1. Variance to Section 502.02. G Performance Residential Development, Multiple Unit Development Standards: of the City of Auburn Zoning Ordinance

[1. Variance to Section 502.02. G Performance Residential Development, Multiple Unit Development Standards: of the City of Auburn Zoning Ordinance ]

>> YES. >> EMMY SORRELLS?

>> YES. >> LATICIA SMITH?

>> YES. >> MARTY HEFFREN?

>> YES. >> SO, THE MINUTES ARE APPROVED. WE WILL NOW MOVE ON TO OUR FIRST ITEM, WHICH IS A VARIANCE REQUEST, ENTITLED TOOMER STREET, AND THAT IS

BZ-2024-008. >> ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU. IF YOU JUST WANT TO GO TO THE -- THANK YOU. WHAT WE HAVE IS DESIGN ELEMENTS FOR EVERY CORE, SHALL PROVIDE ONE PARKING SPACE PER BEDROOM. THIS REFERS TO DISTRICT 51301, RESIDENTIAL PARKING, WHICH REFERS TO SECTION 502.02, WHICH IS ONE VISITOR SPACE PER 12 BEDROOMS WITHIN A PROJECT. THIS IS A VARIANCE REQUEST -- I THINK WE BROKE IT DOWN IN THE ACTUAL ANALYSIS OF HOW MANY PARKING SPACES THEY ARE REQUESTING, BUT THIS IS A VARIANCE REQUEST TO -- FOR 171 PARKING SPACES TO THE REQUIRED PARKING, SO THIS IS A SPLIT ZONE -- IF YOU WANT TO GO TO THE NEXT -- THERE ARE SEVERAL NUANCES WITH THIS SITE, THIS IS A SPLIT ZONE PROPERTY BETWEEN YOU AND W AND UC. UC -- I THINK IT IS THE BREAKDOWN -- THERE ARE DIFFERENT PARKING REQUIREMENTS, SO IT IS ONE, ONE, ONE, AND 10% IN THE OTHER.

THE REQUIRED PARKING THEY ARE GOING TO BUILD, IF THEY JUST CITED THEM NORMALLY, IT WAS GOING TO BE ABOUT 900, OR SO.

AND THEN, WITH HOW THEY CONFIGURED THE BEDROOMS AND PARKING ACCORDINGLY, THEY ARE ABLE TO SPLIT IT AND GET IT DOWN TO 864, SO WITH THAT, THEY ARE REQUIRING A VARIANCE OF 20%. THEY WERE REQUESTING THIS NOT JUST BECAUSE OF PARKING, THEY WERE REQUESTING THIS BECAUSE OF ON-SITE STORMWATER

[00:05:02]

ISSUES THEY WERE CLAIMING. SO, IN THE REPORT, IT HAS A BREAKDOWN, IT IS KIND OF GOING THROUGH IF THIS IS A HARDSHIP, WHAT IS THE PERCEIVED HARDSHIP, AND THEN WHAT IS THE CITY'S RESPONSE TO THAT. SO, THE ON-SITE FLOODING ISSUE IS THE REASON THAT THEY CANNOT MEET THE REQUIRED PARKING. THERE IS A CHALLENGE WITH GOING DEEPER ON-SITE. IF THEY WERE TO GO ANY DEEPER TO PROVIDE THE PARKING, THEY WOULD BE HAVING ISSUES.

FOR WATER MITIGATION, PUMPING, ET CETERA, IT WOULD BECOME COST PROHIBITIVE FOR THEM TO PUMP OUT ALL THE WATER NECESSARY.

SO, REALLY, JUST KIND OF BREAKDOWN HOW THIS SITE -- IF YOU WANT TO GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE? THIS SITE ITSELF IS ENCUMBERED BY SEVERAL EASEMENTS. ALSO, WITH THE EXISTING CHALLENGES JUST AROUND THE ZONING, AND I GUESS ALSO WITH THE EASEMENTS AND EVERYTHING GOING ON, I HAVE BEEN INCREDIBLY FLEXIBLE ON MY END, ON MY END, JUST WITH WHAT WAS GOING TO HAPPEN AT THIS SITE. SO, WITH THE SPLIT ZONING, THEY ARE ABLE TO HAVE TOTAL AUTONOMY OVER IF THEY WANTED TO HAVE THEM ON ONE SIDE, VERSUS THE OTHER, AND HOW THAT WOULD AFFECT THE PARKING TOTALS. THEY WERE ABLE TO SHAVE OFF 100 PARKING SPACES JUST TO GET TO THE CURRENT PARKING THEY ARE ASKING, THE ADDITION OF VARIANCE, TOO, AS A RESULT OF THAT. THE CITY IS AMENDABLE TO MOVING SOME OF THESE EASEMENTS, SO THERE ARE THREE EASEMENTS ON SITE, I KNOW THAT LOOKS LIKE A LOT OF RED, THEY ARE NOT BROKEN OUT. THEY HAVE A PRESENTATION LATER WHERE THEY BREAK THEM OUT. THREE OF THESE EASEMENTS CAN BE RELOCATED, THE CITY IS OPEN TO MOVING THOSE AS LONG AS THERE IS ANOTHER PLACE FOR THOSE. LIKE I SAID -- AS I SAID, WE ARE BEING VERY AGREEABLE AND ACCOMMODATING, JUST UNDER SOME OF THE CHALLENGES WITH THIS, ALLOWING THEM TO WORK THROUGH AND PRESENT ANY OPTIONS NECESSARY FOR THEM TO DO THAT. AND SO, I GUESS, JUST KIND OF -- WHEN IT CAME TO THE ADDITIONAL REQUEST FOR THE PARKING VARIANCE, THE ORIGIN OF THE PARKING VARIANCE, OR THE ORIGIN OF THE PARKING STANDARDS DOWNTOWN, HAVING TO PARK 110% TO A ONE BEDROOM CAME OUT OF THERE BEING AN OVERFLOW OF PARKING, AN OVERFLOW OF GUEST PARKING FROM PEOPLE PARKING ON THE STREETS BECAUSE THE GUESTS WERE COMING. PEOPLE WERE PARKING 1:1, WHERE THEY WERE PARKING ALL OF THE RESIDENTS ON-SITE, BUT WHEN RESIDENTS HAD GUESTS, IT WOULD CAUSE ISSUES AND THEN THE DOWNTOWN PEOPLE WOULD PARK ON THE STREET, IN FRONT OF RESIDENCES THAT THEY WEREN'T LIVING IN, AND SO THAT WAS THE ORIGIN OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION, CREATING THE 1:1 RATIO FOR PARKING DOWNTOWN, CURRENTLY. SO, THE VARIANCE DIRECTLY UNDERMINES THAT. LIKE I SAID, THE CITY DOESN'T SEE ANY TROUBLES WITH THAT, AS FAR AS THE FUNDING IS CONCERNED. I REACHED OUT TO THE CITY ENGINEER AND THE PARKS AND REC DIRECTOR -- NOT PARKS AND REC -- PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR, REGARDING THE STORMWATER CONCERNS. SO, FOR EVERYBODY IN THE AUDIENCE, THE CITY HANDLES STORMWATER ON A THREE-PRONGED WATER RESOURCE MANAGEMENT. WE HAVE ENGINEERING THAT HANDLES THE STORMWATER, AND PUBLIC WORKS ACTUALLY RESPONDS TO ON-SITE ISSUES WITH FLOODING. SO, IN TALKING TO THE PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR AND THE CITY ENGINEER, THEY SAY THAT SINCE THERE HAD BEEN MITIGATION DONE BACK IN 2017, THAT THEY ARE NOT AWARE OF ANY CONCERNS OR ANY COMPLAINTS THAT HAVE BEEN MADE TO THE CITY FORMALLY, REGARDING FLOODING ON-SITE. AND SO, I TALKED ABOUT IN THE STAFF REPORT, THERE WAS AN INITIAL STUDY DONE IN 2016 TO OUTLINE AND IDENTIFY WHAT SOME ISSUES WERE. THEY HAD OPTIONS LAID OUT. THE MEDICATIONS THAT WERE DONE WAS REROUTING AND ADDING A LARGER CAPACITY DOWNTOWN, SO THOSE PIPES THAT ARE UNDER THIS SITE THAT YOU SEE IN THIS PLAT HERE, I BELIEVE IT IS 200 72 INCH PIPES, SO A LOT OF THOSE ARE WHAT PEOPLE WOULD BE ABLE TO WALK THROUGH. SO, THE CAPACITY WAS FIXED. LIKE I SAID, THE TWO DEPARTMENT HEADS WHO DEAL WITH A LOT OF THE ON-SITE CONCERNS AND COMPLAINTS ASSOCIATED WITH THIS SITE HAVE NOT GOTTEN COMPLAINTS ASSOCIATED WITH STORMWATER FLOODING SINCE THIS HAS HAPPENED. I THINK THE ONE TIME THAT THERE WAS ON-SITE FLOODING, IT WOULD HAVE BEEN WHEN THE CONSTRUCTION 191 HAPPENED, AND THAT WAS NOT TIED TO A FLOODING EVENT. IT WAS BECAUSE THE CONSTRUCTION HAD BLOCKED THE DRAINAGE PATCH OF THE FLOW DOWNTOWN, JUST KIND OF ON-SITE. SO, FROM A CITY STANDPOINT, THE HARDSHIP ON THIS SITE, LIKE I SAID, THE CITY HAS BEEN ACCOMMODATING ABOUT THOSE BEING MOVED AND ALSO HAS BEEN FLEXIBLE ABOUT WHERE THE BEDROOMS CAN BE LOCATED, AND IT HAS REALLY KIND OF ALLOWED FOR THEM TO DECIDE WHERE THE LINE IS AND OPERATE ACCORDINGLY. I GUESS WE WANT TO GO BACK TO THE SLIDE BEFORE THIS. THESE ARE NOT SURVEYED, SO THESE ARE NOT HARD BOUNDARIES. LIKE I SAID, WE

[00:10:02]

REALLY PROVIDED THE FLEXIBILITY TO PROVIDE THESE ACCORDINGLY WITH WHAT WOULD WORK FOR THIS PROJECT. WITH THAT, LIKE I SAID, THOSE COMBINATIONS FROM SIDING, ALSO ALLOWING THEM, IF THEY NEED TO MOVE SEVERAL OF THESE EASEMENTS, THEY WOULD HAVE THAT OPTION. AND ALSO, WITH THE MITIGATION THAT CITY DID IN 2017 TO THIS SITE, THE CITY DOES NOT RECOGNIZE -- OR, IF THERE IS ANY FLOODING ISSUES ON-SITE, THE CITY HAS NOT BEEN MADE AWARE OF IT. LIKE I SAID, IF THERE WERE ANY ISSUES OVER THE PAST COUPLE OF YEARS, WE WOULD HAVE BEEN MADE AWARE AND THE DEPARTMENT IS RESPONSIBLE FOR ADDRESSING ANY ON-SITE ISSUES. THERE HAS NOT BEEN ANY COMMUNICATIONS TO THEM, THAT THESE EXIST. SO, THE CITY DOESN'T VIEW THIS AS A HARDSHIP. I GUESS WE DON'T MAKE ANY RECOMMENDATIONS ASSOCIATED WITH IT. BUT I GUESS THIS IS THE CITY STANCE ON IT.

JUST ON THE PARKING VARIANCE REQUEST. SO, IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, I WILL TURN IT OVER TO Y'ALL.

>> THANK YOU. >> I GUESS YOU PROBABLY NEED TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. I'M SORRY. THERE YOU GO.

>> AT THIS POINT, WE WILL OPEN UP PUBLIC HEARING, IF ANYBODY WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM.

>> WE ARE GOING TO NEED MORE THAN THREE MINUTES.

>> IF HE WANTS TO DO IT AFTER --

>> YEAH, YEAH, YEAH. >> DON'T WE FIRST NEED TO HEAR

FROM THE APPLICANT? >> I WOULD RATHER HEAR FROM HIM, FIRST. FOR THE PUBLIC HEARING, IF POSSIBLE.

>> YEAH, YEAH, YEAH. >> THAT IS PERMISSIBLE, ACCORDING TO -- OKAY. DID WE HEAR FROM THE APPLICANT,

PLEASE? >> GOOD EVENING, BRETT BASKIN WITH THE FORESITE GROUP. I AM HERE WITH LANDMARK PROPERTIES.

GOOD EVENING. THIS VARIANCE REQUEST, THERE ARE MULTIPLE HARDSHIPS ON THIS PARTICULAR PROPERTY. IT IS NOT JUST ONE FOR FLOODING. THIS PARTICULAR ONE IS MADE UP OF FOUR EXISTING PARCELS THAT EXIST RIGHT TO TOOMER STREET. OUR VARIANCE REQUEST IS A REQUEST TO REDUCE THE PARKING REQUIRED BY 20%.

OUR HARDSHIP ARE THESE EXISTING EASEMENTS THAT ARE CHALLENGES.

THERE ARE SEVERAL OF THESE EASEMENTS THAT ARE BASICALLY DRAINING STORMWATER RUNOFF AND SANITARY SEWER FROM ALL DOWNTOWN AND THROUGH THIS SITE SO IT IS JUST NOT FOR THE BENEFIT OF ONE OR TWO ADJACENT PROPERTIES. IT IS PRETTY MUCH CONCERNED WITH THE WHOLE PART OF DOWNTOWN. WE WILL GET INTO MORE DETAILS LATER ON WHICH EASEMENTS CAN BE RELOCATED AND WHICH ONES CANNOT. AND THEN, YES, THERE IS EXISTING KNOWN STORMWATER ISSUE. THE PROPERTY OWNER HERE, HE IS THE ONE THAT SAID EVEN THOUGH THE STORMWATER IMPROVEMENTS HAVE BEEN MADE BY THE CITY, THE SITE MAY STILL EXPERIENCE FLOODING, AND HE CAN COME UP AND TELL YOU ABOUT THAT LATER. IN REGARDS TO PARKING COMPARABLES, JUSTIN HAS MENTIONED THE DOWNTOWN STUFF -- SO, THERE ARE MULTIPLE DOWNTOWN PARKING REQUIREMENTS, DEPENDING ON WHERE YOU ARE IN DOWNTOWN, FOR RESIDENTIAL. OKAY? THERE IS DIFFERENT ONES. SO, WE WILL GO THROUGH AND EXPLAIN WHAT THOSE PARKING REQUIREMENTS ARE, BY WHICH AREA OF TOWN YOU ARE IN, AND HOW IT APPLIES TO US. BUT, WE DO HAVE COMPARABLE PROPERTY DATA FROM THE STANDARD, WHICH THEY OWN, AND OPERATE, AND DEVELOPED. ALL OF THOSE PROJECTS REQUIRED AT LEAST A ONE PARKING SPACE PER BED RATIO, AND ALL OF THEM ARE NOT EXPERIENCING A UTILIZATION HIGHER THAN 84%. THE PARKING REQUIREMENTS THAT WE ARE REFERRING TO WERE DONE BACK MORE THAN 20 YEARS AGO, BEFORE I CAME HERE. I THINK THE UNIVERSITY HAS GONE TO THE ROBUST TRANSIT SYSTEM, AND THE WALKING CAMPUS HAS CHANGED THE WAY THESE STUDENTS AND MOST PEOPLE DOWNTOWN INTERACT WITH THE UNIVERSITY. SO, WE WILL GET INTO A LITTLE BIT MORE OF THAT, AS WELL. OUR PARTICULAR PROJECT IS A MIXED-USE PROJECT. WE DO HAVE COMMERCIAL ON THE FIRST FLOOR ALONG RIDE STREET. WE DO HAVE ABOUT 343 UNITS AND ABOUT 800 BEDS, AND THE TWO BUILDINGS THAT WE ARE TRYING TO DO. THIS

[00:15:02]

EASEMENT BIFURCATE OUR BUILDING. WE CAN'T BUILD A BUILDING ALL THE WAY ACROSS BECAUSE OF THESE EASEMENTS. WE ARE NOT ABLE TO SPAN OVER THESE EASEMENTS. THAT IS A BRIEF OVERVIEW. WE WOULD JUST DIG INTO THE DETAILS AND SHOW YOU GUYS SOME MORE, EXPLAIN MORE ABOUT THESE HARDSHIPS, BUT I WILL TURN IT OVER TO ERIC TO EXPLAIN MORE ABOUT THE COMPANY.

>> SUPER FAST, ERIC LEE, LANDMARK PROPERTIES, BASED OUT OF GEORGIA. WE ARE BOTH OUR OWN DEVELOPER, GENERAL CONTRACTOR, OWNER, AND PROPERTY MANAGER. WE HAVE BEEN DOING THIS SINCE 2004, ORIGINALLY IN THE SOUTHEAST, BUT NOW NATIONWIDE.

HOW DO I CONTROL THIS? SORRY. OH. OH, I'M SORRY, THANKS.

YEAH, SO, WE ARE NOW A NATIONAL COMPANY, WE OWN, AND OPERATE, AND HAVE DEVELOPED HOUSING PROPERTIES ALL ACROSS THE COUNTRY. ORIGINALLY, WE FOCUSED SOLELY ON STUDENT HOUSING. WE NOW HAVE EXPANDED INTO TRADITIONAL, MULTIFAMILY, AND SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES. THIS WOULD BE THE SECOND PROJECT IN AUBURN. WE DID THE FIRST STAND IN 2019. 683 BEDROOMS. IT IS CURRENTLY 100% OCCUPIED, SO ALL OF THE BEDROOMS ARE OCCUPIED AND THEN WE NOW HAVE THE MAJORITY OF THE RETAIL EAST, AS WELL. SO, BRETT MENTIONED WHERE THE SITE WAS, IT IS LOCATED HERE, AND THAT IS A REFERENCE TO WHERE THE STANDARD IS, AS WELL. SO, IT SPANS THIS SITE, AND YOU CAN'T TELL FROM THE MAP, BUT THERE IS ACTUALLY SOME TYPOGRAPHY ON THE SITE, WHERE BOTH ENDS ARE HIGHER THAN THE MIDDLE, THIS THING SINKS PRETTY DRAMATICALLY, WHICH IS WHERE THESE STORMWATER EASEMENTS ARE THROWING. AGAIN, THESE ARE FOUR PROPERTIES, ALL OF THESE PROPERTIES NOW HAVE A LOWER DENSITY HOUSING PRODUCT ON THEM. WE WOULD BE PROPOSING TO REDEVELOP THE ENTIRE SITE. I KNOW WE MENTIONED THIS A LITTLE BIT ALREADY, BUT THERE ARE SEVERAL EASEMENTS ON THE SITE. SEVERAL OF THESE, WE ARE PROPOSING TO RELOCATE, AT OUR EXPENSE. THE ISSUE IS PREDOMINANTLY AROUND THE STORMWATER EASEMENTS IN RED THAT BIFURCATE THE CENTER OF THE SITE. AS MENTIONED, THOSE ARE OF SIGNIFICANT DIAMETER PIPES, AND THOSE CANNOT BE LOCATED AND BECAUSE OF THAT, WE ARE HAVING TO SPLIT THE SITE INTO TWO BUILDINGS. WE HAVE INCLUDED A COUPLE CONCEPTUAL RENDERINGS AND I WOULD LIKE TO POINT OUT THEY ARE NOT IN THE DOWNTOWN DESIGN, YET. THESE ARE PURELY REPRESENTATIVE. BUT, THIS IS THE TYPE OF PRODUCT WE WOULD BE LOOKING TO BUILD HERE.

YOU CAN SEE HERE WHERE THE TWO BUILDINGS ARE SEPARATED FROM THE CENTER OF THE SITE, THIS IS WHERE THESE EXISTING STORMWATER

EASEMENTS ARE LOCATED. >> AND WE CALL TO ORDER THIS OCTOBER 22ND, 2024 BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENT MEETING FOR THE CITY OF AUBURN. JUST THE OCTOBER 22ND, 2024 ZONING AND ADJUSTMENT MEETING FOR THE CITY OF AUBURN. OCTOBER 22ND, --

>> BUT, BECAUSE OF THAT REASON, WE ARE TECHNICALLY FORCED TO SPLIT THE PROJECT INTO TWO BUILDINGS, WHICH ACTUALLY AFFECTS THE PARKING ON-SITE. I THINK IT IS ALSO WORTH NOTING THAT THE SITE IS ALSO ADJACENT TO ANOTHER DOWNTOWN ZONING DISTRICT, DIRECTLY ACROSS RIGHTS STREET WHICH HAS DIFFERENT PARKING ZONES THAN WHERE WE ARE AT ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE STREET. AGAIN, JUST AN AERIAL RENDERING OF OUR CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN THAT SHOWS THE SEPARATION OF THE TWO BUILDINGS. AND HERE IS THE SITE PLAN. SO, YOU CAN SEE THAT WE ARE DOING -- WE ARE PROPOSING, I SHOULD SAY -- WRAPPED STRUCTURE PARKING IN BOTH THE INDIVIDUAL BUILDINGS SO THAT THE PARKING WON'T BE VISIBLE FROM ANY OF THE STREETS. IT WILL BE WRAPPED WITH RESIDENTIAL UNITS OR RETAIL ON WRIGHTS STREET AND WITH CONSTRUCTION PARKING IN THE CENTER OF THE PROJECT. EVEN AS COBB POINTED OUT, THAT PARKING WILL GO AROUND, TO A DEGREE. SO, WE ARE ALREADY ENCOMPASSING SOME SURFACE PARKING. YOU CAN SEE FROM THE MIDDLE OF THE SITE, THAT IS ABOUT WHERE THAT STORMWATER EASEMENT IS, THE SURFACE OF THE PARKING LOT, TO LEAVE OPEN TO THE SKY, BUT THIS STORMWATER EASEMENT EXISTS ON-SITE. JUST ANOTHER LEVEL OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT. AND THEN, HERE IS THE SECTION KIND OF SHOWING HOW WE ARE ISSUING THIS. YOU CAN SEE THE TOPOGRAPHY IS MUCH HIGHER IN ONE SIDE THAN THE OTHER SIDE.

WE ARE GOING BELOW GRADE PARKING TO GET TO THE PARKING

[00:20:02]

WE ARE CURRENTLY SHOWING, AND THEN YOU CAN SEE THE BREAK IN THE SITE WHERE THAT EXISTING STORMWATER EASEMENT RUNS, AND IS BEING LEFT OPEN TO THE SKY. I AM GOING TO TURN IT OVER TO BRETT FOR A LITTLE BIT ON WHAT IS GOING ON WITH THE STORM

WATER DRAINAGE. THANK YOU. >> SO, AGAIN, BACK IN 2016, THE CITY EVALUATED THE DRAINAGE THROUGH THIS SITE. THIS WAS A CITY INITIATED STUDY DONE ON PRIVATE THAT IS AFFECTING THIS PROPERTY AND THIS PROPERTY OWNER. AS PART OF THAT STUDY, WE RECOGNIZE THAT THERE WAS DRAINAGE ISSUES IN THAT AREA, AND GAVE MULTIPLE RECOMMENDATIONS TO FIX IT. YOU KNOW, MULTIPLE OPTIONS. THEY DID GO WITH ONE OF THE OPTIONS AND THEY DID MAKE IT PRETTY TO 2017. BUT, WITHIN THAT 2017, THEY ARE STILL EXPERIENCING FLOODING IN LARGER RAIN EVENTS.

NOW, THIS IS EXHIBITS FROM THAT DRAINAGE STUDY. YOU CAN KIND OF SEE WHERE OUR SITE IS DOWN AT THE BOTTOM WHERE IT SAYS "SITE LOCATION." YOU CAN SEE THIS ORANGE OUTLINE ALL THE WAY AROUND THERE. THAT IS THE WHOLE PART OF NORTH DOWNTOWN THAT IS DRAINING THROUGH THIS SITE, IT IS OVER 60 ACRES. IT ENCOMPASSES ACROSS THE RAILROAD, TO SPENCER LUNDBERG, UP THAT WAY TO SEE THE DRAINING STUFF ON THE EAST. EVEN THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARD, WHERE THE OLD CHECKERS USED TO BE, ALL OF THAT SIDE, THAT RAIN COMES DOWN THROUGH HERE, BOTH THE STORM AND SEWER, IN THE SAME EASEMENT AREAS. SO, A SIGNIFICANT PART OF DOWNTOWN THAT IS DRAINING THROUGH THIS SITE. THIS MAP IS A SEWER MAP. THIS IS THE CITY SEWER MAP. THE RED OUTLINE IS OUR PROPERTY. AS YOU CAN SEE, WE KIND OF HAVE THE SEWER COMING THROUGH OUR PROPERTY AT THREE LOCATIONS. THE LINE ON THE FAR LEFT, WE CAN REROUTE THAT TO THE CENTER. THE ONE ON THE BOTTOM, WE CAN TIGHTEN UP TO OUR PROPERTY. BUT, THE MAIN SEWER LINE THAT IS RUNNING ATOP THE PAGE AND COMING THROUGH, IT'S GOT TO GO WHERE IT'S GOT TO GO. THE OLD SAYING, THE POOP FLOWS DOWNHILL, WE CAN ONLY MAKE IT GO DOWNHILL AND BASED ON THE TOPOGRAPHY OF THE SITE, THAT IS HOW IT GOES. WE CAN'T CHANGE IT. WE CAN GIVE OURSELVES A LITTLE BIT MORE ROOM BY RELOCATING THESE, BUT WE CAN'T REMOVE THEM THROUGH THE SIDE. THIS IS FROM OUR SURVEY. THE RED OUTLINE, AGAIN, IS THE PROPERTY. THE ORANGE OUTLINES ARE THE SEWER. AND THE BLUE LINES ARE THE DRAINAGE PIPES THAT ARE GOING THROUGH THIS SITE. IF YOU NOTICE, WELL, IT LOOKS SMALL, BUT HOPEFULLY YOU GUYS CAN SEE IT ON THE SCREEN. I HAVE SOME RED BOXES THAT KIND OF GIVE YOU AN IDEA OF THE GRADES ON THAT SITE. SO, IN THE BOTTOM RIGHT-HAND CORNER, IF YOU LOOK IN THE BOTTOM RIGHT-HAND CORNER ON WRIGHTS STREET, THAT IS THE HIGH POINT OF THE SITE, THERE. IF YOU LOOK AT THOSE GRADES, IT IS 703, AND IN THE MIDDLE OF WRIGHTS STREET, IT IS 700, AND TO THE NORTH, IT IS 694. SO, I HAVE SEVEN FEET OF FALL ALONG WRIGHTS STREET ON THAT LOCATION. NOW, IF I GO FROM THAT SIDE IN TO THE MIDDLE, I HAVE 15 FEET OF FALL ON THE NORTH SIDE DOWN INTO MY SITE, AND I HAVE 25 FEET OF FALL ON THE BOTTOM RIGHT-HAND SIDE. SO, IT KIND OF DIPS DOWN -- I HAVE 25 FEET OF FALL ALONG FROM WRIGHTS STREET TO THE MIDDLE OF THE SITE WITH THIS BLUE LINE COMING IN. THEN, IF YOU TAKE THAT OVER TO TOOMER STREET IN THE BOTTOM LEFT OF TOOMER STREET, I AM AT 687. SO, I GO UP EIGHT FEET ON THAT SIDE, AND IF I GO UP TO TOOMER STREET ON THE TOP LEFT SIDE, I'M AT 690, SO 11 FEET HIGHER. SO, I'M TELLING YOU, THERE IS A SIGNIFICANT GRADE. EVERYTHING FUNNELS THROUGH THE MIDDLE OF THIS SITE. TRYING TO RELOCATE THIS STUFF IS -- WE CAN'T RUN IT UPHILL. AND TO CHASE THIS AROUND, IF WE TRIED TO REROUTE IT ALL AROUND DOWNTOWN, WE WOULD HAVE TO BE RUNNING SOME OF THIS STUFF 20, 30 FEET DEEP DOWN TOOMER STREET, WHICH JUST ISN'T PRACTICAL TO DO. AGAIN, SO, WHEN YOU LOOK AT OUR CUT SECTION HERE, WE DO HAVE THOSE BOTTOM TWO LEVELS. SO, THE BOTTOM TWO LEVELS, IT IS UNDERGROUND WHEN IT IS ON THE WRIGHTS STREET SIDE. WHEN IT IS ON THE BACKSIDE, BACK WHERE THOSE STORM DRAINAGE EASEMENTS ARE, IT IS AT GRADE. SO, WE ARE NOT GOING BELOW THE EXISTING GRADE BACK THERE, WHERE IT EXPERIENCES FLOODING. AND SO, THAT IS CURRENTLY WHAT WE ARE SHOWING THAT INCLUDES OUR 20% VARIANCE ON OUR PARKING. IF WE HAD TO PROVIDE THE FULL PARKING, WE WOULD HAVE TO GO

[00:25:02]

BELOW THAT DRAINAGE, BELOW THAT FLOODING ELEVATION, DURING

STORM FLOODS. >> BRETT, WHY'D YOU HAVE TO GO

DOWN? WHY CAN'T YOU GO UP? >> OKAY, SO WE ARE CAPPED ON HEIGHT, RIGHT? WE HAVE A MAXIMUM HEIGHT DOWNTOWN OF 75 FEET FROM THE HIGHEST POINT ON THE SITE. SO, WE CAN ONLY GO UP 75 FEET FROM WRIGHTS STREET, THAT IS THE TALLEST WE CAN GO WITH OUR BUILDING. SO, WE ARE CAPPED ON GOING UP, WE ARE CAPPED ON GOING OUT, AND WE ARE CAPPED ON GOING DOWN. SO, WE ONLY HAVE WHAT WE HAVE TO WORK WITH, WITHIN THE CONFINES OF THIS PROPERTY, WITHOUT, YOU KNOW, BASICALLY DEVALUING THE

ALLOWABLE USE ON IT. >> IT WOULD GO LOWER ON THE

WRIGHTS STREET SIDE? >> IT -- ON -- YEAH. I MEAN, YOU CAN, TO A DEGREE. WE ARE, TO A DEGREE, HERE. I MEAN, WE ARE BELOW -- WHEN WE ARE UP AGAINST WRIGHTS STREET, WE ARE TWO LEVELS BELOW GRADE ON WRIGHTS STREET, IN THAT SCENARIO. THE PROBLEM IS, HOW DO WE GET IT OUT, YOU KNOW?

>> SOME. IF WE ARE DRAINING THAT AREA, YES. BUT, WE HAVE TO BE ABLE TO GET DOWN -- WE HAVE TO BE ABLE TO TRANSITION DOWN INTO A RAMP, LIKE A PARKING GARAGE, RIGHT? IT IS NOT LIKE WE CAN GO DOWN 50 FEET. TYPICALLY, THOSE RAMPS TO GO DOWN ARE GOING TO BE -- YOU KNOW, IF WE ARE TRYING TO GET DOWN 10 FOOT, RIGHT, WE HAVE A MINIMUM CLEARANCE HEIGHT OF 10 FEET.

SO, IF WE WERE RUNNING DOWN AT A 10%, WE WOULD NEED A 100 FOOT RUN TO GET DOWN 10 FEET. RIGHT? SO, WE CAN GET DOWN IN A CERTAIN DISTANCE, BUT JUST TRYING TO DO IT LIKE, SAY ON HALF, IS GOING TO BE TOUGH, TO KEEP GOING DOWN AND STILL GET RAMPS DOWN AND RAMPS UP THAT WORK.

>> THAT WORK AT ALL? OR, THAT WORK AND HAVE DRAINAGE AND SUB

PUMPS? >> WELL, TO WORK AT ALL, TO GET DOWN. YES. I MEAN, IF WE WERE TO GO DOWN ANY MORE THAN THIS, YOU WOULD NEED PUMPS TO GET THE WATER OUT, BUT THEN TRYING TO GET RAMPS IN WITHIN THE SHORT DISTANCE THAT WE HAVE TO WORK WITH -- BECAUSE YOU COULD PROBABLY, MAYBE DRAW -- I WOULD HAVE TO LOOK -- MAYBE HALF, YOU COULD GET DOWN? BUT, YOU WOULD NEED -- WHAT WE WERE TALKING ABOUT, ONE OR TWO LEVELS DOWN?

>> WELL, IN OUR INITIAL ESTIMATIONS, WE WOULD HAVE TO GO DOWN A FULL OTHER LEVEL TO GET TO THE FULL PARKING

REQUIREMENT. >> SO, YOU CAN'T ADD ONE MORE LEVEL TO PARKING, IS THAT CORRECT?

>> FULL LEVEL, FULL LENGTH OF THE BUILDING, NO.

>> OKAY -- >> FOR TWO HALVES, DO YOU KNOW

WHAT I MEAN? >> A HALF ONE, I MEAN.

>> WELL, I DON'T KNOW IF THAT IS EXACTLY RIGHT, BECAUSE IN THE SHORTER DISTANCES, DEPENDING ON THE GRADE OF THE RAMP, YOU CAN'T ALWAYS PARK ON RAMPS, RIGHT? SO, SPEED RAMPS, THE HIGHER DEGREE ANGLES, YOU CAN'T PARK ON. LOWER GRADED RAMPS, YOU CAN PARK ON, BUT I DON'T KNOW IF WE HAVE THE DISTANCE DO LOWER GRADED RAMPS. I'M NOT SAYING THAT WE CAN'T, WE JUST DIDN'T STUDY THAT. SORRY.

>> SO, IF YOU FIND OUT THAT YOU CAN'T, FROM AN ENGINEERING PERSPECTIVE, FROM A PARK ABILITY PERSPECTIVE, THEN THE SOLUTION TO THAT IS TO GO DEEPER?

>> PRESUMABLY, YES. >> I MEAN, IN THEORY?

>> PRESUMABLY, YEAH. >> WELL, YOU WOULD HAVE TO GO LONGER, RIGHT? YOU WOULD HAVE TO GO FULL-LENGTH. IN ORDER TO DO IT. WE CAN'T GET IT IN TOO SHORT. IF THE RAMP IS TOO STEEP AND YOU ARE PARKING ON IT, YOU WILL OPEN THE DOOR, AND ONCE YOU GET TO ABOUT 6%, IT COMES BACK TO YOU, OR DEPENDING ON WHAT SIDE YOU ARE OPENING YOUR DOOR ON --

>> AND CODE WON'T ALLOW YOU TO PARK ON A STEEP RAMP.

>> WELL, I THINK THE RENDERING IS VERY NICE, BUT I WANT TO GO BACK TO THE EASEMENT CONVERSATION, BECAUSE I WANT TO MAKE SURE WE ARE GETTING THIS RIGHT. WE ALL KNOW THERE IS EXISTING EASEMENTS, AND THE CITY HAS AGREED TO MOVE SOME OR RELOCATE THEM. YOU HAVE ALSO ADMITTED THAT THERE ARE SOME THINGS THAT YOU GUYS ARE WILLING TO DO AT YOUR OWN COSTS

TO GET YOUR PROPERTY MADE. >> YES, YEAH.

>> SO, THING YOU ARE FOCUSING ON, THOUGH, IS THE

EASEMENT? >> THAT IS PART OF IT, YEAH. I MEAN, WE HAVE A RENDERING THAT SHOWS -- LOOK, IF WE COULD GO THE FULL-LENGTH TO HAVE THIS AS ONE BUILDING, WE COULD PARK IT, NOT A PROBLEM. IT'S JUST US HAVING TO SEPARATE THE BUILDING AND SEPARATE OUT THE EASEMENT, PREVENTS US FROM FILLING IN

THAT AREA WITH PARKING. >> GOTCHA. AND I HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT THE DATA. SO, I WANT TO KNOW -- WE TALKED ABOUT ALL OF THE EASEMENTS AND EVERYTHING AS GOING INTO ONE AREA. I WANT TO GO BACK TO THE FLOODING STUFF. AND THE FACT THAT THE CITY HAS MADE SOME CHANGES, AND CORRECTIONS, AND I THINK I HEARD ONE OF YOU SAY THAT THERE IS STILL FLOODING

[00:30:01]

ISSUES? I WANT YOU TO QUANTIFY THAT, LIKE, HOW BAD IS IT? WHAT DOES IT LOOK LIKE? CAN WE CAN'T QUANTIFY?

>> YES, THE OWNER TOLD US, THAT THE IMPROVEMENTS THAT THEY MAY HAVE HELPED, AND IN THE LARGER RAIN EVENTS, IT STILL BUILDS UP ENOUGH PRESSURE AND FLOODS THE TOPS OFF OF THE DRAINAGE LIDS THAT ARE IN THE PARKING LOT. SO, THAT DOES HAPPEN. IN

REGARDS TO QUANTIFYING IT -- >> THERE WE GO.

>> DAVID COULD SPEAK TO IT. >> THERE WE GO.

>> I OWN THE PROPERTY THERE. WHAT THE CITY DID IN 2017 WAS FINE, BECAUSE I KNOW THAT WASN'T THAT LONG AGO, BUT IT GREATLY IMPROVED IT. FROM BEFORE THAT TIME IN HERE, IT WAS BLOWING THE STORM DRAIN LIDS OFF, WATER WAS COMING UP THIS HIGH, CARS WERE GETTING FLOODED, FLOORBOARDS OF CARDS WERE FLOODING IN THERE. WHAT THEY DID VASTLY IMPROVED IT WITH THE BIGGER PIPES. THEY HAD A 90 DEGREE TURN ON ONE END OF IT DOWN THERE. THAT PRESSURE WAS JUST BACKING WATER UP AND IN TWO DIFFERENT SPOTS, IT WAS JUST BLOWING OUT. SO, IT HELPED. IT DID NOT COMPLETELY SOFTEN. WITHIN THE LAST YEAR, THERE HAVE BEEN TWO INSTANCES THAT I HAVE BEEN BY THERE, WHEN THE STORM DRAIN WAS MOVED OVER. SO, THE WATER IS STILL COMING BACK. NOTHING LIKE IT WAS. IT DOESN'T TAKE IT LONG AFTER THE RAIN STOPS OR WHATEVER IT IS TO GO AHEAD AND GET IT OUT OF THERE. BUT, IT HAS HAPPENED TWO TIMES THIS YEAR THAT I KNOW OF, THAT IS BLOWING THE TOP OFF OF THAT CAP OVER THERE. SO, BUT, IT IS IMPROVED OVER WHAT WE HAD BEFORE, GREATLY.

>> OKAY, GREAT. >> AND THAT HAS AFFECTED SERVICE PARKING SINCE 2017? OR, THE DELIVERY PARKING?

>> DO WHAT, NOW? >> THIS IS JUST IN THE

EXISTING, WHERE HE HAS -- >> OKAY, OKAY.

>> THIS IS JUST THE PARKING IN THE BOTTOM THAT IS THERE, NOW.

THAT IS WHERE IT WAS GETTING UP INTO THE BOTTOM OF CARDS, AT ONE POINT. NOW, IT BLOWS THE TOP OFF OF IT HERE, BUT WITHIN A SHORT PERIOD OF TIME, THAT WATER WILL RUN ON OUT IN HERE.

BUT, IT IS BACKING UP SOMEPLACE BELOW IT, THE PRESSURE IS PUSHING THE TOP OFF OF THE LIDS.

>> OKAY, SO, BUT, YOU HAVEN'T HAD ANY REPORTS OF PRIVATE

PROPERTY OWNERS -- >> NO, NO.

>> HAVE THEY REPORTED -- HAS ANYONE REPORTED ANYTHING?

>> THAT'S MY FAULT. I HAVE NOT REPORTED THAT. LIKE I SAY, IT'S GREATLY -- IT IS NOT ALMOST FLOODING THE UNITS, LIKE IT USED TO. NOW, IT JUST RAISES UP, FLOWS THAT TOP OFF OF THERE, BUT IN A SHORT PERIOD OF TIME, IT GOES DOWN. SO, IF YOU WANT ME TO COME EVERY TIME IT HAPPENS, YES, I CAN CALL IT IN.

BUT, IT HAS IMPROVED SO MUCH, I DIDN'T -- I DID NOT CALL IT IN, BECAUSE IT WAS A GREAT IMPROVEMENT.

>> RIGHT, AND THAT IS YOUR PREROGATIVE TO DO OR NOT TO DO.

I WASN'T ASKING YOU TO SPEAK TO OTHER PROPERTIES ADJACENT TO THE SITE, I WAS JUST CURIOUS -- AND I AM CURIOUS AS TO WHETHER ANYONE HAD ANY KNOWLEDGE OF THAT. I KNOW THE CITY SAID THAT

THEY DID NOT, BUT -- >> AND SO, THE REASON THAT I WAS GOING DOWN THAT, SPECIFICALLY, AND --

>> BACKING UP, IN UNDERGROUND PARKING GARAGES THAT ARE BELOW

GRADE, TO WHATEVER THEY ARE? >> IT'S JUST HIS PROPERTY.

>> I KNOW, I UNDERSTAND. JUST LOOKING FOR EVIDENTIAL --

>> OH, OKAY. >> OKAY. NOT THAT IT IS YOUR

RESPONSIBILITY. I'M ASKING. >> BEFORE WE GO DOWN THAT ROAD A LITTLE BIT TOO FAR, TOO, I AM SURE THAT STORM WATER IS NOT IN OUR PURVIEW. SO, THAT IS NOT -- WE DON'T HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH APPEARANCE, BASED ON STORM WATER. HAVING SAID THAT.

>> I APPRECIATE YOU SAYING THAT BECAUSE MY QUESTION WAS ONLY COMING FROM THIS STANDPOINT, THOUGH, WHEN WE TALK ABOUT SEPARATING THE BUILDING, THE WHOLE SEPARATION OF THE BUILDING WAS BASED UPON THE FACT THAT WE WERE SAYING THAT WE HAD THE ISSUE WITH THE STORM WATER. SO, ONE OF THE THINGS I'M TRYING TO ASSESS -- AND I THINK YOU DEMONSTRATED THAT YOU CAN BUILD ON THE PROPERTY. EVEN AS IT IS. I THINK WHAT WE ARE COMING DOWN TO IS YOU CAN'T MEET THAT PARKING. SO, AT THE END OF THE DAY, I'M JUST TRYING TO GET ALL OF THE CONVERSATIONS WITH THE EASEMENTS, GOING BACK TO WHAT THE VARIANCE IS ABOUT WHICH, IS, IN FACT, PARKING. SO, JUST

TRYING TO MAKE SURE -- >> YOU ARE RIGHT ON TARGET,

THERE. >> OKAY.

>> AND SPEAKING OF EASEMENTS, IF YOU ARE ON THAT EASEMENT SLIDE WE WERE JUST ON, RIGHT, THE EASEMENT IS RUNNING HORIZONTALLY ON THE NORTH TO THE SOUTH AND WE WOULD BE MARGINALLY RELOCATING IN THE BUILDING. THAT ONE GREEN EASEMENT, WE WOULD ALSO BE RELOCATING IT AT OUR COST, WERE SOME OF THE OTHER EASEMENTS ARE THAT WE CANNOT MOVE. SO -- AND THEN, BECAUSE WE WERE ANTICIPATING THAT THERE WOULD BE CONCERNS ABOUT REDUCING THE PARKING REQUIREMENT AND WHAT THAT CAN DO, WE PULLED DATA, FROM THE OPERATING STANDARD AND WE ARE NOW GOING ON THE FOURTH YEAR. THE PARKING STANDARD HAS NEVER BEEN MORE THAN 84% OCCUPIED. THAT IS RESIDENTIAL

[00:35:02]

PARKING. SO, AS LOW AS 72%, AS HIGH AS 84% THROUGH SEVEN YEARS. OWNERSHIP THROUGH ALL OF THOSE PERIODS OF TIME, THE RESIDENTIAL PORTION IS AT LEAST 99% OCCUPIED. SO, WE FEEL LIKE WE HAVE PRETTY GOOD DATA, THAT PARKING REDUCTION THAT WE ARE ASKING FOR IS ACTUALLY SUPPORTED BY UTILIZATION OF THE MARKET. IT WON'T CREATE ANY ILL EFFECTS. WE ALSO CALLED ON SOME PROPERTIES, WE CALLED ON COMMON 321, THEY ARE CURRENTLY PARKED AT ABOUT 82% UTILIZATION. FOR THE RESIDENTIAL PARKING. AND THEN, 191 COLLEGE IS ACTUALLY PARKED AT A LOWER PARKING RATIO BECAUSE IT IS IN THE COLLEGE OVERLAY, WHICH IS THE ZONING DIRECTLY ACROSS THE STREET FROM US. SO -- AND ACTUALLY, IF WE WERE IN THE COLLEGE EDGE OVERLAY, WE WOULD MEET THE PARKING REQUIREMENT FOR THAT OVERLAY THAT IS DIRECTLY ACROSS THE STREET, BUT OBVIOUSLY WE

ARE NOT IN IT. BUT -- >> CAN YOU GO BACK TO THAT,

REAL QUICK? >> YES, OF COURSE.

>> SO, WHAT WAS THE LAST ONE YOU REFERENCED?

>> 191 COLLEGE, IS IN THE COLLEGE EDGE OVERLAY, WHICH IS

A LOWER PARKING REQUIREMENT. >> WHAT IS THERE PARKING REQUIREMENT? HOW MUCH LOWER IS IT?

>> SO, I'M GLAD YOU ASKED, BECAUSE WE WILL GET TO THAT. IN A COLLEGE EDGE OVERLAY -- WHICH, THAT IS THE PROPERTY THAT AFFRONTS THE COLLEGE, SO WHERE THE NEW TARGET IS -- THE PARKING REQUIREMENT THERE IS FOR A ONE-BEDROOM UNIT, FOR A ONE-BEDROOM UNIT IT IS ONE PER UNIT. IF IT IS A TWO OR THREE BEDROOM UNIT, IT IS TWO SPACES PER UNIT. SO, IT IS NOT ON BEDS, IT IS PER UNITS, BECAUSE IT WAS MORE FOR THE URBAN ENVIRONMENT, TO WHERE EVERYBODY IS NOT GOING TO BE PARKED -- YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN? HAVING VEHICLES. SO, IF YOU APPLY THAT TOWER SITE, OKAY, THE BUILDING IN THE BACK, OFF OF TOOMER STREET -- WHICH REQUIRES 1:1 PER PARKING SPACE -- WE ARE NOT TOUCHING THAT PARKING REQUIREMENT. WE WOULD PARK THAT ONE BECAUSE THAT IS PART OF THE PRIVATE DORMITORY SIDE. WHERE THERE WILL BE FOUR BEDROOM AND FIVE BEDROOM UNITS, RIGHT? IN THAT PARTICULAR BUILDING. IN THE FRONT BUILDING OFF OF WRIGHTS STREET, IT HAS TO BE TRADITIONAL MULTIFAMILY MARKET RATE, SO ONE-BEDROOM UNITS, TWO BEDROOM UNITS, THREE BEDROOM UNITS. ALL RIGHT? SO, IF YOU UTILIZE THAT PARKING REQUIREMENT ON JUST OUR FRONT BUILDING, IT REQUIRES 30% LESS PARKING, JUST ON OUR BUILDING. SO, THE FAR SIDE WAS JUST 50 FEET ACROSS THE STREET, THAT IS THE PARKING REQUIREMENT. WE ARE NOT ASKING FOR SOMETHING THAT IS DRASTICALLY DIFFERENT THAT IS NOT BEING UTILIZED IN THE CITY. IT IS WHAT IS BEING APPLIED ACROSS THE STREET. WE ARE JUST ASKING FOR THAT ON OUR BUILDING, ON THAT FRONT, AS OPPOSED TO THE ONE ON THE BACK.

SO, WE JUST WANTED TO MAKE THAT CLEAR, ON THAT. SO, THAT PARKING REQUIREMENT IS MUCH LESS THAN RIGHT ACROSS THE STREET. IN THE COLLEGE EDGE OVERLAY DISTRICT. AND HERE IS

-- >> THIS IS JUST LIKE, A HYPOTHETICAL EXAMPLE. SO, IF WE COULD GO FULLY ACROSS THE SITE, WE COULD HAVE -- WE COULD PARK 87 PARKING SPACES WITH THE SAME AMOUNT OF RESIDENCE THAT WE HAVE NOW, SO WE WOULDN'T NEED

THE VARIANCE? >> OBVIOUSLY, WE CAN'T DO THAT, BUT WE THOUGHT IT WOULD BE HELPFUL TO ILLUSTRATE, THAT BECAUSE OF THE HARDSHIPS CREATED BY THE STORM EASEMENTS, AND THE PARKING LEVELS IS WHAT IS DRIVING THIS. NOT THAT WE THINK THIS AMOUNT OF PARKING IS NEEDED. OBVIOUSLY, IT WOULD BE POSSIBLE TO DO IT IF WE DIDN'T HAVE THAT BREAKUP HEARD.

>> SO, THERE IS A PICTURE OF WATER IN 2020, YOU CAN SEE IT BUBBLING UP -- THAT IS IN 2020. SO, SHAME ON DAN FOR NOT REPORTING THAT. JUST SOME 1000 WORDS ON WHAT WE ARE DOING

HERE, IN REGARDS TO -- >> IT IS IMPORTANT --

>> I HAD TO REPORT. NOW, WITH THE CAP BLOWING OFF, I DON'T THINK IT DID THAT THESE LAST TWO TIMES. BUT, HERE IS WHERE A CAR IS ALMOST FLOODING. WE CAN'T GO BACK TO -- WE HAD

SOME DISCUSSIONS ABOUT THIS. >> ARE WE ABLE TO PUT THAT ON CAMERA, SO PEOPLE AT HOME CAN SEE WHAT WE ARE SEEING? OR --

>> WHAT THEY WAS THAT? JUST OUT OF CURIOSITY. WHAT ABOUT,

ANYTHING THIS PAST WEEK? >>

>> I WAS ABOUT TO SAY, WE JUST HAD A VERY SIGNIFICANT RAIN AMOUNT. DO WE HAVE ANY REPORTS FROM TENANTS WHEN WE HAD THIS LAST LIKE, 10 INCHES DROPPED ON US LAST WEEK?

>> NOT FROM THE TENANTS. NO. >> OKAY.

>> AND THE TOP WASN'T OFF THIS LAST TIME. THE LAST TIME I HAD TO PUT THE TOP BACK ON WAS PROBABLY TWO MONTHS AGO, SOMEWHERE IN THERE, WHEN WE HAD FAST RAIN IN A SHORT PERIOD OF

TIME. >> RIGHT.

>> BUT, THIS, AGAIN, I WAS THINKING, I DIDN'T REALIZE IT

[00:40:13]

WASN'T SINCE 2017, I THOUGHT IT WAS A LITTLE LATER THAN THAT. BUT, THIS SHOWED WHAT HAPPENED IN 2020 AFTER THE WORK WAS DONE IN 2017. SO, AT SOME POINT --

>> IT'S GOING TO BE HARD TO KNOW WHAT HAPPENED. DO WE HAVE A WEEK OF RAIN WHEN IT WAS COVID? NOBODY REMEMBERS.

>> I TRY NOT TO. >> WELL, THE ENTIRE WAY IT

FEEDS IT HAS CHANGED. >> SINCE 2020, WE HAVE HAD AT LEAST TWO OTHERS -- WE HAVE HAD 320 AND WESTON RIGHT.

>> THEY ARE ALL SOUTH, SO -- >> OKAY.

>> ONE EFFECT WOULD BE GUTHRIE'S, RIGHT? AND THAT WAS

JUST ONE OF THEM. >> RIGHT, WONDERFUL.

>> HERE TO ADDRESS THE STORM WATER.

>> ONE OTHER QUICK THING, IF YOU LOOK AT THAT, THAT IS THE LEVY I HAD TO KEEP PUTTING BACK ON. IF SOMEBODY FELL DOWN THAT, THEY WOULD PROBABLY END UP IN THE STADIUM, BECAUSE IT ENDS UP UNDER THE STADIUM. SO, THAT'S -- THAT COULD BE A DANGEROUS SITUATION. THAT'S JUST WHAT IT IS WITH THE LID NOT BEING ON

IT, THERE. BUT, YOU CAN SEE -- >> THANK YOU, MAN. WE ACTUALLY JUST HIT ON THE COLLEGE OVERLAY, BUT THAT IS ACTUALLY THE NEXT SLIDE. YOU CAN ACTUALLY SEE THAT WE ARE ADJACENT TO IT, SO IF WE WERE IN THAT PARKING DISTRICT, WE COULD COMPLY WITH WHAT WE ARE CURRENTLY ASKING FOR. JUST A REPRESENTATIVE IMAGE, THERE. AND ANECDOTALLY, AS WELL, THERE IS A NEW PARKING DECK DIRECTLY ACROSS THE STREET, OWNED BY THE CITY. AND SO, THE PARKING RATIO WE ARE ASKING FOR WHAT -- INSTEAD OF A 20% REDUCTION ON SPACES, WE WOULD STILL BE PROVIDING SOME DEDICATED RETAIL AND VISITOR PARKING TO MEET THE CITY'S GOALS, AND THEN THERE IS A CITY ON DECK ACROSS THE STREET. AND SO, THAT IS REALLY THE CONCLUSION FOR THE PRESENTATION, WHICH IS, WE HAVE STORMWATER AND EASEMENT HARDSHIPS THAT ARE BIFURCATING THE SITE, THAT ARE FORCING US TO SPLIT THE BUILDING. WHILE WE ARE RELOCATING SEVERAL EASEMENTS, WE ARE NOT ABLE TO RELOCATE THOSE EASEMENTS THAT BIFURCATE THE SITE. WE HAVE DATA THAT WE THINK SUPPORTS THE PARKING REDUCTION THAT WE ARE ASKING FOR, AND WE THINK DEMONSTRATES THAT THERE WILL BE NO ILL EFFECT TO THE COMMUNITY BY GRANTING THIS PARKING REDUCTION VARIANCE BECAUSE WE KNOW FROM THE STANDARD AND FROM MANAGING IT, THAT THIS RATIO IS ABOUT THE UTILIZATION OF WHERE ACTUAL TENANTS ARE USING THEIR CARS. WE CARE VERY MUCH ABOUT HAVING A PROPERTY THAT PEOPLE WANT TO LIVE IN, AND IF THERE IS NOT ENOUGH SPACES FOR THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE, YOU WILL HAVE TO FIND SOMEWHERE ELSE TO LIVE, SO WE ARE VERY SENSITIVE TO THAT, AND WE FEEL THAT THE DATA VERY CLEARLY SUPPORTS THAT THIS VARIANCE IS IN LINE WITH WHAT THE MARKET ACTUALLY IS, AT LEAST FOR A FOUR YEAR PERIOD.

AND LASTLY, THERE IS PRECEDENT FOR THIS LEVEL OF PARKING IN AUBURN, JUST DIRECTLY ACROSS THE STREET. SO, I REALLY APPRECIATE THE OPPORTUNITY TO BE HERE AND PRESENT, AND WE ARE BOTH HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. I THANK YOU SO MUCH.

>> WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IF YOU DID GET APPROVAL, IF YOU DID HAVE 20% LESS PARKING, AND PEOPLE DID NEED MORE PLACES FOR PARKING? WHAT WOULD THEIR OPTION BE?

>> SO, THAT IS A FAIR QUESTION. FOUR YEARS, WE HAVEN'T EXPERIENCED THAT PROBLEM. RIGHT? I THINK IN REALITY, IF SOMEBODY HAVING A CAR IS THAT IMPORTANT TO THEM, THEY WOULD, CANDIDLY, LIVED SOMEWHERE ELSE. BECAUSE I DON'T THINK IT IS PROBABLY PRACTICAL TO BE A LONG-TERM PARKER IN THE CITY GARAGE, BUT I THINK IT IS PROBABLY VERY HELPFUL FROM A RETAIL AND BUSINESS COMPONENT, DOWNTOWN. BUT, WE ARE NOT TRYING TO ADVOCATE THAT THAT IS A SOLUTION FOR US. WE JUST DON'T THINK THERE IS DEMONSTRATED DEMAND FOR THIS LEVEL OF PARKING. IF THAT WERE TO CHANGE, I THINK IT WOULD BE OUR LOSS FROM HAVING RESIDENTS THAT CAN'T LEAVE.

>> QUESTIONS? NOT ME. >> THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU.

>> SO, NOW, I WOULD LIKE TO OPEN THE FLOOR UP FOR A PUBLIC HEARING, IF ANYONE WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST THIS

ISSUE. >> ALL RIGHT, I GUESS I WILL GO

[00:45:01]

FIRST. JASON KELLER, I LIVE AT 2660 DANBURY DRIVE, MY WIFE AND I OWN AN ADJACENT PROPERTY ON TOOMER STREET, 53 WEST ONE.

FIRST OFF, I WANT TO SAY I'M NOT AN ANTI-DEVELOPER REACTIONARY. I THINK THIS DEVELOPMENT IS A GOOD THING, I HOPE IT HAPPENS. I HAVE VISITED THE STANDARD IN ATHENS SHORTLY AFTER, JUST LOOKING AT DIFFERENT STUDENT HOUSING CONCEPTS. THE LANDMARK DID A GREAT JOB THERE, AS THEY HAVE DONE HERE IN AUBURN AND STANFORD AND I HOPE THE PROJECT GETS BUILT. THAT BEING SAID, I AM AGAINST THIS VARIANCE. IT SHOULDN'T BE GRANTED. WE ALL UNDERSTAND IT WOULD BE MUCH MORE PROFITABLE IF THEY COULD GET IT, AND IN THEIR SHOES, SURE, I WOULD PROBABLY ASK FOR A MULTIMILLION DOLLAR HANDOUT, TOO, BECAUSE WHY NOT? IT DOESN'T HURT TO ASK. MS. SORRELLS, YOU HAD A GREAT QUESTION, COULDN'T YOU JUST GO UP? YES, YOU COULD. THE HEIGHT LIMIT, THAT MEANS FEWER BEDROOMS BUILD, IT MEANS LESS PROFITABLE, IT MEANS THEY GET TO OFFER AUBURN'S FAVORITE FAMILIES LESS MONEY TO MAKE IT HAPPEN, BUT IT IS DOABLE. THERE ARE OTHER WAYS TO DO IT. BUT, NO DEVELOPMENT HAS EVER BEEN GRANTED AN EASEMENT LIKE THIS, OR EVEN APPROACHING THIS. THERE IS NO REASON TO ALLOW THEM TO PASS THE BURDEN OF PARKING ON TO THE CITY, ESPECIALLY NOT FOR FREE. AMENDING THE APPLICATION TO STOP REQUESTS LIKE THIS BEFORE THEY EVEN COME HERE, SO PEOPLE LIKE US DON'T PANIC AND THINK, "THERE'S NO WAY THEY'RE GOING TO PASS THIS, RIGHT?" "WE BETTER MAKE SURE THEY GO DON'T DO ANYTHING UNPRECEDENTED, UNSUPPORTED BY THE LAWS, UNSUPPORTED BY THE NORMS, UNIMAGINABLE THAT MY CITY WOULD DO ANYTHING AGAINST THE ADVICE OF PLANNING STAFFORD" RADICALLY DEPARTING FROM EVERYTHING ELSE THAT AUBURN HAS EVER SAID. BUT, I GUESS I HAVE A RIGHT TO BE HEARD. EVERY OTHER DEVELOPMENT THEY POINTED OUT, INCLUDING THE STANDARD, WAS PART OF THE STANDARD FOR THEIR DEVELOPMENT, OVER THE LAST DECADE, LOTS OF STUDENT HOUSING HAS GONE UP. IT WAS BUILT TO THE REQUIRED PARKING STANDARD, THEY DIDN'T GET ANY SPECIAL TREATMENT OR HANDOUTS FROM THE CITY, NOR SHOULD THE APPLICANT IN THIS CASE. STANDARD DID A GREAT JOB DOING THIS, MAKING THEIR PARKING GARAGE AVAILABLE TO NONRESIDENTS AS A PAID PARKING GARAGE. I DON'T THINK THE ZONING REALLY THOUGHT ANYONE WAS GOING TO DO THAT. THAT DOESN'T SEEM TO BE CONTEMPLATED IN THE ZONING ORDINANCE, BUT THEY HAD A REALLY CREATIVE SOLUTION. IF THEY ARE RIGHT, IF THERE RESIDENTS DON'T ACTUALLY USE ONE .1 SPACES PER BEDROOM, GREAT, THEY GET TO RECOUP SOME OF THE COSTS BY USING THE PUBLIC PARKING GARAGE. IT ACTUALLY HELPS THE CITY OUT, TOO. MORE PEOPLE DOWNTOWN DURING THE DAY, AND MORE PEOPLE GET TO PARK THERE AT NIGHT, SO IT KIND OF WORKS OUT FOR EVERYBODY, ALTHOUGH, YEAH, IT DID COST THEM MORE MONEY, BUT THAT WAS FROM THE BEGINNING. I DO NOTE THAT IF THE ASSERTION OF PARKING SPACES IN THE GARAGE

BEING -- >> I'M SORRY TO OVER INTERRUPT, YOUR OVERTIME, SO COULD YOU PLEASE WRAP UP?

>> SO, BY THEIR OWN NUMBERS, THEY WANT TO USE THE CURRENT USAGE, 82% TO 84% OF THE REQUIREMENT, THEIR OWN NUMBERS DON'T SUPPORT THAT, RESIDENTS OF THE GARAGES WOULD HAVE TO PAY FOR PARKING WHICH MEANS THAT ANYONE WHO DOESN'T WANT TO PAY MIGHT BE PARKING ELSEWHERE, PLUS EVERY SINGLE GUEST, OBVIOUSLY, IS PARKING ELSEWHERE. IN SHORT, DON'T GIVE THEM A HANDOUT. YOUR PLANNING STUFF IS AWESOME, THEY HAVE BEEN RECOGNIZED BY THE AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION.

LISTEN TO THEM, AND YOU WILL PROBABLY BE RIGHT 99% OF THE

TIME. >> OKAY, THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU. >> WOULD ANYONE ELSE LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS ISSUE? ALL RIGHT, SEEING NO FURTHER COMMENTS. I

WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC -- >> DON'T DO THAT, YET.

>> HELLO. THE PUBLIC HEARING. >> I WOULD LIKE TO OPEN IT UP

TO BOARD DISCUSSION. >> DON'T EVERYBODY SPEAK AT

ONCE. >> MY MAIN QUESTION HERE IS, I UNDERSTAND WE CAN'T CONTROL THE STORMWATER, BUT THEY CAN'T BUILD THE ENTIRE PIECE OF LAND BECAUSE OF THE DRAINAGE PIPE?

NOW, -- >> THEY CAN BUILD.

>> THEY CAN BUILD. >> THEY CAN'T BUILD WHAT THEY

WANT. >> RIGHT.

>> AGAIN, THEY MIGHT NOT BE ABLE TO BUILD WHAT THEY WANT,

PROFITABLY, TO DO IT. >> WHICH IS NOT REALLY A

REASON. >> WHICH IS NOT REALLY -- RIGHT. BUT, LOOKING AT THE USE OF DOWNTOWN, IS ANY OTHER POTENTIAL PROJECT BALANCING THIS, PROFITABILITY WIDE, PURCHASE WISE, PRICEWISE? JUST GOING BACK IN THREE MONTHS, SIX

[00:50:03]

MONTHS, IN A YEAR WITH THE SAME ISSUES, BECAUSE WE CAN'T MOVE

THE DRAINAGE PIPE. >> I SEE YOUR POINT, BUT THAT'S NOT -- THAT'S OUT OF THE PURVIEW OF OUR BOARD TO DISCUSS. AND I'M GLAD YOU RAISED THAT BECAUSE I THINK THAT IS ONE OF THE BENEFITS OF HAVING THIS BOARD, IT BRINGS UP TANGLES, AND WHAT WE ARE OBLIGATED TO JUDGE AGAINST, VERSUS THE MARKET, OR WHATEVER -- THINGS THAT THEY MAY NOW DEEM MORE OR LESS IMPORTANT. I MEAN, PRIORITIES CHANGE. THAT IS WHY WE HAVE UPDATES TO OUR ZONING ORDINANCES IN THE PLANNING PROCESS IN THE FIRST PLACE. SO, I'M GLAD -- I THINK THAT IS A VALID POINT. THAT'S JUST NOT SOMETHING WE ARE ABLE TO ADDRESS, HERE. AND THAT IS ALSO KIND OF ON SO MANY OTHER

ISSUES. >> YEAH, IT IS NOT THAT WE DON'T THINK -- IN MY MIND, IT IS NOT THAT I DON'T THINK IT IS A GREAT DEVELOPMENT AND PROBABLY COULD USE THE SPACE, I DO UNDERSTAND IT IS GOING TO RELOCATE. LOTS OF STUDENTS WILL LIVE THERE, IT IS PROBABLY MORE AFFORDABLE THAN WHAT THIS PLANNED DEVELOPMENT IS, SO THERE IS THAT TO CONSIDER. AND IT IS PROBABLY GOOD TO REDEVELOP THAT AREA. BUT, IT IS NOT THAT YOU CAN'T -- THERE IS CLEARLY PEOPLE LIVING ON IT.

CLEARLY, YOU CAN DO SOMETHING ON IT, YOU JUST -- AND, YOU KNOW, I -- WHAT WE DO, WE DON'T SET PRECEDENT, THAT IS NOT WHAT VARIANCE DOES. NO VARIANCES SET PRECEDENT, BUT THIS WOULD OPEN UP THE DOOR FOR ANY OTHER DEVELOPER WHO WANTS TO COME IN ON ANYTHING ELSE TO COME BACK AT US AND SAY, WELL,

WHY? WE WANT THIS, TOO. >> AND I THINK THE KEY THING IS THAT VARIANCES SHOULD BE AN EXCEPTION AND NOT A RULE.

>> YEAH. >> AND I THINK IF WE LOOK AT THE HARDSHIPS, THAT THEY ARE NO HARDSHIPS, BECAUSE THE PROPERTY CAN BE BUILT, IT CAN BE DEVELOPED ON THAT PROPERTY.

IT'S JUST THAT IT'S NOT IN THE CONFIGURATION IN WHICH THEY WANT. AND I THINK WE JUST HAVE TO KIND OF KEEP THE FOCUS HERE AS TO WHAT OUR JOB IS, FROM A BZA STANDPOINT. SO, WITH THAT SAID, I AM NOT IN SUPPORT OF THIS VARIANCE. I'M NOT HERE TO

SHUT THE CONVERSATION DOWN. >> I MEAN, WE HAVE ALL OF THESE CRITERIA WE HAVE TO JUDGE IT ON. I THINK THAT IT HAS TO MEET ALL OF THE -- ALL OF THE REQUIREMENTS, RIGHT? NOT JUST

ONE? >> CORRECT.

>> SO, EVERYTHING IS JUDGED AGAINST. WHETHER IT IS IN HARMONY, WHETHER IT WILL PERMIT THE ESTABLISHMENT TO BE IN USE -- WHICH IS NOT PERMITTED -- DIFFICULT CIRCUMSTANCES,

UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP -- >> I THINK THERE ARE PROBABLY UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES, FOR SURE, I THINK THAT MIGHT BE THE ONLY ONE. AND IS THIS THE ONLY -- I MEAN, HOW MANY PLANS HAVE WE MADE OF THIS? LIKE, IS THERE NOT A WAY TO SHIFT PARKING ALL TO ONE SIDE? HOW MANY ITERATIONS ARE THERE OF THE

PLAN? >> YEAH, SO, I DON'T WANT TO SPEAK TO HOW MANY ITERATIONS OF THE PLAN THERE ARE, BUT THAT IS ONE OF THE THINGS I INTRODUCED IN THE STAFF REPORT. SO, LIKE I SAID, DUE TO THE DIFFERENCE IN BETWEEN THE PARKING REQUIREMENTS, ONE OF THE THINGS THEY WERE ABLE TO DO BY CITING 560 UNITS ON THE UMW SIDE, VERSUS 276 ON THE OTHER SIDE, THEY ARE ABLE TO REDUCE THEIR PARKING CONSIDERABLY. THERE IS A 10% REQUIRED DIFFERENCE IN THOSE, SO IT IS ALREADY MORE MANIPULATION WITH THE CONFIGURATION THEY HAVE DONE. I GUESS KIND OF -- ONE OF THE THINGS I DID WANT TO MENTION, THIS SITE WOULD BE ONE OF THE FEW SITES DOWNTOWN THAT ACTUALLY WOULD NOT HAVE TO SPLIT THEIR BUILDING. I'M WORKING ON ANOTHER PROJECT RIGHT NOW, AND AS THE ZONING ORDINANCE READS, ANY OTHER PROPERTY THAT HAS STREET FRONTAGE HAS TO SPLIT ITS BUILDING, BASED ON THE 240 BLOCK BREAKS THAT THE BUILDINGS GO THROUGH. SO, IF THIS BUILDING WERE TO GO BLOCK TO BLOCK, LIKE RIGHT FROM TOOMER STREET, IT WOULD BE ONE OF THE FEW BUILDINGS THAT COULD HAVE A CONTINUOUS BUILDING, AS THE ZONING ORDINANCE READS, AND OTHER PLACES IN THE DOWNTOWN LIKE UMW AND UNC. THEY WOULD HAVE TO BE BROKEN EVERY 240 FEET, SO PRETTY MUCH ALL OF THE OTHER BUILDINGS DOWNTOWN THAT ARE THIS BIG, THAT WOULD GET BUILT POST -- I GUESS, ONCE THAT WAS CHANGED -- WOULD BE

SPLIT AND WOULD BE BROKEN. >> WHAT IS THE MOTIVATION

BEHIND THAT? >> SO, THAT JUST HAS TO DO WITH THE MASSING OF THE BUILDING. FROM PEOPLE WHO DON'T WANT TO LOCK -- WALK ALONGSIDE THESE MASSIVE BUILDINGS THAT THE FIELD DON'T HAVE ENDS. THAT WAS JUST ONE OF THE COMMUNICATIONS THAT PEOPLE WERE ABLE TO ARTICULATE AND THAT WAS ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE CAME DOWN TO WHAT THE ISSUE WAS.

LIKE I SAID, THIS BUILDING BENEFITS BECAUSE IT DOES NOT

[00:55:02]

HAVE STREET FRONTAGE ON THE LONG SIDE. THE STREET FRONTAGE IS RIGHT ON A TUMOR. SO, THE LONG SIDE OF THE BUILDING IS HIDDEN AND DOES NOT HAVE TO BE BROKEN. LIKE I SAID, THE SPLIT OF THE BUILDING, IF YOU JUST WANT TO DEVELOP LARGE, MULTIFAMILY, OR STUDENT HOUSING DOWNTOWN, THE BUILDING WOULD BE BROKEN UP NORMALLY, EVERY 240 FEET.

>> POINTS OF DISCUSSION? OKAY. I MAKE A MOTION TO DENY BC

-2024-008. >> SECOND.

>> WILL FAULKNER? >> YES.

>> FROST ROLLINS? EMMY SORRELLS?

>> YES. >> LATICIA SMITH?

>> YES. >> MARTY HEFFREN?

>> YES. >> 5-0.

>> SO, THAT VARIANCE REQUEST IS DENIED, AND WE WILL NOW MOVE ON TO THE NEXT ITEM ON OUR AGENDA. IT IS GOING TO TAKE ME A

[2. Variance to Section 502.01, Table 5-2: Lot Area, Setback, Bulk Regulations and Parking Requirements: Neighborhood Conservation District of the City of Auburn Zoning Ordinance ]

SECOND. WE HAVE A LOT TO FLIP THROUGH, HERE.

>> I KNOW! >> SO, THIS IS ITEM BZ-2024-009

-- 508 CARY DRIVE, CORRECT? >> CORRECT. SO, THIS VARIANCE IS FOR A 10 FOOT VARIANCE FOR THE MINIMUM SETBACK OF 25 FEET.

SO, THIS IS FROM SECTION 502.01, TABLE 5-2, REGARDING PARKING REQUIREMENTS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION ZONING DISTRICT IN THE CITY OF AUBURN ZONING ORDINANCE. THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 508 CARY DRIVE IN THE NC-18 -- NC-18 ZONING DISTRICT. SO, THIS MOVES THE SETBACK 35 FEET TO THE FRONT OF IT, HERE. AS YOU CAN SEE RIGHT HERE, THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS SURROUNDED PRETTY MUCH ON ALL SIDES OF VIEW BY THE NC-18 ZONING DISTRICT, AS WELL. SO, ON THE SITE PLAN, EVERYTHING IN THE RED IS WHAT IS BEING PROPOSED TO BE INPUT, AND THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO PUT IN THAT RECTANGLE ON THE BOTTOM RIGHT, HERE. IT IS AN 870 SQUARE FOOT GARAGE ADDITION, AND THE DOORS WOULD BE FACING NORTH INSTEAD OF HOW THE CURRENT GARAGE IS FACING WEST TOWARD THE STREET. THE GARAGE WOULD ENCROACH WITHIN THAT SETBACK, AS YOU CAN SEE, THAT BLUE LINE RIGHT THERE, WITHIN THAT 30 FOOT MINIMUM SETBACK BY 9.9 FEET, HENCE THE REQUEST FOR THE 10 FOOT TO ALLOW A 25 FOOT MINIMUM TO BRING IT INTO COMPLIANCE. I ALSO WANTED TO MENTION, BASED ON SOME CORRESPONDENCE THAT I RECEIVED FROM THEM -- THE NEIGHBOR TO THE NORTH, THAT THIS DRIVEWAY IS NOT THE SUBJECT OF ENCROACHING ON THE SETBACK. THE DRIVEWAY LOCATION WOULD BE MOVED FROM WHERE IT CURRENTLY SITS -- IT IS KIND OF HARD TO SEE IN THIS PHOTO -- FROM WHERE IT CURRENTLY SITS, A LITTLE BIT NORTH TO ALLOW FOR ACCESS INTO THE NEW GARAGE FROM THE NORTH.