[Call to Order]
[00:00:08]
I'D LIKE TO CALL TO ORDER THE SEPTEMBER 9, 2019 MEETING OF THE PONT ADJUST BOARD AND IF WE CAN STEWART READ FNGHT PUBLIC NOTICE STATEMENT.
>> THIS IS A PROPERLY NOTICED PUBLIC HEARING HELD IN CONCURRENCE WITH REQUIREMENTS OF FLORIDA LAW.
THE PUBLIC WILL BE GIFFEN AN OPPORTUNITY TO COMMENT -- GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY TO COMMENT ON TOPICS RELL STROONT BOARD'S AREA OF JURISDICTION AND THE PUBLIC WILL BE GIFFEN AN OPPORTUNITY TO OFFER COMMENT AT A DESIGNATED TIME DURING THE HEARING.
ANY MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC DESIRING TO SPEAK MUST INDICATE SO BY COMPETING A SPEAKER CARD WHICH IS AVAILABLE IN THE FOYER.
ANY ADDITIONAL SPEAKERS MAY BE HEARD ONLY AT THE DISCRETION OF THE CHAIRMAN.
SPEAKER CARDS MAY BE TURNED IN TO STAFF.
THIS PUBLIC SHALL SPEAK AT A TIME TOURING THE MEETING ON EACH ITEM AND FOR A LENGTH OF TIME AS DESIGNATED BY THE CHAIRMAN WHICH SHALL BE THREE MINUTES.
SPEAKERS SHOULD IDENTIFY THEMSELVES, WHO THEY REPRESENT, AND THEN STATE THEIR ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD.
SPEAKERS MAY OFFER SWORN TESTIMONY.
IF THEY DO NOT, THE FACT THAT TESTIMONY IS NOT SWORN MAY BE CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD IN DETERMINING THE WEIGHT OFFER OR TRUTHFULNESS OF THE TESTIMONY.
IF A PERSON DECIDES TO APPEAL ANY DECISION MADE WITH RESPECT TO ANY MATTER DERD HEARING, SUCH PERSON WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS AND MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES A TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED.
ANY PHYSICAL OR DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE PRESENTED TOURING THE HEARING SUCH AS DIAGRAMS, CHARTS, PHOTOGRAPHS OR WRITTEN STATEMENTS, WILL BE RETAINED BY STAFF AS PART OF THE RECORD.
THE RECORD WILL THEN BE AVAILABLE FOR OTHER BOARD, AGENCIES OR COMMITTEES OR THE COUNTY IN ANY REVIEW OF APPEAL RELATING TO THE ITEM.
BOARD MEMBERS ARE REMINDED THAT THE DWING OF EACH ITEM THEY SHOULD STATE WHETHER THEY HAD ANY COMMUNICATION WITH THE APPLICANT OR ANY OTHER PERSON REGARDING THE SUBSTANCE OF THE ITEM OUTSIDE THE FORMAL HEARING OF THE BOARD.
IF SUCH COMMUNICATION HAS OCCURRED, THE BOARD MEMBER SHOULD THEN IDENTIFY THE PERSONS INVOLVED AND THE MATERIAL CONTENT OF THE COMMUNICATION.
WE WILL BE RESPECTFUL OF ONE ANOTHER EVEN WHEN WE DISAGREE.
WE DIRECT ALL COMMENTS TO THE ISSUES.
WE WILL AVOID PERSONAL ATTACK.
[Public Comment]
ARE THERE ANY PUBLIC COMMENTS OTHER THAN THE AGENDA ITEMS SET FOR TODAY?
>> GOOD AFTERNOON, KITTY SWITKAS 111 OCEAN COURSE DRIVE.
I DIDN'T SEE ANY OF THE WORKSHOP ITEMS AND I HAVE AN MSC MEETING TONIGHT SO I MAY BE LEAVING BEFORE THIS MEETING IS ADJOURNED.
I WANT TO GO BACK TO LAST MONTH'S MEETING BECAUSE IT WAS SUCH A LONG MEETING AND THERE WAS A LOT SPOKEN.
I'M ASKING THE BOARD TO RECONSIDER THE 24-HOUR FOR REFUSE CONTAINERS.
THE MORE I THOUGHT ABOUT IT, THE MORE I'M VERY CONCERNED ABOUT THAT IMPACTING OUR COMMUNITY'S APPEARANCE IN THE POINT .
I BE WASN'T IN TOWN TO MAKE THE TO THE P VCHTA MEETING LAST MONTH BUT I WILL BE GOING THIS MONTH.
I REALLY THINK IF WE'RE GOING TO CHANGE HOW WE PUT OUT THE CANS AND WHAT DAYS, THAT THAT SHOULD BE SOMETHING IN A WORKSHOP ITEM THAT'S BROUGHT TO THE COMMUNITY BECAUSE I DON'T THINK IF YOU REALLY THINK ABOUT IT, IF YOU SAY 24 HOURS WE HAVE TWO PICKUPS A WEEK.
THAT MEANS TRASH CANS CAN BE OUT FOUR DAYS OUT OF THE WEEK, FOUR OUT OF FIVE, AND THEN FOR REPSYCKING OUR COMMUNITY IS SPLIT IN HALF, HALF OF IT GETS IT ON WEDNESDAY, HALF OF IT GETS IT ON FRIDAY, SO YOU'RE LOOK LIKE AT FOUR DAYS OF REPSYCKING CANS OUT TOO.
I'VE BEEN VERY CLOSELY INVOLVED WITH COMMUNITY APPEARANCE NOW FOR AM WILL TEN YEARS.
THE ONLY TIME THAT TRASH CANS AND RECYCLING CANS ARE REPORTED TO CODE ENFORCEMENT IS USUALLY A RENTAL PROPERTY WHERE THEY DON'T PUT THEM AWAY SEVEN DAYS A WEEK, THEY KEEP THEM OUT WHERE THEY CAN BE SEEN SEVEN DAYS AWAC OR THEY PUT THEM OUT ON SATURDAYS FOR MONDAY PICKUP BECAUSE THE RENT PROPERTIES RENT FROM SATURDAY TO SATURDAY.
I REALLY DON'T SEE WHY WE CAN'T STICK TO MAYBE NOT DAY OF BUT THE NIGHT BEFORE.
BUT MY GOAL IN TALKING TODAY IS BEFORE THAT'S ALTERED IN OUR REGULATIONS, IT NEEDS TO COME UP TO POINT VED REAND WE NEED TO ADDRESS IT IN FRONT OF THE COMMUNITY.
>> KITTY, I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY IF THERE'S A WEDNESDAY AND A FRIDAY PICKUP, THE PEOPLE THAT ARE PICKED UP ON WEDNESDAY ON HAVE 24 HOURS, NOT FOUR DAYS,
[00:05:02]
AND THE PEOPLE PICKED UP ON FRIDAY ONLY HAVE 24 HOURS, NOT FOUR DAYS.YOU SHOULDN'T COMBINE THOSE TWO.
WHEN YOUR STREET'S PICKED UP, YOU HAVE 24 HOURS.
>> I'M JUST LOOKING AT THE COMMUNITY AS A WHOLE.
SO THE CANS WOULD BE OUT FOR WEDNESDAY PICKUP, THEY COULD BE OUT TUESDAY AND WEDNESDAY ALL DAY, AND FOR FRIDAY PICKUP IF YOU DO 24 HOURS, THEY COULD BE OUT THURSDAY AND FRIDAY ALL DAY.
SO I'M LOOKING AT THE COMMUNITY AS A WHOLE.
THAT'S WHY I BROUGHT UP THE FOUR DAYS.
>> WELL, WE DID HAVE THIS WORKSHOP AT THE CATHOLIC CHURCH.
>> BUT IT DIDN'T MENTION 24 HOURS.
THE ONLY THING WE TALKED ABOUT AT THE WORKSHOP WAS CHANGING THE DEFINITION OF A REFUSE CONTAINER TO INCLUDE PLASTIC BAGS.
THE 24 THING CAME UP IN THIS -- AT THIS VENUE WITH THIS BOARD THE LAST TWO MEETINGS.
SO IT'S ALWAYS BEEN UNDERSTOOD THAT YARD TRASH CAN BE PUT OUT 24 HOURS.
I THINK BEFORE THE DAY OF PICKUP.
SO I THINK THERE WAS SOME CONFUSION ABOUT TRYING TO SEPARATE RECYCLING AND REGULAR GARBAGE WITH THE DEFINITION OF WHEN YOU CAN PUT YARD TRASH OUT IN A REFUSE CONTAINER.
BUT THE ITEM THAT'S BEEN DISCUSSED, THE 24-HOUR PRIOR WAS NEVER BROUGHT TO THE COMMUNITY WORKSHOP.
IT WASN'T MENTIONED IN THAT WORKSHOP BECAUSE IT HAD NOT BEEN DISCUSSED WITH THIS BOARD.
IT WAS JUST THE PLASTIC BAGS BEING INCLUDED AS A REFUSE CONTAINER.
I THINK IT WAS PRETTY MUCH TALKED ABOUT AUTO SORTS OF THINGS.
>> BUT I THINK I WAS -- I WAS AT THAT MEETING, AND IF 24 HOURS HAD BEEN REPRESENTED, I WOULD HAVE SPOKEN AGAINST IT.
I'VE TALKED TO PEOPLE IN THE COMMUNITY, AND, YOU KNOW, THE REASON WHY PONTE VEDRA LOOKS AS GOOD AS IT DOES, IT DOESN'T LOOK LIKE JACKSON BEACH, DOESN'T LOOK LIKE PALM VALLEY AND IT CERTAINLY DOESN'T LOOK LIKE THE COASTAL HIGHWAY WHERE THE CANS ARE OUT ALL DAY SEVEN DAYS A WEEK IS BECAUSE WE HAVE THESE REGULATIONS THAT WE HAVE HAD A LONG TIME.
I JUST DON'T THINK WE NEED TO MAKE IT 24-HOUR.
I JUST WOULD LIKE TO SEE MORE COMMUNITY INPUT.
AND IT COULD BE THE PVCA WILL PUT OUT, AS THEY HAVE DONE IN THE PAST, THEY'RE VERY GOOD ABOUTING TO SURVEYS, AND THEY CAN BRING -- DID BOEING SURVEYS, AND THEY CAN BRING THE RESULTS OF THE SURVEY TO THE BOARD, BUT I STILL THINK IT WOULD BE A GOOD IDEA TO BRING IT TO THE COMMUNITY BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT HAPPENED IN 2011.
THIS BOARD DECIDED TO EXCLUDE YARD TRASH FROM THE GUIDELINES OF REGULATIONS WITHOUT PUBLIC NOTICE OF THAT ITEM AND ALSO WITHOUT BRINGING IT TO THE COMMUNITY.
I JUST THINK IT'S A NICE GESTURE BEFORE WE MAKE THAT CHANGE.
I KNOW WE ALL KNOW WE'VE EXHAUSTED THIS CONVERSATION.
IS THERE ANYBODY THAT HAS INTEREST IN STARTING THIS CONVERSATION BACK UP ON 24 HOURS?
>> IS THE POINT JUST THAT IT WASN'T DISCUSSED AT THAT PUBLIC MEETING? AND THE TRADITIONAL PRACTICE IS TO HAVE THE PUBLIC HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO SAY THEY CARE OR THEY DON'T CARE, AND THAT SPECIFIC QUESTION WASN'T ASKED?
>> I THINK THAT'S WHAT HER POINT WAS.
[Item 1]
LET'S MOVE ON FOR RIGHT NOW ANYWAY TO THE FIRST AGENDA ITEM WHICH IS ROBIN SENSE AT 4 PONTE VEDRA CIRCLE.AND IF WE COULD START DOWN HERE, ROB, AND HAVE YOU HAD ANY COMMUNICATION WITH ANYONE REGARDING THIS ITEM?
I WAS CONTACTED BY KEVIN WHEN THEY GOT CITED ON THE PROCESS TO COME BEFORE THE BOARD TO ASK FOR A VARIANCE.
>> I HAVE NOT TALKED TO ANYONE AND I DID VISIT THE PROPERTY.
>> I'M FAMILIAR WITH THE PROPERTY BUT DIDN'T SPEAK TO ANYBODY THERE.
>> I HAVE HAD NO COMMUNICATION.
>> I'M FAMILIAR WITH THE PROPERTY.
>> MR. CHAIR, BEFORE BEVERLY BEGINS, WE DO HAVE AN ADDITIONAL ITEM THAT, ADMINISTRATIVELY ITEM, THE APPROVAL OF THE THREE MINUTES FROM MAY 6, JUNE 3 AND AUGUST 5.
TYPICALLY THAT IS PRIOR TO ANY ACTUAL SUBSTANTIVE ITEMS, BUT YOU CAN --
>> LET'S REVIEW THEM RIGHT NOW BEFORE WE GO TO THE FIRST AGENDA ITEM.
HAS ANYONE SEEN ANY CORRECTIONS OR MISPRINTS ON THE MINUTES FROM
[00:10:02]
THE THREE PREVIOUS MEETINGS THAT ARE DATED HERE?>> I ONLY SAW ONE THING, AND I MAY HAVE ACTUALLY SAID IT, BUT IF I SAID IT, IT DIDN'T MAKE ANY SENSE.
IT'S ON THE MAY 6TH MEETING, AND THERE'S A SENTENCE THAT SAYS, "MCKINLEY CALLED FOR A HAND VOTE TO GAIN A CONSENSUS FROM THE PROPOSED, AND" AND THE NEXT TWO WORDS, THROUGHOUT THE I WOULD CROSS OUT AND JUST SAY "ON THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE." OTHER THAN THAT I THOUGHT ALL THE MINUTES WERE FINE.
>> IF THERE ARE NO OTHER CHASINGY WOULD LIKE FOR A SECOND TO APPROVE THE MINUTES.
>> THAT WOULD BE ON ALL THREE DATES ON ONE VOTE.
FOR THE RECORD BEVERAGE FRAZIER THIS IS ITEM NUMBER 1 PONTE VEDRA ZONING ORDINANCE FOR THE ROBIN SPENCE.
THIS IS A REQUEST TER A ZONING VARIANCE OF SECTIONING GHT AND WFNT PONTE VEDRA ZONING REGULATIONS TO ALLOW FOR A SIX FOOT FENCE ALONG THE NORTH AND WEST PROPERTY LINES AND MOVE THE FOUR FOOT HEIGHT LIMITATION AND IT'S LOK AT 4 PONTE VEDRA CIRCLE.
THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF PONTE VEDRA BOULEVARD AND IT IS JUST ADJACENT TO THE CITY OF JACKSONVILLE BEACH.
THE HUBT SUBJECT AND SURROUNDING PROPERTIES ARE ZONED R1B AS WELL AS THE PROPERTY WITHIN JACKSONVILLE BEACH IS ALSO RESIDENTIAL.
SO THIS IS A REQUEST TO ALLOW AN EXISTING SIX FOOT FENCE TO REMAIN AS CONSTRUCTED WITHIN THE REQUIRED SIDE AND REAR YARDS.
THE NARRATIVE DESCRIBES THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE NEW HOME WITH A RAISED ELEVATION OF THREE COURSES TO CEASE POTENTIAL FLOODING.
THE OUTDOOR LIVING SPEAR A SWIMMING POOL TAKE WERE ALSO WITH THE SAME RAISED ELEVATION ALSO THE HOMES TO THE NORTH AND WEST HAVE RAISED FOUNDATIONS PROVIDING LIMITED PRIVACY BETWEEN THE HOMES.
THE HOME BEAN BOOK DROWCTD NORTH IS ARRANGED TOWARD PONTE VEDRA BOULEVARD AND DOES PROVIDE A LINEAR SIDE TO THE HOME WHICH IS ADJACENT TO THE REAR OF THESE HOMES ON PONTE VEDRA CIRCLE.
THE APPLICANT ASSERTS THE FENCE WAS INSTALLED WITH SUPPORT OF THE ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS TO PROVIDE PRIVACY FOR THE RESIDENTS.
THIS IS A LOOK AT THE SITE PLAN SHOWING THE AREA LOCATED WITH THE SIX FOOT FENCE.
IT DOES HAVE FOUR FOOT GATES ALONG THE FRONT.
AND THIS AREA THAT IS HIGHLIGHTED IN RED IS WHERE THE SIX FOOT FENCE IS LOCATED, WHERE THEY WOULD LIKE THE VAIR ABC WOULD BE APPLIED -- VARIANCE TO BE APPLIED.
SECTION 8N PROVIDES THE FOUR FOOT HEIGHT LIMITATION FOR WALLS BETWEEN R1A AND R1B ZONING WITH IF COLUMNS UP TO SIX FEET.
PROPERTIES SOUTH OF SAWGRASS PLAN DEVELOPMENT, PRIMARILY OCEANFRONT AND MARSH LOTS ALONG PONTE VEDRA BOULEVARD ARE AFFORDED AN INCREASED HEIGHT OF SIX FEET DUE TO INCREASED TOP GRAPHIC CONDITIONS IN THAT AREA, AND ALLOWABLE FENCE HEIGHTS ARE ALLOWED FORE RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES WITH PROBABLE IMPACTS ADJACENT TO A1A OR HIGHER DENSITY WITH DECREASED SETBACKS IN LOT AREAS.
THE SUBJECT AND SURROUNDING PROPERTIES ARE LOCATED IN X SHADED FLOOD ZONE.
THE SUBJECT HOME THAT THE FINAL ELEVATIONS CERTIFICATE REPORTS THE LOWEST ESTABLISHED GRADE OF A 9.2 WITH THE ATTACHED GARAGE AND FINISHED FLOOR AT 11.2.
SO THIS IS AN ASSOCIATE PATIO DECK WAS PERMITTED TO BE CONSTRUCTED IN THAT REAR YARD WITH UNDER A HEIGHT OF 36 INCHES ABOVE THAT ESTABLISHED GRADE SO IT IS ALLOWED TO BE A COUPLE FEET HIGHER THAN THAT GRADE.
AND IN COMPARISON THE ELEVATION CERTIFICATE FOR THE ADJACENT HOME TO THE WEST ALSO REPORTS A FINISHED GRADE ELEVATION OF A 9.5 NGBD WITH THE ATTACHED GARAGE AND FINISHED FLOOR ALSO RAISE FPPED NEW HOME WAS CONSTRUCTED WITH THE REQUIRED SIDE YARD OF TEN FEET AND REQUIRED REAR YARD OF 40 FEET.
THE NORTH REAR SECTION OF THE HOME INCLUDES AN OUTDOOR COVERED LIVING AREA THAT'S APPROXIMATELY 400 SQUARE FEET AND HAS A SOLID EASTERN CALL WALL P.
THE POOL WAS CONSTRUCTED WITH A SETBACK APPROXIMATELY 15 FEET FROM THE WESTERN BOUNDARY AND OVER 30 FEET FROM THE NORTH AND EASTERN PROPERTY BOUNDARIES.
BAISDZ ON AERIAL MAPS AND PHOTOGRAPHS PROVIDE BIDE THE APPLICANT IT APPEARS TO OPEN YARD AREAS TO THE RAFFERTY HOME IN A ALLOW PLAWNTING OF A VEGETATIVE BUFFER TO ALLOW PRIVACY AND INCREASED FENCE HEIGHT.
THIS IS A CURRENT AERIAL OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY, AND YOU CAN SEE THIS IS THE HOME ORIENTED TOWARDS PONTE VEDRA BOULEVARD WITH THAT LONG SIDE LINEAR TO THE BACK OF THESE HOMES AS WELL AS WITH THE AREA ON PONTE VEDRA BOULEVARD.
THE HOPES ARE KIND OF A LITTLE -- HOMES ARE A LITTLE
[00:15:01]
SIDEWAYS AND ORIENTED A LITTLE DIFFERENT BUT YOU CAN SEE THIS CONSTRUCTION GOES OUT A LITTLE FURTHER.THE APPLICANT SUBMITTED TWO ITS OF SUPPORT FROM THE ADJACENT PROPERTY HORN OWNER AT 2 PONTE VEDRA CIRCLE AND 6.
AND STAFF COMPLETED A SITE CRIT VISIT AND NOTES THE PORTION OF THE FENCE WITH THE INCREASED HEIGHT NOT NOTICEABLE FROM PONTE VEDRA CIRCLE OR PONTE VEDRA BOULEVARD DUE TO LOCATION.
STAFF FINDS THE REQUEST MEETS THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND MAY MEET THE CRITERIA OUTLINE IN THE PONTE VEDRA ZONING REGULATIONS.
THE REQUEST DOES NOT APPEAR CONTRARY TO PUBLIC PERSISTENT THE SUPPORT OF AT JARED SENT PROPERTY OWNERS AND LIPTD EXTENT OF THE INCREASED FENCE HEIGHT MAY PROVIDELY REF LOOF WITH NO OR LITTLE IMPACT IN THE.
AND THE THE APPLICANT ASSERTST THE LAY OUT OF THE ADJACENT LOTS WITH THE ELEVATED NIRCH FINISHED FLOORS PROVIDE PRIVACY FOR HOMEOWNERS WITH THE LIPTD OF CONDITION TO FOUR FEET AND STAFF SUPPORTS THE MOTION.
THE APPLICANTS MR. AND MRS. ROBINS ARE IN ATTENDANCE AND STAFF WILL BE STANDING BY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
>> BEVERLY, BECAUSE THE NORTH OF THE PROPERTY IS ON THE COUNTY LINE WITH DUVAL, AND DUVAL DOES ALLOW SIX FOOT FENCES, WOULD IT BE APPROPRIATE -- I MEAN, I DON'T SEE HOW THE DECISION GOES AS TO WHETHER OR NOT ST. JOHN'S OR DUVAL COUNTY REGULATIONS RULE, BUT WOULDN'T BE IT JUST AS LIKELY THAT DUVAL WOULD ALLOW A SIX FOOT FENCE THERE?
>> THIS FENCE WAS CONSTRUCTED ON THIS PROPERTY AND IT IS IN A CURRENT ZONING WITHIN OUR COUNTY, AND SO OUR COUNTY REGULATIONS WOULD BE PROVIDED FOR THIS LOT.
>> MY QUESTION IS, IS WHEN THE BUILDER OF THE HOMEOWNER PRESENTS A SITE PLAN AND THERE IS EXISTING NON-COMPLIANT FENCE THERE, ARE THEY INFORMED OF THE DANGER OF TAKING THAT FENCE DOWN OR NOT? IN PARTICULAR, I'M ADDRESSING THE ONE MEGAN REFERRED TO.
>> WHEN THE CLEAR SHEET REVIEW COST IN, IF A FENCE IS INDICATED ON THE SITE PLAN OR EXISTING OR HAS A HEIGHT WE WOULD REVIEW THAT.
THE CLEARANCE SHEET DID NOT PROVIDE ANY FENCE OR FENCE HEIGHT FOR REVIEW.
AND SO THEY ARE NOTIFIED AND IT IS INCLUDED ON THE CLEARANCE SHEET WHAT THAT REGULATION IS FOR FENCE HEIGHT.
WOULD THE APPLICANT LIKE TO COME FORWARD AND MAKE A STATEMENT? FOR THE RECORD, IF YOU COULD JUST STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS, PLEASE.
>> PAIGE ROBINS AND KEVIN ROBINS, 4 PONTE VEDRA CIRCLE.
WE MOVED ORIGINALLY WE HAD BUILT A HOME ON LA MASTER DRIVE AND RESIDED THERE FOR 13 YEARS, AND BEHIND US WAS PONTE VEDRA EAST, AND DIVIDING THE TWO, THE HOMES ON LA MASTER AND THE PONTE VEDRA EAST THERE WAS A WALL THAT WAS BUILT THAT WAS SIX FEET AS A DIVIDER FOR PRIVACY BETWEEN THE TWO DEVELOPMENTS.
SO THEN WHEN WE PURCHASED THE PROPERTY AT 4 PONTE VEDRA CIRCLE, THERE WAS A SIX FOOT FENCE ON THE NORTHERN PROPERTY LINE, AND THEN IT RAN ALONG ALSO THE WEST.
SO THERE AGAIN, WITH THAT BEING A DIFFERENT COUNTY, NATURALLY IN HAVING A SIX FOOT FENCE ALREADY EXIST, WE COULD GO AND PUT ANOTHER ONE BACK IN ITS PLACE.
AND THE WAY THE HOMES ARE CONSTRUCTED, IF THEY WERE FOUR FEET AND -- I MEAN, YOU'RE LOOKING STRAIGHT INTO THEIR BACKYARD.
I DO HAVE -- I BROUGHT SOME UPDATED PHOTOGRAPHS OF OUR NORTHERN -- THE NORTH PORTION OF THE PROPERTY AND THEN THE WESTERN.
>> AND MS. ROBINS, IF YOU SHOW THOSE PHOTOGRAPHS, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO TAKE THEM FOR THE RECORD.
SO THIS IS FACING ON GROUND LEVEL TO THE HOME DIRECTLY BEHIND US IN DIEWF COUNTY THAT'S BEING CONSTRUCTED RIGHT NOW.
THE DUVAL COUNTY THAT'S BEING CONSTRUCTED RIGHT NOWTHEN THE PF
[00:20:02]
THE HOME AND THEIR OUTDOOR LIVING AREA, WHICH IS ALSO ELEVATED, LOOKING BACK INTO OUR YARD, AND I TOOK THE PICTURE SO IT WAS -- AS YOU ARE STANDING AND LOOKING STRAIGHT OUT.THE NEXT PHOTOGRAPH IS OF THE WESTERN PROPERTY LINE ON THE STREET TO SHOW THAT THE FENCE ALONG THE WEST IS TRULY NOT VISUAL FROM THE STREET.
IT IS ALSO SET BACK FROM THE FRONT ONE-CAR GARAGE ELEVATION 22 FEET BACK.
IT DOES NOT BLOCK THE NEIGHBOR TO THE WEST, ANY OF THEIR HOMES.
AND THEN THIS IS A LITTLE BIT CLOSER UP.
THEN TO THE -- AND THEN THIS PHOTOGRAPH SHOWS ON THE GROUND LEVEL OF OUR BACKYARD LOOKING INTO THEIRS.
THE EASTERN SIDE OF OUR HOLE E HERE, WE ONLY HAD TO TIE IN ACROSS FROM THEY WILL, BUT WHEN YOU LOOK FROM THEIR YARD THROUGH OURS, ALL THE FENCE HEIGHTS ARE THE SAME.
SO WE FOLLOWED WHAT WAS EXISTING ON OUR PROPERTY AND ALLOWED IT TO MATCH THE OTHER DESCREBSZ.
WHEN I HAD SUBMITTED I SUBMITTED THE TWO SIGNED LETTERS FROM OUR TWO NEIGHBORS AS WELL IN MY
PAPERWORK>> ANY FEEDBACK FROM T?
>> IF WE'RE GOING TO VOTE ON THE FENCING, I WOULD RECOMMEND VOTING ON TWO SEPARATE SEGMENTS BECAUSE THE NORTHERN SEGMENT HAD A PREEXISTING FENCE AND IF YOU GO WEST OF THEIR PROPERTIES ALL THE WAY TO THE GOLF COURSE, THERE ARE SIX FOOT FENCES BETWEEN THE PROPERTIES, AND I THINK THAT WOULD BE INCONSISTENT ZONING TO ASK OF THEM TO DROP TO FOUR FEET WHEN EVERYBODY ELSE, AS WELL AS WHERE YOU SEE THE WHITE FENCE THERE, THAT FENCE IS SIX FEET IN BACK.
AND I HAD THE OPPORTUNITY, I KNOW THE BUILDER WHO BUILT THAT HOUSE, AND WHEN THEY GOT THEIR OCCUPANCY PERMIT, THAT FENCE WAS THERE AND IT WAS APPROVED BEFORE THE PEOPLE MOVED IN.
AND SO BASICALLY WE'D BE SAYING TO THEM, GO DOWN TO FOUR FEET AND THE ONLY HOUSE, WHICH WOULD BE PONTE VEDRA CIRCLE, 6 PONTE VEDRA CIRCLE, AS THEY OPTED TO PUT A HEDGE UP, BUT ALL THE REST OF THIS NORTHERN FENCE IS SIX FEET, AND I THINK THAT WE NEED TO SEPARATE OUR JUDGMENT ON THA THAT.
>> THERE ARE SEVERAL ISSUES HERE.
IF THOSE SIX FOOT FENCES ARE ON THE DUVAL COUNTY SIDE, THEY'RE PERFECTLY FINE, BUT WHEN THEY WOMAN BACK ON THE ST. JOHNS COUNTY SIDE, IT IS UNDER A DIFFERET JURISDICTIONI FEEL FORE IN BECAUSE YOU'RE NOT THE FIRST THAT HAS BUILT A SIX FOOT FENCE.
IT HAPPENS ALL THE TIME IN PONTE VEDRA.
HOMEOWNERS AREN'T AWARE THAT IT DOESN'T MEET REGULATION, AND THIS BOARD HAS MADE SEVERAL PEOPLE TEAR FENCES FROM SIX FOOT DOWN TO FOUR FOOT.
THAT BEING SAID, AND WE'RE HERE TO TRY TO HELP YOU, WE COULD ADDRESS IT IN A COUPLE OF DIFFERENT WAYS.
IF YOU ARE UP AGAINST A PROPERTY LINE THAT GOES INTO DIEWF COUNTY, WE COULD -- DUVAL COUNTY, WE COULD HAVE DISCUSSION OF SIX FOOT FENCES AND YOU DO HAVE AN INTERESTING SITUATION.
THERE'S A HARDSHIP THAT YOU DO HAVE A SIDE SETBACK BEHIND YOU THAT IS FIVE FOOT OFF YOUR FENCE, WHICH IS EXTREME, SO IF WE COULD HAVE A DISCUSSION ON
[00:25:01]
THAT.THE OTHER DISCUSSION THAT THIS BOARD WANTS TO TAKE UP IS IN BETWEEN HOUSES, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT POSSIBLY ALLOWING SIX FOOT FENCES AS LONG AS IT'S IN BETWEEN THE STRUCTURAL PART OF THE HOUSES.
SO IF THAT GETS APPROVED, YOU MIGHT ONLY HAVE TO TAKE DOWN THE SECTION FROM THE BACK OF YOUR HOUSE TO THE BACK PROPERTY LINE TO FOUR FOOT AND MIGHT ABLE TO MAINTAIN THE SIX FOOT FENCE IN BETWEEN YOUR HOUSE AND 6 PONTE VEDRA CIRCLE.
BUT THOSE ARE MY ONLY THOUGHTS, BUT IF WE WANT TO ENTERTAIN DISCUSSION.
I THINK CLEARLY IF WE DO IT FOR YOU, THEN WE SET A PRECEDENT, AND EVEN THOUGH THERE'S AN EXISTING FENCE THERE, IF YOU TEAR IT DOWN AND REBUILD IT BACK, IT HAS TO MEET CODE AND IT CLEARLY DOESN'T MEET CODE AT THIS POINT.
BUT I'M WILLING TO TRY TO HELP YOU IN ANY WAY BY THE SIDE FENCE POSSIBLY BEING DEALT WITH IN FUTURE MEETINGS AND BEING CHANGED AND IF WE WANT TO HAVE A DISCUSSION ON BORDERING DUVAL COUNTY WHERE THERE'S SIX FOOT FENCES, WOULD WE CONSIDER THAT IN OUR FUTURE DISCUSSION OF FENCE HEIGHTS.
WE HAVE EVEN GONE DOWN A1A WHERE YOU LOOK INTO THE BACKS OF YARDS GOING SOUTH ON THE WEST SIDE WHERE YOU CAN WI A BIG FOUR-LANE A1A AND YOU'RE LOOKING RIGHT INTO PEOPLE'S WINDOWS.
I TRY TO GO TO SIX AND EIGHT FEET THERE AND I WAS VOTED DOWN.
SO THIS IS KIND OF A TOUGH UPHILL BATTLE TO CHANGE THESE FENCE HEIGHTS.
THAT WAS A BIG, BIG BATTLE FOR MONTHS.
THEY'RE STILL STUCK WITH THE FICTION FOOT EVEN ALONG A1AER WHEN YOU HAVE A MAJOR ROADWAY.
>> HOW IS PONTE VEDRA EAST, THEN, ALLOWED TO PUT THAT WALL UP?
>> WELL, I HATE TO SAY IT BUT IF IT GETS CALLED INTO THE PRIDE, THEY'RE GOING TO TEAR IT DOWN.
>> THE NEIGHBORHOOD RECEIVED A VARIANCE TO BE ABLE TO PUT THE SIX FOOT WALL UP.
>> BRAD, I CONCUR ON THE NORTHERN BOUNDARY.
I CAN UNDERSTAND THE VALUE OF HAVING THAT SIX FOOT FENCE, AND BECAUSE IT'S TO ME ALMOST AT THE DUVAL PROPERTY LINE AT SIX FOOT, THOSE NEIGHBORS, IN FACT, MIGHT PUT A SIX FOOT FENCE UP AND THEY'LL HAVE ABUTTING FENCES.
I HAVE MORE DIFFICULTY BETWEEN THE YARDS BECAUSE WE HAVE REQUIRED OTHER PEOPLE TO MAINTAIN AND ACTUALLY CUT DOWN FENCES THAT WERE SIX FOOT BACK DOWN TO FOUR FOOT JUST WITHIN THE LAST FEW MONTHS.
SO IT WOULD BE INCONSISTENT ON MY PART OF SAYING THAT WE HAVE THESE OTHER PEOPLE WHO HAD TO ABIDE AND THEN YOU SADLY DIDN'T KNOW THE REGULATIONS AND IT WOULD BE WONDERFUL IF WE HAD A BETTER SYSTEM SO THAT HOMEOWNERS DIDN'T HAVE THIS ISSUE.
BUT I LIKE TO BE CONSISTENT ACROSS THE BOARD.
THE HOMEOWNER ON THE NORTH OF DUVAL COUNTY PUT UP A SIX FOOT FENCE, THEN IT WOULD BE CONSISTENT WITH THE DUVAL COUNTY REGULATIONS, RIGHT? SO, I MEAN, AGAIN, YOU'RE SAYING THEY'RE NOT GOING TO PUT UP TWO FENCES.
SO I DON'T SEE A REAL PROBLEM WITH THE BOUNDARY BEING SIX FOOT AND THEN THE SIDE NOT BEING SIX FOOT.
>> I DON'T, EITHER AS LONG AS WE LOOK AT WHAT PRECEDENT THAT MIGHT SET AND WHERE OTHER BOUNDARIES MIGHT OPEN UP A CAN OF WORMS SOMEWHERE ELSE.
IT MIGHT BE PERFECT IN YOUR SCENARIO BUT WE SHOULD BE MINDFUL OF WHAT OTHER DUVAL COUNTY BORDERS THAT CAN CREATE A DIFFERENT SCENARIO.
>> THAT'S THE ONLY THING THAT'S DIFFERENT HERE IS BECAUSE WE'RE BUTTING UP AGAINST A COUNTY LINE, RIGHT? I MEAN, THE REST OF IT WOULD BE FOUR FOOT, BUT UP AGAINST -- IF THE OTHER NEIGHBOR IN DUVAL COUNTY PUT UP A SIX FOOT FENCE, IT WOULD SOLVE THE PROBLEM, BUT I MEAN THAT'S NOT GOING TO HAPPEN.
>> COUNCIL, IF WE GAVE A VARIANCE ON THIS PROPERTY BORDERING DUVAL COUNTY AND BEING A SIDE SETBACK TO MATCH THAT EXACT SAME SCENARIO TO COME BACK FROM THIS BOARD WITH ANOTHER VARIANCE ASKING FOR THAT WITH THE SIDE SETBACK BEING AGAINST DUVAL COUNTY, WHAT IF IT WAS A REAR SETBACK? WOULD THAT BE A PRECEDENT?
YOU CAN DIFFERENTIATE THOSE TWO SPECIFIC CIRCUMSTANCES.
IN FACT, ON THE AERIAL YOU CAN SEE THAT EXACT CIRCUMSTANCE
[00:30:01]
WHERE THE DUVAL COUNTY HOUSES TO THE WEST, THOSE ARE THEIR REAR SETBACKS, SO FOR THIS ONE, IF THE BOARD CHOOSES TO GRANT A VARIANCE ON THE NORTHERN SIDE, IT CAN JUSTIFY IT BOTH ON THE PERMISSIBLE USES OF THE ADJACENT PROPERTY TO THE NORTH, WHICH IS IN DUVAL COUNTY THEY WOULD ALLOW A SIX FOOT FENCE AND ALSO BECAUSE THE ORIENTATION OF THE HOUSE, THAT IS A SIDE SETBACK, SO IT IS CLOSER TO THE PROPERTY LINE THAN A REAR SETBACK, FOR EXAMPLE.SO IF THE BOARD CAN TAKE THOSE TWO CIRCUMSTANCES AND LOOK AT THE LITERAL APPLICATION OF THE PONTE VEDRA ZONING CODE AND DETERMINE IF THERE IS A HARDSHIP TO THE FENCE HEIGHT PROVISION FOR THIS PARTICULAR LOT.
IF YOU GO A FEW LOTS TO THE WEST, THEY MAY NOT HAVE THAT EXACT SAME SCENARIO BECAUSE IT'S REAR SETBACK TO REAR SETBACK, MAY NOT JUSTIFY A SIX FOOT FENCE IF THE EXISTING SIX FOOT FENCE WAS TORN DOWN.
>> MR. CHAIR, I'D ONLY ASK THAT YOU ASK FOR PUBLIC COMMENT.
>> THAT'S WHAT I WAS GOING TO DO NEXT, ASK FOR PUBLIC COMMENT.
>> JUST THE ONLY COMMENT I HAVE IS IF YOU SIT ON OUR BACK DECK, THE FOUR FOOT FENCE LITERALLY GIVES YOU ONE FOOT DIFFERENCE FROM THE GROUND LEVEL.
YOU MIGHT AS WELL -- OTHER THAN SINCE WE HAVE A SWIMMING POOL WE HAVE TO HAVE A FENCE BUT THERE'S NO PRIVACY WHATSOEVER.
>> CAN I ASK, TOO, OF COURSE, WE'RE SEEING THIS THROUGHOUT THE NEIGHBORHOOD, AND I DON'T -- I DON'T KNOW IF THIS IS AN ISSUE OR NOT.
IF WE'VE TRYING TO DO THE FOUR FOOT FENCE, KEEPING VISIBILITY FOR THE HOMES THAT ARE ON THE GOLF COURSES, THAT ARE ON THE LAGOONS, THAT ARE ON THE OCEAN, BUT THEN THEY HAVE A TEN FOOT HEDGE RUNNING DOWN THE SIDE THAT'S WHY I THINK THERE'S SOME CONFUSION WITH THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ALLOWING ONE THAT'S NOT BLOCKING SOMEBODY'S VIEW OR --
>> I BELIEVE THE PURPOSE OF IT IS THERE ARE OTHER COMMUNITIES IN THE AREA THAT JUST HAVE WOODEN STRUCTURES EVERYWHERE.
SO WE'RE TRYING TO PREVENT THAT.
BUT IF YOU DO IT WITH NATURAL GREENERY, IT'S JUST MORE NATURAL AND MORE AESTHETIC TO LOOK AT.
YOU CAN PUT A 20-FOOT HIGH HEDGE BACK THERE.
A IS PROBABLY WHAT YOU'RE GOING TO NEED IN ADDITION TO THE FENCE WITH THAT BIG TALL STRUCTURE BEHIND YOU.
THAT TAKES TIME, BUT THAT WOULD PROBABLY SOLVE YOUR PROBLEM LONG TERM.
BUT I WOULD LIKE TO OPEN IT UP TO PUBLIC COMMENT.
THERE IF THERE ARE NO FURTHER COMMENTS.
I'D JUST MAKE A FEW COMMENTS ABOUT FENCES.
FIRST OF ALL, THIS IS NOT THE ONLY PLACE WHERE YOU CAN HAVE A FOUR AND SIX AT A BOUNDARY.
IF YOU LOOK AT MORNINGSIDE DRIVE WHICH BACKS UP TO LA MASTER, THE PEOPLE ON MORNINGSIDE ARE R1C OR D.
THEY CAN HAVE A SIX FOOT FENCE.
THE PEOPLE LA MASTER ARE R1B AND THEY CAN THE ONLY HAVE A FOUR FOOT FENCE.
THERE AGAIN YOU HAVE A SIMILAR SITUATION.
THAT'S ONE OTHER AREA IN THE ZONING WHERE MOST OF THE FENCES, YOU LOOK AT THE HOUSES ON LA MASTER, THEIR BACKYARDS SIX FOOT, BUT IT'S PROBABLY THE FENCE OF THE HOUSE BEHIND THEM WHERE THEY WORK SOMETHING OUT BETWEEN NEIGHBORS.
I'M PRETTY SURE JACKSONVILLE BEACH ALLOWS EIGHT FOOT FENCES.
THE TOP TWO FEET OF AN EIGHT FOOT FENCE, AND IF YOU DRIVE DOWN PONTE VEDRA BOULEVARD, YOU SEE EIGHT FOOT FENCES ON THE DUVAL COUNTY.
SO I BELIEVE THAT JUST TALKING ABOUT SIX AND SIX FOOT, THERE'S A GOOD CHANCE AN EIGHT FOOT FENCE COULD BE BUILT BEHIND THEM.
THE TOP TWO FEET HAVE TO BE VENTILATED SO THEY HAVE TO HAVE SOME KIND OF VENT OR SOMETHING TO LET THE AIR FLOW.
BUT I'M PRETTY SURE JACKSONVILLE BEACH ALLOWS EIGHT FOOT FENCE TPS.
OTHER THING JACKSONVILLE BEACH ALLOWS IS RECREATIONAL VEHICLES IN THEIR SIDE YARDS.
SO I WOULD WANT TO TRY AND HIDE THAT, TOO, BECAUSE THERE COULD BE A CHANCE THAT THAT HOUSE THAT IS BEING BUILT BEHIND THEIRS COULD HAVE RECREATIONAL VEHICLES PARKED ON THEIR SIDE OR BACKYARD, SOMETHING THAT WE DON'T ALLOW IN PONTE VEDRA.
SO THOSE ARE -- I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT WAS UNDERSTOOD.
AND I BELIEVE THAT FENCE, THAT WHITE FENCE AT 2, THAT'S ALSO IN VIOLATION, AND I BELIEVE THERE'S A PRIDE ON IT, SO I'M NOT SURE HOW THAT -- IF THEY'RE WAITING TO SEE WHAT HAPPENS TO THIS
[00:35:02]
VARIANCE, IF THEY'RE GOING TO ASK FOR A VARIANCE, BUT THAT'S JUST TO GIVE YOU AN UPDATE ON THESE FENCES.BUT I CONCUR WITH MR. BECKER AND MEGAN THAT DUVAL COUNTY LINE IS A SPECIAL BOUNDARY, AND THEN IF WE CAN -- IF THEY CAN -- THEY SHOULD BE ABLE TO SEEK A VARIANCE TO KEEP THAT ONE AT SIX FEET, BUT THE SIDE YARD, WE HAVO MEETINGS FOR YEARS.
WE HAVE A LOT OF THESE PEOPLE DON'T EVEN MAKE IT TO THE MEETINGS.
THEY JUST TAKE IT DOWN ALREADY.
SO THE SIDE, THERE'S ALREADY A HEDGE THERE.
THE SIDE IS A DIFFERENT STORY.
REGARDING -- WELL, IT DISAPPEARED.
THE WHITE FENCE WE HAD THERE, IF THE COUNTY IS HAS GIVEN THAT HOMEOWNER AN OCCUPANCY PERMIT WITH THAT FENCE BEING THERE, WOULDN'T THAT CREATE A LEGAL DILEMMA TO TELL THEM TO KIT DOWN NOW?
>> NO, THE OCCUPANCY PERMITS ARE FOR THE HABITUALAL STRUCTURES.
FENCES ARE PUT WITHOUT PER MUTS OR ON THE CLEARANCE SHEET.
WE DON'T ISSUE PERMITS FOR FENCES THAT DON'T REQUIRE A BUILDING PERMIT LOOK A FOOTER.
IT'S MORE OF AN ADMINISTRATIVE HURDLE.
YOU HAVE TO COME TO THE COUNTY EVERY SINGLE TIME YOU WANT TO PUT UP A FENCE.
>> ALTHOUGH IT WAS THERE WHEN THEY --
THEY CAN BE TOLD TO TEAR IT DOWN?
AND AS BEVERLY STATED, THE CLEARANCE SHEET FOR THIS PARTICULAR HOUSE DID NOT DEPICT A FENCE, AND THAT'S WHAT WE LOOK AT, GRADING, WE LOOK AT SETBACKS AND THINGS LIKE THAT, AND WHEN YOU GET YOUR CO, YOUR CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY, THAT IMPACT FEE IS PAID PERMITTING ELECTRICAL, THOSE KINDS OF THINGS.
>> SO, COUNCIL, WOULD WE ABLE TO DESCRIBE THIS VARIANCE AS APPLYING TO JUST THE REAR SETBACK OR THE NORTHERN BOUNDARY IN APPROVAL OR DISAPPROVAL OF THIS VARIANCE?
LET ME TAKE A LOOK AT THE MOTION TO SEE HOW YOU CAN AMEND THAT SO IF YOU CAN JUST -- IF THE BOARD SO WISHES, YOU CAN JUST MAKE THE MOTION TO APPROVE AND JUST DELETE THE "AND WAS" LANGUAGE.
IT WOULD JUST BE ALLOWED FOR A SIX FOOT FENCE ALONG THE NORTH ROT LINE IN LIEU OF A FOUR FOOT FENCE HEIGHT LIMITATION, AND THAT WOULD BE THE MOTION THAT THIS BOARD WOULD GRANT.
AND IF YOU WANTED TO AFTERWARDST FOR THE PERSON CONSEQUENCE, YOU CAN ALSO DO THAT.
>> WOULD WE NEED TO DENY OR IT WOULD AUTOMATICALLY BE DENIED BECAUSE IT'S NOT PART OF THE --
>> MY OPINION IS IT WOULD AUTOMATICALLY BE DENDZ.
YOU ARE ALLOWED TO GRANT A LESSER RELIEF SOUGHT IF THE RELIEF IS KIND OF MORE THAN IS NECESSARY TO ELIMINATE THE HARDSHIP.
IF THEY HAVE NOT DEMONSTRATED THAT THERE IS A IDENTIFIED HARDSHIP WHEN YOU APPLY THE SIX THE FENCE, YOU CAN DENY IT BY IMPLICATION BY ONLY GRANTING ONE PORTION OF THE VARIANCE.
>> IF NO OTHER COMMENTS, EITHER FROM THE PUBLIC OR FROM THE APPLICANT OR THE BOARD, WE WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION OF SOME FORM OF WHAT WE DISCUSSED.
>> MAY I ASK JUST A QUICK QUESTION? I UNDERSTAND, THEN, IN THE MOTION TO APPROVE, PAGE 2, FOURTH LINE, WE JUST STRIKE "AND WEST" IF YOU WANTED TO DO THE REAR PROPERTY LINE?
AND THEN THAT WOULD COME WITH -- WHEN WE DRAFT THE ORDER, THERE'S A SITE PLANNING, A SITE PLAN ASSOCIATED WITH IT.
WE'LL MAKE SURE THAT THE SITE PLAN MATCHES THE BOARD'S ORDER, AND WE'LL REMOVE ANY IMPLICATION THAT I SIX FOOT TALL FENCE ON THE WESTERN YARD IS PERMITTED.
[00:40:18]
DO YOU WANT A MOTION? I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE PONTE VEDRA ZONING VARIANCE 2009 ROBINS FENCE REQUEST FOR A ZONING TO SECTION 9.HAVE OF PONTE VEDRA ZONING REGULATIONS TO ALLOW FOR PAY SIX FOOT FENCE ALONG THE NORTH PROPERTY LINE IN LIEWFT FOUR FOOT FENCE HEIGHT LIMITATION BASED ON FOUR FINDINGS OF FACT AND SUBJECT TO FIVE CONDITIONS AS LISTED IN THE STAFF REPORT.
THAT IS A NANCE VOTE FOR YOUR NORTH AND REAR SETBACK.
THE SIDE SETBACK AT THIS POINT IS NON-CONFORMING AND DOESN'T MEET CODE.
I WOULD SAY THAT, AND, MEGAN, THE WAY I SEE IT IS JUST BECAUSE IN THE PAST WE HAVE MADE PEOPLE TEAR FENCES DOWN, WHICH I FEEL BADLY THAT WE HAVE DONE THAT, BUT IF THE RIGHT THING TO DO MOVING FORWARD IS TO ALLOW FOR A SECTION OF SIX FOOT FENCE IN BETWEEN HOMES, I DON'T BELIEVE THAT SHOULD KEEP US FROM DOING THE RIGHT THING NOW EVEN THOUGH WE MIGHT HAVE NOT LET SOMEBODY IN THE PAST DO IT, SO IF THAT'S THE RIGHT THING TO DO, AND I THINK WITH THIS BOARD WE'LL HAVE MORE DISCUSSION ON THAT IN THE FUTURE, .
>> WHEN WE DISCUSSED THIS, I THINK IT WAS IN JUNE, WE MORE OR LESS TALKED ABOUT ALLOWING A SIX FOOT FENCE NOT TO EXCEED THE LENGTH OF THE ADJACENT HOUSE.
>> LENGTH OF THE BUILDING STRUCTURE.
AND WE HAD I THINK IT WAS TWO SEPARATE PEOPLE WHO WERE APPEALING THE CURRENT REGULATION, AND WE HAD SOMEWHAT OF A CONCURRENCE THAT WE REALLY SHOULD ADDRESS THAT AND LOOK AT IT MORE CAREFULLY.
CAN WE GET THAT SCHEDULED SOONER THAN LATER? CAN WE DEFER SOME ACTION UNTIL WE CAN GO THROUGH THAT AGAIN?
>> THAT'S WHAT I'VE BEEN PUSHING.
THERE ARE SOME OTHER NEIGHBORS WITH THE SAME DILEMMA NOW.
AND SO WE'RE TRYING TO GET THAT WITH THE COUNTY, WHICH WE CAN DISCUSS THE END OF THIS MEETING WHEN THAT MIGHT TAKE PLACE BUT WE'LL PUSH THAT BACK ON THE END OF THE MEETING AND SEE WHAT COUNTY MIGHT HAVE AS FAR AS, I KNOW THEY'RE ANXIOUS TO PUSH THAT AND ONE OTHER AGENDA ITEM AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE.
>> BRAD, I WOULD JUST LIKE TO MAKE ONE COMMENT WEISE MOVE FORWARD ON THIS TOPIC, IS THAT IS THAT EVERYTHING IS NOT COMPLETELY EASY TO DO, PARTICULARLY SINCE NOT ALL HOUSES ARE EXACTLY THE SAME DEPTH AND THEN DOES THE FENCE GO THE DEPTH OF HIGH HOUSE OR DOES IT GO THE DEPTH OF YOUR HOUSE, AND IT SEEMED TO ME THAT IT WAS EASIER JUST TO PLANT TALL SHRUBS THAT WERE SIX FEET ON YOUR PROPERTY.
IF YOU DIDN'T WANT TO SEE THEM, DIDN'T YOU HAVE TO SEE THEM, AND YOU COULD RUN THE WHOLE LENGTH AND IT WAS COMPLETELY UNDER YOUR CONTROL ON YOUR PROPERTY, AND THAT WAS AN EASIER FIX BECAUSE OTHER WEITZ GETS INTO WHO GETS THE GOOD SIDE OF THE FENCE AND WHO GETS THE BAD SIDE OF THE FENCE AND I DON'T LIKE CLEANING THE FENCE BECAUSE I'M ON THE SIDE, SOUTH SIDE THAT GETS THE MILDEW AND, YOU KNOW, IT JUST OPENS A CAN OF WORMS BETWEEN FRIENDLY COMPOTIS TENSE BETWEEN NEIGHBORS, AND THE HEDGES SEEM TO BE LESS PROBLEMATIC.
>> IT DOESN'T APPEAR THERE'S A LOT OF SUPPORT TO CHANGE THIS, IS THERE, THAT YOU HAVE SEEN?
>> I THINK THERE'S SUPPORT TO CHANGE IT SO THAT YOU CAN PUT A SIX FOOT FENCE IN BETWEEN TWO HOUSES AS LONG AS IT DOESN'T PROTRUDE FARTHER FORWARD OR BACKYARD FROM THE STRUCTURE OF THE HOUSE BECAUSE IF YOU GET POOL EQUIPMENT ON THAT SIDE AND A WALKWAY, THAT LEAVES YOU ABOUT ONE FOOT FOR HEDGES, AND IT'S JUST NOT ENOUGH ROOM TO BUILD A HEDGE THAT WOULD SATISFY THAT PRIVACY.
SO I THINK THERE'S STRONG SUPPORT FOR THAT.
I'M CERTAINLY IN SUPPORT OF THAT, AND I'D LIKE TO SEE THAT DISCUSSED AND MOVE FORWARD.
WE CAN ALSO ADD TO THAT THAT IN THAT VERBIAGE BOTH SIDES OF THE FENCE HAVE TO BE DECORATIVE SIDES.
YOU CAN'T HAVE A NICE SIDE AND AN UGLY SIDE.
WE CAN MAKE PARAMETERS FOR THAT REGULATION IN THAT CODE.
>> ACCORDING TO THAT, WHERE THE HOUSE ENDS AND THE POOL STARTS, THAT'S WHERE IT HAS TO GO BACK TO FOUR FEET.
>> SO REALLY I DON'T EVEN THINK THAT WOULD -- WHAT'S A REASONABLE TIME FRAME TO REDUCE IT TO FOUR FEET?
>> WELL, THE WAY IT WORKS IS YOU'LL PROBABLY GET A VISIT FROM CODE ENFORCEMENT, AND THEN THEY'LL DEMAND ACTION.
THERE'S ANOTHER SITUATION WITH A FENCE IN BETWEEN HOUSES THAT I
[00:45:02]
THINK BY HAVING COUNSEL SEND A RELIEF MESSAGE TO CODE ENFORCEMENT TEMPORARILY ON THAT SPECIFIC PROPERTY, THEY COULD RELIEVE YOU FROM IMMEDIATE OBLIGATION TO CODE ENFORCEMENT UNTIL THIS IS RESOLVED IN THE NEXT SEVERAL MONTHS.ALL OF THE TRADES ARE SO BUSY RIGHT NOW THAT TO ASK -- TO CALL THE COMPANY THAT WE WORKED WITH ORIGINALLY AND EXPECT THEM TO GET OUT THERE NEXT WEEK, I DON'T KNOW.
>> BUT I DO THINK THAT THEY ARE BUSY.
>> ARE IN CHAIR, MIKE ROBERTSON, GROWTH MANAGEMENT, IF I MAY.
SO WE DO HAVE AN AC HAVE ACTIVE CODE ENFORCEMENT CASE FOR THIS.
I THINK IT INITIATED IN JANUARY.
IF IT'S THE BOARD'S PLEASURE TO START TO LOOK AT THESE NEW CODE CHANGES WITH REGARD TO FENCE HEIGHT, IT'S NOT UNCOMMON THAT WE CAN POSTPONE CODE ENFORCEMENT WHILE WE'RE LOOKING AT SOMETHING BECAUSE IN THERE'S A NEED OR A DESIRE TO LOOK AT IT, HOWEVER, I WANTED YOU TO KNOW IT'S BEEN IN THERE FOR A WHILE.
IT'S JUST SOMETHING THAT MAYBE AT THE END OF THIS MEETING WE CAN TALK ABOUT AND THE PLANNER CAN GET WITH YOU LATER ON AND GIVE YOU SOME OTHER RESULTS.
BUT THAT IS SOMETHING THAT WE CAN DO AND HAVE DONE IN THE PAS PAST.
BUT IT'S GOING TO BE YOUR DISCRETION ON WHETHER WE WANT TO PURSUE THESE CODE DISCUSSIONS.
>> THAT WOULD BE MY RECOMMENDATION, TO GIVE SOME RELIEF FROM CODE ENFORCEMENT TEMPORARILY ON THIS SPECIFIC PROPERTY UNTIL WE MAKE A FINAL AGREEMENT ON THIS.
BUT YOU DID GET PASSED ON THE REAR.
>> THANK ALL OF YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND CONSIDERATION.
[Item 2]
>> THE NEXT AGENDA ITEM WHICH IS THE SAWGRASS MARRIOTT RESORT, AND ROB, IF YOU COULD LET US KNOW IF YOU VISITED THAT SITE AND HAD ANY COMMUNICATION WITH ANYONE.
>> I VISITED THE SITE AND I HAVE NOT HAD ANY COMMUNICATION WITH ANYBODY.
>> MR. CHAIR, SO THIS PARTICULAR ITEM, THERE'S TWO SITES.
THERE'S THE SAWGRASS HOTEL ITSELF AND THEN THERE'S THE CLUB.
>> I HAVE GONE PAST BOTH SITES.
>> I HAVE SEEN BOTH SITES, AND I DID NOT HAVE CONVERSATIONS WITH ANYONE.
>> I'M VERY FARM WITH BOTH SITE SITES.
I DID RECEIVE A CALL FROM VERNON KELLY WHO WANTED TO JUST EXPLAIN THE SITUATION AND MAKE ME AWARE THAT THIS WAS COMING UP.
I HAD NO BACK-AND-FORTH COMMENT ABOUT THE ISSUE.
HE JUST LET ME KNOW WHAT WAS COMING UP AND A FEW OF THE SIDELINES ABOUT IT BUT NOTHING WAS DISCUSSED AS FAR AS THE VARIANCE ITSELF.
>> I ALSO SPOKE WITH VERNON KELLY ON THURSDAY.
I AM FAMILIAR WITH BOTH SITES.
>> I'M FAMILIAR WITH BOTH SITES AND VERNON KELLY DID CALL ME AS WELL.
I TOLD HIM THAT I WOULD NOT COMMENT ON THE SITE ITSELF BUT I'M FAMILIAR WITH IT.
AGAIN FOR THE RECORD BEVERLY FRAZIER AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 2 IT'S A MAJOR MODIFICATION 201904 FOR THE SAWGRASS MARRIOTT RESOR RESORT.
THIS IS A REQUEST FOR MOD DPAITION THE TO PLAYERS CLUB PLANNING DEVELOPMENT TO ESTABLISH A SINGLE UNIFIED MASTER DEVELOPMENT FLOORNT ENTIRE SAWGRASS MARRIOTT RESORT.
IT DOES INCLUDE REZONING AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR THE 3 ACRES CABANA CLUB PROPERTY LOCATED AT 619 PONTE VEDRA BOULVARD AS WELL AS READOPTION OF THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED END IMENT TITLEMENTS FOR THE 61-ACRE HOTEL PROPERTY LOK ALTS 10 RO 0 PGA TOUR BLOCHEDY IS THE SUBJECT PROPERTY WE TALKED ABOUT THE LOCATION.
YOU CAN SEE ONE IS IN PONTE VEDRA AND ONE IS IN PALM VALLEY.
THEY ARE BOTH DESIGNATED CA BIAS DEL MAR ON THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP AND THE ZONING, OF COURSE, THE PLAYERS CLUB IS ALREADY PART OF THE HOTEL PROPERTY.
THE PROPERTIES ARE R2 AND R3 THAT ARE REQUESTED TO BE REZONED INTO THE PUD.
AERIAL, OF COURSE, SHOWS THOSE SUBJECT PROPERTIES AND THE SURROUNDING PROPERTIES ARE BUILT OUT WITH A COMBINATION OF RESIDENTIAL GOLF FACILITIES, CONDOS, AND THE BEACH CLUB.
THE SAWGRASS MARRIOTT HOTEL WAS ORIGINALLY APPROVED PURSUANT TO FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN IN 1985 AS PART OF THE PLAYERS CLUB PUD.
THE PROJECT HAS BEEN MODIFIED SEVERAL TIMES TO ACCOMMODATE EXPANSION OF THE HOTEL FACILITIES AND MOST ELLEN RECENT MASTER DEVELOPMENT MAN APPROVED IN 2007 WITH THE ON THE OTHER
[00:50:02]
HAND 2007-04.THE CABANA BEACH CLUB PROPERTY WAS GRANTED A USE VARIANCE IN 1972 AND RECEIVED BUILDING PLAN APPROVAL IN 1983.
THE BEACH CLUB HAS REMAINED IN OPERATION WITH THE EXISTING NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURES BASED ON THE REGULATIONS DOOPTDZ BUY THE PONTE VEDRA COASTAL OVERLAY.
THE CLUB SUFFERED SIGNIFICANT DAMAGE IN 2017 DUE TO HURRICANE IRMA.
THE RESTAURANT BUILDING WAS DETERMINED TO REQUIRE RENOVATIONS THAT EXCEED THE SUBSTANTIAL DAMAGE THRESHOLD REQUIRING DEMOLITION AND REBUILD TO COMPLY WITH THE CURRENT REGULATIONS.
THE MODIFICATION APPLICATION SEEKS TO REZONE THAT 3.43-ACRE PROPERTY INTO THE PLAYERS CLUB PUD AND ESTABLISH THAT SINGLE MDP.
THE UPDATE MDP INCORPORATES THAT IMAWN A CLUB PARCEL REDEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, AND THE CURRENTLY SAWGRASS HOTEL RESORT CRITERIA THAT'S APPROVED TO THE PREVIOUS ORDINANCE.
HOTEL PROPERTY IS CURRENTLY APPROVED FOR 510 HOTEL ROOMS, 400 CONDOMINIUM UNITS, 545 SEAT RESTAURANT, 200 SEAT COCKTAIL LOUNGE, 35,000 SQUARE FOOT SPA ANDING 23,000 SQUARE FOOT RETAIL AND 1 THRAIN HOW TO SQUARE FOOT EXHIBIT HALL.
THE PHASING FOR HOTEL PROPERTY IS CONSTRUCTION COMPLETED WINS TEN YEARS OF ADOPTION EXRNTION THE FUTURE RENOVATION OF THE HOTEL WOULD BE SUBJECT TO THE PALM VALLEY OVERLAY DISTRICT REGULATIONS, DESIGN AND APPROVAL.
THIS IS A LOOK AT THE CURRENT MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN MAP THAT IS INCLUDED WITH THIS MODIFICATION TO BE PART OF THIS ORDINANCE AS WELL IF ADOPTED.
SO THE REDEVELOPMENT OF THE CABANA CLUB RESTAURANT IS LIMITED TO 7,400 SQUARE FEET.
IT'S A SLIGHT INCREASE OF ABOUT 300 SQUARE FEET OF CONDITION SPACE AND ALSO OUTDOOR SEATING.
THE EXISTING BEACH CLUB RESTAURANT, DISCUSS ME, THE PARKING LOT, THE BEACH SIDE SNACK BAR, THE SWIMMING POOL AND ACCESSORY STRUCTURES REMAIN AS CURRENTLY CONSTRUCTED.
THE RELOCATION OF THE DINING BUILDING PROVIDES AN INCREASED SETBACK OF 70 FEET FROM PONTE VEDRA BOULEVARD AND ALSO 20 FEET FROM THE NORTHERN PROPERTY.
THE REDEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES FOR THE IMAWN BEACH CLUB WILL BE COMPLETED WITHIN FIVE YEARS OF THE ADOPTION OF THE MODIFICATION.
THE APPLICATION STATES THAT REDEVELOPMENT WILL PROVIDE AN IMPROVED DINING ESTABLISHMENT, ENHANCED COMPATIBILITY ARE WITH SURROUNDING USES AND THE VUSH YOU'LL ENHANCEMENT OF THE PONTE VEDRA COASTAL CORRIDOR.
IT DOES PROVIDE EACH PARCEL A AND B.
THE B PARCEL IS ALL THE PARKING THAT'S CURRENTLY ON-SITE AND THE A PARCEL WILL INCLUDE THE EXISTING STRUCTURES AS WELL AS THE REDEVELOPMENT AREA THAT WILL LOOK OUT A LITTLE BIT CLOSER IN A MINUTE.
-- WE'LL LOOK AT A LITTLE BIT CLOSER IN A MINUTE.
THE MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN DOES INCLUDE A HANDSFUL OF BAIMPS THESE OFES FOR THE CABANA CLUB CLUB REDEVELOPMENT AND IT'S TO ALLOW THE RESTAURANT BUILDING TO EXCEED THE 35-FOOT IT.
WILL BE A MAXIMUM OF 45 FEET AND BE CONSTRUCTED WITHIN 150 FEET OF THE RESIDENTIALLY ZONE PROPERTY.
IT'S A COMBINATION OF RELIEF FROM OVERLAY PROVISION STARTS THE HEIGHT FOR OUR COASTAL AREAS.
THE CURRENT STRUCTURE ITSELF I THINK IS MEASURED ABOUT 40 FEET, SO THE STRUCTURE ITSELF WILL STAY ABOUT THE SAME BASIC HEIGHT WITH SIZE AND SCALE THAT IS REQUIRED TO ELEVATE THE FINISHED FLOOR BASED ON THE LOCATION WITH CURRENT REGULATIONS, SO THEY'E JUST ACCOUNTING FOR THAT.
THE SECOND WAIVER IS FOR MINIMUM YARD.
IT'S TO ALLOW REDUCTION IN THE MINIMUM YARD REQUIREMENT.
IT'S A 20 FEET IN LIEWFT 50 FEET FOR THE RESTAURANT BUILDING BECAUSE UTTERS ADJACENT TO RESIDENTIAL TO THE NORTH AND AS WELL AS THAT BUFFER TO THE NORTH, ALSO NEEDS SOME RELIEF FOR THE SIDE YARD AND THE PERIMETER BUFFER TO ACCOMMODATE THE EXISTING SERVICE AREA AND THE EXISTING ACCESS TO THAT AREA WHICH WILL MAINTAIN.
SO THIS IS A LOOK AT THE PROJECT LIMITS SO YOU CAN SEE HOW THE BUILDING WILL BE INITIALLY, IT'S KIND OF AT AN ANGLE AND IT WILL BE TURNED TO FACE THE BEACH AREA, WILL MAINTAIN A 20-FOOT SETBACK FROM THE NORTHERN PROPERTY LINE.
IT'S PUSHED BACK FURTHER FROM PONTE VEDRA BOULEVARD.
AND YOU CAN SEE JUST THE AREA THAT WILL BE PART OF THAT PROJECT LIMIT AS WELL AS THE OTHER AREA THAT WE'LL MAINTAIN.
SO THERE ARE A COUPLE OF WAIVERS THAT ARE INCLUDED WITH THE SAWGRASS HOTEL THAT'S CONSISTENT WITH THE PREVIOUSLY PROVED ORDINANCE AND THAT ALSO FOR THE HEIGHT LIMB FACINGTATION OF THRIVE 35 FEET P THE HOTEL IS UNCHANGED WITH A MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF 75.
THE HOTEL 65 FEET AND THE FUTURE PARKING STRUCTURE WILL BE LIMITED TO THE 40 FEET.
AS WELL AS REQUIRED PARKING FOR THE FACILITY DURING THE ORDINANCE -- DURING THE APPROVAL FOR THE PREVIOUS ORDINANCE THE CONSULTANT REQUIRED AN ASSESSMENT TO LOOK AT THE PARKING STANDARDS, AND THAT WAS ACCEPTED AS ADEQUATE PARKING, AND THEY PROPOSED A NEW PARKING STRUCTURE THAT WILL ADD SOME PARKING FOR THAT FACILITY BASED ON THE SHARED USES FOR THAT SITE.
[00:55:01]
IT WAS DETERMINED TO BE ADEQUAT ADEQUATE.SEE THE PUD MODIFICATIONS REQUESTED TO COMBINE THE TWO PROPERTIES, THEY'RE UNDER SIN MDB PAIDZ ON THE LIMITED ALLOWANCES WITH SHARED OWNERSHIP AND THE LAND HOSE WITHIN THE DRI.
THE COMBINED MDP UPDATES PHASING FOR PREVIOUSLY IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE HOTEL PRO-PROPERTY AND PROVIDES REDEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR THE BEACH CLUB PROPERTY.
NO CHANGES TO EXISTING USES ARE PROPOSED, ONLY UPDATES TO DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR FUTURE IMPROVEMENTS DUE TO AGE, HURRICANE DAMAGE AND EXPANSION TO MEET THE NEEDS OF THE COMMUNITY AND GUESTS.
STAFF DISCUSS NOT OBJECT TO THE REQUESTED WAIVERS BASED ON THE LIMIT DEVELOPMENT AREA OF THE PROJECT SITES, THE COMPATIBILITY WITH EXISTING IMPROVEMENTS, AND THE CONSISTENCY WITH ITS CHARACTER OF THE COMMUNITY.
THE PALM VALLEY PONTE VEDRA CHIEWCIAL REVIEW COMMITTEE HEARD THIS ITEM ON AUGUST 28TH AND VOTED 7 -- VOTED 5-0 TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL.
THE COMMITTEE STATED THAT THE PROPOSED RECONSTRUCTION OF THE RESTAURANT BUILDINGS APPEARED TO OCCUPY THE STATE AS WELL.
THERE AS NO CONCERN WITH THE ENCROACHMENT WITH THE BUFFER WALL THAT'S THERE DUE TO THAT EIGHT FOOT WALL THAT DIVIDES THAT FROM THE CONDO.
THE INCREASED HEIGHT WAS ALSO BRIEFLY DISCUSSED BASED ON THE CURRENT REQUIREMENTS FOR OCEANFRONT CONSTRUCTION AND THE ARC DID PROVIDE GENERAL COMMENTS ON THE PRELIMINARY SADOON OF THE CABANA CLUB STRUCTURE.
STAFF HAS BEEN CONTACTED BY THREE COMMUNITY MEMBERS FROM THE BREAKERS CONDOMINIUMS REQUESTING GENERAL INFORMATION.
DURING DISCUSSION OF THE PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS, THE RESIDENTS STATED NO OBJECTION TO THE MODIFICATION AND REDEVELOPMENT OF THE RESTAURANT BUILDING.
THE RESTAURANT'S WERE ASSURED THAT THE PROJECT AREA FOR RECONSTRUCTION DID NOT INCLUDE THE PUMPKINS POOL AND BEACH SIDE SACHS AREAS, RIS ON THE SOUTHERN PORTION OF THE PROPERTY.
AND STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL AND MAJOR MOD 2019-04 FOR THE SAWGRASS MAYOR JOT AND PROVIDE SIX FIEFNTIOND FACT TO SPHO THE MOST EXCELS FINDING TO SUPPORT A MOTION OF DENIAL.
STAFF NECESSITY ANITA REQUIREMENTS OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AND THE APPLICANT IS AVAILABLE IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS AND I'LL BE STANDING BY.
>> IF NO QUESTIONS, WE'D LOVE TO HAVE THE APPLICANT COME UP AND PRESENT.
MY NAME IS CARL SANDERS WITH PA 110 WO A1A FOAFORTSDZ SUITE 203.
I'M HERE ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT WHICH IS THE OWNER, CWI SAWGRASS LLC.
I'LL JUST SPEAK FOR A COUPLE OF MINUTES WHAT BEVERLY SAID AND ALSO GIVE YOU A LITTLE BIT OF CONTEXT AS TO WHY IT IS THAT WE'RE HERE AND HOW WE GOT TO THIS POINT.
WE'VE BEEN WORKING ON THIS WITH STAFF FOR ABOUT A YEAR NOW, I, AIR LITTLE BIT OVER A YEAR, AND THE FOCUS OF MY COMMENTS WILL BE ON THE CABANA CLUB PROPERTY BECAUSE THAT'S REALLY WHAT IS GENERATING THE NEED FOR THIS REZONING.
AFTER HURRICANE IRMA, IN CONSULTATION WITH THE FOLKS FROM THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT, IT WAS DETERMINED THAT WE HAD EXCEEDED WHAT'S CALLED THE SUBSTANTIAL DAMAGE THRESHOLD FOR REPAIRING EXISTING NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURES, AND THE STRUCTURE ITSELF WAS NOT CONFORMING UNDER BUILDING CODE BECAUSE IT WAS BUILT 35 YEARS AGO.
AND MATTHEW CAUSED DAMAGE, SIGNIFICANT DAMAGE BUT WE WERE ABLE TO REPAIR THOSE.
THEN WHEN IRMA CAME IT WAS JUST TOO MUCH.
SO WE HAVE TO RAISE AND DEMOLISH THE EXTINCTION BUILDINGS AND REBUILD IT, AND AS A CONSEQUENCE ZONING, THE LEGAL NON-CONFORMING STATUS WOOB WE WILL LOSE THAT AS WELL ASSOCIATED WITH STRUCTURE, THEREBY PROVIDING THE NEED FOR THIS REZONING AND COMING BEFORE THIS BOARD AND OTHERS.
SO THERE WERE A COUPLE OF WAYS WE LOOKED AT DOING THIS.
ONE WAS THE TRADITIONAL WAY WHICH IS USING YOUR CENGSAL ZONE DISTRICTS THAT ARE OUT THERE NEW ALONE PONTE VEDRA BOULEVARD AND LIMITING TO THE CABANA CLUB.
THE OTHER WAY WE ULTIMATELY STIED WITH STAFF'S INPUT AND RECOMMENDATION WAS THAT IT MADE A LOT OF SENSE JUST TO BRING THIS ALL INTO A SINGLE PUD.
EVEN THOUGH THE PROPERTIES ARE GEOGRAPHICALLY SEPARATED, THE HOTEL PROPERTY OVER THE PLAYER'S CLUB, AND THE CUB CABANA CLY THEY'VE ALWAYS BEEN UNDER THE SAME EARNSHIP AND THE BEACH CLUB IS AN INTEGRAL PAST THE SAWGRASS MARINA VOTER OPERATIONS BUT IT'S ALSO MORE THAN THAT BECAUSE IT'S ALSO A PRIVATE CLUB FOR AREA MEMBERS AND IN ADDITION TO THAT, THE BUILDING THAT WE ARE SEEKING TO REPLACE, THE SECOND FLOOR THAT OF RESTAURANT BUILDING IS A RESTAURANT THAT IS OPEN TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC DURING THE
[01:00:01]
EVENINGS.SO WHAT WE DECIDED TO DO WAS TOCLY IT INTO THE EXIST -- BRING IT INTO THE EXISTING PUD AND MDP FOR THE ENTIRE RESORT PROPERTY SO GOING FORWARD IN THE FUTURE IF THERE'S ANY ISSUE OR QUESTION AS TO ACTIVITIES CONCERNING THE RESULT, WHETHER IT BE ON THE OTHER SIDE OF A1A OR ON PONTE VEDRA BOULEVARD, THE ENTIRE FILE IS IN ONE FILE FOR STAFF TODAY, TEN YEARS FROM NOW, AND GOING FORWARD.
AND I'D ALSO AGAIN IT BRINGS IT CONSISTENT AS WELL WITH THE COMP PLAN DESIGNATION WHICH IS KIMBALL A DMI.
AFTER GOING BACK AND FORTH ON SEVERAL IT RAIFTIONZ THE SITE PLAN, WE WERE ABLE TO GET THIS DOWN TO WHERE WE WERE REQUESTING THREE WAIVERS FROM THIS BOARD FROM THE OVERLAY ZONING DISTRICT REGULATIONS, AS BEVERLY PREVIOUSLY INDICATED.
AND IN DOING SO, WE THINK THAT WE'RE LOOKING TO ACCOMPLISH AND WILL ACCOMPLISH THREE THINGS WITH THE RECONSTRUCTION OF THIS BUILDING.
FIRST AND FOREMOST YOU'RE GOING TO GET A NEW AND IMPROVED DINING ESTABLISHMENT.
AGAIN, THE EXISTING BUILDING WAS CONSTRUCTED ABOUT 35 YEARS AGO.
35 YEARS AGO WE DIDN'T HAVE THE ADA.
NO REQUIREMENT FOR ELEVATORS OR RAMPS AND OTHER ISSUES.
SO THE NEW BUILDING WILL BE COMPLETELY BROUGHT UP TO CODE INFRASTRUCTUREY AND AS WELL AS AESTHETICALLY.
ONE OF THE OTHER OBJECTIVES IS TO INCREASE OR ENHANCE THE VISUAL AND AESTHETIC APPEAL OF THE PONTE VEDRA COASTAL CORRIDOR FOR THOSE PEOPLE WHO LIVE IN PONTE VEDRA, WHO MAY NOT EVEN VISIT THE CLUB BUT THEY DRIVE BY EVERY DAY AND YOU HAVE A CORRIDOR OVERLAY FOR A REASON.
ONE WAY WE'RE LOOKING TO ENHANCE THAT IS WE'RE TAKING THE EXTINCTION SETBACK FROM PONTE VEDRA BOULEVARD, WHICH IS CURRENTLY NON-COMPLIANT WITH CODE, AND SHIFTING IT ABOUT 40 FEET TO THE EAST.
WE'RE GOING AS FAR EAST AS WE CAN TOWARDS THE OCEAN TO, AGAIN, MINIMIZE THE STRUCTURAL VIEW FROM PONTE VEDRA BOULEVARD.
IN ADDITION TO THAT, REAL BE RIFERRED REQUIRED TO IMLIET OVERHANSED ECIALG ARCHITECTURAL REQUIREMENTS AND THIS BOARD, ASSUMING YOU APPROVE THE ENTITLEMENTS WE'LL BE GOING BACK TO THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMITTEE TO FURTHER RESIGN SOME CONCEPTUAL IDEAS, PLANS WE HAVE IN PLACE, AND WE RECEIVED I THINK SOME REALLY GOOD FEEDBACK FROM ACR C RC AT OUR MEETING WIH THEM LAST MONTH IN TERMS OF WHAT THEY ARE GOING TO BE LOOKING FOR ON THE FINAL ARCHITECTURAL PLANS AND CONSTRUCTION.
AND LAST BUT CERTAINLY NOT LEAST, ONE OF THE OBJECTIVES WITH THIS PROPOSAL IS TO ENHANCE THE COMPATIBILITY WITH THE SURROUNDING USES AND STRUCTURES.
AND WE'VE DONE THIS WE THINK IN TWO WAYS.
ONE OF WHICH IS MOST -- THE MOST IMPACTED PROPERTY OWNER TO THIS PROJECT WOULD BE JUST TO OUR NORTH, LASS MIR AND AS CONDOMINIUM BUILDINGS AND WE HAVE MOVED THE BUILDINGS FARTHER SOUTH AS WE CAN TO INCREASE THE SEPARATION BETWEEN OUR PROPERTY OR OUR STRUCTURE AND THEIR STRUCTURE, AND THE OTHER THING THAT WE HAVE DONE, WHICH IS NOT APPARENT FROM THE SITE PLAN, IS WE'VE REMOVED THIS NEW BUILDING, WE WILL BE ABLE TO INCORPORATE THE STORAGE DEMANDS FOR THAT FACILITY WILL ALL BE INSIDE BECAUSE OVER THE YEARS WHAT HAS HAPPENED IS YOU HAVE A HODGEPODGE OF OUTDOOR STORAGE STRUCTURES THAT ARE BEHIND THE EXISTING STRUCTURE AND IN THAT NO MAN'S LAND, IT'S SUPPOSED TO BE A BUFFER AREA, WHICH IS NOT TODAY WEBSITES ON CRETE AND STORAGE AREAS, AND, QUITE FRANKLY, AN EYESORE FOR THE FOLKS TO THE NORTH OF US.
THAT WILL BE COMPLETELY ELIMINATED AND THE FOLKS AT LAA MIRANDAS ARE VERY EXCITED ABOUT THAT WITH THE FEEDBACK WE HAVE GOTTEN FROM THEM.
IN TERMS OF THE HEIGHT, AS BEVERLY INDICATED, THE WAIVER, WE'RE QUESTIONING UP TO 45 FEET, AND WHAT WE HAVE DONE IS THE EXISTING STRUCTURE IS ROUGHLY 4.
THE NEW STRUCTURE WILL BE THE SAM HEIGHT, ROUGHLY 5141 FEET TALL.
BUT YOU'RE GOING TO ADD ANOTHER FOUR, APPROXIMATELY FOUR FEET, A LITTLE BIT MORE THAN FOUR FEET NOT BECAUSE OF THE STRUCTURE ITSELF BUT BECAUSE OF FEMA AND DEP AND STATE BUILDING CODE REQUIREMENTS WITH THE FLOODING AND HURRICANES AND THE LOOK SB OH THAT'S WHERE THAT INCREASE IN HEIGHT IS COMING FROM.
THE STRUCTURE ITSELF WILL REMAIN THE SAME HEIGHT BUT IT WILL BE ELEVATED A LITTLE BIT OVER FOUR FEET TO ACCOUNT FOR THOSE NEW CODE REQUIREMENTS.
AND LAST BUT NOT LEAST, JUST AGAIN TO SAY IN TERMS OF THE
[01:05:03]
PUBLIC OUTREACH EFFORTS, WE HAVE EXPENDED A CONSIDERABLE AMOUNT OF TIME TRYING TO GET FEEDBACK FROM THE AREA RESIDENTS AND CLUB MEMBERS AND THE LIKE, AND WE HAD A -- WE SENT OUT HUNDREDS OF NOTICES AND HOSTED A PUBLIC MEETING AT THE SAWGRASS MARRIOTT EARLIER THIS SUMMER IN JULY, AND WE HAD A TURNOUT OF I THINK ABOUT 175 PEOPLE SHOWED UP, AND AN OPPORTUNITY TO SHARE WITH THEM OUR PLANS AND WHAT WE'RE SHARING WITH YOU TODAY TO ADDRESS ANY COMMENTS OR CONCERNS AND JUST REALLY KEEP PEOPLE IN THE LOOP AND LET THEM KNOW WHAT'S GOING ON AND GET SOME FEEDBACK FROM THEM AS TO BOTH THE PLANS FOR REOPENING THE RESTAURANT AND OTHER OPERATIONAL ISSUES AT THE CLUB.AND THAT BEING SAID, I'LL CERTAINLY BE AVAILABLE FOR ANY COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS THAT THE BOARD MEMBERS MAY HAVE, AND WE APPRECIATE THIS OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT THIS TO YOU GUYS.
I'M NOT FAMILIAR WITH THE RELATIVE HEIGHTS OF THE ADJACENT BUILDINGS.
LIKE THE LODGE, HOW HIGH IS THE LODGE? HOW MANY FEET IS THAT? I KNOW IT'S LIKE -- IT LOOKS LIKE IT'S FOUR STORIES BECAUSE OF THE GARAGE UNDERNEATH IT, SO YOUR BUILDING WOULD BE NO HIGHER THAN THE LODGE WAS MY GUESS, BUT I WASN'T SURE.
>> THROUGH THE CHAIR, I'M GOING TO SAY I BELIEVE THAT'S THE CASE.
I DON'T HAVE THE EXACT HEIGHT OF LODGE BUT I'M PRETTY CERTAIN THAT THE LODGE IS THE TALLEST STRUCTURE ALONG THAT SMALL STRETCH THERE FROM CORONA TO THE CLUB, AND I DO KNOW THAT THE LAS MIRANDAS IS AIR LITTLE BIT SHORTER THAN THE LODGE AND WE ARE RIGHT ABOUT THE SAME HEIGHT AS THE LAS MIRANDAS BUT I'M NOT SURE WHAT THE HEIGHT IS OF THE LODGE.
>> AND THEN THE ONLY OTHER QUESTION IS IF I LOOKED AT A PLAN SWRIEWB IF YOU HAD A RELATIVE SKETCH OF THE VOLUME OF THE BUILDING BECAUSE RIGHT NOW THERE'S A BUILDING THAT'S GOT A LITTLE ROOF, IT'S GOT A CUPOLA.
IS IT GOING TO BE A MORE RECTANGULAR FACING BUILDING? HOW MASSIVE WILL IT BE FROM THE STREET?
>> IT IS, AGAIN THROUGH THE CHAIR, THAT'S A REALLY GOOD QUESTION, IT'S GOING TO, IN TERMS OF SQUARE FOOTAGE, IT'S GOING TO INCREASE WE'RE ESTIMATING ABOUT 300 SQUARE FEET, A LITTLE BIT MORE THAN 300 SQUARE FEET, WHICH IS PRINCIPALLY BECAUSE OF THE ADDITION OF THE ELEVATORS TO ACCESS THE ELEVATOR, TO ACCESS THE SECOND FLOOR, BUT OTHER THAN THAT MOST OF THE MASSING IN TERMS OF THE SITE WORK IS NON-AIR CONDITIONED AREAS.
IT'S GOING TO BE THE RAMPS AND ALL OF THAT IS GOING TO BE, AGAIN, NOT AT STREET LEVEL BUT AT GROUND LEVEL.
IT'S ONE OF THE REASONS, ANOTHER REASON THAT WE'RE PUSHING IT BACK SO FAR EAST SO THAT WE CAN GET THAT SERIES OF RAMPS TO ALLOW FOR THE ACCESS THERE AS WELL, BUT NONE OF THAT WILL BE VISIBLE FROM THE STREET BECAUSE OF THE WALL AND THE LANDSCAPING THAT WE HAVE THERE.
>> IS THERE ANY OTHER PRESENTATION FROM THE APPLICANT OR IS THAT IT? IF SO, I'D LIKE TO OPEN IT UP FOR ANY PUBLIC COMMENT.
ANY QUESTIONS FROM ITS BOARD? I WOULD EXPLAIN ENTERTAIN A.
MOTION TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF 2019-04 MARRIOTT, SAWGRASS MARRIOTT RESORT BASED UPON THE SIX FINDINGS OF FACT AS PROVIDED IN THE STAFF REPORT.
LOOK FORWARD TO SEEING THE NEW BUILDING.
[Staff Report]
ANY OTHER STAFF REPORTS TODAY THAT WE NEED TO BE AWARE OF? HAVE YOU HAD ANY TIME TO GIVE THOUGHT TO WHEN WE MIGHT ADDRESS THE FURTHER DISCUSSION OF THE FENCING?SO WE CAN CERTAINLY LOOK AT THAT.
[01:10:02]
BOARD HAS DISCUSSED FENCING ISSUES PREVIOUSLY, AND I THINK THERE IS A SET OF CODE CHANGES THAT ARE POTENTIALLY GOING FORWARD THAT MAY CONTRADICT OR BE A LITTLE DIFFERENT.I WANT TO BE CLEAR ON WHAT IT IS THAT THIS BOARD WOULD WANT TO LOOK AT WITH TROORTD FENCING HEIGHTS.
IS THERE SOMETHING UNIQUE IN THIS THAT SET IT OFF? IN OTHER WORDS ARE WE LOOKING AT SIDE SETBACKS THAT'S DIFFERENT FROM WHAT WE LOOKED AT BECAUSE WE WANT TO MAKE SURE WE GET CLEAR DIRECTION AND MAKE SURE WE TAKE THAT DIRECTION.
>> WELL, I THINK IT'S THE DISCUSSION OF HAVING A SIX FOOT FENCE ONLY PERMISSIBLE ALONGSIDE THE STRUCTURE IN BETWEEN PROPERTIES, BOTH HAVING A DECORATIVE SIDE ON EACH SIDE.
WE COULD HAVE A DISCUSSION OF ADDING BORDERING DUVAL COUNTY AT SIX FOOT OR JUST LEAVE THAT FOR VARIANCES.
I DON'T KNOW WHICH WAY YOU'RE THINKING ON THAT.
>> I THINK WE NEED TO ALSO ADDRESS ALONG DUVAL COUNTY LINE BECAUSE THERE ARE GOING TO BE OTHER PLACES REPLACED AND WE'LL BE HAVING TO DEAL WITH IT AGAIN.
>> THOSE ARE THE ONLY CHANGES I'M AWARE OF.
ARE THERE ANY OTHER ADDITIONS THAT THE BOARD KNOWS THAT WE TALKED ABOUT THAT YOU'D LIKE TO SEE ADDRESSED?
>> I AGREE FROM THE FRONT OF THE HOUSE TO THE BACK O THE HOUSE AT SIX FOOT.
>> THE ONLY QUESTION I'D JUST LIKE US TO THINK ABOUT IS WHOSE HOUSE BECAUSE EACH HOUSE IS A DIFFERENT DEPTH, AND HOW WE'RE GOING TO DETERMINE WHAT WOULD BE THE APPROPRIATE LENGTH BECAUSE WHAT I HEAR YOU SAYING IS THAT THERE'S A DESIRE TO HIDE UTILITIES AND STUFF THAT YOUR NEIGHBOR MAY NOT WANT TO SEE AS OPPOSED TO PEOPLE WHO WOULD PREFER HAVING THEIR ENTIRE YARD COMPLETELY PRIVATE WHERE THEY WOULD ENCIRCLE IT.
>> I THINK IT'S JUST THE LENGTH OF YOUR SIDE OF YOUR HOUSE.
IF YOU HAVE A THIN RANCH, IT'S GOING TO BE A SMALLER FENCE.
IF YOU HAVE A DEEP HOUSE, IT'S GOING TO BE A LONGER.
SO IT'S JUST DETERMINED ON HOW THE DEPTH OF YOUR STRUCTURE IS.
>> BUT THIS IS THE HOUSE AND NOT INCLUSIVE OF A POOL.
>> JUST THE STRUCTURE, THE MAIN STRUCTURE.
AND LIKE I SAID, YOU CAN'T GET THAT MUCH VEGETATION SOMETIMES WITH POOL EQUIPMENT, AND THAT WAY YOU'RE NOT LOOKING STRAIGHT OUT AT THE HOUSE NEXT DOOR WITH THE POOL EQUIPMENT AND EXTERIOR, THINGS LIKE THAT.
FROM MY UNDERSTANDING, IT WOULD JUST BE A SECTION OF HOUSE MOVED FARTHER TOWARDS THE STREET OR TOWARDS THE RAFFERTY REAY THAN THE STRUCTURE ITSELF.
>> MR. CHAIR, SO I UNDERSTAND, AND I'M LOOKING AT PRACTICALITY OF ENFORCEMENT HERE, IF WE'RE LOOKING FROM THE STREET VIEW AND WE HAVE A SIDERD YA FENCE THAT RUNS ALONG FROM THE FRONT TO THE REAR, A SIDE YARD FENCE, AND A PORTION OF THAT MAY BE FOUR FEET AND WHEN IT GETS JAINT TO THE STRUCTURE THEN IT WOULD GO UP TO SIX FEET SAY AND BY THE TIME IT PASSES THE STRUCTURE OR GETS TO THE END, THE REAR OF THE STRUCTURE IT WOULD STOP, GO BACK DOWN TO FOUR FEET.
SO WHAT I WANTED TO SAY IS WE CAN CERTAINLY LOOK INTO THAT BUT I WANTED TO STHAIT ENFORCEMENT OF THAT AND -- SAY THAT THE ENFORCEMENT OF THAT AND THE VISUAL OF THOSE FENCES, THAT MAY BE DIFFICULT TO ENFORCE AND CONSTRUCT.
I JUST WANT TO THROW THAT OUT THERE IF YOU CAN IMAGINE ALL THE DIFFERENT FENCES THEY MIGHT HAVE.
WE CAN CERTAINLY LOOK INTO THAT, WHAT IS POSSIBLE.
ALSO IS TO JUST CONSIDER EACH CAUSE AND EACH VARIANCE TO LOOK AT AS I THINK THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY ATTORNEY DOES EXPLAIN, EACH CASE IS UNIQUE.
I KNOW THERE'S CONCERN WITH PRECEDENCE AND THINGS OF THAT NATURE, BUT EACH CASE IS DIFFERENT AND THAT'S SOMETHING FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION.
HOWEVER, I'M NOT SAYING WE WON'T LOOK AT IT.
WE CAN CERTAINLY LOOK AT IT FOR YOU.
I JUST WANTED TO SAY THAT THAT MIGHT BE A DIFFICULT, IF THE DISCUSSION COMES THAT, YES, WE WOULD LIKE TO LOOK AT THAT, IT MIGHT BE DIFFICULT TO ENFORCE.
SO I GUESS I HAVE ONE QUESTION.
WHAT PROBLEM ARE WE TRYING TO SOLVE? PRIVACY OR OBSCURING THE VIEW OF MECHANICAL THINGS ON THE SIDES OF HOUSES?
>> BECAUSE I ALSO THINK ABOUT THE PERSON WHO -- WHERE THERE HASN'T BEEN A FENCE BEFORE, MAYBE THEY DON'T WANT A FENCE, THEY LIKE THE VIEW, SO FOR ONE PERSON MAKES ONE HOMEOWNER HAPPY AND MIGHT MAKE THE OTHER HOMEOWNER LESS HAPPY.
>> WELL, THEY WOULD IT WOULDO HAVE BUILT ON YOUR SIDE.
JUST LIKE WHEN I PLANTED MY HEDGES BHAIBD SURE THEY WERE ON
[01:15:01]
MY PROPERTY SO I COULD DICTATE HOW TALL THEY WERE.THAT'S WHERE THE PROPERTY LINE DIVIDES.
>> MR. CHAIR, JUST THINKING ABOUT THESE PERMUTATIONS, WE CAN BRING BACK SOME PROPOSED LANGUAGE BUT I CAN ALREADY IN MY HEAD CONSTRUCT SCENARIOS LIKE WHAT IF YOUR ADJACENT LOT IS UNDEVELOPED AND THERE IS NO HOUSE ON THERE OR WHETHER OR NOT IT'S TO GO TO A MORE OBJECTIVE STANDARD RATHER THAN THE LENGTH OF THE STRUCTURE.
IT'S THE SIDE YARD FROM IN BETWEEN THE FRONT EXPWRARTD REAR YARD BECAUSE THOSE ARE TYPICALLY AROUND APPROXIMATELY 40 FEET.
SO WHERE YOU COULD POTENTIALLY IN THE FUTURE PLACE A STRUCTURE, WE CAN ALSO LOOK AT THAT.
OTHERWISE, YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE AN ALMOST ON A CASE-BY-CASE SCENARIO DEPENDING ON HOW LONG A PERSON CONSTRUCTS THEIR HOUSE WILL DICTATE THE, I GUESS HOW TALL THEIR SIDE YARD FENCE WOULD BE, IF THAT'S SOMETHING THAT THE BOARD ACTUALLY WANTS TO SEE, WE CAN DO THAT, DEPENDING ON WHICH SIDE OF THE PROPERTY YOUR FENCE CAN ONLY GO THE LENGTH OF YOUR HOUSE.
YOU'RE NEIGHBOR WHO HAS A LONGER HOUSE CAN BUILD A FENCE THAT IS LONGER THAN YOUR FENCE AND SIX FOOT TALL.
THAT'S KIND OF THE SCENARIO THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT, IS THAT DEPENDING UPON HOW YOU CONSTRUCT YOUR HOUSE WILL DICTATE HOW HIGH YOUR SIDE YARD FENCE IS GOING TO BE, AND IF THAT'S WHAT THE BOARD, YOU KNOW, IS DIRECTING STAFF TO CRAFT LANGUAGE FOR, WE CAN DO THAT.
THAT'S GOING TO BE THE SCENARIO.
>> AND YOU MAY GET SOME REQUESTS, OBVIOUSLY TODAY'S REQUEST I THINK INCLUDED THAT, IS THAT SOME PEOPLE MAY WANT OR A LOT OF PEOPLE MAY WANT THAT EXTENDED OUT ACROSS THEIR POOLS, JUST KNOW THAT THAT REQUEST MIGHT COME IN TOO.
>> I'M SURE IT WILL, BUT THEN WE GET INTO THE PROBLEM THAT I HEAR NEIGHBORS SAYING, WELL, I DON'T WANT IT TAKEN ALL THE WAY DOWN TO THE PROPERTY BECAUSE MY VIEW DOWN TO THE LAGOON WILL BE BLOCKED.
CIEFNTSD THE MINIMAL AMOUNT THAT WOULD SATISFY PRIVACY ISSUES AND THE BASIC PRIVACY AND VISUAL LOOK OUT OF YOUR WINDOW, BEYOND THAT THEY'LL HAVE TO DO IT WITH VEGETATION.
I HAVE A NEIGHBOR THAT'S COME TO ME RIGHT NOW.
THEY'VE HAD FOR 15 YEARS A FENCE BETWEEN THEIR HOUSE AND THE NEIGHBOR'S HOUSE.
IT DOESN'T GO ANY FARTHER FORWARD OR BEYOND THE EXISTING BUILDING STRUCTURE OF THE HOUSE.
AND EVERYBODY'S HAPPY WITH IT FOR 15 YEARS.
NO ONE SEES IT EXCEPT THESE TWO NEIGHBORS, WHICH MUTUALLY DID THIS 15 YEARS AGO AND LIKED THE PRIVACY.
IT'S A BEAUTIFUL FENCE ON BOTH SIDES.
THEY PAINTED IT RECENTLY AND SOMEBODY CAUGHT NOTICE OF IT AND THOUGHT IT WAS NEW BECAUSE IT WAS MAINTAINED AND PAINTED.
SO FOR 15 YEARS THEY'VE BEEN HAPPY.
NOW ALL OF A SUDDEN THE COUNTY COMES AND SAYS, CUT THAT DOWN TO FOUR FEET.
I'M JUST THINKING WHAT IS THAT SOLVING FOR OUR COMMUNITY? NOTHING.
IT'S JUST -- I THINK IT'S JUST WRONG.
SO THIS IS TO ME THE MINIMAL PROTECTION YOU CAN AT LEAST HAVE TO DO THAT, AND IF I GET VOTED DOWN, THAT'S FINE, BUT THAT'S MY OPINION.
>> IF THERE ARE NO FURTHER STAFF REPORTS OR ANY OTHER AGENDAS, THEN I WOULD LOOK FOR A MOTION TO ADJOURN.
>>
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.