ART HERE, I SAW HISTORY, AND I REALLY WANTED TO BE A PART OF THAT. BUT AS FOR HOURS, IT'S JUST ME AND MY HUSBAND THAT RUN THE STORE. I DON'T THINK I COULD HOST A CLASS WHILE RUNNING MY BUSINESS. SO I WOULD LIKE TO HOST THEM BEFORE 9 A.M.

OR LIKE BE AT 9 A.M. AND ON A SUNDAY MORNING, AND THEN AT 5 P.M. ON A WEEKDAY. YEAH, JUST TO MAKE SURE SHE'S NOT LIMITED, YOU KNOW? WELL, YEAH, I'M AFRAID YOU'RE CUTTING YOURSELF TOO SHORT, BUT YOU NEED TO STAY OPEN AND HAVE THE ABILITY TO STAY OPEN LATE AN HOUR LIMITATION ON IT. IT'S ONLY I, I HAVE A TEN YEAR OLD AT HOME. THAT FAMILY IS PRIORITY FOR ME, SO I'M. I'M REALLY TRYING TO MANAGE MY TIME THE BEST WAY I CAN. AND I REALLY DON'T WANT TO HIRE SOMEONE YET BECAUSE. RIGHT. YOU KNOW, YOU BECOME ULTIMATELY SUCCESSFUL AND YOU HIRE A FULL STAFF. LET'S HOPE. WHAT WOULD YOU FORESEE YOUR LATEST CLASSES BE? STILL THE SAME, STILL ARE STILL MAKING BRACELETS WITH TEN PEOPLE. I DON'T THINK I MEANT HOURS WISE. LIKE IF WE SAID WE WERE GOING TO LIMIT THAT. CLASSES HAD TO END AT 9 P.M. I'M SORRY, I DON'T. YOU LIVE WITH THAT? YEAH, I LIVE WITH A 9 P.M. CUTOFF. YEAH, ABSOLUTELY. ALL RIGHT. NOT THAT I'M SUGGESTING. I'M JUST TRYING TO GET A FEEL. BECAUSE AT FIRST WHEN I SAW THE HOURS AND THEN SHE MENTIONED CLASSES ARE BEFORE IT'S OPEN AND THEN AFTER IT'S OPEN. EXCUSE ME, I WAS THINKING IS JUST SAY LIMIT IT. SAY NO. SHE SHE ALREADY SAID NO WEDDINGS. BEER AND WINES. OKAY.

AND I, I GUESS YOU'RE THINKING CUT OFF AT 9 P.M. YEAH. I'M JUST TRYING TO THINK DOWN THE ROAD. IF YOU GOT BEER AND WINE THAT WE KEEP IT TO CLASSES WHICH ARE SOME WHAT EDUCATIONAL.

EVEN IF THERE IS FRIVOLOUS AS POSSIBLE AS OPPOSED TO, YOU KNOW, A BIRTHDAY PARTY MOVING IN WHEN SHE SAYS SOMEBODY SHOULD DO A BIRTHDAY PARTY HERE, WELL, THEY MIGHT DO A BIRTHDAY

[03:35:03]

MAX. NUMBER OF PEOPLE. YEAH. CLASSES AND MAXIMUM NUMBER OF PEOPLE. WELL, I THINK THAT'S SET BY THE FIRE CODE. IT'S GOING TO BE MY QUESTION. DO YOU KNOW HOW MANY PEOPLE YOU'RE ALLOWED TO HAVE IN THAT BUILDING? NOT OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD, BUT FOR OUR SQUARE FOOTAGE AND OUR EASY ACCESS FROM THE FRONT AND THE BACK FOR OUR DOOR. THE FIRE MARSHAL WAS VERY LIKE HE WALKED THROUGH AND WAS LIKE THIS. THIS IS PERFECT. I'M NOT LOOKING TO FILL IT, BUT I DON'T WANT TO CUT YOU SHORT. THAT'S SO. I KNOW WE HAVE A LOT OF GLASS AND BREAKABLE STUFF. I DON'T WANT TO FILL IT EITHER. IT'S. THAT'S WHY I'M. I'M CUTTING IT MINIMUM TO TEN PEOPLE PER CLASS. I DON'T WANT EVERYBODY RUNNING AROUND MY STORE. IT'S. SO WE LIMIT TO A DOZEN DOZEN, 2015, SOMETHING LIKE THAT. GIVE YOU A LITTLE MORE LEEWAY. YOU'RE GOING TO BE ABLE TO FIT. I WOULD BET THE FIRE MARSHAL WOULD SAY 80 TO 100 PEOPLE IN THAT BUILDING. SO THAT'S THE REASON WE'RE LOOKING TO LIMIT IT IS JUST TO YEAH, I DON'T WANT TO LIMIT HER WHEN SHE FINDS OUT SHE'S DOING. BUT I DON'T WANT TO PUT TOO MANY TO CREATE AN ISSUE. I THINK THE PRIORITIES. WASN'T THERE A KARATE? KARATE? YEAH. OH YEAH. THEY FIT A LOT MORE PEOPLE THAN THAT IN THERE. YEAH YEAH YEAH YEAH. GOOD SIZED SPACE. YEAH. SO SO I, YEAH, I DON'T HAVE AN ISSUE WITH THAT. IF WE COME UP WITH SOME NUMBER OF PEOPLE, I THINK THE HOURS, YOU KNOW, IF YOU SAID 9:00 IN THE MORNING TO 9:00 AT NIGHT, I HAVE AN ISSUE WITH THAT EITHER. AND YOU'RE KEEPING IT TO A LIMITED NUMBER OF PEOPLE. SO I DON'T SEE THAT AS A AS AN ISSUE ABOUT 20 PEOPLE. YEAH. THAT'S FINE. I WAS THINKING IN MY HEAD, I WAS COUNTING RELATIVES. WELL, ABOUT 18, IF THIS IS SUCCESSFUL AND THIS URN DOES A GREAT JOB AND SHE COMES BACK AND ASKS FOR 25 PEOPLE AND SHE'S ALL OF HER NEIGHBORS ARE HAPPY WITH. I DON'T THINK THERE'S GOING TO BE ANY ISSUE. SO I, YOU KNOW, I DON'T THINK THAT'S A. YEAH, I JUST DON'T WANT TO LIMIT HER SO MUCH. YEAH, I AGREE, I AGREE WITH YOU ON THAT AS WELL. SO IF I HAVE TEN CHILDREN FOR A KIDS CLASS AND THAT'S AN ADULT PER CHILD THAT I'M, I'M SAYING YOU CAN ONLY BRING ONE PARENT IN AND NOT BOTH OF YOUR PARENTS IN ALSO. RIGHT. IS THAT, WELL, WE'RE, I WAS THINKING GIVING YOU 20 MAX. SO WHAT ABOUT 30 MAX KIDS BRINGING PARENT I DON'T KNOW. YEAH, I WOULD FEEL BAD AND BE LIKE, YOU HAVE TO LEAVE YOUR DAD AT HOME. SORRY. WHAT IF YOU JUST SAID THE EVENT'S PARTICIPANTS SHOULD BE A CERTAIN NUMBER, AND THEN IT DOESN'T MATTER ABOUT THE GUARDIANS OR PARENTS THAT ATTEND, LIKE A REGISTERED PARTICIPANT OR SOMETHING, I DON'T KNOW, CREATING A LOOPHOLE. YEAH. THAT'S A WELL, HERE'S I DON'T ACCUSE MISS HART OF THAT, BUT SOMEBODY ELSE WOULD TAKE THAT AND GO, WELL, I REGISTERED TEN PEOPLE. THEY EACH BROUGHT FIVE WITH THEM. AND NOW WE GOT A MAJOR EVENT. SO SO THAT'S I DON'T. SO LET'S START OFF WITH 24 HOURS, 9 TO 9. YOU'RE GOOD WITH THAT, RIGHT? YOU CAN ALWAYS COME BACK LATER AND EXPAND IF YOU NEEDED TO. THAT IS 20 PEOPLE IN THE BUILDING, INCLUDING ME AND MY HUSBAND. HE JUST SAID 24. 24 OKAY. I WAS GIVING. 24 OKAY. PARTICIPANTS AT THE EVENT. I'M NOT COUNTING THE EVENT. OKAY, OKAY. THANK YOU. STAFF IS WHATEVER YOU NEED TO PERFECT FOR THAT THAT MANY PEOPLE. SO I GUESS I'LL FIGURE OUT HOW TO PUT THIS IN A MOTION WHERE WE WERE. CAN I SAY SOMETHING? GO AHEAD. THANK YOU. I DISAGREE WITH YOU. RESPECTFULLY. I DON'T THINK WE SHOULD LIMIT, YOU KNOW, AN ENTREPRENEUR'S HOURS AND HOW MANY PEOPLE ARE GOING TO BE IN THERE. IS THAT REALLY OUR JOB TO DO THAT? I MEAN, AUSTIN'S IS THERE, THE BLACK FLY. THERE'S LOTS OF PLACES THERE THAT DON'T HAVE RESTRICTED HOURS. I DON'T KNOW WHERE THEY SET BY THIS BOARD OR ANOTHER BOARD. IT'S THE EVENT VENUE THAT CAUSES US THAT ALLOWS US TO REGULATE VERSUS A BAR OR CLUB. THERE IS A REGULATED DIFFERENT, BUT AS THE EXCEPTION IS EVENT VENUE, WE TEND TO REGULATE TO PREVENT PROBLEMS. SO MISS KELLY, THE CONCERN IS AN EVENT VENUE. IF YOU GRANT THAT RIGHT AND WE DON'T PUT THE RESTRICTIONS ON IT, ALL OF A SUDDEN IT COULD BECOME A SMALL WEDDING EVENT VENUE. SO IF WE DON'T LIMIT NUMBER OF PEOPLE OR HOURS OF OPERATIONS, AND I'M NOT SAYING MRS. HEARN WOULD DO THAT, I MISS THAT, BUT I'M SAYING IT COULD BE DONE AND IT HAS BEEN DONE WHERE ALL OF A SUDDEN IT'S AN EVENT VENUE, SO I CAN DO EVERY THING THAT AN EVENT VENUE IS, AND THAT'S NOT COMPATIBLE TO ME WITH KIND OF WHAT WE'RE WHAT WE WOULD WANT TO JUST GIVE A BLANKET. YEAH, YOU CAN DO WHATEVER YOU WANT TO DO. SO.

ALL RIGHT, I'LL GO AHEAD AND MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE PCB 2026-0083 TO APPROVE A USE BY

[03:40:09]

I DON'T KNOW IF THAT HAS A LEGAL DEFINITION OR SOMETHING. INSTRUCTIONAL CLASSES AND. IT'S REALLY HOWEVER YOU CHOOSE TO PHRASE IT. SO I'LL PHRASE IT AS INSTRUCTIONAL CLASSES. I'LL SECOND THAT. VOTE, PLEASE. CHARLES PAPPAS YES. SUSAN JOHNS YES. ZACHARY TUCKER. YES.

WILLIAM TUNSTALL YES. JOHN KELLY YES. MIKE DAVIS YES. CARL BLOW YES. THANK YOU. THANK YOU

[7.b) PZB2026-0091 Joe Hatin - Applicant c/o Florida Network Realty ANTONATOS ANN CAROLYN REVOCABLE TRUST - Owner 15 Aviles Dr To approve a use by exception for a single family residence. ]

LOT 43 IS LOCATED IN THE RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY TWO ZONING DISTRICT, WHICH ALLOWS SINGLE FAMILY HOMES AND LOT 44 IS LOCATED IN THE CM2 ZONING DISTRICT, WHICH REQUIRES A USE BY EXCEPTION TO BUILD A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE. IF APPROVED, THE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE WOULD HAVE TO ABIDE BY THE RG1 REQUIREMENTS OF THE CITY CODE. BASED ON A REVIEW OF SECTION 28-29, STAFF FIND THAT THE BOARD CAN APPROVE OR APPROVE WITH CONDITIONS USE BY EXCEPTION REQUESTS TO BUILD A SINGLE FAMILY HOME LOCATED AT 15 AVILES DRIVE. ALL RIGHT.

GREAT. THANK YOU. GOOD AFTERNOON, CHAIR AND MEMBERS OF THE BOARD. I'M HERE ON BEHALF OF MY CLIENT, THE ANNE CAROLINE ANTONIOS REVOCABLE TRUST. AS SHE SAID, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE ONE LOT 43 THAT IS ZONED RS TWO. IT'S A 50 BY 125. YOU PROBABLY SAW THE SURVEY THAT WAS PROVIDED. AND WE ALSO HAVE A LOT THAT IS 50 BY 125 THAT IS ZONED C, M TWO. ONE OF THE THINGS ABOUT THESE LOTS AND THE LOCATION IS ONE THING THAT WE LOOKED AT FIRST, WE ANALYZED THE. WITH THE HIGHEST AND BEST USE OF THESE LOTS ARE. AND WE FEEL THAT EACH OF THESE LOTS WHICH ARE CONFORMING. THE HIGHEST AND BEST USE IS A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE ON EACH LOT, AS YOU KNOW, UNDER CM TWO, A SINGLE FAMILY USE IS ONLY ALLOWED BY EXCEPTION. AND THAT IS WHY I'M HERE. AND I DID WANT TO NOTE THAT THERE ARE SINGLE FAMILY HOMES ON EACH OF THE EAST AND WEST SIDE OF THIS PROPERTY. THERE'S ONE LOCATED AT 11 AVILES, AND THERE'S ALSO ONE LOCATED AT 17 AVILES. WE DO HAVE A COMMERCIAL. WE HAVE A CAR WASH THAT'S LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE ON AVILES DRIVE. WE HAVE THE OLD OWNS GAS STATION THAT'S LOCATED ON THE SOUTHERN BOUNDARY. WE FEEL THAT, YOU KNOW, I ALSO LOOKED AT WHETHER PROFITABLE COMMERCIAL USE COULD BE DEVELOPED ON THAT SMALL LOT. AND I THINK THAT WITH THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION PLUS THE SETBACKS PLUS THE PARKING REQUIREMENTS, STORMWATER RETENTION, AND BASED ON WHAT COMPARABLE PROPERTIES WOULD RENT FOR THAT, IT'S REALLY NOT FEASIBLE TO DEVELOP A COMMERCIAL, A VIABLE COMMERCIAL IMPROVEMENT. AND PLUS THAT WILL ADD ADDED TRAFFIC NOISE, PROBABLY SOME PARKING CONGESTIONS OFF OF SOUTH PONCE DE LEON BOULEVARD. SO WHAT WE'RE ASKING FOR IS BASICALLY JUST ONE LOT ON, YOU KNOW, ONE HOUSE ON ONE LOT. AND, YOU KNOW, BOTH OF THE LOTS ARE CONFORMING. SO THE HIGHEST AND BEST USE WOULD PROBABLY BE TO SELL THIS PROPERTY WITH TWO SINGLE FAMILY HOMES TO BE BUILT ON THERE. OKAY. ANY PUBLIC COMMENT? NONE.

17 NOTICES WERE SENT OUT AND NOTHING WAS RECEIVED. WE CAN'T HEAR YOU. 17 NOTICES WERE SENT OUT. NOTHING. ZERO WERE RECEIVED IN RESPONSE. SO BOARD HAVE QUESTIONS REGARDING THIS.

[03:45:03]

YEAH. WELL AS HE STATED TO ON THE COMMERCIAL SIDE, YOU GET INTO STORMWATER TREATMENT AND A LOT OF OTHER THINGS WHERE REALLY, I GUESS THE HIGHEST AND BEST USE IS THE SINGLE FAMILY HOUSE. I AGREE WITH THAT. HE'S GOT A FUTURE IN REAL ESTATE IF HE CHOOSES IT. AND WE DO NEED BOARD APPROVAL FOR A LESS INTENSIVE USE. OKAY. WE DON'T GET MANY OF THESE. NO WE DON'T.

WELL, LET'S TAKE THE W. ANY OTHER COMMENTS. ARE YOU READY? ANYBODY ELSE HAVE ANY COMMENTS? I JUST I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH IT. I'LL START OFF WITH THAT. I'M NOT GOING TO CAUSE TROUBLE, BUT LET'S FORESEE THE FUTURE HERE. THERE'S A LOT OF TREE CANOPY THERE. ARE WE GOING TO BE SEEING THIS BACK AGAIN FOR TREE REMOVAL, SINCE WE'RE BUILDING A HOUSE ON EACH LOT? YEAH, YEAH, YEAH, THAT'S I JUST JUST OH, I'M TELLING YOU, BUT BUT I, I LOOK AT THAT CHARLES THE LOT WITH THE MOST TREES IS ALREADY ZONED RESIDENTIAL. THE ONE WITH THE LEAST AMOUNT OF TREES IS ZONED COMMERCIAL. SO I DON'T, YOU KNOW, I THINK IF YOU WANT TO IMPROVE A PIECE OF PROPERTY, UNFORTUNATELY THAT'S ONE OF THE THINGS WE HAVE TO DO. IT ALSO INFORMS THE APPLICANT TO THAT HE'LL PROBABLY BE BACK. AND MR. HATTON, IF YOU AND I DON'T KNOW IF YOU'LL BE INVOLVED IN THIS OR SOMEBODY ELSE WHEN YOU'LL PASS THIS ON, BUT, YOU KNOW, IF THERE'S A SIGNIFICANT TREE SOMEWHERE ON THAT PROPERTY, WE'RE MORE INCLINED TO ALLOW REDUCTIONS IN SETBACKS IF WE CAN SAVE THAT SIGNIFICANT TREE. SO I WOULD JUST WILL THROW THAT OUT THERE IF THAT COMES UP, I DON'T KNOW THE SIZE OF THE TREES. LOOKING AT IT FROM THE AERIAL PHOTO WE HAVE, I AGREE. I THINK TREES ADD VALUE. I THINK AT ANY INSTANCE, IF WE COULD PUT A SETBACK TO SAVE A TREE, IT'S DEFINITELY WORTH. ANY COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS. ALL RIGHT. I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE APPLICATION 2026 0091 AT 15 E STREET TO APPROVE APPROVE THE USE BY EXCEPTION FOR A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE. I'LL SECOND THAT ROLL CALL, PLEASE. MIKE DAVIS YES. CHARLES PAPPAS YES. ZACHARY TUCKER. YES. WILLIAM TUNSTALL. YES. JAN KELLY. YES. ALL. BLOW. YES. SUSAN JONES YES. THANK YOU. GREAT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

[8.a) PZB2026-0094 Jeremy Marquis - Applicant c/o Marquis Latimer + Halback, Inc. Bailey and Nils Rowland - Owner c/o Having a Good Time Forever LLC 3956 N Ponce De Leon Blvd 8 Hybiscus Ave 3956 N Ponce De Leon Blvd - To approve a variance to the parking lot design standards, reduce the off-street parking requirement, reduce the north landscape buffer, and to approve a use by exception for off-site off-street parking. 8 Hybiscus Ave - To approve a use by exception for a commercial parking facility and to approve a variance to the parking lot design standards.]

[03:50:03]

WE'RE EXCITED TO BE WORKING ON THIS. AND OBVIOUSLY WE'VE GOT A GOOD TEAM BEHIND US, NOT ONLY NILS AND BAILEY, BUT WE ALSO HAVE LES THOMAS AS THE ARCHITECT ON THIS ONE AND JEREMY CALLAWAY WITH MAVERICK CIVIL ENGINEERING. SO WE WANTED TO JUST BRIEFLY WALK YOU ALL THROUGH. THIS IS ALL OUT OF THE STAFF REPORT THAT YOU ALL HAVE IN OUR APPLICATION, BUT WE WANT TO WALK THROUGH THE PLAN, WHICH IS WHAT WE'LL DO. AND I'LL TALK ABOUT THE VARIANCE REQUESTS. HI, MY NAME IS ISABELLE. I'M AN ASSOCIATE AT MARQUIS LATIMER AND HALBACH. AND I JUST WANT TO TALK TO YOU ABOUT THE SITE AND SOME OF THE THINGS WE'RE PROPOSING. SO THIS WAS FORMERLY THE HOLLINGSWORTH HARLEY-DAVIDSON DEALERSHIP AND NELSON BAILEY, AND WE ARE TRYING TO PRESERVE SOME OF THAT CHARACTER AND MATERIALITY AS WE GO FORWARD. WE'RE PROPOSING TO ADD A CHARACTER LIKE SIDEWALK IN THE FRONT OF THE SITE TO MAKE SURE THE FACADE IS WELCOMING AND INVITING FOR THE PATRONS OF THE BAKERY. AND THEN WE ARE ALSO PROPOSING TO ADD A BIOSWALE ALONG THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE BUILDING TO TREAT AND DIRECT STORMWATER. AND THEN WE'RE ALSO GOING TO BE ADDING A LOT OF ADDITIONAL LANDSCAPE AND BEAUTIFYING THE PROPERTY OVERALL. SO RIGHT NOW OUR CONSTRAINTS ARE PARKING AND JEREMY IS GOING TO SPEAK TO THOSE CONSTRAINTS. ALL RIGHTY. SO 1955 IS WHEN THE HOLLINGSWORTH BUILDING WAS BUILT. IT WAS KIND OF FUN. THE FIRST MEETING THAT I HAD WITH BAILEY AND NILS, THEY STILL HAD SOME OF THE BIKES THERE, AND SO THEY MADE SURE TO PULL ME BACK AND TO SHOW ME ALL THAT. SO IT WAS IT WAS PRETTY FUN. BUT THERE ARE SOME OPPORTUNITIES AND SOME CONSTRAINTS THAT THE EXISTING SITE GIVES US. AND SO I THINK THAT STAFF DID A NICE JOB OF KIND OF WALKING THROUGH WHAT THOSE THOSE VARIANCE PIECES ARE. THE FIRST IS THAT WE ON THE NORTH PARKING LOT THAT YOU SEE THERE, WE ARE ABLE TO FIT IN NORMAL SIZED PARKING STALLS, BUT WE DO NEED TO REDUCE THE TWO WAY DRIVE AISLE FROM 24FT TO 19.5FT. NOW THE OUTSIDE EDGE TO THE OUTSIDE EDGE IS VERY SIMILAR. AS YOU ALL KNOW, THE CITY HAS LARGER PARKING SPACES THAN IF WE WERE IN THE COUNTY. SO THE MANEUVERABILITY IN THE PARKING LOT, WE STILL HAVE THAT, EVEN

[03:55:05]

THERE WAS A SLIGHT TYPO IN HERE, BUT IT'S ONLY SIX SPACES THAT WE'RE LOOKING FOR. AND I THINK THAT AS YOU ALL HOPEFULLY HAVE KIND OF FAMILIARIZE YOURSELF WITH THE SURROUNDINGS. WE HAVE ARNOLD'S TO THE SOUTH, BUT THIS IS ALSO, I THINK, THE REALITY OF THE BAKERY. IT'S VERY MUCH A DROP IN, PICK UP YOUR AMAZING CAKE AND THEN GET BACK IN. SO WE'RE MAKING SURE TO PARK THE STAFF, AS WELL AS MAKING SURE THAT THERE'S SUFFICIENT PATRON PARKING. BUT JUST OPERATIONALLY, THE 21 SPACES TAKES CARE OF WHAT CREME DE LA COCO NEEDS. THERE IS THE USE, BY EXCEPTION IN FRONT OF YOU ALL AS WELL FOR THE RG ONE PROPERTY, THAT'S THE ONE THAT IS ON THE EAST OR THE RIGHT SIDE OF THE SCREEN. AND SO WE OF COURSE ARE GOING TO BE COMING IN WITH THE SIX FOOT FENCE ALONG THE EAST AND THE NORTH, ALONG WITH QUITE A BIT OF BUFFER LANDSCAPE. AND THEN THAT TREE IS A 63 INCH TREE AND WE ARE WORKING AROUND, IT'S ACTUALLY IN REALLY NICE SHAPE.

SO WE'RE MAKING SURE THAT WE'RE WORKING THE PARKING AROUND IT. AND SO IT'S TWO USE BY EXCEPTIONS IN FRONT OF YOU, ONE FOR THE RG, ONE COMMERCIAL PARKING AND THEN ONE FOR THE OFF SITE PARKING, AS WELL AS STAFF REPORT. ALSO MENTIONED, WE DID GO THROUGH AND EXPLAIN THE VARIANCE CRITERIA ABOUT THE FACT THAT WE ARE INHERITING A REALLY FUN OLD BUILDING, BUT WITHOUT ACTUALLY DEMOLISHING OR MOVING SOME OF THE NORTH WALLS, WE CAN'T MEET THE THE PARKING LOT LAYOUT. AND THEN OF COURSE, WE WANTED TO BALANCE THE AMOUNT OF PARKING WITH THE FACT THAT WE ARE AT THE EDGE OF A NEIGHBORHOOD AS WELL. AND THERE'S ALSO JUST GENERAL PARKING IN THE AREA. AND THEN AGAIN, THIS IS NOT SOMETHING THAT THE OWNERS CREATED IN TERMS OF THE LAYOUT. SO WE ARE HERE FOR ANY QUESTIONS. WE ALSO HAVE LES THOMAS AND JEREMY CALLOWAY, OUR ARCHITECT AND CIVIL ENGINEER HERE AS WELL. THANK YOU. QUESTIONS? ANYBODY? WITHOUT ANY PUBLIC COMMENT? IS THERE A PUBLIC COMMENT? NO PUBLIC COMMENT. OKAY. QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD. WE WANT TO EXPORT PART A FAMILIAR WITH THE SITE, VERY FAMILIAR WITH THE SITE, WENT OUT THERE AND DROVE AROUND THE SITE, FAMILIAR WITH THE SITE, FAMILIAR WITH THE SITE AND THE BUSINESS. FAMILIAR WITH YOUR SITE AND YOUR BAKING DRIVEN PAST IT. OKAY. QUESTIONS? COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD? WELL, I'LL MAKE A COMMENT. WHAT DID YOU CALL THIS? A FUN OLD BUILDING? YES, SIR. YEAH, WELL, I GOT A VACANT FUN OLD BUILDING IN JACKSONVILLE RIGHT NOW, AND I CAN TELL YOU IF YOU WANT THIS BUILDING USED, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO HAVE SOME FLEXIBILITY, WHICH IS WHAT THEY'RE ASKING FOR. AND I MEAN, I DON'T HAVE ANY PROBLEM WITH THIS AT ALL. I MEAN, IT'S THE BUILDING'S BEEN SITTING THERE VACANT FOR SEVERAL YEARS, AND PROBABLY IT'S HAD A TON OF PEOPLE LOOK AT IT, BUT THEY CAN'T MAKE IT WORK. AND THESE GUYS HAVE FIGURED OUT A WAY TO MAKE IT WORK, WHICH I THINK IS A BIG POSITIVE. THE ONLY COMMENT I HAVE IS THAT NORTHERN. LANDSCAPE BUFFER. YES, SIR. THE YOU'VE GOT PLANTED. YOU SHOW SOME PLANTS THERE, BUT YOU DON'T. YOU WANT THE ABILITY NOT TO HAVE ANY PLANTS THERE, RIGHT.

OUR INTENT IS TO PUT PLANTS THERE. THE NORTH PROPERTY LINE STARTS TO SQUEEZE DOWN AS IT MOVES EASTWARD AS COMPARED TO THE BUILDING. AND SO THAT'S WHY THE VARIANCE REQUEST, AND I'LL TRY TO ZOOM IN WAS TO GO DOWN TO ZERO. BUT WE CAN SNEAK IN SOME PLANTING AS IT GOES

[04:00:01]

I WOULD DEFINITELY DO THAT. I THINK IT'S A GREAT OPPORTUNITY TO, TO HOLD ON TO A PIECE OF HISTORY IN SAINT AUGUSTINE AND GIVE IT A NEW LIFE. SO I THINK IT'S A GREAT, GREAT OPPORTUNITY.

I MY ONLY CONCERN WAS THE POSSIBLE. THE NEIGHBORS HAVING BEING CONCERNED ABOUT IT, LIKE DURING HOLIDAY TIMES WITH TRAFFIC. BUT 15 NOTICES WERE SENT OUT, NOTHING WAS RECEIVED.

I THINK IT'S A GREAT PROJECT. THANK YOU. I DON'T HAVE ANY ISSUES WITH IT. COME ON CARL, EVERYBODY JUST GOES 45 THERE. YEAH. RIGHT. AND THERE'S A THERE'S A MEDIAN. MEDIAN THERE, RIGHT. NOT WHEN YOU'RE GETTING READY TO GO TO JACKSONVILLE, THAT'S WHEN YOU'RE SPEEDING UP.

YOU KNOW CARL, YOU NEED TO SLOW DOWN. WELL THE SHERIFF'S OFFICE IS WORKING THAT AREA. THE GOOD IS I HAVE TO WALK LONGER OR RIDE MY BIKE LONGER SO I CAN BUY ANOTHER PIECE OF CHOCOLATE.

THE BAD PART IS MY WIFE, WHEN SHE SAYS SHE WANTS SOME CHOCOLATE OR CAKE, I HAVE TO GET IN THE CAR AND GET THERE QUICKLY. I DON'T HAVE ANY ISSUES WITH THIS, MISS KELLY.

I'M GOOD WITH IT. MR. TUCKER, I THINK IT LOOKS GOOD. OKAY. MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE. I'LL BE.

GO AHEAD. CARL. MADAM CHAIR, I'LL BE HAPPY TO MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THIS VARIANCE AS SUBMITTED FOR PB 2026-0094. I'LL SECOND AND IT INCLUDES THE USE BY EXCEPTIONS. OH I'M SORRY.

BOTH THE USE BY EXCEPTIONS AS WELL AS THE VARIANCES. JUST A DISCUSSION YOU PUT AS SUBMITTED.

BUT YOU ALSO SAID THEY COULD ELIMINATE THE PLANTED BUFFER. WELL YEAH YOU'RE RIGHT. SO TO CONDITION THAT THAT VARIANCE IS THAT ALLOW THE APPLICANT TO ELIMINATE LANDSCAPING ON THAT NORTHERN BUFFER IF THEY. SO YEAH, BUFFER. OKAY. I'LL AGREE WITH THAT. OKAY. ROLL CALL PLEASE. CARL. YES. MIKE DAVIS. YES. ZACHARY TUCKER. YES. WILLIAM TUNSTALL. YES. JAN.

KELLY. YES. PAPPAS. YES. SUSAN JONES. YES. THANK YOU. THAT WAS SWEET. OKAY. NEXT ITEM. WE ARE

[9.a) PZB2026-0078 Fremont Latimer - Applicant c/o Marquis Latimer + Halback, Inc. Donna & Scott Wendler - Owner - 130 King St, 132 King St, 136 King St, 131 Oviedo St Wendler Properties III, LLC - Owner - 134 King St, 129 Oviedo St Aaron Wendler - Owner - 135 Oviedo St Ryan & Noelle Wendler - Owner - 133 Oviedo St To approve (for all properties): - A use by exception for a hotel and special event use. - A use by exception for a special event venue. - A variance to reduce the off-street parking requirements by 15%. - A variance to pool setbacks. - The removal of significant trees within Conservation Overlay Zone 3. 130 King St Request: - A variance to reduce the rear and side yard setback requirement. 132 King St Request: - A variance to the side yard setback requirement. 136 King St Request: - A variance to the side and rear yard setback requirements. 129 Oviedo St Requests: - A variance to the side yard setback requirement. - A variance to increase the maximum lot coverage. 131 Oviedo St Requests: - A variance to the side and rear yard setback requirements. - A variance to increase the maximum lot coverage.]

[04:05:18]

THIS VARIANCE REQUEST IS TO REDUCE THE REQUIRED PARKING AND APPLIES TO APPLIES TO THE ENTIRE SITE AND ALL OF ITS PROPOSED USES. THE PARKING SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN SHOWS 75 PROPOSED PARKING SPACES, THE REQUIRED SPACES FOR THE ENTIRE SITE, AND ALL OF ITS USES ARE 75 SPACES. HOWEVER, THE APPLICANT WOULD LIKE TO REDUCE THE REQUIRED SPACES BY 12 AND PROVIDE 63 SPACES IN TOTAL. THE SITE WILL REQUIRE THREE ADA PARKING SPACES. SOME OF THE PROPOSED PARKING ON THE SITE. DEVELOPMENT PLANS SHOW UNENCLOSED PARKING ON LIFTS.

WITH THE GRANTING OF THE VARIANCE, THE APPLICANT WILL BE ABLE TO REMOVE THE UNENCLOSED PARKING SPACES ON LIFTS. THE SECOND VARIANCE REQUEST IS AN INCREASE TO THE ALLOWABLE LOT COVERAGE FOR 129 OVIEDO, WHICH IS THIS PARCEL HERE TO 44% AND FOR 131 OVIEDO TO 40%. AND THIS IS FOR THE NEW BUILDING THAT IS GOING TO BE BUILT FOR THE ENCLOSED PROPOSED ENCLOSED PARKING AREA, PORTE COCHERE AND VALET DROP OFF LOBBY, HOTEL ROOMS AND BANQUET AREA. THIS NEW BUILDING WILL BE SITUATED ON FOUR PARCELS, INCLUDING 129 OVIEDO STREET. 131 OVIEDO, 130 KING STREET AND 132 KING STREET. VARIANCE THREE IS THE ELIMINATION OF INTERIOR SETBACKS FOR THE MAIN POOL AND THE POSSIBLE GROTTO POOL. OR IT MAY BE A WATER FEATURE, AND THAT IS RIGHT IN THIS AREA. SO. THE MAIN POOL IS SITUATED OVER THE PROPERTY LINE BETWEEN 136 KING STREET AND 134 KING STREET. THE GROTTO POOL IS SITUATED OVER THE PROPERTY LINE BETWEEN

[04:10:02]

HOWEVER, THE NEW PROPOSED BUILDING IS LOCATED OVER THE REAR PROPERTY LINE OF 129 OVIEDO AND IS ALSO LOCATED AT 130 KING. THIS REQUEST INCLUDES A REDUCTION TO THE SIDE SETBACK FROM THE REQUIRED 10FT TO 5FT FOR THE BALCONIES ATTACHED TO THE NEW HOTEL UNITS ON THE SECOND AND THIRD FLOORS. VARIANCE NUMBER SIX IS FOR 131 OVIEDO TO ELIMINATE THE REAR AND SIDE YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENT FOR THE NEW BUILDING HERE. THE REQUIRED REAR AND SIDE SETBACKS FOR THE RG ONE ZONING DISTRICT ARE TEN FEET. THE PROPOSED NEW BUILDING IS LOCATED OVER THE REAR PROPERTY LINE OF 131 OVIEDO AND IS ALSO LOCATED AT 132 KING STREET. THE SIDE OF THE BUILDING IS CLOSE TO THE PROPERTY LINE BETWEEN 131 OVIEDO AND 133 OVIEDO AND WITH THE ADDITION OF EAVES, ARE ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES. THE SETBACK REQUIREMENT WILL HAVE TO BE ELIMINATED. VARIANCE NUMBER SEVEN, WHICH IS THE VARIANCE REQUEST, IS FOR 136 KING STREET. TO ELIMINATE THE SIDE AND REAR SETBACK REQUIREMENT. THAT'S RIGHT IN THIS AREA. THIS IS FOR AN EXISTING STRUCTURE ON SITE. THE STRUCTURE IS CURRENTLY UTILIZED AS A STORAGE GARAGE AREA. HOWEVER, IT IS PROPOSED TO BECOME A POOL BAR WITH HOTEL UNITS ON THE SECOND FLOOR. THIS CHANGE OF USE WILL REQUIRE THE APPLICANT TO ABIDE BY THE PRIMARY SETBACKS FOR THE CL TWO ZONING DISTRICT, WHICH ARE FIVE FEET ON THE REAR AND SIDE. THE EXISTING BUILDING IS CLOSE TO BOTH PROPERTY LINES AND WITH THE ADDITION OF EAVES OR ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES, THE SETBACK REQUIREMENT WILL HAVE TO BE ELIMINATED. SO STAFF RECOMMENDATION FOR THE USE BY EXCEPTION, BASED ON A REVIEW OF SECTION 28-29 STAFF FIND THAT THE BOARD CAN APPROVE OR APPROVE WITH CONDITIONS A USE BY EXCEPTION REQUEST FOR SPECIAL EVENT VENUE IN RG ONE AND CL TWO FOR KING STREET AND OVIEDO PROPERTIES, WHICH INCLUDE THE ENTIRE SITE. ALL EIGHT PARCELS BASED ON A REVIEW OF SECTION 28-29 STAFF FIND THAT THE BOARD CAN APPROVE OR APPROVE WITH CONDITIONS USE BY EXCEPTION FOR REQUEST FOR HOTEL IN RG ONE FOR THE OVIEDO STREET PROPERTIES. REGARDING THE VARIANCES FOR VARIANCE NUMBER ONE THE REDUCTION IN PARKING BASED ON REVIEW OF SECTION 28-29 STAFF FIND THAT THE BOARD CAN APPROVE AS THE APPLICANT HAS IDENTIFIED HOW THEY MEET THE FOUR VARIANCE CRITERIA TO REDUCE THE ON SITE PARKING BY 12 SPACES. VARIANCE NUMBER TWO THE INCREASE TO ALLOW ALLOWABLE LOT COVERAGE FOR 129 OVIEDO STREET AND 131 OVIEDO STREET STAFF FIND THAT THE BOARD CAN APPROVE AS APPLICANT HAS IDENTIFIED HOW THEY MEET THE FOUR VARIANCE CRITERIA, OR CONTINUE UNTIL THE APPLICANT IDENTIFIES HOW THEY MEET THE CRITERIA. VARIANCE NUMBER THREE ELIMINATION OF INTERIOR SETBACKS FOR MAIN AND GROTTO POOLS. BASED ON REVIEW OF SECTION 28-29, STAFF FIND THAT THE BOARD CAN APPROVE BASED ON MEETING THE FOUR VARIANCE CRITERIA AND THE REQUEST ONLY INVOLVING INTERIOR PROPERTY LINES WITHIN THE SITE TO ELIMINATE THE INTERIOR SETBACKS FOR THE MAIN POOL AND THE GROTTO POOL. VARIANCE NUMBER FOUR FOR 130 AND 132 KING STREET, ELIMINATING THE REAR AND SIDE SETBACK REQUIREMENT. BASED ON REVIEW OF SECTION 28-29, STAFF FIND THAT THE BOARD CAN APPROVE AS THE APPLICANT HAS IDENTIFIED HOW THEY MEET THE VARIANCE CRITERIA OR CONTINUE UNTIL THEY IDENTIFY HOW THEY MEET THE CRITERIA. VARIANCE NUMBER 5129. OVIEDO ELIMINATING THE REAR SETBACK REQUIREMENT AND REDUCING THE SIDE SETBACK REQUIREMENT. STAFF

[04:15:02]

THIS PROPERTY IS OWNED BY FLAGLER COLLEGE AT 74 RIBERIA STREET. THE PROPOSAL IS FOR.

SIGNIFICANT TREES TO BE REMOVED, AND THE REVIEW OF SECTION 11-29 IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD FOR THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT WITHIN CONSERVATION OVERLAY ZONE THREE.

MADAM CHAIR, ARE YOU OKAY IF WE DIVE IN? ABSOLUTELY. ALL RIGHT. LET ME INTRODUCE RYAN. FIRST, YOU CAN SAY A FEW WORDS ON BEHALF OF THE FAMILY. HELLO, EVERYONE. MY NAME IS RYAN WENDLER. ON BEHALF OF MY FAMILY AND THE REST OF OUR TEAM, WE JUST WANTED TO THANK YOU AGAIN FOR YOUR TIME AND CONSIDERATION TODAY. WE ARE VERY EXCITED ABOUT THIS PROJECT. WE LISTENED TO THE BOARD AND ALL OF THE COMMENTS AT THE LAST MEETING, AND WE'LL ADDRESS THOSE TODAY.

AND AGAIN, WE THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. ALRIGHTY. GOOD AFTERNOON. ALMOST. GOOD EVENING.

I'M GOOD TO SEE YOU ALL AGAIN. SO CONNOR AND I HAVE HAD A TREMENDOUSLY FUN TIME WORKING ON THIS PROJECT BECAUSE THE THE STORY OF THIS PROJECT PREDATES EITHER OF OUR INVOLVEMENT ON IT.

ABOUT 15 YEARS AGO, THE WENDLER'S ACTUALLY WENT THROUGH A PUD PROCESS, BROUGHT THIS IN FRONT OF A NUMBER OF BOARDS, AND FOR A NUMBER OF REASONS THAT DIDN'T MOVE FORWARD. AND SO WHEN THEY CAME TO US AND DECIDED THEY WANTED TO LOOK AT TAKING ALL THE FEEDBACK THAT HAD BEEN RECEIVED FROM THE COMMUNITY AND REALLY RE-ENVISION THE PROPERTY AS A CAMPUS, THERE WERE A FEW THINGS THAT WE REALLY TRIED TO DO, AND THE FIRST WAS TO MAKE SURE THAT FIRST AND FOREMOST, WE WERE MAINTAINING THESE HISTORIC BUILDINGS. SO SEVEN HISTORIC BUILDINGS. THE RELATIONSHIP ON THE STREET WAS PARAMOUNT WITH WHAT WE WERE DOING. AND THEN THE SECOND PIECE WAS, HOW CAN WE WORK WITHIN OUR CITY CODE, THE CITY PLANNING? I MEAN, WE AS A COMMUNITY SPEND COUNTLESS HOURS THINKING THROUGH THESE THINGS AND TRYING TO COME UP WITH, OKAY, WELL, WHAT IF WE WERE TO DO CERTAIN THINGS? COULD WE ALLOW THAT TO HAPPEN THROUGH A VARIANCE PROCESS RIGHT IN FRONT OF THIS BOARD? IF THERE ARE SOME TREES THAT NEED TO BE REMOVED FOR HEALTH, ETC. THAT COULD BE BROUGHT IN FRONT OF THE BOARD. SO WE'RE GOING TO TRY TO GO THROUGH AND REALLY FOCUS IN ON AT LEAST OUR APPROACH. BUT WHEN YOU REALLY BOIL IT DOWN, WHAT WE'VE BEEN KIND OF SAYING TO ONE ANOTHER IS THAT THEY'RE HISTORIC BUILDINGS, BUT THIS IS A NEW STORY THAT WE'RE BRINGING IN HERE. SO AS STAFF DID A

[04:20:02]

AND SO WE'LL GO THROUGH THAT. WE'LL ALSO TALK ABOUT THE REQUEST FOR THE REDUCTION IN PARKING REQUIREMENT. WE'LL TALK ABOUT THE OTHER INTERIOR SETBACKS. AS A QUICK ASIDE, THE EXTERIOR OF THESE EIGHT PARCELS WERE KEEPING THE LANDSCAPE BUFFER. WE'RE KEEPING AS MANY OF THE SETBACKS THAT WE CAN WITH THE REALITY THAT SOME OF THOSE SETBACKS ARE ALREADY INFRINGED UPON BY THE HISTORIC BUILDINGS. BUT WE ARE GOING TO GO THROUGH ALL THOSE PIECES. I THINK EVERYONE IS FAMILIAR WITH THE LOCATION AGAIN, RIGHT BETWEEN KING AND OVIEDO STREET.

AND SO WE HAVE BUILDINGS ON SEVEN OF THE EIGHT LOTS. 129 OVIEDO, WHICH IS THE ONE THAT ALSO BACKS UP TO 74 IBERIA, THE FLAGLER COLLEGE PROPERTY THAT IS ONE OF YOUR NEXT ITEMS ON THE AGENDA IS IN THE TOP RIGHT, THE NORTHEAST CORNER. AND JUST TO REITERATE ON JEREMY'S POINT, THEY'RE CURRENTLY ALL THESE THESE PROPERTIES ARE BEING USED AS MULTIFAMILY. AND THE PRIMARILY ARE CONCENTRATED PARKING AT THE EMPTY LOT AT 129 OVIEDO. SO JUST, I, IT WAS HELPFUL AS WE WERE WORKING THROUGH THE DESIGN OF THE PROJECT TO REALLY THE, THE FLOW OF THE PROPERTY AS IT EXISTS TODAY REALLY, IN EFFECT WON'T CHANGE TO HOW IT HOW IT EXISTS IN OUR PROPOSAL. SO THE MAIN ENTRY POINT FROM KING STREET IN BETWEEN 132 AND 130 KING. AND THEN, YOU KNOW, BRINGING THE TRAFFIC BACK THROUGH THAT THOSE TWO LOTS. 129 OVIEDO AND 130 KING AS STAFF ALREADY MENTIONED, THIS IS ALSO IN THE PURVIEW OF BOTH CRC AND HARB CRC. WE RECEIVED ACTUALLY UNANIMOUS APPROVAL JUST LAST WEEK. SO THEIR JURISDICTION IS ARE THE PROPERTIES THAT ARE ACTUALLY FACING KING STREET. CERTAINLY WE TALKED ABOUT SOME OF THE OVERALL DESIGN BECAUSE OF THIS ENCROACHMENT THAT IS COMING INTO THE SITE. AND THEN THERE ARE TWO USE BY EXCEPTIONS THAT ARE IN FRONT OF YOU ALL. ONE IS FOR THE SPECIAL EVENT VENUE, WHICH IS FOR BOTH OF THE ZONING CRITERIA. THE OTHER IS THE HOTEL USE BY EXCEPTION, WHICH IS THE OTHER PORTION IN RG ONE. SO THE OVERALL DESIGN AGAIN, HISTORIC BUILDINGS, BUT NEW STORIES IS THAT YOU'RE COMING IN OFF OF KING STREET. YOU ACTUALLY HAVE A DROP OFF VALET PORTICO RIGHT HERE. AND THEN THE VALET IS GOING TO TAKE YOUR KEYS, SAY THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

AND THEN WE'LL BE GOING INTO BOTH THE STRUCTURED AS WELL AS THE AT GRADE PARKING. SO I THINK CONNOR HAS DONE A PRETTY BRILLIANT JOB OF HIDING THE STRUCTURED PARKING WITHIN THE BUILDINGS. THE PORTION THAT WE ARE TALKING TO YOU ALL ABOUT IN TERMS OF PARKING REDUCTION ARE FOR THESE TWO AREAS, THE ONES THAT ARE UNCOVERED, NOT UNDER A BUILDING. AND THIS PERSPECTIVE THAT CONNOR'S TEAM PUT TOGETHER AGAIN, I THINK SHOWS HOW WE'RE ACTIVATING KING STREET. WE'RE ACTUALLY MOVING FORWARD. 136 WHICH IS THE BOTTOM LEFT BUILDING THERE ON KING STREET.

AND SO WE'RE BRINGING IT CLOSER TO THE STREET, WHICH IS VERY MUCH WHAT OUR ENTRY CORRIDOR GUIDELINES THAT COMMISSION APPROVED. AND IT WAS KIND OF FUN GOING BACK THROUGH THIS.

AND IF YOU'LL FORGIVE ME, READING FOR JUST TWO SECONDS, I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT WHEN YOU START LOOKING BACK AT THE PURPOSE AND INTENT OF THE KING STREET ENTRY CORRIDOR STANDARDS, IT'S TO PROMOTE THE UNIQUE CHARACTERISTICS OF THE KING STREET OVERLAY AREA, TO DISTINGUISH IT FROM OTHER BUILT ENVIRONMENTS OF THE CITY OF SAINT AUGUSTINE, TO FACILITATE THE DEVELOPMENT OF VACANT LAND AND THE REIMAGINATION REPURPOSING OF UNDERUTILIZED PROPERTIES INTO HIGH QUALITY, MULTIMODAL MIXED USE ENVIRONMENT, AND THEN TO PROVIDE STANDARDS AND CRITERIA BY WHICH THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT IN THE AREA WILL BE REVIEWED. THAT'S THE PURPOSE OF THIS DOCUMENT, AND I HOPE YOU SEE OR SEE ALSO GRANTED UNANIMOUS APPROVAL AS YOU COME IN, YOU HAVE UNITS THAT ARE ALONG KING STREET, UNITS THAT

[04:25:03]

THERE'S THE PUMPKIN CHURCH AFTER HURRICANE MATTHEW. I ALWAYS THINK ABOUT IT THIS TIME OF THE YEAR, BUT WE'RE LOOKING TO DO BOTH UNDERGROUND STORMWATER, WHICH IS GOOD FOR OUR NEIGHBORS. BUT WE'RE ALSO COMING IN WITH A SITE WALL KIND OF SIMILAR TO OUT BACK OF THIS BUILDING WITH THE LIGHTNER GARDEN. SO WE'RE ACTUALLY COMING IN WITH DEPLOYABLE FLOOD GATES. AND SO THIS WILL BE ABLE TO CONTINUE TO THRIVE EVEN IN THE MIDST OF STORMS. THIS PERSPECTIVE STARTS TO SHOW YOU HOW THE BUILDING IS REALLY INCORPORATED INTO THE HEART OF THE CAMPUS. BUT THE HISTORIC BUILDINGS ARE SITTING PROUDLY ALONG KING STREET. SO AS WE GO THROUGH THIS, I'LL TRY TO BE VERY BRIEF, BUT AGAIN, THE USE BY EXCEPTION REQUEST IN RG ONE IS FOR THE HOTEL. IT'S LOUD IN CL2, BUT RG ONE IS USED BY EXCEPTION. AND IN BOTH ZONING CATEGORIES IT'S USED BY EXCEPTION REQUESTS FOR THE SPECIAL EVENT. THE NEXT PORTIONS I'M GOING TO GO THROUGH KIND OF ONE BY ONE. THE FIRST IS REDUCTION IN PARKING.

THIS IS THE 15 TO 16% THAT WE WERE LOOKING AT. ESSENTIALLY, IT IS REMOVING THAT SECTION AS BEING RAISED, PARKING AND THE OTHER SECTION. SO WE WOULD STILL HAVE THE AT GRADE PARKING IN THOSE AREAS. WE JUST WOULDN'T HAVE THE LIFTS THAT ARE ON TOP OF IT. AS A QUICK ASIDE FOR THOSE WHO WERE HERE IN SEPTEMBER, THESE ARE USED THROUGHOUT MIAMI, SO WE KNOW THAT THEY CAN WORK WELL IN OUR FLORIDA COASTAL ENVIRONMENT. WE DO HAVE A 388 SPACES THAT WE HAVE INCORPORATED TO THAT ARE OFF OF OVIEDO, ONE THAT IS RIGHT THERE BY THE PORT. SO THE REQUEST FOR THE 16% ARE FOR THOSE TWO AREAS THAT YOU SEE IN RED. THERE WAS ALSO THE QUESTION ABOUT THE REQUIRED SPACES VERSUS THE PROVIDED SPACES. SO THAT'S WHAT THIS DIAGRAM IS SHOWING YOU. SO THIS IS BASED ON PER PROGRAM WHAT EACH LOT WOULD HAVE. AND YOU CAN SEE HOW WE'VE KIND OF PORTIONED THOSE USING THESE STACKED PARKING SPACES. AND JUST TO REITERATE ONE MORE POINT ON THE PARKING. THIS IS GOING TO BE A FULLY VALID SITE.

SO IT'S, THERE'S, THERE'S NO SELF PARKING ANYWHERE HAPPENING ON THE SITE, REGARDLESS OF THE VARIANCE OR NOT. AND THE VARIANCE REALLY CAME ACTUALLY NOT DIRECTLY FROM THE WENDLER'S, BUT FROM US AS A DESIGN TEAM AND AS A PART OF THE COMMUNITY AND UNDERSTANDING, YOU KNOW, PARKING WAS A MASSIVE UNDERTAKING TO DESIGN TO, TO MAKE THIS SITE WORK FOR ITS, YOU KNOW, GREATEST AND BEST USE AND, AND ALLOWING FOR THESE DOUBLE STACKED PARKING UNDER THE NEW STRUCTURES, WHICH INHERENTLY WOULD WANT TO BE RAISED FOR RESILIENCY SAKE WAS A GREAT SOLUTION. BUT HAVING THEM VISIBLE WITHOUT THE ABILITY TO SORT OF SHIELD THEM WITH A STRUCTURE, WE CAN DEFINITELY HAVE SOME TYPE OF SCREENING AROUND THEM, BUT IT JUST SEEMED LIKE IT WAS A WORTHY ASK FOR THAT 16% REDUCTION. SO THAT WOULD EFFECTIVELY ELIMINATE, JUST TO REITERATE WHAT JENN SAID VERY WELL AND JEREMY AS WELL. BUT THAT 16% REDUCTION WOULD ELIMINATE THE STACKED PARKING THAT'S NOT UNDERNEATH OF OUR PROPOSED NEW STRUCTURE. AND QUICK ASIDE, AS WE'RE ALL DOING SOME MATH HERE, WE FREE UP EIGHT PARKING SPACES ON OVIEDO THAT ARE CURRENTLY BEING USED FOR TENANT PARKING FOR THOSE

[04:30:04]

THE SECOND PIECE IS FOR THE LOT COVERAGE, SPECIFICALLY FOR 129 AND 131. SO THEY WOULD GO UP TO 44 AND 40%. AND THAT WAS REALLY JUST A FUNCTION OF THE STRUCTURE AND MAKING SURE THAT WE WERE PUTTING THE RIGHT PROGRAMMATIC USES WHERE, WHERE THEY BELONGED. WE ALSO DIDN'T FEEL LIKE IT WAS WARRANTED TO COME IN FRONT OF THE BOARD AND REQUEST FOR THE TWO LOTS ON OVIEDO TO BE REZONED AS COMMERCIAL. WE BELIEVE WITH THIS SLIGHT REDUCTION IN LOT COVERAGE, YOU KNOW, WE CAN ACHIEVE WHAT WHAT THE GREATEST AND BEST USE FOR THE SITE. AND WE DID. WE SPECIFICALLY DID NOT WANT TO COME TO THE BOARD FOR THAT REQUEST. SO AGAIN, WE KIND OF WENT THROUGH THE FOUR FACTORS AND TRY TO BREAK THIS DOWN FOR EACH ONE. AND THEN IN TERMS OF THE SETBACK REQUESTS, WE LET ME GO THROUGH HERE. WE DO TALK ABOUT THE FACT THAT BY ELIMINATING THE SIDE AND REAR SETBACK, AND HOPEFULLY THESE ARE HELPFUL AS WE HIGHLIGHT EACH THIS BUILDING ENCROACHING IS INFRINGING ON BOTH, BUT IT'S REALLY JUST THE INTERNAL SETBACKS. WE ARE AGAIN ENCROACHING INTO THE REAR SETBACK OF 132. AND THEN WE HAVE THE GROTTO, WHICH IS IN THE SIDE SETBACK FOR 134. WE'RE LOOKING TO ELIMINATE THE INTERIOR SIDE SETBACK FOR THE TWO POOLS. AND THEN OVER ON 136, IT'S THE ELIMINATION OF THE SIDE AND REAR SETBACK REQUIREMENTS AS WELL. 129 IS REALLY JUST ADJUSTING TO A FIVE FOOT SETBACK FROM TEN FOOT. WE'VE BEEN COORDINATING WITH OUR NEIGHBORS OVER AT FLAGLER COLLEGE, BUT THE IDEA IS THAT THAT WOULD ALLOW BALCONIES. SO THE BUILDING IS STILL SITTING AT TEN. THE BALCONIES ARE ENCROACHING WITHIN THAT FIVE FOOT SECTION. WE CAN STILL MAINTAIN THE LANDSCAPE BUFFER YARD REQUIREMENTS AT THE GROUND LEVEL. THIS WOULD JUST BE AT LEVELS TWO AND THREE, 131 IT'S KIND OF THE SAME DEAL ABOUT HOW THAT BUILDING IS CROSSING PROPERTY LINES. IT'S IMPACTING THE REAR SETBACK. AND THEN WE DID NOT HAVE THE SETBACK ISSUES ON THE OTHER TWO. FINALLY HOME STRETCH AERIAL THE TREE REMOVAL. SO WE ARE WORKING TO SAVE AS MANY OF THESE TREES AS WE CAN. AS A QUICK ASIDE, WE ARE COMING IN AND WE ARE PLANTING 40 NEW TREES. WITH THESE PLANS. WE ACTUALLY ARE NET POSITIVE IN TERMS OF CREDITS. WE HAVE NINE AND A HALF EXCESS CREDITS THAT WE'RE PUTTING IN. WHEN YOU JUST LOOK AT THE MATH OF THE REMOVALS VERSUS THE ADDITIONS, BUT THE ONES THAT WE REALLY FOCUSED IN ON WERE TREES THAT PRIMARILY HAVE ISSUES. AND SO WHEN YOU LOOK AT THOSE FIVE SIGNIFICANT TREES, I'LL SPEND A FEW MOMENTS ON EACH ONE OF THEM. NUMBER 13, IT HAS A FENCE GROWING IN THE BASE OF IT RIGHT ALONG THE PROPERTY LINE. AND TO PUT IN THIS SITE WALL FOR THE STORMWATER AND RESILIENCY, IT WILL BE HEAVILY IMPACTED. TREE NUMBER 14. FRANKLY, IT'S A GOOD TREE. IT WAS JUST IN THE AREA THAT WE NEEDED FOR THE ON SITE PARKING. SO THAT'S ONE THAT WE TRY TO WORK AROUND. BUT IT WAS NOT A POSSIBILITY. NUMBER 18, IT HAS QUITE A THIN CANOPY. IT'S ON ITS WAY OUT. IT'S ON THE DECLINE. NUMBER 19 IS IN FAIR CONDITION. BUT AGAIN, BECAUSE OF THE WORK THAT'S GOING ON AROUND IT WILL NOT SERVE WELL FOR ANY OF Y'ALL WHO AGAIN, WERE HERE LAST MONTH, YOU MIGHT REMEMBER GOOD OLD NUMBER 20. SLIME FLUX IS PRESENT ON THE SIDE OF THE TREE.

SO IT CERTAINLY IS SHOWING THAT IT'S NOT A GOOD CANDIDATE FOR THE WORK AROUND IT. AND IT IS IN DECLINE. AND THEN TREE NUMBER 30 IS NOT PART OF THE APPLICATION THAT'S IN FRONT OF YOU. IT'S GERMANE TO THE NEXT APPLICATION APPLICATION IN TERMS OF HOW THAT LEANS OVER THE PROPERTY LINE. I'LL LET FREMONT SPEAK A LITTLE BIT MORE TO THAT IN JUST A FEW MOMENTS.

SO THAT'S A LOT TO PRESENT TO YOU ALL, BUT WE ARE VERY EXCITED FOR YOUR FEEDBACK AND HOPE WE CAN KEEP MOVING THE PROJECT ALONG. THANK YOU. ANY LETTERS ON FILE? 20 WERE SENT

[04:35:02]

[04:40:02]

OKAY. BRUCE MCGUIRE, 298 SAINT GEORGE STREET. THREE ISSUES REAL QUICKLY. FIRST OF ALL, I HEARD A COMMENT FROM ONE OF THE BOARD MEMBERS THAT THE CITY IS MOVING TOWARDS THIS DIRECTION OF MORE PEDESTRIAN ACTIVITY AND LESS TRAFFIC. AS A PROPERTY OWNER ON THE STREET, I'D LIKE TO SEE THE WRITTEN GUIDANCE DIRECTIVE TO THE CITY COMMISSIONERS GIVEN TO YOU, SO I CAN USE THAT SO I DON'T HAVE TO COME IN HERE AND OBJECT OR COMPLAIN OR WHATEVER. SO I'D LIKE TO GET A COPY OF THAT WRITTEN GUIDANCE THAT YOU TALKED ABOUT. SECONDLY, I HEARD ANOTHER COMMENT FROM THE CHAIRMAN ON A PREVIOUS ISSUE THAT I'D MAKE SURE DOESN'T HAPPEN ON THIS ISSUE. IN HER COMMENT WHEN SHE MADE THE MOTION, SHE SAID, I HOPE. I COULDN'T BELIEVE I HEARD HER SAY, I HOPE THAT IS NOT A LEGITIMATE LEGAL CRITERIA BY WHICH YOU CAN ASSESS AND MAKE DECISIONS. YOU HAVE TO HAVE FACTUAL BASIS, SOMETHING YOU CAN LEAN ON AND SUPPORT YOUR POSITION, NOT HOPE. THIRD, OVER THE LAST COUPLE OF YEARS, THIS BOARD HAS APPROVED AT LEAST COUNTING TODAY. SO FAR, AT LEAST FIVE RESTRICTIONS LIFTED OR REMOVED, COMPLETELY DELETED FOR PARKING. DO YOU HAVE ANY IDEA HOW MUCH PARKING YOU HAVE GOTTEN RID OF ON THE STREET? AND DO YOU REALIZE WHERE IT IS LOCATED? FOR EXAMPLE, FROM THE STOPLIGHT AT CARMELO'S, TWO BLOCKS TO THE EAST, TWO BLOCKS FIVE AND YOU'RE GETTING READY TO DO ANOTHER ONE. DO YOU REALIZE HOW MANY PARKING SPACES YOU HAVE REMOVED AND FORCED INTO THE NEIGHBORHOOD OR OTHER PIECE OF PROPERTY? I DON'T THINK YOU DO. I'D LIKE TO THROW MY SUPPORT BEHIND THIS PROJECT, 99% OF IT, BECAUSE I THINK IT'S GREAT, AND I HOPE YOU APPROVE IT AFTER YOU GET RID OF THE REMOVAL OF PARKING THAT THEY'VE ASKED FOR. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER PUBLIC COMMENTS? VIRGINIA WHETSTONE, DO I NEED TO SWEAR IN OR NOT? OKAY. AGAIN, I THINK BOTH OF YOU, YOU'VE RECEIVED TWO LETTERS IN OPPOSITION FROM ME, ONE FROM THE PROPERTY THAT I OWN AT 139 KING STREET, WHICH IS IN SEPARATE OWNERSHIP AND ONE FROM THE PROPERTY AT 149 KING STREET. I STAND BY WHAT I SAID EARLIER, YOU'RE NOT ELIMINATING THE DEMAND. THE DEMAND IS STILL THERE. I EITHER OWN OR OPERATE THREE HOTELS. HOTEL GUESTS EXPECT PARKING.

OKAY. AND NOW YOU'RE ADDING A SPECIAL EVENT VENUE AND A RESTAURANT. WHERE DO YOU THINK THEY'RE GOING TO GO? PARK. THERE'S NOT ENOUGH PARKING. A LOT OF HOTEL GUESTS COME WITH TWO CARS, NOT JUST ONE. SO THEY HAVE TO HAVE PARKING. THEY'RE GOING TO END UP AT THE CLOSEST LOCATION, WHICH IS MY PROPERTY. OKAY. YOU ARE SHOVING THOSE GUESTS AND THOSE RESTAURANT GUESTS ONTO MY PROPERTY AND IT IS NOT FAIR. I HAD TO PROVIDE PARKING. I DID RENOVATIONS ON 139. THE CITY MADE ME COMPLY WITH PARKING. WHY ARE ALL THESE PEOPLE GETTING AWAY WITH IT? IT'S NOT FAIR. IT'S LITERALLY NOT FAIR. NOW, I LIKE THE PROJECT. I'VE TALKED TO DONNA WINDLER. I'VE TALKED TO JEREMY. THEY KNOW I OPPOSED THE REDUCTION IN OFFSITE PARKING.

AND WE'RE WE'RE ABNORMAL ABOUT THAT. WE'RE NOT ADVERSARIAL, BUT THIS CANNOT CONTINUE TO HAPPEN. KING STREET IS A MAJOR THOROUGHFARE IN THIS TOWN. IF YOU THINK IT'S GOING TO JUST BECOME A WALKING STREET, IT ISN'T. YOU HAVE TRACTOR TRAILER TRUCKS THAT HAVE TO GET INTO TOWN. YOU HAVE CARS THAT WANT TO GO OVER THE BRIDGE. THIS IS A MAJOR STREET, OKAY? IT'S NOT GOING TO BECOME A WALKING ONLY STREET. AND YOU'RE AFFECTING PROPERTY OWNERS AND IT'S NOT RIGHT. I WILL CONTINUE TO OPPOSE THIS UP TO THE CITY COMMISSION. I WILL GO THAT FAR

[04:45:08]

IT'LL BE MORE SHADY. SO I THINK THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT THE FACT THAT HOPEFULLY WE CAN HAVE OUR CAKE AND EAT IT TOO, THAT WE CAN STILL ACCOMMODATE HOW PEOPLE ARE VISITING. OUR SPACES STILL ACCOMMODATE THEIR VEHICLES, BUT STILL ENCOURAGE THE WALKABILITY AND STILL ENCOURAGE THE FACT THAT YOU CAN BRING YOU CAN HOP ON TO A TROLLEY, HOP ONTO A CIRCULATOR, AND WE'RE TRYING TO SUPPORT ALL THOSE VARIOUS MODES BECAUSE WHO KNOWS WHERE IT'S GOING TO BE IN 5 OR 10 YEARS. AND I THINK THAT WE'RE MAKING IT EASIER TO GET AROUND OUR TOWN WITHOUT YOUR CAR. BUT THAT DOESN'T TAKE AWAY FROM THE FACT THAT WE ALSO NEED TO ADDRESS IT NOW. SO HOPEFULLY WE'VE BROUGHT YOU A GOOD BLEND, GOOD HYBRID SOLUTION TO THAT. AND LASTLY, SORRY, JUST DISCUSSING WITH THE OWNER, WE WE HAVE A SOLUTION TO, TO PARK THE ENTIRETY OF THE SITE. IF THAT'S WHAT THE BOARD CHOOSES. IT'S WHERE THE PROJECT IS NOT CONTINGENT UPON THIS PARKING REDUCTION. SO YEAH, BOARD COMMENTS. MR. PAPPAS, I DID WATCH THE MEETING LAST MONTH, SO I AM UP TO SPEED. I DID LEARN A COUPLE OF THINGS. ONE, IT'S IMPORTANT TO SPEAK AT THE MICROPHONES. IF YOU WATCH THOSE MEETINGS, IT IS HARD TO HEAR. AND TWO, I WAS REALLY SURPRISED HOW LITTLE PUBLIC COMMENT WAS HERE FOR SUCH A LARGE PROJECT AND THAT THAT WORRIES ME. THAT PUTS THE BURDEN ON ALL OF US AS PEOPLE GET SURPRISED LATER, I CAN SAY MR. BLOW IN HIS COMMENTS LAST MEETING WAS EXACTLY WHAT I WOULD HAVE SAID. I HAD THE SAME CONCERNS OF

[04:50:05]

SO I DO THINK IT'S, IT'S RARE THAT YOU'D HAVE A SITUATION WHERE YOU'D HAVE SORT OF ALL,

[04:55:03]

THAT WILL ALL BE RECORDED, JUST LIKE DEEDS AND RESTRICTIONS IN YOUR HOA FOR, FOR INSTANCE. SO THE TWO THINGS ARE SORT OF HAPPENING SIMULTANEOUSLY. THERE'S THIS DOCUMENT THAT THEY'VE ALREADY SIGNED THAT IS IN MY CUSTODY AWAITING YOUR DECISION THAT WOULD BE RECORDED AND WOULD WORK THE SAME WAY AS HOA COVENANTS AND RESTRICTIONS WOULD TO MAKE SURE ALL THE PARTIES WORK TOGETHER AND CAN'T KIND OF PULL AWAY FROM THE PROJECT AS DESIGNED AND POTENTIALLY APPROVED BY YOU. BUT WHAT YOU ALL ARE APPROVING IS THIS LIST OF VARIANCES AND SO ON, AND USE BY EXCEPTION, THAT'S BEFORE YOU, AND THAT WILL BE IN THE DEVELOPMENT ORDER, WHICH IS THAT ORDER THAT OUR CHAIR SIGNS THAT HAS ALL OF THE CONDITIONS, AND IT'LL BE MIRRORED IN THIS COVENANT AND RESTRICTION THAT WILL BE RECORDED AGAINST EACH LOT, IF THAT'S HELPFUL TO YOU. YEAH. OTHERWISE, I WAS JUST GOING TO SAY, I THINK IT'S A GREAT PROJECT. AGAIN, I'M GOING TO REITERATE FROM LAST MONTH, I THINK IT, YOU KNOW, IN THE VEIN OF WHERE SAINT AUGUSTINE IS HEADED, I SUPPORT IT. I THINK IT'S GOOD. GREAT. THANK YOU.

THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR. YOU KNOW, AS I SAID LAST MONTH, I THINK THE PROJECT ITSELF IS IS VERY IMPRESSIVE. NOW, A COUPLE OF THINGS, MISS. WHAT? MISS WHETSTONE TRIGGERED SOMETHING WHEN SHE POINTED OUT THAT YOU HAVE A HOTEL AND WHEN YOU CHECK IN THE HOTEL, YOU EXPECT TO BE ABLE TO PARK PLUS A RESTAURANT, PLUS SPECIAL EVENTS. AND I WAS THINKING TO MYSELF, THE COLLECTOR WAS, DID IT MEET ITS PARKING REQUIREMENTS? NOW, OF COURSE, IT'S IN A HISTORIC DISTRICT, SO IT MAY NOT BE APPLES TO APPLES. THAT WAS ONE THAT CAME TO MIND. THE RENAISSANCE HAS I YOU KNOW, ALL THREE. AND THAT WAS A PUD. IT'S I DON'T BELIEVE THAT'S IN THE HISTORIC DISTRICT. MY QUESTION WOULD BE, DID THEY MEET ALL THEIR. I THINK THEY DID. AND AND I THOUGHT AND I REMEMBER WHEN THAT ONE CAME BEFORE US AS A PUD. THERE WERE A LOT OF DISCUSSION ABOUT PARKING AND HOW THEY WERE GOING TO HANDLE IT, BUT THEY, THEY MET THEIR REQUIREMENT ON SITE, I BELIEVE. AND THEN MR. PATEL'S PLAN TO DO THE HOTEL, THE EXCHANGE BUILDING, I CALL IT THE EXCHANGE BUILDING. THAT PUD HAS BEEN APPROVED. RIGHT. AND HE'S MEETING ALL HIS PARKING REQUIREMENTS ON SITE. IS THAT CORRECT? I SEE MR. LATIMER SHAKING HIS HEAD BACK THERE. SO, YOU KNOW, ONE OF MY CONCERNS IS TO KEEP, YOU KNOW, TREAT EVERYBODY THE SAME. AND AND SO THOSE ARE THE THREE HOTELS THAT THAT CAME TO MIND THAT HAVE RECENTLY BEEN BUILT IN THIS GENERAL AREA, AS WELL AS MISS WHETSTONE POINTING OUT THAT YOU CHECK IN A HOTEL ROOM, YOU EXPECT TO BE ABLE TO PARK PLUS SPECIAL EVENTS AND RESTAURANT, THEN MISS LOPEZ, WHAT WE HAVE IN OUR PACKET IS WHAT WOULD BE RECORDED DECLARATION OF COVENANTS, CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS ACCEPTED BY THE CITY OF SAINT AUGUSTINE AS PART

[05:00:04]

LOOKS LIKE THIS. MAYBE YOUR STAFF CAN SAY, AND THERE'S EVERY SINGLE ONE WE HAVE THAT YOU LOOKED AT. SO THERE'LL BE WORDS AND THEN THERE'LL BE A SERIES OF SKETCHES IN BLACK AND WHITE, WHICH ARE MIRROR WHAT YOU'RE SEEING IN COLOR, RIGHT? AND THE ONE WE HAVE IN OUR PACKETS ALL BEEN SIGNED BY THE. OKAY. SO AND IT HAS A COMPOSITE EXHIBIT A WITH IT CORRECT ADDRESSES EACH PARCEL AND THEN HAS A SITE PLAN, CORRECT? CORRECT. HAS A SITE PLAN FOR EACH PARCEL AND WILL BE RECORDED AGAINST. SO THAT GETS RECORDED. OKAY. YEP. IS THERE ANY OTHER AGREEMENT THAT GOES TO THE CITY COMMISSION FOR APPROVAL? NO, NO, THIS IS IT.

OKAY. YOU ARE IT. SO IF WE THE IDEA IS WE WOULD APPROVE THIS AND IT GETS NO FURTHER REVIEW BEYOND THIS BOARD. THAT IS CORRECT. UNLESS SOMEONE APPEALS, OBVIOUSLY SOMEBODY APPEALS.

OKAY, NOW WE'VE GOT SOME VERY WELL DRAFTED SITE PLANS WITH THIS APPLICATION. CAN THEY BE ADDED AS AN EXHIBIT TO THE RECORDED DOCUMENT THAT THOSE ARE. IF YOU MEAN BY SITE PLAN, I MEAN THIS THE THE STUFF THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT NOW IN ADDITION, BECAUSE WHAT'S WITH WHAT I'M LOOKING AT DOESN'T SHOW THE OVERALL SITE, I DON'T BELIEVE IS ACTUALLY RECORDED.

RIGHT. IT BREAKS IT DOWN BY PARCEL BECAUSE IT'S RECORDED. BUT IF YOU WERE TO JIGSAW IT, IT COVERS THE ENTIRETY. BUT AS SOMEBODY WHO OCCASIONALLY HAS TO GO LOOK AT PUBLIC RECORDS, TO ME, YOU WOULD WANT THE ENTIRE SITE PLAN RECORDED WITH THIS DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT TO PULL IT ALL TOGETHER. I MEAN, I'M HAPPY TO INCLUDE IT IF YOU LIKE, BUT CANDIDLY, IT'S EACH LOT WOULD HAVE RESTRICTIONS THAT ARE SPECIFIC TO THAT LOT. BUT WE CERTAINLY CAN THROW ON AN OVERALL THAT SHOWS, YOU KNOW, THAT SHOWS YOU HOW THE JIGSAW PUZZLE PICTURE'S WORTH A 10,000 WORDS. AND AND AS SOMEBODY LOOKING AT THIS IN TEN YEARS OR WHATEVER. IT WOULD BE REALLY HELPFUL IF YOU HAD RECORD RECORDED WITH IT. JUST SO YOU KNOW, THOUGH, THIS CROSS REFERENCES THE, THE ORDER THAT WOULD BE SIGNED BY THE PCB, WHICH WILL HAVE ALL OF THESE COLORIZED SKETCHES IN IT. IT'S JUST I CAN'T PUT COLORIZED DOCUMENTS TO BE RECORDED COLOR, BUT I MEAN, BASICALLY. SURE. SO IF YOU GO TO THE COURTHOUSE AND YOU LOOK UP THESE, THIS, THIS DOCUMENT WHERE I'M COMING FROM, IT NEEDS TO HAVE AS PART OF IT, THE OVERALL SITE PLAN THAT SHOWS ALL EIGHT PARCELS. SURE. WE COULD INCLUDE THAT. IT REFERENCES THE DEVELOPMENT ORDER EXPLICITLY. SO THE DEVELOPMENT ORDER WILL HAVE THAT. I CAN PUT IT IN AS A AS AN ADDITIONAL PAGE IF YOU LIKE. I THINK THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL. THE. SO ANYWAY, SO THAT ANSWERS ONE OF MY QUESTIONS AND I'M SORRY, I SHOULD HAVE CALLED YOU BEFORE THE MEETING AND I WOULDN'T BE TAKING SO MUCH TIME, BUT I APOLOGIZE. SO THE NEXT THING IS THERE'S NO, THE ONLY REFERENCE TO QUOTE A SCHEDULE IS THESE DEED RESTRICTIONS ARE ARE GOOD FOR 30 YEARS. AND THEY AUTOMATICALLY RENEW EVERY AGAIN. CORRECT. THAT'S JUST STATUTORY LANGUAGE. OKAY. THE THE QUESTION I GUESS TO THE APPLICANT, WHAT'S THE SCHEDULE FOR THIS? HOW LONG WILL IT TAKE YOU TO COMPLETE THIS PROJECT? WELL, I'M ALSO GOING TO LOOK TO MR. WENDLER AS WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THIS, BUT I MEAN, THEY'RE EXCITED AND WANTING. WELL, I KNOW THEY'RE EXCITED. I'M ASSUMING THAT WE'RE PROBABLY GOING TO HAVE ABOUT SIX MONTHS OR SO FOR CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS AFTER WE GO THROUGH THE APPROVALS. AND THEN WE WOULD START, I THINK, IMPLEMENTING IN PHASES, BUT WE'RE PROBABLY GOING TO HAVE TWO YEARS. YEAH, 18, 24 MONTHS, 18 TO 24 MONTHS IS WHAT MR. WENDLER? OKAY. SURE. NOW, YOU GUYS KNOW I COME FROM THE DARK SIDE, SO I ALWAYS ANTICIPATE THINGS GOING WRONG. I GUESS IF IF YOU RUN INTO AN ISSUE

[05:05:11]

AND NOTHING WOULD CHANGE EXCEPT. RIGHT. THE CONDITIONS WOULD BE PLACED FOR ANY DEVELOPMENT.

RIGHT. AND YOUR DEVELOPMENT ORDER IS THE OTHER PIECE. SO THEY'RE KIND OF TWO MIRRORS OF EACH OTHER. SO YOU HAVE YOUR DEVELOPMENT ORDER CONDITIONS AND YOU HAVE THESE COVENANTS THAT WOULD BE RECORDED. SO YES, THEY THEY DON'T HAVE A TIME LAPSE IF THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE ASKING. YEAH. WELL, THE SCENARIO IS. MY I, I WANT I'M JUST CONCERNED WE DON'T WANT TO GET SOMETHING. WE HAD NO IDEA OR WE WE DID NOT ANTICIPATE. SO BASICALLY IF WE APPROVE THIS AND WE ADD THOSE OVERALL SITE PLANS, IT'S GOING TO BE EITHER WE GET WHAT THEY JUST PRESENTED US OR IT STAYS EXACTLY THE WAY IT IS. IS THAT CORRECT? THEY THEY CAN COME BACK THOUGH, OR FUTURE OWNERS CAN COME BACK. SO THERE'S THAT OPTION. BUT IT WOULD HAVE TO BE A NEW HEARING AND ALL OF THAT. BUT BUT THEY COULDN'T UNILATERALLY. THAT'S CORRECT. THEY COULDN'T UNILATERALLY TODAY. YEAH. WELL, AS LONG AS IT'S WITHIN WHAT THEY'RE ALLOWED PER ZONING, THEY COULD. RIGHT. SO WHAT THEY'RE DOING TODAY IS IT'S NOT A PUD. IT'S STRAIGHT ZONED SO THEY CAN CONTINUE DOING THINGS THAT THEY'RE ALLOWED TO DO PER THEIR ZONE ZONING AND. RIGHT.

CORRECT. BUT THEY COULDN'T TAKE ADVANTAGE OF ANY OF THESE VARIANCES AND EXCEPTIONS THAT IF WE IF WE APPROVE THEM TONIGHT, THEY COULDN'T PICK AND CHOOSE. CORRECT. THEY'RE HOG TIED. AND THAT'S AN INELEGANT WAY. BUT THAT WAS WHY WE'RE RECORDING THEM BECAUSE AS I SAID LAST MONTH, I WOULD MUCH RATHER SEE THIS AS A PUD BECAUSE IT REALLY TIES DOWN ALL THESE ISSUES. THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT WE'RE APPROVING. YOU CAN'T CHANGE IT UNLESS YOU COME BACK AND GET IT AMENDED. AND OF COURSE, THE PUD ALWAYS HAS A SCHEDULE FOR COMPLETION IN IT, AND WE'VE HAD PLENTY OF THEM COME BACK AND ASK FOR EXTENSIONS. SO. CARL, IF I MAY, WHILE YOU'RE ON THE DARK SIDE. YEAH. IS LET'S SEE WHAT HAPPENS IF IT IS PARTIALLY DEVELOPED.

LET'S SAY THE FRONT HALF GETS DONE AND THEN THE BACK HALF DOESN'T. BUT NOW THEY CAN STILL DO THE BACK FOUR LOTS WITHIN THE CURRENT ZONING. SO YOU DON'T GET THE PROJECT. WELL, THAT'S THAT'S WHERE I'M COMING FROM. MR. PAPPAS IS IS I THINK THIS IS A GREAT PROJECT YOU'RE PULLING ME IN, BUT, YOU KNOW, I WANT TO MAKE SURE WE EITHER GET THIS PROJECT OR IT STAYS EXACTLY THE SAME. IN OTHER WORDS, I DON'T WANT I'M NOT SAYING THESE GUYS WOULD DO IT.

I'M SAYING SOME OTHER OWNER. SOMETHING HAPPENS. WHATEVER THE BANK ENDS UP WITH. I MEAN, I'VE SEEN PLENTY OF PROJECTS WHERE THE BANK ENDS UP WITH IT AND BOY, YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT THEY'RE GOING TO DO. IT'S CALLED JACKSONVILLE. YEAH. RIGHT. AND, AND, AND SO THAT THAT'S REALLY WHERE I'M IN. I THINK WE HAVE AN OBLIGATION TO, TO MAKE SURE THAT WE ARE NOT SETTING UP A SITUATION WHERE WE'RE TOTALLY SURPRISED. WE'RE BASICALLY, WE'RE SOME OTHER OWNER CAN PICK AND CHOOSE WHAT WE. ANY OF THESE VARIANCES ARE EXCEPTIONS WITHOUT COMPLETING THE ENTIRE HOTEL CONCEPT THAT WE'RE SEEING TONIGHT. SO CAN YOU. AND THAT IS THE LANGUAGE THAT IS IN THESE COVENANTS. AND IT WILL BE REPEATED IN YOUR ORDER. IT IS AN INTEGRAL PART, AND IT EXPLICITLY SAYS SO THAT BECAUSE EACH LOT HAS CONDITIONS THAT ARE SPECIFIC TO THAT LOT, BUT ARE ALSO BOUND TO ALL THE OTHER LOTS. SO THERE, THERE CAN'T BE A PIECEMEALING IT.

IT'S EITHER THIS PROJECT BECAUSE THEY'RE INTERTWINED, OR IT'S GOING TO BE WHAT THEY'RE ALLOWED TO DO PER ZONING. YEAH. OKAY. WELL, THAT GOES BACK TO WHY I THINK IS EXTREMELY IMPORTANT THAT IN THE RECORDED DOCUMENT, IT INCLUDES THE COMPLETED SITE PLAN, AND WE CAN PICK ONE OUT THAT YOU HAD ONE UP THERE THAT SHOWED YOUR DIFFERENT VARIANCES THAT YOU WERE LOOKING FOR AND TIED TO DIFFERENT PROPERTIES. BUT I THINK IT'S CRITICAL THAT THE

[05:10:05]

AND THERE ARE OTHER, OF COURSE, IMPORTANT CHECKS THAT ARE IN THIS. FOR INSTANCE, THOSE BUILDINGS NEED TO STAY. AND IF THEY GET MODIFIED, HOREB ALSO KICKS IN. SO THERE ARE OTHER CHECKS AND BALANCES IN THE PROCESS, WHICH I THINK IS IMPORTANT. OKAY, ONE LAST ON THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT. YEAH. I MEAN, WE'VE TALKED ABOUT DEED RESTRICTIONS IN THE PAST, AND I'VE HEARD THIS FROM OTHER MUNICIPALITIES THAT, HEY, THE CITY DOESN'T ENFORCE DEED RESTRICTIONS. BUT IN THIS SITUATION, IF FOR WHATEVER REASON, THEY DO SOMETHING OUT THERE THAT DOESN'T FOLLOW THIS DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, HOW DOES THAT WORK? I MEAN, IF IT WAS A PUD, YOU'D HAVE CODE ENFORCEMENT, AND YOU GO THROUGH THAT PROCESS WITH A. WHAT, A MAGISTRATE AND ALL THAT STUFF. HOW HOW DOES THIS WORK? WE ARE A PARTY TO THESE DEED RESTRICTIONS. TYPICALLY, WE DON'T WANT TO DO THAT. RIGHT. SO WE WANT TO STAY OUT OF PARTIES BICKERING WITH EACH OTHER. BUT IN THIS CASE, WE ARE WE'RE IDENTIFIED AS A PARTY THAT NOTHING CAN BE RELEASED. SO THE PRIVATE PROPERTY OWNERS, IF THEY DECIDED TO TRY AND TERMINATE THESE DEED RESTRICTIONS, ALL OF THEM CAME TO AN AGREEMENT AND SAID, GREAT, WE'RE JUST GOING TO TERMINATE THESE AND WE'LL FILE A TERMINATION OF THESE RESTRICTIONS. THEY CANNOT WE HAVE TO CONCUR TO ANY OF THOSE CHANGES. WE MEANING THE CITY, NOT ME PERSONALLY. SO YES. SO WE ARE TIED TO THIS. THAT GIVES US AN ADDITIONAL LAYER OF CONTROL, RIGHT. SO WE ALWAYS HAVE CONTROL OVER OUR DEVELOPMENT ORDER, WHICH IS OBVIOUSLY ENFORCEABLE BY CODE ENFORCEMENT. SPECIAL MAGISTRATE AS IS ALL OF OUR CODE. AND NOW WE HAVE THIS ADDITIONAL LAYER THAT WE ARE A PARTY TO THIS, THESE DEED RESTRICTIONS, AND THEY CAN'T BE RELEASED OR MODIFIED WITHOUT THE CITY CONCURRING TO IT. OKAY, WELL, THAT ONE, I'M SORRY FOR TAKING SO MUCH TIME, BUT ONE LAST QUESTION. I THINK THIS IS THE LAST ONE. SURE. SAY YOU'RE A CONTIGUOUS PROPERTY OWNER OR SOMEBODY IN THE IMMEDIATE AREA.

AND AND YOU BELIEVE THAT THEY'VE, THEY'VE VIOLATED THE THE COVENANTS AND DEED RESTRICTIONS. AND FOR SOME REASON, THE CITY'S NOT WILLING TO PURSUE ENFORCEMENT. DOES A ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER SAY, AS AN EXAMPLE, HAVE STANDING IN THE CIRCUIT COURT? NO. HEY, THEY DIDN'T DO THIS. NO, NOT FOR THE COVENANTS AND RESTRICTIONS AND REALLY NOT FOR ANYTHING ELSE. THAT'S KIND OF ESTABLISHED. THE ONLY LAW THAT HAS STANDING IS, IS THE IS IS REALLY THE CITY, THE CITY AND THE PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN, WITHIN. IF YOU MEAN ADJACENT WITHOUT THIRD PARTIES, PEOPLE, NOT OWNERS THAT DON'T OWN ANY OF THESE EIGHT LOTS. IN OTHER WORDS, FLAGLER COLLEGE OR SOMETHING HAS NO, THEY WOULD NOT HAVE STANDING. RIGHT. THEY ARE NOT A PARTY UNDER THE COVENANTS. NO. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. I THINK I BEAT THIS TO DEATH.

THE MY ONLY THING IS I, YOU KNOW, GOING BACK TO WHAT I SAID LAST MONTH, I'D LOVE TO HAVE IT GO BEFORE THE CITY COMMISSION JUST SO IT GETS THAT EXPOSURE BECAUSE IT I MEAN, WE'RE NOT ELECTED. OKAY. AND THIS IS THIS MR. PAPPAS SAID THIS IS A BIG PROJECT. THIS IS, YOU KNOW, AND THEY COULD CHOOSE TO DO A REQUEST, A PRESENTATION IN FRONT OF THE CITY. BUT THAT HAS HAS NO STANDING TO OUR, OUR OR ANYTHING. YOU KNOW, THE BOARD AND THE COMMISSION HAS THEY CAN'T REALLY COMMENT ON IT BECAUSE THEY WOULD BECOME THE ARBITRATORS IF, LET'S SAY WE RULED AGAINST THAT, THEY GO TO THE CITY COMMISSION. SO IT IT WOULD BE PURELY INFORMATIONAL PRESENTATION CLOSED IF THEY COULD CHOOSE IF THEY WANTED PUBLIC COMMENT, THAT WOULD BE THE COMMISSION'S CHOICE. BUT THEY WOULDN'T COMMENT. BUT AT THIS AT THIS STAGE, IF WE APPROVE IT AND THE COMMISSION, FOR WHATEVER REASON, DIDN'T LIKE IT, THERE'S OTHER THAN APPEALING IT, THEY CAN'T MAKE THEY CAN'T MAKE AN OPINION. THEY. THE COMMISSION, THROUGH ITS STAFF CAN APPEAL YOUR DECISION AS WELL. I KNOW THAT'S VERY RARE, BUT IT DOES OCCUR SO STAFF CAN APPEAL YOUR DECISION. RIGHT. AND THE COMMISSION WOULD BE MAKING A DECISION ON IT SO IT WOULDN'T BE DIRECTLY THE COMMISSION APPEALING. BUT FOR INSTANCE THE CITY MANAGER COULD

[05:15:07]

[05:20:01]

YOU KNOW, YOU'VE GOT 100 PEOPLE IN THE. BANQUET AREA, THE RESTAURANT, THE HOTELS. I MEAN, IT'S GOING TO BE BUSY. I THINK YOU'RE GOING TO NEED BACKUP PARKING. YOUR VALET IS GOING TO HAVE TO FIND SOMEPLACE ELSE TO BRING CARS. THEIR CONCERN WAS A MORE VISUAL. AND I HAVE CONFIDENCE IN THIS TEAM OF FINDING A WAY TO MAKE IT LOOK GOOD. I THINK THAT WE CAN SCREEN IT WELL. THERE'S A SCREENING AND THERE'S A LITTLE BIT OF SOUND TO THE MECHANISM, WHICH WE ARE ABLE TO ESSENTIALLY INSULATE WITH BUILDING. THAT'S A LITTLE BIT MORE UNINSULATED WITHOUT. BUT VISUALLY, I THINK THAT WE CAN BLOCK IT. BUT AGAIN, YOU KNOW, THIS WAS PART OF WHERE WE AS A DESIGN TEAM WITH WINDOWS BEHIND US WAS WE NEED TO PARK OUR PROGRAM. AND THEN AS WE KEPT IT WAS REALLY OUR SUGGESTION TO THEM OF, WE SHOULD ASK YOU ALL AS A BOARD. AND I THINK THIS HAS BEEN A GOOD CONVERSATION, BUT I DON'T THINK THAT THERE'S AN OBJECTION TO REMOVING THAT VARIANCE REQUEST. TERRIFIC. SO HOW DO WE MOVE FORWARD? THIS IS COMPLICATED. AND I DIDN'T WRITE DOWN EVERYTHING TO JUSTIFY EACH VARIANCE SO. WELL YEAH. YOU KIND OF HAVE YOU HAVE TO TAKE IT. I MEAN AS AS ONE. I MEAN ARE WE READY TO TREAT IT LIKE A PUD? IN OTHER WORDS, WHAT WE'RE APPROVING IS THAT OVERALL SITE PLAN. RIGHT? RIGHT. AND AND GET INTO THE NUTS AND BOLTS OF APPROVING EACH VARIANCE. AND EACH IS TO ME, BUT WE HAVE TO WELL, WE NEED IN CASE THERE IS SOMEBODY WHO WANTS TO APPEAL IT, WE NEED TO JUSTIFY OUR DECISION.

I'M SURE IT'D MAKE ISABEL MUCH HAPPIER. CORRECT? CORRECT. SO YOU YOU SHOULD. AND IF YOU FOLLOW THE THE STAFF REPORT, IT KIND OF WALKS YOU THROUGH THE VARIOUS VARIANCES AND, AND YOUR STAFF CAN GO THROUGH IT AGAIN. AND I THINK WHAT I'M HEARING IS THE APPLICANT AND THE PCB WANT TO REMOVE ONE OF THE VARIANCES, WHICH WAS FOR THE PARKING. SO THAT WILL REQUIRE A LITTLE BIT OF THE OF MODIFICATION TO THE TEXT AND TO THE SITE PLAN, BUT YOU CAN INCORPORATE THAT. AND THEN WE'LL MAKE SURE ON THE STAFF LEVEL THAT WE REVIEW TO, TO, TO MAKE SURE THAT THE, THE DESIGN, THE SITE PLAN AND THE WORDS NOW NO LONGER HAVE THE PARKING VARIANCE, RIGHT? SO IF THAT'S WHAT I'M HEARING AND OTHERWISE MAYBE YOUR STAFF CAN QUICKLY WALK THROUGH IS IT FOR VARIANCES AND THREE USES BY EXCEPTION I FORGET. I'M SORRY. SO REAL QUICK THE THIS CHANGES THE DOCUMENT THAT'S ALREADY BEEN EXECUTED. RIGHT? RIGHT. WELL I'VE GOT THE SIGNATURE PAGES RIGHT. AND I'M IN CONTACT WITH OUR ATTORNEY. AND WE WERE AWARE THAT THERE MIGHT BE SOME MODIFICATIONS LIVE TONIGHT. SO THAT'S NOT A PROBLEM. DON'T WORRY ABOUT THAT. WE'LL WE'LL CLEAN UP THE FINAL VERSION. BUT MAYBE YOUR STAFF CAN GO OVER THE, YOU KNOW, BULLET POINT.

WHAT THE CURRENT LATEST AND GREATEST VARIANCES IN USE BY EXCEPTIONS ARE VARIANCE VARIANCE ONE WOULD BE DENIED AND THEN TWO WOULD BE. AND THEN WE'D NEED TO STATE CAN WE ENMASSE LIST ALL THE VARIANCES AS THEY APPEAR IN OUR PAPERWORK AS WELL AS THE USE THE USES BY EXCEPTION, WHICH ARE GOING TO BE CRITERIA. VERY CRUCIAL. I THINK AN ATTORNEY SHOULD MAKE THE MOTION. THEY IT'S TOO LATE IN THE DAY. WAIT A MINUTE. THEY THEY THEY PUT UP ON THE SCREEN A SITE PLAN OF ALL EIGHT LOTS. AND ON THAT SITE PLAN, HE IDENTIFIED EACH VARIANCE AND EACH EXCEPTION. RIGHT. HE'S PULLING IT UP RIGHT NOW, I BET. YEAH. I JUST WANT JUSTIFICATION SO YOU WON'T BE VOTED OUT THROUGH NUMBER ONE APPEAL. THAT'S WHAT THEY'RE GOING TO USE. SO AND WE JUST NEED FINDINGS ON THESE, WHICH I THINK IS WHAT MR. PAPPAS IS SAYING. SO HE'S SAYING OKAY, THAT'S THE LIST. BUT THEN PLEASE ARTICULATE FINDINGS IN SUPPORT OF THE VARIANCES AND OR VARIANCE. I GUESS NOW YEAH, IT'S STILL PLURAL VARIANCES AND USE BY EXCEPTION. SO IF YOU COULD COULD DO THAT ARTICULATE. BUT WE HAVE TO COME UP WITH A JUSTIFICATION. CORRECT. LIKE YOU DO FOR EVERY APPLICATION. YOU DO IT ON EVERY SINGLE APPLICATION. YOU'LL JUST KIND OF HAVE TO GO THROUGH THIS ONE TOO, IF YOU DON'T MIND. YEAH.

THIS IS JUST LIKE 20 APPLICATIONS. I WANT YOU ALL TO KNOW MOST GOVERNMENTS WOULDN'T DO THIS FOR YOU. I MEAN, REALLY LITERALLY, IT WOULDN'T JUST SO A MOTION TO APPROVE A USE BY

[05:25:07]

YEAH. THAT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE. GENERALLY THROUGHOUT THE ZONING DISTRICT BUT WHICH WOULD NOT BE APPROPRIATE GENERALLY THROUGHOUT THE ZONING DISTRICT. BUT IF CONTROLLED AS TO NUMBER, AREA, LOCATION OR RELATION TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD, WHERE WOULD PROMOTE THE PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY, WELFARE, MORALS, ORDER, COMFORT, CONVENIENCE, APPEARANCE, PROSPERITY OR GENERAL WELFARE. SO IF YOU COULD TIE IN SOME OF THE FACTUAL INFORMATION YOU'VE HEARD OVER THESE LAST TWO HEARINGS TO THAT CRITERIA. ON THE BASIS THAT THE PROPOSED SPECIAL EVENT VENUE WILL BENEFIT THE OVERALL APPEARANCE AND GENERAL WELFARE OF THE CITY, INCLUDING THE PUBLIC HEALTH, PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY, WELFARE AND MORALS OF. RESIDENTS IN THE CITY? YES, THAT'S THE CRITERIA IF YOU CAN ARTICULATE FINDINGS. SO YOU HEARD ABOUT REUSE OF EXISTING PHYSICAL STRUCTURES, RIGHT? YOU HEARD ABOUT EXISTING STRUCTURES CONSISTENT WITH THE HISTORICAL STANDARDS. HISTORICAL STRUCTURES, HISTORICAL REUSE OF HISTORICAL EXISTING STRUCTURES. BECAUSE HISTORICAL IS AN IMPORTANT FACT, BECAUSE THAT'S A PUBLIC BENEFIT.

I DON'T KNOW WHO'S WRITING IT DOWN, BUT. ANYTHING ELSE, NOT USUALLY DON'T USUALLY DO THESE THINGS ON THIS. YEAH, I DON'T LIKE THIS. WHAT WAS THE OTHER VARIANCE? DIDN'T WE HAVE THE OTHER VARIANCE WASN'T USED BY EXCEPTION FOR A HOTEL. AND SO THAT'S THE SAME CRITERIA RIGHT.

SO IF YOU COULD ARTICULATE SOME FINDINGS BASED ON THE TWO HEARINGS YOU HAD. PROMOTES THE APPEARANCE, PROSPERITY AND WELFARE OF THE COMMUNITY AND MAINTAINS THE HISTORICAL CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. ANYTHING ELSE? I THINK THAT'S THAT'S GOOD FOR THE EXCEPTIONS.

WHAT ELSE DO WE HAVE ON EXCEPTIONS? THOSE ARE THE TWO USES BY EXCEPTION. DO YOU WANT.

WOULD IT BE EASIER FOR YOU TO VOTE ON THE TWO EXCEPTIONS AND THEN VOTE ON THE VARIANCES ONE BY ONE OR BUNDLE THEM. YES. OKAY. BUNDLE THEM THE VARIANCES. CAN WE MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THOSE TWO USES OF EXCEPTION. YES. I WAS JUST THINKING MIGHT BE EASIER JUST TO TAKE LITTLE BITES RATHER THAN ONE BIG BITE. BUT IT'S UP TO YOU. YEAH. IS THAT HELPFUL TO YOU. SO NOW YOU'VE GOTTEN YOU'VE MADE MOTIONS. I WILL SECOND THAT MOTION FOR THE TWO USES BY EXCEPTION, TWO USES BY EXCEPTION. AND THE MOTION WAS MADE BY OUR CHAIR AND SECONDED BY MR. PAPPAS. AND I GUESS NOW ROLL ON THOSE ON THE USES BY EXCEPTION. SUSAN JOHNS. YES.

CHARLES PAPPAS. YES. ZACHARY TUCKER. YES. WILLIAM TUNSTALL. YES. JOHN KELLY. YES. NO. I GOTTA IT'S OKAY. I CAN'T SPLIT EXPLAIN. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. SO THEN WE GET INTO THE REQUEST FOR VARIANCES. IS THE REQUEST FOR A REDUCTION IN PARKING VARIANCE WITHDRAWN? YES. I JUST HAVE A QUESTION. THAT'S THE RIGHT TERM ON THE. YES, THAT IS OKAY. DID WE COVER THE SPECIAL EVENT VENUE. YES. YES. OKAY. I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE IT'S GOING PAST ME. YES. OKAY. YES.

THE NEXT VARIANCE REQUEST IS TO INCREASE THE ALLOWABLE LOT COVERAGE FOR 129 NEVADA STREET TO 44% AND 131 OVER ADA STREET TO 40%. OKAY, QUESTION FOR YOU. NEED A SECOND? SHE NEEDS

[05:30:07]

YES. OKAY. SO POINT OF ORDER. THERE IS A MOTION ON THE FLOOR, PARTIAL MOTION BECAUSE WE'RE GOING TO DO ALL THE VARIANCES TOGETHER. IS THE VOTE GOING TO BE ON ALL FOUR OF THEM TOGETHER OR ARE WE VOTING ON ALL WE WERE. DID YOU NOT WANT IT THAT WAY? WELL, HERE AGAIN, I'M TRYING TO GET THIS INTO ONE PACKAGE. AND SO THAT'S THAT'S WHY I WOULD RATHER DO IT AS ONE MOTION.

BECAUSE IF WE SEPARATE THEM, IT'S NOT ONE PACKAGE ANYMORE. RIGHT. SO BECAUSE WHAT IN THE END, WHAT I'D LIKE YOU ALL TO AGREE TO IS TO PUT THIS OVERALL SITE PLAN AS PART OF THE RECORDED DOCUMENT THAT GETS RECORDED. RIGHT. WE UNDERSTAND THAT. BUT IF YOU COULD SPEAK CLOSER TO THE MICROPHONE BECAUSE WE'RE SIMPLY NOT BEING CRITICAL TO ME, I MEAN, PERSONALLY, IT IS AND I THINK IT WOULD BE BENEFICIAL TO THE APPLICANT TO IS THAT THE RECORDED DOCUMENT INCLUDES A COMPLETE SITE PLAN SHOWING THE ENTIRE. YOU CAN TIE THAT IN WITH EACH EXCEPTION, ESPECIALLY ON THAT ONE, WHICH HAS. I THINK THE APPLICANT HAS ALREADY AGREED TO IT, AND I SAID I'D PUT IT IN HOW WE DO THIS AS WELL. I THINK IT'S BEEN. IT'S BEEN REQUESTED BY THE APPLICANT. THE APPLICANT, UNLESS I MISHEARD, SAID YES. THEY AGREED TO PUT THE. THE COMPREHENSIVE. THERE'S NOTHING ELSE FOR YOU TO DO. THAT'S GOING TO BE PART OF IT. I'VE GOT MY DIRECTION. THE APPLICANT HAS AGREED. I'LL WORK IT THROUGH WITH WITH THEIR ATTORNEY. SO NOW YOU'VE GOT THE VARIANCES THAT YOU NEED TO TAKE ACTION ON, RIGHT. AND IT'S UP TO YOU IF YOU WANT TO DO VOICE VOTES OR, YOU KNOW, ROLL VOTES FOR EACH ONE INDIVIDUALLY, OR IF YOU WANT TO GO THROUGH ALL THE VARIANCES, YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO HAVE FINDINGS FOR YOUR VARIANCES. SO THAT'S THE PART WHERE YOU'RE AT RIGHT NOW. I THINK WE SHOULD DO ALL OF THEM TOGETHER BECAUSE EACH ONE IS CONTINGENT UPON THE OTHER. YEAH. SO YOU DID. THE NEXT ONE IS YOU HAVE IS THE ELIMINATION OF INTERIOR SETBACKS. I TO ELIMINATE THE INTERIOR SETBACK REQUIREMENTS FOR THE MAIN AND GROTTO POOLS, BECAUSE THE MAIN POOL IS SITUATED OVER THE PROPERTY LINES BETWEEN TWO PARCELS AND KING STREET, AND THE GROTTO POOL IS SITUATED OVER THE PROPERTY LINE BY BETWEEN TWO OTHER PARCELS IN KING STREET AND THE REQUIRED POOL. SETBACKS TO THE WATER'S EDGE ARE FIVE FEET, SO THE POOLS SPAN THE PROPERTY LINES AND SO THEREFORE THERE IS NOT A SETBACK. THE NEXT VARIANCE REQUEST IS TO ELIMINATE THE REAR AND SIDE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS AT 130 AND 132 KING STREET. FOR THE NEW PROPOSED BUILDING ON SITE, THE REQUIRED REAR AND SIDE YARD SETBACKS ARE FIVE FEET IN CL2 ZONING DISTRICT, AND THE PROPOSED BUILDING IS SITUATED ACROSS PROPERTY LINES SO THAT THOSE SETBACKS WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO MEET WITH THE ONE STRUCTURE SPANNING TWO PROPERTY LINES. THE NEXT VARIANCE REQUEST IS TO ELIMINATE THE REAR SETBACK REQUIREMENT AND REDUCE THE SIDE SETBACK TO FIVE FEET. AT 129 OF ADA STREET, TWO. BECAUSE THE NEW PROPOSED BUILDING IS LOCATED OVER THE REAR PROPERTY LINE OF THAT PARCEL AND IS ALSO LOCATED AT THE PARCEL OF 130 KING STREET, AND THE REQUEST INCLUDES A REDUCTION IN THE SIDE SETBACK FROM THE REQUIRED 10FT TO 5FT FOR THE BALCONY. FOR THE BALCONIES ATTACHED TO THE NEW HOTEL UNITS ON THE SECOND AND THIRD FLOORS, AND A REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE TO ELIMINATE THE REAR SETBACK REQUIREMENTS AND REDUCE SIDE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS FOR THE NEW PROPOSED BUILDING. ON SITE AT 131 OVIEDO STREET. THE PROPOSED BUILDING IS LOCATED OVER THE REAR PROPERTY LINE OF 131 STREET AND INTO 132 KING STREET, AND THE SIDE OF THE BUILDING IS CLOSE TO THE PROPERTY LINE BETWEEN 131 AND 133 OF STREET. WITH THE ADDITION OF EAVES AND ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES, AND THEN THE FINAL VARIANCE REQUEST IS TO ELIMINATE THE SIDE AND REAR SETBACK REQUIREMENTS FOR AN EXISTING STRUCTURE ON SITE. AT 136 KING STREET. TO USE THE

[05:35:11]

AND THAT WITHOUT MAKE WITHOUT GRANTING THESE VARIANCES THERE, THEY WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO MAKE REASONABLE USE OF THAT PROPERTY WITHOUT DEMOLISHING EXISTING HISTORICAL BUILDINGS. THE BUILDING DESIGN AND LAYOUT PREDATE THE OWNER'S PURCHASE OF THE PROPERTY. AND THEN IN TERMS OF. LET'S SEE, THE GRANT AS THE REQUEST FOR THE VARIANCE IS NOT CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST WILL NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT OTHER PROPERTY IN THE VICINITY, AND WILL BE IN HARMONY WITH THE SPIRIT AND INTENT AND PURPOSE OF THIS SECTION. AND SO THE MOTION IS TO APPROVE THAT VARIANCE AS STATED. I'LL SECOND THAT. OKAY. WE'RE DOING ALL OF THEM NOW. YES, YES. AND NOTED THAT THESE ARE ALL BETTER DESCRIBED IN THE THE COMPLETE SITE PLAN. AND DO WE NEED TO IDENTIFY THAT DRAWING? I MEAN, I'M LOOKING AT ONE THE COMPLETE SITE PLAN, WHICH INCLUDES THE PARKING. WELL, THAT'S THE ONE WE'RE GOING TO USE, RIGHT. AND IT'LL BE UPDATED TO REMOVE THAT FIRST REQUEST FOR THE PARKING. OKAY. AND THEN HOW DO WE WE CAN'T ASK THE CITY COMMISSION TO REVIEW IT. WE CAN JUST ASK THAT THEY OR CAN CAN WE ASK THEY CAN'T CHANGE ANYTHING.

THEY CAN'T CHANGE YOUR ORDER UNLESS SOMEONE APPEALS. RIGHT. SO NOW WE'RE BACK TO FULL CIRCLE. AND WE HADN'T HAD A CHANCE TO HEAR FROM THE APPLICANT ON WHAT YOU WANT TO DO WITH THE THE COVENANTS AND RESTRICTIONS. DO YOU WANT TO JUST ACCEPT THEM AS THEY'LL HAVE TO BE AMENDED, OBVIOUSLY, TO CONFORM WITH NO LONGER HAVING THE PARKING VARIANCE? OR DO YOU WISH TO ACCEPT THEM BUT SEND THEM OFF FOR INFORMATION TO THE CITY COMMISSION OR FOR CONCURRENCE TO THE CITY COMMISSION? AND I HAVEN'T HEARD FROM THE APPLICANT WHETHER THAT'S HELPFUL TO THEM TO OR WHAT THEIR VIEW IS ON THAT. WHEN YOU HAVE BASICALLY REMOVED THE PARKING VARIANCE, DOES IT HAVE TO COME BACK TO US FOR APPROVAL? NO, NO. WITHOUT COMING BACK. CORRECT. YEAH. I'LL BECAUSE THAT'S NO LONGER PART OF YOUR DEVELOPMENT ORDER.

RIGHT. SO I'M GOING TO HAVE TO MAKE IT CONFORM TO YOUR DEVELOPMENT. WE ALREADY VOTED ON THE PARKING LOT. WE HAD A MOTION ON CHAIRPERSON JONES MADE A MOTION THAT INCLUDED MADE A MOTION THAT INCLUDED WITHDRAWAL, THE WITHDRAWAL OF THE PARKING SPACES. SO THAT'S DONE. SO TO GET IT IN FRONT OF THE CITY COMMISSION, WE HAVE TO ASK THEM. RIGHT. WELL, THAT WELL, I'D LIKE THEM TO HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY. BUT RIGHT NOW YOU'VE GOT A MOTION ON THE FLOOR WITH I THINK A SECOND, IF I REMEMBER RIGHT. YES. MY QUESTION ON ALL THE VARIANCES ISSUE OF GETTING IT TO THE CITY COMMISSION IN THIS MOTION, OR CAN WE JUST VOTE ON THE MOTION? I WOULD YOU'VE GOT TO VOTE ON THE ON THE ORDER, RIGHT? BECAUSE THAT'S WITHIN YOUR PURVIEW. THEN WE CAN HAVE THE CONVERSATION OF WHETHER OR NOT YOU WANT ME AND THE APPLICANT TO BRING TO CITY COMMISSION THE COVENANTS AND RESTRICTIONS, WHICH ARE JUST A REITERATION OF WHAT'S GOING TO BE IN YOUR ORDER. AND THAT WOULD JUST BE US ADVISING. SO THIS MOTION NEEDS TO GO THROUGH WITH MAKING THEM AWARE. THEN IF WE WISH, WE CAN ADVISE THE NEXT THING CORRECT. DOCUMENTED THE JUSTIFICATION FOR ALL THE VARIANCES. AND WE'RE GOING TO INCLUDE THE SITE PLAN RIGHT UP THERE. AND YES AND WE'RE GOING TO VOTE ON IT. RIGHT. WE GOT IT.

WE ARE OKAY. YES. I'M SORRY, BUT I JUST GOTTA ASK YOU TO PLEASE CALL THE ROLL. ROLL CALL PLEASE. SUSAN JONES. YES. CHARLES PAPPAS. YES. ZACHARY TUCKER. YES. WILLIAM TUNSTALL.

YES. JAN. KELLY. YES. CARL BLOW. YES, THAT WAS YOUR CHANCE. NOW, I COULD CALL UP THE EXCEPTION THING AND CHANGE SINCE I VOTED AGAINST IT FROM AND AND GET TO VOTE FOR IT. I'M NOT GOING TO DO THAT. YEAH, WE'D HAVE TO. WE'D HAVE TO BRING IT BACK. AND YEAH, ROBERT'S RULES OF ORDER

[05:40:04]

NO, NO, THE, THE ONE THAT'S ON THEIR PROPERTY ONCE ON, ON THEIRS, WE'RE STILL DISCUSSING ON WHETHER WELL, I KNOW Y'ALL ARE GOING TO KILL ME, BUT MY ONLY COMMENT THERE IS, IS THAT, YOU KNOW, THEY DON'T DO THE TREE REMOVAL UNTIL THEY HAVE A BUILDING PERMIT TO START WORK.

I MEAN, THAT'S FINE. YEAH, I'M, I'M SURE THAT'S FINE WITH THEM. IF TREE REMOVAL IS CONTINGENT ON HAVING A BUILDING PERMIT, YOUR OTHER APPROVALS, YOU KNOW, YOUR STORMWATER. OH, I THINK THAT MAKES SENSE. I THINK THAT THERE'S YEAH, WE JUST THAT WOULD BE A CONDITION. SO IS THAT YOUR MOTION? YES. I'LL SECOND THAT. OKAY. THE MOTION. THE MOTION IS TO APPROVE THE CONSERVATION ZONE THREE. I BELIEVE IT IS TREE REMOVAL SUBJECT TO THE APPLICANT RECEIVING THEIR REQUIRED BUILDING PERMITS FOR THE RENOVATION AND ALSO STORMWATER SYSTEM AND SITE WORK, SOMETHING LIKE THAT. RIGHT. I'LL SECOND. OKAY. PLEASE. CARL. YES. JAN.

KELLY. YES. ZACHARY TUCKER. YES. WILLIAM TUNSTALL. YES. CHARLES PAPPAS. YES. SUSAN JOHNS. YES.

[9.b) PZB2026-0099 Joe Bruce - Applicant c/o Flagler College Flagler College - Owner 74 Riberia St To approve the removal of a significant tree within Conservation Overlay Zone 3.]

STAFF REPORT PLEASE. THIS IS A REQUEST FOR CONSERVATION OVERLAY ZONE DEVELOPMENT FOR THE REMOVAL OF ONE SIGNIFICANT TREE, A 28 INCH LIVE OAK WITHIN CONSERVATION OVERLAY ZONE THREE AT 74 RIBERIA STREET. THE PROPERTY BORDERS 129 OVIEDO STREET, WHERE THE KING STREET BOUTIQUE ENDS. NEW PARKING AND HOTEL BUILDING IS PROPOSED TO BE DEVELOPED. TWO NEW SOUTHERN MAGNOLIA TREES WILL BE PLANTED ON SITE TO REPLACE THE LIVE OAK. REVIEW OF SECTION 11-29 IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD FOR THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT WITHIN CONSERVATION OVERLAY ZONE THREE. ANYTHING TO ADD TO THIS? NO. IT WAS THE SAME TREE YOU SAW BEFORE, 5% OF IT, WHICH HAPPENS TO BE THE PART IN THE GROUND IS ON FLAGLER'S PROPERTY. 95% OVERLAPS. AND AND YOU SAW THE CONFLICTS. IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, I'M HAPPY TO RUN THROUGH THEM. BUT I THINK YOU GUYS HAVE LOOKED AT THIS ONE THOROUGHLY. ANY PUBLIC COMMENT? LET'S SEE. 11 NOTICES WERE SENT OUT, THREE IN FAVOR, ZERO WITH ZERO IN OPPOSITION. AND ONE

[05:45:11]

FAMILIAR WITH THE SITE? NONE. OKAY. BOARD DISCUSSION. NO COMMENTS. WHAT'S ALREADY THERE? I SEE CARL READY TO GO. WELL, HEARING NONE, I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE. PB 2026-0090. TO APPROVE THE VARIANCE TO THE SITE. OH, WAIT. SORRY. EXCUSE ME. I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION ON PB 2026 0099 TO APPROVE THE REMOVAL OF A SIGNIFICANT TREE WITHIN CONSERVATION OVERLAY ZONE THREE. I THINK IT WAS TREES. WELL, IT'S NOT ONE BIG TREE. ONE BIG TREE. YEAH, WELL, I'LL SECOND IT, BUT I WAS WONDERING IF YOU WOULD MODIFY YOUR MOTION TO.

DELAY THE REMOVAL OF THE TREE UNTIL SUCH TIME. THE ADJOINING PROPERTY GETS ALL THE REQUIRED PERMITS BECAUSE THE TREE LOOKS. IT'S A REALLY COOL TREE AND IT LOOKS PRETTY HEALTHY. RIGHT? YEAH YEAH, YEAH. THE TREE IS HEALTHY. YOU CAN SEE WHAT YOU CAN SEE THE PICTURE OF IT. IT JUST HAS THAT TREMENDOUS LEAN BECAUSE THERE WASN'T THERE WAS A HUGE CAMPHOR NEXT TO IT, WHICH IS SINCE DECEASED. YEAH. WOULDN'T I GUESS THE BIG ROOTS FOR THIS LIVE OAK RUN ONTO FLAGLER. I MEAN, THEY RUN EAST. THEY'RE EVERYWHERE. YEAH. THEY GO BACKYARD. YEAH. THEY GO IN EVERY DIRECTION. YEAH. YOU KNOW, I MEAN, IT'S NOT ABOUT THE FALL, RIGHT? YEAH. IT'S JUST IT'S JUST ABOUT THAT. YOU CAN SEE THIS DIAGRAM. BUT I MEAN, IN YOUR OPINION, IS IT A HEALTHY OR A SAFETY PROBLEM. I MEAN NO, IT'S NOT A SAFETY PROBLEM. THE TREE WOULD IF IT WERE TOTALLY LEFT ALONE, IT WOULD STAND. AND AS LONG AS YOU DON'T CUT THE ROOTS OR DO ANYTHING LIKE THAT, YOU'RE ALL RIGHT. CORRECT. OKAY. WELL, THAT THAT'S MY. SO THE MOTION WOULD BE SUBJECT TO APPROVAL OF ALL OF THE BUILDING PERMITS AND THE ADJACENT PROPERTY IN CONNECTION WITH THE KING STREET BOUTIQUE IN. AND I'LL SECOND THAT VOTE, PLEASE. SORRY, I THOUGHT MR. BLOW SECONDED THE MOTION. NO, HE COMMENTED, THE MOTION. WELL, I THINK MR. PAPPAS DID A BETTER SECOND. YOU CAN HAVE IT. NO, MAN. THAT'S ALL RIGHT. JEN. KELLY. YES. YES. ZACHARY.

TUCKER. YES. WILLIAM. TUNSTALL. YES. CARL. BLOW. YES. SUSAN JOHNS. YES. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

YES YOU MAY. THANK YOU. I'M JUST I JUST WANT TO COMMENT ON ONE OF THE PUBLIC COMMENTS MENTIONED ABOUT THE CITY'S INITIATIVE FOR TRYING TO MAKE US A LITTLE MORE WALKABLE.

THAT'S IN THE 2020-2040 MOBILITY PLAN, WHICH PROMOTES MULTI MODE INITIATIVES. IN CASE SOMEBODY WANTS TO LOOK IT UP. WELL, IN ADDITION TO THAT, WE THIS THIS BOARD HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE DESIGN OF THE KING STREET. YEAH. NO, I WAS JUST COMMENTING AS WE'RE NOT PUSHING SOMETHING THAT'S I'M I'M NOT PUSHING SOMETHING. THAT'S MY AGENDA. I'M PUSHING SOMETHING THAT WENT THROUGH A LOT OF CITY REVIEWS OVER THE LAST 3 OR 4 YEARS. SIX. YEAH. OR SIX. YEAH.

[10.a) Election of Chair and Vice Chair.]

I CAN PAY MORE ATTENTION TO WHAT'S GOING ON IF I'M NOT WORRYING ABOUT RUNNING THE MEETING. RIGHT. IT'S TOTALLY UP TO YOU. WE CAN NOMINATE SOMEBODY ELSE. BUT YOU, IF YOU DON'T WANT TO DO IT. IF I WOULD HAVE, I'D BE HAPPY TO HAVE SOMEONE ELSE DO IT. OKAY. WELL, OKAY. I WOULD NOMINATE MIKE DAVIS FOR CHAIRPERSON. I'LL SECOND THAT. DO WE NEED A VOTE? VOICE VOTE. YEAH. VOICE. ALL IN FAVOR? I OKAY. AND CHAIRPERSON OR VICE CHAIRPERSON. I MEAN.

[05:50:12]

I KNOW I WAS NEW ON THE BOARD WHEN YOU DID THAT. I'LL SECOND THAT NOMINATION FOR CHARLES PAPPAS AND VOICE OR YEAH. VOICE VOTE. YEAH. ALL IN FAVOR? I. FROM YOUR END, ALL OF YOU GUYS THAT VOTE. KING STREET. I WANT TO I WANT TO WELCOME OUR NEW BOARD MEMBER. YEAH. AND I WANT TO ASK, DID YOUR WIFE TOTALLY BRIEF YOU ON WHAT IT WAS LIKE BEING I GOT BAMBOOZLED, YOU GOT BAMBOOZLED, DIDN'T YOU? SHE SAID, THIS IS A PIECE OF CAKE. IT LASTS 30 MINUTES, MAX.

YOU'LL BE HOME EARLY. YEAH. SHE ALWAYS SPOKE VERY HIGHLY OF HER TIME ON THE BOARD. AND, YOU KNOW, I FELT LIKE I COULD. I HAVE SOMETHING TO OFFER. SO SHE WAS SHE WAS RELUCTANT TO STEP DOWN BECAUSE SHE FELT LIKE SHE'D BE DOING THE COMMUNITY A DISSERVICE. SO I THINK THAT BUT SHE WANTS TO DO SOME OTHER THINGS WITH HER TIME. AND SO I WAS LOOKING FOR SOMETHING ELSE TO CONTRIBUTE TO. AND IT JUST WAS A HAPPY SORT OF TRANSITION OF RESPONSIBILITIES. I GUESS ONE WAY TO LOOK AT IT. THAT'S GREAT. I'M HONORED THAT THE CITY ACCEPTED MY, I GUESS, APPOINTED ME. SO HAPPY TO BE HERE. YEAH. I DON'T KNOW ABOUT YOU GUYS. WE'RE HONORED TO HAVE YOU. AND I HOPE YOU DON'T RESIGN WHEN YOU WALK OUT OF HERE. SO.

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.