[1. MAJMOD 2020-12 Saint Johns Interchange Parcels PUD. Major Modification 2020-12 – Major modification to the Interchange Parcels PUD (Ordinance No. 1991- 36, as amended), located within the Saint Johns Development of Regional Impact (DRI). The request provides for the transfer of five (5) residential dwelling units and 200,000 square feet of retail/commercial development rights to the Six Mile Creek PUD, also located within the Saint Johns DRI, the incorporation of previous approved land use exchange of 728,863 square feet of industrial uses to 350,000 square feet of commercial uses, pursuant to the approved Land Use Equivalency Table in the Saint Johns DRI, allow up to 250 multi-family units to be constructed on Parcel 15 and allow multi-family parking standards as per the Land Development Code. The Planning and Zoning Agency recommended approval with a 3-2 vote. The Agency discussed growth and development in the general area of International Golf Parkway, Pacetti Road and SR 16, and its impact on quality of life, traffic capacity, school capacity, if there is a need for additional commercial uses in this area, and the impact these changes may have upon the existing residents within both the Interchange Parcel PUD and the Six Mile Creek PUD, specifically the King and Bear community in the Six Mile PUD. Many King and Bear residents spoke against increasing the commercial uses at the entrance of the King and Bear community. Please see Growth Management Report for project details.]

[2. Public Hearing * MAJMOD 2020-13 Six Mile Creek PUD. Major modification to the Six Mile Creek PUD, located within the Saint Johns Development of Regional Impact (DRI). The request provides for a transfer of five (5) dwelling units from the Interchange Parcels PUD, planned as single family or multi-family; a transfer of 200,000 square feet of commercial retail uses increasing the commercial retail to 351,000 square feet; delete 6,000 square feet of commercial entitlement on Parcel 9 and relocate to Parcels 1 and 2 of Six Mile Creek North; decrease the commercial entitlement on Parcel 6 from 15,000 square feet to 13,650 square feet and relocate to Parcels 1 and 2 of Six Mile Creek North; and allow 18,362 square feet of the King and Bear Clubhouse for commercial uses. The Planning and Zoning Agency recommended approval with a 3-2 vote. The Agency discussed growth and development in the general area of International Golf Parkway, Pacetti Road and SR 16, and its impact on quality of life, traffic capacity, school capacity, if there is a need for additional commercial uses in this area, and the impact these changes may have upon the existing residents within both the Interchange Parcel PUD and the Six Mile Creek PUD, specifically the King and Bear community in the Six Mile PUD. Many King and Bear residents spoke against increasing the commercial uses at the entrance of the King and Bear community. Please see Growth Management Report for project details.]

OKAY. THAT PASS 5-0.

THANKFUL WE WILL MOVE TO AGENDA ITEM NUMBER ONE.

MR. CHAIR. ITEMS NUMBER 1 AND TWO WILL BE HEARD TOGETHER. AND THEY ARE BOTH JUDICIAL MATTERS. IF EACH OF THE MEMBERS WOULD DISCLOSE EX PARTE MATTERS THIS TIME.

THANK YOU. >> OKAY.

THERE MR. MCCORMACK. WE WILL START WITH COMMISSIONER

SMITH. >> THANK YOU I HAD MANY, MANY E-MAILS ON THIS ONE. THE MAJORITY PUT INTO PUBLIC RECORD. ON APRIL 1ST, 2021, AT 3:00 P.M.

I MET WITH KATHRYN WITTING TON, DOUG DAVIS AND BRADLEY AND MIKE ROBERSON. WE LOOKED AT TRANSFERS OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS AND LEGISLATIVE EXTENSION.

LOOKED AT PARCEL 15 UP TO 250 DWELLING UNITS MULTIFAMILY IN THE NORTHEAST QUADRANT TO DISCUSS THESE ITEMS. ENDED UP WITH A DISCUSSION AND CONTROVERSIAL SIX MILE PUD

[00:35:02]

PARCELS ONE AND TWO OF THERE ARE TWO COMMERCIAL OPENING OF REGISTRY THERE WITH ALLOTMENT OF 5500 SQUARE FEET PER ACRE.

PRESENTLY ZONED COMMERCIAL GENERAL.

THE REQUEST IS TO ADD ADDITIONAL 200,000 SQUARE FEET TO IT.

WENT THROUGH SOME OF THE DISCUSSION WHAT IS THERE, ON IT AND ANY CONCESSIONS. MEETING WITH THE PUBLIC AND I THINK THAT WILL COVER MY DISCLOSURE.

>> MR. VICE CHAIR. >> ON APRIL 1ST, APPROXIMATELY 2:00 P.M. I MET WITH DOUG DAVIS, KATHRYN WHITTINGTON FOR APPROXIMATELY 45 MINUTES COVERING ALL ISSUES COMMISSIONER SMITH OUTLINED. I WILL SAY THE REAL SORT OF HEART OF THE MATTER WAS A LENGTHY DISCUSSION ABOUT THE TRANSFER OF THE 200,000 SQUARE FEET FROM THE INTERCHANGE PUD TO THE 6 MILE CREEK PUD. THAT WAS ALSO THE SUBJECT OF APPROXIMATELY I WOULD SAY 20 TO 25 E-MAILS FROM RESIDENTS IN THE SIX-MILE CREEK AREA OBJECTING TO THE ADDITIONAL OFFICE SPACE.

THAT COMPLETES MY DISCLOSURE. >> THANK YOU COMMISSIONER.

COMMISSIONER WALDRON. >> THURSDAY APRIL 1ST, AT 1:30 P.M., I MET WITH DOUG DAVE, BILL SHILLING.

KATHERINE WHITTINGTON, AND STAFF TO DISCUSS THE HISTORY OF THE ST. JOHNS DRI. DISCUSSED TRAFFIC AND INFRASTRUCTURE. THE SIX MILE CREEK PUD IN EXCHANGE OF COMMERCIAL SQUARE FOOTAGE ALLOTMENTS.

THE FACT THE TWO PARCELS HAVE BEEN IN THE PUD.

WE HAD E-MAILS, Y'ALL ALREADY STATED QUITE A FEW AND HAD AN E-MAIL. I WAS NOT ABLE TO WRITE DOWN THE

NAME TO DISCUSS THEIR >> THANK YOU.

WHETHER WHITEHURST. >> MR. WHITEHURST.

ON APRIL 1ST, I MET WITH DOUG DAVIS, KATHRYN WHITTINGTON, CUNNINGHAM AND OUR STAFF TO DISCUSS THE HISTORY OF THE DRI AND THE PUDS AND WHAT THEY SEE AS THEIR NEED TO MOVE COMMERCIAL FROM ONE PLACE TO THE NEXT. TO TRANSFER INDUSTRIAL TO RESIDENTIAL. WE DISCUSSED POSSIBLE DEFICIENCIES ON THE SURROUNDING ROADWAYS AND THE IMPACT TO THE RESIDENTS. I LIKE THE REST OF COMMISSIONERS HAVE ALSO RECEIVED THE E-MAILS IN OPPOSITION TO THE PROJECT.

>> THANK YOU COMMISSIONER WHITEHURST.

I MET ON THURSDAY APRIL 1ST AT 2:30 P.M. WITH DOUG DAVIS, BILL SHILLING. KATHRYN WHITTINGTON AND VANESSA CUNNINGHAM TO SPEAK ABOUT THE 2020-3 WE SPOKE WITH THE HISTORY OF THE DRI. SCOPE OF THE PROJECTS AND TRAFFIC CONSIDERATIONS. AND OF THE OPPOSITION TO THIS PROJECT. I'M ALSO RECEIVED APPROXIMATELY 30 TO 40 E-MAILS IN OPPOSITION TO THE PROJECT AS WELL.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU MR. CHAIR.

AND COMMISSIONERS. I HAVE PREPARED AND PROVIDED TO THE COUNCIL FOR THE APPLICANT AND THE OPPOSITION ON THIS MATTER A PROPOSED TEMPLATE WHEN I WOULD LIKE TO GO OVER VERY BRIEFLY IF I MAY. AND AFTER SOME DISCUSSIONS WITH THE CHAIR, IF THERE'S JUST SOME REVISION WHICH I HAVE MENTIONED TO THE COUNCIL AND WILL MENTION IT AGAIN ON RECORD HERE.

AGAIN, BOTH OF THE ITEMS AGENDA 1 AND 2 WILL BE PRESENTED TOGETHER. HEARD TOGETHER.

TO START, THERE WILL BE A SWEARING IN OF WITNESSES.

SO IF THE APPLICANT HAS SOME WITNESSES WE WOULD LIKE TO HAVE THOSE SWORN IF THE OPPOSITION HAS SOME WITNESSES, WE WOULD LIKE TO HAVE THOSE SWORN. KIND OF ALL IN TOGETHER FOR EFFICIENCY PURPOSES. THERE MAYBE SOME PEOPLE APPEARING BY PHONE AND THAT MIGHT BE, WE MAY HAVE TO TREAT

[00:40:02]

THOSE SORT OF ONE AT A TIME BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW THERE'S A WAY TO DO A GROUP SWEARING IN ON THE PHONE.

SO THEN AFTER THE SWEARING IN OF WITNESSES, THE APPLICANT WILL GIVE A PRESENTATION. LIMITED TO 25 MINUTES.

ANY TIME CAN BE EXTENDED BY THE CHAIR FOR GOOD CAUSE BUT IT'S A 25 MINUTE TIMELINE. AFTER THAT, THE OPPOSITION REPRESENTED BY COUNCIL WILL ALSO PRESENT FOR 25 MINUTES.

THAT WAS ORIGINALLY GOING TO BE 20 BUT WE HAVE ADJUSTED THAT TO 25. AFTER THAT, WILL BE PUBLIC COMMENT AND I WANT TO TALK ABOUT PUBLIC COMMENT IN A MOMENT.

COME BACK TO THAT. THEN THE APPLICANTS REBUTTAL OPPORTUNITY AND THEN BACK TO THE BOARD FOR THE QUESTIONS OF THE APPLICANT AND OPPOSITION STAFF. THIS IS A TEMPLATE AND YOU KNOW, IT'S MEANT TO I THINK PROVIDE AS FAR AS POSSIBLE EFFICIENT PRESENTATION TO THE BOARD SO THAT THE BOARD MAY MAKE ITS DECISION ON AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 1 AND AGENDA ITEM 2.

I DO BRIEFLY WANT TO DISCUSS THE MATTER OF CROSS-EXAMINATION.

IF I MAY AT THIS TIME, MS. WHITTINGTON AND MR. BROOKS IF YOU COULD APPROACH THE SPEAKERS PODIUM HERE.

WE HAVE NOT DISCUSSED CROSS-EXAMINATION.

AS YOU'RE STANDING THERE NOW, ARE YOU GOING TO BE ASKING FOR A CROSS-EXAMINATION OR ARE YOU GOING TO WAIT TO SEE HOW THE HEARING PROCEEDS? MISS WHITTINGTON?

>> I WILL WAIT TO SEE HOW THIS PROCEEDS.

>> I DON'T INTEND TO CROSS EXAMINE AT THIS TIME.

>> I WOULD HAVE A BRIEF DISCUSSION WITH THE COUNCIL IF ANYONE IS GOING TO DO CROSS-EXAMINATION AND SORT OF THE SCOPE OF THAT TO MAKE SURE AGAIN THE HEARING PROCEEDS ALONG. SO THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

>> I HAVE A QUESTION. >> THE TEMPLATE THAT I RECEIVEDED THE PRESENTATION TO COVER BOTH APPLICATIONS WAS 25 MINUTES AND THE OPPOSITION WAS 20.

I THINK YOU SAID 25. DID THAT CHANGE? I HAD A DISCUSSION WITH THE CHAIR AND THE CHAIR DID FEEL IT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE TO HAVE BOTH SIDES TO HAVE THE 25.

AND AT THIS POINT I DO WANT TO GO BACK TO PUBLIC COMMENT FOR A MOMENT. NOW THE OPPOSITION ACTUALLY THE APPLICANT AND THE OPPOSITION ARE REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL AND THE IDEA IN PART TO HAVING A REPRESENTATIVE FOR A GROUP IS SO THAT REPRESENTATIVE CAN SPEAK FOR THE GROUP AND NOT EVERY PERSON WITHIN THE GROUP ALSO SPEAK.

AND SO THAT SHOULD BE THE SPIRIT.

HAVING SAID THAT, I DO THINK FOR PUBLIC COMMENT IF THERE ARE GOING TO BE SOME INDIVIDUALS THAT ARE REALLY JUST SPEAKING AS INDIVIDUALS, I THINK THAT CAN BE ALLOWED FOR BY THE BOARD.

AND SO, FIRST OF ALL, I WOULD LIKE TO AT LEAST ON THE RECORD FOR THE TEMPLATE AS A DESCRIBED IT.

ANY OCCASIONS FROM THE APPLICANT TO THE TEMPLATE?

>> LET THE RECORD REFLECT NO. >> BEFORE WE GET FURTHER.

I WOULD LIKE BOTH COUNSELS TO REMAIN DURING THIS DISCUSSION.

THANK YOU. SO BACK TO THE APPLICANTS.

ANY OBJECTION TO THE TEMPLATE? >> I WOULD HAVE PREFERRED THE TEMPLATE AS IT WAS ONLY BECAUSE I HAVE TO PRESENT TWO COMPLETE APPLICATIONS A LOT OF WHICH HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH THE OPPOSITION. I UNDERSTAND THE TRANSFER WOULD HAVE BUT WE HAVE A LOT OF OTHER ITEMS TO DISCUSS.

I FEEL IT'S NOT AS FAIR THAT THEY HAVE AS MUCH TIME AS THE

APPLICANT DOES. >> ALL RIGHT.

SO NOTED. I WOULD NOTE ALSO AS I HAD MENTIONED THAT THE TEMPLATE DOES PROVIDE IF ADDITIONAL TIME IS REQUIRED OR APPROPRIATE THAT CAN BE GRANTED.

>> YES, I KNOW THAT. THANK YOU.

MR. BROOKS. NO OBJECTION.

>> THANK YOU. AND MR. CHAIRMAN, UNLESS YOU

HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS. >> I DO BEFORE WE GO FURTHER.

MR. BROOKS HAVE YOU IDENTIFIED IN THE AUDIENCE WHO WILL BE

SPEAKING? >> GOOD MORNING COMMISSIONERS MY NAME IS RALPH BROOKS ATTORNEY AND REPRESENT A PROPERTY

[00:45:08]

HOMEOWNER CALL THE ST. JOHNS SIX MILE NORTH PROPERTY OWNERS

ASSOCIATION. >> MR. BROOKS, WE WILL GO THROUGH THE INTROS. HAVE YOU IDENTIFIED THE INDIVIDUALS THAT WILL BE SPEAKING? OUR DIRECTOR PAUL MONSIEUR WILL SPEAK AFTER ME AND WE WILL HAVE AN EXPERT PLANNING WITNESS FROM AMERICAN INSTITUTE CERTIFIED PLANNER, DARRYL MAX FORGY. ARE THERE OTHER INDIVIDUALS IN

THE AUDIENCE SPEAKING? >> NO.

THERE MAY BE CITIZENS. THERE'S HORSE FARMS TO THE SOUTH. WE DON'T REPRESENT THEM OR MAYBE INDIVIDUAL CITIZENS THAT LIVE IN THE AREA OR MAYBE LIVE INSIDE THE KING AND THE BEAR SOMEWHERE. THEY ARE INDIVIDUALS AND I DON'T REPRESENT THEM. I ONLY REPRESENT THE POA.

>> ANY QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD? >> SO MR. CHAIR, AT THIS TIME, I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE WHOEVER THE WITNESSES ARE COME FORWARD AND WE WILL SORT OF HAVE THEM AS A GROUP AND WE WILL ONE BY ONE HAVE THEM STATE THEIR NAMES AND I WILL SWEAR THEM IN.

>> IF WE COULD HAVE PEOPLE LINE UP TO SOCIALLY DISTANCE.

AND OBVIOUSLY COUNSEL ARE NOT SWORN IN.

THEY ARE HERE AS REPRESENTATIVES AND MEMBERS OF THE FLORIDA BAR.

ANY FACT WITNESSES IF YOU WOULD LINE UP.

ALL RIGHT. STARTING WITH MR. DAVIS.

STATE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD. >> DOUG DAVIS.

I'M THE MASTER DEVELOPER OF ST. JOHNS PRI -- [INAUDIBLE]

>> RIGHT. AND SIR, [INAUDIBLE]

>> THANK YOU. MR.

>> PHIL SHILLING. >> SIR.

BRUCE HUMPHREY. RESIDENT OF THE KICK AND BEAR.

RALPH BROOKS. >> MAX FORTE.

>> OKAY. I ALSO HAVE A RESUME I WOULD

LIKE TO ENTER INTO THE RECORD. >> IS THIS EVERYONE THAT WILL BE

GIVING SUBSTANTIVE TESTIMONY? >> IT'S POSSIBLE BUT NOT LIKELY

THAT VANESSA CUNNINGHAM. >> LET'S IN ABUNDANCE OF CAUTION SWEAR EVERYONE IN. MR. CHAIR.

IF THERE ARE MEMBERS OF THE AUDIENCE THAT WILL DO PUBLIC COMMENT. THIS WOULD BE THE TIME FOR THEM TO BE SWORN IN. I RECOGNIZE IF THERE ARE PEOPLE ON THE PHONE, WE MAY HAVE TO DO THOSE ONE AT A TIME.

>> IF THERE ARE MEMBERS OF AUDIENCE OFFERING FACT OR SUBSTANTIVE EVIDENCE. NOT OPINION.

PLEASE COME FORWARD AND WE WILL SWEAR YOU IN.

>> MS. CLATY, YOU ARE OFFERING FACT EVIDENCE?

>> YES, SIR. PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME ON THE RECORD. [INAUDIBLE]

>> IS THERE ANYBODY ELSE? SIR.

AGAIN ANYONE THAT WILL BE OFFERING FACT EVIDENCE.

>> YES. IF YOU INTEND TO GIVE PUBLIC COMMENT AND OFFER FACTS, PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME, SIR.

[INAUDIBLE] >> YES,

>> OKAY. ANOTHER GENTLEMEN HERE.

>> I AM ROBERT SELLING. I LIVE IN THE KING AND THE BEAR.

>> EACH OF YOU RAISE YOUR HAND. RAISE YOUR HAND.

WE HAVE ANOTHER GENTLEMEN HERE. PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME.

[INAUDIBLE] >> I THINK WE HAVE ONE MORE GENTLEMEN COMING FORWARD. [INAUDIBLE] OKAY.

EACH OF YOU ARE GETTING A BICEP WORK OUT.

>> MR. MCCORMACK. I HAVE A QUESTION.

IF THESE WITNESSES ARE BEING REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL FOR THE HOA, ARE THEY STILL ALLOWED TO TESTIFY?

>> I THINK MR. BROOKS HAD EXPLAINED.

HE REPRESENTS THE POA AND THERE ARE CERTAINLY REPRESENTATIVES HERE OR GENERAL MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC.

>> OKAY. WILL EACH YOU STATE YOUR NAME.

AGAIN JUST YOURSELF. DO YOU EACH SOLEMNLY SWEAR TO

[00:50:06]

TELL THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH.

MR. CHAIR, THE WITNESSES ARE SWORN.

WHEN MS. WHITTINGTON IS READY, THE APPLICANT PRESENTATION WILL COMMENCE. THANK YOU.

AT YOUR PLEASURE. >> GOOD MORNING COMMISSIONERS, THAT TAKES A LOT OF PROCEDURE OUT OF THE WAY.

I DON'T NEED TO INTRODUCE OUR TEAM.

I WILL SAY AS YOU KNOW WE'RE UNDER TIME LIMITATION SO I'M GOING TO TRY TO GO THROUGH THIS AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE.

>> GIVES ONE MINUTE. I WANT TO GET THE CLOCK SET.

>> I'M SORRY. >> OKAY.

SO THIS IS OUR TEAM. I WANT TO THANKS STAFF.

THEY DID A VERY PROFESSIONAL JOB IN THIS REVIEW.

IF I'M GOING TOO QUICKLY, PLEASE STOP ME.

THIS IS THE DRI. YOU CAN SEE THE, THIS IS THE INTERCHANGE QUADRANT, PARCELS PUD AND THE INTERCHANGE.

THIS IS SIX MILE CREEK PUD. YOU CAN SEE WHERE THEY ARE.

95 AND IGP. THIS IS THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP.

THIS IS A VERY OLD DRI. APPROVED IN THE PRESENT FORM IN 1991 AND ORIGINALLY IN 1996 CALLED THE ST. JOHNS HARBOR.

IT HAS ITS OWN COMPREHENSIVE PLAN OF DRI THAT'S WHY IT'S IN BLUE. SO WE'RE GOING TO START WITH THE ST. JOHNS INTERCHANGE PARCEL PUD.

THESE ARE THE CHANGES REQUESTED. WE'RE INCORPORATING LAND USE EQUIVALENCY CHANGE ALLOWABLE UNDER THE CHANGE TABLE ALREADY APPROVED. THIS IS JUST INCORPORATING THE NEW NUMBERS. THE LEGISLATIVE EXTENSIONS THAT HAVE BEEN GRANTED BY THE GOVERNOR FOR EMERGENCIES.

THEY BE BEING INCORPORATED. THE TRANSFERS TO THE SIX MILE PUD FROM THE INTERCHANGE PUD. THERE ARE FIVE RESIDENTIAL UNITS. I WILL GET TO THIS IN A MINUTE.

THESE FIVE WERE INADVERTENTLY TRANSFERRED FROM SIX MILE CREEK TO THE INTERCHANGE PUD AND NEED TO BE TRANSFERRED BACK OR ELSE THEY'RE GOING TO BE SHORT. SO THERE'S A LOT OF HOUSEKEEPING INVOLVED IN THIS. WHICH WE THOUGHT THE WHOLE THING WAS PRACTICALLY HOUSEKEEPING. WE ORIGINALLY INTENDED TO TRANSFER 200,000 OF COMMERCIAL FROM THE INTERCHANGE TRACK BUT WE THOUGHT IT WAS ADMINISTERIAL. WE ENCOUNTERED OBJECTION FROM THE RESIDENTS AND THE MASTER DEVELOPER, DOUG DAVIS WENT BACK TO THE DRAWING BOARD. THE 200,000 WAS A RANDOM NUMBER AND THOUGHT IT WOULD COVER WHAT WAS NEEDED.

HE WENT BACK TO THE DRAWING BOARD TO DETERMINE IF WE COULD DO WITH LESS SQUARE FOOTAGE AND HE'S DETERMINED THAT HE CAN.

AND WE ARE BASING THAT ON 12,000 SQUARE FEET PER ACRE WHICH IS ALLOWABLE FOR ANY COMMERCIAL GENERAL PARCEL IN THE COUNTY, WHICH I WILL TALK ABOUT MORE WHEN I GET TO SIX MILE CREEK APPLICATION. 117652 YOU SEE IN RED, THAT IS 106, 640 FOR PARCELS ONE AND TWO WHERE BEFORE IT WAS 200,000 AND PLUS 11012 SQUARE FEET THAT THE COUNTY HAS ASKED US TO ALLOCATE A LITTLE BIT MORE THAN THAT, 18,000 FOR THE KING AND THE BEAR CLUB HOUSE BECAUSE IT'S OPEN FOR PUBLIC EVENTS.

THERE'S A LITTLE BIT OF SQUARE FOOTAGE NOT BUILT COMING BACK.

THE ULTIMATE SHORTAGE FOR THAT I'M GOING TO CALL IT A DING FOR A LACK OF A BETTER WORD IS 11012.

WE'RE ASKING TO LET US USE OUR SQUARE FOOTAGE FROM THE DRI FOR THAT 11012 SQUARE FEET FOR THE CLUB HOUSE AND THEN 106640 FOR PARCELS ONE AND TWO. I HAVE WITH ME TODAY, WE WERE NOT, WE DIDN'T HAVE ENOUGH TIME TO GET IT INTO YOUR RED FOLDERS BUT I HAVE WITH ME I THINK 10 COPIES.

OF ALL THE CHANGES IN THE NUMBERS THAT INCORPORATES WHAT I'M GOING TO SAY TODAY. THIS IS MORE HOUSEKEEPING.

YOU WILL SEE THIS SQUARE HOUSE 14,000 SQUARE FEET.

THE COUNTY'S CONVENTION CENTER IS 169502.

[00:55:03]

THIS IS HAPPENING BECAUSE AFTER 30 YEARS, THE COUNTY DECIDED THEY WANT US TO ALLOCATE SOME OF OUR POT OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS TO THESE USES AND WE SAID OKAY, WE HAVE THEM.

WE DON'T HAVE THEM IN 6 MILE CREEK BUT WE HAVE THEM IN THE DRI. SO, WE ARE ALLOCATING THAT AMOUNT AND THAT'S WHERE THAT 11,000 NUMBER COMES FROM THAT I JUST EXPLAINED. THESE TWO PARCELS, 10 AND 12 ARE NOW ALLOCATED. WE ALLOCATED THOSE YEARS AND YEARS AGO FOR TOWN HOME AND MULTIFAMILY EXCLUSIVE.

WE WANT TO OPEN THOSE, BE MORE FLEXIBLE AND LET THAT BE SINGLE FAMILY TOWN HOME OR MULTIFAMILY. WE'RE STILL IN OF COURSE THE INTERCHANGE PUD. WE ARE ASKING TO ALLOW 250 OF OUR EXISTING APPROVED UNITS. THERE IS NO ASK IN ANY OF THESE APPLICATIONS FOR ANY NEW DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS.

THEY'RE ALREADY APPROVED UNDER THE DRI.

WE PARCEL 15 TODAY IS ALLOCATED AS OFFICE.

WE WOULD LIKE TO CHANGE THAT AND ALLOCATE 250 MULTIFAMILY UNITS TO THAT PARCEL. WHICH I WILL SHOW YOU ITS LOCATION. WE WOULD ALSO LIKE TO BRING THE MULTIFAMILY PARKING REQUIREMENTS THAT ARE AS OLD AS THE PUDS AND THE DRI JUST ABOUT TO COMPLY WITH TODAY'S LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE. OURS IS MORE ONE RUS, WE ARE BRINGING THAT TO WHAT THE CAP CODE ALLOWS TODAY.

THIS IS, THIS SHOWS YOU WHERE PARCEL 15 IS IN THE INTERCHANGE TRACT. THAT WE'RE ASKING TO PUT THE 250 UNITS ON AND IT'S RIGHT HERE WHERE YOU SEE ALL THREE OF THE QUADRANTS IN THE PUD. THIS IS A CLOSER IN, IT SHOWS YOU THE BOUNDARIES. THE ADJACENT PROPERTIES IN THE BOUNDARIES. THIS PARCEL 15 IN ORANGE.

BEHIND IT IS PARK LAND PRESERVE. THIS IS AN OLD AREA.

THERE ARE MORE UNITS CONSTRUCTED NOW.

IT'S CURRENTLY UNDER CONSTRUCTION.

THIS IS CALLED THE GOLF WAY PUD. THIS IS BANTAM LAKES.

THIS IS PARKLAND DOWN HERE. YOU CAN SEE ALL OF THE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT AROUND PARCEL 15, THE ONLY PARCEL IS HERE NEXT TO IT THAT IS OFFICE. THAT'S THE SITE OF THE OLD TREE OF LIFE. THIS SHOWS YOU HOW WELL BUFFERED PARCEL 15 IS. AND I WILL SHOW YOU THAT IS RIGHT HERE. THIS BUFFER RIGHT HERE YOU SEE IN THE NEXT PICTURE. THERE'S A LAKE AND A PRESERVE AREA. YOU CAN SEE THE LAKE, IT'S AN ADDITIONAL 100 FEET. YOU CAN SEE WHERE PARCEL 15 IS.

200 TO 300 DEEPLY DENSE PRESERVATION AS A BEFORE BETWEEN PARKLAND PRESERVE. HERE YOU SEE IT UP CLOSE.

IT'S APPROXIMATELY 400 FEET DISTANCE FROM PARCEL 15 TO THE RESIDENTIAL UNITS IN PARKLAND PRESERVE.

THIS IS CONCEPTUAL PICTURE OF HOW THE MULTIFAMILY BUILDINGS SHOULD BE ARE PLANNED TO BE SITUATED.

YOU CAN SEE HERE GOLF WAY AND HERE'S BANTAM LAKES.

THIS IS GOLF WAY AND BANTAM LAKE SYSTEM OVER HERE.

THIS IS AN AERIAL THAT SHOWS YOU HOW THIS FITS IN.

THIS IS ROYAL GOLF VILLAGE OVER HERE.

IMMEDIATELY AROUND IT IS PRIMARILY RESIDENTIAL SO IT'S A MUCH MORE COMPATIBLE USE. THIS IS GOLF WAY PUD AND IT'S IMPORTANT BECAUSE IT IS THE PUD ADJACENT TO THE PARCEL AND BETWEEN BANNON LAKES. YOU CAN SEE THE ENTRANCE IS UNHEMMED. THIS IS A LAKE, IT'S OVER GROWN.

THIS IS WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE TODAY.

THE SIGN HAS BEEN HERE FOR YEARS AND YEARS.

IT'S BEEN, THEY HAVE BEEN ATTEMPTING TO LEASE AND SELL THIS AND HAVE BEEN LARGELY UNSUCCESSFUL WHICH I WILL SHOW YOU IN PICTURES. THIS IS 2008 BEFORE THE TREE OF LIFE MOVED OUT. YOU CAN SEE ALL THE CARS IN THE PARKING LOT. AND THEN THE NEXT, YOU JUMP TO THE NEXT AREA IN 2014 DOESN'T LOOK THE SAME.

THERE'S NO FOUNTAIN. IT'S STARTING TO LOSE ITS MAINTENANCE. YOU DON'T SEE CARS HERE.

THEN WE GO TO 2016. STILL NO CARS.

2020, THERE ARE A FEW CARS. >> AND HERE IS STATISTIC THAT ARE WITHIN 1 MILE OF THE INTERSECTION OF IGP AND WORLD

[01:00:01]

GOLF VILLAGE BOULEVARD. THERE IS TODAY A 48.3 % VACANCY RATE FOR OFFICE DEVELOPMENT AND 300,000 SQUARE FEET OF INVENTORY. RIGHT NOW THERE ARE 145 SQUARE FEET AVAILABLE AND NOT RENTED. AND I WILL POINT OUT THAT ALL OF THE ADJACENT DEVELOPERS DR HORTON FROM PARKLAND PRESERVE.

WALLY DUBLIN FROM GOLF PUD AND ART LANCASTER FROM EAST LAND ARE ALL IN SUPPORT OF THIS. MR. DUBLIN, YOU HAVE LETTERS IN YOUR PACKETS, YOU RECEIVED THEM. MR. DUBLIN SAID HE DOESN'T REALLY WANT ANYMORE OFFICE COMPETITION.

IT PEAKED IN 2014. THIS IS NOT AN APPROPRIATE OR ECONOMICAL USE FOR THAT PARCEL FOR ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT.

THIS SHOWS YOU THE ENTRANCE TO PARKLAND PRESERVE.

THE DEVELOPER INSTALLED A SIGNAL HERE AND IT IS ACTIVE AND IMPROVING ACCESS TO BOTH THE NORTHEAST QUADRANT AND NORTHWEST QUADRANT. THIS IS MAP H.

. THESE ARE PARCELS ONE AND TWO.

THIS IS SIX MILE NORTH. THE REST IS SIX MILE NORTH.

SIX MILE CREEK WEST, UNAFFECTED. WE ARE SPEAKING ABOUT SIX MILE NORTH SPECIFICALLY PARCELS ONE AND TWO.

THIS IS TO SHOW YOU THE CALCULATIONS OF THE COMMERCIAL TRANSFER. THAT WE'RE PROPOSING AND HAVE CHANGED. WE, WOOPS.

WE ORIGINALLY, THIS WAS 200,000 PLUS 130,000, OR 151.

THERE'S AN ADDITIONAL 21 IN PARCELS OTHER THAN ONE AND TWO.

THE TWO COMBINATION WAS 351,000 TRANSFERRED ALTOGETHER.

THIS IS HOW IT'S BREAKING DOWN NOW.

236640, WHICH EQUATES TO 12,000 SQUARE FOOT PERACRE TIMES 19.72 ACRES. YOU JUMP TO POLICY A 1113.

INTENSITY FOR COMMERCIAL GENERAL USES, WHICH IS WHAT THIS PARCEL IS IS 12,000 SQUARE FOOT PER ACRE EQUALS THIS NUMBER.

236. THIS 12,000 PER SQUARE FOOT ACRE IS ALLOWABLE UNDER THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN PER IF PARCEL WITH CG USES. YOU SUBTRACT 130 ALLOCATED AND UNDERALLOCATED I MIGHT ADD AND LEAVES US WITH TRANSFER OF 106640. NOT 200.

106, 640. I WILL ALSO ADD POLICY A 218.

THE COUNTY ENCOURAGES MINIMUM RATIO OF 112 SQUARE FOOT TO ACHIEVE DIVERSITY IN THE NORTHWEST SECTOR.

THAT EQUATES TO 538,000 WOULD MEET THE COUNTY'S GOAL.

VERSUS 31. 112 VERSUS 31 BUT DWELLING UNIT.

THEIR 4805 UNITS IF THE FIVE ARE APPROVED DIVIDED BY THE 151 COMES OUT TO 31 VERSUS OTHER PARCELS IN THE NORTHWEST SECTOR BEING ENCOURAGED TO HAVE 112 PER UNIT.

106640 GOING TO PARCEL ONE AND TWO.

THIS IS THE DING. I DESCRIBED TO YOU BEFORE.

836, 362 FOR THE KING AND BEAR HOUSE THAT WAS NEVER ANTICIPATED OR ALLOCATED OR APPROVED BUT WE ARE TRYING TO COMPLY WITH THE COUNTY'S WISH TO DO THAT. MINUS 1350 ON PARCEL SIX THAT WAS NEVER BUILT. ONLY 13,000 WAS BUILT.

MINUS 6000. IT WAS A RETAIL IDEA IN PARCEL 9. NEVER BUILT.

SO IF YOU SUBTRACT THOSE TWO SQUARE FEET COMING BACK TO US, OUT OF THE 18,000 THAT WE'RE GETTING DINGED FOR.

THAT LEAVES A SHORTAGE OF 11012. YOU ADD THE 11012 TO THE 106640, THAT GIVES A TOTAL TRANSFER TO SIX MILE CREEK OF 117652 PLUS OF

[01:05:02]

COURSE THE FIVE RESIDENTIAL CLEAN UP UNITS.

AND THIS IS JUST DEMONSTRATING THAT MATHEMATIC FORMULA I JUST SHOWED YOU. THIS IS THE 6000 THAT WAS NOT BUILT COMING FROM HERE. THIS IS THE 13050 COMING FROM HERE. THIS IS 1362 GOING TO THE KING AND THE BEAR AND YOU CAN SEE THE CALCULATION HERE, THIS IS THE REDUCTION FROM 200,000 TO 106, 640 FOR PARCELS ONE AND TWO.

THIS IS TO SHOW YOU THE DISTANCE FROM PARCELS ONE AND TWO.

FROM THE CLOSEST RESIDENTIAL POD WHICH IS HERE.

IT'S NEARLY 500 FEET. IN THIS CASE, IT'S NEARLY 800 FEET. IT'S VERY WELL BUFFERED AND THIS IS A PRESERVATION AREA. THIS IS PARCEL ONE AND TWO.

UNFORTUNATELY, WE COULD NOT MAKE THE BLUE LINE GO ALL THE WAY AROUND IT. THIS IS PARCEL ONE.

THIS IS TO SHOW YOU WHAT IS IN THE HAVEN'T.

HERE'S AGAIN PARCEL ONE. HERE THIS SHOWS THAT THIS MEETS THE DEVELOPMENT TRENDS IN THIS AREA.

YOU SEE ACROSS THE STREET IT'S MIRA VELA.

HERE'S FLAGLER HOSPITAL YMCA. THERE'S A PUBLIX HERE.

FIRE STATION SITE HERE. THIS IS A MIRAVELA NEIGHBORHOOD.

THEY COME TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND HAVE RETAIL, RESTAURANTS ALL AROUND THEM. THERE'S A WALGREENS.

MCDONALDS. CVS AND A LOT RETAIL AND RESTAURANTS. THIS FITS THE DEVELOPMENT TREND IN THE AREA. THIS IS ANOTHER SIGNAL THAT THE MASTER DEVELOPER HAS INSTALLED AND IS OPERATIONAL AND IT IS DIRECTLY AT THE ENTRANCE HERE PARCEL ONE HERE.

PARCEL TWO HERE. HERE'S A SIGNAL.

DIRECTLY AT REGISTRY BOULEVARD AND ACROSS FROM POSITANA ENTRY WAY INTO MIRAVELA. I'M GOING TO ASK BILL TO COME UP. ONE THING I DO WANT TO, I THINK HE'S GOING TO TALK ABOUT. WE'RE ALSO ASKING TO PUT A POTENTIAL FUTURE DRIVEWAY ON PARCEL ONE.

WE'RE NOT ASKING TO, WE'RE SHOWING IT ON MAP H AS AN ALTERNATIVE ACCESS INTO PARCEL ONE.

TO ALLEVIATE THE ACCESS POINTS HERE.

IT IS ONLY CALLED POTENTIAL ACCESS BECAUSE IT'S OWNED BY HOA. IT'S UP TO THEM WHETHER THEY WANT TO PUT IT IN. IF YOU DON'T SHOW IT ON THE MASTER PLAN, IT'S A MAJOR PLANNING ITEM.

WE PUT IN THIS THERE IF THEY IN GOOD FAITH.

BEFORE HE STARTS, MAY I INTRODUCE HIS RESUME INTO THE

RECORD? >> ABSOLUTELY.

>> GOOD MORNING I'M BILL SHILLING.

127040 GRAND BAY, JACKSONVILLE, FLORIDA 32258.

I'M A PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER AND LICENSED IN FLORIDA AND HAVE A LITTLE OR 25 YEARS OF EXPERIENCE IN ENGINEERING AND ENTITLEMENT PLANNING REGARDING LAND DEVELOPMENT, THE DEVELOPMENT OF LAND. AND I'M GOING TO PICK UP WHERE KATHRYN HAS LEFT OFF AND TALK ABOUT THE TRAFFIC COMPONENTS OF THE PROJECT. THE ONE THING I WOULD LIKE TO ADD ABOUT THIS ADDITIONAL PROPOSED ENTRY LOCATION IS WE HAVE WORKED WITH STAFF, STAFF'S REQUEST THIS BE RESTRICTED TO A RIGHT IN RIGHT OUT ONLY LOCATION AND WE HAVE CERTAINLY ACCOMMODATED THAT. WANT TO MAKE SURE EVERYBODY RECOGNIZES THAT, I KNOW THERE'S A LITTLE BIT OF CONFUSION AT ONE TIME THERE WAS A THOUGHT THIS WAS ALIGNED WITH TOURIN.

IT IS NOT. IT WILL BE RESTRICTED TO RIGHT IN, RIGHT OUT. SO WE'LL START BIG PICTURE ON THE DRI. SO THE DRI ITSELF WHICH INCLUDES BOTH PUDS, THE INTERCHANGE PARCELS AND SIX MILE CREEK PUD.

IN THE PRESENT FORM WAS APPROVED IN 1991.

IN IT AS A PART OF THAT, IT INCLUDED AN ANALYSIS OF A LARGE BUCKET OF ENTITLEMENTS THAT AT THAT TIME A TRANSPORTATION ANALYSIS WAS DONE AND APPROVED AND AS A PART INCLUDED NUMEROUS IMPROVEMENTS AND MITIGATION FOR THOSE TRIPS THAT WERE TRIGGERED TO DATES AND TRIPS. AND SO MANY OF THOSE IMPROVEMENTS HAVE BEEN MADE. MANY ARE STILL LEFT TO BE MADE.

BUT AS AN EXAMPLE OF THE MASTER DEVELOPER, HAS ALREADY MADE CLOSE TO $55 MILLION IN TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS TO

[01:10:05]

MITIGATE THOSE TRIPS THAT HAVE ALREADY BEEN ADDED AND THAT $55 MILLION IS MEASURED IN TODAY'S DOLLARS.

THAT INCLUDE THE INTERCHANGE AT INTERNATIONAL GOLF PARK WAY.

INTERNATIONAL GOLF PARK WAY IMPROVEMENTS.

WIDENING OF STATE ROAD 16 AND SIGNALIZATION IMPROVEMENTS.

I KNOW WE HAVE SHOWN HERE IN THE PRESENTATION IGP AND PARK LAND WAS NEW SIGNALIZATION INSTALLED AND NEW SIGNALIZATION AT REGISTRATION AND PACETTI. TALKING THE WAY THE DRI OPERATES. THIS DRI HAS WHAT WE CURRENTLY REFER TO BIENNIAL MONITORING. EVERY TWO YEARS, THE APPLICANT IS REQUIRED TO STUDY THE TRAFFIC WITHIN THIS AREA.

THE MASTER DEVELOPER HAS BEEN DOING THAT.

THE MOST RECENT REPORT WAS SUBMITTED IN JANUARY OF 2020.

THIS COMING JANUARY IN 2022, WE ARE DUE FOR ANOTHER SUBMITTAL.

AND AS A PART OF THAT, WE LOOK AT HOW THE ROADWAY NETWORK IS OPERATING. THIS PAST BIENNIAL MONITORING REPORT DEMONSTRATED INTERNATIONAL GOLF PARK WAY WORKED AT LEVEL C OR GREATER. IT DID DEMONSTRATE THE NEED FOR THESE TWO TRAFFIC SIGNALS BEING WARRANTED AND CONSTRUCTED WITHIN THE TWO YEAR TIME FRAME SINCE THAT STUDY WAS DONE AND WILL CONTINUE AS WE PROGRESS. I MENTIONED SOME OF THE FUTURE TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS. SEVERAL OF THE BIGGER ONES ARE LISTED HERE THAT ARE STILL LEFT OUT AHEAD OF THE PROJECT.

ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE HAVE SEEN IS A PART OF THE DRI IS IT HAS NOT DEVELOPED AS QUICKLY AS WAS ORIGINALLY ANTICIPATED IN 1991.3 IT WAS ANTICIPATED TO HAVE A 25 YEAR BUILD OUT. TAKING IT THROUGH ROUGHLY 2015.

THE PROJECT THROUGH 2015. RIGHT NOW WE'RE IN 2021.

AND BASED ON TRIPS, THE PROJECT IS ROUGHLY 45% COMPLETE.

OF THE TOTAL BUCKET OF TRIPS AND ENTITLEMENTS THAT WERE ANALYZED IN 1991. I WILL HIT THE INTERCHANGE QUICKLY AND MOVE TO SIX MILE CREEK.

THE OVERALL SUMMARY, THERE IS A LAND USE EXCHANGE MATRIX.

THAT MATRIX IS TRAFFIC NEUTRAL. S IT EXCHANGE USES BASED ON P.M. PEAK HOUR TRIPS. THAT IS WHAT THE MASTER DEVELOPER IS DOING, EXCHANGING TRIPS BASE ON THE EQUIVALENCY MATRIX. WHAT WE HAVE SEEN IN THE NORTHWEST QUADRANT IS WHAT IS DEVELOPING IS LESS INTENSE THAN WHAT WAS ORIGINALLY AMOUNTED. PARCELS ONE THROUGH EIGHT WERE ANTICIPATED TO BE INDUSTRIAL AND ARE NOW SINGLE FAMILY AGE RESTRICTED WHICH IS A LESS INTENSE USE.

ADDITIONALLY, THE DOT HAS ACQUIRED POND SITES TAKING COMMERCIAL LAND OUT OF DEVELOPMENT USE.

SO GENERALLY WE'RE SEEING IN THE INTERCHANGE THINGS DEVELOP AT A LESSER INTENSITY. GOING TO 6 MILE CREEK, AGAIN, AS MENTIONED, AND I THINK ONE OF THE KEY COMPONENTS THAT THE APPLICANT HAS WORKED ON IS WHAT IS THE EXACT SQUARE FOOTAGE NEEDED FOR PARCELS ONE AND TWO. RATHER THAN REQUESTING 200,000 SQUARE FEET, WE'RE AT 117,000. WITH PART OF THAT GOING TO PARCELS ONE AND TWO TO GET US TO THE 12,000 SQUARE FOOT AN ACRE TO BE ON A LEVEL PLAYING FIELD WITH THE OTHER COMMERCIAL GENERAL USES AND PARCELS IN THIS AREA.

SO AS MENTIONED, TODAY WHAT IS REMAINING FOR THE PARCELS ONE AND TWO ARE THE 118988 SQUARE FEET WHICH IS LESS THAN 6100 SQUARE FOOT AN ACRE. ROUGHLY 50% OF THE WHAT THE OTHER GENERAL PARCELS ARE ALLOWED.

SO, KATHRYN ALREADY HIT THE FIRST POINT.

ALLOWING US TO MOVE THESE USES OUT OF THE INTERCHANGE AND DOWN TO PARCELS ONE AND TWO ALLOW US TO BRING SOME OF THESE COMMERCIAL AND NONRESIDENTIAL USES STILL TO A COMMERCIAL NODE WITHIN THE COUNTY AS SHOWN THERE'S A SIGNIFICANT COMMERCIAL AREA DEVELOPING AT STATE ROAD SIXTEEN AND IGP AND FACETTI.

THIS IS ANTICIPATED TO BE COMMERCIAL AND IT PROVIDES A

[01:15:01]

BETTER MIX OF USES RIGHT AT THE FRONT OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD TO CAPTURE THE TRIPS AND KEEP IT FROM GOING UP TO THE INTERCHANGE. I KNOW ONE OF THE OTHER THINGS WITH THE COMMERCIAL IS AND I KNOW THERE WAS SOME DISCUSSION OF SCHOOL TRAFFIC, THE COMMERCIAL PEAK TRAFFIC TYPICALLY AROUND LUNCHTIME AND P.M. PEAK HOUR IN THE AFTERNOON IT IS WHICH DOES NOT COINCIDE WITH THE SCHOOL PEAK HOURS IN THE MORNING AND MIDAFTERNOON. AND THEN FINALLY I WILL CLOSED ON AND I THINK IS THE MOST IMPORTANT FACTOR TO CONSIDER IS HAVING THESE PARCELS IN THIS USE, THE SQUARE FOOTAGE WITHIN THE DRI AND WITHIN PARCELS ONE AND TWO IS IF THESE PARCELS WERE OUTSIDE THE DRI, COMMERCIAL IS CURRENTLY EXEMPT FROM CONCURRENCY. THERE WOULD NOT BE A CONCURRENCE OR TRAFFIC REVIEW, AND THESE, THIS SQUARE FOOTAGE AND TRIPS ARE BEING MITIGATE WITHIN THE DRI.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. OUR TEAM IS AVAILABLE.

KATHRYN. AT YOUR DISCRETION, I WOULD LIKE TO ASK MR. DAVIS TO SPEAK EITHER NOW OR IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO ADD HIM AFTER REBUTTAL. HE ONLY NEEDS A MINUTE OR TWO.

>> I THINK WE CAN ALLOW A FEW MORE MINUTES.

ACTUALLY MR. CHAIR. MY ADVICE ON THAT IS THIS IS THE APPLICANT'S CASE IN CHIEF. REBUTTAL IS ONLY TO BASICALLY COMMENT ON SOMETHING THAT THE OPPOSITION OR PUBLIC COMMENT.

SO IF IT'S PART OF THE CASE IN CHIEF, IT SHOULD BE HEARD NOW.

>> NOW. AND I WOULD ASK --

>> YOU CAN PUT ON YOUR CASE HOWEVER YOU WANT IT.

>> COMMUNICATIONS DEPARTMENT TO KEEP THIS AVAILABLE OUR POWER

POINT. >> THANK YOU COMMISSIONERS.

DOUG DAVIS, 101 TOWN PLACE. I WILL BE SIMPLE.

MY ONLY ASK IS I HAVE TWO PARCELS THAT ARE LOCATED IN FRONT OF THE KING AND THE BEAR. WE HAVE OWNED THOSE PARCELS FOR A NUMBER OF YEARS AND HAVE BEEN TRYING TO SELL THEM.

THEY'RE NOT MARKETABLE AS THEY SIT TODAY.

IN GOOD FAITH, I DID MEET THE WITH POA AND THE RESIDENTS.

I WORKED VERY HARD TO WORK ON A COMPROMISE THAT WOULD BE GOOD FOR EVERYONE. I KNOW THAT THE CONSTITUENCY HAS ECHOED TO YOU GUYS AND TO ME THEY DON'T WANT TO SEE ANY DEVELOPMENT THERE. I THOUGHT WE REACHED A COMPROMISE. I HAD MET ALL OF THE REQUESTS WHEN I MET WITH THEM AND THEY ULTIMATELY DECIDED NOT TO MOVE FORWARD WITH MY PROPOSAL. I ASK YOU TO CONSIDER ALL I'M ASKING FOR IS TO GIVE ME THE ALLOCATIONS TO MAKE IT MARKETABLE TO MAKE IT A PARK IS TO LITERALLY TAKE THE PROPERTY RIGHTS FROM ME. I NEED THAT PROPERTY TO SELL SO I CAN MOVE FORWARD WITH THE DRI. WE HAVE A LOT OF TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS OUT THERE TO DO AND THE PROCEEDS FROM THE COMMERCIAL PARCEL SALES IS WHAT I USE TO GENERATE THE ROAD SIGNALS AND LEAVING IT AS A PARK IS NOT DOING ANYONE ANY GOOD.

THANK YOU FOR CONSIDERING THAT AND I WILL BE AVAILABLE FOR

>> OKAY. MR. BROOKS.

>> HOW MANY TIME PATRICK? I'M SORRY.

25. I THINK I GOT IT NOW.

>> GOOD MORNING. MY NAME IS ATTORNEY RALPH BROOKS. I REPRESENTATIVE THE ST. JOHNS SIX MILE CREEK NORTH PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION.

I WANTED TO BEGIN WE ARE NOT ASKING FOR A PARK.

WE ARE ASKING THAT THE DRI NOT BE A PARK BUT MAINTAIN THE COMMERCIAL SQUARE FOOTAGE THAT WAS ALLOCATED TO PARCEL ONE AND TWO WHEN A APPROVED THE ST. JOHNS DRI.

WE THINK THEY ARE ASKING FOR ADDITIONAL SQUARE FOOTAGE THAT WOULD RENDER INCOMPATIBLE WITH THE AREA AND WOULD DESTROY THE SENSE OF PLACE THAT IS THE KING AND BEAR.

THE SIDE OF PACETTI ALONG KING AND BEAR IS VERY DIFFERENT FROM MIRA VELA. IT'S NOT THE PUBLIC SHOPPING CENTER. IT'S THE ENTRANCE TO ONE OF MOST PREEMINENT GOLFS COMMUNITIES IN ST. JOHNS.

PERHAPS NOT ALL OF FLORIDA. T THE SOUTH OF THAT ARE BEAUTIFUL HORSE FARMS AND HORSE TRAINING FARMS. THESE LOOK LIKE THE FARMS I SEE IN OCALA AND HORSE COUNTRY.

SIX MILE OWNED THE PROPERTY. THE PROPOSED INGRESS, RIGHT IN, RIGHT OUT, THEY ONLY THE COMMON AREAS INCLUDING THE ROAD OF

[01:20:09]

PROPERTY THAT IS IN THEIR PUD. THEY'RE CREATED AS PART OF THE DEVELOPMENT. WHEN THE DEVELOPER LEAVES, THEY LEAVE IT TO THE PROPERTY OWNERS WHO RELIED ON THE PUD AND CREATED A BOARD OF DIRECTORS TO CONTROL THE PROPERTY.

WHEN THE PROPERTY OWNER DEVELOPER PURCHASED THE PROPERTY, THE DRI RIGHTS WERE IN PLACE.

THEY KNEW WHAT THEY WERE BUYING AND THEY BOUGHT WHAT THEY BOUGHT. TODAY THEY ARE ESSENTIALLY ASKING FOR YOU TO TRANSFER FIRST OF ALL INDUSTRIAL WAREHOUSE INTO COMMERCIAL AT THE INTERCHANGE AND THEN TRANSFER THAT COMMERCIAL FROM THE INTERCHANGE NEXT TO THE KING AND BEAR.

WE THINK IT'S MORE APPROPRIATE FOR THAT COMMERCIAL TO STAY AT THE INTERCHANGE AND NOT TO BE BROUGHT TO THIS SIDE OF THE ROAD OF PACETTI NEXT TO THE KING AND BEAR.

IT'S IMPORTANT TO UNDERSTAND A COUPLE THINGS AS YOU GO THROUGH YOUR DELIBERATIONS. ONE THE TEST FOR A MAJOR MODIFICATION TO A PUD OR REZONING.

A PUD IS A ZONING CATEGORY. YOU HAVE TO MEET THE CRITERIA IN YOUR OWN LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE. 505.03.03 D.

O6 A. 6 AND G.

ALL THESE THINGS TALK ABOUT COMPATIBILITY.

YOUR STAFF HAS FINDINGS OF FACT ON PAGE EIGHT.

THERE'S TWO COLUMNS. FINDINGS OF FACT TO APPROVE ON THE LEFT. WE ASK FOR A MOTION TO ADOPT THE FINDINGS OF FACT IN THE RIGHT COLUMN WHICH IS TO DENY.

THERE ARE TWO CRITERIA FOR REZONING UNDER THE CASE LAW.

IT MUST BE CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR ST. JOHNS COUNTY. WE WILL HAVE AN EXPERT PLANNER, MAJOR FORGE WHO IDENTIFIED GOALS IN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN SIMILAR TO THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE CRITERIA THAT ARE FOUND IN OBJECTIVE A .1.13 AND HE WILL EXPLAIN THOSE.

AS THEY APPLY TO ALL COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS AND ZONING MUST BE COMPATIBLE WITH THE ADJACENT AND SURROUNDING USES. HE WILL EXPLAIN WHAT THAT COMPATIBILITY MEANS. EVEN IF AN APPLICATION FOR REZONING IS CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, YOU CAN STILL DENY THE REQUEST TO REZONE IF THE EXISTING ZONING ACCOMPLISHES A LEGITIMATE STATE PURPOSE.

THIS EXISTING PUD, THE EXISTING COMMERCIAL SQUARE FOOTAGE THERE ACCOMPLISHAD I PURPOSE BEFORE WHEN IT WAS CREATED AND THAT IS STILL BE ACCOMPLISHED TODAY. IT'S A LESSER INTENSITY OF COMMERCIAL USE ON THEIR SIDE OF PACETTI NEXT TO THE KING AND BEAR. IT'S NOT A PLACE THAT'S APPROPRIATE FOR A PUBLIX. BY THE WAY, YOUR PUBLIXES MIGHT BE 30,000 SQUARE FEET TO KEEP IN YOUR MIND.

A WAL-MART 50,000 SQUARE FEET. IF YOU'RE ASKING FOR 100,000 SQUARE FEET, YOU'RE ASKING FOR THE EQUIVALENT OF TWO WAL-MARTS.

THAT'S A LOT OF COMMERCIAL SQUARE FOOTAGE ABOVE AND BEYOND WHAT WAS ORIGINALLY APPROVED IN THE DRI FOR PARCELS ONE AND TWO.

WE'RE MOST CONCERNED ABOUT PARCEL ONE.

IT'S THE CLOSEST TO THE RESIDENCES AND PROPERTY OWNERS.

7.3 ACRE PARCEL. IF IT WAS ON ITS OWN UNDER THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN WOULD BE A NIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL NOT A GC OR GENERAL COMMERCIAL. THE GENERAL COMMERCIAL IS 12,000 SQUARE FOOT PER ACRE WITH A NEIGHBORHOOD FOUR TO 10 ACRES IS ONLY 12,000. SOMETHING OVERALL LIKE 77,000 SQUARE FEET. THEY HAVE MORE THAN THAT ALREADY BECAUSE OF THE ORIGINAL ST. JOHNS DRI PUD.

WE DON'T NEED TO BE INCREASING THAT ABOVE AND BEYOND WHAT EVERYONE ELSE IS ENTITLED FOR NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL.

COMPETENCE SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE. YOU WILL NEED THAT.

SOME PEOPLE WILL TELL YOU, CITIZENS TESTIMONY OR LAYPERSON IS NOT COMPETENT SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE.

IT CAN BE AS LONG AS IT'S BASED ON CHARTS, GRAPHS, FACTS, EVIDENCE, EXISTING DEVELOPMENT DATA.

THERE'S A CASE BLUMEN THAL WHERE A LAYPERSON TESTIMONY WENT TO THE INCOMPATIBILITY OF A PROPOSED REZONING TO THE ADJACENT DEVELOPMENT AND THE EXISTING ZONING WOULD BE THE KING AND THE BEAR. THOSE HORSE FARMS TO THE SOUTH AND THE ORIGINAL DRI APPROVAL THAT HASN'T BEEN DEVELOPED YET.

THEY HAVE SOLD TO PEOPLE THAT HAVE WANT TO AND PUT IN APPLICATIONS FOR THINGS LIKE THAT THREE STORIES.

[01:25:18]

THE PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS OF APPLICANT ARE TO THE REASONABLE INVESTMENT BACKED EXPECTATIONS WHEN THEY PURCHASED THIS PROPERTY, THEY DID PURCHASE SQUARE FOOTAGE AND HAVEN'T USED IT ALL. IF THEY HAVE SOLD OFF COMMERCIAL SQUARE FOOTAGE THEY DON'T OWN, THAT IS NEGLIGENCE.

THEY SHOULD HAVE AT LEAST MADE A REPRESENTATION PERHAPS THEY DID.

BUT YOU CAN'T SELL WHAT YOU DON'T OWN.

PROFESSOR SCOTTY VAN ALSTEIN AT UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA TAUGHT MY REAL PROPERTY CLASS AND SAID STUDENTS, YOU CAN'T SELL THE SAME THINGS TWICE IN REAL PROPERTY.

WE SAID HOW COULD THAT HAPPEN. WE'RE NOT HERE TO BAIL SOMEONE OUT FOR SELLING COMMERCIAL SQUARE FOOTAGE THAT DOESN'T EXIST. WHAT IS THERE AND WHAT THEY BOUGHT AND NOT ALL UTILIZED. AS WAS MENTIONED, THERE TALKED ABOUT 45% UTILIZATION BASED ON TRAFFIC.

WE DON'T WANT THAT TRAFFIC BROUGHT TO THE KING AND BEAR TO THIS AREA. WE'RE ALREADY SUFFERING A LOT FROM THE OTHER SIDE OF PACETTI ROAD.

COMMERCIAL SQUARE FOOTAGE IS MORE APPROPRIATE IN THE INTERCHANGE THAN IT IS HERE. WE NEED TO KEEP THOSE INTERCHANGES AS AN AVAILABLE AREA.

NOW, MY TIME IS RUNNING A BIT SHORT.

NEXT I WILL CALL TO THE STAND PAUL MONSIEUR, EXCUSE ME MY COURTROOM LANGUAGE. THE DIRECTOR OF THE PROPERTY OWNER'S ASSOCIATION WHO WILL HAVE A BRIEF PRESENTATION AND DARRYL MAX FORGY, HAS A MASTERS OF PLANNING IN REGION PLANNING.

FROM UNIVERSITY OF INDIANA. HE WAS OSCEOLA COUNTY PLANNING COORDINATOR. PLANNING DIRECTOR AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR FOR CHARLOTTE COUNTY, FLORIDA AND HE IS ALSO WORKED FOR CAPE CORAL AND THE SOUTHWEST FLORIDA REGIONAL PLANNING COUNCIL AND HIRE TO OFFER HIS EXPERT OPINION. YOU HAVE IN YOUR PACKETS.

THE REQUEST FOR ADVERSE PARTY STATUS THAT HAS MY RESUME.

A SUMMARY OF COMPETENT SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE.

MAX'S FINDING ON THE CONSISTENCIES WITH THAT, I WILL INTRODUCE PAUL. IF YOU COULD PUT PAUL'S POWER POINT SLIDE UP. IT'S UP ON YOUR SCREEN.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >> GOOD MORNING COMMISSIONERS.

FIRST I WANT TO THANK YOU FOR GIVING ME TIME TO SPEAK.

SECOND I WANT TO THANK COMMISSIONER SMITH AFTER THE PLANNING AND ZONING MEETING, I WAS UNCOMFORTABLE WITH MY

NUMBERING OF THE NUMBERS. >> TALK INTO THE MICROPHONE.

>> I WAS UNCOMFORTABLE AFTER THE PLANNING AND ZONING MEETING WITH MY UNDERSTANDING OF THE NUMBERS AND HOW IT WORKED OUT.

COMMISSIONER SMITH SUPPLIED ME WITH THAT INFORMATION.

I'M GOING TO USE THAT DATA TODAY SO THE INFORMATION I'M USING TODAY IS NOT MY DATA. IT'S YOUR DATA.

AND I'M GOING TO SHOW YOU IN A VERY SUCCINCT CONCISE WAY WHAT DUPLICATIONS ARE. NEXT CHART.

SO, I HAVE EXCUSE ME, I HAVE IN YOUR PACKAGES A COPY OF THE CORRESPONDENCE FROM COMMISSIONER SMITH'S OFFICE.

I'M NOT GOING TO GO THROUGH THAT SPECIFIC CORRESPONDENCE.

WHAT I HAVE DONE IS TAKEN THE DATA FROM THAT CORRESPONDENCE AND WILL BE SO MARKED IN THE PRESENTATION MATERIAL THAT I'M GOING TO GO THROUGH NOW. LET ME START WITH FRAME OF REFERENCE INFORMATION. YOU SAW A CHART THAT LOOKED SIMILAR TO THIS. IN THE LAST PRESENTATION.

PARCEL ONE IN THE CORNER IS THAT ODD SHAPED.

THAT'S THE SEVEN POINT ACRE PARCEL WE'RE TALKING ABOUT.

THE OTHER PIECE OF THE PARCEL ARE SOLD AND REALLY NOT IN PLAY WITH RESPECT TO THIS COMMERCIAL DISCUSSION.

PARCEL TWO BELOW, I HEARD WITH INTEREST MR. DAVIS' REMARK THAT HE CAN'T SELL IT. I THINK IT SOLD IN DECEMBER TO BE HONEST WITH YOU. THERE'S A NEW OWNER AND THAT OWNER HAS ACTUALLY SUBMITTED PLANS TO THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT. ABOUT A BUILDING THERE.

[01:30:05]

SO AGAIN FRAME OF REFERENCE INFORMATION.

ST. JOHNS COUNTY WEBSITE IS ACTUALLY REALLY NICE.

IT PROVIDES GOOD TOOLS FOR YOUR RESIDENTS TO ACTUALLY LOOK AT IN DIFFERENT WAYS WHAT IS GOING ON IN THE COUNTY.

SO I DID A SPATIAL ANALYSIS MAP. IT'S THE SAME 500 FOOT RANGE THAT YOU SAW EARLIER. AND WHAT YOU CAN SEE IS, WE HAVE GOT WITHIN THAT 500 FOOT CONE, A NUMBER OF RESIDENCES IN THE FIRST NEIGHBORHOOD THAT'S ASSOCIATED WITH THE PARCEL ONE PIECE OF THIS ACTIVITY. IF YOU LOOK TO YOUR RIGHT, ON MY RIGHT. I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S YOUR RIGHT OR NOT. THAT'S THE PUBLIX REFERENCED EARLIER. I USED ANOTHER ST. JOHNS SPATIAL TOOLS AND IT'S APRIL 45,000 SQUARE FEET.

SO WITH THAT, I AM GOING TO GO THROUGH SOME ANALYSIS THAT I DID THAT ANALYSIS WILL USE THE DATA I RECEIVED FROM COMMISSIONER SMITH'S OFFICE. IT WILL REFERENCE PROJECTS IN PROCESS NOT TO DISCUSS THE PROJECT PER SE.

WE UNDERSTAND IF THERE ARE ISSUES ASSOCIATED WITH THOSE PROJECTS CONCERNING SPECIAL USE, WE WILL ADDRESS THOSE AT A DIFFERENT TIME AND VENUE. I'M GOING TO TAKE YOU THROUGH WHAT IS BEING REQUESTED IN TERMS OF SQUARE FOOTAGE CONSUMPTION AND WHAT IS BEING ASKED IN TERMS OF CONSIDERATION IN TERMS OF TRANSFER. I WILL START WITH THE 200,000 SQUARE FOOT TRANSFER EVEN THOUGH I KNOW THAT'S NOT ON THE TABLE YET AND WHY I GOT CONCERNED AFTER THE PLANNING AND ZONING MEETING. IF YOU LOOK AT THE TOP OF THIS, THAT IS ASSOCIATED WITH COMMERCIAL RIGHTS OR COMMERCIAL ALLOCATIONS TO THE PUD. IF YOU LOOK AT THE EXISTING COMMERCIAL ALLOCATION, FROM ST. JOHNS COUNTY, IT'S 151,000 SQUARE FEET. MAJOR INCREASE OF 200,000 FEET YIELDS 351. SIMPLE MATH.

FROM THAT YOU TAKE OUT THE CONSIDERATION FOR STUFF THAT'S NOT IN PARCEL. KING AND BEAR CLUB HOUSE.

18,000. KING AND BEAR SPA, 9600.

DENTIST OFFICE AND CHILD CARE FACILITY.

ALL THIS FROM ST. JOHNS COUNTY. THAT YIELDS 307000 COMMERCIAL SPACE AVAILABLE ON PARCELS ONE AND TWO.

THAT'S THE COMMERCIAL ALLOCATION NOW FOR PARCELS ONE AND TWO.

BELOW THE RED LINE, I'M GOING TO TALK ABOUT HOW IT'S BEING CONSUMED. SO FROM THE INFORMATION FROM ST.

JOHNS COUNTY, THERE'S AN MDP REQUESTING AND YOU CAN READ THE NUMBERS. THAT MUCH DEVELOPMENT OR THOSE DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS FOR PARCEL ONE.

THEY ADDED UP TO 145,000 SQUARE FEET OF DEVELOPMENT.

AND THAT'S CONSUMING 5.7 OF THOSE 7.7 ACRES.

SIMPLE MATH SAYS, WOW, THAT'S 25,000 SQUARE FEET PERACRE.

IN PARCEL ONE. THAT'S BEING REQUESTED.

BIG NUMBER. AND THAT LEAVES ANOTHER 103000 SQUARE FEET AVAILABLE FOR THE TWO LOTS THAT ARE IN PARCEL ONE THAT ARE NOT YET INTO ST. JOHNS PLANNING.

BIG NUMBERS. COMPARE THAT AND CONTRAST TO WHAT IS GOING ON IN PARCEL TWO. THERE'S A PLAN IN THERE CURRENTLY UNDER EVALUATION FOR 58682 SQUARE FEET.

THAT'S A 9.3 ACRE LOT. SIMPLE MATH AGAIN.

6003 SQUARE FEET PER ACRE. THAT'S MORE REASONABLE.

I WILL SAY I HEARD EARLIER THAT THE KING AND BEAR DOESN'T WANT ANY COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT UP FRONT.

THAT'S NOT THE CASE. THE BOARD KNOWS THAT'S COMMERCIAL LAND. WE ARE NOT OPPOSING COMMERCIAL LAND OR MANAGE IT TO SOMETHING THAT'S CONSISTENT WITH OUR NEIGHBORHOODS. SO TOTAL FOR PARCEL ONE AND TWO, SO FAR, YIELDS 13500. NOW, I'LL MOVE TO THE NEXT CHART. THIS IS THE SAME FORMAT AS THE CHART I SHOWED YOU WITH THE NEW REQUEST, 117652.

[01:35:05]

SAME NUMBERS. THE ACTUAL, WELL WE TRIED TO YOU KNOW SATISFY THOSE RESIDENTS AT KING CAN BEAR BY REDUCING OUR REQUEST, WHEN YOU LOOK AT WHAT IS GOING ON, IT'S REALLY AN EMPTY GESTURE. IT'S DOING THE SAME THING.

I HEARD THEM SAY THEY WAGGED A NUMBER AND THEY DID.

NOW THEY SHARPENED THEIR PENCILS AND KNOW WHAT THEY NEED TO BUILD THAT PARCEL ONE UP. MAKE NO MISTAKE, THIS IS ABOUT PARCEL ONE. EVEN IN THE LETTER I RECEIVED FROM THE COMMISSIONER'S OFFICE, THIS MDP IS WHAT DROVE THE REQUEST TO MOVE SQUARE FOOTAGE FROM THE IT TO SIX MILE CREEK.

PARCEL ONE. PARCEL TWO REALLY ISN'T IN THE CONVERSATION. YOU HAVE TO EXCUSE ME, IT'S ALLERGY SEASON. PARCEL TWO IS A DONE DEAL AS FAR AS I CAN TELL. IT'S BEEN SOLD.

THE DEVELOPER HAS PLANS IN ST. JOHNS COUNTY PLANNING.

COMMERCIAL SQUARE FOOTAGE HAS BEEN ALLOCATED.

AND IT'S OFF TO THE RACES. I WON'T BE SURPRISED IF THEY BREAK GROUND THIS YEAR. SO THIS IS ABOUT PARCEL ONE.

ACCORDING TO THE ST. JOHNS COUNTY.

SO I HAVE SPENT A LOT OF TIME I HAVE SEVEN MINUTES LEFT.

I HAVE TO SAVE SOME FROM THE NEXT GUY.

SPENT A LOT OF TIME TELL YOU WHY YOU SHOULDN'T APPROVE THIS.

WHY YOU SHOULDN'T APPROVE IT. I'M GOING TO SHOW YOU ONE CHART TO TELL YOU WHY IT'S OKAY TO APPROVE IT, OR OKAY TO DENY IT RATHER. SO SAME FORMAT.

NO ADDITIONAL INCREASE. PARCEL TWO STILL GOOD TO GO.

THEY'RE IN MOTION. PARCEL ONE YOU HAVE GOT -- 48,000 SQUARE FEET AVAILABLE TO BUILD.

THAT YIELDS AN INTENSITY OF 6.3. FORCE PER ACRE.

SURPRISINGLY, THAT'S THE SAME AS THE PARCEL THAT YOU JUST SOLD AND SAME AS THE PLANS THEY'RE USING TO BUILD.

THE EXISTING INTENSITY THAT THIS DEMONSTRATES IS CONSISTENT WITH WHAT WE EXPECT AT THE KING AND BEAR FOR ALL THE REASONS OUR SMART LAWYER SAID. I DON'T THINK THERE'S A NEED TO TRANSFER ADDITIONAL SPACE. WE WON'T STOP COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT. WE JUST WANT TO MAKE IT MANAGED.

THAT'S ALL I HAVE. ANY QUESTIONS? THANK YOU FOR THE TIME. GOOD MORNING COMMISSIONERS MAX FORGY. MEMBER IN GOOD STANDS OF THE AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF CERTIFIED PLANNERS SINCE 1993.

I AGREE WITH PAUL MONSIEUR AND WITH RALPH BROOKS AND WHAT THEY HAVE STATED. AND I WILL TRY NOT TO REPEAT THEM. I WISH TO ADDRESS INCOMPATIBILITY WITH THE ST. JOHNS COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, INCONSISTENCY WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND NEIGHBORING LAND USES IN PLACE NOW. IT HAS BEEN A DEVELOPMENT OF REGIONAL IMPACT SINCE 1991 AS YOU HEARD FROM THE APPLICANT.

THE IDEA OF DRIS IS THAT LAND USE DECISIONMAKING WAS BASED ON INTENSE ANALYSIS. IT RECEIVED INTERAGENCY AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW. IT HAD A HIGH, PLACED A HIGH VALUE OF ON PUBLIC PARTICIPATION AND IT PRODUCED A DEVELOPMENT ORDER THAT THE DEVELOPER COULD RELY UPON AND THE NEIGHBORS COULD RELY UPON IN GOOD FAITH. THE RESIDENCES OF KING AND THE BEAR IN PARTICULAR PURCHASED THEIR PROPERTIES IN GOOD FAITH RELIANCE UPON THE DEVELOPMENT ORDER OF THE ORIGINAL DRI.

AND THE ORIGINAL DEVELOPERS ENTITLEMENTS.

THE KING AND THE BEAR IN PARTICULAR IS A SPECIAL PLACE.

WHICH EMBODIES THE GOALS FAMILIAR WITH DESIGN PROFESSIONALS. THE SENSE OF ARRIVAL THE ARCHITECTURE IS STUNNING. A THREE STORY STORAGE LOCKER ON THAT SIDE OF THE ROAD WOULD MAR T

[01:40:06]

THE ASTH ETICS. THIS CAN'T BE MADE COMPATIBLE.

I'M GOING TO TROT YOU THROUGH IN THE TIME REMAINING A FEW POLICIES OF YOUR ST. JOHNS COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.

THE FIRST IS OBJECTIVE A 13, SURROUNDING LAND USE AND I QUOTE IN ENTIRETY, THE COUNTY SHALL LOCATE LAND USES SO THAT THEY ARE COMPATIBLE AND COMPLEMENTARY.

YOU HAVE ALREADY DONE THAT. WHAT YOU HAVE IN THE GROUND NOW ESPECIALLY IN THAT ENTRANCEWAY TO THE KING AND THE BEAR IS COMPATIBLE AND COMPLEMENTARY. POLICY A 1311 WHICH IS VERY LENGTHY, SAYS THAT WHEN A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT REZONING OR DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION IS CONSIDERED, THE COUNTY SHALL ENSURE COMPATIBLE OF ADJACENT AND SURROUNDING LAND USES. LAND USES INCLUDE BUT ARE NOT LIMITED TO PERMITTED STRUCTURES OR IMPLEMENTING ZONING DISTRICT.

AND HERE'S A VERY IMPORTANT QUOTE BECAUSE THIS IS THE SAME DEFINITION THAT THE STATE OF FLORIDA USES IN FLORIDA STATUTES THAT CHAPTER 163. COMPATIBILITY MEANS A CONDITION IN WHICH LAND USES CAN COEXIST IN RELATIVE PROXIMITY TO EACH OTHER IN A STABLE FASHION OVER TIME SO THAT NO USE IS UNDULY NEGATIVELY IMPACTED DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY BY ANOTHER USE.

THE USE THAT THE RESIDENTS OF THE KING AND THE BEAR HAVE NOW WILL NOT BE INJUROUS TO A COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT.

THE COMMERCIAL DEVELOPENT WILL BE INJURIOUS TO THEIR ENJOYMENT.

FURTHER, POLICY A 1311 THAT VERY IMPORTANT POLICY OF YOUR PLAN CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL. THE APPLICATION DOES NOT OFFER COMPETENT SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE CONTENTION THAT THE PROPOSED TRANSFER OF COMMERCIAL USES TO THE TRACT ADJOINING THE ENTRY WAY TO THE KING AND THE BEAR SUBDIVISIONS ARE COMPATIBLE OR CAN BE MADE COMPATIBLE.

THE ADDITIONAL COMMERCIAL SQUARE FOOTAGE IS NOT COMPATIBLE WITH THE EXISTING USE. OBJECTIVE A 113 COMMUNITY AND NEIGHBORHOOD CREATION AND PRESERVATION.

PRESERVATION IS A HIGH VALUE OF YOUR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.

AND THIS IS AGAIN A QUOTE, THE COUNTY SHALL PROTECT OR ENHANCE EXISTING COMMUNITIES AND NEIGHBORHOODS THAT HAVE A HIGH QUALITY OF LIFE THIS DEFINITELY DOES.

PROMOTE A SENSE OF PLACE. THEY HAVE IT.

AND ARE SUSTAINABLE THROUGH STRATEGIES THAT PROVIDE CIVIL, HISTORICAL PRESERVATION OPPORTUNITIES AND SUPPORT THE DIVERSIFICATION OF THE ECONOMIC BASE AND PROMOTE HEALTHY RELATIONSHIPS. THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT THEY HAVE AT KING AND THE BEAR. FILLY POLICY A 1131, THE CHARACTER OF EXISTING NEIGHBORHOODS AND SURROUNDING AREAS SHALL BE CONSIDERED IN THE APPROVAL OF LAND DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS AS PROVIDED IN POLICY A 1311.

I RESPECTFULLY REQUEST AN ADDITIONAL 30 SECONDS TO

CONCLUDE MY REMARKS. >> IN CONCLUSION, THE PROPOSAL IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE ST. JOHNS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN SPECIFICALLY AS I CITED. IT'S INCOMPATIBLE WITH NEIGHBORS USES. SEEKS AN INCREASE IN ENTITLEMENTS THAT WERE TO ENTITLEMENTS THAT ARE REASONABLE TO BEGIN WITH AND FAILS TO MEET THE SNYDER TEST WHICH COUNCILOR BROOKS INTRODUCED. THE PURPOSE IS TO MAINTAIN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD IN THE HIGH VALUE THAT IT HAS TODAY.

COMMISSIONERS, THANK YOU FOR YOUR COURTESY AND THANK YOU FOR THE TIME THAT YOU HAVE GIVEN TO MY CLIENTS.

OKAY. AT THIS TIME, WE WILL GO TO PUBLIC COMMENT. IT WILL BE THREE MINUTES PER PERSON. OKAY, AT THIS TIME WE WILL TAKE PUBLIC COMMENT ON AGENDA ITEMS ONE AND TWO TOGETHER.

[01:45:04]

ARE THERE PUBLIC COMMENTS? I HAVE AN INDICATION THERE ARE AT LEAST TWO CALL INS. WE WILL TAKE THOSE.

PATRICK. DO YOU WANT TO HANDLE HOW YOU'RE GOING TO DO THE SWEARING IN. I WILL HAVE A LITTLE MODIFICATION TO THAT. IF THE FIRST CALLER CAN GET ON THE LINE. IF YOU'RE ON THE LINE HOLDING FOR ITEMS ONE AND TWO. NAME AND ADDRESS.

>> MY NAME IS JANET SHERMAN, 1412 FARINGTON CIRCLE.

LIVE AT KING AND THE BEAR. I'M CALLING AS A RESIDENT WITH

MY CONCERNS WITH -- >> MADAM.

THIS IS, HELLO. MADAM THIS IS PATRICK MCCORMACK.

FOR THE INPERSON WITNESSES, WE ARE SWEARING THEM IN FOR THE PHONE. I DID CHECK THE SORT OF THE TECHNICAL ASPECTS OF THAT. I DON'T THINK WE'RE ABLE TO LEGALLY HAVE YOU SWORN IN BUT I WOULD JUST AGAIN RESPECTFULLY ADMONISH YOU TO JUST STATE FACTUAL, ANYTHING YOU STATE IS FACTUAL, PLEASE ENSURE IT'S ACCURATE FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE BOARD AND THE PUBLIC. THANK YOU.

CONTINUE MA'AM. >> WELL, AS A RESIDENT HERE THE TRAFFIC IS HAS GOTTEN WORSE WITH THE TWO LANES IN AND OUT OF OUR DEVELOPMENT. EVEN WITH THE ADDITIONAL THOUGHT OF THE ACCESS ON PACETTI ROAD, NO MATTER WILL IMPACT THE RESIDENTS HERE AND CAN ONLY BE ONE WAY IN OR OUT.

BUT, THANK YOU FOR ALLOWING ME TO SPEAK.

>> THANK YOU. IS THERE ANOTHER CALL IN? PLEASE GO AHEAD. TOM REYNOLDS, 50 BRIG DEAN COURT. 32080 --

>> I AGREE WITH THE FOLKS AT THE AND THE BEAR.

OMPATIBLE.ELIEVE THIS IS THE PLACE IS BETTER SUITED FOR A PARK. I WANT TO POINT OUT SOMETHING TO YOU COMMISSIONERS. IF I HEARD CORRECTLY BECAUSE I'M HAVING A LOT OF INTERFERENCE TODAY, I HEARD THEM SAY THEY BOUGHT THE PROPERTY KNOWING IT WASN'T GOING TO BE ZONED, TO BE ABLE TO BE ZONED AND NOW THEY'RE WANTING TO CHANGE IT.

IF THAT'S THE CASE, I REALLY DON'T FEEL SORRY FOR THEM.

SO COMMISSIONERS, I WOULD SAY TO VOTE THIS THING DOWN.

KEEP KING AND BEAR EXACTLY THE WAY IT SHOULD BE.

LET'S NOT PUT ANY MORE GARAGE OUT THERE.

IT'S BAD ENOUGH WHAT YOU DID WHEN YOU VOTED IN THE GOOFY BUCKEES. WHAT A NIGHTMARE.

TRY TO GIVE THE PEOPLE A BREAK THIS TIME.

AND TRY TO DO SOMETHING FOR THE MAJORITY OF THE PEOPLE THAT LIVE THERE INSTEAD OF THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU. >> THAT SHOWS THERE ARE NO MORE CALL INS ON MY SCREEN. IS THAT CORRECT? WE'LL TAKE PUBLIC COMMENT FROM THE AUDIENCE.

AS WE WAIT FOR SPEAKERS. THERE ARE TWO PODIUMS. PLEASE LINE UP AND LINE UP BEHIND BOTH PODIUMS. EACH OF THE MEMBERS OF AUDIENCE THAT WERE SWORN IN, THIS IS THE TIME TO ADDRESS THE BOARD THANK YOU.

SO IF YOU WERE SWORN IN EARLIER, GO AHEAD AND LINE UP BEHIND EACH OF THE PODIUMS AND WE WILL GO THROUGH EVERYONE.

THANK YOU. NAME AND ADDRESS PLEASE FROM

EACH WITNESS. >> MY NAME IS BRUCE HUMPHREY.

1524 BARRINGTON CIRCLE INSIDE THE KING AND BEAR.

I HAVE LIVED AT THAT HOUSE SINCE 2004 WHEN WE FIRST MOVED TO THE KING AND BEAR IN 2004 AT 1524 BARRINGTON CIRCLE.

THE PUBLIX WASN'T THERE. I THINK IT WAS A FORMER POTATO FIELD. WE WERE THRILLED TO SEE THE NEW PUBLIX. MY WIFE WAS THRILLED.

IT WAS THE 2000TH BUILT. IT WAS THE WHO'S WHO AT THAT.

IT'S GREAT TO HAVE WALGREENS THERE ON PACETTI AND INTERNATIONAL GOLF PARK WAY. THE CALLER MENTIONED THE BUCKEES. I WAS NOT AGAINST THAT.

I RECOGNIZE THAT WAS NOT SOMETHING COMMISSION APPROVED AS THAT ZONING WAS IN PLACE AND THAT SITE WAS SUPPORTED THAT INTENSITY AND SO THEY COULD HAVE IT WITH ADDITIONAL IMPROVEMENTS

[01:50:07]

TO THE INTERCHANGE. I'M A PRACTICING PROPERTY RIGHTS LAWYER. I APPRECIATE THE DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY. I'M TRYING TO DEVELOP SOME PROPERTY RIGHT NOW. I RECOGNIZE THAT WHAT YOU BOUGHT WHEN YOU BUY IT IS USUALLY WHAT DICTATES HOW YOU CAN USE THE PROPERTY AND EVERY NOW AND THEN YOU CAN TWEAK THINGS.

I SUBMIT THIS ESSENTIALLY DOUBLING OF THE DENSITY DOES NOT JUST A TWEAK, IT'S NOT A VARIANCE OR A WAIVER, IT'S NOT A SLIGHT MODIFICATION. IT'S A DRASTIC CHANGE.

AND WHAT I DID IS I PUT TOGETHER THIS CHART TO ADDRESS THAT QUESTION OF COMPATIBILITY AND THE DEVELOPERS COMMENTS THAT AT THE CURRENT DENSITY OF ABOUT 5500 SQUARE FEET PER ACRE, IT'S NOT MARKETABLE. I SUBMIT THAT'S NOT TRUE.

IT'S MARKETABLE AS EVIDENCE OF THE SALE OF PARCEL TWO IN NOVEMBER OF LAST YEAR. THIS CHART I WOULD LIKE TO POINT OUT RIGHT HERE THAT I'M CIRCLING RIGHT NOW IS THE ENTRANCE TO THE KING AND BEAR. THAT'S WHERE PACETTI AND REGISTRY BOULEVARD MEET. THE PUBLIX CENTER.

THE TAX ID PARCELS I IDENTIFIED. THE LAND AREA ASSOCIATED WITH EACH PARCEL. THE SQUARE FOOTAGE AND THE RELATIVE DENSITY PER ACRE OF THOSE COMMERCIAL RETAIL FACILITIES THAT ARE IMMEDIATELY IN THAT SAME NEIGHBORHOOD.

AGAIN THESE ARE ALL AT THE INTERSECTION OF STATE ROAD 16 AND INTERNATIONAL GOLF PARK WAY. YOU CAN SEE THEY'RE ALL IN THE 65, 62, 51, THE TWO CREEKS UPON SHOPPING CENTER IS UP TO 7000 SQUARE FOOT PER ACRE. YOU NOTICE THE OTHER PARCEL THAT I IDENTIFIED WAS THE KINDER CARE, THE PARCEL --

>> SIR, THAT'S THREE MINUTES. WE HAVE TO LIMIT EVERY PUBLIC COMMENT TO THREE MINUTES. I DON'T WANT TO PLAY FAVORITES.

>> SIR, PLEASE LEAVE THAT MATERIAL.

>> IF YOU COULD BRING IT OVER HERE, THAT WOULD BE GREAT.

>> LET'S HAVE SEVERAL LINE UP. ANY MORE PUBLIC COMMENTS.

GET IN THE QUEUE LINE. NAME AND ADDRESS PLEASE SIR.

>> GOOD MORNING I AM KEN JOHNSON.

I LIVE AT 1180 REGISTRY BOULEVARD.

I HAD A FEW NOTES, I REALIZE YOUR HEADS ARE PROBABLY HURTING WITH THE NUMBERS. MAYBE I CAN SPEAK TO YOU FROM THE HEART. IF I COULD, I AM ONE OF PROBABLY THE MOST RECENT HOMEOWNERS. I BOUGHT INTO THE KING AND BEAR COMMUNITY. MY WIFE AND I ABOUT SEVEN OR EIGHT MONTHS AGO. WE HAD CHOICES.

WE COULD HAVE MOVED TO DALLAS, TEXAS.

WE LOOKED IN PALM BEACH AND CHARLOTTE, NORTH CAROLINA.

WE SETTLED ON SAINT AUGUSTINE, THE KING AND BEAR.

GREAT COMMUNITY. GREAT PEOPLE.

AND THE REASON WE SETTLED WAS BECAUSE WHEN WE WENT TO DALLAS, WHEN WE WENT TO PALM BEACH, WHEN WE WENT TO CHARLOTTE, WHAT DID WE SEE? WHEN WE LOOKED AT THE GOLF COMMUNITIES, MANY OF THOSE COMMUNITIES WERE OVER DEVELOPED.

COMMERCIAL SPACE OVER DEVELOPMENT.

BUT ONE OF THE THINGS THAT ATTRACTED US TO SAINT AUGUSTINE WHEN I RETIRED FROM THE MILITARY ALMOST 30 YEARS OF THE FACT THAT STILL FELT LIKE A COMMUNITY. IT WAS A GREAT GOLFING COMMUNITY AND GREAT PEOPLE. AND I WOULD SAY TO YOU TODAY YOU'RE GOING TO HEAR AND HAVE HEARD MR. MONSIEUR, GREAT NEIGHBOR AND OUR ATTORNEYS HAVE LAID THE FACTS TO YOU.

LET ME SAY THIS FROM THE HEART. I WAS RAISED BY AN 83-YEAR OLD GREAT GRANDMOTHER, RUBY JOHNSON. YOU CAN IMAGINE AN 83-YEAR OLD GRAND MOTHER RAISE A TEENAGER. ONE OF THE THINGS SHE SAID TO ME, KENNY, THERE IS NO RIGHT WAY TO DO THE WRONG THING.

WHAT I WANT TO SAY TO YOU COMMISSIONERS AND I SAID, I TOOK THIS TO MY TROOPS WHEN I SPOKE TO THEM AS A COMMANDER.

I SAID THERE IS NO RIGHT WAY TO DO THE WRONG THING.

GENTLEMEN, WHAT YOU HAVE BEEN ASKED TO DO IN TRANSFERRING ANY SQUARE FOOTAGE TO THIS AREA, WE DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH COMMERCIAL ZONING. WHAT WE'RE SAYING IS, IT'S WRONG. PLEASE I ASK YOU, AS THE MOST RECENT HOMEOWNER INTO THE KING AND BEAR WHO BOUGHT FOR THE VERY REASON IT IS A COMMUNITY, A BEAUTIFUL COMMUNITY YOU WOULD NOT DO THE WRONG THING. DO THE RIGHT THING.

THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU, SIR.

[01:55:02]

NEXT PLEASE. NAME AND ADDRESS.

>> YES, SIR, GOOD MORNING COMMISSIONERS.

HERO STALIA, 2080 CROWN DRIVE IN THE KING AND BEAR COMMUNITY.

I WOULD JUST LIKE TO EXPRESS MY CONCERNS ABOUT THE TRAFFIC SITUATION WHICH IS BAD ENOUGH IN THE AREA BUT, I DON'T NEED TO ASSURE YOU IN THE NEXT TWO YEARS, THREE YEARS IT'S GOING TO GET HORRENDOUS.

THE FACT THAT SEVERAL NEW TRAFFIC LIGHTS ARE PLANNED FOR THE AREA JUST OUTSIDE AND SLIGHTLY BEYOND WHERE THE COMMUNITY IS, HAS TO TELL YOU THAT TRAFFIC IS GOING TO BE BUILDING UP. WHY ELSE WOULD THEY BE PUTTING IN TRAFFIC SIGNALS THERE? SO THINK ABOUT THAT.

THE FLETCHER DAVIS TEAM ALSO TALKED ABOUT THE TRAFFIC REPORTS THAT SHOWED THERE WOULD BE A TRAFFIC NEUTRAL IMPACT NOT JUST WITH THIS EXPANDED DEVELOPMENT THEY WANT ON PARCELS ONE AND TWO. BUT, IF IT'S SUPPOSED TO FACTOR IN THE DEVELOPMENT THAT'S CURRENTLY UNDER WAY, BOTH NOW AND IN THE NEXT TWO, THREE YEARS FOR THEM TO MAKE THAT CLAIM, THAT IT WILL BE TRAFFIC NEUTRAL FORGETTING ABOUT THE MATRIXES THEY WANT TO TALK ABOUT, IT IS DEFYING LOGIC.

DEFYING REALITY AND BEYOND THAT, I'S CHALLENGING OUR INTELLIGENCE. I URGE YOU TO STRONGLY DISAPPROVE OF THE PROPOSAL SITTING IN FRONT OF

THANK >> THANK YOU.

SIR. NEXT PLEASE.

NAME AND ADDRESS. YES, SIR.

>> GOOD MORNING, MY NAME IS DWYANE HOWELL.

I'M A RESIDENT OF THE KING AND BEAR.

MY WIFE AND I RETIRED FROM ARKANSAS SIX YEARS AGO.

FRIENDS SAID COME DOWN TO SAINT AUGUSTINE.

YOU WILL LIVE IT. WE DROVE THROUGH THE GATE.

THERE'S A SIGN ON THE RIGHT THAT SAYS WELCOME HOME.

THAT'S YOUR SANCTUARY. THAT'S MY WIFE AND I'S SANCTUARY. WE BOUGHT A LOT, BUILT A HOUSE AND HAVE BEEN THERE FOR SIX YEARS.

TALKING ABOUT PUTTING A THREE STORY UHAUL FACILITY RIGHT OUTSIDE THAT GATE TAKES AWAY FROM THE SANCTUARY OF YOUR HOME.

I'M SURE YOU ALL LIVE IN BEAUTIFUL COMMUNITIES.

DO YOU ALL WANT TO DRIVE BY A UHAUL.

THE KING AND THE BEAR IS HOSTING AN LPGA TOURNAMENT AND TWO PGA'S TOURNAMENTS. THE KING AND BEAR HAS A SANCTUARY AND HIGH RATING. IT'S LOOKED UPON AS A WONDERFUL CLUB. A WONDERFUL NEIGHBORHOOD.

WE DON'T WANT THE DEVELOPMENT OUTSIDE OUR GATE.

WE DON'T WANT TO LOOK AT A UHAUL EVERY TIME WE COME IN AND OUT OF A HOME, OUR SANCTUARY. WE URGE YOU TO OPPOSE THE ADDITIONAL SQUARE FOOTAGE FOR THE PROPERTY.

IT'S JUST NOT RIGHT TO THE BEAUTY OF WHAT SAINT AUGUSTINE

REPRESENTS IN OUR PART >> THANK YOU.

SIR. YES, MA'AM.

GOOD MORNING, I'M HEIDI RICE. 2254 DEN STREET.

RESIDENT OF KING AND BEAR. I REALLY WASN'T SURE WHAT TO SAY BECAUSE I HAVE WRITTEN TO ALL OF YOU AND EXPRESSED MANY THINGS TO YOU AND THE PLANNING AND ZONING AND EVERYTHING.

I AM NOT AN EXPERT. I'M JUST A RESIDENT.

AND I FIRST WANT TO REALLY THANK PAUL MONSIEUR FOR HIS LAST SLIDE WHICH BASICALLY SAYS IT ALL. PARCEL TWO WAS APPARENTLY SOLD.

THERE ARE BEING PLANS MADE FOR THE SAME SQUARE FOOTAGE THAT CURRENTLY EXISTS IN PARCEL ONE. I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE ISSUE IS OTHER THAN PERHAPS THEY WANT TO DEVELOP SOMETHING THAT LIKE THE STORAGE THING OR WE HAVE HEARD, AND THAT'S ANOTHER THING.

WE HAVE HEARD VARIOUS THINGS ABOUT WHAT IS GOING TO BE SUPPOSEDLY COMING. AT OUR LAST HOMEOWNERS, LAST FALL, THERE WAS AN EXQUISITE SET OF PLANS FOR THE THREE STORY

[02:00:04]

STORAGE BUILDING, AN ALDI'S. MULTIFAMILY COMPLEX WHICH HAD A ROADWAY INTO THE COMMUNITY WHICH BYPASSED OUR GATE.

AFTER HEARING ALL OF THESE THING, WE DON'T REALLY KNOW WHAT TO BELIEVE. I THINK THAT'S PART OF THE PROBLEM. SO ANYHOW, I JUST WANT TO ASK YOU PLEASE TO DISAPPROVE THIS REQUEST.

PAUL'S LAST SLIDE SHOWING THE SQUARE FOOTAGE SHOULD REALLY SAY IT ALL. THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU. >> GOOD MORNING COMMISSIONERS, MY NAME IS HEALTHER BAILEY. 2634 JO ASH ROAD.

NOT A RESIDENT OF THE KING AND THE BEAR.

OUR PROPERTY IS ACTUALLY ON THE OTHER SIDE OF 6 MILE.

I KNOW YOU'RE HEARING THIS AS A TWO ITEM AGENDA, I'M ONLY OPPOSING THE 6 MILE PUD. I AM A THIRD GENERATION TO LIVE ON THE PROPERTY THAT WE HAVE NOW.

AND I WOULD ASK THAT YOU KEEP IT AT WHAT THEY'RE ALLOWED TO DO NOW AND NOT ADD MORE COMMERCIAL SPACE TO THEIR, TO THE ITEM THAT THEY'RE ASKING. THE MORE CONCRETE WE POUR, THE MORE WATER THAT COMING UP ON OUR PROPERTY.

JUST IN THE 30 PLUS YEARS MY DAD HAS LIVED THERE, THE FLOOD LINE CONTINUES TO MOVE CLOSER TO OUR HOUSE.

MY DAD SPOKE AT THE P& Z. 18 PEOPLE SPOKE AGAINST.

NO ONE ELSE HAS COME UP TO SPEAK IN FAVOR BESIDES THE APPLICANT.

WHETHER YOU VOTE FOR OR AGAINST, THE ONE THING I ASK IS BEFORE YOU VOTE TELL US HOW YOU'RE GOING TO VOTE AND WHY.

YOU KNOW PZA ONLY TWO MEMBERS SPOKE BEFORE THEY VOTED.

AND IT PASSED AND CAME TO YOU GUYS.

SO AS A RESIDENT, THE ONE THING I WOULD ASK IS LET US KNOW HOW

YOU'RE GOING TO VOTE AND WHY. >> THANK YOU MA'AM.

>> GOOD MORNING. >> GOOD MORNING.

MY NAME IS RUSS NOAH. I'M A RESIDENT OF KING AND BEAR.

FIRST OF ALL, I WOULD LIKE TO SAY THANK YOU FOR ALLOWSING ME TO SPEAK. I SPENT YEARS IN MILITARY, AND LAW ENFORCEMENT, I HAVE LIVED AND WORKED ALL OVER THE WORLD.

BEING IN LAW ENFORCEMENT, I GET CYNICAL.

I BASICALLY WORKED AT EVERY MAJOR CITY.

WORKED UNDER COVER. DID SEARCH WARRANTS AND DRUG

BUYS. >> SIR, FOR GIVE ME FOR INTERJECTING. YOU HAVE BEEN SWORN IN?

>> YES, SIR. THANK YOU.

WHAT I'M SAYING IS, WHEN I RETIRED MY LAST DUTY STATION FOR THE U.S. DRUG ENFORCEMENT, I WAS THE AGENT IN CHARGE OF THE CINCINNATI OFFICE TO COVER KENTUCKY.

WHEN I RETIRED, I WANTED TO GO TO A PLACE THAT WAS NICE, SAFE AND CONVENIENT. I DID MY RESEARCH AS I ALWAYS DID. I PICKED THE KING AND THE BEAR BECAUSE OF THE QUALITY OF LIFE THAT WAS AT THE KING AND THE BEAR. THE WAY IT WAS BUILT UP.

IT WASN'T COMMERCIALIZED. A PROPOSAL AND A RUMORS GOING AROUND THEY'RE PROPOSING A THREE STORY STORAGE UNIT IN MY CAREER, I HAVE RECOVERED DEAD BODIES OUT OF STORAGE UNITS.

OPERATIONAL METHAMPHETAMINES LABS.

I HAVE RECOVERED TONS OF MARIJUANA, THOUSANDS OF KILOS OF COCAINE IN STORAGE FACILITY. WHEN YOU HAVE A STORAGE FACILITY, CRIMINALS BRING THINGS TO HIDE THERE BECAUSE NOBODY PAYS ATTENTION. IT'S NICE TO PUT IN A STORAGE UNIT CLOSE TO THE KING AND BEAR. DO WE HAVE TO BRING THAT KIND OF PEOPLE INTO THE NEIGHBORHOOD? FOR CONCERN FOR MY FAMILY AND COMMUNITY, MY NEIGHBORS, I'M CONCERNED ABOUT THE PROPOSALS.

THE WAY THIS PROPERTY IS BEING DEVELOPED.

THE TRAFFIC IS HORRENDOUS HOW AND THE TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY SAYS IT WON'T AFFECT DURING SCHOOL HOURS.

TRY TO GET OUT OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD, YOU SIT THROUGH SEVEN CYCLES. EVERY MORNING JUST TO TRY TO GET THROUGH THIS TO GET TO THE INTERSTATE.

SO ALL I'M SAYING IS PLEASE JUST LIKE PAUL SAID, DO THE

[02:05:01]

THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU.

SIR. PUBLIC COMMENT.

YES, MA'AM. BY CLATYE 8 NEW COME, WEST CITY OF SAINT AUGUSTINE. FACT OF THE MATTER IS, 2 OF 5 PZA MEMBERS VOTED AGAINST THIS MAJOR MODIFICATION TO ST. JOHNS INTERCHANGE PARCEL AND THE CHANGE TO THE SIX MILE CREEK.

SWEARING IN CONCERNED RESIDENTS IS A FIRST FOR THIS BOARD.

DEVELOPERS SPEND UP TO 45 MINUTES WITH POLITICIANS WHILE RESIDENTS ARE GIVEN ONLY THREE MINUTES TO SPEAK.

PROPERTY RIGHTS OF RESIDENTS ARE TRAMPLED BY OWNERS WHO CAN'T SELL THEIR PROPERTY BECAUSE THE MARKET HAS CHANGED.

THE MARKET AS CHANGED. MARKET CHANGES ARE NOT SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE TO DESTROY THE QUALITY OF LIFE FOR HOMEOWNERS WHO HAVE TO HIRE AN ATTORNEY TO PROTECT THEIR PROPERTY RIGHTS. ENOUGH SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE HAS BEEN PRESENTED TO DENY AGENDA 1 AND AGENDA 2.

SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE SHOULD NOT BE JUST DETERMINED BY WHAT YOUR DEGREE IS OR WHO YOU WORK FOR. A TAXPAYER HAS A RIGHT TO STAND UP, SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE CAN BE GIVEN.

FOR THEIR ENVIRONMENT. I HOPE THIS WILL NOT BE A 3-2 VOTE FOR OVER DEVELOPMENT VERSUS QUALITY OF LIFE.

WW, JD. THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU MA'AM. I HAVE SHOWS ONE MORE CALL IN.

LET'S DO, GO AHEAD AND SPEAK. WE WILL DO THE LIVE TESTIMONY HERE FIRST AND THEN WE WILL GO TO THE CALL IN NEXT.

NEXT. GO AHEAD, SIR.

>> YES, SIR, NAME AND ADDRESS. SEAN DEBERT.

101 ACCORD. I JUST WANT TO POINT OUT I COME FROM A NEIGHBORHOOD BUILT THERE IN 2007 AND RECOGNIZE WHEN YOU DON'T HAVE GOODS AND SERVICES IN YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD, IT CAN BE A DETRIMENT TO YOUR QUALITY OF LIFE.

I APPRECIATE THE ARGUMENTS OF BEING CONCERNED WHAT COMMERCIAL USES GO THERE. I WOULD ARGUE WE WENT MANY AREAS WITHOUT THINGS. PUBLIX, RESTAURANTS ET CETERA.

THAT IMPACTS QUALITY OF LIFE AND IMPACTS VALUES.

SO I WOULD SUGGEST THAT SMART COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT IS A GOOD

THING FOR THE COMMUNITY AS >> THANK YOU.

SIR. OKAY.

ONE MORE CALL IN. GO AHEAD NAME AND ADDRESS

PLEASE. >> GOOD MORNING.

GOOD >> HELLO.

>> GOOD MORNING MR. CHAIRMAN. EDSLAVEN.

BOX 3084, ED SLAVEN.COM. I WANT TO SPEAK IN SUPPORT OF DENYING THE APPLICATION. I COMMEND THE RESIDENTS OF THE KING AND BEAR FOR THEIR EXCELLENT WORK AND HEATHER BAILEY AND THE HORSE FARMERS. YOU HEARD UNREBUTTED TESTIMONY TODAY. EXPERT AND RECIPIENT THAT FULLY JUSTIFIES YOU IN TURNING DOWN THIS APPLICATION.

I COMMEND YOU GOING BACK TO SOMETHING I HAVE BEEN ASKING Y'ALL TO DO ALL THE TIME AND SWEARING IN THE WITNESSES.

I APPRECIATE THAT. IT'S BEEN A LONG TIME SINCE WE HAVE DONE THAT AND NEED TO DO IT AT EVERY SINGLE MEETING WHERE THERE'S A QUASI JUDICIAL HEARING.

THE COUNCIL FOR THE DEVELOPER ADMITTED, SHE TESTIFIED THAT THE 200,000 DEGREE FIGURE WAS A RANDOM NUMBER.

I DON'T THINK I EVER HEARD MORE TRUTHFUL TESTIMONY IN A ST.

JOHNS COMMISSION MEETING. OUR DEVELOPMENT DECISIONS ARE BEING MADE BY DEVELOPERS AND THE PROVE IS SHE ALSO SAID THAT THE SURROUNDING DEVELOPERS ALL SUPPORTED THIS APPLICATION.

MR. CHAIRMAN, WOULD YOU PLEASE REFER THIS MATTER TO THE ANTITRUST DIVISION OF THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE IN WASHINGTON FOR INVESTIGATION IS CIVIL CRIMINAL ADMINISTRATOR.

WHY ARE THE DEVELOPERS DISCUSSING THIS.

IT IS WRONG AND WANT THAT ON THE RECORD.

AS FAR AS EX PARTE MEETINGS GO IN THE FUTURE, WOULD YOU PLEASE VIDEOTAPE EVERY SINGLE ONE. IF YOU DON'TS THE FBI MIGHT.

SOME OF OUR PEOPLE IN TALLAHASSEE ABOUT THAT.

I OBJECT ON TO THE USE OF MASTER DEVELOPER.

THAT'S MASSIVE SLAVERY AND IT'S OFFENSIVE.

I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE FULL DISCLOSURE OF THE BENEFICIAL OWNERS IN IN PROJECT. YOU CAN'T COMBY WITH 112313

[02:10:02]

SUBSIX IF WE DON'T KNOW WHO THE BENEFICIAL OWNERS ARE.

I TOTALLY AGREE WITH THE LOGIC OF THE PEOPLE WHO TESTIFIED BOTH EXPERT TOM REYNOLDS. THIS IS A BEAUTIFUL NEIGHBORHOOD AND PEOPLE MOVED HERE FAR AND WIDE.

RETIRED FROM MILITARY OR LAW ENFORCEMENT TO MOVE HERE AND YOU'RE GOING TO LET THIS DEVELOPER DESTROY IT BASED ON EX PARTE VIDEOS. WE NEED TO HAVE CROSS-EXAMINATION RIGHTS. I THINK LEARNED COUNCIL FOR THE OPPONENTS WAIVE THE RIGHT TO CROSS-EXAMINATION.

IT WAS BLOCK STONE THAT SAID CROSS-EXAMINATION WAS THE GREATEST ENGINE FOR TRUTH. WE NEED TO ALLOW THE CITIZENS WHO COME UP IN THEIR TIME TO CROSS-EXAMINATION.

EVEN IF THERE'S NOT A LAWYER IN THE PICTURE.

I WANT TO COMPLEMENT YOU MR. CHAIRMAN, THE PROCEDURE IF ARE THIS HEARING WAS A LOT BETTER THAN OTHER HEARINGS I HAVE SEEN IN ST. JOHNS SINCE WE MOVED HERE NOVEMBER 5TH, 1999.

IT APPRECIATE YOU LISTENING TO THE RESIDENTS.

THE EVIDENCE IS IN FAVOR OF DENYING THIS THING.

PLEASE SEND THEM ON THEIR WAY AND ADOPT THE STATEMENT OF FACTS

FOR DENIAL THAT ARE- >> THANK YOU SIR.

I THINK THAT COMPLETES PUBLIC PUBLIC.

I DON'T SEE PUBLIC COMMENT IN THE AUDIENCE OR ON THE PHONE.

THAT CONCLUDES PUBLIC PUBLIC. THANK YOU AT THIS TIME WE WILL HEAR REBUTTAL. THREE MINUTES.

>> AND MR. CHAIR. I WOULD LIKE TO SAY THE THREE MINUTES HAD BEEN SUBMITTED. I THINK THAT WAS UNDER THE SORT OF EARLIER PREMISE THAT THE OPPOSITION WOULD HAVE 25 MINUTES AND THERE WOULDN'T BE A NUMBER OF ADDITIONAL SPEAKERS THAT MAY BE PART OF THE SUBJECT COMMUNITY.

I JUST WANT TO MENTION THAT IN CASE REASONABLY THE COUNSEL ASKS FOR A FEW MINUTES MORE THAN THREE MINUTES.

THANK YOU. >> AND I AM IMPLORE YOU TO GIVE US MORE THAN THREE MINUTES TO REBUT TO WHAT AMOUNTS TO ALMOST 50 MINUTES OF OPPOSITION COMPARED TO OUR 25 MINUTES OF PRESENTATION. I HAVE REDUCED SOME OF THIS TO THE SLIDE IN WRITING. SO I COULD QUICKLY GO THROUGH IT KNOWING I ONLY THIS THREE MINUTES FOR COMPATIBILITY.

POLICY A 13. THE FOLLOWING FACTORS MAY BE CONSIDERED IN MITIGATION TO NEGATE THE POSSIBLE IMCOMPA IMCOMPATIBILITY.

BUFFERS AND WETLANDS. I SHOW YOU A DEPICTION OF NEARLY 500 PEOPLE OF PRESERVATION AREA BETWEEN THIS COMMERCIAL AND RESIDENTIAL. THE COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT ON PARCELS ONE AND TWO HAS ALREADY BEEN DETERMINED TO BE COMPATIBLE BY EXISTING PROJECT APPROVAL SINCE 1991.

I THINK AN EXAMPLE WAS MENTIONED BY THE OPPOSITION FOR A PUBLIX, UHAUL, THOSE USES ARE COMMERCIAL GENERAL USES ALREADY APPROVED.

THEY DON'T NEED AND APPROVAL FROM ANY BOARD.

THEY COULD GO IN AND ASK FOR AN APPROVAL IF IT'S SITE PLAN COMPLIES, THEY ARE APPROVED. WAL-MART WOULD NOT BE BECAUSE THAT'S A BIG BOX AND I THINK THE SQUARE FOOTAGE CITED WAS OVER IS THAT. A MINI STORAGE IS NOT PROPOSED HERE. THAT'S A SEPARATE APPLICATION PARCEL ONE IS NOT SOLD. I THINK SOMEONE MENTIONED THAT.

IT IS UNDER CONTRACT. WE DON'T CONTROL WHAT THEY'RE GOING TO APPLY FOR BUT IF THEY DID APPLY FOR A MINI STORAGE, THEY WOULD HAVE TO HAVE THEIR OWN APPROVAL AND IT WOULD COME TO PZA WHICH TIME INCOMPATIBILITY CAN BE DISCUSSED AS PROPERLY SHOULD BE. PARCEL 2 THAT WAS MENTIONED, HAS BEEN SOLD. AND DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS HAVE BEEN ALLOCATED. IT'S NOT WHAT WAS ON THAT CHART THAT WE JUST SAW YESTERDAY. SO, WE THINK THERE IS ERRORS IN THE CHART. WHICH I THINK BILL WILL GET TO IN A MINUTE. THAT OWNER OF PARCEL TWO ORIGINALLY HAD THOUGHT THEY WERE GOING TO BUILD AN OFFICE BUILDING. I THINK THEY STILL ARE.

THIS PUD ALLOWS 50 FOOT HEIGHT LIMITATION AND ALLOWS ISR OF 85%. SO, AS OPPOSED TO 70 IN THE COMP PLAN. THE POINT BEING THESE PARCELS WERE ALWAYS INVISIONED AND PLANNED FROM DAY ONE TO ACCOMMODATE COMMERCIAL TRUE COMMERCIAL GENERAL USES.

SO, THE PURCHASER OF PARCEL TWO THE NOW OWNER HAS ASKED FOR ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS. THEY HAVE GOT A PLAN APPROVED.

THAT DOESN'T MEAN THEY DON'T CHANGE THE PLAN AND GO WITH SOMETHING ELSE. MAYBE THEY WANT TO GO WITH TWO

[02:15:03]

STORIES OR DEVELOP SOMETHING ELSE.

THOSE WOULD BE ONE OF REASONS WE'RE ASKING FOR THE TRANSFER.

THIS DOES PROVIDE A LOGICAL TRANSITION BETWEEN MAJOR ROADWAYS TO LESS INTENSE USES WHICH YOU SEE ALL OVER THE COUNTY. THE MORE INTENSE USES TOWARDS THE ROADWAY AND BACK INTENSIFIED BACK.

>> YOU CAN HAVE A FEW MORE MINUTES.

>> NO LEGITIMATE PUBLIC PURPOSE TO RETAIN 130,000 SQUARE FOOT FOR PARCELS ONE AND TWO. COUNTY ENCOURAGES A MINIMUM RATIO OF 112 SQUARE FOOT PER DWELLING UNITS.

538160. THAT COMES TO 31 SQUARE FEET PER ACRE AS OPPOSED TO 112. THE NEXT POLICY IS FOR 12,000 SQUARE FEET PER ACRE. AS WE HAVE DISCUSSED.

THAT IS LESS THAN 6100. ALMOST HALF.

WHAT THE COMP PLAN ENCOURAGES. AND ALLOWS.

THE NEXT POLICY ALLOWS 50% AREA RATIO UNDER THAT, USE FOR CG, THESE PARCELS WOULD ACCOMMODATE 429,000.

WE'RE ASKING FOR A TOTAL OF 236 THEREABOUTS.

THE APPLICANT IS ENTITLED TO REASONABLE AMOUNT OF ECONOMIC USE OF THE LAND. 31138 REMAINING.

I WILL ENTER INTO TO THE RECORD. DOESN'T COMPLY WITH WHAT WAS PRESENTED TO YOU BEFORE BUT THESE ARE THE NUMBERS.

THE IT RENDERS OF LAND ALMOST MARKETLESS FOR THE REMAINING ACRES. IT'S A WASTEFUL USE OF LAND AND COMPETENT AND SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE HAS BEEN PROVEN.

THAT TO ACCOMMODATE CHANGES IN TRENDS AND MARKET CONDITIONS AND SPECIFICALLY PROVIDES FOR THEM. AS MENTIONED, THERE'S A PZA RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL ALL THE IMPACTS HAVE BEEN OR WILL BE MITIGATED FOR DRAINAGE AND TRANSPORTATION IMPACTS.

IT'S APPROPRIATE FOR THIS AREA OF COUNTY NEAR COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT AT THAT INTERSECTION.

IT'S CONSISTENT WITH PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT TRENDS IN THE AREA. COMMON ESTABLISHED TREND IN ST.

JOHNS COUNTY. IF YOU WOULD LET ME SHOW PICTURES QUICKLY. THIS IS THE ENTRANCE TO POLENZIA. THEY WILL PASS A RACE TRACK GAS STATION. RIGHT THERE YOU SEE.

AND OTHER DEVELOPMENT HERE. THIS IS ALSO THE ENTRANCE AND IT SHOWS YOU FROM AN AIRIEL. HERE'S THE RACE TRACK.

HERE'S PUBLIX. THIS IS STARBUCKS AND A SUSHI PLACE. THEY PASS ALL OF THIS GOING INTO POLEZIA. THIS IS A DEVELOPMENT TREND IN PLANNING IN THIS COUNTY AND OTHER ENTRANCES.

THIS IS SAINT AUGUSTINE SHORES. YOU SEE COMMERCIAL THERE.

AT THE ENTRANCE. THEY DRIVE PAST THIS GOING INTO THEIR COMMUNITY. EVERY DAY.

AND HERE YOU SEE DIRECTLY ACROSS THE STREET THE HOSPITAL A YMCA AT THE ENTRANCE TO MIRA VELA. THEY DRIVE PAST THIS EVERY DAY.

IF YOU WOULD ALLOW BILL. DID YOU WANT TO ADD?

>> MISS -- WE HAVE EXCEEDED THREE MINUTES.

I GAVE YOU EXTRA TIME. I'M SURE THE COMMISSIONERS WILL HAVE QUESTIONS AND GO FROM THERE.

THANK YOU. SO WHAT WE'RE GOING TO DO IS ABOUT BACK TO THE BOARD. THIS IS THE OPPORTUNITY FOR COMMISSIONERS TO ASK QUESTIONS. THIS WILL BE AN OPPORTUNITY FOR COMMISSIONERS TO ENGAGE IN ANY CROSS-EXAMINATION.

WE DIDN'T COVER THAT. WAS THE APPLICANT'S COUNSEL, WAS

THERE ANY CROSS-EXAMINATION? >> YEP.

MR. CHAIR. I HAD BRIEFED THEM IN THE BEGINNING WHETHER THEIR INTENT. THE OPPOSITION HAD INDICATED NO INTENT. MS. WHITTINGTON

OPPORTUNITY. >> THANK YOU.

>> WE'RE BACK TO THE BOARD. >> IF THERE ARE NO QUESTIONS, I'M PREPARED TO DEAL WITH ITEM ONE.

MAKE A MOTION. >> YES, SIR.

GO AHEAD AND DO THAT. FOR AGENDA ITEM 1, THE

[02:20:07]

INTERCHANGE PUD, I WOULD LIKE TO MOVE TO ENACT ORDINANCE 2021.

>> 12. >> MAJOR MOD 2020-12 ST. JOHNS PUD BASED ON SIX FINDINGS OF FACT.

>> SECOND. WE HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER DEAN AND SECOND BY COMMISSIONER WHITEHURST.

LET'S OPEN UP FOR DISCUSSION. IF I CAN HEAR FROM THE APPLICANTS, COUNSEL, APPLICANT, IF YOU CAN COME FORWARD PLEASE.

FIRST OF ALL, ANY QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD TO THE APPLICANT?

IN REGARDS TO 1, YES. >> WOULDN'T WE HAVE TO AMEND THE 200,000 SQUARE FEET? THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION.

>> RIGHT, IS THE MAKER OF THE MOTION INCLUDING THE PROFFERED REVISIONED OFFERED BY THE APPLICANT.

IF YOU COULD GIVE A BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THAT.

>> I SUBMITTED RED LINES TO THAT EFFECT.

THE NUMBERS THAT I GAVE YOU IN OUR PRESENTATION.

I WILL GET BACK TO THEM. THEY'RE IN RED.

OKAY. THANK YOU.

106640 FOR PARCELS ONE AND TWO. EXACTLY 12,000 SQUARE FOOT.

PLUS THE 11012 TO PAY BACK OUR KING AND THE BEAR DING.

FOR A TOTAL OF TRANSFER OF 117652 WHICH IS A REFLECTED IN

THE RED LINE. >> AS AMENDED ON THE FLOOR.

>> RIGHT. AS AMENDED ON THE FLOOR BY THE APPLICANT AND COMMISSIONER DEAN, WOULD IT BE HELPFUL TO WALK THROUGH THE RED LINE THINGS THAT MS. WHITTINGTON HAD SPOKEN OF? A COPY OF THIS HAD BEEN PROVIDED TO MR. BROOKS AS WELL.

I THINK, MS. WHITTINGTON. THIS IS YOUR APPLICATION.

AS I UNDERSTAND IT, THIS RED FIGURE HERE, WOULD YOU LIKE TO

EXPLAIN THESE CHANGES? >> YES.

>> COME RIGHT OVER HERE AND FLIP THROUGH THEM.

YES IT STARTED OUT WHEN WE ORIGINALLY APPLIED FOR 200,000 TRANSFER. THAT REDUCED THE AMOUNT OF ALLOWABLE TO 582,000 IN THE INTERCHANGE PUD.

THAT IS THE NUMBER THAT WILL STAY.

664. AND ALSO I WOULD ADD IF THE MAKER OF THE MOTION WOULD IF FOR SOME REASON THE SECOND APPLICATION DOES NOT PASS, THAT THAT REDUCTION IN THE SQUARE FOOTAGE NOT BE TRANSFERRED ANYWHERE.

OTHERWISE IT WOULD BE OUT IN THE NOWHERE.

SO, IF -- AMEND THE MOTION. PATRICK.

DID YOU HAVE SOME LANGUAGE PREPARED FOR THAT?

>> I THINK WE DID. LET ME BRING THAT UP.

MISS WHITTINGTON. CAN YOU GO THROUGH EACH CHANGES

YOU PROFFERED. >> YES.

IT'S A LITTLE HARD TO SEE THE RED LINE.

IT IS RIGHT HERE. IT WAS 200,000.

AND NOW IT IS 117652. THOSE ARE THE FIGURES IN RED THAT I PRESENTED. THIS IS THE APPLICATION FOR SIX MILE CREEK. THIS IS THE APPLICATION FOR ST.

JOHNS DRI. HERE WE ARE REDUCING FROM THE 200,000 DOWN TO 117652 AND ALSO MODIFIED.

THIS ONE I JUST SHOWED YOU. IN THE OF 20000 TRANSFERRED OUT, IT'S 117. THAT NUMBER HAD TO CHANGE.

HERE HAD HAD TO CHANGE. 200,000 TO 117652.

IT ALSO HAD TO CHANGE IN 6 MILE CREEK.

200,000 DOWN TO 117652 AND THEN WE BROKE IT DOWN.

106640 WHICH WILL BE AVAILABLE ON PARCELS ONE AND TWO

>> REST IS THE 11,000 KING AND THE BEAR DING.

[02:25:07]

AGAIN, THERE WAS THE ORIGINAL 351,000 THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN THE TOTAL IN SIX MILE CREEK. THAT'S REDUCED TO 268652.

130,000 PLUS 117. AND THIS IS A DEVELOPMENT CRITERIA TABLE. AGAIN THE NUMBER HAD TO BE CHANGED. SAME NUMBERS.

FROM 582 UP TO 664 BECAUSE WE'RE NOT ASKING TO TRANSFER 200 NOW MUCH LESS. AND THEN IT APPEARS RIGHT HERE TOO. 664 DOWN TO 582 AND NOW UP TO 664. AND ONE MORE TIME IN THE SIX MILE CREEK FROM 351 DOWN TO 268552.

THOSE ARE ALL OF THE CHANGES TO ACCOMMODATE THE REDUCTION THAT

WE'RE PROPOSING. >> RIGHT.

AND THROUGH THE CHAIR IF I MAY, I HAD MISS CHRISTINE PREPARE A PROPOSED MOTION WHICH I THINK MAY GO IN LINE WITH WHAT MISS WHITTINGTON WAS DISCUSSING. I WOULD LIKE TO PUT THAT ON THE OVER HEAD AS WELL. CAN WE DRILL DOWN ON NUMBER TWO FURTHER DOWN IF WE CAN. THANK YOU.

I NOTE YOU LEFT OFF HERE. ALSO AN OPTION IS APPROVAL OF BOTH. THESE ARE JUST TO ELIMINATE THE PROCEDURAL PROBLEM BECAUSE ONE APPLICATION IS DEPENDENT ON THE OTHER. IF YOU APPROVE BOTH, NONE OF THESE MOTIONS ARE YOUR MOTION. IT'S JUST MOTION TO APPROVE.

CORRECT? THE FIRST PART IS MOTION TO PROVE. THE CONDITION IS STATED BELOW IN THE EVENT THE ESSENTIALLY THE AGENDA ITEM TWO IS NOT APPROVED, THAT FOLLOWING LANGUAGE KICKS IN.

>> YES. THAT MAKES SENSE.

AND THROUGH THE CHAIR, THIS IS A PUD.

THE COUNTY CANNOT PUT A PUD APPLICANT INTO AN APPROVAL.

THEY DON'T ACCEPT THE NATURE OF THE APPROVAL.

SO I WOULD ASK ON THE RECORD, MISS WHITTINGTON, WOULD YOU AGREE TO THAT MOTION AND THE CONSEQUENCE IF THE AGENDA ITEM

TWO IS NOT APPROVED? >> I WOULD.

NUMBER TWO, YOU WANT ME TO READ IT?

>> AND, THE ONLY THING I WOULD ADD AGAIN GOES BACK TO WHAT WE JUST TALKED ABOUT. THE APPLICANT HAS MADE A PROFFER OF ADJUSTMENT AS SHE HAD READ OUT.

MISS WHITTINGTON HAD READ OUT WITH THE ADJUSTING SOME OF THE NUMBERS DOWN. IF I MAY, MOTION TO CONDITIONALLY APPROVE MAJOR MODIFICATION 20-2012 TO THE PARCELS PUD BASED ON 6 FINDINGS OF FACT AND SUBJECT TO THE APPROVAL OF THE MAJOR MODIFICATION 2013 TO THE SIX MILE CREEK PUD. IN THE EVENT THIS MAJOR MODIFICATION 2020-13 TO THE SIX MILE CREEK IS NOT APPROVED, THE

[02:30:04]

REQUEST TO TRANSFER IN MAJOR MODIFICATION 2012 TO THE ST.

JOHNS INTERCHANGE PARCEL PUD IS DENIED BASED ON SEVEN FINDINGS OF FACT AND THE REMAINING SEVEN MODIFICATION REQUESTS ARE APPROVED SUBJECT TO SIX FINDINGS OF FACT.

MR. CHAIR AND THE BOARD, MAY I HAVE JUST A MOMENT.

OKAY, MR. CHAIR. AND MAKER OF THE MOTION, THAT

WOULD BE THE OFFERED MOTION. >> AND I WOULD OFFER THAT AS MY MOTION. AS YOU READ IT.

>> SO COMMISSIONER, YOU WILL MODIFY YOUR MOTION.

I'M AMENDING TO INCORPORATE WHAT IS CONDITIONAL APPROVAL NUMBER TWO THAT PATRICK MCCORMACK JUST SAID.

COMMISSIONER WHITEHURST. WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO DO, I'M SURE WE HAVE QUESTIONS. MOTION MADE AND SECONDED ON AGENDA ITEM ONE. AND QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT OR OPPOSITION IN REGARDS TO THESE MOTIONS? OKAY. SEEING NONE.

>> I DO HAVE QUESTIONS I WILL LIKE TO GET INTO.

I THINK MORE OF THOSE ARE TO NUMBER TWO.

SO WE'LL GO AHEAD AND VOTE ON NUMBER ONE.

THAT PASSES 5-0. WE ARE GOING TO GO INTO AGENDA ITEM TWO. I HAVE QUESTIONS FOR THE THE APPLICANT AND OPPOSITION. I WOULD LIKE TO GIVE OTHER BOARD MEMBERS TO SPEAK FIRST. COMMISSIONER WHITEHURST.

>> THANK YOU MR. CHAIRMAN. I HAVE SOME QUESTIONS FOR STAFF THAT ARE PROBABLY A REDUNDANCY. BECAUSE OF ALL THE MOVING PARTS IN THIS APPLICATION, I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT I'M CLEAR ON THE FACTS. MR. COTTON, DO WE HAVE YOU HERE IN THE ROOM? AND MR. NGUYEN, I'M GOING TO HAVE QUESTIONS AFTER MR. COTTON IF YOU'RE AVAILABLE.

THANK YOU MR. COTTON. THERE WAS SOME DISCUSSION ABOUT THE BUFFER AND THERE'S SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT OF BUFFER BETWEEN THE RESIDENTIAL PARCEL AND THE KING OF THE BEAR AND THE COMMERCIAL PARCEL THAT IS BEING PROPOSED AT PARCEL ONE AND TWO.

>> YES, SIR. WHAT IS THE MINIMUM REQUIRED BUFFER FOR A COMMERCIAL PARCEL UP AGAINST A RESIDENTIAL PARCEL?

>> I'M GOING TO ASK TERESA TO STAND UP HERE WITH ME.

>> MISS BISHOP. >> IT'S COMPATIBILITY BUFFERS ARE BASED ON THE USE PROPOSED. WE REVIEW THOSE WITH THE CONSTRUCTION PLANS WHEN THOSE COME IN.

ANYWHERE FROM 20 FOOT WITH AN A SCREENING OR B SCREENING AND THEN WE ADDRESS WHAT TYPE OF PLANTING AND LANDSCAPING GOES IN THROUGH THE BUFFERS. THIS PROPERTY IS ALSO WITHIN THE NORTHWEST SECTOR SO WITHIN THE NORTHWEST SECTOR, THERE ARE 35 FOOT DEVELOPMENT EDGES THAT GO AROUND PROPERTIES.

>> SO THE 20 FOOT BUFFER WOULD BE A MINIMUM PLUS 35 FOOT

DEVELOPMENT EDGE? >> WITH RESPECT TO THE 35 FOOT, THE INCOMPATIBILITY BUFFER AS WELL AS THE EDGE WOULD SERVE AS THE SAME PURPOSE. THERE WOULDN'T BE 50 FEET.

THERE WOULD BE 35 FEET. >> OKAY.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH. MR. COTTON, DURING OUR MEETING, THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF DISCUSSION TODAY ABOUT COMPATIBILITY IN THE

AREA. >> YES, SIR.

THERE'S OBVIOUSLY A LOT OF COMMERCIAL IN THIS AREA.

WOULD YOU CONSIDER THIS GENERAL AREA COMMERCIAL NODE, A

TRADITIONAL COMMERCIAL NODE? >> I WOULD.

THERE'S NO QUESTION WHEN YOU LOOK AT WHAT YOU HAVE ACROSS THE STREET AT MIRA VELA WHAT IS PROPOSED ON THE NORTHEAST CORNER AS WELL AS THE PROXIMITY TO THE CORNER HERE, I THINK THIS IS ABSOLUTELY A DEVELOPING COMMERCIAL NODE AT THE INTERSECTION OF 16 AND IGP OR PACETTI IN THIS CASE.

THANK YOU. THOSE ARE THE ONLY QUESTIONS I HAVE FOR YOU. MR. NGUYEN.

IF YOU'RE AVAILABLE, I WOULD APPRECIATE.

JUST A COUPLE QUESTIONS >> YES, SIR.

[02:35:03]

>> GOOD MORNING. JA GOOD MORNING.

ARE THERE DEFICIENCIES ON PACETTI ROAD, STATE ROAD 16 OR INTERNATIONAL GOLF PARK WAY THAT WOULD BE MADE WORSE BY THIS

PROJECT IF APPROVED? >> ON PACETTI, IT'S CURRENTLY 60% CAPACITY. THERE'S NO ON THE DIRECT ACCESS LINK. ON 16, THERE ARE PORTION OF STATE ROAD 16 CURRENTLY THAT HAVE BEEN DEFICIENT.

IGP, IF YOU LOOK TOWARD THE EAST OF I-95, A SECOND 3 THE 12 MILE IS DEFICIENT. UNDER OUR CURRENT REGULATIONS FOR NON-RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT WE DO NOT LOOK AT THOSE

DEFICIENCIES. >> ARE THE ROADS AT, SO PACETTI IS ONLY 60% OF CURRENT PAST IN PEAK OUR TRIPS?

>> YES, THAT'S CORRECT. >> HOW MANY PEAK HOUR TRIPS ARE

WE CURRENTLY AT WITH 60%? >> WE ARE AT 1955.

>> 1955. WHAT IS PACETTI BUILT TO ACCOMMODATE? 3220 FOR THE CAPACITY FOR

FOUR-LANE. >> SO WE HAVE OVER A THOUSAND, ALMOST 12,000 PEAK OUR TRIPS PA CETTI CAN EQUIP.

>> IF YOU LOOK AT 106000 PLUS SQUARE FEET, EQUATES TO 325

ADDITIONAL TRIPS. >> SO BY ADDING AN ADDITIONAL 106000 COMMERCIAL WOULD ADD 325 PEAK HOUR TRIPS.

>> RIGHT. APPROXIMATELY ANOTHER 10%.

WE WILL BE AT 70% OF CAPACITY. >> MY UNDERSTANDING SOME OF WHAT CAME OUT OF MY MEETING WITH THE DEVELOPER AT THE COUNTY BUILDING WAS THAT THERE ARE SOME TRIGGERS IN PLACE THAT WOULD CAUSE THE DEVELOPER TO HAVE TO MAKE IMPROVEMENTS.

AT WHAT POINT DO WE REACH THE TRIGGER? AT HOW MANY PEAK HOUR TRIPS TO TRIGGER THOSE IMPROVEMENTS?

>> THAT'S A DIFFICULT ANSWER BECAUSE THERE'S MULTIPLE THRESHOLDS. IT LOOKS AT THE ST. JOHNS DRI, LOOKS AT DIFFERENT, HAS OVERALL 10 PARCELS.

THEY HAVE FIVE PARCELS APPROXIMATELY AT IN THE INTERCHANGE AREA. THEY HAVE ANOTHER REMAINING PARCELS IN THE WHAT WE REFER TO AS SIX MILE AREA.

IT DEPENDS ON THE TOTAL OF THOSE PARCELS RELATED TO THE OVERALL DEVELOPMENT. I THINK IF I RECALL CORRECTLY, ONE OF THE TRIGGERS LIKE 43,000 TRIPS VEHICLE TRIPS PER DAY AND ANOTHER ONE IS 72,000 VEHICLE TRIPS PER DAY AND ANOTHER ONE IS 90,000 SQUARE FEET PER DAY. BASED ON THE ADDITION OF THOSE PARCELS. THAT'S TOTAL TRIPS WITHIN THE

DRI OR THIS PUD? >> WITHIN THE DRI.

>> AND LIKE BASED ON OUR BIENNIAL MONITORING.

THE ST. JOHNS DRI IS CURRENTLY AT 45%.

SO THE TRIPS WITHIN THE DRI ARE CURRENTLY ONLY AT

>> YES.

>> OKAY. MR. NGUYEN.

THAT'S ALL THE QUESTIONS I HAVE FOR YOU.

I HAVE QUESTIONS FOR MR. DAVIS. IF I COULD.

HI MR. DAVIS. DURING YOUR SWORN TESTIMONY, YOU SAID WITHOUT THIS ADDITIONAL 106000 SQUARE FEET, YOU WOULD

NOT BE ABLE TO CELL THE PARCEL. >> CONSIDERING PARCEL TWO IS

SOLD. >> PARCEL TWO HAS BEEN SOLD AND HAS MISS WHITTINGTON SUGGESTED, THE BUYERS HAVE SUGGESTED MORE SQUARE FOOTAGE. MY APPLICATION IS REAL SIMPLE.

I'M LOOKING FOR AN AVERAGE OF 12,000 SQUARE FEET TO BE APPLIED TO GIVE ME COMMERCIAL GENERAL THE MARKETABILITY OR IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE FOR PARCEL TWO, FOR THE BUYERS.

ABILITY TO MODIFY THEIR PLANS TO ACCOMMODATE A TWO STORY BUILDING IF THEY SO WISH. IF THEY DON'T, THE SQUARE FOOTAGE WOULD NOT BE USED. THEY WERE A LOT OF NUMBERS THROWN AROUND AND THERE'S SIMPLY NOT RIGHT.

SO, WHAT I WOULD SAY TO ELIMINATE ANY CONFUSION AT ALL BECAUSE THERE'S BEEN ALL KINDS OF CONFUSION SUBMITTED ABOUT SQUARE FOOTAGES, ABOUT ALL THESE PLACES BEING FIVE OR 6000 SQUARE

[02:40:04]

FOOT PER ACRE FOR THESE INTENSE COMMERCIAL GENERAL USES.

IT'S SIMPLY NOT TRUE. I WOULD ASK YOU TO ASK YOUR STAFF ABOUT THAT. WHAT I WOULD SAY TO ELIMINATE ANY CONFUSION OR SUGGESTIONS ON HALF OF THE OBJECTORS.

I WOULD BE WILLING TO NOT ONLY JUST SAY 12,000 SQUARE FEET IN GENERAL FOR PARCELS ONE OR TWO, BUT EVEN LIMIT TO IN OTHER WORDS PARCEL ONE WOULD HAVE 12,000 SQUARE FEET AND IF IT WERE NOT USED THAT ALLOCATION WOULD SIMPLY NOT BE USED.

THERE'S NO CONCERN ABOUT, ONE OF THESE GUYS SUBMITTED WE'RE GOING TO TAKE ALL THIS SQUARE FOOTAGE AND ALLOCATE TO ONE SMALL AREA.

I WOULD BE WILLING TO COMMIT THAT WE'RE NOT GOING TO DO THAT AND THAT THE 12,000 SQUARE FOOT IS A GENERAL ALLOCATION THAT WOULD BE SUBMITTED FOR PARCEL ONE IN A GENERAL ALLOCATION SUBMITTED FOR PARCEL TWO. IN MY HUMBLE PERSPECTIVE.

240,000 SQUARE FEET TOTAL. BUT IT WOULD BE BROKEN OUT PER PARCEL FOR PARCEL ONE AND PARCEL TWO, AGAIN THE SAKE OF BEING REDUNDANT, PARCEL ONE, PARCEL TWO THAT HAS BEEN SOLD TO THESE GUYS TO THE EXTENT THEY DON'T NEED THE ADDITIONAL ALLOCATION, THEN IT WOULD BE FOREGONE AND ONLY BE APPLICABLE FOR THAT PARTICULAR PARCEL. SAME FOR PARCEL ONE.

SO. >> WAS IT A CONDITION OF THE SALE FOR WHOEVER BOUGHT PARCEL TWO IS THIS

>> IT WAS NOT A CONDITION. >> THEY BOUGHT IT KNOWING WHAT WAS THERE AND WOULD LIKE IT ON HAVE MORE.

>> THAT ANSWERS MY QUESTION. I HAVE MORE QUESTIONS.

I'M GOING TO BACK OFF TO ALLOW OTHER COMMISSIONERS TO ASK.

I HAVE A WHOLE LIST OF QUESTIONS.

MISS WHITTINGTON, YOU MENTIONED THE $55 MILLION, I'M SORRY, PLEASE FORGIVE ME. THE $55 MILLION HAD BEEN INF INFLATED.

>> APOLOGIZE, I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE ACTUAL NUMBER SPENT.

>> OKAY. I'M GOING TO BACK OFF.

I HAVE MORE QUESTIONS BUT I'M GOING TO LEAVE IT TO THE OTHERS.

>> ARE YOU GUYS GOOD? I CERTAINLY DON'T WANT TO TAKE

YOUR TIME. >> I HAVE QUESTIONS FOR MR. BROOKS. THANK YOU MR. BROOKS.

IN THE EXISTENCE OF THE SURROUNDING COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT, WHY ISN'T 106000 EXTRA SQUARE FEET A GOOD

COMPATIBLE FIT FOR THE AREA? >> COMMISSIONER WHITEHURST, I BELIEVE YOU HAVE DRIVEN THIS AREA MANY TIMES SINCE YOU LIVE HERE. I AM A NEWBIE, I DON'T LIVE HERE. THE ONE SIDE OF THE HIGHWAY IS THE PUBLIXES. YMCA AND ALL OF THAT.

THE OTHER SIDE OF PACETTI LOOKS COMPLETELY DIFFERENT.

OAK TREES. THERE'S AN IRISH FENCE.

WHAT IS CALLED A SACRED ELEMENT OF THE KING AND THE BEAR.

THIS LIGHT HOUSE THAT'S MADE OUT OF SLATE STONES.

YOU CAN SEE THERE ARE SOME DEVELOPMENTS THAT HAVE TAKEN PLACE IN PARCEL ONE. THEY LOOK NOTHING LIKE WHAT IS ACROSS THE STREET AT PUBLIX. IF YOU LOOK AT PARCEL TWO, IT'S WHOLLY UNDEVELOPED. IT'S PERHAPS THE MOST BEAUTIFUL HORSE FARM I HAVE SEEN OUTSIDE OF OCALA.

I THINK THE TWO SIDES OF THE STREET ARE DIFFERENT.

>> YOUR OPINION THERE'S A HORSE FARM CLOSE AND OTHER THINGS BEAUTIFUL AND THIS WOULD RUIN THE BEAUTY OF THE AREA?

>> WELL, I DON'T THINK IT'S SIMPLY AN ASTH ETIC THING.

THE KING AND BEAR HAS A DIFFERENT SENSE OF PLACE.

WHEN YOU STAND AT THE ENTRANCEWAY OR DRIVING UP TO KING AND BEAR OR SEE THE MAJESTIC AREA AND KNOW YOU'RE ABOUT TO GO IN THERE. PUT $22 MILLION FOR A HOUSE OR SOMETHING, IT'S A VERY DIFFERENT FEELING WHEN YOU STAND ON THE CONCRETE AND PUBLIX OR THE YMCA, IT'S A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT AREA. THE GENIUS OF THE SOUNDS DRI, THERE'S DIFFERENT PUDS AND DIFFERENT SENSES OF PLAY.

THE KING AND BEAR IS A DIFFERENT PLACE.

WORLD GOLF IS KNOWN EVERYWHERE. YOU KNOW YOU'RE GOING INTO SOME PLACE. IF YOU COULD TRY TO PRESERVE THAT KEEPING THE SQUARE FOOTAGE DOWN, THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL TO

[02:45:03]

RESERVE THE SENSE OF PLACE IN POLICY A .1 OR 11

>> IT'S ON THE SHEET THE PLANNER EXPLAINED.

SO THERE ARE TWO DIFFERENT SIDES OF THE STREET.

TWO DIFFERENT CHARACTERS. >> MR. BROOKS, YOU KNOW THE COUNTY RECOMMENDS 112 FOOT PER PARCEL.

WHY SHOULDN'T WE STRIVE TO MEET THE 130 FOOT?

>> WHEN I WAS COUNTY ATTORNEY FOR MONROE COUNTY FOR LAND USE, WHICH IS THE FLORIDA KEYS, WE STRUGGLED WITH HOW MUCH COMMERCIAL SHOULD BE THERE FOR HOW MANY RESIDENCES.

IT HAPPENS EVERYWHERE. DCA, THEY USED TO LOOK AT COMMERCIAL TO RESIDENTIAL RATIO. THEY ARE TRYING TO PROVIDE PLACES FOR PEOPLE TO SHOP. THESE ARE DEVELOPMENTS OF REGIONAL IMPACT AND HAVE, THE APPLICATION OF DEVELOPMENT APPROVALS LIKE THIS. THEY COST A MILLION DOLLARS TO PREPARE THE DRI. THEY DID BACK IN THE DAY.

SO THEY LOOKED AT THOSE COMMERCIAL SQUARE FOOTAGES AND ALLOCATE THEM AROUND. IF YOU'RE LOOKING AT TODAY PRESENT PLACE, THE PEOPLE THAT LIVE IN KING AND BEAR CAN SHOP AT PUBLIX OR WORK OUT AT THE YMCA.

IT'S ALREADY THERE AND AVAILABLE FOR THEM ACROSS THE STREET.

NO REASON TO PROVIDE ON THEIR SIDE OF THE STREET AS WELL.

>> BASED ON THE COUNTY'S RECOMMENDATION, THIS COMMUNITY

IS UNDERSERVED. >> THAT I DON'T KNOW.

YOU WOULD HAVE TO LOOK AT THE TAX BASE.

>> THE COUNTY RECOMMENDS 112 AREA FEET.

>> I WOULD SAY -- I WOULD SAY THERE'S A BETTER PLACE TO PUT THAT 112 SQUARE FEET PER ROOF TOP NOT ON THE SAME SIDE OF THE STREET. PERHAPS AT THE INTERCHANGE OR PUBLIX. THESE ARE TWO TINY PARCELS.

SEVEN ACRES, NINE ACRES, THEY ARE RIGHT NEXT TO THE KING AND BEAR. MAKES NO SENSE TO PUT IN 50,000 SQUARE FOOT PUBLIX ON BOTH OF THEM WHICH IS BASICALLY WHAT THEY'RE ASKING FOR. DIVIDE THAT BETWEEN THE TWO.

50,000 APIECE. YOU CAN PUT A PUBLIX ON EACH ONE OF THOSE IN SQUARE FEET. THAT'S TOO MUCH.

>> WHICH LEADS ME TO THE LAST POINT AND THE LAST QUESTION I HAVE. SOMETHING THAT HAS BEEN REVEALED TO ME TODAY THROUGH THIS MEETING IS THERE SEEMS TO BE OPPOSITION NOT SO MUCH TO THE SQUARE FOOTAGE BUT THE STIGMA THAT COMES WITH BUILDING A STORAGE FACILITY.

IS IT YOUR OPINION THERE WOULD NOT BE THE COMMUNITY OPPOSITION

WERE STORAGE FACILITY BE HERE. >> WE WILL BE HERE AND FIGHTING THAT SEPARATE BATTLE. IT'S NOT REALLY BEFORE YOU TODAY. THAT STORAGE FACILITY.

IT'S A DIFFERENT APPLICATION. IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING IT HAS BEEN FILED. I'M SURE YOU HAVE SEEN IT.

FOR THE RECORD, IT'S MDB 2020-52.

AND IT SHOWS THE THREE STORIES. THAT'S ALREADY BEEN FILED.

SO. IF YOU HAVEN'T SEEN IT ALREADY, I WILL PUT IT IN THE RECORD SO YOU CAN GO AROUND.

>> AGAIN YOUR POSITION IS, YOUR OBJECTIONS ARE BASED PURELY ON THE ADDITIONAL SQUARE FOOTAGE AND NOT WHAT WILL COME WITH THE

SQUARE FOOTAGE. >> THAT'S CORRECT.

THERE'S MUCH TO ACCOMMODATE ADDITIONAL CHARACTER IN THE SPIRITED CHARACTER OF THE ST. JOHNS DRI AND SIX MILE CREEK PUD. LET'S REMEMBER WHAT WE WERE TRYING TO CREATE AND NOT ADD MORE IN.

IT'S NOT A HOUSEKEEPING MATTER. THIS WAS ORIGINALLY PRESENTED TO ME. IT WAS CHARACTERIZED THIS IS A HOUSEKEEPING MATTER AMONGST DRI ITSELF.

IT'S NOT JUST A HOUSEKEEPING MATTER.

THIS CHANGES THE CHARACTER OF THE SIX MILE CREEK PUD.

IT'S A MAJOR MODIFICATION AND ADD US, IT USED TO TRIPLE IT.

WITH TODAY'S OFFER, IT STILL DOUBLES COMMERCIAL SQUARE FOOTAGE IN PARCEL ONE AND TWO, WHICH IS SEVEN ACRES AND NINE.

7.73. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH

COMMISSIONER FOR YOUR QUESTIONS. >> WE WILL GO TO COMMISSIONER

DEAN NEXT. >> WELL ACTUALLY, THE LAST DISCUSSION ANSWERED MY QUESTION. IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT EVEN IF WE APPROVE ITEM TWO, WHICH IS BEFORE US RIGHT NOW, THEN IF THEY WERE A MULTI-STORY WAREHOUSE OR STORAGE FACILITY, PRO PROPOSED, THERE'S A PENDING APPLICATION THAT WOULD HAVE TO COME TO THE PZA ALONE OR THEN US. IT'S A SEPARATE ISSUE AND IT WOULD COME BEFORE US AT A LATER DATE.

IF ITEM TWO WAS APPROVED BECAUSE THE, IF WE WERE TO APPROVE ITEM

[02:50:03]

TWO, IT WOULD NOT APPROVE THE STORAGE FACILITY.

THAT WOULD HAVE TO COME TO USAS A SEPARATE MATTER.

SO I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE I UNDERSTAND THAT IN MY OWN MIND THAT SO WE'RE CLEAR ABOUT THAT AS WE GO FORWARD

>> LEGAL. >> RIGHT.

AND MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT WOULD BE A, CONSTITUTE A MINOR MOD WHICH WOULD COME TO THE PZA, WHICH COULD BE APPROVED BY THEM.

OR WHETHER APPROVED OR DENIED, COULD COME TO THIS BOARD.

IT WOULD GO TO THE PZA DEPENDING ON THE DISPOSITION.

MR. CHAIR. I HAVE ONE MORE THING.

WHEN MR. DOUGLAS WAS CALLED UP. HE MADE REPRESENTATIONS AND WHAT I CONSTRUED IS SOME LIMITATIONS THAT HE WOULD BE MAKING AND I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY AND HE MAY WANT TO SPEAK WITH HIS COUNSEL VERY QUICKLY. IS THAT MEANT TO BE A PROFFER TO THE BOARD TO LIMIT THE APPLICATION AS DESCRIBED BY MR. DOUGLAS OR MORE OF KNOW ASPIRATIONAL SELF IMPOSED.

>> I HAVE THE SAME QUESTION. >> MR. DAVIS DID OFFER THAT HE WOULD LIMIT THE 12,000. ALLOCATE TO EACH PARCEL.

12,000 PER SQUARE FEET. IF THE PARCEL TWO DOESN'T USE IT, IT WON'T BE USED. SO HE'S NOT GOING TO LOAD UP FROM PARCEL ONE ON TO PARCEL TWO.

SO WHAT THAT AMOUNTS TO IS PARCEL ONE IS 10.35 ACRES.

THAT WOULD LIMIT IT TO 124200 AND THERE'S A KINDER CARE AND DENTAL OFFICE CONSTRUCTED. SO, THAT'S WHAT WESTBOUND REMAINING AFTER THE KINDER CARE. PARCEL TWO IS 9.3 ACRES AND

LIMITED TO 111600. >> AND MISS WHITTINGTON.

IS THAT A PROFFER PERTAINING TO THIS APPLICATION?

>> IT IS. AS OF A FEW MINUTES AGO.

>> DO YOU HAVE THAT IN WRITING? >> IT'S JUST NOW HAPPENED.

I WILL PUT IT IN WRITING AND MODIFY THE SAME RED LINES I GAVE

TO YOU. >> IF I MAY THROUGH THE CHAIR TOO, MISS WHITTINGTON, DOES THAT HAVE AN AMOUNT TO TRANSFER?

>> NO. SAME AMOUNT.

JUST ALLOCATES PER PARCEL. WON'T BE LOADED UP ON ONE OR THE

OTHER. >> OKAY.

I STILL HAVE QUESTIONS. I WANT TO GIVE YOU TIME TO PUT THAT IN WRITING. I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO CONSIDER THAT AS A PROFFER. WE NEED TO DO THAT.

SO I'LL GOOD AHEAD. ARE THERE ANY OTHER FURTHER QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD? COMMISSIONER SMITH.

>> THANK YOU MR. CHAIRMAN. I HAVE A COUPLE QUESTIONS IN REGARD TO SOME NUMBERS THAT HAVE BEEN PRESENTED TODAY.

I DON'T KNOW WHO CAN ANSWER THEM.

PI SEE DISCREPANCIES THAT ARE PRETTY OUTSTANDING TO ME.

I WILL STATE THIS TO THE BOARD AND STAFF CAN ANSWER.

NUMBER ONE, MR. MONSIEUR AND HIS PRESENTATION PRESENTED THERE WAS 6200 SQUARE FEET FOR PARCEL ONE AND 6300 SQUARE FEET AVAILABLE FOR PARCEL NUMBER TWO. MISS WHITTINGTON, YOU MENTIONED THEIR 130 ON SEVEN ACRES. THAT'S 4134 AREA FEET PER ACRE.

IS THAT ACCURATE? I WILL PROCEED.

I'M GOING TO ASK IF THAT'S ACCURATE.

MOVING ALONG, MR. HUMPHREYS PRESENTED SUBMITTED A DOCUMENT, A CHART THAT PORTRAYS WHAT IS HAPPENING AND WHAT I WILL CALL CLOSE PROXIMITY IN THE VICINITY. THAT SUBMISSION WAS PUT ON THE OVER HEAD. IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED TO US VIA E-MAIL LAST EVENING. AND SOME OF THOSE AND HE EVEN WENT INTO HIS TESTIMONY AND SEEMS TO BE LIKE HE'S AN EXPERT IN THIS AREA, THAT THE GROSS BUILDING AREA WAS BETWEEN 5694

[02:55:04]

AT THE MINIMUM AND HIGH IS 7063 AT THE TOP.

EXCUSE ME, 5158 AND TOP END 7063.

CAN SOMEBODY ADDRESS WHAT THESE ARE AND PROVIDE CLARIFICATION? COMMISSIONER, I WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK THAT TO REAL QUICK IF I COULD. CERTAINLY DON'T TO WANT TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF MR. HUMPHREYS. I WILL LIKE TO SAY THE BOARD, I WOULD ASK YOU ANSWER THAT NUMBERS ARE VERY EASY TO MANIPULATE. I AM A PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER, CIVIL ENGINEER AS WELL. HAVE SPENT MUCH OF MY CAREER AS A DEVELOPER AND SITE DEVELOPMENT.

IT'S VERY POSSIBLE. IT'S VERY UNLIKELY IN MY OPINION THAT THE INTENSITY OF DEVELOPMENT THAT WAS BEING DESCRIBED IN HIS REPORT WAS REALLY ON THE ORDER OF 5000 OR 6000 PER SQUARE FEET. IT'S NOT UNCOMMON TO OWN LARGE TRACTS OF LAND THAT MAYBE INCLUDED IN PROPERTY HOLDINGS BUT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE DEVELOPMENT.

SOMETIMES IT CAN BE BUFFERS OR OFF SITE MITIGATION.

I DON'T KNOW HOW THEY'RE DOING THE PONDS, YOU INCREASE THE DENSITY WITH WHAT IS PROPORTIONAL AS THE COUNTY IS DEVELOPMENT PER SQUARE FOOT.FOR- IF YOU LOOK AT COUNTY'S DIRECTIVE AT 12,000 SQUARE FEET, THAT'S WHAT THE AICP AND THE PLANNER THEY'RE LOOKING FOR. EVEN FOR NEIGHBORHOOD GENERAL PRESENTED BY THE OPPOSITION. THEY CATEGORIED 10,000 SQUARE FEET. TO SAY A PUBLIX ARE ONLY DEVELOPED AT 5000 SQUARE FEET, I BELIEVE DISINGENUOUS IN MY

OPINION. >> LET ME DID MY BEST WITH MATH.

IT'S ALWAYS DANGEROUS WORKING ON MATH ON THE FLOOR HERE.

BUT SO, LET ME SHARE HOW WE GOT TO THE 6100 SQUARE FEET PER

ACRE. >> THE LATERA SPA INTENDED FOR USE TO PARCEL NINE. WHICH IS LATERA AT LINKS.

ESSENTIALLY THAT LEAVES THE 130,000 SQUARE FEET FOR PARCELS ONE AND TWO OUT OF THAT 151,000 SQUARE FEET TODAY.

FROM THAT 130,000 SQUARE FEET, WE'RE ESSENTIALLY BEING ASKED TO TRANSFER A LITTLE OVER 11,000 SQUARE FEET OF THAT TO THE KING AND BEAR CLUBHOUSE. WE HAVE BEEN ASKED TO DO THAT BY STAFF BECAUSE THAT FACILITY IS USED FOR PUBLIC WEDDINGS ET CETERA. SO WE'VE DONE THAT.

THAT LEAVES 118988 SQUARE FEET FOR PARCELS ONE AND TWO AND WHEN YOU DIVIDE THAT BY 19.7 ACRES, THAT'S HOW WE GET OUR 6100 ACRES. THERE HAVE BEEN DIFFERENT ITERATIONS WHAT IS REMAINING ON PARCEL ONE.

THAT'S HOW WE GOT TO THE 6100 TOTAL SQUARE FEET REMAINING AND ALLOCATED FOR PARCELS ONE AND TWO.

>> COULD YOU EXPLAIN WHAT MISS WHITTINGTON BROUGHT EARLIER WITH THE 31138 REMAINING ON 7.5 ACRES.

>> YES, SIR. AND IF WE COULD -- YES.

SO HOW WE GOT TO THIS IS HOW WE GOT TO THE NUMBER.

THIS IS BASED ON THE 130,000 >>> THE FLETCHER DAVIS HAS ASSIGNED TO RAINBOW RASCALS WHICH IS THE -- THE DAYCARE CENTER ON PAR CRIMINAL 1, 12,000 SQUARE FEET AND PARCEL 7500 CURRENTLY THERE ARE 61,000 SQUARE FEET ASSIGNED FOR THE PROFESSIONAL OFFICES ON PLAN FOR PARCEL 2.

I'M SORRY. IT SHOWS THE ASSIGNMENT.

IT SHOWS THE ASSIGNMENT UP TO THE KING AND BEAR CLUBHOUSE.

THE 18362 WHICH OUT OF THE 130,000 SQUARE FEET GETS US TO

[03:00:04]

98862 OR 31,138 REMAINING IS HOW WE HAVE DONE THAT CALCULATION.

>> FOR THE 7.5-ACRE VACANT PARCEL.

>> APPRECIATE THAT. I WOULD LIKE TO ASK MR. HUMPHREYS TO EXPLAIN HIS NUMBERS.

>> YES, COMMISSIONER SMITH. WHAT I DID I WENT ON THE ST.

JOHNS PROPERTY APPRAISER WEB SITE.

WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE INDIVIDUAL PARCELS, SAY, FOR EXAMPLE, THE STRIP SHOPPING CENTER THAT GATORS DOCK HIDE IS IN 2.66 ACRES DIVIDED BY THE 16 -- DIVIDED INTO THE 16,949 SQUARE FEET OF THAT SHOPPING CENTER AND WHAT THAT LOOKS LIKE.

AND 372 SQUARE FEET. I DID THE SAME THING WITH ALL THE REST. IT HAS FOUR BUILDINGS AND OVER 80,000. THE NUMBERS I USED ARE THE CONDITION BUILDING AREA. GROSS BUILDING.

THE DENSITY GOES DOWN. BUT ON THE CHART I BELIEVE THE NUMBERS ARE THE AIR CONDITION BUILDING AREAS DIVIDED INTO THE GROSS SQUARE FOOTAGE. INTERESTINGLY ENOUGH AS MR. DAVIS MENTIONED. SOME OF THE PARCEL.

PART OF THE WATER RETENTION IS A PART OF THE AREA AND ANOTHER PARCELS IT IS NOT PART OF THE GROSS LAND AREA.

, THEY ARE PART OF THE MASTER STORM WATER TRAINAGE SYSTEM.

>> I DON'T THINK THEY HAVE TO DO THEEN SIDE AND GET THE 12,000 SQUARE FEET PER ACRE WILL MAKE IT MORE INTENSIVE THAN WE SEE IN

THAT. >> THAT'S MY CONCERN.

JUST THE DOUBLE CHECK I WENT AND DID THE SAME THING WITH THE -- I CAN'T REMEMBER WHAT THEY REFERRED TO IT AS.

THE SHOPPING CENTER THAT'S AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF STATE ROAD 13 AND RACE TRAC ROAD THERE IS A RESTAURANT THERE.

AND IT IS WONDERFUL BUT THAT SHOPPING CENTER IS A KIND OF A GROUND FLOOR RETAIL SECOND FLOOR OFFICE CONDO PROJECT.

THAT'S AROUND 16,000 SQUARE FEET PER ACRE.

THAT GIVES YOU AN IDEA OF THE DENSITY THAT GOING TO 12,000 SQUARE FEET WOULD HAVE. I HAVE ALL THAT INFORMATION STRAIGHT FROM THE PROPERTY APPRAISER WEB SITE.

>> THANK YOU, APPRECIATE IT. >> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.

>> COMMISSIONER? >> A LOT OF THE QUESTIONS HAVE BEEN ANSWERED. MR. BROOKS, IF YOU WOULD COME UP FOR A SECOND. YOU KNOW, WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT TRAFFIC, WHAT IN YOUR MIND CAUSES THE TRAFFIC?

>> I'M NOT A TRAFFIC PERSON OR ENGINEER.

PAUL CAN TALK ABOUT TRAFFIC IN THE AREA.

>> I CAN TELL YOU A TIME WHEN THERE IS MILL CREEK AND A GROCERY STORE. YOU HAVE TO COME UP.

THERE WASN'T ANY TRAFFIC. >> I'LL TALK ABOUT THE TRAFFIC ON PACETTI AND NOT ON 16 AND 95.

>> YES. >> THE TRAFFIC PEOPLE SAID DON'T WORRY ABOUT IT. WHAT I WORRY ABOUT IS TRAFFIC ON THE PRIVATE ROAD THAT IS MAINTAINED AND IT IS SERVICED ABOUT A MANNED GATE HOUSE. THE MANNED GATE HOUSE IS VERY FEW YARDS FROM ONE OF THE ENTRANCES TO THE PROPERTY.

IT IS NOT UNUSUAL. I DON'T HAVE A STUDY, I DON'T KNOW HOW YOU ASK FOR THE STUDY, I DON'T HAVE A STUDY THAT SAYS, HOW DO YOU COUNT INS AND OUTS AT A MANNED GATE HOUSE THE TAME WAY WITH TSA. YOU HAVE BEEN THROUGH A TSA FIASCO. SOMEONE DROPPED THEIR TICKET.

THEY CANNOT FIND THEIR WALLET. THEY'RE NOT SURE HOW TO MATCH THIS DOCUMENT TO THAT DOCUMENT. GUESS WHAT? THE SAME THING HAPPENS AT THE GATE.

A CREDENTIAL MATCH. PEOPLE GET A BYE YOU SHOW A LICENSE CAN YOU GOLF. OTHERS SERVICING THE COMMUNITY THERE IS A MATCH TO DO THAT. I WILL TELL YOU I HAVE OBSERVED ON FREQUENT CAGESS TRAFFIC BACKED UP TRYING TO GET INTO THE KING AND BEAR WELL BEYOND THE ENTRANCE TO PARCEL 1.

I DON'T HAVE A STUDY THAT CAN SHOW YOU WHAT HAPPENS FOR THIS DURATION AT THIS TIME, THIS MANY DAYS OF THE WEEK, I DON'T HAVE

[03:05:04]

IT. I WILL NOT PRETEND I HAVE IT.

I HAVE OBSERVED IT ON MORE THAN ONE OCCASION.

>> THANK YOU, SIR. >> AT THIS TIME I WOULD LIKE TO SEE, I WANT TO GO BACK TO COMMISSIONER SMITH.

THERE ARE NUMBERS AND A DISCREPANCY, CAN YOU GIVE US AN EXPLANATION ON SOME OF THE NUMBERS?

>> WE STARTED OFF WITH THAT 200,000 SQUARE FEET.

THE RED LINING DOCUMENT -- THE RED LINING DOCUMENT PRESENTED WE JUST RECEIVED THAT LAST EVENING.

SO WE HAVEN'T HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW ALL THE NUMBERS TO

MAKE THEM TO BE QUITE FRANK. >> ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF?

>> AND I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE THE APPLICANT COME UP.

I WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK TO YOUR CLIENT AS WELL.

>> SORRY? >> I WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK TO

MR. DAVIS AS WELL. >> I WANT TO GO OVER BRIEFLY.

THE COMMISSIONER WHITEHURST BROUGHT THIS UP.

I WANT TO MAKE SURE THIS IS CORRECT T IS IMPORTANT TO MAKE SURE WE'RE CLEAR ON THIS. YOU SAID THAT THE STATUS OF THE PROPERTY IS MAKE IT MARKETABLE. I DID NOT REALIZE THE ONE PARCEL

HAD BEEN SOLD. >> PARCEL 2.

>> I WAS NOT TRACKING THAT. A AS IT STANDS THERE IS A CONTRACT IN PLACE OR THE APPLICATION FOR --

>> FOR THE 61,000 SHOWN ON THE SCREEN.

>> UNDERSTOOD. >> JUST TO BE CLEAR.

THAT PARTICULAR BUYER HAS REQUESTED AN INCREASE IN

ALLOCATION OF DENSITY. >> ARE YOU NOT HERE ON THEIR

BEHALF? >> YES, SIR NOT ON BEHALF OF ANY APPLICATION THEY FILED BUT AS THE DEVELOPER WHO HAS TO HAVE THE ALLOCATION AND LIKES TO GIVE THEM, WE ONLY HAVE THE 31,000 REMAINING THAT WE DEMONSTRATED TO COMMISSIONER SMITH.

SO THAT 31,000 REMAINS OVER SEVEN ACRES.

THAT'S NOT ENOUGH TO DO THE SEVEN ACRES MORE OR LESS GIVE TO

SOMEONE ELSE. >> BUT AS IT STANDS TODAY, THERE IS STILL COMMERCIAL PROJECT IS STILL GOING ON THE PARCEL?

>> IT IS UNCLEAR, I DON'T KNOW IF THAT IS FEASIBLE FOR THEM TO MOVE FORWARD OR NOT. IT IS UNCLEAR.

>> I UNDERSTAND. LET ME MAKE SURE I'M ASKING IT CORRECTLY. AS IT STANDS TODAY, FORGET WHO PURCHASED THE PROPERTY, THE CONTRACT, IT IS CURRENTLY AUTHORIZED ZONED -- ALL THE ALTERATIONS FOR COMMERCIAL

PROPERTY? >> YES, SIR.

>> REGARDLESS OF WHAT WE DO COMMERCIAL -- SOMETHING COMMERCIAL WILL GO INTO THE PARCEL?

>> YES. >> UNDERSTOOD.

>> JUST TO BE CLEAR, I'M SORRY IF I'M BEING REDUNDANT.

MY SENSE WAS BASED ON THE TESTIMONY OF THE OPPOSITION, THEY WERE CONCERNED THEY WERE TRYING TO SHOW HOW WE WERE GOING TO DISPROPORTIONATELY UTILIZE THE SQUARE FOOTAGE FROM PARCEL 2 BACK TO 1. THAT'S NOT THE INTENTION SO THAT WAS -- THAT WAS THE REASON I SAID WE'RE WILLING TO LIMIT IT SO. THE SAKE OF BEING TOO CLEAR, PARCEL 2 DEVELOPER TO THE EXTENT THEY DECIDE THEY DO NOT WANT THE ALLOCATION I MAY ENJOY IN THE FUTURE, IF THAT'S THE CASE, THAT

WOULD NOT BE USED. >> I UNDERSTAND.

I UNDERSTAND THE 1991, 30 YEARS AGO THE MARKET CONDITIONS HAVE

CHANGED AND CONSIDERABLY. >> YES.

>> WE'RE GOING TO HAVE THAT IN WRITING.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU, SIR.

IF I COULD SEE MR. BROOKS. >> ONE LAST THING.

JUST TO BE CLEAR ABOUT THE TRAFFIC, I WANTED TO -- THIS DID NOT COME UP TODAY I DIDN'T WANT ANYONE TO BE CONFUSED.

THERE WAS SOME TESTIMONY THAT THE TRAFFIC EXTENDS OUT BEYOND THE GATE. THERE IS NOTHING THAT WE HAVE COMMERCIAL WISE THAT IS CLOSE TO THE GATE THAT IS -- LET ME RESTATE THAT. 100% OF THE COMMERCIAL EXISTS OUTSIDE OF THE GATE SO TRAFFIC GOING INTO THE GATE FOR THE RESIDENTS IS BEYOND ANYTHING WE'RE TALKING ABOUT TODAY.

>> YOU SAID YOU HAVE A DEPICTION COULD YOU HIGHLIGHT THAT?

[03:10:01]

>> YES. >>> MR. CHAIRMAN, WHICH IS THE LITTLE RED DOT. THE ENTRANCE INTO THE KING AND THE BEAR NEIGHBORHOOD THAT WAS DESCRIBED AND THE TWO COMMERCIAL PARCELS OUT HERE, THE GUARD GATE IS UP IN THIS AREA RIGHT HERE AND SO OUR COMMERCIAL PARCELS ARE ALL OUTSIDE OF THE GUARD GATE. SO I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT WAS CLEAR. IT WAS A LITTLE MUDDY WHEN THERE WAS MENTION ABOUT TRAFFIC GOING INTO GUARD GATE.

CLARIFY TO THAT PROJECT AND THE PARCEL WILL BE --

>> THE ENTRANCE THE GATE HOUSE FOR THE RESIDENCES TO CREATE THE PRIVATE COMMUNITY WILL BE IN THIS AREA HERE.

THE PARCELS THAT WE'RE DEVELOPING, THERE WOULD BE NO ACCESS TO THE -- THERE IS NOT A ROAD GOING THROUGH AND CIRCUMVENTING THEM, IF THAT MAKES SENSE.

>> COULD YOU DEPICT. THIS IS PROBABLY STILL --

>> GOT YOU. THE GUARD GATE IS RIGHT IN THE

LITTLE OPENING AREA HERE. >> WHAT I'M ASKING, DOWN HERE TO THE PARCEL. CAN YOU SHOW WHERE THE ANTICIPATE THE ENTRANCE TO THE PARCEL WILL BE?

>> THAT'S WHERE THE GUARD GATE IS THERE.

>> LOOK HERE CAN YOU SEE IT AND SHOWING.

AND I DROVE UP TO IT. IT'S NOT.

THE MEDIAN IS RIGHT THERE. AND THE AREA.

>> WE MET IN THE MIDDLE RIGHT THERE.

>> RIGHT THERE. >> WE'LL COME BACK.

>> I WANT TO COME BACK TO MY QUESTION TO THE PARCELS.

>> THE ENTRANCE IS RIGHT HERE. IT WAS RIGHT THERE FROM THE VERY BEGINNING OF TIME. THE STRUCTURE WAS BUILT AND THERE IS AN EXISTING DRIVEWAY THAT GOES IN RIGHT THERE.

>> INTO THE SECOND PARCEL. >> THE SAME LOCATION BUT ON THE

OTHER SIDE OF THE STREET. >> OKAY.

THANK YOU. MR. BROOKS.

>> I'LL BE HERE IF I NEED TO ANSWER A QUESTION.

>> SOME HAVE BEEN ASKED. I WANT TO GO THROUGH IT.

>> IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THE TRAFFIC HAS TO STOP AT THE GUARD GATE HERE AND WHILE THEY'RE GETTING THROUGH AND THEY BACK UP AND I BELIEVE HE WAS SAYING THEY BACK UP ALL THE WAY OUT TO HERE. HOW FAR DO THEY BACK UP? ENTRANCE TO PARCEL 1. BACK UP PAST THAT ENTRANCE IF

THERE IS AN ENTRANCE THERE. >> THANK YOU.

THANK YOU FOR CLARIFYING THAT. I WANTED TO MAKE SURE I HAD THAT ANSWERED. MR. BROOKS, BACK TO YOU.

EXCELLENT JOB TO COUNSEL YOU PUT ON GREAT ARGUMENTS I UNDERSTAND THIS IS IMPORTANT FOR OUR UNDERSTANDING TO MAKE SURE WE WEIGH ALL THIS AND CONSIDER IT. IF I HEARD YOU YOU MENTIONED POSSIBILITY OF A WALMART, PUBLIX AND COMMERCIAL STORAGE.

I UNDERSTAND THERE IS A APPLICATION FOR A PUB STORAGE.

I WANT TO UNDERSTAND. WAS IT YOUR SUGGESTION IF WE APPROVE A WALMART COULD GO IN THERE.

>> THAT WAS A COMPARISON OF SQUARE FOOTAGE.

A LAY PERSON EVEN MYSELF TELLS ME 200,000 SQUARE FEET I SAY I DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT MEANS. 100,000, I DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT MEANS I COMPARE IT TO WHAT THE SIZE OF A PUBLIX OR THE SIZE OF A WALMART SUPER CENTER AND SO THEY'RE ASKING YOU FOR 100,000 SQUARE FEET ADDITIONAL SQUARE FOOTAGE ON PARCEL 1 OR 2 AND 50,000 ON 1 AND 2. I'M CUTTING DOWN THE MIDDLE 7 AND 9 ACRES. THAT'S THE SIZE OF THE LARGE OR A LARGE PUBLIX OR SMALL WALMART T IS NOT GOING TO BE ONE OF THOSE BUT DIVIDED UP INTO THE SMALLER THINGS.

I SENT AROUND THE APPLICATION THAT HAS THE STORAGE FACILITY.

I HAVE HERE I'LL SEND IT AROUND.

[03:15:01]

PARCEL IS 9 PROFESSIONAL OFFICE BUILDINGS THAT ARE PROPOSED.

WE DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THOSE.

YOU KNOW, AN OPTION HERE WOULD BE TO GO OFFICE.

IF THIS WAS ALL OFFICE. THAT COULD SELL IT FOR OFFICE THEY SELL TRACT 2 FOR OFFICE. WE DON'T HAVE AN OBJECTION FOR

OFFICE. >> I THINK AS YOU HEARD AND THE PROFFERED SOLICITATIONS FOR THAT.

>> I WOULD LOVE TO SEE PROFFER A OFFICE THERE.

WE COULD ALL AGREE. >> YOU REFERENCE, YOU MENTIONED HORSE COUNTRY I WAS RAISED I'M FAMILIAR WITH THE HORSE COUNTRY THERE. MY FAMILY HAS BEEN INVOLVED FOR YEARS. I WANT TO UNDERSTAND.

WHAT I WROTE DOWN IS THAT YOU WOULD REFERENCED THAT THIS DIRECTLY IMPACTS THE FORCE FORMS THERE.

CAN YOU HELP ME UNDERSTAND THE ARGUMENT.

>> I'M NOT AN EQUESTRIAN, TAKE ME AS A LAY PERSON.

THERE ARE HORSE FACILITIES. THERE IS A STABLE WHERE MY DAUGHTER RIDES. IF SHE HAD THE MONEY TO BUY A HORSE SHE WOULD KEEP IT THERE AND HAVE A RIDING LESSON THERE.

THIS FARM, I DON'T REPRESENT THEM, I DON'T KNOW THEM.

I KNOW WHAT I WITNESSED WHEN I DROVE BY BUT THIS HAS, LOOKS LIKE A TRAINING FACILITY. IT HAS RAIL FENCING THAT GOES AROUND. IT HAS WHAT LOOKED LIKE TO BE VERY EXPENSIVE BRED HORSES FOR WHATEVER PURPOSES THEY ARE USING THEM FOR. IT'S NOT A TYPICAL FIVE-ACRE HOBBY FARMER. IT'S A SUBSTANTIAL HORSE FARM LIKE BY PALM BEACH. IT IS A PRETTY NICE HORSE FACILITY, AN EVERY DAY THING IT IS SENT TO THE AREA.

YOU SAY WOW LOOK AT THAT POINT TO YOUR KIDS AND I UNDERSTAND MY QUESTION IS THAT YOU INDICATED AND INTACT THE HORSE INDUSTRY.

IF MY UNDERSTANDING IS CORRECT, THAT PARCEL CAN BE DEVELOPED AS

COMMERCIAL. >> YOU KNOW WE'RE LOSING HORSE COUNTRY LEFT AND RIGHT. MAYBE THE HORSE FORM GOES TO COMMERCIAL. I'M NOT HERE.

>> I WANT TO MAKE SURE, WE DO NOTHING TODAY THAT CAN BE

DEVELOPED THAT PROPERTY AS -- >> AS A HORSE FARM?

>> THE PARCEL IN QUESTION. >> THE PARCEL HAS A PLAN AND I'LL SEND AT THIS TIME AROUND WE DON'T HAVE AN OBJECTION TO THAT. THOSE ARE PROFESSIONAL OFFICE BUILDINGS LIKE A DOCTOR'S OFFICE.

THAT WOULD NOT AFFECT THOSE HORSES, NO.

>> THANK YOU. >> I'LL GO THROUGH QUICK.

>> I THINK THAT'S ALL I HAVE. >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS?

>> I HAVE ONE QUESTION. >> CAN YOU TELL ME EITHER STAFF OR THE APPLICANT, WHERE THE -- IF THERE IS AN APPLICATION IN FOR A MULTILEVEL STORAGE FACILITY, IS THERE A SITE AND WHAT PARCEL IS THAT ON? DO WE KNOW?

>> I BELIEVE THERE IS AN APPLICATION IN, IT'S NOT OUR APPLICATION. IT IS ON PARCEL 1 FOR THE 7.5 ACRES THAT HAVE NOT BEEN GETTING CONSTRUCTION ON.

THAT HAS TO GO FOR A MINOR MOD AND APPEALED BACK TO YOU.

>> THE OWNER WOULD ASK TO SIGN THE APPLICATION AND GIVE THEM THE APPLICATION ON THE PROPERTY.

THAT -- HAS THAT BEEN SIGNED IN PRE-APP?

>> THIS MAY BE A PRE-APP. WE GAVE THEM AUTHORIZATION TO SOLICIT. WE DID NOT SIGN OFF ON ANY APPLICATION. THEY ARE BEING APPLIED FOR.

WE FOUND OUT FROM STAFF AND THE DECEMBER ONE.

THAT'S MOST RECENT. I HAVE NOT SEEN THE PRE-APP.

>> THEY DID NOT GO THROUGH ME OR SOLICIT.

THEY HAVE THE RIGHTS UNDER THE CONTRACT.

>> I UNDERSTAND THERE WERE MULTIPLE SUBMITTED.

ONE WAS AND SOME OFFICE BUILDINGS.

HE DID NOT SIGN A OWNER'S AUTHORIZATION IS WHAT YOU'RE

[03:20:09]

ASKING. , WE GOT THE PROFFER.

>> MISS WHITTINGTON WERE YOU ABLE TO REDUCE TO WRITING WHAT

MR. DOUGLAS' PROFFER WAS? >> IF YOU PARDON MY HEN SCRATCHING I WAS DOING IT ON THE BACK OF A CHAIR.

WE CAN TWEAK THIS IF NEED BE. THE APPLICANT AGREES TO LIMIT THE ALLOWABLE SQUARE FOOTAGE OF 12,000 PER SQUARE FOOT PER ACRE ALLOCATED ON THE ACREAGE OF EACH PARCEL.

THE RESULT WOULD BE PARCEL 1 AT 10.24 A MAXIMUM OF 125046.

A PORTION OF THAT IS BUILT. AND THEN PARCEL 2, 9.3-ACRE AS

MAXIMUM OF 111600 SQUARE FEET. >> RIGHT.

WE CAN INCORN RATE THAT SHOULD THE BOARD APPROVE THE

APPLICATION. >> IS THAT SUFFICIENT?

>> I THINK IT IS. >> AND IF I MAY, THE MAKER OF THE MOTION THE COUNTY ATTORNEY READ, THE MAKER OF THE MOTION ADOPTED THAT. SINCE THAT TIME THERE HAS BEEN A PROFFER SO WOULD THE MAKER OF THE MOTION INCLUDE THAT ADDITIONAL PROFFER INTO THE MOTION?

>> ON THE FIRST ITEM? >> THIS IS THIS IS ON ITEM NUMBER 2 AND THERE WAS A -- I'M SORRY.

>> WE HAVEN'T HAD A MOTION. >> THIS AN AGENDA ITEM 1, RIGHT.

, I WANT TO BE CLEAR, I DIDN'T GET TO WRITE IT DOWN.

AND 350 SQUARE FEET AND THEN 268 AND NOW 236? IS THE PROFFER WITH THE TOTAL COMMERCIAL AND BASED AND LEAVE

THAT THERE. >> AND AND PARCELS 1 AND 2.

AND THE REMAINING AMOUNTS FOR THE CLUBHOUSE KING AND BEAR THAT WOULD BE IN ADDITION. SO THAT WOULD STILL GET YOU BACK TO THAT -- THAT NUMBER TO IT -- 268 AND CHANGE.

>> IT DOES NOT AFFECT 1 AND 2, THE 11,000.

THE KING AND BEAR, INCLUDING THAT SO -- WE'RE LIMITED ON PARCELS 1 AND 2 TO 106640. PLUS OUR 130.

>> RIGHT. >> AND TO GET -- SO IT IS 18,000 FOR THE KING AND BEAR CLUBHOUSE AND THEN SQUARE FOOTAGE FOR THE SPA. WHICH GETS TO YOU THE 268 FROM -- THIS IS 236,640 AND TO THE 268 IS THE CLUBHOUSE AND THE

SPA. >> I UNDERSTAND.

>> COMMISSIONER. >> IF WE THE BOARD AGREES TO THE WHAT IS WRITTEN ON THE PAPER. WOULD YOU NOT TAKE OUT AND PUT NUMBER 3 AND NUMBER 4 THERE WOULD BE NO NEED?

I JUST WANT TO BE RIGHT. >> COMMISSIONER, ARE YOU READING

FROM PAGE 6 OF THE STAR REPORT? >> THE APPLICATION SUMMARY.

[03:25:13]

>> COMMISSIONER WALDRON THAT IS PART OF THE SUMMARY AS IT HAD

EXISTED. >> I THINK THAT MAY BE ADJUSTED BY THE RED LINING DOCUMENT THAT MISS WHITTINGTON HAD PROVIDED.

MISS WHITTINGTON, CAN YOU SPEAK MORE FULLY TO THAT?

>> I'M NOT SURE I HEARD THE QUESTION.

THE STAFF REPORT WAS WRITTEN ON THE REQUEST OF 200,000 SO WE HAVE REDUCED THAT AND THE RED LINES THAT I PROVIDED TO YOU, I

WILL MODIFY AGAIN TO, IF I CAN. >> YOU HAVE IN HERE ON THE APPLICATION SUMMARY TRANSFER SQUARE FOOTAGE FROM 9 TO SQUARE FOOTAGE OF 1 AND 2. AND SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PARCEL 6

THAT PARCEL 1 AND 2. >> SO THE PARCEL 6 IS THE UNBUILT THAT WE'RE BRINGING BACK.

THERE ARE 6 AND 1350 THAT WAS NOT BUILT.

THAT'S REDUCING THE 18362 ALLOCATION THE COUNTY REQUESTED FOR THE KING AND BEAR. THAT'S HOW WE GET TO THE 11,000. YOU SUBTRACT WHAT WASN'T BUILT

FROM THE 18 THE COUNTY. >> BUT IF WE AGREE THE AMOUNT

PER ACRE. >> WE ARE AGREEING THIS.

>> WE DO NOT NEED THAT TRANSFERRING.

>> WE ARE AGREEING. I HAVE TO MODIFY THIS AGAIN TO SAY THAT, WE'RE GOING TO WIND UP IS 12,000 SQUARE FEET PER ACRE ON THE ACREAGE OF EACH PARCEL AND NO MORE THAN THAT.

>> I JUST -- IF YOU AGREED TO THE 12 YOU WOULD TAKE THOSE OUT.

>> COMMISSIONER SMITH? >> I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE SOMEONE BILL DO SOME MATH ON THE BOARD. WHAT I'M CUR CROSS A PARCEL ONE IS 120,000. AND 12,000 PER ACRE.

WHAT IS THERE NOW AND WHAT WILL BE LEFT ON THE 7.5 ACRES THAT COULD BE UTILIZED IN THAT 7 AND A HALF ACRES, HOW INTENSE WILL

IT BE? >> THAT NUMBER WAS 125.

>> 125040. >> CAN YOU LOWER YAR MASK.

>> THANK YOU. >> AND WE HAVE THE 12 FOR THE DAYCARE. AND 7500 FOR THE --

>> 195 MINUS THAT DIVIDED BY 7.5.

, WE HAVE 105540 SQUARE FEET REMAINING.

>> 105 WHAT? >> 105540.

>> THAT IS 5 BY 7.5 ACRES? >> YES.

12,000 TIMES THE 7.5 ACRES REMAINING.

THEY RESULT IN THE SAME NUMBER. >> 14,000, COMMISSIONER SMITH.

14072 IS THE NUMBER. >> I GOT THAT NOW, THANK YOU.

I NEEDED THOSE TO PLUG IN AND WHAT REMAINING ACREAGE.

>> YES, SIR. THAT'S ALL I HAVE.

>> THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER SMITH.

>> DO WE HAVE EVERYTHING WE NEED AS FAR AS POTENTIAL MOTIONS?

>> I THINK, I'LL ASK CHRISTINE AND THE APPLICANT'S COUNSEL AND OPPOSITION TO LISTEN ALONG, FOR THE AGENDA IN ITEM 2 A SUGGESTED MOTION SHOULD BE A MOTION TO APPROVE.

THE MOTION TO ENACT ORDINANCE 2021 AND MAJ MOD AND SIX MILE CREEK PUD AS AMENDED BY THE RED LINED DOCUMENT PROFFER AND THE H THOUSAND SQUARE FOOT LIMITATION PER PARCEL 1 AND 2 PROFFER BASED ON. IF THERE IS A MOTION TO DENY, THE MOTION COULD BE JUST AS STATED IN THE AGENDA BOOK.

>> THANK YOU, PATRICK. WE'RE GOING TO GO TO

COMMISSIONER. >> IF THERE IS A MOTION I WANT

[03:30:03]

TO RESPOND TO ONE OF THE SPEAKERS WHO ASKED A VERY FAIR QUESTION, THE LADY IN THE AUDIENCE WHO ASKED TO IF WE GO FORWARD, STATE WHAT YOUR VOTE IS AND WHY IT IS THAT WAY.

I WANT TO ANSWER THAT. THAT'S THE REASON I ASKED THE QUESTION ABOUT THE MULTILEVEL STORAGE FACILITY.

I'M A REGULAR VISITOR TO KING AND BEAR, I USE THAT ENTRANCE AND I GO THERE FOR LET'S CALL IT RECREATIONAL PURPOSES.

AND I'M FAMILIAR WITH THE SITE. AND I WOULD NOT WANT TO SEIZE A MULTILEVEL STORAGE FACILITY AS I ENTER OR LEAVE ON THAT ROAD WHAT'S. I KNOW WHAT IS THERE NOW AND I THINK THAT THE COMMERCIAL BUSINESS OFFICES WOULD BE COMPATIBLE. IT IS THERE ALONG THE ROAD FROM PUBLIX AND I THINK THAT THERE IS A BUFFER THAT WE TALKED ABOUT FOR BOTH PARCELS, 1 AND 2. IF THAT MULTILEVEL STORAGE FACILITY IS PROPOSED OR AN APPLICATION IS SPENDING ON PARCEL 1, AS I UNDERSTAND IT, WHICH IS THE NORTH PARCEL, I UNDERSTAND THAT, THEN I -- IF THAT WERE INCLUDED IN THIS ACTION TODAY, ALLOWING THAT, I WOULD DEFINITELY VOTE NO.

I WANT TO BE CLEAR I THINK IN FAIRNESS TO THE QUESTION I WANT TO SAY THAT IF THERE IS A MOTION, I THINK THAT WE HAVE REACHED, I THINK, A FAIR COMPROMISE I'M PREPARED TO VOTE

YES. >> THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER.

COMMISSIONER WALDRON? >> THE STORAGE FACILITY HANDLED WITH A TEXT AMENDMENT IF THAT WAS A FIX?

>> IT COULD BUT THE BOARD CANNOT PUT THE APPLICANT INTO A PUD THAT THE APPLICANT DOES NOT FULLY AGREE WITH.

NOW, SHOULD THE APPLICANT PROFFER TO MAKE A LIMITATION PERTAINING TO A STORAGE FACILITY THAT MAY BE MADE AND THE BOARD

COULD CONSIDER TO ACCEPT THAT. >> ALL RIGHT.

>> I'M SORRY TO SAY THE APPLICANT CANNOT LIMIT UNDER THE TERMS OF HIS CONTRACT WHAT USES HE CAN HAVE OR HE WILL BE IN BREACH OF CONTRACT. WHAT WE CAN SAY THE HANDLES THE SAME THING THAT WITH ONLY 105,000 SQUARE FEET LEFT, THE STORAGE FACILITIES ARE MORE LIKE 140, 150.

>> MR. CHAIR, MAY I ASK >>> MR. MCCORMACK.

>>> MR. ARE WE READY? >> YES, THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR.

CHAIR AND COMMISSIONERS I WAS LOOKING FOR A WAY TO TAKE THE STORAGE FACILITY POTENTIAL ASPECT OFF THE TABLE FOR TODAY BEFORE THE BOARD WOULD MAKE THE DECISION.

I WAS UNABLE TO DO THAT. I HEARD VARIOUS ARGUMENTS ABOUT WHETHER IT WOULD BE FILE OR NOT UNDER THE LIMITATIONS THAT THE APPLICANT HAS PROFFERED AND THAT IF APPROVED WOULD BE IMPLEMENTED IN THE REMOVAL OF THE FACILITY AS EVEN A FUTURE POTENTIAL USE -- I CANNOT --KY NOT HAVE THAT BE INCLUDED IN YOUR -- I CANNOT HAVE THAT IN THE LANGUAGE.

I DID NOT GET AN AGREEMENT FROM THE APPLICANT.

>> THANK YOU. >> NOW WE'RE BACK TO THE BOARD.

>> COMMISSIONER. >> MR. CHAIRMAN, COMMISSIONER DEAN, YOU TOUCHED ON IT, DID I UNDERSTAND IT CORRECTLY THAT THE STORAGE FACILITY WILL COME BEFORE US AS A FUTURE ITEM FOR

THE COMMISSIONER IS SAYING NO. >> AND I'M SORRY.

IF I MAY. THE APPLICATION FOR THAT WOULD NOT GO DIRECTLY TO YOU. IT GOES TO THE PZA AND IF APPROVED BY THE PZA, IT COULD BE APPEALED TO THE BOARD.

IF DENIED BY THE PZA, IT COULD BE APPEALED TO THE BOARD.

IT'S NOT A DIRECT APPLICATION TO THE BOARD, IT WOULD ONLY COME BY WAY OF AN APPEAL. BY THE WAY, IT WOULD --

[03:35:01]

ESSENTIALLY HAVE TO MEET THE ASPECTS OF A SPECIAL USE AND, YOU KNOW, SPECIAL USE DO HAVE -IMPROCESSED AND CRITERIA THEYBE HAVE TO MEET INCLUDING COMPAT ABILITY.

THAT DOES NOT SAY IT WOULD PASS OR NOT PASS BUT HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE PROCESS AND THEN IT COULD BE APPEALABLE.

>> MR. MCCORMACK, WE WOULD ONLY HEAR IT ON APPEAL.

I GET THE SENSE IF IT WERE APPROVED BY THE PZA, WE WOULD HAVE THAT APPEAL SO WE CAN ADDRESS THAT UPON APPEAL AT A LATER DATE, THAT'S SOMETHING TO CONSIDER.

>> COMMISSIONER DEAN? >> I WANT TO SAY AGAIN.

WE CANNOT STOP THE STORAGE FACILITY TODAY BUT WE

CERTAINLY. >> IF WE WERE TO APPROVE WHAT IS BEFORE US NOWS, IT DOES NOT APPROVE THE STORAGE FACILITY.

THE STORAGE FACILITY IS A SEPARATE ISSUE THAT WOULD GO TO THE PZA, IF APPEALED COME TO US.

WHICH IS WHY I PUT ON THE RECORD AND ANSWERED THE QUESTION ABOUT WHY I WOULD VOTE YES IF THERE IS A MOTION.

WE'RE NOT APPROVING THE STORAGE FACILITY IN ANY WAY, SHAPE OR

FORM. >> AND SHOULD THE FACILITY GO TO THE PZA, SHOULD IT BE APPROVED IN ANY REGARD OR APPEAL TO THE BOARD, THE BOARD WOULD HEAR ON ITS MERITS AND NOT MAKE ANY DECISION PERTAINING TO IT UNTIL IT HEARD THAT AND ALL THE MERITS

AND MAKE A DECISION. >> OKAY, BACK TONIGHT BOARD, IS THERE A MOTION?

>> I WILL MOVE TO ENACT NUMBER 2021 -- 2020-13 SIX MILE CREEK

PUD ON SIX FINDINGS OF FACT. >> AND THROUGH THE CHAIR IF I WAY WOULD THE MAKER OF THE MOTION INCLUDE WHERE YOUR MOTION SAID MAJMOT 2020-13 TO BE AS AMENDED BY THE RED LINED PROFFER AND THE 12,000 SQUARE FOOT LIMITATION FOR PARCEL 1 AND 2.

>> I WILL INCORPORATE THAT LANGUAGE IN MY MOTION.

>> IS THERE A SECOND? >> SECOND.

>> WE HAVE A MOTION BY THE COMMISSIONER DEAN A SECTED ABOUT BY COMMISSIONER WHITEHURST. I WANT TO MAKE A COMMENT.

AGREE WITH THE COMMISSIONER DEAN'S COMMENTS.

I LIVE ED AT THE KING AND THE BEAR MY FAMILY AND I WHEN WE RELOCATED. I UNDERSTAND THE CONCERNS OF THE RESIDENTS AND WHY THERE IS SOME FRUSTRATION HERE.

I'M AGREEING WITH COMMISSIONER DEAN I WOULD STRONG RESERVATIONS I'M NOT SAYING HOW I WOULD VOTE BUT I HAVE RESERVATIONS ABOUT AN OFFERS BUILDING, WALMART OR ANYTHING DISTRACT FROM THAT.

AS IT STANDS THERE IS A COMMERCIAL ALLOWED FOR THERE.

THE APPLICANT HAS MADE SOME ADJUSTMENTS TO LIMIT THAT, THE SCOPE OF THAT. AND WE'LL SEE WHAT THE PZA DOES

FROM HERE. >> ANY OTHER COMMENTS?

>> I WOULD LIKE TO EXPLAIN WHERE I STAND ON THIS AS WELL ESPECIALLY BEING WITHIN THE DISTRICT.

I WILL SAY THE HOMEOWNERS OF THE KING AND THE BEAR PURCHASE PROPERTY BASED UPON PRESENT ENTITLEMENTMENT OF PARCELS 1 AND 2. THAT IS SOMETHING IMPORTANT.

I WOULD NOT MIND AN INCREMENTAL OR SMALLER ADJUSTMENT IN REGARD TOLE INTENSITY. AND DOING THE MATH WHEN IT COMES TO IT ALLOWING THE 7 AND A HALF ACRES ON OVER 14,000 SQUARE ACRES IS INTENSE AND THE TESTIMONY I WILL VOTE AGAINST IT. I BELIEVE THE PRESENT ENTITLEMENT IS COMPATIBLE T IS COMPLEMENTARY AND COMPARABLE THE B WHEN WE GET TO THE INTENSITY I WOULD HAVE BEEN FAVORABLE TO SOMETHING LESS INTENSE TO MAKE IT MAR SELLABLE BUT THE NUMBERS, I HAVE RESERVATIONS AND VOTE AGAINST IT.

>> THANK YOU. PLEASE VOTE.

PASSES 4-1. WE'RE GOING TO TAKE A BREAK HERE

[03:40:02]

BEFORE WE DO THAT. >>> MISS ANDREWS PLEASE.

[3. Project Breeze Economic Development Incentive Request. The St. Johns County Economic Development Agency (Agency) has received an application from Project Breeze for economic development incentives. The Applicant has requested confidentiality under Section 288.075, Florida Statutes, for the project as it goes through the due-diligence process. The Applicant proposes to develop a 150,000- square-foot building (Building A) to house digital media operations within the qualified targeted industry of infotech. The Applicant has yet to submit the final number of new fulltime jobs and annual average wage of the new jobs the project will bring. In addition to the provision of incentives based on the construction of a new facility and creation of new jobs, the Applicant has requested that the County consider the value of retention of existing jobs at an existing facility (Building B) within the County in its consideration of the application. The project will retain 145 jobs there, averaging $97,000 per job retained. The Applicant has also proposed additional potential inducements for further incentives, such as the conveyance of certain property rights to the County and the opportunity for the County to work with the Applicant as a resource for County-wide economic development and general marketing. These inducements would be a condition of the County’s entering into an incentive agreement with the Applicant. The County has broad authority under Section 125.045, Florida Statutes, to expend public funds for the expansion or retention of businesses. The Applicant has requested economic development incentives over a 30- year period due to the magnitude of the project and to encourage retention and expansion of an existing business with significant economic impact within St. Johns County. An incentive period of this duration falls outside of the scope of the incentive program provided under Section 11 of the St. Johns County Business Incentive Program Ordinance (the Ordinance); however, Section 7 of the Ordinance permits the Board of County Commissioners to consider incentives that fall outside the scope of the program. Completion of the project is anticipated by the first quarter of 2024. With this schedule, the first annual grant payment would be anticipated during FY26. Based on the Applicant’s request, the estimated value of the incentive for Building A is $13,774,888. Based on the Applicant’s request, the estimated value of the incentive for Building B is $9,605,237. Based on the Applicant’s request, the total estimated value of incentives for both buildings is $23,380,125. The requested values are subject to change based on the final number of new fulltime jobs provided by the Applicant and other conditions outlined for the project. In accordance with program requirements, the Agency is required to review the application and make a written report to the Board of County Commissioners.]

>> COMMISSIONERS. >> THIS ITEM BEFORE YOU IS A INECONOMIC INCENTIVE REQUEST. I WANTED TO BEFORE I START INTRODUCE THE APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE.

SHE IS IN THE AUDIENCE IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS AFTER THE PRESENTATION. THE OFFICE RECEIVED AN APPLICATION FOR PROJECT BREES. THE APPLICANT PROPOSED A DEVELOPMENT A 150,000 SQUARE FOOT BUILDING WE REFERENCED THAT AS A TO HOUSE DIGITAL MEDIA OPERATIONS WITHIN THE QUALIFIED TARGETED OF INFO TECH. THE PROJECT WILL BE COMPLETE AND OPERATIONAL BY THE FIRST QUARTER OF 2024.

THE ANTICIPATED INVESTMENT FOR LAND BUILDING AND EQUIPMENT IS MORE THAN 100 MILLION. THE PROJECT WILL BRING 304 MILLION IN DIRECT ECONOMIC IMPACT PER YEAR AND 16.7 MILLION IN SCHOOL TAXES OVER 30 YEARS AS PROPOSED BY THE APPLICANT.

AT THE TIME OF THE REPORT WAS SUBMITTED AND THE TIME OF THE MEMO THAT I SUBMITTED TO THE BOARD, OF THE APPLICANT IS YET TO PROVIDE THE TOTAL NEW NUMBER OF JOBS THAT IT WILL BE PROVIDING THROUGH THE PROJECTS. PROJECT BREES IN ADDITION TO THE PROVISION OF INCENTIVES BASED ON THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW FACILITY AND CREATION OF NEW JOBS, THE APPLICANT HAS REQUESTED A VALUE OF RETENTION OF EXISTING JOBS AT AN EXISTING FACILITY AND WE WILL REFERENCE THAT AS BUILDING B WITHIN THE COUNTY AND THE CONSIDER OF THE APPLICATION.

THE APPLICANT HAS PROPOSED POTENTIAL INDUCEMENTS FOR FURTHER INCENTIVES LIKE THE CONVEYANCE OF PROPERTY RIGHTS TO THE COUNTY AND THE OPPORTUNITY FOR THE COUNTY TO WORK WITH THE APPLICANT AS A RESOURCE FOR COUNTY WIDE ECONOMICS DEVELOPMENT AND GENERAL MARKETING.

THESE INDUCEMENTS COULD BE -- WOULD BE A CONTINUE OF THE COUNTY'S ENTERING INTO AN INCENTIVE AGREEMENT WITH THE APPLICANT. THIS CALCULATION IS BASED ON ASSUMPTION IF IT WERE TO PROCEED BECAUSED ON THE ORD ANDS OF INCENTIVE PROGRAM IT IS BY WAY OF COMPARISON.

IT WILL BE SCORED AT 7 OR 8 TOTAL POINTS BASED ON THE TARGET INDUSTRY AS INFO TECH BECAUSE IT IS A DIGITAL MEDIA FACILITY AND 2 POINTS, FACILITY SIZE AT 150,002 POINTS.

NEW EMPLOYMENT APPLICANT HAS NOT SUBMITTED THE NUMBER SO DETERMINED ON THE NUMBER OF JOBS THAT WILL BE SUBMITTED, ITIT WILL SCORE AROUND 1 OR 2 POINTS BASED ON THE ESTIMATE.

AND THE WAGE RATES 125% PLUS AVERAGE IT WILL BE SCORED AT 2 POINTS. BREAKING DOWN TO THE TWO BUILDINGS PROJECT BREES BUILDING ONE, THE REQUEST IS FOR 100% OF FEES PAID TO THE COUNTY BY THE APPLICANT AND THAT INCLUDES IMPACT FEES AND WATER SEWER CONNECTION FEES 367890 YEARS OF ADD VALOREM AND THAT'S REFERENCING TO GENERAL COUNTY PORTION OF THE TAXES ON CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS ONLY.

ABOUT 0 -- 30 YEARS OF TANGIBLE PERSONAL PROPERTY TAXES PAID BY APPLICANT. AND EXPEDITE PERMITTING.

THE TOTAL NUMBER OF INCENTIVE AMOUNT BASED ON THE CALCULATION FOR BUILDING A IS 13,775,888. BUILDING B, THE REQUEST IS FOR THE BOARD TO CONSIDER 24 YEARS OF ADD VALOREM TAXES FOR GENERAL COUNTY PORTION ON CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS, 24 YEARS OF TANGIBLE BUSINESS PERSONAL PROPERTY TAXES FOR GENERAL PORTION ONLY PAID BY THE APPLICANT.

THE AMOUNT OF GRANT FOR BUILDING B IS 9,605,$237.

[03:45:09]

SO THE AMOUNT OF APPLICATION FOR THE DEVELOPMENT INCENTIVE GRANT AMOUNT, INCLUDING A AND B BUILD SOMETHING 23,380,125.

AND THAT CONCLUDES THE APPLICATION PRESENTATION.

IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTION FOR ME OR FOR THE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE

APPLICANT WE'LL BE HERE. >> BACK TO THE BOARD.

MR. WHITEHURST? >> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.

MISS ANDREWS IN YOUR TIME WITH THE COUNTY HOW MANY TIMES HAVE WE HAD A COMPANY COME IN AND BUILD A 100 MILLION-DOLLAR BUILDING? , IN MY TIME THIS IS THE ONLY ONE. I DO LEARN THAT THERE WAS ONE MORE APPLICATION BEFORE THIS ONE YEARS AGO WAS NORTH RUN GUM MOND AND 104 MILLION CONSTRUCTION. SO IS IT SAFE TO SAY THIS IS NOT GOING TO SEE AN OPPORTUNITY LIKE THIS EVERY YEAR.

>> THAT'S CORRECT. >> COMMISSIONER WALDRON?

>> IS THERE A REASON WHY WE DON'T HAVE THE JOB PROJECTIONS

YET? >> AT THE TIME OF THE MEMO AND AT THIS TIME I HAVE NOT RECEIVED THE NUMBER OF PROJECTED YET.

THE APPLICANT DID INDICATE THAT THEY WILL PROVIDE THAT INFORMATION PROCEEDING FROM THE PRESENTATION.

>> IT IS TOUGH WITH COVID, HAVE THEY MET THE INCENTIVE FOR, DO

WE HAVE THAT NUMBER? >> BUILDING BINGS, FIRST OF ALL, WE HAVE BEEN REQUESTED AND UNDER A CONFIDENTIALITY AGREEMENT BOYCE BASED ON THE FLORIDA STATUTE, THE TYPE YOU HAVE INFORMATIONKY PROVIDE HERE IS LIMITED BUT THE APPLICATION DOES INCLUDE FOR THE CONSIDERATION OF JOB RETENTION FOR BUILDING B.

, THAT'S ALL I HAVE RIGHT NOW. >> COMMISSIONER SMITH?

>> THANK YOU. >>> BECAUSE OF THE CONFIDENTIALITY THIS IS A DIFFICULT ONE TO ASK QUESTIONS I WILL BE CAREFUL AND TREAD LIGHTLY.

BUILDING B ACCORDING TO THE COVER PAGE IS AN EXISTING FACILITY. HAVE WE DEVELOPED THE ECONOMICS INCENTIVES FOR EXISTING FACILITIES?

>> YES. >> OKAY.

HAVE WE DONE AN ECONOMIC INCENTIVE -- BACK UP.

WHAT WOULD THOSE IN THE PAST CAN YOU GIVE AN EXAMPLE THAT WE HAVE

DONE? >> EXAMPLE OF A DIFFERENT

PROJECT? >> YES,KY NOT RECOLLECT ANY PROJECT THAT WE HAVE DONE ADDITIONAL RENEWAL OR EXPANSION

OF GIFTING INCENTIVE PACKAGE. >> ON THE EXISTING FACILITY.

>> CORRECT. >> OKAY.

>> HAVE WE DONE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT INCENTIVE FOR 30

YEARS BEFORE? >> NOT THAT I CAN RECALL.

>> WHAT IS THE LONGEST? >> FOUR YEARS IS OUR ORDINANCE ALLOWED FOR CONVENTIONAL INCENTIVE PROGRAM.

>> AND MAY I SUPPLEMENT MISS ANDREWS, THROUGH THE NORMAL SECTIONAL 11 PORTION OF THE ORDINANCE, THERE IS A FOUR-YEAR INCENTIVE THING. THERE IS A SECTION 7 OF THE ORDINANCE, IT IS OUR UNDERSTANDING MISS ANDREWS, THE NORTHRUP HAD A 10-YEAR INCENTIVE PROGRAM.

AS FAR AS I KNOW THAT'S THE LONGEST I'M AWARE OF.

>> YES. >> THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU. >> ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS?

>> I'M PREPARED TO MAKE A MOTION.

>> WHY DON'T WE DO THAT. HEAR THE MOTION AND ASK FOR

PUBLIC COMMENT. >> I WOULD LIKE TO MOVE TO INSTRUCT THE COUNTY ATTORNEY TO DRAFT AN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT GRANT AGREEMENT FOR PROJECT BREES AND PLACE THE PROPOSD GRANT AGREEMENT FOR CONSIDERATION BY THE BOARD AT A LATER REGULARLY SCHEDULED MEETING.

>> SECOND. >> WE HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER DEAN AND SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER WHITEHURST.

[03:50:03]

NOW PUBLIC COMMENT; WE'LL TAKE PUBLIC COMMENT ON ITEM 3.

ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE WISHING TO SPEAK? WE DO HAVE CALL INS. LET'S GET TO THE CALL INS FIRST. IF YOU WOULD, PLEASE.

IF YOU ARE CALLING IN ON ITEM THREE.

STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD.

DO WE HAVE A CALLER? GO AHEAD IF YOU'RE ON THE LINE.

NAME AND ADDRESS, PLEASE. >> GO AHEAD.

>> ARE YOU READY? >> PLEASE GO AHEAD.

THANK YOU. >> TOM REYNOLDS.

I URGE THE COMMISSION TO VOTE NO.

THIS IS CORPORATE COUNTY. PLAIN AND SIMPLE.

EVEN THOUGH WE NEED JOBS WE DON'T NEED SECRET JOBS ANYONE A CORPORATE WELFARE PACKAGE THAT WILL NOT SHARE WHAT THEY'RE GOING TO DO. REMEMBER WHAT WAS SAID YOU WILL HEAR FROM, TOO. SECRECY IS FOR LOSERS WHEN IT COMES TO GOVERNMENT. WE DON'T NEED SECRETS WE THE PEOPLE THAT LIVE IN ST. JOHNS ARE NOT DUMB.

WE'RE ALL BIG PEOPLE THE COMPANY THE CLAIM THEY ARE.

LET PEOPLE KNOW THEIR SECRET. WE'RE THE NUMBER ONE COUNTY IN FLORIDA. WE'RE NUMBER ONE.

THE BEST I CAN UNDERSTAND IF THEY GIVE A GOOD JOBS, OKAY.

BUT WE DON'T USE SECRECY. 5-0 VOTE ON THIS ANYTHING LESS THAN VOTING FOR THIS IS VOTING FOR CORPORATE WELFARE.

YOU CONSIDER YOURSELVES CONSERVATIVE.

DO NOT VOTE FOR SECRET GOVERNMENT.

THANK YOU. I URGE TO YOU VOTE NO.

BYE. >> ANOTHER CALLER.

>> GOOD AFTERNOON ED SLAVIN AT SLAVIN.COM.

SECRECY IS FOR LOSERS AS ONE SENATOR SAID.

JUSTICE LEWIS SAID. SUNLIGHT IS THE BEST DISINFECTANT THIS STATUTE IS CONTRARY TO POLICY.

AND TRAVELING UNDER THIS IS CONTRARY TO POLICY.

I WOULD NOTE FOR THE RECORD I HAVE SEEN A RETAINER AGREEMENT THAT ROGERS TOWERS PRESENTED TO THE MOSQUITO CONTROL DISTRICT.

THEY ASKED ALL THE CLIENTS IN THE STANDARD FORM ENGAGEMENT LETTERS TO WAIVE A CONFLIT OF INTEREST WITH ANY OTHER CLIENTS WITHOUT NAMING THE CLIENTS. ROGERS TOWERS IS THE PRIMARY LAW FIRM THAT REPRESENTS THE SHARED MONOPOLIES THAT RUN THE ECONOMY UAW IS THE STRUCTURE GOING TO BE.

IS THIS GOING TO BE A SERVER FARM? , THEY ARE OFFERING TO DO FREE WORK FOR ST. JOHNS COUNTY? IS THAT COMMERCIAL BRIBERY IN VIOLATION OF THE HOBBS ACT.

WHAT IS THE NATURE OF THE BUSINESS USING A LOT OF ELECTRIC POWER. BE A CALL INTEREST.

WHAT IS IT THAT THIS ALAGOPOLIS THINK THEY HAVE TO OFFER ST.

JOHNS IS FRAUD IN THE INDUCEMENT TO DO A 30-YEAR AGREEMENT.

I TOTALLY AGREE WITH THE COMMISSIONER SMITH.

THIS IS UNPRECEDENTED A 30 YEAR AGREEMENT THE STANDARD IS 4.

WE HAD 1 FOR 10. AND THE APPLICATION IS INCOMPLETE AS I UNDERSTAND IT BEFORE YOU THAT IS UNDISPUTED AND INFORMATION FOR THE RECORD, THEY HAVE NOT DONE SO THE FIRST OUGHT TO BE A MOTION TO TABLE AND LET'S HAVE THEM COME FORWARD AND TELL US WHO THEY ARE RATHER THAN AT THE END AFTER YOU AGREED. THIS IS THE BOOK I HAD AT GEORGETOWN ON NEGOTIATING A THIRD WORLD AGREEMENTS AND THE WAY THAT THEY BEHAVE IN THE THIRD WORLD IS GREAT STATESMAN FROM VENEZUELA SAID THAT THE REST OF THE COUNTRIES WERE SELLING THEIR WARES TO PEOPLE WITH MONEY.

WE DON'T HAVE TO DO THAT ANY MORE.

THIS IS NOW AN ECONOMY AND A PEOPLE ARE MOVING HERE WITHOUT BEING BRIBED TO FILL THE FILT OR EXPAND THE FACILITY.

ANYONE WOULD PUT ON THE AGENDA TO GIVE AWAY MONEY.

[03:55:01]

CAN YOU GIVING AWAY OUR TAX BASE.

AND WORKING CLASS PEOPLE ARE PAYING HIGHER PROPERTY TAXES.

MORE THAN WE SHOULD. LARGE INSTITUTIONAL INVESTORS WE DON'T KNOW WHO OWNS THIS. DISCLOSE ALL EXPARTY CONTACTS AND DISCLOSE THE OWNERS, EVERY ONE AND HAVE THE NAMES AND THE SPECIFICS AND NOT HIDE BEHIND THE FIG LEAVE OF THE FLORIDA

STATUTE. >> THANK YOU.

>> THIS IS WRONG. >> THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU.

>> THAT'S ALL THE CALLERS I SEE.

>> YES, MA'AM. >> BJ MC CLAYEDDY.

THIS SHOULD NOT GO FORWARD THEY DID NOT GIVE US THE INFORMATION THEY SHOULD HAVE GIVEN US IN 23380125 TAX DOLLARS.

WE'LL GET A MAYBE 3-2 VOTE THE LAWYER IS HERE FOR THE COMPANY THAT IS A SECRET. I DON'T KNOW WHY THE LAWYER DOES NOT WANT TO GET UP AND SAY ANYTHING ABOUT THIS.

THE GENTLEMEN ARE HERE THAT HAVE THE COMPANY VOTE.

WE WANT TO DO IT AS A SECRET. I DON'T THINK WE SHOULD DO THEM AS A SECRET BUT THAT'S THE GOVERNMENT ALLOWS TO US DO MAKES THE LAWS SOMEONE TELLS THEM HOW TO WRITE THAT UP FOR THE BENEFIT OF COMPANIES AND NOT THE BENEFIT OF TAXPAYERS.

YOU NEED TO THINK ABOUT THE TAX MAYER MONEY THE 23 MILLION WHENEVER YOU LET THEM DO WHAT THEY WANT TO DO ADD WHEN THEY COME BEFORE THE BOARD. YOU WILL THINK ABOUT THE RESIDENTS. I DON'T THINK THE RESIDENTS ARE BEING THOUGHT ABOUT AND TOO MANY DECISIONS.

I'M GRATEFULKY GET UP HERE AND SPEAK TOO. BAD EVERYONE HAD TO LEAVE. WE SPENT FROM 9:50 TO 12:50 ON THE OTHER DEAL THAT YOU MADE. SO, DON'T PASS THIS ONE OR GO BACK AND GET MORE INFORMATION. I DON'T KNOW WHY YOU WANT TO RUSH IT THROUGH TODAY. IT IS A BIG RUSH TO BE ON THE AGENDA SO MISS ANDREWS CAN GIVE TO THE BOARD MEMBERS.

THAT'S THE THING TO DO. CONTINUE IT UNTIL THE NEXT MEETING. THANK YOU.

>> THAT COMPLETES IT. ANY OTHER PUBLIC COMMENT ON ITEM

3. >> IT IS NOW CLOSED.

WE'LL GO TO LEGAL FIRST. >> WE HAVE TWO COMMISSIONERS.

>> MR. CHAIR AND COMMISSIONERS I HAVE LISTENED TO THE PUBLIC COMMENT ALSO AND THE COMMISSIONER SMITH'S CONCERNS AND I THINK SOME CONCERNS SOME OF THE OTHER CONCERNS, I WILL NOTE THAT AGAIN THE STATE ORDINANCE ON ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT INCENTIVES IS BROAD.

THE COUNTY ORDINANCE HAS CERTAIN PROVISIONS BUT INCLUDES A PROVISION FOR APPLICATIONS THAT MAY BE OUT OF THE SORT OF THE GARDEN VARIETY TYPE APPLICATIONS.

THERE WILL BE NO SECRET AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE COUNTY OR THE APPLICANT. BEFORE AN AGREEMENT IS MADE, THE AGREEMENT IS -- IT IS AT THAT POINT NOT CONFIDENTIAL, IT WILL BE BROUGHT AS A REGULAR, MY SENSE A REGULAR BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONER AGENDA ITEM AND THE AGREEMENT WHICH BENEFITS TO THE COUNTY AND THE TAXPAYER WILL BE THERE.

IF THAT MEETS WITH THE APPROVAL OF A MAJORITY OF THE BOARD MEMBERS, AGAIN, YOU KNOW SORT OF AT THAT POINT, SHOW US THE BEEF SO TO SPEAK FOR BOTH OF THE PARTIES THE APPLICANT AND THE COUNTY. AT THAT POINT THE MEMBERS WILL REVIEW THAT AND MAKE A COMMENT ON IT BEFORE THEY MAKE A DETERMINATION ABOUT WHETHER TO ENTER AN AGREEMENT TODAY.

TODAY IS THE THRESHOLD WHETHER YOU WANT TO HAVE THE STAFF AND THE COUNTY ATTORNEY TAKE THE STEPS TO BRING BACK SUCH A FINAL

[04:00:03]

AGREEMENT UNDER THE CONCEPT THAT'S BEEN DESCRIBEND TO YOU TODAY. YOU MAY DECIDE TO APPROVE AND HAVE SUCH AN -- SUCH AN AGREEMENT BROUGHT BACK OR DECIDE NOT TO DO THAT BUT I WANTED TO MAKE IT CLEAR THERE IS NOTHING THE BOARD IS GOING TO DO TODAY TO APPROVE A SECRET AGREEMENT.

>> THANK YOU, MR. MCCORMACK. >> COMMISSIONER SMITH?

>> THANK YOU. >> I WANT TO SAY BEFORE WE VOTE AND A REQUEST TO THE BOARD. I'M FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND THE PURPOSE FOR AND THE CONFIDENTIALITY IT IS IMPORTANT IN BUSINESS AND FOR THIS. IT IS A BENEFIT TO TAXPAYERS WHEN A AGREEMENT IDENTIFIES AND CONTRIBUTES TANGIBLE ASSETS, HIGH PAYING JOBS. SALES TAX REVENUE.

ET CETERA. THERE ARE BENEFITS THAT COME TO US AS TAXPAYERS WHEN THAT OCCURS T IS EASY TO SUPPORT AN APPLICATION WHEN IT IS CLEARLY PRESENTED.

AN APPLICATION OF THIS MAGNITUDE WHICH THE COMMISSIONER WHITEHURST ESTABLISHED, IS SHOULD BE -- IT IS EXTRAORDINARY. IT IS NOT FREQUENT.

YOUHOWEVER IT SHOULD BE EASY TO UNDERSTAND AND EXPLAIN WHAT THE BENEFIT TO THEM IS. THE BENEFIT TO THE APPLICANT HERE IS CLEAR. THE BENEFIT TO THE ST. JOHNS TAX PAY SER AMBIGUOUS AND LACKS THE NECESSARY DETAIL FOR ME TO MAKE THE AFFIRMATIVE DECISION VERY CONFIDENT DECISION.

IT WILL ITS DETAIL AND BECAUSE OF THAT I REALIZE THAT'S A PART OF THE PROCESS AND I JUST WISH IT WAS MORE.

CLEARER TODAY. WHAT I DO KNOW IS THIS AND I HAVE CONCERNS WITH WE'RE SETTING THE RESIDENT.

THERE ARE THINGS DIFFERENT THAN THE PAST INCENTIVE PACKAGES.

I WOULD LIKE TO SUPPORT THIS APPLICATION BUT I HAVE A REQUEST AND I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE ANOTHER AVAILABLE AND DIRECTED TO THE STAFF IN WITH REGARD TO IT IN REGARD TO THE NEGOTIATION PROCESS AND SEE A SEPARATION OF BUILDING A AND BUILDING B IF WE

GO FORWARD. >> I WANT TO BE CLEAR WE VOTED AS A BOARD DURING THE LAST MEETING FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT TO BE A GOAL. I STOOD UP IN FRONT OF A ROOM AND SAID SMART BALANCED GROWTH WE'RE BALANCING OUT OF RESIDENTIAL BRO GROWTH WE HAD PLENTY OF IN FUTURE COMMERCIAL GROWTH IN PURSUING THE OPPORTUNITIES.

I WILL BE VOTING YES AS A PURSUIT OF THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITIES. I THINK WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS, GIVEN THE FINANCIAL NET BENEFIT THAT'S POTENTIALLY ACCOMPANYING THE DEAL TO ST. JOHNS COUNTY I WOULD NOT DO MY JOB I WOULD BE IRRESPONSIBLE IF I DID NOT PURSUE THE DETAILS FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO FIND OUT IN WHAT WAY. THE DEVIL WILL BE IN THE DETAILS. I COULD NOT AGREE WITH YOU MORE. TO FIND OUT WHAT THEY WILL BE ARE IMPOSSIBLE. THAT'S WHERE I'M AT.

>> COMMISSIONER WALDRON? >> I AGREE WITH MOVING IT FORWARD BUT AGREE WITH COMMISSIONER SMITH.

I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THEM SEPARATED AS TWO DIFFERENT DEALS IN MY OPINION AND WE NEED MORE DETAILS TO COME FORWARD.

>> LET ME COMMENT BRIEFLY. I APPRECIATE THE COMMENTS.

WE DID VOTE ON THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT BEING A PRIORITY.

THAT WAS BROUGHT TO US FROM THE ADMINISTRATION -- ADMINISTRATOR T IS IMPORTANT JOB CREATION AND BRINGING THE ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY TO ST. JOHNS IS CRITICALMENT HE WE HAD GROWTH AND AS CITIZENS AND SCHOOL CHILDREN TO THE PROPERTY ROLES BUT CREATES SOME BURDEN ON THE INFRASTRUCTURE.

HAVING GOOD BALANCE AND GROWTH HELPS US PAY INTO THE SCHOOL SYSTEM AND THE GROWTH. THE NUMBERS SAY THE 304 MILLON IMPACT FOR YEAR, THE 16.7 MILD ON.

AND THAT IS 500,000 EACH YEAR FOR THE SCHOOL SYSTEM.

THAT'S IMPORTANT. BEING THIS IS PRELIMINARY AND AN OPPORTUNITY. THIS IS US SAYING YES WE'RE INTERESTED IN THE DETAILS AND NEGOTIATION.

I'LL VOTE YES, IT IS IMPORTANT TO BE CONSISTENT AND I UNDERSTAND THERE ARE MORE DETAILS WE NEED TO KNOW AND WE'LL FIND THOSE. I WOULD LIKE TO LEARN THOSE.

[04:05:03]

WE NEED TO FULLY VET THIS AND CANNOT EXPLAIN OUR VOTES.

I WILL VOTE YES. THE PROCEDURAL MATTER A MOTION AND A SECOND. WE'RE IN DISCUSSION HERE. IT IS UP TO THE MOTION MAKER AND THERE HAS BEEN SUGGESTED

MODIFICATION. >> A POINT OF ORDER.

>> I WOULD LIKE TO SAY THIS POINT OF ORDER.

>> I CAN PROPOSE AN AMENDMENT AND THEN VOTE ON THE MOTION IF THERE IS PREFERRABLE. I WOULD LIKE IT.

KY DO THAT NOW OR DO ANOTHER VOTE IN ADDITION TO THE OPTION.

I WANT TO BE CLEAR, I DIDN'T WANT TO DO AWAY TO NEGATE WHAT IS HERE. I WOULD LIKE TO VOTE BUT I WANT A STAFF TO BE CLEAR. AND IT IS TO BE MADE AVAILABLE.

THAT'S WHAT I WANT AND NOT, THIS IS FINE THE WAY IT IS BUT IN ADDITION TO I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE THOSE TWO BUILDINGS SEPARATED AND I CAN DO THOSE AS AN AMENDMENT IF YOU LIKE.

>> MAKE SURE I UNDERSTAND I THINK I UNDERSTAND THE POINT OF WHERE YOU'RE GOING WITH THIS. THAT'S SOMETHING WE CAN DIRECT STAFF ABOUT AND ASK THEM TO LOOK AT BOTH OPTIONS.

>> JUST WANT TO BE CLEAR THE WAY THIS HANDS -- STANDS IT DOES NOT ALLOW FOR THAT. IT IS CLEAR.

THAT'S WHY I WANT TO BE CLEAR WITH THE DIRECTIVE AND MAKE SURE STAFF IS ABLE TO ENGAGE THAT I WOULD LIKE TO DO SO.

>> I UNDERSTAND. MISS ANDREWS, AND A STATEMENT YOU HEARD HOW THE COMMISSIONER OUTLINED THIS, DOES THAT MAKE SENSE HOW THE COMMISSIONER SMITH EXPLAINED THIS TOGETHER LOOK AT THE BUILDINGS TOGETHER AND SEPARATELY S THAT -- DOES THAT

GIVE YOU CLARITY? >> YES.

>> SO IF THE DIRECTION IS, IF OF COURSE THAT WILL DEPEND ON THE FINAL VOTE TO CONCEPTUALLY MOVE FORWARD WITH THE APPLICATION AS REQUESTED. WE CAN BRING FORWARD THE TWO BUILDINGS AS ONE. AND THE COMMISSIONER SMITH REQUESTED TO HAVE THE MERIT OF THE APPLICATION TO BE REFLECTED IN TWO DIFFERENT AGREEMENTS. , ARE YOU LOOKING AT TWO OPTIONS. THE BUILDINGS TOGETHER AND WITH

THEM SEPARATED? >> YES, SIR.

>> TO DO IT TOGETHER AND HAVE THEM SEPARATED.

>> UNDERSTOOD. >> DOES THE APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE HAVE ANY COMMENT?

>> WE CAN MAKE SURE WE'RE CLEAR AS WE MOVE FURTHER IF IN THE

NEGOTIATIONS. >> THANK YOU, COMMISSIONERS.

AND ELLEN AVERY SMITH. WE'RE WORKING CLOSELY WITH STAFF. I WOULD ASK WE PROVIDE TWO DIFFERENT OPTIONS UP WITH IS THE COMBINED AGREEMENT AND THEN ONE WOULD BE TWO SEPARATE AGREEMENTS THERE ARE REASONS WE

CAN NOTE GO INTO. >> YOU HAVE NO DISAGREEMENT WHAT IS PROPOSED BY COMMISSIONER SMITH AS FAR AS CLARITY?

>> WE UNDERSTAND. >> I KNOW THAT YOU ARE -- LET ME GO TO PATRICK S THAT A SEPARATE AMENDMENT OR GIVE DIRECTION?

>> YOU CAN DO IT AS AN AMENDMENT.

YOU CAN ALTERNATIVELY DO THAT AS DIRECTION T IS TO INSTRUCT THE COUNTY ATTORNEY. I HAVE BEEN LISTENING I WOULD REPRESENT AS YOUR COUNTY ATTORNEY TO WORK WITH STAFF AND

BRING BACK BOTH OPTIONS. >> LET'S MAKE SURE WE'RE CLEAR.

EVERYONE KNOW WHAT WE'RE DIRECTING FOR THE COMMISSIONER SMITH'S SUGGESTION TO LOOK AT TWO OPTIONS.

COMBINE THE BUILDINGS AND THEN LEAKING AT IT SEPARATELY.

IS EVERYONE CLEAR THAT'S THE DIRECTION WE'RE GIVING.

IS THE COUNTY ATTORNEY CLEAR? >> YES, PERFECT.

THE APPLICANT IS CLEAR. >> COMMISSIONER DEAN YOU ASKED TO SPEAK. LET ME GO TO YOU.

, I'M CLEAR WHAT YOU DESCRIBED BUT I DON'T AGREE WITH IT.

THE MOTION WAS MADE TIME IS OF THE ESSENCE I'M COMFORTABLE WITH ONE AGREEMENT FOR BOTH BUILDINGS BUT IF THE BOARD WANTS TWO OPTIONS OR PROPOSALS. MAJORITY RULES.

I DON'T AGREE WITH COMING BACK WITH TWO OPTIONS, I WANT THAT

[04:10:01]

CLEAR. I'M HAPPY WITH ONE OPTION.

>> WE HAVE A MOTION AS A POINT OF PROCEDURE, PATRICK, AT THIS POINT, COMMISSIONER SMITH CAN OFFER AN AMENDMENT TO THE MOTION. CAN YOU UPDATE US ON WHAT

THE -- >> COMMISSIONER SMITH COULD OFFER AN AMENDMENT. ALTERNATIVELY THE BOARD CAN VOTE ON THE MOTION AS IT STANDS NOW. IF THERE IS ANYBODY ELSE WHO WANT TO MAKE A MOTION THAT CAN BE DONE.

>> WE'LL DO THAT. >> WE HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER DEAN, SECONDED BUSINESS WHITEHURST.

ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? >> I WILL SAY I WILL VOTE AGAINST THIS AND PROFFER A SECOND MOTION WITH HAVING TWO

AGREEMENTS. >> PLEASE VOTE.

>> THAT PASSES 3-2. >> AGAIN, THE COUNTY ATTORNEY HAS NO POSITION ON THIS OTHER THAN TO IMPLEMENT WHAT A MAJORITY OF THE BOARD WANTS ON ANY PARTICULAR ISSUE.

BUT THE BOARD WOULD HAVE -- THE BOARD HAS PASS THE MOTION TO INSTRUCT THE ATTORNEY TO DRAFT A GRANT AGREEMENT IN THE AGENDA SHEET. THE BOARD HAS AUTHORITY AND ANY MEMBER COULD MAKE A SEPARATE MOTION TO BRING BACK AL ALTERNATIVE KIND OF -- THE SPLIT OPTION BETWEEN, YOU KNOW, THE BUILDING A AND B BUILDING A AND B.

>> COMMISSIONER SMITH. I WOULD LIKE TO MOVE WE BRING BACK A SECOND OPTION WITH AN AGREEMENT THAT IS SEPARATE FROM THE WE HAVE TWO AGREEMENTS, APPLICATIONS A AND B FOR

BUILDING A AND BUILDING B. >> I DON'T KNOW HOW TO PUT THAT INTO WORDS BUT THAT'S MY DESIRE; WE HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SMITH. A SECOND BY WALDRON.

LET'S MAKE SURE WE CAPTURE THAT CORRECTLY.

IF YOU DON'T MIND THE WAY IT WAS SHE PUT IT EARLIER.

>> TO HAVE THE ONE AGREEMENT APPROVED WITH THE OPTION OF HAVING TWO SEPARATE AGREEMENT ONE FOR EACH BUILDING.

>> SO, I THINK THE FIRST PART OF THAT HAS BEEN VOTED ON.

THE BOARD WILL BE BROUGHT BACK A SINGLE AGREEMENT, I THINK THAT AS MISS SMITH JUST DESCRIBED THERE CAN BE A VOTE TO BRING BACK AN OPTION. THE OPTION AS DESCRIBED.

>> SO WE HAVE A. >> AND WE HAVE A MR. SMITH.

SECOND BY WALDRON. WE'LL GO TO THE BOARD.

AND FOR US TO CONSIDER AND THE MOTION HERE IS.

>> AND WITH THE BUSINESS AND HAVE TWO OPTIONS MANY I'M NOT SURE I WILL VOTE YES THE SECOND TIME.

AND THE DEVIL WILL BE IN THE DETAILS.

THIS WILL BE A NET BENEFIT. THEY WILL NOT HAVE MY SUPPORTS.

AND A POINT OF LEVERAGE IN THE NEGOTIATION.

>> FURTHER COMMENT. >> THIS IS WHERE WE HAD PUBLIC COMMENT YOU HAD GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT AND I THINK THAT COVERS THE MATTER. THIS IS AN ANCILLARY.

>> WE'LL HAVE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC COMMENT AS THE NEGOTIATIONS MOVE FORWARD. NO FURTHER DISCUSSION, PLEASE VOTE. THAT PASSES 4-1.

THANK

[4. Public Hearing * CPA (SS) 2019-06 State Road 16 Car Condos. A request for a Small Scale Comprehensive Plan Amendment to change the Future Land Use Map classification from Rural/Silviculture (R/S) to Mixed Use (Md) for approximately 5.74 acres of land, with a Text Amendment to Policy A.1.11.1(M)(8) limiting Commercial development to a maximum of 79,000 square feet. The Planning and Zoning Agency voted 5-0 to recommend approval.]

[5. PUD 2019-09 State Road 16 Car Condos. A request to rezone approximately 5.74 acres of land from Open Rural (OR) to Planned Unit Development (PUD) to allow for a maximum of 79,000 square feet of commercial development, of which 55,000 square feet shall be utilized for Car Condo Facility, specifically located south of state road 16 about 1 mile east of the SR 16 and Pacetti Road interchange. The Planning and Zoning Agency voted 5-0 to recommend approval.]

[04:15:01]

WE WILL RECONVENE AND GO INTO THE ITEM NUMBER 4.

>>> GOOD AFTERNOON. >>> AND SHANNAN ACEVEDO.

THIS IS THE STATE ROAD 16 CAR CONDOS.

>> 4 AND 5. >> YES THIS WILL BE A COMBINED PRESENTATION FOR BOTH OF SMALL SMALL AMENDMENT AND THE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT. GIVE US, THIS IS QUAYS QUAYS -- QUASI JUDICIAL. COMMISSIONER.

>> I DID NOT HAVE ANY MEETING BUT AN E-MAIL.

SHE SENT ME THE PROJECT LOCATION MAP FROM 30,000-FOOT VIEW AND A MORE DETAILED OF THE PROPOSED SITE PLAN.

SHE SAID THAT THE PROJECT IS MOTIVATED BY THE DESIRE TO DEVELOP AN -- DEVELOP A GARAGE CONDOMINIUM.

THAT'S ALL I HAVE. >> NOT TO MY KNOWLEDGE.

>> I MAY HAVE RECEIVED THE SAME E-MAIL.

>> COMMISSIONER SMITH? >> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.

>> I MET WITH MR. CASTER -- CARTER AND SHARON AND CHRISTINE AND FOREST COTTON MARCH 24TH AT 10 A.M. TO DISCUSS THIS 5.74-ACRE PARCEL THAT IS MIXED USE TO DISCUSS THE TEXT AMOUNT A 55,000 PRIVATE CAR GARAGE. COMMERCIAL USE SIMILAR TO THE COMMERCIAL GENERAL TO USE THE WAIVER REQUEST AND TO DISCUSS THE POTENTIAL INTERCONNECTTIVETY WITH THE ST. JOHNS PROPERTY ON THE SOUTH SIDE. THAT CONCLUDES MY DISCLOSURES.

>> MR. DEAN? >> NONE.

>> I HAVE NONE AS WELL. PLEASE CONTINUE.

>> THANK YOU. >> OUR OWNERS THE REPRESENT - THAT I REPRESENT, THE OWNERS OF THIS PROPERTY AND MYSELF WITH

PLANNING AND THE MDG. >> THIS IS ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF STATE ROAD 16 AS YOU CAN SEE FROM THE AERIAL MAP.

AS YOU CAN SEE THERE ARE SOME PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENTS IN THE SURROUNDING AREA ONE THAT IS ADJACENT TO THE WEST.

WE ARE LOOKING TO DO A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FOR THIS OPPORTUNITY. AS FAR AS THE LAND USE IS CONCERNED, WE ARE LOOKING AT MIXED USE OPTION, ALTHOUGH IN THIS CIRCUMSTANCE WE ARE LIMITING THE DEVELOPMENT FOR THE MIXED USE TO 79,000 SQUARE FOOT OF COMMERCIAL SQUARE SPACE.

THERE ARE CONDITIONS IN THE PUD WHICH I'LL GO INTO IN A MINUTE.

THIS IS UNCLEARED. 5.74 ACRES.

AND THERE ARE APPROXIMATELY 380 FEET TO GIVE YOU AN IDEA OF SCALE. WHAT YEAR ARE PROPOSING IN THE AREA IS A PRIVATE GARAGE CONDOMINIUM.

A CAR CONDO STORAGE FOR CARS. 55,000 SQUARE FEET OF THAT AND THEN 24,000 SQUARE FEET UP TO 24,000 OF RETAIL.

YOU CAN SEE THE DIFFERENT USES AND THIS GENERAL SITE PLAN THAT'S PROVIDED ADD THIS IS PART OF THE PLAN THAT CORRESPONDS WITH THE PUD T IS A LITTLE MORE SPECIFICALLY.

THERE WILL BE A MINIMUM 25% OF OPEN SPACE.

THERE IS A 30-FOOT SCENIC EDGE AND A TRAIL THAT'S PROPOSED THROUGH THE SCENIC EDGE AS YOU CAN SEE.

AS WAS MENTIONED IN THE BY COMMISSIONER SMITH, I BELIEVE, THERE IS A REQUEST FOR A WAIVER FROM 35 FEET TO 25-FOOT JUST ON THE SOUTH END BOUNDARY THAT'S THE DEVELOPMENT EDGE, THE OTHER DEVELOPMENT EDGES ARE THE 35-FOOT AND SCENIC 30-FOOT THAT'S ALLOWABLE WITHIN THE ST. JOHNS COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE PROVIDED THAT THE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS ARE MET FOR LANDSCAPING. AS YOU CAN SEE THERE ARE TWO ACCESS POINTS FROM 16 AND WE ARE LOOKING AT ONE OPTIONAL

[04:20:03]

POTENTIAL FUTURE INTERCONNECTTIVETY THERE IS A ST. JOHNS OWNED PROPERTY TO THE SOUTH.

THERE MAY BE SOME OPPORTUNITY FOR PARK DEVELOPMENT IN THE FUTURE. AND SO WE WOULD LIKE TO PROVIDE TODAY IS AN OPTIONAL POTENTIAL FUTURE INTERCONNECTTIVETY SO WE CAN HAVE TIME TO VET OUT THE OPTION BUT WE DIDN'T WANT TO LET THE OPPORTUNITY SLIDE TO COME BACK FOR A MOLDFY CAGES TO CHANGE THE ACCESS POINTS. THAT'S WHY YOU SEE THE TWO POTENTIAL ARROWS THERE ON THE MAP.

IN TERMS OF JUSTIFICATION FOR THE LAND USE AMENDMENT.

THIS PARCEL DOES ABUTT THE BOUNDARY FOR ST. JOHNS COUNTY AS YOU CAN SEE, BE AN EXTENSION OF MIXED USE IS LOGICAL GIVEN THE ADJACENT PROPERTY BOUNDARIES AND THE SMALL PUD TO THE WEST AND SOME LARGER DEVELOPMENTS SUCH AS THE WORLD COMMERCE CENTER THAT'S MEETLY TO THE NORTH. BY HAVING THE MIXED USE DESIGNATION, THIS AFFORDS THE PROJECT THE ABILITY TO DEVELOP COMPACTLY AND EFFICIENTLY AND THIS IS REALLY IMPORTANT FOR OPTIONS ESPECIALLY WITHIN THE NORTHWEST SECTOR WHERE YOU HAVE THE LARGE SEENIC EDGE, DEVELOPMENT EDGE REQUIREMENTS FOR A SMALL SCALE SITE LIKE THIS ONE THAT IS LESS THAN SIX ACRES. IN TERMS OF JUSTIFICATION.

WE LOOKED AT DEMAND FOR COMMERCIAL AND PRIVATE STORAGE AND OTHERS RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITIES IN THE AREA, THIS WOULD BE A GOOD USE FOR THE DWELLING UNITS WE'RE SEEING IN THE WORLD COMMERCE CENTER ALONE AND THEN YOU HAVE A NUMBER OF OTHER DEVELOPMENTS AS YOU CAN SEE THERE WITH THE GRAND OAKS AND MURA BELLA AND ALLOW SMALL PARCELS TO DEVELOPMENT AND RESPOND TO THE MARKET CHANGES N TERMS YOU HAVE IMPACTS ANALYSIS THERE IS NO EXTENSION OF ROADWAYS NEEDED.

ALONG SR 16 IT IS OVER COMMITTED CURRENTLY FOR TRAFFIC CAPACIY BUT THERE ARE PLANS FOR FOUR LANING SR 16 AND THERE ARE PLANS TO PRIORITIZE THE INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS AT THE STATE ROUTE 16 AND 95 INTERCHANGE AND UTILITIES AVAILABILITY IN THE AREA. IN TERMS OF COMPAT ABILITY.

WE LOOKED AT THE SURROUNDING AREAS, AS I MENTIONED TO THE SOUTH, YOU HAVE A LARGE ST. JOHNS COUNTY OWNED PROPERTY ABOUT 390 ACRES IN TOTAL AND A LOT OF THAT IS MITIGATION AREAS AS I UNDERSTAND BUT THERE ARE AREAS THAT COULD BE POTENTIALLY USED FOR PARKS IN THE FUTURE. AND TO THE WEST IS THE STATE ROAD 16 SOUTH STORAGE PUD TITLED TO THE NORTH IS THE VETERAN'S NURSING HOME AND A SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE THAT IS NEXT TO THAT.

TO THE EAST THERE IS A FENCE BUILDING MATERIAL SUPPLY COMPANY. SO, AS I MENTIONED, WE DO HAVE YOU BUFFERING ON ALL SIDES OF THE PROPERTY.

WE ARE ASKING FOR A REDUCTION TO 25-FOOT ON THE DEVELOPMENT END TO THE SOUTH. THERE WAS A BIT OF DELIBERATION DURING THE PZA AND THE QUESTION CAME UP IS 25 FEET ENOUGH.

WHAT CONSIDERATIONS ARE MADE FOR FUTURE DEVELOPMENT OF THAT ST.

JOHNS PROPERTY AND THAT LED TO DISCUSSIONS WE LEARNED THAT THERE WAS SOME TALK WITHIN ST. JOHNS ADMINISTRATION AND THE BOARD AT ONE POINT IN TIME A COUPLE OF YEARS AGO I BELIEVE ABOUT THE POTENTIAL FOREA PARK. I DON'T KNOW OF ANY IMMEDIATE PLANS FOR THAT BUT AS I MENTIONED WE DIDN'T WANT TO EXCLUDE THAT POSSIBILITY WHICH IS WHY WE ARE INCLUDING THE PUD THE ABILITY TO BE ABLE TO HAVE THAT INTERSECTION POINT.

AND AS I MENTIONED THE MAJORITY IS UNDER CONSERVATION EASEMENT, WE WANTED TO SHOW THAT FUTURE CONNECTIVITY ALONG WITH THAT.

THERE WAS A DISCUSSION ABOUT POTENTIALLY IF SOMETHING LIKE THAT WERE TO OCCUR WHERE YOU HAVE THAT POINT FROM THIS PROPERTY TO A FUTURE PARK SITE, THAT THERE COULD POTENTIALLY BE SOME AGREEMENT THAT WOULD HAVE OFF SITE STORM WATER IMPROVEMENT AND WITHOUT GOING INTO THAT AND WHAT THE OPTIONS COULD LOOK LIKE, WE WANTED TO KEEP THAT OPEN.

I MENTION THAT, YOU WILL SEE IN THE MOST REVISED TAX THAT THERE IS A SECOND WAIVER THAT IS AN OPTIONAL WAIVER ONLY IF WE

[04:25:03]

DECIDE TO MOVE FORWARD WITH SOME KIND OF INTERCONNECTTIVETY WITH THE SITE. JUST TO GET INTO DETAIL.

WE ARE COMPLIANCE WITH THE COMP PLAN AND SAME WITH THE RATIO OF 70% THIS IS LIMITED TO THE 75,000.

THIS IS THE UP SCALE CAR GARAGE IS PLANNING FOR AMENITIES LIKE A CLUBHOUSE AND POTENTIALLY CONCIERGE SERVICES AND WE ARE LOOKING AT UNDER GROUND STORM WATER SERVICES AND TWO ACCESS POINTS FROM 16 AS YOU CAN SEE. IN SUMMARY, THIS REQUEST IS SUITABLE FOR THE PROPERTY WITHIN MIXED USE GIVEN THE TEXT AMENDMENT THAT CORRESPONDS WITH THAT AND 79,000 FEET OF COMMERCIAL USE. IT IS COMPAT ABLE WITH THE USES ADD MEETS THE GOALS AND POLICIES AND OBJECTIVES OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND WE REQUEST THE APPROVAL OF THE AMENDMENT AND PUD REZONING. I'LL STAND BY FOR QUESTIONS THE BOARD MAY HAVE OF ME AND MY CLIENTS ARE HERE AS WELL.

>> WHY DON'T WE GO TO OPEN TO PUBLIC SEE IF THERE IS A

QUESTION. >> WE WILL NOW TAKE THE PUBLIC COMMENT ON ITEM 4. ITEM 4.

>> AND 5. TOGETHER.

4 AND 5 TOGETHER. ANYONE FROM THE AUDIENCE ON THE PHONE. I SEE NO CALLS.

>> COMMISSIONER SMITH? >> MOTION TO ENACT CPSS 2019-06 STATE ROOT 16 CAR CONDOS BASED ON FOUR FINDINGS OF ENACT.

>> SECOND. >> WE HAVE A MOTION BY THE COMMISSIONER A SECOND BY WALDRON.

ANY DISCUSSION? PLEASE VOTE.

>> I'LL MOVE NUMBER 5. >> THE MOTION TO ENACT 2021-15.

>> OF PUD 2019-09 STATE ROOT 16 CAR CONDOS ON NINE FINDINGS OF

[6. Public Hearing * NZVAR21-01 Eventide Lot 11. Request for a Non-Zoning Variance to Land Development Code Section 4.01.06.B to allow for a retaining wall in lieu of a minimum 25-foot building setback to the Upland Buffer, specifically located at 57 Beachscape Circle.]

FACT IN THE STAFF REPORT. >> SECOND.

>> A MOTION BY SMITH AND SECONDED BY WALDRON.

PLEASE VOTE. >> THAT PASSES.

>>> NOW TO ITEM NUMBER 6. GOOD AFTERNOON.

>> GOOD AFTERNOON, COMMISSIONERS.

GILL SPRUANCE I LIVE IN ST. JOHNS COUNTY.

MY WIFE IS HERE TODAY. AND WE HAVE LIVED IN ST. JOHNS SINCE 1986. WE HAVE BUILT TWO PRIMARY RESIDENCES IN THE HOPE TO BUILD OUR THIRD VERY SOON.

THIS IS A PRESENTATION WE'RE ASKING FOR A NON-ZONING VARIANCE AND THIS IS THE EVENTIDE SUBDIVISION.

23 LOTS IN THE SUBDIVISION. IT IS RIGHT ON A 1 A.

>> SIR I'M SORRY I APOLOGIZE. LET ME.

WE'LL RESET THE TIMER. THIS IS A QUASI JUDICIAL MATTER. WE NEED TO DO A DISCLOSURE WE'LL RESET THE TIME AND GIVE YOU A CHANCE TO PRESENT HERE.

>> LET'S START WITH COMMISSIONER SMITH.

>> NOTHING TO REPORT. >> DEAN?

>> NONE. >> WALDRON?

>> NONE. >> NONE.

>> OKAY. SO I DO HAVE A DISCLOSURE TO MAKE. I DID SPEAK WITH MR. JUSTIN WILLIAMS, AND MIKE TAYLOR, I SPOKE WITH THEM ON THURSDAY APRT AND AT 3 P.M. THEY CALLED AND OUTLINED THE SCOPE OF THE PROJECT AND WHAT THEY ARE TRYING TO DO.

I RECEIVED NO OTHER PHONE CALLS OR INFORMATION ON THAT.

>> THE AND MIKE TAYLOR REPRESENTS THE THE DEVELOPMENT

[04:30:06]

EVENTIDE A FROM THE LANDING AND 3 MILES SOUTH AND, YOU KNOW.

SO, THIS IS THE DEVELOPMENT AND LOT 11 THERE.

YOU CAN SEE FROM THE VIEW. THERE IS ONE NEIGHBOR AT PROPERTY ABUTTS LOT 11 AND THAT'S THE CONSTRUCTED ON LOT 10. I HAVE AN E-MAIL AND THEY ARE IN

SUPPORT OF OUR REQUEST. >> CAN YOU PUT IT ON THE OVERHEAD. IS THIS IS FROM MR. GREGORY QUICK THE NEIGHBORHOOD. HE'S THE ONLY NEIGHBOR ON THE PROPERTY. I HAVE NOT HEARD OF ANY OTHER OBJECTION SO. IF WE CAN MOVE ON TO THE NEXT.

>>> THIS IS LOT 11. AND THEN WHAT SURROUNDS THE LOT THE NEXT WILL SHOW WHAT SURROUNDS IT THE JURISDICTIONAL WETLANDS. THE NEXT SLIDE IS THE BUFFER.

THE UP LAND BUFFER. WE'RE NOT PROPOSING ANY CHANGES TO THE LINES OR THE BOUNDARIES BUT WHAT WE'RE REQUESTING IS A CHANGE ON THE NEXT SLIDE WHICH WOULD BE 25-FOOT SET BACK.

THERE IS A SET BACK TO THE BARRIER AND THAT LEAVES THE BUILDABLE AREA OF 6000 SQUARE FEET.

AND THAT SHAPE DOES NOT LET US DO WHAT WE WANT TO DO ON THAT WHICH WOULD BE CONSISTENT WITH THE OTHER HOUSES THAT EXIST IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD. WHAT WE LIKE TO DO IS WE LIKE TO -- YEAR HE ASKING FOR RELIEF OF THE 25-FOOT SET BACK N RETURN FOR THAT WE'RE PROPOSALLING -- PROPOSING TO BUILT A PERMANENT WALL RIGHT WHERE THAT DOTTED LINE IS.

THERE YOU GO. ALONG THE UP LAND BUFFER.

NOW THIS IS GOING TO FLUCTUATE 2 AND A HALF TO THREE FEET.

I HAVE A PICTURE OF THE WALL AND IT DOES JUT IN A BIT.

THAT'S THE SOUTHWEST CORNER TO PRESERVE THAT 40-FOOT DISTANCE TO THE JURISDICTIONAL WETLANDS. THESE BOUNDARIES ARE INVISIBLE AND THEY TEND TO DISSIPATE WITH TIME.

THIS WILL MAKE IT PERMANENT PROTECTION.

THIS IS THE WALL AND HOW IT IS BUILT.

AND THIS IS ANOTHER SCHEMATIC. THAT'S HOW IT WILL BE BUILT, THAT'S A ROUGH DRAFT OF THE FLOOR PLAN OF THE HOUSE.

THE TOP OF THE WALL AN 8-FOOT ELEVATION.

THE BOTTOM FLUCTUATES WITH THE LAND.

THE BOTTOM BETWEEN 5 AND 6 FEET.

THE HEIGHT OF THE WALL IS 2 FEET AND THAT'S AN EXISTING WALL THAT'S VERY SIMILAR, YOU WILL SEE IN THE DISTANCE THERE ARE STEPS. WE'LL NOT BUILD IT INTO THE UP LAND BUFFER. THAT'S THE REQUEST.

RELIEF OF THE 25-FOOT SET BACK IN RETURN WE PROPOSE A BUILDING A PERMANENT BOUNDARY TO PROTECT THE UP LAND; OKAY, THANK YOU, SIR. LET'S OPEN UP TO PUBLIC EXTENT.

ANY PUBLIC COMMENT? >> HELLO.

>> YES. >> YES.

>> HELLO. >> WE HEAR YOU CAN YOU GIVE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS, AND THREE MINUTES TO SPEAK.

>> DIANE BABBLE. 631 SWEET WATER BRANCH LANE.

32259. MY QUESTION IS THIS IN BUILDING

[04:35:01]

THE RETAINING WALL AND TAKING DOWN, ARE THERE ANY MANGROVES IN THE AREA, DO YOU HAVE -- SOMEBODY WHO IS QUALIFIED TO IDENTIFY A MAN DROVE TREE GONE OUT AND TAKE AN LOOK TO SEE WHAT

WOULD BE TAKEN DOWN? >> I WOULD LIKE STAFF TO

CLARIFY. >> I'M BECAUSE I GUESS WE CANNOT HAVE A CONVERSATION HERE I'M REQUESTING THAT THE BEFORE THE COMMISSIONERS GIVE THEIR GO AHEAD THAT THEY BE SOMEBODY THERE TO VERIFY THERE ARE NO PROTECTED TREES, MANGROVES, IN THE AREA WHICH IS PROPOSED TO BE MODIFIED.

THAT'S MY REQUEST I HAVE NOTHING MORE TO SAY OTHER THAN A PROFESSIONAL SHOULD BE OUT THERE TO TAKE A LOOK.

>> THANK YOU. >> WE HAVE SOMEONE ELSE

COMMENTING. >> ARE YOU HEAR TO COMMENT?

>> I'M THE ENGINEER OF RECORD SUPPORTING THE APPLICANT.

10060 SKINNER LAKE DRIVE. IN RESPONSE TO THE LADY'S COMMENT THERE ARE NO ADDITIONAL CLEARING LIMITS.

THE APPLICANT HAS THE OPPORTUNITY TO CLEAR EVERYTHING OUTSIDE OF THE UPPER HE IS NOT LOOKING FOR ANY ADDITIONAL CLEARING ON THIS. NONE OF THE BUFFER WILL BE

CLEARED FOR THE PROJECT. >> I SAW A STAFF MEMBER COMING

FORWARD. >> JAN BREWER WITH THE ENVIRONMENTAL DIVISION. I HAVE BEEN ON SITE.

>> THERE ARE NO MANGROVES. THEY SUBMITTED FOR THE CLEARANCE SHEET TO CLEAR JUST THE AREA WITHIN THE FOOT PRINT OF THE HOME THAT IS WHERE THE AREA OF THE BUFFER.

THAT'S WHERE IT WILL BE PROTECTED.

, ANY QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD? >> THIS IS MY DISTRICT.

>> I WILL BE MAKE A MOTION. I'LL MOVE TO APPROVE NZVAR 21-01 AND 4.01.04. B OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AND ALLOW FOR A RETAINING WALL IN LIEU OF A 25 BUILDING SET BACK.

[7. Public Hearing * CDD AMD 2020-04 World Commerce Center. CDD Petition to amend the CDD boundary to add approximately eight acres to the World Commerce Center CDD.]

AND FIVE CONDITIONS PROVIDED IN THE STAFF REPORT.

>> SECOND. >> WE HAVE A MOTION BY DEAN AND A SECOND BY WHITEHURST. SEEING NONE.

PLEASE VOTE. >> CONGRATS THAT PASS, 5-0.

>> NOW NUMBER 7. THIS IS A QUASI JUDICIAL

MATTER. >> APRIL 1, 2021 I MET FOR 50 SECONDS TO PETITION TO EXPAND THE CDD BOUNDARY TO EIGHT ACRES. A VERY LITTLED ADDRESS BECAUSE IT WAS 50 SECONDS LONG. HE IDENTIFIED WHAT THE DESIRE WAS AND MOVED ON. THANK YOU.

>> APRIL 1, 2021 AT APPROXIMATELY 2:30 I MET WITH MICHAEL SILLS AND WE DISCUSSED THE ITEM FOR ABOUT 20 SECONDS AND SPENT ABOUT 30 MINUTES TALKING ABOUT TOTALLY IRRELEVANT

ISSUES. >> THANK YOU.

COMMISSIONER WALDRON. >> APRIL 1 I MET WITH MICHAEL SILLS WE TALKED ABOUT IT A MINUTE AND SPENT TEN TALKING ABOUT OTHER ITEMS. AND MOVED ON.

THANK YOU. >> ON MARCH 30TH, 10 A.M. I MET WITH HE CAME IN AND EXPRESSED THIS WAS A OVERSIGHT SEEKING TO CORRECT THE OVERSIGHT.

>> I DID MEET WITH MR. SILLS AND WE TALKED FOR FIVE MINUTES.

AND EVERYTHING MENTIONED HERE I THINK THAT'S ALL I HAVE TO REPORT. THANK YOU, PLEASE GO FORWARD.

[04:42:35]

>>> (NO AUDIO). >>> AND THIS TODAY'S PUBLIC HEARING HAS BEEN NOTICED WITH THE I WILL BE HAPPY TO ANSWER

ANY QUESTIONS. >> ANY QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD?

LET'S GO TO OPEN PUBLIC COMMENT. >> AND THE PUBLIC COMMENT NOW BACK TO THE BOARD. A MOTION.

>> I MOVE TO ORDINANCE 2021-APPROVING CDDAMD 2020-04 WORLD COMMERCE CENTER TO ADD EIGHT ACRES.

[8. Public Hearing * Workforce Housing Zoning District - Discussion Item. Discussion item for the Board of County Commissioners contemplating an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Code for the potential amendment to the market price maximum cap set on the $210,000 pricepoint.]

YOU, ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? , SEEING NONE PLEASE VOTE.

>> PASSES 5-0. >> NEXT WE WILL HEAR 8.

WORKFORCE HOUSING ZONING DISTRICT.

>> COMMISSIONERS THIS IS AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 8 A DISCUSSION ITEM FOR THE WORKFORCE HOUSING ZONING DISTRICT.

TO FAMILIARIZE YOU WITH THE DISTRICT AND THERE IS APPROVED LAST YEAR AND THE PROVIDES RELAXED DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AND A DEVELOPER DEDICATES 40% TO THE WORKFORCE HOUSING THAT THEY

ARE FOR SALE AND MAX PRIZE. >> AND I BELIEVE AND COMMISSIONERS HAVE A DISCUSSION ITEM ON THIS AND THE PRICE POINT

[04:45:02]

THE 240,000 DUE TO THE LARGE INCREASE IN CONSTRUCTION COSTS AND COSTSS. TO PLAIN THE PRICE CAP IT WAS PLACED -- THIS IS THE PROCESS. THE PRICE CAP WITHIN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE.

IT IS SEVERAL SUGGESTIONS WERE. >>> DIFFERENT ITEMS THEY HAVE ALL GONE UP. NOBODY IS COMING IN VOLUNTEERING TO LOWER PRICES. THEN WE HAD THE PROBLEM OF NOT GETTING THEM CONSTRUCTION TIMES ARE ALL EXTENDED NOW AND THIS EXPECTED LIST IS ITEMS THAT HAVE EITHER BEEN ON BACK ORDER WHERE WE GET AN ALLOCATION THEY SHIFT A CERTAIN NUMBER OF ITEMS OUT IF YOU RIDE THROUGH THE NEIGHBORHOODS YOU WILL SEE A LOT OF HOUSES THAT HAVE ROOFS BUT NO WINDOWS EVERYONE IS HAVING TROUBLE GETTING THEM. WE HAD TROUBLE GETTING SIDING AND APPLIANCES ARE IN TROUBLE AND A PROBLEM SINCE LAST MARCH WHEN IT CAME. IT COMES FROM CHINA AND SO ALMOST EVERYTHING THAT WE PUT IN THE HOUSE IS GONE.

I JUST WANTED TO SHOW YOU THE PERFECTS ON THAT.

>> OKAY. >>> GOOD AFTERNOON.

>> GOOD AFTERNOON. BETH BREEN FORTUNE PARKWAY.

SO THE DO THE HORIZONTAL DEVELOPMENT IN THE PRICE OF PVC DOUBLED IT IS THE WATER PIPES, SEWER PIPES EVERYTHING AND SO IT IS NOT ONLY THE LUMBER THAT YOU THINK ABOUT STEEL HAS DOUBLED IF YOU CAN GET IT AT ALL. THERE ARE SO MANY THINGS ESPECIALLY IN COMMERCIAL WHEN YOU BUILD LIKE A SHOPPING CENTER ARE YOU DOING THE THAT IS DONE WITH METAL STUDS AND STEEL.

WE'RE GETTING HIT FROM EVERY POSSIBLE SIDE.

I ASKED MY OFFICE TO RUN A SEARCH ON THE MLS TO SHOW ME HOW MANY HOMES WERE FOR SALE AT 240,000 OR LESSAND ONLY 13 CAME UP. I SAID HOW MANY WERE 210,000 OR LESS. SHE SAID NONE.

THE LOWEST WAS A CONDO FOR 215,000.

SO AS WE WOULD LOVE TO MAKE THE HOMES PRICED AS LOW AS POSSIBLE FOR EVERY ONE, WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF WE DON'T GET THE MONEY IS WE'RE NOT A VOLUNTEER ORGANIZATION AND SO WHAT WILL HAPPEN IS PROBABLY NONE WILL GET BUILT.

I THINK THAT EVERYBODY WOULD PREFER A HIGHER PRICE POINT AS BE ABLE TO GET IN. I HEARD COMMISSIONERS SAY AT MEETINGS BEFORE SO MANY OF THE TEACHERS AND THE SCHOOLS THEIR KID GOES TO HAVE TO COME FROM OTHER COUNTIES TO TEACH IN THE COUNTY. A POLICE OFFICER FROM ST. JOHNS LIVES IN MY NEIGHBORHOOD IN DUVAL AND THIS WOULD AFFORD PEOPLE WHO SERVE THE COMMUNITY DAILY FOR OUR HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE TO LIVE IN THE COMMUNITY THAT THEY SERVE.

I REQUEST THAT YOU DO RAISE IT TO A MAXIMUM OF 240.

THAT DOES NOT MEAN THEY WILL BE AT 240.

ANYTHING THAT WE CAN DO TO GET MULTIPLE PRICE POINTSMENT WHEN YOU HAVE THE MULTIPLE PRICE POINTS YOU SERVE MORE PEOPLE.

THAT'S WHAT WE WANT. WE WANT TO GIVE THEM HOMES AS WELL. THANK YOU.

[04:50:01]

>> THANK YOU. >> ANY OTHER PUBLIC COMMENT ON

ITEM 8? >> BY CALADI.

>>> BUILDERS SHOULD BUILD 50% NOT 40 IN THE WORKFORCE HOUSING ZONING DISTRICT. THAT WAS IN SOME OF THE BACKUP MATERIAL THAT MR. JOE DID NOT SAY ANYTHING.

IT HAS BEEN BROUGHT UP. ST. JOHNS EMPLOYEES EARNING LESS THAN 58640 ANNUALLY WILL NOT, I REPEAT, WILL NOT QUALIFY FOR WORKFORCE HOUSING ACCORDING TO THE ORDINANCE, THE DEVELOPERS OF, QUOTE. UP COMING PROFESSIONALS AND GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES WORKFORCE HOUSING, END QUOTE, CAN INCREASE THE SALES PRICE OF OTHER HOUSES IN THE DEVELOPMENT WHICH WILL COVER ANY INCREASE IN THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS AND OTHER THINGS THEY NEED TO DO INSTEAD OF INCREASING THE SALES PRICIVE THE WORKFORCE DWELLINGS.

THE DEVELOPERS SHOULD NOT BE ENCOURAGED TO USE THE ZONING DISTRICT ORDINANCE TO BENEFIT THEIR BACK WITH MORE IN A MOMENT LINE AND PROVIDING QUALITY-BUILT HOMES FOR, QUOTE, UP COMING PROFESSIONALS AND GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES AND DISCRIMINATING AGAINST THE LOW, VERY LOW AND LOW INCOME HOUSEHOLDS IN ST.

JOHNS COUNTY. STOP BUILDING WORKFORCE HOUSING IN ST. JOHNS COUNTY FOR EMPLOYEES WHO WORK IN OTHER COUNTIES SUCH AS DUVAL. THERE IS NO JUSTIFICATION TO INCREASE THE SALES PRICE ON WORKFORCE HOUSING FROM $210,000 TO $240,000. THERE IS NO JUSTIFICATION TO INCREASE AND AND $240,000. WE WERE TALKING ABOUT WORKFORCE AND AFFORDABLE AND THERE ISN'T. AND THIS IS LIKE A BAND-AID THAT YOU THINK THAT YOU'RE GOING TO DO SOMETHING AND GET AN AWARD.

THERE ARE ALL KINDS FOR WHAT ST. JOHNS IS DOING AND AFFORDABLE I DON'T THINK WE ARE. THIS IS NOT GOOD BEGINNING STEP. KEEP IT AT $210,000.

>> ANY OTHER PUB COMMENT ON ITEM 8?

>> THAT CONCLUDES IT. WE'LL GO TO THE COMMISSIONERS NEXT. COMMISSIONER SMITH?

>> I DON'T DO THIS I HAVE A QUESTION FOR MISS BREEN I DON'T KNOW WHERE MLS SHE GOT I'M CONFUSED I PULLED UP ZILLO THE FIRST PAGE OUT OF THEY DON'T HAVE HASTEINGS IN THERE OR NOT BUT HERE IS A LISTINGS, I JUST THIS IS WHAT I PULLED UP.

145 AND THAT'S ON THE FRONT PAGE.

SOME OF THESE ARE NEW CONSTRUCTION, SOME ARE NOT THAT CAN GO THROUGH SOME ARE LESS THAN 240.

SOME ARE LESS THAN 210. I JUST -- I DON'T KNOW THAT DID

YOU HAVE SOME OTHER MLS. >> THE MULTIPLE LISTING SERVICE IS FOR HOMES THAT ARE LISTED BY BROKERS SO GENERALLY THEY WILL NOT HAVE BUILDERS AND PEOPLE THAT HAVE HOMES FOR SALE ON THEIR OWN. ISRAELI LOW HAVE FOR SALE BY OWNERS. AND THAT WAS SEVERAL THERE THAT WERE NOT. THEY WERE NOT AND THAT WAS CONFUSING TO ME. , I WILL BRING FROM THE MULTIPLE SEARCH ENGINES TO SEE WHAT WE HAVE.

>> AND, I DO HAVE A QUESTION FOR MR. PORTER AND APPRECIATE THE

[04:55:06]

NUMBERS. AND I THING IT IS STRANGE RIGHT NOW THAT'S A DIFFERENT. MR. PORTER THE INCREASING AND INFLATING COSTS CAN YOU FULFILL YOUR OBLIGATION CROOK SHANK SCHOOL FOR THE PRICE POINT? , AT THIS POINT.

>> CAN YOU DO THAT? >> IT'S NOT IMPOSSIBLE THE CONCERN IS THAT IF THINGS GO UP THE MARGINS ON THE HOMES WILL BE SO LOW I WILL NOT GET A COMPANY TO INVEST.

>> THANK YOU. >> I DON'T THINK WE'LL GET OTHER BUILDINGS WILLING TO DO IT. WE COMMITTED THAT WE WOULD DO IT

SO THAT'S WHAT WE'LL DO. >> THANK YOU.

>> WE WORKED ON IT HERE LONGER THAN WE SHOULD HAVE.

FROM THE GET GO, COMMISSIONER DEAN WAS TO GET SOMEONE TO BUILD IT. BUILD IT.

WE WENT 40 NOT 50 OR 55%. AND 200 WE HAVE A BREAKTHROUGH.

THE PROBLEM I GOT AS IT FLUCTUATES THE MARKET IS UNSEEN BETWEEN LUMBER AND SUPPLIES. WILL WE CHANGE IT BACK OR KEEP CHANGING BACK AND FORTH AND DOWN AND IT WAS NEVER WHEN WE FIRST MET IT WAS NEVER ABOUT PROFITABILITY THEY DIDN'T WANT TO YOU LOSE MONEY BUT GET A PROTECT OUT THERE.

I DON'T KNOW IF WE CUT OUT WITH $30,000 RIGHT NOW IT'S NOT A BIG DEAL WITH THE INTEREST RATE. AND THE INTEREST IS GOING TO GO UP AND CHANGE 240 BANK WISE AND 260 AND 275.

WHAT ARE YOUR THOUGHTS ON THAT MAYBE BUILD ONE SEE WHAT THAT IS. LET IT SLIDE UNTIL THE MARKET COMES BACK AND SOME KIND OF LEVEL PLAYING FIELD.

AND SUPPLY AND DEMAND. , WE DID SPEND A LOT OF TIME WORKING ON THIS. I THINK IN AN ERROR WE MADE AND WHAT WE ENDED UP WITH JUST TO HAVE THE NUMBER PART OF THE COMP PLAN. WE HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE HEARINGS AND WAIT THE 30 DAYS AND THE REST OF IT.

IF WE WORK ON THE CHANGE IN THE ORDINANCE.

A THING WE DO IS MAKE IT EASY FOR THE BOARD TO ADJUST.

IT IS DIFFICULT. WHAT WE WOULD LIKE TO DO IS REACT TO TODAY'S ECONOMY. IF THE PRICES COME BACK DOWN, FINE, IT OUGHT TO BE IF THE INTEREST RATES GET LOWER BUT NEEDS TO BE SOMETHING THAT IS SIMPLER TO ADJUST.

WHEN WE GOT STARTED ON THE RAVENS WOOD, THE ONE THE BOARD PASSED A COUPLE OF MONTHS AGO, I EXPECTED THAT WE WOULD BE IN THERE WITH OUR STARTING PRICES IN THE 190S.

I WAS COMFORTABLE WITH THE 210. BUT NOW OUR COSTS HAVE SHOT UP SO I -- IT WILL BE IF WE STICK TO THE 210 THE LOWEST MARGIN PRODUCT WE GOT WHICH IS HARD FOR US TO CONTINUE TO DO IN THE FUTURE. LAND PRICES ARE NOT -- THEY ARE

NOT GOING UP AS DRAMATICALLY. >> MAYBE UNATTAINABLE.

I TALKED TO A FRIEND OF MY IS A BUILDER AND 1400 SQUARE FOOT HOUSE AND A SINGLE FAMILY HE IS UP ABOUT 8900 IN COSTS ALONE.

AND YES, THERE IS A INCREASE COMING ON EVERYTHING.

I JUST DON'T KNOW HOW WE CAN KEEP CHANGING BACK AND FORTH IF WE DON'T SEE HOW THAT PLAYS OUT.

AND SEE WE CAN READJUST AND SAY ANYTHING HERE.

[05:00:02]

AND JUST LIKE WE TALKED AND THE HOUSING WOULD WORK WE'RE GOING TO SOLVE THE PROBLEM. AND RAVENS WOOD IS A, AND IT IS IN A GREAT LOCATION. AND AS FAR AS BEING CLOSE TO TOWN AND WORK AND THE JOBS. EASY ACCESS.

>> THANK YOU. , THANK YOU MR. CHAIRMAN I WANTED TO READ SOMETHING PART OF THE STAFF MEETING LET'S NOT TAKE DEVELOPER'S WORDS LET'S VERIFY IT.

I DON'T KNOW IF WE EVER GOT VERIFICATION OF THE LUMBER COSTS INCREASING AN ARTICLE I RAN ACROSS AN ARTICLE DOING MY OWN SEARCH IN THE SEARCH BAR WRITTEN BY FORTUNE MAGAZINE MARCH 20TH SAYS THAT AS OF THE WEEK OF MARCH 11TH THE PRICE OF LUMBER PER THOUSAND BOARD FEET $1044. THAT'S AN ALL TIME HIGH OF 1 UP 188% SINCE THE ON SET OF THE PANDEMIC.

I SAY THAT TO SAY THIS I'M IN THE JEWELRY BUSINESS.

EVERY TIME THE PRICE OF COLD WENT UP I HAD TO COME BEFORE A BODY TO GET PERMISSION TO RAISE MY PRICES I WOULD BE OUT OF BUSINESS. WE CAN VERIFY THAT THERE IS A SIGNIFICANT INCREASE IN THE MATERIAL COSTS I THINK A BUSINESS FRIENDLY COUNTY AS WE WANT TO BE, ALL FIVE OF US CAN AGREE WE WANT TO BE BUS FRIENDLY.

WE HAVE TO BE FLEXIBLE. I DON'T THINK WE CAN BE SO RIGGED THAT WE SAY WHEN THEY ARE VERIFIABLE SIGNIFICANT MATERIAL COSTS, AN INCREASE IN THE SIGNIFICANT MATERIAL COSTS THAT WE CAN TELL THEM THEY HAVE TO KEEP THE PRICE THE SAME.

SO THE FOUR OF YOU DID TREMENDOUS WORK.

I WATCHED THE MEETING THAT YOU SAT THROUGH AND THE COMMISSIONER WALDRON YOU ARE PASSIONATE ABOUT THIS WITH WORKFORCE HOUSING WITH THE VOLATILITY IN THE MARKET IT MAY BE WORTH IT FOR US TO REVISIT THIS ONCE A YEAR JUST TO SEE WHERE WE ARE SO WE'RE NOT HURTING BUSINESS. AND THE PRICE OF LUMBER GOES DOWN AND ADDRESSING IT AGAIN THAT WE RAISE IT TODAY.

>> THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER DEAN NEXT.

>> I WAS GIVING SOME THOUGHT OVER THE WEEKEND ON THIS ITEM AND RECOGNIZING THE POINT THAT WAS MADE I DO NOT WANT TO MAKE IT DIFFICULT FOR THE BUILDER AND MAKE IT DIFFICULT FOR US THROUGH THE PROCESS IF THERE IS A WAY TO TIE THE MAXIMUM PRIZE IN A RATIO WAY TO EITHER THE ST. JOHNS MEDIAN HOUSE PRICE, YOU KNOW WE CAN DIG IN AND THE MEDIAN HOUSE PRICE IS 340, LET'S SAY TODAY.

LET'S SAYS IT IS A PRICE POINT FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSE SOMETHING 60%. AND SO AS THE MEDIAN PRICE GOES UP AND DOWN, THAT SAME PRICE POINT FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND HAVE TO ADDRESS THIS THROUGH THE HEARING PROCESS AND GOING THROUGH TWO READINGS OF THE ORDINANCE.

SO IT'S NOT THE PEEDAN PRICE OR THE CONSUMER PRICE INDEX THAT WE THINK WORKS. THAT WOULD BE, TO ME, GOOD WAY TO DEAL WITH THE ISSUE OF, YOU KNOW HAVING AN AUTOMATIC ADJUSTMENT OVER TIME. TODAY I WOULD LIKE TO GO FORWARD, YOU HEARD THE NUMBERS, YOU HEARD IT FROM THE SEARCH BAR GOING THROUGH THE ROOF. I WOULD LIKE TO DIRECT THE STAFF TO SET A HEARING DATE FOR THE CHANGE IN THE ORDINANCE TO ADJUST IT TO 240,000 WITH INSTRUCTIONS TO COME BACK WITH SEVERAL RECOMMENDATIONS OR ALTERNATIVES TYING IT TO A PRICE INDEX AND HOUSING, SOMETHING THAT REFLECTS THE CHANGE IN THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION. THAT'S MY SUGGESTION.

>> THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER. COMMISSIONER SMITH?

>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. >> I HAVE A QUESTION, ESPECIALLY IN WITH REGARD TO WHAT WE'RE DEALING WITH.

DEALING WITH ONE THING AND INCREASING PRICES OF RAW MATERIAL. AND WE'RE DEALING WITH THE

[05:05:01]

WORKFORCE HOUSING. WE HAVE SEEN AN INFLATION OF THESE COSTS THERE IS REASONS FOR THAT.

AND WHAT HAVE WE SEEN A RADICAL INCREASE TO PAY FOR IT?

>> WE LOOK THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC SERVICES, WE THE INFORMATION WHEN PEOPLE COME LOOKING FOR ASSISTANCE.

SOCIAL SERVICES, HOUSING WITH THE CARES ACT WE DOLED OUT A LOT OF FUNDS. I WAS SURPRISED THAT A LOT WE SAW AND WHO WAS AFFECTED BUT I DON'T THINK UNLESS WE DO A DEEP DIVE WILL WE HAVE AN UNDERSTANDING WHERE THE WAGES

ARE OCCURRING. >> YOU KNOW OUR WEB SITE WE HAVE UNDER ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PAGE, WE HAVE A SALARY WATCH AND THAT WAS 45574 IF I REMEMBER FROM THIS MORNING AN AVERAGE WAGE IF THE COUNTY. I LOOKED AT MEDIAN INCOME WAS 60,000 FROM THE HOME AND IT IS ON THE TOP END OF THAT FOR A MODERATE INCOME. NOT DRESSING THE LOW, LOW INCOME EARNERS WHICH MAKES IT NOT NECESSARILY AFFORDABLE TO TARGET THE WORKFORCE HOUSING. MY CONCERN WHEN YOU INCREASE IT, EVEN THOUGH THE THINGS THAT COST OF RAW MATERIALS IS INCREASING.

THAT THE WAGES AREN'T. ARE YOU MOVING OUT OF THAT

TARGET ZONE. >> AND THE CONSUMER ON ONE

HAND. >> WE HAVE THE BUILDER ON THE OTHER. AND THAT'S A CONCERN THAT I HAVE IN DEALING WITH THE WAGES RESPOND, IT IS DIFFICULT FOR THEM TO STILL AFARD TO LIVE IN ST. JOHNS COUNTY.

WHEN I LOOKED AT WAGES EARNED IN OTHER COUNTIES IT WAS THERE INTERESTING TO SEE THE DISTINCTIONS BUT VERY CLOSE TO WHAT WE SEE IN REGARD TO CLOSELY RECORRELATED TO PRICE OF HOMES.

JUST MY THOUGHT IN WITH REGARD TO WHAT WE'RE DOING IN TO THE WAGE EARNERS AND BUILDING COSTS.

I DON'T KNOW IF YOU HAVE ANYTHING, TO ADD STRENGTH TO YOUR POINT WE BROUGHT THIS BIFF THE BOARD THE AMI WAS 73500.

AND THE NUMBERS AND THE HOUSING PROGRAMS HAVE NOT SEEN MUCH OF

AN INCREASE THERE. >> THAT'S RIGHT.

THANK YOU. >> COMMISSION.

WE'RE GOING TO COMMISSIONER WALDRON.

THAT MAY BE A DISCUSSION AND WE WE TAKE THE LMI AMOUNT.

THAT'S HE AND THE MARKET LEVELS OFF.

I DON'T WANT YOU WAS YOUR NUMBERS FROM ST. JOHNS MLS.

>> AND HE SHE IS PROBABLY. THAT'S AN OLD REQUIREMENT THERE. COMMISSIONER SMITH N MY

OPINION. >> AND CONFIRM THERE.

AND THE MLS. AND BUT YOU KNOW WHAT, WE WANTED -- COMMISSIONER DEAN IF WE GET TOO FAR UP WE'RE NOT HIPPING THE LOCAL RESIDENTS HERE.

THAT'S MY CONCERN. WE CAN BASE IT ON A LMI THAT MAY BE A WAY TO DO IT. WE CAN ADJUST IT YEARLY AND SAID AND THEY CAN BE DONE THAT WAY. YOU KNOW RIGHT NOW WE'RE UNDER TREMENDOUS OR MAY NOT BE ABLE TO DO IT.

THAT'S JUST IT IS JUST RUNNING OUT OF SUPPLIES.

EVERYTHING DOWN. >> , THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER; I AGREE WITH EVERYTHING THAT THE COMMISSIONER SMITH SAID AND THAT EVERYTHING THAT COMMISSIONER SAID.

WE HAVE A ISSUE. WE CAN SET THE PRICE AT 210.

KEEP IT THERE. WE WILL NOT HAVE ANY AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN MY OPINION. THAT'S THE POLICY OF THE BOARD, FINE. THAT'S IT MAJORITY.

I'M TRYING TO HIT THE SWEET SPOT.

AND THAT MAY NOT BE SWEET FOR EVERYONE.

WHAT I WANT TO DO IS SET THE PRICE AT THE FIGURE 40% THAT

[05:10:02]

WILL ENTICE BUILDERS TO SEEK APPROVAL.

RIGHT NOW I DON'T THINK THERE WILL BE FOR THE FORESEEABLE FUTURE IN THE COUNTY. I DON'T THINK THERE WILL BE ANY MOTHER PROPOSALS COMING TO US I DON'T -- I'M TRYING TO HIT THAT SWEET SPOT THAT WILL ENCOURAGE BUILDERS TO PARTICIPATE AND PROVIDE AFORTABLE HOUSING KNOWING WHEN THE COST IS SKYROCKETING IT WILL GO FORWARD WITH 210,000 PRICE POINT.

THAT'S NOT GOING TO HAPPEN. >> I'M JUST TRYING TO GET THAT COMPROMISE WITH THE WHAT WILL BE BEST FOR THE PEOPLE IN THE COUNTY THAT DO NOT HAVE A HIGH INCOME AND LIVE IN A DECENT HOUSE. WE HAVE BUILDERS WHO WANT TO SUPPLY THE HOMES BUT THEY HAVE TO BE ABLE TO STAY OUT OF DEBT AND NOT TAKE A LOSS. THAT'S ALL.

>> YOU WANT TO GO AHEAD, THAT'S FINE.

>> I'M FINE. >> I WANT TO GIVE A PERSONAL TESTIMONY. THIS IS WHAT BOTHERS ME. IT IS EATING AT ME I WANT TO SAY IT AND PUBLICLY.

I GOT A PHONE CALL A FEW WEEKS AGO FROM HENRY.

LEFT A MESSAGE FROM COLUMBIA, SOUTH CAROLINA A NEW BUILD FOR $200,000 OR LESS. I GAVE HIM RAVENS WOOD GAVE HIM SOME OTHER THINGS TO LOOK INTO. THIS IS NOT BUILDING THINGS FOR NOT NECESSARILY EXCLUES OF FOR THOSE WHO LIVE HERE. IT IS INVITING OTHERS TO BE HERE THAT ARE NOT FROM HERE AND DOESN'T MEET THE NEED. HE WAS RETIRED AND WANTED AN ECONOMIC PLACE. FROM SOUTH CAROLINA.

WE TALK AND WE SPEND A LOT OF RHETORIC ON SUPPLYING FOR THE PEOPLE THAT ARE HERE. I CAN GO WITH THAT BUT INVITING RETIREES FOR A PLACE TO LIVE, THAT'S FAR FETCHED.

IT DOES NOT MEET THE NEED AND ADDRESSING THIS WE CREATE ANOTHER ISSUE TO BE AT LEAST OBSERVED.

I WANT TO SHARE THAT WITH YOU IT IS IMPORTANT FOR TO US TAKE

NOTE. >> I WANT TO THANK YOU YOU FOR SHARING THIS. ONE OF THE THINGS WE'RE STRUGGLING WITH. AND WHEN YOU DEAL WITH THE PROBLEM WE HAVE RESIDENTS HERE TODAY THAT CANNOT AFFORD TO PURCHASE A HOME HERE BECAUSE THEY ARE JUST OUT OF THE PRICE RANGE. THEN WE HAVE A SIGNIFICANCE WHERE WE ADJUST THAT AND WE ARE INVITING OTHERS TO COME HERE FROM OTHER PARTS OF THE STATE. AND THE PUBLIC POLICY WE'RE TRYING TO CREATE SOMETHING FOR THE POLICE OFFICERS TO GIVE A LOT TO THE COMMUNITY AND KIDS. THEY CANNOT AFFORD A PLACE TO LIVE. I WANT TO RECOGNIZE BRIEFLY, I RECOGNIZE THAT EXACTLY WHAT THE COMMISSIONER WHITEHURST SAID, COMMISSIONER WALDRON AND SMITH AND DEAN.

WE'RE TRYING TO WORK IN CONCERT HERE.

>> AND I THE IDEA THAT THE COMMISSIONER BROUGHT UP TYING IT TO A MEASURE. THAT'S THE BEST WAY TO ADDRESS IT. I DON'T KNOW A LOT OF BUSINESSES

FUNCTIONING AND AND. >> THEY WORK HERE AND LIVE HERE AND WORK FOR. I DON'T HAVE A GREAT LUGES O*ERBG OWE I WOULD BE. AND THE SOLUTION.

SOMETIMES YOU WILL NOT FIND A PERFECT SOLUTION AND 70, 80% SOLUTION THAT WILL TAKE CARE AND HELP THEM A QUALITY OF LIFE HERE

[05:15:01]

AND GOOD. COMMISSIONER WALDRON.

NO. NO.

>> DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER APPLICATIONS RIGHT NOW.

>>> THERE IS NO RIGHT WAY TO DO WRONG THINGS.

AND THE BEST WAY WE CAN TO MOVE FORT WITH THIS.

>> COMMISSIONER. >> I GUESS I'M JUST, YOU KNOW THIS IS MY PERSONAL VIEWPOINT I'M FRUSTRATED NOW BECAUSE I KIND OF LIKE TO MOVE FORWARD AND FEEL LIKE SOMETHING NEEDS TO HAPPEN I MAY NOT HAVE ANY CON CURRENTS I WANT TO MOVE FORWARD WITH A MOTION TO RAISE THE PRICE POINT FROM 210 TO 240.

I WOULD ASK THE LAWYERS. THIS SAYS NO ACTION REQUIRED BUT THIS IS A PUBLIC MEETING THAT HAS BEEN ADVISED.

WE HAVE THE ITEM, WHY CAN'T I MAKE A MOTION TO SET THE PRICE POINT FROM 210 AND MOVE IT UP TO 240.

I WOULD LIKE TO. MAYBE I CAN'T.

>> I UNDERSTAND THAT'S -- >> THIS IS AN OPPORTUNITY TO PROVIDE DIRECTION TO STAFF, CERTAINLY.

YOU CAN MAKE A MOTION TO DIRECT STAFF TO PROPOSE THE CHANGES THAT YOU WANT.

(NO AUDIO). >> THE RESIDENTS I KNOW THAT AT THAT 20% DOWN. AND THAT -- THE PRIOR CAP THE $42,000 THAT WOULD RAISE THAT TO $48,000.

I THINK THAT THAT'S A NEGLIGIBLE AMOUNT IN THE GRAND SCHEME CONSIDERING THE INCREASES OF PRICE.

I WOULD LIKE TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THE MOTION AS WELL.

>> I APPRECIATE THAT. I AGREE.

I MEAN IT IS A GOOD POINT. I DON'T WANT TO LOSE SITE.

I THINK THAT WE CAN MAKE THE SUGGESTION NOW AND MAKES SENSE.

I DON'T WANT TO FACE WHAT WE'RE NOT ADDRESSING THIS.

I THINK IT IS AN ONGOING ISSUE AND BY MR. PORTER THEY GO UP THE NEXT SIX MONTHS DOUBLE AND TRIPLE.

WE DON'T KNOW WHAT THE FUTURE WILL HOLD.

I THINK THAT'S COMING BACK EVERY YEAR.

IT WILL BE CHALLENGING AND IMPORTANT TO THE RESIDENTS BUT TO THE DEVELOPERS AND BUILD HERE.

I'M IN FAVOR OF MAKING A CHANGE.

WE NEED TO DIRECT THE STAFF TO BUILD THE MEASURE.

>> ALL RIGHT. >> THAT'S WHAT I WAS GOING TO

DO. >> WE CAN MOVE, WE HAVE OTHER ITEMS HERE. IS THERE A MOTION? I'M PREPARED. AND COME BACK WITH A HEARING TO RAISE THE CURRENT $210,000 PRICE POINT TO 240,000 AS AS SOON AS PRACTICAL TO ADDRESS THAT AND A CHANGE OF THE ORDINANCE.

NUMBER ONE. IS THAT CLEAR?

>> YES BUT I WANT TO POINT OUT THAT THE CAP IS IN THE

COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. >> WHATEVER IT TAKES.

WHATEVER IT TAKES MOVE AHEAD, MOVE AHEAD THAT'S ASSUMING YOU HAVE THE VOTE BUT NUMBER TWO, NUMBER TWO, I WANT TO IN MY MOTION TO LOOK AT AND SOME DETAIL WHAT DIFFERENT COSTS OF LIVING OR MEDIAN HOUSE PRICES OR OTHER METRICS THAT ARE THERE MONTH IN AND OUT, YEAR IN AND OUT WE MAY POSSIBLY TIE THE HOUSING PRICE POINT THAT SO THAT IT WOULD OCCUR ON AN NOG BASIS WITHOUT HAVING TO COME BACK ON A REGULAR FREQUENT BASIS TO THE BOARD TO GO THROUGH THE COMP PLAN.

THAT'S THE TWO-STEP MOTION. , WE HAVE A MOTION AND IS THERE

A SECOND? >> A SECOND.

>> A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER DEAN.

A SECOND BY WHITEHURST. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION.

>> YOU SEE THEM. PLEASE VOTE.

[05:20:09]

THAT PASSES 4-1. SO TO STAFF, WHAT IS --

>> COMMISSIONER. SORRY, WHAT?

>> HOW WE CAN DO IT. >> THANK YOU.

AS FAR AS BRINGING THIS BACK, WHAT TIME ARE WE LOOKING AT.

HOW QUICKLY CAN WE HAVE THIS BACK?

>> STARVE WILL NEED TO PREPARE BOTH THE COMP PLAN ANDS FOR TRANSMITTAL AND TO THE COMP PLAN AND PUBLIC HEARING.

AND QUESTION FOR YOU WHEN THEY BRING THAT BACK DO YOU WANT THE

OPTIONS TO CONSIDER AN INDEX? >> YES.

>> MAY, JUNE. >> I WILL TELL YOU A TWO-STEP COMP PLAN THAT WILL TAKE UP TO SIX MONTHS THE EARLIEST TO

ACCOMPLISH. >> OKAY.

>> WE'RE LOOKING. OKAY.

[9. Tourism Industry Recovery Loan. On May 19, 2020, in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) approved a General Fund loan in the amount of $2 million to Tourism Development Tax Fund, Category I to initiate incremental advertisement programs to target demand among those visitors willing to travel, in order to sustain tourism industry in St. Johns County. Specifically, the BCC approved a motion authorizing an allocation of $2 million in General Fund reserves to provide for destination marketing to promote St. Johns County as a tourist destination in accordance with the plan presented by the St. Johns County Visitors and Convention Bureau on May 19, 2020, authorizing the County Administrator to execute an amendment governing expenditure of the funds, and for the funds to be paid back over a period of five years from Tourist Development Category I revenues. On March 16, 2021, Commissioner Dean requested Board consideration to discuss loan forgiveness associated with that loan.]

>> JUST IN TIME FOR -- IF WE CAN GET UPDATED WHEN WE'LL GET THIS BACK ON THE AGENDA. AND ANYTHING FROM

ADMINISTRATION? >> NO.

MR. CEARLEY CAN GET IN THAT TIMEFRAME.

WE'LL MOVE ON TO AGENDA ITEM 9. >> YES.

>> GOOD AFTERNOON. CHAIRMAN BLOCKER.

JESSIE DUNN, MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET.

WE'RE A DISCUSSION THIS AFTERNOON ON THE TOURISM INDUSTRY RECOVERY LOAN. THE HEIGHT OF THE PANDEMIC LAST MAY, TERA MEEKS THE DIRECTOR FOR TOURISM AND CULTURAL DEVELOPMENT BROUGHT BACK AN AMENDMENT TO THE ST. JOHNS VESTOR AND CONVENTION BUREAU CONTRACT WHICH REDUCED THE ANNUAL CONTRACT AMOUNT FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 20. THIS THE HEIGHT OF THE PANDEMIC WE WERE SEEING INITIALLY SOME, CERTAINLY SOME BEHAVIORAL CHANGE IN THE REVENUES COMING DOWN. WHAT WE HAD ORIGINALLY BUDGETED LAST YEAR FOR INSTANCE IN TDD RECEIPTS WAS 13.3 MILLION.

AT THIS TIME IN MAY LAST YEAR, WE THOUGHT WE WOULD COME IN AT $7.4 MILLION. SO.

THE DISCUSSION THAT WE WOULD NOT HAVE SUFFICIENT FUNDS IN FULFILL THE CONTRACTS. SUBSEQUENT TO THAT APPROVAL OF THE AMEND REDUCING THE CONTRACT IN MAY 19TH, AFTER A FAIRLY LONG DISCUSSION, THE BCC APPROVED A MOTION.

I'LL AUTHORIZE AN ALLOCATION OF $2 MILLION IN GENERAL FUND RESERVES TO PROVIDE FOR DESTINATION MARKETING AND PROMOTE ST. JOHNS COUNTY AS A TOURIST DESTINATION AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PLAN PRESENTED BY THE ST. JOHNS VISITOR'S AND CONVENTION BUREAU ON THAT SAME DAY.

MAY 19TH. AND AUTHORIZING THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR TO EXECUTE AN AMENDMENT GOVERNING EXPENDITURE OF THE FUND S AND THE FUNDS TO BE PAID BACK OVER A PERIODIVE FIVE YEARS FROM, AT THAT POINT DECIDED FROM TDD CATEGORY 1 REVENUES OVER THE FIVE YEARS. ON THE PREVIOUS, JUST THE PAST MEETING MARCH 16TH. COMMISSIONER DEAN HAD REQUESTED A CONSIDERATION OF THE DISCUSSION AND ON THIS OUTSTANDING 2 MILLION DOLLAR LOAN.

ADVANCE FROM THE GENERAL FUND. WITH THAT I MEAN THERE IS NO PRESENTATION. KY PROVIDE YOU AN OVERVIEW OF, LAUREN, IF YOU CAN, PROVIDE YOU A OVERVIEW THIS WAS WORKING WITH TARA MEEKS. THIS IS THE COLUMN HERE THE PROPOSED SPENDING PROGRAM AND THE SPENDING.