►
From YouTube: City of Clearwater Community Development Board 4/19/22
Description
Comments are not monitored on this platform. To make a comment, please visit www.myclearwater.com/government/council-meeting-streaming-videos or one of our social media pages.
Agenda can be found here: http://bit.ly/ClearwaterCityCouncilMeetings
A
A
B
A
F
A
Please
remember
to
turn
off
your
cell
phone
so
that
they
do
not
become
a
distraction
during
the
meeting.
Please
also
refrain
from
having
conversations
in
this
room
so
that
we
might
hear
all
the
testimony
given
today
to
ensure
a
complete
record
of
this
board's
actions.
We
ask
that
each
individual
wishing
to
speak,
including
the
applicant,
speak
into
the
microphone
at
the
podium
in
front
of
us,
clearly
state
your
name
and
spell
your
last
name
for
the
clerk.
A
A
A
A
In
favor
all
right
opposed
at
this
point.
This
is
an
opportunity
for
anyone
present
who
wishes
to
speak
to
an
item.
That's
not
on
our
agenda
to
come
forward.
A
No
one
all
right,
we
will
move
on
to
our
consent
agenda.
We
have
a
number
of
items
on
the
consent
agenda.
For
today,
this
board
has
adopted
a
consent,
agenda
format
and
the
consent
items
are
identified
as
such
on
the
agenda
consent
item
agenda
items
are
those
items
for
which
the
planning
and
development
department
recommends
approval.
The
applicant
is
in
agreement
with
any
proposed
conditions
and
no
written
objections
to
the
case
have
been
received.
A
I
will
read
each
item
on
the
consent
agenda
and
if
any
person
wishes
to
remove
this
item
from
the
consent
agenda,
please
so
state
or
raise
your
hand,
and
we
will
remove
it
from
the
consent
agenda.
Items
removed
from
the
consent
agenda
will
be
heard
in
the
regular
order
of
the
meeting
items
that
remain
on
the
consent.
Agenda
will
be
approved
with
a
single
vote
item
number
one
on
the
consent
agenda
case
fld2022-02006.
A
At
2185
sunset
point:
road
owner
is
sunset:
car
wash
llc.
The
representative
is
brian
angst
of
mcfarland
ferguson.
The
location
is
.85
acres
located
on
the
south
side
of
sunset
point
road,
approximately
600
feet
west
of
north
belcher
road.
The
community
development
board
is
reviewing
the
proposed
redevelopment
of
an
existing
limited
vehicle
service
use
in
the
commercial
district
for
the
property
located
at
2185
sunset
point
road.
The
project
includes
a
height
of
32.
Feet,
provides
a
minimum
of
16
off
street
parking
spaces
and
requests
allowable
flexibility
for
use,
height
and
setbacks.
A
The
neighborhood
association
is
clearwater
neighborhood
association
and
the
board
of
county
commissioners,
and
is
there
anyone
president
who
would
like
to
remove
this
item
from
today's
agenda?
All
right?
This
item
will
be
removed
from
today's
consent
agenda
and
we
will
consider
it
in
the
regular
order
of
the
meeting.
A
At
207
vine
avenue,
the
owner
is
christopher
g
and
jennifer
coleman.
The
applicant
is
casey
coleman.
It's
0.166
acres
located
at
the
southeast
corner
of
vine
avenue
in
jones
street.
The
board
is
reviewing
a
proposed
addition
to
an
existing
detached
dwelling
in
the
medium
density
residential
district
for
the
property.
At
that
address,
the
project
will
be
approximately
13
feet
in
height
and
request
allowable
flexibility.
Regarding
setbacks.
A
A
A
The
board
is
reviewing
a
1376
square
foot
pier
in
the
us
19
district
for
the
property
located
at
the
address
I
mentioned.
The
project
is
130
feet
in
length
and
requests
allowable
flexibility
for
the
square
footage
of
a
commercial
dock,
pier
greater
than
500
square
feet
in
deck
area.
Is
there
anyone
who
wishes
to
remove
this
item
from
today's
consent
agenda
right?
A
A
A
The
location
is
a
acre
portion
of
a
2.26
acre
property
located
on
the
northeast
corner
of
gulf
to
bay,
boulevard
and
south
keystone
avenue.
The
board
is
reviewing
a
request
to
amend
the
future
land
use
map
designation
from
residential,
slash
office
general
to
commercial
general,
and
to
make
a
recommendation
to
the
city
council.
A
Is
there
anyone
who
wishes
to
remove
this
item
from
today's
consent
agenda
all
right?
Our
next
item
is
related.
It's
regards
the
same
property.
I
just
described
its
case.
Rez
2022-01001.
A
Also
1640
gulf
to
bay
boulevard,
the
owner
again
is
mscw-gtb
llc.
The
representative
is
robert
pergolisi
again
this
7.74
acre
portion
of
a
2.26
acre
property
located
on
the
northeast
corner
of
gulf
to
bay,
boulevard
and
south
keystone.
The
board.
This
item
is
reviewing
a
request
to
amend
the
zoning
atlas
designation
from
office
district
to
commercial
district
and
again
to
make
a
recommendation
to
the
city
council.
A
A
At
609
blanche
b,
littlejohn
trail,
the
owner
is
the
city
of
clearwater.
The
applicant
is
john
jennings
city
manager.
The
location
is
a
.275
acre
property
located
on
the
east
side
of
the
blanche
b.
Littlejohn
trail
approximately
115
feet
south
of
eldridge
street.
The
board
is
reviewing
a
request
to
amend
the
future
land
use
map
designation
from
institutional
to
residential
urban
and
to
make
a
recommendation
to
the
city
council.
A
Is
there
anyone
who
wishes
to
remove
this
item
from
today's
consent
agenda
all
right?
Our
next
item
is
related
to
this
same
property
case
rez2022-202002.
A
609
blanche
b,
littlejohn
trail
owners
city
of
clearwater.
The
applicant
again
is
john
jennings,
the
city
manager,
it's
the
0.275,
acre
property
located
on
the
east
side
of
the
blanche
b.
Littlejohn
trail,
approximately
115
feet
south
of
elder
street,
and
the
board
is
reviewing
a
request
to
amend
the
zoning
atlas
designation
from
institutional
district
to
low
medium
density
residential
and
to
make
a
recommendation
to
city
council.
Is
there
anyone
who
wishes
to
remove
this
item
from
our
today's
consent
agenda?
A
All
right,
may
I
have
a
motion
with
respect
to
the
two
level:
two
applications
that
remain
on
the
consent
agenda.
A
Just
level
two
yeah
that
would
be
items
two
and
three.
L
Okay,
I
moved
to
approve
item
case
number
fld,
2002-01001.
L
H
A
Is
there
a
second
all
in
favor,
aye
opposed
all
right?
We
will
now
move
on
to
the
regular
agenda
there.
The
case
today
that
we
will
be
hearing
is
a
quasi-judicial
type
of
case
all
level.
Two
cases,
such
as
flexible
development,
are
considered
quasi-judicial
hearings
in
a
quasi-judicial
hearing,
the
board
reviews,
the
application,
the
staff
report,
correspondence
and
all
evidence
presented
today
and
makes
a
final
decision
subject
to
appeal.
A
This
board
has
previously
qualified
all
the
city
staff
who
will
testify
as
experts
in
their
areas
of
professional
training,
education
and
experience,
the
list
of
city
staff
experts
and
their
resumes
are
in
the
handbook
on
the
podium
near
the
entry
door.
Any
other
professionals
who
desire
to
be
qualified
as
an
expert
witness
shall
so
request
at
the
beginning
of
the
case
and
present
a
resume
to
each
board
member.
A
The
board
shall
determine
whether
or
not
to
qualify
the
person
as
an
expert
and
in
what
field
of
study
at
the
beginning
of
each
level
2
case,
I
will
ask
for
anyone
who
wishes
to
request
party
status
to
come
forward
and
state
your
reasons.
Party
status
may
be
granted
if
the
person
requesting
such
status
demonstrates
that
he
is
a
substantially
affected
person.
The
board
will
then
determine
whether
or
not
to
grant
party
status.
A
M
B
Have
one
quick
question
actually
did
your
client
receive
notice
at
this
meeting.
J
A
Order
that
we
indicated
did
you
receive
a
notice
of
today's
meeting?
I
did
all
right
is
there
anyone
who
would
like
to
make
a
motion
regarding
granting
party
status
to
mrs
bigler
all
in
favor
opposed
all
right.
Thank
you.
I
A
Is
there
anyone
would
like
to
make
a
motion
to
grant
party
status
to
mr
johnson?
Second.
G
A
The
granting
of
party
status
entitles.
Those
of
you
who
have
been
granted
party
status
to
personally
testify
present
evidence
by
documentaries,
submittal
present
witnesses
conduct
cross-examination
of
any
witness,
present
argument
and
appeal:
the
decision
of
the
board
to
a
hearing
officer
or
circuit
court,
we'll
begin
with
the
presentation
by
the
planning
and
development
staff.
B
Madam
chair,
at
this
time
I
would
ask
that
you
accept
miss
ella,
crandall
and
the
board,
as
well
as
the
board,
should
accept
miss
ella
crandall
as
an
expert
in
general
planning.
Zoning
annexations
land
use,
rezoning
amendments,
comprehensive
planning,
site
plan,
analysis
and
land
development
code
amendments,
land
development
code
matter,
special
area
plans
in
overlay,
districts,
site
plan,
review,
tree
rating
and
assessment
and
inventory
tree
preservation,
techniques,
erosion
and
sediment
control
for
construction,
florida
grades
and
standards
for
landscape
material
and
trees.
International
society
of
agriculture
standards.
A
I
have
a
motion
to
grant
to
accept
her
expert
status
right
all
in
favor
all
right.
I
opposed.
N
All
right
good
afternoon,
so
the
project
before
you
is
for
the
property
at
2185
sunset
point
road,
and
this
is
for
the
redevelopment
of
an
existing
car
wash
which
per
the
pinellas
county
property
appraisers
was
constructed
in
2000.
I
think
it
should
be
noted.
This
was
originally
approved
under
a
prior
code,
as
our
current
community
development
code
was
largely
adopted
in
1999..
N
N
N
There's
a
subject
property,
so
the
property
zone,
commercial.
This
is
indicated
by
the
blue
box
on
the
red
and
it
is
also
directly
abutting
the
medium
density
residential
to
the
west.
So
generally,
the
commercial
zoning
code
has
three
tiers.
You
have
minimum
standard
development
if
you're
a
permitted
use
and
you
meet
those
development
parameters
you
go
to
building
permit
then
there's
two
tiers
of
flexibility,
so
this
project
is
classified
as
a
limited
vehicle
service.
For
that
use,
it
is
required
to
be
a
level
two
flexible
development,
which
is
why
it
is
before
you
today.
N
So
this
is
the
survey
of
the
property
showing
the
existing
conditions.
So
generally,
the
proposal
is
a
redevelopment,
it's
a
partial
demolition
and,
in
addition,
generally
removing
five
of
the
bays
and
reconstructing
it
as
one
automatic
bay
with
building
facade
improvements
and
landscape
improvements.
So
this
is
the
survey
and
then
that's
the
proposed
site
plan
where
generally
it's
staying
within
the
same
footprint
of
the
impervious
structures.
N
Mechanical
equipment
is
being
relocated
to
the
side
and
the
rear
and
will
be
screened,
there's
also
significant
landscaping.
Improvement
shown
this
is
a
portion
of
their
landscape
plan
showing
the
new
material.
It
also
shows
the
large
existing
oak
trees
on
the
west
property
line.
So
that's
the
the
top
of
the
slide.
N
N
Staff
is
recommending
approval
with
13
proposed
conditions
of
approval.
The
majority
of
the
conditions
of
approval
are
pretty
standard
in
general,
but
I
want
to
bring
your
attention
to
conditions
of
approval.
Four
and
five.
There
has
been
a
lot
of
discussion
at
the
development
review
committee
meeting
after
the
meeting
and
recently
about
buffering.
So
we
have
a
commercial
property
next
to
a
residential
property
and
that
always
creates
concern
with
buffering.
N
N
N
N
I'd
also
like
to
introduce
some
city
staff
who
reviewed
and
was
involved
in
this
project,
including
david
ojeda
from
the
engineering
department,
and
we
also
have
gina
clayton
the
planning
and
development
director
and
lord
matzke,
the
assistant
planning
and
development
director,
and
with
that
I'm
happy
to
answer
any
questions.
D
May
I
ask
of
counsel,
I
understand
that
signage
is
handled
by
somebody
else,
but
when
we're
thinking
architecturally
about
the
site,
are
we
allowed
to
consider
what
a
sign
would
look
like
I
mean,
could
you
I
would
just
like
to
clarify
that
right
now
I
mean,
if
it's
one
thing
to
have
a
building.
It's
one
thing
to
have
a
giant
sign
that
we
can't
look
at.
Maybe
maybe
it's
going
to
be
30
by
80
and
cover
the
whole
building.
I
just
have
no
idea.
Are
we
allowed
to
think
about
what
a
sign
could
look
like?
G
Short
answer
no
longer
answer.
That
is
not
to
say
that
the
signage
is
not
independently
reviewed
through
a
separate
process
such
that
somebody
could
run
a
mock
with
your
code
and
plaster
the
entire
side
of
a
building
and
several
billboards
and
everything
else.
There
are
sign
restrictions
that
is
not
the
charge
of
this
body.
In
this
hearing.
N
I
mean,
I
think,
the
the
whole
consideration
with
buffering
the
commercial
to
the
residential
was
kind
of
for
the
whole.
The
whole
gamut
of
you
know
buffering.
I
mean,
I
think,
that's
where
the
fence
you
know
keeping
the
existing
trees,
I
think,
is
very
advantageous.
I
mean
it's
kind
of
buffering
in
general.
The
reason.
O
Why
I
asked
because
I
noticed
in
one
of
the
documents
that
shows
the
traffic
peak
hour
traffic
almost
triples.
F
O
K
N
N
So
the
proposal
is
very
much
to
say
within
the
existing
footprint
of
of
the
of
the
impervious
surfaces,
so
the
driveway
I
mean
the
building
is
there's
a
demolition
of
part
of
those
bays
and
then
it's
being
here,
I
can
go
back
to
the
the
side,
plane
kind
of
shows
where
the
addition
is
to
the
rear
to
the
south.
So
away
from
that
adjacent
residential
and
then
further
to
the
south.
O
F
O
D
And,
as
I
know,
there's
a
car
wash
today
there's
a
restaurant
next
time
we
often
I
park
at
when
I'm
eating
lunch
and
there's
a
system
like
this,
where
there's
a
bunch
of
there's
a
place
where
you
vacuum
your
car
and
you
can
do
all
this
other
stuff,
it's
not
just
a
car
wash
it's
a
whole
deal.
That's
what's
also
here.
So
you
cook,
you
vacuum
up
your
car
and
you
you
do
lots
of
things
in
the
spaces.
You
put
money
in
here
just
to
drive
through
like
this
by
at
a
gas
station
or
something.
N
So
I
believe
the
existing
you
know
car
wash
has
that
now
you
can
see
it
in
the
front,
and
so
they
are
relocating
it
and
the
mechanical
equipment
to
those
parking
spaces
to
the
side
of
the
building.
E
Oh,
so
all
the
equipment
is
being
moved
to
the
south
side
of
the
property
and
as
far
east
as
they
can
get
it,
and
it
looks
like
the
only
thing
that's
over.
There
is
walgreens
and
storage
facility,
so
that
should
help
as
far
as
mitigating
sound
from
the
equipment
as
far
as
mini
getting
sound
in
the
car
wash
noise
of
operation.
Is
there
anything
in
there
for
mitigating
that.
E
Just
the
sounds
the
car,
the
car
washes,
tend
to
be
a
little
bit
noisy
only
because
of
the
the
air
that
air
drying
the
fans
other
than
that.
It's
not
very
they're,
not
very
noisy.
N
So
I
mean
during
the
review,
we
review
it
against
the
code
requirements.
So
there's
not
a
specific
noise
buffering
for
car
washes.
But
again
a
lot
of
discussion
was
just
the
general
buffering
of
commercial
next
to
residential
kind
of
the
whole
gamut.
So
I
don't
have
a
specific
code
thing
to
say
this
is
what's
required
to
buffer
car
wash
for
sound
yeah.
I
understand
you
know
we
do
bring.
B
E
D
I
just
dropped
something
okay
over
here
on
the
course
one
of
the
two
blue
top
pie,
things.
What.
N
D
I
sort
of
asked
that,
because
I've
been
driving
through
some
of
the
ones
we've
done
recently
and
after
they're
built,
they
sure
look
different
than
what
I
thought
they
were
going
to
look
like
when
you
see
whoa.
That's
there
that
wasn't
in
the
plans
that
we
saw
before
it
was
much
much
more
obvious
from
the
way
when
you
looked
around
from
something
than
when
it
was
when
we
saw
the
actual
plan.
So
I
just
tried
to
learn.
O
N
So
there
is
an
existing
cross
access
agreement
between
this
property
and
walgreens
to
the
east,
and
that
is
remaining.
They
have
a
shared
curb
cut.
They
have
a
shared
drive
access,
okay,.
O
N
Q
Q
A
Q
A
All
right
is
there
a
motion
to
accept
mr
coy
as
an
expert
and.
Q
Thank
you,
madam
chair
and
board
members,
brian
unst,
on
behalf
of
the
applicant
sunset
car
wash
llc,
and
I
just
want
to
start
out
by
going
back
to
the
elevations
keep
in
mind.
This
is
an
existing
use
and
everything
about
this
application
reduces
the
intensity
and
density
of
the
existing
use
and
provides
significant,
additional
landscaping,
buffering
architectural
features
and
elements
that
will
not
only
improve
this
property
but
improve
the
impact.
Q
This
property
has
in
the
entire
community
and
hopefully
lead
some
redevelopment
of
those
other
commercial
properties,
the
self
storage
facility,
the
walgreens,
and
make
that
whole
corner
on
belcher
and
sets
that
point
more
attractive
and
better
for
the
neighbors
and
visitors
alike.
So
this
is
the
residential
side
of
the
site.
Currently,
there
are
six
bays
and
the
closest
bay
is
20
feet
from
the
property
line.
This
building
is
one
automatic
bay
and
it
is
over
100
feet
from
the
property
line.
Q
We
also
I
wanted
to
go
right
into
the
traffic
counts
as
well,
so
just
to
clear
up
any
misunderstanding.
This
proposal
results
in
a
net
reduction
of
1
202
trips
per
day
from
the
current
use,
and
it
results
in
a
net
reduction
of
99
peak
hour
trips.
This
was
generated
by
michael
yates,
who
is
a
traffic
engineering
expert
at
palm
traffic
engineering
and
was
submitted
as
part
of
our
application.
It's
part
of
your
application
submittal.
Q
It
shows
that
the
current
use
results
in
1982,
total
trips
and
the
proposed
use
will
result
in
780
proposed
trips
per
day.
Current
use
has
155
peak
hour
trips
and
the
I'm
sorry.
The
existing
use
has
155
peak
hour
trips
and
the
proposed
use
has
78
peak
hour.
Trips
also
like
to
keep
in
mind
this
brand
new
car
wash
this
car
wash.
That
exists
is
six
bays
and
it's
24
hours
per
day.
This
new
car
wash
is
going
to
be
automatic.
Q
Automated
all
of
the
noise
is
interior
to
the
building
based
on
these,
the
new
equipment
and
new
design.
It's
much
more
efficient
cars
aren't
going
to
be
streaming
and
streaming
out
and
staying
there
for
30
minutes
with
their
boom
boxes
they
get
in
and
they
get
out
much
more
quickly.
In
an
automated
system
and
this
building
will
only
operate,
you
know
during
essentially
sun
sun
light
hours.
Q
These
automated
facilities
are
not
24
hours
a
day.
You
don't
pull
in
and
vacuum
at
two
in
the
morning
where,
currently,
you
can
do
that.
So
again,
the
use
itself
will
be
significantly
improved.
I
do
want
to
address
the
the
residential
buffer,
so
this
is
the
existing
residential
buffer.
Again,
this
bay,
the
closest,
is
20
feet
from
the
property
line.
There
is
a
10
foot
easement
that
the
city
will
not
allow
us
to
put
any
structures
in.
So
when
we
first
submitted.
I
think
you're
going
to
hear
about
this.
Q
When
we
first
submitted,
we
proposed
you,
know
a
wall
or
a
fence,
but
it
was
encroaching
into
the
easement,
and
so
the
planning
staff
said
hey.
We
want
a
wall,
we
want
a
substantial
wall
and
the
engineering
staff
said
we
cannot
put
anything
into
the
easement,
and
so
the
alternative
suggestion
that
was
a
compromise
between
the
two
departments
was
a
pvc
fence
on
our
side
of
the
easement.
So,
basically,
right
here
on
our
side
on
our
property
on
our
side
of
the
easement,
we
would
put
that
six
foot
tall
pvc
fence.
Q
We
are
open
to
a
different
type
of
structure.
You
know
those
types
of
things
we're
even
open
to
building
a
structure
on
their
side
of
the
eastman
on
the
raintree
side
of
the
easement.
But
we
can't
civilly
engineer
that
here
today
and
site
plan
it
and
take
it
before
planning
and
take
it
before
engineering
and
say
it's
not
going
to
impact
any
of
the
trees.
It's
not
going
to
encroach
into
the
easement
and
again.
Q
You
know
we
just
kind
of
heard
from
raintree's
representative
about
an
hour
and
a
half
before
the
hearing,
so
we're
not
prepared
to
commit
to
that.
But
what
I'm
prepared
to
tell
you
is
we're
absolutely
open
to
anything
that
works
for
the
city
works
for
raintree
and
works
for
the
applicant
at
a
minimum.
Q
So
to
give
you
a
better
understanding,
these
are
the
six
six
current
days.
There
are
vacuums
right
now
that
are
relatively
close
to
the
residential
that
are
being
removed
and
are
being
replaced
by
much
more
much
more
efficient
vacuums
that
are
going
to
be
farther
away.
This
is
the
vacuum
that's
closest
to
the
residential.
You
can
see
that's
the
residential
property
line
and
that's
the
existing
vacuum.
So
that's
going
to
be
removed.
Q
This
portion
of
the
building
is
the
only
portion
that
will
remain
and
that
will
be
where
the
new
automated
car
bay
will
be,
and
the
vacuums
will
be
on
this
side
of
that
car
bay,
some
additional
pictures
of
the
rear
of
actually,
I
saw
the
front
of
the
lot
from
the
walgreens
side,
so
here
I'm
moving
back
towards
the
south
along
the
western
property
line,
just
to
show
you
how
significant
the
landscape
buffer
currently
is.
Q
There
are
very,
very
mature
trees
that
are
you
know
these
trees
appear
to
be
over
40
feet
tall,
so
there
is
already
significant
landscape
buffering
on
that
portion,
and
I
know
the
city
is
concerned
about
not
damaging
those,
and
then
this
is
a
picture
of
the
rear
of
the
property.
You
can
see
the
self
storage
facility
here
and
the
walgreens
here
so
again
for
the
conditions
of
approval
or
absolutely
fine
with
the
pvc
fence.
Q
Six
foot
high
minimum
on
our
side
of
the
property,
we're
absolutely
fine,
with
additional
landscaping,
as
determined
by
the
city,
to
mitigate
any
other
issues.
Once
again,
this
property
currently
operates
24
hours
a
day.
This
new
design
will
be
over
100
feet
away
from
the
residential
property
line,
will
be
more
efficient,
quieter
and
will
only
operate
during
sunlight,
so
I
believe,
all
of
those
things
meet
and
exceed
all
the
approval
criteria.
At
this
point,
I'd
like
to
ask
mr
palmer
to
come
up
and
answer
a
few
quick
questions.
Q
Thank
you,
mr
palmer.
Were
you
the
civil
engineer
to
design
the
civil
engineer
elements
of
the
site
plan?
Yes,
I
am,
and
in
your
professional
opinion,
does
the
submittal
today
before
the
board,
meet
and
exceed
all
the
approval
criteria
for
comprehensive
info
project?
Yes,
it
does
okay,
and
has
the
site
been
designed
to
mitigate
any
impacts
of
the
use
on
the
neighboring
and
budding
properties?
Yes,
and
would
this
use
have
less
of
an
impact
on
the
voting
properties
than
the
current
use
in
your
opinion,
in
my
opinion?
Yes,
okay.
Thank
you,
mr
coy.
Q
Mr
coy,
are
you
the
architect
that
designed
the
elevations
and
the
facades
of
the
proposal?
Yes,
I
am
okay,
and
I
know
mr
flannery
particularly
had
a
question.
I'm
going
to
put
the
elevation
back
up
on
the
architectural
features
on
the
roof
of
the
structure.
Can
you
just
describe
what
those
are
and
what
the
purpose
of
that.
C
Is
so
those
are
just
architectural
features
there
there's
no
mechanical
up
there
or
any
sort
of
habitable
area.
That's
the
question
so
they're
purely
aesthetic.
Q
Was
the
purpose
of
that
to
meet
and
exceed
the
comprehensive
info
requirement
to
have
interesting
and
architecturally
designed
rooftops
for
comprehensive
info
projects?
That's
correct,
okay,
and
in
your
opinion,
does
it
meet
that
criteria?
Yes,
it
does
and
in
all
other
respects,
in
your
opinion,
does
this
proposal
meet
or
exceed
all
the
approval
criteria
for
confidential?
It
does
okay
and
from
an
architectural
perspective,
in
your
opinion,
do
you
believe
it
has
less
of
an
impact
on
the
current
use
on
the
budding
properties
it
does?
Okay.
Thank
you.
Q
I
hope
I
addressed
most
of
the
questions
that
I
heard
earlier.
The
existing
light
poles
are
going
to
remain
so
the
lighting
is
not
going
to
change
there.
F
Q
Lighting
section
of
the
code
section
3-1302,
which
we
will
absolutely
comply
with
again,
there
will
be
no
additional
or
new
light
poles.
There
will
be
some
lights
associated
with
the
vacuum
bays,
but
those
will
not
be
operating.
You
know
at
night
after
sunset,
so
if
you
have
any
questions,
we'd
be
happy
to
answer
those
and
I'd
like
to
reserve
the
balance
of
my
time.
If
I
can
for
rebuttal.
A
Questions.
Mr,
I
have
a
question.
Yes,
I
just
wanted
for
clarification.
Do
I
understand
that
you
are
recognizing
that
you're
open
to
additional
discussions
about
alternatives
for
the
property
lines
between
your
property
and
the
neighboring
residential
area,
but
with
respect
to
the
pvc
fence
that
is
in
this
condition,
number
four:
do
I
understand
that
you're
prepared
to
commit
to
a
minimum
six
foot.
D
Back
to
council
again,
I
don't
know
if
there's
a
problem.
I
just
want
to
prepare
my
own
thinking
for
this.
I
don't
know
how
I
really
think
about
it,
but
to
me
the
the
reason
for
the
blue
roofs
up.
There
is
signage.
It
makes
it
distinctive
when
you're
driving
down
the
road.
You
see
this
I've
seen
a
couple
of
other
places
where
you
see
they're
they're
a
way
to
recognize
the
site.
D
Q
D
S
The
boots
up,
so
we
in
that
sorry,
man
of
chair
and
members
of
the
council,
christopher
jallow.
We
have
another
express.
S
My
family's
owned
the
existing
parcel
since
it
was
built
as
a
car
wash
full
disclosure.
I
am
a
licensed
attorney.
My
specialty
is
construction,
commercial
and
complex
residential.
We
develop
properties
all
throughout
pinellas
and
hillsborough
county.
We
currently
have
an
express
car
wash
ground
up,
not
a
remodeled
use
street
in
saint
pete.
It's
currently
under
construction.
S
S
The
a
lot
of
that
has
to
do
with
night
operations,
because
you
want
it
nice
and
bright
at
night
when
people
drive
by
and
they
can
see
it
again,
as
brian
did
mention.
This
is
not
a
type
of
use
that
is
operated
at
late
hours
of
the
night
or
after
sunset.
Generally
it
you
know,
there's
obviously
going
to
be
signage
on
the
building
for
the
code.
There'll
be
signage,
there's
currently
signage
on
the
building.
S
Now
and
there's
signage
on
the
on
the
roadway,
we
can
assure
you
we
will
not
exceed
or
attempt
to
exceed
the
code
requirements
and
that
architectural
you
see
there
if
there's
any
signage.
That
is
the
only
because
of
the
new
design.
The
only
place
to
put
building
signage
is
going
to
be
at
that
exit
area,
so
there
there
will
be
a
standard
car
wash
or
the
name
that
we
choose
for
it.
S
Car
wash
sign
somewhere
above
that
entryway
now
because
of
the
fact
that
it
that
is
not
subject
to
today's
hearing,
and
we
were
advised
expressly
to
remove
any
signage
from
our
initial
concepts.
We
never
went
forward
with
engineering
it.
So
I
apologize.
I
cannot
unequivocally
tell
you
that
today,
but
there
will
be
some
signage
like
if
you,
but
there's
see
the
trees
right
there
in
the
front
top
right
corner.
There
would
be
some
signage
there,
that
will
say
car
wash.
S
But
again
it's
not
going
to
be
the
entire
length
of
the
120
foot
tunnel
on
the
side.
It's
going
to
be
your
standard,
everyday
signage
that
meets
the
code
requirements
of
the
city
right
now,.
Q
And
I
think
it's
important
to
note
too.
This
is
the
view
from
sunset
point,
so
the
landscaping
is
designed
essentially
to
shield
the
bay
from
sunset
point
from
view
from
sunset
point,
so
there
will
be
a
monument
sign
of
you
know:
small
code
compliant
monument
side
on
sunset
point,
but
any
signage
that
would
go
over
the
bay
would
only
be
visible
really
once
you
get
onto
the
property
either
once
you
move
into
the
walgreens
easement
or
once
you're
on
the
property
from
the
other
ingress
egress.
Q
D
How
does
this
look
if
you're
down
way
down
the
road
and
you're
driving
past
green
tree
or
whatever,
and
what
do
you
see
than
a
a
village?
Or
do
you
see
any
big
high
blue
things
up
sitting
up
the
air
which
are
served
essentially
to
to
tell
you
that
it's
there,
so
you
can
see
it
for
a
half
a
mile
away
and
as
a
fan,
which
I
sort
of
think
is
why
I
call
it
the
science,
because
it's
doing
the
same
thing,
there's
that
you
know
american
flag.
D
They
put
them
way
up
in
the
air,
not
appears
so
patriotic,
but
because
it's
it's
a
it's
not
assignment
as
a
sign.
But
if
that's
I'm
just
purely
asking,
if
that's,
if
it's
not
architecturally
required
and
is
it
a,
is
it
going
to
damage
the
view
from
our
our
view?
We
do.
We
have,
I
think,
concerns
about
how
it
looks
and-
and
so
I'm
just
asking
do-
we
have
a
concern
about
how
it
looks,
and
I
don't
know
how
it
looks.
I
got
to
think
about
a
little
bit,
so
that
was
my.
S
Crux
of
my
question,
understandably
and
again,
I
do
develop
properties,
not
just
in
the
city
of
clearwater.
I
have
them
in
city
of
tampa
dunedin
palm
harbor,
oldsmar
clearwater
tarpon
springs.
This
is
not
an
uncommon
requirement
that
the
cities
comp
and
fill
that
they
would
like
architecturally
designed
roofs
like
that.
S
We
always
try
to
meet
them
and
go
above
and
beyond
what
the
city
wants.
Actually
the
minimal
standards
cities
want
generally
even
more
architectural
elements
to
it,
and
I
can
assure
it's
it's
a
significant
cost
to
a
developer
like
me
to
add
that
on
there,
so
there's
a
lot
of
developers
that
will
fight
tooth
and
nail
to
get
at
or
below
the
minimum
standards
to
get
it
to
scoot
by
because
of
that
added
cost.
You
know
you're
dealing
with
structural
and
engineering
elements.
S
Steel
is
at
an
all-time
high,
probably
200,
300
percent
above
what
it
was
pretty
covet.
So
it
is
that,
from
a
from
a
cost,
economical
standpoint,
I
would
want
it
to
be
reduced,
or
you
see
some
of
these
remodels,
including
express
car,
washes
going
on
all
around
pinellas
county
and
in
hillsborough
county.
Some
people
redevelop
them
and
they
just
basically
knock
down
a
wall
slap,
some
new
paint
on
it
and
voila
redevelopment.
We
generally
do
not
do
that
as
property
owners.
S
If
we're
going
to
redevelop
a
site,
we
want
it
to
be,
as,
as
brian
had
mentioned,
a
significant
improvement
for
the
community,
not
just
myself
and
my
bottom
line
pricing,
but
I
I
you're
not
going
to
be
able
to
see
those
elements
from
the
neighboring
property,
as
you
could
tell,
there
is
significant
buffering,
pretty
tall
buffering
taller
than
I
think
what
this
building
height
would
be
from
a
science
perspective.
Again,
I
you're
not
going
to
be
getting
these
neon
signs
that
are
going
to
be
flashing.
S
S
O
S
At
this
juncture,
no,
you
know,
I
know,
that's
a
common
feature
in
a
lot
of
new
architectural
designs
that
we've
had
cities,
including
city
of
tampa
and
some
others
that
want
us
to
put
lula
but
they're,
not
projecting
lighting
out.
But
when
you
look
at
them
you
see
a
strip
of
light
because
it
it
adds
that
architectural
element
to
it.
So
we
again
from
an
architectural
standpoint
for
our
comp
infill
it
didn't
require
the
extent
as
the
site
planning
required.
So
we
haven't
gotten
to
a
lot
of
those
details
on
the
architectural
elements.
O
After
hours,
is
there
any
way
of
these
dimming
lights
or
turning
off
lights,
or
that
sort
of
thing.
S
So
so
aaron
could
probably
adjust
that
a
little
bit
more.
There
are
ies
standard
safety
standards
when
even
a
property
isn't
operable
for
protection.
You
don't
want
vagrancy,
you
don't
want
somebody
to
pull
in,
because
we
will
have
cameras
not
not
going
over
the
neighboring
properties,
but
so
we
can
monitor
the
site
from
those
kinds
of
issues.
Nobody,
including
the
neighbors,
want
vagueness
to
go
there
at
night
and
make
it
their
home.
S
Q
S
Yeah
and
we
we
took
before
even
going
this
point.
Before
being
my
background,
we
we
always
try
to
mitigate
impact
on
nui
development.
This
site
had
ability
to
add
more
vacuum,
stalls
expand
it.
A
little
bit
include
expand
on
the
curb
cuts,
but
we
went
into
it
specifically
to
reduce
any
impact
and
keep
it
within
its
current
use,
but
reducing
the
current
uses
impact
on
the
neighbors
and,
as
brian
mentioned
noise,
we're
not
going
with
those
old-school
individualized
vacuum
units
that
are
much
louder
and
operate
independently.
S
We're
going
with
the
central
vacuum
system,
which
the
mechanical
will
be
enclosed
significantly.
The
decibels
are
significantly
less
now,
there's
aspects
of
them
that
become
more
costly,
but
from
a
long-term
perspective
we
think
that's
better
for
the
community
and
us
as
a
property
owner
the
mechanical
equipment.
I
think
somebody
mentioned
it's
all
going
to
be
contained
the
length
of
the
building
from
a
noise
coming
out
of
the
automatic
bay.
S
The
tunnel
is
getting
larger
to
contain
all
that
equipment
within
it
and
have
the
vacuums
I
mean
sorry,
vacuums,
air
dryers
within
it,
and
it's
basically
closed
on
all
corners,
but
the
front
and
back
even
assuming
there
were
windows
on
the
westerly
wall.
We
always
install
impact
windows
by
code
and
they
almost
provide
the
same
decimal
ratings
as
having
a
lock
wall.
S
So
you
know
we,
we
don't
want
the
property
to
be
loud
for
remote
from
our
own
perspective,
if
somebody's
in
their
parking
stall
backing
in
their
car,
we
don't
want
their
ears
to
be
drumming
and
they
can't
hear
themselves
think
because
the
equipment
that's
what's
on
the
property
line.
So
you
know
we
took
a
lot
of
those
considerations
into
effect
from
the
onset
and
you
know
we're
we're
happy
to
answer
or
I'm
happy
to
answer
any
specific
questions
that.
K
S
It
is
the
city's
easement
and
I
again,
if
they're
obligated,
to
maintain
these
to
a
certain
extent.
I
think
if
I'm
not
mistaken,
it
was
a
requirement.
The
defense
be
closed
off
in
front
of
the
easement
or
whatnot,
but
we
generally
from
our
when
our
landscapers
go
out
there
they'll
clean
up
and
make
sure
that
there's
not
overgrowth
in
issues.
There
is
a
the
neighbor's
fence.
That's
currently
there
right
now
chain
link
fence
as
well,
that's
within
their
property
line,
but
you
know.
F
S
Again,
we
we've
wanted
to
redevelop
the
site
for
quite
some
time.
Technology
really
wasn't
there
to
fit
it
within
its
current
use,
without
potentially
going
forward
to
cover
up
the
retention
pond.
Can't
you
can't
move
the
building
perpendicular
parallel
to
the
roadway
because
of
engineering
concerns
technology's
been
there.
One
thing
we
don't
like
is
dilapidated
properties
or
older
properties.
We
we
are.
We
maintain
our
properties
really
well
to
the
point
where
people
are
even
surprised
that
we
put
that
type
of
improvements
into
our
buildings.
S
So
you
know
we
finally
got
to
a
position
where
we
think
we
can
improve
this
with
the
car
wash
equipment
that
currently
exists
today
and
and
we're
excited
to
improve
it,
as
opposed
to
you
know,
potentially
having
to
sell
it
and
do
something
else.
A
M
Good
afternoon
again,
board
members,
as
I
mentioned
before,
my
name-
is
scott
gross.
I
represent
the
rain
tree
village
condominium
the
entity,
the
condominium
entity.
I
did
have
an
opportunity
to
to
speak
with
mr
owens
before
we.
We
got
here
today
briefly
and
mentioned
the
concerns
of
the
community
to
him,
and
I
want
to
mention
those
same
concerns
to
you
guys
so
that
you
are
aware
of
where
the
community
is
coming
from.
M
I
think
we
recognize
where
we're
at
in
the
process
we're
here
at
sort
of
the
final
stage
of
the
process
and
and
that's
where
we
we
got
involved.
We
have
not
been
involved
along
the
way,
and
so
we
didn't
have
an
opportunity
to
participate
in
some
of
the
earlier
hearings
and
comments
and
all
that
stuff.
M
The
thing
that
I
noted,
though,
as
I
was
going
through
the
the
comments,
the
staff
comments,
was
that
initially
the
staff
had
recommended-
and
I
think
it's
been
spoken
to
a
couple
of
times
now,
but
the
staff
staff
had
recommended
a
more
substantial
wall
and
and
the
concerns
of
the
community
just
just
so
you
guys
when
we're
all
on
the
same
page.
M
Here
the
concerns
of
the
community
are
the
noise
which
has
been
brought
up
several
times
the
fumes
from
the
cars
because
of
the
way
that
it's
being
redesigned
the
cars
are
now
going
to
line
up
right
against
the
backyards
of
the
residents
and
then
the
hours
of
operation
which
have
been
addressed
as
well.
M
M
The
noise
and
the
fumes
are
really
where,
where
we're
focused
and
and
the
mitigation
efforts
in
that
regard
is
is
where,
where
we
want
to
focus
the
committee
or
the
the
board's
attention,
I
think
there
are
certain
things
that
that
we
can
do
more
substantial
wall
being
one
of
them
sort
of
going
along
with
the
original
comments.
M
The
I
think,
one
of
the
other
things
I
was
going
to
mention
the
the
four
feet
is
what's
currently
in
the
comments,
our
our
you
know
the
the
applicant
is
has
agreed.
It
sounds
like
to
six
feet
a
more
substantial
structure.
Similarly,
we
would
want
it
like
six
feet
so
that
we're
we're
all
sort
of
on
the
same
page
in
that
regard
as
well,
but
I
think
at
a
minimum,
a
six
feet.
Barrier
of
some
kind
is
sort
of
sort
of
the
baseline
of
where
we
should
be
at
I'm
gonna.
M
I'm
gonna
stop
there
and
ask
if
there's
any
questions
for
me
at
this
point
I
mean,
I
think
our
our
position
is
pretty
straightforward.
Again,
I
don't
know
that
we're
trying
to
stand
in
the
way
of
this
development
project
moving
forward.
We
just
want
some
common
sense
mitigation
to
to
help
us
with
these.
These
fumes
and
the
noise.
M
M
I
think
our
our
request
would
be
the
same
thing.
Put
that
same
type
of
barrier
system
there
that
will
prevent
a
little
bit
more
of
the
noise,
prevent
a
little
bit
more
of
the
fumes
from
getting
across
just
a
more
substantial
barrier.
That'll
prevent
a
lot
of
that.
Those
concerns
along
the
west
side
along.
M
M
A
Down
that
pathway,
I
have
a
question
that
might
be
for
counsel
it.
If
I
understand
mr
aunt's
position,
he
does
not,
he
doesn't
feel
in
a
position
to
engineer
an
alternative
like
a
concrete
wall
here
on
the
fly,
and
that
he's
at
this
point
having
the
project
having
been
developed
with
the
pvc
he's
willing
to
commit
to
a
minimum
six-foot
fence
instead
of
in
the
forefoot.
G
At
the
risk
of
mischaracterizing,
mr
on
statements,
I
believe
mr
owen's
statement
in
the
record
was
that
he
was
approached
by
the
representative
of
ranch.
Mr
president
speaks
here
now
in
roughly
the
last
90
minutes
and
while
he
and
he
would
consider
his
client,
I
should
say-
would
consider
placing
a
wall
along,
not
only
not
in
addition
to
but
either
along
the
easement
line
that
has
been
contemplated
in
the
in
the
specs
that
you
have
before
you,
or
even
alternatively,
along
raintree's
property
line.
Were
they
amenable
to
it?
G
It
seems
that
an
appropriate
motion
could
be
to
impose
that
motion
comma
or
that
condition,
namely
I
believe
four
comma
or
such
other
arrangement
as
the
parties
may
be
amenable
to,
provided
that
it
complies
with
all
required
specifications
imposed
by
the
city
that
muddies
the
waters.
I
understand
that,
but
I'm
answering
the
question
you've
posed.
G
I
would
defer
to
city
staff
and
I'm
not
looking
at
the
condition
right
now,
I'm
fumbling
through,
so
I'm
going
on
the
fly
and
what
I've
seen
in
your
in
your
lines
there,
but
I
would
say
this
or
something
that
all
parties
would
be
amenable
to
that
at
the
very
least
satisfies
the
predicate
alternative.
I
thought
that.
E
G
The
testimony
there's
also
testimony
in
the
record
concerning
the
tree
roots,
which
is
why
the
phrasing
that
that
I
had
offered
was
conditional
on
it.
Otherwise,
satisfying
engineering
are
real,
but
then
again
you're
dealing
with
a
series
of
conditionals
that
would
have
to
be
satisfied.
It
doesn't
leave
any
commitment
that
it
would
be
a
wall
that
would
be
conditional
language
that
could
be
framed,
but
you
are
correct,
mr
codell,
madam
chair.
B
H
We
get
out
we're
getting
we're
getting
them
to
make
their
opening
statements.
Let's
hear
the
rest
of
the
people
that
have
to
stay
and
the
other
parties
are
hearing
it.
Let
them
come
up
with
their
rebuttal
and
they
may
be
working
this
out
without
us
even
inputting
anything
by
the
time
they
get
back
up
here.
M
Yeah
and-
and
I
I
concur
with
that
by
the
way-
I
did
not
say
that
during
my
time-
but
I
just
want
to
let
you
guys
know
that
that
would
have
been
our
request
as
well.
If
we
can't
get
it
figured
out
here
today.
Let's
do
this
again
in
30
days
or
whenever
we
meet
again,
and
we
can,
in
the
meantime,
try
to
figure
out
a
method
for
resolution,
whether
it's
getting.
B
J
J
J
J
They,
you
know
have
that
boom
boom
boom,
it
rattles
the
window
and
windows
in
my
condo.
That's
how
loud
it
is
so
in
the
fumes
right
now,
I'm
not
bothered
by
the
fumes,
because
I
don't
have
that
driveway
right
next
to
me,
but
I
am
bothered
by
the
noise-
and
I
don't
know
how
many
times
in
the
past
we've
had
to
call
the
police
non-emergency
number
and
have
them
go
over
there
and
settle
the
matter
because
cars
collect
over
there,
groups
of
people
collect
over
there
and
they
play
music.
J
Right
along
the
back
of
my
yard,
so
they'll
be
driving
in
there,
possibly
playing
loud
music
sitting
waiting
for
their
turn
to
go
to
the
car
wash,
and
I'm
just
going
to
hear
all
this
noise
and
the
fumes.
Now
I
have
to
address
the
fumes,
so
I'm
just
not
happy
with
the
way
the
cars
are
coming
in
and
having
to
sit
there.
What's
going
to
stop
somebody
from
coming
in
at
two
o'clock
in
the
morning
to
wash
their
car,
it's
an
automated
service
correct!
J
J
So
just
the
way
the
cars
are
coming
in
and
they're
right
next
to
the
condos,
the
fumes,
the
lines,
the
noise.
I
have
a
problem
with
it
and
also
the
property
values,
and
what
about
the
lighting.
J
J
Right
now
you
can
see
this
is
a
condo
right
here,
this
white
spot
here,
that's
a
condo
and
this
dark
area
right
here
is
the
second
story
of
the
condo.
That's
how
close
we
are
to
the
car
wash
and
the
line
of
trees
is
helping
to
buffer
that,
but
it's
and
also
the
elevation
raintree
village
is
very
low
compared
to
the
car
wash
the
car
wash
is
elevated
and
we
are
very
low.
So
where
is
that
excess
water
going
to
go
now?
I
know
they
do
have
plans.
L
S
Sorry,
the
there's
a
driveway
path
there
now,
as
you
all,
can
clearly
see
that's
how
customers
get
from
the
front
of
the
property,
with
the
back,
they
don't
pull
back
out,
go
through
walgreens
and
come
into
the
back.
The
curb
cuts
are
substantially
all
staying
the
same
as
we've
stated
and
as
ls
stated
that
they're
opening
it's
the
cars
are
just
being
fed
through
that
way
for
traffic,
full
of
purposes
safety
purposes
to
ensure
not
backflow
through
sunset
point
growth
and
people
use
property.
S
So
that's
why
we're
feeding
them
through
that
way
now,
which
is
where
they
totally
drive
through
right
now
anyway.
So
that's
why
we
were
a
little
bit
confused
about
the
comments
about
the
driveway,
because
not
only
is
there
a
driveway
but
there's
bays
and
vacuums
where
people
just
sit
could
sit
on
all
day.
But
yes,
there
is
currently
a
driveway.
The
curb
cuts
are
not
changing.
We're
trying
to
not
have
to
change
them
for
a
lot
of
reasons,
because
then
we
just
get
out
of
hand
with
everything.
J
J
So
you
can
check
with
the
police
how
many
times
they've
been
called
like.
I
said
I
just
called
them
last
week
and
they
came
out
and
I
hate
to
keep
bothering
the
police
about
a
matter
like
this,
because
they
should
be
doing
other
things
and
not
controlling
noise.
J
J
No
it's
during
the
day.
It's
it's!
It's
all
all
the
time
yeah
this.
This
happened
to
me
when
I
called
the
police.
It
was
during
the
day
yeah
and
it's
just
a
lot
of
people
get
together
there
and
they
congregate
and
they
play
loud
music,
and
you
know
so.
This
has
been
happening
for
19
years
and
I've
called
the
owner
a
couple
times,
because
I
know
him
because
I
got
a
hold
of
his
number
and
I
called
him
and
said
you
know
this
has
got
to
stop
and
then
I
started
calling
the
police.
J
I
Thank
you
board
members.
The
coalition
of
neighborhoods
would
ask
the
board
to
follow
the
objective
of
follow
the
code.
Follow
the
process,
have
a
process
and
a
code
that
is
transparent
and
understandable,
understandable
to
the
public
without
having
side
agreements
that
are
not
visibly
apparent
to
the
public
in
these
application
falls.
Fails
one
of
the
six
required
section,
3
914
general
applicability
criteria
that
combined
with
the
requirement
of
section
4-26,
d-4
states
quote.
I
The
burden
of
proof
is
upon
the
applicant
to
show
by
substantial
competent
evidence
that
he
is
entitled
to
the
approval
requested
and
going
back
to
3
9
14
6
requires
quote
the
design
of
the
proposed
development
minimizes
adverse
effects,
including
visual
acoustic,
olefactory
and
hours
of
operation,
impacts
on
adjacent
properties.
We're
talking
about
adjacent
properties.
Here,
the
applicant's
response
to
this
requirement
is
quote.
The
proposed
redevelopment
is
designed
with
increased
setbacks,
increased
landscaping
and
more
efficient
site
plan
and
more
efficient
traffic
flow.
I
As
such,
the
project
is
designed
to
minimize
adverse
effects,
including
visual
acoustic
and
all
the
factory
and
hours
of
operation
impacts
on
the
adjacent
properties,
so
they're
just
saying.
Well,
we
do
it,
but
I
could
find
nothing
in
the
application
record
dealing
with
the
hours
of
operation.
You
got
some
information
today
on
that
didn't
see
much
in
there
on
the
acoustic
aspects
of
the
project
on
the
adjoining
properties.
I
I
Please
please
please
lower
volume
on
your
radio,
courtesy
for
the
neighbors
underscoring.
The
current
requirement
to
prohibit
limited
vehicle
service
which
includes
car,
washes
adjoining
residential
neighborhoods.
I've
been
doing
a
lot
of
car.
Washes
people
hang
out
there.
They
have
the
radio
going
while
they're
they're
drying
off
their
car
or
putting
polish
on
or
putting
the
tire
black
on.
I
That's
why
the
current
requirement
is
in
the
code
that
it
can't
adjoin
residential
neighborhoods,
and
it
says
the
parcel
proposed
for
development
is
not
contiguous
to
a
parcel
of
land
which
is
designated
as
a
residential.
In
other
words,
limited
service
vehicle
services
only
allowed
when
it's
not
contiguous
to
a
parcel
of
the
land
which
is
designated
residential.
I
So
it
is
appropriate
not
to
extend
this
non-conforming
use
it's
non-conforming,
because
this
apparently
was
added
to
the
code
in
the
last
that
wasn't
in
there
in
the
last
version.
So
then
you
look
at
the
code
and
look
at
the
provision
within
the
code
that
says
a
non-conforming
use
cannot
be
extended,
cannot
be
expanded.
A
Q
A
few
minutes
here-
and
I
don't
know
if
this
would
be
better
for
miss
crandall
or
director
clayton,
but
we
did.
I
want
to
address
this
suggestion
regarding
the
comments
from
the
drc
hearing.
So
when
we
apply
for
a
comprehensive
infill,
flexible
development,
application
level,
two,
we
do
our
initial
submittal
and
we
either
get
a
completeness
letter
or
we
get
a
letter
of
incompleteness.
If
there's
a
letter
of
incompleteness,
we
have
to
submit
something
or
fix
something
in
the
original
submittal
to
move
on
to
the
drc.
Q
If
we
get
a
letter
of
completeness
like
we
did
in
this
case,
we
move
on
to
the
development
review
committee,
which
is
a
public
meeting,
but
generally
members
of
the
public
don't
attend
it.
They
can't
speak
at
it,
but
the
staff
and
the
applicant
discuss
the
drc
comments
and
the
comments
come
from
all
of
the
disciplines
of
the
staff,
engineering,
sanitation
parks
and
rec
planning.
Q
There
was
a
planning,
a
comment
regarding
a
wall,
and
then
there
was
an
engineering
comment
saying
get
the
wall
or
the
fence
or
showing
out
of
the
easement.
So
I
wanted
to
see
if
we
had
a
meeting
a
follow-up
meeting
with
with
miss
clayton
director
clayton
and
miss
crandall
about
that
issue
and
those
two
comments,
and
I
was
hoping
that
they
might
elaborate
a
little
more
on
how
they
arrived
at
the
six
foot
tall,
pbc
fence,
as
the
condition
of
approval
that
they're
recommending
today.
N
I'll
try
to
address
that
so,
since
we
are
discussing
a
lot
about
the
development
review
committee
comments,
one
thing
I
want
to
say
when
an
application
comes
through
our
development
review
committee,
we
have
all
of
the
technical
members
planning
engineering
so
on
planning
staff
and
staff
in
general.
We
comment
and
we
try
and
get
applicants
to
the
most
supportable,
the
most
approvable
project.
We
can.
What
is
the
most
consistent
project
we
can
get
out
of
here?
N
So
we
have
lots
of
comments
at
drc,
and
this
is
usually
what
I
tell
applicants
when
they
see
the
number
of
comments
they
have
we're
trying
to
get
you
to
the
best
possible
project.
So
that
explains,
you
know.
We
knew
commercial
next
to
residential
buffering
is
going
to
be
very
important,
which
is
why
we
had
that
comment.
N
This
is
a
challenge
with
that
utility
easement.
What
can
we
actually
accomplish
there?
So
at
drc?
We
had
those
comments.
There
was
a
lot
of
discussion
during
the
meeting
with
technical
staff
and
the
applicant.
What
can
we
do?
How
can
we
accomplish
this?
We
need
something
here,
not
everything
gets
resolved
at
drc.
N
So
this
this
was
largely
kind
of
encouraged
to
you
know,
keeping
those
existing
trees,
I
think,
is
very
important
for
buffering.
I
try
and
be
very
realistic
about
what
you
can
actually
construct
next
to
existing
oak
trees.
Anyone
who's
worked
with
me
usually
knows:
I'm
pretty
adamant
about
tree
roots
and
if
you
want
the
tree,
you've
got
to
keep
the
tree
roots.
So
that
was
a
lot
of
the
discussion.
Why
pvc?
N
Why
not
a
masonry
wall
there
is
a
construction
technique
called
pier
and
lintel,
where
you
know,
if
you're
building
a
masonry
wall,
you
have
this
continuous
footer
to
me.
That's
continuous
root
damage
the
construction
technique
of
pure
lentil.
You
have
peers,
so
you
have
intermittent
pilings
and
then
you
span
them.
N
That
is
very
helpful
for
construction
around
tree
roots.
So
that's
that's
also.
The
challenge
here
is
we're
getting
really
detailed.
You
know
construction
techniques
for
a
condition.
It's
it's
an
option
that
was,
you
know.
An
original
comment
get
the
most
substantial
buffering
that
we
can
on
this
western
property
line.
It's
clearly
very
important,
but
I
don't
know
if
that
helps
explain
like
the
drc
comments.
What
was
said
why
it
was
said
what
we're
trying
to
accomplish
what
we're
trying
to
accomplish
that
really
truly
can
be
constructed
when
you
get
to
building
permit.
N
Q
Yeah,
I
think
that's
good.
This
is
my
time
for
questions,
but
I
wanted
to
let
you
know
that
our
civil
engineer,
mr
palmer,
has
a
proposal
regarding
what
that
most
substantial
wall
that
won't
impact
the
tree
roots.
That
also
won't
impact
the
retention
pond
because
keep
in
mind
the
retention
pond
is
also
in
the
rear
of
the
property.
Q
Q
But,
mr,
if
you'd
like
to
just
explain
what
your
alternative
to
a
pvc
fence
would
be
that
we
would
be
agreeable
to
yes,
it's
similar
to
what
might
even
be
the.
T
T
The
panels
can
be
up
to
20
feet
long,
so
you
could
strategically
place
the
the
piers
to
do
the
least
amount
of
damage
to
the
roots.
If
that
would
be
acceptable
to
the
city,
it's
it's
a
more
substantial
wall
lightweight.
You
got
a
precast
yeah,
it's
a
precast
and
it
just
slips
in
between
the
two
columns
so
similar
with
the
ut
users.
Yes,.
H
S
Yes,
we
are
but
with-
and
it
was
mentioned
by
mr
palmer
subject-
to
approval
by
the
city,
because
we
do
want
to
make
sure
the
24
inch
diameter
panels.
So
you
know
assuming
engineering
from
the
city,
and
everyone
want
to
be
on
board
with
it.
We
can
get
it
to
fit.
We
are
okay
with
doing
that.
So
kind
of
the
minimum
requirement
is
a
put
up
the
panel
wall,
which
achieves
a
substantial
wall,
because
I
mean
we've
installed
those
before
but
again
it's
as
mrs
crandall
mentioned
it.
S
You
get
the
very
detailed
drawing
permitting
requirements,
but
we
are
okay
with
that
and
we
were
okay
with
it
in
the
onset
by
the
way
and
again
just
to
address
the
comments
about
the
other
wall.
You
know
the
if
or
scenario
my
experience
with
council
members
is
and
councils
and
the
cities
is
they
don't
get
too
intricately
involved
with
neighboring
properties
negotiating
deals,
regardless
of
whether
this
goes
on
beyond
today,
because
you
know
there's
rights
of
access
agreements
that
need
to
be
signed
for
it
to
be
done.
S
B
Now
I
did
just
speak
with
miss
crandall
and
the
city
would
be
amenable
to
doing
a
six-foot,
pier
and
lentil
masonry
wall
that
the
applicant
considers
that
so
just
something
for
you.
H
F
N
Discussed
is
so
you
have
the
proposed
condition
of
the
fruit
approval
number
four,
it's
a
little
wordy
because
we're
getting
a
lot
of
details
in,
but
the
the
change
would
be
kind
of
saying,
providing
a
minimum
six
foot
high
pure
lentil
masonry
wall
outside
the
easement
and
without
impacting
the
existing
tree
roots,
the
same
language.
That's
there!
N
N
L
What
we're
actually
approving
and
and
how
far
are
we
getting
into
the
weeds
of
the
means
and
methods
of
the
type
of
construction,
and
that's
that's
I'm
not
leading
I.
I
honestly
don't
know
what
we're
actually
approving
today
and
how?
How
many
nuances
are
we
adding
or
not.
B
Adding
we
did
have
in
the
original
stat
report
that
we
wanted
a
pvc
wall,
so
we're
really
just
substituting
this
in
for
a
different
type
of
wall,
and
we
were
already.
The
staff
report
also
recommended
four
football.
In
which
case
we
recommended
six
feet
still
recommending
six
feet:
we're
just
changing
the
report
to
change
the
type
of
fence,
which
would
be
perfectly
okay.
G
From
the
city's
perspective
and
to
speak
to
the
to
speak
more
narrowly
to
your
question,
your
code
is
the
city's
code
is
different
from
some
other
codes
where
it
is
strictly.
This
is
the
rule
and
the
variance
your
code
allows
for
some
flexibility
subject
to
conditions
where
parties
can
sort
of
for
lack
of
a
better
term
negotiate
to
a
result.
That
is
more
amenable
without
a
series
of
ovarian
spur
two
feet.
G
This
way,
one
foot
this
way
three
more
plants,
two
more
feet
on
this,
and
so
what
you
have
is
a
more
flexible
arrangement,
subject
to
the
conditions
so
long
as
they
reasonably
relate
to
the
nature
of
the
development
done
in
form
of
looking
for
proportionality
and
otherwise,
and
so
the
13
conditions.
I
believe
it
was
13
that
were
proposed.
G
What
you've
had
is,
as
your
as
your
says,
city
council,
has
stated,
a
change
in
the
nature
of
the
material
that
is
still
consistent
if
you
started
getting
into
features
such
as,
and
it
shall
be,
the
color
blue
and
a
red
heart
in
the
middle,
then
you're
going
well
above
and
beyond
your
actual
charge
here
today,
but
getting
to
a
design
specification
that
harmonizes
are
the
real
concerns,
storm
water
mitigation
concerns
and
otherwise
that's
still
consistent
with
a
design
specification.
L
L
G
So
so
so
because
this
is
a
quasi-judicial
hearing,
what
you're
considering
is,
as
was
stated
earlier
by
one
of
the
parties,
confident
substantial
evidence
and
ultimately
what
you
have
is
competing
testimony
and
competing
evidence
on
what
is
and
is
not
and
and
some
things
are
not
evidence.
Some
things
are
simply
opinion.
However,
you
have
competing
testimony
on
issues,
and
that
is
the
charge
of
this
body
today
to
resolve
those.
It
may
very
well
be
that
the-
and
this
is
not-
I
want
to
be
very
clear,
not
what
the
record
testimony
is.
G
But
if
somebody
comes
in
and
says
this
fence
does
nothing
and
somebody
else
comes
in
and
says
this
fence
does
everything.
Ultimately,
you
have
to
take
the
evidence
before
you
and
reach
that
conclusion
and
you're
not
bound
by
what
the
city
stated
you're
not
bound
by
what
the
applicant
or
their
opposition
may
state.
Ultimately,
you
are
the
jurist
here,
and
so
you
are
correct
to
say
that
you've
heard
competing
opinions
on
relevant
points
pertaining
to
this
development
and
the
attributable
conditions.
G
G
Would
advise
against
creating
an
arbitrary
condition,
because
the
city's
code
does
apply
as
you've
heard
from
the
applicant
and
the
city.
They
are
still
bound
by
lighting
restrictions,
sound
restrictions,
hours
of
traffic,
of
all
the
things
that
bind
any
property
within
that
commercial
district
still
apply.
So
you
don't
need
to
say
you
don't
need
to
double
down
and
say,
but
they
still
have
to
comply
with
the
noise
ordinance.
G
The
the
other
advice
I
would
give
you
as
relates
to
code
complaints
and
code
things
is
you're
considering
well,
we've
heard
complaints
a
complaint
is
not
an
adjudication
of
a
violation,
and
so
that
is
something
else
to
consider
and
when
we
consider
you
processing
the
otherwise.
The
testimony
you've
heard
is
there's
no
pending
violations
on
the
property
and
then
that's
also
within
the
application
materials.
G
E
Does
there
is
no
recourse
for
them
to
make
it
to
add
more
to
this.
G
I'm
going
to
unpack
that
there
were
a
lot
of
pronouns
without
antecedents
the
then
the
them
here
being
the
adjacent
property
owners
if
the
them
is
the
adjacent
property
owners.
Once
the
the
general
testimony
today
has
been
that
the
preference
would
be
a
more
more
substantial
wall,
I'm
using
a
term
used
that
is
not
mine.
A
more
substantial
wall
is
the
preference
to
mitigate
that
effect.
G
If
a
more
substantial
wall,
whether
that
be
in
the
form
of
a
pure
lentil
precast,
however
you're
describing
it,
is
aimed
at
that,
and
it
fails
to
meet
their
expectations
of
them
being
the
adjacent
property
owners.
Their
recourse
is
to
go
under
the
code
and
make
complaints
as
you've
heard
and
say
you
know
this
environmentally.
This
was
what
we
wanted.
It
didn't
get
us
all
the
way
there,
I'm
still
getting
impermissible
decibel
levels
as
within
your
code,
and
you
have
that
recourse.
G
E
One
thing
I
wanted
to
address
is
the
engineer,
mr
palmer,
the
stormwater
requirements,
because
there
was
a
question
about
that
is
the
impervious
surface
area,
exactly
the
same
as
it
was
before
it
actually.
E
All
right
so
that
you
can
see
so
that
would
be
a
city
clearwater
issue
as
far
as
stormwater
control
and
the
attenuation
is
through
swift
mud,
so
yeah,
okay,
correct
all
right.
Q
J
J
Okay,
yes,
they're,
saying
that
this
roadway
right
here,
I
wonder
if
it
was
permitted,
because
originally
that's
the
question
I
had.
Is
it
permitted
because
I've
been
there
a
long
time,
and
I
know
there
was
a
lot
of
work
done
after
five
o'clock
in
the
evening.
So
this
would
be
the
road
right
here.
Is
that
area
that
when
they
made
that
area
did
they
have
a
permit,
because
originally
it
was
going
to
be
a
bank
and
they
stopped
putting
the
bay
in
there.
G
B
Q
S
S
Even
though
it
wasn't
directed
towards
me
to
the
best
of
our
knowledge,
we
submitted
a
site
plan
architectural
plan,
it
was
permitted,
approved,
we
constructed
it,
it
was
inspected,
we
received
the
co.
The
layout
of
the
building
itself
has
not
changed
at
all
for
22
years.
It's
been
built
that
way
it
had
a
driveway
path,
because
that's
how
you
get
to
the
back
of
the
property
within
our
property
line,
and
I
don't
think
it
would
have
been
permitted
without
accessibility
and
from
emergency
in
and
out.
I
Thank
you
award
and
I
apologize
for
taking
time
from
your
afternoon.
First
question
is,
I
don't
remember
his
name,
but
the
civil
engineer
that
testified
that
the
application
is
consistent
with
a
comprehensive
infill
redevelopment
provisions
of
the
code
who.
F
I
Section
2-704-f
is
the
requirements
of
the
comprehensive
infill
redevelopment
project
and
the
first
element
is
the
development
or
redevelopment
is
otherwise
impractical
without
deviations
from
the
use
or
the
development
standards
set
forth
in
this
zoning
district.
So
what
other
redevelopment
alternatives
did
you
consider
that
would
be
consistent
with
this
sony
district.
I
Okay,
I
would,
I
would
think
that
that's
a
significant
fact
for
the
board
to
consider
the
second
one
is
another
provision
is
the
proposed
use
shall
be
compatible
with
adjacent
land
uses
and
considering
that
the
existing
code
prohibits
limited
service
vehicles
vehicle
service,
how
can
you
say
that
the
proposed
use
is
compatible
with
adjacent
land
uses?
It's
been
compatible
for.
T
I
I
I
In
six,
it
says,
in
order
to
form
a
cohesive
visually,
interesting
and
attractive
appearance.
The
can
you
talk
about
the
cohesive
visually,
interesting
and
attractive
appearance.
C
C
It's
modern
up
to
date
we're
using
modern
contemporary
materials
that
will
just
increase
the
value
of.
I
The
property-
and
I
don't
know
about
the
public
speaker
but
all
right.
Let
me
ask
you
another
question:
the
the
existing
building
without
that
added
rooftop
structure,
what
is
the
height
of
that
existing
building.
C
I
can't
speak
for
the
height
of
the
existing
elevations
of
the
building,
but
on
the
new
structure,
I
believe.
C
The
primary
roof
structure
here
the
primary
roof
structure
of
the
building,
is
16
feet,
tall,
which
is
below
the
allowable
amount,
and
I
believe
the
code
allows
for
future
elements
that
are
taller
and
that's
what
we're
proposing
right
here.
Well,.
I
I
P
Yes,
my
name
is
robert
bigler.
I
also
live
at
raintree
village
and
my
questions
with
regard
to
some
of
the
testimony
that
came
out
where
they
talked
about,
and
I
wasn't
clear:
was
it
no
late
operations
or
probably
no
late
operations
of
the
car
wash
and
what
is
late,
and
does
that
mean
that
no
one
can
come
in
and
use
the
vacuums
after
a
certain
hour.
A
G
P
If,
if
they
are
saying
that
no
one
can
come
in
and
run
the
vacuums
in
the
middle
of
the
night,
because
that's
really
when
the
problem
comes
in
with
the
noise,
it
isn't
the
running
of
the
car
wash
it's
the
running
of
the
vacuums
outside
of
the
building
where
they
sit
there
with
the
car
doors
open
and
the
radio
blasting
and
the
face
turned
all
the
way
up
and
there's
nothing
that
can
be
done
about
it.
If
you
call
the
police,
they
say:
well,
that's
their
prerogative
and
it's
frustrating.
A
A
Closing
remarks
by
the
persons
with
party
status.
J
G
Ordinarily,
closing
remarks
are
a
summation
of
the
testimony
offered.
We
are
not
so
strictly
limited
to
the
rules
of
evidence
here,
ordinarily,
however,
and
at
the
discretion
of
the
chair,
this
should
be
a
summation
of
evidence
already
presented,
because
at
this
point
the
present
the
evidence
presented
is
not
cross-examined
etc.
J
I
I
They
did
not
follow
subsection
five,
which
requires
that
the
proposal
be
comparable
or
compatible.
Excuse
me
with
adjacent
land
uses.
We
know
it's
not
compatible
because
the
code
itself
says
limited
service.
Limited
vehicle
service
shall
not
be
located
next
to
a
residential
we've
heard,
testimony
from
the
neighbors
that
the
noises
and
the
problems
from
the
existing
car
wash.
Yet
we
see
a
huge
development
which
has
more
parking
spaces,
more
opportunities
for
for
radios
to
be
left
on
for
activity
in
the
parking
lot.
I
I
Q
Q
Thank
you.
Thank
you
very
much
and
thank
you,
madam
chair
brian
angst,
in
rebuttal
and
summation
first,
I
want
to
address
mr
johnson's
point
about
not
considering
other
uses.
That's
not
a
criteria.
The
criteria
he's
referencing
is
the
development
or
redevelopment
is
otherwise
impractical.
Without
deviations
from
the
use
and
or
development
standards
set
forth
in
the
zoning
district,
it
doesn't
require
you
to
consider
other
uses.
Q
It
requires
you
to
establish
that
a
deviation
from
those
criteria
is
required
and,
as
he's
pointed
out,
the
deviation
is
that
it's
adjacent
to
a
residential
zoning,
just
like
it's
adjacent
to
a
walgreens,
just
like
it's
adjacent
to
a
self
storage
and
our
response
to
that
is,
it's
operated
there
for
22
years
and
what
we're
proposing
as
the
staff.
Your
expert,
witness
staff,
have
repeatedly
said
in
the
staff
report
is
a
substantial
improvement
and
a
significant
reduction
on
the
use.
Q
It's
a
substantial
improvement
in
landscaping
as
a
substantial
improvement
in
buffering
it's
a
substantial
improvement
in
lowering
the
isr
lowering
the
fa
ar
it's
a
substantial
improvement
in
terms
of
where
this
use
is
located
and
how
it
interacts
with
its
neighboring
properties.
What
mr
johnson
is
proposing
is
to
leave
this
use
there
forever,
not
to
improve
it.
Your
code
isn't
designed
to
not
allow
someone
to
improve
their
property.
That's
precisely
why
we
have
the
comprehensive
infill
project
prospect.
Q
The
other
thing
I
have
to
remind
you
of
is
this
is
a
quasi-edition
hearing,
and
you
have
to
only
consider
competent,
substantial
evidence
of
substantial
evidence
is
not
lay
witness
opinion.
Testimony
about
noise
pollution
about
traffic
that
is
late,
witness
testimony
does
not
meet
the
burden
of
confident
substantial
evidence.
You
have
had
no
expert
witness
testimony
against
this
application.
Today,
all
of
the
city,
staffs
experts,
the
engineering
department
they
reviewed,
mr
yates's
work.
They
reviewed
his
traffic
counts
if
they
thought
they
were
incorrect,
they
would
have
told
us
that
they
needed
a
traffic
study.
Q
They
would
have
told
us
this
is
a
reduction
of
substantial
reduction
in
traffic,
not
to
mention
a
substantial
reduction
from
the
24
hours
of
service
and
the
vacuums
that
are
right
up
against
the
property
line
to
daylight
hours
of
service,
which
is
not
a
probably
it's.
It
will
be
and
significantly
reduced
and
set
back
from
the
property
line
and.
Q
Jallow
close
out
our
argument
and
the
summation
of
the
evidence
and
provide
you
with
a
little
more
detail
on
his
perspective.
But
just
remember
confidence
of
social
evidence
requires
some
basis.
In
the
opinion,
that's
an
expert
opinion
and
you
have
not
received
any
common,
substantial
evidence
against
the
application
today.
S
S
We
are
not
only
addressing,
but
we
are
correcting
those
prior
concerns
quite
substantially
from
what
existed
currently
here
today
we
are
reducing
the
building
impact,
the
driveway
lanes.
I
don't
know
kind
of
whether
it's
have
your
cake
or
eat
it
too,
but
they
don't
want
cars
to
be
parked
there
in
the
driveway
lane
and
sit
there
for
lengthy
periods
of
time.
S
So
we
added
two
lanes
float
traffic
through
get
them
in
and
out
of
the
property
quicker
smoother
without
backup,
without
that,
so
we
kind
of
plan
for
these
ahead
of
time,
the
the
noise,
the
hours
of
operation
operation,
the
congregation.
This
is
not
something-
and
I
think
bill
mentioned
they
cut.
Customers
cannot
come
here
after
hours
to
use
the
vacuums.
They
cannot
come
here
after
hours
to
use
the
air
sprayer
or
the
water
or
whatever
it
may
be.
S
We
have
employees
that
will
be
there
now
on
site
to
enforce
a
lot
of
our
rules
about
noise
and
volume
and
radio
know
the
whole
comment
about
general
hours
of
operation.
You
can
drive
through
penelope
county
all
day
long.
You
don't
see.
These
express
car
washes
open.
Generally,
once
the
hours
go
down,
one
sunset,
usually
there's
some
overflow
clean
up
close
everything
down.
You
know
turn
everything
off
clean
up
any
debris,
that's
in
the
parking
lot,
but
they're
generally
not
open
until
10
o'clock
at
night.
S
G
Chair
if
you'd
allow
me
a
moment
just
because
I
know
we
do
have
newer
members-
and
I
am
the
I
or
my
colleague
are
tasked
with
providing
you
legal
advice.
I
am
reticent
when
applicants
or
their
agents
give
you
legal
advice.
I
do
want
to
say
that
to
the
extent
representation
has
been
made
concerning
what
the
law
recognizes
as
competent,
substantial
evidence
in
a
quasi-judicial
hearing.
That
was
an
an
accurate
statement
of
the
law.
G
E
That's
what
can
we
ask
any
questions,
you
know
at
this
point
or
is
it
just
conversation
at.
G
Sir,
at
this
point,
we
are
deliberating
correctly
time
for
discussion
by
the
board
yep.
This
is
for
the
body
to
deliberate
amongst
itself,
several.
G
For
for
purposes
of
the
open
meeting,
if
you
could
direct
any
statements
into
your
microphones
and
not
among
each
other,
yeah.
O
G
As
much
as
so
today,
what
you've
heard
was
a
evolved
discussion
concerning
the
wall,
and
the
applicant
has
stated
that
it
is
amenable
to
a
I
believe
it
was
described
as
pure
and
lentil
or
prefabricated
wall
system.
The
city
has
stated
that
it
is
amenable
with
masonry
that
it
is
also
amenable
to
that,
provided,
of
course,
that
that
can
be
ameliorated
with
all
engineering
requirements
for
all
the
things
that
you've
heard
in
the
testimony
that
prevented
that
previously.
If
that
can
be
achieved,
the
applicant
is
amenable
to
that.
G
So,
for
your
purposes
that
you
can
place
that
as
a
condition
or
a
modified
condition,
and
I
believe
city
staff,
provided
you
proposed
language
for
that
condition.
If
you'd
like
city
staff,
to
restate
it
not
not
question
improvement
length,
but
restate
what
their
recommendation
had
been
to
ameliorate
the
position
of
the
parties
they
they
are
able
to
do
so.
O
O
Anyway,
yeah,
so
it
sounds
like
the.
O
Is
immune
to
providing
a
more
substantial
wall,
which
I
thought
that
the
owners
of
the
jason
property
wanted,
I
think
he's
done.
You
know
his
dude
or
he's
provided
that
as
and
we
don't
even
know
what
for
him
anyway.
What's
what
the
cost
is
going
to
be
because,
obviously
it's
more
substantial
than
a
pvc
expense.
A
Right
and-
and
I
think
if
I
have
any
concern
about
having
the
masonry
wall-
be
a
modified
condition
number
four.
It
is
that,
if,
ultimately,
as
the
development
work
is
done
on
that,
it
turns
out,
it's
not
possible
and
my
question
would
be.
Should
we
approve
that
with
a
backup
condition
of
the
six
foot
pvc
fence
as
something
to
drop
back
to
it,
for
whatever
reason
all
of
the
work
that
needs
to
be
done
to
create
a
masonry
wall
it
turns
out
to
be.
A
G
D
Have
I
had
thought,
maybe
I
could
get
some
ask
for
some
clarification
at
this
point,
but
I
apparently
not
the
two
concerns
I
would
wish.
I
could
ask,
would
have
been
a
general
idea
of
why
the
traffic
in
the
proposal
was
down
about
30
percent.
I
do
not
need
a
traffic
engineer
to
tell
me
it's
just
it
has
to
do
with
probably
operation.
D
So,
if
that,
if
that
were
the
case,
that
would
explain
that
then
I
would
wish
there
was
something
that,
in
the
record
that
said
what
hours
they
would
operate
as
opposed
to
right
now,
if
they
may
they're
not
normally,
but
I
do
not
see
any
limits
in
the
write-up
that
says
they're
not
going
to
operate.
I
mean
if
it
says
something.
G
A
condition
of
application
and
to
the
extent
you
said
that
you
would
have
liked
to
have
seen
something
in
the
record.
The
applicant's
submit
summary
summation
in
its
closing
was
an
unequivocal
statement
that
it
would
operate
during
what
it
described
as
daylight
hours
and
certainly
not
24
hours.
It
made
an
unequivocal
commitment
in
that
regard,
so
that
that
is
the
to
the
extent
you're
just
looking
for
something
in
the
record.
The
record
is
not
limited
to
the
printed
materials,
but
as
well
to
the
testimony
offered
before
you.
E
One
thing
I
wish
that
we
had
the
opportunity
to
ask
is
the
throughput
on
the
car
wash.
I
know
because
I
use
tommy's
it's
near
it's
near
my
office.
It
takes
about
90
seconds
to
go
through
the
car
wash.
I
don't
know
if
theirs
is
that
fast,
but
that
would
mean
you'd
be
a
lot
of
throughput
during
the
day.
There
wouldn't
be
reason
to
have
it
open
late,
and
I
can't
imagine
and
tommy's
never
has
anybody
staged
there,
although
they
have
a
lot
of
staging
space.
E
L
On
a
practical
level,
you
know
you
speak
a
month
through,
but
you
know,
speaking
of
the
residents,
concerns
of
you
know,
loitering
or
hanging
out
spending
time.
You
know
my
no
car
wash
expert.
My
understanding
is,
you
know,
generally
folks
are
going
to
get
in
and
get
out.
So
to
me,
that's
an
improvement
of
the
property
as
it
relates
to
the
time
it
sounds
to
me
like
it's
a
24-hour
car
wash
now
and
it
will
not
be
in
the
future.
So
to
me,
that's
also
an
additional
improvement
in
terms
of
proximity
to
the
neighbors.
L
While
I
am
certainly
sympathetic
and
understand
how
they
would
feel.
If
I
lived
there
to
me,
the
building
is
moving
farther
away.
The
applicant
is
willing
to
comply
with
a
wall
at
a
minimum
of
four.
It
sounds
like
up
to
six,
I'm
hesitant
to
vote
on
something
that
gets
too
specific
in
terms
of
tying
into
a
wall
because
I
understand
permitting
and
if
the
type
system
wall
doesn't
fit
in
with
a
tree
or
with
a
swift
mud
or
whoever
may
be.
L
My
concern
would
be
to
go
too
deep
into
that,
so
I
would
suggest
we
move
it
to
a
six
foot
wall
and
leave
it
at
that
level.
Landscaping
is
improving,
and,
aside
from
just
you
know,
my
personal
feelings
on
improving
the
property
city
staff,
who
are
considered
greater
experts
than
me
and
code,
has
approved
the
project
so
just
for
clarity's
sake,
I'll
be
voting
to
approve
this
project.
H
You
know
we
get
a
lot
of
projects
in
front
of
us
and
looking
at
what
neighbors
have
said
and
as
I
state
sympathetic
to
that-
and
this
particular
use
has
been
there
for
22
years
in
the
existing
condition
that
it
is
and
it's
no
disrespect
to
the
owner.
But
it
is
not
very
eye
appealing
going
down
the
road
on
sunset
point
road
as
we
go
by
it
every
single
day,
let
alone.
If
I
was
living
next
to
it.
H
I
think
you
know
not.
All
projects
are
perfect
and
and
meet
everybody's
criteria
of
what
they'd
like
to
see.
But
when
you
start
looking
at
the
things
that
were
all
complained
about,
the
landscaping
is
going
to
have
a
drastic
improvement.
The
buffering
is
going
to
have
a
drastic
improvement,
they're
moving
the
building
away,
the
pure
the
structures
away
from
the
neighboring
property,
we're
going
from
six
bays.
Another
city
doesn't
like
this:
any
use.
H
That's
going
on
the
city
with
bays
facing
the
street
front,
we're
going
from
six
bays
facing
the
street
if
I'm
correct
down
to
one
bay,
which
is
drastic
improvement
so
from
the
city
from
from
the
street
perspective
that
visual
perspective,
even
though
they've
got
it
on
the
building,
it
is
going
way
down,
even
though
you
have
that
architectural
element,
I'm
familiar
with
that
element
and
used.
You
know,
I
hear
what
you
say
mike
it.
You.
F
H
The
vice
versa
is
oh
I'm
going
to
that
project
versus.
Oh,
I
pass
it
up
because
I
didn't
see
it
now.
I
got
to
make
a
u-turn
at
sunset
and
belcher
to
come
on
back
versus
knowing
oh,
it's
right
up
there,
the
road
I'm
not
going
to
pass
it
up.
So
you
know,
there's
a
quid
pro
quo
side
of
everything
to
reduce
traffic
counts.
I
appreciate
that
a
lot
any
street
that
happens
in
the
city
and
and
the
peak
hours.
H
I
think
I
would
be
reluctant,
as
you
would
too,
on
the
the
getting
into
particulars,
but
we
had
a
an
applicant,
that's
agreeable
to
go
into
the
six
foot
and
straight
from
the
pier
and
lentil
outside
of
it.
I
think
that
it's
brought
up.
I
do
think
that
it'll
help
out
quite
a
bit
on
the
sound
attenuation
than
a
pvc
pen-
defense,
it's
not
going
to
stop
it,
but
it's
going
to
be
deflecting.
H
You
know
you're
not
going
to
get
into
attenuation.
This
isn't
a
sound
room
or
anything
like
that.
So
it's
going
to
be
deflecting
that
it'll
be
a
little
bit
better.
Then
it's
going
to
be
a
lot
better
than
what's
there
right
now,
because
there
isn't
anything,
I
mean
it's
the
bushes
and
the
trees
and
everything
else,
but
you
know
the
pair
of
lentil.
I
mean
those
things
are
that's
what's
built
along
the
highway
system,
as
you
mentioned,
I
mean
that's.
Why
it's
there?
H
E
H
I
think
I
think
you
know
I
mean
I
think
they're
trying
to
to
address.
You
know
the
concerns.
I'd
be
more
remiss
if
it
if
there
was
a
vacant
piece
of
property
as
it
sits,
but
it's
not
so
with
that
number
four
adjustments
on
that.
I
think
that
I
would
totally
lend
support
too.
H
Item
number:
four:
on
the
on
the
conditions
of
improvement
to
go
to
the
six
foot
high,
pier
and
karen
michael
outside
of
the
easement
area
adjacent
to
the
drywall.
Can
I
ask.
L
A
question
on
that
which
I
would
I
would
be
okay
to
approve
that
as
well.
I
guess
my
question
is
if,
for
whatever
reason
during
the
permitting
process,
engineering
or
swift
mud-
or
you
know
whatever
agency
says
hey
that
doesn't
the
proposed
defense
system
does
not
work
for
xyz
reasons.
Where
does
that
leave
the
project?
Now.
A
That's
why
I
would
like
to
add,
as
a
part
of
the
modification
to
item
four,
that
in
the
event,
those
types
of
things
impair
the
project
going
forward.
Could
we
have
as
a
fallback
position
the
six
foot,
pvc
fence,
and
although
I
recognize
that
the
masonry
wall
option
may
be
somewhat
better
in
terms
of
mitigating
noise
and
all
of
the
other
concerns
of
the
neighbors?
I'm
prepared
to
accept
the
testimony
we've
heard
today
of
that
v6
for
pbc
defense
will
sufficiently
mitigate
those
types
of
concerns,
so
that
that's
an
adequate
backup
fallback
position.
G
So
presently,
the
language
in
number,
four,
for
the
benefit
of
all
present
states,
that,
prior
to
that
prior
to
the
issuance
of
any
building
construction
permit,
excluding
demolition
and
clearing
and
grubbing.
A
revised
landscape
plan
and
site
plan
are
submitted,
which
provides
substantial
buffering
on
the
west
property
line
by
providing
at
minimum
a
four
foot
high
pvc
fence
outside
the
easement
and
without
impacting
the
existing
trees
to
be
retained.
The
fence
shall
be
of
a
neutral,
color
and
texture
to
be
complementary
to
the
building
design.
G
G
My
suggestion
to
you
would
be
that
you
change
in
that
tax
that
providing
at
minimum
a
four
foot
high
change,
that
to
six
foot
high
and
instead
of
pvc
fence
language
that
says
pure
and
lentil
fence
of
masonry
material
leave,
the
rest
in
as
it
is
and
where
that
ends
at
the
fence
shall
be
reviewed
and
reviewed
and
finalized
to
the
satisfaction
of
city
staff,
failing
failing
compliance
of
the
proposed,
pier
and
lentil.
Alternatively,
a
six-foot
pvc
fence
in
the
subject
to
the
same
conditions
and
review
and
approval
by
to
the
satisfaction
of
city
staff.
G
So
it
basically
is
you
you
keep
that
and
then
you
you
give
that
fall
back.
If
that
is
the
direction
you
are
choosing
to
go,
I'm
not
suggesting
that's
what
you
need
to
do.
It
is
your
prerogative
as
a
body
what
condition
how
how
to
phrase
that
condition
and
again,
if
you
believe
there
to
be
a
more
suitable
arrangement
that
can
still
be
considered.
A
G
So
I
I
I
I'm
trying
to
be
precise
here
you
would
make
a
motion,
but
you
need
someone
to
articulate
it
as
it
relates
to
that
condition.
Is
that
correct,
sir
okay?
So
the
motion
on
the
floor,
if
you
were
to
adopt
what
I've
suggested
to
you,
would
be
in
condition
4
the
language
states
following
rest
property
line
by
providing
at
minimum
a
four
foot
high
strike,
four
foot,
replace
it
with
six
foot
high
and
presently
it
reads
in
the
fourth
line
of
paragraph
four,
pvc
fence,
pier
and
lentil
masonry
fence.
G
Otherwise,
previously
set
forth,
so
that
gives
you
an
a
and
b
with
the
a
being
the
stated
preference
of
the
pv
of
the
masonry,
pure
and
lentil
fence
that
I
believe
captures
that
the
language
has
been
stated
into
the
record
remember
park.
Is
it
your
desire
to
move
to
approve
this
subject
to
the
limited
edit
of
the
fourth
condition,
as
stated?
Yes,
I'm
still
not
sure
I'll,
say
correctly.
G
That
is
otherwise
already
contemplated
there
absent
city
approval,
alternative
buffering
in
the
form
of
a
six
foot
high
pvc
fence,
satisfying
all
remaining
conditions,
otherwise
previously
set
forth,
and
so
do
you
are
you
amenable?
Is
that
the
emotion
you
wish
to
make?
Yes,
yes,
is
there
a
second
to
that
motion?
Second,
second
record
seconds,
all
in
favor
all
right,
let's,
let's
do
that.
It's
best
that
that
be
done
by
roll
call
vote
with
the
note
that
mr
abdul
rahim
has
an
alternate
with
all
present.
G
A
All
right,
let's
vote
again,
a
roll
call,
vote,
roll
call
vote
all
right
beginning
with
miss
director.
Oh
yes,.
U
Good
afternoon
gina
clayton-
I
just
wanted
to
talk
to
you
briefly
about
whether
or
not
you've
had
an
opportunity
to
access
the
agenda
and
the
materials
through
the
online
portal.
U
A
E
A
U
U
U
H
Yeah,
I
just
want
to
and
hope
I
don't
get
any
stones
thrown
at
me
since
I've
been
on
the
board
here.
H
We've
had
a
lot
of
issues
like
this
come
on
up
and
one
of
the
things
that
has
been
repetitive,
coming
back
and
coming
back
and
coming
back
is
our
notices
to
owners
and
what
we've
gotten
the
code,
and
it's
been
there
for
a
code,
the
limitation
of
the
amount
of
notices
that
we
have
for
200
feet
from
any
particular
rezoning
and
things
of
that
nature,
and
it's
been
consistent
in
the
four
or
five
years
that
I've
been
up
here
and
I
think
it
might
be
something
that's
outdated.
A
little
bit.
H
It
really
isn't
you
know
with
with
lot
owners,
I
mean
you're,
talking
two
lots
then,
or
something
with
the
residential
side
and
after
all,
we're
here
not
only
in
the
business
side
of
it,
but
the
residential
side
too.
I
think
that
I
just
I
just
felt
that
I
needed
to
make
a
statement
that
you
know
if
we
could
look
at
that
when
it
comes
up,
for
you
know,
reviewing
our
city
code
and
our
policies
that
we
look
at
least
doubling
that
to
400
feet
or
some
particular
I
mean
I've.
H
People
are
throwing
out
a
thousand
feet.
I
mean
it
would
be
great
if
we
could
notify
everybody
in
the
city
of
every
single
thing,
but
that's
just
not
practical
so,
but
I
mean
to
think
200
feet
is
a
little
bit
on
the
low
side
of
it
too.
I've
been
convinced
of
that
so
and
that's
just
a
comment
I
wanted
to
make
to
bring
on
out
and
go
on
the
record
with
so.