Planning Board - Regular Meeting

the March 10th 2025 planning board meeting of the  city of Penel City is now in order uh please take   RO board member Carol here board member Stamps  absent board member Barker yes board member Rich   here chairman Dubower here are there any changes  or deletions to the agenda okay there are none   okay any announcements disclosures from board  members all right do I have a motion to approve   the minutes from the February 10th 2025 planning  board meeting so move second please take the role   board member Carol yes board member Barker yes  board member Rich yes chairman Newower yes now   going to read the procedure for quasi judicial  proceedings step one public hearing announced   introduction of application by staff staff  Step two ex party communication disclosure   by board members step three identification of  applicant and affected parties that intend to   participate in the hearing affected parties  that only intend to make a statement may do   sue at the public participation part of  the agenda an affected party means any   person or entity that will suffer an adverse  effect to interest protected or furthered by   the ULDC including interest related to health  and safety police and fire protection service   systems densities or intensities of development  transportation facilities healthcare facilities   equipment or services and environmental or  natural resources the ledge adverse interests   may be shared in common with other members of the  community at large but must exceed and degree the   general interests in community goods shared  by all persons uh swearing witness is too yes   ladies and gentlemen all of the items on the  agenda today are items that are quasi judicial   in nature and will follow the rules that the  chairman just read to you so if you intend to   speak on an item today if you would stand now  raise your right hand and I'll swear you in everyone do you solemnly swear affirm the  testimony you will give in these matters to  

be the truth the whole truth and nothing but the  truth thank you very much when you come after the   announcement after the item has been announced  and you come to the microphone to speak please   um please state your name for the record and  that you have been sworn thank you all right   case number A Savannah item 6A is case number  B v212 it is an application for a variance   the request to the planning board um states "In  September of 2024 the city issued a development   order for a single family residential home and  private residential dock the property owner began   construction and the city was notified the dock  was not meeting the width requirement regarding   the access portion of the dock the applicant  is requesting a variance on the access width   of the dock in order to proceed with finishing  construction the request is relief of 1 foot   the applicant and the owner is Jonathan Brent  Robbins the address of the property is 1206   East 3rd Street it is approximate approximately  um 0.354 acres um this uh item was originally   supposed to be heard in February but we did  request a continuence until this hearing   um in order to obtain the asbuilt survey that  was provided um in your staff reports thank you   do you have any questions from the board for staff  well board members do you have any disclosures to   make exparta disclosure number none all right  is the applicant here to speak on this item uh my name is Brent Robbins i'm the owner of  the property uh I have been sworn in um so on  

my dock the there's a dock access portion  and it's a 6 foot width i built a gang way   an aluminum gang way and in the ordinance  somewhere it says that it can only be 5 foot   um it's already installed and up um this was  unbeknounced to to me whenever we we did this anyone have any questions for Thank you sir  does anybody uh from the audience here to go   ahead please state your name and address for the  record my name is Kevin Rohan and my address is   1160 Cove Point Drive and I have been sworn in  is there any way that you can pull the original   picture back up of the uh variance request so  my property is the property that is piehed that   abutts this property on the screen there um I have  a couple illustrations that I'd like to give you   he described what it is that he's building um  I don't have PDF format or screen format but I   have them here i don't know if the planning board  has any interest in seeing these you guys can pass   these around three separate pictures that's the  actual gang way and then the dock itself there   kevin if you go back and just describe because  we got to get it on the record if you'll just   describe those for the board members and they'll  pass them around the gang way and the dock itself   are are very well detailed it's a good mirrored  picture so you got to make sure you have it top   side um and I'm just going to read a statement  that I put together here that I am here to object   to the variance request by Jonathan Robbins for  the property located at 1206 East Third Street   the request seeks to increase the access width of  his dock by an additional 1 ft beyond the 5- foot   maximum permitted under the current building  code the existing standard of 5T is more than  

adequate for residential dock access and there's  no legitimate hardship that justifies an exception   it's important to note that the applicant has  previously submitted separate sets of plans   with the first two proven inaccurate i'm actively  challenging the most recent submission as I've   engaged a hydraologist who conducted a water  mapping analysis the findings of this survey   show the applicant is violating building codes  regard regarding the dock length and water depth   i have provided data demonstrating significant  discrepancies to the building department the   most critical point of my objection is that there  is no legitimate hardship that would necessitate   granting this variance increased cost doesn't  constitute a hardship additionally allowing an   increased dock width would facilitate commercial  activity as the structure currently in place   is built of a commercial standard rather than  customary residential use further the applicant   is self-contracting the project and is repeatedly  to failed to adhere to proper building codes and   regulations errors made by the applicant self-  construction process do not justify the need for a variance so as a result the applicant has  already violated two separate FD regulations   on this project and the existing building  codes do not restrict customary residential   dock use nor do they create any undue burden  for the applicant the type of construction   construction currently in place along with the  variance request suggest a commercial intent as   it would inevitably enable heavy equipment access  given the application's track record of disregard   to regulations and requirements the variance  would pose a significant negative impact on   the surrounding property owners and the community  i strongly urge the building department to uphold   the current construction standards and deny  this unnecessary variance which appears to be   motivated by the applicant's failure to adhere  to regulations rather than any legitimate need  

granting this request would set a concerning  precedent by allowing variances based on   non-compliance rather than actual hardship  thank you thank you any questions for Mr ro here to speak on this item was that Mayor please go ahead thank you  it's good to be on the other side of the   microphone appreciate that uh Mike Rowan uh I  have been sworn in um I have been down several   times it's obviously my son here and I think  what you have to consider this is obviously an   attempt at a commercial sort of venture it's  a welded aluminum dock and I think if you go   to the trouble to weld an what's an aluminum  gang way i'm sorry it's not a dock if you go   to the trouble to weld an aluminum gang way  you ought to know what you're doing uh this   uh is not at all it doesn't at all fit with the  surrounding with the surrounding homes down there   and I think we're all entitled to do what we want  but at the same time Kevin's not going to own   this piece of property forever and when he goes to  sell it they're going to wonder what this pile of   junk in the backyard with this aluminum gang way  running out to into a big dock uh what this is all   about it's certainly going to negatively impact  his negatively impact the sale of his property   uh I think this this is a concept where somebody  is going to go ahead and do something and then beg   for forgiveness later and it's obvious that if  he wasn't watched this would have happened all   along so I think in the city we obviously  want progress but we also have rules that   we need to follow and uh this this doesn't  meet the test of logic to go ahead and and   uh okay this variance it's it's it's ludicrous  and uh I don't think I would hope that the uh  

planning board would understand and would move  in that direction so thank you i appreciate it   thank you does anyone else wish to speak on  this item the applicant wish to respond yep uh Brent Robbins I've been sworn in um I mean  it is of aluminum construction it is far you   know better than anything around there but this  is a one-of a kind piece of property there's no   property that has water on almost three sides  you know that house that I have drawn is over   5,000 foot maybe even 6,000 like me and my family  I have three kids um we plan to move there build   a house and um you know live our life this is  our forever home so that's why it's not being   all done at one time it is being done in sections  because that's what I can afford you know what I   mean like we started with the dock i want it to  shine like it's on the corner when you come off   a Tindle Drive everyone can see that you know what  I mean so we did not put wood we did put aluminum   um I think it's important to notate that um the  state of Florida the the DP has already approved   this um we contacted them regarding the um the uh  dock access portion being 6 foot they do not have   a problem with it um they did not you know what  I we have it in email which I have submitted that   um the that they don't have a problem with  it and they in fact granted me a uh general   purpose permit regarding this um the hiccup is on  the city level which is why we're here today and   um you know like I said we've I've been contacted  by the Army Corps of Engineers at the federal  

level um they granted it the D at the state  level they have granted it i've had numerous   um visits to my property by various agencies  code compliance um D probably over 10 people   um representing some government agency in some  form or fashion has been there and the only   thing that they have found is that the gang way I  have built which is of aluminum construction is 6   foot wide um I have big boats you know I have a  31 ft um my father has a 68T Hatteris it has to   be big it has to be strong um just like um both  of the previous speakers said it is um you know   a step higher than residential but because I built  a good dock that's not you know that's not grounds   you know that I'm gonna do commercial activities  there um like I said you can see the floor plan of   my house the full intention is to to live there um  there's no such I'm going to do any commercial you   know requirements and uh like I said I've already  got it cleared with the D and now we're just   uh here today to to see about the the gang way  um the footprint of the dock the construction of   the dock all that stuff has been approved by the  the state D um so all the other you know whatever   they're saying I I can't um change their opinion  on the matter um but yeah it's it's a it's a good   well-built dock out of aluminum so thank you thank  you this is the occupation now what's Yeah we may   have a couple questions for you actually what  is your occupation now uh I'm a small business   owner we own a welding shop okay the um so just  this good staff can answer this question too so  

there was the dock structure because gang way  I just think of the entrance to the dock so the   the original dock was was approved for six foot  by you guys and all entities and the gang way is   what's the five foot section that was widened  from the original drawings is that accurate   the access portion must be uh the maximum of  five feet in width and it was we were under the   impression when we approved it that it was meeting  that requirement and then after the investigation   inspections it was found to be right at six feet  gotcha okay and so that's a city yeah that is a   um it's a city provision in our land development  gotcha um but the dock's already built i mean I've   seen you know already yeah the door the dock it's  pretty I I would say close to construction being   finished with construction yeah yeah it's uh it's  complete like I said once we received the general   permit from the DP um you know that was that was  pretty much the close of it and then we ran into   this hiccup with um like I said the footprint  of the dock the dock's not in question it's the   access point to the dock um and it looks like  a I I included a picture on cloud permit but I   don't know if uh you guys have seen it but it  just looks like a a gang way um aluminum with   um ADA compliant handrails um what was the reason  I guess intent of widening it from the 5T in the   drawing to the 6 foot um done in construction so  I didn't submit um drawings when I I had always   intended to build it uh 6 foot wide okay i didn't  understand or I mean I wasn't aware of any um   city level ordinance um making it only 5 foot so  once we got it installed and everything was done   um they came out for like the eighth time they  conducted a um an investigation they found that it   was 6 foot and you know I didn't I didn't refute  that i mean I wasn't trying to hide it i don't I  

mean like I said I didn't know that this was a an  ordinance it's just the engineering drawings that   I don't know it doesn't have sizes but it shows a  different size gang way than it does for the main   structure that's what that's why I was So yeah so  we we have it drawn or we have it um oh those are   as built yeah that's the asbuilt survey that we  requested you have done performed on the doc um   the the approved the original approved plans  were part of the the packet but it was like   300 pages long so I don't know if you easy  to you were more focused on the house sure   well we we uh we went and measured it and and  I I used a like an engineering's ruler at the   time so it it it it looks like it was at 5T and I  I small discrepancy interesting who else have any   questions thank you i'd like to reiterate there's  no commercial intent i don't know where that   um you know got dreamed up but this is going to  be a house um it's we're trying to trying to start   um you know we've had several um several  government agencies come like literally   every time I'm there someone will show up and  ask me about something so but to my knowledge   everything is compliant everything has been looked  over by several engineers um and like I said we   have a asbuilt survey now and then you know that  was everything that the city requested thank you well I' I'd like to the Well the the hearing  is actually closed because Mr robbins gets   the last opportunity to speak because he's the  applicant so he has the burden of proving that   he's entitled to the variance so Mr chairman  if you're going to let anybody else speak Mr   robbins is going to get an opportunity to come  back because he gets the last word okay so I   think it's a relatively important distinction  again Kevin Rohan I've been sworn in um she  

had mentioned that uh this asbuilt survey and  you had had keenly pointed out that the dock's   already there um when construction started  on the dock I had a meeting with Mr fuller   about this dock because where the first piling  went in there was some significant questions i   was able to do a public records request and  see what was going on the dock is built in   a completely different location than the original  submitted plans i pointed this out at a meeting mr   fuller contacted the property owner property  owner was able to uh at light speed which is   suspect turn around some new plans moving the  dock submitted a second set of plans with the   dock i was able to get drone footage and analyze  these plans and prove to the city that the second   set of plans that was submitted from a dock  that construction was allowed to continue on   through this process for what reason I don't  know but the second set of plans was proven to   be wrong so this third set of plans that has been  turned over to the city as an asbuilt survey now   has a dock there because none of my efforts though  everyone was proven accurately that the submission   from the applicant was approved with incorrect  surveys on two separate occasions now this is the   third survey presented i think that's an important  distinction because the doc exists only for that   reason thank you thank you does advocate wish to  respond mr robins you get the light yeah thank you my name is Brent Robins i've been sworn in um yeah  they the city asked for an asbuilt survey so I had   to get land surveyors to come out and reservey  everything um I think it's important to notate   that I can change the dock footprint any way that  is not impeding on 25 ft of repairarian lines um  

so where Mr rohan's property um points off it  comes off and um I'm not impeding any state uh   state local law that um you know that I'm on his  property and so I think it's important to notate   that regardless of you know whatever he parades  up here next that I'm I'm legal across the board   um at the state and the federal level um so uh  I guess that'll that'll be it i have a question   yes sir were uh in the process of getting new  surveys were you still building before you got   approved of the surveys was I still building  while you was getting approval from the city   were you still building uh no sir they came  and put a stop work order on my property so   um everything stopped um subsequently we submitted  the survey they came and removed the stop work and   then we began again which uh Mr fuller can um  attest to I guess cuz he was the one that uh   said we could continue working but whenever there  was a stop work in place um construction stopped i   I just want to reaffirm that i I did not lift the  stop work order i said you could put the gang way   down and shoot yeah we we I thought he was talking  about the dock not the gang way were you Were you   Well whatever you needed approval for yeah so the  So that was stopped so the gang way I had a piece   of equipment and I picked that up but I thought  you were asking about the um construction of   the dock which is a whole separate matter um that  was clarified to not be included in the stop work   you were allowed to build the dock without getting  approval for the gang way don't you that's what   I'm asking yeah because they're two separate  entities you need a um the gang way with the   access portion and then the dock construction  they're they're not the same so yeah the gang  

way was the only thing that was wider than what  was I was trying to get understand was Yeah no   when he So the um the building department or code  enforcement somebody they came with the stop work   so I literally took my uh my LOL and uninstalled  it set it up here till that was clarified um I   don't know a week or two later it was clarified  and we were able to to put it back thank you okay   anyone any board members have any questions for  staff i I would like to mention something uh while   we're discussing it so um staff did ask that he  provide us with an asbuilt survey uh and provide   us with um measurements or points of water depths  at the dock which he did he complied with um the   water depths have shown uh that the dock exceeds  our um provision for for dock lengths in our land   development code our land development code says  that the dock cannot be any longer than to reach   a maximum depth of 4 feet at mean low water uh in  this case if you'll look go to the dock profile   you'll see that it's actually like 4 and 1/2 ft um  reason why I bring this up because we're talking   talking strictly about the dock width today that  is that is what the variance request is for is the   dock width but I know it's going to come up um the  neighbor has even submitted um some um some GPS   and sonar data that he thinks um refutes what is  in the surveyor's and the information provided by   the surveyor so that's that's stuff that was laid  on your desk um but again we're here to talk about  

the dock width i don't know what the applicant is  going to try and do about the the length but it   is it reaches according to the survey provided a a  depth of 4 and 1/2 ft versus 4 feet and then as to   your knowledge all the federal permits and state  permits have been approved to my knowledge they have no the only provisions that  it's not in compliance with are   two provisions of the city's land development code any other discussion do I have a motion i don't know motion to approve or deny i'd like to make a motion that  we get all the information on   one time before we uh make a movement well okay well I I think that u the with how far it goes out  whether it's out to or far has nothing to do with   how to get to the dock that's a that can turn into  a lawsuit that's what happens with that you know   saying he's gone too they want to sue for that i  think we're asked that we will give them access   from the plank from the ground to the dock um you  know I I can't see why we would not approve it   uh I mean six inches on either side is not going  to change where the dock is how far it's going   to go out according to way it is right now the  only way you're going to change the length of   that dock is going into I I'm assuming a  civil lawsuit or something i I don't know  

uh having the if the states looked at it and  the uh and it's been looked at uh I would   uh I would make a motion to approve it the gainway  the variance were one 6 in on each side of one   foot and I mean it's a residential neighborhood  if commercial business started then that would   be another reason to come back and do something  but I don't if we could build a house there I   don't think he's going to be I don't know what  he's going to do I'm sure he's going to build a   house on that piece property uh if he's far enough  from the meeting coming out from the u the other   property a lot of times I've seen and been in  the business I've been in I've seen people that   build docks out and they seem to obstruct other  people's view and that sometimes becomes an issue   that people don't like the view well you know  there's no really design or law what your dock   can look like in in aspect of what I understand  if it's you know not sight if you don't like the   sight of it but I would make a motion to approve  it got a motion to approve is there a second okay any further discussion please  take the role board member Carol   I yes board member Barker yes board  member Rich yes chairman Newower yes   motion passes 40 item number two  item number two case number 0214 item number two case number 0214 is a request  for variance uh the applicant is requesting to   vary from the 412 minimum roof pitch requirement  to allow a 312 roof pitch uh requirement the owner   is Viola Sims and Willie Sims and the applicant  is Viola Sims and is located at 502 East 9inth

Street any questions for staff is the applicant here  wishing to speak on this item yes um we trying been trying to get this model  home on our lot since 23 ma'am we need your your   name for the record and if you have been sworn oh  I'm sorry i have been sworn my name is Viola Diane   Sims thank you we're trying to get a modular  home on my lot and we've been trying to get it   since 2023 and it's always something come up we  had to have the front door of the of the model   home to face the street okay the next thing was  um excuse me I had eye surgery well um the next   thing came up was we had to have a porch and uh  street you know the sidewalks and all this okay   once they got the model home ready to go on the  lot they were told that they couldn't sit it on   there because it didn't have the full 12 pitch  roof and this company do not do 4 roofs they   said the only thing was a 32 roof and so now  we're trying to get the home on the lot with   that 312 roof it's already ready they ready to  set it up and everything and it's just been a   thing going on and they just built four houses  around around the corner from that place that's  

uh them small houses little small white  houses and I don't think they roof is 2 feet   so that's just around the corner  from where I'm trying to sit mines thank you is there anyone else in the audience  that wishes to speak on this item any questions for applicant or staff  uh what was the main reason for denying   this i'm just recommendation the the roof  pitch besides the pitch any other any other   uh No that was it how uh how large  is the home as far as square feet um I got it got it you want  me to have her come back up a little over a thousand maybe 26  feet by 40T does it meet setback lines do you remember if it met setback requirements  so they didn't ask for variance for that so I'm   assuming it might I'm not sure if they submitted  so So from the street the width of it is 26 or 40 what's this so 26 ft wide 26 that's not 40 ft  you're looking at it from 26 ft so what's the   the 412 prefixes that's just the primary prefix  i mean we got houses all over the place that   have you know bitamin flat roofs attached to  to them so is that just trying to understand   that yeah that's just a requirement for the  single family design standards a lot of times   we'll get what we'll get is either mobile  homes manufactured homes they usually have   the 312 roof pitch where they want to put them  in residential uh zoning districts so usually   what happens is they'll get these homes and  then they'll design it afterwards to meet the  

new the single family design standards  is is usually how it goes understood it does it'll meet building code  though correct okay yes sir okay any questions sir we have a motion on this item what  can I ask one more question sorry so   in the neighborhood there was the  visual consistency with the other   homes in the area the concern for recommending  disapproval no it was more the unique burden   uh type of hardship situation i think the only  thing they mentioned was was a financial burden   but I mean are there other module homes in that  neighborhood that in Oh yeah it's trailers in   that neighborhood for me so we're just the  recommendation from staff is just because   it doesn't meet the 312 versus 412 so I make a  motion we approve i'll second is he re are you   making a recommendation to deny he's making to  approve to approve not second i second they made   them is there any further discussion right please  take the role board member Carol yes board member   Barker yes board member Rich yes chairman Newower  yes motion passes 4 Z all right item number three savannah item 6 C is case number CPC PLN  2025272 it is an annexation a smallcale   land use request and a reszoning the request  um is to annex into the city and designate the   property under the general commercial future  land use and and the general commercial to  

zoning designation the owner of the property  is Coastal Classic Holdings LLC the applicant   is Kayn Campbell subject properties um are  3712 Airport Drive 3716 Airport Road and   um associated parcel on Airport Drive the total  acreage comes out to a little over two acres um   the uh first reading this will go to the city  commission for the final decision and I'll have   two public hearings thank you any questions for  staff is the applicant here to speak on this item what are they wanting to put there  that's what I can't figure out alen Campbell i've been sworn in i represent Mrs msas who's present  at this meeting she's currently under   contract to purchase all three parcels from  Mr knox the current owner who is also present   today purpose of this application is to request  annexation to Panama City from Bay County mrs   msas is hoping to have future access to  Panama City services water sewer and waste any questions for from staff for the applicant  and what what's the purpose of changing it   to commercial what What is the It's already  zoned commercial in Bay County and we need it   uh annexed to Panama City okay okay all right   thank you is there anyone in the  audience wants to speak on this item see none is there any further  discussion the board questions all   right do I have a motion a motion to approve a  second all right any further discussion please  

take the role board me board member Carol yes  board member Barker yes board member Rich yes   chairman Newower yes motion passes 40 thank  you item D item D is case number 0253 the   applicant is requesting a future land use map  amendment and reszoning to General Commercial   One uh the owner is John Underwood and the  applicant is Shawn McNeel and it's located   at 310 Stanford Road questions for staff  is the applicant here to speak on this item hey good afternoon i'm Shawn McNeil mcneil Carroll  Engineering I have been sworn uh Mr desires to   bring this I'm sorry to reszone and uh change  the classification land use to commercial from   residential as if you if you if you zoomed out  390 is about I hate to get gander guess but maybe   about three to 500 ft away from this property  maybe a tad longer but that industrial that   that purple color I don't know what it says urban  community what does it say urban community that's   the that was the old runway extension if you  get a bearing on that So um we're here to answer   any questions we believe it's just a natural  progression of commercial property it is actually   an existing use uh or existing uh businesses  there that is commercial he's been grandfathered   in since he's been there so uh he just wants to  get the property right he's plans to stay there   and no real movement i think Mr underwood's  here to answer any questions but if you have   any engineering questions I'd be happy to address  them any questions thank you Sean thank you guys anyone else from the audience here to speak on  this item all right see none any questions board  

members do you have a mot well I just like to  say one thing i I don't uh you know we always   have a problem when we have a mer infringe  on residential and I was just wondering   u have the have the staff have anyone come to them  or complain about No one has been Yeah I haven't   heard any complaints yes we haven't received any  comments on this um particular request Sean so the   the the map is showing as yellow as residential  but it says it's currently general commercial is   that correct no it's currently residential one  trying to go to general commercial okay sorry   I'm looking at it wrong thank you that that's my  my concern what's what's between the the gray the   striped area and the gray area what's between  that right there i didn't That's the That's the   mapping on the appraisers map um we're not sure if  there's a gap in adjacent to it there's not a gap   in this legal description so we don't understand  why it's there but you know once we have it we   have provided the legal description to the city  okay um but he doesn't he doesn't really know   they kind of use it from the property back but  it may be an easement on this property or not but   um that's just a it's the way the Bay County  property approaches map services at it so the   the driveway that goes north of the property  that you're talking about in between that and   where the gray starts uh that belong I guess  that belongs to that landowner back there they   didn't express any concerns with it according  to what we haven't heard any concerns no sir let me just like the planning  staff correctly correct you   haven't heard it yes we have not heard  anything thank you thank you again

do I have a motion well why did staff deny it  it's a good question so what why did staff deny   it well I basically looked at the zoning map it  was residential one surrounding it so okay that's   what I base it off of was the um fact that that  R1 spot which we just addressed just now part of   that because you weren't abuting the industrial  like industrial use to the north i mean I was   it's easier when you see something abuing it than  it's than not so is there a driveway there yeah   okay yeah i was definitely complained that since  it's existing but it's predominantly residential   one over there okay that's I also I I think too um  zoning is one thing but also the future land use   category is also something that would change  that we also have to take in consideration   so once we amend the land use map now you're  opening up the door for you know more intense   um use in the general commercial category as well  so all that staff has to take in consideration   when we're doing our analysis um also uh when  we're looking at general commercial changing it   um once when it's immediately adjacent to R1  um the restrictions for development typically   are a bit more intense for that general commercial  parcel so um that's not necessarily the reason why   we recommend a denial but that is something that  we take in consideration as well so they can build   anything they really want i mean I I tell people  if you want to look at what general commercial and   general commercial um um buildout potential look  at your your major arterials in the city so your   highway 77 23rd Street um you know 15th Street  most of that those areas immediately abuing those  

roadways most of that um has the future land use  category that is general commercial now general   general commercial one is a is a neighborhood  what they're requesting is neighborhood   um commercial commercial type of use but we  also have to take in consideration that general   commercial land use category which opens the door  for more intense um development in the future   so it's it's it's a tough it was a tough one but  ultimately staff um we determined that it would be   best for for us to move in this direction with  our recommendation if it didn't have the piece   of residential in between that property and the  industrial property north of it would you be more   apt to approve that or is that kind of how you  gauge that um certainly that would have impacted   because I mean it's all about pattern looking  at the patterns and what's immediately adjacent   to it so if if that um if that would have been  different or if that would have been included   in the request maybe maybe that's something that  we can reconsider but given the current layout of   the area staff ultimately determined that'd be  best to recommend denial okay even though it's   a driveway and not a residential building i  think it's a part and I and maybe I can't see it i think it is a separate No it it is the  parcel is um connected to that larger piece   looking like to the east so I see that yeah okay  thank you so this is there since it's a budding a   commercial use a budding residential they have  increased setbacks on all basically all sides   so it impacts it that the buildout potential is  much so anyone else wishing to speak of this item

i have a motion that we uh denied have a motion  denied do I have a second i just don't like   infringing on residential properties like that  have no second do I have a motion to approve i'll   make a motion we approve it second um I'll second  got a motion and second any further discussion take it Mr parker please take the  role board member Carol yes board   member Barker no board member Rich yes  chairman Newower yes motion passes 31 all right item E item 6E is case number uh 221 it  is an application for reszoning the applicant is   requesting to reszone the current property from  urban residential 1 to urban residential 2 the   owner is Dockside Threading Incorporated  the applicant is Dubberry Engineering   um Inc um Richard Bunter the address is 425  East 19th Street and it is approximately 5 acres any questions for staff is the applicant  here to wish to speak on this item richard Fner 203 Aberdine Parkway i've been sworn  in um really here if you have any questions it   seems to be inconsist consist with all the  uh zonings in the area you have UR2 to the   east that's a new apartment complex you have G  uh GC1 and GC2 surrounding it um the apartment   complex about 30 years old um seems to be that  uh leasing most of the time is looking for two  

bedrooms it's mostly onebedroom uh they like to  look for opportunities potentially in the future   um to increase that density so that's why they're  going to um UR2 that would allow 30 uh units per   acre in L of the 15 that it's currently zoned  for so if you have any questions I'm here but   uh it's generally uh the uh idea behind it is the  land on the 19th Street side of that property is   that wetlands so there's a piece that's on  the southeast side that is undeveloped area   that looks to be like wetlands um but as  part of this this process here they're not   uh going through with any development order  process now that'd come in the future um and   that would definitely be handled throughout  the development order process um they're just   looking for reasonzoning now to get  the uh the property density increased thank you yeah thank you i think historically  we allowed apartment complexes for residential   uses on commercial and 5 to 10 years ago  I think that was kind of changed it's not   changes so just history for here long for short  while i'll make a motion we approve yep second   assume there's no one else in the audience does  anyone else audience want to speak i'm sorry   okay okay all right got a motion to second any  further discussion please take the role board   member Carol yes board member Barker yes board  member Rich yes chairman Deborower yes motion   passes 40 right now I'll open this up to the  audience participation portion of our agenda seeing none meetings mayor