I aliance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. >> I guess we got to do a roll call.
>> Yeah, we'll do a roll call. Don Haynes, present. Ronald Bogger is excused absence today. John Kabort >> here. >> Michael Goldberg >> here. >> Rick Anderson >> here. >> Carolyn Willis >> here. >> Okay. Does anyone have a disclosure of
conflict >> other than you know I guess we always recommend Yeah. I drove by the site or something like that but you didn't talk to anybody or anything like that. >> Okay. Is that good? We did that. How about Did you get a chance everybody read the minutes from last month?
Yes. >> Okay. Can I get a motion, please? >> Motion approved. >> I'll second it. Second it. All in favor? I. Gets passed. General Is there any general public uh comments out in the audience? You get to go first, so you
don't have to wait around all night. Good. Thank you. General comments not associated with new business. None. None. Good. Unfinished business. We don't have any. Okay. New business. new new business. Um,
one mistake on here, you'll see the case number PZ26.132. It's actually 26-13. And luckily, [snorts] when I copied that, it copied to all the other spots, too. So, it's actually -13. So, shame on
me. But, we're past that. >> Two mistakes. A dot and a and a two. >> Yeah. Um, apologize. But going forward, uh, the board of adjustment shall consider a request for two variances pursuant to section 2-06Q
and section 33 3-33H of the Cocoa Beach Land Development Code. Variance one is a request to reduce the side setback from 10 ft to a 6-foot uh resulting in a 4-foot variance in
order to allow construction of an accessory structure. Um variance two is a request to increase the allowed height of the accessory structure from 12t to 15.4 in resulting
in a variance of 3'4 in variance. The two through seven on here are all the documents that have been added to this permit. Um you should have got them all in the um agenda packet. Okay.
So do we want um applicant to speak to this or >> if he would like to come up and present his case. Yes, please. >> Okay. >> Good evening board of adjustments. My name is Jeremy. My wife Dana. We live at one Ailia and we're here requesting two variances as described. I think the
easiest way to talk to this is the graphic shown here. Um there's actually three structures. The primary structures are existing home. >> This is here. >> The square in the upper right corner is a compliant structure that we're permitted for to build now. And then on
the lower right, that rectangular structure is what we're here tonight to request a variance for. I bring [clears throat] this graphic up because it shows on the right side of that screen, the structure on the top, that's the permitted distance, the structure on the bottom, how it's shifted over
towards the right, that's the effective amount of variance we're asking for. And the reason we're asking for that is the distance between that structure and the primary structure is where all the utilities are. So, I need to nudge that structure outward. It's not possible to build with a generator, a pool pump.
There's a gas meter there. air conditioner unit. And because that structure has to be disconnected from the house, it requires the height variance. If all of this was attached to the house, we wouldn't even be here. So the fact that it's has to effectively
straddle the utilities is the hardship and because it's detached is why it needs a height variance. So I'd be happy to answer any questions, but I think that's the crux of what we're >> Why can't it be attached to the house? because of the utilities right there. It
would be a gas burning generator under a cover. >> Oh, gotcha. >> So, it's highlighted. What's shown in there is scroll down slightly, Cory, if you could. Actually, it is dashed in there. There's an air conditioner. Right. That lower corner right there. Is it the air conditioner? Right above that is a generator.
>> Even though it's an open air structure, >> is it an open air structure? >> It is. Yeah. My assumption was we couldn't put a cover over top of a gas burning generator. And then behind that there's there's the gas to the house and and all the pool equipment. It's not shown on
there. >> And how how long is this structure? >> I think that's 40 feet totally. >> I believe it's 40 total. >> Yeah. Zoom over to the right if you could. >> Side and right side.
Exactly. >> And what's the primary purpose of it? >> This is going to be a structure to park underneath it. >> Like a garage. >> You could call that. >> Basically, it's for your motor home to
park under, I would assume. >> Is it like a carport more but for >> the term? Yeah. I mean, >> it's open on the sides. >> You could put a boat on there. There's It's not going to be enclosed on the sides. It's literally just a structure over top for sun and rain. And if you attach it to the house, it would still
have to come out that far so that you could get it in there. >> So you didn't run over your air conditioner and that. So >> yeah, if it if it >> I don't know the answer to that question, Mr. Goldberg, about attaching, but I assume with all that equipment there, you wouldn't want that undercover >> because it is gas burning.
>> One other question you me someone mentioned you have an RV that you want to park there. How how long is that RV? >> 35 >> 35 ft. Okay. Uh, is anybody aware there's an ordinance against RVs that length?
>> What's going on with the house? One block east into the front yard. >> Let the >> parking have already. >> Oh, if you if you can come up. Speaking of the mic, >> I should I need to learn. >> Yeah, that ordinance that Mr. Goldberg
is referencing is uh that that is correct. We do have an ordinance that limits parking of RVs over 26 ft. Um, but that is at this point in our code is restricted to front yards. And this is
spec this is a uh technically a sideyard. >> Is there just I'm curious what makes it technically a what makes a yard? >> How do you define sideyard? >> If you look at the house, if you can you scroll out just a little bit. The front >> of the house. >> Well, the address is the front. Mhm. And
>> that's >> There we go. Down a little bit further. Yeah. If you look at the if Yeah. No, go up a little bit. This it's the it's the kind of the aerial. Yeah. The the front the frontage of a house, the front yard is really the the along the there's a a
line that you can draw, I would say, along the garage, the front of the garage if you ran it north and south parallel to the Yeah. Everything west of that would be considered the front yard. >> Okay. But since this is a corner lot,
doesn't that change the parameters of front versus side? Since it is on a main road, >> it don't change setbacks. >> No, it does change the setbacks. >> Normally, it would be 5T setback, but because there's a side street there, the setback is 10 ft. And that's why uh we
had to go for the variance. So I believe the RV is already parked there. But am I correct about that? >> That's right. >> It's already parked there legally. You're just looking to build the structure over it. >> That's right. >> And Mr. Goldberg to your I think where
you're going is if you scroll down a little bit, Corey. >> Get the other way. I'm sorry. Well, that structure in the back that's completely compliant. That gives you an idea of what that setback is. >> Yeah, >> that's the 10- foot wall right there. And then this proposed structure on the
lower right, it's shifted rightward four feet. And that's the variance. >> What is that one in the back? >> Say again. >> Just curious what is that structure? >> Another structure that we're going to use like a pool house. >> Okay. >> If [clears throat] you're going through all the trouble with the variance, why not put in and get extended? If you're going to go six on this, assuming you
get approval, why not make the bigger one and go all the way to six on the back? >> We were going with the minimum required, right? I mean, that's compliant. We could go that route, but we were saying keep that compliant. And this is what the one
>> I know this has nothing to do with this, but the the RV that's p parked on Bokea in the front yard. Is that in compliance of anything or they cited? >> Sorry, I'm not familiar with that one. >> Okay, I saw that. It's like a fifth wheel. But >> yeah, the fifth wheel parked out there.
18 cars and people living in it. Airbnb and who knows what's going on. >> I didn't even know there was a restriction on RVs because I see >> Have you have you looked Have you looked up this ordinance about the RVs >> in terms of parking in the front yard? My understanding was I thought it was 25
foot and I believe you have to park it behind the house. >> Does this also it mentions parked, stored or located in front yard, side street yard or front yard driveway. So that would make this technically illegal.
According to ordinance 1524, the Cocoa Beach is that on >> Do you have the code section >> 24? >> That's the ordinance number. Or do you know what the >> B1 4-76?
>> Yeah, >> that's a I I certainly that's a very valid point. Does this does the status change if it's under a is it no longer outside if it's under a structure? >> Well, when you say it's illegal, I want to understand I think what you're saying is very important and I want to
understand what you're saying. Are you saying that presently parking an RV outside in that space is in violation of the ordinance? >> Okay. >> Putting it under a carport I don't believe changes that because it's open air. >> Okay. >> If it was a garage maybe I don't know.
>> If he was park it on the other put the RV on the other side of the house it would be okay probably >> except for slight distance variation. >> What does it say exactly again? >> Explain. I don't understand what you said, but I want if you put it on the other side, how >> then he's not a side street.
In other words, >> oh, okay. >> Because he's on a side street, they're putting more restrictions on it. >> Okay, I understand. >> Is there a way to read that? Because I'm not familiar with it, but that fine. >> You mind?
>> Sure. >> It's uh right down in there. >> No, >> take a minute. It's important. Was that part of the packet or did you pull that? >> No, he pulled. >> Can you uh Can the attorney look at that? >> Yeah, I'm just trying to understand what the code section is. I know what the
ordinance >> 47 look Yep. 3-3 parking district here. Cory, while he's looking that up, was there any Did anyone object? Did you get
any comment or >> No. >> Okay. >> I've got it. >> Yeah, I found it. >> I'm assume I'm reading this slightly different. It says >> vehicle may be these are the >> is not allowed in a side street yard
unless in a side or rear rear yard if accessible >> or complies with the following regulations >> so I think that accessibility >> now >> if enclosing it is the is the litmus
test we could certainly do that as well so >> yeah So yeah, so to this point um staff was able to locate um and provide a little bit bit of feedback to me on their interpretation. It's section 3-03
of the land development code. It's uh parking vehicle parking and res in residential districts. It's subsection C. When you go down to um subsection four from there of subsection C, uh it
talks about recreational vehicles, whether wheeled, motorized, or in an unassembled state, including trailers, um that exceed 26 ft in length, um can only be permanently parked in a sideyard under certain conditions. There are two
conditions that apply. Um for the sideyard it is that uh the vehicle uh shall be set back at least 2 ft from any abudding property line. And the second condition is that if the vehicle is within 10 ft of an adjacent property,
there must be a 6ft high opaque fence or wall along the adjacent property line. Um on that whatever the shared property line is. I don't believe there's a another property that is on the other side of the vehicle. That's >> I think as it's parked now and as it's
proposed it is more than 2 ft from uh your property line. That's right. >> To the right. Okay. >> Right now it's the vehicle is essentially 8 ft. >> Yeah. >> The structure would be 6 ft. >> Yeah. So those are the two conditions and that is what staff confirmed me their interpretation is. I agree with
the interpretation. Um so and that's straight from our land development code. That's as it exists now. So just to make sure I understand it's got to be two feet away from the house property line. It's got to be property line. >> It's got to be two feet away from any abudding property line.
>> Okay. >> But there is no other Yeah. Exactly. >> And what was that about the 6 ft of fence? >> Uh you're in between two houses and you try to park there, you have to have a fence to >> Yeah. if >> if there is an adjacent property to
where the vehicle's parked, that's when that opaque fence requirement comes into play, but it's not it's not necessary here because there's no budding property. >> Any further questions? >> The city stance is that it's [snorts] okay and legal. >> Yes.
>> Yes. I can't interpret that. >> Good. Uh, any more questions for the applicant? >> Any questions? Anyone else? >> You said you wanted a height variance as well. >> Oh, yeah. That's right. >> That's right. Yeah. So, Cory, if you can
scroll down to the next page, it shows the illustration because as we talked about, the utilities are there. I think either one of those frames that the elevation view go down at the bottom one right there. >> Oh, there you go. So that's that's looking at the front of the house. You
see the structure proposed on the right. You can see through there the slight variation. Well, my understanding is the height is actually measured from the horizontal structural beam, not the peak of the roof. >> Right? >> So that beam right there that's being highlighted is effectively 3 ft higher
to clear the vehicle. And if it was joined to the house, it would have the ability to go all the way up to the peak of the house. But because it's disconnected or detached, it's capped at 12 feet height. So the proposed structure is 15 feet, four inches
because it's detached. >> But if it was attached to a house, it would be it would be permission. >> That's a good accessory. >> It would be you could go up to 25 ft. >> That's right. What are the actual rules on accessory structures? Do we have that listed here? >> Um, yes. That was under uh for the
height it was 3-33. section H. >> And a and a key piece here, although the the beam is 3 ft higher, the peak of the roof with the other structure in the back that's effectively the same. I think it's about 6. >> I didn't put it in there. I might have
put it in the How many square feet is your house? >> Uh 19. It's on one of those drawings. I think it's like 1980 >> 19 >> 1980 I believe. >> Less than 2,000. Nothing33. Hold on a second. There we go. Thank you.
The maximum area of a detached structure shall be 30% of the air conditioned square footage of the principal structure up to 500 square ft. >> I'm sorry I wasn't Is this more than 500? >> Yes. I I
>> You were on the city council, correct? >> Correct. And >> you've been there for how many years? >> Almost four. >> And have you reviewed any of these rules about this property, the codes, the enforcements? I mean, this is pretty blatant, unfortunately. And I don't want to be in violation of the town
ordinances. I'm sure you don't either. >> Right. What our plan was to mitigate that we would shorten the structure to get to that 500. We were going to determine that in permitting. This was going for
the ask first and then adjust the structure. >> One of the uh >> special exception be for if you just added it to the special exceptions. I mean because you're asking for a special exception from height >> I think a variance. >> A variance. >> Yeah, it's a variance. I was going to uh
note to the board member's comment. Um one of the conditions that you can apply to the variance is that the structure to be built that's a part of the variance request has to conform with all other uh provisions of the city's land development code. So you can grant the
relief requested and then he can come in to to the city through permitting and the city's going to make sure that you know the whatever the final structure ends up being it's permitted. um you know we can include that condition in the order u you know you can impose any
reasonable condition you want in the order uh but that's one that's standard >> right >> so my question is is couldn't he just ask for his variance to include it sounds like he's asking for variance relief from the height if he couldn't he just ask for also relief from the 500
foot condition or is that not not ranable by variance >> how how much are we mentioning in 500 ft by >> I believe it's 540 12 by 40. >> Hold on. My my question for the city attorney is so I'm so H he's not in compliance H. He's here for a variance.
Can he just also add I and ask for a variance from the 500? >> So So we're here to discuss the two um requests that were applied for and noticed for today. >> Yes. My question is is if assuming he screwed up the filing and forgot to include I, could he withdraw and
resubmit with I? Is that can that also be granted via variance? >> He he could potentially he would have to meet the standards uh to be granted a variance for that particular requirement. I don't know if that's something he wants to do. I would just advise the board that the request that's
here today, what is being uh asked uh of the board, it would be consistent with the city's land development code to grant the variance with a condition that the final structure has to conform to that requirement just like every any structure that's constructed >> the petitioner out though. If that's
what the petitioner wants and no one here is opposing it, I'm generally my position is I want to support broad property rights and absent any opposition. So, in terms of helping out the petitioner, which is what I seek to do here, >> is that not something that I >> if if that's a possible resolution and
there's no one publicly complaining and saying these 500 constructors >> I mean, how much are we off exactly? Do you know how much >> that So, it's technically possible, but I think uh our plan director might have more. >> I'd like to mention a couple of things.
First is was this this was noticed correct? I think for the the total yes >> for the for the the two variance requests were were noticed as part of the they were included in part of our notice. >> Correct. >> So the the variance from the size
requirement if if a third variance is needed with that that was not part of the notice. Correct. >> Correct. That was not >> so I think we might have a notice issue. >> Yeah. >> Um but to your point um Mr. Kabort Yeah. Um I I'd like to step back just a
second. So, there's a 500 foot max. [clears throat] And what are the dimensions on the >> 560? >> Pardon? >> It's 560 14 by 40. >> So, 560. Okay. Um,
>> well, how much? It's 30% of the of the actual air conditioned square footage of the house. So, what's the square footage of the house? >> Up to 5,000 square feet. >> Up to up to there's it's capped at 500. >> Okay. >> There's a It sounds like per stat or port ordinance. There's a hard cap of 500.
>> Yeah, it is. Yeah. >> 30% of 6,000,000 ft is 600 I believe. >> It is. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. It'd be closer to 600 >> as a percentage of the air condition space. I don't think that because at 500
max >> you want you want to take a fiveminute recess. >> Yeah. uh chairman if I think it would be advisable at this point to let the applicant talk with staff about best path forward given what's been brought up here. So I'd recommend to the board to take a fiveminute recess just to let them
>> I agree >> figure it out. All right gave us into a recess. >> All right. Very good. >> All right. No more. You got active order. Okay. Right. Very good. Applicant just wants to let you guys know. >> Yeah. So, [clears throat] after talking
to staff, I'm going to continue with the variance as written for just the two pieces and then adjust the length as necessary in the permitting process. So, no additional variance request at this time. So, just the two that we've already briefed. >> Yeah. So what the board can do with any
request for a variance is you can attach reasonable conditions to the order granting the variance request. Uh generally we put some um boilerplate language in there that you know the app any structure or you know any addition has to comply with the land development
code. Uh after talking with staff uh our office and staff would recommend that we include this particular provision that if the variance were to be approved uh we would recommend the condition that the structure this um uh open air structure must conform to that 500 foot
requirement. It can't, you know, variance is not applicable to a structure that's 501 square feet in area, right? It's only to that 500 square foot area. And that is essentially, you know, enforceable through our code enforcement folks, right? It's a it's a condition on the
variance. And it's >> if we didn't do that, who who would make that decision as to if they should allow that? >> Even if you didn't add it as a condition, it would still be required by the code. You are not granting a variance of the plans, right? You're granting
these two very specific variances for uh the setback requirement on the sideyard and the height of the the structure. All other code provisions still apply, right? It's not a cart blanch. You can do whatever you want. Um but we would just ask that for cl the sake of clarity and so the board feels confident uh that
city staff can enforce it. And so it's clear for the applicant moving forward that you'd include that condition if you were to vote to approve the variances. >> Okay. Well, in in general, maybe you can help me out with this. Um, we were unaware of something like this. So, we
wouldn't have known that was there. What would the process have been if we didn't know about this and he went ahead with his plans? Who would have brought that up and forced that? >> It would have still went through the building permit process and it would still have to be approved through that process. >> But do they have the right to administrative? No, because they're only
asking for height and setback. That's >> right. But if it's over 500, his plans >> the building, it would be caught in the building permit process. >> The oversize would have been stopped in the building permit. >> Correct. You limited to 500 ft. >> Correct. >> Building department can't unilaterally
override a code requirement. That's what you all are for. >> So, >> so does I assume building department doesn't review this. They I guess in the process no one from building department has reviewed. I don't know. I'm not privy to the review process, but u
>> I think that's a very very very good point. Like I and and that's something there's a couple of things where it's like there's been like a miss >> from a city standpoint before it gets to us. And I I don't like that because if I was in a petitioner's shoes, I would
find that very troubling. And if our job here is to to serve the people and the citizens, we we don't want to be granting we don't want to give the appearance of granting something that we can't grant because it's in violation of the ordinance
>> or the building. >> So, in other words, when he submits his final plans for permitting, if he reduces the size of this down to 500 square ft, which is about taking 3 feet off of it would be 45 feet. What did I figure 560? So, however many feet 5* 14
is about that number. So, he takes 2 and 1/2 ft off the front and the back and it's completely legal long as he's 500 ft. >> Correct. No problem. >> And that would have to be approved through the building permit process. >> Then they'd have no problem. >> And this variance would not have anything to do with it other than the setback and the height.
>> Okay, that's fair enough. >> Yeah, just just to Mr. Chairman and the rest of the board just to kind of give you a little peak behind the behind the curtains. Um, we have so many different what we call workflows for different types of requests. This is a variance
request and it goes through a process. We have an electronic permitting process and there's pre pre-established departments that a variance goes to. Um, you know, when they submit for a building permit, it'll go to fire,
police, engineering, zoning, um, storm water. Yeah, >> the whole gamut and they'll look at it to make sure that the city codes are getting implemented and getting adhered to a variance process is very limited. It just the the workflow is really just
the planning department and so um so all the eyes are not on it for in the variance process. So please don't think that you know that this is was going to escape or get away with something because this variance is granted. That's
not the case. Um we would have brought the full full group of uh regulatory eyes onto this project at at building permit. So just so you understand the city process a little bit better. Well, that sure cleared up something
that was complicated. >> Just real quick, I assume a building permit has not been issued yet. Just Okay. Question. >> I mean, to that point is these are draft plans, right? We drew up the minimum set to get this >> baseline requirement relieved. It's just these two. We're not trying to sneak
this in. There's going to be several iterations to cover all of the requirements that are reviewed in permitting, storm water, electrical, all the stuff. This was sufficient to get those two dimensions under consideration. >> Yeah. And the and the square footage of
the proposed structure has it's really I'm not going to say it has no bearing on the variance because but but as far as the sideyard setback and the height the two variance requests the square footage of the structure is not I'm not
it's not as gerine as others other issues that are specifically in the code. So, but if we can't if if the applicant couldn't get those variance these two variance requests tonight, project gets shut down.
>> Okay. How do we feel about the height? We address that plainly. >> Well, I'm I'm okay with it considering that if it were attached to the structure, it would be permitted. >> Um, >> so they're done with the applicant. just the technicality that's being separated by the structure because because the
presence of utilities and so forth. >> Um I mean I I I I tend to try to help out people that are improving their own home and making investment in Cocoa Beach. >> So I do consider that. Um, so I'm I'm I'm in favor as written
um you know with the stipulation that the 500 square foot standard is met. >> Where where does it say that it's the base of the roof for 12 ft not the entire structure? >> I can answer that question unless you
want to answer >> and that would be something that happens in the building permit process. >> Yeah. But if you look if you look at the definition in the land development code in section 1-20 is all of our definitions. Go to height building height >> and it's right there.
>> Does that talk about accessory structures as well? >> No. >> Same. We don't differentiate height between accessory structures and principal structures. >> I mean you are >> and we would here though. >> Pardon? >> You are here. The fact that it's not attached accessory structure it gets to
be higher than the building itself. So that there is a difference being addressed. >> I'm not sure what your question is. >> You said there wasn't a difference. It's addressed as a building >> building height >> as a permanent structure. But if >> height the definition of height is the same when we apply it to principal versus >> the amount of height is different. So
>> therefore the definition would be different if the amount of height is different between a house and accessory structure. The maximum height granted. >> But the question was where where is the height measured to? >> Yeah. >> Look at look at that look at that highlighted >> measured to. >> Right. It's the same whether it's success or start.
>> Correct. >> Exactly. >> Okay. >> The way the code reads too is once you're at that height of the roof, you have still another 10 ft of usable space as well. And that's where the pitch of the roof comes in. And
>> like a single family house is uh 25 ft and then you get to go up another 10 to cover your roof, >> right? Yeah. your like your tie beam where yeah >> see I'm reading this saying it's saying top of the roof >> that's in the that's for a flat roof I
believe usually it's like the >> highest point of the finished roof deck elevation >> highest bearing point of the roof treses and roof hipper cable provided um roof flat the highest bearing point of the roof dresses if you go back to the
render ing or the >> elevation. >> Yeah. Yeah. It'll be that crossmember there. Right there >> at 154. >> No, not Yeah. Yeah. >> Yeah. That that right right there is where the height will be measured to
>> and that shows 154 and that's why he's asking for the height area. >> Yes. >> Generally, if you kind of divide it between habitable and un inhabitable space. So, >> now the peak of that is still shorter than the highest peak of the house, right? >> Correct.
>> Okay. >> Yeah, >> it's a good question. We deal with it all the time. Um, but I've I've talked to our building our current building official and that's his interpretation of this definition as well. And again,
we'll we'll uh make sure that that section of code is being implemented and adhered to during our building permitting process. Can I ask the applicant another question? >> Sir, >> are you planning on running again? [clears throat] [laughter]
>> TBD. >> Huh? TBD. >> Do you feel that the appearance of you asking for this right now on the board might have some implications? >> I really don't think that those are appropriate questions. >> Yeah. >> Especially for a variance. If >> I can jump in, go ahead. >> Yeah. Remember, we're dealing with
relevant evidence when it comes to uh these applications. This is a quasi judicial hearing. And so even asking questions like that could lead if there was a negative vote, it could lead to the, you know, the view that the board's decision was based on something other than relevant compet substantial
evidence in the record. So, you know, I would I would advise the board not to >> You don't feel that the city not being aware of the rules is putting some sort of favoritism towards a client? Yeah. >> So, so, so I was going to add this a minute ago, but you know, the the site
plan that is submitted, and this is not a defense of the city's review process at all. I'm just giving I'm trying to give you guys advice to help you make your decision here. The site plan that accompanies the application for a variance is preliminary. It is not final. The these are these are
preliminary plans. They are not final site plans. The whole point of getting an initial plan is so that you all have an idea of what the project is associated with the variance request so that if the board even grants the variance request then the applicant can
go through the process and that's where all the tees are crossed and and the eyes are dotted. That is why in our propos in our orders that we issue after you all make a decision, it says uh you know and this is a standard condition for every local
government I've ever worked for that the development shall be substantially consistent with the site plan application material submitted right not identical not exactly I mean this the this is not final plans um so these are the sorts of things that get caught sort
of during the process um so you know and of course Your your order here will not will not allow the applicant to bypass any codes even if the site plan would say otherwise. Right? Even site plan has
the the structure at 560 ft. That's not what you all are deciding tonight. You all are only deciding the two variances that are requested. So, but that discussion is very relevant. But, you know, will it exempt the applicant from the code? Absolutely not. Um, I got a
question. Since we're talking about the process, Dave, um, can you just give like a quick summary of like what a site plan goes through? Like usually the the variance goes first, right? And then it goes down the line and then you get to the building permits, right? Which
>> correct? >> Deal with all the rest of the stuff, right? Is that >> correct? That that is correct. Yeah, there's definitely a process. And uh um in this situation a site plan approval will not be required because generally a site plan is required only when the use
of a property is changing. So if it's a commercial property and it's going to be used now as a townhouse project or it's a townhouse project and it's going to be used as retail or office those are when site plan approvals are required. And um
that is and in the site plan process is um there's many criteria that we look for. It's a very technical review. I won't get into all the details, but it's a very technical review to make sure all the city's technical codes, storm water, all of our utility stuff, landscaping,
um topography, all of that stuff is that's where we implement those requirements in the site plan process. >> What permits do the petitioners project need? >> This one? >> Yes. So I so I understand the qu. So that's a site plan not applicable here because he's not getting a site plan. I
get that. What permits does he have to get for this? >> We'll go right to building permit. >> Just a building. >> Just building permit. >> And that's where that's where we'll look at the various um codes to see what needs to we'll basically what happens is we'll farm the building permit out to
all the review departments and that I mentioned those all earlier. they'll go through and look to see if if any of their code requirements are applicable and make sure they're being properly addressed in the in the building permit application. So, um yeah, but that's just it, just
BP. Again, they'll have to meet all the codes. Whoever does the site plan, they'll have to meet all the codes for storm water, engineering, electrical, plumbing, building, zoning, [clears throat] >> um, height, density, all that.
>> Yeah. >> Through the >> This is why, you know, it's it the applicant doesn't have to spend a whole lot of money to find out if it's he even has a chance at doing it, right? >> It's a good thing. >> Yeah, it's a very good thing. So, they come here first. If they don't go here, they don't get a hit here, it's like you said, it's
>> it's it's game over. So, but I would like to I just want to say one thing to the board and I've been involved in lawsuits because of boards getting out of considering issues out of bounds and it's very we got to be very careful about that. Our code is very
specific on items and criteria that we can look at in various processes and the variance process has specific things we need to look at. When we get outside of that, we start considering other things. Um, that's when cities can get sued. Um,
if if if like this, for example, if this was turned down tonight, um, if if we're basing those decisions on non-code required items, that's very thin ice. We got to be care very careful of. I just it's just a So,
>> are we closing for are we going to discuss now? >> One more question. How long have you had the RV there? >> Uh 2019. >> It's 2019. So, seven years. Now, you suddenly decide you want to build it structure. For what reason? >> Partially. We want to blend in make the
house look part of the neighborhood. Right now, it's just a vehicle on the side. If you look at that, we're committed. We're going to match the roof line. It's going to be it's going to look like part of the original house. There's multiple options we could do. You could make, you know, a janky looking pole barn structure, but our goal is to make the neighborhood
beautiful. So it it's the first house on Minute Man. You can see it. Everybody drives by it. Our preference is to >> It's a beautiful home. >> Make it look like part of the house. >> Yeah. Offer. My name is Dana, the wife. Um [clears throat] you know, we've already addressed that the RV can stay
there, right? So it's we've already addressed that as from the city. So what we're trying to do is make it look like it's blended in with the house like he's saying. You know, when you walk by, you could see it. So, we're trying to make it blend in, make it look better, make it a little bit more appealing to the neighborhood. That's really our goal and
why we decided >> a wall there at all or enclosing it at all? >> No, it's an open air. >> You want it open completely. From a discussion standpoint, I'm always inclined to support I'm generally inclined to support
petitions uh as a matter of property rights where there is no opp if someone wants to do something with their stuff and no one opposes it. Generally speaking, in most cases, I support that. You know, I give it a different weight and a different listen when someone has an opinion. You
know, someone an adjacent certainly an adjacent property owner, but when someone puts in for something and uh everyone around them has been noticed and it's on their property and no one else around them cares, I'm inclined to support uh that being said,
you know, you bring up excellent points, Adam. >> Michael, I'm sorry. Our only fear is just that certain things get overlooked at this point and we do end up in a situation where we're sued much like previous cases where things were overlooked by the city. Um
the image of it whether you think that's property to talk about does not seem appropriate but again I mean if there's no objections I do agree with that as well. >> What do you mean by the image? You don't like the elevation here is
what you're saying. >> M Mr. Chair and I'm so sorry to cut you off um sir, but if there is no other there are no other questions for the applicant, I'd recommend the board open it up to the public for comment and then if there's no public comment, the board can open discussion to public comment.
>> Any other public comment for against? Okay, public comment closed. Now we can discuss it. Um I I just um I appreciate like that you looked through all that. That was that's that is really that is really good. Um I feel like though we we've
established that everything is uh within ordinance. Um I think it's going to improve the property. Um and you know the fact for the height, the fact that it's the same as the highest peak, it's not going to be overbearing or anything.
Um, so I'm in support of both variances. So >> that's an excellent point. If he can legally park an RV there, it's much better to have a very exp fancy structure wrapped around it than just an RV. >> And I agree with John as far as property rights. And and I'll just go one further. As I said before, when a when a
homeowner is investing in his own home, he is in turn investing in his community. And by by improving one home, you you improve the whole community. So I tend to look favorably on that uh condition as well.
More discussion. >> Any more discussion? >> Excuse me. >> Any more discussion? >> No, I thought you were researching something. >> No, you're fine. >> Okay. >> No more discussion. >> There's no more discussion. Would someone like to make a motion? >> I move to approve. >> Okay. I set forth and
>> they have a motion somewhere in this paperwork >> wherever I read it. I >> probably mention the um the 500 square foot thing they asked us to >> that's we have a clean motion >> or how do you want to do the readout >> clean motion then
>> yeah it might be it might be helpful I have draft order prepared I can read the conditions I had with the additional condition that we discussed and then uh a member could make a motion based on the conditions I present >> pursuant packet >> it's in there >> please read it
>> so there are four conditions um three of them are the standard conditions we have with the additional one we discussed the first that the development shall be substantially consistent with uh the site plan or application materials submitted with the variance case PZ-26-13.
The second condition is that the maximum area of a detach accessory structure shall be 30% of the air condition square footage of the principal structure up to 500 ft. That's a copy and paste from the code requirement. Um all required building permits and applicable development approvals shall be obtained
prior to construction. Uh that's our standard boiler plate uh boilerplate uh condition. And the last again another uh standard condition that all other applicable uh provisions of the city of Koko Beach land development code shall be complied with.
>> Okay, let me try again. In case PG-2613, I move to approve variance number one to reduce the required setback from 10 ft to 6 feet. And I move to approve the variance to allow the height of 15 feet 4 in resulting in the variance of 3
foot4 in >> as with the conditions as read. >> With the conditions as read. >> Okay. Do we have a second? >> Second. >> Call a question. >> All a vote. >> Yes, please. >> Okay. Don Haynes.
>> Yes. >> Ronald, I'm sorry. John Boort, >> yes. >> Michael Goldberg, >> yes. >> Rick Anderson, >> yes. >> Carolyn Willis, >> yes. >> The motion passes 5. >> Thank you. [clears throat] >> Okay, let's see what's next on this
list. >> Um, next is staff announcements and reports. Um, with a little help from our city lawyer and our city clerk, I've refflowed
our agenda packet on the city site. I think it flowed a lot better tonight. Um, >> I hate to tell you that's how we did it for 30. [clears throat] >> Well, it's great. I I was using what they gave me when I got hired in here. So, and it seemed like we stumbled a lot. So,
>> I think this worked rather well tonight. for everyone. >> And I also want to introduce Kristen Harris. She's taking the minutes for us. Um, so she's helping us in the meetings. So just I I didn't introduce her last week. Sorry. Or last meeting. So just
wanted to bring her up. >> Okay, that's all I have. >> Someone else wants to talk. >> Did you want to say anything? >> No. >> Thank you for coming. So now the next statement it would be board members reports or announcements.
>> Okay. What's next? >> Okay. Thank you all.