##VIDEO ID:A_jYjy1AFWo## good evening you're attending a session of the city of Jacksonville Beach's Board of adjustments Board of adjustment meetings are Quasi judicial in nature all decisions of the board will be based on confident substantial evidence including testimony provided this meeting any person who is not an applicant or agent that wishes to speak will need to fill out a speak located at the side table by the door and turn them into the CL each member of the public will be given three minutes to speak on each item please refrain from speaking from the audience Applause or cheering will not be allowed please Silence Yourself we have John Mor Owen Curley here Jeff TR Todd Smith Jennifer Williams Matt me flne okay uh next our agenda is approval of minutes if everybody has reviewed the minutes for July 2 July 16th have motion approve July Mo second all in favor okay the minutes approve is there any correspond there's no old business so let's call our one case yeah sorry I call case number b84 d1036 address 1198 Beach Boulevard parcel ID 17752 motion to consider section 34377 for zero parkes and L 13 requires for proposed expansion of outdoor seating with a total size of 3200 ft and4 for a reduction in existing parking spaces by six total spaces along the western side of the existing structure to be converted into outdoor seating 34-3 3435 for 89% lock coverage in L of 85% for the re existing Landscaping to accommodate the required three spaces for the existing outdoor seating of 800 ft okay as a reminder each member the public will be a good 30 minutes to speak and we open the public hearing does any board member have any exp communication I've had none none none and I've had none would the applicant please come for to be sworn in and give the presentation actually before you get in there are only four members to have MERS MERS you have you you would have you would have to get yes u the choice is yours you can i' like to go forward although usually attorneys are not you want toce um before call the case I just want to mention that uh the proposed outdoor seating on the first floor will not add any water coverage and um all the total additional area proposed will be 3,200 ft um the plan is to enose some of the so all the will be outdoors we have a repor [Music] doesn't okay sir good afternoon actually good evening z323 I have a presentation if you have the power thank you this is uh for the property actually 1198 Beach Boulevard this is an out parcel in a shopping center I apologize the presentation actually said 1168 I'm just to clarify a couple points if you notice in the application and your staff do a good job repeating it um we didn't request a reduction in lot coverage I wasn't sure why that was in there also eliminating six spaces we're eliminating three and finally um it reads in the staff report that we're trying to do 3,200 squ feet of outdoor space we now approximately trying to do 750 square feet of outdoor space so we're just here on the parking right now um what we're here for is actually pretty straightforward uh there we go property is currently is located at da Beach Bard it fronts on a fdot rideway that if you gr up to the beaches you know is wide and actually goes into the PA area part of the shopping center but was actually in fdot property um my client has entered into a was effectively a 10year lease for the parking area in order to apply for those approximately 38 approximately 38 spaces that parking to apply for the expansion of his out parcel the property actually has 24 spaces currently on it uh I can take that light com down uh for your planning director your senior senior planner the current uses on the property all require 21 spaces on the property we have 24 um for the additional spaces of the additional uses that we want on the property PR your code which is one space for every 250 square ft we're required to have 13 additional spaces um normally in this situation your code under 34375 you to get that approved administratively and you can do that when the offsite parking is within 300 ft of the property which we are you can do that when it's in the same zoning as our property which it is uh you can do that when you have limitations on sign which is not an issue um the problem is is that part portion of the code requires a deep restriction because this property is owned by fbot We cannot put a deep restriction parking on public land that's why we're here for the various that's the only reason we here for the here to eliminate uh uh lot coverage we're not trying to get an adjustment we're just trying to get the parking spaces that are next door to our property that would normally be approved administratively appli to our property again we require 13 Extra Spaces and we're going to use 38 next door um and go through the requirements in your code your staff has already recommended approval of this uh that is comid and substantial evidence by law um I'm happy to answer any questions but really crowd here I rather reserve my time for thank you question I just want to step through our um standards that are applicable to variances just so that I make sure I understand what it is that app can you address first of all the special conditions and circumstances are par plan um certainly because this property is against fdot property which cannot have a d restriction on it that is peculiar to this property anywhere else where this would exist you could get this approved administratively so this is property that's been parked on as long as I lived at the beach which is coming up on 45 years and as long as anybody else lived at the beach that I know of this is been this way for 65 years um that's peur to this property I've never seen that happen anywhere property um the lease allows us exclusive possession of it so these parking spaces are ours whether this gets proved or not um we would just like to be able to use it to expand um the current commercial uses on the property which your comprehensive plan encourages in fill development so we think that plus the variance criteria is very important for you consider okay uh the second one is special circumstances and conditions that do not result same thing the property and the 65 years that this has been used as FD rway was not created by the applicant um this is anywhere else in the city would just be a private property where we could put a d restriction on it it would be administered really approved um the fact that the fdot right away is I think over 200 ft and with was not a circumstance that was caused by the applicant um and then three is granting the variant will not confer upon the applicant any special privileges there's no requirements in the comprehensive plan that give this as a special privilege um again this would actually be a privilege that would be affording everybody else we're just asking being treated the same we can't because the property is public property uh I think you've already addressed the literal interpretation which number four enforcement of the terms we deprive the applicants of the right commonly enjoyed byel land five is the granting of the Varian is a minimum VAR make possible the reasonable use of the parel uh yes as I said we're only for one uh space for 250 square F feet of additional commercial space in shopping center would require 13 Extra Spaces we're adding in 38 Spaces by this varant so this is well beyond we and six is uh granting of the variance would be generally consistent with the purp gos okay any other questions we approve this that basically helps yourk and they do not have access to these they do have access to these if you mean another tenant not on my client's property um regardless of how you vote tonight they would not be able to use those parking spaces this is the lease that's exclusive to my client so whether they get expanded or not um these par are use of my client in their correct at the start you outl differences in terms of what your request is versus the request that was posted and we received in our packet I just want to make sure that we can clarify that because what I anticipate will the request to reflect what you presented this evening which sounds like it's a lower request so it would not require reposting because anybody that had an issue would have already been here tonight or written about it but I don't want us to have to come up with that language on the amendment so if you could restate what exact your re just so that we can have that on that would be helpful well I would just go to what's in our application our application doesn't speak to anything with lot coverage it doesn't speak to anything about getting rid of six spaces so I would go with just what's in our our application which is we're essentially asking for a variance to allow these 38 parking spaces to count towards our parking requirements on site and you said instead of 3200 square ft it was 750 it's the staff report is written a little awkwardly the way I read it it looked like we were going to do 3200 ft outside seating we're not we're going to do 750t outside seating now be very clear for that outside seating we still have to go get a conditional use permit um the total amount of square footage that we could possibly add on this from this variance would be 3200 F feet we might be less but that's the total amount that we would add on this property so we would not be asking for 89% lot coverage 85 so no Amendment would to include that we're not asking for zero parking in L 13 we're asking to credit the parking in the [Music] section in essence because we can't provide or they can't provide a deed restriction on the D property it can't be considered shared parking so the only mechanism in the code is basically to reduce the required parking knowing that they have that in the right way customers isn't that special priv that's given to you people CER uh through the chair to court Jus new Orland that's a privilege granted under a lease that's not a privilege granted by the variant that's just how a lease works at least grants you exclusive use of property but thank you for the question I think that's important there to make they have a five releas to when do that question uh November 2023 but if you read the lease at that point in time if it wasn't renewed it still be considered a 10minute suffer so it was still it's expired now no no it's I act now so when that November I'm sorry November 2033 sorry it was November 2023 correct but I want to be very clear nothing that you approved tonight entitles us to the out the seeding we still have to get the conditional it's just as part of this where the outdor seating would go is where three existing parking spaces would go so the total we're increasing by 38 and decreasing by 3 clarify that um because this is a shopping center their parking standards based on a shopping center standard not each individual so in this case it's one space 250 ft that's how that calculation Works our first speaker is Michael please raise your right hand I'm also an attorney but I have no problem swearing to tell the truth okay do you swear or affirm that the testimony about to give in this matter is the truth the whole truth and nothing but the trth you go I do please sit your name and address my name is Michael or I'm an attorney at or cook the address is 50 North War Street in Downtown Jacksonville 32202 good evening thank you for allowing me to present I I represent southern swells Brewery uh Gusto Italian restaurant two tenants in the beach Plaza the adjoining shopping center and I also represent Tavis Investments which owns the the majority of beach Plaza uh and I'm here in a couple to make a couple of points on [Music] this that's a special trick I have Witham on any it requ this and we would object to that but that's fine you can't be an attorney and refuse to be sworn and then say you can't question and I him getting 11 hours it's also special power it's getting sorry no worries thank you sir so administratively we do have a court reporter here today and uh who is present to my right we've provided binders with some of the confidence substantial evidence that you'll hear some of the presenters talking about after me I I do want to give you um sort of a background as to why we believe this should be denied and I'm here following what I've seen to to believe is a 10year whacka regarding the the parking at the Beach Boulevard plaza if you look into this file and we've provided copies of variance denials in pass where Ed asuri and the principal of haste LLC the applicant has come before this board and others seeking for all sorts of variances and waivers with respect to the sou parcel uh I need to provide you some background information as to why that's happening and why this very answer question be denied because of it previously Ed assuan owned the entirety of beach Plaza and at some point he parsed this out parcel out and he lost the majority of beach Plaza through foreclosure but before doing so he created a reciprocal parking easement between the two Parcels the beach Plaza and the out parcel now through haste which was undeveloped at the time and had a nothing but parking on it and and then eventually after uh after providing for the reciprocal parking he sent a letter in 2018 which we provided to you it's at tab 20 uh asserting that he had certain rights to the parking on beach Plaza he was asking in part to tear up outdoor seating for my clients Gusto and sod Wells that he in fact approved and and arranged for when he owned the entire Beach Plaza so now he's saying you need to take it out so I can have these parking for my out parcel that I want to develop he was claiming rights in those and when they denied him he sued them and we provided uh some documents from that lawsuit and that lawsuit went on for several years arguing over the parking on this parcel that you're dealing with today it was before the Circuit Court Jacksonville and it ended with an order granting our summary judgment as to our interpretation of the easement and denying haste the applicant's interpretation of the parking out there that's significant because during the pendency of that case and after they lost that decision on parking they came back to you through through the World of Beer application uh variance that was the tenant that was going to take this space in the rooftop bar when they and I'm going to have uh one of my colleagues is going to address that World of Beer case and the issues that came out from it following time up all right may have 30 seconds to conclude yes just very briefly uh they they've ended up having to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars in attorney's fees and cost to us as a result of what they've done out here for this parking and you're going to hear how they've overburden us and the theme tonight is everything that they're complaining about they've created Ed assuring is created this isn't a special property because of fot spaces it's special because it's being overdeveloped by its developer thank our next speaker is Joseph pickles please raise your right hand do you swear or affirm when the testimony you're about to give this matter is the truth the whole truth and nothing with the truth to help you God I yes uh Joseph pickles 15 Street Jacksonville Florida I would like to touch on um a little bit of what Mr Mr was discussing when it comes to this world beer specifically I believe in the VAR application as well as in the St report there was a reference to this preapproved or existing approval of outdoor city of approximately 800 sare fet um this was based upon a prior condition these application from World beer the uh essentially request was allow worlder to use some of the rooftop space in this building in order to operate part this restaurant um I represented Tavis and a lawsuit against both estate who's the owner of the property and against B beer who was the conditional applicant the copy of that maint is in the materials the binder provided to t five and our claim was that the development order that condition condition application was not a license to violate the L development code um specifically in order to accommodate that rooftop space that we're going to have to add an elevator as well as stairs on the exterior of the building which was not um calculated in the we came to the lot coverage and by adding those items they were going beyond the 85% threshold they never requested a variance Al also there parking issues um which for example one of the issues was their um required the Land Development code to have at least three ADA Compliant parking spaces for disabled people um as it stands right now there's no spes that locate fully on that property Mr L just going to talk about that here in a moment so bottom line they were well accessed at the 85% that they were going to have to accommodate in order to include the 88 spaces as well as the elevator and and the stairs it was going to be approximately 89% lot of coverage get no variance uh what happened is as they was trying to use this condition use application this approval in order to um pck you back and violate the Land Development code when they already had multiple um denials of their request to go beyond 85% L coverage during the lawsuit world the beer went out of business before they were open the restaurant theault was entered that default was it had six materials um and once theault was entered once World beer went out of business um essentially most of those issues and I complaint became moo and the reason being is that the applicant again was World beer and you can find the condition and materials that's a tab n and the Land Development code is very clear that a development order for conditional use is not assignable or transportable but is granted only to the applicant as state was not the applicant there nowhere on there only will appear so once World beer went out of business that condition application went away the state cannot rely upon that to say well we have approval for outdoor seing um currently the lawsuit um it was administratively dismissed there petition pending right now to reopen that lawsuit but at the end of the day it really doesn't matter because that condition's application is no longer valid they can't that to land Cod thank you for time I just want to clarify that um the lack of variance when the conditional use was approved does not make the condition use illegal it just means if they exceeded the lot of cover have come before you guys to request that variance but there's nothing about not having the variance that makes the conditional use illegal or incorrect next speaker is Brett newerk submitting Mr newerk an expert profession please raise your right hand do you swear or affirm that the testimony about the given this matter is the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth to help you go please state your name and address bre 11329 distribu Westville Florida 32256 good afternoon again my company is ala engineering um I have reviewed this project as an engineer with respect to people your application and just have a few comments for you guys um number one I think it's already been discussed that the ratio of parking to footage was used as one and 250 obviously the outdoor seing area that's going to be used will most likely be for a restaurant and the world beer application that is also for the rooftop area is a restaurant normally uh if this was approved for use as a restaurant it would be a one in 100 ratio so more double the amount of spaces that we needed I understand was originally um approved so that's one thing um number two I do have a report that's in your binders C tab that kind of goes through some of the items that we in that regard um number three the 88 spes that are shown on the are three of them they are all located in yes is that a little bit better okay sorry about that um so so the issue with Ada spaces being in the rway is the domino effect that would occur if those if the rway was ever had taken because if you have to move those Ada spaces around the back of the building it would necessitate the construction of a sidewalk in an area where you currently have perious area and so the extent of that sidewalk installation would significantly detract from perious area I realize that I now understand that perious area is not an issue here but there is going to be effect on uh the project once or if that were uh were to occurred and when you bring that sidewalk around the back of the building it already has a drive lane that is too narrow um and it's not cons it's actually narrow than it's shown because the curbs of the adjacent property parking Islands encroach upon it um and if you were to add this sidewalk that would be taking an additional probably four to 5 ft away further airing the drive line to probably around 14t or so so that's all I have just to clarify again um everything discussed about the future e is not on the agenda tonight and not what you're considering speculative and we have no evidence that it would be needed if it did it would come before you at another VAR next speaker is Randall Whitfield please raise your right hand do you swear or affirm that the testimony about to given this matter is the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth so helping God please state your name and your address I'm Randall Whitfield 7888 Parkway Jacksonville Florida here representing t t group what is H's hardship it's lack of parking too much lot coverage and now they want to add more usable square feet a stay is Just Simply Built too much building on the site that they have uh let's go back just a little bit that St is original code requirement for the original 12,000 ft they bu was 48 parking spaces for which they only provided 16 where are the other 32 spaces then has stay wanted to add 800 usable Square fet to the roof requiring another three other uh require another three parking spaces and I know there's been confusion on what's actually being asked you deci on but according to the staff report that's the only I go by has State now wants to create another 3,200 square ft of usable spaces requiring another 13 spaces now that makes their Total Building requirements of 48 they're short about 48 parking spaces of what's required for their building and their [Music] uses all these shortages are H's own creation so h has created their own hardship the lease with fdot right away is only for 13,000 Square ft that will not accommodate very many parking spaces and that lease is cancelable with 30 days notice what will happen then if that lease is cancelled I've never been able to count any parking spaces in the fdot RightWay toward my parking requirements the planning department has always told me I could only count the spaces within my property line to Grant uh this variance would be detrimental to the neighboring property owners who would have to shoulder the burden have hasay shortage by supplying hase parking on the neighboring owner's own property at beach Plaza we strive to bring quality tenants and our critical elements to doing that at our location our visibility and ease of Ingress and egress but parking is a problem there uh we've lost tents like wind Dixie we had a parking field and number of space issues Harbor Freight we had parking issues with them elanos and alost for coffee we could not accommodate because of parking at the lot coverage variance the board has turned his stay down many times at least twice and yet they keep coming back again this is a hardship that has St is made itself and as of it's own making thank you Dave Bowman please raise your right hand do you swear or affirm the testimony about given this matter is the truth the whole truth and the truth so help you out yes please state your name and address okay my my name is Gabe Bowman I'm here uh 7880 Gate Parkway Jacksonville Florida 32257 um I I'm here representing H&H Enterprises otherwise known as Beach B which I'm sure you guys have seen down the road um we started this remodeling project um at 818 Beach Boulevard in 2019 upon the first review of our site plan it was brought to our attention that we would be required to submit for a variance that's for the site and that we would also not be allowed to use the parking we had designed on the new site plan that was in in the right away and that would they would not count towards our overall parking requirement we were told that there was no way to include these spaces at all why should Hae be allowed to use these spaces towards their new proposed use this option was never offered as an alternative to H&H Enterprises we were never offered to be able to pay for these spaces with a lease from fdot next modifications had to be made to our site plan to accommodate as many spaces as possible to count towards our required spaces needed these modifications we have met we also got our variants approved with multiple modifications H&H Enterprises does not see any accommodations to H's site plan to accommodate for this additional square footage which I still have a question on how much is that because there's a very big difference between 750 and 3200 the additional parking needed for H's expansion of this existing building Square frotage shall it all appears to be offsite with very little to have been to the proposed site plan of the existing site H&H Enterprises does not agree that Bo 24-1 0036 should be approved thank you EXC me Ben Perry please raise your right hand do you swear or AFF that the testimony about given this matter is the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth to help you I do please you your address Perry 7880 Gate Parkway Jacksonville good evening board members thank you for your time this evening um to touch on a couple things we've spoken about in this hearing the first is the fdot lease and I want to draw your attention to the temporary nature of this lease um it that lease is actually in your packet tonight in section one it talks about property and term the term of that lease is 5 years a Grant's a 5year option there's no Assurance though to renew that lease after that point if a tenant at that shopping center would go beyond that term there's no assurance that the fdot lease would be extended section two the use the lease states that the lease property shall be solely used for the purpose of parking and access there's historically been a food truck on that property and that would in itself violate that section of that lease section three is rent Lor reserves the right to review and adjust the rental fee by annually and at renewal to reflect market conditions if the applicant were to not pay the renewal every year or if that lease were to be renewed and the lease the rent went up and the applicant did not pay for that they would be in violation of the lease and could be roke at that time section five maintenance Lee shall keep and maintain the least property in good and safe condition repair at Les's own expense during the existence of the lease the applicant did not keep up that property there in an orderly manner the lease can be roked section 9. A this lease may be terminated by Lor immediately without cause upon 30 days prior written notice to the other party once again a temporary relase section 9 D Les C shall not assign the Le without the prior consent in writing of the Lor if the applicant were to sell that building there's no assurance that fdot would then assign that lease to the and in the addendum in the back of that lease it states that upon termination of this lease there there should be no striking for parking or other private improvements remaining in the FD right away so Once the lease is terminated the applicant will lose all rights even strike that parking area there will be no parking remaining second thing that we' spoken about is the parking this is truly off-site parking and in Your Land Development code it requires that the applicant have a deed restriction and the intent of that is really to create a permanency of that link so that the city can rely on something that's permanent and not temporary one it is that we have over 50 15,000 square ft of vacant area in our shopping center at beach B parking is always a major issue there if you go at certain times of the day the parking lot is full and you cannot find anything any parking The applicant's Proposal would would create another bit of harm on that parking area and there wi be enough parking thank you for J Michael trer please raise your right hand do you swear or affirm that the testimony about to get in this matter is the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth to help you go I do please state your name and address Michael trainer 818 North Boulevard Beach Flor um members of the board I just have a couple things to say and I'll be brief okay one uh and this gives I think uh chairman curle you asked some questions at the beginning about the the standards I think the first thing is the standard uh first standard is whether or not it's a condition that's special it's not this building was built purposely deze it is it purposely took up an awful lot of the space of the land of parsel and of the of the owner there's nothing special about it that wasn't created or could have been seen at the time so I think it violates standard one standard two is whether or not it's the result of the actions of the owner same thing they they designed space they created the size they designed the parking they came to the board and asked for variance they came to the board and asked for conditional use they got that they were satisfied now they're not satisfied but they made the not the not the city not the size of the land they created the problem so I think this is standard two which is is it the result of the African's own actions I think it is the third thing deals with you know whether it has an adverse impact when the adjacent land you've heard already from from other testimony that it has impacted uh the the parking on the neighboring property your condition six I believe uh uh chairman C it deals with whether or not it has a negative impact on the adjacent property it does have an adjacent it does have negative impact but let's look at the easement for a minute the lease rather the lease is taking up spaces that the general public could use is having a negative impact on the Public's use of those spaces anybody can park there now only people that they want to have park there not to mention an illus lease anyway because it it be canceled with 30 days notice so I think that has to be taken into account too as a negative impact that's being created by this uh variance so for those reasons that it fails to meet conditions one two and six I would ask the the board to consider denying the variance application thank you that's me Mr chair good evening board members David Meg City attorney uh wanted to bring to your attention our code does not have uh specific procedures for quasi judicial hearings other other than the minimum requirements of state law but um one aspect that's at issue here I think and I'm going to defer to you all is because we don't have those procedures there's no way for an interested party to what's called intervene or become an intervener and that's important because under state law um an applicant does not have a right to cross exam cross-examine a member of the public but they do have a right to cross-examine uh an intervener who who testifies or someone who testifies on behalf of an intervener so I'm going to leave it that that to you but procedurally um airing on the side of if you choose air on the side of the caution which I recommend but you're not required to do so you may want to um request or allow cross-examination up to three minutes of anyone who spoke um to ensure that the applicant's procedural due process rights are met um I could gladly clarify if I'm not doing a good enough job of being specific and before just two other things before I forget to mention that is if you do so anyone who's already spoken is deemed to still be sworn in there's no need to swor back in and then lastly I was in a city council brief and I apologize for arriving tardy but because I arrived tardy I did not see whether you all made any expar disclosures or noting that you had none then we need to disclose that for the record before that the hearing's done oh you did I I'm sorry I just wasn't here at the time so I wanted to clarify that so you all discuss it I'll gladly answer any questions to the extent they're legal but uh it's kind of a great area because we don't have a procedure where someone could qualify as an intervener but they're acting in the fashion of an intervenor so I guess I would recommend cross- examination but I going defer it to you all okay thanks what we take a moment to discuss cramin it's been our practice not toin ofation I think that this is there's a lot of people a lot of money a lot of time that's gone into this and I was brought brother side of caution and for three three minutes each examine anyone they gave testimonial our procedure is such that the applicant can come up and address any and everything that has been brought to the table there's no time limit on his ability to do so I don't see any reason that you would need to call back the people that are presented their case you can address the points this isn't a legal proceeding to that effect it's a it's a board hearing we've gotten the information from those people he can address everything that was brought forward that's how we've always done it and we didn't examine them we didn't probe them for information I don't see any reason to have somebody else do so we had done that quite some time and it was by agreement we had not we agre I think that the applicant has an opportunity with unlimited time to respond to the testimony of the others and I don't I don't see value in having a cross examination so we're staying with the procedure as we normal us it okay so uh in light of our uh normal procedures that we we don't question the testifying public city council the Council of the city has recommended that we allow cross examination but our our problem is who is a quasi intervener who is the public testify we have business interests we have business owners we have attorneys representing various businesses um and so I think we're going to stick to our normal procedure which is we don't permit the applicant to cross examine and nor do we cross examine the testifying public and that's why we limit their testimony to minutes uh with that we would invite the applicant back up to address any of the points made and U and any other questions we did just to clarify Mr there was expar disclosure but nobody had any expar right yeah you didn't any yeah we disclosed we didn't have any yes we would do it at that time so just again our procedure is before it's called if you have any exp right after call you have communication if a member disclose it that oh I understand every once in a while some call I I understand I just want make sure because of the Court rep here it sounded like you said we did not do xte disclosure I think what meant was there was no expar to disclose that's right I'm sorry I I'll stti that again we uh pulled the board as to expart communication and no board members indicated they did have all right again Z 323 Old Court I really appreciate the board entertaining some of the objections understand as an attorney I to put those on the record um for any future Court matters um you heard a lot from Mr or about a court case that respectfully doesn't have anything to do with this um there was a building permit issued two years ago and Mr War's client it was the own of the shopping center I guess didn't like competition and decided to sue saying there wasn't enough parking on the site your is CLI and issues the building permit but there is enough if you look at um the image there's 24 spaces on site that's enough for the current rights on the lot coverage uh staff issued the building permit we meet the lot coverage departments again just reiterates and some confusion on this we're not asking for any laot coverage um variant by law your staff report is confident substantial evidence as to this variance you heard a lot of talk from Mr Pickles about the conditional the additional use was for World of Beer um that is not why we're here today for the outdoor seating for the restaurant um it's actually on the previous slide you can see it on on the western portion of the property we'll have to come back for the conditional need for that be granted this is just whether the parking spaces we leas can be applied to increasing the square footage for this property your comprehensive plan and your code speak to infill development and more commercial uses from everyone compos all I could hear is that they just don't want any competition in this area that seems to be the main reason why they're here objecting we have these spaces this variance is not going to change nobody else can use them while our lease is valid if they cancel the lease for some reason I think they'd be on the hope for some damages for canceling it however if they did then the certificate of use would probably have to be revoked for that property that's using them again the 3200 ft is not for 3200 space just for expansion of this property that 3200 ft requires 13 parking spaces we're talking about an addition 38 parking spaces in the property right next door and the only reason that this couldn't be approved administratively is because we can't put a deed restriction on it as to the requirement uh the issue of the the width of it and what if FD fdot took the property I grew up at the beach my parents grew up at the beach right 19th Avenue when I mve back was this is approximately 160 ft wide of RightWay um I don't see fdot 10 leading Beach Boulevard anytime soon um I I don't think it's going to be taken but if it did then the variant goes away it's conditioned on release we're just asking that you follow your staff report which is competent substantial evidence as to the requirements and allow us to use this property that is right next door for our car communes thank you question for you there was a gentleman who addressed the six standards applicable to all variances and I'm wondering if you could maybe comment as to his comments sure I was a little confused as to his adverse impact comment because I don't see that in any of the requirements um but if the complain is we don't have enough parking then exclusively Leasing spes as far as criteria number one special conditions and circumstances your staff specifically found that we meet that criteria that is competent substantial evidence we all respect to judge trainer who I respect very much what attorneys say is not evidence it can't be what your staff says is evidence and that's a matter of law you've been asked Mr that on number two the special circumstances and conditions that result do not result from the uh your applicant again your staff addresses this that is competent substantial evidence 150 ft that is never going to be expanded beyond the current usage your code allows you to do this as far as the deed restriction putting in place permanently respectfully that's not what the code says people lease property all the time put a deed restriction during the course of the lease that limits it to parking whole point is is that when it's used as parking you don't want to then have it be used as something else this is not going to be used as anything other than parking that's what that requirements for I'd love it if the city council would read the the provisions in the code to deal with it but unfortunately it doesn't so the only way we can get for this as a variance and just to be clear on your variance request it is 38 pares the F right away to be used for additional 750 up to 3,200 ft in additional space it's not it's not parsed out between the two if if the board has a problem with that being too much we can talk about reducing that amount but again that amount of space on your code necess toate 13 exper spaces we're talking about 38 expert spaces I'm confused because you keep talking about first you said 3200 square F feet wasn't relevant and that it was 750 and now you keep going back to I really need you to flush that out for us 3200 ft of outdoor the the staff report read that there was going to be 3200 squ fet of outdoor space we're only doing 750 ft of outdoor of the 3200 total so it be 2450 added up to and then of that where's the 2450 it would be on the roof the roof top yes and that would be the maximum um if you can it's hard to see in but you can see the know I really can't see uh the six shaded in spaces on the western part um if this goes through we'd be eliminating three of them on our property and that's where the would go so I apologize for the confusion but I want to clarify that the s report read that we were doing 3200 of outdoor space so what would mention 3200 if if 2250 is actually on the rooftop and that's not I don't think that's relevant here Christian the only thing that would be relevant I think would be the 750 that's taking up additional area I think the confusion comes in any additional added square footage has to be accounted for so the 750 square ft as outside seing versus 2500 square or whatever the number is INS calulation it still counts the same at 250 so however they choose to givey that up it doesn't really matter the only question is how many square feet are they asking for relief of parking from in this case it's 13 spaces maximum and the only reason we bring up the outdoor space is because we want to you understand that we still have to go get the conditional use for the outdoor space right so can you explain on the least because I I was concerned originally I was concerned by the fact that it's just 10 years but I am morec ter since it was mentioned that it cancelable in 30 days notice and I looked it up and it's paragraph or section n of the lease agreement that basically says that it can be terminated without cost by either party within 30 days 30 days WR notice that's standard language in fdfd is um having done numerous FD leases over the past 16 years I've never seen that Clause exercise for some reason then any certificates occupy or certificates of use that use these Extra Spaces would have to be revoked I'm confident though and my client's confident that happen going back to the standards after I'm read to standard number five and just ask you can help me address how this needs standard number five so that is by granting this variance that would meet the minimum variance re make possible the reasonable use of the parcel of land so looking at what reasonable use the land can have and how this variance would meet the minimum requirement to make any reasonable use of the land yes uh through the chair to uh board member Roes again we're talking about 38 spaces for car have 13 the reasonable use of this property under your far standards is way greater than what we're asking for this property is uh I think 30,000 square feet I think the current building is approximately 12,000 square feet this is only going to add another 30 3200 square feet to the property um the minimum variance requirement for this would be if we did 13 spaces and the fdot rideway for 13 spaces needed we're doing 38 I just want to make sure that we're inter the same way which is not what is the minimum variance to achieve what you're trying to use the property for it's what the minimum variance for any reasonable use of the parcel of land so if you could help me close the gap between the current use and what is required to be reasonable use through this variance in that case I'm just going to read into the record what your staff wrote which is the only compon substantial evidence you have in front of you uh staff does find a requested VAR are the minimum variance needed to accommodate outdoor seating although the shopping center has several tenant spaces which are occupied the proposed site is the largest Ang side in the building has remained vacant for many years this is a par due to the constraints placed on the property by its irregular shape but also the LDC not providing a means to account for parking in the FD rway it said do but I the instructor the applicant cannot expect a reasonable use of The Shopping Center's entirety and the proposed variance does not result in the site rather it is giving credit for improvements already made by the applicant that's what your staff said by law that is the only confence poal evidence you have as to okay sir you could uh sit down um is there anyone in the audience who's not P out a speaker card that wishes to speak if so please P out a speaker C seeing that there's no more speakers I'll now close the public hearing and bring the item back to the board for discussion have oh sorry sorry there are letters I was just the record I understand that we only got minutes going reest for additional time to respond to a couple things that were said but I understand that's typically not pered so that's Deni it's fine but I have may I respond to a couple of things that byoun we have a couple letters sorry and actually one of them I'm not sure this was a mistake that someone gave this to me [Music] one the first one is my name is tanino D Bella and I guess they're related to besto and I operate a business at the beach Plaza in Jacksonville Beach Florida during my time at the beach Plaza parking has always been an issue since the development of the beach closet out parcel and 1198 Beach bouevard our business has experienced significant issues with parking the parking lot is regularly full especially in the evenings and weekends allowing more development in our already overcrowed would be a detriment to my business I understand that the beach Plaza out parcel continues to seek variances and waivers related to parking so that they do not have to provide adequate parking for their own development this overburdens my business and I object to any variances or waivers related parking at the beach Plaza out parel the second one I'm not sure how it's relevant I apologize but this one appears to be from and off timer to Bobby Brown commercial leasing agent and it says we like it hft likes the location of the site before but just couldn't make the elbow work due to the parking I've set the wheels in motion we'll keep you updated not sure adise that Mr Perry when he spoke about the sare footage that isn't being on the Beazer because parking issues that one of the submissions okay they were trying to get a Harbor Freight in they wouldn't do it because there wasn't okay that's all I have okay uh I will now I'll now close the public hearing and bring the back to for discussion is there ation I make a motion to approve bo- 24-100 0036 based on the testimony and evidence provided the request all the standards for variances outlined in section 34286 of the Land Development code is there a second second okay so we move to Second [Music] discussion I think yes I mean at all there is a consideration that definely to we should do that at the beginning in the motion we should vote on that and amend the motion we definitely could do that you want to am the motion well we would vote on it correct we would vote on the amendment yeah okay so U sure um I move to amend this motion to approve of Bo 24136 um to be conditioned on the continuation of this lease agreement for the variance that's been requested okay uh is there a second a second okay any discussion on that well that removes my biggest concern which was the 10 years and the 30 day termination clause and the lease agreement it just seems to me like this was a creation of the developer who who I can't really we got this very late and it's a lot so it took me quite a long time to figure out who the parties were but it looks like it was all initially owned by the same person who created two llc's and and separated the Lots um and now it looks like parcel is even owned by somebody completely different but it just seems like this was a creation [Music] of it's not uni except [Music] for okay so uh we have an amendment to the motion to make a condition on the discuss okay can we have a roll V on the amendment to the motion yes V is yes is that you agre to the amendment that it's limited to the John Morland yes Jennifer Williams yes Matt met yes cently yes okay so the motion is now amended to make a condition on the continuation we have discussion there are a lot of things to consider and so in the interest of time I will keep it to the simplest one for my brain to control a little which is what is the reasonable use of the parcel of land building or structure and I think the applicants spoke to their interpretation of that and what exist but to me an expansion of space for limited parking does not create a more reasonable use of a property if the constraint is that there's not sufficient parking for the existing use to be successful so I don't see an expansion of additional outdoor space is addressing the underlying need that was described by the applicant for the existing structure I think we have a structure in place and that it has the conditions that it has it to me appears to be a reasonable use whether or not they found the right tenant to make that profitable is not really for the board to consider but nothing about the request that I've seen today suggests that this is creating a minimum variance to exact a reasonable use from the parcel of land or existing structure yeah there's been reasonable use of land for a number of years I I step through the the six standards because I think that all the parties here deserve to understand my thoughts at least on on the on the standards that we apply and we required to apply in in granting a variant and one is the special conditions or circumstance that are particular to the parcel of land I think that we can all agree that there is special circumstances to the land the shape of the land has been pointed out in the staff report and and that does qualify I think special but we have to consider all of them and they all have to be yes so on two the special circumstances and conditions that do not result from the actions of the applicant I struggle with this I see that the building is being used currently uh in a manner um that that seems to work wants to do something different and that I think does create a special circumstance condition that um results from his actions he wants to increase the amount of additional space and th trigger the parking issue that is really before us it does have a lease however that would that would cover that but it doesn't get rid of to me number two the special conditions that result from the action of the I think we've heard a lot about the variance for number three about does it Grant special privileges I would just say that when we were considering although there is no we have no no but I do remember Beach and I do remember that they didn't have the right from that they didn't have this lease from F to use those spaces however they did uh they were allowed to use those spaces and I think that we agreed andong that in allowing the Landscaping in the parking lot which is uh that we recognize that they park in that but they did not have a didn't have uh as for four the literal interpretation and enforcement of the code who deprive the applicants of Rights commonly enjoyed by parel of land in the same Z District I think he's enjoying those right now don't know that I don't know that that condition be no because he's enjoying it now I agree with Matt on five that the granting of the variant is not because it is beinged now and then six um I do think that the granting the variance would be generally consistent with purpose goals and objectives of the comprehensive plan I don't think that there's any argument there so we're we're supposed to consider all six of these I think four of these are yes in favor of the applicant two of them two and five specifically are the ones that I find to be so strange okay any other discussion okay then I will ask for roll call both please uh and it is on the amended motion so um yes is approval of the amended uh motion to approve the variance and a no is not to approve the Jennifer Williams no John Mor no Matt Mets no Owen Curley no okay sir your request fori is thank you okay yeah um next meeting will be on August 21st and we have three items on the um agenda also we'll be having our LDC workshops coming up this month um our public workshop for the LDC will be on August 14 members will be on August 22nd and then for Council will be on August 28th so which one is first uh the one on the 22nd of this month 22nd yes sir then next on our list is the courtesy of four visitors okay Mo second all favor