[00:00:06]
>> GOOD AFTERNOON. IT'S 3:30 PM DECEMBER 3RD,
[Zoning Board of Adjustments on December 3, 2025.]
AND THIS IS THE ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING FOR DECEMBER 2025.WE HAVE THE SIGNING SHEET RIGHT HERE AND WE HAVE FOUR BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT. WE DO HAVE A QUORUM.
IS THERE ANY CONFLICT OF INTEREST? I SEE NONE.
APPROVAL OF MEETINGS FOR NOVEMBER 5. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR?
>> YEAH. IF THERE AREN'T ANY CORRECTIONS THEY'LL STAND AS [OVERLAPPING].
>> IN THAT CASE, MEETING MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 5TH, 2025 ACCEPTED.
DO WE HAVE ANY PUBLIC COMMENT? IS THERE ANYBODY FROM THE PUBLIC THAT WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION WITHOUT PUBLIC HEARING ON AGENDA ITEMS AND NON AGENDA ITEMS?
>> IF THERE'S A CASE ON THE AGENDA TODAY YOU'LL HAVE A CHANCE TO SPEAK ON THAT. YES.
>> OKAY. IN THAT CASE, WE'LL JUST MOVE ON TO NEW BUSINESS, CASE 25Z-019. STAFF REPORT, PLEASE.
>> DO YOU MIND INFORMING THE APPLICANT OF THE FACT THAT THERE'S ONLY FOUR MEMBERS PRESENT?
>> YES. WE HAVE ONLY FOUR MEMBERS PRESENT TODAY AND YOU WOULD HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO DEFER THE CASE TIL THE NEXT MEETING WHEN WE'RE GOING TO HAVE MORE MEMBERS PRESENT.
FOR A MOTION TO PASS WE NEED FOUR AFFIRMATIVE VOTES.
IN THIS CASE THAT WOULDN'T MEAN ALL OF US.
>> YES. BUT AT THE NEXT MEETING, YOU WOULD HAVE FIVE MEMBERS PRESENT, LIKELY TO HAVE FIVE MEMBERS PRESENT.
CASE 25Z-019 STAFF REPORT, PLEASE.
IT SAYS A VARIANCE REQUEST FOR A BILL TWO LINE AND PARKING LOCATION.
FOURTEEN NOTICES WERE SENT, ZERO RETURNED.
NO OBJECTION FROM CITY DEPARTMENTS WITH COMMENT FROM THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, NO OBJECTION FROM THE PRIVATE UTILITIES.
BACKGROUND. THE SUBJECT SITE IS THE FORMER LOCATION OF A DENNY'S RESTAURANT WHICH WAS DESTROYED IN A FIRE IN OCTOBER OF 2023.
A BUILDING PERMIT WAS ISSUED IN NOVEMBER OF 2024 FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A REPLACEMENT BUILDING REUSING THE EXISTING SLAB FOUNDATION AND CONSTRUCTION COMMENCED.
HOWEVER, DURING CONSTRUCTION IT WAS DISCOVERED THAT THE SLAB FOUNDATION LACKED THE NECESSARY STRUCTURAL RE-BAR, REINFORCEMENT TO SUPPORT THE CONSTRUCTION.
THE SLAB FOUNDATION WAS THEN REMOVED.
FOLLOWING THE REMOVAL OF THE SLAB FOUNDATION IN MARCH OF 2025, THE APPLICANT SOUGHT A DETERMINATION FROM THE DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT THAT THE DENNY'S SITE WAS CONSIDERED LEGALLY NON CONFORMING OR GRANDFATHERED AND COULD BE REBUILT IN ITS ORIGINAL FOOTPRINT.
THE DIRECTOR'S DECISION AT THAT TIME WAS THAT THE BUILDING HAD BEEN DESTROYED, WAS NOT NON CONFORMING, AND ANY NEW CONSTRUCTION MUST BE BUILT UNDER THE CURRENT REGULATIONS.
THE APPLICANT APPEALED THAT DECISION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, ARGUING THAT THE FOUNDATION ISSUE WAS NOT CAUSED BY THE FIRE AND THEREFORE SHOULD NOT BE INCLUDED IN THE REPAIR COST CALCULATION.
THEY ALSO ARGUED THAT EVEN IF THE FOUNDATION COST IS INCLUDED, THE TOTAL COST DOES NOT EXCEED THE 50% THRESHOLD.
THE APPLICANT SOUGHT REVERSAL OF THE DIRECTOR'S DETERMINATION.
ON JULY 9TH, 2025, THE ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT HEARD THE APPEAL REQUEST AND VOTED TO AFFIRM THE DIRECTOR'S DETERMINATION, FINDING THAT NO STRUCTURE IS EXISTING INCLUDING THE FOUNDATION, COSTS ARE 100% TO REBUILD, AND THE PROPOSAL IS NOT RECONSTRUCTION, IT IS A NEW BUILD.
SUMMARY. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A VARIANCE FROM THE REQUIRED MINIMUM SETBACK OF 0 FEET AND 60% BILL TWO LINE ALONG SEAWALL.
THE HEIGHTENED DENSITY DEVELOPMENT ZONE, HDDZ STANDARDS REQUIRE THAT ANY BUILDING BE CONSTRUCTED DIRECTLY ADJACENT TO THE FRONT PROPERTY LINE ALONG SEAWALL.
THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A VARIANCE IN ORDER TO CONSTRUCT THE BUILDING AT 59'6" FROM THE FRONT PROPERTY LINE.
THE APPLICANT IS ALSO REQUESTING A VARIANCE FROM SECTION 8.302A OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS, PARKING IN THE COMMERCIAL DISTRICT, WHICH REQUIRES THAT PARKING BE LOCATED AT THE REAR OF THE BUILDING.
[00:05:02]
THE REQUEST IS TO ALLOW PARKING IN THE FRONT.PLEASE NOTE THE LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS AND THE APPLICANT'S JUSTIFICATION IN YOUR STAFF REPORT AND WE HAVE SOME PICTURES.
THIS IS THE SUBJECT SITE. NEXT SLIDE.
THIS IS THE CURRENT SURVEY AND THE PROPOSED SITE PLAN AND THEN WE HAVE THE PROPERTIES TO THE NORTH EAST AND THE WEST AND THAT CONCLUDES STAFF'S REPORT.
>> THANK YOU. DO WE HAVE QUESTIONS FOR STAFF?
>> I JUST HAVE A FEW CLARIFYING QUESTIONS.
TODAY WE ARE LOOKING AT A VARIANCE, IS THAT CORRECT?
>> WE HAVE TWO ITEMS ON THE VARIANCE.
THE PARKING IN THE REAR OF THE BUILDING AND THE SETBACK.
THE FRONT SETBACK AND THE BILL TWO LINE ARE RELATED TO EACH OTHER.
THE FRONT SETBACK IS ZERO FEET, THE REQUEST IS 59'6".
THAT MEANS THAT 60% OF THE BUILDING HAS TO BE BUILT AT THE FRONT SETBACK.
THAT'S WHAT THAT REQUIREMENT IS AND THE REQUEST IS FOR 0%.
>> CAN YOU ALSO TELL ME THE EXTENT OF THE HDDZ REFERENCE HERE THAT WE'RE COMPLYING WITH? HOW FAR ALONG THE SEAWALL DOES IT EXTEND?
>> THE HDDZ IS ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THE SEAWALL.
IT'S GENERALLY FROM THE END OF STEWART BEACH DOWN TO, IT TAKES IN ALL OF THE SEAWALL AND IT CONTINUES ON TO 3005, TAKES IN BOTH SIDES OF THAT, I THINK UNTIL ABOUT 13 MILE ROAD.
>> I THOUGHT WE WERE IN DIFFERENT SECTIONS.
>> THERE ARE SIX ZONES WITHIN THE HDDZ.
>> THIS IS IN, LET ME LOOK. ZONE 3.
>> ZONE 3. OKAY. THANK YOU SO MUCH.
>> DO WE HAVE MORE QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? IN THAT CASE, WE WOULD LIKE TO MAKE THE CASE OPEN.
>> TO PUBLIC HEARING AND WE'LL ASK YOU IF THE APPLICANT IS PRESENT.
PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND SIGN IN FOR THE RECORD.
>> [INAUDIBLE] I REPRESENT DEVELOPMENT WHICH BY THE WAY AFTER [INAUDIBLE] HERE FOR QUESTIONS YOU HAVE.
[INAUDIBLE] FIRST, I WANT TO SAY THAT YOUR STAFF IS ONE OF THE BEST STAFF REPORTS THAT I HAVE SEEN IN A ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING.
USUALLY THEY ARE MINIMAL AT BEST, BUT YOURS IS VERY THOROUGH, VERY FAIR, COMPLETE, GREAT JOB.
THAT SAVES OUR TIME BECAUSE A LOT OF WHAT WE'RE ASKING FOR WHILE WE HAVE THIS VARIANCE IS BECAUSE OF THE HISTORY OF THE SITE.
AS IT WAS PRESENTED AND AS INCLUDED IN YOUR PACKET, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT YOU HAVE TO CONSIDER WHEN YOU HAVE A VARIANCE IS, DO WE MEET A THRESHOLD FOR AN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP? THE RULE THAT WOULD BE IN PLACE AT THE SITE OR RULES IN THIS CASE, DO THEY OTHERWISE MAKE THE SITE UNDEVELOPABLE? DO WE HAVE A CASE THAT WE SAY THAT IN THIS CASE, THE RULE SHOULD NOT APPLY TO THIS PARTICULAR USE OR PARTICULAR STRUCTURE OR WHATEVER IT MIGHT BE? WE THINK WE DO PRIMARILY BECAUSE OF THE NON CONFORMING STATUS OF THE SITE.
DENNY'S WAS THERE, NEW HDDZ RULES WERE PLACED ON TOP OF IT WOULD REQUIRE IT TO BE ZERO SETBACK, 60% COVERAGE ON THE SEAWALL BOULEVARD.
BECAUSE THE CONSTRUCTION AND USE OF THE DENNY'S WAS IN PLACE AND THE SUBSEQUENT LAYERING OF THE RULE, THAT MADE IT NON CONFORMING, BECAUSE THE STRUCTURE WOULD HAVE BEEN IN PLACE AND USE AT THE TIME.
WE STILL WOULD HAVE BEEN 60 FEET OFF OF SEAWALL BOULEVARD WITHOUT THE 60% COVERAGE.
THAT NON CONFORMING USE COULD CONTINUE IN PERPETUITY UNLESS IT'S EXPANDED OR INTENSIFIED IN ANY WAY.
>> EXCUSE ME, SIR. I BELIEVE THAT YOU HAVE A NON CONFORMING STRUCTURE, NOT A NON CONFORMING USE.
>> I'M JUST TALKING IN GENERAL ABOUT NON CONFORMING USE.
[00:10:01]
A DISTINCTION SO I WOULD APPRECIATE YOU STICKING TO THE STRUCTURE.>> NON CONFORMING STRUCTURE CAN CONTINUE IN PERPETUITY AS LONG AS IT'S NOT INCREASED IN HEIGHT OR OTHER ENCROACHMENT WOULD HAPPEN.
HERE WE HAD THE STRUCTURE BURNED, AS IN ACCORDANCE WITH A LOT OF NON CONFORMING USE CODE PROVISIONS IN CITIES, YOU HAVE YOURS THAT SAYS THAT IF THE STRUCTURE IS DONE AND THEN ELIMINATED IN WHATEVER CAPACITY HERE BURNED AND YOU MEET A THRESHOLD OF 50% OF THE VALUE, THE RECONSTRUCTION EXCEEDS THAT, THEN YOU LOSE YOUR NON CONFORMING STATUS AND YOU HAVE TO SATISFY ALL THE CURRENT CODE REQUIREMENTS.
IN THIS CASE, THE ONE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT WOULD BE THE STRUCTURE NEEDS TO BE PLACED ZERO SETBACK SINCE IT'S BEEN COVERAGE ON SEAWALL BOULEVARD.
THEN ACCURATELY PRESENTED IN THE PACKET AND WE APPLIED FOR, WE APPEALED THAT DECISION BECAUSE WHAT HAPPENED IN CONSTRUCTION, WHICH OUR OPINION AND OUR POSITION IS THAT THE FOUNDATION WAS NOT HARMED BY THE FIRE AND THEN IN THE RECONSTRUCTION OF THE VERTICAL PART OF THE BURNED STRUCTURE WE FOUND THE ISSUES WITH THE FOUNDATION, THAT BEGAN CONSTRUCTION.
THE DECISION WAS MADE THAT THE VALUE OF BOTH OF THOSE TOGETHER SHOULD BE CONSIDERED THE VALUE OF THE STRUCTURE AND APPLIED TO THAT 50% RULE FOR THE NON CONFORMING USE OF THE STRUCTURE.
WE BELIEVE THAT WE DIDN'T SATISFY THAT 50% BUT THAT OPINION WAS HELD.
THIS BOARD RULED THAT THE CITY'S OPINION AND RULE ON THAT PARTICULAR VALUE CALCULATION SHOULD BE UPHELD.
ON THAT DAY WE LOST OUR NON CONFORMING STATUS, WHICH MEANS THAT NOW ANY CONSTRUCTION WHATSOEVER ON THE SITE, DENNY'S OR ANY CONSTRUCTION WILL HAVE TO MEET THE NEW HDDZ STANDARDS.
ZERO SETBACKS 60% COVERAGE ON THE SEAWALL BOULEVARD LINE.
WHY ALL THAT MATTERS IS THAT WHEN YOU'RE CONSIDERING, DO WE HAVE AN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP? THE FIRST THING IS ONE OF THE MAIN QUESTIONS YOU ASK IS THAT IS THIS DONE TO OURSELVES? DO WE DO SOMETHING ON THE SITE THAT WOULD MAKE THIS OUR FAULT? WE COULD HAVE PREVENTED THAT.
WE COULDN'T HAVE PREVENTED THE FIRE.
BUT THE ONLY DIFFERENCE BETWEEN WHAT HAPPENED HERE IN JULY WHEN WE LOST A NON CONFORMING STATUS AND NOW IS THERE'S BEEN A DETERMINATION BY THE CITY THAT OUR NON CONFORMING STATUS IS REMOVED.
THAT'S THE DIFFERENCE AND THE CONSTRUCTION TIMELINE.
NUMBER 2, AND THIS IS INTERESTING.
IT'S NOT INCLUDED IN YOUR PACKET, AND I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT AND IT'S ABSOLUTELY IMPORTANT FOR TODAY.
IS THAT UP UNTIL 2022 THE STATUS FOR WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND WHAT YOU CAN CONSIDER FOR VARIANCE REQUESTS, IS THAT IF AN APPLICANT WERE TO COME IN AND SAY, IT'S JUST GOING TO COST US A LOT OF MONEY TO SATISFY YOUR CODE.
FINANCIAL HARDSHIP ALONE WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO BE A FACTOR TO BE CONSIDERED.
BUT THE LEGISLATURE IN 2022 AMENDED THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE TO ALLOW THAT EXACTLY TO BE A FACTOR THAT YOU CAN CONSIDER.
FOR THE PURPOSE OF WHAT WE'RE ASKING TODAY IS THAT THE COST TO CONFORM TO THE HDDZ REGULATIONS IN THIS CASE WOULD RENDER THE PROJECT UNDEVELOPABLE.
BECAUSE WHAT WE'LL HAVE TO DO, AND THE REASON WE'RE GOING TO IS GOING TO SOUND LIKE A BROKEN RECORD, WE'RE SAYING WE WANT THE SAME RESTAURANT, FOOTPRINT, STRUCTURE IN THE SAME LOCATION THAT IT WAS BEFORE IT BURNED.
THAT'S WHAT WE'RE WANTING. WE WANTED THAT TO BE APPROVED BEFORE WE HAD TO GO THROUGH THE APPEAL PROCESS, AFTER THE APPEAL PROCESS, AND NOW THAT'S WHAT WE'RE ASKING.
THAT'S WHY THE SETBACK IS 60 FEET, 59.5 FEET, AND THEN WE'RE GOING TO HAVE ZERO COVERAGE ON THE CORNER BECAUSE WE'RE GOING TO BE SET BACK.
BECAUSE WE DID NOT DO THIS TO OURSELVES, THE FIRE WAS DONE, THE CITY'S DETERMINATION, REMOVE THE NON CONFORMING STATUS.
A, WE DIDN'T DO THAT TO OURSELVES, AND NOW THE LEGISLATURE HAS GRANTED YOU THE ABILITY TO SAY THAT IF COST AND NOW I'M GOING TO USE ANOTHER 50% NUMBER, BUT IT'S THE OPPOSITE OF THE ONE FOR THE NON CONFORMING USE.
HERE, IT'S IF COST IN THIS CASE, THE DENNY'S CONSTRUCTION TEAM TO CONFORM THE NEW CODE IS 50% OF THE PRAISE VALUE AT THE TIME, THEN YOU CAN CONSIDER THAT A FINANCIAL HARDSHIP.
A FINANCIAL HARDSHIP EXIST, WHICH IS AN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP TO SATISFY.
HERE, TO SATISFY, IT WOULD BE JUST AN EXORBITANT AMOUNT OF MONEY OVER 50%, WAY MORE THAN 50%.
RIGHT NOW, OF COURSE BECAUSE IT'S BURNED, ALL THAT'S LEFT ON THE PROPERTY IS LIKE THE IMAGE SHOWS IS NOTHING.
THE APPRAISED VALUE IS SOMETHING LIKE I THINK $350,000 BUT IT'S JUST FOR THE LAND.
WHEN THE SITE WAS THERE, WHEN THERE WAS A STRUCTURE ON THE SITE, THE APPRAISED VALUE WAS 2.2 MILLION.
THE COST TO SATISFY THE CURRENT CODE, UNDER THE NEW REQUIREMENTS THAT YOU CAN CONSIDER FOR A NECESSARY HARDSHIP, WOULD REQUIRE DENNY'S TO REDESIGN THE BUILDING COMPLETELY, WHICH WOULD BE MORE THAN $1.1 MILLION.
WE'D HAVE TO BRING IT CLOSE TO THE SEAWALL BOULEVARD, ZERO FOOT SETBACK.
WE'D HAVE TO DESIGN A STRUCTURE THAT WOULD COVER 60% OF THE FRONTAGE OF THAT LOT WHICH, AGAIN, THIS IS A UNIQUE STRUCTURE TOO BECAUSE WE HAVE THE HOTEL THERE
[00:15:01]
THAT COVERS A REVERSE L ON THE TOP PORTION OF THE PROPERTY.DENNY'S LEASES THE SITE FROM THE HOTEL OWNER, AND THEN THE SITE IS DESIGNED SPECIFICALLY FOR THAT TO SATISFY PARKING REQUIREMENTS AROUND THE HOTEL AND THE DENNY'S AND THEN TO SATISFY THE LOT.
WE'D HAVE TO RESTRUCTURE THE ENTIRE LOT TO DO THAT.
IT'S NOT GOING TO HAPPEN WITH THE REQUEST FROM DENNY'S TO DO THAT.
WE DON'T EVEN HAVE A NUMBER TO PRESENT OF WHAT PERCENTAGE OVER WE WOULD BE.
IT WOULD BE OVER 50%, HOW MUCH MORE OVER 50% WE DON'T KNOW, BUT HUNDREDS OF PERCENT MORE THAN THAT.
BECAUSE WE WOULD HAVE TO AGAIN, REDESIGN A STRUCTURE THAT WOULD BRING THE DENNY'S RESTAURANT AND MORE THAN LIKELY ANOTHER STRUCTURE TO THE FRONT OF THE LOT TO FRONT SEAWALL BOULEVARD.
BECAUSE OF THOSE REASONS, I THINK THAT AGAIN, IF THE UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THERE'S BEEN, AND I WOULD UNDERSTAND THIS THAT THE GOLDEN RULE FOR ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT IS THAT YOU CAN'T CONSIDER FINANCIAL HARDSHIP.
NOW YOU'RE EXPRESSLY GRANTED TO DO THAT.
IF THE COST TO COMPLY WITH THE NEW CODE IS 50% OF THE APPRAISED VALUE OF THE LOT, THEN THAT'S A FINANCIAL HARDSHIP AND UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP AND THE FACTOR TO CONSIDER FOR THE VARIANCE.
WE'RE ASKING THAT TO YOU TODAY.
THAT'S WHAT'S INCLUDED IN THE VARIANCE APPLICATION PACKET.
ANOTHER THING TOO, I'M SURE YOU GUYS UNDERSTAND THIS, BUT WHEN YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT A VARIANCE, AND I KNOW THAT THERE'S BEEN, I JUST MADE AWARE OF THIS THAT THERE WAS A NEWSPAPER ARTICLE ABOUT THIS STRUCTURE AND ALL THAT RECENTLY AND SOME PEOPLE WERE ASKING, WHAT ABOUT THIS SITE? WHAT ABOUT THAT SITE? THEY MET IT OR THEY DID NOT MEET IT.
WHEN YOU'RE CONSIDERING A VARIANCE SITE ALONE AND IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ANY OTHER SITE, YOU'RE NOT SETTING PRECEDENT FOR A DECISION.
IT'S INHERENTLY ABOUT THE FACTORS IN PLACE ON THE GROUND AT THIS PARTICULAR SITE.
FOR THOSE REASONS, THAT'S WHY WE'RE REQUESTING A VARIANCE TO HAVE SETBACK FROM THE 60 FEET EFFECTIVELY SET BACK FROM SEAWALL BOULEVARD, WHICH THE CODE REQUIRES A ZERO FOOT SETBACK, REQUIRING 60 FOOT SETBACK TO GO TO WHERE THE FOUNDATION USED TO BE.
THE PART AND PARCEL OF THAT IS THE 60% COVERAGE IS NOT GOING TO BE THERE, SO WE'RE ASKING A VARIANCE FOR THAT.
THEN THE PARKING IS PART OF THAT, IT'S NOT, AND STAFF CAN INTERPRET FOR YOU HOW YOU WANT TO DO THAT.
IT SEEMS TO ME IN OUR INTERPRETATION THAT THAT'S AN ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION, BECAUSE PARKING, IT'S IN A PART OF THE CODE THAT SAYS THAT PARKING WOULD BE REQUIRED TO BE IN THE REAR BUT WHERE THAT IS UNREASONABLE.
THERE SEEMS TO BE IN OUR POSITION, AN ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION CAN BE MADE THAT CAN ALLOW PARKING IN THE FRONT.
HERE, AGAIN, THE SETBACK WE WOULD ASSUME REQUIRE FRONT PARKING, JUST LIKE IT WAS BEFORE IT BURNED.
THAT'S THE BASIS FOR THE VARIANCE.
I HAVE MEMBERS OF THE TEAM HERE IF YOU WANT TO ASK THEM QUESTIONS.
YOU CAN ASK ME FURTHER QUESTIONS ABOUT SOME OF THE STANDARDS I'VE MENTIONED.
>> THANK YOU. ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT?
>> YES. BUT I DON'T WANT TO GO FIRST. GO AHEAD.
>> YOU DON'T HAVE? ARE YOU SURE?
>> LET'S TALK ABOUT THE PARKING.
WHY IS IT INFEASIBLE? RIGHT NOW YOU HAVE HOW MANY PARKING SPACES? I THINK I COUNTED 36.
IS THAT SUFFICIENT PARKING FOR THE SIZE OF THE DENNY'S RESTAURANT? IS THAT THE PROBLEM? I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHAT THE PARKING ISSUE IS.
>> THE ISSUE IS NOT ABOUT THE NUMBER OF SPACES.
IT WOULD BE WHERE THEY'RE LOCATED.
INHERENTLY, IF YOU GRANT THE SETBACK VARIANCE, THEN THE STRUCTURE WILL BE MOVED.
EFFECTIVE SEAWALL BOULEVARD, YOU'RE MOVING THE STRUCTURE BACK 60 FEET.
THEN THAT ELIMINATES THE PARKING THAT WOULD HAVE OTHERWISE BEEN IN THE REAR.
IF IT WOULD HAVE BEEN FRONTING SEAWALL BOULEVARD, THE STRUCTURES ON SEAWALL BOULEVARD.
PARKING IS INHERENTLY IN THE REAR.
IF YOU MOVE THE STRUCTURE TO WHERE IT WAS BEFORE IT BURNED, THE 59.5, 60 FEET BACK, THEN THE PARKING IS GOING TO HAVE TO INHERENTLY BE ON THE FRONT JUST LIKE IT WAS.
THERE'S A SHARED PARKING AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE HOTEL AND THE DENNIS TO UTILIZE THAT SPACE AS IT WAS BEFORE THE PARKING.
AGAIN, NOT GRANTED THE VARIANCE, WE'LL HAVE TO PUT PARKING.
IT'S A COMPLETE REDESIGN OF THE STRUCTURE AND IT'S NOT GOING TO BE FEASIBLE FOR DENNIS TO DO THAT, AND IT'S GOING TO BE A RENEGOTIATION OF THE PARKING LEASE BETWEEN THE HOTEL AND THE DENNIS.
IT'S NOT ABOUT THE NUMBER OF SPACES, IT'S ABOUT WHERE THEY'RE GOING TO BE LOCATED ON THE SITE.
>> I WAS GOING TO MENTION THE SHARED PARKING OPPORTUNITY, BUT YOU ALREADY KNOW THAT.
LET'S TALK ABOUT THIS FINANCIAL COST.
YOU DIDN'T PROVIDE US ANY COST FIGURES.
HOW CAN WE DETERMINE WHETHER YOU HAVE A HARDSHIP OR NOT?
>> THE SAME NUMBERS APPLIES THAT WERE HERE IN THE APPEAL.
IN THE APPEAL, OUR CALCULATION, AND AGAIN,
[00:20:01]
I KNOW THERE WAS DISAGREEMENT IN THE BOARD ITSELF AND THEN OBVIOUSLY THE APPEAL WASN'T GRANTED.THE VALUE OF THE SITE TO CONFORM WOULD HAVE BEEN $2.2 MILLION, AGAIN, AN ESTIMATE AMOUNT.
WHEN YOU'RE DETERMINING REMOVING A NON CONFORMING STATUS, I'M MAKING IT CONFUSED, THE COST TO EXCEED IS 50% OF THE VALUE OF THAT.
OUR THRESHOLD AT THAT TIME WAS, DO WE EXCEED $1.1 MILLION IN OUR RESTRUCTURING OF THE SITE? THE CITY'S DETERMINATION WAS, YES, YOU DO.
BECAUSE WE EXCEEDED $1.1 MILLION WHICH WAS MORE THAN HALF OF 2.2, THEN WE LOST OUR NON CONFORMING STATUS HERE.
THE OPPOSITE IS TRUE FOR THE NEW RULE THAT'S IN THE TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE.
IF THE COST TO COMPLY EXCEEDS 1.1 MILLION.
THEN IT'S A FINANCIAL HARDSHIP, AN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP AND A VARIANCE IS ALLOWED TO BE GRANTED.
WE WILL BE EXCEEDING BECAUSE OF WHAT'S GOING TO HAVE TO HAPPEN IS IF YOU SAY NO VARIANCE AND DENNY'S WANTS TO PURSUE THE PROJECT, A REDESIGN OF THE BUILDING, AND THEN MOVING IT TO WHERE THE 60 FEET DOWN, SO IT'S ZERO SETBACK ALONG THE SEAWALL BOULEVARD.
NOT ONLY THE COST OF THAT TO GET THE NEW STRUCTURE, THE NEW DESIGN, AND ALL OF THAT AND THE COST TO RENEGOTIATE THE PARKING AGREEMENT WITH THE HOTEL.
ALL OF THE UTILITIES THAT ARE CENTERED RIGHT NOW TO SERVE THE SITE WHERE IT WAS AT 60 FEET UP, ALL OF THOSE WILL HAVE TO BE RELOCATED DOWN TO THE NEW STRUCTURE.
AGAIN, WE DON'T KNOW THE COST, AND DENNY'S IS NOT GOING TO ENTER INTO THAT DESIGN.
THE DESIGN ALONE IS A HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS FOR THEM TO DO THAT.
>> BUT TO SATISFY THE NEW CODE, THE COST WILL BE MORE THAN HALF OF WHAT THE VALUE IS.
RIGHT NOW, THE VALUE ON THE SITE, AGAIN, IT'S $354,000, BUT THERE'S NO STRUCTURE.
EVEN IF WE WERE TO SAY THAT LOOKING BACK AT THE APPRAISED VALUE IN 2022, WHEN THE STRUCTURE WAS THERE, THE VALUE AT THAT TIME WAS 2.2 MILLION.
EVEN IF WE DIAL BACK TO THAT ASSESSED VALUE IN 2022 AND SAY THE SITE WITH THE STRUCTURE IS 2.2 MILLION, THE COST TO COMPLY NOW WOULD EXCEED 50% OF THAT VALUE.
AGAIN, TO WHAT EXTENT, WE DON'T KNOW, BUT IT ABSOLUTELY WILL EXCEED 1.1 MILLION.
FOR THAT REASON, AN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP EXISTS NOW FOR THE STRUCTURE TO SATISFY THE CURRENT CODE.
>> WELL, WE DON'T HAVE ANY DATA.
YOU'RE TELLING ME THESE THINGS.
I'M NOT LOOKING AT ANY COST ESTIMATE.
I'M NOT LOOKING AT ANY INFORMATION WHATSOEVER.
ALL I'M SEEING HERE IS YOUR STATEMENT, YOUR CONJECTURE THAT IT'S TOO EXPENSIVE.
THAT'S WHY IT'S VERY HARD FOR ME TO SAY, I SHOULD MAKE YOU AN EXCEPTION TO THE RULE THAT EVERY OTHER BUSINESS ON THE SEAWALL HAS BEEN EXPECTED TO COMPLY WITH.
WE HAVE THIS AND I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING THAT THIS IS NOT A PRECEDENT, IT IS A PRECEDENT, AND WE'VE SEEN IT BEFORE.
BECAUSE WE'VE BEEN SITTING HERE HEARING VARIANCE REQUESTS.
MY PROBLEM IS THAT, HOW CAN I LET YOU OFF THE HOOK, SO TO SPEAK, IF WE EXPECT EVERYONE ELSE TO COMPLY AND THEY DO.
IS THAT OTHER BUSINESSES ON THE SEAWALL COMPLY.
I DON'T KNOW WHY THIS IS DIFFERENT.
>> THE DIFFERENCE WOULD BE NONE OF THE OTHER BUSINESSES BURNED AND THEN HAD TO SATISFY AND GOT A NON CONFORMING STATUS REMOVED.
>> I'M SAYING UNLESS THERE'S BEEN ANOTHER FIRE WHERE A NON CONFORMING STATUS WAS REMOVED BECAUSE OF A FIRE.
>> I WOULD ASSUME YOU ALSO HAD INSURANCE, DID YOU NOT?
>> DID WE HAVE INSURANCE? YEAH.
IT'S NOT LIKE YOU'RE STARTING FROM SCRATCH MONETARILY?
>> CAN I USE THE SCREEN? IS THIS CONNECTED TO THE INTERNET?
I'M JUST SAYING CAN WE PULL UP ON THE SCREEN THE APPRAISED VALUE? CAN YOU PULL UP THE ASSESSED VALUE FOR THE SITE ON THE GALVESTON COUNTY APPRAISAL DISTRICT? I'M GOING TO READ THE PROVISION I'M TALKING ABOUT.
IT'S 211.009 OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE.
WHEN THE BOARD IS EXERCISING ITS AUTHORITY TO CONSIDER VARIANCES,
[00:25:09]
VERBATIM FROM THE STATUTE, THE BOARD MAY CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING AS GROUNDS TO DETERMINE WHETHER COMPLIANCE WITH THE ORDINANCE AS APPLIED TO A STRUCTURE THAT IS THE SUBJECT OF THE APPEAL WILL RESULT IN AN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIPS.THAT'S WHAT WE'RE DOING HERE. THE FIRST THING FACTOR YOU CAN CONSIDER IS THAT THE FINANCIAL COST OF COMPLIANCE IS GREATER THAN 50% OF THE APPRAISED VALUE OF THE STRUCTURE AS SHOWN IN THE MOST RECENT APPRAISAL ROLE CERTIFIED TO THE ASSESSOR OF THE MUNICIPALITY UNDER SECTION 2601 OF THE TAX CODE.
THAT'LL BE THIS VALUE THAT YOU'RE GOING TO SEE HERE.
>> I DON'T KNOW WHAT IT WILL SHOW, BUT WILL IT SHOW THE APPRAISED VALUE OF THE SITE?
>> IF YOU SCROLL DOWN, IT'LL HAVE BOTH, IT'LL SHOW THE LAND VALUE, AND THEN IT'LL SHOW THE BUILDING IMPROVEMENT.
IF THIS IS THE 2025, YOU'RE NOT GOING TO SEE THERE'S NO STRUCTURE TO BE VALUED.
IT'S GOING TO SHOW JUST THE LAND.
>> I GUESS MY QUESTION IS THERE'S NO STRUCTURE OF WHICH 211.009 REFERENCES IF THERE'S NO STRUCTURE [INAUDIBLE] 211.009 REFERENCE.
>> THE COST TO COMPLY WILL BE MORE THAN ZERO.
THAT'S WHAT I'M SAYING, THAT FOR THE CITY'S PERSPECTIVE, A CONSERVATIVE VALUE WOULD TO LOOK AT THE 2022 VALUE THAT'S ASSESSED VALUE ON THE SITE, WHICH WOULD BE I THINK TOTAL IS 2.2 MILLION, BUT AGAIN, I CAN'T REMEMBER THE TOP OF MY HEAD WHAT THE VALUE WAS OF THE STRUCTURE.
ALL WE'RE SAYING IS THAT THE GOLDEN RULE FOR ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT UP UNTIL 2022 WAS THAT VALUE WAS NOT A PART OF THE CONSIDERATION.
LEGISLATURE EXPRESSLY ADDRESSED THAT BY SAYING THAT WE'RE GOING TO PROVIDE FOR ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS FINANCIAL HARDSHIPS TO PART OF WHAT CAN BE CONSIDERED FOR A VARIANCE FOR NECESSARY HARDSHIP TO ALLOW WHAT YOU'RE DOING.
I KNOW IT'S SEMANTICS, BUT WHEN MS. HOLLOWAY MENTIONED THAT PRECEDENT IS NOT A PRECEDENT, THE INTENT OF A VARIANCE IS SITE SPECIFIC AND THAT'S CRUCIAL.
A PRECEDENT WOULD BE THAT THIS BOARD HAS SOME ABILITY TO MAKE DETERMINATIONS GENERALLY ACROSS USES OR STRUCTURES ACROSS THE CITY. THAT'S NOT THE CASE.
THE WHOLE POINT OF THE VARIANCE IS IN THIS UNIQUE LOT, AND THIS UNIQUE SITUATION THAT WE HAVE OCCURRED FACTORS THAT HAVE MADE US SATISFY THE VARIANCE HERE.
EVEN IF THERE WERE OTHER SITES IN THE CITY THAT BURNED, LOST NON CONFORMING STATUS, WE WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO CONSIDER THAT STRUCTURE BECAUSE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT OUR LOT ALONE.
OUR LOT ALONE, WE LOST A NON CONFORMING STATUS.
THE CITY'S DETERMINATION NOW IS THAT WE ARE NOT GRANDFATHERED, WE HAVE TO SATISFY THE CURRENT CODE PROVISIONS, WHICH REQUIRES TO BE ZERO FOOT SETBACK AND 60% COVERAGE ON THE LOT.
WHAT WE'RE SAYING IS THAT THAT REQUIREMENT ALONE UNDER THE NEW PROVISIONS IN THE TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE, THE COST TO MEET THOSE IS AN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP.
THE REQUEST IS THE VARIANCE TO BE THE 60 FOOT SETBACK, WHICH INHERENTLY MEANS 0% COVERAGE ON THE SEAWALL BOULEVARD.
WE THINK ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION THEN WOULD BE ALTERNATIVELY TO MAKE PARKING IN THE FRONT JUST LIKE IT WAS.
THE WHOLE INTENT IS TO THE SAME EXACT FOOTPRINT FOR THE SAME RESTAURANT THAT WAS THERE BEFORE IT BURNED.
THAT'S THE REQUEST. THAT'S THE BASE OF THE VARIANCE.
>> I STILL FEEL UNEASY ABOUT THE COST THAT YOU'RE THROWING OUT.
I DON'T FEEL CONFIDENT IN THE NUMBERS THAT I'M HEARING.
DO WE HAVE A COST ESTIMATE OF IF YOU MOVED IT? DO YOU HAVE AN ESTIMATE? HAVE THEY LOOKED AT REDRAWING AND TRYING TO MAKE IT FIT TO CONFORM?
>> ALL OF THOSE ARE ADDITIONAL COSTS THAT ARE TIED TO TRYING TO ADHERE TO THE CURRENT CODE PROVISIONS.
WE HAVE NOT DONE THAT. THE REASON WE HAVEN'T DONE THAT IS BECAUSE WE ARE ASKING FOR THE VARIANCE, BUT DO YOU SEE WHAT I'M SAYING? I KNOW, BUT IT HAS TO BE.
AT SOME POINT, WE'RE GOING TO NEED TO KNOW.
WE KNOW THAT YOU DISAGREE WITH
[00:30:01]
OUR DETERMINATION FOR THE APPEAL ON THE VALUE OF RECONSTRUCTION THAT WAS DONE IN JULY.NOW WE'RE ASKING FOR THE SETBACK VARIANCE EFFECTIVELY AND THEN THE ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL TO HAVE PARKING IN THE FRONT TO GET THE STRUCTURE IN THE SAME LOCATION AS IT WAS BEFORE THE FIRE.
THE REASON WE HAVEN'T INVESTED IT'S HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS TO DO A REDESIGN, IF NOT INTO THE MILLIONS.
THAT'S THE REASON THAT'S NOT BEEN DONE.
WE'RE ASKING YOU, BASED ON THESE, AGAIN, EFFECTIVELY WHAT THE CITY ATTORNEY HAS SAID IS THAT THERE'S A $0 VALUE RIGHT NOW FOR THE STRUCTURE ON THE SITE.
NOW, EVEN IF WE WERE TO CONSERVATIVELY GO BACK AND LOOK AT THE STRUCTURE VALUE IN 2022 BEFORE THE FIRE, THE COST TO MOVE THAT STRUCTURE AND THEN REDESIGN IT, EVEN IF WE BUILD IT TO THE FOOTPRINT NOW, THE DESIGN THAT'S THERE IS FOR WHAT IT WAS.
IT'S NOT DESIGNED TO SATISFY THE 60% COVERAGE ON THE LOT.
WE HAVE TO REDESIGN THE WHOLE STRUCTURE.
ALL OF THAT WOULD BE MORE THAN 50% OF THE VALUE OF THE STRUCTURE BACK IN 2022. I KNOW THAT'S CONJECTURE.
>> THAT VALUE HAS DEPRECIATED.
HOW OLD WAS THE DENNY'S WHEN IT BURNED?
>> WELL, I WOULD SAY RIGHT NOW THAT THE STATE LAW WOULD SAY THAT WE LOOK AT THE STRUCTURAL VALUE ON THE CURRENT RATES AND IT'S ZERO.
ANY COST AT ALL TO SATISFY THE NEW CODE REQUIREMENTS DOESN'T WORK OUT MATHEMATICALLY, BUT IT'S MORE THAN 50%, IT'S EXPONENTIALLY MORE THAN ZERO.
>> BUT I THINK YOU HAVE A MISINTERPRETATION OF THE LAW.
BUT I THINK THIS HARDSHIP DOESN'T APPLY TO SOMETHING THAT DOESN'T EXIST ANYMORE.
IT'S GOT THE REMAINS OF A PARKING LOT.
THAT IS WHAT YOU'RE DEALING WITH.
NOW, MY QUESTION TO YOU IS: WHO'S GOING TO OWN THE IMPROVEMENT ONCE IT'S BUILT?
>> THE IMPROVEMENT'S OWNED BY DENNIS, THE DENNIS ENTITY.
>> ON THE TAX RECORD, IT WASN'T.
ON THE TAX RECORD IT WAS OWNED BY THE OWNER OF THE LAND.
THE ONLY THING THAT DENNY'S OWNED WAS THE PERSONAL PROPERTY INSIDE THE BUILDING.
I'M JUST TRYING TO WRAP MY HEAD AROUND WHO ARE YOU REPRESENTING AND HOW IS THIS GOING TO SHAKE OUT.
HOW IS THIS GOING TO LOOK? BECAUSE WHEN I'M LOOKING AT THE TAX ROLLS, THE IMPROVEMENT WAS TIED TO THE LAND AS IT SHOULD BE.
UNLESS YOU HAVE SOME OTHER DEED THAT WOULD SEPARATE THE LAND FROM THE IMPROVEMENT.
BUT THAT'S NOT WHAT I SAW IN THE TAX ROLLS.
IF YOU'RE LOOKING FOR THAT, IT'S PAGE 106552.
THE THING IS IS THAT I DON'T KNOW WHO'S GOING TO OWN THIS IMPROVEMENT IF WE GRANT THE VARIANCE.
WELL, IT DOESN'T MATTER. SOMEBODY'S GOING TO OWN IT.
BUT THAT'S WHY I WAS SO CONFUSED ABOUT WHO ARE YOU REALLY REPRESENTING? ARE YOU REPRESENTING THE PEOPLE WHO LEASE THE BUILDING, OR ARE YOU REPRESENTING THE OWNER OF THE BUILDING, ARE YOU REPRESENTING THE OWNER OF THE LAND? THAT'S JUST MY SITUATION THAT I'M IN RIGHT NOW. I'M CURIOUS ABOUT.
>> ALL OF THOSE ENTITIES WORK TOGETHER.
>> I UNDERSTAND YOU WORKED TOGETHER.
>> THE ENTITY IS ONE OF THE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANIES THAT THE FRANCHISE OWNER CONTROLS.
AGAIN, THE CITY WILL HAVE INTERACTED WITH MULTIPLE PARTIES IN THERE, YOU HAVE A GENERAL CONTRACTOR.
THEY'LL HAVE OTHER OBVIOUSLY SUBCONTRACTORS.
YOU HAVE THE LLC THAT CONTROLS THE FRANCHISE, AND AGAIN, I DO NOT KNOW SPECIFICALLY HOW YOU'RE STRUCTURED ON THE OWNERSHIP OF THAT, BUT THERE COULD BE SUBSIDIES OF THAT THAT OWN DIFFERENT PARTS OF THE BUILDING.
IT DEPENDS ON THAT. THE POINT OF THE VARIANCE, THOUGH WILL RUN NOT WITH THE OWNER OR PARTIAL OWNERS.
IT'LL RUN WITH THE LAND AND THE STRUCTURE.
IT'S NOT TIED TO THE PERSON, IT'S TIED TO THE SITE AND THE STRUCTURE.
>> RRH, LLC, WHICH IS THE FRANCHISEE AND GOING TO BE THE OWNER OF THE STRUCTURE.
>> THEY DON'T OWN THE STRUCTURE.
THEY OWN THE INSIDE OF THE STRUCTURE.
[00:35:01]
ANYWAY, IT'S IMMATERIAL.I FIND IT TO BE INTERESTING THAT ON THE TAX ROLLS, RRH DEN, LLC, ONLY WAS LISTED AS HAVING PERSONAL PROPERTY.
THE REAL PROPERTY BELONGED TO ENCORE INVESTMENT.
UNTIL IT WAS JUST RECENTLY PURCHASED BY ENCORE.
>> THE MANAGER TOLD ME THAT THE STRUCTURE HERE WILL BE THAT RRH, LLC, WHAT YOU'RE SAYING, THEY LEASE THE STRUCTURE FROM THE OWNER.
>> I'D LIKE TO HEAR FROM THE OWNER WHY THEY CAN'T COMPLY.
>> DO NOT THE OWNER OF THE INSIDE OF THE BUILDING, THE OWNER OF THE LAND.
I WANT TO KNOW WHY THEY CAN'T COMPLY WITH OUR REGULATIONS.
>> JUST A SECOND. IF WE'RE DONE WITH QUESTIONS HERE, WE CAN ASK. THANK YOU.
>> THIS IS ALL THE APPLICANTS [INAUDIBLE].
I'M THE ACTUAL FRANCHISEE OF THE ENTITY.
IT'S LIKE A MCDONALD'S MODEL IN THIS CASE.
WE ARE THE FRANCHISEE OF THE LAND AND BUILDING.
YOU'RE RIGHT, PERSONAL PROPERTY IS THAT OF OURS.
ALL THE EQUIPMENT AND EVERYTHING LIKE THAT IN THE BUILDING IS OURS.
WE ACTUALLY ARE REQUIRED TO REBUILD AS LONG AS IT'S COST-EFFECTIVE.
WE HAVE INSURANCE ON THE BUILDING.
IN ACCORDANCE TO THE LEASE, WE ARE OBLIGATED TO REBUILD PURSUANT TO BEING COST-EFFECTIVE.
YOU HAVE A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF INSURANCE, WHICH, IN THIS CASE, JUST BASED ON SOME OF THE ESTIMATES THAT WE'VE SEEN FOR THE COST OF REDOING THE STRUCTURE, FAR EXCEEDS WHAT AN INSURANCE COMPANY WOULD HAVE PROVIDED YOU JUST BASED ON THE ESTIMATES.
WE DON'T HAVE THE ACTUALS, BUT THE ESTIMATES COME PRETTY CLOSE.
WE HAVE A PRETTY SEASONED CONTRACTOR THAT DOES NOT ONLY OUR NEW BUILDS ON RESTAURANTS, BUT ALSO OUR REMODELS AND THAT THING.
WE HAVE FLUENCY AROUND WHAT IT COSTS TO BUILD A RESTAURANT FROM THE GROUND UP AND ALSO WHAT IT COSTS TO REMODEL A RESTAURANT.
THOSE ESTIMATES ARE PRETTY CLOSE.
HE BUILDS DENNY'S ALL OVER THE COUNTRY.
THAT'S WHY WHEN YOU HEAR, IT'S GOING TO BE MORE THAN MORE THAN 50%.
THAT'S BECAUSE BASED ON THE HISTORY AND BASED ON THE DATA AND BASED ON THE PERFORMANCE THAT WE'VE HAD PREVIOUSLY ON DOING NEW BILLS HERE IN THE HOUSTON AREA, ETC.
>> RIGHT. BUT WHAT THEY HAVEN'T PROBABLY INFORMED YOU ABOUT IS WHAT IS THE COST OF THAT INCREMENT TO EXTEND THE UTILITIES FROM 60 FEET? YOU PROBABLY HAVEN'T RUN INTO THAT BEFORE, BECAUSE WHAT WE'RE ASKING YOU TO DO IS TO COMPLY WITH OUR [INAUDIBLE] Z CODE, AND IN YOUR MODEL THAT YOU'RE USING, YOU PROBABLY HAVE NOT HAD TO FACTOR THAT INTO THE COST.
I UNDERSTAND THAT THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION IS VERY HIGH NOW, VERY HIGH ACROSS THE BOARD.
BUT THAT'S NOT WHERE WE'RE GOING WITH THIS.
WHERE WE'RE GOING WITH THIS IS, WHY CAN'T YOU COMPLY WITH OUR REGULATIONS? WHY IS IT SO EXPENSIVE THAT YOU CANNOT EXTEND YOUR INFRASTRUCTURE, 60 FEET?
>> I MEAN, I DON'T KNOW ALL THE DYNAMICS AROUND THAT.
[00:40:01]
CHRIS IS OUR GENERAL CONTRACTOR, SO HE CAN.>> HI, CHRIS HELLERMAN, CORNERSTONE, FCE SERVICES IS MY COMPANY.
I HAVE WORKED WITH THE RUCKER TEAM FOR ABOUT EIGHT YEARS NOW.
THE EXAMPLE OF THE UTILITIES WAS JUST ONE EXAMPLE.
WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE STRUCTURE BEING REBUILT, THAT WAS OUR ORIGINAL PLAN TO REBUILD THE STRUCTURE.
THE CONVERSATION THE FINANCIAL HARDSHIP COMES FROM REDEVELOPING THE SITE.
THE UTILITIES IS JUST ONE OF THE EXAMPLES.
THE GRADING DEMO OF EVERYTHING, REGRADING THE SITE, THE NEW UTILITIES, NEW GREASE STRAPS.
ALL OF THOSE, EVERYTHING BELOW THE GROUND, HAVING TO NOW COMPLY WITH THE NEW REQUIREMENTS, BOTH WITH THE CITY AND WITH THE COUNTY, ITS ENGINEERING OFFICE.
BECAUSE WE'RE HAVING TO REGRADE THE SITE.
THERE WAS A RECENT DISCUSSION WITH THE COUNTY ENGINEERING OFFICE ABOUT THE POTENTIAL IMPLICATIONS TO THE SEA WALL STRUCTURE THAT GOES DIRECTLY BELOW [OVERLAPPING].
>> THAT'S NOT A PROBLEM. A 408 IS NOT GOING TO BE REQUIRED FOR YOU.
YOU GO TO THE CORE, AND YOU GET A PERMIT. THAT'S ALL YOU HAVE TO DO.
>> THESE REDEVELOPMENT COSTS AND LINE ITEMS ARE WHAT WE'RE ESTIMATING TO BE OVER $1.2 MILLION, REDEVELOPMENT OF THE PROJECT ITSELF, FROM THE BUILDING, BUT ALSO THE REDEVELOPMENT OF THE LAND ITSELF AS BRAND NEW.
>> I'M PROBABLY THE ONE PERSON UP HERE THAT'S SYMPATHETIC TO WHAT YOU'RE SAYING.
I THINK IT WOULD HAVE BEEN REALLY HELPFUL FOR ALL OF US IF THERE HAD BEEN SOME FIGURES ATTACHED TO YOUR APPLICATION.
I UNDERSTAND THAT YOU'RE NOT GOING TO COMPLETELY REDESIGN A BUILDING AND ALL THE COSTS, THE HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS DOLLARS REQUIRED TO DO THAT.
BUT IF THERE WERE JUST SOME NUMBERS THAT SAID, HERE ARE OUR COSTS, AND THIS IS WHY IT'S MORE.
ALSO, I HAVE TO SAY THAT THIS IS THE FIRST THAT I'VE KNOWN THAT WE COULD CONSIDER FINANCIAL HARDSHIP.
I WASN'T AWARE OF WHAT HAPPENED IN 2022.
IT IS A DIFFERENT THING THAN I'VE BEEN OPERATING UNDER.
>> JUST TO CLARIFY A LITTLE BIT ON THAT.
THE 211.009 REFERENCE THAT'S BEEN IN EFFECT SINCE SEPTEMBER OF 2021.
THAT'S THE REGULATIONS THAT THIS BOARD HAS BEEN UNDER SINCE THEN.
I THINK WHAT IS DIFFERENT IS A MATTER OF INTERPRETATION AS TO A STRUCTURE BEING THERE AND A STRUCTURE NOT BEING THERE.
THAT'S BEING POSED TO THE COMMISSIONERS TODAY.
BUT THE LAW REFERENCE HASN'T CHANGED SINCE 2021, OR I SHOULD SAY BECAME IN EFFECT SEPTEMBER OF 2021.
>> YET WHAT WE'RE SUPPOSED TO SAY ABOUT A VARIANCE IS THAT IT DOESN'T ALLOW PEOPLE TO DO IT FOR HARDSHIPS BASED SOLELY ON FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS.
IT APPEARS THAT YES, WE CAN. SO I'M CONFUSED.
>> WELL, SO WHAT THE LAW SAYS HERE. I'M GOING TO READ IT.
>> THE AUTHORITY OF THE BOARD TO GRANT A VARIANCE.
I'M GOING TO PARAPHRASE JUST THE FIRST PART.
IF THE VARIANCE IS NOT CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST, DUE TO A SPECIAL CONDITION, A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP, AND SO THAT THE SPREAD OF THE ORDINANCE IS OBSERVED AND SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE IS DONE.
NOW, THE PORTION THAT I THINK THE APPLICANT IS ADDRESSING IS IN EXERCISING, AND THIS IS UNDER B1, IN EXERCISING ITS AUTHORITY UNDER SUBSECTION A3, WHICH I JUST PARAPHRASE AND READ, THE BOARD MAY CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING AS GROUNDS TO DETERMINE WHETHER COMPLIANCE WITH THE ORDINANCE AS APPLIED TO A STRUCTURE THAT IS THE SUBJECT OF THE APPEAL, WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP.
THIS IS NOT AN APPEAL, FIRST OFF, AND AS FAR AS I'M AWARE, THERE'S A STRUCTURE THAT'S BEEN PRESENTED.
ONE, THE FINANCIAL COST OF COMPLIANCE IS GREATER THAN 50% OF THE APPRAISED VALUE OF THE STRUCTURE, AS SHOWN ON THE MOST RECENT APPRAISAL ROLE CERTIFIED TO
[00:45:02]
THE ASSESSOR FOR THE MUNICIPALITY UNDER SECTION 26.01 TAX CODE.I DON'T BELIEVE THERE IS A CURRENT APPRAISED VALUE OF A STRUCTURE BECAUSE THERE IS NO STRUCTURE.
BUT THAT IS IT HASN'T CHANGED.
THAT WAS IN EFFECT SINCE SEPTEMBER 1 OF 2021.
>> WELL, YOU'RE MORE FAMILIAR WITH THE LAW THAN I AM, BUT JUST ON THE BASIS OF WHAT WE'VE BEEN GIVEN THAT WE'RE SUPPOSED TO READ WHEN WE MAKE A MOTION, IT SEEMED TO ME THAT WE ALWAYS HAD, WE COULDN'T CONSIDER SOLELY FINANCIAL HARDSHIPS.
THAT'S WHAT IT SAYS IN BLACK AND WHITE TO ME.
>> BUT MAY UNDER CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES.
>> NOW I UNDERSTAND THAT I MAY.
I DON'T KNOW HOW YOU, I MEAN, THERE WAS A STRUCTURE THERE, AND THE ONLY WAY THAT YOU CAN THINK ABOUT THE STRUCTURE IS IF YOU GO BACK AND LOOK AT THE VALUE OF THE STRUCTURE WHEN IT LAST EXISTED, OR ELSE YOU'RE JUST, I MEAN, I DON'T KNOW.
I GUESS WE JUST PRETEND LIKE THERE WAS NEVER A DENNIS, AND EVERYTHING JUST HAS TO START AT ZERO.
>> THE OTHER THING I WOULD POINT OUT IN THAT LAW BASICALLY IS THAT THE LET ME THINK ABOUT HOW I PHRASE THIS HERE.
WE HAVEN'T HAD A SITE REDEVELOPMENT ISSUE LIKE THIS DUE TO A FIRE SINCE THAT LAW PASSED.
THE REASON YOU GUYS HAVEN'T SEEN IT IS BECAUSE WE HAVEN'T HAD THIS STRUCTURAL.
WHAT PERCENTAGE OF THE STRUCTURE IS DAMAGED? THE QUESTION EVEN COME UP SINCE THAT POINT IN TIME.
BUT IT CLEARLY IS IN THIS CASE.
>> SORRY. I WOULD JUST SAY THAT I DON'T DISAGREE WITH THE INTERPRETATION.
WHAT I THINK THE INTERPRETATION HERE THAT'S PRESENTED, WHAT WOULD HAPPEN FOR ANY STANDARD PERSON WOULD COMES IN AND JUST SAYS, I KNOW YOUR RULE SAYS THAT I GOT A FRONT UP ON SEAWALL BOULEVARD.
I DON'T WANT TO DO THAT. I DON'T HAVE A STRUCTURE, SO THEREFORE MY VALUE IS ZERO, SO I CAN GO ANYWHERE I WANT TO DO THAT.
IF YOU'RE HEARING MY INTERPRETATION THAT WAY, THAT'S NOT WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT.
I'M SPECIFICALLY SAYING BECAUSE OF WHAT YOU MENTIONED THAT THERE WAS A STRUCTURE THERE, AND THEN, THROUGH THE DETERMINATION OF THE CITY STAFF AND THIS BOARD, THAT NONCONFORMING STATUS IS REMOVED.
THEREFORE, IT'S AS IF ADMINISTRATIVELY THAT THERE'S NO STRUCTURE, BUT THAT'S NOT OUR POSITION.
IF THERE'S A STRUCTURE THERE, THE AIM WAS TO REBUILD A STRUCTURE WITHIN THE INSURANCE AMOUNTS, THE VALUES THAT WE PRESENTED BACK IN APRIL, AND THIS 50% RULE IN EVALUATION.
IT'S JUST NOW BECAUSE THE NON-CONFORMING STATUS HAS BEEN REMOVED; THERE MAY BE SOME REMEDIES THERE THAT WE MAY PURSUE.
BUT FOR HERE, THE VARIANCE WOULD BE THE REQUEST THAT WE CAN LOOK AT IN OUR MINDS, UNDERSTANDING THAT EVEN ON THIS PARTICULAR ACCOUNT, A STRUCTURE WAS THERE BEFORE IT WAS BURNED AND VALUED.
WE HAVE, AND MAYBE THE MOST RECENT ROLE OF REGARDING THE STRUCTURE, WHICH WOULD BE 2022, THAT HAVE YOU COULD GO BACK AND SAY, IS THE VALUE, THIS WOULD COST TO SATISFY IT.
AGAIN, WE HAVE ESTIMATES ONLY.
WE DON'T HAVE THAT BECAUSE DENNIS HAS NOT FELT OBLIGATED TO TAKE THE STEP TO GO SPEND HALF A MILLION TO $1 MILLION JUST TO GET AN IDEA TO HAVE A NUMBER TO PRESENT TO YOU.
WE'RE ASKING BASED ON THE NUMBERS THAT ARE THERE, THAT WE HAVE A NECESSARY HARDSHIP THAT YOU COULD SEE THAT WE COULD BUMP 59.5, WHATEVER 60 FEET BACK FROM THE SEAT WALL.
PARKING WOULD THEN BE GRANTED IN FRONT. THAT'S THE REQUEST.
AGAIN, WE THINK THIS IS UNIQUE TO THE SITE, WASN'T CAUSED BY US, AND THAT WOULD BE THE BASIS FOR YOUR VARIANCE, NOT CREATING A PRECEDENT, AND THOSE ARE UNIQUE TO THE SITE AND TO THE HISTORY OF IT.
>> WELL, IT WASN'T CAUSED BY US EITHER.
>> OH, NO. IT WASN'T CAUSED BY YOU.
>> I THINK THE IMPLICATION HERE IN YOUR ARGUMENT, YOUR JUSTIFICATION WAS FULL OF INNUENDO ABOUT WHOSE FAULT IT WAS.
BUT THAT'S NEITHER HERE NOR THERE BECAUSE WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT THAT ANYMORE.
WE'RE LOOKING AT A VARIANCE REQUEST TODAY.
IN JULY, WE DECIDED THAT NO STRUCTURE EXISTS.
IN JULY, WE DECIDED THAT IT WOULD COST 100% TO REBUILD, AND THE PROPOSAL IS NOT RECONSTRUCTION; IT IS A NEW BUILD.
THAT'S WHAT WE DECIDED IN JULY.
WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT TODAY IS WHETHER WE'RE GOING TO GRANT YOU A VARIANCE SO THAT YOU CAN GO FORWARD WITH YOUR I GUESS YOU HAVE A BOILER PLATE MODEL THAT YOU USE OVER AND OVER AGAIN BECAUSE IF YOU'RE DRIVING DOWN I TEN, YOU CAN FIND A DANNY'S AND LOOKS JUST LIKE THE DANNY'S, YOU SAW 50 MILES BACK, I MEAN,
[00:50:03]
I UNDERSTAND YOUR EFFICIENCY AND YOUR DESIRE FOR EFFICIENCY IN THAT REGARD.I DON'T KNOW YET BECAUSE WE HAVEN'T BEEN TOLD WHAT EFFORT YOU'VE MADE TO COMPLY.
DID YOU TRY IT THIS WAY? DID YOU TRY IT THAT WAY? DID YOU TURN IT AROUND? I MEAN, WE HAVE SITUATIONS HERE WHERE BUILDINGS WERE LITERALLY BUILT QUITE OPPOSITE OF WHAT THEY THOUGHT THEY WERE GOING TO BUILD.
I DON'T KNOW WHY, I MEAN, YOU HAVEN'T TOLD US THAT TODAY.
I WISH YOU HAD BROUGHT US MORE INFORMATION.
>> THE DATA, MAYBE I HAVEN'T MADE IT CLEAR.
THE DATA THAT YOU'RE WANTING WOULD REQUIRE SIGNIFICANT INVESTMENT ON DENNIS' PART TO EVEN PRODUCE THAT DOCUMENT OR SET OF DATA THAT WOULD PRESENTED TO YOU JUST TO HAVE THAT FIELD.
WE'RE SAYING THAT YOU'RE EXACTLY RIGHT, THAT THERE'S A SET, AGAIN, LIKE MR. HELLERMAN, THE MANAGER SHOWED YOU THAT THERE'S A SET WAY, AND YOU'RE CORRECT OF HOW THE FOOTPRINT OF THE DENNIS WILL GO.
ALL DESIGN, ALL ENGINEERING, ALL ARCHITECTURE, IS DESIGNED TO MEET THE FOOTPRINT THAT WAS IN PLACE AT THE TIME.
WHAT YOU'RE ASKING IS, DID WE TAKE ALL THE STEPS TO CONFORM TO THE NEW CODE? THE REASON I BRING UP JULY IS BECAUSE THAT WOULDN'T HAVE BEEN NECESSARY HAD THIS BOARD NOT DECIDED TO REMOVE THE NON-CONFORMING STATUS.
WHEN THAT HAPPENED, IT'S YOUR PURVIEW TO DO THAT.
YOU MOVE THE NON-CONFORMING STATUS.
THAT MEANS FROM JULY TO NOW, WE WOULD HAVE HAD TO TAKE ALL THAT STEPS AND INVEST HALF A MILLION TO $1 MILLION JUST TO GET THE DESIGN PACKET TO YOU AS PART OF YOUR EVALUATION.
THAT'S THE REQUEST, AND WHY YOU DON'T HAVE THAT.
YES, WE ADMIT, WE DON'T HAVE THAT, BUT THAT'S THE REASON WHY.
>> I THINK IT WOULD HAVE MADE A STRONGER ARGUMENT ON YOUR PART IF YOU HAD MADE SOME EFFORT, EVEN IF IT WAS AN ENVELOPE ESTIMATE.
WE'RE NOT SEEING ANY NUMBERS AT ALL.
>> MADAM CHAIRMAN, I APPRECIATE THE ARGUMENTS THAT ARE BEING MADE HERE IN TERMS OF THE PROVISION OF DATA.
I THOUGHT I HEARD EARLIER A STATEMENT ABOUT AN ESTIMATE FOR POTENTIAL COST.
WOULD THAT BE SOMETHING OF INTEREST TO YOU IF IT WERE PROVIDED? I KNOW IT'S NOT A BID, IT'S NOT ANYTHING ACTUAL, REAL NUMBERS.
>> I MEAN, IT'S IN A DIFFERENT PACKET, BUT THE SAME ESTIMATED COST WAS IN THE JULY PACKET FOR YOU.
AGAIN, BECAUSE WE'RE DEALING WITH THIS 50% VALUATION NUMBER, AND THAT WAS PRESENTED TO YOU.
>> YOU BROUGHT IT TO THE TABLE THAT DAY BECAUSE WE DID NOT HAVE IT.
I WOULD STILL HAVE IT IF IT HAD BEEN PUBLISHED.
>> BUT YES. IF IT'S HERE TODAY, WE WOULD LIKE TO SEE IT.
>> I THINK WE EVEN EVEN IN THE PACKET, IS IT NOT REFERENCED IN OUR APPLICATION, THAT WE HAVE AN ESTIMATED AMOUNT OF 1.1 SOMETHING IN OUR JUSTIFICATION FOR THE 50% VALUE.
>> BECAUSE IF THAT I MEAN, EVEN IF YOU GAVE US THAT TODAY, I'D ASK YOU, WHAT PART OF THAT COST IS SUNK? YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO DO SOME PREP WORK TO REBUILD.
YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO GRADE THE SITE.
YOU CAN'T GIVE THAT TO THE VARIANCE COST.
THERE'S SOME COSTS THAT YOU'RE GOING TO INCUR JUST TO MAKE THE EXISTING SITE BUILDABLE AGAIN.
SOME OF THAT THERE'S AN INCREMENT IN THERE.
THAT'S THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN WHERE YOU WANT TO BUILD IT AND BUILDING IT WHERE THE CITY SAYS YOU NEED TO BUILD IT TO COMPLY WITH OUR CODE.
THAT'S THE INCREMENT I'M LOOKING FOR, AND WE DON'T HAVE ANYTHING TO GO ON.
>> IS THERE ANYBODY ELSE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK?
>> I WANT TO MAKE SURE THIS APPLICANT AND ANY OTHER PERSON TO SPEAK ON BEHALF.
I KNOW THAT YOU HAD MENTIONED THAT YOU SEE ONE DENNY'S, YOU SEE ANOTHER DENNY'S, IT'S ALL THE SAME.
THERE ARE DIFFERENT FOOTPRINTS FOR DENNY'S, JUST BASED ON THE LOCATION OF THE DENNY'S AND BASED ON THE MODEL THAT YOU BUILD.
IN THIS CASE, THE MODEL IS GOING TO CHANGE SUBSTANTIALLY, IT'S GOING TO HAVE TO BE REALLY MORE OF A CUSTOMIZED APPROACH, WHICH WILL LEAD TO EVEN MORE COST.
I JUST WANTED TO BRING THAT UP BECAUSE I DON'T WANT IT TO BE SEEN AS THOUGH IT'S A COOKIE CUTTER APPROACH FOR DENNY'S.
[00:55:02]
THIS MODEL WILL BE DIFFERENT.>> I'M SUZANNE AND MY HUSBAND IS DAVID LITTLE, AND WE'VE OWNED THE HOUSE ACROSS 15TH STREET FROM THE DENNY'S SITE FOR TEN YEARS.
WE ARE IN FAVOR OF ALLOWING THE VARIANCE SO THAT THE NEW RESTAURANT CAN BE BUILT ON THE ORIGINAL FOOTPRINT.
MOVING IT UP TO THE SEA WALL WILL BLOCK HALF OF OUR GOLF VIEW.
THE STREET LOCATION WOULD ALSO BLOCK MORE OF THE VIEWS OF THE VACATION RENTALS THAT ARE IN OUR AREA AND THE PEOPLE WHO STAY IN THE MOTEL.
THE STREET LOCATION, [NOISE] I'M SORRY, WE'RE ALSO CONCERNED ABOUT THE PARKING IF THE NEW BUILDING IS MOVED TO THE STREET.
WE WOULD ANTICIPATE CONTENTION BETWEEN THE MOTEL AND RESTAURANT GUEST, AS WELL AS PARKING ENTRANCE AND EXIT ISSUES.
THERE WAS INSUFFICIENT PARKING BEFORE ON THE WEEKENDS AND ON HOLIDAYS DURING THE MORNINGS WITH RESTAURANT GUESTS USING 15TH STREET AND THE SEAWALL AND SALT GRASS PARKING LOT.
IF THE PARKING AND ENTRANCE TO THE RESTAURANT MOVES TO THE BACK IT'S GOING TO INCONVENIENCE A LOT OF THE GUESTS HAVING TO PARK ELSEWHERE.
PARKING WILL MOVE EVEN FURTHER INTO OUR NEIGHBORHOODS.
PREVIOUSLY, DENNY'S SHARED PARKING WITH SALT GRASS, WHETHER THEY INTENDED TO OR NOT.
THAT WORKED WELL BECAUSE SALT GRASS PARKING WAS AVAILABLE IN THE MORNINGS WHEN THEY WERE CLOSED TO THE DENNY'S GUESTS, AND DENNY'S GENERALLY HAD PARKING SPACES AVAILABLE IN THE EVENING WHEN SALT GRASS WAS BUSY.
AGAIN, THE CHANGE PARKING LOCATION WILL NEGATIVELY AFFECT TOURIST VISITORS TO THE ISLAND, ALL OF OUR RESIDENTS WHO FREQUENT BOTH RESTAURANTS.
BECAUSE OF THE MULTIPLE ENTRANCES AND EXITS FROM THE LOT, ESPECIALLY ON 15TH STREET.
WE DON'T SEE ANY TRAFFIC ADVANTAGES OR SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS TO BE ACCOMPLISHED BY MOVING THE RESTAURANT TO THE STREET.
IT'LL ONLY CAUSE A MORE CLOSED IN EFFECT ON THE SEA WALL RATHER THAN THE OPEN AIR FIELD THAT MOST PEOPLE ENJOY.
WE'D LIKE TO HAVE DENNY'S BACK INSTEAD OF THE OPEN UGLY LOT.
WE HOPE YOU'LL ALLOW THE VARIANCE.
>> THANK YOU.IS THERE ANYBODY ELSE FROM THE PUBLIC THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK? IN THAT CASE, THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR CASE 25 Z-019 IS CLOSED, AND THE CASE IS RETURNED TO THE COMMISSION FOR CONSIDERATION.
>> WE TYPICALLY INCLUDE YOUR MOTION GUIDE IN YOUR PACKET.
WE LEFT IT OUT AT THIS ONE ACCIDENTALLY, WE'VE PRINTED OUT THE MOTION GUIDES FOR YOU.
>> OKAY. DO WE HAVE A MOTION? WE CAN HAVE DISCUSSION BEFORE THE VOTE.
>> I'LL MAKE A MOTION FOR DENIAL DUE TO THE FOLLOWING.
THERE IS NOT A SPECIAL CONDITION ON THE PROPERTY.
THE HARDSHIP IS SELF IMPOSED, AND THE HARDSHIP IS BASED SOLELY ON FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS, CONVENIENCE, OR INCONVENIENCE.
>> IS THAT ENOUGH, DONNA? OKAY. DO WE HAVE A SECOND?
>> A SECOND FOR PURPOSES OF DISCUSSION.
>> LET'S MOVE TO DISCUSSION THEN.
>> WHEN I SEE THOSE THREE THINGS WRITTEN OUT, THERE IS A SPECIAL CONDITION ON THE PROPERTY.
THERE WAS A STRUCTURE THERE THAT BURNED THAT WAS AN ACT OF GOD, I GUESS.
[01:00:01]
IT'S NOT SELF IMPOSED.I MEAN, IT DOESN'T SEEM SELF IMPOSED TO ME.
THE HARDSHIP IS BASED NOT SOLELY ON FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS, BUT FROM WHAT I JUST LEARNED TODAY, IT SEEMS LIKE WE'RE ALLOWED TO CONSIDER OR WHETHER OR NOT THERE'S A FINANCIAL CONSIDERATION.
I CAN'T IMAGINE IN TODAY'S CLIMATE THAT YOU WOULDN'T HAVE TO CONSIDER FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS.
THAT I DON'T AGREE WITH THAT PART OF IT, SO I WOULD VOTE AGAINST THE DENIAL.
>> AND I AGREE WITH YOU THAT I DO SEE A SPECIAL CONDITION ON THIS PROPERTY.
>> BECAUSE THE HISTORY OF THE SAME BUSINESS GOING BACK.
IT'S NOT ANOTHER BUSINESS THAT IS TRYING TO DO SOMETHING ELSE AND IT'S NOW WANTING THAT SPECIFIC FOOTPRINT THAT WAS THERE BEFORE.
IT'S BECAUSE OF THE SAME BUSINESS GOING BACK, OF THE LONG HISTORY ON THE SEAWALL AND PEOPLE RECOGNIZE DENNY'S AND I JUST SEE THAT AS A SPECIAL CONDITION THAT IS NOT EXISTING ON A DIFFERENT PROPERTY THERE.
>> IT'S STILL GOING TO HAVE THE SAME SIGN.
I MEAN, THE THING IS THAT WE'VE SEEN THIS BEFORE ON SEAWALL, NOT SOMETHING BURNING DOWN, BUT WE'VE SEEN COMPLIANCE LIKE IHOP.
THAT'S THE ONLY THING THAT CAN COME UP WITH AND THEIR PARKINGS IN THE BACK, RIGHT? WE KNOW IT'S AN IHOP.
>> BUT IHOP DIDN'T EXIST PREVIOUSLY AND WAS DESTROYED BY A HURRICANE.
ASSUME IHOP BUILT NEW ON THAT PROPERTY.
THE SAME WITH WHAT'S THE OTHER ONE?
>> BUT THEY BUILT BEFORE 2015.
>> I MEAN, THAT'S HOW THEY CHOSE DIDN'T.
>> DID THEY NOT? NO, THAT'S NOT HOW THEY CHOSE.
>>YOU AND I HAVE DISAGREEMENT.
>> YEAH, WE HAVE A DISAGREEMENT, BUT TO ME, THAT'S THE CLOSEST COMPARISON IS THAT WE ALSO RECOGNIZE IHOP WHEN WE'RE DRIVING BY.
IT DOESN'T MATTER THAT IT'S TURNED AROUND AND THE FRONT IS IN THE BACK OF THE BUILDING.
>>I DON'T THINK THAT'S WHAT I MEAN, THAT'S NOT [OVERLAPPING].
>>WE'RE REALLY TALKING ABOUT HERE.
>> I THINK THE CONCERN IS THAT TO MEET THE STANDARDS, THE LDR STANDARDS IS GOING TO COST AND LOTS AND LOTS MORE MONEY THAN IT WOULD TO REBUILD IN THE PREVIOUS LOCATION.
IT'S A FINANCIAL CONSIDERATION AND ONE THAT SEEMS REASONABLE TO ME TO A BUSINESS. [OVERLAPPING].
WE DON'T KNOW THAT. THAT'S THE THING.
IT'S GOING TO COST A LOT TO REBUILD IT RIGHT WHERE IT SAT.
BECAUSE THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE TO GRADE IT DOWN, THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE TO GO IN AND REMEDIATE, WHATEVER REMEDIATION IS REQUIRED, I HOPE.
IT'S GOING TO BE VERY EXPENSIVE.
>> THE ONLY SPECIAL CONDITION, I SEE IS THE PARKING ARRANGEMENT WITH THE HOTEL.
I THINK THAT ADDS A CONSTRICTION.
THE WAY THAT IF YOU LOOK AT THE SITE, THAT YOU SHOULD DO SITE PLANNING.
THE SHARED PARKING IS DIFFICULT TO DO.
BUT I DON'T KNOW BECAUSE NOBODY SHOWED ME ANY KIND OF PARKING PLANS IS YOU MAY HAVE MORE TROUBLE WITH YOUR PARKING AGREEMENT WITH THE HOTEL AND SHARING PARKING.
>> BUT THEY ALL ON IT'S ALL OWNED BY THE SAME COMPANY NOW.
>>THE HOTEL OWNS IT? SO THERE'S NO [OVERLAPPING].
>> [INAUDIBLE] OWN THEY OWN EVERYTHING.
>> WE ARE DONE WITH [OVERLAPPING] YES.
>>WOULD YOU LIKE TO CONTINUE WITH THE QUESTIONS WITH THE APPLICANT?
WE WOULD LIKE TO GO BACK TO OPEN THE CASE FOR REOPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING.
>> OKAY. IN THAT CASE, WE WOULD LIKE TO REOPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR CASE 25Z- 09.
>> SPEAKING BASED BASED ON THE QUESTION. CLYDE RUCKER.
>> OKAY THE QUESTION IS THE PARKING AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE RESTAURANT AND THE HOTEL.
[01:05:09]
IS THAT ALL NOW OWNED BY ONE PERSON? SO YOU DON'T HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT ACROSS THE SHARING AGREEMENT.I JUST FORGOT THE WORD THAT'S CALLED.
>> I KNOW, BUT IT'S NOT TWO DIFFERENT ENTITIES. YOU'RE NOT HAVING TWO?
>> OKAY. THANK YOU. THAT'S WHAT I NEEDED TO KNOW.
>> DO WE HAVE ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS?
>> I THINK THE POINT YOU WERE POTENTIALLY TRYING TO MAKE IS THAT WHEN YOU HAVE THE RESTAURANT SET BACK, IT MAKES A LOGICAL DISTINCTION BETWEEN RESTAURANT PARKING AND HOTEL PARKING?
>> AND IF YOU MOVE IT UP, THEN IT'S A FREE FOR.
>> IT'S NOT A FREE FOR [OVERLAPPING].
>> IF WE DON'T QUESTION, CAN WE CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AGAIN.
>> OKAY. PUBLIC HEARING FOR CASE 25Z-019 IS CLOSED AGAIN.
>> I'M NOT SURE THAT'S SPECIAL.
>> THE OPPORTUNITY FOR SHARED PARKING EXISTS.
I JUST I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW WHAT THE INCREMENT IS BECAUSE IT'S GOING TO BE EXPENSIVE TO REBUILD REGARDLESS. IT'S GOING TO BE EXPENSIVE.
[OVERLAPPING] WOULD YOU RATHER THAT WE DEFER THIS AND ASK FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION? THIS HAS BEEN GOING ON FOR A WHILE NOW AND I'M SURE THE APPLICANT IS LIKE-
>> AS OF RIGHT NOW, IT WON'T GET THE FOUR AFFIRMATIVE VOTES.
>> IT'S NOT GOING TO BE DENIED, AND IT'S ALSO PROBABLY NOT GOING TO BE APPROVED.
>> WE'VE GOT PEOPLE WHO ARE [OVERLAPPING].
>> RIGHT. SO WE SHOULD PROBABLY DEFERRED.
>> WELL, ONLY IF I WITHDRAW MY MOTION.
>>OR SOMEBODY CAN MAKE ANOTHER MOTION TO [OVERLAPPING].
>> YOU CAN VOTE ON YOUR MOTION.
>> DEFERRAL. THEN WE HAVE A MOTION.
>> FOR DENIAL, AND WE HAVE A SECOND.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION FOR DENIAL.
DO WE HAVE ANOTHER MOTION NOW?
>> I DON'T KNOW. I MOVE DEFERRAL.
>> I ASK, I THINK WE NEED TO KNOW IF THE APPLICANTS EVEN INTERESTED IN DEFERRAL.
>> THE COMMISSION'S PREROGATIVE.
>> WE NEED TO KNOW THE DATE AND THE REASON FOR THE DEFERRAL.
>> THE NEXT DATE FOR THE ZBA IS JANUARY 7TH.
>> I WON'T BE HERE. WHAT JANUARY WIN [OVERLAPPING].
>> TO THE NEXT ZBA MEETING, WHICH IS JANUARY WHAT?
>> THE REASON BEING IT WOULD BE NICE IF WE COULD HAVE JUST A LITTLE BIT MORE CONCRETE INFORMATION BETTER DETERMINATION.YEAH. SOME NUMBERS.
>> CAN WE TALK ABOUT WHAT LIKE TO SEE?
>> I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE COST OF BUILDING IT BACK, WHERE IT SITS AND THE COST OF WHERE IT WOULD SIT TO COMPLY.
>> WE'RE NOT ASKING FOR DRAWING.
>> SITE PLANS. WE'RE JUST TALKING [OVERLAPPING].
>> PLANNING LEVEL ESTIMATES, UNIT COSTS.
ANY REMEDIATION THAT YOU HAVE TO DO IS A SUNK COST.
THAT'S NOT PART OF THIS DECISION.
ANYTHING YOU HAVE TO DO TO BOTH SIDES IS IMMATERIAL TO THIS DECISION. I THINK.
>> WE'RE LOOKING FOR THE INCREMENT.
BECAUSE I DON'T THINK IT'S GOING TO BE $1 MILLION.
I HONESTLY DON'T THINK IT'S THAT MUCH.
IT'S GOING TO BE EXPENSIVE, BUT IT'S NOT $1 MILLION.
[01:10:02]
>> OKAY. SO WE HAVE A MOTION FOR DEFERRAL IN A SECOND.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OR [OVERLAPPING].
[INAUDIBLE] OR SOME MORE COMPLETE NUMBERS.
ARE WE ADDED TO THAT MOTION, THE COST OF BUILDING THESE THREE ITEMS THAT WE JUST MENTIONED, THE COST OF BUILDING IT BACK WHERE IT WAS BEFORE AS OPPOSED TO WHERE IT WOULD SIT IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE NEW REGULATIONS, REGARD NOT INCLUDING THE REMEDIATION COSTS AS SUNK COST, AND WE WANT THE INCREMENTAL NUMBERS.
THOSE THREE ITEMS IS WHAT I HEARD IN DISCUSSION.IS THAT INCLUDED IN THIS MOTION?
>> SURE. I MEAN, OBVIOUSLY, FOR THEM TO SAY THAT IT'S GOING TO COST OVER $1 MILLION MORE, ALL HAD TO HAVE SOME KIND OF AN ESTIMATE.
>>YES.I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE OF MOTION BECAUSE HE GOING TO SAY MOTION TO PROVIDE CONCRETE NUMBERS.
BUT WE WANT THOSE SPECIFIC NUMBERS.
>> CORRECT. AND IT WOULD BE NICE TO HAVE IT BEFORE THE MEETING.
>> IS THAT EXPECTED IN THE MOTION?
>> SO ALL THOSE IN FAVOR TO DEFER THIS UNTIL JANUARY 7TH, MOTION FOR DEFERRAL PASSES.
IT'S 4:40 P.M. AND MEETING ADJOURNED
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.