[1. PVZVAR22-10 Aguirre Residence. Request for a Zoning Variance to Section VIII.N.2 of the Ponte Vedra Zoning District Regulations to allow a retaining wall greater than four (4) feet in height and Section VIII.I.2.b to allow building pad fill to exceed the integrated average. The subject property is located at 1165 Ponte Vedra Boulevard.]

ITEM OUTSIDE THE FORMAL HEARING OF THE PARTY.

IF SUCH COMMUNICATION HAS OCCURRED, THE BOARD MEMBER SHOULD THEN IDENTIFY THE PERSONS INVOLVED AND THE MATERIAL CONTENT OF THE COMMUNICATION.

CIVILITY CLAUSE. WE WILL BE RESPECTFUL OF ONE ANOTHER, EVEN WHEN WE DISAGREE. WE WILL DIRECT ALL COMMENTS TO THE ISSUES AND WE WILL AVOID PERSONAL ATTACKS.

>> THANK YOU. DO YOU HAVE ANY SPEAKER CARDS WERE GENERAL SPEAKERS THAT ARE NOT ONLY TOPICS AT HAND? IS THERE ANYONE THAT HAS ANY PUBLIC COMMENTS THEY WOULD LIKE TO MAKE BEFORE WE START THE MEETING OTHER THAN THOSE ALREADY ON THE AGENDA? SEEING NONE, NOBODY IS APPROACHING THE PODIUM. LET'S MOVE ON TO THE FIRST AGENDA ITEM, WHICH IS PV'S EBV PAR 22 Ã10.

THE GARY RESIDENCE. BEFORE WE START ON THE ITEM, I WOULD LIKE TO ASK THE BOARD MEMBERS IF THEY HAVE VISITED THE SITE, TALK TO ANYONE, HAD ANY CONTACT.

SAM, LET'S START WITH YOU. >> I HAVE DRIVEN PAST THE SITE

BUT NOT SPOKEN TO ANYONE. >> AND NOT SPOKEN TO ANYBODY.

>> I HAVE HAD NO CONTACT WITH MR. SMITHER.

>> OKAY. I DROVE BY THE SITE, AND THERE WERE VARIOUS LETTERS OF APPROVAL FOR A VARIANCE IN THE PACKET, AND IT WAS NOT CLEAR THAT THOSE LETTERS WERE IN SUPPORT OF ALL OF THE VARIANCES, AND WE DIDN'T GET OUR PACKETS UNTIL LATE. SO INSTEAD OF ASKING THE STAFF TO WORK OVER THE WEEKEND, I ACTUALLY SENT EMAILS TO THE INDIVIDUALS IN OUR PACKET. I HEARD FROM SOME OF THEM AND I DID NOT HEAR FROM ALL OF THEM SO I CALLED THEM TODAY.

THE GARCIA'S I CALL AND SPOKE ABOUT BOTH VARIANCES.

[00:05:01]

THE (INDISCERCERNIBLE), THE SECOND LETTER, THEY ARE IN APPROVAL OR SUPPORT OF BOTH THE VARIANCES.

THE HUTCHINS DID NOT RESPOND TO MY EMAIL AND THEIR SUPPORT IS HEIGHT ONLY. THE (NAME), THEY ARE IN SUPPORT OF BOTH OF THE VARIANCES AND FRANK STANTON THE HEIGHT VARIANCE DID NOT KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT THE RETAINING WALL AND WITHHELD THEIR SUPPORT OF THE RETAINING WALL.

ROBERT GREEN, I DID NOT HEAR BACK FROM.

OTHER THAN THAT, I HAVE HAD NO OTHER CONTACT ON THIS PROPERTY.

>> I VISITED THE SITE AND WALKED UP TO THE DUNES AND I'VE

NOT SPOKEN TO ANYONE. >> (AWAY MIC).

>> I DROVE BY AGAIN AND THEY DIDN'T SPEAK TO ANYONE.

>> OKAY. THANK YOU.

BRAD LESTER, ARE YOU REPRESENTING THEM? WOULD YOU COME TO THE PODIUM AND MAKE THE PRESENTATION?

>> I THINK THIS IS YOURS. I'M SORRY.

PRESENTER. CAN YOU SAY HER NAME?

>> SORRY FOR MY MISTAKE I WAS LOOKING DOWN THE AGENDA ON THE

NEXT ITEM. >> I AM THOMAS 11210 PHILLIPS INDUSTRIAL BLVD. E. SUITE 13 JACKSONVILLE, FLORIDA.

I AM THE PROJECT MANAGER WITH THE BUILDING COMPANY.

>> OUR HARDSHIP CLAIM 41165 PONTE VEDRE BLVD. IS DUE TO THE UNIQUE NATURAL UNDULATION OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY THAT VARIES IN HEIGHT NEARLY 20 FEET.

THAT RESULTS IN WHAT WE FEEL IS LOWERING THE AVERAGE ACCORDING TO WHAT WE SEE IN THE SURROUNDING PROPERTIES.

THE SUBJECT PROPERTY CONTAINS A LARGE DEEP DEPRESSION AND IT'S DOWN TO 16 FOOT NINE ELEVATION WITH A HIGH POINT OF THE PROPERTY AT 38.1 FEET SO THAT LOWERS THE AVERAGE CALCULATION TO 28 FEET WHICH SETS OUR PROPOSED FINISHED FLOOR ELEVATION AT 29 FEET. WE PROPOSE IT LIMITS THE USABILITY OF THE PROPERTY WILL CREATE HARDSHIP WHERE OCEAN VIEWS OF THE EXISTING THEMES WILL BE DIMINISHED SUBSTANTIALLY. THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE LAND IS EITHER AT OR ABOVE THE PROPOSED REVISED GRADE AND WE REQUEST A VARIANCE TO RAISE IT TO THE 33 FOOT ELEVATION SURVEY CAN SET THE FINISH FLOOR ELEVATION OF 34 FOOT WHICH IS STILL MORE THAN A FOOT LOWER THAN NEIGHBORING HOMES.

THE PROPOSED FILLER RESULTED IN ABOUT 2000 CUBIC YARDS WITH A CONSIDERABLE AMOUNT OF EXISTING EARTH ABLE TO BE ABLE TO USE TO FLATTEN HIGH POINTS ON THE PROPERTY.

ALONG WITH THIS IN ADDITION DUE TO THE PROXIMITY OF THE DEPRESSION, THAT'S ON THE PROPERTY TO THE NORTH OF THE PROPERTY LINE IT REQUIRES CONSTRUCTION OF A RETAINING WALL ABOVE THE FOUR FOOT MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE IN ORDER TO KIND OF ACHIEVE THE PROPOSED GRADE NEAR THE PAD.

THE PROPOSED RETAINING WALL IS TO BE CONSTRUCTED OF A NATURAL STONE PRODUCT THAT WILL RUN AT VARIOUS HEIGHTS ACROSS THE PROPERTY WITH THE PROPOSED TOPIC OF WALL HEIGHT OF 32 FOOT ELEVATION. MEANING TO FOOT BELOW THE FFE.

THE PROPOSAL WALL WILL EXCEED THE MAXIMUM OF FOUR FEET HEIGHT AND APPROXIMATELY 66 LINEAR FOOT RUN AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE HOME WITH THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF APPROXIMATELY 12 FEET AT THE TALLEST PORTION DUE TO THE DEEP NATURAL DEPRESSION WE'VE BEEN SPEAKING OF.

IN ORDER TO MITIGATE THE VISUAL IMPACT OF A LARGE RETAINING WALL WOMEN TO KEEP THE VEGETATIVE BUFFERS AT THE NORTHWESTERN AND SOUTHERN PROPERTY LINES AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE AND TRY TO KEEP THEM INTACT AND FURTHER OBSCURED THE WALL AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE WITH ORNAMENTAL LANDSCAPING AT THE BASE.O OUR GENERAL SUMMARY REQUEST, THIS IS REDUNDANT TO THE HARDSHIP CLAIM BUT IT IS TO ALLOW FOR VARIANCE TO RAISE THE FFE UP TO 40 FOOT ELEVATION AND IN ADDITION CONSTRUCT THE RETAINING WALL AT 32 FEET. THIS IS NOT SO GREAT TO SEE BUT THIS IS THE EXISTING DATA FROM OUR INITIAL SURVEY AND WE WILL

[00:10:04]

SCROLL THROUGH AS WE MOVE INTO FURTHER SLIDES TO SHOW RELEVANT INFORMATION HERE. THIS SHOWING THE AVERAGE AREA OF THE BUILDING PAD LOCATION AND UNFORTUNATELY IN THE TINY YELLOW BOX SHOWS THE INTEGRATED AVERAGE CALCULATION AND 27.99 FEET. THIS IS A VERY IMPORTANT SLIDE AS IT SHOWS IN THE GREEN AND YELLOW THE AREAS THAT ARE EITHER AT, ABOVE OR WERE THEY REQUIRE VERY LITTLE FULL ON THE LOT DUE TO WHAT WE CONSIDER THE NATURAL GRADE AND THEN IN THE BLUE SHOWING WHERE THE DEEP DEPRESSION LIES.

KIND OF PROXIMITY TO EACH OTHER HOW THERE'S A LARGE AMOUNT OF VARIATION IN ELEVATION THIS SHOWS A DISTANCE AND PROXIMITY FROM THE HIGH POINT OF 38.1 ELEVATION DOWN TO ONE OF THE LOWER ELEVATIONS SHOWING AS 62 FEET RUN OF HORIZONTAL WIDTH FROM THE LOWEST TO THE HIGHEST POINT IT'S A DISTANCE OF 82 FEET. THIS IS APPROXIMATELY CLIMBING 21 FEET IN ELEVATION DOWN TO THIS LARGE DEEP DEPRESSION.

THIS SHOWS OUR PROPOSED HOUSE PAD ON THE EXISTING DATA IN RELATION TO THE EXISTING GRADES.

THIS IS ANOTHER IMPORTANT SLIDE IN THE RED LINE INDICATES ANY AREAS ALONG THE COASTAL CONSTRUCTION LINE THIS HOUSE BEING BUILT SOLELY LAMBERT ON THE CONSTRUCT COASTAL CONSTRUCTION LINE ANYTHING AT 29 FEET OR HIGHER WHICH WOULD OBVIOUSLY RESTRICT THE VIEWS OVER THE DUNES IN THOSE LOCATIONS. AS YOU CAN SEE, KEEPING THE PROPOSED FFE AT 29 FEET BASED ON THE INTEGRATED AVERAGE, THAT ENTIRE REDLINE WOULD BE BASICALLY OBSTRUCTED VIEWS ON THE PROPERTY LINE. THIS IS OUR PROPOSED FRONT ELEVATION SHOWING THE RETAINING WALL AND A ELEVATION AT 34 FEET AND UTILIZING THE EXISTING NATURAL GRADE LANDWARD OF THE HOUSE. THIS WOULD BE OUR PROPOSED SITE ELEVATION LOOKING FROM THE NORTHERN PROPERTY LINE SO AGAIN SHOWING THE RETAINING WALL AS IT DIVES INTO THE EXISTING GRADE AND TRACKS DOWN TOWARDS THE DEEP DEPRESSION AND WRAPS AROUND TOWARDS THE WESTERN SIDE OF THE FRONT ELEVATION.

AND OUR REAR ELEVATION SHOWING RETAINING WALL WHICH WILL BE ON THE RIGHT-HAND SIDE IN THIS BEING WHERE THE EXISTING GRADE IS UP, THERE IS NO RETAINING WALL REQUIRED ALONG THE BACK.

THIS SHOWS HEIGHTS OF THE PROPOSED RETAINING WALL WITH 12 FOOT BEING THE INTENDED MAXIMUM AND DYING UP INTO THE EXISTING GRADE TOWARDS THE BACK OF THE HOME AND WRAP AROUND AT A HEIGHT NO GREATER THAN FOUR FEET TO THE FRONT OF THE HOME.

THIS SHOWING IN RED DEPICTING 66 FOOT APPROXIMATELY OF WHAT WE PROPOSE THE WALL WOULD EXCEED THE FOUR FOOT MAXIMUM CURRENTLY ALLOWED. AGAIN, ANOTHER PROPOSED REVISED SITE PLAN WITH THE FFE AT 34 AND SHOWING -- TOP OF WALL AT 32 AND JUST KIND OF A ZOOM IN ON TOP OF THE WALL ESPECIALLY AT THE DEPRESSION AREA. AND WE HAVE SOME CUT THREE LINES THAT WILL KIND OF CORRESPOND TO THE NEXT FEW SLIDES WITH DIFFERENT CROSS SECTIONS.

THIS IS A CROSS SECTION FROM THE FRONT SHOWING PROPOSED PILINGS WITH OUR FULL AREAS AND RETAINING WALL.

THIS WOULD BE A CROSS SECTION FROM THE BACK SHOWING THE FILM REQUIRED AND WHERE OUR PROPOSED RETAINING WALL WOULD BE ON THE RIGHT-HAND SIDE THIS WOULD BE A CROSS SECTION AA AND CROSS SECTION BB. A TOTAL OF EIGHT LETTERS OF SUPPORT WHICH I MAY HAVE ALREADY ADDRESSED EARLIER.

AT LEAST ONE OF BOTH OF THE VARIANCES.

AND THAT WAS ALL. >> THE QUESTIONS FROM THE

BOARD? >> THANK YOU FOR YOUR PRESENTATION. THAT WAS PRETTY FAST.

I REALLY ENJOY BEING ABLE TO SEE THE NUMBERS BUT THEY KIND OF FLEW BY. ONE OF THE PIECES THAT WAS IN

[00:15:01]

THE PACKET THAT WE RECEIVED WAS TALKING ABOUT THE ORIGINAL PROPOSAL WAS TO ESTABLISH A HEIGHT OF 28 FEET WITH THE FINISH FLOOR HEIGHT OF 29 FEET. ASKING IT TO BE HIGHER AND THAT WAS APPROVED BECAUSE OF A HARDSHIP IS A BIT OF A STRETCH FOR ME SINCE THEY DID APPLY A BUILDING PAD 28 FEET.

NOTHING HAS CHANGED ABOUT THE PROPERTY BEFORE THEN AND NOW.

>> NOTHING HAS CHANGED ABOUT THE PROPERTY.

UNFORTUNATELY, AFTER CLEARING WAS COMPLETED AND A BETTER SCOPE OF WORK WAS KNOWN AS FAR AS THE HEIGHTS OF THE DUNES AND HOW MUCH THEY WOULD IMPACT THE VIEWS OR OBSTRUCT THE VIEWS FROM THE HOME AT THE PROOF GRADE IS WHAT KIND OF DROVE THIS REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE TO BE ABLE TO RAISE THAT HIGHER.

>> SO I CAN UNDERSTAND, COULD YOU SHOW MORE OF YOUR CHARTS WHERE THE DUNE HEIGHTS ARE BETWEEN THE EAST SIDE OF THE

HOUSE? >> THIS CHART HERE, THE RED LINE SHOWS ALL OF THE DUNE HEIGHTS 29 FEET OR GREATER AT COASTAL CONSTRUCTION SO IF YOUR FLOOR WAS 29 FEET AND YOU WERE STANDING ON THE FLOOR, YOU ARE SAYING FOR THAT PART OF THE DUNE IT WAS 29 FEET WOULD BE ABLE TO SEE OVER IT?

>> THAT'S RIGHT. >> BUT IF YOU WERE STANDING YOU

WOULD? >> IF YOU WERE STANDING AT THE FOUR YOU WOULD PROBABLY -- FIVE FOOT TALLER THAN WHERE YOU ARE FINISHED FLOOR ELEVATION WOULD BE.

>> SO YOU COULD SEE OVER THE DUNE.

>> POTENTIALLY. >> THE OTHER QUESTION I HAVE IS REGARDING THE RETAINING WALL. YOU SAID THAT ON THE NORTH SIDE YOU WITH CTD I THINK IT WAS 12 FEET OF RETAINING WALL.

>> A MAXIMUM OF 12 FEET. >> BUT THE ACTUAL RETAINING

WALL IS 14 FEET? >> THE RETAINING WALL WOULD HAVE TO BE DUG DOWN INTO THE EARTH, SO THE MAXIMUM THAT WOULD BE SHOWN ABOVE GRADE WILL B-12 FEET.

>> AFTER DRIVING DOWN PONTE VEDRE BLVD., WHAT'S THE MAXIMUM

EXPOSURE TO EXPOSE HEIGHT. >> THE MAJORITY OF THAT WOULD BE OBSTRUCTED BY EXISTING VISITATION BUT IT WOULD BE APPROXIMATELY EIGHT FEET JUST DUE TO VISUALS BUT THAT WOULD REALLY ONLY BE -- REALLY ONLY BE ABLE TO SEE THAT THE DRIVEWAY CUT THROUGH AS MUCH OF THE VEGETATION IS GOING TO BE

EXISTING ALONG A1A. >> AND IF YOU HAD GONE WITH THE ORIGINAL DESIGN OF THE ORIGINAL FLOOR HEIGHT OF 29 FEET IT

WOULD BE FIVE FOOT LOWER? >> CORRECT.

>> THANK

YOU. >> CM DID YOU HAVE A QUESTION?

>> I DID. THANK YOU.

WHAT IS THE WIDTH OF THE HOME? I SAID THE LOT WAS 180 BUT WHAT

IS THE WIDTH OF THE REST? >> I BELIEVE IT'S 137 FEET.

>> MEGAN'S QUESTION LED TOWARDS EVERYBODY ELSE'S VIEW AND PRIMARILY MY CONCERNS ARE A LOT MORE FOR THE NEIGHBOR TO THE NORTH. WHAT IS ON THE OTHER SIDE.

YOUR TOPO STOPS AT THE BOUNDARY LINE.

I'M ASSUMING THERE IS ANOTHER -- THE GAP CONTINUES DOWN THERE. SO THE QUESTION -- UNDERSTAND WE HAVE SAND SOME ALWAYS WORRIED ABOUT WATER AND DUMPING ONTO THE NEIGHBOR'S PROPERTY AND CREATING AN ISSUE THERE.

ELL ME -- GOING TO CALL IT A 12 FOOT EXPOSED WALL ADJACENT TO THE PROPERTY. HOW HAVE YOU MANAGED TO

MITIGATE THOSE ISSUES. >> WITH REGARDS TO THE NEIGHBOR

OR WITH REGARDS TO DRAINAGE? >> YES.

NEIGHBOR AND OF COURSE THE VIEW OF A 12 FOOT WALL IN THE

DRAINAGE. >> OF ACTUALLY MET WITH THE NEIGHBOR AND HE PROVIDED HIS LETTER OF SUPPORT AFTER THE PRESENTATION WAS TURNED IN SO I CAN PASS THAT ON AS WELL.

[00:20:05]

IN ADDITION TO OUR 10 FOOT VEGETATIVE BUFFER THERE'S 20 FOOT OF VEGETATION ON HIS PROPERTY.

HIS HOUSE IS NOT VISIBLE HOWEVER.

AND ACTUALLY, CURRENTLY, WITH THE LOW POINT BEING SHARED ON THE PROPERTY LINE THAT'S WHERE A LOT OF THE DRAINAGE IS ALLOWS US TO ENGINEER AND PROPERLY RUN DRAINAGE ON THIS SITE I THINK WILL HELP MITIGATE THOSE LOW POINTS AND ALLOW US TO SHED THE WATER IN DIFFERENT DIRECTIONS AS OPPOSED TO THE NATURAL GRADE

AS IT STANDS RIGHT NOW. >> OKAY.

IF I HAVE READ MY PACKET CORRECTLY, BOTH OF THE NEIGHBORS ARE BELOW 30 FOOT AND FINISH FLOOR HEIGHTS.

>> THE NEIGHBOR TO THE NORTH IS AT 35.2 AND THE NEIGHBOR TO THE

SOUTH IS 35.6. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? I HAVE A QUESTION.

YOU SAID YOU TALK TO THE NEIGHBOR TO THE NORTH.

THE LETTERS OF SUPPORT YOU RECEIVED WHEN I TALKED TO THIS PEOPLE THEY SAID THERE WAS NOTHING ABOUT THE WALL VARIANCE IN THEIR CORRESPONDENCE SO PERHAPS THAT WAS DONE BEFORE YOU FILED FOR THE SECOND VARIANCE.

DID YOU SPECIFICALLY TALK TO THE NEIGHBORS NORTH ABOUT THE WALL VARIANCE AND THEY HAD SUPPORT FOR THAT WALL KIND OF WHAT MR. CROZIER TALKED ABOUT IN TERMS OF CONCERN FOR THAT

NORTHERN NEIGHBOR? >> YES.

THAT WAS ONE OF HIS MAIN CONCERNS THAT WE WENT AND I MET WITH HIM FRIDAY MORNING WE DISCUSSED AT LENGTH.

>> DO YOU REMEMBER THEIR NAME? AND YOU COULD TURN IN THE LETTER TO EITHER THIS TABLE OR THIS TABLE.

IT DOESN'T MATTER. WHO SHOULD HE TURN IT TO?

>> THAT'S FROM DOCTOR KEVIN MCCOLLUM FEET.

>> IT'S FINE IF YOU DON'T HAVE SOMETHING FOR THE PACKET YOU CAN PRESENTED AT THIS MEETING. I THINK THAT'S THE ONLY QUESTION I HAD. ANY PUBLIC COMMENT? OKAY. IT SOUNDS LIKE WHAT WE HAVE HERE IS A REQUEST FOR TWO VARIANCES ONE A HEIGHT VARIANCE THAT IS OVER WHAT IS ALLOWED BUT IT IS IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE HOUSES CONSISTENT IN TERMS OF THE WALL.

IT'S 10 FEET ABOVE WHAT IS ALLOWED BUT YOU HEARD THE PRESENTATION AND THE NEIGHBORS IN SUPPORT.

IT'S TIME THAT WE CALL FOR A MOTION TO HEAR A MOTION TO

APPROVE OR DENY THIS REQUEST? >> I LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE VARIANCE HAVE TO LOOK UP THE NUMBER.

[2. PVZVAR 2022-11 Garcia Family Variance. PVZVAR 2022-11 Garcia Family Variance, Request for a Zoning Variance to Section VIII.I(1) of the Ponte Vedra Zoning District Regulations to allow for a proposed building height of 40 feet 6 inches in lieu of the 35- foot requirement. The subject property is located at 1156 Ponte Vedra Boulevard]

PVC PR 22 Ã10. >> MOTION PASSES.

>> NOW WE WILL GO TO ITEM 2. LET'S START THIS TIME WITH RICH AND SULLEN. I HAVE DRIVEN BY THE SITE AND

DID NOT SPEAK WITH ANYONE. >> I WALKED THE SITE AND THE PROPERTIES TO THE NORTH AND I DID NOT SPEAK TO ANYONE.

>> I VISITED THE SITE I DID NOT SPEAK WITH ANYONE.

>> I'M NOT SPOKEN WITH ANYONE AND HAVE NOT VISITED THE SITE.

>> HAVE NOT SPOKEN TO ANYONE AND OF GONE BY THE SITE.

>> DRIVER MCAFEE HAWTHORNE 1 INDEPENDENT DOCTOR, SUITE 1200 JACKSONVILLE, FLORIDA. GLAD TO BE BEFORE YOU TODAY.

MR. GARCIA IS HERE AS WELL AS OUR ARCHITECTS AND MEN FOLKS IN THE CONSTRUCTION TEAM. I'VE GOT EXPERTS AVAILABLE AND

[00:25:11]

I WILL RUN TO THE PRESENTATION AND IF I CAN ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS SPECIFIC TO FLOOR PLANS OR SPECIFICS WE CERTAINLY HAVE THE FOLKS TO ADDRESS THAT. THIS IS A REQUEST FOR A ZONING VARIANCE TO SECTION 3B 10 MAXIMUM HEIGHT ON THE PROPERTY.

ONE ITEM I WILL PREFERENCE IS THE ORIGINAL REQUEST WAS OVER 40 FEET. I KNOW WHEN WE ALL SAW THAT IT WAS LIGHTWEIGHT. 40 FEET.

WE'VE COME DOWN WITH THAT AND WORKED WITH STAFF AND HAD SEVERAL MEETINGS WITH ENGINEERING AND PLANNING AND HAVE WALKED THAT BACK AND DOWN AND I WILL PRESENT HOW THAT RELATES TO CONTEXT OF THE BUILDING PLAN AND ELEVATIONS ON THE PROPERTY. WE ARE NO LONGER ASKING FOR THE 40 FEET. HERE IS THE PROPERTY YOU CAN SEE IT IN CONTEXT TO THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES IN THIS AREA. IT IS OUR 1B ZONING'S EVEN SEE THE CONTEXT TO SIZE AND SETBACKS OF THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES IN THE AREA. I HAVE CLOSER IMAGING AND THIS GIVES YOU OVERALL CONTEXT OF THE FABRIC IN THE AREA.

THE PREVIOUS ITEM IS CLEARLY SHOWN IN THIS PICTURE AS WELL.

THE ONE BEING A ZONING, HERE'S THE FLOODPLAIN.

IT KIND OF MIMICS THE TOPOGRAPHY THAT'S OUT THERE.

THIS IS AN AERIAL SITE VIEW AND BASICALLY IT'S MEANT FOR ADJACENT CONTEXT AND WHAT I MEAN BY THAT IS WE ARE NOT ASKING FOR A VARIANCE, IF YOU WILL, FOR ANY PLACE TO SCOOT THE HOUSE CLOSER TO THE BOULEVARD OR THE ABUTTING NEIGHBORS NORTH OR SOUTH OR TO THE WETLANDS.

SO THE FLOORPLAN REALLY IS IN CONTEXT WITH THE OTHER DEVELOPMENTS IN THE AREA INCLUDING ACROSS THE STREET.

THIS IS A REALLY GOOD REPRESENTATION.

I HAVE THE OFFICIAL TOPOGRAPHY MAP AND WE'VE CREATED A 3-D MODEL AND I THINK YOU WILL REALLY APPRECIATE THAT.

ALL OF THE DIMENSIONS WILL BE SHOWN.

THIS SHOWS THE PROPERTY IN CONTEXT TO THE TOPOGRAPHIC CONDITIONS OUT THERE. YOU CAN SEE THIS AREA EVEN ACROSS THE STREET UP TO 50 FEET HIGH AS FAR AS THE DUNE AND THIS IS FROM THE COUNTY GIS WEBSITE.

WE HAVE TOPO ON THE PROPERTY SPECIFICALLY BUT YOU CAN SEE THE PROPERTY HERE IN CONTEXT WITH THE 40 FOOT SETBACK REQUIRED FOR THE ZONING AND WHAT WE ARE WORKING WITH AND HOW THEY TOPOGRAPHY CUTS THROUGH THE PROPERTY AND IN A DIAGONAL FASHION YOU CAN SEE THE PROPERTY TO THE SOUTH AT 1158 AND HOW THEY TOPOGRAPHY IS REWORKED WITH THE BUILDING PAD FOR THE HOUSE. THAT HOUSE DOES EXIST THERE AND THERE ARE PLANS THAT I CAN SHARE AT 1154.

THIS IS A GOOD INDICATION AND WE WILL COME BACK TO THIS THROUGH THE DISCUSSION.

IT'S HARD TO SEE THE SMALL LINES.

WE'VE CREATED A 3-D MODEL SO I'VE GOT YOU COVERED, MEGAN.

IT REALLY SHOWS HOW IT SLOPES DOWN ACROSS THE SITE.

THIS IS ARRANGED ON THE 3-D MODEL AS WELL.

THIS IS THE FRONT ELEVATION. AS YOU SEE IT'S A VERY MODEST CURB APPEAL WITH THE SENSE IT'S A TWO-STORY AESTHETIC TWO-STORY STRUCTURE THREE STORIES ALOUD BECAUSE THEY ARE SOUTH OF SAWGRASS. THIS IS A TWO-STORY PLAN.

GENERALLY WHAT MOST OF THE VIEWS WILL BE WITH THE EXCEPTION IS THE ABUTTING NORTH AND SOUTH PROPERTY OWNERS.

BROKEN DOWN IN THE ARCHITECTS CAN COME UP AND EXPLAIN THE FLOOR PLANS DURING SOME MORE QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS BUT THESE ARE THE FOUR PLANS LAID OUT AND WHAT WE'VE DONE IN THIS NEXT SLIDE IS TO LAY EACH PLAN IN CONTEXT WITH THE HOUSE PAD AND THE ELEVATIONS. WE HAVE AN IMAGERY THAT IS ZOOMED IN SHARING THE DIMENSIONS BUT I WANT TO SHOW YOU THAT WE'VE LAID OUT THE FLOORPLAN AND THE DIFFERENT SECTIONS AND PUT IT IN A PROFILE VIEW.

[00:30:03]

AGAIN THE LOWER PLAN YOU CAN SEE WITH THE TOPOGRAPHY HOW IT PGOES FROM THE FRONT SETBACK LINE TRAVERSES DOWN UNDER THE PROPERTY AND IN A SENSE THIS UNIFIED STRUCTURE IN THE HOUSE TAKES THE SAME MIMICRY OF THE ELEVATION DOWN THROUGHOUT THE PROPERTY AS OPPOSED TO ESSENTIALLY FLATTENING OUT THE SITE TO CREATE KIND OF A BUILDING PAD FOR THIS PROPERTY.

BUILDING IN CONTEXT TO THE PROPERTY OUT THERE.

THIS IS FROM -- THIS IS LOOKING FROM THE NORTHERN PROPERTY LINE TO THE CELL AND THIS ONE IS FROM PONTE VEDRE BLVD. INTO THE MOTOR COURT WITH THE FRONT ELEVATION OF THE HOUSE.

YOU WILL TRAVERSE DOWN INTO THE GARAGE AREA WHICH IS THE FIRST FLOOR ON THE BOTTOM SECTION. THE NEXT ONE IS A ROOF PLAN AND AN UPPER LEVEL PLAN AND YOU CAN SEE IT AGAIN IN CONTEXT TO THE ELEVATIONS IN THIS ONE LOOKING FROM THE NORTH TO THE SOUTH ACROSS THE PROPERTY I HAVE AN IMAGE THAT SHOWS THIS CONTEXT CLOSER SO YOU CAN ALL SEE IT. THIS PROPERTY WHICH IS FROM THE SOUTHWEST LOOKING NORTHEAST ON THE PROPERTY AND YOU CAN SEE IT IN CONTEXT WITH THE TOPOGRAPHY REALLY TAKING THE TWO-STORY AND THEN KIND OF FILLING IT OUT WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF THE ALLOWABLE THREE-STORY DOWN HERE.

THE BLUE LINE THAT IS REPRESENTED HERE IS ESSENTIALLY -- WE'VE TAKEN THE TOPO. WE GO THE FRONT PROPERTY TO THE BACK AND WE TAKEN THAT LINE THAT SHOWS YOU HOW IT IS FROM THE PROPERTY FROM PONTE VEDRE BLVD. WHICH IS OUT NEAR THE TITLE BLOCK OUT DOWN THROUGH TOWARDS THE A GUANA.

QUITE A SIGNIFICANT ELEVATION CHANGE.

WE'VE BUILT THE CONTACT AS OPPOSED TO FLATTENING THE ENTIRE SIGN OUT WAS FOUND WITHIN THE REGULATIONS AND BUILDING UP FROM THERE. THE NEXT SLIDE ONE OF THE REQUESTS WAS UPWARDS OF 40 FEET.

AND THE REASON BEING WE BROUGHT THIS DOWN AND WE THINK THIS IS MORE IN CONTEXT AS OPPOSED TO THE REQUEST FOR THE 40 FEET.

WE HAD THE PEAK OF ROOF COMING ACROSS TO MEET THE FRONT PEAK OF ROOF SO THAT'S WHY WE HAD A 40 FOOT PLUS REQUEST ON THE VARIANCE.E CAME UP WITH DIFFERENT SCENARIOS ACROSS THE PROPERTY AND WHAT WOULD THAT LOOK LIKE AND HOW THAT LITERALLY LEVELED THE ENTIRE SITE PER THE CODE PUT THE AMOUNT OF FILL IN AND THEN BUILD UP THERE WOULD ACTUALLY BE HIGHER THAN WHAT IS SHOWN HERE WITH THE VARIANCE REQUEST.

IF WE SPLIT THE HOUSE UP INTO TWO DIFFERENT HOUSES, ONE IN THE UPPER LEVEL OF THE TOPOGRAPHY AND THEN ONE IN THE LOWER LEVEL AS OPPOSED TO THE UNIFIED MIDDLE LEVEL THAT LINKS THE STRUCTURE AND THEN YOU SEE THIS LINE WHERE MY POINTER IS GOING ACROSS THIS BETTER REPRESENTS IMAGERY THAT IS IN CONTEXT WITH THE TOPO. IT GOES UP AND DOWN IN THE SAME THING WITH THE ROOF LINE. WE DID AN ENTIRELY REMODEL OF THIS ROOF LINE HERE TO BRING IT DOWN TO 36 SIX FROM THE LOWEST GRADE DOWN HERE NOW AS OPPOSED TO UP 40+ FEET.

THE ORIGINAL 40+ FEET VARIANCE REQUEST WAS TO REALLY HAVE MORE OF UNIFIED APPROACH FROM THE PEAK OF ROOF TO PEAK OF ROOF ACROSS THE PROPERTY AND ACROSS THE ELEVATIONS.

THIS REQUEST IS FROM THE FRONT SO THIS IS IF YOU ARE DRIVING HERE IS THE ENTRY WAY AND AMONG PONTE VEDRE BLVD. AND WE STAND THIS. YOU SEE THE TOP OF THE GARAGE THERE GOING DOWN TO THE GARAGE ESSENTIALLY WHAT WE'VE GOT HERE THIS IS AN CONTEXT TO THE REQUEST AND WE'VE GOT A REQUEST OVER 35 FEET AND APPEARS 39 FEET WHEN I WILL DESCRIBE THAT.

IT'S MEASURED FROM THE CROWN OF THE ROAD IS 25 FEET TO PEAK OF ROOF. MEASURED FROM THE MOTOR COURT AREA BECAUSE YOU CAN PULL AND IF YOU ARE A GUEST.

IT'S 28 FEET PEAK OF ROOF. VISUALLY IN THE CONTEXT OF THE CODE MEASURED FROM THE FORECOURT 30 FEET UP TO THE PEAK OF RUTH THERE. YOU CAN SEE THE DIFFERENT VARIATIONS VISUALLY AND OBVIOUSLY THIS IS THE PROPERTY DETAILS FROM THERE FROM THE TOPOGRAPHY.

HERE IS ANOTHER 3-D MODEL WITH THE HOUSE PLAN MORE CLEARLY SHOWN AND ZOOMED IN. 40 FEET HIGH AS IF YOU ARE LOOKING FROM PONTE VEDRE BLVD. IT'S 39 FEET FROM THE LOWER LEVEL HERE WHERE THE NEW FLOOR PLAN -- TO NEW UP TO PEAK OF

[00:35:01]

ROOF AND THEN WHERE THERE'S THREE STORIES DOWN HERE YOU HAVE FIRST FLOOR GARAGE AND YOU HAVE SECOND FLOOR AND THEN THIS IS THE THIRD FLOOR. THIS REQUEST IS GOING UP FROM -- IT'S 35 FEET FROM THE FINISHED FLOOR ELEVATION AND THEN 36 SIX UP TO THE PEAK OF ROOF IN THE LOWER AREA.

IT USED TO GO UP TO 40 FEET. IT BRINGS IT DOWN IN CONTEXT WITH THE TOPOGRAPHY DOWN TO A GUANA.

THIS GOES INTO THE PROFILE WHAT IT DOES IS THE ORIGINAL TASK.

40 FEET SIX INCHES FROM THE REAR.

YOU JUDGE THIS ENTIRE THING FROM THE LOWEST ADJACENT GRADE.

WE ARE JUDGED ON THE BUILDING PLAN BECAUSE IT'S ONE HOUSE NOT TO HOUSES FROM THIS GRADE BACK HERE.

GO ALL THE WAY UP HERE AND THEN GO UP THAT IS 39 FEET.

THAT REQUESTS A PEAK OF ROOF BUT THE REALITY IS VISUALLY OR ONLY SEE NO MORE THAN 30 FEET AS PREVIOUS DIAGRAMS. THE NEW ASK REDUCES THAT PORTION DOWN TO 36.6 TO KEEP IT IN CONTEXT THE HABITABLE AREA IS REALLY THIS CENTERED FLOORPLAN AND IT TIES THE ENTIRE THING TOGETHER AND IT BECOMES TWO DIFFERENT STRUCTURES.

SO YOU CAN SEE IN CONTEXT OF 36.6 HEIGHT ON THE REAR TO THE NEW PEAK OF ROOF HERE. THIS REQUEST HAS NO NUISANCE CONFLICT OR NEGATIVE IMPACT ON THE HEALTH OR SAFETY WELFARE AND WE ARE CARVING IN THE ENVIRONMENT TO LEAVE THE HOUSE PLANT AND THEIR ESSENTIALLY CUTTING OR FEELING OR BALANCING THE SITE LOWER ENFORCEMENT WILL CAUSE AN UNDUE HARDSHIP BASED ON THE TOPOGRAPHIC CONDITIONS. AND AS I MENTIONED IT IS LESS IMPACT ON THE EXISTING TOPOGRAPHY AND HEIGHT COMPARED TO THE LEVELED AND PREPPED BUILDING PAD THE AVERAGE RULE.

THERE IS NO EXTREME VISUAL APPEARANCE REGARDING THE HEIGHT AND WE DO HAVE NINE LETTERS OF SUPPORT.NE THAT I WOULD LIKE TO PUT UP AND SHOW YOU -- WILL PUT IT UP HERE.

IF THIS WERE TO TAKE PLACE IN THE FRONT STRUCTURE, AND REALLY THE -- I APOLOGIZE IT'S NOT ZOOMED IN YET.

THIS IS A LOOK IF WE SPLIT UP THE HOUSE AND HAD IT ON THE FRONT PORTION BUILT TO THE INTEGRATED AVERAGE WHICH IS 14.25 AND BUILT UP FROM THERE THIS, BY CODE, BY LAW, THIS IS WHERE WE WOULD BE ALLOWED TO GO.

THAT'S 35 FEET BASED ON THE NEW INTEGRATED AVERAGE OF 17.25 WE HAVE STAFF SIGNED OFF ON THAT AS A CONCEPT.

THAT'S 35 FEET. YOU CAN SEE FROM THE FRONT WERE THE VISUAL NUISANCE AND EVERYTHING ASSOCIATED WITH THE WONDERING HOW DID THAT HOUSE GET SO HIGH? THAT WOULD BE THE CASE IF WE WERE TO DESIGN WITH TWO DIFFERENT BUILDING PADS ON THE FRONT AND BACK WITHIN INTEGRATED AVERAGE APPROACH WITH A LEVELED PROJECT.

WE ARE NOT IN THE BUSINESS OF LEVERING IT JUST TO CREATE A FALSE BUILDING PAD. WE PREFERRED TO BUILD WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF THE TOPOGRAPHY AND IF YOU HAVE AN UPPER LEVEL JOINED BY THE MIDDLE PORTION THERE AND THEN A LOWER LEVEL.

LOWER LEVEL IS WHERE THE THREE-STORY IS IN THE REQUEST IS 36.6 HERE AND THEN UP TO 39 BECAUSE OF THE OTHER AREA WHERE THE DRIVEWAY IS. I DO HAVE MY STAFF HERE TO DISCUSS AND I BELIEVE THE SUPPER I HAVE MY STAFF HERE TO ADDRESS ANYTHING YOU MIGHT HAVE THE FLOOR PLANS AND HOW THEY MARRY UP THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT PLAN.

WE DIDN'T WANT TO SPLIT THE HOUSE UP.

WE WANTED ONE STRUCTURE, AND 8000 SQUARE-FOOT HOUSE, ONE

[00:40:03]

STRUCTURE BUILT IN CONTEXT WITH THE ENVIRONMENT.

I ASK YOUR APPROVAL OF THIS. NINE LETTERS OF SUPPORT AND I WILL SAY THAT -- I DO WANT TO BRING BACK ONE MORE THING BECAUSE A LOT OF THE INDIVIDUAL NUISANCE COULD BE SEEN FROM THE FRONT MEETING A THREE FOOT VARIANCE REQUEST FOR FOOT-HIGH.

THIS AREA THAT I'M POINTING OUT, THIS WILL -- THE NUISANCE WOULD BE FROM THE NORTHERN PROPERTY OWNER, MEANING THEY CAN LOOK IN AND SAY THEY'VE GOT 39 FEET BUT THE REALITY IS THEY WOULD HAVE TO GO LOOK OVER THIS RIDGE INTO THAT CUT WHERE THE DRIVEWAY IS AND THEN UP.HEIR EYES WILL ONLY SEE THIS RIDGE RIGHT HERE ACROSS AND IF YOU LOOK AT THE SIDELINE WHERE MY POINTER IS IF YOU TAKE THAT TO THE SECOND LEVEL THAT'S WHERE YOUR EYES ARE TRYING TO LOOK FROM THE ADJACENT PROPERTY.

IN ADDITION TO LANDSCAPING REPORT ON THE PROPERTY.

SOME HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE.

>> ONE QUESTION I HAVE IS WHAT IS THE ELEVATION TOPOGRAPHICAL ELEVATION OF THE PROPERTY TO THE NORTH, WHAT HEIGHT IS THAT?

>> I KNOW YOU ARE NOT REQUIRED TO BUT I WALKED ON IT.

>> ONE OF YOUR SLIDES WITH THAT GENERAL MAP.

>> THAT IS THE PROPERTY TO THE NORTH.

THAT IS THE HOUSE PLANS TO THE PROPERTY TO THE NORTH.

THEY'VE GOT TOPOGRAPHY THERE AS WELL.

I HAVE TO LOOK AT THAT. >> IS UPSIDE DOWN.

THE HOUSE TO THE NORTH IS ACTUALLY ON THE BOTTOM.

COULD YOU TURN IT AROUND SO ALL THE LETTER --

>> YOU ARE RIGHT. >> IF YOU ARE STANDING AT THEIR POOL IN THE BACK.

AUDIO LOST. >> AND ALVAREZ ARCHITECT.

CORAL GABLES, FLORIDA. >> PROCEED.

>> AND THEIR POOL LEVEL IS THE SAME LEVEL AS THE POOL LEVEL ON THE SUBJECT PROPERTY FOR THE GARCIA'S.

>> SO THEY WOULD SEE THIS 36 1/2 FOOT THREE-STORY BUILDING?

>> THAT'S CORRECT. >> IT IS HIGHER PEAK NORTHERN SECTION BUT YOU HAVE TO SEE HIM OVER THIS RIDGE AND --

>> ONE OF THE THINGS I DON'T UNDERSTAND IS WHY DOES THE THREE-STORY HOUSE HAVE TO BE 36 FEET.

>> THE ARCHITECTS CAN DESCRIBE IT MORE.

>> YOU KNOW, THE ROOF COULD BE MORE SHALLOW.

>> WE FELT IT GOT TO FLAT. WE FELT THE ROOF GOT TO FLAT AND WE DIDN'T WANT IT TO MARY WITH THE TRAVERSE OF THE TOPO.

WE WANTED IT TO GO FROM THE FRONT TO THE BACK.

WE WANTED THE FRONT PORTION AND ON THE BACK IT GOT TO FLAT WITHOUT COMPROMISING LIVING SPACE OF THAT THREE-STORY.

THE PEAK WAS HIGH WHEN IT WAS UP 40 FEET SIX INCHES AND WE CUT THAT DOWN FELT LIKE IT WAS GETTING TO FLAT BUT MAYBE THE

ARCHITECT CAN DESCRIBE IT. >> WHAT'S THE HARDSHIP THAT YOU ARE TRYING TO -- YOU ARE TRYING TO SAY IS THE REASON FOR THIS? SO IS THE HARDSHIP THAT THE ROOF LOOKED TO FLAT?> A PART OF THAT HARDSHIP WOULD BE A FLAT RIB.

BUT IT'S REALLY ONE UNIFIED HOUSE AS OPPOSED TO WHAT WOULD BE TWO DIFFERENT HOUSES. WE ARE TRYING TO BUILDING CONTRAST WITH THE EXISTING PLANS THERE.

WITH THAT SAID IF WE DID THAT, THEY COULD EXIST WITH CUT THAT DOWN AND I KNOW THE OVERLAY HAS FLAT ROOF PROVISIONS IN THE AREA BUT WE THOUGHT THREE-STORY'S ALLOWABLE LIVING

[00:45:10]

SPACES ARE FAIRLY MODEST AND MOVED AT THE CENTER LIVING SPACE ON THE FLOOR PLAN THAT LINKS THE HOUSE ABOVE THE GARAGE AND THEN THROUGH AND THEN ABOVE THAT ANOTHER LIVING AREA AND WE'VE TRIMMED THE ROOF LINE DOWN.

>> SO THE HOUSE IS APPROXIMATELY 8000 SQUARE FEET.

WE CAN CONSIDER A VARIANCE UNLESS THERE'S A HARDSHIP.

SHE IS ACTUALLY LOOKING FOR HARDSHIP TO APPROVE 36 FEET .6 INCHES NEAR THE COAST. WE ARE VERY CLEAR ON THAT.

>> WITHOUT QUESTION. WE DON'T WANT TO HAVE A FLAT ROOF ON THE BACK TO MAKE THAT THREE-STORY ENTITLEMENT ON THAT PROPERTY FOR THE HOUSE PLAN. OUR HARDSHIP IS A FLAT ROOF AND CONTACTS WITH UNIFIED STRUCTURE BUILT.

>> WHAT WOULD BE THE ANGLE? I DON'T THINK A FOOT IS GOING TO MAKE A HUGE DIFFERENCE. IF YOU HAD A PICTURE LOOKING FROM THE WEST AT THAT ROOF, NOT VERY MANY PEOPLE WILL SEE THAT ROOF BECAUSE ANYBODY IN THE POOL IS GOING TO BE 35 FOOT BELOW AND THEY WOULD WALK OUT INTO THE IGUANA TO SEE THAT ROOF.NYBODY WHO IS ON PONTE VEDRE BLVD. CAN'T SEE THE ROOF BECAUSE THE HOUSE AND THE FRONT BLOCKS THE VIEW AND SO THE ONLY PERSON WHO WOULD BE SEEING A ROOF THEY MIGHT NOT LIKE --

THEY ARE GIVEN THE OPTION. >> I UNDERSTAND.

THIS IS THE COMPARISON OF THE ORIGINAL DESK WHICH MATCH THE PEAK OF THE ROOF AROUND THE FRONT, BUT IT REALLY IS A BETTER PLAY TO HAVE THE TOPOGRAPHY MEET THE SAME ANGLE OF THE VARIOUS ROOF LINES TO BURY THAT HOUSE STRUCTURE AND WITH THE TOPOGRAPHY. YOU KNOW, TO BE HONEST WITH YOU, IF WE CAN DO A ROOF LINE THAT IS SO FLAT AND APPEARANCE THEN I DON'T KNOW HOW MUCH ROOM THEY NEED.

>> SAID JUST TO GO BACK TO YOUR ORIGINAL QUESTION, WE WERE TRYING TO MAINTAIN CEILING HEIGHTS THAT ARE COMMISERATED WITH THIS QUALITY OF HOUSE AND WE HAVE 10 FOOT CEILINGS IN THE MIDDLE SECTION WHICH IS CONTINUOUS ON THE FRONT AND THE BACK. THEN WE REWORK THE ROOF SO IT WASN'T ONE BIG HAT IT'S A CABLE WITH A SHED TO BRING IT DOWN AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE. AND THEN ONCE WE NOT EVEN JUST A FOOT -- IT DOES BRING IT DOWN TO NINE THREE FOOT CEILINGS FROM THE DIFFERENT FLOORS BUT I MEAN, WE WANT TO BE RESPECTFUL

OF THE BOARD'S TIME. >> AND WE TRIED TO DO YOU SEE THE DIFFERENCE IN THE TWO. THERE WAS AN OUTDOOR WALKING SPACE ON THE ORIGINAL REQUEST THERE THAT MATCH THAT.

THAT'S ESSENTIALLY BEEN REMOVED IF YOU WILL.

WE WORKED A LOT OF US INTERIOR SPACE TO MARRY UP WITH THIS FLOORPLAN. AND THEN WE PULLED THE ROOF

LINE DOWN. >> BUT IT WOULD BE HELPFUL NOT TO SHOW WHAT YOU COULD'VE DONE IF IT WAS 40 FEET OR 45 IT WOULD BE MORE HELPFUL WHAT IT WOULD LOOK LIKE IF YOU DID IT AT 35 WHICH IS WHAT THE CODE SAYS.

TO SAY THAT IT WOULD LOOK EVEN BETTER IF IT WAS 50 FEET IS NOT

HELPFUL FOR ME. >> I WOULD HAVE THE SAME QUESTION. WHAT WOULD YOU DO IF YOU DON'T GET APPROVAL FOR THIS VARIANCE? IF YOU HAVE TO PAY WITH STAY

WITHIN THIS 35 FEET? >> IT'S ALMOST 2 VARIANCES.

WE HAVE THE FRONT PORTION BECAUSE WE ARE JUDGED ON THE LOWEST ADJACENT GRADE FROM THE REAR PORTION OUT TO THE FRONT OF WHERE IT IS ON THE FRONT AND IN THE REAR.

>> LASTED 39 FEET. >> YOU TO BREAK IT UP INTO TWO.

THE FRONT PORTION CAN REMAIN AS EXHIBITS AND THEN THE REAL PORTION THERE COULD BE A CONDITION THAT COULD APPLY ON THIS TO NOT EXCEED A CERTAIN HEIGHT.

36 -- ARCHITECTURALLY SPEAKING IT SHOULD BE DO A 35 FOOT ELEMENT OUT THERE BUT NOT HAVE A FLAT ROOF.

[00:50:14]

>> COULD YOU TAKE SIX INCHES OFF THE TOP OF THAT HOUSE?

>> MIKE MARTINEZ. 1028 CORAL GABLES, FLORIDA.

WHAT WE DID WAS REDUCE THAT UPPER -- SO REALLY, THE CEILING HEIGHT FOR THE INTERIOR HERE WHICH IS THE ROOT THERE WAS BROUGHT DOWN TO ITS MINIMUM AT EIGHT FEET.

AND SO IF YOU TAKE A FOOT OR A FOOT AND 1/2 AWAY FROM THAT, IT REALLY DOES BRING DOWN THAT LEVEL QUITE A BIT.

AS YOU WERE ALL COMING AND I CAN ACTUALLY POINT ON THIS ONE AS WELL, THE NEIGHBOR WHO HAS WRITTEN LETTERS OF SUPPORT, THE TRUTH OF THE MATTER IS IT'S REALLY JUST IN THIS ONE, IN THAT ONE AREA THAT AFFECTS THAT ONE SPACE UP THERE.

SO IT'S A DIFFICULT TASK AND THAT SORT OF COMPROMISES IT TO AN NTH DEGREE WHEREAS WHAT'S REALLY BEING ARGUED HERE IS THE DID THIS IS PROBABLY THE RIGHT WAY OR THE BEST WAY OF ACCOMPLISHING IT WITHOUT CAUSING ANY PROBLEMATIC

SITUATION. >> WHEN I HEAR YOU SAYING IS -- AND LET ME TRY TO PARAPHRASE WHAT YOU ALSO SAID.

TO KEEP THE HOUSE IS ONE, YOUR FIRST LIVING FLOOR SPACE GOES ALL THE WAY TO THE BACK OF THE HOUSE WE WANT TO KEEP THAT AS A FLAT FLOOR. YOU CAN'T LOWER THE FLOOR OR ARE YOU WOULD DO THIS AND THEN THE SECOND FLOOR YOU HAD THE SAME THING. YOU INDICATE THAT AS A SECOND FLOOR CONTIGUOUS FROM THE FRONT TO THE BACK OF THE HOUSE.

AND YOU WERE FIRST A NONDELIVERABLE FLOORSPACE WHICH IS IN THE VERY BACK IS JUST GARAGE, STORAGE, MAYBE A

LAUNDRY ROOM. >> MEGAN, I HAVE NOT FINISHED.

LET ME FINISH. THE SECOND LIVING SPACE FLOOR IN THE BACK TO GET THAT 36 TO THE 35 YOU TAKE ONE FOOT SIX INCHES OFF OF THE CEILING HEIGHT OF THAT SPACE RIGHT THERE IN -- OR MAKE A FLAT ROOF OUT OF THAT.

FLATTER ROOF VERSUS VAULTED CEILINGS.

>> AM GOING TO RESPOND TO THE FLAT ROOF.

WE TRIED THE FLAT ROOF AND IT DIDN'T SEEM IN CHARACTER WITH THE ARCHITECTURE BUT ALSO YOU DON'T GAIN A LOT ONCE YOU ACTUALLY DRAW IT OUT BECAUSE YOU NEED TO FEET OF STRUCTURE AND A MINIMUM OF TWO FEET. BEFORE YOU KNOW IT YOU HAVE FOUR FEET. (INDISCERCERNIBLE) YOU'D HAVE TO TAKE FOUR FEET OFF? I'M NOT UNDERSTANDING.

>> SO (INDISCERCERNIBLE). >> (AWAY MIC) WHAT IS THE

CEILING HEIGHT IN THAT ROOM? >> THE MAIN LIVING SPACE IN THE

CENTRAL PORTION OF THE HOUSE. >> SEE, THAT'S ITS OWN STRUCTURE IS THAT WHAT YOU ARE SAYING?

>> YES. >> THE LOWER AND THE MAIN

FLOOR. >> SO IT DOES HAVE TO DO WITH

THE SECOND FLOOR. >> YES.

>> OKAY. >> ALL RIGHT.

I THINK THE REQUEST IS JUST THAT.

[00:55:22]

THERE IS A HARDSHIP HERE REALITY IS THERE IS A CHARACTER AND AESTHETICS THAT GOES WITH THE ROOF LINE IN THE AMOUNT OF PITCH THAT'S ASSOCIATED WITH THE UNIFIED HOUSE PLAN.

WE DON'T WANT TO CUT AND FILL IT AND BUILD FROM THERE WHICH

WE COULD DO BY CODE. >> WHAT I HEAR YOU SAYING IS OUR CHIP IS THE TOPOGRAPHY OF THE LAND AND HOW IT COMES DOWN IN THE BACK AND NOW YOU ARE TRYING TO BUILD THE HOUSE TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THE FRONT PAD AS WELL AS BUILD THE TOPOGRAPHY OF THE LAND. THANK YOU.

>> AND WILL COME DOWN FROM THE ORIGINAL REQUEST.

>> OTHER QUESTIONS. GOING BACK.

IF YOU HAD -- BECAUSE THAT THIRD FLOOR IS ACCESSED FROM THE BACK BUILDING PORTION YOU COULD HAVE WHAT IS THE ROOM, THE HEIGHT OF THE ROOMS ON THAT BACK BUILDING FLOOR.

>> YOU HAVE YOUR BASEMENT LEVEL.

I'M SITTING IN THE BACK BUILDING WHAT IS THE INTERIOR HEIGHT OF THE ROOMS? SO IF YOU LOOK ON PAGE 9 OF MY -- THE PACKET THAT I WOULD HAVE IT HAS A SIDE VIEW.

>> WE HAVE NINE FOOT GARAGE, LINE FOR THE MIDDLE SECTION AND

THEN EIGHT FEET. >> (OVERLAPPING SPEAKERS).

>> THE MAIN LEVEL WHICH IS WHAT YOU ARE REFERRING TO WE DID BRING THAT ONE DOWN AND IT'S COMMISERATE WITH THE MASTER SUITE OF THE HOUSE. BUT THAT CAME FROM 10 TO 9 FEET

IN ORDER TO ACCOMMODATE. >> IF YOU LOWERED IT MORE THAN YOU COULD TO DATE THE QUESTION IS: IF YOU WANT THE INTERIOR SPACE THE TRADE-OFF IS THE ROOF VERSUS INTERIOR SPACE.

YOU CAN ACCOMPLISH 35 FEET, BUT YOU HAVE TO -- YOU WOULD HAVE TO MAKE A COMPROMISE ON THE SHAPE OF THE ROOF OR THE HEIGHT

OF THAT FLOOR. >> YES.

AND THE REALITY IS IF YOU LOOK AT THIS DIAGRAM YOU HAVE NINE FEEDBACK HERE. THIS GOES UP TO 10 FEET ON THE FRONT PORTION SO YOU REALLY ARE SAYING YOU WERE THE UNIFIED PLAN ACROSS THIS TOPO PROFILE AS OPPOSED TO DIFFERENT TWO DIFFERENT STRUCTURES BECAUSE IT'S JOINT FROM THE CENTER SECTION HERE. AND SO YOU SQUEEZE THAT DOWN MORE AND IT'S OUT OF CONTEXT WITH THE MASS AND SCALE OF THE FRONT PORTION WHICH TO BE HONEST WITH YOU IS THE CURB APPEAL AND THE NUISANCE WOULD BE IF THIS THING REALLY EXCEEDED VARIANCE EXCEEDING HEIGHT ROLE IN REQUESTING THE VARIANCE IN JUSTIN EARLEY WAS ADJACENT GRADE AVERAGE AND REALLY THINK THAT 36 SIX IS A TIME DOWN EFFORT FROM THE ORIGINAL REQUEST, AND IT PRESENTS ITSELF TO BE BUILT WITHIN CONTEXT OF THE TOPOGRAPHY THAT'S OUT THERE.

>> AND THE OTHER THING IS TO MAKE WHAT I CALL THE BASEMENT LEVEL LOWER AND A STEP DOWN YOU GO FROM THE FRONT TO THE BACK OF THE HOUSE. SO THERE ARE SEVERAL OPTIONS.

>> THANK YOU. I WANT TO ASK CHRISTINE ABOUT WHETHER IT'S APPROVED OR DENIED THE RIGHT HOUSE IS 40 FEET SIX INCHES. SO ARE YOU ASKING NOW FOR A VARIANCE TO 39 FEET FOR THE ONE PORTION OF THE HOUSE AND 36 FEET SIX INCHES FOR THE OTHER PORTION OF THE HOUSE?

>> THAT'S CORRECT. >> JACOB?

>> I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY THAT I BELIEVE THAT WHAT I HAVE PROVIDED IN THE STAFF REPORT IS THE CORRECT CALCULATIONS FOR THIS. ULTIMATELY, THIS PROJECT IS JUDGED BY THE LOWEST RATE WHICH IS 7 1/2 FEET IN THE BACKYARD AND THIS IS NOT THE BEST IMAGE BUT --

>> I SEE WHERE ONE FOOT (OVERLAPPING SPEAKERS).

>> BUT WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT IS ONE PART OF THE HOUSE ANOTHER PART, NOT THE WHOLE THING BEING 40 FEET SIX INCHES.

>> THAT'S CORRECT. >> WOULD LIKE TO MAKE SURE WE APPROVE THIS TO GET THAT CLARIFICATION.

>> I DO HAVE IN THE FINAL ORDER WHICH I WILL BE HAPPY TO READ,

[01:00:06]

THIS VARIANCE PROVIDES HEIGHT RELIEF TO ALLOW THE WESTERN PORTION OF THE BUILDING, THE GARAGE AREA, TO BE BUILT UP TO 6 INCHES IN HEIGHT AND TO ALLOW THE EASTERN PORTION OF THE BUILDING THE MAIN LIVING AREA TO BE BUILT UP TO INCHES MEASURED FROM THE LOWEST ADJACENT GREAT.

>> SO THAT IS SPECIFIC. ALL RIGHT.

>> SO THE QUESTION -- I HAVE ANOTHER QUESTION.

ON ONE OF THESE DRAWINGS WE HAVE 39 FEET ON PAGE 8 OF OUR PACKET. WHICH APPEARS TO BE THE SECTION OF THE HOUSE CLOSEST TO THE STREET.

IT HAS A LITTLE GARAGE AT THE BACK, AND IT IS 39 FEET HIGH FROM THE BACK OF THE HOUSE. 30 FEET FROM THE PART CLOSEST

TO THE ROAD. >> IS IT ON THE SCREEN, THE

BOTTOM? >> YES.

>> IT'S HARD TO SEE THE NUMBER BUT THE FRONT MEASUREMENT IS 30 FEET THE FURTHEST TO THE LEFT (OVERLAPPING SPEAKERS).

>> THERE IS A PORTION OF THE HOUSE THAT'S AT 39 FEET FROM

ITS BASE TO ITS ROOF. >> THE 39 FOOT PORTION IS MEASURED TO THE ADJACENT GRADE RIGHT THERE AS IT POINTS DOWN TO IT. BUT AGAIN, ULTIMATELY, THE TRUE LOWEST ADJACENT GRADE IS THE POOL AREA.

>> WHICH WOULD MAKE IT GO TO 40.

>> THAT'S CORRECT. >> BUT I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE I UNDERSTOOD THAT RIGHT AS YOU WALK OUT OF THAT AND IF YOU HAD A MEASURING STICK HE WOULD MEASURE 39 FEET.

FIRST IS THE CODE OF 39 FEET. SO THAT PORTION IS FOUR FEET TOO HIGH AND WHILE ONE OF THE BACK WERE TALKING ABOUT BEING A FOOT AND 1/2 TO A HIM OR HIM OVER THE CODE ALLOWANCE.

>> THAT APPEARS TO BE AN ACCURATE ASSESSMENT.

>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD GIVEN THAT AS WE CONSIDER THIS MOTION, I WOULD LIKE WERE TO CONSIDER WHETHER THERE IS A HARDSHIP ON THIS PROPERTY AND IF YOU BELIEVE THERE IS A HARDSHIP ON THIS PROPERTY, THEN YOU HAVE TO CONSIDER HOW CREATING THIS VARIANCE WOULD AFFECT THE HOMES AROUND THEM AND THE COMMUNITY IN GENERAL. AND SO DO I HEAR A MOTION TO

APPROVE OR DENY THIS VARIANCE? >> SHOULD WE HAVE THE

DISCUSSION FIRST? >> ABOUT WHAT?

>> DISCUSSION FIRST. >> I ASKED IF THERE WERE ANY OTHER COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS AND NO ANATOMY.

ANYBODY. >> I JUST WANT TO SAY I REALLY APPRECIATE YOU BRINGING THE EXPERTS AND ALL THE MONEY AND TIME THAT WAS SPENT SO -- THIS WOULD'VE BEEN CONFUSING SINCE

THINK YOU. >> CAN WE HAVE PUBLIC COMMENT?

>> ANY OTHER PUBLIC COMMENT? DO I HAVE A MOTION? SOMEONE'S WALKING UP. FALSE ALARM.

[3. Recommendation of appointment of PVZAB member.. Harry Graham (District 4) first full four (4) year term expires on May 15, 2022. Appointed members whose terms have expired may continue until a successor is appointed and qualified. Vacancy on the PVZAB was most recently advertised for the required thirty (30) days with the following applications meeting the minimum criteria for consideration. PVZAB members serve at the pleasure of the Board of County Commissioners as the local planning agency for St. Johns County and fulfill any other duties and responsibilities as determined by Part 8.01.00. The following 6 persons have applied for the open positions: C.F. “Chip” Greene III (District 4); Eugene Wilson (District 4); J. David Nardon (District 4); Kathleen Floryan (District 4); Natalia Plyam (District 4); Thomas Baker (District 4). Please see the attachments for application materials.]

DO I HAVE A MOTION. >> MOTION TO APPROVE.

>> YOU HAVE A SECOND? OKAY.

TIME TO VOTE. >> MOTIONS PAST.

WOULD LIKE TO ENTER THIS INTO OUR MINUTES WITH AN OPEN NEXT MEETING WILL HAVE LESS MINUTES AND ONCE WE CAN REVIEW.

HIM LIKE TO PUT IN A THANK YOU TO HARRY GRAHAM HIM THE CITIZENS THANK YOU AND THE APPLICANTS THANK YOU.

THIS IS UNPAID AND TRAVEL REIMBURSEMENT WE GET OUR PACKET

[01:05:07]

THE WEEK BEFORE AND SPEND MANY HOURS LOOKING AT IT VISITING SITES. YOUR SERVICE IS APPRECIATED.

I WOULD LIKE TO ADD HARRY WAS KIND ENOUGH TO COME OUT OF RETIREMENT HAVING SERVED FOR 10 YEARS TO HIS SON 14 YEARS WHICH IS AMAZING. HIM HIM HIM HIM HIM HIM HIM WE DO HAVE TO FILL HARRY'S FEET. WE PRAY REVIEW THESE APPLICATIONS THAT ARE INCLUDED IN THE PACKET FOR INDIVIDUALS DON'T LIVE IN THE SERVICE AREA. ANOTHER INDIVIDUAL'S HOME ONE OF THE OTHER BOARDS SO THEY MAY NOT SERVE UNTIL THEY RESIGN FROM THE BOARD. THEY NEED TO HAVE PEOPLE FILLING THEIR BOARD SEATS AND I DON'T WANT TO POACH THEIR MORE THAN WE HAVE ONE INDIVIDUAL RESIDING NOT BY 56 GRANADA TER.

'S APPLICATION WAS ON THE PUBLIC WEBSITE AND AND OUR PACKET AND I CAN VOUCH FOR MR. GREEN. ONLY KNOW HIM SOCIALLY I KNOW HE'S AN INSURANCE AGENT AND I DON'T HAVE MY INSURANCE COMPANY SEEMS LIKE AN UPSTANDING CITIZEN TO HAVE ANOTHER COMMENT FROM THE BOARD I WOULD LIKE TO RECOMMEND TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS THE APPOINTMENT OF CHIP GREENE THE THIRD HIM HIM HIM HIM HIM HIM HENRY DEAN HAS APPEARED TO PUT THIS ON THE NEXT COMMISSIONERS AGENDA.

I THINK THIS IS IN A WEEK TUESDAY.

>> THEY MEET TOMORROW THE NEXT MEETING AFTER THAT IS THE 16TH.