Feb 03, 2022 Planning and Zoning Agency

[Call meeting to order]

[00:00:28]

LNCHTS ALL RIGHT. I'M GOING TO CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER AND LET'S STAND FOR THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE, PLEASE I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS, ONE NATION UNDER GOD, INDIVISIBLE, WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL.

>> ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU.

MADAME VICE CHAIR 1 DO YOU WANT TO READ THE PUBLIC NOTICE

STATEMENT, PLEASE. >> YES, SIR.

THIS IS A PROPERLY NOTICED HEARING HELD IN CONCURRENCE WITH REQUIREMENTS OF FLORIDA LAW. THE PUBLIC WILL BE GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY TO COMMENT ON TOPICS RELEVANT TO THE AGENCY'S AREA OF JURISDICTION AND THE PUBLIC WILL BE GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY TO OFFER COMMENT AT A DESIGNATED TIME DURING THE HEARING.

ANY MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC DESIRING TO SPEAK MUST DO SO BY COMPLETING A SPEAKER CARD WHICH IS AVAILABLE IN THE FOYER.

ANY ADDITIONAL SPEAKERS MAY BE ONLY AT THE DISCRETION OF THE CHAIRMAN SPEAKER CARDS MAY BE TURNED IN TO STAFF. THE PUBLIC SHALL SPEAK AT A TIME DURING THE MEETING AND FOR A LENGTH OF TIME AS DESIGNATED BY CHAIRMAN WHICH IS THREE MINUTES. SPEAKERS SHOULD IDENTIFY THEMSELVES, WHO THEY REPRESENT, AND STATE THEIR ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD. SPEAKERS MAY OFFER SWORN TESTIMONY. IF THEY DO NOT, THE FACT THAT TESTIMONY IS NOT SWORN MAY BE CONSIDERED BY THE AGENCY IN DETERMINING THE WEIGHT OR TRUTHFULNESS OF THE TESTIMONY.

IF A PERSON DECIDES TO APPEAL ANY DECISION MADE WITH RESPECT TO ANY MATTER CONSIDERED AT THE HEARING, SUCH PERSON WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS AND MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. ANY PHYSICAL OR DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE PRESENTED DURING THE HEARING, SUCH AS DIAGRAMS, CHARTS, PHOTOGRAPHS, OR WRITTEN STATEMENTS, WILL BE RETAINED BY STAFF AS PART OF THE RECORD. THE RECORD WILL THEN BE AVAILABLE FOR OTHER BOARD AGENCIES IN THE COUNTY IN ANY REVIEW OR APPEAL RELATIG TO THE ITEM.

BOARD MEMBERS ARE REMINDED THAT AT THE BEGINNING OF EACH ITEM THEY SHOULD STATE WHETHER OR NOT THEY HAVE HAD ANY COMMUNICATION WITH THE APPLICANT OR ANY OTHER PERSON REGARDING THE SUBSTANCE OF THE ITEM OUTSIDE THE FORMAL HEARING OF THE AGENCY.

[REZ 2021-32 Unleashed Dog Park, Karen M. Taylor (applicant) request a continuance to PZA 2/17/2022. Applicant will re-advertise with updated Project Description.]

WE WILL BE RESPECTFUL OF ONE ANOTHER EVEN WHEN WE DISAGREE.

WE WILL DIRECT ALL COMMENTS TO THE ISSUES.

WE WILL AVOID PERSONAL ATTACKS. >> THANK YOU.

ALL RIGHT. FIRST ORDER OF BUSINESS IS RESOLUTION 2021-32. MS. TAYLOR, ARE YOU HERE?

YOU HAVE A REQUEST TO MAKE. >> YES BE GOOD AFTERNOON CARN TAYLOR 77 SIR GOSS A STREET. YES, WE WANTED TO CONTINUE THIS ITEM IT. IT TURNED OUT WHEN IT GOT FARTHER INTO RESCREW, STAFF DECIDED OR DETERMINED THAT IT HADN'T BEEN ADVERTISED FOR THE WHOLE PIECE OF PROPERTY SO WE HAVE READVERTISED FOR NEW HEARINGS.

>> THANK YOU, MS. TAYLOR. WHY DON'T YOU HANG THERE A SECOND. IS THERE ANYBODY HERE TO PEAK IS TO REZ 2021-32? SO THIS PARTICULAR ITEM, THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING BE PLACED ON THE FEBRUARY 17TH AGENDA, JUST SO EVERYONE KNOWS, SO AT THIS POINT I GUESS WE'RE BACK IN THE AGENCY TO PERHAPS HAVE A MOTION.

YES. >> I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO MOVE THE REZONING 21-THANK YOU UNLEASHED DOG PARK TO THE PZA

HEARING ON 2/17/22. >> SECOND.

>> SO WE'VE GOT A MOTION BY MS. PERKINS, A SECOND BY DR. HILSENBECK. BY THE WAY, MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE, MY SCREEN IS NOT WORKING, SO YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO -- IF I DON'T NOTICE YOU PUSHED THE BUTTON, YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO SPEAK UP. SO WE'VE GOT A MOTION AND A SECOND TO MOVE REZ 2021-32 TO FEBRUARY 17, 2022.

THERE ANY DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE, ARE WE REGISTERING THE VOTE ON HERE OR VOICE VOTE? OKAY.

[11. PUD 2021-05 Deerfield Forest. Request to rezone approximately 37 acres of land from Open Rural (OR) to Planned Unit Development (PUD) to allow for the development of a maximum of 63 single family homes, located on the south side of Watson Road and west of Deerfield Meadows Circle.]

>> AYE. >> THAT MOTION PASSES.

DID I NEED TO CALL THOSE OUT INDIVIDUALLY? NOBODY OPPOSED.

>> NO, I THINK IT WAS CLEAR ON THE RECORD THAT NO ONE RESPONDED

IN OPPOSITION. >> OKAY.

ALL RIGHT. SO THAT ITEM HAS BEEN DEFERRED.

NOW, ITEM NUMBER 11 ON THE AGENDA TODAY, PUD 2021-05,

MR. KILLEBREW, ARE YOU HERE? >> MR. CHAIR, CHRISTINE, SENIOR

[00:05:02]

SO WE HAVE A REQUEST ON THIS PARTICULAR ITEM TO MOVE THIS TO THE MARCH 3RD PZA AGENDA. I BELIEVE HE E. WE MAY HAVE SOME MEMBERS OF THE AUDIENCE TO SPEAK TO THIS.

IS THAT CORRECT? DO YOU HAVE SOME SPEAKER WARDS

ON NUMBER 11? >> I DO HAVE THREE SPEAKER

CARDS. >> OKAY.

MELISSA LUNDQUIST. >> GOOD AFTERNOON, AGENCY MEMBERS. MELISSA LUNDQUIST TWIXT 40 CARTER ROAD. I KNOW THAT YOU'RE JUST HEARING COMMENT ON WHETHER TO CONTINUE THIS OR NOT.

I JUST WANT TO MENTION THAT I KNOW ON THE DECEMBER 16TH PZA MR. SPOKE UNDER PUBLIC COMMENT TO REPRESENT DEERFIELD FOREST PUD. THAT YOU ALL DENIED ON NOVEMBER 18TH STATING THAT THERE WAS A GOOD BIT INFORMATION LEFT OUT AND/OR WASN'T PRESENTED PROPERLY, AND THAT THE PRINCIPLES WANTED THE OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT ALL OF THAT INFORMATION. UNLESS I WAS REMISS, I DID NOT SEE IN THE PACKET ANY DOCUMENTATION U., NEW INFORMATION, OR ANY ADDITIONAL INFORMATION FROM THE LAST COMMENT THAT WAS HEARD ON NOVEMBER 18TH.

IF YOU DO OPT TO RECONSIDER THIS, I WOULD REALLY BE INTERESTED IN SEEING WHAT THIS NEW INFORMATION IS, ESPECIALLY BEING THAT THE RESIDENTS OF CARTER ROAD HAVE NOT BEEN NOTIFIED. WE ARE NOT WITHIN THE 30-FOOT, I GUESS, BUT THIS PORTION OF THE PROJECT WHERE THEY ARE TRYING TO USE OUR CARTER ROAD THAT WE PRIVATELY OWN AS AN EMERGENCY ACCESS DIRECTLY AFFECTS US. SO I'M REALLY -- I'M HONESTY UPSET THAT WE'RE NOT GETTING NOTIFICATION, AND I'M ALSO HONESTLY UPSET THAT, YOU KNOW, THEY'RE BEING RECONSIDERED WHEN THEY WERE ALREADY DENIED. I DON'T KNOW THE PROPER PROTOCOL, AND I WOULD LIKE TO LOOK MORE INTO THE RECONSIDERATION PROTOCOL OF IT COMING BACK TO YOU ALL.

ANYWAY, IT'S UP TO YOU ALL TO RECONSIDER CONTINUING OR NOT.

WE'RE JUST HERE TO SAY WE'RE, AS CARTER ROAD RESIDENTS, WE'RE NOT VERY HAPPY WITH THIS. THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR YOUR TIME.

>> MA'AM, IF I COULD JUST MENTION SOMETHING TO YOU.

IT DOES SAY IN YOUR PACKET THAT AS OF 1/19/2022 THE APPLICATION MATERIALS REMAIN THE SAME AS WHAT WAS PRESENTED TO PZA ON 11/18/21. SO STAFF HAS ALREADY ANALYZED

THAT, JUST FOR YOUR INFORMATION. >> YES.

I THINK, THOUGH, WHEN MR. REPASS REQUESTED THE RECONSIDERATION, HE INDICATED HIS VERBIAGE AND, OF COURSE, I'M PARAPHRASING, A GOOD BIT OF INFORMATION WAS LEFT OUT.

THAT WAS PART OF HIS REQUEST, WAS ASKING YOU ALL TO RECONSIDER IT, SO THAT'S WHY I'M SAYING THAT IT SOUND LIKE THIS THERW INFORMATION. IF THERE IS, WOULD I LIKE TO SEE THAT, ESPECIALLY IN REFERENCE TO EMERGENCY ACCESS WHICH SEEMS TO BE A VERY BIG TOPIC AS TO WHEN IT WAS DENIED BACK IN 2018, THE ACCESS WITH THE TRAIN TRACK, SO --

>> WE WOULD LIKE TO SEE THAT, TOO, IS WHAT I'M TELLING.

>> YOU YES, SIR. >> THANKS.

>> RICHARD. >> MY NAME IS RICHARD ZIEGLER I LIVE AT 4590 MALL A REID ALONG WITH MY WIFE PAULA SNEET.

I JUST WANT TO REITERATE WHAT MELS JAWS SAID.

NONE OF US HAVE BEEN NOTIFIED, EVEN ABOUT THE 2018 OR THE PREVIOUS PROPOSAL TO ACCESS OUR. WE HAVE 250 FEET OF FRONTAGE, AND 30 FEET OF THE EXISTING EASEMENT ON OUR PROPERTY, SO NEED TO SEE PLOT PLANS OR IDEAS THAT THIS BUILDER MIGHT HAVE TO TRY TO ACCESS OUR PROPERTY, WHICH IS A BIG CONCERN.

WE'VE BEEN THERE FOR 28 YEARS. I PAY OVER $8,000 FOR 5-1/2 ACRES TO LIVE THERE IN PEACE, PER SE, AND WE'VE STILL GOT A PIECE OF OLD SPHAWGHT WHERE WE FEEL COMFORTABLE.

THERE ARE 20 HOARPS THAT ARE ON THAT EASEMENT AND HERE TODAY WE HAVE FIVE OR SIX BECAUSE NONE OF THE OTHERS ARE EVEN AWARE OF THAT THIS IS HAPPENING. IT'S A GRAVE CONCERN.

WE HAVE I THINK -- WE HAVE WHOM THINGS HAPPENING ALREADY IN OUR COUNTY, ON A PERSONAL BASIS, I THINK THAT JUST ENTERTAINING ANOTHER DEVELOPMENT TO EXPAND ALL THIS -- THESE ROADS AND

[00:10:02]

WE PURCHASED ALL THAT PROPERTY BACK THERE OVER THE YEARS SO WE COULD BE LEFT ALONE. OUR INTEREST -- I DON'T KNOW IF YOU HAD ANY PICTURES. I THINK ONE OF MY NEIGHBORS WAS GOING TO INTRODUCE SOME IMAGES OF OUR ROADWAY.

WE HAVE A HAMMOCK ALONG THERE WHERE HERITAGE OAKS ALONG THE WHOLE WAY. THEY'LL BE DESTROYED.

THEY'RE ONLY TWO OR THREE FEET FROM OUR EXISTING LOAD.

AND WE'VE BEEN LIVING BACK THERE NOT IN HARMONY, PER SE, BUT KIND OF LIKE I PAY THOSE TAXES SO WE CAN HAVE THAT LIFESTYLE AND HAVE THAT CONFIDENCE THAT WE'RE PART OF OLD ST. AUGUSTINE.

SO IN CLONING I JUST WANT TO SAY I THANK THE COMMITTEE BECAUSE I WAS NOT MADE AWARE OF THE PREVIOUS ZONING MEETING ABOUT THE APPLICATION FOR THE ACCESS AND IS IT WAS DENIED, AND IT JUST APPEARS TO ME THAT OUR PLANNING BOARD RECOGNIZES THE PURPOSE OF THAT ROAD AND WHO IT'S FOR.

I WILL ASK IF THIS COMMITTEE FEELS THAT THEY COULD PASS OR DENY THIS APPLICATION AT THIS STAGE, IT WOULD SAVE US AMPLE OPPORTUNITY. IF NOT, THE POSTPONEMENT MIGHT GIVE US AN AMPLE OPPORTUNITY TO GO AHEAD AND GET LEGAL REPRESENTATION IF NEED SO BE TO GO IN ANOTHER DIRECTION.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >> THANK YOU.

WPSU WPSU. >>

>> BRENDA WILLIAMS. >> I HELP MY NAME IS BRENDA WILLIAMS. I'VE LIVED BACK ON CARTER ROAD NOW FOR 37 YEARS I'M AT 3712 CARTER ROAD.

WE BUILT THIS HOUSE THAT WE'RE IN MAINLY BECAUSE IT IS A PRIVATE ROAD, THAT ALL HOMEOWNERS OWN THE ROAD.

WE'VE MAINTAINED THAT ROAD FOR THE 37 YEARS.

IT WAS ERV NEVER COUNTY. CROWN NEVER PAID FOR IT.

WE HAVE TO PUT THE MONEY IN FOR THE ROAD AND WE MAINTAIN THE ROAD. WE LIVE OUT THERE BECAUSE IT'S BEAUTIFUL OUT THERE, THE TREES, THE ANIMALS.

EVERY DAY WE SAW DEERS. TODAY WE SAW THE DEERS OUTSIDE.

THRFERS GOPHER TURTLES THAT LIVE ALL ALONG THAT ROAD, AND THEY'RE AN ENDANGER SPECIES SO THAT'S SOMETHING THEY WOULD BE DESTROYING AS WELL IF YOU LET THIS PROJECT GO THROUGH.

THESE HUGE OAK TREES, WHICH I HAVE PICTURES OF THE WHOLE ROAD, YOU WILL BE DESTROYING ALL THIS IF YOU LET THAT HAPPEN.

IT JUST SADDENS ME. I'VE LIVED HERE, MY FAMILY HAS BEEN HERE SINCE IF 1800S, SO I'VE LIVED HERE ALMOST MY ENTIRE LIFE, AND THE DEVELOPMENT, IT IS SHAMEFUL, IT SADDENS ME TO SEE WHAT IS HAPPENING TO THIS COUNTY.

IF YOU HAD BEEN HERE FROM THE BEGINNING -- I DON'T KNOW IF SOME OF YOU HAVE -- BUT IT IS HORRIBLE THAT THESE DEVELOPERS DO THIS TO US. THEY DESTROY THE LAND.

THEY GUT THE TREES. THEY LEAVE NOTHING, AND THEY SAY, OH, WE'RE GOING TO REPLANT. THEY PLANT THESE LITTLE BABY TREES THAT I'LL BE DEAD BEFORE THEY GET TO BE REAL TREES.

ANYWAY, IT A STOUNDS ME TO LET THIS HAPPEN.

I WANT TO SHOW YOU THE PICTURES OF THE ROADWAY.

HERE'S THE REST OF THEM. SHE SAID TO JUST PUT THEM HERE SO I DON'T KNOW IF YOU CAN SEE THEM OR NOT.

>> JE, WE YES, WE CAN. >> THAT'S THE FIRST LOT OF THEM.

CAN I MOVE THESE AND PUT THE SECOND BATCH OF PICTURES?

>> YES, YOU MAY. >> CAN YOU SEE THESE TOO?

>> YES, MA'AM. >> AS YOU CAN SEE, YOU CAN SEE THE BIG OAK TREES AND EVERYTHING ALONG THIS PRIVATE DRIVE.

AND EVERY ONE OF THOSE TREES PROBABLY WOULD HAVE TO COME OUT IF THEY GET WHAT THEY ARE PROPOSING.

DO YOU WANT ME TO LEAVE THESE PICTURES HERE? YOU WILL NEED TO GIVE THEM TO MS. SHERRY.

>> OKY. >> THANK YOU, MA'AM.

>> I'M NOT FINISHED. >> YES, YOU ARE.

>> I DON'T HAVE ANY MORE TIME? >> YES, MA'AM.

>> CAN I JUST ASK ONE QUESTION TO YOU?

>> WE DON'T ANSWER QUESTIONS, MA'AM.

>> YOU DON'T ANSWER QUESTIONS? >> YES.

[00:15:05]

OKAY. SO WE ARE BACK INTO THE AGENCY ON THIS PARTICULAR ITEM FOR ACTION ON THIS REQUEST TO POSTPONE THIS ITEM TO MARCH THE 3RD.

>> THE GENERAL IS FOR NUMBER 11? >> OKAY.

>> ALLEN LAURO. >> ALLEN LAURO.

IN REGARDS TO TODAY'S CONTINUANCE OF DEEFERL FOREST PUD 202105, THIS NOW BRINGS A TOTAL OF FOUR CONTINUANCES ASSOCIATED WITH DEERFIELD FORREST PUD SINCE 2017.

TEG THE PUDS HAVE BEEN DENIED FOUR TIMES BY THE PLANNING & ZONING, THE BCC, AND THE CIRCUIT COURT OF ST. JOHNS COUNTY.

AFTER THIS APPLICANT WAS DENIED BY THE P&Z ON NOVEMBER 18, 2021, FOD'S MISSING ATTORNEY D.R. REPAST REQUESTED RECONSIDERING DURING THE PUBLIC COMMENTS PORTION OF THE PLANNING & ZONING MEETING OF THE DECEMBER -- EXCUSE ME -- OF DECEMBER 16TH.

THAT ATTORNEY ADDED THAT A GOOD DEAL OF INFORMATION WAS LEFT OUT, LIKE OTHERS HAD SAID, AND WHAT STRUCK ME WAS -- AND IT WASN'T PRESENT PROPERLY BY THE APPLICANT ATTORNEY PORT.

THEY HIRED HIM. THE COUNTY, THE STATE, THE PUBLIC DIDN'T HIRE HIM. THEY HIRED HIM.

OH AFTER SPEAKING WITH ONE OF THE LICTS, DISTRICT 4 ZACK MILLER ADD THAT HAD ITEM 11 WAS KIND OF AT THE END OF OUR AGENDA ON THE 18TH. BEFORE TODAY'S CONTINUANCE TO MARCH 3RD POSSIBLY, DEERFIELD FOREST PUD 2021 TODAY IS ITEM 11. WHAT'S CHANGED? IF THE ITEM WAS PRESENTED TODAY AND DENIED WITH THOSE COMMENT BY ZACK MILLER CONTINUALLY APPLY UNTIL THEY GET WHAT THEY WANT? MIGHT ONE OF FOUR THE PRINCIPLE ASSOCIATED WITH DEERFIELD FOREST NOW FOR THE SECOND TIME BEFORE THE P&Z WHICH NORMALLY IS REMANDED BACK BY THE BCC -- YOU CHOSE NOT TO DO THAT -- IT'S BEEN 78 DAYS THAT HAVE PASSED SINCE YOUR FIRST DENIAL.

COULD THEY NOT HAVE RECEIVED AND ONE PERSON GOT THIS MISSING INFORMATION? THE P&E HAVE&Z MEMBERS GRANT THE APPLICANT'S RECONSIDERATION AND WOULD HAVE AVOIDED THE 44 HOUR SHORT NOTICE OF CONTINUANCE TO ALL WHO WISH TO SPEAK TODAY ON ACCOUNT APPLICANT WAS UNWELL. RESPECTFULLY, THEY WERE IN THEIR OFERSZ YESTERDAY. I PLACED THOSE CALLS.

THREE WERE IN THEIR OFFICE. I FOR ONE LOST A DAY'S PAY AND HAVE PASSED ON AN ASSIGNMENT TO BE HERE.

I APPRECIATE YOUR TIME. THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU, SIR. ALL RIGHT.

IS THERE ANYBODY ELSE TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM BEFORE I COME BACK TO THE AGENCY? OKAY.

SO WE ARE BACK IN THE AGENCY FOR A MOTION ON WHETHER OR NOT TO GRANT THIS REQUEST. MS. PERKINS.

>> TO CLARIFY, THIS IS NOT A MOTION TO RECONSIDER.

THAT HAS ALREADY BEEN MADE, THIS MOTION TO CONTINUE.

AND I FEEL LIKE THIS APPLICANT SHOULD BE AFFORDED THE OPPORTUNITY TO CONTINUE THIS, HAVING KNOWN THAT'S SUPPOSEDLY AND PROBABLY DO HAVE COVID. GIVEN THAT FACT, MY MOTION IS TO CONTINUE PUD 2021-05 DEERFIELD FOREST TO THE PCHT SECHTA

HEARING ON 3/3/22. >> SO WE HAVE A MOTION BY MS. PERKINS. IS THERE A SECOND?

>> I PEKD. >> WE'VE GOT A SECOND.

HOW ABOUT DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE --

>> I'D LIKE TO SAY ONE THING. >> YES.

>> SOME ADDITIONAL INFORMATION THAT AT LEAST THE P&Z MEMBERS RECEIVED WAS IN THE FORM OF SOME PHOTOGRAPHS THAT ONE OF THE PEOPLE THAT WROTE IN IN OPPOSITION TO THIS PROVIDED OF THE TRAIN AND THE LOADING AND UNLOADING OF APPARENTLY POTATOES RIGHT ALONG THERE. WHEN WE HEARD THIS BEFORE, THE APPLICANT STATED THAT THEY -- THE TRAIN NEVER DID STOP ALONG THERE. THERE WAS NO LOADING OR UNLOADING OCCURRING THERE. WE RECEIVED PHOTOGRAPHS THAT SHOWED INDEED THAT THAT DOES HAPPEN, SO IF THE APPLICANT WAS HERE TODAY, I WAS GOING TO ASK THAT THEY BE PUT UNDER OATH BECAUSE I BELIEVE THEY MISLED US PREVIOUSLY.

SO I INTEND TO VOTE AGAINST THIS CONTINUANCE.

IT'S BEEN HEARD NUMEROUS TIMES BY US, BY THE BOCC, BY A CIRCUIT COURT, AND I'M NOT IN FAVOR OF THIS MOVING FORWARD AT ALL, SO

[00:20:02]

>> SO I DID NOT SEE THE POTATO UNLOADING, SO COULD YOU EXPLAIN

WHAT THAT -- >> THERE WERE NUMEROUS PHOTOS.

SHERRY, DO YOU HAVE THOSE PERHAPS?

>> DID YOU GET IT IN AN EMAIL? I MAY HAVE GOTTEN IT IN AN EMAIL. I THOUGHT WE ALL RECEIVED IT.

I THINK IT WAS MAIL TO OUR P&Z ADDRESSES.

JACK, YOU SAW IT? MR. PETER.

DISCUSS ME. >> DID IT COME TODAY?

>> NO, LAST WEEK. IN THE LAST COUPLE WEEKS.

>> LAST WEEK. THERE WERE PROBE, WHAT, A HALF

DOZEN PHOTOS. >> I SAW A WHOLE BUNCH ABOUT THE

DOG PARK. >> BUT SEEING THOSE PHOTOGRAPHS, IT IS PRETTY CONVINCING TO ME THAT THAT DOES OCCUR, THAT TRAINS DO STOP ALONG THAT PORTION OF THE TRACK AND BLOCK WATSON ROAD. AND THEN THE ONLY WAY OUT IS CARTER ROAD, WHICH THE RESIDENTS THAT LIVE ALONG THERE, THAT'S A PRIVATE ROAD, PRIVATE EASEMENT. THEY'RE NOT IN FAVOR OF THIS.

AND THAT GATE IS LOCKED ANYWAY. SO I'M NOT IN FAVOR OF CONTINUING THIS AT ALL. BUT I'M SORRY YOU DIDN'T SEE THE PHOTOS. THEY'RE REALLY NICE COLOR

PHOTOS. >> WELL, I WOULD NEVER BELIEVE THAT A TRAIN DOESN'T STOP ON A RAILROAD TRACK ANYWAY.

TRAINS ALWAYS STOP ON A RAILROAD TRACK.

>> BUT IT WAS STATED -- >> PARTICULARLY WHEN YOU'RE IN A

HURRY. >> OF COURSE.

>> ALWAYS. BUT HE STATED TO US THAT THAT DID NOT HAPPEN, BY THE APPLICANT.

>> SO WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND TO DEFER THIS UNTIL MARCH THE 3RD. IS THERE ANY OTHER DISCUSSION AT THIS POINT? SEEING NONE, I'M GOING TO GO ONE BY ONE. MR. PIERRE.

HOW DO YOU VOTE? >> I VOTE THAT WE CONTINUE.

>> MR. PETER? >> NO.

>> CHAIRMAN VOTES YES. MS. PERKINS.

>> YES. >> DR. HILSENBECK.

>> NO. >> OKAY.

DR. MCCORMICK. >> NO.

>> ALL RIGHT. SO WE HAVE A TIE VOTE, WHICH MEANS THAT ABSENT ANOTHER MOTIO MOTION, THAT THE REQUEST, I BELIEVE, IS DENIED. IS THAT CORRECT, CHRISTINE?

>> IT IS. HOWEVER, I WOULD CAUTION YOU YOU'RE VOTING ON A PRERL PROL MATTER THAT HAS THE EFFECT OF NOT ALLOWING THE PUBLIC HEARING AND NOT ALLOWING THE APPLICANT TO BE HEARD, AND I THINK THAT COULD BE PROBLEMATIC.

>> THANK YOU. SO I WILL CALL FOR A DIFFERENT

MOTION. >> I'M NOTE PREPARED TO MAKE A MOTION, BUT THAT IS QUITE A CAVEAT YOU THREW OUT THERE, SO I DON'T KNOW WHAT TO DO HERE. I'M STILL NOT IN FAVOR OF IT.

WE DID HEAR THIS BACK IN I BELIEVE IT WAS NOVEMBER.

IF I HAD BEEN HERE AT THE DECEMBER 15TH MEETING, I WOULD HAVE VOTED AGAINST ALLOWING A CONTINUANCE, BUT I WASN'T HERE AND I SEE THAT IT PASSED 6-0. SO? IT'S ALREADY BEEN RECONSIDERED. I AM I MEAN, IT'S ALREADY BEEN APPROVED FOR RI CTION. THE FACT THAT THE APPLICANT IS NOT HERE IS NOT RIGHT THAT WE DON'T ALLOW THEM TO COME BACK.

HE HAS A RIGHT LIKE THE GENERAL PUBLIC.

TO NOTE ALLOW HIM TO COME BACK IS, I MEAN, IT'S GOING TO CAUSE

LEGAL PROBLEMS HERE AND THERE. >> WELL, CHRISTINE -- EXCUSE ME, MS. VALERI, DO YOU BELIEVE THAT IT WOULD CAUSE LEGAL PROBLEMS?

>> I THINK IT WOULD BE PROBLEMATIC, PROBLEMATIC AND JUST AND YOU TO THINK ABOUT SEPARATING YOUR THOUGHTS ABOUT THE APPLICATION ITSELF VERSUS THE CONTINUANCE UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES THAT THEY HAVE REPRESENTED TO ME AND THEIR ATTORNEYS REPRESENTED TO ME THAT KEY MEMBERS OF THEIR TEAM HAVE COVID OR ARE QUARANTINED.

>> OKAY. AND I'M SORRY I BUTCHERED YOUR NAME. I KNOW IT'S VALERI.

>> I WAS FINE WITH CHRISTINE. >> MINE IS BUTCHERED ALL THE

TIMEY IS WELCOME TO THE CLUB. >> MR. PIER IS GOING TO MAKE A MOTION IF MR. DHAIRM, I'LL MOVE, I MOVE THE THAT WE MOVE TO CONTINUE 2021-05 FEEFERRED DEEFERRED FORCES TO THE HEARING

DATE OF FEBRUARY. >> HEARING BY MR. PETER WITH SECOND BY MS. PERKINS. LET'S GO ONE BY ONE AGAIN.

MR. PIERRE. >> I MOVE THAT WE CONTINUE.

>> MR. PETER. >> YES.

>> I VOTE YES. >> YES.

>> MS. PERKINS. DR. MCCORMICK.

>> YES. >> DR. MCCORMICK.

>> YES. >> THAT PASSES 6-0.

ALL RIGHT. WELL, THAT WAS EASY.

I WISH I HAD ONE OF THOSE BUTTONS.

ONE OF THOSE RED BUTTONS. ALL RIGHT.

[00:25:05]

[Items 1 & 2]

SO IS THERE ANYONE HERE TO MAKE WHAT WE CALL GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT AT THIS TIME? SEEING NONE, WE'RE GOING TO MOVE TO ON ITEMS 1 AND 2, AND MS. HAGA.

DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANY EX PARTE COMMUNICATION TO DECLARE WITH REGARD TO ITEM 2? I DO.

I SPOKE TO MS. ELLEN AVERY-SMITH THIS MORNING ABOUT ITEM NUMBER 2, AND WE JUST DISCUSSED SOME OF THE CHANGES THAT HAVE BEEN MADE SINCE IT CAME TO US FOR A TRANSMITTAL TO THE STATE

IS MAINLY WHAT WE TALKED ABOUT. >> GOOD AFTERNOON, P&Z MEMBERS.

FOR THE REGARD LINDS HAGA, SENIOR PLANNER WITH ENGLAND-THIMS & MILLER 14775 OLD ST. AUGUSTINE ROAD AND WE ARE HERE, WE'RE GOING TOO COMBINE ITEMS 1 AND 2 IN A SINGULAR PRESENTATION. HERE FOR THE AGENDA, AND WE'RE HERE TO CONSIDER THE ADOPTION OF OUR LARGE SCALE LAND USE "A" AMENDMENT AND THE COMPANION PLANNED UNIT REZONING.

WITH US IS THE PROPERTY SERINO MR. JOE HILO AND HIS PART HERR BTI PARTNERS SEVEN CAN CRAMER. THE REST MR. CREF CRAM OND TO SPEAK TO US DR. TRANSPORTATION, CARL FOR THE DEVELOPMENT AND SITE PLANNING AND WITH US ELLEN AVERY-SMITH WITH ROGERS TOWERS TO DEFINED GOOD NIGHT TOGETHER FOUR ON LEGAL REVIEW.

SO TO BEGIN, YOU HIT IT ON THE HEAD.

WE'RE BACK FROM TRANSMITTAL WHICH OCCURRED IN THE JUNE-JULY TIME FRAME LAST YEAR. WE'VE CHECKED OFF A COUPLE OF THE BOXES AND WE'RE HERE TODAY TO CONSIDER OUR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT AND THE PUD. IN BETWEEN WE'VE HAD TWO NORTHWEST SECTOR MEETINGS, THE FIRST BEING HELD IN MAY BEFORE OUR TRANSMITTAL. THE SECOND IN OCTOBER.

AND IN BETWEEN SPRINKED WITH FIVE WORKING GROUPS MEETING, WE HAD A SECOND GROUP THAT INFLUENCE OWRD PUD OR REZONING APPLICATION THAT'S BEFORE YOU TODAY.

THIS CHART IS IMPORTANT AS FAR AS JUST ONE OF THE AMOUNT OF COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT THAT WE HAVE HAD WITH OUR COMMUNITY BUT TO ALSO SPEND SPELG OUT WHEN WE'RE ALLOWED TO FILE FOR CERTAIN ITEMS THAT GIVE US THE FULL PICTURE FOR DEVELOPMENT.

AND KEY TO THAT IS AFTER OUR APPROVAL OF OUR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN OOCHTD, WE'RE THEN ABLE TO FILE FOR OUR SCHOOL CONCURRENCY ANALYSIS AND GET THAT PORTION DETERMINED AS FAR AS OUR CAPACITY STATEMENTS, WHERE WE ARE.

SAYING THAT, WE HAVE RESERVED A SCHOOL SITE WITHIN OUR PROPERTY SO WE'LL GO THROUGH THAT TIMELINE AS WELL.

SO LET'S BEGIN ON WHERE WE ARE. I THINK WE'RE A FAMILIAR WITH THIS PLOT. IF YOU'VE BEEN SYNTH ENGINES, CERTAIN TO ST. JO. HIGHLIGHT THERE IS THAT 2100 ACRES THAT WE'RE CONSIDERING FOR OUR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMOUNTED AND PUD IT.

LOCATED IN THE MIDDLE OF THE SECTOR AND THE ROADWAY MAP IS VERY INFORMATIVE AS FAR AS OUR REGIONAL ROADWAY NETWORK THAT HUGS AROUND OUR PROPERTY AND THAT CONNECT IN WITH SOME PLOOCHTS THAT ARE BEING MADE BOTH ON THE PRIVATE DEVELOPMENT SIDE AS WELL AS THE COUNTY PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE.

THAT PROXIMITY TO THE REGIONAL ROADWAY NETWORK MAKES IN AN ATTRACTIVE INFELL PIECE BOTH FROM AN AGRICULTURE ENCLAVE COMPODEMENT AS WELL AS INFILL PIECE FOR APPROXIMATE UM TO THE JOB CENTERS AND THE DISPRESH COMMUNITIES THEY'VE WITHIN THE NORTHWEST SECTOR, ANDNESS OUR OPPORTUNITY TO FILL IN THAT DOUGHNUT WHOLE EXPHOAL -- IN THE NORTHWEST SECTOR.

WHEN WE LEFT OFF AT THAT TRANSMITTAL THE PLANNING AND COMMENTS THAT WE HAD FROM THE PLANNING AND ZONING AGENCY FROM THE BOARD COUNTY COMMISSIONERS FOLLOWED IN THESE FLEE BUCKET OF TOXIC FOCUS. WHAT ARE BEE DOING ABOUT TARKS PARK IN THE COMMUNITY. HOW DO WE DWREAS FISCAL IMPACT AND WHAT ABOUT MOBILITY, AND THAT'S ALL THINS, CARS, THE PEDESTRIAN EXPERIENCE AS WELL AS PROVIDING FOR BICYCLES.

SO THROUGH THIS PRESENTATION YOU'LL SEE EMPLOYEE TOUCH TO EACH OF THOSE AND HOW WE'RE MITIGATING AND ADDRESSING EACH OF THOSE INFRASTRUCTURES. SO AGAIN THIS MAP SHOWS US OUR PROJECT LOCATED WITHIN THE NORTHWEST SECTOR I DON'T LAY, AND AGAIN IT BRINGS WITH US WHERE WE HAVE THE PLANNED REGIONAL ROADWAYS THAT ARE PART OF THE NORTHWEST SECTOR POLICIES OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.

THE GREENWAYS OF THE NORTHWEST SECTOR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, AND WHERE WE HAVE RECREATION SITES, SCHOOL SITES, AND THEN KEY COMBINED COMMERCIAL AREAS THAT YOU SEE IN THAT DARKER RED COLOR. A THAT TOGETHER IS REPRESENTED BY FOUR CORE PRINCIPLES OF CHARACTER PATTERN, RECREATION AND OPEN SPA MOBILITY AND COMMUNITY INFRASTRUCTURE.

AND ALL DEVELOPMENT IN THE NORTHWEST SECTOR HAVE A I SERIES OF POLICIES AND THEN INDICATORS TO GO THROUGH TO EXAMINE YOUR PROJECT AND EVALUATE AGAINST THAT.

YOU SEE THOSE LEAPTS HIGHLIGHTED IN OUR CONCEPTUAL PLAN.

[00:30:03]

THE SCHOOL SITE RESERVATION AND OTHER CIVIC USE SITES THAT WE HAVE RESERVED WITHIN THE PROJECT AREA, AND THE FACT THAT THIS PROJECT IS DEFINED OR CREATED AND PLANNED THROUGH SIX CONCEPTUAL NEIGHBORHOOD VILLAGES.

SO THOSE PRINCIPLES THEN CARRY FORWARD TO LOOK AT YOUR CONCEPTUAL PLAN THAT YOU SEE HERE.

EACH OF VILLAGES HAVE BEEN COLOR CODED FOR AN EASY POP AND THEN GIVEN THE NAMES SO THAT W CAN DESCRIBE THEIR LOCATION AND THE TYPE AND NATURE OF THE CONTEXT OF THOSE COMMUNITY VILLAGES, AND IT'S JUST UNDER -- IT'S JUST ABOUT 2100, JUST UNDER 2200 ACRES ALL TOLD WITH ALL OF THAT PROPERTY THAT WE'RE CONSIDERING FOR THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT.

THIS PATTERN OF DEVELOPMENT REFLECT WHAT WE SEE HERE TODAY SURROUND GENERALLY WITH AN AVERAGE DENSITY RANGING FROM 1.6 DWELLING UNITS TOTE ACRE TO 2.2 THROUGH A VARIETY OF PROJECTS THAT AR SHOWN IN BLUE IMMEDIATELY SURROUNDING OUR PROAT. THE TOTAL PROJECT IS PROPOSED FOR UP TO A MAXIMUM OF 3500 HOMES THROUGH DIVERSITY OF MUPT FAMILY AND SINGLE FAMILY AND 2.5 MILLION SPARE SQUARE FEET OF BOTH RETAIL AND OFFICE. I TOUCHED A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE REGIONAL RESERVE NETWORK OF 500 ACRES.

YOU DISWREANL SEE A LITTLE BIT HERE IN THE GREEN AREAS AS IT IS THREADS THROUGH AND CROSSES AND CONNECTS TO THE SIDEWALKS AND THE INTERNAL ROADWAY NETWORK THAT WE HAVE WITHIN OUR CONCEPT CLIEWL PLAN. AT A MINIMUM AT THE END OF THE DAY OUR TRAIL NETWORK WILL BE 2T INTERCONNECT THAT ARE OPEN BOTH FOR TO RESIDENTS WHO LIVE WITHIN THE PROJECT AS WELL AS THE GENERAL PUBLIC FOR US THAT LIVE THERE IN THE NORTHWEST SECTOR.

THIS ACTIVATES OR BRINGS TO LIFE THE CONNECTION POINTS FROM WILDFIRE VIEWING REARS THAT YOU SEE SHOWN IN BINOCULARS, WILDLIFE CROSSING AREAS AND TYING INTO THE EXISTING PRESERVE. YOU WILL SEE ME TOUCH UPON THAT OR PERHAPS YOU RED IN THE PUD DOCUMENT ITSELF THE DEVELOPER'S FIMENT COMMITMENT DO WORKS IF THE JEA SWHELS ST. JOHNS COUNTY FOR ANY CONNECTIONS OR TRAIL IMPROVEMENTS THAT THOSE TWO ENTSTY WOULD LIKE TO IN A THAT EXISTING PRESERVE AND HAVING THOSE CONNECTIONS ON THE PROPERTY ITSELF WHICH IS OFF-SNIET. SO THIS IS YOUR LAND USE MAP.

THIS IS OUR PROPOSED LAND USE MAP THAT YOU SEE WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT IS A MAP AMENDMENT AND A TEXT OOSMED. YOU CAN SEE FROM THE SIMILAR PATTERNS OF DEVELOPMENT THE LAND USED WE ARE REQUESTING IS MIXED USE, RESIDENTIAL B, RESIDENTIAL C AND RESIDENTIAL D.

WITHIN THAT YELLOW BOUNDARY IS OUR PROPERTY AREA.

YOU'LL ALSO NOTE A RED LINE. THIS IS THE COUNTY'S DEVELOPMENT AREA BOUNDARY. 90% OUR PROPERTY PERIMETER IS TOUCHING ON THAT DEVELOPMENT AREA BOUNDARY.

AND THAT'S IMPORTANT BECAUSE WE HAVE GUIDANCE FOR US IN OUR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN THAT TELLS US HOW TO CHANGE THE COLORS ON THE MAP OR EXTEND THAT DEVELOPMENT AREA, AND WE'RE ENTIRELY WITHIN THE THAT DEVELOPMENT AREA AS YOU SEE WITH THAT RED LINE.

A LITTLE BIT OF PERCENTAGE ON THE RURAL/SILVICULTURE ON THE JEA PIECE IT'S NOT SURROUNDED IN THE DEVELOPMENT AREA.

THE OTHER EXOA PORTION OF THE LAND USE AMENDMENT IS THIS TEXT AMENDMENT. IF YOU ALLOW, IT'S ALMOST LOOK A RECIPE FOR DEVELOPMENT. IT GIVES US OUR MAXIMUM AMOUNT OF UNITS AND OUR MAXIMUM AMOUNT OF NON-RESIDENTIAL SQUARE FOOTAGE AS WELL AS DISTINCTLY DEFINING THE TYPES OF USES THAT WOULD BE ALLOWED WITHIN THE PUD AND AS FURTHER REFINED FOR EACH VILLAGE GIVEN ITS CONTEXT WITHIN THE NORTHWEST SECTOR.

THE POLICY ALSO TOUCHES ON HOW WE'LL GOVERNING OUR SCENIC ANDKE EDGES AND ALSO CARRIES FOR THAT MINIMUM REQUIREMENT TO HAVE FOR FOUR REGIONAL PRESERVE NETWORK. SO TOGETHER THIS REPRESENTS OUR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT THROUGH THAT QUILT OF COLORS THAT YOU SEE ON THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP AND ARE A RECIPE FOR THE WHEN WE LEFT OUT A TRANSMITTAL WE HAD ENOUGH INFORMATION I THINK AS A COMMUNITY TO AGREE THAT IT WOULD BE SENT OUT FOR STATE REVIEW. THIS IS A CLIP OF THE LETTER FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY WHICH IS THE STATE PLANNING AGENCY REVIEWING OUR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN OOSMED.

IN THEIR REVIEW THEY DID NOT FIND OR OBJECT TO ANY OF THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS FINDINGS IT CONSISTENT WITH THE STATE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND STATE THAT STATUTE.

THEIR ALSO ALSO PROVIDES THAT STATUTORY CLOCK FOR WHEN ST. JOHNS COUNTY WILL CONSIDER OUR AMENDMENT.

THE OTHER REGIONAL AGENCIES PROVIDE THE SAME FINDING AND WE HAVE TWO BITS FROM THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION IDENTIFYING THAT OUR PROJECT WILL HAVE IMTACTS TO THE REGIONAL ROADWAY NETWORK AND ADVISING US TO WORK WITH THE COUNTY TO MITIGATE FOR THOSE THIS.

WE ARE DOING THAT. THE SECOND COMMENT IS FROM THE AND A HALF WILDLIFE COMMISSION REGARDING BLACK BEAR CONSERVATION AND RECOMMENDING THAT WE PROVIDE FOR WHOLE COMPREHENSIVE CONTIGUOUS LEY THREADS OF THE NATURAL AREAS, WHICH IS REPRESENTED BY THE 500 ACRES OF THE REGIONAL PRER.

SO NOW WA EV WE'VE CLEARED THAT STATE AND REASONABLE REVIEW WE'RE BACK BEFORE TO YOU ADDRESS THEN WORKING WITH THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT, WHAT ARE THE EXACT OISHES OUR PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE. SO I'LL WALK THROUGH QUICKLY AND REMIND US WHERE WE LEFT OFF OH AIR PARKS.

WE HAD OUR DEVELOPMENT COMMITMENT TO PROVIDE FOR LOCAL

[00:35:02]

THIS IS ALREADY LAND THAT'S OWNED BY THE COUNTY, AND IT'S UNDER REVIEW NOW WITH A REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS TO GO FOR A DESIGN OF A MASTER PARK FOR 63 63 AC, AND WHAT THEQE COMMITMENT TO PROVIDE LOCAL ROAD ACCESS ALONG WITH UTILITIES TO ACCELERATE AND ALSO ELIMINATE THAT COST PROVISION TO DEVELOPING INTO THAT PARK. ON-SITE WITHIN MARKS WILL PROVIDE UP TO 42 ACRES OF A COMBINATION OF NEIGHBORHOOD AND COMMUNITY PARK MIX THAT YOU WILL SEE, AND GENERALLY WE'VE PUT THE LOCATIONS OF CP WITHIN THE SITE AS A PLACEHOLDER BUT YOU HAVE ALSO SEEN SOME OF THOSE PARKS LOCATIONS WITHIN THE PUD ITSELF.

AS A REMINDER, THE 500 ACRES OF REASONABLE PRESERVE ARE PART THAT OPEN SPACE COMPONENT AND THEY'RE CONNECTING WITH OUR 20 MILES OF THE TRAIL NETWORK. THE SECOND COMPONENT FOR PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE WOULD BE SCHOOLS. THIS IS OUR SCWEPTUAL MAP IS HIGHLIGHTED HERE FOR TWO ITEMS. ONE IS OUR -- TO REFLECT OUR COMMUNITY -- OR COMMITMENT TO RESERVE THE 40-ACRE SITE, GENERALLY SHOWN HERE IN THIS AREA OF TIMBERLAND VILLAGE WHICH IS ADJACENT TO GREENBRIER ROAD. IT WOULD HAVE ACCESS FROM GREENBRIER ROAD AS WELL AS FROM OUR INTERNAL WHAT WE WILL CALL FOR TODAY THE HORSESHOE ROAD TO ACCESS INTO THE SITE.

WE'VE MET WITH THE SCHOOL DISTRICT.

WE HAVE A LETTER OF ACKNOWLEDGMENT FROM NICOLE COULD HAVEAGE AGREEING THAT OUR SITE HAS BEEN LOOKED AT.

WE'VE USED THEIR PROTOTYPE TO FIT IN THE ACCESS FOR SCHOOL ACCESS, AND THAT'S ABOUT AS FAR AS YOU CAN GO BEFORE YOU'RE LOUDLY TO FILE FOR YOUR SCHOOL ANALYSIS, WHERE WE ARE IN OUR COMPREHENSIVE AMENDMENT STAGE. SO WE GOT THAT LETTER OF SUPPORT AND ACKNOWLEDGMENT IN WE'RE AGREEING TO THE SCHOOL SIZE, THE SITE LOCATION ITSELF, THE SIZE OF THE ACREAGE AND THE TYPE OF SCHOOL. AND WE ALSO HAD SOME DISCUSSIONS ABOUT CHANGES UNDERWAY. A COUPLE OF THE SCHOOLS ARE OPENING, TO COY AND THE NEWELL NAME BEACH SIDE AND WHAT THAT MEANS FOR CHANGING ZONES FOR ANIMALS ON CONCURRENCY SERVICE AREAS. THE OTHER PART TO ADDRESS IS COOLS BUT NIGHTS NOTICE A CAPACITY ISSUE.

AS YOU SEE AT THE BOTTOM OF THE SCREEN OUR BARTRAM TRAIL HIGH SCHOOL SECONDARY ACCESS OR BTS THROUGH OUR NEIGHBORHOOD MEETINGS IN THE NORTHWEST SECTOR WE HEARD SOME CONCERNS ABOUT HOW THIS EXPERIENCE BARTRAM TRAIL HIGH SCHOOL, IF YOU'VE GONE HERE BEFORE HAS A SINGLE ACCESS ON LONGLEAF PINE PARKWAY.

BOTH THE CARS THAT IS FACULTY, THE SCHOOLKIDS ARRIVING TO CLASS, AS WELL AS THE BUSES COME IN WITHIN ONE ACCESS POINT.

SO DWIEWRNG 30 MINUTE IN THE PEAK OF THE MORNING, THE INTERSECTION OF LONGLEAF AND GREENBRIER EXPERIENCES SOME DELAY BECAUSE OF THE TYPE OF TRAFFIC AND A SINGULAR ACCESS POINT. SO THE DEVELOPER COMMITMENT WOULD BE TO PROVIDE THE SECONDARY ACCESS RIGHT-OF-WAY WITHIN BRIDAL VJ. WE HAVE WORKED WITH THE SCHOOL DISTRICT TO SEE WHERE THAT CAN LOOK LIKE THE IN THEIR EXISTING CAMPUS WHERE YOU CANNOT ONLY PROVIDE TWO ACCESS POINTS BUT ALSO SEGREGATE OR SPRAWT THE TYPE OF VEHICLES THAT CAN USE IT SO IT WOULD IMPROVE THE EXPERIENCE ON LONGLEAF PINE PARKWAY AND THERE WITH THE INTERSECTION OF GREENBRIER.

THE LAST COMPONENT BEFORE WE GET INTO TRANSPORTATION AND GET INTO THE PUD FOR PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE DEALS WITHPHILES FIRE SERVICES. THIS HAS BEEN A MAINSTAY THROUGH OUR PROPOSAL LOCATING THE ROBERTS ROAD FIRE STATION SITE.

WE HAVE RESERVED 5 ACRES AND MEET WITH YEF CHECH AND ROB DOWELING WITH FIRE SERVICES TO TALK THROUGH THAT LOCATION, GETTING THEIR PROTOTYPE FOR FIRE STATION 18, SO THAT'S THEIR KIND OF-MONTH-OLD THAT THEY SITE FIT, TEST FIT THAT ON THE PLOT SO WE CAN SEE HOW THAT WILL BE PROVIDED TO THAT THE PPPED ALSO STORM WATER NACH EXTERIOR LOCATION OF THE FIRE STATION IS IMPORTANT. WITHIN YOUR PACKET YOU SEE THE FIRE STATION COVERAGE AREA. THIS RED MAP THAT SHOWS THAT.

IT ALSO WOULD ALLOW FOR THE CONSTRUCTION A FIRE STATION AND AN ACCELERATED WAY RATHER THAN PROVIDING WAITING UNTIL DEVELOPMENT GETS WITHIN AN INTERNAL SITE OF THE PROJECT.

SO IT'S INTENTIONAL IN WORKING WITH FIRE SERVICES THAT THEY LOCATE THAT HERE LOSING ROBERTS ROAD AS FAR AS HAVING THAT EXTERIOR POINT THAT THEY'RE NOT EXPERIENCING THE DELAY BEFORE YOU GET TO AN INTERIOR OF THE PROJECT.

SO FORE TRANSPORTATION, WE'LL HIT -- THIS IS ONE OF OUR KEY ELEMENTS WHEN WE FILE OUR PROPORTIONATE FAIR SHARE.

THAT'S ONE OF OUR COMPOTHENTS THAT WE TALKED ABOUT AND WE KIND OF KNOW WHAT THE RULESR. SO WE LOOKED AT ROAD WRAY PROJECTS WITHIN A FOUR-MILE REAR OF OUR PROJECT.

WE IDENTIFY WHAT THE IMPACTS OF OUR PROJECT TRAFFIC FOR RESIDENTIAL WOULD BE WITHIN THOASES ROADWAY IMPACTS.

AND THEN WE DETERMINE WHAT THE APPROPRIATE MITT ADDITION ORE A PLOARGS AT SHARE WOULD BE TO SOLVE FOR THE ROADWAY NETWORKS.

A KEY COMPONENT TO KNOW ABOUT OUR PROJECT IS THE SAME IMPROVEMENTS THAT ARE REQUIRED NOW THAT ARE WORKING WITH STAFF, SO YOU NEED TO UPGRADE A ROAD FROM TWO LANES TO FOUR LANES ARE THE I'M IMPROVEMENTS THAT ARE NEEDED AFTER OUR PROJECT.

SO OUR PROJECT DOES NOT NOW DEMAND A DIFFERENT IMPROVEMENT THAN WHAT WE ALREADY HAVE ON THE BOOKS FOOD FOR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLANNING. OUR PROJECT, THOUGH, CONTRIBUTES JUST UNDER $30 MILLION TO ADVANCE THOSE PROJECTS.

THAT'S VERY IMPORTANT. WE DON'T DETERIORATE ANY NEW NEED FOR A DIFFERENT CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT AND WE BRING TO THE TABLE DOLLARS TO SOLVE THE EXISTING PROBLEM.

SO WE'VE SEEN THESE MAPS. I WONT BELABOR THE POINT BUT THE

[00:40:03]

AGAIN THOSE REMAIN THE SAME. WHETHER OUR PROJECT EXISTS OR NOT. THIS IS THROWING IN OUR PROJECT LOCATION SO WE CAN GET THAT FRAMEWORK FORE WHAT ARE THE ROADWAY NET WITH, WHERE WE'RE HAVING NEEDED EXAP IMPROVEMENTS RARN US SOY THAT WHEN WE GO TO OUR PROJECT TO SOLVE FOR OUR IMPROVEMENTS, -- AND AGAIN YOU WILL REMEMBER THESE ARE THE APPROVED PROJECTS FROM THE STATE AS FAR AS THE FIRST COAST EXPRESSWAY WHERE THAT'S COMING IN AND THAT IMPACT IT WILL HAVE ON THE LOCAL NETWORK ONCE THOSE CONNECTIONS COME THROUGH -- THE AMOUNT OF PRIVATE DEVELOPMENT YOU SEE IN THAT PEACH COLOR, PRIVATE DOLLARS THAT ARE GOING TOWARDS ENHANCING PUBLIC ROADWAYS WITHIN ST. JOHNS COUNTY, AND THEN A COMBINATION, THE BLUE POPPED UP AT DURBIN FOR PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP.

SO ALL TOLDAL WHAT THAT MAP SERIES WAS TELLING US WAS RECONFIRMING THAT THE NEED FOR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS REMAINS THE SAME WITH OR WITHOUT OUR PROJECT SO LET'S BRING DOLLARS TO THE TABLE TO SOLVE FOR THOSE IMPROVEMENTS THAT ARE ALREADY LISTED IN OUR CAPITAL PLAN.

SO THIS PROJECT JERNTSZ A NEED OR PROPORTIONATE SHARE OF JUST ABOUT $22 MILLION. THE DEVELOPER PROPOSES TO PRE-PAY THEY ARE IMPACT FOOFS 7-POINT FFN MILLION DOLLARS SO IT PROVIDES FOR THAT TOTAL COMMITMENT THAY THAT JUST CAME OFF THE SLIDE WHERE YOU SEE JUST AT 29.5.

WHY THAT'S IMPORTANT IS THAT PROVIDES MORE DOLLARS THAN WHAT'S NEEDED FOR THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT.

THAT MONEY WILL BE PROVIDED IN TWO WAYS, A CONSTRUCTION PROJECT THAT YOU SEE IMMEDIATELY ON GREENBRIER, AND THEN PAYMENT TOWARDS THE EXISTING PROJECT TO BRING LONGLEAF FROM ITS IDENTIFIED TWO LANES TO FOUR LANES, SO THIS MAKES THAT WHOLE PROJECT COMPLETE. THE IMRUKS OF GREENBRIER IS IMPORTANT BECAUSE AS YOU ALL KNOW THE COUNTY HAS LET THE DESIGN/BUILD TO FOUR LANE FROM CIMARRON TOTE INTERSECTION OF VETERANS PARKWAY FROM TWO TO FOUR LANES, AND WE'RE CARRYING THAT THROUGH FOR JUST OVER A DISTANCE OF A HALF MILE TO CONTINUE THAT FOUR-LANE COMPONENT THROUGH THE INTERSECTION. THAT'S VERY IMPORTANT WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE SEGMENT ANALYSIS OF THIS ROADWAY BECAUSE A LOT OF WHAT WE EXPERIENCE IS TRAFFIC DELAYS APPEAR AT THE INTERSECTIONS. SO CHEERING THAT THROUGH HELPS US MOVE THROUGH THE INTERSECTION, AND THE SECOND COMPONENT WOULD BE WITH VETERANS PARKWAY WHICH YOU KNOW THOSE CONSTRUCTION PLANS ARE IN PLACE, THIS IS A REQUIRED RID RIVER TOWN, TO FOYER-LANE THIS. SO THAT IS YEAR ONE FOR THIS PROJECT IT. WILL BE IN PLACE BEFORE WE SEE HOUSES COMB UP WITHIN THAT FIRST PHASE OF GREENBRIER VILLAGE AND THE LIKE. SO THAT TIMING WAS VERY IMPORTANT, WHAT WE WERE HEARD FROM THE COMMUNITY, WHAT WE HEARD FROM YOU AS THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE COMMISSION.

WITH REGARD TO OTHER DOLORES OTHER FONG LEAF LEAF AND THE WIDENING, THAT'S UNDERWAY NOW FOR SKYLINE COMPLETING THE DESIGN. THE JOB'S HEAN BET AND WE HAVE THE PROBABLY AMOUNT FOR THAT AMOUNT AND OUR CONTRIBUTION, HOW FAR THAT'LL GO TO COMPLETE AND PAY FOR THAT JOB.

SO EVERYTHING THAT I JUST WOKD THROUGH HERE'S A BASIC KIND OF MAP TO GIVE US THOSE NUMBERS LOOKING AT THE COMPONENT.

WHEN WE LOOK AT OUR PROP SHARE WE HAVE $22 MILLION.

AGAIN OUR PRE-PAYMENT OF ROAD IMPACT FEES FOR RESIDENTIAL USES, THIS IS THE TOTAL DEVELOPER COMMITMENT OR CONTRIBUTION OF $29.5 MILLION. THE PROBABLE COST FOR WIDENING THAT SEGMENT FROM THE INTERSECTION OVER TO THE PROJECT AREAS IS $10.5 MILLION. LONGLEAF PINE PARKWAY PAYMENTS SHOULD -- THAT SHOULD BE $19 MILLION FLAT AND YOU SEE WHERE THIS BREAKS DOWN WHERE THE OPINION OF POSSIBLE OS IS $25.5 MILLION. AND IT'S BEEN BOILGTD $417 MILLION. WE NEED $18.5 MILLION.

THEY CONTRIBUTE $19 MILLION. SO WE HAVE GOT TWO COMPLETE PROJECTS THAT ARE PAID FOR IN ADVANCE OF THIS PROJECT, IN ADVANCE OF TIMING AND ACCELERATING WHAT ARE THE KNOWN CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS WE NEED FOR THE PROJECT.

I'LL ALSO ADD THAT IN SLIDE KIND OF SHOWS FORE US THE DISCUSSION ABOUT VETERANS PARKWAY. THAT ONE IS AN INTERESTING ONE AS THE ROAD DOES NOT CANNABIS, SO IT'S ON OUR VET NO, -- DOES NOT EXIST. IT'S ON OUR NETWORK FOR WHAT WOAB A PROPORTIONATE SHARE OF TRIPS ON THE ROADWAY BUT IT'S NOT THERE NOW SO NO TRIPS. CAN BE ADDED TO THE PROJECT UNTIL THAT ROADWAY IS CONSTRUCTED.

SO IF YOU INCLUDED THAT ROADWAY INTO THE COUNTY'S PROPORTIONATE SHARE, THAT ROADWAY IMPROVEMENT COSTS ABOUT $12 MILLION.

WHEN IT'S -- THAT ROAD DOES NO EXIST, BUT WHEN YOU ADD IN OUR PROJECT PROPORTIONATE SHARE IT'S $22 MILLION.

SO IF YOU IT IS FOR VETERANS PARKWAY AND OUR PROJECT COMMITMENT IS $29 MILLION. WHEN YOU LOOK A ROADWAY IMPACT FEAL CALCULATIONS OVERALL FOR THE 3500 UNITS, WE SEE THAT TWIN A COMBINATION OF THE RESIDENTIAL UNITS AS WELL AS THE COMMERCIAL, AND WE DID A SPLIT HERE OF WHAT PREPTS FOR OUR $2.5 MILLION, WHAT IS A LIKELY BLEND, WE SEE THAT WE HAVE AN IMPACT FEE TOTAL COMING TO THE COUNTY AS REVENUE SOURCE OF $40 MILLION.

SO THAT IS IN EXCESS OF $6 MILLION TO THE COUNTY SHARE FOR THE ROAD THAT DOESN'T EXIST FOR VETERANS.

SO WE WANTED TO BE CLEAR ABOUT A COUPLE THINGS AS FAR AS HOW IT WORKS TO CALCULATE PROPORTIONATE SHARE AND ALSO IDENTIFY WHAT THE

[00:45:03]

AND SEE E. WE SEE OUR SCHOOL SITE.

SO THIS HELPS US BRING TO LIGHT WHAT YOU SEE ON STANDARD BLACK-AND-WHITE MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN AS FAR AS IMPROVEMENTS TO THE PROJECT. THE PUD ITSELF CONSISTS OF A MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN SET. THAT'S 24 INDIVIDUAL STHEETS TO COVER ABOUT THAT 2,000 ACRES. AGAIN WANT WE'RE REPRESENTING SIX VILLAGES, UP TO 3500 HOMES. THAT 2.5 MILLION SQUARE FEET, AND IT BRINGS TOGETHER 500 ACRES OF REGIONAL PRESERVE.

THE MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN TEXT, I BOILED IT DOWN TO THREE COMPONENTS BUT YOU'VE GOT SEVERAL PAGES TO REVIEW, AND THEN OUR WORKING GROUP HAS REVIEWED THROUGH AS WELL, BUT GENERALLY WE'RE LOOKING A USE ASSIGNMENTS, DEFINING WHICH USES ARE BEST BASED ON THEY EVER CONTEXT LOCATED WHERE THEY ARE WITHIN THE PROPERTY, ALSO THOSE USE ASSIGNMENTS BASED ON THE LAND USE THAT IT'S DESIGNATED FOR.

WE HAVE ALSO ADDED IN SO MANY RESTRICTIONS AND THEN GUIDELINES FOR DEVELOPMENT. THAT HELPS US IMPLEMENT HOW WE'LL BE PERMITTING, AND THEN THE PHASING TABLE TO ALIGN TO THOSE CONNECTIONS THAT WE SAID THROUGH AS FAR AS YOUR IMPROVEMENTS TO PARKS WHEN WE'RE BRINGING ON SCHOOLS, AND THEN OUR ROADWAY NETWORK. SO HOW DID THE PUD GET DEVELOPED? WELL, IT WAS THROUGH FIVE WORKING GROUP MEETINGS AND OUR TOWN HALL NORTHWEST SECTOR MEETING WHERE WE HAD REALLY, FULL RECALL, THE COPY HAVE COPY OF TOP MEETING WE HAD THAT ME GO RIGHT BEFORE OUR TRANSMITTAL THAT SET THE TONIGHT ON THE A OUR TRANSMITTAL HEARING.

WE ALL A GLEED TO STET ALL WORKING GROUP.

WE HAVE MET MOLINA AT THE BARTRAM TRAIL LIBRARY.

AND AS WE CARRIED FORWARD THIS FIRST MEEBLGHTD WAS WHAT WOULD YOU LIKE TO SEE? THAT GAVE US SOME OF THE INPUTS FOARTD PUD. WE THEN FILED OUR PUD PROJECT, AND WHEN WOULDN'T BACK TO THE WRONG GROUP WE WERE ABLE TO THEN DISCUSS WITH THEM WHAT WE HAD FILED WITH TE COUNTY FOR REVIEW, ALSO SHARING SOME OF THOSE COUNTY COMMENTS, SO WE HAD SOCOM REALLY HEALTHY DISCUSSION ABOUTS HOW THE PUDS WORK, WHAT ARE SOME OF THE USES AND SOME OF THOSE CONSIDERATIONS OR CHANGES THAT BOTH JOE AND KEVIN CAN CONSIDER AND RESCRIESED THEIR PROJECT. AROUND ABOUT THE NORTHWEST SECTOR MEETING IS WHEN THE WORKING GROUP WAS REALLY KEYED IN ON FOCUSED ON THE ROBERT VILLAGE AREA AS WELL AS SOME OF OUR MEMBER WHO IS LIVE ADJACENT TO BRIDLE VILLAGE SO WE HAVE DETERIORATED INTERNAL OVERLAY DISTRICTS OR CHARACTER AREAS THAT ARE VERY SPECIFIC SO THAT WE GET THAT DEVELOPMENT PATTERN RIGHT ON THOSE VILLAGES AND YOU'LL SEE ME WALK THROUGH THOSE HIGHLIGHTED AREAS. OUR LAST WORKING GROUP MEETING WAS AN ADD-ON WHERE WE BROUGHT IN OUR VICE PRESIDENT OF LANDSCAPING ARCHITECTURE TO TALK THROUGH SOME OF THE LANDSCAPING, BUFFERING AND EDGES, AND REALLY GIVE THAT DESIGN COMPONENT TO THE PUD. SO HERE'S WHERE WE HAVE THOSE CHARACTER AREAS. ROBERTS VILLAGE IS THE CHARACTER AREA WE'LL WALK THROUGH. AND ROBERTS VILLAGE IS A COMPONENT OF MIXED USE AND RESIDENTIAL B WHERE YOU SEE THAT SINGLE FAMILY PATTERN. AND THEN THE EXTERIOR OF BRIDAL VILLAGE AND FLORIDA VILLAGE, PRIMARILY COMMERCIALAL LOW THOUGH THE I DWUS ALLOW FOR MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL USE, AND THEN FLORIDA VILLAGE IS ONLY ACCESS BIDES VETERANS AND RIGHT ACROSS IS STILL WATER PROJECT UNDER CONSTRUCTION NOW.

THE KEY TO THAT IS WAS GETTING THE ACCESS MANAGEMENT, THE CORRIDOR DOWN CORRECTLY SO THAT WE DO AVOID ANY ASPECT OF BLANDING BOULEVARD, WHICH WE G UNDER UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT AND MANAGING ACCESS AND LANDSCAPING WILL AVOID THAT.

AND THE OTHER COMPONENT FOR BRIDLE VILLAGE IS TO HAVE THAT TRANSITION ZONE WHERE YOU SEE ALONG THE EDGES HERE ON THE

EQUESTRIAN NEIGHBORHOOD. >> THEN HERE AGAIN ALONG OXFORD ESTATES. SO LETE ME QUICKLY FOCUS YOU IN ON ROBERTS VILLAGE. THIS WAS A HIGHLIGHT OF OF OUR PROJECTS THROUGH WRONG GROUP REALLY KEYING NOT FOLKS LIVING IN THE IMMEDIATE AREA FOR THIS. FOR SCALE I'VE ADDED IN A QUARTER MILE WALKING DISTANCE CENTERED ON WHAT WOULD BE THE

[00:50:01]

IT'S SPLIT BETWEEN AGAIN MIX USE AND AS MASTER OUR -- THAT'S PART OF OUR EXISTING LAND USES IS MIXED USE RIGHT ABOUT TO THIS AREA, AS ALREADY DESIGNATED MIXED USE OH OUR NUT LAND USE MAP. THEN THIS PROJECT WOULD EXTEND THE MIBLGDZ USE UP TO THIS AREA AND JUST OFF-MAP IS THE RESIDENTIAL B COMPONENT. SO OF IMPORTANCE HERE FOR THE ROBERTS VILLAGE IS TO MAKE SURE HOW THAT TRANSITIONS TO THE NORTHERN OXFORD ESTATES AS WELL AS HOW IT TRANSITIONS INTO ROBERTS, THE DEVELOPERS WOULD BE SENSITIVE TO THAT AS FAR AS USES AND PLACEMENT. THIS MAP IS A SNAP OF WHAT'S IN OUR PUD DOCUMENT. IT SHOWS HERE OUR FIRE STATION, OUR PUBLIC SAFETY SITE LOCATED WITH THE ACCESS WHICH IS VERY SPECIFIC ON ROBERTS ROAD WHEN YOU DID YOUR SITE VISIT, YOU PROBABLY NOTICED THE EXISTING DRIVEWAY CUTS THAT ARE THERE NOW AND HOW ROSHTSZ ROAD COMES INTO THE INTERSECTION WITH LONGLEAF.

THAT KIND OF FLATIRON PIECE WE CAN SAY FOR TRIANGLE PIECE HAS BEEN RESTRINGTD IN TYPES OFIZES TO OAFS AND PROFESSIONAL.

IT'S JUST OVER 2 ACRES AND IT LENDS ITSELF TO THAT TYPE OF USA AS WELL AS THERE'S A STORM WATER POND AND THEN THE OTHER PARTS OF OXFORD STATES AS YOU MOVE NORTH. SO ON THE WEST SIDE OF LONGLEAF OR ALONG ROBERTS MR. HELOW WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT THOSE HIEWSES USES WERE EXPRESSED AS FAR AS ITS NEED ON VEHICLE DEMAND, AND SO YOU SEE THIS MAP RESTRICTS THE TYPE OF USES BY GEOGRAPHY FOR NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL AND THEN PUSHES DOWN THE COMMERCIAL USES TOWARD LONGLEAF AND THAT INTERSECTION OF GREENBRIER THERE WITH LONGLEAF.

THEY'VE ALSO ADDED ON AND MADE COMMITMENTS TO LIMIT THE USES FOR RV AND BOAT STORAGE TO ONLY THAT AREA THAT IS SOUTH OF OUR INTERNAL ROAD, AND THAT IS EAST OF LONGLEAF AND BE SEPARATED FROM THE ROADWAY BY A DISTANCE OF 200 FEET.

THOSE ARE VERY SPECIFIC AS TO THAT PARTICULAR USE, NOT WANTING THAT TO INTERRUPT WHAT WE SEE ALONG THE CORRIDOR OF LONGLEAF, AND THAT PARTICULAR USE BUT ALLOW FOR THAT THROUGH DEVELOPMENT GUIDELINES THAT WE HAVE.

THIS BRINGS TO LIFE THE TRANSITION ZONE.

SO IF YOU RECALL FROM THE PRIOR MAP ALONG THE NORTHERN BOUNDARY WITH OXFORD ESTATES IS THE ROBERTS TRANSITION ZONE THAT WE'VE CREATED. THEY'VE ADD OH AN ADDITIONAL 15 FEET FOR THE DEVELOPMENT EDGE GIVING US THAT 50-FOOT DEVELOPMENT EDGE WHICH IS EXPANDING UPON THE REQUIREMENT FOR THE NORTHWEST SECTOR. AND THEN IN ADDITION THEY'VE ADDED ON 100 FEET TO SEPARATE FROM THAT MARKER WHAT USES WOULD BE RESTRICTED WITHIN THAT AREA. HEARING FROM OUR WORKING GROUP THAT DAYCARE AND RESTAURANTS WOULD BE THOSE USES THAT THE FOLKS LIVING IN OXFORD STATES THAT WOULD NOT APPRECIATE.

SO THAT'S BEEN SEPARATED FROM THAT DISTANCE BY OVER 150 FEET FROM THE PROPERTY LINE. WRINTDZ THE DEVELOPMENT EDGE ITSELF, THAT'LL REMAIN UNDISTURBED.

SO THIS IS ACTUAL DRONE NOOJ THAT WE THREW IN NOVEMBER AND DECEMBER TO GET A REALTIME LOOK OF WHAT IS THE SILVICULTURE TREES THAT WE HAVE HERE NOW, WHAT'S THAT EXPERIENCE LIKE FOR THE HOMEOWNER IN OXFORD ESTATES, AND THAT'LL REMAIN UNDISTURBED AND THEN WE CAN HAVE FOR ADOPTION ENHANCEMENTS WITHIN THE BLUE AREA FOR THAT FENCING AND SCREENING.

FURTHER USES THAT, RESTRICTED TO THINGS THAT GO WITH THEM, DUMPSTERS, PARKING, ET CETERA ARE ALSO PROHIBITED FROM THAT AREA, SO THOSE TYPES OF USES, IT'S NOTE AS IN THE FTD'S RIS THAT ARE ASSOCIATED WITH THEM WOULD BE ALLOWED IN THAT BUFFER AS WELL. IT ALSO LIMB A HEIGHT OF 35 FEET SO YOU'RE NOT HAVING THAT TRANSITION.

THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE HEARD TOGETHER.

THAT'S THE TRANSITION ZONE. YOU'LL SEE THAT WITHIN THE ROBERTS VILLAGE AND YOU'LL ALSO SEE THAT APPLY TO BRIDLE.

I'LL SUMMARIZE THE LAST TWO SLIDES AND WHERE WE'VE BEEN, THESE LIST OF EXIMENTS COMMITMENTS, 12, 13 ITEMS THAT WE'VE BEEN BUSY SINCE THE JUM TRANSMITTAL WHERE WE HAVE HAD OUR WORKING GROUP TO HELP US DEFINE THE PUD ITSELF AND CREATE DEVELOPMENT CONDITIONS. IT RUMENTD IN WHAT WE JUST WALKED THROUGH WITH THE TRANSITION ZONES FOR ROBERTS AND BRIDLE VILLAGE. WE ALLOWED TO CATEGORIZE ALLOWABLE USES BASED ON THE ROADWAY TYPE AND THE CONTEXT FOR THE VILLAGE THAT IT'S LOCATED. THOSE CORRIDOR STANDARDS ALONG FLORIDA AND BRIDLE VILLAGE REPRESENTED BY ACCESS MANAGEMENT STANDARDS AND LANDSCAPING. A COMMITMENT TO COOPERATE AND WORK WITH THE JEA AND THE COUNTY SHOULD THEY PUT TRAILS WITHIN THAT EXISTING OFF-SITE PRESERVE. THEY'LL MAKE FOR SPACE ALONG THE AREAS ON FLORIDA VILLAGE. IT WAS IMPORTANT TO CAP THE OFFICE AND RETAIL MIX FOR FLORIDA VILLAGE, SO YOU'LL SEE THAT WE HAVE A MINIMUM OF 60% OF FLORIDA VILLAGE WILL BE OFFICE USES WITH A MINIMUM OF 20 BEING RETAIL USES, TEN GOES TO OPEN SPACE, AND SO THERE'S A FLEX OF TEN THAT COULD ADD TO EITHER ONE, BUT THAT'S THAT CONTRIBUTION THAT WE WANT TO BRING EMPLOYMENT TO THE SITE. WE'RE WE'RE COPTDING THE WITH ST. JOHNS COUNTY FOR POCKET TRAIL HEADS AND THAT'S IMPORTANT BECAUSE IT WILL ALLOW A LITTLE BIT OF PARKING SPACES MUCH LIKE THE CANOE LAUNCH OFF RACE TRACK ROAD AND WE HAVE COLLECTED A PROTOTYPE FROM THE COUNTY TO TEST IT OUT DESIGNING ACCESS FOR BARTRAM HIGH SCHOOL, THE K THROUGH 8 SCHOOL AND COLLABORATE

[00:55:04]

OUR PROJECT WILL PROVIDE FOR INCREASED TAXABLE VALUE THAT CONTRIBUTES IN EXCESS OF WHAT THE COST WOULD BE TO PROVIDE THE PUBLIC SERVICES. WE PROVIDE FOR A BALANCE OF LAND USES SHOWN BY THE 3500 UNITS TO RESIDENTIAL OF 2.5, BUT ALSO A BALANCE OF THE TYPES OF USES WITHIN THE 3500 ITSELF, THE VARIETY OF HOUSING TYPES AS WELL AS A VARIETY OF COMMERCIAL USES.

WE ARE HAVING A COMMITMENT OF A MINIMUM OF 500 ACRES TO PROVIDE FORE THAT CONTIGUOUS, UNFRAGMENTED NATIONAL AREAS WITHIN THE PROJECT, RESERVING 4O CONVEY, RESERVING 5 ACRES FOR PUBLIC SAFETY SITE, AND WE'RE INVESTING IN EXTENSIVE INFRASTRUCTURE AS YOU A MASTER PLANNED COMMUNITY TO PROVIDE FOR THOSE COMMUNITY SUPPORT SERVICES.

OUR PROJECT WITH ALL THE THAT SAID WILL NOT RESULT IN ANY ADVERSE IMPACTS TO PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY OR WELFARE OR TO THE WORKERS AND THE RESIDENTS IN THE AREA.

AND WERE THAT WE ASK FOR YOUR RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL OF BOTH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT AS WELL AS THE PUD TO OUR BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS.

I'M AVAILABLE IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS.

THE PROJECT TEAM IS HERE OR WE MAY WANT TO GO TO PUBLIC COMMENT, WHATEVER IS THE PLEASURE OF THE BOARD.

>> ALL RIGHT. SO I AM GOING AT THIS POINT ASK IF ANY MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE HERE HAVE QUESTIONS OF THE APPLICANT. QUESTIONS.

I FIGURED YOU PROBABLY HAD A FEW.

>> I HAVE A COUPLE. A COUPLE MAY TAKE A LITTLE WHILE TO GET TO THE QUESTIONS, BUT IT'S GOING TO BE A QUESTION.

>> ALL RIGHT. >> NUMBER OF NUMBER ONE, OT SCHOOL SITE THAT YOU HAVE, THE SINGLE SCHOOL SITE, 40 ACRES, THAT IS BASICALLY AN ELEMENTARY AND MIDDLE SCHOOL SITE?

>> K THROUGH EIGHT, CORRECT. >> SO YOU STATED THAT THE SCHOOL BOARD HE TELL SUPPORTS THIS PROJECT?

>> THEY SUPPORT, THE THEY ACKNOWLEDGE OUR PROJECT, WHERE WE ARE IN THE PROCESS AND AGREED TO THE SITE LOCATION AS WELL AS THE TYPE. SO ACREAGE --

>> BUT YOU SAID SUPPORT AND ACKNOWLEDGE, BUT THEY LIKE THE IDEA OF A SCHOOL SITE, BUT DID THEY SUPPORT THIS OVERALL

COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ADOPTION? >> WELL, THEY'RE NO. -- THEY DON'T WEIGH IN ON THAT, NUMBER ONE, BUT NUMBER TWO WHERE WE ARE BECAUSE WE'RE LOOKING FOR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT, WE'RE UNABLE TO FILE TO GIVE THAT DIRECTION OF CAPACITY AND ANALYSIS AND WORK THROUGH AN AGREEMENT.

SO I WOULD SUBMIT TO YOU THAT THEIR PROPORTIONATE FAIR SHARE AGREEMENT FOR SCHOOLS WOULD INDICATE SUPPORT FOR OUR PROJECTS BUT WE'RE NOT ABLE TO FILE TO THAT POINT.

>> BUT DID YOU SAY THEY REPORTED IT.

>> IT'S A HEALTHY POSITIVE PROJECT.

WE'RE WORKING WITH THE SCHOOL BOARD STAFF AS FAR AS THE LOCATION, WHAT WE'RE CONTRIBUTING, IN ADDITION TO THE SECONDARY ACCESS POINT FOR BARTRAM TRAIL HIGH SCHOOL.

THAT'S SOMETHING THAT THE SCHOOLKIDS AND PARENTS

EXPERIENCE NOW. >> SO WITH 3500 HOMES, IF THAT'S APPROVED, HOW MANY SCHOOL STUDENTS WILL THAT GENERATE?

>> THAT'S ABOUT A QUARTER OF THAT AMOUNT, ABOUT 2300.

>> THAT'S WHAT I THOUGHT. SO THE FACT THAT THE TWO NEW SCHOOLS, TOYE COY AND BEACH SIDE, THOSE WERE BUILT BECAUSE OF ALREADY A COUPLE SCHOOLS OUT IN THAT AREA WEREOVER CAPACITY AND THERE WAS AN URGENT NEED FOR NEW HIGH SCHOOLS TO BE BUILT, AND SO WE'RE LEAVING A SITE FOR ALARM AND MIDDLE SCHOOL NOW. SO TOCOI AND BEACH SIDE WERE BUILT TO HANDLE THIS OVERCAPACITY, BUT YOU'RE NOT PROPOSING A HIGH SCHOOL SITE, BUT THIS DEVELOPMENT ULTIMATE MALT WILL GENERATE ENOUGH STUDENTS THAT THERE'S PROBABLY GOING TO BE A NEED FOR ANOTHER HIGH SCHOOL SITE.

DO YOU THINK THAT IS CORRECT OR NOT?

>> THAT'S NOT WHAT THE SCHOOL BOARD -- THE SCHOOL DISTRICT STAFF HAS SHARED SWB SO THAT'S A GOOD POINT SPHARNS THE CONCURRENCY SERVICE AREAS ARE ALL ANCHORED BY HIGH SCHOOL CITES SITES. THE TYPE OF SCHOOL THAT'S NEEDED IN THIS AREA ACCORDING TO THE STAFF WOULD BE THE K THROUGH 8.

NO ADDITIONAL SITES OR DIFFERENT TYPE OF SCHOOL.

>> OKAY. IT STATED IN THE STAFF REPORT THAT THIS AREA HAS BEEN UNDERSERVED, THE SCHOOLS ARE BUT I'LL FIND THAT EXACT QUOTE IN A MINUTE.

SO LET ME -- YES. OKAY.

I SEE. ELLEN AVERY-SMITH IS COMING UP.

>> DR. HILSENBECK, JUST FOR -- NOT TO CHIME IN HERE BUT I'M GOING TO CHIME IN HERE JUST FOR CLARIFICATION, THIS PROJECT IS GOING TO PROVIDE BETWEEN 900 AND 1,000 AGE RESTRICTED UNITS FOR WHICH NO SCHOOL MITIGATION IS REQUIRED, AND ALSO WITH RESPECT

[01:00:02]

THAT WILL INCLUDE 100-ACRE HIGH SCHOOL SITE.

SO THERE ARE TWO HIGH SCHOOL SITES WITHIN THE COUNTY THAT ARE

AVAILABLE FOR THIS AREA. >> OKAY.

SO LET ME -- >> WAIT ONE SECOND.

MA'AM, COWF IDENTIFY YOURSELF FOR THE RECORD.

>> SORRY. I APOLOGIZE.

ELLEN AVERY-SMITH, ROGERS TOWERS 100 WETSTONE PLACE,

ST. AUGUSTINE. >> I THOUGHT THAT'S WHO IT WAS.

>> SO AT THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT WORKSHOP THAT WAS HELD LAST WEEK, AND I'M SORRY I WASN'T THERE BUT I DID WATCH IT ON TELEVISION. I WASN'T REALLY FEELING WELL LAST WEEK BUT IT WAS STATED THERE'S A $500 MILLION SHORTFALL IN THE COUNTY FOR INFRASTRUCTURE.

AND HOW IS THIS PROJECT POSSIBLY GOING TO EITHER CONTRIBUTE TO THAT OR HELP ALLEVIATE IT? AND I KNOW YOU'VE THROWN OUT SO MANY FIGURES BUT I JUST WANTED TO HEAR THAT.

>> SURE. THE $500 MILLION IN INFRASTRUCTURE APPLIES TO THE WHOLE COUNTY.

>> THE WHOLE COUNTY. >> RIGHT.

AND SO WHEN WE LOOK AT ANALYSIS FOR OUR PROJECT, WE'RE STUDYING WITHIN A 4-MILE RADIUS OF OUR PROJECT AND THAT THE KEY COMPOFENT TO THAT IS RIGHT NOW THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS WE WOULD NEED TO ENHANCE OR EXPAND OUR ROADWAYS REMAIN THE SAME WITH OR WITHOUT OUR PROJECT. SO, FOR EXAMPLE, LONGLEAF PINE PARKWAY IS PLANNED TO BE FOUR LANE ROADS.

WITH ADDING IN OUR PROJECT TRAFFIC, IT STILL ONLY NEEDS TO BE A FOYER-LANE ROAD. OUR PROJECT BRINGS THE GLARS.

SO I WROI SAY WHOLE HARD WILL $29.5 MILLION IS BEING BROUGHT TOTE TABLE TO ADDRESS THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLOADGES FOR AREA WITHIN THAT FORMAL STUDY AREA.

>> SO BEFORE WHEN Y'ALL PRESENTED THIS BACK IN THE SUMMER, IT WAS TRANSMITTED, IT WAS STATED THAT THERE WAS A $70 MILION SHORTFALL, GIVEN THE 20 ROAD SEGMENTS THAT ARE DEFICIENT THAT SURROUND YOUR PROJECT, TOUCH OR SURROUND YOUR PROJECT, SO IS THAT STILL -- IS THERE STILL A $70 MILLION

SHORTFALL? >> I BELIEVE YOU'RE SPEAKING --

STAFF GAVE YOU THAT STATEMENT. >> OKAY.

IS THAT FIGURE CORRECT? >> SO WE HAVE FILED FOR A PROPORTIONATE SHARE SO YOU LOOK AT THE KEY COMPONENT TO ARRIVING THAT IS TO KNOW WHETHER OR NOT HOW THE ROADWAY SEGMENT IS NOW AND WHERE IT'S CONDITIONED FROM TWO TO FOUR LANES.

THEN YOU GET A COST ESTIMATE. SO BETWEEN OUR PROJECT AND WHAT THE COUNTY USES FOR CONSTRUCTION COSTS, WE USED THE SAME INPUT FOR THE TYPE OF ROADWAY. SO FOR OUR -- NOW WHERE WE HAVE MOVED AHEAD, WE HAVE FILED OUR DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS WITH STAFF, AND WE'RE IN CONCURRENCE TO OUR PROPORTIONATE SHARE FAIR SHARE SO WE WO GREE THE COST OF WHERE OUR PROJECT IS, THAT IS APPROVED AND WHAT OUR PROJECT CAUSES TO THE NETWORK.

>> THAT'S GOAG GOING TO BE ERV 20 YEARS, CORRECT?

>> THAT'S THE LIFE OUR PROJECT. >> ACTUALLY, DR. HILSENBECK, THERE ARE TWO DOCUMENTS THAT ARE PENDING IN THE WINGS, IF YOU WILL, TWO DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS THAT ARE COMPANIONS FOR THIS PROJECT. THIS BOARD DOES NOT HEAR THOSE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS, BUT THEY TOGETHER CONTRIBUTE THE $29.5 MILLION THAT MS. HAGA IS TALKING ABOUT.

AND SO THAT'S A COMPONENT. WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT PROPORTIONATE SHARE, THAT'S AN ORIGINALS OF STATE LAW.

WE HAVE PROPOSED TWO DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS, ONE FOR THE BTI, SINGLE FAMILY PORTION, AND ONE FOR THE REMAINDER OF THE HE WILLO. THEY WILL MARRY UP TO PROVIDE THAT COMBINED CONTRIUTION AGAIN, AS MS. HAGA STATED, FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF FROM TWO LANES TO FOUR-LANE I HAD WOOENING OF LONGLEAF PINE PARKWAY FROM ROBERTS ROAD UP O VETERAN PARKWAY. VETERANS PARKWAY IS THE OBLIGATION OF MATTAMY AND THEY ACTUALLY DEEDED A PORTION THOOF RIGHT-OF-WAY TO THE COUNTY ON MONDAY.

OR ACTUALLY TUESDAY. AND SO THAT ROAD WRAY CONSTRUCTION WILL START THIS YEAR.

AND THEN THIS PROJECT WILL ALSO BUILD A $10.5 MILLION SEGMENT OF GREENBRIER ROAD FROM THE INTERSECTION OF VETERANS, 210 AND GLEAN BRIAR BACK TO THE WEST PAST THE PROJECT ENTRANCE ALONG GREENBRIER ROAD. SO COMBINED AGAIN, THAT'S THE $29.5 MILLION CONTRIBUTION IN THE FORM OF ACTUAL ROADWAY

CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS. >> RIGHT.

THAT WAS ALL PRESENTED. YES.

SO IN TERMS OF LOOKING AT SECONDARY AND CUMULATIVE IMPACTS, DOES THIS COMP PLAN REALLY LOOK AT SECONDARY AND CUMULATIVE IMPACT OR TAKE INTO ACCOUNT ALL THE MORE DEVELOPMENTS SURROUNDING THIS PROPERTY?

[01:05:03]

>> ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT FROM A WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT PERMITTING PERSPECTIVE OR A INFRASTRUCTURE PERSPECTIVE?

>> BOTH. >> FROM A WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT PERSPECTIVE, BY LAW U., PROJECTS ARE ALL REQUIRED TO CONSIDER SECONDARY AND CUMULATIVE IMPACT, AND SO THAT'S SET OUT IN CHAPTER 373 OF THE FLORIDA STATUTES.

WITH RESPECT TO CHAPTER 163 .3180 WITH RESPECT TO PROPORTIONATE SHARE, AGAIN THIS PROJECT CONTRIBUTION MORE THAN ITS PROPORTIONATE SHARE, AND THAT'S THE EXERCISE WE'VE BEEN GOING THROUGH THAT IS NOW DOCUMENTED IN THOSE TWO

DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS. >> WAS THAT MORE THAN THE FAIR SHARE ON TWO ROADWAYS? WAS THAT GREENBRIER AND

LONGLEAF? >> NO, THE WAY THE PROPORTIONATE SHARE LAW WORKS, SETTING ASIDE THE DIFFERENCE IN COUNTY'S INTERPRETATION OF THE PROPORTIONATE SHARE LAW AND THE PRIVATE SECTOR'S INTERPRETATION OF PROPORTIONATE SHARE LAW ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT YOU ACTUALLY HAVE TO PAY ANYTHING TOWARD ALREADY DEFICIENT ROADS, WE HAVE CONCLUDED OR INCLUDED IN THIS APPLICATION A PAYMENT TOWARD THE PROJECT IMPACTS ON ALREADY DEFICIENT ROADS. AND SO THE LAW SAYS IN GENERAL, IN A GENERAL SENSE -- I'M SUMMARIZING HERE -- THAT YOU TAKE YOUR 10% IMPACT ON ONE ROAD AND YOUR 5% IMPACT ON ANOTHER ROAD, ET CETERA, THROUGH ALL YOUR IMPACTED ROADS, ACCUMULATE THOSE, IF YOU WILL, INTO ONE DOLLAR AMOUNT AND YOU PAY OR CONTRIBUTE IN CONSTRUCTION OR LAND DEDICATION OR ALL THREE, A COMBINATION THEREOF, YOU'RE YOUR CONTRIBUTION.

'S WHAT THAT'S WHAT THE LAW IN SUMMARY SAYS IN CHAPTER 163.

>> OKAY. LET ME ASK ABOUT THIS.

IN TERMS OF THOSE 20 DEFICIENT ROAD SEGMENTS OVERALL, I NOTED YOU HAVE IN YOUR APPLICATION THEY'RE GOING TO BE, IN DETERMINES OF DAILY TRIPS. , PEAK HOUR TRIPS, 16:84 P.M.

PEAK HOUR TRIPS FROM THE RESIDENTS, AND THENSON RESIDENTIAL 3,648P P.M. PEAK DAHLE TRIPS.

SO I KNOW SINCE 2018 WHEN THINGS WERE CHANGED IN COUNTY, THE COMMERCIAL DON'T HAVE TO PAY ANY IMPACT FEES, BUT YET --

>> NO, ACTUALLY, THE COMMERCIAL PAYS IMPACT FEES.

THEY DON'T HAVE TO GO THROUGH CONCURRENCY REVIEW.

>> I MISSTATED. PROPORTIONATE PROPORTIONT FAIR SHARE. I MISTAITD THAT.

BUT YET THERE'S OVER CHRIST TWICE THE AMOUNT OF TRAFFIC GENERATED BY YOUR OWN ESTIMATED NOR THE COMMERCIAL OS A. TS DRESH YET THEY PAY NO PROPORTIONATE FAIR SHARE.

THAT TRAFFIC IS OUT ON THE ROAD. I UNDERSTAND THE RESIDENTS HAVE TO LIVE SOMEPLACE. THEY GO TO THE GROCERY STORE.

THEY'RE SHOPPING, THEY'RE GOING TO WORK BE, ET CETERA.

BUT STILL, WHEN YOU HAVE 3,640 PEAK TRIPS THAT THAT AREN'T REALLY ACCOUNTED FOR IN THE PROPORTIONATE FAIR SHARE, THAT JUST SEEMS TO ME THAT THAT'S NOT ACCOUNTED FOR.

BUT WHAT I'M GETTING AT HERE IS I WANTED TO KNOW, AND I BROUGHT THIS UP TWO WEEKS AGO, AND TO YOU, MS. HAGA, WITH THE MOTOR PR PROJECT, IS THERE ANYWAY THAT Y'ALL TRIED TO, ATTEMPT TO ACCOUNT FOR CONSTRUCTION TRAFFIC THAT IS GENERATED, ESPECIALLY GIVEN THIS 20-YEAR BUILD-OUT? THERE'S NO WAY THAT ANY OF THE CONSTRUCTION TRAFFIC IS EVER TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT.

>> RIGHT. SO THE TRIP GENERATION METHOD USING AT THE PEAK HOUR ON I.T. DOESN'T ACCOUNT FOR WHAT YOU'RE EXPLAINING AS FAR AS THAT DEVELOPMENT CHURN, IF YOU WILL.

SO THE KEY POINT, YOU HIT ON IT, THIS PROJECT BEING THE INFILL PIECE IN THE NORTHWEST SECTOR IS THE WHEEL AND SPOKES, RIGHT? SO AS FAR AS THAT HAVING IMPACTS, AND AGAIN THE MODEL, WITHOUT OUR PROJECT, THE SAME ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS ARE NEEDED.

YOU ADD IN OUR PROJECT TRAFFIC, THAT FULL MIX OF 3500 UNITS AND 2.5, THE SAME ROADWAY IMPROVEMENT ARE NEEDED.

BUT NOW YOU HAVE $29 MILLION OF PAYMENT, CONSTRUCTION AND PRE-PAYMENT OF IMPACT FEES, ALONG WITH ANY TAXABLE MONEY THAT'S COMING OFF OF THE PROPERTY AND ALONG WITH OTHER IMPACT FEES FROM THE COMMERCIAL. SO WHEN THE COUNTY ADOPTED THAT POLICY FOR THE COMMERCIAL TO BE EXEMPT FROM PROPORTIONATE SHARE THEY DID ALSO REQUIRE THAT YOU HAVE TO ELECTRIC ANOTHER SITE OPERATIONAL A IMPROVEMENTS, AND THAT'S REALLY WHERE YOU SEE THAT IMPROVEMENT. SO YOU HIT IT ON THE HEAD AS FAR AS THIS BEING AN INFILL PIECE AND WHY THIS PROJECT DOES NO REQUIRE ANY OTHER IMPROVEMENTS THAT ARE ALREADY PLANNED BUT THEY CONTRIBUTE THE MONEY TO GET THEM DONE.

>> OKAY. SO YOU'RE BASICALLY SAYING WE NEED MORE DEVELOPMENT TO MAKE THE TRAFFIC BETTER.

>> THIS DEVELOPMENT CONTRIBUTES $29 MILLION TO GET THOSE

[01:10:02]

IMPROVEMENTS -- >> OUT OF A SHORTFALL OF $70 MILLION IN THE NORTHWEST SECTOR.

>> RIGHT. SO YOU HAVE FROM THAT SOURCE PROPORTIONATE SHARE PRIVATE DEVELOPMENT DOLLARS, THE PRE-PAYMENT OF IMPACT FEES, NOT TO MENTION THE AD VALOREM TAX INCREASE COMING OFF RESIDENTIAL AND NON-RESIDENTIAL.

IT MORE THAN PAYS FOR ITSELF. >> EVEN GIVEN ALL THE SMART TRACK OF ENGINEERS, PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS OUT THERE LOOKING AT TRAFFIC AND ALL OF THAT, THERE'S JUST -- IT'S NEVER TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT ALL THE CONSTRUCTION TRAFFIC THAT THIS IS GOING TO

GENERATE OVER 20 YEARS. >> DR. HILSENBECK, I DO WANT TO SAY THAT WHAT WE'RE DOING, BECAUSE WE'RE A NATION OF WALLS, AND SO WHAT WE'RE DOING WITH RESPECT TO SCHOOL MITIGATION, TRANSPORTATION MITIGATION, ALL OF THAT IS SET FORTH AS A CREATURE OF FLORIDA STATUTES THE ST. JOHNS COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT. CODE.

SO WHAT MS. HAGA IS SAYING IS WE ARE COMPLYING WITH THE LAWS AND WITH RESPECT TO PROPORTIONATE SHARE AND MITIGATION, AND THAT'A

MATTER OF FACT. >> WHAT I'M BRINGING UP IS SOMETHING I'D LIKE TO SEE CONSIDERED IN THE FUTURE, IS CONSTRUCTION TRAFFIC. CONSTRUCTION TRAFFIC HAS

CONSEQUENCES. >> YES, IT DOES, AND THERE IS A NATIONWIDE, IF NOT WORLDWIDE -- I'M NOT AN EXPERT ON THE INSTITUTE OF TRAFFIC ENGINEERS -- BUT THERE IS A VERY FINITE METHODOLOGY ACCEPTED WITHIN THE TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING WORLD ABOUT TRIP GENERATION FROM VARIOUS LAND USES, AND SO THAT'S WHAT MR. CRAMMEN AND ALL TRAFFIC ENGINEERS USE, INCLUDING MR. NGUYEN, MS. TRANTSDZ AM.

EVERYONE USES THE SAME METHODOLOGY SO THAT EVERYONE IS

TREATED EQUALLY. >> THAT'S GOOD.

I LIKE THAT. BUT I LIKE EQUAL TREATMENT.

BUT STILL, IF CONSTRUCTION TRAFFIC IS NOT TAKEN INTO

CONSIDERATION. >> I JUST WANTED TO MAKE A COMMENT HERE TOO. I WAS AT THE TOWN HALL MEETING THE OTHER DAY, TOO, AND ALTHOUGH THERE WERE 60 SPEAKERS, MOST OF WHOM WERE CONCERNED ABOUT DEVELOPERS AND DEVELOPMENT THAT WAS GOING ON IN THE COUNTY, THERE WAS A PERTINENT COMMENT, I THINK, THAT WAS MADE THAT SAID, WE CAN'T EXPECT NEW DEVELOPMENT TO PAY FOR ALL OUR INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS THAT WE HAVE. AND IN RESPONSE TO THAT, I SEE NOW THAT THE COUNTY COMMISSION IS TAKING UNDER SERIOUS CONSIDERATION A ONE CENT ADDITIONAL SALES TAX FOR OUR COUNTY. NOW, THAT WOULD GENERATE AN ADDITIONAL $50 MILLION, $49.5 MILLION, WHICH WOULD ADDRESS INFRASTRUCTURE. A LOT OF THAT SALES TAX, OF COURSE, WOULD BE PAID FOR BY TOURISTS.

>> YOU ARE CORRECT, DR. MCCORMICK, AND WE HOPE THAT PEOPLE UNDERSTAND HOW BENEFICIAL THAT COULD BE BECAUSE WE WON'T GO INTO THE HISTORY OF THE $500 MILLION DEFICIT BUT I CAN GUARANTEE YOU THAT IT STARTED MORE THAN 30 YEARS AGO WHEN PROJECTS PAID ZERO THAT ARE STILL PUTTING TRAFFIC ON THE

ROAD TODAY. >> RIGHT.

NOW YOU'RE NO GOING TO JUST GET A 1 CENT SALES TAX BY WISHING IT OR BY THE COUNTY COMMISSION WISHING IT.

THEY'LL PROBABLY, AND I THINK THE PLAN WILL BE, TO GO TO THE PUBLIC, TO THE ST. JOHNS COUNTY CITIZENS, AND SAY, DO YOU WANT TO PASS A RESOLUTION FOR HAVING A 1 CENT SALES TAX? AND THAT WOULD HAPPEN IN NOVEMBER, IF IN FACT IT HAPPENS.

>> YES. >> THAT WOULD MAKE A BIG DIFFERENCE IN TERMS OF THE INFRASTRUCTURE.

>> MS. SMITH, AND DR. MCCORMICK, THIS IS A NICE CONVERSATION, BUT THERE'S NO QUESTION HERE FOR THE APPLICANT.

>> I'LL PUT A QUESTION IN HERE TO THE EXTENT WE'RE ALSO TALKING ABOUT SCHOOL TAX. WE ALREADY HAVE A HALF CENT SALES TAX FOR THE SCHOOLS, AND SCHOOLS.

NOW, WILL THAT BE IMPACTED AT ALL IF WE HAVE ANOTHER ONE CENT SALES TAX OR NOT? I THINK PROBABLY NOT.

SO THEN AT THAT POINT WE WOULD HAVE NOT A 6.5 BUT A 7.5 CENTS SALES TAX. CORRECT? THAT WAS MY QUESTION. IS THAT GOING TO CHANGE THE SALES TAX AT THAT THE SCHOOLSE ALREADY COMMITTED TO THEM OR NOT? PROBABLY NOT.

>> IT'S A GOOD QUESTION, DR. MCCORMICK, BUT IT DOESN'T HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH GREENBRIER GREENBRIER HELOW UNFORTUNATELY, AND THE APPLICANT WE MERELY BE STATING THEIR OPINION. I CAN GIVE YOU MY OPINION AND ETD WE CAN GET EVERYBODY'S OPINION IN THE ROOM HERE BUT WE PROBABLY OUGHT TO STICK TO THE BUSINESS.

SORRY. >> I HAVE TWO MORE QUESTIONS FOR

NOW. >> SURE.

I THOUGHT YOU WOULD. >> OKAY.

I'M NOT TRYING TO BE PROVOCATIVE HERE OR ANYTHING, BUT THE COMP

[01:15:02]

SO HERE ARE MY TWO QUESTIONS. GIVEN THAT STATEMENT, WE'VE GOT JUST ABOUT SCWU THOUSAND 62,000 APPROVED AND PLATTED LOTS IN THE COUNTY RIGHT NOW. NOT NOT ALL THOSE ARE IN THE NORTHWEST SECTOR. I UNDERSTAND THAT.

THERE'S SOMETHING LIKE 25,000 TO 30,000 UP THAT WAY.

BUT GIVEN THAT WE HAVE 62,000, MORE OR LESS, RIGHT NOW, I REALLY WANT TO KNOW WHAT'S THE JUSTIFICATION FOR THIS PROJECT.

I KNOW JOBS AND ROADWAY REPORT. FAIR IRRELEVANT REPORT.

FAIR SHARE. I'VE ALWAYS WONDERED THIS.

HOW CAN YOU HAVE DEVELOMENT AND PAVE OVER MOST OF 2200 ACRES AND NOT HAVE THAT ADVERSELY IMPACT THE ENVIRONMENT?

AND THAT'S A SERIOUS QUESTION. >> WELL, AND I UNDER WHAT YOU'RE SAYING. NOBODY IS CONTEMPLATING PAVING OVER 2200 ACRES. MS. HAGA TALKED TO YOU ABOUT THE

500 PRESERVE ACRES. >> RIGHT.

>> AND THERE WILL BE 25% OF THE SITE HAS TO BE OPEN SPACE.

AND CERTAINLY HOMES WILL BE CONSTRUCTED, BUT HOMES HAVE LAWNS AND TREES. AND SO THAT'S ADDITIONAL OPEN SPACE. SO WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT DESTROYING THAT NUMBER OF ACRES. AGAIN, THERE ARE -- WE ARE COMPLYING WITH THE LAWS ON THE BOOKS TODAY, AND WITH RESPECT TO YOUR COMMENT ABOUT JUSTIFICATION FOR CHEQUING FROM RURAL/SILVICULTURE TO SOMETHING ELSE, MS. HAGA OUTLINED THAT FOR YOU IN THE -- HER PRESENTATION AND NOTED THAT THIS IS AN AGRICULTURAL ENCLAVE THAT IS ACTUALLY SURROUNDED ON 90% OF ITS BOUNDARIES BY EXISTING DEVELOPMENT.

SO IT IS NOT URBAN SPRAWL. >> CORRECT.

SO WHAT'S THE JUSTIFICATION FOR IT? AND I STILL -- I DON'T REALLY EXREFNED EXREFNED YOUR ANSWER -- I UNDERSTAND HOW MUCH OF THE SITE WILL BE DEVELOPED BUT I DON'T SEE HOW YOU CAN DEVELOP THAT MUCH OF A SITE AND DID NOT HAE ADVERSE IMPACTS ON THE ENVIRONMENT. AND I UNDERSTAND THE WETLAND, THAT HEADWATERS AREA OF TROUT CREEK AND RAUL IS BEING PROTECTED, BUT THAT WAS THE QUESTION, AND THEN THE JUSTIFICATION, WE'VE ALREADY GOT 62,000 APPROVED AND PLATTED LOTS ON THE BOOKS RIGHT NOW AND ASKED TO IMPROVE 3500 MORE.

>> AT TRANSMITTAL WE PROVIDED THE MARKET ANALYSIS.

THAT'S HOW WE WERE PRESENTED TO YOU AS A PLANNING BOARD AS WELL AS WITH THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, AND THOSE FINDINGS PROVIDE THAT WHEN YOU LOOK OUT ON POPULATION GROWTH AND EMPLOYMENT GROWTH FOR THE COUNTY THROUGH 2050, IT CREATES A DEMAND FOR 131,000 NEW HOMES AND OVER 37 MILLION SQUARE FEET OF COMMERCIAL. THAT'S ON THE COUNTY AS A WHOLE, AND THAT REPORT WAS INCLUDED IN YOUR TRANSMITTAL PACTET FROM GA I MEAN. THE NORTHERN MORGUES OF ST. JOHNS COUNTY AS WE ALL KNOW ATTRACTS A LARGE PORTION OF THAT, SO IT'S CREATING A NEED. ALONG WITH THOSE -- WITH THE APPROVED PERMITTED NUMBER OF UNITS, THAT'S A SHORTFALL OF, A FIVE-YEAR SHORTFALL OF UNITS ON DEMAND THAT'LL BE USED AND BUILT FOR OUR COMMUNITY. SO THE JUSTIFICATION WAS SUPPLIED THROUGH THE MARKET ANALYSIS WHICH LOOKS AT EXISTING AND BUILT, IT LOOKS AT THE MASTER PLANNED COMMUNITIES, WHAT'S BEEN APPROVED, WHAT'S BEEN BUILT WITHIN THOSE AREAS, AND RUNS FOR US ON SHORT AND LONG-TERM WILL WE HAVE ENOUGH UNITS FOR THE GROWTH THAT HAS BEEN SHOWN WITHIN OUR COUNTY.

SO I'VE THROWN UP SOME OF THE KEY MARKET ANALYSIS IT'S BEEN A WHILE SINCE THE TRANSMITTAL BUT IT'S ON THAT LP ARSE GRAWRS

QUESTION WITH 4R. >> HEALTH SAFETY AND WELFARE WE'RE OPERATING IN ST. JOHNS COUNTY AND WE HAVE SIGNIFICANT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES THAT GUIDES US TORT PRESERVING THAT TO ENSURE THAT WE DOUGH NOT ADVERSELY IMPACT THE ENVIRONMENT, AND WE SHOW THAT THROUGH RESERVATION JEAFNL OPEN SPACE. WE SHOW THAT THROUGH THE DESIGN OF THE MASTER STORM WATER SYSTEM.

WE SHOW THAT THROUGH THE COMPLIANCE THE WITH AREA HEIGHT AND BULK REGULATIONS THAT WE HAVE.

THE SERIES OF LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE LAITIONZ THAT WE GO THROUGH ARE INTENDED TO PROVIDE TO HAVE THAT RESULT.

SO THAT IS HOW YOU ARE ENSURED THAT WE'RE MEETING AND NOT ADVERSELY IMPACTING IT BECAUSE THAT'S THE POINT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND THE THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE.

>> AND, MR. KRAMER JUST POINTED ON IT TO WE ALSO THAT THOSE 500 ACRES PRESERVED LAND WILL BE PLACED UNDER CONSERVATION EASEMENTS SO YOU CAN ENSURE THEIR PERPETUAL PROTECTION, AND ALSO THAT THEY WILL BE ACQUIRING WETLAND MITIGATION CREDITS FROM ONE OF THE MITIGATION BANKS IN THE AREA WHICH WILL AGAIN

[01:20:01]

WE ALSO NEED TO NOTE THAT OF THE $29.5 MILLION THAT WILL BE PAID WITHIN SIX YEARS OF THE APPROVAL OF BOTH COMPANION DEVELOPMENT

AGREEMENTS. >> SO THE CONSERVATION EASEMENT, THAT GOT MY INTEREST. I WASN'T GOING TO ASK ANY MORE QUESTIONS BUT NOW THAT YOU MENTION THAT, I'D LIKE TO ASK THIS ONE. SOAL THIS WILL BE A REAL CONSERVATION EASEMENT. IT WON'T BE A REGULATE EASEMENT.

SML HAVE A EASEMENT DOCUMENT TRAITION REPORT, A REAL DESCRIPTIVE CONSERVATION EASEMENT LANGUAGE, IT WILL HAVE A MANAGEMENT PLAN, ALL THOSE KIND OF THINGS?

>> IN CONFORMANCE WITH 704 FLORIDA STATUTES.

>> OKAY. >> STATUTORY CONSERVATION --

>> I KNOW 373 AND 163 BUT I DON'T KNOW THAT ONE.

>> YES. S. THEY WILL BE A STATUTORY CONSERVATION EASEMENT AS IN THE TYPICAL UTTER WA MANAGEMENT FORUM OUT IN THE FLORIDA ADMINISTRATIVE CODE.

>> THANK YOU. APPRECIATE IT.

>> THANK YOU, DR. HILSENBECK. ALL RIGHT.

DOES ANYBODY ELSE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OF THE APPLICANT? AT THIS POINT?

>> THANK YOU. >> SEEING NONE, WE'RE GOING TO MOVE INTO THE PUBLIC COMMENT PORTION OF THIS.

MS. TATE? WHERE IS MS. TATE?

DO YOU WANT TO GO FIRST OR LAST? >> GO LAST.

>> I THOUGHT SO. SO MS. TATE IS GOING TO GET TEN MINUTES BECAUSE SHE IS REPEATING MULTIPLE PARTIES SO LET'S CALL UP ALL THE OTHER FOLKS FIRST AND MS. TATE LAST.

>> ED JOHNSON. >> MR. JOHNSON.

HOW MANY CARDS DO YOU HAVE? >> I JUST HAVE ONE MORE AND THEN

ELIZABETH TATE. >> OKAY.

MR. JOHNSON. >> SNAISMS ED JOHNSON 219 OXFORD ESTATES WAY IN ST. JOHNS COUNTY. I'M HERE TO VOICE OPPOSITION TO THE PORTIONS OF GREENBRIER HELOW PROJECT DWEVMENT THAT'LL HAVE DIRECT INEFFECTIVE IMON ON OXFORD ESTATES NEIGHBORHOOD.

THEY PROPOSED AY DEVELOPER DEVELOPMENT OF APPROXIMATELY 55 ACRES OF THE PROJECT ON THE BACK DOOR STEPS OF OXFORDS ESTATES. THE WITH LITTLE REGARD TO BUFFERING BETWEEN NEIGHBORHOODS AND EXPANDING THE MIXED USE DISTRICT, WHICH I'LL REFER AS TO MUD FROM HERE ON.

I HAVE ENCLOSED A GREEN BRIE HILO REDUCING IF CHANGE THE CHARACTER ARE ON DMOOSHED BY EX ANDND.

MUK AND PLANES ELLEN J BUSINESS COMMERCIAL AND PUBLIC SERVICES ACTS WIND THE RESIDENTS OF WINSTON-COURT, MANOR LANE AND 10 DID HOAMPS ON THESE STREETS PURCHASED THESE LOTS AT A PREMIUM AND HAVE SINCE BUILT ON THEM WITH THE ASSUMPTION THERE WOULD NOT BE ANY COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY AFFECTING THEIR LOTS.

THE CURRENT FUTURE LAND USE PAP MASSACHUSETTS DEPICTS THE MUD BEING HUNDREDS OF FEETS SOUTH OF OAKSFORD ESTATES, AND YOU CAN SEE THE CIRCLED PORTION WHICH IS CURRENT NOT PART THE CURRENT MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL UP IN HOARPS ALSO NEVER EXPECTED OR WANTED ANY HOMES TO BE BUILT DIRECTLY IN THEIR BACKYARDS AND PAID EXTRA TO ACHIEVE THOSE -- A CHEECHTS.

I KNOW THERE'S TEN PREVIOUSLY PLANNING AND ZONING MEETINGS WHICH WERE DISCUSSED EARLY EARLIER, COMMUNITY MEETINGS IN AN ATTEMPT TO MITIGATE THE IMPACT THE PROJECT WILL HAVE ON THE OXFORD ESTATES. THE GREENBRIER TEAM OF -- NONE OF THIS WOULD BE NECESSARY IF THEY HAD STUCK TO SIZE AND LOCATION OF THE MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL SHOWN IN THE LAND USE. OUR HILO TEAM HAS REFUSED TO EXPAND THE MUDD EXPANSION ORE INCREASE THE BOFER TBHEN OX FORWARD ESTATES IS AND THE PROPOSED RES-B NEIGHBORHOOD WHICH IS RIGHT TO THE RIGHT OF THE PROPOSED MUDD EXPANSION.

THE COMMUNITY'S STRESSED THE NEEDS TO MINIMIZE THE CHANGES TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD THAT WOULDLY CHANGE THE CHARACTER OF NEIGHBORHOOD. BUILDINGS YOU WILL BE IS PASTE SCUFF AS FIRE AND POLICE BE WITH ELLEN J BUSINESS TESH UP SCAS CAR WASH, OIL CHANGE TIRE SERVICE CENTERS IN OUR BACKYARDS WOULD DEFINITELY CHANGE THE CHARACTER OF OUR NEIGHBORHOOD.

I OPPOSE THE EXPANSION OF MUD. THE EXISTING APPROVES 2025 MUD PLUS THE PROPOSED FLORIDA VILLAGE AND BRIDLE VILLAGE MUDS WILL ADD MORE THAN ENOUGH COMMERCIAL PROPERTY WHEN TAKEN IN CONTEXT WITH THE OTHER COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES BEING EV DEVELOPED IN NORTHWEST ST. JOHNS COUNTY.

THREE THREE RECOMMENDATIONS P: DENY THE EXPANSION OF MUDD TOWARD OXFORD ESTATES, RESTRICT THE APPROVED HELOW ROBERT ROAD LONGLEAF PINE PORTION TO NEIGHBORHOOD BUSINESS COMMERCIAL, NOT GENERAL BUSINESS COMMERCIAL, AND INCREASE THE BUFFER ZONE BETWEEN THE GREENBRIER HELOW OH RES-B PROPERTIES ADJACENT TO OBJECTSFORD ESTATES NEIGHBORHOOD. THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU. >> COMUK LAPPE NOWSKI.

[01:25:05]

CHUCK LAPNOWSKI. >> 1748 NORTH CAPPERO.

AGAIN, I'M NOT AGAINST ANY KIND OF DEVELOPMENT.

WHAT I AM AGAINST IS THE ROADS BEING TAKEN CARE OF PROPERLY.

I HEAR 29AL MILLION DOLLARS GOING INTO TWO ROADWAYS.

I DIDN'T HEAR THAT MUCH ABOUT 210.

AND 210, ONE STRETCH IT'S REAL BAD FROM CIMARRON DOWN TO THAT LOCATION. AND I'D LOVE TO SEE THE IMPACT FEE FOR THE TRANSPORTATION SITE BE PAID UP FRONT, NOT FOUR YEARS DOWN THE ROAD. IN OUR YEARS DOWN THE ROAD THAT MONEY COMES AVAILABLE, IT TAKES LONGER THAN THAT FOR THE COUNTY TO GET -- AND STATE TO GET ROADS TAKEN CARE OF, AND A GOOD EXAMPLE IS 16 RIGHT NOW GOING EAST FROM IGP.

THAT'S SEVEN YEARS AGO IT WAS SUPPOSED TO HAVE BEEN STARTED BUT IT HAS YET TO START. SO WE'RE TALKING ABOUT PUTTING 3500 HOMES IN THERE, MULTIPLY THAT BY TWO, YOU'VE GOT 7,000 VEHICLES JUST FOR THE RESIDENTS. HOW LONG IS IT GOING TO TAKE FOR THE REST OF THE ROADWAYS TO BE UPDATED?

THANKS. >> ELIZABETH TATE.

>> MR. CHAIRMAN, PURSUANT TO THE P PDZ POLICIES RAFERREDDING DESIGNATED REPRESENTATIVE, I'D LIKE TO SWEAR MS. TATE IN AND

ASK HER A FEW QUESTIONS. >> YES, PLEASE.

>> GOOD MORNING. COULD YOU PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD, PLEASE.

>> ST. ELIZABETH TATE 441 EAST CROSS LI LANE,? RAY WHY RIGHT HAND. DO YOU SWEAR OR A FIRP TO TELL THE TRUTH TODAY BEFORE THE PLANNING & ZONING AGENCY?

>> I DO. >> YOU, LOWER YOUR HAND.

PRIOR TO THIS MEETING YOU PROVIDED STAFF A LIST OF

INTERESTED PARTIES. >> YES.

>> AND REPRESENTED THAT YOU WERE AUTHOIZED TO SPEAK ON THEIR

BEHALF. >> YES.

>> AND IT IS YOUR TESTIMONY TODAY THAT THEY IN FACT AUTHORIZE TO YOU SPEAK ON BEHALF OF THEM AT TODAY'S HEARING?

>> IT IS. >> THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MS. TATE.

>> THANK YOU. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME.

I'M HERE TO REPRESENT RESIDENTS OF THE NORTHWEST SECTOR WHO WILL BE IMPACTED BY THE GREENBRIER HELOW OH PROJECT.

I WANT TO FIRST SAY THAT WE HAVE BEEN MOST APPRECIATIVE OF THE TIME MR. HELOW HAS COMMITTED TO LISTENING TO COMMUNITY.

WE HAVE HAD MULTIPLE WORKSHOPS WITH MS. HAGA, AS SHE MENTIONED EARLIER. MR. KRAMER HAS ACTUALLY TAKEN TIME TO ATTEND AND ANSWER QUESTIONS.

HE'S LISTENED TO CONCERNS. AND WE APPRECIATE THAT.

MR. HELOW HIMSELF HAS BEEN AVAILABLE TO RESIDENTS AND HAD PERSONAL CONVERSATIONS TO ANSWER CONCERNS, SO WE DO WANT TO ACKNOWLEDGE AND THANK HIM FORE THAT AND THAT ABILITY TO BE POSITIVE TOWARD LISTENING TO US. I WOULD NOTE THAT THERE WERE COMMUNICATIONS, I DID NOT SEE IN THE PACKET THAT WAS ONLINE, INCLUDING MINUTES OF THE WORKSHOPS THAT MS. HAGA CONDUCTED. WE HAD AT TIMES UP TO 20 PEOPLE ATTEND THOSE WORKSHOPS TO PROVIDE THEIR INPUT.

AND AS WORK PROGRESSED ON THE PUD SUB MUGS, SOME OF THE CONCERNS WERE ADDRESSED, BUT MANY OF THE THE REMAINING CONCERNS FROM THE RESIDENTS IMPACT DIRECTLY BY ROBERTS VILLAGE, SO THAT'S WHERE I'M GOING TO SPEND IF BULK OF MY TIME TODAY TALKING ABOUT. FIRST, I DO WANT TO TALK ABOUT FLORIDA VILLAGE. WHEN WE FIRST HEARD ABOUT 1.34 MILLION SQUARE FOOT OF NON-RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT IN FLORIDA VILLAGE, ALL WE COULD THINK ABOUT WAS ANOTHER BLAN DIANN BOULEVARD. WE'RE JUST GOING TO HAVE MORE STRIP MALLS SO I'M EXTREMELY PLEASED THAT MR. HILO HAS COMMITTED TO HAVING 60% OF THAT BEING OFFICE SPACE.

WE DESPERATELY NEED THE OFFICE SPACE IN ORDER TO BRINGFUL FROM LEVEL JOBS TO ST. JOHNS COUNTY GOES SO THIS WAS TO ME A BIG WIN THAT WE GOT THAT COMMITMENT, AND WE CAN BE HAPPY WE'RE NO GOING TO HAVE YET ANOTHER STRIP MALL ON VETERANS THERE.

EARLY IN OUR CONVERSATIONS MR. HELOW HAD KADE INDICATEDS PREFERENCE THAT HE WANTED TO PROVIDE IN THAT FLORIDA VILLAGE WHAT I WOULD CATEGORIZE AS WORKFORCE TYPE HOUSING, CONDOMINIUMS, GARDEN HOMES, PATIO HOPES, TOWNHOMES, AND THIS WOULD HELP TO FILL A NEED FOR MORE AFFORDABLE HOUSING, PARTICULARLY FOR OUR PUBLIC SERVICE SECTOR EMPLOYEES WHO ARE LOOKING FOR STARTER HOMES AND JUST CAN'T AFFORD TO LIVE HERE ANYMORE. AS I'VE BEEN TALKING WITH MR. HELOW REASONABLE, HE SHARED WITH ME THAT AS THEY'RE GOING THROUGH THE COSTS ASSOCIATED WTD DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, HE MAY HAVE TO CHANGE THAT PREFERENCE, ALTHOUGH HIS PREFERENCE WOULD BE TO MOVE IN THAT WAY JUST FROM A COST PERSPECTIVE.

HE MAY NEED TO CONSIDER PUTTING APARTMENTS IN THERE.

I WOULD HOPE THAT THERE WILL BE SOMETHING WE WORK WITH ON THE ONTARIO THAT WE WOULD NOT BE PUTTING APARTMENTS IN THERE, THAT WE WOULD BE LOOKING AT MORE HOME OWNERSHIP BECAUSE WHILE THERE IS BUILD TO RENT IS GETTING MORE POPULAR, THERE IS SOMETHING TO BE SAID FOR OWNERSHIP AND THE PRIDE OF

[01:30:04]

THEY ALSO TELL ME THAT ACTIVITY ADULT GENERATION LESS TRAFFIC ON ROAD. I'M NOT SURE ABOUT THAT BUT THAT'S WHAT THEY TOLD ME IN THE CAL THRAITIONZ.

THIS STILL DOESN'T COMPLETELY MITIGATE THE CONCERNS ABOUT THE IMPACT ON THE SCHOOLS. AS WAS STATED IN THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT ANALYSIS ON THIS PROJECT, THERE ARE DEFICIENCIES IN BOTH TRANSPORTATION AND SCHOOL SYSTEMS. SCHOOL CONCURRENCY WILL BE IRD REQUIRE AND CONSIDERING THAT OUR SCHOOLS ARE ALREADY OVERCROWDED, WITH THE RECENTLY ARTICLE THAT THEY'RE GOING TO NEED 120 PORTABLES JUST FOR THE COMING SCHOOLER AND YEAR AND THERE'S A LACK OF FUNDING FOR NEW SCHOOLS, THERE IS THC A MAJOR CONCERN. HOW IS THE COUNTY GOING TO BE ABLE TO PAY FOR THE NEW SCHOOL THAT WE'RE GOING TO HAVE 40S ACRES PROVIDED FOR? WILL GREENBRIER HELOW GENERATE ENOUGH BENEFIT TO ACTUALLY PAY FOR THAT NEW SCHOOL IS THE QUESTION THAT REMAINS. NOW TO TBIEWK LOSH VILLAGE.

MR. HELOW HAS BEEN MOST GRACIOUS IN LINK TO CONCERNS OF ALL THE DESCRENGTSZ IMPACTED BY ROSHTSZ SPRINKLE.

THOSE ARE ROASHTSZ ROSH ROAD AND IN OXFORDS ESTATES AND HE'S LIKED AT THE COMMUNITY MEETING THAT THAT IS PROBABLY THE MOST NEGATIVELY IMPACTED GROUP IS AROUND ROBERTS VILLAGE.

IF WE LOOK AT THE NEGATIVE IMPACT THAT WE FEEL WITH ROBERTS VILLAGE WE WOULD START WITH TRAFFIC CONCERNS, AND THE IMPACT REVIEW THERE WERE MANY, MANY ROAD SEGMENT THAT WERE LISTED THAT WILL BE ADVERSELY AFFECTED BY THIS PROJECT.

I WOULD FOCUS ON JUST A FEW. CLOSE TOES ROBERTS VILLAGE AND OF GREAT CONCERN TO THE NORTHWET SECTOR.

LINK 79 ROBERTS ROAD FROM STATE ROAD 13 TO LONGLEAF PINE PARKWAY CANNOT BE WIDENED AND CANNOT BE MITIGATD WITH MORE TRAFFIC ON THERE. LINK 82 WHICH IS STATE ROAD THIRTEEN FROM 16 TO 16A IS NOT GOING TO BE WIDENED OR MITIGATED. LINK 88 STATE ROUTE 13 FROM RACE TRACK ROAD UP TO DUVAL COUNTY LINE CAN'T BE WIDENED, CAN'T BE MITIGATED. THERE ARE MANY OTHERS, BUT THESE ARE THE THREE THAT WILL HAVE THE MOST SIGNIFICANT IMPACT TO EXURNT AND FUTURE RESIDENTS IN THE NECHTD NORTHWEST SESHT.

AS A RESIDENT OF SCRIEWLGTHON CREEK I CAN ATTEST THAT SEGMENT OF STATE ROUTE 13 TO THE COUNTY LINE A MESS NOW DURING RUSH HOUR. I OBJECT ALSO SHARE EVEN TODAY IF I'M TRAVELING TO POINTS IN THE EFT SW PART OF THE COUNTY MY GPS SENDS ME ACROSS ROBERTS ROAD, NOT STIMULATE DOWN 13.

THE PLANNED FIRST COAST EXPRESSWAY ISN'T GOING TO MITIGATE ANY OF THAT TRAFFIC ON 13.

HOW LONG IS THE BARTRAM TRAIL SCENIC HIGHWAY GOING TO REMAIN SCENIC IF WE CONTINUE TO ADD TO THE TRAFFIC OVERLOAD? THE IMPACT OF COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT IN ROBERTS VILLAGE, MR. HELOW HAS BEEN VERY RECEPTIVE TOTE CONCERNS RAISED BY THE RESIDENTS. HE'S INCLUDED THE EXTENDED TRANSITIONAL BUFFER. THERE'S VERBIAGE IN PUD TO LIMIT NON-DESIRABLE BUSINESSES IN THE AREA CLOSEST TO THE EXISTING RESIDENTS. HOWEVER, CONCERNS REMAIN.

MR. HELOW SHARED WITH US HIS PREFERENCE ABOUT THE TYPE OF BUSINESS HE WOULD SELL TO AND ALLOW TO DEVELOP.

THAT'S GREAT, BUT IT'S NO SOMETHING THAT'S IN WRITING, AND MITES NOT SOMETHING THAT WOULD BE LASTING AND ENFORCEABLE.

LASTLY, I'D LIKE TO BRING UP THE LOCATION OF THE CIVIC CENTER.

>> IT'S UPSIDE DOWN. >> THE CIVIC CENTER IS GOING TO

HAVE A SHERIFFS -- >> IT'S UPSIDE DOWN.

>> THE SICK OF CENTER IS GOING TO HAVE A NIER STATION AND A SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT, SHERIFFS STATION.

THE CIVIC CENTER. PLEASE LOOK AT THE PROXIMITY OF EXISTING HOMES AROUND WHERE THAT CIVIC CENTER IS DESIGNATED TO BE. RIGHT BEHIND IT.

THESE RESIDENTS ARE GOING TO BE NEGATIVELY IMPACT RIGHT OFF THE BAT WHEN THAT IS BUILT. THEIR INSURANCE RATES WILL PROBABLY GO GOWN BECAUSE THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE A FIRE STATION RIGHT IN THEIR BACKYARD, BUT THE VALUE OF THEIR HOMES IS PROBABLY GOING TO DROP AND THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE NEGATIVELY IMPACT BECAUSE YOU NOT MITIGATE THE SOUND OF A FIRE ENGINE LEAVING THE A 1:00 IN MORNING. I HAVE PROPOSED TO MR. HELOW THAT THE BE RELOCATED CLOSER TO GREENBRIER ROAD.

HE SHARED WITH ME THAT THERE WOULD BE ISSUES WITH THE COST OF MITIGATING THE PROPERTY THAT IS CLOSER TO THE ROAD THAT A COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT COULD AFFORD TO PAY FOR AND THE COUNTY POSSIBLY COULD NOT. THIS IS CONCERNING.

HAS THE COUNTY CONFIRMED THAT? HAS THE COUNTY BEEN CONSULTED ON WHAT THE IMPACT WOULD BE AND WOULD THEY BE WILLING TO MOVE IT CLOSER TO THE ROAD AND AWAY FROM THE RESIDENTS WHO ARE ALREADY LIVING THERE NOW? COLONEL ROBERTS VILLAGE IS GOING TO HAVE A DIRECT COMEFG HAVE NEGATIVE IMPACT ON THE RESIDENTS

[01:35:04]

I ASK YOU TO PLEASE CONSIDER THAT IMPACT ON ROBERTS VILLAGE AS YOU MAKE YOUR APPROVAL TODAY. THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT.

NO OTHER SPEAKER CARDS? SO WE'RE BACK TO THE APPLICANT

FOR REBUTTAL. >> I THINK A LOT OF THE QUESTIONS KIND OF SUMMARZE INTO IF INFRASTRUCTURE BUCK, AND THEN ALSO IN OUR PUD ABOUT ROBERTS VILLAGE AND OUR CHARACTER AREA, SO IF YOU JUST GIVE ME A MIN TO PULL THAT MAP UP.

I DON'T KNOW IF AMANDA CAN JUMP TO -- HERE WE GO.

REALLY ON TRANSITION. SO LET'S LOOK AT ROBERTS VILLAGE. A COUPLE THINGS JUST IN REWINDING WITH THE FIRE STATION, CIVIC SITE THAT WE SEE THERE IN THAT NORTHERN PORTION, CONVEYING 5 ACRES.

WHEN WE MET WITH CHIEF PREVATT HE WAS KEEN TO MAKE SURE THAT THE DOAFORTS BAZE OF BAYS ARE ORIENTED TO THE SOUTH TO MINIMIZE THAT INTERMITTENTLY NOISE THAT MAY BE EXPERIENCED AS A TRUCK IS CALLED OUT AND THEN PROVIDE FOR THAT ACCESS THERE ON ROBERTS THAT GIVES THEM WHETHER THEY CAN HEAD NORTH, YOU KNOW WHERE THE SPHIERGS IS OFF 13 THEY'RE A SHEFFIELD AND THERE'S ANOTHER FIRE STATION OFF CIMARRON SO THIS LOCATION PROVIDE FOR GREAT ACCESS TO THE REGIONAL ROADWAY NETWORK.

SO SITE SENSITIVE WAS GIVEN FROM DIRECTED BY CHIEF PREVATT FOR THAT KNOW COMPONENT. ALSO WEAVE BUFFERING REQUIREMENT FOR DEVELOPMENT EDGE ALONG ROBERT VILLAGE WHERE WE HAVE 35 FEET SEPARATING EACH OF THOSE COMPONENTS.

THOSE ARE THE SITE DESIGN POLICIES FOUR NORTHWEST SECTOR.

SO JUST GENERALLY STARTING THERE AND WORKING DOWN, THE OTHER USERS NEIGHBORLY COMMERCIAL TYPE USES.

THAT'S INTENTIONAL AS TO THEIR LOCATION AND PLACEMENT WITHIN THAT AREA, AND YOU START TO SEE -- I'LL MOVE US OVER TO OXFORD ESTATES AND ALL THE WORK THAT WAS GIVEN THE WITH WORKING GROUP AND THEN WITH THE RESIDENTS.

HERE WE NEED TO LOOK AT THE BUFFER.

WHAT YOU'RE LOOKING AT THE TOP OF THE SCREEN TRANSITIONS FROM THE COMMERCIAL COMPONENT OF ROBERT VILLAGE AND THEN NORTH WOULD BE RESIDENTIAL. BETWEEN OX FORWARD STATES' THEY HAVE THEIR OWN 35-FOOT DEVELOPMENT EDGE WHICH YOU CAN SEE HAS BEEN LEFT UNDISTURBED. THIS YELLOW LINE REPRESENTS THE PROPERTY LINE. WE CARRY ALONG AN UNDISSHED DEVELOPMENT EDGE, AND THIS IS AGAIN OUR DRONE FOOTAGE FROM NOVEMBER OF 2021, AND THAT IS CARRIED FORWARD 35 FEET, SO WE HAVE A DISTANCE OF 70 FEET FROM PROPERTY LINE TO PROPERTY LINE OF UNDISTURBED THAT YOU SEE PLANTED MATURE PINE WITHIN THAT AREA BETWEEN THE RESIDENTIAL UTHE AS FAR AS THAT SPECIAL BUFFER AND THEN IN THE COMMERCIAL THAT'S BEEN ADDED ON FOR THAT COMMERCIAL ZONE. YOU CAN SEE HOW THAT'S BEEN BITTEL IS ON AND THAT 50-FOOT DEVELOPMENT EDGE.

THOSE ARE VERY SPECIFIC USES TO BE RESPECTFUL AND GIVE CONTEXT TO WHAT WE SEE IN OXFORD ESTATES WHERE YOU WILL NOT HAVE, SAY, A BACKYARD HERE NEXT TO A BACKYARD OF A RESIDENT THAT DOESN'T LIVE WITHIN THEIR COMMUNITY. IT'S SEPARATED BY 70 FEET OF MATURE PLANTED PINE SO I WOULD JUST BRING UP THAT COMPONENT. AND THEN WE CAN MAYBE SHIFT TO SOME OF THE OTHER USES. MY LAST POINT WOULD BE WE WOULD HAVE AN ADDITION TO LANDSCAPING, THAT'S JUST KIND THE GREEN WALL.

WE FOLLOW THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE BETWEEN THEIR TABLE AND ARTICLE 6 ABOUT UNCOMPLEMENTARY USES BETWEEN THE TWO, AND THAT'LL CARRY WITH IT A MASONRY WALL, SO WE GET TO HAVE SOME OF THAT'S AESTHETIC THAT WILL BUILD IN THAT THATD GROUND LEVEL PEDESTRIAN EXPERIENCE WHAT WILL BE PLOCKED FROM THOSE USES.

ALL OF THAT HAS BEEN VERY SPECIFIC AS FAR AS USES FOR TO ROBERTS VILLAGE AND A JASE ENSY TO OXFORD.

I THINK NO WE'LL SWITCH OVER TO EXPOOLS AND MAYBE ROAD INFRASTRUCTURE. THE WE HAD A QUESTION ABOUT

TIMING OF PAVEMENTS. >> WITH RESPECT TO EXCUSE, AGAIN, THE LAW REQUIRES THE PAYMENT OF A PROPORTIONATE SHARE, AND SO WE HAVEN'T GOTTEN TO THE POINT WHERE WE HAVE FILED THE PROPORTIONATE SHARE AGREEMENT WITH THE SCHOOL BOARD, BUT CERTAINLY THIS PROJECT WILL PAY ITS CAPITAL COSTS.

THAT'S THE REQUIREMENT OF THE LAW.

AL THERE WILL BE A 40-ACRE K THROUGH 8 SITE DEDICATION.

AND THEN THERE WILL BE CASH PAYMENTS FORRAL CAPITAL CONTRIBUTIONS, AS WELL AS, OF COURSE, PROPERTY TAXES JUST FOR GENERAL SCHOOL MAINTENANCE FROM THE PROJECT.

THAT'S IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE LAW.

AND THEN WITH STRICT TO PROPORTIONATE SHARE, THE SAME THING. I DO WANT TO POINT OUT MR. LEBNOWSKI ALWAYS BRINGS UP GOOD POINTS.

A COUPLE OF THINGS TO NOTE. IF YOU LOOK AT THE MAP MS. HAGA HAS UP HERE, IF YOU SEE THE INTERSECTION OF COUNTY ROAD 210, GREENBRIER, AND VETERANS, SO I'LL POINT AT THIS, RIGHT HERE,

[01:40:05]

THAT SHOULD DOVETAIL IN WITH EAST CONSTRUCTION OF A FOUR-LANE SEGMENT OF VETERAN ALL THE WAY FROM LONGLEAF PINE PARKWAY TO COUNTY ROAD 210 AND THEN THIS PROJECT FOUR-LANING THIS SECTION OF GREENBRIER TO GET RESIDENTS UP TO THIS LOOP ROAD AND OFF GREENBRIER ROAD THERE AS WELL AS THE WIDENING TO FOUR LANES OF LONGLEAF PINE PARKWAY. THOSE FUNDS IN THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT ARE PAID AS UNITS ARE PLATTED.

SO NOT ALL THE MONEY WILL BE PAID AT THE SIXTH YEAR.

SOME OF IT WILL BE PAID RIGHT UP FRONT.

BUT THE IDEA IS TO PAY BEFORE ANY TRIPS BECOME -- GO ON THE ROAD. SO YOU'RE PAYING PER UNIT FOR THE TRIPS ASSOCIATED WITH THAT UNIT, BUT IN NO EVENT SHALL THE WHOLE KITT AND CABOODLE BE PAID LATER THAN SIX YEARS AFTER THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT IS APPROVED BY THE COIN COMMISSION.

SO THAT'S THE I JUST OF IT, TO PAY FORWARD.

SO AS THE PROJECT ADVANCES, OBVIOUSLY IT WILL TAKE TWO TO THREE YEARS TO GET ANY HOMES BUILT AND PUTTING TRAFFIC ON THE ROAD, SO THAT'S THE IDEA IN THAT PAYMENT SCHEDULE, IF YOU WILL.

SO UNLESS YOU HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS.

LYNN, DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING IN. >> NOT TO ADD.

>> SO WE'RE BAG BACK INTO THE AGENCY AT THIS POINT.

ARE THERE ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS FOR STAFF OR FOR THE

APPLICANT? >> I HAVE SOME.

>> YES, DR. HILSENBECK. >> OKAY.

MS. AVERY-SMITH, YOU JUST MENTIONED, AND I KNOW YOU DETHIS ALL THE TIME, YOU SAID WE FOLLOW THE LAW AND, OF COURSE, YOU DO, YOU'RE VERY SMART AND A CLEVER ATTORNEY, BUT GIVEN ALL THE PAYMENTS THAT ALL THESE OTHER DEPARTMENTS HAVE HAVE BEEN MAKING OVER THE YEARS, WHETHER YOU REPRESENTED THEM OR NOT -- I DON'T KNOW -- BUT WHY DO WE HAVE ALL THESE SHORTFALLS IF EVERYONE HAS TO FOLLOW THE LAW, PAY THEIR PROPORTIONATE FAIR SHARE, WHY DO WE HAVE THESE MASSIVE BACKLOGS OF $70 MILLION IN ROAD INFRASTRUCTURE IN THE NORTHWEST SECTOR IF EVERYONE HAS TO FOLLOW

THE LAW? >> WELL, I'M GOING TO GIVE YOU A VERY SUMMARY ANSWER BECAUSE THE ANSWER TO YOUR QUESTION IS LENGTHY AND REQUIRES A LOT OF DISCUSSION BECAUSE THERE'S A LOT OF HISTORY BEHIND IT. BUT BACK IN THE DAYS OF THE DRI, MOST OF THE PROJECTS THAT WERE APPROVED BACK IN THE 1990S AND EARLY -- AND EVEN UP TO 2005 AND 2007 WERE COWBTD AT 999 UNIT FOR A REASON, BECAUSE THEY PAID VERY LITTLE FOR THEIR -- IF ANYTHING

FOR THEIR IMPACTS TO THE ROADS. >> RIGHT.

THEY AVOIDED A DRI. >> CORRECT.

SO YOU'VE HAD THIS HOLE -- BECAUSE THE LAW DIDN'T REQUIRE IT AT THAT TIME. SO BASICALLY I'M GOING BACK TO THE LIEU. THE LAW HAS CHANGED OVER TIME TO RECOGNIZE THAT DEVELOPMENT IS PUTTING IMPACTS ON THE ROADS AND SCHOOLS AND WHATEVER, SO THE LAW HAS BEEN ADJUSTED TO REQUIRE PROPORTIONATE SHARE PAYMENTS, BUT THERE'S NOTHING THAT ST. JOHNS COUNTY OR ANY OTHER LOCAL GOVERNMENT CAN DO TO RECOUP THE REVENUE THAT WAS, QUOTE/UNQUOTE, NOT PAID BECAUSE IT WASN'T REQUIRED BY LAW TO BE PAID FOR ALL THOSE YEARS UP UNTIL PROPORTIONATE SHARE BECAME THE LAW OF THE LAND OR THE STATE. THAT'S MY BEST EXPLANATION TO

YOU OF HOW WE GOT HERE. >> OKAY.

THAT'S A GOOD EXPLANATION. Y'ALL MENTIONED, AND I'M NOT SURE IF IT WAS ON LONGLEAF OR GREENBRIER, THE FOUR-LANING OF A PORTION OF THAT AND THAT THE COUNTY IS GOING TO BE ACQUIRING THAT RIGHT-OF-WAY. THAT'S MY QUESTION.

HAS THE COUNTY ALREADY ACQUIRED THAT RIGHT-OF-WAY FROM MR. HEELO? OR IS IT GOING TO BE DETAINED? IS THE COUNTY GOING TO BUY IT? IS THE COUNTY GOING TO BUY IT AFTER THIS IS APPROVED, WHICH WOULD MAKE THE COST GO UP?

>> THERE'S BEEN A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR THE RIGHT-OF-WAY, SO ALL RIGHT-OF-WAY IS IN PLACE TO HANDE THE IMPROVEMENT THAT WE SEE ON THE MAP FOR THE FOUR-LANING AND THAT DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT DOES RECOGNIZE THE VALUE OF THAT RIGHT-OF-WAY ALONG GREENBRIER AS WELL AS THE LAND THAT MR. HELOW HAD FOR THE ASSOCIATED STORM WATER PONDS. SO THEY NOT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS PROJECT OR IN OUR DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, SO THE RIGHT-OF-WAY IS IN PLACE FOR TO US PROCEED WITH FOUR-LANING.

>> AND HOW LONG IS THAT RIGHT-OF-WAY?

[01:45:02]

HOW MANY MILES? >> IT'S THE LENGTH OF THE

PROJECT. >> THE LENGTH.

>> SO IF WE USE THE MAP THAT WE HAVE HERE, THE AGREEMENT I THINK MR. HEEL ORC HAS TWO TOWN CENTER IN SOME OF HIS PROPERTY.

WE CERTAIN HAVE THE RIGHT-OF-WAY ALONG OUR PROJECT THAT YOU SEE HERE. MILL CREEK FOREST.

ASEST EACH PROJECT QUOPS IN THE COUNTY SAID WE NEED TO RESERVE THE RIGHT-OF-WAY. ATTORNEY GENERAL PORTION WOULD BE GOODMAN CORNER AT THE CORNER THAT'S NOT OUR PROPERTY FOR

RIGHT-OF-WAY. >> SO HOW LONG IS THAT?

>> OUR PROJECT IMPROVEMENT IS .6.

I DON'T KNOW THE SPECIFICS FOR TO THAT DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT OF HOW MUCH RIGHT-OF-WAY MR. HELOW DID, BUT I CAN JUST SPEAK TO WE ARE -- OUR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT IS .6 OF A MILE.

>> .6? >> YES.

.6. >> .6.

>> 10.5 MILLION FOR JUST OVER A HALF A MILLION OF ROADWAY.

>> .6 MILES. OKAY.

THE NEED FOR OFFICE SPACE, THAT WAS MENTIONED, NOT BY EITHER OF YOU BUT THERE WAS THIS URGENT NEED FOR OFFICE SPACE.

DO Y'ALL THINK THAT IS STILL GOING TO HOLD TRUE GIVEN WHAT'S HAPPENED OVER THE LAST COUPLE OF YEARS AND PEOPLE NOT GOING TO WORK ANYMORE AND AVOIDING OFFICES? DO YOU THINK THERE'S STILL GOING TO BE -- THIS IS A NEBULOUS QUESTION, MAYBE YOU REALLY CAN'T ANSWER IT, BUT MAYBE I'LL ASK IT ANOTHER WAY. MAYBE COUNTY STAFF WOULD KNOW THIS OR MAYBE Y'ALL WOULD. HOW MUCH EMPTY OFFICE SPACE DO WE HAVE IN ST. JOHNS COUNTY RIGHT NOW? LET'S JUST CEJA IN THE NORTHWESE NORTHWEST SECTOR?

DO Y'ALL KNOW. >>

>> I DON'T KNOW. LINDS, YOU'RE THE PLANNER AND THIS IS YOUR BRAINCHILD, BUT THE IDEA I THINK THAT THE COMMUNITY HAD AND MR. HELOW HAD WAS TO KEEP FLORIDA VILLAGE FROM

BECOMING A STRIP SHOPPING FROM. >> RIGHT.

>> SO THEIR THAT THE PERFORMANCE STANDARD, AND LINDSEY, CHIME IN HERE, WAS PUT IN FOR THAT PURPOSE, TO PREVENT THAT NATURE

OF DEVELOPMENT. >> WELL, ONE, AND THEN THE OTHER PART IS SO WE'RE WITHIN THE NORTHWEST SECTOR.

THE NORTHWEST SECTOR WANTED TO MITIGATE OR NOT ENTIRELY REVERSE THE BEDROOM COMMUNITY. WE ALL LIVE HERE IN THE NORTHWEST SECTOR BUT WE GO TO OUR JOBS IN VASQUEZ JACKSONE HAVE A COMPONENT OF WE NEED 112 SQUARE FEET OF OFFICE AND RETAIL FOR EVERY UNIT THAT WE HAVE. SO WE WELL EXPWEED THAT.

SO IF FIRST MARKET WOULD BE WE ARE MEETING A DEMAND FORT NORTHWEST SECTOR TO HAVE MORE NON-RESIDENTIAL.

NOW, AS FAR AS SEEING HOW THE PANDEMIC HAS AFFECTED HAVING WORKPLACE, THAT'S FLUCTUATING AS IT COMES IN.

IT DID CONTRACT. THERE WERE VACANCIES.

SEE SEE SOME CHALLENGES TO THAT, HOW WE EXPAND, SOW HOW WE CAN WORK FROM HOME. NOTHING IS SETTLED IN AS WE LOOK AT THE ARTICLES COMING OUT THROUGH ZONING TRENDS WITH THE AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION BUT THEY DO SPEAK TO THAT, THAT CONTRACTION AND HOW WE DEAL WITH WORK FROM HOME.

WITHIN THE THE FLORIDA PARCEL QUIFS, MR. HELOW IS LOOKING AT ATTRACTING IN MEDICAL OFFICE SPACE.

THAT HASN'T CHANGED WTD PASMED AT ALL.

THAT'S MORE I'VE HIGHLIGHT NEED, AND THOSE MEDICAL OFFICE BUILDINGS THAT ARE ASSOCIATED WITH ED.

SO WE'RE COMMITTED TO 60S% OF THAT SAY THE SPATE SO THAT BEE AGAIN DO NOT RESULT IN THAT DESIGN THAT'S NOT DESIRED AS WELL AS CONTRIBUTING TO HAVE WORK ADDITINAL EMPLOYMENT HERE.

SO IT'S FLUCTUATING. WE CAN'T GIVE YOU A HARD AND

FAST TO SAY -- >> THAT'S FINE.

THAT'S ALL THE QUESTIONS I HAVE. >> THANK YOU, DR. HILSENBECK.

DOES ANYBODY ELSE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS?

>> THANK YOU. >> SEEING NONE, WE'RE BACK INTO THE COMMITTEE FOR A MOTION ON ITEM NUMBER 1.

>> I'LL MOVE TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF COMP PLAN AMENDMENT 2021-02 GREENBRIER HELOW COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT BASED UPON FOYER FINDINGS OF FACT AS PROVIDED IN THE STAFF

REPORT. >> SO WE HAVE A MOTION BY

MS. PERKINS. >> SECOND.

>> AND THERE'S A SECOND BY MR. PIERRE.

IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION? >> I'D LIKE TO MAKE A FEW

COMMENTS. >> YES, PLEASE.

>> OKAY. THEY ARE SOME COMMENTS.

THEY DON'T NEED A RESPONSE NECESSARILY.

HOLIES A11.2.7 OF THE KOLM PLAN STATES, "THE COUNTY SHALL ENCOURAGE URBAN AND SUBURBAN GROWTH IN DEVELOPMENT AREAS." DEVELOPMENT AREAS ARE DESIGNATED ON THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP WHICH DEPICTS THE OVERALL FUTURE GROWTH PATTERN OF THE COUNTY.

AREAS DESIGNATED RURAL/SILVICULTURE AND AGRICULTURAL INTENSIVE ARE NOTE DEVELOPMENT AREAS." THAT'S A STATEMENT OUT OF COMP PLAN.

SO GIVEN THAT AND THIS OTHER ONE ABOUT THE NEED FOR DEVELOPMENT AND NOTE ADVERSELY IMPACTING NATURAL RESOURCES, I, PERSONALLY I JUST CAN'T GET PAST THOSE. YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT A 20-YEAR BUILD-OUT, AND THEN THE NEED IN THE COUNTY OUT TO 2050, SO, YOU KNOW, WE'RE LOOKING A 28 YEARS FROM NOW.

I DON'T SEE AN URGENT NEED FOR THIS, SO I'M HAVING A HARD TIME GETTING PAST ALL OF THAT, AND PARTICULARLY WITH THE COUNTY'S

[01:50:07]

AND THEN I NOTED IN YOUR AGENDA ITEM THAT YOUR COMMUNITY MEETINGS, AND I KNOW Y'ALL WENT ABOVE AND BEYOND IN HOLDING THOSE, AND I KNOW THEY WERE GREAT AND Y'ALL ANSWERED ALL THE QUESTIONS, BUT HERE WERE SOME OF THE LISTED CONCERNS.

I JUST WANT TO READ THOSE OUT, OF PEOPLE WHO ATTEND THOSE.

LOSS OF SILVERRAL LAND IN SILVICULTURAL LAND IN THE NORTHWEST SECTOR. SILVICULTURE IS AN IMPORTANT AGRICULTURAL SECTOR IN THE STATE OF FLORIDA.

AND WE'RE LOSING THAT. DENSITY.

THERE WAS A PREFERENCE FOR RES-B RATHER THAN -- WHICH IS LESS DENSE THAN WHAT IS PROPOSED. TRANSPORTATION AND INADEQUATE TRANSPORTATION NETWORK WAS CITED.

INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS AND CAPACITY MET PRIOR TO DEVELOPMENT. GIVEN ALL THE OTHER DEVELOPMENTS THAT ARE OUT THERE THAT AREN'T EVEN CLOSE TO BEING BUILT OUT YET, WE DON'T EVEN KNOW WHAT THEY'RE GOING TO BE GENERATING IN TERMS OF TRAFFIC AND OTHER ISSUES OUT THERE.

NEED FOR TIME -- NEED FORE AND TIMING OF THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT. NEED FOR EMPLOYMENT CENTERS RATHER THAN SERVICE SECTOR JOBS PFC YOU'VE ADDRESSED THAT SOMEWHAT WITH THE 50% OFFICE SPACE OFF VETERANS.

CUMULATIVE IMPACT OF ALREADY APPROVED DEVELOPMENT.

WE DON'T KNOW WHAT THE CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ARE REALLY GOING TO BE AD HOW THEY'RE GOING TO BE PAID FOR.

A FINANCIAL BUT DENY TO EXISTING RESIDENTS.

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS. DRAINAGE AND LOSS OF WILDLIFE HABITAT AND DISPLACED WILDLIFE. TO ME THOSE, ALL THOSE CONCERNS SOUND A LOT LIKE WHAT THE PEOPLE AT THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT WORKSHOP STOOD UP AT THE PODIUM HERE AND STATED, VERY SIMILAR TYPES OF CONCERNS, AND I KNOW YOU'RE FOLLOWING THE LAW HERE, BUT LET ME JUST SAY THIS. YOU'VE GOT A 20-YEAR PHASED BUILD-OUT PLAN HERE. IN MY PAST LIFE I DID OCCASION LOBBYING FOFT LOBBYING TO THE LURLG FOR FUNDING CERTAIN PROGRAMS LIKE FLORIDA FOREVER PRIMARILY TO CONSERVE LANDS AND WHAT THE LEGISLATURE WOULD ALWAYS SAY BACK, BECAUSE WE WANTED A CONTINUING PROGRAM, THEY'D SAY, "WE CAN'T COMMIT TO A CONTINUING PROGRAM.

WE CAN ONLY DO YEAR TO YEAR BECAUSE WE DO NOT WANT TO TIE THE HANDS OF FUTURE LEGISLATURES REGARDING FINANCIAL TAXPAYER BASE AND LEGISLATIVE PAY-OUTS, AND WE DON'T KNOW WHAT THE REVENUE PROJECTIONS ARE GOING TO BE" AND ALL THAT GOING FORWARD.

SO WE CAN'T TIE THE HANDS OF FUTURE LEGISLATURES.

BUT GIVEN THAT THIS IS A 20-YEAR BUILD-OUT, I FEEL THAT THIS AND OTHER LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENTS WITH LONG BUILD-OUT PERIODS ARE IN ESSENCE TYING THE HANDS OF PDZ, THE BOARD P&Z, THE BOY COMMISSIONERS, THE CITIZENS OF ST. JOHNS COUNTY WHEN WE DON'T KNOW THE FULL COSTS OF ALL THIS DEVELOPMENT.

WE DON'T REALLY KNOW WHAT THEY'RE GOING TO BE, YET WE'RE COMMITTING TO LOOKING 20 YEARS IN THE FUTURE AND SAYING, YES, THIS IS GREAT. GIVEN OTHER DEVELOPMENTS THAT ARE ALRADY OUT THERE, THAT ARE NOT BUILT OUT, AND THAT OTHER ONES THAT ARE COMING BEFORE US NOW AND IN THE NEAR FUTURE THAT WE EVEN KNOW ABOUT. SO THOSE ARE CONCERNS I HAVE, AND I JUST HOPE SOMEBODY'S LISTENING TO THOSE, AND I THINK THE CITIZENS WERE LISTENING TO THOSE BECAUSE THEY CAME OUT HERE AND SPOKE QUITE VIGOROUSLY AND VEHEMENTLY ABOUT THE NEED TO MODERATE THE PACE OF DEVELOPMENT IN THIS COUNTY, WHICH IS REALLY -- IVER CALLED IT RAMPANT GROWTH BEFORE AND AND I WAGS CRITICIZED BY A PAST CHAIRMAN OF THE P&Z FOR SAYING THAT, BUT I THINK IT COULD BE CONSIDERED RAMPANT GROWTH, BUT THAT'S ABOUT ALL I HAVE TO SAY. THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU, DR. HILSENBECK. DOES ANYBODY ELSE HAVE ANY COMMENT? IF NOT, I DO.

MOSTLY ADDRESSING DR. HILSENBECK'S COMMENTS.

BUT FIRST OF ALL, I LIVE IN THIS EAR.

THIS IS MY AREA. AND I FREQUENTLY DRIVE DOWN THIS AREA, SO I'M VERY FAMILIAR WITH IT.

THE FIRST THING I'D LIKE TO POINT OUT IS THAT DRN HINGES, I

[01:55:01]

SUCH AMENDMENT IS PRESUMED NOT TO BE URBAN SPRAWL.

THEY'VE GOT IT LAID OUT RIGHT HERE.

>> YES. I DID READ THAT.

THANKS FOR POINTING THAT OUT. >> AND THE SECOND THING THAT I'M GOING TO SAY IS WHEN I LOOKED AT MY EMAIL YESTERDAY, I WAS JUST ASTOUNDED BY THE FACT THAT I HAD UNIT EMAIL -- I HAD 30 TO READ, BUT I HAD ONE EMAIL ABOUT THIS PROJECT THAT IS SURROUNDED BY DEVELOPMENT AND OWNERS. I JUST FIND IT A ASTOUNDING THE WORK THAT HAS BEEN DONE BY THIS DEVELOPMENT TEAM WITH THE COMMUNITY, AND THE FACT THAT WE HAD THREE SPEAKERS TODAY PLUS MS. TATE REPRESENTING SEVERAL OTHER PEOPLE IS JUST INCREDIBLE FOR SOMETHING THAT HAS SO MANY PEOPLE LIVING AROUND IT.

SO I JUST HAVE TO SAY I THINK THAT THIS DEVELOPMENT TEAM HAS DONE AN OUTSTANDING JOB, AND WHETHER YOU'RE FOR OR AGAINST GROWTH OR NOT, I THINK THEY'VE GONE WAY ABOVE AND BEYOND TO TRY TO ACCOMMODATE THE PEOPLE IN THE AREA, EVIDENCED BY THE FACT THAT THERE AREN'T 100 PEOPLE HERE SPEAKING AGAINST THIS TODAY.

SO THAT'S ALL I HAVE TO SAY. ALL RIGHT.

SO THAT BEING SAID, WE ARE READY TO VOTE AT THIS POINT ON ITEM NUMBER 1, AND I ASSUME WE'RE STILL DOING VOICE VOTES? OKAY. SO LET'S START WITH DR. MCCORMICK. DR. MCCORMICK.

>> YES. >> DR. HILSENBECK.

>> NO. >> MS. PERKINS.

>> YES. >> THE CHAIRMAN VOTES YES.

MR. PETER. >> YES.

>> AND MR. PIERRE. >> YES.

>> SO THAT MOTION PASSES 5-1. AND SO NOW WE'RE MOVING ON TO ITEM NUMBER 2, AND A MOTION ON ITEM NUMBER 2.

>> I'LL RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PUD 2021-15 GREENBRIER HELOW BASED ON NINE FINDING OF FACT AS PROVIDE PROVED.

>> PROVIDE PROVIDE. >> A MOTION BY MS. PERKINS, SECOND BY MR. PETER. IS THERE ANY STUTION DISCUSSION? SEEING NONE, ALL THOSE OPPOSED SAY NAY.

>> NAY. >> AND ALL THOSE FOR SAY A.

>> A. YEA.

>> SO THAT MOTION PASSES 5-1. ALL RIGHT.

SO WE ARE MOVING ON TO ITEM NUMBER 3.

>> MR. CHAIR.

[Items 3 & 4]

>> ALL RIGHT. WE'RE GOING TO CALL THIS ME GO TO ORDER AND WE'RE GOING TO MOVE ON TO ITEMS 3 AND 3 AND 4, AI ASSUME WE HAVE MR. WOODWARD WITH THE COUNTY HERE.

MR. WOODWARD. >> HI, GOOD AFTERNOON.

>> YOU'RE NOT MR. WOODWARD. >> NO, I'M MS. WOODWARD.

>> I'M SORRY. MADE AN ASSUMPTION.

>> THAT'S ALL RIGHT. WESTLY WOODWARD FLOODPLAIN MANAGER ST. JOHNS COUNTY GROWTH MANAGEMENT.

BEFORE YOU TODAY I HAVE ITEMS 3 AND 4, REVISION TO LOCAL ON THE OTHER HAND CHAPTER 1 OF THE FLORIDA BUILDING CODE, AND LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE ARTICLES 3 AND 12.

I'LL START WITH THE CHAPTER 1, THE CHANGES WOULD ADOPT THE 2020 ADDITION OF CHAPTER 1 OF THE FLORIDA BUILDING CODE SCOPE AND ADMINISTRATION PURSUANT TO FLORIDA STATUTES.

THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT WOULD ALIGN THE LANGUAGE IN THE CURRENT CHAPTER 1. 7THY DAKOTAS OF FLORIDA BUILDINGS CODE. THE CHANGES WOULD ALSO RESTORE THE BASIC DEF ADMISSION FOR SUBSTANTIAL IMPROVEMENT THIS WOULD REMOVE THE FIVE-YEAR CUMULATIVE COST REQUIREMENT CURRENTLY PRESCRIBED BY THE ORDINANCE.

THIS WOULD ALLOW FOR LARGER MARGIN OF WORK WITHOUT TRIGGERING THE 50% THRESHOLD FOR BRINGING A STRUCTURE INTO COMPLIANCE WITH THE CURRENT FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP.

IT WOULD ALSO INCREASE THE MINIMUM ELEVATION REQUIREMENT

[02:00:01]

FINALLY, IT WOULD AMEND 1,612.3.1 DESIGNED FLOOD ELEVATIONS TO BE DIFFICULT IT WITH THE PLANNED LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE. WHERE DESIGN FLOOD ELEVATIONS ARE NOT INCLUDED IN THE FLOOD HAZARD AREAS ESTABLISHED FOR WHERE FLOOD WAYS ARE NOTE MEGS DESIGNATED, THE APPLICANT WOULD BE REQUIRED TO REQUIRE BASE FLOOD ELEVATION DATA ACCORDING TO CURRENTLY ACCEPTED ENGINEERING STANDARDS.

FOR PART 3 OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, IT WOULD ELIMINATE THE PREIB DESCRIPTIVE ALLOWANCE FOR CONSTRUCTING IN AN A ZONE WITHOUT A BASE FLOOD EL VEGA.

THAT RANGE CHANGE WOULD REQUIRE IF APPLICANT TO DETERMINE A BASE FLOOD ELEVATION IN A ZONE. IT IS WOULD ELIMINATE PORTIONS OF 3.310D4 WHICH ALLOWED ALL REPLACEMENT MANUFACTURED HOMES TO BE ELEVATED TO 36 INCHES ABOVE GRADE.

THIS IS ACTUALLY DETERMINED BY STAFF TO BE CONTRARY TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE FLORIDA BUILDING CODE.

THE PROPOSED CHANGE WOULD REQUIRE APPLICANTS TO PLACE, REPLACE OR SUBSTANTIALLY IMPROVE MANUFACTURED HOMES ACCORDING TO THE REQUIREMENTS SECTION 3 .385. AND FINALLY, SOME REVISIONS TO ARTICLE 12 DEFINITIONS. THE CHANGES WOULD REMOVE THE DEFINITIONS FOR EXISTING MANUFACTURED HOME PARK OR SUBDIVISION, EXPANSION TO AN EXISTING MANUFACTURED HOME PARK OR SUBDIVISION, AND NEW MANUFACTURED HOME PARK OR SUBDIVISION. IT WOULD AMEND THE DEFINITIONS FOR REPETITIVE LOSS, SUBSTANTIAL DAMAGE AND SUBSTANTIAL IMPROVEMENTS, AND IT WOULD ADD THE DEFINITIONS OF COASTAL A ZONE, FLOODPLAIN ADMINISTRATOR AND LIMIT OF MODERATE HAVE WA ACTION. TO CONCLUDE, THE PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE CHAPTER 1 OF THE FLORIDA BUILDING CODE AND THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE ARE INTENDED TO NOT ONLY SATISFY STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS BUT ALSO TO ENCOURAGE MORE RINL CONSTRUCTION PRACTICES. AND -- RESILIENT CONSTRUCTION PRACTICES. AND I'M AVAILABLE FOR ANY

QUESTIONS YOU MIGHT HAVE. >> OKAY.

DO WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? DR. HILSENBECK.

>> A FEW QUESTIONS. WHEN I READ THIS AGENDA ITEM INITIALLY, THERE WERE -- AT THE BEGINNING OF IT THERE WERE THREE ITEMS. YOU WENT OVER ABOUT SIX OR SEVEN THAT YOU HIGHLIGHTED. AND THOSE THREE THAT WERE IN MY AGENDA ITEM -- I THOUGHT IT WAS THE MOST RECENTLY ONE.

I JUST READ IT LAST WEEK AND THIS WEEK.

I THOUGHT, OKAY, THIS IS GREAT. THESE ALL SEEM REALLY REASONABLE. AND THINK -- I'M ALL FOR THEIR ADOPTION, AND I THINK THEY ARE GOOD.

BUT THEN I LOOKED IN THE BACK OF THE MATERIALS AT THE REDLINE VERSION OF THE FLORIDA BUILDING CODE CHAPTER 1, AND I SAW ABOUT 70, AT LEAST 70 SUBSTANTIVE CHANGES IN THERE.

I MEAN, THERE WERE THINGS LIKE THERE WAS NEARLY A PAGE ON ELECTRONIC FENCE REGULATIONS -- ELECTRIC FENCE REGULATIONS, WHICH IS GREAT. I LIKE ELECTRIC FENCES IN THE RIGHT PLACE AND THAT SIEL IT WAS GOING TO GET THERE.

THERE WERE THINGS ON RETAINING WALLS, WORK THAT WOULD BE EXEMPTED FROM PERMITS LIKE INTERNALLY DITIONS LIKE CABINETRY, COUNTERTOPS, DECORATIVE STONE, GRANITE, TERRAZZO INSTALLATIONS. THERE WOULD BE TENNIS COURTS WERE IN THERE, STUCCO LESS IN AN 120 SQUARE FEET, BUILDING PERMITS MUST BE ISSUED WITHIN 30 DAYS FOR A SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING UNLESS THERE'S REALLY EXTEND EXTENUATING CIRCUMSTANCES. EXPIRATION AND THE CLOSING OUT OF BUILDING PERMITS. THAT WAS DISCUSSED.

EXTERIOR BALCONIES AND ELEVATED WALKWAYS.

FEES, SURVEY REGULATIONS. BUILDING INSPECTIONS.

REROOFING, SHEETING INSPECTIONS, SITE DEBRIS CLEANUP.

ALL OF THESE THINGS. AND I THEY MIGHT BE GREAT, AND I PROBABLY WOULD BE IN FAVOR OF EVERY ONE OF THEM, BUT I DON'T FULLY UNDERSTAND THEM. I'M NOT IN THE BUILDING TRADE OR DEVELOPMENT, LIKE SOME PEOPLE THAT SIT ON THIS BOARD ARE, SO I DON'T KNOW A LOT OF THESE THINGS.

WHAT I WOULD HAVE REALLY BENEFITED FROM WOULD HAVE BEEN AND EDUCATED FROM AND ENLIGHTENED BY WOULD HAVE BEEN SOME KIND OF A WORKSHOP ON THIS WHEN THERE ARE SO MANY CHANGES

[02:05:03]

I WOULD HAVE BENEFITED FROM A WORKSHOP ON THIS.

BUT -- AND IT WAS EXPLAINED IN YOUR PRESENTATION RIGHT AT THE BEGINNING, AND I DON'T RECALL READING THIS IN WHAT I READ, THAT THIS IS TO BRING ST. JOHNS COUNTY BUILDING CODE IN LINE WITH THE FLORIDA BUILDING CODE. SO I DON'T RECALL EXACTLY READING THOSE WORDS. MAYBE THEY WERE IN THERE.

BUT THAT MAKES IT A LOT MORE PALATABLE TO ME AND ACCEPTABLE.

SO THANK YOU. >> I THINK THAT WAS A QUESTION, SO IT PROBABLY BEHOOVES AN ANSWER.

>> SIR, IT WAS. >> IT WAS A QUESTION.

I'M ASKING FOR AN ANSWER. >> YES.

>> BECAUSE I HAVE THE SAME QUESTION.

>> THAT'S CORRECT. MOST OF THOSE CHANGES IN THE CHAPTER 1 THAT YOU'RE SEEING THAT WERE NOT SPECIFICALLY ADDRESSED IN THE PRESENTATION ARE TO ALIGN OUR CURRENT CHAPTER 1 ORDINANCE WITH THE SCOPE AND ADMINISTRATION OF THE FLORIDA BUILDING CODE. I DO BELIEVE THAT THERE ARE SOME ADDITIONAL CHANGES IN THERE THAT THE BUILDING OFFICIAL HAD ADDED HIM, AND IF WE NEED FURTHER CLARIFICATION ABOUT THOSE, WE CAN CERTAINLY GET THAT. FOR YOU.

>> DR. MCCORMICK, YOU'RE ON THE QUEUE FOR QUESTIONS.

>> WELL, I HAD A COMMENT. AND IT'S A VERY SHORT ONE.

IT'S REALLY DIRECTED AT OUR CHAIRMAN BECAUSE USUALLY HE'S SO GREAT WITH HIS HOMEWORK, BUT HE WASN'T THIS TIME, AND I COULD HAVE WARNED HIM WHEN HE INTRODUCED YOU BECAUSE I'VE TALKED TO YOU ON THE PHONE, WESTLY, SO I KNOW WHO YOU ARE, AND YOU PROMPTLY INFORMED ME THAT YOU LIKED YOUR FIRST NAME AND YOU WEREN'T ABOUT TO CHANGE IT, SO I LIKE IT TOO.

THAT'S MY ONLY COMMENT. >> I UNDER, MR. PETER, THAT

THAT'S YOU. >> HE'S SHOWING UP AS ZACK

MILLER ON THE SCREEN HERE. >> NO, I HAD A SIMILAR QUESTION RELATIVE TO THE REDLINE DOCUMENT BECAUSE, AS I READ THE NARRATIVE SUMMARY IN THE REPORT, AND THIS IS A QUESTION, ARE WE REVISING SPECIFIC AREAS OF THE CURRENT FLOOD REGULATION ONLY TODAY OR ALL OF THOSE RED LIVEN CHANGES IN THE DEVELOPMENT CODE?

>> ALL OF THE REDLINE CHANGES ARE BEING PROPOSED.

>> OKAY. >> DR. HILSENBECK.

>> ITEM 4 THAT DEALT WITH THE FLOODING ISSUES, THAT SEEMED RIGHT ON. EVERY CHANGE IN THAT REDLINE DOCUMENT WAS RELATED TO FLOODING AND FLOODING-RELATED ISSUES.

BUT ITEM 3 WENT WAY BEYOND THE SCOPE OF WHAT I THOUGHT WOULD BE IN THERE. FOR EXAMPLE, IN THE BUILDING CODE, IN THE CODE I THINK OF STRUCTURAL, YOU KNOW, ACTIVITIES GOING ON AND BEING IN CONFORMANCE FOR HURRICANE STANDARDS AND SO FORTH, BUT THEN TOAF IT PLACED TO HAVE IT PN THEIR ALL BUILDING PERMITS WILL BE APPROVED IN 30 DAYSNESS THERE'S EXTENUATING CIRCUMSTANCES, I DON'T THINK THAT SHOULD BE PART OF THE BUILDING CODE.

THAT'S A SEPARATE TYPE OF ORDINANCE OR ISSUE FOR THE

COUNTY COMMISSION, I THINK. >> IT'S A PART OF THE SCOPE AND ADMINISTRATION PORTION, SO IT'S WHAT GIVES THE BUILDING OFFICIAL AUTHORITY, AND IT'S ADOPTED INTO ST. JOHNS COUNTY'S ORDINANCES FOR ADMINISTRATION OF THE CODE. OF THE BUILDING CODE.

>> MR. PIERRE. >> .

JACK PETER WAS ON MY SCREEN JUST A MINUTE AGO.

>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. MIKE ROBERSON AGAIN GROWTH MANAGEMENT. JUST A COUPLE OF POINTS.

I THINK IT SOUNDS LIKE MAYBE STAFF COULD HAVE DONE MAYBE A LITTLE MORE BETTER CLARIFICATION ON SOME OF THOSE MAY BE SMALLE CHANGES THAT ARE OCCURRING, THINGS LIKE WHAT DR. HILSENBECK JUST POINTED OUT. THOSE WERE STATUTE THAT CAME ALONG. BASICALLY WE'RE UPDATING WHAT THE STATUTE WAS, FLORIDA BUILDING CODE, HERE IT IS, THIS IS WHAT IT IS. ALL BUILDING DEPARTMENTS HAVE TO

[02:10:02]

THEY'RE SMALLER BUT THEY'RE HERE IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS.

WE HAVE BUILDING STAFF TO ANSWER THOSE QUESTIONS.

MY SECOND POINT, AND I'LL LOOK TO THE COUNTY ATTORNEY TO CONFIRM, BUT I THINK WE DID TAKE THIS THROUGH THE PLANNING & ZONING AGENCY AS A COURTESY. I DON'T KNOW THAT WE NEED A NECESSARY VOTE ON THIS BUT WE LIKE TO RUN THING BY -- AND AGAIN I'M NOT TAKING AWAY FROM THE VOTE.

THIS IS A COURTESY TO RUN IT THROUGH YOU IF THERE'S ANY FEEDBACK. SO WE'LL TAKE THAT FEEDBACK FOR SURE THAT MAYBE WE CAN EXPLAIN IT BETTER ON WHAT ALL THOSE CHANGES WERE BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY WE CAN'T LIST ON IT ALL THOSE CHANGES OUR OUR SUMMARY BUT WE CAN DO A BETTER JOB OF MAYBE SAYING WHAT SOME OF THOSE ADDITIONAL CHANGES ARE AND WHY THERE ARE SO MANY SMALL ONES IN THERE.

>> MR. PETER. >> THANK YOU FOR THE CLARIFICATION BECAUSE I WAS -- IF NEXT QUESTION I WAS GOING TO ASK IS I DON'T KNOW HOW THIS IS AN ACTION ITEM FOR THIS BOARD AS OPPOSED TO AN INFORMATION ITEM, SO PERHAPS NEXT TIME ON THE AGENDA IF YOU COULD JUST NOTE IF IT'S AN ACTIONABLE ITEM OR JUST INFORMATION PRESENTATION, I THINK THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL BECAUSE THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE IS DEEP, THICK, LONG, AND IF I DON'T NEED TO READ THE WHOLE THING, I DON'T HAVE TO.

>> WELL, I'LL SPEAK TO THAT BECAUSE ACTUALLY ONE OF OUR CHARGES IS TO REVIEW CHANGES TO THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE.

>> SO DO WE VOTE OR DO WE NOT VOTE?

>> DICK SOUSA, EF-CHIEF ENGINEE. >> THAT IS THE QUESTION.

>> I UNDERSTAND, SIR. THANK YOU.

CHAPTER 1 IS THE LOCAL ORDINANCE THAT ENFORCES BUILT BEFORE THE BUILDING QUOTED, AND THAT'S WHERE WE MAKE LOCAL CHANGES TO THAT POLICY. THOSE CHANGES ARE BEING ENACTED.

THAT ONE IS NOT ACTIONABLE BY THIS BOARD.

HOWEVER THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE CHANGES IN ARTICLE 3 AND ARTICLE 12 WHICH INCLUDE THE DEF NUTIONZ ARE HERE PRESENTED TO YOU FOR RECOMMENDATION FOR CHANGES, AND THOSE ARE UPDATING THE LOCAL FLOOD REGULATIONS THAT WE HAVE THE WITHIN DEFENDANT CODE AND THEN ALSO THOSE DEFINITIONS THAT WERE SHOWN TO YOU IN THE SLIDE SHOW AS WELL. SO WHILE THERE WERE A LOT MORE OF THOUGH CHANGES THAT WERE REDLINED WITHIN THE CHAPTER 1 ORDINANCE, THOSE ARE THROUGH THE BUILDING OFFICIAL AND THROUGH HIS OFFICES OF WHICH THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT IS A PART OF, BUT THE SUBSTANCE OF WHAT THE SPEAKER PRESENTED, THE FLOOD CHANGES THAT COINCIDE WITH BOTH CHAPTER 1 AND ARTICLE 3 AND ARTICLE 12

OF THE CODE. >> THANK YOU.

>> I HAVE TWO THINGS. NUMBER ONE, SO I THINK WHAT WE WERE JUST TOLD IS THAT ITEM 3 REALLY WE DON'T NECESSARILY NEED TO VOTE ON ABUSE IT IS NOT MASTER THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE. IS THAT CORRECT?

>> SINCE WE BROUGHT IT BEFORE YOU, YOU COULD GIVE A RECOMMENDATION. I DON'T KNOW THAT IT'S NECESSARY, BUT SINCE WE ARE BRINGING IT BEFORE YOU, THAT'S

AN OPTION FOR YOU TO DO. >> SO I HAVE A QUESTION, WHICH IS OTHER THAN THE BUILDING OFFICIAL WHO I HAVE THE UTMOST RESPECT FOR. HE DOES -- HE DOES A TREMEND- HOE HAS LOOKED A THESE CHANGES IN LIKE HAS ANYBODY FROM THE BUILDING INDUSTRY LOOKED A THESE CHANGES AND SAID, YEAH, THIS IS WHAT FLORIDA BUILDING CODE SAYS. THERE WASN'T SOMETHING THAT GOT

MISSTATED. >> SO JIM SHOCK, OUR SENIOR PROJECT MANAGER AT THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT, DID MOST OF THE CHAPTER 1, HAS ALSO BEEN REVIEWED BY THE STATE FOR CONSISTENT AND APPROVED BY THE STATE.

>> BUT MOBE FROM THE BUILDING INDUSTRY THAT HAS REVIEWED.

>> IT NO. >> MR. CHAIR, JIM SHOCK IS A MEMBER OF THE BUILDING OFFICIALS.

IF HE'S NOT THE CHAIR. AND ON THAT BOARD THERE ARE INDUSTRY REPRESENTATIVES, WHATEVER INDUSTRIES ARE REPRESENTING ON THERE, BUILDING AND ET CETERA.

>> WHICH BOARD? >> I THINK IT'S BUILD OFFICIALS

ASSOCIATION. >> FLORIDA BUILDING COMMISSION.

>> FLORIDA BUILDING COMMISSION. SO HE'S ACTUALLY A COUNTY EMPLOYEE BUT HE'S ALSO I THINK THE CHAIRMAN THAT OF BOARD.

HE'S ON THE BOARD FOR SURE. >> YEAH, BUT MY QUESTION IS I UNDERSTAND THAT WE CAN'T DO ANYTHING ABOUT WHAT THE FLORIDA BUILDING CODE DOES, AND THERE ARE PLENTY OFRES FROM THE BUILDING INDUSTRY ON THERE WHO ARE NOT PART OF GOVERNMENT, BUT MY QUESTION IS WE ARE NOW AMENDING A LOCAL ORDINANCE, AND YOU'RE CAN GO US TO A OPINE ON THAT, AND AS A PAST PRESIDENT OF THE FLORIDA HOMEBUILDER ASSOCIATION AND THE NORTHEAST FLORIDA BUILDERS ASSOCIATION, I WOULD HOPE THAT WE WOULD HAVE ASKED SOMEBODY FROM THE ST. JOHNS COUNTY BUILDERS COUNCIL TO PERHAPS READ THESE CHANGES, AND SO THAT'S MY

QUESTION. >> I CAN'T CONFIRM THAT BUT I CAN CONFIRM THAT THESE WERE SLIDES ADVERTISED.

THIS APPLICATION WANT PUBLICALLY NOTICED, RIGHT?

[02:15:02]

>> YES. >> I BELIEVE IT WAS.

AND THAT COULD BE A QUESTION THAT -- I DON'T KNOW -- MAYBE STAFF, WE COULD TABLE IT, IF YOU "GET CONFIRMS FROM THE BUILDING OFFICIAL. THAT WOULD BE SOMETHING YOU

COULD DO. >> SO I DO HAVE A SPECIFIC QUESTION. THE SECOND TO THE LAST SLIDE THAT YOU HAD ABOUT MOBILE HOMES BASICALLY SAID IT'S GOING TO BE IN COMPLIANCE I THINK WITH SECTION 3 WANT 05.05.

CAN YOU GO BACK TO THAT SLIDE AND EXPLAIN WHAT THAT MEANS,

PLEASE. >> YES.

WHAT THAT MEANS IS THAT RATHER THAN BEING ELEVATED 36 INCHES ABOVE HIGHEST ADJACENT GRADE, IT WOULD BE IN COMPLIANCE WITH THIS SECTION IN SAYS THAT THE BOTTOM OF THE FRAME RAIL BE ELEVATED TO THE BASE FLOOD ELEVATION PLUS 1 FOOT OF FREE BOARD IN A ZONES AND THEN IN B ZONES THE BASE FLOOD ELEVATION PLUS 2 FEET OF

FREE BOARD. >> ALL RIGHT.

DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT/STAFF AT THIS POINT? DO WE HAVE IN YOU PUBLIC SPEAKER

CARDS? >> NO.

>> ALL RIGHT. SO WE ARE BACK INTO THE AGENCY FOR A MOTION ON ITEM NUMBER 3. THEY'VE ASKED US TO, AND I

SUPPOSE WE ARE. >> I'LL MAKE A RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL TO THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE SBC CHAPTER 1 ORDINANCE BASED ON MODIFICATIONS DEEMED QUIFTD CONSISTENT WITH FLORIDA LAW AND THE ST. JOHNS COUNTY PREVENT LAND CODE.

>> SO WE HAVE A MOTION FOR APPROVAL BY MS. PERKINS.

IS THERE A SECOND? >> SECOND.

>> WE'VE GOT A SECOND BY MR. PETER.

DR. HILSENBECK. >> WELL, SINCE THIS IS A TIME FOR DISCUSSION, I'M JUST GOING TO SAY THAT I WAS SURPRISED BY THE EXTENT OF THE CHANGES AND I DIDN'T REALLY -- I DON'T FULLY UNDERSTAND THEM OR HAD TIME TO DIGEST THEM, AND I CANNOT VOTE FOR SOMETHING I DON'T UNDERSTAND FULLY.

IN TERMS OF ITEM 3. I'M 4 I THOUGHT WAS GOOD, BUT I'M NOT GOING TO VOTE FOR ITEM 3.

>> DOES ANYBODY ELSE HAVE ANY COMMENT? I AM GOING TO VOTE FOR ITEM 3 BECAUSE I KNOW THE BUILDING OFFICIAL AND I'M GOING TO ASK THAT STAFF REACH OUT TO THE ST. JOHNS COUNTY BURLDZ COUNCIL AND PLEASE LET SOMEBODY WHO UNDERSTANDS BUILDING BECAUSE I'M NOT A BUILDER, I'M A DEVELOPER, LOOK AT THESE CHANGES AND MAKE SURE THAT THEY'RE IN AGREEMENT

WITH THEM. >> I DO HAVE AN ANSWER FOR YOU ON THAT. I JUST SPOKE WITH THE DEPUTY BUILDING OFFICIAL. ALL THOSE CHANGES THAT WE ARE SEEING IN CHAPTER 1 ARE THE ADMINISTRATIVE PORTION OF CHAPTER 1 WHICH IS DIRECTLY UNDER THE PURVIEW OF THE BUILDING OFFICIAL AND WAS WITHIN IF BUILDING OFFICIALLY'S RIGHT TO MAKE THOSE CHALLENGERS. THEY'RE PURELY ADMINISTRATIVE ON

HOW HE'S ADMINISTERING HIS CODE. >> I STILL THINK IT'S A CURSE THAT Y'ALL SHOULD REACH OUT TO THE INDUSTRY.

>> OF COURSE, AND WE WILL PASS THAT ON TO THE BUILDING

OFFICIAL. >> THANK YOU.

ALL RIGHT. SO WE'RE READY FOR A VOTE NOW ON ITEM NUMBER 3. I'M SORRY?

>> JUST SOME FEEDBACK, TOO, FOR THE PLANNING & ZONING AGENCY, IF AT ANY TIME IF YOU HAVE IN YOUR STAFF REPORTS, IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ON ANYTHING, PLEASE FEEL FREE TO REACH OUT TO OUR STAFF AND WE'LL TRY TO GET YOU CLARIFICATION BECAUSE WE WANT YOU TO BE WELL INFORMED AS WELL SO HAVE THAT RIGHT TO REACH OUT TO YOUR STAFF AND ASK ANY OF THOSE QUESTIONS.

SO THANK YOU, SIR. >> THANK YOU.

ALL RIGHT. LET'S REGISTER THE VOTE OOH ITEM 3. ALL RIGHT.

THAT MOTION PASSES 4-1. LET'S MOVE ON TO ITEM NUMBER 4.

IS THERE A MOTION ON I'M NUMBER 4?

MS. PERKINS. >> MOTION TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE BASED UPON THE MODIFICATIONS BLEEG CONSISTENT WITH FLORIDA LAW AND ST. JOHNS COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.

>> SO A MOTION FOR APPROVAL BY MS. PERKINS.

>> . >> SECOND BLY MR. PETER.

ANY DISCUSSION? SEEING NONE, LET'S REGISTER THE VOTE. THAT MOKES PASSES 5-0.

THANK YOU, MS. WOODWARD. SO WE ARE ON TO ITEM NUMBER 5, AND THAT PRESENTER IS MR. KLEFFMAN.

>> MR. CHAIR. >> YES.

>> SORRY FORT INTRUPTS I JUST WANT TO COARCHL.

WE HAVE SIX PEOPLE OAT DAIS AND ARE YOU ONLY REGISTERING FIVE

VOTES? >> PAWRNL WE ARE ONLY REGISTERING -- HOW DID YOU VOTE ON THE LAST TWO ITEMS?

>> IT WAS NOT UP LONG ENOUGH FOR ME TO FIGURE ON IT WHO WASN'T

[02:20:03]

INCLUDED. >> LET'S RE VOTE.

>> WE DID VOTE ON 3 AND 4. >> ARE WE REDOING 3 AND 4?

>> SHE'S GOING TO CHECK. >> YES.

>> WE ARE REVOTING ON A MOTION TO APPROVAL ITEM NUMBER

[5. ZVAR 2021-27 3280 Coastal Highway Residence. Request for a Zoning Variance to Land Development Code Table 6.01 to allow a Front Yard setback of fifteen (15) feet in lieu of the twenty-five (25) foot requirement in Residential, Single Family (RS-2) zoning, specifically located at 3280 Coastal Highway.]

NOW WE WERE NEED TO REVOTE ON THE MOTION TO APPROVE ITEM NUMBER 4. LOTS OF CLICKING.

THAT PASSES 6-0. WE COULD HAVE PLAYED A LITTLE SONG. ALL RIGHT.

IS THERE ANY EX PARTE COMMUNICATION TO DECLARE FOR

ITEM NUMBER 5? >> I DROVE BY THE PROPERTY, BUT

I DIDN'T SPEAK TO ANYONE. >> HOW FAST WERE YOU DRIVING?

>> I PULLED OVER TO TAKE A LOOK. >> OKAY.

THEN THAT WAS EX PARTE. THANK YOU, MR. PIERRE.

ANYBODY ELSE? ALL RIGHT, MR. KLEFFMAN, YOU NOW

HAGAIN. >> THANK YOU, SIR.

APPRECIATE THE OPPORTUNITY TO BE HERE AND WANTED TO THANK THE ST. JOHNS COUNTY STAFF FOR HELPING US ALONG THE WAY.

WE'VE BEEN WORKING ON THIS FOR ABOUT 12 MONTHS, AND WE'RE LOOKING FOR TO GET A VARIANCE ON THE FRONT SETBACK FOR 3280 COASTAL HIGHWAY ZVAR 2021-27. MY PARTNER IS TRAVERS PAGEANT AND WE BOTH OWN EXPUT WE'RE PLANNING TO TRYING TO BUILD A SMALL HOUSE THERE ON THE COAST. SO THERE'S THE 15-FOOT SETBACK IN LIEU OF THE 25-FOOT REQUIREMENT.

THE EXCEPTION THAT WE'RE LOOKING ASSAY TOP GRAPHIC CONDITION OF THE PROPERTY. IT'S AFFECTED BY THE OCEAN CURRENT, A RIPRAP THAT'S THE NORTHERLY NEIGHBOR, AND THE PROXIMITY TO THE OCEAN AS WELL AS WITH THE DUNE.

AND WE'LL KIND OF GET INTO THAT A LITTLE BIT MORE SPECIFICALLY.

THE AERIAL MAP HERE KIND OF SHOWS THE PROJECT.

YOU CAN SEE THE NORTH PROPERTY HAS GOT THE ROCKS WHICH THEY CALL RIPRAP. THAT IS A FORM OF SEAWALL, AND THAT IS PROTECTING THOSE TWO HOUSES TO THE NORTH, AND THE HOUSE TO THE SOUTH DOES NOT HAVE A SEAWALL.

THERE'S THE MAP ON THE Z VA 27 THAT'S ON VILANO.

IT'S RESIDENTIAL RS2, RESIDENTIAL C.

THIS IS THE SURVEY OF THE LOCATION.

WE HAD A RENOURISHMENT PROJECT THAT HAPPENED ABOUT A YEAR AGO, AND WHAT ENDED UP HAPPENING WITH THAT IS THE DUNE WAS BUILT, IT WAS RESTRUCTURED. WE RECEIVED A DEP APPROVAL ON OCTOBER 15TH TO BE ABLE TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THE PROJECT TO BUILD A HOUSE. THERE WAS A KING TIDE THAT CAME EARLY NOVEMBER '21. THEY HAVE WITHDRAWN THAT THAT, BUT THERE'S THREE DIFFERENT REGULATORS INVOLVED AND IT'S ST. JOHNS COUNTY, THE ARMY CORPS OF SCWHREERNS WHO HAS A PER PET CHIEWP EASEMENT THAT IS FOR 50 YEARS, THAT GREEN LINE RIGHT THERE IS THAT LINE, AND THEN FROM THAT POINT FOR THE OCEAN IS THE DUNE. SO THE DUNE, YOU'LL SEE SOME PHOTOS HERE, SO BASE QULI THE ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS COMES AND TAKES CARE OF THE FRONT PART OF IT, AND THIS IS THE FOOTPRINT THAT WE'RE LOOKING TO DO. LET ME GO BACK ONE.

OAK. SO THIS IS THE FOOTPRINT THAT WE'RE LOOKING TO DO, AND THE DRIVEWAY AREA IS HERE AND THE SETBACK THAT WE'RE ASKING FOR IS 15 FEET RATHER THAN THE 25-FOOT REQUIRED, AND IT'S BASICALLY TO MOVE THE PROPERTY BACK TOWARD THE WEST. THE BUILDING IS 28 FEET WIDE.

WE TALKED TO THE DEP ABOUT THE SIZE OF THE BUILDING.

WE TALKED ABOUT THE SUSTAINABILITY OF THE BUILDING.

WE WERE TALKED ABOUT THE ENVIRONMENT.

OUR FOOTPRINT IS PRETTY SMALL. IT IS A TWO-STORY BUT IT IS ELAL VATED BECAUSE OF FLOOD ISSUES. STRUCTURALLY ENGINEERED, PILE CO IT'SELING VATED TEN FEET BEFORE THE LIVING QUARTERS FOR A THREE BEDROOM HOUSE, 2400 SQUARE FOOT. THE REQUESTED VARIANCE WILL NOT BE CONTRARY TO PUBLIC INTEREST. WITH THIS VARIANCE REQUESTED, THE 15 FOOTE SETBACK WOULD ALLOW FOR THE PROPER VEHICULAR ON-SITE TURNAROUND. WE DID TALK TO ST. JOHNS COUNTY EARLY IN THE PROCESS TO GET SOME FEEDBACK AND INPUT ABOUT WHAT WAS THE BEST WAY TO MAKE SURE THAT THE VEHICLES HEAD OUT ONTO THE COASTAL HIGHWAY FACING FORWARD.

SO WITH THE 15-FOOT SETBACK, YOU'LL SEE A PICTURE OF THE ONE

[02:25:04]

THAT CURRENTLY HAS A SETBACK OF 12 FEET ON THE HIGHWAY.

THEY DON'T HAVE A TURNAROUND DRIVEWAY.

IT WAS BUILT IN 1973. IT DID NOT GET A VARIANCE.

THERE ARE THREE OTHER PROPERTIES IN VERY CLOSE PROMPTS THAT DO HAVE THE 15-FOOT SETBACK, SO WE'RE FOLLOWING IN LINE WITH THAT THEORY OF DOING IT THE RIGHT WAY BUT ALSO TO MAINTAIN A SAFE PROCESS. SO YOU CAN SEE WHERE THE RED LINE IS. IT'S AN ADJUSTMENT OF ROUGHLY WHAT THE 25-FOOT SETBACK WOULD BE, PUSHING IT MORE TOWARD THE WEST. AND WHAT WE'RE ASKING FOR IS THE WHITE LINE THAT'S SHOWN THERE, WHICH IS MEAT MUCH IN LINE WITH THE SOUTH HOUSE AND THE OTHER THREE HOUSES THAT HAVE RECEIVED A VARIANCE APPROVAL IN THE LAST TEN YEARS.

THE HOUSE ON THE RIGHT-HAND, THE RIGHT-HAND PICTURE IS GOING TO BE THE ONE THAT IS CLOSER TO ROAD.

YOU CAN SEE THAT IT JUST HAS ONE THING.

WE DECIDED TO MOVE THE DRIVEWAY AWAY FROM THAT DRIVEWAY TO CREATE A BETTER LINE OF SIGHT FOR BOTH PROPERTIES, AND THEN THE OTHER ONE ON THE LEFT IS THE 32 -- THEY HAVE THE SEAWALL ORE THE WALL, THE RETAINING WALL, AND YOU CAN KIND OF SEE IT BETTER IN PICTURE HERE, TO KIND OF GET AN IDEA OF WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT, BUT WE'RE REALLY ASKING TO MOVE THE HOUSE FORWARD 10 FEET FROM OCEAN TO PROTECT THE OCEAN AND THE SAND AND EVERYTHING ELSE ALONG WITH THE THREE JURISDICTIONS.

THE NEIGHBORHOOD, IT HAS THE RIPRAP ON THE ONE SIDE.

THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY DURING THIS PROCESS FOR THIS LAST YEAR, THEY HAVE RECOMMENDED IN THEIR WRITING TO US, WE DID GET AN APPROVAL PRIOR TO THE STORM THAT HIT US IN NOVEMBER, BUT THEY DID BASICALLY KUWAIT THAT IT WOULD BE INDICATE THAT IT WOULD BE BENEFICIAL FOR ALL PARTIES.

A CONTIGUOUS DIAGNOSIS WILL THE VARIANCE REQUEST TO MAINTAIN WITH THE ARMY CORPS ENGINEERS FOR THE MAINTAINS MAINTENANCE OF PERPETUAL DUNE FOR 3280 COASTAL HAWAII FOR THE NEXT 50 YEARS.

HERE'S A PHOTO LOOKING AT THE SOUTH WHERE YOU CAN SEE THE RIPRAP. IN THAT LINE YOU CAN SEE WHERE THE SEA ARE ON THE RIGHT-HAND SIDE THAT OF PICTURE.

THAT'S THE TOP PART OF THE DUNE, AND THE SWALE PART THAT GOES DOWN, IT USED TO GO OUT ABOUT 1F RIPRAP BUT THAT'S WHAT HAS BEEN KIND OF ERODED AWAY. AND THAT'S KIND OF WHY WE THINK THAT IT'S -- THERE'S THE HARDSHIP CLAIM IS BECAUSE TO THAT SIZE WE DON'T WANT TO GET TOO CLOSE TO THE DUNE.

EVENTUALLY WE'RE HOPEFUL WHEN THE ARMY CORPS COMES BACK, THAT THE PLANS WILL TAKE, MR. DAIMON WITH ST. JOHNS COUNTY, HE INDICATED THAT SOMETIMES IT DOES TAKE A COUPLE TIMES BEFORE THE PLANTS WILL ACTUALLY KIND OF CREATE THE DUNE THEY'LL SUSTAIN IT IS PROTECT IT BUT IT IS IN LINE WITH THE OTHER HOUSES.

IT'S OCEAN FRONT. THE COASTAL CONSTRUCTION CONTROL LINE ALLOWS THE DEP TO CONTROL YOU KNOW A LOT OF THE RULINGS ON THIS AS FAR AS THE APPROVAL PROCESS.

THE RIPRAP ON THE SOUTH IS ALSO ANOTHER ITEM THAT CREATES A HARDSHIP PLAIN BECAUSE THE WATER DOES SWIRL IN THAT AREA AND IT'S CREATED A GREATER EROSION ON THE PLOT FOR 3280.

THE VARIANCE REQUEST WOULD MAINTAIN COMPLIANCE WITH THE ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS WITH THE PERPETUAL EASEMENT.

THE ENFORCEMENT OF THE CODE WROIT REQUESTED VARIANCE GOES AGAINST THE CONSENSUS OF THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES.

APPROVAL OF THE VARIANCE WOULD ALLOW FOR THE PERPETUAL EASEMENT TO BE MAIDEN BY THE ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS AND THE SEA DUNE, AND THE RDGES OF THE FLORIDA DEP TO MOVE THE HOUSE STRUCTURE TO THE WEST THAT 10 FEET. REGARD STNG DRIVEWAY DESIGN, IT'S STAGGERING SO WE BASICALLY MOVED THEM APART SO THEY'RE NOT CONNECTED TOGETHER SO THEY'RE BOTH VISUALITES, AND THEN YOU CAN SEE ON THE HIGHLIGHTED YELLOW PORTION OF ITEM NUMBER ALLOWS A CAR TO TURN INTO THE FRONT.

WE KIND OF DID SOME ENVIRONMENTAL DRIVEWAY SO IT'S JUST TWO STRIPS FOR THE CAR TO GO ON AND IT'S GOT GRAVEL AND SAND, KIND OF MINIMIZING OUR IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT IN THAT WAY, BUT IT ALLOWS THE CAR TO TURN AROUND TO BE ABLE TO FACE OUT AS IT GOES OUT ONTO THE HIGHWAY.

IN CONCLUSION, THE REQUESTED VARIANCE FOR THE 15-FOOT SETBACK WOULD NOT BE CONTRARY TO THE SPIRIT OF THE CODE.

THE REQUESTED VARIANCE FOR 15-FOOT SET BACK WOULD MAINTAIN ALIGNMENT WITH THE ADJACENT PROPERTIES.

THE INTEFNTS TO THE COMMUNITY, NEIGHBORS AND ARE INCREASE BOOEDTY LINEAR LAYOUT OF THE LOK ALONG THE LOCATION OF THE BEACH, AND IN THE SPIRIT OF REQUESTED VARIANCE IT WILL ENHANCE THE NEIGHBORHOODS AND FOLLOW THE CONSENSUS OF THE MANY PARTIES

[02:30:01]

AND THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. ANY QUESTIONS?

>> ALL RIGHT. ANY QUESTIONS OF THE APPLICANT?

DR. HILSENBECK. >> I'VE GOT SOME.

THAT STRIP OF VEGETATION ON WEST SIDE OF YOUR PROPERTY.

>> YES, SIR. >> DO YOU KNOW WHAT ALL THE

SPECIES ARE IN THERE? >> THEY ACTUALLY -- IT'S A GOOD QUESTION. THE ANSWER TO THE QUESTION IS RIGHT NOW THEY HAVE NOT DETERMIED THAT THERE IS SPECIES IN THERE. THERE IS A TURTLE INSPECTION.

>> I MEANT PLANTS, ACTUALLY. >> OH, THE PLANTS ARE BASICALLY -- OUR INTENTION TO LEAVE THE PLANTS AND LEAVE THEM ALONG THAT FRONT ROW EXACTLY WHERE IT'S AT.

>> OKAY. >> SO WE LIKE THE PLANTS.

IT'S A GOOD BUFFER FROM HIGHWAY FOR KIDS OR DOGS, THAT KIND OF STUFF, SO WE ACTUALLY HAVE A 4-FOOT FENCE DESIGNED IN THE PLAN, THE DRIVEWAY WOULD BE OPEN TO GET IN BUT ALL OF THAT VEGETATION STAYS THERE SO WE DON'T PLAN A ON CHANGING TOO MUCH WITH THE VEGETATION. IN FACT WE WANTED TO CON I HAVE YOU HAVE DISCOVERY THE THE ONES THAT NEED TO BE RELOCATED.

THE INTERESTING THING ABOUT THE PROPERTY IS IT'S 85 FEET.

WE'RE ONLY 50. WE SO HAVE WEAVE PEST LEFT BIG SIDESETS. AND OUR INTENTION TO MOVE THE PLANTS. THERE'S PLENTY OF ROOM ON BOTH SIDES. BECAUSE IT'S NOT A BIG HOUSE AND WE KIND OF WANTED TO KEEP IT -- YOU KNOW, WE DIDN'T WANT TO GO TOO BIG. JUST LIKE A GOOD PLACE.

>> DO YOU INTEND TO ULTIMATELY PUT RIPRAP OUT THERE YOURSELVES?

>> WHEN YOU SAY RIPRAP, NO. >> TO THE NORTH.

>> IN 1971 IS WHEN THAT WAS DONE.

STEVEN WAS THE ENGINEER ON ST. AUGUSTINE THAT DID THAT.

HE IS RETIRED NOW. LOANING STORY SHORT, IT'S NOT LEGAL ANYMORE. SO THAT'S NOT AN OPENINGS, AND THAT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT WE WOULD WANT TO DO ANYHOW BUT YOU CAN'T DO IT ANY MORE WITH THE DEP.

>> LET ME ASK THIS. YOUR HOUSE IS GOING TO BE FORWARD OF, ENTIRELY THE COASTAL CONTROL -- COLT CONSTRUCTION

CONTROL LINE. >> THAT IS CORRECT, YES, SIR.

SO IT ENDS UP -- THERE'S A NUMBER OF HOUSES ALONG THAT LINE THAT ARE OCEANFRONT THAT ARE IN FRONT OF CCL LINE.

>> THEY ARE. >> SO WE'VE WORKED WITH DAVID KREIGER WHO IS THE CHIEF OVER THERE AND DOWELING DAMON AT ST. JOHNS COUNTY, SO WE'VE DEFINED -- WE'VE BEEN WORKING ON IT FOR ABOUT A YEAR, BUT WE HAVE THE THREE MAIN HITTERS ARE GOING TO BE THE HAMMER CORPS OF ENGINEERS, THE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY AND THEN ST. JOHNS COUNTY, AND, YOU KNOW, I FEEL LIKE WE HAVE A GOOD PLAN AT THIS POINT.

WE'VE GOT A CENSUS. >> WE'RE HOPING FOR YOUR APPROVAL ON THE VARIANTS, AND IF WE WERE GET THE VARIANCE, I BELIEVE AT THAT POINT WE CAN DO A SUSTAINABLE PROJECT AND MOVE

FORWARD. >> OKAY.

IT'S JUST -- SINCE SEVERAL OF YOUR NEIGHBORS HAVE 15-FOOT SETBACKS OR LESS FROM A1A THERE, IT'S VERY DIFFICULT TO VOTE AGAINST THIS. IT'S REALLY NOT FAIR TO YOU TO VOTE AGAINST IT. SO -- BECAUSE IT'S BEEN DONE BEFORE. IN FACT, I VOTED FOR A COUPLE OF THESE. GOOD LUCK WITH THE HOUSE.

>> WE CERTAINLY THANK YOU SO MUCH.

>> ALL RIGHT. ANY OTHER QUESTINS OF THE APPLICANT? DO WE HAVE IN YOU PUBLIC SPEAKER CARDS? NO PUBLIC SPEAKER CARDS.

WE'RE BACK IN THE AGENCY FOR A MOTION.

DR. MCCORMICK. I'M SORRY.

THANK YOU. >> WELL, I'M GOING TO MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE ZONING VARIANCE 2021-27, 3280 COASTAL HIGHWAY RESIDENCE, A REQUEST FOR A ZONING VARIANCE TO LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE TABLE 6.01 TO ALLOW A FRONT YARD SETBACK OF 1T REQUIREMENT IN RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY RS3 ZONING

[6. ZVAR 2021-29 5480 Atlantic View (178180-0000). Request for a Zoning Variance to Land Development Code Table 6.01 and Section 6.01.03.E.3 to allow for a Second Front Yard setback of three (3) feet in lieu of the fifteen (15) foot requirement in Residential, Single Family (RS-3) zoning to bring the existing single-family home into compliance and accommodate an addition, specifically located at 5480 Atlantic View.]

IN THE STAFF REPORT. >> FIRST BY DR. MCCORMICK.

IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND BY MS. PERKINS.

IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE, LET'S REGISTER THE VOTE. ALL RIGHT.

SO THAT MOTION PASSES 5-1. CONGRATULATIONS.

>> THANK YOU SO MUCH. >> MR. WHITEHOUSE.

>> GOOD AFTERNOON 1 AGENCY MEMBERS.

THIS IT'S STILL THE AFTERNOON. FOR THE RECORD, JAMES WHITEHOUSE, ST. JOHN LAW YOOB 104 SEA GROVE MAIN STREET HERE IN STNL, ST. JOHNS COUNTY, F. I AM HERE ON BEHALF OF THE

[02:35:02]

THIS IS AN BERRY FAMILY STRENGTHS 54 ATLANTIC VIEW US A A REQUEST FOR VARIANCE AS YOU HAVE SEEN FROM YOUR PACKETS.

THE REQUEST IS TO PREVENTATIVE THE CURRENT HISTORIC STRUCTURE AS PART OF A FAMILY HOME USE PURSUANT TO THE CODES OF ST. JOHNS COUNTY AND THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.

SOME OF YOU MAY HAVE GONE BY THE PRESIDENT OR KNOW THE PROPERTY.

THIS IS THE PLAQUE THAT'S OUT IN FRONT OF THE PROPERTY.

IT'S A RECOGNIZED PROPERTY ON THE FREEDOM TRAIL AT 5480 ATLANTICVIEW AS STATES TO THE PLAQUE THERE.

THE LOCATION OF THE PROPERTY IS IN THE CRESCENT BEACH/BURMT BEACH AREA. THIS ROAD HERE AS I KUWAIT ON CAREEN IS ATLANTICVIEW. THIS IS THE MATANZAS BEACH ACCESS. THERE'S A COUPLE OF MORE BEACH ACCESSES A SKIPPER LANE, AND THEN ONE TO THE SOUTH OF THIS PROPERTY, THIS IS THE PROPERTY AT CIRCLE.

THIS IS A CLOSER VIEW OF IT. THIS IS THE PROPERTY ITSELF.

AND THERE IS THE EASEMENT WE'RE GOING TO FAULK WHICH IS JUST NOT NORTH OF IT. -- TALK ABOUT.

THE APPLICATION IS BASED ON APOLOGY.

THE MAN AUTOY BIRR FAMILY SEEKS TO PRESERVE THE HISTORICALLY SIGNIFICANT STRUCTURE WHICH HAS BEEN MARKED AS A SIGNIFICANT PART OF THE FREEDOM TRAIL AND HE IS SIGNIFICANCE HE'S BEEN MARKED BY MANY HIRNTS AND DOCUMENTED IN MANY PUBLIC QUAITIONZ THAT I'LL SHOW YOU IN A FEW MINUTES A FEW OF OF THEM.

THE REQUEST IS IN FACT THE PRESERVE THE STRUCTURE.

BULLET HOLE IN THE SLIDING GLASS DOOR IN THE STRUCTURE AS WELL AS THE SLUG AND BURN MARK ON FLOOR IN CONJUNCTION WITH BUILDING THEIR FAMILY HOME AROUND THIS FIRST FLOOR STRUCTURE -- FIRST FLOOR OF THEIR STRUCTURE. THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED ON A ONTARIO-OWNED EASEMENT TO THE NORTH, 30-FOOT IN WIDTH.

AND THERE CURRENT -- THE CURRENT HISTORICALLY SIGNIFICANT STRUCTURE WAS BUILT APPROXIMATELY 5 FEET FROM THE NORTHERN PROPERTY LINE AS IT CURRENTLY EXISTS.

THUS, ANILY MAKE OF THE HOUSE WILL REQUIRE A VARIANCE TO ALLOW THIS INEXURGS MOO THE COUNTY REGULATION BECAUSE THAT'S CONSIDERED A SECOND FRONT YARD ALONG THAT EASEMENT.

AND AS STATED IT'S THEIR INTENT TO REMAKE THE PROPERTY, PRESERVING THE STRUCTURE AS THE FIRST -- AS PART OF THE FIRST FLOOR OF THEIR HOME. AGAIN THIS IS A LOCATION OF IT.

THIS IS A PICTURE OF THE PROPERTY FROM THE EASEMENT.

THIS IS STANDING -- MYSELF STANDING IN THE EASEMENT TAKING A PICTURE LOOKING AT IT. THERE'S A NON-CONFORM DETACHED GARAGE ON THE PRONT THAT THEY WILL REMOVE TO BRING INTO CONFORMANCE WITH THE COUNTY CODES ON THE FRONT.

AND THIS IS SOME MORE PICTURES LOOKING AT THE STRUCTURE AND DID THE EASEMENT. THIS IS LOOKING FROM THE BEACH DUNES TOWARDS THE ROAD. THIS IS THE STRUCTURE.

THIS IS THE WIDTH OF THE EASEMENT.

THERE'S A HOUSE ALREADY BUILT TO THE NORTH ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE EASEMENT. THIS IS LOOKING TOTE EAST.

THIS IS THE STRUCTURE. THIS IS THE 30-FOOT WIDE EASEMENT. THIS IS A HOUSE ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE EASEMENT HERE. YOU CAN SEE IN THIS PICTURE THE PLAQUE WHICH IS RIGHT HERE IN FRONT OF THE STRUCTURE.

SO THE BASIS FOR CONSIDRATION IS THIS REQUEST FOR VARIANCE ZVAR 2021-29 IS TO PRESERVE THIS HISTORIC STRUCTURE A PART OF THE FAMILY HOME USE. EVER SINCE PURCHASING THE PROPERTY, THE MAUMAN BARRY FAMILY HAVE MADE IT A BUN DANTD CLEAR IN THE PRESS, A NUMBER INTERVIEWS HAVE BEEN DONE, THAT THEY WANTED TO ATTEMPT TO PRESERVE THIS HISTORIC SIGNIFICANT STRUCTURE. S THIS NOT A NEW IDEA.

THEY'VE STATED THIS FOR THE LAST SEVER YEARS.

IN FACT, THERE ARE NUMERAL NEWS INTERVIEWS AND PRINTED STORIES SHOWING THEIR INTENT. PURSUANT TO THE CODE, THEY COULD DEMO THE HOUSE AND BUILD A CONFORMING 35-FOOT STRUCTURE ON THE PROPERTY THAT MOOTS THE SETBACKS IM LOT COVERAGE BUT THEY DON'T WANT TO DO THAT. THEY WANT TO PRESERVE THIS BECAUSE THEY REALIZE THAT IT'S A HISTORICALLY SIGNIFICANT STRUCTURE, AND IN PRESERVING IT THEY'D LIKE TO PRESERVE THE FACADE ON THE NORTH SIDE AS WELL AS THE INTERIOR OF THAT AND BUILD THEIR HOME AROUND IT. THIS VARIANCE DOES NO SEEK ADDITIONAL LOT COVERAGE BEYOND THAT OF WHAT'S ALLOWED.

IT DOES NO SEEK TO PUSH THE LEGEND OF THE HOUSE FURTHER EASTWARD. IN FACT, THERE IS SOME ROOM IN BETWEEN THE BACK OF THE CURRENT STRUCTURE AND WHERE THE COASTAL CONSTRUCTION -- THE COASTAL CONSTRUCTION CONTROL LINE IS SO THEY COULD DO THAT. THEY DON'T WANT TO DO THAT AT ALL. IT'S NOT PARR THEIR PLAN IN FACT THEY PLAN TO MAINTAIN THE CURRENT DEPTH WHEN WHICH HELPS PRESERVE THE VIEWS FROM THE NORTH AND THE SOUTH.

THIS IS AGAIN OBVIOUSLY THE OVERHEAD.

YOU CAN SEE THAT THERE'S ALL -- A LOT OF OTHER HOISTS EVERYBODY THAT REDONE ALONG HE AND ALL SIDES OF ROAD.

THIS IS THE CURRENT STRUCTURE THAT WE'RE SPEAKING ABOUT -- --=. THIS IS SORT OF A DEPICTION OF

[02:40:01]

IN YOUR PACKET YOU SAW THIS, AND IT WAS IN THE STAFF REPORT.

THIS IS THEIR PLAN, WHICH IS THEY WANT TO TAKE OFF THE NON-CONFORMING GARAGE IN THE FRONT, WHICH ISN'T REALLY PART OF THE STRUCTURE, AND THEY NEED TO HAVE A GARAGE OBVIOUSLY SO THEY WOULD PUT A GARAGE AND THEIR ENTRYWAY WITH THE STAIR TO GET TO THE SECOND FLOOR HERE. THE REST OF IT WOULD BE BASICALLY THE CURRENT STRUCTURE, AND AS I SAID, THE FACADE ON THIS SIDE WOULD BE MAINTAINED SO IF YOU CAME UP TO IT OR LOOKED AT IT ON THE SIDE, IT WOULD APPEAR TO BE THE CURRENT HISTORICALLY SIGNIFICANT STRUCTURE.

>> THEIR ENTRANCE TO GET UP THE STARES STAIRS, ET CETERA, WOULD NOT BE IN THROUGH THIS WAY. THEY WOULD LEAVE -- THEIR INTN TO LEAVE THE STEPS THAT ARE THERE SO IT CONTINUES TO APPEAR AS THE HISTORICALLY SIGNIFICANT WOULD BE ON THE FRONT AND THERE WOULD BE STAIRS GOING UP TO THE SECOND HERE.

THAT'S WHY THAT SECTION WOULD HAVE TO BE ADDED.

AS AFOREMENTIONED, THIS PROPERTY IS NATIONALLY RECOGNIZED, HISTORICALLY SIGNIFICANT PART OF THE HISTORY IN THE CIVIL RIGHTS STRUCTURE. IN FACT IT'S CITED AND PICTURE WITHIN LIFE MAGAZINE. THE LIFE MAGAZINE ARTICLE HONORING DR. MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR. FURTHER IT'S MARKED A INTEGRAL PROPERTY ON THE FREEDOM TRAIL WAS E JUSTED EARLIER.

MOREOVER, THE BUILDING'S HISTORICAL SIGNIFICANCE LED LOCAL HIRNLT DAVID NOLEN TO WRITE A LETTER WHICH IS IN YOUR PACK EXPWET IN IT HE 1ST HE CONSIDERS THIS HISTORICALLY M.

KING BEACH HOUSE. I HOPE YOU WILL CONSIDER THE VALUE OF IT NOTE JUST IN DOLLARS BOUGHT AS INTEGRAL PART OF THE FREEDOM RAIL. PLEASE ET THE RIGHT IN THE GREAT CARE IT DESERVES TO SEE ET GETS PRESERVED FOR THE FUTURE P.

I THINK THAT'S HIS COMMENT THAT WE WOULD LIKE NOT TO HAVE THIS HOUSE DEMOLISHED. AGAIN, THIS WAS THE HOUSE WITH THE THE PLAQUE OUT FRONT. AS WELL, WITHIN THEIR HOUSE THEY HAVE A NUMBER OF NEWS ARTICLES. THEY HAVE SEVERAL ALBUMS WITH A LOT OF PICTURES OF THE INTERIOR AS THEY FOUND IT WHEN THEY TO GET THERE. AND YOU SEE HERE THIS IS LIFE MAGAZINE ARTICLE. THIS IS ONE OF THE PAGES, AND THIS I'LL GET TO IN A SECOND BUT THIS IS A PICTURE AND THIS IS THE INSIDE OF THE HOUSE. IN FACT, WE ALL -- I THINK WE ALL KNOW THE HISTORY IN STAWGHTS OF CIVIL RIGHTS STRUGGLE -- ST. AUGUSTINE OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS STRUGGLE, AND AGAIN THIS IS THE PICTURE FROM THE LIFE MAGAZINE ARTICLE, AND THAT IS FROM THIS BEACH HOUSE ITSELF. I THINK PART OF THE REASON I BRING THAT UP IS JUST TO SHOW THIS IS A HISTORICALLY SIGNIFICANT STRUCTURE, AND I THINK THAT CAN HELP LAY THE BASIS FOR MOVING FORWARD WITH THIS, BOTH FACTUALLY AND LEGALLY IN APPROVING THIS REQUEST. THIS IS THE INSIDE.

THIS IS WHERE THE BULLET HOLE AND THE SLUGGER STILL CONTAINED WITHIN THE HOUSE, AND THIS IS WHERE THE BURN MARKS ARE ON THE FLOOR, AND AGAIN THEY WANT TO MAINTAIN THESE FOR PROS TERRITORY. POSTERITY.

THIS IS THE CURRENT LAY OUT OF THE STRUCTURE JUST SO YOU CAN SEE IT. THIS WAS THE SURVEY.

THIS IS THE STRUCTURE ITSELF THEY'LL BE MAINTAINED.

THIS IS THE DETACHED GARAGE THAT IS NOTE PART OF THE STRUCTURE BECAUSE THEY WILL TAKE OFF BUS IT VIOLATES -- AND THEY WILL ADD THAT GARAGE AND THE ENTRYWAY FOR THE STAIRS.

WE ALREADY LOOKED AT THAT. AS WE TALKED ABOUT, THIS IS A REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE. YOU KNOW, WE HAVE OFFICIALLY RECOGNIZED HISTORICALLY SIGNIFICANT ON HIS.

BECAUSE OF THE LOCATION OF THE HOUSE, IT REQUIRES THE PRESS HAVING A OF IT. IT REQUIRES INNOVATE THOUGHT AND A PLAN TO MATCH THAT TO PRESERVE THE HISTORY.

THE FAMILY WOULD LIKE TO PRESERVE THIS HISTORY, HOWEVER, THEY NEEDED TO COMB UP WITH AN INNOVATIVE WAY TO TRY TO DO SO.

OBVIOUSLY THIS IS BEACHFRONT PROPERTY IN ST. JOHNS COUNTY AND SO PART OF THIS PLAN IS TO BUILD THEIR HOUSE AROUND IT BY PRESERVING IT AND PRESERVING THE FACADE TO EFFECTUATE IT.

THEY NEED A VARIANCE NOT BECAUSE THEY'RE ASKING TO BUILD A BIGGER HOUSE. IT'S SO THAT THEY CAN CONTINUE TO PRESERVE THAT STRUCTURE ON THIS -- ITS CURRENT -- WHERE THE CURRENT FACADE IS WHICH ALREADY VIOLATES THAT SECOND FRONT YARD SETBACK. IRONICALLY, AND SAY IRONICALLY BECAUSE IF THERE'S ANY PLACE THAT WOULD BE REASONABLE FOR THIS TYPE OF VARIANCE TO ACHIEVE THIS GOAL THROUGH OUR COMP PLAN, THROUGH OUR LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, IT WOULD BE THIS BECAUSE IT'S ON THIS 3-FOOT EASEMENT. IT PROVIDE AN AREA WHERE IF SOMEBODY DRIVES BY, NOT FOR PARKING WHICH IS A COMPLAINT, IT'S FOR AN AREA WHERE PEOPLE CAN ACTUALLY VIEW THIS, YOU KNOW, THIS HISTORICALLY SIGNIFICANT PROPERTY FROM THE EASEMENT. THEY CAN WALK UP AND SEE IT FOR

[02:45:01]

JUST KIND OF GETTING -- SKIPPING THROUGH THIS AND GETTING TO THE VARIANCE PART ITSELF, AS I SAID BEFORE, THIS FACADE, THE WALL ON THE NORTHERN IS ACTUALLY 5.7 FEET FROM THE PROPERTY LINE.

YOU SEE IN THE REQUEST FROM THE STAFF THAT IT WAS A REQUEST FOR A 3-FOOT SETBACK, AND THAT'S NOT BECAUSE THEY'RE TRYING TO MAKE IT BIGGER. THAT'S BECAUSE ARE THERE AN EAVE ON THIS PROPERTY THAT GOES OUT. IT'S ACTUALLY A PRETTY BIG EAVE IF ANYBODY WENT OUT THERE AND SAW IT, AND THAT'S WHY THEY SAID FOR 3-FOOT, BUT I THINK THEIR INTENT WOAB MAYBE TO TAKE OFF THIS EAVE, BUILD THE WALL TO WITHIN THE COUNTY CODE UP TOTE TOP AND THEN THE EAVE AT THE TOP WOULD BE A STANDARDIZE EAVE, NOT THE LARGER EAVE, SO THEY DON'T NECESSARILY NEED IT WOULD BE AT 3-FOOT. IT JUST NEEDS TO BE SO THE FINAL FINDING OR GRANT WOULD BE THAT ANY VARIANCE WOULD BE NOT ANY FURTHER INTO THAN THE 5.7 FEET OF THE WALL THAT'S ON THE NORTHERN SIDE OF THE PROPERTY. OBVIOUSLY, YOU ALL KNOW YOUR REQUIREMENT FOR A VARIANCE. VARIANCES RELAXATION OF THE TERMS OF THE CODE. IT'S NOT TO BE CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST BY REASON OF NARROWNESS, SHALLOWNESS, UNUSUAL SHAPE OR ANY OTHER EXTRAORDINARY SITUATION OR CONDITION OF THE PIECE OF PROPERTY, LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS OF CODE WOULD CANNES DUE HARDSHIP AND CONTRARY TO THE SPIRIT AND PURPOSE OF THIS CODE AND IT IS NOT CONTRARY TO THE SPIRIT AND UPPER PUN OF THIS COPED.

ALSO YOUR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN SPECIFICALLY ADDRESSES THE PROTECTION OF HUCIALGY SIGNIFICANT STRUCTURES, AN OBJECTIVE YCHT. 1 FNT PER STATES THE COUNTY NATURAL SHAAL CONNELL TO ITS FURTHER -- THE POLICY UNDER THAT. CRACKER BARREL .1.4.3 CONTINUES ITS SUPPORTIVE OF SUCH ACTION WITH THE FOLLOWING.

THE COUNTY SHALL PROMOTE THE PRESERVATION, HABILITATION AND ADAPTIVE REUSE OF HISTORICALLY SIGNIFICANT HOUSING THROUGH TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE AND THE IMPLEMENTATION OF LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, AND I WOULD ASSERT TO YOU THAT'S WHAT THIS REQUEST IS ALL ABOUT. AGAIN I JUST WANT TO SHOW YOU THAT IT ACTUALLY IS IN YOUR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.

THIS IS A VIEW OF THE FACADE THAT THEY WANT TO PRESERVE WITHIN BUILDING AROUND IT WITH THEIR HOME, AND HAS THE PART THAT IS HISTORICALLY SIGNIFICANT.

IT HAS BEEN -- OTHER THAN THE INSIDE MARTS THAT WE TALKED ABOUT, THEY WANT TO PRESERVE THIS AS THE PART THAT HAS BEEN IN PUBLICATIONS AND INTERVIEWS HAVE BEEN DONE IN FRONT OF AND PEOPLE COME AND SEE WHEN THEY SEE THE PLAQUE.

IN CONCLUSION, THE FAMILY SEEKS TO REMAKE THIS PROPERTY WITH THE INTENT PRESERVING THE HISTORICALLY SIGNIFICANT STRUCTURE WHICH HAS BEEN MARKED AS A SIGNIFICANT PART OF THE FREEDOM TRAIL AND, AS I SAID, HISTORIANS HAVE DOCUMENTED IN MANY PUBLICATIONS. THE REQUEST IS IN FACT TO PRESERVE THE STRUCTURE WITH THE BULLET HOLE, SLUG IN BURN MARGINS ON THE INTERIOR AS WELL AS THE FACADE.

EVER SINCE PURCHASING THEY MADE IT CLEAR THAT THAT'S WHAT THEY WANT TO DO. AS I SAID, THEY HAVE NO -- THEIR INTENT FROM DAY ONE HAS NOT BEEN TO DEMO IT, BUT JUST SO THE AGENCY IS CLEAR AND THE COUNTY CODE -- OR THE COUNTY MENTIONS THIS IN THE STAFF RECORD, BUT THEY COULD DEMO THE PROPERTY AND BUILD A CONFORMING HOUSE ON THE PROPERTY.

AGAIN, I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO SEE THE COMMENTARY FROM LOCAL HISTORIAN DAVID NOLEN BECAUSE I THINK HE DOES MAKE THAT SAME POINT, THAT THIS IS REALLY HIRVELGT EVEN NO IT'S NOT ON THE NATIONAL REGISTER OPEN IT'S A VERY HISTORICALLY SIGNIFICANT, AND I THINK THAT'S BORNE OUT BY THE FACT THAT THERE IS A PLAQUE OUT FRONT AND IT'S NATIONALLY RECOGNIZED ON FREEDOM TRAIL.

IN ANY CASE, WE APPRECIATE YOUR REVIEW AND UNDERSTANDING.

I'M HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.

AND WE CAN EITHER HAVE THAT BEFORE PUBLIC COMMENT OSH AFTER.

I APPRECIATE IT, MR. CHAIRMAN. >> IS THERE ANY EX PARTE COMMUNICATION TO BE DECLARED HERE BEFORE WE GET --

>> FUN YOU YOU SHOULD MENTION THAT.

YES, IT WASN'T REQUIRED. OR ASKED BEFORE.

YES, I HAD EX PARTE. I VISITED THE SITE THIS WEEK.

>> THANK YOU. >> I HAVE DRIRCH BY THIS PROPERTY BEFORE. DID I NOT UNFORTUNATELY GET OUT THERE TO SEE IT IN THE PAST COUPLE OF DAYS AS A MEANT TO, AND I'M SORRY FOR THAT, BUT I ALSO FOLKS WITH JAMES WHITEHOUSE YESTERDAY BY TELEPHONE FOR ABOUT 20 MINUTES ABOUT THIS AND HAD A LOT OF QUESTIONS WHICH I'LL BE ASKING TODAY.

>> AND I ALSO HAD A CONVERSATION WITH JAMES WHITEHOUSE YESTERDAY, AGAIN WITH SOME QUESTIONS AND DISCUSSION.

MS. PERKINS. >> I ALSO SOAK WITH MR. WHITEHOUSE TODAY BEFORE THE HEARING.

>> AND I DROVE BY A COUPLE DAYS AGO AND I GOT A CHANCE TO TOUR

[02:50:04]

MORNING. >> I DROVE BY THE PROPERTY AND

TOOK A LOOK. >> ALL RIGHT.

APPARENTLY WE HAVE A LOT OF INTEREST IN THIS.

ALL RIGHT. SO NOW WE'RE AT A POINT IN TIME TO WHERE WE CAN ASK MR. WHITEHOUSE SOME QUESTIONS.

MR. HILSENBECK. DR. HILSENBECK, SORRY.

>> I HAVEN'T SAID I WAS GOING TO ASK THEM YET.

>> YOU SAI EARLIER YOU HAD QUESTIONS.

>> WELL, I DO HAVE SOME BUT I APPRECIATE YOU KNOWING I WOULD HAVE QUESTIONS. ALL RIGHT.

JAMES, WE TALKED ABOUT SOME OF THIS YESTERDAY.

IF THEY GOT THIS VARIANCE AND THEY COULD BUILD UP FROM THE HOUSE A THREE OF HAD STORY STRUCTURE, NO HIGHER THAN 35 FEET, THEY WOULDN'T BE GOING TO THE EAVE STRAIGHT UP, WHICH THAT EAVE IS 3 FEET FROM THE LINE.

THEY'D BE GOING FROM WALLING OF THE HOUSE STRAIGHT UP -- WALL OF THE HOUSE STRAIGHT UP, AND THAT WALL OF THE HOUSE IS 5.7 FEET

FROM THE PROPERTY LINE? >> YES, SIR.

AND THAT'S WHY I BROUGHT IT UP. I WANTED TO BE VERY TRANSPARENT THAT THAT'S THEIR INTENT. THEY INTEND TO BUILD AT THAT WALL AND THEY CAN IF THIS PASSES.

>> ANY EAVE WOULD BE 25, 30 FEET UP WITH 25 FEET UP BEFORE AN EAVE CAME OUT AND I DOUBT IT WOULD BE 2.7 FEET.

THAT LOOKS MORE LIKE A FRONT PORCH.

>> YES, SIR. >> CAN YOU GO BACK TO SOME OF THE PHOTOS BECAUSE I HAVE, INCLUDING AERIAL PHOTOS, I HAD A QUESTION AND I WANTED -- EVEN IF I WENT OUT THERE, I COULDN'T TRESPASS ON ANY PROPERTIES LOOKING AT THEM, THE ABOUT I WAS CURIOUS IF HOUSES -- I'M NOT PICKING ON ANYONE -- BUT IF HOUSES TO THE NORTH OF THIS PROPERTY ACROSS THE NON-OPEN BEACH ACCESS LINE THERE, THAT RIGHT-OF-WAY, IF ALL OF THOSE HOUSES TO THE NORTH, THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN A GOOD ONE, IF ALL OF THOSE HOUSES ARE 15 FEET OFF THE PROPERTY LINE, SIDE PROPERTY LINES. I DON'T KNOW HOW TO DETERMINE THAT. THE ONE THAT IS CONTIGUOUS WITH THE NON-OPEN RIGHT-OF-WAY LOOKS LIKE IT DEFINITELY COULD BE 15 FEET. HARD TO SAY UP.

SAID THAT EASEMENT'S 30 FEET WIDE?

>> YES, SIR. AND I LOOKED AT A FEW THESE.

I DIDN'T PULL AUTOMATIC BUILDING PLANS FOR ALL OF THEM SO I DON'T KNOW THE EXACT DISTANCE FROM IT. THERE ARE A FEW VARIANCES THAT WERE GRANTED OUT IN THIS AREA, AND I CAN GET INTO THOSE LATER.

I'LL PULL THEM OUT AFTER, MAYBE AFTER PUBLIC COMMENT AND SO SHOW YOU BECAUSE I'VE GET THEM OUT OF NIGH MY NOTES.

THERE EVER BEEN A FEW GRANTS IN THE ATLANTIC VIEW AREA.

THERE IS AT LEAST ONE THAT YOU KNOW OF THAT I HAVE THE ORDER FOR. AND AS FAR AS SOME OF THESE OTHER -- THE OTHER COMMENTARY HERE, I DO HAVE SOME PICTURES OF THE AREA THAT SHOW YOU THE OTHER HOUSES FROM THE STREET VIEW.

BUT THERE IS A NUMBER OF THEM THAT, IF YOU LOOK THROUGH THE COUNTY PERMITS, THAT WERE DEMOS AND REBUILT TO 35 FEET.

AND AGAIN, I DON'T HAVE THE RECORDS OF ANY OF THOSE HAD VARIANCES OR NOT, BUT JUST FOR THE AGENCY'S KNOWLEDGE, THERE ARE A NUMBER OF THEM, I CAN TELL YOU, THAT WERE DEMOS IN THIS AREA AND REBUILT TO THE 35 FEET. AGAIN, THEY WILL AGREE TO BUILD AUTO COUNTY CODE, WITHIN ALL COUNTY CODES.

THEY CAN AGREE TO NOT GO OUT ANY FURTHER THAN THE BACK.

THEY JUST NEED THIS ONE SIDE BECAUSE THAT'S WHERE THE HOUSE IS BUILT AND THEY DON'T WANT TO, YOU KNOW, INJURE THAT STRUCTURE

WHEN THEY BUILD AROUND IT. >> RIGHT.

THE GARAGE IS GOING TO GO. >> YES.

>> THEN THE HOUSE WILL CONE FORM TO THE 25-FOOT SETBACK FROM

ATLANTIC. >> YES, SIR.

>> BUT NOT THE SIDE -- SECOND YARD SETBACK.

>> DR. HILSENBECK, CAN I TELL YOU ONE THING ABOUT YOUR

QUESTION? >> YES.

>> THOSE HOUSES TO THE NORTH OTHER THAN THAT FIRST IMMEDIATE HOUSE WOULD HAVE SIDE YARDS INSTEAD OF A SECOND FRONT YARD

SOEAU ONLY 8 FEET. >> THEY WOULD HAVE.

ONLY THAT IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT HOUSE CONTIGUOUS WITH THAT OPEN RIGHT OF HAS THE SECOND FRONT YARD, A GLEED.

>> THEY COULD BE WIDER AND SQUEEZE CLOSER TERG.

>> I KNOW IT'S SOMEWHAT HEARSAY, BUT SEVER ITS WE GOT FROM RESIDENTS SAID NO VARIANCES LIKE THIS HAVE BEEN GRANTED OUT THERE FOR LESS THAN A 15-FOOT SETBACK. I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S TRUE OR NOT. YOU SAY YOU HAVE ONE,

BUT -- >> I'LL BRING IT BACK UP AFTER

PUBLIC COMMENT. >> I'D LIKE TO KNOW THE ANSWER

TO THAT. >> YES, SIR.

>> SO IF THEY BUILT A NEW STRUCTURE -- OKAY.

LET'S JUST GET TO THE HEART OF THIS.

THEY COULD COME IN AND TEAR THIS STRUCTURE DOWN BECAUSE IT'S NOT ON THE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES, CORRECT?

>> YES, SIR. >> SO BEING ON THE ACCORDS

[02:55:02]

THAT HOUSE IF THEY WANTED TO. >> I THINK IF -- AGAIN, THAT'S NOT THEIR INTENT AT ALL. THEY HAVE NO INTENT TO DO THAT FROM THE BEGINNING. THEY WANT TO PRESERVE THAT, BUT THEY NEED THIS TO BE ABLE TO DO THAT.

YOU KNOW HYPOTHETICALLY ONE COULD COME IN AND BUY IT AND TEAR IT DOWN AND BUILD A HOUSE, YES, SIR.

>> HAS THE ADMINISTRATOR OF THE COUNTIES A CULTURAL RESOURCES REVIEW BOARD OFFICIALLY IDENTIFIED THIS HOUSE AS HAVING HISTORICAL SIGNIFICANCE OF VALUE?

>> I DON'T KNOW THAT. I THINK MS. BREWER IS HERE AND SHE CAN ADDRESS THAT PART OF IT, AND SHE CAN ALSO ADDRESS -- I THINK IF YOUR STAFF REPORT THERE WAS SOME REFERENCE TO THE THINGS YOU HAVE TO MEET IF IT'S A HISTORICALLY SIGNIFICANT ON HIS, THAT YOU HAVE TO DOCUMENT, ET CETERA, BUT I THINK AS SHE WILL TELL YOU, AND I SPOKE WHERE BEFORE THE MEETING, I THINK SHE WILL TELL YOU THAT DOESN'T PREVENT SOMEBODY FROM DEMOING IT AFTER THT STUFF IS DONE. AGAIN, THERE IS NO -- TO BE CLEAR, THERE IS NO INTENT BY THEM TO DO THAT, BUT SOMEONE COULD DO THAT IF THEY SOLD IT -- IF THEY DIDN'T GET THIS AND SOLD

IT, YES, SIR. >> SO IF THEY BUILT A HOUSE AROUND THIS, THEY WOULD BASICALLY LIVE ON THE UPPER TWO FLOORS OF A THREE OF HAD STORY STRUCTURE, AND THE BOTTOM FLOOR WOULD BE PRESERVED AS IN STRUCTURE.

WOULD THEY GO -- I KNOW YOU HAVE THE ENTRANCE WAY AT AND GARAGE ON THAT RUDIMENTARY PLAN 69 DESIGN OF A HOUSE THERE, SO THEY'D COME IN THAT ENTRYWAY AND GO UPSTAIRS.

THEY WOULDN'T GO INSIDE THAT HOUSE AND HAVE AN INTERNAL STAIRWAY FROM THE FIRST FLOOR UP INTO THE SECOND?

>> SO IF YOU WENT THERE AND SAW IT, I THINK SOME PEOPLE SAID THEY DID, THERE IS A FRONT ENTRYWAY RIGHT HERE AS WELL.

THEY WOULD MAINTAIN THAT WITHIN THE SPHWRI WAY ENTRYWAY HERE.

THERE WOULD BE ROUND STAIRS GOING UP TO THE SECOND FLOOR, ET CETERA. THERE WOULDN'T BE ANY IN HERE.

THIS WOULD BE MAINTAINED THE WAY IT IS.

>> OKAY. LET ME LOOK THESE OVER, THESE QUESTIONS. IT'S BEEN CITED IN SEVERAL OF THE LETTERS THAT WE GOT, A LOT OF THEM SAY THIS IS NOT AN HISTORIC STRUCTURE AND SOME SAY IT IS, SO IT'S 50/50.

THAT'S WHY I WANTED TO HEAR ABOUT THE CULTURAL RESOURCES REVIEW BOARD. THAT ONE RIGHT THERE.

YOU'RE LOOKING FOR FROM THE EASEMENT SOUTH TO THE HOUSE.

>> YES, SIR. >> THAT DOES LOOK PRETTY BEAT DOWN AND SEVERAL RESIDENTS CLAIM THAT THE CURRENT OWNERS OR MAYBE PREVIOUS OWNERS HAVE PARKED IN THAT EASEMENT.

THIS HAVE HAVE HAVE THEY INDEED PARKED IN THERE?

>> AGAIN, THEY'VE OWNED IT -- SO THEY'VE ONLY OWNED IT SINCE AUGUST, THE STRUCTURE ITSELF, SO PREVIOUS TO THAT OBVIOUSLY I DON'T HAVE ANY KNOWLEDGE OF THAT AND THEY DON'T AS WELL. I THINK THE FACT OF THE MATTER IS, IS I THINK THEY HAVE A DRIVEWAY IN THE FRONT.

THE GARAGE IS BUILT WAY OUT, SO MAYBE THERE'S NOT, BUT THEY HAVEN'T BEEN, YOU KNOW, USING THIS OR LIVING IN IT, AND SO THEY HAVE NOT BEEN PARKING THERE.

I THINK MAYBE THEY HAVE HAD SOME RELATIVES STAY THERE EVERY ONCE IN A WHILE SINCE AUGUST BUT IT HASN'T BEEN THAT LONG.

THERE IS NOT -- THERE ARE BEACH ACCESS WALKWAYS, AS YOU CAN SEE IN DIFFERENT PLACES ON DIFFERENT EASEMENTS DOWN HERE.

THERE'S ONE AT SKIP ARE LANE I THINK WHICH IS NORTH OF HERE.

THIS IS NOTE REALLY AN ACTIVE ONE, ALTHOUGH YOU'LL SEE THAT THERE'S SOME WALKWAYS THROUGH THE DUNES, SO I DON'T KNOW AGAIN, I DON'T HAVE ANY EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE SAYING WHO WAS GOING THROUGH THERE OR WHAT THEY WERE DOING, BUT THEIR INTENT IS NOT TO USE THIS AS A PARKING AREA IF THAT WAS THE

QUESTION. >> SO IF THEY DEMOLISH THE GARAGE, THAT WOULD TAKE CARE OF -- THAT WOULD ALLOW SUFFICIENT PARNLG RIGHT IN FRONT OF THE HOUSE -- PARKING RIGHT IN

FRONT OF THE HOUSE. >> YES, SIR.

>> NO ONE WOULD HAVE TO PARK IN THAT EASEMENT.

>> YES, SIR. >> IS IT AGAINST THE LAW TO PARK

IN THAT EAST? >> IF THERE'S NO PARKING SIGNS I THINK THE COUNTY CAN ENFORCE THAT AS WELL.

I THINK THAT, YOU KNOW, IN ALL OF THESE YOU'RE PROBABLY NOT SUPPOSED TO PARK IN IT, BUT AGAIN IF IT'S COUNTY-OWNED PROPERTY AND THERE'S NO SIGNS OR ANYTHING, THAT'S NOT THEIR INTENT BUT I DON'T KNOW IF PEOPLE DO PARK THERE OR NOT.

THEY DON'T. >> OKAY.

IT STATES IN APPLICATION MATERIALS, IT SAYS, "WHEN APPLICANT MOVES FORWARD WITH DEVELOPMENT OR DEMOLITION PERMIT, STAFF WILL COMET ON SPECIFIC PROPOSED PROJECT." IF DEMOLITION IS PROPOSED, DEMOLITION ISN'T, QUOTE, ADVERSE EFFECT TO THE RESOURCE DEFINED UNDER LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE

[03:00:06]

I SAW JESSICA CLARKE'S PIECE ON THIS ON MLK DAY ON 432, CHANNEL 432, WHATEVER AND 431. SO I THINK IT'S HISTORIC.

DAVID NOLAN CERTAINLY WOULD KNOW.

BUT IT'S A REALLY TOUGH ONE HERE, ASKING FOR A VARIANCE.

THERE ARE EXTENUATING CIRCUMSTANCES, IF THIS IS INDEED AN HISTORIC STRUCTURE, TO ALLOW THIS.

I DON'T WANT TO SEE IT TORN DOWN CERTAINLY, BUT THEY COULD TEAR YOU THE DOWN AND BUILD A 35-FOOT HOUSE THERE ANYWAY, CORRECT?

>> YES, SIR. >> SO THAT WOULDN'T PLEASE PROBABLY ANYBODY BECAUSE YOU'D STILL HAVE A 35-FOOT TALL HOUSE THERE OBSTRUCTING PEOPLE'S VIEW THAT LIVE WEST OF THERE.

IT'S STATED IN SOME OF THE APPLICANTS THEMSELVES.

I DON'T KNOW. IF YOU THEIR SPOKES WESTERN COULD SPEAK TO THIS. IT SAYS THERE'S SHORT TERP RENTAL PROPERTY POTENTIAL HERE, THAT APPLICANT WILL RENT OUT FOR AIRBNB, WHATEVER THE DOWNSTAIRS PART, THE ORANGE STRUCTURE AS AN AIRBNB AND YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE SHORT-TERM RENTALS IN THERE.

I THINK WE HAVE WAY TOO LIBERAL A MOILS ON SHORT-TERM RENTALS IN THE PROPERTY RIGHT NOW BUT THAT'S MY OWN PERSONAL OPINION.

IT DOESN'T MEAN ANYTHING FRANKL. BUT CAN THE APPLICANT GUARANTEE THAT THEY'RE, NUMBER ONE, GOING TO LIVE IN THIS HOUSE AND NOT REN ANY PART OF ON IT AS AN AIRBNB?

OR IS THAT APPROPRIATE TO ASK? >> MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT'S THEIR INTENT. I THINK IN THE BEGINNING, AND I THINK YOU MIGHT HEAR SOME OF THIS FROM THE PUBLIC IF THEY'RE HERE TO SPEAK OR IN THE EMAILS YOU GOT BECAUSE I SAW THOSE AS WELL, IN THE BEGINNING WHEN THEY WERE TRYING TO FIGURE ON YOU AN INNOVATE WAY TO PRESERVE THIS PROPERTY THERE WAS PART OF THE DISCUSSION THAT MAYBE WE CAN USE THE CURRENT STRUCTURE AS IT IS AS A RENTAL OR AS A SHORT-TERM RENTAL, WHICH MAY OR MAY NOT BE APPROPRIATE WITHIN THE COUNTY. THEY WOULD FOAL ALL THE CODES AND THE LAWS. BUT I THINK THIS IS AN INNOVATE WAY TO TRY TO GET AROUND THAT. THEY DON'T REALLY HAVE AN INTENT FOR THAT. THEIR INTENT IS TO USE THIS AS THEIR FAMILY HOME AND TO PRESERVE THE STRUCTURE BELOW, AND THAT'S WHY WE NEED THE VARIANCE.

>> OKAY. I HAVE MAYBE SOME MORE QUESTIONS BUT I'M GOING TO LET OTHER PEOPLE HOPEFULLY ASK SOME

QUESTIONS. >> NUB ELSE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? I HAVE A COUPLE. HAS A STRUCTURAL ENGINEER BEEN CONSULTED WITH REGARD TO BUILDING ON TOP OF THIS HOUSE? BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY YOU COULDN'T CANTILEVER THAT DISTANCE, I DON'T BELIEVE, WITHOUT PROHIBITIVE EXPENSE, SO HAS A STRUCTURAL ENGINEER BEEN CONSULTED OUT HOW DO YOU PLAN TO SUPPORT THE SECOND AND THIRD STORY ON AN OLD STRUCTURE LIKE

THIS? >> YES, SIR.

MY UNDERSTANDING WAS THEY DID CONSULT WITH ENGINEERING FIRMS. THEY DIDN'T HAVE A ENGINEER PLANS DRAWN UP BECAUSE THEY WANTED TO SEE WHETHER OR NOT THEY COULD ACTUALLY DO THIS BUT THEY DID CONSULT WITH THEM, AND THE FINDING WAS YOU KNOW WAS THERE A WAY FOR THEM TO PULL IN THE UPPER STORIES CLOSER TO THE SETBACK OR WHATEVER, AND THE ENGINEERS TOLD THEM, NO, BECAUSE YOU HAVE TO PUT PILINGS, ET CETERA, AND IT COULD GO WOULD GO DOWN THROUGH THIS FIRST FLOOR AND INJURE THAT.

IF THEY CAN GO OUT AND AROUND IT, THEY CAN BUILD IF THE STRUCTURAL PARTS RIGHT AT THE BACK AREA OF THE BUILDING, THE FRONT AREA OF THE BUILDING, AND THEN YOU KNOW PUT THE WEIGHT-BEARING TRUSTS U. TRUST TRUSSES ACROSS TO BE ABLE TO SUSTAIN THE UPSTAIRS. THAT'S MY UNDERSTANDING OF IT.

AGAIN, WHATEVER VARIANCE IS GRANTED THEY'LL HAVE TO MEET THAT AND DO IT WITHIN THOSE CONFINES, AND SO I THINK THE REASON WE'RE NOT HERE WITH FULL ENGINEERING PLANS IS OBVIOUSLY THAT'S PRETTY EXPENSIVE WHEN YOU GONE KNOW WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN AT THE HEARING TO SEE IF THEY CAN COME UP WITH A VARIANCE.

>> LET ME FOLLOW UP BECAUSE I THINK WHAT I HEARD YOU SAY THE INTENTION TO SPAN THE HOUSE FROM WEST TO EAST AND NOT REST ON THE HOUSE. IS THAT WHAT YOU JUST SAID?

>> AGAIN, I'M NOT AN ENGINEER, AS YOU KNOW, BUT MY UNDERSTANDING FROM THEIR PRELIMINARY DISCUSSIONS WITH ENGINEERING FIRMS WAS THAT THEY COULD DO WEIGHT-BEARING PILINGS AND TRUSSES THAT ARE AROUND THIS.

[03:05:01]

AGAIN I'M NOT AN ENGINEER, I CAN'T TESTIFY AS TO THAT, BUT THAT'S NIGH MY UNDERSTANDING OF IT.

BASICALLY WE'RE HERE TO ASK FOR THE VETERINARIAN TO BE ABLE TO DO THIS AND THEN THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO DO

IT, IF THAT MAKES SENSE. >> IT DOES, BUT I'M ASKING THIS QUESTION, MY SECOND QUESTION, WHICH IS I UNDERSTAND WHY THE STRUCTURE THAT EXISTS REQUIRES A VARIANCE.

IT'S THERE AND IT'S NOT GOING ANYWHERE UNLESS THEY DEMOLISH IT, AND I THINK IT'S WONDERFUL THAT THEY DON'T WANT TO DEMOLISH IT. I DON'T NECESSARILY UNDERSTAND, BECAUSE WE HAVE NO CONCEPTUAL LAYOUT, NOW THAT YOU'VE EXPLAINED HOW THEY'RE GOING TO SPAN THAT STRUCTURE, I DON'T NECESSARILY UNDERSTAND WHY THEY HAVE TO ENCROACH WITH THE NEW STRUCTURE BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT USING THE NORTH WALL OF THE EXISTING STRUCTURE FOR LOAD BEARING, BASED ON WHAT YOU JUST DESCRIBED, SO I DON'T REALLY UNDERSTAND WHY THAT IS NEEDED.

>> AGAIN, I'M EXPLAINING IT IN A RUDIMENTARY MANNER BECAUSE I'M NOT AN ENGINEER OBVIOUS AND I CAN'T TESTIFY AS TO THAT, BUT MY UNDERSTANDING IS, IS THAT THEY CANNOT DO IT -- HOW THEY'RE GOING TO, YOU KNOW, ALIGN THE LOAD-BEARING TRUSSES AS WELL AS THE PILINGS IN THE FRONT AND THE BACK TO BUILD AROUND THIS, I MEAN, WE'RE NOT GOING TO JUST HAVE A SEPARATE HOUSE UNDERNEATH ANOTHER HOUSE. THAT'S NOT -- WE'RE NO BUILDING -- WE'RE NO PUTTING A STILT HOUSE ABOVE IT.

THIS IS GOING TO BE -- IT'S GOING TO BE PART OF THE STRUCTURE. IT'S GOING TO PRESERVE THE STRUCTURE. I WOULD ASSUME THAT THEY'RE GOING TO TAKE THE ROOF OFF THIS STRUCTURE, THE TRUDZS ARE GOING TO COME OFF AND THEN THEY HAVE TO BUILD ACROSS THAT.

HOW THEY DO THAT WITH WEIGHT BACKERRING WITH AGAIN I'M NOT AN ENGINEERING, I CAN'T EXPLAIN IT BUT WE'RE HERE TO TALK ABOUT THE VARIANCE, AND THEN PART OF THE INNOVATIVE FAMILY HOME THIS THEY WANT TO BUILD AROUND THIS TO PRESERVE THE FACADE AND THE INSIDE HAS TO DO WITH THE FACT THAT HAVING THE HOME ABOVE IT, AND I THINK PART OF HAVING THE HOLME HOME ABOVE IT WITH THE ENGINEERING HAS TO BE DONE IN A WAY THAT IT GOES ACROSS THE TAUPE OF THIS HOUSE FOR LAFERG A BETTER WAY TO EXPLAIN IT.

I WISH I COULD EXPLAIN IT BETTER, AGAIN.

BUT YOU GRANT THE PARENTS WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT THEY'RE PRESERVING THE HOUSE AND THEY'LL FIGURE OUT HOW TO WORK THIS INTO THE PLAN ITSELF WITH EXPERTS AFTER APPROVAL.

>> THANK YOU. >> YES, SIR.

>> MS. PERKINS. >> SO WHAT IF YOU GO TO THE EXPERTS AND GO TO THE STRUCTURAL ENGINEER AND YOUR PLAN ISN'T VIABLE. THEN YOU'RE STUCK WITH A VARIANCE, AND THEN AT THAT POUND YOU COULD PROBABLY JUST DEMOLISH

THIS STRUCTURE, RIGHT? >> NO, I THINK AS PART OF THE ORDER ITSELF, I WOULD SUGGEST, IF I MAY, FOR THE AGENCY THAT WE PUT IN SOME TYPE OF A CONDITION IN THERE THAT SAYS THAT THEY'LL PRESERVE THIS AS PART OF THE FIRST FLOOR OF THEIR STRUCTURE.

AND THEN IF SOMETHING CHANGES, THEY HAVE TO COME BACK TO YOU, AND THEN YOU COULD SAY, YOU KNOW WHAT? IF THAT'S THE CASE, WE DON'T WANT TO GIVE YOU THE VAIRCHES.

I THINK GRANNING IT WITHIN THE CONFINES OF THIS APPLICATION, THAT WOULD BE AN APPROPRIATE CONDITION, I THINK.

>> THANKS. >> YES, MA'AM.

>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OF THE AGENCY MEMBERS? ALL RIGHT. SEEING NONE, LET'S MOVE INTO PUBLIC COMMENT, PLEASE. RALPH UPTON III.

>> MR. CHAIRMAN, WHILE YOU'RE WAITING FOR PUBLIC COMMENT, I DID WANT TO POINT OUT THAT THE PROPOSED FINDING AND CONDITIONS IN THE STAFF REPORT DO CLARIFY THAT THE VARIANCE WOULD ONLY BE POLITICAL TO THE EXISTING STRUCTURE, SO THAT IF FOR WHATEVER REASON THE EXISTING STRUCTURE WERAL GHOLISHED, THEY WOULD NOT HAVE A VARIANCE FOR A NEW STRUCTURE AND WOULD HAVE TO

COP BACK. >> LET ME CLARIFY WHAT YOU JUST SAID YOU. SAID IT ON APPLIES TO THE EXISTING STRUCTURE BUT THEY'RE CLEARLY SHOWING IN APPLICATION THEY WANT THE NEW STRUCTURE, FOR IT TO ALSO APPLY TOTE NEWLY BUILT STRUCTURE, IT APPEARS TO ME.

>> SORRY. IT'S TO THE EXISTING STRUCTURE

AND ADDITIONS SUBMITTED. >> THANK YOU.

YES, SIR. >> GOOD AFTERNOON.

I'M RASM YUP TON I LIVE AT 30 REDDICK LANE OVER IN ANASTASIA HILLS, THE NEIGHBORHOOD WE'RE TALKING ABOUT.

MY GAD RALPH UPTON, JR. WHO WAS THE ORIGINAL DIRECTOR OF THE ST. AUGUSTINE TECHNICAL CENTER ON STATE ROAD 16 BOUGHT OUR FAMILY LAND IN ANASTASIA HILLS NEIGHBORHOOD IN 1960S.

AND I HAVE LIVED THERE ALL MY LIFE.

I LOVE OUR NEIGHBORHOOD AND COULDN'T IMAGINE LIVING ANYWHERE ELSE. MY DAD TAUGHT ME ABOUT THE

[03:10:01]

I TAUGHT MY KIDS AS WELL ABOUT THIS HISTORICAL SITE OVER THE YEARS WHILE WALKING AND BIKING. AS LONG AS I CAN REMEMBER, THE HOUSE HAS BEEN RUNDOWN AND AN EYE SORE IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD.

BECAUSE OF DAVID AND PATTY THAT NOW OWN THE HOUSE, IT IS A NICE ADDITION TO OUR NEIGHBORHOOD THAT MY GRANDCHILDREN, DAUGHTER, WIFE, MYSELF AND THE PUBLIC FINALLY WERE INVITED TO COME IN, SEE AND EXPERIENCE THE HISTORY OF THE HOUSE.

DAVID AND PATTY SHARED THEIR VISION TO BUILD THEIR HOME THERE WITH THE NEEDED VARIANCE TO SAVE THE HISTORICAL MARTIN LUTHER KING HOUSE. IT WOULD BE IN THE BEST INTERESTS FOR OUR COMMUNITY AND MANY OTHERS THAT WILL VISIT OUR NEIGHBORHOOD TO GRAN THIS REASONABLE VARIANCE SO THIS HISTORICAL SPOT CAN BE SHARED FOR MANY MORE GENERATIONS.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >> THANK YOU.

>> DENNIS CHIPMAN. >> MY NAME IS DENNIS CHIPMAN.

I LIVE AT 5400 ATLANTICVIEW. AND I NEED TO MOVE QUICKLY BECAUSE THREE MINUTES ISN'T ENOUGH TIME, BUT I WANTED TO SHOW YOU THE NEIGHBORHOOD. THIS IS THE NEIGHBORHOOD VIEW LOOKING SOUTH ON ATLANTIC VIEW FROM THE NORTHERN END OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. I BELIEVE IF I DO THIS, THIS IS THE SIMILAR VIEW FROM THE SOUTH END, AND LOOKING DOWN MATANZAS AVENUE TO THE BEACH. AS YOU WOULD EXPECT IN THIS TYPE SINGLE-FAMILY SEASIDE RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD, I'VE LIVED THERE 20 YEARS. THERE HAVE NOT BEEN ANY SETBACK VARIANCES GRANTED IN THAT TIME PERIOD.

TO ILLUSTRATE THAT POINT, THE NEIGHBORS IN THIS AREA HAVE VIGOROUSLY OPPOSED SETBACK VARIANCES.

IN 2007, THE OWNERS OF THE PROPERTY AT 5360 ATLANTIC VIEW ADJACENT TO A BEACH RIGHT-OF-WAY, JUST LIKE THIS IS, REQUESTED A REDUCTION OF THAT REQUIRED 15-FOOT SETBACK.

THIS BOARD AT THAT TIME REJECTED THAT REQUEST AFTER SIGNIFICANT NEIGHBORHOOD OPPOSITION. THIS IS THE HOUSE THAT WAS ULTIMATELY BUILT THERE. VERY NICE.

AND YOU CAN SEE TO THE RIGHT IS WHERE THE RIGHT-OF-WAY WAS.

THEY HAD ENOUGH ROOM. THEY HAVE A LITTLE OVERHEAD PATHWAY THERE AND IT'S WELL LANDSCAPED.

IN 2008, THIS BOARD APPROVED PROPERTY ANOTHER 5201 MA DUR AS AVENUE. THE NEIGHBORS APPEALED THIS DECISION TO THE COUNTY COMMISSION, AND THE COMMISSIONERS REVERSED THAT UNANIMOUSLY.

THIS WAS THE PROPERTY. THEY WANTED A -- THEY WANTED A SIDE SETBACK VAIR YAINSZ TO BE ABLE TO BUILD A BIGGER HOUSE.

THAT'S THE VIEW LOUNGE WEST FROM MA DUR AS.

THIS IS THE VIEW FROM THE EAST NORTH ROADWAY.

BEAUTIFUL HOUSE. AND IN 2018 THE NEIGHBORS AGAIN APPEAL TO P&Z HAVE PROOL OF A SETBACK VARIANCE FOR A PROPERTY AT 5591 ATLANTIC VIEW. MORE THAN 20 NEIGHBORS CONTRIBUTED TO THE NIGEL FEE TO APPEAL THIS -- FILING FEE TO APPEAL THIS TO THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, AND AGAIN THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS REVERSED THE P&Z AND FORCED THE OWNERS TO REMOVE INTRUSIONS INTO THE RIGHT-OF-WAY.

NEGOTIATION WITH ALL OF THIS SAID, THERE ARE TWO IMPORTANT POINTS TO BE MADE HERE, AND I'M NOT SURE I CAN GET TO BOTH OF THEM. BUT BY APPROVING A 3-FOOT SETBACK RATHER THAN THE REQUIRED 15 FEET, YOU WOULD BE APPROVING A SIGNIFICANT REDUCTION IN VIEW AND OPENNESS, AND IN THE SEASIDE NEIGHBORHOOD, THAT IS VERY IMPORTANT TO THE PROPERTY VALUES OF EVERYBODY ELSE AND THE PLEASURE AND USE OF THEIR OWN PROPERTY. BY GRANTING ONE NEIGHBOR A FOOT OF EXTRA WIDTH, YOU ARE TAKING A FOOT AWAY FROM THE OTHER NEIGHBORS, AND IN FACT FROM THE WHOLE NEIGHBORHOOD, AND IN THIS CASE THEY'RE NOT ON ASKING FOR ONE FOOT.

THEY ARE ASKING FOR AN ADDITIONAL 12 FEET.

>> SIR. >> REMEMBER, A FOOT GRANTED TO

[03:15:02]

WE DON'T THINK THIS IS FAIR. WE ASK YOU TO REJECT.

THANK YOU. >> STEVEN UPTON.

>> THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. THANK YOU FOR LETTING ME SPEAK.

I, TOO, LEAVE IT 30 REDDICK. I'VE BEEN A RESIDENT AT ST. JOHNS COUNTY MY WHOLE LIFE UNTIL I MET MY HUSBAND AND MARRIED HIM AND I MOVED OVER THERE.

LOVE MY NEIGHBORHOOD. LOVE THE PEOPLE THAT ARE KEEPING IT UP. I FOR THE FIRST TIME GOT TO TAKE A TOUR OF THE HOUSE, GOT TO FEEL WHAT IT WOULD HAVE BEEN LIKE IF I HAD TO HAVE LIVED BACK THEN WHEN ALL THE COMMOTION AND THE RIGHTING AND STUFF WAS GOING -- RIOTING AND STUFF WAS GOING ON.

I FEEL LIKE IT IS A PART OF HISTORY, THAT WREAK TEACH OUR CHILDREN ABOUT, TO HAVE MORE LOVE RATHER THAN HATE IN THIS WORLD FOR PEOPLE. IF YOU GRANT THE VARIANCE, I BELIEVE THAT PATTY AND DAVE WILL DO EXACTLY WHAT THEY'RE ASKING FOR, TO BUILD A HOUSE OVER IT LIKE IT SHOULD BE AND TO KEEP THE THAT'S AESTHETICS OF THE HISTORICAL HOUSE.

IT'S JUST -- WE'RE JUST ASKING FOR THE VARIANCE.

I DO NOT OBJECT TO IT. I APPROVE FOR IT TO BE THERE.

>> THANK YOU. SUSAN DIOCESE ARE DOYSRE.

NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD, PLEASE.

>> SUSAN DODGER. I LIVE NORTH OF THE PROPERTY AT 5448 AND EVERYBODY THERE FOR 40 YEARS, SO YOU CAN ANSWER A LOT OF QUESTIONS THAT YOU HAVE. IN READING THE STAFF REPORT, I'D LIKE TO POINT OUT TO YOU THE STAFF REPORT DID NOT INCLUDE SPECIFICALLY 10.03-01 OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, WHICH SAYS, AND I QUOTE IN PART, "ALL NON-CONFORMITY SHALL NOT BE ENLARGED UPON, EXPANDED, INTENSIFIED, NOR BE USED AS GROUNDS FOR ADDING OTHER STRUCTURES OR USES PROHIBTED IN THE SAME DISTRICT. IT IS FURTHER THE INTENT OF THIS CODE THAT CHANGES IN NON-CONFORMITIES OTHER THAN THEIR DISCONTINUANCE SHALL BE DISCOURAGED." THAT'S THE END OF THE QUOTE. AL, THERE'S NO HARDSHIP, LCD 6.01 OF THE NEW OWNERS BUILDING THEIR HOME WITHIN THEIR LOT REQUIREMENTS. THERE ARE SEVERAL HOMES ALREADY UP AND DOWN ATLANTIC VIEW THAT'S BUILT IN CODE AND HAVE A 27-FOOT SETBACK. I TRUST THAT YOU WILL DENY THIS

VARIANCE IN ITS ENTIRETY. >> THANK YOU, MA'AM.

>> CHRISTINE DIRE. >> BY THE WAY, WHILE SHE'S COMING UP, I DO RECALL THAT I -- ON SPART BE, EX PARTE I DID COMMUNICATE EMAILS WITH ABOUT THREE OR FOUR PEOPLE THEY'D EMAILED ME ON MY P&Z EMAIL ACCOUNT AND I WROTE BACK.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR VERY THOUGHTFUL LETTERS AND GOOD POINTS. IT WAS NOTHING SUBSTANTIVE BUT I DID WANT TO GET THAT ON THE RECORD.

>> GOOD AFTERNOON, MY NAME IS YIS TOON DWYER I LIVE AT 5477 PELICAN WAY DIRECTLY BEHIND THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION.

TWO HOUSES. I HAVE A BIRDS EYE VIEW OF THAT EASEMENT, AND MY HUSBAND AND I USE OUR TIME, TALENT AND TREASURE TO RECLAIM THE COUNTY EASEMENT DIRECTLY BEHIND IT AND HAVE WORKED WITH THE COUNTY PARKS DEPARTMENT AS A SHINING EXAMPLE OF A PUBLIC AND PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP TO CARE FOR OUR NATURAL RESOURCES IN OUR TINY LITTLE BEACH SIDE COMMUNITY.

THE HOUSE IN QUESTION HAS BEEN NEGLECTED FOR DECADE.

THREE HURRICANES HAVE GONE BY. AND NOBODY HAS EVER TAKEN CARE OF IT. IT BREAKS MY HEART TO LOOK AT THIS HOUSE EVERY DAY TO THE POINT THAT I BECAME A VOLUNTEER AT THE ACCORD AND FOR A YEAR OR MORE I ACTUALLY WENT AROUND AND CLEANED ALL OF THE MARKERS FOR ALL OF THE FREEDOM TRAIL, INCLUDING THIS HOME. WHEN THE MARKER BECAME DILAPIDATED, I WAS THE ONE HOE CONTACTED NORTHROP GRUMMAN AND %-@E NEW MARKER THAT YOU SEE TODAY. I WOULD BE REMISS IF I DID NOT OPEN MY COMMENTS BY ACKNOWLEDGING FEBRUARY IS BLACK

[03:20:01]

THEY CAME TO MY HOUSE LAST MONTH, AND I SUGGESTED TO THEM THAT THE DILAPIDATED NATURE OF THIS HOME, PLUS THE STRUCTURAL ISSUES THAT IT REPRESENTS, THAT THERE ARE MANY WAYS TO PRESERVE WHAT HAPPENED HERE. THIS WAS AN ACT OF VIOLENCE BY RACISTS WHO ATTACKED THIS HOME. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT MARTIN LUTHER KING EVER STAYED THERE. IT IS NOT A HISTORIC LANDMARK.

AND IT IS TRULYION PRESERVATION. I SUGGESTED TO THEM THAT WE CONTACT THE LINCOLNVILLE CULTURAL CENTER.

PERHAPS THEY COULD DEMO THE RELEVANT AREAS AND REBUILD IT IN THEIR MUSEUM DOWNTOWN WHERE ALL OF THE PUBLIC COULD SEE THIS.

THERE ARE -- THE ACCORD I DON'T BELIEVE LAST EVER BEEN CONTACTED ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT THEY WOULD LIKE TO HAVE PART OF THIS PROPERTY. IN THEIR LITTLE MUSEUM THEY HAVE THE ORIGINAL MON TON MOTOR LODGE SIGN, THEY HAVE ALL KIND OF IMPORTANT ARTIFACTS THAT -- ANDE THEM, BUT I DON'T AGREE IN A SINGLE-FAMILY HOME THAT IT'S POSSIBLE.

THE ATTORNEY THAT STOOD UP HERE WAS DISINGENUOUS.

THESE PEOPLE PARK THERE ALL THE TIME.

IT'S THEIR PERSONAL PARKING LOT. I HAVE TONS OF PICTURES.

THAT IS AN OPEN EASEMENT TO THE BEACH.

IT'S A PUBLIC ACCESS THAT WE ALL ENJOY.

AGAIN, MY HUSBAND AND I EVERY SPRING GO OUT AND CLEAR IT OUT FOR THE ENJOYMENT AND THE BENEFIT OF THE PUBLIC.

I STRONGLY ENCOURAGE YOU TO -- LET'S FIND ANOTHER WAY TO PRESERVE THIS ON HIS AND NOT JUST SOFTBALL OH YOU THE UP IN A GENTRIFIED THREE-STORY MONSTROSITY.

I'LL LEAVE YOU -- THIS IS A ERGAS PO OF MY OWN PERSONAL LIBRARY THAT US CL ALL OF THE HISTORIC THINGS THAT HAVE HAPPENED HERE IN THE 1950S. THIS WAS ONE SMALL PART OF IT.

THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU.

MS. DWYER. MS. DWYER.

CHAIRMAN'S PREROGATIVE. WE DON'T NORMALLY ASK QUESTIONS OF PEOPLE WHO SPEAK BUT I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHERE YOU LIVE.

>> I LIVE -- >> WEST, EAST, NORTH, SOUTH?

>> I LIVE TO THE WEST, TWO HOUSES TO THE WEST.

THERE'S A BRAND NEW HOUSE THAT --

>> I SEE TWO HOUSES TO THE WEST. >> SO THERE'S AN EMPTY LOT.

>> YES, I SEE THAT. >> SO I LIVE DIRECTLY BEHIND THAT, AND THAT EMPTY LOT IS ALSO IS NEXT TO A -- IT'S CALLED THE GREEN PATH. IT IS A PUBLIC EASEMENT WHICH MY HUSBAND AND I HAVE TURNED INTO A PARK AND RESTORED IT WITH NATURAL SPECIES. WE WATER IT AND CARE FOR IT.

>> OKAY. I JUST WANT TO KNOW WHERE YOU WILL HAVE. YOU LIVE WEST OF THAT.

YOU LIVE OFF OF THE PICTURE HERE.

>> YES. YOU CAN KIND OF SEE MY FRONT

YARD. >> OKAY, THANK YOU.

>> APPRECIATE THAT. >> DONNA HOLLIS.

>> HI. MY NAME IS DONNA HOLLIS AND I LIVE AT 5495 ATLANTIC VIEW. THIS PROPERTY IS NON-CONFORMING TO TODAY'S SETBACK LINES IN THE CURRENT CODE.

THE CURRENT HOME IS WHAT OUR NEIGHBORHOOD, OF COURSE, REFERS TO AS THE MARTIN LUTHER KING HOME.

THE PREVIOUS OWNER THAT SOLD THE PROPERTY INFORMED ME PERSONALLY THAT THE NEW OWNERS PLANNED ON BUILDING UP AND AROUND, WHICH THEY'VE ALREADY SAID, AND THEN RENTING OUT THE MARTIN LUTHER KING PORTION AS AN AIRBNB WHICH WILL MAKE IT A MULTI-FAMILY HOM HOME. WE ARE A SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY. WE HAVE PLENTY OF AIRBNBS IN OUR AREA AND IT INTERRUPTS DI. I'M NOT EVEN SURE WITH A FAMILY LIVING UPSTAIRS AND SOMEBODY RENTING OUT THE BOTTOM, CAN YOU IMAGINE HOW MANY MORE CARS THERE WOULD BE? WE HAVE TOO MANY ALREADY. IT WOULD CAUSE A PARKING BURDEN AS WELL AS A BURDEN TO OUR FRAGILE ECOSYSTEM.

WE HAVE PROTECTED GOPHER TURTLE, DUNE RABBITS AND OTHER CRITTERS.

WE UNDER THAT THE PLAN WOULD BE A 40 TO A 42-FOOT I HAD WOO HOME ONCE IT'S BUILT. THE CURRENT CODE IS ONLY 27 FEET WIDE FOR THAT LOT, IF THEY WERE TO TEAR IT DOWN.

PERSONALLY I WOULDN'T HAVE A PROBLEM IF THEY BUILT THE UPPER TWO STORIES 27 FEET WIDE. NOBODY WOULD HAVE A PROBLEM IF THEY LEFT IT. BUT THEY'RE NO PLANNING ON DOING THAT. ANOTHER THING, THEY SAY THAT THIS IS THEIR HOME, BUT IT'S AN LLC AND THEIR NAME REALLY AREN'T

[03:25:04]

THE CURRENT OWNERS ARE TRYING TO USE THIS HOME AS A HISTORICAL HOME, BUT TALKING TO OUR PROPERTY APPRAISER, MR. EDDIE CRAMER, HE SAYS THAT THIS HOME HAS NO HISTORICAL VALUE, FEDERAL, STATE, NOR LOCAL, AND HE INFORMED ME THAT HAD THERE BE ANY HISTORICAL VALUE, THIS HOME WOULD BE TREATED IN A COMPLETELY DIFFERENTLY MANNER AND WITH ENFORCE HISTORICAL GUIDELINES FOR ANY CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS. IN CONCLUSION, MOST OF THE NEW CONSTRUCTION AND REMODELSAL IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD HAVE ADHERED TO THE BUILDING CODES AND LIMITATIONS.

CHANGING THE RULES FOR ONE NEIGHBOR WOULD CAUSE ADVERSE PROBLEMS FOR OUR WHOLE NEIGHBORHOOD.

IT WOULD CHANGE THE PRECEDENT GOING FORWARD AND RIGHT NOW WE DON'T NEED THAT. WE HAVE ENOUGH, ENOUGH PEOPLE BUILDING AND TANKER DOWN TEAN HOUSES.

IN CONCLUSION I HOPE AND I PLAY THAT YOU REJECT THIS.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >> THANK YOU.

>> MAC MATTINGLY. >> GOOD AFTERNOON, COMMISSIONERS. MR. AND MRS. -- EXCUSE MY FOR INSTANCEIATION -- MANATA ACRES MY NAME IS KNACK AND I LIVE AT NEVADA 595 PELICAN WAY WHICH IS APPROXIMATELY 250 FEET SOUTHWEST OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO HEAR MY CONCERNS. WHEN MY WIFE AND I WERE LOOKING FOR PROPERTY TO MOVE AND START OUR FAMILY, WE FOUND THE NEIGHBORHOOD TO BE SO UNIQUE IN THE WAY THAT IS HOTD P PLOTTED.

THE PLOT PLAN MACK MIZES EACH HOME'S VIEWS OF THE BASED ON STAIR STEPPED ELEVATIONS, LOT LINES AND SETD BASK.

I'M A LAND DEVELOPER MYSELF AND UNDERSTAND THE PROCESS THAT MR. MANATAY IS SEEKING PERFECT WHENEVER A VARIANCE IS REQUESTED YOU MUST STOP AND ASK YOURSELF WHY AND WHAT IS CAUSING THIS CUSTOMER TO NEED A CHANGE THE FROM STANDARD SET OF RULES WE ALL MUST ADHERE TO, AND IF GRANTED WHO WILL THIS AFFECT FEG NEGTIVISM OR POSITIVELY. IN THIS CASE THE VARIANTS VARIANCE ONLY HELPS MR. MANATAY BUILD THE LARGEST HOME POSSIBLE ON A NIRO LOT. MR. MANATAY HAD A VERY HONEST PHONE CONVERSATION IN REGARDS TO A LETTER HE HAD POSTED ON MY DOOR ATTEMPTING TO CLEAR UP SOME CONFUSION.

I PARDONABLE FOUND HIS LETTERS VERY MISLEADING OF HIS TRUE INTENTIONS. IF GRANTED A VARIANCE, THE HOME HE WILL BUILD WILL SEVERE AFFECT NUMEROUS HOMES E VIEWS WHICH WERE ORIGINALLY PROTECTED BY SETBACKS.

MY HOME'S VALUE WOULD DECREASE AND ONE OF THE MAIN REASONS I FELT BY VIEW WAS PROTECTED WOULD BE VIOLATED.

HE IS NOT IN THIS TO PRESERVE THE HOUSE BY BRINGING IT INTO COMPLIANCE. IT IS SIMPLY A TACTIC TO MAXIMIZE THE PROPERTY AND HAS ZERO TO DO WITH THE HISTORY OR PRESERVING THE CURRENT HOME AT ALL.

A VARIANCE OF THIS MAGNITUDE WOULD SET A PRECEDENCE THAT HAS NOT OCCURRED IN THIS AREA, TO MY KNOWLEDGE.

IT CONCERNS ME DEEPLY THAT IF THERE WERE TO PASS AND MOVE TO THE NEXT STEP, OUR MAITH IN THIS COMMISSION WOULD NOVEMBER EVER FOREVER BE COMPROMISED. I STRONGLY URGE THE COMMISSION TO DENY THIS VARIANCE REQUEST. THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU. >> MARK FORSYTHE.

SORRY. I DON'T KNOW HOW TO SAY YOUR

LAST NAME OR READ IT. >> HI.

MY NAME IS BARB MULCH I LIVE AT IN 485 ATLANTIC VIEW.

I'M DIRECT BEHIND THE HOUSE THERE IN QUESTION.

THE CURRENT ZONING CURRENTLY ALLOWS FOR A 27-FOOT WIDE STRUCTURE. THE PROPOSED SETD-BACK WOULD CONSTITUTE OVER A 50% INQUEES YEAST.

SEVERAL RECENTLY BUILT HOMES HAVE ALL BEEN COMPLETED ALONG SIMILAR PUBLIC RIGHTS-OF-WAY WITHOUT HARDSHIP.

THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN PURPOSELY INCLUDED OPEN SPAS BEVER SIX LOTS, SO IF YOU LOOK ON THERE ABOUT EVERY SIX HOUSES THERE'S A LARGE OPEN AREA, BOTH FOR BEACH ACCESS AND FORE JUST A SAN JOAQUINIC VIEW OF THE AREA. I FEEL LIKE THIS DECREASED SETBACK, THIS VARIANCE WOULD NEGATIVELY IMPACT THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. THE MAJOR EXTERIOR AND INTERIOR RENOVATIONS WOULD BASICALLY NEGATE ANY HISTORIC SIGNIFICANCE MAKING THE PROPERTY INDISTINGUISHABLE FROM OTHER NEW HOMES. THEY BASICALLY WANT TO KEEP THAT ONE SIDE WALL AND BUILD A HUGE STRUCTURE ALL AROUND.

[03:30:02]

THERE'S JUST NOT ENOUGH PARKING SPACE AVAILABLE, AND THAT WOULD CUT INTO THE STREET ACCESS AND CAUSE ISSUES THERE.

IN CONCLUSION, I WOULD JUST LIKE TO SAY I HOPE THE COMMITTEE WOULD DENY THIS REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE.

THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU.

>> CARMS DELONEY. >> I'M CHARLES I LIVE AT 5 IF 30 ATLANTIC STREW. THE WELBORN FAMILY OWNED THIS PROPERTY BEFORE IT WAS SOLD BACK IN AUGUST.

THEY WORKED HARD OVER THE LAST TEN YEARS, WHICH I MIGHT ACKNOWLEDGE WAS KNOWN TO ALL OF US, SHOPPING THIS HOUSE AROUND TO EVERY ENTITY IN ATLANTA THAT HAD ANYTHING TO DO WITH THE HERITAGE-RELATED ISSUES AROUND MARTIN LUTHER KING.

THEY COULD FIND NO COMERS, PERIOD, PARAGRAPH.

EDDIE CRAMER IS EXACTLY RIGHT. IT WAS DETERMINED BY ALL THE FOLKS IN ATLANTA, PHOTO OP IN THIS HOUSE DOES NOT MAKE IT A HISTORICALLY SIGNIFICANT BUILDING.

A PHOTO MAY BE BUT THE HOUSE IS NOT.

I WANT TO MAKE A QUICK PIVOT TO SOME OF THE THINGS THAT OTHERS HAVE RAISED ALREADY. THESE GREEN AREAS, GREEN GRASS AREAS THAT ARE IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD THAT DON'T OCCUR IN OTHER NEIGHBORHOODS, YOU DO NOT SEE THEM IN PONTE VEDRA BREACH BEACH, ARE NOT ONLY TO ENABLE PEOPLE WHO ARE NOT ON THE BHEACH BUT WHO LIVE BEHIND THAT FIRST ROW ACCESS TO THE BEACH AND IT ALSO GIVES THEM VISUALS TO THE BEACH.

PEOPLE DON'T MOVE HERE BECAUSE THEY WANT TO SEE MOUNTAINS OR SNOW. THEY MOVE HERE BECAUSE THEY WANT TO SEE THE BEACH, AND THAT'S WHAT THESE HUGE SWATHS OF LAND PROVIDE THEM. YOU ALLOW SOMEBODY TO MOVE IN ON THIS AND ENCROACH IT, AND SAY, GEEZ, IT'S JUST A FEW FEET.

WHAT CAN THAT MATTER? GOING BACK AND WE'VE MAPPED THIS HINGE OUT TO GOOGLE, AND THE HOUSES THAT ARE DIRECTLY BEHIND THIS HOUSE, WHICH ARE BUILT TO THE SETBACK, SO THEY CAN'T SCRUNCH THEIR HOUSE OVER AND MAKE UP FOR WHAT YOU'RE MAYBE TAKING AWAY FROM THEM TODAY, THEY'RE STUCK.

THEY'RE GOING TO LOSE 10, 11 DEGREES OF VISIBILITY.

WHAT DOES THAT MEAN TO YOU AND ME? THAT MEANS IF YOU EXTRAPOLATE THAT OUT TO THE BEACH, THESE HOUSES HAVE LOST 125 FEET OF BEACH, JUST LIKE THAT.

YOU'VE TAINT AWAY FROM THEM BECAUSE INSTEAD OF SITTING OUT ON THEIR DECKS AND ENJOYING A DPLAFERS WINE OR A CUPCH COFFEE LOOKING AT THE BEACH, THEY'RE GOING TO BE LOOKING AT THE BACK OF A SHORT-TERM RENTAL THAT'S 3F THEM.

THAT'S NOT WHAT THEY CAME FOR. THAT'S GOING TO REDUCE THEIR PROPERTY VALUES. THAT'S GOING TO REDUCE FRANKLY THEIR LIFESTYLE. WHO WANTS TO GO OUT WHEN YOU'VE BEEN LOOKING FOR AT A BEACH ALL THIS TIME AND ULD SUDDENLY LOOK AT THE BACK OF A 35-FOOT SHORT-TERM RENTAL? YOU THOUGHT THAT WOULD NEVER HAPPEN BECAUSE OF BUILD-BACKS AND HERE WE ARE JUST ABOUT TO GIVE SOMEBODY AN INCENTIVE TO GO AHEAD AND IGNORE THE BUILD-BACKS AND COVER UP -- AND THEN THE SIGHT LINES ARE -- YOU'VE LEFT THE PEOPLE BEHIND.

THIS PARTICULAR GREEN SPACE WITH REDUCED SIGHT LINES AND REDUCED VALUE. IT CAN HAPPEN ELSEWHERE IF YOU START IT HERE. THE LAWYER FOR THE BUILDER OR THE OWNER SAID THAT HE KNOWS OF ONE INSTANCE WHERE THIS HAS HAPPENED. WE KNOW OF NO INSTANCES ON THE FRONT ROW OF ANY OF THE HOUSES UP AND DOWN ATLANTIC VIEW THAT WERE GRANTED A VARIANCE. MANY PEOPLE CAME BEFORE YOU.

NONE OF THEM GOT A VARIANCE BECAUSE YOUR UNDERSTANDING OF THE VALUE OF THE VISUALS. THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU. PAUL WEST.

>> MY NAME IS PAUL WEST. I WAS BORN AND RAISE DOLLARS

HERE, BORN IN 1958. >> ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD,

PLEASE. >> I LIVE ON 5493 ATLANTIC VIEW.

I LIVE THREE DOORS SOUTH OF THIS STRUCTURE.

OUR FAM'S LIVED HERE IN THIS COUNTY -- OUR FAMILY'S LIVED HERE IN THIS COUNTY FOREVER, SINCE THE 1930S.

PARENTS LIVED OVER ON LIGHT HOUSE AVENUE.

WE OWNED A PHARMACY ON ST. GEORGE STREET.

MY POINT IS WE HAVE ALL THESE HISTORIC HOMES, DIFFERENT ENTITIES AROUND ST. AUGUSTINE. I HAVE NEVER IN MY LIFE HEARD OF

[03:35:02]

IF WE START NOW, WE HAVE SET A PRECEDENT THAT WILL NEVER BE ABLE TO STOP. WE CAN'T ALLOW IT.

IT'S NOT THE RIGHT THING TO DO. AND EVERY ONE OF Y'ALL UP HERE KNOW THAT. OUR CITY, OUR TOWN, OUR COUNTY IS ABOUT HISTORY. WE'RE THE OLDEST HISTORY IN THE UNITED STATES. WE CAN'T START THIS NOW.

WE'LL LIVE TO REGRET IT FOREVER. AND IT STARTS RIGHT HERE.

WE CAN'T APPROVE THIS. IT HAS NO PLACE IN OUR COUNTY.

NO PLACE AT ALL. PLEASE DENY THIS REQUEST.

>> CHARLES LAWRENCE. CHARMS LAWRENCE DAVID HARLEY.

BAILEY. SORRY.

>> BAILEY. THANK YOU.

MY NAME IS DAVID HALEY AND I LIVE AT 5430 ATLANTIC VIEW.

AND PRETTY MUCH EVERYTHING THAT REALLY NEEDS SAID HAS PROBABLY BEEN SAID, BUT LET ME GO OVER A LITTLE BIT MORE OF IT AND ADD A LITTLE BIT TO IT. FIRST, WE'RE VERY FORTUNATE TO LIVE IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD. AND THIS NEIGHBORHOOD IS REALLY A PIECE OF A GREAT COUNTY, A GREAT STATE, AND A GREAT COUNTRY, AND THAT'S BECAUSE WE'RE BASED ON RULES, REGULATIONS, LAWS, AND CODES. AND WHY DO WE HAVE THOSE? I'M NOT A LAWYER. SOME OF YOU ARE LAWYERS.

BUT BASICALLY IT'S TO PROTECT SOCIETY AND TO PROTECT INDIVIDUALS AND TO MAKE SURE THAT EVERYBODY IS TREATED EQUALLY AND FAIRLY. REALLY, I THINK FAIRLY IS KIND OF NOT REALLY NECESSARY -- SOME PEOPLE'S DEFINITION OF FAIR IS DIFFERENT THAN OTHERS BUT EQUALLY.

TO GIVE A VARIATION OR TO APPROVE THIS REQUEST IS NOT TREATING EVERYONE FAIRLY, BUT IT MIGHT BE IF IT ESTABLISHES A PRECEDENT WHERE THIS WOULD BE THE NORM IN THE FUTURE.

THAT'S IF -- THE OLD ADAGE IS IF YOU HAVE RULES, REGULATIONS AND LAWS AND YOU DO NOT ENFORCE THEM, THEN YOU DO NOT HAVE RULES, REGULATIONS, LAWS, CODES, ET CETERA.

SO I'M PROPOSING THAT WE DO NEED TO ENFORCE WHAT WE HAVE AND NOT GRANT THIS VARIANCE. DR. HILSENBECK SAID SOMETHING EARLIER IN THE MAJOR PRESENTATION OF 3500 ACRES THAT EVERYONE HAS TO FOLLOW THE LAW. AND EVERYONE DOES HAVE TO FOLLOW THE LAW UNTIL UNLESS YOU GETA VARIANCE FROM THAT.

AND SO THAT'S WHAT THIS IS ABOUT, IS THE VARIANCE.

IT'S NOT TRYING TO CHANGE THE LAW.

ALSO THERE WERE SOME QUESTIONS ABOUT OTHER HOUSES THAT WERE SIMILAR. I HAVE A SISTER HOUSE, A SISTER LOT, , AN IDENTICAL TWIN TO WHAT THEIR LOT IS.

I LIVE AT 5430, WHICH IS ON ONE OF THE COUNTY WALKWAYS, THE ONE JUST NORTH OF THIS. MY HOUSE WAS BUILT FIVE YEARS AGO AND IT'S A 50-FOOT WIDE PROPERTY.

MY HOUSE IS 27 FEET WIDE. MY NEXT DOOR NEIGHBOR TO THE SOUTH OF ME IS ON THE SOUTH OF THAT WALKWAY.

HE HAS A 50-FOOT WIDE WALK -- FOOT OF FOOT WIDE LOT, AND HIS HOUSE IS 27 FEET WIDE BECAUSE OF OVERHANGS, THINGS LIKE THAT, AND THAT'S WHAT THESE LOTS WERE INTENDED TO DO, AND NICE NEW HOUSES ARE BEING BUILT WITHOUT GETTING ANY VARIATION FROM THE CODE. AND I THINK -- I BELIEVE STRONGLY THAT YOU UNDERSTAND THAT, AND I WOULD RECOMMEND THAT WE REJECT THIS PROPOSAL, AS SUBMITTED.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >> THANK YOU.

>> KAREN LINDSEY. >> HI.

MY NAME IS KAREN LINDSEY. AND I AM A STRENT IN ST. AUGUSTINE FOR 25 YEARS AND ALSO A REALTOR HERE.

AND I OWN RENTAL PROPERTY AROUND THE THAT THIS HOME IS IN, ALSO.

I'M HERE TO ASK THE BOARD TO CONSIDER THIS AND VOTE YES FOR THE VARIANCE AND TO HELP PRESERVE THIS INCREDIBLE PIECE OF AMERICAN HISTORY IN OUR ST. AUGUSTINE HISTORY.

[03:40:04]

IT DOESN'T HAVE GRANITE COUNTERTOPS.

IT DOESN'T HAVE TILE FLOORS. IT'S JUST AN OLD HOUSE THAT IS A PART OF THE HISTORY. IT'S AN UGLY PART OF OUR HISTORY, BUT WE'VE LET SO MUCH OF OUR HISTORY GET AWAY FROM US THAT I JUST FEEL LIKE THIS IS ONE CHANCE THAT WE CAN VOTE AND SAVE SOMETHING. IT'S THE GOOD, THE BAD AND THE UGLY, AND TO ME THIS WOULD BE THE GOOD THING THAT WOULD COME OUT OF IT, THAT WE COULD PRESERVE THIS, THAT PEOPLE -- THEY ARE WILLING TO OPEN THIS TO PEOPLE.

THEY DID ON MARTIN LUTHER KING DAY.

THEY'VE ASKED NEWS MEDIA, EVERYBODY TO COME AND SEE THIS.

IT'S JUST -- UNTIL YOU GO IN THE HOME, YOU CANNOT FEEL IT, YOU CANNOT UNDERSTAND IT, AND THEY ARE WILLING TO MAKE THEIR HOME A PART OF THIS. AND THEY'VE ALREADY IMPROVED IT.

YES, THEY PARKED IN THAT AREA WHILE THEY WERE DOING CONSTRUCTION AND CLEANING UP THAT HOME BECAUSE IT WAS IN TERRIBLE SHAPE, AND SO I'M JUST ASKING.

CITIES ALL OVER THIS COUNTRY HAVE NAMED STREETS AND HIGHWAYS AFTER MARTIN LUTHER KING, AND I JUST ASK ST. AUGUSTINE TO STAND UP AND PRESERVE THIS FOR US. THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU. >> JANS IS JOHNSON JANICE J.

>> GOOD AFTERNOON. THANK YOU FOR LISTENING TO US TODAY. MY NAME IS JANICE JOHNSON.

I LIVE AT 5467 ATLANTIC VIEW. MY HOME IS DIRECTLY NORTH OF THE EASEMENT ON THE OTHER SIDE OF ATLANTIC VIEW FROM THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. I'M ALSO A REALTOR IN ST. JOHNS COUNTY. I'VE BEEN A REAL ESTATE BROKER FOR 45 YEARS HERE. I UNDERSTAND THE NEED FOR VARIANCES SOMETIMES. THIS IS NOT ONE OF THOSE TIMES.

I LIVE ACROSS THE STREET AND IMMEDIATELY NORTH OF THIS PROPERTY. I PURCHASED MY HOME IN JULY OF 2021 WITH THE EXPECTATION THAT SOMEONE WOULD BUILD A 35-FOOT TALL STRUCTURE ACROSS THE STREET FROM ME.

BUT I EXPECTED THAT HOME TO BE BUILT ACCORDING TO THE RULES AND REGULATIONS OF THIS COUNTY WITH A 15-FOOT SETBACK FROM THAT EASEMENT, A 27-FOOT WIDE HOUSE, 35 FEET TALL.

THE BEAUTY AND VALUE OF THE HOMES IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD IS THE OPENNESS THAT THIS NEIGHBORHOOD AFFORDS FOR ALL OF US TO HAVE VIEWS OF THE OCEAN THAT WE ALL CAME HERE TO ENJOY.

THIS OPENNESS IS LLOYD BY THE SETBACKS -- ALOUD BY THE SAID BASK THAT WE HAVE SAID UP AND BY THE EASEMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN CREATED IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. THIS IS A 50-FOOT LOT.

AND WITH CROWN SETBACK 1ST OWNER CAN BUILD A 27-FOOT WIDE HOUSE.

BUT IF YOU ALLOW THIS VARIANCE, HE COULD BUILD A 42-FOOT WIDE HOUSE ON THAT 50-FOOT LOT. I DON'T BELIEVE THIS IS YOUR INTENTION FOR OUR COMMUNITY OR FOR THE ENTIRE PORTION OF ST. JOHNS COUNTY. THE BUILDING LIMITATIONS ARE THERE, AND WE HAVE ALL ADHERED TO THOSE LIMITATIONS.

WE WOULD ALL LOVE TO HAVE BIGGER HOUSES WITH MORE OCEAN FRONT OR MORE OCEAN VIEW, BUT WE ALL OOH BIDED BY ABIDED BY THE RULES OF THIS COMMUNITY WE CHOOSE TO LIVE IN.

IF YOU MODIFY OR CHANGE THOSE RULES FOR ONE PERSON, YOU HAVE TAKEN IT AWAY FROM ALL OF US. SO FOR EVERY FOOT THAT YOU GIVE HIM, YOU HAVE TAKEN IT AWAY FROM ME AND FROM US AND FROM OUR

[03:45:04]

THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. >> KETO BURNS.

>> HI THE THERE KETO BURNS 201 OWENS AFTER I AM OOH PRESIDENT OF SOUTH AN TAISH YEAH COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION.

I AM ONLY HERE SPEAKING ON BEHALF MYSELF SOD TODD.

I HEARD OF A LITTLE BIT OF A CONTRADICTION THAT THAT MAY NEED SOME CLARITY. IN THE PRESENTATION I SAID THE DEPTH THE THE OF THE HOUSE EAST TO WEST WOULD NOT BE EXCEEDED HOWEVER IN THE SITED PLAN AND SURVEY IT SHOWED AN ENTRYWAY WOULD BED ADDED TO THE WEST SIDE OF HOUSE WHICH WOULD ALSO END CLOACH INTO THE SETBACK SO THIS VARIANCE IS NOT JUST FORE THE EXISTING HOUSE TO ENCROACH INTO THE SETBACK, IT IS ALSO FOR AN ADDED PORTION SO YOU MIGHT GET CLARITY ON THAT AFTER PUBLIC COMMENT. THERE ARE 13 EAST-TO-WEST EASEMENTS IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD THAT GO FROM ATLANTIC VIEW TO A1A, AND THAT MEANS 26 LOTS LIKE THIS ON THE OCEAN.

THE OTHER 25 LOTS LIKE THIS ON THE OCEAN HAVE BEEN DEVELOPED AND HAVE ADHERED TO THE 15-FOOT SETBACK ON THEIR SECOND FRONT WHICH IS THE EASEMENT. THIS IS A SIGNIFICANT STRUCTURE REGARDLESS -- I MEANT, IT IS, HOWEVER YOU WANT TO PUT IT, WE KNOW THERE IS SO MANY SIGNIFICANCE THERE HOWEVER IF YOU DOVER IT HAD COMPLETE FLEELT WITH A HOUSE THAT LOOKING FROM THE ATLANTIC VIEW YOU DO NOT SEE ANY OF THE ORIGINAL STRUCTURE, THERE ARE THE REINS HAVE PRESERVATION.

THE ORIGINAL PRESERVATION WOULD BE TO LEAVE IT LIKE IT IS WHICH THEY CAN DO WITHOUT A VARIANCE BUT TO COVER IT COMPLETELY AND LEAVE ONE WALL IS IN THE AREA OF PRESS HAVING A BUT IT'S NOT TRUE PRESERVATION OF THAT. IT'S GOING LOOK LIKE A VERY HARMING HOUSE AS THE REST DO AND THEY WILL LOSE ANY OF THE SIGNIFICANCE IT HAS IF YOU DO ALLOW IT TO BE BUILT ON MORE.

I THINK THIS PROPERTY RIGHT ELEMENT OF NEIGHBORS AROUND IT WHO BOUGHT WITH THE EXPECTATION THAT SETBACKS WOULD BE ADHERED TO, AS THEY HAVE BEEN IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD FOR A VERY LONG TIME, IS A VALID ARGUE WHEN YOU HAVE PEOPLE BUYING, ASSUMING THAT EVERYONE ELSE IS GOING TO COMPLY WITH THE SAME RULES THEY HAVE COMPLIED WITH. P I WALKED THROUGH THIS HOUSE WITH OWNERS AND THEY ARE VERY NICE, AND THERE'S NOTHING AGAINST THEM AT ALL, BUT THIS ISN'T TEAR IT DOWN ON BUILD A CHIENT GIANT HOUSE. THEY COULD DO AN ADDITION AND CITE OVER AND BE 15 FEET FROM THAT EASEMENT JUST AS IT IS AND IT WOULD -- YES, THEY MIGHT HAVE SOME LONG CLEAR SPAN BEAMS THAT COVER THAT WHOLE LENGTH BUT IT CAN BE DONE.

WE HAVE AMAZING ENGINEERS NOWADAYS.

SO THERE ARE OTHER OPTION. I DON'T WANT IT TO BE HEARD AS IF TEAR IT DOWN OR GRANT THIS VARIANCE.

THEY COULD DESIGN SOMETHING THAT WOULD PRESERVE THIS AND LEAVE IT EXPOSED AND TRULY VISIBLE TO THE NEIGHBORS AND BUILD WITHIN THE 15-FOOT SETBACK VARIANCE. THIS IS A VERY REQUEST FOR AN 80% REDUCTION IN SETBACK. THIS ISN'T 1 FOOT.

THIS IS 80% INTO THE SETBACK, AND ITS GETTING DEEPER WEST TO EAST SO THEY'RE ADDING NEW STRUCTURE 80% INTO THE SETBACK.

THIS IS A GREAT NEIGHBORHOOD. THESE 13 PLATTED AREAS CAN BECH COOP THE AREA OPEN AND WE HOPE THAT YOU DENY THIS.

THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU.

>> IS THERE ANYONE ELSE IN AUDIENCE OF TO SPEAK TO THIS PARTICULAR I'M? IF NOT, WE'RE READY FOR THE

APPLICANT'S REBUTTAL. >> THANK YOU, WHERE CHAIRMAN.

THE OVERHEAD, THIS IS A ARROWHEAD GRANTED FROM THE PLANNING AND ZONING AGENCY IN 2018.

OWNER GRANTING VARIANCE WHY. THIS IS AT 5591 ATLANTIC VIEW.

SO IF YOU CAN SEE ON THE OVERHEAD, THIS IS 5591 ATLANTIC VIEW RIGHT HERE ON ONE OF THOSE EASEMENTS.

IN 2018, THE ABOVE REFERENCED APPLICATION FOR A ZONING VARIANCE TO BE REQUIRED FIRST FRONT YARD SET BACK OF 17.7 INCHES IN THRUST 25-FOOT ON PELICAN WAY TOGETHER WITH THE

[03:50:03]

ATTACHED TO THAT IS THE SITE PLAN.

AS YOU CAN SEE, IT REFLECTS WHAT WAS JUST NOTED IN THE APPROVAL.

THIS WAS APPROVED ON THE 18TH OF JANUARY, 2018.

SO THAT'S JUST THE ONE THAT I SAID THAT I KNEW OF THAT WAS IN THERE. I'LL SIOUX SUBMIT THESE FOR THE RECORD. THIS IS A PICTURE FROM THE PROPERTY APPRAISER'S SITE. AS YOU CAN SEE, THIS IS WHERE THEY GO INTO THE SETBACK ALONG THE EASEMENT.

SECONDLY, I WANT TO SHOW THESE ARE THE HOUSES ALONG ATLANTIC VIEW ON THE WEST SIDE OF ATLANTIC VIEW.

THEIR HOUSE IS OVER -- THEIR HOUSE IS OVER HERE.

THESE ARE THE ONES THAT ARE DIRECTLY ADJACENT, AS YOU CAN SEE. THESE ARE ALL, YOU KNOW, TWO, THREE STORY HOUSES HERE. THIS IS ON PELICAN WAY.

I BELIEVE THIS MIDDLE ONE IS MSE EASEMENT IS RIGHT OVER HERE AND THESE ARE ALL THE HOUSES ALONG PELICAN WAY.

AS YOU CAN SEE THESE ARE ALL THREE STORY AS WELL.

THESE ARE SOME OTHER HOUSES IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

THIS ONE'S ON THE BEACH. THESE ARE ON PELICAN WAY.

AND AGAIN I THINK I THINK THIS IS ONE OF THE ONES FROM ONE OF THE SPEARVETION THAT'S 3 FEET AND I THINK THE EASEMENT'S OVER IN THIS AREA HERE. LET'S GO BACK TO WHAT WE TALKED ABOUT -- CAN YOU SWITCH IT BACK -- TO GO BACK TO WHAT WE TALKED ABOUT INITIALLY. WE'RE HERE ASKING FOR THE VARIANCE BECAUSE OF THE FACT THAT THIS IS AN HISTORICALLY SIGNIFICANT STRUCTURE. I DON'T THINK -- I MEAN, I HEARD DR. HILSENBECK SAY THAT THERE MIGHT BE SOME PEOPLE THAT SAY IT ISN'T. I DON'T THINK THAT ANYBODY WELL-INTENTIONED WILL TELL YOU THAT THIS IS NOT A HISTORICALLY SIGNIFICANT STRUCTURE. WHAT THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THAT IS TO DIFFERENT PEOPLE MIGHT BE DIFFERENT, BUT WITHIN OUR HISTORY, WITHIN OUR AMERICAN HISTORY, IT'S NATIONALLY RECOGNIZED AS A PROPERTY THAT WAS PART OF THIS CIVIL RIGHTS MOVEMENT. IN FACT, LIKE I SAID, YOU CAN GO BACK TO THE -- THIS IS LIFE MAGAZINE.

SOMEBODY MIGHT CALL IT A PHOTO OP, BUT THE FACT OF THE MATTER IS THERE IS A LOT OF PEOPLE, HISTORIANS AS WELL AS PEOPLE WITHIN THE CIVIL RIGHTS MOVEMENT, THAT WILL TELL YOU TO THAT THESE IMAGES ARE WHAT CHANGED THE TIDE AS LONG AS -- ALONG WITH DR. MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR.'S ACTIONS AND IS MANY AND AGAIN, I'M NOT HERE TO SAY THAT -- TO SAY THAT THAT'S WHAT THIS IS ALL ABOUT, BUT THE FACT OF THE MATTER IS PRESERVING HISTORY IS THE REASON WE HAVE IN THE CODE, IN COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AS TO WHY A VARIANCE CAN MOVE FORWARD ON THIS PARTICULAR PROPERTY. TO PRESERVE THIS.

THIS IS RECOGNIZED. PEOPLE MAY SAY THAT IT DOESN'T MATTER, BUT THE FACT OF THE MATTER IS, IS THAT PEOPLE COME TO THIS PROPERTY TO SEE IT. LET ME MOVE TO THE -- THERE ARE ALSO PLESS DENTS WITHIN OUR CITY ITSELF -- PRECEDENTS WITHIN OUR CITY ITSELF TO PRESERVING HUSTER BY ACCEPTABLE REUSE OF PROPERTY.

IMMEDIATELY DOWNTOWN AS YOU ALL KNOW, THE MONSON MOTOR LODGE WAS CHANGED INTO A HOTEL, HOWEVER, THERE WAS SOME PRESERVATION OF PART OF THE STEPS, AND THERE'S A PLAQUE THERE.

THERE WAS A PRESERVATION BY THE POOL, AND THERE'S A PLAQUE THER.

THERE'S ALSO MANY OTHER PROPERTIES ON HAD TO FREEDOM TRAIL THAT ARE IN ST. AUGUSTINE. DR. HALEY'S OFFICE, MS. JENNY PRICE'S HOME. THIS PROPERTY IS ONE OF THOSE THAT ARE ON THAT. THAT'S WHY YOU SEE ONE OUR LOCALLY RENOWNED HISTORIANS WHO IS RESPECTED BY MANY, IF NOT MOST, WRITES YOU A LETTER, AND I'M GOING TO READ THAT LETTER TO YOU BECAUSE I THINK IT'S VERY IMPORTANT.

DEAR FRIENDS, YOU HAVE BEFORE YOU THE MOST HISTORICALLY SIGNIFICANT BEACH HOUSE IN ST. JOHNS COUNTY.

THAT IS NOT BECAUSE WE LOOK FORE OTHERS.

INDEED, WE HAVE SOME OF SPLA'S OLDEST BEACH NOWSES SUMMER HAVEN AND CRESCENT BEACH, AND IN A STATE FAMED FOR ITS BEACHES THAT IS NO SMALL THING. BUT AT 5480 ATLANTIC VIEW HAVE A HOUSE CONNECTED TO ONE OF THE MOST FAMOUS PEOPLE IN HISTORY, AND WITHIN AN EVENT THAT CHANGED AMERICA AND INSPIRED THE WORLD."

[03:55:01]

WHEN I CAME HERE NEARLY HALF A CENTURY AGO AND WORKED WITH THE HISTORIC ST. AUGUSTINE PRESS VEGA BOARD, I ASKED MY OLDER COLLEAGUES HOW THEY HAD MANAGED TO SAVE THE COLONIAL BUILDING HERE SINCE NOAFN THEM MET MODERN BUILDING CODES, THEY WERE BUILT RIGHT AT THE STREET LIGHT, FLAT TO THE GROUND AND WILL LONG WOOD SHINGLED ROOFS AND THAT'S JUST STARTSDZ THE LIST.

THE ANSWER I WAS GIVEN WAS HISTORIC VARIANCE KNOWING THAT BLIND APPLICATION OF MODERNIZE STANDARDS TO RESULT IN THE LOSS OF THE OLD BUILDINGS FOR WHICH WE WERE FAMOUS WITH EXCEPTIONS WERE MADE, NOT WILLY-NILLY BUT FOR BUILDINGS THAT PARTICULARLY% DESERVED IT. QUOA AND I'LL LEAVE YOU THISSING THIS CONCLUSION. AS YOU CONSIDER THE HISTORIC MARTIN LUTHER KING BEACH HOUSE, I HOPE YOU WILL CONSIDER THE VALUE OF IT NOT JUST IN DOLLARS BUT AS PART OF THE GREAT HERITAGE DEMOCRACY AND FREEDOM. IT MAY BE THAT YOU NEVER AGAIN HAVE A SIGNIFICANT BUILDING BEFORE YOU.

PLEASE TREAT IT WITH THE GREAT CARAT DESERVES TO SEE THAT IT GETS PRESERVED FOR THE FUTURE. AND LIKE I SAID I WANT TO JUST GO BACK TO THE SECTIONS OF THE CODE IN YOUR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN THAT ALLOW THIS. YOUR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN SPECIFICALLY, SPECIFICALLY TALKS ABOUT SIGNIFICANTLY HISTORIC STRUCTURES. OBJECTIVES, C.1.4 STATES, AND I QUOTE, THE COUNTY SHALL CONTINUE TO IMPLEMENT EXISTING LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE REGULATIONS AND PROTECTION OF HISTORICALLY SIGNIFICANT STRUCTURES. UNDER THAT POIMS CRE P WANT THAN THE. 1.3 SPHORTS THAT BY SAYING THE COUNTY SHALL PRO NOTE MESSVATION ADAPTIVE REIEWFERS HISTORICALLY SIGNIFICANT HOW LONG THROUGH TECHNICAL CINCHES THE AND IMPLEMENTATION OF LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE.

I ASSERT TOY THAT IMPLEMENTATION OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT QUOTED MEANS USING THE TOOLS YOU HAVE SUCH AS VARIANTS.

THE VARIANTS IS A RELAXATION OF THE TERMS OF THIS CODE, NO CONNING TRATORY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST -- CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST BEAU END RAAF OTHER EXTRAORDINARY CONDITION WHICH I BELIEVE WE HAVE IN THIS INSTANCE, THE LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF CODE WOULD CAUSE UNDUE HARDSHIP TO CARRY OUT THE SPHIRT AND PURPOSE OF THE CODE WHICH IS TO PRESERVE HISTORICAL I SIGNIFICANT STRUCTURES, AND IT HAD WOULD NOT BE CONTRARY TO THE SPIRIT AND PURPOSE OF THE CODE, AS I SAID, IS TO PROTECT HISTORICALLY SIGNIFICANT STRUCTURES.

GOING BACK TO SOME OF THE COMMENTARY, AS I SAID, YOU KNOW, YES, THIS PARTICULAR PROPERTY ON THIS PARTICULAR EASEMENT IS IN A UNIQUE PLACE WHERE THIS TYPE OF VARIANCE CAN BE GRANTED.

THE SETBACK ON THESE 50-FOOT LOTS, WHICH AS YOU SAW FROM THE STAFF REPORT THERE'S A BUNCH OF 50-FOOT PLATTED LOTS ALONG HERE, NORMALLY A SITE IT'S 8-FOOT. THIS HAPPENS TO BE ON AN UNOPENED ONTARIO 30-FOOT EASEMENT, SO IT'S 15-FOOT, BUT IT'S USUALLY 8-FOOT, SO IF THIS WAS ON A NORMAL LOT AND IT WAS G FOR 2 FEET 5 INCHES. THAT'S WHAT THEY WOULD BE ASKING FOR, NOT FOR WHAT THEY HAVE TO ASK FOR BECAUSE THEIR ON THIS UNOPENED EASEMENT WHICH WILL NEVER BE OPENED.

>> MA'AM, MA'AM. >> THE FACT OF THE MATTER IS THAT AS I SAID BEFORE, THEY'RE FULLY TRANSPARENT IN THIS.

THEY WANT TO PUT THE ENTRY WAY AT AND GARAGE SO THEY CAN GET RID OF THE NON-CONFORMING GARAGE IN THE FRONT.

THEY COULD LEAVE THAT. IT'S ALREADY THIS.

THEY WANT TO TAKE THAT OUT AND BUILD THIS ON THE FRONT.

THEY DID NOT WANT TO GO FURTHER IN THE BACK.

THAT WILL HELP THE VISION FROM THE NORTH AND THE SOUTH FOREPEOPLE THAT LIVE THERE. IF YOU LOOK BACK DIDN'T -- IF WE GO BACK TO THE PICTURE OF THE -- THE AERIAL FOR THE AREA, YOU CAN SEE THAT THE MAJORITY OF THOSE HOUSES ARE BUILT OUT TO THE COASTAL CONSTRUCTION LINE. THEY DON'T WANT TO DO THAT.

WE'LL THEY'LL KEEP IT BACK HERE BUT TO DO SO THEY NEED THE VARIANCE HERE SO THEY CAN BUILD IN THE FRONT AND RETAIN THE STRUCTURE AS PART OF THIS STRUCTURE FOR POSTERITY, AND AS I SAID, I THINK -- I CAN'T SAY IT ANY BETTER THAN DAVID NOLAN SAID IT. THIS IS AN IMPORTANT STRUCTURE.

I THINK THE MAJORITY OF THE PEOPLE THAT ARE WELL-INTENTIONED WILL AGREE THIS IS SIGNIFICANTLY, A HISTORICALLY SIGNIFICANT STRUCTURE AND THE PROTECTION OF IT, THE PRESERVATION OF IT THROUGH REUSE, WHICH IS ADVOCATED BY YOUR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, IS A REASONABLE REQUEST FOR THIS VARIANCE TO MOVE FORWARD, AND I THINK THESE PEOPLE, AGAIN, MAKING IT THEIR FAMILY HOME AND PRESERVING THIS WHEN THEY DO HAVE THE RIGHT TO GO AND DEMOLISH IT AND BUILD A HOUSE THAT MEETINGS THE CODES, EVERYBODY CAN SAY SAY, YES, DO THAT BUT IT'S EASY TO STAY THAT. IT'S ANOTHER THING TO JUST WIPE

[04:00:04]

SO I APPRECIATE YOUR TIME. I CAN ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.

THANK YOU. >> MS. PERKINS.

>> IF YOU COULD GO BACK TO THE SITE PLAN.

SO THE VARIANCE, ONE OF THE REASONS, THE MAIN REASON YOU HAVE TO ASK FOR THE VARIANCE IS BECAUSE YOU'RE DOING THE ADDITION, BUT THE ADDITION DOESN'T HAVE TO ABIDE BY THAT VARIANCE. IS THAT CORRECT? I MEAN, WE COULD APPROVE THIS WITHOUT ALLOWING THE ADDITION

WITH THE VARIANCE. >> WELL, IF YOU WANT -- IF THEY WANT TO BUILD AROUND THIS, THEY HAVE TO HAVE A VARIANCE FOR THIS, YES, FOR THIS ENTRYWAY IN THE FRONT.

BUT THEY NEED IT FOR THIS AS WELL BECAUSE IF YOU IMPROVE, AS YOU HEARD, IF YOU IMPROVE A STRUCTURE THAT ALREADY -- THAT IS ALREADY CONTRADICTING THE CURRENT SETBACK, YOU HAVE TO HAVE APPROVAL FOR THE WHOLE -- FOR THE WHOLE.

AND AS I SAID, THE REUSE OF THE PROPERTY, PART OF THAT IS PRESERVING, BUT PART OF THAT IS MAKING IT FEASIBLE FOR FOR THE AS A FAMILY HOUSE, AND PART OF THAT IS BUILDING OVER THIS STRUCTURE IN THE AREA ABOVE IT, AND SO AS I SAID, IN OTHER WORDS, IF -- THEIR APPLICATION IS NOT CAN YOU APPROVE THIS AND WE'LL MOVE BACK HERE. TWO OF THE PROBLEMS WITH THAT ARE, NUMBER ONE, YOU HAVE TO HAVE, AND I ASKED THEM ABOUT THIS AND WHAT THE ENGINEER HAD ASKED THEM OR HAD SAID TO THEM, AND PART OF IT WAS THAT IF YOU'RE BUILDIG THIS PART ON THE TOP BACK HERE AT THE 15 FEET OR WHATEVER, YOU WOULD HAVE TO PUT WEIGHT-BEARING PILINGS THROUGH THIS PART OF THE HOUSE.

>> OKAY. >> TO PRESERVE IT.

>> I GOT IT. >> ANYBODY ELSE HAVE QUESTIONS?

DR. HILSENBECK. >> WELL, SO YOU'RE SAYING THEY CANNOT BUILD AN ADDITION THAT IS 27 FEET WIDE.

THEY'VE GOT TO GO AND UTILIZE THAT NORTH WALL AS PART OF THE

ADDITION. >> I'M NOT SAYING THEY CANNOT FIND WAY TO DO THAT, BUT THIS IS NOT ABOUT NECESSARILY WHAT THEY CAN AND CAN'T DO. THEIR REQUEST IS TO BUILD IT IN THIS FASHION, NOT TO GO OUT HERE, AND PART OF THAT REQUEST, THE MAIN AFTER THE PART OF THAT REQUEST IS TO PRESERVE THIS PART OF THE BUILDING AS -- AND THE FACADE AS PART OF FOR HISTORY AND FOR POSTERITY. AGAIN, IF THAT'S NOT WHAT'S GOING TO BE GRANTED, THEN THEY CAN GO OUT AND THEY CAN DEMOLISH IT AND BUILD ONE THAT GOES BACK TO 15 FEET HERE AND BUILD IT ALL THE WAY OUT TO THE COASTAL CONSTRUCTION LINE AND ALL THE WAY OUT TO THE 20-FOOT LINE IN THE FRONT.

THAT'S NOT THEIR INTENT BUT THAT'S PROBABLY WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN IF, YOU KNOW, IF WHAT'S BEING ASKED FOR ISN'T DWRANTD, WHETHER BY THEM OR SOMEBODY ELSE.

>> I DON'T WANT TO CAST A VOTE THAT'S GOING TO CAUSE THE DEMOLITION OF THIS HOUSE BECAUSE I DO BELIEVE IT HAS HISTORICAL SIGNIFICANCE, BUT I DON'T SEE WHY THEY CANNOT BUILD A TWO-STORY ADDITION ABOVE IT. IF THEY'RE GOING TO BUILD A TWO-STORY ADDITION ABOVE IT USING THAT 5.7 FEET ON THE NORTH SIDE, WHY THEY CAN'T BRING THAT IN 15 FEET AND BUILD A 27-FOOT WIDE THREE-STORY STRUCTURE ABOVE THAT.

>> MY UNDERSTANDING IS, IS THAT FROM THEIR DISCUSSIONS WITH THE ENGINEERS, THAT THEY -- THAT THIS IS THE WAY THEY NEED TO DO IT. THEIR REQUEST IS TO DO IT THIS WAY, AND THEIR REQUEST TO DO IT THIS WAY INCLUDES THE PRESERVATION OF THIS AREA, AS YOU SEE WITHIN, AS WELL AS THE FACADE, AND THAT'S WHAT THE REQUEST IS, AND SO --

>> I'M TRYING TO FIND A WAY FORWARD TO SEEK A COMPROMISE HERE TO ALLOW THEM TO PRESERVE THE PROPERTY, WHICH IS VERY ADMIRABLE. I THINK THAT'S FANTASTIC.

I THINK IT'S GREAT. BUT TO SATISFY ALL THESE OTHER CONCERNS, WHICH I BELIEVE ARE VALID FROM THE NEIGHBORS.

AND THEY COULD BUILD THAT ADDITION 27 FEET WIDE, 35 FEET HIGH AND STILL HAVE A REAL NICE HOUSE ON TOP AND PRESERVE THIS.

>> THEY COULD ALSO GO AND BUILD ALL THE WAY OUT TO THE COASTAL CONSTRUCTION LINE RIGHT HERE ALL THE WAY.

TO THE 25 LINE HERE AND STILL PRESERVE IT.

>> I HATE TO SEE ANY MORE HABITAT COMPROMISED, SO I WOULD NOT LOOK TO SEE THAT, BUT, YES, THEY WOULD BE WITHIN THEIR RIGHT

TO DO THAT, NO DOUBT ABOUT IT. >> AND AGAIN, THEY WANTED -- THIS IS NOT TO BE CONFRONTATIONAL.

THEY DON'T WANT TO BE CONFRONTATIONAL.

[04:05:02]

I THINK PART OF IT IS TO HAVE A -- THAT'S THE COMPROMISE THAT THEY'RE OFFERING, WHICH IS THEY WOULD LIKE TO COMPROMISE BY SAYING, HEY, LISTEN, WE'LL PRESERVE THIS FOR POSTERITY IF WE CAN BUILD AROUND IT AND HAVE OUR HOME AROUND IT.

THAT'S NOT GOING TO BE CHEAP FOR THEM.

THIS IS -- A LOT OF ENGINEERIG THAT NEEDS TO BE DONE.

I'M NOT AN ENGINEER SO I CAN'T-DAY THAT BUT THERE IS A LOT TO BE DOWN. AND AGAIN IT'S NOT TO BE ADVERSARIAL OR CONFRONTATIONAL. THEY REALLY BELIEVE THEY'RE OFFERING THAT BECAUSE THEY WANT TO DO THE RIGHT THING.

SOMEBODY ELSE COULD HAVE EASILY BOUGHT IT, AND YET THERE WAS SOME COMMENT THAT IT WAS OFFERED TO A LOT OF DIFFERENT PEOPLE.

WHY? BECAUSE IT WAS $900,000 TO BUY IT AND THEY DIDN'T WANT TO BUY IT.

IT HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE HISTORICAL VALUE OF IT.

IN ANY CASE, TO BE PERFECTLY RESPECTFUL AND HONEST, THAT'S WHAT THE COMPROMISE THEY'RE TRYING TO OFFER.

>> SO A COUPLE QUESTIONS I HAD EARLIER WERE THAT -- AND I DON'T KNOW THAT I REALLY GOT ANSWERS TO THESE.

IS THERE A GUARANTEE THAT THEY'RE NOT GOING TO DO AN

AIRBNB IN THIS HOUSE? >> I THINK WE CAN TELL YOU THAT THAT'S THEIR INTENT NOT TO. YOU KNOW, WHATEVER IS WITHIN THE COUNTY CODES. AGAIN, THAT'S NOT -- THEIR INTENT IS TO HAVE THEIR FAMILY HOE AND HAVE THIS IN THE BOTTOM TO PROTECT IT FOR HISTORICAL AND FORS PO TERRITORY, AND SO I THINK THAT -- POSTERITY. AS PART OF A CONDITION OF A VARIANCE, YOU CAN ASK YOUR OWN ATTORNEY, BUT I DON'T THINK THAT'S PROBABLY AN APPROPRIATE CONDITION DO POT A VARIANCE THEY'RE NOT GOING TO USE IT, TO BE FAIR, BUT I WILL TELL THAT YOU THAT'S THEIR INTENT. AGAIN, WHETHER OR NOT THEY OR FUTURE OWNER OR WHOEVER CAN BE HELD TO THAT, THAT'S A DIFFERENT STORY, BUT THAT'S NOT THEIR INTENT CURRENTLY.

>> OKAY. THE OTHER QUESTION I ASKED, AND THIS IS WAS PERHAPS MORE OF STAFF THAN YOU, HAS THE ADMINISTRATIVE OF THE COUNTY'S CULTURAL RESOURCES REVIEW BOARD OFFICIALLY IDENTIFIED THIS HOUSE AS HAVING HISTORICAL SIGNIFICANCE OR VALUE. SO I'D LIKE TO KNOW.

>> GOOD EVENING, JAN BREWER WITH GROWTH MANAGEMENT, THE ENVIRONMENTAL DIVISION. WE HAVE REVIEWED THIS PROPERTY.

WE'VE DONE IT ON SEVERAL LEVELS. ONE WAS FOR THIS ZONING SPRAIRNS AND ONE WE OFFERED UP A CONFIRM LETTER ON WHAT WILL BE REQUIRED FOR THIS PROPERTY. IT IS CORRECT, THIS PROPERTY COULD BE DEMOLISHED, BUT IN ORDER TO DO THAT, THEY WOULD HAVE TO DO A CULTURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, AND THEY WOULD ALSO HAVE TO DO HISTORIC STUDY AND DOCUMENT THIS STRUCTURE TO PERHAPS LEVEL 3, WHICH MEANS THEY WOULD HAVE TO DO SITE PLAN AND ALSO DO PHOTOGRAPHS ON INTERIOR, EXTERIOR, BUT THEY CERTAINLY COULD TAKE THE STRUCTURE DOWN.

WE HAVE REVIEWED, LIKE I SAID. WITHIN PART OF OUR REVIEW WE DID SAY THAT THIS STRUCTURE IS CONSIDERED A SIGNIFICANT CULTURAL RESOURCE. IT'S ELIGIBLE AS A COUNTY LANDMARK. IT IS ELIGIBLE DUE TO THE FACT THAT IT'S 50 YEARS OLD OR OLDER. I THINK IT'S AT 67 OR 69 YEARS OLD. THE SETTING, THE FEEL AND THE ASSOCIATION, THE LOCATION IS ALL SIGNIFICANT TO THE COUNTY.

IT'S THE SITE OF A HISTORIC EVENT.

IT'S CONNECTED TO A SIGNIFICANT WAY WITH THE LIFE OF A PERSON THAT'S RECOGNIZED OF IMPORTANCE. IT EXEMPLIFIES A HISTORICAL CULTURAL, POLITICAL OR ECONOMIC TREND IN THE COUNTY.

SO WE HAVE REVIEWED THIS AND PROVIDED THEE COMMENTS ON TWO

DIFFERENT APPLICATIONS. >> THANK YOU.

>> ARE THOSAL YOUR QUESTIONS, DR. HILSENBECK?

>> I I HAVE ONE MORE. I WAS INTRIGUED THE PART OF DISMANTLING PART OF THE HOUSE LINCOLNVILLE MUSEUM OR PRESERVING PART OF THE HOUSE. I DON'T KNOW.

MY WIFE WILL BE VERY UNHAPPY WITH ME IF I VOTE TO HAVE THIS HOUSE POTENTIALLY BE DEMOLISHED BY, SAY, A NO VOTE ON THIS VARIANCE. IT'S AN OPEN RIGHT-OF-WAY.

THE EASEMENT, THE VARIANCE THERE WOULD BE 8 FEET.

THE SETBACK WOULD BE 8 FEET. AND RIGHT NOW THAT WALL, EXTERNAL WALL IS 5.7 FEET FROM THE PROPERTY LINE, SO IN ESSENCE IF IT WEREN'T ON AN OPEN RIGHT-OF-WAY THEY'D BE ASKING FOR 2 FEET 5 INCHES OF A VARIANCE.

[04:10:03]

>> DO YOU HAVE A QUESTION, DR. HILSENBECK?

>> IS THAT CORRECT? >> YES, SIR.

>> THANK YOU. >> CAN I GET A CHANCE TO ASK

SOME QUESTIONS NOW? >> DR. MCCORMICK.

>> YES. FIRST OF ALL, I LIKE THE IDEA THAT IF YOU WENT WITH A 27-FOOT BUILDING, FOOT I HAD WOO HOME, VARIANCE TO DO THAT. THAT'S NUMBER ONE.

NUMBER TWO, DISAPPOINT WHAT DAVID NOLAN SAYS AND WHAT OTHER PEOPLE HAVE SAID -- DESPITE WHAT DAVID NOLAN SAYS AND WHAT OTHER PEOPLE HAVE SAID, THIS HOME DOES NOT HAVE HISTORICAL VALUE.

>> DR. MCCORMICK. IS THERE A QUESTION? ARE YOU GOING TO ASK A QUESTION? OR ARE YOU JUST DEBATING?

>> I AM GOING TO. THE REALTOR HAS ALREADY SAID THAT IT HAS NO HISTORICAL VALUE EITHER BY FEDERAL, STATE OR LOCAL LAW. HE DID SAY THAT YOU WOULD HAVE TO HAVE THE HOME TREATED IN A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT MANNER WHEN ENFORCED WITH HISTORICAL GUIDELINES FOR ANY CONSTRUCTION PURPOSES. SO THAT'S WHAT YOU WOULD NEED TO HAVE DONE IF YOU DO GET THIS VARIANCE APPROVED.

>> AND I THINK WHAT HE'S REFERRING TO WAS THE FACT THAT IF IT WAS ON THE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES, THERE WOULD BE A LOT OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS.

I THINK THAT'S PROBABLY WHAT THE PROPERTY APPRAISER REFERRED TO WHEN HE TALKED TO THEM. I DON'T KNOW.

I WASN'T PART OF THAT CONVERSATION SO HE'S NOT HERE FOR TO US ASK HIM, BUT MY UNDERSTANDING WOULD BE -- YOU AND HEARD FROM MS. BREWER, BUT THANK YOU MY UNDERSTANDING WOULD BE IF IT WAS ON THE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES THERE WOULD BE OTHER REQUIREMENTS YOU HAVE TO DO IN ORDER TO DEMOLISH IT. IN THIS CASE YOU HEARD YOUR EXPERT CROWN STAFF TELL YOU THE REQUIREMENT WOULD HAVE TO BE MET BUT THEN IT COULD STIM BE DEMOLISHED.

I THINK THAT'S WHERE IT IS. THE EXPERT STAFF YOU KNOW TESTIMONY IS PROBABLY THE ONE THAT SHOULD BE RELIED ON.

>> MR. PETER. >> I JUST HAVE A QUICK QUESTION FOR MR. -- IF THIS VARIANCE WERE TO BE APPROVED, I'M A LITTLE CONFUSED ON THE -- IF THEY SOLD THE HOUSE, DOES THE VARIANCE

STAY WITH IT OR NOT? >> AS THE PROPOSED FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS IN THE STAFF REPORT, THEY WOULD CONVEY WITH THE LAND, SO IT WOULD TRAVEL TO A NEW OWNER.

>> SO THIS -- IF THIS GOT APPROVED, THEY COULD SELL IT

TOMORROW, QUOTE/UNQUOTE,. >> YES.

HOWEVER, THE WAY IT'S WRITTEN IS THAT IT WOULD ONLY APPLY TO THE EXISTING STRUCTURE AND THE ADDITION PROPOSED IN THE

APPLICATION. >> DR. HILSENBECK.

>> OKAY. I HOPE THIS IS MY LAST QUESTION, THINKING OF THESE AS I GO, BUT I'VE STATED IT BEFORE.

AND I GUESS WE'RE NO GOING TO HEAR FROM YOUR CLIENTS.

THEY'RE SITTING THERE BUT THEY DON'T NEED TO SPEAK.

THEY'VE HIRED YOU. BUTTED I BUT I DON'T UNDER. IS IT ECONOMICALLY NOT FEASIBLE FOR THEM TO BUILD A 27-FOOT WIDE HOUSE OVER THE TOP OF THIS OTHER HOUSE? IF THEY'RE GOING TO BUILD IT, UTILIZING A VARIANCE WITH THAT NORTH WALL OUT TO THE NORTH WALL, WHY CAN'T, AS A COMPROMISE, MAKE EVERYONE HAPPY IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD, IF I WAS GOING TO LIVE IN THAT NEIGHBORHOOD, I WOULD WANT TO MAKE MY NEIGHBORS HAPPY, SO I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY THEY CANNOT BUILD THAT HOUSE TWO-STORY ADDITION, 27 FEET WIDE ABOVE THAT HOUSE.

>> WE WOULD RATHER BE HERE WITH THE HOUSE ADDING THIS FRONTISPIECE TAKING AWAY THIS NONCONFORMING GARAGE AND COMING OVER CONFORMANCE IN THE FRONT. THOSE ARE OPTIONS.

>> THEY WANT TO KEEP THE SQUARE FOOTAGE AS TO THEIR PLANS AND ONE THING THAT I WANT TO SEE IS THE FRONT ELEVATION.

THE SIDE ELEVATION OF WHAT THEY PLAN TO PUT THERE.

SINCE AUGUST HAS BEEN ENOUGH TH AND THERE WAS NOTHING IN THERE.

THIS IS A VERY BIG PLAN. I WAS HOPING TO SEE SOME KIND OF ELEVATION OF HOW THIS WOULD LOOK.

WAX AGAIN YOU CAN ASK YOUR OWN COUNTY ATTORNEY.

THE THING IS WERE ASKING WORTHY VARIANCE NOT THE REQUEST OF DESIGN. THIS IS THE COMPROMISE THEY ARE OFFERING. I'M HERE TO PRESERVE HISTORY BY

[04:15:03]

THERE COULD BE, YES, CAN THEY DESIGN ANOTHER WAY, YES.

WE COULD REDESIGN HOUSE FOR THEM TODAY SITTING HERE.

IF I CAME TO YOU AND SAID LISTEN CAN YOU TELL ME HOW TO DESIGN THIS HOUSE TO BUILD IT TO GET THIS VARIANCE? YOU TELL ME NO FIGURE OUT A WAY AND BRING IT TO ME AND THAT'S WHAT THEY'VE DONE. LIKE I SAID, COULD THEY BUILD IT HERE AND BUILD IT FURTHER OUT? MAYBE. WE WOULD HAVE TO GET THE ENGINEERS SEE ABOUT THIS. THEY HAVE A PLAN THAT THEY TALK TO EXPERTS ABOUT THAT CAN WORK TO PRESERVE HISTORY AS WELL AS HAVE THE PROPERTY BE ECONOMICALLY VIABLE FOR THE HOUSE. WITH ALL DUE RESPECT NOT TO BE ADVERSARIAL THAT IS JUST THE REQUEST.

WE WOULD ASK FOR REASONABLE CONSIDERATION AND WAS NOT LUCITE OF THE FACT WE WANT TO PRESERVE THE STRUCTURE.

>> WE WOULD LIKE TO. >> SINCE YOUR INTENT IS TO PRESERVE THE MAIN STRUCTURE AND HISTORY THAT COMES WITH IT WOULD YOU BE IMMUTABLE TO AN ADD-ON ADDITION IF THERE WAS A MISSION TO PROVE TO PRESERVE THE FA?ADE AND THE MAIN STRUCTURE AND THE SLUG AND THE BURNT FLOORS?

>> YES. >> YOU WOULD BE AMENABLE TO

THAT? >> YES MA'AM.

>> MR. CHAIR, I AM SORRY. MAY I ASK A FEW QUESTIONS TO CLARIFY? TWO THINGS.

FIRST, WE HAVE HER DISCUSSION ON THE ADDITION BEING ACCESSED BY AN EXTERIOR STAIRWAY? IS THAT TRUE?

>> THIS HERE IS ALL PART, IN THE BLUE LINE THIS IS THE ORDER I WOULD ASSUME. THIS IS ALL PART OF THE STRUCTURE. THIS IS INTERIOR STAIRWELL

HERE. >> THE ADDITIONAL STORY WILL BE

ADDED? >> YES MA'AM.

>> THAT WILL BE ACCESSIBLE BY AN EXTERIOR STAIRWAY?

>> THIS IS THE INTERIOR. >> INTERIOR TO THE ORIGINAL STRUCTURE? WHAT'S NUMBER THIS IS THE STRUCTURE. WHEN IT SAYS ENTRY THAT IS INSIDE. THIS PART IS INSIDE THEIR

STAIRS INSIDE. >> THE FIRST FLOOR THE ORIGINAL STRUCTURE BE ACCESSIBLE TO THE ADDITIONAL LEVELS?

ADDITIONAL STORIES? >> IF YOU COME DOWN THE STAIRS AND WALK IN THIS PATH WHETHER OR NOT THEY WILL NEED THE FRONT DOOR I DON'T KNOW THE FACT IS THERE PLAN IS TO LEAD STEPS HERE THAT YOU CAN ACCESS THROUGH THE DOOR ON THE FRONT GOING IN HERE. I DON'T EVEN KNOW IF THE INTENT IS TO ACCESS THROUGH HERE AT ALL.

IN FACT, I THINK IT'S MORE I GUESS WE ARE GETTING MORE INTO

THIS. >> THE REASON I ASK THIS IS I WANT TO KNOW IF THERE'S ANOTHER INTENT TO ADD ANOTHERKITCHEN.

I DON'T KNOW IF THAT WOULD MATTER TO ANOTHER FAMILY.

>> WE WILL MEET ALL COUNTY CODES.

WITH SOMETHING LIKE THAT, AS YOU KNOW THERE ARE WAYS TO MAKE IT THROUGH THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT THAT IT'S NOT A FUNCTIONING KITCHEN SO THAT CAN STILL BE PART OF THE HOUSE.

THERE IS NO INTENT TO MAKE THIS A MULTI FAMILY STRUCTURE.

THEIR INTENT IS TO FOLLOW ALL COUNTY CODES.

THE REASON WHY WE ARE HERE IS TO ASK FOR THIS VARIANCE FOR THE PLACEMENT OF THE STRUCTURE. WERE NOT HERE ASKING FOR VARIANCES FOR ANYTHING ELSE. ANYTHING ELSE WOULD FOLLOW COUNTY CODE AND IF IT DIDN'T WE WOULD BE BACK HERE OR PROHIBITED FROM DOING IT. SECOND QUESTION.

IN YOUR REBUTTAL STATEMENT YOU TALKED ABOUT A VARIANCE THAT WAS APPROVED FOR ANOTHER HOUSE. DID YOU HAVE THE ADDRESS FOR

THAT? >> IT IS 5591 ATLANTIC VIEW.

> I THINK THAT WAS THE VARIANCE THAT WAS ULTIMATELY OVERTURNED MOTHERBOARD ON APPEAL.

>> IT WAS APPROVED BY THIS BOARD IS ALL I'M SAYING BUT ANY

CASE - >> OKAY, TO BE CLEAR WE ARE HERE ASKING FOR A VARIANCE BASED PRIMARILY ON PRESERVING A HISTORICALLY SIGNIFICANT STRUCTURE.

>> THANK YOU. >> MISS PERKINS BEFORE YOU MAKE A MOTION I'M GOING TO MAKE A CHAIRMAN'S PREROGATIVE.

A VARIANCE IS SUPPOSED TO HAVE HARDSHIP.

I DON'T BELIEVE THE APPLICANT HAS GIVEN US ENOUGH INFORMATION HERE TO PROVE A HARDSHIP WHICH IS WHETHER OR NOT HE CAN DO WHAT HE WANTS TO DO WHICH IS PRESERVE THE STRUCTURE AND MEET THE SETBACK WITH THE NEW BUILDING.

IT'S A NEW BUILDING AND IT HAS TO REST ON THE NORTH WALL THEN I SEE A HARDSHIP BUT IF IT DOESN'T REST ON THAT WALL THEN

[04:20:01]

I WOULD ASK THE BOARD WHAT IS YOUR PLEASURE AND I SEE DOCTOR

MCCORMICK ON THE KEY. >> I HAVE ANOTHER QUESTION.

I GUESS FOR YOU. ON BOTH SIDES OF THE PROPERTY WE HAVE PUBLIC EASEMENTS THE BLUE PATH, THE GREEN PATH, ONE IS FOR ECOLOGY PURPOSES THE OTHER IS A PATH TO THE OCEAN.

WHAT DO YOU DO ABOUT THOSE PUBLIC EASEMENTS IF YOU HAVE

MOVED THIS VARIANCE? >> AGAIN, THIS REQUEST IS NOT TO GO INTO ANY OF THOSE EASEMENTS AT ALL.

THIS REQUEST IS NOT TO GO INTO THESE AT ALL.

IT IS TO COME AND BUILD WHERE THIS CURRENT STRUCTURE IS APPROXIMATELY FIVE FEET SEVEN INCHES FROM THE PROPERTY LINE AND NOT TO GO BACK ANY FURTHER AND TO TAKE OFF THIS NONCONFORMING GARAGE IN THE FRONT WHICH IS IN THE FRONT SETBACK. THAT IS THE REQUEST.

THERE'S NO REQUEST AT ALL TO INFRINGE ON THESE WHICH IS THE

EASEMENT 30 FEET WIDE. >> YOU ARE SAYING THAT WELL, YOU ARE GOING TO CONTINUE PUBLIC IS GOING TO CONTINUE TO MAINTAIN THOSE TWO EASEMENTS, IS THAT WHAT YOU ARE SAYING?

>> ST. JOHNS COUNTY OWNS THEM WHETHER OR NOT THERE IS A PUBLIC PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP. IF YOU'RE ASKING ME THAT THESE PEOPLE WOULD LIKE TO MAINTAIN THIS I'M SURE THEY WOULD BE GLAD TO. IT'S RIGHT NEXT TO THEIR HOUSE IT'S GOING TO BE RIGHT NEXT TO THEIR HOUSE AND IF THEY WANT TO MAINTAIN A PROGRAM WITH THE COUNTY TOMB MAINTAIN IT AND LANDSCAPE IT BUT IT'S COUNTY PROPERTY AND THEY CAN'T DO IT WITHOUT COUNTY'S APPROVAL BUT THEY WOULD.

I CAN COMMIT TO THAT FOR THEM. >> DOCTOR?

>> THIS IS MORE OF A COMMENT THAN A QUESTION.

I'M GOING TO HAVE TO SAY THAT I AGREE WITH MR. MATT AVINA.

[LAUGHTER] >> REALLY.

[LAUGHTER] >> WE DON'T HAVE ENOUGH INFORMATION HERE TO REALLY MAKE A SOUND DECISION ON THIS.

FROM A STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING POINT DOES THAT NEW ADDITION HAVE TO REST ON THE NORTH WALL OR NOT? I DON'T SEE THE HARDSHIP HERE. IT IS GREAT THAT THEY WANT TO PRESERVE THIS PROPERTY. I THINK IT'S HISTORICALLY SIGNIFICANT. JAN BREWER SAID SHE READ OUT ALL OF THE WORK THEY HAD DONE AND I THINK IT IS CULTURALLY SIGNIFICANT HISTORICALLY SIGNIFICANT WHATEVER YOU WANT TO CALL IT BUT I DON'T SEE THE HARDSHIP HERE THAT COULD CONSERVE THE HOUSE AND BUILD WITHIN THE CONFINES WITHOUT A VARIANCE. CAN THEY OR CAN THEY NOT.

I DON'T THINK WE HAVE ENOUGH INFORMATION TO MAKE AN INFORMED

DECISION. >> THIS IS YOUR CODE ZONING

VARIANCE. >> MR. WHITEHOUSE, I HAVE A QUESTION FOR YOU. WHAT YOUR CLIENT INCURS TO POSTPONE THIS UNTIL YOU BRING BACK ADDITIONAL INFORMATION?

>> THANK YOU. I WILL INTO THAT.

I WILL IS THAT BY SAYING THE LANGUAGE OF YOUR CODE THAT YOU ARE BOTH REFERRING TO SAYS THERE'S NO HARDSHIP COULD THUS THE LANGUAGE OF YOUR CODE. THE LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE REQUIREMENT OF THIS CODE WOULD DO UNDUE HARDSHIP TO CARRY OUT THE SPIRIT AND PURPOSE OF THIS CODE.

IT IS STATED WITHIN YOUR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.

YOUR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN IS TO PRESERVE HISTORICALLY SIGNIFICANT STRUCTURES IF THE VARIANCE ISN'T GRANTED AND IF THE PROPERTY IS DEMOLISHED THEN THAT'S NOT CARRYING OUT THE SPIRIT AND PURPOSES CODE. THEREFORE, THE FACT OF THE MATTER IS THE EXISTING PROPERTY WITHIN THE SETBACK AND THE REQUEST TO COMPROMISE AND BUILD AROUND IT AND PRESERVE THE HISTORY IS THAT IS THE UNDUE HARDSHIP.

THE FACT THAT THE PROPERTY EXISTS, IT WAS BUILT THERE.

THEY DIDN'T PUT IT THERE. THE NOT MAKING IT UP THAT THIS IS HISTORICALLY SIGNIFICANT PROPERTY.

YOUR STAFF JUST TOLD YOU IT IS. THE FACT OF THE MATTER IS THAT'S THE HARDSHIP. HARDSHIP IS THIS PROPERTY WILL BE LOST FOREVER AND AGAIN THIS WASN'T MEANT TO BECOME ADVERSARIAL THAT IS WHAT IS GOING TO HAPPEN TO THE PROPERTY. WE CAN GO BACK AND HAVE A NEAR SAY IT NEEDS TO BE BUILT THIS WAY BUT THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE REST FOR THE VARIANCE. THE REQUEST FOR THE VARIANCE IS

[04:25:02]

EVERYTHING UP ON PELICAN WAY THEY ARE ALL 35 FOOT HIGH THREE-STORY PORCH IS UTTER A THERE NOT ASKING FOR ANYTHING OUT OF THE ORDINARY BUT A COMPROMISE TO PRESERVE THIS TO BE ABLE TO BUILD OVER IT AND WE CAN CONTINUE AND COME BACK NEXT MEETING AND TELL YOU THAT AN ENGINEER IS GOING TO SAY YOU HAVE TO BUILT OVER IT IN THIS MANNER AND THAT'S HOW YOU BUILD IT IT IS POSSIBLE YOU COULD BUILD IT OVER THIS WAY.

I THINK THIS IS A DIFFERENT ASK.

THIS IS TO PRESERVE A PIECE OF HISTORY FOREVER IN ANY CAVE.

>> MR. WHITEHOUSE I THINK THAT YOU KNOW THAT SEVERAL OF US ARE ON THE FENCE. ARE YOU READY TO COME BACK WITH A PLAN IN MORE DETAIL? OR DO YOU WANT TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THE MOTION AND SEE HOW IT GOES?

>> IF YOU JUST GIVE ME A MINUTE TO DISCUSS WITH MY CLIENT BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY THAT IS NOT MY DECISION TO MY DECISION WOULD BE PROCEDURALLY THEY WOULD MOVE FORWARD.

>> MR. WHITEHOUSE GO SEE YOUR CLIENT PLEASE.

>> SORRY ABOUT THAT. YES.

IF WE WANT TO CONTINUE THIS TO THE NEXT MEETING WE WILL GO AND TALK TO THE ENGINEERS TO TRY TO GET SOMETING IN WRITING OR IF

[04:30:02]

[7. Pacetti Road Plaza PUD. Request for a Major Modification to the Pacetti Road Plaza PUD (ORD. 2010-1, as amended) to increase allowable retail and office square footage from 36,403 square feet to 114,003 square feet to allow for a Self-Storage facility.]

>> IS THERE A MOTION? ?

>> I NEED TO CONTINUE WITH VARIANCE 2021 ? 29 TO THE NEXT MEETING WHICH WILL BE A GORY 17TH.

>> SECOND. >> SECOND GRADE IS THERE ANY

DISCUSSION? >>.

[INDISCERNABLE] >> THEY ARE SETTING THE TIME.

>> ALL RIGHT. ANY OTHER DISCUSSION?

LET'S REGISTER THE VOTE. >> THAT MOTION PASSES.

WE WILL CONTINUE IN TWO WEEKS. >> THINK YOU, I APPRECIATE IT.

>> MR. BURNETT? I AM GOING TO TALK LIKE I AM AT A CATTLE AUCTION IF THAT'S OKAY.

I AM HERE TODAY FOR THE MAJOR MODIFICATION OF THE STUDY ROAD PUD. MANY OF YOU WHO DRIVE BY IT ARE FAMILIAR WITH WHAT IS THERE BUT I WILL WALK YOU THROUGH THE LOCATION BRIEFLY HERE. YOU CAN SEE I-95 STATE ROAD 15 THE OTHER SIDE OF THE ROAD IS A GP SOUTH OF THERE IS WHERE WE ARE TALKING ABOUT. LOOKING CLOSER AT THE PROPERTY YOU CAN SEE THE MIDDLE SCHOOL WHERE REVERB CHURCH HAS HELD ITS SERVICES FOR A LONG PERIOD OF TIME.

A FOOTNOTE, REVERB CHURCH BOUGHT THE PJ FIELD BUILDING.

ANYWAY, YOU CAN SEE THE EXISTING PET SPOT THAT CLINIC A LITTLE CLOSER LOOK AT IT, THE EXISTING PROPERTY IN THE BIG BAT CLEAR AREA. THE TOP RIGHT IS WHAT WERE TALKING ABOUT FOR THIS PROJECT. TAKING A LOOK AT THE APPROVED PROJECT YOU CAN SEE THE EXISTING MAP IN THE ENTRANCE INTO THE PROJECT. THE SIGN FOR THE MIRABELLA ANIMAL HOSPITAL AND OF COURSE THE SPA BUILDING.

THERE ARE TWO BUILDINGS ONE IS LARGER THAN THE OTHER.

AND THEN OF COURSE IF YOU ZOOM IN AND TAKE THAT ARIEL AND SHOW THE EXISTING THAT BUILDING ON THE CURRENTLY APPROVED MPT MAP YOU CAN SEE THE EXISTING COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS WHICH WOULD BE COMMERCIAL RETAIL OFFICE AND NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL USES. THIS MODIFICATION LEAVES THE VET PORTION CLINIC THE WAY IT IS AND MAKES NO CHANGES THERE BUT IT DOES CONVERT THE RETAIL COMMERCIAL GENERAL TYPE USES INTO SELF STORAGE. ONE LARGER BUILDING THAT WOULD BE THE INTERIOR STORAGE AND TWO OTHER BUILDINGS A MORE TRADITIONAL TYPE STORAGE IN THE POND EXTENDED IN THE NORTH SIDE AND THE GREEN IS A DOG WALK THAT WOULD GO AROUND THE BACKSIDE OF THE BUILDING AND MAKES A CIRCULAR PATH SO YOU ARE THERE WALKING IN ANIMAL IT MAKES IT NICE.

TO COMPARE THE TWO PROJECTS, MIRABELLA PET SPA REMAINS UNCHANGED. THE ONLY THING THAT WILL BE CHANGED WILL BE THE RETAIL SPACE OFFICE TO THE 6000 SQUARE FEET OF SELF STORAGE. A COUPLE OF KEY FACTORS AS YOU ALL KNOW WHEN YOU'VE BEEN ON THE BOARD FOR A LITTLE BIT OF TIME YOU VERY QUICKLY LEARN ABOUT TRIP GENERATION AND TRIP GENERATION LEVELS. THIS RESULTS IN A SIGNIFICANT REDUCTION OF TRIP DEMAND AND YOU CAN SEE THE REDUCTION OF REQUIRED PARKING SPACES ON THE LEFT.

YOU CAN SEE THE INTENSITY OF PARKING THAT IS REQUIRED VERSUS SELF STORAGE ON THE RIGHT. A LOW NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES THAT WOULD BE REQUIRED. TO COMPARE TRAFFIC, SELF STORAGE DAILY YOU CAN SEE 160 PEAK HOURS.

IF YOU LOOK AT THE OTHER USES THAT WOULD POTENTIALLY BE THERE AND YOU SAY UNDER THE PUD IT WOULD BE REASONABLE TO THINK YOU COULD HAVE A SHOPPING CENTER AND SITDOWN RESTAURANT.

YOU ARE LOOKING AT 10 TIMES OR MORE IN TRIP DURATION FROM WHAT THE CURRENT USE WOULD BE. WE THINK YOU GOT A GREAT LOCATION FOR THIS. SOMETHING THAT REDUCES THE LEVEL OF INTENSITY FOR THE AREA.

IT IS WELL BUFFERE WITH OTHER USES IN THE AREA AND A PET WHEN IT. OBVIOUSLY WE'VE ALREADY GOT THE

[04:35:01]

AND THAT'S MY PRESENTATION AND I WOULD BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY

QUESTIONS. >> DO WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS?

>> TWO THINGS OF NOTE, MR. CHAIR, WE HAD A COMMUNITY MEETING AND NO ONE APPEARED FOR THE COMMUNITY MEETING AND I THINK THIS ONE IS LOW ON THE RADAR.

I HAVEN'T HEARD ANYTHING AND KNOCK ON WOOD THAT CONTINUES TO BE TRUE. I THINK THIS IS A USE THAT IS NOT IN AN AREA THAT HAS OBJECTION TO IT.

ONE OTHER THING IS A HOUSEKEEPING MATTER.

IN THE PUD TEXT FOR SELF STORAGE USES IT PROVIDES THAT NO INDIVIDUAL USE CAN BE MORE THAN 400 SQUARE FEET USING MATH IT IS 10 FEET BY 40 FEET THAT'S THE TRADITIONAL OLD STANDARD FROM WHAT I UNDERSTAND. MY CLIENT NOT ONLY OPERATES THESE USES, THEY BUILT THEM AROUND THE COUNTRY.

THEY TELL ME THAT THE STANDARD NOW IS TO GO TO A 12 FOOT WIDE UNIT THE SAME DEPTH BUT A WIDER UNIT AT 12 FEET.

BECAUSE SEVEN AND EIGHT FOOT DOORS GET HIT BY VEHICLES TO EASILY AND THEY WANT TO DO A NINE FOOT DOOR.

IF YOU DO A NINE FOOT DOOR THERE'S NOT ENOUGH STRENGTH AND MATERIAL TO ATTEND WIDE UNIT WITH AN IRON DOOR.

THE UNITS GO TO 12 FEET WITHIN NINE DOOR MAYBE A 10 FOOT DOOR BUT DEFINITELY 12 FEET IN WIDTH.

IF YOU GO 12 I40 YOU GET 480 SQUARE FEET UNIT.

THE ONE THING WE WOULD LIKE TO REVISE ON THE TEXT AND I WILL PUT THIS UP HERE, THIS REDLINE IS VERY SIMPLE.

WE WOULD LIKE TO GO FROM 400 SQUARE FEET FOR AN INDIVIDUAL UNIT TO 500 PER UNIT AND WE HAVE EXTRA COPIES OF THIS.

HE SURE TO GIVE AN EXTRA COPY TO THE CLERK AND LEGAL COUNSEL.

THAT'S IT. I DON'T KNOW IF THE BCC WILL REQUIRE US TO ADD A WAIVER TO THE PERMIT.

THE SPECIAL USE REQUIREMENTS IN THE CODE SPELL OUT THESE PROVISIONS BUT IT MIGHT BE THAT YOUR PROVISIONS FOR THIS ARE OUT OF DATE WITH BOTTOM LINE IS MY CLIENT TELLS ME THIS IS THE INDUSTRY STANDARD TO PLEASE ADD THIS.

I WILL WORK IT OUT BETWEEN THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS IF THIS REQUIRES A WAIVER ADDED TO THE PUD MODIFICATION.

IF IT IS WE WILL MAKE SURE WE TAKE THAT CARE OF BY THE BCC.

I WOULD REQUEST THAT YOU INCLUDE THIS IN YOUR RECOMMENDATION TODAY. IT'S IMPORTANT.

YOU DON'T WANT TO LEAVE HERE AND MOVE ON TO THE COUNTY COMMISSION WAS SOMETHING THAT IS MORE INTENSE THAT YOU ALL

DID NOT LOOK AT. >> DOCTOR HUMAN.

>> WE HAD A PREVIOUS APPLICANT TELL US THAT PEOPLE ARE CRYING OUT FOR OFFICE SPACE SO YOU WILL NOW JETTISON THIS POTENTIAL OFFICE SPACE FOR SELF STORAGE? IS THAT A WISE BUSINESS MOVE? TONGUE-IN-CHEEK.

SORRY. YOU HAD A DILLY ANOTHER PROJECT THAT YOU REPRESENTED WAS A STORAGE UNIT OUT BY WARDS CREEK ELEMENTARY FURTHER WEST FROM HERE AND PEOPLE WITH THE GOLF COURSE OUT THERE WERE VERY UPSET ABOUT THAT.

SO MANY FAMILY PARTNERSHIP PROPERTIES.

SO, NOBODY IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD BEHIND HERE HAS COMPLAINED ABOUT ALL THE USES AND THINGS THAT COULD HAPPEN WITH SELF STORAGE UNIT BACKING UP TO A MIDDLE SCHOOL OR ELEMENTARY

SCHOOL? >> NO SIR.

AND STATISTICALLY, CRIME LEVELS ARE LOW AT THE LOCATIONS OF THE KEY FUNCTION OF THOSE LOCATIONS IT IS SECURED.

AND SO, GIVE NO CREDIBILITY TO STORE SOMEONE'S PROPERTY IF IT'S NOT SECURED AND MAINTAINED.

THEY'RE USUALLY VERY LOW TRIP GENERATORS LOW DEMANDS ON PUBLIC SERVICES. IT'S IN A GOOD LOCATION AND THE SCHOOL IS BEHIND IT. AS WELL BUFFERED FROM MEADOWLARK LANE TO THE NORTH. BECAUSE THERE'S A HUGE BUFFER AS PART OF THE PUD TO THE NORTH.

>> DOES ANYONE LOW BACK THERE IN THE VETERINARY CLINIC AND

THE ANIMAL PET SPA? >> I DON'T KNOW IF THEY HAVE OVERNIGHT EMPLOYEES. I DON'T THINK SO.

I WILL CERTAINLY FIND OUT. >> ALL RIGHT.

DOES ANYBODY ELSE HAVE A QUESTION?

>> I HAVE ONE. IT COULD BE TO THE STAFF OR APPLICANT. YOU ARE NOT SPECIFYING THAT THIS 106,000 SQUARE FEET IS BEING LIMITED TO SELF STORAGE.

[04:40:02]

>> NO SIR. WILL MAKE THAT CLARIFICATION IF IT'S NOT IN THE PUD TEXT. WILL ABSOLUTELY MAKE THAT CLARIFICATION. 106,000 IS FOR SELF STORAGE.

WE CAN MAKE THAT CLARIFICATION SAY IF IT'S NOT SELF STORAGE THEN ABOUT 20,500 OR WHATEVER THAT NUMBER IS PUT UP IN MY

PRESENTATION FOR OTHER USES. >> MY CLIENT, BY THE WAY HAS ALREADY CLOSED ON THIS PROPERTY AND ACQUIRED THE PROPERTY THAT

IS SUBJECT TO THIS MAJOR MOD. >> DOES ANYBODY ELSE HAVE QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT AND DO WE HAVE PUBLIC SPEAKER

CARDS? >> WE DO.

FELICIA HERSHEY? >> HELLO.

MY NAME IS FELICIA HERSHEY. I RECENTLY FOUND THIS ON A FACEBOOK GROUP AND I BOUGHT MY PROPERTY IN LATE OCTOBER.

DO YOU KNOW THE SAYING WHERE YOU SAID IS WHAT YOU SEE HOPE I CAN GIVE YOU A GLIMPSE OF WHAT I AM SEEING AND WHAT I SEE.

I AM A HOMEOWNER DIRECTLY ACROSS FROM THE ZONING REQUEST.

I'M ASKING WE KEEP THE ZONING RESIDENTIAL A AND WE DENIED THE COMMERCIAL ZONING. AS PLENTY OF SELF STORAGE IN THE VICINITY THAT ARE LOCATED IN MORE APPROPRIATE AREAS SURROUNDED BY COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENTS.

THIS IS A RESIDENTIAL AREA WHERE YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT PUTTING A COMMERCIAL PROPERTY AND NEIGHBORHOODS.

THERE IS ALSO A SCHOOL BACKING UP WITH THE PROPERTY.

THE FUTURE LAND USE SHOWS THIS PROPERTY TO EXPAND TO MAKE IT AN INTENSE PROPERTY AND IS NOT A GOOD FIT FOR NEIGHBORHOOD.

OUR AREA IS MADE UP PRIMARILY OF HOMES FOR KIDS.

IT WILL CREATE LIGHTS AND NOISE AND HOURS OF OPERATION WOULD BE 6 AM TO 7 AM AND IF YOU CONTINUE TO REACH THIS APPLICATION IT SAYS RENTERS CAN HAVE ELECTRONIC ACCESS 24 SEVEN. THIS WOULD BE ADJACENT TO NEIGHBORHOODS COULD CONSTRUCT A BUILDING THREE STORIES OR 35 FEET IN HEIGHT. THE PROPOSED BUFFERS WOULD BE IN ETIQUETTE FROM VIEW. THIS WOULD AFFECT OUR HOME PROPERTY VALUES HAVING THE BUSINESS RIGHT ACROSS THE INTERIM THIS. THE ORIGINAL PERMIT WAS FOR 36,000 AND THIS REQUEST WOULD TRIPLE THE SIZE PER MORE THAN TRIPLING THE IMPACT OF THE EXISTING 7000 SQUARE-FOOT ANIMAL CLINIC. THIS REQUEST IS INCOMPATIBLE WITH OUR AREA AND I ASK YOU PLEASE CONSIDER THIS AND DO NOT APPROVE THE ZONING. NOT ONLY ARE THEY INCOMPATIBLE THIS REQUEST IS NOT CONSISTENT WITH THE ACTIVES AND POLICIES OF THE 2025 ST. JOHN COUNTY COMPLIANCE PLAN OR THE ST.

JOHN'S COUNTY DEVELOPMENT CODE AS MENTIONED IN THE COMMENT SPICE ST. JOHN COUNTY GROWTH MANAGEMENT STAFF AND PUBLIC DOCUMENT. I ASK YOU VOTE TO DENY THIS.

IF YOU SEE ON THE MAP YOU CAN SEE I HAVE, THIS IS WHERE I LIVE RIGHT HERE THIS IS THE ZONING REQUEST AND THIS IS ALL

NEIGHBORHOODS. >> THANK YOU, YOU WILL NEED TO

TURN THAT PAPER IN. >> CHECK LEBEN ASCII?

>> CHECK LEBEN I LIVE RIGHT ACROSS THE STREET FROM THIS PLANNED STORAGE PROPOSAL. SHE'S RIGHT.

THIS WENT UNDER THE RADAR WE SAW NO NOTIFICATION ON THIS.

I FOUND OUT ABOUT THIS TWO DAYS AGO AND THAT DOESN'T GIVE US MUCH TIME TO A MEETING THAT WE HEARD NOTHING ABOUT.

BCC KNOWS THAT I AM QUITE ACTIVE IN THE COMMUNITY.

THE CONCERN IS THE LOCATION OF THIS IS DIRECTLY ACROSS THE STREET FROM SAMIR LAKES, RIGHT BEHIND THE SCHOOL.

THIS IS NOT THE PLACE FOR THIS TYPE OF FACILITY.

RIGHT NOW ON 16 JUST DOWN THE STREET FROM MIRABELLA THERE IS A STORAGE ORAGE FACILITY BEING BUILT AS WE SPEAK RIGHT NOW.

DOWN THE OTHER DIRECTION OVER NEAR THE ACE HARDWARE THERE IS A GIANT U-HAUL FACILITY THAT'S GOING IN THERE.

WE DON'T NEED ANOTHER ONE IN THAT AREA.

THE OPPOSITE SIDE OF I-95 THERE IS A STORAGE FACILITY THERE.

ENOUGH ON THE STORAGE FACILITIES.

THIS IS A BAD LOCATION FOR THIS TYPE OF FACILITY.

THANK YOU. >> ARE THERE ANYMORE SPEAKER CARDS? MR. BURNETT WOULD YOU LIKE TO

OFFER SOME REBUTTAL? >> I THINK THE BIGGEST POINT I

[04:45:05]

YOU DO A SERVICE BY REDUCING THE LEVEL OF TRIPS AND NUMBER OF TRIPS THAT WILL BE COMING THROUGH IN THIS LOCATION OTHERWISE IS GOING TO BE RETAIL OFFICE USE AT A LOCATION THAT IS OUTSIDE OF THE DRA WERE IS PLANNED MORE THOROUGHLY.

THE LOW TRIP GENERATOR AT THIS LOCATION WITH THE ACCESS IT HAS IS ACTUALLY IDEAL. DOES IT HAVE FULL ACCESS? YES. YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT A SIGNIFICANT IMPROVEMENT. THE ISSUE OF LIGHTS AND NOISE AND ALL THESE THINGS THAT WE SPOKE ABOUT ARE THE THINGS YOU WILL HAVE BY A SIGNIFICANTLY HIGHER LEVEL IF THIS MODIFICATION IS NOT APPROVED BECAUSE YOU WILL GET 25,000 FEET OF COMMERCIAL USE RATHER THAN THE QUIET LOW TRIP LOW-VOLUME LOW INTENSITY OF A SELF STORAGE BUILDING.

THE BUILDING IS SETBACK FROM THE FRONT AND YOU WILL HAVE MATURE TREES ON SITE ALREADY. YOU WOULD HAVE TO MEET THE LANDSCAPE OFFER REQUIREMENTS THEY HAVE ENCODED ANYWAY.

WITH WOULD ASK YOU TO SUPPORT THIS MODIFICATION.

IT MAKES SENSE IN THE AREA ANYWAY.

I UNDERSTAND THE MOTION COULD BE MR. MONTESINOS POINT REGARDING OVERALL SQUARE FOOTAGE.

WE WOULD BE FINE WITH MAKING SURE WE CLARIFIED IT'S NOT CHANGING THE SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THE USE OF SELF STORAGE.

SHE WOULD ALSO ASK THE SIZE OF THE UNIT BE INCREASED AS I

POINTED OUT. >> ALL RIGHT.

WE ARE BACK INTO THE AGENCY FOR A MOTION?

>> MISS PERKINS? >> I COULD MAKE A MOTION OR MAKE A MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF THE MOD AS PROVIDED IN THE STAFF REPORT AS WELL AS THE REDLINE PROVISIONS THAT YOU PROVIDED. IT WAS ADDED TO THE PUD AND THE MAX SQUARE FOOTAGE OF SELF STORAGE WOULD BE THE 114 AND THREE SQUARE FEET OF SELF STORAGE FACILITY THAT WAS

JUMBLED BUT THAT WAS MY MOTION. >> IS THERE A SECOND FOR MISS

PERKINS MOTION? >> I CAN.

>> SECOND BY MR. PIERRE. IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION? MISS PERKINS? WOULD YOU CONSIDER AN MR. P OR WOULD YOU CONSIDER A MOTION TO INCREASE THE ALLOWABLE SQUARE FOOTAGE TO EACH UNIT TWO 480 SQUARE FEET WHICH WAS A REQUEST

[8. REZ 2021-33 Oak Trail Preserve. A request to rezone approximately 36.24 acres from Planned Unit Development (PUD) to Open Rural (OR), located along the east side of North Roscoe Boulevard and includes a portion of North Wilderness Trail.]

USES? >>.

[INDISCERNABLE] >> MR. PIERRE? THANK YOU. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION?

HEARING ON REGISTER THE VOTE. >> THAT MOTION PASSES 5-1.

ALL RIGHT. DO WE NEED A BREAK?

DOES ANYONE NEED A BREAK? >> NUMBER.

>> I DIDN'T THINK SO. MS. TAYLOR YOU ARE UP FOR TWO ITEMS IN A ROW. PEOPLE MAY TAKE A BREAK WILL YOU GIVE THE TWO ITEMS. IT'S OKAY.

[LAUGHTER] I DON'T AGREE WANT TO SLOW DOWN AT THIS POINT.

WELL, IF WE SLOW DOWN IS GOING TO BE A PROBLEM IS TAYLOR SO

PLEASE GO QUICKLY. >> IS ALL THIS IS THE WATER

[04:50:54]

36.2 ACRES FOR 26 RESIDENTIAL LOTS.

THEY WILL LEAVE THE BACK NORTH WILDERNESS PART AND COME THROUGH THE MIDDLE OR WHATEVER AND JUST AS A COMPARISON, JUST INCLUDED THE LOT SIZES WERE TO BE 12,000 SQUARE FEET AND THEY DID TO THE RIGHT-OF-WAY RESERVATION BUT EVERYONE WOULD HAVE TO DO THAT AS WELL. THIS IS THE ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION THAT WENT WITH IT AND I WILL GO PAST THAT AS WELL. THIS IS KIND OF AN OUTLINE AND SHOW YOU THE LOTS THAT ARE IN THE ORIGINAL PLAT.

THE PLOTS ARE UNDERNEATH IT, THEY DID NOT VACATE THAT THE PUD. THESE LOTS WOULD BE ALONG ROSCOE AND THEN WE HAVE THE OTHER PLATTED LOTS ON NORTH WILDERNESS AND IT COMES RIGHT THROUGH THE CENTER OF THOSE LOG. THE LAND-USE AGAIN WOULD BE ON THE SIDE FOR THE FIVE ACRE LOT AND THE OTHER ONE WOULD BE TO AND A HALF ACRE LOT AND WERE NOT MAKING ANY CHANGES TO THOSE. THE IDEA IS TO GO BACK TO AN AGRICULTURAL TYPE USE BUT IT HAS TO BE A MINIMUM OF ONE ACRE LOT. I DID THIS, INCLUDED THIS TO SHOW IN THE SURVEY AND SHOW THE AMOUNT OF WETLAND ON THE WILDERNESS AREA. I FIGURE THERE MIGHT BE SOME CONCERNS. THERE ARE SOME NICE HOMES ALONG HERE OR WHATEVER AND THERE'S NOT LIKE THERE'S GOING TO BE A BUNCH OF HOMES PUT INTO THAT AREA.

THE PEOPLE THAT BOUGHT IT ARE USING IT FOR THEIR OWN PURPOSES AND CAMPING AND USING THE WATERWAY.

THIS IS JUST IN CASE WE HAVE QUESTIONS AS TO WHAT THE AGRICULTURAL USES MIGHT BE. THIS IS A PICTURE FROM ROSCOE BOULEVARD ENTRANCE FROM A SUBDIVISION IMMEDIATELY FROM THE NORTH OF THIS. THIS IS AN AERIAL DRONE THAT SHOWS YOU THE PIECE OF PROPERTY THE BEGINNING OF THE WATERWAY THAT I WAS TALKING ABOUT. THIS IS FROM THE OTHER SUBDIVISION THAT WAS BUILT TO GET TO THE CORNER OF THAT AND SHOW YOU SOME OF THE EDUCATION ALONG THE BOUNDARY.

THIS IS LOOKING TO THE SOUTH AND WE WERE IN THAT GENERAL AREA AND THIS IS A FEW DRONE SHOTS TO GIVE YOU AN IDEA.

HERE IS THE WATERWAY I WAS TALKING ABOUT IN THE BACK OF THAT LOT OF THOSE FIVE ACRE LOT.

WE WOULD BE ABOUT HERE AND YOU'RE GETTING INTO THE WILDERNESS TRAIL. THIS IS WHAT THAT LOOKS LIKE.

THEN THIS WOULD BE A VIEW LOOKING AT WILDERNESS TRAIL THAT COMES ALONG IN HERE SO YOU CAN SEE WHAT THE HOUSES ARE IN THIS IS THE PROPERTY THAT PORTION, YOU CAN SEE THE COUNTY TREATMENT CENTER. JUST ANOTHER LOOK AT THE SITES AND LOOKING INTO IT. WE DO FEEL IT IS COMPATIBLE WITH THE AREA APPROPRIATE FOR THE SINGLE-FAMILY LOT THAT ARE THERE AND IT MATCHES THAT EXISTED AND LESS INTENSE IT WOULD EVER BE THEN THE PUD WAS. RESIDENTIAL AMB WILL REMAIN AND CONSISTENT WITH THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AND WE ARE REQUESTING RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL.

I WOULD BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY RECOMMENDATIONS.

>> DOES ANYONE HAVE A QUESTION? I ACTUALLY HAVE ONE.

THERE'S A LOT OF USE IS THE INTENT FOR THE TWO LOTS IN THE

[04:55:02]

>> NUMBER. >> NOT AT ALL.

>> RESIDENTIAL USE IS WHAT THEY INTENDED?

>> YES. IF EVEN THAT.

RIGHT NOW IT IS A BEAUTIFUL PIECE OF PROPERTY AND AS YOU CAN SEE THERE ARE SO MANY WETLANDS TO IT.

YOU COULDN'T DO ANYTHING BACK THERE.

>> DO WE HAVE ANY SPEAKER CARDS?

>> WE DO. TIMOTHY WELCH?

>> MY NAME IS TJ WELCH ON THE PRESIDENT OF THE SAWGRASS PLAYERS CLUB. WE OWNED THE LAND IN THE EASEMENT IN THIS AREA RIGHT HERE.

I LIVE AT 115 CREEKS EDGE COURT IN PONTEVEDRA AND AM GOING TO READ IN THE LETTER WE COULD SEND IN TO THE BOARD.

DEAR PLANNING ZONE MEMBERS AND STAFF PAID WE JUST RECEIVED THE REZONING APPLICATION FOR OAK TRAIL PRESERVE AND AS AN ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER FROM THE NORTH WE HAVE CONCERNS ABOUT POTENTIAL UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS AND ASSOCIATED LIABILITY TO THE POWERLINE EASEMENT WHICH IS OWNED BY US AS WELL AS SAWGRASS PLAYERS CLUB, TEEPEES SAWGRASS AND PLAYERS CLUB AUTHORITIES. THE APPROVED ANY 16 PUD FOR THESE PARCELS CONTAIN CONDITIONS THAT PROVIDE PROTECTION FROM UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS FROM ADJACENT PROPERTY.

SECTION H 1 ? 4 ADDRESSED ACCESS AND INTERCONNECTIVITY STATING THAT THERE WOULD BE NO ACCESS FROM WILDERNESS TRL., ROAD FROM THE DEVELOPMENT NOR WILL THEY BE PASSED THROUGH CONNECTIVITY TO OTHER ADJACENT PARCELS.

THEY STATED AN OPAQUE SIX FOOT SOLID FENCE WOULD BE INSTALLED ALONG THE NORTHERNMOST PROPERTY LINE OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT PARCELS SHARED WITH POWERLINE EASEMENT.

WE WOULD SIMPLY REQUEST THE CONDITIONS IN SECTION H ONE AND IN BE PER THE APPLICATION REQUEST IN ADDITION WE REQUEST THE FENCE HEIGHT THE INCREASE TO 10 FEET FOR ADDITIONAL SCREENING AND ACCESS PREVENTION.

WE HAVE HAD SOME INCURSIONS IN THAT AREA AND STICKLEY FOR SAFETY REASONS WE ARE TRYING TO GET THE FENCE A LITTLE BIT HIGHER THAN THAT ELECTRICAL EASEMENT.

>> THANK YOU. >> MS. TAYLOR WOULD YOU LIKE TO

OFFER SUMMER BOTTLE? >> I DID NOT RECEIVE ANY COPY OF ANY LETTER SO IS THERE A LETTER IN THE FILE?

>> ANYWAY, JUST TO GO BACK WITH IT, THIS DOESN'T MAKE ANY SENSE TO ME BUT THAT'S OKAY. I AM GOING TO GO BACK AND SHOW YOU AGAIN AND I'M GLAD I PUT IN THE WETLANDS.

THEY ARE OBVIOUSLY SHOWN ON THESE PROPERTIES.

THERE'S NO ACCESS PLANS OR ANYTHING.

WILDERNESS IS NOT VACATED BUT ALSO NOT OPENED.

IN ORDER TO ACCESS THAT PROPERTY YOU WOULD HAVE TO OPEN THAT TO COUNTY STANDARDS. YOU WOULD HAVE TO MITIGATE FOR AT LEAST THE 60 FOOT WIDE IN ORDER TO BE ABLE TO DO THAT.

YOU HAVE POCKETS, VERY SMALL POCKET OF UPLAND'S.HE WHOLE IDEA IS TO NOT USE THAT AND NOT ACCESS THAT.

IN THE ORIGINAL PUD IF YOU LOOK BACK THE CONDITIONS HAD TO DO WITH THE AREA HERE AND DID NOT ADDRESS ANYTHING BACK IN HERE.

THIS WOULD BE WILDERNESS AND WHERE WILDERNESS WOULD COME THROUGH. THIS WAS THE ONLY AREA THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN ACCESSED OR WHATEVER HORN INDIVIDUAL TO PUT UP A 10 FOOT FENCE BECAUSE THERE IS A POWER EASEMENT OR DRIVEWAY EASEMENT THERE IS A VERY BIG SURPRISE TO ME.

THEY HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY FOR PEOPLE TO ACCESS THAT AND IT'S GOING TO BE DECREASED, NOT INCREASED BY THIS.

AND AGAIN, I AM SURPRISED BECAUSE I HADN'T HEARD FROM ANYBODY ON THIS BUT THIS IS REALLY JUST TO GET THIS BACK TO OLAR AND I GUESS THAT'S THE ANSWER TO THE EARLIER QUESTION FROM MR. MATT AVINA AS WELL. IF YOU LOOK AT IT MATCHES

[05:00:03]

>> THANK YOU. >> OKAY.

DOCTOR HILTON BACK? >> IF THEY WERE REQUIRED TO PUT UP A 10 FOOT FENCE WOULD THEY HAVE TO PUT UP A VARIANCE FOR

THAT? >> I DON'T THINK WE ALLOW 10

FOOT FENCES IN THIS COUNTY. >> I DIDN'T THINK SO.

[LAUGHTER] >> MR. CHAIRMAN OPEN RURAL ZONING DOES NOT HAVE A FOOT HEIGHT REQUIREMENT AND NO

VARIANCE WOULD BE REQUIRED. >> THANK YOU.

ALL RIGHT, DO WE HAVE A MOTION? >> DID WE CALL FOR EX PARTE ON

[9. REZ 2021-36 205 Commercial Drive. Request to rezone approximately nine (9) acres of land from Industrial Warehousing (IW) with Conditions to Commercial Warehouse (CW) to allow for boat sales and service. The site to be rezoned is the six (6) acre developed parcel located at 205 Commercial Drive and the three (3) acre undeveloped parcel to the west of 205 Commercial Drive.]

THIS ONE? >> I'M NOT SURE.

[BLEEP] DEE TODAY? >> IS THERE ANY EXPORT TAKEN

COMMUNICATION ON THIS ITEM? >> THANK YOU.

>> YES, SIR HUMA. >> MR. PETER?

>> I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO MAKE AN APPROVAL OF REZONING 2220 21 OAK TREE PRESERVE TO SUPPORT THE MOTION AS PROVIDED IN THE STAFF REPORT.

>> MOTION FOR APPROVAL? >> I CAN.

SECOND BY MS. PERKINS? ANY DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE LET'S REGISTER THE BOAT.

>> ALL RIGHT THAT MOTION PASSES 6-0.

MS. TAYLOR YOU ARE UP AGAIN ITEM NUMBER 9.

[LAUGHTER] DO YOU WANT ME TO GO FORWARD? OKAY. MINE IS 205 COMMERCIAL DOCTOR AND WITH ME IS MARK VICKERS. YOU MAY RECOGNIZE HIM WE DID THE FREEDOM VOTE CLUB REZONING WHICH PASSED AND RECOMMENDED BY YOU BUT PAST THE COUNTY COMMISSION.

THIS IS FOR THEIR OFFICES THAT ARE ON COMMERCIAL DRIVE AND THE REQUEST IS TO REZONE FROM INDUSTRIAL WAREHOUSE WITH CONDITIONS TO COMMERCIAL WAREHOUSE.

THE SITE IS ABOUT NINE ACRES IT IS IN THE JO SENA INDUSTRIAL PARK AND ITS IMMEDIATE ACCESS IS COMMERCIAL DRIVE WHICH YOU SAW WHEN I CAME HERE FOR THE PEER POWER SPORTS WHICH IS DOWN HERE. IT INTERSECTS WITH ACCENTURE DRIVE AND OBVIOUSLY WITH 208. THIS IS THE SITE ITSELF OR THEY DO HAVE EXISTING OFFICES ON A OCEAN OF THIS AND MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR AND TYPE THINGS THAT ARE ALLOWED WITHIN THE INDUSTRIAL. ALSO OWN THIS PARTICULAR PIECE AND THAT IT IS CLEARED THEY WOULD LIKE TO BE ABLE TO USE SOME DIFFERENT TYPES OF ACTIVITIES OUT HERE PARTICULARLY BEING ABLE TO SELL SOME OF THEIR BOATS THAT THEY HAVE AND BRING IN DIFFERENT TYPES OF THINGS.

THE AREA AROUND IT IS ALL LIGHT INDUSTRIAL, AS YOU CAN SEE.

WE WENT INTO IT UNTIL YOU GET UP INTO THIS AREA AND THEN YOU HAVE CRACKER BARREL AND SOME OF THE COMMERCIAL ACTIVITIES.

IT IS IN THE CENTER OF A MIXED-USE DISTRICT.

AND THE PERIPHERAL LAND-USE IS RESIDENTIAL.

THIS IS THE ZONING AND IN THE PARK YOU CAN KIND OF SEE THE IW BUT THERE'S A NUMBER OF THEM THAT HAVE CHANGED AS A VARIETY PIN THAT WHOLE AREA FROM CG TO CHG OR WHATEVER.

AND EVEN THE PUBLIC SERVICE WHICH WOULD BE THE COUNTY AND THE MOSQUITO CONTROL. AND JUST TO BRING IN A LITTLE CLOSER TO SHOW YOU THAT THERE HAS BEEN FIVE CHANGES TO THE INDUSTRIAL PARK, SOME OF THOSE ARE THE COMMERCIAL CHANGES BUT WE'VE DONE COMMERCIAL WAREHOUSE JUST BECAUSE IT DOES ALLOW THAT FLEXIBILITY AND THAT'S WHAT WE ARE HERE FOR ON THIS ONE TODAY.

AS I SAID, THEY HAD MAINTENANCE FACILITIES, THEY PLAN TO TIE THESE TWO TOGETHER AND TO BE ABLE TO USE THOSE IN COOPERATION OF THE EXISTING BUSINESS.

>> THESE ARE SOME PICTURES. THIS IS THE FACILITY ALSO PLOOKING AT THE VACANT LOT. THAT IS THE VACANT LOT AND IT IS THE FRONT OF THEIR FACILITY. THIS IS LOOKING AT IT FROM ACROSS THE STREET. THIS IS WHAT IS ACROSS THE STREET AND IT IS A COMBINATION OF OFFICE AND IT IS INDUSTRIAL

[05:05:03]

THAT IS LOOKING DOWN TOWARDS THE CUL-DE-SAC WHICH WOULD BE TOWARDS 95 DOWN ON THE END. THAT IS THEIR ENTRANCE.

I AM SORRY THESE PICTURES DIDN'T TURN OUT AS WELL AS I WOULD HAVE LIKED. AGAIN WE HAVE CRACKER BARREL ON THE CORNER ON THE NORTH CORNER AND THEN THIS WOULD BE THE ACCESS FROM 208. AND I DID INCLUDE THESE IN HERE THESE ARE THE CONDITIONS THAT ARE APPLICABLE TO THE ORDINANCE ITSELF AND WE CAN GO THROUGH THEM WITH THE IW AND IT HAS TO DO WITH USES BY INCEPTION, STORAGE OF HAZARDOUS MATERIALS, BUILDING SET ACTS, WASTE DISPOSAL WHERE IT HAS TO BE ENCLOSED, COMMON AREA FACILITIES AND A SITE PLAN REVIEW. SOME OF YOU MAY HAVE LOOKED AT THESE BEFORE AS A SITE PLAN REVIEW AS THEY COME IN.

THE CONDITIONS APPLICABLE TO THIS SITE WOULD BE THAT THOSE PERMITTED USES WOULD BE IN THE HIGH INTENSITY COMMERCIAL AS WELL AS LIGHT INDUSTRIAL. THE EXCEPTION WOULD ONLY BE APPROVED BY THE PCA YOU CALL THEM SPECIAL USES NOW, NOT EXCEPTIONS. IN THE RESTRICTIONS AGAIN WOULD BE APPROVED WITH THAT IF THEY HAD TO COME BACK FOR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. THEY DO STILL HAVE SETBACKS SIMILAR SETBACKS, HEIGHT REQUIREMENTS.

THEY DIDN'T REALLY DEAL WITH FLOOR AREA RATIO OR ISR.

WASTE DISPOSAL STILL HAS TO BE ENCLOSED AND ALL OF THAT AND THE COMMON AREA AND FACILITIES THE SAME.

IT IS STILL REQUIRED BY CODE. SO YOU ARE LOSING THE SITE PLAN REVIEW WITH THAT AND OF COURSE HAZARDOUS MATERIALS IS SOMETHING THE FIRE DEPARTMENT DEALS WITH IF THAT IS SOMETHING YOU ARE DOING ON THIS SITE. THEY DON'T PLAN ON DOING ANYTHING WITH THAT. AGAIN THIS IS A HYBRID ZONING WE HAVE USED THIS BEFORE TO EXPLAIN AND IT IS LOGICAL IN THIS AND IT GIVES US A LITTLE MORE FLEXIBILITY.

THIS IS A VERY MIXED-USE AREA AND EVEN MIXED IN THE INDUSTRIAL PARK ITSELF. IT WILL MEET ANY KIND OF BUFFERS AND STANDARDS IT HAS TO EARED WE FEEL IT IS COMPATIBLE AND MEETS THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND CONSISTENT WITH THE GOALS AND POLICIES AND WE ARE REQUESTING A RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL ON THIS ONE AS WELL. AND WE ARE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY

QUESTIONS. >> DOCTOR YUMA.

>> I HAVE TWO COMMENTS. THEY ARE NOT QUESTIONS.

YOU ALWAYS HAVE GREAT SITE PHOTOGRAPHS AND I REALLY APPRECIATE THAT THAT I THINK YOU WERE STANDING ON THE GRASS WHEN YOU TOOK THAT PHOTO WHERE IT SAYS KEEP OFF THE GRASS.

THIS IS DEFINITELY THE RIGHT USE AND RIGHT LOCATION FOR THIS. THANK YOU.

ALL RIGHT. DO WE HAVE ANY EXPERT TAKING

COMMUNICATIONS? >> I DID AS WELL.

>> ALL RIGHT. >> WE HAVE ANY SPEAKER CARDS?

[10. CPA (SS) 2021-18 6075 Winifred Masters. A request for a Small Scale Comprehensive Plan Amendment to change the Future Land Use Map designation of approximately 3.9 acres from Agriculture-Intensive (A-I) to Residential-A to allow for a division for one additional dwelling unit. The property is located at 6075 Winifred Masters Road.]

>> MOTION TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL 2021-206205 COMMERCIAL DOCTOR A REQUEST TO REZONE A PROPERTY OF NINE ACRES OF LAND FROM INDUSTRIAL WAREHOUSE WITH CONDITIONS TO COMMERCIAL WAREHOUSE TO ALLOW FOR BOAT SERVICE BASED UPON HER FINDINGS

IN FAX IN THE STAFF REPORT OR. >> WE HAVE A MOTION FOR APPROVAL BY DOCTOR HILLS AND BACK ANY DISCUSSION? LET'S REGISTER THE BO VOTE.

>> THAT MOTION IS APPROVED 6-0 AND NOW IT IS WEST MR. WESTOVER STERN AND GOD BLESS YOU FOR YOUR PATIENCE.

WE DON'T ALWAYS GO THIS LONG. >>.

[LAUGHTER] >> MINE WILL BE SHORT AND SWEET . RYAN WESTOVER I RESIDE AT 6071 THIS IS MY PERSONAL RESIDENT. I WIFE AND I BOUGHT IT FIVE YEARS AGO 3.9 ACRES CURRENTLY ZONED OR.

WE WANT TO DO A LAND-USE CHANGE FROM AI WHICH IS AT INTENSIVE TO RESIDENTIAL TO SO WE CAN DO ONE FOR ONE.

WE WANT TO CARVE OFF THE I THINK THERE IS A SLIDE IN THERE. I DON'THOW TO WORK THIS IS MY

FIRST TIME. >> WE DON'T EITHER.

YOU ARE IN GOOD COMPANY. >> I WATCH IT ALL THE TIME.

HERE WE GO. HOW DO YOU DO A LITTLE RED

[05:10:02]

THING? >> IT IS SEPARATE.

LASER IS SEPARATE. >> THERE WE GO.

CURRENTLY YOU CAN SEE MY PARTIAL HERE THIS IS WHERE WE ARE AT IN MY HOUSE IS TUCKED BACK OVER HERE.

BASICALLY I WANT TO CARVE OFF THIS SECTION HERE WHICH WILL BE BETTER THAN ONE ACRE AND AS YOU CAN SEE THE SURROUNDING PROPERTIES ARE ONE ACRE PLOT MAY BE BIGGER AND THEN THIS HOUSE HERE ON THE FRONT. SO, WE WANT TO SUB OFF AND SELL THE TRAILER OFF WHICH TAKES THE DENSITY AROUND THEIR ALREADY.

AND THEN WE WANT TO BUILD A SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE UPFRONT

WITH MY FAMILY TO STAY THERE. >> OKAY.

ANY EXTRA COMMUNICATION AND THIS ONE? THANK YOU. GOOD.

ALL RIGHT. DO WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? DO WE HAVE ANY SPEAKER CARDS? I DIDN'T THINK SO.

[Agency Reports]

>> MISS PERKINS? >> IT'S BEEN A LONG ONE.

>> SECOND BY DOCTOR HILLS AND BACK.

WE PUT ABACK TO MISS PERKINS FOR APPROVAL.

ANY DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE LET'S REGISTER THE BOAT. CONGRATULATIONS.

>> THANK YOU GUYS, I APPRECIATE IT Y'ALL HAVE A GOOD NIGHT.

>> ALL RIGHT. BACK TO STAFF.

>> NOTHING TO ADD MR. CHAIR. >> MR. CHAIR? I AM SORRY. DID YOU HAVE A QUESTION FOR MR.

ROBERSON? >> NO GO AHEAD.

I WANTED TO FOLLOW UP ON SOME QUESTIONS THAT WERE ASKED IN THE CONTEXT OF THE ATLANTIC

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.