[1. 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.]

MATERIALS AND SO FORTH FOR LIVING ON THIS PLANET.

THEY ARE THE HOMES OF MANY SPECIES OF WILDLIFE AND I REALLY OBJECT TO SEEING THEM DESCRIBED AS VACANT PIECES OF PROPERTY.

THANK YOU. APPRECIATE IT.

>> MR. MATOVINA: THANK YOU, DR. HILSENBECK.

ALL RIGHT. WE ARE ON TO ITEM NUMBER 1 ON THE AGENDA, AND MR. DAVENPORT, YOU HAVE THE FLOOR.

>> GOOD AFTERNOON. I'M HERE FOR THE LANDOWNER.

MY ADDRESS IS 111 SOLANO ROAD UNIT BE P WITH PONTE VEDRA BEACH

DID. >> CAN YOU SPEAK UP, PLEASE.

>> DREING, 111 SOLANO ROAD, SUITE B PONTE VEDRA BEACH,

33082. >> MR. MATOVINA: DOES ANYBODY HAVE NI SPART TO -- ANY EX PARTE TO DECLARE?

>> DR. HILSENBECK: I ALSO VISITED THE SITE YESTERDAY.

>> MR. MATOVINA: MS. PERKINS. [INAUDIBLE]

>> AID CONVERSATION WITH MR. KILLEBREW JUST BEFORE CHRISTMAS TALKING ABOUT ABOUT ACCESS AND EXISTING ACCESS AND LAWFUL ACCESS, AND THEN I HAD A VERY BRIEF CONVERSATION WITH MRT AS THE SCHEDULE OF WHEN THIS WAS GOING TO COME UP.

>> MR. MATOVINA: MR. PETER. MR.Y PIERRE.

>> MR. PIERRE: YES, I HAD A CONVERSATION WITH MR. KILLEBREW, ALSO, A COUPLE CONVERSATIONS, SENATE OF.

>> MR. MATOVINA: THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT.

MR. -- IT'S UP TO YOU. >> SPEAKER: THANK YOU.

I'M D.R. REPAST. I AM WITH THE COMPANIES, WHO WE ARE IN PARTNERSHIP WITH DEERFIELD FOREST VENTURES TO DEVELOP THIS SUBJECT PARCEL OF LAND, SO WE'RE HERE SEEKING A REZONING. THIS IS PROTOCOL 37 ACRES GOING FROM OR TO PUD TO ALLOW THE DEVELOPMENT OF UP TO 63 SINGLE FAMIY LOTS. THE -- YOU HAVE A FEW DMIEWMENTS IN FRONT OF YOU THAT I WANT TO RUN THROUGH, AND WE'VE ALSO GOT IN THERE AN EXTRA COPY JUST FOR REFERENCE OF THE PLAN DIVISION REPORT IN CASE YOU DIDN'T BRING YOURS WITH YOU.

THIS PARCEL IS, AGAIN, THIS IS THE PROPERTY APPRAISER MAP.

IT'S HIGHLIGHTED IN BLUE. AGAIN IT'S ABOUT 37 ACRES.

THE PARCEL TO THE -- TO THE NORTH THERE OF THE SUBJECT PARCEL -- AND AGAIN IT'S IN A RES-B COMP PLAN DESIGNATION, WHICH IS BASICALLY EVERYTHING AROUND IT IS RES-B AS WELL.

THE PARCEL TO THE NORTH HERE IS SUBDIVISION CALLED DEERFIELD TRACE, AND IT IS 74 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS.

IT WAS STARTED IN AROUND 2005, STARTED TO BE BUILT OUT WITH HOMES, CAME TO A HALT DURING THE DOWNTURN IN 2008, AND THEN KIND OF FINISHED UP IN 2014 AND '15. AGAIN, IT IS FULLY BUILT OUT NOW AND IT IS APPROXIMATELY 74, 74 SINGLE-FAMILY LOTS.

THE PROPERTY TO THE WEST HERE IS CALLED THE DEERFIELD MEADOWS SUBDIVISION, AND IT IS BUILT OUT AS WELL.

IT IS ALSO 74 SINGLE-FAMILY LOTS.

AGAIN, OUR SUBJECT PARCEL WHICH WE ARE CALLING DEERFIELD FOREST WILL BE 63 LOTS. DEERFIELD FOREST -- I'M SORRY.

DEERFIELD MEADOWS TO THE WEST HAS JUST BEEN RECENTLY BUILT OUT. MOST OF THE HOMES COMPLETED, PEOPLE MOVING IN IN 2019 AND 2020.

AND SOMETHING IN -- WE ALSO WANTED TO COME BEFORE YOU KIND

[00:10:03]

OF TO CLARIFY SOME OF THE HISTORY OF THE DEVELOPMENT OF DEERFIELD MEADOWS, THE PARCEL TO THE WEST AS WELL AS INCORPORATE SOME OF THE CHANGES WE HAVE STINS THE DEVELOPMENT OF 2017.

>> MR. REPAST, YOU'RE REFERRING TO THE PARCEL TO THE EAST, NOT

TO THE WEST. >> DR. HILSENBECK: YOU SAID

WEST. >> MR. MATOVINA: DEERFIELD

MEADOW IS TO THE EAST. >> SPEAKER: THAT'S RIGHT THAT'S CORRECT. DAFERL MEADOWS IS TO THE WEST.

SORRY ABOUT THAT. AND SO OF PARTICULAR INTEREST IS THAT DEERFIELD MEADOWS IS TOTE EAST, THANK YOU, AND DEERFIELD FOREST OR THE CURRENT SUBJECT PROPERTY TO THE WEST, WERE ALL UNDER COMMON OWNERSHIP. THEY WERE -- AND IT WAS ALWAYS INTENDED THAT THE DEAFERLD MEADOWS WOULD BE DEVELOPED -- DEERFIELD MEADOWS WOULD BE DEVELOPED FIRST AND DEERFIELD FOREST, THE SUBJECT WOULD BE DEVELOPED, ALTHOUGH WE DIDN'T HAVE A DIVENTIVE PLAN, IT WAS ALWAYS THE SECOND PHASE OF DEERFIELD MEADOWS, AND I'M GOING TO RUN THROUGH SOME OF THE DOCUMENTS SO THAT YOU FULLY UNDERSTAND THAT, BUT WHILE SOME OF THE PEOPLE WITH -- THAT LIVE HERE IN DEERFIELD MEADOWS, OF COURSE, WOULD RATHER OUR PROPERTY CONTINUE TO REMAIN, LET'S SAY, UNDEVELOPED AND WOODED AND PRISTINE, YOU KNOW, THEY HAVE NOW PURCHASED THEIR HOME IN DEERFIELD MEADOWS AND, OF COURSE, WOULD RATHER NOTHING ELSE BE THERE, BUT AS ALWAYS WAS THE INTENT, AND WE THINK IS SET FORTH ON THE ACTUAL CONSTRUCTION OF THE SUBDIVISION AND IN THE DOCUMENTS THAT EVERYBODY HAD LEGAL KNOWLEDGE OF, THIS WAS ALWAYS INTENDED TO BE A PHASE 2 CONTINUATION. YOU'LL SEE IN ANOTHER DEWPOINT IT'S EASIER TO SEE, BUT THIS ROAD WHERE IT STOPS RIGHT THERE, IT'S REALLY A HALF CUL-DE-SAC AND IT COMES, RIGHT HERE, AND IT WILL COMES TO A DEAD END ON THE PROPERTY LINE, AND IT'S -- IT WAS ENGINEERED THAT WAY, DESIGNED THAT WAY BECAUSE IT WAS GOING TO BE A CONTINUATION AND FUTURE ACCESS TO THE CURRENT PROPERTY THAT WE'RE HERE BEFORE YOU.

THIS NEXT DOCUMENT THAT I HAD IN MY SACK THERE IS THE ACTUAL RECORDED -- I DIDN'T USE THE WHOLE THING BUT I'M USING THE FIRST PAGE JUST SO YOU CAN UNDERSTAND WHAT IT IS.

THIS IS THE RECORDED DEERFIELD MEADOWS PUD, SO THE SUBDIVISION TO THE EAST, THE CURRENT SUBDIVISION, THIS IS THEIR PUD THAT GOVERNS THEIR PROPERTY, RECORDED IN OCTOBER OF 2017, AND THIS, OF COURSE, IS ON THE PUBLIC RECORDS AND IS A PART OF THE TITLE OF EVERY SINGLE HOMEOWNER IN DEERFIELD MEADOWS TO THE WEST. AND SO WHEN DEERFIELD MEADOWS WAS BEING DESIGNED AND DEVELOPED AND PERMITTED, PART OF THE REQUIREMENTS WAS THAT WE HAD TO PROVIDE INTERCONNECTIVITY FOR THE REMAINING PROPERTY THAT WOULD BE DEVELOPED, AND AS YOU CAN SEE IN THIS, AND THIS IS RECORDED ON -- IN THE PUBLIC RECORD BOOK 4449 PAGE 887, BUT HIGHLIGHTED REGARDING INTERCONNECTIVITY IS THAT INTERCONNECTIVITY FOR THE PROJECT, BEING DEERFIELD MEADOWS, IS PROVIDED FROM WATSON ROAD VIA THE ACCESS ROAD THROUGH DEERFIELD TRACE SUBDIVISION, WHICH IS THE ONE TO THE NORTH, AND VIA A 60-FOOT, QUOTE, FUTURE ACCESS, AND I'LL SHOW YOU WHERE THOSE QUOTES ARE LATER, PROVIDED FOR FUTURE DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROPERTIES TO THE WEST.

AND AGAIN, THIS IS A RECORDED PUBLIC DOCUMENT.

THIS IS ON THE TITLE OF EVERY SINGLE PERSON THAT LIVES IN DEERFIELD MEADOWS AND IS JUST OF CONSTRUCTIVE KNOWLEDGE THAT THIS WAS THE CASE FOR INTERCONNECTIVITY.

THE NEXT DOCUMENT THAT YOU HAVE IN THERE THIS IS THE ACTUAL MDP, MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN, FOR DEERFIELD MEADOWS.

SO THE PROPERTY THAT WE ARE SEEKING TO REZONE IS DEERFIELD FOREST HERE TO THE WEST. AND SO THIS IS -- WHEN WE DID THE REZONING AND THE PERMITTING FOR DEERFIELD MEADOWS, WE HAD TO SHOW THIS ROAD. NOW, THIS IS EXACTLY THE WAY THIS ROAD IS BUILT. AGAIN, IT'S NOT A CUL-DE-SAC DOWN HERE WHERE YOU WOULD SEE, WHERE TRAFFIC COMES TO AN END.

IT IS CUT OFF HERE WHERE IT WILL CONTINUE TO OUR PROPERTY TO THE

[00:15:05]

WEST. AND WHILE YOU CAN'T READ IT FROM A DISTANCE, YOU HAVE TO DOCUMENT IN FRONT OF YOU, HIGHLIGHTED IN GREEN RIGHT HERE IS THOSE QUOTES FROM THE DEERFIELD MEADOWS PUD TEXT THAT SAYS "FUTURE ACCESS." SO THERE WAS -- NOBODY WAS HIDING ANYTHING DURING THE DEVELOPMENT OF THIS FIRST PHASE.

IT WAS ALWAYS CONTEMPLATED THAT THIS PROPERTY TO THE WEST WOULD BE AN ADDITIONAL PHASE. NOT HAVE DID NOT HAVE AN EXAT THE TIME, BUT CLEARLY IT WAS FOR FUTURE DEVELOPMENT.

SO THAT IS, AGAIN, THAT IS SET FORTH.

THIS IS THE MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN THAT'S RECORDED.

IT'S THE LAST PAGE OF THE RECORDING OF THE DEERFIELD MEADOWS PUD. BACK TO THE PROPERTY APPRAISER MAP, SO THIS ROAD HERE, THIS IS WATSON ROAD.

OF COURSE US-1 TO THE EAST. AND THEN THE ROAD UP NORTH THERE IS WILDWOOD DRIVE, AND THEN THE RAILROAD TRACKS ARE RIGHT HERE.

SO ACCESS TO OUR DEERFIELD PROPOSED SUBDIVISION WOULD BE THROUGH THESE PUBLIC ROADS THAT WE DEDICATED WHEN WE DID DEERFIELD MEADOWS. YOU HAVE THE ONE TO THE SOUTH HERE IS DEERFIELD MEADOWS, MEADOW CROSSING DRIVE AND THEN YOU ALSO HAVE ANOTHER ROUTE TO TAKE RIGHT HERE WHICH WOULD BE DEERFIELD FOREST DRIVE -- I'M SORRY -- MEADOW CROSSING DRIVE.

DEERFIELD CONNECTS TO EAST TO US-1.

SO THOSE ARE ALL PUBLIC ROADS AND THAT IS THE ACCESS THAT WE HAVE FOR DEERFIELD FOREST. AGAIN, IT WAS ALWAYS THE PLAN TO ACCESS FROM THE BEGINNING. THERE WAS NOTHING BEING HIDDEN THERE. SO, YOU KNOW, WHILE THESE OWNERS THAT LIVE HERE OR POTENTIALLY HERE MAY HAVE CARS PASSING THROUGH THEIR HOUSE, EITHER WHETHER THEY GO THIS WAY OR THEY GO THAT WAY, I MEAN, THAT'S NO DIFFERENT THAN ANY OTHER SUBDIVISION WHERE THE PEOPLE THAT LIVE IN THE FRONT, THEY GET TO THEIR HOME QUIRK QUICKER Y HAVE MORE CARS THAT PASS THROUGH VERSUS THE HOMES THAT LIVE DOWN HERE IN THE BACK OF THE SUBDIVISION, IT TAKES THEM LONGER TO GET TO THEIR HOUSE BUT THEY DON'T HAVE AS MANY CARS COMING IN FRONT OF THEIR HOME.

SO THAT'S JUST THE FLOW OF TRAFFIC.

THE SUBDIVISION, AGAIN THIS IS 74 LOTS.

OUR PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT IS 63 LOTS.

IF THE TRAFFIC COMES OUT AND GOES THIS WAY, THEY WILL PASS APPROXIMATELY 30 HOME SITES. IF THEY COME OUT AND THEY GO THIS WAY OUT OF THE SUBDIVISION, THEY WILL PASS 27 HOME SITES.

SO FOR SUBDIVISION AND ENGINEERING STANDARDS, THAT'S NOT A HUGE THRESHOLD. AGAIN, I CAN UNDERSTAND SOMEONE LIVING HERE NOT WANTING THE PROPERTY TO THE WEST TO BE DEVELOPED, BUT AGAIN, THAT WAS ALWAYS THE PLAN.

THE OTHER THING I WANTED TO DISCUSS AND TALK ABOUT IS, AS YOU MAY RECALL, THERE WAS ANOTHER DEVELOPMENT THAT WAS SOON DURING THE PERMITTING PHASES WAS SOUGHT TO BE DEVELOPED IN 2017. THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ULTIMATELY DENIED THAT DEVELOPMENT, AND THAT WAS CHALLENGED IN THE CIRCUIT COURT AND THE CIRCUIT COURT JUDGE LEE SMITH UPHELD THE BCC'S FINDINGS FOR IT TO BE DENIED.

BASICALLY, ESSENTIALLY ON TWO GROUND.

AND THERE WAS CONCERNS -- THERE WERE TWO CONCERNS ESSENTIALLY RAISED DURING THIS TIME PERIOD. AND IT DOESN'T REQUIRE THIS BOARD OR THE BCC TO DENY THE REZONING REQUEST.

THOSE TWO DERNS IN AND OF THEMSELVES THERED COURT FELT REASONABLE TO UPHOLD THE DENIAL. AGAIN IT DOESN'T REQUIRE IT.

THE FIRST ONE, AND I'M GOING TO HAVE -- OUR BILL SHEELG WITH KIMLEY-HORN SPEAK ABOUT THIS BRIEFLY, BUT THE FIRST ONE WAS THERE IS, DUE TO THE RAILROAD TRACK RIGHT HERE, THERE IS --

[00:20:05]

THERE WAS CONCER THAT IN AN EMERGENCY WITH THE CONSIDER STOPPED, THAT TRAFFIC WOULD BACK UP AND THERE WAS NO EMERGENCY ACCESS. IN THE PACKAGE YOU WILL SEE THAT WE HAVE OBTAINED AN EASEMENT FROM THIS.

WE ARE UNDER CONTRACT. WE HAVE AN AGREEMENT FOR AN EASEMENT. WE'RE IN PROCESS OF FINALIZE 10 LEGAL DESCRIPTION, -- FINALIZIG THE LEGAL SCRIPS BUT EVE EV WE HAVE A LEGALLY BINDING AGREEMENT TO DESIGN AN E GRES TO ADDRESS THIS ISSUE SOLELY AND IT IS TO PROVIDE EMERGENCY ACCESS.

AND THERE IS A NOTE IN THE PLANNING DIVISION REPORT THAT THIS PROPERTY HAS CHANGED HANDS IN DECEMBER, WHICH IT DID WEEK BUT OUR AGREEMENT RAN WITH THE TITLE TO THE LAND.

WE DISCUSSED IT WITH THE NEW OWNER, YOU KNOW, RIGHT AROUND THE CLOSING TIME. WE TALKED WITH THEM ONCE OR TWICE A WEEK. AND WE'RE, LIKE I SAID, WE'RE IN THE PROCESS OF -- BECAUSE THEY WANTED TO MAKE SOME CHANGES TO WHERE WE PROPOSED, HOW WE PROPOSED TO CONNECT TO THE ROAD.

VERY MINOR CHARGERS BUT IT'S RETAINING SURVEYOR AND OBTAINING LEGAL DESCRIPTION AND SO THAT IS WHAT WE'RE WAITING ON TO FINALIZE THAT. WE CAN CERTAINLY, IF THERE'S ANY QUESTION ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT WE WERE GOING TO COME THROUGH OUR OUR PROPOSAL TO PROVIDE THAT EMERGENCY ACCESS, WE COULD CERTAINLY HAVE THAT AS A CONDITION, YOU KNOW, OF THE PUD.

SO THAT WAS ONE THE CONCERNS THAT HAS BEEN ADDRESSED.

THE THE OTHER ONE THAT I WOULD LIKE MR. BILL SHE WILLING TO TALK ABOUT SHE SK ABOUT IS THERE WAS SOME CONCERNS ABOUT THE SAFETY AND INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS BETWEEN FOR WATSON ROAD AND US-1, AND MR. SHIELLING'S FIRM HAS COME UP WITH A PLAN THAT THE SUFFICIENT, AND I WANTED TO SEE IF BILL COULD KIND OF TALK ABOUT THE IMPROVEMENTS THAT WE PROPOSE

TO MAKE TO WATSON ROAD. >> SPEAKER: THANK YOU.

AGENCY MEMBERS, THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME THIS AFTERNOON.

I'M BILL SHIELLING WITH KIMLEY-HORN AND SOAFTS TWSM 47 GRAN BAY PARKWAY WEST SWEET, JACKVILLE FLORIDA 33258.

I'LL A PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER LICENSED IN FLORIDA.

AND OUR ROLE ON THE TEAM KIMLEY-HORN BE WITH WHERE A PART OF THE TEAM LOOKING AT THE OFF-SITE IMPROVEMENTS THAT ARE REQUIRED TO WATSON ROAD AND III THEY'RE IN PUD TECH, YOU WILL SEE THAT THERE ARE TWO COMMITMENTS THAT THE APPLICANT HAS MADE REGARDING WATSON ROAD. THIS FIRST ONE THAT WE'VE LOOKED AT IS ADDING AN EASTBOUND ADDITIONAL APPROACH LANE AT US- US-1, AND -- LET ME USE A PEN AS A POINTER.

SO UP AND DOWN ON THE PAGE IS US-1, EAST-WEST IS WATSON ROAD, AND TODAY THERE ARE TWO LANES, ONE AWAY FROM THE INTERSECTION AND ONE TOWARDS THE INTERSECTION ON WATSON ROAD TO THE REST OF US-1. ON THE EAST SIDE OF US-1 THERE ARE LEFT AND RIGHT TURN LANES. THE NEED FOR THIS IMPROVEMENT IS MORE BASED ON GEOMETRICAL STANDARDS AND SAFETY AT THE INTERSECTION RATHER THAN CAPACITY.

TODAY WE ACTUALLY DID A COUNT IN JANUARY.

TODAY THE INTERSECTION WORKS A LEVEL SERVICE B.

BUT TODAY, BECAUSE OF THE TURN LANES ON THE EAST SIDE, THE THROUGH LANE ACTUALLY LINES UP WITH THE ONCOMING THROUGH TRAFFIC, AND I GRABBED A PICTURE OF THIS WHICH HOPEFULLY WILL HELP DESCRIBE THIS. SO THIS IS LOOKING EAST ON WATSON ROAD WATSON ROAD AS YOU APPROACH, AND ACTUALLY AS YOU APPROACH THE SIGNAL YOU'RE ACTUALLY LOOKING AT THE ONCOMING LANES ON THE OTHER SIDE, AND WHERE THAT SCHOOL BUS IS SB IS WHERE THE THROUGH LANE IS. SO AS YOU CROSS THE INTERSECTION, YOU ACTUALLY MAKE A PRETTY SIGNIFICANT SHIFT.

THIS IMPROVEMENT IN ADDING THIS ADDITIONAL LANE WILL MOVE THE LEFT -- SORRY -- THE THROUGH LANE AND THE RIGHT TURN LANE ROUGHLY 11 FEET TO THE SOUTH, WHICH WILL BETTER ALIGN THE THROUGH LANES THROUGH THE INTERSECTION.

WE KNOW THAT -- WE KNOW THAT THIS HAS BEEN A NEED THAT THE COUNTY HAS TALKED ABOUT FOR A LONG TIME, COUNTY TRANSPORTATION STAFF HAVE, AND WE'RE COMMITTED TO MAKING THIS IMPROVEMENT ADDING THIS LANEAGE WHICH ALSO INCLUDES MODIFICATIONS AND IMPROVEMENTS TO THE SIGNAL AND THE INTERSECTION TO OF THE SIGNAL POLES. SO THAT IS BEING PROPOSED AND COMMITTED TO IN THE PUD. AND THEN SECONDLY AS A PART OF OF THE STAFF REVIEW, STAFF DID IDENTIFY PORTIONS OF WATSON ROAD WATSON ROAD TO THEES WITH OF THE RAILROAD TRACKS -- WEST OF THE

[00:25:03]

RAILROAD TRACKS THAT EVENTUALLY THE LANES ARE NARROWER THAN THE COLLECTOR STANDARD WHICH IS A 12-FOOT LANE.

IT'S ROUGHLY 900 FEET, 900 TO 950 FEET OF ROAD THAT IS SUBSTANDARD, AND AS STATED IN THE PUD, THE APPLICANT IS COMMITTED TO ADDING THE PAVEMENT AND IMPROVING THAT SECTION OF ROAD TO MEET THE 12-FOOT LANES. SO THOSE ARE THE TWO IMPROVEMENTS THAT WE'VE LOOKED AT.

WHEN WE GET TO THE APPROPRIATE POINT, I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS REGARDING THE IMPROVEMENTS.

THANK YOU. >>

>> AND SO THOSE TWO POINT, THE CIRCUIT COURT SAID WERE REASONABLE TO UPHOLD THE DENIAL, WAS THE PRIOR FAILURE TO ADDRESS THE US-1-WATSON ROAD WATSON ROAD INTERSECTION WHICH WE HAVE DONE NOW AND ALSO THE FAILURE TO ADDRESS THE EMERGENCY ACCESS.

SO WE FEEL LIKE WE HAVE -- THOSE ARE THE TWO PRIMARY POINTS THAT WE THINK WE HAVE CHANGED. WE'VE ALSO, JUST TO MAKE LIFE BETTER FOR THE DEERFIELD MEADOWS FOLKS, WE HAVE ALSO OBTAINED A CONSTRUCTION ACCESS AGREEMENT THROUGH THIS ADJACENT LAND SO THAT DURING CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROJECT, WE DON'T BELIEVE THAT ANY CONSTRUCTION WILL NEED TO COME THROUGH HERE.

IT WILL ALL BE AVAILABLE TO COME THROUGH OFF-SITE.

AL ALTHOUGH AS FAR AS DRAINAGE GOES, WE FULLY INTEND DURING THE DEVELOPMENT PROCESS, THAT DRAINAGE REQUIREMENTS WILL BE MET THROUGH PERMITTING WITH ST. JOHNS COUNTY AND THE ST. JOHNS RIVER WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT.

I'D LIKE TO HAVE DAVID TAYLOR WITH THE ENGINEER'S OFFICE TAKE JUST A COUPLE OF THE MINUTES TO DISCUSS THE DRAINAGE PLAN FOR THE PROJECT. AND THANK YOU AS WELL.

THIS IS THE ACTUAL SITE PLAN FOR OUR SUBJECT DEVELOPMENT,

DEERFIELD FOREST. >> SPEAKER: DAVID TAYLOR, 8647 BAY PINE ROAD SUITE 1, JACKVILLE, 423-2256.

PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING STRERNLGD IN THE STATE OF FLORIDA. D.R. ASKED ME TO SPEAK BRIEFLY ON THE DRAINAGE OF THE FACILITY. ALL THE WATER DRAINS FROM THE EAST TO THE WEST. THE GREEN ARROW OR THE GREEN LINE THAT I HAVE SHOWN ON THE DRAWING IS A NEW BYPASS DITCH.

THE FLOW COMING FROM OVER HERE BASICALLY DRAINS DOWN AND COMES ACROSS THROUGH AN EXISTING DITCH TO THIS LOCATION HERE.

WE WILL BE CONSTRUCTING A NEW DITCH THAT RUNS ALONG THE EAST AND NORTH SIDE OF THE PROPERTY TO TAKE THIS FLOW.

ALL THE FLOW, THE EXISTING POND ON DEERFIELD DRAINS THROUGH A PIPE TO THE WETLAND. THE STWAIL THAT WE WILL BE CONSTRUCTING -- SWALE THAT WE WILL BE CONSTRUCTING WILL TAKE THE FLOW FROM THAT POND AND DIVERSITY OVER HERE, IMPROVING THE DRAINAGE PATTERNS. NONE OF THE WATER FROM THIS PROJECT WILL BE DRAINING TO THE EAST.

IT DRAINS TO THE WEST. I'LL BE AVAILABLE FOR QUESTIONS.

>> SO, YOU KNOW, WE BELIEVE THAT THIS DEVELOPMENT IS DONE, IT'S CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.

ALL OF THE PLANNING DIVISION HAS, OF COURSE, ROUTED THE APPLICATION TO ALL THE VARIOUS REVIEW DEPARTMENTS.

WE RECEIVED COMMENTS, DEGREED ALL COMMENTS.

THERE ARE NO FURTHER OPEN COMMENTS ON THE DEVELOPMENT, AND WE ASK THAT YOU APPROVE THIS REZONING.

>> MR. MATOVINA: OKAY. WE ARE BACK IN THE AGENCY FOR QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT. MR. MILLER.

>> MR. MILLER: MR. REPASS, JUST -- I THINK MS.AL VALERI HAS -- -- [INAUDIBLE] JUST HAVE AI COUPLE QUESTIONS SO MENTIONED THAT ON THE PUD FOR

[00:30:04]

DEERFIELD MEADOWS AND THE PLAT IT SHOWS FUTURE ACCESS GOING TO

THIS PROPERTY, CORRECT? >> I HAVE NOT.

IT DOES ON THE MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND THE PUD FOR

DEERFIELD MEADOWS. >> MR. MILLER: AND THOSE ARE RECORDED DOCUMENTS WITH THE COUNTY.

>> THAT'S CORRECT. >> MR. MILLER: AND THERE WAS A PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI FILED ON THE ORIGINAL DENIAL,

CORRECT? >> CORRECT WHRINCHTS.

>> MR. MILLER: THAT WAS CONCERNED WHETHER DUE PROCESS WAS RECORDED, AND THE CONFIDENCL DECIPHERABLE BUT THERE WAS NO LITIGATION DO THE BURT HARRIS CLAIM OR TAKING OR ANYTHING LIKE

THAT. >> NO.

>> MR. MILLER: AND ONE QUESTION ON THE WRITTEN DESCRIPTION. IT SAYS ON THE SAME PAGE, THE LOTS ARE GOING TO BE 63-FOOT WIDE BUT ANOTHER SECTION SAYS 5.

>> I DON'T KNOW IF THAT REFERENCE TO 53 MEANT WITH THE SETBACK, BUT THE LOTS ARE 63 FOOTERS.

>> MR. MILLER: GOT IT. THANK YOU.

>> MR. MATOVINA: DR. HILSENBECK, QUESTIONS.

>> DR. HILSENBECK: YEAH, I'M JUST WONDERING WHY Y'ALL DON'T UPGRADE THE INTERSECTION OF WATSON ROAD AND US-1 FIRST PRIOR TO THIS DEVELOPMENT BEING APPROVED OR OTHER UPGRADE TO WATSON ROAD. I DON'T UNDER WHY THOSE SHOULDN'T BE DONE -- UNDERSTAND WHY THOSE SHOULDN'T BE DONE FIRST BECAUSE THAT'S AN EXTREMELY DANGEROUS INTERSECTIO.

IN THE TIME PERIOD OF 2014 TO 2017 THERE WERE 15 ACCIDENTS THERE AND FIVE FATALITIES. I DON'T KNOW SINCE 2017 HOW MANY THERE HAVE BEEN. THIS HAS ABOUT AN A PRENNALLIAL PROBLEM IN THE COUNTY, WATSON ROAD AND US-1.

I WISH THE COUNTY WOULD HAVE DONE SOMETHING OR FDOT AT THIS POINT BUT THEY HAVEN'T. IN MY OPINION, THAT SHOULD BE UPGRADED BEFORE THE DEVELOPMENT GOES FORWARD, SO WHAT IS YOUR

VIEW ON THAT? >> I BELIEVE IT WILL, SIR.

AS A CONDITION OF THIS DEVELOPMENT AND THE ABILITY TO BUILD HOMES AND THE ABILITY OF PEOPLE TO LIVE THERE, THOSE IMPROVEMENTS WILL HAVE TO BE DONE, AND THAT'S SET FORTH IN THE REPORT. THAT'S PART OF WHAT WE'VE PROPOSED. CERTAINLY WE COULDN'T DO THE ROAD IMPROVEMENTS BEFORE THE REZONING AND THEN SAID, HEY, WE DID THESE, YOU KNOW -- THE ESTIMATE THAT WE'VE GOTTEN FOR THE PROOCHTS BY THE WAY IS $740,000, AND THAT'S JUST AN ESTIMATE AT THIS POINT, SO WE CAN'T REALLY SPEND ALL THAT MONEY AND DO THAT AND THEN COME AND ASK FOR THE REZONING, SO ALL THAT'S DONE TOGETHER SO THAT THAT OFF-SITE ROAD WORK TO WATSON ROAD AND US-1 WILL BE DONE IN CONNECTION AND WILL BE A REQUIREMENT FOR THE SUBDIVISION. SO THERE'S NO CHANCE -- EXCUSE ME. THERE'S NO CHANCE THAT WE BUILD HOUSES IN SUBDIVISION BUT WE DON'T DO THE OFF-SITE REQUIRED WORK TO THE INTERSECTION OF WATSON ROAD AND US-1 HANCHTS.

>> DR. HILSENBECK: I CERTAINLY UNDERSTAND WHY YOU DON'T WANT TO SPEND $750,000 PRIOR TO YOU MOVING FORWARD WITH SELLING LOTS AND BUILDING HOMES, BUT THIS IS SOMETHING THAT'S NEEDED TO BE DONE FOR A LONG TIME, AND I JUST THINK THIS IS PUTTING THE CART BEFORE THE HORSE HERE. I WAS ON THAT ROAD YESTERDAY RIGHT THERE ON WATSON ROAD AT THE INTERSECTION WHERE BILL SHOWED THAT PHOTOGRAPH, AND THERE WAS A JEEP LIKE A JEEP CJ RIGHT THERE, NOT A LARGE VEHICLE, I DON'T HAVE A LARGE VEHICLE, AND I WANTED TO TURN RIGHT ONTO US-1.

HE WAS GOING TO TURN LEFT ONTO IEWCHT 1.

I COULD BARELY GET AROUND I'M HIM.

I I HAD TO GO OFF THE ROAD INTO SOME POTHOLES OFF THE PAVEMENT IN ORDER TO GET UP THERE TO BE ABLE TO TURN RIGHT.

THAT'S AN EXTREMELY NARROW AREA THERE, AND TO TRY TO BUILD A RIGHT TURN LANE WITHOUT FILLING IN PART OF THE SWALE ALONG US-1, YOU'D ALMOST BE OVER TOWARD THE POST THAT HOLDS THE TRAFFIC

SIGNAL. >> YES, SIR.

>> DR. HILSENBECK: BUT RIGHT NOW THERE'S A BRAND NEW, IT'S APPARENTLY A STRIP CENTER GOING IN RIGH AT WATSON ROAD AND US-1, RIGHT THERE ON THAT NORTHWEST CORNER, BUT THE LAND'S BEEN CLEARED, AND I DON'T KNOW WHAT IT'S GOING TO BE.

THERE ARE A COUPLE LETTERS OF PEOPLE WHO WROTE IN AND SAID IT'S GOING TO BE A STRIP STRP. SOME COMMERCIAL PROPERTY.

SO I DON'T KNOW HOW THAT'S GOING TO IMPACT TRAFFIC THERE.

THAT'S GOING TO OOD A LOT OF ADDITIONAL TRAFFIC AND THEY DON'T HAVE TO MEET ANY CONCURRENCY STANDARDS OR ANYTHING. HAVE Y'ALL TAKEN THAT INTO

CONSIDERATION? >> NO.

I MEAN -- WELL, WE HAVE. OF COURSE, THERE'S MANY PEOPLE USING WATSON ROAD AND US-1, AND SO THAT CONDITION EXISTS TODAY.

WITH REGARD TO THE PROBLEM THAT YOU HAD YESTERDAY OR TODAY, WE'RE ASKING YOU TO LET US FIX THAT.

WE WILL FIX THAT. AND THAT'S THE PROPOSAL THAT

WE'VE COME UP WITH. >> DR. HILSENBECK: AND WHEN

WOULD THAT BE? >> IT WILL BE DONE AT THE SAME TIME OF DEVELOPMENT OF THE SUBDIVISION.

[00:35:05]

>> DR. HILSENBECK: YOU CAN GUARANTEE THAT?

>> YES. THAT'LL BE -- THAT WILL BE IN THE PUD. IT HAD WILL BE A REQUIREMENT THAT THAT OFF-SITE ROAD WORK BE DONE.

HIFNLT OKAY. THERE'S A STATEMENT IN YOUR APPLICATION THAT RESIDENTS -- I THINK IT'S ALONG DEERFIELD MEADOWS OR COULD BE DEERFIELD MEADOWS CIRCLE -- YOU'RE ASKING FOR A WAIVER NOT UPGRADE THAN FIRST FIRST 200 FEET OF THAT ROAD AND YOU SAY THE NEIGHBORS DON'T WANT THAT, THAT THEY WANT -- I BELIEVE IT'S ON PAGE THRFGHT YOUR APPLICATION -- THAT THE NEIGHBORS DON'T WANT ANY UPGRADE TO THAT ROAD.

INSTEAD, THEY WANT SIDEWALKS ALONG THERE.

I READ ALL THE LETTERS THAT WERE SENT IN ON MY IPHONE BECAUSE YOU COULDN'T GET THE ITEM TO COME UP ON A COMPUTER, AND I DIDN'T SEE ONE MENTION OF ANY NEIGHBOR SAYING THAT, ANYONE THAT WROTE IN SAID NOTHING ABOUT THEY DIDN'T WANT THAT UPGRADING AND THEY WANTED SIDEWALKS INSTEAD, SO WHERE ARE YOU

GETTING THAT INFORMATION? >> OKAY.

SO THE CONDITION YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT IS DEERFIELD FOREST DRIVE, SO THAT IS GOING INTO THE SUBDIVISIONS RIGHT HERE.

NOW, WE CAN -- THAT ROAD SECTION CAN BE RIPPED UP AND WIDENED, BUT I BELIEVE -- I WASN'T THERE, BUT I BELIEVE AT A COMMUNITY MEETING IT WAS, THE DESIRE WAS TO LEAVE THAT ROAD THE WAY IT WAS AND NOTE CAUSE A HUGE DISPURNS.

THERE IS A SIDEWALK ON THAT ROAD, AND SO THEY DIDN'T -- MY UNDERSTANDING WAS THAT'S WANTED THAT CONDITION TO BE THE SAME SAMEN==. IF IT'S DETERMINED THAT THAT DOES, THAT THAT IS NECESSARY TO BE DONE, THAT'S ANOTHER OFF-SITE ROAD IMPROVEMENT THAT WE COULD CERTAINLY LOOK AT DOING.

>> DR. HILSENBECK: BUT YOU'RE ASKING TODAY FOR A WAIVER OF

THAT. >> CORRECT.

BASED ON THE COMMENTS THAT WE RECEIVED, WE'RE ASKING FOR A WAIVER TO NOT TEAR UP THAT ROAD AND START OVER AGAIN.

>> DR. HILSENBECK: I DIDN'T SEE ANY COMMENTS IN A COMMUNITY MEETING. USUALLY THERE'S SOME NOTES IN THERE OR PARAPHRASED COMMENTS. DIDN'T SEE THEM IN THE APPLICATION MATERIALS. I'M CONFUSED ABOUT YOUR EASEMENT TO GET OUT TO CARTER ROAD. THERE ARE SOME MATERIALS HAND OUT TODAY SHOWED THIS OTHER PARCEL, AND THEN IT LOOKS LIKE AN EASEMENT OVER TO CARTER ROAD. THESE Y'ALL PASSED OUT TODAY.

I JUST WONDER, IF YOU HAD ACQUIRED THAT EASEMENT, AS REPRESENTED TO US ON NOVEMBER 18TH OF 2001, THAT WAS -- 2021 AT A PZA MEETING WITH BE IT WAS STATED YOU HAD THAT EASEMENT THAT WAS SIGNED, SEALED AND DELIVERED, BUT IF THE PROPERTY SOLD SUBSEQUENTLY, AND I UNDER IT HAS, I'VE DONE A LOT OF DIFFERENT KIND OF EASEMENTS, REAL ESTATE TRANSACTIONS THAT I'VE BEEN INVOLVED WITH, AND THOSE RUN WITH THE DEED TO THE PROPERTY, SO I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY YOU'RE NEGOTIATING WITH THE CURRENT OWNER IF YOU BOUGHT AND PAID FOR A LEGITIMATE, VALID ACCESS EASEMET OUT TO CARTER ROAD, WHY YOU'RE IN DISCUSSIONS WITH THE NEW OWNER ABOUT THAT. THAT SHOULD HAVE RUN WITH THE

DEED, AS YOU HAD MENTIONED. >> WE'RE NOT REALLY IN NEGOTIATIONS. WHAT WE'RE DOING IS --

>> DR. HILSENBECK: THAT'S WHAT YOU SAID.

>> WELL, THERE'S NO NEGOTIATION. WE HAVE AN AGREEMENT.

WE PAID THE MONEY. WE HAVEN'T RECORDED THE EASEMENT DOCUMENT YET BECAUSE, LIKE I SAID, WE ARE FINAL PIEZ 10 LEGAL DESCRIPTION -- FINALIZING THE LEGAL DESCRIPTION.

THERE WAS ONE KIND OF TURN TO GET TO CARTER ROAD, AND THE OWNER -- SO PART OF THE AGREEMENT WAS THAT WE WOULD WORK OUT A MUTUALLY AGREEABLE EASEMENT.

WE HAVE THE LOCATION NOW. NOW IT'S JUST A MATTER OF REDUCING IT TO A LEGAL DESCRIPTION TO BE RECORDED.

SO AGAIN, IT'S KIND OF LIKE THE OFF-SITE IMPROVEMENTS AT WATSON ROAD AND US-1, THAT WILL BE MASTER THE PUD THAT WE PROVIDE THIS EMERGENCY ACCESS HISTORIANS BUT WE WERE TOLD ON NOVEMBER 18TH THAT YOU ALREADY HAD THAT ACCESS EASEMENT

SECURED. >> WE DO HAVE IT SECURED.

WE DO HAVE IT SECURED VIA A FULLY ENFORCEABLE CONTRACT, AND SO IT WAS A -- WE ENTERED INTO A CONTRACT TO EXECUTE THE EASEMENT. WE HAVE THE FORM OF THE EASEMENT. AGAIN, IT WAS AS JUST A MATTEF FINALIZE 10 LEGAL DESCRIPTION, WHICH IS -- WE'RE IN NO ISSUE, NO DISPUTE. THERE'S NO DISPUTE ON THAT AT ALL. IT'S JUST A MATTER OF GETTING TE

THE LEGAL DESCRIPTION. >> DR. HILSENBECK: AND THIS IS

[00:40:01]

OFF THE END OF DEVONSHIRE ROAD? >> CORRECT.

>> DR. HILSENBECK: AND THEN THAT'S WHERE IT MEETS A LOCKED

GATE. >> YES, FOR COUNTY EMERGENCY

ACCESS. >> DR. HILSENBECK: RIGHT.

AND THEN GOING NORTH FROM THERE, NORTH-NORTHWEST FROM THERE ON THAT UNPAVED PORTION OF CARTER ROAD, THAT'S A PRIVATE ROAD? IS THAT CORRECT? IS CARTER ROAD A PRIVATE ROAD?

>> IT'S A PRIVATE ROAD BUT IT'S SUBJECT TO EASEMENT FOR THE

PROPERTY OWNERS. >> DR. HILSENBECK: THAT WAS NOT MY UNDERSTANDING BUT I ASSUME WE'LL FIGURE THAT OUT.

>> WELL, THE OWNER OF THESE LANDS HAVE THE RIGHT TO USE CARTER ROAD, SO THEY HAVE THE RIGHT TO GRANT THE EASEMENT FOR EMERGENCY ACCESS. THERE'S NOTHING PREVENTING THAT.

WE DID -- WE HAVE -- WE DID A FAIRLY SIMILAR THING.

I DON'T KNOW IF YOU'RE FAMILIAR WITH THE CORDOVA PALMS PROJECT.

>> DR. HILSENBECK: I'M NOT. >> IT'S 735 LOTS JUST NORTH OF

THE AIRPORT AT THE NEW 330 -- >> DR. HILSENBECK: I KNOW

WHERE IT IS. >> STATE ROAD 313 AND US-1.

THERE IS THE SAME ISSUE. WE HAVE A RAILROAD THAT CUTS OFF THOSE HOMES TO US-1. SO WE NEEDED AN EMERGENCY ACCESS. SO WE OBTAINED A DIRT, PRIVATE EASEMENT THROUGH THE ST. JOHNS COUNTY AIRPORT AUTHORITY LAND AS AN EMERGENCY ACCESS. IT'S IN MUCH WORSE SHAPE THAN CARTER ROAD, BUT IT'S UNDER THE COUNTY STANDARDS, IT'S PERMISSIBLE SECONDARY EMERGENCY ACCESS.

>> DR. HILSENBECK: AND THE COUNTY WAS HAS SIGNED OFF ON

THAT. >> CORRECT.

>> DR. HILSENBECK: BUT HAVE THE OWNERS OF CARTER ROAD SIGNED

IDENTIFY OFF ON THAT? >> THINK DON'T NEED TO.

>> DR. HILSENBECK: THEY DON'T NEED TO.

LET ME ASK THIS. YOU MENTIONED THAT THE ACCESS, YOU SHOWED IT ON AN OVERHEAD HIGHLIGHTED IN YELLOW THAT THE ACCESS TO YOUR PARTICULAR PROPERTY WAS GOING TO BE THROUGH DEERFIELD TRACE, AND THEN TO THAT 60-FOOT, AND THAT WAS IN QUOTES, THAT 60-FOOT, DEERFIELD TRACE IS TO THE NORTH, RIGHT?

>> CORRECT. >> DR. HILSENBECK: 74 HOME SUBDIVISION TO THE NORTH. WHY RUNT GOING THROUGH THERE IF THAT WAS YOUR LEGAL ACCESS? WERE WHY ARE YOU GOING THROUGH

DEERFIELD MEADOWS? >> IF I SAID THAT I MISSPOKE.

DEERFIELD TRACE IS A ULT ISOLATED SUBDIVISION TO THE

NORTH. >> DR. HILSENBECK: ON THE MATERIAL YOU SHOWED HIGHLIGHTED IN YELLOW THAT YOUR ACCESS WAS

THROUGH DEERFIELD TRACE. >> I DON'T BELIEVE SO.

>> DR. HILSENBECK: WELL, PUT IT BACK UP BECAUSE I THINK IT

WAS. >> THIS IS THE PUD TEXT FOR DEERFIELD DEERFIELD MEADOWS AND IS SUBDIVISION TO THE WEST OF OURS, SO THIS IS TALKING ABOUT ACCESS TO DEERFIELD MEADOWS, AND TO MEET THE INTERCONNECTIVITY REQUIREMENT, IT SAYS THE INTERCONNECTIVITY FOR PROJECT IS PROVIDED FROM WATSON ROAD VIA THE ACCESS ROAD THROUGH DEER TRACE SUBDIVISION. SO THAT ACCESS ROAD IS A PUBLIC ROAD NOW. IT'S CALLED DEERFIELD FOREST DRIVE AND IT'S ON THE EAST SIDE OF DEEFERRED TRACE SO THAT'S WHAT THAT'S TALK ABOUT, AND THEN IT GOES FURTHER TO SAY THAT THE 60-FOOT FUTURE ACCESS PROVIDE FOR FUTURE DEVELOPMENT

PROPERTIES TO THE WEST. >> DR. HILSENBECK: OKAY.

IS AND THEN YOU SHOWED US THAT MAP.

I'M NOT CONVINCED THAT THAT 60-FOOT FUTURE ACCESS THAT YOU HIGHLIGHTED IN GREEN ON YOUR MAP IS EXACTLY WHAT YOU SAY IS THAT 60-FOOT FUTURE ACCESS, BUT I STILL AM CONFUSED WITH ABOUTE ACCESS ROAD THROUGH DEERFIELD TRACE SUBDIVISION.

I JUST DON'T SEE IT BECAUSE I DROVE IN THERE YESTERDAY AND I DID NOT HAVE TO DRIVE THROUGH DEERFIELD TRACE.

>> SO AGAIN, THIS -- >> DR. HILSENBECK: I DROVE BY

THE. >> THAT ROAD THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT, THAT'S THE BOUNDARY OF DEERFIELD TRACE RIGHT THERE.

THAT ROAD IS ON THE BOUNDARY OF DEERFIELD TRACE.

IT WAS PART OF THE DEERFIELD TRACE SUBDIVISION.

IT HAS SINCE BEEN DEBTED DEDICATED IT'S PUBLIC ROAD.

IT'S CALLED DEERFIELD FOREST DRIVE SO THAT IS WHAT THAT MEANS, ACCESS TO DEERFIELD DEERFIELD MEADOWS IS THROUGH HERE, DEERFIELD TRACE, WHICH IS THIS ROAD RIGHT HERE. THAT ROAD, THAT'S WHAT THAT'S

TALKING ABOUT >> DR. HILSENBECK: OKAY.

I JUST DON'T SEE THAT LANGUAGE REFERRING TO THAT ROAD.

I WISH YOU COULD BETTER DEMONSTRATE THAT TO MY SATISFACTION BECAUSE THAT'S NOT THE WAY I'M READING IT.

BUT -- AND I DON'T HAVE THAT ENTIRE DOCUMENT BEFORE HE, I

[00:45:03]

DON'T THINK, BUT LET ME ASK YOU ABOUT THIS.

THE LAST TIME Y'ALL WERE HERE -- AND I'M STILL NOT CONVINCED ABOUT YOUR ACCESS EASEMENT FOR PEOPLE TO GET OUT OF THERE, LET'S SAY, IN THE MIDDLE OF THE NIGHT DRIVING ON A DIRT ROAD, HUNDREDS OF PEOPLE TRYING TO GET OUT OF THERE IN AN EMERGENCY, WHAT THAT WOULD BE LIKE TRYING TOWING UP CARTER ROAD, BUT THE LAST TIME Y'ALL WERE HERE, IT WAS STATED THAT, CONCERNING THE RAILROAD TRACKS THERE AND TRAINS POTENTIALLY BLOCKING WATSON ROAD, THAT THERE WAS A AREA WHERE PRODUCE -- I'M NOT SURE THAT IT WAS STATED IT WAS PRODUCE BUT THAT'S WHAT IT IS -- WAS LOADED OR UNLOADED ALONG THERE AND IT WAS DENIED THAT THERE WAS -- THERE WAS NO SUCH FACILITY OPERATING THERE AND THAT TRAINS DIDN'T STOP THERE ALONG THE TRACKS AND BLOCKED WATSON ROAD. HOW DO YOU ANSWER THAT? IS THERE INDEED A FACILITY THERE FOR UNLOADING TRAINS THAN THEY OH OCCASIONALLY BLOCK WATSON ROAD?

YES OR NO? >> I DON'T KNOW FORE SURE WHAT THEY DO. THIS IS THE PARCEL I THINK

YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT. >> DR. HILSENBECK: CORRECT.

>> AND -- BUT THESE CONDITIONS EXIST TODAY.

THEY EXIST FOR EVERY ACCIDENT WEST OF THE RAILROAD TRACKS.

>> . >> DR. HILSENBECK: THEY DO.

>> AND SO WE'RE OFFERING TO MAKE IT BETTER.

>> DR. HILSENBECK: SO YOU DO NOT KNOW IF THERE'S A FACILITY

THERE? >> I KNOW THAT THE FLORIDA EAST COAST RAILROAD USES -- OWNS THIS PARCEL OF LAND.

I DON'T KNOW EXACTLY WHAT THEY USE IT FOR.

>> DR. HILSENBECK: WELL, I WAS THERE YESTERDAY FOR 20 MINUTES, AND I WOULD FIGURE YOU WOULD KNOW WAY BETTER THAN I WOULD, BUT I WAS THERE FOR 20 MINUTES, SAW SOME GUYS DOWN THERE BY THE RED LOADER OR UNLOADER, SO I WENT DOWN THERE AND TALKED TO THEM, THREE GUYS THERE, AND I SAID, "SO DO Y'ALL EVER LOAD OR UNLOAD PRODUCE HERE?" OH, YEAH, ABSOLUTELY.

THEY UNLOAD POTATOES AND ONIONS COMING FROM WASHINGTON STATE.

AND I SAID, OH, THAT'S INTERESTING BECAUSE IT WAS -- I WAS -- AND I SAID DOES THE TRAIN STOP HERE AND BLOCK THE TRACKS OCCASIONAL? YEAH, YEAH, THAT HAPPENS ABSOLUTELY. SO HOW LONG DOES IT TAKE TO UNLOAD THE TRAIN TYPICALLY? SIX TO EIGHT HOURS IS WHAT I WAS TOLD TO UNLOAD ONIONS AND RUSSET POTATOES OFF THAT TRAIN ONTO THAT DEVICE, AND THEY WERE POURING ON CRETE -- I HAVE PHOTOS OF IT -- THEY HAD A CONCRETE TRUCK THERE POURING A CONCRETE PAD SO THEY WOULD COULD MAKE THAT A MORE PERMANENT INSTALLATION. THEY PLAN TO USE THIS ALL THE TIME. I ASKED THEM HOW OFTEN THIS HAPPENS. AT LEAST ONCE A WEEK THEY DO THAT AND THEY BLOCK THE ROAD. SO IN 20 MINUTES TALKIN TO THREE GUYS AND TAKING A QUICK TRIP OUT THERE LOOKINGTY PROPERTY I FOUND THIS OUT. I'M SURPRISED YOU DO NOT KNOW THIS. I'M REALLY SHOCKED THAT YOU --

>> ALL THE MORE REASON WHY EVERYBODY THAT'S CURRENTLY WEST OF THE RAILROAD TRACKS WOULD BENEFIT FROM EMERGENCY ACCESS ON CARTER ROAD IF WHAT YOU -- I MEAN, IF THAT'S IN FACT WHAT HAPPENS, YOU KNOW, LET US HELP THAT PROBLEM.

WE HAVE SECURED THIS EASEMENT FOR EMERGENCY ACCESS, AND SO THAT CONDITION THAT YOU SPEAK ABOUT EXISTS.

IT EXISTS FOR ALL THESE PEOPLE, THESE PEOPLE, EXISTS FOR EVERY ACCIDENT IN DEERFIELD MEADOWS AND EVERY RESIDENT DEERFIELD

TRACE. >> SO IF YOUR SUBDIVISION NOT APPROVED, THIS WHOLE EASEMENT CONCEPT GOES TWEA?

>> AWAY? >> WE WOULD THEN HAVE NO NEED FOR THE EASEMENT. I MEAN, WE CAN CERTAINLY TALK TO FOLKS WITH THE COUNTY ABOUT IT, BUT IF WE'RE DENIED AND WE'RE NOT GOING TO DEVELOP THIS PROPERTY NOW AS 63 ADDITIONAL LOTS, BASICALLY THE PHASE 2 OF DEERFIELD MEADOWS, WE WOULD HAVE NO REASON TO CONTINUE PAYING FOR THE EMERGENCY ACCESS.

>> DR. HILSENBECK: I UNDERSTAND THAT, YES.

YOUR DRAINAGE CANAL, I DON'T UNDER THE NEED FOR YOU TO DIG A NEW RIM DITCH AROUND THE PERIMETER OF THE PROPERTY THAT WOULD TRY TO SHULT WATER TO THE NORTH AND -- SHUTTLE WATER TO THE NORTH AND THEN TO THE WEST WHEN YOU HAVE A CURRENTLY EXISTT LONG DRAINAGE CANAL RUNNING RIGHT DOWN THROUGH THE CENTER MORE OR LESS OF YOUR PROPERTY, COMES FROM A HOLDING POND IN DEERFIELD MEADOWS. IT'S HARD TO BELIEVE THAT YOU WOULD BLOCK THAT UP, BUILD HOMES RIGHT OVER THE TOP OF THAT.

THAT'S WHAT YOUR MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN SHOWS, YOU

[00:50:02]

BUILDING HOMES RIGHT ON TOP OF THAT URNT CAN DRAINAGE CANAL, AND THEN HAVING A, WHAT I WOULD CONSIDER, UNPROVEN DRAINAGE CANAL IN AN AREA WHEN APPARENTLY HAS FLOODED.

THAT'S HEARSAY IN SOME OF THE LETTERS WE RECEIVED, THAT SEVERAL HOMES IN DEERFIELD TRACE HAVE FLOODED IN THE PAST.

I DON'T KNOW WHY YOU WOULD SHUNT MORE WATER UP TOWARD DEERFIELD TRACE. I UNDERSTAND THE WATER DEFINITELY FLOWS FROM EAST TO WEST, BUT I DON'T KNOW THAT IT FLOWS NORTH WITHOUT Y'ALL HAVING TO PUMP THAT WATER TO THE NORTH.

WOULD YOU HAVE TO PUMP IT? >> I DON'T BELIEVE SO, BUT AGAIN I'D LIKE DAVID TAYLOR TO ANSWER THAT QUESTION.

HE'S THE ENGINEER. I DO KNOW THAT DITCHES BECOME CLOGGED WITH DEBRIS AND SO FORTH, AND I THINK --

>> DR. HILSENBECK: ABSOLUTELY. >> -- THEY'VE FIGURED OUT HOW TO

FIXED THAT PROBLEM. >> YOU HAVE THE MAP, BUT BASICALLY WE ARE PIPING OR WE ARE RELOCATING THE DITCH TO% ALLOW US TO DEVELOP THE HOMES. IF WE TRIED TO LEAVE THE DITCH THAT'S THERE, WE WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO DEVELOP AS MANY HOMES IN THAT PROPERTY. HOWEVER, HOWEVER, THE DITCH THAT WE ARE BUILDING WILL BE BETTER AND BURG THAN WHAT'S THERE NOW GOING THROUGH THE LAND. THE DITCH THAT GOES THERE NOW IS NOT BEING MAINTAINED BY ANYBODY. IF WE BUILD THE DITCH, THEY WILL BE REQUIRED TO MAINTAIN THAT DITCH AS PART OF THE HOA, AS PART OF THE WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT PERMIT.

EVERYTHING WE DO IS REVIEWED BY THE DISTRICT AND BY THE COUNTY, AND SO WHAT WE ALWAYS DO AND OUR PHILOSOPHY IS IS WE MAKE IT BETTER. OKAY? HISTORIANS SO YOU KNOW RIGHT NOW THAT THE WATER WOULD FLOW DUE

NORTH? >> NO, THE WATER DOES NOT FLOW

DUE NORTH. >> DR. HILSENBECK: BUT WHEN YOU DID I GO YOUR RIM DITCH, YOU'RE SAYING YOU'RE GOING TO SHUTTLE THE WATER TO THE NORTH AND THEN TO THE WEST.

THE WATER WILL FLOW TO THE NORTH IN.

>> VIA CONTOUR IT GOES TO THE NORTH AND VIA THE DESIGN, THE ELEVATIONS, IT WILL CONTINUE TO SAME PATTERN.

>> DR. HILSENBECK: INTO VULTURE CREEK, ALSO?

>> I DON'T KNOW THE NAME OF THE CREEK.

>> DR. HILSENBECK: THE SOILS OUT THERE, DO YOU KNOW WHAT THEY

ARE? >> I DID NOT REVIEW THAT, NO.

>> DR. HILSENBECK: POMONA SIGN FINE SAND, FLORIDANA FINE SAND, RIVIERA FINE SAND. DO THEY MEAN ANYTHING TO YOU?

>> YES. >> DR. HILSENBECK: WHAT ARE

THEY? >> FINE SAND.

>> MANY KINDS OF FINE SAND. >> I BELIEVE THEY'RE WELL

DRAINED. >> DR. HILSENBECK: WHAT ARE THE DRAINAGE CHARACTERISTICS OF THIS.

>> MR. MATOVINA: DR. HILSENBECK, WHY ARE WE

ASKING HIM -- >> DR. HILSENBECK: HE IS A HYDROLOGIST MOONCHTS YOUR BAD YERG THIS GUY.

YOU ARE ASKING THINGS THAT CAN BE LOOKED UP.

YOU'RE BADGERING THIS GUY. IF YOU HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT THE

DEVELOPMENT, ASK HIM A QUESTION >> DR. HILSENBECK: THIS IS A QUESTION ABOUT THE DEVELOPMENT, THE TYPE OF SOILS THAT IT HAS.

>> MR. MATOVINA: YOU'RE MAKING A STATEMENT.

>> I WOULD ASK THAT THE ENGINEERING ISSUES BE ADDRESSED BY THE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT AND THOSE PROFESSIONALS THAT REVIEW IT. I DON'T THINK PERSONALLY THIS IS MY PERSONAL OPINION, THAT THAT DRAINAGE OF THE POND AND THE WAY THAT THOSE FUNCTION IS NOT NECESSARILY A ZONING ISSUE.

IT IS AN ENGINEERING ISSUE. >> DR. HILSENBECK: YOU KNOW, REALLY DON'T LIKE BEING TOLD I'M BADGERING PEOPLE THIS IS THE SECOND TIME YOU'VE SAID THAT TO ME, NOT TODAY BUT IN ANOTHER MEETING. WHEN I'M ASKING A VALID QUESTION ABOUT SOILS ON THE PROPERTY. THAT'S VERY RELEVANT TO THIS WHOLE DISCUSSION OF DRAINAGE. THOSE THREE SOIL TYPES ARE VERY

POORLY AND POORLY DRAINED SOILS. >> MR. MATOVINA: SO YOU ALREADY KNOW THE ANSWER TO THE QUESTION.

>> DR. HILSENBECK: YES BE I DO.

HAVE YOU EVER ASKED A QUESTION WHERE YOU KNEW THE ANSWER?

>> MR. MATOVINA: PARDON ME? >> DR. HILSENBECK: QUUFER HAVE YOU EVER ASKED A QUESTION WHERE YOU KNEW THE ANSWER?

>> MR. MATOVINA: YES, I HAVE. BUT NOT BECAUSE OF MY BACKGROUND. BECAUSE I KNEW THE ANSWER FROM

READING THE MATERIALS. >> DR. HILSENBECK: WELL, IT'S SIMILAR. I'LL FOREGO ANY OTHER QUESTIONS RIGHT NOW. I DON'T WANT TO BADGER ANYONE.

>> THANK YOU, SIR. >> MR. MATOVINA, MAY I ASK A FEW QUESTIONS OR SEEK CLARIFICATION REGARDING THE EMERGENCY ACCESS

EASEMENT? >> MR. MATOVINA: YES, YOU MAY.

>> MR., THE ORIGINAL EASEMENT THAT WAS SUBMITTED WITH THE APPLICATION HAD THE COUNTY AS A GRANTEE.

IS THAT CORRECT? >> YES.

>> SO THE COUNTY HASN'T ACCEPTED ANY EASEMENT AS OF TODAY'S DATE?

>> YOU MEAN LIKE AS EXECUTED AND RECORDED?

>> RIGHT, OR EVEN BEEN PRESENTED WITH IT FOR ACCEPTANCE.

>> I BELIEVE THAT IT'S BEEN -- I BELIEVE THAT IT'S BEEN DELIVERED TO CERTAIN COUNTY PERSONNEL. I'M NOT EXACTLY SURE WHICH ONES.

>> SO IT'S THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS WHO WOULD HAVE TO ACCEPT THE EASEMENT AND IT HASN'T BEEN PRESENTED TO THEM.

[00:55:02]

I. I HAVEN'T SEEN AN EASEMENT AGREEMENT OR ANOTHER EASEMENT THAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT WITH THE NEW PROPERTY OWNER.

ARE YOU NEGOTIATING TO ALSO HAVE THE COUNTY AS THE GRANTEE?

>> SO THAT, THAT EASEMENT AGREEMENT THAT'S IN THE MATERIALS IS -- WAS ASSIGNED TO THE NEW PROPERTY OWNER, SO NOTHING HAS CHANGED AS FAR AS THAT GOES.

>> OKAY. AND I THINK YOU MENTIOND INND SPRING TO A QUESTION FROM DR. HILSENBECK THAT SOMEONE WITH THE COUNTY HAS APPROVED USE, EMERGENCY USE OF THE PRIVATE PORTION OF CARTER ROAD AS EMERGENCY ACCESS.

DO YOU KNOW WHO -- >> I'M NOT AWARE OF ANYBODY WITH THE COUNTY THAT'S APPROVED THE ROAD.

I'M NOT AWARE OF ANY ABILITY FOR ANY LACK OF ABILITY FOR A PROPERTY OWNER THAT HAS EASEMENT RIGHTS OVER CARTER ROAD TO BE PREVENTED FROM USING CARTER ROAD.

>> SURE. I THOUGHT YOU STATED THAT THE COUNTY HAD AGREED OR ACQUIESCED THAT THEY COULD USE IT FOR EMERGENCY PURPOSES, SO I'M JUST TRYING TO CLARIFY THAT

STATEMENT. >> WELL, THE -- AND SUBMITTING THE APPLICATION, RESPONDING TO REQUESTS, THAT WAS ONE OF THE ITEMS, WAS TO COME UP WITH THIS EMERGENCY ACCESS, SO THE LOCATION AND THE PROPOSED HAS BEEN SUBMITTED -- PROPOSAL HAS BEEN SUBMITTED AND AS FAR AS I KNOW THERE'S NO OTHER COMMENTS WITH REGARD TO LACK OF EMERGENCY ACCESS.

>> OKAY. THANK YOU.

>> MR. MATOVINA: ALL RIGHT. DOES ANYBODY ELSE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OF THE APPLICANT? BECAUSE I HAVE ONE.

MR. REPASS, YOU SHOWED US THAT PROVISION FROM PUTTED 2017-13 THAT DISCUSSES THAT ACCESS THAT YOU HIGHLIGHTED IN YELLOW.

>> YES, SIR. >> MR. MATOVINA: ARE YOU AWARE OF -- AND I PROBABLY ASKED THIS SAME QUESTION OF STAFF -- HAS THAT PUD BEEN MODIFIED OR IS THAT PUD THE CURRENT PUD?

>> YES, THIS IS -- THIS LANGUAGE IS IN EFFECT.

YES. >> MR. MATOVINA: THAT IS MY QUESTION. THANK YOU.

STAFF'S NO AWARE OF -- QUESTION TO STAFF.

YOU'RE NOT AWARE OF THAT QUESTION THAT PUD HAVING FURTHER

BEEN MODIFIED? >> WITH REGARD TO THAT ACCESS

LOCATION? >> MR. MATOVINA: YES.

>> THAT'S CORRECT. I LOOKED AT THE PLAT, AND THE PLAT SHOWS -- I DON'T KNOW THAT IT INDICATES FUTURE ACCESS BUT THE MDP MAP DOES AND AT LEAST IT REPRESENTS THE HALF CUL-DE-SAC.

>> MR. MATOVINA: VERY GOOD. THANK YOU, MR. REPASS.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? HEARING NONE, WE ARE READY FOR

SPEAKER CARDS. >> MS. PERKINS: WE HAVE 11 SPEAKER CARDS. BRAND YOU WILLIAMS, BRP FIRST. THE PLEASE IT HAD MY NAME IS FOR THE RECORD. YOU HAVE THREE MINUTES.

[INAUDIBLE] >> I'VE BEEN THERE ABOUT 37 YEARS. I'M HERE ON BEHALF OF SEVERALLAL CITIZENS OF CARTER ROAD. WE AS THE RESIDENTS DON'T EVEN UNDERSTAND HOW THIS CAN EVEN BE PROPOSED.

IS THIS EVEN LEGAL? THIS IS A PRIVATE DRIVE.

THIS IS FOR THE RESIDENTS OF CARTER ROAD.

WE MAINTAIN THIS ROAD. WE DON'T KNOW HOW A DEVELOPER CAN EVEN THINK THAT THEY COULD JUST COME IN AND TAKE OUR ROAD FOR THEIR OWN PERSONAL GAIN. THIS IS NOT EMINENT DOMAIN.

FOR THE DEVELOPER, THIS IS MONEY AND GREED.

WE DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY WE WEREN'T NOTIFIED BY THIS DEVELOPER. WE BY CHANCE FOUND OUT ABOUT THIS. IT IS BURIED IN A PRSM A SUBDIVISION -- PROPOSAL OF A SUBDIVISION THAT IS TWO TO THREE MILES AWAY FROM US. WE WERE LUCKY THAT WE EVEN FOUND IT OUT. IN MY OPINION THEY DIDN'T WANT US TO FIND IT OUT. THEY WANTED TO HIDE IT.

THIS IS VERY SHADY. THIS DRIVEWAY IS A ONE-WAY DRIVEWAY. IT'S NOT MADE FOR TWO-WAY TRAFFIC. AND I DON'T KNOW WHAT THEIR DEFINITION OF AN EMERGENCY ACCESS, BUT I KNOW WHEN WE HAVE THUNDERSTORMS, TROPICAL STORMS, OR HURRICANE, THAT ROADWAY IS BLOCKED BY TREES. WE CAN'T EVEN GET OUT OURSELVES.

SO AN EMERGENCY EMERGENCY VEHICLE COULD NOT EVEN GO DOWN THIS ROAD IN THE EVENT OF AN EMERGENCY.

I HAVE PICTURES TOO. THIS IS OF YOUR OWN ZONING MAP.

THEY ARE PROPOSING TO COME IN THROUGH THE SECOND PHASE OF WATSON WOODS. IT IS NOT EVEN CALLED CARTER ROAD. AS YOU CAN SEE IT'S DEVONSHIRE ROAD. IT DOES NOT CONNECT TO CARTER

[01:00:02]

ROAD. AS YOU CAN SEE HERE.

SO HOW THEY CAN THINK THEY COULD PHASE OF WATSON WOODS.

I WENT OVER TO WATSON WOODS. IT'S EVEN CALLED DAVEN SHORE DRIVE WHERE THEY WANT TO GO THROUGH.

IT'S NOT CARTER ROAD. THIS IS ALSO ANOTHER PICTURE THAT'S BEYOND -- THEY WANT TO GO THROUGH THE SUBDIVISION OF WATSON WOODS AND THAT'S IN BETWEEN WHERE I JUST PASSED THIS HOUSE IS WHERE THEY PLAN TO GO IN AT.

THIS IS THE ROADWAY THAT THEY WANT TO -- ORE I GUESS GO THROUGH WITH THIS LITTLE CHAIN THAT'S ACROSS THE FENCE IT GETS MUDDY. I'M SURE THEY TWO HAVE TO UPGRADE IT BUT STILL, IT DOES NOT CONNECT TO CARTER ROAD.

THIS IS THIS ACTUAL OLD CARTER ROAD.

I'VE BEEN HERE FOR 37 YEARS IT. RUNS IN THE BACKYARD OF THE PEOPLE OF WATSON WOODS AND IT WAS DONE AWAY WITH WHEN WATSON WOODS WAS ALLOWED TO DEVELOP THEIR PROPERTY.

>> MS. PERKINS: THANK YOU. NEXT IS ALLEN LORO.

>> ALLEN LORE OH TWL FIVE, ST. AUGUSTINE.

I SENT YOU ALL A DETAILED EMAIL. I KNOW I HAVE THREE MINUTES.

REGARDSTO DEERFIELD FOREST PROPOSAL I HAVE A FEW STATEMENTS FROM MY PAST AND PRESENT P&EZ COMMISSIONERS.

YEF MARTIN STATED THAT HE COULD NOT SUPPORT ANY MORE TRACK OF BEING THAT HAD TODAY WATSON ROAD AND THE SAFETY ISSUES CAUSED BY SUCH ACTION. THERE HAS TO BE A STRAW THAT TBREAKS THE CAMEL AS BACK ON THERE.

HE CONTINUED, WHEN I LOOK AT THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP, AS FAR AS THE EYE CAN SEE YOU WONT KNOW ANY OTHER STREETS BY WHICH VEHICULAR TRAFFIC COULD ACCESS ANY PORTION OF DEERFIELD FOREST.

YOU WONT FIND ANY SECONDARY ACCESS AT ALL.

JOHN WOODWARD ADDED HOW UNSAFE WATSON ROAD HAD BECOME.

I APPROACHED COUNTY STAFF AND WAS TOLD WATSON ROAD TO US-1 STILL MET ACCEPTABLE STANDARD. IT GOES ON TO SHOW YOU THAN THE YOU CAN'T ALWAYS GO BY THE BOOK. WE AS OFFICIALS NEED TO LOOK AT THINGS WITH OUR OWN EYES. JAY MORRIS EXPRESS THAT MORE HAS TO BE DONE TO WATSON ROAD THAN THAT INTERSECTION.

JIMMY JOHNS' COMMENT THAT THE HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELL FEAR OF EVACUATIONS HOMES DURING AN EMERGENCY WITHOUT ANY MEANS OF EKESSABILITY IS VITAL. WITH ANY BIOLOGIC CAN BLOAGE OF WATSON ROAD BY THE RAILROAD, THE RAILROAD AS STATEMENT BACK TO ME WAS THE RAILROAD WAS FIRST. YOU SHOULD HAVE KNOWN BETTER BY BUILDING DEVELOPMENTS THAT HAVE ONLY ONE WAY IN AND ONE WAY OUT.

PAUL STATED THERE'S ONLY ONE OTHER FLOAT ST. JOHNS COUNTY THAT HAS AN IDENTICAL RAILROAD CROSSING KANSAS WATSON ROAD THAT BEING STRATTON ROAD AND THAT ONLY CON STAINS A FEW HOMES.

HE ADDED STRATTON WAS PROBABLY THERE BEFORE THE RAILROAD.

RECENTLY A QUESTION WAS A LOCATION IN THE ACCESS TO THE EVACUATION ROAD, THE APPLICANT PROPOSED.

THIS AGENCY'S RESPONSE WAS PEOPLE TO HAVE HAVE WOULD HAVE TO TOM OUT OUT OF DEERFIELD DIVISION WEEK GO ON TO WATSON ROAD, TAKE A LEFT, GO TO ONTO ANOTHER ROAD, THEN FIND A DIRTIED ROAD THROUGH THE WOODS TO GRANDMOTHER'S HOUSE.

ANY ZONING REQUEST SHOULD NOT BE APPROVED IF SAFETY CONCERNS, NOT ADDRESS GUIDE PROPOSED PUD REZONING.

THE LACK OF ANY SECONDARY POINT OF INGRESS AND DEE GRESSION THE TO DEERFIELD FOREST CLEARLY SHOWS THAT TO BE TROUP.

TAKE ALSO INTO UNT ACCOUNT WATSON ROAD THE REMAINS DEFICIENT OF ADEQUATE PAVEMENTS, SIDEWALKS, DRAINAGE.

TO ALLOW FOR ADDITIONAL OF 63 ADDITIONAL HOMES TO A COMPOUND WITH AN ALL RIGHT EXISTING CONDITION AND EXASPERATE TRAFFIC TO SAFETY AND PEDESTRIANS AND BICYCLE PLIPSZ FURTHERMORE THE DRAINAGE FOR THE PROJECT WERE OUTFALL TO PRIVATE NOT NOTE OWNED BY THE APPLICANT OR THE PROPERTY NOT COVERED BY ANY MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT, INCONSISTENT AT THE TIME WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICY ADDING ONLY TO AN EXISTING CONDITION. ANY PROPOSED REZONING WOULD BE INCONFIDENT WITH THE GOAL OF EFFECTIVELY MAGNITUDE GROWTH.

IPPED END WITH I WAS HERE ON JULY 2015 AND IT WAS DR. MCCORMICK'S FIRST DAY AND HIS STATEMENT WAS I WAS THE NEW KID ON BLOCK WITH DEERFIELD FOREST.

FOUR YEARS LATER WE'RE STILL DISCUSSING IT.

THANK YOU. >> MS. PERKINS: DEREK HESSY.

>> HELLO. MY NAME IS DEREK HESSY 379 DEERFIELD MEADOWS CIRCLE AND DEERFIELD MEADOWS COMMUNITY.

THE MAJOR POINT THAT I'D LIKE TO REINFORCE IS THE UNACCEPTABLE PLAN THIS DEVELOPER HAS PROPOSED FOR HAVING ONLY A SINGLE ENTRANCE TO THE NEW DEVELOPMENT. AND TO ME INTERCONNECTIVITY AS THE DEVELOPER STATES DOES NOT IMPLY IT'S THE ONLY WAY IN AND OUT. THIS CAUSES SIGNIFICANT SAFETY ISSUES FROM THE GREATLY INCREASED TRAFFIC AND SUBSTANTIALLY REDUCED QUALITY OF LIFE FOR THOSE OF US THAT BOUGHT OUR HOMES IN A NEIGHBORHOOD HA THAT WAS SUPPOSED TO BE QUIET AND FAMILY FRIENDLY. AS A ALREADY STAITDZ IN MY

[01:05:01]

LETTER, THIS TRAFFIC STUDY THAT WAS PERFORMED IN 2018 SHOWS AN EXTRA, EXTRA 686 TRIPS PER DAY THROUGH OUR NEIGHBORHOOD ALL FLOWING THROUGH THIS SINGLE ENTRANCE.

I CAN'T EVEN I BEAR TO THINK OF THE TRATIOND THAT WILL OCCUR WHEN ONE OF THE MANY CHILDREN THAT PLAY AND RIDE BICYCLES IS HIT BY THE LARGE NUMBER OF ADDITIONAL VEHICLES PASSING THROUGH EVERY DAY, AND THE PARENTS OF THOSE CHILDREN BOUGHT IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD BECAUSE IT WAS SUPPOSED TO BE A SAFE PLACE FOR THEIR CHILDREN TO PLAY AND GROW.

ADDITIONALLY THE TRAFFIC STUDY THAT I JUST MENTIONED DID NOT TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE FACT THAT THERE ARE TEN HOMES WITH RV GARAGES IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD, EIGHT OF WHICH ARE ALONG THE INGREECE/EGRESS ROUTES TO DEERFIELD FOREST.

MINE IS ONE OF THOSE HOMES. AND IT'S THE PRIMARY REASON THAT I TBHAWT THIS NEIGHBORHOOD. WHEN THOSE OF US WITH LARGE RVS AND MINE IS 38 FEET LONG, MOVE AND AND OUT OF THE GARAGE TO THE STREET, IT WILL IMPACT TRAFFIC FLOW SIGNIFICANTLY AND WITH THE VEHICLES PARKED TEMPORARILY ALONG THE ROADWAY DURING THE DAY, THIS WILL BE AN UNTENABLE SITUATION FOR ALL VEHICLES TRYING TO TRAVEL ON OUR STREETS WITHOUT INCREASED TRAFFIC. NEXT DEVELOPER TOLD US THE CONSTRUCTION ACCESS TO BE THROUGH A DIRT ROAD OFF WATSON AS HE DID TODAY TO THE INDUSTRIAL AREA EAST OF US, BUT THE LATEST DOCUMENT STILL SAYS EEL HOO USE OUR NEIGHBORHOOD STREETS FOR ALL CONSTRUCTION ACCESS.

THIS IS COMPLETELY UNACCEPTABLE. WHO IS GOING TO ENSURE THAT THE CONSTRUCTION TRAFFIC IS ROUTED THROUGH THIS SMALL DIRT ROAD WITH A GATE WITH LARGE VEHICLES WHEN THEY SEE THAT THE DEERFIELD MEADOWS DEPRIVE IS WIDE OPEN FER FOR CONSTRUCTION VEHICLES? ARE THEY GOING TO STATION A PERSON ON THE ROAD? I DON'T THINK SO. THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS IN THE PREVIOUS COURT CASE THAT IS BEEN REFERENCED ALREADY FOUND THAT THIS DEVELOPMENT SHOULD NOT PROCEED BECAUSE OF MULTIPLE CONCERNS INCLUDING THE LACK OF SECOND ACCESS FROM WATSON ROAD, TRAFFIC FLOW AND SAFETY ISSUES, AND THE PROPOSED LAND AREA HAS A LEGITIMATE PURPOSE FOR REMAINING OPEN RURAL. SO WHY DOES THIS DEVELOPER CONTINUE TO BRING THIS BACK TO THE COUNTY WITHOUT ADDRESSING THIS THE KEY ISSUES? THE ONLY WAY THAT THIS PROPOSAL SHOULD EVER BE ALLOWED TO PROCEED IS IF ALL THE ISSUES ARE ADDRESSED, INCLUDING A SECOND PRIMARY ENTRANCE TO THE DEVELOPMENT, A REAL EMERGENCY EVACUATION ROUTE, AND NECESSARY IMPROVEMENTS TO WATSON ROAD. THANK YOU FOR HEARING MY

CONCERNS. >> MS. PERKINS: ALLEN BISHOP.

>> HI. MY NAME IS ALLEN BISHOP I LIVE AT 121 MEADOW CROSSING DRIVE IN DEERFIELD MEADOWS SUBDIVISION.

BASICALLY MY WHOLE SPEECH IS NO LONGER WORTH A TOOT SINCE MR. HILSENBECK SPOKE OF THE CONCERNS THAT I HAD, BUT PRIMARILY I'D LIKE TO ADDRESS THE FACT THAT IN 2018 AT A PZA MEETING A LADY BY THE NAME OF JANE TRAMPON STATED, I QUOTE, THIS INTERSECTION WILL NEED APPROVAL BY ST. JOHNS COUNTY AND FDOT BEFORE A DECISION IS MADE ON CONSTRUCTION.

THIS IS SPEAKING OF THE WATSON ROAD AND IEWSMGHTS 1 INTERSECTION. AS OF TODAY 3/3/22 THIS HAS NOT BEEN UNDER THE DONE, THEREFORE NO CONSTRUCTION SHOULD BE ALLOWED AT THIS TIME, AS FAR AS THE SUBDIVISION GOES.

ANOTHER CONCERN I HAVE IS ALONG WATSON ROAD.

IT'S INCREASED USING OF THE RAIL SITING WHICH WAS ALREADY ADDRESSED EARLIER. AND BY THE WAY ATTORNEY DAVENPORT STATED AT THE PREVIOUS MEETING THAT I HAD LIED AND THIS WAS NOT AN OPERATIONAL SIGHTING. I SUGGEST HE GET HIS FACT STRAIGHT BEFORE MAKING SUCH A STATEMENT FOR THE PUBLIC RECORD.

THIS BEG THE BRINGS TO QUESTION THE CREDIBILITY OF OTHER STATEMENTS MADE REGARDING PLANS FOR DEERFIELD FOREST DEVELOPMENT. FOR EXAMPLE, SEPARATE YOU CAN CRACKER BARREL ENTRANCE WAS TO BE PROVIDED.

SEEMINGLY IT HAS SINCE BEEN DELETED.

AN EVACUATION ROUTE WAS TO BE PROVIDED, AND DUE TO THE SALE OF THAT PROPERTY, AND PRIVATE OWNERSHIP OF THE OTHER STRETCH OF CARTER ROAD, THAT'S NOT TRUE, EITHER.

THERE ARE NUMEROUS REASONS TO OPPOSE DEERFIELD FOREST, THE MAJORITY HAVE BEEN PRESENTED AT BOTH PREVIOUS HEARINGS.

IN 2018 AND IN 2021. THEY ARE A MATTER OF PUBLIC RECORD. SAFETY FOR THE CHILDREN AND FAMILIES OF DEERFIELD MEADOWS ALONG WITH DEERFIELD TRACE AND THE OTHER COMMUNITIES ALONG WATSON ROAD, WEST CARTER, SHOULD ALONE BE ENOUGH FOR THIS DEVELOPMENT TO BE DENIED.

THERE IS NO REASON AT THIS POINT IN TIME AND NOTHING HAS BEEN FRENTD THAT MAKES THIS A LEGITIMATE REASON FOR A SUBDIVISION TO BE BUILT ADJOINING DEERFIELD MEADOWS.

THANK YOU. >> MS. PERKINS: ELIZABETH ROY.

[01:10:05]

>> IT'S GREAT TO BE BACK HERE. MY NAME IS ELIZABETH ROY.

I LIVE AT 324 DEERFIELD MEADOWS CIRCLE, AND I AM A HOMEOWNER.

I LIVE EXACTLY TWO HOUSES AWAY FROM THE ENTRANCE TO THE PROPOSED DEERFIELD FOREST PUD FOSTER 63 HOMES.

I AM OPPOSED TO THE NEW CONSTRUCTION PROJECT.

WHY WASN'T DEERFIELD FOREST BUILT FIRST AND THEN THE CONSTRUCTION ACCESS WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN A PROBLEM THROUGH TWO EXISTING AREAS, NEIGHBORHOODS. I'VE SENT EMAILS REGARDING LEGITIMATE REASONS FOR OPPOSITION TO THIS DEERFIELD FOREST PROJECT, BUT I FELT COMPELLED TO BE HERE TODAY.

I WONDER WHY THE BUILDER INSISTS ON PUSHING THIS DEVELOPMENT IN SUCH AN UNSUITABLE SITE. MR. DAVENPORT HAS ALREADY BEEN TURNED DOWN TWICE FOR VALID REASONS.

DEERFIELD MEADOWS CIRCLE WAS NOT DESIGNED AS A CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE ROAD, IN MY OPINION. HE HAD A MEETING WITH OUR HOA A YEAR OR TWO AGO EXPLAINING THE PREVIOUS PROPOSAL AND ANSWERING QUESTIONS IN THE DEERFIELD MEADOWS RESIDENTS.

HE HAS NOT GIVEN THE RESIDENTS A PRESENTATION ABOUT HIS NEW PROPOSAL, AND I'M WONDERING WHY NOT.

MAKING MY ROAD DEERFIELD MEADOWS CIRCLE THE ONLY CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE IS NOT A REASONABLE CHOICE.

IT IS A PUBLIC ROAD, BUT BUT IT IS ONLY ONE AND A HALF LANES WIDE. RESIDENTS AND VISITORS PARK THEIR VEHICLES ON THE ROAD, AS WELL AS TRUCKS, MAKING PASSAGE REALLY DIFFICULT. GARBAGE AND RECYCLING CANDZ ARE PUT ON THE ROAD TWICE A WEEK. THERE ARE FIVE FAMILIES ON THE ROAD WITH VERY YOUNG CHILDREN THAT PLAY ON OR NEAR THE ROAD, RIDE THEIR BICYCLES, RACERS, ALL THOSE THILL THINGS THEY HAVE.

THEY DON'T LOOK THAT CAREFULLY WHEN THEY'RE OUT THERE DOING AND IT I'VE HAD TO STOP A LOT OF TIMES.

THE TRAFFIC IS GOING TO CAUSE PERILOUS SAFETY ISSUES FOR ALL THE RESIDENTS, INCLUDING ME. I LIKE TO WALK AND RIDE MY OWN BIKE. QUHOORNGD TO THE TRAFFIC STUDY I READ, MORE THAN 600 VEHICLES A DAY WILL BE PASSING THROUGH DEERFIELD MEADOWS CIRCLE, WHICH IS TRIPLING OUR CURRENT TRAFFIC.

LARGE AND HEAVY CONSTRUCTION TRUCKS WILL DAMAGE OUR RESIDENTIAL ROAD, AND THE INCREASE IN DUST AND NOISE FOR WILDLIFE AND PEOPLE. I UNDERSTAND THIS BUILDING PROJECT CAN LAST FIVE YEARS. CONSIDERING ALL THE PHASES, PHASE 1 WOULD BE HEAVY LUMBER, CHIPPER, BULLDOZER TRUCKS WILL BE INVOLVED IN CUTTING, CLEARING AND THE TREE BRUSH REMOVAL.

SECOND, ADDITIONAL TRUCKS WILL BE DRIVING UP AND DOWN THE RESIDENTIAL ROAD HAULING BULLDOZERS AND 400 LOADS OF FILL TO KEEP IT LEVEL AND MAKE IT WORK.

PHASE 4 -- CAN I CONTINUE OR -- >> MS. PERKINS: NO, THANK YOU.

YOUR TIME IS UP. SPH.

>> OKAY. I'M NOT IN FAVOR OF THIS.

THANK YOU. >> MS. PERKINS: THANK YOU.

BARRY DRILL BARRY DRILL.

NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD, PLEASE.

>> HERE? >> MS. PERKINS: THAT'S FINE.

>> YES. MY NAME IS BARRY DRILL, AND MY ADDRESS IS 1925 WILD WOOD DRIVE. I HAVE THREE PROPERTIES ON WILDWOOD DRIVE, AND WITH THE ONCOMING DEVELOPMENT, MY ONLY CONCERN WAS THE WAY THE DRIVEWAYS WOULD GO AND HOW I WOULD ACCESS IN AND OUT OF MY THREE PROPERTIES THAT I BOUGHT FROM THREE DIFFERENT PERSONAGES. DETAINED TO THE WHOLE COUNTY, AND I BOUGHT MY HOUSE FROM HIM. IT'S A NICE HISTORIC HOUSE.

AND I HAVE ANOTHER HOUSE NEXT DOOR AND I BOUGHT THAT ONE FROM ANOTHER PERSONAGE, AND THEN I BOUGHT A RECTANGLE OF LAND NEXT TO IT, SO THAT'S THREE PROPERTIES.

I CAN SHOW THEM HERE. SHOULD I PUT THIS ON THE SCREEN

AT ALL? >> MS. PERKINS: IF YOU WOULD

LIKE. >> IT'S UNUSUAL TO INTERRUPT.

I BELIEVE MR. DRILL IS HERE FORE NUMBER 10 WHEN IS ORCHARD PARKY.

>> >> MR. MATOVINA: NI HE IS.

[01:15:01]

I AGREE. DO YOU WANT TO KEEP SPEAKING,

SIR YOU'RE MORE THAN WELCOME TO. >> I JUST WANTED TO EXPRESS MY CONCERNS, HOW THE DRIVEWAYS WOULD GO, AND ALSO SURROUNDING US, THERE'S -- IN BACK OF US THEY'RE ADDING TOPSOIL, AND WE WERE WONDERING WHETHER THEM ADDING TOPSOIL MIGHT FLOOD DOWN INTO OUR AREA WHERE IT IS RIGHT NOW, IT'S OKAY, BUT MY NEIGHBOR, WHO IS RICK PITTMAN, HE IS A ST. JOHNS COUNTY SHERIFF RETIRED, AND HE AND I WOULD WALK THIS OUT EVERY DAY BECAUSE WE SHARED SHARED THE SAME DRIVEWAY FOR THE LAST 20 YEARS, RAISED OUR KIDS IN OUR HOMES THERE THAT ARE SIDE BY SIDE, AND SO WE JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT WE WERE CONSIDERED WHEN THESE THINGS GO INTO EFFECT OR WE JUST HAVE OUR CONCERNS. LET ME SEE IF THERE WAS ANY OTHER CONCERNS THAT I CAN VENT AT THIS POINT.

BUT I JUST WANTED TO SAY THAT WE WANT TO DO -- BE CONSIDERED WHILE THIS GOES ON. ALSO, THE OTHER LADY SAID WHAT ABOUT THE RUMBLE AND -- RUMBLE OF FRUKSZ AND TRUKDZ AND .

WE'VE BEEN OUT THERE DOWN THIS DRIVEWAY WITH THE TREES SURROUNDING US. RICK PITTMAN HAS TWO TRACTORS AND SEVERAL CLASSIC CARS. ME, I HAVE ONE VEHICLE, AND WE ACCESS DOWN OUR DRIVEWAY THERE, BUT WE WERE WONDERING ABOUT WHAT CHANGES WOULD THERE BE GIVEN THE DEVELOPMENT, AND SO WE WANTED TO BE CONSIDERED ON THAT. THAT'S ALL.

>> MR. MATOVINA: THANK YOU, SIR.

>> MS. PERKINS: MIGNON ANTHONY.

GOOD AFTERNOON, BOARD P I'M MIGNON ANTHONY ASK AND I LIVE AT 161 MEADOW CROSSING DRIVE WHICH IS 150 FEET FROM THE ACCESS POINT THROUGH THE DEVELOPMENT FOR THE PROPOSED DEERFIELD FORCE FOREST. WE HAVE SERIOUS CONCERNS WITH THE PROPOSAL THAT IMPACT DEERFIELD MEADOWS AND THEREFORE WE OPPOSE THE PROJECT. MOST SIGNIFICANT TO US IS THAT A SECONDLY ACCESS POINT WOULD BE NECESSARY TO SUPPORT ANY NEW DEVELOPMENT. AS EXPOUNDING AND REINFORCING ON SOME OF MY NEIGHBORS, I'D LIKE TO EMPHASIZE A FEW KEY POINTS.

THIS IMAGE SHOWS THE ENTRY FROM WATSON ROAD COMING DOWN THE 200-FOOT TRACK THAT MR. HILSENBECK TALKED ABOUT.

THE ADVNCE. TO DEERFIELD FOREST PROPOSED IS OVER IN THIS NORTHWEST CORNER. AND TRAFFIC WOULD GO BOTH WAYS, EITHER THROUGH DEERFIELD FOREST OR DEERFIELD MEADOW CROSSI.

THE KEY POINT IS THERE WAS A SECOND PHASE OF DEERFIELD MEADOWS AND THAT WAS A MATERIAL CHANGE WHICH RICHMOND AMERICAN BROUGHT INTO THE RV HOMES AS MENTIONED BY MR. HESSY, AND THAT IS SOMETHING BECAUSE IT'S NOT IN THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, IT'S NOT REALLY PAID ATTENTION TO TOO MUCH, BUT THE USE OF THAT, MOST OUR RV-OWNING NEIGHBORS MOVED THERE BECAUSE OF THAT AMENITY AND IT ALLOWS THEM TO PATRICK THEIR 30 TO 40-FOOT RVS WITH AN ATTACHED 16-FOOT HIGH GARAGE. THEY'RE VERY COOL, BUT THE STREET WIDTH AND IS OUR TURNING RADIUSES IN THEIR DRIVEWAYS THEY COMPLY WITH THE CURRENT LDC AND THERE'S NO ADDRESSING AT ALL FOR THAT TYPE OF USE IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD.

SO EVERYONE HAS TRIED TO MAKE IT WORK.

BUT HAVING MULTIPLE HOUSE SIZE VEHICLES, GARAGE AND MOVING WITHIN A STANDARD RESIDENTIAL STREET IS A REAL CONCERN IF ADDITIONAL THROUGH TRAFFIC LIKE ANOTHER SUBDIVISION'S REQUIREMENT WERE EVER ADDED TO DEERFIELD MEADOWS.

IF DEERFIELD FOREST IS DPESTLED AND ADDS THE ESTIMATED ABLE TRIPS, EXPECT EXPONENTIAL CONGESTION AND A CONDITION THAT WOULD BE INTOLL RABBLE FOR BOTH COMMUNITIES.

WHITE WHILE IT COMES TOWER DAILY LIVING SAFETY IS PARE APARTMENT AND REALLY CANNOT BE IGNORED DURING THIS PATRONAGES.

A NEW PROJECT WITH CONSTRUCTION AND AFTERWARD WOULD CONE FLUBLGHT OUR CHILDREN PLAYING ON STREET PARKING AND SOME OF THE OTHER THING THAT WERE ALREADY MENTION FPPED ROUTES TO THE PROPOSED DEERFIELD FOREST ENTRANCE FROM WATSON ROAD INVOLVES THESE TWO ROADWAYS, AS I MENTIONED EARLIER.

ON THIS DIAGRAM, THE DOTS ARE WHERE ALL OF THE RECREATIONAL VEHICLE HOMES ARE ALONG THAT PATHWAY.

[01:20:01]

THOSE WITH THE ASTERISK ARE HOMES WHERE THE DRIVEWAY, EVEN THOUGH THEY MEET THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, ARE TOO SHORT, SO WHEN NEIGHBORS TO HAVE WASH% THEIR VEHICLES OR HAVE SERVICE ON THEIR VEHICLES, IT THEY HAVE TO SIT OUT INTO THE DRIVEWAY.

I MEAN, OUT INTO THE ROADWAY. >> MS. PERKINS: THANK YOU.

YOUR TIME'S UP. APPRECIATE IT.

SUSAN LETTERALL. >> >> GOOD AFTERNOON.

I'M SUSAN LETTEROCK I LEAVE IT 207 DEERFIELD GLEN DRIVE.

I'M THE DEERFIELD TRACE COMMUNITY.

I HAVE A COUPLE KEY ISSUES. ONE OF THEM IS WATSON ROAD ENTRANCE COMING OUT, THAT BEING A SAFETY USUAL, AND ANOTHER ONE I DON'T THINK HAS BEEN ADDRESSED IS THE POSSIBILITY OF FLOODING ISSUES FROM THAT DRAINAGE DITCH THEY'LL BE COMING AROUND THE PERIMETER OF OUR PROPERTIES. CURRENTLY WHEN DEERFIELD MEADOWS WAS FIRST DEVELOPED, SEVERAL HOMES THAT BACKED UP TO DEERFIELD MEADOWS WERE IMMEDIATELY FLOODED BECAUSE THEY WERE GRADED HIGHER LEVEL THAN THE HOMES IN DEERFIELD TRACE.

SO SOME OF THE HOMES HAD TO GET DUMP TRUCKS OF DIRT TO FILL IN THEIR BACKYARD TO PREVENT FLOODING.

NOW THERE'S GOING TO BE ADDITIONAL PLOTS PROPERTIES THAT ARE GOING TO BE DEVELOPED BANG UP TO DEERFIELD FOREST.

THOSE WILL NOW HAVE TO DEAL WITH THE SAME ISSUE.

THERE ARE SOME THAT HAVE POOLS BACK THERE.

ARE THEY GOING TO BE FLOOD BECAUSE OUR GRADING IS LOWER THAN THEIRS BECAUSE OUR COMMUNITY WAS DEVELOPED PRIOR, AND WE DIDN'T NEED TO HAVE TO BUILD OUR PROPERTIES QUITE AS HIGH. SO THAT IS ONE OF THE KEY ISSUES THAT I HAVE. THE OTHER ONE IS WATSON ROAD.

WATSON ROAD IS A NIGHTMARE. THAT ROAD IS NARROW.

THERE'S NO LIGHTS ON IT. IF THERE'S TWO CARS COMING BOTH DIRECTIONS, THERE'S ONLY DRAINAGE DITCHES ON BOTH SIDES.

I'VE SEEN KIDS IN THE MORNING COMING OUT FOR SCHOOL.

THEY'RE WALKING ALONG THERE, AND IF THEY HAVE TO GET OFF THE ROAD AND IT'S STILL DARK OUT, THEY'RE GOING END UP IN A SNAKE-INFESTED DRAINAGE DITCH, AND THAT'S NOT SAFE AT ALL.

THERE'S ALSO THE TRAIN. THE IF THE TRAIN IS STOPPED, WHAT IS THE EMERGENCY VEHICLES GOING TO DO? GO BACK OUT TO ROUTE 1, GO ALL THE WAY AROUND CAN BA UP TO CARTER ROAD? IT'S NOT GOING TO HELP.

THE EMERGENCY VEHICLES CAN'T -- THEY CAN'T DECIDE AHEAD OF TIME.

IT'S GOING TO TAKE LONGER FOR THEM TO DRIVE ALL THE WAY AROUND, BACK UP WILDWOOD AND IN ANOTHER COMMUNITY TO GET TO OUR HOMEOWNERS. IT'S NOT GOING TO HELP A WHOLE LOT. SO FOR CARTER ROAD PEOPLE I DON'T SEE THAT THAT'S A BIG BENEFIT TO ANYBODY IN DEERFIELD TRACE. I KNOW WE ONLY HAVE ONE WAY IN AND ONE WAY OUT. SO THE TURN LANE ISN'T GOING TO DO ANYTHING DOWN AT THE BOTTOM. IT'S ONLY GOING TO HELP THAT NEW SHOPPING CENTER THEY PUT IN. HOW IS IT GOING TO HELP US BACK IN COMMUNITY OFF OF WATSON ROAD WHEN IT'S ALREADY NARROW? I'M AFRAID TO RIDE BY MY BIKE DOWN WATSON ROAD BECAUSE TRAFFIC IS FASTER THAN 25 MILE-AN-HOUR. I CAN'T RIDE MY BIKE AS FAST AS THE CARS ARE GOING SO I DON'T FEEL COMFORTABLE RIDING UP AND DOWN THAT ROAD. PEDESTRIAN TRAFFIC, YOU CAN'T DO IT, AND KIDS IN SCHOOL IN THE MORNING, IT'S NOT SAFE FOR THEM TO BALK WALK ALONG THERE. SO THANK YOU.

>> MR. MATOVINA: THANK YOU. >> MS. PERKINS: MARK

O'DONAHUE. >> HELLO ESTEEMED AGENCY.

AND MY NAME IS MARK DONOHUE AND I REI'D ST 295 DEERFIELD MEADOWS CIRCLE, AND I APPRECIATE THE PRIVILEGE OF SPEAKING HERE TODAY. I LOVE LIVING IN ST. AUGUSTINE.

THE DEVELOPER STATED THAT THEY WANTED ANOTHER OPPORTUNITY IN FRONT OF THE PZA TO OFFER ADDITIONAL INFORMATION.

FROM WHAT I HAVE SEEN, THEY REALLY HAVE ONLY REMOVED INFORMATION OR BACKPEDALED PART OF THEIR INITIAL PROPOSAL READING AT THE MOST RECENT STATEMENT MY CONCERNS OF STILL AS FOLLOWS. AT THE 2018 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING ON THE PROPOSED SUBDIVISION, ONE OF THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS STATED THAT WE'RE DELAYING A DEAD HORSE BECAUSE HE WAS CONSTANTLY HEARING FEEDBACK FROM EMERGENCY SERVICES THAT WERE TRYING TO ACCESS NEW DEVELOPMENTS ON THE OPPOSITE SIDE OF A SINGLE ACCESS POINT BLOCKED BY RAILROAD TRACKS. AND WERE DELAYED RESPONDING TO AN EMERGENCY DUE TO THE PASSING OF A TRAIN OR A MOTIONLESS TRAIN AT THE RAILROAD CROSSING. THEY STATED THAT THE TRACKS WERE IN EXISTENCE BEFORE THE SUBDIVISION WAS BUILT.

[01:25:02]

SO THE DEVELOPER ATTEMPTED TO OFFER A PARTIAL SOLUTION BY PROVIDING A NOT VERY FEASIBLE ESCAPE ROUTE VIA CARTER ROAD, AND I, FROM THE RECENT STATEMENT, I THOUGHT THAT WAS OFF THE TABLE. BUT I WALK THROUGH THAT ROAD AND MY CAR NOT BE ABLE TO DRIVE THROUGH THERE, AND THEY AT THE LAST MEETING THEY SAID THEY WEREN'T GOING TO DEVELOP IT.

IT'S FULL OF LIKE TREE ROOTS STICKING OUT AND THERE'S A RIGHT ANGLE TURN IN THERE, AND IT'S ONLY A FEW FEET WIDE, SO I CAN'T SEE AN AMBULANCE OR A FIRE TRUCK OR ANYTHING REALLY GETTING THROUGH THAT. IT'S TOUGH ENOUGH TO WALK THROUGH THERE. AND THEN THE RAIL INTERSECTION IS FURTHER COMPLICATED BY THE EXISTENCE OF A RAIL YARD RIGHT NEXT TO THE RAIL INTERSECTION ON WATSON ROAD, AND AT THE LAST PZA MEETING, THE DEL DENIED THE EXISTENCE OF A RAIL YARD AND THEY ACTUALLY WENT OUT OF THEIR WAY TO DENY IT STATING THAT THE LAND WAS NO FOR STALE, REFERRING TO A FOR-SALE SIGN IN FRONT OF THE RAIL YARD. IF THEY HAD TAKEN TWO MINUTES TO CALL THE NUMBER, THEY WOULD HAVE BEEN INFORMED THAT THE LAND IS NO LONGER FOR SALE AND IT'S LEASE TODAY A POTATO DISTRIBUTOR, AS WE TALKED TODAY, OUT OF WASHINGTON STATE, AND THEY MUST SELL A LOT OF POTATOES BECAUSE THAT INTERSECTION IS REGULARLY BLOCKED BY TRAINS THERE.

AND REFRIGERATED CARS, AND I THINK THERE WAS FIVE OF THEM THERE THIS MORNING, ARE UNLOADED OFF THE TRAIN WHICH BACKS ACROSS THAT INTERSECTION AND THEN THE REFRIGERATED CARS BACK INTO THE RAIL YARD, AND THAT'S BEEN LEASED BY THE RAIL COMPANY.

AND THEN THE INTERSECTION IS FURTHER COMPLICATED BY DPLAIS BECAUSE IT'S ALSO USED BY MAINTENANCE CREWS, SO THERE'S ACTUALLY TRUCKS THAT COME ON AND TO GET AT THAT INTERSECTION AND THEY BRING THE ARMS DOWN AND THEY KEEP IT SHUT OFF PINCHT THANK YOU. MELISSA LUNDQUIST

>> MEL A RUND QUIST 2640 CARTER ROAD.

AS I DID IN NOVEMBER I JUST WANTED TO PROVIDE TO YOU AGAIN THE EASEMENTS AGREEMENT THAT THE PROPERTY OWNERS ON CARTER ROAD WHICH TERMINATES A MS. BRENDA WILLIAMS' PROPERTY HAVE SIGNED, AND, YES, WE DO ALLOW THOSE PROPERTY OWNERS TO ACCESS THAT EASEMENT. IT'S ON HERE.

IT'S SIGNED. I DON'T KNOW WHY MR. REPASS' REMISS IN WHAT HE STATED BUT, NO, WE HAVE NOT ASSIGNED TO THIS DEVELOPER OR ANYONE ELSE, THE NEW OWNERS, MR. ESTER PRIOR, THE X.G. WE HAVE NOT FURNISHED ANYTHING OVER TO THEM TO ACCESS THIS EASEMENT AT ALL. I DON'T KNOW WHERE THE CONFUSION ACCEPT. I WOULD SUGGEST THEY GET A COPY OF THIS DOCUMENT SO THEY CAN UNDERSTAND.

THIS IS MY PROPERTY. LIKE I SAID, MS. WILLIAMS' PROPERTY STROPS STOPS RIGHT HERE.

THAT'S GLOWING BACK THIS WAY 2800 FEET IS WHAT THIS EASEMENT THAT I JUST SHOWED YOU COVERED. THIS IS MY PROPERTY.

YOU CAN SEE THE 100-FOOT THAT I HAVE IS THE 30-FOOT EASEMENT OF CARTER ROAD. SAME AS THE OTHER OWNERS, AND AS IT GOES FORWARD TO THE NORTH, IT GETS A LITTLE SQUIRRELY BECAUSE 15 IS ON PARTS OF THE PROPERTY, 15 ON THE OTHER PROPERTY OWNERS.

BUT THOSE WHO HAVE SIGNED THIS DOCUMENT AND ASSIGNED OVER TO OTHERS WHO HAVE PURCHASED THE PROPERTIES ON THIS PORTION GOING TO THE NORTH ARE THE ONES THAT ARE GRANTED EASEMENT ACROSS OUR PRIVATE DRIVE. I TWAND TO SHOW YOU SOME PICTURES AGAIN BECAUSE I'M A VISUAL PERSON.

THIS IS THE PORTION OF THE ROAD THAT ALWAYS GETS BLOCKED UP, SO WHEN YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT SAFETY AND YOU'RE CONCERNED ABOUT THOSE RESIDENTS NOT BEING ABLE TO GET OUT ON WATSON ROAD, WHEN WE HAVE AN NOR'EASTER WE HAVE TREES FALL.

US, THE PROAT OWNERS, BECAUSE WE OWN IT, HAVE TO GO DOWN THERE AND REMOVE THE TREES OR WE OURSELVES ARE IN JEOPARDY OF NOT BEING ABLE TO GET ON IT FROM OUR HOMES ORE HAVE EMS REACH US.

THIS IS THE ROAD AGAIN FROM MY DRIVEWAY.

YOU'LL SEE IT TERMINATES -- I'M SORRY, THIS IS A REALLY DARK COPY, BUT IT TERMINATES, AND AT THAT END WHERE THEY'RE PROPOSING THEIR EASEMENT BEGINS THAT THEIR PURCHASING, LIKE I SAID, THEY DON'T HAVE ACCESS TO THE REST OF THIS.

THIS MAY NOT SHOW VERY WELL, BUT THIS HAS BEEN OVER 20 YEARS, THIS IS WHERE CARTER ROAD STARTS AT THE PRIVATE PORTION BEHIND THESE CONDOM AND THERE'S A SIGN THERE THAT SAYS "NO OUTLET. PRIVATE DRIVE.

NO PARKING." IT HAS BEEN THERE FOR OVER 20

[01:30:01]

YEARS. IT HAS AMS BEEN INTENDED TO BE A PRIVATE DRIVEWAY ALLOWING THE REST OF US TO THERE VERSE EACH OTHER'S PROPERTIES TO TO GET TO OUR HOMES.

NO ONE ELSE. THAT'S ALL I HAVE TO SAY.

THANK YOU. >> MR. MATOVINA: THANK YOU.

>> MS. PERKINS: ADRIENNE VILLA.

>> MY NAME IS ADRIENNE VILLA. I AM THE CURRENT HOA PRESIDENT FOR DEERFIELD MEADOWS, AND ONE OF THE MANY PARENTS.

MY ADDRESS IS 220 DEERFIELD MEADOWS CIRCLE.

ON THIS MAP I'M LOT 49. THE ASTERISKS ARE CHILDREN.

THE DOTS BEHIND THEM ARE PETS, DOG OWNERS.

I'M REALLY APPALLED BY THE ENTITLEMENT OF THE BUILDER AND HIS ATTORNEYS, AND THE AMOUNT OF FALSE INFORMATION OR FABRICATED INFORMATION THAT'S BEEN PROVIDED THUS FAR.

MY MAJOR CONCERN BEING THIS CORNER LOT IS FOR SAFETY OF MY CHILDREN AND THE CHILDREN THAT THEY PLAY WITH.

I HAVE ANOTHER PHOTOGRAPH OF I GUESS MY CORNER.

SO WHEN -- I ONLY HAVE ABOUT 40 FEET FROM THE DRIVEWAY THE TO CORNER, AND ALMOST NOBODY THAT SUPERIORS OUR 74-LOT DEVELOPMENT ABIDES BY THAT STOP SIGN. I HAVE A FLASH DRIVE BUT THEN I'D HAVE TO TURN IT IN TO YOU OF MULTIPLE CARS RUNNING THE STOP SIGN. I DON'T WANT TO GET THEM IN TROUBLE. IT'S JUST A POINT.

SO THIS ONE IS STANDING AT THE STOP SIGN LOOKING AT MY HOUSE, WHICH HAS FOUR VEHICLES, FOUR CHILDREN UNDER THE AGE OF NINE WHO PLAY WITH THE KIDS ACROSS THE STREET.

AT THIS HOUSE HERE. ADDITIONALLY, ON THIS PICTURE YOU CAN SEE WHERE THE -- I LIED. IT WAS ACTUALLY THIS ONE.

THIS IS WHERE THE COMMUNITY MAILBOX IS BACK HERE.

SO THERE'S -- THERE'S A LOT OF CHILDREN, 34 SPECIFICALLY.

I HAVE FOUR OF THEM WHO PLAY WITH THE KIDS ADJACENT TO US AND DOWN THE STREET FROM US. AS MANY OF MY OTHER NEIGHBORS SAID, THEY CAN OFTEN BE FOUND RIND BIKES, SOMETIMES 15 OF THEM SINCE THIS IS A SECURED NEIGHBORHOOD.

AND ORIGINALLY THE EASEMENT THAT WAS GRANTED FOR BUILDING DEERFIELD FOREST WAS THROUGH LOTS 1 THROUGH 17, WHICH WAS BUILT OUT AS A SECOND PHASE OF DEERFIELD MEADOWS.

ORIGINALLY THEY DID NOT LOWT FOR THE SALE OF LOT 1 THROUGH 17 TO ALLOW FOR DEEFERRED FOREST, BUT THEN SUBSEQUENTLY SOLD OFF THOSE LOTS TO RICHMOND AND THEY WERE BUILT UP, REMOVING ACCESS TO THESE -- TO THE BUILDING CONSTRUCTION SITE.

THIS STOP SIGN, AS IS, IS A DEATH TRAP, AND IF YOU WERE TO ADD ANOTHER 600 CARS AND 63 HOMES, FOR SURE MY CHILDREN WHO LIVE AND PLAY ON THAT EXACT CORNER AND WHERE WE WALK TO THE MAILBOX ALONG WITH 20 SOME ODD OTHER FAMILIES WOULD BE AN IMMINENT HARM OF BEING STRUCK BY ANOTHER VEHICLE WHO IS NOT USED TO THE TRAFFIC AND THE ACTIVITIES OF WHAT IS A QUIET FAMILY-FRENLD NEIGHBORHOOD. THANK YOU.

>> MS. PERKINS: THANK YOU. >> MR. MATOVINA: IS THERE ANY OTHER PUBLIC COMMENT? SEEING --

>> CAN I ADD A PUBLIC COMMENT? >> MR. MATOVINA: NO, MA'AM.

YOU'RE DONE. >> OKAY.

WORTHY A TRY. >> MR. MATOVINA: SEEING NO OTHER PUBLIC COMMENT, MR. REPASS, DO YOU HAVE

REBUTTAL? >> THANK YOU.

WITH REGARD TO CARTER ROAD, SO THE COUNTY STAFF CAME TO US TO FRY TO PROVIDE -- ASK IF WE COULD PROVIDE AN ADDITIONAL OR A EVACUATION ROUTE, AND THE TEXT IS WRITTEN AS AN EVACUATION ROUTE. I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY ANYBODY ON CARTER ROAD WOULDN'T WANT PEOPLE IN THE EVENT OF A HURRICANE OR WHATEVER AND THE RAILROAD WAS BLOCKED TO BE ABLE TO EVICT BUT THAT IS THE PURPOSE D. EVACUATE BUT THAT IS THE PURPOSE OF THE REQUEST. IT'S NOTE AN OPEN ROAD.

IT'S GOING TO HAVE A LOCKED GATE ON IT AND IT'S FOR THE BENEFIT OF COUNTY, SO THE COUNTY PERSONNEL WOULD BE THE ONES TO DECIDE WHEN THEY'RE GOING TO OPEN CARTER ROAD FOR AN EMERGENCY FOR EVACUATION PURPOSES ONLY.

IT'S NOT BECAUSE SOMEONE NEEDS TO GO TO THE DOCTOR.

IT'S AN EVACUATION ROUTE. IT'S WRITTEN IN THE TEXTED THAT WAY. IN ADDITION, ALL OF THE STUFF ABOUT CARTER ROAD BEING NARROW OR WHATEVER, THERE ARE A LOT OF

[01:35:03]

HOMES ALONG CARTER ROAD AND THEY ALL USE CARTER ROAD DAY IN AND DAY OUT TO GET TO AND FROM THEIR HOME, SO, SURE, IT'S NOT A PAVED ROAD, BUT I CAN TELL YOU IT'S A LOT BETTER THAN WHAT WE HAVE AT CORDOVA THAT I TALKED ABOUT EARLIER WITH 735 RESIDENTS.

AND IN ADDITION, HAVING THIS EASEMENT FROM DEVONSHIRE TO DETECT DEVIN STHIER TO CARTER ROAD, IT ALSO BENEFITSIY T.

CARTER ROAD RESIDENTS. IF CARTER ROAD IS BLOCKED ON THE OTHER END AND THERE'S A NEED FOR EVACUATION, THE COUNTY CAN OPEN IT UP AND THE PEOPLE ON CARTER RODE HAVE A WAY TO GO OUT.

RIGHT NOW THAT CONDITION DOESN'T EXIPS BUT IF THE COUNTY DECIDES THEY DON'T WANT THE EVACUATION ROUTE AND THEY DON'T WANT THE CARTER ROAD EASEMENT, THEN WE DON'T NEED TO DO IT.

IT WAS JUST A REQUEST, AND WE WENT TO THIS LANDOWNER AND GOT IT. SO AGAIN, IT'S NOT -- THE EVACUATION ROUTE IS NOT A REQUIREMENT FOR THE DEVER DEVELOPMENT. IT WAS A REQUEST THAT WE GET.

SO IF WE DON'T HAVE IT, IT'S NOE DEVELOPMENT AUTOMATICALLY GETS DENIED. IT WAS JUST A REQUEST THAT WE GET IT. AND THE INTERCONNECTIVITY IS A REQUIREMENT, AND UNDER COUNTY -- UNDER THE COUNTY CODE, MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT -- AND YOU DON'T -- THE COUNTY DOESN'T REQUIRE A SECONDARY ACCESS UNTIL YOU GET OVER 200 LOTS, AND WE DON'T HAVE THAT. AND SO WE MADE IT -- SINCE WE WERE ALL THE SAME PROPERTY OWNER AT A TIME, DEERFIELD FOREST AND DEERFIELD MEADOWS IS THE SAME PROPERTY OWNER, WE'RE REQUIRED TO PROVIDE INTERCONNECTIVITY, WHICH IS EXACTLY WHAT WE DID.

THE CONSTRUCTION ACCESS, COMMENTS ABOUT THAT, AND THAT IS OUR FAULT FOR NOT INCLUDING THAT EARLIER, BUT WE DO HAVE A FULLY ENFORCEABLE CONSTRUCTION ACCESS. THAT IS THE ROUTE.

WE HAVE THE AGREEMENT. IT WAS EXECUTED IN NOVEMBER OF '21. AND SO IT IS A TWO-YEAR AGREEMENT AND I CAN TELL YOU IF THE PUD IS APPROVED, WE'RE PRETTY FAR ALONG IN CONSTRUCTION PLANS.

I THINK THE DEVELOPMENT WOULD BE DONE BY THE END OF THE YEAR, BUT THE CONSTRUCTION ACCESS IS IN FULL FORCE AND EFFECT FOR TWO YEARS, AND WE COULD PUT THAT, AGAIN, WE COULD PUT THAT AS A CONDITION IN THE PUD, THAT THIS AGREEMENT BE MAINTAINED.

SO THAT IS DONE. HERE IS THE ACTUAL FIRST PAGE OF THE DOCUMENT, BUT IT'S WITH THAT LANDOWNER AND IT'S IN EFFECT FOR TWO YEARS. YOU KNOW, WITH REGARD TO THE FLOODING, I THINK MR. TAYLOR HAS DONE A GOOD JOB ADDRESSING THAT.

WE'RE GOING TO IMPROVE THE DRAINAGE CONDITIONS OUT THERE JUST LIKE WE WILL IMPROVE US-1 AND WATSON ROAD, AND JUST LIKE WE WILL IMPROVE THE LACK OF AN EVACUATION ROUTE THAT THE COUNTY STAFF AND DEPARTMENTS WOULD LIKE.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. >> MR. MATOVINA: BEFORE YOU SIT DOWN, SIR, DOES ANYBODY ELSE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OF THE APPLICANT OR THE STAFF? DR. HILSENBECK.

>> DR. HILSENBECK: I DO. COULD WE JUST FOR THE RECORD SEE THE SECOND OR THIRD PAGE, THE LAST PAGE OF THAT CONSTRUCTION ACCES AGREEMENT. I JUST WANTED TO SEE IT WAS SIGNED AND DATED AND VALID AND ALL.

>> NOVEMBER THE 17TH, SO IT LASTS FOR TWO YEARS UPON

EXECUTION. >> DR. HILSENBECK: THANK YOU.

THERE HAVE BEEN SOME STATEMENTS MADE IN LETTERS WRITTEN THAT -- BECAUSE YOU KEEP SAYING THESE TWO DEVELOPMENTS WERE PLANNED AT THE SAME TIME, THE DEERFIELD MEADOWS AND THE DEERFIELD FOREST, THERE'S STATEMENTS BEING MADE THAT THE DEERFIELD MEADOWS PROPERTY WAS BOUGHT 11 YEARS PRIOR TO THIS OTHER -- YOUR PROPERTY COMING IN AND LOOKING TO BE DEVELOPED.

SO WHAT'S THAT 11-YEAR TIME FRAME DIFFERENCE IF THEY WERE

PLANNED TOGETHER? >> AT THE TIME OF THE PERMITTING AND DEVELOPMENT OF DEERFIELD MEADOWS, DEEFERRED FOREST VENTURES -- DEERFIELD FOREST VENTURES, THEIR SAME PRINCIPAL PARTIES, ALSO OWNED DEERFIELD FOREST, SO AT THE TIME IT WAS BEING DONE THEY WERE OWNED TOGETHER.

I'M NOT COMPLETELY SURE WITH THE TITLE 11 YEARS AGO, BUT I CAN TELL YOU SINCE DEERFIELD MEADOWS WAS APPROVED OR EVEN APPLIED FOR APPROVALS, BOTH PARCELS WERE OWNED BY THE SAME PEOPLE.

[01:40:02]

>> DR. HILSENBECK: THAT DOESN'T MEAN THEY WERE PLANNED TOGETHER AS A DEVELOPMENT, HOWEVER.

>> THEY WERE PLANNED TOGETHER AS FAR AS THE INTERCONNECTIVITY AND THE ACCESS. YOU'RE CORRECT THAT DEVELOPMENT PLAN WAS NOT FINAL AT THE TIME OF THE DEERFIELD MEADOWS, BUT WHERE DEERFIELD FOREST WAS GOING TO BE ACCESSED WAS ABSOLUTELY PLANNED TOGETHER. THAT'S WHY IT SAID "FUTURE ACCESS" AND THAT'S WHY WE COMPLY WITH INTERCONNECTIVITY REQUIREMENTS THAT WE WOULD BE GOING THROUGH THAT ROAD, AND THAT'S WHY THAT ROAD WAS BUILT THE WAY IT WAS, RIGHT UP TO THE

PROPERTY LINE. >> DR. HILSENBECK: OKAY.

LET ME ASK YOU THIS. WHEN I WAS OUT THERE YESTERDAY, I NOTICED FROM THE BACK OF DEERFIELD MEADOWS DOWN TO YOUR PROPERTY THERE'S QUITE A DROP. IT'S LIKE THREE TO FOUR FEET, MAYBE EVEN MORE. YOUR PROPERTY IS MUCH LOWER.

I DON'T KNOW IF DEERFIELD MEADOWS HAD FILL BROUGHT IN OR NOT, BUT HOW MUCH FILL DO YOU ALL ANTICIPATE HAVING TO BRING IN TO MAKE THAT PROPERTY BUILDABLE?

>> THE CONSTRUCTION PLANS ARE NOT FINALIZED AT THIS POINT, BUT CERTAINLY FILL WOULD BE BROUGHT IN AS NEEDED.

THERE'S NO QUESTION ABOUT THAT. THERE IS SOME, I BELIEVE SOME OF THE FILL WILL BE FROM THE SITE. IT WON'T ALL BE BROUGHT IN.

BUT THAT'LL BE FINALIZED AS WE GET FURTHER ALONG WITH THE CONSTRUCTION DRAWINGS. HINCHT I STILL DIDN'T GET

DISNCHT DNCH. >> DR. HILSEBECK: I STILL DENT GET AN ANSWER TO MY QUESTION ABOUT WATER FLOWING NORTH IN YOUR NEW PERIMETER DRAINAGE DITCH, RIM DITCH WHARF YOU WANT TO CALL IT ALONG THE EAST SIDE OF THE PROPERTY AND ALONG THE NORTH SIDE OF THE PROPERTY.

I DIDN'T GET ANY ASSURANCES THAT THAT WATER WAS GOING TO MOVE TO THE NORTH WHEN IT WAS STATED, IT WAS IS THAT IT HAD DRAINAGE PREDOMINANTLY IS FROM THE EAST TO THE WEST, AND NOW ALL OF A SUDDEN WE'RE TO BELIEVE IT'S GOING TO MAGICALLY MOVE TO THE

NORTH? >> VIA THE DESIGN OF THE DITCH, THE ELEVATIONS WILL DEMONSTRATE THAT THE WATER FLOWS TOTE NORTH.

>> DR. HILSENBECK: BUT THAT'S WHY I BROUGHT UP THE SOILS, THE THREE KIND OF SOILS. THOSE ARE VERY POORLY TO POORLY

DRAINED SOILS. >> THE SOILS DO NOT -- THE SOILS DID NOT ABSORB THE WATER IN THE DUTCH.

THE WATER IS TRANSFERRED FROM ONE POINT TO ANOTHER BY

ELEVATION. >> DR. HILSENBECK: BUT SOILS

DO HOLD WATER. >> CORRECT.

THEY HOLD WATER BELOW THE SURFACE.

>> DR. HILSENBECK: THEY CAN BE PONDED, WHICH IS ABOVE THE

SURFACE. >> CORRECT.

>> DR. HILSENBECK: OKAY. THANK YOU.

Y'ALL ARE ASKING FOR A WAIVER I BELIEVE FOR -- YOU'RE NOT ASKING FOR A WAIVER FOR THAT, BUT IT'S STATED IN YOUR DOCUMENTS THAT THERE'S NOT -- THAT YOU'RE NOT GOING TO CONTRIBUTE TO UPGRADING A LIFT STATION IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

IS THAT CORRECT? >> ASKING ABOUT THE LIFT

STATION. >> I'M SORRY.

THE QUESTION? >> DR. HILSENBECK: I'M JUST WONDERING, THERE WERE STATEMENTS IN THE DOCUMENT THAT YOUR GROUP IS NOT GOING TO BE CONTRIBUTING TO THE UPGRADING OF THE LIFT

STATION. >> NO, I BELIEVE THERE'S DOCUMENTS PRESENTED THAT THE LIFT STATION CAPACITY WAS ADEQUATE TO HANDLE THE ADDITIONAL HOUSES.

>> DR. HILSENBECK: BUT THAT LIFT STATION APPARENTLY -- THIS IS HEARSAY AGAIN FROM THESE LETTERS I READ -- HAS HAD NEEDED

REPAIRS OR -- >> I DON'T KNOW ABOUT THE REPAIRS EXPWRIPS KNOW THE LIFT -- I SAW THE DOCUMENT THAT THE LIFT STATION WAS PROVEN AND I BELIEVE THE COUNTY SIGNED OFF THAT IT WAS CAPABLE OF HANDLE THE FLOW FROM THESE ADDITIONAL

HOUSES. >> DR. HILSENBECK: SO Y'ALL ARE GOING TO ENTER INTO A MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT WITH THE RESIDENTS OF DEERFIELD MEADOWS AND DEERFIELD TRACE?

>> I'M NOT AWARE OF ANY MAINTENANCE DOCUMENTS TO THE CURRENT LIFT STATION. IS IT PRIVATELY OWNED OR IS IT

COUNTY OWNED? >> DR. HILSENBECK: GOOD QUESTION. I DON'T KNOW EITHER.

>> IF IT'S COUNTY-OWNED THERE'S NO COST-SHARING FROM ANY PRIVATE SPRIDZ. AND I DON'T ANY THE COUNTY WOULD ALLOW PRIVATE LIFT STATIONS FOR SUBDIVISION OF RESIDENTIAL HOMES. NOT TODAY.

>> DR. HILSENBECK: GOOD POINT. OKAY.

DO YOU HAVE ANY INDIVIDUAL ON HOW MUCH FILL MIGHT NEED TO BE BROUGHT IN? SINCE YOU'RE AN ENGINEER.

>> NO. BUT BASICALLY, AS YOU KNOW, ALL PROJECTS ARE DESIGNED TO MEET COUNTY CODE TO ELIMINATE UNDERDRAIN END P. JANET TO WETLAND THE WATER LEVEL IS HIGH AS YOU KNOW BECAUSE OF THE SOILS.

IN GENERAL WE HAVE THREE FEET, FOUR FEET.

I'VE SEEN PROJECTS THAT HAVE SIX OR SEVEN FEET.

AGAIN, THE ENGINEERING NOT DONE BUT THERE WILL BE FILL BROUGHT IN, AND ALL THE HOUSES THAT WE BUILD WILL BE BUILT TO CODE AND ABOVE THE WATER TABLE. THREE FOOT ABOVE THE WATER

TABLE. >> DR. HILSENBECK: OKAY.

I WAS CURIOUS AS TO WHY THE COUNTY HAS NOT APPARENTLY ACCEPTED OR RULED ON YOUR EASEMENT THAT YOU PROPOSED TO

[01:45:05]

THEM. YOU SAID COUNTY OFFICIALS OR SOME PEOPLE IN THE COUNTY HAVE THAT DOCUMENT.

WHAT'S THE HOLD-UP THERE? WHY HASN'T THAT OCCURRED?

>> SO WE WENT AND GOT THE AGREEMENT FROM THE LANDOWNER FOR THE EASEMENT WITH THE PROPOSED EASEMENT.

IT WAS FINISHED TO -- AS PART OF THE APPLICATION.

TO MY KNOWLEDGE IT WAS CIRCULATED TO LEGAL AND EVERYBODY ELSE. WE HAVEN'T GOTTEN ANY -- TO MY KNOWLEDGE, THERE'S NO OPEN COMMENT WITH REGARD TO TO THAT EVACUATION ROUTE EASEMENT, AND AS PART OF THE PROCESS, IN ORDER FOR THE COUNTY TO BE THE GRANTEE, THERE WILL BE A FUTURE HEARING WITH THE BCC FOR THEM TO ACCEPT IT.

THEY CAN CHOOSE TO ACCEPT IT OR NOT TO ACCEPT IT AT THAT TIME.

>> DR. HILSENBECK: BUT RIGHT NOW IT HASN'T BEEN ACCEPTED.

BUT YET YOU WANT APPROVAL FROM US.

>> IT'S BEEN -- THE FORM OF THE EASEMENT AND THE CONTRACT HAS BEEN FURNITURE FURNISHED TO THE COUNTY AND CIRCULATED TO ALL THE REVIEW DEPARTMENTS WITH NO OPEN COMMENTS, SO WE'RE NOT READY TOD IT AT THIS POINT, BUT ONCE IT IS READY TO BE RECORDED, THEN IT WOULD BE, AGAIN, PUT UP IN FRONT OF THE BCC FOR FORMAL EXECUTION

AND RECORDING BY THE COUNTY. >> DR. HILSENBECK: OKAY.

ALL RIGHT. I JUST -- A PERSON MENTIONED WHEN I WAS TALKING TO THESE GUYS YESTERDAY OUT THERE THAT UNLOAD THE PRODUCE, THEY SAID ALSO THAT THAT PIECE OF PROPERTY THAT FLORIDA EAST COAST RAIL RAILWAY OWNS AND ALSO UTILIZED FOR TRAIN MAINTENANCE AND THAT THEY DO STOP CARS THERE.

THEY SWITCH CARS AROUND, THEY PULL THEM OFF, AND THAT'S AN EXTRA BLOCKAGE OFF OF WATSON ROAD DURING THOSE CARS BEING PULLED OFF AND REARRANGED FOR MAINTENANCE, AND THEY SAID THAT WAS IN THEIR OPINION LIKELY TO BE CONTINUED.

AGAIN, THAT'S HEARSAY. BUT THEY ARE OUT THERE ALL THE TIME, AND THEY SEE ALL THIS ACTIVITY, AND IT WAS STATED BY SOME OF THE RESIDENTS THAT THAT ALSO OCCURS.

SO WHY ARE YOU -- I SUPPOSE I KNOW THE ANSWER TO THIS, BUT YOU'RE ASKING FOR WAIVERS ON THE FRONT YARD.

IS THAT OKAY? WHAT DID YOU SAY?

>> MR. MATOVINA: THERE IS NO QUESTION.

>> DR. HILSENBECK: I'M ASKING A QUESTION.

I HAVEN'T FINISHED THE SENTENCE. MY GOD.

PLEASE. I'M BEING RESPECTFUL, I THINK.

>> MR. MATOVINA: I'M TRYING TO BE RESPECTFUL, TOO.

>> DR. HILSENBECK: MUMBLING? MUMBLING WHEN I VND NIRCHED

FINISHED BY MY SENTENCE. >> MR. MATOVINA: EARLIER YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT THE LOADING AND UNLOADING AND THERE WAS NO QUESTION. THERE WAS A PERIOD.

>> DR. HILSENBECK: I ASKED IF HE WA AWARE OF THAT.

>> MR. MATOVINA: HE DIDN'T ANSWER IT.

>> DR. HILSENBECK: NO, HE DIDN'T ANSWER BECAUSE HE'S APPARENTLY NOT AWARE OF ANY OF IT.

YOU'RE ASKING FOR WAIVERS ON THE FRONT YARD SIDE SETBACK AND THE FRONT YARD SETBACK, THOSE THAT HAVE A SECONDARY SETBACK, CORNER LOTS FROM 20 TO 50 PERCENT REALLY INCREASING THAT SETBACK AS WELL AS SETBACKS FOR GARAGES AND FRONT OF THE HOUSE ON THE FRONT SETBACK. YOU KNOW, I CAN -- WE HAVE A COUPLE OF THOSE TODAY THAT ARE GOING TO COME UP, AND I THINK THOSE ARE GREAT ON AN INDIVIDUAL BASIS, BUT I'M NOT PREPARED TO VOTE FOR THOSE ON A BLANKET 63 HOME DEVELOPMENT AND JUST ALLOW A BLANKET SETBACK VARIANCE WAIVER ON FRONT YARD SIDE SETBACKS. PLUS, THIS IS ALSO -- WE'RE BACK IN THE AGENCY, TIME FOR COMMENT RATHER THAN JUST QUESTIONS, BUT WHY DO YOU NEED THOSE FRONT YARD SETBACKS?

>> THOSE WAIVERS ARE THE -- FIRST OF ALL, THE EXACT SAME WAIVERS THAT ARE IN PLACE FOR DEERFIELD MEADOWS JUST SO YOU

KNOW. >> DR. HILSENBECK: DID I NOT KNOW. THANK YOU.

>> AND IT'S VERY COMMON FOR A CORNER LOT THAT CAN'T MEET BOTH FRONT YARD SETBACKS. SO YOU REDUCE THE OTHER ONE BY 10%, BY 50%, SO DOWN FROM 20 FEET TO 10 FEET.

THE OTHER ONE, HAVING THE 20-FOOT SETBACK APPLIED TO THE GARAGE AND THEN 15 TO THE HOME, THAT'S AN ARCHITECTURAL GUIDELINE STANDARD THAT'S FAIRLY COMMON NOW AND IT PROVIDES MORE ABILITY TO HAVE MORE BACKYARD, SWIMMING POOLS, SO FORTH, AND AGAIN, THOSE ARE THE SAME WAIVERS THAT ARE IN PLACE AT

DEERFIELD MEADOWS. >> DR. HILSENBECK: THANK YOU.

[01:50:01]

>> MR. MATOVINA: IS THAT IT, DR. HILSENBECK? DR. HILSENBECK, I DID MUTTER AND I APOLOGIZE.

I HOPE YOU WILL ACCEPT MY APOLOGY.

>> DR. HILSENBECK: I ACCEPT YOUR APOLOGY.

>> MR. MATOVINA: THAT WAS INAPPROPRIATE.

THANK YOU. >> DR. HILSENBECK: IT WAS.

>> MR. MATOVINA: ANYBODY ELSE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? SO WE ARE BACK INTO THE AGENCY FOR A MOTION AT THIS POINT.

MS. ERNG PINKIES PERCENTAGE OF YES.

I BELIEVE THIS APPLICATION IS COMPATIBLE WITH THE AREA.

IT WAS ALWAYS INTENDED TO HAVE A FUTURE ACCESS.

AND I BELIEVE THE APPLICANT HAS ADDRESSED THE CONCERNS OF THE BCC SO WITH THAT MY MOTION IS TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL PUD 202105 DEERFIELD FOREST.% A REQUEST TO REZONE APPROXIMATELY 37 ACRES OF LAND TO OPEN RURAL TO PUD TO ALLOW FOR DEVELOPMENT OF MAXIMUM 63 SINGLE FAMILY HOMES BASED UPON

NINE FINDINGS OF FACT. >> MR. MATOVINA: SO WE HAVE A MOTION FOR APPROVAL. IS THERE A SECOND?

>> I SECOND. >> MR. MATOVINA: WHO SAID THAT IN MR. PIERRE. SO BEVE A SECOND.

NOW WE'RE BACK INTO THE AGENCY FORE DISCUSSION

DR. HILSENBECK. >> DR. HILSENBECK: WELL, I THINK THERE ARE TOO MANY QUESTIONS WITH THIS EASEMENT.

I MEAN, IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN A VERY STRAIGHTFORWARD MATTER.

IT WAS PRESENTED TO US ON NOVEMBER 18TH OF LAST YEAR THAT THIS WAS SECURED AND IT WAS A VERY STRAIGHTFORWARD, SHOULD BE A STRAIGHTFORWARD MATTER. I STILL HAVE QUESTIONS ON CARTER ROAD. THAT IS A PRIVATE ROAD BEING UTILIZED FOR TRAFFIC THAT THEY DON'T AUTHORIZE ON THE PROPERTY.

I'M WORRIED ABOUT TRAFFIC ON WATSON ROAD.

AND HOW MUCH IT'S GOING TO COST TO UPGRADE WATSON ROAD ST AT US-1 AND ALONG A MAYBE QUARTER MILE SECTION OF WATSON ROAD.

THE DEVELOPER IS NOT GOING TO BE RESPONSIBLE FOR UPGRADING DEERFIELD MEADOWS DRIVE TO MINOR COLLECTOR STATUS.

YOU WOULD THINK THAT WOULD BE A MINIMUM THAT WOULD BE DONE.

I PERSONALLY DON'T SEE THIS AS BEING COMPATIBLE WITH THE EXISTING DEVELOPMENT. THIS IS BEING BUILT ON VERY, VERY WET SOILS THAT I DO NOT THINK ARE SUITABLE.

THAT'S MY OPINION. I JUST -- THERE'S TOO MANY QUESTIONS IN MY MIND ABOUT THIS, AND THE SAFETY ISSUES, TRAFFIC, SAFETY, QUIET USE AND ENJOYMENT OF PROPERTY BY THOSE OWNERS THAT LIVE IN DEERFIELD MEADOWS RIGHT NOW.

AND I JUST -- I THINK IT'S PUTTING THE CART BEFORE THE HORSE. I THINK THE COUNTY AND FDOT SHOULD BE PAYING FOR, AND I WISH THEY HAD SOME TIME AGO, UPGRADE TO THE WATSON ROAD-US-1 INTERSECTION.

I DON'T KNOW THAT THAT'S INCUMBENT UPON THE DEVELOPER TO DO THAT. I WISH THE COUNTY WOULD DO THAT.

I READ SOMEWHERE THAT WAS ZONED THREE FUND THAT WERE OUT THERE THAT COULD BE ALLOCATED TO THIS UPGRADE.

I'D LIKE TO SEE THAT UPGRADED FIRST, WATSON ROAD AND THE US-1/WATSON ROAD INTERSECTION BEFORE THIS IS CONSIDERED, BEFORE THERE'S ANY MORE BUILDING BACK THERE.

I JUST THINK THIS IS WAY PREMATURE WITHOUT UPGRADES TO THE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM IN THAT AREA OF THE COUNTY, SPECIFICALLY THERE AT WATSON ROAD AND US-1, AND THERE'S THAT NEW STRIP CENTER GOING RIGHT IN BY US-1 ON THE NORTH SIDE OF WATSON ROAD THAT'S GOING TO JUST DUMP MORE TRAFFIC RIGHT THERE.

WHILE I WAS WAITING TO TURN RIGHT YESTERDAY, IT TOOK EIGHT CARS LINED UP BEHIND ME IN ABOU5 SECOND.

THERE WERE ALREADY EIGHT CARS BEHIND ME COMING WEST TO EAST ON WATSON ROAD. OF COURSE, A TON OF TRAFFIC COMING SOUTH ON US-1 WHERE I COULDN'T EVEN TURN, BUT AS A SAID, I HAD TO PULL OFF THE PAVEMENT INTO THE DIRT, INTO A PUM COUPLE POTHOLE RIGHT THERE IN ORDER TO BE ABLE TO MAKE THAT TURN AROUND THAT JEEP THAT WAS SITTING THERE.

SO I THINK THIS IS WAY TOO PREMATURE TO APPROVE THIS.

>> MR. MATOVINA: THANK YOU, DR. HILSENBECK.

MS. PERKINS, WOULD YOU CONSIDER AMENDING YOUR MOTION SO THAT WHEN THE ENGINEERING PLANS ARE APPROVED FOR THE SUBDIVISION THAT THEY WOULD INCLUDE THE TURN LANE IMPROVEMENT THAT THERE, NO SIGN OWF OAT SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENTS WITHOUT THE SURIN TURN LANE IMPROVEMENTS BE BEING APPROVED? WOULD YOU CONSIDER THAT IS A CONDITION?

>> MS. PERKINS: AS PART OF THEIR ENGINEERING, I GUESS,

PERMITS IS WHAT YOU'RE ASKING? >> MR. MATOVINA: YES.

THEY WOULDN'T GET THEIR FINAL IMPROVEMENT OAT SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENT BEAUT THE IMPROVEMENTS AT THE INTERSECTION

BEING MADE. >> MS. PERKINS: SURE.

I WOULD AMEND MY MOTION TO ADD THAT CONDITION, THAT PRIOR TO THE PERMIT BEING ISSUED BASED OFF THE ENGINEERING PLANS, THAT HE WOULD HAVE TO SIGN OFF ON THE OFF-SITE WORK ON WATSON ROAD AND

[01:55:02]

US-1. >> MR. MATOVINA: MR. MILLER.

>> MR. MILLER: AND I JUST FOR THE RECORD, I THINK THEY MENTIONED THAT EARLIER, BUT IF THE APPLICANT AND THE REPRESENTATIVE COULD CONFIRM THAT THEY'RE FINE WITH THAT AS A

CONDITION. >> MR. CHAIR, I THINK THIS CONDITION IS ADDRESSED IN THE EXISTING LANGUAGE OF THE MDP.

IT TALKS ABOUT THE IMPROVEMENT AT WATSON ROAD AND THE US-1 INTERSECTION. LET ME JUST GET DOWN TO THAT EXACTLY THAT EXACT LANGUAGE.

BUT IT DOES REQUIRE THAT APPROVAL OF THE INTERSECTION UPGRADES IS REQUIRED BEFORE THEY CAN COMMENCE CONSTRUCTION FOR THE RESIDENTIAL. IS THAT WHAT YOU WERE TRYING TO

ACCOMPLISH? >> MR. MATOVINA: YES.

>> I BELIEVE THAT'S ALREADY STATED.

>> MR. MATOVINA: SO THAT'S ALREADY IN THERE.

ALL RIGHT. SO I HAVE ANOTHER COMMENT ABOUT THE TITLE BECAUSE SHARE DR. HILSENBECK'S CONCERN ABOUT TITLE. ACTUALLY I'M WORKING ON A DEVELOPMENT IN NASSAU COUNTY IS A WITH A A SIMILAR ISSUE AND THE REALITY IS THAT IT LOOKS LIKE THAT CARTER ROAD EASEMENT GOES BACK TO 1985 AT LEAST BECAUSE THE 1994 EASEMENT APPEARS TO CLARIFY SOMETHING THAT WAS TRANSPIRED IN 1985, AND SO YOU REALLY HAVE TO GO BACK TO 1985 AND LOOK AT WHAT PIECE OF PROPERTIES BENEFITED FROM THAT EASEMENT, IS MY UNDERSTANDING, AND SO MY QUESTION TO YOU, CHRISTINE, IS I ASSUME BEFORE THIS WOULD BE PRESENTED TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS THAT THERE WOULD BE A BUNCH TITLE WORK RUN, AND IF IT WERE DETERMINED THAT THE PARTICULAR PIECE OF PROPERTY THAT THIS ACCESS IS BEING PROVIDED OVERDID NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO USE THE CARTER ROAD EASEMENT, THAT THE COUNTY WOULD DO THEIR DUE DILIGENCE ON THAT, THE LEGAL STAFF WE AND WOULD DETERMINE IS

THAT, IS THAT CORRECT? >> YES.

AND ACTUALLY THERE IS A QUESTION ABOUT WHAT'S BEING PROPOSED.

STAFF HAD ASKED A MONTH AGO FOR AN UPDATE REGARDING THE PROPOSED EASEMENT SINCE -- NO LONGER OWNS THE PROPERTY, AND YOU'LL NOTICE IN YOUR PACKAGE THAT THERE IS NO LEGAL DESCRIPTION ATTACHED TO THAT EASEMENT DESCRIPTION. IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THIS PROPOSED EASEMENT IS ONLY FORE DEVONSHIRE ROAD AND IT IS DOES NOT YOU CL ANY RIGHTS OVER THE PRIVATE PART OF CARTER ROAD.

SO IS THAT -- MR. REPASS CAN CONFIRM THAT, BUT, YES, STAFF WILL NEED TO SEE EXACTLY WHAT'S BEING PROPOSED, BUT I WILL TELL YOU IT IS NOT MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THEY ARE PROPOSING TO PROVIDE AN EASEMENT OVER CARTER ROAD.

>> MR. MATOVINA: BUT THE EASEMENT THAT'S THERE AMONGST THESE MUTUAL HOMEOWNER COULD HAVE BENEFITED THAT PROPERTY THAT THEY'RE GIVING AN EASEMENT OVER WHEN IT WAS GRANTED, IN WHICH CASE THEY WOULD HAVE AN EASEMENT ALL THE WAY FROM DEVONSHIRE ALL THE WAY OUT CARTER.

>> WE DON'T HAVE ENOUGH INFORMATION TO MAKE THAT DETERMINATION BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE THE LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF WHAT THEY'RE PROPOSING TO SEE IF IT WOULD HAVE BENEFITED.

>> MR. MATOVINA: I'M NOT ASKING FOR A DETERMINATION.

I'M SAYING UM MAKE THAT DETERMINATION BEFORE THE BOCC

WOULD VOTE TO THAT? >> WE NEED THE INFORMATION, YES, TO MAKE THAT DETERMINING FROM THE APPLICANT.

>> MR. MATOVINA: AND IF THE DETERMINATION TWR THAT THAT EASEMENT DOES NOT EXIST OVER THE CARTER ROAD PORTION EVEN WHEN THEY HAVE THE RIGHT TO BUY THE PIECE OVER DEVONSHIRE, AT THAT POINT THEY WOULD HAVE NO RIGHT TO PROCEED WITH THE CONSTRUCTION

OF THE PUD, IS THAT CORRECT? >> IF THAT'S MADE A CONDITION OF

THE PUD. >> MR. MATOVINA: DO YOU WANT TO ADD THAT AS A CONDITION? ALL RIGHT.

IS THERE ANYONE ELSE WHO HAS ANY DISCUSSION? MR. MILLER. I'M SORRY.

DR. MCCORMICK WAS NEXT. >> DR. MCCORMICK: YES.

I WOULD SAY THIS, MR. CHAIR. IF YOU PUT WHAT YOU JUST SAID IN CORRECT WORDING, I WOULD, AS A MOTION OR AS A AN AMENDMENT, I WOULD AGREE TO SECOND THAT AMOUNT OF.

>> MR. MATOVINA: CAN I PROPOSE AN AMENDMENT? SHE HAS TO PROPOSE AN AMENDMENT, I BELIEVE.

>> SORRY ABOUT THAT. YOU CAN PROPOSE A MOTION OR AN AMENDMENT. SHE WOULD HAVE TO ACCEPT IT AS

WELL AS THE PERSON WHO SECONDED. >> MR. MATOVINA: MR. MILLER.

>> MR. MILLER: I'M A LITTLE CONCERNED ABOUT GETTING INTO THE WEEDS THE EMERGENCY ACCESS SINCE THIS IS NOT A SECONDARY ACCESS, THIS IS JUST FOR EMERGENCY VEHICLES AND THERE WOAB A GATE, SO I WORRY WE GET A LITTLE TOO WORRIED AROUND THE AXLES IN THE DETAILS. WHAT I LOOK AT IS I LOOK AN MDP MAPCH A PUD THAT CLEARLY SHOWS ACCESS TO THE NEIGHBORING DEVELOPMENT. THIS DEVELOPMENT WAS IN 2017 AND

[02:00:04]

2018. AND THE COUNTY HAS MADE THE DECISION THAT THE LAND USE FOR THIS IS RESIDENTIAL B WHICH IS TWO UNITS AN ACRE. THIS IS 1.7 UNITS.

THE COUNTY HAS MADE A DETERMINATION THAT THIS LAND CAN HANDLE TWO UNITS AN ACRE. THE DEVELOPER IS COMING NOR LESS AND CLEARLY SHOWS THAT THERE WAS A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT TO HAVE ACCESS THROUGH AN EXISTING DEVELOPMENT.

WHILE CERTAINLY WANT EMERGENCY ACCESS, I'M CONCERNED ABOUT US DOING THE JOB OF COUNTY STAFF IN REVIEWING THAT AS A REQUEST, NOT

[2. SUPMAJ 2021-18 2353 State Road 13 North. RRequest for a Special Use Permit to allow for an Event Center meeting the general special use criteria of Section 2.03.01.A. of the Land Development Code (LDC), specifically located at 2353 State Road 13 North.]

AS A CONDITION TO THE PUD. >> MR. MATOVINA: ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? SEEING NONE, LET'S REGISTER THE VOTE. ALL RIGHT.

DR. MCCORMICK, THANK YOU. SO THAT IS RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL 4 TO 3. LET'S MOVE ON FOR ITEM NUMBER 2.

IS MS. CORBITT HERE? DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANY EX PARTE COMMUNICATIONS TO DECLARE ON ITEM NUMBER 2?

>> DR. HILSENBECK: NONE.

>> MR. MATOVINA: U. THE THROWER, MISCORBITT.

>> GOOD AFTERNOON. THANK YOU FOR TAKING THE TIME TO MEET WITH US TODAY. MY NAME IS JENNIFER CORBITT.

THIS IS MY HUSBAND CHRISTIAN CORBITT, AND THE PROJECT PROPERTY THAT WE ARE LOOKING FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT STATE ROAD 13 NORTH ST. JOHNS COUNTY FLOOR. WE ARE HERE SEEKING THIS SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR A WEDDING AND SPECIAL EVENT VENUE.

I PREPARED A POWERPOINT JUST TO GO OVER SOME OF THE ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS AND CONCERNS THAT YOU GUYS HAD.

SO ONE OF THE QUESTIONS THAT KEPT COMING UP WAS ABOUT THE IMPERVIOUS TOTAL RATIO. WHAT'S CURRENTLY THERE OF THE BUILDING, THERE ARE FIVE BUILDINGS ON THE PROPERTIES.

WHAT'S CURRENTLY THERE IS AT 7.7%.

WE DON'T HAVE THE OVERALL TOTAL IMPERVIOUS RATIO OF WHAT WOULD BE ADDED FOR FOR THE STABILIZED YOU ARE PARKING, WALKWAYS AND EVERYTHING UNTIL WE KNOW IF THE ENTITLES ARE GRANTED TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THE VENUE. OUR GOAL 2 THIS PROPERTY BECAUSE IT'S ALREADY SO BEAUTIFUL AND NATURAL OUT THERE IS TO KEEP IT AS NATURAL AS IT IS -- ALREADY IS, NOT TO MAKE THE OVERCOMMERCIALIZED, JUST KEEP IT A REALLY NICE, NATURAL EVENT

VENUE. >> IN THE LAST SLIDE IT SAID THE CURRENT IMPERVIOUS OF THE BUILDING AND THE PROPOSED PARKING THAT WE'RE GOING TO HAVE IS AT 7.7%.

IT'S NOT THE WHOLE BARN THAT WE MIGHT PUT ON THE PROPERTY.

>> THERE WERE SOME VARIANCE ISSUES AS FAR AS THE SETBACK THAT WERE BROUGHT UP WITH THIS BUILDING THAT'S CURRENTLY ON THE PROPERTY. IT'S BEEN THERE SINCE 1982.

AND IT'S CURRENTLY ENCROACHING INTO THE SETBACKS.

KITS URNT A STORAGE BUILDING. THERE'S STILL STUFF THAT'S CURRENTLY IN THERE. AND WE WOULD LIKE TO KEEP IT AND KEEP IT FOR THE SAME REASON, AS STORAGE FOR FABLES, CHAIRS, EVENT STAFF, NOT HEATED ARE ON COOLED OR ANYTHING, AND IT'S IN PERFECTLY GREAT CONDITION, BEEN THERE SINCE 1982.

THEN THERE WAS A QUESTION THAT CAME UP IN REGARDS TO THE SIGNAGE. IT IS USED TO BE ST. JOHNS COUNTY GRAMMAR SCHOOL. THIS IS ON STATE ROAD 13 AND THEN THE OTHER PICTURE IS KIND OF LOOKING INTO GOING INTO THE PROPERTY AND THERE'S ALREADY A SIGNAGE INSIDE THAT'S BEEN THERE. AS FAR AS THE TRAFFIC CIRCULATION IN REGARDS TO GUESTS COMING IN AND OUT, FIRE TRUCK, EMERGENCY VEHICLES, THERE ARE ALREADY TWO CIRCULAR DRIVES THERE. IT'S BASICALLY ONE LONG DRIVEWAY AND THEN THERE ARE TWO CIRCULAR PATHS THAT ARE ALREADY THERE.

[02:05:01]

ON THE PROPERTY. THIS IS KIND OF AN OVERVIEW ON PROPOSED STABILIZED PARKING AREAS.

THERE IS ALREADY A GOOD AMOUNT OF CONCRETED PARKING THERE FROM WHEN IT WAS PREVIOUSLY A SCHOOL, AND THEN IN THIS FIELD HERE ALONG SIDE OF WHERE THAT STORAGE BUILDING IS AT IS THE OTHER AREA THAT WE WERE LOOKING AT FOR PROPOSED STABILIZED PARKING ON THE PROPERTY. AS FAR AS THE PROPOSED CURRENT INDOOR BUILDING USE, THIS IS JUST A RUNDOWN OF ALL THE BUILDINGS THAT ARE ALREADY THERE AND WHAT WE WOULD INTEND TO USE THEM FOR AS FAR AS FOR THE EVENT VENUE, FOR BRIDLE STWEET BE WITH GROOM SWEET SES STWEET CATED ARE PREP, EMPLOYEE OFFICES, EVENT STORAGE. THAT'S THE BASICS OF IT.

AND THEN WE ARE REQUESTING THE PERMISSION TO DO AN OPEN POLE BARN WHICH IS JUST A BUILDING WITH A ROOF -- NOT A BUILDING, BUT FOUR POSTS COMPLETELY OPEN ON ALL FOUR SIDES TO HOLD FOR A CEREMONY AREA. THERE'S ALSO THE BEAUTIFUL OAKS THAT ARE BACK THERE TO HOLD THE CEREMONY.

SO BETWEEN THE BIGGER PICTURE WITH THE PROPOSED AREA FOR THE POLE BARN AND THEN THE OTHER SMALLER PICTURE, THOSE WERE KIND OF OUR TWO AREAS THAT WERE LISTED ON OUR SITE PLAN FOR THE PROPOSED POLE BARN AREA. ANOTHER UNCLEAR QUESTION THAT CAME UP WAS IN TERMS OF WALKWAYS FROM PARKING AREA TO GET TO THE POLE BARN. WHAT'S REALLY GREAT WITH THESE BUILDINGS AND WITH THIS PROPERTY IS BECAUSE IT WAS SET UP LIKE A SCHOOL, THERE ARE TONS OF WALKWAYS GOING THROUGH DIFFERENT WAYS OF THE BUILDING, BUT THIS KIND OF GIVES YOU AN IDEA OF GETTING DOWN THE SIDE HERE AT THE POD AND BACK TO THAT BACK CORNER RIGHT HERE. TO GET TO THAT PROPOSED POLE BARN AREA. AND THERE'S OTHER WALKWAYS UNDERNEATH. YOU CAN'T SEE YOU THE WITH THE EASEMENT BUT THERE ARE OTHER WALKWAYS THAT ARE AVAILABLE AS WELL. THIS JUST GAVE A MORE CLEARER ROUTE. AND THEN THIS IS 2 PROPOSED E PLAN, THE WETLAND SURVEY, AND I ALSO DID A VIDEO JUST TO KIND OF GIVE YOU A GOOD IDEA OF THE PROPERTY.

AND THEN SOME OTHER QUESTIONS THAT HAD COME UP WAS IN REGARDS TOAL ALCOHOL SALES, THAT KIND OF STUFF.

THAT WOULD ONLY BE DONE THROUGH A CATERING COMPANY THAT HOLDS THAT LICENSE. WE WOULDN'T BE ACTUALLY SELLING ALCOHOLIC DRINKS ON THE PROPERTY.

IT WOULD COMMAS PACKAGE THROUGH THE CATERING COMPANY THAT WAS SELECTED SO THIS IS COMING UP HERE ON SOME PARKING, AND THEN THE WALKWAYS AND THE PROPOSED -- ONE OF THE PROPOSED PARKING AREAS AND THEN THAT STORAGE FACILITY THAT'S THERE. AND AS YOU CAN SEE, IT'S SUCH A BEAUTIFUL PROPERTY ALREADY WITH ALL THE MATURE OAKS AND VEGETATION AND TREES. I MEAN, OUR INTENT IS TO KEEP IT AS NATURAL AND BEAUTIFUL AS POSSIBLE.

AND THEN JUST TO KIND OF WALK YOU THROUGH THE WALKWAY HERE TO GET OVER INTO THE CEREMONY SIDE OF IT WITH THE OAK TREES AND THE

PROPOSED SCHOOL BARN AREA. >> SO YOU CAN GO STRAIGHT THROUGH WHERE IT SHOWED UNDER THAT CARPORT OR GO THIS WAY OR FOLLOW THE SIDEWALK TO THE LEFT THERE OR RIGHT AND GO AROUND THAT BUILDING AS WELL. SO THERE'S REALLY THREE PAVED SIDEWALK ENTRANCES ALREADY TO THAT EVENT SPACE THAT WE'RE

HEADING TO RIGHT NOW. >> YOU CAN SHOW YOU CAN COME

THROUGH. >> THAT LITTLE CARPORT AREA.

>> THAT COVERED PARKING AREA.

AND THEN TO ADD YOUR STABILIZED WALKING PATHS.

[02:10:06]

>> SO BACK IN THAT AREA RIGHT WHERE SHE'S POINTING NOW IS WHERE THE PROPOSED POLE BARN COULD GO OR DIRECTLY TO THE

LEFT. >> WITH THE REQUIRED SETBACKS.

>> AND THEN THAT WHOLE KIND OF AREA IS WHERE YOU CAN DO OUTDOOR

RECEPTIONS. >> THERE'S CONCRETE, THERE' A BASKETBALL COURT THAT'S ALREADY THERE FOR WHEN THAL SCHOOL WAS THERE. THERE'S OTHER WALKWAYS AND PATHS FROM WHEN THE SCHOOL WAS OPERATING AND THAT'S THE OTHER PROPOSED AREA FOR A POLL BARN, AND WE'RE ONLY LOOKING TO DO A POLE BARN. IT WASN'T TOO SURE BETWEEN WHAT LOCATIONS WOULD WORK BEST AND SO WE PUT ALL THE PLANS TOGETHER.

>> MR. MATOVINA: IS THAT IT? >> YES.

>> MR. MATOVINA: SO WE'RE BACK INTO THE AGENCY.

DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? MS. PERKINS.

>> MS. PERKINS: WHY YOU STRICTLY DOING WEDDINGS?

>> WEDDING AND SPECIAL EVENTS. >> MS. PERKINS: SO THE HOURS OF OPERATION IN THE BOOK STATE 8:00 P.M. TO 10:00 P.M., SO YOU'RE LIMITED TO THOSE HOURS. IS THAT A MISTAKE?

>> IT IS. IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN AGENT P.M.

GLNCHTS AGENT A.M. 8: AM. AND THEN THE MUSIC WOULD HAVE TO BE CUT OFF AT THE REGULATED ON THE OTHER HAND CUTOFF TIME.

>> MS. PERKINS: AND 8 A.M. TO 11:00 P.M. ABOUT.

>> THAT'S WHAT PEOPLE PAID FOR WITH A LONG WEDDING.

MAYBE WITH SPECIAL EVENTS IT COULD BE DIFFERENT BUT WEDDING TIME WHEN THEY PAY FOR THEIR ALLOTTED TIME WOULD USUALLY BE 8 TO 11 WITH MUSIC CUTTING OFF BECAUSE THIS IS ST. JOHNS COUNTY AND IT GIVES THEM AN HOUR TO KIND OF GET OUT OF THE PROPERTY.

AND MOST OF THE DAYTIME IT'S JUST THE WEDDING PREPARATIONS ARE, SETTING IT UP AND THEN BRIDES AND BRIDESMAIDS,

EVERYBODY GETTING READY. >> MS. PERKINS: THANK YOU.

>> MR. MATOVINA: ANYBODY ELSE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OF THE APPLICANT? ALL RIGHT.

DO WE HAVE ANY SPEAKER CARDS? >> MS. PERKINS: WE HAVE FOUR SPEAKER CARDS. MIKE HERTZBERG.

>> MR. MATOVINA: Y'ALL CAN HAVE A SEAT.

MRS. MRS. CORBITT, Y'ALL CAN HAVE A SEAT.

WE'LL CALL YOU BACK UP HERE IN A INTEREST IN.

>> MR. CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE AGENCY MY NAME IS LIKE HERSELF BERG AM A PROFESSIONAL PLANNER AND FRIENDS OF THE APPLICANTS. I HAVE THE PLEASURE OF TRYING TO ASSIST THEM HERE BUT I'M NOTE SURE I CAN DO ANY BHERNT WHAT THEY'VE ALREADY DONE TO BEON.

THEY'VE DONE A FANTASTIC JOB. IT'S AN INTERESTING SITE.

A FORMER INSTITUTIONAL USE. OBVIOUSLY THE INTENT FOR ANOTHER INSTITUTIONAL USE TO OCCUPY THE PROPERTY.

AGAIN, THE BENEFIT OF THAT BEING THAT THIS IS NOT SOMETHING THAT COULD BE AB SOARMD, SO READILY AS A RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY AND REUSED TO THE RISK IS IF SOMETHING LIKE THIS WASN'T BOUGHT FOR A SIMILAR USE, THE PROPERTY COULD BECOME DERELICT AND BECOME A PROBLEM FOR ISSUES OF HOMELESS ANDINGS THIS OF THAT NATURE WOULD BE, SO THE FACT THAT SOMETHING IS LOOKING TO GO IN HERE IS A GOOD THING AND THE FACT THAT IT'S ALSO INSTITUTIONAL IS ALSO A POSITIVE THING.

I WOULD ALSO ADD THAT THE PROPOSED USE ACTUALLY GENERATES LESS TRIPS THAN THE PREVIOUS USE, ESPECIALLY AS IT RELATES TO THE A.M. AND P.M. PEAK HOURS. IT'S HIGHLY LIKELY THAT MOST TASKTS WOULD BE FRIDAY LATED LATER EVENINGS OR EVEN THE ON WEEKENDS WHICH AGAIN YOU PROBABLY NO CON JEETION ALONG 13 IS MORE OF AN ISSUE OF MORNING TRAFFIC AND WEEKDAY TRAFFIC, NOT WEEKEND. THE SCHOOL OBVIOUSLY WOULD HAVE HAD TRAFFIC IN RELATED TO THOSEA AND P.M. PEAK HOURS WHICH YOU WILL NOT HEAR. THE STAFF WILL HAVE DID HAVE COMMENTS OPEN ISSUES. I THINK THE OWNERS HANDLED IT VERY WELL. MANY YOU OF I KNOW ON THIS BOARD ARE SPENDER IN THE DEVELOPMENT PROCESS.

THERE WILL BE A NUMBER OTHER REVIEWS BOTH BY THE FIRE SHARAL SHALL, THE OCCUPANCY AND THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT AND AS WELL AS ENGINEERING REVIEWS SO ALL OF THOSE MATTERS WILL BE ADDRESSED IN THOSE SUBSEQUENT REVIEWS. THE IF THEY LOOK AT THE TO KEEP THE BUILDINGS THAT ARE ENCROACHING CROACHG THEY ARE WELCOME TO COME BACK FORE THOSE VARIANCES BUT THEY'RE SEEKING APPROVAL FOR THE USE PRIOR TO GETTING THAT FOR A INTO THE PROCESS. I GUESS THE LAST THING -- I JUST SAT WITH THEM, JUST SPOKE ABOUT THE RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL WITH THE CONDITIONS. THERE'S TWO CONDITIONS THAT JUST GAVE ME PAUSE. ONE OF THOSE WAS THE TRANSFER YOUABILITY ISSUE, AND I KNOW IT'S NOT WRITTEN IN AFFIRMATIVE BUT I GUESS MY ONLY CONCERN WOULD BE THE ENTITY THAT'S REFERENCED RIGHT NOW IS THE ENTITY THAT'S BUYING THE PROPERTY. THE OPERATING ENTITY WILL BE ANOTHER ENTITY. SO THERE WILL BE ONE, AT LEAST ONE TRANSFER THAT HAS TO OCCUR. I'M ADVISED THAT THE COUNTY STAFF REQUIRES THAT CURRENTLY IT BE GRANTED TO THE CURRENT PROPERTY OWNER RATHER THAN THE POTENTIAL FUTURE PROPERTY OWNER,

[02:15:01]

WHICH IS RATHER ODD IN MY MIND, BUT REGARDLESS OF THAT, THE POINT IS THERE WILL NEED TO BE TRANSFERABILITY AT LEAST IN NAMES THEY FIEM HAVE. THE FINAL ENTITY THAT WILL OPERATE THIS HAS NOT BEEN CREATED IN THE EVENT THIS IS APPROVED AND THAT WOULD BE THE ENTITY NAME WE WOULD WANT ON THE USE. AND THEN LASTLY THE ISSUE OF THE INSPECTION. THERE'S A PROVISION THAT STATES THAT UPON COMMENCEMENT, IT SEEMS TO BE AN OPEN DOOR.

THE ONLY THING I'D BE WORRIED ABOUT IS A CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER COMING IN WITH YELLOW LIGHTS IN MIDDLE OF A SATURDAY AFTERNOON WEDDING. I WOULD THINK IT WOULD BE THAT CODE ENFORCEMENT SHOULD COME OUT AND TAKE A LOOK AT THE PROPERTY UPON COMPLETION OR CO AND THEN BY APPOINTMENT THEREAFTER.

I THANK YOU AND I'LL STAND BY FOR ANY QUESTIONS.

>> MS. PERKINS: FROM EVERY AUGUSTA.

ALLOWS CALVINER LOU LEWI. >> GOOD AFTERNOON.

I'M LUIS CABER OH I LIVE AT 540 BLACK FOREST DRIVE WHICH IS NEXT TO THIS IN THE BACK ACROSS WETLAND AND OUT REMINGTON FOREST SUBDIVISION, ALSO A REPRESENTATIVE FOR THAT SUBDIVISION. I WAS NEVER APPROACHED REGARDING THIS, AND THANKS FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD BILL OF RIGHTS I WAS NOTIFIED THIS WAS HAPPENING. IF IT WASN'T FOR THAT, THE 300 FEET, I WOULDN'T KNOW THIS HAS HAPPENING IN MY OWN BACKYARD. I'M VERY CONCERNED, AND YOU ADDRESSED SOME OF THE ISSUES, THE NOISE BECAUSE I ENJOY MY PROPERTY AND QUIET WEEKENDS. I DON'T WANT A PARTY HOUSE NEXT DOOR. I TOLERATED KID DURING THE DAY, WHICH, OKAY, BUT THAT'S WHAT MY MY MY MARIN CONCERN IS. ALSO ALCOHOL SALES AND HOW MANY PEOPLE WOULD BE ON SITE AND COMINGS AND GOINGS ESPECIALLY LATE AT NIGHT. I NEEDED TO BE MORE SURE OF THIS, AND I KNOW THIS IS A SPECIAL PERMIT THING.

IT'S A CAVEAT TYPE OF THING IN THE CODE, LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE.

ALSO YOU HAVE TO CONSIDER THIS IS STATE ROAD 13 WHICH HAS AN OVERLAY REGARDING THAT, SO THERE'S CERTAIN REQUIREMENTS FOR SIGNAGE, SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS FOR WILLIAM -- HIGHWAY THAT REQUIRES HOW THIS PROPERTY CAN BE USED.

YOU HAVE TO CONSIDER THAT AS WELL.

AND ESPECIALLY THE COYOTE DOOR VENUE AND RESTRICTION OF HOURS AND SO FORTH THAT WILL IMPACT THE ENJOYMENT OF MY PROPERTY, ESPECIALLY DURING THE WEEKEND WHEN I'M HOME FROM WORK.

THOSE ARE MY MAIN CONCERNS I ASSUME THEY WILL UPKEEP THE BUILDING SINCE IT'S BEEN NEGLECTED FOR SO MANY YEARS WHEN THE GRAMMAR SCHOOL WAS SHUT DOW DOWN.

I DO THE CLAIPG AROUND THE PROPERTY CONCERNED WETLANDS.

I OWN THE WETLANDS NEXT TO THIS PROPERTY AS WELL.

THOSE ARE MY CONCERNS. HOPEFULLY THAT ADDRESSED IT.

I STAND ON THE FACT THAT THEY NEVER APPROACHED ME, AND I'M JUST RIGHT THERE IN THE CORNER. IF YOU SHOW THE MAP, ONE OF THE MAPS, IT'S 530 BACK THERE REMINGTON FOREST SUBDIVISION.

SO THAT'S ALL I HAVE TO SAY. >> MR. MATOVINA: THANK YOU.

>> MS. PERKINS: JANET JOYNER. >> HELLO.

MY NAME IS JANET JOINER RIV AT NEVADA 40 BLACK FOREST DEPRIVE.

MY CONCERN IS THE NOISE. YESTERDAY AROUND 3:30 I COULD HEAR THE THREE LADIES TALKING SO THAT'S HOW CLOSE WE ARE FROM WHERE THEIR PROPERTY, WE JOIN TOGETHER WHERE THE STREAM RUNS, SO, YOU KNOW, THEY'RE WANTING MUSIC, LOTS OF PEOPLE OUT THERE SO THAT'S GOING TO REALLY PUT A STRAIN ON US.

SO THAT'S REALLY THE ONLY ISSUE THAT I HAVE.

I MEAN, IF THEY WANT TO STOP AT 7:00 AT NIGHT, ABOUT 10:00, 11:00 THAT'S JUST WAY, WAY TOO MUCH FOR US.

AND I DO LIKE THE IDEA OF HAVING SOMETHING LIKE THAT, BUT 10:00, 11:00 AT NIGHT WITH ALL THAT NOISE, I'M GOING TO HEAR EVERY BIT OF IT, SO ANYWAY, THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

>> MR. MATOVINA: THANK YOU. IS THERE ANYONE ELSE TO SPEAK ON THIS MATTER? IF NOT, WOULD THE APPLICANT LIKE

TO COME UP AND PROVIDE REBUTTAL. >> MIKE HIRSCH BERG AGAIN ON

[02:20:06]

BLAST APPLICANT. I CAN SURELY APPRECIATE THE CONCERNS OF THOSE NEIGHBORS. HOWEVER, I GUESS I'D CONTEST THE ISSUE OF RIGHT THERE. THE RESIDENTS BY USING THE SURVEY LOOKS TO BE AT LEAST 250 FEET AWAY AND PROBABLY ACROSS A HEAVILY VEGETATED AT LEAST IT LOOKS LIKE ON THE AERIAL WETLAND, WHICH MEANS THAT THERE'S A CONSIDERABLE AMOUNT NOISE ATTENUATION THAT'S GOING ON BETWEEN THESE TWO PROPERIES.

FURTHERMORE, AS DHETION NATED ON THEIR SITE PLAN THERE REALLY IS NO ACT OF IN THIS AREA OTHER THAN THE PARKING LOT BEYOND THAT. SO I GUESS MY REAL ISSUE FROM A PLANNING PERSPECTIVE I DON'T SEE THE NOISE FROM THESE ACTIVITIES TRANSFERRING THAT FAR TO BEGIN WITH, NUMBER ONE.

NUMBER TWO, THEY HAVE COMMITTED HAD TO THOSE HOURS OF ORIGINALS WHICH ARE REALLY QUITE FARE PAP 11:00 AT NIGHT IS A VERY NORMAL TIME ON WEEKEND FOR THINGS TO END.

OBVIOUSLY THESE HOMEOWNERS AREN'T IMPAIRED WITH THEIR ABILITY TO MAKE NOISE BEYOND 11:00 P.M. OR ANYTHING OF THAT NATURE SO IT SEEMS A LITTLE UNREASONABLE FOR AN INSTITUTIONAL USE PROPERTY SUCH AS THIS TO BE LIMITED ANY FURTHER THAN THAT. FURTHER, THE APPLICANT HAS MADE VERY CLEAR AND HAS STATED AGAIN FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE RECORD THAT THEY WOULD ABIDE BY ANY AND ALL POLITICAL NOISE ORDINANCES OF THE COUNTY SO IN THE RIGHT NOW THEY WERE EXCEEDING A NOTICES LEVELLAL LOWNLS AGAIN THEY WOULD BE SUBJECT TO CITATION FOR SUCH ACTION. FROM THAT PERSPECTIVE, IF THEY HAVEN'T BROKEN THE LAW, YOU CAN'T ASSUME THEY'RE GOING TO BREAK THE LAW AS A MATTER LAW. I GUESS I WOULD ONLY ASK YOU TO CONSIDER THAT, CONSIDER THAT DISTANCE, AND OBVIOUSLY THEY STATED THEY DID PUT UP WITH THE CHILDREN IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD FOR A PERIOD OF TIME. I DON'T THINK THIS IS GOING TO BE PUT UP WITH. I THINK THIS IS SOMETHING THAT WILL NOT EVEN HAPPEN EVERY WEEKEND, HOPEFULLY THEY'LL BE SUCCESSFUL AND HAPPEN ENOUGH TO KEEP THE BUSINESS IN PLACE, BUT AGAIN, AT 250 FEET, THAT'S A SUBSTANTIAL DISTANCE, ESPECIALLY WITH THIS TYPE OF VEGETATION. THANK YOU.

>> MR. MATOVINA: DOES NUB HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OF THE APPLICANT?

DR. HILSENBECK. >> DR. HILSENBECK: I DO OF THE PLANNER, SIR. DO YOU KNOW HOW FAR THE SOUND FROM AN ELECTRIC GUITAR THROUGH, SAY, 120-AMP -- WATT MANY YA CAN CARRY OR A BASE? DO YOU KNOW?

>> THROUGH THE CHAIR, IT WOULD DEPEND ON A WHOLE BUNCH OF FACTOR. WHAT ARE THE FACTOR? I'M GOING TO NEED MORE PROGRAM FIRST TERRACE FROM YOU, SIR HINCHT I'VE HAD ELECTRIC GUITARS BEFORE AND THEY CAN CARRY A

CONSIDERABLE DISTANCE. >> I ONLY HOPE YOU DIDN'T VIOLATE THE IODINE ORDINANCE, SIR.

>> DR. HILSENBECK: NOT IN THIS CITY.

>> SILENCE. COMPLIANCE IS KEY.

>> DR. HILSENBECK: I JUST WONDERED IF YOU KNEW.

>> MR. MATOVINA: ALL RIGHT. DOES ANYBODY ELSE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? MS. PERKINS.

>> MS. PERKINS: I'M SORRY. MR. HIRSCHBERG, CAN YOU COME UP AGAIN. YOU MENTIONED ANOTHER CONDITION THAT YOU HAD AN ISSUE WITH. CAN YOU EXPLAIN.

I DIDN'T QUITE UNDERSTAND WHICH ONE YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT.

>> THROUGH THE CHAIR, TO COMMISSIONER PERKINS, YES, MA'AM. THERE'S TWO CONDITIONS ACTUALLY THAT ARE OF CONCERN. THE WAY IN WHICH THE ORDER, PROPOSED ORDER WAS HAVE HAD DRACHTD IN THE HOTTER REPORTED IT'S STATED IT COULD BE TRANSFERABLE OR NON-TRANSFERABLE AN ULTIMATELY MY UNDERSTANDING IS STAFF, AND I'LL ET LET STAFF ANSWER THAT QUESTION, MANDATES THAT IT STAIRTD IN THE CURRENT OWNER BECAUSE OF THE CURRENT OWNER.

IN THIS CASE THERE'S NO INTENT OF THE CURRENT OWNER TO HAVE THIS RIGHT TO THE PROPERTY. WOULD BE THE PURCHASER IT WOULD GO TO. HOWEVER, THE PURCHASER, THE ENTITY THAT WILL NOT BE THE PURCHASER IS NOT IS THE FINAL USER OF THE PROPERTY. THEY WILL CREATE A NEW ENTITY WHICH WILL BE THE PARENT FOR THE OPERATIONS ON THE PROPERTY.

SO WE'RE GOING TO NEED TO HAVE A THIRD ENTITY WHICH IS YET UNNAMED. SO BOLDLY ASKING FOR TRANSFERABILITY ONLY TO GET IT TO THE FINAL USER HERE, NOT TO CARRY ON BEYOND THESE FOLKS. AND THEN THE OTHER MATTER WAS THE ISSUE OF THE INSPECTION. THE LANGUAGE OF THE RIGHT OF THE CITY OR COUNTY TO INSPECT HERE IS EXTREMELY BROAD, ALMOST SEEMS THE ABILITY TO COME THAT THE ANY HOWRT OF THE DAY OR NIGHT.

OBVIOUSLY IF THEY'VE GOT A CEREMONY GOING ON, THE LAST THING WE WANT IS THE CITY DOING SOME INSPECTION INTAWS A PHONE CALL IS MADE OF AN ALLEGATION THAT IS BASELESS.

WE WOULD WANT THEM OBVIOUSLY TO MAKE AN APPOINTMENT AND SAY, HEY, AS OF LAST NIGHT WE TOOK READING IN THE NEIGHBOR'S YARD AND YOU WERE VIOLATING THE NOISE ORDINANCE BY SUCH-AND-SUCH.

HERE'S YOUR CITATION, THAT TYPE OF THING.

>> THANK YOU. >> NARRATOR:.

>> MR. MATOVINA: DR. MCCORMICK.

>> DR. MCCORMICK: MS. PERKINS ASKED MY QUESTION I THINK ALREADY BUT I JUST WANTED TO MIX A LITTLE BIT MORE CLARIFICATION.

I THINK I'M UNDERSTANDING WHAT YOU'RE SAYING.

THEY HAVE TWO CORPORATIONS THAT ARE BUYING IT, FIRST OF ALL, TWO LLC, I SHOULD SAY, AND THEN THEY WANT TO TRANSFER OUT TO A LIRD LLC WHICH WOULD BE THE OPERATING COMPANY.

MY QUESTION IS, IS THAT WHERE TRANSFERABILITY STOPS?

[02:25:01]

BECAUSE DOES THE SLASH PART, SHALL NOT BE TRANSFERABLE, DOES IT APPLY AFTER THAT FIRST TRANSFER TO THE OPERATING

COMPANY? >> SO JUST TO CLARIFY, RIGHT NOW WE CURRENTLY HAVE THE PROPERTY UNDER CONTRACT, AND WE'RE HERE SEEKING AN APPROVAL TO GET THIS DONE SO WE CAN CLOSE ON IT, SO FROM WHAT I HAD GATHERED FROM SOME BOARD MEMBERS IS THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT TO BE WOULD BE FUTURE IN THE CURRENT OWNER'S NAME AND THEN IT WOULD HAVE TO BE TRANSFERRED TO THE LUMPS OF US WHO IS BUYING IT BECAUSE THEY'LL NO LONGER OWN IT ANYMORE. SO THAT'S THE REASON WE'RE REQUESTING IT BE TRANSFERRED BECAUSE WE DO NOT OWN THE PROPERTY YET. WE'LL ENCLOSE ON IT IN A COUPLE WEEKS IF THE TITLE IS GRANTED ON IT.

>> DR. MCCORMICK: THAT ANSWERS MY QUESTION.

>> WE'RE NOT BRINGING IN A WHOLE LUNCH LLCS.

IT'S BECAUSE WE DON'T CURRENTLY OWN IT.

>> DR. MCCORMICK: THANK YOU. >> MR. MATOVINA: STAFF.

>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. A COUPLE OF OTHER THINGS.

I WASN'T SURE IF IV HIRSCHBERG WAS REPRESENTING YOU.

>> HE'S WORKING WITH US ON OUR BEHALF.

>> SO IF I MAY, NUMBER ONE, I'LL ADDRESS THE CONDITION THAT WAS KADE ABOUT THE INSPECTIONS.

THAT'S A STANDARD COMMENT THAT WE HAVE IN THERE AND STAFF IS SENSITIVE TO THAT, IF SOMEBODY'S HAVING A WEDDING WE'RE NOT GOING TO GO IN BATONS AND BREAK IT UP, BUT WE WOULD NEED TO OBSERVE IT OR EVIDENCE IT FOR FUTURE, AND THAT'S WHY THAT'S IN THERE.

OF COURSE, IT'S NOT TO BREAK UP. SO THAT'S WHAT THAT'S THERE.

STAFF THINKS IT NEEDS TO BE IN THERE FOR A GOOD REASON.

WE HAVE AN ACTIVE CASE THAT HAS A SIMILAR SITUATION WITH THAT.

IT ALSO HAD A SIMILAR SITUATION WITH REGARD TO TRANSFERABILITY SO WHATEVER WE DO, WE WERE NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT THAT TRANSFERSABILITY IS CRYSTAL CLEAR FOR STAFF SO WE CAN ENFORCE ACCORDINGLY BECAUSE THESE CONDITIONS COME UP TO EVALUATE THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT AND WHETHER OR NOT THE APPLICANT IS ADHERING TO THOSE CONDITIONS. IF I MAY, TOO, BECAUSE WE ENFORCE THESE PERMITS AND CONDITIONS, WEDDINGS ARE UNIQUE AND VERY SPECIAL EVENTS IN SOMEONE'S LIFE AND SOMETIMES THEY POTENTIALLY RUN OVER. MR. HEARST BERG INDICATED THAT APPLICANT HAS ITD APPLICANT HAS INDICATED THEY WILL MEET THE RULES, BUT WE HAVE EXPERIENCE WITH SOME SITUATIONS WITH WEDDING AND SPECIAL USE PERMITS WHERE THEY WENT ON LONGER THAN THEY WERE SUPPOSED TO AND CAUSED ISSUE.

SO I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE FOR THE RECORD THAT -- AND THERE ARE RESIDENTS NEARBY. YOU HAVE HEARD SOME TESTIMONY

TOWED THAT THE APPLICANT -- >> WE DID ABIDE BY THE RULES.

>> AND OBVIOUSLY WE HAVE TO ENFORCE THE BUT WE DON'T WANT TO CREATE PROBLEMS EITHER FOR OURSELVES, SO I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT YOU UNDERSTAND THAT THESE CONDITIONS TOSH A I HAD BOOED BY. WE WILL GO OUT AND ULTIMATELY IF THEY WEREN'T ADHERED TO, THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT CAN BE

REVOKED. >> I UNDERSTAND.

>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. >> MR. MATOVINA: YOUR WELCOME.

ANYBODY ELSE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OF THE APPLICANT? I JUST WANT TO SAY THAT MIC THAT WE HOPE THAT WEDDING ARE UNIQUE, THAT YOU ONLY DO IT ONE TIME. ALL RIGHT.

WE ARE BACK THE IN AGENCY FOR A MOTION.

IS DID YOU TRY TO MAKE A MOTION WITH MR. HILSENBECK?

>> DR. HILSENBECK: I DID NOT. I WAS GOING TO MAKE A COMMENT.

IT WAS PREMATURE. >> MR. MATOVINA: MS. PERKINS.

>> MS. PERKINS: I'D RECOMMEND A MOTION TO APPROVE SPECIAL USE PERMIT IMAGINE 2021-18 2353 STATE ROAD 13 NORTH BASED UPON 8TH FINDINGS OF FACT AND SUBJECT TO 12 CONDITIONS AS PROVIDED IN THE STAFF REPORT WITH TRANSFERABILITY AND THE CORRECTED HOURS OF 8:00 A.M. TO 11:00 P.M.

>> MR. MATOVINA: SO WE HAVE A MOTION BY MS. PERKINS.

IS THERE A SECOND 1234 SECOND BY MR. MILLER.

DR. HILSENBECK. >> DR. HILSENBECK: WELL, I CERTAINLY THINK THIS IS A BEAUTIFUL PROPERTY.

THERE'S NO DOUBT ABOUT IT, LOOKING AT THOSE AERIAL PHOTOS OR DRONE FOOTAGE, WHATEVER THEY WERE.

IT'S GORGEOUS PROPERTY. OUR YOUNGEST DAUGHTER JUST GOT MARRIED THIS PAST SEPTEMBER UP IN SAVANNAH, AND IT'S SORT OF A DESTINATION WEDDING, AND IT WAS -- THE VENUE, IT WAS A DIFFERENT VENUE LIKE THIS, OUTSIDE THE CITY OF SAVANNAH AND IT WAS REALLY NICE AND GREAT, WONDERFUL.

WE ALL HAD A BLAST. BUT LET ME JUST SAY IT WASN'T PLOPPED DOWN RIGHT IN THE MIDDLE OF A RESIDENTIAL B AND A RESIDENTIAL A ZONING. SO THOSE PEOPLE THAT LIVE OUT THERE OFF COUNTY ROAD 13 NORTH, THEY MOVED OUT THERE FOR LARGER LOTS, PEACE AND QUIET, AND I'LL HAVE TO SAY IF THIS WAS IN MY BACKYARD, EVEN WITH 250 FEET FROM MY HOUSE, I WOULDN'T WANT

[02:30:03]

IT. I THINK IT'S A GREAT USE FOR THE COUNTY. JUST NOT IN THIS PARTICULAR LOCATION IN THE MIDDLE OF RES-B AND RES-A.

SO FOR THOSE REASONS, I PERSONALLY JUST CAN'T SUPPORT IT. BUT I WISH Y'ALL LUCK.

>> MR. MATOVINA: ANY OTHER COMMENTS?

>> MR. MATT. >> MR. MATOVINA: YES.

>> COULD I GET CLARIFICATION ON THE TRANSFERABILITY ISSUE.

THE STAFF REPORT ASKS FOR CLARIFICATION SHALL BE TRANSFERABLE OR NOT TRANSFERABLE TO JCC VENTURES LLC WHICH I UNDERSTAND IS THE BUYER OR POTENTIAL BUYER OF THE PROPERTY, IF WE COULD GET THAT CLARIFICATION, PLEASE.

>> [INAUDIBLE] WE WILL NORM A NEW LLC -- SO IT WILL BE TRANSFERRED TO THE NEW LLC PRIOR TO CLOSING ON THE PROPERTY.

[INAUDIBLE] >> PERCENTAGE OF SO YOU DO NOT

HAVE THE NAME OF THAT LLC. >> IT WOULD BE THE VENUE NAME

WOAB THE LLC. >> AND WHAT'S THE VENUE NAME?

>> VENUE ST. JOHNS COUNTY. >> VENUE ST. JOHNS LLC.

>> CORRECT. IT'S EITHER VENUE ORE THE VINE.

WE HAVEN'T TALKED ABOUT THE "THE."

>> MR. PERCENTAGE OF YOU MIT WANT TOO LIST IT IN THAT.

>> RIGHT. >> AGAIN, THE GOAL BEING THEY WILL PUT THIS IN AN OPERATING L&L WITH THEIR PARTNER.

THEY HAVE NOT CHECKED THAT THAT NAME IS ACTUALLY AVAILABLE, SO WE WOULD ASK THAT IT HAD BE TRANSFERRED -- I GUESS THE WAY YOU GUYS DO IT HERE CSH FROM THE CURRENT TOARCHT JCC THAT'S GIEG IT ONE MORE TRANSFER TO THE FINAL ENTITY.

I KNOW THAT'S A BIT OFF PROBLEM BUTTED THAT'S WHY I JUMPED UP TO SAY, HAWKER WE'VE GOT TO BE CAREFUL ABOUT THAT NAME.

THERE IS THERE A WAY TO HOLD THAT DOOR OPEN WITHIN SO MANY DAYS TO PROVIDE THAT. NOW THAT THEY KNOW THIS THEY CAN SEEK THEIR LLC. IF THEY GET APPROVAL TODAY THEY CAN SEEK THEIR LLC AND HAVE IT YOU BE IMMEDIATELY.

>> THEY HAVE ONE YEAR TO COMMENCE THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT SO I THINK THAT CLARIFICATION IS APPROPRIATE.

>> MS. PERKINS: SO YOU WOULD AGREE THAT THEY WOULD BE TRANSFERABLE TO JCC VENTURES AND THEN BE ABLE TO BE TRANSFERRED WRINTSZ ONE YEAR TO NEW LLC CREATED.

[3. SUPMIN 2021-09 Grimes Family Horses. Request for a Special Use Permit to allow for five (5) horses to be located on approximately 5.25 acres of land in Residential Single Family (RS-2) zoning pursuant to Section 2.03.01.A and Section 2.03.05 of the Land Development Code; specifically located at 3700 Winterhawk Court.]

>> YES. >> MS. PERKINS: THAT IS THAT.

THAT WOULD BE MY CLARIFICATION, THEN.

>> MR. MATOVINA: SO WE HAVE AN AMENDED MOTION.

AND WHO SECONDED THAT MOTION? WILL YOU ACCEPT THAT AMENDMENT?

>> I WILL. >> MR. MATOVINA: SO WE HAVE THE AMENDED MOTION AND WE HAVE A SECOND.

IS THERE ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? SEEING NONE, LET'S RECORD THE VOTE. THAT PASSES 5 TO 2.

ALL RIGHT. LET'S MOVE TO ITEM NUMBER 3.

MR. WHITEHOUSE, DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANY, MI BOARD MEMBERS HAVE ANY EX PARTE COMMUNICATION TO DECLARE ON ITEM 3?

>> DR. MCCORMICK: YES, I DO. I DID --

NIS HORSES WHILE YOU WERE THERE? >> DR. MCCORMICK: THERE

WEREN'T ANY HORSES THERE. >> DR. HILSENBECK: SPOKE TO JAMES WHITEHOUSE FOR ABOUT 15 AND HE ASKED ME IF I HAD READ THE ITEM, AND I SAID YES. THAT WAS IT.

>> MR. MATOVINA: ALL RIGHT. ANYBODY ELSE?

SEEING NONE, MR. WHITEHOUSE. >> THANK YOU, HER ST. JOHNS COUNTY LAW YIEWP SEA GROVE MAIN STREET IN ST. JOHNS, FLORIDA.

I'M HERE ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT, THE CURRENT OWNER OF THE PROPERTY AND AS YOU CAN SEE FROM THE TITLE OF THE APPLICATION ITSELF, THIS IS FOR THE GRIMES FAMILY, DR. GRIMES AND HIS WIFE GRACE. THIS IS OVER 5-ACRE PIECE OF PROPERTY. THEY'RE LOOKING TO HAVE HORSES ON IT. THE LOCATION, AND I WON'T BELABOR IT BUT I'LL GO THROUGH IT REAL QUICKLY, THE LOCATION, YOU CAN SEE WE'RE AT 207 AND 95. YOU CAN SEE WHERE US-1 IS, AND THIS IS WILDWOOD AND THAT GOES THROUGH HERE.

3. THIS IS FROM YOUR STAFF REPORT.

IT'S IN YOUR PACKET BUT YOU CAN SEE THE PROPERTY ITSELF, AS I SAID, IT'S A VERY LARGE PIECE OF PROPERTY ABOUT 5 AND A QUARTER ACRES. AGAIN, HERE'S ANOTHER PICTURE OF THE PROPERTY. YOU CAN SEE IT'S VERY VEGETATED BUT YOU CAN SEE THE HOUSE AND THERE'S ALSO -- YOU CAN SEE THERE'S ALREADY A PEN AND A POLE BARN ON THE PROPERTY.

YOU GUYS KNOW THE THE REQUIREMENTS TO HAVE HORSES OR PONIES TO PIECES OF PROPERTY. I WON'T GO THROUGH THEM.

THEY'RE IN YOUR PACKET AND THE STAFF WENT THROUGH THEM.

THE SITE PLAN IS IN YOUR PACKET AS WELL.

AS I SAID, THE OUTLINE IN THIS HIGHLIGHTED ARE WHERE THE

[02:35:01]

DISCLOSURES CLOSURES ARE AND THE POLE BARN IS.

THEY'RE ALL WITHIN THE REQUIRED DISTANCES REQUIRED DISTANCES AS STATED IN YOUR STAFF REPORT.

THIS KIND OF SHOWS THE DISTANCES FROM THE PROPERTY APPRAISERS APPRAISER'S WEBSITE WITH THE MEASURING TOOL, AND AS YOU CAN SEE ALL OF THESE PROPERTIES ARE VERY FAR AWAY FROM WHERE THEY HAVE THE FENCED CLOSURES AND THEY MEET THE REQUIREMENTS AS OUTLINED IN THE STAFF REPORT I JUST WANTED TO SHOW YOU GUYS THIS. THIS IS BEHIND THE PROPERTY IS THIS PIECE, AS YOU SAW. THIS IS A COMMON ELEMENT OF THIS DEVELOPMENT. VERY LARGE.

AS YOU CAN SEE THIS PROPERTY IS 5.25 ACRES.

THIS PIECE IS VERY LARGE COMPARED TO THAT.

AND THE DISTANCES -- I'LL GO BACK REAL QUICKLY.

THIS IS THE DISTANCE FROM EDGE OF THEIR NORTH -- I THINK IT'S THE NORTH EDGE OF THEIR PROPERTS 430 FEET, AND THAT'S FROM THE EDGE OF THEIR PROPERTY, NOT EVEN FROM WHERE THE ENCLOSURE IS.

THIS IS -- AND THIS IS ALL GOING TO BE SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD BUT YOU WANT TO SHOW YOU GUYS. SO THIS IS THE PROPERTY APPRAISER'S PAGE THAT TALKS ABOUT THAT COMMON ELEMENT PIECE.

IT SAYS THE COMMON ELEMENTS ARE 12.4 ACRES.

THAT PIECE OBVIOUSLY IS A LITTLE SMALLER THAN THAT BUT YO CAN SEE THE OTHER COMMON PIECE THAT'S ON THE PROPERTY APPRAISER'S SITE. SO THIS PIECE IS SOMETHING A LITTLE LESS THAN 12. 4 ACRES BUT PRETTY LARGE IN ANY I WAS. 20.4.

I WON'T BELABOR IT. THESE ARE THE MEASUREMENTS.

IF ANYBODY HAS ANY QUESTIONS I CAN GO BACK TO THOSE AFTER.

AS YOU CAN SEE FROM YOUR STAFF REPORT, THE STAFF HAS SUBMITTED THAT SAYS THE REQUEST SUBMITTED, MEETS ALL POLITICAL CRITERIA AS SET FORTH IN THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE.

AGAIN THE REQUIREMENTS OF AND TE PLANNING AND ZONING DIVISION REVIEW STATES THE APPLICATION AS SUBMITTED APPEARS TO MEET THE CRITERIA ASSOCIATED WITH SPECIAL USE SPECIFICALLY SECTIONS 2.03.

ROWE 1A AND 20 THEIR 3O.5. APPLICANT HAS STATED ALL RUMENT ARE MET WITH REGARD TO THE THE RESIDENCES OF PROPOSED LOCATION OF FENCES, POLE BARN AND HORSE SHELTER LOCATED ON THE NORTHERN PORTION OF THE PROPERTY WHICH IS NOT ADJACENT TO ANY SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT. AND AS YOU KNOW, YOU HAVE THE SUGGESTED MOTION WITHIN YOUR PACKET.

THE ONLY THING THAT WE KIND OF WANTED TO ADDRESS WAS THE TRANSFERABILITY. IT'S CURRENTLY OWNED IN ONE OF THE GRIMES' COMPANIES. THEY PLAN TO HAVE A RESIDENCE THERE, SO WE WOULD ASK FOR IT TO BE TRANSFERABLE BASED ON THAT FACT BECAUSE IF THEY NEED TO MAKE IT THEIR HOMESTEAD, THEY WOULD LIKE TO BE ABLE TO TRANSFER IT INTO THEIR NAME.

THAT'S ALL I HAVE. IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS I'LL BE GLAD TO ANSWER THEM OR IF THERE'S ANY PUBLIC COMMENT, I CAN TALK AFTER THAT. THANK YOU, SIR.

>> MR. MATOVINA: ALL RIGHT. DO WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OF THE APPLICANT? SEEING NONE, DO WE HAVE ANY PUBLIC COMMENT? WE ARE BACK INTO THE AGENCY FOR A MOTION. ANYONE?

DR. MCCORMICK. >> DR. MCCORMICK: I'M I'M GOING TO MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE SUPMIN 2021-09 SUBJECT TO 11 CONDITIONS AND EIGHT FINDINGS OF FACT AS PROVIDED IN

THE STAFF REPORT >> MR. MATOVINA: WE'VE GOT A MOTION BY DR. MCCORMICK. IS THERE A SECOND?

>> DR. HILSENBECK: SECOND. >> MR. MATOVINA: WE DIDN'T ADDRESS THIS TRANSFERABILITY ISSUE.

DOES THE MOTIONER CARE TO ADDRESS THE TRANSFERABILITY ISSUE? NO?

OKAY. >> YES, MR. CHAIR.

WE DO NEED CLARIFICATION AS TO WHETHER IT WILL OR WILL NOT BE TRANSFERABLE. YOU MAY WANT TO LOOK A PAGE 11 OF THE STAFF REPORT. NUMBER 1.

>> DR. MCCORMICK: I WOULD SAY WILL BE TRANSFERABLE AND WILL

RUN WITH TITLE TO THE PROPERTY. >> MR. MATOVINA: SO THERE'S A MOTION TO INCLUDE TRANSFERABILITY.

[02:40:03]

AND WHO MADE THE SECOND? >> DR. HILSENBECK: I'LL SECOND

THAT AS WELL. >> MR. MATOVINA: THANKS, DR. HILSENBECK. ANY DISCUSSION? SEEING NONE, LET'S REG TER THE VOTE.

>> DR. HILSENBECK: I JUST WANTED TO SAY ONE THING.

>> MR. MATOVINA: SORRY. >> DR. HILSENBECK: IN ANOTHER LIFE I L

[4. ZVAR 2021-34 Hiers First Street. Request for a Zoning Variance to Table 6.01 of the Land Development Code to allow a Front Yard setback of ten (10) feet in lieu of the twenty-five (25) foot requirement in Residential, Single Family (RS-3) zoning, to accommodate construction of a single-family residence, specifically located at 520 First Street.]

>> MR. MATOVINA: DOES ANYONE HAVE ANY EX PARTE COMMUNICATION TO DECLARE? SEEING NONE, WILL IT BE KNOWN THAT MS. PERKINS HAS LEFT THE HOUSE.

SHE WAS NOT FEELING WELL, SO I HOPE SHE FEELS BETTER.

>> GOOD AFTERNOON. GARY DAVENPORT, 212 SOUTH SHADOWWOOD. I AM HERE TODAY REPRESENTING THE OWNER OF 520 FIRST STREET WHICH IS MR. CHUCK HIERS WHO IS HERE WITH ME TODAY. SO WE ARE ASKING FOR A ZONING VARIANCE, AND LET'S SKIP OVER A FEW SLIDES AND GIVE YOU SOME BACKGROUND. SO THIS PROPERTY IS ON FIRST STREET AND N. NORTH BEACH. FRONTAGE ON THE THE INTRACOASTAL. AS YOU CAN SEE FROM THIS AERIAL IT IS HEAVILY WOOD TO THE EAST AND KIND OF CLEARED TO THE WEST SO IT ISING UNDEVELOPED PLATTED LOT.

IT'S BEEN PLATTED FOR QUITE A LONG TIME AS FASTER THE NORTH BEACH PLAT. THERE'S AN EXISTING EXISTIE RIGHT WHICH IS UNCOMMON OWNERSHIP SO IT'S ALSO OWNED, IT'S A SEPARATE LOT. CAN'T SEE IT THROUGH THE TREES.

THERE'S A SEPARATE THROTT LOT THERE.

SO THE PREVIOUS OWNER OF BUILT THE DOCK AND THE BULKHEAD AND ALL THAT. WHAT PARTICULARLY STANDS OUT IN THIS PICTURE IS TO THE SOUTH ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE FIRST STREET I HAVE THE RIGHT-OF-WAY THAT IS CAPS RESTAURANT RIGHT THERE. SO ALL THE WOODED AREA BETWEEN CAP'S YOU CAN SEE HERE ON THE RIGHT-OF-WAY, FIRST STREET RIGHT-OF-WAY, THE WOODED AREA BETWEEN CAP'S AND THIS PROPERTY IS THERE BECAUSE THE COUNTY HAS NEVER BUILT THE ROAD WITHIN FIRST STREET SO IT IS A COUNTY RIGHT-OF-WAY THAT HAS BEEN UNIMPROVED. THE HOUSE ON MILITARY HAS ACCESS DIRECTLY FROM MILITARY. THE HOUSE OUTLINED IN BLUE HAS A GRANDFATHERED DRIVEWAY THAT'S BEEN THERE A LONG TIME, SO IT'S DRIVEWAY WAY WITHIN THE THE COUNTY RIGHT-OF-WAY AND IT'S GRAWRPTD SO ON TUESDAY WE WERE HERE BEFORE THE COUNTY COMMISSION AND WE WERE SUCCESSFUL IN OBTAINING A NON-ZONING VARIANCE TO ALSO ALLOW THE LOT OUTLINED IN YELLOW TO ACCESS MILITARY, ACCESS THROUGH FIRST STREET IS AN EASEMENT QUALITY DRIVEWAY SO BASICALLY THAT ROAD DOESN'T HAVE TO BE IMPROVED. THERE'S TWO REASONS FOR THAT.

ONE IT IS ONLY NEEDED FOR ONE LOT SO IT'S A LOT OF IMPROVEMENT FOR ONE LOT, BUT MORE IMPORTANT FOR MR. HIERS AND HIS NEIGHBORS TO THE NORTH WHO WERE HERE TUESDAY, NONE OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD WANTS THOSE FREES AND VEGETATION WITHIN FIRST STREET TO BE REMOVED. IT IS THEIR SOUND AND VISUAL BUFFER TO CAP'S. IT'S ALSO BEAUTIFUL.

SO IN ORDER TO PRESERVE ALL OF THAT THREE SCWAIP WITHIN FIRST STREET, WE'RE GOING TO BE ABLE TO USE AN EASEMENT TO ACCESS THIS LOT. SO THAT WAS APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION UNANIMOUSLY ON TUESDAY.

SO HERE YOU HAVE A PROPOSED SITE PLAN FOR THE HOUSE THAT'S GOING TO BE BUILT ON 520 FIRST STREET. AND WHAT WE'RE ASKING FOR TODAY -- LET ME SEE IF I CAN MAKE THE POINTER -- ESSENTIALLY WHAT WE'RE -- ASKING FOR TODAS FOR THIS SETBACK FROM FIRST STREET TO THE SIDE OF THE HOUSE WHICH UNDER THE CODE IS THE FRONT YARD BECAUSE IT FACES THE ROAD.

WELL, IN ALL PRACTICALITY WHEN YOU HAVE AN UNOPENED -- YOU DO NOT REALLY HAVE A ROAD, YOU HAVE A DRIVE WAY& THE HOUSING IS ON THE INTRACOLTER, ORIENTED TOWARD THE INTRACOLT SO IT'S EAST AND WEST INSTEAD OF NORTH AND SOUTH. IT'S NOT GOING TO FUNCTION AS A DRIVEWAY. THERE WILL BE NO GARAGE.

WE WOULD LIKE FOR THAT TO BE 10 FEET, A VARIANCE OF 10 FEET AND WILL IT STILL FUNCTION PROPERLY AS THE INTENT OF THE CODE BECAUSE THERE'S AN UNOPENED RIGHT-OF-WAY NEXT TO IT.

[02:45:01]

IT'S ALL VEGETATED AREA. MORE IMPORTANTLY, FOR VARIANCE==, JUSTIFICATION FOR IT IS, AS I SHOWED ON THAT PREVIOUS AERIAL, THIS AREA WHERE THE BULK OF THE HOUSE IS IS ALREADY CLEARED AREA. TREES WON'T HAVE TO COME DOWN TO PUT THE HOUSE IN THIS ORIENTATION.

A FEW TREES WILL COME DOWN BUT IT'S MUCH EASIER TO SAVE TREES AROUND DRIVEWAYS AND THAT TYPE OF THING.

YOU OBVIOUSLY CAN'T SAVE A TREE IN THE MIDDLE OF A HOUSE.

SO IF WE SPUN THIS HOUSE AROUND SO THE FRONT YARD FACED FIRST STREET, FIRST STREET WOULDN'T HAVE THE RIGHT ORIENTATION TO THE INTRACOASTAL. YOU WOULD ALSO IMPACT SIGNIFICANTLY MORE TREES. DWRIEWD HAVE TO BRING THE EAST N FARTHER AND YOU WOULD HAVE TO IMPACT THE AREA TO THE EAST.

ESSENTIALLY THAT'S ALL I HAVE, AND WE'RE AVAILABLE FOR ANY

QUESTIONS. >> MR. MATOVINA: OKAY.

DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? SEEING NONE, DO WE HAVE ANY SPEAKER CARDS? OKAY. THEN KIERRE WE ARE BACK INTO THE AGENCY FOR A MOTION. WHERE IS MEGAN WHEN YOU NEED

HER? >> SERIOUSLY.

[5. ZVAR 2021-33 6381 Jack Wright Island Rd. Request for a Zoning Variance to Table 6.01 of the Land Development Code to allow a Front Yard setback of 90 feet in lieu of the platted Building Restriction Line (BRL) requirement of 155-feet, and a Side Yard setback of five (5) feet in lieu of the eight (8') requirement for Residential, Single Family (RS-3) zoning to accommodate an addition to the existing single family home.]

I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION. MOTION TO APPROVE ZONING VARIANCE 2021-34 SUBJECT TO SEVEN CONDITIONS AND FIVE FINDINGS OF FACT, AND THE CONDITIONS ALREADY LISTING IT AS IT'S TRANSFERABLE AND RUNS WITH THE PROPERTY.

>> MR. MATOVINA: WE'VE GOT A MOTION AND A SECOND FOR APPROVAL. IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION IN SEEING NONE, LET'S REGISTER THE VOTE.

THAT MOTION PASSES 7-0. LET'S MOVE OH, THE 6-0.

THANK YOU. LET'S MOVE ON TO ITEM NUMBER 5, AND WE HAVE MS. TICE AND DOES ANYONE HAVE ANY EX PARTE COMMUNICATION TO DECLARE FOR ITEM NUMBER 5?

SEEING NONE, MS. TICE. >> HI.

GOOD AFTERNOON. I'M RENEE TICE AN ATTORNEY FROM THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA, AND THE OWNER OF 6381 JACK WRIGHT ISLAND ROAD, STWAWGHT, THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.

ABOUT WITH ME TODAY THE KAREN COWARD OF KAREN COWARD DESIGN ASSOCIATES WHO IS THE DESIGNER ON THIS PROJECT AND HAS DRAFTED A SITE PLAN YOU EACH HAVE IN YOUR PACKET.

SHE HAS 36 YEARS OF INTERFERENCE AS A DESIGNER IN THE ST. AUGUSTINE AREA AND SHE'S HERE TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTIONS IN DETAIL. ALSO I HAVE WITH ME CAROL SULLIVAN OF LIGHT HOUSE REALTY WHO IS THE LISTING AND SELLING AGENT ON THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. LAST YEAR I HAD THE GREAT GOOD FORTUNE OF PURCHASING THIS BEAUTIFUL PROPERTY ON THE ST.

JOHN RIVER. THANKS TO CAROL AND HER DAUGHTER VOLE COL VEEN THE ENTIRE TRANS ABSENCE WENT SMOOTHLY.

AS YOU MAY NO KNOW IN THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA AN ATTORNEY MUST CLOSE EEP AND EVERY REAL ESTATE TRANSACTION SO IN MAI 25 YEARS ARE PRACTICE AND THOUSANDS OF TRANSACTIONS, I HAVE WORKED WITH AND COMPARED TO SEVERAL PLANNING AND ZONING BOARDS ALONG WITH MANY OTHER REGULATORY AGENCIES.

I MUST LIMIT. YOUR STAFF HERE IN ST. JOHNS COUNTY PLANNING AND ZONING. FROM TAMMY AT THE INTAKE DESK TO ADAM, BRUCE, AMANDA, SHERRY AND BE EVAN, EACH HAS BEEN EFFICIENT AND A PLEASURE TO WORK WITH. I'M HERE TODAY BEFORE YOU REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR TWO REASONS.

THE FIRST IS ADJACENT LOTS DIFFERENT FRONT STET BASK.

AND I. THIS THAT'S UP THERE. YES.

THOSE RIVERFRONT LOTS WERE PLATTED BACK IN 1959.

THERE WAS NO HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION.

THE SUBJECT PROPERTY I PURCHASED IS AN OLD BLOCK HOME BUILT IN 1966. THE HOME SITS IN THE MIDDLE OF TWO ADJACENT LOTS, LOT 81 AND LOT 82.

LOT 81 TO THE SOUTH HIS AS 90-FOOT FRONT SETBACK, AND LOT 82 TO THE NORTH HAS A 155-FOOT FRONT SETBACK.

THIS IS VERY UNUSUAL AND ODD SITUATION.

I WOULD LIKE TO BUILD TWO GARAGES AND A GARAGE ON MY 81 THAT MATCHES THE GARAGE ON LOT 82.

IN ORDER TO DO THIS I NEED THE SETBACKS TO BE CONSISTENT.

I'M ASKING FOR BOTH LOTS TO HAVE A 90-FOOT FRONT SETBACK.

NUMBER TWO, THE SOUTH SIDE SETBACK.

DECADE AGO, THIS HOUSE WAS BUILT 5 FEET OFF THE SOUTH PROPERTY LINE WHICH IS NOT COMPLIANT WITH THE 8-FOOT SIDE SETBACK.

I'M ASKING FOR A VARIANCE FOR REMODELING AND ADDITIONS.

THE PROPOSED DRAWINGS SHOW THE ADDITIONS TO THE HOME.

I RESPECTFULLY REQUEST THIS VARIANCE.

IN YOUR PACKET YOU SHOULD HAVE SEVERAL LETTERS OF SUPPORT.

I WENT TO ALL MY NEIGHBORS AND ASKED THEM ABOUT THE ADDITIONS, AND AND THE REMODELING OF THIS PROPERTY.

THE MOST IMPORTANT ONE IS THE ZONING VARIANCE REQUEST COMMENTS FROM MY NEIGHBOR TO THE NORTH, AND THE LETTER READS THIS.

[02:50:03]

"TO WHOM IT MAY URN CONCERN. PAUL BUSH AND I ARE PARTNER IN JACK JACK THE OWNER OF 6373 JACK WRIELGT I'M RADIOED, THE PROPERTY RIGHT NEXT DOOR. WE HAVE REVIEWED THE PROPERTY ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER NOTICE FOR THE REFERENCE HAVE PROPERTY AND HAVE NO OBJECTION TO THE REQUESTED CHANGE.

REGARDS ERNEST BUZZ LEE CEO, ELECTRICAL CONTRACTOR." I'M ASKING FOR A VARIANCE FOR THOSE TWO REASONS.

IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, KAREN CAN ANSWER ALL THE DETAILS.

>> MR. MATOVINA: DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OF MS. TICE OR CARRIE? SEEING NONE, DO WE HAVE ANY

SPEAKER CARDS? >> NO SPEAKER CARDS.

>> MR. MATOVINA: THEN WE'RE BACK INTO THE AGENCY FOR A MOTION. MR. MILLER.

>> MR. MILLER: MOTION TO APPROVE ZONING VARIANCE 2021-33, 6381 JACK WRIGHT EILAND ROAD BASED ON EIGHT CONDITIONS AND FIVE FONDING OF FACT A PROVIDED FOR IN THE STAFF REPORT.

[6. MINMOD 2021-18 7-Eleven Beacon Lake Parkway. Request for a Minor Modification to the Twin Creeks PUD (ORD 2006-3, as amended) to add Car Wash Facilities as a permitted commercial use on Parcel 6B-1.]

>> MR. MATOVINA: MOGS BY MR. MILLER, SECOND BY DR. HILSENBECK. THAT'S A NO.

[LAUGHTER] IT'S AUTOMATIC IF THAT HAPPENS

DURING YOUR ITEM. >> IT'S BECAUSE MEGAN IS NOT

HERE. >> MR. MATOVINA: WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION? SEEING NONE, LET'S REGISTER THE VOTE.

THAT MOTION PASSES BY A MAJORITY.

>> THANK YOU. THANK YOU SO MUCH.

>> MR. MATOVINA: THANK YOU. ITEM NUMBER 6, MS. HAMPTON, AND DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANY EX PARTE COMMUNICATIONS TO DECLARE ON ITEM NUMBER 6? IT DOESN'T LOOK LIKE

MS. HAMPTON. >> GOOD AFTERNOON.

I'M JEREMY ANDERSON. I'LL BE SPEAKING ON THIS ITEM ON BEHALF OF MS. HAMPTON. SHE WORKS WITH ME.

I AM WITH COMMON OAK ENGINEERING.

OUR ADDRESS IS 1209 EDGEWATER DRIVE, ORLANDO.

I'M A PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER AND I'M ALSO THE ENGINEER ON THIS PROJECT. I'M HERE TONIGHT ON BEHALF OF CREATINGON COMPANIES REQUESTING A APPROVAL FOR A MINOR MODIFICATION TO ALLOW A CAR WASH ON PARCEL 6B-1 OF THE TWIN CREEKS PUTT PUD. I THINK I HAVE A POWERPOINT PRESENTATION. IS THAT HERE? OKAY. THANK YOU.

SO THIS IS A LOCATION EXHIBIT. THE NOT IS LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE INTERSECTION BETWEEN COUNTY ROAD 210 AND EK BAON LAKE PARKWAY. THAT PROJECT THAT'S UNDER CONSTRUCTION ON OPPOSITE SIDE, TOTE NORTH SIDE OF BEACON LAKE PARKWAY WHICH IS THE SIDE STREET AND PUB PUBLIX THERE.

THAT'S THE LOCATION OF THE PROJECT.

CURRENTLY THE PARCEL IS A CLEARED PAD-READY SITE.

WE'RE PROPOSING TO DO A APPROXIMATELY 5,000 SQUARE FOOT 7-ELEVEN CONVENIENCE STORE WITH FUEING POSITIONS.

WE HAVE EIGHT MULTI-PRODUCT DISPENSERS UNDERNEATH THE FUELING CANOPY WHICH EQUALS 16 FUELING POSITIONS, ONE ON EACH SIDE OF THAT FUELING DISPENSER. ADDITIONALLY, WE HAVE A SINGLE BAY SCWASH THAT'S BEING PLPPED, AND PROPOSED AND THAT IS THE SUBJECT OF THE MINOR MODIFICATION THAT WE'RE BEING -- WE'RE REQUESTING NOW TO ALLOW THAT SINGLE-BAY CAR WASH.

THE SITE PLAN SHOWS TWO DRIVEWAYS CONNECTING, ONE CONNECTING TO COUNTY ROAD 220 AND THE OTHER TO BEACON LAKE PARKWAY. BOTH HAVE RIGHT TURN LANES PROPOSED TO THE DRIVEWAY CONNECTIONS WHICH IS CONSISTENT WITH THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AS WELL AS THE PUD.

TO THE NORTHWEST IS COUNTY ROAD 210.

OF COURSE TO THE NORTHEAST IS BEACON LAKE PARK WAUGH AND PUBLIC LICKS. TOTE SOUTHWEST TO THE RIGHT IS A VACANT COMMERCIAL PAD. AND TO THE SOUTHWEST, THAT'S A LARGE WET DETENTION POND. SO AS YOU CAN SEE HERE, I THINK I CAN USE THIS -- THIS WE GO -- THIS IS THE ACTUAL SINGLE-BAY CAR WASH HERE. IT'S BEEN ORIENTATED TOWARD, FOR OUR CUSTOMER AND ALSO TOWARD THE COUNTY ROAD 210, AND NOT ORE ORIENTATED TOWARD ADJACENT PROPERTIES.

THE CAR WASH USE ITSELF FOR CONVENIENCE STORE AND A GAS STATION LIKE THIS IS A AN ANCILLARY USE SO BASICALLY YOU COME AND FILL UP WITH GAS ON YOUR WAY TO WORK OR YOUR WAY HOME AND YOU ARE ASKED IF YOU WANT TO PURCHASE A CAR WASH

[02:55:03]

AFTER FUELIN UP, SO, OF COURSE, THE PRIMARY USE ON THIS SITE IS, OF COURSE, THE CONVENIENCE STORE AND THE FUELING STATIONS BUT AGAIN THE CARB CAR WASH IS JUST A CONVENIENCE TO THE CUSTOMER THESE QUHEANGS ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN AS WELL AS SECTION 5.03.03B LAN DEVELOPMENT CODE.

IT'S ALSO CONSISTENT WITH SOME IMPORTANT GOALS OF THE NEW TWIN CREEKS PUD IN THAT IT IS ANOTHER MIXTURE OF USES THAT'S BEING PROPOSED HERE THAT'S POTIOND INSIDE OF THE COMMUNITY -- POSITIONED INSIDE OF THE COMMUNITY SO THAT PEOPLE FROM THE COMMUNITY AREN'T DRIVING OUT OF THE COMMUNITY TO GET THESE SERVICES AND GOODS. SO THAT CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION. I APPRECIATE THE OPPORTUNITY TO BE HERE.

AND IF THERE'S ANY QUESTIONS I CAN ANSWER, I'D BE HAPPY TO DO

THAT. >> MR. MATOVINA: ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS FROM THE AGENCY OF THE APPLICANT? SEEING NONE, DO WE HAVE ANY SPEAKER CARDS?

>> MR. MILLER: NO SPEAKER CARDS.

>> MR. MATOVINA: THEN WE'RE BACK INTO THE AGENCY FOR A MOTION. MR. MILLER.

>> MR. MILLER: I HAVE A MOTION.

MOTION TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF MINOR MODIFICATION 2021-18,

[7. REZ 2021-34 Island Doctors Old Moultrie. Request to rezone approximately 1.29 acres of land from Commercial Neighborhood (CN) to Office & Professional (OP) to facilitate a proposed expansion of the existing medical office located to the north.]

7-ELEVEN BEACON LAKE PARKWAY BASED ON SIX FINDING FACT AND SUBJECT TO SEVEN CONDITIONS, AS PROVIDED IN THE STAFF REPORT.

>> MR. MATOVINA: MOTION BY MR. . IS THERE A SECOND.

SECOND BY MR. PETER. AN DISCUSSION? SEEING NONE, LET'S REGISTER THE VOTE.

ALL RIGHT. YOU HAVE A RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL. WE'LL MOVE ON TO --

>> IT'S FINAL APPROVAL. >> MR. MATOVINA: FINAL APPROVAL. EXCUSE ME.

THANK YOU, MR. VICE CHAIR. MR. LAHTI, YOU ARE UP NEXT FOR ITEM NUMBER 7. DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANY EX PARTE COMMUNICATION TO DECLARE FOR ITEM NUMBER 7?

>> MR. MATOVINA: YOU HAVE THE FLOOR.

>> GOOD AFTERNOON, MATT LATI GULF TREAM DRIEN GROUP.

I'M HERE TO PRESENT TO YOU ON A PIECE.

YOU'VE SEEN A PORTION OF THIS BEFORE, THE ISLAND DOCTORS EXPANSION OVER THE OLD MOLD MOULTRIE AND LOUSE LEWIS POI.

WE HAD PREVIOUSLY REZONED THIS PARCEL TO OP AND THE APPLICANT SUBSEQUENTLY PURCHASED THIS ADJACENT PARCEL HERE.

THIS IS AN EXPANSION OF A DOCTOR'S OFFICE.

THE APPLICANT ALSO OWNS THE BUILDINGS NEXT DOOR, SO THIS WILL BE THE CREATION OF THEIR OFFICE HEADQUARTERS FOR THEIR DOCTORS' FACILITY. COLORS DON'T DO US TOO MUCH JUSTICE THERE, BUT THIS IS PSD SURROUNDING US HERE.

THE PARCEL OR SUBJECT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT TODAY IS CURRENTLY ZONED CN. AND AS YOU CAN SEE, THIS SMALL INSET PARCEL HERE IS OP. WE HAVE FILED A BONDING PARCEL APPLICATION TO BOND THESE TWO PARCELS TOGETHER.

CURRENT FUTURE LAND USE IS MIXED USE.

EVERYTHING IS ALLOWED. WE'RE WORKING THROUGH CONSTRUCTION PLANS AND ASSEMBLY OF THOSE PERMITTING PROJECTS THERE NOW. SO AS YOU CAN SEE, OP CONSISTENTLY HERE. TO ALLOW THE DEVELOPMENT OF THAT DOCTOR'S OFFICE. IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS WE'RE

HERE TO ANSWER THEM. >> MR. MATOVINA: ANY AGENCY MEMBERS HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? MR. MILLER.

>> MR. MILLER: QUESTION OF STAFF.

IS MEDICAL OFFICE NOT ALLOWED IN CN ZONING? IT SEEMS LIKE OP WOULD BE LESS INTENSE THAN CN SO I'M JUST A

LITTLE SURPRISED. >> THE SETBACKS WITH THE TWO DIFFERENT PARCELS WITH TWO DIFFERENT ZONING WAS THERE WAS

DIFFERENT ISR COVERAGES. >> MR. MILLER: I'M JUST

WONDERING ABOUT THE USE. >> I'LL LOOK.

>> MR. MILLER: I'M JUST SURPRISED.

I FEEL BAD MR. LAHTI HAS TO DO THIS.

>> MR. MATOVINA: ALL RIGHT. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OF THE APPLICANT? ANY SPEAKER CARDS?

>> MR. MILLER: NO SPEAKER CARDS.

>> MR. MATOVINA: BACK INTO THE AGENCY FOR A MOTION.

MR. PETER. >> MR. PETER: I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF REZONE 2021-34 ISLAND DOCTORS OLD MOULTRIE, A REQUEST TO REZONE APPROXIMATELY 1.

29 ACRES LAND FROM COMMERCIAL NOORVEL CN TO OFFICE AND PROFESSIONAL OP BASED UPON FOUR FINDINGS OF FACT AS PROVIDED IN

THE STAFF REPORT PROVIDE. >> REPORTER:

>> MR. MATOVINA: RAMS FOR APPROVAL BY MR. PETER.

SECOND. >> MR. MILLER: SECOND BY

[8. CPA(SS) 2021-14 Mills Place. Request for a Small-Scale Comprehensive Plan Amendment to change the Future Land Use Map designation of approximately 24.31 acres of land from Residential-B (Res-B) to Residential- C (Res-C).]

[9. PUD 2021-6 Mills Place PUD. Request to rezone approximately 24.31 acres of land from Residential, Single Family (RS-3) and Open Rural (OR) to Planned Unit Development (PUD) to allow for a maximum 103 single-family residential dwelling units.]

MR. MILLER. MR. ROWE MIGHT HAVE AN ANSWER TO

THAT QUESTION. >> YES, SIR.

[03:00:01]

OPERATOR ERROR. THE USE IS ALLOWED.

IT IS AS MR. LAHTI STATED. YOU DIDN'T HAVE WANT TO HAVE CONFLICTING SETBACK REQUIREMENTS FOR THE BUILDINGS.

>> MR. MILLER: GOT IT. THANK YOU.

>> MR. MATOVINA: SO WE'VE GOT A MOTION AND A SECOND.

ANY DISCUSSION? SEEING NONE,PLASTY LET'S REE VOTE. THAT IS RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL. AND NOW WE'RE ON TO MR. BURNETT, AND I BELIEVE WE'RE GOING TO BE TAKING UP ITEMS 8 AND 9 TOGETHER. DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANY EX PARTE COMMUNICATION TO DECLARE OUT OF ITEM 9?

>> DR. HILSENBECK: I SPOKE WITH MR. BURNETT -- WELL, HE CALLED ME. THEN I TEXTED HIM.

WE EXCHANGED TEXTS. >> MR. MATOVINA: MR. MILLER.

>> MR. MILLER: I GOT A VOICE MAIL FROM MR. BURNETT BUT DID I

NOT CALL HIM BACK. >> MR. PETER: PEANCHTS.

>> MR. PIERRE: A CONVERSATION WHERE BURNETT AS WELL.

>> DR. HILSENBECK: I ALSO DROVE BY THE SITE THIS AFTERNOON

ON THE THE WAY HERE MOONCHTS MR. >> MR. PETER: I ALSO HAD A CONVERSATION WHERE BURNETT REGARDING THE PROPERTY.

>> MR. MATOVINA: HE AND I ALSO . GO AHEAD.

>> METEROLOGIST: I DROVE BY THE SITE.

>> MR. MATOVINA: HOW FAST WERE YOU GOING?

>> DR. MCCORMICK: VERY SLOW. >> MR. MATOVINA: WELL, THEN IT COUNTS. I HAD A CONVERSATION WITH MR. BURNETT, AND IT WAS A LENGTHY CONVERSATION ABOUT WHAT THE APPROPRIATE USE WAS FOR THE PROPERTY.

NOW HAVE THE FLOOR, MR. BURNETT. AND YOU CAN DO 8 AND 9 TOGETHER IF YOU'D LIKE. AND YOU CAN DO THEM RAPIDLY IF YOU'D LIKE OR YOU CAN TAKE YOUR TIME.

WHATEVER YOU'D LIKE. >> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.

AFTERNOON. DOUG BUNCHET ST. JOHNS COUNTY STN LAW GROUP SEA GROVE IN ST. AUGUSTINE, FLORIDA.

WITH EMPLOYEE IS THE DEREK ON BEHALF OF KB HOME SO WE DO HAVE OUR REPRESENTATIVE. OUR PROJECT ENGINEER ON THIS PROJECT IS DUNN & ASSOCIATES, AND I'LL RUN YOU THROUGH THE PROJECT AREA, TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE PROJECT AS WELL.

LOCATION MAP -- EXCUSE ME -- LEWIS FEED WAY, I'LL COME BACK -- SPEEDWAY. I'LL SHOW YOU AN AERIAL.

YOU CAN SEE A BETTER AERIAL HERE WHAT'S IN THE AREA.

CURRENTLY THE PROPERTY IS RESIDENTIAL B ON THE THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP ALLOWING UP TO TWO UNITS AN ACRE.

SO MANY OF YOU KNOW THE REAL SWEET SPOT FOR BUILDERS IS THREE, ROUGHLY THREE UNITS AN ACRE.

WE'RE SEEKING TO INCREASE TO RESIDENTIAL C, LIKE ADJOINING PROPERTIES ARE CURRENTLY, BUT WITH A DENSITY CAP ON IT TO LIMIT THE DENSITY, NOT TO TRY AND GO SIX UNITS AN ACRE, MERELY TO GET INTO THAT THREE UNIT RANGE.

THIS IS WHAT THE SITE WOULD LOOK LIKE.

IMPORTANTLY IN SITE IS WITHIN THE DEVELOPMENT AREA BOUNDARY.

IT'S NOT TOO FAR WITH THE CITY OF ST. AUGUSTINE.

IT'S ACTUALLY IN THE AREA. I MAP DOES SHOW THIS AND IT'S NOT OAT MATERIAL THAT'S IN YOUR PACKET BUT IT'S ACTUALLY WITHIN THE RED DEVELOPMENT BOUNDARY UP. CEJA, DOUG, WHAT'S THAT MEAN? YOUR PREVENT PLAN HAS A COUPLE THINGS IN III RELATED TO DEVELOPMENT AREA BOUNDARIES. I SAYS THIS IS WHERE IT'S APPROPRIATE FOR INIF I AM ESTABLISHING INCENTIVES THAT THE TONIGHT COUNTY SHOULD ENCOURAGE INFILL DEVELOPMENT IN THESE AREAS. IT FOX CONTINUE TO DIRECT DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE THESE AREAS AND OF A IDENTIFIER AREAS WITHIN THE DEVELOPMENT BOUNDARIES FOR FIN AND -- THERE ARE THREE DIFFERENT PLACES IN COMP PLAN THAT TALKS ABOUT THIS SPECIFICALLY IF YOU'RE WITHIN THAT RED BOUNDARY LINE.

ZONING. YOU CAN SEE PSD, MOBILE HOME TO THE SOUTH, PUD. THERE'S ACTUALLY SOME INDUSTRIAL WAREHOUSE ROOT THERE. I'LL COME BACK AND OVERLAY THAT WITH AN AERIAL IN A MOMENT BUT SINCE IT'S A COMP PLAN BET LET ME TALK ABOUT PUBLIC SERVICES BECAUSE THIS IS ONE OF THE THINGS THAT'S IMPORTANT FOR COMPREHENSIVE PLANAO.

SCHOOL CONE CURRENCY I HAD A CONVERSATION WITH NICOLE CUBBAGE AS RECENTLY AS THIS MORNING. SHE'S GETTING CAUGHT UP ON THE APPLICATION SHE HAS. BUT WE DON'T HAVE A DETERMINING BACK YET. WE ACTUALLY ANTICIPATE THAT THERE'S GOING TO BE CAPACITY EITHER AT ALL SCHOOLS LEVELS OR AT LEAST AT SOME OF THE SCHOOL LEVELS.

WYE CAN'T FILE OUR APPLICATION FOR THE INCREASED DENSITY UNTIL AFTER WE GET ADOPTION, BUT WE'RE READY FOR PROPORTIONATE FAIR SHARE AGREEMENT IF THAT COMES UP.

WKB HOME HAS DONE NUMEROUS PROJECTS WITHIN THE WOIN.

IT'S SOMETHING THEY'RE ACCUSTOMED AND AND UNDERSTAND THE IMPORTANCE OF AND WILL CERTAINLY COMPLY WITH.

TRAFFIC CONCURRENCY. WE HAVE DONE A TRAFFIC STUDY.

WE ANTICIPATE THAT IT WILL NECESSITATE A PROPORTIONATE FAIR SHARE COMMITTEE. BUT IT'S ONLY A SLIGHT INCREASE IN P.M./PEAK HOUR TRIPS OVER WHAT THE PROJECT WOULD ALREADY BE ENTITLED TO. LG 2 HAS DONE THE ENVIRONMENTAL WORK AND THE CONCLUSION IS THERE'S NO DOCUMENT, THERE'S NOTHING TO DOCUMENT RELATED TO LISTED WILDLIFE SPECIES ON THE

[03:05:03]

SITE IN THAT THE SITE WOULD BE APPROPRIATE FOR DEVELOPMENT.

DID PROVIDE THE SOILS MAP AS WELL IN THIS PRESENTATION.

YOU CAN SEE TWO TYPES OF WET FINE SANDS THAT ARE ON THE SITE.

THERE'S NO EAGLE'S NORTHWEST REMOTELY CLOSE TO THIS TITE.

HERITAGE SERVICES CONFIRM THAT THIS SITE IS NOT ONE OF ANY HISTORICAL SIGNIFICANCE. UTILITIES, WE ARE INTERESTINGLY ENOUGH IN THE CITY OF ST. AUGUSTINE ALL THE SERVICE AREA AGAIN GOING BACK THAT THAT COMMENT WHERE I STARTED ABOUT BEING WITHIN THE DEVELOPMENT AREA BOUNDARY.

WE'RE IN AREA WHERE YOU WANT SEE DEVELOPMENT IN COUNTY.

WE HAVE AIR EVER OUR WATER AND SEWER AVAILABILITY FROM THE CITY OF ST. AUGUSTINE. THERE ARE FIRE HYDRANTS IN THE AREA. OBVIOUSLY IT CONFIRMS THAT THERE'S PUBLIC SERVICES THERE. UTILITIES IN THE AREA.

FIRE SERVICE. WE'RE WELL WITHIN 5 MILES.

YOU KNOW RIGHT OVER THERE BY THE SUPERVISOR OF ELECTIONS' OFFICE BEHIND THE SHERIFF'S OFFICE SO VERY CLOSE PROXIMITY.

SO RAILROAD TRACKS IN BETWEEN THE SITE AND THE FIRE STATION, AND IT APPEARS WHEN I GOOGLE IT THAT IT'S LESS THAN A MILE AWAY.

THE PROJECT ITSELF, YOU GET AN IDEA HERE.

92 LOTS WERE CAPPED. AGAIN, LIKE I SAID, WE'RE PROPOSING A DENSITY LIMITATION A 92 LOTS, 24.31 TOTAL ACRES, APPROXIMATELY 6 ACRES OPEN SPACE, 2 ACRES OF PRESERVED WETS NDLE, AND AGAIN KB AND I MENTION THIS BECAUSE IT'S WORN BECAUSE KB IS NOT JUST THE HOMEBUILDER. WILL IT ALSO BE THE DEVELOPER OF THIS SITE, AND AS THEY'VE PROVEN I'M TIME AND TIME AGAIN, THEY USED T AND CAN ACCOMPLISH WHAT NEEDS TO BE ACCOMPLISHED IN OUR COUNTY. I GUESS THE PROJECT THAT I WOULD POINT TO THE MOST WOULD BE HERITAGE OAKS THAT THEY DID UP YOU OF OFF RUSSELL SAMPSON ROAD WHERE IT HAD SEVERAL SPECIMEN TREES AND THEY WERE ABLE THAT TO WORK AROUND IT WITH THEIR DEVELOPMENT AND THOSE TREES ARE OBVIOUSLY THERE TODAY AND IT'S A BEAUTIFUL COMMUNITY, SO IT IS WORTH NOTING IT IS A KB PROJECT.

A LITTLE LARGER VIEW OF THE SITE PLAN.

THEN WHAT I WANT TO DO IS SHOW YOU THIS PUTS IN IT CONTEXT OF WHERE THIS SITE IS AND WHAT'S LOCATED ASH IT.

IF WE LAY IN THE SITE ON THE AERIAL, THIS IS AN EXPIRED PSD.

EXCUSE ME. IT'S A PSD.

WE DON'T SEE THOSE VERY OFTEN THESE DAYS, PLANNED SPECIAL DISTRICT, BUT WHAT THAT ALLOWED FOR WAS, QUOTE/UNQUOTE, CONDOMINIUMS. IF YOU LOOK AT THEM, THEY LOOK VERY MUCH AKIN TO TOWNHOMES OR DUPLEXES OF WHAT'S ACTUALLY THERE BUT TECHNICALLY THEIR CONDOMINIUMS ON THE PS DWVMENT .

NEXT TO IT IS A SITE THAT IS COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL, AND THAT SITE IS, BY ALL APPEARANCE OUTWARDS AND BY THEIR SIGNAGE, IT IS I THINK A CABINET PLACE THAT ALSO DOES MARBLE AND GRANITE COUNTERTOPS. THEY HAVE THE BIG SLAPS ARE MARBLE OR GRAN IRT OUT IN THE FRONT YARD IN FRONT OF THE BUSINESS. HERE IS THE CHURCH THAT'S BEEN THERE SINCE 1976, TO THE BEST OF WHAT I COULD TELL FROM MY THIS IS AN INDUSTRIAL WAREHOUSE SITE.

AND THEN IN THIS AREA IS RMH. SO NUMEROUS MOBILE HOMES IN THIS LOCATION. EXISTING PUD THAT FRONTS WOODLAWN ROAD. SO THAT KIND OF GIVES YOU AN IDEA OF HOW THIS PROJECT FITS INTO THE EXISTING AREA.

WITH THAT, I'LL STOP TALKING CONSIDERING HOW TO LONG THE DAY'S GONE AND BE HERE READY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY

HAVE. >> MR. MATOVINA: AGENCY MEMBERS. DR. HILSENBECK.

>> DR. HILSENBECK: WELL, DOUG, LET ME SEE HERE.

YOU HAVE -- YOU'RE GOING TO PUT IN, THIS THIS IS APPROVED, ABOUT LESS THAN $475,000 OF PROPORTIONATE FAIR SHARE FOR TRAFFIC. WHERE DO YOU THINK THAT MONEY IS GOING TO BE SPENT? DO YOU HAVE ANY IDEA?

>> BY LAW YOU AT ENT REQUIRE TO BE SPENT WITHIN THE SAME TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT ON THE MAP, SO WHEREVER THE COUNTY APPLIES IT TO WITHIN THIS TRANSPORTATION AREA.

>> DR. HILSENBECK: BUT IT WON'T BE SPENT ON LEWIS SPEED

TWAY TO UPGRADE THAT. >> I WOULDN'T SAY ONE WAY OR THE OTHER. I'M NOT SURE STAFF COULD SAY AT ONE TIME OR THE OTHER AT THIS TIME WHERE THOSE DOLLARS WOULD GO TO OTHER THAN IT WOULD GO IN THAT DISTRICT EXPURVEG A PRIORITY LIST OF TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT, AND WHATEVER THAT PRIORITY IS, UNLESS IT SHIFTS AROUND BECAUSE THE DOLLAR AMOUNT MATCHES TO FIT SOMETHING THAT NEED TO BE MOVED UP OR SHOULD BE MOVED UP ONE FOLLOW BY THE LIST OF THE IMPROVEMENTS.

>> DR. HILSENBECK: SO RIGHT NOW LEWIS SPEEDWAY ST A YOIR% OF CAPACITY. IT'S CRITICAL.

IT'S CLASSIFIED ACRYLIC. AND BASED ON FUTURE COMMITTED

[03:10:02]

TRAFFIC OR COMMITTED TRAFFIC, IT'S AT 99%, BUT IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT MONEY FROM YOUR PROARPT FAIR SHARE WOULD NOT GO IN THERE AND TO UPGRADE LEWIS FEED SPEEDWAY BECAUSE NUMBER ONE THERE'S VIRTUALLY NO RIGHTS-OF-WAY ALONG THERE THAT COULD BE ACCESSED OR UTILIZED FOR FOUR-LANING THAT, MAYBE JAN TRAN THAT MANY CAN CLARIFY THAT. , TRANTHAM CAN CLARIFY THAT SO THAT'S A CONCERN TO ME. YOU WANT TO REZONE FROM RES-B TO RES-C SO YOU CAN GET ANOTHER 44 UNITS IN THERE.

I HAD A QUESTION ON THE ITEM -- FIRST ITEM SAYS THERE ARE GOING TO BE I THINK IT'S 92 UNITS, AND YOU'RE GOING TO LIMIT IT, TEXT AMENDMENT TO 92 UNITS, BUT THEN YOUR EKES ITEM SAYS 103 UNITS.

WHICH IS THAT? >> I THINK THERE WAS THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION THAT WAS FILED THAT SAID 103.

>> DR. HILSENBECK: I GHETTO READ FROM COUNTY.

I DON'T KNOW. >> GOT UP.

IT'S 92. THE SITE PLAB THAT'S IN YOUR PACKET IS 92. OUR PUD TEXT CURRENTLY IS 92.

OUR ORIGINAL APPLICATION HAD A HIGHER NUMBER IN IT.

THERE'S ALSO SOME LANGUAGE IN THE STAFF REPORT THAT TALKS ABOUT POTENTIAL DENSITY. OBVIOUSLY IT'S 6 UNITS AN ACRE AND 24 UNITS YOU "GET UP TO 140 UNITS ON IT POTENTIALLY ABOUT THE AGAIN THAT'S WHERE THAT CAP COMES.

WE'VE CLUKD AND IN ITS IN OUR PACKET THAT IT WOULD BE CAPPED A 82 ON THE TEXT AMENDMENT. WE COME IN WITH A MODIFICATION TO A PUD, WHERE YOU COME BACK WITH A MODIFICATIONS OF THE PUD TO INCREASE THE DENSITY. THAT WOULDN'T BE AN OPTION.

THE ONLY WAY A MODIFICATION OF THE PUD COULD OUR TO INCREASE THE DENSITY OVER THE 92 WOULD BE THAT IT ALSO HAD A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT SO IT WOULD HAVE TO GO THROUGH THIS ENTIRE PROCESS AGAIN NOT JUST MODIFY THE PUD.

THE 92 IS A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT LIMITATION.

>> DR. HILSENBECK: OKAY. I'VE GOT A COUPLE MORE HERE.

DO YOU KNOW WHAT THE RESIDENTIAL DENSITY IS TO THE NORTHEAST JUST TO THE EAST-NORTHEAST OF YOUR PARTICULAR PROPOSAL HERE? WHEN YOU BACK UP OFF OLD LEWIS SPEEDWAY, MANUCY ROAD, BACK UP IN THERE WHAT THAT DENSITY IS? BE BOUND BY -- OBVIOUSLY YOU CAN SEE ON THE AERIAL OFF OF TART ROAD I BELIEVE THERE'S SOME MOBILE HOMES IN HERE OFF TART ROAD.

BUT I THINK THAT OVERALL THE DENSITY WOULD BE ONE UNIT AN ACRE FOR A LOT OF THESE OTHER USES.

OVER ON THE EAST SIDE OF LEWIS SPEEDWAY YOU GET INTO THE ONE UNIT AN ACRE RANGE. OBVIOUSLY THIS IS HERITAGE PARK TO THE SOUTH WHICH IS LOOSELY 500 UNITS, I BELIEVE.

OF OBVIOUSLY SMALLER LOT PRODUCT, NOT MUCH DIFFERENT THAN

WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING HERE. >> DR. HILSENBECK: I. OUT OF YOUR 92 92 UNITS, HOW MANY OFE ARE GOING TO BE WORKFORCE

HOUSING? >> WE HAVE NOT SOUGHT ADOPTION DELEGATIONTY BASED ON THAT AND WE HAVEN'T SOUGHT TO APPLY THE ZONING BENEFITS THAT YOU GET FROM AFFORDABLE HOUSING ON THIS

PROJECT. >> DR. HILSENBECK: THAT SEEMS TO ME IT WOULD BE AN IDEAL SPOT FOR SOME WORKFORCE HOUSING.

BUT THAT'S NOT A QUESTION. ALL RIGHT.

I'LL HAVE SOME COMMENTS LATER. BUT DO YOU KNOW WITHIN A RADIUS, SAY, WITHIN A HALF MILE OF WHERE YOU ARE, HOW MANY APARTMENTS OR TOWNHOUSES ARE CURRENTLY BEING BUILT? THAT WOULD CONTRIBUTE TRAFFIC TO LEWIS SPEEDWAY?

>> I'M NOT SURE ABOUT LEWIS SPEED WAY ITSELF.

YOU KNOW, OBVIOUSLY WE HAVE THE EXISTING MULTI-FAMILY PRODUCT JUST NORTH OF THE CITY GHAITS. OBVIOUSLY INSIDE OF THE CITY GATES WE HAVE THE MULTI-FAMILY PLUCT THAT WAS THERE FOR YEARS AND YEARS, IS ACTUALLY ORIGINALLY APARTMENTS CON STRERTD CONSERVATION EASEMENT VERTED TO CONDOS DURING THE BOOSM 2006, '7, '8 TIME FRAME.

NORTH OF THE CITY GATES YOU HAVE A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF MULTI-FAMILY THAT'S BEEN BUILT IN RECENT YEARS, AND I GUESS CONTINUING TO BE BUILT IN THAT AREA.

LEWIS SPEEDWAY ITSELF, I'M NOT SURE OF MULTI-FAMILY IN THIS PARTICULAR AREA THAT'S NEW APARTMENT-TYPE DEVELOPMENT.

THIS SITE ITSELF WAS PRE-APPED. >> DR. HILSENBECK: IT WAS WHAT? I'M SORRY.

>> THIS SITE AS PRE-APPED. A PRE-APP WAS FILED FOR THIS SITE MANY YEARS AGO FOR AN APARTMENT PROJECT, BUT I DON'T KNOW OF ANY OTHER PROJECT RHINE RIGHT IN THIS IMMEDIATE AREA, A MULTI-FAMILY OF THAT KIND OF DENSITY.

[03:15:02]

>> DR. HILSENBECK: MIGHT HAVE SOME MORE COMMENTS, BUT THANK

YOU. >> NARRATOR: DR. MCCORMICK.

>> DR. . >> MR. MATOVINA:

DR. MCCORMICK. >> DR. MCCORMICK: DOUG, LOOKING AT THESE TOWNHOMES THAT ARE UNDER CONSTRUCTION RIGHT NOT THEY'RE STILL WORKING ON THEM OF COURSE -- MOST OF THOSE TOWNHOMES THAT I LOOKED AT ARE ALREADY SOLD, ALSO.

THERE ARE VERY FEW THAT ARE JUST FOR SALE YET.

THIS IS A NEW AREA, THOUGH, THAT'S GOING TO JUST BE BUILT, SO THAT WOULD BE NEW CONSTRUCTION THERE, CORRECT? AND THOSE ARE GOING TO BE TOWNHOMES, IS THAT CORRECT?

>> NO, THIS PROJECT PROPOSES SINGLE-FAMILY.

>> DR. MCCORMICK: SINGLE FAMILY.

SO IT'S ALL GOING TO BE SINGLE-FAMILY.

NOT TOWNHOMES. THEY'RE ADVERTISING TOWNHOMES

OUT THERE. >> SOUTH OF THIS CLOSER TO THE HIGH SCHOOL THERE IS I GUESS A TOWNHOME PRODUCT.

>> DR. MCCORMICK: RIGHT. >> BUT THIS SITE WOULD BE SLATED FOR SINGLE FAMILY, SO, YEAH, NOT THE DENSITY OF A TOWNHOME

PRODUCT. >> DR. MCCORMICK: SO THEY'RE NOT REALLY APPROPRIATE FOR WORKFORCE HOUSING, THEN, PROBABLY, EITHER. RIGHT?

>> MAYBE LESS APPROPRIATE, YES, SIR.

>> METEOROLOGIST: I GUESS THAT WAS .

>>> >> METEOROLOGIST: THAT WAS MY

QUESTION. >> MR. MATOVINA: ANY OTHER QUESTIONS BY THE AGENCY MEMBERS? PUBLIC COMMENT.

>> MR. MILLER: YES, SIR. FIRST WE HAVE SPHREER A VIERA GABRIEL. CARLA QUARTO

>> HELLO. HOW ARE YOU TODAY?

>> DR. HILSENBECK: BY THE WAY, I DID CORRESPOND WITH AND SPEAK BRIEFLY TO CARLA YESTERDAY OR DAY BEFORE.

>> I'M CARL QUARTO, 44 REVOLVE 5 MANUCY ROAD.

I HAVE CONCERNS WITH THE MILLS PLACE REQUEST FOR COMP AMENDMENT AND REZONING. I HESITATED TO SPEAK OUT ABOUT THIS PROJECT BECAUSE I AM CURRENTLY OPPOSING THE PORTO PROJECT PUD LESS THAN A QUARTER OF A MILE NORTH OF THIS PROJECT, AND I DID NOT WANT TO BE IDENTIFIED AS ANTI-DEVELOPMENT, BUT AS WITH PORTO PROJECT I HAVE SOME GRAVE CONCERNS ABOUT THE MILLS PROJECT WITH TRAFFIC, SAFETY, DENSITY, DRAINAGE, AND ACCESS POINTS. THIS PROPOSED PROJECT, IF MOVED APPROVED WOULD SQUEEZE 92 HOMES ONTO 22.3 NET ACRES.

A MINIMUM LOT SIZE WOULD BE 4300 SQUARE FEET, 1/00 OF AN ACRE.

IS THIS HIGH DENSITY REALLY NECESSARY FOR THIS AREA? WE'VE ALREADY ESTABLISHED THE FACT THAT LEWIS SPEED WII ASK AT A CRITICAL LEVEL WITH IT IS DAILY TRAFFIC ESPECIALLY PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC. IN PROJECT IF APPROVED WOULD ADD OVER 900 DAILY AND ALMOST 100 EK COMPLA PEAK HOUR TRIEPS TO LEWIS SPEED WRAW. ITS WITH PEAK HOUR TRIPS, AND APPROVED 337 HOMES UNDER CONSTRUCTION ON VARELA, 102 TOWNHOUSES UNDER CLUCKS CONSTRUCTION ON LEWIS SPEEDWAY JUST SOUTH OF THE MILLS PROPERTY, THE TRAFFIC CONGESTION AND SAFETY ON LEWIS SPEEDWAY IS MORE AND MORE OF A CONCERN.

AS YOU ALL KNOW THIS TRAFFIC DOES NOT ONLY IMPACT US LOCAL RESIDENTS BUT IT ALSO PROVIDE ACCESS TO TWO SCHOOLS, THE SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT, OUR COUNTY GOVERNMENT BUILDINGS, OUR FIRE DEPARTMENT, AND ALSO ACTS AS A CUT-THROUGH ROAD FOR MANY COUNTY RESIDENTS. THERE APPEARS -- I'M SORRY.

LOCATED OPPOSITE OF HORSESHOE ROAD NORTH AND SOUTH, MILLS PLACE WOULD MAKE CURRENTLY RESIDENTS DANGEROUS ACCESS EVEN MORE DIFFICULT OFF OF HORSESHOE. I'VE LEARNED THAT IS WHETHER SPEEDWAY CANNOT BE FOUR-LANED TO ACCOMMODATED THE TRAFFIC CON INVESTIGATIONS FOR FAIR PROARPT SHARE DOLLARS CANTED USED FOR THE L LZ SAYS THAT A COMP PLAN AMENDMENT MUST SHOW JUST CASE FOR THE CHANGE. THERE IS NO REASON TO PUT SUCH HIGH DENSITY DEVELOPMENT ON BLISS SPEEDWAY PHILANTHROPY THOUSANDS OF HOMES ALREADY APPROVED JUST NORTH AND WEST OF LEWIS SPEEDWAY THAT WOULD DIRECTLY ACCESS MAJOR AMORTIROADWAYS WITHOUT IMPACTING CURRENT DEFICIENT ROADWAYS AND NEIGHBORHOODS. THE THE MILLS PLACE REPORT SUGGESTS THAT THIS PROPERTY WOULD BE AN EXPANSION ADJACENT TO -- TO ADJACENT RES-C PROPERTIES EAST AND SOUTH BUT NOT MENTIONED IS CURRENT PROPERTIES TO THE EAST ARE HALF

ACRE TO 1 ACRE HOME SITES. >> MR. MILLER: TAKE THAT AS A

NO. >>>

>> AND THE RES-C TO THE SOUTH HAS TRAFFIC PRE-PLANNED INFRASTRUCTURE WITH SIGNALS AT EACH END OF WOODLAWN TO ACCESS MAJOR COLLECTOR ROADS. ALSO IF AVID PRO MILLS PLACE WOULD ONLY EXACERBATE IF CURNTD FLOODING ON ISSUES HOR SHOWER.

A URGE TO YOU DENY THIS REQUEST SO THAT THIS APPLICANT MAY HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO DESIGN A MORE SUITABLE,TY

[03:20:02]

DEVELOPMENT WITH ALTERNATIVE ACCESS POINTS FOR THIS NEIGHBORHOOD. THANK YOU.

>> MR. MATOVINA: THANK YOU. APPARENTLY WE REALLY NEEDED THAT

HALF CENT SALES TAX MONEY. >> MR. MILLER: NEXT SPEAKER AND I APOLOGIZE IF I'M GOING TO MESS THE LAST NAME UP, CAROL MANNY. MANUCY.

I'M SORRY. >> MY NAME IS CAROL MANUCY AND I LIVE AT THE END OF THE PORTO ROAD EXTENSION AND WE'VE ALL SEEN YOU BEFORE. I'M GOING TO SPEAK TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. YOU GUYS KNOW IT WAS ALL DEVELOPED IN 2010, AND SINCE THEN DO ANY OF US KNOW HOW MANY OOSSMENTS HAVE BEEN TO THAT? DO WE KNOW? I'M SURE THERE ARE SEVERAL. ANYWAY, THE PURPOSE OF THE 225 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN WAS TO LIMIT THE DENSITY IN THE BUILDING GOING ON. AND WE HAVE AN AMENDMENT BEFORE ALL OF YOU GUYS TO CHANGE THAT AMENDMENT, BUT THE MILLS DEVELOPMENT IS 24.31 ACRES AND IT'S CURRENTLY -- YOU GUYS KNOW THIS -- AS RESIDENTIAL B, AND THAT LIMITS THE UNITS TO 48.

THE REQUEST TO CHANGE RESIDENTIAL C, THAT WOULD INCREASE THE NUMBER OF UNITS TO 92.

THIS CONTINUALLY AMENDING THE COMP PLAN, CAN WE DO THIS CONTINUOUS OVER AND OVER AND OVER? AND I'M PROBABLY SPEAKING FOR ALL ST. JOHNS COUNTY, NOT JUST US THAT LIVE NEAR THE AREA. BUT ANYWAY, WE'RE ENCOURAGING TO DENY THIS REQUEST. CONSTANTLY REVIEW AND AMENDING THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN IS NOT COHESIVE FOR ANY NEIGHBORHOOD, AND WE NEED TO PROTECT THOSE NEIGHBORHOODS IN ST. JOHNS COUNTY. AND THANK YOU ALL AGAIN.

HAVE A GOOD DAY. >> MR. MATOVINA: THANK YOU.

>> MR. MILLER: NEXT IS DEBBIE JAMES.

>> MY NAME IS DEBBIE JAMES, 557 NORTH HORSESHOE ROAD AND I LIVE ON THE HORSESHOE ROAD AND COMING HERE I JUST LEFT MAYBE A HALF HOUR AGO, JUST TRYING TO GET OUT, PEOPLE GOING ON THAT CURVE.

ISING A DAWNCHES CORNER, AND LEWIS SPEEDWAY IS DANGEROUS, AND IT'S GOING TO GET MORE SO IF WE KEEP ON PUTTING MORE HOUSES, MORE CARS. WE JUST CAN'T KEEP DOING IT.

SOMEBODY IS GOING TO GET HURT. THEY'RE GOING TO DIE.

AND I ASK FOR A DENIAL. THANK YOU.

>> MR. MATOVINA: THANK YOU. >> MR. MILLER: NO MORE SPEAKER

CARDS. >> MR. MATOVINA: DO WE HAVE

SOME REBUTTAL? >> BRIEFLY A FEW COMMENTS.

ONE ON THE ISSUE OF TRANSPORTATION, WE'RE GOING TO FULLY COMPLY WITH THE COUNTY'S REQUIREMENTS.

APPLICANT IS KB HOME. ERR THEY'LL FULLY COMPLIET WITH COUNTY'S TRANSPORTATION REQUIREMENTS.

THAT'S NOT JUST A COUNTY REQUIREMENT.

THAT'S A PROS SIPTS FOR STATE LIEU PROARPT FAIR SHARE PROCESS SO THEY'RE READY TO COMPLY. AS FAR AS THE COMP PLAN, AS I STARTED WITH, THERE ARE REASONS AND AREAS WHERE YOU WANT DEVELOPMENT. THIS IS WITHIN THE DEVELOPMENT AREA BOUNDARY. THIS IS WHERE THE COUNTY HAS DESIGNATED IN COMPREHENSIVE PLAN THREE DUSTIN SECTIONS WHERE YOU WANT TO ENCOURAGE AND DEAL INCENTIVIZE DEVELOPMENT.

SO THIS IS AN AREA WHERE IT IS APPROPRIATE TO MOVE FROM RES-B TO RES-C JUST LIKE THE DESTINATIONS THAT ARE AT LEAST ON TWO SIDES OF THIS OBVIOUSLY WITH THE PSD, THE CONDO PROJECT ABOVE. SO WITH THAT, I GUESS WOULD I SAY ON THE ISSUE OF FLOODING, OBVIOUSLY STORM WATER, THE APPLICANT UNDERSTANDS THE REQUIREMENTS THAT ITS PREDEVELOPMENT DISCHARGE HAS TO BE UNDERSTOOD, COMPUTED IN, AND ITS POAF POST DEVELOPMENT HAS TO EQUAL THAT SO THERE'S NO ADDED DISCHARGE RUNOFF FROM THIS SITE DURING THE DEVELOPMENT AND THAT'S OBVIOUSLY WHY YOU HAVE TWO DIFFERENT POND STRUCTURES DESIGNED INTO THE SITE TO MAKE SURE THEY CAN ACCOMMODATE ANY STORM BAWRT AND, OF COURSE, ERIC IS HERE FROM KB TO SPEAK TO

ANYTHING SPECIFICALLY. >> MR. MATOVINA: DR. HILSENBECK. I DID REQUEST A QUESTION BEFORE

[03:25:01]

AND I SAW JAN TRANTHAM COME FORWARD AND THEY HAD A EV BRIEF CONVERSATION WITH MIKE AND TREER TROS A TERESA BUT I JUST WONDERED, IT IS THE APPROXIMATELY I THINK IT'S $460,000 IN PROARPT FAIR SHARE.

WOULD THAT GO INTO LEWIS SPEEDWAY OR SLATED FOR SOMEWHERE

ELSE? >> GOOD AFTERNOON.

JAN TRANTHAM, GROWTH MANAGEMENT. THIS MONEY, THIS PROPORTION ALT SHARE HAS NO BEEN IDENTIFIED FOR A PROJECT.

THERE IS NO A PROJECT ON LEWIS SPEEDWAY THAT IS IN THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN AT THIS TIME, SO THE MONEY WOULD BE PAID AND IT WOULD BE HELD IN A PROPORTIONATE SHARE FUND UNTIL A PROJECT IS IDENTIFIED. HINCHT OKAY.

SO IT WOULDN'T -- >>>

>> DR. HILSENBECK: THERE'S NOTHING SCHEDULED RIGHT NOW FOR

POLICE SPEEDWAY AT ALL. >> THAT'S CORRECT, NOT A WIDENING PROJECT EXPHIEMENT NOIR SHOE THAT LEWIS SPEEDWAY WOULD EVER BE FOUR-LANED. THE MONEY COULD BE USED ANYWHERE

IN PROJECT IMPACT AREA. >> DR. HILSENBECK: THANK YOU.

I HAD SOME OTHER COMMENTS BUT I GUESS THOSE AREN'T APPROPRIATE QULET. DOUG, LET ME ASK YOU THIS.

YOU SAID THIS WAS APPROPRIATE TO MOVE FROM RES-B TO RES-C.

SO HOW IS THAT APPROPRIATE? I COULD SUPPORT RES-B HERE AT 48 HOMES, BUT WHEN YOU'RE NEARLY DOUBLING THAT TO 92 HOMES AND ALL THAT EXTRA TRAFFIC, 935 TRIPS ON LEWIS SPEEDWAY EVERY DAY ADDITIONAL, THAT'S TOUGH, SO HOW DO YOU JUSTIFY THAT APPROPRIATENESS THAT YOU JUST STATED?

>> WELL, I THINK THE ISSUE THERE IS THERE ARE COMP PLAN AMENDMENTS THAT COME BEFORE YOU ROUTINELY THAT ARE OUTSIDE OF THE DEVELOPMENT AREA BOUNDARY. THIS IS WITHIN THE DEVELOPMENT AREA BOUNDARY. SO THIS IS THAT TRIGGER OF THOSE THREE OTHER ELEMENTS THAT I POINTED OUT TO YOU AND PUT UP ON THE OVERHEAD. THIS IS ONE OF THOSE PROJECTS THAT TRIGGERS I BECAUSE IT'S IN THAT AREA.

ASIDE FROM THAT INTERESTING THING IN OUR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN IS BECAUSE WE ALL KNOW THIS IS THE WAY IT IS, WE ALL KNOW THAT IT'S NOT PERFECT, BUT YOUR PREVENT PLAN RES-A IS ONE UNIT AN ACRE WEEK RES-B IS TWO UNITS AN ACRE, RES-C DOESN'T TO GO FOR UNITS AN ACRE, IT GOES TO SIX UNITS AN ACRE.

THERE HAS ALWAYS BEEN AND ALWAYS SHOULD HAVE BEEN SOMETHING IN BETWEEN THOSE TWO, AND SO WE CREATE THAT BY MAKING THESE KIND OF APPLICATIONS WITH A LIMITATION SAYING WE'RE GOING TO CAP IT AT A 92 UNITS. SO THAT'S THE REAL KEY TO THIS.

IS IT UNUSUAL? NO.

BUT IS IT FITTING INTO A PLACE IN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN THAT MAKES SENSE WHERE THE COMP PLAN SAYS THIS IS WHERE IT MAKES SENSE? YEAH, ABSOLUTELY BECAUSE THERE'S A RED LINE AROUND THIS PROPERTY THAT PULSE IT IN AND INCLUDES IT AS PART OF BASICALLY THE MERTD AREA OF THE CITY OF ST. AUGUSTINE. AND SO THAT RED LINE IS GOING OUT AROUND THE CITY CORE, AND THIS IS WITHIN IT.

>> DR. HILSENBECK: AND SO YOU WOULD STILL SAY THAT EVEN THOUGH YOUR PRIMARY INGRESS AND EGRESS, ONE WAY IN AND OUT IS ONTO LEWIS SPEEDWAY, WHICH RIGHT NOW IS AT 99% FUTURE COMIMENTD TRAFFIC AND CRITICAL WITH CLASSIFIED ACRYLIC, AND THERE'S CRIO PLANS AT THE PRESENT TIME TO UPGRADE THAT ROAD AND YOU'RE AT THE SOUTH END OF A BLIND CURVE. PEOPLE FLY AROUND THERE.

>> I GUESS AS TO SPECIFICS OF THAT, THERE'S NOTHING ABOUT THE SPEED LIMIT OR THE SITE-RELATED IMPROVEMENTS.

BY THE WAY WE DIDN'T TALK ABOUT SITE-RELATED IMPROVEMENTS BECAUSE WHEN WE TALK ABOUT THERE'S PROP SHARE OVER $400,000 THAT THE APPLICANT IS GOING TO PAY TO THE COUNTY, THAT'S FOR THE COUNTY TO USE FOR AREA IMPROVEMENTS, BUT AS FOR THE SITE ITSELF, YOU'RE STILL TALKING ABOUT THIS SITE REQUIRES A RIGHT DECEL LANE. IT TRIRGS THAT.

THIS SITE REQUIRES A LEFT CENTER TURN LANE IT.

TRIGGERS THAT. AND SO WE KNOW THAT THE SITE-RELATED IMPROVEMENTS THAT HAVE TO BE MADE TO THE SITE, COMS OUTSIDE OF THE SITE FOR ACCESS IN THE COUNTY A RIGHT-OF-WAY, THOSE WILL HAVE TO BE DONE AND PAID FOR THE TECHS

PENSION OF APPLICANT. >> DR. HILSENBECK: THERE'S NOT A TRANSPORTATION EXPERT BUT YOU'RE PRETTY GOOD AT IT, OBVIOUSLY, SO THERE'S ROOM FOR THOSE TURN LANES ON LEWIS

SPEEDWAY? >> I BELIEVE SO, YES, AND I'VE SEEN SOME DIFFERENT ITERATIONS OF ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS IN THAT RIGHT-OF-WAY. OBVIOUSLY THERE'S RIGHT-OF-WAY THAT GOES ACROSS THE FRONT OF THIS SITE, SO THAT COULD BE CHEWED INTO, TOO, AS WELL BUT IT IS ONE OF THE COMMITMENTS THAT HAS TO BE MADE AS PART OF THIS IS A RIGHT AND LEFT TURN LANE.

THE RIGHT DECEL PLANE AND THE LEFT CENTER TURN LANE.

[03:30:03]

92 UNITS TRIPS REQUIREMENT FOR BOTH OF THOSE.

I WAS LOOKING AT MS. TRANTHAM TO MAKE SURE I'M NOT OUT OF STEP

BUT THAT'S CORRECT. >> DR. HILSENBECK: LERT, SIR.

THANK YOU. >> MR. MATOVINA: ALL RIGHT.

MR. PETER. >> MR. PETER: YEAH, I JUST HAVE A QUESTION, DOUG. IF THIS WAS DENIED, WOULD YOUR CLIENT PROCEED WITH CONSTRUCTION UNDER RESIDENTIAL B DESIGNATION?

>> I'M NOT SURE OF THE ANSWER TO THAT ONE.

>> MR. MATOVINA: ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OF THE AGENCY MEMBERS?

>> I WILL COMMENT THAT I THINK IT CHECKS THE BOXES FOR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN WIN WHEN THERE'S AUN ECONOMIC BENEFIT OF TRANSPORTATION, STRIERNLT A BENEFIT.

IT'S SAVING SOME WETLANDS ON-SITE.

SO TECHNICALLY IT CHECKS ALL THE BOXES AND AGAIN IT GOES BACK TO IT'S WITHIN THE DEVELOPMENT AREA BOUNDARY, AND I THINK THAT'S IMPORTANT BECAUSE SO OFTEN YOU'RE LOOKING A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS UP THERE THAT EITHER ARE OR AREN'T, AND THIS ONE IS, AND SO THIS IS WHERE YOU WANT TO SEE DEVELOPMENT.

IT'S CLOSE TO THE CITY. IT'S WHERE UTILITIES AND THOSE KINDS OF THINGS ARE LOCATED. AND IT MAY NOT BE, TO.

>> MC'S DR. MCCORMICK'S POINT, IT MAY NOT BE AFFORDABLE HOUSING, BUT I THINK THAT WHAT MY CLIENT WOULD TELL YOU IF THEY WERE STANDING HERE WHAT'S WELL WITHIN KB HOMES' WHEELHOUSE IS BUILDING HOMES THAT MOST PEOPLE CAN AFFORD TO LIVE IN, SO IT MAY NOT TECHNICAL BE AN AFFORDABLE HOME

BUT THEY'RE COMPETITIVE. >> MR. MATOVINA: MR. MILLER.

>> MR. MILLER: DOUG, JUST A QUICK QUESTION.

THIS IS ON THE PUD. IT SAYS THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE IS 43 FEET. THAT'S THE MINIMUM.

THE WITH MIXES THERE'S NOT 50S OR SAVINGS ACCOUNT?

>> NO, THERE ARE CLOSE TO THAT. AND YOU KNOW THAT'S AN INTERESTING, AS YOU KNOW, MR. MILLER, IT'S AN INTERESTING BALANCING ACT BECAUSE WE WANT TO SEE AFFORDABLE HOUSING.

THE WAY THEY GET THE PRICE DOWN IS 60, 70, 80-FOOT LOTS ARE LESS THE NORMAN TO YOU NOW. IT'S 40S AND 50S.

A LOT OF 50S. >> MR. MILLER: IT LOOKED SOME OF THEM WERE ON THE NORTH PORTION WERE A LITTLE LARGER.

IT WAS 43 BECAUSE YOU'VE GOT TEMPERATURE THEM THAT ARE 43 AND

THE REST OF THEM ARE REALLY 50. >> I THINK THE ONES THAT PIE OUT OBVIOUSLY ARE LARGER, BUT UP THROUGH HERE AND IN THIS AREA, BUT THE ACTUAL MIX OF HOW THOSE WORK OUT OBVIOUSLY RIGHT THROUGH

HERE. >> MR. MILLER: BUT THE

MAJORITY OF THEM ARE 43 BY 100? >> YES, SIR.

>> MR. MILLER: THANKS. >> MR. MATOVINA: ANY OTHERES REQUEST OF THE APPLICANT? IF NOT, WE'RE BACK IN THE AGENCY FOR A MOTION. THIS IS ON ITEM 8 ANYONE? ANYONE FOR A MOTION. OKAY.

WE'VE GOT NO MOTION, CHRISTINE. >> COULD WE PLEASE HAVE A MOTION? I'M SURE YOU DO NOT WANT IT TO GO FORWARD TO THE BOARD WITHOUT ANY ACTION.

>> MR. MILLER: I WAS THINKING THERE MIGHT BE SOME DISCUSSION

FIRST. >> MR. MATOVINA: WOULD YOU LIKE TO HAVE SOME DISCUSSION FIRST, MR. MILLER?

>> MR. MILLER: SURE. I THINK MCCORMICK.

>> MR. MATOVINA: DR. MCCORMICK.

>> DR. MCCORMICK: I JUST WANTED TO ASK DOUG ANOTHER QUESTION OR ACTUALLY FOLLOW UP ON WHAT I WAS ASKING BEFORE.

AFFORDABLE HOUSING IS PROBABLY OUT OF THE QUESTION FOR SINGLE HOMES LIKE THIS. WORKFORCE HOUSING MAYBE NOT.

SO IF YOU WANT WORKFORCE HOUSIN HOUSING, MAYBE THE DENSITY THAT YOU ARE LOOKING FOR WOULD WORK, BUT YOU HAVE TO BRING THE PRICE DOWN ON THE HOUSES THEN. AND THEY WOULD BE INEXPENSIVE ENOUGH FOR THEM TO WORK FOR PEOPLE THAT ARE IN THE WORKFORCE CATEGORY THAT TWO NOT NECESSARILY QUALIFY FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING. I GUESS THAT'S KIND OF A QUESTION TO YOU. THE OTHER WAY TO GO ABOUT IT IS TOWNHOMES. THEN YOU COULD PROBABLY DO AFFORDABLE HOMES. OR APARTMENTS.

BUT YOU'RE NOT GOING TO DO THAT ON THIS PROPERTY.

[INAUDIBLE] >> CONCEPT OF -- I HAVE TO TALK

[03:35:02]

TO MY CLIENT AND WE COULDN'T RESOLVE THIS TODAY AS FAR AS A TOWNHOME PROJECT. I THINK THE CHALLENGE IS THAT'S GOING TO DRIVE UP THE TRICHES SIGNIFICANTLY, INCREASE THE NUMBER OF UNITS, SO A TOWNHOME PRODUCT AT THIS LOCATION MAY NOT BE RECEIVED VERY WELL BY THE PLANNING & ZONING AGENCY, SO I GUESS MAYBE THAT'S THE CHALLENGE THAT WE SEE.

THE THING THAT YOU KNOW, BEING THE SCHOOL DISTRICT'S DESIGNATEN REPRESENTATIVE ON THIS AGENCY, WHEAR ARE WE AT FOR SCHOOLS? VERY CLOSE PROXIMITY TO SEBASTIAN WHERE MY KIDS ATTENDED, VERY CLOSE TO ST. AUGUSTINE HIGH SCHOOL WHERE MY KIDS ATTENDED, AND I GUESS THE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL'S VERY CLOSE BY, NOT QUITE AS CLOSE AS THE OTHER TWO BUT STILL CLOSE BY. AND WE BELIEVE, I THINK THERE'S GOING TO BE CAPACITY AT SOME LEVEL IN THERE, ALTHOUGH WE COULDN'T GET OUR DETERMINING BACK YET FROM THE SCHOOL BOARD.

WE DID APPLY FOR IT ARL ON. WE'VE BEEN ASKING.

WE'VE BEEN TRYING TO GET IT MOVED YOU THE BUT STILL IT'S GOT TO RUN THROUGH THE SCHOOLES A PROCESS TO GET THAT FINAL DETERMINING. WE DON'T HAVE IT YET.

>> MR. MATOVINA: DR. HILSENBECK.

>> DR. HILSENBECK: EVEN IF YOU DOT WORKFORCE HOUSING IN THERE, THE DENSITY, AS DR. MCCORMICK WAS DISCUSSING, WOULD STILL BE HIGH, AND THAT'S WHAT I AM HAVING DIFFICULTY WITH, IS THE DENSITY INCREASE. I THINK WE TOO EASILY APPROVE THESE COMP PLAN AMENDMENTS INCREASING DENSITY, AND I JUST DO NOT THINK IT'S WARRANTED. AS I SAID, I COULD SUPPORT RES-B HERE, BUT INCREASING IT TO RES-C 1 I HAVE AN ISSUE WITH.

I HAVE THE SAME ISSUES WITH THIS AS DID I WITH THE PORTER ROAD PROJECT, AND THAT'S TRAFFIC, AND ALL THIS TRAFFIC, EVERY BIT OF THE TRAFFIC FROM IS COMING OUT ONTO LEWIS SPEEDWAY.

AND THEN A LOT OF PEOPLE I GUESS ARE GOING TO TURN LEFT.

I DON'T KNOW FOR A FACT. THEY MIGHT TURN RIGHT AND HD DOWN TO STATE ROAD 16 OR TO -- WHAT IS IT? -- WOODWARD?

>> WOODLAWN. >> WOODLAWN.

THANK YOU. BUT THE CRITICAL SEGMENT OF THAT ROAD, CRITICAL IMAGE LINKAGE THERE THAT IS CLASSIFIED ACRYLIC RIGHT NOW IS THE POINT FROM WOODLAWN TO US-1.

AND YOU'RE GOING TO BE DUMPING A LOT OF TRAFFIC ONTO THAT CRITICAL LINKAGE. I JUST DON'T SEE THAT WE NEED MORE TRAFFIC A ROAD THAT ISN'T PLANNED FOR AN UPGRADE RIGHT NOW. YOU'VE GOT HORSESHOE NORTH AND SOUTH DIRECTLY ACROSS FROM YOU, ONE TO YOUR NORTH, ONE TO YOUR SOUTH, WHERE PEOPLE ARE TRYING TO TURN OUT ON THERE.

YOU'VE GOT OLD LEWIS SPEEDWAY COMING IN RIGHT ACROSS FROM HORSESHOE NORTH. I HAVE SOME REAL ISSUES WITH THAT. YOU'RE ON A BLIND CURVE BASICALLY. FOR THE SAME REASON THAT I COULDN'T SUPPORT THE PORTER ROAD PROJECT, ALTHOUGH THAT HAD ADDITIONAL ISSUES, IN MY OPINION, FAR MORE THAN THIS, BUT THIS STILL HAS A LOT OF THOSE SIMILAR AND SAME ISSUES OF PUTTING ALL THAT ADDITIONAL TRAFFIC OUT ONTO LEWIS SPEEDWAY, AND WISH I COULD SUPPORT IT BUT I CAN'T.

AT RES-B I COULD, BUT THAT'S PROBABLY NOT AS PROFITABLE FOR YOUR CLIENT FOR KB HOMES, SO I CAN UNDERSTAND THEIR NOT WANTING TO DO THAT, BUT I HOPE THEY WOULD UNDERSTAND THAT I'M TRYING TO PROTECT INTEGRITY OF THE INFRASTRUCTURE IN THE COUNTY AND THE TRAFFIC SITUATION AND TRAFFIC SAFETY AND TRYING TO KEEP DENSITY AT REASONABLE LEVELS UNDER CURRENT COMP PLAN ZONINGS. THANKS.

>> MR. MATOVINA: WAIT, DOUG. THAT WAS NOT A QUESTION, RIGHT?

>> DR. HILSENBECK: IT WASN'T A QUESTION.

>> MR. MATOVINA: SORRY, DOUG. IT WAS NOT A QUESTION.

>> DR. HILSENBECK: BUT HE SHEWED BE LLOYD TO DWREAS IT.

>> MR. MATOVINA: SO WE'RE BACK IN THE AGENCY, AND IS THERE ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? YOU WANTED TO HAVE SOME

DISCUSSION. >> MR. MILLER: I DID AND IT

DIDN'T HELP. >> MR. MATOVINA: ANYBODY WANT TO MAKE A MOTION ANOTHER THIS POINT?

MR. MILLER. >> MR. MILLER: I SPA THIESES WITH DOUG THAT THE GAP BETWEEN RES-B AND RES-C IS LARGE AND SO WE'RE SORT OF STUCK WITH. LOOKING AT A AND KNOWING LEWIS SPEEDWAY AND KNOWING THE TURNS, I'M JUST CONCERNED THAT RES-C'S 4300 TERCHTH AN ACRE LOTS IT'S HARD TO GET THERE.

IF THERE WAS SOME OTHER ALTERNATIVE AS DR. MCCORMICK TALKED ABOUT, WORKFORCE HOUSING OR HIGHER DENSITY THAT MAYBE GENERATED LESS TRAFFIC SUCH AS APARTMENTS SOMETIMES DO OR APARTMENTS GENERATE LESS SCHOOL CONCURRENCY ISSUES, IT WOULD BE

[03:40:04]

EASIER TO GET ONBOARD BUT IT'S SORT OF STUCK IN THE MIDDLE ON

THIS PROJECT. >> MR. MATOVINA: ANYBODY ELSE HAVE ANY COMMENTS? I UNDERSTAND THAT THINKING, AND I UNDERSTAND DR. HILSENBECK'S THINKING, AND I GET THE TRAFFIC ISSUE. I ALSO LOOK AT IT AND SAY THAT ON TWO SIDES OF THIS PROPERTY IT TOUCHES RES-C, AND THE THIRD SIDE TO THE NORTH IT DOESN'T TOUCH RES-C BUT IT TOUCHES AER HIRE DENSITY HYPE TYPE RUCT, AND EVEN TO THE WEST EVEN THOUGH IT'S A RES-B I SUSPECT THERE ARE WETLAND THAT ALLOWED THEM TO GET THOSE 500 LOTS ON HERITAGE. SO I SEE THIS AS VERY MUCH A CONSISTENT CHANGE. I DON'T BELIEVE THAT WE CREATED THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO CONTROL OR LIMIT GROWTH.

I THINK WE DID IT TO PLAN GROWTH PROPERLY, AND THIS APPEARS TO ME TO BE AN PRONE YAT CHANGE. I THINK THE IM-- APPROPRIATE CHANGE. I THINK THE IMPACT OF THIS, KNOWING WHAT I KNOW ABOUT DEVELOPERS, IS THAT KB HOME WILL DROP THEIR CONTRACT AND THE OWNER WILL BE THE ONE WHO SUFFERS THE HICKEY HERE IN TERMS OF VALUE OF THEIR LAND, AND ONE COULD SAY, TWL THE VALUE IS WHAT IT IS TODAY, AND I GET THAT, BUT I DON'T KNOW THAT THE LANDOWNER WOULD FEEL THAT WAY.

SO THAT'S MY THOUGHT. I FEEL LIKE RES-C IS AN APPROPRIATE USE HERE ABUSE IT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE SURROUNDING USES. DR. HILSENBECK.

>> DR. HILSENBECK: MR. MATOVINA, YOU HAD SETD YOU DIDN'T THINK THE COMP PLANS WERE REALLY MEANT TO CONTROL GROWTH.

THEY WERE PROMULGATED AND PUT FORTH AND ENVISIONED UNDER THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT ACT, AND THAT'S WHAT IT'S CALLED, GROWTH MANAGEMENT ACT, SO I THINK THIS IS MANAGING GROWTH, NOT TO REZONE THIS TO A RES-C. I UNDERSTAND IT'S TOUCHING SOME RES-C TO THE SOUTH, IT'S ACROSS LEWIS SPEEDWAY FROM OTHER RESIDENTIAL C, BUT MOST OF THAT RES-C IS DEVELOPED OVER THERE WITH LARGER ACREAGE HOMES ON HORSESHOE.

I'VE DRIVEN THERE BEFORE BUT I DROVE THROUGH THERE AGAIN TODAY, AS I SAID, AND THEN TO THE NORTHEAST OF THERE IT'S EVEN LESS DENSITY, SO I JUST -- WITH 935 TRIPS, I THINK WE GET SUCKED INTO THIS CONCEPT OF THE P.M. PEAK OUR TRIPS, OH, IT'S ONLY 92. STILL, THERE'S 935 DAILY TRIPS PROJECTED ON LEWIS SPEEDWAY, WHICH IS A CRITICAL SEGMENT IN THE COUNTY RIGHT NOW WITH NO PLANS TO UPGRADE IT, AND I JUST I THINK IT'S IRRESPONSIBLE TO APPROVE THIS AND DUMP ALL THAT

NEW TRAFFIC ON THERE. >> MR. MATOVINA: SO IS THAT A

MOTION? >> DR. HILSENBECK: NO, BUT I COULD MAKE A MOWING IF I HAD TO IT READ HERE.

>> MR. MILLER: WHILE HE IS TAKE MAKING A MOTION CAN I ASK A QUESTION OF STAFF? 2 FRONT PART OF THIS IS RS-3.

WHAT ARE THE SIZE OF LOTS YOU CAN DO ON RS-3? I DON'T NEED THE FRONT YARD, SIDE YARD, EVERYTHING.

>> 7500 SQUARE FEET. >> MR. MILLER: THANK YOU.

>> FOR WHAT IT'S TWORTSDZ THE LANGUAGE ON SCREEN WAS CUT AND PASTED FROM THE COMP PLAN. AND TO DR. HILSENBECK'S POINT

EARLIER -- >> MR. MATOVINA: DOUG, PLEASE.

ARE YOU READY? >> DR. HILSENBECK: I WANT TO READ THIS AGAIN THAT HE'S GOT UP ON THE SCREEN.

>> MR. MATOVINA: OKAY >> DR. HILSENBECK: YEAH, I LIKE THAT LANGUAGE BUT IT STILL DOESN'T REALLY, FOR ME, SPEAK TO THE FACT THAT YOU WANT TO GO FROM RES-B TO RES-C, AND ALL THE EXTRA DENSITY AND TRAFFIC, SO I'M GOING TO MOVE THAT WE DENY REQUEST FOR SMALL SCALE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT TO CHANGE THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP DESIGNATION APPROXIMATELY 24-POINT THEREIN ACRES LAND FROM RESIDENTIAL B, RES-B TO

RESIDENTIAL C, RES-C. >> MR. MATOVINA: SO WE HAVE A MOTION FOR DENIAL BY DR. HILSENBECK.

IS THERE A SECOND? >> MR. MILLER: SECOND.

>> MR. PETER: SECOND. >> MR. MATOVINA: SECOND BY MR. .

IS THERE ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? MR. MILLER.

>> MR. MILLER: JUST TO CLARIFY THIS MEANS A YES VOTE IS A

STROAT TO DENY. >>>

>> MR. MATOVINA: YES. ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? IF NOT, LET'S REGISTER THE VOTE. SO THAT MOTION PASSES 4 TO 2 WHICH MEANS THERE'S A RECOMMENDATION OF DENIAL DENIAL.

WHAT DOES THAT MEAN WITH REGARD TO ITEM NUMBER 9, CHRISTINE

[03:45:05]

>> ITEM NUMBER 9 WOULD HAVE TO BE DENIED BECAUSE IT COULD NOT BE APPROVED WITHOUT THE COMP PLAN AMENDMENT.

>> MR. MATOVINA: THAT WOULD BE MY THOUGHT.

WE DON'T REALLY NEED TO VOTE AT THIS POINT, DO WE.

>> ORE WOULD YOU PREFER A VOTE? >> FOR THE RECORD, I WOULD

PREFER A VOTE. >> MR. MATOVINA: DR. HILSENBECK, WOULD YOU MAKE A MOTION ON ITEM NUMBER 9, PLEASE? DO YOU WANT THAT PAGE? HNCHTS I EVER.

>> DR. HILSENBECK: I'VE GOT IT, THANK YOU.

I MOVE REQUEST TO DENY THE REQUEST TO REZONE PROTOCOL 24.3M

[10. PUD 2021-23 Orchard Park II PUD. Request to rezone approximately 21.72 acres of land from Open Rural (OR) and Planned Unit Development (PUD) to Planned Unit Development (PUD) to allow for a maximum 136 residential townhome dwelling units that will be an extension of the existing Orchard Park townhome community located along Silver Fern Drive with direct access to Wildwood Drive.]

RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY SR 3 AND OPEN RURAL TO PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT PUD TO ALLOW FOR A MAXIMUM, AND IT SAYS HERE, 103 SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS.

>> MR. MATOVINA: SO WE HAVE A MOTION TO DENY AND WE HAVE A SECOND BY MR. PETER. ANY DISCUSSION? AGAIN, A YES VOTE NANCY THAT YOU'RE STROAGHT TO DENY.

LET'S REGISTER THE VOTE. THAT MOTION ALSO PASSES 4 TO 2.

DOUG, WE ARE ONTO ITEM NUMBER 10, WHICH IS ALSO YOU.

DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANY EX PARTE TO DECLARE WITH REGARD TO I'M

NUMBER 10? >> DR. HILSENBECK: I DO.

I SPOKE WITH DOUG BURNETT ABOUT THE PROPERTY, AND I DROVE BY IT YESTERDAY AND WALKED ALONG THE ROAD, WILDWOOD ALONG THE EDGE OF THE PROPERTY BUT DID NOT GO ON THE PROPERTY AS MUCH AS I WANTED

TO. >>>

>> MR. MATOVINA: ANYBODY ELSE? >> I ALSO SPOKE, HAD A

CONVERSATION WITH DOUG. >> MR. PIERRE: I ALSO HAD A CONVERSATION WITH DOUG REGARDING THIS.

>> MR. MILLER: I JUST HAD A VOICE MAIL.

>> MR. MATOVINA: DR. MCCORMICK.

>> DR. MCCORMICK: I DID. >> MR. MATOVINA: YOU DID WHAT?

>> DR. MCCORMICK: DROVE BY THE PROPERTY.

>> MR. MATOVINA: AND DOUG AND I HAD A CONVERSATION ABOUT THIS AND HE DISCUSSED SOME CHANGES THEY MADE, WHICH I ASSUME WE'RE GOING SEE HERE SHORTLY BECAUSE I DON'T SEE A LOT OF AUDIENCE MEMBERS. YOU HAVE THE FLOOR NOW, SIR.

>> THANK YOU. THIS IS ANOTHER KB HOME PROJECT.

HOPEFULLY WE'LL GET YOUR SUPPORT ON THE ONE UNANIMOUSLY.

THIS IS A PROJECT THAT'S LOCATED OFF 207 YEAR TREAT PARK.

YOU CAN SEE HERE ON THE LOCATION MAP TREATY PARK LABELED ON THERE. LOOKING AT AN AERIAL, IT'S LOOSELY IN THE MID-POINT BETWEEN ANY 12 AND I-95 ON STATE ROAD 207. TAKING A LITTLE CLOSER LOOK AT AT THE PROJECT LOCATION, YOU CAN SEE THIS IS TREATY PARK.

THE INTERESTING THING TO NOTE ABOUT TREATY PARK IS IT'S ORIGINALLY 40-ACRE PARK. THERE WAS AN EXPANSION TO IT BUT IT DOES STEM FROM THE TREATY GROUND PUD THAT SURROUNDS IT.

AERIAL LOOK AT THE PARK. IT'S ONE OF THE MORE SIGNIFICANT PARKS IN OUR COUNTY, MULTIPLE BALL FIELDS, BASEBALL FIELDS, MULTI-PURPOSE FIELDS, SOCCER FIELDS.

THERE'S A SKATED PARK THERE. THERE IS A DOG PARK THERE.

REALLY AMENITIZED PARK FOR THAT AREA.

LOOKING A LITTLE CLOSER AT THE INTERSECTION OF WILDWOOD AND 207 SRS OBVIOUSLY KANGAROO GAS STATION, RAY'S COLLISION.

THERE'S ACTUALLY IN THE BLOW-UP ON THE RIGHT THREE DIFFERENT CHURCHES SHOWN THERE. THERE'S THE SALVATION ARMY PROPERTY AND I THINK A MANUFACTURED HOME CONSTRUCTION COMPANY. THE PORTION IN RED WAS ORIGINALLY PART OF THIS PUD BECAUSE WHAT YOU'RE SEEING IN YELLOW, A PORTION OF IT IS AN EXISTING PUD FOR ZONING, AND I'LL COME BACK TO THAT, BUT THE RED THAT THAT WAS THE WESTERN PORTION OF THE PROPERTY NOW, THE MAJORITY OF THAT IS THAT NEW PUBLIC SHOPPING CENTER THAT'S BEING CONSTRUCTED ON STATE ROAD 207. THE BLUE LINES OBVIOUSLY YOU CAN SEE WILDWOOD AND YOU CAN SEE BRINKHOFF ROAD GOING LEFT TO RIGHT. BRINKERHOFF ROAD WAS A ROAD CONSTRUCTED BY THE DEVELOPERS OF THE PROJECTS WITHIN THE TREE GROUND PUD. TAKING A CLOSER LOOK AT THE INTERSECTION NOW, THERE'S THIS CONNECTION POINT AT 207 WITH BRINKHOFF ROAD WHERE FAMILY WORSHIP CENTER IS.

THE BIG THING YOU IS IF YOU LIVE SOUTH DOWN THERE OFF OF A WILD WOOL, YOU NOW INSTEAD OF GOING ALL THE WAY UP WILDWOOD TO GET TO THE INTERSECTS 207, YOU NOW HAVE THIS FASTER ROUTE TO TAKE THROUGH BRINKERHOFF ROAD. SO A LOT OF THE TRIPS AND THE TRAFFIC THAT YOU MIGHT EXPERIENCE ON WILDWOOD IN FRONT OF THIS SITE HAVE REDUCED, AND I'M NOT SAYING THAT FROM A TRAFFIC ENGINEER EXPERT OPINION THAT I'VE GONE AND COUNTED THE TRIPS. IT'S JUST LOGICAL THIS.

P. THAT ROADWAY NEVER EXISTED AND NOW IT'S BEEN PUT IN AND IT'S A BEAUTIFUL ROADWAY SO IF YOU'RE COMING FROM THAT DIRECTION IT WOULD BE ABSOLUTELY THE FASTEST WAY TO GET TO I-95, FOR EXAMPLE. [INAUDIBLE]

[03:50:01]

SO LOOKING AT THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, THE NORTHERN TIP OF OUR SITE IS 13 UNITS AN ACRE. THE MAIN BODY OF OUR SITE IS 6 UNITS PER ACRE. AND OBVIOUSLY THE WESTERN PORTION OWFDZ OUR SITE WHERE IT'S STILL PART OF THE ORIGINAL PUD WOULD BE MIXED USE. THE ONE THING THAT CAME UP IN YOUR STAFF REPORT TALKS ABOUT THE FACT THAT STAFF DIDN'T WANT TO US TAKE CREDIT FOR THE 13 UNITS AN ACRE, SO I'LL COME BACK TO THAT AND SHOW YOU IN A MINUTE.

LOOKING AT THE ZONING, YOU CAN SEE NOW A PORTION OF THE SITE HAS GONE TO CI OVER THERE WHERE THE PUBLIC SITE IS AND IT'S NO LONGER TECHNICAL PUD, AND THEN THERE'S THIS NO MAN'S LAND IN THE MIDDLE, AND THEN OUR PORTION THAT'S THE EXISTING PUD IS AN EXISTING EXPIRED PUD. SO HERE'S A LOOK AT IT AGAIN.

THIS IS LOOSELY THE AREA THAT'S NO LONGER PART OF WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DEAL WITH. THIS IS LOOSELY THE PUBLIC LICKS SITE AND HAS THE AREA THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT, AND OBVIOUSLY YOU CAN SEE TO THE RIGHT FROM MIDWAY DOWN IS EXISTING PUD ON THIS PORTION OF THE PROPERTY THAT WE'RE GOING TO TALK ABOUT.

TAKING A LOOK AT THE PROJECT, YOU CAN SEE IN THE STAFF REPORT IT'S 136 LOTS. I'LL COME BACK TO THE LOT COUNT HERE IN A MINUTE. 23.71 TOTAL ACRES.

9 ACRES OPEN SPACE, 3 ACRES PRESERVED WETLAND.

AND AGAIN, KB HOME PROJECT. IF I TAKE THE MDP MAP AND I PUSH IT TOGETHER SO YOU CAN SEE WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE, THAT'S WHAT YOU GET THIS REPRESENTATION OF IN THIS DRAWING.

LOOKING AT THE ISSUE OF ACCESS, WE REFER TO THIS AS ORCHARD PARK II BECAUSE THERE'S AN ORCHARD PARK I SOUTH OF THE SITE.

ORCHARD PARK I IS THE INFRASTRUCTURE'S IN PLACE, THE TOWNHOMES ARE SIGNIFICANTLY UNDER CONSTRUCTION.

THERE IS A NUMBER OF -- A LARGE NUMBER OF CURRENT RESIDENTS IN ORCHARD PARK I. OUR ORIGINAL APPLICATION IN WHAT WE RESOLVED PRIOR TO PZA AND IT'S ACTUALLY IN YOUR PACKET CHANGED THIS, BUT OUR ORIGINAL APPLICATION THROUGH THE PROCESS AND WHAT WAS SHOWED TO SOME OF THE RESIDENTS THAT LIVE THE ORCHARD PARK I CONTEMPLATED THAT ACCESSES WOULD BE THROUGH ORCHARD PARK ONE AND YOU CAN SEE THE FOLKS DIDN'T LIKE THAT SO WE ELIMINATED THAT ACCESS AND WENT DIRECTLY TO WILDWOOD.

AND SO NOW, LAYING IT OUT, YOU CAN SEE HOW IT RELATES TO AN AERIAL WITH WILDWOOD COMING PAST IT.

OBVIOUSLY BRINKERHOFF ROAD TO THE SOUTH.

AND THE ACCESS, IF WE HAD BOTH, AND I BRING THIS UP BECAUSE IT'S IMPORTANT, IF WE CONNECTED ORCHARD PARK TO THE SOUTH, AND THEN WE CONNECTED TO WILDWOOD, THERE'S A POTENTIAL THAT WE HAVE A THROUGH WII CUT THROUGH FAST-DRIVING PROBLEM, SO THE ORCHARD PARK I FOLKS DON'T WANT US TO CONNECT TO SOUTH.

WE HAVE MAFD YOUR ACCESS TO WILDWOOD BUT WE'VE ELIMINATED THAT ACCESS COMPLETELY, AND IT MAKES SENSE TO AVOY THIS KIND OFIZATION. SITUATION.

SO LINING AT OUR MDP MAP THIS IS WHAT OUR.

>> ON DRAWING HAD WAS ACCESS TO SOUTH.

AND NOW WE HAVE DIRECT ACCESS TO WILDWOOD.

THE ONE THING TO NOTE IS WE DID PROVIDE FOR SIDEWALK ACCESS.

THIS IS IN YOUR PACKET, BY THE WAY.

YOU WANT TALK WITH SACHS. THIS IS A PARK AREA THAT'S ON THE SORCH PART OF OUR SITE. SIDEWALK ACCESS FOR FOLKS TO TAKE A WALK, SIDEWALK ACCESS FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD KIDS, AND BY THE WAY YOU CAN GO DOWN THIS SIDEWALK, GET ON THE SIDEWALK AT BRINKHOFF AND ACTUALLY TO GO TREAT PARK SO IT MAKES GOOD SENSE TO HAVE THIS INTERDPOARVEGHT SIDEWALK, NOT VEHICULAR. TALK ABOUT UNIT COUNT.

WHAT I'M GROWING TO PRESENT TO YOU TODAY WAS ACTUALLY SUBMITTED TO THE CROWN YESTERDAY TO RESOLVE THE COMMENT.

THERE WAS ONE OPEN COMMENT IN YOUR STAFF REPORT THAT RELATES TO DENSITY OF PROJECT. AGAIN LIKE I STARTED OUT WITH PART OF THE ITS SITE'S MIX USE, STAFF TOOK THE POSITION THAT IF YOU DO NOT HAVE STRUCTURE, A BUILDING IN THE MIXED USE, AND LOOSE LIE I'M PHRASING IT, NOT HAVING THE STRUCTURE THERE, WE'RE NOT GETTING TO TAKE THE ADVANTAGE OF THE DENSITY, SO WE HAVE APPLIED RESIDENTIAL C OVER THE ENTIRE SITE, THE SIX UNITS AN ACRE. SO REVISING THE REVISINGU CAN SEE 16 UNITS FOR PORTION 6. WE'LL IRRELEVANT SAYING WE'LL GO WITH SIX ACROSS THE ENTIRE SITE. I REDUCES US FROM 137 TO 129.

YOU CAN SEE THE TWO STEITZ. THE BLUE SHOWS WHERE A BUILDING WAS. IT'S PANE BEEN REMOVED.

YOU CAN SEE THE CUL-DE-SAC AND THE POND TO THE NORTH.

IT CHANGES A LITTLE BIT SO A COUPLE OF CEARKTS THERE.

[03:55:01]

IF OTHER THING THAT WE DO IS WE HAVE SET ASIDE THE AREA THAT I'VE NOW TRACED ON THE UPDATED MAP AS PRESERVATION.

IT'S WETLAND PRESERVATION. IT'S CONTINUOUS WETLAND AND WITHIN THERE IS UPLANDS, AND SO THE UPLANDS AND THE WETLANDS IN THAT AREA ARE BEING PRESERVED. BEE DID TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THE PRESERVATIONAL WETLAND DENSITY BONES AND US THE PRESERVATIONAL UPLAND DENSITY BONUS. SO YOU CAN SEE JUST SO THAT IT'S VERY CLEAR ON THE RECORD BEEN E. AGAIN WE DID SUBMIT-TO-THIS TO STAFF PUT THIS IS IN THE SEX, 121 UNITS.

THE MATH OF HOW WE GOT THRTD APPLYING 6 UNITIES PER SITE, 10% FOR IF WETLAND AND THE DENSITY BONUS FOR THE UPLAND CONTIGUOUS TO ADJACENT WETLANDS. AND QUAY KNOW WE HAVE ADJACENT WETLANDS. WE HAVE A AN EARNL CORPS OF ENGINEERS PERMIT FOR THIS SITE. THIS IS AGAIN TAKING THE NEW SITE PLAN AND PUTTING IT IN THE VERTICAL SO YOU CAN SEE THE OVERALL ENTIRE SITE, HOW IT LAYS OUT.

AGAIN ONE LAST LOOK AT THIS SITE ON AN AERIAL.

AND THEN THIS IS JUST PUTTING SOME COLOR TO IT SO YOU CAN SEE CHOORK I AND ORCHARD PARK II TOGETHER.

WE DIDN'T HAVE TIME TO UPDATE THIS BECAUSE IT HAS THE CUL-DE-SAC BUT IT DOES GIVE YOU CONTEXT FOR THE OVERALL PROJECT.

AND IF YOU WILL INDULGE ME FOR ONE PERSISTENT MINUTE I HAVE ONE THING I WANT TO COVER BECAUSE I DID SEE MR. DRILL GET UP ON ITEM 10 AND SPEAK. I KNOW THEY'RE A CONCERN BUT I WANT TO YOU THE PUT IT ON THE RECORD SO HE CAN KNOW WHAT WE'RE COMMITTING TO. THE P P. THIS THE AREA WE'RE TALKING ABOUT. THE NORTH PARCEL IS A PARCEL OWNED BY THE PITTMANS. THE SOUTH MARCEL, AND THERE'S ACTUALLY TWO PARCELS AND AN EASEMENT ON THE SOUTH IS OWNED BY THE DRILLS. AFFECTING A CLOSER LOOK, YOU CAN SEE JUST HOW CLOSE THE PITTMAN HOME IS TO THE PROPERTY BOUNDARY AND YOU CAN SEE THE DRILLS' HOME LOOSELY IT'S IN THERE, IT'S HARD TO SEE ABOUT THE FOLIAGE BUT THEIR -- WITH THE FOLIAGE BUT THEIR HOME IS IN THAT LOCATION. THIS WAS OR ORIGINAL PLAN, AND OUR PLAN, NOT TOO MUCH DIFFERENT THAN THE EXISTING PUD, REALLY BROUGHT A PLOT OF LOT OF THE DEVELOPMENT RIGHT TO THEIR FRONT DOORSTEP. THIS WAS THE ORIGINAL PLAN.

AGAIN, YOU CAN SEE THE ACCESS TO THE SOUTH.

WE ELIMINATED THE ACCESS TO THE SOUTH AND WE CHANGED THIS AREA.

I'LL SHOW YOU OHIO HOW WE CHANGE THAT AREA IN A MOMENT.

AGAIN THIS IS AN EXISTING PUD, AND IF YOU LOOK AT THE EXISTING PUD, YOU SEE A HORSESHOE INDUSTRY SPHWRI OUT.

YOU SEE A ROAD CONNECTING TO CONNECT THE PITTMAN AND DRILL HOUSE BUT THESE LOTS ACTUALLY BACKED RIGHT UP TO THEIR HOME.

AND SO ON THE PITTMAN HOME, FOR EXAMPLE, THAT'S RIGHT ON THE PROPERTY LINE, IT WOULD BE VERY CLOSE TO SOMEONE'S BACKYARD IF SOMEONE PUT A FENCE, FOR EXAMPLE, IT WOULD BE RIGHT THERE VERY CLOSE. WE'VE CHANGED THAT TO ADDRESS IT. AGAIN, THIS IS A LOOK AT THE ORIGINAL PLAN THAT WAS SUBMITTED.

THIS IS NOW THE UPDATED PLAN. WHAT WE'VE DONE IS SPECIFICALLY CALLED OUT ON OUR PUD TEXTED -- I MEAN, ON OUR MDP MAP TO SHOW THE INDIVIDUAL DRIVEWAY CONNECTIONS, AND WE'VE SHOWN TWO PARCELS. THESE TWO PARCELS ARE ONES THAT WE WOULD INTEND TO BE DEDICATED TO THE PITTMAN TEAM AS A TRACK AND DEDICATED TO DRILL FAMILY. YOU CAN SEE THE DIVIDE ARE LINE IN THE MIDDLE. SO THEY INDIVIDUALLY WOULD HAVE A LITTLE BIT OF ADDITIONAL PROPERTY ON THE FRONT OF THEIR HOME. IT'S A WIN-WIN.

IT PROVIDE FURTHER ACCESS, AND OBVIOUSLY HOPEFULLY RESOLVES ANY KIND OF CONCERNS THAT THEY MAY HAVE.

YOU CAN SEE WE DID MOVE THE LAKE BACK A LITTLE BIT TO ACCOMMODATED THIS BUT IT WORKS VERY WELL FOR OUR SITE.

AND I THINK THAT'S PRETTY MUCH IT OTHER THAN YOU CAN SEE IN THIS BLOW-UP COLORED RENDERING THE AREA IN BETWEEN ORCHARD PARK 1:00 -- EXCUSE ME, THIS IS ORCHARD PARK I IS NORTH AND SOUTH BRINKERHOFF ROAD SO LOOKING AT ORCHARD PARK AT THE END OF THEIR CUL-DE-SAC IN THIS AREA OF HOW DOES THIS LAY OUT BETWEEN THE TWO PROJECTS, YOU CAN SEE THE PARK.

YOU CAN SEE NO MORE ROADWAY, JUST THE SIDEWALK COUNTY COUNSEL BETWEEN THE TWO. AGAIN, THE PUD, THE MAP PUT TOGETHER OVERALL. AND WITH THAT I WILL CONCLUDE MY PRESENTATION. I KNOW YOU PROBABLY HAVE PUBLIC

COMMENT EL SW. >> MR. MATOVINA:

DR. HILSENBECK, QUESTIONS. >> DR. HILSENBECK: WHEN DOUG AND I INITIALLY SPOKE, I WAS TALKING TO HIM ABOUT THE RYAN CARTER ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT, AND I SAID I TOLD DOUG I WAS CONCERNED THAT BECAUSE RYAN CARTER HAD MENTIONED THERE WAS SAND PINE ON THE PROPERTY, I TOLD HIM THERE MIGHT BE SOME SCRUB HABITA ON THE PROPERTY, AND AS YOU'RE AWARE, SCRUB IS ONE OF THE SIX SIGNIFICANT NATURAL COMMUNITIES WITHIN

[04:00:02]

ST. JOHNS COUNTY, SO I TOLD HIM I WAS GOING TO GO BY THE NEXT DAY, LOOK AT THE PROPERTY, AND IF THERE WAS ANY SCRUB ON THE PROPERTY, I WOULD LET HIM KNOW. SO I LET HIM KNOW THAT I DID INDEED FIND WHAT I WOULD CALL SCRUB ON THE PROPERTY.

RYAN CARTER HAD SAID IT WAS INTERIOR MEDIATE BETWEEN MESIC FLAT COODZ WOODS -- THIS IS TECHNICAL, SZOHR -- MESIC FLATWOODS AND SCRUBBY FLAT BOOPPEDZ IT'S MY CONTENTION, AND I CAN BACK THIS UP, THAT THERE IS BONA FIDE SCRUB ON THE PROPERTY, AND SO I SAID, WELL, DOUG, YOU KNOW THAT WOULD REQUIRE 10% PRESERVATION OF THAT SCRUB HABITAT.

SO I DID LET HIM KNOW, TRUE TO MY WORD, AND SO WHAT I'D LIKE TT SCRUB THAT I COULD SEE -- I COULDN'T GO ON THE PROPERTY OBVIOUSLY BECAUSE I COULDN'T TRACY PASS -- THAT'S FIRST THING TERESA TOLD ME, DO NOT TRESPASS -- SO WHAT I'D LIKE TO KNOW IS IN THAT VERY NORTHEASTERN CORNER WHERE YOU HAVE THAT, IT WAS THE MIXED USE AND NOW WHERE YOU HAVE THE LARGE HOAMGD POND WHICH I HAVE WHICH I PERSONALLY AM NOT A PE BUT I THINK IS A WASTE OF GOOD HABITAT, HOW ARE YOU GOING TO DISCOVERY, AND HOW MUCH SAND CONSERVE AND HOW MUCH SCRUB IS OUT THERE, NUMBER ONE, AND HOW ARE YOU GOING TO CONSERVE 10% OF IT IN YOUR MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN? I WOULD RECOMMEND IF YOU CAN, BECAUSE YOU REDUCE THAT ONE HOLDING POND BY THE DRILLS' PROPERTY, YOU REDUCED THAT, COULD YOU REDUCE THAT IF THE ENGINEERING ALLOWS, THAT NORTHERN TRIANGULAR-SHAPED HOLDING POND TO ENSURE THAT YOU'RE GOING TO CONSERVE 10% OF THAT SCRUB HABITAT?

SO CAN YOU ADDRESS THAT, PLEASE. >> THE ONLY THING I CAN TELL YOU IS SINCE YOUR TEXT MESSAGE -- RYAN COURT OH WAS HERE EARLIER AND COULDN'T STAPE. RYAN AND DEREK, IN TALKING ABOUT IT AND WITH THE PROJECT ENGINEER, WE BELIEVE THAT CONSERVING THE 10% IS NOT A PROBLEM IF THAT WEARS OUT.

WHAT YOU'RE VIE OF IT IS CONFIRM, OBVIOUSLY THIS ISSUE HAS BEEN RAISED, BUT IF IT'S CON FIRNLD WITH THE COUNTY ENVIRONMENT AT STAFF THEN THAT IS WHAT IT IS, SO TO SPEAK.

THAT'S WHY SOMETIMES IT'S PAINFUL, BUT SOMETIMES WE GET THROUGH THIS ENTIRE PROCESS, WE GET THE CONSTRUCTION PLAN APPROVAL, AND WE LOSE A LOT IN A PROJECT OR WE LOSE TWO OR THREE LOTS IN A PROJECT OR THREE TOWNHOMES IN A PROJECT, AND IT'S VERY PAINFUL FOR DEVELOPER WHEN THAT HAPPENS WHO ULTIMATELY BY THAT TIME -- A LOT OF THE TIMES IT'S THE LANDOWNER AS WELL, IS NOT NOT JUST THE DEVELOPER.

IT'S PART OF THE PROCESS. ISSUE OBVIOUSLY HAS BEEN RAISED.

IT WILL BE LOOKED AT IF WE NEED TO MEET THE 10%, THEY SAY WE

CAN, IT'S NOT A PROBLEM. >> DR. HILSENBECK: OKAY.

SO WOOK BE ASSURED THAT THERE WILL BE -- DEPENDING ON -- AND I'LL GO WITH WHAT THE COUNTY FOLKS SAY, BUT I AM A CERTIFIED EXPERT IN THIS AND I HELPED WRITE AND REVISE THIS MANUAL OF THE FLORIDA NATURAL COMMUNITIES GUIDE FROM FLORIDA NATURAL AREAS INVENTORY WHERE IT TALKS ABOUT ALL THIS, SO I AM A MEMBER OF THAT GROUP THAT DEVELOPED THAT. SO YOU'RE TELLING ME THAT YOU WILL, IF THAT SCRUB IS BORN OUT, YOU WILL DEFINITELY DISCOVERY

10% OF IT D. CONSERVE 10% OF? >> YES, SIR.

AND DEREK CASINO IS HERE AND HE'S SHAKING HIS HEAD.

THAT'S THE REPRESENTATIVE HAVE KB HOME.

HE IS AB EMPLOYEE OF KB. >> DR. HILSENBECK: AND I WISH I COULD HAVE GONE ON THE SITE. CAN I SAY A COMMENT HERE BEFORE

KWE A QUESTION? >> MR. MATOVINA: SURE.

>> DR. HILSENBECK: I'D LIKE TO SEE, AND THIS IS SHORT, YOU KNOW, WETLAND ARE DELINEATED ALL THE TIME AND THAT'S REQUIRED BY LAW, BUT UPLAND HABITAT ISN'T PROTECTED TYPICALLY, IT'S NOT DELINEATED AND SO FORTH. WHAT I'D LIKE TO SEE IS SOME ORDINANCE OR POLICY OR RULE OR WHATEVER DEVELOPED THAT ON SOMETHING LIKE THIS WHERE YOU'VE GOT ONE OF THE SIX SIGNIFICANT NATURAL COMMUNITY TYPES WITHIN ST. JOHNS COUNTY, THAT THAT HABITAT TYPE GETS DELINEATED, IT GETS FLAGGED LIKE IT'S A WETLAND OR AT LEAST YOU SHOW US ON AN AERIAL PHOTO, A HIGH RESOLUTION, HIGH QUALITY AERIAL PHOTO THAT THAT, EXTENT OF THAT HABITAT IS DELINEATED IN SOME WAY. I KNOW IT'S EXPENSIVE FOR AN ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANT TO GO OUT AND FLAG SOMETHING LIKE THAT SINCE YOU DO NOT HAVE TO, CERTAINLY AT THE PRESENT TIME, BUT AT LEAST DELINEATE THAT ON A AERIAL PHOTO SO THAT WE KNOW, IF ANYONE CARES OTHER THAN ME, SO WE KNOW WHERE THAT IS AND THAT WE CAN BE ASSURED THAT 10% OF THAT IS GOING TO BE SET ASIDE.

SO I'D JUST LIKE TO MAKE THAT RECOMMENDATION TO THE COUNTY

[04:05:05]

STAFF. >> .

THANK YOU FOR ALLOWING ME THAT. >> MR. MATOVINA: BASED ON MY PAST INTERFERENCE WTD COUNTY, THAT IS REQUIRED.

THE IF THE STAFF SHE IS SCRUB THEY FLAG THE AREA AND WE GO OUT

WITH A SURVEY. >> I DON'T KNOW IF WE DO EXACTLY WHAT YOU JUST SAID BUT, YES, SIR, WE DO REQUEST WHEN THERE ARE SIGNIFICANT HABITATS THAT WE PRESERVE IN ST. JOHNS COUNTY, WE DO REQUEST THOSE TO BE ON THE MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN MAP, SO

THEY ARE SHOWN IN THAT FASHION. >> MR. MATOVINA: AND THE FEW TIMES THAT I'VE BEEN INVOLVED, WE HAVE ACTUALLY, JUST LIKE WETLAND, SENT A GUY OUT AND HE PUTS FLAGS AROUND THE HABITAT AND THEN THE SURVEYOR GOES OUT AND SURVEYS IT.

>> DR. HILSENBECK: I'M GLAD TO HEAR THAT.

>> I'M NOT SURE IT'S SURVEY PER SE BUT IN THE FIELD DURING CONSTRUCTION PLANSY THEY SIT FENCE OR BLOCK IT OFF SOME WAY

OR ANOTHER. >> MR. MATOVINA: ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OF THE APPLICANT? IF NOT, WE'RE READY FORE PUBLIC

SPEAKERS. >> AND I APOLOGIZE I'M GOING TO MESS UP THE LAST NAME. RYAN CELESTING.

>> MR. MATOVINA: ONE QUESTION. DR. MCCORMICK, WE'RE SLOW ON THE

UPTICK. >> METEOROLOGIST: YOU DO NOT HAVE TO COME BACK HERE, I GUESS, BUT I'D BE REMISS IF I DON'T AT LEAST TALK ABOUT AGAIN WORKFORCE HOUSING, AFFORDABLE HOUSING.

NOW YOU HAVE A NEW DEVELOPMENT STARTING FROM SCRATCH, AND THEY'RE TOWNHOMES, SO I WOULD BE IN TROUBLE WITH THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING ADVISORY COMMITTEE IF I DIDN'T AT LEAST BRING IT UP AGAIN. THEY'RE VERY INTERESTED IN THAT LAW. AS A COMMITTEE WE'RE VERY INTERESTED IN MOVING FORWARD WITH OTHER AFFORDABLE HOUSING WHICH THE COUNTY NEEDS AS WELL AS WORKFORCE HOUSING.

IS THERE ANY POTENTIAL FOR HAVING SOME OF THAT TYPE OF PROPERTY OR HOUSING CONTAINED IN THIS NEW DEVELOPMENT OF

TOWNHOMES? >> I THINK THE QUICK ANSWER TO THAT WOULD BE UNLIKELY FOR MANY REASONS.

ONE, WE'RE NO HERE ASKING FOR A LAND USE CHANGE, SO WE DON'T HAVE A LAND USE CHANGE. WE DON'T HAVE A PROJECT THAT'S LARGE THAT HAS SEPARATE SECTIONS IN IT.

WE'RE TALKING AN ADD-ON ESSENTIALLY TO ORCHARD PARK I.

I THINK THE RESIDENTS OF ORCHARD PARK I EXPECTS THAT ORCHARD PARK WITH THE SAME PRODUCT IS GOING TO HAVE A PROJECT SIMILAR TO THEIR PROJECT. AT THIS STAGE WE NEED TO TRY TO REDESIGN THIS PROJECT TO SQUEEZE THE EXTRA DENSITY OUT OF IT TO TRY TODAY WORKFORCE HOUSING OR AFFORDABLE HOUSING.

THIS PRODUCT IS PLANNED TO BE PRETTY MUCH IDENTICAL TO ORCHARD PARK I, AND BASED ON THE STRONG FEEDBACK THAT WE RECEIVED, AND THE FEEDBACK THAT'S IN YOUR PACKETS, BY THE WAY, ARE BECAUSE KB WENT TO THE RESIDENTS AND TOLD THEM WHAT WAS GOING ON TO THE NORTH AND EXPLAINED TO THEM WHAT THEY INTENDED TO DO TO THE NORTH. THAT'S WHY YOU GOT THE FEEDBACK.

THAT'S HOW WE GOT FEEDBACK TO KNOW NO VEHICULAR CONNECTION TO ORCHARD PARK I, AND SO I THINK THE SIMILAR PROCESS WOULD BE IN PLACE THAT WE WOULD BE BACK WITH OUR RESIDENTS TO THE SOUTH TO EXPLAIN TO THEM WHAT'S BEING CONTEMPLATED, AND I DON'T I DON'T THINK IT'S GOING TO WORK. IT'S PROBABLY NOT APPROPRIATE FOR THIS LOCATION AND THIS PROJECT.

>> DR. MCCORMICK: I'M GOING TO KEEP ASKING THE QUESTION OF OTHER DEVELOPERS AS THEY COME UP.

THAT'S WHY I RAISED THE QUESTION.

>> MR. MATOVINA: OKAY. BACK TO SPEAKER CARDS.

>> MR. MILLER: MR. BRIAN AND CELESTING?

[INAUDIBLE] >> MR. MILLER: THAT'S FINE.

FILL OUT A CARD AFTER YOU'RE DONE SPEAKING.

>> I LIVE AUTO 185 SILVER FERN. MY NAME IS JOE.

THE LAST CONDO ON THE LEFT, THE LAST TOWNHOUSE ON THE LEFT.

MY PROPERTY WOULD ABUT THE PROPOSED PROPERTY THAT'S UNDER PROPOSAL TO BE ADDED ONTO. MY CONCERNS ARE THAT THAT LAND IN BEHIND ME AND TO MY NORTH IS VERY, VERY WET.

IN THE RAINY SEASON YOU'LL GET PROBABLY A COUPLE OF FEET OF WATER UNDERNEATH, EVEN IN THE DRY SEASON.

I'VE WALKS OUT THERE AND IT'S BAD COUNTRY.

SECONDLY, I HAVE BIRD FEED IS OUT THERE.

I FEED THE DEER. THEY COME BY.

I PUT DOWN CRACKED CORN AND I EVEN HAVE A FEW PETITION THAT

[04:10:02]

PAY ME A VISIT, BUT THAT'SY. E. BESIDE THE POINT.

I JUST WOULD HOPE THAT THESE PEOPLE HAVEN'T BEEN A PROBLEM, KB HASN'T BEEN A PROBLEM, BUT THE WETLAND, I WOULD LIKE TO ASK OF THEM TO PRESERVE AS MUCH OF THAT LAND IN ITS NATURAL FORM AS CAN BE OUT THERE. ONE INSPECTION FROM ANYBODY WILL SHOW THAT THIS IS THE CASE. AND IT'S VERY LOW.

I'M AFRAID THEY WILL HAVE TO BRING IN TONS OF FILL TO GET IT UP TO LEVEL EVEN OF MY PLACE. SO THAT'S WHAT I HAVE TO SAY.

IT'S WETLAND OUT THERE, VERY, VERY WETLANDS.

SO I HOPE WE CAN PRESERVE SOME OF THAT AND AMEND THEIR PLANS TO DO JUST THAT. THANK YOU.

>> MR. MILLER: THANK YOU. >> MR. MATOVINA: IS THAT IT?

>> MR. MILLER: NO OTHER >> MR. MATOVINA: DO YOU HAVE

ANY REBUTTAL, DOUG? >> NO REAL REBUTTAL OTHER THAN TO JUST POINT OUT ONE BRIEF POINT, THAT MR. JOE, I BELIEVE, RAISED. THERE IS, BY THE WAY, A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF WETLAND THAT'S BEING LEFT DOWN HERE IN THE BOTTOM LEFT CORNER, AND YOU CAN SEE LOOSELY WHERE THOSE UNITS ARE. THE OTHER UNIT ON THE OTHER SIDE OF ORCHARD PARK I WILL HAVE BUFFER, STIPPAL CAL 6-FOOT FENCE AND THIS IS PARK AREA HERE BUT THIS IS WETLAND.

AL THAT WILL STAY. AND THE ONE TOWNHOME BUILDINGS

RIGHT THERE. >> MR. MATOVINA: ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS OF THE APPLICANT? STAFF.

>> THANK YOU, MIKE ROBERSON GROWTH MANAGEMENT.

I WANT TO POINT OUT THOUGHT AGENCY ABOUT THE TOPIC OF INTERCONNECTIVITY. SO JUST SO YOU KNOW, OUR CODE IN THE TRANSPORTATION SECTION OF ARTICLE 5 DOESN'T ENCOURAGE, IT REQUIRES INTERCONNECTIVITY WHERE FEASIBLE, SO YOU HAVE A SITUATION HERE WHERE THE APPLICANT IS TRYING TO WORK WITH THE COMMUNITY AS WELL, SO OFTEN THE ADJACENT COMMUNITIES THAT HAVE A CUL-DE-SAC OR SOMETHING TO THAT EFFECT DON'T WANT THOSE CONNECTIONS. SO THERE'S THAT TO CONSIDER.

BUT I ALSO WANT YOU TO KNOW WHAT THE CODE IS, AND IT DOES ENCOURAGE IT, REQUIRES IT WHEN FEASIBLE.

THANK YOU. >> MR. MATOVINA: AND I WOULD FOLLOW UP AND SAY I UNDERSTAND THE RESIDENTS' CONCERN BUT BUT, QUITE FRANKLY, FROM THE COUNTY'S CONCERN I THINK THE TWO SECTIONS CONNECTING WOULD BE BETTER FOR THE COUNTY BECAUSE IT WOULD KEEP TRAFFIC OFF OF WILDWOOD AND OFF YOU OF BRINKHOFF FROM ONE NEIGHBORHOOD TO THE NEXT, BUT I'M NOT GOING TO VOTE AGAINST THIS PUD IN CONTRAVENTION OF WHAT FOLKS WANT.

DR. MCCORMICK. >> DR. MCCORMICK: LOOKS LIKE DR. HILSENBECK IS GOING TO GET THE TBAWNGT BUT I'M READY TO MAKE A MOTION HIFNTLE I WAS GOING TO MAKE A MOTION BUT THAT'S FINE. MOVE, MOVE, SIR, MOVE.

>> DR. MCCORMICK: ALL RIGHT. MY MOTION IS TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PUD 2021-23 LEERK D PARK II TO REZONE APPROXIMATELY 24.31 ACRES OF LAND FROM OPEN RURAL AND PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT TO PLANT PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT TO ALLOW FOR THE DEVELOPMENT A MAXIMUM OF 136 TOWN HOM UNITS BASED UPON NINE FINDINGS OF FACT AS THE PROVIDED IN THE STAFF REPORT.

>> DR. HILSENBECK: I WILL SECOND THAT AS LONG AS THE NUMBER 1 STLIKS IS CHANGED TO 129.

NUMBER TESTIFY TOWNHOMES. >> MR. MATOVINA: ARE YOU WOILG TO CHANGE YOUR ORIGINAL MOTION TO 129 UNITS WHICH IS WHAT THE

APPLICANT IS PROPOSING? >> DR. MCCORMICK: I'LL MAKE THAT AMENDMENT. I'LL MAKE THAT CHANGE TO 129.

>> MR. MATOVINA: SO WE HAVE A MOTION FOR APPROVAL BY DR. MCCORMICK AND A SECOND BY DR. HILSENBECK FOR A MAXIMUM OF 129 TOWNHOMES. IS THERE ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? SEEING NONE, LET'S REGISTER THE VOTE

[11. DRI MOD 2021-05 World Commerce DRI. Request to modify the World Commerce Center Development of Regional Impact (DRI) to amend the project phasing consistent with the Legislative extensions, revise reporting requirements, update the Master Plan Map (Map H) for consistency with the Planned Unit Development (PUD) Master Development Plan (MDP), revise the Land Use Conversion Tables, and revise the Transportation Improvements Map. The World Commerce Center DRI is generally located south of International Golf Parkway and north of SR 16.]

ALL RIGHT. YOU GOT A RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL, DOUG. [INAUDIBLE]

>> MR. MILLER: HE SPOKE EARLIER.

>> MR. MATOVINA: WE HEARD HIM ON ITEM NUMBER 1, MA'AM.

HE WAS HEAR AND WE HEARD HIM ON ITEM NUMBER 1 AND DOUG ACTUALLY ADDRESSED HIS CONCERNS MS. SMITH.

DUSES ANYBODY HAVE ANY SPART TO DECLARE ON ITEM NUMBER 11?

>> DR. HILSENBECK: ELLEN AVERY-SMITH CALLED ME, AND I TEXTED HER BACK THAT I HAD NO ISSUES WITH THIS MODIFICATION,

[04:15:04]

AND IF I DID, I WOULD LET HER KNOW.

>> I ALSO GOT A PHONE CALL FROM HER YESTERDAY, DAY BEFORE

YESTERDAY. >> MR. MILLER: I SPOKE WITH MS. AVERY-SMITH REGARDING THE PROJECT AS WELL.

>> MR. MATOVINA: ALL RIGHT. AND SHE AND I HAD A NICE CONVERSATION ABOUT THE PROJECT, AND I FELT THE SAME WAY

DR. HILSENBECK DID. >> WELL, THANK YOU.