Good evening. You're attending a session of the city of Jacksonville Beach's board of adjustments. The board of adjustment meetings are quasi judicial in nature. All decisions of the board will be based on competent substantial evidence, including
testimony provided in this meeting. Any person who is not an applicant or an agent that wishes to speak will need to fill out a speaker card located at the side table by the door and turn them into the clerk. Each member of the public will be given three minutes to speak on each items. Please refrain from
speaking from the audience and applause or cheering will not be allowed. Please silence your phones. Can we have a roll call, please? John Morland here. Owen Curley here. Jeff Trul.
Jennifer Williams here. Matt Mets here. Laura Tierney. Douglas Dell here. Okay. Next on our agenda is the approval of minutes. Hopefully everybody's had a chance to review the minutes from June
17th, 2025. Is there a motion? I make a motion to approve the minutes from June 17th. Second. Okay, it's been moved and seconded. All in favor? I opposed. Okay, the meeting minutes have been adopted. Is there any correspondence?
Nope. Correspondence. Can we first uh can we call the first old business, please? The board calls BOA25-100034. Property address 133 North 7th Avenue. Motions to consider 34-614
Echo3 Charlie 2 for a corner setback of 11.3 ft in of 12.6 ft minimum. 34-614 echo3 Charlie 1 for a front yard setback of zero feet in l of 20 feet minimum 34-614
echo3 Charlie 2 for a sideyard setback of 6.8 ft in l of 10 ft minimum 34-614 echo3 Charlie 3 for a rear yard setback of 14 ft in le of 20 feet minimum and 34-76.1
for zero parking spaces at a twounit multiple family dwelling in L of Two spaces per dwelling unit requirement or four spaces total required to rectify nonconformities for renovation for staircase addition. New seconds story
deck on the west side of the structure and expansion of an existing second story deck on the front located on portions of two non-conforming lots of record located at property just 133 North 7th Avenue. Okay. It's a reminder each member of the
public will be given three minutes to speak when we open the public hearing. Does any board member have any expporte communication? I've had none. None. I've had none. I've none. And I've had none. Would the applicant please come forward to be sworn in and
give their presentation? Please raise your right hand, state your name and address. Anthony Martinez, 2009, San Pedro Point, Neptune Beach, Florida. Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you are about to give in this matter is the truth, the whole truth,
and nothing but the truth to help you God? I do. Um, so actually we had deferred our previous meeting. You guys had a lot of questions, which I appreciate, which led us to looking into a lot of different options. Um, I greatly appreciate the
opportunity to work with the staff on these items. They've gone above and beyond to help us and have done a great job uh guiding us through this process, getting us to this point. Uh, we are very appreciative of their help. We understand the staff's position as far as the parking is concerned. Uh, but we
feel that the proposed recommendation from staff could potentially have negative outcomes, which I'll address. And so, we'd like to explain this a bit further. Um, I do have a PowerPoint that I submitted if we're able to pull it up.
Thank you. Um, so the the next slide, if you don't mind, that's just the survey if we need to refer back to it. Um, if you don't mind the next slide after that. is the variance request which the staff's recommendation. We agree with the staff's recommendation to approve
the setbacks and proposed building boundaries as we were requesting. Um if you don't mind going to the next slide. So here is the survey along with some highlighted areas I'll address of of I guess potential parking spots. And you
guys brought up some different options for us to look at which uh I believe we thoroughly looked into all these different sections. Um the first one, the the purple section was one that a board member had mentioned to us uh to look into and that's parking on the west side of the property up against the
sidewalk. We looked into that. There's not enough width there for those spots u that are labeled in purple. Uh the green ones uh that were to the north of the property um but is now the backyard, those were requested for us to look into. And those green sections, there's
potential for two spots there. Um, so those two that would allow us to have two spots on property and that's what we're requesting that uh we're required to have is the two spots on property. Uh to the south uh that blue with the
number four on it that is on the easement along with the pink. That blue is already there and established. Um public works put that in around 2013 2014. Uh the pink is one that we had already talked to public works uh Mr. McDonald, the superintendent there, and he said that uh it would be very easy to
put it there and he said that there would be no problem in getting that approved. Um uh the garage, if you don't mind, uh well, I guess we can stay here. So, those two spots to the north, those two spots would need to be for the same unit, obviously, and they would need to back out of the driveway. You can see
there's the apron there to the west. Um they can back out of the driveway. Just south of those green spots is a garage. um which we were told to look into to be able to keep that garage uh the width and the depth of it. Um we looked into
it the width is only 16 feet um and the opening was only 14 ft. So that was less than uh able to fit one car and the depth of it was only 14 feet which is less than we'd be able to fit a fullsize car in. On top of that, even if we were able to, you can see there'd be a
collision uh possibility with those two cars to the north backing out of that driveway along with the car backing out of uh the garage spot. Um but being able to park to the north allows us to have one more spot than we would be able to parking the garage. So, I appreciate I appreciate that recommendation. That's
something we looked into. Um being able to park those uh two cars there. Um, so just in conclusion, I mean, you know, if you don't mind moving to the next slide, we looked into that garage as being a feasible parking spot. Um, there is only enough width for one spot
to begin with, and there's not enough depth even for a spot. Even if we were to back it on into the driveway, that would block uh cars being able to park into the back, which would allow us to have another spot in that back uh north side backyard area. um pulling out of the garage onto the driveway would be
hazardous obviously because there's a potential for collision um with two cars parking uh backing out onto the same uh driveway. Um if you don't mind moving to the next slide, please. So, these are some uh questions that we
had kind of gotten in communication with the city that we wanted to address. And I won't read through all of that, but just the conclusions of what we looked into, the garage not being uh large enough to accommodate a parking spot. Um but, you know, obviously we have the potential to park in what is now the
backyard and fit two cars there. Um and also just historically, this property has always functioned. I look back at pictures of different street views from different years. Uh, this property is always functioned with only two spots. We do have a small lot and we are requesting two on-site spots,
but we're also showing how we plan to provide more spots by applying through public works to use that easement to the south. Uh, we were told that there'd be basically a seamless approval for this property. We feel that what we are proposing will not change anything in a negative way related to the neighborhood
dynamics. Uh it will only cause any parking congestion uh and will not cause any parking congestion since there is plenty of room available on the easement. Uh it would be very uniform to the street. Every other street, every other house on that street is already parking on the
easement. Um, and requiring us to keep the garage as parking would lend more to parking congestion and collision hazards with the parking on the north side of the property uh than it would to grant us the two on-site spots only and allow us to pursue the easement parking for
the other two. Uh, if you don't mind moving to the next slide, please. Um, and again, when speaking to the superintendent at public works, Mr. McDonald, he told us that although technically yes, uh, they would not be our exclusive parking
spots for those other two spots. The parking on the public works easement is widely accepted and enforced by public works to be that building's parking. So much so that if someone were to park there, uh the owner could easily have their car removed as it's widely known and accepted that those spots are for the building. And they are right in
front of the building as every other uh house on that street. As you can see, um, if you looked all the way down that same street, uh, the the public cannot currently park there anyways. Right now, it is our front yard. So, it's there's a
curb, there's grass. Um, so it is the front yard for that building currently. Um, we think the tenants parking on the easement is the best for the tenants since it's uniform all the way down the street. It would also appropriately address and prevent the collision hazard uh, previously mentioned. Uh we do not
believe it would be a nuisance at all since this is the way uh it is all the way down the street and although technically public parking public works said that it is widely accepted and enforced that the spots in front of the building in this manner are spots for that building. And sorry I know longwinded. In summary,
we're requesting two on-site spots as opposed to four because the property was always functioning with two spots and adding another spot on site via the garage would pose a collision hazard and the garage is not big enough. Uh we are asking for relief due uh from the four
spot requirements down to two due to our small lot size and also asking for uh something that is afforded to other residents, specifically the whole street. We believe the parking relief would allow this property to function at its best and would not be a nuisance in any way. We agree with staff's
recommendations to approve the setback and boundary requests. Um, and that is that is it. So, uh, any questions that you may have for me at this time? Um, I'd love to field any of those and thank you for your time and consideration.
My one question is, uh, the intent of the two spots in the backyard there would be to use the existing apron, use the existing apron and have to go around the building, which there is enough room there. Um, and this was actually suggested to us. So, yeah, use
the existing apron, get around and be able to park those two spots, one in front of the other, but they would be for the same unit, so there wouldn't be an issue with uh, I guess, communication with backing those cars out. So, you are able to use that apron and get around the building? Yes. Okay. and
that that dimension is 18 feet by 60 feet. Um, so there's more than enough room to park those two and not be encroaching on the the other properties. If if the the current condition of the property when you acquired it, it was it
was it wasn't multif family, was it? I mean, it was it was a it was a it's a two-unit multif family. So, it's one unit on top, one unit on the bottom. Where is the garage? It's It's an addition that was like an illegally
added on, right? Like there was no you didn't get the permit. So, this this building was built in the 30s and there's no record of from, you know, just talking with the city, there's no record of the garage ever being there. I was able to look just on street view decades back and it's always been there.
So, it could have very well been built in the 30s, 40s, I'm not sure when the city started keeping record of those or requiring permits for those. Um, but it's been there as far back as I was able to find. So, Christian, may I ask you because one of the recommendations was to remove the
garage edition to make for off streetet parking. Like, literally remove it. So, I mean, it sounds like it's been there for decades now. The best I can tell, it probably goes back um maybe to the early 90s. Um, we
don't have a record of when it was built because it wasn't permitted, but we did have permit requirements and records that go back well before that. So, we don't believe it was permitted, but it probably goes back that far. So, is I mean, we're calling it a garage, but if it would never fit a a car, or is it
I'm gonna interrupt you. There's so much echo in here. Did we Is I can't hear what Christian said. I'm sorry. Yeah, I can. I can answer that question. Um, so the garage not only was built illegally, but was also altered at some
point and a like raised up platform was put in in the back with a washer and dryer. Um, originally the garage would have been able to support two cars and per our parking requirement, you need 9 ft in width and uh 17 feet in depth. So
the garage is 44 feet give or take deep. So you could have accommodated two cars in the garage at one point. Um when those alterations happened, I couldn't tell you, but up until um this year, there was a garage door and it was functioning at least partially as a garage.
If I may address that, the the whole section, that whole back section is only 16 ft in width and obviously the doors can't reach all the way to the outside. So the door was only 14 feet in width and the actual norththeast corner is all concrete block raised up. It's
completely different construction. um than the northwest corner. Um so it's not it's not all the same level, but there's two different sections to it. The northeast corner is consistent with the rest of the house, whereas a bedroom that went out the northeast corner,
whereas that garage section, the northwest corner is frame construction built at a different time. mentioned before. So the the front part I imagine was used as a workshop because there's and I I have a picture of somebody parking
outside of there. So you can kind of see that somebody parked outside of there. There was a door on the side that you would come in to get into there. The front half was the front I'd say 14 feet was used like that as a workshop. The back half was a laundry room. Um, and that was all, you know, seemingly built
at the same time. The northeast corner, um, there's a picture that you kind of see where you come in the back door. The northeast corner is completely different. It's all block construction just like the rest of the, um, first floor. Um, so it looks consistent with
the rest of the first floor. So, are you saying that the garage? the group. Yeah. So, if if I tore out the the laundry room, basically, if I tore out the laundry room and and converted all
that to be enough space, there would be enough spot. There would be enough space, but I wouldn't have the width. And also, I wouldn't be able to have the two cars coming out of the same way. So, it provides the same collision hazard if I, you know, have two spots up top in those green areas backing out of the
same spot as somebody backing in the garage. You can imagine somebody's backing in around a corner and somebody else is backing out. There's no way for them to see each other. That's correct. Actually, I have a quick little timeline for you guys if you'd like.
easier for you to deal with. Well, if I can address that, the we did begin demolition on the inside and we went to the city after somebody came by while we were still doing demolition. Um, we didn't add anything in, didn't alter anything. We just began demolition
because there was significant wood rot. Um, both termite and water damage. One wall in the interior was completely falling over. Um, so we did begin taking all that out as long as a lot of personal items that were left in there. Um, so we did that. We did not add anything in in terms of doing any sort
of electrical or plumbing work into there. And that's all still evident today. Um, we worked very closely with the city. They kind of let us know, hey, you need to stop this before you do anything else. don't even continue anymore of the demo. We need to begin this other process. And they did allow us to continue exterior work um and
roofing. So, that's kind of where we've been at a standstill. They allowed us to do some stuff. They said we need to stop on other things. Um and we have adhered to that uh since they told us that. In terms of parking, if I do park one car there, I'm still left with the same situation where I can't park two cars in
the back because they're backing out of the same apron. I'm I'm sorry. It's It's um It might It might be easier to go back to the
Yeah, that dotted line is actually the flood zone on the slides. So, the first picture is a little wider to see where the garage is. And you can actually see the dimensions. If you go back to the second I think slide,
uh, sorry, the next one up there. Slide number two. Sorry, slide number two right there. If you click on that one, next one up. Yeah. So, that one's a little wider, but so, um, you see it says Concrete Drive
right there. There's the number 75. It says Concrete Drive. That is the entrance. So you can see the apron coming in off of the west side. Um so when you come in off the west side, yeah, through there you'd be entering directly east. But that all that whole
length that 45 44 45 ft that's not all the section that we're talking about because the northeast corner is it's on there's a hallway. There's a bedroom there that was constructed with the original house. It's the west portion that is different.
Um, so you're coming in through there, but like I said, there's, you know, to be able to have two two spots instead of the one. It would seem to make sense, you know, if we're if we're trying to ask for the least amount of spots possible to park two cars to the north rather than just the one in the in the
garage space, which would also require me to remove that, you know, uh, laundry room. Well, then I a collision hazard. Yeah. Yeah. If you imagine backing out of your driveway and somebody else is coming
perpendicular to you, backing out of your driveway to see each other, um there's only 11 ft there of turn space. So although a car can back out of there directly out, it it seems like it's just very congested. Um,
and again, somebody else in I believe it was on the border on the city brought up the solution of, you know, you can add another spot if you park to the north because there's two spots there and so that would add an additional spot. We did go back and look in the garage because there were a lot of questions initially as to the dimensions of the
garage. Uh, I think somebody said it looks like a twocar garage. Why can't you park two cars in there? And I was like, it's smaller. I don't know how to explain that it's smaller than a regular two-car garage. But the actual width of it, the full width exterior framing, everything is 16 ft. Uh the door space
is less than that, which I believe the width for a car needs to be uh 8 to 9 ft. So either way, there would not be uh enough space there. um to turn it into a single family home. I believe that would be kind of
extrenuous, I guess, to change the whole designation of the property. Like I said, this propertyy's always function with just those two spots. um the one spot on the easement when the rest of the neighbors uh uh were award or I guess approved for that easement. The
one spot to the southeast, that one concrete spot, somebody always parked there and some somebody always parked uh perpend or I guess yeah, I guess perpendicular to the garage. They didn't park into the garage to block the sidewalk, but they parked sideways in
front of it. And those were the two spots always used um at least looking back in street views to see where the two same cars were every year. Have you had a chance to review the staff recommendations? Have I? Yeah. Have you? Yes, I have.
Okay. So, they they're recommending two things. One that uh there's two the two spaces, I guess, to the to the north, uh, that were highlighted in
green, and that the garage be removed to allow for room for off- streetet parking or converted back into garage parking spaces. Are are you saying that that that can't be done? Number two, can't be done. The garage shall be either removed to allow
for off- streetet surface parking or converted back into garage parking spaces. If that gar if that garage is made to be kept as a parking spot, there's going to be a potential collision hazard with those other two cars backing out of there as well as right now there's not
enough depth. Um, so I'd have to go into other rooms to make the space for that. I've I'd have to I guess like combine the elevation to make extra space for that. And that would only allow for one more spot there. Um, but like I said, the the
collision hazard of there being 11 feet for those two cars on the north side coming out, uh, making that turn and the one car there that's going to be sticking out anyways, making it difficult. I think that, yeah, there's going to have to be, you know, some parking
coordination that that goes on there if it's multif family, but is it possible to to remove um the garage or convert it back into parking spaces? If I remove the garage I and a vehicle
was there, it would be blocking the concrete drive. Those two cars would not be able to get out. But they would park there though, right? I mean, you would again, back to the the coordination effort to to move the parked cars is separate then. Could that
actually be done? Yeah. So, a car would be parking on the driveway, potentially interfering with the sidewalk, as well as being for a different unit, having to go, you know, knock on another unit door and say, "Hey, I need to leave now. Can you move your car, back it out of the driveway so
we can bark back out our two cars from the the north side of the property, right? But that's kind of I mean, that's the staff's recommendation for you to to get a variance
based on the parking issue, right? I mean, that's I mean, this is the same problem that we had last month, right? We're just talking about parking. Yeah, the the parking has been the issue. And again, this is a small lot. Um it's always function with just the two spots that they use. So, this is
something new that we're exploring for the, you know, I guess the laws and ordinances that have changed in the city. Nobody ever parked in the garage. I I actually have pictures of the same car parking year after year after year outside in the same spot because when
you open it up, there wasn't enough depth to it to fit a car in. Um like I said, it was functioning as a workshop because the back half was uh of the frame part was a laundry room and then there was a hallway and then there was a
bedroom. It's not that full uh depth. Just I understand your variance request then it it remains that you want zero parking for a two unit multif family dwelling. So we're we're just requesting to have two parking the two in the back. Okay.
Um so and that originally it was a zero and then just working with you know city staff hearing recommendations. Um we did find that we can park those two back there. Is that an amendment to the um to the
the obligation and was that noticed? It's or do you have to notice? It's a lesser request. So, it doesn't need to be renoticed. Okay. So, exorc there there's two staircases in question. Um one leads to the second
story and is primary access for the second story the second story unit. Yeah, they're they're up and down outside to side. There was discussion about a staircase in the rear to access a roof deck that's over the garage and that would have gone
into the space where they're proposing the parking now, but that's not a that's not an occupiable in the sense of fire codes. So, I mean, there's no requirement in the code that they designate who parks where. It's
just designated that they have enough spaces for the units. Um, no, probably not. Yeah. No, I So, couple thoughts. One, there's absolutely nothing that would prevent them from widening the driveway apron, which then would accommodate
backing straight out of those two spaces. Um, isn't isn't north of that apron currently public parking? So, if they widen that, would they have to get approval from the city to remove what is currently a public space? It would be uh approved through public
works, but I mean, if it's for access to the property, they wouldn't uh object to that. There is there is a like Christian mentioned, there is a spot there that right now is uh on the street. Oh, yeah. So, and I'd like to if I can talk without being interrupted for I
don't know five minutes. Um, yes, they could widen the driveway so they could back out of those two spaces. Um, I just want to remind you guys kind of how this functions. This is a non-conforming use and directly from the code. It is the intent of the LDC to permit
nonconformities to continue until they are removed but not encouraged to survive except under limited circumstances. It is um further the intent of the LDC that increases in the non-conformity shall not be permitted. The provisions of this article are to designed to curtail substantial investments and improvements in
non-conformities to preserve the integrity of the code and the comprehensive plan. So this structure is a non-conformity. The property um is mostly conforming. Um the additions that were put on are legal and the city
doesn't count those as being permitted additions. Um, just from speaking with the building official, he's not even sure that the garage itself was uh built to be um structurally sound. So, that would have to be looked at during the engineering design phase. I think part
of the reason we're kind of ahead of ourselves is this entire project started out as a window and door permit. And during that process, a great deal more was done beyond that permit, including a complete internal demolition um in
closing the garage. And we have no evidence of what was originally there because all this was done outside the scope of the city. Um when it was determined that they had exceeded the scope of their permit, which included the outside deck and some other staircase work, um the city put a stop
work order on the property. Um a stop work order. So basically, you can't continue working uh until you get your permits approved. Um once that was issued uh sometime later, I believe in April, um it was determined that they had continued to do work and at that
point the building official uh had the um permanent power removed from the property to prevent them from working. At that point, they came in and applied for a temporary pole and they were told they could finish their exterior work to weatherize the building, but no more interior work was allowed to continue.
Um, this, uh, property is perfectly capable of providing for on-site spaces, and there's, uh, an intent to use the garage for things other than garage purposes. Uh, again, since the building official hasn't looked at it, it may likely not
function as any kind of space other than garage, possibly storage. All of the washer, dryer stuff that was put in, again, not permitted, not inspected. So there's really no baseline as to what the building is or what it could be because other than the shell that's
there, nobody's inspected the inside. Nobody has any evidence of what was there prior and regardless what is there wasn't permitted and isn't considered legal. So there the city's stance and and going forward will be that there is no except under extreme circumstances a
reason to approve a reduction in parking for residential properties unless there is some massive extenduating circumstances and we do have those but this isn't one of them. They are capable of fitting four cars there. And since they have not had any permits or plans
inspected, there's really no way to say whether the garage would be functional or the garage should be torn down, but the garage may need to be torn down anyway because again, we don't have any plans or inspections on the garage itself. Um, Christian, could could you just help us
by showing us where the four spots could be on that? Yeah, I think you have the two up top. Yeah, I I can't point at the thing, but in essence, the two on the top and then that uh portion that's adjacent to the driveway that was the
garage is roughly 40 ft deep and it is more than 9 ft wide. So, you could put in two cars in that space. Whether or not that's contained within the garage or the garage were removed and that became more surface parking, you could still fit four cars there. I think the
point is the retention of the garage, using it as a garage or even keeping it is a choice that the developers made, not a requirement or anything related to the city's code. And just as a clarification, there is no regulating on street parking for any
purposes. So regardless of signs or anything, the city is not going to tow anybody. potentially. I mean, it could also be someone going to the beach who happens to get there before the resident gets home in the evening or the morning, whatever the case, but it's public parking and it's available to anyone who
drives a car in the beach. Well, in most cases there isn't room because the building takes up the entirety of the property. So, it was never designed to have any parking. Um, but also they're not um exclusively owners of that parking. So, generally,
yes, it's expected that they would continue to use it, but there is no consequence if somebody else parks there because it's public property. You can park four there basically. Two in the garage, two to the north. Correct. Yeah. Um the ones
bottom. Oh, that's an existing space that's there. Um so I mean that's a it's a public space. property. I'm sorry. No, nothing outside of their property is dedicated to their property or anybody
else's. If if I'm able to respond, um the and and Christian was correct in the sense that I think we maybe have different timelines in terms of the construction going on there. Like I said, we did begin demolition. It was partially demoed before uh an inspector
came by the city and said we need to stop demolition. Um and we did stop. We did not continue at that time as you know and he took pictures of the inside. It looks exactly how we did when he came and said stop and took pictures. I think some of those pictures maybe were present up there earlier. We were allowed to continue on the outside with
the exterior and the windows and uh the roof and we did not continue any more work on the inside. It's evident even to this day. Um, so, uh, the the timeline there I think was just a little different. Um, but through the chair, there is never a
situation where the building official is going to require someone to remove their power if they're not continuing work outside of a stop work order or other some unsafe condition. So, factually disagree, I We're still getting used to them.
they're a little further away from it. Um, I also, you know, Christian's recommendation to park two cars deep in that garage. It there's a concrete wall with a door in it. It does not, and I don't know if there's a picture there,
but I mean, again, it's evident there's a concrete wall that you can tell has always been there. It does not go all the way through. Um, and that's part of the existing structure that was originally built there. Okay. But I think his point is that you could remove the garage,
right? If I remove the garage portion, I still would not have enough space for those cars to back out of. Um, and and you know, his recommendation to just kind of plow through all the walls. There's three walls I would have to remove to
put two cars deep in there. Um, So, one being wood, one being partially block and wood, and the other one being fully block and part of the structure. Does uh anybody else have any questions for the applicant?
No. Okay. Uh you can step back, sir. Uh are there any speakers cards? Yeah, I do have speakers cards, too. Okay. Uh, any other questions for Christian?
No. Okay. I'll now close the public hearing um, and bring the item back to the board for discussion. Is there a motion? I make a motion to approve BOA25-1034 based on 100034.
Based on the testimony and substantial confident evidence provided, the request has met all standards for a variance outlined in section 34-572 of the land development code. Okay, it's been moved and seconded. Discussion. I think we've had a lot of discussion
for the past 40 minutes, so I'll try to keep my comments relatively brief. Um, the one item that is hanging pretty heavy in my mind is the zoning. Uh I I I don't think we spent as much time on that in the last meeting or really in in
this meeting. So, I feel it pertinent to reiterate what Christian highlighted that this is only C1 commercial um and this is a sort of non-conforming use. And so looking at it through that lens,
um if the non-conforming structure doesn't meet the criteria for multif family and we make an exception for a nonconforming use in in this case. I I think that um is difficult to put in the
context of the standards that that we judge by. Absent that, if I look at this in the sense of a multif family zone, um it doesn't meet the parking requirements and the request and how
it's presented uh doesn't align with what the applicant is requesting. So, at a minimum, I think we would have to amend uh submit an amended motion for the request to align with the request to have two spaces and to remove the request for 14T uh from the rear yard
back to the 18 ft that is presented. So, I think there's a lot that would have to kind of move around, but um knowing that it's a C1 zone, this doesn't meet the C1 criteria and the non-conforming use state doesn't allow for the applicant to
find a reasonable use for the property as a multif family. To me, it seems that it it needs to be repurposed to the appropriate zone. the existing use doesn't seem to have a a viable uh condition to be met based on
the conversation with the applicant. Okay. Uh I think that there's a couple parts to this request. Um one is the parking issue which we discussed at Nauseium here. Second one is the setback issue too. If we
maybe we should start with the setback issue. Is is there um I I personally don't see an issue with the setback issue. Um this is in existence and will bring some of the property into conformity. The
parking issue I keep going back to looking at this saying there's room for four. Um, I know that the applicant doesn't want to do that and that there's going to have to be some internal parking
coordination to have uh four four cars there. But, you know, I don't think that I I agree that that this is the zoning and this is
this is the issue that's been brought up. I mean, this is the this is the issue of the whole thing. So, um, do we need to do an amendment to the motion
to deny the parking and agree on the um on the setbacks? I just want to highlight um depending on who submits any amendment that I I do think there's an issue with the setback
being requested for a year rear yard of 14 ft in lie of 20 because that 14 ft is where the rear yard would have the steps highlighted in blue which I believe the applicant stated they're no longer requesting and the existing setback is
18t shown on the survey and if you look at where they're suggesting think they would have the two spots on the north end. There would not be a staircase because that would be the access to those spots. And so I I would I would recommend that if we look at an
amendment, we consider that 18 foot on the existing survey. Yeah. If you look at the north of the property on these two photos, the one on the left shows a blue highlight which is a staircase and the request that was
provided asks for a 14 foot setback in that rear yard which puts you to the north edge of that staircase. If you look on the right side, which was the applicant's testimony today, there would be two parking spaces which is highlighted green. In that photo, you'll
see the staircase has been removed and would not be requested. Absent the staircase, the existing setback of the structure is 18 feet. So, I think as we amended, we would amend potentially that 14t north rear yard setback request to
be the existing 18 ft. you want to I don't want to I don't I I'll keep discussion if nobody's ready to move to amend um in the sense that as an existing structure in its existing use
case in a multif family I think that we we to make this work with parking you have to tear the structure apart And once you've torn the structure apart, now you don't have an existing
structure by which you have a nonconforming use. So if if we don't look to make an exception for parking offsite and we do require removal of the structure, then the non-conforming use based on it being an
existing structure is voided. And if we do allow the offsite, then I think there's multiple scenarios in which you can create parking that they can use that are not designated specifically to them and you in an extended form allow
for the non-conforming use in this space. So I think that to me is the crux of of the issue and based on city's recommendation the uh the structure should be amended to fit
the parking and based on the testimony provided that cannot be done to meet the minimums. So that that's kind of where I'm hung up. So, I would just say that given the current state of the structure and and the requirements, I I don't
think it's fair for us to assume that there's going to be major altercations uh to the structure itself and therefore predicating either approval or denial of
an application for a variance based on uh the assumption of what has to happen. I mean, they could turn around and say, you know what, this could be a single family. Um, or we're going to do something completely different with the property. I don't think they can do single family
in a C1. It's it's not one of the approved uses. Just just for clarification, um, you you can have an existing single family. You can't build new single family in C1. Um, additionally, it is a conforming use at this point because they did go to the planning commission to receive approval
for multif family on that site. The question how it's built is really what you guys right to decide. So, uh I agree that the uh I agree with the uh the rear yard setback of 18 in L
of 14 or 14 ft 18 ft, excuse me, it's due L of 20 and and the parking issues, but u um you're not going to I would like to make a motion to amend
the prior motion. uh to have a rear yard setback of 18 feet in lie of uh 20 feet and to amend the zero parking spaces to be two parking spaces in lie of the four
total spaces required. We have second I'm amending to what the applicant has requested. If anybody wants to second or if anybody wants to amend separately. Good. Yeah. So, you have a motion that hasn't been
seconded. So you could let that die on the table or you could second it and offer an amendment that the maker could then agree to or just have a completely new. So yeah, so we have a motion that's not been seconded. Is there a second?
Okay, without an amendment. Uh well uh then we have to have discussion first. Okay, so go. All right. So are you seconding this? Okay. So, she's seconding the the the amended motion which um and I'll I'll
paraphrase hopefully correctly. The rear yard setback will be 18 ft in L of 20 ft and that there'll be uh two parking spaces in lie of four spaces total
on the property. That's the amendment. Um is there discussion on that amendment? Is that correct? Yeah. Is there discussion on that? Yeah, we're only gonna We could talk about the other setbacks, but but yeah, we could talk about the whole thing if
we wanted to. So, it goes I think the issue is really is it two that we're going to allow or is it four that we're going to allow or zero? So, it's zero, two or four and that 18. Yeah, 18. I don't think anybody's got an
issue with that. But the uh Right. So let maybe we should just focus on that. Do we want zero, two or four? The applicant's asking for zero. The amendment is for two and the city saying four.
Any discussion there? That's what I hear the city saying. Yeah. the city saying should have four. I also hear the city saying that. I don't see it. Um just based off of the testimony provided by the applicant. I see the two that they've offered. I see
a potential third with the deconstruction of the garage. Um but I'm not seeing four in in all honesty. I I do see value in converting the front
yard into parking where the public works has the the ownership there whether it's um used by the the tenants or not. I think that's beneficial. Uh so to me like allowing the two parking space
requirement recognizing it's a multi-family unit. they're going to be seeking more parking and as an owner there's an inherent incentive for them to convert that front to that parking regardless for the sake of the tenants. I think that could ultimately create a
diminished nuisance on the area's parking. Um, so knowing that we cannot require them to do things off the property in which they own, say, one, two, three as highlighted on the structure, I I see reason to to go with
the existing structure as is and and approve absent an alternative where I could see that there would be four, but you know, my limited imagination uh only allows me to see demolition of
the existing property to create that. Which takes us back to my earlier statements. I think that the city is asking us to make them have four on their property. I agree. It gets into use, I think, and then
we're back to Well, I mean, I I don't think they're untrustworthy. I the But we know the depth of it, don't we? We know that it's 60 ft deep where the garage the garage
well based on testimony it's 14 feet deep to a laundry room and then an additional depth that would allow one car parking if the laundry room was removed and then a raised concrete platform for the remainder. So at most
would be with the existing garage one car with a tear down and rebuild. Perhaps they could build a wider garage in the rear, not encroach with parking to the north side. Uh but that would be
still two cars. So again, limited imagination here. Uh I I'm not seeing it and I'm not suggesting that the city has to come up with a solution either. Um but if I if I go back to our criteria by
which to judge uh all I can offer is my interpretation of each and then perhaps that will inspire some discussion from you all to to rightsize my thinking. Um there are conditions and circumstances that exist which prevent compliance with site design development standards or which are unique to the parcel of land,
building or structure. What is unique and existing is the structure in and of itself in uh in its current state. Um, and to my earlier statement, the removal of that structure puts them in a a use
that that is not appropriate for uh their zone. The conditions or circumstances do not result from the actions of the application uh and would not be considered a self-imposed hardship. Based on my understanding of the testimony provided, it is in the
state in which they acquired it and in the state in which it had been used previously. uh there would be no special privileges afforded to the applicant by granting a variance that is not available to other parcels of land building structures with similar conditions or circumstances. I think we've established the unique conditions.
I think we've acknowledged that we're all comfortable with the setbacks that are being requested and the real caveat that that we're focused on is parking. I think as the testimony has provided there is public parking on the west side of the building. There can be additional
public parking on the south side of the building. the applicant is making use of the existing open space to offer two spaces on the north end of the property. Uh so I think that uh this is not a special privilege in the sense that using the public workspace is is common
practice in the area. Uh strict interpretation and enforcement of the code would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other parcels of land and would provide an unnecessary and undue hardship. The unnecessary undue hardship I think we would be implementing if we did deny this request in its entirety or at least in part
would be um that it is an existing structure that has been used uh as this as this footprint with this limited parking situation uh as it was acquired. So I think that that indicates that there were rights uh allowed to the to
previous owner within this space. The variance requested if granted would make possible a reasonable use of the parcel land, building or structure. I think it's reasonable to use it as it's been used. So I think that meets the same basis that I said due uh the variance request if granted would not result in
the creation of a public nuisance. Again, based on my interpretation here, I think it would do the opposite. It would allow what is an existing use of an existing structure to be a reduced burden uh in the sense of creating more
parking in the area than currently exists today with parking being the issue that we're trying to address. So based on that interpretation of my limited view and imagination of the lot, I think that it meets all six criteria with the two spaces and the amended rear
setback. for about 56 minutes. Did I say so? Okay. Any other discussion on the amendment? Okay. So, no more discussion on the amendment. Just to remind everybody it the the amendment now is to change the
rear yard set back to 18 ft at a two unit multiple dwelling in lie of four spaces total required and this would just be voting on whether or not we amend the motion. This wouldn't be to pass it right. This would be just on the
amendment. So, uh, based on that, can we have a, um, a roll call vote on the amendment? John Morland, yes. Jennifer Williams, Matt Mets,
yes. Douglas Dell, yes. Owen Curley, no. Okay, so the, uh, motion is now amended. So, uh, in addition to the corner sideyard setback of 11.3 feet in L of
12.6 feet and a front yard setback of 0 feet in L of 20 ft. Uh, and a sideyard setback of 6.8 ft in L of 10T minimum and for a rear yard setback of 18 feet in L of 20t minimum. And for two parking
spaces at a two unit multiple family dwelling in lie of two spaces per dwelling unit required or four spaces total required. Okay. Any discussion on that? Um so now
the motion has been amended. Can we have discussion on the motion? I would just remind everybody of what the section of the LDC that Christian read, which is the intent of the LDC to bring these non-conforming properties
back into conformity where possible. Um I don't disagree with the analysis of the standards uh applicable to all variances only that uh this request in the parking I think doesn't meet the uh
the intent of the LBC. So um any discussion on this amended motion now? None. Okay, we're ready to vote. Okay. Can we have a roll call vote,
please? Jennifer Williams. Matt Mets, yes. John Morland, Douglas Dell, yes. Owen Curley, no. Okay. Uh, your request for variance
has been approved as amended. Okay. Uh, can we call the next case, please? So, we're on to new business. Sorry. The board now calls uh sorry. Thank you. Uh the board calls
BOA25-100037 property address 1328 South First Street. Motions to consider 34-615 echo1 Charlie 1 for a front yard setback of three feet in lie of 20 feet minimum 34-615 echo1 Charlie 2 for a northerly yard
setback of 4.4 ft in lie of 5t minimum 34-615 echo1 charlie 2 for a southerntherly yard set sorry southerntherly sideyard setback of 3.8 8 feet in lie of 5 feet minimum. 34-615
echo1 Charlie 3 for a rear yard setback of five feet in le of 20 feet minimum. 34-615 echo1 fox trot for 65% lot coverage in le of 60% maximum to construct a new single family home located at property
addressed 1328 South First Street. Okay. Uh, as a reminder, each member of the public will be given three minutes to speak when we open the public hearing. Does any board member have any expporte communication? I've had none.
None. And I've had none. Would the applicant please come forward to be sworn in and give their presentation? Please raise your right hand. State your name and address. Can you turn on your mic? And can you repeat that, please?
I just didn't want to. Everybody's messing with the mics. Okay. Uh Paul Freys, um 212 East Street, St. Augustine, Florida 32080. West Parker, 818 Somer Bay Drive, St. Augustine Beach 328 32080.
Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you are about to give in this matter is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth to help you God? Yes, I do. Yes, I do. Go. Okay. Um, my name is Paul Fras. I'm
owner of Bella Builders. This is West Parker, one of our partners. Um, basically, uh, hopefully this is a lot less complicated. I know you guys have been dealing with issues for a while. Um, we have a client and, uh, they, uh,
they want to, um, uh, scrape a lot that has been used for, um, a two residence, um, a multifamily residence. Uh, I don't know. I the the current structure was built in 1931
and uh the uh owner wants to scrape the lot and actually um put a single family residence um on that lot. Uh we would effectively be um current setbacks would effectively be
almost doubled for the sides and almost doubled for um the rear as well because there is an existing deck on the rear of the property. And then the front setbacks um the adjacent properties have
the exact same front setbacks that we're asking for. So hopefully that explains um the properties on that block, the adjacent properties have the ex same exact front setbacks that we're asking
for off off the sidewalk. And I believe that's uh three feet three and a half three and a half. And I believe currently it touches the the boundary the lines on almost both sides. It's one and a half feet on the left side the
current structure and it's right on from on the line on the right hand side. So it actually be set back further than it currently sits. But the front setback would be the same as it currently is right now. Okay. I'm sorry. I I when I read this I thought that the um the proposed
structure was going to have the the same setbacks as what would be needed to make the existing structures conforming. But you're saying it'll actually be moved in on the sides, right? Yeah. Okay. But the back will still be the same and the front will still be the
same. Okay. Any questions? Can you speak to your hardship? uh a 50 by 50 lot um and non-conforming lot
and it is a multi- family lot but there's there's not enough room to construct something that would be conforming I suppose
based on looking at um what was provided in in the materials for today is the request for the coverage for the structure itself or is there anything outside of the structure that's being looked at for the coverage that's being requested?
It is for the structure itself. Uh basically it's just it's a it's simply a matter of a few extra square feet that the the owner would like to utilize as a living space. Any other questions?
Okay, sir, you can step back. Thank you. Uh, I'll now open the public hearing. Do we have any speakers cards? We do not. Okay. Uh, is there anyone in the audience who has not filled out a speaker card? No. Okay. I'll now close the public hearing and bring the item back to the board for discussion. Is
there a motion? I make a motion to approve BOA25-100037. Based on the testimony and substantial competent evidence provided, the request has met all standards for a variance outlined in section 34-572 of the land development code. Okay. So moved and seconded. Any
discussion? I think it's a pretty straightforward request. I have a couple of things that I was taking a look at which is uh the lot is 2500 square foot relative to 3500 square foot and they're asking for 65%
coverage. Generally you allow up to 40 uh or I think up to 60% coverage in this in this zone. Um but with the reduced uh lot size based on it being substandard that would really relatively only be
46.4. So well below the 60% but what did stand out to me was that uh 45% is the maximum coverage allowed for the structure itself and in this request the structure is the entirety of what's
being asked for on coverage and they're at 46.4 so they are above that 45%. So that's really the one thing that I I saw as I was reviewing the notes and reviewing the case. Um that was provided
to us. Okay. Anyone else? Okay. Um can we have a uh roll call vote, please? Jennifer Williams, yes. Matt Mets, yes. John Morland, yes. Douglas Dell,
yes. Owen Curley, yes. Okay, sir. Your uh request for variance has been approved. Okay. The uh moving on uh planning department report. Uh next scheduled meeting will be on
August 5th and we have only one item. Okay. Wow. Another month sbatical. Uh the chair. Okay. Uh now's my favorite courtesy of the Florida visitors. Can I just add one thing before you uh move on? Oh. Um we are working on
getting training schedu for you guys. We had some hiccups with the attorney going on vacation. Heaven forbid. Um, and just some communication. So, we're looking at, I believe, August, but I'll verify that when I talk to the attorney and his assistant, uh, tomorrow. So, we're working on it.
We got pushed back to September if it makes you feel any better. Do you want Do you want to do Do you want to exercise your right as a uh courtesy of the Florida visitors? Do No, I'm good. Thank you. That's the planning report. All right. Seeing none, is there a
motion to adjurnn? I make a motion to adjurnn. It's okay. It's moved and seconded. All agree. Opposed? Okay.