Planning and Zoning Board - Regular Meeting

I will call the Planning and Zoning Board meeting for Wednesday, 09/10/2025, to order. And we have a roll call, please.

Mr. Duane?

Here.

Mr. Elmo Futano?

Here.

Mr. Fisher?

Here.

Mr. McGinnis?

Mr. Kennedy?

Here.

Mr. Hatcher?

Here.

Mr. Andrew Kovic?

Here. Okay. Before we proceed, would ask that everybody please turn their phones to silent or vibrate or both. First item under the or next item under the minutes is approval of under the agenda is approval of minutes from 08/13/2025, Planning and Zoning Board Meeting. Has everybody had an opportunity to review the minutes? Anybody have any questions, comments, concerns or changes?

It says none at this time.

Yes. No, we don't. We don't have. I don't have minutes.

I don't minutes.

We don't have minutes. No minutes. My bad.

Okay. Wait a minute. Where are getting it?

It says right here approval of minutes. It does. I get a special sheet of paper that you guys don't get.

Then ours says, that's how it starts.

We'll proceed. Thank you. There is also no old business at this time. We

read off mine.

Oh, god. Somebody's setting me up for failure tonight.

Want that one? We're enjoying it.

Credit that one all today.

Okay. First item under old business let me correct myself. There is old business. The first item under old business is VA 2,509, request for variances from Article five, Table five-one, site dimensions to allow for a 5,000 square foot lot in an R2 zoning district allow an increase in building coverage to 45% from the required 30% and to decrease side yard setback from 10 feet to five feet for the property located at Juniper Drive. And we have a staff report.

Yes. Thank you, Chair. The did request a variance for the subject property here. City staff did send out public notice within 500 feet of the subject property with this aerial map. The applicant is requesting a variance to allow a 5,000 square foot lot, increase the building coverage to 45% from 30%, and reduce the side yard setback to five feet from 10 feet.

Staff had originally tabled this item because of some concerns regarding the land development code and the non conforming nature of a typical lot in Florida Shores. Florida Shores was annexed into the city of Edgewater in 1957. It was originally platted as a mobile home development with 40 foot wide by 125 foot length lots. This one was never combined with another lot. As such, the code does kind of look at this point within Article VII regulates nonconforming uses, so nonconforming lots of record that it shall be in separate ownership and not contiguous to any other lots, and that the setback requirements that if should they be needed for variances that they'll come to the board.

City staff did ask city attorney for an opinion on it. And Aaron did opine that although staff do not need to do historical research to demonstrate that this lot was never a part of anyone else's lot, the fact that the current code in present tense reads that it is currently in ownership of an adjacent property owner. It is not. And that is why we are now bringing this forward before you. And question tonight is whether to approve the setbacks on this lot and to allow for a 5,000 square foot lot in the Florida Shores community.

I believe the applicant is in the audience. City staff did review against Article IX, Section 21.100.04D and found that the applicant could not meet all six criteria. City staff are recommending denial for VA 2509. City staff would recommend that if the planning and zoning board grant approval for the variances that the board should condition either a stem wall or some sort of piling foundations due to just how tight the lot is with the building on said lot.

Thank you, sir. I'll open the public hearing. I do have a question. Are there any other lots in Florida Shores currently that are this size?

Yeah. There's a handful that aren't connected to another property owner.

Okay. And are there structures on any of those? Right. I will open the public hearing. Is the applicant is in the audience? Yes? You don't have to speak. I'm just giving you the opportunity if you want to. We may call you if we need to. Do I have any questions from the audience? Any questions from board members?

Got a few. Digging into the survey here and I don't see an elevation anywhere. So what's the current elevation? Do we know?

Yeah. Based on the topo from GIS, it's 13.

Okay. All right. And then my only other, so the survey brought forward, it kind of indicates, well, that's the zoning setback plan. That's really not the site plan. Yeah, because they've got a 20 foot block drawn, but a 30 foot house.

Is the proposed this is for the applicant. What's the proposed use? Are you planning on renting this out? Is it an income property? What are you doing with

You need to come to the microphone, give us your name and your address.

She is my neighbor, try to help me out. We try to build a single family house.

It will be his primary residence.

Okay. So you intend on living there?

Yes.

Okay.

That's all. I mean, that was my biggest two ones.

Well, I'm glad you asked the question because I was envisioning 15 foot pylons because you had finished floor elevation at 15 feet. And I didn't know what the elevation was. That explains the stem wall.

The other neighbors are around 14 or 15. So that's why The it's

residence will be built on the stem wall.

Okay. So the plans don't indicate that. Plans indicate a slab on grave.

We can have it brought in on the survey that he did have done. I do apologize. I thought it was turned in. But it does show that the residence has to be built on the stem wall. It cannot be built monolithic.

Okay.

Because I think right now, the entire foundation plan shows nothing but mono.

Any other

close the hearing and ask for a motion.

I want to make a motion to approve VA 2,509 version two with the stipulation of what the staff had recommended to be on the stem wall only, not on monolithic slab. I'll second it.

I'm sorry?

She She has a question. I

need your name and your address.

My name is Barbara Samples. I live at 2943 Juniper Drive. What is a stem wall? Thank you.

Assuming. Go ahead. I'll

let It's you a concrete block wall built on a foundation. And then sometimes, it could be a wood frame floor or filled with concrete floor, but it raises the finished floor elevation up. So it's not built, as Chris mentioned, on grade, right, directly in the dirt. It would be a foundation and then two or three course of block and then filled with concrete and dirt.

Well, the property to the south of it on the same side of the street is very low. It already floods. That house already floods. The water comes way up. So how would that affect that property?

Well, this would raise the finished floor without raising the fill around the outside so it wouldn't affect the neighbors on both sides Yes.

The yard stays the same elevation. It's just the house is raised.

Okay. Is that all that concrete, the block doesn't mean that it's all the way to the ground, is it?

No. Think about the ground level where it currently sits.

Yes.

If you go down about a foot, they're going to pour a big concrete footer down underground. And then they're going to stack three or four blocks on top of that.

Okay. So still could drain.

And then they fill in the block, the inside, but they don't touch anything on the outside perimeter of the house.

25 feet, though.

That way they don't have to bring the grade up.

They don't have to bring

the dirt up the house, which would cause flooding on both sides.

Right. Okay. So you don't think that it will cause flooding for that house?

They're not actually changing the grade of the existing lot. It's going stay the exact same.

Thank you.

Mr. Dwayne? Yes.

Mr. Elmo Futano?

No. Mr. Fisher?

No. Mr. Kennedy?

Yes.

Mr. Hatcher?

No. Mr. Andrew Kovic?

Yes.

Right. So the motion fails the motion to approve Well, there needs to be a majority of those present or past.

Can I make a statement? The three nos, why was there no conversation before the vote? Why did you sit down while Chris said, but you sat there mute basically

Well, without any questions were answered by Ryan and Chris.

And what were your concerns?

With the height, I thought the building was going to be higher, and I'm worried about how close it encroaches to the neighbors. But my questions that I had were answered by Ryan and Mr. Hatcher.

So I don't see how close I mean, it's five foot side yard. We do it all the time. And they answer the question as far as the height with the stem wall.

Well, I didn't need to hear anything else to change my decision because I just I don't feel like if it's the first there are no others in the city like this with this small a lot with a house on it outside of a PUD, right? I think knowing that, that I meant wasn't

not only that, when

You're opening a door

for said

are there others like that, that and there are. And I feel that we're going to be now opening up ourselves to make this okay for all the others. And what happens when they want to put a pool in there? And then it's just lot's already there.

But what is your basic objection to the house being on

this piece of property? Because that's just not mean like well, what ask what's the staff's reason

for it?

What's their reason for saying no?

It doesn't meet the criteria.

I'm just saying.

It doesn't meet the criteria. So what's my

I understand that. And that's why we have variances. That's why we have variances. That's why we exist basically.

Well, it's not just about putting a house on there though. It's outside of the bounds of what the

For me, it was purely the five foot side setback. If it was in a PUD, I get it. But when I didn't even think about the question that you asked. But for me, it's establishing the precedent for the other eight lots now or the other seven lots of five foot setback is not a lot. That's very, very little. That's less than a fence panel.

I know. I mean, we have the most low overhead to me,

I just the five foot setback to me was just I'm like, I just can't. To me in the Florida shores, it just doesn't I mean, you're talking if they do I think the plan had an 18 inches

roof overhang. So the roof overhang is going be three feet from property So

they have to put a gutter in or else the rain the waterfall leaves. So I mean even if it's a stem wall, it doesn't mean water doesn't water doesn't magically do this and then go back. It's going to do this pool and runoff. So to me, was just the five foot setback.

And could there be any change of configuration for this house that would make you happy?

I For me, the five foot setback. So how do you take that house and condense it to 20 feet wide?

They have the right to build, right? But they have to stay within that

Yes, they do have so this is the key point here. Yes, they don't have the right to do five foot setbacks. They do have the right to put a 20 foot shotgun on the house on that block.

But then they would have to because that well, doesn't the land development code require a 10,000 square foot lot minimum? Needs still need one variance or at least that. I mean, me, it really was. But I mean, so now envision this again. Mean, Port Of Shores was platted for mobile homes. Was designed for a 20 foot by 60 foot total. So to me, it was just I don't know if there would be a way to I mean, what do you do? 20 foot wide, two car garage, kitchen and everything on the 1st Floor measure the the mobile home is a house. Okay.

I was But just

really, I was kind of on the fence, but then when George brought up that there's other lots, to me, it was I mean, how many times have we talked about precedents going forward? Now, we're so

thank you. I appreciate that. So what happens, Aaron?

Well, unless anyone is inclined to change their vote, I would say that the motion fails and we move on to the next agenda item. Normally, would say, is there a motion to deny the variance, but I think we'd just end up in a tie again since we have an even number tonight. So my advice is to move on.

And we always get that backwards.

You have to come to the microphone then.

What if they're willing to meet the setbacks? Put in the gutters.

I mean, But then they'd still need a variance for a minimum lot size.

Yes, understand what you're saying there. But you were saying, for you, it was to fight for setback. So what if we go back to the engineer, come up with a design that stays within that 10 foot, 10 foot on each side, gutters required will be put on, and they only need this variance for the size of the lot. So now we're taking away that five feet.

Right. But you're also in the area with the space that would leave for drainage for all the other houses around it. And that's for me is where it's at. It's a company with the setbacks. But I mean, yes, we do give variances for setbacks all the time, but those are for 80 foot wide lots, not 40. So you give a variance for a five foot setback, I mean, that's fine, but not for this size lot. And then when you put that size home on it, where is the water also going to go? I know it's a stem wall construction, but it's still taking up the space on that lot, which is half the size of a normal lot. That's all.

Well, I mean, water retention is going to be a fun one here. Because I mean, they're going to have to do, I mean, even at 10 feet, even if 10 foot setbacks, if you kept the same length of the house

We can modify to stay within the percentage of lot coverage that is required.

They could do underground drainage.

They'd have to do underground drainage. I mean, there's no way. They'd have to do underwater retention underneath the driveway. There wouldn't be any other way to do it.

So if we came back with what is stated and we met all of those, but we was at the percentage of lot coverage, we're not over it, we're not encroaching on the 10 feet on each side

I'm listening. I'm doing math. Please.

You're a good neighbor. What's Max building?

40% or 30? That's what I thought it was.

And that's the footprint though, that's including garage, driveway, adios, of that. That's the footprint.

I mean the only other way they'd be able to increase their square footage at that point is to go two story, but that going to look really weird. It's going to look like a really tall storage shed.

Very tall mobile.

Yes, tall Class A motor home shed. It's going to look like.

Guava or hibiscus or something like that, that is kind of a weird you know what I'm Very talking similar, but I don't know if the lot size is similar. I think that's

I mean, we're trying. Whatever we need to do, whatever you all are asking, at least we'll have the opportunity to go back to the engineer and say, look, this is what was told to us. If we can meet these criteria, then if we can't, then that's where it ends. But if we can, then we met the demands that you have placed on it.

Is that something that we Right.

I think you will need to reapply. And I don't think they can give an advisory opinion about something they haven't even seen yet or something that hasn't been submitted.

Okay. I mean I have to be honest for me. I mean, obviously, you can do what you want. I'm going to assume that the engineer never brought this to your attention when you were having the house designed.

Well, when we was having the design, he actually did reach out it was a couple of years ago but he did reach out to the city of Edgewater Planning Department. And they told him, yes, they approved it. And they told him he would just have to apply for the variance. Well, the homeowner did wait a year or two because of his health and finally got everything in place. And he asked me to assist him in getting the paperwork part through. I did that. And now we're here.

I know. And I mean, for me, I just it's an unfortunate situation because whatever you put on that lot is not going to fit in with anything else around it. But me being a contractor, the process here was just to come up with a quick site plan, get the variance and then design the house, not the other way around.

What we thought we had the approval once he spoke to someone here, but apparently not.

Yeah, it's a tough one. But I agree, Mr. DeVos. I thought he left. I'm just so

big he can't see around me. Thank you. Would that still be though, Ryan, to what you had said about what did you say? You said something about that the shoot, now I lost my thought. You said something about the fact that it was the 40 foot and it had it was that was able to adjacent properties could not have like so that lot, I'm just saying for them, let's say they can't do this, let's say they try to get it done, it's just not going to work.

Is that still true that the neighbor to the north or south of them would not be able to purchase that lot? They can't. Can't. They

go out.

Can't

They

lot of people will have a triple When you see a triple lot, it's typically A corner lot. Well, yeah. So when the city annexed it into annexed Florida Shores into sorry, I should have the microphone. I apologize. When Florida Shores was annexed, the city council at that time then made them combined. Some people had one. Some people had but everyone had to have two in order to bill. And so the hard part is there's only a handful of these singles out there because everyone had to grab extra lots in order to bill.

There's just a couple of unfortunate ones that kind of just got

left and or they've been just they were split off or they were they've never been combined, but someone's owned them and they've just been sold throughout the years.

So if you combine it, you can put a shed on it?

Well, you could put a shed.

Okay. You just couldn't build a house.

You couldn't build a new house on it. You couldn't re split it and sell it.

So I'm just saying I just want to give them a little bit of glimmer of hope that it's not a waste. Like if there was an opportunity to sell it to one of the neighbors that could conjoin that with their lot, they could move any just in case.

What about an ADU? Would that be acceptable? It was added to one of the houses on either side? Curious.

I mean, well, in planning, yes. In the yet. Yet. Not yet.

Thank you for your patience. First item under new business is VA2511, request for variances from Article 18, Section one-450.02 and Article 20, Section 21.650.01 to allow the enclosure of the current signage, thereby creating two monument signs larger than the maximum 48 square feet for the corridors. One monument sign will be located on Indian River Boulevard with a height of 26 feet 2.5 inches, total square footage of 167.66, no planter box with irrigation and within 8.73 feet of the property line. The second proposed sign will be on Ridgewood Avenue with a height of 31 feet 8.5 inches with a total square footage of 233.35 feet located at the property of 1828 South Ridgewood Avenue. Can we have a staff report,

please?

Thank you, Chairman. City staff did post the property and did send out public notice within 500 feet with the attached aerial imagery. The applicant has included these signage. This is the existing signage. This one is on US 1.

And this one is on Indian River Boulevard in April. They were damaged during the last tropical storm. Hurricane, Hurricane Milton, the applicant is requesting to basically create monument signs out of the existing signs. The applicant is requesting for those variances. The explanation of hardship by the applicant is that the two existing multi tenant pylon signs, aka pole signs, occupy the Florida Shores Plaza and that they were damaged during the recent hurricane.

And strict compliance with Article 20 would be burdensome to the applicant. City staff did review against Article nine's six criteria and found that the applicant could not meet all six of the criteria. City staff is recommending denial for the variance VA2511. VA2511. I believe the applicant is here and he does have a PowerPoint.

Am here. I'm

going to

open the public hearing and going to have the applicant speak. Go ahead.

Thank you. Brad Wester, driver McAfee Hawthorne at Devenau, One Independent Drive, suite twelve hundred. That's Jacksonville, Florida 32200. I'm not an attorney. I'm a land use planner, Mr. Solsysz. But I do work for the law firm doing land use and zoning around the state of Florida. I believe you guys have this on your monitor as well. Right? Okay. Great. So I'll go through this. Ryan, if you'll just put up with me, I'm gonna point to you and just cue you. So I've got these PowerPoint slides we'll go through. And I've got different bullets on different segments. I usually have a clicker. If you don't mind switching the slide. Back of my head looks great. Thank you. Yeah, that's okay.

I hear you. No, it's alright. I didn't anticipate you having to be my clicker. So this is a non administrative variance request to allow for repair and renovation of the existing signs by way of relief from certain Land Development Code sections. Next bullet.

The recent tropical storm, as Ryan mentioned, damaged the sign panels and the repair permits will not be issued until compliance with the current regulations or if variance is approved. Specifically, the request is for the Indian River Boulevard sign to create a monument style base for a sign structure and allow 26.2 height and a total of 167.66 square feet. And those are survey measurements really as an as built condition. Next bullet. Allow a sign to exceed the max 48 square foot display area.

And you see the code citation next to it. Next bullet. And then allow Indian River sign without a planter box and the setback as is, which is approximately 8.73 feet. Next slide. This is for the Ridgewood Avenue signage. And this is the larger of the two signs. This create a monument style base as well for the sign structure and allow a 31.8 foot height with a total of 233.35 square feet. Allow the sign to exceed, again, the 48 square foot maximum display area. Next bullet. And this is the Florida Shores as we know it.

This is an aerial just depicting the intersection of the roadways there. You'll click on the next slide there and you'll see. And then you go to the next one, please. There's the two signs. You've probably driven by and or patronized the shopping center, so you know the signs very well. Next slide. This is an actual survey, as built survey of the property. You can go through the couple of bullets there. There you go. And go to the next slide. Thank you, sir. This is the current as built condition of the sign, as we've seen it. Complete disrepair. The sign panels are all blown out from the storm. Next slide.

This is the one on Indian River. Same thing. Next slide. And these are renovation, if you will, proposals for this. So it would be beautification of landscaping, wrap the base in a monument so you wouldn't see the pylons or the poles going into the ground.

So it kind of is a hybrid as built condition renovation to remain to keep the signage remaining as it's customarily been seen and used over the history of the shopping center. But more importantly, bring it up to the spirit and intent of the compliance of the code for a monument style base. Next slide. This one, I know it's very small, but those measurements have been transposed into our request. That is a survey of measurements from our signed company showing the existing and the proposed signage.

You can see the base on what it would look like after the fact, wrapping it in a base. So from the human scale, when you're driving down the street or pulling in, you don't see the pylons anymore. You see a skirt, if you will, which would be the monument style base. Next slide. You can slowly go through those, if you don't mind. This is showing the various commercial uses surrounding the property, all in red circles. And if you go to the next bullet, please. Yep. And there's arrows that go with it. So that is all small, single use, commercial uses near the frontage with signage. The significance of that, I'll go out in a second. Next bullet point. And if you go a couple more, there you go. Pointer. And this is our large multi tenant shopping center.

The difference is all those others, whether it be they have nonconforming signage that's existing or a monument style base, all of those other commercial uses are really on the frontage of the boulevards or the corridors in this case, right, with their their signage. The shopping center is set back, you know, from a a fair distance because of the parking field. And then the signage is really key to the promotion and vitality of the shopping center for all of the businesses in there. Next slide, please. This is a Google Earth image.

They take better pictures than me. So this is the intersection itself. The significance of this intersection, really, is to show the character of the signage as the human scale referenced in this image here from the roadway itself. And you can see both roads and the signs. Chick fil A sign.

You can see the Thank you very much. You can see Dunkin' Donuts. You can see the monument sign. It doesn't really So this is a great perspective right here because it actually looks like the Chick fil A sign is larger. But when you're driving by in the retail business, whether you're patronizing as a repeat person to go into the shopping center or you're a first timer, you have a moment to look at the signage and see where you're going and navigating to from a wayfinding perspective.

The the shopping center is set back, a lot of mature landscaping and vegetation. So the key is if go to the next slide again. Let's see here. And I'll go through the iteration, the the points I'm trying to make. The two existing multi tenant piling signs occupy the Florida Shores Plaza, largest shopping center in the city since the early eighties, 1983 specifically.

The current regs result in a hardship regarding the requirement to remove the signs and then rebuild them to smaller ground signs that will not meet the existing tenant lease obligations. There are 16 tenants in the shopping center now. Strict compliance will be a detriment to the business customary rights to advertise at this prime location. The tenants rely heavily on the ability to advertise for the success of their businesses specifically. New smaller ground signs are not commensurate with the size and setback of the shopping center at this location.

Advertising only the shopping center name, for instance, Florida Shores Plaza, and maybe an anchor tenant in the most select few tenants from the customer practices and function of the shopping center. It's more discriminatory. Who do you select as far as the tenants in there? Next bullet point, please. The distance from each roadway to the face of the shopping center building is set back at a distance.

That the current multi tenant sign allows for a necessary advertisement to the livelihood success of the shopping center. Next slide. This compromise again, our approach and it was pitched in the diagram in the exhibits. The compromise and approach will allow customer use of the signage but implements a monument style base and landscaping as an update to meet the spirit and tent of the corridor aesthetics. This request is consistent with the existing signage in the immediate area.

Again, it's in likeness character with other signage like the Chick fil A poll sign that would allow continuity to help eliminate confusion with wayfinding for the public visiting the shopping center. Again, since 1983. Next slide. Thank you very much. What I wanted to do was go through I know. We can put the thank you up there if we were approved. What I wanted to do was go through and I appreciate the staff report. Staff's been great processing the application. We anticipated them recommending a denial recommendation on this. But I did want to go through and talk about the criteria because it says the criteria has not been met.

So specifically regarding the comprehensive plan and the consistency of it, it talks about the comp plan, revitalization, sign controls, impacts of new development on adjacent properties. The sign shall limit, which can be viewed from residential property. And then, of course, more specifically, the corridor should be a guide to implement the signage. We are consistent and compatible with the comprehensive plan. It's a commercial shopping center. We're not asking future future landings change. The comprehensive plan is an overarching constitution for growth management. It does not get into the minutiae of the specifics of sign, height, bulk size, square footage, and the like. That is relegated to the land development code, and that's the variance that we're asking for. We're not asking for a variance or any kind of text amendment to the comprehensive plan whatsoever.

So it is compatible. There will be sign controls. There will be a right of revitalization. Okay? We meet the spirit intent of this this proposal. Impacts of new development on the adjacent properties. The more people that patronize the shopping center act help other businesses around the area. So a dead shopping center is not good for the community. And that's what we're going get when we lower these signages from the customary use and function of it over time. Views from residential property. I think, again, customary use of the signage. There really isn't a lot of view much so ever from residential properties. And this corridor is meant to be a guide. The next comment that the criterion has not been bet according to staff is not compatible with adjacent uses. It's commercial.

I went through the diagram there. You see all the other commercial uses. It's very much compatible with the adjacent commercial uses in the corridor. Again, the largest shopping center. Next one, minimum action available to permit reasonable use of the property. Yes. This is a reasonable request to wrap the base in a skirt or a monument style to meet the spirit intent of the code, But keep the sign in as customary grandfathered use, in my opinion. The next one is, does this the criteria is not subject to site unique and not present to adjacent sites. This is site specific. No other no other property has this large of a shopping center in the city of Edgewood. Yes. We are the largest sign in the city. That doesn't mean we we have rights above anybody else nor would this set precedent. Precedent. Okay?

I think I've I've stated specificity in this case for the shopping center. The next one is a need for variance result in actions by the development. Well, the code was adopted after the sign was put up. There was a a period where the the corridor says, you must comply. We were not able to pull permits to oblige to our tenant leasing obligations to repair the signage.

And so we're kind of at a stalemate. We did get a code enforcement action. That's why we're here. So instead of seeing the the magistrate for the code enforcement, we decided to come in for a variance to make a proposal to staff and the zoning board for this pitch specifically. The next one would substantial detriment to public welfare and impair the purposes and intent of the code.

This would not be a detriment to the public welfare and safety and health and well-being of the community. Matter of fact, it will help it to revitalize the shopping center, including all the businesses in there for employment's sake and the franchises in that shopping center. So we believe we've met all the criteria for the review. And I ask for your approval today for this variance with all the conditions we put in there. What we'll do is we would provide a landscape plan with this, a new sign panel plan with this, the coloration and the skirt with our The next steps would technically be the construction plans, the middle to the staff.

And they would review all that. And so, in likeness with our exhibits that we're pitching here today, we provide all that as far as revitalization, renovation, beautification of that signage. So with that, I'm here to answer your questions. And I have a representative, an executive from Morgard with me tonight. And if I can't answer any questions, I'll gladly have her come up. Thank you.

I take the color?

Can you take the color? Yeah. Taupe? We want it to be in earth color, the new signage.

Well, I

would just Yeah, you could go back

to that.

My curiosity is, I mean, at this point, they become skyscrapers as opposed to monuments, considering the other size the size of the other signage in the area. And I understand there's no additional ad space on either one of these. You're really just blocking the bottom to make it look like a monument. So to me, would think you would be if you were allowed to just repair the sign and be grandfathered in, I don't know why you can't be anymore. But my main concern with closing that in and taking away that, creating a monument as opposed to the pole sign structure would be that State Road 442 exit when you're exiting the property.

It's going to block that sidewalk. You see that stop line and where the stop sign is further out. So it could create a visibility issue, obstruction to the sidewalk to pedestrians or somebody riding a bicycle down there would be my concern with that one. The deceleration lane on US1 allows that to set back, so it's not an issue out there. That's the only thing I would

caution with Why don't you go on further back on the sign?

No. Well, we wouldn't move the signs. So the setback is met on the main road to the Ridgewood. The setback is not met on this because of the previous encroachment of the roadway expansion over time. So now it's roughly eight feet from the right of way line specifically. But you can see that's a good depiction. And you bring up a great point from a sight distance triangle from a safety standpoint. Ideally, this was a compromise pitch that we felt was in better likeness with to meet the spirit and intent of the code to do a monument. Because really, that's what it's asking. We would take a 31 foot sign and tear it down to eight feet.

But that eight feet isn't just all signage. It's actually part of the monument. Right? It would be the new thing. We would still have the same exact situation with sight distance triangle issues from that kind of blocking visibility, if you will. I don't think personally it's going to be that much of an issue from the setback standpoint, especially on Ridgewood. But more importantly, we would get maybe Florida Shores Plaza in there, an anchor tenant, and then a couple others. Because at that point, you're kind of squinting to see exactly what what what is on that sign. And you you probably know what I'm talking about because there's there's several others in the area that try to meet the eight foot. And they throw 15 panels in there or something.

And it's like, I I can't read what's going on in there. Those are all closer to the roadway. It is a strip center. Not much landscaping, so they're much older. But we would prefer the grandfather provisions to kind of weigh through this and allow us to pull permits to repair sign panels. That's really what we're after. But we felt in the best interest of our ability to be a great tenant and landlord and asset to the community was to kind of rehab it and renovate it in likeness with what the code is requesting. So that's what we asked for is the variances that we've listed here today.

Thank

you. Yeah, you're welcome.

I personally feel that the sign is too big. I've taken the liberty to take pictures of a public shopping center in New Smyrna Beach, which is bigger than the shopping center that you have. And that's the other sign. There's two of them on 44. And it's a monster.

And we have an opportunity to, I think, create something that's better looking then that doesn't have to be as massive as this structure is, truthfully. I know what you're saying about a lot of the positives for it. But I don't think they need that big a sign there. And I know they can it can be done. I know I've seen it.

And even the public's, which is this is the one in Edgewater. Even that's a big sign. But it's still it's not a monument sign, which I'm questioning. But that it's doable. So I just that's my objection. It's just massive, and I don't think we need something that large. That's just my personal opinion.

And with all due respect, this is an existing science. We're not asking for something new. We're just asking for renovation to the signage to make When sure it's in

you change a sign, correct me if I'm wrong, Ryan, when you change a sign, then come into the new codes.

Yeah, that is why they're here today. And

that's why I'm saying.

City staff won't let them repair the sign because the code says you have to update

it. Our code

mode would not allow that public sign. Neither one of the public signs that you showed. Our current code would not allow either one of those signs today. The maximum size of the sign today is only eight feet. Oh, know. Understand that.

So what they would be allowed today would be they would be allowed one monument of the plaza name. They would be then allowed two, one on each side, for 48 square feet, eight feet tall monument signs for the plaza to put all their tenants on those two.

And as I mentioned, it becomes an advertising and more importantly a wayfinding issue. The wayfinding is where am I going to go? I have a decision to park in my field and enter the front door of the business I'm going to patronize. You can't see it from the roadway. It's so far set back. There's so many palm trees and other landscaping in the way. It is critical to some of these businesses to have that that advertising on the main the main street. And so we felt it was better to come in with a full renovation plan for this to maintain the customary use. And more importantly, we have lease obligations to our tenants. And right now, they're they're they're tripping at us because they're wondering why the signs can't get repaired.

And we promised them we're coming through this. We're we're trying our hardest to make men's and do a full renovation plan, but still meet the obligations of all our leases of our tenants in there. And and there are some mom and pop franchise in there. And we want them to survive and be very successful. But more importantly, we want aesthetics and beautification to to carry forward with this plan proposal. And I get what you're asking for, sir. The the sign does look large, but what I wanted to do is show you that the Google Street Earth image. There is more of a perspective when if you can kinda get out of the framework of thinking of 31 feet high. You look at it. I don't think anybody ever really drives by and says, oh, that thing is just monstrous like a billboard because it's been there for so long.

What draws your eyes to it now is the disrepair. We really need that cleaned up. But I think it's going to do a disservice for the shopping center to have multiple ground signs out there to try to work the code because of our amount of street frontage that we have or obligated to, to put numerous monument ground signs out there just trying to meet our lease obligations for the various tenants. I think this shopping center is the exception in the community and that's the kind of hardship that I'm going for in this matter as opposed to other shopping centers specifically. I think it's well deserved of multi tenant advertising at the corner specifically.

Comparatively, again, that aerial that I showed you with all the other commercial businesses around there, they've got monument signs right against the street frontage. So not only can you see from a human scale the sign, but you see the storefront within feet of that sign. Ours is completely different. It's hundreds of feet away. And so I basically ask for your help in granting a relief for us to beautify and renovate this sign. More importantly, get our tenant advertising back up there for the vitality of the shopping center.

I just want to make a comment. Number one, I can't get the 31 feet out of my mind. That's the main problem we're talking about right here right now. We're talking about we change our setups for our requirements for a reason. And that reason is U. S. One is the main quarter. And as far as I'm concerned, that's the main damn intersection of the middle of town. That's the heart of the town. You've got more traffic right there turning in four different directions constantly.

And why that sign has to be 31 feet in the air because what that does is elevate the eyes of the driver. And the only people that are looking for that sign are not your locals. They know where everything is. That sign doesn't mean anything to them. Your people that are looking for a specific area and coming in, their eyes are up at 31 feet looking at that sign, not down level with the road driving. And with that particular intersection right there, it's tremendous in traffic in many different directions. I just see we have a reason for what we're requiring. There's exceptions to that, but exceptions can be modified mildly, not go back to the problem that we've had all along with these signs. So that's as far as I'm concerned

right now. Does anybody else have any questions?

I guess I just understand why they can't just repair the sign. I know, but a code allowed it when it was there. Wasn't like they're putting a new business in there, so they have to create a new sign. They're just fixing what's already there. So I don't don't understand how come they can't

do The intent behind Article 20, the reason it was written that way was so that there was not an opportunity. There wasn't an out. The only out is variance. That was the intent of writing it that way.

And that's a very good reason. That's why the whole purpose of why I know you're here. You're making yourself as far as what you want to do. We've got a chance here to really make this intersection a whole

lot better. Let me ask you a question.

Yes, sir.

I feel like the objective of the monument sign can still be achieved with this sign. I realize starting from scratch is exponentially more cost than that. I've seen signs being made before, and I know there's a lot of cutting and welding and stuff that has to go on-site a lot of times to get these big metal things in the ground. Is it and I know you're not a sign designer, realistic that we could still accomplish the same goal by, let's say, lopping off the top 10 feet of those poles? I don't know. I'm not a sign designer. I'm just asking the question to appease these guys to help you guys get this right.

Yes, sir. Not a structural engineer, not a sign designer. I want to state that on their testimony. But I will say this. There was a reason why that sign was designed the way it is structurally. That a frame, if you will, we'll call it a pylon sign, but it is an a frame sign, does have a number of structural cross beam supports. And there is a lot of electrical that goes up there as well to kind of light up the interior internal illumination. So and I understand the laws. Costs are not a factor to take into criteria for you know, because it costs too much. We're not gonna do that.

That's not one of the criteria. So we're not here to talk about we're not asked for relief because of its cost implications. But it would be the same amount if we're just sawing through some steel up there and then rehabbing all these other signs to move everything down compared to just rebuilding a brand new sign. So I'll I'll say two things. And you brought up a great point being 31 feet high.

With all due respect, I asked to get out of that height thought because when you're traveling and you get up speed to when you turn the corner or you're commuting down the road specifically in front of the shopping center, it's rare that you'll pull right up and go like this to the sign. That sign is a height meant to get your eye at a certain angle while you're driving toward it at a certain speed. I know commercial development. I I'm certified through the International Council of Shopping Centers. I understand this sign program as it relates to how quick you need to make a decision to pull in and patronize a shopping center.

You're a 100% right. I don't need to see a Winn Dixie sign every time I go there to go get a case of water or a case of beer. But to the person that is vital for our economic, you know, vitality of this shopping center and people patronizing our community, it is vital to see, I need I'm gonna go to let's go to Subway before we go to the beach or watch the space shuttle launch off or something else. There's a lot of components that makes a split second decision and that sign is elevated at that point to catch your attention. It's rare that you're gonna pull up in that desol lane and sit there and look 31 feet straight up.

You've already made that decision to turn in. So at that point, the 31 feet doesn't matter. What matters is its presence to you at the human scale when you are at a distance down the road. And it in my opinion, it does need to stand out. It it is the customary use and presence that everybody has accepted. I don't think we had a code enforcement violation because people hate the sign. It's just black and white code. They said, you don't meet the code anymore. We have a corridor plan. You better adhere to it.

So we're asking for relief from that to say, let's let it ride as a grandfathered use, but we are self proffering a beautification and aesthetic program to kind of blend it with the monument based style and new landscaping. So as I approach this, it's kind of a hybrid, grandfathered request to let it sit as is, as built, but provide a renovation and an aesthetic beautification package with it that we've proffered. And I I hope you understand that. I I understand signage rules. I've done sign codes as a land use planner.

Everybody wants to bring them down. What happens is when you bring them all down, they get lost in everything. Nobody sees them. You can drive them down the street, and it blends in with the treetops, the canopies, everything else, someone walking and riding a bike. This stands out for a reason, and it's vital for this shopping center.

It's absolutely critical and vital for a shopping center to advertise the way it's always customarily advertised. And I just literally ask for your forgiveness of of us providing an as built condition for this signage, but letting us go through with the self proffer of a beautification of monument based style and landscaping with this package and then let us go repair our sign panels so our tenants can then advertise again with the code here in perpetuity moving forward. I think Ryan mentioned something about there's an ALF down the road, and they're allowed to do a sign because they pulled it into a PUD. Right? It's part of a waiver and a variance and deviation as part of that PUD package.

We don't have to go through a PUD process just to do a sign sign program for this. The signs exist. There wasn't a code enforcement because it they're ugly. It's just they need to be renovated and updated. And it's kind of a catch 22. We can't renovate them, can't repair them because we have to adhere to this corridor plan. But the corridor plan was forced upon us as operators and owners and me representing them as their agent to then tear it all down, bring it all down, put it up. And you now need to just pick two tenants that are gonna be able to advertise in there. The rest of them, good luck. Because what are we gonna do?

Come in and ask for trees to be knocked down in the parking lot so you can see? Everybody else in that diagram I showed you that's of of record that I presented here today is right against the street frontage. They have the benefit of having a sign and then an ALDI. Let's go right across the street. Sign and ALDI is right there. The presence is right there. Ours is not. It's we're an older shopping center. It may have been designed differently if it was per today's design standards, but it's an old power center at a main street in Main Street. And I do think it's deserving of maintaining these signs as they as they're as built in their as built condition, but with a self proffered beautification aesthetic package. So I ask for your approval today.

I guess, once again, I still don't understand because it was a hardship that wasn't forced on them. They didn't ask the hurricane or the tropical storm to bust up the signs. So now we can't let them fix it because our codes now say that the signs have to be this. But it's already that. They're just fixing. I just don't understand that I guess. Maybe elaborate more on that because I don't get it.

Well, our new codes also reduced the size of the signs too. Right. What I'm saying is,

so we're to go to every business in Edgewater and tell them that have to redo their signs? Well,

if they have to replace it, yes.

Truthfully, that's in the code now. If you change a sign, know that. Have to know that the volume

is is signed. Like two years ago with the guy over Right. Soon as they got a new tenant, well, we changed the codes. So now you have to get a whole

new sign. I remember Again, I'm going back to we have an opportunity to take a massive, massive sign. If you look I'm looking at this picture on the right hand side. You have the Winn Dixie at the top. Okay, we know Winn Dixie Bell's. Dunkin' Donuts has their own sign anyhow. Then you have Subway and B and B Liquors. Five five businesses. There's more than five businesses there. So you're saying you want all the businesses to be represented. They're not. There's five there.

That's not our Main Street sign. This is Well,

I'm looking

at Yes, sir. And this one's different. The Indian the the the the the Ridgewood one is the main one that has more tenant panels. This one is a second that's a secondary sign. The one on The last one. The second major.

Sides of the same sign. Yeah.

There you go. So this one has a lot more sign panels. That's the main sign. That advertises the Florida Shores Plaza. That is the main marquee multi tenant sign because it is on the main street. And so that's and again, we have one that shows landscaping around it. We would adorn that with landscaping and everything.

I personally just can't get past the size of the sign. That's just my personal opinion. I think it's too large. I think we have an opportunity to change that massive book.

That sign has been there since 1983, that size. Has it bothered Well, you that much for it since 1980

no, the point is, George, it's coming to us our attention now. We have an opportunity to change it,

okay? That's why I think this is one of the best shopping centers that we have, one of the very few And that we have in we're going to tie these people's hands behind their back because of our foolish code and our foolish sign development signs or foolish design design change. I think the spirit of the change was good. But I think that it should have been looked on a case by case basis because you can't blanket just change something and expect it. A place like that, which has 16 tenants, is going to still be able to meet the same sign requirements that CVS is with one tenant. I

So how many tenants are you going to be able to put on the sign?

Not all of them are on the sign. But what you see here, the number here. So it's one, two, three, four, five, six, The seven, number that you see on the sign depicted. Yes, sir. And I will say this. We're not asking this is not a precedent case. Precedent isn't one of the factors and the criteria to review for variances. So we're not saying somebody else get it. We deserve it too. Or Chick fil A's got a poll sign right next to us. We deserve to have something tall like theirs. That is not the case whatsoever. But I do want to point out that our sign and other signs in the area are are still compatible with adjacent uses and the commercial uses. And you're you're exactly right. This has existed since the mid eighties.

And we're not here because everybody's saying it's just gone off when it needs to come down and there's overcry and public sentiment to tear it down. What we're doing is we're we're hamstrung by the the code itself and we're offered this due process of the variance proceeding to allow us to make a case for a hardship. And I think I've done that. I do believe we're consistent with the comprehensive plan. We're consistent with adjacent uses. Advertising in this location specifically is so vital to this shopping center considering its setback. If you all the across the street's a great example. They have a monument sign. It's a beautiful sign, beautiful new store, but they are right on the street frontage. You see it.

It is so vital to make your decision. When you're driving down the road. Again, not when you're right at the sign, you'd look up 31 feet. But when you're coming to it at speed, that's why that sign is is that high. It's got structural elements to it. It's got sign advertising elements to it from the human scale. And there was a purpose, even in the eighties, for making it that large. I'm all for updated signed ordinances and codes. But in this case, we believe we've stated good findings of fact that justify a hardship clause in this case specifically and we're anxious to get started on this renovation beautification package if we are lucky to receive an approval tonight.

I like to look at the sign. I think it looks awesome. I think it's definitely going to jazz up the place. It's a huge improvement. As far as the safety part, I was concerned about that too. But when I was looking at it, I mean, you got to realize too that you're coming out, so you have to stop. You're not like zipping through, you know what I mean? So you definitely have time to see pedestrians and bicyclists and things like that and these kids with e bikes and all the stuff. You have a stop sign and then you go. So it's not I don't I wouldn't be worried as much about that.

What are the size of the sign to be honest? I think it looks great. I think it's something that the corridor could really benefit from, especially we want people to do business with us. I mean that fills the tax burdens that we have. And we want to not we want to keep them happy, but we're not giving them anything that's not already for making it nicer.

Yeah. And to play devil's advocate with my own staff report. I think the Article 20 does Article 20 envisions and I think it does a good job of envisioning what the corridor looks like for singular businesses. But when code when Article 20 extrapolates what a multitenant business will be, it just throws them another 48 square foot sign. It doesn't necessarily start thinking about whether or not the signage ratio right for one business to have a full 40 multi tenant.

They just say that you get one more 48 square feet. So I think maybe that part of the code probably wasn't I think the way that US1 is transforming right now with the way that the monument signs are for those individual singular businesses, I think it looks nice. I think it looks really crisp. And it's uniform. But I think that is one of the downsides to the code when we did Article 20 is that we really did do a great job of envisioning what signage would be like for a large multi tenant.

And I stated that in my presentation, but the current code isn't commensurate with the size, scale, and location of this specific property and this specific use, this commercial shopping center. So you're a 100% right. I won't burden you with going back in the slides to look at that comment. But I put it up there as as far as the record. And I will also say say this. We have a a a civil legal matter on our hands as well to obligate the rights of the signage requirements per all the leases to the tenants. And we are not doing that right now. And it is quite possible that those tenants could go somewhere else outside the city. Okay? Still be in the same territory, but it's outside the city.

And we don't want that, not only for our shopping center but for the city. So we want everybody to stay. We have talked to them many times about the process we're going through. They don't understand it. We just ask them for some patience. But again, patience in the retail world, in the service world, whether it's AT and T who's in this or any other user, the patient wears thin. Signage Okay? On this roadway is so key to the shopping center.

The one other thing that I want to bring up, and I agree with what you're saying, I've lived here all my life but nine years. I know where Windex I used to walk here as a kid. But you have to realize, correct me if I'm wrong, Ryan, we have in the next five years over 10,000 homes being built in Edgewater. They have no idea where the hell Windex is. Deering Park alone is going to be 600, I think on the first rip. And then you have all the other stuff going down to Oak Hill. They don't there's nothing down that way. So they need I think it's needed. So let's be honest. When you go out of town, what do

you use to drive there? Right here.

That's

right. Google Maps. Google Maps. That's how you find everything you're going to. So getting to a plaza or shopping center is not going to be decided by the signage. It's going to be decided by the phone in their pocket and Android Auto on their car. Why don't you just can they do two marquee signs that revolve around with all the different businesses names? They can still meet the 48 square feet, four foot

They can do the electronic messaging center.

That's what I'm saying. Why couldn't you just do two of those, one on each entrance? That revolves

With the frontage that you have, how many eight foot signs would you be allowed to put up?

I believe we could have up to three right now.

Yeah. But you were talking about looking up 35 feet. What about looking at three different signs?

Yeah. Don't like monument signs. Because you and I both drive vehicles and that monument sign is a problem. And with that location of that monument sign on Indian River, I guarantee you somebody on a bike or skateboard hits the side of my truck because they won't be able to because where I have to stop, I can't see. I have to be in front of the sidewalk to see around that side.

But would we be able to do a variance on the front setback then and just bring it back towards the plaza a little bit? That way it's

Well, that's kind of what I was going to say is, why not just do two electronic signs within the setbacks if we need

to electronic stuff. Just move it back and then it's not infringing on any passengers. I don't know That's why we have go with that probably going to be way more expensive too to do electric signs and You

go into some of these shopping centers in South Florida, most I mean, they've got electronic signs on the main thoroughfares and then a big place like this where the little drive is that connects like the entrance into the parking lot area. They'll have a series of smaller signs that have like H And R Block and stuff like that kind of outward because I mean every one of these businesses has their signage over their business.

Yes, sir. I think that's I think I think I understand what you're asking and I appreciate that. I don't think a scrolling electronic reader sign would be commensurate with the various tenants just flashing. My my own personal opinion of them is they're not that nice looking. But, again, that's a personal opinion. Just the flashing and rotating. One offer we could make is to leave the Indian River Boulevard sign the way it is with the monument bases going or I'm sorry, with the pylon bases going down so you could still see through the bottom of it. Because that roadway encroached on us, right, with the right of way acquisition over time, which got us to the need for a setback variance as part of this variance request. Request. We could leave that one the way it is.

Yes, we'd repaint it, redo the panels. But then the monument base and the landscaping would be specific to only Ridgewood. That that could be maybe a a negotiated offer with this. It's gonna be really we don't know where the utilities are out there. We'd have to get a full utility locate, relocate that that that pylon sign, pull it back off of that roadway.

I mean, leaving that with the way it is, the pylons, so you can see through underneath the base of them specific to Indian River, I think that might be a more acceptable request. And I get what you're saying about using your phone to drive wherever want to drive. But at the same token, you still have an obligation to come out of that phone and drive and look up and see, oh, there it is. It says Winn Dixie Goer. I can't tell you many times I'm using my GPS and I'll be looking here and I'll make I wanna make sure that is it that traffic light or the other traffic light that it's telling me to turn at. And that's where the signage is key. So health, safety, welfare, I mentioned in my testimony, way finding is so key for the safety and circulation for this intersection. And these signs do it.

And where I was going with the monument, I feel like that picture you took, Bob, of the public sign down here at Edgewater Commons. I mean, it's not a monument sign. Yes, it's a pylon sign, but it's not just two steel columns shooting up into the sky, right? Got a little bit of to it. But more importantly, I mean, that case, it doesn't matter because there's a

giant bush right behind it, so you can't see through it anyway.

But there's also a turn lane that I don't have to worry about some kid on a skateboard or a bike flying into the side of my truck.

You bring up a good point.

So the Indian River one for me, and I mean, because I go to subway twice a week. So this is more of, I mean, it happens more than you would think.

I'm glad you bring that up.

Well, I mean, they're on those, you know, the the electric skateboards and those electric bikes. Might

as well be motorcycles.

Going 20 something miles an hour.

Yeah. With no helmet.

So, you know, for me, I I would almost say lose the monument sign on Indian River and do something architectural with that sign. So it doesn't just look like two steel pylon shooting up in the air.

Okay.

So

we can just have them fix the Yeah.

Was our self proffer to try to meet in the middle.

Then why won't you just do that? Why would we even do Why did you

just waste twenty minutes of

our time?

I mean, that's one asking. And that's the easiest thing. And we're all having a hard time with it. So why don't we just give them what we want, what they want?

And we brought skirts and flowers. So, you know, I mean, I just, you know That's

the way that it is.

That's what

I mean, whatever.

Fine people call it. So it's

Did you guys understand that? Yes. Yeah. I

think that covers everything. It's already there. We just fix it.

I would have a problem if they just fix both signs.

I mean, well, yes, that's what Al is That's what I'm saying. And then maybe that gives us time to actually go back and maybe we create a multi tenant

Well, it also it might give us there's depending on my economic development here. It might also behoove us to because we have Deering Park out West, 442 is going to be very, very busy. There will be lots of us going both ways. So having there's gonna be one out at Deering Park at the end of 442. The end of 442 on this side, would be nice to somewhat match them. So there might be something because there'll be like a city of Edgewater Tower. So it might make sense to match it on both ends eventually.

Well, so if we issue the variance to just simply replace the signs, that's what, two years? Would they have to come back in two years to get another variance or only if they had to start changing the lenses again?

Yeah, if they had to change them again, then they would need a variance.

Could we allow a force majeure to apply in this case with this variance as one of the conditions? I mean, look, if reality of it is, if another storm comes through and blows through some panels, I don't wanna burden your time as as public servants. It's and I appreciate what you guys do because I also sit on the board. But it's yeah. I don't want to come here every time we have a tropical storm or named storm.

Repair and maintenance. Well, that's end of the variance in the West, couldn't we? Just call it repair and maintenance.

Not to exceed any existing square footages or ADA advertising display areas exactly. We're not trying to circumvent any code whatsoever. We just, you know, obligation to meet our tenants needs.

And then what we want to add, because like he said, problem is we don't have a timeline on these park signs, do we?

Okay. Never mind.

Because I was going say, what if we did a timeline on this so that at some point it would have to be brought up to whatever code, but we don't know what that's going to be and when. Never mind.

Make sure I

understand what you're proposing. We're proposing a variance to have the sign repaired as is.

We painted or we panel upgraded as is. We're letting repair and maintain.

Square footage isn't getting any bigger or No.

As is. As is. Just there now, it's cleaned up, new panels. I don't know

if you want

any landscaping at the bottom or not.

I mean, would repeat the purpose of seeing through it. I mean, you don't want No, no.

I mean The public's trying

to do that, and they've got a bush over there now. It's huge. I mean, to me, made

the thing look huge in the rendering is the monument. They closed in the bottom

nine It feet of the

looked like a skyscraper, where normally you can just see through it. So to me, I think that's the easiest thing now and then gives us time to figure out step

as well. As Ryan alluded to, he's considering changing that code, what, Article 20?

Yes. Yes, I think well, and it's so and then Indian River Boulevard, which I almost never really worked on because it was envisioned that the Indian River Boulevard would be this kind of like hip mixed use evolving corridor. It's still single family. And so there's those conditions, some of those more urbanist principles where the planter box, where those are type of the design standards, which really it's not applicable because no one's doing commercial on 442 in that area. So just

like on a corner lot, you have two front yards, So wouldn't that be the same on a shopping plaza? Wouldn't you have kind of two front yards, right? So same, same.

Subway's hip.

Subway's hip. Now that they brought

back their brute sweet tea, they'll go back in there. They got rid of it for like a month.

Oh boy.

That was that stuff.

Before we close the public hearing, I'm going to ask if there's anybody else in the audience, anybody that has a question or comments or concerns before I close the public hearing. Okay. I'm going to close the public hearing and ask for a motion.

So how do we do this motion though? It's not what they're You

got us into this mess.

I know I did. But you know what? You want, Albert?

Step up. Can you all right. You can

help me write this thing out or what? Step up.

I'm out.

25.1.

Grant of variance for repair and maintenance of the subject signs.

Then were we doing something

With our as built dimensions the way they are and without the landscaping and the monument base.

And then we're also were we putting a like repair and maintenance and then also the whole force majeure as well?

The force majeure is not actually Pretty much is.

But the repair maintenance

would cover your question if there's another hurricane.

Yes, sir. Sir. Light goes out, anything like that. Yes, sir.

So we're going to give this a whirl. All right. So make a motion to approve VA 2,511 to repair and maintain the current signs as they are height and width with no changes in that

And setback.

And setback. Does that cover all? We're recording that because I might need to read that back again.

And that does cover repairs in the future, correct?

Mr. Duane?

Yes.

Mr. Owen Futano?

Yes. Mr. Fisher?

Yes.

Mr. Kennedy?

Yes.

Mr. Hatcher?

Yes.

Mr. Andrew Kovic?

Yes. Thank you very much. Appreciate it.

Thank you. Good luck.

Okay. Next item on the agenda is the development services directors report.

We have a lot going on at the city. I'm getting through some of those remaining site plans here. Likely, we'll be coming forward with a few more major site plans, probably a half dozen or so minor site plans throughout Hibiscus and and Baseleg and all over. The good news is we do have a lot of commercial coming in, which is helpful. And that is all I have right now. We are very busy.

Were those all entitled or are those new? The ones that you're just talking about, are they entitled already? Or is that new stuff?

No. Most of it is just coming in on straight zoning.

Right. Meeting is adjourned.