for the pledge of allegiance. >> Pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for it stands one nation under God indivisible and justice for all.
Okay. Welcome today, uh, January 27th to the special meeting of Historic Preservation Board. Um, Madame Clerk, can I get a roll call, please? >> Member Hurley >> here. >> Member Young, >> yes. >> Member Dashel,
>> here. >> Vice Chair Hawkinsmith, >> here. >> Chair Larry, >> yes. >> We have a quorum. >> Okay. First order of business is the approval of the agenda. Uh which is a very brief well it's only a one issue action item today. Uh unless there's
someone who wants to add anything I guess for discussion. Um anybody on board have any interest in adding anything to the agenda? >> I do not. >> Okay. Well then we can go forward. Uh, anybody? And then I will move to approve
the agenda for today, January 27th, 1926. >> I'll second. >> Madam clerk, roll call, please. >> Chair Hurley, I'm sorry, excuse me. Member Hurley, >> member Young, >> yes. >> Member Dashel, >> yes. >> Vice Chair Hawin Smith,
>> yes. >> Chair Larry, >> yes. >> Motion carries. Okay. So, let's move on to the next part is audience comments. Um, this is the opportunity for anyone in the audience to make a comment. Uh, normally we kind
of have two situations here where you can wait if you want to comment on a particular action item. In this case, since there's only one action item, this would probably be the appropriate time for you to comment um on the action item from today. You also have the
opportunity to make just a audience comment in general on any other matter that you think is important and you have three minutes to do that. Um would anybody like to make a comment at this time? Okay, seeing none >> swearing in actually Dave. >> Oh, okay.
>> I'm sorry. [clears throat] >> You need to swear in the uh like we normally do. >> We don't have to for just a general comment. This isn't on the item. >> Well, I don't know if it is or isn't. Is this a general comment or is this a comment on the item itself?
>> Um, it would just be I guess a general comment. >> Okay. Please state your name and uh address for the record, please. >> Yes. Dave Fineberg, 1407 Pass the Grillil Way, St. P Beach. Um, I would I just wanted to kind of make a
comment on 8th Avenue CRDA just [clears throat] a timeline because I think it helps with historic timeline. Um, from what I've looked everything up and from keeping records, the CRDA by
the historic board was approved in August 26, 2008. And um, there was also a time when we were asked to be part of the CRDA, which Brandon,
you had asked me that, so I understand the question better now. Uh when did we get into the CRDA? Um we applied in 2017. So it was actually 9 years after the CRDA was was
brought up and we had owned the property that you have in question today which is 702 Pastoral Way. We had purchased it in 2004. Um but I just think the timeline is important. the CRDA wasn't just put
together quickly and it wasn't as if um there was a chronological order that had advantages to anybody. It was just over a long process of time. Um there was when we when we had joined the CRDA in 2017.
Um originally we were asked to join the CRDA and that was in 2012 August 28th when the 701 Gulf win Gulfway apartments or condos um we're RO they were asked to be part of the CRDA to make them conform
with transient rentals when they had sold the condos and because we were a similar property but to the east at 702 Pasigrow Way they asked us to join. We were probably one of the only homes that were ROR that could go to CRDA and we
declined at that time because it was our house. We thought we'd probably live there forever and sometimes you don't. So we decided to go ahead and take the opportunity to apply for CRDA actually five years later and then
slowly over time it probably took oh maybe eight years to get everything to where we are today. So I just wanted to bring that up some chronological order of when CRDA started and why it was done. Thank you.
>> Can I ask a question or two please? Sorry Dave. So, I think I know what you mean, but when you say we applied, you mean as a property owner of 702 or property owner of 102 8th Avenue? >> Uh, that was a year that was two years
later in 2006, we purchased that, >> right? So, when the CRD when they started talking about creating the CRD, you owned that whole all those properties, right? >> Yes. Okay. >> Two years apart. 2004, we purchased 702
Pasc Grill. 2006 we purchased 10 on 28th Avenue. 2008 we vacated the alley and why? Just because we're the only properties surrounding it and everybody come in off 8th Avenue to turn around on 8th Avenue, go through our property,
turn around, go back out. So, and at one time when we first purchased it, uh, Bill, there was a uh mechanism to stop people from coming in and it would go up and people would drive through it and we just took it out. So, you know, we did
Yeah, we purchased those properties at that we being my wife and I. >> So, >> okay. So, and just because I'm I'm glad you're coming up so we can ask some of these questions. I appreciate that. So, but when the CRD began to be talked about in
2006, you owned all those properties, right? >> Um, yeah. Well, yes, correct. >> Okay. and you were involved in understanding how the CRD was being put together being one of the primary
property owners on 8th Avenue which as you know is only a block long. >> Right. >> Right. Okay. And so you said you were asked to join when they when 701 Gulf Way was added to the CRD because you were one of only one of the there was
something unique about the property at 7 and2. What was unique about that? >> Yeah. Well, what was unique was uh 701 Gulf Way was RO and they cover all of Gulf Way um up to where the brass monkey is. We were the same on the east side
across from the Mary Pier. We were RO as a house. They were apartments as residential. Um and at that time, I guess 7th Avenue was ROR, 8th was CRDA, and we were in between and so was Gulf
Way. When Gulf Way was sold as a condo development, they applied to be part of a CRDA and I guess for some reason they were approved. We were asked at that time. I wasn't interested because I think it was years before the city had
tried to do a a I don't remember the date, but a mandatory historical. They were just putting that on you without any choice. I think a lot of people got upset and said, "I don't want to be told that we're historic." And so I think at that time maybe there wasn't a total amount
of trust. So when I was offered that I didn't really see any advantage in it because we lived there. I wanted I didn't want to be non-conforming by saying yes to something. I think I didn't trust >> Okay. >> I didn't trust the approach. >> But but the house next to you that I
guess that on pass a girl way I don't if that's 700 Pas Way or whether that's >> that probably >> 1017th. I don't know how >> they're on they're our front is 702 pascal away. I guess that's my point is I support what they're looking for on
their variance request because the front is 702 pascal away. We own the home 20 plus years. There is an alley access which is correct but all the time I owned it I could only get a small car in
there and then back all the way out because there's a utility pole in the middle. But the point I would really clearly make is that was always the back. And if the garage was gone, you would have some access, but there's a garage door on the alley. And there's
never been a car in a hundred years that had come through the alley and got onto that property because there's a garage there. It doesn't have a garage door on both ends, just on the alley side only. So I guess if you tore it down, you'd
have options to do something different. >> Well, I mean, but obviously what's happening today, they are proposing to tear it down. >> That that that would probably, you know, give you a little bit more accessibility, but you might want to take a look to see as a and I still own
property around it. And I just would tell you that I um I don't think you can get a vehicle through there that would say be a an emergency vehicle. >> Okay. Okay. Well, that's now we're talking more specifics and not general comments. And so, but >> yeah, but >> that's why I wanted to >> Yeah, I understand that. But but also
the property that you when you had it was zoned to RO. >> Yep. >> And it was you could it made sense because it was a residence that you would have a driveway on Pass Girl way. Yeah. >> When you asked to reszone it, >> I didn't ask. Basically, Bill, we bought
a property well before you did CRDA, right? So, we owned it before CRDA was created and we know why. Yes. >> Some of us remember why CRDA was created. >> Yes. >> Um, but I will tell you, we owned it before then. And so, I guess did we get
a benefit because it became CRDA? If we did, then we chose what was best for the properties. It's >> I understand that point. >> Okay, that's good. >> When you you chose No one made you reszone it. You decided to reszone it in 2018, right? >> Yes. Correct. >> When you reszoned it, you you reszoned
it with the rules of the CRD, which I would assume you were familiar with since you've been there for years and years and were part and parcel of creating or had knowledge with the CRD. So when you reszoned it, you knew it came with an alley access requirement.
>> It already I guess it already had it, >> right? >> Yeah. >> Okay. And so >> but that's why we vacated the alley, too. reszoning it to CRD, you allowed to build 17 units instead of a bed and breakfast with six units. >> Yeah. >> Right. And so,
>> so your your decision was to reszone it to get the advantage of be able to build 17 units, thereby making you more property more valuable, >> but you also had to accept the fact that it was alley access only because otherwise that's the only piece of
property in the CRD that doesn't that you would argue doesn't have alley access. Yeah, we um being when you own real estate, if you're wise, you pay attention to what's going on and you want your investment to be worth more.
That's generally the goal. the um purpose of re of of the valley, you know, being vacated on 8th Avenue that came through our property was because that made really good sense to come in
and to go out when we were selling our property and people were opposed to it. >> When you say selling our property, what pos what piece of property you talking about? >> We were selling the whole parcel back when there was a development was going to be the hallway. >> Okay, gotcha. So, the the whole >> Yeah. And let me I don't mean that
>> and that helped Bill. We had our house for sale for two years and nobody wanted to purchase it because it had this lovely old home on it. Then we decided after the CRDA was years down the road.
I'm just saying there was no immediate put together plan. >> I I I understand. >> If if if you understand that then let me proceed. >> Then we decided to sell our house. That gives people options, >> right? So at that point, our house didn't sell.
Why didn't it sell? At that time, it probably seemed like it was too expensive and it was an old home on a big parcel. So what did we do? We went from let's try and sell it. Let's try and come up with different ideas. The final thing was with the roads being
done, let's move the house. So we moved the house and then we sold the property and it was more attractive without a house on it, which is too bad. But we didn't tear the house down. We saved it. We moved it. We lost historic status because we elevated it. We did all the
right things, but that was plan D. When you live in a world of changing events, you try to pick plan A, you try to pick plan B. That one wound up being, well, let's move the darn house. It actually wound up being terrific for us. And then
the property was sold. And I I can go into that if you want, but I don't want to take too much time. But basically, the property was sold at that time with options. And basically, I'm just saying I know where the front was because I
live there. And if it was a bonus that it came with an alley in the back, that's pretty cool. I have no idea what the advantage of disadvantages of having an alley in the back. It just it didn't it didn't seem like an advantage to me. Well, I mean, I guess the question would
be or is when you own both pieces of property and they create the CRD, which has a requirement of alley if you're on the alley at that time, you own the piece of property that formally
had an alley that you vacated it that was, I believe, an entrance to the house at 702. And so and so that was a decision you made to vacate that alley require and then when the CRD was formed then you
had to use the alley and then when you decided to move your house and sell it and decided to which is I love your house. It's a great thing you did moving it. I I can't give you enough credit for that. So don't get me wrong about that kind of stuff. But when when that decision was made,
you still had a piece of property like you said the holiday where scenario where there's all three pieces there where 702 could still get access from 8th Avenue like it did when it had an alley there. >> When we v you're close to being accurate
when we when we purchased both properties, there was a fence separating the properties. A three-foot gate was where the alley was. So there was no entrance in from the vacated alley and there still never was. But we left a
gate there. We pretty much vacated to make it easier use for 1028th Avenue, not for some grand plan to build something. >> But the hallway ultimately was a grand plan >> and that didn't happen. >> I understand that. At the time that was
put together, >> there was an entrance off 8th Avenue through that area there. not to come into our 702 property. You're wrong. >> Well, because the 702 property had a building on it. >> No, the 702 had a fence all the way down the property, which it still has.
>> The hallway the hallway plan, >> okay, >> was include that whole area, including 702, >> right? >> And on that hallway plan, the entrance came off 8th Avenue through your property that you owned all into 702.
Just for the record, for you to know, and you can always look back at it, >> I wasn't part of the Holloway project. I was selling the property, okay? And so I would realize that people were disappointed how big it was. Okay.
>> Okay. But I don't study it or I just hope the damn thing would sell. >> Okay. But but Okay. >> But seriously, I'm not looking at where things are coming in and going out. >> Dave, follow me here, though. Okay. Okay. Fine. So you weren't involved in that. What I'm saying is when it was a
joined piece of property, you didn't need alley access at 702. >> What do you mean it was joined at >> when 702 and 102 as the hallway project would have you would have sold those properties together? >> Never happened though. >> I understand that. Right.
>> But at the time that was happening, >> right? >> Okay. It made sense for 702 to be in CRD or could because it didn't need to use the alley because it could use the property for 102. When the hollowway fell apart
and you decided to sell those separately >> then 702 either it should have reverted or you should have said well I have to use the alley now. >> No you know why that's that's what you know. No, Bill. Basically, in 2000, July
2017, we applied for the CRDA. It took one year. If we had taken it the beginning when we were asked, we would have done nothing. We had to do a final approval by the commission after many
readings, months, February 13, 2018. The city of St. P Beach approved it. We had to change the ROR to CRDA. We had to go to Penllis County forward. um to change uh the future land use map, change the
zoning map. It all took a long time for no reason other than it seemed like it could be an advantage. And in selling, Bill, all I do is buy and sell properties that I hope don't go down in value. That's the simple plan. Rent them
cheap. >> I understand. I understand that entirely. Okay. Part of the issue here on variance. Okay, that my understanding is correct. The city h we have to
>> chairman if we're going to be getting into this. Let me stop and go back and show this witness because this is getting into the actual application. >> All right. Well, then let's do that. >> Dave, I'm sorry, but no problem. Kind of went beyond general into specific facts. So,
>> have the clerk swear your testimony that you've already done and then the testimony if you have any more. >> Yes, sir. Would you like everyone who's testifying today to just go ahead and do it allify at once? >> Okay. Anyone who will be speaking or testifying before the board needs to be sworn in, please raise your right hand.
Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? >> Yes, I do. >> So sworn. >> Thank you very much. Sorry to take a >> No, it's okay. >> No, it's going to take a little while. And I and I app and I appreciate what the information you've been giving us. Uh
but what I'm saying is one of the things under section 312 on general variances they have a list of eight things that have to be all followed and met and satisfied by substantial competent
evidence. Okay. So these are all issues. Okay. And one of the issues that has to be met for variance is the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the action of the applicant or a prior owner of the property. And so
my question is or when you reszoned it whenever that was. >> Yes. >> Or however long it took to do that. When you reszoned it, you knew there was a requirement the alley access had to be used. >> No, I didn't know that. >> Okay. All right. Well, if that's your testimony, that's fine.
>> Nothing but the truth. But the the the funny thing is I'm mainly here to say that I know where the front is or where it always has been. >> I don't really look into the details of where you think it might be or where it
should be. And that's just part of planning. That's what you do. But I will say this, I was just here to support where I think the front is. I'm also here to support development of 8th Avenue responsibly. because we need it.
>> It's it's slow and I totally welcome development if it's done with a lot of care. >> So, I didn't really mean to get into it. >> No, I understand. Well, it's it's it's important. Like I say, it's relevant because of what I just mentioned as being a condition >> and
>> I don't know if you watch these previous things. We're not against development. No, no, ex but but we want responsible development and you've seen what >> chairman I think we can move into the actual >> that's fine. Thank you Mr. Finberg. Appreciate it. >> And and there may be a situation you may want to come up and say something again
if something comes up. >> Yeah, feel feel free. Thank you. >> Okay, so now we're I guess we're moving on to action item the recommendation on the board of adjustment case number 25142 for 702 pass girl way. Uh Mr.
Barry. >> Morning. Bren and Barry planner. Just staff has a brief presentation. The applicant is also present. They do have some materials they may wish to share. The applicant owner for this case is agent Tekkenburgg, agent of 702 Pastor
Grilway LLC. The property address is 702 Pastor Way. They're requesting a variance to allow the retention and expansion of a driveway access from Pastor Way following redevelopment of 702 Pastor Way. This request is made pursuant to land development code section 40.11. At the city commission
meeting two weeks ago, the city commission assigned this pursuant to the board duties and responsibilities to make a recommendation to the board of adjustment on this request. This is a survey of the property. It's recent showing existing conditions. You
can see on the right, which is on the east side of the site, the subject curb cut. It is approximately 17 feet in width at the property line. The property does retain a public alley access on the west side. It is a 10-ft platted alley
that was platted with the neighborhood. Um that does remain in place. It is slightly encumbered. I would estimate about 9 ft of drivable width in that alleyway, but it does still exist. It does terminate at the west side of the property, and that is a platted public
10-foot alley. This is the proposed site plan for new development. This is the basis for which the request is being made. Um, as mentioned before, pursuant to land development code section 40.11 following redevelopment. Any existing
access for a property that has alleyway access, which this property retains through its 10-ft alleyway, uh, needs to be eliminated. The applicant has proposed to move forward with a request to retain and slightly expand that access. Uh the existing drive, as I
mentioned before, is approximately 17 feet in width of the property line. The proposed drive will be approximately 20 ft in width at the property line. The historic preservation board does see variances, but they are typically to the flood plane management criteria. You
also make recommendations on variances for locally designated historic structures. that is not part of the subject request. However, this request has been assigned under the unnecessary and undue hardship uh variance criteria for recommendation to the board of
adjustment. There are eight criteria there are on your screen. Staff has also provided a copy of the staff report that was provided to the board of adjustment and will be reviewed in more detail with the board tomorrow. Going through the criteria briefly. Criteria one, there are special conditions and circumstances
ex that exist that are peculiar to the land structure building involved which are not applicable to other land structures or buildings in the same zoning district. Criteria two, the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the action of the applicant or a prior owner
of the property. Item three, literal interpretation of the provisions of the land development code deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same zoning district under the terms of the land development code and result in an unnecessary and undue hardship on
the applicant. Criteria 4 is not typically relevant. The state of Florida does not allow for use variances. So if one of these cases is brought forward, the um request is typically found in compliance with criteria 4. But the hardship has not been deliberately or knowingly created or suffered to
establish a use or structure which is not otherwise consistent with comprehensive plan or land development code. Nor will it permit an increase in development density. That is a specific local prohibition. We do not allow for variances that request increases in development density that is not
applicable to this subject request. Item five, an applicant's desire or ability to achieve greater financial return or maximum financial return from his property does not constitute hardship. Um, this would be for a case in which the only justification for a variance is
effectively to create a a return on value for the property. If that is the sole basis for a variance request, that is typically not a basis for a hardship variance. Criteria six, granting the variance application conveys the same treatment to the applicant as to the owner of other lands, buildings or
structures in the same zoning district. Criteria seven, the requested variance is the minimum variance that makes possible the reasonable use of the land, building or structure. And criteria eight is multiple components, but it's the requested variance is not in harmon or is in harmony with the general intent
and purpose of the comprehensive plan and land development code, is not injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public safety and welfare, is compatible with the neighborhood, and will not substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood.
The board of adjustment typically takes three actions in acting on a case. They always have the option to continue for more information. But when they take action on a case, typically it is to approve, approve with conditions or deny the request. When there are conditions assigned, there are typically a basis
for the assignment of conditions. Most conditions are subject to the rational basis review. They must be tied to a legitimate government interest. They cannot be arbitrary or capriccious. Aesthetics alone are not typically viewed as sufficient in the state of Florida for a condition, but can be considered in tandem with other
government interests. For example, when this board is making recommendations on historically designated resources, aesthetics in combination with character of the historic district is a consideration on which you can base a recommendation. We don't typically see exactions with
variances. They have been applied before, but they are fairly uncommon. We tend to see those more frequently with conditional use permits. When there is a condition that results in an exaction where something is taken, um whether that's a dedication of land, money, otherwise, they must be connected to a
legitimate public purpose and they must be roughly proportionate to the impact of the request being made. So, talking about today's meeting, um I just wanted to outline what staff desires to be the next steps. Based on board discussion, we plan to prepare a
written recommendation that will be drafted and approved by the members prior to meeting a journment. That may be a narrative. That may be points that we share with you. We just want to make sure that at least the majority of the board, four of the five members are in agreement with the recommendation that will be made to the board of adjustment.
The request will proceed to the board of adjustment at tomorrow's meeting. Staff will re uh relay your recommendation at that meeting. The site plan for this development is currently under review. The applicant may proceed with development after variance decision is rendered. This variance case is not
necessarily contingent on the request being approved. This is not a case that requires parking on site with the exception of one uh parking space. There is access to the alleyway. So this does not necessarily affect the site plan that is currently under review. Uh the variance is separate from but does
affect the the actual layout and the uh the design of the site plan. That being said, I'm happy to answer questions. We do have the applicant present. They do have some materials they may wish to share with the board. >> Can you go back just a second a couple
screens back was a uh a you said condition. It was thing under conditions. I think requirements for conditions. Now, where does that come from? Where's the authority for that? Those are typically um the the dual rational nexus test
>> case law. >> Okay. And so and so thank you uh Mr. Brooks. And so the third bullet point there's aesthetics alone are not typically viewed as sufficient but can be considered in tandem with other government interests such as character and historic districts.
So that's something that when we and that's when we're talking about if we if we were to make a recommendation to grant the variance that would be a condition that could potentially go with it. Is that my understanding? >> Correct. There can be conditions
assigned to variances. They do need to meet those those minimum criteria to be um applicable to the to the request. and city attorney, we were talking about the typical board responsibilities and reviewing locally designated resource variances.
Aesthetics in combination with the character of the district can be considered based on those criteria. Do do you feel that that would be applicable in this case as a recommendation? >> Yeah, two things. There's the uh 28 28.14 which are your criteria that you utilize
as the historic preservation board. Um and then also in the staff report for the board of adjustment variance at the end summary there's three conditions that staff uh recommend. Um I think there's one um number two which
is about landscaping aesthetics. Um the other two are more um legitimate government interests about right turn only and um the parking tags that would be issued. Don't see the staff's recommending for or conditions.
>> Those conditions are for the proposed development project though, right? Not necessarily conditions for this three-foot addition on the >> So >> those conditions are for the board of adjustment approval of this variance. When you look at the staff reports for the board of adjustment on this
variance, at the very end it says summary and then there's a one, two, three, four. Those are the conditions that staff will be recommending tomorrow to the board of adjustment. >> And that is strictly for the approval of this three-foot variance to the
expansion of the driveway. >> Yes. >> From the curb. >> Wait, no, it's not for the extension. It's the grant access period from 70 from uh Pascal Way. >> It's it's for this variance application,
>> right? which requires that access be provided to an alley if you're in a budding property. So they're asking for a variance from that and instead providing access through the pass grill that's shown on the >> right. I understand but there's already
a 17t curb cut and access on the front on passway and they're asking to maintain that and add an additional 3 ft. Correct. >> That is correct. essentially two variances from the standpoint of using the 17T one and then secondarily making it wider >> and then not using the alley. The
requirement of the code is they use the alley. >> Right. >> So the variance would be to not use the alley. Instead use the passive grill entrance and make it 3 ft wider. Not to use the alley at all >> and not considering the historical use
of the driveway from Pascrowway. I think that's part of your consideration that it's existing. Oh, okay. Just so we're clear on this for everybody, the the when it was reszoned to CRDA,
it says if you have al if you abut an alley, you shall use the alley for access. So that's what the variance is to get away from not having to do that. Yes, it has
a driveway, but that was when it was zoned ro. It could have a driveway then. It was a residence. It made sense. When it was reszoned, it changes where the entrance is supposed to be from. Now, but but the bigger point that I because
I want to make sure and I know >> Bill, I think we want to make sure we don't go too um far without hearing from the applicant. >> Sure. >> Maybe we could hear from the applicant and the justifications they have and they'll walk through the history that's >> Okay. But but also before we get to that because Brandon, you had mentioned in
your reports that there was some questions out there to the applicant and my question is do we have any new information from when you prepared this? It looked like at the technical review committee you talked about some things that the applicant was maybe going to address tomorrow.
>> Sorry, what? >> Make some decisions about and so I'm just asking whether there's been any >> new information. >> They're making a recommendation to the board. >> I have not received any new information. I believe at the technical review committee it was mentioned that the applicant was going to speak to their partners about the landscaping buffer
recommendation specifically. um they might be able to share that information today. And >> well, there's also part about parking passes and things of that nature and ability to buy purchase adjoining property or get an easement from the property next to them that where the val
alley was was before and so all those questions we don't have an answer for. >> Well, I believe the applicant did answer those to staff a technical review committee and to my knowledge they were not planning to review those in any more detail prior to the board of adjustment. they have any additional details on either of those items, they're welcome
to share it. But I I believe we are up to speed on on both those. >> So So just so I know so where we are today is just >> no changes to what they asked for in their when they filled out the application for the variance.
>> Correct. It's the same request as >> and let's hear let's hear from the applicant because actually the applicant should be answering those questions. >> Brandon. >> Okay. Okay, if we could just stick to the questions for Brandon, not for the applicant right now. >> Um, does expanding the curb cut at the street
>> by is I had four feet. Is it three three feet or four feet? And my question is by expanding that curb cut to have the flares take away from any street parking. >> Well, there's currently at least one.
It's speaking with public services. There's at least one likely two spaces that could possibly be one to two spaces. Okay. [clears throat] And um you might not know the answer to this, but what is the practicality of relocating that utility box
and the utility pole that are right at the property line, almost at the property line right behind 702. that might impede using that alley as
an entry or exit. >> I I don't >> I don't know how hard that is to move a utility box and a pole. >> Well, looking at the survey, they are they are very modest encroachments. Um I believe they're around a foot if I measured correctly. So, the the
encroachment into that 10-ft alleyway is is very small. Um it's it's one/10enth but it's it's it's about a foot. Um the practicality of it I'm not I'm not sure. I haven't spoken with Duke about that. So >> Okay. Thank you. >> Thank you.
Hello. Good morning. I'm Brandon Techllinburg, one of the owners of 702 Pastor Grillil Way. Um, like to start off um there's a couple people who are new here today that haven't been at the other meetings we've had. And so I just wanted to uh
let you guys know what we've done in the past. myself and my partner um Brandon. I don't know how to um work this amazing machine. Um but I wanted to go to the um historic properties that Yeah. Thank
you. So, I want to make it clear because there was a couple things that were said here. One was said um that um we're not builders. We're not contractors. We're not a company that's going to build a property on our lot. What we have done
over the last 10 plus years is save a lot of homes, save businesses in Pasigril that are historic. Uh we love Pastor Gril and the body of work here. I don't know if I can work this, but we'll see. Um
>> Sure. I figured. Yes. Thank you. So from 1 Avenue in Pascal to 32nd Avenue, we have uh repaired, remodeled, fixed up dozens of properties. I'm going to just sample a couple. This is the old Nancy Marco Gallery on 32nd. We've remodeled
her twice. One in 2020, one in 2025 since the hurricane next door is 3110 Pasway. I actually deeded that historic and it's very important to deed historic properties in Paso because our city
keeps that historical standard not just in the city, the county, and the country. 253 Sunset Way. This is a 1933 Sears catalog home. Could have been sold, could have been bulldozed, knocked down, three stories.
We saved her. Across the street, 25508 Sunset Way, it's been remodeled and updated twice. The neighbor uh of 702 Pasco Way, 1028th Avenue, Law Tortuga, was purchased in 2022. We completely
remodeled her. We've heard nothing but great comments about her over the last four years, and we kept her. She's 1925. Another historical property. And then at the bottom, 100 pas away, the 1941 US Naval barracks
from World War II. We completely fixed them up inside. So that's who we are. That's what we're about. We love Passagril. We live in Pasigril. Our businesses are in Pass Grillil. So I just wanted to make that clear that we're not a builder. We're
not trying to come in and do anything like that. So, the next thing I like to show is the video because I've heard some uh statements that are not true. There's not just one power pole in the alley. There's four, not one, four that impede the alley. So, it's very
important we see that there's two green junction boxes in the ground. There's utilities popping up in the gravel. There is a neighbor who has a white vinyl fence right up to the alley. We have another neighbor whose building has all the way up to the alley. We have a gar uh a barn garage. It goes right to
the alley. It is there a sound? >> Yep. So, I'll let you guys watch the video. Hello. This video is for the hardship variance for 702 Pasigril Way after having our meeting with the city manager and city staff. Several staff
members said they've never been to the property. So, here is the video for you along with the board of adjustment. the Historic Preservation Board and the TRC. As we pull into the driveway, this
driveway has been here for numerous decades. It was permitted in 2010 to go from cement to pavers, which was approved by the city and closed out. And the alley in question is off this
north garage. And as you will see in the alley, there's numerous obstacles along with the width. So green junction box has been put in light pole
cables running across. Cables are very low running. white vinyl fence from the neighbor coming out, running down, uh, cement coming out. Uh, per code, the alley needs to be wide
by 20 ft. In places, it's anywhere from 9 ft to 10 1/2 ft. As we come up here, you will see another green junction box piping cables,
another cable, uh, light pole with cables running coming down really low. Another vinyl pole, multiple cables running here. Only 9 ft wide. Right here, wall coming
right out to the alley. You have an old school wooden barn garage. No turn radius available for emergency vehicles to be able to turn and come down this alley.
You've got multiple utilities, potable water, sewer, another water right here. You've got a main water line running right off the alley right here. And as you come back, another utility.
These are the boxes. And there you have it. Hopefully this is a better view point for you. Thank you. And then I I zoomed in on uh pictures of the alley. Um yes, I think I just go.
Yeah. So that's the gas popping up. You can see that's the alley. It's not even shelled. The city vacated the alley a couple years ago. So, no gravel, just weeds. You can see
the vinyl. >> I have to interrupt. The city vacated the alley or it just you mean like they just been maintaining it. >> Utilities aren't using the alley anymore. Okay. >> So, thank you. Thank you. >> Yeah. I mean, I just want to make sure we're on the same page what that means. >> So, the vinyl fence cement going all the
way in that's in the alley. That is in the alley. You've got the green junction box at the bottom. Multiple PVC pipes, power pole, multiple power lines,
garage barn right off the alley. Another view from a different point wall. That's a Vander Preston building right there going right to the alley. Another poll. more utilities in the ground popping up.
So, what we're here today is about a driveway in an alley. The alley is too narrow per state law. Cars can't go to and from. And basically on that note, the fire
marshal, you can't drive. How are you going to get ambulances, fire trucks? That could be a complete mess. They're going to go to 702 Pastor Growway driveway if there's ever an emergency. They're not going to be
pulling into the alley. Cars aren't going to be going in and out between shadracks onto 8th Avenue. That'd be a complete mess. So, what we're here today, what I was here on the December historic preservation board meeting
and why we're here today is we just want the approval from the board of adjustment to let us use our driveway, which we've been doing since we purchased it since 2022. And this is the historic preservation board. And over the last several
meetings, this sounds more like a a planning board, a zoning board. This is the historic preservation board. So, we should be talking about historic items, not planning, not zoning. This is
not the time or the place. Board of adjustments tomorrow. So, I like to stay on topic. If you have any questions, feel free to ask. I'm right here. >> I I have some questions. So >> even if let's say we agree the alley is
impassible. Okay the shape it's in. Okay. Why would you ever reszone the property from ROR to CRD knowing that to be the case? >> You're asking a question when I wasn't present. >> Okay. So you don't have an answer for that. >> Um it was never RO when I owned it.
>> I understand that. Yeah. >> It's commercial. >> Okay. Exa Exactly. So my question is, so you want to keep it, you want to you want to use it as if it was ROR, but get the advantage of getting 17
units as opposed to the six units you would have as RO. >> No, I'm not here for ROR. I'm here because I own a commercial property. Okay? [clears throat] And I want to be very clear. When I purchased the property in 2022, I had multiple meetings with the city. I asked every
question I could come up with on what I'm allowed to do, what I'm not allowed to do. No, at no time 40.11 was brought up that if I ever built on the property, I'd have to use the alley. I bought a commercial property at a commercial
price. We I'm not talking about ROR. I wasn't around for it. It's a commercial property. I >> I understand that and I I appreciate what you're saying. Okay. The point is one of the things that has to do with the variance is is the condition is the
issue created by a prior owner and Mike and that's not you. I understand exactly what you're saying. All right. So it's just the matter of yes the alley appears impassible. Why would a prior owner change it from
RO? you you want to use the ROR driveway, which is why when you talk about history, yes, that driveway has been there 100 years because it's an RO zone that was supposed to be like that. And so that's fine. So, so when it was
reszoned, it had new rules. And so you know the question is when we look at this variance is it one of the salient points is was this issue created from either the current owner or a prior
owner. So that's why this is relevant and I I think everybody with any eyes can sit here and look and say that alley is in bad shape. And that's why I was questioning because the part of the problem you have done a lot of great historical things for pastor girl. I'm not going to
deny that. I don't I we seem to have hostility towards each other. I don't want to be that way. Okay. But you talk about keeping it historic. You're getting ready to sell it to a developer who's not going to make it historic. >> I never said I'm keeping it historic. I said I'm at the historic board meeting
and this is not planning or zoning. What I said is I own a commercial property >> and I should be allowed to do what I am allowed to do with my property. >> But you you want to take >> Yes. Yes. >> May I need to comment? >> You have to identify yourself and all
that stuff. >> Excuse me. >> We don't know who you are, sir. >> Well, my name's on the screen. Brett M. My name is Brett Merto. I'm a Pastor resident. I own 258 Sunset Way, which is a property that's been there since the
1930s, which I redid twice. And I also own the other house that Mr. Techber referred to earlier, the Sears house that I could have easily low to the ground and built a house three times the value but HSN. So I'm very very in line with Pastor lived there for 10 years and
a property owner. I'm also a park property owner in 702 pass away. My question is what you just said is that you made a comment that the the new owner wasn't going to build this new building in historical fashion. I just
wanted you to clarify that. >> Yeah. Well, the plans we've seen is a urban modern building. Okay. And one of the things we first got involved in before when this all started was is there any room when we had the architectures on the screen like
yourself, the architect who'd never been to pass a grill. Okay. From Michigan and asked, is there any wiggle room to try to work something out? And the answer was no. This is what we want to build. And so that hardened people's feelings because it wasn't a
matter of cooperation or working with the historic board. It was this is what we're going to build. And since this [snorts] is the historical board, we are concerned with architectural aesthetics of his historical pass just as you say
you are and Mr. Tackling said he is. >> Sir, as as you should be. But here's my point. We've been on this call now. I got this offering out and I haven't heard one question about building architecture, building design choices,
color choices, consistency with the the building and then the neighborhood aesthetics of the building or character of the building. There's not been one question in one hour. This meeting has been about zoning. and I thought I showed up to this
meeting because it was a historical board meeting and I haven't heard anything yet about historical questions from you related to this. >> Okay. Well, I'll be happy if you you want to I'll be happy to comment on that. So, if one of the things we can do is recommend granting this variance with
a condition that it have better architectural aesthetics that fit into the historical neighborhood, then maybe we would do that. But we've never had anybody from these developers that wants to talk to us about changing anything besides this urban urban modern
structure that will stick out like a sore thumb and not look like anything in Pastor Grill and will ruin the aesthetic. Hold on. The aesthetic historical nature which you guys say you're so far about. So it's nice for you to say that we want to do that, but we're going to sell it to somebody
that's going to mess the whole thing up. So, I'm gonna stay on point, which is something I >> I thought I'd answer your question >> with this entire meeting. This the reason why we're here. We're not as Mr. Techberg said, we're not the developers.
I didn't design this building that's going to go on on the property. I'm not the one who created the plans. That's Devar, separate company. >> I understand. >> All we are all we are is the owners and we live in Pas wanting to exercise our
God given property rights to be able to sell property. That's it. And so the only thing that we're looking for is just the ability to enter to exit the multi-million dollar property we bought based on the same driveway that's been
there for 50 plus years. Anybody who's walked down that alleyway with eyes can see that it's not suitable to go in and out of that property. Go talk to Scott, the owner of Shafts. >> I understand. Look, I don't mean to
interrupt you, but I I think you're preaching. I think we understand that issue. I think you're missing this point. If if if you're trying to suggest right now that you've done all this historical things, then that's irrelevant to what you're trying to do here because you want to get a variance
to then allow Devmar to build a modern structure and and and that is why it's a historical issue and that is why this is here. So, one of the things we can do is we could grant the variance and we could make a condition that there has to be some sort of change in the plans. We've
I've asked about that in the pla past. They had no interest in doing that. So, what we're going to get, you want to get your variance, you sell it to Devmar. A guy from Michigan who's never been to Pastor Grill is going to is going to put a building in there that's going to ruin Pass Grill. And and you all can say how
you much you love history. It's going to ruin the aesthetics of the historic nature of Pastor Girl. And you want to say how much you're into history. That's fine. Well, why don't you talk to your client and see if maybe they would like to negotiate this a little bit so we
could perhaps allow them this variance. >> You're not listening. They're not my client. >> Chairman, if we could uh bring the meeting back to order. I think we're um I'm going back and forth a bit between the chair and [clears throat] a
representative from the applicant. I think there's other representatives from the applicant that are here. There's an attorney uh Angela Coington who I believe was going to speak. I want to make sure we give her uh some time to make her presentation on on whether and how they meet the criteria for a
variance. >> And I would just like to make a point. Um sir, Mr. Merto, I'm sorry. Just to go back to what you brought up about the historic and I think right now you guys are still the ownership if I'm not mistaken. I don't think it's been solidified that DevMar is the is the owner. So on August 21st of this year we
had a meeting at the 5103 mark. So at 51 minutes and 3 seconds the chair asked, "Are you open to working with the historic board to create a more historic look? How fixed are you in your position?" the the people that were on
the call with us just like yourself and Mr. Tuckenburgg who's here said ownership has said this is the direction they'd like to go. That was at 51 minutes and 47 seconds which at that point you all are still the ownership
and then they said in to I'm just quoting it midcentury modern look. So just to go back to sir you know yes we're the historic preservation board. Yes we are looking for historic elements. It was clearly not open for conversation. And again, that was on
August 21st. So, if you wanted to go back just to to clarify, it's there for you. >> I appreciate that. So, here's here's all I was going to say is we're here about the driveway and the alley. We're not the builder. We didn't design the
building. I totally understand what your board is supposed to be focused on, which is the historical design, architecture, etc. I would encourage you to keep doing what you're doing with regard to that and keep focused on that.
Um, but that's completely separate from who we are. We're we're the owners of the property, not the builders of the building. >> Yes. And and I understand that and I appreciate that. Okay. Although there's a bit of confusion when you know the
DevMar plans say they're the owners. There's a bit of confusion when your property is owned by LLC who we don't I until today I we no one had knowledge you were one of the owners. Uh so we don't even know who we're dealing with sometimes as far as that that goes. And
so you know I don't know maybe the LLC that of 102 are the same people too. I don't know. So, and when they talk about when they talk about variances and they talk about owners, who it's supposed to be a person we can talk to, you know, if
Devmar wanted to talk or negotiate some of this, that would make sense. But we're our hands are tied. I hope you appreciate understand that the staff already approved DevMar's plans or they they started to, right?
So, so so you know that's what they're going to build. Right. And so when you say that you you're all historic minded, >> pardon me, >> I know what they proposed and I know what the city approved, >> right? Which is which is the modern look
that we just talked about. So when you all say that you are historicminded, you know that that's what's going to happen. And so it maybe it maybe makes you feel okay that you can just go ahead and sell your property to anybody that can do whatever they want. It certainly causes
us problems because if if they weren't building a modern urban structure, we probably wouldn't be here. We might be agreeing to a a uh a variance request.
One of the powers we have is to grant it with conditions. And so right now we're trying to figure out are there some conditions which will grant it but would change this development. And that's what in my opinion what we're trying to do
today. When you look at the circumstances the eight circumstances that have to exist there are some real issues for you all in my opinion. And so a way to compromise is to figure out a way when we could grant you but
also change that development to some respect. And it's very difficult to do that when that person isn't the owner. You're just essentially kind of the middleman, but you want you want to sell your property with a package deal. Chairman,
let's um yeah, I think if you wanted to make a condition that the modern >> the modern urban look be modified to meet general historic appearance and character of passive grill, that's something you could do. >> Okay. >> Um as a condition, but I think we should move on because we're kind of getting
stuck. >> Y I just want to make sure we're all on the same page. Understand we're not against development. We're not against trying >> to force. Let's wait. Save that for all deliberations of the board. If we can continue to take, we still have to get through public comment. >> Y think we're still on the applicant.
>> Mr. City Attorney, >> one thing before we go forward, I'm I I feel like we're towing the line here with what we're able to do with someone's personal property rights. We're our application is for a variance for driveway access on a parcel that's
owned by this entity, not another entity. Um we're not asking the developer. The proposed intended hopeful developer isn't coming and asking for this. This is granting access to a property that exists as platted that has
historical access in this manner. The navigable alleyway is not actually navigable to our standards or their standards or anyone's standards. Um, so I feel like that alleyway access should not even be considered. It's great for getting your bikes in and out, maybe
walking your dog, but I don't think I would be comfortable driving my car in and out of the driveway or the garage there. The alleyway from 8th Avenue that was vacated several years ago was on another property that is not and has never been
contiguous or as one parcel with 702. So 702 is a standalone. 102 is completely separate and not part of this discussion. The alleyway in the back and the driveway on the front of 702 is what we're supposed to talk about today. I
don't I don't think we're supposed to be talking about the proposed development from someone who doesn't own the property. We need to be really careful that we don't block access to someone's property rights and I feel like that's what we're doing and that's that's a problem up for us as a city in the
future. >> And I I 100% agree. >> Let's um let's make keep moving with the testimony. Yeah, >> Mr. Technberg, do you have other comments you want to make? >> I would like to make one comment and I did not want to do this, but it needs to
be said because you asked, you didn't ask, you actually directed it to my partner, Mr. Merrtto, and myself multiple times that if we cared about Pass the Grill and we cared about historic, why don't we care about the building?
So, I'm going to be honest to everybody here, everybody in the audience, everybody streaming at home and on a mobile device. I am not here with a variance to knock down a historic home.
>> But you did, Bill. >> Yes, >> there was no variance to knock down a home. >> No, you have a variance to do that. >> You knocked down Let me finish. You knocked down a historic home >> and then you asked for two variants to build your home. Let's stay. Um, >> the reason I say that, sir, is because he built a modern home and he's worried
about a modern home in a historic district after he tore down a historic home for himself. It's okay for him to do it. We're not asking for a variance to build something. We're not ask we're not knocking down a historic home on our property. We're asking for the driveway
to be our primary driveway. And I have a problem with the head of the historic board who has done things in the past to benefit himself but now is coming to me and laying judgment on me. And for the this group, his mother-in-law lives two
houses away from our property. There is definitely personal, you know, there's something about bias. Sometimes when you're too close to the situation, you recuse yourself. [clears throat]
>> I I'm sorry. With all due respect, I'm I would be also considered too close because I work for a family business that's been there for 80 years, but it's not because I work there because I have a bias for anything other than I love our community and I love all the historic elements and that's all there
is to it. >> Good. So, you know, I know that you had kind of called me out publicly about, you know, that I had bias and it's not the case. And this isn't personal. This is we're the historic >> It's not personal. >> This is the historic preservation board. Correct. We're here to preserve. >> Okay.
>> We're not here to demolish or destroy or to try to make anyone's life miserable. We just want to all live in the area that we love. >> Thank you. >> I think that goes for all of us, including yourselves. So, >> thank you. I'm >> go tit for tat, but >> I'm not going tit for tat. I I I talk truth and since you brought that up I
appreciate it. At the August meeting you said that this would be the largest building in Pasigil. >> I didn't say in Pastor I actually went back I made notes. >> Okay. >> So I can actually tell you exactly what I said you'd like. >> You brought it up that it was going to
be the biggest property. So what we want is a fair shake here. I appreciate uh board member Hawkins's comments. That's why we're here. We're here for a driveway over an alley and that's why we're here. And I think it is
of merit if I may chair that this is subject variance would if if approved right by the board of adjustment whether the Devmar development went through or it did not or there's another development it would carry with the land that any future
development could have that same opportunity. So if we're not looking at DevMar we're just looking at uh Mr. Technberg's approval for the variance, right? And it's for the driveway. >> I get that. >> Not not associated with that. So that is what the board of adjustment they're going to be looking at as well.
>> I get that. But but that's ignoring this whole Devmar thing. That was the impetus of this whole thing because they're they're they're trying to sell a as Mr. Techber has said, they're trying to close the deal. They're trying to they want to sell this package to DevMar. So
we know, we're not idiots. We know if we grant this variance, Devmar is going to build that because the staff has already said there's no problem with it essentially architecturally. All right. So, right now we have a bit of a a little bit of power because they're
asking for a variance to see if we could work something out where they could build something that did look historic and did not look modern. And that's what this whole thing has been about. I'm not trying to stop anybody, but when we look through the variances and what it is
that they have to achieve or show and if they have to show these by all these means, there are some problems with the variance. I agree the alley is is is not hardly is hardly passable. I didn't create the rules. I didn't reszone the property.
>> Let's um let's move on to the testimony if we could please. >> Wait, I'm sorry, Brandon. Anything else? I'm so sorry. I've tried a few times. I just want to say one thing based on those most recent comments. So, I
represent the applicant and my name is Angela Cington. Nice to see you all. What I just heard is that we have um a chairman who is upset with city staff approval of development plans and is
hijacking a varian hearing because he wants to find a way to stop the city staff from their approvals of >> and that is wildly inappropriate. I
experience. There are eight criteria for experience. He submitted paperwork on each point. Um I realize that the chairman's main concern is the zoning. Um and I assume that the board of adjustment who actually has the power to deny or grant this request will deal
with that. It's been noted. You've all heard about it. Um, we heard from the prior owner that there was no personally asked to join that zoning and many years later, but still continue to use that driveway. So if the city had this
ordinance that required you to use access and he had this zoning for 10 years and it's never someone comes along and buys the property and continues using that driveway and then decides that they want to
yes for a prior owner and I would argue they didn't. the crime had a home, their own home, their residence in the city where they live. They used their driveway to get to their home. They never used the alley. I would imagine when the zoning
went through, the city could have stepped in and said, "Sure." But nobody ever did that. And so now we're here trying at the at the last minute to get this variance because there's a code that no one had ever mentioned in all these years discussing this property and we're just trying to
clean up the mess that exists now because of that 9 foot alley. My understanding is that this board is supposed to make some recommendations and I think you already know what you want to recommend and so I think this hearing needs to you know just be a little bit more productive to the eight
criteria that we're here to talk about. I'm happy to address any particular item but you want to use a driveway that's been used for a long time. The alley in the back only being 9 ft does not connect to a thoroughare
connect to another alley. You have to make it return to get to a thorough fair is not safe. It's not safe whether two people live there or 20 people live there. It is not practical should not be should not be required by
um so I I'll I'm happy to answer any questions and I'm happy to Greg and Brandon to speak about the specific requirements you have questions about. But this is a varian hearing and I
not used this to try to air disagreements between the chairman on an issue that's not >> well excuse me for answering let me just say this but you agree that one of the
things we can do is is approve a granting of the variance with conditions >> this board can do that or the board of adjustment >> well the board of we can make a recommendation for that to the board of adjustment We do not agree with that at all. Uh you can make a recommendation to
the board tomorrow that's going to look at this topic in a in a evenhanded way. Hopefully, I have faith. But you have you do not have that power. >> I know that let's I think we're let's go to public
comment pretty soon if we can. Okay. >> We're getting just too much back and forth. >> All right. I agree. Okay. >> Would you like to hear public comment? >> I I don't know. Are you Are you finished, Mr. >> I would just like to uh reserve my right to uh speak after public comment. >> Sure. >> Thank you.
>> I had a question for Mr. Brooks. Um as if we were to grant a variance with conditions. I know in the past that we have put subject to review by the historical preservation board which is merely a review suggestions but it
really has no legal authority or power to say you must do this or you must change that. It's voluntary. It's just a a review by us to give suggestions. What would be
the legality of saying instead of subject to review, subject to approval uh by the historic that any future development would be subject to approval by the historic preservation board? is that I I don't know that
that's the right wording, but just getting to the point that we would like to have input with some teeth about the exterior design, mid-century modern, is that a modern building, or is that a
more 50s style craftsman? What What exactly does that mean? If we I think we might be all more comfortable with this if we had some input lasting input on a design review of
future development. >> Okay, I'll I'll I'll think about that. I think right today you're here for this variance to the U alley requirement. You could condition this one. Um I don't know that this would come back before
you. the approvals for the variance go to the board of adjustment that makes the approval. So it's it's their final decision, >> but we can make >> u if there's changes to the site plan or changes to the architecture um I believe those would come before you perhaps
asformational items as you have done in the past. Um if you wanted to make a condition >> for the variance for future >> because if we grant this >> let me think about it then without
conditions we have no control over >> the look of the redevelopment in the future. >> I think they're here today to get your recommendation about historic resources regarding to this variance. So, if you have something that you want um to put on a condition on this that has to do
with his historic design criteria and then you should make it today. Member Young, are you just asking how much whether it's Devmar's development that comes or somebody else subsequent if you can make a recommendation as part
of or part of the recommendation to the board of adjustment if you would have any input on the design and the aesthetics like like a special requirement. Is that what you're >> Would that be considered the same as a
design review by the Historic Preservation Board, which really is is only a review and recommendations. It it carries no weight other than that. So, someone could say, "Well, thank you very much, but we're not going in that direction."
>> I think you could make that a condition or recommended condition of approval. >> Okay. >> But I think you need to be more specific. What are they making the recommendation on that? They comes as anformational item. They come with I mean for an information
you can kind of >> beyond what I guess what I'm getting at is beyond a review or anformational uh session that we actually because somebody could say no, we're going to
put up a modern box and thank you very much. So I would be reluctant to grant a variance based on the property as is knowing it's more than likely going to be redeveloped and we would have no say after that.
Once we grant this variance it's done. It's goes with the life of the property. So we have whatever whoever develops this property whoever may they may be gets to choose what design.
So I'm saying as a condition of the variance if the historical preservation board had more than just input it almost like a partnership with the developer to say this is what we're recommending
based on the our design guidelines for the historical area. Um but beyond suggesting, how does our suggestion have any teeth so that it actually gets that's the
style of building that gets built? And I'd have to, you know, um, ask the city attorney on that, but I don't know how much power you would have over the development guidelines, but we could try as staff and in the spirit of that
initiate conversations when we do have developments or interested parties come in and say, you may want to reach out, you may want to attend one of our historic board meetings or even meet with some of you, you know, individually to just discuss it. We've done that
right >> previously with commission. We meet one-on-one. >> Um but I don't know about giving that that actual merit. >> Um >> that was my question. Do we have any power within this board to say that as a condition? Because it's either grant the
variance as it's been asked and we have no say moving forward. uh whether it stays that big lot that's just open or if it gets developed into a 17 room boutique hotel. Once that variance is
granted, our powers are diminished and we have no say if we grant that variance with a condition that any future development and it's like I said, if somebody's got a preconceived notion that they want to put a mid-century modern
structure up once that variance is granted, that's what's going up if that's what they want. Um, so I would be reluctant to say yes, let's give them the variance and hope that they come back to us for a design review, right?
>> But that's not guaranteed. >> So you could have a condition that says you recommend approval with the condition that architectural renderings of the design be presented to the HPV for design review for architectural and historic
um, consistency with the district. And if I may take that one step further, city attorney, when would you like that implemented? At site plan, at building permit. I mean, I think we could the board would want to know when when that would be coming through. >> So again, I go back to Okay, so they
submit their site plans from the get-go. They say renderings, whatever, and it's a modern structure, and we say, well, we'd like to see, you know, here's here's our style book. here's what we'd like to see that blends into the aesthetic of 8th
Avenue. Um, and they say, "No, we we we can build what we want." >> But isn't that something that's already supposed to happen regardless? I mean, not not specific to the site, but any any redevelopment plans are supposed to come before historic preservation board within the historic district. So, >> well, it
>> if you're asking for like mandatory historic preservation typically doesn't involve mandatory. It's a little bit different than than other land development code criteria and environmental criteria. It's um like you
said, it's more collaborative. Unfortunately, even if you were to um have a house or historic house, designated house come before you and they wanted to demolish it and the most you can do is put a stay on it. You can't say no. So, it's
similar when you're building too. the same same kind of thing. >> And and I get that we we don't want to impede on property rights owners to to um build what they want to build. >> Well, it's not property rights, but it's
more design criteria and I think you don't have design criteria now, but you are preparing some. Um so, >> but we also don't have to to grant this variance. to grant this variance. You could say, "I recommend denial of the variance because it's not consistent with the historic character." Or you
could say, "I recommend approval with a condition that architectural renderings be presented to the historic preservation board for design review prior to site plan approval or prior to building permit approval." So, we'll come back. At the very least, >> should we at least um grant the
applicant's request to retain the existing curb cut and be able to use that? >> You recommend approval of the variance application for the use of the existing curb cut and the additional fee. So are if we're looking at it >> even if it weren't with the additional
fee like right now I feel like there's an argument even as to the use um and retention of that existing curb cut and driveway it it seems like that's whether you want to make any conditions or not is the question I guess recommend
approval of the variance application and then if there's anything about historic resource that you would like to place as a condition on your recommendation and that then that's up to you. I I don't know that we can put a condition on an applicant's request for access to their property. Put a condition on a future
possibility from another entity. I mean, this is I'm trying to keep this in isolation here is what it is and what we're and what they're asking for. you know, it may tie to something in the future at some time with some person, but right now, this is a property owner with a property and they're asking to be
able to maintain and retain the use of their existing curb cut and also expand it by 3 ft. >> Then your motion would be to approve the variance, recommend approval of the variance with no conditions, no additional conditions because staff has four >> city attorney. I think what what member Hawin Smith is saying, you can look at
it this way. You can say you would you could go denial either way whether it's denial of the the whole package that they're asking for the retain the existing plus the expansion. So you can deny everything or you can say you could support the recommendation to leave it
as is or with the expansion. And I think we need to be really clear as asis. As is are they legally allowed to use that driveway? Are those, you know, parking spaces going to be somebody parks in front of their driveway? Is that going to be a problem for those people parking there? Or do they have the legal right
and access to that existing curb cut and driveway? >> They already do. >> Okay. >> It's a non-conforming. It's non-conforming. They can use they can be there for 50 years and use that driveway. >> But I think part of the argument that's been up here is that people don't want them to be able to use that driveway.
>> No, the idea is this. It would be it would the the the nut of this whole issue is the that as Holly said if they if we grant this variance and and let's just for argument sake let's say there's of these eight
things that exist there's real issues in which we could support a denial of this v variance even though we know the alley is ridiculous. Okay, but they chose to reszone it. So they put themselves in that in that hot water. Okay, they
created that problem. But let let's say we say okay and that was so they could build more because this would be as RO this would be a bed and breakfast with six units which is initially when the CRD was created that's what they could
do and then when they decided to reszone it well that comes with the alley own problem but it also gave them the ability to build 17 units instead of six. So it certainly increased the value of the property. None of that was
created by us. But the point is if we can say and then so if a developer comes in like we've seen so far with DevMar and what they've said they want to build which totally is not an historic look
and the CRD the intent of the CRD was to preserve the existing structures and the historic look. And so when this was reszoned into the CRD, suddenly we have an issue where someone wants to build something that totally disregards the
historic nature of that area. And so I'm trying to put together some scenario or we should be interested as should Mr. Merrtto and Mr. Techlanburgg of yes, we could grant this, but let's try to use the recommendation of allowing it to be
granted that they can use the driveway to get them to change the design to make it look like the intent of the CRD is supposed to be. And what Holly is talking about is adding that very thing
as is Mr. Brooks. The question is, >> I'm I'm not advocating. No, no. As you >> question, >> as you mentioned, how it could be done is what I'm saying. You know, how you would how you would formulate it. So, the question would be though, >> if we make that recommendation
and the board of adjustment says, we're going to grant this with those conditions, can a new developer or DevMar say, well, okay, we'll listen to you talk about the architectural aspect, but we don't care. We're going to build
this anyway. Okay. And then that's what we get. And so we've we've we've given up the kind the idea of being able to at least make this fit the intent of the CRD.
All right. And so I guess the question to you, Mr. Brooks is can we as a condition of granting this? Are you saying all we can do is make an invitation to them to give us a design
review where we can say well we don't like that and they say tough we're just going to do it anyway or can we make it a condition that there has to be acceptance of the architectural you know changes by the historic board.
Well, because we're an advisory board, we can't put any mandation on on >> stance, but but the board of adjustment, I suppose, could because they're the ones they're the ones we're just asking to make the recommendation, too. >> Well, and we >> we need to take public comment on, right?
>> Move on. >> Okay. >> And I'm sorry, but I have a hard stop at 10:30, which I >> said when I accepted this time slot. So, I think everyone knows >> 28. >> Yeah. I think everybody knows my position, but if we're not in some sort of a motion status within the next two
minutes, I have to go. So, >> so do we want are there public comments? >> I have Melinda Pledger. >> Mr. Brooks, I have a comment real quick. >> We have some public comment cards here of members from the public that want to talk and then we can come back to you
for a rebuttal if we could. I just wanted to make one point and that is that these are two separate discrete things. There's the variance for the driveway and there's the historical board
recommendations on aesthetics etc. Two separate things. So you know let's keep them separate. Let's not try to link them for leverage. They're separate. Unfortunately, I think they were linked in the request.
>> Exactly. >> Um, applicants seeking to retain or expand existing curb cut that provides access to the property from Pasco Way following the redevelopment of the site with a 17 unit temporary lodging facility. So, it was linked in the request. I I feel like
what we grant as a recommendation for variance approval is for the curb cut and not for the development, but because they're tied together in the request, it's making it a little bit blurry. >> Such as what >> I'm asking should the application be
revised? reference the development. That's just an explanation of the intentions forward, but I mean I see what you're saying. >> Let's go to a public comment and then we come back to that.
>> Melinda Pletcher, 2281 East Vina Delmare. to a lot of my favorite people up here. Thank you uh for giving me this opportunity, but I would acquies my time if it means that you all have a full
board for a decision on this. To be honest with you, I think that's more important than anything. I think that what um member Hawkinsmith has said is so relevant to this discussion. When we look at roles and responsibilities, we look at purpose and intent. We look at
historical you know context to decisions that are coming before us. I mean the board of adjustment variance process is absolutely to address things to bring a common sense element into the situation and I totally understand the leveraging
uh position you're trying to to take advantage but you can actually preempt that. The reason we have everything come before like the overlay um the reason it comes before the historic preservation board is not so you guys can decide whether or not you know it looks like a
great vibe to you or it passes some pass vernacular design. It's actually to know when to go back to the drawing board and tweak the underlying, you know, the overlay design guidelines, you know, and the and the things. We were originally started out where everybody said we
don't like the boxes with no roofs. Well, guess what? That's what our zoning said. We want it. You know, if we don't want that, how do we fix that? If you say we love our retent retention of existing inventory of contributing structures, well, guess what? They were non-conforming to setbacks, use and
density. I mean, there's so many reasons why we ended up to this thing on the, you know, the review of the demolition permits. You guys grant variances, you know, for for uh historic preservation. That was like those are critical elements. It wasn't for you guys to say, "Oh, please don't te tear it down and
we're going to penalize you 30 days if we do." It was to give that you all an opportunity to have a conversation about all the benefits of historic preservation, the the FEMA 50% rule, the 10-year tax abatement, that kind of thing. So, what you can do in moving
forward is actually whatever is desirable needs to be allowable and what's not, you know, so go back to the drawing board. If you don't like, if you want more criteria built into the CRD, you've had since 2008, 200, I mean
17. I mean, you start looking at the dates of how much time you could go in and tweak out the language in the CRDA. And I always say if you want some change, there's a process to do that. And it starts with you all and it works
with the planning board and it moves forward to the commission and you can fix this. Make what's desirable allowable and what's allowable desirable. But you don't do it by trying to leverage something that property has been there since 1925. That driveway to it has been there. There's so many
grandfathered components in Pastor Grillil to begin with that acting like this isn't an something that was just a given that you would always be able to have that because that's what Pastor Grillil is. I mean, if they actually if we went back to the original Sandborn maps, the city
should be talking to this property owner about being able to utilize passway for a for the road. I mean the sam original sandbour maps had this property going all the way into repairarian rights into the water. So, you know, if
you just have to kind of when you have these quirky history of uklitian zoning standards that were placed in pass girl that have absolutely no context to what was historically platted, that's when you get into all these nuances. And this specific application, I think it should
be approved uh for recommendation for the board of adjustment because you are the only ones who know how quirky and weird all of this stuff is in Pastor Grill and how you have to make common sense decisions. I mean that alley the city was irresponsible in the way they
maintain those east west alleys. I mean who created the hardship? You know those east west alleys are horrific. >> The hardship was created when it was reszoned. That's the one the hardship was recreated. If the state ro there be no be no issue. >> There were so many meetings. In fact,
the 8th Avenue CRDA went actually onto a ballot initiative. It was in the March 2009 ballot. >> That's fine. And and this was reszoned in 2017 or 18. So it was reszoned way after the CRD had been created. >> And again, we can always argue our position. You know, we're smart people.
We always can do that. But I think that what we need to look at is just a common sense element that is desperately needed. And also I think it's really important when you speak on the on at the microphone here or up there, you
have to be confident in the information that you're projecting out there to Joe public that it's accurate. And it was inaccurate that that property was resone to the CRDA to redevelop as the hallway. Absolutely
100%. That was inaccurate information. >> Anyone said that? It was just Yes, you did. I watched meetings. >> Whole property. No, I'm saying is >> chairman, we go to the next public with each individual public. >> If you know it, say it. If you don't know it, don't say it because it puts
out a message that is just wrong. I've watched all the meetings. When I heard what happened, I was like, "Oh my gosh, that is like not even true." Like now that's what the Joe public's going to think. >> Okay. Okay. Well, then as a former commissioner, you know that the three minutes has been up for three minutes. So, thank you. >> Thank you for the courtesy.
>> Well, >> Dave Fineberg. >> Yes, ma'am. >> It was for you to go ahead and add any more comments you wanted to add. >> Um, >> yeah, this is a public comment. If you don't have sense, if you don't want to, but >> no, I think the hardship is you're
trying hard to create Pascal the way you'd like to see it. And I I think I what I understand from what was just said is do you have choices for people to make on design yet? >> Not not really.
>> So you're trying to take advantage of pen just listen for a moment. I'm trying to say it as politely as possible. You're trying to add something basically you have an alley request yes or no but you're trying to add conditions to it
which doesn't seem right but you have the opportunity which I think has been missed for a long time is to give people choices and say here's designs that we love. I don't know if somebody has an ugly design you can just react to it so
strongly but there is time goes by fast. That's why I was trying to give you a timeline. It goes by so fast that you could create a a menu of what you think is beautiful. What's >> I don't mean to interrupt you, but but for three years we've been doing that and it probably would have been put in
place a year ago if the store had storm hadn't come through. >> Understand? >> We've been working for that because >> but the pre there was so many loopholes and all the the intent behind the CRD, >> right, >> was never put into enacted. everything's
changed and suddenly it became an area a situation where >> let's let them get through his three minutes please go ahead but maybe maybe it would be nice to take at this point today you're not prepared to tell people that they can't have something I'm not
on anybody's side I like I've been here all I do is redevelop old I have never built something new I've always redeveloped something old but basically I think you're as of Today somebody is
asking you something that you probably should say yes to but then take from today as a date to remember that we can make Pascrow better by giving input on what to choose and say these are items
that the historic board likes on design and if that hasn't been done yet it would be a great time to add that to it if it could be. Let's say we've been doing it, we've been putting it together for three years. Dave, >> I would say that there's probably a way you could find a way to be more
mainstream on it, but today somebody's asking you something that you're almost obligated to answer if that answers the question. >> Any any other Thank you. >> Any other comments? Public comments.
>> There's someone out there. I don't know if you put your name in or not. You have to come up to the microphone and fill out a card. You can fill out the card after. >> Just state your name and address for the record, please. >> My name is Marty Nora, 555 Golfway, St.
P Beach. Um, I have property on 8th Avenue, actually directly behind the proposed site we're talking about. And I appreciate what Brandon showed on the alley. Yeah, the alley. Okay. My confusion is because the other properties I have on ETH Avenue, um, if
we have to lose some parking spots, that just concerns me down the road because the stores there. So, if this variance goes through or doesn't go through, I just want to make sure with the properties that's being proposed. If nothing gets built there, then whoa, I really don't want that uh that LA or
that driveway expanded. If things go through and plus, I do like the fact that things are historic because the properties that we have on ETH are historic. built to 1915, 1930. So, I would appreciate to keep the historic ability on that property and if nothing
goes through then don't really want that driveway expanded. Otherwise, I was a tough decision, but thank you. >> Thank you. >> Hold on. Anybody else? >> Sorry, Brand Mr. >> I just like to say a couple things. Thanks everybody for talking. Um,
appreciate it. Um, one thing I wanted to bring up, um, was a word that was used up here, uh, concessions being made on our property. Anything that is a concession to myself and probably to my partner Greg, um, is negative towards
the value of our property. So, when you're saying let's um, do concessions, the word I think should have been recommendations, but I just wanted to be very clear. Everybody's talking about this future building that they you don't think is
going to be historical. There's already a precedent. We already have the Berkeley building that was built 2018 2019. We have a modern building in Pasigril. Um I think it looks really beautiful. Everybody's different.
Everybody has their own opinion. But to come here and say you want to have this, this this this for a modern building, we already have a precedent. One was already built. There's also, as Marty said, we've got 1925. We've got
different years. If you go down 8th Avenue from Jake Cole House's property where the brass monkey is, that looks completely different than Shadrax. Shadrax looks completely different than Evander Preston. So all of a sudden we're trying to weigh in at the last
minute when we don't have anything set up to try to put concessions on our property when again we're here for the driveway in the alley and what was done at the Berkeley should be able to be done at another vacant lot. There's
multiple vacant lots right now in the uh commercial district. So I just wanted to make that clear as we move forward. Thank you. And if I just comment on that, we agree the Berkeley has great architecture. I don't think he has a problem with that. That's the CRD is supposed to look
supposed to it's a modern building with a historical look. That's all that's what we'd like. That's the CRD is supposed to be about. And so that's why this is an issue. If these guys had come through with a a building that looked like the Berkeley, we would even be here today or or or we'd be making a
recommendation. A couple things though, Brandon, I need you about not Excuse me, Mr. Barry. A couple things on on passes because Mr. Nor mentioned parking passes. Okay, just so I'm clear, they this piece of property will be able
to get 16 parking passes on the street. Right. >> Based on the unit count. Yes. >> Yes. Regardless of whether they have a parking garage or not. >> Correct. >> So they could have a parking garage for 16 spots, but they would still get 16 on the on on the street.
>> Correct. >> Just want to make sure And because you had mentioned, I think Mr. Techberg mentioned concessions. That was one of the things about talking about the parking stuff. Of course, we're talking to the wrong people because they aren't the developers, right? So
now another question I have and the only thing of my concern is as Mr. Techberg said, there's lots of vacant properties in the CRD, which they are. Okay. And we know the alleyway between eighth and ninth. The east west alleyway
is just as bad and just as narrow at parts as the alleyway between seventh and eighth, right? You can't drive two-way traffic down there. You can't drive and it's >> it's not a possible way. I agree. >> Than this particular piece of property,
but those vacant pieces of property, are we at risk of if we grant this motion that that that allows a a CRD property to not have to use the alley, then what about all the vacant spots on the south
side of 9inth? All those people get to say, "We want a curb cut. Now, this other this other building got one, gets to use one." I know we're on the island. Then then do we sub subvert the whole plan of the CRD which is required people to use the alleys
and so you know that that's why this is such a bigger issue than this one piece of property it has to do with the whole CRD and so you know what are we creating here if the idea was to use the alleys because it's a storefront area
and we'll get to this when we talk I want to talk about section six in a moment about the treatment of the property. Is it the same that other people get in the CRD? >> So, you know, when we look at it from
the big picture of the whole CRD, it's it's a whole another issue than just putting blinders and just saying we've had this driveway for 100 years, we should be able to get it. Okay. Well, can everybody else make that claim? all the properties on Pass Girl way that are now there were houses there but now
they're knocked down because they say we want a curb cut on Pastor Girl way. Why not the 702 got it? They didn't have to use the alley. Why do we have to use the alley? The whole the whole south side of South side of 9inth which is what I think three or four lots that are vacant
there. Can they say we want a curb cut and then we've just totally subverted the whole CRD intent. And so that's why this is so important because of how it comes out in in in
subsection six. And I'm going to say this again. If I read this correctly, to to to approve a general variance under section 312, they have to satisfy all of the
following conditions. And one of those subsection six is granting the variance application conveys the same treatment to the applicant as to the owner of other lands, buildings or structures in that same zoning district. In your response, staff response, it does does
not convey the same. So that's an abject failure on number six because this particular piece of property is being treated specifically different than all the other properties in the CRD.
And the reason it's being the only reason it's in the CRD was created by it's being reszoned to the CRD. If it was still in the RO, we wouldn't have any of these problems. So they talk about uh ambulances and fire rescue.
on the north side of 8th Avenue. Those buildings and they don't use the alley behind that for fire fire rescue. I mean, it's a narrow little alley, you know, they have to do things from the street front. That was the whole concept of the CRD is make it to the street
front on Gulf Way. All those properties on Gulf Way in the CRD basically are built to the street front and they don't and they're different structures than this one particular piece of property. And so, you know, it seems to me if if
if these are what the rules are that they have to meet all these conditions that under subsection six itself, even throwing out whether this was based on a a prior owner's uh creation of this issue by having it reszoned
under subsections, it's they are being treated differently than everybody else. So, why are we doing that? That's why I think we have the ability to say using common sense, but you know what? That alley is so bad. We can swallow the
fact that they've now been able to get 17 units instead of six. All right, which now creates this big building. We can swallow the fact that the alley is a problem, but what have we created for the rest of the CRD? And so, do we just
sit idly by and watch them build a modern glass and steel building there? That's so much against the intent of the CRD because we've allowed them to do that because we've said we'll give you this variance even though you didn't you don't qualify under under subsection
six. So, this is this is about trying to save an historic district. It's not about this particular piece of property. It's about where this is all going to go as a result. And wouldn't it be great? >> Do you have any more questions for staff or can we move right into board
deliberations? A motion. And >> I've got a million questions, but but that's fine. I mean, I guess that the question for staff would be staff agrees that subsection six they have failed in that the applicant has failed to show that
that uh they aren't being treated differently. I mean, I think in terms of a redevelopment, right, and access from the street, that is the case. I do think that that based on what I wrote elsewhere in the report, it needs to be considered in the context of the special
conditions and circumstances that are specific to this lot. To answer your initial question, variances do stand alone. No variance should be used as the basis for approval of another variance. The properties, and this is talked about in the staff report on between 8th and 9th, they have circulation. You're
correct. The east west alleyway is not passable, but there is circulation that does not provide for on this property. Granted, that is potentially partially due to the alleyway vacation, but that occurred prior to the CRDA. We comment on that as well. >> Same that was the same owner that had it
that vacated it and also asked to reszone it. >> Correct. One property was an LLC. They on the other one in >> the population of the alley was prohibited by the same person that asked that ultimately resounded into the CRD.
>> It was not it was not a thoroughfare public alley in the way that there is a thoroughfare public alley between 8th and 9th Avenue. The the conditions are different on 8th and between 8th and 9th than they are on this property. even historically looking at the plaid. >> Member Young, did you also have
questions? >> Yes. I I actually would like to make a motion so we could have some discussions about certain points of the motion and modify them, disregard them, what, whatever. So,
we're more focused on are we going to grant this or not or make the recommendation and at the very end and and my recommendation for the motion is going to have four conditions.
And one of those is subject to design review by the historic preservation board. And Mr. RS, you had some wording that you used earlier that I did not get to write it all down. So
when I get to that point, if I could ask you to repeat what you said so that could be part of the motion so I get that wording right. Would that be okay? Okay. So my >> that was approval with conditions that
arch architectural rendings and renderings and design be presented to the HPB for design historic design review um of >> Yes, that >> prior to site plan approval. >> Yes, that's that's what it was. So,
I'm going to make a motion to recommend to the board of adjustment an unnecessary an unnecessary an undue hardship variance for the property at 7702 Pasigrow Way that number one with
conditions number one we grant a three-foot curb cut at the driveway with the ability to shift the curb cut or driveway north to accommodate a three-foot wide
um landscape buffer. Number two, the property forfeits all street parking passes. Um, number three, provide a three-foot landscape buffer on the southern side
containing appropriate shrubs, hedge, and trees or fence or wall compatible with the architecture of the development, and it shall be installed along the entire southern side of the retained driveway. The buffer, fence, or
wall shall be installed at least 5 feet in height except where in conflict with the visibility standards of the land development code section 6.21 or where actual and documented site visibility issues are present.
And then the fourth one is, and that's where you come in, Miss Mr. Ralphs with that blurb about >> the design review. >> Um, architectural renderings and designs be
presented to the historic preservation board for historical design review prior to site plan approval. >> And that is the motion in its entirety. >> Okay. Before we get to a second on that, I appreciate what you're saying. So, so we're basically talking about just
Holly. So I'm clear on page three of the ninepage uh staff report. So or yeah, excuse me. I think I'm proving that. >> Okay. >> I think it's page eight
page eight in the middle there where it says staff uh order. >> So as part of the technical review committee. >> Yeah. Comments. Is that is that what it >> It sounds very familiar. And then on page Eight of nine, there is a summary um
of conditions that staff is presenting to the board of adjustment should they support the variance. >> Right. So, so, so basically it's it's the it's the it's it's certainly too Well, it's not we I think I think Holly that maybe as we look at this or
what you're trying to achieve uh under the summary of what the staff is suggesting Because if I may, as part of the technical review committee, that's where we came in with the applicant as um we sat down and said, would you be willing to do that? And we're just giving you
the background information on that. and subsequent to holding that TRC and conversations we've had and then doing the staff findings report based on this board of adjustment case staff has kind of revised a little bit tweaked it but still kept some of the same spirit but
maybe not as intense as the TRC initial conversation. So if if maybe those um conditions including the design review would that be amendable to you more in alignment?
>> That's what I want to look at. It may be easier instead of reciting it if we can refer to this. >> Correct. >> Okay. And so I don't I want to make sure that these in the the four issue the four points on the summary. >> I want to make I just want to look at
those a little closer. or you may want to tweak them back. But that that has what we formulated as staff um recommendations to the board of adjustment for conditions. And again, should the board of adjustment support it, they can alter it, add additional,
remove some, but just as staff, that's what we recommended. >> Okay. So, let me ask a question on those. And Brandon, this Barry, this might be for you. Number four, I'm not I'm not quite understanding that until such time as a subject driveway accident to pass the girl away is
eliminated. You mean if if if the variance was denied? >> No. So that is to say that should in the future the property owner decide or the developer the the eventual owner decide that they want to provide access from
the alleyway, they would be able to receive all of their hang tags that are eligible at that time. If they were to eliminate the driveway in the future, they would be able to have all of the hang tags that they're allowed based on the code of ordinances.
>> Okay. So, so that Okay. So, so where's the nexus between what you're saying and the them saying they have to forfeit the the the uh on street parking
staff's recommendation was to forfeit two of the hang tags. The reason for that is because the removal of this driveway would allow for the placement of two additional on street parking spaces. So that that's the >> there's something in here earlier or Holly mentioned it about >> between the TRC and where we asked for
them to forfeit all the conversations. >> That's on page three. >> Correct. So as part of the TRC um the applicant was unwilling to do that as part of that's kind of a buy right now. Um they do not need to necessarily provide any parking on site.
Yes. So, it was kind of um just worked out that way that we're still asking for requests of forfeite of some. Again, that's a recommendation rather than all. >> Okay. So, and I'm not sure what what
Holly said, but I I do know we got the part that Mr. Attorney Brooks has referred to. Okay. Mhm. >> We've got the landscaping part, which I looks like that's going to be in number three on page nine, right? >> Correct.
>> We didn't really talk about the development shall be installed with a right turn only sign that the staff recommended, but I would assume that might be something that would make sense. What was the question or what was >> one of the things staff recommended was if there's a development they and they
the variances pass that there should be a right turn only sign at the exit property of pass a grill. So you'd have to turn south on passway. >> So that could be then I will amend my motion. >> Let me let me finish then you can do that. Okay. So, I'm just saying let's
talk if that's something we're talking about, which is on page uh eight of nine subsection two. Uh and then I don't know uh Holly if you were intending to
follow staff recommendation that's on three page three that talks about a developer would have to forfeit the on street parking passes for lodging facilities and that would be that would that would
be assuming they're building a parking garage on site right Brandon Barry that well it's it's the retention of the driveway access specifically that we read. >> So you so so that saying is because right now they get 16 parking passes if
they build no parking area which if you read all the stuff clogs up the area around there. So, if they're going to build a site with parking for 16, they should have to forfeit the on-site ones
because, and I'm just going to say this, just because if if someone goes to stay at a hotel and decides, I don't want to park in the parking garage. I've got a permit. I'm going to park on the street. You know, nothing can stop them from doing that. But if you prevent them from
giving the people on-site parking, they can just park underneath the house. So for underneath the building. >> Okay. Uh I think I addressed that in condition number two. Uh the property is to forfeit all on street parking passes.
>> So you'd like to put all instead of staff recommendation of two. That that's part of your motion. I'm just making sure. Well, I'm I'm going to write I'm going to revise the conditions and add number five about
the right-hand turn signal. So, Bill, you were saying the property passes. >> Well, we can we can make that discussion. I guess what I'm saying is >> I'm just saying they forfeit all of them. If they keep the driveway and get
the curb cut like they want, >> they forfeit >> the property forfeits >> all >> on street parking passes >> now and in the future. >> Um we're we're in um board deliberations
at this point. So I would I would like [clears throat] to amend my motion and the I would like to add one more condition. Condition number five would be the
development shall be installed with a right turn only sign at the egress from the property to pass a growway. Member Young, if I may, um, just for because the staff is doing this and actually for the board as well, are we
finding support for the staff recommended conditions with the alteration that all parking spot or all uh, hang tags be eliminated? I'm just trying to see the continuity between the two. So if you support more of the staff
recommended conditions with the modification to number four that all hang tags would be forfeited. I I think what she's trying to do is pick up on page three the TRC first one
which is about if this is approved where number four is if they don't utilize what's approved and they eliminate the driveway access to pass a grill then then there's a different scenario and then there would be two fewer parking tags that were issued. So there's two
possible scenarios. force kind of a contingency is >> okay >> to address if they actually don't use the passive grill or >> but but also just so to make if they decide not to use it then they should get all 16 back
>> correct if if in the future the driveway is eliminated they would be eligible for all the parking passes based on >> we're saying take them all away now if they if they're going to use a driveway if they're not going to use the driveway they can get them all they can get them all right I mean that's why I'm not the two things.
>> Brandon was saying too few, but you're saying give them all back instead. >> Okay. >> Right. Because Okay. We're taking them all away. So, if they don't use a driveway, they shouldn't be allowed to get >> to go back to normal. Right. >> And so, and so, uh, and ma'am, Courtney, I don't know if that was your first name
or last name. They don't actually have your name on. >> Angela Coington. >> Angela. Sorry. I'm way off on that. Uh, Miss Coington, as the chair, I I think you may have something that to add that will be good or bad, but let's let's go ahead and hear it. So, I'm going to say go ahead and let us know what you have
to say. >> So, what I'm hearing is that we're in front of only drive. It seems like we are a very simple request
to a lot of issues that have nothing to do with historical value rightes to use and develop their property. And um we shouldn't be linking our request to use the driveway
or may not do the property. They don't us and creating conditions that have nothing to do with the request or historic >> these are staff conditions proposed
staff conditions that came from the variance application and the board of adjustment review. I think it's proper if you want to consider those as part of your recommendation for approval. Um that you're recommending approval if they follow the staff recommended
conditions for the variance. >> Right. So is the board clear on what Holly's motion? Is everyone clear pretty much on what Holly's motion is? >> Should I just briefly reread it so you
know all five points? >> I don't think it's Well, I I think I think what we probably have to do because we're going to be we're going to be this is going to be prepared in written form for tomorrow as a recommendation. Is that correct? >> Staff will prepare it, right? >> Yes. So, so would I assume we'd have an
opportunity arguably just to make sure it's what we think it is that we've all said this as opposed to having to reread it for word. >> If you want an opportunity, you got to do it now >> because we're we're not reconvening before tomorrow.
>> No, no. just meant. Okay. Well, then I guess staff will have to prepare prepare it now so we can look at it. >> So staff can run through. Brandon's really good at this. He'll be able to put these points out. I've seen him do it countless times. >> Okay. >> If if I can just So I I want to take the
conditions out of the staff report because they are very similar to what the board's proposed with one ex sorry what member Young has proposed with one exception before you second or take action. The four recommended conditions made by staff in the staff report that
was presented to you today will be presented that those fulfill items one, two, and three and five of the items that we just discussed. The one exception was to recommended
condition number four in the staff report. Staff had recommended forfeite of two on street tags and we did we based that based on the retention of this driveway preventing the city from installing two on street
spaces. The recommendation from member Young is that all of the hang tags be forfeited while the driveway is in place. >> In addition to that, so otherwise the conditions in the staff report stay the same. You had recommended item one which
was to shift the curb cut north to accommodate a three- foot wide landscaping buffer. Item three was also requiring a three- foot wide landscaping buffer. As it's presented in the staff report, we combine them into one item. So it's both the shift and the actual planting
in one condition in the staff report. In addition, there was a fifth condition pertaining to a requirement for architecture and design renderings that would be presented prior to site plan approval. Does that capture your
request? >> Although the language that attorney Brooks used was a little bit different than what you just said, but yeah. Right. >> No, no. About about the historic review, that kind of thing, right? just a little more detailed. >> Yes. So, may I make a suggestion since
we've been here obviously for for two hours is we just take a short break so Brandon can prepare that and then we can come back and and actually uh vote on that motion. Does that make sense? >> Yes. Staff can write that up and I do
have a sample memo format that we can probably drop that in, make copies, distribute for your approval. for or for consideration. Sorry, not for approval. >> Right. >> So, if if I understand it, Brandon's
going to take my motion, >> write it up. >> We're going to look at it. We need to get a second on it. >> Yes. >> We still need to discuss it. If anybody on the board needs to discuss it, and then we'll vote on it. >> Yes. and and and assuming if if there's
something in the language that he put that we want to discuss, we can before. Okay. >> Yep. >> Does that make sense? So, we'll take is Brandon, I know you're quick, man. How much time? 10 minutes. All right. 15 minutes. >> 10 minutes. Okay. We'll take a break for 10 minutes. But I think we're all reading this, so
it'll be a moment. That's what we are. Maybe just say propose. You have to maintain and expand here. Okay, here I am. Okay. I don't know if everybody's had an opportunity to mostly read this, but I would like us to look relook at number
one and the wording of that may not be quite, you know, what we're talking about and I think we need to have a discussion about that up here, but um one of the things that
concerns me is tomorrow at the board of adjustment meeting they're going there's going to be a written recommendation right like we've talked about right here is my understanding and I don't know such as when staff does a recommendation
there's usually an aspect before the recommendation that sets out why you've come to the conclusion that you've come to okay and uh I I can't speak for the I think the board has to talk about this But
what bothers me in number one is has the subject request is found to meet the criteria for issuance of an unnecessary see in my opinion it has not however because we can we can grant with
conditions that's an option we have but I don't want to tell the board of adjustment we find that unless unless the board disagrees with me uh that the they have met the is the criteria for issuance
because I'm I I think they have not provided substantial and competent evidence to dis on number two or number six and so if we don't put something if we just say they've met it then I can see
the board of adjustments say oh they've met it we don't care about the rest of this stuff and that's not what we've been talking about today and I think it's within wealth and our rights to say there is problems and they haven't met all the criteria. However,
for these following reasons, we recommend uh granting with conditions. Now, does the board do you understand what I'm saying? And do you do you agree with that or >> Yes, I have to agree with that. Yes. And chair, if I may, just because it it's
noted that staff and I just wanted to make sure we >> um get this appropriately that you are looking to recommend as proposed with the the three-foot expansion at like the total kitten kaboodleoodle or are we just saying the existing? I just want to
make sure we're getting member Young's >> Yeah. >> recommendation. >> Well, I don't know what she says. I I I I don't think the three feet is that big of a deal if if we're going to if we're going to >> and I just I want to get that on the record. >> Well, I don't know. Is that what your
motion? Do you want the it is it okay to increase the driveway from 17 to 20 ft? >> Well, and I think we should be specific about >> we are recommending that it be granted
from 17 ft to 20, not an arbitrary number that's decided later. >> Yeah, >> I think that's important. >> But do we have that in there right now? It's not. >> No. And that that is that is on my notes. And again, this this is a working document, but we're we're moving and grooving on this end. And do we also
need to add, and this was in my motion, that in addition to increasing the driveway from 17 to 20 ft that um with the they have there is the
ability to shift the curb cut or driveway north. And we could specify how many feet not just an arbitrary north to accommodate the three foot wide >> right
>> uh landscape buffer. Now I I don't know I cannot remember from my site visit how much space it would be available now how much it would need to shift over but I think if we said had the ability to
shift the curb cutter driveway over four feet no more than a maximum of four feet that would allow for at least 3 feet for a land 3 ft wide for a
landscape border plus a foot >> but I don't know what is there now how far the go the edge of the curb cut comes to that fence line >> where the landscape border would be >> and I and I think if I may as part of if
we're if we're suggesting these recommendations as conditions for the board of adjustment I can say in the past it really may not be that specific because things may come up with the site plan, but it's kind of like a guideline that says to accommodate this, unless
it's really really something specific, the board has allowed staff to have that leniency to make sure whatever goal that they're looking to do is achieved because again, once we get out in the field or we get the site, if you're saying specific measurements to make
this happen may not always occur that way. So, it's probably more general where we allow staff to make sure the spirit of what you're looking to do is met. >> And so, that's where >> to from from saying, "Okay, well, it's it's the driveway
>> is over here to the side now, and the site plans call for it to be in the middle with but that has nothing to do with the landscape barrier. I just want to make sure that it's only to accommodate the landscape barrier.
>> Well, for the buffer, >> but also on the same thing, we're now conflating >> the Devmar development, which may not be what ultimately it is, right? >> So, when we talk about those specifics of adding three feet to the curb cut,
that was because that's what Devmar wanted >> and that's I don't believe the applicant asked for the three feet. I don't think I think that was just the staff thinking that that goes with the DevMar development and and what I'm wondering is is whether or not we just
just are granting the use of the driveway and then depending on the plans they would have to come back to either get a variance or do whatever to increase it or move it or what because we don't know if we're trying not to combine these things. We really don't
know what the development is supposed to be supposed to be. I I would I would agree with that. I would say that there's the request to maintain an existing driveway connection uh versus maintain and expand, >> right? And they could come in and expand
at a later date depending on what's going on. And and I think Holl's position that I think we all agree we'd like to see a landscape buffer again in the general spirit of the thing, but again, we don't know really where their driveway is going to be or how much they want to expand it or if they want to expand it at all.
So does that make sense? >> Well, so we know that they want to expand it to to >> Well, but that's when >> but but but that's for Devmar's development. We're we're removing we've been cautious. >> We have to look at the application that's in front of us. I thought the application was to maintain and expand
by 3 feet. >> So be before I say anymore, the the applicant is asking to speak after we discuss and have a have a motion here. Is the board amendable to that? Okay. But at the same time, we want to make sure that there's a landscape
barrier and that it can be accommodated. >> You have that on number three. >> Yeah. >> Number three, they have to put that in. >> Well, I don't I don't know. May maybe we can just resolve that quick uh with Mr. Techburg. Do are you do you want to have the three-foot? Are you asking if that
be part of that or is that just dependent on what >> I don't I don't know if we can pull it up. Um I sent uh Brandon and Kristen our landscape currently at the property. So on the north side of the uh fence, we've got bushes, plants, trees, different
kind of palm trees going from the northeast all the way down to the northwest corner. We also have tons of birds of paradise on the west side. So, as far as what I am understanding from the TRC hearing and what I'm picking up
right now is there is a request for us to put bushes in on the south side where the currently where the driveway is. Yes. >> So, you would have to tear up that driveway, put three feet wide, and
here's the kicker. Go about what 140 ft long. That's So the thing is we already have a 6 foot high fence. There's there's a a nice barricade. Um >> I've seen I know you're talking >> in my four in my four years I've never
heard from either uh owner around my property about privacy or um you know seeing through. So, >> but I I think the issue here is if you've got 17 units and you've got 16 cars pulling out of that driveway on a
on a daily basis that they're that there's a residence to the south and the staff is suggesting it'd be nice if there's a little bit of a landscaping buffer. So, these cars just there aren't right next to a parking lot. And so,
I I think there's landscape just go I think there's enough landscape already there. Of course, if somebody buys the property and they do that that at that time, >> then they can discuss with the city about potential future landscape. Um,
but right now there's already a driveway there. It goes right up to the >> they're not they're not asking you to do that. They're asking they're asking that if and when it gets developed. >> Is that is that correct? that if and when it gets developed that those
developers would have to abide by that >> if they're using the driveway. >> Yes. Right. So it's no it's no additional it doesn't mess up or ask add additional cost to you. was just that when you are putting this together
and someone wants to buy it that that is if the board of adjustment approves it then they know there has to be a little bit of a landscape along there which obviously [clears throat] makes sense since it's a residence to the south of you've got a lot of cars coming in >> so so when I remodeled I got given an
example so we're at 3112 Pascal way when I remodeled it had to go through that process I had to put 20% of uh vegetation. So there was grass and there was trees and there was other things I put up, but it was never like you have to have it right here. You have
to have it right here. So to me, that's a concession that if I go to sell my property and I say, hey, you got it. Oh, by the way, this over here, you have to do it right. Oh, it has to be right here. And if you don't do it right here, then you can't go ahead. So to me that's
a you know I think right now if you guys were at the property and we have photos that I took there's plenty of landscape right now there's a nice buffer between 1028th Avenue and um >> yeah it's all all about the south side where the driveway is where there isn't
a buffer right now. >> Well there there's a six foot high fence >> I understand that. Okay, look, this is >> and no one's complained about it. >> This is a staff recommendation >> that that if you are reading the room here may be going towards you getting a
granting of this variance and a recommendation that allows you to do that. And so it's no skin off your noses. And if you have a developer that says, "I'm not going to buy that because I don't want to put in you landscaping," then who are you selling it to? I mean,
that's just that's just a a a nice neighborly thing to do, and it makes sense that the staff would recommend it. And it certainly makes sense that if we get to recommend to the board of adjustment that we would want to do that. So, I mean, I'm not trying to argue with you. I'm just saying that's
that's the a reasonable position from us and the board of adjustment and the city and the city staff. Well, and a a a fence or a wall that's at least five foot in height is that buffer also. It doesn't
necessarily mean plants. >> It already exists. >> Oh, it does. Where they already? >> Well, it Well, it says a three- foot wide landscaping buffer containing appropriate shrubs, hedge, and trees or fence or wall. So, >> fence or wall is
>> that's what's in the new printout that we just got. Yeah, >> just it's in the new print out we just got. >> Yeah, the one we just got. But but I apologize. I didn't see when I was talking about landscaping. I didn't know it said or fence, but it has to be compatible with the architecture of the development. >> Sure. So, okay. So, we're good on that
one. All right. I have two questions. Um, just so I can understand about the street parking passes. Um, all right. I'm a real estate agent. Board member Hawkins a real estate agent. Board member Hurley's a real estate agent. Board member Young's a real estate
agent. I would I'm trying to understand taking away parking passes. I can't see board member Young that you would ever recommen represent a seller and tell them to
lose 17 parking passes. I think if you I not think I know if you are representing a seller and you're saying hey give up 17 parking passes your eval your evaluation of your property drops. So we we're talking about two and now we've
just gone to 17. I mean that's >> okay. Well, >> you know, so but here you you guys are recommending and it's going to go to the city. I've got four real estate agents here and I don't see >> any agent here recommending to their
seller to give up 17 parking passes. >> I understand that. But you got to understand we're talking about citizens in a neighborhood. We're we're supposed to be >> responsible for those folks folks just not for real estate agents. Okay? It's not all about just facilitating for you to make money. It's to facilitate that
we can put something in there that the citizens can live with. Okay? And I think the point being is if you if you read all these reports by the city and staff, one of the things that they picked up that you didn't even even talk about parking was how one of the reasons
that this should probably be granted is because of the the excess on street parking that you having 17 units, okay, puts on the burden of that area. And so, and so if you're going to build bus
structure that has that has a parking area for 16, why should you get an additional 16? And I think that certainly makes sense. If if your developers whoever sell it decide they're not going to put a parking area then they get to kick they get the 16
units back. Okay. So, uh you know that's that that's just again >> I don't know how how bad parking is down there. The city is pretty much and anybody that goes there has realized that One of the reasons, one of the important reasons why this variance should be
granted or possibly be granted is because of the excess the issues are the excess parkings that exist and this is a way to deal with that. And so you're right, the board of adjustment say may not may say we don't need that, but
>> you know this is a bigger issue of parking. >> Sure. Imagine if those other other places in the CRD decided to build similar structures, >> okay, >> and everybody got double the parking, you know. >> But so we're all on the same page. One of the reasons we bought the property and we paid as much as we did is it
because it came with 17 parking passes. Um so the last thing the the street the park the driving going right heading south >> Yeah. >> out onto Pastor Way. Where are all those cars going to go now? We have a cluster. They're going to what? start doing a
three-point turn on sixth I mean seventh yeah sixth Avenue, 7th Avenue, they're going to go all the way down the first. The majority of people pulling out are going to go left. Of >> course they are. >> And they're going to leave. So having a right turn to go south in the Passer Grill, that doesn't make sense because
now they're going to have to loop back around and now there's more traffic. They're going to go up residential roads and then they're going to go Gulf way. >> No, I I I don't I don't think that that is a good solution whatsoever. Well, let's talk about that a little bit. Okay. Just I understand exactly what you're saying. Okay. And and you know
that Pascal Way gets very crowded during certain times of the of the year and the day, right? And so I imagine the reason this the staff recommended this your discussion is more to the staff, I suppose, is because when you're leaving that area, if you've got to cross the traffic, you're going to be stopping the
flow of traffic, >> which as you know at certain times of the of the day, that can cause a lot of backups. And so if you turn right, at least the traffic has kept moving. And I'm sure that's probably the the reason they think of that. Uh, you know, to me, I don't know, maybe that's a study for
maybe that's a better study for for traffic to make the determination of whether or not that's a legitimate concern or not. >> But I think you have to recognize >> I'm just trying to understand how it stops traffic. You look to the left, you look to the right. >> If it's and you pull out
>> because when you turn left, >> okay, there's traffic going to the north. They've got to stop for you. Um, you're also going over two yellow lines. >> Correct. Correct. And that is the reason why staff put that in there. There's a double yellow line. >> Oh, there is. Okay. There you go. >> Well, that's great. >> Sorry. What was that? There's two yellow
lines. I mean, it's a double yellow line, >> right? >> You're not supposed to go left with the lines. >> Okay. Let me add that in. >> That was a staff recommendation that wasn't ours. >> Oh, I know that. I was just trying to I at the TRC hearing, we didn't talk about
going right. So, this is new for me. And we didn't talk about two parking passes at the TRC. At the TRC, we talked about all 17. So, the two and the turning right is new for me. So, I'm just playing catchup. >> No problem.
>> Um, Greg, Angela, anything. Can they hear me? >> I'll just say that I agree with you, Brandon, that if you have people turning right, I did hear the double line argument. So, I'm open to Um, but if you have people turn right,
they're just going to turn right down 7th Avenue. And so, uh, I don't know how many homeowners are on 7th Avenue, but I bet you if we did a survey of the 10 home owners on 7th Avenue and said, "Hey, would you like, uh, you know, 30 more
cars turning right on 7th Avenue every day?" I think they probably say no. random cherry. >> And I also um and then you have a developer that may want to expand that driveway. And it seems to me that any conditions you want
to include with the recommendation should be develop these conditions. I don't believe that, you know, the driveway has been neighbors don't have a problem with the driveway. They don't have a problem any issue that I'm aware
of. Um, and so why can't we tie the conditions to what's done for now? >> That's all. Well, I was just going to say I I don't think these these conditions if the
board goes with them affects what you all can do right now. It's only dependent on if it gets developed, if it stays the way it is. >> The sentence says following redevelopment of the property. >> Right, >> Mr. Perry? >> That's that's like super important,
right? So, this is not a quidd proquo set of conditions. So, let I like I like what I just heard that there's actually now a uh unlinking, if you will, of what we're trying to do here with what the future has to hold.
>> Yes. >> Good. >> Yeah. No, I'm I'm sure so I'm I'm I'm concerned why there's so much argument about when when we're talking about even though this board could say recommend denial because of not having met a
couple of the requirements. We're still talking about or the motion is about granting it and getting what you want, but with some conditions for future development, not for you. Now, it might affect the sale of of how you sell it. I don't know, but that's just where
we're at right now. >> So, as long as that's super clear at tomorrow's meeting, that's >> all right. Mr. Barry, you had something you wanted to say? No, I think I think you just summarized it. I just wanted to be clear that as as you mentioned earlier in the meeting.
This is a requirement that triggers upon redevelopment of the site. Staff would treat that as issuance of a site plan for a new development is when we would need to see those conditions at certificate of occupancy for the building is when we would make sure that they're on site. So, if we need to make that clear, I it seems like there is
board agreement to that and everybody's on the same page at this point. >> I just want to make that clear. subheading or or number one there. Uh I think we need to change the beginning of that. And uh
>> I think we we wanted to add in the first paragraph third sentence down where it says request to maintain and expand an existing driveway connection
from 17 ft to 20 ft. right here >> to just add that in. So, it's >> Yeah, in the body. >> And then we were talking about do we want to also >> Wait a second. Wait a second. I don't see that on my the print out.
>> She's add this this up here. She wants to She wants to add where it says retention expansion. I do not I don't I would say to request to maintain an existing driveway connection, >> but they're also asking to expand it by
three feet. >> Yeah. But but but but that's a developmental thing, right? We just talked about. So we don't have to put that into this part right now, >> right? So I would say to maintain >> Yes. >> Okay. So then
having the ability to shift the curb cut or the driveway >> north to accommodate the landscape buffer is not >> an issue right now. >> Where do you see a thing about in this about making it go to the north?
>> That's why that's why I'm in my recommendation I have said so this would If they're expanded and we're requiring the landscape buffer of three feet, then the ability to shift the driveway or the
curb cut north to accommodate that, >> right? >> They can do that also. Well, I think that that's I think what we'd be doing is saying you get your you get the retention of that
driveway and then when when a plan comes in, they may say, "Hey, we would like to make it wider or move it or whatever and you all can say fine, as long as we have that three-foot buffer, we can we can deal with that." Correct. >> And so so there doesn't have to be specifics in this about going to the
north or whatever. I mean, arguably the developer could come in and they say they might want to use the drive move the driveway to the north side of the property. I don't know. >> So, we need something to consider. >> We would need to strike that word expand on the third sentence down.
>> Right. >> So, we're just >> we're recommending the request to maintain the existing driveway. >> Yes. So then retention and expansion of this driveway. So it'll be instead retention
of this driveway instead of and expansion. >> Right. Okay. So I was saying in number one I don't like that it says that we are finding that they've met the criteria for issuance of unnecessary. think that should say that we find the applicant um
>> met some of the criteria. >> Well, did did I I would if you all agree with me, I don't I I don't believe they fulfilled the requirements of sub one or sub two which has to do with the special conditions and circumstances do not
result from the actions of the applicant. >> Would you like that stricken in entirety? Would you like that stricken in entirety? I can understand where it might not necessarily fall. um within that we just we're in a rush to copy this.
>> Yeah, of course. >> So, I think it might it might behoove us to just strike it all together >> all of number one >> all of number one and just get specifically into the conditions and the nitty-gritty that you guys are requesting. or could it be stated the subject request is found not to have met
the hardest? >> But if if you find it and I don't know, I'll I'll go to the city attorney on this, but it's not necessarily your position as the historic preservation board. That would be more under the duties of the board of
adjustment. So, I'm more leaning to striking it because that's not really under your discretion whether they meet it or they don't meet it necessarily. >> I I agree that we could strike the whole thing. That makes sense. What I'm concerned about, let's talk about this
is whether >> and or not. Uh >> I I want I want the board to know we are doing that. Our recommendation is basically done from a from a permission permiss position of compromise
as a as from a position of agreeing that the variance is is is necessary. So you know my point would be if if these conditions couldn't be met and everybody was playing hard ball in some way then I
would be recommending and I don't know what the board would do. I would be making a motion that we just deny it because it could do that. That that's within your >> perview two or numbers two or six. So what I'd like to make it clear to the board is we think there is insufficient
evidence as a sections two and six. But in the spirit of compromise and in the fact that we can make a recommendation with a condition, this is why we're making these recommendations. And so I don't know where is it. I don't know y'all agree with with with that. Um
>> and so you know >> so it move move the first sentence of condition number one up and out of the conditions. >> Yep. >> U put it before number one. >> Oh what I what I just talked about. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. And then we would say that the
historic preservation board makes a f makes a recommendation that although the subject request may not have met criteria or may not have demonstrated sufficient evidence to meet criteria
for general variances in section 3.12 parent B parent one parent A Two and six. >> No, no, no. I just said two and six. >> Okay, you said one. So, I'll take one
out and just go two and six. Then we'll go back to the existing sentence. >> They recommend even though they may have have evidence to meet these sections that section number I read, >> the board nevertheless recommends the
following conditions. If the board of adjustment approves the variance. >> Yes. >> It's really their job to weigh those factors. >> Of course, it's just a recommendation, right? But I would suggest too that you use the word may not have met those
and I think I I don't know. We can talk about that. I don't think I don't think it's an issue. I don't think they did meet those. >> That's up to you guys, >> right? What word you want? >> Do you all agree with that? >> I would agree. >> Yes. >> Okay. So, let's change that word.
has not met. >> Yeah. >> Yes. And nevertheless, >> right, under under our ability or under the abilities of the board of uh you know to do a a granting with conditions, this is
our recommendation. Then one more like Brandon where it says shall nullify maybe shall in put the nullify at the end and say shall render the subject variance approval null and void. Where are we talking about adding that >> last sentence of condition number one?
Just nullify is not really a as good a term as shall render null and void. Trying to get away from the word nullify. >> So what we just talked about uh Mr. Brooks is we're making that number one
as opposed to adding it to the the uh >> no it should be paragraph >> should be taken out of one because one is a condition. So it would be adding it to the first paragraph before number one you have one two three four those are
conditions. So you would introduce your conditions by saying the HPB finds that it has not met section two and six blah blah [snorts] blah. Nevertheless, if the board of adjustment approves the variance, HPB
recommends the following conditions. >> And those conditions would be one, two, three, four. They're listed there. After after a colon, then >> I know, but but we're we're eliminating one. We just talked about how one's not necessar So two would be wouldn't two. You're not you're not eliminating the
second sentence of one >> just the first moving the first sentence. >> So we're we're leaving the part that says acquisition of additional property to the subject zoning lot. >> Yeah. Because if they have some other route to get in and out for some other development plan. Gotcha. Then you don't
need this. >> I got you. All right. >> Everybody agree with that scenario. All right. Everybody satisfied with how number five is written on the back page? >> I think that's pretty straightforward.
>> Yeah. Okay. Okay. So, what we need to just zip up another copy. >> I think we can go ahead with this now. >> All right. >> Can we Are we going to take a break and have it? >> I don't think so. We're talking about just go ahead and go through the motion.
The You've got the language. >> I think we have enough now. >> Pardon me. >> We could do that if you'd like. >> Yeah. Well, I >> I personally would like to see the changes before I >> want to take a take another break. >> Sure. So, >> sorry. >> That's fine. Do you want to talk about?
>> I just just one point of clarification. Item condition three is the recommendation of the board that there be a three-foot landscaping buffer and a fence or wall or would you still allow the options but they need at least the
three-foot landscaping buffer? Is is that what I heard? >> Well, that's what I would prefer. I know this is this was a a recommendation by you. I mean I mean by staff and it see it seems to me in that neighborhood
and being being there the residents the south of it I would you know but y'all think I would prefer there be a three- foot wide landscaping buffer regardless of whether there's a fence or not. >> I I feel it's fine the way it is. I feel the fence is the better buffer than a bush.
>> How do you feel about that? I I personally would like to see some shrubbery or something because I think we're going to see enough walls. >> Um >> well I I think and I think Mr. Techno had a good point that property is how long you know to do shrubbery all the
way down to the back of it you know is quite a bit you know >> better part of if you're limiting it to the existing driveway there may not be enough room for 3 ft of landscaping >> and I think it has an existing fence.
Well, here's the deal, okay? I if if if new development comes in and they want the the they're asking to make the driveway wider or whatever, well, then we can always ask that to be a condition, you know, to add shrubbery and things of that nature. I mean, I
mean, I think Mr. Hurley has a good point. The fence might be sufficient for what they have. So, I would just leave it the way it is because that then it's a andor scenario. >> Well, it's a fence, a wall or shrubbery or a combination of all of them. >> Yeah. Right. Okay. So, I just leave that, right?
>> Okay. >> So, we're going to take How Brandon, you're our timer. How many minutes think you want? 10. >> Might need a couple more minutes than that. >> 15 if we can. >> All right then. We'll just take a break for 15 minutes. Thank you so much.
All right. Has uh everyone had an opportunity to read this new and improved version? >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Anybody have any comments or uh questions about it? >> Um I just add one thing.
>> Yes. looking at this again. Um, so in your recommendation that underlined second sentence, >> yes. >> Um, nevertheless, the historic preservation board recommends approval to maintain
the the existing driveway connection only if the following five conditions are included in the approval. Okay, so to maintain the existing driveways like you said. >> Yeah, >> that was it. That was >> Yeah, because you were taking out the
expander. >> No, I I I agree with you, but just want to make sure I write it down. So, historic preservation board recommends approval approval to maintain the existing driveway >> connection only if >> connection. Okay.
Uh Brandon Barry question. Um [clears throat] I know earlier you said that that this recommendation will be given to the board of adjustment at the meeting tomorrow. Will you post or email it before then?
The reason I asked that is there's obviously a lot of citizens that have paid attention or have been paying attention. I think they'd be interested to know what our recommendation is without having to show up at the meeting. I guess is what I'm saying. We can talk to the clerk right about whether they can add it. Do you know
Ariana if they can add a document to the agenda packet for tomorrow? >> We can but it would be it would need to be remended and republished. Um >> in addition I will say that staff has
multiple and as we've been sitting here receiving emails of letters either just from that we have not been able to get to. So, I know I have a packet of at least 33 as of yesterday evening um that we will probably try to email out to
them tonight just because of the mass quantity. >> And you could include that in that >> and we can include that in that. >> Okay. >> To be provided to the board that does it without having to get too complicated or cause too much issue. Okay. >> Staff will try to do that before commission tonight
>> or Yeah. Yeah. And Yeah. I I I know there's a lot of stuff you've been doing and I would even think if you get it done in the morning that's fine just because the meeting's at two, right? >> Tomorrow >> it is at two. Correct. >> And if you can't you can't. I'm just
asking. Okay. All right. >> Is this regard to the board of adjustment application? Why don't you contact staff or we can contact you after? So it's not part of this meeting. We need a copy of
>> those go through the public records custodian, but we'll we'll do that. This isn't really part the public records requests are what you need. We can address after the meeting. Okay. It seems that's the second thing. The third thing
also for the city um you know entering the meeting tomorrow there's going to be talk about right internally and giving up parking street parking passes. We need to see what preced buildings got to have right turn only.
Those are three things. Thank you so much. [snorts] >> How would you like that hand? >> I was going to say, do you want to continue this for something so you can get that information if if they can't provide it to you that fast? No, we do not.
>> Okay. Well, because a lot of that stuff has been available that you could have just looked up in preparation for this. You could have looked up the historic board information that things of that nature. >> Okay. We'll just treat that as a public records request and move forward. >> All right.
>> Okay. So, we're back to Holl's motion, I believe. And so go ahead. >> Go ahead. I'm sorry. >> I have one I have one question. Um just on bullet point five where it says architectural renderings are to be provided. >> Should that be shall be?
>> That's fine. You can go to shell. >> Thank you. >> Okay, >> that's it for me. >> Can I Yes. >> borrow yours with the addition. Before we get to this, okay, do we need to read
all this out for the motion or can >> make let's see if Holly has something else she wants to add. >> Okay. Make the motion based on the document we have if what I'm saying. So we don't have to repeat the whole thing >> with the addition of
these words. >> Yes. >> Okay. Let's have you read the whole thing because not everyone in the public or watching on TV has a copy of this. >> Good point. >> Read the whole thing. >> Yes, please. We're beginning the word as authorized. >> Can you Can you read my additional
handwriting there? >> Yes. >> Uhhuh. >> And >> make a motion to make the following recommendation and then just read everything. >> Okay. And then I also have two modifications to >> You need We have to do that.
>> Talk about them first. Yeah. and then at the end say and I'd like to add what are the what your modifications are now before we make the motion so we can have a clean motion. >> I I would like to reread the the motion um in its entirety.
>> Well, what are the modifications that you want to do? Okay. So at the the the blurb that's up top as and it starts with as authorized by the January 13 2026 at the last line where it says none
nonetheless the historic preservation board recommends approval to maintain the existing driveway connection only if the following five conditions are included in the approval. So the addition to that is to maintain
the existing driveway connection only if all the following five conditions are included. >> Yes, I see what you No. Yes. You what you want to do is just go ahead and you you don't want to change anything. You just want to make sure that's added to it. >> That's added to it. >> So that's what you're going to do. You're going to do the motion. You're
going to read the whole thing including the things we just wrote onto that. >> Yes. And then on five. >> Yes. Thank you. in architectural renings shall as opposed to are. >> Yes. >> Okay. Is
>> everybody got that? Okay. >> So, let me take a drink of water and Okay. Rereading of my mo my original motion with some updates. Let's let's withdraw your prior motion and make a motion to approve as
follows. >> Okay. I make a motion to approve as follows >> for variance case number 25142 to the board of adjustment.
The following. As authorized at the January 13, 2026 regular meeting of the city commission. Staff requested a recommendation from the historic preservation board to the board of adjustment regarding the proposed
unnecessary and undue hardship variance case number 25142 request to maintain an existing driveway connection from the property to Passag Way following redevelopment of the property. The historic preservation
finds that the subject variance request does not meet criteria 3.12B 1A.2 and six of the land development code. Nevertheless, the Historic Preservation
Board recommends approval to maintain the existing driveway connection only if the following five conditions are included in the approval. Point one, acquisition of additional property to the subject zoning lot
currently comprised of lot 17, block six, Mory Beach subdivision, or change in use of the property that is associated with new construction or redevelopment of one or more primary use buildings on the property shall render
the subject variance approval null and void. Point two, the development shall be installed with a right turn only sign at the egress from the property to pass a grow way.
Point three, a three- foot wide landscape buffer containing appropriate shubs, hedge, and trees or fence or wall compatible with the architecture of the development shall be installed along the
entire southern side of the retained driveway. The buffer, fence, or wall shall be installed at least 5 feet in height except where in conflict with the visibility standards of land development code section 6.21
or where actual and documented site visibility issues are present. Point4 While the subject driveway access to Passur Way is utilized for site access,
the lodging development shall be permitted. No on strike on street 4B-H tags otherwise authorized by section 82-202
of the code of ordinances as may be amended. Point five. Architectural ren renderings shall be provided for design review of future development by the historic
preservation board prior to the site plan approval. >> Is there a second? >> I just have a quick question. >> Second. >> Okay, hold on. She's got a question before. >> That was an excellent job. But there's just the one thing of to maintain the existing driveway. Mr. Brooks, I think
that was one thing that you had called out versus an existing driveway. >> We have the >> So, if it could just be the versus >> So, your your question, she had said >> and and you want to say the >> Yes, please maintain the existing
driveway. >> Do you have a pro um any >> problem with that? You'll have to explain to the motion. >> Third line. If >> the motion maker finds that it's okay, then that will be okay. Third line where >> it's request >> about halfway through the sentence. >> Request to maintain the existing
driveway versus an existing driveway. >> Uh so it's the first >> yes added language to maintain the existing driveway connection >> rather than saying to maintain an existing driveway connection. >> Yeah.
>> First paragraph, last line. >> Yeah. Okay, >> that was the one you were reading off of. This one does. That's why I put it back on there. So, it's just changing the one word to the >> right request to maintain the existing driveway. >> Yes.
>> Okay. So, I >> modify your motion to accommodate the request. >> Motion to amend >> to accommodate the request. you. [clears throat] Um I accept the um I
accept the change to my motion >> and restate my and and reaffirm my motion with the change. And then we need a second. >> Okay. >> If that's acceptable to >> I'm requesting to amend my motion. >> Not requesting. I amend my motion.
>> I amend my motion >> to accept the request >> to to accept the request >> to accept your request. to change the word and to the >> to change the word and to the
on. Should I just read reread the entire sentence? >> It's just the first paragraph, last sentence. >> You can reread the whole sentence if you like. >> Okay. And then yes. So
change the word and to the existing driveway connection on line three. >> The first paragraph, right? >> That's it. >> Okay. >> Yep.
>> Okay. I'll second the motion. Madam clerk, roll call, please. >> Member Hurley. >> Yes. >> Member Dashel. >> Yes. Member Young, >> yes. >> Lowry, >> yes. >> Motion carries. >> Thank you all for your extreme patience.
>> Thank you. >> Thank you. You got to adjourn the meeting. >> Thank you. >> Oh, yeah.