[1. Minutes: Receive a Report, Hold a Discussion and Public Hearing, and Take Action on the Minutes from the Regular Meeting Held on September 13, 2022.]
[00:00:04]
IF EVERYBODY HAS HAD A CHANCE TO REVIEW THE MINUTES FROM LAST MONTH'S MEETING, CAN I GET A MOTION TO APPROVE.
>> I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE MINUTES.
>> MOTION CARRIES. >> THERE ARE NO PREVIOUS ACTIONS TO CONSIDER FROM LAST MONTH'S MEETING.
I'LL BE MAKING A FEW STATEMENTS NOW, BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT HAS FIVE MEMBERS, FOUR OF WHICH MUST BE PRESENT.
APPLICANT HAS 180 DAY TO OBTAIN A BUILDING PERMIT IF ONE IS PERM PERMITTED.
I HAVE TO DEVIATE ARE BOTH PROPONENTS OF THE AGENDA ITEMS HERE? THIS IS OCCASIONAL BUT UNIQUE SITUATION ONLY HAVE FOUR MEMBERS OF THE BOARD HERE TODAY.
YOU ARE GOING TO HAVE TO GET UNANIMOUS VOTE OF APPROVAL.
BECAUSE OF THAT I WILL OFFER YOU THE OPTION TABLING ONE MONTH COME BACK NEXT MONTH WHEN WE HAVE A FULL BOARD FOR MORE LEEWAY, ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THAT? SORRY. ARE YOU BOTH HAPPY? OKAY. GOING ON WITH THAT, IF LONGER PERIOD OF TIME FOR BUILDING PERMIT REQUIRED YOU CAN BE REQUESTED. APPEALS AND DECISIONS COURT OF RECORD IN THIS CASE DISTRICT COURT 10 DAYS OF THIS DATE.
WE NEED TO SWEAR ANYONE TODAY WHO IS GOING TO SPEAK IN FAVOR OR AGAINST. IF YOU WOULD RAISE YOUR HANDS? PLACE RAISE YOUR HANDS. DO YOU SWEAR TO TELL THE TRUTH?
>> YES, SIR. >> WHOLE TRUTH AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH TODAY? THANK YOU.
[2. BA-2022-11: (3858 John Knox Drive) Receive a Report, Hold a Discussion and Public Hearing, and Take Action on a request from Bruce Bixby to allow a group sign at 3858 Ridgemond Drive. (Adam Holland)]
NEW BUSINESS, WE HAVE FIRST AGENDA ITEM IS: CASE BA 2022-11. 3858 JOHN KNOX DRIVE.WE ARE GOING TO HOLD DISCUSSION AND TAKE ACTION ON REQUEST FROM BRUCE BIXBY TO ALLOW A GROUP SIGN 3858 RIDGEMOND DRIVE.
>> GOOD MORNING MY NAME IS ADAM HOLLAND I'LL BE PRESENTING CASE BA 202211. THIS IS A REQUEST TO ALLOW FOR OFF SITE GROUP SIGNAGE FOR THE BIO LIFE PLASMA SERVICES AND FIRE HOUSE SUBS LOCATED ON THE PROPERTY AT 3858 JOHN KNOX DRIVE. SORRY, 3858 RIDGEMOND DRIVE.
HERE IS LOCATION MAP SHOWING WHERE THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS.
PROPOSING TO PUT THE SIGN ON THIS PROPERTY.
THIS SIGN IN QUESTION WILL MEET THE CITY OF ABILENE STANDARDS FOR SIGNAGE REQUIRE REQUIREMENTS IN THIS ZONING DISTRICT.
THIS IS ZONING DISTRICT IS GC. WHICH ALLOWS FOR OFF SITE SIGNAGE SUCH AS THIS BIO LIFE PLASMA SIGN.
TYPICALLY IT APPLIES TO BILLBOARDS OR SIGNS OF THAT NATURE. OUR LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE DOESN'T SPECIFICALLY ALLOW FOR GROUP SIGNAGE IN ANY TYPE OF ZONING CLASSIFICATION. HERE ARE PHOTOS OF SUBJECT PROPERTIES. 3366 JOHN KNOX DRIVE PROPOSED BIO LIFE PLASMA SERVICES. AS YOU CAN KIND OF SEE IN THAT NEIGHBORING, YOU CAN SEE BUFFET KING.
THAT IS THE EXISTING SIGN. STAFF PROPOSING RECOMMENDATION
[00:05:02]
TO REMOVE THAT SIGN IN ADDITION TO HAVING THE PROPOSED SIGNAGE ON THE FIRE HOUSE SUB'S PROPERTY.HERE IS THE MAP SHOWING SIGN WE RECOMMEND TO REMOVE AND SIGN CONSTRUCTED. ROUGHLY WHERE THEY ARE TO BE PLACED. SIGN WILL HAVE TO MEET CITY OF ABILENE'S REQUIREMENTS FARCE PLACEMENT AND SIZE RECEIVED TWO OPPOSITIONS, ONE TURNER DRIVE AND ONE FAVOR 3850 RIDGEMOND DRIVE. PURSUANT TO 1442 LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE. THERE ARE SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES.
VISIBLE SIGN IS NOT VISIBLE DUE TO HOTEL.
GRANTING VARIANCE WILL NOT BE CONTRARY TO PUBLIC INTEREST AND N NEIGHBORS.
GRANTING VARNSZ IS CONSISTENT WITH ABILENE'S LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AND NOT CAUSED BY THE PETITIONER.
I WOULD BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
>> ANY REMARKS ON DISAPPROVED INPUT?
>> WE JUST RECEIVED PAPER BACK: OPPOSED.
>> ANYONE HAVE QUESTIONS? >> NOT CURRENTLY.
>> THANK YOU. >> PROPONENT COME FORWARD, STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS, TELL US WHY YOU ARE MAKING THIS REQUEST.
>> MY NAME IS WENDY NICHOLS, 100 TOWER DRIVE BEAVER DAM, WISCONSIN. WE REQUESTED THIS VARIANCE PLANNER SAID BECAUSE OF LACK OF VISIBILITY FOR THIS SIGN BIO LIFE COULD HAVE ACCESS TO THAT IS NEXT TO THE BUFFET KING SIGN.
SO THAT THE BOARD KNOWS WE HAVE SPENT A LOT OF TIME RESEARCHING ALL OF THE OPTIONS THAT ARE ON THIS FOR US.
INCLUDING THERE IS A GOODWILL SIGN JUST NORTH THERE.
WE LOOKED AT ADDING A BIO LIFE PANEL FOR OFF PREMISE SIGN AND USING THAT. P PROBLEM VA DOESN'T HAVE A PANEL ON THAT SIGN THEY ARE IN THAT BUILDING. THAT CAUSED A LITTLE BIT OF A HARDSHIP FOR THEM. IF WE WERE GOING TO REDO THAT SIGN, THEN THE VA WOULD NEED TO GET ON IT.
IT CONVOLUTED SIZE OF SIGNAGE THERE.
WE TRACKED DOWN THE PREVIOUS BUILDER OF ALL OF THE SIGNS TO MAKE SURE WE UNDERSTOOD STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY, WHAT WE CAN PUT ON IT. WORKING WITHIN THE CODE CONSTRAINTS. THERE IS A SIGN ON JOHN KNOX DRIVE FOR PIZZA SHOP AND NAIL SALON.
COULDN'T ADD TO IT BECAUSE IT STRUCTURALLY CAN'T CARRY ANOTHER PANEL. IF WE REBUILD A SIGN REQUESTING QUITE A BIT OF MONEY. LOOKED AT GOODWILL AND THIRD REQUEST TO RAISE CURRENT SIGN BEHIND THE HOTEL BY 15 FEET.
WE HAD A PREAPPLICATION MEETING AND ASKED TO CONSIDER OTHER OPTIONS RATHER THAN RAISING THE SIGN BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY, THAT IS A TRUE VARIANCE IN THAT IT DOES NOT MEET CITY CODE FOR SIGNAGE CONSTRUCTION. YOU WOULD END UP HAVING TO -- WE WOULD END UP HAVING TO COME IN AND ASK FOR A VARIANCE TO RAISE THE SIGN TO GET VISIBILITY ABOVE THE HOTEL.
THEY WERE SUPPORTIVE BECAUSE OF THE HARDSHIP WE CAN SHOW.
ASKED US TO GO BACK AND SEE SOME OTHER OPTION WE COULD FIND THAT COULD PLEASE THE, MEET CODE BETTER.
THERE IS A BUILD BOARD SIGN CORNER OF RIDGEMOND AND JOHN
[00:10:05]
KNOX. IT IS A BILLBOARD FULLY LEEZED.I WOULD ASK FOR THIS PIECE EARLY ON TOLD NO.
STAY AWAY FROM THAT. WENT BACK, SAID CAN WE PLEASE CONSIDER THIS? WE BILUILD FIRE HOUSE SUBS.
AT THE END OF THE DAY FIRE HOUSE SUBS GETS A NICE SIGN AND OUR ASK IS THAT WE CAN PUT OUR PANEL ON THAT SIDE.
I SEE YOU ARE ASKING FOR REMOVAL OF BUFFET KING SIGN.
I DON'T THINK WE CAN AGREE TO THAT.
CURRENT AGREEMENT FOR UM, THE BUFFET KING.
THEY ARE HAPPY WHERE THEY ARE. THAT IS PART OF THE LEASE AGREEMENT WITH THE OWNER. THAT SURPRISED US A LITTLE BIT.
THAT WASN'T SOMETHING WE CONTEMPLATED DOING.
IF WE REMOVED IT, WE WOULD NEED THEM TO FIND A SPACE TO PUT THEIR PILE ON. WE DON'T KNOW THAT WE CAN DO THAT. I THINK THE CODE REFERENCES ONE FREE STANDING SIGN PER BUSINESS PER STREET FRONTAGE.
OUR BUILDING DOESN'T HAVE A STREET FRONTAGE.
WE ARE KIND OF LANDLOCKED. IT PUTS BIO LIFE INTO A WEIRD SITUATION LETTING PEOPLE KNOW WE ARE THERE.
AS A FACILITY THEY CAN COME TO. >> LET ME MAKE THIS VERY CLEAR, YOU WILL NOT, YOU DO NOT WANT TO REMOVE YOUR PRESENT SIGN ON ONE FOR ONE BASIS REPLACEMENT Z IS THAT TRUE?
>> I DON'T THINK WE CAN ENFORCE REMOVING THAT SIGN.
WE CAN'T DO THAT. WE WOULD HAVE TO GO BACK.
>> SEEMS TO ME WE READ WE WERE LOOKING AT ONE FOR ONE REPLACEMENT AS A STIPULATION FOR APPROVAL.
>> YES. >> AM I HAVING ANOTHER SENIOR MOMENT OR SOME WHERE DOWN THE LINE?
>> THAT WAS IN THE REPORT. [LAUGHTER].
THAT CAUGHT US BY SURPRISE. WE WERE NOT AWARE OF THAT UNTIL
WE RECEIVED THE COURT. >> YOU ONLY OWN YOUR NAME ON THAT EXISTING SIGN? YOU DON'T CONTROL THE PILON.
DID YOUR COMPANY PUT THAT IN PLACE ONE TO BE REMOVED?
>> BIOLIFE RELEASED THE SPACE. >> I DON'T OWN ANYTHING, I AM
SORRY. >> COME UP AND IDENTIFY
YOURSELF. >> I AM CHRIS -- I REPRESENT BIOLIFE. THERE IS BUFFET KING AND THE SPACE LEASED. THERE IS A PILON.
BIOLIFE DOES NOT INTEND TO PUT ANYTHING ON THAT SIGN.
IT IS NOT VISIBLE. IF WE COULD RAISE IT THE 15 FEET IT WOULD BE VISIBLE AND WE WOULD PUT A SIGN THERE.
BIOLIFE IS NOT GOING TO PUT ANYTHING UP ON THAT SIGN.
WE DON'T INTEND TO USE IT. WE CAN'T MAKE BUFFET KING.
WE WOULD LIKE TO ON THE FIRE HOUSE SUBS PUT UP A SIGN.
WE WOULD NOT HAVE TWO PILONS. TRADING OUT ONE SPACE.
EXISTING PILON WE DON'T HAVE THE RIGHT TO TEAR DOWN BECAUSE THERE IS ANOTHER TENANT WITH A SIGN THERE.
>> THAT WOULD GIVE YOU TWO BIOLIFE SIGNS?
>> BIOLIFE DOESN'T HAVE A SIGN. >> YOU DO NOT HAVE A SIGN AT ALL
>> THIS GETS MORE AND MORE COMPLICATED.
[00:15:02]
>> ADAM, WHAT, WHAT WAS THE GENERAL PURPOSE BEHIND REMOVAL
OF THAT SIGN? >> WE ASKED FOR REMOVAL TO PREVENT OVERCROWDING OF SIGNS IN THE GENERAL AREA.
>> OKAY. >> CORRECT ME IF I AM WRONG ALL
PLATTED DIFFERENTLY? >> THAT IS CORRECT.
>> THEY ARE SEPARATE, WE ARE NOT ALL TALKING ABOUT IT IS NOT LIKE IT IS ONE GIANT PIECE OF PROPERTY.
THEY WANT A SIGN HERE AND OVER HERE.
ALL SEPARATE PROPERTIES. EVEN IF WE WERE TALKING ABOUT THIS, WITH JUST FIRE HOUSE SUBS. WOULD YOU ASK FOR REMOVAL OF THE
BUFFET KING SIGN? >> THEY WOULD BE ALLOWED ONE SIGN PER STREET FRONTAGE AS WELL.
>> OKAY. >> THIS IS COMPLICATED.
>> DIDN'T THINK IT WAS GOING TO BE.
>> EXACTLY. >> I CAN ALSO PASS OUT.
I DON'T KNOW IF IT IS HELPFUL. I HAVE EXHIBITS FROM OUR APPLICATION THAT SHOW THE STREET FRONT.
>> SURE LOOK AT IT. >> WHILE HE IS HANDING THESE OUT, WE ARE TRULY ONLY ASKING FOR ONE SIGN FOR OUR FRONTAGE,
NOT TWO. >> ON THE THIRD PAGE, THAT IS THE OTHER SIGN SO THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY, THEY HAVE A SIGN YOU CAN SEE THE HOTEL ROOF SLOPES DOWN.
YOU CAN SEE THEIRS FROM RIDGEMOND.
THAT IS NOT OUR SIGN. OURS IS COMPLETELY HIDDEN BEHIND THE HOTEL. OBVIOUSLY WORKED A LOT OF ANGLES TO TRY TO FIGURE OUT. IDEA WAS NOT TO COME TO Y'ALL WITH A VARIANCE. IT WAS HOW CAN WE GET THIS DONE WITHIN THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE? ORIGINALLY PROPOSING RAISING IT. WE TRIED TO DO THIS.
WE ARE HOPING THIS IS THE LEAST RESTRICTIVE MEANS TO GET A SIGN THAT WILL BE VISIBLE WHEN PEOPLE ARE TRYING TO FIND THE BUILDING.
>> ANYMORE QUESTIONS? >> IF THIS IS APPROVED, Y'ALL
WILL OWN THE SIGN? >> WE WILL PURCHASE THE SIGN.
AT THE END OF THE SIGN WE WON'T OWN THE SIGN.
IT WILL BE OWNED BY THE PROPERTY OWNER.
>> WE'LL HAVE AGREEMENT WITH FIRE HOUSE SUBS TO PUT OUT THE SIGN AND HAVE IT THERE WITH BIOLIFE.
>> AND A LEASE AGREEMENT FOR OUR PLACEMENT AND THE SIGN WITH
>> THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU, GUYS.
>> ANYBODY THAT WANTS TO SPEAK AGAINST STATE YOUR NAME.
>> BRUCE BIXBY 2540 -- APPRECIATE THE STAFF AND WORK YOU GUYS DO. THIS IS CLEARLY IMPORTANT MEDICAL FACILITY FOR ABILENE. THERE IS A CLEAR HARDSHIP WITHIN MOTEL IN FRONT OF THEIR SPACE. THREE DIFFERENT PLATTED PROPERTIES. THE SIGN IN RED I AM UNDER CONTRACT. IT IS NOT AN OPTION FOR ME TO REMOVE IT. THE BEST WE CAN DO TO RECAP IT.
THAT IS NOT AN OPTION FOR ME. IT IS A REASONABLE REQUEST AND I ASK THAT YOU APPROVE IT, THANK YOU.
>> ANYONE ELSE WANTS TO SPEAK ON THE SUBJECT? I CLOSE THAT PORTION OF THE MEETING.
OPEN FOR DISCUSSION. >> I FEEL LIKE REMOVAL OF BUFFET KING SIGN WOULD CREATE A HARDSHIP ON ADJACENT PROPERTIES BACK THERE. THIS IS VERY SIMILAR TO WHAT I HAVE SEEN IN ALBUQUERQUE, NEW MEXICO.
[00:20:02]
IT IS WORKING WITH THE PILONS AND SHARING OF SIGNS WITH THROUGH LEASE AGREEMENTS. SEEMS TO HAVE BEEN A VERY GOOD SOLUTION FOR SOME OF THE PARTICULARLY LONG CERTAIN THOROUGH FARES THAT NO LONGER HAVE INGRESSES FROM THE MAIN STREET. BUT RATHER AT TRAFFIC INTERSECTIONS. LAT>> I AGREE. IF YOU HAVE EVER DRIVEN DOWN.
WE ARE ALL VERY FAMILIAR WITH THE AREA.
YOU KNOW, THESE ARE BIG IMPORTANT BUILDINGS FROM RIDGEMOND NEED VISIBLE SIGNAGE. UNLESS YOU ARE IN THAT PARKING LOT OF BUFFET KING, THAT ONE IS NOT VISIBLE.
YOU JUST CAN'T SEE IT. YOU HAVE GOT SEVERAL DIFFERENT BUSINESSES BACK THERE. THEY ALL DESERVE THE RIGHT TO BE SEEN. YOU KNOW, WHENTY GOT THE PACKET AND STARTED LOOKING OVER AND REVIEWING IT, I COULD REALIZE THIS IS GOING TO BE A BIT OF A TRICKY SITUATION.
WHEN YOU ARE IN THAT AREA, UM, I DON'T THINK YOU REAL IZE THERE ARE SEVERAL SIGNS THAT ARE IN THAT AREA, BUT I DON'T FEEL LIKE IT IS OVERCROWDING UM, I DON'T FEEL LIKE THERE IS TOO MANY BECAUSE YOU CAN'T SEEM THEM UNLESS YOU ARE IN CERTAIN POSITIONS. I DON'T FEEL LIKE THIS IS AN UNREASONABLE REQUEST. I THINK IT IS IMPORTANT FOR THE AREA AND UM, I WOULD ASSUME THEY WOULD BE BRINGING LOTS OF JOBS
TO THE AREA. >> YES, WE CAN SPEAK TO THAT IF
YOU WOULD LIKE. >> BIOLIFE IS SUBSIDIARY OF TAKADA. PLASMA FACILITY WILL GIVE 50-70 FULL AND PART-TIME POSITIONS. ALL FULLY MEDICAL BENEFITS.
PAID SCHOOL REIMBURSEMENT. YOU GET ANYWHERE FROM TWO TO THREE MILLION DOLLARS IN COMPENSATION THAT IS RETURNED TO THE DONORS. IN DEBIT CARDS.
THEY ARE ABLE TO TRACK THE DEBIT CARDS.
THEY FOUND 80% OF THE MONEY PAID OUT IS PUT BACK INTO YOUR LOCAL ECONOMY RIGHT THERE WITHIN THE FEW MILES OF THE DONOR FACILITY.
THEY HELP BOOST THE ECONOMY WITH THE EXTRA SPENDING ON THE DONORS. THEY DO A GOOD JOB OF COMMUNITY SERVICE AND OUTREACH. I THINK YOU FIND BIOLIFE WILL BE A GOOD NEIGHBOR FOR YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD, TOO.
>> I AGREE WITH THEIR COMMENTS. >> I UNDERSTAND REASON FOR SIGN
CLUTTER. >> MR. CHAIRMAN? IF I COULD INTERJECT ONE POINTED.
PRIMARY CONCERN WASN'T ABOUT SIGN CLUTTER.
IT WAS ABOUT ONE INDIVIDUAL HAVING ACCESS TO TWO SIGNS.
SIMPLE SOLUTION TO THE REMOVAL OF THE SIGN TO REVISE CONDITIONS. THIS APPLICANT IS NOT HAVING ACCESS LOCATED ON THEIR PROPERTY.
YOU ONLY HAVE ONE SIGN. THAT WAS THE PRIMARY PURPOSE, WE DON'T WANT ONE PERSON, CONCERNED ABOUT SETTING PRECEDENT.
I WANT A GROUP SIGN OVER HERE. THAT WAS THE REAL PURPOSE OF THE
[00:25:01]
THAT IS VERY HELPFUL. >> NO OBJECTIONS.
>> I'LL MAKE A PROPOSE WE APPROVE -- ERECTION AND CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW SIGN WHAT IS THAT ADDRESS THERE?
RIDGEMOND 3850 ABILENE, TEXAS. >> BASED ON THE FINDINGS AND THE DISCUSSION WE HAVE HAD IN THE STAFF REPORT.
>> OKAY. >> REQUEST IS EQUAL, WE OUGHT TO
HANG -- >> MR. ANDERSON JUST DESCRIBED, IT IS UP TO YOU, THOUGH HOW YOU WORD THAT CONDITION.
>> RIGHT. SO WITH THE CONDITION THAT WOULD BE THE ONLY SIGN THAT THEY WOULD BE ALLOWED TO ONLY FREE STANDING SIGN. WE DON'T WANT WALL SIGNAGE.
AS COMPLICATED AS THIS LITTLE CASE IS SO IS THE MOVEMENT HERE.
[LAUGHTER]. >> I THINK THE ADDRESS OF FIRE
>> THAT IS WHERE THE SIGN WILL GO, 3858 IS WHERE THEY ARE
LOCATED. >> MELISSA, YOU HAVE A HANDLE ON
>> DO I NEED TO SAY ANYTHING ELSE? WE ALL GET FIRE HOUSE SUBS HAPPY?
>> I MAKE A SECOND. >> WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE THIS REQUEST: WE ARE APPROVING CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW SIGN AT 3858 RIDGEMOND. BASED UPON THE FINDINGS OF THE STAFF REPORT AND DISCUSSION. WE ARE ADDING CONDITION THAT THAT MAYBE THE ONLY FREE STANDING SIGN FOR THIS BUSINESS.
>> NICE JOB. >> THAT WORKED OUT.
>> MOTION TO APPROVE CARRIES. >> MAKE IT EASY ON US, GUYS,
[3. BA-2022-12: (2425 Shoreline Drive) Receive a Report, Hold a Discussion and Public Hearing, and Take Action on a request from Jayne Irons for a two-foot (2') variance from the side yard setback and one-foot (1') variance from the rear setback required for an eighteen-foot (18') tall detached accessory building in Residential (RS-12) Zoning district. (Clarissa Ivev)]
WORTH THE EFFORT. >> SECOND THING ON THE AGENDA.
WE HAVE BEEN WORKING THIS TOGETHER AS A GROUP OF PEOPLE FOR A LONG TIME. SECOND ITEM BA-2022-12.
2425 SHORELINE DRIVE. RECEIVED REPORT, HOLD A DISCUSSION AND PUBLIC HEARING AND REQUEST FROM JAYNE IRONS TWO-FOOT VARIANCE FROM SIDE YARD SET BACK AND ONE-FOOT VARIANCE FROM REAR SET BACK REQUIRED FOR 18-FOOT TALL DETACHED ACCESSORY BUILDING IN RESIDENTIAL RS 12 ZONING.
CLARISSA IVEY TODAY I WILL BE PRESE PRESENTING BA-2022-12. THEY ARE REQUESTING A TWO-FOOT VARIANCE FROM SITE REQUIREMENT. ONE-FOOT VARIANCE FROM REAR SITE. 2425 SHORELINE.
HERE YOU CAN SEE THE PROPERTY. ON THE BACKYARD WHERE THEY HAVE THE POOL TO THE NORTHEASTERN PORTION OF THE LOT THAT IS WHERE THEY HAVE ALREADY STARTED TO ERECT THIS ACCESSORY BUILDING.
THEY DID NOT START WITHOUT PERMITS.
THEY DID GO THROUGH THE PROPER PROCESS OF OBTAINING BUILDING PERMIT. THEY WERE ISSUED BUILDING PERMIT AND HAVE BEEN APPROVED FOR THEIR FOUNDATIONS.
AS YOU CAN SEE THIS IS IN A RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICT.
AND THEY ARE PLANNING -- THEY ARE BUILDING AN ACCESSORY BUILDING FROM WHICH IT CAN BE IF IT IS 10 FEET, SHALL BE THREE
[00:30:03]
FEET FROM SIDE YARD PROPERTY LINE, FROM THE REAR.ANY ADDITIONAL FOOT AND HEIGHT IT HAS TO BE INSTEAD TO ACCOMMODATE SET BACKS. THEY DO HOWEVER APPLICATIONS STATED IT WAS GOING TO BE 10 FOOT.
LITTLE BIT OF A MISCOMMUNICATION ON THE FRAMING STAGE FOR THIS PROJECT. IT WAS FOUND, BUILDING IS ACTUALLY 18 FEET IN HEIGHT. WE SEND OUT NOTIFICATION ON A 2 2 200-BUFFER. FIVE IN FAVOR, ZERO OPPOSED.
NEIGHBOR TO THE NORTH 2417 HAS SENT US BACK NOTIFICATION IN FAVOR. WE FEEL THAT WOULD BE THE NEIGHBOR THAT WOULD HAVE MIGHT BE IMPACTED BY THIS BY HAVING THIS STRUCTURE SO CLOSE TO THEM. HOWEVER WITH THE BUILDING WHERE THEY CURRENTLY HAVE IT EIGHT FEET FROM THE SIDE YARD PROPERTY LINE RATHER THAN TEN REQUIRED BY THIS SET BACK, FILL MEETS FIRE SEPARATION OF YOUR SIX FEET. EVEN IF THE NEIGHBOR WERE TO BUILD A STRUCTURE ON THEIR SOUTHERN PROPERTY LINE, THEY WOULDN'T BE RESTRICTED ON THEIR HEIGHT SINCE IT WOULD ALSO MEET THEIR FIRE SEPARATION. HERE WE HAVE PICTURES OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY REALLY CAN'T SEE IT FROM THE FRONT OF THE PROPERTY. THEN YOU HAVE NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES. UM.
THE STAFF REVIEWED THIS, FOUND IT UM, IT WOULD NOT BE INCONSISTENT WITH THE SPIRIT AND INTENT OF LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE BECAUSE OF THE ADEQUATE SEPARATION BETWEEN BUILDINGS THAT CAN BE MAINTAINED EITHER PROPOSED OR FUTURE.
GRANTING VARIANCE WOULD NOT BE CONTRARY TO PUBLIC INTERESTS TO THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES OR PUBLIC WELFARE.
HEIGHT AND LOCATION WOULD NEG NEGATIVELY EFFECT THE PROPERTIES.
DO YOU HAVE QUESTIONS FOR ME? >> CLARISSA, I WOULD RECOMMEND PUTTING IT BACK ON ONE SLIDE. IF THE BOARD WOULD APPROVE IT.
THE BOARD WOULD BE REQUIRED TO FIND A HARDSHIP.
THAT IS ONE OF THE THINGS STAFF WASN'T ABLE TO PROVIDE.
THIS MIGHT BE HELPFUL AS THEY ANALYZE THIS CASE, IF YOU WANT TO LEAVE UP THIS, THAT IS A SUGGESTION.
>> ANY QUESTIONS? >> DID I GO TOO FAST, SORRY.
>> SORRY? >> DID I GO TOO FAST.
>> WOULD THE PROPONENT COME TO THE PODIUM AND IDENTIFY YOURSELF
AND YOUR ADDRESS? >> MY NAME IS BRIAN IRONS.
MY WAIF AND I JAYNE ARE THE OWNERS OF THE 2425 SHORELINE.
WE PUT A BUILDING AND SOLAR PANELS ON IT.
WE DON'T -- IT IS NOT TURNED ON. WE HAVE TO GET EVERYTHING APPROVED. WE PUT 44 SOLAR PANELS ON THIS STRU STRUCTURE.
MY BUILDER BELIEVED HE WAS DOING BY CODE BY THE CITY WHEN HE WAS BUILDING IT. I BELIEVE WE MISSED SOMETHING HERE. WE ARE ASKING FOR THIS VARIANCE AND THIS STRUCTURE ALREADY BUILT, SOLAR PANELS ON IT.
OTHERWISE WE ARE GOING TO HAVE TO MAKE MAJOR STRUCTURE CHANGES.
[00:35:05]
>> DOES THE BUILDING HAVE ANY OTHER PURPOSE?
>> TURNED INTO A STORAGE GARAGE. IT IS 24X50.
FILLS UP THE WHOLE CEILING WITH ROOF LINE OF THE STRUCTURE FOR THE SOLAR PANELS. JUST FOR YOUR INFORMATION, MY BACKGROUND I HAVE BEEN IN THE UTILITY INDUSTRY FOR 40 YEARS.
AND I AM NOT A GREEN GUY, BUT, I AM ALL INCLUSIV.
I -- >> DOES THAT INCLUDE COAL AND
I AM COAL AND NATURAL GAS AND OIL BACKGROUND FOR SURE.
SO ANY WAY, THAT IS A SIDELINE STUFF.
IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS FOR US? >> LET ME GO BACK TO THE STAFF JUST A SECOND. IS THAT THE FORM AND PERMITTING PROCESS CALL FOR THE HEIGHT OF THE STRUCTURE AS A NUMERICAL
>> HOW, HOW DID IT GET, WAS THAT TOO HARD?
>> IT WAS AN ERROR. >> HONEST ERROR.
INFORMATION WASN'T INCLUDED, WAS INCLUDED ON OTHER PERMITS AND FOUNDATION IN ONE, BUILDING IN ANOTHER.
I HAVE ONE QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT IF I CAN, WHAT IS THE HEIGHT OF THE BUILDING MINUS SOLAR STRUCTURE?
>> IT IS 18 FOOT AND 10 FOOT ON THE OTHER SIDE.
>> I UNDERSTAND THAT. YOU SAID THERE IS A BUILDING AND STRUCTURE FOR THE SOLAR. FINISHED FLOOR TO THE HEIGHT
WHEN I TALK TO THE SOLAR COMPANY I SAID WHAT IS THE IDEAL PITCH BECAUSE I DESIGNED THE BUILDING MYSELF? THEY SAID 4-12 PITCH. THAT IS HOW WE GOT 10 FOOT THIS
SIDE, 18 FOOT THIS SIDE. >> YOU ONLY HAD THE HEIGHT WHAT IT IS TO GET OPTIMAL PRODUCTION ENERGY FROM THE SUN.
>> THAT IS CORRECT. >> IF THAT WASN'T PART OF THE EQUATION, HEIGHT PROBABLY WOULDN'T HAVE BEEN 18 FEET?
>> IF WE HAD KNOWN FOR SURE WE WEREN'T IN CODE VIOLATION, WE COULD HAVE LOWERED THE PITCH YES.
WOULDN'T BE AS GOOD OF A PERFORMANCE FOR SOLAR PANELS.
>> WHAT I AM GETTING AT CHAIRMAN AND BOARD MEMBERS TECHNOLOGICAL NEEDS OF SOLAR MIGHT BE SOMETHING THAT IS WORTHY OF A HARDSHIP. MIGHT CONSIDER IN YOUR FINDINGS.
>> I DO HAVE DIAGRAM OF WHAT HE PRESENTED TO THE CITY IF YOU
WANT TO SEE IT. >> THAT WAS IN THE PACKAGE.
I DON'T THINK THAT IS NECESSARY. ANYBODY ELSE LIKE TO SPEAK? I'LL CLOSE THAT. OPEN OUR DISCUSSION.
ANYBODY HAVE ANY POINTS TO MAKE? I THINK THERE IS ENOUGH CONFUSION WITHOUT LACK OF FIRM DATA TO HAVE FAULT COMMUNICATIONS CERTAINLY COULD BE BETTER.
THAT IS WHY THEY HAVE THAT BUMPER STICKER THAT SAYS "STUFF HAPPENS." THAT AND SOLAR EXCEPTION SEEMS TO GIVE ENOUGH REASON FOR PRESSING ON WITH THE THING IF SOMEBODY WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION?
>> SURE, I WOULD SAY BASED ON THE STAFF FINDINGS AND MAIN PURPOSE ON THE STRUCTURE THAT WE APPROVE TWO-FOOT VARIANCE.
[00:40:09]
AND ONE-FOOT VARIANCE FROM REAR YARD.>> CAN I GET A SECOND? >> SECOND THAT.
>> MOTION TO APPROVE THIS REQUEST BASED UPON FINDINGS OF THE STAFF REPORT AND DUE TO HARDSHIP CREATED BY THE PURPOSE OF THE STRUCTURE. MISS RAMSEY?
>> AND COLONEL LANGHOLTZ? >> YES.
>> MOTION TO APPROVE CARRIES. >> NO FURTHER BUSINESS ADJOURN
MEETING. >> MOTION TO ADJOURN.
>> THANK YOU ALL VERY MUCH.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.