[00:00:06]
GOOD EVENING, EVERYONE. WE WILL CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER FOR SEPTEMBER 10, 2024.
[CALL TO ORDER]
STAFF, WOULD YOU PLEASE CALL THE ROLL SO WE CAN ESTABLISH A QUORUM.>> COMMISSIONER MICHAEL CASSADY.
>. COMMISSIONER BETH COSWORTH.
>> COMMISSIONER DAVID THOMPSON.
>> THANK YOU. NOW THAT WE'VE ESTABLISHED A QUORUM, IF ANYONE WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK BEFORE THE COMMISSION, PLEASE SUBMIT A GREEN COMMENT CARD TO THE SECRETARY.
SPEAKERS WILL HAVE THREE MINUTES TO EXPRESS THEIR COMMENTS.
CITIZEN COMMENTS WILL BE NOTED BY STAFF FOR FOLLOW UP AS APPROPRIATE.
THE COMMISSION WILL NOT DISCUSS THESE ITEMS AT THIS MEETING.
NEXT ARE CITIZEN COMMENTS UNRELATED TO AGENDA ITEMS. THE BOARD WILL NOT DISCUSS THESE ITEMS THIS EVENING.
AS MENTIONED, ANY ISSUES WILL BE NOTED BY STAFF FOR FOLLOW UPS AS APPROPRIATE.
STAFF, ARE THERE ANY COMMENT CARDS FROM THE PUBLIC OR ARE THERE ANY MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK?
>> WE HAVE NO COMMENTS AT THIS TIME.
>> THANK YOU. NEXT ON THE AGENDA IS A MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES.
[MINUTES]
SINCE THOSE WERE NOT INCLUDED IN THE PACKAGE, WE'LL DEFER THOSE TO THE NEXT MEETING.NOW TO THE REGULAR ORDER OF BUSINESS.
NORMAL ORDER OF BUSINESS FOR HEARINGS INCLUDES THE EX PARTE COMMUNICATIONS, SWEARING IN OF WITNESSES, APPLICANT PRESENTATION, STAFF PRESENTATION, PUBLIC COMMENTS, AND MOTION ON THE FLOOR AND VOTES.
THERE'S NO OLD BUSINESS, SO WE WILL START WITH A NEW BUSINESS OF INLET VILLAGE MARKET, SMALL SCALE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AND SITE PLAN APPROVED APPLICATION.
THIS IS A QUASI JUDICIAL ITEM. YES.
>> THERE'S AN ITEM BEFORE THAT, THE WELDWOOD VARIANT.
>> OKAY. APOLOGIES. THAT WAS FLIPPED AROUND IN MY PAGE HERE.
[B.1. 708 Weldwood Road]
SO THIS IS A VARIANCE REQUEST TO INCREASE THE SIDE YARD FENCE.DO THE BOARD MEMBERS HAVE ANY EX PARTE DISCLOSURES? COMMISSIONER VINCENT, WE'LL START WITH YOU.
>> YES. I WENT BY THE SITE AND I ALSO SPOKE WITH THE HOMEOWNER, AND I ALSO SPOKE WITH STAFF TODAY.
>> THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER GEISINGER? JUST STOPPED BY THE SITE.
>> FOR ME? COMMISSIONER DUNNING.
I DROVE BY THE PROPERTY AND I TALKED TO GARRETT FROM STAFF.
>> I SPOKE WITH GARRETT WATSON.
I ALSO WALKED THE SITE AND SPOKE WITH ONE OF THE NEIGHBORS.
>> COMMISSIONER BLUM. I DROVE BY THE SITE.
>> THANK YOU. SO AT THIS POINT, WE'LL HAVE THE APPLICANT GIVE YOU A PRESENTATION.
>> GOOD EVENING. MY NAME IS JIM FROGGER.
I'M A ZONING CONSULTANT TO THE PROPERTY OWNER, MR. BRANT SCHREURS.
I ACTUALLY START MY PRESENTATION NOW, AM I CORRECT? NOBODY HERE WAS SWORN IN.
BUT MAYBE WE DON'T NEED TO BE SWORN IN.
>> ANYBODY'S GOING TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM, PLEASE STAND AND RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND. YOU'LL BE SWORN IN.
>> DO YOU SOLEMNLY SWEAR UNDER THE PENALTIES OF PERJURY THAT THE TESTIMONY YOU'RE ABOUT TO GIVE IN THIS MATTER IS THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH?
>> THANK YOU FOR THAT. ASSUMING WE GET APPROVED.
I WANT TO MAKE SURE THE RECORD IS PERFECTLY CLEAR. LET ME BEGIN.
UNDER STAFF REPORT, ON PAGE 2, IT SHOWS THE TIMELINE OF EVENTS.
I'D LIKE TO POINT OUT MR. SCHREURS APPLIED FOR HIS FENCE PERMIT ON OCTOBER '22,
[00:05:02]
WE ARE NOW AT AUGUST, SEPTEMBER '24.TWO YEARS LATER, IT TOOK US TWO YEARS TO GET HERE.
I'VE BEEN ON BOARD FOR EIGHT MONTHS AFTER MR. SCHREURS WAS NOT ABLE TO RESOLVE THE SITUATION.
OBVIOUSLY, YOU CAN TELL BY THE STAFF REPORT, HE OBTAINED HIS PERMITS.
HE PROCEEDED TO GO AHEAD AND PUT THE FENCE IN.
THE FENCE CONTRACTOR SUGGESTED BEEFING UP THE FOUNDATION OF THE FENCE FOR TWO REASONS.
ONE, IT WOULD ADD STRENGTH TO THE FENCE.
NUMBER 2, THERE WAS A SLOPE ON THE EDGE OF THE SIDEWALK THERE AND THAT WOULD ALLOW MR. SCHREURS TO FILL THAT IN BECAUSE HE HAS ASTRO TURF ON THE INSIDE OF THE YARD WITH HIS PUTTING CREAM.
THOSE WERE THE TWO REASONS HE PUT THAT [INAUDIBLE] AND IT'S NOT A FOUNDATION.
AFTER THE PERMIT WAS ISSUED, HE WENT AHEAD AND HE HAD THE FENCE DONE.
THEN HE APPLIED FOR A DRIVEWAY PERMIT TO GO THROUGH THE SWALE.
DURING THE REVIEW OF THE DRIVEWAY PERMIT, THE CITY ENGINEER LOOKED AT THE FENCE AND SAID, IT'S OVER SIX FEET.
THEY RESCINDED THAT PERMIT, AND THEY WOULD NOT ISSUE THE DRIVEWAY PERMIT BECAUSE THERE WAS A VIOLATION ON THE FENCE.
ACTUALLY, THERE WAS NO VIOLATION.
THERE HAS NEVER BEEN A CODING VIOLATION ON THIS FENCE.
WE'VE BEEN WORKING WITH THE CITY ALL ALONG FOR THE TWO YEARS, AND THEY'VE HELD OFF FROM DOING THE CODE ENFORCEMENT VIOLATION.
ONE OF THE REASONS WAS AFTER I CAME ON BOARD, I MET WITH THE CITY ENGINEER, AND HE SAID THAT WHILE WE MADE AN ARRANGEMENT IF WE APPLIED FOR THE VARIANCE, HE WOULD ISSUE THE DRIVEWAY PERMIT.
THE DRIVEWAY HAS A SWELL BETWEEN THE PROPERTY LINE AND THE RIGHT OF WAY.
SO MR. SCHREURS HAS AN RV THAT HE PARKS IN THAT DRIVEWAY AND IT'S JUST CAUSING A MESS.
SO THE CITY WENT AHEAD AND THEY DID ISSUE THE DRIVEWAY PERMIT BECAUSE WE APPLIED FOR THE VARIANCE.
SO A COUPLE OF ITEMS I'D LIKE TO POINT OUT ON THE STAFF REPORT.
FIRST OF ALL, AT THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE IT TALKS ABOUT FLOOD PREVENTION AND PROTECTION.
MR. SCHREURS DID PUT A LITTLE BIT OF FILL IN THERE ARE 2.5 CUBIC YARDS.
HE RIPPED OUT A DOZEN EUREKA PONDS WERE 15, 16 FEET HIGH ROOT BARS THIS BIG.
HE TORE ALL THOSE OUT ON THE SIDEWALK ON HIS PROPERTY LINE.
USED THEM WITH THE FILL FOR THAT.
THEN THEY PUT THAT FOUNDATION BLOCK IN.
AFTER THE PERMIT WAS RESCINDED, WE ATTEMPTED TO GET A PERMIT FOR A FOUNDATION PERMIT.
WE HAD AN ARCHITECTURAL PLANS SHOWING THE BLOCK AT THE BOTTOM OF THE FENCE.
AND THAT WASN'T DENIED, BUT THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT SAID, YOU DON'T NEED TO DO THIS.
THE OTHER THING WAS THE STAFF REPORT THAT TALKS ABOUT HOW ELEVATED FENCES THAT ARE ON RETAINING WALLS, 3-4 FEET HIGH CAN CAUSE A BIG SHADOW ON THE ADJACENT PROPERTY.
WE'RE TALKING EIGHT INCHES HERE.
WE'RE ALSO TALKING TONY PENA ROAD FRONTAGE.
THERE'S NO SHADOWS IN ANY NEIGHBORS.
THE OTHER ITEM I'D LIKE TO BRING UP IS THEY TALKED ABOUT AN UNCOMFORTABLE PEDESTRIAN ENVIRONMENT, WALKING DOWN A SIX FOOT ASPHALT A BEAT UP ASPHALT SIDEWALK.
IT'S LOCATED BETWEEN THE HIGH SCHOOL AND THE AQUATIC CENTER.
HUNDREDS OF KIDS WALK DOWN THAT SIDEWALK EVERY DAY.
IT'S NOT AN UNCOMFORTABLE ENVIRONMENT.
IF THE STAFF THE SIDES AND THE BOARD APPROVES THIS VARIANCE, THE OWNER WOULD BE GLAD TO PUT IN THREE OR FOUR OR FIVE SHADE TREES OR PALM TREES ON THE INSIDE OF THIS FENCE.
OTHERWISE, IF THE TOWN ORDINANCE ALLOWS STREET SCAPING, WE WILL PUT SOME REALLY NICE TREES IN THE RIGHT AWAY EASEMENT AREA WHERE THE TOWN HAS ALL THESE DON'T PARK SIGNS, NO PARKING ON THE SHOULDER, OR THE SIGNAGE.
WE CAN PUT SOME REALLY NICE TREES IN THERE.
THAT WILL TAKE CARE OF THAT SITUATION.
THEN OTHER THAN THAT, I READ ROBERT'S RULES ABOUT THIS.
I READ THE UNDERSTANDING OF HOW THE ZONING AND PLANNING COMMISSION IS FORMED AND YOUR RIGHTS AND PRIVILEGES.
I ALSO KNOW THAT YOU RECOMMEND SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS, REZONING AND THINGS OF THAT MATTER TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR APPROVAL.
I CAN TELL YOU THAT YOU DO HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO OVERRIDE STAFF.
YOU CAN MAKE YES OR NO DECISIONS.
THIS ISN'T A MATTER OF A PROPERTY OWNER VERSUS THE TOWN. IT'S NOT THAT AT ALL.
IT'S A MATTER OF WHERE THE TOWN TAKES THE MEASUREMENT.
WOULD YOU MEASURE THE HEIGHT OF THE FENCE? THEY TALK ABOUT, WHO'S GRADE?
[00:10:03]
WHOSE SIDE OF THE FENCE DO YOU MEASURE A FENCE ON? THE TOWN SIDE OR THE PROPERTY OWNER'S SIDE? SO THAT'S WHERE WE'RE AT.MR. SCHREURS, WE'D LIKE TO DO A SHORT PRESENTATION. THANK YOU.
>> AND JUST TO POINT OUT WE ARE EXACTLY SIX FEET TO THE INCH ON THE INSIDE.
I WANTED TO OF COURSE, THIS IS GOING TO GO, OR I GUESS I GOT TO READ UP HERE BECAUSE IT'S GOING ON OF THE RADAR.
I WANT TO SHARE A LITTLE BIT ABOUT MYSELF AND WHERE I COME FROM.
I WANT YOU TO KNOW WHO I AM AND A CHARACTER, THE OPINION OF ME.
I'M HERE TO IMPROVE THE COMMUNITY.
I USE JUPITER CONNECT, I REPORT ITEMS I SEE AND KEEP OUR CITY LOOKING AMAZING, OUR TOWN LOOKING AMAZING. I'M NOT A RULE BREAKER.
I HAVE DONE EVERYTHING THE CITY HAS ASKED ME TO DO AND MORE TO AVOID A MEETING TODAY.
IF ANYBODY, WHICH WE'LL GET INTO THIS PRESENTATION WOULD HAVE TOLD ME THAT THIS IS WHERE I WAS GOING WHEN I PUT THE SENDER BLOCK DOWN, YOU CAN GUARANTEE THAT I WOULD HAVE NEVER DONE IT.
I PERSONALLY DON'T WANT TO SPEND ANY MORE MONEY.
THIS PROCESS HAS BEEN ONE OF THE WORST EXPERIENCES OF LIVING IN FLORIDA SINCE I GOT HERE THREE YEARS AGO, I BOUGHT MY HOUSE ON FACE TIME. I WAS ONE OF THOSE GUYS.
IT'S TAKEN TIME, MONEY, AND SLEEP AWAY FROM MY FAMILY.
IT'S BEEN TWO YEARS NOW SINCE I STARTED THIS PROCESS FOR THIS FENCE PERMIT.
I'M PERSONALLY A CHRIST BELIEVER.
I'M A FULL TIME FATHER TO BROOKLYN.
I WAS BORN IN IOWA, I'M A MIDWESTERNER.
I WAS RAISED IN SOUTH PADERAL, TEXAS.
I'M VERY FAMILIAR WITH THE WATER AND THE WEATHER. THAT'S WHY I CHOSE HERE.
I WANTED A HOME IN FLORIDA MORE THAN ANYTHING AND I WANT FIVE BEFORE I RETIRE IN OUR AREA.
CURRENTLY, I'M A MULTI STATE LENDER FOR WATERSTONE MORTGAGE, WHICH IS ALSO LOCATED HERE IN JUPITER.
I WORK LOCALLY AND I LIVE LOCALLY. WHY FLORIDA AND WHEN? I BOUGHT MY HOUSE 708 WELDWOOD ROAD IN SEPTEMBER OF 2021.
I WANTED MORE OPPORTUNITY FOR MY FAMILY.
I WANTED A BETTER SCHOOL FOR MY DAUGHTER WITH A RATED SCHOOLS IN JUPITER, AND I WANTED TO BE CLOSE TO THE WATER.
THERE'S MY DAUGHTER. SHE'S 14.
SHE ATTENDS JMS. SHE IS A TUMBLE BEE GYMNASTICS LEADER.
SHE WAS BAPTIZED AT EIGHT, AND SHE TEACHES AT CHRIST FELLOWSHIP.
SHE MOVED HERE MARCH OF '22, MAKING ME A FULL TIME DAD. THIS IS OUR LITTLE ZOE.
THIS WILL COME UP IN A MINUTE.
SHE'S A SEVEN-YEAR-OLD LITTLE PUP.
SHE'S THE CUTEST THING IN THE WORLD, AND SHE GOES EVERYWHERE WITH US.
SHE WAS ONE OF THE REASONS I NEEDED TO BUILD A SECURE FENCE.
SHE WAS RUN OVER ON TONY PENA.
WE HAD TO GET HER A NEW HIP AND SHE'S DOING GREAT TODAY.
HOW DID I GET HERE TO THIS MEETING? I WAS IN A BUSINESS EXECUTIVE MEETING THAT ROGER HILL CAME TO AS A CITY BUSINESS DEVELOPER GUEST.
HE SPOKE VERY HIGHLY OF THE PROCESS, HOW EASY AND QUICK IT WAS TO GET A PERMIT.
I FOLLOWED HIM BACK TO HIS OFFICE THAT DAY TO DISCUSS MY FENCE PROJECT.
HE HELPED ME PRINT MY SURVEY, DREW ON THE PAPER WHERE THE FENCE SHOULD GO AND GOT IT SIGNED THAT DAY, IF I REMEMBER CORRECTLY OR AT LEAST THAT WEEK.
I ASKED, PERSONALLY, WHAT HAPPENS IF THIS FENCE IS OVER SIX FOOT.
I WAS TOLD VERY SPECIFICALLY THERE ARE NO INSPECTIONS FOR NON POOL BARRIER FENCES.
I SAID, IS IT OKAY FOR 6'3'' OR 6'6''? HE SAID, I CAN'T TELL YOU IT'S OKAY, BUT YOU WON'T RECEIVE AN INSPECTOR, WINK WINK.
I WANTED TO PUT A DRIVEWAY TURNOUT.
THAT WAS DISCUSSED IN ONE OF THESE MEETINGS.
AWAY I GO BUILDING THIS BEAUTIFUL FENCE ON TONY PENA.
I'D LIKE TO POINT OUT RIGHT HERE, ON THE LEFT SIDE, YOU'LL SEE THAT THE DRIVEWAY PERMIT IS CIRCLED.
THEN YOU'LL SEE ON THE RIGHT SIDE THE DRIVEWAY IS CIRCLED WITH A BLUE LINE AND A RED LINE.
THE BLUE LINE IS THE EXISTING 90 DEGREE ON THE FENCE.
THE RED LINE IS THE 45 DEGREE, THEY EXPECT ME TO AMEND IT TO.
NO ONE ON MY ORIGINAL PLAN DREW FOR ME A 35 OR 40 DEGREE ANGLE OF THIS FENCE CORNER WHEN I BUILT IT. I PUT MIRRORS UP.
THEY TOLD ME TO TAKE THEM DOWN THAT I HAVE TO HAVE A PERMIT.
THAT IS WHY THE FENCE IS AT A 90 DEGREE IF ANYBODY WOULD LIKE TO KNOW.
708 WELDWOOD. HERE'S MY PROPERTY.
IT'S TAKEN ME ALMOST TWO YEARS AND $150,000.
I'VE FIXED TO REPLACE EVERY APPLIANCE, WINDOWS, DOORS, PIECES OF SIDING, FLOORING, INSULATION, AC DUCTING.
I HAVE ALL NEW ACS, POOL EQUIPMENT, PAINTED INSIDE AND OUT, POOL AND ICE SCREENS AND THIS BEAUTIFUL PRIVACY FENCE.
YOU CAN SEE IT BEFORE AND AFTER PICTURE.
THIS IS THE BACK YARD. THIS IS THE BEFORE.
YOU CAN SEE THESE EUREKA PALM TREES, THEY'RE 15 PLUS FEET.
THESE TREES WERE AN ABSOLUTE NIGHTMARE TO MAINTAIN.
THE WALK PATH OUTSIDE WAS DAILY OCCURRENCE FOR LEAVES THAT WERE FALLING AND PEBBLES AND BALLS AND JUST JUST MUSHY STUFF IT KEPT MAKING. I WAS AT MY WEIGHTS END.
THE EXISTING FENCE WAS FALLING DOWN AND IT HAD ALREADY FALLEN DOWN IN SOME OTHER PARTS.
I WAS TOLD THAT THE ROOTS WOULD CAUSE A NEW FENCE TO FALL OR SHIFT WITH THE ROOT GROWTH, SO I BIT THE BULLET AND I REMOVED THEM.
NOW, I FACE THE KIDS WALKING BY EVERY DAY.
THERE'S 1,500 KIDS THAT WALK BY THAT HOUSE.
I CAN LOOK THEM IN EYEBALLS WITH A FOUR FOOT FENCE.
I CAN LOOK THEM IN EYEBALLS WITH A SIX FOOT FENCE.
[00:15:02]
THE HEIGHT OF THE SIX FOOT KEEPS ME FROM BEING ABLE TO SEE THEM AND FOR THEM TO BE ABLE TO SEE ME, EITHER IN THE POOL OR ANY PART OF MY BACKYARD.WE USE A CONCRETE BARRIER OR A FOOTER, WHATEVER YOU WANT TO CALL IT TO REINFORCE AND STRENGTHEN THE FENCE FOR HURRICANE PURPOSES.
THIS IS THE FENCE AFTER WE MOVE THE TREES AND BEFORE WE PUT THE PVC IN.
THE ROOTS ARE STILL ON THE GROUND AT THIS POINT.
WE BROUGHT IN SOME DIRT. WE HAD A CONSTRUCTION OF THE FENCE AND ITS BASE.
WE USE A CONCRETE BLOCK TO CREATE THIS BASE.
WE FILLED THE CONCRETE WITH REBAR FOR REINFORCED STRENGTHS.
WE POST FILLED THE CONCRETE WITH REBAR.
WE BROUGHT IN 2.5 YARDS OF DIRT TO FILL IN WHERE THE PALM TREES CAME OUT AND TO HELP MIX IN OUR CONCRETE.
WE REMOVED THERE'S SIMILAR CONVERSATION IN YOUR NOTES TO TALK ABOUT DUMPING DIRT INTO THE NATURE PRESERVE BEHIND MY HOUSE.
I DIDN'T KNOW YOU CAN'T PUT DIRT WHERE DIRT COMES FROM.
I WENT BACK THERE AND I BROUGHT THE DIRT BACK OUT, WE PUT IT SOMEWHERE ELSE IN MY YARD.
THIS IS THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE FENCE.
YOU CAN SEE THE CONCRETE BASE, YOU CAN SEE THE LINES THAT WERE RUN FOR PLACEMENT, IT'S AS STRAIGHT AS AN ARROW.
IT'S A BEAUTIFUL, VERY WELL DESIGNED AND BUILT FENCE.
I LEFT THE EXTERIOR EXISTING GRADE THE WAY IT WAS FOR THE DRAINAGE OF THE BACK YARD.
THIS IS THE FENCE AFTER THE CONSTRUCTION.
YOU CAN SEE BEAUTIFUL WHITE LINE STRAIGHT DOWN AND YOU CAN SEE THE BACKYARD AND WHAT I IMPROVED.
THIS IS BEFORE AND THE AFTER OF THE FENCE FROM THE POOL.
YOU CAN SEE OUR HEIGHT, THE TREES ARE GONE.
I WOULD NOT HAVE IT IF THE FENCE WAS NOT THE HEIGHT THAT IT IS.
IT WAS NOT A DESIGN TO CREATE THE BLOCK BARRIER.
IT WAS BROUGHT IN TO MY ATTENTION AT THE TIME OF CONSTRUCTION, SO IT WAS A DECISION THAT THE CONTRACTOR BROUGHT UP OR AN OPTION, AND I SAID, THAT SOUNDS LIKE A GREAT IDEA.
LET'S GO AHEAD AND DO THAT. NEEDLESS TO SAY I'M HERE NOW.
>> MY POOL IS PROTECTED BY A LONI.
THE FENCE IS NOT A BARRIER TO THE POOL AND DOES NOT REQUIRE AN INSPECTION.
LET'S TOLD THAT MORE THAN ONCE.
THIS IS THE FRONT OF THE HOUSE AND THE POOL COMPLETED.
I HAVE IMPROVED THIS PROPERTY TO EVERY EH OTHER THAN A NEW ROOF.
HERE'S THE PAUL HARVEY. THIS IS THE REST OF THE STORY AND THEN WE'RE PRETTY MUCH DONE.
MY PERMIT WAS CLOSED BY THE CITY.
BECAUSE THERE'S NO INSPECTIONS ON THEM.
A NON POOL BARRIER FENCE AND IS NOT NEEDED IN INSPECTION.
THEN WHY AM I HERE TWO YEARS LATER YOU ASK? THERE'S A GENTLEMAN BY THE NAME OF DOUG.
I GOT A PHONE CALL FROM SOMEONE IN ENGINEERING THAT SAID DOUG CONNICK TOOK IT UPON HIS OWN ACCORD, THOSE ARE THEIR WORDS TO REOPEN YOUR PERMIT FOR ITS FENCE HEIGHT.
I DON'T KNOW EXACTLY THE DATE YOU GUYS CAN PROBABLY LOOK AT THIS, BUT I FEEL LIKE IT WAS AROUND A MONTH.
I SINCE HAVE SUBMITTED NUMEROUS DOCUMENTS, REPORTS BY ENGINEERS, TO APPEASE THE CITY, SPENT THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS FOR CONSULTING, ENGINEER PLANS, VARIANCE FILING FEES.
THE CITY STARTED BLOCKING OTHER PERMITS FROM BEING ISSUED UNTIL I SUBMITTED THE VARIANCE FOR THIS HEARING TODAY.
NOT TO MENTION, I HAVE PERSONALLY MEASURED MANY FENCES ON TONY PENA, IF YOU GUYS GO AROUND AND LOOK.
THERE'S NOT TOO MANY OF THEM THAT ARE EXACTLY SIX FOOT.
EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM IS 62, 61, 66, WHATEVER.
MY REQUEST FROM YOU ALL TODAY IS TO PLEASE APPROVE THIS VARIANCE.
THE FENCE WILL LOOK AESTHETICALLY DEFORMED IF I ATTEMPT TO LOWER IT.
IT WILL COMPROMISE ITS INTEGRITY OF THE STRUCTURE AND ITS STRENGTH, AND IF IT IS NOT APPROVED, IT'LL PROBABLY COST ME $30,000 RECTIFICATION AND IT WILL BE CATASTROPHIC FINANCIALLY FOR MY FAMILY.
THANK YOU. I APPRECIATE YOUR TIME TODAY.
THANK YOU. WE'LL HEAR FROM THE STAFF NOW.
COMMISSIONERS. FOR THE RECORD, GARRE WATSON WITH PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT.
AS NOTED IN THE STAFF REPORT, THE STAFF FINDS THAT THE APPLICATION DOES NOT MEET SIX OF THE SEVEN NECESSARY CRITERIA FOR GRANTING A VARIANCE, AND THEREFORE STAFF HAS RECOMMENDED DENIAL AS NOTED IN THE STAFF REPORT.
BACK IN OCTOBER OF 2022, THE TOWN ISSUED THIS FENCE PERMIT, AND IT WAS A VERY TYPICAL FENCE SECTION.
IT'S ATTACHMENT A WITHIN YOUR DOCUMENTS.
IT SHOWS THAT IT WAS EMBEDDED IN CONCRETE.
I HAVE NO DOUBT THAT THAT WAS THE OWNER'S INTENT ORIGINALLY.
BUT THERE WAS NO MENTION OF RETAINING WALL OR FILL, WHICH WALL WOULD HAVE REQUIRED TO BE AT LEAST UNDERNEATH THAT PERMIT, IF NOT A SEPARATE PERMIT.
SO THE PROPERTY, AS NOTED IN THE APPLICANT'S PRESENTATION, PREVIOUSLY HAD A SIX FOOT FENCE THAT WAS INSTALLED ON THE PROPERTY, IS LOCATED APPROXIMATELY FIVE FEET BACK FROM THE SIDEWALK, WHICH IS THE PROPERTY LINE.
[00:20:01]
IT WAS LOCATED AT GRADE LEVEL AT THAT TIME.VERY SIMILAR TO THE HOUSE THAT'S ACROSS WELD WOOD ALONG TONY PENA.
IT'S RIGHT UP AGAINST THE SIDEWALK FOR MOST OF THE SIDEWALK, BUT IT WAS ESTABLISHED AT GRADE WITHOUT A RETAINING WALL.
THERE WAS A PREVIOUSLY IN ARIKA PALM HEDGE ON THE OUTSIDE OF THAT FENCE WITHIN WHAT'S TERMED A LANDSCAPE AND LIMITED ACCESS.
A FEW WEEKS AFTER THE FENCE PERMIT WAS ISSUED, ENGINEERING STAFF WAS ALERTED TO RUTS WITHIN THE SWALE THAT THE TOWN MAINTAINS, THE TOWN SWALE.
UPON THE ENGINEERING INSPECTOR BRINGING BACK DOCUMENTATION TO THE TOWN ENGINEER, MR. DOUG KIKI, HE NOTED THAT THE FENCE WAS NOT CONSTRUCTED AS WAS ORIGINALLY PERMITTED.
DOUG REVIEWS EVERY FENCE PERMIT, JUST LIKE THE P&Z DEPARTMENT REVIEWS EVERY SINGLE FENCE PERMIT.
HE KNEW WE HAD ISSUED THAT PERMIT JUST WEEKS AGO, AND HE KNEW WHAT IT LOOKED LIKE AND HE KNEW THAT IT WAS NOT CONSTRUCTED TO MEET WHAT THE PERMIT SAID.
AS THE APPLICANT NOTED, THERE WAS NO BUILDING INSPECTION BECAUSE IT WAS NOT A POOL BARRIER, SO ONE WAS NOT REQUIRED.
IT WAS BROUGHT UP BY AN INSPECTION FOR AN ENGINEERING ISSUE.
IN ADDITION TO THAT FENCE AND THE UNPERMITTED RETAINING WALL, STAFF NOTES SOME OTHER UNPERMITTED IMPROVEMENTS THAT WERE RECTIFIED BY THE OWNER, LEAVING THIS IS THE LAST REAL OUTSTANDING ISSUE.
IN ORDER TO HELP THIS PROCESS AND NOT GO THROUGH SOME FORMAL CODE ENFORCEMENT RIGHT AWAY, THE PERMIT WAS RE OPENED AS A MEANS OF ALLOWING FOR REVISION.
BECAUSE AT THE TIME, WE WEREN'T SURE HOW THE HOMEOWNER WAS GOING TO TRY AND HANDLE IT, AND A REVISION TO AN EXISTING PERMIT IS MUCH MORE SIMPLER THAN HAVING THEM GO THROUGH THE ENTIRE PROCESS AGAIN AND FILING NUMEROUS PERMITS AGAIN, WE WERE TRYING TO LUMP EVERYTHING TOGETHER TO MAKE IT AS PAINLESS AS POSSIBLE TO RECTIFY THE SITUATION AS QUICKLY AS WHAT CAN BE DONE.
AS YOU'LL SEE IN PAGE 3 OF THE STAFF REPORT, THAT OUTLINES THE TOWN'S METHODOLOGY FOR MEASURING FENCE HEIGHTS, AND IT ALL STEMS BACK TO ISSUES THAT THE TOWN WAS HAVING IN 2014 WITH GREAT DIFFERENCES.
IN SOME EXTREME CASES, AS MENTIONED IN THE REPORT, THREE AND FOUR FEET RETAINING WALLS WERE BEING USED.
THIS IS MUCH SMALLER, BUT THE METHODOLOGY REMAINS THE SAME AND THE REASONING REMAINS THE SAME AND THE LINE HAS BEEN DRAWN AT THE SIX FOOT HEIGHT.
HAD WE BEEN NOTIFIED THROUGH THIS PROCESS AND THROUGH THE PERMITTING PROCESS, THAT THERE WAS A DESIRE TO LEVEL THE BACK YARD.
WE COULD HAVE DEVISED A SOLUTION WHERE THE FENCE WAS ON THE OUTSIDE, THE RETAINING WALL WAS JUST INSIDE AND THE YARD COULD HAVE BEEN THE EXACT SAME SIZE AND LEVELED OFF AND THE FENCE WOULD HAVE BEEN AS MEASURED SIX FOOT HEIGHT.
BUT BECAUSE NONE OF THAT INFORMATION WAS PROVIDED IN THE PERMIT UPFRONT, AND IT WAS A LAST MINUTE DECISION ON PART OF THE HOME OWNER, AND MADE IT IMPOSSIBLE TO REDESIGN BEFORE A SIGNIFICANT INVESTMENT WAS MADE INTO THE FENCE AND IT'S DETAILING.
WE GO THROUGH THAT VERY FREQUENTLY, PEOPLE WHO SUBMIT PERMITS WITH RETAINING WALLS AND FENCES ON TOP OF THEM, WE HAVE THOSE DISCUSSIONS WITH THEM ON HOW TO HANDLE THAT, AND THOSE ISSUES ARE CAUGHT WHEN THEY'RE PUT AS PART OF THE PERMIT SET.
THAT COULD HAVE BEEN DONE IN THIS CASE, IT WOULD HAVE SAVED US ALL A TON OF WORK AND A TON OF TIME.
JUST MOVING REAL QUICKLY THROUGH THE CRITERIA.
WHEN STAFF EVALUATED THE CRITERIA, WE FOUND THAT CRITERIA 1,2,3,4,5,6 AND 7 WERE NOT MET.
JUST GOING TO BRIEFLY TOUCH ON THOSE REAL QUICK FOR THE RECORD.
CRITERIA ONE DEALS WITH SPECIAL CONDITIONS AND CIRCUMSTANCES THAT ARE PECULIAR TO THE LOT.
I DON'T APPLY TO OTHER PROPERTIES.
STAFF FOUND THAT THIS PROPERTY IS VERY SIMILAR TO A TYPICAL R ONE PROPERTY.
THERE'S PLENTY OF PROPERTIES THAT EXIST ON CORNER LOTS.
THERE'S ONE RIGHT ACROSS THE STREET WITH THE EXACT SAME CONDITIONS THAT HAS A FENCE LOCATED AT GRADE.
THIS PROPERTY PREVIOUSLY HAD A CODE COMPLIANCE FENCE AS WELL.
CRITERIA 2 IS NOT MET ON THE FACT THAT THERE ARE NO SPECIAL CONDITIONS, AND ALSO THIS RESULTED FROM THE ACTIONS OF THE APPLICANT.
CRITERIA 3 HAS TO DEAL WITH THE LITERAL INTERPRETATIONS DEPRIVING THE OWNER OF COMMON RIGHTS IN THE DISTRICT.
STAFF WOULD NOTE THAT THIS IS DEVELOPED WITH A SINGLE FAMILY HOME, WHICH IS THE RIGHT IN THE SINGLE FAMILY HOME ZONING DISTRICT, AND IT COULD ALSO INCLUDE A PERIMETER FENCE THAT MET THE SIX FOOT HEIGHT.
IT'S THE HEIGHT BEING INCREASED THAT'S NOT BEING MET HERE.
AS PREVIOUSLY NOTED, THERE COULD HAVE BEEN SOME DESIGN SOLUTION HAD WE KNOWN ABOUT THIS UPFRONT THAT WE COULD HAVE IMPLEMENTED THAT WOULD HAVE SAVED US ALL A TON OF TIME.
CRITERIA NUMBER 4 IS ALSO NOTED AS NOT MET.
AGAIN, THAT DEALS WITH THE MINIMUM VARIANCE TO MAKE THE REASONABLE USE OF THE LAND, WHICH IS A SINGLE FAMILY HOME IN A SINGLE FAMILY ZONING DISTRICT.
CRITERIA 5 IS MET AS IT RELATES TO THE COMP PLAN DOES NOT ADDRESS FENCE HEIGHTS.
CRITERIA NUMBER 6 IS NOTED IS NOT SATISFIED AS THE INTENT OF THIS DISTRICT IS TO MAKE SURE THAT THERE'S A RESIDENTIAL CHARACTER, WHICH INCLUDES A SIX FOOT HIGH FENCE, WE WOULD NOTE THAT ADJACENT PROPERTIES ALSO HAVE THAT SAME SIX FOOT HIGH FENCE.
[00:25:04]
LASTLY, WE NOTED WITH RESPECT TO IT BEING INTEREST TO THE AREA INVOLVED, THE APPLICANT HAS AGREED AS PART OF THE ENGINEERING PERMIT THAT THEY BROUGHT UP TO INCLUDE A 45 DEGREE CHAMFER THERE, WHICH WILL CERTAINLY ENHANCE SAFETY FROM WHAT EXISTS TODAY.BUT FOR BETTER PEDESTRIAN VISIBILITY IN A LITTLE BIT BETTER PEDESTRIAN ENVIRONMENT, SHOULD YOU SEE FIT TO APPROVE THIS TONIGHT.
IN SOME CAPACITY, STAFF HAS RECOMMENDED A CONDITION OF APPROVAL THAT THAT FENCE BE MOVED BACK TWO FEET WITH A LANDSCAPING HEDGE BEING INSTALLED IN FRONT.
THAT'LL PROVIDE BETTER VISIBILITY FOR THE PEDESTRIANS WALKING THERE, A BETTER ENVIRONMENT.
IT'S GOING TO SPLIT THE DIFFERENCE OF THAT FIVE FOOT LANDSCAPE EASEMENT THAT PREVIOUSLY EXISTED, ALLOW FOR THREE FEET ON THE HOMEOWNER SIDE, TWO FEET ON THE PUBLIC SIDE, AND PROVIDE FOR SOME OF THAT VISUAL BUFFERING AT A VERY LOW HEIGHT OF THE FENCE HEIGHT AND BRING THE PERCEIVED HEIGHT DOWN SLIGHTLY.
IT'LL ALSO PROVIDE SOME ADDITIONAL VISIBILITY FOR PEOPLE WHO FREQUENT THAT SIDEWALK AS PEOPLE ENTER AND EXIT OUT OF THAT REAR DRIVEWAY.
WITH THAT, I'LL GO AHEAD AND CONCLUDE MY PRESENTATION AND I'D BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. THANK YOU.
>> THANKS, GARRETT. LET'S START WITH BOARD QUESTIONS FOR EITHER THE APPLICANT OR STAFF.
CINDY, COMMISSIONER, CAN WE START WITH YOU, PLEASE?
>> I'M REALLY TORN. YOU DID A BEAUTIFUL JOB.
YOUR IMPROVEMENTS ARE WONDERFUL.
BUT I REALLY STRUGGLE WITH THE FACT THAT SO MANY THINGS JUST DON'T MEET THE CRITERIA.
I JUST DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY WHEN WHOEVER INSTALLED IT WHEN THEY CAME TO YOU AND THEY SAID TO DO THIS.
BUT THEY DIDN'T THEY DIDN'T SAY ANYTHING ABOUT GETTING A PERMIT FOR THAT.
>> NO. BECAUSE I HAD A PERMIT FOR THE FENCE.
THERE WASN'T A CONVERSATION OF AN AMENDED PERMIT OR YOU RESUBMIT.
THAT WASN'T THE CASE. I DIDN'T KNOW.
>> WAS IT A PROFESSIONAL FENCE INSTALLER OR WAS PEOPLE THAT YOU KNEW THAT WERE DOING?
>> IT WAS A LICENSED FENCE COMPANY.
MR. SCHREURS PAID A PREMIUM TO HAVE THOSE FROCKS LAID DOWN.
SO THAT MIGHT HAVE THE CONTRACTOR MADE THE DECISION CONVINCED HIM TO DO THAT.
THE MAIN REASON THAT WAS DONE THE STAFF REPORT TALKS ABOUT ADDING PHIL.
MR. SCHREURS DID NOT RAISE THE GRADE OF HIS YARD.
HE LEVELED A SLIGHT BERM THREE FEET FROM THE SIDEWALK THAT SLOPED DOWN LIKE THIS.
THAT WAS THE REASON FOR THE BLOCK SO HE COULD FILL THAT OUT AND HAVE A LEVEL CUTTING GREEN.
THAT MATCHED THE LEVEL OF HIS EXISTING YARD AND POOL.
THIS WAS NOT SOME NEFARIOUS REASON TO RAISE THE GRADE, ANYTHING LIKE THAT.
THE OTHER THING I'D LIKE TO MENTION AND THE CRITERIA FOR THE STAFF REPORT.
YOUR BOARD MEMBERS HAVE HEARD A LOT OF CASES.
THE BOTTOM LINE IS IF YOU READ MY STAFF REPORT, I STRONGLY BELIEVE THE FACTS AND HOW THE SITUATION UNFOLDED.
IF YOU READ THE CITY STAFF REPORT IT'S THE COMPLETE OPPOSITE.
WHENEVER THERE'S A RECOMMENDATION FOR DENIAL BY STAFF, IT'S ALWAYS A DIFFERENT STORY.
EVERY SINGLE VARIANCE, SPECIAL EXCEPTION, REZONING.
>> THANK YOU. THANK YOU. LET'S CONTINUE TO ASK QUESTIONS OF EITHER THE APPLICANT.
>> JUST A REMINDER FOR THE APPLICANT AND THE COMMISSION, TO PLEASE SPEAK IN YOUR MIND MIKE'S DIRECTLY, THEY'RE PICKED UP ON THE RECORDING.
>> THE LAST THING I'D HAVE TO SAY IS I'M DEFINITE, I READ LIPS.
SO IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS, I MIGHT ASK YOU TO REPEAT THEM. THAT'S ABOUT IT FOR ME.
>> I HAVE NOTHING ELSE. COMMISSIONER KELSO?
>> YES. CURIOUS. WHY IS THAT SECTION OPEN FENCE ON THE WEST SIDE OF THE DRIVEWAY? IN YOUR PRESENTATION, THE PICTURE SHOWED THAT THERE WAS A PANEL IN THERE NOW IT'S MISSING.
>> THAT WAS A DECISION BY THE CITY ENGINEER.
MR. SCHREURS HAD TWO CULAR MIRRORS ON THE INSIDE OF THE FENCE TO PREVENT FOR SAFETY REASONS BECAUSE HE DIDN'T HAVE THE 45.
THE CITY ENGINEER SAID, WELL, TAKE THAT ONE PANEL OUT.
WE WILL DISCUSS THE MIRROR WITH THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, THE PLAN IN THE ZONING BOARD.
HE LEFT IT UP TO THIS BOARD BECAUSE WE DIDN'T HAVE THE 45 TO CREATE A 45 DEGREE THAT CAMBER THERE.
I WOULD DESTROY THE FENCE BASICALLY IN THAT PART OF THE YARD.
[00:30:03]
THE CITY ENGINEER SAID, TAKE THAT ONE PANEL OUT, KEEP THAT ONE MIRROR DOWN, AND THE BOARD WILL MAKE A DECISION ON IF YOU CAN PUT THAT MIRROR BACK UP THERE OR NOT.THE OTHER THING I'D LIKE TO BRING UP IS THE CONDITION OF APPROVAL.
THAT BASICALLY SAYS, TEAR THE FENCE DOWN.
LET''S TEAR THE FENCE DOWN AND MOVE THE BOX ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE FENCE.
THAT'S AN IMPOSSIBLE CONDITION.
AGAIN, I'M ASKING THE BOARD TO USE LOGIC AND COMMON SENSE AND APPROVE THIS VARIANCE.
>> WHY WAS THE FENCE NOT PLANNED JUST TO BE FLUSHED WITH THE GATE OR THE GATE FURTHER OUT? BECAUSE JUST LIKE YOU SAY SIGHTLINES AND EVERYTHING LIKE THAT, JUST DOESN'T MAKE SENSE.
>> TOTALLY UNDERSTAND. THE FIVE THAT WAS REQUIRED BY THE CITY.
IF YOU LOOK AT THE ORIGINAL SURVEY, IT SHOWS THAT IT GOES BACK AND THEN GOES THIS WAY.
THAT FIVE FEET REPRESENTS THE AGRICULTURAL EASEMENT OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
THE GATE IS NOT ALLOWED TO BE ON THE CULTURAL EASEMENT, ONLY THE FENCE CAN BE.
>> INTERESTING. I LEARN SOMETHING NEW EVERY DAY WITH THE CITY.
>> EVEN IF YOU DIDN'T KNOW WHICH SIDE TO MEASURE THE FENCE ON AND THAT IT WAS MEASURED AT GRADE AND CLEARLY YOU WERE AWARE THAT ANY ADDED PERMANENT STRUCTURE BENEATH IT WOULD BE REQUIRED PERMITTING.
THAT'S JUST LIKE YOU SAID, YOU DEAL WITH HOMES AND THINGS OF THAT NATURE.
DID IT NOT TRIGGER IN YOUR MIND, YOU HAVE A FENCE PERMIT THAT SHOWS JUST A FENCE AT GRADE.
THEN NOW YOUR CONTRACTOR IS TELLING YOU, OH, WE GOT TO PUT IN ALL THIS NEW STRUCTURE AND STUFF, YOU DIDN'T THINK, MAYBE THIS IS A CHANGE, I NEED TO GO BACK TO THE TOWN AND LOOK AT THIS.
I CAME FROM LAS CRUCES, NEW MEXICO, AND JUPITER IS NOT THAT.
THE GUY TOLD ME HE DOESN'T REALLY MATTER, YOU'RE NOT GOING TO GET INSPECTED, SO I BUILT IT THE WAY THAT IT CAME OUT.
THERE WASN'T A THOUGHT IN MY MIND THAT SAID I NEED TO GO BACK AND GET ANOTHER PERMIT, NEVER WOULD HAVE THOUGHT THAT I NEED A PERMIT FOR DIRT, NEVER WOULD HAVE THOUGHT, I JUST DON'T KNOW.
I HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH INSPECTIONS, I HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH PERMITTING, I HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH TITLE.
I JUST BRING THE MONEY. I DON'T HAVE ANY IDEA. NOW I DO.
I WILL NEVER EVER DO SOMETHING THAT'S DIFFERENT THAN WHAT IT NEEDS TO BE NO MATTER WHAT SAID, UNLESS IT'S RELATED BACK TO THE PERMITTING BOARD.
I MEAN, I LEARNED MY LESSON VERY WELL.
>> THEN I HAVE A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS FOR THE STAFF.
>> FENCE, IS THE SIX FEET AT THE TOP OF THE PANEL? WHAT ABOUT THE FINIALS AND LANTERNS AND STUFF LIKE THAT? HOW DOES THAT WORK? BECAUSE THAT'S ACTUALLY EVEN HIGHER.
YOU JUST SIMPLY LOOK AT THE PANEL ITSELF?
>> YEAH. IT'S THE MAIN PANEL HEIGHT.
WE ALLOW FOR COLUMNS AND DECORATIVE FEATURES TO EXTEND BEYOND THAT.
>> SO I COULD HAVE A FIVE FOOT FINIAL ON TOP THAT GOES, WHOA.
>> YEAH. I DON'T BELIEVE THERE'S A LIMIT AS TO HOW HIGH IT CAN EXCEED.
BUT WE LOOK AT IT AS A REASONABLE, IS IT NOT THE LENGTH OF THE FENCE? IS IT SUPPORTING SOME GATE OR COLUMN? IS IT REASONABLY SIZED? NOBODY'S EVER TRIED TO DO SOMETHING QUITE THAT EXTRAVAGANT, BUT I'M SURE WE MAY HAVE ISSUE WITH IT IF THEY DID DO SOMETHING THAT WAS CLEAR [OVERLAPPING].
>> THE TOWN IS CHANGING. BELIEVE ME [LAUGHTER].
>> YEAH, DEFINITELY. WE APPLY SOME LEVEL OF REASONABLENESS TO HAVE DECORATIVE FEATURES THAT ARE OUTSIDE OF THAT HEIGHT LIMIT, LIKE A CURVED TOP TO A GATE AND THINGS LIKE THAT.
AGAIN, IT'S WITHIN A REASONABLE LEVEL THAT THE INTENT OF THE CODE IS BEING MET THAT THE PREDOMINANT HEIGHT IS MAINTAINED AT THE MAXIMUM.
>> OKAY. SECOND QUESTION IS, WHY DID YOU ALLOW THE FENCE TO COME OUT ALL THE WAY TO THE SIDEWALK INTO THAT EASEMENT IN THE FIRST PLACE? IT SEEMS LIKE IT'D BE SMART TO BE RIGHT IN LINE WITH THE GATE AND ALLOWING FOR A GREEN IN FRONT OF IT.
BECAUSE RIGHT NOW, NO OFFENSE, BUT I LIVE NEAR THERE, AND I THINK IT'S UNGODLY.
SO JUST LOOKING AT THAT WHOLE WALL OF WHITE ALL THAT WAY INSTEAD OF, BECAUSE MOST OF THE FENCES IN THAT NEIGHBORHOOD ARE ALL WOOD, AND THIS IS BRIGHT WHITE.
TO ME, IT DOESN'T MATCH THE CHARM OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
BUT I WON'T PUT THAT AGAINST YOU BECAUSE THAT'S JUST MY PERSONAL PREFERENCE.
BUT WHY WAS THAT FENCE BROUGHT OUT ANYWAY?
>> IT WAS A REQUEST OF THE HOMEOWNER TO UTILIZE THAT SECTION OF THE YARD AND THE TOWN DID NOT HAVE ANY PLAN TO USE TO LANDSCAPE, THAT EASEMENT AT THAT TIME.
WE WERE TRYING TO ACCOMMODATE THE HOMEOWNER USING AS MUCH OF THE PROPERTY AS THEY WERE ASKING FOR.
>> I ALSO BELIEVE THE LANGUAGE IN THE EASEMENT WAS NOT THAT RESTRICTIVE.
I MEAN, THE TITLE OF THE EASEMENT IMPLIES IT'S FOR LANDSCAPING, BUT THERE WAS NO PROHIBITION OF STRUCTURES IN IT, SO WE DIDN'T FEEL WE HAD THAT AUTHORITY.
>> I WOULD JUST LIKE TO RECOMMEND THAT ANYTIME IN A NEIGHBORHOOD SETTING,
[00:35:05]
THAT THERE'S ALWAYS GREEN SPACE BETWEEN THE FENCE AND A SIDEWALK JUST SO THERE CAN BE SOME SOFTENING.>> MS. KELSO? THE REASON WHY THAT WAS BROUGHT OUT IS WHEN I WAS IN THE ORIGINAL MEETING WITH ROGER HILL, THAT WAS HIS WRITING AND WE DISCUSSED THAT EASEMENT.
HE GOES, "YOU CAN BRING IT OUT FIVE FEET IF YOU LIKE." I GO, "NO KIDDING. HOW COOL IS THAT? LOVE A BIGGER YARD." TOOK IT OUT OF HIS OFFICE, WENT DOWN SAID, "IS THAT OKAY? SURE THING, FRONT OF BACK. NOW I'M FIVE FEET BIGGER." AS A HOMEOWNER, WHEN YOU WANT FIVE MORE FEET IN YOUR YARD, HONESTLY, LIKE THEY SAID THAT WAS POSSIBLE.
LIKE, "HECK, YEAH, LET'S GO." [OVERLAPPING].
>> THANK YOU. WHEN I SPOKE WITH MR. WATSON, WE HAD TALKED ABOUT THAT MAYBE YOU'D BE LOOKING AT FENCE CODES, AND I THINK THAT WOULD BE A GOOD IDEA BECAUSE I DO AGREE THAT FENCES ARE ONE OF THE MOST UNSIGHTLY THINGS IN JUPITER AND HOW WE ADDRESS THOSE.
BECAUSE RIGHT NOW, FENCE CONTRACTORS, WHEN THEY COME TO YOU, THEY GIVE YOU TWO OPTIONS.
THEY EITHER GIVE YOU WHERE THE TOP IS LEVEL, AND BECAUSE THE PROPERTY MIGHT UNDULATE A LITTLE BIT, THAT LEAVES YOU BIG GAPS UNDERNEATH, OR THEY SAY YOU CAN GO ALONG WITH THE TOPOGRAPHY.
THAT'S TELLING YOU THAT 50% OF THE FENCES ARE GOING TO HAVE THESE BIG GAPS AT THE BOTTOM.
WHAT HAPPENS IS YOU MAY NOT HAVE A DOG OR SMALL CHILDREN, BUT THE NEXT PERSON YOU SELL THE HOUSE TO MAY.
THEN THEREFORE, PEOPLE ARE PUTTING CHICKEN WIRE AND CEMENT BLOCKS AND HORIZONTAL PIECES OF WOOD AND THINGS LIKE THAT AT THE BOTTOM, AND IT LOOKS VERY UNSIGHTLY.
I THINK THAT'S SOMETHING WE NEED TO ADDRESS, IS THE PROXIMITY TO THE BOTTOM OF THE FENCE TO THE GROUND.
>> MS. KELSO, IF YOU MEASURE MY FENCE FROM THE WALL FROM THE HOUSE THAT COMES OUT TOWARDS TONY PENA, IT IS SIX FOOT.
IF YOU MEASURE FROM THAT GRADE POINT WHERE THE FENCE IS, IT'S STILL SIX FOOT.
THAT'S WHY THE FOOTER WAS BROUGHT IN TO DO EXACTLY WHAT YOU JUST SAID, TO LEVEL THAT FENCE TO MAKE IT EVEN.
>> RIGHT. I SAW THAT. MY LAST QUESTION IS REPERCUSSIONS TO THE CONTRACTOR.
BECAUSE CLEARLY, HE CAME IN AND GOT THE PERMIT, AND THEN HE SUGGESTED TO THE HOMEOWNER THAT THEY PUT THIS FOOTER IN, AND HE CERTAINLY SHOULD HAVE BEEN KNOWLEDGEABLE ENOUGH TO KNOW THAT HE NEEDED TO GO BACK AND UPDATE THE PERMIT.
WHAT HAPPENS TO THE CONTRACTOR THAT DOES NOT ADEQUATELY EDUCATE THE HOMEOWNER? BECAUSE NOT EVERY HOMEOWNER IS GOING TO KNOW ALL THE REGULATIONS FOR FENCING.
>> MR. CHAIRMAN, THAT'S NOT AN ISSUE FOR THIS COMMISSION'S CONSIDERATION.
YOUR RESPONSIBILITY IS TO CONSIDER THE ZONING CRITERIA FOR A VARIANCE, MAKE A DETERMINATION ON WHETHER OR NOT THE CRITERIA, ALL SEVEN OF THE CRITERIA, HAVE BEEN MET.
>> OKAY. WE'LL DEAL WITH THAT ANOTHER TIME. THAT'S MY LAST QUESTION.
>> THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER KELSO. COMMISSIONER DUNN.
>> FIRST OFF, I APPRECIATE YOU BEING A GOOD NEIGHBOR, AND I APPRECIATE YOUR WANTING TO MAKE JUPITER THE BEST THAT CAN BE IN YOUR CONTRIBUTIONS AND DONE A LOT TO THE HOUSE AND YOU'VE DONE A LOT OF IMPROVEMENTS TO IT, AND THAT'S CERTAINLY NOTED ON HERE.
WHAT, IF ANYTHING, HAVE WE HEARD FROM THE NEIGHBORS? WHAT HAVE THEY SAID? ANY COMMENTS?
>> I CAN ANSWER THAT. BOTH NEIGHBORS, NEIGHBOR ACROSS THE STREET TO THE EAST AND THE NEIGHBOR ON THE NORTH SIDE DIRECTLY TO NEXT DOOR, BOTH SUBMITTED LETTERS SUPPORTING THE VARIANCE REQUEST.
>> DO WE HAVE COPIES OF THOSE LETTERS? I DON'T KNOW.
FOR STAFF. DO WE HAVE COPIES OF ANY LETTERS FROM THE NEIGHBORS THAT SAID THEY SUPPORTED IT?
>> I THINK IT'S NOTED IN THE JUSTIFICATION STATEMENT, BUT I'M NOT SURE IF THEY'RE INCLUDED IN YOUR PACKET.
I DON'T SEE THEM IN THERE. [OVERLAPPING]. I THINK IT'S JUST NOTED IN THE BACK OF THE JUSTIFICATION STATEMENT.
>> BUT THE LETTERS ARE IN SUPPORT OF IT OR? I DON'T RECALL. OKAY. ALL RIGHT.
I HAVEN'T BEEN HERE THAT LONG, BUT I HAVEN'T SEEN TOO MANY THAT HAVE HAD THIS MANY NEGATIVES AS FAR AS THE CRITERIA NOT BEING MET.
THE STATEMENT THAT SOUND LIKE OUR STAFF WAS JUST NOT USING THE SAME CRITERIA FOR THIS AS THEY HAVE ON OTHER THINGS, I TAKE EXCEPTION WITH THAT.
WE'VE HAD A NUMBER OF SIMILAR ISSUES COME UP AND SOME WITH NOT AS MANY EXCEPTIONS HERE AND WE DID NOT APPROVE THAT.
I WISH THAT SOMETHING COULD BE DONE, BUT I THINK THAT IF WE WERE TO ACCEPT WHAT YOU HAVE AND GO
[00:40:01]
AGAINST WHAT OUR STAFF HAS MADE ON SIX OF THE SEVEN CRITERIA NOT BEING MET, IT WOULD BE SETTING A PRESIDENCE AND ESSENTIALLY BE STANDING IN ON HIS HEAD.SO I AM NOT IN FAVOR OF WHAT WE HAVE HERE.
AS FAR AS GARRETT, IF YOU HAVE ANY ALTERNATIVES AS FAR AS A MOTION THAT WE CAN MAKE FOR ANOTHER OPTION TO HELP THESE FOLKS WITH THEIR PROBLEM, IF YOU HAVE ANYTHING LIKE THAT, I APPRECIATE.
>> LET'S CONTINUE TO GET ALL THE QUESTIONS ASKED FIRST AND THEN WE'LL [OVERLAPPING] CONSIDERATION.
OKAY. THAT'S RIGHT. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, COMMISSIONER?
>> OKAY. COMMISSIONER GEISINGER.
>> I THINK I GOT IT ON. OKAY. QUICK QUESTION ON THE PERMIT SHOWED THE FENCE POST BEING BURIED THREE FEET INTO THE GROUND WITH CONCRETE.
DID THAT OCCUR OR WERE THEY ATTACHED TO THE BLOCK? WHAT WAS THE INTERFACE BETWEEN THE POST AND THE BLOCK, THE CINDER BLOCK?
>> YEAH. WAS WAS THE FENCE SITTING ON TOP OF THE BLOCK OR WAS THE POST BURIED DOWN IN?
>> NO, THE FENCE POST IS IN THE GROUND AND CONCRETE AND EVERYTHING?
>> RIGHT RIGHT THROUGH THE BLOCK, YEAH. OKAY.
>> BUT THERE ARE CONCRETE ATTACHMENTS TO THE [OVERLAPPING].
>> THAT THAT'S CORRECT. YEAH. EVERY POST HAS REBAR AND CONCRETE AND THERE WAS CONCRETE POURED INTO THE CINDER BLOCK SIX INCHES, HOWEVER WIDE THE CINDER BLOCK IS, AND THEN INTO THE POST HOLE THAT WAS CREATED.
>> OKAY. AND YOU STATED THAT YOU JUST DIDN'T REALIZE THAT YOU NEEDED A PERMIT IN ORDER TO PUT THE BLOCK IN AND DEVIATE FROM THE PERMIT?
>> OKAY. I DON'T HAVE ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS.
>> THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER BENSON.
>> I HAVE A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS FOR THE HOME OWNER.
IF YOU DON'T MIND, WHO PULLED THE PERMIT, YOU OR THE FENCE COMPANY?
>> WHY DID THE FENCE COMPANY NOT PULL IT? NORMALLY, A COMPANY PULLS THEIR OWN PERMITS.
>> WHEN I WAS WITH ROGER HILL, HE MADE THE OPTION FOR AN OWNER BUILDER PERMIT.
YOU CAN GET IT REAL QUICK. NO PROBLEM.
>> OKAY. ON THE LANGUAGE OF THE PERMIT, DOES IT STATE THAT IT HAS TO FOLLOW THE CONTOUR OF THE PROPERTY? THIS IS FOR THE TOWN, I'M SORRY.
DOES IT STATE THAT IT HAS TO FOLLOW THE CONTOUR OF THE PROPERTY OR DOES IT STATE THAT IF YOU KEPT IT AT ONE HEIGHT AND YOU WOULD HAVE A GAP AT THE BOTTOM.
IS THERE ANY EXCEPTION IN OUR RULES AND REGULATIONS ABOUT THAT IN THE PERMITTING PROCESS?
>> NOTHING SPECIFIC IN THE REGULATIONS THAT STATE THAT, AS COMMISSIONER KELSO ALLUDED TO EARLIER.
BUT THERE IS A REASONABLENESS TEST THAT WE APPLIED TO IT.
THERE'S SOME EXAMPLES IN THE BACK OF THE APPLICANT'S JUSTIFICATION STATEMENT THAT TALK ABOUT EXISTING GRADES AND SOME DIFFERENCES IN EXISTING GRADES, AND THAT WOULD BE A SITUATION WHERE WE WOULD APPLY SOME REASONABLENESS TO IT WHEN IT'S NOT BEING ARTIFICIALLY RAISED.
BUT IN THIS CASE, THIS DIFFERS FROM THAT.
>> BECAUSE IT WAS ARTIFICIALLY RAISED?
HAS THIS BEEN GOING ON FOR TWO YEARS OR DID THIS JUST COME UP IN THE LAST COUPLE OF MONTHS, OR IS THIS A PROCESS THAT THE TOWN HAS BEEN WORKING ON FOR TWO YEARS?
>> IT CAME UP IMMEDIATELY, BASICALLY, ALMOST IMMEDIATELY WITHIN TWO OR THREE WEEKS OF THE FENCE ACTUALLY BEING CONSTRUCTED THAT IT WAS NOTICED, AND WE'VE BEEN TRYING TO WORK WITH THE HOMEOWNER.
WE DO THAT THROUGH WORKING WITH THEM IN MEETINGS.
IF THEY'RE MOVING FORWARD, WE KEEP THINGS OPEN.
WE REALLY DON'T LIKE TO USE CODE COMPLIANCE IF THERE'S AN OPEN LINE OF COMMUNICATION.
THIS ONE JUST HAPPENS TO BE AN OPEN LINE OF COMMUNICATION OVER THE PERIOD OF TWO YEARS, WHICH IS IN HINDSIGHT A LONG TIME.
BUT THAT'S HOW WE TYPICALLY HANDLE THINGS IF WE HAVE AN OWNER THAT'S INVOLVED AND WANTS TO MAKE THINGS RIGHT.
WE TRY TO KEEP THEM OUT OF THE CODE COMPLIANCE MEETINGS AS LONG AS WE CAN UNTIL WE REACH A STALEMATE IN WHICH THEY SAY, "WE'RE NOT DOING IT," OR THEY STOP RESPONDING, IN WHICH CASE, WE MOVE FORWARD WITH CODE ENFORCEMENT ACTION.
>> SORRY, I'M JUST LOOKING AT MY NOTES.
WERE THERE ANY OTHER CODE VIOLATIONS WITH THE FENCE, ASIDE FROM THE HEIGHT?
>> YEAH. THERE'S NO FORMAL VIOLATION.
IT'S AT THIS POINT, JUST AN INCONSISTENCY WITH WHAT WAS BEING PERMITTED OR AN ALLEGED VIOLATION.
WE ARE MOVING THROUGH THAT PROCESS OF JUST RECTIFYING IT THROUGH THE PERMITTING PROCESS, WHICH IS WHY IT WAS REOPENED BY THE TOWN ENGINEER WHEN IT WAS DISCOVERED.
THERE WAS IMPROVEMENTS THAT REQUIRED PERMITS THAT WERE NOT AS PART OF THAT PERMIT SET, AND A REVISION WAS FOUND TO BE THE MOST REASONABLE PATH TO MOVING FORWARD WITH A CHANGE TO MEET THE TOWN CODE.
>> ONE LAST QUESTION, I APOLOGIZE.
IS THERE ANY EXCEPTION TO THE RULE RELATED TO THE DIFFERENCE IN THE ELEVATION OF THE BACKYARD AND THE SWIMMING POOL RELATED TO THE ELEVATION OF THE SIDEWALK,
[00:45:03]
SO THAT IF THE FENCE IS AT SIX FOOT BASED AT THE SIDEWALK, IT'S ACTUALLY PROBABLY LIKE A FIVE FOOT FENCE BASED ON WHAT THE ELEVATION IS INSIDE THE HOUSE.IN ORDER TO PROVIDE PRIVACY FOR THE HOMEOWNER AND/OR VISITORS, IS THERE ANY EXCEPTION BECAUSE OF TONY PENA BEING SUCH A BUSY STREET, AND THERE BEING, SO MANY PEOPLE WALKING BY THE FENCE, THAT IT CREATES ANY TYPE OF AN ISSUE AS A HARDSHIP OF NOT HAVING PRIVACY IN YOUR BACKYARD?
SORRY, I FORGOT TO SAY THAT PART.
>> THANK YOU. I HAD ONE QUESTION, AND I GUESS THIS IS FOR STAFF.
I'M LOOKING AT AN ARCHITECT DRAWING ON THE BOTTOM RIGHT, THE NON STRUCTURAL FOOTER DETAIL.
WAS THAT INCLUDED AS PART OF THE PERMIT APPLICATION? BECAUSE THAT SEEMS REALLY CLEAR ON WHAT THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT THAT FENCE SHOULD BE AND IT'S CERTIFIED IT STAMPED BY A REGISTERED ARCHITECT WHO SHOULD KNOW.
I WOULD THINK THAT YOU HAVE TO GET PERMITS FOR THIS KIND OF THING.
>> THE ENTIRETY OF THE PERMITS INCLUDED AS ATTACHMENT B, SO IT'S NOT IN THOSE DOCUMENTS.
>> OKAY. I GUESS THIS IS A QUESTION FOR YOU ALL.
THIS WAS OBVIOUSLY, YOUR ARCHITECT WAS ARCHITECT ONE.
>> THAT ARCHITECTURAL DRAWING WAS DONE AFTER THE FACT.
WHEN THE CITY SAID, "WE CAN'T APPROVE THIS.
YOU'VE GOT THIS BLOCK FOUNDATION." SO WE TALKED THAT'S WHEN WE SPOKE WITH THE ARCHITECT.
HE SAID, "THAT'S NOT STRUCTURAL FOUNDATION.
IT'S JUST BLOCKS." SO WE WENT BACK TO SEE DOUG, THE CITY ENGINEER, AND HE SAID, "YOU DON'T NEED THAT." IT WAS KICKED OUT. WE DID SUBMIT IT.
THAT'S ALL THE QUESTIONS I'VE GOT.
ARE THERE ANY COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC?
>> NO COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC ON THIS SIDE.
>> OKAY. COMMENTS OR DELIBERATION BEFORE WE ENTERTAIN A MOTION.
MR. MANSON, CAN WE START WITH YOU, YOUR THOUGHTS?
>> WELL, I'M CONFLICTED BECAUSE I SEE BOTH SIDES OF IT.
I SEE THE FACT THAT THIS WAS PUT OUT THERE.
I'M SAD THAT IT WAS OKAY TO GO ALL THE WAY TO THE SIDEWALK BECAUSE I THINK THAT'S PART OF WHAT CREATED THE PROBLEM.
HARD TO SEE THE EXPENSE THAT WOULD BE INVOLVED IN IT.
I DON'T THINK THAT IT WAS NECESSARILY AN INTENTIONAL THING.
BUT I ALSO SEE THE VIOLATION OF THE PRIVACY BASED ON CARS GOING BY PEOPLE WHO PARKED FROM THE AQUATIC CENTER.
THE STUDENTS THAT WALK BY THE FENCE, THAT THEIR GROUND IS A LOT HIGHER INSIDE THAT FENCE AND HOW MUCH THAT THEY CAN SEE IN THERE.
I UNDERSTAND YOU CAN PLANT SHRUBBERY AND EVERYTHING ELSE.
THAT'S PROBABLY WHY THEY HAD THE EUREKAS.
BUT AT THIS POINT, I'M CONFLICTED. THAT'S, OH MY GOD. [LAUGHTER]
>> KEEP GOING, COMMISSIONER GEISINGER.
>> YOU HEAR ME? GOOD. I KEEP FALLING BACK TO THE FACT THAT WE CANNOT FIND ALL SEVEN PROVISIONS ARE ADEQUATELY ADDRESSED AND MET.
WORK WAS DONE WITHOUT PERMITS.
IF THEY WERE PROPERLY PERMITTED, THIS WOULD HAVE BEEN CAUGHT EARLY IN THE PROCESS.
THEREFORE, I'M INCLINED TO DENY THE REQUEST FOR THE VARIANCE.
>> WELL, MY HEART GOES OUT TO YOU.
AND I KNOW WHAT YOU'VE DONE AND TRIED TO MAKE THE PROPERTY BETTER FOR YOURSELF AND YOUR NICE FAMILY.
AND WE NEED NEIGHBORS LIKE YOU, PEOPLE LIKE YOU IN OUR TOWN.
BUT ONCE AGAIN, I'M SORRY TO SAY THAT WE'VE GOT THE CRITERIA THAT THE STAFF HAS PUT HERE AND SIX OF THE SEVEN HAVE NOT BEEN MET.
SO IF WE WERE TO APPROVE THIS, THERE'S NUMEROUS OTHER ONES THAT WE'VE HAD THAT HAVEN'T MET THE CRITERIA AND I DON'T WANT TO SET A PRECEDENCE AND I DON'T WANT TO SET IT ON ITS HEAD OR ANY OTHER PREVIOUS ISSUES.
>> I ACTUALLY, EVEN THOUGH I DON'T LIKE THE LOOK OF THE FENCE, WOULD BE FOR THE PROPOSAL.
MY MAIN REASON BEING IS THAT IS A VERY UNIQUE SPOT.
IT IS RIGHT BETWEEN THE SCHOOL AND THE AQUATIC CENTER.
IT'S NOT JUST LIKE ANY OTHER COMMERCIAL RESIDENTIAL AREA.
AND ON A DAILY BASIS, MULTIPLE TIMES A DAY, YOU HAVE ALL THE STUDENTS AND ALL THE DIFFERENT EVENTS THAT HAPPEN THERE.
[00:50:02]
WHEN I WENT TO LOOK AT THE PROPERTY, IT WAS SADLY RIGHT AT TIME WHEN SCHOOL GOT OUT AND I SAW THE PILE OF CARS GOING UP AND DOWN THEIR STREET TO PICK UP CHILDREN AND THINGS OF THAT NATURE.IT IS A VERY UNIQUE SITUATION.
SO HAVING THAT EXTRA EIGHT INCHES REALLY DOES NOT BOTHER.
I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THAT THE PERMIT BE OPENED AGAIN AND YOU DO GET THE PROPER APPROVALS FROM THE TOWN TO MAKE SURE THAT THE FOOTERS AND THE FILL AND THE THINGS THAT YOU DID DO IS DONE UP TO CODE AND EVERYTHING OF THAT NATURE.
>> I WOULD DEFINITELY BE IN FAVOR OF IT.
AND THEN ADDING, AS YOU WOULD SAY, PUTTING IN SOME LANDSCAPING.
BECAUSE THAT'S MY BIGGEST THING, IS JUST THIS BIG SOLID WALL OF WHITE.
SO IF WE CAN SOFTEN THAT, THAT WOULD GREATLY GO A LONG WAY. THANK YOU.
>> I LIKE THE WHITE FENCE. BUT YEAH, I AGREE.
I THINK THAT THE BOTTOM JUST STANDS OUT.
THERE'S LOTS OF WAYS THAT THAT COULD BE FIXED EVEN WITH LIRIOPE OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT, THAT WOULD COVER THAT AND NOT TAKE A LOT OF SPACE AWAY.
I'M A LITTLE UNCERTAIN THOUGH.
WE HAD TALKED ALSO ABOUT THAT OPEN PIECE AND THE MIRRORS, IS THAT PART OF THIS AT ALL? YEAH, WE NEVER ADDRESSED IT.
>> WHERE'S THAT NOW? ARE YOU STILL TRYING TO PUT MIRRORS THERE?
>> NO. THEY'RE IN MY GARAGE. THEY TOLD ME TO TAKE THEM DOWN.
>> IS THE VISIBILITY CONSIDERED OKAY BY THE CITY? IS THAT DETERMINED TO BE OKAY?
>> MR. CHAIRMAN, THIS IS THE TIME FOR THE BOARD TO DELIBERATE. [OVERLAPPING]
>> LET'S JUST TAKE THAT OFFLINE.
>> I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S WHAT WE'RE VOTING ON.
I THINK WE'RE JUST VOTING ON WHETHER [OVERLAPPING].
>> YOU'RE VOTING ON WHETHER THEY HAVE MET THE SEVEN CRITERIA TO BE ENTITLED TO A VARIANCE.
>> I'M REALLY TORN. I'M REALLY TORN.
>> I'LL BE GLAD TO CHANGE THE COLOR OF THE BLOCK IF YOU'D LIKE.
I MAKE IT BLACK OR GREEN, MAKE IT PAINTED WITH LITTLE PIECES OF GRASS ON IT.
>> I DID LOOK AT IT AND THINK, IF IT COULD BE PAINTED LIKE GRASS, NOBODY WOULD NOTICE.
BUT NO, THAT'S NOT THE SOLUTION.
>> ALL RIGHT. FROM MY PERSPECTIVE, MY HEART FEELS FOR YOU, GUYS.
I CAN'T IMAGINE HOW MUCH BRAIN DAMAGE AND HEARTACHE AND FINANCIAL IMPACT THIS HAS HAD ON YOU, BUT OUR CONSTRAINT IS WE HAVE TO VOTE BASED UPON THE CRITERIA THAT'S PUT BEFORE US, THE OBJECTIVE CRITERIA AS MUCH AS WE MAY FEEL DIFFERENTLY ABOUT THAT AND HOW IT'S FAIR OR NOT.
AND I DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S ANY WAY THAT I COULD SUPPORT THE VARIANCE IF SIX OF THE SEVEN CRITERIA ARE NOT MET.
THAT'S MY POSITION. CAN WE GET A MOTION TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OR DENIAL FOR THE 708 WELDWOOD ROAD VARIANCE REQUEST?
>> I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION FOR DENIAL.
>> GOT A SECOND. ALL IN FAVOR OF THE REQUEST TO DENY, SAY AYE.
>> THREE TO THREE. WHAT HAPPENS IN THAT SITUATION?
THERE WILL HAVE TO BE ANOTHER MOTION.
>> SO FOR YOU ALL, IS THERE ANOTHER SOLUTION HERE?
>> MR. CHAIRMAN, CAN I JUST ADD? IN ANY OF THE MOTIONS, PLEASE MAKE IT CLEAR WHAT THE BASIS OF THE MOTION IS.
FOR EXAMPLE, ON DENIAL IF YOU FIND THAT THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED BY THE STAFF SUPPORTS THE DENIAL, THEN DO SO.
IF YOU FIND THAT OTHER EVIDENCE SUPPORTS THE APPLICANT, THEN MAKE SURE YOU INCLUDE THAT IN THE MOTION BECAUSE I HAVE TO WRITE IN ORDER.
>> OKAY. STAFF, IS THERE ANOTHER SOLUTION THAT YOU ALL MIGHT SEE HERE OR COMPROMISE, SOME SORT?
>> I DON'T HAVE ANY OTHER RECOMMENDATION.
>> DO WE NEED TO ACT ON THIS ONE WAY OR THE OTHER, OR CAN THIS BE SUSPENDED AND PERHAPS THE OWNER AND THE TOWN STAFF COULD WORK ON THIS SEPARATELY TO SEE IF THERE'S A ACCEPTABLE SOLUTION?
>> WELL, I THINK THE STAFF HAS MADE IT CLEAR WHAT THEIR POSITION ON IT IS.
I MEAN, THIS IS NOT A SITE PLAN WHERE YOU GO BACK AND YOU MASSAGE THE SITE PLAN? THIS IS A PROCEEDING WHERE STAFF DETERMINES THE CRITERIA HAS BEEN
[00:55:06]
MET OR NOT AND THE COMMISSION'S RESPONSIBILITY IS TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT THE CRITERIA HAS BEEN MET.IF YOU WANT TO CONTINUE THE ITEM, I GUESS YOU COULD, BUT YOU'LL BE HEARING, I ASSUME THE SAME PRESENTATION NEXT TIME.
>> MY QUESTION IS, IS THERE SOMETHING THAT WE CAN ASK FOR, AND I KNOW YOU BASICALLY JUST SAID NO, BUT TO GO BACK AND REVISIT IN SOME SORT OF COMPROMISE OF WHAT CAN POSSIBLY BE DONE IN A SPECIAL EXCEPTION BASED ON THE FACT OF THAT THE SPECIAL NECESSITY OF THE PRIVACY BASED ON THE LOCATION, WHICH IS VERY UNIQUE TO MOST HOUSES IN THE TOWN OF JUPITER.
IS THERE SOMETHING THAT CAN BE DONE TO GO BACK AND DISCUSS THAT?
>> WELL, SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS ARE A SEPARATE SECTION OF THE CODE.
THIS IS NOT A SPECIAL EXCEPTION USE THAT'S BEING REQUESTED.
>> AS I'VE SAID, YOU'VE GOT CRITERIA IN THE CODE.
AS THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, YOUR RESPONSIBILITY IS TO LOOK AT THE FACTS, CONSIDER THE PRESENTATIONS BY THE TWO PARTIES, MAKE A DECISION ON THE FACTS ON WHETHER OR NOT THE CRITERIA HAVE BEEN MET.
IF THERE IS NO FINDING BY THIS COMMISSION THAT THE CRITERIA HAS BEEN MET, THEN THE APPLICATION WOULD BE DENIED.
IF THERE'S A FINDING THAT THE CRITERIA HAVE BEEN MET, THEN IT WOULD BE APPROVED.
>> WELL, THEN I WILL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE VARIANCE REQUEST WITH A HEIGHT OF 6'8'' FROM GRADE BASED ON THE FACT THAT IT ISN'T A VERY UNIQUE SITUATION BETWEEN THE COUNTY POOL AND THE JUPITER HIGH SCHOOL THAT CAUSES ABNORMAL RESIDENTIAL TRAFFIC, BOTH FOOT TRAFFIC, BICYCLE, AND VEHICULAR.
>> WE HAVE A MOTION. ALL IN FAVOR?
>> CAN I ASK A QUESTION FROM THE TOWN ATTORNEY? ON THIS COMMISSION TONIGHT.
>> WHAT CONSTITUTE A QUORUM FOR VOTING?
WELL, WE ALSO GOT ONE ALTERNATE. RIGHT?
>> YOU HAVE A QUORUM OF PANEL MEMBERS OF SIX TONIGHT.
>> BUT MY QUESTION IS, IS THAT NECESSARY?
>> A QUORUM IS NECESSARY, YES.
>> LET ME REPHRASE MY QUESTION.
THERE'S ONE, TWO, THREE, FOUR, FIVE, SIX, SEVEN COMMISSIONERS, TWO ALTERNATES.
OF THE SEVEN COMMISSIONERS, DO I HAVE TO INCLUDE THE ALTERNATES IN THAT QUORUM IF I ALREADY HAVE FIVE [OVERLAPPING]
>> IF A REGULAR MEMBER IS NOT HERE, THEN AN ALTERNATE STEPS INTO THAT REGULAR MEMBER'S POSITION.
I DON'T KNOW HOW ELSE TO EXPLAIN IT.
YOU DON'T ELIMINATE PEOPLE BECAUSE THEY'RE ALTERNATES.
>> I WOULDN'T PLAN. I JUST WONDERED WHAT CONSTITUTE A QUORUM AMONG THE COMMISSION.
WHEN YOU'RE SIX AND SIX, YOU'RE IN THIS SITUATION.
>> YOU'RE A REGULAR VOTING MEMBER TODAY.
>> I THINK THAT'S OKAY. CAN WE CONTINUE THIS THE NEXT MEETING?
>> WELL, I SUPPOSE YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO.
I MEAN, YOU TOOK TWO VOTES AND THERE WAS NO MAJORITY ON EITHER VOTE.
>> NOW YOU KNOW WHY THERE'S AN ODD NUMBER ON A PANEL.
>> I DON'T SEE ANOTHER SOLUTION TO THAT, SO LET'S CONTINUE THIS TO THE NEXT MEETING WITH NEITHER OF THE MOTIONS PASSING. THANK YOU.
[01:00:01]
>> CAN I ADDRESS THE BOARD ON A DIFFERENT MATTER.
YOU CAN JUST RENOTICE IT FOR THE NEXT MEETING.
THE HEARING IS NOT BEING CONTINUED.
NEXT ITEM IS INLET VILLAGE MARKET.
[B.2. Inlet Village Market]
SMALL SCALE PLAN UNIT DEVELOPMENT AND SITE PLAN APPLICATION, QUASI JUDICIAL.DO THE BOARD MEMBERS HAVE ANY EXPARTE DISCLOSURES? STARTING DOWN HERE. COMMISSIONER.
>> I DROVE AROUND THE PROPERTY.
>> I WALKED THE SITE AS WELL AND SPOKE WITH PETER MEYER AS WELL AS THE NEIGHBOR AND OWNER TO THE SOUTH OF THE PROPERTY.
>> THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER DUNNING
>> NOTHING OTHER THAN DRIVING BY THE PROPERTY.
>> I SPOKE WITH STAFF AND DROVE BY THE PROPERTY.
>> YES. DROVE BY AND STOPPED, LOOKED AT THE PROPERTY.
>> I DROVE BY THE PROPERTY AND I SPOKE WITH STAFF.
>> THANK YOU. DO WE NEED A SWEARING IN?
>> PLEASE STAND AND RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND.
DO YOU SOLEMNLY SWEAR UNDER THE PENALTIES OF PERJURY THAT THE TESTIMONY YOU'RE ABOUT TO GIVE IN THIS MATTER IS THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH?
>> THANK YOU. WE'LL START WITH THE APPLICANT PRESENTATION.
I'M A LAND PLANNER WITH COTLER & HEARING IN JUPITER.
I HAVE BEEN SWORN IN FOR THE RECORD.
WE ARE VERY EXCITED TO BE HERE TONIGHT.
WE HAVE OUR FULL TEAM WITH US.
WE HAVE RICK GONZALEZ, THE PROJECT ARCHITECT.
WE HAVE DONALDSON HEARING, THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT, AND WE ALSO HAVE MR. JIM BERG, THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY.
SO WHAT YOU HAVE BEFORE YOU TONIGHT IS A SMALL-SCALE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AND SITE PLAN APPLICATION.
THIS IS FOR A 3,400 SQUARE FOOT MIXED-USE BUILDING CONSISTING OF A BAKERY RETAIL USE ON THE FIRST FLOOR AND ONE DWELLING UNIT ON THE SECOND FLOOR.
THE SITE IS LOCATED ON LOVE STREET, ON THE EAST SIDE OF LOVE STREET IN THE INLET VILLAGE DISTRICT.
CURRENTLY, THE SINGLE FAMILY HOME THAT WAS CONSTRUCTED IN 1965 IS CURRENTLY OCCUPIED.
ALL THESE HOMES ON THIS ROAD WERE CONSTRUCTED '55 AND '77, THE EARLIEST BEING THE PINK HOUSE TO THE SOUTH AND THEN THE LATEST IN '77 BEING OUR NEIGHBORS TO THE NORTH.
THEN THIS PROPOSAL IS UNIQUE BECAUSE WE WILL BE ONE OF THE FIRST REDEVELOPMENT PROJECTS OF THE EXISTING SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES ALONG THIS CORRIDOR.
INCORPORATING A BAKERY RETAIL USE TO THE CRA WILL COMPLEMENT THE CURRENT DEVELOPMENT, WHICH IS WHY THIS AREA IS SO POPULAR IN JUPITER.
WE'VE BEEN WORKING WITH STAFF OVER THE LAST TWO YEARS, CONSTANTLY REFINING OUR PLANS TO ALIGN WITH THE VISION OF THE INLET VILLAGE DISTRICT, WHICH IS BRINGING THE BUILDINGS UP TO THE ROAD, CREATING A MORE WALKABLE DISTRICT, AND REALLY PRIORITIZING THE PEDESTRIAN OVER THE VEHICLE.
OUR PROPOSAL TONIGHT, AS I PREVIOUSLY MENTIONED, A 3,433 SQUARE FOOT MIXED-USE BUILDING.
WE DO HAVE THE BAKERY USE ON THE FIRST FLOOR.
THAT'LL BE THE FOCAL POINT OF THIS BUILDING BECAUSE WE ARE INCORPORATING OUTDOOR SEATING, HAVING THAT ACTIVE STOREFRONT ENGAGING THE STREET.
THEN OUR VISION FOR THAT IS TO CAPTURE WALKING TRAFFIC FROM THE RESTAURANTS TO THE NORTH.
WE'RE ACTUALLY COMPLIMENTING THOSE USES, THE EXISTING USES RATHER THAN COMPETING WITH THEM.
AND THE BAKERY WILL BE OPEN FROM 6:00 A.M TO 4:15 P.M.
THESE ARE UNIQUE HOURS OF OPERATION FOR THIS AREA.
A DIVERSITY OF USES IN THIS AREA NOW.
IT'S MORE SO A BREAKFAST TO EARLY AFTERNOON USE RATHER THAN A DINNER USE, WHICH IS USUALLY WHAT THESE EXISTING USES, THE RESTAURANTS, LUCKY SHUCK, BEACON, THAT'S WHAT THEY ALL ARE RIGHT NOW.
THEN NO ALCOHOL WILL BE SERVED.
HERE, IT'S A FAMILY-FRIENDLY ENVIRONMENT FOR ALL AGES.
THEN JUST DIVING INTO THE SITE PLAN, SOME OF THE ELEMENTS FOR THE SITE PLAN.
WE'VE REALLY FOCUS ON THE DETAILS OF THE SITE PLAN THROUGHOUT THIS ENTIRE REVIEW PROCESS.
WE'VE INCORPORATED A DECORATIVE WALKWAY, A SPEED TABLE, WHICH ENHANCES THE TRAFFIC CALMING MEASURES, OR BIKE RACKS, OUTDOOR SEATING AREA, AS I MENTIONED, WITH A LARGE BALCONY ABOVE, TWO PRIVATE PARKING SPACES, A LUSH LANDSCAPE BUFFER.
WE REALLY BEEFED UP THE LANDSCAPING ALONG ALL SIDES OF THIS PROPERTY.
[01:05:01]
THEN WE'VE ALSO ADDED ROOM FOR A FUTURE ALLEY EASEMENT IN CASE THE ALLEY WERE TO EVER BE BUILT AT THE REAR OF THIS PROPERTY, AND THEN A LARGE OPEN FRONT YARD FOR ANY KIDS OR DOGS PLAYING IN THE FRONT YARD WHILE THEY'RE GETTING THEIR COFFEE OR DONUT.THEN WE'VE GONE THROUGH MANY ITERATIONS OF THIS BUILDING THROUGH THE REVIEW PROCESS.
WE'VE LANDED ON A VERNACULAR COASTAL STYLE, WHICH INCLUDES THE FRENCH DOORS, THE ALUMINUM SHUTTERS, CANVAS AWNINGS.
YOU CAN SEE THE BLACK AND WHITE CANVAS AWNINGS REALLY ENHANCING THE VERTICAL ELEMENTS OF THE BUILDING.
WE HAVE THE WHITE WASHED BRICK COMPLEMENTING THE BATON BOARD WALL.
THE METAL ROOF. GOOSENECK LIGHTING FOR THE FUTURE WALL SIGN.
WE HAVE DECORATIVE WALL LANTERNS AND WHITE RAFTER TAILS WRAPPING AROUND THE GARAGE AREA THERE.
THEN AGAIN, JUST TO FOCUS ON THIS, WE'RE REALLY ALIGNING WITH THE VISION OF THE INLET VILLAGE OVERLAY, INCORPORATING A TRADITIONAL NEIGHBORHOOD STYLE DEVELOPMENT.
THIS WILL BLEND SEAMLESSLY WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD BECAUSE IT IS A NEIGHBORHOOD.
WE'RE PROVIDING A UNIQUE COMMERCIAL USE, WELL MIXED USE IN THIS CASE, BUT A UNIQUE COMMERCIAL USE AS WELL WITH A NEIGHBORHOOD STYLE TO IT.
>> AND WE'VE DRAWN INSPIRATION FROM EVEN LOCAL BUILDINGS BUILT WITHIN THE LAST 5-10 YEARS.
PICTURED HERE, YOU HAVE LUCKY SHUCK AND BEACON, THAT TRADITIONAL NEIGHBORHOOD FEEL, AND THE ACTIVE STOREFRONT ELEMENTS WITH DOWNTOWN HISTORIC DISTRICTS AND OTHER PLACES.
WE'VE ALSO INCORPORATED THAT ELEMENT TO OUR BUILDING.
TO GO ON TO PUBLIC BENEFIT, I JUST WANT TO TOUCH REALLY QUICK ON OUR WAIVERS.
I WILL GET TO THAT, BUT THERE'S A LOT OF TEXT ON THIS, WHICH I'M NOT GOING TO READ, BUT JUST THE ITALICIZED PORTION, I JUST NEED TO READ REAL QUICK.
IT SAYS, PROPERTIES LOCATED IN THIS REDEVELOPMENT OVERLAY AREA ARE ELIGIBLE FOR WAIVERS AS PART OF A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT.
PROPERTY PROVIDED THE DEVELOPMENT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE INTENT OF THE REDEVELOPMENT OVERLAY AREA HEREBY ESTABLISHED.
WAIVERS ARE REQUIRED FOR ANY REDEVELOPMENT OF ANY OF THESE SINGLE FAMILY LOTS.
THE LOTS ARE ONLY OURS IS 0.15 ACRES, ALL OF THEM ARE UNDER A QUARTER ACRE.
THEY'RE IN THE C2 ZONING DISTRICT.
I KNOW WAIVERS USUALLY HAVE A NEGATIVE CONNOTATION TO IT, THE WORD WAIVER, IN THIS CASE, IT'S NOT.
IT'S REQUIRED FOR REDEVELOPMENT IN THIS AREA.
THAT'S WHY THESE WAIVERS THAT WE ARE ASKING FOR ARE REQUIRED, AND THAT'S WHY THEY MEET THE INTENT OF THE INLET VILLAGE OVERLAY, WHICH IS AGAIN, THE TRADITIONAL NEIGHBORHOOD STYLE DEVELOPMENT, BRINGING BUILDINGS UP TO THE ROAD AND ENGAGING THE STREET.
NOW IN C2, IF WE HAD TO MEET THE C2 DISTRICT STANDARDS, WE WOULD NEED A 50 FOOT SETBACK FROM THE FRONT PROPERTY LINE.
NONE OF THESE PROPERTIES CAN MEET IT EVEN NOW.
ALL THESE LOTS ARE ONLY 100 FEET DEEP.
IT REALLY DOESN'T MAKE SENSE, AND THAT'S WHY THESE WAIVERS ARE REQUIRED.
HERE ARE THE WAIVERS THAT WE WILL BE INCLUDING IN THIS DEVELOPMENT TO ENGAGE THE STREET, BRING THE BUILDING UP, AND CREATE A MORE WALKABLE, SAFER ENVIRONMENT FOR THIS ROAD.
AS YOU KNOW, THIS ROAD HAS A LOT OF WALKING TRAFFIC.
WE WORKED SO HARD ON THIS PROJECT FOR THE LAST TWO YEARS, WE'RE VERY EXCITED AND VERY EXCITED TO HEAR ALL OF YOUR FEEDBACK AND ANY QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, CONCERNS? WE DO HAVE THE PROJECT TEAM HERE, AS I MENTIONED, TO ANSWER. THANK YOU.
>> GOOD EVENING, COMMISSIONERS, FOR THE RECORD, PETER MEYER, SENIOR PLANNER STAFF.
THE APPLICATION FOR CONSIDERATION TONIGHT IS A SMALL SCALE PLAN REDEVELOPMENT, WHICH INCLUDES WAIVERS, TO REDUCE BUILDING SETBACKS, INCREASED LOT COVERAGE, REDUCED LANDSCAPE BUFFER WIDTH, AND TO ALLOW A SHORT TERM OFFSITE PARKING LICENSE IN THE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AREA, PUBLIC PARKING LOT.
IN ADDITION, A SITE PLAN APPLICATION TO CONSTRUCT 3,433 SQUARE FEET OF A BUILDING WITH 2,050 SQUARE FEET OF RETAIL ON THE GROUND FLOOR AT 1,200 SQUARE FEET OF ACCESSORY RESIDENTIAL UNIT ON THE SECOND FLOOR.
THE PROPOSES TO PROVIDE TWO SPACES ON SITE FOR THE RESIDENTIAL USE AND PROVIDING THE PARKING FOR THE COMMERCIAL USE ON A CRA PARKING LOT.
STAFF NOTES THAT THE REQUESTED APPLICATIONS ARE IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE TOWN CODE, CONTINGENT UPON A HISTORICAL RESOURCES BOARD APPROVAL OF THE CERTIFICATE TO DIG APPLICATION AND A TOWN COUNCIL APPROVAL OF THE REQUESTED WAIVERS.
ADDITIONS HAVE BEEN INCLUDED IN EXHIBIT 1 TO ADDRESS WAIVERS, OFFSITE PARKING, MINOR DETAILS OF THE SITE PLAN, AND A FEATURE SIGNAGE.
THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS ZONED C2 GENERAL COMMERCIAL AND IS WITHIN THE INLET VILLAGE REDEVELOPMENT OVERLAY AREA, WHICH REQUIRES CONSISTENCY WITH A DETAILED INLET VILLAGE SECTOR POLICIES OUTLINED THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
THIS NECESSITATED WAIVERS TO BE REQUESTED.
AS DECK HAD MENTIONED, IT'S REQUIRED TO APPLY THOSE IN THE VILLAGE SECTOR POLICIES.
[01:10:01]
TO ENSURE COMPLIANCE WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, LAND DEVELOPED REGULATIONS WERE ADOPTED IN 2010, CREATED IN THAT VILLAGE, REDEVELOPMENT OVERLAY AREA, AND A SMALL SCALE PUD REGULATIONS, SPECIFICALLY TO PROVIDE FLEXIBILITY THROUGH A WAIVER PROCESS TO RESOLVE THE CONFLICTS WITH THE STANDARDS OF THE C2 ZONING DISTRICT.THESE REGULATIONS ARE REQUIRED TO BE USED FOR DEVELOPMENTS IN IN THAT VILLAGE SECTOR.
THE IN THE VILLAGE ROA SUPPORTS CREATING A WALKABLE ENVIRONMENT THROUGH REDUCED SETBACKS, REQUIRED MINIMUM BID TWO LINES, INCREASED LOCK COVERAGE, AND REDUCED LANDSCAPE BUFFER REQUIREMENTS.
STAFF HAS PROVIDED A TABLE ON PAGE 2-6 OF THE STAFF REPORT, WHICH PROVIDES A COMPARISON BETWEEN THE PROPOSED WAIVERS IN THE VILLAGE ZONING DISTRICT AND THE C TWO ZONING DISTRICT.
NOTE THAT THE REQUESTED WAIVERS TO THE BUILDING SETBACKS, INCREASED LOT COVERAGE, REDUCING LANDSCAPE BUFFER ARE CONSISTENT WITH IN THE VILLAGE FLEX, SOUTH ZONING DISTRICT.
IN REGARDS TO THE WAIVER FOR THE SHORT TERM OFFSITE PARKING LICENSE, SECTION 27-2832 REQUIRES OFFSITE PARKING TO BE PROVIDED FOR AN UNLIMITED PERIOD OF TIME.
FOR EXAMPLE, AS GUARANTEED IN A PERPETUAL COVENANT.
THE APPLICANTS REQUESTING TO SECURE OFFSITE PARKING IN THE C AREA PARKING LOT WITH PARKING LICENSES FOR A TIME PERIOD FOR FIVE YEARS AND NOT PERPETUAL COVENANTS.
A SIMILAR SHORT TERM PARKING LICENSE WAS A WAIVER WAS GRANTED FOR GUANABANAS IN 2012.
SINCE THE REQUIRED PARKING FOR COMMERCIAL SPACE IS 100% RELIED UPON OFFSITE PARKING, THE APPLICANT HAS PROVIDED ALTERNATIVES.
IF IN THE FUTURE, THE CRA DOES NOT RENEW A PARKING LICENSE.
ONE OF THE OPTIONS TO SECURE OFFSITE PARKING AT ANOTHER LOCATION OTHER THAN THE CRA PARKING LOT, OR TO SECURE OFFSITE PARKING OR TO REQUEST SHARED PARKING APPROVAL OF PARKING WITH THE NEARBY PROPERTY AND BUSINESS, SQUARE GROUPER AND CASTAWAYS, WHICH IS OWNED BY THE SAME OWNER.
THE PUBLIC BENEFIT, AS MENTIONED WAS PROPOSED ONE OF THE SIX PUBLIC BENEFITS LISTED IN 27-1709, WHICH IS TO MEET THE GENERAL PLANNING REQUIREMENTS OR PRINCIPLES OF THE LA AND DEVELOPED REGULATIONS, OF THE REDEVELOPMENT OVERLAY DESIGNATED BY THE ARTICLES IX OF THIS CHAPTER.
IN REGARDS TO THE APPLICANTS PROPOSING SOME OUTDOOR SEATING, THEY HAVE THE ISSUE OF THE OUTDOOR SEATING IS THAT IT'S NOT MEASURED TO THE EDGE OF THE PATIO, AS IT DOES INDICATED, IT INCLUDES A FOUR FOOT WIDE WALKWAY BETWEEN THE TABLES.
THE TOWN CALCULATES OUTDOOR SEATING AREA DIFFERENTLY WHEN THE OUTDOOR SEATING IS FOR A STANDALONE BUSINESS VERSUS A MULTI TENANT STRIP CENTER.
FOR A STANDALONE BUSINESS, THE FOUR FOOT WALKWAY IS NOT EXCLUDED FROM THE CALCULATION, SINCE THE PATHWAY IS NEEDED FOR PEDESTRIANS TO BE ABLE TO GO FROM ONE TO ANOTHER.
STAFF HAS CALCULATED THE OUTDOOR SEATING AREA TO INCLUDE THE FOUR FOOT WALKWAY, WHICH BRINGS THE TOTAL OUTDOOR SEATING TO 336 SQUARE FEET.
PURSUANT TO SECTION 27-2760 UNDER THE OUTDOOR SEATING, RESTAURANTS GREATER THAN 1,500 SQUARE FEET IS PERMITTED OUTDOOR SEATING UP TO 10% OF THE GROSS FLOOR AREA OF THE INDOOR AREA WITHOUT REQUIRING ADDITIONAL PARKING.
THEREFORE, THE PROPOSED 2,050 SQUARE FOOT USE IS PERMITTED TO 205 SQUARE FEET OF OUTDOOR SEATING WITHOUT REQUIRED ADDITIONAL PARKING.
THEREFORE, SINCE ADDITIONAL PARKING SPACE IS NEEDED TO MEET THAT CODE SECTION.
THEY WOULD NEED A TOTAL OF 11 SPACES FOR THE PROPERTY.
STAFF HAS RECOMMENDED CONDITION TO REQUIRE THAT PARKING SPACE BE ADDED.
NO ALSO NEED TO INCREASE THE NUMBER OF LICENSE.
IT'S REQUIRED ON THE CRA PARKING LOT.
ALSO, ONE OF THE OTHER THING IS REGARDS TO TRASH, THE APPLICANT PROVIDES A TRASH AREA ON A ENCLOSED AREA, THAT'S AIR CONDITIONED ON NORTH SIDE OF THE BUILDING THAT WILL BE TAKEN TO THE CURB WITH THE CANS.
I PICKED UP LIKE RESIDENTIAL TRASH ON A STREET TWICE A WEEK.
IN REGARDS TO SIGNAGE, STAFF RECOMMENDED ADDITION TO LIMIT THE WALL SIGN TO 40 SQUARE FEET TO BE CONSISTENT WITH WHAT IS PERMITTED IN THE VILLAGE FLEX SOUTH DISTRICT, AND NOT THE 88 SQUARE FEET PERMITTED BY THE C2 ZONING DISTRICT.
ALSO STAFF RECOMMENDED ADDITION TO NOT PERMIT A FREE SEATING SIGN, SINCE THE BUILDING IS CLOSER TO THE ROAD AND MEANT TO BE MORE KEEPING WITH THE VILLAGE ATMOSPHERE.
I'D LIKE TO SAY THE REMAINDER OF TIME FOR ANY REBUTTAL. THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU. WE'LL GO AHEAD AND LET'S SEE SEE IF THERE'S ANY.
LAST TIME, I'LL START THIS SIDE, COMMISSIONER BLUM.
>> YOU SAID THE OWNER WAS THAT CASTAWAYS AND I'M SORRY.
[01:15:08]
YOU SAID THE SAME OWNER. WERE YOU TALKING ABOUT THIS AS WELL AS PER SQUARE GROUP AND CASTAWAYS.>> SQUARE GROUP AND CASTAWAY IS OWNED BY THE SAME OWNER AS THIS PROPERTY?
>> THEY OWN THIS PROPERTY? CORRECT?
AND WHAT IS THE DISTANCE IN THE BACK BETWEEN SAY, THE WINDOWS OF THE RESIDENCE? I KNOW THERE'S AN ALLEYWAY IN THE BACK.
HOW MUCH SPACE IS THAT BETWEEN THAT AND THAT BUILDING THAT'S DIRECTLY BEHIND IT? IN THAT PICTURE, IT LOOKED LIKE.
>> SO BEHIND THIS BUILDING IS A COMMERCIAL MULTISTORY BUILDING.
>> WHAT IS THE DISTANCE BETWEEN THAT BUILDING AND THE BACK OF THE OTHER BUILDING OR HOW WIDE IS THAT ALLEYWAY?
>> THE PICTURE WAS DECEIVING, I THOUGHT.
AND THEN THE OTHER QUESTION I HAD WAS, THE HANDICAP PARKING FEELS LIKE QUITE A DISTANCE FOR HANDICAPPED PARKING? TO HAVE TO GO TO THAT OTHER LOT FOR THE HANDICAPPED PARKING.
>> I DIDN'T HEAR THE QUESTION, SORRY.
>> THE HANDICAPPED PARKING SPACE WOULD BE IN THAT OTHER LOT.
>> IT DOESN'T FEEL APPROPRIATE FOR HANDICAP PARKING.
>> IT WAS REVIEWED BY TOWN ENGINEER IN THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT AS BEING THE CLOSEST.
IT'S CLOSEST TO THIS PROPERTY.
THAT'S ONE OF THE REASONS WHY YOU ALSO HAVE THE SPEED TABLE ON THE ROAD PROVIDE THAT CROSSING.
FOR ADA ACCESS FROM THIS BUILDING TO THE ADA SPACE IN THE TOWN'S PARKING LOT.
>> AND THERE'S NO WAY TO PUT THAT SPACE ON THE LOT?
>> FOR THE RECORD, DONALD HEARING.
WE LOOKED VERY CAREFULLY ABOUT HOW THAT WAS AND WE WORKED OUT ALL THAT ALL THE GEOMETRICS WITH THE TOWN ENGINEER.
IT'S OFFSITE PARKING, A LOT OF PEOPLE PARK THERE, THERE'S ADA SPACES.
WE CREATED A PERFECT ROUTE THAT WOULD COME STRAIGHT UP.
AND ALSO THERE'D ALWAYS BE THE OPPORTUNITY FOR SOMEBODY TO DROP OFF SOMEBODY WHO MIGHT BE DISABLED RIGHT IN FRONT OF THE STORE AND THEN GO PARK IN THE LOT.
>> HAVE ANY OF YOU GUYS SPOKEN WITH THE NEIGHBORS?
>> WE HAVE NOT HAD ANY DIRECT DISCUSSION WITH THE NEIGHBORS.
THE SIGN HAS BEEN POSTED OUT ON THE SITE NOW FOR SEVERAL WEEKS, AND I DON'T BELIEVE THAT THERE'S BEEN ANY CALLS.
THIS AREA, AS YOU ARE AWARE, AS A PART OF THE ORIGINAL CRA PLAN WAS ALWAYS ENVISIONED TO BE MODIFIED OR BASICALLY TO BECOME A NON RESIDENTIAL USE.
IN FACT, THE RESIDENTIAL USE IS NON CONFORMING IS LEGAL NON CONFORMING, BUT IT'S NON CONFORMING AND I KNOW MR. BERG IS VERY FRIENDLY WITH ALL THE NEIGHBORS AND ALWAYS BEEN A VERY GOOD NEIGHBOR AND OPERATOR AND WE HAVEN'T HEARD OF ANY ISSUES.
>> YES, QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT. FIRST STATEMENT.
I REALLY THINK THIS IS A BEAUTIFUL BUILDING, AND I THINK IT PROVIDES A HIGHLY NEEDED DAY USE IN THIS AREA SO IT'S A GOOD IDEA.
I REALLY LOVE THE FRONT AREA WITH THE BENCH, TRASH RECEPTACLE, AND HIGH PROFILE DECORATIVE BIKE RACKS BECAUSE I THINK THAT GIVES A PARK FEELING SO I CAN SEE GOING UP ON A BICYCLE WITH THE FAMILY, SITTING DOWN, HAVING A DRINK AND THE KIDS PLAYING IN THE GREEN AREA.
I THINK IT'S VERY INVITING, VERY NICELY DONE.
THE SECOND FLOOR, WILL IT BE UTILIZED BY THE OWNER OR WILL IT BE LIKE AN ANNUAL OR SEASONAL RENTAL OR WILL IT BE LIKE AN AIRBNB KIND OF THING?
>> GOOD QUESTION. THE UNITS ON THE SECOND FLOOR REALLY WILL BE ACCESSORY RESIDENTIAL.
I KNOW THAT MR. BERG HAS A SIMILAR CONDITION IN ONE OF HIS FACILITIES, THE SQUARE GROUP OR IN FORT PIERCE, AND HE ACTS AS AN EMPLOYEE THAT WOULD LIVE THERE.
THERE IS NOT AN INTENTION TO SEASON RENT.
RIGHT NOW, MR. BERG WAS STATING THAT THE HOUSE IS BEING RENTED TO THE SCUBA FOLKS WHO WERE OVER ON ALTERNATE A1.
THEY'RE ACTUALLY UTILIZING THE HOUSE, SO THEY MIGHT END UP RENTING AND LIVING ON THE SECOND FLOOR.
>> BUT THERE'S NO INTENTION TO BE LIKE AN AIRBNB.
>> IT'S NOT. IT'S NOT AFFORDABLE.
WE'RE NOT SAYING IT'S AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
WE'RE NOT SAYING IT'S WORKFORCE HOUSING, BUT THE REALITY IS THESE ARE SMALL UNITS.
THEY'RE GOING TO RENT FOR VERY REASONABLE PRICES, WHICH BRINGS SOME MUCH NEEDED HOUSING STOCK TO THE AREA.
[01:20:01]
>> AND ARE THE SECOND FLOOR FRENCH DOORS OPERATIONAL THE TENANTS CAN GO OUTSIDE?
>> THEY OPEN OUT ONTO THAT BALCONY TO PROVIDE SOME OUTDOOR SPACE.
>> MY ONLY CONCERN JUST ADDRESSED TO YOU IS THE NOISE POTENTIAL TO THE NEIGHBOR BECAUSE I DID SPEAK TO THE NEIGHBOR TO THE SOUTH AND HE IS DEFINITELY NOT HAPPY WITH IT.
IT'S JUST BECAUSE THE WHOLE AREA IS GROWING AROUND THEM AND I CERTAINLY UNDERSTAND THAT, BUT I WOULD JUST ASK THAT MAKE SURE THAT IF YOU HAVE AN OPENING OF 6:00 AM.
BEING MINDFUL OF THE RESIDENTS ON EITHER SIDE.
YOU DO HAVE THE COMMERCIAL BEHIND YOU, BUT THE RESIDENTS ON EITHER SIDE, THAT SLAMMING DOORS AND GARBAGE CAN LIDS AND STUFF LIKE THAT AT 6:00 AM IS A LITTLE BIT ROUGH FOR SOMEONE WHO MIGHT BE SLEEPING.
JUST TRYING TO THINK OF HOW TO HANDLE THAT.
>> MR. GONZALEZ, JUST WANTED ME TO LET YOU KNOW THAT THE FRENCH DOORS FACING TO THE SOUTH ARE NOT OPERABLE.
>> ONLY ONES TO THE WEST ARE, AND THE 6:00 AM IS BECAUSE WE'RE ANTICIPATING IT BEING A BREAKERY SO WE'D HAVE ONE OR TWO STAFF THERE THAT WOULD BE GETTING READY FOR PEOPLE TO COME UP 7:00, 8:00 IN THE MORNING FOR COFFEE, AND THERE WAS A TRUE INTENT HERE TO ENSURE YOU KNOW, FAMILY OPPORTUNITIES IN THE INLET VILLAGE AND MORE DIVERSITY OF USES, WHICH WE HEAR IS NEEDED.
NO ALCOHOL. THIS IS A BAKERY IT'S INTENDED TO BE SOMETHING THAT REALLY ENHANCES THINGS.
>> THANK YOU. SOME QUESTIONS FOR THE STAFF. FIRST STATEMENT.
LOVE THE IDEA OF THE BACK ALLEY AREA, SO THAT WAY EMPLOYEES AND SERVICE PERSONNEL CAN COME THAT WAY AND TRULY MAKE IT A WALKABLE BIKEABLE AREA ALONG LOVE STREET.
I THINK THAT'S A BRILLIANT IDEA.
SO THE NINE CRA SPACES, THEY THERE WON'T BE SIGNAGE WHERE THEY'RE ACTUALLY DESIGNATED TO THAT PROPERTY, IT'LL JUST BE A PART OF THE MIX THAT THEY CAN PARK IN THAT LOT?
I AGREE WITH MOST OF ALL YOUR CONDITIONS, BUT I JUST HAD THREE CHANGES THAT I'D LIKE TO SEE.
ONE IS CONDITION 4A IS THAT IT BE ADDED THAT A MAXIMUM OF THREE FEET THAT THE BUILDING COULD BE MOVED, WHAT WOULD IT BE THE WEST? BECAUSE I DO LIKE THAT GREEN PARK AREA OUT FRONT.
I UNDERSTAND IF THERE'S A ALLEY BACK THERE THAT YOU'D NEED TO GET THE CARS IN AND OUT AND THAT TYPE OF THING, BUT AS MINIMAL AS POSSIBLE TO MOVE SO WE DON'T CROWD LOVE STREET BECAUSE I THINK IT'S BRILLIANTLY DONE THE WAY IT'S SET UP.
>> THEY WILL BE SUBJECT TO THE WAVER, AND THEY HAVE TO MEET THOSE STANDARDS FOR THE SETBACKS.
THEY WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO SHIFT IT MORE THAN APPROXIMATELY TWO TO THREE FEET.
>> PERFECT. IN CONDITION 4D, I WOULD REALLY LIKE TO SEE THE PEA GRAVEL.
THAT'S ORIGINALLY ON THE DESIGN INSTEAD OF THE CRUSH SHELL BECAUSE CRUSH SHELL IS VERY TOUGH, IT CUTS ON BARE FEET, SO YOU CAN AGAIN SEE THE KIDS RUNNING AROUND.
I THINK THE PEA GRAVEL IS A MUCH BETTER IDEA THAN THE CRUSH SHELL.
>> THEN CONDITION 7, I'D LIKE TO DELETE IT ENTIRELY.
INSTEAD OF TELLING THE APPLICANT WHEN HIS BUSINESS SHOULD BE RUN, I THINK WE SHOULD FOCUS ON THE PARKING HOURS AND THEN THEY CAN DETERMINE WHAT THEIR BUSINESS HOUR LIMITATIONS NEED TO BE BASED ON HOW LONG IT TAKES THEM TO SET UP AND TEAR DOWN, THEY CAN DO THAT. JUST MY THOUGHT.
>> JUST WANT TO CLARIFY THAT THOSE HOURS ARE BASED UPON THE CRA PARKING LICENSE HOURS.
>> NO, BUT NUMBER 7, IF I RECALL, IT WAS SAYING, WE WANT TO TELL THE APPLICANT THAT THE HOURS OF OPERATION SHOULD BE FROM AT CERTAIN AM TO PM.
WE'RE SAYING IF THEY HAVE TO HAVE THEIR PERSON IN THERE WITHIN THOSE PARKING HOURS, THEY CAN DECIDE WHETHER IT TAKES THEM 15 MINUTES TO START UP OR AN HOUR AND A HALF TO START UP OR WHATEVER IT IS, AND THEY CAN WORK ON.
>> JUST TO CLARIFY THAT THE APPLICANTS REQUESTING TO OPEN AT 5:00 A.M. OR THE EMPLOYEES.
SIX WOULD BE THE OPENING IN PUBLIC, FIVE EMPLOYEES, WHICH HAVE TO BE SOMETHING THAT THE CRA APPROVE FAR AS A LICENSE.
>> EXACTLY. THAT'S WHAT I WOULD SAY IS JUST RECOMMEND THAT THE CRA EXECUTES A SHORT TERM PARKING LEASE FROM 5:00 A.M.-5:00 P.M. ONE THING I WANTED TO SUGGEST OR JUST THROW OUT THERE.
I KNOW WE'RE LOOKING AT THIS A BEING A BAKERY OR SOMETHING IN THE MORNING, BUT I THINK IF WE'RE LOOKING AT THIS FOR WALKING AND BIKING AND THAT TYPE OF THING, ESPECIALLY DURING THE SUMMER, I DON'T KNOW ABOUT YOU, BUT I'M GOING TO WALK OR BIKE AFTER 5:00 P.M. JUST A THOUGHT THAT MAYBE WE DO SOMETHING LIKE NOVEMBER 1 THROUGH APRIL 30, IT'D BE 5:00 A.M.-5:00 P.M.
BUT MAYBE LIKE MAY 1 THROUGH SEPTEMBER 30,
[01:25:02]
IT'D BE 5:00 A.M.-7:00 P.M. AT A COUPLE OF HOURS BECAUSE WE'VE GOT LONGER DAYS.THAT WAY, AGAIN, YOU'RE GOING OUT FOR A NICE BIKE RIDE IN THE EARLY EVENING, YOU CAN STOP IN AND GET A DRINK, YOU CAN DO SOMETHING BECAUSE I THINK THERE'S NO PLACE YOU CAN REALLY GO THAT YOU DON'T HAVE TO GET DRESSED UP.
IF I'M COMING FROM THE BEACH OR BIKING, THEN THAT'S A GREAT PLACE YOU CAN JUST STOP IN AND GET A DRINK.
NEXT THING IS WHILE THIS AREA IS IN TRANSITION, THERE'S A COUPLE OF THINGS THAT I'M CONCERNED ABOUT AND THAT'S THE EARLY MORNING NOISE.
I THINK I REFERENCED THAT WHEN I WAS TALKING WITH THE APPLICANT.
HAVE WE EXHAUSTED ANY AND ALL SOUND ABATEMENT, THINGS THAT WE CAN DO BECAUSE SHE SAID THAT THE RESIDENT TO THE SOUTH IS LITERALLY 10 FEET AWAY FROM THOSE GARBAGE CANS AND THINGS OF THAT NATURE.
IS THERE ANYTHING MORE WE CAN DO TO KEEP THAT NOISE DOWN IN THAT AREA? BESIDES JUST TREES.
>> RICK GONZALEZ FOR THE RECORD.
THE BUILDING IS A MASONRY VERNACULAR BUILDING, SO BLOCK CONSTRUCTION INSULATED.
THE WINDOWS ARE ALSO HURRICANE PROOF INSULATED WINDOWS, SO YOU WON'T REALLY HAVE ANY NOISE.
I'M SURE THEY'RE NOT GOING TO BE GOING OUT AND MAKING NOISE IN THE GARBAGE.
THE GARBAGE IS ACTUALLY AN ENCLOSED AIR CONDITIONED SPACE UNDERNEATH THE STAIRS.
SIMILAR TO WHAT WE DID AT THE HARRIET AT CITY PLACE, UNDER THE STAIRS, THAT'S WHERE WE PUT AND IT HAS A DRAIN TOO, SO IT'S AIR CONDITIONED, IT'S DRAINED, REAL SECURE, REALLY SOUND PROOF.
>> OKAY. THE LAST THING I JUST WANTED TO NOTE IS THE LIGHTING PLAN.
MY CONCERN IS MAKING SURE THAT THE LIGHT DOESN'T SPILL OVER INTO THE RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES BECAUSE OFTENTIMES IN PARKING GENERAL AREAS, THESE HIGH LIGHTS THAT JUST BOOM OUT ALL OVER.
I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THERE'S NO LIGHTING THAT GOES PAST THE PROPERTY LINE AND GOES INTO THE NEIGHBORS BEDROOM WINDOWS TYPE OF THING.
I JUST WANTED TO BRING THAT UP. THAT'S IT.
>> THANKS, COMMISSIONER KELSO. COMMISSIONER DUNNING.
>> NICE PLAN, VERY NICE PLAN LIKE THAT, AND I THINK IT WILL GO WELL WITH WHAT WE'VE ALREADY SEEN HERE.
UNDER THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL, I'M A LITTLE CONCERNED ABOUT THE PARKING.
I THINK THE STAFF HAS LAID THAT OUT.
ARE THERE ANY CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL THAT THE STAFF HAS LAID OUT THAT YOU FEEL LIKE YOU CAN'T OR WON'T MEET.
>> WE'RE IN AGREEMENT WITH ALL THE CONDITIONS AS MODIFIED BY COMMISSIONER KELSO.
WE'RE VERY COMFORTABLE WITH THE CONDITIONS AS THEY'RE WRITTEN.
>> OKAY. I HAVE NO OTHER QUESTIONS.
>> I JUST HAD A COUPLE. ARE THERE EXISTING OPERATING HOUR RESTRICTIONS RIGHT NOW AT THE SQUARE GROUPER OR THE BEACON?
>> WELL, THE BEACON, I THINK OPENS UP IN THE EVENING.
LUCKY SHUCK IS OPEN FOR LUNCH.
THAT'S THE WAY LUCKY SHUCK WORKS.
THEY HAVE THEIR OWN PARKING SO THEY DON'T USE THE TOWN'S LOT.
SQUARE GROUPER DOES UTILIZE SOME SPACES ON SITE AS WELL AS THE TOWNS LOT.
THEY'RE GENERALLY IN THE EVENING.
THEY TECHNICALLY DO OPEN, I THINK AROUND AROUND 11:00 A.M.
VERY LIGHT LIGHT CROWD AND THEN AS YOU KNOW, THE CROWD STARTS AROUND 4:00.
>> ARE THERE ANY CURRENT RESTRICTIONS ON OPERATING HOURS? NO.
I WAS CURIOUS TOO, WE TALKED ABOUT IN HERE ABOUT SPECIFIC USES, BUT I DIDN'T SEE ANY USE RESTRICTIONS IN THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL.
I'M CONCERNED I DON'T WANT TO OVERLY CONSTRAIN THE OWNERS IN TERMS OF WHAT THEY CAN OR CAN'T DO IN THERE.
HOW DOES THE TOWN MANAGE THAT TO MAKE SURE THAT IT DOESN'T BECOME SOMETHING THAT WE'RE NOT ANTICIPATING HERE, WHERE THERE'S A BAKERY, AN ICE CREAM SHOP, A COFFEE SHOP, STUFF LIKE THAT.
>> THE STATEMENT OF US, THEY'RE PROPOSING A RETAIL BUSINESS.
RETAIL INCLUDES BAKERY, COFFEE SHOP, DOUGHNUT, SO THOSE ARE INCLUDED IN DEFINITION OF RETAIL.
>> THERE IS A DIFFERENT TRAFFIC GENERATION FOR THE COFFEE SHOP, WHICH COFFEE AND DOUGHNUTS HIGHER THAN TYPICAL RETAIL AND RESTAURANT.
>> I THOUGHT THAT'S WHAT I READ IN HERE THAT IF YOU GO FULL ON LUNCH, THE TRAFFIC COUNT GOES IN THE ROOF BASICALLY.
>>THERE USED TO BE SOMETHING OTHER THAN RETAIL TO CHANGE A USE TO A RESTAURANT, IT WOULD BE A LESSER TRAFFIC GENERATOR.
>> THEY'RE BOUND BY THAT PURSUANT TO CONDITION 1D, WHICH REFERS SPECIFICALLY TO THE STATEMENT OF USE AND COMPLIANCE WITH IT. #.
[01:30:03]
>>AS MR. MEYER SAID, IF THEY WANT TO CHANGE THAT USE, THEY WOULD HAVE TO FILE AN APPLICATION TO AMEND THEIR USE.
>> OKAY. ON THE TEMPORARY PARKING LICENSE OF FIVE YEARS VERSUS A PERPETUAL EASEMENT, HOW DOES THE CRA THINK ABOUT THAT? WOULD THEY PREFER TO DO SHORTER TERM LICENSES?
>> THAT HAS BEEN THEIR PRACTICE IN FIVE YEAR INCREMENTS.
I THINK AT LEAST INITIALLY INTENT WAS THAT THAT COULD BE A TEMPORARY PURPOSE FOR THAT PROPERTY TO BE USED FOR AND THAT THE PROPERTY MAY BE REDEVELOPED IN THE FUTURE.
>> TO FULFILL THE VISION IN THE VILLAGE SECTOR.
>> THAT'S RENEWABLE AT THE TOWN'S OPTION, NOT AT THE USER'S OPTION, I WOULD ASSUME.
>> YEAH. IT WOULD BE SUBJECT TO THE CRA AUTHORIZING LICENSE.
>> OKAY. THOSE ARE MY QUESTIONS, COMMISSIONER.
>> YEAH, JUST A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS.
THAT'S ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE BUILDING.
THERE'S TWO PARKING PLACES, SO THAT'S WHERE THEY'LL BE LIMITED FOR THEIR PARKING, IS THAT CORRECT?
>> OKAY. THE CRA PARKING INTENDED FOR PATRONS, EMPLOYEES ONLY, IS THAT CORRECT? WHAT IS TO PREVENT VISITORS COMING IN TO VISIT THE RESIDENT ON THE SECOND FLOOR FROM PARKING IN THOSE PARKING SPOTS RESERVED FOR PATRONS OF THE FIRST FLOOR.
>> WELL, CONCEIVABLY THAT OBVIOUSLY COULD HAPPEN.
WE DON'T REALLY EXPECT THAT TO HAPPEN.
IF THERE WERE AN ISSUE WITH IT, WE HAVE ALTERNATIVE PARKING THAT COULD BE PROVIDED AT THE GROUP OR AT ANOTHER LOCATION.
WE DON'T ANTICIPATE THAT AS A STANDARD PRACTICE.
>> I GUESS IT ALL DEPENDS ON WHO YOU RENT IT TO.
BUNCH OF SCUBA DIVERS MIGHT HAVE FRIENDS OVER A LOT AND TAKING UP THE PARKING PLACES OVER IN THE CRA AREA.
THEY'RE NOT NECESSARILY THE DIVERS OR THE OPERATORS.
>> MY ONLY CONCERN. ALSO THE PARKING FOR THE RESIDENTS IS ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE BUILDING, WHEREAS THE ENTRANCE TO THE SECOND FLOOR IS ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THE BUILDING, IS THAT CORRECT?
>> OKAY, AND TO GET THERE, ARE THEY GOING TO BE ABLE THEN TO TRANSVERSE THROUGH THE PORCHED AREA IN FRONT OF PATRONS AND EVERYTHING ALL THE TIME GOING BACK AND FORTH?
>> OKAY, AND I DID AGREE WITH COMMISSIONER BLUM.
SHELL IS NICE, BUT IT DOES PULVERIZE AND YOU DO TRACK IT EVERYWHERE YOU GO WHEN IT GETS WET.
I'D BE MORE INCLINED TO LEAVE THAT AS THE P GRAVEL RATHER THAN CHANGING IT TO THE CRUSHED.
>> BECAUSE IT WILL BE TRACKING UP THE STAIRS AND INTO THE RESIDENTS AND EVERYTHING.
MY RECOMMENDATION IS TO LEAVE THAT AS FAR AS WHAT YOU RECOMMENDED.
AGAIN, I LIKE THE ARCHITECTURE.
I THINK IT'S A GOOD USE OF THE SPACE, AND I THINK IT'LL BE AN ENHANCED IMPROVEMENT TO THE AREA.
YOU SAID THAT YOU REVIEWED ALL THE CONDITIONS IN EXHIBIT 1, YOU CONCUR WITH ALL OF THEM?
>> WE'RE IN AGREEMENT WITH THE CONDITIONS.
>> OKAY. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. NO FURTHER QUESTIONS.
>> THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER BENSON.
>> I ONLY HAVE A COUPLE QUESTIONS.
GOING BACK TO THE SQUARE FOOTAGE ON THE OUTSIDE DINING, THERE WAS A DISCREPANCY BETWEEN YOURS AND WHAT THE TOWN STATED DUE TO THIS 54 FOOT PASS THROUGH.
THAT ALSO CHANGES THE NUMBER OF PARKING SPOTS THAT ARE AVAILABLE AND OR NEEDED.
ARE YOU ABLE TO CONTRACT FOR AND IS THE PARKING LOT ABLE TO HANDLE THOSE EXTRA PARKING SPOTS?
>> FOR THE RECORD, AGAIN, DONALDSON, HERE, I DO BELIEVE THAT WE'RE ONLY LOOKING AT UTILIZING DAYTIME SPACES, SO 6:00 A.M.
MOST OF THE ACTIVITIES GOING TO OCCUR BETWEEN PROBABLY 7-8:00 A.M. AND 9:30, AND THEN MAYBE THEY'LL BE A LITTLE BIT OF A LUNCH CROWD AND THEN THE END OF THE DAY IS REALLY JUST CLEANING UP.
WE CERTAINLY BELIEVE THAT THERE'S MORE THAN ADEQUATE PARKING THAT'S THERE TO FACILITATE.
>> YOUR CONTRACT WILL ENTAIL THE 20 SOMETHING PARKING SPOTS AND NOT THE 11.
>> ALSO I THINK 11 IS WHAT WE'RE REQUIRED, IS THAT CORRECT?
>> I THINK 11 IS WHAT IT STARTED, BUT SOMETHING ABOUT THE SQUARE FOOTAGE AND IT NEEDED TO GO.
>> YEAH. ALSO, IT'S IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT THIS IS GOING TO BE NO WAITER SERVICE.
THIS IS IF YOU'VE GOT A DONUT, YOU'RE INSIDE, YOU GO OUTSIDE AND YOU SIT DOWN AND DRINK YOUR COFFEE.
WE THINK A LOT OF OUR CUSTOMERS WILL TAKE THEIR COFFEE AND WALK DOWN TO THE RIVER WALK AND WATCH THE SUN COME UP AT THE INLET AND THE BIRDS AND ALL THAT ACTIVITY IN THE MORNING.
WE ALSO BELIEVE THAT A GOOD NUMBER OF OUR CUSTOMERS ARE NOT
[01:35:04]
NECESSARILY DRIVING DIRECTLY HERE JUST TO GET COFFEE AND A DONUT. IT'S OUT OF YOUR WAY.>> I UNDERSTAND ALL THAT. I'M JUST ASKING, ARE YOU GETTING A CONTRACT FOR THE INCREASED NUMBER OF PARKING SPOTS?
>> YOU STILL HAVE TO GO TO THE CRA, AND WE'VE GONE CONCEPTUALLY.
WE HAVE TO GO TO THE CRA AND THE CRA BOARD WILL MAKE THAT FINAL DETERMINATION.
>> OKAY. THE HANDICAPPED PARKING SPOT, NOT BEING ON SITE, FOR ME IS SOMEWHAT OF AN ISSUE? THAT'S A VERY LONG WAY.
>> THEN THE OTHER THING IS, THE PARKING FOR THE RESIDENT THAT'S GOING TO BE UPSTAIRS, HOW IS THAT GOING TO BE SEPARATED SO THAT PATRONS DON'T PARK IN THAT SPOT?
>> THERE'LL BE A SIGN THAT WILL BE POSTED THERE SO THAT THAT'S CLEAR.
AGAIN, WE ADDED THE RESIDENTIAL, I THINK IT WAS SOMETHING THAT WAS THERE THAT PROVIDES MORE CHARACTER.
I WAS JUST ASKING ABOUT PARKING.
>> ADDITIONAL HOUSING STOCK IN THE TOWN.
>> IS THE PLAN IN THE FUTURE TO MOVE IT TO TWO?
>> NO, SIR. WE CAN'T. NO, MA'AM. WE CANNOT.
>> IN THEIR FUTURE, THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT AN ALLEY WITH ANGLED PARKING. HOW FAR?
>> IT WOULD BE PARALLEL PARKING.
I THINK THAT THAT'S SOMETHING THAT'S PRETTY FAR OFF IN THE DISTANT FUTURE FOR SOMETHING LIKE THAT TO ULTIMATELY OCCUR.
BUT IT'D BE PARALLEL AND WE'VE PROVIDED THE ROOM TO ACCOMMODATE IT.
>> DOES THE TOWN HAVE ANYTHING TO ADD TO THE PARKING?
>> NO. THERE WERE ORIGINALLY TWO UNITS PROPOSED DURING THE REVIEW PROCESS, BUT BECAUSE THEY WERE PROPOSING TO PARK TANDEM, WE DID NOT FIND THAT THAT WAS ACCEPTABLE THAT ONE UNIT COULD PARK BEHIND ANOTHER UNIT.
>> BUT TO YOUR POINT, THE ALLEY, IF THEY GOT ADDITIONAL SPACES ON THE PROPERTY, THEY COULD REQUEST AN AMENDMENT IN THE FUTURE.
>> OKAY. BUT THE PARKING IS NOT TANDEM NOW.
>> IT'S TANDEM NOW, BUT IT'S FOR ONE UNIT.
>> I'M GOOD. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
>> THANKS. I JUST HAD ONE LAST QUESTION FOR THE TOWN.
IF WE GO WITH THE MODIFIED CONDITIONS, DO YOU ALL HAVE ANY CONCERNS IF WE ELIMINATE THE HOURS OF OPERATION RESTRICTIONS?
>> YES, I WOULD NOT RECOMMEND THAT YOU ELIMINATE THAT.
THAT'S PREDICATED DIRECTLY ON THE AVAILABILITY OF PARKING IN THE SRA PARKING LOT.
>> THERE ARE NO SPACES AVAILABLE AFTER 4:30.
>> THANK YOU. WITH THAT, DO WE HAVE ANY COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC?
>> CAN I ASK THAT ADDITIONAL QUESTION BEFORE WE GET TO THE NEXT THING.
EXPLAIN THAT TO ME, IF YOU WILL, THAT THERE'S NO PARKING SPACES AFTER 4:30.
>> THE PARKING LOT IS SOLD OUT.
ALL THE LICENSES HAVE BEEN ISSUED FOR THE NUMBER OF SPACES THAT EXIST AFTER 4:00 P.M. OR 4:30 P.M.
THERE'S 170 SPACES, AND WE'VE ISSUED LICENSES FOR ALL OF THOSE SPACES.
IT WOULD BE NECESSARY TO EITHER DO A WAIVER TO REDUCE THE PARKING REQUIREMENT FOR THE USE OR TO MAKE SOME OTHER PARKING PROGRAM PROVISIONS THAT ALLOWED FOR THE LOT TO BE OVERSOLD ESSENTIALLY.
>> ANY COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC?
>> WE HAVE NO COMMENTS ON THIS ITEM.
>> VERY GOOD. ANY COMMENTS OR DELIBERATION BEFORE WE ENTERTAIN A MOTION ON THIS?
>> I'D LIKE TO ENTERTAIN A MOTION.
>> TO GO AHEAD AND PASS IT AS IS.
>> OKAY. PASS AS IS WITH THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL, AND I THINK WE HAD TWO CHANGES.
ONE WAS TO KEEP THE P GRAVEL, IS THAT CORRECT? IS THERE A SECOND?
>> YEAH, 4A TO ADD A MAXIMUM OF THREE FEET THAT THEY CAN MOVE THE BUILDING TO THE WEST.
>> OKAY. ASSUMING JOHN, THAT THAT'S WORKABLE FROM A SETBACK STANDPOINT?
>> OKAY, SO THOSE TWO CHANGES TO THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL?
>> CAN I ADD ONE MORE TO THAT? MAKE SURE THAT WE INCLUDE IN THAT APPROVAL THAT CONTINGENT UPON THE APPLICANT'S ACCEPTANCE OF ALL THE CONDITIONS SPECIFIED BY THE STAFF WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THOSE?
>> YES. THE MOTION IS TO APPROVE, SUBJECT TO ALL THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL AS OTHER THAN THE TWO MODIFICATIONS WE JUST MADE? WE HAVE A MOTION, WE HAVE A SECOND? COMMISSIONER DUNNING, SECOND. ALL IN FAVOR. AYE.
[01:40:01]
>> ANY OPPOSED? IT PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. THANK YOU ALL.
>> THANK YOU. I APPRECIATE IT.
>> LET'S SEE, JUST TWO MINOR ITEMS. WE'VE GOT THE PLANNING AND ZONING DIRECTOR REPORT
[STAFF UPDATE]
ON RECENT TOWN COUNCIL ACTIONS ON COMMISSION ITEMS.>> I HAVE NO REPORT. I'LL SEND YOU ONE VIA EMAIL.
>> THERE HASN'T BEEN MUCH ACTIVITY.
>> YEAH. THANK YOU. NEXT SCHEDULE IS PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY OCTOBER 8TH.
THANK YOU ALL. CAN I GET A MOTION TO ADJOURN?
>> ALL IN FAVOR AYE. ANY OPPOSED. THANK YOU ALL.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.