[ROLL CALL]
[00:00:07]
>> I'LL CALL THE AUGUST 3, 2022, BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENT.
[APPROVAL OF MINUTES]
CALL THE ROLL.>> WE HAVE THE MINUTES FOR JULY 13, 2022.
DID EVERYBODY HAVE A CHANCE TO REVIEW THOSE?
>> I WILL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES AS PROBITYED
[CHAIRMAN’S OPENING REMARKS]
>> [INAUDIBLE] PARTICIPATE IN ALL DISCUSSIONS BUT ONLY VOTE WHEN NECESSARY TO ASSURE FOUR VOTING MEMBERS AND HAVE A BOARD CONSISTING OF FIVE MEMBERS WHEN POSSIBLE.
ALL DECISIONS ARE MADE WITH A ROLL CALL VOTE AND A CONQ CONCURRING -- [INAUDIBLE] SO MARY BOYD WILL BE ACTING AS OUR
[1. Variance to Section 429, Corridor Overlay Regulations, of the City of Auburn Zoning Ordinance BZ-2022-010]
SUPERNUMB RARE SINCER SINCE LAT ABSENT.. >> OKAY, WE HAVE A VARIANCE TO SECTION 429 CORE DOOR OVERLAY REGULATIONS.
THE FIRST IS TO ALLOW A CAR WASH BAY OPENING TO FACE SOUTH COLLEGE STREET AND THE SECOND IS FOR A VARIANCE TO ALLOW A FENCE IN THE FRONT YARD TO EXCEED FOUR FEET IN HEIGHT.
HERE IS AN AERIAL OF THE SITE. IT'S NEAR THE CORNER OF DONAHUE AND COLLEGE STREET. NEW RIVER BANK AND TRUST BANK ARE HERE ON THE CORNER. HERE'S THE PROX MA'AM.
THE PROPERTY IS ZONED SOUTH COLLEGE CORE DOOR DISTRICT.
THERE'S PDD ACROSS THE STREET AND BEHIND THE SUBJECT PROPERTY, DDH OVER TO THE NORTH AND PROPERTY OWNED BY THE UNINUNIVEY IS ALSO ACROSS. THE APPLICANT UPDATED THIS YESTERDAY TO SHOW LANDSCAPING ON THE STREET FRONTAGE THAT WOULD HELP TO BLOCK THE CAR WASH OPENING THAT FACES SOUTH COLLEGE. THE REASON FOR THAT REQUEST IS BECAUSE OUR REGULATIONS REQUIRE THAT CAR WASH BAYS ARE FACED NO LESS THAN A RIGHT ANGLE TO THE STREET FRONTAGE.
WE DID ALSO ADVERTISE OR REQUEST THE VARIANCE TO ALLOW A FENCE IN THE FRONT YARD TO EXCEED FOUR FEET.
I BELIEVE THE APPLICANT WILL WITHDRAW THAT REQUEST AND SPEAK TO YOU ABOUT HOW THEY PROPOSE THE LANDSCAPING TO MITIGATE THOSE FACTORS. HERE'S A PHOTO OF THE SITE.
IC SEE THAT THE ELEVATION, THERE'S A GRADE CHANGE FROM SOUTH COLLEGE UP TO THE SITE. THIS IS FROM THE SOUTH LOOKING NORTH UP AT DONAHUE AND THIS IS LOOKING SOUTH TOWARDS THE INTERSTATE. WE DO RECOMMEND DENIAL OF THE VARIANCE. AFTER A REVIEW, WE FOUND THAT THE REQUESTS WERE NONCOMPLIANT WITH THE REVIEW CRITERIA.
I'M HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU MIGHT HAVE.
>> WILL THE ADDITION OF THE LANDSCAPING ALTER YOUR REPORT?
>> IT DOES NOT. >> IS THE APPLICANT HERE?
[00:05:12]
WOULD YOU LIKE TO SPEAK? >> WHEN YOU SPEAK, CAN YOU SPEAK INTO THE MICROPHONE? THEY CAN'T HEAR YOU OUT HERE.
MY NAME IS TIMOTHY WOOD AND I'M WITH [INAUDIBLE] WE'RE WORKING ON BIG DAN'S CAR WASH. WE WOULD LIKE TO KEEP IT AT THE ORIENTATION WE HAVE IT. TURNING THE BUILDING SO THE EXIT IS NOT FACING THE ROAD WOULD MEAN THERE WOULDN'T BE ENOUGH ROOM FOR THE ENTRY AND THE EXIT TO ALLOW OWL OF THAT TO OCCUR ON THE FRONTAGE. THAT'S PARTIALLY BECAUSE IT'S A REG RECTANGULAR SITE AND THE FRONT IS ON OUR PROPERTY ENCROACHING INTO OUR DEVELOPMENTABLE AREA.
THOSE ARE THE TWO FACTORS THAT ARE WORKING AGAINST US.
WHAT WE'RE WANTING TO DO IS PUT A DENSE FRONTAGE OF LANDSCAPE IN THAT AREA SO IT WILL HELP LESSEN THE VISUAL PRESENCE OF THAT EXIT AS YOU GO IN AND THAT WAY IT WILL, , A, YOU'RE GETTING THE ADDITIONAL AESTHETICS OFF A, YO ADDITIONAL AESTHETICS OFF OF SOUTH COLLEGE AND IT HELPS TO VISUALLY ELIMINATE THE EYESORE OF THE EXIT. WE'RE HAPPY TO WORK WITH YOU IF THAT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT YOU DESIRE AS WELL, BUT IN THE BEGINNING WE WERE PUTTING IN WALLS OR THINGS LIKE THAT, WHATEVER YOU WANTED TO DO THAT HELPED MITIGATE THE EYE SORE OF THAT BUT REALLY THAT ITSELF WOULD BE AN EYESORE BUT I THINK THE LANDSCAPE WOULD BE MORE BENEFICIAL.
THE LANDSCAPE IS HIGHER OFF THE ROAD FROM SOUTH COLLEGE SO YOU HAVE THAT ADDITIONAL BENEFIT FOR IT TO BE ELEVATED SO THAT THE VISUAL WOULD BE SUCH THAT IT WOULDN'T BE QUITE SO -- YOU WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO SEE QUITE SO DEEP INTO THE CAR WASH.
>> ARE YOU WITHDRAWING THE VARIANCE FOR A FENCE?
>> CORRECT. WE WERE JUST WANTING TO SATISFY
Y'ALL'S NEEDS. >> DOES ANYONE HAVE QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? THANK YOU.
>> OKAY. THANKS FOR YOUR HELP.
WE'LL OPEN THIS FOR PUBLIC HEAR IFFING ANYONE WOULD LIKE TOHEARO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST THE VARIANCE.
HEARING NONE, I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
>> WHAT IS THIS LESS THAN A RIGHT ANGLE, SO 44 DEGREES? SO IF THEY TURN THE WHOLE THING ONE DEGREE DIFFERENCE, IT WOULD
BE OKAY, IS THAT OKAY? >> THE INTENT IS THAT IT BE PERPENDICULAR TO THE STREET ITSELF.
>> SO 44 DEGREES IS NOT PERPENDICULAR BUT 45 IS.
>> I THINK IT'S LOOKING FOR A 90 DEGREES FROM THE ORIENTATION
SO I GUESS MY QUESTION IS IF THEY ORIENT IT AT 44 DEGREES,
WOULD IT REQUIRE A VARIANCE? >> THERE'S A REFERENCE TO THE
[00:10:08]
CODE IN THE REPORT, RIGHT? WHERE WAS THAT?>> IT'S IN SECTION 429.06 B AND THE RECKLATION STATE THAT IS ALL GARAGE CAR BASH BAY OPENINGS WILL BE ORIENTED AT NOT LESS
THANRITHAN RIGHT ANGLES. >> SO 46 DEGREES.
>> BUT IT'S A RIGHT ANGLE. >> OKAY, I'M SORRY, SO
89 DEGREES. >> IF IT'S JUST SLIGHTLY OFF 90,
DO YOU NEED THE VARIANCE? >> BY THE LITERAL WORDING OF IT IT'S LOOKING FOR 90 DEGREES WHICH MAY BE HARD TO ACHIEVE BUT I THINK THE SUBJECT APPLICATION BEFORE YOU IS COMPLETELY DIFFERENT FROM THAT, SO I WOULD BASE YOUR DECISION BASED ON CERTAINLY THE INTENT OF 90 DEGREES RIGHT ANGLE AND THAT
IT'S RIGHT NOW FACING -- >> IT LOOKS 90, I WAS JUST LOOKING FOR OTHER OPTIONS FOR MAKING IT WORK.
>> THE ORIENTATION OF THE PROPOSED CAR WASH BAY TODAY AS SHOWN ON THE PLANS, WE WOULD CONSIDER THAT DIRECTLY FACING
THE STREET SO IT'S 0, NOT 90. >> OKAY.
>> I LOOKED AT THIS ONE, I HAVE GONE OUT THERE AND LOOKED AT THE SITE AND I UNDERSTAND THE LOT IS NOT IN PERFECT SHAPE FOR WHAT YOU'RE PROPOSING TO DO, BUT ALSO I DON'T SEE HOW IT MEETS ANY OF THE CRITERIA FOR A VARIANCE BASED ON THE CURRENT CODE.
I WILL MAKE A MOTION TO DENY. >> SECOND.
SO YOUR REQUEST FOR A SHARONS WAS DENIED.
YOU HAVE 15 DAYS TO APPEAL THE DECISION SO IF YOU WANT TO TALK TO CITY STAFF ABOUT THAT, YOU CAN.
[2. Variance to Section 502.02(I), Performance Residential Development, academic detached dwelling unit (ADDU) BZ-2022-013]
THANK YOU. >> THANKS FOR YOUR HELP.
>> GOOD AFTERNOON. THE SECOND ITEM ON YOUR AGENDA THIS EVENING IS A VARIANCE REQUEST TO SECTION 502.02 I WHICH IS THE PERFORMANCE RESIDENTIAL REGULATIONS FOR ACADEMIC DETACHED DWELLING UNITS, ALSO KNOWN AS ADDUS.
THE REQUEST IS TO INCREASE THE MAXIMUM FAR FROM 45% TO 51%.
THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 145 TOOMER STREET AT THE UN-W ZONING DISTRICT. YOU CAN SEE HOW THE SITE RELATES
TO THE DOWNTOWN AREA. >> IS THAT 320 MAGNOLIA?
>> THIS IS 320. >> OH, IT'S FLIPPED AROUND.
>> BUT IT'S ALMOST ALL CAIRNER OF JANELDA AND TOOMER AND THE INTENT IS TO PROMOTE MIXED LAND USES, HIGHER DENSITIES FOR RESIDENTIAL USES AND TO CREATE A WALKABLE, MORE URBAN ENVIRONMENT. SO THAT BEING SAID, MANY USES, RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL, ARE ALLOWED BY RIGHT, BUT WITH THAT, THERE ARE CERTAIN LOT SIZES THAT ARE THE MINIMUM TO DO CERTAIN TYPES OF USES. THE CURRENT PROPERTY IS A SINGLE FAMILY HOUSE THAT'S BEEN THERE I THINK SINCE THE 30S.
THE APPLICANT CAN CONFIRM ALL THOSE DETAILS WHEN HE SPEAKS BUT IT'S A VERY OLD HOUSE. IT'S BEEN THERE FOR SOME TIME.
THEIR PROPOSAL IS TO DEMOLISH THAT HOME AND BUILD AN ACADEMIC ATTACHED DWELLING UNIT AND THE MAXIMUM 45% FAR ALLOWS FOR I THINK A 2500-SQUARE FOOT STRUCTURE APPROXIMATELY AND 51% WOULD ALLOW AN ADDITIONAL 304 SQUARE FEET.
LET ME GO BACK. WHY IS IT NOT GOING BACK? SORRY. OKAY, MOST OF THE PROPERTIES ON
[00:15:02]
THAT SIDE OF THE STREET ARE OF THAT SAME SIZE, ABOUT 5700 SQUARE FEET. MOST COMMERCIAL USES YOU HAVE TO HAVE A MINIMUM LOT SIZE OF 7500 SQUARE FEET.MOST RESIDENTIAL USES ALLOW 5700-SQUARE FOOT LOT WOULD ALLOW FOR TOWNHOUSES WHICH HAS AN FAR OF 1.5 WHICH IS QUITE GREATER THAN WHAT THEY ARE REQUESTING, HOWEVER, THAT'S A MINIMUM OF THREE UNITS AND THEY'RE ONLY DESIRING ONE UNIT TO BUILD.
THE AREA IS MIXED USE. THERE'S RESIDENTIAL, COMMERCIAL, HIGH-RISES, LOW RISES, SINGLE FAMILY HOUSES ALL IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD. THE APPLICATION DOES NOT MEET THE CRITERIA SO WE DO RECOMMEND DENIAL.
THE APPLICANT IS PRESENT AND WILL GIVE YOU THEIR CASE FOR THE EVENING AND IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FROM ME, I WILL BE GLAD TO ANSWER ANY. WE DID GET A COUPLE OF PHONE CALLS AND VISITS FROM ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNERS JUST REQUESTING INFORMATION AND I BELIEVE ONE OF THEM IS HERE THIS EVENING SO THEY MAY HAVE SOME INFORMATION TO GIVE YOU AS WELL.
>> YOU SAID A SMALLER FLOOR PLAN COULD BE DEVELOPED TO MEET THIS
THE FLOOR PLAN HAS FIVE BEDROOMS AND FIVE BATHS AND NOT GETTING THE 304 ODD SQUARE FEET WOULD JUST HAVE TO MAKE THE HOME
SMALLER. >> IS THERE A SWIMMING POOL?
>> THE FAR IS ONLY THE INTERIOR OF THE HOME.
YOU WOULD NEVER KNOW IF THE VARIANCE WAS APPROVED OR NOT
FROM THE EXTERIOR OF THE HOUSE. >> OKAY.
>> LET ME GET BACK TO THE SITE PLAN SO Y'ALL CAN SEE IT.
SORRY, GUYS. NEEDS BIG ARROWS.
THERE WE GO. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS?
>> THANK YOU. IS THE APPLICANT HERE?
>> MY NAME IS KOREY WEBB. AS KATY EXPLAINED, ONE THING I WANT TO CLARIFY BECAUSE I KNOW THERE WERE A LOT OF NUMBERS THROWN AROUND RIGHT THERE. THE 5700 SQUARE FEET IS THE PROXIMATE SQUARE FOOT ANNUAL OF THE LOT, NOTHING TO DO WITH THE HEATED ANDA OF THE LOT, NOTHING TO DO WITH THE HEATG OF THE LOT, NOTHING TO DO WITH THE HEATE OF THE LOT, NOTHING TO DO WITH THE HEATED AND COOLED SPACE. 7500 IS SOME OF THE OTHER USES.
WE'RE ALLOWED 2562 AND WE'RE TRYING TO DO 2866.
THE ADDITIONAL SQUARE FOOTAGE IS, IF YOU WOULD GO TO THE PICTURES OF THE ELEVATIONS, PLEASE, OF THE HOUSE.
I'M SURE MANY OF Y'ALL ARE FAMILIAR WITH A BONUS ROOM IN YOUR HOUSE OVER A GARAGE. IF YOU HAVE A THREE CAR GARAGE, THAT'S CHEAP SQUARE FOOTAGE TO EXTEND THAT.
THAT EXTRA ROOM IS NOT ANYTHING THAT YOU WOULD KNOW FROM THE OUTSIDE WHATSOEVER. IT IS IN THE ROOF OF THE HOUSE SO THE SPACE IS THERE ALREADY. IT'S GOING TO BE BUILT PROVIDING WITH EGODOWN THAT ROAD, THAT ROOF LINE IS GOING TO BE BUILT.
WE'RE NOT MAKING THE FOOTPRINT ANY BIGGER OF THE HOUSE.
I THINK ALL OF THEM Y'ALL WERE OKAY WITH EXCEPT D AND E I BELIEVE WERE THE ONLY TWO THAT WE DON'T MEET THE CRITERIA? I CAN READ A THROUGH G THE WHOLE SHEET FOR EVERYBODY IF YOU WANT TO BUT I THINK D AND E WERE THE ONLY ONES THAT YOU SAID POTENTIALLY DIDN'T MEET IT. SO ON THOSE, AND ANSWERING THESE QUESTIONS, THE QUESTIONS WEREN'T ALWAYS CLEAR, EITHER, AS WELL.
IT ASKED FOR THE UN-W WHEN IT WAS REZONED TO PROVIDE FOR MIXED USE, LAND USE, HIGHER DENSITIES AND ACCOMMODATE THE CONVERSION, REDEVELOPMENT AND GROWTH OF RESIDENTIAL, COMMERCIAL AND
[00:20:01]
INSTITUTIONAL USES IN CLOSE PROXIMITY TO UNIVERSITY AND DOWNTOWN. THE REASON THIS WAS DONE WAS AT A REQUEST BY THE UNIVERSITY TO CREATE MORE HOUSING.ADDUS ARE PERMITTED BY RIGHT THERE AS WELL.
WE'RE TRYING TO BUILT 2866 SQUARE FEET.
IF WE GO WITH A TOWNHOUSE ROUTE, I CAN BUILD 8550 SQUARE FEET ON THAT LOT AND LOT LINE TO LOT LINE, MUCH MORE INTRUSIVE ON ANY NEIGHBORS, ANYTHING. THAT HOUSE RIGHT THERE CAN STILL -- LIKE I SAID, NOTHING ABOUT THAT HOUSE CHANGES EVEN IF WE TOOK THAT SQUARE FOOT OFF AS FAR AS HOW IT AFFECTS THE STREET OR THE NEIGHBORS, ANYONE THERE. ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS I CAN ANSWER? I KNOW EVERYBODY HAS PLACES TO GO. I DON'T WANT TO GO THROUGH ALL OF THIS BUT AT THE END OF THE DAY, I WANT TO BE CLEAR THAT ALL WE'RE ASKING FOR IS A COMMON SENSE VOTE TO PREVAIL HERE.
I KNOW VARIANCES ARE HARD TO GIVE ESPECIALLY RIGHT NOW.
EVERYBODY IS ASKING FOR THINGS IN THIS CITY, I'M SURE.
WE PREFER NOT TO CRAM THE LOT FULL.
WE'RE NOT TRYING TO MAXIMIZE THAT DENSITY OR FOR PROFITABILITY OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT.
THIS IS A GOOD LOOKING HOME AND SOMETHING THAT'S BEEN ASKED FOR OVER AND OVER BY THE CITY IS ON THESE ADDUS, I THINK IT'S REALLY WHAT BROUGHT THEM ALL UP SEVERAL YEARS BACK WAS THAT THEY COULD ONLY BE USED FOR THAT. THIS IS A HOME THAT'S DESIGNED, SEVERAL YEARS IT SEEMED LIKE IT WAS ASKED OVER AND OVER.
AT ONE PLAN WE DIDN'T EVEN HAVE TO SUBMIT PLANS TO BE LOOKED AT.
IF THE TRENDS CHANGE, A FAMILY COULD LIVE THERE, SOMEBODY COULD HAVE IT FOR THEIR GAME DAY HOME. IT'S A GREAT PROJECT FOR THAT SMALL OF A LOT IN MY OPINION. APPRECIATE Y'ALL'S TIME.
ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS I CAN ANSWER FOR Y'ALL?
>> HOW MANY BEDROOMS WOULD YOU DO IF YOU DID THE TOWNHOUSES?
15? >> AT THAT POINT IT WOULD COME
DOWN TO PARKING, I GUESS. >> THE DENSITY IN THIS AREA IS 170 BEDROOMS PER ACRE SO I THINK THE MAXIMUM IS 22 THAT THEY
COULD HAVE ON THIS LOT. >> 22 BEDROOMS VERSUS FIVE.
>> IS THAT YOUR PLAN IF THE VARIANCE DOES NOT GET PASSED?
>> I'M REPRESENTING THE OWNER. >> SO THE HOUSE THE WAY IT LOOKS TODAY WOULD LOOK THAT WAY WHETHER YOU GOT THAT OR NOT, RIGHT? THE 300-FEET EXTRA OR WHATEVER IT WAS, IT WOULD BE THE SAME FOOTPRINT, THE SAME LOOK.
>> WE'RE FINISHING OUT SPACE IN THE ATTIC AND, AGAIN, LIKE SHE SAID, PEOPLE WOULD NEVER KNOW ONE WAY OR ANOTHER.
WE'RE TRYING TO GO BY THE RULES. >> RIGHT, YOU COULD HAVE BUILT IT AND NOT ASKED FOR THE VARIANCE AND OPEN IT UP AND GET
>> OKAY. >> I DON'T HAVE ANY OTHER
QUESTIONS. >> IF YOU HAVEN'T SIGNED IN, IF
YOU WOULD, PLEASE. >> ABSOLUTELY.
THANK YOU, AGAIN. >> OKAY, I WILL OPEN IT TO PUBLIC HEARING IF ANYONE WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST THE
VARIANCE, PLEASE COME FORWARD. >> GOOD EVENING.
APPRECIATE THE OPPORTUNITY TO ADDRESS THE BOARD.
I'M SCOTT JOHNSON. MY WIFE AND I LIVE HERE IN AUBURN AND WE OWN TWO ADJOINING LOTS TO 145 TOOMER.
WE OWN 135, 141 AND 141 IS NEXT TO 145 AND WE OWN 310 JENELDA, THE APARTMENTS BEHIND THE TWO STRUCTURES.
OUR TWO PROPERTIES ARE OLD HOMES, SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS AND, OF COURSE, IF SOMEONE WANTED TO LIVE THERE AS A FAMILY THEY COULD AND STILL MEET THE FAR REGULATIONS BUT THE OTHER THING I WOULD LIKE TO TELL YOU IS THAT THESE PROPERTIES HAVE BEEN IN THE FAMILY FOR OVER 40 YEARS AND DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE AUBURN PLANNING OFFICE FOUND THAT THE REQUESTED VARIANCE DID NOT MEET THE REQUIREMENTS FOR APPROVAL AND ALSO RECOMMENDED NONAPPROVAL, WE DON'T HAVE ANY ISSUES AT ALL WITH THE STRUCTURE BEING PLACED ON THE PROPERTY, SO THEREFORE I DON'T HAVE AN OPINION WHETHER YOU SHOULD APPROVE THE VARIANCE OR DISAPPROVE THE VARIANCE REQUESTING BECAUSE IT REALLY BASICALLY COMES DOWN TO DO THEY FINISH THAT TOP FLOOR AND MAKE
[00:25:01]
IT A LIVABLE SPACE OR DO THEY NOT? BASICALLY AT THE END OF THE DAY, THAT'S THE QUESTION.HOWEVER, AS AN ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNER OF THREE PROPERTIES IN THAT ONE BLOCK IN THE URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD WEST IS THAT THAT MY REQUEST TO THE BOARD IS IF YOU DO APPROVE THE VARIANCE, WHICH THE PLANNING COMMISSION SAID DOES NOT MEET ALL THE REQUIREMENTS, I WOULD RECOMMEND THAT THE FAR OF 45% FOR THAT ENTIRE AREA BE RAISED TO 51% BECAUSE IN THE FUTURE, WE DO PLAN, AS A FAMILY, TO REDEVELOP THAT AREA AND IF WE WANTED TO PUT A STRUCTURE THERE SIMILAR TO OUR NEIGHBORS, I WOULD HOPE THAT WE WOULDN'T HAVE TO COME AND MAKE THE SAME CASE TO THE BOARD THAT THEY'RE MAKING IF IN FACT IF YOU APPROVE IT.
IT DOES ESTABLISH A PRECEDENCE TO APPROVE AN FAR RECOMMENDATION JUST BECAUSE OF THE SIZE OF THE FACILITY ON THAT LOT.
AND OUR LOTS 135 AND 141 TOOMER ARE EXACTLY THE SAME LOT SIZE AS 145 SO THAT'S ALL I WANTED TO SAY.
WHAT'S GOOD FOR THE GOOSE IS GOOD FOR THE GANDER SO HOPEFULLY IF YOU APPROVE IT, YOU CAN TAKE ACTION TO READJUST HOW YOU LOOK AT THAT ENTIRE AREA. THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU. IF YOU WOULDN'T MIND SIGNING IN.
ANYONE ELSE? SEEING NO ONE I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND OPEN TO BOARD DISCUSSION.
>> SO, WHEN I WAS READING THIS, THIS WAS THE SAME THING THAT CAME UP ON THE MARCH 2ND AGENDA ON HARPER AVENUE WHERE THE APPLICANT REQUESTING MORE OF AN FAR BECAUSE HE NEEDED IT FOR HIS TWIN HOMES WHICH WAS LESS DENSITY THAN THE TOWNHOUSES WHICH HE WAS GOING TO DO IF HE DIDN'T GET THE VARIANCE APPROVED AND I THINK AMONG US DISCUSSING WE LIKED THE IDEA THAT IT WAS LESS IMPACT WITH CARS AND DENSITY AND PARKING AND WHATNOT SO I DON'T SEE A DIFFERENCE IN THIS ONE AS WE DID ON MARCH 2ND.
>> THE ONLY THING I WOULD PIGGY BACK ON THAT, THE FAR, WE DON'T MAKE THE RULES, WE'RE JUST HERE TO ENFORCE THE RULES OR MAKE A VARIANCE IF IT'S APPROPRIATE. SOMETIMES OUR HANDS ARE TIED TO GO FROM 45 TO 51. WE DON'T HAVE THE POWER TO DO THAT BUT I DO APPRECIATE THAT THIS IS LESS IMPACTFUL FOR THE SPACE DOWN THERE AND IT DOES IMPACT TRAFFIC.
YOU START STICKING 22 BEDROOMS, YOU'RE NEVER GOING TO GET IN AND
OUT OF TOOMER. >> I GET THAT, HOWEVER, I DO NOT LIKE THE WE COULD ALWAYS DO WORSE ARGUMENT.
I'M NOT SAYING THAT THE APPLICANT IS TRYING TO THREATEN WITH THAT OR ANYTHING, BUT I DON'T KNOW.
THAT'S NOT ONE OF OUR CRITERIA IS IT COULD BE WORSE.
MAYBE IT SHOULD BE. >> AS THE APPLICANT STATED, THE GOALS ARE TO INCREASE DENSITY SO WHETHER WE LIKE IT OR DON'T LIKE IT IN THE AREA, THE ZONING ORDINANCE IS WRITTEN THAT WAY FOR A REASON. IT'S EASY TO LOOK INTO THE ORDINANCES AND SAY LIKE WHAT YOU WERE SAYING, WE'RE NOT DOING THIS SO SHOULDN'T WE BE ABLE TO DO THIS? BUT EACH OF THOSE PROPERTY TYPES IS MASSED THE WAY IT IS FOR A REASON. THERE'S PARKING THE WAY IT IS FOR A REASON. IT LOOKS LIKE LESS BUT IT'S DIFFERENT FOR A REASON, SO WHILE TOWN HOMES WOULD CERTAINLY INCREASE THE BEDROOMS, I'M NOT -- I DON'T THINK THAT THE ARGUMENT THAT THAT WOULD MEET THE CRITERIA OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE BETTER, YOUR PLAN WOULD MEET THE ORDINANCE BETTER HOLDS, SO. AND, YEAH, WE'RE NOT DENYING YOU
USE OF YOUR PROPERTY. >> I THINK THIS IS ALSO A BEAUTIFUL PLAN AND IT DOES NOT LOOK LIKE THE ADDUS THAT I HAVE BEEN IN IN THE PAST THAT ARE TINY BEDROOMS AND BATHROOMS. THIS HAS A PROPER LAUNDRY ROOM AND MASTER BATH AND SEPARATE TUB. THERE'S A LOT OF SQUARE FOOTAGE MAKING THIS MORE THAN JUST ADDU. I AGREE WITH THAT, IT'S GAME DAY PRIMARY HOME ADDU AND SO THERE'S JUST A LOT OF SQUARE FOOTAGE IN
[00:30:05]
MAKING THIS PLAN REALLY NICE AND I DON'T KNOW.I CAN SEE THE 300 SQUARE TEAT IN A CLOSET OR LAUNDRY ROOM.
>> THIS IS A TRICKY ONE. >> IT IS TRICKY BECAUSE I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY YOU CAN DO SO MANY PRODUCTS HERE AND THE FAR CHANGES SIGNIFICANTLY IN THE CODES AND I KNOW IT IS WHAT IT
IS, BUT -- >> WHY NOT MAXIMIZE THAT SPACE? IT'S THE SAME FOOTPRINT, LOOKS EXACT EXACTLY THE SAME FROM THE OUTSIDE.
TO DENY IT SEEMS STUPID. HE COULD NOT DO THIS AND JUST BUILD IT OUT LATER. HE'S TRYING TO DO THE RIGHT
THING. >> I THINK THAT WE ARE GETTING TO EXTRANEOUS CONVERSATION ON THIS.
THERE'S A LOT OF VARIABLES THAT MIGHT SEEM IMPORTANT BUT DON'T NECESSARILY FIT INTO A THROUGH G.
WE DIDN'T WRITE THE CODE BUT THE CITY ADOPTED IT OR SET OF REGULATION THAT IS APPLY IN THAT AREA AND THERE ARE DIFFERENT REGULATION THAT IS APPLY BASED ON THE SIZE OF THE LOT.
SOMETIMES PEOPLE WILL ASSEMBLE PROPERTIES TOGETHER TO GET DIFFERENT CONSIDERATIONS FOR SOMETHING THEY CAN DO.
I UNDERSTAND IT'S A MINOR BIT OF SQUARE FOOTAGE, BUT, YOU KNOW, THAT'S NOT WHAT YOU'RE FOCUSING ON TONIGHT IS THAT LITTLE BIT OF DIFFERENCE OR THE FACT THAT THEY MIGHT BE ABLE TO DO SOMETHING DIFFERENT. THEY HAVE A RIGHT TO DO WHATEVER THE PERMITTED BY THE ZONING ORDINANCE.
>> RIGHT. AND IF SEVERAL PEOPLE IF THAT AREA THINK THAT 45% IS NOT THE APPROPRIATE FAR THEY CAN ALWAYS PETITION THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO GET THE ZONING CHANGED AND CHANGE THAT IN THE PLAN. DOES ANYONE ELSE HAVE COMMENTS? OKAY. I WILL MAKE A MOTION TO DENY
>> FROST ROLLINS. EMMY SORRELLS.
>> NO. >> SO YOUR REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE WAS DENIED, RIGHT? IS THAT HOW THE VOTE SPLITS OR
DOES IT NEED TO GET FOUR. >> IT DIDN'T GET FOUR AFFIRMATIVE VOTES SO IT DID NOT PASS.
IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO MAKE RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL AND
VOTE ON THAT. >> IF SOMEONE WANTS TO MOVE TO APPROVE WE CAN VOTE THE OTHER WAY IF THAT'S HOW IT NEEDS TO GO
INSTEAD OF MOVING -- >> I THINK THAT WOULD BE
>> SO I WILL MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE.
>> I WILL SECOND. >> FROST ROLLINS.
>> YES. >> OKAY, SO YOUR REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE WAS DENIED. YOU HAVE 15 DAYS TO APPEAL THE DECISION AND YOU CAN TALK WITH THE CITY IF YOU NEED ASSISTANCE.
[Items 3 & 4]
WE ARE GOING TO SWAP THREE AND FOUR BECAUSE OUR INTERPRETATION WILL DETERMINE WHETHER WE NEED A VARIANCE.THIS REQUEST, THERE ARE TWO REQUESTS FOR NUMBERS THREE AND FOUR ON YOUR AGENDA. THEY'RE RELATED TO 429 PINEDALE DRIVE. THE STAFF HAS MEAT WITH THE APPLICANT ON FUME ROWS OCCASIONS TO DISCUSS THE ACTIVITY GOINGNU TO DISCUSS THE ACTIVITY GOING ON THERE.
SO THE APPLICANT SUBMITTED A VARIANCE REQUEST AND A REQUEST TO APPEAL THE DECISION I MADE REGARDING REALLY WHAT IS THE FRONT PROPERTY LINE AND WHERE WOULD THE FRONT SET BACK LINE BE FOR MEASUREMENT PURPOSES FOR CONSTRUCTION ON THE LOT? SO WE DID PUT IN YOUR REPORT THERE'S A DEFINITION THERE ON PAGE ONE FOR WHAT LOT LINE IS. I WON'T READ IT TO YOU.
[00:35:01]
IT DOES SAY THAT FOR DOUBLE FRONTAGE LOTS, CORNER LOTS, THERE'S A PROVISION THAT ALLOWS FOR THE PROPERTY OWNER TO CHOOSE THE DIRECTION OF THE HOUSE FOR THE FRONT LOT SO I WOULD SAY TO YOU WITH REGARD TO THIS LOT AS YOU SAW ON THE REPORT, THE SUBDIVISION PLAT WAS APPROVED IN 1931.THE HOUSE WAS BUILT IN 1937. I COULDN'T TELL YOU AND I DON'T THINK AT THIS TIME THIS WAS NOT IN THE CODE BECAUSE WE DIDN'T HAVE ZONING AT THAT TIME SO AT THE SAME THE SUBDIVISION WAS APPROVED, THERE WERE NO SET BACKS AN WHEN THEY PULLED A PERMIT FOR THIS THERE WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ANY CONSIDERATION OF THIS IS THE FRONT, THAT'S THE THE REAR.
NONE OF THAT CAME TO APPLY TO THAT TYPE OF PERMITTING.
THE ZONING FOR THIS AREA IS NC-12 AND AS I MENTIONED, JUST GAVE YOU THREE DATES, THE PLAT IN 1931, THE HOUSE WAS BUILT IN 37. ZONING FOR THE CITY, THE FIRST ZONING ORDINANCE THAT WE'RE AWARE OF WAS 1950 SO IN 1950 WOULD HAVE BEEN THE FIRST IMPOSITION OF REGULATORY SETBACKS, LONG AFTER THE HOUSE WAS BUILT.
AT THE TIME THE HOUSE WAS BUILT AND CONTINUING TODAY, THIS HOUSE AND THE HOUSE ON THE ADJACENT LOT HAVE BEEN ORIENTED TOWARD THE NORTH BECAUSE BOTH HOMES ARE ORIENTED IN THAT DIRECTION.
>> WHEN YOU SAY ORIENTED, WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY THAT?
>> THE FRONT DOOR OF THE HOUSE FACES NORTH.
IT DOES NOT FACE TOWARD EITHER OF THE STREET FRONTAGES, WHETHER IT BE PINEDALE ON THE WEST OR SANFORD ON THE SOUTH.
VE TICK LAIR ACCESS ALSO COMES FROME ACCESS ALSH R ACCESS ALSM THE NORTH. THEY BOTH HAVE ACCESS THROUGH THAT LITTLE COMMON AREA, THAT PARK AREA TO THE NORTH.
DOORTH ACCORDING TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE, IF YOU'RE A CORNER LOT, YOU CAN CHOOSE WHATEVER IS THE FRONT.
NORMALLY YOU COME IN FOR A BUILDING PERMIT, IT WOULD SHOW THE DIRECTION THE HOUSE IS FACING AND THE SET BACKS COME INTO PLAY BASED ON THAT ORIENTATION AND THE DESIGN OF THAT LOT. SO WHILE WE HAVE NO RECORDS NECESSARILY TO SHOW US WHAT WAS DISCUSSED, IF ANYTHING, BACK IN THAT DAY, WE CAN AT LEAST DEDUCE THAT IN 1931, 1937 WHEN THE HOUSE WAS BUILT THAT WHOEVER BUILT THE HOUSE TREATED OR CONSIDERED THE FRONT TO BE THE NORTH LOT LINE BECAUSE THAT'S THE HOUSE WAS PLACED ON THE PROPERTY.
CALLING PINEDALE THE FRONT, THAT WOULD BE THE LEFT SIDE OF THE SITE. YOU CAN SEE THAT PINEDALE CURVES INTO THE LOT TO A SIGNIFICANT DEGREE.
WHEN YOU TAKE THAT CURVATURE INTO ACCOUNT AND YOU TAKE THE FRONT AND REAR SET BACK INTO ACCOUNT IN AN EAST/WEST DIRECTION, YOU END UP WITH 32-FEET MORE OR LESS OF BUILDABLE LOT DEPTH WHICH I WOULD SAY IS NOT NORMAL ON A LOT THAT WE WOULD EVEN APPROVE TODAY ON A TYPICAL SUBDIVISION PLAT AND WHEN YOU COMPARE THAT WITH OTHER LOTS WITHIN THE SUBDIVISION, SOME ARE 300-FEET DEEP, WHICH WOULD GIVE YOU PROBABLY 200-FEET OF BUILDABLE LOT DEBT.
THIS LOT, REMEMBER SOME OF THE VARIANCE TRAINING YOU HAD RECENTLY, VARIANCES ARE -- ONE PURPOSE OF A VARIANCE IS TO TAKE A DEPRESSED PROPERTY THAT DOESN'T ENJOY THE SAME RIGHT OR PRIVILEGES WITHIN THE OTHER LOTS WITHIN THAT VICINITY AND ELEVATE THEM SO THEY HAVE EQUAL RIGHTS AND ENJOYMENT SO I THINK THIS IS ALMOST A TEXTBOOK, FROM THIS PERSPECTIVE, OF A VIERNS WHERE 32-FEETVARIANCE WHERE 32-FEET AND THAT'S NOT BASED ON SOMETHING THE APPLICANT HAS DONE.
IN MANY WAYS, IT'S A HARDSHIP THAT'S CREATED BY THE PLACEMENT OF A ZONING ORDINANCE OR A PROPERTY THAT WAS CREATED BEFOREHAND AND DIDN'T TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION ANY ORIENTATION OF THE HOUSE AT THAT TIME. BUT THAT'S JUST ILLUSTRATING THE DEPTH AND THE USABLE LOT DEPTH THAT COMES ABOUT FROM APPLYING THE ZONING ORDINANCE TO THIS LOT AFTER THE FACT.
SAYS IING NATED THE NORTH PROPERTY LINE AS THE FRONT PROPERTY LINE FOR SET BACK PURPOSES WOULD RECOGNIZE I BELIEVE THE HISTORICAL NATURE OF THE SITE, THE ORIGINAL ORIENTATION AND CONSTRUCTION OF THE SITE AND EXPAND THE DEPTH OF THE LOT FROM THE LOT DEPTH, IF YOU TAKE A LOOK AT THAT LOT
[00:40:09]
THERE, YOU HAVE 138-FEET ON THE BOTTOM.YOU HAVE 106 ON THE TOP. YOU TAKE AN AVERAGE OF THAT AND GET MAYBE 120 AND THEN TAKE THAT RIGHT OF WAY INTO ACCOUNT WHICH REDICES IT EVEN MORE. IF YOU COMPARE THAT, IT GOES FROM 200 TO 300-FEET IN DEPTH SO IT'S A SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE FROM OTHER PLATTED LOTS WITHIN THE PINEDALE SUBDIVISION.
SOME OF THE FACTS THAT ONCE STAFF STARTED RESEARCHING THIS THAT WE DISCOVERED AND CAME TO LIGHT WOULD BE, AGAIN, THE HISTORICAL ORIENTATION OF THE HOUSE TOWARD THE NORTH WHICH WAS, I THINK, CONSIDERED THE FRONT AT THAT TIME.
VEHICLE ACCESS IS ALSO FROM THE NORTH AND THAT BRINGS VEHICLES IN TOWARDS THE FRONT OF THE HOUSE, THAT'S WRITTEN INTO THE DOCUMENTATION THAT WE PROVIDED IN YOUR PACKET, SOMEL OF OLD MINUTES FROM THE HO ARK THAT GO BACK TO THE 1930S.
THE APPLICATION OF THE CURRENT SET BACKS AND DEFINITION OF THE LOT LINE I THINK WOULD CAUSE A HARDSHIP ON THE OWNER.
THERE IS AN ORIGINAL PLAT THAT WE PROVIDED TO YOU THAT, OF COURSE, DOES NOT INCLUDE ANY EASEMENTS OR DOESN'T SHOW ANY SETBACKS, DOESN'T INDICATE OR HAVE ANYTHING THAT WOULD REGULATE FRONT, SIDE, REAR LOT LINES.
BASED ON THAT FUNCTION, AND I WASN'T ALIVE IN 1931, BUT I HAVE TO LOOK AT THIS AND THINK, OKAY, IN 1931, WHEN THIS PLAT WAS APPROVED, THERE WERE NO SETBACKS SO PRESUMABLY WHEN YOU PULLED A PERMIT FOR THAT HOUSE YOU HAD THE FULL USE AND ENJOYMENT OF THAT LOT. IT DIDN'T SAY YOU HAD TO BE A CERTAIN DISTANCE OFF THIS LOT LIKE AND THAT LOT LINE SO THAT LOT WOULD HAVE BEEN MORE USABLE FOR CONSTRUCTION PURPOSES.
WHEN YOU THROW SETBACKS ON A PLAT THAT NEVER HAD SETBACKS ON IT TO BEGIN WITH, I THINK THAT DOES INFRINGE ON THE USABLE SPACE THAT YOU WOULD HAVE. AND THEN I THINK TREATING THE NORTH LOT LINE AS THE FRONT LOT LINE FOR SETBACK PURPOSES, AGAIN, WOULD UPHOLD THE INTENT AND USABILITY OF THE LOT AS ORIGINALLY PLANNED. IT WOULD BE MORE LIKE THE LOT TO THE EAST, LOT 76, WHICH HAS A MUCH BIGGER DEPTH FOR CONTRADICTION ON THAT LOT. IN SUMMARY, I WOULD SAY THAT, OKAY, WE ALSO HAVE PROVIDED FOR YOU SECTION 908 WHICH GIVES YOU SOME DIRECTION ON THE DECISION BEFORE YOU TONIGHT AND BASED ON REALLY I THINK THE PREPONDERANCE OF A LOT OF INFORMATION WE FOUND AND DISCOVERED AS WE WERE GOING THROUGH THIS REVIEW THAT THERE'S A LOT OF EVIDENCE THAT SHOWS THAT THE HISTORIC TREATMENT OF THE LOT AND CONSIDERATION OF THE LOT UNTIL YOU HAD A VARIANCE IN
>> YEAH, THANK YOU. WHERE FOR WHATEVER REASON IN THAT CASE SOMEONE DREW SOMETHING UP THAT SHOWED THE FRONT BEING OFF THE STREET, WHICH WOULD BE THE NORMAL FOR TODAY.
OTHER THAN THAT, THERE'S NOTHING IN THE RECORD THAT SHOWS A DIFFERENT ORIENTATION SO I THINK THERE'S A LOT OF JUSTIFYING FOR THAT. AS I MENTION IN THE REPORT, BECAUSE OF THE HISTORY AND BECAUSE OF THE TYPE OF REQUEST THAT THIS IS, STAFF, I DO BELIEF THAT THIS TYPE OF DECISION, AN APPEAL OF MY DECISION IS THE MOST APPROPRIATE REVIEW OF THIS TYPE OF REQUEST AND SO I DON'T THINK IT WAS A PROPER TOOL FOR A STAFF ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION TO SAY THIS IS THE FRONT, BUT I DON'T HAVE ANY ISSUE WITH THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT LOOKING AT THAT AS AN APPEAL AND EVEN CONCURRING WITH MY DECISION OR OVERRULING MY DECISION, SO I WOULD MENTION THAT TO YOU.
AND THE LAST THING I WOULD MENTION IS THAT AS A REQUEST BEFORE YOU TONIGHT, THE DECISION THAT YOU MAKE, IT SHOULD BE CLEAR THAT THAT DECISION IS BASED ON THE APPLICATION OF AND WITH REGARDS TO LOT 19 AND 19 ONLY IS NOT A DECISION THAT IMPACTS THE TOTALITY OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE AS IT APPLIES TO ANYTHING BEYOND THIS INDIVIDUAL EVENT.
SO WITH THAT, WE WOULD BE GLAD TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU
HAVE. >> I HAVE A PROCEDURAL QUESTION.
WE DON'T GET APPEALS OF THE PLANNING DIRECTOR'S INTERPRETATIONS VERY OFTEN SO HOW DO WE PROCEED WITH THIS?
>> I THINK LIKE YOU NORMALLY WOULD.
YOU WOULD HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO DISCUSS THIS AMONG YOURSELVES. I DIDN'T SEE ANYWHERE WHERE THIS
[00:45:01]
IS A PUBLIC HEARING. IN FACT, SOME OF THE WORDING THAT I READ IN THE CODE TALKS ABOUT YOU COME TOGETHER, DISCUSS THIS AND RENDER A DECISION WITHIN A CERTAIN NUMBER OF DAYS.SO I THINK RENDERING A DECISION TONIGHT WHILE WE'RE HERE IN THIS MEETING WOULD BE MOST APPROPRIATE AND JUST LIKE ANYTHING ELSE, I THINK A MOTION FROM SOMEONE HERE TO SAY THAT YOU BELIEVE THAT PLANNING DIRECTOR IS CORRECT IN HIS DECISION OR IN ERROR IN HIS DECISION AND WHATEVER YOU WANT
TO SAY BEYOND THAT. >> SO TO BE CLEAR, RIGHT NOW THE WEST PROPERTY LINE IS THE FRONT AND THEY WANT IT TO BE THE NORTH AND YOU AGREE THAT THAT MAKES SENSE?
>> I BELIEVE IT DOES MAKE SENSE. >> SO WE NEED TO AFFIRM HIS DECISION NOT APPEAL HIS DECISION? I WAS LIKE WE DON'T WANT TO -- IF WE AFFIRM HIS DECISION TO CHANGE THAT, THAT MEANS WE DON'T HAVE TO HAVE A VARIANCE.
>> I WAS IN CORRECT. YOU DO HAVE TO HAVE A PUBLIC
CAN DO. DOES ANYONE ELSE HAVE QUESTIONS?
>> AND THE APPLICANT IS HERE. MY APOLOGIES.
>> IF THE APPLICANT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK, PLEASE COME FORWARD.
>> THANK Y'ALL FOR HEARING US THIS AFTERNOON.
I'M ERNIE CARL SON, THE REPRESENTATIVESON, THE REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE OWNERS. WE HAVE A VERY UNIQUE PROPERTY IN REGARD TO THE SETBACKS AND WHATNOT AND AS STEVE SAID, IF YOU GO BY THE LETTER WE ONLY HAVE A 32'9" BUILDABLE SPACE FROM FRONT TO BACK WHICH MAKES IT VERY DIFFICULT TO DO ANYTHING. WHAT WE'RE HOPING IS THAT YOU WILL AGREE WITH OUR ASSESSMENT THAT THE ORIENTATION AS WE REQUESTED WOULD BE SHACHANGED S THAT THE FRONT ENRANS OF THE HOUSE WOULD BE NORTH, THE REAR ENTRACKS WOULD FACE SANFORD AND THAT'SNCE WOULD FACE SANFORD AN THAT'S WHAT WE'RE ASKING FOR.
>> ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? PLEASE SIGN IN IF YOU DIDN'T ALREADY.
>> I DID. >> IF WE HAVE ANY PUBLIC SPEAKERS FOR THIS APPEAL, NOT THE VARIANCE STAGE, PLEASE COME
FORWARD >> I'M KATHY BRIGS AND MY FATHER-IN-LAW, HIS FAMILY HAS BUILT ON PINEDALE.
HE IS THE PINEDALE HISTORIAN THAT'S CURRENTLY ALIVE.
I GET TO LISTEN TO HIS STORIES ON A REGULAR BASIS, I HEAR THE SAME STORY REGULARLY AND SO I WANTED TO KIND OF CORRECT THE HISTORY FROM A VERBAL HISTORIAN. I DON'T KNOW HOW MUCH OF THIS YOU CAN FIND DOCUMENTED BUT HE LIVED IT.
THAT HOME, HE WAS THERE WHEN IT WAS DIRT ROAD AND THINGS LIKE THAT BY THE HOME IN QUESTION HE SAYS FRONTED ON SANFORD AVENUE.
THOSE TWO HOMES THERE, ACCORDING TO HIS RECOLLECTION, SANFORD
AVENUE WAS THEIR FRONT. >> ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT 76 AND
OVER THE YEARS ADDITIONS HAVE BEEN -- THOSE HOPES WENT EARNED RENOVATIONS, THINGSES WENT EARN RENOVATIOMES WENT EARNED RENOVATIOU RENOVATION RENOVATIOD RENOVATIOE RENOVATIOR RENOVATIONS, THINGS CHANGED AND THAT ENTRANCE WAS NOT THE ORIGINAL ENTRANCE.
I WANTED TO GET THAT ON THE RECORD FROM SOMEONE WHO PLAYED IN THAT NEIGHBORHOOD. THE FRONT WAS SANFORD OR THE PINEDALE SIDE BUT NOT THE PARK SIDE.
[00:50:02]
THANK YOU. >> WOULD ANYONE ELSE LIKE TO
SPEAK? >> I'M AARON AND I LIVE ON PINEDALE AND I THINK EVERYBODY I HAVE TALKED TO IS IN SUPPORT OF IT. IT EITHER FACES SANFORD OR IT FACES THE PARK. THE ONLY QUESTION I HAVE IS IF WE, ON PAPER IN WRITING SAY THE FRONT OF THE HOUSE IS ON A PARK, THAT THERE'S JUST AT LEAST ACCESS OR AN ACCESS PERMITTED THROUGH THE PARK ASSOCIATION BACK IN THE 30S, DOES THAT OPEN UP ANY PROBLEMS? DOES IT PUT THE PARK IN JEOPARDY HAVING TWO HOUSES FACING A PARK THAT I THINK THEY COULD HAVE ACCESS WITH A DRIVEWAY ON THEIR PROPERTY STILL.
I DON'T THINK IT DOES. IT'S MORE OF JUST A YOUR SIDE SETBACKS ARE NOT GOING TO MATTER IF --
>> I'LL SEE IF I CAN ANSWER HIS QUESTION.
THERE ARE RECORDS I PUT IN YOUR PACKET THAT GO BACK TO THE 30S THAT TALK ABOUT AT LEAST LOT 20 TO THE EAST BEING GRANTED ACCESS THROUGH THAT PARK. I COULDN'T FIND ANY ACCESS RECORDS FOR LOT 19 BUT THERE WERE STATEMENTS IN SOME OF THOSE RECORDS THAT HAD ALLUDED TO BOTH OF THEM HAVING ACCESS THROUGH THAT PARK. I DON'T THINK IT'S IN
PERPETUITY. >> AND THEY'RE CURRENT LEASES.
>> YEAH, AT THIS POINT IN TIME AND THAT COULD BE SOMETHING THAT GOES AWAY OVER TIME. IF IT DID, THEY WOULD JUST HAVE TO HAVE ACCESS OFF PINEDALE BUT I DON'T THINK IT BINDS THE HANDS OF THE SUBDIVISION BASED OFF THE ORIENTATION WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE. I DID FORWARD AN E-MAIL TO YOU FROM ANOTHER NEIGHBOR OUT THERE WHO SAID HE THOUGHT THIS MADE SINCE TO HEM AND ALSO PROVIDED YOU WITH A FLOOR PLANM AND ALSO YOU WITH A FLOIM AND ALSO PROVI YOU WITH A FLOOR PLAN THAT WAS FOR LOT 20 WHICH I BELIEVE ALSO SHOWED IT BEING ORIENTED TOWARD THE NORTH. LASTLY, WE HAD OTHER CONVERSATIONS WITH THE ADJACENT NEIGHBOR AT LOT 20 AND HE ALSO
EXPRESSED HIS SUPPORT FOR THIS. >> IT'S FURTHER THAN 12-FEET RIGHT NOW IF YOU CONSIDER THE FRONT.
IF IT'S GRANTED, IT'S NOT EVEN A VARIANCE AT THAT POINT, RIGHT?
>> RIGHT, IF THE BOARD APPROVES THE APPEAL.
>> CHANGES WHICH IS THE FRONT. >> RIGHT, IF YOU APPROVE THE APPEAL THE VARIANCE IS NOT NEEDED BECAUSE THE EAST PROPERTY LINE MORE THAN MEETS THE MINIMUM.
>> AND IF YOU DEB OUT THERE AND LOOK AT IT.
>> THERE'S NEVER BEEN A DOOR FACING PINEDALE.
MY ONLY CONCERN WAS TO MAKE SURE WE'RE NOT BINDING THE CALMING
SPACE. >> NOTHING WE DO SETS ANY PRECEDENCE OR ANYTHING. ANY DECISION WE MAKE IS FOR THAT CASE AND THAT CASE ALONE. IT DOES NOT SET A PRECEDENCE.
>> I THINK YOU WILL FIND IT MAKES SENSE TO GO ON WITH IT.
>> OKAY. WOULD ANYONE ELSE LIKE TO SPEAK? THINK. I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND OPEN BOARD DISCUSSION. MARY, I LIKE YOUR TRICK-OR-TREATER STANDARD. THAT SHOULD BE A LEGAL STANDARD.
>> IT'S NOT ABOUT THE MAILBOX, WHERE DO TO TRICK-OR-TREATERS
GO? >> STEVE, IT LOOKS LIKE YOUR ORIGINAL INTERPRETATION IS THAT THE FRONT IS PINEDALE AND SO NOW WE WOULD BE AFFIRMING OR OTHER RULING THAT.
>> THAT'S THE BEST WAY TO WORD THAT?
>> AS IT SAYS IN THE REPORT. LET'S SEE.
IT STATE THAT IS THE BOARD CAN AFFIRM, DENY, OR OVERRIDE THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING DIRECTOR, SO MY DECISION WAS BASED ON THE IMPLICATION APPLICATION OF TODAY'S CODES ON A SITE THAT DIDN'T TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE HISTORIC NATURE OF
[00:55:04]
THE PROPERTY. >> SO WE WOULD NEED TO APPROVE
THE APPEAL? >> OVERRIDING THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING DIRECTOR TO DECLARE THAT THE FRONT PROPERTY LINE IS THE FRONT PROPERTY LINE FOR LOT 19 ONLY.
>> DOES ANYONE ELSE HAVE COMMENTS? IT'S GREAT TO GET THE HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE.
OKAY. PLEASE CORRECT ME IF I DO THIS WRONG, BY I'M GOING TO MAKE A MOTION TO REVERSE THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING DIRECTOR AND INSTEAD SAY THAT THE NORTH PROPERTY LINE IS THE FRONT LOT LINE FOR LOT 19 ONLY.
IS THAT RIGHT? >> I WILL SECOND THE MOTION.
>> YES. >> OKAY, SO THAT APPEAL HAS BEEN GRANTED. THE APPLICANT ALSO SUBMITTED A REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE. DO I NEED TO ASK THE APPLICANT
TOO WITHDRAW THAT VARIANCE? >> I WOULD ASK THEM
[OTHER BUSINESS]
>> YES, I WOULD LIKE TO WITHDRAW.
>> THANK YOU MR. CARLSON. OKAY. MOVING ONTO OTHER BUSINESS.
DO WE HAVE OTHER BUSINESS? >> I DO.
THE ONLY THING I WANTED TO MENTION IS THAT RATHER THAN BOMBARD YOU WITH MORE E-MAILS, AUGUST 24TH WE HAVE SOME TRAINING SET UP THAT WILL TAKE PLACE AT I BELIEVE THE HARRIS CENTER AND THAT WILL BE FROM I THINK 12:00 TO 4:00 P.M. SO WILL ALL OF YOU, IF YOU PLAN ON BEING THERE, PLEASE LET MYSELF OR
JESSICA KNOW. >> AND PLEASE GET YOUR REGISTRATION FARM TO ME IF YOU HAVE NOT.
>> ISN'T IT JUST OUR NAME AND NUMBER?
>> YES, AND WE WILL HAVE LUNCH. CHAIRMAN COMMUNICATION.
I'M NOT A MAN AND I DON'T HAVE ANY COMMUNICATION.
STAFF COMMUNICATION. >> NOTHING ELSE.
THANK YOU. >> ALL RIGHT.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.