[Call meeting to order] [00:00:30] >>> GOOD AFTERNOON. WE CALL THIS MEETING TO ORDER. PLEASE STAND FOR THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. >> ÊI PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS, ONE NATION UNDER GOD, INDIVISIBLE, WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL.Î DOCTOR, DO YOU HAVE SOMETHING YOU WOULD LIKE TO SAY RIGHT NOW ? >> I THINK IT IS PROPER TO RECOGNIZE THAT IT IS D-DAY TODAY. MANY THOUSANDS OF HEROIC INDIVIDUALS WERE KILLED ON THE BEACHES OF NORMANDY AND I WANT TO SALUTE THE SERVICEMEN AND WOMEN WHO WERE THERE AND WHO MADE THE ULTIMATE SACRIFICE. I THINK WE SHOULD HAVE A MOMENT OF SILENCE IN THEIR HONOR. THANK YOU. BACK MR. PETER. WILL YOU READ THE PUBLIC NOTICE. >> THE PUBLIC WILL BE GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY TO COMMENT ON ITEMS RELEVANT AND BE OFFERED A CHANCE TO GIVE COMMENT AT A DESIGNATED TIME DURING THE HEARING. THE PUBLIC WILL SPEAK AT A TIME DURING EACH ITEM AND FOR A LENGTH OF TIME DESIGNATED BY THE CHAIRMAN, WHICH SHALL BE THREE MINUTES. THE SPEAKER SHALL IDENTIFY THEMSELVES, WHO THEY AND THEN STATE THEIR ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD. YOU MAY OFFER SWORN TESTIMONY. IF IT IS NOT SWORN IT MAY BE CONSIDERED >> IF A PERSON DECIDES TO -- THEY MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE. THE RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. ANY PHYSICAL OR DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE SUCH AS DIAGRAMS, CHARTS, OR WRITTEN STATEMENT SHALL BE PROVIDED TO THE CLERK TO BE ADDED TO THE RECORD. THE RECORD WILL BE AVAILABLE FOR THE COUNTY . AGENCY MEMBERS ARE REMINDED AT THE BEGINNING OF EACH ITEM THEY SHOULD STATE IF THEY HAD ANY [PZA Meeting Minutes for Board Approval: 05/16/2024] COMMUNICATION WITH THE APPLICANT OR OTHER ITEM REGARDING THE SUBSTANCE OF THE ITEM BEFORE THE HEARING. IF SUCH COMMUNICATION HAS OCCURRED, THE AGENCY MEMBERS SHOULD IDENTIFY THE PERSONS INVOLVED IN THE MATERIAL CONTENT OF THAT COMMUNICATION. WE WILL BE RESPECTFUL OF ONE ANOTHER EVEN IF WE DISAGREE AND WE WILL AVOID PERSONAL ATTACKS. [Public Comments] >> THANK YOU. AGENCY MEMBERS WE HAVE IN OUR PACKET THE MEETING MINUTES FROM MAY 16, 2024. IS THERE A MOTION ON THE TABLE. >> SO MOVED. >> IS THERE A SECOND? >> I WILL SECOND. >> ANY DISCUSSION. CAN WE DO A [1. ZVAR 2023-38 Jennings Fence] VOTE. ALL IN FAVOR PLEASE SAY AYE. >> AYE. ANY COMMENT? HEARING NON-, THE MOTION PASSES.. THIS IS A TIME FOR PEOPLE TO COME UP AND SPEAK ABOUT ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA. IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO TAKE THE TIME TO SPEAK ON ANYTHING THIS IS THE TIME. SEEING THEN WE WILL GONE TO ITEM NUMBER ONE. MR. WHITEHOUSE AND HAVE ANY MEMBER SAID X PARTAKE ? >> I DID A SITE VISIT AND A MEETING WITH THE HOMEOWNER AND I HAD A PHONE CONVERSATION WITH MR. WHITEHOUSE. >> I SPOKE WITH MR. WHITEHOUSE ABOUT THIS APPEARANCE REQUEST. >> I SPOKE WITH MR. WHITEHOUSE EARLIER THIS MORNING ON THIS APPLICATION. >> THANK YOU. I AM JAMES WHITEHOUSE . I AM RECOGNIZED AS AN EXPERT IN CITY, COUNTY, AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT LAW. ITEM HERE ON BEHALF OF THE JENNINGS [00:05:01] FAMILY OF THIS REQUEST FOR APPROVAL ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THEIR YARD REGARDING ZVAR 2023-38. AS YOU CAN SEE FROM THE STAFF REPORT THIS IS 601 COUNTY ROAD 13 SOUTH AND IT IS A REQUEST FOR A ZONING VARIANCE TO SECTION 2.02.04.B.12 TO ALLOW A FENCE AT A SHARP HEIGHT OF 8 FEET ON A PORTION OF THEIR LOT ON THE NORTH SIDE IN LIEU OF THE 6 FEET REQUIREMENT. THE NOTATION IS ON THE WEST SIDE OF COUNTY ROAD 13 SOUTH AND BETWEEN THE ROAD AND THE ST. JOHNS RIVER AND YOU CAN SEE AN AERIAL. THIS IS THE PARCEL WE ARE TALKING ABOUT. ON THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP THIS IS DESIGNATED AGRICULTURE AND IT IS IN A RS 2 OF ZONING AND IT IS LOCATED ON THIS LONG LOT ON THE ST. JOHNS RIVER. AS I SAID, THE SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST IS FOR THIS FENCE THAT EXTENDS ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THEIR PROPERTY AND THIS IS THE SECTION HEREBY THE SHED AND THERE IS SOME STORAGE WHERE THE FENCE IS HIGHER AND IT WORKS DOWN TOWARDS THE RIVER. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING THE VARIANCE TO ALLOW THEM TO KEEP THIS A LONG-STANDING AND MATCHING FENCE ALONG THE NORTHERN SIDE OF THE PROPERTY AT THE EIGHT FOOT HEIGHT. IT WAS INSTALLED TO REPLACE A DETERIORATING WOOD FENCE AND A WAS DESIGNED IDENTICAL TO THE FENCE ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE HOUSE. IT IS SET BACK 163 FEET FROM THE ROAD AND THE FENCE BEGINS AT THE FACE OF THE HOUSE AND EXTENDS BACK TOWARDS THE RIVER ON BOTH SIDES. THE SECTION OF FENCE ON THE NORTH SIDE IS THE SUBJECT OF THIS REQUEST. ALL OTHER FENCING ON THE PROPERTY MEETS THE COUNTY CODE IS VERIFIED BY STAFF. THE REQUEST INCLUDES A HEDGE THAT EXCEEDS SIT 6 FEET. ON THE SIDE WHERE THE LEACH FIELD IS IT IS APPROXIMATELY 100 FEET FROM THE ROAD AND THERE IS A SIMILAR FENCE ALONG THE SOUTHERN PROPERTY LINE AND STAFF DETERMINED THAT THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY TO THE SOUTH, IT IS GREATER THAN THE 2 FEET REQUIREMENT AND SUSTAIN FOR A DISTANCE -- AND THAT PART OF THE FENCE THAT IS HIGHER ON THE SOUTH SIDE MEETS THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE. THE HEDGE IS NOT VISIBLE FROM THE STREET. WE HAVE SOME IMAGES. THIS IS AN AERIAL IMAGE LOOKING TOWARDS THE RIVER AND THIS IS THE PROPERTY ITSELF. YOU CAN SEE THE HEDGE AND THE FENCE. YOU CAN SEE WHERE IT IS HIGHER ON THE OTHER SIDE . THIS IS A VIEW FROM 13 AND YOU CAN SEE THAT THE HOUSE ITSELF IS BLOCKED FROM VIEW WITH VEGETATION. THIS IS INSIDE THAT FROM THE PROPERTY DRIVEWAY ENTRANCE BACK TOWARDS THE HOUSE. THIS IS THE HOUSE. WE ARE IS WHERE THE HEDGE AND THE FENCE ARE IN THIS AREA. THIS IS LOOKING AT THE PROPERTY 120 FEET INTO THE DRIVEWAY. HER YOU CAN SEE FROM AN AERIAL, THIS IS A LARGER ARIELLE AND YOU CAN SEE WERE THE HIGHER PART OF THE FENCE IS AND IT IS RIGHT NEXT TO WHERE THE STORAGE UNIT IS ON THE PROPERTY LINE HERE IS A BETTER CLOSE-UP AND YOU CAN SEE THE EXACT SECTION WHERE THE FENCE IS RAISED. STAFF SUMMARY DEFENSE. IT IS BETWEEN 7-8 FOOT AND THAT IS WHY THE REQUEST IS FOR A FRAUD. IT SCREENS VIEWS BETWEEN THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES IN THE FENCE TRANSITION FROM 7 FEET TO 4 FEET OPENS UP VIEWS WHILE DELINEATING THE PROPERTY VALUE AND RETAINING DEFENSE AS CONSTRUCTED. ON BOTH SIDES OF THE HOUSE IT WILL BE CONTINUE TO BE THE SAME AND MATCH AND PROVIDE PRIVACY TO THE BACKYARD. THIS IS FROM THE STAFF REPORT. HERE IS A COUPLE MORE IMAGES TO GO THROUGH . YOU CAN SEE THE HEDGE A BIT BETTER THIS IS THE LEACH FIELD ON THEIR SIDE AND THERE IS ANOTHER ONE ON THE OTHER SIDE. YOU CAN SEE THE FENCE ITSELF ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THIS IS WHERE THE BOAT SHED IS. HERE YOU CAN SEE IT FROM THEIR PROPERTY. YOU CAN SEE HOW IT GOES HERE AND THEN IT GOES DOWN. IT ALLOWS THE VIEWS -- THIS IS THE SAME FENCE ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE PROPERTY AND AGAIN, IT IS IDENTICAL IN STRUCTURE AND INSTALLATION. HERE YOU CAN SEE HOW IT GOES DOWN RIGHT AFTER WHERE THE SHED IS AT SO WHAT DOES NOT INFRINGE UPON THE [00:10:03] VIEWS OF THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY. AS YOU KNOW THE VARIANCES DEFINITION IS IN THE CODE AND IT MEETS THE -- REQUIREMENTS AND THIS IS THE SECTION THAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT. THIS TALKS ABOUT THE HIGH . THE BOTTOM SECTION TALKS ABOUT HOW THE FENCE ON THE SOUTH SIDE IS APPROPRIATE BECAUSE THERE IS A CHANGE IN THE TOPOGRAPHY AND DISTANCE ON THE NORTH SIDE IS A LITTLE DIFFERENCE. THIS VARIANCE REQUEST ORIGINATES FROM A COMPLAINT. THIS FENCE HAS BEEN THERE APPROXIMATELY TWO YEARS IN THE COMPLAINT MENTIONED SECTIONS OF THE EIGHT FOOT FENCE -- PRIOR TO THAT COMPLAINT. IT HAS BEEN IN PLACE FOR 18 MONTHS OR MORE AND PRIOR TO THE COMPLAINT THE NEIGHBOR AGREED. IN ANY CASE, TO ADDRESS THAT COMPLAINT THEY TOOK THE BOAT OUT OF THEIR YARD AND THE RETURNED THE BOAT TRAILER TO STORAGE AND THE COUNTY CAME OUT AND LOOKED AT THE DITCH WORK AND IT WAS FOUND TO BE IN COMPLIANCE AND THEN THEY NEEDED TO APPLY FOR THE VARIANCE FOR THE FENCE. THAT WAS THE LAST THING WITHIN THE COMPLAINT. THE FACTS THAT SHOULD ALLOW THIS TO REMAIN ON THE NORTHERN SIDE IS THAT IT REPLACED A BORDER FENCE. THAT WAS DAMAGED BY HURRICANES. THEY ARE NOT VISIBLE -- IT IS NOT VISIBLE FROM THE STREET AND THE FENCE BEGINS AT THE HOUSE FAÇADE THAT IS 163 FEET FROM THE STREET. THE FENCE AREA, TALLER THAN FIVE FOOT IS LIMITED TO A SHORT SECTION AND IT SCREENS THE SHED AREA AND THE RECREATIONAL STORAGE AREA. AND TRANSITIONS TO 4 FEET HEIGHT NEAR THE RIVER TO PROTECT THE NEIGHBOR VIEWS AND ALL OF THE REST OF THE FENCE MEETS CODE. THESE ARE SOME PICTURES THAT MY CLIENT HAS PROVIDED SHOWING OTHER FENCES IN THE AREA AND OBVIOUSLY THOSE DON'T AFFECT THIS PARTICULAR APPLICATION BUT IT IS NOT TOTALLY OUT OF CHARACTERIZATION OF THE AREA AS FAR AS FENCES AND HEDGES. IT IS NOT CONTRARY TO PUBLIC INTEREST BECAUSE THE VIEWS ARE PROTECTED BY THE HOUSE. THE FENCE TAPERS DOWN TO PROTECT THE VIEWS. AND FORCING THE CODE WOULD CREATE MISMATCHING FUNCHESS -- OFFENSES ON OTHER SIDE. THE VARIANCE WOULD NOT BE CONTRARY TO THE CODE BECAUSE THE LOCATION OF THE HIGHER FENCES LIMITED TO THE SHORT SECTION AND IT IS THE SAME AS THE SOUTH FENCE AND SIMILAR TO THE CHARACTER OF THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD. IN CONCLUSION, YOU HAVE YOUR EXPERT STAFF EVALUATION AND THEY FOUND THE COME REQUEST WAS REASONABLE AND I CUT OUT THE SECTION WHERE THE STAFF SAYS THAT STAFF FINDS THE REQUEST TO BE REASONABLE BASED ON -- IT WOULD NOT BE CONTRARY TO AND IT IS NOT LOT TO THE SOUTH WAS ELEVATED TO HEIGHT EXCEEDING 2 FEET AND THAT IS WHY THE FENCE IS APPROPRIATE. HERE ARE SOME MORE IMAGES THAT YOU CAN SEE FROM THE RIVER. THERE IS NO BLOCKAGE OF VIEWS AT ALL BASED ON THE WAY THAT THIS FENCE TAPERS DOWN AFTER THE STORAGE SHED. UNDER THE COAT THE APPLICANT REQUIRES TO SHOW THAT THEY MEET THE CODE AND WE BELIEVE THAT THEY HAVE. WE BELIEVE THIS IS REASONABLE AND COMPATIBLE AND WE ASK FOR YOU TO GRANT THIS VARIANCE. >> ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS FROM AGENCY MEMBERS? DR. HILSENBECK. >> I HAVE A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS OR ISSUES. A MONTH OR SO AGO YOU MAY HAVE BEEN IN THE AUDIENCE, WE HAD A NEIGHBORHOOD DISPUTE IN A SIMILAR NEIGHBORHOOD OFF OF 13 ABOUT A FENCE. IT WAS DISCOVERED THAT DURING THE COURSE OF THE HEARING THAT THERE WAS A FIELD GOING ON BETWEEN THE NEIGHBORS. I THINK THE MAJORITY OF THIS BODY UNDERSTOOD THE FEUD. I HOPE THAT IS NOT GOING ON HERE. >> I HAD TO ADDRESS THE PRIDE COMPLAINT BUT THIS IS NOT ABOUT THAT. THIS IS ABOUT THE HARDSHIP CREATED BY THE FACT THAT WE HAVE A FENCE IN THE SPIRIT OF THE CODE DOES NOT [00:15:04] CONTEMPLATE THAT WHEN YOU HAVE A FENCE ON YOUR YARD THAT YOU NEED TO HAVE A WEIRD LOOKING MISMATCHED PHONES BECAUSEON ONE SIDE IT MEETS THIS 2 FEET ELEVATION AND THE OTHER SIDE IT DOES NOT. NUMBER TWO, THE STORAGE AREAS ON THE PROPERTY LINE CLEARLY CREATE CHARACTERIZATIONS OF THE ADJOINING PROPERTY. I DON'T NECESSARILY WANT TO GO INTO THE OTHER ONES BECAUSE I THINK THE OTHER ONE WAS MUCH CLOSER TO THE STREET AND I DON'T THINK IT IS APPLICABLE TO THIS. >> SO YOU HAVE THE SUPPORT OF THE NEIGHBOR TO THE SOUTH. WITH THE NEIGHBOR TO THE NORTH THAT I ASSUME IS THE ONE THAT FILED THE PRIDE COMPLAINT. I AM ALL FOR THOSE COMPLAINTS . IT IS THERE FOR A REASON. BUT, HAVE THERE BEEN ANY CONVERSATIONS SINCE WITH THE NEIGHBOR TO THE NORTH ABOUT AMELIORATING THE SITUATION? >> I DON'T KNOW THAT THAT HAS ANYTHING TO DO WITH THIS SECTION OF THE FENCE. LIKE I SAID, I THINK THE PURVIEW OF THE BOARD IS TO LOOK AT THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CODE AND I THINK THIS PARTICULAR REQUEST MEETS THOSE AND THE HARDSHIP AND THE VARIANCE SHOULD BE GRANTED. THE I THINK THE NEIGHBORS HERE AND MAYBE WOULD BE GOOD TO HEAR FROM THEM. >> MY LAST THING IS THAT WE HAVE HAD A LOT OF FENCE ISSUES OVER THE YEARS BUT I DON'T RECALL ANYONE INCLUDING THE HEIGHT OF A HEDGE BEING A CONCERN. I HAVE A NEIGHBOR -- I WISH THEY WOULD -- THEY HAVE EARLY TALL HEDGE. A HEDGE IS A HEDGE AND I WAS SURPRISED ABOUT THE HEIGHT LIMITATION. >> I THINK IT IS A BIT OF A QUIRK IN OUR CODE THAT HAVING ANYTHING THAT IS THAT SORT OF HEIGHT AND EXTENDS TO A CERTAIN EXTENT HAS TO FIT UNDER THE HEIGHT CODE. SO SOMEONE ASKED WHAT IF YOU HAD A ROW OF MAGNOLIA TREES THAT WERE NOT TRIMMED DOWN OR WHAT IF YOU HAVE BAMBOO. I THINK IT IS APPROPRIATE FOR THIS PROPERTY BECAUSE THERE IS THAT CHANGE IN ELEVATION FROM THE SEPTIC FIELDS ON BOTH SIDES EVEN THOUGH IT DOESN'T QUITE MEET THE 75 FOOT DISTANCE. I THINK THAT IS WHY IT IS INCLUDED TOGETHER AND I THINK THAT IS WHY THIS IS APPROPRIATE FOR THIS VARIANCE. >> THANK YOU. >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, WE MARK --? IF ANYONE IS ARE FOR PUBLIC COMMENTS, PLEASE COME FORWARD. PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD. >> JALEN HURTS, 613 COUNTY ROAD -- 32092. I AM THE NEIGHBOR TO THE SOUTH. >> THANK YOU. GO AHEAD. >> I AM IN FAVOR OF THE FENCE ON MY SIDE. I FEEL LIKE I HAVE MORE PRIVACY. OTHERWISE I CAN LOOK INTO THEIR YARD. >> THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE ? >> AFTERNOON. CHARLIE HUNT. THIS REALLY IS A CONDITION THAT NEEDS TO GO THROUGH PVA AND TO BRING SUCH A HIGH PAID LAWYER APPEARED TO TALK TO THE COUNCIL. IF IT IS ALL TO THE SELL SIDE, THAT IS BETWEEN THOSE NEIGHBORS. IF THE OTHER NEIGHBORS ARE HAVING ISSUES, THERE IS NO DETERMINATION OR ANY REAL CLEAR PROPERTY LINE ISSUES. BECAUSE OF THEY MOVED IN WITHIN A COUPLE OF YEARS AGO, THE PEOPLE THERE BEFORE THEM WERE NOT WORRIED ABOUT THE PROPERTY LINES. IF THEY CARED AND THEY PUT THE FENCE UP 2 FEET OVER. WHEN THE NEW NEIGHBORS MOVED IN, IF YOU MOVED IN SOMEPLACE AND YOU FOUND THAT SOMEBODY FENCES ON YOUR GRASS AND THEY WANT TO CHANGE IT, WOULD THEY HAVE TO MOVE IT? MOVE IT THEN. THAT IS THE BOTTOM LINE. THIS IS MORE LIKE SMALL CLAIMS OR CIVIL BUT TO BRING IT UP HERE, THEY SPENT A LOT OF MONEY TO HAVE THAT AND YES, A PROPERTY LINE IS A PROPERTY LINE. I HAVE READ A LOT ABOUT THAT LITTLE COMMUNITY AND HOW LONG IT HAS BEEN SINCE IT WAS ESTABLISHED BUT, NOT LIKE THE PROPERTY LINES THAT WERE BROUGHT UP ABOUT THE ABC LIQUOR STORE. THAT WAS JUST INSTANTLY CHANGED. THIS ONE DOES NOT REALLY SHOW ANYTHING. IF THEY HAD TO PAY TO BRING A LAWYER AND DO ALL OF THIS OTHER [00:20:04] STUFF, SOMETHING HAD TO HAVE BEEN OVERLOOKED. THIS IS AN ABOUT PROPERTY LINES. THIS IS ABOUT THE OFFSETS OF THE PROPERTY LINES BECAUSE , THE NEIGHBOR TO THE SOUTH, THAT IS FINE AND GREAT LOVE THY NEIGHBOR TO THE SOUTH BUT, MAYBE TO THE NORTH YOU HAVE A DIFFERENT NEIGHBOR. THAT IS HOW IT IS. UNLESS WE MOVE OUT TO A BARREN DESERT PLACE, YOU WILL HAVE A NEIGHBOR TO HAVE ISSUES WITH. IT IS NOT THE FAULT OF THAT NEIGHBOR BECAUSE OF IT WAS DONE PRIOR TO THEM AND THEY WANTED TO GET IT CHANGED OR IT WAS BROUGHT UP ABOUT THE FENCE LINE, IT IS SIMPLE. IT IS. THEY HAVE TO COME HERE AND DEFEND THEIR PROPERTY IN A SENSE. IT COMES DOWN TO WHERE THE PROPERTY LINE IS SHOT OUT. WHO WAS ON THE RIGHT SIDE AND WHO IS ON THE LEFT. ALL OF THE NICE LITTLE PICTURES AND STUFF LIKE THAT, OKAY. COME ON. LOOK AT THE HARD FACTS. THE FACTS SHOULD BRING AN OPINIONATED VOTE. THAT IS HOW IT HAPPENS. THANK YOU. >> OKAY. CAN WE MOVE ON. IS THERE ANYBODY ELSE IN THE AUDIENCE THAT WISHES TO SPEAK? >> MY NAME IS SEAN MORRIS, 591 KING ROAD. I AM THE NEIGHBOR TO THE NORTH. THIS IS 100% A NEIGHBOR DISPUTE. WE ARE AGAINST THE VARIANCE BEING ISSUED AND THEY LET US KNOW THAT THEY WERE GOING TO HAVE A FENCE REPLACED IN NOVEMBER 2022 AND THEY HAD PERMISSION TO COME ON THE PROPERTY AND REMOVE THE OLD FENCE. SO THE FENCE PEOPLE HAD SPACE TO WORK. ME AND MY WIFE TALKED ABOUT IT AND OUR MAY CONCERN WAS WHAT WAS PUT UP ON THE PROPERTY AND THEN IT WAS STRADDLED ON OUR SIDE AND NOT ON THEIR SIDE. THEY ASSURED US THAT THEY WERE TAKING PAINS, AS ANY ADULT WOULD, TO HAVE THE FENCE ON THEIR PROPERTY. THEY HIRED A PROFESSIONAL COMPANY. AND, WE EXPLAINED TO THEM OUR CONCERNS BECAUSE WE HAVE A FEW OTHER INVESTMENT PROPERTIES IN THE FENCE LINE WHERE THE FENCE COMPANY PUT IN, IT IS INDISCERNABLE ] BUT THE PROBLEM HERE IS, IT WAS MISSING FROM WHEN THEY HAD THEIR DRIVEWAY DONE SO THEY WERE JUST GOING TO RUN OFF OF THE OLD FENCE THAT WAS THERE AND HOPE FOR THE BEST. FIVE MONTHS LATER, AFTER THE FENCE WAS INSTALLED THEY DECIDED TO GET A SURVEY. THE SURVEY IS AWFUL AND THE RESOLUTION IS TERRIBLE. I KNOW IF THEY CAN CONVINCE YOU GUYS THAT IT IS ACCURATE, THEN THE PACKET IS TRANSVERSE SO IT LOOKS LIKE THEIR DRIVEWAY IS ACTUALLY THE EXTERIOR TO THE NEIGHBORS TO THE SOUTH. AND I AM ASSUMING WHAT LOOKS LIKE FENCE LINE THEY HAD THE SURVEY DONE AND THIS IS WHAT THEY TOLD ME WHEN THEY CONTACTED ME. ABOUT THE SURVEY. >> LOOKING DOWN THE FENCE IT LOOKS PRETTY STRAIGHT SO I SHOT THE OTHER ENDS PASS THE TREE AND IT HAS A BOW IN IT. SO THE PROPERTY LINE IS 1/10 OVER HERE AND THEN IT SHOULD BE FOUR TIMES OVER HERE SO THAT WOULD MEAN THAT THE FENCE WOULD COME ONTO YOUR PROPERTY AFTER THIS POINT SOMEWHERE BETWEEN HERE AND THERE. >> SO THE FENCE COMES ONTO OUR PROPERTY AS WELL AS THE HEDGES THAT I HAVE PICTURES OF SHOWING THAT THERE ARE MORE THAN SIX INCHES OVER. >> SO YOU WERE SAYING THAT THE FENCES FOUR TIMES ONTO YOUR PROPERTY? >> YES. THE FENCES ON OUR PROPERTY. [00:25:01] >> THANK YOU. >> AND THAT MEANS THAT THE HEDGES ARE ALSO ON OUR PROPERTY. >> I AM A LITTLE CONFUSED AS TO HOW TO RESPOND TO THOSE COMMENTS BECAUSE THIS IS THE FIRST TIME THAT I HAVE EVER HEARD THAT THERE IS SOME CLAIM THAT THE BAR BACK FOUR INCHES OF THE PHONES ARE ON THEIR PROPERTY OR THAT THE HEDGES ARE ON THEIR PROPERTY AND THAT IS OF COURSE, A CIVIL MATTER. WE ARE HERE FOR A VARIANCE FOR THE HEIGHT OF THE FENCE AND THE HEDGE. WE HAVE A SURVEY FROM I DON'T KNOW IF THERE IS A -- THERE ARE NOT. I CAN ANSWER QUESTIONS AND I STILL ASK THAT IF THERE IS ANY OTHER KIND OF ISSUE, >> OKAY. MR. GREEN. >> IS THE OLD FENCE STILL THERE? BECAUSE IN A ONE OF THE PHOTOS I CAN SEE THE TIP OF THE OLD FUNDS. >> I DON'T KNOW WHERE THAT FENCE WAS. IT LOOKS LIKE ON THE SURVEY THAT IS ON HIS PROPERTY AND THEIR FENCES ON THEIR PROPERTIES SO I DON'T KNOW HOW TO RESPOND THAT BECAUSE I DIDN'T KNOW ABOUT THAT. I HAD NO IDEA WHAT THAT WAS ABOUT AND THEN I THOUGHT THAT WAS ABOUT, JUST BECAUSE IT WAS CONFUSING AS TO WHAT THE REQUEST WAS AND THEN I HEARD FROM THE NORTHERN NEIGHBOR. AGAIN, AS IT WAS STATED EARLIER, IF IT IS A NEIGHBOR DISPUTE, THAT IS A DIFFERENT STORY AND THAT NEEDS TO BE FIGURED OUT SOMEWHERE ELSE. THIS IS A REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE THAT WE APPLIED FOR AND YOURS STAFF EVALUATED AND AGREED WITH. >> SO IT MAY HAVE BEEN THERE WHEN THE PROPERTY WAS PURCHASED BUT DOES THAT MEET THE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS? >> I'M NOT SURE IF IT DOES OR DOES NOT. I THINK IT MIGHT HAVE BEEN CHECKED OUT WHEN THERE WAS SOME COMPLAINTS ABOUT STORAGE ON THE PROPERTY AND WHETHER IT WAS FOUND TO BE OR NOT. >> I DON'T KNOW THAT IS RELEVANT TO OUR DECISION. >> I THINK THIS QUALIFIES FOR VARIANCE AND THAT SOLVES THAT PROBLEM. >> YES. THANK YOU. >> DR. HILSENBECK. >> I AM ALSO A BIT MYSTIFIED ABOUT THE LOCATION OF THE FENCE. WHEN I SAW THIS ITEM I THOUGHT IT WAS ABOUT A VARIANCE FOR THE HEIGHT. AND NOTHING ABOUT THE PLACEMENT OF THE FENCE BEING ON THE PROPERTY LINE. THERE IS A 2 FEET TOPOGRAPHIC DISTANCE AND THAT IS JUSTIFIED AND THAT IS MAYBE WHERE THIS 2 FEET IS COMING INTO QUESTION. I DID NOT SEE ANYTHING ABOUT PROPERTY LINE. >> JUST FOR YOUR EDIFICATION ALL OF THE ORDERS SAY YOU HAVE TO MEET EVERY OTHER CODE REQUIREMENT OF THE STATE, THE COUNTY AND THE FEDERAL SO OBVIOUSLY, IF IT HAPPENS TO BE, THAT WOULD BE TOTALLY SEPARATE FROM THIS. YOU ARE NOT APPROVING ANY PARTICULAR LOCATION. YOU ARE JUST APPROVING THE HEIGHT OF THE FENCE. >> OKAY. THANK YOU. >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS. ? MR. MATOVINA. >> I AM USUALLY PRETTY DIFFICULT . BUT IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE, THE HARDSHIP IS DEFINED AS -- IT CAN BE BY REASON OR USE OF THE PROPERTY OR ADJOINING A PROPERTY IN QUESTION. I THINK HAVING A BOAT PARKED ON THE PROPERTY LINE IMPOSES A HARDSHIP. SO MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE ZVAR 2023-28 JENNINGS FENCE BASED UPON FIVE FINDINGS OF FACT AND SEVEN CONDITIONS AS PROVIDED IN THE STAFF REPORT. >> WE HAVE A MOTION. DO WE HAVE [2. ZVAR 2024-05 Hastings Community Center and Library] [00:30:03] A SECOND? >> I WOULD JUST LIKE TO SAY, FENCES MAKE GREAT NEIGHBORS. >> ALL RIGHT. PLEASE REGISTER THE VOTE. THAT MOTION CARRIES, 6-0. ON TO ITEM NUMBER TWO. MR. TARBOX. IS THERE ANYBODY THAT HAS EX PARTE. >> YES, MADAM CHAIR. >> GO AHEAD. >> I AM DOUGLAS TARBOX FROM PUBLIC WORKS AND WE ARE HERE TO TALK ABOUT THE COMMUNITY CENTER LIBRARY -- AND LIBRARY. I WANT TO TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE PROJECT. ARCHITECTURE FOR THIS BUILDING IS MODELED AFTER THE ORIGINAL HASTINGS. WE HAVE HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES . THERE WILL BE TELEHEALTH ROOMS AND A LIBRARY WITH THE CHILDREN'S AREA. THERE WILL BE COMPUTERS AND STUDY ROOMS. THREE ZONING VARIANCES TODAY INCLUDE THE FRONT YARD SETBACK. A BUFFER OF THREE FOOT INSTEAD OF 10 FOOT AND THE REMOVAL OF THE SOLID WASTE STORAGE REQUIREMENT. THE SITE CONSTRAINTS, IT IS A VERY TIGHT SITE TO GET ALL OF THE AMENITIES FOR THE LIBRARY A LOT OF EFFORT PUT INTO DESIGNING THIS FOR EFFICIENCY. -- SEPARATE TO ANY FUNCTIONS OF THE PROGRAMMING. THE FIRST ONE IS THE FRONT YARD SETBACK. YOU SEE HERE, THE MAJORITY OF IT IS WHERE THE AWNING WILL GO. THE AWNING WILL PROTRUDE INTO THE SETBACK JUST A LITTLE BIT. THE ENTRANCE OF THE BUILDING WILL INAUDIBLE ] AND THAT IS TO MATCH THE HISTORICAL INAUDIBLE ]. HERE IS SOME PICTURES OF THE EXISTING BUILDINGS AND ADJACENT BUILDINGS. ITEM NUMBER TWO FOR THE BUFFER , WE ARE REQUIRED TO HAVE A 10 FOOT BUFFER. ESPECIALLY ON THIS NORTH SIDE HERE. FOR AC EQUIPMENT AND UTILITY BOXES THAT ARE INTO OUR PROPERTY SO WE WILL NEED TO GROUND THAT. HERE IS A PICTURE OF THE IS THE AC UNIT AND OTHER EQUIPMENT THERE. THIS IS ON THE WEST SIDE OF THE PROJECT. THERE IS A SIX FOOT FENCE AND WE WILL HAVE LANDSCAPING ALONG THEIR. -- THERE . WE WILL MAINTAIN THE SIX FOOT BUFFER ON THIS SIDE. THIS IS THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE PROJECT. THIS PROVIDES A NATURAL BUFFER ALREADY THE THIRD ONE IS THE REQUEST FOR THE ALSO A POWER POLE BACK THERE. THE OTHER THREE SIDES WILL INCLUDE ACRYLIC STUCCO TO MATCH THE BUILDING. REQUEST TO LEAVE THE BACK WALL OFF. THIS IS NUMBER FOUR. WE WANTED TO REQUEST A VARIANCE FOR TREE ISLANDS. WE WANT TO PUT ONE IN NEXT TO THE DUMPSTER SITE AND WE INCLUDE SOME LARGE [00:35:02] CANOPY TREES ON THE POND SITE. THAT IS IT. DO YOU HAVE QUESTIONS? >> ANY QUESTIONS? SEEING NONE, IS THERE ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE HERE TO SPEAK ON ITEM NUMBER TWO. YES, MA'AM. >> GOOD AFTERNOON. I AM JOHN A DENNIS AND I AM HERE IS A PROPERTY OWNER OF THE PARCEL AT 415 AND I ALSO ON SIX OTHER BUILDINGS WITHIN THAT DISTRICT AND I WANT TO SAY WE ARE IN FULL SUPPORT OF THIS AND THE CHANGES AND I WANT TO TAKE A MOMENT TO SAY THANK YOU TO ALL OF YOU FOR ALL YOU ARE DOING FOR HASTINGS. THIS WILL MAKE SUCH A GREAT DIFFERENCE TO OUR COMMUNITY. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU. MR. HUNT. >> YOU KNOW, CHARLIE HUNT. MILL CREEK ESTATES. WOW, IT HAS TAKEN ALL OF THIS TIME AND FUNDING TO GET HASTINGS TO BE RECOGNIZED AGAIN. EVEN THOUGH THEY HAD TO GIVE UP THEIR TOWNSHIP, EVEN THOUGH THEY OVERALL, OVER THE DECADES OF FEEDING ST. AUGUSTINE AND HOW THEY ARE NOW. IT IS GREAT TO SEE ALL OF THE MONEY FINALLY GETTING IN THERE TO GET TOURISM THERE. AND ALL OF THE MONEY THAT IS NOT HELPING OUT THE FARMERS THAT CAN BE IN A DEBT. WE WANT TO HAVE SIX BUILDINGS PUT IN THEIR AND COMMERCIALIZED FOR TOURIST PROFIT AND THAT IS THE POINT. THE LIBRARY, I DON'T KNOW. I GO OUT TO HASTINGS AND I TALK WITH PEOPLE OUT THERE ALL THE TIME. I LIVE CLOSER TO HASTINGS THAN I DO TO THE TOURIST TRAP OF ST. AUGUSTINE. THEY WONDER, WHAT IS THIS GOING TO BE BROUGHT FORWARD FOR. IS IT FOR HASTINGS OR JUST COMMERCIALIZATION OF THE AREA? IS IT FOR THE HISTORY OF HASTINGS? AND THE HOUSES THAT ARE ON THE NATIONAL REGISTRY AROUND THAT? OR IS THAT FOR PROFIT FOR OWNING ALL OF THE PROPERTIES DOWN THERE AND HOW MANY DECADES HAS HASTINGS BEEN STRUGGLING WHEN IT WAS GETTING CHARGED FOR THE WATER AND THAT WAS ONE OF THE MAIN REASONS THEY HAD TO GIVE UP THEIR TOWNSHIP AND THEN ONCE THAT HAPPENED, NOW, ST. JOHN'S COUNTY IS GOING TO TRY TO MAKE IT BETTER DOWN THERE. IT IS DEVELOPMENT. THAT IS IT. THAT IS WHAT THIS IS ABOUT. WE HAVE THE HASTINGS HIGH SCHOOL AND THAT CAN BE REVAMPED INTO ANOTHER FACILITY AND BUILDING THIS ONE THE BUT, WHERE IS THE HISTORY OF HASTINGS? DO YOU MAKE HISTORY BY BUILDING NEW PLACES IN HASTINGS? DO YOU REPRESENT WHAT HASTINGS STOOD FOR FROM THE DEVELOPMENT OF ALL OF THE FARMING THAT THEY DID TO PROVIDE FOR THE FLAGLER HOTEL IN ST. AUGUSTINE? OR IS THIS GOING TO BE TO ENSURE THAT WE GET TORRES DOWN THERE AND WE GET PEOPLE AND WE WANT TO HAVE OUR COMMERCIALIZED INDUSTRY COME DOWN AND OPEN UP THESE BUILDINGS AND REVAMP THEM AND MAKE IT LOOK LIKE WE HAVE REALLY BEEN INVOLVED WITH HASTINGS BUT NOT UNTIL THE MONEY CAME AROUND. THANK YOU. >> IS THERE ANYONE ELSE HERE TO SPEAK ON ITEM NUMBER TWO? SEEING NONE, GO BACK TO THE AGENCY FOR A MOTION. MR. PETER. >> MOTION TO APPROVE REZ 2024-05 HASTINGS COMMUNITY CENTER AND LIBRARY BASED ON FOUR FINDINGS OF FACT, AS PROVIDED IN THE STAFF REPORT. IN THE STAFF REPORT. >> WE HAVE A MOTION FOR APPROVAL. DO WE HAVE A SECOND? >> I SECOND. >> ANY COMMENTS ? >> I THINK THIS IS A GREAT THING FOR HASTINGS. I AGREE IT [3. MINMOD 2024-07 Twin Creeks Parcel 6B (Oil Change Facility)] [00:40:03] IS ABOUT TIME THAT THE COUNTY INVESTED IN HASTINGS. IT IS LONG OVERDUE BUT I THINK THIS IS AN EXCELLENT MOVE ON THE PART OF THE COUNTY AND I HEARTILY ENDORSE THIS. >> ANY FURTHER COMMENT? SEEING NONE, PLEASE REGISTER THE VOTE. THE MOTION PASSES. 6-0 . ONTO ITEM NUMBER THREE. ANY EX PARTE ? >> YES, MADAM CHAIR, SITE VISIT. >> ANYONE ELSE? >> MR. ROBBINS. HOW ARE YOU? >> THANK YOU FOR YOUR RECOGNITION TODAY AND THE IMPORTANCE OF D-DAY BEFORE I GET STARTED. I THINK I HAVE A SLIDE DECK. HERE WITH MINOR MODIFICATION TO THE TWIN CREEKS PUD FOR A PARCEL INDICATED BY THE RED ARROW ON THE MAP. THIS IS OUR NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL PORTION ON THE SOUTH SIDE. YOU CAN SEE THE BIT CLOSER WITH THE AERIAL PHOTO. THE FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION IS RESIDENTIAL C IT RECENTLY WENT FROM A B UP TO A C. THE PROPOSED MINOR MODIFICATION TO THIS PARCEL IS SPECIFICALLY AN OIL CHANGE FACILITY AND IT IS INTERCONNECTED WITH THE FEED STORE. A SHORT OVERVIEW OF THE APPLICATION FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION IS IT JUST TO ADD THE OIL CHANGE FACILITY AS A PERMISSIBLE USE AND IT RESTRICTS THAT TO JUST PARCEL 6 B AND IT IS AMENDED NOT JUST AS A PERMISSIBLE USE BUT WE HAVE ALSO INCLUDED A SPECIAL USE FOR OIL CHANGE FACILITIES. I HAVE BEEN BEFORE YOU TWICE BEFORE ON SIMILAR MODIFICATIONS AS DEVELOPMENT HAS GONE ON IN THIS AREA. AS THINGS HAVE BECOME SLIGHTLY MORE COMMERCIAL IN THIS AREA. FOR THE RECORD AND THE AUDIENCE THE CHANGE WOULD BE TO GO TO THE PRINCIPAL USE TABLE AND ADD THE OIL CHANGE FACILITY. THERE IS A PROVISION THAT IS RESTRICTED TO 6B. THIS MIRRORS WHAT IS IN THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE. THE SUPPLEMENTAL CRITERIA, MADAM CHAIR, LIMITS THIS TYPE OF FACILITY WITHIN 100 FEET OF RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY. BUT BECAUSE OF THE LOCATION, WE HAVE REQUESTED A WAIVER. WE REQUEST THE WAIVER TO THE SECTION OF THE CODE TO HAVE OIL CHANGES LIMITED TO WITHIN 100 FEET OF RESIDENTIAL. 6B IS SEVERAL HUNDRED FEET AWAY FROM THE NEREUS THOME -- NEAREST HOME . IT IS NOT THAT WE DISAGREE WITH THE 100 FEET BUT IT IS THE RESIDENTIAL LINE . THERE IS A RETENTION POND ON THE LEFT SIDE AND YOU CAN SEE PARCEL B AT THE CLOSEST EXISTING TOWNHOME IS ALMOST 300 FEET AWAY AND TO THE SOUTH WE ARE 300 FEET AWAY. THIS IT IS THE LINE NEXT TO THE LEFT SIDE OF PARCEL 6B THAT IS PART OF THE MASTER DEVELOPMENT TOWN -- TOWNHOUSE PLAN. GOING BACK TO THE OPPOSED WAIVER THIS WILL NOT INCREASE TRAFFIC CONGESTION OR CREATE HAZARDS TO THE PUBLIC. IT MEETS THE REQUIREMENTS BY NOT DIMINISHING PROPERTY VALUES. THERE IS VERY GOOD SCREENING AROUND IT . IT IS IN HARMONY WITH THE GENERAL INTENT OF THE CODE. A PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY FROM THAT ONE LINE NEXT TO US [00:45:06] TO THE OIL CHANGE FACILITY. I HAVE LISTED THERE AGAIN THE FINDINGS THAT YOUR STAFF HAVE SHARED AND I WON'T TAKE UP YOUR TIME BY READING THEM TO YOU. WE HAVE SIX FINDINGS OF FACT IN THE STAFF REPORT. TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE WE HAVE RECEIVED NO COMMENT FROM THE PUBLIC. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND I AM AVAILABLE TO ANSWER QUESTIONS. >> ANY QUESTIONS FROM AGENCY MEMBERS? SEEING NONE, WE WILL MOVE ON TO PUBLIC COMMENT ON ITEM NUMBER THREE. WE GO BACK TO THE AGENCY FOR A MOTION. MR. MATOVINA. [4. PUD 2023-23 Village Commons PUD] >> MOTION TO APPROVE MINMOD 2024-07 TWIN CREEKS PARCEL 6B, OIL CHANGE FACILITY BASED UPON SIX FINDINGS OF FACT AND SUBJECT TO EIGHT CONDITIONS, AS PROVIDED WITHIN THE STAFF REPORT. >> WE HAVE A MOTION FOR APPROVAL. DO WE HAVE A SECOND? >> SECOND. >> ANY DISCUSSION? SEEING NONE, PLEASE REGISTER THE VOTE. THE MOTION PASSES. MOVING ONTO ITEM NUMBER FOUR. ANY EX PARTE ? >> YES. I DID A SITE VISIT. >> ON ITEM NUMBER TWO THERE WAS A TYPO IN THE PROPOSED MOTION AND IT SHOULD OF HAD FOUR FINDINGS OF FACT AS IN THE STAFF REPORT . I JUST WANTED TO CORRECT THAT FOR THE RECORD. IF THERE IS ANY QUESTION OR NOT WHAT THE BOARD WANTED TO DO, PLEASE LET ME KNOW. >> IS ANYBODY HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THAT? SHOULD WE TAKE A REVEALED? >> I THINK IT WAS SUPPOSED TO BE FIVE. >> LET ME MAKE SURE WE HAVE IT RIGHT. >> FOUR IS WRITTEN IN A DIFFERENT PART OF THE STAFF REPORT. FIVE IS CORRECT. >> THANK YOU JACOB. >> EVERYBODY IS OKAY WITH FIVE FINDINGS OF FACT? OKAY. >> THANK YOU. I AM MARK SHELTON. GOOD AFTERNOON AND I AM HERE TODAY TO PRESENT A PROJECT KNOWN AS VILLAGE COMMONS PUD. IT IS ACTUALLY AN EXPANSION OF AN EXISTING PUD APPROVED IN 2008. I AM HERE WITH KAREN TAYLOR REPRESENTING ONE OF THE OWNERS. A QUICK OVERVIEW. THE LOCATION IS THE 5800 BLOCK OF --. THE REQUEST IS TO ALLOW UP TO 55,000 SQUARE FEET OF NEIGHBORHOOD LEVEL COMMERCIAL AND OFFICE RETAIL USE AS WELL AS A 7000 SQUARE FOOT EXPANSION OF THE CHURCH WHICH IS ALSO PART OF THIS PUD. YOU WILL SEE THE LOCATION IS ON STATE ROAD 16 BETWEEN THE ENTRANCE TO SILVERLEAF AND THE TURNER HOME FURNISHINGS AND ACE HARDWARE. TO THE SOUTH IS THE VILLAGE SHOPPING CENTER. ZOOMING IN YOU CAN SEE THAT THIS AREA INCLUDES SEVERAL COMPATIBLE USES LIKE THE MILL CREEK BAPTISTS CHURCH GOING DOWN TO THE ASSISTED LIVING FACILITY. A FEW MOBILE HOMES AND SOME ARE RENTALS. THEY ARE APPRAISED AND TAXED AS MULTI FAMILY. THEN WE HAVE THE THE LANDSCAPE NURSERY. AS MENTIONED BEFORE THE EXISTING ZONING IS PUD AND THE PROPOSED ZONING IS GOING TO BE PUD BECAUSE THAT IS THE REQUIREMENT. THE FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION, RESIDENTIAL A. NO REQUESTED CHANGES. ON THIS PAGE YOU WILL SEE THE MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN. THE PROPOSED ENTRANCE AND BUILDING LOCATIONS ARE SHOWN ON THIS PLAN AND WE ARE MAINTAINING THE 35 FOOT HEIGHT MAXIMUM. AND WE ARE KEEPING A [00:50:07] SIGNIFICANT BUFFER TO THE SOUTHWEST AND WE ARE ASKING FOR NO WAIVERS. HERE IS THE BUFFER EXHIBIT TO OUR NEIGHBORS BEHIND US. YOU CAN SEE THE EXTENSIVE BUFFERS. THIS IS A SMALL SCALE NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL TYPE USE. SOME OF THE USES ARE RETAIL GOODS STORES, PROFESSIONAL OFFICES, GENERAL OFFICES AND THIS IS NOT A LOCATION FOR MAJOR COMMERCIAL. SOME OF THIS BENEFITS IS THIS IS ALONG A FOUR-LANE DIVIDED -- FOUR-LANE DIVIDED ROW. THIS IS COMPATIBLE TO THE AREA. IT IS AN EXPANSION OF A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED PUD THAT ALLOWS FOR 18,000 SQUARE FEET. IT PROVIDES APPROPRIATE SMALL-SCALE PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT TO COMPLEMENT THE RESIDENTIAL LOCATIONS. IT IS PRESERVING 90% OF THE WETLANDS. ONLY ELIMINATING A SMALL ISOLATED PATCH. STORM WATER WILL BE SHARED. IT WILL REDUCE THE EXISTING DRY WAVES FROM THREE DOWN TO TWO. IT IS SHARED PARKING AND IT WILL HAVE THE REQUIRED DEVELOPMENT EDGE . SPEAKING OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLANNED WE BELIEVE THIS MEETS THE INTENT AS AN INFILL DEVELOPMENT AND IT ADDS TO THE MIX OF USES IN THE AREA AND IT COMBINES THREE PARCELS INTO ONE DEVELOPMENT THAT IT SHARES WITH STRUCTURES. THE STAFF POINTED OUT THERE IS A SIGNIFICANT BUFFER FROM THE RESIDENTIAL USES ADJACENT TO US. THIS AREA IS TRANSITIONING TO A SUBURBAN AREA. IT COULD BE CONSIDERED INFILL IN AN EXISTING DEVELOPMENT AREA. THE LAST THING IS, IT IS RIGHT IN AND WRITE OUT. NO LEFT OUT. MY TEAM AND I ARE HERE IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS. THANK YOU. >> DR. HILSENBECK. >> I AM CURIOUS AS TO WHY THESE THREE PARCELS ARE BEING COMBINED INTO ONE WITH THIS PROPOSAL SINCE THE PROPERTY THAT THE CHURCH IS ON SEEMS TO BEAR NO RELATION TO THE REST OF WHAT YOU ARE PROPOSING HERE. I JUST WONDERED WHAT THAT WAS. AND ARE ALL THREE PARCELS OWNED BY THE SAME ENTITY? >> THE PARCEL IS OWNED BY THREE ENTITIES BUT THEY JOIN TOGETHER TO CREATE COHESIVE INFRASTRUCTURE. THAT COMBINES SO THE STORM WATER COULD BE OFF-SITE. THE PARCEL RIGHT NEXT TO IT, TO THE NORTH, WAS THINKING ABOUT THE SAME KIND OF PLAN AND THEY JOINED TOGETHER AND DECIDED TO START SHARING INFRASTRUCTURE SO THEY CAN GET RID OF THE MULTIPLE DRIVEWAYS. THEY CAN HAVE SHARED PARKING AND HAVE A COHESIVE DESIGN. >> THE BUSINESS PART OF THE PROPOSAL IS NOT GOING TO SURE PARKING WITH THE CHURCH -- IS THAT CORRECT? >> IT WILL BE AVAILABLE TO THE CHURCH BECAUSE IT IS WITHIN THE SAME PUD BUT IT IS A BIT MORE WALKING DISTANCE. >> IS THE CHURCH EXPANSION -- WAS THIS REQUESTED A FEW MONTHS BACK AND THEN POSTPONED? WAS IT DEFERRED? OR CONTINUED? >> CHURCH EXPANDING AND I GO TO CHURCH REGULARLY. I AM PRO-CHURCH AND I LIKE THAT THE CHURCH IS EXPANDING. SO, THEY CANNOT EXPAND WITHOUT THIS HAPPENING THIS WAY? >> THEY CANNOT EXPAND AS MUCH AS THEY WOULD LIKE TO AND THEY WOULD STILL HAVE TO ELIMINATE SOME OF THE WETLANDS TO ACCOMMODATE THE PARKING. >> SO THE CHURCH HAS BEEN TOLD BY THE COUNTY THAT THEY CANNOT EXPAND BY 7000 SQUARE FEET OF TWO 12,000 SQUARE FEET WITHOUT HAVING A STORM WATER POND? >> MY OFFICE TALKED TO THEM ABOUT THE POTENTIAL TO EXPAND AND SHOWED THEM -- AND THAT IS WHEN PASTOR TED ASKED IF WE COULD SHARE A POND AND SOME PARKING TO ACCOMMODATE MORE [00:55:09] PARKING. THE COUNTY DID NOT TOLD THEM. WE DID. >> SO THE COUNTY HAS NOT MANDATED THAT. I UNDERSTAND SHARING FACILITIES AND ALL OF THAT. THESE ITEMS JUST SEEMS SO DISJOINTED TO ME THAT WHEN I FIRST READ THIS I THOUGHT, I DON'T UNDERSTAND THE RELATIONSHIP.. DO YOU LIVE IN THIS COUNTY? >> YES, SIR. >> SEE YOU KNOW THERE IS A TRAFFIC ISSUE ON STATE ROAD 16? >> YES. >> THAT IS A REAL CONCERN FOR ME. THE BUSINESS PART OF THIS IS GOING TO GENERATE, ACCORDING TO THE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION FOLKS, 3714 AVERAGE WEEKDAY TRIPS TO AN ALREADY OVER CAPACITY , AT LEAST AS FAR AS PEAK HOUR TRIPS. THAT PORTION OF 16 IS UNDER 28.1% OF TOTAL CAPACITY. THAT IS A CONCERN. THE CHURCH TRAFFIC, I THINK IT WAS 169 TOTAL. WITH 20 P.M. PEAK TRIPS. I LIKE THAT CHURCH AND I AM ALL FOR THAT. NOT FOR THE TRAFFIC THAT WILL BE THE CREATED BY THE DEVELOPMENT OF THIS. I CAN'T SAY THIS IS INCOMPATIBLE A ON THE CHART. SOMEBODY COULD MAKE THAT ARGUMENT BUT I AM NOT GOING TO TRY TO MAKE THAT PARTICULAR ARGUMENT. THE REASON I TYPICALLY VOTE NO ON ANY ITEM OVER THE TIME I HAVE BEEN UP HERE IS THREE REASONS. NUMBER ONE, TRYING TO PROTECT THE NEIGHBORHOOD OR A NEIGHBOR FROM INCOMPATIBILITY USE. ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN . THAT IS THE SECOND REASONING. THAT I MIGHT VOTE AGAINST SOMETHING AND THREE IS TRAFFIC AND INFRASTRUCTURE. FOR THIS ONE, TRAFFIC IS AN OVERWHELMING ISSUE BEYOND STATE ROUTE 16. ANOTHER 3700 PLUS CARS , TO ME, THAT IS DIFFICULT. ANOTHER THING, I HAVE ALWAYS STATED MY REASONS FOR VOTING AGAINST SOMETHING. I DON'T WANT TO VOTE AGAINST THE CHURCH AND I DON'T WANT TO BE ACCUSED OF BEING ANTI-RELIGIOUS. I COULD HEAR SOMEBODY SAYING THAT. I WOULD LIKE TO PROPOSE THAT WE SEPARATE THESE ITEMS. WE HAVE THE CHURCH ITEMS SEPARATE AND WE HAVE THE OTHER TWO PARCELS TO THE WEST AS A SEPARATE ITEM. SO, I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THAT BECAUSE I DON'T WANT TO BE SEEN AS VOTING AGAINST A CHURCH. I AM RELIGIOUS AND I GO TO CHURCH AND I JUST, THE DEVELOPMENT PART OF THIS, WITH THE TRAFFIC, THAT IS MY MAJOR ISSUE. >> I APPRECIATE YOUR CONCERNS. IF I MAY ADDRESS THIS. THE STAFF DOES SAY IN THE SAME REPORT, IS A WORST-CASE SCENARIO, THEY CALCULATED THIS IS A SHOPPING CENTER THAT WOULD BE THE SAME AS A PUBLIC SHOPPING CENTER. THEY HAD TO TAKE THAT MEASUREMENT BECAUSE IT IS THE CLOSEST TO CODE. THOSE THAT HAVE SHOWN INTEREST IN COMING HERE RIGHT NOW ARE OFFICE. SO THERE WOULD BE A MIX OF OFFICE AND RETAIL. THANK YOU. I'M NOT SURE IF YOU CAN SEE THAT. >> WILL YOU TURN THAT SIDEWAYS 90 DEGREES, PLEASE? THANK YOU. >> WE HAD OUR TRAFFIC ENGINEER LOOK AT WHAT WE THINK A REASONABLE BREAKDOWN WILL BE AND WE FOUND MUCH FEWER TRIPS AND WITH A 40% PASS BY RATE, I THINK 40% OF THE TRIPS THAT COME INTO THIS DEVELOPMENT ARE PASS BY OR MEANING THEY ARE ON THE ROAD ANYWAY. THEY ARE NOT DESTINATIONS SO THAT BREAKS IT DOWN. KAREN, WILL YOU EXISTING IS IN THE BLUE UP AT THE TOP. THAT IS THE EXISTING APPROVED THROUGH THE PUD AND THE CHURCH AND IN THE PINK IS WHAT IS PROPOSED. YOU CAN SEE THE BREAKDOWN BETWEEN THE [01:00:01] CHURCH, THE OFFICE, AND THE RETAIL. THAT TAKES IT DOWN TO 2143 TRIPS AND AS YOU SUBTRACT OUT THE 40% PASS BY RATE FOR ITE CODE THINK TRIPS COME OUT TO 790 TRIPS. >> OKAY. INTERESTING. THANK YOU. >> THE IN DEPTH IS 1427. YOU GO FROM 37 IN THE REPORT DOWN TO 14. >> I APPRECIATE THAT. THANK YOU. >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? >> I DO NOT HAVE ANY AT THE MOMENT. >> THERE ARE A NUMBER OF PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS THAT ARE PLANNED OR UNDER CONSTRUCTION. YOU KNOW WHERE IT IS SO YOU KNOW THAT THE 2209 GOING IN RIGHT NOW, THAT IS GOING TO KIND OF CHANGE THAT PARTICULAR SEGMENT . WHEN THE COUNTY DOES THEIR REVIEWS, THEY USE THE MAXIMUM. AND WE HAVE TALKED ABOUT THIS BEFORE AND THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. THAT WILL CHANGE DEFINITELY AND IT IS MORE OF A NEIGHBORHOOD TYPE THING. IT IS RIGHT IN AND WRITE OUT . IT IS NOT LIKE A BIG MAJOR SHOPPING CENTERS SO THE NUMBERS THAT THE COUNTY USED ARE A BIT SKEWED. SOME OF THOSE NUMBERS THAT YOU ARE LOOKING AT , THAT YOU WOULD LOOK AT ON THE ADJACENT SEGMENTS THAT THEY HAVE TO GO TO, ACTUALLY SOME OF THE THAT SHOULD BE PRETTY SOON. YOU SEE 2209 PUSHING THROUGH. >> 2209 IS COMING IN ON THE EAST SIDE. THE LENGTH IS AT 128% OF TOTAL COMMITTED TRAFFIC. IS THAT LINK BETWEEN 16 A AND >> SOME OF THAT IS ALREADY INCORPORATED IN THIS BUT THE CHURCH IS IN THE EXISTING COMMUNITY. THERE IS ACTUAL TRAFFIC. I AM NOT THE TRAFFIC ENGINEER. >> I AM NOT CONCERNED ABOUT THE CHURCH TRAFFIC AND ACTUALLY I WISH IT WERE MORE. BUT THAT IS NOT WHAT BOTHERS ME. IT IS WHAT THE COUNTY SHOWED AND I DO SEE YOUR FIGURES HERE. I AM CONCERNED ABOUT THAT BEING OVER CAPACITY. THAT BEING A OF HERE AND NOT PART OF THIS IMPACTED SEGMENT LINK I DON'T THINK THAT WILL DO MUCH TO ALLEVIATE TRAFFIC. >> A LOT OF THE TRAFFIC THAT GOES AND IT TURNS , YOU KNOW WHERE THE ACE HARDWARE IS? THAT CAN GO STRAIGHT THROUGH ON ABOARD LANE BOULEVARD AND TO ON A FOUR-LANE TO GET DOWN TO THE OTHER AREA. RIGHT NOW THIS IS THE ONLY OPTION. >> THANK YOU. I APPRECIATE THAT. >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? SEEING NONE, IS THERE ANYONE ELSE HERE TO SPEAK ON ITEM NUMBER FOUR. >> GOOD AFTERNOON. CHARLIE, MILL CREEK ESTATE. THIS DOES NOT SHOW THE DISPLAY MAPS FOR THE TRAFFIC AND IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALL BLACKED OUT BECAUSE THAT IS HOW BAD IT IS RIGHT NOW. WITH THE ASSUMPTIONS OF THIS WILL HAPPEN AND THAT WILL HAPPEN, THIS IS BEEN BROUGHT DOWN BY THE HUDSON MAFIAS SO THEY CAN PUT MORE HOUSES OUT THERE AND AROUND THAT AREA. BOTTOM LINE, IT GOES OVER TO 16 BECAUSE OF THE 500,000 PLUS SQUARE FOOT FACILITY THAT IS PUT THEIR. THAT FACILITY I LIVE THERE AND I SEE IT ALL. THERE NEEDS TO BE AN OVERPASS BILL SO THAT PARENTS CAN GET INTO THE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL. YOU HAVE ALL OF THE HIGH SCHOOLERS DRIVING THROUGH THAT AREA. THIS IS ON 16 AND ALL OF THE CONCERN ABOUT THIS WILL HELP GET IT [01:05:01] AWAY AND THIS WILL HELP CHANGE TRAFFIC. I HEAR A LOT OF PEOPLE TALKING ABOUT THE MELLOW MUSHROOM PLACE AND THEY SAY WOULD BE GREAT TO GET TO IT. YOU HAVE TO COME IN THERE AND TAKE A HARD LEFT. IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO GET TO IT. THEY ARE STRUGGLING. GRANTED, IT IS GOING ON THEIR BUT, I DO LIVE IN THAT AREA AND IF YOU KNOW WHAT IS GOING ON WITH ALL OF THE SUPPOSED IMPROVEMENTS, EVEN WHEN THE FDOT IS SUPPOSED TO IMPROVE 16 A. IT WON'T GET LIKE IT IS. ANOTHER THING I AM CONCERNED ABOUT IS THESE ARE THREE SEPARATE PROPERTIES SO WHY IS IT SHOWN AS ONE. WILL IT BE THAT IF THE CHURCH IS INVOLVED OR ORGANIZED INTO THAT PROPERTY, IT DOES NOT MATTER IF THE CHURCH ODDS-ON. WILL THE PROPERTY FALL UNDER THE CHURCH TAX FILINGS. THAT IS WHAT I AM TRYING TO FIND OUT. I UNDERSTAND SEPARATE CHURCH AND STATE BUT, IF THE CHURCH IS ZONED INTO THAT, WILL THAT HELP TO ALLEVIATE TAXES ON THAT PROPERTY BECAUSE, THAT SEEMS VERY SKEPTICAL. THEY JUST WANT TO GO IN AND FACILITATE A CHURCH ONTO THE PROPERTY. THAT IS MY CONCERN. WILL THE CHURCH HAVE TO PAY TAXS WHEN THAT PROPERTY IS CLEARED. >> THANK YOU MR. HUNT. >> THANK YOU. >> I AM CHUCK LEVANDOWSKI. THE KEEPER OF STATE ROAD 16. UPFRONT THEY WAVED THE LIVE LOCAL. I AM GLAD TO SEE THAT. WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO SEE, IF POSSIBLE, INSTEAD OF HAVING DOUBLE MONUMENTS OUT THERE, CAN THEY GO WITH A SINGLE MONUMENT SIGN INSTEAD OF TWO SINCE THIS IS ONLY A FIVE ACRE LOT? YOU HAVE ONE FOR THE CHURCH AND THE LANDSCAPING SO, IF WE CAN REDUCE THAT SIGN CLUTTER, WHAT IS GOING TO HAPPEN WITH A SINGLE-FAMILY HOME IN THE BACK OF THAT LOT. THERE IS NO MENTION OF THAT. THE CHURCH PARKING LOT , THEY ARE MORE THAN DOUBLING THE SIZE OF THE CHURCH BUT THEY ARE ONLY DOUBLING THE SIZE OF THE PARKING. IS THERE GOING TO BE ENOUGH PARKING FOR THE CHURCH? THAT IS A CONCERN. THE EXTRA POND THAT THEY ARE PUTTING IN THE BACK OF THE PROPERTY, IS IT REALLY NEEDED ? THERE IS NOT ENOUGH CAPACITY THERE ARE NOW BUT WHEN YOU PUT A POND IN A WETLAND AREA, IT WILL DRAIN DOWN. THERE IS A DITCH BETWEEN THOSE PONDS AND IT WILL DRAIN INTO IT. SO THE WETLANDS WILL BE DRAINED DOWN SOME. LAST, 16 CANNOT HANDLE THE TRAFFIC. THE AREA WHERE THEY WANT TO PUT THIS, IT BACKS UP FROM PACETTI EIJI P PAST THE CHURCH ALONGSIDE THE PROJECT. LET'S POSTPONE THIS. THE EXPRESSWAY IS COMING THROUGH AND THEY WILL BE DUMPING THE TRAFFIC OFF ONTO 16 A. TRAFFIC IS GOING TO GET DUMPED BECAUSE IT WILL NOT BE COMPLETED AT 95 UNTIL 2030 SO, LET'S TRY TO POSTPONE THIS IF AT ALL POSSIBLE AND RELIEVE THE TRAFFIC ON 16. THANK YOU. >> IS THERE ANYONE ELSE IN THE AUDIENCE TO SPEAK ON ITEM NUMBER FOUR? MISS SPIEGEL, DO YOU HAVE A QUESTION? OF THE APPLICANT ? >> KNOW BUT I WAS JUST WONDERING IF I COULD ASK ABOUT THE SEGMENT OF 16. >> GOOD AFTERNOON. I APOLOGIZE FOR NOT ASKING THIS QUESTION [01:10:05] EARLIER. WE HAVE HEARD A LOT OF TALK ABOUT THE IMPROVEMENT OF 16 IN DIFFERENT SEGMENTS AND I APOLOGIZE FOR NOT REMEMBERING EXACTLY WHICH SEGMENTS ARE BEING IMPROVED BUT WHERE DOES THIS FALL IN THAT PICTURE? >> THIS SEGMENT IS ALREADY FOUR LANED. THIS WILL CROSS EIJI P AND THAT IS UNDER CONSTRUCTION. THE RELIEF THAT WILL PROVIDE AS IT PROVIDES ANOTHER OPTION FOR TRAFFIC THAT COULD SAY, IN THE PNP, BECOMING HOME ON SILVERLEAF PARKWAY DOWN TO 16 A AND THEN TURNING ON THIS SEGMENT AND IT WOULD JUST CONTINUE STRAIGHT TOTALLY BYPASSING THIS AREA IN THE MORNING. THIS IS A SMALL COMMERCIAL AND THE APPLICANT IS CORRECT, IT IS NOT BIG ENOUGH TO BE A DESTINATION THAT PEOPLE WANT TO COME TO. IT IS MORE SERVING THE AREA AND THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND THEY WOULD STOP BY ON THEIR WAY HOME. THAT IS HOW WE LOOK AT IT. OUR ANALYSIS WAS LOOKED AT BASED ON THE MAXIMUM BECAUSE WE DON'T WAIT BECAUSE THEN WE KNOW WHAT THEY WILL ACTUALLY BUILD IN THE PUD'S THEY JUST SAY SQUARE FOOTAGE OF COMMERCIAL AND IT COULD BE SOMETHING SMALL OR BIGGER. THE LIMIT IS SQUARE FOOTAGE, NOT THE USE. >> AND THEY ALREADY HAVE INDISCERNABLE ] THAT ARE CLEARED FOR USE? >> I DID NOT CHECK THAT. >> I THOUGHT I HEARD THE APPLICANT SAY THAT. >> THE CHURCH IS OBVIOUSLY THERE AND MOST OF THE CHURCH TRAFFIC IS ON THE WEEKEND. >> SO THERE ARE NEW REPAIRS BEING MADE AND THEN THE CHANGES ARE OCCURRING ON THE OTHER SIDE, IS WHAT YOU ARE SAYING? >> RIGHT. WE ARE WORKING ON, SIX YEARS IN THE FUTURE IS THE FIRST COAST EXPRESSWAY. >> I WAS JUST WONDERING, CAN I TALK TO YOU NOW OR DO WE WAIT UNTIL AFTER? >> THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR. I JUST WANT TO ADDRESS COMMENTS. WE WOULD BE HAPPY TO SHARE THIS -- AND WE DID WAIVE THE LIVE LOCAL ACT. THIS IS AN INCREASE OF 37,000 SQUARE FEET. PARKING WILL MEET CODE WITH THE CHURCH AND TO ALL OF THE USES ON THIS PROPERTY. THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED UPLAND AND NOT IN THE WETLANDS. 16 IS OPERATING AT A 76% STANDARD SO THIS COULD BE OVERBURDENED. LIKE JAN SAID, THIS OPERATES AT THIS SECTION. WITH THAT I WILL HAND IT OVER TO KAREN. >> I DON'T KNOW IF I CAN ADD MUCH MORE BUT JUST TO GIVE YOU AN IDEA, AS DAN WAS DESCRIBING. YOU CAN SEE ST. JOHN'S PARKWAY IS UNDER CONSTRUCTION VERSUS THIS PARTICULAR SECTION. THIS GOES, AND YOU CAN GET OVER TO IT OR WHATEVER AND YOU CAN AVOID IT WHEN YOU ARE GOING UP TO THE NORTHERN PART OF THE COUNTY. EVEN THOUGH IT IS NOT BUILT YET, ONE OF THE THINGS ABOUT WHEN YOU APPROVE A PUD YOU MIGHT NOTICE IT USUALLY TAKES A COUPLE OF YEARS UNTIL YOU GET EVERYTHING THROUGH ALL OF THE PERMITTING AND THE CONSTRUCTION PLANS AND THOSE TYPES OF THINGS. IT IS NOT LIKE IT WILL BE THERE RIGHT NOW. THEY GO OVER TIME AND THE BUSINESSES GO OVER TIME. THE APPLICANTS MAY DECIDE TO BUILD, PARTICULARLY, THE ONE THAT I AM REPRESENTING, IT HAS THE NEW SQUARE FOOTAGE. BASICALLY, WE WANTED TO SEE HOW THE MARKET GOES. IT IS NOT IMMEDIATE AND [01:15:03] IT IS STILL GOING TO BE HERE . THERE ARE CERTAIN TIMES OF THE DAY BUT THE ONE THING ABOUT COMMERCIAL IS THEY DO HAVE THE P.M. PEAK HOURS AND THEY PICK UP TRAFFIC FROM PEOPLE GOING HOME OR WHATEVER. WE DON'T HAVE AS MUCH A.M. TRAFFIC BECAUSE IT IS THE RESIDENTIAL AND PEOPLE RUNNING KIDS TO SCHOOL AND SO ONE. I'M JUST HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? THE SIGNAGE, THAT IS A MAJOR IDEA AND I THINK THAT IS GREAT. IF YOU HAVE CONCERNS ABOUT THE AMOUNT OF SQUARE FEET, WE CAN DISCUSS THAT. >> DR. HILSENBECK. >> I'M STILL NOT CLEAR ON IF THE HOLDING POND IS BEING REQUIRED BY THE COUNTY OR FDOT. >> YES. WHEN THEY COVER THE PROPERTY THEY HAVE TO ADD IT . >> BUT IS IT BEING REQUIRED? I UNDERSTAND THE CHURCH IS GOING TO EXPAND BUT WHO IS REQUIRING THE HOLDING POND? >> COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE REQUIRES THEM TO TAKE CARE OF STORMWATER ON-SITE. >> BUT THERE IS A LARGE WETLAND IN THE BACK . I HAVE STATED MANY TIMES PUBLICLY, MY PERSONAL OPPOSITION TO OVERBUILD END OVER ENGINEER HOLDING PONDS THAT I DON'T THINK ARE NECESSARY FROM AN ECOLOGICAL OR ENVIRONMENTAL STANDPOINT. THE WETLANDS SOUTH OF THERE, IT IS A LARGE WETLAND AREA AND IT COULD LIKELY HANDLE ANY POTENTIAL RUNOFF. YOU ARE NOT EVEN EXPANDING THE PARKING LOT. >> JUST LIKE ALL OF THE RETENTION PONDS, YOU CANNOT DRAIN DIRECTLY INTO THE WETLANDS. YOU HAVE TO HOLD IT AND CLEAR IT AND HAVE THE THINGS SETTLE OUT OF IT BEFORE IT GETS RELEASED. >> SO PUTTING A FOOTPRINT OF 7000 MORE SQUARE FEET REQUIRES THE POND? >> YES. IN THE WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT AND NOT JUST THE COUNTY. >> ST. JOHN'S HAS WEIGHED IN ON THIS? >> IT IS A REQUIREMENT. IT IS IN THE CODE. THERE ARE SOME OLDER SIDES THAT YOU MIGHT SEE SOMETHING BUILT A LONG TIME AGO THAT DID NOT DEAL WITH THOSE COMMENTS OF -- KINDS OF REQUIREMENTS BUT WHEN THEY UPGRADE OR IMPROVE THEY HAVE TO MEET THOSE REQUIREMENTS. >> SEWER RESIDENTIAL AREA BUILDING THREE NEW HOUSES AT 7000 SQUARE FEET, THEY HAVE TO PUT IN A HOLDING POND? >> YES. THEY PROBABLY WOULD. DEPENDING ON HOW SMALL THE LOTS ARE OR HOW BIG THEY ARE. SOMETIMES WITH O.R. YOU CAN COME UP WITH A SWALE THAT NATURALLY DRAINS OUT AND IT DRIES UP AS IT DRAINS OUT. >> WILL THERE BE A CONSERVATION EASEMENT PLACED IN THE BACK? >> THAT IS PRETTY STANDARD. WE DO HAVE OUR CIVIL ENGINEER AND HE CAN TALK ABOUT THAT. IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO ASK HER. >> GREAT. THANK YOU. >> I AM ENGINEER. WE HAVE TO BASICALLY INCREASE THE SQUARE FOOTAGE FOR THE STORM WATER. TYPICALLY WE WILL DO 18-20% OF THE SITE. USUALLY WE TRY TO AVOID DOING UNDERGROUND STORAGE. WHERE WE ARE PUTTING THE POND IS UPLAND. WE DO NOT WANT TO AFFECT THE WETLAND AT ALL. WE ARE GOING TO KEEP THE PLOT POND COMPLETE WE SEPARATE OF THAT AND THAT WILL DRAIN INTO THE DEBT . THERE SHOULD NOT BE ANY ADVERSE EFFECTS. >> OKAY. AND THE CONSERVATION EASEMENT WOULD BE PLACED ? [01:20:05] >> YES. >> I DON'T THINK THAT IS NECESSARILY STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE. >> IT IS REQUIRED. THE WETLANDS, IF WE WERE TOUCHING WETLAND ITSELF, WE WOULD ADD THE CONSERVATION AND THERE IS ALREADY EVERYTHING OVER THE WETLANDS SO, WE ARE NOT TOUCHING IT AT ALL. WE HAVE HAD CONVERSATIONS WITH THE WATER DISTRICT AND THEY WALKED ME THROUGH THE PROCESS. INAUDIBLE ] BUFFER , PLUS ADDITIONAL. THEY WOULD ALLOW THAT. >> THANK YOU. >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? SEEING NONE, WE ARE BACK TO THE AGENCY FOR A MOTION. MR. MATOVINA. >> I WILL MAKE A MOTION TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PUD 2023-23 VILLAGE COMMONS PUD, BASED ON NINE FINDINGS OF FACT, AS PROVIDED WITHIN THE STAFF REPORT. >> WE HAVE A MOTION FOR APPROVAL. DO WE HAVE A SECOND? >> SECOND . >> IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION? >> I PUT ON THE BOARD EARLIER THAT WE SHOULD MAYBE SEPARATE THESE BETWEEN THE BUILDING AND THE CHURCH . SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE. >> I THINK THAT IS UP TO THE APPLICANT. >> I JUST WANT TO POTENTIALLY SEPARATE THE ITEMS SO THAT THE CHURCH PROPERTY WAS CONSIDERED SEPARATELY SINCE IT IS NOT GOING TO BE A COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT FROM THE PROPOSED COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT ON THE PARCELS TO THE WEST. >> MR. MATOVINA, YOU CAN SUGGEST TO THE APPLICANT AS A MEDIATION THAT THEY SPLIT THEIR APPLICATIONS BUT THE APPLICANT CONTROLS WHAT THEY BRING BEFORE THE BOARD SO IF THEY DO NOT WANT TO AGREE TO THAT THAN THEY ARE THE ONES THAT ULTIMATELY HAVE CONTROL BUT YOU CAN ASK THE APPLICANT TO DO THAT, ESPECIALLY IF THE BOARD THINKS THAT IS WHAT THEY SHOULD DO. >> WOULD THAT NOT UNTIL ANOTHER APPLICATION? >> POTENTIALLY YOU COULD AMEND AND LEAVE HALF OF IT IN THE APPLICATION BUT, IF YOU WERE GOING TO DO THAT DRASTIC OF A CHANGE, IT WOULD BE MY ADVICE TO TABLE THE ISSUE AND BRING IT BACK AT DATE CERTAIN. THAT WOULD BE A LARGE CHANGE TO THIS APPLICATION. >> SIR, PLEASE BE QUIET. >> MAY I ADDRESS THAT? I REMEMBER THAT YOU DID ASK THAT. IF THEY WANT TO SHARE FACILITIES , THEY HAVE TO BE UNDER THE SAME ZONING. NO, YOU CANNOT DIVIDE THEM OUT. WE ARE IN THE NORTHWEST SECTOR TYPE THING AND THERE ARE THE DEVELOPMENT EDGES AND THOSE KIND OF THINGS AND THEY CAN'T MEET THAT WITHOUT BEING IN WITH US. I WILL ANSWER THAT QUESTION, THE CHURCH WILL KEEP ITS OWN STATUS AND THE COMMERCIAL HAS COMMERCIAL STATUS AND WILL PAY THE TAXES TO GO WITH THE SQUARE FOOTAGE USES. >> OKAY. WAS THERE ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? >> I WAS JUST GOING TO EXPLORE -- BUT MY QUESTION IS ANSWERED. I DON'T REALLY KNOW HOW THE [Items 5 & 6] GREATER MIND SHIFT IN THE DIRECTION OF THERE IS TRAFFIC ON 16. THERE IS TRAFFIC A LOT OF PLACES. BUT JUST HOW THAT FACTORS IN. I DO UNDERSTAND I THINK A LITTLE BIT MORE NOW. >> ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? SEEING NONE, PLEASE REGISTER THE VOTE. THE MOTION PASSES. 5-1. ONTO ITEM NUMBER FIVE. IS THERE ANY EX PARTE ? >> I DID A COUPLE. ONE WITH THE OLD MDP AND ONE WITH THE NEW MDP. >> I HAD DISCUSSION WITH MR. MILLER ABOUT THE PROPOSED CHANGES THAT THEY MAKE. >> I SPOKE WITH MR. MILLER WALKING IN HERE AND WE TALKED ABOUT THE APPLICATION. MR. MILLER. >> I AM ZACH MILLER. WE ARE [01:25:04] HERE ON CONFERENCE PLAN AMENDMENTS , 2023-12. THIS IS ABOUT ONE MILE WEST OF ST. JOHN'S PARKWAY. IT IS AT THE EDGE OF THE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT TO THE WEST AND THERE IS AN APARTMENT COMPLEX TO THE EAST. THIS JUST SHOWS YOU THIS IS FROM THE WEST LOOKING TO THE EAST. MOST OF THE PROPERTY HAS ALREADY BEEN CLEARED. IT WAS CLEARED FOR A NURSERY OVER A DECADE AGO. THERE WAS TWO OTHER BUILDINGS ON THE SITE. THE SATELLITE IMAGE IS PROBABLY ONE YEAR BEHIND OF THE CLEARED AREA THAT THE APARTMENT COMPLEX HAS BEEN BUILT ON. THIS IS THE ZONING OF THE PROPERTY. IT IS O.R. AND THIS ENTIRE AREA HAS BEEN APPROVED FOR VARIOUS PUD'S. FOR O.R., SOME ALIGNMENTS ARE TREATED WASTEWATER, NURSERY, LAND APPLICATION -- AND THERE IS A RECENT LAWSUIT IN PUTNAM COUNTY ABOUT SPREADING SEPTIC WASTE ON GROUNDS -- CHURCHES AND SCHOOLS, CARE HOMES, EXCEPTIONS ARE GENERAL STORES, ANIMAL HOSPITALS, VETERINARIANS, FIRING RANGES AND OUTDOOR FIRING RANGES. THOSE ARE ALL ALLOWED BY O.R. THIS WAS THE ORIGINAL PROPOSAL THAT WE TOOK TO THE COMMUNITY LAST MONTH. THIS HAD SEVEN BUILDINGS ON IT AND THE MAIN BUILDING WAS 64 FEET . IF YOU NOTICE ON THE MAP YOU WILL SEE THE CURRENTLY DEVELOPED. PEPPERMILL COURT IS A FEW HUNDRED FEET AWAY. TOWARDS THE END OF THE MEETING, WE ASKED WHAT THE ISSUES WERE. THEY SAID IT WAS THE HEIGHT AND THE LOCATION OF BUILDING SIX AND SEVEN. THE APPLICANT AND THE ENGINEER WORKED OVER THE WEEKEND TO COME UP WITH A REVISED PLAN. WE DELETED BUILDINGS SIX AND SEVEN AND REVISED THE WRITTEN DESCRIPTION TO EXPRESSLY EXCLUDE ALL OF THE LIGHT INDUSTRIAL USES EXCEPT FOR WAREHOUSING AND A FEW OTHERS. WE THEN GOT A LIST FROM THE NEIGHBORS LAST THURSDAY ABOUT FURTHER REVISIONS. WE AGREED TO SUBMIT THIS PLAN AND THIS TAKES BUILDINGS THREE, FOUR, AND FIVE DOWN TO ONE STORY . I DID HEAR FROM ONE OF THE NEIGHBORS LAST NIGHT, ABOUT WHAT IS THE HEIGHT OF THE BUILDINGS. THEY WOULD NOT BE TALLER THAN 20 FEET. WE ARE LISTING THE LI USES THAT ARE ALLOWED. THE REASON WE ARE ASKING FOR THE MINI WAREHOUSE, EVEN THOUGH THE MINI WAREHOUSE IS ALLOWED IS BECAUSE THERE IS NO SET DEFINITION BETWEEN WAREHOUSE AND MINI WAREHOUSE AND WE WANT THE FLEXIBILITY -- TO RENT OUT SOME SPACE. THIS IS JUST A ZOOM OUT. IT IS NOT SHOWN ON THIS MAP, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE ARE WORKING ON, WE ARE PRETTY CONFIDENT THAT WE CAN GET PEDESTRIAN ACCESS. CUSTOMERS WILL BE COMING FROM THAT -- AND THEY ARE IMMEDIATELY TO THE EAST. THAT IS GOING TO CREATE LESS TRAFFIC ON RACETRACK ROAD FOR -- CAN PARK THEIR CARS OR WALK OVER. PRODUCE THIS. THIS IS A GLOBAL VIEW. THIS SHOWS THE NEAREST THIS IS APPROXIMATELY 520 FEET [01:30:10] AWAY AND THE CLOSEST BUILDING AND I LIKE THIS IMAGE THIS AREA HAS ALREADY BEEN CLEAR-CUT. THIS IS ABOUT 490 FEET AWAY FROM THE HOUSE. THIS IS ACTUALLY FURTHER AWAY THAN THE APARTMENT COMPLEX. THIS IS BETWEEN THE PROPERTY AND THE RESIDENTS TO THE WEST SO WE HAVE A BUFFER BETWEEN US AND THE RESIDENCES. ONE THING THAT CAME UP IS THERE ARE SEVERAL CONSERVATION EASEMENTS ON THE SITE AND WE SOUGHT RELIEF EARLY IN THE PROCESS WITH THAT. THE PRIMARY WETLANDS THAT WILL BE IMPACT DID ARE IN THE CONSERVATION EASEMENT NUMBER TWO. LET ME GO BACK TO THE SITE PLAN AND I WILL SHOW YOU THE AREA. THIS IS PRETTY INTERESTING. AS RECENTLY AS 2007 THAT AREA WAS NOT WETLANDS. THOSE WETLANDS ARE ISOLATED. THEY ARE CREATED OVER TIME AND THE AREA BEING LOW-LYING. I ALSO LIKE THIS THIS IS A GOOGLE VIEW THIS IS RELATIVE TO THE CLOSEST RESIDENTIAL STREET NEARBY. EXCUSE ME, BECAUSE OF MY COLORBLINDNESS, THESE BUILDINGS ARE IN YELLOW . THOSE ARE APARTMENTS AND YOU CAN SEE THAT THEY ARE TALLER AND WOULD BE BLOCKED OUT BY THE TREES -- AND OUR PROPERTY. WITH THAT I AM HAPPY TO ANSWER QUESTIONS. WE HAVE RAHS SHARE FOR TRAFFIC AND RYAN HERE FOR ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT. >> THANK YOU. >> I HAVE A FEW QUESTIONS. IT IS GOOD TO SEE YOU BACK HERE IN THIS ROOM. THE -- I LIKE YOUR HISTORIC AERIAL EVEN THOUGH IT IS FROM 2007, SHOWING THE TIME PLANTING THERE. THAT WAS VERY INSTRUCTIVE. ON THE NEW DEVELOPMENT PLAN YOU HAVE GONE THROUGH VARIOUS -- VARIATIONS OF THIS. THIS IS FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD PERSPECTIVE. I THINK YOUR NEW PLAN, IS IT 148,500 SQUARE FEET ? >> YES. >> HOW ARE YOU ABLE TO GO FROM FOUR STORY BUILDINGS DOWN TO ONE STORY. YOU WENT FROM 150,000 SQUARE FEET TO 148 500 SQUARE FEET. I STILL DON'T SEE HOW THIS COMPUTES WITH THE BUILDING BEING SO SMALL. >> A COUPLE OF ITEMS. ONE WAS CONSOLIDATING THE WAREHOUSE IN THE MAIN BUILDING. ESPECIALLY THE THREE BUILDINGS IN THE REAR WILL SERVE AS OFFICE OR -- AND IT IS A SIMPLE ACKNOWLEDGMENT THAT THE SITE AND THE AMOUNT OF PARKING THAT WE CAN GET IN THERE, WERE ABLE TO MAKE THAT COMPROMISE. BUILDING ONE IS SLIGHTLY WIDER AND LONGER THAN IT WAS PREVIOUSLY. >> I DID NOT GO AND LOOK AT THE SITE AND PERHAPS I SHOULD HAVE. I'M GOING TO TALK ABOUT THAT LOOKS LIKE IT HAS A LOT OF CYPRESS ON IT. I KNOW THAT HAS ARTIFICIALLY GOT SOME COLORING. THAT WOULD BE A LOT OF GROWTH FOR THE PAST 17 YEARS ON THAT [01:35:02] SITE TO MAKE IT THAT HEAVILY FORESTED. WHAT MADE THE ST. JOHNS RIVER WATER DISTRICT WANT TO TAKE A CONSERVATION OVER THAT PROPERTY ? IT WASN'T EVEN REALLY A WETLAND. I'M SURPRISED THAT THE DISTRICT WOULD EVEN WANT TO TAKE THE CONSERVATION EASEMENT OVER THAT AS WELL AS THESE OTHER SIX PARCELS. DO YOU HAVE ANY INSIGHT? >> RYAN, CAN YOU HELP ON THAT? >> GOOD AFTERNOON. >> I WAS THERE IN 2012 WHEN WE PERMITTED THAT FOR THE NURSERY. IT WAS, THE REASON THAT THE IMAGE SHOWS 2007, LIKE IT DOES, IT WAS CLEAR-CUT. IN 2012, WHEN I DELINEATED THAT AND IT WAS REVIEWED BY THE ST. JOHNS RIVER WATER DEVELOPMENT, IT WAS PLANNED PLANTATION. I THINK IT WAS OLDER GROWTH PINE PLANTATION. IT WAS WIRE GRASS AND PLANTED PINES ON PROBABLY 8-6 FOOT SPACING. ONE OF THE REQUIREMENTS AND THE REASON THAT MITIGATION AREA WAS ACCEPTED WAS BECAUSE WE DID SOME INNING. WE REMOVED EVERY OTHER PINE TO TRY TO EMULATE MORE FLAT WOODS. THEN WE HAD TO DO MONITORING FOR FIVE YEARS. WHEN WE LOOK AT THIS PROPERTY NOW, AND WE SUBMITTED A CONSERVATION EASEMENT TO THE DISTRICT. MARCH OF LAST YEAR, WE WERE WORKING ON THIS ALMOST A YEAR AND A HALF. THEY RECOGNIZE AND THIS HAS BEEN ONGOING FOR MY CAREER, THE POST DEVELOPMENT CONDITION, WHEN IT IS SURROUNDED 360 DEGREES, THE ECOLOGICAL DASHES SERIOUSY DIMINISHED. WHEN THE DISTRICT LOOKED AT THIS AGAIN AND SAID, WE CAN PROCESS THIS RELEASE. BECAUSE OF THE FACT , AND IT IS ONLY A PORTION -- IT IS NOT THE ENTIRE AMOUNT. THEY WERE READY TO DO THE CE RELEASE AND WE ARE GETTING CLOSE TO GETTING THE RELEASE BUT IT IS POST DEVELOPMENT SURROUNDING 360 DEGREES BY THE FILAMENT. >> SO YOU SAID THE DISTRICT WAS READY TO RELEASE THE SEPTIC? >> THIS IS A LONG PROCESS FOR THOSE WHO HAVE BEEN THROUGH IT. WE HAVE GAINED ACCEPTANCE AND WE HAVE SUBMITTED THAT WITH THE DRAFT LANGUAGE AMENDMENT AND WE ARE WAITING ON THE STAMPED LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS AND SKETCHES BACK SO THAT WE CAN RECORD THE RELEASE AND AMENDMENT. >> SO YOU HAVE NOT RECEIVED THAT APPROVAL YET? THE RELEASE OF THE EASEMENT? >> IT HAS NOT BEEN RECORDED. WE ARE JUST WAITING ON THE SURVEYORS STAMPED SKETCHES. IN MY OPINION WE ARE ON STEP NINE OF 10 IN THE PROCESS. THEY HAVE ACCEPTED IT THAT WE ARE GOING TO THE LEGAL DESCRIPTION AND THE SKETCHES THAT WILL BE RECORDED AS EXHIBITS TO THE AMENDMENT OF THE CONSERVATION EASEMENT LANGUAGE. >> I DON'T REMEMBER SEEING ANYTHING IN THE MATERIALS. I WORKED ON 35 CONSERVATION UP TO 42,000 PLUS ACRES. LARGE CONSERVATION EASEMENTS. I WOULD JUST HATE TO SEE A CONSERVATION EASEMENT RELEASED FOR THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION. THEY REPORT TO US AND FUNCTION SO, TO ME, IT IS LIKE A BAD PRECEDENT. IS THERE A DITCH ALONG THE PROPERTY FROM CONSERVATION EASEMENT NUMBER TWO DOWN TO NUMBER THREE ? LOOKING AT OTHER AERIALS, IT LOOKS LIKE THERE IS A DITCH. IS THERE ANY DRAINAGE FROM EASEMENT TWO DOWN TO EASEMENT THREE? >> NO. THE WAY THAT WORKS IS, [01:40:02] HISTORICALLY, THERE WAS A DEEP INCISED ROAD ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF RACETRACK AND IF YOU LOOK THERE THERE IS A SIDEWALK THERE NOW SO THERE IS A -- THAT CONNECTS CONSERVATION NUMBER TWO TO THE WEST. BUT, AGAIN, IT IS WET PINE PLANTATION NOW AND SLIGHTLY OVERGROWN. IF IT WAS CLEAR CUT AND PLANTED, THAT WOULD MAKE IT 15-17 YEARS OLD. >> OKAY. THE TRAFFIC , YOUR PROJECTIONS ON LOWERING SQUARE FOOTAGE FROM 150- 148 500 THOUSAND , WHAT HAS THAT DONE -- 150,000 DOWN TO 100 48 500,000. IT SAID THAT THE LINK, 77.2 RACETRACK ROAD FROM VETERANS PARKWAY TO ST. JOHN'S PARKWAY, RIGHT NOW, BASED ON TOTAL COMMITTED TRAFFIC IT IS NEARLY AT 115%. SO YOU REDUCED 1500 SQUARE FEET AND LOWERED THE HEIGHT OF THE BUILDINGS. DO YOU HAVE ANY PROJECTIONS SOMEWHAT THAT WILL DUE TO TRAFFIC THAT THE COUNTY SAYS THAT YOU ARE GOING TO GENERATE? >> EXISTING USE VERSUS THE PROPOSED USES SO THIS IS BASED ON 150,000 TOTAL PROPOSED AND THAT INCLUDES 103,000 SQUARE FEET OF SUB- STORAGE AND ABOUT 30,000 SQUARE FEET OF COMMERCIAL USES IN GENERAL. IT TAKES INTO ACCOUNT SOME OF THE PAST BY THAT ONE OF THE PREVIOUS APPLICATION SPOKE ABOUT. YOU CAN SEE THAT THE CHANGE HAS COME BACK -- YOU SEE A NEGATIVE ON A DAILY BASIS. IF WE TRANSLATE BACK TO THE INDISCERNABLE ] THIS IS BASED ON THE OPTION THAT WE GO 150,000 SQUARE FEET. BASED ON THE SITE CONDITIONS, WE THINK THAT 150,000 MAY NOT BE POSSIBLE SO WE RAN ANALYSIS TO SHRINK IT DOWN AND YOU CAN SEE THE NET DECREASE OF 438 DAILY TRIPS AND AT P.M. PEAK THAT IS A NEGATIVE FIVE TRIPS. IF YOU MAKE THAT 148,500, YOU ARE JUST DECREASING A FEW TRIPS DURING THE P.M. PEAK BUT ON A DAILY BASIS YOU ARE SEEING NEGATIVE ON THE ENTIRE PROJECT. >> OKEY DOKE. THAT IS DIFFERENT THAN THE FIGURES THE COUNTY GAVE US SO I AM NOT SURE HOW TO SQUARE THAT. >> MY ASSUMPTION IS THAT THE COUNTY USES THE MAXIMUM POSSIBLE AND THE WORST CASE SCENARIO BUT THIS IS BASED ON SPECIFIC LAND-USE THAT THE CLIENT THINKS IS FEASIBLE . PARKING REQUIREMENTS OF THE COUNTY NUMBERS ARE BASED ON INDISCERNABLE ] SQUARE FEET THAT CAN BE PUT IN AND THEY DON'T ACCOUNT FOR THE EXISTING USES SO THERE COMPILATION WAS A BIT THE FRONT. >> THE EXISTING USERS -- >> THOSE TRIPS ARE NOT TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT. >> SO, LET ME ASK YOU THIS. THIS IS FOR ZACH. THE FACT THAT THE COUNTY INCLUDED IN OUR PACKET, THIS TIME, I HAVE NEVER SEEN THESE INCLUDED, AND WHEN I FIRST GOT ON THE BOARD I TRIED TO READ THE ENTIRE COMP PLAN THROUGH , I DID NOT REMEMBER THESE POLICIES. I WANT YOU TO COMMENT ON THESE FROM YOUR [01:45:01] PERSPECTIVE. THEY PUT IN HERE SPECIFICALLY POLICY 8.1.9.2. DISTRICTS NOT INTENDED FOR LINEAR STRIP COMMERCIAL. LIGHT INDUSTRIAL OFFICE, RESIDENTIAL USES THAT PROMOTES NONRESIDENTIAL ACTIVITIES CONCENTRATED AREAS. IT IS INTENDED THAT THE HIGHEST LAND-USE INTENSITIES OCCUR AT THE CENTER OF THE MIXED-USE DASHED TOWARD ADJACENT LAND USE DESIGNATIONS. LET'S SAY FROM YOUR PROPERTY TO THE REST. THE SOUTHWEST OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD BACK THERE. POLICY 8.1.5 IS SIMILAR. IT SAYS THERE WILL BE A WELL-BALANCED MIXTURE OF USES PROVIDING INTERCONNECTIVITY, WHICH YOU SAID YOU WERE SEEKING WITH THE APARTMENT COMPLEX NEXT-DOOR. AND ENSURING ACCESSIBILITY BETWEEN THE USES, THE MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN SHALL PROVIDE FOR COME BELLA BUSY -- COMPATIBILITY OF USES. WITH THE HIGHEST INTENSITY USES IN THE CENTER OF THE MIXED-USE DISTRICT WITH INCREASING INTENSITY USE RECEIVING OUTWARD TOWARDS THE ADJACENT LAND USE DESIGNATIONS. SO, WHEN I LOOKED AT THIS INITIALLY, THE PLAN THAT I GOT LAST WEEK, I WAS THINKING, THIS IS BASICALLY THE SAME INTENSITY AS THE APARTMENT COMPLEX TO THE EAST. AND IT DID NOT APPEAR TO ME THAT YOU WERE STEPPING DOWN WHERE YOU GOT TO THE REZ NEIGHBORHOODS. WHY IS YOUR PLANNING NOT JUST BASICALLY MORE OF THE SAME BUT IS A STEP DOWN TOWARDS GOING TO THE WEST SOUTHWEST. >> THROUGH THE CHAIR, DR. HILSENBECK, I THINK SOME OF THOSE ARE SITE-SPECIFIC. BUT YOUR OVERALL POINT, I THINK IT IS A STEP DOWN IN INTENSITY. IF YOU ARE LOOKING AT TRAFFIC USES. COMPARED TO MULTIFAMILY AND MIXED-USE RETAIL ON THE APARTMENT COMPLEXES. IMMEDIATELY TO THE WEST WE HAVE -- SPACE , THE ENTRANCE TO THE DEVELOPMENT IS SEVERAL MILES AWAY. I THINK IN A STEP DOWN CATEGORY WE ARE DEALING WITH PROPERTY THAT HAS TO BE ANALYZED MORE TOWARDS THE APARTMENTS AT LEAST ON AN INTENSITY ANALYSIS. ON COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES, IT IS A .1 .2 .7 THAT TALKS ABOUT WATER CONSERVATION. I UNDERSTAND CONSERVATION EASEMENT IN THE ENTIRETY OF THE PROPERTY WILL BE CONSERVED. AND -- THIS IS DEVELOPMENT ALL AROUND. I THINK THAT YOU HAVE TO LOOK AT THIS PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT IS ALMOST AN AMENITY IN A PRETTY INTENSE APARTMENT COMPLEX AND THEN WE BENT OVER BACKWARDS FOR THE LDC , THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICY ABOUT PROTECTING THE EXISTING HOMES AND RESIDENTIAL. INAUDIBLE ] >> OKAY. THANK YOU. >> MISS SPIEGEL. >> HELLO. IT IS NICE TO MEET YOU MR. MILLER. I HAVE A COMMENT. FIRST, I HAVE A QUESTION FOR YOU. SINCE THE NEW PLAN CAME OUT I DON'T THINK THE STAFF HAD A CHANCE TO REVIEW IT. I VERY MUCH APPRECIATE MAKING ADJUSTMENTS ON THE FLY LIKE THAT AND I THINK THAT IS VERY GOOD. IT IS STILL HARD TO KIND OF FIGURE OUT. I WAS NOT SURE ABOUT THE PARKING AND THIS AND THAT THAT YOU HAVE ANSWERED SOME OF THOSE QUESTIONS. ARE YOU STILL PLANNING ON A 75 FOOT SCENIC EDGE? AND A 35 FOOT BUFFER ON THE SIDES? >> THROUGH THE CHAIR, THAT BRINGS UP SOME GOOD QUESTIONS. WE ARE REQUESTING WAIVERS. 75 FOOT AND THEN 35 FOOT AND THEN WE PUT SPECIFICALLY IN THE [01:50:01] DESCRIPTION, BUILDINGS OTHER THAN WHAT IS GENERALLY LOCATED THERE EXCEPT WE CAN MOVE THEM APPROXIMATELY 35 FEET SOUTH AND THAT IS JUST BECAUSE WE NEED TO HAVE SOME FLEXIBILITY. WE WANT THE NEIGHBORS TO HAVE SOME COMFORT IS WHAT WE ARE SHOWING HERE. THE REASON WE CANNOT MOVE IT EITHER WAY IS WE NEED THE 35 FOOT BUFFER AND THEN THE 35 FOOT SCENIC EDGE. >> I DID TAKE A COUPLE OF DRIVES OUT THERE AND I AM TRYING TO GET THE VIEW FROM THE MULTIFAMILY AND DRIVING ALL THE WAY AROUND TO GET TO THE OTHER NEIGHBORHOOD. THERE REALLY IS NOT VERY MUCH BUFFER AT ALL BETWEEN THE MULTIFAMILY AND THIS PROPERTY. IT IS JUST SOME LITTLE BUSHES INSIDE OF THEIR PHONES AND YOU DO HAVE A FEW PINE TREES AND YOU CAN SEE RIGHT THROUGH IT. THERE IS NO IMAGINATION BUT THERE WILL BE A 35 FOOT BUFFER , THAT IS HELPFUL. MY OTHER QUESTION IS, DID I SEE A WAIVER ? >> YES. WE EXECUTED THAT. >> OKAY. I JUST WANTED TO BE SURE. LET ME SEE. THERE WAS SOMETHING ELSE ABOUT THIS APPLICATION COMING IN SO LATE. >> TALKING ABOUT THE CODES, IT TALKS ABOUT MARKET DEMAND ANALYSIS. IMPACT ANALYSIS ABOUT MORE STORAGE FACILITIES AND YOU HAVE LIMITED USES TO STORAGE FACILITIES. >> IT IS GENERAL COMMERCIAL AND MINI WAREHOUSE SELF STORAGE. >> OKAY. SO, THIS IS A FINANCIAL BENEFIT TO THE COUNTY? >> I THINK IT WILL INCREASE THE TAXABLE VALUE OF THE COUNTY. IT WILL HAVE A NET REDUCTION IN TRAFFIC. I THINK ALSO, THE OFFICE SPACE WILL GENERATE JOBS. I KNOW MOST PEOPLE DON'T LIKE TO HEAR THIS BUT JUST THE CONSTRUCTION ITSELF WILL DO THAT. I HATE TO BE A DEVELOPER ATTORNEY BUT, MY CLIENT WOULD NOT BE SPENDING THE MONEY ON THIS OTHERWISE. >> I JUST LIKE TO TRY TO FIND THE BENEFITS FOR THE COUNTY. WE HAVE HEARD COMMENTS FROM PEOPLE. WHICH YOU DID ADDRESS. AND PEOPLE APPRECIATE THAT IT IS OUR NURSERY THERE NOW AND THAT IS LOW INTENSITY. AND THAT IS A GOOD SEGUE FROM MULTIFAMILY. I THINK THOSE ARE MY QUESTIONS FOR NOW. >> WE WILL MOVE ON TO PUBLIC COMMENT. IS THERE ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON ITEMS NUMBER FIVE AND SIX. IF SO, PLEASE COME FORWARD. PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS. >> MY NAME IS CHERYL STEVENS AND I LIVE AT 61 CELL STONE DRIVE. MY PROPERTY BORDERS THE >> WILL YOU PLEASE SPEAK INTO THE MICROPHONE? >> I OPPOSE REZONING OF THE PROPERTY. THE CURRENT BUSINESS BETWEEN MY PROPERTY AND THE APARTMENT COMPLEX, THAT WENT IN RECENTLY, I HAVE BEEN GRATEFUL TO HAVE THAT BUFFER OF THE LANDSCAPE BUSINESS WE CAN ALREADY HEAR IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD -- FROM THE APARTMENT COMPLEX AND TRUCKS BACKING UP. ADDITIONALLY, WITH THE REMOVAL OF THE TREES WE CAN HEAR A LOT OF NOISE FROM THE RACETRACK AND SIRENS AND WHATNOT. I CANNOT IMAGINE HOW MUCH MORE OF THOSE TYPES OF SOUNDS WE WOULD HEAR IF THERE WAS MORE DEVELOPMENT CLOSER TO OUR HOMES. I FEEL IT IS NOT COMPATIBLE BEING RIGHT NEXT TO [01:55:05] THE CROSSING. I HAVE A LOT OF CONCERNS, FOR INSTANCE, LIGHTS FROM WHATEVER BUSINESSES GO IN THERE. MORE SOUNDS AND MORE TRUCKS BACKING UP. I HAVE SAFETY CONCERNS. ANYONE -- FROM THE DEVELOPMENT INTO THE NEIGHBORHOODS. ADDITIONALLY, THE VISUALS, WHATEVER THOSE WAREHOUSES WOULD BE. WE HAVE A LOT OF TREE COVERAGE AND YOU CANNOT SEE TOO MUCH THERE BUT YOU CAN SEE THE APARTMENTS FROM OUR SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES. I AM FINDING IT A LITTLE VAGUE AND UNCLEAR, EXACTLY WHAT WILL GO INTO THOSE BUILDINGS. WHAT COULD POSSIBLY CHANGE IN THE FUTURE. I WORRY ABOUT SOUNDS, CAR REPAIR PLACES. WHO IS TO SAY THOSE TYPES OF PLACES COULD NOT GO IN THERE AT SOME TIME IN THE FUTURE AND I HAVE CONCERNS ABOUT THE DEVALUING OF OUR HOMES AND WHO WOULD WANT TO BUY A HOME NEXT TO A BUSINESS PARK. WHEN I MOVED THERE BACK IN 2010, I REALLY LIKE THE WAY IT IS ZONED NOW AND HE HAS A BUFFER BETWEEN US AND THE --. AT THE END OF THE DAY, I JUST REALLY WANT TO MAINTAIN PEACE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD. TO NOT HAVE A LOT OF NOISE OR VISUAL. WE HAVE A WAREHOUSE RIGHT NEXT TO OUR HOME AND THAT IS IT. THANK YOU. >> MY NAME IS BETSY AND MY ADDRESS IS 728 CASTLE COURT AND IN THE DURBIN CROSSING SUBDIVISION. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. IN A A FEW SHORT MINUTES, I CAN GO THROUGH ALL OF THE REASONS I THINK YOU SHOULD RECOMMEND DENIAL AND I AM NOT REALLY HERE TO DO THAT. I AM HERE TO ASK FOR MORE TIME AND THIS IS VERY IMPACTFUL TO THE NEIGHBORS. THE DEVELOPER HAS ALREADY DONE A GOOD JOB LOOKING INTO THE IMPACT ON THE AREA AND MAKING SOME CHANGES BUT, THERE IS NO RUSH TO MOVE FORWARD ON THIS. I THINK THAT MORE PUBLIC INPUT IS NEEDED. THE COUNTY AND THE COMMISSIONERS, PEOPLE HAVE REACHED OUT AND THEY CONTINUE TO REACH OUT AND SO, I HOPE THAT WE CAN CONTINUE TO MAKE A DIFFERENCE HERE AND CONTINUE THIS ITEM OR TABLE IT, IF NOT, TO DENY IT. IT TAKES TIME TO GET COMMUNITY INVOLVED AND THAT IS BECAUSE 99% OF THE PEOPLE THAT COME UP HERE AND TAKE YOUR TIME, THEY ARE PAID MONEY TO DO THAT. THAT IS THEIR JOB. SO WHEN YOU TAKE A COMMUNITY LIKE OURS, THAT ARE GOING TO BE IMPACTED BY THIS, THOSE ARE YOUR TEACHERS, YOUR ACCOUNTANTS, YOUR NURSES. THEY ARE OUT DOING OTHER JOBS . IT JUST TAKES TIME TO IMPACT A COUNTY LIKE THIS. SOME OF US HAVE STARTED KICKING AROUND THE IDEA IF YOU LOOK AT ALL OF THE OWNERS IN THE BIG AREA, IT IS KIND OF PERPLEXING WHY THIS AREA WAS NOT BOUGHT IN THE FIRST PLACE. THIS WAS BEFORE MY TIME AND I DON'T KNOW AND I DON'T HAVE THAT ANSWER BUT MAYBE PERHAPS THE OWNER WOULD NOT SELL IT AT THAT TIME BUT SOME OF US ARE KICKING AROUND THE IDEA AND I DON'T WANT TO MISCONSTRUE THIS BECAUSE I DON'T WANT TO SAY IT IS A PROBABILITY. OR MAYBE EVEN A POSSIBILITY OF THE CDD BUYING THIS. IT WOULD PROTECT THE COMMUNITY MORE AS WELL AS , I THINK THE POINTS ABOUT THE COMP PLAN WERE RIGHT. SO, TO THE FACTS, THE REASON THE APPLICANT CAN GET IN FRONT OF YOU AND SAY IT FITS THE USES IN THE AIR YET IS BECAUSE IT HAS BEEN REZONED AND REZONED AND REZONED. THEY NEED A COMP PLAN CHANGE. NOT JUST A REZONED. BUT, WHERE IS THE LINE. WHERE DO WE SAY THIS IS WHERE WE STOP DOING THIS. THIS IS STARTING TO IMPACT THE [02:00:07] NEIGHBORHOOD AND THIS IS AT THE CENTER OF ALL OF THE REZONING THAT WE HAVE DONE. TO ME, A COMP PLAN IS A PROMISE TO THE CURRENT LANDHOLDERS THAT ARE IMPACTED. I WOULD HOPE WE WOULD KEEP THAT IN MIND. THERE IS OTHER QUESTIONS ABOUT WHAT IS THE PUBLIC GOOD AND I THINK THE BIG ONE IS ABOUT URBAN SPRAWL. >> MA'AM, YOUR TIME IS UP. >> URBAN SPRAWL IS HERE AND IT IS HERE TO STAY AND THERE IS GOING TO BE TONS OF DEVELOPMENT IN THIS AREA. THERE ARE TONS OF OTHER PLACES THIS DEVELOPMENT CAN GO. ANYONE ELSE ? >> GOOD AFTERNOON. CHARLIE HUNT, MILL CREEK, STATES. THIS IS THE TYPE OF ISSUE I FIND AMUSING. ALWAYS SEEING AND HEARING HOW MUCH THERE IS OVER DEVELOPMENT. TOO MUCH TRAFFIC, TOO MUCH TRAFFIC. BUT LET'S BUILD 150,000 SQUARE FEET OF STORAGE SPACE FOR PEOPLE . HOW WOULD YOU BUILD SOMETHING THAT ALLOWS VEHICLES IN AND OUT. HOW DOES THAT CUT DOWN IN TRAFFIC? PLEASE, WHY DON'T THEY COME AND DO THAT RIGHT THERE ON THE CITY ROAD. IF YOU CAN DO WITH THEIR, YOU CAN GO UP TO THE NORTH AND DO IT OFF OF RACETRACK ROAD. IT IS AMUSING TO SEE WHEN , THIS IS JUST A CIRCLE OF DEVELOPMENT. WHERE IT IS BEING OVERDEVELOPED, YOU HAVE TOO MANY PEOPLE THAT LIVE IN TOO SMALL PLACES. THEY NEED TO HAVE SOMEWHERE TO PUT ALL OF THEIR STUFF SO, WE NEED STORAGE AND STORAGE MEANS CUTTING IN ON THE ENVIRONMENT. IT WILL LOOK LIKE THAT. I BELIEVE ST. JOHN'S COUNTY WILL BE THE NUMBER ONE COUNTY IN THE STATE FOR THEIR SQUARE FEET OF STORAGE SPACE. MAYBE ABOUT 1 MILLION IN THE LAST YEAR HAS BEEN APPROVED. FOR STORAGE FACILITIES. THAT IS THE FUNNY THING ABOUT THE COUNTY. THEY LOOK NICE BUT THEY ARE ARE STILL STORAGE FACILITIES. WHEN IT IS LIKE THIS, IT IS JUST AMAZING TO HEAR. IF WE DO THIS, TO CUT DOWN SOME OF THE TRAFFIC, CUT DOWN SOME OF THE TRAFFIC. IT WILL NOT. COME ON. PLEASE. YOU SHOULD KNOW THE CONCEPT OF THE TRAFFIC IN ST. JOHNS COUNTY. THIS WILL HELP ALLEVIATE SOME RIDICULOUS NUMBER OF VEHICLES. IT WON'T. IT DOES NOT. WHENEVER SOMETHING IS DEVELOPED, IT INCREASES TRAFFIC. YOU WILL HEAR OVER AND OVER AGAIN THAT THIS WILL IMPOSE ON SOME OF THE PEOPLE AROUND IT BUT, ON THE SAME SITE THEY WANT TO MOVE DOWN HERE FOR ALL OF THE THINGS THAT ARE HAPPENING UNTIL THEY DON'T REALIZE WHAT ELSE IS HAPPENING AROUND THEM. THIS IS A GREAT EXAMPLE. >> YES, SIR. >> HELLO. I AM A NEIGHBOR OF CHERYL STEVENS AND WITHOUT GETTING INTO ALL OF THE DETAILS I WANT TO SAY I SUPPORT AND ECHO ALL OF THE STATEMENTS THAT CHERYL MADE. I HAVE BEEN WORKING WITH THE VAC ON THE MODIFICATION PLAN. WE APPRECIATE THE WORK THAT HAS BEEN DONE BUT ALL WE ARE TRYING TO DO IS COME UP WITH THE MOST OBJECTIONABLE -- WE WOULD STILL PREFER THAT THIS BE REJECTED FOR ALL OF THE REASONS THAT CHERYL STATED AND WHAT I WILL SAY IS THAT THERE ARE A FEW OF IS HERE TO SPEAK TODAY AND THERE HAS BEEN A LOT OF EMAILS AND CORRESPONDENCE IN THE TOWN STATING THE SAME PERSPECTIVE. I HOPE THAT YOU ARE KEEPING THAT IN MIND. THANK YOU. >> IS THERE ANYONE ELSE? SEEING NONE, MR. MILLER . [02:05:08] >> AGAIN, ZACH MILLER AND I WILL RELY ON THE TESTIMONY FROM MR. HUNT. WE HAVE BEEN WORKING WITH THE NEIGHBORS FOR OVER A MONTH ON THIS. EVERY COMMENT THEY HAVE MADE , WE HAVE BEEN WORKING NIGHTS AND WEEKENDS TRYING TO GET THIS PLANNED AND THAT THE COMMUNITY INFORMATION MEETING I ASKED VERY CLEARLY, WHAT ARE YOUR BIGGEST ISSUES AND THEY SAID THE HEIGHT AND THE BUILDINGS CLOSEST TO US. WE BROUGHT THEM DOWN TO ONE. I THINK IT IS REALLY IMPORTANT TO REMEMBER THIS IS PROPERTY THAT HAS ALREADY BEEN CLEARED. THE TREE BUFFER THAT IS THERE REMAINS IF THIS GETS APPROVED. THERE ARE BUILDINGS ON THE SITE AND LARGE TRUCKS AND TRAFFIC COMING IN THERE. THE USES WE ARE PROPOSING -- ARE THE LEAST IMPACTFUL. I THINK WE COMPLY WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND WITH THE BUILDING CODE. >> WE GO BACK TO THE AGENCY FOR A MOTION. MR. MATOVINA. >> THIS IS ON ITEM NUMBER FIVE. I MAKE A MOTION TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF CPA (SS) 2023-12 ALSOP RACE TRACK ROAD BASED UPON FOUR FINDINGS OF FACT AS PROVIDED IN THE STAFF REPORT. >> WE HAVE A MOTION FOR APPROVAL. DO WE HAVE A SECOND? >> SECOND. >> WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? PLEASE REGISTER THE VOTE. WE HAVE A TIE VOTE. THAT IS A NEGATIVE RECOMMENDATION. LET'S MOVE ON TO ITEM NUMBER SIX. >> THAT IS A HARD ONE. I WOULD SUGGEST SOMEBODY ELSE MAKE A MOTION. >> LET'S GET IT ON THE TABLE. I WILL MAKE A MOTION TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PUD 2023-27 ALSOP RACE TRACK ROAD PUD, BASED ON 10 FINDINGS OF FACT, AS PROVIDED WITHIN THE STAFF REPORT. >> WE HAVE A MOTION FOR APPROVAL. DO WE HAVE A SECOND? CAN I SECOND IT'S? I WILL SECOND IT. ANY DISCUSSION? >> I NO ONE PREVIOUS DENIALS, WHEN IT GOES TO THE COUNTY COMMISSION THE APPLICANT CAN CHANGE VARIOUS PROVISIONS OF THE PROPOSAL. LET'S SAY WE APPROVED IT WITH THE MODIFIED PLAN. THAT IS OBVIOUSLY MUCH BETTER THAN WHAT WAS PROPOSED. COULD IT CHANGE AGAIN BEFORE IT GOES TO THE COUNTY COMMISSION? >> THEY COULD CHANGE THAT. >> BUT IT COULD BE MADE MORE INTENSE? POTENTIALLY? >> THAT IS LESS LIKELY. BUT -- >> BUT STILL. >> I DON'T NECESSARILY AGREE. APPARENTLY SOME OF THEM DID NOT AGREE AND WENT BACK TO THE PLAN. NOW THAT THIS BODY IS MAKING A RECOMMENDATION FOR DENIAL, CLEARLY THE PUD IS NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE RECOMMENDATION. I REALLY STRUGLE WITH THAT. >> IT IS STILL IMPORTANT FOR YOU TO GIVE FEEDBACK ON THE PUD. THERE IS NO WAY THAT YOU WOULD BE RECOMMENDING THAT THEY APPROVE THE PUD IF THEY DON'T APPROVE THE COMP PLAN. IF HARNER RECOMMENDATION, THIS IS A BETTER VERSION FOR THE PUD BUT I AM WITH YOU. I DON'T KNOW THAT IT IS NECESSARILY THE [02:10:02] REASON TO CHANGE THE UNDERLYING VOTE. I CAN'T IMAGINE SOMEONE VOTING YES ON THIS AFTER THEY VOTE NO ON THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. >> SURE . >> I DON'T SEE AN ISSUE ON THE COMP PLAN . YOU HAVE RESIDENTIAL TO BACK UP BUT IT IS NOT VERY CLOSE. THEY HAVE GONE OUT OF THE WAY TO ALLEVIATE THE CONCERNS SO THEY ARE WILLING TO GO BACK TO GO BACK TO 148,500. I THINK THIS IS A BETTER SITE PLAN THAN WHAT THEY ORIGINALLY CAME WITH. >> A STEP DOWN IN DENSITY WOULD BE USEFUL. THE STEP DOWN IN DENSITY. THAT WOULD CERTAINLY BE A STEP DOWN. I THINK THIS IS [Staff Reports] A STEP DOWN IN DENSITY. WE HAVE A MOTION FOR APPROVAL. LET'S GO AHEAD AND REGISTER THE VOTE. THAT IS * This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.