Remarks by Nick Flerlage
7 remarks on the record, newest first · Page 1 of 1
- Play at 40:53
“I think going to 312.67 is a little disproportionate size. I mean, it just seems like we went from 10 to all of a sudden over 300. My real concern here is that we're setting a precedent for these larger signs. And when you're on periphery, because you cannot get to the subject property from periphery loop, correct?”
Planning Commission · Sep 15, 2026
- Play at 41:12
“And when you're on periphery loop, if you're in a car, I don't care, you could be in a large SUV, you cannot see past the tree line or the hedge to even see the building. I mean, you can see the building, but I don't know who the audience is for the sign unless you're in an upper floor of the hospital. or the parking garage elevated to even see the sign. And then lastly, with the mapping technology we have today, this is a destination type, we'll call it a business or service. I'm sure most people are just plugging this into GPS and then we're going to come in from, I mean, I just don't see…”
Planning Commission · Sep 15, 2026
- Play at 42:44
“I could also just see where, in this case, because it's very unique the way this property is, that it would add to some confusion as well because you can see, even if you could see the signs, see the signs there and we can see the building, it's not accessible from periphery. We still have to go out on Pine Brook and make a left and then go in. So you can see it, but I can't get to it type of thing. So I don't know. It's just...”
Planning Commission · Sep 15, 2026
- Play at 59:23
“Yep. Based on review of application materials, the staff report and testimony and evidence provided during the public hearing, the Planning Commission, sitting as the local planning agency, finds that this petition does not meet the variance criteria in Section 1.13.1 of the Land Development Code because I'll just say broadly it doesn't satisfy all seven of the criteria and therefore moves to deny variance petition number 26-34VZ. We have a motion to deny.”
Planning Commission · Sep 15, 2026
- Play at 1:00:47
“I mean, we could probably do a few, but I think the hardship Number four, the alleged hardship has not been created by any person presently having any interest in the property where it was created as a result of a bona fide error. I think it was self-created. This is self-inflicted. They used... a majority, I think 93% of their signage allowance for the front, maybe they split those signs up at some point and have a smaller sign on the front and a smaller one on the back. To me, that was kind of self-inflicted. I'm just looking for the next page. That would be one if we just want to go with…”
Planning Commission · Sep 15, 2026
- Play at 1:01:40
“I just needed on the record which criteria you're using to deny, if that's the one that you're... And number six as well, I mean, when I was there, I didn't see any inhibition of anybody using the property. The parking lot was full. I mean, it's busy over there anyway, but I don't think it's going to be detrimental to their business at all as far as the variance granted is the minimum variance that will be possible. We'll make possible the reasonable use of the property. I don't think that that sign, whether that sign's there or not, is going to affect whether there's a reasonable use of the…”
Planning Commission · Sep 15, 2026
- Play at 1:21:37
“The Planning Commission is sitting as the local planning agency finds this petition consistent with the comprehensive plan and compliance with Florida Statutes Chapter 163, Part 2, and therefore recommends to City Council approval of future land use map amendment petition number 2615CP.”
Planning Commission · Sep 15, 2026