[6. MAJMOD 2021-15 Worthington Estates (Lot 180). A request for a Major Modification to the Worthington Estates PUD (Ord. 2016-42) to convert a single parcel from Fill Mitigation uses to a Residential use in order to add one (1) single family unit, increasing the total number of units from 179 to 180. The request adds an Optional Density Bonus pursuant to LDC Sec. 5.10.04 and revises the MDP Map and MDP Text. The subject property is located on an unaddressed lot located on Scott Road.]

COULD I GET A MOTION TO APPROVE. >> SO MOVED?

>> WE HAVE A MOTION BY MR. PETER AND A SECOND BY DR. MCCORMICK.

IF THERE'S NO COMMENTS OR DISCUSSIONS, CAN WE DO A VOICE VOTE. ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE.

AYE. ANY NAY? MOTION PASSES. NEXT WE'RE GOING TO GO TO AGENDA ITEMS NUMBER 6. MR. BURNETT IF YOU WOULDN'T MIND COMING UP HERE, WE HAVE A REQUEST BY MR. BURNETT FOR A CONTINUANCE BASED UPON SOME ISSUES THAT CAME UP WITH SIGNAGE AND THEN ABILITY TO ALLOW YOU TO HAVE FURTHER DISCUSSIONS WITH THE NEIGHBORS. IS THAT CORRECT?

>> YES. WE'RE REQUESTING TO CONTINUE ITEM NUMBER 6. WE DID HAVE A COMMUNITY MEETING PREVIOUSLY, AND WE HAD A ZOOM FOLLOW-UP WORKSHOP WITH FOLKS THAT WERE AT THE COMMUNITY MEETING AND DID IT BY ZOOM AND SENT AN EMAIL OUT, AND SO WE DID SEND AN EMAIL TO THOSE FOLKS THAT HAD GIVEN US NOTICE PREVIOUSLY TO ET LET THEM KNOW THAT TODAY WE'D BE ASKING FOR DINE ANSWER OF THIS ITEM.

WE NEED SOME TIME. ONE, WE THOUGHT MAYBE THE ADVERTISING FOR WHATEVER REASON, ONE OF THE SIGNS THAT GOT PUT OUT SAID LOT 108 INSTEAD OF LOT 180 SO WE WERE CONCERNED THAT

[00:05:03]

THAT THREW OFF THE ADVERTISING, BUT THE BIGGER ISSUE IS WE ALSO NEED SOME ADDITIONAL TIME. MY CLIENT HAS BEEN PERSONALLY PHYSICALLY OUT ON SITE WORKING WITH SOME OF THE NEIGHBORS TO SEE IF WE CAN CURE SOME OF THE ISSUES.

SOME OF THOSE ISSUES. >> WHICH NOVEMBER MEETING WOULD YOU PREFER, THE NOVEMBER 4TH OR NOVEMBER 18TH IF THIS WERE

GRANT? >> I GUESS NOT KNOWING THE PZA SCHEDULE AS TO WHICH ONE IS BUSIER YOU CEFER DEFER TO STN WHICH ONE WORKS BEST FOR THEM. I WOULD ASSUME THAT MEANS THE

18TH. >> MADAME CHAIR, PROBABLY THE 18TH WOULD BE THE MOST APPROPRIATE ONE.

THERE'S LESS ITEMS ON THAT ONE IN AN THE NOVEMBER 5TH.

>> OKAY. ALL RIGHT.

SO WE HAVE A REQUEST FOR A CONTINUANCE FOR AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 6 TO NOVEMBER 18TH. IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION?

CAN I GET A MOTION? >> I MOVE WE ALLOW THE CONTINUANCE OF ITEM 6 FROM TODAY'S AGENDA TO THE

NOVEMBER 18TH. >> MOTION MADE BY DR. HILSENBECK. CAN I GET A SECOND.

>> SECOND. >> SECOND BY MR. PIERRE.

YOU CAN GO AHEAD. IF THERE'S NO FURTHER

DISCUSSION. >> IS THIS THE SAME NUMBER -- IS

THERE WORTHINGTON ESTATES? >> YES.

>> YES, IT IS WORTHINGTON ESTATES.

IF THERE'S NO FURTHER DISCUSSION, LET'S GO AHEAD AND VOTE. DO YOU WANT TO DO A VOICE VOTE? WE'LL GO AHEAD AND DO A VOICE VOTE.

PI ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE.

THAT MOTION PASSES. >> THANK YOU.

>> IF THERE'S ANYBODY IN THE AUDIENCE HERE TO SPEAK FOR ITEM NUMBER 6, TO CLARIFY EVERYTHING, THAT MOTION HAS PASSED AND SO THAT AGENDA ITEM IS NOT GOING TO BE HEARD TODAY, SO WE WILL HEAR IT ON THE NOVEMBER 18TH AGENDA, AND SO YOU WILL THEN BE ABLE TO COME UP HERE AND SPEAK AT THAT TIME.

ALL RIGHT. NEXT ON THE AGENDA WE HAVE A REQUEST FOR ANOTHER CONTINUANCE ON MAJOR MOD 2020-07 THE TAL MAD A RIVER FARM TO DECEMBER 16TH, '21 FOR THE PZA MEETING AND THE JANUARY 18, 202, FOR THE BCC MEETING.

THIS ITEM NOT ON OUR CURRENT AGENDA TODAY BUT WE ARE ASKED TO -- THEY ARE ASKING FOR A CONTINUANCE.

SO IF I CAN GET A MOTION, PLEASE.

>> MADAME CHAIR, I WOULD HAVE MOVE THAT WE CONTINUE MAJMOD

2020-07 TO DECEMBER 16, '21. >> WE HAVE A MOTION BY MR. PIERRE. IS THERE A SECOND?

>> SECOND. >> SECOND BY MR. PETER.

WE'LL GO AHEAD AND MAKE THIS A VOICE VOTE AS WELL.

IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION? >> YES, PLEASE.

I HAD NOT SEEN THIS ITEM, SO I'M JUST CURIOUS AS TO CURE T IT CONCERNS BEFORE I VOTE ON IT. I'D LIKE TO KNOW WHAT IT'S

ABOUT. >> MS. CHAIR, IF I MAY, MADAME CHAIR. THERE ARE SOME OUTSTANDING COMMENTS THAT STILL NEED TO BE RE2 THIS PARTICULAR APPLICATION, SO STAFF WITH WORKING WITH APPLICANT TO GET THOSE RESOLVED.

>> SO TALAMADA FARMS. BUT WHAT IS IT?

WHERE IS IT? >> IT'S JUST AN ITEM THAT WE'RE GOING TO HEAR IN THE FUTURE. IT'S NOT ON TODAY'S AGENDA.

>> OKAY. ALL RIGHT.

>> IT WAS ADVERTISED FOR TODAY. >> WAS IT?

>> IT WAS. BY YOU.

BECAUSE YOU CONTINUED IT TO THIS DATE, SO NOW WE'RE KIND OF STRETCHING IT OUT. THERE'S A FEW THINGS -- THIS IS NORTH OFFAL VOLLANO BEACH AREA AND ANOTHER A PUD THAT WAS APPROVED IN 2000 FOR SOME RESIDENTIAL UNITS.

PART OF IT'S BUILT BUT THE OTHER PART ISN'T, AND AS TERESA SAID, WEAVE SOME ISSUES, THINGS WITH STAFF THAT WE'RE TRYING TO WORK THROUGH, AND SO WE'RE ASKING FOR THOSE SPECIFIC DATES, THE DECEMBER 16TH FOR THE PZA AND TE 18TH IN 2022.

JAHN. >> APPRECIATE IT.

THANK YOU. >> ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. CAN WE GO AHEAD AND DO A VOICE VOTE? ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE.

>> AYE. >> THAT MOTION PASSES.

NEXT WE'RE GOING TO ALLOW PUBLIC COMMENT.

[00:10:03]

THIS IS THE TIME WHERE YOU CAN COME UP AND SPEAK FOR A LIMITED TIME OF THREE MINUTES ON ANYTHING THAT IS NOT ON THE

[1. SUPMAJ 2021-10 Genungs Fish Camp 2APS. Request for a Special Use Permit to allow package sale of beer and wine (2APS) in conjunction with an existing Fish Camp located within Commercial Highway and Tourist (CHT) zoning, consistent with Section 2.03.02 of the Land Development Code, specifically located at 291 Cubbedge Road.]

AGENDA. IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON SOMETHING THAT GOES ON THE AGENDA, YOU WILL HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY WHEN WE ARE HEARING THOSE ITEMS. IS THERE ANYBODY IN THE AUDIENCE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON ANYTHING THAT'S NOT ON THE CURRENT AGENDA? SEEING NONE, THEN WE'RE GOING TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC COMMENT.

FIRST OFF, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE ITEM NUMBER 1.

MR. MORLEY, CAN YOU WILL YOE UP.

>> MY NAME IS ADAM MORLEY, 291 COULD HAVEAGE ROAD, CRESCENT WEAPON OF. MY WIFE AND I OWN THE GEN YOU CAN'S FISH EXAMPLE IN CEASE ENT BEACH WAS OWNED BY JACK AND MARY IN 1948. I WORKED AT THE FISH CAMP AS A TEEN AND INTO MY EARLY 20S. IT'S WHERE I GOT MY CAPTAIN'S LICENSE AND GUIDING CAREER STARTED 20-SOMETHING YEARS AGO.

FOUR YEARS AGO THINGS CAME FULL CIRCLE.

MY WIFE AND I HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO TAKE OVER THE FISH CAM AFTER MATTHEW AND ERMA DERAILED THE PROGRESS.

PREVIOUS OPERATORS HAD MADE IN BRINGING TE FUSH CAMP BACK TO LIFE. WE CURRENTLY ARE AND HAVE BEEN A FULL SERVICE BAIT AND TACKLE SHOP WITH SNACKS, SANDWICHES, KAYAKS AND PADDLEBOARD RENTS. A MARINA, A SMALL EVENT SPACE RIGHT ON THE MOO TANS AS RIVER AND WE HAVE COMMUNITY EVENTS AND FUNDRAISE PERPS WE HAVE ALSO BEEN APPROVED FOR A FOOD TRUCK, LORKD TO PROVIDE MG BOATERS WITH A PLACE THEY CAN GRAB A BITE WHILE ENJOYING A DAY ON THE WATER.

WE HAVE HAD OUR PACKAGED SALES LICENSE FOR BEER SINCE BEFORE WE TOOK OVER, AND WE ARE LOOKING TO REQUEST A SPECIAL USE PERMIT THAT IS REALLY JUST TO EXPAND FROM THE BEER LICENSE TO INCLUDE WINE AS WELL. SO WE'RE REQUESTING A SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR THE RETAIL SALES, RETAIL PACKAGE SALES OF WINE.

AND I CAN ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS IF YOU HAVE THEM.

>> THANK YOU. BEFORE WE GO INTO QUESTIONS, IS THERE ANYBODY THAT HAS EX PARTE TO DECLARE? SEEING NONE, ANYBODY HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OF THE APPLICANT? SEEING NONE, AT THIS TIME WE'RE GOING TO ALLOW FOR PUBLIC COMMENT. NO SPEAKER CARDS?

>> NO, MA'AM. >> THEN WE'RE BACK INTO THE AGENCY. DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR DISCUSSION ABOUT THIS?

SEEING NONE, CAN I GET A MOTION? >> I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE SPECIAL USE PERMIT 2021-10 TO ALLOW PACKAGE SALES OF BEER AND WINE IN CONJUNCTION 1 A EXISTING FISH CAMP LOCATED WITHIN COMMERCIAL HIGHWAY AND TOURIST ZONING CONSIST OF WITH SECTION 2.03.02 OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, SPECIFICALLY LOCATED AT 291 CAN YOU BE EDGE ROAD, SUBJECT TO 11 CONDITIONS AND EIGHT FINDINGS OF PACT FACT AS PROVIDED IN STAFF REPORT.

[2. SUPMIN 2021-07 Tomanek Mobile Home. A request for a Special Use Permit to allow for the use of a Manufactured/Mobile Home as a residence in Residential, Single Family (RS-3) zoning, pursuant to Land Development Code Section 2.03.08, located on North Clay Street.]

>> SECOND. GO AHEAD, PHIL.

>> SECOND BY MR. PETER. SECOND BY DR. MCCORMICK.

ALL RIGHT. WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.

THERE ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? SEEING NONE, LET'S GO AHEAD AND PUT IN OUR VOTE. MR. MORLEY, THAT MOTION PASSES.

NEXT UP, AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 2, MS. TANYA TOMANEK.

>> GOOD AFTERNOON. MY NAME IS TANYA TOMANEK.

I CURRENTLY RESIDE AT 340 NORTH CLAY STREET, ST. AUGUSTINE, FLORIDA. I AM ASKING FOR SPECIAL USE TO MOVE A SINGLE WIDE MOBILE HOME TO A CURRENT PIECE OF PROPERTY THAT I OWN WHICH IS ACTUALLY TWO LOTS OVER FROM WHERE I CURRENTLY LIVE, AND I'M TRYING TO GET MOM FROM ILLINOIS DOWN HERE.

IT IS MIXED USE. IT IS A 300 BLOCK OF NORTH CLAY STREET. JUST NORTH OF CHAPA.

RESIDENTIAL. FUTURE LAND USE IS RESIDENTIAL D. AND THEN THERE'S THE ZONING MANY MAP RS-3 WHICH IS WHY WE'RE HERE.

I GUESS THAT IT IS MIXED USE NEIGHBOR AS .

THERE'S A MOBILE HOME DIRECTLY ACROSS THE STREET.

WIEWL YOU'LL SEE THE YELLOW IS WHERE THE PROPOSED MOBILE HOME IS GOING TO BE, AND THEN THE HOE TO THE SOUTH OF IT IS WHERE I LIVE. AND THERE'S A SITE MAP.

[00:15:06]

AND THAT WOULD BE LOOKING FROM THE FRONT PORCH TO MY HOUSE, CLOSE ENOUGH TO HAVE MOM BUT NOT TOO CLOSE.

MOBILE HOME SITE PLAN. THIS IS THE PICTURE OF THE MOBILE HOME. IT DOES CURRENTLY HAVE A FRONT PORCH ON IT. I'M NOT MOVING THAT WITH IT.

I TO DO PLAN ON PUTTING IN A RAMP, HANDICAP ACCESSIBLE RAMP FOR MOM. AND THEN THERE'S THE FLOOR PLAN OF THE MOBILE HOME AND I THINK THAT'S IT.

I THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND CONSIDERATION, AND IF YOU HAVE

ANY QUESTIONS. >> DOES ANYBODY HAVE EX PARTE TO DISCLOSE? SEEING NONE, DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? ARE THERE ANY PUBLIC SPEAKER

CARDS? >> NONE.

>> SEEING NO PUBLIC SPEAKER CARDS, WE'RE BACK INTO THE AGENCY FOR A MOTION OR FURTHER DISCUSSION.

>> MADAME CHAIR, I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE SPECIAL USE PERMIT 2021-07, THE TOMANEK MOBILE HOME, A REQUEST FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW FOR THE USE OF A MANUFACTURED/MOBILE HOME AS A RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY ZONING PURSUANT TO THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE SECTION 22 HADN'T .03.08 LOCATED ON NORTH CLAY STREET BASED ON SEVEN FINDINGS FACT AND SUBJECT TO TEN CONDITIONS ANSWER PROVIDED IN THE STAFF REPORT.

>> DO I HAVE A SECOND? >> SECOND.

[3. ZVAR 2021-022 3970 Palm Street Pool. Request for a Zoning Variance to Land Development Code, Table 6.01 to allow a second Front Yard setback of 20’ in lieu of the 25’ requirement on a Corner Lot to accommodate construction of a swimming pool, specifically located at 3970 Palm Street.]

>> MOTION BY MR. PIERRE. I'M GOING TO GIVE THE SECOND TO DR. HILSENBECK. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? GO AHEAD AND PLACE A VOTE. THAT MOTION PASSES.

THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU.

>> NEXT ON THE AGENDA IS ITEM NUMBER 3, MS. KEWIN.

>> GOOD AFTERNOON. MY NAME IS ELAINE KEWIN.

I LIVE AT 3970 PALM STREET. I'M HERE TO REQUEST A SECOND YARD SETBACK OF 15 FEET IN PLACE OF THE 25-FOOT REQUIREMENT OF A CORNER LOT SO THAT I CAN PUT IN A SWIMMING POOL.

IF YOU LOOK AT PAGE 5 IN YOUR REPORT, YOU'LL SEE AN AERIAL VIEW OF MY PROPERTY, AND YOU CAN KIND OF SEE FROM THAT WHERE THE HOUSESITS TOWARDS THE BACK OF THE PROPERTY.

IT'S ABOUT 13 FEET TO THE BACK LOT LINE, 13 FEET TO THE SIDE LOT LINE, SO MY ONLY OPPORTUNITY TO PUT A POOL IN IS ON THE SECOND FRONT LOT LINE ALONG 15TH STREET.

OR SURVEY IN THE BLUE RECTANGLE SHOWS WHERE I WOULD LIKE TO PUT THE SWIMMING POOL. AND THEN PAGE 7, I'VE JUST GIVEN YOU A EXUM EXAMPLES OF NEIGHBORS OF NEIGHBORS IN MY IMMEDIATE NEIGHBORHOOD TO LIVE ON CORNER LOTS THAT HAVE ALSO PUT IN A SWIMMING POOL ON A SECONDARY FRONT LOT.

PAGE 8 GIVES YOU THE VISUAL PHOTO OF MY HOUSE AND THE RED ARROW SHOWING WHERE I WOULD LIKE TO PUT THE POOL.

AND I THINK THAT'S IT FOR ME. THANK YOU FOR YOUR

CONSIDERATION. >> THANK YOU.

IS THERE ANY EX PARTE? >> NO.

>> YES, I SPHRITD THE PROPERTY AND I SPOKE TO MS. KEWIN.

>> THANK YOU, MR. PIERRE. IS THERE ANY QUESTIONS OF THE APPLICANT? ARE THERE ANY PUBLIC SPEAKER

CARDS? >> NO PUBLIC SPEAKER CARDS,

MA'AM. >> SEEING NO PUBLIC SPEAKER CARDS, WE'RE BACK INTO THE AGENCY FOR A MOTION.

>> MADAME CHAIR, I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE ZONING VARIANCE 21 TWUNT-22 SUBJECT TO SEVEN CONDITIONS AND FIVE

[4. ZVAR 2021-26 125 Las Palmas Lane Screen Enclosure. Request for a Zoning Variance to Table 6.01 of the Land Development Code to allow a Side Yard setback of 2’ in lieu of 5’ required in Residential, General (RG-1) zoning allowing for a screened patio enclosure, specifically located at 125 Las Palmas Lane.]

FINDINGS OF FACT AS PROVIDED IN THE STAFF REPORT.

>> WE HAVE A MOTION BY MR. PETER.

DO WE HAVE A SECOND? >> I'LL SECOND.

>> SECOND BY DR. MCCORMICK. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? SEEING NONE, GO AHEAD AND VOTE. THAT MOTION PASSES.

THANK YOU. ENJOY YOUR POOL.

ITEM NUMBER 4, MS. PRESS KE. >> HI.

I'M TERRY PRESS EXCEPT CURRENTLY RESIDE A 125 LAS PALMAS LANE, AND I AM EXAMINING FOR CONSIDERATION TO PUT IN A SCREEN DISCLOSURE ENCLOSURE WITH A 2-FOOT SETBACK FROM THE FENCE LINE VERSUS THE REQUIRED 5 FEET FENCE LINE.

AS YOU CAN SEE, I LIVE IN A DUPLEX HERE.

I'M TO THE LEFT. MY NEIGHBOR IS TO THE RIGHT.

SHE CURRENTLY HAS A SUNROOM THAT IS APPROXIMATELY 2 FEET FROM THE

[00:20:01]

FENCE LINE. LET ME GET TO THE BIGGER PICTURES HERE. SO AS YOU CAN SEE FROM THE BACK, WHEN I MOVED AND TOOK POSSESSION OF THE PROPERTY IN MARCH, THAT PERGOLA WAS ALREADY THERE. IT WAS NOT PROPERLY PERMITTED.

SO IT WAS REQUESTED THAT I REMOVE THAT.

THAT HAS SINCE BEEN REMOVED. BUT WHEN I GO 5 FEET, APPROXIMATELY WHERE THIS UMBRELLA IS HERE, THAT'S APPROXIMATELY 5 FEET FROM THE FENCE LINE, IT TOTALLY ELIMINATES QUITE A BIT OF SQUARE FOOTAGE THAT I HAVE AVAILALE DUE TO THE FACT OF THE TOP GRAPHY AND THE FACT THAT MY HOLE PROPERTY IS APPROXIMATELY ONLY 1,000 SQUARE FEET, SO I'M ASKING FOR CONSIDERATION TO BE APPROXIMATELIY 2 FEET FROM THE FENCE LINE TO START THE SCREEN ENCLOSURE.

IS THERE ANY QUESTIONS? >> I HAVE ONE.

THE WOODEN FENCE, IS THAT ON THE PROPERTY LINE RIGHT NOW?

>> YES. SO THIS IS THE ACTUAL -- SO THIS IS ACTUALLY THE PROPERTY LINE RIGHT HERE, IS THE FENCE.

>> AND YOU'RE GOING TO START YOUR SCREEN ENCLOSURE TWO 2 FEET

IN. >> 2 FEET, SO IT WOULD BE APPROXIMATELY RIGHT ABOUT HERE IS WHERE THE SCREEN ENCLOSURE

WOULD START. >> I HAVE NO OTHER QUESTIONS.

BEFORE WE HAVE OTHER QUESTIONS, DO WE HAVE EX PARTE TO DECLARE?

>> YES. I ALSO DROVE BY THE PROPERTY A

COUPLE DAYS AGO. >> THANK YOU, MR. PIERRE.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OF THE APPLICANT?

ARE THERE PUBLIC SPEAKERS? >> NO PUBLIC SPEAKERS, MA'AM.

>> WE'RE BACK INTO THE AGENCY FOR A MOTION.

>> MADAME CHAIR, I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE ZONING VARIANCE 2021-26 SUBJECT TO SEVEN FINDINGS, 7 CONDITIONS AND

[5. ZVAR 2021-25 Baker/Pindzia Home (1300 Ponce de Leon St). Request for a Zoning Variance to Land Development Code, Table 6.01 to allow a Front Yard setback of three (3) feet in lieu of the 25-foot requirement in Residential, Single Family (RS-3) zoning.]

FIVE FINDINGS OF FACT AS PROVIDED IN THE STAFF REPORT.

>> OKAY. WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE BY MR. PETER. DO WE HAVE A SECOND?

>> SECOND. >> SECOND BY DR. HILSENBECK.

IS THERE ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? SEEING NONE, GO AHEAD AND VOTE.

THAT MOTION PASSES. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

>> NEXT WE HAVE ITEM NUMBER 5, CATHERINE PINDZIA.

SORRY IF I MISPRONOUNCED THAT. >> IT'S PINDZIA, BUT IT'S OKAY.

>> GO AHEAD. >> MY NAME IS CATHERINE PINDZIA

1300 PONCE DE LEON STREET. >> ROBERT LANCE BAKER 1360

CYPRESS POINT DRIVE. >> AND WE ARE HERE REQUESTING A VARIANCE OF A FRONT YARD SETBACK OF 3 FEET TO MATCH OUR ADDITION WITH THE EXISTING STRUCTURE. OUR CURRENT HOME THAT WAS BUILT IN 1973, TO BRING ALL INTO THE COUNTY'S CURRENT CODE AT OUR RESIDENCE. WE HAVE OUR LOCATION MAP.

WE ARE IN MENENDEZ MARK ON ANASTASIA ISLAND.

OUR CURRENT ZONING IS RESIDENTIAL 3.

OUR FUTURE LAND USE IS RESIDENTIAL C.

OUR FLOOD ZONE MAP. AND OUR AERIAL MAP.

I DID PUT IN YELLOW, THAT'S OUR CURRENT HOME WITH ITS PORCHES AND DRIVEWAY. I THEN ADDED WHAT WE ARE TRYING TO DO, THE BACK END OF THAT IS A COVERED PORCH.

IT'S NOT THE ENTIRE STRUCTURE, BUT IT DOES HAVE A ROOF OVER IT.

THERE IT IS IF YOU NEED TO SEE A LITTLE BIT BETTER.

THESE ARE PICTURES THAT ARE BETTER THAN THE ONES TURNED IN TO YOU GUYS. I APOLOGIZE.

OUR HOME IS BUILT IN 1973. IT'S BEEN THE IN FAMILY SINCE BEFORE THAT. WE ARE AT THE END OF A DEAD END STREET. WE WILL NOT BE FEIGN ANY NEIGHBORS BECAUSE WE ONLY HAVE TWO NEIGHBORS CHSH WHICH ARE ON THE OPERATES END WHICH IS THE EAST END OF OUR HOME.

OUR NEIGHBORS DO SIT IN THE SAME POSITION WE DO WHEN IT COMES TO THE PROPERTY LINES AND THE SETBACK AND THE STREET IN THE CURRENT NEIGHBORHOOD. WE HAVE OUR EXISTING SURFACE RATIOS, IF YOU'RE IN NEED OF THAT.

HERE'S THE SIDE VIEW TO SHOW OUR CURRENT HOME IS ACTUALLY, THE STRUCTURE ITSELF IS 26 FEET FROM THE STREET.

OUR PORCH IS 22 FEET. WE'RE NO ASKING TO GO CLOSER TO THE PAVED STREET. WE'RE JUST ASKING TO BE ALLOWED TO ADD ONTO OUR HOME TO THE LEFT, WHICH IS IN GREEN, TO MAKE IT LEGAL. THAT'S THE SIDE THAT WE WANT TO ADD ONTO. SO WE'LL STILL BE WELL OFF OF

THE PAVED STREET. >> IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE?

>> I DON'T BELIEVE SO. >> DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANY

EX PARTE TO DECLARE? >> I DROVE BY THE PROPERTY ON

THE WAY HERE TODAY. >> I ALSO DROVE BY AND SPOKE TO

[00:25:04]

NICK, I THINK? >> YES, THAT'S MY HUSBAND.

>> ANYBODY ELSE? ALL RIGHT.

ANYBODY HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OF THE APPLICANT?

>> I DO HAVE A QUESTION. >> GO AHEAD.

>> THERE IS A NOTE HERE FROM I GUESS THE BALLOT FAMILY, AND THEY'RE SAYING THAT HOW DOES THE COUNTY LET SOMEONE BUILD A HOUSE 3 FEET FROM THE STREET? YOU ARE BUILDING IN THE SAME

SPOT, RIGHT? >> YES.

WE'RE EXTENDING THE HOUSE. >> SO YOU'RE EXTENDING THE SITE.

YOU'RE NOT BRINGING IT CLOSER TO THE ROAD.

>> NO, SIR. >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS?

MR. PETER. >> YES.

I'M JUST CONFUSED FOR THE REQUEST.

IF YOU'RE BUILDING IN THAT DIRECTION AND EXPANDING YOUR HOUSE, IT LOOKS LIKE THIS REQUEST IS TO TAKE -- ENCROACH FURTHER TOWARDS PONCE DE LEON STREET.

>> IT'S NOT. WE'RE JUST GOING DIRECTLY WEST AND PONCE DE LEON STREET RUNS HE IS AND WEST.

EAST AND WEST. >> YOU'RE NOT COMING FURTHER

INTO THE STREET. >> NO, MA'AM.

>> ACTUALLY THE NEW ADDITION WILL BE IF SAME AS YOUR EXISTING

PORCH. >> YES, MA'AM.

>> AND SO THAT APPROXIMATELY WOULD BE -- WHAT? -- I DON'T

KNOW, 15 FEET FROM THE PAVEMENT? >> IT'S GOING TO BE --

>> THE PAVEMENT IS NOT ACTUALLY THE STREET.

THIS IS THE PART OF THE STREET THAT IS PAVED BECAUSE OF TOPOGRAPHY OF THE LAND BECAUSE OF OAK STREES AND STUFF.

>> IT WILL BE THAT FAR FROM THE PAVEMENT.

>> YES, MAINTAIN THE SAME DISTANCE, YES.

>> OKAY. >> 25 FEET.

RIGHT? >> IT'S 26 FEET FROM THE PAVEMENT BUT NOT FROM THE PROPERTY LINE.

>> RIGHT. >> THAT'S WHERE YOU THE GETS KIND OF CONFUSION BECAUSE THE STREET IS NOT ON THE PROPERTY

LINE. >> 26 FEET FROM THE HOUSE TO THE PAYMENT OF WHICH WE'LL MAINTAIN THE SAME.

>> CORRECT. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS?

DO WE HAVE ANY SPEAKER CARDS? >> NO SPEAKER CARDS, MA'AM.

>> I SEE NO SPEAKER CARDS. WE'RE BACK INTO THE AGENCY FOR A

MOTION OR FURTHER DISCUSSION. >> MADAME SPEAKER, I'D LOOK LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE VARIANCE FOR THE BAKER HOME, REQUEST FOR A ZONING VARIANCE OF CODE TO ALLOW A FRONT YARD SET LACK OF 3-FOOT IN LIEU OF 25-FOOT REQUIREMENT IN RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY ZONING SPECIFICALLY LOCATED AT 1300 PONCE DE LEON STREET BASED ON FIVE FINDINGS OF FACT AND SUBJECT TO SEVEN CONDITIONS AS APPROVED BY THE STAFF -- AS

PROVIDED IN THE STAFF REPORTS. >> WE HAVE A MOTION OF APPROVAL BY MR. PIERRE. DO WE HAVE A SECOND?

>> SECOND. >> SECOND BY DR. HILSENBECK.

IS THERE ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? SEEING NONE, GO AHEAD AND VOTE.

3. THAT MOTION PASSES.

>> THANK YOU. >> ITEM NUMBER 6 WAS CONTINUED,

[Items 8 & 9]

AWAY WE'RE GOING TO MOVE ON TO ITEM NUMBER 7.

MS. ACEVEDO. >> MADAME CHAIR, GROWTH MANAGEMENT. THE APPLICANT'S REP IS RUNNING JUST A LITTLE BIT BEHIND. I WOULD SUGGEST IF YOU'RE ABLE TO MAYBE MOVE TO ST. JOHNS COMMERCE EAST AND ALLOW THEM

SOME TIME TO GET HERE. >> SURE.

LATS GO AHEAD AND MOVE ON TO ITEMS NUMBER 8 AND NUMBER 9, SEEING THAT THEY WILL BE HERE CURRENTLY.

WHILE THE APPLICANT IS COMING, DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANY EX PARTE ON ITEM NUMBER 9? ANY EX PARTE ON ITEM NUMBER 9?

>> SORRY. MY FOOT FELL ASLEEP.

MY NAME IS JUSTIN CLARK, 4021 PONTE VEDRA BOULEVARD JACKSONVILLE BEACH 32250. WE ARE REQUESTING A SMALL SCALE TEMPERANCE PLAN AMOUNT OF AND ZONING CHANGE, AND I WOULD LIKE TO DISCUSS THEM IN COMPANION, IF THAT'S OKAY.

>> YES. >> FOR US THIS IS REALLY A, KIND OF A PHASE 2 OF A CURRENT PROJECT THAT'S BEEN SUCCESSFUL IN BRINGING IN NEW JOBS AND EXISTING -- AND KEEPING OUR COM.

AND IF I COULD, CAN I JUST START WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN

[00:30:01]

REQUEST? >> SURE.

>> OKAY. WE ARE REQUESTING THAT THE DESIGNATION FROM RURAL/SILVICULTURE BE CHANGED TO MIXED USE DISTRICT, AND WE'RE REQUESTING THIS BASED ON THE FINDING OF FACT BEING IN LINE WITH ALL THE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES OF NORTHEAST FLORIDA STRATEGIC REGIONAL POLICY, THE STRATEGIC REGIONAL POLICY PLAN AND FIRST COAST VISION, IN PARTICULAR BRINGING IN AND CREATING NEW JOBS.

IT'S ALSO CONSIST OF WITH SECTION OF ST. JOHNS COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE AND LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE.

BASICALLY, IN SUMMARY, 2 CHANGE ALLOWS FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT GROWTH PARENTS AND ASSESS DEMAND IN A COST EFFICIENT AND ENVIRONMENTALLY ACCEPTABLE MANNER AND THEN FINALLY IT MEETS THE GOALS, OBJECT TIFFS, POLICIES OF THE ST. JOHNS COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, IN PARTICULAR POLICIES A125, 17, 31 AND BE 115.2.

I COULD GO THROUGH EACH OF THOSE, BUS BASICALLY IN SUMMARY, IT'S DIFFERENT CONSIST OF WITH GOALS, OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES.

IT'S CONSIST OF WITH THE FLORIDA STRATEGIC POLICY, CAUSES NO HARM OR STRESS TO PUBLIC SERVICE FACILITIES, SERVICES AND FACILITIES, AND IT'S COMPATIBLE WITH THE SURROUNDING USES.

WITH THAT, DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? AND I COULD GO -- ROLL INTO ZONING, IF NOT.

>> ANYBODY HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THE COMP PLAN AMENDMENT OR

YOU CAN HOLD THEM TO THE END. >> I'D LIKE TO YOU SHOW THE AERIAL PHOTO OF THE SITE AGAIN, PLEASE.

I DON'T HAVE THESE AS HARD COPIES UP HERE, SO I'M AT A DISADVANTAGE. THAT'S WHY I DON'T MAKE MOTIONS FOR APPROVAL USUALLY, BECAUSE YOU CAN'T READ THE WHOLE THING.

>> OKAY. SO THIS IS THE CURRENT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. PHYLUM FLUM MAP.

IS THAT THE ONE WANTED TO SEE? >> AERIAL PHOTO.

>> I'M SORRY. THIS.

SO THE AREA IS NAMED DEVELOPMENT AREA.

>> RIGHT. I WANTED TO SEE THE AREA WITHOUT THAT BLOCKED OFF, THE AERIAL PHOTO.

YOU PASSED IT ALREADY. >> OH, OKAY.

SORRY. >> THIS IS ALL I HAVE UP HERE.

>> IT'S IN THE PACKET. I'M GOING TO HAVE TO START GETTING THE FULL PACKET, I GUESS.

>> THIS ONE? >> YES, THAT ONE.

>> OKAY. SORRY.

>> DID YOU HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS?

>> I DON'T. I DON'T.

NOT ON THIS. >> IF THERE'S NO OTHER QUESTIONS, WE CAN GO AHEAD AND MOVE ON TO THE PUD AND WE CAN

HAVE OTHER QUESTIONS LAST. >> SO OUR PROJECT IS SIMILAR TO WHAT WE HAVE BEEN UNDER CONSTRUCTION ON THE WEST, AND THE REASON WE'RE REQUESTING A PUD AS OPPOSED TO A STRAIGHT ZONE IS THAT IT ALLOWS FOR US TO HAVE A LITTLE BIT MORE COHESIVE DEVELOPMENT. WE CALL IT, SOME PEOPLE CALL IT THE AMAZON EFFECT. WE CALL IT POST-COVID ENVIRONMENT, KIND OF A FORWARD FACING PROJECT.

IT'S -- IT ALLOWS FOR FLEXIBLE USES WINDS AN ENVIRONMENT THAT ALLOWS FOR -- WITHIN AN ENVIRONMENT THAT ALLOWS FOR THE ABILITY FOR STOREFRONT, OFFICE, WAREHOUSE ALL IN ONE PLACE THAT WE ARE. IT'S VERY IMPORTANT TO HAVE THE FLEXIBILITY OF THE USES, AND THEN WE ALSO TRY TO PARK IT WELL TO ACCOMMODATE THOSE USES, SO YOU MAY HAVE AN ECOMMERCE CENTER NEXT TO A DISTRIBUTION CENTER.

THAT SAID, IF I COULD, AND THIS IS SIMILAR TO ONE THAT WE FINISHED JUST NORTH OF THE SITE, AND THESE ARE SOME OF THE USES THAT HAVE GONE IN THERE. IF I COULD FOCUS ON THE REQUESTED WAIVERS. SO THE BEER AND WINE EXCEPTION, THERE IS NO CHURCH NEARBY, BUT THAT'S IN CASE ONE WERE, WE WOULD LIKE TO HAVE THIS APPROVED.

THE OPEN SPACE, WE WOULD LIKE TO USE THE POND AS PART OF THE OPEN

[00:35:04]

SPACE AS AN AMENITY. THE BUILDING AND PARTICLE SETBACK IS, THE REQUEST IS FROM 20-FOOT TO 10.

IF WE WENT WITH A STRAIGHT ZONE WE WOULDN'T NEED THIS, BUT AGAIN, BECAUSE OF THE FLEXIBILITY OF THE USE AND BECAUSE WE'RE TRYING -- WHAT WE'RE REQUESTING IS ACTUALLY A COMBINATION OF TOWN CENTER MIXED USE AND IW.

IT'S THOSE USES PLUS A COUPLE OF OTHERS THAT MAKE IT KIND OF A COHESIVE, FLEXIBLE USE THAT WE'RE REQUESTING.

SO WE'RE REQUESTING A 20-FOOT TO THE 10 BECAUSE IT IS A PUD.

AND THEN THE BUFFER SCREENING IS REALLY -- MOST OF WHAT'S AROUND US AND TO THE SOUTH -- I DON'T KNOW, IS THERE A POINTER? -- DOESN'T REQUIRED THE B BUT IN PLA THE AREA BEHIND US IS THE EAST, ACTUALLY, ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THE -- I'M SORRY, NOT ON THE NORTH -- THE TOP OF THE SCREEN IS EAST, BUT THAT'S CONSERVATION AREA RIGHT BEHIND US.

THOSE ARE WETLANDS. IF YOU NOTICE THE MAP, IT MINIMUMMICS THE MAP THAT YOU SAW ON THE AERIAL, SO THAT AREA BEHIND US REALLY DOESN'T -- WE HAD IN IT THERE BECAUSE WE DIDN'T WANT TO HAVE TO PUT UP A PAUL ON CONSERVATION LAND, WHICH PROBABLY DOESN'T MAKE SENSE BECAUSE YOU'RE ALREADY IN WETLANDS WHICH YOU CAN'T GET INTO ANYWAY, BUT WE JUST DIDN'T WANT TO HAVE TO COME BACK. IN PARTICULAR, WE'VE GOT THIS ONE AREA OVER HERE OFF TO THE, WHAT WOULD BE THE SOUTH.

THERE IS OPEN RURAL LAND RIGHT THERE, AND WE ARE REQUESTING THE 30C TO 20B, BUT WE ARE ALSO IN THE ZONING HAVE AGREED TO PUT UP OR WILL BE PLACING 8-FOOT HIGH OPAQUE FENCE ALONG THAT BOUNDER LINEY LINE. AND THEN WE'RE REQUESTING THE INCREMENTAL MVP IN PART BECAUSE -- MDP IN PART BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE -- THE WETLANDS WORLD, WE'RE STILL TRYING TO FIGURE OUT FINALIZING OUR SITE G THROUGH WITH OUR ENGINEERS ON WETLANDS. UNTIL WE CAN GET A LITTLE FURTHER ALONG, READ WE'D LIKE TO USE THE INCREMENTAL MDP.

AND WE APPRECIATE YOUR CONSIDERATION.

THANK YOU. >> ANYBODY HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OF

THE APPLICANT? >> I DO.

>> DR. HILSENBECK. >> I WAS WONDERING ABOUT YOUR WETLAND IMPACTS. THEY SEEM A BIT EXCESSIVE TO ME.

I DIDN'T THINK YOU NEEDED TO IMPACT THAT MUCH OF WETLAND BACK THERE. DO YOU INDEED, IN FACT, NEED TO? I KNOW YOU'RE WORKING THROUGH THAT, YOU SAID WITH, WITH YOUR ENGINEER AND ARE YOU BEING REQUIRED TO HAVE A, BASICALLY AN OPEN WATER FEATURE, A HOLDING POINTED BACK THERE?

>> WE WILL BE REQUIRED TO HAVE RETENTION ON THE SITE.

AND WHETHER OR NOT WE CAN OR DO IMPACT THE WETLAND IN PART DEPENDS ON IF IT IS A POSSIBILITY.

WE WOULD LIKE TO IMPACT THOSE WETLANDS, BUT THE PROJECT DOES NOT DEMAND THAT WE DO. WE HAVE, AS IT SITS RIGHT NOW, ABOUT 4-1/2 ACRES USABLE. SO IF IT IS SOMETHING THAT WE CAN DO AND STILL BE, YOU KNOW, SENSITIVE TO -- THERE'S CONSERVATION BEHIND US, BUT THAT AREA, IT'S NOT -- OUR ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER IS STILL RESEARCHING THAT FOR US, SO AS YOU SEE HERE, YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT, I'M ASSUMING, THE ACREAGE ATTACHED IN BOTH -- ON THAT LEFT SIDE THAT SAYS "IMPACTED

WETLANDS"? >> YES.

>> SO, YES, WE WOULD LIKE TO IMPACT THAT AREA, BUT WHETHER WE DO REALLY DEPENDS ON OUR ABILITY TO DO THAT WITH OUR ENGINEER.

IT'S KIND OF -- WE'RE NOT SURE IF WE'RE ABLE TO AT THIS TIME.

>> SO YOU SAID YOU WOULD LIKE TO IMPACT THE AREA?

>> YES, SIR. >> BY, YOU MEAN, REMOVE WETLANDS

AND HAVE A RETENTION POND? >> CORRECT.

WE WOULD LIKE TO IMPACT THOSE WETLANDS, OF COURSE, WE WOULD

[00:40:05]

PAY MITIGATION AND ALL THE OFFSETTING COSTS ASSOCIATE WITH

THAT, YES. >> AND IS THAT TO HAVE AN AMENITY THERE? YOU SAID YOU WANT THE BEER AND WINE OUT THERE AND PEOPLE OVERLOOKING AN OPEN WATER PIECE OF PROPERTY, SO FOR AESTHETIC VALUE.

IS THAT YOUR WANT TO DO THAT? BECAUSE I WOULD PERSONALLY RATHER SEE, RATHER THAN A RETENTION POND AND DESTROYED WETLANDS AND HABITAT, I'D RATHER SEE YOU LEAVE THE WETLAND THERE, IF YOU COULD GET BY WITH THAT AND NOT HAVE A RETENTION POND.

I THINK THERE ARE FAR TOO MANY RETENTION PONDS REQUIRED, ACTUALLY, IN MY OPINION, OFTEN ON SOILS THAT DON'T REQUIRE IT

THAT, PERK VERY WELL. >> CAN WE TAKE ONE SNOAMENT.

>> SURE. THAT'S -- THE ONE MOMENT?

>> SURE. THAT'S FINE WITH ME.

IF IT'S OKAY WITH THE CHAIR. >> YES

>> SO ON THE WETLANDS, WE ARE HOPING NOT TO HAVE TO IMPACT THEM, BUT IF WE DO, WE'RE STILL TRYING TO WORK THROUGH THAT, SO ON YOUR COMMENT ABOUT RETENTION PONDS, I BELIEVE THAT THE REQUIREMENT FOR THE RETENTION POND IS SOLELY FOR WATER FLOW.

I PREFER NOT TO HAVE TO HAVE THE RETENTION POND WERE IT NOT NEEDED, BUT IT IS BASED ON THE DEVELOPMENT CODE FOR THE POND ITSELF, NOT SO MUCH THE WETLAND IMPACT.

BUT I CAN'T DISAGREE WITH YOU. >> DID YOU COME BEFORE US MAYBE NINE MONTHS AGO ABOUT AN OIL CHANGE FACILITY THAT'S JUST NORTH OF THIS? THAT'S YOUR WEST PARCEL?

>> NO, SIR. >> WAS THAT YOU? SOMEBODY ELSE. OKAY.

ALL RIGHT. HATE TO VOTE ON SOMETHING BEFORE YOUR SITE PLANS ARE FINALIZED IN TERMS OF WETLAND DESTRUCTION AND A RETENTION POND. I WISH THIS COULD HAVE WAITED

UNTIL THAT WAS FINALIZED. >> DO YOU WANT ME TO COMMENT ON

THAT? >> IF YOU WANT TO.

>> WELL, WETLAND IMPACTS ARE -- THAT PROCESS IS LONG, AND AS I SAID, WE'RE HOPEFUL NOT TO HAVE TO IMPACT THEM, BUT IF WE DO, THAT DECISION WILL HAVE TO BE MADE AS WE WORK THROUGH THE SITE PLANNING WITH OUR ENGINEERS AND CIVIL ENGINEERS AND THE

ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERS. >> OKAY.

>> IS THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? I HAVE A FEW.

ONE ABOUT THE INCREMENTAL MDP MAP.

WHEN YOU GUYS GO IN AND GET IT CHANGED FOR WHATEVER REASON BECAUSE IT'S AN EVER-FLOWING DIFFERENT -- IT CHANGES DAY BY DAY, IS THAT REVIEWED BY STAFF OR DOES THE HAVE TO COME BACK

HERE? >> IT'S REVIEWED BY STAFF.

>> SO YOU WILL HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO LOOK AT IT.

>> YES. YES.

>> ALL RIGHT. AND THEN THE OTHER QUESTION I HAVE IS YOU GUYS ARE PLANNING TO VACATING A PORTION OF THAT

OLD DIXIE HIGHWAY, CORRECT? >> YES.

>> YOU WILL HAVE A WAY IN ON THOSE SIDES, I GUESS ONE FROM STERLING DRIVE AND THEN HILDEN ROAD?

>> STERLING PLAZA DRIVE DEFINITELY.

HILDEN MAYBE. IT IS A POSSIBLE FUTURE, BUT, OF COURSE, WE NEED ALL MEET ALL E REQUIREMENTS TO GO THAT WAY AS

WELL. >> I DON'T HAVE ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS?

>> I HAVE A COMMENT. IT'S NOT A QUESTION.

DO YOU WANT ME TO WAIT UNTIL AFTER A MOTION?

>> LET'S SEE IF THERE'S PUBLIC SPEAKER CARDS.

>> NONE, MA'AM. >> THEN WE'RE BACK INTO THE AGENCY FOR FURTHER COMMENTS AEROOR A MOTION.

>> I'LL GO AHEAD AND MAKE A COMMENT, IF I MAY.

>> SURE. >> WELL, I NORMALLY DON'T LIKE TO SEE RURAL/SILVICULTURE KITCHEN ZONED LAND CONVERTED FOR OTHER USES, BUT THIS IS NOT -- DOESN'T APPEAR TO BE REALLY A VIABLE AREA LEFT REMAINING HERE OF RURAL/SILVICULTURE AND THERE WAS ONE SIMILAR TO THIS. THAT'S WHY I ASKED IF IT WAS YOU

[00:45:03]

ABOUT NINE MONTHS AGO. YOU'VE GOT ALREADY DEVELOPMENT IN THERE. YOUR RIGHT BETWEEN THE MIXED USE DISTRICT AND NOCATEE PORTION, NEWTOWN THERE, SO THIS I THINK IS FINE, WOULD FIT INTO MY CRITERIA OF VOTING FOR IT.

SO THAT'S IT. THANK YOU.

>> ANY OTHER COMMENTS? OPEN FOR A MOTION.

>> MADAME CHAIR, I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF SMALL SCALE COMP PLAN AMENDMENT 2021-03 ST. JOHNS COMMERCE EAST

BASED ON FOUR FINDINGS OF FACT. >> WE HAVE A MOTION FOR APPROVAL BY MR. PETER. DO WE HAVE A SECOND?

>> SECOND. >> SECOND BY MR. PIERRE.

ANY DISCUSSION? SEEING NONE, LET'S REGISTER THE VOTE. THAT MOTION PASSES.

GO AHEAD TO AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 9.

ANY DISCUSSION? SEEING NONE, CAN I HAVE A

MOTION? >> MADAME CHAIR, MOTION TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT 2021-04 ST.

[7. PUD 2021-07 Winding Oaks. Request to rezone approximately 217.36 acres of land from Open Rural (OR) to Planned Unit Development (PUD) to allow for a maximum 279 single family residential units.]

JOHNS COMMERCE EAST BASED ON NINE FINDINGS OF FACT AS LIVED

IN THE STAFF REPORT. >> MOTION FOR A APPROVAL BY MR. PETER. DO I HAVE A SECOND?

>> SECOND. >> SECOND BY MR. PIERRE.

ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? SEEING NONE, LET'S REGISTER THE VOTE. THAT MOTION PASSES.

>> THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU.

I SEE MS. ACEVEDO. IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO GO BACK TO

AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 7. >> THANK YOU.

SHANNON ACEVEDO FOR THE RECORD WITH MATTHEWS DESIGN GROUP, 7 WALDO STREET, AND MY APOLOGIES FOR NOT BEING HERE RIGHT AT THE ITEM. SO THANK YOU FOR THAT FLEXIBILITY. TODAY WE'RE HERE TO TALK ABOUT WINDING OAKS, AND MY CLIENT A POLTY HOME COMPANY JUSTIN IS HERE AS WELL AS OUR ENGINEER CHRIS BUTTERMORE ALSO WITH MATTHEWS DESIGN GROUP. I ALSO WANTED TO MENTION FOR ENVIRONMENTAL WE HAVE JODY 6:00 WITH ACCESS ECOLOGICAL SERVICES, NOT IN ATTENDANCE BUT ALSO PART OF THE TEAM AND BE RAJ EESH KIDNEYLER ON TRAFFIC. SO HERE WE'RE LOOKING AT A PIECE OF PROPERTY JUST ON THE EAST SIDE OF ALLEN EAST ROAD WHICH GOES INTO VERMONT BOULEVARD ON THE NORTH SIDE OF STATE ROAD 207. AND JUST FOR PERSPECTIVE, IN TERMS OF THE DEVELOPMENTS AND LAND USES AROUND, YOU CAN SEE THAT THIS IS RESIDENTIAL B. THERE'S ALSO RESIDENTIAL B TO THE SOUTH AND THEN A MIXED USE NODE THAT GOES AROUND STATE ROAD 207 AND I-95, ALONG WITH SEVERAL OTHER DEVELOPMENTS, SUCH AS COQUINA CROSSING AND THE ST. JOHNS COUNTY GOLF CLUB.

AND JUST FOR PERSPECTIVE, LOOKING AT THE SURROUNDING DEVELOPMENT AND POTENTIAL FUTURE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT, YOU DO HAVE SOME TENTATIVE APPLICATIONS, SUCH AS PARISH FARMS, JUST TO GIVE YOU PERSPECTIVE OF WHERE WE ARE ALONG THAT CORRIDOR, AND THEN WHAT YOU SEE THERE IN RED IS ACTUALLY A SINGLE PROPERTY OWNER, NO DEVELOPMENTS I'M AWARE OF RIGHT NOW BUT I JUST NOT THAT MIGHT BE INTERESTING TO SEE AS FAR AS THE EXISTING DEVELOPMENT VERSUS THE SURROUNDING AREA AND WHERE THIS PROJECT FALLS WITHIN THAT PUZZLE. SO CURRENTLY THIS IS ZONED OPEN RURAL. IT IS IN A RESIDENTIAL B, WHICH IS PART OF THE DEVELOPMENT AREA. AND WHAT WE ARE PROPOSING IS REZONING TO A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, AND THAT SPECIFICALLY IS TO PROVIDE FOR 279 SINGLE FAMILY HOMES.

THIS IS ON 217 GROSS ACRES, JUST TO GIVE YOU PERSPECTIVE OF EXPOAP AND DENSITY. AND CAN BE SCOPE AND DENSITY, AND WITH THIS PROJECT WE ARE PROPOSING TO PRESERVE A LARGE CONTIGUOUS WETLAND AND ECOLOGICAL SYSTEM.

WE'RAL PROPOSING RECREATIONAL CONNECTIONS FROM RAILS TO TRAILS WHICH A ABUT THE PROJECT TO THE WEST, AND WE'LL BE PRESERVING AB SUBSTANTIAL EXAMINERRIC HAMMOCK PARK AREA THAT WILL BE ACCESSIBLE BY THE PUBLIC. OTHER BENEFITS INCLUDING PARTICIPATING IN PRE-FUNDING THE FUTURE ST. JOHNS COUNTY REGIONAL UTILITY EXPANSION FACILITY, WHICH IS CURRENTLY BEING PLANNED EVEN FOR EXISTING DEVELOPMENT BUT ALSO FOR FUTURE DEMAND.

[00:50:05]

AND LAST I WANTED TO MENTION THAT THIS PROJECT ALSO WILL CONTRIBUTE $750,000 TO HELP FUND THE FIRE/SHERIFF FACILITY THAT HAS BEEN RECENTLY PLANNED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF STATE ROAD 207.

SO GETTING INTO A LITTLE BIT OF THE DETAILS, THIS IS OUR MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN MAP. YOU CAN SEE THAT WITHIN THE PROPERTY, THE ACTUAL LOTS THEMSELVES ARE VERY EXACT LOCATED, AND THAT'S COMPACTLY LOCATED AND THAT ALLOWS TO US RESERVE 101 WETLANDS WHICH IS THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE WETLANDS ON SITE.

HOW WE GET TO THE 279 IS BASED ON THE BASE DENSITY FOR RES-B WHICH IS 2 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE PLUS THE WETLAND DENSITY BONE, AND YOU ALSO WE ARE PROPOSING TO PRESERVE JUST OVER 17 ACRES OF UPLANDS ADJACENT TO CONTIGUOUS WETLANDS.

AS I MENTIONED, 4.73 ACRES OF XERIC OAK HABITAT ARE PROPOSED TO BE PRESERVED. THIS IS ABOUT 40% OF THE EXISTING, WHICH IS FOUR TIMES, NEARLY FOUR TIMES THE CODE REQUIREMENT MINIMUM WHICH IS 10%.

AND AS YOU CAN SEE, THE MAIN ACCESSES OFF STATE ROAD 207 WITH VERY MINOR SECONDARY ACCESS ON VERMONT BOULEVARD OVER IN THIS AREA. SO TO SOME OF YOU THIS PROJECT IS GOING TO HAVE A LITTLE BIT OF DEJA VU.

THAT IS BECAUSE -- I DON'T KNOW WHAT HAPPENED THERE -- WE HAVE SEEN THIS PROJECT A COUPLE OF TIMES BEFORE.

FIRST AS IN 2016, AN APPLICATION WAS MADE BY A DIFFERENT APPLICANT FOR A PUD, AND THE PZA BOARD HAD RECOMMENDED APPROVAL FOR THAT, HOWEVER, AT THE TIME THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DIDN'T FEEL IT WAS THE RIGHT TIME TO MAKE SUCH AN IMPROVEMENT BECAUSE OF SOME OF THE PENDING ENTITLEMENTS THAT WERE THERE IN THE TIME OF ABOUT FIVE YEARS AGO AS WELL AS THAT PARTICULAR APPLICATION CAME WITH A FIRE STATION SITE THAT WASN'T EXACTLY IDEAL, AND SO THE PROPERTY SAT FOR A LITTLE BIT.

I THINK WE'RE STILL WAITING TO GET BACK TO THE -- SHOULD I JUST FLIP BACK THROUGH? OKAY.

SO TRAIT, WE DID AT ANY RATD COME WALK WITH A COMPREHENSIVE LAND AMENDMENT TO RES-EXRSM AND THAT EXAIM QUAY TEXT AMENDMENT LIMITING 360 UNITS. IF YOU RECALL, THAT ALSO INCLUDED SOME LOTS ON THAT EASTERN FINGER.

HOWEVER, THAT DID -- THAT TRANSMITTAL DID NOT MOVE FORWARD, AND SO WE ARE HERE BACK TODAY TO INTRODUCE A REVISED PUD THAT LIVES WITHIN THE EXISTING DESIGNATION OF RESIDENTIAL B, SCALING BACK THOSE UNITS TO 279, AND THEN ALSO INCORPORATING THAT UPLAND PRESERVATION AREA I JUST MENTIONED. SO I DID WANT TO MENTION, AND YOU CAN SEE THIS VERY WELL ON THIS DIAGRAM, WHAT YOU SEE IN GREEN THERE, THOSE ARE THE APPROXIMATE 100-PLUS ACRES OF WETLAND TO BE PRESERVED. THERE ARE ONLY 102.7 WETLAND ACRES ON WINDING OAKS SITE AND AN APPROXIMATELY 1.71 TO BE IMPACTED. OF THOSE 1.71, THE LARGER OF THAT IS NEEDED IN ORDER TO MAKE THIS ROAD CROSSING ACROSS THE WETLAND. THAT'S WHAT THOSE IMPACTS ARE.

THERE ARE A COUPLE VERY SMALL POCKETED, ISOLATED WETLAND, AS YOU CAN SEE, PROPOSED TO BE IMPACTED, BUT VERY SMALL.

IN FACT, THE ROADWAY IS .84 OF THAT 1.71.

AND IN TERMS OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL RECREATION, YOU CAN SEE HERE A LITTLE BIT CLOSER WHERE THOSE POINTS OF CONNECTION ARE GOING TO BE FROM THE RAILS TO TRAILS, TO THE PARK AREA.

THIS IS AN EXAMPLE. ONE OF THE TREES THAT'S WITHIN THAT XERIC HAMMOCK AREA TO BE PRESERVED.

AND YOU CAN SEE HOW THAT CONNECTION WOULD BE MADE AND HOW IT WOULD CARRY THROUGH TO THE TRAIL THAT WILL BE ACCESSIBLE BY THE PUBLIC AS WELL AS THOSE LIVING IN WINDING OAKS.

IN FACT, IN TOTAL WE'RELINING LOOKING AT 7 PLUS ACRES RECREATIONAL AREAS WITHIN THE COMMUNITY, INCLUDING A LOW IMPACT TRAIL SYSTEM, AN AMENITY CENTER THAT'S FORWARD AS YOU COME INTO THE SITE, AND THEN SOME OTHER SMALLER TRAILL SIDE

[00:55:03]

PARKS AND COMMON AREAS. ALSO JUST WANTED TO MENTION THAT THIS AREA HERE CIRCLED IS THE ST. JOHNS COUNTY WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT. THEY ARE WORKING ON A LONG-TERM PLAN TO EXPAND THAT TO A 2.5 MILLION-GALLON PLANT.

HAVING THIS PROJECT COME ONLINE HERE IS VERY TIMELY BECAUSE IT CAN HELP CONTRIBUTE TO THAT MASTER PLAN FOR THE UTILITIES DIVISION. MY ROUGH MAP ESTIMATE IT WOULD BE ABOUT $1.3 MILLION FOR WINDING OAKS.

THAT WOULD BE THE CONTRIBUTION. AND THAT WOULD BE ALSO HELPFUL JUST IN TERMS OF CONTRIBUTING TO A GROWING CORRIDOR, AS YOU SAW EARLIER, ALONG THIS STATE ROAD 207.

IN TERMS OF PUBLIC SERVICE BENEFITS, I DID MENTION THE 750,000 DONATION. THIS WOULD BE FOR THE SITE THAT THE ST. JOHNS COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS HAD DESIGNATED AS THE SITE TO FOCUS ON FOR THE FIRE/SHERIFF COMBO STATION TO SERVE THE SOUTHWEST. WE THINK THAT MAKING THIS MONETARY DONATION WILL HELP GET THE CONSTRUCTION GOING QUICKER AND ALSO BE TIMELY WITH THIS DEVELOPMENT COMING ONBOARD, NOT JUST FOR THIS DEVELOPMENT, BUT THERE'S ALSO SOME MEDICAL BEING BUILT AS WELL AS OTHER RESIDENCES THAT ARE CURRENTLY BEING BUILT, SUCH AS ENTRADA, AS WELL AS IF REST OF THE EXISTING RESIDENTIAL AREAS. IN FACT, OVER 2100 HOMES TODAY ARE CURRENTLY CONSTRUCTED OUTSIDE THE 5 MILE ROAD DISTANCE, SO THIS WILL HELP CLOSE THAT GAP EVEN QUICKER.

AND HERE YOU CAN KIND OF SEE WITH THAT THAT 5-MILE LOOKS LIKE AND WHERE THE GAP EXISTS, THAT PINK AREA IS THE CURRENT SERVICE AREA. THAT WOULD ALL BE CLOSED FROM THE EASTERN PART OF ST. JOHNS COUNTY ALL THE WAY TO HASTINGS WITH THE BUILDING OF THIS NEW INFRASTRUCTURE.

AND THAT'S THE ROAD NETWORK THAT IT WOULD SUPPORT.

IN TERMS OF TRAFFIC ANALYSIS, WE DID LOOK AT OVER 65 MILES, THIS IS A 4-MILE RADIUS STUDY AREA. OF THAT ONLY 1.38 MILES WERE CONSIDERED TO BE IMPACTED AND ONLY .81, SO LESS THAN 1 MILE, WAS CONSIDERED ADVERSELY IMPACTED.

WHEER LOOKING TO MITIGATE FOR THAT ADVERSE IMPACT AT ABOUT $405,000. AND YOU CAN SEE THE RED AREA, THOSE LITTLE SEGMENTS, THAT'S THE ADVERSE.

THE ORANGE IS THE IMPACTED. IN TERMS OF SCHOOLS, STUDENT GENERATION AND CAPACITY, WE DID RECEIVE A LETTER FROM THE SCHOOL DISTRICT THAT THERE IS CAPACITY. AND THEN IN TERMS OF TOTAL STUDENT GENERATION TO BE EXPECTED, WE'RE THINKING 70 STUDENTS FOR THIS SUBDIVISION. AND SO WITH THAT, I'LL CLOSE OUT. THE PUD IS COMPATIBLE, AS YOU HAVE SEEN, WITH SOME OF THE ADJACENT PROPERTIES AND DEVELOPMENTS WITHIN THE AREA. IT'S DIRECTLY ACCESSED ROAD IS NOT ADVERSELY IMPACTED. IN FACT, THE ADVERSELY IMPACTED ROAD SEGMENTS IS ONLY UNDER 1 MILE FOR THE 4-MILE RADIUS.

IT'S CONSIST OF WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND IT MEETS THE CRITERIA OF THE RESIDENTIAL B LAND USE DESIGNATION, SIGNIFICANT PUBLIC BENEFITS COME WITH THIS PROJECT, INCLUDING THE $750,000 CONTRIBUTION TO FIRE PUBLIC SAFETY FACILITIES, PARK CONNECTIONS AND HELPING TO PRE-FUND IF UTILITY INFRASTRUCTURE. AND WITH THAT, WE REQUEST YOUR RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL FOR THIS PUD.

I'LL STAND BY IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, AND MY CLIENT IS HERE

AS WELL. >> THANK YOU.

BEFORE WE GET TO QUESTIONS, DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANY SPART?

>> I DROVE BY -- EXPHAR. >> I DROVE BY THIS BACK IN 2020 WHEN IT WAS BEING PROPOSED, SO I DIDN'T DRIVE BY IT AGAIN, SO

I'VE BEEN BY IT MANY TIMES. >> ANYBODY ELSE?

SEEING NONE, DR. HILSENBECK. >> OKAY.

LET'S JUST TALK ABOUT THE ROAD SEGMENTS FIRST.

IT STATES IN YOUR APPLICATION, ACTUALLY -- I DON'T KNOW WHAT PAGE BECAUSE I TOOK THESE NOTES FROM LOOKING AT IT ON A COMPUTER LIRCHGHTSDZS ARE CONSIDERED ADVERSELY IMPACTED WITH OR WITHOUT THE ADDITION OF WINDING OAKS.

YOU SAID THERE'S REALLY ONLY ONE THAT'S ADVERSELY IMPACTED?

>> YES, AND THANK YOU FOR BRINGING THAT UP.

I PROBABLY DO NEED TO CLARIFY THE RECORD THERE BECAUSE WHEN WE FIRST STARTED WORKING ON THIS PROJECT, OUR STUDY SHOWED THAT THERE WERE FOUR ROAD SEGMENTS. WE LATER HAD AN UPDATED STUDY AND COUNTS AND FOUND THAT THAT WAS REDUCED.

SO I WILL MAKE SURE AND WORK WITH STAFF THAT EVERYTHING IS

[01:00:03]

CONSIST OF WITH THOSE MATERIALS. >> OKAY.

YOU HAD AN EXHAUSTIVE ROAD STUDY IN THERE, BUT IT WAS REALLY CAMPUSTIVE. IT'S HARD TO READ SOME OF THAT STUFF. YOU HAVE TO REALLY BE A TRAFFIC ENGINEER TO FULLY GRASP IT. EVEN WITH THAT, AND IT CAME UP WITH FOUR ROAD SEGMENTS WERE ADVERSELY IMPACTED.

NOW YOU'RE SAYING IT IS ONE. >> YES, LESS THAN ONE.

>> THE COST TO UPGRADE THAT COUNTY SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT OUT THERE, A 2.5 MILLION-GALLON CAPACITY, Y'ALL WERE GOING TO CONTRIBUTE APPROXIMATELY $1.3 MILLION TO THAT.

DO YOU KNOW, DO YOU HAVE ANY IDEA WHAT COST MIGHT BE OF FULLY

UPGRADING THAT FACILITY? >> I DON'T KNOW EXACTLY.

LAST I HEARD, OF COURSE, COSTS ARE INCREASING FOR EVERYTHING THESE DAYS, BUT I THINK IT'S AROUND THE BALLPARK OF

$40 MILLION. >> 40?

>> FOR THE LONG-TERM PLAN, YES. >> OKAY.

AND YOU CONTRIBUTE THE 1.3. OKAY.

THERE'S A LETTER THAT WE RECEIVED TODAY WHEN WE WALKED IN FROM SOMEBODY THAT VERMONT HEIGHT SUBDIVISION, PRETTY VEHEMENTLY OBJECTIONING TO Y'ALL HAVING A SECONDARY ACCESS AND INGRESS/EGRESS INTO VERMONT HEIGHTS.

THEY SAID THAT'S A PRIVATE COMMUNITY, PRIVATE ROAD AND ALL THAT, AND SO HOW ARE YOU GOING TO ADDRESS THAT YOU? SAID A MINUTE AGO IT WOULD BE A VERY MINOR SECONDARY ACCESS OFF

VERMONT BOULEVARD. >> YES, AND I ACTUALLY HAVE AN EXHIBIT THAT MIGHT BE HELPFUL TD COME OFF VERMONT BOULEVARD.

>> AND YOU CAN ENSURE THAT PEOPLE WILL OR WILL NOT USE

THAT? >> WELL, LET ME SAY THIS.

WEAVED A TRAFFIC WE HAVEE WITH TURNING MOTIONS BASED ON WHAT WHOB THE REASONABLE EGRESSL EGRESS REASONABLE EGRESS AND INGRESS, AND SO I THINK THIS IS PROBABLY THE BEST EXHIBIT, AND I KNOW IT'S A LITTLE BIT HARD TO READ, BUT ESSENTIALLY THIS AREA HERE IS THE MAIN ENTRANCE OFF STATE ROAD 207. AS YOU SAW FROM THE PLAN, THERE IS A COST ASSOCIATED WITH MAKING THAT CONNECTION.

WE DO HAVE TO CROSS SOME WETLANDS TO GET TO THE MAIN TRACT. BUT THE PROPERTY DOES ABUT DIRECTLY TO VERMONT BOULEVARD AND COULD POTENTIALLY, IF IT WERE TO BE DEVELOPED WITHOUT THAT ENTRANCE, COULD HAVE ACCESS OFF OF THAT ROAD. WE WANTED TO TRY AND DEFER AS MUCH TRAFFIC AS POSSIBLE OFF VERMONT BOULEVARD, WHICH IS WHY WE'RE HAVING DEDICATED LANES FOR PEOPLE EXITING WINDING OAKS TO GO BOTH LEFT AND RIGHT, MAKING IT MORE ATTRACTIVE, BUT WE FELT THAT IT WAS BECAUSE OF THE SUBDIVISION BEING OF A SCALE, WE THOUGHT IT IMPORTANT TO HAVE A SECONDARY ACCESS JUST IN CASE.

THIS REPRESENTS THE ACCESS OF VERMONT BOULEVARD, AND CURRENTLY WE ARE ESTIMATING THAT WOULD BE ABOUT 2.16% OF THE TOTAL TRAFFIC THAT WOULD BE GENERATED FROM THIS PROJECT.

SO WHAT THAT MEANS IS, YOU KNOW, YOU'RE LOOKING AT, FROM A.M. OR P.M. PEAK HOUR, MOSTLY IN THE SINGLE DIGITS OF HOW MANY CARS WOULD BE ENTERING OR EXITING, SO VERY MINOR IN TERMS OF WHAT WE WOULD EXPECT TO GENERATE OFF OF THAT ROAD.

>> SINCE VERMONT HEIGHTS IS A PRIVATE COMMUNITY, DO YOU NEED THEIR PERMISSION TO USE -- UTILIZE THEIR ROADS, THEIR

INFRASTRUCTURE OR NOT? >> MY UNDERSTANDING, IT'S A

PUBLICALLY ACCESSIBLE ROAD. >> ALL RIGHT.

I THINK MOST OF THE PEOPLE LEAVING YOUR PROPOSED SUBDIVISION WOULD BE GOING, ONCE THEY GOT OUT TO 207 THERE, THEY'D BE TAKING A LEFT, PROBABLY NOT THAT MANY PEOPLE GOING RIGHT, SO I REMEMBER WHEN YOU PROPOSED THIS BEFORE BACK IN 2020 THAT THERE WAS A GENTLEMAN FROM THE MILITARY, MAYBE RETIRED MILITARY -- I CAN'T REMEMBER HIS NAME, BUT HE CAME AND SPOKE AGAINST THIS. HE SAID IT'S REALLY, DID ALAN

[01:05:01]

NEASE ROAD THERE AND THE TRUCKS GOING OUT TO THE DUMP THAT WAY, IT WAS A REALLY HAZARDOUS TRACK OF SITUATION.

IS THAT WHY -- I DON'T KNOW IF HE'S HERE TODAY BUT I DON'T THINK ME WROTE IN. BUT IS THAT WHY YOU'RE PROPOSING THIS SECOND ACCESS OR DOES THAT HAVE ANYTHING AT ALL EVEN TO DO

WITH IT? >> I THINK IT'S GOING TO PROVIDE FOR MORE EFFICIENT TRAFFIC CIRCULATION TO HAVE THAT DIRECT ACCESS OFF 207, AND, YES, AGAIN, YOU KNOW, WE HEARD SOME OF THE CONCERNS FROM THAT EARLIER HEARING, AND THAT WAS PART OF WHAT INSPIRED TRYING TO MAKE THOSE IMPROVEMENTS THE BEST THAT THEY COULD BE OFF STRAIGHT ROAD 207 SO THAT WE HAVE SHORTER QUEUING LANES, MORE FLUIDITY AND REALLY MOTIVATING PEOPLE TO USE THAT ACCESS VERSUS VERMONT BOULEVARD.

>> SO COULD YOU JUST GO OVER AGAIN THE NUMBER OF UNITS YOU'RE PROPOSING NOW VERSUS WHAT YOU PROPOSED IN 2020 BECAUSE THERE IS SOME CONFUSING INFORMATION FROM THE LETTER WE RECEIVED AND WHAT I THOUGHT WAS IN THE APPLICATION, SO -- AND THAT WAS APPROVED 5-2 BEFORE. I VOTED AGAINST IT BEFORE.

I DON'T KNOW WHO ELSE DID, BUT I DEFINITELY DID.

AND THEN I GUESS THE COUNTY COMMISSION DID NOT FORWARD THE TRANSMITTAL. BUT WHAT HAS CHANGED IN TERMS OF YOUR OVERALL NUMBER OF UNITS FROM 2020 UNTIL NO?

NOW? >> THE CHANGE THAT WE'RE MAKING WITH THIS ROUND IS FROM 360 UNITS TO 279 UNITS.

>> AND I DO APPRECIATE Y'ALL PROPOSING TO CONSERVE MORE OF SEER HAMMOCK. I THINK THAT'S GREAT IN THE WETLAND AREA. THOSE WETLANDS, THOUGH, IN THE FAIRLY EXHAUSTIVE, MOST OF IT'S HISTORICAL AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL ACCOUNT RA THERP BIOLOGICAL, BUT IT DOES MENTION THAT THAT'S PART OF THE HEADWATERS ULTIMATELY. THOSE WETLANDS FLOW TO MOULTRIE CREEK AND POSSIBLY EVEN MOSES CREEK WHERE THERE'S CONSERVATION LANDS. AND, OF COURSE, THOSE FLOW RIGHT INTO THE MATANZAS RIVER WHICH IS REALLY ONE OF THE RECOGNIZED ENVIRONMENTAL YEMS OF GEMS OFR COUNTY, SO I'M CONCERNED ABOUT RUNOFF, POLLUTANTS GETTING INTO THOSE WETLANDS AND HOW THE INTO THE MATANZAS RIVER. I KNOW IT'S QUITE A DISTANCE, BUT STILL THAT CAN OCCUR. BUT I AM CONCERNED ABOUT THAT.

IT DOES APPEAR YOUR DEVELOPMENTS MAY BE A LITTLE MORE EXACT THAN COMPASS COMPACT THAN IT WAS BEFORE.

I DO HAVE A COUPLE OTHER QUESTIONS HERE.

IT'S IN THE APPLICATION. IT HAS TO BE A TYPE OFO.

I A TYPO. IT'S FROM AN ITEM THAT WE REJECTED OFF COUNTY RADIOED 208 A MONTH AGO.

IT SAYS UNDER DEPARTMENT REVIEWS, UNDER THE TRANSPORTATION AND CONCURRENCY DIVISION REVIEW, THIS IS A DIRECT QUOTE FROM THAT. IT'S IN THE APPLICATION.

"IT'S A MINOR PROJECT ESTIMATED TO GENERATE 24 AVERAGE WEEK DAY PEAK HOUR TRIPS BASED ON 22 SINGLE FAMILY UNITS." THAT CAN POSSIBLY NOT BE REFERRING TO YOUR DEVELOPMENT, BUT THAT'S WHAT YOU HAVE IN THERE.

THAT'S IN THE APPLICATION. >> WHAT PAGE IS THAT ON? OR WHAT PART OF THE APPLICATION? I DIDN'T WRITE THE PAGE DOWN,

BUT -- PAGE 8? >> IT'S PART OF THE STAFF REPORT. MY GUESS IS THAT WAS JUST A TYPO

OR MAYBE A COPY AND PASTE. >> OKAY.

SO HOW MANY DAILY TRIPS AVERAGE ARE YOU GOING TO HAVE I KNEW THAT WAS WRONG. WE DID REJECT A 22 HOME DEVELOPMENT OFF OF 208 JUST ABOUT A MONDAYS AGO, SO MAYBE THAT WAS LIFTED OUT OF THERE AND SOMEHOW GOT IN THERE, BUT I JUST WONDERED WHAT THE REAL NUMBER OR IS.

MAYBE YOU WENT OVER IT AND I DIDN'T CATCH.

>> IT SO OUR EXPECTED P.M. PEAK HOURS IS 272.

>> 272. AND THAT IS CITED I THINK IN THIS LETTER. IT'S SOME NUMBER SAYING THAT'S STILL WAY TOO MUCH FOR EXEEMG OUT AND TURNING LEFT.

ANOTHER THING I'M GOING TO BRING THIS UP BECAUSE I OFTEN DO BRING UP SOILS, YOU'VE GOT 11 SOIL TYPES OUT THERE ON THE PROPERTY? EVERY ONE OF THEM, EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM IS EITHER POORLY DRAINED, POORLY -- VERY POORLY DRAINED OR WHAT POORLY DRAINED, SO OUT OF THOSE 11 TYPES, EVEN IN YOUR UPLAND PORTIONS, IT'S

[01:10:05]

HARD FOR ME TO BELIEVE THAT IN THE XERIC HAMMOCK AREA, THAT YOU'RE GOING TO DISCOVERY 40% OF THAT THOSE ARE VERY POORLY DRAINED SOILS. BUT LOOKING AT THE REPORT AND LOOKING ALL THESE UP IN THE USDA SOIL REPORTS FOR THE COUNTY, IT SAYS ALL ARE VERY POORLY, POORLY OR SOMEWHAT POORLY DRAINED.

I FIND THAT ASTOUNDING THAT SOMEBODY WOULD WANT TO PUT A DEVELOPMENT ON THOSE KINDS OF SOILS.

SO MAYBE YOU COULD ADDRESS THAT. >> WELL, I WILL SAY OFTENTIMES WITH PUDS WE HAVEN'T GOTTEN INTO THE ENGINEERING YET.

THIS IS A LITTLE BIT OF AN ANOMALY THAT WE HAVE SPENT SOME TIME WORKING THROUGH THE ENGINEERING.

I WORN IF OUR ENGINEER COULD COME UP AND GIVE A LITTLE BIT

OF -- >> OKAY.

>> -- INFORMATION ABOUT SOME OF THE DRAINAGE WE'VE BEEN WORKING THROUGH ON THESE CONSTRUCTION PLANS AND MIGHT BE ABLE TO GIVE A LITTLE COLOR TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION.

>> OKAY. THE SOIL TYPES AREN'T GOING TO

CHANGE, HOWEVER. >> WELL, YES, THAT'S TRUE.

>> ALL RIGHT. >> CHRIS BUTTERMORE WITH MATTHEWS DESIGN GROUP 7 WALDO STREET, ST. AUGUSTINE.

WE DID GET MORE STRIP SCRUPTIVE GEOTECHNICAL INFORMATION, WHICH WHICH -- WHICH APPROVED THAT THE THE SOIL TYPES ARE A LITTLE BIT BETTER THAN WHAT YOU'RE DESCRIBING.

WE AREN'T PROPOSING ANY DEFINED PERCOLATION OR INFILTRATION TO THE GROUND WE'RE USE WITH DETENTION SO WE'RE MAKE SURE WE'RE MEETING ALL THE DISTRICT REQUIREMENT FOR TREATMENT, ATTENUATION, HOLDINGS THE WATER, AND THEN LETTING IT OUT IN ALLOWABLE TO THE WETLAND, SO WE'RE NOT GOING TO BE USING THAT SOIL FOR INFILTRATION. I BELIEVE -- WE WON'T HAVE THE ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANT HERE TODAY BUT BELIEVE THERE ARE GOPHER TORTOISES OUT THERE, WHICH WOULD GO AGAINST THAT SOIL TYPE FOR INFILTRATION AND WHATNOT.

>> I'LL GIVE YOU THAT ON THE XERIC OAK HAMMOCK AREAS WITH GOPHERS, THAT THEY PROBABLY ARE MORE WELL DRAINED, BUT THEN YOU ARE BUILDING HOUSES BASICALLY IN WHAT IS VERY POORLY, POORLY AND SOMEWHAT POORLY DRAINED, WHICH YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE RUNOFF

ISSUES WITH THAT MOST LIKELY. >> RIGHT, AND WE'RE WORKING WITH THE DISTRICT. WE'VE HAD ONE FULL SUBMITTAL ALREADY. WORKED WITH THE COMMENTS AND RESUBMITTED THEM. WE'RE MEETING ALL THEIR CRITERIA IN TERMS OF WHAT'S NEEDED FOR SOME WATER RUNOFF AND TREATMENT ATTENUATION, AND WE'LL CONTINUE TO WORK WITH THEM AND THE

COUNTY. >> THOSE ARE STILL VERY CONCERNING TO ME, THOSE KIND OF SOIL TYPES OUT THERE, BECAUSE I'VE UTILIZED SOIL FIEPS FOR 50 YEARS IN MY WORK PROFESSIONALLY.

LET ME ASK MS. ACEVEDO ONE MORE QUESTION.

AND I NOTICED IN THE APPLICATION MATERIALS TOWARD THE END, VEND OF THAT IT SAID ATTACHMENT 3 CORRESPONDENCE.

THAT WAS BLANK. WAS THERE ANY CORRESPOND SNENS MAYBE THAT SHOULD GO TO THE COUNTY.

I DON'T KNOW. BUT I DIDN'T SEE ANY CORRESPOND.

IT SAID ATTACHMENT 3 CORRESPONDENCE.

NOTHING THERE. >> ACCORDING TO THE STAFF REPORT, THERE WAS NO CORRESPONDENCE AT THE WRITING OF THE STAFF REPORT. YOU HAVE RECEIVED SOME SINCE

THEN IN YOUR PACKAGE TODAY. >> THIS IS WHAT WE GOT FROM THE

>> YES, SIR. >> OKEY-DOKE.

ALL RIGHT. WELL, I THINK EFFORT TO SCOIRCH THE WETLAND AND MORE EXACT IS GOOD, BUT THE SOILS AND THE TRAFFIC AND OTHER THINGS FOR ME IS JUST, I DON'T THINK THIS IS THE RIGHT SPOT FOR A DEVELOPMENT LIKE THIS.

YOU DIDN'T LESSEN THE NUMBER OF HOMES SIGNIFICANTLY FROM WHEN OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DECIDED NOT TO TRANSMIT IT, SO THAT'S WEIGHING HEAVILY ON MY DECISION HERE, BUT I APPRECIATE YOUR PRESENTATION. THANK YOU.

>> ARE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS?

MR. PETER? >> COULD YOU GO BACK TO THE SITE PLAN. I WANT TO TALK A LITTLE BIT MORE ABOUT THE INGRESS ON 207. AND FOR MY OWN EDIFICATION BECAUSE I HAVEN'T DRIVEN BY IT VERY MANY TIMES.

IS 207 FOUR-LANE OUT THERE, TWO LAIN? ARE THERE GOING TO BE TWO LANES INTO THIS, OUT OF THIS?

>> SO WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT IS TWO LANES COMING OUT, HERE AND HERE. SO THERE WILL BE A DEAD CADE -- I KNOW IT'S KIND OF HARD TO SEE AT THIS LEVEL, BUT THERE WILL BE A DEDICATED LANE TO TURN RIGHT AND TO TURN LEFT AND THEN ONE COME IN TO TRY AND ALLEVIATE AND HAVE SOME OF THAT COUP QUEUING.

>> I'LL JUST MENTION 207 IS THERE WILL BE A RIGHT TURN-IN

[01:15:01]

BUT NOT A LEFT TURN-IN. BAER GOING TO HAVE A DIRECTIONAL MEDIAN CUT THAT ONLY LETS YOU TURN LEFT OUT OF THIS SITE.

AND WITH THE LEFT OUT THERE'S GOING TO BE A PORTION OF AN ACCELERATION LANE THAT ALLOWS THEM TO GET UP TO TRAFFIC SPEED

TO MERGE. >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS?

DO WE HAVE ANY SPEAKER CARDS? >> MADAME CHAIR, WE HAVE TWOE SPEAKER CARDS. KEVIN B. KELLY.

PLEASE STEP FORWARD AND GIVE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE

RECORD, PLEASE. >>

>> MY NAME IS KEVIN J. KELLY AND I LIVE AT 4079 VERMONT BOULEVARD IN ELKTON WHICH IS ACTUALLY VERMONT HEIGHTS, AND I'VE LIVED THERE SINCE 2001. I OPPOSE THE PROPOSAL OF THE ENTRANCE AND EXIT TO THE WINDING OAKS DEVELOPMENT BECAUSE OF THE ALREADY -- ON VERMONT BOULEVARD, I'LL SAY, BECAUSE THE ALREADY UNTENABLE AMOUNT OF COMMERCIAL AND OTHER TRAFFIC ON VERMONT BOULEVARD. I BELIEVE THAT THE ONLY REASON THEY WANT THAT ENTRANCE AND EXIT FROM VERMONT, WHICH IS A PRIVATE ROAD, IS BECAUSE THEY CAN'T TURN SO MOIST OF TRAFFIC WILL COME OUT THE BACK ON OUR ALREADY OVERLOADED LITTLE ROAD WITH NO SIDEWALKS. OTHER SUBDIVISIONS SUCH AS COUNTRY WALK, CYPRESS LAKES, GOLF CLUB, HAVE ONE ENTRANCE AND EXIT TO THEIR NEIGHBORHOODS, WHICH ARE RIGHT THERE.

THE SPEEDING TRAFFIC ON OUR TBLFD IS TOTALLY OUT OF CONTROL.

WE'VE HAD -- WE'VE ASKED FOR MEASURES MANY, MANY TIMES TO HAVE THAT ADDRESSED, AND WE DID RECEIVE TWO WORKING ELECTRONIC SIGNS THAT WILL TELL PEOPLE WHEN THEY'RE DOING 25 AND OVER, BUT IT SEEMS LIKE LATELY, AND I'M NOT SAYING THIS TO BE FUNNY, IS PEOPLE RACE TO SEE HOW FAST THAT SIGN WILL GO.

AND IT CAUSES ACCIDENTS WHEN THERE'S NO SPEED CONTROL ON A ROAD AND THEY WILL END UP IN PEOPLE'S YARDS, LIKE THEY HAVE IN MINE TWICE FROM TWO SERIOUS ACCIDENTS.

THE ACCIDENTS ARE VERY STRESSFUL TO PEOPLE THAT LIVE ON THAT ROAD, AND THE TRAFFIC, DUE TO THE COMMERCIAL -- THERE'S ONLY TWO PLACES IN ST. JOHNS COUNTY WHERE THE GARBAGE, LAWN WASTE, HAZMAT, AND RECYCLE GO TO THE LITTLE OF WHICH TRANSFER SITES NOW, THAT'S ON NINE MILE ROAD AND ON VERMONT BOULEVARD BOULEVARD -- --==. ONLY TWO.

SOY AN ADDITIONAL ENTRANCE AND EXIT AND SOMETHING ELSE ADDED TO THAT, YOU GOT ME, GUYS. WE DID NOT WANT OUR QUALITY OF LIFE FURTHER DEGRADED BECAUSE SOMEONE WANTS TO GIVE THE COUNTY A FEW MORE DOLLARS. WE LIKE IT THE WAY IT IS.

THAT'S WHY WE MOVED THERE. WE ALSO, AS ABSTRACT AND TITLE NUMBER 18-390 DATED 2 SEPTEMBER 1995 STATES, WHICH IS STILL IN EFFECT EFFECT, BY THE WAY, THAT THE SPHREETS AND ROADWAYS IN VERMONT HEIGHTS ARE DEDICATED TO THE RESIDENTS OF VERMONT HEIGHTS AS IT STATES, 100% AND IN PERPETUITY, WHICH MEANS FOREVER. THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU. >> LARRY BUY BUYS PEPT PLEASE STEP FORWARD AND GIVE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD, PLEASE. YOU HAVE THREE MINUTES.

>> LARRY BASSETT, 4162 VERMONT BOULEVARD.

MY WIFE AND I PURCHASED OUR HOUSE IN VERMONT HEIGHTS IN 1997. VERMONT HEIGHTS WAS A QUIET RELAXING NEIGHBORHOOD. WE PICKED THAT PLACE TO RETIRE THERE. I GIVE YOU A HISTORY OF VERMONT HEIGHTS. I HAVE THE LEGAL ABSTRACT TITLE OF VERMONT HEIGHTS. IT WAS DEVELOPED IN 1925, AND DUE TO THE DEPRESSION IT WAS DELAYED UNTIL 1938.

AND THIS ABSTRACT TITLE IS A LEGAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN VERMONT HEIGHTS AND ST. JOHNS COUNTY. IT STATES VERMONT HIGHT REALTY COMPANY IS A CORPORATION EXISTING UNDER THE LAW WITH THE STATE OF FLORIDA, HAS DEDICATED AND HEREBY DEDICATES TO THE PUBLIC IN PERPETUITY ALL STREETS, AVENUES AND BOULEVARDS

[01:20:03]

AS SHOWN HEREIN AND RESTRICTS THE USE FOR PUBLIC STREETS ONLY.

30TH DAY OF JULY 1938. IT WAS APPROVED BY ST. JOHNS COUNTY AUGUST 9, 1938. OUR RETIREMENT DREAMS CHANGED INTO A NIGHTMARE IN APPROXIMATELY 2004 WHEN ST. JOHNS COUNTY PAVED THE DIRT LOGGING TRAIL AND CONNECTED TO IT VERMONT BOULEVARD CALLING IT ALAN NEASE.

AT THAT POINT ST. JOHNS COUNTY VIOLATED THIS LEGAL AGREEMENT.

THIS AGREEMENT WAS FOR VERMONT HEIGHTS STREETS ONLY.

ST. JOHNS PROPERTY APPRAISER ON VERMONT BOULEVARD, IT SHOWS THAT VERMONT HEIGHTS IS OWNED BY THE RESIDENTS 100%.

ST. JOHNS COUNTY HAS NEVER GAVE NOTICE OR ANY LEGAL PERMISSION FOR ANY EASEMENT OR OWNER TO DO WHAT THEY DID.

AND THEY HAVE VIOLATED THEIR OWN CODE ON SECTION 90.2 OF THE NAMES WHICH ARE EXTENSIONS OF EACH EXISTING ROAD SHALL BEAR THE NAME OF THAT EXISTING ROAD. THAT'S WHY IT IS TWO DIFFERENT NAMES RIGHT THERE. ST. JOHNS COUNTY DEFINITION OF PUBLIC ROADWAYS IS A STREET OR ROAD LOCATED WITHIN A RIGHT-OF-WAY OWNED BY ST. JOHNS COUNTY OR FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION. THE STREET MUST HAVE BEEN DEED AND ACCEPTED BY EITHER AGENCY. PRIVATE ROADWAYS AS A STREET OR ROAD LOCATED WAINTSDZ RIGHT-OF-WAY OR EASEMENT.

THAT'S, WHY WE HAVE THE STREETS AND THEY HAVE TO GET PERMISSION FROM US TO DO MIG. THE ALL ROADS WERE NEVER DEED TO ST. JOHNS COUNTY. 15 YEARS WE HAD PUT UP WITH THIS AND RUINED OUR QUALITY OF LIFE. I PUT A GAME CAMERA UP, AND IN 19 DAYS A COUPLE OF YEARS AGO I HAD 2589 COMMERCIAL VEHICLES IN 19 DAYS, AND IN 220 OF THEM WERE BETWEEN 1:00 AND 7:00 AT NIGHT.

IT HAPPENED THIS MORNING, TOO, AT 12:30 AND COME BACK THROUGH AT 1:00. THIS IS RIDICULOUS, AND THE AMOUNT OF TRAFFIC, COMMERCIAL TRAFFIC, IT NEED TO STOP.

THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU.

ARE THERE ANY OTHER SPEAKER CARDS?

>> THERE ARE NONE, MADAME CHAIR. >> I SEE STAFF, DO YOU HAVE

QUESTIONS, COMMENTS? >> MADAME CHAIR, IF I MAY, AND I KNOW THE APPLICANT IS PROBABLY GOING TO COME UP AND ADDRESS-SOME OF THOSE CONCERNS BUT I HAD A QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT AND CLARIFICATION, IF THAT'S OKAY.

>> SURE. MS. ACEVEDO.

>> MS. ACEVEDO, JUST FOR THE RECORD I KNOW YOU HAD INDICATED THAT THE APPLICANT WAS DOING -- GIVING A CONTRIBUTION TOWARDS THE UTILITIES, WATER AND SEWER, AND DR. HILSENBECK BROUGHT UP THE PLANT THAT'S BEING RENOVATED FOR $40 MILLION OR WHATEVER.

CAN YOU CLARIFY EXACTLY WHAT YOU MEAN.

I DON'T WANT THERE TO BE ANY CONFUSION ON WHAT YOU MEAN BY CONTRIBUTION WITH GLURMS AND WHAT DOES THAT MEAN.

HOW ARE YOU CONTRIBUTING THAT $1 MILLION?

>> YES. AND I SHOULD CAVEAT THAT THE 1.

$3 MILLION IS MY CALCULATION BASED ON WHAT UTILITIES DEPARTMENT HAD PROVIDED BACK WHEN WE WERE DOING THE LAND USE AMENDMENT, SO THAT'S HOW WE CAME UP WITH THAT NUMBER, BUT ESSENTIALLY THEY HAVE LONG-TERM PLANS TO DO IMPROVEMENTS TO THEIR WASTEWATER FACILITY. THEY'RE ESTIMATING THAT TO BE AROUND $40 MILLION. AND SO WHAT THEY'RE DOING RIGHT NOW IS ASSESSING ALL OF THE POTENTIAL AND NEW DEVELOPMENTS THAT ARE COMING ALONG THAT CORRIDOR AND FIGURING OUT WHAT THEIR PROPORTIONATE FAIR SHARE, FOR LACK OF A BETTER TERM, WOULD BE IN TERMS OF THE PERCENTAGES. SO THEY'RE TRYING TO WORK THROUGH EACH DEVELOPER THAT'S COMING ONBOARD, WHAT SHOULD THEY BE CONTRIBUTING IN ORDER TO MAKE THIS REGIONAL FACILITY POSSIBLE.

DOES THAT HELP? >> YOU WOULD LIKE TO GO AHEAD

AND ADDRESS THE OTHER COMMENT. >> YES.

SO I DID WANT TO MENTION THAT THIS SEGMENT, VERMONT BOULEVARD, I KNOW THAT WAS A CONCERN THE LAST TIME WE HAD A HEARING ON THIS PROJECT. OOPS, I DIDN'T MEAN TO -- GO BACK THERE. SO THIS IS A COUNTY-MAINTAINED FACILITY, AND AS I MENTIONED EARLIER, WE ARE WORKING VERY HARD TO MAKE IMPROVEMENTS TO THE PRIMARY ACCESS OFF STATE ROAD 207 BECAUSE WE UNDERSTAND THAT'S GOING TO BE THE BETTER ACCESS POINT FOR PEOPLE TO COME AND LEAVE THE DEVELOPMENT.

THESE ARE TWO SEPARATE PARCELS. THIS SMALL PARCEL HERE, THAT'S A

[01:25:06]

DIFFERENT PARCEL. SOMEONE COULD BUY THIS PARCEL AND WOULD HAVE THE RIGHT TO ACCESS FROM VERMONT BOULEVARD BECAUSE IT IS A COUNTY-MAINTAINED RIGHT-OF-WAY.

WE SEE THAT AS A VERY SECONDARY ACCESS POINT FOR THIS DEVELOPMENT AND THINK THIS IS A MUCH BETTER PLAN, TO HAVE THAT PRIMARY ACCESS OFF STATE ROAD 207.

IN DOING SO, WE'RE ACTUALLY DIVERTING 98% OF THE TRIP GENERATION FOR THIS PROJECT TO STATE ROAD 207 VERSUS VERMONT BOULEVARD. THE OTHER THING I WANTED TO MENTION IS THE CURRENT LLS NUMBER OF TRIPS PER WHAT IS ALLOWABLE ALONG THE VERMONT BOULEVARD IS LESS THAN 20%, SO IT'S NOWHERE NEAR CAPACITY. I DON'T THINK THIS IS A QUESTION OF SHEAR NUMBER OF TRIPS. I THINK IT'S A QUESTION OF SOME FRUSTRATION OF HAVING SOLID WASTE VEHICLES COME UP AND DOWN THAT ROAD, AND UNFORTUNATELY THAT'S OUT OF MY ABILITY TO COME UP WITH A SOLUTION TO THAT ISSUE TODAY.

BUT I DID WANT TO MENTION THAT. AND ONE LAST THING ON THE SECONDARY ACCESS, IT'S MOTIVATED BY A NEED TO HAVE A SECONDARY POINT OF ACCESS FOR FIRE AND EMERGENCY SERVICES.

WE DON'T THINK IT'S A GOOD IDEA TO JUST HAVE ONE IN AND OUT FOR RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION, SO I JUST WANTED TO MAKE THAT POINT.

THAT'S THE PRIMARY MOTIVATOR HERE OF HAVING THAT ADDITIONAL

ACCESS POINT. >> DR. HILSENBECK.

>> EXCUSE ME. SO YOU CANNOT GUARANTEE, HOWEVER, THAT 98% IS GOING TO COME OUT ONTO 207 AND 2% ON VERMONT BOULEVARD. I MEAN, YOU CAN'T --

>> I CAN'T GUARANTEE THAT, NO. THERE'S TRAFFIC MODELS AND -- OF COURSE, ACTUALLY OUR CONSULTANT IS HERE IF HE MIGHT WANT TO GIVE

SOME DETAIL TO THAT. >> THIS IS PREDICTING FUTURE

BEHAVIOR HUMAN BEINGS. >> YES.

IT'S LOOKING AT THE DISTRIBUTION, WHERE THE ACCESS POINTS ARE, WHAT WOULD BE THE PARTICULAR TURNING MOTIONS.

BUT I'LL LET RAJEESH. HE CAN ANSWER THAT BETTER THAN I

COULD. >> REALLY NEEDS A PSYCHOLOGIST.

>> FOR THE RECORD, RAJ EESH, JACKSONVILLE, FLORIDA.

DR. HILSENBECK, YOU'RE RIGHT. THERE IS NO WAY YOU CAN PREDICTED HOW THE HUMAN BEHAVIOR IS GOING TO BE USING THIS VERSUS THAT, BUT WE WORKED WITH FDOT TO MAKE SURE THEY HAVE A ACCESS WHICH IS MORE ATTRACTIVE THAN THE VERMONT BOULEVARD ACCESS, AND INITIALLY WITH FOUR LANES WE ARE SEEKING A NEW MEDIAN OPENING THAT WHERE TRAFFIC CAN EXIT OUT TO GO EAST ON 207 TO GO THROUGH THE MAIN ENTRANCE RATHER THAN GOING BACK THROUGH VERMONT TO GO ON 207 EAST. SO WE WORKED WITH FDOT ON TRYING TO MAKE THAT MORE ATTRACTIVE. WE ARE PROVIDING LAPSE TO COME IN AND ALSO AN AUCTION RI LANE ON 207.

THAT MAKES I EASIER FOR THAT TRAFFIC TO USE 207 BY THE MAIN ENTRANCE RATHER THAN USING VERMONT.

>> SO SOMEBODY COMING OUT YOUR PRIMARY ENTRANCE INGRESS EGRESS AREA, THEY'RE GOING TO GO EAST ON 207.

THAT MEANS THEY'VE GOT TO TURN LEFT ONTO 207, AND IT'S A FOUR LANE ROAD RIGHT NOW WITH PEOPLE SPEEDING LIKE CRAZY ON IT.

GO AHEAD. >> THAT'S TRUE, YES.

THERE ARE GAPS. AND LIKE ANY OTHER ROAD, THIS IS VERY SIMILAR TO THE INTERSECTION FURTHER EAST WHICH HAS MUCH HIGHER TRAFFIC VOLUMES AND TRUCKS ENTERING AND EXIT AT THAT LOCATION, SO EVERY DRIVER AS TO TAKE A GAP.

TO HELP WITH THAT, WHAT WE ARE TRYING TO DO IS THEY DON'T HAVE TO KIND OF LIKE SIT IN THE MEDIAN.

THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE AN ACCELERATION LANE ON 207 WHERE THEY CAN MERGE INTO THE ONGOING TRACK OF EASTBOUND ONTO 207, AND WE'RE WORKING WITH FDOT ON TRYING TO ACHIEVE THAT.

>> OKEY-DOKE. LET ME SEE.

I HAD ONE MORE THOUGHT HERE. SO IT'S BEEN STATED TODAY THAT VERMONT BOULEVARD IS A PRIVATE ROAD OR IT WAS A PRIVATE ROAD.

IS THAT ALL YOUR TRAFFIC WORK? >> I DON'T THINK -- MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT'S A PUBLIC STREET, PUBLIC ROAD.

ACCESS IS ON THE FUNCTIONAL STREET NETWORK THE IN COUNTY'S SPREADSHEET ANOTHER. A PUBLIC STREET.

THAT'S OUR UNDERSTANDING. >> I THINK YOU'RE SMART HAVING A SECONDARY POINT OF INGRESS AND EGRESS. IS THAT ONE ITEM A MONTH OR SO

[01:30:02]

AGO WE TURNED DOWN ONLY HAD ONE POINT IN AND ONE POINT OUT, SO THAT WAS A FACTOR IN IT BEING VOTED DOWN.

OKAY. FINE, THANK YOU.

APPRECIATE IT. >> SO IS IT A PRIVATE ROAD? IS IT A PUBLIC ROAD? IS IT A PRIVATE ROAD THAT'S MAIDEN BY THE COUNTY? WHAT KIND OF ROAD IS THIS?

>> THROUGH THE CHAIR. THIS IS OUR CHIEF ENGINEER WHO WILL COME UP AND CLARIFY WHAT EXACTLY IT IS.

THANK YOU. >> GOOD AFTERNOON.

DICK, CHIEF ENGINEER FOR GROWTH MANAGEMENT.

THAT IS A PUBLICALLY MAINTAINED RIGHT-OF-WAY THAT WAS TAKEN OVER FOR MAINTENANCE BY THE COUNTY IN THE PLATTED PORTION AND OBVIOUSLY NORTH OF THAT IS, YOU KNOW, ALAN NEASE ROADWAY WHICH WAS ALWAYS COUNTY OWNED AND MAINTAINED, BUT THE COUNTY DID TAKE OVER MEANTS AND RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE PAVED PORTION SO IT IS A PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY.

>> WHEN DID IT TAKE -- >> I DO NOT KNOW THE EXACT DATE OF WHEN THAT WOULD HAVE OCCURRED BETTER THAT WAS CONFIRMED

THROUGH OUR REAL ESTATE OFFICE. >> THANK YOU.

>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? I JUST HAVE A COMMENT.

I SUPPORT A DRAFT LOCATION LAST TIME AND I SUPPORT THIS ONE.

I ACTUALLY THINK THIS IS A MUCH BETTER PROJECT THAT YOU PRESENTED TODAY THAN IT WAS BEFORE.

AND I BELIEVE WHEN YOU FIRST CAME UP HERE AND MIGHT BE WRONG, BUT WASN'T THERE ONLY ONE WAY OUT -- IS THAT CORRECT? -- AND PEOPLE HAD TO DO A U-TURN OR BECAUSE YOU DIDN'T KNOW YOU WOULD BE ABLE TO GET THE MEDIAN ACCELERATION LANE?

>> WE HAD THE TWO ACCESS POINTS IN THE PREVIOUS APPLICATION AS WELL. SINCE THEN, WE HAVE FINE-TUNED THAT, THE MAIN ACCESS POINT TO HAVE THOSE DEDICATED LANES.

>> OKAY. WELL, REGARDLESS, I LIKE THE FACT THAT YOU CAN HAVE THE LEFT OUT AND THEN THE RIGHT OUT AS WELL. YOU'RE AT A DENSITY OF 1.2 UNITS OVERALL. I THINK THAT'S GREAT.

IT FITS WITHIN THE AREA. IT WAS NICE THAT YOU DIDN'T COME BACK HERE FOR ANOTHER COMP PLAN CHANGE WITHIN RES-B.

SO -- AND ALSO ON VERMONT HEIGHTS, YOU SAID THAT 2% OF THE CARS COMING OUT OF YOUR SUBDIVISION, THAT WOULD BE EQUAL TO FIVE, FIVE CARS, SO I RALLY THINK THAT THAT WAS GREAT THAT YOU DID THE STUD I, AND NOT A LOT OF CARS ARE PROBABLY GOING TO GO THAT WAY, SO IT WON'T ADVERSELY IMPACT THOSE ON VERMONT HEIGHTS. I DON'T HAVE ANY QUESTIONS.

I JUST WANTED TO TELL YOU THAT. >> THANK YOU.

>> ALL RIGHT. IF THERE ARE NO OTHER QUHES ON COMMENTS, WE'RE IN THE AGENCY FOR A MOTION.

>> MADAME CHAIR, I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PUD 2021-07 WINDING OAKS BASED ON NINE FINDINGS OF FACTS AS LISTED IN THE STAFF REPORT.

>> WE HAVE A MOTION BY MR. PIERRE.

DO WE HAVE A SECOND? NO SECOND.

THAT MOTION DIES FOR LACK OF A SECOND.

DO WE HAVE ANOTHER MOTION? SEEING NONE, MS. CHRISTINE, WHAT

POSTURE ARE WE IN? >> THERE NEEDS TO BE A MOTION.

THERE NEEDS TO BE A VOTE ON THIS ITEM.

IT'S REQUIRED BY LAW. >> DR. MCCORMICK.

>> I DON'T WANT US TO BE A STABBED STILL LIKE THIS SO I'M GOING TO MAKE A MOTION TO RECOMMEND DENIAL OF PUD 2021-07 WINDING OAKS BASED ON TEN FINDINGS OF FACT AND LISTED IN

THE STAFF REPORT. >> WE HAVE A MOTION FOR DENIAL BY DR. MCCORMICK. DO WE HAVE A SECOND?

>> SECOND. >> I'M SORRY.

>> GO AHEAD. >> I KNOW THIS IS PROBABLY TOO LATE. I WANTED TO ASK IF WE COULD WITHDRAW TO WORK OUT IF THERE WERE ANY TRAFFIC ISSUES THAT COULD BE RESOLVEDDAL INTERNALLY BEFORE MOVING FORWARD.

>> SEEING HOW WE DON'T HAVE A SECOND JUST YET, WOULD ANYBODY LIKE TO OFFER A MOTION TO WITHDRAW?

>> I ACTUALLY HAD SECONDED IT BEFORE SHE CAME UP.

>> DID YOU? >> I WOULD -- I WOULD WITHDRAW MY RECOMMENDATION TO DENY IF THERE'S A SECOND TO DO THAT.

IF NOT, WE'RE STILL AT A STALEMATE.

>> I'LL SECOND THAT IF I CAN. >> SO TO CLARIFY, WE HAVE A MOTION TO WITHDRAW YOUR MOTION TO DENY, AND WE HAVE A SECOND BY

[01:35:05]

MR. PIERRE. SO THEN WE'RE GOING TO GO AHEAD AND VOTE ON THE MOTION OF WITHDRAWAL OF YOUR MOTION TO

DENY. >> IF I MAY INTERJECT, THE APPROPRIATE METHODOLOGY TO DEAL WITH MR. MC'S MOTION IS TO ASK IF THE SECONDER OF YOUR FIRST MOTION TO ACCEPT THE WITHDRAWAL.

>> I WOULD NOT. >> SO UNLESS THERE'S ANOTHER AMENDMENT THAT YOU WOULD WISH TO MAKE TO YOUR ORIGINAL MOTION, MR. MCCORMICK, I THINK WE NEED TO VOTE ON THAT MOTION.

>> I'M NOT SURE WHAT YOU'RE ADVISING ME TO DO.

I'M SORRY. >> I'LL RECONSIDER.

I'LL GO AHEAD AND SAY YES. I DON'T WANT TO UNDULY PENALIZE OR BE PUNITIVE HERE, SO I WILL AGREE THAT THEY SHOULD BE

ALLOWED TO WITHDRAW. >> IS THE REQUEST TO WITHDRAW OR

TO CONTINUE? >> THE REQUEST WOULD BE TO

CONTINUE. >> OKAY.

DO YOU HAVE A DATE CERTAIN OR WOULD YOU JUST LIKE A CONTINUANCE FOR ANOTHER DATE TO BE DETERMINED AT ANOTHER TIME?

>> I'D SAY TO BE DETERMINED, AND THEN I'LL WORK WITH STAFF ON

WHAT THE BEST DATE WOULD BE. >> SO YOU KNOW THAT WILL REQUIRE

READVERTISING. >> YES.

UNDERSTOOD. >> DR. MCCORMICK, YOU CAN MAKE A

MOTION TO CONTINUE THE ITEM. >> MY MOTION IS TO WITHDRAW THE

ORIGINAL MOTION. >> YOU DO NOT NEED TO MAKE A

MOTION TO WITHDRAW. >> PARDON?

>> YOU DO NOT NEED TO MAKE A MOTION TO WITHDRAW.

>> OKAY. I JUST WITHDRAW IT.

>> SO THEN WOULD SOMEONE LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO CONTINUE TO A TIME UNCERTAIN. TO ALLOW THE APPLICANT TO COME

BACK AND WORK OUT THE ISSUES >> I'D LIKE TO MAKE THAT MOTION.

SO IS THE MOTION TO ALLOW THE APPLICANT TO WITHDRAW OR TO

CONTINUE? >> TO CONTINUE A DATE UNCERTAIN.

>> TO CONTINUE TO A DATE UNCERTAIN.

OKAY. >> STAFF, WOULD YOU LIKE TO

COMMENT? >> MADAME CHAIR,Y WHY.

YES. WHATEVER HAPPENS WITH THE VOTE BE WOULD ASK STAFF IF WE'RE WOKE GOING TO WORK WITH THE APPLICANT TO GET DIRECTION ON WHAT EXACTLY THOSE CONCERNS ARE SO IT'S CLEAR

WHEN WE COME BACK. >> WE HAVE A MOTION TO CONTINUE AND WE HAVE A SECOND BY DR. HILSENBECK.

LET'S DISCUSS -- EXCUSE ME, DR. MCCORMICK.

WHAT ISSUES ISSUES WOULD YOU LIKE TO SEE RESOLVED IN THE

MEANTIME? >> TWL I THINK I MADE MY POINTS PRETTY CLEAR THROUGHOUT. I'D PREFER NOT TO GO BACK AND BELABOR THEM AND RESTATE ALL OF THEM, BUT, I MEAN, IT'S IN THE RECORD. I MEAN, IT'S BEING VIDEOTAPED, I ASSUME. CHANGE THE SOIL TYPES WOULD BE

ONE. >> I THINK THE MAIN CONCERN WOULD PROBABLY BE THE ENTRANCE OR EXIT OFF OF VERMONT HEIGHTS FROM WHAT I'VE HEARD PEOPLE TALK ABOUT, AND I GUESS THE LEFT OUT AND RIGHT IN, REGARDLESS. IF THAT'S APPROVED BY FDOT, THAT'S THEIR CHOICE, BUT IS THAT HELPFUL?

>> THANK YOU. >> ALL RIGHT.

[10. COMPAMD 2020-02 Adler Creek (Adoption). Adoption hearing for COMPAMD 2020-02 Adler Creek Comprehensive Plan Amendment to change the Future Land Use Map designation from Rural/Silviculture (R/S) and Parks and Recreation to Residential-C and Conservation (CV) with a Text Policy Amendment limiting the residential dwelling units to 1,682 for approximately 733 acres. There is no non-residential proposed with his amendment. The property is located east of Pacetti Road, south of Scaff Road and west of the future CR 2209 (St. Johns Parkway).]

WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND TO CONTINUE, SO LET'S GO AHEAD AND VOTE. DR. MCCORMICK, YOU HAVE TO PUSH

IT ANOTHER TIME. >> WAIT.

MINE'S DOING IT TOO. >> MOTION TO CONTINUE PASSES.

ALL RIGHT. WE ARE ON THE LAST ITEM OF THE AGENDA, NUMBER 10. ELLEN AVERY-SMITH.

>> GOOD AFTERNOON, MADAME CHAIR AND BOARD MEMBERS.

GOOD TO SEE YOU THIS AFTERNOON. FOR THE RECORD, ELLEN AVERY-SMITH, ROGERS TOWERS, 100 WETSTONE PLACE HERE IN ST. AUGUSTINE. WITH ME TODAY ARE A HOST OF PEOPLE, INCLUDING ART LANCASTER AND JOHN DODSON WHO ARE FROM EASTERN DEVELOPMENT WHICH IS THE CONTRACT PURCHASER OF THIS PROPERTY. AL RAJ HERB SINGULAR FROM SINGULAR TRAFFIC SOLUTIONS WHO IS OUR PROJECT ENVIRONMENT ALLEY CONSULTANT, AND THEN BRAD DAVIS WHO IS OUR PROJECT CIVIL ENGINEER FROM PROSSER. BEFORE I START MY POWERPOINT PRESENTATION, I'LL POINT OUT TO YOU THAT YOU HAVE SEEN THIS BEFORE SO IT'S NOT A SENSE OF DEJA VU WHEN WE GO OVER THE

[01:40:04]

EXACT SAME THING AS WE GO OVER BEFORE BECAUSE WE WERE HERE BEFORE IN YOU JULY FOR OUR TRANSMITTAL HEARING.

AND WE WENT TO THE COUNTY COMMISSION IN AUGUST FOR THAT TRANSMITTAL HEARING, AND THE COUNTY COMMISSION UNANIMOUSLILY VOTED TO TRANSMIT THIS APPLICATION TO STATE AGENCIES.

THAT STATE AGENCY REVIEW THAT IS BEEN COMPLETED.

THERE WERE NO COMMENTS FROM STATE AGENCIES, SO WE'RE BACK HERE BEFORE YOU FOR THE ADOPTION HEARING.

AGAIN, WITH THAT I'M ABOUT TO GO THROUGH IS THE SAME THING YOU HEARD IN JULY. WE HAD A VERY SUCCESSFUL ROUND OF VOTING FROM YOU, AND SO WE'LL GO THROUGH AGAIN TODAY.