[Call meeting to order]
[00:00:12]
>>> GOOD AFTERNOON. WE ARE GOING TO CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER.
PLEASE STAND FOR THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.
>> I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS, ONE NATION UNDER GOD, INDIVISIBLE, WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL.
>> MR. PETER, WILL YOU PLEASE READ THE PUBLIC NOTICE
SPEAKER SHALL IDENTIFY THEMSELVES AND WHO THEY REPRESENT WITH THE APPLICANT REGARDING THE SUBSTANCE OF THE ITEM OUTSIDE OF THE FORMAL HEARING WITH THE AGENCY. IF SUCH COMMUNICATION HAS OCCURRED THE AGENCY MEMBERSHIP IDENTIFY THOSE INVOLVED AND THE MATERIAL CONTENT OF THE COMMUNICATION. WE WILL BE RESPECTFUL WITH EACH OTHER EVEN WHEN WE DISAGREE AND
[PZA Meeting Minutes for Agency Approval: 01/23/2025 and 02/06/2025]
WE WILL DIRECT COMMENTS TO THE ISSUES AND AVOID PERSONALATTAC. >> AGENCY MEMBERS WE HAVE MINUTES FOR APPROVAL FOR JANUARY 23RD, 2025 AND FEBRUARY 6, 2025.
CAN I GET A MOTION? AND A SECOND? ANY DISCUSSION? ALL IN
[1. MAJMOD 2024-09 St. Johns Marketplace PUD. Request for a Major Modification to the St. Johns Marketplace PUD (Ord. 2014-4, as amended) to (i) allow the community to be gated; (ii) eliminate the option of constructing an assisted living facility; (iii) provide a change in interconnectivity; and (iv) revise project phasing dates based on recent emergency declaration extensions pursuant to Section 252.363 of the Florida Statutes. A revised Master Development Plan (MDP) Text and Map is provided to reflect the proposed changes. Site is specifically located at 320, 350, 375, 400 and 425 Bay Laurel Drive.]
>> THE MOTION PASSES . IS THERE ANYONE HERE TO SPEAK ON ITEMS THAT ARE NOT ON THE AGENDA? SEEING NONE, WE WILL MOVE ON TO ITEM NUMBER ONE. DOES ANYONE HAVE ANY EX PARTE?
SURE IT WAS ABOUT THIS SITE. >> MISS SPIEGEL
>> I HAD A CONVERSATION WITH MR. SMITH YESTERDAY.
>> ELLEN AND I EXCHANGED VOICEMAILS BUT WE DID NOT GET TO
SPEAK TO EACH OTHER. >> MR. GREEN?
>> I HAD A CONVERSATION ON THE PHONE YESTERDAY AND A DISCUSSION
IN THE PARKING LOT JUST NOW. >> AND MR. PETER .
>> ELLEN AND I HAD A CONVERSATION ABOUT THE SITE .
>> I GOT A VOICEMAIL BUT WE DID NOT SPEAK ABOUT THE ITEM.
>> BOARD MEMBERS, THANK YOU. ELLEN AVERY-SMITH, ROGERS TOWERS. FROM THE OWNERSHIP ENTITY OF THIS PROPERTY, THEY GO BY WAYPOINT. DJ FROM THAT COMPANY IS HERE WITH ME TODAY.
AND THEN THE PROJECT PLANNER AND ENGINEER IS MATTHEWS THE DESIGN AND CHRISTINA EVANS WILL COME UP IN A FEW MINUTES AND FINISH UP THE PRESENTATION FROM THE DEVELOPMENT STANDPOINT. JUST TO ORIENT EVERYBODY ON WHERE THIS PROPERTY IS AND TO GIVE PROPER HISTORY OF IT. THIS IS STATE ROAD 207 AND THIS IS I-95. THE PROPERTY WE ARE TALKING ABOUT IS THIS IRREGULARLY SHAPED PROPERTY. IT HAS A MIXED USE FUTURE LAND USE AND PUD ZONING.
TO GIVE YOU A LITTLE HISTORY, AND I AM NOT SURE IF ANYBODY ON THIS BOARD REMEMBERS A PERSON NAMED GEORGE MCCOURT WHO WAS A LAND-USE ATTORNEY IN ST. JOHNS COUNTY. HE WAS ONE OF THE SMARTEST MOST ARTICULATE PEOPLE THAT I HAVE MET AND HE WOULD
[00:05:02]
ALWAYS GO INTO THE HISTORY OF PARCELS. PEOPLE WOULD ASK ME WHY I DIDN'T DO THAT AND IT WAS BECAUSE I DID NOT KNOW THE HISTORY. 18 YEARS LATER I KNOW THE HISTORY OF THE PARCELS. THIS PARCEL I HAVE BEEN RUNNING WITH ABOUT 13 YEARS. I WILL GIVE YOU AN ABBREVIATED VERSION. A PORTION OF THIS WAS NAMED BY JOHN -- AND HIS FAMILY OWNED IT SINCE 1984. DURING THE RECESSION THEY BOUGHT THE NORTHERN PART OF THE PROPERTY. SO THEY OWN TO ALL OF HIS PROPERTY AND IN 2012, WE DID A LAND-USE CHANGE FOR THE ENTIRE PARCEL AND DID PIECEMEAL REZONING, I WILL CALL THEM. SO MOST OF THIS PROPERTY WAS ENVISIONED TO BE A BUSINESS PARK. LIKE NOW YOU HAVE BEAVER TOYOTA, BEST BET, THE HYUNDAI DEALERSHIP, AS WELL AS THE CAMPGROUND. YOU REMEMBER THE OLD FLAME ROCKET WAS OUT THERE YEARS AGO. THERE IS A CENTRAL WETLAND SYSTEM THAT RUNS, IT IS A CONTIGUOUS WETLAND THAT RUNS NORTH AND SOUTH THROUGH THE PROPERTY SO THIS PROPERTY, BECAUSE TWIN LAKES IS HERE AND -- IS HERE THEY ARE SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL SO THE DECISION WAS MADE TO KEEP THIS RESIDENTIAL AND HAVE IT AS APARTMENTS, AS A TRANSITION OF DENSITY BETWEEN SINGLE-FAMILY AND THE BUSINESS PARK.FAST-FORWARD TO TODAY AND WE HAVE WAYPOINT WHO IS NOW THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY. THE APARTMENT COMPLEX IS ESSENTIALLY BUILT AND IT HAS 250 UNITS MAXIMUM ON THAT 67 ACRES SO THEY PURCHASED THE PROPERTY WITHIN THE PUD. THEN, THE COUNTY CALLED AND SAID HEY, EVEN THOUGH YOU HAVE APPROVED CONSTRUCTION PLANS YOU HAVE GATES THAT ARE CONSTRUCTED AND WE WILL SHOW YOU THAT DETAIL IN JUST A MINUTE BUT THIS CANNOT BE A GATED COMMUNITY WITHOUT DOING A MAJOR MODIFICATION TO THE PUD? SO WE WANT TO DO THE MODIFICATION TO ALLOW THE GATES. WHILE WE WERE CLEANING UP THE PUD FOR THE GATES, TO NOT ALLOW CONNECTIVITY TO THE PROPERTY TO THE WEST WE ELIMINATED THE ASSISTED LIVING FACILITY -- UNITS SINCE THE APARTMENTS WERE ALREADY CONSTRUCTED AND DID THE TYPICAL PHASING DATE CHANGES BASED ON DECLARATIONS THROUGH THE OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR. THOSE ARE THE MODIFICATION REQUESTS. ONE IS CONSTRUCTED HERE ALREADY AND THE OTHER IS CONSTRUCTED HERE. THE GATES ARE OPEN UNTIL WE GET THIS MAJOR MODIFICATION APPLICATION APPROVED BECAUSE CONNECTIVITY HERE IS REQUIRED. SO GOING BACK TO THE HISTORY OF THE PROJECT, I MENTIONED JOHN 77 AND HE WAS THE DEVELOPER OF THE COMMERCIAL PORTION THAT IS KNOWN AS ST. AUGUSTINE MARKETPLACE. JOHN, WITH THE HELP OF ROB MATTHEWS AND OTHERS PLAN TO END DESIGNED, PERMITTED, AND CONSTRUCTED THIS ROADWAY NETWORK CALLED MARKETPLACE DRIVE ALL THE WAY HERE THROUGH RESORT WAY AND HERE IS THE MASTER STORM WATER SYSTEM. THOSE FACILITIES ARE OWNED AND MAINTAINED BY THE ST. AUGUSTINE MARKETPLACE ASSOCIATION. THE WAYPOINT PROPERTY IS NOT PART OF THAT IT IS NOT WITHIN THE POA BOUNDARIES OR SUBJECT TO ASSESSMENTS TO MAINTAIN, REAP., REPLACE THESE PROPERTIES. SO MR. ALEXON SAID WE ARE OKAY PROVIDING EMERGENCY ACCESS OVER THIS ROAD BECAUSE THIS WILL EVENTUALLY SERVE THIS PROPERTY HERE. HE DOES NOT WANT PEOPLE FROM THIS PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION TO CUT THROUGH THIS WAY EXCEPT IN AN EMERGENCY. SO, THE PUD SAYS IN AN EMERGENCY THERE WILL BE INTERCONNECTIVITY BETWEEN THEM BUT BESIDES THAT THERE SHOULD BE NO CONNECTIVITY BETWEEN THIS PROPERTY AND THE REST OF THE ST. JOHNS MARKETPLACE. SO, WITH THIS I WILL TURN IT OVER TO CHRISTINA AND SHE WILL TAKE IT THROUGH THE PLANNING PART AND WHERE THEY ARE WITH CONSTRUCTION ON THE
PROJECT. >> CHRISTINA EVANS, MATTHEWS D
[00:10:04]
CCM. THIS IS OUR PROPOSED MDP MAP . IT IS BASICALLY THE SAME BUT AS ELLEN SAID IT SHOWS THE GATE TO THE SOUTH ACCESSIBLE TO RESIDENTS FROM STATE ROAD 207 AND A GATE TO THE NORTH FOR EMERGENCY ACCESS. I TRACED THE INTERNAL ROADWAY THAT HAS ALREADY BEEN BUILT AND AS YOU CAN SEE IT IS MEANT FOR THE RESIDENCE. IT IS NOT A ROADWAY THAT CIRCUMVENT DEVELOPMENT AND ANY CARS THAT WOULD GO THROUGH HERE WOULD HAVE TO DRIVE THROUGH THE PARKING LOTS WHERE RESIDENTS ARE WALKING, PULLING IN AND OUT OF PARKING SPACES AND IT WOULD CREATE CONFLICT POINTS. PREVIOUS VERSIONS OF THE PUD SHOWED INTERCONNECTIVITY TO THE NORTH AND THE WEST. THE ORIGINAL PUD STATED THAT THE AREA IS SPARSELY DEVELOPED SO BASED ON HOW THE ABUTTING LAND HAS BEEN DEVELOPED THE INTERCONNECTIVITY IS JUST NOT FEASIBLE. IF YOU ARE GOING NORTH RUNNING INTO THE LANDSCAPE BUFFER AND SUBDIVISION LOTS AND TO THE WEST, INSTEAD OF HAVING COMMERCIAL USES THAT YOU WILL HAVE THE MARKETPLACE NORTH MULTI FAMILY PROJECT. AS WAS MENTIONED HOW THIS PROJECT HAS BEEN APPROVED AND IS NEARING COMPLETION OF CONSTRUCTION. THESE ARE THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED MAPS AND PLANS THAT SHOW NO INTERCONNECTIVITY TO THE NORTH. BOTH OF THE GATES AND IT DESIGNATES THE NORTHGATE FOR EMERGENCY VEHICLES ONLY. THOSE WERE APPROVED IN MAY AND SEPTEMBER 2022. ANOTHER PART OF THE MODIFICATION IS THE COMPLETION SHALL OCCUR BY FEBRUARY 2034 EVEN THOUGH IT IS BASICALLY ALREADY COMPLETE. SO, THOSE ARE THE FOUR PIECES OF THE MAJOR MODIFICATION TO PROVIDE THAT THE COMMUNITY CAN BE GATED.RIGHT NOW THEY ARE BEING LEFT OPEN BUT THEY NEED TO BE CLOSED AND LIMITED TO RESIDENTS AND EMERGENCY VEHICLES, ELIMINATING THE FACILITY BECAUSE IT IS ALREADY DEVELOPED WITH MULTIFAMILY UNITS. PROVIDE THAT CHANGE IN INTERCONNECTIVITY BASED ON HOW THE SURROUNDING LAND HAS BEEN DEVELOPED OVER THE YEARS AND AMEND THE PHASING AND WILL DOUBT BASED ON THOSE DECLARATIONS. I AM AVAILABLE FOR QUESTIONS .
>> ANY QUESTIONS? ALL RIGHT. IS THERE ANYONE HERE IN THE AUDIENCE TO SPEAK ON ITEM NUMBER ONE? SEEING NONE WE GO BACK TO THE AGENCY FOR QUESTIONS. MR. MATOVINA.
>> I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF MAJMOD 2024-09 ST. JOHNS MARKETPLACE PUD BASED UPON SIX FINDINGS OF FACT AS PROVIDED IN THE STAFF REPORT.
>> SECOND . >> WE HAVE A MOTION AND A
[2. ZVAR 2024-28Johnson Pool. Request for a Zoning Variance to Section 6.01.03.E.3 and Table 6.01 of the Land Development Code to allow for second Front Yard setback of ten (10) feet in lieu of the required twenty (20) feet to accommodate placement of a swimming pool in RS-3 zoning, specifically located at 3692 Flamingo Street.]
SECOND. PLEASE REGISTER TO VOTE. THE MOTION PASSES . ONTO ITEM NUMBER TWO. IS THERE ANY EX PARTE?>> I HAD A CONVERSATION WITH THE HOMEOWNER AND I DID A SITE VISIT
THIS AFTERNOON. >> WITH THE APPLICANT PLEASE COME FORWARD.
>> BRENDAN TRAVIS 488 WATER DRIVE AND I REPRESENTING BRANDON AND MONICA JOHNSON AND BILL HARVEY, ABSOLUTE CONSTRUCTION AND POOLS. WE ARE REQUESTING A RELAXATION OF THE SECOND SETBACK BY 10 FEET FOR A SWIMMING POOL. THE HOME IS A CORNER LOT SO AGAIN IT HAS TWO FRONT YARDS AND TWO FIVE YARDS. SURROUNDING PROPERTIES HAVE A SEPTIC SYSTEM WHICH WAS INSTALLED WHEN THIS HOME WAS BUILT. THE PROPERTY IS DESIGNATED FLORIDA SEPTIC SYSTEM
[00:15:03]
AND OF THE PROPERTY IS ALREADY ENCLOSED BY A FENCE IN THE REAR AND A FENCE IN THE FRONT. THE SWIMMING POOL DECK WILL BE POSITIONED IN A WAY THAT, IF YOU LOOK AT THE SITE PLAN, IN A WAY THAT IT PUSHES THE SWIMMING POOL AS FAR BACK TOWARDS THE REAR OF THE LOT AS POSSIBLE. AND WHAT WOULD TYPICALLY BE CONSIDERED THE BACKYARD. I BELIEVE THERE ARE THREE TOTAL SWIMMING POOLS IN THE IMMEDIATE AREA. SWIMMING POOLS THAT ARE VERY SIMILAR. 305 SUNSET IS BASICALLY THE SAME CROSS STREET ACROSS THE WAY. I BELIEVE THERE ARE THREE IN TOTAL. THIS IS A PHOTO OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY SHOWING WHERE THE SWIMMING POOL WOULD BE SITUATED, THE SIZES A LITTLE INFLATED ON THIS PARTICULAR PICTURE BUT THAT WOULD BE THE LOCATION AND IT IS ALREADY ENCLOSED IN A FENCE. SO, VISUALLY, THERE WOULD NOT BE ANY CHANGE. THERE IS NO SIDEWALK ALONG THE SIDE ON SUNSET DRIVE AND THERE IS A CULVERT THERE AS WELL. SO, THERE IS NO IMPACT ON THE ADJACENT PROPERTIES. SO, WE HAVE OBVIOUSLY, WE HAD A PETITION SIGNED BY ALL OF THE NEIGHBORS IN THE IMMEDIATE AREA IN SUPPORT OF IT. JUST SHOWING IT HAS THE COLLECTIVE SUPPORT OF THE COMMUNITY AROUND IT. THE NEIGHBOR, THE FIRST SIGNATURE ON THERE I BELIEVE, IT IS MENTIONED IN THE PACKET THAT HIS DRIVEWAY IS ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE FENCE TO THE EAST AND HE IS ACTUALLY THE FIRST SIGNATUR ON THERE SHOWING THAT HE SUPPORTED IT. HERE IS THE SITE PLAN OF THE PROPERTY. SHOWING THE SWIMMING POOL LOCATION. YOU CAN SEE THE SETBACK LINE AND WE ARE JUST REQUESTING A RELAXATION OF 10 FEET SO THAT WE CAN FIT THE SWIMMING POOL INSIDE THE PROPERTY. AND THAT IS IT .>> ANY QUESTIONS? MISS SPIEGEL .
>> YOU ARE ASKING 20 FEET DOWN TO 10 FEET SO THAT A 10 FOOT
WIDE POOL WILL FIT YOU MARK >> YES.
>> ON THE OTHER SIDE THERE IS 20 FEET BEFORE YOU GET TO THE ROAD?
IT IS A PRETTY LARGE AREA. >> RIGHT .
>> I DO AFFECT APPRECIATE THE FACT THAT THE NEIGHBORS WERE SPOKEN TO AND THERE IS NO OPPOSITION. DID YOU SKIP PAST A SLIDE THAT TALKED ABOUT THE HARDSHIP?
>> I AM NOT SURE. THERE WE GO. AS FAR AS HARDSHIP TO THE LOT, IT WOULD BE THAT IT IS A CORNER LOT SO IT DOES NOT HAVE A BACKYARD AND BECAUSE THERE IS NO, AT THE TIME THERE WAS NO SEPTIC OR SEWER LINE IN THE AREA IT HAS BEEN ADDED BUT IT IS DOWN THE STREET A LITTLE BIT SO IT DOES HAVE A SET TOO TANK WHICH IS REQUIRED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THE LOT SO WITH IT HAVING NO BACKYARD WE ARE LIMITED BY THE FACT THAT IT ONLY IS CONSIDERED TO HAVE TWO FRONT YARDS INSTEAD. SO, WE ARE JUST ASKING THAT THE SWIMMING POOL BE CONSIDERED FOR AN ADDITIONAL 10 FOOT SO THAT IT FITS WITHIN THE SIDE YARD WHICH WAS ALREADY ENCLOSED SO VISUALLY IT DOES NOT CHANGE ANYTHING FOR THE NEIGHBORS AND ANYBODY
[00:20:04]
DRIVING THROUGH. IT WILL NOT BE VISIBLE. JUST THE FACT THAT IT HAS TWO FRONTAGES INSTEAD OF A BACKYARD, SO THERE IS NO PLACE TO PUT A SWIMMING POOL OTHERWISE.>> DO YOU HAVE AN IDEA OF WHAT THEY WILL USE FOR A PATIO?
>> IT WILL BE A PAVER PATIO. THERE USED TO BE A PAVER PATIO THERE IN THE PAST. AND SO IT WOULD HAVE A SMALL PAVER DECK WHICH I THINK IS REFLECTED ON THE SITE PLAN AS WELL. THE DARKER SQUARE AROUND IT. WE WILL HAVE A PAVER PATIO AND ALL OF THE EQUIPMENT WILL BE TALKED BACK ON THE NORTH SIDE CLOSER TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER AND AWAY FROM THE STREET AND THE
NEIGHBORS . >> THANK YOU, VERY MUCH .
>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? IS THERE ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE TO SPEAK ON ITEM NUMBER TWO. SEEING NONE WE ARE BACK TO THE AGENCY FOR A
MOTION. >> I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE ZVAR 2024-28 JOHNSON POOL BASED ON SIX FINDINGS OF FACT AND SIX CONDITIONS, AS PROVIDED IN THE STAFF REPORT.
>> WE HAVE A MOTION FOR APPROVAL. IS THERE A SECOND?
>> SECOND. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? SEEING NONE, PLEASE REGISTER THE VOTE. THE MOTION PASSES. THANK YOU, VERY MUCH.
[3. MINMOD 2024-21369 Tavistock Drive. Request for a Minor Modification to the Kensington Planned Unit Development (ORD. 2005-107, as amended) to allow for a swimming pool to encroach into the required 10-foot landscape/natural vegetated perimeter buffer, specifically located at 369 Tavistock Drive.]
ONTO ITEM NUMBER THREE. IS THERE ANY EX PARTE? OKAY, WILL THEAPPLICANT PLEASE COME UP. >> GOOD AFTERNOON. MY NAME IS GARY VAZQUEZ AND THIS IS MY WIFE, EMILY VAZQUEZ. WE ARE ASKING FOR A VARIANCE FOR A SWIMMING POOL. THE REQUESTED RELIEF IS WE CURRENTLY HAVE A 10 FOOT NATURAL LANDSCAPE BUFFER ON OUR CURRENT PROPERTY. EXTENDING 10 FEET PAST THE END OF OUR HOUSE WHERE IT ENDS AND EXTENDING OUT 10 FEET AND REQUESTING THREE-FOOT RELIEF TO INCREASE THIS TO 10 FOOT. THIS IS LOOKING TO THE EAST. THIS IS CONSTRUCTION GOING ON, IF YOU ARE FAMILIAR WITH THE US-1 AREA THIS IS THE AREA OF KENSINGTON.
THIS IS THE CURRENT CONSTRUCTION OF THE FACILITY GOING ON IN OUR BACKYARD. THIS VEGETATION IS ROUGHLY WHERE OUR PROPERTY ENDS AND WE ARE ASKING FOR RELIEF TO GO INWARD AND INTERNAL TO OUR PROPERTY LINE. THAT IS AN OPPOSITE LOOK OF OUR HOUSE AND YOU CAN SEE THE NEIGHBORS TO THE LEFT AND RIGHT OF OUR HOUSE BACK THERE. WE ALSO HAVE THE SUPPORT OF THE HOA COMMUNITY. PENDING
ANY QUESTIONS, THAT IS IT. >> ANY QUESTIONS? SO, ARE YOU, YOUR TREELINE BUFFER, ARE YOU GOING INTO THAT?
>> NO. THE BUFFER WILL BE BEFORE THAT SO THE OFFER CURRENTLY IS RIGHT HERE. YOU CAN SEE WHERE THIS WALL IS AND IT STARTS ROUGHLY RIGHT THERE ALL THE WAY TO THAT TREELINE. SO WE ARE JUST
ASKING FOR RIGHT HERE. >> I'VE GOT YOU. THAT MAKES SENSE. DOES ANYBODY IN THE AUDIENCE WISH TO SPEAK ON ITEM NUMBER THREE? SEEING NONE WE WILL GO BACK TO THE AGENCY FOR
DISCUSSION. >> WITH THE CONSTRUCTION CONCLUDING THAT IS WHY WE WANT TO EXECUTE THIS PLAN .
>> ARE YOU GOING TO PUT A BIRDCAGE ON IT?
>> NOT AT THIS TIME BUT WITH THE CHANGE IN SEASONS THAT MIGHT BE
[00:25:03]
WARRANTED. >> I WOULD LIKE TO MOTION TO APPROVE MINMOD 2024-21 369 TAVISTOCK DRIVE BASED UPON SIX FINDINGS OF FACT AND SUBJECT TO SEVEN CONDITIONS, AS PROVIDED
WITHIN THE STAFF REPORT. >> WE HAVE A MOTION FOR
APPROVAL. DO WE HAVE A SECOND? >> SECOND.
>> AND A DISCUSSION? >> IF THEY WANTED TO PUT A SCREENED ENCLOSURE, WILL THEY BE BACK HERE FOR A SETBACK ON THAT?
>> FOR THE RECORD, JACOB SMITH WITH THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT.
THE SETBACK ON HERE, I DO NOT KNOW OFFHAND BUT I BELIEVE IT WILL REQUIRE A VARIANCE TO BE THAT CLOSE TO THE BACK. I AM
TRYING TO FIND IT. >> I WOULD THINK IT WOULD. WHAT
WOULD BE THE TIMELINE? >> NOT TO GET TOO FAR AHEAD, THERE IS NO PLANS FOR A SCREENED ENCLOSURE .
>> I JUST WANTED TO THROW IT OUT THERE.
>> ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? >> NO.
>> PLEASE REGISTER THE VOTE. THE MOTION PASSES THANK YOU. ONTO
[4. TOWER 2024-03 Entrada. Request for a Special Use Permit pursuant to Land Development Code Section 2.03.26 to allow for the construction of a 160-foot wireless communication tower and support facilities in Open Rural (OR) zoning, specifically located at 1740 State Road 207.]
ITEM NUMBER FOUR. IS THERE ANY EX PARTE?>> I DID A DRIVE-BY. >> IS THE APPLICANT HERE FOR
ITEM NUMBER FOUR? >> GOOD AFTERNOON. MY NAME IS HAROLD TIMMONS AND I AM HERE WITH ABBY PORTER AND WE ARE FROM TOWER ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALS AND WE REPRESENT ANTHEM NET
INC.. >> GO AHEAD. WE ARE REQUESTING THAT THE COMMISSION RECOMMEND APPROVAL FOR A 150 FOOT MONOPOLE TOWER WITH A LIGHTNING ROD ON TOP THAT MAKES IT 160 FEET TOTAL HEIGHT. THE LOCATION IS 740 STATE ROAD . IT IS THE FREEDOM CHURCH LOCATION. 150 FOOT, AS I MENTIONED WITH GROUND EQUIPMENT.
THE FAA HAS DETERMINED THAT IT IS NOT A SAFETY MATTER FOR AVIATION. IT IS NOT REQUIRED TO HAVE ANY LIGHTING ON THAT AND THE TOWER WILL BE DESIGNED TO ENSURE SAFETY AND SHOULD THERE BE A CATASTROPHIC FAILURE IT WILL REMAIN ON THE PROPERTY IT IS LOCATED. IT IS DESIGNED FOR CO-LOCATION FOR A MAXIMUM NUMBER OF USERS BEING FOR. OF VERIZON WILL BE THE FIRST TENANT ON THE STRUCTURE. WE WILL HAVE INGRESS AND EGRESS FROM STATE ROUTE 207.
IT WILL BE ON EIGHT 20 FOOT WIDE UTILITY EASEMENT. OUR LEASING AREA IS A 50 BY 50 COMPOUND. FENCING, WE WILL ENCLOSE IT WITH AN EIGHT FOOT TALL PVC TYPE FENCING AND WE HAVE PROVIDED IN OUR PLAN AN EIGHT FOOT WIDE LANDSCAPE BUFFER TO BE PROVIDED AROUND THE OUTSIDE OF THE FENCING. THE GATE WILL BE LOCKED AT ALL TIMES AND VISITATION IS RESTRICT DID TO IMPROVEMENT, SUPPORT, AND MAINTENANCE PERSONNEL ONLY. WE BELIEVE GIVEN THE USE THERE WILL BE NO IMPACT TO THE STATE ROUTE 207 AS FAR AS TRAFFIC AS OUR TENANT WILL MAKE ABOUT ONE TRIP PER MONTH. THIS IS THE LOCATION OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. THIS IS THE LOCATION OF THE PROPOSED COMMUNICATION TOWER FACILITY ON THE SUBJECT
[00:30:02]
PROPERTY. YOU CAN SEE WE WILL ENTER THE PROPERTY FROM 207 AND GO DIRECTLY BACK INTO THE FACILITY AND WHERE IT IS LOCATED. THIS IS MOSTLY A CLEARED AREA AT THIS POINT. THIS IS THE ELEVATION VIEW OF THE STRUCTURE, THE TOP LOCATION OF THE ANTENNAS WOULD BE FOR VERIZON SHOULD THERE BE AN INTEREST IN UTILIZING THE STRUCTURE THEY COULD HANDLE ADDITIONAL EQUIPMENT. THIS WILL BE CONSTRUCTED OF A PVC TYPE MATERIAL. THIS EXPLODES THE COMPACT -- COMPOUND AREA. THE LANDSCAPING WE ARE PROVIDING WITHIN THE COMPOUND. YOU CAN SEE LOCATIONS ON THE GROUND THAT WE PROPOSE TO LOCATE THE GROUND EQUIPMENT FOR FUTURE CARRIERS. WHO MIGHT LIKE TO UTILIZE THE STRUCTURE. THIS IS MORE DETAIL OF THE ACTUAL FENCING AND PVC TYPE AND WHAT PROPOSE IT WILL LOOK LIKE. IN THE UPPER RIGHT-HAND CORNER ARE THE SIGNS WE ARE REQUIRED BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO PLACE ON EACH LOCATION AS A MATTER OF SAFETY AS WELL AS HOW TO CONTACT THE PROPERTY OWNERS SHOULD THAT BE NEEDED. THIS IS THE RADIOFREQUENCY REPORT THAT HAS BEEN PROVIDED TO US. THIS JUST DISCUSSES WHAT THEY DEEM AS COVERAGE AS OPPOSED TO CAPACITY. THIS SLIDE SHOWS THE EXISTING SITES COMPRISED OF THE VERIZON NETWORK IN THIS AREA BUT THIS SITE WILL WORK WITH AND COMMUNICATE WITH AND THE ONES IN RED, BLUE, AND GREEN ARE THE SITES THAT MAKE UP FOR -- AND IT ALSO SHOWS THE DISTANCES OF OUR SITE THIS IS A COVERAGE MAP OF THE EXISTING COVERAGE AND THE EXISTING AREA BASED ON THOSE EXISTING SITES JUST MENTIONED AND THE AREA IN RED IS A SERVICE AREA THAT VERIZON IS SEEKING TO --. WITH THE NEW SITE THIS WOULD BE THE PROPOSED COVERAGE AND COVERAGE IMPROVEMENT FOR THIS PARTICULAR AREA. WE DID PHOTOGRAPHIC SIMULATIONS, WE DID EIGHT OF THEM AND THEY WENT FROM THE NORTH TO THE SOUTH TO THE WEST AND SOUTHEAST. AS BEST WE COULD. THIS FIRST SITE SHOWS THE VIEW FROM NORTH TO SOUTH. FURTHER NORTH BACK TO THE LOCATION SOUTH OF THE TOWER. THIS LOT SHOWS THE LOCATION WITH THE TOWER . SLIDE NUMBER TWO SHOWS THE VIEW LOOKING NORTH TO THE SOUTHWEST. THIS SHOWS THE LOCATION SLIDE THREE IS THE VIEW FROM NORTHEAST LOOKING SOUTHWEST. AND YOU CAN SEE THE TOWER POPS UP ABOVE THE TREE LINE. NUMBER FOUR IS ITSELF LOOKING TO THE NORTH. BASED ON THE LOCATION THE PHOTO WAS TAKEN THE TOWER IS NOT ANTICIPATED TO BE ABLE TO BE VIEWED FROM THAT LOCATION. VIEW FIVE SHOWS A VIEW FROM THE SOUTH TO THE NORTH, STATE ROUTE 207. THAT IS WHERE THE TOWER WOULD BE LOCATED ON THE PROPERTY. VIEW NUMBER SIX, THE VIEW FROM THE WEST TO THE NORTHEAST ALSO ROUTE 207. THAT WOULD BE WHAT THE VIEW MIGHT BE.[00:35:02]
SEVEN IS DIRECTLY IN FRONT OF THE PROPERTY LOOKING WEST TO EAST. AND SLIDE EIGHT IS A VIEW FROM WEST TO SOUTHEAST. LOOKING BACK AT THE PROPERTY. VERIZON COMPLIES WITH ALL FEDERAL, STATE, AND LOCAL REQUIREMENTS AND COMMUNICATION SITES ARE OPERATED BY THE SEC REQUIREMENTS. THEY ARE INSPECTED BY ENTITIES AT REGULAR INTERVALS AND THE FACILITIES CAN BE FOUND ANYWHERE FROM HOSPITALS TO SCHOOLS TO OPEN LOTS. VERIZON HAS DETERMINED THAT THERE IS A NETWORK IMPROVEMENT NEEDED IN THIS AREA AND THIS STUDY THAT WE HAVE PROVIDED HAS BEEN REVIEWED BY YOUR THIRD-PARTY CONSULTANT AND OF THE PROPOSED STRUCTURE WILL ALLOW MORE WIRELESS TO COME TO THE AREA. THERE IS NO LIGHTING REQUIRED BY THE FAA AND THE REQUESTED TIRE HEIGHT IS THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENT TO MEET VERIZON OBJECTIVES AND PROVIDE SEAMLESS SERVICES AROUND THE NETWORK TOWERS. AND REDUCTION WOULD DIMINISH COVERAGE IMPROVEMENTS AND CAPACITY RELIEF TO THE AREA. VERIZON WIRELESS, THROUGH THEIR EFFORTS AS BEING PROACTIVE IN ADDRESSING THE NEEDS SO THAT CUSTOMERS CAN UTILIZE THE NETWORK AND CUSTOMERS CAN USE THE NETWORK WITHOUT DELAY. WE RECEIVED STAFF COMMENT AND REVISED THOSE DOCUMENTS TO ADHERE TO THOSE COMMENTS AND TO BRING OUR REQUEST INTO COMPLIANCE. WE HAVE GONE THROUGH AND WE HAVE REVIEWED SECTIONS 203.10 AND 203.26 AND PROVIDED COMMENT BACK TO EACH TO SHOW COMPLIANCE. WE HAVE DESIGNED OUR TOWER TO ENSURE SAFETY AND THAT IT WILL REMAIN ON THE PROPERTY IF IT FALLS. WE CONDUCTED AN ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY AND HELD A COMMUNITY MEETING IN ACCORDANCE WITH ST. JOHNS COUNTY AND THIS WAS CONFIRMED AS BY THE CONSULTANT AND WE BELIEVE THAT OUR REQUEST IS IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE ORDINANCE, COMPATIBLE WITH THE MIXED-USE NATURE OF THE AREA AND WE HOPE THAT YOU WILL ENTER A MOTION OF APPROVAL FOR THE REQUEST AS OUTLINED IN THE STAFF REPORT. WE HAVE REVIEWED THE STAFF REPORT AND WE FIND IT FAIR AND WE FIND THE CONDITIONS OF IT TO BE ACCEPTABLE .>> THANK YOU. DO WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS?
>> ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE TO SPEAK ON ITEM NUMBER FOUR?
>> YES. GOOD AFTERNOON. CHARLIE HUNT, MILL CREEK ESTATES. WITH THESE GOING UP, IT SAYS IT HAS A FALL RADIUS OF 40 FEET AROUND THE BASE. DOES NOT INCLUDE THE TOWER ITSELF OR WHAT IS ATTACHED TO THE TOP OF THE TOWER? WAS A DISCUSSION BROUGHT UP ABOUT MAKING IT LOOK LIKE A 160 FOOT TREE? THAT COULD ALWAYS BE IN THE PLANS AND ALSO, IN THE PLANS, I WAS LOOKING OVER CONFINEMENT, TO TEST THE AREA TO ACTUALLY SHOW YOU WHERE IT IS THAT AND WHAT IT WILL BE LIKE WITH THE BALLOON TEST. WITH THE BIG RED BALLOON INCURRED WHERE THE BASE OF THE TOWER IS AND IT GOES UP TO THE PROPER HEIGHT AND THEN YOU CAN REALLY SEE IT INSTEAD OF JUST GETTING PICTURES TAKEN FROM THE STREET SAYING THIS IS WHAT IT WOULD LOOK LIKE FROM THIS AREA. THAT THERE IS NOTHING IN THERE. IT IS PERCEPTION. THAT MUST BE HOW YOU PERCEIVE IT IF YOU LOOK AT THE CORNER AND SEE NOTHING IN THE AIR, IT LOOKS GOOD LIKE THAT. OR THE PICTURES NEED TO BE MORE ENHANCED BECAUSE WHEN THESE TYPES OF STRUCTURES ARE PUT UP YOU SEE THE TREE LINE AND THE TREE LINE IS NOT 160 FEET TALL.
IT IS THE TOWER. AND WITH THE CORPORATION LIKE VERIZON, THEY CANNOT MAKE IT TO WHERE IT IS PRESENTED WITH MORE FEASIBLE
[00:40:05]
MEANS? THE SIZE OF IT? IT LOOKS GREAT ON THE DIAGRAM. BUT, IF YOU CANNOT TAKE AND PLACE A PICTURE OF THE TOWER IN TRUE RELATIONSHIP TO WHAT IT WOULD LOOK LIKE ON THE TREE LINE AND COME IN HERE AND PRESENTED, THEN GO DO THAT AND COME BACK. THAT IS WHAT IT IS WITH THESE TOWERS. I REMEMBERED THERE WAS A TOWER OUT ON -- ROAD AND ONCE IT WAS PUT UP PEOPLE WERE LIKE THIS IS RIDICULOUS. LET'S DO IT. HAVE THEM COME IN AND PRESENT IT IN THE MEANS OF A MAJOR CORPORATION, HOW IT SHOULD BE PRESENTED. DON'T JUST STAND THERE AND TAKE THESE PICTURES OF WHAT IT MIGHT LOOK LIKE OVER THE HORIZON. IT DOES NOT SHOW THAT.IF YOU WANT TO BE PROFESSIONAL, BE PROFESSIONAL LIKE THAT. PUT IT UP THERE SO YOU CAN SEE WHAT IT WOULD BE LIKE.
>> THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE? WOULD YOU LIKE TO RESPOND?
>> I WOULD JUST INDICATE THAT, NUMBER ONE, I THINK HE MAKES VERY VALID POINTS. HOWEVER, WE DID HAVE A COMMUNITY MEETING AT WHICH NO ONE SHOWED UP WHICH WOULD HAVE BEEN A GREAT TIME TO VOICE THESE POINTS. IN OUR PHOTO SIMULATIONS WE DID NOT ATTEMPT TO HIDE THE STRUCTURE. THERE WERE SOME VIEWPOINTS WHERE IT WAS MORE VISIBLE THAN OTHERS AND THAT IS THE WAY IT IS WITH COMMUNICATION TOWERS. I WOULD SAY THERE ARE TWO WAYS TO DO IT.
WE CAN DO PHOTO SIMULATIONS AND WE APPLIED THE PROCESS THAT COMPLIED WITH YOUR ORDINANCE SO WE DID NOT SEEK TO SKIRT ANY REGULATIONS SO I THINK THAT WE DID A FAIR AND HONEST JOB SHOWING THAT USING TECHNOLOGY WHAT THE STRUCTURE WOULD LOOK
LIKE. >> THANK YOU. WE ARE BACK TO THE AGENCY. WOULD YOU LIKE TO MAKE COMMENTS?
>> THANK YOU. THAT WAS A GOOD APPLICATION AND PRESENTATION. I APPRECIATE THE PHOTOGRAPHS AND THE TELEPHONE POLES THAT LOOK VERY SIMILAR. MY CONCERN IS IN SECTION 2.03.26 REGARDING THE PLACEMENT OF THE ANTENNA AND THAT THERE IS A RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT WITHIN 160 FEET WHICH IS THE EXACT HEIGHT OF THE TOWER. I DO UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU ARE TRYING TO DO AND THE COVERAGE AREA AND THAT THERE ARE ONLY CERTAIN PLACES THAT THIS CAN GO BUT, THAT IS A CONCERN TO ME, THAT THERE ARE RESIDENCE WITHIN PROXIMITY OF THE AREA SO I DON'T THINK I WILL BE ABLE TO
SUPPORT THIS APPLICATION. >> I UNDERSTAND THAT AND MY ONLY RESPONSE WOULD BE THAT COMMUNICATION TOWERS FOLLOW DEVELOPMENT. AND COMMUNICATION TOWERS FOLLOW ALL TYPES OF DEVELOPMENT AS AREAS DEVELOP TOWERS FOLLOW THEM. RESIDENCE OF HOUSES AND MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENTS LIKE THE ONE BEHIND IT, THEY UTILIZE COMMUNICATIONS AND THEY WILL BENEFIT FROM HAVING THE COMMUNICATIONS TOWER LOCATED IN THAT LOCATION. THERE IS NO HEALTH OR SAFETY FACTOR INVOLVED BECAUSE OF THE DISTANCE, BECAUSE OF THE TO ELEGY. AND I SEE IT AS ONLY BEING A BENEFIT TO THE AREA BASED ON HOW IT WILL IMPROVE PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS. HOW IT WILL ENHANCE COMMUNICATIONS FROM HOME AND INTENSE COMMUNICATIONS -- ENHANCE COMMUNICATIONS FOR
EMS IN THE AREA AS WELL. >> ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? CAN I GET A MOTION? MR. PETER .
>> I WILL MAKE AMOTION TO APPROVE TOWER 2024-03 ENTRADA BASED UPON 11 FINDINGS OF FACT AND 10 CONDITIONS AS PROVIDED IN
THE STAFF REPORT. >> WE HAVE A MOTION FOR
APPROVAL. DO WE HAVE A SECOND? >> SECOND
>> ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? SEEING NONE, PLEASE REGISTER THE
[5. REZ 2024-221675 State Road 16. Request to rezone approximately 6.09 acres of land from Open Rural (OR) to Commercial Warehouse (CW).]
VOTE. THE MOTION PASSES. THANK YOU. ONTO ITEM NUMBER FIVE, IS[00:45:03]
THERE ANY EX PARTE? >> I DID A SITE VISIT.
>> ANYONE ELSE? I KNOW MISS KAREN TAYLOR IS NOT HERE BUT IS
THE OWNER HERE? >> MADAM CHAIR, THE APPLICANT IS HERE. I AM NOT SURE IF THEY WANT TO PRESENT. THEY INDICATED THAT
KAREN TAYLOR MAY BE ON THE WAY. >> SIR, WOULD YOU LIKE TO COME FORWARD AND LET US KNOW WHAT IS GOING ON?
>> I CHANGE -- JAMES HAAS AND I REPRESENT THE OWNER. KAREN IS ABOUT FIVE MINUTES OUT BUT I DON'T HAVE MUCH DETAIL ON WHAT IS SET UP. WE ARE TRYING TO CHANGE THE ZONING TO COMMERCIAL INTENSIVE AND EVERYTHING AROUND THE PROPERTY IS COMMERCIAL. IT IS CURRENTLY OPEN RURAL AS YOU KNOW. I AM SORRY THAT SHE IS
RUNNING LATE . >> THAT IS NOT YOUR FAULT. THANK YOU, SIR. WHAT WOULD YOU SUGGEST? I DON'T WANT TO WASTE
ANYBODY'S TIME HERE. >> YOU MAY TAKE A BRIEF RECESS OR YOU CAN CONTINUE THE MATTER. I BELIEVE A CONTINUATION DATE,
THAT IS APRIL 1ST. >> IT IS POSSIBLE, MARCH 6. NEXT
MONTH. >> SO, FOR A CONTINUANCE YOU WOULD NEED A MOTION AND A VOTE OF THE BOARD TO MOVE IT TO THE
MARCH 6 DATE . >> WHAT SAY YOU? WAIT
>> WERE YOU ABLE TO CALL HER? DID SHE ANSWER?
YES, MISS WEST? >> WE ARE BACK TO THE AGENCY.
SHE IS NOT HERE SO COME I GET -- CAN I GET A MOTION TO CONTINUE
THIS TO MARCH 6? >> SO MOVED .
>> IS THERE A SECOND? >> SECOND.
>> WE HAVE A MOTION FOR APPROVAL. PLEASE REGISTER THE
[Agency Reports]
>> THE MOTION PASSES. >> LET'S MOVE ON TO STAFF REPORTS. ARE THERE ANY STAFF REPORTS?
BUTTON. THERE YOU GO. >> LAST WEEK, I THINK LAST MEETING I SHOULD SAY WE WERE HAVING A DISCUSSION WITH MR. BURNETT OVER THE STATE OF EMERGENCY THAT THE GOVERNOR DID FOR PERMITS AND I EITHER MISSPOKE OR IT DID NOT GET PICKED UP ON THE MICROPHONE. THANK YOU, JUDY, FOR CATCHING IT AND IT SAYS I AM AN ATTORNEY AND I SAID I AM NOT AN ATTORNEY. IT DID NOT GET PICKED UP AND I DON'T WANT TO MISREPRESENT MYSELF. I JUST WANTED TO PUT IT CLEAR I AM NOT AN ATTORNEY.
>> OKAY. >> WHEN YOU SAID, IT WAS FUNNY.
I LISTENED TO IT AND IT DID NOT PICK IT UP. I DO NOT KNOW IF I DID NOT SAY IT LOUD OR SOMETIMES YOU ARE THINKING AHEAD WHAT YOU WANT
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.