Sep 19, 2019 Planning and Zoning Agency

CHAIRMAN: MR. MATOVINA I THINK THIS TIME YOU DID REQUEST.

BOARD MEMBER: IT SEEMS TO ME THAT I RECALL IN ORDER FOR US TO APPROVE A VARIANCE AND IT EVEN KIND OF SAYS THIS IN YOUR REPORT, THAT THE LOT SIZE HAS TO BE CONFORMING. YOUR REPORT SAYS, ON PAGE 10, DESPITE THE LEGAL NON-CONFORMING STATUS, THE PROPERTY IS REQUIRED TO MEET APPLICABLE STANDARDS FOR THE ZONING DESIGNATION OF WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED. I SEEM TO RECALL ON OTHER VARIANCES THAT THE LOT HAD TO MEET THE SIZE. IS MY RECOLLECTION INCORRECT? SPEAKER: THIS IS AN EXISTING NON-CONFORMING LOT. I THINK THE DIVISION DATES BACK TO THE '70S.

SO IT PREEXISTS. EVEN THOUGH THEY CAN STILL DEVELOP A SINGLE FAMILY HOME, THEY WOULD NEED TO MEET THE CURRENT SETBACKS THAT ARE REQUIRED FOR DEVELOPMENT OF THE LOT. THEY WOULD NOT HAVE TO MEET THE LOT WIDTH OR SIZE FOR DEVELOPMENT.

BOARD MEMBER: THAT DIDN'T ANSWER MY QUESTION, I DON'T THINK. MY RECOLLECTION IS THAT ONE OF THE CRITERIA WE HAVE TO ABIDE BY IN GRANTING VARIANCES IS THAT THE LOT HAS TO MEET THE REQUIRED SIZE TO GRANT THE SETBACK VARIANCES. MAYBE MY RECOLLECTION IS INCORRECT.

SPEAKER: I DON'T THINK THAT IS CORRECT.

BOARD MEMBER: OKAY. THANK YOU.

CHAIRMAN: ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR MS. FRAZIER? SEEING NONE, WOULD THE APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE LIKE TO COME UP AND PRESENT.

SPEAKER: GOOD AFTERNOON, GENTLEMEN. HUNTER FAULKNER.

822A 1A NORTH SUITE 102

[00:20:01]

PONTE VEDRA, FLORIDA. I'M HERE ON BEHALF OF THE OWNERS OF 106 SURFSIDE AVENUE. THE WIVES CLUB SURFSIDE LAND TRUST. WE ARE PURSUING THE REQUEST FOR ZONING VARIANCE TO BRING THE HOME WITHIN CONFORMANCE AND TO ALLOW FOR THE ADDITION. SPECIFICALLY, DUE TO THE NON-CONFORMING NATURE OF THE PROPERTY, THE APPLICANT REQUESTS A ZONING VARIANCE.

SECTIONS 2.20 ON 4B5 OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE TO ALLOW FOR REDUCED SETBACKS OF TEN FEET AND MOVE 25 FEET FOR THE FRONT YARD.

ONE FOOT IN ON THE WEST SIDE YARD. THIS WILL BE TO ACCOMMODATE AN ADDITION TO IMPROVE THE PROPERTY AS WELL AS TO BRING THE HOME INTO CONFORMANCE WITH RS3 ZONING STANDARDS. AGAIN, THIS IS AN AERIAL MAP SHOWING THE PROPERTY JUST WEST OF A1A. AND AGAIN RS3 ZONING. AND FUTURE LAND USE SHOWS RESIDENTIAL C. A BRIEF HISTORY OF THE PROPERTY. THE LOT WAS ORIGINALLY PLATTED MAP BOOK PAGE 32 IN 1926. THE LOT IS IN THE SAME CONDITION AS THE DEED FOUND ON DECEMBER 23, 1977. THE PROPERTY'S CONSIDERED BY THE COUNTY AS A LEGAL CON CONFORMING LOT BECAUSE IT IS IN THE SAME CON TIEING RACINGS AS IT WAS PRIOR TO 1990. IT MEETS THE CRITERIA OF COUNTY ORDINANCE 1978-3A WHICH EXEMPTS PROPERTY FROM COUNTY SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS. THIS INFORMATION IS PURSUANT TO A CONFIRMATION LETTER I RECEIVED FROM GROWTH MANAGEMENT IN APRIL. IT STATES THAT BASED ON STAFF REVIEW OF THE SITE PLAN SUBMITTED IT APPEARS THAT APPROVAL OF A ZONING VARIANCE WOULD BE NECESSARY TO ALLOW FOR REDUCTION TO THE REQUIRED SIDE SETBACK AND TO BRING THE EXISTING DEVELOPMENT OF THE SITE INTO CONFORMANCE WITH THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE BY REDUCING THE FRONT SETBACK. SO, M MR. MATOVINA, I HOPE THAT ANSWERS YOUR QUESTION. YOU GENTLEMEN HAVE HEARD THE REQUIREMENTS FOR ZONING VARIANCE MULTIPLE TIMES. THEY'VE RE REROTATED THEM HERE. IT MUST NOT BE CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST. BY THE UNUSUAL SHAPE OF A SPECIFIC PIECE PROPERTY OR BY REASON OF EXCEPTIONAL TOP AGRAPHICAL CONDITIONS OR EXTRAORDINARY SITUATION OR CONDITION OF SUCH PIECE OF PROPERTY OR BY REASON OR USE OF THE DEVELOPMENT OF PROPERTY ADJOINING THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS OF THIS CODE WOULD CAUSE UNDUE HARDSHIP TO CARRY OUT THE SPIRIT AND PURPOSE OF THE CODE AND FINALLY THE VARIANCE WOULD NOT BE CONTRARY TO THE PURPOSE OF THE CODE. THIS IS A PICTURE OF THE HOME AS IT CURRENTLY SITS. CURRENTLY, THE MOWED LAWN THAT YOU SEE TO THE LEFT WOULD BE THE WESTERN BOUNDARY. THE MAJORITY OF THAT IS A NEIGHBORING PARCEL THAT IS MAINTAINED BY THE OWNER OF 106 SURFSIDE. AS IT EXISTS NOW, AND I'LL SHOW YOU ON THE FOLLOWING SLIDE IS A SURVEY, THE MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT THAT AC PAD EXISTS ACROSS THE PROPERTY BOUNDARY LINE. IF THE VARIANCE IS GRANTED AND THE SITE PLAN IS SUBMITTED THAT MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT WOULD BE MOVED ALONG WITH THE REDEVELOPMENT OF THE ADDITION OF THE PROPERTY. THIS IS -- I KNOW IT'S TOUGH TO ZOOM IN BUT THIS IS A SURVEY OF THE PROPERTY AS IT EXISTS. ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE WESTERN PROPERTY LINE IS THE MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT. IT'S TOUGH TO SEE BUT IT'S THERE IN THE MIDDLE.

THANK YOU. THERE IS A ONE FOOT BUFFER IN BETWEEN THE PROPERTY LINE AND THE EXISTING STRUCTURE OF THE HOME. THIS IS THE CURRENT SITE PLAN PROPOSED BY THE OWNER.

AGAIN, AS MS. FRAZIER DISCUSSED, THE SHADED PORTION SHOWS THE EXISTING PROPERTY. SO A PORTION OF THE VARIANCE REQUESTS AGAIN IS TO BRING THE PROPERTY INTO CONFORMANCE WITH RS3 ZONING. THE FRONT OF THE HOME IS NOT BEING IMPROVED. THERE'S NO IMPROVEMENTS TO THAT. HOWEVER, THERE IS THE REQUIREMENT FOR THE TEN FOOT VARIANCE IN LIEU OF THE 25 FOOT SETBACK BASED UPON THE FRONT OF THE HOME, THE STAIRS THAT ENCROACH PAST THE SETBACK LINE. ALSO THE EXISTING HOME ENCROACHES ON THE WESTERN BOUNDARY JUST ONE FOOT OFF THE PROPERTY LINE. AS YOU CAN SEE, WE'VE INDICATED WHERE THE MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT WOULD BE MOVED. AND THAT IS A REQUEST TO MOVE THE MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT WITHIN THE PROPERTY BOUNDARY.

HOWEVER, THE REASON WE LEFT IT AS A ONE FOOT OR EXCUSE ME THE ARCHITECT LEFT IT AS A ONE FOOT SETBACK IS BECAUSE MOVING IT TO THE OTHER SIDE OF THE HOME, AGAIN NOW YOU'RE MOVING DUCTING,

[00:25:02]

A LOT OF MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT, THAT'S A COSTLY BURDEN ON THE HOMEOWNER. THE REST OF THE HOUSE IS JUST AN EXTENSION OFF THE REAR OF THE HOME AS WELL AS A SECOND STORY. THE EXISTING HOME WILL NOT HAVE AN ADDITIONAL STORY PUT ON TOP OF THE EXISTING STRUCTURE. THERE WILL BE, AS YOU CAN SEE HERE, THE FIRST STORY, THIS REAR PORTION OF THE HOME IS GOING TO BE A COVERED LA MY AND IT'S GOING -- LA NYE AND IT'S GOING TO BE COVERED HERE AS SHOWN ON THE SECOND STORY. THIS AGAIN IS THE ELEVATION OF THE HOME. THE ADDITION OF THE NEW PARCEL, IT WILL STAY ON THE SAME ELEVATION AS THE EXISTING STRUCTURE. THERE IS NOT GOING TO BE ANY FURTHER ENCROACHMENT TO THE WEST. ON THE EAST SIDE OF THE HOME, THE STRUCTURE THAT DOES COME OUT SLIGHTLY FROM THE EXISTING LINE OF THE HOME IS A STAIR TOWER THAT'S GOING TO BE SHOWN RIGHT HERE. THIS IS NOT A MODERN, LARGE, WHITE BOX THAT I KNOW A LOT OF THE LOCALS ARE APPREHENSIVE ABOUT REDEVELOPMENT IN THE AREA. THE OWNER WHO IS ALSO THE ARCHITECT HERE, ONE OF THE OWNERS, I SHOULD SAY, IS CONSCIENCE OF THE NEED TO KEEP DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE SURROUNDING CHARACTERISTICS OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. THE LOT IS EXCEEDINGLY SMALL AND NARROW FOR THE RS3 ZONING STANDARDS. AGAIN STANDARDS PER SECTION 6.01.

MINIMUM WIDTH OF AN RS3 LOT IS 75 FEET ALONG WITH .25 ACRES.

7,500 SQUARE FEET. THE WIDTH OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY, 50 FEET.

THE LOT AREA IS 6,250. SO I INCLUDED THE IMPERVIOUS SURFACE RATIO LETTING YOU KNOW THAT IS NOT BEING EXCEEDED WITH THE REQUEST TODAY. I ALSO NOTED THAT AGAIN THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS EXCEPTIONALLY NARROW AND SMALL THUS CREATING A HARDSHIP FOR THE OWNER. THE CRITERIA HAS BEEN MET FOR THE APPROVAL OF THE ZONING VARIANCE BY STATING THAT IT IS NOT GOING TO BE CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST. THE IMPROVEMENT OF THE PROPERTY WILL NOT IMPACT ANY ADJACENT PROPERTY. THE TWO PARCELS TO THE WEST OR THE PARCEL TO THE WEST AND THE PARCEL TO THE EAST ARE BOTH VACANT. THERE'S SIGNIFICANT BUFFERING AROUND THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD IS NOT GOING TO CHANGE. BASED UPON THE IMPROVEMENTS. AGAIN, THE LOT ITSELF IS NON-CONFORMING BECAUSE IT'S ESPECIALLY NARROW AND SMALL FOR THE RS3 ZONING AREA. LITERAL ENFORCE. THE CODE WOULD CREATE A HARDSHIP. EVEN IF THE VARIANCE ISN'T GRANTED JUST TO BRING THE HOME INTO CONFORMANCE WE HAVE A MARKETBILITY ISSUE WITH THE HOUSE. IT WOULD FORCE THE HOMEOWNER TO DEMOLISH HOME.

WHICH I THINK, I BELIEVE WOULD BE UNDULY BURDENSOME ON THE OWNER AND IT WOULD NOT BE CONTRARY TO THE SPIRIT AND THE PURPOSE OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE. IT'S OFFERING THE CHANCE FOR THE OWNERS TO IMPROVE THE PROPERTY. THE HOUSE HAS BEEN IN EXISTENCE SINCE 1936. ALSO I WANTED TO STATE WITH REGARD TO THE SITE PLAN AND MANIPULATING THE ADDITION TO THE EAST. THAT HAS BEEN CONSIDERED. SO, AGAIN, THE RED BOUNDARY IS THE SETBACKS AS THEY EXIST FOR THIS LOT. IN THE EVENT THAT THIS HOUSE WAS SIMPLY CENTERED ON TO THE PROPERTY, YOU'RE STILL GOING TO HAVE THE ENCROACHMENTS ON THE FRONT AND THE WEST. THEN YOU ARE CREATING AN ADDITIONAL ENCROACHMENT ON THE EAST. IF THE HOUSE -- IF THE REAR ADDITION WOULD BE MOVED TO THE EAST TOO FAR, THEN YOU'RE LIMITING THE DRIVEWAY THAT EXISTS ON THE EAST SIDE OF THE HOME THEREBY IMPACTING PARKING ON THE PROPERTY. THE EXISTING, EXCUSE ME, THE PROPOSED SITE PLAN AS SHOWN WOULD BE THE FOR LACK OF A BETTER WAY THE CLEANEST WAY OF GOING ABOUT AN ADDITION TO THE PROPERTY AS WELL AS THE LEAST BURDENSOME ON TO THE OWNER FOR COST STANDPOINT AND FOR A DESIGN STANDPOINT.

QUESTIONS? CHAIRMAN: MR. MATOVINA? BOARD MEMBER: WHEN DID THE APPLICANT BUY THIS PROPERTY? SPEAKER: SO THE APPLICANT BOUGHT THE PROPERTY -- ONE OF THE OWNERS BOUGHT THE PROPERTY IN 2008. IT WAS THEN SHE ALONG WITH A COUPLE OTHER FRIENDS BOUGHT INTO IT TOGETHER. SO, THERE'S A TRUST THAT OWNS IT. IT'S THREE SEPARATE OWNERS. SO THEY SPLIT TIME IN THE PROPERTY AND THAT'S WITHIN THE LAST TWO YEARS.

[00:30:02]

BOARD MEMBER: AND IF LOOK AT THIS CORRECTLY YOU GOT A DRIVEWAY THAT EFFECTIVELY ENCROACHES ON THE PROPERTY TO THE EAST? SPEAKER: NO. SO, THAT WAS -- THE ONE INCH AND FOUR INCHES OVER THE LINE, THAT HAS BEEN ADDRESSED WITH THE OWNERS OF THE PROPERTY TO THE WEST. THEY ARE NOT LOCAL RESIDENTS. THAT IS UNIMPROVED PROPERTY AND IT'S VACANT. SO THAT ENCROACHMENT WILL BE RESOLVED BY THE OWNER OF 106 SURFSIDE IN THE EVENT IF THIS MOVES FORWARD AND THE VARIANCE IS APPROVED. THE DOTTED LINE THERE, YOU PROBABLY ALREADY SAW IT, THAT'S NOTING THE FLOOD ZONE. THAT'S NOT THE DRIVEWAY.

BOARD MEMBER: OKAY.

CHAIRMAN: ARE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? I DON'T SEE ANY. DO WE HAVE ANY PUBLIC COMMENT? BOARD MEMBER: WE HAVE ONE SPEAKER CARD.

PUBLIC SPEAKER: MY NAME IS TOM MCAVOY. MY WIFE AND I ARE THE OWNERS AT 100 SURFSIDE. WHICH IS AT THE INTERSECTION OF A1A COASTAL AND SURFSIDE AVENUE. TO BE CLEAR, THE LOTS TO OUR WEST ARE VERY NARROW. ABSOLUTELY. AND IMPROVEMENT TO ANY ONE OF THE HOUSES WOULD BE EXCELLENT.

HOWEVER, WITHIN THE LAST TWO YEARS, WE WERE CONTACTED BY THE PREVIOUS OWNERS OF 102 IN WHICH THEY SOLD THAT PROPERTY. AND THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION RIGHT NOW AT 106 WAS FORCED AND COMPELLED TO SLICE THE DRIVEWAY. SO THE EDGE OF THE DRIVEWAY IS RIGHT ON THE PROPERTY LINE, I BELIEVE, AS IT EXISTS. I HAVE NO SURVEYS OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT. I'M JUST KIND OF WONDERING IF THAT HAS BEEN TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION.

I'VE LISTENED TO OPINIONS AND/OR PLANS FOR THAT EAST SIDE, BUT I'M CONCERNED THAT MAYBE THE DRIVEWAY MIGHT NOT BE WIDE ENOUGH? BUT I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT THE RULES AND REGULATIONS ARE FOR THE SIZE OF A DRIVEWAY.

THAT'S ALL I HAVE. I CAME HERE WITH AN OPEN MIND JUST TO SEE WHAT'S GOING ON OVER THERE AS A PROPERTY OWNER.

CHAIRMAN: THANK YOU. WE'LL HAVE THE APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE ADDRESS YOUR QUESTION.

PUBLIC SPEAKER: THANK YOU.

CHAIRMAN: ANY OTHER PUBLIC COMMENT? SEEING NONE, MR. FAULKNER, IF YOU COULD JUST COME UP AND ADDRESS THE GENTLEMAN'S QUESTIONS ABOUT THE DRIVEWAY THERE.

SPEAKER: IT MIGHT BE HELPFUL TO PULL THE SITE LINE BACK UP.

THERE WE GO. SO, AGAIN, AND WE DO APPRECIATE THE CONCERN WITH THE PARKING. AS I STATED, THE SMALL ENCROACHMENT ON THAT DRIVEWAY, THE FOUR INCHES AND THE ONE INCH INTO 104 SURFSIDE, HAVE BEEN ADDRESSED WITH THE OWNERS OF THAT SPECIFIC PIECE OF PROPERTY. WITH REGARD TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE OR EXCUSE ME THE PROPOSED ADDITION, THERE'S NOT GOING TO BE A SIGNIFICANT ENOUGH -- THERE'S A SLIGHT PARCEL RIGHT HERE FOR THE STAIR TOWER WHICH WILL COME OUT ABOUT A FOOT. BUT THAT'S NOT GOING TO HAVE ANY SIGNIFICANT IMPACT TO THE DRIVEWAY. HOWEVER, IN THE EVENT THAT THE ADDITION WAS FORCED SIGNIFICANTLY EAST, THEN YOU WOULD HAVE IMPACT TO PARKING AND YOU WOULD HAVE THE ABILITY OR THE INABILITY FOR A CAR TO MOVE THROUGH THERE. YOU DO HAVE, RIGHT HERE ON THE SITE PLAN IT SHOWS ABOUT TEN FEET IN BETWEEN CLEARANCE OF THIS PART OF THE HOUSE TO THE PROPERTY LINE.

CHAIRMAN: THANK YOU. DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE? WE DON'T. SO WE ARE BACK ON THE AGENCY. I'M LOOKING AT THIS PIECE OF PROPERTY, I SEE AN OLD HOUSE ON A NON-CONFORMING LOT.

I'LL GRANT IT EXCEPTIONALLY NARROW. THE EXISTING STRUCTURE HAS A SETBACK OF A FOOT FROM THE ADJACENT PROPERTY FOR A CERTAIN DISTANCE. BUT WHEN I LOOK AT THE ADDITION, I SEE IT EXACERBATING A CONDITION THAT DOESN'T REALLY NEED TO BE EXACERBATED. I THINK IT DOES A LITTLE MORE HARM THAN GOOD HERE.

I'M HAVING TROUBLE FINDING -- YOU KNOW I DON'T FIND THE NARROWNESS IS SUCH A HARDSHIP HERE AS IT IS THAT WE'RE TRYING TO SQUEEZE SOMETHING THAT'S WAY TOO BIG FOR THIS PARTICULAR PARCEL. MR. WAINWRIGHT? BOARD MEMBER: THAT SEEMS TO ME THAT THERE'S A GREAT DEAL BEING PUT INTO THIS SMALL SPACE THAT

[00:35:01]

ALMOST OVERSHADOWS THE ADJACENT PROPERTY. AND I'M HAVING A PROBLEM WITH THE HARDSHIP BY THE VERY BUYING IT. THE HARDSHIP WAS CREATED BY BUYING THE PROPERTY.

IT'S KIND OF LIKE BUYING A CAR WITH A FLAT TIRE AND THEN CLAIMING THAT THE FLAT TIRE IS A HARDSHIP. THAT'S ALL.

CHAIRMAN: ANY OTHER COMMENTS FROM THE AGENCY? BOARD MEMBER: MR. CHAIR, THERE'S TWO REQUESTS -- SPEAKER: TWO VARIANCE REQUESTS.

ONE IS FOR THE FRONT YARD SETBACK. AND THERE IS A PORTION FOR THE EXISTING STRUCTURE. SO THE AGENCY CAN HAVE FURTHER DISCUSSIONS ON IF IT DESIRES TO KIND OF LIMIT THE, IF IT REJECTS IT OUTRIGHT THEN THEY'RE STUCK WITH WHAT THEY HAVE AND THEY'RE STUCK WITH, YOU KNOW, A LIMITATION ON ANY IMPROVEMENTS.

YOU CAN LIMIT THE GRANTING TO THE EXISTING STRUCTURE AND ANY ADDITIONS NEED TO CON FORM WITH THE ADDITIONAL SETBACKS OHM. OR AS BEVERLY HAS PROVIDED WITH THE EXCEPTION THAT ISN'T SEEN VERY OFTEN, KIND OF A BLANK AREA FOR ANY FUTURE ENCROACHMENTS TO THE WEST SIDE YARD SETBACK AND SPECIFICALLY FOR THE MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT. SO, THERE'S VARIOUS ITERATIONS OF THE REQUEST THAT IS ACCOMMODATING THE EXISTING STRUCTURE, THE MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT AND THE ADDITION. SO I BELIEVE MR. FAULKNER ALSO WANTS TO ADDRESS THE AGENCY BEFORE THEY MAKE A DECISION.

CHAIRMAN: I THINK WE HAVE A COUPLE OTHER AGENCY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FIRST. MR. MATOVINA.

BOARD MEMBER: PAULO, IF WE WERE TO APPROVE A VARIANCE, LET'S SAY THREE THREE-PRONGED AUTHORIZING THE ENCROACHMENT ON THE WESTBOUNDRY OF THE EXISTING STRUCTURE, THE ENCROACHMENT ON THE FRONT BOUNDARY OF THE EXISTING STRUCTURE, AND AUTHORIZING THE ENCROACHMENT OF THE RELOCATED EQUIPMENT, AND NOT APPROVE THE BALANCE, DOES THAT MEAN THEY CAN'T COME BACK FOR ANY SORT OF ENCROACHMENT ON THE BALANCE FOR ONE YEAR? WHEN I SAY "BALANCE" I MEAN ANY SORT OF ENCROACHMENT ON THE NEW STRUCTURE.

SPEAKER: THAT IS CORRECT. THE PROVISION IS ONCE YOU APPROVE OR DENY A VARIANCE, THEY MAY NOT COME BACK FOR A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR UPON THE DATE OF APPROVAL OR DENIAL FOR ESSENTIALLY THE EXACT SAME VARIANCE REQUEST.

SO, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE SETBACK. THEY CAN'T COME BACK FOR AT LEAST A YEAR FOR REQUESTING ANOTHER SETBACK TO THE WESTERN BOUNDARY.

BOARD MEMBER: MR. CHAIRMAN, SO I GUESS WHERE I'M AT IS I TEND TO AGREE WITH YOU ALL THAT WE'RE TRYING TO PUT A TEN POUND SACK OF POTATOES IN A FIVE POUND SACK. AT THE SAME TIME, IT IS A LIMITING LOT AND WE MAY WANT TO ALLOW SOMETHING. IT CONCERNS ME THAT WE COULD SPEND AN AWFUL LOT OF TIME WITH A LENGTHY AGENDA TODAY TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHAT SOMETHING IS.

SPEAKER: I AGREE. I DON'T WANT TO RE-DESIGN THE HOUSE RIGHT HERE. IF THE APPLICANT WOULD BE AMENABLE TO HAVING THAT, WE CAN ALWAYS MAKE THAT PART OF OUR MOTION TO SUSPEND THAT ONE-YEAR REQUIREMENT. IF THEY WANT TO COME BACK ANOTHER TIME WITH A DIFFERENT DESIGN THAT'S A LITTLE MORE IN LINE THAT PERHAPS THIS AGENCY WOULD BE ABLE TO SUPPORT.

IS THAT CORRECT MR. SORIA? SPEAKER: THAT IS CORRECT.

BOARD MEMBER: OKAY.

CHAIRMAN: MR. FAULKNER GO AHEAD.

SPEAKER: TO BE CLEAR, THE AGENCY IS CURRENTLY CONSIDERING ALLOWING THE GRANTING OF THE VARIANCE TO BRING THE SITE WITHIN CONFORMANCE AND MOVE THE MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT BUT THEN TO ADOPT A ZONING SARE JANZ AT A LATER TIME BUT NOT A YEAR FROM NOW CORRECT.

SPEAKER: THAT'S CORRECT.

SPEAKER: MR. WAINWRIGHT I JUST WANTED TO SHOW YOU ABOUT THE THIS WAS THE SURVEY THAT WAS - DONE FOR THE PROPERTY AT THE TIME THE PROPERTY WAS PURCHASED.

THE SURVEYOR DREW THE PROPERTY INCORRECTLY. NOW, UNDERSTANDABLY, IT'S STILL ON THE BUYER TO DO THEIR HOMEWORK.

HOWEVER, MOST PEOPLE BUYING HOMES ARE LAY PEOPLE AND DO NOT HAVE THE ABILITY TO READ A SURVEY. THEY GET A SURVEY AT CLOSING AND SAY LOOKS GREAT.

LET'S MOVE FORWARD.

UNFORTUNATELY, THIS SURVEYOR IS OUT OF BUSINESS. THERE IS NO MATTER OF RECOURSE AGAINST THIS SURVEYOR. SO IT WAS NOT INTENTIONALLY BOUGHT WITH KNOWLEDGE THAT THE HOUSE WAS ON THE PROPERTY BOUNDARY. SO I HOPE THAT AT LEAST ANSWERS YOUR QUESTION AS TO KNOW IT WAS NOT KNOWINGLY THAT WE WERE FACED

[00:40:01]

WITH SUCH AN ISSUE WHEN THE PROPERTY WAS BOUGHT 11 YEARS AGO.

BOARD MEMBER: THANK YOU FOR THAT. AND THAT DOES MAKE A DIFFERENCE. BECAUSE LAY PEOPLE ACCEPT WHAT'S THERE. I WOULD ASK THAT YOU CONSIDER, WITHOUT TAKING MORE TIME HERE, ARRANGE TO MOVE THE AIR CONDITIONER, HVAC, AWAY FROM THE AJAYS APT PROPERTY LINE. IT'S VERY CLOSE.

IT'S NOISY. IT CAN BE DISRUPTIVE TO THE NEIGHBORS WHO ARE RIGHT THERE.

SPEAKER: WE CERTAINLY HAVE THE INTENTIONS OF DOING THAT. THAT LOT IS VACANT. THERE IS NO NEIGHBOR RIGHT NOW. THERE'S NOBODY ON THAT PROPERTY TO THE WEST. AND THERE'S A VEGETATIVE BUFFER IN BETWEEN WHERE THE ENCROACHMENT -- I'M GIST JUST LETTING YOU KNOW. BUT THERE IS THE INTENT TO MOVE THAT MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT SO NO LONGER ON A SEPARATE PARCEL.

CHAIRMAN: MR. MATOVINA? BOARD MEMBER: THIS IS BIZARRE BECAUSE OF COURSE THAT SURVEY SHOWS A 62-AND-A-HALF FOOT LOT AND THE LOT APPARENTLY IS ONLY 50 FEET IS THAT CORRECT? SPEAKER: SURE. THE WAY THAT WAS DONE -- I KNOW IT'S TOUGH TO READ. THE LEGAL AT THE TOP OF THE PAGE IS CORRECT. EAST THIRD OF LOT 3 AND THE WEST THIRD OF LOT 5. HOWEVER THE SURVEYOR DREW THE EAST HALF OF LOT 3. NOT THE EAST 3. SO THE SURVEYOR JUST MESSED THIS UP PRIOR TO CLOSING.

BOARD MEMBER: WHAT DOES THAT LEAVE THE LOT TO THE WEST WITH? SPEAKER: THE LOT TO THE WEST IS THE SAME SIZE AS THE SUBJECT PARCEL.

CHAIRMAN: IF THERE ARE NO FURTHER QUESTIONS I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION.

SPEAKER: MR. CHAIR, I THINK I'M GOING TO NEED BEVERLY'S HELP FOR THIS ONE. I THINK THE MOTION WOULD BE KIND OF READING THE SECOND APPROVAL WITH CHANGES.

SO IT WOULD BE A MOTION TO ABOVE ZVAR 20619-17 SURFSIDE AVENUE REQUEST FOR ZONING VARIANCE SECTIONS 6.01.01 AND 2.02 TO ALLOW FOR 25 FEET FOR THE FRONT YARD AND ONE FOOT IN LOU OF 8 FEET FOR THE WEST SIDE YARD TO BRING THE EXISTING HOME INTO CONFORMANCE. AND ONE FOOT IN LIEU OF FIVE FEET FOR MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT. STOP. BASED ON FIVE FINDINGS OF FACT AND SUBJECT TO 7 CONDITIONS AS PROVIDED IN THE REPORT.

CHAIRMAN: IS THAT CORRECT? SPEAKER: SHE IS NODDING HER HEAD.

CHAIRMAN: ALL RIGHT. DOES ANYONE CARE TO MAKE THAT MOTION? BOARD MEMBER: SO MOVED.

CHAIRMAN: I HAVE A SECOND. ANY ADDITIONAL DISCUSSION.

BOARD MEMBER: I JUST WANT TO BE CLEAR SINCE I DON'T THINK EVERYBODY HERE IS CLEAR. CAN WE READ THAT ONE MORE TIME.

CHAIRMAN: OKAY. A MOTION TO APPROVE ZONING VARIANCE 2019-17 SURFSIDE AVENUE REQUEST FOR ZONING VARIANCE TO ALLOW REDUCED SETBACKS OF TEN FEET IN LIEU OF 25 FEET FOR THE FRONT YARD AND ONE FOOT IN LIEU OF 8 FEET FOR THE WESTSIDE YARD AND TO BRING THE EXISTING HOME INTO CONFORMANCE. AND ONE FEET IN LIEU OF 8 FEET FOR THE WEST SIDE YARD AND ONE FOOT IN LIEU OF FIVE FEET FOR MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT.

CHAIRMAN: BEEN BY NOT ADDRESSING THE APPROVED -- OR NOT APPROVED, THE REQUESTED NEW STRUCTURE, DOES THAT HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH THE ONE YEAR TIME? SPEAKER: YOU WOULD ALSO HAVE TO MAKE A MOTION EITHER IN THIS ONE OR A FOLLOW-UP MOTION TO WAIVE THE ONE YEAR LIMITATION. JUST TO CLARIFY. WHEN I SAY ONE FOOT IN LIEU OF 8 FEET, THAT'S NORMAL SIDE YARD. AND IT IS ONLY RELATING BOTH TO THE MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT. IT DOES NOT RELATE TO ANY ADDITIONS. SO, AFTER THE SEMI COLON THE ONE FOOT IN LIEU OF 8 FEET AND ONE FEET IN LIEU OF FIVE FEET IS FOR THE MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT COMPONENT.

CHAIRMAN: MR. MATOVINA WOULD YOU WANT TO MAKE THE WAIVER FOR THE ONE YEAR PART OF THIS? BOARD MEMBER: I WOULD LIKE TO ADD TO TO MY MOTION.

CHAIRMAN: SO WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. ANY ADDITIONAL SUGGESTION? SEEING NONE, PLEASE VOTE SPEAKER: THAT IS OBVIOUSLY BASED ON THE FIVE FINDINGS AND THE 7 CONDITIONS. LET ME SEE IF THERE'S ANYTHING IN THE

[00:45:01]

CONDITIONS.

CHAIRMAN: SO THE MOTION TO BRING THE EXISTING STRUCTURE INTO COMPLIANCE AND MOVE THE MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT HAS PASSED.

AND WITH THE WAIVER TO ALLOW YOU TO COME BACK WITHIN ONE YEAR.

[Item 2]

MOVING ON TO ITEM 2. MS. DEL RANCE? GOOD AFTERNOON.

SPEAKER: GOOD AFTERNOON. THIS IS FOR A MINOR MODIFICATION 2019-08 FOR THE BUSINESS CALLED PINSPIRATION. THE REQUEST IS FOR A MINMOD MODIFICATION TO THE FAIRFIELD PLAN FIELD DEVELOPMENT TO ALLOW FOR THE SALE OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES -- JUST BEER AND WINE -- IN CONJUNCTION WITH A CRAFT STUDIO. NORMALLY IT'S ASSOCIATED WITH FOOD. THIS IS AT THE PONTE VEDRA SHOPPING CENTER IN UNIT 7. THE HOURS OF OPERATION ARE MOSTLY EVENINGS DURING THE WEEK AND ON THE WEEKENDS. THIS IS A MAP OF WHERE IT'S LOCATED AT THE CONFLUENCE OF PALM VALLEY ROAD AND A1A NORTH ON THE RIGHT. AND IT'S THAT SHOPPING CENTER CIRCLED OR OUTLINED IN YELLOW. THIS SHOWS THE NEAREST SCHOOL WITHIN -- THIS IS THE THOUSAND FOOT RADIUS THAT WE NEED TO LOOK AT. AND THERE IS NO CHURCH WITHIN THAT CIRCLE EITHER. THE PUD CURRENTLY DOES ALLOW FOR ALCOHOL SALES.

BUT THEY HAVE TO BE IN CONJUNCTION WITH FOOD SALES.

THERE ARE EXISTING ALCOHOL SALES WITH FOOD AT OTHER TENANT LOCATIONS NEARBY. THIS IS A SITE PLAN OF THE SHOPPING CENTER AND IS ORIENT SO THE NORTH IS TO THE RIGHT. THAT'S A1A AT THE BOTTOM. IT'S TUCKED BACK INTO THE CORNER. THIS IS THE SITE PLAN, OF THE INTERIOR. THE ROOMS, VARIOUS ROOMS WHERE THEY DO THEIR CRAFTING AND HAVE SPECIAL EVENTS. THIS IS ACTUALLY NEEDS TO BE UPDATED. I'VE RECEIVED ANOTHER CORRESPONDENCE IN FAVOR OF THE REQUESTS. SO I HAVE SIX CORRESPONDENCES IN FAVOR OF THIS REQUEST FROM NEIGHBORS WHO THINK IT WOULD BE A GOOD IDEA AND HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH IT. SHOULD THE AGENCY FIND THE REQUEST MEETS THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, STAFF HAS PROVIDED SIX -- OR MAYBE IT IS 12 12 CONDITIONS, AND 4 FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL. AND THERE ARE 4 FINDINGS OF FACT, IF YOU FIND YOU NEED TO DENY IT. AND THE APPLICANT ALSO HAS A REPRESENTATIVE WHO HAS A PRESENTATION.

CHAIRMAN: THANK YOU. M MR. MATOVINA? BOARD MEMBER: IS THIS CHANGE TO THE PUD SPECIFIC TO THIS BUSINESS OR WOULD ALLOW ANY BAR OR ANY -- HOW DOES THAT WORK? SPEAKER: IT IS TREATD THE SAME AS A SPECIAL USE ARM PERMIT.

SO, IT'S SITE SPECIFIC. AND ALSO IT DOES NOT ALLOW A BAR. A BAR IS ACTUALLY PROHIBITED BY THE COMPRO HINTSIVE -- DPREE HENCI PLAN. ANY ALCOHOL SALE OR SERVICE MUST BE INCIDENTAL TO THE PRIMARY USE. SO, AS LONG AS THEY KEEP DOING THAT AND THERE'S A COMMENT BY MY OFFICE SAYING THAT IF THIS BECOMES THE PRIMARY OR ADVERTISED USE IS THE CONSUMPTION OF ALCOHOL ON PREMISE, YOU ARE IMMEDIATELY IN VIOLATION OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND THE PLAN DEVELOPMENT BECAUSE YOU ARE CONSIDERED A BAR.

CHAIRMAN: ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? I DON'T SEE ANY. THANK YOU. MS. TAYLOR? SPEAKER: GOOD AFTERNOON. KAREN TAYLOR. 77 SARE AGOSSA STREET.

WITH ME ARE JEN AND BRANDON SH SHL SHLECHT. WE ARE HERE ON THE PINS OPERATION MINOR -- PRINCE OPERATION MINOR MODIFICATION. I HAVE A SIMILAR PRESENTATION TO WHAT KIM HAD BUT I'LL TRY TO GO THROUGH IT QUICKLY AND MAYBE SUM UP JUST A FEW THINGS AT THE END.

SHE DID MENTION TO YOU WHERE IT IS. AND, OF COURSE, YOU GUYS REMEMBER THIS SHOPPING CENTER PRETTY WELL FROM THE PANERA THAT WAS APPROVED NOT TOO LONG AGO THAT IS UP IN THE -- WHERE'S MY -- UP IN THIS GENERAL LOCATION. THAT'S OPEN NOW.

JEN'S PLACE IS GOING TO BE RIGHT DOWN IN HERE. IT'S KIND OF A CORNER, A LITTLE LOCATION. IT DOES HAVE THE APPROPRIATE LAND USE WHICH IS COMMERCIAL FOR THAT WHOLE SHOPPING CENTER AND THAT PORTION OF FAIRFIELD. IF YOU

[00:50:01]

REMEMBER, FAIRFIELD GOES ON, THE RESIDENTIAL C AREA TO THE SOUTH IS ALSO PART OF FAIRFIELD. IT'S WITHIN ONE GIANT PUD. THIS WAS A SITE PLAN. WE USED IT FOR THE PANERA AND IT'S STILL RELEVANT HERE. SO IT'S FILED ALONG WITH THIS MODIFICATION AS WELL. IN THIS ONE IS JUST A SIGN THAT LOCATES WHERE THIS PARTICULAR PLACE IS WITHIN THE SHOPPING CENTER. AND YES WE DID UNDERSTAND WHEN WE APPLIED FOR IT, MR. MONT AVENA, THAT IT IS JUST FOR THIS PARTICULAR LOCATION AND THIS PARTICULAR APPLICANT. I NOTE THAT IT IS NOT TRANSFERRABLE TO SOMEBODY ELSE UNLESS IT'S THE BUSINESS. SO THIS KIND OF SHOWS YOU KIND OF IT'S KIND OF DEFINITELY TUCKED BACK IN. SHE'S GOT VERY LITTLE FRONTAGE. THE AREA IS KIND OF ALONG HERE. I HAD THE SAME MAP THAT WE PROVIDED TO STAFF THAT ALSO DEMONSTRATES WHERE IT IS.

AND THE ACTIVITY AREA AND THE FLOOR PLAN LAYOUT. JUST WANTED TO KIND OF EXPLAIN THIS. THIS IS VERY SIMILAR TO SOME OF THE OTHER CRAFTING THINGS LIKE PAINTING WITH A TWIST OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. BUT PINS OPERATION HAS THEIR -- PINSPIRATION HAS THEIR THING WHERE THEY INCLUDE ALCOHOL SALES RATHER THAN BRINGING YOUR OWN, WHICH THE OTHER ONES DO. THEY ALSO DO SELL SOME FOOD. IT'S JUST APPETIZERS, THINGS LIKE THAT. SO, BUT IT'S NOT ENOUGH FOOD TO BE A FOOD LOCATION WITH THIS AS THE SECONDARY. BUT IT IS VERY MUCH AN ACCESSORY TO THE BUSINESS. THE BUSINESS IS FOR CRAFTING. AND THEY DO ANYTHING FROM CORPORATE TYPE THINGS TO SCHOOL GROUPS TO INDIVIDUAL GROUPS TO WHATEVER. SO, THERE'S QUITE A DIFFERENT LAYOUT AND I'M GOING TO KIND OF GET INTO THAT JUST A LITTLE BIT TOO. BECAUSE I NOTED ON THE APPLICATION AND WE DID PROVIDE KIND OF SKIP TO THAT. WE DID PROVIDE THE HOURS OF OPERATION. AND I THINK WHEN JEN GAVE ME THOSE, SHE WAS THINKING OF GENERAL THINGS THAT THEY HAVE IN THEIR LEASE. AND I DON'T KNOW THAT THEY'RE RELATED TO THE ALCOHOL SALES OR WHATEVER. BUT BASICALLY IF YOU WILL NOTE IN THE STAFF REPORT, WHATEVER CONDITION, IT KIND OF TALKS ABOUT THE HOURS BUT IT ALSO TALKS ABOUT IT WILL ALSO BE AVAILABLE FOR DAYTIME EVENTS. I THINK THAT MIGHT BECOME CONFUSING FOR STAFF IN THE FUTURE WHEN THEY'RE TRYING TO DETERMINE WHETHER BECAUSE THEY HAD AN EVENT AT NOON ON A DAY THAT THEY'RE NOT SUPPOSED TO START UNTIL THREE, IF THAT'S APPROPRIATE. SO I WOULD LIKE YOU ALL TO CONSIDER, IT'S NOT REQUIRED, BUT WE'D LIKE YOU TO CONSIDER A LITTLE MORE STANDARDIZING OF THE HOURS OF OPERATION. YOU COULD LIMIT THE ALCOHOL TIME WHATEVER, BUT I THINK THAT MAKES IT DIFFICULT AS WELL. SO MY PRESENTING IT WOULD BE 9:00 A.M. TO 9:00 P.M. FOR MONDAY THROUGH THURSDAY. THEN THE 9:00 A.M. TO 10:00 P.M.

FRIDAY AND SATURDAY. THAT JUST GIVES YOU A LATER TIME IN THE EVENING. THEN 9:00 A.M. TO 8:00 P.M. ON SUNDAYS. AS I MENTIONED, SHE MENTIONED TO ME THAT THEY OFTEN -- THESE TYPES OF FACILITIES OFTEN DO SUMMER CAMP TYPE THINGS AND THAT'S WHY THE TIME WOULD BE A LITTLE BIT EARLIER, ESPECIALLY ON WEEKDAYS.

THEY ONLY DO THOSE IN THE SUMMER. THEY'RE OBVIOUSLY NOT SERVING ALCOHOL TO KIDS IN THE MORNING. BUT WE WOULD LIKE YOU TO CONSIDER THAT. SO I DO HAVE THE FULL BROCHURE. JEN IS HERE IF YOU HAVE INI QUESTIONS ABOUT THE BUSINESS. THIS IS CONSISTENT. THIS IS A MINOR MODIFICATION. SO IT JUST GOES TO YOU ALL. IT DOES NOT PROCEED ON TO THE COUNTY COMMISSION.

WE'RE ASKING FOR YOUR APPROVAL TODAY. IT'S CERTAINLY WITHIN A SHOPPING CENTER THAT'S REASONABLE AND HAS VERY SIMILAR TYPE USES. WITH THAT, I'D BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.

MR. WAINWRIGHT, GO AHEAD.

BOARD MEMBER: YES, MS. TAYLOR, DO YOU HAVE ANY PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE OF THE SPLATTER ROOM? SPEAKER: I DO NOT. I AM GUESSING MY CLIENT WOULD. I THINK THERE'S A NICE LITTLE PICTURE.

[LAUGHTER] BOARD MEMBER: OKAY WE'RE DONE WITH THAT.

SPEAKER: THAT LOOKS LIKE.

BOARD MEMBER: YOU GENERALLY HAVE ALL THE ANSWERS TO ALL THE QUESTIONS AND I FINALLY FOUND A QUESTION YOU DON'T KNOW THE ANSWER TO. THANK YOU.

[00:55:01]

CHAIRMAN: ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? I DON'T SEE ANY. DO WE HAVE ANY PUBLIC COMMENT? BOARD MEMBER: NO.

CHAIRMAN: WE ARE BACK ON THE AGENCY THEN. I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THIS. I THINK IT IS A GOOD AND APPROPRIATE USE AND THINK IT WILL HELP THEM, YOU KNOW, HAVE CERTAIN EVENTS AND DRAW IN SOME MOORE CLIENTELE.

BOARD MEMBER: I'D OFFER A MOTION.

CHAIRMAN: MR. MCCORMACK DID YOU HAVE SOMETHING? BOARD MEMBER: I WAS DOING TO OFFER A MOTION SPEAKER: MR. MCCORMACK, BEFORE YOU MAKE THE MOTION, YOU DID HAVE A REQUEST FROM THE APPLICANT TO CHANGE CONDITION NUMBER 4 TO CHANGE THE HOURS OF OPERATION. 9:00 A.M. TO 9:00 P.M. MONDAY THROUGH THURSDAY, 9:00 A.M. TO 10:00 P.M. FRIDAY AND SATURDAY, AND 9:00 A.M. TO 9:00 P.M. ON SUNDAY.

CHAIRMAN: YES. ALL RIGHT. I AM GOING TO MAKE A MOTION AND INCLUDE THE REQUEST MADE BY MS. TAYLOR IN TERMS OF THE TIME OF OPERATION. SO MY MOTION THEN IS REQUEST FOR A -- WAIT A MINUTE.

APPROVE A MOTION TO APPROVE MINIMUM MODIFICATION 2019-08 MINOR MODIFICATION TO THE FAIRFIELD PUD AT PONTE VEDRA SHOPPING CENTER. BASED ON FOUR FINDINGS OF FACT, 12 CONDITIONS AS PROVIDED IN THE RESOLUTION.

INCLUDING THAT THE RECOMMENDED TIMES REQUESTED BY MS. TAYLOR.

CHAIRMAN: ADDITIONAL DISCUSSION? SEEING NONE, PLEASE VOTE. AND THE MOTION VARIES.

[Item 3]

CONGRATULATIONS. MOVING ON.

ITEM NUMBER 3. MS. FRAZIER?.

WELCOME BACK.

SPEAKER: THANK YOU. FOR THE RECORD BEVERLY FRAZIER GROWTH MANAGEMENT AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 3.

A MODERN MODIFICATION FOR THE GADDY SWIMMING POOL. THIS IS A REQUEST TO THE ARBOR MILLS PU DID D TO ALLOW REDUCTION OF THE REAR SETBACK FROM 5 FEET 8 INCHES IN LIEU OF 10 FEET TO ACCOMMODATE PLACEMENT OF A SWIMMING POOL LOCATED AT 617 ATHENS DRIVE. THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED NORTH OF STATE ROAD 16 AND WEST OF 16A IN THE NORTHWEST SECTOR OF THE COUNTY. IT IS DESIGNATED RESIDENTIAL B ON THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP AND PART OF THE ARBOR MILL SUBDIVISION AT MILL CREEK. THE AERIAL MAP SHOWS THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS .20 ACRES IN SIZE. IT'S ADJACENT TO THE PERIMETER BOUNDARY OF THAT PUD AS YOU CAN SEE IT ADJACENT THERE AND SURROUNDED BY SINGLE FAMILY HOMES CURRENTLY ARE IN DEPARTMENT DEVELOPMENT. THE THE POOL IS PROPOSED AT 3'8" FROM THE SINGLE FAMILY HOME AND 6'8" FROM THE REAR PROPERTY LINE. THE POOL IS DESIGNED TO ACCOMMODATE A SCREEN ENCLOSURE WHICH WILL MEET THE MINIMUM FIVE FEET SETBACK. THE NARRATIVE STATES THAT LOCATING THE POOL ITS EIGHTH FOOT IN WIDTH CLOSER TO THE HOME WOULD CREATE A HARDSHIP AS THE FOUNDATION COULD BE UNDERMINED. THE APPLICATION APPLIES STRICT COMPLIANCE TO THE SETBACK WOULD PREVENT ACCESS TO THE POOL FOR MAINTENANCE. THE VARIANCE WILL NOT BE CONTRARY TO PUBLIC INTEREST AND NOT ADVERSELY EFBLG PROPERTY OWNERS DUE TO THE ADJACENT FLORIDA POWER AND LIGHT TRANSMISSION LINE EASEMENT. SO THIS IS A SITE PLAN OF THE SUBJECT MAT PROPERTY. YOU CAN SEE THE LOCATION OF THE PROPOSED SWIMMING POOL AS WELL AS THE SETBACKS PROPOSED. AS I SAID, THE SCREEN ENCLOSURE WILL MEET THE SETBACK AS WELL AS THE POOL EQUIPMENT IS HIGHLIGHTED ON THE REAR OF THE HOME. LOTS WITHIN THE ARBOR MILLS PUD HAVE A MINIMUM LOT AREA OF 6,900 SQUARE FEET ANDY MENTION OF 63 FEET IN WIDTH. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS 73 FEET IN WIDTH AND 120 FEET IN DEPTH AND AVERAGE AREA WITH AN AREA OF 8,760 SQUARE FEET. THE BUILDING FOOTPRINT AND LOT COVERAGE ARE WELL WITHIN THE REGULATIONS. THE PROPERTY HAS 110 FOOT WIDE FPL EASEMENT ALONG THE REAR PROPERTY LINE. THE PUD BOUNDARY DOES PROVIDE A 35 FOOT DEVELOPMENT EDGE AS WELL AS THE TEN FOOT BUFFER. THE STAFF FINDS THE PROPERTY IS RECTANGULAR IN SHAPE AND DOES NOT APPEAR TO HAVE TOP GRAPHIC CONDITIONS. IN RESPONSE TO STAFF'S COMMENTS DURING APPLICATION REVIEW THE APPLICANT PROVIDED THAT SETBACKS

[01:00:01]

ARE ESTABLISHED TO ENSURE THAT PROPERTY DOES NOT ENFRINGE ON THE RIGHTS OF NEIGHBORS AND ARE APPROPRIATE TO CONSIDER THE USE OF THE PROPERTY ADJACENT TO THE REAR YARD FOR WHICH THE VARIANCE IS REQUESTED.. THE PROPERTY TO THE REAR HAS A DEPTH OF 110 FEET ANDS DESIGNATED OF TRACK H ON THE ARBOR MILLS PUD PLAT. IT IS DESCRIBED IN THE PUD AS OPEN SPACE. THE USE OF THE PROPERTY IMMEDIATELY ADJOINING THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION IS RELEVANT AND ARGUES AGAINST A STRICT ENFORCEMENT OF THE REAR SETBACK.

THIS IS SOME PHOTOGRAPHS THAT WERE PROVIDED BY THE APPLICANT TO KIND OF SHOW WHAT THE PROPERTY LOOKS LIKE BEYOND THE REAR OF THE HOME. YOU CAN SEE THAT FPL EASEMENT AS WELL AS THE WOODED AREA. SOME CORRESPONDENCE WAS PROVIDED BY THE APPLICANTS IN ADDITION TO THE HOMEOWNER'S ASSOCIATION APPROVAL SOME LETTERS OF SUPPORT FROM SURROUNDING NEIGHBORS. THE HOME TO THE SOUTH IS NOT CURRENTLY OCCUPIED. THE APPLICANT STATES THE REQUEST IS IN HARMONY WITH SURROUNDING DEVELOPMENT WHICH CONSISTS OF SINGLE FAMILY HOMES, WITH SOME POOLS. AND STAFF COMPLETED A STAFF VISIT AND NOTES THE REAR YARD IS NOT VOWABLE FROM ATHENS DRIVE. STAFF FINDS REQUEST IS CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. ALTHOUGH THE REQUEST DOES NOT APPEAR TO MEET THE CRITERIA FOR VARIANCE OUTLINE BASED ON NARROWNESS, SHALLOWNESS, UNUSUAL SHAPE OF THE PROPERTY OR EXTRAORDINARY SITUATIONS. THE AGENCY MAY FIND THE REQUEST MEETS THE HARDSHIP CRITERIA BASED ON THE CONDITION OR DEVELOPMENT OF THE ADJACENT PROPERTY. THE REQUEST DOES NOT APPEAR CONTRARY TO PUBLIC INTEREST BASED ON THE LETTERS OF SUPPORT SUBMITTED AND THE ENCROACHMENT ADJACENT TO THE EAST. STAFF PROVIDES SIX FACTS FOR APPROVAL AND FIVE FINDINGS FOR DENIAL. THAT COMPLETES MY PRESENTATION.

CHAIRMAN: MR. WAINWRIGHT DID YOU HAVE A QUESTION? BOARD MEMBER: YES. IF WE GRANT THIS, WILL THE PROPONENT NEED TO HAVE ACCESS INTO THE RIGHT-OF-WAY AND TO THAT LANDSCAPING AREA TO THE REAR? SPEAKER: THEY WILL NOT. THEY'LL STILL HAVE A LITTLE OVER SIX FEET TO THE REAR PROPERTY LINE.

CHAIRMAN: ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR MS. PHRASE EVERY? SEEING NONE. WOULD THE APPLICANT CARE TO ADD ANYTHING TO THE PRESENTATION? JUST COME ON UP, SIR, AND STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD, PLEASE.

SPEAKER: GOOD AFTERNOON. MAY NAME IS PETER GAT GADDY. I RESIDE AT 617 ATHENS DRIVE. MY WIFE CAROL IS ALSO PRESENT. AND I WOULD LIKE TO THANK YOUR STAFF FOR PUTTING TOGETHER A VERY PROFESSIONAL PRESENTATION.

THEY'RE VERY COMPREHENSIVE. I WOULD ASK THAT THE VARIANCE BE APPROVED. AND I'M HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.

CHAIRMAN: DOES ANYONE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR MR. GADDY? I DON'T SEE ANY, SIR. THANK YOU. ANY PUBLIC COMMENT? DR. MCCORMACK DO YOU HAVE A QUESTION? BOARD MEMBER: NO. I AM PREPARED TO OFFER A MOTION.

CHAIRMAN: WE ARE BACK ON THE AGENCY SO GO AHEAD.

BOARD MEMBER: MY MOTION IS TO APPROVE MINIMUM MODIFICATION 2019-07 THE GADDY SWIMMING POOL BASED ON SIX FINDINGS OF FACT AND SUBJECT TO SIX CONDITIONS AS PROVIDED IN THE STAFF REPORT.

BOARD MEMBER: SECOND CHAIRMAN: ANY ADDITIONAL DISCUSSION? SEEING NONE, PLEASE VOTE. OKAY MOTION CARRIES.

MOVING ON. ITEM 4 HAS BEEN

[Item 5]

WITHDRAWN. SO, MOVING ON TO ITEM 5.

SPEAKER: AGAIN FOR THE RECORD BEVERLY FRAZIER, GROWTH MANAGEMENT. THIS IS ITEM 5.

MAJOR MODIFICATION 2018-08 MOULTRY BLUFF. THE REQUEST FOR THE MAJOR MODIFICATION TO THE MOLTRY BLUFF PUD TO DECLARE NON-USES FOR THE PORTION OF THE PROJECT, REDUCE THE BUFFER REQUIREMENT AND INCREASE ALLOWANCE FOR GROUND SIGNAGE AND UPDATE PHASING. THIS APPLI PLEAATION WAS RECOMMENDED FOR DENIAL FROM THE PCA ON MAY 2ND.

THE MODIFICATION REQUEST WAS REMANDED BACK FROM THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS WITH REVISIONS ON JUNE 18TH. SO, YOU HAVE SEEN THIS APPLICATION BEFORE. THERE'S BEEN LOTS OF REVISIONS SINCE YOU SAW IT PREVIOUSLY DURING THE COURSE.

SO, WE'LL GO THROUGH THOSE IN

[01:05:01]

JUST A MOMENT. THE LOCATION SHOWS THE SUBJECT PROPERTY WEST OF US1 SOUTH AND NORTH OF WILDWOOD DRIVE. THAT COMMERCIAL PARCEL IS A LITTLE OVER THREE ACRES IN SIZE. THE PROPERTY DOES HAVE A DESIGNATION OF RESIDENTIAL C AND WITHIN THE MULTIRY BLUFF PUD. IT DOES HAVE RS2 TO THE NORTH AS WELL AS COMMERCIAL GENERAL ALONG US1 AND TO THE EAST. TO THE SOUTH OF THE SITE IS ALSO ANOTHER RESIDENTIAL PUD. SO THE AERIAL MAP SHOWS THAT SUBJECT PROPERTY IS UNIMPROVED. IT IS LOCATED ACROSS FROM A SHOPPING CENTER WITH ALSO A STORAGE UNIT AS WELL AS THE MUO LURKS TRIE TRAILS PUD TO THE SOUTH WITH RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY.

BACKGROUND. THIS PROPERTY WAS REZONED FROM EXPIRED PLAN SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT TO THE MOULTRY BLUFF PUD IN 2009 AFTER THE DENIAL OF TWO PUD REQUESTS.

FOLLOWING THAT SECOND REQUEST THE APPLICANT AND NEIGHBORS REACHED A MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING IN 2008 WHICH OUTLINED MEANS OF MITIGATING NEIGHBORHOOD OBJECTIONS TO PREVIOUS DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS.

THE APPROVED MDP LIMITED COMMERCIAL AND OFFICE USES PROVIDED ADDITIONAL BUFFERING FOR ADJACENT BUILDINGS IN LIEU OF A LINEAR SHOPPING CENTER DEVELOPMENT. THE RESIDENTIAL PORTION WAS AMENDED IN 2013 TO MODIFY THE PHASING LANGUAGE AND TO ALLOW THE RESIDENTIAL PROJECT TO PROJECT SEPARATELY FROM THE COMMERCIAL BUT THE COMMERCIAL WAS NOT MODIFIED. THIS IS A LOOK AT THE MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN THAT WAS APPROVED WITH THAT ORDINANCE THAT SHOWS THE 15 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS THAT REMAIN AND THE LAYOUT OF THE COMMERCIAL PARCEL AS SHOWN. SO, TO GO THROUGH THE ITEMS THAT WERE MODIFIED. THIS MODIFICATION DOES CLARIFY THE PERMITTED NON-RESIDENTIAL USES INLCLUDING THE SPECIAL USES, NEIGHBORHOOD BUSINESS AND COMMERCIAL AS WELL AS OFFICE AND PROFESSIONAL SERVICES. THE CATEGORY OF GENERAL COMMERCIAL WAS REMOVED.

THE APPLICANT HAS REDUCED THE MAXIMUM GROSS FLOOR AREA OF COMMERCIAL USES FROM 33,000 TO 25,384 SQUARE FEET. THEY DID REMOVE THE PROHIBITION OF THE 24 HOUR ACTIVITIES AND EXPANDED THE LIMITATION OF BUSINESS HOURS ASSOCIATED WITH SEMISHELL RETAIL AND SERVICE BUSINESSES. THEY DID ADD THE ALLOWANCE OF ALCOHOL SALES BY RIGHT IN CONNECTION WITH RESTAURANT, PHARMACIES, CONVENIENCE STORES AND SUPERMARKET ON PREMISE AND ON PREMISE CONSUMPTION INSIDE AND OUTSIDE SEATING. THEY EXPAND ALLOWANCE TO TEMPORARY USES CONSISTENT WITH THEIR LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE INCLUDING OUTDOOR SEASONAL SALES. THEY INCREASED THE PROJECT SIGNAGE TO ALLOW FOUR GROUND SIGNS AT 20 FEET IN HEIGHT IN LIEU OF THREE AT 12 FEET. REDESIGNED THE MDP MAP TO INCLUDE THAT LINEAR COMMERCIAL SHOPPING CENTER IN LIEU OF THE FIVE DETACHED BUILDINGS. THEY REMOVED THE RETENTION PONDS FROM THE WESTERN AND NORTHERN WESTERN BUFFER AREAS AS SHOWED ON THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED MDP MAP.

THEY ADDED A SECOND DRIVE CONNECTING TO THE RIGHT-OF-WAY OF MOULTRY BIE BLUFF FROM 30 FE TO 30 FEET. THEY REDUCED THE BUFFER DISTANCE BETWEEN THE EXISTING ADJACENT RESIDENTIAL TO THE SOUTH AND THE ROADWAY CONSTRUCTION OF MOULTRIE BLUFF DRIVE SERVING THE COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT FROM 30 TO 20 FEET.

THEY DID RETAIN THE A SCREENING STANDARD. THEY ADDED FLEXIBILITY AND FENCING MATERIALS TO ALLOW OTHER KINDS OF FENCING IN THE BUFFERS AND THEY UPDATED THE PHASING HORIZONS WITH THE COMMENCEMENT AT FIVE YEARS AND COMPLETION AT TEN YEARS FROM THE ADOPTION OF THE MODIFICATION.

SO THIS IS A LOOK AT PAGE 1 OF THE PROPOSED MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN MAP. YOU CAN SEE THE CHANGE IN THE LAYOUT AS WELL AS THE ADDITIONAL ACCESS DRIVE TO THE REAR OF THE SHOPPING CENTER.

THIS AREA HERE WAS ORIGINALLY THOUGHT TO GOING TO BE UTILIZED FOR STORM WATER. THAT HAS BEEN CROSSED OUT AND THAT WILL REMAIN NATURAL AND UNDISTURBED. I DID WANT TO POINT OUT THE AREAS, THE CLOUDED AREAS HERE WHERE THE REDUCTION WILL BE TO THE TEN FOOT WHERE THE ENHANCED LANDSCAPING WILL BE LOCATED.

SO, THERE IS THREE WAIVERS.

THESE TWO WAIVERS FOR THE PERIMETER BUFFER AND THE PHASING SCHEDULE WERE INCLUDED THE PREVIOUS MODIFICATION TO ALLOW STORM WATER TREATMENT WITHIN THE REQUIRED TEN FOOT PERIMETER BUFFER AS WELL AS TO ALLOW THE PHASING FOR EACH OF THE COMMERCIAL AND RESIDENTIAL TO DEVELOPMENT SEPARATELY. THOSE

[01:10:01]

WERE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED. THEY DID ADD ONE ADDITIONAL WAIVER FOR THE INCOMPATIBILITY BUFFER REDUCTION THAT'S IN TWO LIMITED AREAS BETWEEN THE COMMERCIAL AND INTERNAL PUD RESIDENTIAL TO THE WEST AND BETWEEN THE COMMERCIAL AND EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY HOMES ON THE SOUTHERN PUD BOUNDARY.

THOSE AREAS WILL PROVIDE ENHANCED LANDSCAPING OF CANOPY TREES AT 15 FEET APART IN LIEU OF 20 FEET AND INCLUDE A SIX FOOT FENCE. THIS WAIVER WAS ADDED TO ACCOMMODATE THAT SECOND VEHICULAR ACCESS TO SERVE THAT COMMERCIAL CENTER. SO THIS IS A LITTLE CLOSER LOOK AT THE COMMERCIAL SITE AND HOW IT'S PROPOSED ON THE MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN MAP CURRENTLY BEFORE YOU. THE LINEAR BUILDING.

AN AREA OUTSIDE SEATING HERE. AS WELL AS I SAID THE CLOUDED AREAS FOR THE REDUCED BUFFER AND ENHANCED LANDSCAPING. SO THE PUD DESIGN STANDARDS AND DEVELOPMENT CRITERIA ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE REGULATIONS INCLUDING THE NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL USES, SIGNAGE, SETBACKS, SURFACE AND FLOOR AREA. THE WAIVER INCLUDED FOR FLEXIBLE PHASING FOR SEPARATE USES APPEARS ADEQUATE TIMING FOR THE SCALE OF THE PROJECT. STAFF ACKNOWLEDGES THE INCREASED CANOPY TREES FOR BUFFER.

ALTHOUGH THE PROPOSED COMMERCIAL BUSINESSES MAY SEED THE ANTICIPATED IMPACT BASED ON THE SITE DESIGN. THE ADDITIONAL ACCESS DRIVE AT THE REAR OF THE SHOPPING CENTER MOVES TRAFFIC FURTHER INTO THE SITE WITH NEW BUILDINGS TO BUFFER POSSIBLE NOISE FROM DELIVERIES AND LOADING AREAS FOR THAT ADJACENT RESIDENTIAL IN THE FUTURE. STAFF RECEIVED A NUMBER OF INQUIRIES AND LETTERS CORRESPONDENCE. THE EMAIL STATES CONCERNS FOR INCREASED TRAFFIC, THE ACCESS AT US1, 24 HOUR COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY, OUTDOOR SEATING, ADDITIONAL SIGNAGE, THE REDUCTION OF BUFFER AND GENERAL COMPATIBILITY WITH THE EXISTING RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT. THE APP PLEA CLINT HOSTED A COMMUNITY MEETING IN JUNE TO PRESENT CHANGES TO THE MODIFIED MDP TO ADDRESS CONCERNS EXPRESSED BY RESIDENTS. SIGNIFICANT REVISIONS INCLUDED REMOVAL OF THE STORM WATER POND ADJACENT TO THE NORTHERN BOUNDARY, ENHANCED LANDSCAPING AND I A ADDITION OF THE PRIVACY FENCE AS PART OF THE SOUTHERN BUFFER FOR THE HOMES.

AND THE MODIFICATION REQUEST IS COMPATIBLE WITH RESIDENTIAL C AND CONSISTENT WITH THE REQUIREMENTS THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE. STAFF DOES NOT OBJECT TO APPROVAL WITH THE REVISIONS ADD TO RESTRICT THE NON-RESIDENTIAL ACTIVITIES, ENHANCE VEGETATION, THE REMOVAL OF THE STORM WATER AND ADDITIONAL LIMITATIONS FOR OUTDOOR ACTIVITIES. STAFF PROVIDES SIX FINDS OF FACT TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL AND 7 FINDINGS OF FACT TO RECOMMEND DENIAL FOR THE MODIFICATION.

THAT CONCLUDES STAFF'S PRESENTATION. MR. FERNANDEZ IS HERE AND ALSO HAS A PRESENT AS WELL.

CHAIRMAN: ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF AT THIS TIME? I DON'T SEE ANY. THANK YOU. GOOD AFTERNOON, MR. BRUNETTE.

SPEAKER: FOR THE RECORD DOUG BRU BRUNETTE ST. JOHNS LAW GROUP HERE IN ST. AUGUSTINE FLORIDA.

APPRECIATE MS. PHRASE EVERY'S OVERVIEW. I THINK SHE DID AN EXCELLENT JOB. WANT TO POINT OUT SOME ADDITIONAL FACTS AND SHOW YOU WHERE WE CHANGED AND COMPROMISED FROM THE LAST TIME WE WERE HERE AT THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AS WELL AND SHOW YOU BOTH THE APPROVED PROJECT AND WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING FOR RE-DESIGN. SKIP THROUGH A COUPLE OF THESE SITES. YOU CAN SEE THE PROJECT, THE GREEN SHOWS THE RESIDENTIAL PORTION OF THE PROJECT. WE'RE NOT TOUCHING THAT. YOU CAN SEE THE RESIDENTIAL PORTION OF THE PUD IS NOT AFFECTED BY THE MDP MAP.

SO, WE'RE NOT TOUCHING THAT PORTION. WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE AREA IN BLUE PRIMARILY. YOU CAN SEE THE ACCESS, POTENTIAL ACCESS IN YELLOW. EXCUSE ME. THIS IS THE APPROVED PROJECT AS IT LAYS OUT ON THE SITE PLAN. IT WOULD ALLOW FOR COMMERCIAL GENERAL USES ALONG WITH A LAUNDRY LIST OF OTHER USES. FROM THE REVISED PLAN THERE'S A COUPLE THINGS TO POINT OUT HERE. THIS IS REALLY THE EXACT SAME DRAWING YOU SAW WHEN IT CAME TO YOU BEFORE BACK IN MAY. ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE DIDN'T HAVE ON THERE DEPICTED WAS THE FENCE ON THE SOUTH BOUNDARY. WE HAVE CLARIFIED THAT ON OUR PLAN AND ADDED THAT.

AND ADDITIONALLY SOMETHING THAT WE LEARNED ALONG THE WAY WAS THIS POND, THE RESIDENTS OPPOSED THAT POND AREA. AND SO THERE WAS A NUMBER OF THINGS LISTED FROM WHAT WE HEARD IN THE PUBLIC RECORD DURING THAT MEETING AS TO WHY THEY OPPOSED IT. CONCERN ABOUT MOSQUITOS, ANIMALS,

[01:15:01]

NUISANCE, JUST PREFERRED TO KEEP THAT AREA NATURAL. SO WE DID GO AND YOU CAN SEE OUR OVERALL MDP MAP ZOOMED IN. YOU CAN SEE WHERE WE DID GO AND CHANGE IT SO THAT WE DO NOT HAVE ANYTHING IN THAT AREA. LEAVE IT AS NATURAL VEGETATION. AND INSTEAD OF RUNNING OUR SIX FOOT FENCE AROUND THE PROPERTY BOUNDARY WE BROUGHT OUR SIX FOOT FENCE IN LINE WITH THE PROPERTY BOUNDARY HERE IN THIS WAY. SO IT REALLY DOES STAY THE NATURAL WAY OF WHAT THEY'RE USED TO SEEING. IT KEEPS THE DEVELOPMENT AWAY FROM THAT AREA. COMPARING THE TWO.

THE APPROVED VERSUS THE PROPOSED. YOU CAN SEE AS APPROVED IT'S 33,000 SQUARE FEET OF COMMERCIAL SPACE. AS PROPOSED WE'VE REDUCED THE OVERALL SIZE OF THE PROJECT BY 7,716 SQUARE FEET. ADDITIONALLY, OUR BUILDINGS MOVED BACK IN THE AREAS THAT I'VE SHOWN.

ORIGINALLY THEY WERE WITHIN 20 FEET OF THE ROADWAY. THEY MOVED BACK MORE THAN 23 FEET MORE. SO IT'S OVER 40 FEET FROM THE BOUNDARY AREA. ADDITIONALLY THIS BUILDING IS MOVED A LITTLE FURTHER TO ADD ADDITIONAL OPEN SPACE. ORIGINALLY AS APPROVED IT'S TWO STORY AND 35 FEET IN HEIGHT. WE'VE MADE IT TO WHERE WE WOULD BE ONE STORY AND 28 FEET IN HEIGHT. AND COMMERCIAL GENERAL'S ALLOWED BY RIGHT ON THE LEFT. WHEREAS ON THE RIGHT WE HAVE DELETED COMMERCIAL GENERAL AND LIMITED IT TO NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL, OFFICE PROFESSIONAL, CULTURAL INSTITUTIONAL. ONE THING I WOULD LIKE TO POINT OUT ON THE HEIGHT.

IS TWO STORY AT 35 FEET, YOU ALSO GET TEN ADDITIONAL FEET IN ARE YOUR LAPPED DEVELOPMENT CODE FOR ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES. THE WAY WE'VE WORDED OUR TEXT IS IT'S 28 FEET IN HEIGHT AND FOR ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES SUCH AS AN ENTRY FEATURE YOU CAN GO UP TO MAXIMUM OF 35 FEET. SO IT REALLY DOES LIMIT THE TOTAL POTENTIAL HEIGHT OF THE STRUCTURE TO 10 FEET LOWER THAN WOULD BE ALLOWED ARE IN THE CODE. OVERALL IT KEEPS THE BUILDINGS AT 28 FEET AND ONE STORY. AGAIN, NO POTENTIAL FOR SOMEONE ON THE SECOND FLOOR STRUCTURE LOOKING DOWN ON OUR NEIGHBORS. JUST TO HIT THIS AS TO WHAT THE CURRENT USES ARE.

YOU CAN SEE THE ORIGINAL ORDINANCE 2009-31 IS THE PUD ORIGINALLY. ON THE RIGHT IS ORDINANCE 2013-19 WHICH IS THE PUD AS MODIFIED IN 2013. SO THIS IS WHAT'S ALLOWED. BOTH ALLOW CULTURAL, INSTITUTIONAL, NEIGHBORHOOD, COMMERCIAL AND BUSINESS, GENERAL BUSINESS, AND OFFICE PROFESSIONAL. THEN IF YOU LOOK AT THE LANGUAGE OF THE 2009PUD TEXT, YOU LOOK AT WHERE IT SAYS PERMITTED USES, GENERAL BUSINESS, WHAT DO WE KNOW -- HOW DO WE KNOW WHAT THAT MEANS? IT'S AS DEFINED WITHIN THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE. I'LL SHOW YOU THAT DEFINITION IN A MINUTE. YOU CAN SEE THAT SAME LANGUAGE CARRIED OVER INTO 2013 FOR GENERAL BUSINESS IS DEFINED IN THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE. SO, YOU LOOK AT WHAT THAT IS AND YOU CAN SEE FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS WITH OR WITHOUT DRIVE-THRU'S, PHARMACIES WITH OR WATT DRIVE-THRU'S, NEIGHBORHOOD CONVENIENCE STORES WITH OR WITHOUT GAS PUMPS, GAS STATIONS WITHOUT AUTO REPAIR, OIL CHANGE FACILITIES, TIRE SERVICE CENTERS, RESTAURANTS WITH DRIVE-THRU'S, AND MOVIE THEATERS. AND BY CHANGING AND DELETING THIS LANGUAGE FROM OUR PUD TEXT, WHICH WE'VE DONE YOU CAN SEE THE TEXT, BY CHANGING AND DELETING THIS WE ELIMINATE ALL OF THE DRIVE-THRU ASPECT.

YOU COULD HAVE A SIT-DOWN RESTAURANT AT THE SITE BUT NO DRIVE-THRU. IT MAKES THE SITE FAR LESS INTENSE. NO DRIVE-THRU FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS, BANKS, AND THOSE KINDS OF THINGS. SO IT REALLY IS A COMPROMISE OF WHAT POTENTIALLY COULD BE THERE.

OBVIOUSLY THOSE ARE HIGHER TRAFFIC GENERATORS, THOSE USES, THAT WOULD BE COMMERCIAL GENERAL VERSUS NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL.

WITHOUT A DRIVE-THRU YOU ARE GOING TO DRIVE LESS TRAFFIC TO THE SITE. AND 7,600 SQUARE FEET LESS OF SPACE. WE'VE ADDED LIMITATIONS ON PERMITTED USES.

NO OUTDOOR LIVE MUSIC. NO OUTDOOR SEATING EXCEPT FOR THE RESTAURANTS. YOU CAN HAVE A COFFEE SHOP. THIS ISN'T ENVISIONED TO BE SOMETHING THAT WOULD BE OBTRUSIVE TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD. YOU LOOK AT PLAY LENS YEAH AND YOU HAVE A COFFEE SHOP WITH OUTDOOR SEATING. WE'VE LIMITED THE OUTDOOR SEATING TIME PERIODS. WE'VE LIMITED THE TIME OVERALL FOR WHAT WOULD GO ON AT THE SITE. AND THEN IF THERE'S ANY OUTDOOR SEATING IT WOULD HAVE ADDITIONAL BUFFERING AND WE'VE SPECIFIED THE BUFFERING STANDARD THAT WOULD BE THERE.

AGAIN, THOSE HAVE BEEN PUT INTO THE PUD TEXT. SO, AGAIN, ONE FINAL LOOK AT THE SITE AS

[01:20:03]

REVISED. I THINK THIS WILL POP UP AND SHOW A LITTLE BIT OF WHERE THAT POTENTIAL ENHANCED BUFFERING WOULD BE IN THE BLUE.

AGAIN WE'VE GOTTEN RID OF THAT POND AREA AND LEFT THAT NATURAL ON THE NORTH END OF THE SITE.

WITH THAT, I THINK THERE'S PUBLIC COMMENT. I KNOW YOU GOT A VERY LONG AGENDA TODAY SO I'LL TRY TO GO THROUGH THIS FAST AND LIMIT MY COMMENTS. I'LL BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS OR WAIT UNTIL AFTER PUBLIC COMMENT.

CHAIRMAN: THANKS, DOUG. I HAVE A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS. THEY'RE MORE NITPICK THAN ANYTHING. THE FIRST IS ABOUT THE SIGNAGE.

YOU'VE ASKED FOR FOUR 20-FOOT GROUND SIGNS IN LIEU OF THREE 12-FEET. I LOOKED AROUND THE AREA, THE PLAZA ACROSS FROM YOU HAS ONE 20-FOOT SIGN. THE PUBLIX PLAZA HAS ONE 20-FOOT SIGN. AND THERE'S ANOTHER COMMERCIAL SIDE THEY HAVE TWO 20-FOOT SIGNS.

THEY'RE ALL THE SAME SIZE. AND YOU'VE GOT TWO TO FOUR TIMES MORE SIGNS THAN THE REST OF THEM. CAN YOU WALK ME THROUGH THAT? SPEAKER: YOU KNOW SIR WE CAN COMPROMISE ON THAT IF WE NEED TO ADJUST THE SIGNAGE THAT'S FINE.

IT'S NOT A VARIANCE THAT'S ACCOMPANYING THAT REQUEST. WE JUST WENT TO THE CODE LANGUAGE OF WHAT WOULD BE ALLOWABLE. BUT IF THAT'S SOMETHING WE NEED TO COMPROMISE I CAN -- CHAIRMAN: I THINK FOUR IS EXCESSIVE.

SPEAKER: WE'RE OKAY. YES.

CHAIRMAN: THE OTHER ONE AND I KNOW YOU'VE GOT TO WORK WITH F D.O.T. ON THIS IS THAT LEFT TURN OUT OF THE -- CAN WE GET THE PICTURE BACK UP? SPEAKER: OBVIOUSLY WE DON'T KNOW FOR SURE WHAT FDOT IS GOING TO SAY.

CHAIRMAN: I LIVE IN THE SHORES.

I EXIT ON DELTONA BOULEVARD.

THERE'S A MEDIAN CUT IN FRONT OF WHERE I EXIT OUT. I THINK ACROSS THE WAY IT'S CROOKED TREE TRAIL.

THOSE FOLKS CAN MAKE A LEFT TURN ON TO US-1 TO GO NORTH. BUT IN THE SHORES WE HAVE A NO LEFT TURN SIGN THERE. WE CANNOT USE THAT MEDIAN CUT. SO IT'S KIND OF A SIMILAR SITUATION WHERE YOU'VE GOT TWO EXITS OUT ON THE US1 STARING ACROSS FOUR LANES OF TRAFFIC. ONE CAN USE IT. THE OTHER CAN'T. I THINK IN THIS CASE YOU'VE GOT A MEDIAN CUT FURTHER DOWN HERE WHICH IS DELTONA BOULEVARD THEN YOU'VE GOT ANOTHER ONE WITH THE TRAFFIC LIGHT. I JUST FEEL LIKE IT WOULD BE A MUCH SAFER SITUATION TO MAKE THIS RIGHT OUT ONLY.

BECAUSE YOU'VE GOT TWO MEDIAN CUTS IN THE AREA THAT THE TRAFFIC CAN ALREADY USE TO MAKE A U-TURN. THAT'S JUST MY TWO CENTS. I THINK THAT'S A MUCH SAFER SITUATION. WERE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR M MR. BRUNETTE? I DON' SEE ANY.

PUBLIC COMMENT? BOARD MEMBER: WE HAVE FOUR SPEAKER CARDS, MR. CHAIRMAN.

CHAIRMAN: GO AHEAD. START CALLING THEM UP.

BOARD MEMBER: MS. BONNIE GARDNER.

BONNIE GARDNER. I LIVE ADJACENT TO THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT. LET ME JUST SAY IT WAS THE MEETING WHEN MR. BRUNETTE CAME AND SPOKE AT OUR ASSOCIATION. HE HAD NO HANDOUTS, NO MAP, AND ONLY A LAPTOP FOR US TO LOOK AT. JUST WANTED TO GET THAT OUT OF THE WAY. I AM FIFTH GENERATION ST. JOHNS COUNTY. FIVE PEOPLE FIVE GENERATIONS OF MY FAMILY HAVE OWNED HOMES IN THIS COUNTY.

I'M PROUD TO SAY THAT. I'M NOT PROUD TO SAY THAT THIS DEVELOPMENT IS GOING TO CAUSE HARDSHIPS ON THE PEOPLE THAT LIVE IN MOULTRIE TRAIL. WE HAVE A DIFFICULT TIME AS MR. MARTIN POINTED OUT TURNING RIGHT TO GO TO PUBLIX. IF WE CAN'T TO TURN LEFT, IT'S NEAR IMPOSSIBLE TO TURN LEFT RIGHT NOW BECAUSE OF ALL THE NEW HOMES THAT HAVE GONE UP ALONG WILDWOOD. EVERYONE IS PILED UP TO TURN RIGHT INTO WILDWOOD. WE CANNOT EVEN GET OUT IF WE NEED TO. IF A HURRICANE CAME AND WE HAD TO LEAVE, YOU GUYS WOULD HAVE TO COME AND AIRLIFT US TO GET OUT OF THERE. IT'S GOING TO BE A HARDSHIP FOR THE PEOPLE THAT LIVE IN MY DEVELOPMENT. AND IT'S GOING TO BE A HARDSHIP FOR ALL OF THE WILDLIFE, THE COOPER HAWK, THE DEER, THE TURKEY THAT LIVE THERE. IT IS A CRYING SHAME. IT IS A CRYING SHAME.

AND I'M HERE BECAUSE MY GRANDFATHER IN HEAVEN MADE ME COME UP HERE TO SAY THIS. BUT IT IS A CRYING SHAME THAT THE LEADERS IN THIS COMMUNITY ARE NOT PROTECTING THE PRISTINE POCKETS OF GREEN, WILD PROPERTY THAT HAVE NEVER BEEN BUILT ON, EVER. I FIND IT DISAPPOINTING THAT WE'RE ALLOWING ANYTHING TO

[01:25:01]

BE BUILT ON THIS PRISTINE PROPERTY. MAY I SEE THE HANDS OF YOU ON THE AGENCY THAT HAVE WALKED THAT PROPERTY PLEASE? HAVE ANY OF YOU WALKED THAT PROPERTY? I HAVE. AND NONE OF YOU HAVE WALKED IT? I AM DISAPPOINTED. I AM REALLY DISAPPOINTED IF THIS GOES THROUGH. MR. BRUNETTE, CAME TO THE ASSOCIATION MEETING AND HAD NO HANDOUTS FOR US. WHEN I ASKED HIM WHAT KIND OF DEVELOPMENT WAS GOING TO GO IN THERE, HE COULDN'T EVEN TELL ME IF IT WAS RETAIL. I HAD TO GO HOME AND LOOK ON THE COMPUTER TO SEE IF RETAIL WAS GOING TO GO IN THERE.

THIS IS NOT ANY WAY TO RUN THIS COUNTY. I AM VERY DISAPPOINTED IF YOU ALLOW ANY DEVELOPMENT.

AND MR. BRUNETTE ALSO SAID THAT HE WAS GOING TO TAKE DOWN THE TWO STORY TO ONE STORY. THERE WAS NOT ENOUGH PARKING FOR TWO STORIES. HE DIDN'T DO US ANY FAVOR. THERE'S NO FAVOR THERE.

PLEASE, BEFORE YOU ACT, PLEASE GO OUT AND WALK THAT PROPERTY.

THANK YOU.

BOARD MEMBER: SECOND SPEAKER CARD IS AMBER ETTINGER. YOU HAVE THREE MINUTES IF YOU'LL GIVE US YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS.

PUBLIC SPEAKER: MY NAME IS AMBER ETTINGER. 214 RAIN TREE TRAIL INSIDE THE MOULTRIE TRAILS COMMUNITY. THESE LADIES WITH ME ALSO RESIDE AT DIFFERENT RESIDENTS WITHIN THE COMMUNITY.

WE'RE ALL MOTHERS. WE ALL HAVE YOUNG CHILDREN. AND WE JUST ARE PRETTY MUCH HERE TO SAY TODAY THAT WE OPPOSE THE DEVELOPMENT DUE TO THE FACT THAT, YOU KNOW, WE DO HAVE OUR CHILDREN AND THERE'S A LOT THAT GOES AROUND THIS RIGHT. SO MY KIDS HAVE A SEVERE LOVE RIGHT NOW FOR OUR WILD LIFE IN OUR BACKYARD. WE HAVE DEER, WOODPECKERS, CARDINALS, BLUE JAYS, AN ARRAY OF OWLS. THE LIST GOES ON. AND WITH ALL OF THE RECENT DEVELOPMENT IN OUR COMMUNITY AS OF RECENT, I'VE ALSO HAD WILD HOGS RUNNING THROUGH MY YARD AND A MULTITUDE OF OTHER ANIMALS THAT AREN'T REALLY PART OF OUR NEIGHBORING COMMUNITY BECAUSE OF ALL THE DEVELOPMENT. AND IT'S QUITE A SHAME. AND SO THAT'S MY POINT FOR THEIR NUMBER ONE IS OUR ANIMALS. I'M NOT SURE WHERE THE ANIMALS ARE GOING TO GO BECAUSE WE'RE REALLY LIMITING THEM. AND THEN THE FACT THAT WE DO HAVE SO MUCH OTHER, YOU KNOW, DEVELOPMENT, STORAGE UNITS AND THINGS LIKE THIS GOING IN, I PERSONALLY DON'T SEE THE REASON WHY WE NEED ANYMORE PLAZAS AS US1 IS FILLED WITH THEM AND A LOT OF THEM HAVE A LOT OF VACANCIES. THE LAST THING I WANTED TO COMMENT ON, WHICH I AM GLAD YOU MR. MARTIN BROUGHT UP, WAS OUR INTERSECTION AT OUR ENTRANCE OF MOULTRIE TRAILS. AND THAT IS THE ONLY ENTRANCE AND EXIT WE HAVE IN OUR COMMUNITY WHICH IS, I PROMISE YOU GUYS, MY CHILDREN ATTEND ST. JOHNSES ACADEMY ON WILDWOOD. AND COMES HOME PASSING, YOU KNOW, GETTING ON TO US-1 THEN HAVING TO MAKE MY LEFT-HAND TURN INTO MY COMMUNITY IS DOWNRIGHT SCARY AT TIMES. I'VE BEEN FLIPPED OFF.

I'VE BEEN CURSED AT. BECAUSE I DON'T THINK PEOPLE QUITE UNDERSTAND HOW THE INTERSECTION WORKS. AND 20 FEET DOWN THE ROAD YOU HAVE THAT LEGAL INTERSECTION WITH THE LIGHTS AND EVERYTHING ELSE AND I CAN'T TELL YOU, I MEAN, IT'S A CLUSTER. AND IT'S SCARY. AND ALL I CAN THINK ABOUT IS IF WE PUT ANOTHER DEVELOPMENT OR COMMUNITY OR BUSINESS RIGHT PAST THE RATTAN STORE RIGHT WHERE YOU COME OVER MOULTRIE CREEK, I DON'T KNOW, I DON'T KNOW WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN WITH TRAFFIC AND DEATHS. I CAN'T TELL YOU HOW MANY ACCIDENTS WE SEE OUT THERE WEEKLY. YOU KNOW. SO THAT'S PRETTY MUCH WHY I CAME TODAY IS TO SPEAK FOR MY FAMILY AND SPEAK FOR OUR COMMUNITY.

AND THAT'S ALL I HAVE. SO, THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR TIME.

BOARD MEMBER: MR. DAVID FINLEY.

MR. FINLEY IF YOU'LL GIVE US YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS.

SPEAKER: I'M DAVID FINLEY. 206 RAIN TREE TRAILS ST. AUGUSTINE FLORIDA IN MOULTRIE TRAILS. I OPPOSE THE SHOPPING CENTER BECAUSE INCOMPATIBLE WITH THE MATURE RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS ON THE SOUTH AND NORTH SIDE AND THE NEW RESIDENTIAL ON THE WEST SIDE. THE ISSUE IS BEST RESOLVED BY ANSWERING THE FIRST QUESTIONED ASKED BY PLANNING AND ZONING STAFF IN COMMENT

[01:30:02]

RESPONSES DATED FEBRUARY 19, 2019. AS THE RESIDENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE AREA CHANGED SINCE MEDIATION AND APPROVAL OF THE MOULTRIE PUD TO SUPPORT THE INCREASE IN ALLOWANCES OF REDUCE BUFFER, INCREASE SIGNAGE, 24 HOUR ACTIVITIES, NON-RESIDENTIAL APPEARANCE, ET CETERA, OF THE COMMERCIAL PORTION. THE ANSWER IS NO. NO THE RESIDENTIAL CHARACTER HAS 23409 CHANGED AND BEFORE THE PROPOSED SHOPPING CENTER SHOULD BE DENIED.

MOULTRIE TRAILS HASN'T CHANGED IN FOUR DECADES. HISTORICALLY IT TOOK MANY MONTHS AND THREE OR FOUR PLANNING ZONES AND COMMISSIONERS MEETING TO ARRIVE AT THE EXISTING PUD. WHICH IS A SMALL OFFICE SMALL BUSINESS PARK LAYOUT. THIS WAS ACCEPTED BY THE NEIGHBORHOODS AND THE DEVELOPER AFTER MANY MONTHS OF HARD WORK.

THE PROPOSED MAJOR MOD SHOWS A LARGE OUTDOOR SEATING AREA WHICH IS GOING TO BE A RESTAURANT WITHOUT SITE SEATING RIGHT NEXT TO MOULTRIE TRAILS NEARLY IN OUR BACKYARD. IT'S ABOUT ONE 20 FEET AWAY. WITH THE RESTAURANT COMES NOISE, ALCOHOL AND MUSIC OUTSIDE NEAR OUR HOMES. AND I HAVE TO SAY THEY HAVE MADE UNENFORCEABLE CHANGES AS CODE ENFORCEMENT IS ONLY OPEN WEEKDAYS UNTIL 5:00 P.M. AND THE ATTORNEY HAS TOLD ME OUR ONLY REMEDY FOR A NOISE PROBLEM IS TO CALL CODE ENFORCEMENT. THEY'RE NOT GOING TO BE THERE AFTER FIVE OR ON WEEKENDS. THE HOURS OF MUSIC REQUIREMENTS TRICKLE DOWN TO A LEASE ENFORCE BID THE LANDLORD? THAT'S UNLIKELY. WITH THE SHOPPING CENTER COMES INCREASED TRAFFIC LOAD, A LARGE PARKING LOT, NOISE, LONG HOURS OF OPERATION LATE INTO THE NIGHT WITH RESTAURANTS AND THE PROBLEMS ASSOCIATED WITH ALCOHOL CONSUMPTION CLOSE TO OUR HOMES.

THE PLAN SHOWED REDUCED BUFFER TO THE SOUTH FROM 30 FEET REDUCED TO 30 FEET AT THE FRONT NEXT TO MOULTRIE TREE HOMES.

TODAY IT'S IMPORTANT THAT THE SPIRIT AND INTENT OF THE ORIGINAL CURRENT AGREED UPON PUD LIVES. RESIDENTIAL APPEARANCE, PAGE 4. 24 HOUR BUSINESS ACTIVITY WILL NOT BE ALLOWED.

CUSTOMER TRANSACTIONAL BUSINESS LIMITED TO 6:00 A.M. TO 9:00 P.M. MINIMIZING LIGHTING IMPACT ON THE SURROUNDING COMMUNITY. THAT'S PAGE 5. MOST IMPORTANTLY, VERY LOW INTENSITY DAYTIME ACTIVITIES THAT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE SURROUNDING MATURE RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD.

LET ME READ THAT AGAIN. VERY LOW INTENSITY, DAYTIME ACTIVITIES THAT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE SURROUNDING MATURE RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD. WILL WE BE COMPENSATED FOR LOST PROPERTY VALUE? WHAT, 30, 40 PERCENT? WHY NOT THEY'RE GOING TO MAKE MILLIONS. WOULD YOU BUY A HOME NEXT TO A SHOPPING CENTER? NO BECAUSE IT'S NOT COMPATIBLE.

PLEASE DENY THE SHOPPING CENTER AND SAVE OUR NEIGHBORHOODS.

PLEASE KEEP THE EXISTING HARD EARNED PUD IN PLACE. THANKS.

BOARD MEMBER: LEE STELZER. SIR, TELL US YOUR NAME WHEN YOU ARRIVE AND YOUR ADDRESS AND YOU HAVE THREE MINUTES.

PUBLIC SPEAKER: THANK YOU FOR THIS OPPORTUNITY. MY NAME IS LEE ST EARPLUGS LZER. 208 RAIN TREE ADJACENT TO THE PLAN DEVELOPMENT. OF COURSE, I AM HERE TO SPEAK ABOUT THE MOULTRIE BLUFF PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT.

IT SEEMS HOW APPROPRIATE THAT WE SHOULD BE MEETING IN THIS PRE-HALLOWEEN SEASON. THIS ZOMBIE WON'T DIE. REJECTED BY THE PLANNING BOARD, REJECTED BY THE COMMISSION, NOW HERE WE ARE AGAIN. I HOPE YOU WILL FIND THE SILVER STAKE THAT WILL PUT THIS ZOMBIE IN ITS GRAVE. I APPRECIATE THAT THE APPLICANT, MR. BRUNETTE, HAS MODIFIED THE RECENT PROPOSAL THAT WAS A HORROR SHOW, AND HE'S BEEN WILLING TO AMELIORATE SOME OF THE WORST CONDITIONS IN THE PROPOSAL. BUT PLOPPING A SHOPPING CENTER IN THE MIDDLE OF THE RESIDENTIAL AREA IS A ZOMBIE INTRUSION. IT WILL CHANGE EVERYTHING ABOUT THE NEIGHBORHOOD. AS MY FELLOW HAVE SAID. PEOPLE WORK LONG AND HARD ON THE ORIGINAL PUD TO CRAFT A COMMERCIAL SPACE COMPATIBLE WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD. LET'S STICK WITH THE ORIGINAL PLAN. I'M ASKING FOR YOUR UNANIMOUS AGREEMENT TO REJECT THIS PLAN. I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO ADD BONNIE SAYS SHE'S FIVE GENERATIONS. I'M FIRST GENERATION. I JUST RECENTLY MOVED HERE AND I MOVED TO MOULTRIE TRAILS. AND IT IS PARADISE. IT IS WONDERFUL. AND I HOPE THAT YOU WILL AGREE NOT TO CHANGE THE NATURE OF THIS DEVELOPMENT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

CHAIRMAN: THANK YOU. NO MORE SPEAKER CARDS. MR. BRUNETTE?

[01:35:12]

SPEAKER: QUICKLY TO RETURN TO YOUR INITIAL QUESTION MR. MARTIN. ON THE ISSUE OF SIGNAGE. WHATEVER YOUR PLEASURE IS DUE TO THE SIGNAGE WE'LL BE WILLING TO CONSIDER THAT.

CHAIRMAN: I'LL THINK OF SOMETHING WHEN WE COME BACK TO THE AGENCY.

SPEAKER: THE ACCESS. IT MAY NOT SHOW UP ON MY OVERHEAD FOR THE MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN BUT AS FAR AS ACCESS IT'S MARKED CLEARLY THAT IT'S SUBJECT TO FDOT APPROVAL. WE GOT TO GO THROUGH THE FDOT PROCESS.

THERE'S BEEN SOME INDICATION THAT FDOT MAY CLOSE THE CENTER MEDIAN ACCESS. SO, WE'RE GOING TO, I GUESS, LIVE, SUFFER THROUGH WHATEVER FDOT DETERMINES TO DO THERE LONG TERM ANY WAYS.

I WILL SAY THAT PART OF IT. ONE THING JUST TO HIT THIS. I TRIED TO PULL OUT WHAT HAVE WE CHANGED SINCE WE WERE HERE LAST SO YOU COULD REALLY SEE THE DIFFERENCE IN THE PROJECT. WE'VE ADDED FENCING TO THE SOUTH. AGAIN DELETED THAT POND ON THE NORTH.

DELETED GENERAL BUSINESS FROM THE ALLOWABLE USES. IT ELIMINATES ALL THESE DIFFERENT TYPES OF POTENTIAL SERIOUSLY MORE IMPACTFUL USES. WE'VE ADD THE LIST OF LIMITATIONS. WE'VE LIMITED THE BUILDING HEIGHT TO ONE STORY. AND WE'VE ALSO AND IT'S NOT ON THE LIST BECAUSE THIS IS ONE OF THOSE ONES T THISESER THAT CARRIED THROUGH.

WE'RE REDUCING THE SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THE PROJECT BY 7,600 SQUARE FEET. THAT'S 7,600 SQUARE FEET WE'RE REDUCING THE OVERALL PROJECT. WHEN YOU LOOK AT THAT REDUCTION IN POTENTIAL IMPACT AND COMMERCIAL GENERAL BUSINESS YOU GET A FAR LESS IMPACTFUL PROJECT THAN YOU EVER WOULD HAVE THERE CURRENTLY. AND THIS IS AN APPROVED PROJECT.

THIS IS A PROJECT THAT COULD GO FORWARD. AND IT DOESN'T HAVE TO S MIRROR THE SITE PLAN THAT YOU HAVE SEEN FOR THE APPROVED PROJECT. BECAUSE, OBVIOUSLY, WE HAVE A SMALL ADJUSTMENT PROCESS IN THE COUNTY. THERE COULD BE SOME ADJUSTMENT TO WHAT'S THERE TO ALLOW, FOR EXAMPLE, THE BUILDINGS TO HAVE DRIVE-THRU'S AND THE LIKE. AGAIN, RAJ IS NOT HERE BUT HE DID TESTIFY AT THE COMMISSIONERS WITH A TRAFFIC ANALYSIS IT WILL GENERATE LESS TRIPS. BUT THAT'S OBVIOUS.

AGAIN, APPROVE VERSUS PROPOSED.

WE DO THINK THERE'S A LOT OF MERIT HERE TO THIS PROJECT THAT CREATES SOME GOOD THINGS. AGAIN, IT IS AN APPROVED PROJECT. IN FCT IT'S GOT PENDING CONSTRUCTION PLANS FOR THE PROJECT. SO WE KNOW IT'S BUILDABLE IN ITS CURRENT DESIGN.

IT HAS PENDING CONSTRUCTION PLANS. I DON'T NEED TO BRING MIKE UP HERE BUT MIKE HERE IS WHO WOULD TELL YOU THE OCCUPANCY RATES ARE THE LOWEST IN THEIR COMPANY'S HISTORY. THEY'RE READY TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THE PROJECT. THE THEY THEY'VE MADE PRETTY BIG CONCESSIONS ESPECIALLY COMPARED TO WHERE WE WERE AT. I KNOW MR. SELTZER WAS MAKING SOME HUMOROUS REMARKS THERE. BUT, TRUE, WE'VE MADE SOME PRETTY BIG CONCESSIONS COMPARED TO LAST TIME WE WERE HERE. AND I'D BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU MAY HAVE AT THIS TIME.

CHAIRMAN: MR. WAINWRIGHT? BOARD MEMBER: MR. BRUNETTE, IT HAS -- THE PROJECT HAS COME A LONG WAY SINCE THE LAST TIME WE REJECTED IT. YES IT HAS. FOUR ISSUES STILL STICK OUT HERE FROM BEFORE. AND EVEN THOUGH YOU'VE MADE PROGRESS ON THEM, THEY STILL -- THEY'RE STILL HERE. ONE OF THEM YOU ARE GOING TO TAKE CARE OF ABOUT THE SIGNS. AND I'LL LEAVE THAT ALONE. THE TRAFFIC. WHAT ABOUT AT LEAST A RIGHT TURN LANE ON TO US-1? A MERGING RIGHT TURN LANE. WHOSE RESPONSIBILITY WOULD THAT BE? SPEAKER: YOU MEAN AN ACCELERATION LANE SO WHEN YOU ARE TURNING OUT ON TO -- BOARD MEMBER: YES. TO GO SOUTH ON US-1. AT LEAST THAT WOULD TAKE CARE OF PART OF THE -- BOARD MEMBER: I DON'T THINK IT WOULD. THEN THOSE PEOPLE WOULD BE ACCELERATING RIGHT INTO THE FOLKS COMING OUT OF MOULTRIE TRAIL.

BOARD MEMBER: OKAY I'LL LET THAT ONE GO. NOISE. I UNDERSTAND, WHAT, YOU'VE GOT HERE GOING ON THROUGH THE NIGHT IS KIOSK FOR A

[01:40:03]

BANK.

SPEAKER: NOISE, INTERESTINGLY ENOUGH, I HADN'T HEARD THIS BEFORE UNTIL I WAS AT A HEARING WHERE ONE OF THE COMPLAINTS WAS ABOUT THE SPEAKER BOX IN THE DRIVE-THRU AISLES AND THE NOISE THAT COMES FROM THE SPEAKER BOX AND HOW LOUD THEY HAVE TO TURN IT FOR MOTORISTS AND FOLKS THAT LIVE WITHIN 50 FEET, 100 FEET HEAR THAT THING. I DON'T THINK THERE'S THE POTENTIAL FOR THAT HERE. WITH EAU LIP NATING THE DRIVE-THRU, YOU HAVE ELIMINATED NOT JUST THE DRIVE-THRU RESTAURANT, YOU HAVE ELIMINATED THE DRIVE-THRU BANK. YOU'VE ELIMINATED GAS STATIONS. SO, THAT SPEAKER THAT MIGHT BE ON THE GAS PUMP ISN'T THERE.

SHOULDN'T BE THERE IN THIS SITUATION. IF YOU HAD AN ATM THAT WAS A WALK-UP ATM, I DON'T THINK YOU GET ANY NOISE COMING OUT OF THOSE. EVERY TIME I USE THEM I GET A LITTLE BEEP BUT THERE'S NOT A SPINNINGER THERE ASSOCIATED WITH IT. YES THERE IS OUTDOOR SEATING FOR THE RESTAURANTS THAT WE'RE PROPOSING. BUT WE'VE GOT ADDITIONAL BUFFERING. AND WOULD TAKE EXCEPTION WITH MR. FINLEY.

I RESPECT WHAT MR. FINLEY SAYS BUT I THINK CODE ENFORCEMENT IS A LITTLE MORE ACTIVE. WE'VE HAD RESTAURANTS IN THIS COUNTY THAT PROBABLY WOULD BE OUT OF CONTROL IF CODE ENFORCEMENT DIDN'T WORK ON THE WEEKEND AND OBSERVE THINGS THAT GOES ON ON THE WEEKEND. SO I JUST SAY I DON'T THINK THAT THIS IS THAT TYPE OF USER. OBVIOUSLY WE'VE GOT A VERY PROFESSIONAL SHOPPING CENTER GROUP THAT'S GOING TO DO THIS PROJECT THAT OWNS A NUMBER OF SHOPPING CENTERS AND THEY DON'T EXPERIENCE THOSE KIND OF PROBLEMS. I GUESS MOST NOTABLY IS THEY OWN A LOT OF THE SHOPPING CENTER RETAIL SPACE AROUND THE US-1/312 AREA. A NUMBER OF THE PROPERTIES INCLUDING THE HOBBY LOBBY SHOPPING CENTER. SO THIS IS A PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPER, SHOPPING CENTER GROUP THAT OWNS THIS PROJECT.

BOARD MEMBER: THEN THE LAST AREA. THE VISUAL IMPACT. WHAT WILL PEOPLE WHO LIVE TO THE WEST, JUST TO THE WEST OF THE PROJECT, BEHIND IT, WHAT WILL THEY SEE? SPEAKER: BEHIND THE PROJECT? WELL, EXCUSE ME, IF YOU LOOK AT AS PROPOSED, OBVIOUSLY WE MEET THE SEPARATION LANDSCAPE AREA HERE. BUT THERE WILL BE A SIX FOOT FENCE GOING ACROSS. THERE'S A SIX FOOT FENCE AROUND THE PROJECT. WE'VE GOT ENHANCED LANDSCAPING IN THIS AREA.

ACTUALLY THERE'S ONLY THREE POTENTIAL LOTS BEHIND HERE THAT TOUCH US. THE OTHER ONE IS A RETENTION POND IN THIS AREA IS A RETENTION POND. SO, THERE'S THREE POT LOTS HERE AND THE DEVELOPER OF THAT PROJECT DOESN'T OPPOSE WHAT WE'RE ASKING FOR IN THIS MODIFICATION. SO THOSE LOTS ARE UNDEVELOPED AT THIS TIME.

>> JUST TO CLARIFY A STATEMENT FOR THE FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS.

CHAIRMAN: MR. SORIA

ACTUALLY IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL USES, A FINANCIAL INSTITUTION WITH OR WITHOUT DRIVE-THRU'S ARE ALLOWABLE. IT'S A KIND OF ONE OF THE EXCEPTIONS.

YOU'D HAVE TO GET ONE OF THE PLANNERS OR TRAFFIC ENGINEERS TO STATE WHY. BUT ALL OTHER SIMILAR RETAIL USES THAT NORMALLY ALLOW DRIVE-THRU'S SUCH AS PHARMACIES AND RETAIL, I MEAN, AND RESTAURANTS, CAN'T HAVE DRIVE-THRU'S IN NEIGHBORHOOD, COMMERCIAL AND FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS ARE AN EXCEPTION. IT'S KIND OF LIKE A NEIGHBORHOOD BANK WHICH ARE TRANSITIONING MORE TOWARDS THE DRIVE-THRU TELLERS TYPE THINGS.

SPEAKER: WE CAN MAKE THAT CLARIFICATION TO THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS.

CHAIRMAN: THAT WOULD BE A GOOD THING I THINK. STAFF? SPEAKER: MR. CHAIR, MIKE ROBERSON. JUST CLAIRIFICATION O THE NOISE. CODE ENFORCEMENT WILL ENFORCE THAT IN TANDEM WITH THE SHERIFF'S OFFICE. HOWEVER, IF IT IS AFTER HOURS, THE SHERIFF TAKES OVER FROM 4:30 ALL THE WAY TO 7:30.

CHAIRMAN: I APPRECIATE THAT.

THANK YOU SPEAKER: I DO HAVE THE NOISE ORDINANCE. I CAN CONFIRM THIS IS THE NOISE ORDINANCE. THIS ORDINANCE IS ENFORCEABLE BY THE LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY WHICH TAKES THE COMPLAINT INCLUDING THE ST. JOHNS COUNTY SHERIFF DIVISION OF ANIMAL CONTROL AND CODE ENFORCEMENT. SO, WHATEVER NOISE COMPLAINT, ANIMALS, IT'S RESTAURANT, THINGS LIKE THAT, IF IT'S AFTER HOURS OR EVEN ON THE WEEKEND, IT'S THE RESPONDING LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY THAT CAN TAKE AND PROSECUTE THAT COMPLAINT.

CAIRMAN: OKAY. AND SINCE MR. WAINWRIGHT LEFT THE SIGNAGE TO ME AND I RAISED IT EARLIER, I WAS THINKING WHAT LOOKED APPROPRIATE TO ME AND BASED ON WHAT'S ALREADY EXISTING IN THE AREA ACROSS THE STREET AND WITHIN THE GENERAL AREA IS YOU GET A 20 FOOT MONUMENT SIGN HERE AT YOUR MAIN ENTRANCE, A 12 FOOT SIGN HERE THEN ANOTHER 20 FEET HERE AT THE PROPERTY BOUNDARY SO

[01:45:01]

PEOPLE COMING UP THE HILL CAN SEE IT. I THINK THAT STILL GIVES YOU MORE SIGNAGE THAN ANY OTHER COMMERCIAL PROJECT IN THAT AREA.

WOULD THAT BE ACCEPTABLE TO YOU? THAT'S WHERE I AM AT.

SPEAKER: THE ONLY ADDITIONAL THING IS WE DON'T WANT TO -- I DON'T WANT -- WE'RE NOT CHANGING THE RESIDENTIAL PART OF IT.

THERE'S A SUBDIVISION SIGN.

CHAIRMAN: I'M NOT GOING TO TELL YOU WHERE YOU NEED TO PUT YOUR SIGNS. BUT THAT'S WHAT I'M THINKING TWO 20-FOOT SPEAKER: THE RESIDENTIAL PORTION HAS INDEPENDENT SUBDIVISION IDENTIFICATION SIGN THAT'S NOT TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT. NORMALLY IN THIS TYPE OF MIXED-USE PRONG YOU HAVE ONE ONE IDENTIFICATION SIGN FOR BOTH OF THEM. BUT THIS ONE IS SET UP SO THAT THE REN DENIAL PORTION HAS DESIGN CRITERIA AND THE COMMERCIAL PORTION DOES AND THEY HAVE SEPARATE SIGNAGE ALLOWANCES.

CHAIRMAN: I DON'T NECESSARILY -- I'M NOT NECESSARILY DIRECTING THE APPLICANT WHERE TO PUT WHICH SIGNS BUT I THINK THOSE THREE, SOME CONFIGURATION OF THAT IS APPROPRIATE.

SPEAKER: UNDERSTAND.

CHAIRMAN: MR. MATOVINA? BOARD MEMBER: YOU ARE MUCH MORE LIBERAL HAN THE NORMAL CHAIRMAN.

I JUST WANTED TO DECLARE EX-PARTE COMMUNICATION ON THE RIGHT HERE. I HAD A PHONE CONVERSATION WITH DOUG AND WE DISCUSSED PRINCIPALLY THE MODIFICATIONS FROM THE EXISTING ZONING TO THE CURRENT ZONING.

CHAIRMAN: OKAY. DR. MCCORMACK? BOARD MEMBER: I HAVE PROBLEMS. FIRST OF ALL, I GOT TO SAY THAT I AM EMBARRASSED THAT I DID NOT WALK THAT PROPERTY. GENERALLY, WHEN ITEMS COME UP I TRY TO DO THAT ON ALMOST EVERY PROPERTY THAT COMES UP. AND I DIDN'T DO THAT THAT ON THIS ONE. SO I AM EMBARRASSED ABOUT THAT. I'M SORRY. MY CONCERNS ARE SEVERAL.

BUT ONE IS AND PROBABLY THE PRIMARY ONE IS TRAFFIC. I THINK WE'VE GOT A MAJOR PROBLEM WITH THAT. YOU CAN'T DO ANYTHING ABOUT THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION UNTIL THEY DO SOMETHING. I KNOW THAT, DOUG.

BUT I'M NOT READY TO APPROVE THIS UNTIL THAT'S TAKEN CARE OF OR AT LEAST THERE'S A SIGN THAT IT'S GOING TO BE TAKEN CARE OF.

I'M CONCERNED ALSO ABOUT THE IMPACT ON THE RESIDENTS THAT LIVE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD. WE'RE HEARING FROM THEM. WE ALWAYS HEAR FROM THEM. AND THEY HAVE A GOOD REASON TO COMPLAIN ABOUT ALL THE DEVELOPMENT THAT'S GOING ON HERE. I'M NOT ANTI-DEVELOPMENT. I'M PRO-DEVELOPMENT. AS LONG AS IT'S GOOD DEVELOPMENT. BUT I'M CONCERNED ABOUT THIS ONE. SO, I'VE GOT THAT PROBLEM AS WELL.

AND I THINK AS FAR AS THE NOISE, I THINK YOU'VE DONE A LOT OF ADJUSTMENTS IN TERMS OF THIS PROPOSAL. IT'S JUST NOT ENOUGH YET THAT I AM GOING TO SUPPORT IT. SO THAT'S WHERE I STAND ON THIS.

CHAIRMAN: MR. WAINWRIGHT? BOARD MEMBER: THE TRAFFIC. FOR ME THE TRAFFIC IS STILL -- WE -- HAVE WE DONE ANYTHING TO MAKE THE TRAFFIC SITUATION BETTER FOR PEOPLE TRYING TO GET ACROSS US-1 OR GO SOUTH? AND YET WE'RE GOING TO PUT A SIGNIFICANT TRAFFIC LOAD ON THAT.

SPEAKER: ACTUALLY, MR. MCCORMACK AND MR. WAINWRIGHT, IF I MIGHT, IN RESPONSE, AGAIN, GO BACK AND HIT BACK ON THIS MAIN POINT.

WHICH IS CURRENTLY THE PROJECT, IF THIS DOESN'T GET APPROVED, THE PROJECT COULD BE A COMMERCIAL GENERAL PROJECT. IT COULD HAVE FAR MORE INTENSE USED. AND IT COULD HAVE 77,617 SQUARE FEET MORE. BY APPROVING THIS YOU ARE CUTTING BACK THE SQUARE FOOTAGE OF POTENTIAL COMMERCIAL SPACE THERE. AND THE INTENSITY OF THIS SPACE. SO THE TRAFFIC RESULTS HAVE TO BE LESS.

SO, WE'RE ACTUALLY HELPING THE TRAFFIC IN THAT REGARD. NOW, THERE'S NO QUESTION, WE'RE HELPING THE TRAFFIC BY THIS BEING APPROVED IT WILL BE LESS INTENSE, LESS SQUARE FOOTAGE THAN WHAT WOULD BE CURRENTLY APPROVED. SO THAT HAS TO HELP THE TRAFFIC. IT CERTAINLY HAS TO HELP THE AM AND PM PEAK HOUR TRIPS BECAUSE THAT'S WHEN WE MEASURE TRIPS. WE DON'T MEASURE TRIPS LATER IN THE EVENING. WE MEASURE AM AND PM BECAUSE THAT'S WHERE WE HAVE CARS GOING TO WORK AND TAKING CHILDREN TO SCHOOL.

IN THE AFTERNOON PEOPLE COMING HOME FROM SCHOOL AND WORK. SO

[01:50:01]

THAT'S OUR MAIN TRIP MEASUREMENT. AND SO WE'RE REDUCING THE OVERALL POTENTIAL FOR THIS PROJECT. WE WOULD SUBMIT TO YOU THAT DOES MAKE A BIG DIFFERENCE WHEN IT COMES TO THE TRAFFIC. WE DO KNOW THAT IN FACT TO MR. MARTIN'S POINT, AND WE'RE NOT AT A STAGE WHERE WE GO AND GET OUR FRUCTOSE DOT -- FDOT PERMIT. NORMALLY YOU GO THROUGH THIS PROCESS THEN AT CONSTRUCTION PLAN APPROVAL GO THROUGH THE PROCESS OF GETTING FDOT TO APPROVE YOUR ACCESS. SO I WOULD SUBMIT TO YOU WHATEVER FDOT SAYS IS WHAT WE'LL HAVE TO LIVE WITH AND ABIDE BY. IT IS A STATE ROAD. SO, IF FDOT WANTS THE MEDIAN OPENING CHANGED, THAT WILL BE SOMETHING THE PROJECT HAS TO ADDRESS DURING IT PERMITTING WITH FDOT.

BOARD MEMBER: I JUST WANT TO RESPOND TO THAT THIS WAY. SO A LOT OF TIMES I HEAR FROM A DEVELOPER THAT, YOU KNOW, IF YOU DON'T APPROVE THIS, YOU ARE GOING TO GET SOMETHING WORSE. IT HAPPENS ALL THE TIME. I HEAR THAT ALL THE TIME.

[APPLAUSE] AND I THINK, YOU KNOW, THAT'S KIND OF THE ARGUMENT THAT YOU ARE MAKING IN THIS CASE.

SO, AGAIN, IT DOESN'T CONVINCE ME THAT I SHOULD SUPPORT THIS AT THIS TIME. OKAY.

CHAIRMAN: I DID HAVE A FOLLOW-UP ON MR. BRUNETTE'S ADDRESSING THE TRAFFIC AND FDOT FOR STAFF. DO YOU HAVE ANY WAY TO MAYBE GAUGE THE LIKELIHOOD OF WHAT FDOT MIGHT RECOMMEND HERE AS FAR AS THE, YOU KNOW, THE TRAFFIC THAT WOULD BE EXITING FROM THE SITE? SPEAKER: GOOD AFTERNOON JAN WITH GROWTH MANAGEMENT. THE D.O.T.

LOOKED AT THE SITE. IT'S BEEN ONGOING FOR A NUMBER OF YEARS AND THEIR DETERMINATION PREVIOUSLY WAS THAT IT WOULD NEED TO BE CONVERTED TO A DIRECTIONAL MEDIAN OPENING WHEN THE COMMERCIAL CAME IN.

CHAIRMAN: SO THAT WOULD ALLOW FOR LEFT TURNS OUT EVEN THOUGH THERE'S ALREADY A -- SPEAKER: NO IT WOULD ALLOW FOR LEFT TURNS IN BUT NOT OUT. WHERE CURRENTLY IT IS A FULL ALLOWING AWE MOVEMENT.

CHAIRMAN: THAT WAS SOMETHING THEY HAD PREVIOUSLY TALKED ABOUT WITH THIS PROJECT A PREVIOUS ITERATION OF IT? SPEAKER: RIGHT FROM PRELIMINARY REVIEW.

CHAIRMAN: SO AT LEAST THAT'S ON THEIR RADAR AND SOMETHING THEY HAVE ALREADY CONSIDERED.

SPEAKER: CORRECT. JUST SO THE AGENCY IS AWARE. D.O.T. HAS A FUNDED PROJECT AT THE INTERSECTION OF US-1 AND WILDWOOD DRIVE THAT IS INTENDED TO SIGNIFICANTLY IMPROVE THE FLOW OF TRAFFIC AT THE INTERSECTION ON US-1 AS WELL AS IMPROVEMENTS ON WILDWOOD DRIVE.

CHAIRMAN: OKAY. THANK YOU. WERE THERE ANYMORE QUESTIONS OR COMPENDS FROM THE AGENCY? I SEE NONE. I GOT TO ADMIT, I AM JUST HUNG UP ON THE TRAFFIC THING. I THINK WHAT MS. TRAN THAM JUST SAID GIVES 507 ME A LITTLE MORE COMFORT WITH IT IN THE FACT THAT, YOU KNOW, I DIDN'T HAVE A WHOLE LOT OF FAITH IN FDOT TO, YOU KNOW, DO A DIRECTIONAL MEDIAN THERE. BUT IF THAT'S WHAT WAS ALREADY DOES DISCUSSED BY THEM, I'M COMFORTABLE WITH THAT. I'M COMFORTABLE WITH THE CHANGES THEY'VE MADE THAT IT DOES LESSEN THE SIZE AND SCOPE OF THE DEVELOPMENT. THE FACT IS THAT IT IS ZONED FOR THIS TYPE OF ACTIVITY. AND WHAT THEY'RE PROPOSING TODAY IS A LITTLE BIT LESS INTENSE THAN WHAT IS ALREADY APPROVED. MR. W MR. WAINWRIGHT? CLIM BOARD MEMBER: I'D OFFER A MOTION SPE SPEAKER: MR. CHAIR, MR. BRUNETTE CAN CONFIRM, BUT I DON'T KNOW IF YOU WANT TO CONSIDER THE PROFFER ABOUT MR. MARTIN'S STATEMENT ABOUT REDUCING THE SIGNAGE.

THREE NEAR THE MAIN ENTRANCE.

ANOTHER 20 FOOT HIGH SIGN SOMEWHERE TO THE NORTH.

CHAIRMAN: IT WAS FOR TWO 20-FOOT SIGNS AND ONE 12-FOOT SIGN SPEAKER: I DON'T KNOW IF YOU ARE MAKING THE RECOMMENDATION FOR NO FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS WITH DRIVE-THRU'S. I DON'T KNOW IF THAT THAT IS A CONSIDERATION OR A HANG UP IN TERMS OF THE INTENSITY ASSOCIATED WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL USES.

BOARD MEMBER: THANK YOU FOR THAT CLARIFICATION. BECAUSE I THOUGHT IT WAS IN THERE. BUT WE'LL PUT IT IN THERE. I'D OFFER A MOTION TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF MAJOR MOD 2018-08 FOR THE REASONS THAT HAVE BEEN ENUMERATED CLEARLY HERE. THIS PROJECT HAS COME A LONG WAY.D, THIS USE IS ZONED FOR THIS USE. SO,

[01:55:04]

2018-08 MOULTRIE BLUFF PUD SUBJECT TO SIX FINDINGS OF FACT WITH THE PROFFER FOR THREE SIGNS. TWO 20-FOOT SIGNS AND A 12-FOOT SIGN AND THE BANKING ACTIVITY AT NIGHT LIMITED TO THE

DRIVE-THRU P>> NO IT WAS TO ELI DRIVE-THRU FROM THE BANKING.

BOARD MEMBER: I STAND CORRECTED.

TO ELIMINATE THE DRIVE-THRU BANK AT NIGHT.

CHAIRMAN: A MOTION. AND I WILL SECOND. ADDITIONAL DISCUSSION? SEEING NONE, PLEASE VOTE. AND THAT MOTION CARRIES. THAT WILL MOVE ON TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ON LOOKS LIKE OCTOBER 15TH. WE'RE GOING TO TAKE A SHORT RECESS AND THEN

[Item 7]

CHAIRMAN: CHAIRMAN: IN IN SESSION. WE'RE GOING TO PICK UP ON AAGENDA ITEM NUMBER 7. MR. KELLY, GOOD AFTERNOON.

SPEAKER: FOR THE RECORD JUSTIN KELLY GROWTH MANAGEMENT. I'LL BE PRESENTING AGENDA ITEM 7. ZONING VARIANCE 2019-09RV PARKING FOR 215 SWALLOW ROAD. THIS IS FOR A ZONING VARIANCE TO LDC TO ALLOW FOR A RECREATIONAL VEHICLE TO BE LOCATE WITHIN THE REQUIRED FRONT YARD SPECIFICALLY LOCATED AT 215 SWALLOW ROAD. THIS IS AN AERIAL MAP OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY WHICH IS LOCATED EAST OF US1 SOUTH IN THE ST. AUGUSTINE SOUTH SUBDIVISION. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS A FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION OF A RESIDENTIAL C AND THE ZONING OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS SINGLE FAMILY RS3.

AS MENTIONED, THE APPLICANT IS SEEKING RELIEF FROM THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE TO I ALLOW FOR AN RV IN THE FRONT YARD. BASED ON NARRATIVE PROVIDED TO STAFF, MULTIPLE OBSTRUCTIONS PREVENT PLACEMENT OF THE RV IN THE SIDE OR REAR YARD. THE RV DOES IMPEDE TO THEE COUNTY RIGHT OF WAY AND THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO EXTEND THE CURRENT CONCRETE DRIVEWAY SO THE RV CAN BE TURNED AT ANGLE AND PLACED IN THE FRONT YARD WITHOUT INTERFERING INTO THE RIGHT-OF-WAY. PROVIDED IS A SITE PLAN WHICH DEPICTS THE PROPOSED LOCATION OF THE RV WITHIN THE FRONT YARD. THE PROPOSED PARKING AREA WOULD BE APPROXIMATELY 10 TO 15 FEET FROM THE FRONT BOUNDARY LINE AND FURTHER IMPROVED WITH THE ADDITION OF PLANTS ALONG THAT BOUNDARY. THIS IS A PHOTO FROM A SITE VISIT. THIS IS THE CURRENT LOCATION OF THE RV IN THE APPLICANT'S DRIVEWAY. PROVIDED ON THIS SLIDE IS A PHOTO OF THE WEST SIDE OF THE PROPERTY. THE APPLICANT ASSERTS THERE ARE NUMEROUS OBSTRUCTIONS THAT WOULD PREVENT PLACEMENT OF THE RV IN THE SIDE YARD. A SEPTIC SYSTEM, UTILITIES AND TREES. THIS IS A PHOTO OF THE EASTERN SIDE OF THE PROPERTY. THERE IS ABOUT A FOUR FOOT RISE IN ELEVATION HERE.

THEN IT EVENS OUT. THE APPLICANT ATTESTS THAT A DRIVE WII WOULD HAVE TO BE CONSTRUCTED IN ORDER TO ACCOUNT FOR THIS ELEVATION AND THEY WOULD HAVE TO TRIM AND POSSIBLY REMOVE TREES WHICH THEY WOULD LIKE TO AVOID. REVIEW BY STAFF SHOWS THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS RECTANGULAR IN SHAPE AND DOES MEET THE DESIGN REQUIREMENTS FOR RS3 ZONING. STAFF NOTES THAT THE ST. AUGUSTINE SOUTH SUBDIVISION DOES HAVE A HOMEOWNER'S ASSOCIATION. DOES NOT HAVE A HOMEOWNER'S ASSOCIATION WITH COVENANTS AND RESTRICTIONS WOULD PREVENT RV PARKING. THERE HAVE BEEN THREE PRIDE COMPLAINTS RECEIVED REGARDING THE RV PARKED IN THE FRONT YARD ON THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. REVIEW SHOWS THAT THREE ZONING VARIANCES HAVE BEEN APPROVED IN THIS AREA FOR RV AND BOAT PARKING IN THE REQUIRED FRONT YARD. STAFF ACKNOWLEDGES THERE ARE CHALLENGES FACED BY THE APPLICANT. STAFF DOES SUPPORT A ZONING VARIANCE TO PERMIT RV PARKING IN THE FRONT YARD. HOWEVER THERE ARE CONCERNS ABOUT PLACING A 38 FOOT RV DIAGONALLY ACROSS THE PROPERTY.

THE PLACEMENT WOULD DOUGH TRACT IF THE VISUAL QUALITY OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. PRO ADVISES THE PLACEMENT WOULD BE MORE APPROPRIATE IN THE SIDE YARD.

STAFF HAS RECEIVED THREE LETTERS IN SUPPORT OF THE ZONING VARIANCE FROM NEIGHBORING PROPERTY OWNERS AS WELL AS ONE LET EVERY IN OPPOSITION. SHOULD THIS AGENCY FIND THAT THE REQUEST SUBSTANTIALLY MEETS THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE COMP PLAN STAFF HAS PROVIDED 8 CONDITIONS AND FIVE FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL

[02:00:01]

BASED ON THE FOLLOWING. THE REQUEST IS NOT FOUND TO BE CONTRARY TO ANY PUBLIC INTERESTS. AND WITH REGARD TO EXCEPTIONAL TOPOGRAPHICAL CONDITIONS OR OTHER EXTRAORDINARY SITUATIONS OR CONDITION OF THE PROPERTY, STAFF NOTES THERE IS A SEPTIC SYSTEM LOCATED WITHIN THE REQUIRED SIDE YARD. HOWEVER ALL OTHER HOMES IN THE SUBDIVISION ARE SERVED WITH SEPTIC AND WELL SYSTEMS. STAFF HAS PROVIDED THE AGENCY FOR FOUR FACTS FOR DENIAL. THIS CONCLUDES STAFF'S PRESENTATION. THE APPLICANT IS PRESENT AND STAFF WILL STANDBY FOR QUESTIONS THAT THE AGENCY MAY HAVE. THANK YOU.

CHAIRMAN: THANK YOU. ANY QUESTIONS FOR JUSTIN? MR. WAINWRIGHT, GO AHEAD. IT CAN WAIT? OKAY. WOULD THE APPLICANT CARE TO ADD ANYTHING TO THAT PRESENTATION? SPEAKER: MY NAME IS CLARENCE. I LIVE AT 215 SWALLOW ROAD. THIS IS AN ENHANCED VERSION OF THE PLAN THAT WAS SUBMITTED BY MR. KELLY. IT SHOWS IN THE ASTERISKS ON THE BOTTOM WHERE WE PLAN ON PUTTING PLANTS OF ANGEL TRUMPETS AND HIBISCUS PLANTS, BOTH I'VE SEEN ANGEL TRUMPETS UP TO 8 FOOT HIGH. SO THAT WOULD BE PRETTY WELL SCREENED THERE.

THE DOTTED LINE BY THE TRAILER IS PROPOSED CONCRETE SLAB THAT WOULD BE ADDED TO THE PROPERTY.

SO, IF YOU HAVE ANYMORE QUESTIONS, IT'S WHAT WE PROPOSE TO DO IN THE PLACEMENT.

CHAIRMAN: MR. KELLY, I THINK YOU WOULD HAVE TO LOOK AT THIS AND LET ME KNOW BECAUSE I CAN'T REALLY TELL FROM MERE, THE PROPOSED PLANTINGS, WHAT THEY'RE PROPOSING IS SCREENING. IT WOULD BE IN THE RIGHT-OF-WAY, IS THAT CORRECT? SPEAKER: NO SIR. THAT'S RIGHT ON THE PROPERTY LINE.

CHAIRMAN: IT IS? SPEAKER: YES, SIR.

CHAIRMAN: MR. WAINWRIGHT? BOARD MEMBER: SHOW ME ON THAT DRAWING WHERE THE STREET IS.

SPEAKER: IT'S RIGHT WHERE THE PROPOSED TRAILER PLACEMENT IS LISTED. RIGHT WHERE I'VE GOT THAT -- BOARD MEMBER: ON THE LEFT SIDE OF THE PICTURE? SPEAKER: NO IT'S AT THE BOTTOM.

BOARD MEMBER: OH OKAY. THANK YOU.

SPEAKER: THAT'S SWALLOW ROAD.

CHAIRMAN: MR. MATOVINA.

BOARD MEMBER: CAN YOU TELL US HOW OFTEN YOU MOVE THE RV? I MEAN, HOW OFTEN ARE YOU ALL GONE? SPEAKER: WHEN WE INITIALLY BOUGHT THE RV IN 2014 WE HAD PLANNED ON TRAVELING EXTENSIVELY. CONSEQUENTLY THERE WAS HEALTH ISSUES THAT DEVELOPED. WE HAVEN'T HAD THE TRAILER OUT AT ALL. ONE TIME WE DID HAVE IT OUT TO HAVE IT SERVICED, THERE WAS A PROBLEM WITH THE COMCAST CABLE DOWN THE STREET FROM US. IT TOOK THE ROOF OFF. CONSEQUENTLY ONCE WE GOT IT BACK WE HAVEN'T MOVED IT.

BUT WE HAVE USED IT DURING THE TWO HURRICANES AND WE WHEN WE HAVE POWER OUTAGES. WHEN OUR AIR CONDITIONING WENT OUT. SO, WE'VE USED IT THERE IN THE DRIVEWAY.

CHAIRMAN: ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? I DON'T SEE ANY. DID YOU HAVE ANYTHING ELSE? SPEAKER: NO SIR. I'D LIKE TO GO AHEAD AND LEAVE THAT DRAWING WITH YOU ALL.

CHAIRMAN: YOU CAN TAKE IT OVER TO MR. SORIA SPEAKER: LEAVE IT FOR NOW. WE'LL TAKE IT AFTER THIS HEARING IS OVER. IT MAY HAVE TO BE REFERRED TO IN FOLLOW-UP QUESTIONS.

CHAIRMAN: ALL RIGHT.

MR. WAINWRIGHT DO WE HAVE ANY PUBLIC MEANT? BOARD MEMBER: NO.

CHAIRMAN: OKAY. MR. MATOVINA.

BOARD MEMBER: I HAVE A QUESTION FOR STAFF. DO WE HAVE A SIDE YARD REQUIREMENT FOR RVS? IN OTHER WORDS, THE SIDE OF THAT RV LOOKS LIKE IT'S GETTING PRETTY CLOSE -- OR MAYBE THAT'S STILL IN THE FRONT YARD I GUESS TECHNICALLY. I GUESS I'M QUESTIONING WHETHER WE HAVE A POTENTIAL SIDE YARD VIOLATION THAT WOULD REQUIRE A VARIANCE.

SPEAKER: IF IT WAS TO GO TO THE SIDE YARD WOULD IT BE IN VIOLATION OF THE SIDE YARD SETBACK? BOARD MEMBER: THAT'S THE QUESTION SPEAKER: I DON'T KNOW.

BOARD MEMBER: IT LOOKS VERY

[02:05:01]

CLOSE TO THAT WESTERN BOUNDARY SPEAKER: MR. CHAIR, I THINK THE RVS ARE ALLOWED IN THE SIDE YARDS. I BELIEVE. SO, IF IT WAS WITHIN THE SIDE YARD, WHICH MEANS IT'S OUT OF THE FRONT YARD AND THE FRONT YARD AND THE SIDE YARD DON'T OVERLAP, THE FRONT YARD KIND OF PREVAILS WHEN THERE'S KIND OF THAT OVERLAP TYPE SITUATION. THEN THE RV WOULD BE ALLOWED IN THE SIDE YARD. THAT'S ACTUALLY WHERE IT WOULD BE PREFERRED. THE SAME WAY AS WE TREAT DRIVEWAYS. THEY'RE LOUED IN THE SIDE YARD. AND THAT'S WHERE THE APPROPRIATE PLACE FOR AN RV PARKED ON A RESIDENTIAL LOT WOULD NORMALLY GO.

BOARD MEMBER: BUT IF IT WAS IN THE SETBACK OF THE SIDE YARD WOULD IT STILL REQUIRE A VARIANCE EVEN IF IT WAS PRIMARILY IN THE FRONT YARD

>> NO. THE SIDE YARD IS THE SETBACK.

BOARD MEMBER: OKAY. ALL RIGHT.

CHAIRMAN: MR. WAINWRIGHT? BOARD MEMBER: IT SOUNDS A LITTLE LIKE THIS IS GOING TO BECOME A PERMANENT THING. YOU ARE NOT GOING TO USE IT FOR TRAVEL. DO YOU PLAN ON USING IT -- I'M NOT TRYING TO PUT YOU IN A BOX HERE.

SPEAKER: I UNDERSTAND THAT. WE HAD PLANNED ON TRAVELING. BUT, LIKE I SAID, THERE WAS A HEALTH ISSUE. BUT WE'RE HEALTHY NOW.

AND WE CAN TRAVEL WITH IT.

DR. MCCORMICK? BOARD MEMBER: I DON'T HAVE A QUESTION.

CHAIRMAN: ALL RIGHT.

CHAIRMAN: WE ARE ON THE AGENCY.

YOU FOLKS CAN BE SEATED. AND WE'VE ALREADY ESTABLISHED THERE'S NO PUBLIC COMMENT. SO WE ARE BACK ON THE AGENCY. DID YOU WISH TO MAKE A MOTION? BOARD MEMBER: I DO.

CHAIRMAN: GO AHEAD.

BOARD MEMBER: MY MOTION IS TO APPROVE ZONING VARIANCE 2019-09RV PARKING 215 SWALLOW ROAD. REQUEST FOR A ZONING VARIANCE TO LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE SECTION 6.01.03H.5 TO ALLOW FOR RECREATIONAL VEHICLE TO BE LOCATED WITHIN THE REQUIRED FRONT YARD LOCATED AT 215 SWALLOW ROAD BASED ON 8 CONDITIONS AND 5 FINDINGS OF FACT AS PROVIDED IN THE STAFF REPORT.

CHAIRMAN: WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. I'M GOING CHIME IN WITH ADDITIONAL DISCUSSION. I THINK THERE'S A SIDE YARD TO THE EAST THERE I THINK IT IS. AND, YES, IT WAS SAID THAT A DRIVEWAY WOULD NEED TO BE CONSTRUCTED.

BUT WHEN LOOKING FOR HARDSHIP HERE WE CAN'T CONSIDER A FINANCIAL HARDSHIP. BUT THE RV WOULD FIT NICELY, NOT ANGLED, PARALLEL TO THE HOUSE. TO ME THAT'S ANOTHER SOLUTION THAT WOULD WORK. AND THAT'S WHY I WOULD RATHER SEE. IS THERE ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? SEEING NONE, PLEASE VOTE. DR. MCCORMICK? THERE YOU GO. WE HAVE A TIE VOTE, MR. SORIA SPEAKER: OKAY. SO, IN THESE PARTICULAR SITUATIONS, YOU CAN -- IT FAILS THE QUESTION PRESENTED WHICH WAS A MOTION TO APPROVE. SO, YOU CAN'T MAKE THE SAME MOTION. YOU CAN -- THE APPLICANT MAY MAKE PROPERS OF ADDITIONAL MITIGATION. AND ANY MEMBER CAN MAKE A SUBSEQUENT MOTION FOR APPROVAL WITH THOSE PROPOSED CONDITIONS OR YOU CAN MAKE A MOTION FOR DENIAL. IF NO MOTION IS MADE AFTER A TIME SET BY THE CHAIR, IT IS DEEMED A TECHNICAL DENIAL. AND THE APPLICATION WILL BE DEEMED DENIED FOR FAILURE TO OBTAIN A MAJORITY VOTE.

CHAIRMAN: OKAY. CAN WE GET MR. AND MRS. HUTTO BACK UP.

PERHAPS THERE'S AN ALTERNATIVE HERE. RIGHT NOW WE'RE AT A DEADLOCK TIE.

SPEAKER: THE PROBLEMS THAT WE FACED IN THE PAST, WE'VE ALREADY TAKEN OUT MORE THAN 10 TREES OFF OF OUR PROPERTY FOR INSURANCES AND HURRICANE-TYPE PREVENTION FOR THE DAMAGE. THE OTHER TREES THAT WOULD HAVE TO COME OUT TO PUT IT INTO THE SIDE YARD WOULD BE THE CEDAR TREE THAT'S NEXT TO THE DRIVEWAY, THE LARGE OAK TREE THAT'S NEXT TO THE PROPOSED SITE, AND A MULBERRY TREE THAT'S ON THE WEST SIDE OF THE PROPERTY LINE. OR IT'S EAST OF THE

[02:10:02]

PROPERTY LINE. AT THAT POINT IF WE DID PUT A DRIVEWAY IN ON THAT SIDE, IT WOULD HAVE TO GO OVER THE WATER METER. BECAUSE THAT BEING A LARGE RV, IT'S VERY HARD TO TURN. IF WOE TRIED TO PUT IT IN THERE, LIKE I SAID, WE'D HAVE TO GO OVER THE WATER METER INTO THE SIDE YARD. AND IF IT WENT BACK BEYOND THE 25 FOOT IT WOULD BE ENCROACHING ON THE DRAIN FIELD OF THE -- CHAIRMAN: YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT THIS SIDE OF THE HOUSE? SPEAKER: YES, SIR.

CHAIRMAN: I'M TALKING ABOUT THAT SIDE.

SPEAKER: I WOULD HAVE TO HAVE AT LEAST A 30 FOOT SIDE -- THE DRIVE WII WOULD HAVE TO BE ABOUT 30 FEET. ON TO THE ROAD THERE.

BECAUSE BEING SUCH A LARGE RV TO GET IT INTO THAT SMALL 18 FOOT SECTION THERE, I'D NEED THAT MUCH TURNING ROOM.

CHAIRMAN: HOW WIDE IS THE RV? SPEAKER: 8 FEET. IT'S THE LENGTH THAT'S THE PROBLEM.

CHAIRMAN: SO THAT GIVES YOU FIVE FEET OF CLEARANCE ON EITHER SIDE IF YOU ARE DEAD CENTER. I MEAN, I GOT TO BE VERY BLUNT WITH YOU.

IT'S EITHER YOU CAN KEEP THE RV IN THE SIDE YARD AND GET RID OF THE TREES OR YOU'VE GOT TO COME UP WITH SOMETHING ELSE HERE.

BECAUSE WE ARE DEAD LOCKED HERE AS APP AGENCY.

SPEAKER: I UNDERSTAND THAT.

AGAIN, THE EAST SIDE -- THE DRIVEWAY WOULD IMPACT THAT CEDAR TREE ON THE FAR EAST YOU SEE THERE. I'D HAVE TO TAKE PORTIONS OF THE PECAN TREE UP FRONT NEXT TO THE SWALLOW ROAD. AND WE'D LOSE THAT OTHER PECAN TREE THAT'S RIGHT IN THE CENTER THERE. TO GET THE DRIVEWAY IN.

CHAIRMAN: AGAIN, I DON'T EVEN KNOW IF WHAT I AM OFFERING WILL PASS WITH THIS AGENCY. YOU KNOW, IF MY FELLOW AGENCY MEMBERS WOULD ACCEPT IT. BUT TO ME IT SEEMS THAT THE OPTION IS LOSE THE TREES TO KEEP THE RV IN YOUR YARD OR KEEP THE RV SOMEWHERE ELSE. I THINK THAT'S THE BOTTOM LINE. SO, I MEAN, I WELCOME ANY OTHER AGENCY MEMBER TO CHIME IN ON IF THEY HAVE ALTERNATIVES THEY WANT TO DISCUSS. BUT, IF NOT, I'LL AWAIT A MOTION.

SPEAKER: ALSO NEXT TO THAT SMALLER PECAN TREE IS THE FIRST SEPTIC DRAIN FIELD THAT WE HAD.

WE HAD TO TAKE OUT THAT DRAIN FIELD AND SWITCH IT OVER TO THE OTHER SIDE. THE WAY IT IS NOW.

CHAIRMAN: OKAY. ANY DISCUSSION FROM THE AGENCY? MR. WAINWRIGHT? BOARD MEMBER: WE'RE STUCK.

SPEAKER: YES, SIR. I UNDERSTAND.

BOARD MEMBER: DRAINING FIELDS AND ALL, WE WANT YOU TO WALK OUT OF HERE WITH SOMETHING THAT WILL WORK FOR YOU. PUT THE RV ON THE RIGHT SIDE OF THE PICTURE THERE.

THAT'S WHERE WE ARE. THAT'S ALL WE CAN DO.

CHAIRMAN: DR. MCCORMICK? BOARD MEMBER: I THINK MR. WAINWRIGHT IS RIGHT IT'S ALL WE CAN DO I GUESS BASED ON WHAT THE VOTE IS. I JUST HAVE, YOU KNOW, PROBLEMS WITH WHAT WE'RE DOING HERE. WE'VE HAD SEVERAL HOMES IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD SINCE I'VE BEEN ON. AND FOR THE MOST PART THE REQUESTS FOR THIS SORT OF THING HAS BEEN APPROVED. NOW WE COME UP TO THIS ONE AND YOU ARE SAYING WELL IT'S GOING TO HAVE TO CUT HIS TREES DOWN TO ACCOMMODATE US OR WE CAN'T APPROVE THIS. NOW WE CAN'T REVOTE, CAN WE

>> NOT ON THE SAME MOTION.

BOARD MEMBER: I GUESS I'M NOT GOING TO CONVINCE ANYONE ANYWAY SPEAKER: THE TWO MEMBERS ON THE PREVAILING SIDE, MR. MARTIN AND MR. MATOVINO, CAN MAKE A MOTION TO RECONSIDER THE ORIGINAL VOTE.

THAT AND RESETS EVERYTHING AS IF THE PREVIOUS MOTION WASN'T MADE.

IF THE TWO PREVAILING MEMBERS WANT TO MAKE THAT MOTION, YOU CAN APPROVE IT WITH AS PROVIDED IN THE STAFF REPORT. OTHERWISE, PURSUANT TO YOUR RULES AND PROCEDURES, THE CHAIR SHALL CALL

[02:15:02]

FOR ANY FURTHER MOTIONS WITHIN A SPECIFIED PERIOD OF TIME. IF NO FURTHER MOTION FOR APPROVAL OR DENIAL OR ANY OTHER MOTION IS MADE, THE APPLICATION IS DEEMED DNIED AND THE ENTIRE RECORD INCLUDING APPLICATION MATERIALS, TESTIMONY, DOCUMENTS, AND EVIDENCE IS MADE PART OF THE FACTS THE AGENCY USED TO MAKE ITS DETERMINATION.

CHAIRMAN: SO I TAKE SOME ISSUE WITH THAT YES WE'VE SEEN VARIANCE REQUESTS IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD FOR TRAILERS AND BOATS AND RVS. IN ALL OF THOSE CASES, THEY'VE BEEN SETTLE BY THEY NEED THE VARIANCE BECAUSE IT'S ENCROACHING INTO THE RIGHT-OF-WAY IN THE DRIVEWAY OR IT'S ENCROACHING INTO A SETBACK OR SOMETHING ON THE SIDE YARD.

AND IN ALL OF THOSE CASES, IT'S ALWAYS BEEN PARALLEL OR NEATLY PARKED NOT KIND OF CATTY-CORNER IN FRONT OF THE HOUSE IN A WEIRD WAY. SO, I MEAN, IT'S JUST -- I KNOW IT'S AN AESTHETIC THING AND IT MAY NOT SEEM THAT IMPORTANT BUT I THINK IN THIS CASE IT'S JUST KIND OF I DON'T WANT TO SET THE PRESS DENT FOR HOME BUYERS WHO MIGHT COME IN AND HAVE TRAILERS AND BOATS AND RVS PARKED ALL CATTY-CORNER UP CLOSE TO THE HOUSE. AT LEAST I WANT IT TO LOOK SOMEWHAT ORDERLY.

MR. MATOVINA? BOARD MEMBER: AND I ALSO, FIRST OFF WOULD LIKE TO SAY, I THINK I'M A PRETTY BIG PROPERTY RIGHTS GUY. BUT THE REQUIREMENT FOR A VARIANCE IS THAT YOU HAVE TO SHOW A HARDSHIP AND IT CAN'T BE SELF-IMPOSED. SO WE GET BACK TO THE OLD FLAT TIRE ANALOGY WHICH IS YOU BOUGHT A CAR WITH A FLAT TIRE AND NOW YOU WANT SOMEBODY TO PAY FOR A NEW TIRE. NOBODY WANTS TO PAY FOR IT. SO I USUALLY VOTE AGAINST THESE ANYWAY, QUITE FRANKLY. AND I THINK I HAVE TWICE ALREADY TONIGHT. IN THE CASE OF THE ONES THAT WE HAVE APPROVED IN THE PAST, I THINK I PROBABLY VOTED AGAINST THEM ALL, THE PEOPLE DID NOT HAVE AN OPTION TO GO INTO THE SIDE YARD. THERE DEFINITELY WERE THINGS LIKE AIR CONDITIONER UNITS OR SEPTIC TANKS OR AS I RECALL IN THE WAY FOR PUTTING IT IN THE SIDE YARD. AND SO THIS AGENCY APPROVED THEM BEING IN THE FRONT YARD. I DON'T SEE THAT HERE. I UNDERSTAND THERE'S A RISE. BUT RISES CAN BE LEVELLED OUT. I UNDERSTAND THERE ARE TREES. AND TREES CAN BE REMOVED OR TRIMMED. I UNDERSTAND THERE'S A TURNING RADIUS ISSUE. AND TURNING RADIUS ISSUES ARE A LITTLE MORE CHALLENGING BUT YOU SOMETIMES HAVE TO BUILD A LITTLE BIGGER DRIVEWAY TO MAKE THE TURNING RADIUS. IF YOU ARE NOT GOING TO BE USING THE THING QUITE OFTEN, YOU KNOW, MAYBE IT DOES NEED TO BE PARKED SOMEWHERE ELSE. BUT THAT'S NOT UP TO US TO DECIDE AND I'M NOT HERE TO SUGGEST THAT. SO, IN NOT NECESSARILY DEFENSE D DR. MCCORMICK BUT IN ADDRESSING WHAT YOU HAD TO SAY, I THINK THIS IS VERY DIFFERENT FROM WHAT'S BEEN APPROVED BY THIS AGENCY IN THE PAST. BECAUSE THERE IS AN OPTION TO PUT IT IN THE SIDE YARD. AND IT ALSO IS A DARN BIG RV. I THINK MOST OF WHAT WE'VE APPROVED IN THE PAST HAVE BEEN MUCH SMALLER OR SHORTER. MAYBE NOT AS WIDE. SO, SORRY FOR THAT LONG DIATRIBE.

CHAIRMAN: NO PROBLEM. OKAY. DOES ANYONE HAVE A MOTION TO SUGGEST? IF NOT, THEN I WILL MAKE ONE. I WILL MAKE A MOTION -- I'M SORRY.

MAYBE PAOLO YOU CAN HELP ME OUT WITH THIS LANGUAGE IF I TRIP OVER MYSELF A LITTLE BIT. I WOULD MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE A ZONING VARIANCE TO ALLOW FOR THE RV TO BE PARKED ON THE EAST SIDE YARD SPEAKER: MR. CHAIR, IF THE RV IS GOING TO BE PARKED IN THE SIDE YARD, THAT REQUIRES NO VARIANCE.

IT'S THE EASTERN FRONT YARD COMPONENT.

CHAIRMAN: OKAY. WELL IN THAT CASE, IF THERE'S NO VARIANCE NEEDED FOR THAT SIDE YARD, WHAT ACTION DOES THIS AGENCY REALLY HAVE TO TAKE

>> IF YOU CAN BRING UP THE MAP AGAIN. SO, WHERE THE HOUSE IS, THAT'S APPROXIMATELY 25, WELL IT'S 29 FEET. SO THE FIRST 25 FEET OF THAT IS CONSIDERED THE FRONT YARD. AND YOU CANNOT PARK AN RV ANY PLACE IN THERE. AFTER YOU GET PAST THAT 25 FEET, YOU CAN PARK AN RV THERE. EVEN IF IT'S IN THE SIDE YARD. SO, IF THEY PUT THE 38 FOOT RV COMPLETELY PAST THE FIRST 25 FEET, NO VARIANCE IS REQUIRED.

IT'S CONSIDERED AS ALLOWABLE IN THE CODE. BUT THE VARIANCES THAT YOU HAVE PREVIOUSLY

[02:20:02]

APPROVED HAD SOME PORTION OF THE RV PARKING WITHIN THE FRONT YARD. SO THAT'S WHAT THE CONCERN AND THE PROHIBITION IS.

IT'S KIND OF A -- ONE OF THE ALMOST UNIVERSAL PROHIBITIONS IS NOT PARK LARGE RECREATIONAL EQUIPMENT IN THE FRONT YARDS.

CHAIRMAN: SO THEN WOULD YOUR RECOMMENDATION BE THAT THE TIE VOTE THAT WE TOOK STAND AS SOME KIND OF TECHNICAL DENIAL AND WE JUST PROCEED WITH THAT

>> IF YOU CALL FOR MOTIONS AND NO ONE HAS MADE A MOTION, THAT STANDS AS A TECHNICAL DENIAL FOR FAILURE TO OBTAIN A MAJORITY VOTE ON ANY QUESTION PRESENTED.

CHAIRMAN: ALL RIGHT. I'VE CALLED FOR -- I'LL GIVE ONE MORE MINUTE FOR ANYONE TO MAKE A MOTION. WE'LL JUST WAIT.

SPEAKER: THERE'S NO NEED TO WAIT SIR.

CHAIRMAN: OKAY.

SPEAKER: IN THIS CASE HOW LONG CAN I HAVE TO MOVE THE RV

>> I'LL DEFER TO MIKE. THAT'S A CODE ENFORCEMENT DECISION SPEAKER: WE OFTEN GIVE A LOT OF LEEWAY FOR INDIVIDUALS ESPECIALLY WITH A CODE ENFORCEMENT CASE THAT HAVE COME IN AND WORKED WITH STAFF IN GOOD FAITH. HOWEVER, I WOULD ASK THE APPLICANT TO GIVE US AT LEAST A GOOD ESTIMATE AND A COMMITMENT THAT THEY WOULD WORK AND CONTINUE TO WORK WITH CODE ENFORCEMENT SO THAT IT'S NOT JUST OPEN-ENDED.

SPEAKER: YES, SIR, WE WILL SPEAKER: BECAUSE THEY'LL NEED TO DO SOME IMPROVEMENTS BEFORE THEY CAN GET IT INTO THE SIDE YARD.

SO, CERTAINLY TAKE THAT INTO CONSIDERATION.

SPEAKER: IF WE CAN GET IT INTO A SIDE YARD, IT WOULD BE EASIER AND MORE EFFECTIVE IF WE PUT IT INTO THE WEST SIDE YARD SPEAKER: SO THERE WE'RE IN VARIANCE TERRITORY. BECAUSE THEY CAN'T GO ALL THE WAY UP BEHIND THAT 25 FOOT BECAUSE THEN THEY RUN INTO THE DRAINAGE FIELD SPEAKER: ONCE AGAIN YOU ARE IN THE WHERE ARE YOU ACTUALLY PARKING IN RELATIONSHIP TO THAT.

IF THERE IS A FUTURE REQUEST, I WOULD RECOMMEND THAT YOU CALL THAT NO FURTHER MOTIONS, THERE IS A TECHNICAL DENIAL. THEN IF THIS AGENCY SO WISHES WAIVE THE ONE YEAR LIMITATION.

CHAIRMAN: I THINK WE WOULD PREFER THAT WE TRY THE EAST SIDE YARD. IF THAT DOESN'T WORK OUT FOR YOU ALL, WE TAKE A VOTE TO WAIVE THE ONE YEAR

>> YES YOU HAVE TO TAKE THE VOTE.

CHAIRMAN: WE'LL TAKE A VOTE TO WAIVE THE ONE YEAR. IF THAT'S THE AGENCY'S PLEASURE. AND THEN YOU COME BACK IF THE EAST SIDE DOESN'T WORK. WAIVE THE ONE YEAR LIMITATION ON THE ABILITY TO COME BACK FOR A VARIANCE.

PUBLIC SPEAKER: THAT'S GOOD.

CHAIRMAN: I'LL ENTERTAIN THAT MOTION.

CHAIRMAN: I'VE MADE A MOTION TO WAIVE THE ONE YEAR LIMITATION ON SEEKING A VARIANCE FOR THE WEST SIDE YARD OF IF THE EAST SIDE YARD WHICH DOES NOT REQUIRE VARIANCE DOES NOT WORK OUT. AND DR. MCCORMICK HAS SECONDED. IS THERE ANY ADDITIONAL DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE, ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. OPPOSED. OKAY. SO, THAT'S WAIVED FOR NOW. WORK WITH CODE ENFORCEMENT, TRY TO GET IT ON THAT EAST SIDE. IF THAT TURNS OUT NOT TO BE FEASIBLE, COME BACK, WE'LL HEAR A NEW VARIANCE REQUEST FOR THE WEST SIDE.

SPEAKER: ON EITHER SIDE YARD IF WE PUT IT BACK BEYOND 25 FEET CHAIRMAN: YOU DON'T NEED A VARIANCE ON EITHER SIDE YARD.

[Item 8]

SPEAKER: OKAY. THANK YOU.

CHAIRMAN: YOU ARE WELCOME. THANK YOU. ITEM 8.

SPEAKER: GOOD AFTERNOON AGENCY MEMBERS. JACOB SMITH WITH GROWTH MANAGEMENT. THIS IS AGENDA ITEM 8. ZONING VARIANCE 2019-18 FOR THE CARE PROPERTY FENCE. THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED ON CAT ROAD.

ABOUT A MILE OR SO NORTH WEST OF THE ROSCOE BOULEVARD AND PALM VALLEY ROAD INTERSECTION. IT IS A RESIDENTIAL A FUTURE LAND USE.

IT IS SURROUNDED OR ADJACENT TO RESIDENTIAL B AND NEW TOWN CLASSIFICATIONS. AND IT IS RS3 ZONING ADJACENT TO RS2 OPEN RURAL AND AGAIN IN THE VICINITY THERE'S A PUD OR COUPLE PUDS.

HERE'S AN AERIAL MAP OF THE PROPERTY. SHOWING IT AJEANS APT TO SEVERAL HOMES AND THE INNER-COASTAL WATERWAY. THE REQUEST SPECIFICALLY IS FOR A ZONING VARIANCE TO SECTION 2.0204 PART B 12 OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE TO ALLOW FOR EXISTING FENCING TO REMAIN ALONG CERTAIN PORTIONS OF THE PROPERTY BOUNDY EXCEEDING THE HEIGHT LIMITATIONS IN SINGLE FAMILY

[02:25:01]

RESIDENTIAL. SPECIFICALLY LOCATED AT 31 CAT ROAD. I'VE PROVIDED A SITE PLAN. ON THE SITE PLAN YOU CAN SEE, HOPEFULLY, SECTIONS OF THE OVER HEIGHT FENCE. PREDOMINANTLY THE HIGHEST PORTIONS ARE ADJACENT TO THE HOUSE. BUT IT DOES RUN ALONG THE MAJORITY OF THE PROPERTY LINE. ALSO THERE'S A SIX FOOT FENCE DIRECTLY ON THE PROPERTY LINE ON THE FRONT PROPERTY LINE. JUST THE GENERAL SUMMARY OF IT. THE PROPERTY IS CURRENTLY DEVELOPED WITH A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE ON A WRECK TONING YOU LAIR LOT ADJACENT TO THREE OTHER SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES ON THE NORTH, SOUTH AND EAST AND IT FACES THE INNER-COASTAL WATERWAY ON THE WESTERN SIDE. THERE IS MINOR VARIATIONS IN TOPOGRAPHY ON THE SIDE YARDS. AND THE APPLICANT CITES PRIVACY AS A MAIN CONCERN.

THIS APPLICATION WAS GENERATED FROM A PRIDE REPORT WHICH IS WORTH NOTING THE PRIDE REPORT ORIGINATED WITH THE PRIOR NEXT DOOR NEIGHBOR WHO IS NO LONGER THE NEXT DOOR NEIGHBOR. UPON REVIEW, APPLICANT REQUESTS THE ABILITY TO ALLOW FOR EXISTING FENCING UP TO 8 FEET ALONG THE SIDE YARDS AND FOR A SECTION OF SIX FOOT FENCING TO REMAIN IN THE FRONT YARD. THE APPLICANT SUGGEST THAT DUE TO TOPOGRAPHICAL CONDITIONS IN THE SIDE YARD CERTAIN PORTIONS OF THE FENCE EXCEED THE ALLOWED HEIGHT. AND THE APPLICANT ALSO INDICATES THEY HAVE PRIVACY CONCERNS RELATED TO THEIR HOME AND THAT THE INSTALLED FENCING IS NECESSARY TO OFFER ADEQUATE PRIVACY. I DID DO A SITE VISIT AND HERE'S A FEW PICTURES OF BOTH THE FRONT FENCE AND THE SIDE YARD FENCING. I WOULD JUST POINT OUT THAT ON THE SIDE YARD FEN FENCING FROM THE ROAD AT LEAST YOU BASICALLY CANNOT SEE THE HIGHEST PORTIONS OF THE FENCE.

IT GOES UP TO ABOUT 8 FEET TOWARDS THE HOUSE. IN MY PHOTOGRAPHS AND IN PERSON YOU BASICALLY CAN'T SEE THAT FAR BACK IT'S SUCH A DEEP LOT. ALSO POINT OUT THE OVER HEIGHT FRONT FENCE IS OBVIOUSLY A SEE-THROUGH SLATTED METAL FENCE. UPON STAFF ANALYSIS, THE PROPERTY DEMONSTRATES LIMITED TROP GRAPHICAL CONDITIONS IN THE SIDE YARDS. DURING A STAFF SITE VISIT WAS OBSERVED THE 8 FOOT SECTIONS OF SIDE YARD FENCING ARE NOT READILY VISIBLE. I ALSO OBSERVED SEVERAL PROPERTIES WITHIN THE NEIGHBORHOOD WITH SIMILAR FRONT FENCING. THE REQUEST AS SUBMITTED DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE CONTRARY TO PUBLIC INTEREST AND SHOULD THE AGENCY FIND SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO APPROVE STAFF HAS PROVIDED FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS TO SUPPORT. WE DID RECEIVE FIVE LETTERS OF CORRESPONDENCE FROM RESIDENTS WITHIN THE NEIGHBORHOOD INCLUDING NEIGHBORS ADJACENT TO THE PROPERTY. ALL WERE IN SUPPORT OF THE REQUESTED ZONING VARIANCE FOR THIS PROPERTY. I WILL NOTE THAT INCLUDES THE NEW NEIGHBOR WHO NOW RESIDES IN THE LOCATION WHERE THE PRIDE REPORT OH RIDGE 98ED. RECOMMENDED ACTION. STAFF DOES NOT OBJECT TO APPROVAL. AND FIEFRNTDS THE REQUEST MEETS THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE COMP PLAN AND MAY MEET THE INTENT FOR THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE. PROVIDED FIVE CONDITIONS. FOUR FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL AND FOUR FINDINGS FOR DENIAL. THAT CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION. I AM AVAILABLE FOR QUESTIONS. AND I BELIEVE THE APPLICANT IS HERE AND CAN OFFER FURTHER INFORMATION.

CHAIRMAN: THANK YOU. M MR. MATOVINA HAS A QUESTION.

BOARD MEMBER: WHERE THE FENCE EXCEEDS THE SIX FEET IS IT THE ACTUAL WOOD PORTION OF THE FENCE OR THE HEIGHT AS MEASURED FROM THE GROUND TO THE TOP OF THE FENCE? SPEAKER: WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE FRONT PROPERTY LINE FENCE BOARD MEMBER: NO THE SIDE.

SPEAKER: I BELIEVE IT IS FROM THE GROUND TO THE TOP OF THE FENCE.

BOARD MEMBER: TO THE FENCE ITSELF IS CONSTRUCTED THE SAME.

SPEAKER: RIGHT.

BOARD MEMBER: THE SAME NUMBER OF HORIZONTAL SLATS.

SPEAKER: YES. I'M GOING ZOOM BACK TO THE -- I KNOW THIS IS DIFFICULT TO SEE. BUT THE SLATS ACTUALLY RAISE UP AS WE GET TO THE HOUSE. SO, THERE'S A LITTLE BIT OF A TAPER WHERE THEY'RE ACTUALLY ARE MORE SLATS TOWARDS THE BACK. LIKE I MENTIONED, YOU BASICALLY CAN'T SEE THOSE FROM THE ROAD. I MEAN, THAT PROPERTY'S VERY LONG AND IT'S NOT VISIBLE READILY FROM THE ROAD AT LEAST.

CHAIRMAN: ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? I DON'T SEE ANY. WOULD THE APPLICANT CARE TO ADD ANYTHING TO THE PRESENTATION? WELL THAT'S

[02:30:05]

A STRANGE ROLE FOR YOU.

SPEAKER: THE FIRST ONE I STOOD UP WHEN THEY ASKED FOR THE STAFF PRESENTATION. SO IT'S GETTING A LITTLE BIT USED TO. SHANNON ACEVEDO WITH MATTHEWS DESIGN GROUP 7 WALDO STREET. I'LL JUST KEEP IT SHORT. THAT WAS A GREAT STAFF PRESENTATION. BUT ESSENTIALLY WE ARE ASKING FOR THE FENCE AS IT IS BUILT TODAY TO BE COMPLIANT ON THE SITE.

AND TO GIVE IT A LELE BIT OF BACKGROUND. THE OWNERS TONY AND MALLY HAVE LIVED ON THE PROPERTY SINCE 2008. SHORTLY AFTER THEY MOVED IN THEY DECIDED TO BUILD THIS FENCE BACK IN NOVEMBER OF 2008. AND THE FENCE WAS INSPIRED BY SOME OF THE DESIGNS THEY SAW WITH NEIGHBORS NEARBY. THEY WERE UNAWARE OF SOME OF THE HEIGHT AND SETBACK REGULATIONS WITH ST. JOHNS COUNTY AND, UNFORTUNATELY, BUILT A FENCE THAT WAS NOT IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE SIX FOOT AS YOU HAVE SEEN IN THE FRONT. THEN THE WOODEN FENCE THAT ACTUALLY ORIGINALLY HAD GONE UP TO ABOUT 8.5. AND NOW IS LIMITED TO 8. I'LL GET INTO THAT IN A LITTLE BIT. JUST WANTED TO POINT OUT I KNOW YOU HAVE SEEN THIS SITE PLAN BUT WHAT WE TRIED TO DO IS PUT ON TO PAPER EXACTLY WHAT WE'RE REQUESTING HERE.

BECAUSE AS JACOB MENTIONED, THE AREA THAT'S THE HIGHEST PORTION UP TO THE 8 FEET IS ONLY LIMITED TO THE AREA YOU SEE THERE IN THE BLUE ARROW. THE REST OF THE WOODEN FENCE DOES NOT EXCEED 7 FEET. AND ACTUALLY IN SOME PLACES IS EVEN LESS THAN THAT.

AROUND 4 FEET. JUST TO KIND OF CLARIFY. I KNOW WE TALKED ABOUT THIS A LITTLE BIT BUT YOU CAN SEE THE ENTRANCE THERE WHERE THE BRICK AND THE IRON IS. FOR THE WOOD THE QUESTION THAT CAME UP ABOUT THE SLATTING AND THE TAPERING, THAT MIDDLE PICTURE KIND OF GIVES YOU A GOOD INDICATION. THIS IS FACING THE INTERCOSTAL. YOU CAN SEE HOW AT THE HIGHEST POINT IT TAPERS OFF AS SOON AS IT GETS PAST THE ACTUAL BUILDING FOOTPRINT. THEN THE LAST PICTURE LOOKS AT THE OPPOSITE VIEW. SO, YOU CAN SEE WHERE THE LARGEST PORTION IS NEXT TO THE HOUSE. ON THE OTHER SIDE, ON THE SIDE THAT'S FACING WEST, IT'S MUCH LESS IN TERMS OF THE HEIGHT RESTRICTION. THE HIGHEST POINT IS ABOUT 7 FEET.

AS YOU CAN SEE, DUE TO THE RETAINING WALL THERE'S PORTIONS THAT ARE ACTUALLY QUITE SHORT. I DID WANT TO POINT OUT ON THE NORTHERN BOUNDARY YOU CAN SORT OF SEE HERE WHERE THE FENCE IS AND THIS IS IN THE YEAR YARD FACING CAT ROAD. IT'S ACTUALLY ONLY JUST A FEW INCHES STALLER THAN THE ADJACENT NEIGHBOR'S FENCE. I ALSO WANTED TO JUST MENTION THAT SOME CONSIDERATIONS OF NEIGHBORS WERE MADE IN THE DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF THE FENCE. THERE IS AN EXISTING BANANA TREE. YOU CAN SEE IT RIGHT HERE. THAT SORT OF TRAVERSES THE PROPERTY LINES.

AND SO THE DECISION WAS MADE TO SORT OF BUILD THE FENCE AROUND THAT IN ORDER TO PROTECT THE TREE. I WANTED TO TOUCH JUST A MOMENT ON THE SECTIONS OF THE VARIANCE THAT SHOULD BE LOOKED AT IN TERMS OF MAKING SURE THAT THIS WOULD NOT BE CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST AND ALSO MAKING A CASE FOR WHY THERE SHOULD BE SOME SPECIAL CONSIDERATION WITH REGARD TO HARDSHIP. IN TERMS OF THE PUBLIC INTEREST, I THINK THAT THERE ARE QUITE A FEW EXAMPLES, I DIDN'T PUT THEM ALL IN THIS PRESENTATION, BUT YOU HAVE MORE IN YOUR PACKET. THERE ARE A LOT OF EXAMPLES OF FENCES THAT ARE VERY SIMILAR TO THE ONES ON 31 CAT ROAD. AND ACTUALLY LOOKING AT SOME OF THESE PHOTOS IS REALLY WHAT PROMPTED THE APPLICANT TO BUILD THE FENCE.

UNFORTUNATELY, A SIGNIFICANT INVESTMENT WAS MADE IN THAT WITHOUT KNOWING THAT THERE WAS THESE REGULATIONS TO HEIGHT AND SETBACK. BUT IN TERMS OF CHARACTER, I THINK IT REALLY DOES FIT IN WITH THE TYPES OF FENCE STRUCTURES THAT ARE IN THEIR SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD ON CAT ROAD AND ALSO ALONG ROSCOE BOULEVARD. IN TERMS OF HARDSHIP, I WANTED TO MENTION HOW IMPORTANT PRIVACY IS FOR THIS PARTICULAR PROPERTY OWNER.

IN SPEAKING WITH THE CLIENT, TONY KARA, THEY HAVE BEEN UNFORTUNATELY A VICTIM OF A ROBBERY IN THE PAST. NOT AT THIS HOME BUT AT A PRIOR LOCATION.

AND HAVING THIS TALLER FENCE REALLY DOES BRING THEM A MUCH HIGHER LEVEL OF SECURITY. SO,

[02:35:02]

I'M HOPING YOU CAN TAKE THAT INTO CONSIDERATION. THE SECOND THING I DID WANT TO MENTION IS THEY HAVE A SMALL DOG. AND HAVING THE TALLER FENCE ALSO HELPS PROTECTION OF THE PET. I KNOW THERE'S SOME LARGER DOGS IN THE AREA. AND THEY'VE SEEN COYOTES ROAMING ABOUT. SO, JUST GIVES THEM A LITTLE BIT EXTRA PROTECTION TO HAVE THAT HIGHER HEIGHT. WE'VE GOTTEN A COUPLE MORE LETTERS. MORE OF SUPPORT.

BUT JUST WANTED TO MENTION THAT ONE OF THOSE LETTERS OF SUPPORT IS TO THE LOT THAT'S IMMEDIATELY SOUTH WHICH ALSO HAPPENS TO BE THE AREA WHERE THE HIGHEST PORTION OF THE FENCE IS TODAY.

SO, WITH THAT, I'LL CONCLUDE MY PRESENTATION. AND IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR ME, I'LL BE AVAILABLE. THE OWNER IS HERE AS WELL.

CHAIRMAN: MR. MATOVINA? BOARD MEMBER: SHANNON, DID A CONTRACTOR DO THIS WORK? SPEAKER: I'M NOT SURE WHO THE CONTRACTOR WAS.

BOARD MEMBER: I'M MAINLY REFERRING TO THE BRICK PILLARS IN THE FRONT. THE STONE PILLARS IN THE FRONT.

SPEAKER: YES. A CONTRACTOR WAS USED.

BOARD MEMBER: DID HE PULL A BUILDING PERMIT? SPEAKER: I'M NOT SURE SPEAKER: MR. CHAIR -- CHAIRMAN: IF YOU COULD COME TO THE MICROPHONE PLEASE.

SPEAKER: HI. YES SO I HIRED A FENCE COMPANY AND I HIRED A PAVING COMPANY. I FILLED OUT PAPERWORK WITH THEM. SIGNED A CONTRACT WITH THEM. SO I AM ASSUMING THEY DID ALL THE THINGS THEY WERE SUPPOSED TO DO. I DON'T.

BOARD MEMBER: HOW WOULD WE GET A BUILDING PERMIT FOR STONE COLUMNS THAT VIOLATE THE FRONT YARD

>> MR. CHAIR THE COLUMNS THEMSELVES ARE ACTUALLY FINE.

THE COLUMNS CAN GO UP TO SIX FEET. IT'S THE FENCE BETWEEN THE COLUMNS THAT CAN'T EXCEED FOUR FEET. THE GATES AND COLUMNS CAN GO TWO FEET ABOVE THE FOUR FOOT LIMITATION.

BOARD MEMBER: OKAY. I'LL BET YOU THE PLAN SHOWED THE FENCE. IF THERE WAS A PERMIT PULLED I BET IT SHOWED THE FENCE.

CHAIRMAN: DO YOU HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? BOARD MEMBER: NO.

CHAIRMAN: DOES ANYBODY ELSE HAVE QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT REPRESENTATIVE? DO WE HAVE ANY PUBLIC COMMENT? BOARD MEMBER: WE HAVE ONE. ALEX LUCE. SIR IF YOU WILL GIVE US YOUR NAME AND I DRESS AND YOU HAVE THREE MINUTES.

SPEAKER: MY NAME IS ALEX LUCE. I AM THE OWNER OF THE HOME THAT WAS PURCHASED IMMEDIATELY SOUTH OF THEM. AT 41 CAT ROAD. AND I WAS JUST GOING TO SAY WE HAVE NO CHALLENGES OR ISSUES WITH THE FENCE ITSELF. WE IN FACT KIND OF SUPPORT THEIR HARDSHIP ARGUMENT WHERE IT DOES PROVIDE ADDITIONAL PRIVACY. AND WE HAVE CONCERNS.

WE HAVE TWO DOGS AND WE ACTUALLY HAVE A DOMESTICATED PIG THAT LIVES IN THE YARD. SO, COYOTES IS A REAL CONCERN. SO THE FENCE ON THAT PART WE HAVE NO CHALLENGE, NO ISSUE AND WE'RE SUPPORTIVE. IN FACT, IF IT HAD NOT BEEN FOR THAT FENCE WE MIGHT NOT HAS BEEN ABLE TO PURCHASE THE HOUSE. THAT'S ALL I HAVE TO SAY. IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, LET ME KNOW.

BOARD MEMBER: THANK YOU. I THOUGHT I SAW SOMEONE ELSE WHO WANTED TO COME UP. COME UP, MA'AM. WE'LL GET YOU TO FILL OUT A SPEAKER CARD LATER. OH YOU DID. OKAY. IF YOU CAN JUST -- MR. WAINWRIGHT IF YOU RESET THE CLOCK. JUST STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS.

SPEAKER: ELIZABETH HOWELL. I LIVE AT 21 CAT ROAD. JUST NORTH OF THE PROPERTY. I'VE ALIVED THERE FOR OVER 12 YEARS. AND WHEN THE KARAS MOVED IN LAST YEAR THEY DID A LOT OF CLEAN UP.

CLEANED UP A NATURAL BARRIER.

THEY TOLD ME THEY WERE GOING TO PUT IN A FENCE TO KEEP THEIR POMERANIANS IN. SOUNDED GOOD TO ME. I ALSO AM A DOG OWNER. I HAVE A 90 POUND GERMAN SHEPHERD THAT I KEEP IN MY YARD WITH A FOUR FOOT ALUMINUM PENCE. SO, WHEN THE WALL WENT UP, AS WE CALL IT, WHEN I SAY WE ALL, THE NEIGHBORS, WERE QUITE SHOCKED.

IT LOOKS LIKE A CHEAP STOCKADE LIVESTOCK FENCE. IT'S POORLY CONSTRUCTED. IT'S ALREADY WARPING. AND IT IS QUITE THE EYESORE. AND IT DOES STAND ON MY SIDE UP BY MY HOUSE A GOOD -- THIS HIGHER THAN MY REGULATION,

[02:40:04]

SUPERIOR VINYL FENCE. THEY CAN DO WHATEVER THEY WANT TO DO ON THEIR PROPERTY. BUT FOLLOW THE RULES. GET A PERMIT. DO IT THE WAY IT'S SUPPOSED TO BE AND I PROMISE IT DOES NOT LOOK LIKE ANY OTHER FENCE ON ROSCOE.

THAT'S IT.

CHAIRMAN: THANK YOU. I BELIEVE THAT IS THE END OF PUBLIC COMMENT. MISS ACEVEDO IF YOU WANT TO COME UP AND ADDRESS WHAT WAS SAID.

SPEAKER: YES, THANK YOU. THIS IS THE FIRST WE'RE HEARING FROM OPPOSITION. SO I THINK MAYBE THE BEST COURSE OF ACTION WOULD BE TO SEEK A CONTINUANCE SO WE CAN MAYBE WORK THROUGH THIS ISSUE AND COME UP WITH SOME MITIGATION STRATEGIES TO WORK WITH MS. HOWELL.

CHAIRMAN: OKAY. THAT MIGHT WORK ANYWAY BECAUSE WITH FOUR MEMBERS THERE'S ALWAYS THE RISK OF A TIE VOTE. DID YOU HAVE A DATE IN MIND THAT YOU WOULD PREFER OR SHOULD WE JUST CONTINUE TO A DATE UNCERTAIN? SPEAKER: WE CAN SCHEDULE WITH STAFF. THAT'S FINE.

CHAIRMAN: OKAY. SO THE APPLICANT HAS OFFERED TO CONTINUE TO A DATE UNCERTAIN.

CAN I GET A MOTION? BOARD MEMBER: MOTION.

CHAIRMAN: MR. WAINWRIGHT HAS MADE THE MOTION. WE HAVE A SECOND. ANY ADDITIONAL DISCUSSION? ALL IN FAVOR FOR CONTINUING THE ITEM TO DATE UNCERTAIN SAY AYE. OPPOSED? AND THAT IS CONTINUED. ALL RIGHT.

[Item 9]

MOVING ON TO ITEM NUMBER 9.

SPEAKER: ALL RIGHT AGAIN FOR THE RECORD BEVERLY FRAZIER GROWTH MANAGEMENT. ITEM 9 IS A ZONING VARIANCE 2019-20 FOR THE PRIOLEAU RESIDENCE. THE REQUEST IS A ZONE IS VARIANCE TO LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE SECTION 6 ON 101 TO ALLOW A REAR YARD SETBACK OF ONE FOOT IN LIEU OF THE TEN FOOT REQUIREMENT AND TO ELIMINATE THE REQUIRED 8 FOOT SETBACK FOR A SIDE YARD LOCATED NEXT TO AN EASEMENT. AS TO ACCOMMODATE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW SINGLE FAMILY HOME AT 245 RIVER SHORE LANE. ON THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS WEST OF COASTAL HIGHWAY AND NORTH OF THE BRIDGE AND THE VE LONO BEACH AREA. IT DOES HAVE A CONSERVATION LAND USE. AND IT IS IN RS3.

RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY ZONING. SO THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AS YOU CAN SEE IS UNIMPROVED CURRENTLY AND IS LOCATED ON THE INTERCOSTAL WATERWAY. THE PROPERTY IS PART OF THE NORTH RIVER ISLAND SUBDIVISION. IT'S ABOUT 17,250 SQUARE FEET. IT DOES HAVE WATERFRONTAGE OF ABOUT 165 FEET. AND THEN ON THE NORTHERN BOUNDARY THE DEPTH OF THE LOT IS ABOUT 120 FEET. IT'S ADJACENT TO A T TURN AROUND WHICH YOU'VE SEEN ON OTHER PROPERTIES HERE AS WELL AS TO ACCOMMODATE A 30 FOOT ACCESS EASEMENT ACROSS THE FRONT OF THE PROPERTY FOR THE LAST LOT THERE OFF RIVER SHORE DRIVE. SO THE REQUEST IS TO ELIMINATE THE REQUIRED SETBACK FROM THE 30 FOOT ACCESS EASEMENT WHICH SERVES THE ADJACENT PARCEL AND TO REDUCE THE WATERFRONT SETBACK FROM TEN FEET TO ONE FEET AS MEASURED FROM THE EXISTING SEAWALL. THE SITE PLAN DEMONSTRATES THE HOME WILL ENCROACH THE WESTERN YARD APPROXIMATELY 180 SQUARE FEET AND THE EASTERN YARD APPROXIMATELY 234 CARE FEET. THE APPLICANT STATES THE UNUSUAL SHAPE OF THE LOT PROVIDES SITE CONSTRAINTS. IN ADDITION THE WESTERN PORTION OF THE LOT, OVER 3,500 SQUARE FEET, EXTENDS BEYOND THE LAND AREA INTO THE WATERWAY. YOU CAN SEE THAT HERE.

THIS IS A SITE PLAN AS PROPOSED.

THEY DID HIGHLIGHT THE AREAS OF THE STRUCTURE THAT WOULD BE ENCROACHING THE TEN FOOT SETBACK IS REQUIRED FROM THAT SEAWALL.

AS WELL AS THE ENCROACHMENT IN THE FRONT OF THE HOME ADJACENT TO THE ACCESS EASEMENT. THE SITE, YOU KNOW, THE SETBACK FROM THE PROPERTY LINE FOR FRONT DOES MEET THE REQUIRED SETBACK.

BUT THE EASEMENT OF COURSE REDUCES THAT. YOU CAN SEE THE LAYOUT OF THE HOUSE AS WELL AS THE PROVIDED -- THE T TURN AROUND CREATES A FRONT YARD FOR BOTH ALONG THE FRONT THERE AS WELL. SO THE SUBDIVISION PROPERTY JUST A LITTLE BIT OF BACKGROUND WAS REZONED FROM CHT TO RS3 IN 2003 TO ALLOW THE DEVELOPMENT OF 15 LOTS. THE REZONING APPLICATION HAD A COMPANION VARIANCES WITH REGARDS TO ENVIRONMENTAL BUFFERS AS WELL

[02:45:01]

AS TO THE REQUIRED ROADWAY STANDARD DESIGNS FOR THE PLATTED SUBDIVISION. SUBS CONSEQUENT ZONING VARIANCES HAVE BEEN APPROVED FOR SINGLE LOTS WITHIN THE SUBDIVISION FOR REDUCED SETBACKS FROM UNOPEN RIGHT-OF-WAY, SECOND FRONT YARDS, WATERFRONT REAR YARDS DUE TO THE UNUSUAL SHAPE AND LAYOUT OF THESE LOTS. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY MEETS THE MINIMUM LOT DIMENSIONS REQUIRED BY THE RS3 ZONING CLASSIFICATION. HOWEVER THE LOT IS IRREGULAR IN SHAPE AND APPEARS TO HAVE SITE CONSTRAINTS DUE TO THEN CONSTRUCTION OF THE T TURN AROUND AND ACCESS EASEMENT. WE DID TALK ABOUT THE PART OF THE PLATTED LOT BEYOND THE RIFFRAFF BULKHEAD ON THAT WESTERN BOUNDARY. THE HOME IS CURRENTLY CONSTRUCTED ALONG RIVER SHORE LANE PROVIDES SETBACKS FROM THE STRUCTURE TO THE BULKHEAD THAT MEASURE BETWEEN 0-25 FEET. THE PROPOSED HOME WILL MAIN TAPE A MINIMUM 30 FEET SET BACK FROM THE EASTERN LINE AND 20 FOOT FROM THE WESTERN PROPERTY LINE.

THIS IS A PRELIMINARY ELEVATION OF WHAT THE HOME WILL LOOK LIKE TO GIVE YOU AN IDEA OF THE GENERAL CHARACTER AND DESIGN OF THE HOME PROVIDED. STAFF RECEIVED ONE LETTER OF SUPPORT FROM THE ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER WITH AN ADDRESS OF 249 RIVER SHORE LANE. STAFF COMPLETED A SITE VISIT AND THE PROPOSED HOME AND SWIMMING POOL DESIGN APPEARS CONSISTENT WITH THE LOCATION AND OUTDOOR IMPROVEMENTS OF EXISTING HOMES WITHIN THE GATED RIVER SHORE ISLAND SUBDIVISION. STAFF FINDS REQUESTS MEETS THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND APPEARS TO MEET THE NECESSARY CRITERIA OUTLINED IN THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE. THE REQUEST DOES NOT APPEAR CONTRARY TO PUBLIC INTEREST. THE SUPPORT OF THE ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER AND THE LIMITED EXTENT OF THE ENCROACHMENT MAY ALLOW RELIEF OF LITTLE OR MO IMPACT TO PROPERTIES. THE PROPERTY IRREGULAR IN SHAPE HAVING A CORNER LOCATION WITH INCREASED SETBACKS ADJACENT TO THE T TURN AROUND AND THE LOT ALLOWS THAT ACCESS EASEMENT. STAFF PROVIDES FIVE CONDITIONS AND FIVE FINDINGS TO SUPPORT A MOELTHS.

THAT CON DELUDES MY PRESENTATION. THE APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE IS HERE AS WELL.

CHAIRMAN: DO WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? MR. MATOVINA.

BOARD MEMBER: WHAT DOES IT MEAN WHEN IT SAYS THE WESTERN PORTION OF THE LOT APPROXIMATELY 3,500 SQUARE FEET EXTENDS BEYOND THE LAND AREA AND INTO THE WATERWAY.

WHAT DOES THAT MEAN? SPEAKER: YOU CAN SEE THE PLATTED -- I'VE GOT IT ON THE AERIAL. THE PLATTED SUB-DWITHS GOES BEYOND THE LAND AREA AND THE RIP WRAP IS INCLUDED IN THAT LAND AREA. WITHIN THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE THE REAR SETBACK IS MEASURED FROM THE SEA WALL INSTEAD OF THE RARE PROPERTY LINE IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES.

BOARD MEMBER: I AM A LITTLE DENSE TODAY. THANK YOU.

CHAIRMAN: I DON'T SEE -- DID YOU HAVE A QUESTION. COULD WE GET THE APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE UP THEN.

SPEAKER: GOOD AFTERNOON. BRANDON EDGE LUND WITH BRANDON CONSTRUCTION. I'M THE BUILDER.

WE APPRECIATE STAFF'S REVIEW.

VERY COMPREHENSIVE. IT'S BEEN A LITTLE BIT OF A WINDING ROAD FOR THIS PROPERTY. IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT IN 2018 THE OWNER DID COME IN WITH THE POTENTIAL ASK OF A VARIANCE FOR THE FRONT SETBACK TO BE REDUCED FROM 25 FEET. UPON FURTHER WORK WITH THE DESIGNER IT BECAME APPARENT THAT THE SHAPE AND MANNER OF THE HOME IN THAT NEIGHBORHOOD WOULD BE BETTER SERVED BY A DIFFERENT ASK. SO, JUST WANTED TO HIGH LIGHT THAT POINT ON STAFF'S REPORT OF A ZERO TO 25 FOOT SETBACK ALREADY IN PLAY IN THIS COMMUNITY. ONE OTHER NOTE OF INTEREST WAS THAT THIS DESIGN DID RECEIVE THE LOCAL ARB APPROVAL. IT HAS SINCE EXPIRED AS WE'VE GONE THROUGH THE VARIANCE PROCESS BUT WE'RE LOOKING TO HAVE THAT RECERTIFIED IN THE NEAR FUTURE. I AM AROUND AND CAN ANSWER QUESTIONS. I HAVE SCREEN SHOTS FROM GOOGLE EARTH THAT SHOWS THE COMMUNITY MAYBE A LITTLE MORE CLEARLY IF THOSE ARE NEEDED.

CHAIRMAN: DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? MR. WAINWRIGHT? BOARD MEMBER: YES, PLEASE HELP ME UNDERSTAND. IS THERE A CHANGE IN THE SETBACK ON THE NORTHERN BOUNDARY OF THE PROPERTY? SPEAKER: NO, SIR. THAT SETBACK WILL BE MAINTAINED IN THE LETTER OF APPROVAL THAT WE HAVE IS FROM THE ONLY ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER THAT'S REALLY IMPACTED BY THE SETBACK FROM THE SEAWALL. AND THE ACCESS EASEMENT. AND HE SHARES THAT NORTHERN PROPERTY BOUNDARY.

BOARD MEMBER: SO THERE'S NO SETBACK EXCEPTION REQUIRED THERE.

SPEAKER: NO SIR.

CHAIRMAN: MR. MATOVINA.

BOARD MEMBER: HOW BIG IS THIS HOUSE? SPEAKER: THE SQUARE FOOTAGE. I BELIEVE IT'S HASHED OUT HERE.

WE'VE MEASURED IT FOUR DIFFERENT WAYS IN THE LAST FEW MONTHS. THE HOME IT SELF -- YOU KNOW FRANKLY I DON'T WANT TO SAY FOR SURE. I

[02:50:02]

DON'T REMEMBER EXACTLY. I WANT TO SAY IT'S IN THE 4,000 SQUARE FOOT RANGE. DEPENDS ON HOW YOU ARE MEASURING. WE HAVE A LOT OF OUTDOOR/INDOOR SPACE. BUT IT IS A HOME THAT IS SIZED APPROPRIATE TO THE OTHER HOMES IN THAT NEIGHBORHOOD.

CHAIRMAN: ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? I DON'T SEE ANY. DO WE HAVE ANY PUBLIC COMMENT? BOARD MEMBER: NO.

CHAIRMAN: WE ARE BACK ON THE AGENCY THEN. I'LL DEFINITELY SAY IT'S A VERY UNUSUAL SHAPE FOR THE PROPERTY AND I DEFINITELY CAN'T RECALL ANOTHER TIME WHEN WE'VE SEEN ONE WHERE THE PROPERTY LINE GOES INTO THE WATER. SO, YOU KNOW, I THINK, YOU KNOW -- AND THERE'S A RIGHT-OF-WAY IN THE FRONT PART OF THE PROPERTY. SO I THINK THEY HAVE DEFINITELY ESTABLISHED THE HARDSHIP IN MY MIND HERE.

SO I AM WILLING TO SUPPORT THIS.

ANY OTHER COMMENT FROM THE AGENCY? MR. WAINWRIGHT? BOARD MEMBER: I'D GO AHEAD AND OFFER A MOTION. I OFFER A MOTION TO APPROVE ZVAR 2019-20 BASED ON FIVE FINDINGS OF FACT AND SUBJECT TO FIVE CONDITIONS AS PROVIDED FOR IN THE STAFF REPORT.

CHAIRMAN: SO WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. ANY ADDITIONAL DISCUSSION? SEEING NONE, PLEASE VOTE. AND THE MOTION CARRIES.

[Item 10]

ALL RIGHT. MOVING ON TO ITEM NUMBER 10.

SPEAKER: FOR THE RECORD ITEM NUMBER 10 THIS IS BEVERLY FRAZIER WITH GROWTH MANAGEMENT.

THIS IS A MODERN MODIFICATION 2019-04 FOR THE RAMSEY RESIDENCE FOR POOL EQUIPMENT. THIS REQUEST FOR MINOR MODIFICATION TO THE DURBIN CROSSING PUD TO ALLOW PLACEMENT OF A MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT WITHIN A SETBACK OF APPROXIMATELY TWO FEET FROM THE SIDE PROPERTY LINE IN LIEU OF THE REQUIRED FIVE FEET PER SECTION G OF THE MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN. THAT'S LOCATED AT 112 WOODLAND HILLS WAY. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS NORTH OF LONG LAKE PINE PARKWAY AND EAST OF VETERANS PARKWAY IN THE DURBIN CROSSING PUD. IT IS DESIGNATED RESIDENTIAL ON THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP. YOU CAN SEE THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS WITHIN THE PUD. AND HAS SURROUNDING WITHIN THE PUD. THE AERIAL MAP IS SHOWN -- DOES SHOW THE IMPROVED PROPERTY AS WELL AS THE OTHER RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY HOMES IN THE AREA. THE PROPERTY DOES BACK UP TO A STORM WATER RETENTION AREA AND IS LOCATED JUST ONE LOT DOWN FROM THE CUL-DE-SAC ON WOODLAND HILLS WAY. THE MODIFICATION PROPOSES AN ENCROACHMENT OF OVER THREE FEET TO ACCOMMODATE THE SWIMMING POOL EQUIPMENT AT LOT 252. THE POOL EQUIPMENT WAS INSTALLED BESIDE THE OTHER EQUIPMENT BUT WITHIN THE SIDE SETBACK ADJACENT TO LOT 253. THE LOT LAYOUT IS NOT PARALLEL DUE TO THE LOCATION OF THE CULL-CUL-DE-SAC. AND IT S THE EQUIPMENT OF 252 FORWARD OF THE ADJACENT HOME OF ON LOT 253.

THE NARRATIVE STATES THE EQUIPMENT COULD NOT BE PLACED ON THE RARE OF THE SCREEN ENCLOSURE OR ADJACENT TO THE POND AND WOULD BE DISRUPTIVE TO THE NEIGHBORS IF MOVED BACK TO THE REAR YARD AREA. THIS IS A LOOK AT THE APPROVED SITE PLAN. YOU CAN SEE IT WAS APPROVED WITH A FIVE FOOT SETBACK. IT DOES SHOW THE EXISTING MECHANICAL COMMIT FOR THE HOME IN A SMALL AREA. IT LOOKS LIKE THE SETBACK FOR THE HOME IS A LITTLE BIT LIKE SIX-AND-A-HALF FEET. OR CLOSE TO THAT. SO IT DID NOT QUITE HAVE ROOM EVEN THOUGH IT WAS DEPICTED ON THE SITE PLAN TO ACCOMMODATE.

YOU CAN SEE THE LOCATION OF THE SWIMMING POOL A WELL AS THE OUTLINE OF THE SCREEN ENCLOSURE FOR THE REAR OF THE HOME. HERE'S SOME PHOTOS THAT WERE PROVIDED BY THE APPLICANT SO YOU CAN SEE FROM THE ROADWAY THEY'VE FENCED IN THAT EQUIPMENT AND YOU CAN SEE HOW IT SITS IN FRONT OF THE ADJACENT PROPERTY AS WELL AS THERE'S A PHOTO OF THE EQUIPMENT INSIDE THAT VINYL FENCE TO KIND OF SEE WHERE IT IS LOCATED. WE WEREN'T QUITE SURE, THAT'S WHY I SAID APPROXIMATELY, THE EXACT MEASUREMENT, BUT THE EQUIPMENT IS LOCATED AND THEY HOPE TO LEAVE IT IN THAT LOCATION. SO, THERE ARE SIX OPEN COMMENTS THAT WERE NOT ADDRESSED DURING STAFF REVIEW. WE HAD REQUESTED AN EXPANSION OF THE NARRATIVE TO MORE, YOU KNOW, FURTHER DESCRIBE THE CONDITION OF THE LOT TO MEET THE CRITERIA FOR HARDSHIP. WE ASKED FOR CLARIFICATION OF THE REQUESTED SETBACK. IF IT'S TWO FEET OR ONE FOOT FROM THE PROPERTY LINE. AS WELL AS WE REQUESTED DOCUMENTATION FROM THE HOMEOWNER'S ASSOCIATION FOR THE EQUIPMENT LOCATION APPROVAL WITHIN THE SETBACK. OR DENIAL OR RESTRICTION FOR THE POSSIBLE RELOCATION TO THE REAR OF THE SCREEN ENCLOSURE. BASED ON THE FAILED INSPECTION FOR THE POOL

[02:55:02]

INSTALLED IN 2017 AND THE APPLICATION EARLIER THIS YEAR THE ITEM WAS SCHEDULE FOR HEARING WITHOUT FURTHER DELAY.

THE SUBJECT PROPERTY MEETS ALL THE MINIMUM LOT DIMENSIONS REQUIRED BY THE DURBIN CROSSING DEVELOPMENT. THE PROPERTY IS GENERALLY RECTANGULAR IN SHAPE WITH AN EXTENDED EAR YARD AND DOES NOT APPEAR TO HAVE SPURN SPECIAL CONDITIONS. STAFF KNOWLEDGES THE LOT LAYOUT PLACES THE DEVELOPMENT AREA FORD OF THE ADJACENT PROPERTY. HOWEVER.

TYPICALLY A MINIMUM OF THREE FEET IS REQUIRED FOR ACCESSORY USES FROM THE SIDE AND REAR PROPERTY LINES TO PROVIDE POSITIVE DRAINAGE. THE APPLICANT SUBMITTED A LETTER OF SUPPORT FROM THE ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER AT 116 WOODLAND HILLS WAY. NO OTHER CORRESPONDENCE HAS BEEN RECEIVED BY STAFF. STAFF COMPLETED A SITE VISIT AND NOTICED THE EXISTING FENCE SCREENS THE EQUIPMENT FROM THE ROADWAY AND ADJACENT NEIGHBORS.

STAFF FINDS THE REQUEST CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN HOWEVER IT DOES NOT APPEAR TO MEET THE CRITERIA FOR A VARIANCE OUTLINED IN THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE BASED ON THE LOT'S SHAPE, TOP GRAPHIC AGENCY. THE AGENCY MAY FIND THE APPLICANT MEETS A HARDSHIP BASED ON THE CONDITION OR DEVELOPMENT OF THE ADJACENT PROPERTY TO ALLOW THE EQUIPMENT REMAINS A CURRENTLY INSTALLED.

BASED ON THE SUPPORT OF THE ADJACENT NEIGHBOR AND THE MINIMAL ENCROACHMENT REQUESTED.

STAFF HAS PROVIDED SIX CONDITIONS AND SIX FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL AND FIVE FINDINGS FOR DENIAL. THAT CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION. AND THE APPLICANT IS HERE.

CHAIRMAN: SO I HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT WHETHER THE SETBACK IS TWO FEET OR A FOOT-AND-A-HALF. IS THAT BECAUSE WE'RE NOT CLEAR WHERE THE PROPERTY LINE IS? OR IF THAT'S ON THE FENCE? WHAT'S THE ISSUE THERE? SPEAKER: IT WAS AN OPEN QUESTION FROM STAFF TO CLARIFY WHAT THAT REQUEST IS. IT WAS SHOWN ON ONE PLAN THAT WAS ABOUT A FOOT-AND-A-HALF. WHEN WE LOOKED AT THE DIAGRAM FOR THE MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT IT APPEARED THAT IT WOULD BE LESS. I'M NOT SURE WHAT THE DISTANCE IS FROM THE HOME. SO, WE'RE ASKING THAT THEY CLARIFY WHAT THAT SETBACK IS AND THAT WE INCLUDE THAT AS PART OF THE ORDER.

BOARD MEMBER: NOT THAT IT'S STAFF'S JOB TO SITE POOL EQUIPMENT BUT WHERE IT WOULD GO.

SPEAKER: OUT OF THE FIVE FOOT SETBACK. IT WAS LOCATED BESIDE THE MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT FOR THE HOME. THE SCREEN ENEH CLOSURE WENT AROUND THAT. WE THOUGHT WITH DESIGN IT COULD HAVE BEEN PLACED THERE.

BOARD MEMBER: CAN YOU SHOW ME ON THE MAP PLEASE. THE MAP IS HARD TO -- SPEAKER: HERE'S THE SITE PLAN.

ORIGINALLY I THINK IN THE PACKET THERE'S A SITE PLAN JUST FOR THE HOME. YOU CAN SEE WITHOUT THE SCREEN ENCLOSURE AND POOL THEY HAVE A COVERED PORCH HERE. AND THEY HAD PLACED THE EQUIPMENT FOR THE HOME WITH A FIVE FOOT SETBACK. STAFF PROBABLY THOUGHT, YOU KNOW, IT COULD HAVE BEEN ACCOMMODATED ADJACENT TO THESE OTHERS TO KEEP IT OUT OF THE FIVE FOOT SETBACK. BUT THAT IS NOT WHERE IT WAS INSTALLED.

BOARD MEMBER: TO MOVE IT THERE NOW THEY HAVE TO MODIFY THE SCREEN ENCLOSURE.

SPEAKER: THEY WOULD. YOU CAN SEE A LITTLE BIT BETTER ON THE -- I THINK THERE'S A PHOTO IN YOUR PACKET THAT SHOWS A LITTLE BIT BETTER. BUT YOU CAN SEE THE EQUIPMENT. RIGHT BEHIND THE HOME THE EQUIPMENT WAS PLACED. THE SCREEN ENCLOSURE KIND OF WORKS AROUND THAT. BUT IT IS CURRENTLY INSTALLED IN THAT LOCATION. AND THAT'S WHY IT DID FAIL INSPECTION.

CHAIRMAN: THERE IS A PICTURE.

THERE'S A DOOR, A SCREEN DOOR RIGHT BEHIND WHAT LOOKS TO BE AIR CONDITIONING UNIT. FROM THE INSIDE. MR. WAINWRIGHT? BOARD MEMBER: I JUST WANTED TO COMMENT. YOU SAID THE NEIGHBOR NEXT DOOR, THE ONE THAT SHOWS TO THE LEFT IN THE PHOTOGRAPH, THAT THEY'RE OKAY WITH THIS? SPEAKER: THAT'S CORRECT.

BOARD MEMBER: AMAZING. AS AN ENGINEER, I COULD HAVE POSSIBLY PICKED SOMETHING THAT WAS HOM HOMELIER. THAT'S THE END OF MY COMMENT.

CHAIRMAN: ANY OTHER FUTURE QUESTION? I DON'T SEE ANY. CAN WE GET THE APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE UP PLEASE OR THE APPL APPLICANT. JUST STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD BEFORE YOU BEGIN PLEASE.

SPEAKER: IT'S CHRISTY RAMSEY. I AM THE HOMEOWNER OF 112 WOODLAND HILLS WAY.

CHAIRMAN: DID YOU HAVE ANYTHING TO YOU WANTED TO ADD. I THINK THERE WAS CONFUSION AS TO WHETHER YOU NEEDED A VARIANCE FOR TWO FEET OR ONE-AND-A-HALF FEET FROM THE SETBACK. DO YOU KNOW HOW FAR BACK -- SPEAKER: I DON'T. I DIDN'T REALIZED THAT WAS A QUESTION

[03:00:01]

BEING ASKED OF US. I JUST KNOW THAT THE EQUIPMENT IS WHERE IT IS. IT WAS SUPPOSED TO BE A FIVE FOOT SETBACK BUT IT ENCROACHED OVER AND I DIDN'T KNOW -- CHAIRMAN: THE ONLY PROBLEM IS THAT'S KIND OF A BIGGER ISSUE HERE BECAUSE WE HAVE TO KNOW WHERE THE PROPERTY LINE IS. AND IF WE'RE RUNNING A VARIANCE THAT ENCROACHES ON SOMEONE ELSE'S PROPERTY.

SPEAKER: IT'S NOT ON THEIR PROPERTY LINE. IT'S ALL ON OUR PROPERTY LINE. OR INSIDE OF OUR PROPERTY LINE IS WHAT I WAS AWARE OF.

CHAIRMAN: DOES ANYONE ELSE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? BOARD MEMBER: I GUESS I HAVE ONE. I DO HAVE ONE. SO, WHERE IT'S LOCATED IS RIGHT NEXT TO WHERE THE NEIGHBOR'S HOUSE IS RIGHT. YOU HAVE -- AND THEY AGREE THAT'S FINE. THEY HAD 2340 PROBLEMS IN TERMS OF NOISE FROM THE EQUIPMENT IS THAT CORRECT? SPEAKER: THAT'S CORRECT. AND IF YOU NOTICE IN THAT ONE PICTURE, OUR TWO AIR CONDITIONING UNITS ARE RIGHT NEXT TO IT AS WELL.

AND THAT'S WHERE THE BUILDER HAD PLACED THE AIR CONDITIONING UNITS. AND THERE WAS WAS NOT A WHITE FENCE THERE. SO, IN ESSENCE MY AIR CONDITIONING UNITS WERE LOOKING RIGHT AT THEIR FRONT PORCH. SO THAT WAS A BEHIND RANCE FOR THEM AN EYESORE FOR THEM. SO, WHEN WE PUT OUR POOL EQUIPMENT NEXT TO OUR AIR CONDITIONING UNITS, WE PUT THE WHITE VINYL FENCE UP TO PROTECT OUR NEIGHBORS FROM OUR AIR CONDITIONING UNITS WHICH ARE LOUD AND THE POOL EQUIPMENT WHICH RUNS 12 HOURS A DAY AS WELL. BUT THE ALTERNATIVE LOCATION WOULD BE BEHIND OUR SWIMMING POOL WHICH WOULD BE IN THEIR BACKYARD THEN WHICH THEY HAVE A SWIMMING POOL NOW AND OUTDOOR LANAI SPACE SO ALL THAT EQUIPMENT BACK THERE WOULD BE UNDESIRABLE FOR THEM AS WELL.

THAT'S WHY THEY'RE IN AGREEMENT WITH HOW WE PLACED EVERYTHING.

BOARD MEMBER: THANKS FOR THE EXPLANATION.

SPEAKER: SURE.

CHAIRMAN: ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? I DON'T SEE ANY. DO WE HAVE ANY SPEAKER CARDS? BOARD MEMBER: NO.

CHAIRMAN: YOU CAN BE SEATED.

THANK YOU. WE ARE BACK ON THE AGENCY. SO I GUESS, I MEAN, I THINK IF I WERE THE NEIGHBOR, YOU KNOW, THE EQUIPMENT IS FORWARD OF THE NEIGHBOR'S HOUSE SO THE NOISE IMPACT IS PROBABLY NOT AS BAD. I CAN SEE THAT.

WHERE I'M HUNG UP IS WE REALLY NEED TO KNOW WHETHER THIS IS A TWO FOOT SURVEY YAPS OR A FOOT-AND-A-HALF SO CAN WE EVEN PROCEED IF WE DON'T KNOW THAT

>> REGARDLESS OF THE DETERMINATION WHAT HAS BEEN ADVERTISED IS MAXIMUM -- ENCROACHMENT OF MAXIMUM TWO FEET FROM -- SORRY. MINIMUM TWO FEET FROM THE PROPERTY LINE. WE GENERALLY -- I GENERALLY ADVISE THE BOARD THAT PEOPLE SHOULD KNOW AND EXPECT WHEN THEY LOOK AT A NOTICE WHAT THE VARIANCE IS. AND THAT IF YOU ARE INCREASING THE REQUESTED VARIANCE, I WOULD RECOMMEND THAT THAT BE RENOTICED TO ADVISE ANY INTERESTED PERSONS THAT IT'S NOT TWO FEET FROM THE PROPERTY LINE, IT'S ACTUALLY A FOOT-AND-A-HALF.

SO MY OPINION IS YOU DON'T HAVE THE CURRENT JURISDICTION TO GRANT A VARIANCE THAT IS A FOOT-AND-A-HALF. YOUR LIMIT IS TWO FEET FROM THE PROPERTY LINE.

AND YOU CAN INCREASE THAT BY GRANTING A LESSER RELIEF. BUT YOU CAN'T GRANT A GREATER RELIEF THAN WHAT WAS PROPERLY NOTICED AND INFORMED AND APPLIED FOR.

CHAIRMAN: THEN IF WE DID THE TWO FOOT, YOU KNOW, SINCE THEY'RE NOT ASKING FOR GREATER THAN TWO FEET, WE SHOULD BE OKAY IS THAT WHAT YOU ARE SAYING? [LAUGHER]

>> IF YOU GRANTED THE TWO FOOT VARIANCE AND AS LONG AS THEY'RE WITHIN TWO FEET OF THE PROPERTY LINE THEY SHOULD BE FINE. HOWEVER IF THE ACTUAL EQUIPMENT WAS A FOOT-AND-A-HALF AWAY FROM THE PROPERTY LINE THEY'RE NOT FINE. BECAUSE THE ACTUAL LOCATION OF THE MECHANIC A.M. EQUIPMENT DOESN'T COMPLY WITH THE AGENCY'S ORDER.

CHAIRMAN: OKAY. INTERESTING. SO I GUESS I'M JUST NOT SURE HOW TO PROCEED THEN.

BOARD MEMBER: HOW ABOUT NOT TO EXCEED? CHAIRMAN: I'LL LET YOU MAKE THE MOTION.

BOARD MEMBER: THANK YOU SO MUCH.

I'D OFFER A MOTION TO APPROVE MINMOD 2019-04 RAMEY POOL EQUIPMENT. BASED ON SIX FINDINGS OF FACT SUBJECT TO SIX CONDITIONS. AND THE SETBACK SHALL NOT BE LESS THAN A

[03:05:03]

FOOT-AND-A-HALF -- TWO FEET.

YEAH.

CHAIRMAN: WE HAVE A MOTION. AND I'LL SECOND. ANY ADDITIONAL DISCUSSION? SEEING NONE, PLEASE VOTE. ALL RIGHT MOTION CARRIES.

[Item 11]

MOVING ON. ITEM NUMBER 11. GOOD AFTERNOON STILL.

SPEAKER: GOOD AFTERNOON AGENCY MEMBERS. MEGAN KUEHNE FOR THE RECORD PRESENTING ITEM 11.

MINMOD 2019-0694 SOB SANAL RIDGE. THE YOU REQUEST IS TO ALLOW FOR PLACEMENT OF MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT WITHIN THE REQUIRED TWO FOOT SETBACK LOCATED AT 94SABAL RIDGE TRAIL WITHIN THE RIVERWOOD SUBDIVISION. YOU CAN SEE THE SUBJECT PROPERTY OUTLINED IN SOLID. IT'S SOUTHWEST OF THE SABAL TRAIL ROAD. THE REQUEST FORCE MINOR MODIFICATION TO ALLOW MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT WITHIN THE TWO FOOT REQUIRED SETBACK. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A THREE FOOT WIDE HVAC PAD ONE FOOT AWAY FROM THE HOUSE LEAVING ONE FOOT TO THE SIDE PROPERTY LINE. AS YOU CAN SEE FROM THE PROPOSED SITE PLAN, HERE IS THE CURRENT LOCATION WHERE THE HVAC LOCATION IS.

THEY'RE PLANNING TO MOVING IT TO WHERE THE STAR IS LOCATED.

LEAVING ONE FOOT TO THE SIDE PROPERTY LINE. AFTER REVIEW, STAFF SAW THAT THE OUTSIDE FOUNDATION FROM THE HOUSE IS AT THE FIVE FOOT BUILDING RESTRICTION LINE. PUD ALLOWS MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT TWO FEET AWAY FROM THE PROPERTY LINE. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A REDUCTION TO ALLOW ONE FOOT SETBACK FOR THE MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT AND PAD. HERE AGAIN YOU CAN SEE IN THE AERIAL IMAGE THEY'RE REQUESTING TO MOVE THEIR CURRENT HVAC PAD TO THE SIDE HOUSE RIGHT THERE. STAFF FINDS THE PROPOSED MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT PAD WOULD INTRUDE INTO DRAINAGEWAY BETWEEN NARROW LOTS.

THERE'S A TEN FOOT SIX INCH SEPARATION BETWEEN THE FOUNDATION WALLS FROM THEIR HOUSE TO THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY. THE CURRENT LOCATION OF THE HVAC EQUIPMENT WAS APPROVED THROUGH CLEARANCE SHEET ON OCTOBER 2, 2018. THE CURRENT HVAC IN THE REAR YARD MEETS THE REQUIRED SETBACKS. ON TECHNICAL REVIEW, STAFF NOTED GRADING AWAY FROM A STRUCTURE MUST MEET POSITIVE DRAINAGE REQUIREMENTS.

SIX INCHES AND TEN FEET PER THE FLORIDA BUILDING CODE AND ST. JOHNS COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE. HVAC PAD ADJACENT TO THE WALL WOULD NEED BE TO LEVEL. ONE FOOT OF SEPARATION FROM PROPERTY LINE DOES NOT LEAVE ROOM TO ADEQUATELY GRADE. COUNTY REGULARLY RECEIVES DRAINAGE COMPLAINTS DUE TO SMALL DEE YEGGSS IN ENGINEERING PLANS WITH VERY SMALL TOLERANCES. STAFF DID A SITE VISIT. THIS IS THE SIDE OF THE YARD THEY'RE PROPOSING TO PUT THE HVAC PAD. AND YOU CAN SEE IN YELLOW THAT'S THE PROPOSED LOCATION. THE HVAC THAT YOU CURRENTLY SEE ON THE SIDE IS THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY. AND THAT WAS THE ONLY SURROUNDING NEIGHBOR THAT STAFF WAS ABLE -- THAT APPEARED TO STAFF WAS ONLY NEIGHBORING PROPERTY THAT HAD IT ON THE SIDE. HERE'S THE IMAGE OF THE CURRENT LOCATION WHERE THE HVAC PAD SITS BEHIND THE HOUSE.

[03:10:01]

FINDINGS OF FACT FOR DENIAL.

THAT COMPLETES MY PRESENTATION.

I WILL STANDBY FOR QUESTIONS.

THE APPLICANT IS HERE AND WILL PROVIDE THEIR HARDSHIP.

CHAIRMAN: THANK YOU. DO WE KNOW IF THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY RECEIVED A MINOR MODIFICATION? SPEAKER: THEY DID NOT. I DIDN'T SEE ANYTHING IN OUR SYSTEM. BUT THEY HAD APPROVED CLEARANCE SHEET THAT SAID IT WAS THREE FEET AWAY FROM THE PROPERTY LINE SPEAKER: THE ACCESSORY STRUCTURE SETBACKS ARE DIFFERENT FROM THE PRIMARY STRUCTURE. IN THIS, WHAT DO YOU CALL IT, INCREMENTAL MVP, IT'S TWO FEET. THAT'S WHY THE REQUEST IS A ONE FOOT ENCROACHMENT INTO THE TWO FOOT SETBACK FOR ACCESSORY EQUIPMENT WHICH INCLUDES MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT.

CHAIRMAN: I SEE

>> SO THE NEIGHBOR, IF THEY'RE THREE FEET AWAY IS ACTUALLY A FOOT AWAY FROM THE REQUIRED SETBACK FOR THIS TYPE OF ACCESSORY STRUCTURE.

CHAIRMAN: OKAY. THAT MAKES SENSE. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? I DON'T SEE ANY.

THANK YOU. CAN WE GET THE APPLICANT UP? IF YOU COULD STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD.

SPEAKER: GARY CLARK. 94SABAL RIDGE TRAIL. I'D LIKE TO JUST GIVE YOU A LITTLE BACKGROUND ON THIS TO PUT THINGS IN CONTEXT.

WHEN OUR HOUSE -- WHEN WE WERE IN THE PLANNING STAGE OF BUILDING THE HOUSE, WE HAD REQUESTED THAT THE HVAC SYSTEMS, THERE'S A THREE TON AND A ONE-AND-A-HALF TON, BE PLACED ON THE SIDE OF THE HOUSE. WE WERE TOLD WE WERE LED TO BELIEVE THAT WAS POSSIBLE. DURING THE PERMITTING PROCESS, THE BUILDER, PUTE BUILDER, THERE WAS AN ERROR IN PROCESSING PERMITS. SO THAT NEVER WAS APPROVED IN THE STRUCTURAL PERMITTING. SO WHAT WE WERE ADVISED BY PUTE WAS THAT THEY WOULD IN FACT ONCE WE CLOSED ON THE HOUSE IT WOULD BE FINE AND THEY WOULD MOVE IT.

THEY'VE KEPT THEIR WORD. ALL THE COSTS AND EVERYTHING ASSOCIATED WITH THIS WILL BE IN FACT A BURDEN ON THEM. SO THAT BEING SAID WE HAVE SOME DOCUMENTATION THAT WE'D LIKE TO PRESENT. SO THIS IS EQUIVALENT TO WHAT WE CALL A LETTER OF ALLOWANCE. THE ARC, WHICH THIS IS THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMITTEE, WHICH IS PART OF THE HOA, THEY HAVE REVIEWED THIS PROPOSAL AND THEY HAVE ACCEPTED IT. SO WHAT WE'VE BEEN TOLD BY THE PROPERTY MANAGEMENT COMPANY IS THAT SINCE WE ARE ON PRIVATE PROPERTY, IF IN FACT THERE WOULD BE AN ISSUE IN THE FUTURE IT WOULD BE UP TO THE HOA TO RESOLVE THAT. THERE WOULD BE NOTHING TO FALL BACK ON TO THE COUNTY. SO THAT BEING SAID, THIS BASICALLY IS APPROVAL FOR US TO GO FORWARD WITH THAT.

WE ALSO HAD A VERY LARGE DRAIN THAT WAS INSTALLED IN THE BACK OF OUR PROPERTY. THAT DRAIN WILL SUPPORT ALL THE WATER FLOW.

IT'S ACTUALLY LARGER THAN NEEDS TO BE. IF YOU WALKED UP AND DOWN OUR STREET, YOU WOULDN'T SEE ANYONE ELSE THAT HAS ONE OF THESE DRAINS. I BELIEVE IT WAS PUT IN BECAUSE PULTE BUILDERS KNEW THEY WERE GOING TO COME BACK AND MOVE OUR AIR CONDITIONERS AND THEY WANTED THIS TO SUFFICE FOR ADEQUATE DRAINAGE. WE ALSO HAVE SOME PICTURES OF OTHER -- THERE ARE MANY HOMES WITHIN THE DELL WEBB COMMUNITY -- WE HAVE 1,900-PLUS HOMES -- AND THERE ARE MANY THAT HAVE AIR CONDITIONERS ON THE SIDE THAT ARE WITHIN ONE FOOT OF THE PROPERTY LINE. THIS IS A PERFECT EXAMPLE RIGHT HERE. AND THIS IS THE 84SABAL RIDGE. FROM THE PA PAD IT'S ONE FOOT EXACTLY. OUR NEIGHBOR AND I DIDN'T GET THIS IN WRITE, BUT IN TALKING TO HIM HE IS SUPPORTIVE OF US MOVING THEM UNITS BECAUSE WHEN HE IS SITTING ON HIS LANAI HE IS LOOKING RIGHT AT THEM.

THEY WOULD BE MOVED NORTH TOWARDS THE FRONT OF THE HOUSE WHICH WOULD BE MUCH BETTER FOR HIM. SO HE'S DEFINITELY SUPPORTIVE. BUT WE HAVE SEVERAL JUST OTHER PICTURES. HERE'S ANOTHER ONE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

86 WOOD BRIAR. THE PROPERTY LINE IS RIGHT THERE. THAT ONE IS RIGHT ON THE LINE. AND WE HAVE SEVERAL OF THESE THAT I COULD SHARE WITH YOU. BUT THE POINT HERE IS THAT IT HAS BEEN DONE.

AND THERE'S NOT GOING TO REALLY BE -- WHEN WE'RE TOLD THERE WOULD LIKELY BE A DRAINAGE PROBLEM I DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT MEANS. WOULD LIKELY A LOT OF THINGS COULD HAPPEN IN THIS WORLD BUT WE HAVE TO GO FORWARD SO. I THINK THAT'S WHAT WE HAVE.

CHAIRMAN: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU.

ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS? I DON'T HAVE ANY RIGHT NOW. DO WE HAVE ANY SPEAKER CARDS? WE DO NOT.

[03:15:02]

OKAY WE'RE ON THE AGENCY. YOU CAN TAKE A SEAT, SIR. THANK YOU.

WE ARE ON THE AGENCY. GO AHEAD MR. WAINWRIGHT.

BOARD MEMBER: ONCE REVIEW AGENCY HAD AN OBJECTION BECAUSE OF DRA DRAINAGE? IS THAT CORRECT? CHAIRMAN: THAT WAS THE COUNTY.

SPEAKER: THAT IS CORRECT.

BOARD MEMBER: WAS THERE A PROPOSAL WHAT TO DO ABOUT IT? AND IT'S NOT -- I AM NOT INTERESTED IN DOING ENGINEERING HERE, BUT WAS THERE SOMETHING THAT COULD BE DONE HERE TO ALLEVIATE THE PROBLEM? SPEAKER: GOOD AFTERNOON. BEN PAULSON WITH THE TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT DIVISION OF GROWTH MANAGEMENT. USUALLY WITH THESE RESIDENTIAL LOTS THAT ARE REALLY CONTRADICTED SIDE YARDS LIKE THIS ONE OVER IN THE DEL WEBB COMMUNITY WE DO HAVE A LOT OF DRAINAGE CONCERN. THERE'S NOT A LOT OF ROOM TO WORK FOR COMMON YARD SWELLS BETWEEN THE PROPERTIES. TENDS TO GETTING SOY. THAT'S WHY WE LOOK FOR THAT THREE FOOT MINIMUM. BUT IN DEL WEBB IT'S ACTUALLY BEEN CONTRADICTED DOWN TO LIKE TWO FOOT MINIMUM SIDE YARD SETBACK.

SO, WE'RE EVEN GOING FURTHER THAN OUR NORMAL KIND OF THREE FOOT. THAT'S WHY WE HAVE AN OBJECTION TO THIS ONE. IT WOULD ONLY LEAVE US ONE FOOT TO ACCOMMODATE DRAINAGE. THERE ARE WAYS TO DO IT. THE USE OF YARD DRAINS LIKE I BELIEVE THERE WAS A PICTURE OF A YARD DRAIN.

THERE ARE SYSTEMS. YOU CAN ON OFF-GRADE CONSTRUCTION. A PLATFORM AND PUT YOUR AC ON THE PLATFORM SO WATER CAN FLOW ARE IN KNIT -- ARE IN IT. THAT WAY THE MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT IS RAISED ABOVE THE FLOOD. THERE ARE WAYS TO MITIGATE IT WE JUST HAVEN'T BEEN PRESENTED ANY SPECIFIC HOW THE APPLICANT TENDS TO DO IT. IT IS POSSIBLE YOU CAN CONDITION THE APPROVAL THEY GET A CLEARANCE SHEET APPROVED SHOWING WHAT TYPE OF DRAINING THEY'RE GOING TO DO TO ACCOMMODATE THE DRAINAGE SITUATION.

CHAIARE WE IN THE AGENCY CHAIRMAN: WE ARE ON THE AGENCY, YES.

BOARD MEMBER: GIVEN THE CLARITY OF THAT, WE TO AT LEAST CONSIDER SOME WORDING IN OUR PROPOSAL HERE TO BE SURE THAT ALTERNATIVE DRAINAGE IS REQUIRED HERE AND RESPONDED TO.

CHAIRMAN: I THINK HE DEFINITELY SPOKE TO THERE'S WAY TO MOUNT THOSE UNITS SO WATER CAN FLOW UNDERNEATH. I THINK IF WE WERE GOING TO APPROVE THIS I WOULD LIKE TO SEE SOMETHING LIKE THAT.

WE ARE TALKING ABOUT A PRETTY NARROW AREA. YOU CAN SEE WHERE THE GRASS FORMS A NATURAL CHANNEL WHERE THE WATER IF WE HAD HEAVY RAINS OR FLOODING THAT'S WHERE IT WOULD FLOW. SO WE WOULD CERTAINLY NOT WANT TO IMPEDE THAT. SO I WOULD BE ON BOARD WITH THAT.

BOARD MEMBER: WITH A LITTLE HELP ON THE WORDING ON THAT PART, I'LL OFFER A MOTION TO APPROVE MINMOD 2019-06 HVAC RELOCATION 94SBAAL RIDGE. REQUEST FOR MINOR MODIFICATION TO THE NOACK ATEE PUD. TO ALLOW FOR PLACEMENT OF MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT WITHIN THE REQUIRED TWO FEET SETBACK.

SPECIFICALLY LOCATED AT 94 SABAL RIDGE TRAIL SUBJECT TO SIX CONDITIONS AND BASED ON FOUR FINDINGS OF FACT WITH THE ADDITIONAL CAVEAT THAT A DRAINAGE SOLUTION -- SUBJECT TO THE APPROVAL OF THE COUNTY IS IMPLEMENTED.

CHAIRMAN: I WAS GOING TO SAY MAYBE THAT THE UNIT BE MOUNTED ON A FRAME OR SOME KIND OF PLATFORM THAT ALLOWS FOR WATER TO BE -- I DON'T KNOW HOW TALL THAT WOULD NEED TO BE. NO TALLER THAN I GUESS THE CONCRETE PAD SPEAKER: MR. CHAIR, I WOULD SUGGEST THAT THE MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT I THINK BE MOUNTED ON AN OFF-GRADE PLATFORM THAT RECEIVES CLEARANCE SHEET APPROVAL TO ACCOMMODATE THE DRAINAGE WAY IF MIKE OR BEN COULD KIND OF CHIME IN TO SEE IF THAT CONDITION TO THE ZONING VARIANCE IS SUFFICIENT.

BOARD MEMBER: MR. CHAIR I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE IT TO WHERE STAFF HAS THE ABILITY BECAUSE THEY HAVEN'T EVALUATED THIS AS MUCH AND MAKING IT SPECIFIC WITH THE RAISED MAY NOT BE APPROPRIATE. I DON'T KNOW. MAYBE BEN'S GOOD ENOUGH TO DO IT ON ONE VIEW.

BUT I THINK APPROVING IT BASED ON APPROVAL OF THE CLEARANCE

[03:20:01]

SHEET WHICH MEANS STAFF WILL REVIEW IT ACCORDINGLY.

CHAIRMAN: ALL RIGHT.

BOARD MEMBER: THAT CONCLUDES MY RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL.

CHAIRMAN: WE HAVE A MOTION. DO WE HAVE A SECOND? BOARD MEMBER: I'LL SECOND.

CHAIRMAN: WE HAVE A MOTION SECOND. ANY ADDITIONAL DISCUSSION? SEEING NONE PLEASE

[Item 12]

VOTE. ALL RIGHT. MOTION CARRIES.

MOVING ON ITEM NUMBER 12. WE'RE GOING TO PUSH RIGHT THROUGH TO THE END.

SPEAKER: GOOD EVENING. AGENCY MEMBERS. FOR THE RECORD VALERIE STUCKS GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT PRESENTING TO YOU AGENDA ITEM 12 REZONING 2019-05 MAYBERRY COMMERCIAL. THIS IS A REQUEST TO REZONE 0.86 ACRES OF LAND TO OPEN RUR8 TO COMMERCIAL INTENSIVE. THIS IS THE SUBJECT PROPERTY VACANT AND UNIMPROVED WITH GREATER THAN 200 FEET OF FRONTAGE WITH ACCESS FROM HILL TOP ROAD. AGAIN THIS IS REZONING .86 ACRES FROM OR TO CI TO JOIN THE COMMERCIAL INTENSIVE PARCELS TO THE NORTH. THE THREE ACRE PARCEL ADJACENT TO THE NORTH WAS REZONED IN 2004. ORDINANCE 2004-18. THE APPROXIMATELY 2.5 ACRE PARCEL ADJACENT TO THE EAST OF THE THREE ACRE PARCEL WAS REZONED FROM OR TO CI IN ORDINANCE 2008-23. NO DEVELOPMENT WAS EVER MADE ON EITHER PARCEL. THIS IS THE ZONING MAP SHOWING THE CURRENT ZONING OF RO AND THE PARCELS TO THE NORTH JUST DESCRIBED ZONE AS CI. THESE ARE SOME OF THE USES OF PART OF THE HIGH INTENSITY USE CATEGORY IN THE CI ZONING DISTRICT. THIS TABLE FIGURE ONE SHOWING THE ALLOWABLE USES SHOULD THE REZONE BE APPROVED SHOWING A GREATER NUMBER OF USE CATEGORIES THAN WHAT'S CURRENTLY ALLOWED IN THE OR ZONING DISTRICT. STAFF FINDS THE REQUEST APPEARS TO BE COMPATIBLE WITH THE SURROUNDING AREA. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATEDED ALONG A MIXED USE CORRIDOR WITH POTENTIAL TO DEVELOP A VARIETY OF XHESH SH8 USES. THE CI DESIGN STANDARDS WOULD APPLY. A BUFFER MAY BE REQUIRED TO THE EXISTING RESIDENTIAL USES TO THE EAST AND SOUTH. THESE ARE SOME OF THE SURROUNDING USES. ALTHOUGH THEY HAVE SIMILAR ZONING DISTRICTS OF COMMERCIAL ZONING DISTRICTS THEY ARE MOSTLY VACANT AND UNIMPROVED AT THIS TIME. THIS IS THE TABLE DISPLAYING SOME OF THESE DESIGN STANDARDS OF THE ZONING DISTRICTS SURROUNDING THE SUBJECT PROPERTY THAT WERE DESCRIBED EARLIER. STAFF HAS NOT RECEIVED CORRESPONDENCE OR PHONE CALLS REGARDING THE REZONING REQUEST OF THIS PROPERTY. STAFF DOES NOT OBJECT TO THE RECOMMENDATION OF ARE APPROVAL OF REZONING. STAFF FINDS REQUESTS MEETS THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE COMP PLAN AND LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE. THERE ARE FOUR FINDINGS OF FACT TO SUPPORT A MOTION. THIS CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION AND THE APPLICANT IS QUESTION.

CHAIRMAN: THANK YOU. ANY QUESTIONS? I DON'T SEE ANY.

THANK YOU. MS. TAYLOR? SPEAKER: GOOD AFTERNOON OR EVENING WHATEVER WE ARE. KAREN TAYLOR, 77 SARAH GOSSA STREET.

UNFORTUNATELY PAUL MAYBERRY WHO IS THE OWNER WAS NOT ABLE TO COME TODAY. BUT SCOTT KNOWLES FROM MATTHEWS DESIGN GROUP IS WITH ME. IF THERE'S ANY QUESTIONS. I'M GOING TRY TO ZIP THROUGH THIS QUICKLY. IT'S PRETTY STRAIGHT FORWARD. I'LL TRY NOT TO REPEAT WHATEVER VALERIE SAID. SHE COVERED MOST OF IT. JUST KIND OF GIVES YOU A GENERAL IDEA. AND JUST TO KIND OF RELAY YOU'VE GOT THE CAMPGROUND OVER HERE, THE DOLLAR GENERAL OVER HERE, OR WHATEVER.

THERE IS SOME COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES. AS SHE SAID IT'S NOT ZONED. THERE'S ONE OF THE OLD JUNKYARDS UP IN HERE. YOU'VE GOT A MIX OF RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL IN THE WHOLE AREA.

THAT GIVES YOU A LITTLE CLOSER.

THERE'S OBVIOUSLY A D.O.T.

DRAINAGE DITCH ACROSS FROM IT.

SAWMILL LANDING ROAD COMES IN FARTHER SOUTH. AND THIS ONE BASICALLY IS TO SHOW YOU THAT THE SAME OWNER OWNS THE ENTIRE PIECE. SO IT DOES CONSISTENT OF FOUR DIFFERENT PIECES. SO THIS IS ACTUALLY JUST THE LAST PIECE IN THAT. AND IF YOU LOOK AT THAT A LITTLE BIT CLOSER, AND YOU LOOK AT THE SITE PLAN THAT WE'VE PUT IN TO HERE, YOU DEFINITELY CAN SEE THERE'S A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF BUFFER ALONG THERE.

THERE'S ALSO A DRAINAGE DITCH THAT RUNS DOWN THROUGH IN HERE.

AND THAT ONE YOU CAN SEE WHEN WE GET TO THE SITE PLAN THAT'S AN

[03:25:02]

FDOT DRAINAGE DITCH. BUT DOES SHOW HOW IT RELATES TO THE AREA.

THIS IS THE LAND USE. FUTURE LAND USE. AND YES ORIGINALLY I DID THE CI ZONING FOR ARNETTE HEATING AND AIR IN 2004. SO THEY WERE GOING TO MOVE THEIR FACILITIES FROM DOWNTOWN. AND THAT DIDN'T HAPPEN. I AM NOT SURE WHO DID THE 2008 OR WHATEVER. SO, AGAIN, NOW IT'S ALL BEEN CONSOLIDATED INTO ONE OWNERSHIP AND ONE DEVELOPMENT REQUEST. THIS IS THE SITE PLAN.

IT HAS BEEN SUBMITTED TO THE WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT AND D.O.T. IT HAS NOT BEEN SUBMITTED FOR THE XHRIAL PLANS TO THE COUNTY YET. THEY LIKE TO GET SOME OF THOSE ISSUES DEALT WITH BEFORE. I TRIED TO BLOW THAT UP A LITTLE BIT. IT DIDN'T REALLY WORK BECAUSE OF THE WAY IT WAS.

BUT JUST TO GIVE YOU SOME IDEAS AND DEFINITELY VALERIE MENTIONED THERE'S A 20B BUFFER ALONG THE BACK THAT WILL REMAIN. THERE'S THAT D.O.T. DRAINAGE DITCH THAT COMES ALONG IN HERE. THAT'S ACTUALLY PRETTY GROWN UP. IT'S NOT LIKE IT IS A BIG OPEN DITCH.

SO, ALL OF THE ACTIVITIES HAVE BEEN ORIENTED BASICALLY TO HILL TOP ROAD WHICH IS ALONG HERE AND 207. THERE'S THREE ACCESS POINTS PLANNED AS WELL. THEY DID AN ADDITIONAL TEN FEET OF RIGHT-OF-WAY ALONG HILL TOP ROAD. SO WE HAVE THAT IN THE WORKS TO DEDICATE THAT OVER TO THE COUNTY AS WELL FOR ANY IMPROVEMENTS IN THE FUTURE. AND THEY HAVE TO PUT A SIDEWALK AND THAT TYPE OF THING. THE GENERAL IDEA FROM THE SITE PLAN BASICALLY IS THAT THE FRONT AREAS IN HERE, THESE BUILDINGS, WOULD BE MORE FOR MORE TYPICAL COMMERCIAL TYPE ACTIVITIES AND SO THAT ACTIVITY WOULD RELATE MORE TO 207. THEN THE ONES IN THE BACK ARE BASICALLY MORE FOR KIND OF FLEXIBLE KIND OF SPACE OR THAT TYPE OF THING. BECAUSE THEY DON'T HAVE THAT KIND OF FRONTAGE. JUST KIND OF JUST THAT'S A PICTURE OF THE SITE.

WE HAD TO CHECK AND MAKE SURE THE SIGN WAS STILL THERE AFTER DORIAN DECIDED TO COME THROUGH.

THAT KIND OF SHOWS YOU FROM THE SITE LOOKING UP AND IF YOU LOOK OUT AT THAT -- THAT IS 207. SO THE ENTIRE SITE IS THIS. THIS IS JUST THIS PORTION. THE REQUEST FOR CI ZONING TO MATCH THE REMAINDER OF IT. IT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE COMP PLAN AND THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AND WE FEEL IT'S VERY COMPATIBLE WITH ALL THE BUFFERS AND THINGS PROVIDED. AND SO WE'RE RECOMMENDING A RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL. AND I CAN ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MIGHT HAVE.

CHAIRMAN: ANY QUESTIONS? M MR. MATOVINA.

BOARD MEMBER: WHY DO YOU HAVE THE SECOND DRIVEWAY TO THE SOUTH? SEE THE DRIVEWAY TO THE SOUTH DOWN THERE? SPEAKER: I'M GOING TO LET SCOTT ANSWER THAT.

SPEAKER: SCOTT KNOWLES MATTHEW DESIGN GROUP. JUST AN ALTERNATIVE ENTRANCE FOR THOSE THREE BUILDINGS IN THE BACK.

JUST TO KEEP THEM SEPARATED AWAY FROM THE COMMERCIAL AREA. REALLY JUST THE APPLICANT HAD JUST ASKED FOR THAT. BUT IF IT'S -- IF IT HAS TO BE ELIMINATED WE CAN -- I'D RATHER NOT.

SPEAKER: NO WE'RE NOT ASKING FOR SITE PLAN APPROVAL TODAY. IT'S NOT A PUD SO WE'RE GOOD. I THINK AS WE GO THROUGH THE COUNTY, YOU KNOW, THERE MAY BE CHANGES TO THAT. THERE'S CERTAINLY SEPARATION AND THERE CERTAINLY IS A DISTANCE FROM 207 THAT THEY WANT THAT ENTRANCE OBVIOUSLY.

WHICH YOU PROBABLY ARE FAMILIAR WITH.

CHAIRMAN: DR. MCCORMICK? BOARD MEMBER: I TALKED BEFORE ABOUT USUALLY TRYING TO GO OUT TO THESE DEVELOPMENTS AND SEE WHAT'S GOING ON OUT THERE. I DID GO OUT TO THIS ONE. AND ON HILL TOP ROAD. I GUESS EVENTUALLY I'M GOING TO GET TO THE QUESTION OKAY NOW YOU'VE ANOTHER CI PIECE OF PROPERTY ALL OWNED BY THE SAME OWNER. BUT IN THE MEANTIME THOSE OTHER CIS NO COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT OF ANY SUBSTANCE HAS REALLY COME ABOUT YET. RIGHT.

BUT OUT THERE THERE'S A LOT OF -- I WOULD KIND OF CALL IT AFFORDABLE HOUSING. THERE'S A LOT OF MOBILE HOMES. IT IS A NICE AREA FOR PEOPLE THAT, YOU KNOW, DON'T MAKE A LOT OF MONEY

[03:30:01]

BUT IT SEEMS LIKE THEY HAVE A NICE, VERY NICE RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY OUT THERE. AND THEY'VE EVEN GOT HORSES OUT THERE I GUESS TOO. SO I GUESS I COME BACK TO, OKAY, HOW MUCH COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT IS NEEDED ON HILLTOP ROAD. NUMBER ONE.

AND THEN WHAT ELSE IS GOING TO BE DONE -- YOU SAID WELL SOME OF IT IS GOING TO CONNECT TO 207 IN SOME WAY. AND THEN THE REST IS GOING TO BE ON HILLTOP ROAD.

BUT I CAN SEE THOSE HOMES THAT ARE OUT THERE, YOU KNOW, THEY GOT PLAY YARDS FOR THE KIDS AND STUFF. THERE'S EVEN A SMALL SCHOOL OUT THERE. THIS IS GOING TO IMPACT THAT NEIGHBORHOOD ISN'T IT? SPEAKER: WELL, THE HEAVIER INTENSE COMMERCIAL, YES, WILL BE BECAUSE THEY WANT FRONTAGE AND THEY WANT FRONTAGE ON STATE ROAD 207. SO, AS YOU LOOK AT THE SITE PLAN ALONG THAT FRONTAGE WE'VE GOT THAT GENERAL BUILDING.

WE'VE GOT AN OUTSIDE COURT YARD AREA AND WE'VE GOT THIS ADDITIONAL BUILDING. SO THAT WOULD BE YOUR MORE TRADITIONAL THAT GENERATES MORE OF THE TRAFFIC, MORE OF THE ACTIVITIES.

AND BECAUSE OF THE COUNTY REQUIREMENTS, THIS DRIVEWAY HAS TO BE BACK A CERTAIN DISTANCE CENTER THAT. SO, AS SCOTT SAID THE SECOND ONE WAS KIND OF TO GIVE THEM A SEPARATE ACCESS.

THAT'S GOING TO BE A LOWER INTENSITY TYPE USE TOWARDS THAT NEIGHBORHOOD. IF WE GO BACK TO BASICALLY YOU CAN SEE SOME OF IT. AND I ACTUALLY HAVE ANOTHER PROJECT I'M WORKING ON ON HILLTOP ROAD AS WELL. BUT AS I'VE DRIVEN DOWN THERE QUITE DIFFERENT TIMES. THAT D.O.T.

DRAINAGE THAT'S KIND OF ENDS THIS AREA. BECAUSE IT DOES WRAP AROUND TO THAT SIDE. SO IT COMES DOWN THROUGH HERE AND WRAPS AROUND. IT LEAVES IT KIND OF AS THIS LIKE ORPHAN PIECE SO TO SPEAK. KIND OF THING. AND THE FACT THAT THE D.O.T. AREA IS ACROSS FROM IT. SO, YOU ARE NOT -- PEOPLE DON'T GET THAT, YOU KNOW, IT'S NOT LIKE YOU'VE GOT HOMES ACROSS FROM THAT AND THERE'S BUFFERS EVEN LAKES AND WHATEVER. AND KINGS ESTATE ROAD DOES COME THROUGH THERE TOO.

SO, THERE IS ACTIVITY IN THERE.

AND THINGS. BUT I THINK PRIMARILY THE FOCUS ON THIS IS THE 207 NOT BACK INTO THE NEIGHBORHOOD. YOU DO GET INTO RESIDENTIAL KIND OF THINGS. AND KIDS PLAYING AND MOBILE HOME PARKS.

BOARD MEMBER: THAT'S WHAT I WAS LOOKING AT. THANK YOU.

CHAIRMAN: ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? I DON'T SEE ANY. DO WE HAVE ANY SPEAKER CARDS? NO. ALL RIGHT.

THEN WE ARE BACK ON THE AGENCY.

I'M GOING TO SAY I THINK IT'S PERFECTLY APPROPRIATE. IT IS A MIXED USE DISTRICT. IT'S JOINING TO EXISTING CI. THE IMPACT ON THE NEIGHBORING RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES APPEARS TO BE MINIMUM BECAUSE THERE'S STILL THE PARCEL WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THERE'S STILL LIKE THIS WEDGE OF VACANT PROPERTY THERE THAT THEY DON'T OWN.

OWN. SO, I'M IN SUPPORT OF THIS. ANY OTHER COMMENTS OR A MOTION? BOARD MEMBER: I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE BASED ON THE STAFF'S REPORT.

CHAIRMAN: THERE'S A MOTION. ANY SECOND? I'LL SECOND. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? SEEING NONE, ALL IN FAVOR PLEASE VOTE

[Item 13]

[LAUGHTER] AND THAT MOTION PASSES. MOVING ON TO THE FINAL ITEM OF THE EVENING.

SPEAKER: GOOD AFTERNOON. FOR THE RECORD VALERIE STUCKS PRESENTING 2019-08 PHOT CRAVE VILLAGE. A RECREST TO REZONE FROM OPEN RURAL TO PUD. LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF ROBERTS ROAD WITHIN THE NORTHWEST SECTOR COMMUNITY.

THIS IS AN AERIAL MAP OF THE PROPERTY. IT IS APPROXIMATELY FIVE ACRES. HAS APPROXIMATELY 370 FEET OF FRONTAGE ON ROBERTS ROAD. AND IT IS CURRENTLY IMPROVED WITH A SINGLE FAMILY HOME. THIS IS THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY SHOWING THE FUTURE LAND USE AS RESIDENTIAL B. IT IS ZONED OPEN RURAL. AGAIN THIS IS A REQUEST TO REZONE APPROXIMATELY FIVE ACRES FROM OPEN RURAL TO PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICY A111-1M STATES THAT

[03:35:04]

NEIGHBORHOOD USES MAY BE ALLOWED IN RESIDENTIAL B PURSUANT TO THE PLAN DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS BEING FOLLOWED. THIS IS FOR PHASE ONE PROPOSING UP TO 8,000 SQUARE FEET OF A FITNESS CENTER.

250,000 SQUARE FEET OF OPEN PATIO AND 2,500 OPEN SQUARE FEET OF OWNERS RETREAT. THE MAXIMUM DEVELOPMENT WOULD BE FOR 38,900 SQUARE FEET. THIS IS THE MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN MAP SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT. SHOWING THE PROPOSED FITNESS CENTER, THE PROPOSED EXPANSION MUCH THE FITNESS CENTER, PATIO AND THE OWNER'S RETREAT. THERE WAS ONE WAIVER REQUESTED FROM THE APPLICANT TO LD C-SECTION ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES. THE REQUEST TO ALLOW A VENDOR OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES TO BE CLOSER THAN THE 1,000 FEET FROM PROPERTY LINE TO PROPERTY LINE OF A CHURCH OR SCHOOL. THE APPLICANT HAS SAID THAT A PRIOR PROVISION REQUIRED 1,000 FEET BETWEEN FRONT DOOR TO FRONT DOOR RATHER THAN PROPERTY LINE TO PROPERTY LINE. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND THE NEARBY CHURCH ARE SEPARATED BY 300 FEET PROPERTY LINE TO PROPERTY LINE.

BUT 1,600 FEET FRONT DOOR TO FRONT DOOR. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND THE NEARBY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL TO THE NORTH IS SEPARATED GREATER THAN 1,000 FEET FROM PROPERTY LINE TO PROPERTY LINE.

THIS IS THE STAFF REVIEW.

NEIGHBORHOOD BUSINESS AND COMMERCIAL CATEGORY INCLUDES USES THAT MAY SERVE ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES. PHASE I OF THE SUBMITTED PROPOSAL IS PRIMARILY FOR A FITNESS CENTER AND ACCESSORY RESIDENCES. STAFF DOES NOT OBJECT TO THE APPLICANT'S WAIVER REQUEST. THIS IS THE CONCURRENCY TRANSPORTATION REVIEW. THE PROPOSED FITNESS CENTER DOES NOT TRIGGER THE REQUIREMENT FOR TURN LANES.

34 P.M. PEAK HOUR TRIPS BASED OFF 5,000 SQUARE FEET. TURN LANES MAY BE REQUIRED FOR SAFETY PURSUANT TO SECTION 604. RECENT DEVELOPMENT HAS SHOWN OFF SITE IMPACTS REGARDING DRAINAGE. THE COUNTY STORM WATER MODEL SHOWS SIGNIFICANT FLOW COMING INTO THE SUBJECT'S PARCEL DRAINAGE BASINS WHICH THEN FLOWS ARE IN ROBERTS ROAD TO MILL CREEK. THE PLANNING AND ZONING REVIEW. THE PROJECT PROPOSES USE OF SIMILAR TO THE NON-RESIDENTIAL USES OF A NEIGHBORING PUD. THE APPLICANT CONFIRMED THE DESIGN OF THE PROPOSED FRUIT COVE VILLAGE WILL BE FACE INWARD CREATING A NODE OF NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT AS OPPOSED TO BEING, QUOTE, ALONG BUILDING FACING TREKKEDLY THE ROAD. THIS IS RELATED TO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICY A211B.

THE APPLICANT PROPOSES ENHANCED LANDSCAPING ALONG THE SCENIC EDGE FOR THIS PROJECT WOULD BE ALONG ROBERTS ROAD. STAFF FINDS THE PROPOSED FITNESS CENTER AS PRESENTED TO BE GENERALLY COMPATIBLE WITH ADJACENT LANDS.

THIS TABLE IS SHOWING THE ALLOWABLE USE COMPARISON WITH THE PROPOSED PUD HAVING LESS USE CATE CATEGORIES THAN THE CURRENT OR ZONING. THIS IS A TABLE SHOWING THE DESIGN STANDARDS OF THE NEIGHBORING ZONING DISTRICTS TO THE NORTH AND SOUTH AND WEST ALL BEING OR AND TO THE EAST THE PUD. THIS IS A BRIEF ANALYSIS ON THE BUFFERING. THE PERIMETER OF THE PROJECT SITE PROPOSES BUFFERS BETWEEN 30-35 FEET.

BUFFERS WILL BE ADJACENT TO MOSTLY UNOCCUPIED PROPERTY TO THE WEST, SOUTH AND NORTH. THE LOT TO THE NORTH OF THE PROPOSED PUD IS IS AN EXISTING UTILITY SITE. EASTERN LANDS ARE OPEN SPACE AND WETLANDS OF EXISTING PUDS. AND EXTENSIVE WETLANDS TO BE PRESERVED OCCUPY A GREAT PART OF THE EASTERN SIDE OF THE PROPOSED PUD. NOTES FOR THE NORTHWEST SECTOR COMMUNITY MEETING THAT WAS HELD ON AUGUST 13TH. THERE WERE APPROXIMATELY 100 RESIDENTS THAT PARTICIPATED. AND THE DISCUSSION MAINLY INCLUDED GENERAL INFORMATION ABOUT FUTURE DEVELOPMENT OF THE SITE IF APPROVED. OPINIONS WERE OFFERED ON HOW THIS PROPOSAL AFFECTS PAST DEVELOPMENTS ON ROBERTS ROAD AND QUESTIONS WERE POSED ON HOW THIS EQUIPMENT COULD INFLUENCE CURRENT COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT IN THE COMMUNITY.

MOST OF THE CORRESPONDENCE THAT STAFF RECEIVED EXPRESSED OPPOSITION FOR REASONS RELATED TO INCREASED TRAFFIC. OTHER USES THAT MAY DEVELOP SHOULD THIS PUD BE APPROVED. POSSIBLE DECREASING PROPERTY VALUES. POTENTIAL FLOODING OF NEARBY MILL CREEK.

AND THIS DEVELOPMENT. IF APPROVED AND POTENTIALLY JEOPARDIZING OVERALL SAFETY AND WELLBEING OF THE COMMUNITY SURROUNDING ROBERTS ROAD. THERE WERE ALSO CORRESPONDENCE IN SUPPORT OF THE PROPOSAL. ONE OF WHICH ADDITIONALLY I HAVE WITH ME NOW THAT I WILL SHOW IN JUST A MINUTE. STAFF DOES NOT OBJECT SHOULD THE AGENCY CONSIDER RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL OF

[03:40:01]

THE APPLICATION TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS. STAFF HAS PROVIDED 9 FINDING OF FACT, SUPPORT APPROVAL, 11 FINDINGS TO DENY. THIS CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION. THE APPLICANT IS PRESENT AND I HAVE THE LETTER OF SUPPORT TO SHOW YOU IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO SEE IT.

CHAIRMAN: VALERIE, IF YOU COULD MAKE THAT LETTER AVAILABLE TO THE APPLICANT AS WELL AS MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC AND WE'LL TAKE IT AS PART OF THE RECORD AFTERWARDS. THANK YOU. ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS AT THIS TIME FOR STAFF? I DON'T SEE ANY.

THANK YOU. CAN WE GET THE APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE UP.

GOOD EVENING.

SPEAKER: GOOD EVENING MEMBERS OF THE BOARD. I'D LIKE TO BEGIN BY THANKING YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE. I KNOW THIS IS A VOLUNTEER POSITION AND YOU PUT IN A LOT OF HOUR AND A LOT OF ATTENTION AND I REALLY APPRECIATE IT. I ALSO APPRECIATE STAFF. THEY'VE BEEN GREAT TO WORK WITH. VERY PRECISE AND VERY PROFESSIONAL. SO IT'S BEEN A VERY POSITIVE EXPERIENCE.

OKAY I KNOW I'M GOING TO DO THIS WRONG SO PLEASE BEAR WITH ME.

PHOT COVE VILLAGE. YOU KNOW THE INTERESTING THING ABOUT ST. JOHNS COUNTY IS FOR YEARS AND YEARS AND YEARS ALL WE SAW COMING BEFORE YOU WAS RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS. AND EVERYONE THAT IS A COMMISSIONER, EVERYONE THAT IS IN COUNTY GOVERNMENT UNDERSTANDS THAT WE NEED TO INCREASE OUR NON-RESIDENTIAL TAX BASE IF WE ARE TO HAVE A BALANCED REV FLEW STREAM IN THIS COUNTY. ONE OF THE THINGS THAT HAS INTERESTED ME OVER THE YEARS IS THE SLOW DECLINE OF SMALL HOME BUILDERS, SMALL BUSINESS PEOPLE. BECAUSE ONLY BIG, NATIONAL HOME BUILDERS ARE ABLE TO DO BUSINESS HERE AND THE SHOPPING CENTERS COMING IN ARE GREAT BIG SHOPPING CENTERS.

WE'RE LOSING OUR NEIGHBORHOOD FEEL. SO, THESE APPLICANTS, THE WHOLE POINT OF WHAT THEY WANT TO DO IS A NEIGHBORHOOD NODE. NOT A BIG SHOPPING CENTER. THAT'S NOT WHAT THEY'RE TRYING TO DO.

THEY'RE SMALL BUSINESS PEOPLE.

THEY WANT TO GIVE AN OPPORTUNITY FOR OTHER SMALL BUSINESS PEOPLE TO START THEIR BUSINESSES AND HAVE A PLACE TO CONDUCT THAT BUSINESS. SO THE EXISTING CONDITIONS. IT'S ABOUT 5.1 ACRES. OF THAT ABOUT 3.6 IS UPLAND. 1.49 IS WETLANDS. THERE IS AN EXISTING HOUSE THAT WILL REMAIN AT LEAST DURING THE FIRST PHASE AS A CARETAKER'S RESIDENCE. WHEN THAT RESIDENCE IS REMOVED IT WILL NOT BE REPLACED WITH ANOTHER RESIDENCE.

THE PUD REQUEST IS TO ALLOW LIMITED NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL USES. WE'RE PROVIDING A 35 FOOT DEVELOPMENT EDGE AROUND THE BONDARY OF THE PROPERTY AS WELL AS AN ENHANCED 30 FOOT SCENIC EDGE AND A LITTLE OVER 40% OF THE SITE AS OPEN SPACE. THIS GIVES YOU AN IDEA OF WHERE IT IS. IS THERE A POINTER ON HERE? THANK YOU. SO, HERE'S THE SITE.

THIS IS THE SCHOOL. THIS IS OBVIOUSLY ROBERTS ROAD LONG LEAF. AND THIS IS THE CHURCH.

SO THAT GIVES YOU AN IDEA OF WHERE IT IS. THIS IS AN AREA IN WHICH THERE IS A DEARTH OF ANY KIND OF SERVICE FOR THE RESIDENTS. IT'S ONLY RESIDENTIAL. THIS IS OUR MDP SHOWING YOU THE INITIAL INCREMENT. THIS IS THE 5,000 SQUARE FOOT BUILDING. AND I HAVE AN ENLARGEMENT OF THIS TOO. A PATIO. A POTENTIAL EXP OF THAT ANOTHER 3,000 SQUARE FEET.

THIS IS THE OWNER'S RETREAT.

THIS WILL NOT BE A RENTAL UNIT.

THIS HAS NO COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY.

THIS IS STRICTLY FOR THE OWNER'S PERSONAL USE. THIS IS THE EXISTING RESIDENCE THAT WILL REMAINS A A CARETAKER'S RESIDENCE UNTIL THIS AREA DEVELOPS ARE IN FUTURE PHASE.

THEY'VE PROVIDED A RUN/WALK TRACK THAT GOES AROUND THE RETENTION POND AS WELL AS ALL THE WAY UP. WE HOPE AT SOME POINT TO BE ABLE TO HAVE A PEDESTRIAN CONNECTION TO THE NEIGHBORHOODS TO THE EAST. BUT

[03:45:02]

THIS ENTIRE AREA IS, I BELIEVE, A CONSERVATION EASEMENT. I KNOW IT'S AT LEAST OPEN SPACE AND PROBABLY CONSERVATION. THIS BOUNDARY, THE NORTHERN BOUNDARY, IS ALL A JEA PARCEL. IT'S NOT AN EASEMENT. IT'S ACTUALLY OWNED BY JEA AND THEY HAVE THEIR LINES RUNNING THROUGH HERE. SO, HERE'S AN ENLARGEMENT. THIS SHOWS YOU WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING.

YOU WILL NOTICE THAT THIS BUILDING ORIENTS TO THE INTERIOR OF THE SITE WITH A NARROW FACE OF THE BUILDING FACING THE ROAD.

BECAUSE THE IDEA IS TO FORM A LITTLE SCRIMMAGE -- VILLAGE ENCLAVE OF SMALL BUSINESSES.

SMALL NEIGHBORHOOD-SCALED BUSINESSES. BE ARE PROPOSING IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, TO ENHANCE THE SCENIC EDGE WITH PLANT MATERIALS, SPACING IN QUANTITIES, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CODE. THIS GRAPHIC WILL BECOME PART OF THE ORDINANCE IF THIS PROJECT IS APPROVED. THIS IS A RENDERING OF FROM ROBERTS ROAD THIS IS THE FACADE OF THE BUILDING YOU WOULD SEE. THEY HAVE NOT PURCHASED THIS BUILDING. THIS IS A CONCEPTUAL ARCHITECTURAL RENDERING OF WHAT THEY'RE LOOKING FOR. THEY WANT TO KEEP IT RURAL IN NATURAL.

VERY LOW. ONE STORY BUILDING. IT MAY HAVE A MESS A19 -- MEZZANINE BUT THERE WILL BE NO TWO-STORY BUILDINGS. AND THAT'S IT. NOW, THE USES THAT ARE ALLOWABLE ARE NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL USES.

SOME NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL USES ARE NOT REALLY THAT GREAT A FIT WITH SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOODS. WHEN WE WERE REVIEWING THE PUD WITH STAFF, WE ELIMINATED SOME OF THOSE USES.

ESPECIALLY IN THE PUBLIC SERVICE CATEGORY. BECAUSE THINGS LIKE TRANSMISSION SUB-STATIONS AND THAT SORT OF THING ARE ALLOWED.

SINCE THEN, THE APPLICANTS HAVE BEEN THINKING HOW THEY CAN BE BETTER NEIGHBORS. SINCE THEN WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE LIST AGAIN OF ALLOWABLE USES AND CROSSED OUT SOME MORE. I'VE GIVEN A COPY OF THIS TO THE PLANNER. I WILL GIVE THIS TO PAOLO FOLLOWING THIS. LET ME PUT THIS UP ON THE OVERHEAD IF I COULD.

SO WHAT WE ARE ADDITIONALLY GOING TO TAKE OUT, SCHOOLS WITH CONVENTIONAL ACADEMIC CURRICULUM, ADULT DAYCARE, CHURCHES AND SYNAGOGUES. ALL THESE THINGS ARE ALLOWED BY CODE, BUT WE ARE VOLUNTARILY REMOVING THEM FROM THE ALLOWABLE USES. FUNERAL HOMES AND MORTUARIES, CONVENIENCE STORES, EVEN WITHOUT GAS PUMPS, PHARMACIES WITH DRIVE-THRU FACILITIES, BILLIARD AND POOL PARLORS, BED AND BREAKFASTS, LAUNDRIES, VETERINARIAN OFFICES, ANIMAL CARE FACILITIES, ADULT CARE CENTERS, NURSING HOMES, COMMUNITY MARINAS. AGAIN, LAUNDRIES. BAIL BOND AGENCIES, EMPLOYMENT SERVICES, EMERGENCY SERVICES, BRIDAL PATHS, GAME PRESERVES, PRIMITIVE CAMPS, GOLF CLUBS, GOLF DRIVING RANGES, PET CEMETERIES, HUMAN CEMETERIES.

THEN DOWN IN THE PUBLIC SERVICE CATEGORY WE BASICALLY SAY ANYTHING HAS TO BE A NEIGHBORHOOD SCALE. SO, WE'RE NOT GOING TO ALLOW WASTE WATER TREATMENT PLANTS. EVEN THOUGH IT'S ALLOWED BE ALLOWED BY THE ZONING CATEGORY. SO, WE'VE COME THROUGH HERE AND -- OH ANIMAL CARE FACILITY. A SPECIAL USE. A RESTAURANT WITH A DRIVE-THRU WOULD BE ALLOWED HERE. BUT WE HAVE TAKEN THAT OUT IN ORDER TO REDUCE THE IMPACT AND THE TRAFFIC ASSOCIATED WITH THIS.

SO THE ONLY RESTAURANTS THAT WOULD BE ALLOWED IN HERE ARE RESTAURANTS WITHOUT DRIVE-THRU'S. SO, ALL IN ALL, PAOLO, I'LL GIVE THIS TO YOU AFTERWARDS. ALL IN ALL, WE FEEL REALLY GOOD ABOUT THIS.

NEIGHBORHOODS -- WE'RE STARTING TO BECOME SO DEPENDENT ON AUTOMOBILES. THE TRAFFIC PROBLEMS THAT WE HAVE IS BECAUSE YOU HAVE TO DRIVE TO HERE AND GONE IN ORDER TO DO ANYTHING. TO GET A CUP OF COFFEE, TO, YOU KNOW, TO GO TO A FITNESS CENTER.

RIGHT NOW MOST FOLKS GO UP TO JACKSONVILLE FOR IT. SO THIS IS A FAMILY, A HUSBAND AND A WIFE, THAT WANT TO PROVIDE FOR THEIR RETIREMENT AND START A PRIVATE

[03:50:01]

MEMBERSHIP FITNESS CENTER THAT WILL BE THEIR RETIREMENT THAT THEY WORK AT AS SMALL BUSINESS PEOPLE. AND BRING THEIR LOVE OF THIS TO THE COUNTY. AND I THINK IT'S A WONDERFUL THING TO SEE ENTREPRENEURS THAT ARE NOT, YOU KNOW, MEGA-NATIONAL FIRMS WANTING TO DEVELOPMENT IN ST. JOHNS COUNTY. BECAUSE THAT'S WHERE OUR STRENGTH WILL BE. OUR STRENGTH WILL BE WITH OUR PEOPLE. WITH RUER DESCENTS.

THESE PEOPLE LIVE NORTH OF THIS.

THEY USE ROBERTS ROAD DAILY FOR THEIR TRAVELS AND ARE VERY FAMILIAR WITH THE CONDITIONS AND HAVE DONE A LOT OF COMMUNITY OUTREACH ABOUT THIS PROJECT. AND AT SOME POINT I MAY HAVE THEM COME UP AND SPEAK TO YOU BUT RIGHT NOW THEY'RE JUST WAY TOO NERVOUS. SO, IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR ME, I'LL BE GLAD TO ANSWER THEM. AND AFTER PUBLIC COMMENT, IF I MAY AVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO COME UP AND DO ANY EXPLANATIONS YOU MAY NEED.

CHAIRMAN: THANKS. DOES ANYONE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? I DON'T SEE ANY AT THIS TIME. WE HAVE PUBLIC COMMENT I UNDERSTAND.

BOARD MEMBER: WE HAVE 8 SPEAKER CARDS. I'LL JUST CALL YOUR NAME AS THEY'RE IN ORDER HERE AND JUST COME UP AND GIVE US YOUR ADDRESS AND NAME AND YOU WILL HAVE THREE MINUTES. THE FIRST SPEAKER. MR. ROGER POWELL.

SPEAKER: ROGER POWELL. I RESIDE AT 207 GREENFIELD DRIVE. I GUESS IT'S BECAUSE I AM RETIRED AND HAVE MORE TIME THAN MOST AND ALSO I WAS FOOLISH ENOUGH TO ASK THE NEIGHBORS HOW THEY FELT ABOUT THIS PROJECT, BUT I'M HERE BEFORE YOU TODAY. I LIVE IN THE GREENFIELD SUBDIVISION WHICH IS ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE JEA LAND TO THE NORTH OF THEM. 59 HOMES IN THIS PRIVATE ENCLAVE.

AND I HAVE POLLED ALL THE OWNER OCCUPIED PROPERTIES IN OUR 59.

THE MAJORITY OF RESIDENTS WHO I AM HERE TO REPRESENT TODAY HAVE SAID NO. THEY'VE SAID NO ON ONE BASIC REASON. YOU ARE GOING TO HEAR OTHER PEOPLE I AM ASSUMING BASED ON THE WORKSHOP THAT ARE DONE THAT ARE GOING TO SAY YOU DON'T WANT TO OPEN UP PANDORA'S BOX APPROVING THIS PROJECT THEN HAVING ROBERTS ROAD BE THE NEW COMMERCIAL ZONE RATHER THAN THE CURRENT RESIDENTIAL ONE THAT IT IS. FROM OUR STANDPOINT WE ONLY HAVE ONE EGRESS AND INGRESS TO OUR SUBDIVISION. THAT'S ROBERTS ROAD. WE ALL KNOW ALTHOUGH I'M LUCKY ENOUGH TO PLAN MOST OF MY DOCTOR'S APPOINTMENTS AND OTHER THINGS IN THE NON-BUSIEST TIMES OF THE DAY, THE PEOPLE IN OUR SUBDIVISION KNOW IT IS VERY DIFFICULT TO GET OUT ON TO ROBERTS ROAD OR TO GET OFF ROBERTS ROAD. WE ARE IN THE STAGING AREA RIGHT NEAR CUNNINGHAM CREEK SCHOOL WHERE CARS NOT ONLY LINE UP ON ROBERTS ROAD BUT COME ACROSS THE ENTRANCE INTO OUR SUBDIVISION AND GO DOWN THE ROAD FURTHER IN THE MORNINGS AND IN THE AFTERNOONS. IT IS IMPOSSIBLE FOR MANY PEOPLE TO GET OUT ON TO ROBERTS ROAD. WE HAVE NO STREET LIGHTS THAT ALLOW US TO COME OUT. WE JUST HAVE TO PLAN EFFECTIVELY. AND BY ADDING ANYTHING OTHER THAN WHAT IS THERE TODAY IS ADDING MORE CARS TO ROBERTS ROAD. A ROAD THAT YOU PROBABLY SAW THE TRAFFIC STUDY THAT WAS DONE AND PRODUCED IN 2012 OR '13 WHICH SAID THE ROAD WAS A DANGEROUS ONE. 53 ACCIDENTS HAPPENED ON ROBERTS ROAD BETWEEN 2007 AND 2009.

THAT DOESN'T INCLUDE ONE THAT HAPPENED AFTER I MOVED TO THE PROPERTY IN 2014 WHICH IS A YOUNG MAN IN THE MIDDLE OF THE NIGHT WHO ENDED UP IN ONE OF OUR RESERVOIRS IN THE FRONT OF THE PROPERTY AND DIED. IT IS A ROAD THAT DOESN'T DESERVE MORE TRAFFIC AT ANY TIME OF THE DAY AND WHEN WE HAVE A PROJECT LIKE THIS THAT WE KNOW IS GOING TO ADD TRAFFIC IT'S JUST ADDING TO THE PROBLEM WE ALREADY FACE.

THAT'S PRETTY MUCH WHAT I CAME TO SAY. ON BEHALF OF GREENFIELD SUBDIVISION.

BOARD MEMBER: THE NEXT SPEAKER, MR. JAMES HINSON. SPEAKS JAMES HINSON 960 FRUIT COVE ROAD. I OWN THE PROPERTY AT 1397 ROBERTS ROAD. WHEN I MOVED OUT TO THAT

[03:55:02]

AREA ROBERTS ROAD WAS A DIRT ROAD. SO, I'VE SEEN THE TRAFFIC GROW AND EVERYTHING ELSE ALONG WITH THE CHURCH THAT IS BUILT RIGHT NEXT TO MY PROPERTY. WHEN THAT HAPPENED WE WENT THROUGH THE SAME THING. EVERYBODY THE TRAFFIC IS GOING TO BE HORRIBLE.

WELL THE TRAFFIC IS HORRIBLE.

WAS IT UNBEARABLE? NO. IT'S NO DIFFERENT THAN IT IS. AS FAR AS THE YOUNG MAN THAT DIED IN OUR POND, THAT ROAD DIDN'T CAUSE THAT. HIS SPEED, HIS ACCIDENT DID. IT HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THAT. THE PURPOSE OF THIS BIDDING IS FOR A NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL. YOU KNOW, THE GYM I THINK WOULD HELP SOME WITH KIDS THAT ARE STAYING ON THE COMPUTERS AND ON THE PHONES ALL THE TIME INSTEAD OF, YOU KNOW, GETTING OUT AND BEING ACTIVE IN THE COMMUNITY. I THINK THAT PART WOULD HELP. I THINK THE IDEA OF THEM BEING ABLE TO PUT RESTRICTIONS ON THIS DEVELOPMENT I THINK IS BETTER BECAUSE YOU ALREADY HAVE DEVELOPMENT OUT THERE. YOU HAVE THE LANDSCAPER AT THE END OF THE BLOCK THAT'S ALREADY BUILT THE METAL BUILDING ON IT. THE CHURCH CAN PUT IN ANYTHING THEY WANT TO AS FAR AS THE GYM OR ANYTHING ELSE AND ELEVATE THE TRAFFIC THAT MUCH MORE. I THINK AT LEAST IF YOU ARE GOING TO PUT COMMERCIAL PROPERTY THERE IT IS GOING TO HELP THE TAX BASES AND IT'S GOING TO HELP AT LEAST BEING ABLE TO PUT THE RESTRICTIONS ON IT. THANK YOU.

BOARD MEMBER: MR. JOHN POWERS.

IS MR. POWERS HERE? JUST SET THAT ASIDE IN CASE HE SHOWS UP.

MS. CYNTHIA HARTMAN.

SPEAKER: GOOD EVENING. I'M CYNTHIA HARTMAN. 1825 AUTUMN BROOK LANE. I AM IN THE SOUTH CREEK SUBDIVISION. SINCE WE HAD THE MEETING ON AUGUST 13TH WHICH GOT HOSTILE WITH THE PEOPLE THAT WERE THERE, EXPRESSING THEIR CONCERN FOR COMMERCIAL PROPERTY ON SOMETHING THAT IS RESIDENTIAL, I WENT AND STARTED COLLECTING SIGNATURES FROM MY COMMUNITY OF SOUTH CREEK AS WELL AS EMAILING TO THE OTHER SUBDIVISIONS ASKING FOR THEIR OPINION. AND MAJORITY OF WHAT I RECEIVED, 57 SIGNATURES, ARE AGAINST HAVING THIS COME IN TO PLAY. OUR CONCERNS ARE -- IS THE TRAFFIC. AND THEN I JUST RECENTLY LEARNED THE WAIVER REQUEST FOR ALCOHOL. A BAND, MUSIC, OUTSIDE SEATING. I RIGHT NOW CAN HEAR THE CHURCH IN MY BACKYARD. WHEN THEY HAVE THEIR MUSICALS. AND IN THE WINTER-TIME WHEN THE LEAVES ARE GONE THEIR LIGHTS ARE IN MY BEDROOM WINDOW.

AND MY CONCERN IS THAT ONCE THESE FOLKS GO COMMERCIAL, THAT CHURCH IS GOING TO SUE TO GO COMMERCIAL EVEN THOUGH THEY AGREED TO 20 YEARS WITHOUT THE ABILITY TO DO THAT. THE OTHER THING IS I WAS READING IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD BILL OF RIGHTS.

AND SAYING THAT THE HOAS CAN REQUEST A MEETING. THIS IS MY FIRST TIME DOING THIS. I'VE NEVER SPOKE TO YOU GUYS BEFORE.

BUT THIS IS SOMETHING I'M VERY PASSIONATE ABOUT. THIS IS OUR RETIREMENT COMMUNITY AS WELL.

WE'VE BEEN THERE SINCE 1992. AND WE'RE PERFECTLY HAPPY WHEN IT'S LIKE IT IS RIGHT NOW. QUIET AND PEACEFUL. AND WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW, SOUTH CREEK AND ALSO GREEN RIDGE, I HAVE PERMISSION TO ASK FOR A MEETING WITH THOSE FOLKS. IS THAT POSSIBLE OR IS IT TOO LATE? I DON'T KNOW THE RULES AND HOW IT WORKS.

CHAIRMAN: WE'LL GET THE APPLICANT BACK UP TO ADDRESS YOUR QUESTIONS AFTER PUBLIC COMMENT.

SPEAKER: OKAY. THEN I WANT TO USE SOMEONE'S COMMENT THAT WAS BROUGHT UP. THE HARDSHIP THAT WAS CREATED BY THE OWNER TRYING TO FORCE COMMERCIAL ZONING IN A HAPPILY RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY.

SO, THEIR HARDSHIP IS THEY HAVE TO GO COMMERCIAL. WHAT IS WRONG WITH LEAVING IT RESIDENTIAL? THE WAY IT IS. AND I HAVE PEOPLE THAT HAVE SENT ME THEIR RESPONSES SAYING THAT THEY DON'T APPROVE OF THIS. I'VE SENT THOSE ALL TO THE COMMISSIONERS.

AND I WANTED TO SEE IF THERE'S ANY WAY OF DETERMINING THAT YOU DID RECEIVE THOSE.

BOARD MEMBER: DOES THAT CONCLUDE YOUR COMMENTS? SPEAKER: YES.

[04:00:02]

BOARD MEMBER: THANK YOU. THE NEXT SPEAKER MR. BILL HARTMAN.

CAN YOU RESET THE CLOCK SO HE HAS MORE THAN A SECOND [LAUGHTER] YOU HAVE ONE SECOND [LAUGHTER] SPEAKER: I'LL SPEAK QUICK. THAT WAS MY WIFE THAT JUST SPOKE. I HAVE TO SAY THAT I'VE BEEN A RESIDENT -- I LIVE AT 1825 AUTUMN BROOK LANE. I LIVE IN THE SAME PLACE AS MY WIFE. WHAT I REALLY WANTED TO SAY IS TO TALK A ABOUT WHEN I FIRST GOT OUT THERE AS A MAN MENTIONED EARLIER. THE ROAD WAS DIRT.

THERE WAS NO IVY LAKES ACROSS THE STREET. NO CUNNINGHAM CREEK.

THERE WAS NO HIGH SCHOOL.

OBVIOUSLY WE'VE HAD A LOT OF GROWTH OUT IN THAT AREA. AND IT'S BEEN GREAT. WE HAVE A BIG CHURCH OUT BACK. THERE'S FAIRLY GOOD NEIGHBORS AND NOT HAD A LOT OF ISSUES. I KNOW THAT WAS THE ISSUE FOR THE COUNTY AND PEOPLE ON ROBERTS ROAD. SO, FAR SO GOOD. BUT THIS IS A HUGE RESIDENTIAL AREA. WE HAVE A GAS STATION DOWN THE STREET. WE HAVE A HUGE AREA DOWN ON GREENBRIER RIGHT OFF LONG LEAF THAT IS ALREADY ZONED COMMERCIAL. WHY DO WE WANT TO PUT A COMMERCIAL AREA RIGHT INSIDE THE MIDDLE OF AN ALREADY CONGESTED AREA ALMOST LESS THAN A THOUSAND FEET FROM A SCHOOL.

I KNOW THEY SAID IT'S OVER A THOUSAND FEET BUT IT'S GOT TO BE BA BARELY. IT'S ONLY .02 OF A MILE. I DON'T KNOW WHY WE NEED THE NEIGHBORHOOD WHEN WE HAVE ALL THE SERVICES WE NEED DOWN THE ROAD. THAT IS MY STATEMENT.

MY WIFE HAS GONE TO A LOT OF EFFORT AND GOT A LOT OF INFORMATION AND PROVIDED IT TO YOU EARLIER. THAT'S ALL I HAVE TO SAY.

BOARD MEMBER: MS. DARLENE WESTINGTON. I'LL SET IT ASIDE.

MR. STEPHEN EDMONDS.

SPEAKER: GOOD AFTERNOON.

EVENING. WHATEVER IT IS NOW.

STEPHEN EDMONDS 213 STRAW BERRY LANE. I JUST MOVED OFF ROBERTS ROAD AND CUNNINGHAM ELEMENTARY ABOUT TWO WEEKS AGO. MY WIFE CONVINCED ME TO GET A BIGGER HOUSE SO WE DID. I'M IN FAVOR OF THIS. I AM A REAL ESTATE BROKER IN JACKSONVILLE. I'VE BEEN IN REAL ESTATE MY WHOLE LIFE. AND IN RESPONSE TO THE PROPERTY VALUES GOING DOWN. WE FEEL LIKE OUR NUMBERS SHOW THAT NOT ALL COMMERCIAL BUT CERTAIN TYPES OF COMMERCIAL SPECIFICALLY THIS TYPE ACTUALLY INCREASE VALUES.

YOU LOOK AT DIFFERENT AREAS LET'S SIGH ST. JOHNS, RIVER CITY MARKETPLACE, NEW DURBIN PARK, ALL THOSE AREAS HAVE SEEN SKYROCKET HOME VALUES. IN REGARDS TO THE TRAFFIC. IF YOU'VE GOT A FIVE ACRE PARCEL AND EACH ACRE CAN CONTAIN UP TO THREE TO FOUR HOUSES WITH 32 EH TO FOUR CARS AT EACH HOUSE WE'RE TALKING 20-25 CARS PER FIVE ACRES. THIS PARTICULAR MODEL WE'RE TALKING ABOUT TEN-12 CARS.

THIS THIS GOES THROUGH IT PREVENTS A RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPER FROM ADDING 25 CARS. WE'VE GOT ST. JOHNS COUNTY IS IN THE LAST TWI 84S GROWN ASTRONOMICALLY.

JORDAN, RIVERTOWN, ALL THE GROWTH IS GREAT. BUT AT SOME POINT WE'VE GOT TO HAVE A PLACE TO SERVICE. YOU GOT TO HAVE PLACES FOR PEOPLE TO GET ICE CREAM, A CUP OF COFFEE, TO SKEER STATS, TO WALK THEIR DOG. JUST TO GET THE KIDS OUT BEFORE SCHOOL AND GET THEM ACTIVITY WITHOUT HAVING TO DRIVE BAN TO MANDARIN ALL THE WAY TO DURBIN TO DO SO. ROBERTS ROAD HAS NOTHING. WE NEED SOMETHING ON A SMALL SCALE. WHAT BETTER THAN A MOM AND POP START UP TO FINALLY GIVE SOMEBODY A CHANCE TO OVERCOME THE ASTRONOMICAL DEVELOPMENT COSTS IN ST. JOHNS COUNTY? HOME DEPOT, WALMART, LOWE'S, ACE, THOSE GUYS TYPICALLY CAN AFFORD TO DO STUFF LIKE THIS. WE'VE GOT A CHANCE TO GIVE MOM AND POP A CHANCE TO LIVE OUT THE AMERICAN DREAM.

SOMETHING THAT'S VERY NON-DISRUPTIVE, LOW VOLUME TRAFFIC, WILL INCREASE PROPERTY VALUES AND WILL GIVE OPPORTUNITIES FOR FUTURE MOM AND POPS TO DO MORE THINGS. THANK YOU.

BOARD MEMBER: MS. CINDY MALONE.

DID I PRONOUNCE THAT CORRECTLY? I GET EXTRA POINTS FOR THAT.

[04:05:04]

SPEAKER: MY NAME IS CINDY MALONE. MY ADDRESS IS 1193 CUNNINGHAM CREEK DRIVE. I'M HERE TO SPEAK IN FAVOR OF THIS DEVELOPMENT. NOBODY'S EVER TOLD ME TO BE LOUDER BEFORE. I JUST HAVE A LOT OF CONCERNS REGARDING I RECEIVED AN EMAIL LOOKING FOR SUPPORT OF OPPOSING THIS PROJECT. AND THE EMAIL WAS VERY MISLEADING. AND I'M JUST CONCERNED THAT A LOT OF THE SIGNATURES AND A LOT OF THE NEGATIVE THAT YOU'VE GOTTEN, THEY MAY NOT BE AWARE OF WHAT'S REALLY GOING ON. I DID ATTEND THE MEETING ON THE 13TH. WE WERE NOT ADVERSARIAL AT ALL.

THERE WAS OVER 25 OF US THERE THAT WERE FOR THE PROJECT. AND ALMOST 40 THAT WERE THERE THAT WERE EITHER FOR IT OR NEUTRAL.

WHICH IS VERY UNINDICATIVE OF THE EMAIL THAT WENT OUT. NOBODY ASKS US WHAT WE WERE DOING.

NOBODY ASKED THEM REALLY THEY DIDN'T CARE. IT'S LIKE IT'S COMMERCIAL, IT'S NO. WE UNDERSTAND THAT. IF EH UNDERSTAND THE CONCERNS. BUT I REALLY WISH THEY WOULD HAVE ASKED. THIS IS GOING TO BE SMALL, CHARMING, QUAINT, AND IT'S FOR THE AREA. NOBODY IS GOING TO COME FROM ANOTHER AREA TO DO THIS. TO GO TO THESE LITTLE PLACES. IT'S FOR PEOPLE TO BE ABLE TO RIDE THEIR BIKES, TO WALK TO, TO GET TO THAT'S IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD. IT'S GOING BE WHERE YOU GET TO KNOW EVERYBODY.

IT'S SMALL TOWN AND WE WANT TO KEEP IT RURAL JUST LIKE IT IS NOW. ROBERTS ROAD IS A MAJOR THOROUGHFARE WHETHER LIKE IT OR NOT. IT IS THE ONLY CONNECTING FACTOR BETWEEN LONG LEAF AND 13.

SO IT'S GOING TO BE BUSY AND THE TRAFFIC IS AN ISSUE. THIS IS NOT PART OF THAT. THIS IS NOT GOING TO CONTRIBUTE TO THAT IN ONE WAY OR THE OTHER. SO, I'M IN FAVOR OF THIS. I THINK IT WILL BE A BENEFIT. AND I DO THINK IT WILL IMPROVE PROPERTY VALUES. BECAUSE IT FITS RIGHT IN TO. THEY'RE LOOKING TO DO EVERYTHING TO KEEP IT VERY RURAL. EVERYTHING IS GOING TO BE WOOD LOOK. TRY NOT TO USE AWE FAULT, CONCRETE ON THE GROUND. USING CRUSHED ROCK.

THE RETENTION POND SET UP TO TAKE OFF ANY DRAINAGE ON THE PROPERTY. THEY'RE GOING TO GO TO GREAT LENGTHS AND GREAT EXPERIENCE EXPENSE TO KEEP IT SMALL AND WHERE IT DOES NOT HAVE ANY NEGATIVE IMPACT ON THE COMMUNITY AROUND IT. IT'S SUPPOSED TO BENEFIT IT. AND I'M OUT. MY CONCERN IS THAT THE EMAILS THAT WERE GOING OUT AND THE SIGNATURES, THEY MAY NOT UNDERSTAND WHAT IS TRULY GOING IN THERE. AND THEY MAY HAVE SIGNED JUST BASED ON COMMERCIAL, NO. WITHOUT ANY DETAILS. AND MOSTLY THE GROUP THERE DID NOT WANT TO HAVE DETAILS. THEY DIDN'T CARE. I JUST WOULD LIKE TO ENLIGHTEN THEM.

SPEAKER: THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR TIME I DID NOT KNOW YOU GUYS WERE VOLUNTEERS. YOU ARE AMAZING. HAVE A GOOD AFTERNOON.

BOARD MEMBER: I DIDN'T KNOW THAT. I THOUGHT I WAS IN THE HIGH PAID GROUP [LAUGHTER] MR. JEREMY HILDEBRAND.

SPEAKER: GOOD EVENING. JEREMY HILDEBRAND. 806 SOUTH LILAC LOOP IN JULINGTON CREEK SUBDIVISION.

THANK YOU FOR GIVING ME THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK AND THANK YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE. I'VE BEEN A PROPERTY OWNER IN ST. JOHNS COUNTY FOR OVER 16 YEARS. AND THE GROWTH IN ST. JOHNS COUNTY IS UNDENIABLE. GROWTH IS A GOOD THING. BECAUSE GROWTH IS AN IMPORTANT PART OF BUSINESS, A COUNTY AND LIVE IN GENERAL. IF WE'RE GOING HAVE GROWTH, I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT THAT PART OF THE GROWTH COMES FROM LOCAL ST. JOHNS COUNTY RESIDENTS RATHER THAN PEOPLE WHO HAVE TO ANSWER TO BIG BOX SHAREHOLDERS.

AND THE PROPOSERS OF THIS DEVELOPMENT ARE LOCAL ST. JOHNS COUNTY RESIDENTS. AND THEY INTEND TO HAVE SMALL, LOCAL BUSINESSES FILL THE SPACES. I ENCOURAGE YOU TO APPROVE THE DEVELOPMENT AND SUPPORT LOCAL GROWTH. THANK YOU FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION.