[00:00:08]
GOOD EVENING. WE WILL CALL TO ORDER THE REGULARLY SCHEDULED MEETING OF
[ROLL CALL]
THE BOARD OF ZONING AND ADJUSTMENT. START WITH A ROLL CALL VOTE.[APPROVAL OF MINUTES]
>> ANYONE HAVE ANY COMMENTS OVER LAST MONTH'S MINUTES? I BRIEFLY REVIEWED EVERYTHING UP HERE. I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES.
[CHAIRMAN’S OPENING REMARKS]
>> I HAVE AN OPENING REMARK TO MAKE. ANY PERSON AGGRIEVED BY ANY DECISION OF THE BOARD MADE THE 15 DAYS AFTER SUCH DECISION APPEALED TO THE CIRCUIT COURT HAVING JURISDICTION ACCORDING TO SECTION 908.02 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF AUBURN, ALABAMA. WE NORMALLY HAVE OUR BOARD HAS FIVE REGULAR MEMBERS ONE OF OUR
[1. Variance to Section 502.02(D), Performance Residential Developments, Twin House, of the City of Auburn Zoning Ordinance BZ-2022-003]
REGULAR MEMBERS IS ABSENT TONIGHT SO LETICIA WILL DELIVER THE LIVER THIS EVENING.>> GOOD AFTERNOON. THE FIRST ITEM BEFORE YOU THIS EVENING IS A REQUEST FROM JOEL FUNDERBURK FOR THREE VARIANCES TO THE MAXIMUM ALLOWED 30 PERCENT SAR FOR TWIN HOUSES.
THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED ON THE CORNER,, TWO SECONDS. THERE WE GO, OKAY.
SORRY. THANK YOU, LOGAN. SO THE PROPERTIES ARE LOCATED ON THE CORNER OF SUMMERHILL AND HARVARD AVENUE. AND THAT THE MDR D ZONING DISTRICT. EACH PROPERTY IS ABOUT 2/10 OF AN ACRE AND THEY ARE REQUESTING TO DEMOLISH THE EXISTING DUPLEXES. SHOWN HERE.
AND REPLACE WITH TWO SETS OF TWIN HOMES. ESSENTIALLY, REPLACING THE DUPLEXES WITH TWIN HOUSES. AND THE CURRENT FOOTPRINT OF LOT 14 SORRY, HOLD ON.
JUST, NEVERMIND, HERE WE GO. OKAY, THIS IS 15 SO THE CURRENT FOOTPRINT OF THIS PROPERTY IS 1900 SQUARE FEET SO EACH SIDE IS APPROXIMATELY 960 SQUARE FEET.
THE OTHER UNIT OR THE OTHER DUPLEX ON HARBOR IS A LITTLE SMALLER THAN THAT 1700 SQUARE FEET WITH EACH SIDE BEING 865 SQUARE FEET. THEY ARE PROPOSING TO DO FOUR UNITS, TWO TWIN HOUSES, THANK YOU, AND EACH ONE OF THEM WILL BE A PROXIMATELY 1580 SQUARE FEET. SO IS IT INCREASE AND 400 SQUARE FEET APPROXIMATELY FOR EACH LOT. WHEN THE MAXIMUM IS 30 PERCENT THAT COULD YOU ABOUT 1200 SQUARE FEET OF A FULL AREA ALLOWED. THEY ARE REQUESTING AN ADDITIONAL 400 SQUARE FEET TO HAVE 1500 TOTAL WHICH WOULD INCREASE THE SAR BY 10 PERCENT.
THERE ARE NO HARDSHIPS ON THE PROPERTY OR THE LAND. HOWEVER, THERE ARE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES. THAT BEING AS THE STAT REPORTS SAYS, TOWNHOUSES ARE ALSO PERMITTED BY RATE TO USE IN THIS ZONING DISTRICT.AND TOWNHOUSES HAVE AN FAR ALLOWS OF 1.5. SO, ESSENTIALLY, IF THEY DIVIDED THE PROPERTY INTO FOUR FEE SIMPLE LOT, FOR TOWNHOUSES, EACH OF THOSE LOTS COULD ACCOMMODATE 1.5 FAR WHICH IS
[00:05:03]
6800 SQUARE FEET. A TWIN HOUSE HAS A FAR OF 30 PERCENT AND THEY ARE ONLY ALLOWED 1200. SQUARE FEET. THAT IS A UNIQUE SITUATION.IF YOU ARE THOROUGHLY CONFUSED I WILL TRY TO HELP.
>> WE HAVE RUN INTO THIS BEFOR , IT WAS AN ODDITY IN THE CODE BECAUSE WHAT THE SQUARE FOOTAGE DOES NOT SEEM TO BE THAT LARGE OF A PRODUCT.
>> IT IS NOT. EXISTING DUPLEXES I BELIEVE ARE TWO VETERANS.
THIS ONE IS ABOUT 1600, LITTLE LESS THAN 1600.HE LIVING AREA IS A LITTLE LARGER AND THERE IS AN ADDITIONAL BEDROOM SO IT'S A THREE BEDROOM AND BATH.
>> HOW ARE THEY ACCOMMODATED FOR PARKING? DO THEY HAVE DIFFERENT PARKING I ONLY SEE TWO PARKING SPACES.
>> WILL BE ADDRESSED WHEN THEY COME IN DIFFERENT FOR REVIEW. THEY ARE REQUIRED FOR HAVE A PARKING SPACE FOR EACH BEDROOM. THEY WILL ACCOMMODATE THAT ON-SITE.
THEY ARE NOT SHOWN BUT THEY CAN ACCOMMODATE IT.AND THEY HAVE PLENTY ISR REMAINING TO ACCOMMODATE THAT. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS?
>> THIS WILL BE SPLIT INTO FOUR LOTS?
>> WHAT YOU ARE SAYING SO IT MEETS THE METAL LOTS WITH REQUIREMENTS ALL OF THAT, OBVIOUSLY. WHAT YOU ARE SAYING THAT COULD BE 1600 SQUARE FEET IF IT WAS ONE BIG TOWNHOUSE DEVELOPMENT.
>> STILL FEE SIMPLE, STILL ON FOUR SEPARATE LOTS BUT IF YOU PROVIDED, YOU VIEW DIVIDED THE PROPERTY OF PEOPLE INTO FOUR THE LOT SIZE WOULD BE ABOUT 4300, EACH LOT.
THEN THE FAR POPULATION OR THAT COMES OUT TO 6800 SQUARE FEET.
>> STAFF IS RECOMMENDING DENIAL.
>> AS YOU NOTE IN YOUR REPORT IT SAYS THEY NEED TO COMPLY WITH LETTER A DRAFT IF YOU READ EACH ONE OF THOSE AND VISUALLY WE DID FIND ALL OF THEM WITHIN THE EXCEPTION D, WE FOUND LETTER A THROUGH F, CAN YOU READ THAT LETTER BECAUSE IT IS ON.
ANYWAY, THE REPORT SPELLS OUT THE REQUIREMENTS THAT HAVE TO BE MET IS YOU HAVE TO COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF LETTER A THROUGH F OF THE CODE. ALL OF THOSE I BELIEVE STAFF INDICATED THERE WAS NOT AN ISSUE WITH THEM EXCEPT FOR D AND I WANT TO POINT OUT TO YOU BECAUSE WE DID NOT FIND FINDINGS THAT SUPPORTED EVERY ONE OF THOSE THAT WAS THE REASON FOR THE RECOMMENDATION.
>> YOU ALL ARE GOING STRICTLY BY THE.
>> AS WAS MENTIONED THEY ARE TRYING TO REPLACE SOME OLDER DUPLEXES WITH SEMINAR PRODUCT AND MAKE IT A LITTLE LARGER TO MAKE IT MORE LIVABLE. THAT IS WHERE YOU GET THAT EXTRA BUMP UP IN THE SQUARE FOOTAGE I WANTED TO POINT OUT ALL THE INDICATIONS AND FAXED TO SEQUENCE CONSIDER ALL OF THAT. IF YOU FIND THEY ACTUALLY COMPLY WITH D THEN THAT WOULD BE SOMETHING YOU WOULD WANT TO STATES AS PART OF THE RECORD AND IN DETERMINING ALL THE ISSUES THAT YOU FIND IT DOES COMPLY WITH ALL OF THOSE.
I JUST WANTED TO MAKE THAT CLEAR.
>> IS THE APPLICANT HERE AND WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK?F YOU WOULD COME IN AND SIGN UP PLEASE.
>> HELLO, I AM A JOEL FUNDERBURK WHAT I LIKE TO DO IS ON THE TWIN HOMES IT GIVES A SIDE YARD INSTEAD OF JUST BEING A BIG TOWNHOUSE BUILDING WHERE THERE IS FOR BILLS TOGETHER.
BY SEPARATING THEM IT GIVES A SIDE YARD AND THAT IS THE ONLY REASON I DID IT THIS WAY IS TO
[00:10:02]
GIVE A LITTLE BIT OF SEPARATION BETWEEN UNITS. OTHER THAN THAT, I COULD PUT THEM TOGETHER AND IT WOULD PASS. I JUST WANTED TO HAVE THIS EFFORT.>> SO THIS IS WHAT IS PERMITTED?
>> YES, IF OF THE 30 FEET BETWEEN THEM THEY ARE NOT PERMITTED.
>> >> IS NOT WHAT YOU ARE PROPOSING? JUST TO SPLIT THEM UP BY 30 FEET, THAT'S ALL I WANT TO.
>> YOU JUST WANT TO DIVIDEDDOWN THE MIDDLE ? OKAY, I WAS MAKING SURE WE ARE
ON THE SAME PAGE. >> WILL THESE BE RENTAL?
>> I WILL OWN THEM, I OWNED IT FOR 20 SOMETHING YEARS I MIGHT SELL THEM I DON'T KNOW.
BUT PROBABLY KEEP THEM AND READ TO THEM. RENT THEM.
>> YOU CAN STILL RENT THEM IF THERE TOWNHOMES, WHY ARE THEY TWIN HOMES AND TOWNHOMES ESCAPE BECAUSE THERE IS TOO?
>> YES. IF THERE IS THREE THERE IS A TOWNHOME IF THERE'S TWO IT'S A TWIN HOME.
>> WE RAN INTO THIS ON SANFORD HE WENT THROUGH FOUR STANDALONE HOMES AND THERE WAS FAR ISSUE AND THAT WHAT IS COMES TO MIND HE WANTED LIKE FOR HOUSES AT 3000 SQUARE-FOOT EACH AND IT DID NOT COMPLY. HE COULD DO A 40,000 SQUARE-FOOT THIS AND IT WAS PERMITTED. IT IS THIS ODDITY AND THERE WHERE AS OF TODAY I PREFER TO
SEE A LITTLE SEPARATION. >> IS THERE ANY PLAN TO ADDRESS THIS RECURRING ODDITY?
>> ESPECIALLY AS HARBERT GETS REDEVELOPED.
>> THAT I DO NOT KNOW. >> FROM TIME TO TIME STAFF GOES THROUGH ZONING ORDINANCE AND WE TRY TO LOOK AT ISSUES THAT COME UP AND WE ARE CURRENTLY DOING THAT TO PULL TOGETHER OUR THOUGHTS AND IDEAS ON THINGS. IF THIS IS SOMETHING THAT NEEDS TO BE ADDRESSED WE WILL TAG YOU IDENTIFY IT AND CERTAINLY IT HAS COME UP SO IT WILL BE SOMETHING TO LOOK AT.
>> I LIKE IT BUT I DON'T THINK IT MEETS THE.
>> I AM LOOKING AT MY LIST OF ITEMS TO ADDRESS AND I DON'T SEE IT ON THERE BUT I CAN CERTAINLY ADD IT. I HAVE AN ADDITIONAL PIECE OF PAPER FRONT AND BACK, THEY IS A LOT.
>> I AM ALL FOR THE MORE GREEN SPACE WE CAN GET I JUST FEEL HE SHOULD NOT BE PENALIZED FOR SOMETHING THAT WOULD AUTOMATICALLY LOOK BETTER. AS PUT THEM ALL ON SUMMERHILL
MUCH LESS TRAVELED ROAD. >> THERE IS NO, I DON'T KNOW.
>> YOU CAN BUILD THEM LIKE THIS BUT IT NEEDS TO BE 1200 SQUARE FEET IS THAT WERE SAME?
>> ONLY BECAUSE IT TO A TWO BEDROOM.
>> IF YOU CANNOT DO THIS THEN IT YOUR PLAN MIGHT THINK YOU ADDRESS THIS BEFORE, WOULD BE TO SQUISH THEM TOGETHER? WOULD THEY STILL BE IN THE SAME CURB CUTS THE SAME WAY? BASICALLY, THEY MOVE TOWARDS THE CENTER?
>> THEY COULD BE LARGER TOWNHOUSES? THEY CAN EACH BE 1600 SQUARE FEET.
>> INSTEAD OF 1600 SQUARE FEET.
>> WHICH WE HAVE SEEN, THAT ONE ON THE CORNER OF MILLER, HUGE. ANY MORE QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? WE WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING IF ANYONE HAS ANYTHING TO SAY AGAINST OR IN SUPPORT OF THIS VARIANCE.
>> BASED ON THE DISCUSSION HERE AND SOUNDS OF THE APPLICANT IS LOOKING AT FORT TOWNHOMES AND SAID THIS IS MUCH MORE PALATABLE ANYWHERE IN THE CITY BUT PARTICULARLY IN THIS LOCATION I THINK THE TWO TWIN HOUSES IS MUCH BETTER FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD, THE TRAFFIC, EVERYTHING ELSE. I WOULD IMPLORE YOU APPROVE IT AND LET'S NOT BIG ALL THESE BIG TOWNHOUSES THAT COULD BE UP THERE. I THINK THE APPLICANT IS NOT ASKING TO GO TO 2000 SQUARE-FOOT OR SOMETHING SO IT SEEMS TO BE A REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION GOING FROM A .3 2.4 FAR SO IT SEEMS TO BE A MUCH BETTER OPPORTUNITY THAN WHAT COULD BE BUILT THERE.
>> THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE LIKE TO SPEAK? WE WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC
[00:15:20]
HEARING AND OPEN UP TO THE BOARD FOR DISCUSSION AND OR A MOTION.>> I LIKE IT I JUST DON'T SEE THE CRITERIA IS MET.
>> I THINK IT IS AN ODDITY IN THE CODE AND THAT'S WHERE WE COME IN AT TIMES.
HE'S NOT THREATENING TO BUILD SOMETHING MUCH, MUCH BIGGER BRAIN IS PROBABLY CHEAPER FOR HIM TO BUILD THE OTHER ONE. I DO LIKE THE SIDE YARD AND SPACING.
I THINK IT HAS GOT THE STAFF SAID THERE'S NOT A HARDSHIP ITS UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES AND A LOT OF TIMES THERE ARE NEITHER. I THINK IT IS UNIQUE OR A HARDSHIP, THE CODE ODDITY, I DON'T KNOW WHY IS IT WRITTEN THAT WAY THAT WILL ALLOW THIS MONSTROUS TOWNHOME PROJECT THAT YOU CAN'T DO A REASONABLE TWIN HOME PROJECT.
>> I AGREE. IT DOESN'T MEET THE CRITERIA BUT IT'S ALMOST UNIQUE IN THAT YOU'RE NOT TRYING TO PACK IT U .
>> WE ARE ASKING HIM TO NOT DO SOMETHING RIGHT ON THERE.
>> ALTHOUGH HE COULD BUILD THESE A BIT SMALLER, RIGHT?
>> YOU COULD. I KNOW WE DON'T TAKE FINANCIAL CONSIDERATION INTO PLAY BUT ANY DEVELOPER KNOWS MOST PEOPLE WOULD BE DOING 4 TO 6 FIVE BEDROOM TOWNHOMES.
I KNOW WE DON'T ALWAYS GET INTO THAT SOMETIMES IT'S A LITTLE BIT OF THAT.
THEY ARE PERMITTED TO DO THE PRODUCT IS JUST A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT.
>> THEY COULD CHOOSE TO GO UP LIKE IN THE PICTURE.
>> WHAT DO YOU MEAN?BUILD 1/3 STORY.
>> IT'S ALREADY TWO. >> YOU GOT ALL YOUR BEDROOMS DOWNSTAIRS.
>> THEY ARE A VERY REASONABLE SIZE. I WILL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE BZ 2022 - 003 THE FIRST OF VARIANCE FOR LOT 14/601 HARPER AVENUE A VARIANCE OF 0.10 TWO
MAXIMUM FAR OF 0.14. >> I WILL SECONDS.
>> I WILL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE BZ 2022 - 003 FOUR LOT 14 B 603 HARPER AVENUE BELOW MAXIMUM FAR OF 0.41.
>> I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE BZ 2022 - 003 FOUR LOT 15 B306 SUMMERHILL ROAD UNTIL I VARIANCE OF 0.10 TO ALLOW MAXIMUM FAR OF 0.40.
[2. Variance to Section 429.07, Corridor Overlay Regulations on Fences and Screening, of the City of Auburn Zoning Ordinance BZ-2022-004]
>> THANK YOU THOSE ARE APPROVED. NEXT CASE.
>> THAT EVENING, THE NEXT PHASE IS A VARIANCE REQUEST TO ALLOW UTILITY METERS TO BE LOCATED ON
[00:20:01]
A BUILDING PLANE THATFACES A DESIGNATED CORRIDOR . THE APPLICANT IS LOCATED AT 1212 EIGHT WOULD DRIVE AND THE SEE RDS ZONING DISTRICT. THIS IS ON THE UPPER NORTHERN FRENCH OF THE SEE RDS AND IS ARRANGED ALONG THE ROAD AS WELL AS A LARGE CONCENTRATION AROUND THE MALL ITSELF. TO THE NORTH OF IT YOU HAVE THE COMPREHENSIVE DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT THAT GOES ABOVE GATE WOULD. KIND OF A UNIQUE SITUATION AT LEAST. THE APPLICANT PAYMENT TO US WITH A SITE PLAN FOR A COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT AND A DISLOCATION IN 2019. ABOUT THE GENERAL PROCEDURES WITH THE CITY WENT THROUGH ENGINEERING REVIEW THE DIFFERENT DEPARTMENTS CALLED THE DRC THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW TEAM DURING THAT TIME WE MADE NOTES OF SOME OF THE MADE THE APPLICANT AWARE OF THE CORRIDOR AND REGULATIONS SPECIFICALLY THERE IS A REQUIREMENT IN THE CORRIDOR OVER LAKE REGULATIONS WHICH THIS IS APPLIED TO BECAUSE OF THE UNIVERSITY DRIV . UTILITY METERS, AIR CONDITIONERS AND OTHER MECHANICAL UNITS SHALL NOT BE LOCATED ON ANY PLANE ON THE PRIMARY STRUCTURE FACING A DESIGNATED CORRIDOR, ANY SUCH UTILITIES THAT ARE NOT FACING HAVE TO BE SCREENED USING AN ARCHITECTURALLY DESIGNED OR MATERIAL SIMILAR IN QUALITY TO THE BUILDING FOR ANY KIND OF UTILITY METERS THAT NEED TO BE INSTALLED ON THE EXTERIOR. WE WENT THROUGH THE DRT WITHOUT THE BENEFIT OF ARCHITECTURE PLANS WHICH IS PART OF THE STANDARD PROCEDURE.WE DON'T TYPICALLY GET ARCHITECTURE PLANS AT THAT POINT IN THE GAME.
HOWEVER, WHEN THEY DID GET ARCHITECTURAL PLANS WE WERE NOT ABLE TO REVIEW THEM OTHERWISE WE WOULD HAVE CAUGHT THE FACT THAT UTILITY METERS WERE BEING PLACED ON THEBUILDING .
WHAT WE BELIEVE KEVIN WAS A MISS COMMUNICATION BETWEEN THE DIFFERENT DEVELOPMENT PARTIES WITHIN THE DEVELPMENTS ITSELF . FAST-FORWARD TO THERE WAS A BIT OF A DELAY BECAUSE OF COVID WITH CONSTRUCTION WHEN IT CAME TIME TO DO THE FINAL INSPECTION TO GET THIS CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY WE NOTICED THAT INDEED THERE ARE UTILITY METERS ONTO THE PLANE FACING THE DECIMATED CORRIDOR. HERE YOU SEE A LOT OF UTILITY METERS AND THE LATTER FOR ROOF ACCESS. THE VANTAGE POINT FROM THE CAMERA STANDING ON THE SIDEWALK FROM EACH UNIVERSITY DRIVE AND THIS IS AT THE CORNER OF GATEWOOD AND UNIVERSITY.
THERE IS WORKING SO STAFF HAS BEEN WORKING WITH THE APPLICANT TO TRY TO RECTIFY THE SITUATION. WE DO HAVE, WE DO THINK IT CAN BE MITIGATED BY PLACING A SCREEN IN FRONT OF IT. ALTHOUGH, IDEALLY IT WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN THERE THE FIRST PLACE WE CAN COME UP WORKING WITH THEM TO FIND A SCREEN THAT IS ARCHITECTURALLY DESIGNED AND MEETS THE APPLIED DIRECTOR'S SATISFACTION WE SHOULD BE ABLE TO TAKE CARE OF IT GIVEN THE SCREEN ITSELF AS WELL AS THE GEOGRAPHIC CHANGE THAT YOU SEE HERE WHICH ON YOUR SCREEN NOW IS THAT THE TOPOGRAPHY DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE AREA THAT THE BUILDING IS OUT AND THE ELEVATED AREA OF THE ROAD AND THE SIDEWALK. KAREN WAS THE INITIAL ATTEMPT OR SCREAMING AND USING WOULD. WE FOUND THAT THAT WAS NEITHER ARCHITECTURALLY DESIGNED NOR WAS IT MATERIAL TO MATCH THE BUILDING ITSELF SO IT'S NOT MEET THE MINIMUM STANDARDS.
YOU CAN SEE HERE THE CHANGE IN THE TOPOGRAPHYAS WELL . WE LIST A COUPLE OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS AS PART OF THISTO FACILITATE THE OPENING TO FACILITATE THE OPENING SPACE BETWEEN THE UTILITIES AND THE DOOR ITSELF THOSE UTILITY DOORS.
HERE IS ONE EXAMPLE IS PROVIDED BY THE APPLICANT AS A ONE A SOLUTION.
YOU WILL NOTICE IT INCLUDES SOME PORTIONS THAT WOULD SCREE , ALLOW ACCESS BUT STILL SCREEN THE MATERIAL, THE UTILITIES FROM DIFFERENT ANGLES RATHER THAN JUST IMMEDIATELY IN FRONT OF IT. ALSO, AGAIN THERE.
>> THAT RATES THEIR IS A WOULD OR COMPOSITE WOOD TYPE OF MATERIAL.
THIS WOULD NEED TO GO BACK BEFORE THE OFF-LINE DIRECTOR TO SEE IF THAT MEETS THE CRITERIA OF AN ARCHITECTURALLY DESIGNED AND MATERIAL SIMILAR TO THE BUILDING.
[00:25:04]
THE BUILDING DOES NOTHAVE WOOD OR COMPOSITE .THERE ARE OTHER ELEMENTS ON SITE THAT DOES, THAT INVOLVE COMPOSITE WOOD IT JUST, DOES DID BE DETERMINED THAT ACTUALLY MEETS THE INTENT.>> AND WHEN WE, IF WE NEED TO BE MORE THAN THREE FEET. RATHER THAN THREE FEET FROM THE WALL?
>> THREE FEET FROM THE UTILITY BOXES THEMSELVES, THAT IS CORRECT.
THAT PARTICULAR MEASUREMENT RIGHT THERE IS THREE FEET AND IT WOULD NEED TO COME OUT A LITTLE MORE, CORRECT. STAFF IN THE APPLICANT ARE IN COMMUNICATION ABOUT THE SITUATION. WE RECOMMEND APPROVAL BASED ON THE CIRCUMSTANCES AS WELL AS THE CONDITION THAT THE CIRCUMSTANCE BE MITIGATED WITH A SOLUTION THAT WORKS WITH THE DIRECTOR..
>> BUT YOU GUYS WILL THEN DETERMINE BUT YOU GUYS WILL THEN DETERMINE A QUESTION, THE RECOGNITION IS TO PREVENT WHAT IS THE APPROPRIATE SCREENING OR WOULD YOU GUYS WERE TOGETHER IF IT'S APPROVED TO COME WITH THE RISK NEGATION PLAN?
THAT SITUATION DOESN'T HAVE TO BE ESSENTIALLY CODIFIED TO MAKE IT A LEGAL SITUATION.
AND BY GETTING THE VARIANCE THAT PLACES OF THIS INTO A LEGAL NONCONFORMING DESIGN, ESSENTIALLY. BUT IT DOESN'T GET OUT UNTIL IT IS A VARIANCE TO GO ALONG WITH
IT. >> HOW MANY BUILDINGS ARE ON SITE?
>> SO THERE'S NOTHING ELSE ON THE OTHER SIDE?
>> THAT IS CORRECT. SUBJECT TO YOUR QUESTIONS.
>> THE EVERGREEN YOU RECOMMENDED TO COVER THE F.
>> WE THINK THERE COULD BE VEGETATION THAT COULD HELP WITH THAT.
I BELIEVE THE LETTER COULD BE ADDRESSED AS WELL. MAYBE JUST PAINTING AT THE SAME COLOR.
>> THE APPLICANT DID GO BACK AND PAINTTHAT IS A START. THAT IS A START.
BACK AND THEY PAINTED THE UTILITIES TO MATCH THE FA?ADE OF THE BUILDING.
WE FEEL LIKE IT NEEDS TO GO A LITTLE FURTHER. ESPECIALLY SINCE THEY NONCONFORMING STATUS THAT HAS BEEN CREATED.
>> WE JUST BASED ON STAFF APPROVAL OR DO WE NEED TO GO TO CONDITION LIKE WHAT KIND OF MATERIAL?
>> ONE OF THE CONDITIONS THAT WOULD BE PART OF YOUR RESOLUTION IS INCLUDED AND INVOLVES THE SCREEN, THE PLANTS AND WOULD BE HIS OFFICIAL APPROVAL AS WELL AS THE SPACING AND AS WELL AS THE DIMENSIONS AND BASICALLY BEING CONSISTENT WITH WHAT THEY SAID IT TO US HERE. IF THERE ARE ANY OTHER CONDITIONS YOU FEEL MAY BE APPROPRIATE AS THE BOARD YOU ARE ABSOLUTELY WITHIN YOUR POWER TO ADD THOSE ON TO ANY APPROVAL YOU WANT TO MAKE.
>> I FEEL LIKE YOU WANT TO PUT MAINTENANCE, TOO. IF IT'S A MAINTENANCE ISSUE SO LIKE THEY HAVE TO MAINTAIN THAT TO A CERTAIN STANDARD.
>> THAT WOULD BE THE EXPECTATION. ONE OF OUR PRIMARY, ONE OF OUR CONCERNS IN ADDITION TO THE LACK OF MATERIAL CONSISTENCY WITH HER WOULD ESCAPE WOULD BE THAT THE WOOD IS PRETTY WENT DETERIORATE FASTERTHAN OTHER MATERIALS .
>> TWO AND WHAT JAY MENTIONED SO FAR IS THAT THE APPLICANT IS THAT THE APPLICANT ABOUT RATED NUMBER ONE WITH THE EXPECTATION WOULD BE OR HIS REPRESENTATIVE WOULD SUBMIT A PLAN TO THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT THAT SHOWS WHERE THEY INTEND TO PROVIDE LANDSCAPING THAT WOULD HELP SCREAMING SOME OF THIS. IF YOU PUT A FENCE OR A WALL OF AND IT LOOKS LIKE A FENCE OR A WALL. HE WAS SURE TO MAKE YOU LOOK SOFTER AND MORE ATTRACTIVE WITH THE LANDSCAPE IN FRONT OF IT. WE WOULD WANT THEM TO SUBMIT SOME PLANET TO US THAT SHOWS A COMBINATION OF THAT AGAIN YOU DON'T WANT WOOD IS A COULD BE MAINTENANCE ISSUE, WE DON'T WANT THAT. WE WOULD TAKE A LOOK AT THAT AND PREVIA AND IF A SUITABLE WE WOULD APPROVE IT. IF YOU HAVE ANYTHING PARTICULAR YOU WANT TO TELL US RIGHT NOW
[00:30:05]
IS THE TIME IS THAT OUR INTENSE.>> IF YOU IF YOU JUST GO BACK TO THEIR I DON'T KNOW WHERE THE PROPERTY LINE STARTS BUT THEY FURTHER UP THE HILL YOU ARE THE LESS HEIGHT YOU NEED TO COVER IT UP.
>> DID THEY PLANT THAT LITTLE TREE I GUESS THOSE ARE MAGNOLIAS OR WHATEVER THOSE BUSHES ARE.
>> THE PROPERTY LINE RUNS RIGHT ALONG THE CREST OF THAT HILL, GENERALLY.AND IF SO, YOU HAVE THESE, THIS PICTURE WAS TAKEN A MONTH AGO SO YOU'RE NOT GOING TO SEE THE FULL FOLIAGE AS IT WOULD BE. AS WELL AS BEING GENERALLY NEW PLANTINGS THEY ARE SMALLER BECAUSE THEY ARE NEW. YOU WOULD EXPECT THAT STUFF TO GROW AT THE SAME TIME ONE OF THE, AT THE SAME TIME AT ONE OF THE CONSIDERATIONS OF THE ORNDORFF REDEVELOPMENT DISTRICT AS A WHOLE WAS TO PROMOTE A MORE WALKABLE ENVIRONMENT AND EVEN AMONGST THE AREAS LIKE THIS YOU DON'T EXPECT OR SHOULDN'T EXPECT THAT THIS PARTICULAR AREA WOULD BE ISOLATED TO JUST CARS. OR THE ZONING ORDINANCE TRIES TO PROMOTE MOREWALK ABILITY , JUST TO PROMOTE TRAVELING BETWEEN COMMERCIAL USES. AND SO, IS NOT JUST GOING TO BE SOMEONE PASSING BY AND 60 MILES PER HOUR OR WHATEVER THE SPEED LIMIT IS.
>> WHERE WERE THE UTILITIES IS SUPPOSED TO BE?
>> IDEALLY, BASED ON ORDINANCE IT WOULD BE SOMEWHERE OTHER THAN THIS.
C COULD BE INTERIOR. THEY COULD BE ON ONE OF THE SIDES FACING THE PARKING LOT ITSELF. BESIDES THE CELLS THATARE NOT FACING DEPARTMENT ART GLASS .
YET THE DISPLAY WINDOWS THINGS LIKE THAT THIS WILL BE A RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT, EXCUSE ME, RETAIL DEVELOPMENT. THE DESIGN ITSELF WOULD NOT LEND ITSELF, IT WOULD HAVE TO PUTTING ANOTHER FACE OF THE BUILDING WOULD REQUIRE A VERY SIGNIFICANT DESIGN CHANGE.
>> I GO THERE ALL THE TIME TO TAKE MY KIDS AND I THINK THAT'S THE ONLY SIDE OF THE BUILDING LIKE YOU DRIVE BY AND GO IN AND YOU HAVE THAT SIDE ENTRANCE AND THERE IS PARKING ON THE SIDE SO IT'S LIKE PARKING DOWN IN THE HOLE.
>> IS PROBABLY THE BEST PLACE TO THAT SITE UNFORTUNATELY BECAUSE THE INTERIOR FACING FA?ADES YOU CANNOT PUT IT THERE, THE OTHER SITES IS THE SIDE STREET SO IN BE MORE VISIBLE FROM THE ROAD SO THIS IS AT LEAST ON THE WHOLE. IF YOU COULD GO BACK TO THE PICTURESQUE THE CORNER VIEW.
>> THE WAY THE PROCESS WORKS WITHOUT A HITCH WOULD BE THAT WE WOULD IDENTIFY THIS AND WE COULD HAVE ON A SOLUTION THAT WORKS FOR THE CITY AND THE DEVELOPER BEFORE THE SITUATION
WAS RATED. >> WHAT WAS THE MISCOMMUNICATION? WHAT HAPPENED IN THE PROCESS THEY CONDITIONS LOOK AT IT? ?
>> AS PART OF THE PROGRAM WE DIVIDE ALL THE REQUIREMENTS FROM ALL THE DIFFERENT DEPARTMENTS. ONE OF THOSE REQUIREMENTS WAS AFFECTED WAS A CORRIDOR.
A MAJOR THEY ARE AWARE OF WAS A CORRIDOR AND SUBJECT TO THE REQUIREMENTS RIGHT IT IS AN ENGINEERING FIRM LED PROCESS. ENGINEERING FIRM DOES NOT NECESSARILY DO THE ARCHITECTURE. IT IS OUR UNDERSTANDING THAT WAS PROBABLY MISCOMMUNICATION SOMEWHERE IN THE PROCESS THROUGH THE GENERAL PROGRESS OF THE DEVELOPMENT.
WE DON'T SUSPECT THERE'S NO INSTANCE OF INTENTIONALLY TRYING TO CIRCUMVENT THE ORDINANCE AND THIS CASE.
>> I WANTED TO GIVE YOU AN IMAGE FROM THE CORNER WHERE YOU LOOK THERE AND YOU HAVE A POWERFUL, CABLES AND OVERHEAD LINES. THERE ARE A LOT OF THINGS GOING ON THERE. PLUS A BEING DOWN IN THE HOLE GIVE A MAGNOLIA TREE GROWING THERE IN FRONT OF IT. I DON'T THINK IT WILL BE AS BAD AS IT COULD BE.
THERE ARE OTHER COMPETING THINGS ARE GOING TO BLOCK YOUR VIEW AND DETRACT FROM THE AESTHETIC.
>> THANK YOU, J. WE WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING, I'M SORRY IS THE APPLICANT HERE?
[00:35:34]
>> GOOD EVENING I AM A DAVID SLOCUM I'M A CIVIL ENGINEER. THE ARCHITECT WAS NOT AVAILABLE. WE DO HAVE THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR HERE TONIGHT WITH US IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR HIM AND THE DEVELOPER IS ALSO PRESENT.
I THINK IT IS IMPORTANT FOR YOU TO CONSIDER THE VIEW FROM A VEHICLE ON UNIVERSITY DRIVE.
I KNOW JADE REITERATED THAT THERE ARE PEDESTRIANS IN THE AREA AND WE UNDERSTAND THAT, TOO. I DROVE BY TODAY AND TOOK SOME PHOTOS AND EVEN WHEN YOU ARE ON THAT SIDE OF UNIVERSITY LOOKING STRAIGHT TOWARDS THE BUILDING YOU CAN BARELY SEE THE TOP OF THE METERS OVER THE HILL. I THINK A FEW MORE EVERGREEN SHRUBS OR THOSE WHERE THE ART WOULD COMPLETELY BLOCK THE VIE . ALONG WITH ANY SCREENING THAT YOU FEEL WOULD BE APPROPRIATE. THE DEVELOPER IS OPEN TO COMPLYING WITH WHATEVER YOU DECIDE WOULD BE BEST TO MATCH THE BUILDING AND DO SOMETHING THAT COULD BE A LONG-TERM SOLUTION. I BELIEVE THE COMBINATION OF THOSE TWO THINGS WILL YOU BE THE RIGHT THING TO DO. WE ARE OPEN TO ANY QUESTIONS OR ANYTHING.
YOU ALL HAVE A TOUGH JOB I WOULD NOT WANT TO DO YOUR JOB. THE OTHER THREE SIDES OF THE BUILDINGS DO HAVE A GLASS. AS WAS MENTIONED, THE GATEWOOD SITE IS AT STREET LEVEL.
THE OTHER TWO SIDES HAVE PARKING WHERE CUSTOMERS WILL BE APPROACHING WITH GLASS STOREFRONT. THIS KIND OF LANDED ITSELF AND NOT THAT IT WAS INTENTIONAL TO DISREGARD THE ORDINANCE.
>> IS A LETTER? I NOTICE FOR EASE OF ROOFTOP OR AC UNITS, I ASSUME IS THAT COMING TO HEAVEN?
>> JOHN MIGHT BE ABLE TOEXPLAIN THE REQUIREMENT FOR THE LATTER .
>> THERE ARE ROOFTOP UTILITIES UP THERE. THEY DO HAVE TO HAVE ACCESS.
>> YOU ARE REQUIRED TO HAVE PERMANENT LATTER LIKE THAT?
>> YES, IT IS MY UNDERSTANDING THAT CHANGES ARE REQUIRED WE HAVE ROOFTOP UNITS.
SO THEY CAN GET THERE EASILY WITHOUT HAVING TO BRING A LADDER.
YOU CAN DO IN TWO DIFFERENT WAYS. ONE IS AN EXTERIOR LADDER AND WAS AN INTERIOR CHANGER.WITH INTERIOR CHANGER? SQUARE FOOTAGE AND A SPACE AND HAVE ISSUES. ALL THREE OF THE BUILDINGS HAVE EXTERIOR PRINTERS AND THAT'S WHY THEY ARE DESIGNED LIKE THAT.
>> I WAS JUST CURIOUS I HAVE NOT SEEN THAT.
>> USUALLY THEY ARE PUT ON THE BACK OF THE BUILDINGS.
>> THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE HAVE QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? WE WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING IF ANYONE WANTS TO SPEAK IN FAVOR OF OR AGAINST THIS VARIANCE REQUEST. WE WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND OPEN IT TO THE BOARD FOR DISCUSSIONAND OR A MOTION .
>> I DON'T KNOW WE NEED MUCH DISCUSSION IT WAS VERY WELL PRESENTED.
THE ONE THING I SEE THE FENCE HEIGHT SHALL BE CONSISTENT WITH THE EXISTING POST TYPES BUT ARE
[00:40:07]
WE GOING TO HAVETO MOVE THESE TO ACCOMMODATE THAT THREE FOOT ? FROM OF THE DRAWINGS DOESN'T LOOK LIKE WE HAVE THREE FEET FROM THE FACE OF THE UTILITYBOX. >> THE HEIGHT IS A REQUIREMENT THAT COULD BE ACCOMPLISHED MOVING THEM OR NOT.
>> I SEE THIS AS AN OPPORTUNITY TO BEAUTIFY THAT LITTLE STRIP EVEN THOSE THAT THE ENORMOUS EVERY LITTLE THING WILL HELP. I THINK SCREENAND . I DON'T THINK.
I DON'T THINK YOU CAN PUT OTHER TREES. BUT IF YOU COULD THAT WOULD BE NICE, TOO.
>> I THINK WE HAVE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES AS MENTIONED IN THE REPORT WITH A GIANT HILL THERE. WITH THE STANDARDS THERE AND THE RECOMMENDATIONS.
>> THE ONLY THING I WOULD SAY IS WHATEVER IS WILDERNESS BE MAINTAINED TO THE SAME STANDARDS AS THE BUILDING MAINTENANCE. WE ARE NOT ALLOWED A WOODEN FENCE I DON'T BELIEVE I WOULD RATHER SEE TRACKS GO UP WITH THE SAME MATERIAL AS THE BUILDING. SO MAKE SURE IS MAINTAINED. THE FEELING A LOT OF WATER RUNOFF.
>> I WILL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE BZ 2022 - 004 CONDITIONED ON THE SCREENING, FENCING AND LANDSCAPE BE PROVIDED FOR ALL UTILITIES FACING UNIVERSITY DRIVE IN COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 429 MATERIAL AND ARCHITECTURE REQUIREMENTS SUCH PLANS AND PERMIT SUBJECT TO ROUTE APPROVAL BY THE PLANNING DIRECTORFENCE FENCE METER BOXES AND ANY SCREENING, WALL OR FENCE AS SPECIFIED IN THE BUILDING CODES.
THE DIMENSIONS OF THE PROPOSED BE CONSISTENT WITH THE PROPOSED PLANS MADE BY THE APPLICANT.
IF A PRACTICAL HORIZONTAL BOARDS WILL BE USED FOR FENCING RATHER THAN VERTICAL BOARDS AND THE SCREEN WILL BE MAINTAINED AT THE SAME CONSISTENT WITH THE BUILDING.
>> YORK MOTION PASSES. I DON'T THINK WE HAVE ANY OTHER BUSINESS.
I DON'T HAVE ANY COMMUNICATION, AN
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.