[1. NZVAR 2024-20 Church of Eleven 22 Signage. Request for a Non-Zoning Variance to the Greenbriar Downs Planned Unit Development (ORD. 2019-15, as amended) to allow for proposed wall signs to exceed the maximum Advertising Display Area (ADA) prescribed pursuant to Section 7.02.04.B.6 of the Land Development Code, specifically located at 2101 Longleaf Pine Parkway. This item was continued from the May 1st PZA Hearing.]

PUBLIC COMMENT. ANYTHING THAT'S NOT ON THE AGENDA? ALL RIGHT. OO SEEING NONE, WE'RE GOING TO MOVE ON TO ITEM NUMBER ONE.

WOULD MR. TAYLOR PLEASE COME FORWARD?

>> WE'LL WORK ON IT -- ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU.

>> ALL RIGHT, MR. LEBANOWSKI? >> I'VE DRIVEN BY THE SITE

SEVERAL TIMES. >> MISS SPIEGEL?

>> WE'RE STILL DOING EX PARTE SIR, I'M SO SORRY. I DID A COUPLE OF DRIVE-BYES AND I DID ACTUALLY GET OUT AND WALK AROUND AND TAKE VIDEOS AND LOOK. SO -- YES. THANK YOU.

>> OKAY, AWESOME. ALL RIGHT. GO AHEAD, MR. TAYLOR, SORRY ABOUT

THAT. >> NO WORRIES. MY BAD. GOOD AFTERNOON, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN. RANDY TAYLOR WITH TAYLOR SIGN REPRESENTING CHURCH OF 1122. WE ARE BACK WITH A LITTLE BIT MORE INFORMATION. WE HAVE -- DONE THIS BEFORE. AND I CAN SEE THERE WAS SOME THINGS THAT LOT OF PEOPLE WERE CURIOUS ABOUT. SO WE DID A LITTLE MORE RESEARCH. AND CAME UP WITH SOME MORE DRAWINGS AND A LITTLE BIT MORE INFORMATION FOR YOU. WITH THAT SAID, I'D LIKE TO GET STARTED WITH THE PRESENTATION. OKAY. SO -- ORIGINALLY THIS IS WHAT WAS PROPOSED. THE SIGN OBVIOUSLY -- IT SHOWS THE SIZE OF THE BUILDING GOES, WE FEEL THAT THIS WAS VERY CONDUCIVE TO THE SIZE OF THE BUILDING. WE KNOW WE HAD ANOTHER ONE APPROVED A WHILE BACK. AND I CAN GET TO THAT IN A SECOND. BUT THIS WAS THE PROPOSED SQUARE FOOTAGE FOR THE BUILDING. AND HERE ARE YOUR SIZES. THE SIGN WAS 473 WAS WHAT

[00:05:05]

WE WERE PROPOSING ON THAT ONE. THE -- BUILDING AS YOU CAN SEE, WE -- TALKED ABOUT THIS LAST TIME, IT'S 408 FEET FROM THE STREET. ONE OF THE GENTLEMAN UP THERE MADE A STATEMENT THAT IT IS MORE THAN A FOOTBALL FIELD AWAY FROM THE BUILDING. SO THERE IS A BIG DISTANCE BETWEEN THE STREET AND THE SIGN. I DID -- LET'S SEE IF THOSE -- LET ME GO BACK. THIS IS A PICTURE OF WHAT THE SIGN WOULD LOOK LIKE ON THE BUILDING IF IT WAS TO CODE. AND OBVIOUSLY IT DWARFS THE BUILDING AND IT'S -- EVEN FROM THIS DIMENSION IT'S HARD TO EVEN READ THE LETTERING ON THE BUILDING. AND BEING THAT IT'S 408 FEET AWAY FROM THE STREET, THAT EVEN ADDS MORE TO THE DISTANCE OF THE SIGNAGE. SO IT DOES DWARF THE SIGN TO THE SIZE OF BUILDING. SO WHAT I DID -- JUST TO GIVE YOU A PERSPECTIVE, THE ONE THAT WAS APPROVED LAST TIME FROM THE CITY WAS THIS ONE ON THE BOTTOM. THAT PARTICULAR SIGN -- LENGTH OF BUILDING, IT WAS 21% OF THE FASCIA. OR 21% OF THE BUILDING BASED ON THE LENGTH. SO BASED ON THE NEW BUILDING THAT WE'RE PROPOSING, THESE -- AREA HAS ACTUALLY DECREASED AND IT WAS 13.9% OF THE BUILDING BASED ON THE LENGTH OF THE BUILDING. SO THE FIRST ONE IS 21.6%. AND THE EXISTING ONE THAT WE'RE TRYING TO APPROVE IS 13.9%. SO YOU CAN SEE IS SCALED UP IN, YOU KNOW, BY PERCENTAGE. YOU CAN SEE THAT THE SIGN THAT WE'RE PROPOSING IS ACTUALLY SMALLER THAN THE ONE THAT WAS APPROVED PRIOR TO THIS ONE. SO WE'RE JUST KIND OF SCALING BUILDING TO BUILDING TO MAKE SURE THAT, YOU KNOW, EVERYTHING IS CONSISTENT. THE BRANDING IS THEIR CONSISTENT BRANDING WITH ALL THEIR LOCATIONS AS YOU KNOW, THAT WAS JUST ONE SCENARIO I WANTED TO GIVE YOU TO SHOW YOU THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN -- WE'RE ACTUALLY ON THE NEW BUILDING SMALLER PERCENTAGE-WISE ON THE SIGNAGE. WE'VE ACTUALLY DECREASED IT EVEN THOUGH IT IS A LARGER SIGN. BUT THAT'S BECAUSE THE BUILDING IS SO LARGE. I DID DO A DRIVE-BY. I HAVE GOT SOME PICTURES FROM THE STREET. THERE ARE LOT OF TREES AND LANDSCAPE AND THE TREES OBVIOUSLY WILL GET BIGGER IN TIME. GOING THROUGH, YOU CAN SEE, YOU KNOW, IT'S BLURRED AND THERE'S ONE WHERE YOU CAN SEE PART OF THE BUILDING. BUT -- THERE IS A LOT OF LANDSCAPING OUT IN THE FRONT OF THE BUILDING. SO AS YOU ARE GOING DOWN THE STREET, AS YOU ARE LOOKING FOR THE BUILDING, IT'S A 45-MILE AN HOUR SPEED LIMIT. IT'S JUST NOT EASY TO SEE. AND YOU KNOW, PEOPLE ARE KIND OF TAKING A DANCE AND LOOKING BACK AND FORTH TO SEE IF THEY CAN SEE WHAT'S THERE.

THAT'S YOU KNOW, PART OF THE PROBLEM, AND PART OF THE REASON WHY THE SIGN IS THE SIZE IT IS. THAT IS -- THAT IS BASICALLY THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE SIGN THAT WE PROPOSED AND WHERE WE'RE AT NOW. DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANY QUESTION ON THIS THAT I BROUGHT

UP? >> SURE. ALL RIGHT. DOCTOR, GO

AHEAD. >> WHEN WE GRANTED THE CONTINUANCE LAST TIME, AND EARLY MAY, I THOUGHT YOU WERE GOING TO ACTUALLY COME BACK WITH A COUPLE OF OTHER POSSIBILITIES ON SIGN SIZES. BUT -- THAT'S NOT HAPPENING. I GUESS. IT'S STILL

THE SAME SIGN. >> IT IS THE SAME SIGN. I JUST WANTED TO THROW SOME -- TO SEE WHAT YOUR THOUGHTS WERE ON THE COMPARISONS THAT I HAVE GIVEN YOU. YOU KNOW, BASICALLY IT IS A SMALLER SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THE WHOLE BUILDING BASED ON THE SIZE OF THE TWO BUILDINGS. WE DIDN'T HAVE ANY OF THAT INFORMATION BEFORE. YOU KNOW, AS FAR AS THE DRIVE-BY, WE DIDN'T HAVE ANY OF THAT INFORMATION BEFORE. WHAT ARE YOUR THOUGHTS AS FAR AS SIZE

ON THAT? >> MY THOUGHTS? SPECIFICALLY?

>> YEAH. >> THAT THE CURRENT SIGN IS TOO

LARGE. >> OKAY.

>> AND I DID DRIVE BY THE U.S. 1 SOUTH LOCATION AGAIN. TWO DAYS AGO. AND AS WE BROUGHT UP LAST TIME, YOU KNOW, THAT IS OFF THE ROAD. IT'S PARTIALLY HIDDEN BACK IN THAT SHOPPING CENTER. SO THE LARGER SIGN THERE RELATIVELY SPEAKING TO BUILDING SIZE, I THINK IS WARRANTED AND IN FACT I VOTED FOR IT. TO APPROVE IT. LET ME ASK YOU THIS QUESTION. AS WE TAKE THOSE TWO WINGS OFF THE

[00:10:05]

SIDES OF THE CHURCH, THOSE EXTENSIONS OUT TO THE LEFT AND THE RIGHT, HOW LONG IS THE BUILDING THEN? THAT HAS THE MAIN

SIGN ON IT. >> I DON'T HAVE THAT DIMENSION UNFORTUNATELY BECAUSE IT IS BASED ON -- AS FAR AS CODE GOES, THE CODE IS GIVING YOU SQUARE FOOTAGE BASED ON THE LENGTH OF BUILDING. IT IS 340 FEET LONG. BUT I DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT WOULD BE IF YOU TOOK THE TWO WINGS OFF THE BUILDING. BECAUSE WE HAVE TO INCLUDE THE TOTAL LINEAR FRONTAGE OF THE BUILDING.

>> OKAY, I WAS JUST CURIOUS. I DID GET THAT OUT OF THE CAR IN THE PARKING LOT BUT I DIDN'T TAKE VIDEO. AND I -- I DIDN'T

MEASURE ANYTHING. >> I DID DO A DRIVE-BY AND TAKE PICTURES AND TO SEE IF YOU CAN SEE IT F A SMALLER SIGN WAS OUT THERE. THE ORIGINAL SIGN AS YOU CAN SEE GOING BY CODE, I MEAN, THAT REALLY DWARFS THE BUILDING TO WHERE IT'S JUST NOT -- IT JUST DOESN'T LOOK RIGHT AND I MEAN, AND IN A SCALE PERCENTAGE OF BUILDING VERSUS SIGNAGE WHICH IS TYPICALLY HOW ANY COUNTY. NOT JUST YOURSELVES, YOU KNOW, DESIGNATE THE SIZE OF THE SIGN.

IT'S USUALLY BASED ON THE SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THE LINEAR FRONTAGE OR ONE OR ANOTHER OF THE BUILDINGS AND THAT'S HOW YOU DETERMINE THAT. SO IT IS -- LIKE I SAY, IT IS VERY DWARFED ON THE BUILDING AT THE CURRENT CODE. AND WITH THIS ONE, IT ALSO LIKE I SAID, IT IS DEFINITELY BASED ON THAT OTHER BUILDING VERSUS THIS BUILDING. OR ACTUALLY A 13% OF COVERAGE OF THE BUILDING VERSUS 21% ON THE ONE THAT WAS APPROVED BEFORE. SO I WAS JUST LOOKING AT THE COMPARISONS SAYING, YOU KNOW, ACTUALLY GOING LESS COVERAGE BUT IT'S A BIGGER BUILDING.

>> OKAY. I WILL SAY THAT AS I WAS DRIVING ON LONG LEAF LINE PARKWAY FROM EAST TO WEST BASICALLY, CAME AROUND A LITTLE CURVE IN THE ROAD AND THERE WAS A SLIGHT CURVE THERE. I COULD SEE THE TOP OF THE BUILDING AS WELL AS CREEKSIDE HIGH SCHOOL.

AND -- IMMEDIATELY, WHEN I CAME AROUND THAT CURVE, AND I DON'T KNOW HOW FAR AWAY I WAS FROM KNIGHTS LANE OR KNIGHTS ROAD RIGHT THERE ON THE CORNER. BUT MAYBE 150 FEET. I DIDN'T PACE IT OFF AND I DON'T KNOW. BUT I INSTANTLY SAW THAT MONUMENT SIGN

THAT'S OUT THERE. >> YEAH.

>> FOR 1122. AND I WAS PROBABLY 150 FEET AWAY FROM IT. AND IT'S ONLY 77 SQUARE FEET ACCORDING TO MATERIAL IN OUR PACKET. BUT I SAW THAT RIGHT AWAY SO DID MY WIFE. SO.

>> YEAH. YEAH. >> THAT WAS VERY VISIBLE.

>> I BELIEVE YOU COME THE OTHER DIRECTION THOUGH, YOU DON'T HAVE THAT LUXURY OF SEEING THAT SIGN IF YOU ARE COMING --

>> NOT THAT ONE BUT THERE'S ONE ON OTHER CORNER. TOWARD --

VETERANS. >> ONE OF KNIGHTS ROAD, YES, BUT OBVIOUSLY THAT'S ON THE SIDE OF BUILDING AND THAT'S WHY IT NEEDS TO BE THERE TO DIRECT YOU TO THE END OF THE PARKING LOT.

IN THE FRONT OF THE STREET ON THE MAIN STREET, YOU REALLY DON'T HAVE THAT LUXURY. IT'S -- BECAUSE THAT PROPERTY IS SO LONG. YOU KNOW, TILL YOU TAKE A LOOK OVER TO THE BUILDING, THAT'S WHEN YOU -- ACTUALLY SEE THE SIGNAGE ON THE BUILDING.

>> OKAY. THANK YOU. >> MISS SPIEGEL.

>> I MEAN NO DISRESPECT AT ALL. I AGREE WITH DOCTOR. I STILL THINK IT'S TOO BIG AND I AGREE ABOUT THE WINGS. THAT WAS KIND OF MY THOUGHT. THE OTHER BUILDING IS PART OF A MALL. SO THAT DOESN'T END RIGHT WHERE YOUR PROPERTY LINE IS. THERE ARE OTHER BUILDINGS THAT GO OUT. AND SO THOSE WOULD BE KIND OF CONSIDERED LIKE THE WINGS. SO ACTUALLY THE SQUIRE FATTAGE OF WHAT YOU OWN, I DO UNDERSTAND AND I DO UNDERSTAND THAT IT'S YOUR PROPERTY. BUT TO ME, IF YOU CAN LOOK AT THE PROPORTION BETWEEN THE EDGE OF THE SIGN AND THE EDGE OF THAT FIRST RECTANGLE IN THE BOTTOM PICTURE, THE ONE THAT'S ON U.S. 1, IF IT COULD BE PROPORTIONED, YOU KNOW, THERE JUST SEEMS LIKE THERE COULD BE A HAPPY MEDIUM A LITTLE BIT SMALLER. I AGREE THE OTHER ONE IS DWARFED AND IT'S JUST NOT-- TENABLE.

>> RIGHT. >> THERE IS THE MONUMENT SIGN, I NOTICED RIGHT AWAY, AND IF I'M GOING TO CHURCH, I'M GOING FOR JESUS, I'M NOT GOING FOR A SIGN. SO -- YOU KNOW, THAT'S JUST ME AND AGAIN, I REALLY DO MEAN NO DISRESPECT. IT JUST SEEMS LIKE THERE OUGHT TO BE A MEDIUM UNLESS THE SIGN IS ALREADY MADE AND THIS IS JUST MORE -- YOU KNOW, JUST TRYING TO WORK WITH WHAT YOU HAVE. SO -- I KNOW YOU DIDN'T COME PREPARED WITH ANY OF THOSE NUMBERS. BUT IT DOESN'T SEEM LIKE IT WOULD BE A -- BIG TASK. IN FACT. THAT'S WHAT I WAS WORKING ON COMING UP WITH THAT AND I THOUGHT I'M NOT GOING TO DO THAT JOB. JUST GOING TO WAIT JUST TO SORT OF MAKE IT BE PROPORTIONATE TO -- THE OTHER BUILDING. I GET IT'S A BRANDING

[00:15:03]

THING. I LOOKED AT -- FACE STORE FRONTS OF A LOT OF YOUR CHURCHES IN FLORIDA. YOU HAVE A LOT. THIS IS WHAT 15 I THINK?

>> YES. THEY'RE ALL BRAND -- >> THEY ALL HAVE BIG SIGNS. PART OF THE BRANDING, THE BIG RED CROSS AND I LOVE THAT AND IT'S FINE BUT I THINK THIS IS JUST A LITTLE BIT JARRING FOR THE AREA.

AND I WOULD BE HAPPIER IF IT WAS PROPORTIONALLY A LITTLE SMALLER

BUT THAT'S JUST ME. >> OKAY. ANYBODY ELSE HAVE ANY THOUGHTS AS FAR AS SIZE ON THAT ONE?

>> YES, I HAVE TO -- AGREE WITH DR. HILLSEN BECK AND MISS SPIEGLE. THE SIGN IS OVERWHELMING AND YOU ALREADY HAVE THREE STREET MONUMENTS OUT THERE ALREADY. YOU HAVE TWO ON THE MAIN ROAD AND ONE ON KNIGHTS. THE SIGN IS THERE BEFORE YOU EVEN SEE THE BUILDING. TO HAVE IT THAT SIZE, WE CAN GO DOWN IN THE SIZE OF THE BUILDING SIZE, DEFINITELY.

THANK YOU. >> ANYONE ELSE?

>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? I DO LIKE THE BUILDING COMPARISON THAT YOU DID. IT PUTS IT IN MORE PERSPECTIVE FOR ME. AND -- I DON'T HAVE AN ISSUE WITH YOUR SIGN. SO.

>> OKAY. >> IF THERE'S NO OTHER

QUESTIONS -- OR COMMENTS. >> I HAVE ONE MORE IF I -- IF I CAN. I CAN SEE THAT, YOU KNOW, YOU GUYS ARE KIND OF ON THE FENCE ON THE SIZE OF THIS OBVIOUSLY. WE'VE -- GOT THE OTHER ONE THAT HAS BEEN, YOU KNOW, IT WAS -- IT FITTED THE BUILDING AND WE DO THINK THIS ONE FITS THE BUILDING. BUT I DO

HAVE ONE OTHER OPTION. IF I MAY. >> SURE.

>> OKAY? I BROUGHT WITH ME A ONE MORE RENDERING AND I HAVE COPIES FOR EVERYONE. WOULD YOU LIKE ME TO PASS THESE OUT?

>> YOU CAN PUT IT IN THE SCREEN AND WE'LL BE ABLE TO LOOK AT -- IF YOU PUT IT IN THE MIDDLE OF THE PODIUM? RIGHT THERE. AND

WE'LL BE ABLE TO ALL SEE IT. >> ALL RIGHT.

>> SHE'LL BE ABLE TO ZOOM IN. >> ALL RIGHT. YES. IN LIEU OF THATI MEAN, WE DID WANT TO AT LEAST TAKE A SHOT AT GIVING YOU MORE INFORMATION ON THE SIGN AS WE DISCUSSED IN THE LAST MEETING. I DID WANT TO AT LEAST THROW OUT THE -- THE THINGS THAT WE CAME UP WITH AS FAR AS THE SIZE OF THE ONE THAT WAS APPROVED VERSUS THIS ONE. TO KIND OF PUT EVERYTHING IN PERSPECTIVE FOR YOU GUYS. WE DIDN'T REALLY HAVE THAT LAST TIME. AS FAR AS THIS ONE GOES, NOW, THE ONE WE'RE PROPOSING IS IN THE TOP. AND THAT'S THE ONE THAT WE HAVE BEEN LOOKING AT SINCE THE BEGINNING. THE ONE BELOW IT, WE ARE NOW 20% SMALLER ON THAT SIGN. AND AS YOU CAN SEE IN COMPARISON, YOU HAVE THE ONE AT THE TOP, AND THEN YOU HAVE GOT THE ONE UNDERNEATH. THE ONE UNDERNEATH IT'S A 20% DROP IN SQUARE FOOTAGE. IF YOU LOOK AT THAT COMPARED TO THE BUILDING IT DOES LOOK PROPORTIONED TO THE BUILDING. I DON'T THINK -- IT REALLY LOOKS OVERSIZED AND THAT'S WHAT WE THOUGHT WHEN WE WERE DESIGNING THIS AND OBVIOUSLY WE'RE TRYING TO ACCOMPLISH TWO THINGS. WE'RE TRYING TO, YOU KNOW, KEEP THE BRANDING CONSISTENT AND KEEP IT THE SAME SIZE AS ALL THE OTHER ONES BUT WE ALSO RESPECT YOUR WISHES AS FAR AS, YOU KNOW, SOME OF YOU WANT TO SEE IT A LITTLE BIT SMALLER IN THAT AREA. I GET THIS. I'VE BEEN DOING THIS A LONG TIME. IT'S MY JOB TO TRY TO MAKE EVERYBODY HAPPY HERE ALONG WITH MY CUSTOMER AND YOU FOLKS. SO I DO THINK WITH THIS ONE, THAT WOULD BE A GOOD, YOU KNOW, A GOOD STEP DOWN FROM WHAT WE WERE LOOKING AT BEFORE. AND THIS SIGN I THINK WOULD -- WOULDN'T LOOK DWARFED ON THE BILDING. WOULD STILL GIVE THEM THE PRESENCE AND HOPEFULLY MAKE YOU GUYS HAPPY AS FAR AS BRINGING DOWN THE SIZE A LITTLE BIT. SO -- I'M HOPING THAT MAYBE THIS MIGHT BE THE ANSWER TO THE HEART BURN EVERYBODY IS KIND OF HAVING WITH THE LARGER SIZE.

>> WELL, LET'S DISCUSS. MR. GREEN. DID YOU HAVE?

>> IT LOOKS LIKE 100 SQUARE FEET LESS TOTAL SPACE. IS THAT

CORRECT? >> YEAH.

>> WHAT ARE YOUR THOUGHTS AND OPINIONS? WITH YOU? BOWL YOU BE OKAY IF WE WERE TO MOVE FORWARD? WE HAVE TO GO TO PUBLIC COMMENT RIGHT AFTER THIS. BUT YOUR SECONDARY PROPOSED SIZE, YOU ARE OKAY IF WE WERE TO HAVE A MOTION IN FAVOR OF THAT?

>> YES, YOU HAD A MOTION IN FAVOR OF THAT. I THINK ALL

PARTIES WOULD BE HAPPY. >> OKAY. GREAT. ALL RIGHT. I DON'T THINK THERE'S ANY OTHER QUESTIONS. LET ME MOVE ON TO

[00:20:02]

PUBLIC COMMENT. IS THERE ANYONE HERE IN THE AUDIENCE TO SPEAK ON ITEM NUMBER ONE? ALL RIGHT. SEEING NONE WE'RE BACK INTO THE

AGENCY FOR A MOTION. MR. GREEN? >> YEAH. I -- MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE NONZONING VARIANCE CHURCH OF 1122 SIGN BASED ON FINDINGS OF FACTS, SIX CONDITIONS. ONE OF THE -- WOULD IT BE CONDITIONS? THAT THIS SIGN -- THE MAIN SIGN DOES NOT EXCEED THE -- HOW MANY SQUARE FEET AGAIN WAS IT? I LOST IT. THE OLD -- AROUND 375 SQUARE FEET. IS THAT CORRECT? 376.

>> OKAY. ALL RIGHT, WE HAVE A MOTION FOR APPROVAL BY MR.

GREEN. IS THERE A SECOND? >> SECOND.

>> YES. CORRECT. 376 SQUARE FEET. NOT TO EXCEED. IS THERE A

SECOND? OKAY. SECOND. >> I'M GOING TO VOTE AGAINST THIS ITEM. BECAUSE I THINK THE FIRST SIGN IS FINE. I THINK OUR SIGN CODE IS OVERLY RESTRICTIVE FOR THESE BIG BUILDINGS. I THINK THIS SIGN IS A LONG WAY FROM THE ROAD AND I THINK PEOPLE ARE DRIVING FAST AND THERE'S NOTHING WRNG WITH THE WAY THAT SIGN LOOKS. I'M FINE WITH THE SIGN THE WAY THEY PROPOSED IT.

>> OKAY. ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? >> I HAVE SOME.

>> SURE. >> WELL, I WANT TO APPLAUD CHURCH OF 1122. YOU GUYS ARE GROWING WHICH IS FANTASTIC. AND THERE'S -- BEEN A RESURGENCE IN PEOPLE GOING BACK TO CHURCH WHICH I THINK IS WONDERFUL. AND ESPECIALLY YOUNG PEOPLE. SO I'M -- ALL IN FAVOR OF CHURCH. I GO TO A SMALLER EPISCOPALIAN CHURCH. I WISH OUR CHURCH WAS AS LARGE BUT IT'S NOT. YOU ALL ARE REALLY DOING FANTASTIC WORK. BUT ST. JOHNS COUNTY LATELY AND THE CODE MAY BE OVERLY RESTRICTIVE. I HAVE SAID THAT BEFORE AS WELL BUT I THINK WE'VE GOT SIGN MANIA IN THE COUNTY. THAT'S NO REFLECTION ON YOU, MR. TAYLOR. BUT IT'S BIGGER AND BIGGER AND BIGGER AND BIGGER AND WE NEED TO ADHERE MORE TO THE CODE. I CAN BE FLEXIBLE ON THE CODE. AND VOTED FOR MANY ITEMS THAT ARE BEYOND WHAT THE CODE SPECIFIES. BUT I STILL THINK THIS IS JUST TOO LARGE. SO -- I LIKE THE CHURCH. I MAY EVEN GO THERE ONE TIME TO SEE WHAT IT'S ALL ABOUT. PARTICULARLY IF YOU HAVE A GUITAR MUSIC. YOU MUST HAVE A GREAT PASTOR OR PASTORS SO AAPPLAUD THE CHURCH BUT I STILL CAN'T SUPPORT IT. BUT THANKS

FOR THE COMMUNITY TO COMMENT. >> SURE.

>> ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? ALL RIGHT. LET'S REGISTER THE VOTE.

ALL RIGHT. THAT MOTION PASSES 4-2. THANK YOU, MR. TAYLOR.

[2. ZVAR-2024-25 Schuler Family Fence 136795-1340. Request for a Zoning Variance to Section 2.02.04.B.12 of the Land Development Code to allow for a fence height of ten (10) feet in lieu of the six (6) foot requirement, specifically located at 1129 S. Winterhawk Drive.]

>> ALL RIGHT. APPRECIATE YOUR TIME.

>>> ALL RIGHT, ON TO ITEM NUMBER TWO.

>> HAVE A GREAT DAY. >> ANY EX PARTE? MR. LEBANONSKI.

>> I VISITED THE SITE AS WELL AS TALKED TO MR. WHITEHOUSE AND THE

HOMEOWNER. >> ALL RIGHT. SORRY, I DON'T

KNOW WHAT HAPPENED. >> YES, I ALSO DID A SITE VISIT.

THIS IS NUMBER TWO. YEAH. I DID A SITE VISIT AND I HAD IN-PERSON CONVERSATION WITH MR. WHITEHOUSE HERE AT THE BCC AND THEN ALSO ON

THE PHONE TODAY. >> ANYONE ELSE? ALL RIGHT. MR.

WHITEHOUSE. >> THANK YOU. FOR THE RECORD JAMES WHITEHOUSE. HERE IN ST. JOHNS COUNTY, FLORIDA. I'M PROUD TO BE HERE ON BEHALF OF THE SHULER FAMILY FOR THIS REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF A BACKSIDE YARD HEIGHT VARIANCE DUE TO TOPOGRAPHY AND ADJACENT WETLANDS. ZVAR 24-25. THIS SPECIFIC REQUEST AS SEEN WITHIN YOUR STAFF PACKET IS A REQUEST FOR ZONING VARIANCE TO SECTION 20204 B12 TO ALLOW FOR A FENCE HEIGHT OF BETWEEN 8.5 PET TO 9.5 FEET. THEIR HOME IS SPECIFICALLY LOCATED IS 1129 SOUTH WINTER HAWK DRIVE. AS YOU SEE FROM THE STAFF REPORT IT COMES ALL WILDWOOD COMES OFF BETWEEN U.S.

1 AND 207 AND IT'S ON SOUTH WINTER HAWK WHICH ARE A BUNCH OF LARGE SIZED SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOTS AND IT BACKS UP TO DEER CHASE WHICH ARE SMALL SORT OF SHOE BOX LOTS AND HERE YOU CAN SEE THE OVERVIEW. THIS IS U.S. 1 OUT HERE HOWL TREE CREEK. 207 IS UP HERE. IT'S JUST AT THE BEND ON WILDWOOD UP HERE, HERE'S A CLOSER VIEW OF THEIR PARTICULAR PROPERTY. AS

[00:25:02]

YOU CAN SEE, ALL OF THESE ALONG WINTER HAWK ARE LARGE HOUSES AND YOU CAN SEE THE INFRINGEMENT OF THESE SMALL SHOE BOX LOTS THAT WERE APPROVED HERE ON DEER CHASE AND SEE HOW MUCH SMALLER THEY ARE. HERE YOU CAN SEE AERIAL THERE LARGE LOT IS WITHIN THE BLUE HERE. AND YOU CAN SEE THE WETLANDS STRAND THAT'S OUTLINED HERE IN THE YELLOW. AND THESE ARE THE SMALLER LOTS IN THE BACK. ONE OF THE CONDITIONS OR ONE OF THE CONSIDERATIONS WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT VARIANCES PARTICULARLY WE CAN TALK ABOUT CONDITIONS THAT ARE BY REASON OF EXCEPTIONAL TOPOGRAPHIC CONDITIONS OR BY REASON OF THE USE OF DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROPERTY IMMEDIATELY ADJOINING THIS PIECE OF PROPERTY. AS YOU CAN SEE A LOT OF THESE ARE PRESENT IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE.

THERE ARE LARGE LOTS ABUT AND LARGE WETLANDS STRAND THAT RUNS SORT OF -- NORTH AND SOUTH-ISH AND REALLY IT WAS CUT OFF BY THIS DEER CHASE DEVELOPMENT. HENCE THE REASON WHY THIS WE ARE -- HAD TO BE PUT IN PLACE TO LLOW THE WALTER TO FLOW FROM -- WATER TO FLOW BETWEEN WHERE THE SMALL SHOE BOX LOT WAS APPROVED HERE. THIS PARTICULAR CASE, THIS PARTICULAR HOUSE AS YOU SEE FROM YOUR STAFF REPORT, WAS APPARENTLY IN 1984 HERE. SOME PICTURES FROM THE SITE ITSELF AND HERE YOU CAN SEE THE WE'RE THAT'S OFF BEHIND THEIR PROPERTY ITSELF. AND HERE YOU CAN SEE THE -- THAT THERE ARE WOOD AND TREES AND VEGETATION IN-BETWEEN WHERE THEIR PARTICULAR FENCE IS PLACED. THIS IS A VIEW FROM THE ROAD AND PROBABLY WHAT YOU SAW WHEN YOU WERE OUT THERE. YOU ARE LOOKING DOWN THEIR DRIVEWAY AGAIN IT'S LARGE LOT AND YOU CAN SEE THEIR HOUSE ITSELF AND YOU CAN'T EVEN SEE THE FENCE THAT'S IN QUESTION TODAY. IT'S BACK BEHIND THE ÚHO CAN SEE FROM THE BACK OF THEIR OUT, THIS IS THEIR BACKYARD.

HERE THE WEIR IS THIS IN PARTICULAR AREA RIGHT HERE AND IT SLOPES DOWN INTO THIS AREA HERE WHERE THE WEIR IS AND THE WETLANDS AND IT SLOPES BECAUSE THE WETLANDS ARE DOWN BEHIND HER AND THEY FLOW IN FROM THE OTHER SIDE. AS YOU SAW FROM THE PICTURES. THERE AREN'T TREES AND STUFF TO BLOCK IT. HERE YOU CAN SEE THE TOPOGRAPHY IN THE PICTURES AND HOW IT'S HIGHER ON THIS SIDE OF LOT. WHICH IS BEHIND THE HOUSE. AND IT CANE OF GOES DOWN THIS WAY. IT'S OVER IN THIS AREA, IT'S OVER IN THIS AREA AND AS YOU SAW FROM ARE YOUR PACKET AND EXPLANATIONS FROM STAFF, WHEN THEY GOT THEIR DEP PERMITS, THE DEP REQUIRED THEM TO KEEP THEIR FENCE OFF OF THE GROUND AT A CERTAIN AREA BECAUSE THE WATER FLOWS BACK IN THAT WAY TOWARDS THE WEIR AND THE WETLANDS. HERE YOU CAN SEE THE WETLANDS AREA THAT'S OFF BEHIND THE LOWER FENCE. AND HERE YOU CAN SEE AGAIN THE WEIR AND YOU CAN ALSO SEE THAT THE FENCE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IS -- IS BASICALLY BEHIND WHETHER ALL THESE TREES ARE ET CETERA.

AGAIN, AS YOU SEE FROM YOUR STAFF REPORT, THE PROPERTY'S ZONED RS2. APPROXIMATELY TWO ACRES OF LAND AND CURRENTLY CONTAINS A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE HOME THAT WAS BUILT IN 1984. HERE YOU CAN SEE ANOTHER AERIAL AND YOU CAN SEE HOW ON THIS -- THESE ARE SORT OF VEGETATED WOODLANDS AND TREES AND STUFF. ESPECIALLY YOU CAN SEE THE FENCE IN THE AERIAL HERE. THAT'S SET OFF THE PROPERTY LINE. NOT EVEN ON THE PROPERTY LINE AND THERE'S A LOT OF VEGETATION INTWINE THAT AND YOU CAN SEE THE WEIR BETWEEN THAT HERE AND YOU CAN SEE THE WETLANDS STRAND THAT RUNS UP THROUGH HERE. THIS IS A CLOSER VIEW WHERE YOU CAN SEE THE FENCE IS SET OFF THE PROPERTY LINE AND YOU CAN SEE THE FACT THAT EVEN SOME OF THE HOUSES ON DEER CHASE HAVE ACCESSORY SHEDS OR GARAGES OR WHATEVER ALONG THE BACK HERE AND AGAIN, IN YELLOW YOU CAN SEE WHERE THE WEIR AN ADJACENT EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCE IS ADJACENT TO THEIR PROPERTY.

AGAIN, HERE YOU CAN SEE IT TOO FROM THE -- FROM THE VIEW OF THE PROPERTY APPRAISER SITE AND YOU CAN SEE HOW IT'S SET OFF OF THE PROPERTY LINE. AND IT'S SHIELDED FROM ANY LOTS BEHIND IT BY A BUNCH OF WOODLANDS IN-BETWEEN. THIS IS FROM THE STAFF REPORTTHEY SHOW YOU WHERE THE WETLAND IS AND HOW IT FLOWS DOWN IN THIS AREA ITSELF AND HOW THAT'S AN EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCE. THAT'S ADJACENT. THEREFORE, THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A VARIANCE TO LET THEM KEEP THE EXISTING FENCE THAT ACTUALLY REPLACED A SIMILAR LONG-STANDING DILAPIDATED FENCE ALONG A PORTION OF THE BACKSIDE OF THEIR PROPERTY AT THE EXISTING HEIGHT. WHICH IS CAUSED PRIMARILY BY THE CHANGE IN TOPOGRAPHY AND THE EXCEPTIONAL ADJACENT PROPERTY CONDITIONS.

THIS FENCE WAS INSTALLED AS I SAID TO REPLACE THE SIMILAR DETERIORATED WOODED FENCE IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE REMOVAL OF THE ACCESSORY STRUCTURE IN THE BACKSIDE OF THEIR PROPERTY. BOTH HAVE BEEN IN PLACE FOR IN YEARS WITHOUT COMPLAINT OR ISSUE.

IT'S APPROXIMATELY TWO ACRES IN SIZE. THE HOME IS SET BACK FROM THE PROPERTY LINE. THE BACK FENCE IS NOT VISIBLE FROM THE ROAD. THE FENCE IS SET OVER 12 FEET OFF THE BACK PROPERTY LINE AND THERE ARE TREES AND VEGETATION TO BLOCK ITS VIEW FROM BEHIND. AND THE SECTION OF THE FENCE ON THE BACKSIDE IS A SUBJECT THAT THE REQUEST ALL THE FENCING ON THE PROPERTY MEETS THE CODE REQUIREMENTS AS VERIFIED BY STAFF. AS YOU SEE,

[00:30:03]

AGAIN, IN YOUR APPLICATION SUMMARY BY YOUR STAFF, FENCE WAS PLACED AS BOTH THE BUFFER AND A SECURITY BARRIER FROM THE WEIR AND WETLANDS CREEK ADJACENT SMALL LOT ENCROACHING RESIDENTIAL. THE IT SLOPES DOWN AND FDP REQUIRED IT TO REMAIN OPEN FOR DRAINAGE TWO FEET AND GO STRAIGHT ACROSS THE TOP. IT FLUCTUATES FROM 8.5 TO 9.5 FEET FROM IT SLOPES DOWN AND HAS TO BE ON THE GROUND BASED ON THE ORDER THAT WAS ENTERED. WE HAVE REQUIREMENTS IN THE CODE. PZA IS ALLOWED TO GRANT VARIANCES WHEN THEY FIND IT'S NOT CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST AND MEETS THE REQUIREMENTS AFTER THE CODE. THEREFORE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CODE JUST TALK ABOUT REAL QUICK HERE, AS I SAID EARLIER BY REASON OF EXCEPTIONAL -- UNUSUAL SHAPE OF THE SPECIFIC PIECE OF PROPERTY OR BY REASON OF EXCEPTIONAL TOP OCEANOGRAPHIC CONDITIONS OR OTHER EXTRAORDINARY CONDITIONS. THE PIECE OF PROPERTY OR -- ON IMMEDIATELY ADJOINING PIECE OF PROPERTY, IT WOULD CAUSE A HARDSHIP TO ENFORCE THE LITERAL REQUIREMENTS OF THE CODE. AND IT IS BY REASON OF THE USE AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROPERTIES IMMEDIATELY ADJOINING THIS PIECE OF PROPERTY WHICH LED TO THE INSTALLATION OF THE PROTECTED MEASURES INCLUDING PERMITTING WITH THE FDP INCREASED THE PROPERTY VALUES AND THE PROPERTY VALUES OF THE AREA. CARRYING OUT THE STRICT LETTER IN CONNECTION THE FAMILY'S NECESSARY PROTECTIVE MEASURES THAT ARE IN LINE WITH FDP AND OTHER ANALYSIS AND APPROVAL RESULTS IN UNNECESSARY BURDEN ON THE LANDOWNER. PARTICULARLY BECAUSE THE INCREASED HEIGHT IS BASED UPON FDP APPROVAL AND IS, IN FACT, SET BACK FROM THE PROPERTY LINE OF THE COMPLAINING NEIGHBOR. THUS RESULTING IN NO ILL EFFECTS AND SUCH FAILURE TO TO GRANT IT IS UNNECESSARY SIMPLY BECAUSE OF THE LDC REQUIREMENTS. AND THEN AS FAR AS THE SPIRIT AND INTENT OF THE CODE, THERE REQUEST FITS SQUARELY WITHIN THE INTENT AND REASON OF THE LDC. KEEP THE PROTECTIVE MEASURES INSTALLED BY THE SHULER FAMILY AND THAT WERE APPROVED BY FDP IN PLACE, THE REQUEST IS IN COMPLETE HARMONY WITH THE CODE VARIANCE PROVISIONS WHICH ALLOW FOR THIS PZA TO GRANT SUCH. AND THIS REQUEST IS NOT VIOLATING THE SPIRIT AND INTENT OF THE CODE BECAUSE IT PROMOTES THE SPIRIT AND INTENT AS BOTH THE ATTEMPTING TO PROTECT THIS PROPERTY FROM ADJACENT DEVELOPMENTS PUBLIC AND THE SMALL SHOE BOX LOTS THAT HAVE CREATE UP BEHIND THE LARGE DEVELOPMENT AS WELL AS APPROPRIATE BUFFERING AND SECURITY. THE FENCING IN THE BACK IS NOT VISIBLE FROM ANY ROADWAY. THIS REQUEST CLEARLY SHOWS THE THAT A DEVIATION IS COMPATIBLE WITH THE CONTIGUOUS AND SURROUNDING AREA AND THE PROPOSAL OTHERWISE MEETS ALL REQUIREMENTS OF THE CODE AND THE PLAN. AND AS SUCH, WE WOULD ASK YOU TO REASONABLY CONSIDER THIS AND GRANT THEM A VARIANCE FOR THIS -- PARTICULAR FENCE. THERE ARE NO OPEN COMMENTS AND IT WAS -- VETTED BY STAFF AS WELL AS THERE WAS NO CORRESPONDENCE REGARDING IN APPLICATION STAFF PROVIDES A SUGGESTED MOTION TO APPROVE AND I'M HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. THANK YOU, MADAME CHAIR.

>> THANK YOU, ANY QUESTIONS? >> I HAVE SOME.

>> I JUST DID WANT TO SAY AS FAR AS FOR EX PARTE, WE ALL RECEIVED THESE TWO -- IN FAVOR OF THIS -- FENCE VARIANCE. AT THE VERY BEGINNING OF THE MEETING SO THERE WAS A LITTLE CORRESPONDENCE. BUT YOU MIGHT NOT HAVE SEEN IT.

>> YES, MA'AM. >> I WANT TO HEAR PUBLIC COMMENT

BEFORE I SAY ANYTHING. >> OKAY. DOCTOR?

>> JAMES, IT LOOKS LIKE A REALLY NICE PIECE OF PROPERTY THERE OFF WILDWOOD. LET ME ASK YOU THIS. IT STATES IN THERE THAT THE SMALL LOTS, RESIDENTIAL LOTS BEHIND THE PROPERTY HAVE ENCROACHED INTO THE PROPERTY. IS THERE REALLY SURVEY ISSUE? IS

THERE AN ENCROACHMENT? >> NO. MY REFERENCE TO ENCROACHMENT WAS ENCROACHMENT INTO THE AREA. THESE WERE LARGE LARGE LOT RESIDENTIAL AREAS PRIOR TO THAT -- DEER CHASE DEVELOPMENT BEING APPROVED. WHICH AGAIN CUT OFF THAT WETLAND AND CAUSED THE INSTALLATION OF THE WEIR WHICH IS AN EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCE. I MEAN ENCROACHMENT INTO THE AREA BECAUSE THESE LOTS WHERE THE SHULERS LIVE AND THE OTHER PEOPLE THAT LIVE ON SOUTH WINTER HAWK IF YOU DROVE DOWN THAT WAY, YOU WILL SEE ARE LARGE LOT RESIDENTIAL THAT HAVE BEEN THERE FOR A WHILE. THAT WAS ONE. NOT ENCROACHING ON THE PROPERTY.

>> OKAY. THE CREEK IS THE BACK OF THE PROPERTY AND THEN FLOWS

TO THE NORTH-NORTHWEST? >> NO, I THINK IT -- IT'S -- HERE YOU CAN SEE. IT ACTUALLY FLOWS THROUGH THE AREA. AND IT JUST SO HAPPENS WHEN DEER CHASE WAS APPROVED AND INSTALLED, THAT

[00:35:01]

IT CUT OFF THE WETLAND FROM HERE TO HERE. I MEAN, THIS WAS BACK IN THE DAY. YOU KNOW, SO THEY HAD TO -- THEY HAD TO INSTALL THIS WEIR BECAUSE THEN IT LET THE WATER FLOW UNDERNEATH THE ROAD AND UNDERNEATH THE DEVELOPMENT ATDEER CHASE THROUGH THE AREA. AND IT JUST HAPPENS TO ENCROACH ON PROPERTY HERE ON SIDE AND IN THE BACK WHICH AGAIN, WHEN WE HAD THE DEPERP THAT WAS ENTERED, THEY HAD TO TAKE MEASURES LIKE HAVING THE FENCE OFF THE GROUND WHICH AGAIN, WASN'T -- THEIR DECISION. WHICH MAKES THE HEIGHT OF THE FENCE HIGHERREN THAT

SIDE. >> RIGHT, DZ REQUIRED IT TO BE TWO FEET UP. THAT LEFT DIAGRAM WITH THE YELLOW AND ORANGE AND BLUE. I DON'T BELIEVE THAT WAS IN OUR PACKET. THAT WOULD HAVE

BEEN HELPFUL. >> IT MIGHT BE IN THE APPLICATION PART YOU KNOW, BEHIND THE --

>> I HAVE LOOKED IN IT. BUT I DON'T RECALL IT. MAYBE IT WAS.

>> YES, SIR. I APOLOGIZE THEN. >> I DO APPRECIATE THE PICTURES

YOU PUT IN. >> YES, SIR.

>> PHOTOS. YOU KNOW, SO -- IT SAYS THIS IS FOR A BUFFER AND BARRIER. THIS FENCE. BUT IT'S TWO FEET OFF THE GROUND. SO -- THAT -- THAT DOESN'T SEEM LIKE THAT PROVIDES ALL THAT MUCH SECURITY. EVEN I AT THIS POINT COULD CRAWL UNDER THAT FENCE.

TWO FEET OFF THE GROUND. >> I THINK --

>> I WANTED TO GET ON THE SHULER'S PROPERTY.

>> AGAIN THAT WASN'T THEIR CHOICE, IT'S THE CHOICE WHAT DEP REQUIRED THEM TO DO. IT'S ON THE GROUND WHEN YOU GO TO THE OTHER END. WHEN I SAY SECURITY FOR VISUAL, BECAUSE -- THEY'RE ON THE LARGE LOT SO THEY'RE ALLOWED TO HAVE OTHER THINGS ON THEIR PROPERTY OR WHATEVER. IT'S SECURITY FROM THE SMALL LOTS WHEN THEIR HOUSES ARE RIGHT NEAR THIS AND THEY DON'T HAVE TO SEE EVERYTHING THAT'S ON GOING ON IN THE BACK OF THE SHULER PROPERTY ON THIS LARGE LOT. AND SO I THINK IT'S -- I THINK I HAVE HEARD IT SAID BEFORE HERE, SOMETIMES FENCES MAKE GOOD NEIGHBORS AND I THINK THAT'S AN APPROPRIATE TERM FOR

THIS PARTICULAR CASE. >> THEY OFTEN DO.

>> YES, SIR. >> SO -- WE HAVE A LETTER FROM THE PERSON THAT APPEARS TO BE ON THE WEST SIDE OF THIS PROPERTY.

SUPPORTING THIS. >> YES, SIR.

>> AND THEN WE HAVE ANOTHER LETTER DOESN'T SAY WHERE THE PERSON LIVES, BUT -- THAT IS A SIX FOOT FENCE ON THE WEST SIDE.

YOU SHOWED A GREAT PHOTO THAT SHOWED THE BACKYARD. AND --

THAT'S GOOD. >> YES, SIR, SO THEY -- THIS IS -- THIS IS LOWER BECAUSE THERE'S NOT A BUNCH OF WOODLANDS AND WHATNOT HERE TO BLOCK IT OUT. THERE'S ALL KINDS OF WOODLANDS HERE. IN FACT IF YOU GO DOWN DEER CHASE, YOU CAN'T EVEN SEE THIS AT ALL FROM DEER CHASE.

>> I BELIEVE THAT. I WISH I HAD GONE THERE. I DIDN'T GO DOWN

THERE. >> YES, SIR.

>> THAT'S A SIX FOOT FENCE THERE? ON THE RIGHT.

>> YES, SIR. >> OKAY. SO -- EVEN YOU KNOW, I REALLY -- WISH THEY HAD, YOU KNOW, DID -- THEY HAD TO DO THE TWO FOOT HEIGHT ADJUSTMENT. BECAUSE OF DEP ALLOWED THE WETLAND TO FLOW BUT DONE EIGHT FEET ABOVE THAT, INSTEAD OF A TEN FOOT FENCE, THAT MIGHT HAVE BEEN -- I THINK AESTHETICALLY IN MY OPINION, WHICH DOESN'T COUNT FOR MUCH. THAT STILL WOULD HAVE BEEN AESTHETICALLY PLEASING TO ME. ALSO, THE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER FROM THE COUNTY OR ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS, SAID THAT THIS FENCE INSTEAD OF BEING PLACED ON THE LOWEST PART OF THE TOPOGRAPHY. THE GROUND, IT'S PLACED ON THE HIGHEST.

>> IT'S INTERESTING. BECAUSE THE WAY OUR CODE READS, IS AND THAT'S WHAT HE WAS REFERRING TO, AND YOU KNOW, AGAIN, NO OFFENSE, BUT INTERPRETING THE CODE BY SOMEONE WHO'S ENFORCING IT. ANYWAY. THE POINT IS THAT THE WAY THE CODE READS IS IF YOU PLACE IT, AND THIS AREA OVER HERE IS HIGH YOU CAN PLACE A HIGHER FENCE HERE SO YOU CAN KIND OF EVEN BE HIGHER WITH WHAT'S OVER HERE. I'M SORRY, OUT OF THE MICROPHONE. BUT THE PROBLEM WITH THIS PARTICULAR -- NOT THE CHALLENGE WITH THIS LOT IS THAT IT SLOPING FROM HERE DOWN. SO YOU CANNOT REALLY -- THERE'S NO WAY TO DO THAT. AND SO OVER HERE, WHERE THE FENCE STARTS, IT'S CLOSE TO EIGHT FEET. BUT THE PROBLEM IS IF YOU DID THIS AT SIX FEET, IT WOULD BE LIKE -- FOUR FEET RIGHT HERE AND THAT WOULDN'T BE ANY KIND OF A FENCE REALLY IN THE BACK.

AND SOMEBODY -- THAT'S WHAT VARIANCES ARE FOR. SOMEBODY SHOULDN'T BE PUNISHED BECAUSE THERE'S A TOPOGRAPHIC ON THEIR LOT YOU KNOW, AND SO THAT'S REALLY WHY -- IT'S THE HEIGHT IT IS BECAUSE THEN IT CAN START AT THE EIGHT FEET HERE AND WHEN IT GOES ACROSS IT HAPPENS TO BE NINE AND A HALF HERE BECAUSE OF THE WAY IT'S SET OFF THE GROUND ET CETERA.

>> THE COUNTY STAFF DIDN'T APPARENTLY SEE IT THAT WAY. I DON'T KNOW. AND I DON'T REALLY SEE MUCH OF A SLOPE. IT LOOKS HIGHER ON THE LEFT RATHER THAN LOWER. TO ME. FROM THAT PHOTO.

SO. I DON'T KNOW. IT'S HARD TO TELL. THAT LOOKS LIKE A STRAIGHT LINE. PRETTY MUCH. I MEAN, I SEE A LITTLE BOW IN THERE. BUT -- ANYWAY. ANYWAY. IT'S AN INTERESTING DILEMMA AND THAT SIX

[00:40:05]

FOOT FENCE ON THE WEST, THE WETLANDS GOES RIGHT ALONG THAT SIX FOOT FENCE AS WELL. DOES IT NOT?

>> THAT IS WHERE THE MAIN WETLAND IS, YES. SEE HOW YOU CAN

SEE HOW IT FLOWS UP THIS WAY. >> YEAH. SO -- THEY DIDN'T HAVE TO DO TWO FOOT HEIGHT ADJUSTMENT OVER THERE ON THE -- WHAT I

GUESS IS THE -- >> NO, BECAUSE THAT'S WHERE THE -- ERP CAME IN AND THEY WERE ALLOWED TO PUT A RETAINING WALL AND THAT'S WHY IT'S SIX FOOT BECAUSE IT'S ON TOP OF THE

RETAINING WALL. >> OKAY. I DIDN'T REMEMBER. I RECALL A WEIR BEING IN THERE BUT I DON'T RECALL RETAINING WALL.

>> YES, SIR, THE WEIR IS DOWN IN THE AREA OVER HERE.

>> OKAY. ALL RIGHT. GREAT. THANKS.

>> THANK YOU, SIR. >> MR. GREEN?

>> QUICK QUESTION. WHO OWNS THE WEIR AND WHO MAINTAINS IT?

>> I'M NOT SURE. >> IT'S -- IT LOOKS LIKE IT'S

ON PRIVATE PROPERTY. >> YEAH, I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S WITHIN THE DEER CHASE HOA. I DON'T KNOW THE ANSWER TO THAT.

MY PEOPLE -- THE SHULERS DON'T. >> USUAL USUAL LOCATION.

>> IT IS. JUST CURIOUS. >> YES, SIR.

>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? >> I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH

IT. >> OKAY. ALL RIGHT, WE'LL MOVE ON TO PUBLIC COMMENT. IS THERE ANYONE HERE TO SPEAK ON ITEM NUMBER TWO? YES, MA'AM. COME FORWARD.

>> GOOD AFTERNOON. MY NAME IS DIANA HAS BEENERSTRONG AND I'M THE NEIGHBOR THAT LIVES TO THE WEST OF THE SHULER FAMILY AND I HAVE NO OBJECTION TO THE FENCE THERE. YOU REALLY AN'T SEE IT FROM MY HOME. SOME OF THE ISSUES WITH THE MAP WITH THE WETLAND BEING THE YELLOW AREA. GOING THROUGH THE RIGHT MIDDLE OF MY PROPERTY WHICH IT DOESN'T. IT'S MUCH MORE TO THE WEST. ALMOST WHERE THERE'S A COUNTY EASEMENT WHERE THAT WATER NATURALLY FLOWS. YES, WHEN DEER CHASE WAS BUILT, IT STOPPED THE NATURAL FLOE OF THAT WATER COMING THROUGH ALL OUR PROPERTIES. AND THAT WEIR FORCED IT TO BE BETWEEN TWO PROPERTIES FROM DEER CHASE. SO IT IS EVEN CHANGED THE WAY THE WATER FLOWS ON THE BACK OF ANY PROPERTY BUT DOESN'T FLOW THROUGH ANY PROPERT. IT FLOWS TO THE WEST SIDE OF THAT. AND THE FENCE HAS NO ISSUE WITH ME.

IT MAKES A GREAT NEIGHBOR. BUT WE HAVE A GATE BETWEEN OUR FENCE IS THAT'S THE BEST NEIGHBOR THAT I CAN HAVE.

>> GREAT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ANYONE ELSE? ALL RIGHT. MR. WHITEHOUSE, WOULD YOU LIKE TO SAY ANYTHING ELSE? THERE MIGHT

BE SOME QUESTIONS. >> JUST TO SAY THAT IT WAS A GENERAL DEPICTION OF WHERE THE WETLAND AREA IS. OF COURSE IT FLOWS SOMEWHERE UP IN THERE. BUT NO, WE APPRECIATE YOUR

CONSIDERATION. THANK YOU MA'AM. >> HOLD UP. YOU MIGHT HAVE SOME

QUESTIONS FROM MEMBERS. >> TAKE A QUESTION? LOOKS TO ME LIKE THIS FENCE IS EIGHT FEET OF WOOD AND TWO FEET OF AIR.

>> ON THAT SIDE WHERE THE TOPOGRAPHY SLOPES DOWN. YES, SIR. IT KIND OF -- IT KIND OF GOES ACROSS --

>> WAIT, LET ME ASK THE QUESTION SO YOU CAN GIVE ME A YES OR NO.

UP AND DOWN MEMBERS ON THAT FENCE, ARE THEY EIGHT FOOT TALL? NOT THE -- NOT THE POSTS. THE SLATS. ARE THEY EIGHT OR TEN

FEET FALL? >> THINK IT'S APPROXIMATELY

EIGHT FEET TALL. >> THANK YOU.

>> THE FENCE YOU PUT UP -- THEY PUT UP IS EIGHT FEET TALL HELD

TWO FEET OFF THE GROUND. >> ON THAT END, YES, SIR.

BECAUSE THE TOPOGRAPHY IS HIGHER ON OTHER SIDE. YES, SIR.

>> YES. THANK YOU. >> SIR?

>> WHETHER WHITEHOUSE, DO YOU HAVE A PICTURE OF THE BACKYARD ITSELF? THE WHOLE WIDTH OF THE BACKYARD. I THINK MAYBE JUST THE AERIALS AND I DON'T KNOW IF I HAVE IT FROM GROUND LEVEL.

>> I THINK YOU HAD ONE PICTURE THERE, MULTIPLE PICTURES THAT SHOULD SECTION OUT OF THE BACKYARD. BECAUSE I'M LOOKING

FOR THE FENCE ITSELF. >> I THINK THIS MIGHT BE THE ONLY ONE THAT I HAVE. THAT'S THE LENGTH OF THE -- AND IT KIND OF

GETS CUT OFF BUT ALMOST -- >> I'D LIKE TO BE ABLE TO SEE A PICTURE OF THE OTHER SIDE OF THE TRAILERS THAT ARE SITTING THERE.

BECAUSE THERE IS A BIG DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE FENCE THAT WE'RE LOOKING RIGHT NOW AND THE SECTION THAT'S -- ANOTHER TWO FEET TALLER. SO YOU ARE LOOKING AT A FENCE THAT'S EIGHT FOOT TALL AND THEN THE FENCE THAT'S TEN FOOT. THE TOP

OF IT. >> YEAH, I THINK THIS MIGHT BE

THE BEST -- >> JUST THE ONE YOU HAD WAS JUST A SMALL CORNER OF THE NEW -- BACK UP. THERE IT IS RIGHT THERE. SO -- THERE'S A BIG DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TWO FENCES. AND WHEN I WENT BACK IN THE BACKYARD AND -- I'M GLAD I ASKED THE OWNER IF I COULD GO BACK THERE. OR ACTUALLY THEY VOLUNTEERED BECAUSE HE'S GOT SIGNS UP THEY'RE TIRED OF REMOVING. NO TRESPASSING AND WE'RE TIRED OF REMOVING BODIES.

I'M JOKING. BUT -- I'M JUST LOOKING AT THE POSSIBILITY SINCE

[00:45:03]

IT IS SO TALL, THAT'S TEN FOOT FROM THE GROUND LEVEL ON THEIR SIDE. AND PRETTY MUCH TEN FOOT FROM THE GROUND LEVEL ON THE -- THE DEER SIDE. COULD THAT BE BROUGHT DOWN TO WHERE IT WAS

STRAIGHT ACROSS? >> SO -- THAT'S WHY I HAD THE OTHER PICTURE BECAUSE IT SHOWINGS THE FACT THAT IT IS STRAIGHT ACROSS THE TOP. IT DOESN'T GO -- UP. IT GOES STRAIGHT ACROSS. IT'S JUST THAT THE -- THIS IS -- I MEAN THIS WAS THE BEST PICTURE I COULD GET OF IT BUT IT GOES DOWN. BECAUSE THIS IS THE WEIR WHERE THE WETLAND IS. SO OVER HERE, IT'S APPROXIMATELY EIGHT FEET OR JUST A LITTLE BIT OVER EIGHT FEET.

DOWN HERE. THIS IS THE END OF THE -- WHERE WE WERE JUST LOOKING AT THAT PICTURE. FROM BEHIND. YES. SO THIS IS -- BECAUSE I LEANED AROUND TO TAKE THE PICTURE. I'M RIGHT AT THE END OF THE FENCE. FACT IS THAT IT'S HERE AS -- HE SAID. IT'S ABOUT EIGHT FEET OR APPROXIMATELY HERE, IT JUST HAPPENS TO GO AND THAT'S WHY I SAID YOU SEE THE STAFF REPORT IS FOR A TEN FOOT FENCE BUT REALLY THE REQUEST IS FOR BETWEEN 8.5 WHICH IS ABOUT HERE TO 9.35 THIS IS AT HERE, NOT EVEN TEN. JUST PRETTY CLOSE TO THAT BECAUSE OF THE FACT THAT YOU HAVE TO LEAVE SPACE UNDER HERE AND YOU KNOW, BECAUSE OF WHAT THE DEP REQUIRES. AND THIS IS AGAIN, WHY WE HAVE VARIANCES BECAUSE YOU HAVE TOPOGRAPHIC CONDITIONS AND AGAIN REALLY IT'S NOT GUILTY UNTIL PROVEN INNOCENT. IF YOU MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CODE, YOU MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CODE AND THIS IS ONE THAT ACTUALLY FITS SQUARELY WITHIN THAT YOU KNOW. I KNOW THERE'S ONES THAT DON'T BUT THIS ONE SEEMS TO.

>> WITH WHAT -- YOU ARE SHOWING HERE RIGHT NOW, IT'S STRAIGHT ACROSS. THAT'S NOT WHAT IS EXISTING CURRENTLY. IT'S A TWO

STEP. >> THIS IS A PICTURE FROM THE --

>> NO, I WAS THERE. I WAS ACTUALLY IN THE BACKYARD. SO IT'S ACTUALLY -- IF YOU GO BACK TO THAT SMALL PICTURE THAT IS SHOWING THE CORNER, IT'S ACTUALLY A TWO STEP. THE ONE SECTION IS EIGHT FOOT. THE OTHER SECTION IS TWO FOOT ABOVE THAT.

THE TOP EDGE. YOU CAN'T GO WITH THAT PICTURE BECAUSE THAT'S NOT WHAT'S ACTUALLY OUT THERE RIGHT NOW. IF YOU GO BACK TO THE SMALLER -- NO. NO. IF YOU GO BACK TO THE OTHER PICTURE YOU HAD, YOU CAN SEE THAT TWO STEP IN THERE. SO IF -- YOU COULD BACK -- GO BACK TO THE ONE WHERE YOU HAD THE MULTIPLE PICTURES IN THERE. RIGHT THERE. YOU CAN ACTUALLY SEE --

>> THIS? >> THERE'S A TWO STEP.

>> THIS? >> NO.

>> THAT'S -- THAT'S JUST BECAUSE OF THE WAY -- THAT'S IN

THE NOT -- >> ACTUALLY TWO FOOT DIFFERENCE BETWEEN TOP OF THAT SECTION AND THE TOP OF THE OTHER SECTION.

YOU KNOW, IT'S -- I COULDN'T SEE IT FROM THE DEER SIDE. COULD NOT SEE THAT FENCE WHATSOEVER. I'M JUST LOOKING AT THE BIG DIFFERENCE IN THE FENCING NEAR IT AND AESTHETICALLY IT WOULD LOOK A LOT BETTER STRAIGHT ACROSS BUT IT IS TWO STEP. BUT I HAVE GOT NO REAL ISSUE OTHER THAN THAT.

>> OKAY. THIS IS THE FENCE THAT'S THERE. RIGHT HERE. I DON'T KNOW -- I DON'T SEE ANY STEP. BUT OKAY.

>> OKAY. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? ALL RIGHT. WE'RE BACK INTO THE

AGENCY FOR A MOTION. MR. GREEN? >> I'M DEFINITELY READY. TURN MY MIC ON FOR ME. AS THE NEIGHBOR SAYS, FENCES MAKE GREAT NEIGHBORS. I ALWAYS AGREE WITH THAT. I'M GOING TO MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE ZONING VARIANCE 2024-25. THE SHULER FAMILY FENCE. BASED ON SIX FINDINGS OF FACT AND SIX CONDITIONS THAT ARE IN OUR STAFF REPORT.

>> OKAY. WE HAVE A MOTION FOR APPROVAL AND I'LL SECOND. IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION? OKAY. SEEING NONE, LET'S REGISTER THE

VOTE. ALL RIGHT. THAT MOTION -- >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

[3. MINMOD 2025-01 7300 Oakmont Court Pool. Request for a Minor Modification to the Marsh Landing PUD (Ordinance 1975-15, as amended) to allow for a Rear Yard setback of fifteen (15) feet in lieu of the required twenty-five (25) feet to allow for replacement of pool and screen enclosure.]

>> PASS. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. MR. WHITEHOUSE.

>>> ON TO ITEM NUMBER THREE. THERE ANY EX PARTE? MISS

SPIEGLE. >> I DID A SITE VISIT AND MET

WITH MR. CARREIRO. >> I'M WITH COASTAL LUXURY OUTDOORS AND WE WERE THE ONES THAT HE CONTRACTED WITH TO PUT IN THE NEW POOL. WHAT WE DID NOT REALIZE UNTIL WE STARTED PUTTING IN THE PERMIT IS THE FACT THAT THIS -- THE EXISTING POOL THAT'S THERE IS -- WITHIN 15 FEET OF THAT 25-FOOT SETBACK AND I DON'T KNOW IF WE HAVE IT HERE. SO WE'RE ASKING TO BE GOING WITHIN -- 15 FEET IN LIEU OF THE 25-FOOT. HERE IS THE --

[00:50:06]

REGULATIONS AND I'M JUST GOING TO MAKE IT SHORT AND SWEET.

THERE A 25-FOOT SETBACK AND THE REAR PROPERTY FOR A SWIMMING POOL. YOU KNOW, THERE'S ALSO AN EASEMENT OF TEN A DRAINING EASEMENT AND WE'RE NOT GOING INTO. HERE IS THEIR -- SURVEY.

SO IF YOU LOOK AT THIS, THE RED DOTTED LINE, IS THE 25-FOOT SETBACK FOR THE POOL. IF THEY WERE TO PUT IN A NEW POOL, WITH THOSE SET BACKS, THEY WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO PUT IN A POOL WHATSOEVER. YOU KNOW, THE YELLOW LINE, ORANGE LINE, IS WHERE THE EXISTING POOL IS AT. AND WE'RE ASKING TO KEEP THE NEW POOL THERE. AND THEN THE PURPLE LINE IS THE TEN FOOT DRAINAGE EASEMENT WHERE THE EXISTING SCREEN ENCLOSURE AND POOL DECK IS. AND WE'RE GOING TO KEEP EVERYTHING AT THAT POINT. WITH THE NEW POOL. AND DECK. MERE IS THEIR NEIGHBORS. A COUPLE OF THEIR NEIGHBORS HAVE POOLS THAT ARE BEYOND THE SETBACK AS WELL.

BECAUSE AT ONE POINT IN TIME, MARSH LANDING THOUGHT THEY HAD THE ABILITY TO OVERRIDE THE SETBACKS SET BY COUNTY. IT HAS BEEN NOW PUT TO THEM SAYING THAT THEY CANNOT. SO ANYBODY THAT'S WANTING TO DO NEW POOL HAS TO FOLLOW THE NEW RULES AND REGULATIONS -- ALL THE EXISTING RULES AND REGULATIONS. WE'RE JUST ASKING, YOU KNOW, TO PUT BACK WHAT IS ALREADY THERE.

BECAUSE IT WILL LOWER HIS PROPERTY VALUE IF THAT POOL IS NOT DONE. AND ONE OF THE PROBLEMS THAT THEY HAD -- THEY FOUND OUT AFTER THEY PURCHASED THE PROPERTY IS THAT THE EXISTING POOL IS AT GROUND LEVEL. AND SO EVERY TIME IT FLOODS, OR IT RAINS, IT FLOODS THE EXISTING POOL. WHERE HIS OTHER NEIGHBORS HAVE THE ABILITY TO -- WHOOPS, YEAH. WHOOPS, WERE ABLE TO LIFT THEIR POOL DECK SO THEIR EXISTING ELEVATIONS ARE -- 7290 OAKMONT AND THEIR EXISTING YARD ELEVATIONS ARE 3.6 TO 4.3.

BUT THEIR POOL DECK IS AT SIX FEET. SO THEREFORE, THEY WERE ABLE TO LIFT THAT AND THEY DON'T HAVE THE PROBLEM OF FLOODING. AND THEY'RE ALSO -- THEIR EXISTING POOL SETBACK IS APPROXIMATELY AT 16 FEET. YOU KNOW, WHICH THEY ALSO HAD THE SAME SETBACK AS -- AT 7300. OOPS, ONE MINUTE. BACK OVER. AND THEN TWO DOORS DOWN FROM. HE ALSO HAS A NEIGHBOR THAT HIS POOL IS AT 12 FEET FROM THE SETBACK. FROM HIS PROPERTY LINE.

AND HIS ELEVATION YARD ELEVATION, IS 2.3 TO 2.5 BUT THE POOL DECK WAS ALSO RAISED TO BE AT 4.8. SO THEY DON'T HAVE THE FLOODING ISSUE EITHER. WHERE UNFORTUNATELY AT 7300, YOU KNOW, HIS YARD ELEVATIONS ARE AT 3.1 TO 3.6. AND THE POOL DECK AT 3.7. SO IF -- ANY RAINS, IT FLOODS. AND EVERYTHING. AND SO ONE OF THE -- REASONS WE WANT TO PUT IN A NEW POOL IS TO RAISE IT. SO BE THE -- ON THE LEVEL OF HIS EXISTING LANAI WHICH IS APPROXIMATELY 18 INCHES ABOVEGROUND LEVEL. HERE IS A PHOTO OF THEIR BACKYARD DURING RAINSTORM. SO AS YOU CAN SEE, IT FLOODS VERY, VERY EASILY. SO HERE'S ANOTHER ONE. JUST -- YOU KNOW, THEY BACK UP TO THE GOLF COURSE SO IT'S REALLY NOTHING REALLY -- THEY'RE IN THE GOING TO ENCROACH ANYTHING. BECAUSE THERE'S STILL GOING TO BE A -- THE DRAINAGE OF TEN FEET THAT'S STILL THERE. SO HERE IS WHERE WE WOULD PLACE THE NEW POOL. AS YOU CAN SEE, IT STILL IS WITHIN THE -- 15 FEET OF THE EXISTING AND WE DID A LITTLE MODIFICATION OF THE DESIGN LOOK AND WE'RE STILL KEEPING EVERYTHING IN THE SAME LOCATION. WE'RE JUST WANTING TO RAISE IT. AND EVERYTHING. THIS IS A 3D PHOTO OF WHAT IT WOULD LOOK LIKE. YOU KNOW, JUST KEEPING THE -- EXACT SAME LOCATION AND DESIGN. LOCATION AND DESIGN AND THIS IS WHERE YOU

[00:55:02]

CAN SEE WE'RE RAISING THE DECK AND EVERYTHING SO IT DOESN'T -- PREVENTS FLOODING. AND WE DO HAVE MARSH LANDINGAPPROVAL BUT WE NEED YOURS FIRST. SO. ANY QUESTIONS?

>> MR. LEBANOWSKI? >> JUST REAL QUICK. EX PARTE.

DID VISIT THE SITE IN ALSO TALKED TO THE OWNER AND I DIDN'T HIT THE BUTTON FAST ENOUGH. ARE YOU GOING TO BE CHANGING THE GRADE IN THE BACK OR ARE YOU RAISING -- THE WALL

IN THERE? >> NO. THE WALL WILL -- BECAUSE WE'RE RAISING THE POOL, NO -- ELEVATION -- NO GRADING OR ELEVATION OF THE YARD WILL BE CHANGED.

>> OKAY. ALL RIGHT. >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? MISS

SPIEGLE? >> AND OF COURSE, TO STAFF TO JACOB SMITH. OF COURSE THEY WILL WORK WITH THE PLAN TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY DON'T MAKE THE DRAINAGE WORSE FOR ANYBODY ELSE.

>> NO. WE ARE -- THE REASON WE'RE PUTTING IT -- RAISING IT UP, NORMALLY WE WOULD NOT DO ANY ELEVATIONS. WHAT WE HAVE TO DO AFTER WE BUILD THE POOL, IS DO A LOT GRADE INSPECTION WITH THE COUNTY TO FINALIZE A PERMIT. AND THEY WILL MAKE SURE THAT WE DO NOT CHANGE THE ELEVATION. THAT'S PART OF THE -- THE PERMITTING PROCESS. AND INSPECTIONS.

>> WELL, SEEMS LIKE HIS POOL IS BEING USED TO KIND OF HOLD SOME STORMWATER. SO -- I JUST WONDERED WHERE THE STORMWATER IS GOING TO GO AND HOW THE COUNTY MITIGATES FOR THAT. THAT'S ALL.

>> WE DON'T WANT THEM TO HOLD IT IN HIS POOL.

>> I UNDERSTAND. I AGREE. IT'S FINE.

>> THROUGH THE CHAIR, JACOB SMITH WITH GROWTH MANAGEMENT. TO HER QUESTION, THIS -- THIS SITE REDESIGN REALLY ISN'T CHANGING ANYTHING FROM A PLANNING AND ZONING PERSPECTIVE. AS THE APPLICANT INDICATED RIGHT, THEY'RE HELD TO THE STANDARDS OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE. BUT I DON'T ANTICIPATE THAT ANY -- ANY CHANE IN THIS POOL IS GOING TO MAKE THAT FLOODING ISSUE ANY WORSE BECAUSE IT LOOKS PRETTY BAD AS IT IS?

>> THANK YOU SIR. >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? ALL RIGHT, SEEING NONE, IS THERE ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE HERE TO SPEAK ON ITEM NUMBER THREE? ALL RIGHT. WE'RE BACK INTO THE

AGENCY FOR A MOTION. SIR? >> I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE MINOR MODIFICATION 2025-01, 7300 OAKMONT COURT FACED ON SIX FINDINGS OF FACT AND SUBJECT TO SEVEN CONDITIONS

AS PROVIDED WITHIN STAFF REPORT. >> WE HAVE MOTION FOR APPROVAL AND A SECOND. ANY DISCUSSION? SEEING NONE, LET'S REGISTER THE VOTE. ALL RIGHT, THAT MOTION PASSES. THANK YOU SO MUCH, MISS

[4. PUD 2024-15 Powers Center. Request to rezone approximately 1.88 acres of land from Industrial Warehousing (IW) to Planned Unit Development (PUD) to allow for a maximum 57,000 square feet of non-residential uses, specifically located at 9990 US-1 North.]

MYERS. >>> ALL RIGHT, ON TO ITEM NUMBER

FOUR. ANY EX PARTE? >> HAVEN'T THEY? YES, JUST --

>> MR. LEBANOWSKI? >> I DID A SITE VISIT.

>> THANK YOU, I PUSHED THE BUTTON. ALL RIGHT. GO AHEAD,

SIR. >> HI, GOOD AFTERNOON. MY NAME IS JUSTIN CLARK. AND I ALONG WITH SIENA VENUS FOR THE POWER CENTER AT 9990 U.S. 1 NORTH, WE ARE REQUESTING A REZONING FROM THE CURRENT INDUSTRIAL WAREHOUSE TO A PUD BUILT UPON THE USE CATEGORIES OF LD C-SECTION 2.0301 TABLE OF TOWN CENTER, MIXED USE. AND IW, BOTH BY RIGHT AND EXCEPTION FOR THIS INFILL SITE. ALONG WITH THE FEW THEATER SPECIALIZES IN COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE BROKERAGE AND ADVISORY AND DEVELOPMENT.

AND TODAY, I'M HOPEFUL TO PRESENT TO YOU COMPETENT SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE THAT SPECIFIC RELIABLE AND FACT BASED. MY TESTIMONY IS ORGANIZED AROUND THREE CORE PRINCIPLES.

PRECEDENT, PERFORMANCE BASED EVIDENCE, AND THEN LEGAL SUFFICIENCY. PRECEDENT BASICALLY THE ZONINGS THAT HAVE OCCURRED AROUND THE SITE. THE PERFORMANCE BASED EVIDENCE IS THE RESULT OF THE REZONINGS THAT HAVE LED TO PROJECTS EITHER BUILT OR UNDER DEVELOPMENT THAT HAVE BEEN MET WITH POSITIVE MARKET RECEPTION AND COMMUNITY INTEGRATION. ALIGNING WITH THE COUNTY'S GOALS AND OBJECTIVES. AND THEN LEGAL SUFFICIENCY. BASICALLY THE PRECEDENT AND THE EVIDENCE PROVIDING FROM THE EXISTING ZONINGS AND THE ACTUAL PROJECTS DEVELOPED SUPPORT THE REQUIRES

[01:00:03]

FINDINGS OF FACT. AND WE CANNOT SEE HOW THE TENTH -- THE SNYDER STANDARD IS THAT THERE'S A POSSIBLE GREATER PUBLIC INTEREST COMING INTO PLAY BECAUSE THIS REZONING BETTER SERVES THE GREATER PUBLIC INTEREST THAN THE CURRENT ZONING.

TRANSITIONING ]

>>> TO START WITH , THE ZONING PRECEDENTS. THIS PUD REQUEST CLOSELY MIRRORS TWO REZONINGS THE COUNTY ADOPTED DIRECTLY TO THE NORTH WE SHOWS HERE AS STERLING PLAZA AND TO THE EAST.

TO THE NORTH, 2021 -03 WAS REZONED FROM INDUSTRIAL WAREHOUSE JUST LIKE THIS SITE TO A PUD WOULD TOWNCENTER MIXED-USE AND IW INDUSTRIAL WAREHOUSE USE AGAIN BY RIGHT AND EXCEPTION IDENTICAL TO THIS APPLICATION WITH SIMILAR WAIVERS. TO THE EAST, THE PUD , 2021-86 SHOWS AS STERLING PLAZA PHASE 2 WAS, THE COUNTY FIRST AMENDED FUTURE LAND USE FROM AGRICULTURAL CIVIL CULTURE TO MIXED-USE AND APPROVE REZONING FROM OPEN WORLD TO PUD, AGAIN TOWNCENTER MIXED-USE AND IW USE ALMOST IDENTICAL TO THIS APPLICATION WITH SIMILAR WAIVERS. TO THE SOUTH IS AN OLDER PUD DATING BACK TO 2004 GOING BACK TO 2000 GOING BACK TO 2011 REZONED FROM OPEN WORLD TO THE PUD WITH A MIX OF BOTH RETAIL AND WAREHOUSE USE. REALLY THE ONLY DIFFERENCE WITH THE NEW REZONINGS WHICH WE PARTICIPATED IN ON THE NORTH AND EAST, THAT ONE IS THEY SEPARATED THE WAREHOUSE FROM THE RETAIL . OUR MODEL BECAUSE OF THE AMAZON EFFECT AND DECEPTION AND UPHEAVAL OF THE SOLID DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS BLENDS THESE CONCEPTS AND LEADS US TO THE SECOND CORE PRINCIPLE WHICH IS PERFORMANCE-BASED EVIDENCE. HAVE THESE ZONING SPLAYED OUT ON THE GROUND AND DO THEY ALIGN WITH COUNTY GOALS AND OBJECTIVES? TO THE NORTH THE SLIDE ON THE UPPER LEFT-HAND SIDE IS STERLING PLAZA. VERY WELL RECEIVED, A GREAT DESTINATION FOR COMMERCE, ASSEMBLY, RETAIL AND WAREHOUSING, THE USE IN ST. JOHN'S COUNTY REDUCE COMMUTE TIMES , ALLEVIATE TRAFFIC CONGESTION AND IN THE SUPPORTING LOCAL OWNERSHIP IMPROVING COMMUNITY. AS AN EXAMPLE ON THE PICTURE THAT IS ONE PORTION OF ONE BUILDING BUT THE MURPHY BED DEPOT SHOWROOM, LIKE ASSEMBLY WAREHOUSE MIXED IN WITH ONE WITH THE E-COMMERCE COMPONENT. JUJITSU IS URBAN YOUTH PARK OR SIMILAR RECREATIONAL USE AND WITHIN THAT PARK WE HAVE TRAYS HVAC AND ROOFING ALONG WITH INTERIOR DESIGN STUDIO FURNITURE AND A GOLF CART SERVICE AND SPELLS AND A SPECIALTY GYM. TO THE EAST IT SAYS WHY DOES IT SAY WEST OF STERLING PLAZA? TO THE EAST OF THE ZONING REQUEST IS THE UPPER RIGHT-HAND SIDE CONCEPTUAL ELEVATION AND DRAWING EXPECT MORE OF THE SAME COME - EARLY SALES TO CORPORATE OFFICE, SCREEN ENCLOSURE, PERSONAL STORAGE WAS SMALL AND LARGER RECREATIONAL TYPE USE AS WELL AS RESTAURANT. TO THE SOUTH, THIS PICTURE ON THE BOTTOM LEFT IS A PICTURE OF ONE PORTION OF THE ST. JOHN'S OAKS RETAIL WAREHOUSE CONDO PROJECT. IT HAS BEEN HIGHLY SUCCESSFUL AND ACCOMPLISHED VISIONARY GOALS OF THE GENTLEMAN WHO SPEARHEADED THIS TYPE OF MOVEMENT IN FLORIDA. A QUICK NOTE AND ASIDE.

HIS SLOGAN WAS STOP MAKING THE LANDLORD RICH. YOU BE THE LANDLORD. I WANTED TO READ FROM THE ORDINANCE WHAT HIS GOALS

[01:05:03]

WERE FOR THE PROJECTED IMPACT OF THAT PROJECT. PERMIT CREATIVE APPROACH TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF LAND, ACCOMPLISH A MORE DESIRABLE ENVIRONMENT THAT WOULD NOT BE POSSIBLE THROUGH STRICT APPLICATION OF MINIMUM REQUIREMENT LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS. PROVIDE FOR EFFICIENT USE OF LAND, OPPORTUNITY FOR NEW APPROACHES TO OWNERSHIP, PROVIDE STABLE CARE COMPATIBLE WITH SURROUNDING COMMERCIAL AREA AND RETAIL AND RETAIN PROPERTY VALUES OVER THE YEARS. CHECK, CHECK, CHECK, CHECK, IT WAS AMAZING, STRUGGLED EARLY ON IN HIS CAREER BUT EVERYTHING HAS COME IN NICELY. WE'RE TRYING TO CONTINUE WITH THAT LEGACY. THERE IS ONLY ONE THAT ISN'T OUR REQUESTED ZONING COMPARED TO THE ONES AROUND US NORTH AND EAST AND THAT IS WE ARE REQUESTING TO ADD A VERY SPECIFIC USE WHICH IS CAR CONDOMINIUMS AND PRIVATE GARAGES. THE PICTURE ON THE RIGHT IS A CONCEPT CALLED THE WHEELHOUSE WERE TO HAVE TWO OF THESE NOW IN NOKIA T AND HAVE BEEN WELL RECEIVED BY THE COMMUNITY. THIS CORRIDOR ON COULD YOU 1 IS EVOLVING TRANSITIONING FROM LEGACY OPEN WORLD INDUSTRIAL TO SMALL BUSINESS. FLEXIBLE COMMERCIAL AND RETAIL SPACE IN THIS REZONING REQUEST KEEPS PACE WITH CHANGE. WE ARE REDUCING CONGESTION PROMOTING INFO SUPPORTING LOCAL ECONOMIC ACTIVITY AND VITALITY. IF THERE IS NO QUESTIONS I WOULD LIKE TO MOVE ON TO THE WAIVERS OR COMMENTS. SO LET ME START WITH THE LAST NUMBER SIX, THAT IS NOT A WAIVER WE ARE REQUESTING WE DO NOT HAVE TIME TO PULL IT OFF THE SIDE BUT WE DID GIVE THE WILDLIFE STUDY COMPLETED AND THERE WERE NO STATE OR FEDERALLY LISTED WILDLIFE SPECIES FOUND. STAFF CAN SPEAK TO THAT. GOING BACK TO THE TOP, BEER AND WINE EXCEPTION. WE MEET THE STANDARD AND WE HAVE STUFF SUPPORT ON THAT. WE HAVE USERS THAT IN SOME CASES RESTAURANTS THAT WOULD LIKE TO HELP OUT. THIS SLIDE MAY BE OUT OF ORDER WITH WHAT YOU HAVE IN THE ZONING REQUEST NUMBER TO HAVE OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENT. TWO AND THREE ARE PRETTY BIG DEAL TO US. OPEN SPACE , WE GET BY CODE YOU HAVE IT AND I'M GOING TO SPEAK DIRECTLY TO THAT. FIRST THIS IS A SMALL INFILL SPACE AND IF YOU LOOK AT THE SHAPE IT IS NOT SQUARE. IT IS A TRICKY SITE. WE HAD , WE INTEND TO HAVE POND ENHANCEMENTS AS A VISUAL AND USING AMENITIES SUCH AS BENCHES LIGHTING LANDSCAPE. THE OVERALL LIVABILITY IS NOT NEGATIVELY IMPACTED BY THE REQUEST. THE ADJACENT PROPERTIES BOTH TO THE NORTH AND EAST ALSO RECEIVED THIS WAIVER. ARE ALSO MEETING THE INTENT OF THE CODE TO PROVIDE ACCESSIBLE COMMUNITY SERVING OPEN AREA. FOR THE THIRD ONE, THE BUILDING AND PARKING SETBACK. SO THE PROPERTY TO THE NORTH AND I HAD ANOTHER SLIDE I THOUGHT I COULD PUT ON THE FLASH DRIVE TO SHOW YOU BUT I COULDN'T. IF YOU NOTICE . THIS AREA. WE DID GET A WAIVER FOR THAT ACTUALLY AND IT DROPPED THE REQUIREMENT DOWN TO EIGHT FEET OFF OF U.S. 1 AS OPPOSED TO 20 AND WE ARE REQUESTING DROP FROM 20 DOWN TO 10. THE TAPE OF THE SITE AND THE WAY IT WAS ANGLED

[01:10:01]

STARTED AT EIGHT AND GOT EVEN BIGGER THAN 20 TOWARD THE END.

WITH THE 30 FOOT LANDSCAPE AREA FOR VISUAL AND PHYSICAL SEPARATION FROM THE ROAD IT END UP BEING A TOTAL OF 40 FEET BEFORE THE PARKING PICKS UP SO IS JUST FOR PARKING NOT FOR BUILDING. IN THAT AREA WE ARE REQUESTING IT 20 FOOT LONG U.S.

1 DROP TO THE 10 FEET PLEASE. AND THEN, TWO MORE, THE BUBBLE PLAN . THIS IS THE SAME WAY WE SUBMITTED PUD'S APPROVED FOR THE NORTH AND THE EAST AND WE ARE NOT TRYING TO CIRCUMVENT THE CONFERENCE OF MDP REQUIREMENTS . WE ARE USING THIS AS INDUSTRY-STANDARD PLACEHOLDER . IT DOES PRESIDENT AND OTHER APPROVALS WANT TO THE NORTH AND EAST AND I BELIEVE STAFF COMMENT WAS THEY WANTED TO MAKE SURE IT WAS RESOLVED WITH A MUSTARD DEVELOPMENT PLAN SUBMITTAL. THE LAST ONE, NUMBER FIVE. I HAVE GOT MORE PICTURES BUT I KNOW ONE OF THE COMMENTS FROM STAFF WAS THAT THEY MAY BELIEVE THERE MAY BE SOME NATURAL VEGETATION IN THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE SITE. WE HAVE NO PROBLEMS CONSERVING NATURAL VEGETATION, IT JUST IS NOT ANY, THOSE TREES THAT ARE THERE POTTED, PLANTS AND TREES , A LANDSCAPE COMPANY IS THERE THAT THEY USE. THOSE ARE NOT TREES , THEY ARE NOT NATURAL THEIR PRODUCT THIS COMPANY SELLS. PICTURES I CAN SHARE WITH YOU IF YOU DECIDE YOU WANT TO LOOK AT THAT. AND I HOPE I HAVE PRESENTED COMPETENT POTENTIAL EVIDENCE FOR YOU TO SUPPORT RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF ZONING REQUEST AND WAIVERS, HOPEFULLY HAVE DEMONSTRATED HIGHER ZONING AND ACTUAL IMPACTS ON THE COMMUNITY REDUCE TRAFFIC, PROVIDE HIGHER PROPERTY UTILIZATION OF VALUE AND INCREASE LOCAL ECONOMIC ACTIVITY. ON THAT BASIS I RESPECTFULLY REQUEST YOUR

RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ANY

QUESTIONS FROM THE AGENCY? >> YOU MENTIONED AT ONE POINT THAT THE BUILDINGS AND YOUR DEVELOPMENTS ON U.S. 1 ALLEVIATE

TRAFFIC CONGESTION. HOW IS THAT? >> ST. JOHN'S COUNTY TRADITIONALLY BEING THAT BEDROOM COMMUNITY , THE COMMUTE USED TO BE TO GIVE ALL COUNTY PRIMARILY SO WE ARE TAKING TRAFFIC OFF THE ROAD AND NOT FORCING THE DO ALL COUNTY COMMUTE BUT KEEPING JOBS LOCAL AND KEEPING TRAFFIC OFF THE ROADS.

>> SO IT'S JOBS TRAFFIC. OKAY. YOU KNOW WHEN I READ THIS IT WAS A DONE WITH WELL APPLICATION YOU DID A GREAT JOB, WHEN IT GOT TO THE COMPATIBILITY TABLE I SAW YOU ARE ASKING 60 FEET IN HEIGHT SO CAN YOU TALK ABOUT THAT PLEASE?

>> IT FEELS HIGH TO ME, TOO. IN LOOKING WHAT'S AROUND, THE REASON THAT CAME UP. IF WE HAVE TO PIVOT AND THAT'S THE POINT OF THE ZONING AND THERE IS POSSIBILITY, ONE THING I THINK OF WOULD BE A PERSONAL STORAGE FACILITY. THAT'S IT AND EVEN THEN 60 FEET I DON'T KNOW IT'S EVEN GOING TO BE POSSIBLE TO BE THAT HIGH WITH 57,000 SQUARE FEET THAT WE HAVE. WE DID NOT SEE ANYTHING IN THE CODE IN THE IW THAT SPOKE TO SIZE. BECAUSE IT WAS FRONTING COULD YOU WIN WE PUT IN THE 60 FOOT. THERE WAS NOT, THERE'S REALLY NO GOOD REASON. IF YOU FEEL IT IS OUT OF CHARACTER I AM OPEN FOR DROPPING THAT DOWN SOME.

>> I FEEL IT'S OUT OF CHARACTER. EVERYTHING ELSE YOU

HAVE DEVELOPED IS 35 FEET. >> YEAH, SO WHEN YOU LOOK UP AND DOWN THE ROAD, THINKING OF THE ABOVE DEVELOPMENT. PERSONAL STORAGE UNIT BY THE HIGH SCHOOL. DOES APPEAR TO BE 45 OR 50 FEET SO I WOULD BE OPEN TO DROPPING IT TO 45 FEET.

[01:15:01]

>> 45. >> YES OR.

>> OKAY THANK YOU. >> MR. LABANOWSKI

>> THE TREES AROUND THAT WILL THEY REMAIN?

>> WHICH TREES? >> AROUND THE BUILDING ITSELF.

>> THERE ARE OH, YOU MEAN THE PINE TREES IN THE FRONT?

>> IS THAT PINE? >> IT'S JUST A COUPLE OF PINES

YES SIR. >> ON THE SOUTH SIDE WITH EMPTY

LOT IS THERE ARE TREES? >> LET ME SHOW YOU. I HAVE A GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEM PLATFORM THAT ALLOWS ME TO MAP THE PICTURE NEXT TO THE LOCATION. SO THIS IS FROM EVERY CONCEIVABLE ANGLE. WHAT IS ON THE SITE. THAT IS SCRUB BRUSH ON DIRT THEY JUST HAVE NOT USED ON-SITE IN A LONG TIME THAT IS NOT NATURALLY OCCURRING, THAT IS A WEED. THIS IS ME ON THE NEIGHBORING TRACT LOOKING INTO THIS , SORRY, THIS IS THE PROPERTY AND THIS IS A FENCE . LOOKING INTO IT AGAIN, THOSE BLOCKS ARE UP AGAINST THE PROPERTY LINE. ANOTHER SHOT SHOWING THE BLOCKS AGAIN. THIS IS LOOKING BACK TOWARD THE SITE.

WHAT YOU CANNOT TELL IT IS GRAINY, THAT BUSH IS LIKE A GIANT WEED THAT STARTS ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE FENCE AND GROWS INTO THIS SITE. AND AGAIN THIS ONE WOULD PROBABLY BE THE ONE PLACE YOU WOULD SAY I LOOKED OVERTHE FENCE AND COUNTRIES.

THERE ARE TREES, BUT THEY ARE POTTED.

>> ALL RIGHT. I HAVE TO AGREE WITH DR. HILSENBECK, THE HEIGHT IS A LITTLE CONCERNING THE 60 FOOT.

>> ARE VERY WELL SUITED FOR YOUR JOB I MUST SAY. OKAY. YOU MENTIONED PRECEDENT IN THE BEGINNING AND THERE WAS PRESIDENT IN 2021 WHEN THE OTHER PROPERTIES YOU MANAGE OR OWN GOT WAIVERS FOR THE RETENTION POND TO BE USED AS OPEN SPACE. I DID NOT KNOW THAT. I'M SURE IT'S PROBABLY THERE BUT I DID NOT SEE THAT IN THE REPORT. SO THAT WAS A PROBLEM I HAD WITH THAT I DID NOT THINK THAT WAS A GOOD PRECEDENT IS SET BECAUSE RETENTION PONDS ARE FUNCTIONAL AND REQUIRED THINGS AND THIS IS A SMALL LOT. FOR ME TO FIT 57,000 SQUARE FEET ON THAT IS REALLY ABOUT 3/4 OF THE ACTUAL SITE COUNTING PARKING AND EVERYTHING SO YOU DON'T HAVE ROOM TO PRESERVE 25% AND BE ABLE TO DO WHAT YOU WANT. SO THE SIZE OF THE FLEX BUILDING, IS THAT A CONSTRAINT FOR YOU THAT YOU CANNOT GO DOWN SMALLER WITH THAT AND I KNOW IT'S NOT REALLY CONSERVATION AREA, IT'S BEEN A PARKING LOT. I'M JUST ASKING IS THAT THE REASON YOU WANT TO USE AS MUCH OF THE PROPERTY AS YOU CAN?

>> I BELIEVE THE FLOOR AREA RATIO IS 70%. THAT IS NOT A WAIVER, BUT WHAT WILL LIMIT US ON SQUARE FOOTAGE WILL ULTIMATELY END UP BEING THE PARKING AND BETWEEN THE PARKING ON THE SETBACK, WHAT WE CAN FIT AND STILL LOOK APPEALING. WE ARE ALWAYS TRYING TO BALANCE THOSE TWO.

>> THAT WAS MY ONE OBJECTION. I DO APPRECIATE YOU PUT POTENTIAL INTERCONNECTIVITY WITH OTHER PARCELS I THINK THAT'S A GOOD THING KEEPING TRAFFIC OFF THE ROAD. OKAY LOTS OF NUMBERS. CAR

CONDOMINIUM? >> YES MA'AM.

>> NO LIVING AREA INVOLVED? JUST A GARAGE TYPE PLACE?

>> YES. >> I AM MAKING SURE I DON'T HAVE ANYTHING ELSE. OKAY I THINK THAT'S IT, THANK YOU SO MUCH.

[01:20:03]

>> ANY OF THE QUESTIONS? >> I HAVE ONE QUESTION. YOU SAY THE SELF STORAGE WAREHOUSE DOWN BY THE HIGH SCHOOL OR UP BY THE HIGH SCHOOL I'M NOT SURE HOW FAR AWAY THAT IS IN WHAT DIRECTION NORTH OR SOUTH. I HAVE DRIVEN BY HERE 100 TIMES, DID NOT LOOK SPECIFICALLY AT THIS SITE. YOU SAID YOU THOUGHT THAT MIGHT BE 45 FEET. HOW FAR AWAY IS THAT?

>> I TRIED TO MEASURE ON GOOGLE EARTH. IT DOES NOT LET YOU GO VERTICAL BUT DRIVING DOWN IT LOOKED TO BE AT LEAST 45 BECAUSE I THINK IT WAS FOUR STORIES , MAYBE SMALL STORIES WHERE WHEN YOU GO NORTH AND LOOK AT THE CORPORATE OFFICE FOR DREAM FINDERS. NEXT TO THEM , THE ABOVE ONLY APPEARS TO BE THREE STORIES, BUT THEY LOOK TO BE 15 FOOT PLATES SO IT'S HUGE. IT LOOKS TO BE AT LEAST 45 SO I WOULD SAY THOSE BRIGHT THERE IS A THE RETAIL BUILDING AND TO THE NORTH ABOUT ONE MILE NORTH OR MILE AND A HALF IT IS AT LEAST 45 FEET I WOULD SAY.

>> OTHER BUILDINGS ARE 45 FEET A MILE AWAY? AND DID YOU SAY YOU CAN MEASURE THE HEIGHT OF THE BUILDING?

>> I COULDN'T. YOU CAN IN TOWNS. TURNED ON ELEVATION AND THEIR COORDINATE THAT ALLOWS YOU TO GO VERTICAL PART YOU HAVE TO BE CAREFUL SOMETIMES IT WILL MEASURE HORIZONTAL AND YOU THINK

IT'S MEASURING VERTICAL. >> THANK YOU. SO 35 FEET ISN'T

GOING TO DO IT FOR YOU HERE? >> IT DEPENDS ON WHAT COMES.

IT'S POSSIBLE, BUT I WOULD PREFER IF WE COULD AGREE TO 45.

>> ANY OTHER QUESTION? IS THERE ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE HERE TO SPEAK ON ITEM NUMBER FOUR. BACK TO THE AGENCY FOR A MOTION.

OKAY. I WILL MAKE A MOTION TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PUD 2024-15 POWER CENTER BASED ON NINE FINDINGS OF FACT LISTED IN

THE STAFF REPORT. SECOND? >> CAN WE PUT A CONDITION TO REDUCE THE HEIGHT TO LIMIT 45 FEET?

>> I DON'T MIND AMENDING IF THAT'S OKAY WITH YOU. THIS IS

JUST A RECOMMENDATION. >> YES THAT'S FINE WITH ME.

>> RECOMMEND 45 FOOT HEIGHT LIMIT.

>> I AM FINE WITH THAT. >> ANY DISCUSSION? MR. MATOVINA

I'M SORRY. >> I'M NOT GOING TO VOTE FOR THIS. IF YOU GO TO THE TABLE ON PAGE 13 OF OUR STAFF REPORT, THIS IS OVER 30,000 SQUARE FEET PER ACRE. THE OTHER THREE USES IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT RANGE FROM 9100, TO A LITTLE UNDER 13,000 SQUARE FEET PER ACRE. I SUPPOSE WITH A MINI WAREHOUSE YOU COULD FIT THAT, BUT THIS PROPOSAL IS FOR A VERY SMALL SITE, SHOULD HAVE SPECIFIC USE IN MIND AND NOT JUST INCLUDE A BROAD LIST OF USE. I THINK ZONING SHOULD COME BACK BEFORE US WITH SPECIFIC USE OR MORE LIMITED USES AND SOMETHING MORE COMPATIBLE IN TERMS OF SQUARE FOOTAGE. SO I'M NOT GOING TO VOTE.

>> ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? SEEING NONE LET'S REGISTERED THE VOTE.

HEART SORRY BUT THE MOTION IS TONIGHT. IT WILL BE A RECOMMENDATION OF DENIAL BASED ON OUR VOTE TODAY.

>> I CAN TALK TO YOU AFTERWARDS A LITTLE BIT IF YOU NEED, LEGAL.

[5. WH 2024-03 Andre Land Holdings Workforce Housing. Request to rezone approximately 11.37 acres of land from Open Rural (OR) to Workforce Housing (WH), located at 3165 County Road 208, Unit F.]

IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS I WILL TALK WITH YOU.

>> OKAY ITEM NUMBER FIVE ANY EX PARTE?

>> YES MADAM CHAIR. I DID DO A SITE VISIT AND I DID HAVE A BRIEF CONVERSATION WITH

>> MR. HILSENBECK. >> I HAD PREVIOUSLY DRIVEN BY THE SITE BUT IT HAS BEEN SOMETIME.

>> AT A SHORT DISCUSSION WITH

[01:25:04]

DRIVE-BY. >> I DID A DRIVE-BY.

>> THE FLOOR IS YOURS. >> HUMORS INTERIOR SO YOU DID A DRIVE-BY, FOR THE RECORD DOUG BURNETT ST. JOHN'S LAW GROUP HERE IN SAINT AUGUSTINE, FLORIDA. WALK YOU THROUGH A FEW SLIDES, A WORKFORCE HOUSING PROJECT. THE CENTER PART OF THE COUNTY MY BOX WILL SHOW OFF FOR SOME REASON IT'S A LITTLE LOWER THAN WHAT SHOULD BE THE SITE IS LOCATED WEST OF THE OUTLET MALL ON 16. INSTEAD OF CONTINUING WEST ON 16, YOU GO ON COUNTY ROAD 208 AND THEN SOUTHBOUND 208. SO IN THAT LOCATION WHERE THE BOX IS, TAKING A CLOSER LOOK AT THE AERIAL YOU CAN SEE THE PARCEL. YOU'VE GOT SOBER HOT DRIVE ACROSS SINGLE-FAMILY AND THEN YOU HAVE THE OR IN OUR GENERAL AREA. AND AROUND THE SITE. IT IS RESIDENTIAL B SO IT WORKS PERFECTLY FOR WORKFORCE HOUSING SITE AND ZONING. ONE THING IN OF A POINT TO ONE OF THE NEW MEMBERS, YOU WILL LIKE THIS. THAT AREA BETWEEN THE OUTLET MALL AND I GP STATE ROUTE 16 IT IS NOT IN THE DEVELOPMENT AREA BOUNDARY. WE DON'T TALK ABOUT THAT A LOT IN HERE BUT THIS SITE IS IN THE BOUNDARY WHERE YOU HAVE THAT RED BOX OR THE RED LINE DRAWN AROUND THE MAP AND THAT IS THE DEVELOPMENT AREA WHERE DEVELOPMENT IS ENCOURAGED, WITHIN THE BOUNDARY NOT OUTSIDE OF THE BOUNDARY. IF YOU LOOK AT THE CONFERENCE A PLAN AND HOW TO CONTROL URBAN SPRAWL FOR EXAMPLE THE INFILL DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP AGAIN THERE IS WITH THE RED BOXES AROUND THEM. AND COUNTY SHALL ENCOURAGE URBAN AND SUBURBAN GROWTH IN THE DEVELOPMENT AREAS, DESIGNATED ON THE FUTURE MAP , THE RED BOX. SHALL ENCOURAGE INFIELD DEVELOPMENT, HOW DO WE KNOW WHAT THAT IS? THE COMP PLAN TO FIND THE PARCELS IN THE AREA SURROUNDED BY EXISTING BUILT AREAS. GOES BACK TO THE SHALL LANGUAGE THE COUNTY SHALL CONSIDER IDENTIFYING AREAS FOR THE BOUNDARIES APPROPRIATE FOR INFILL AND ESTABLISHING INCENTIVES FOR ENCOURAGING AREAS. AND SANITARY SEWER TALKS ABOUT THE DEVELOPMENT AREA BOUNDARIES. LOOKING AT OUR SITE AND LOOKING CLOSER AS TO WHAT'S AROUND THE SITE I WILL POINT OUT ONE PARCEL THAT IS A LITTLE OVER FROM US AND THAT IS, FROM WHAT I CAN TELL FROM RESEARCH, A COMPANY CALLED H 2 WHICH DEALS WITH CORROSIVE CHEMICALS. NOT SURE THE EXTENT OF WHAT THAT IS. YOU CAN CLEARLY SEE A COUPLE 18 WHEELERS PARKED ON THE SITE AND LARGE CONTAINERS OF SOME SORT CONTAINING LIQUID. NEXT TO US IN THIS LOCATION I BELIEVE IS A MOBILE HOME AND IT IS NOT HOMESTEADED. TO THE NORTH AND EAST OF US IS ANOTHER MOBILE HOME SITE , A LITTLE CLOSER AERIAL OF THAT PARCEL. WE DO HAVE GOOD SEPARATION FROM OTHER NEIGHBORS TO THE WEST OF US, I WILL TELL YOU WHEN YOU ARE LOOKING AND LET ME FLIP BACK REALLY QUICKLY HERE BECAUSE I UNDERSTAND THERE'S SOME OPPOSITION AND AT ONE POINT A FEW THINGS OUT. I THINK YOU HAVE ALL RECEIVED THE PACKET, AS I DID RESEARCH OF THE OPPOSITION, NOT TALKING ABOUT FOLKS THAT ARE HERE BUT SOME OF THE FOLKS IN HERE THAT WROTE IN TO THE COUNTY ARE INTERESTING BECAUSE IT WOULD APPEAR THE ADDRESSES ARE NOT IN THE SAME ZIP CODE AND PHONE NUMBERS DO NOT APPEAR TO BE IN THE SAME AREA CODE OR SOME COMBINATION OF THE TWO. WHEN YOU LOOK AT A COUPLE OF THOSE, ONE OF THEM IS ON BLACKSTONE WAY WHICH IS ACROSS THE STREET IN THE SINGLE-FAMILY SUBDIVISION TO THE NORTH. SKIP BACK TO WHERE I WAS GOING. AGAIN THIS IS WORKFORCE HOUSING PROJECT. I THINK THAT PART OF THE LANGUAGE WE QUOTED IN THE JUSTIFICATION AND EXPEDITION MAY NOT BE THE MOST CURRENT COMPLAINTS OF PLAIN LANGUAGE, STAFF BROUGHT THAT TO ATTENTION WE WILL HAVE THAT SQUARED AWAY BUT AGAIN 260,000

[01:30:05]

BUT AGAIN 260,030% OF HOMES IN THERE. CLEARLY A GREAT LOCATION FOR WORKFORCE HOUSING. WHEN YOU LOOK AT 31 MAJOR EMPLOYERS ST.

JOHN'S COUNTY HAS IDENTIFIED, 20 OF THEM ARE LOCATED IN 15 MILES MANY ARE LOCATED AROUND FIVE MILES FROM THE SITE. THERE IS NO SITE PLAN IN THE PROJECT BUT I CAN SHOW YOU WHAT A SITE PLAN WOULD LOOSELY LOOK LIKE FOR THE SITE. IT LAYS OUT PRETTY EASILY 22 TO 24 HOMES. I NOTICED IN THE STAFF REPORT THEY COMPARED THIS TO WORKFORCE HOUSING AND SAID THERE'S A NUMBER OF UNITS ACROSS THE STREET IN THE BIG MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT THAT IS PROPOSED ACROSS THE STREET FROM THE OUTLET MALL. AND THE PROJECT IS ALL APARTMENTS. SO IT IS ALL MULTIFAMILY APARTMENTS I GUESS ONE PORTION IS TOWNHOMES AND ZERO OF THEM HAVE BEEN FINALIZED AT THIS STAGE. A VERY DIFFERENT TYPE OF PROJECT BEING PROPOSED HERE THINGS SINGLE-FAMILY. ALSO

WORKFORCE HOUSING. >> CAN INTERRUPT YOU ONE SECOND? THAT SITE PLAN YOU SHOWED 22 WITH THE 22 APPARENTLY SINGLE-FAMILY LOTS? IS THAT THE ONE FROM 2021? THAT WAS

PREVIOUSLY CONSIDERED? >> I BELIEVE SO.

>> THAT'S NOT A NEW SITE PLAN YOU ARE BRINGING FORWARD , FOR THE 68 UNITS WITH 30% WORKFORCE HOUSING?

>> I'M NOT SURE WERE 60 UNITS CAME FROM.

>> IN THE AGENDA ITEM IN STAFF PACKET. SAYS YOU WERE ASKING FOR

68 UNITS. >> WE ARE ASKING FOR WORKFORCE HOUSING ZONING. WE CAN PUT A LIMIT ON THAT AS PART OF CONDITION OF THE ORDINANCE WHICH HAS BEEN DONE ON THE OTHER REASONS , THAT MAKES THE AGENCY HAPPY IN REGARD SO WE WOULD BE HAPPY TO LISTEN TO THAT RECOMMENDATION AND TAKE THAT

FORWARD. >> OKAY THANK YOU.

>> ARE YOU DONE? >> I THINK SO. I'M ASSUMING

THIS PUBLIC COMMENT. >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? OKAY WE WILL GO TO PUBLIC COMMENT. ANYONE HERE IN THE AUDIENCE TO SPEAK ON ITEM NUMBER FIVE PLEASE? COME UP NEXT.

>> IDEA WHAT THEY'RE GOING TO PUT THERE. IT'S NOT GOING TO BE SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES THAT'S FOR SURE. I AM JUST DUMBFOUNDED HERE. YOU ALL TURNED HIM DOWN FOR SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES A COUPLE YEARS AGO. WHY IN THE WORLD WOULD YOU CHANGE YOUR MIND ABOUT THIS LOCATION? AND SAY OKAY IT'S OKAY NOW BECAUSE WE ARE SAYING IT'S FOR WORKFORCE HOUSING? I AM ALL FOR WORKFORCE HOUSING BUT NOT THERE. IF YOU GO TO THE EAST, THERE IS I THINK TWO OR THREE PROJECTS THAT HAVE BEEN APPROVED THAT IS NOT BROKEN GROUND YET, SOME HAVE. IT'S GOING TO BE A LOT OF TOWNHOUSES, SOME OF MY FAMILY. WHEN YOU GET TO THE EAST FOR ALL THESE PEOPLE TO GET TO WORK, YOU'RE GOING THROUGH 16 208 INTERSECTION THAT IS JUST A DUMPSTER FIRE. IF WE'RE GOING TO DO HIGH DENSITY THAN WHAT THEY ASKED FOR BEFORE RIGHT WHEN THE VERY LAST LITTLE SEGMENT WHERE WE HAVE SAID WE DON'T WANT THE DEVELOPMENT BOUNDARY TO GO ANY FURTHER THAN THIS AND WE JUST DISCUSSED IN A BCC MEETING , THAT SEEMS TO BE THE GENERAL CONCEPT. WE ARE TRYING TO HOLD, IN MY PERSONAL OPINION YOU DON'T WANT TO PUT ANYTHING THERE THAT'S GOING TO GO FROM VERY HIGH DENSITY TO

[01:35:05]

AGRICULTURAL CIVIL CULTURE . DON'T WE WANT SOME SORT OF TRANSITION? WOULDN'T THE TRANSITION BE SOME SINGLE-FAMILY ? I'M NOT AT ALL IN FAVOR OF APPROVING ANY MORE WORKFORCE HOUSING UNLESS WE SEE CLEAR PLANS ABOUT WHAT THEY'RE GOING TO PUT THERE. I THINK WE ARE OVERSATURATED RIGHT NOW WITH TOWNHOUSES. TOWNHOUSES WERE A GREAT IDEA WHEN THE FIRST CAME THROUGH. WAY TO GET DENSITY AND PROVIDE HOUSING BUT EVERYWHERE I TURN NOW ARE TOWNHOUSES AND THEY'RE NOT SELLING ALL THAT GREAT RIGHT NOW AND THERE'S LOTS OF THEM OUT THERE THAT HAVE NOT EVEN STARTED. I MEAN I'M SORRY TO GIVE UP THE WORKFORCE HOUSING BUT I CANNOT BE IN FAVOR OF THIS THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU, SIR.

>> MINIMUS GARRETT DUNLOP 2305 COUNTY ROAD . I HAVE LIVED ON THE PROPERTY OVER NINE YEARS, LIKE MANY NEIGHBORS I MOVED TO THE SOUTH SIDE OF COUNTY ROAD 208 FOR SPACE, CONNECTION WITH NATURE IN THE AREA THAT OFFERS PIVACY. OUR LAND IS OR ACRES FILLED WITH TALL TREES, GEARS, TURKEYS ON THE SOUND OF VOWELS AT NIGHT INSTEAD OF TRAFFIC. WE CHOSE THIS LIFESTYLE INTENTIONALLY. QUIET, OPEN AND ALLOWS FOR US TO LIVE FREE. WE RAISE LIVESTOCK, SHOOT RECREATIONALLY AND WE HAVE ROOSTERS THAT DO CROW BEFORE THE SUN RISES. THAT'S THE OPEN WORLD LIFE. IT WORKS BECAUSE OF PEOPLE HERE OF VALUE LIVING THE SAME WAY. WHEN THE PROPERTY NEXT DOOR WHENEVER SALAD WAS MARKETED FOR HORSES AND FAMILY COMPOUND AND THAT FITS HERE. IN 2021 THE PROPOSED 22 HOMES AS YOU SAW AND WAS DENIED NOW THEY ARE LOOKING AT 68 UNITS EVEN THOUGH IT'S NOT 68 UNITS , IT'S NOT JUST A BETTER IT IS COMPLETELY OUT OF SCALE. LET ME BE CLEAR I'M NOT AGAINST GROWTH BUT IT NEEDS TO BE RESPONSIBLE. RESPECT THE ZONING AND CHARACTER OF THE LAND AND THE PEOPLE IF YOU. 60 UNITS MEANS 300 PLUS MORE CARS PER DAY. IT IS A LOGISTICAL NIGHTMARE, BRINGS TRAFFIC NOISE AND THE RISKS. THE SAME 300 CARS WILL CUT THROUGH THE NEIGHBORHOOD THAT ACCESS ESTATE WROTE 16 WITH MANY FATAL ACCIDENTS AT THE INTERSECTION LEAVING WITHIN THE LAST YEAR. LET'S NOT FORGET AND I AM ON THIS PROPERTY, THE ENTIRE PROPERTY IS NEXT DOOR TO ME.

LET'S NOT FORGET THAT THERE IS MASSIVE TREES ON THE PROPERTY THIS MEASURES 15 FEET CIRCUMFERENCE FROM THE BASE OF THE OAK TREE WHICH WOULD BE IN THE CENTER OF THE DRIVEWAY. I DO HAVE KIDS THAT LOVE TO RED THEREFORE RULERS ON OUR LAND. WE HOST BONFIRES WITH FRIENDS AND FAMILY AND THIS WHEN IT DOES BRING NEW NEIGHBORS IT WILL BRING CONFLICT. PEOPLE COMPLAIN ABOUT ANIMALS AND FIRES, LIFESTYLE AND WE WILL BE THE ONES THAT WILL BE ASKED TO CHANGE, THEY WILL JUST COMPLAIN.

I'M NOT ASKING YOU TO STOP DEVELOPMENT, I'M JUST ASKING YOU TO BE MORE RESPECTFUL. IF SOMETHING MUST BE BUILT, I THINK FOUR ACRE LOTS THAT'S WHAT IT SHOULD BE, THAT'S WHAT IT WAS PROPOSED WHEN THEY ORIGINALLY DID IT. I THINK THAT'S IT.

>> THANK YOU, SIR. >> ANYONE ELSE? YES SIR.

>> MY NAME IS GARY DUNLOP AND I LIVE ON THE PROPERTY DIRECTLY NEXT TO WHAT THEY'RE TRYING TO REZONE. IN 2016 I PURCHASED MY HOME ON 3 1/2 ACRES OF LAND ZONED OPEN WORLD. ABOUT THE PROPERTY BECAUSE IT WAS SURROUNDED BY OTHER OPEN WORLD PARCELS, LAND WHERE PEOPLE VALUE SPACE, PRIVACY AND A RURAL LIFESTYLE. MANY OF US HAVE HORSES, CHICKENS AND LIVESTOCK.

WE ENJOY THE PEACE AND QUIET AND INDEPENDENCE ZONING ALLOWS INCLUDING LAWFUL USE OF FIREARMS ON OUR PROPERTY. THIS REZONING FROM OPEN WORLD TO WORKFORCE HOUSING TO BUILD 68 UNITS ON 11

[01:40:02]

ACRES IS OUT OF LINE WITH THE SURROUNDING AREA. IT WOULD INSERT DENSE DEVELOPMENT INTO COMMUNITY THAT WAS NEVER INTENDED FOR IT. ONE OF THE THINGS WE LOVE MOST ABOUT THE AREA IS THE NATURAL LANDSCAPE. SURROUNDED BY TALL BEAUTIFUL TREES THAT PROVIDE SHADE PROTECTION FROM HIGH WIND ESPECIALLY THIS TIME OF YEAR. WILDLIFE HABITAT AND PRIVACY. IF THIS DEVELOPMENT MOVES FORWARD ALL THAT WILL BE WIPED OUT. IT HUNDRED 25 FEET OF MY PROPERTY LINE WILL LOSE ALL TREES AND WILL TAKE AWAY MY PRIVACY. IT WILL BE BULLDOZED AND PAVED OVER. WHILE THE DEVELOPERS MAY SAY THE PROJECT WON'T AFFECT DRAINAGE I HAVE LIVED THERE LONG ENOUGH TO KNOW BETTER. CLEARING THAT LAND AND REPLACING WITH THE ROADS AND PARKING LOTS WILL CAUSE RUNOFF ISSUES, IT WILL CAUSE MY PROPERTY TO FLOOD. YOU CAN SEE HERE THERE IS A HUGE RETAINING POND THAT GOES UP AND DOWN WITH RAINFALL SOMETIMES COMPLETELY FULL AND THEN SLOWLY DISSIPATES SO A LOT OF WATER RUNS INTO THE PROPERTY. THIS IS THE KIND OF DEVELOPMENT THE REFLEXIVE PATTERN THAT BECOMING TOO COMMON IN ST. JOHN'S COUNTY. OVER DEVELOPMENT WITHOUT REGARD FOR PEOPLE LIVING THERE. WE ARE LOSING THE THINGS THAT MAKE THIS COUNTY SPECIAL. GREEN SPACE, NATURAL BEAUTY, UNIQUE COMMUNITIES PIECE BY PIECE, THIS REZONING IS NOT JUST A LINE ON THE MAP IT IS A MAJOR DISRUPTION TO THE CHARACTER QUALITY LIFE AND SAFETY OF THE RURAL COMMUNITY. I HEARD YOU PLEASE DENY THIS REQUEST LET'S PROTECT WHAT MAKES THIS AREA WORTH LIVING IN BEFORE IT'S GONE, THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU, SIR. >> IT UP AND I WANT TO THANK MEMBERS FOR THE SERVICE TO THE COMMUNITY. CERTAINLY APPRECIATED. MY NAME IS BEEN THERE 35 YEARS. I WAS SHOCKED TO SEE THE SAME NUMBER OF UNITS THEY PROPOSED NEARLY 4 YEARS AGO WHICH WAS DENIED UNANIMOUSLY BY THE BOARD SHOW UP ON THAT SCREEN A FEW MINUTES AGO. ALL INFORMATION HAS BEEN WE WILL SEE 66 OR 68 UNITS NOW THEY'RE COMING BACK CALLING IT WORKFORCE RATHER THAN A DEVELOPMENT WHICH WAS SHOCKING. AT THAT TIME IT WAS TURNED DOWN WITH ONE REASON BECAUSE OF A CUL-DE-SAC ONE WAY IN AND ONE WAY OUT WITH A THREAT TO BEING ABLE TO PROVIDE SERVICE FROM EMS, FIRE AND SHERIFF'S OFFICE BECAUSE THERE WERE NOT TWO WAYS IN AND OUT LIKE THERE WERE ACROSS THE STREET WITH ALL THE DEVELOPMENTS AT WHISPER RIDGE. ANOTHER POINT WE MADE FOUR YEARS AGO WAS THIS IS AGAINST HISTORIC AND TRADITIONAL USE OF PROPERTY ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF 208 WHICH HAS ALL BEEN OPEN WORLD. FOR DECADES. I AM CONCERNED ONCE AGAIN ABOUT THE SCHOOL SYSTEM AND THE STRING THAT WILL PUT ON THAT WITH ALL THE TRAFFIC ON 208 IT KEEPS GETTING WORSE AND WORSE, THE ROAD GETS TORN UP MORE AND IT COSTS THE COMMUNITY MORE MONEY TO TAKE CARE OF THAT STUFF AND IT SEEMS LIKE THE MULTIFAMILY STUFF IS BEING DEVELOPED BY THE INTERSECTION BETWEEN TOMS ROAD WHERE THE TRIANGLE COMES IN AT 208 AND 16. SOMEBODY ONE OF THE OTHER COMMISSIONERS FOUR YEARS AGO SAID WE HAVE TO BE CAREFUL BECAUSE OPEN RURAL PROPERTY ONCE REZONED TO NON-OPEN WE LOSE IT FOREVER AND ALL BENEFITS AND I WILL TELL YOU SINCE THAT DEVELOPMENT ON THE AREA MENTIONED ABOUT TOMS ROAD AT 16 AND 208 SINCE THAT WAS CLEARED WE HAVE HAD A NUMBER OF OTTERS, ALLIGATORS KILLED AROUND THE TURN BECAUSE THEY'RE TRYING TO CRYSTAL OUT AND THERE'S NO PLACE BECAUSE I HAVE BEEN RUN OUT OF HOMES. I LOVE OTTERS, WE HAVE ALLIGATORS. I HAVE HAD BALD EAGLES, I'VE HAD OSPREY AND I CAN SHOW YOU PICTURES ON MY PHONE. WE ARE LOSING THEM AND IF WE KEEP OVER DEVELOPING OVER ROLLERS THAT WILL KEEP DISAPPEARING AND WE WILL HAVE THEM ANYMORE. THAT'S THE REASON I'VE BEEN OUT IN THE AIR WITH MY HORSES, MY DOCS, BUILT MY POND AND STOCKED IT WITH FISH. A WONDERFUL LIFESTYLE I SPEND YEARS DEVELOPING IT TO HAVE THE LIFESTYLE AND I DO NOT WANT IT RUINED. I SEE THAT I HAVE 13 SECONDS LEFT. LAST TIME I WAS NOT NOTIFIED THE PROPERTY WAS

[01:45:05]

BEING DEVELOPED AND WAS STAFF AFTERWARDS AND GOT MY NAME ON THE LIST BECAUSE I AM 160 FEET AWAY. AND NEVER RECEIVED A SINGLE NOTICE ON INJURED ME TO GIVE THE ADDRESS AND IF ANYTHING EVER HAPPENS AGAIN WILL MAKE SURE YOU GET NOTIFIED I'M WAITING ON IT FOR THIS INSTANCE IT SO HAPPENS I DROVE BY AND SAW THE SIGNS BURIED BACK IN THE WOODS AND MY NEIGHBOR NEXT DOOR LETTING ME KNOW THEY'RE TRYING TO DEVELOP AGAIN, I WOULD HOPE WE COULD GET STUFF TO DO A BETTER JOB NOTIFYING PEOPLE WITHIN THE DISTANCE PERMITTED BY LAW. THANK YOU ONCE AGAIN FOR

YOUR SERVICE. >> ANYONE ELSE?

>> GOOD AFTERNOON EVERYBODY. MY NAME IS STEPHANIE SMITH, 3205 COUNTY ROAD 208 I HAVE BEEN THERE , I'M HERE TODAY TO EXPRESS STRONG OPPOSITION TO THE PROPOSED 68 UNIT DEVELOPMENT AND URGE YOU TO PRESERVE THE CURRENT OPEN RURAL ZONING BY DENYING THE REQUEST. MY FAMILY AND I LIVE ON PROPERTY EMBRACING A RURAL LIFESTYLE THAT ALIGNS FULLY WITH THE INTENT OF OPEN RURAL ZONING, WE HAVE LIVESTOCK , THE ROOSTERS MENTIONED ALONG WITH WORKING DOGS AND HORSES OUR CHILDREN RIDE FOUR WHEELERS AND HAVE A DIRT BIKE TRAIL ON THE BACK OF THE PROPERTY AND WE MAINTAIN A PRIVATE GUN RANGE WE SAFELY AND RESPONSIBLY PRACTICE SHOOTING THIS WAY OF LIFE IS NOT COMPATIBLE WITH HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT. THE LAND IN QUESTION WAS NEVER ATTENDED FOR SUBURBAN EXPANSION, THE OPEN RURAL DESIGNATION EXIST TO PROTECT LOW DENSITY AGRICULTURAL FRIENDLY LIVING AND PROTECTION MUST REMAIN IN PLACE. A PRESSING CONCERN FOR ME IS STRAIN PLACED ON OVERBURDEN SCHOOLS, THE LOCAL SCHOOLS ARE SIGNIFICANTLY OVERCROWDED AND STRUGGLING TO MEET THE NEEDS OF EXISTING STUDENTS. I HAD TO KNOW MY CHILDREN IN PRIVATE SCHOOL 45 MINUTES AWAY TO ENSURE THEY RECEIVED EDUCATION THEY DESERVED. AFTER YEARS IN THE PUBLIC SCHOOL SYSTEM. ADDING DOZENS OF ADDITIONAL HOMES WITHOUT A PLAN TO SUPPORT EDUCATION INFRASTRUCTURE IS IRRESPONSIBLE AND UNSUSTAINABLE.

I WOULD LIKE TO POINT OUT THE PROPOSED 22 HOME DEVELOPMENT ON THE SAME LINE WAS DENIED SEPTEMBER 16, 2021 OVER THREE YEARS AGO NOW WE'RE FACING A PROPOSED 68 UNITS MORE THAN TRIPLE THE PREVIOUS REQUEST. NOT ONLY IS THAT ALARMING INCREASE BUT IT WOULD ELIMINATE NATURAL TREELINE AND PRIVACY, PROPERTY WITH NEIGHBORS RELY ON. CONSTRUCTION OF TOWNHOMES IN THE SETTING WOULD ALTER THE LANDSCAPE AND CHARACTER OF COMMUNITY. THIS IS NOT AN ISOLATED ISSUE IT IS PART OF A LARGER PATTERN OF RAPID PROGRESSIVE EXPANSION IN THE AREA. WILDLIFE ARE BEING DISPLACED, NATURAL LAND IS DISAPPEARING AND CHARACTER OF RURAL COMMUNITIES IS AT RISK OF BEING LOST. WE ARE NOT AGAINST AWFUL RESPONSIBLE GROWTH BUT THIS PROPOSAL IS NEITHER. PLEASE CONSIDER LONG-TERM IMPACT OF THE OVER DEVELOPMENT AND IMPORTANCE OF UPHOLDING THE INTENT BEHIND OPEN RURAL ZONING NOT JUST FOR MY FAMILY BUT FOR THE FUTURE OF OUR COMMUNITY, CHILDREN AND NATURAL ENVIRONMENT. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND CONSIDERATION.

>> THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE? >> GOOD AFTERNOON MY NAME IS GWEN PIERCE AND I LIVE ON 2375 AND I HAVE LIVED ON FAMILY PROPERTY FIVE ACRES IN TOTAL THAT IS THE ADJACENT SOUTHEAST OF THE SOUTHERN PART OF THE PIECE OF PROPERTY, I'VE LIVED ON THE PROPERTY 48 YEARS AND I WAS NOT PREPARED TO SPEAK TODAY BUT I'M REALLY VERY CONCERNED ABOUT WHAT'S HAPPENING IN OUR COUNTY. I AM FROM SAINT AUGUSTINE ONE OF THE FEW IN THE ROOM IF NOT I WOULD BE SURPRISED BUT AM CONCERNED ABOUT WHAT'S HAPPENING WITH THIS PIECE OF PROPERTY . I AGREE WITH WHAT EVERYBODY HAS SAID. IN 21 THAT WAS THE LAST TIME I WAS HERE IN

[01:50:05]

SEPTEMBER 21 WITH THE PROPOSED 22 HOME PLAN DENIED ONE ENTRANCE IN AND OUT. IT IS APPALLING AND SAD TO SEE WHAT ST. JOHNS COUNTY HAS TURNED INTO, WHAT WE ARE DOING TO PROPERTY, SCHOOLS AND ROADS, OUR WILDLIFE. I HAVE DEER AND ANIMALS THAT COME TO MY PROPERTY AND I DO NOT WANT TO SEE THEM DISAPPEAR. THEY FIND IT HARD ENOUGH TO FIND PLACES TO LIVE, FOOD TO EAT ENTRIES THAT ARE TORN IS ABOMINABLE. I HOPE IT IS DENIED . IT MAKES ME SAD TO SEE WHAT HAS HAPPENED THANK YOU.

>> ANYONE ELSE? OKAY MR. BURNETT WOULD YOU LIKE TO RESPOND?

>> YOU KNOW, IN NO PARTICULAR ORDER I WILL TRY TO DO AS GOOD A JOB AS I CAN. INTERESTING THE COMMENTS STARTING FROM THE BEGINNING WITH THE FIRST PUBLIC SPEAKER. THIS PROJECT WAS NEVER DENIED WHEN IT CAME THROUGH PREVIOUSLY WHEN IT CAME THROUGH PZA AND NEVER WENT TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS. BUT I WAS NOT BOB THEN AND SPEAKING TO THE ISSUE OF THE NOTICE WE HAVE NO CONTROL OVER WHAT THE GIS DEPARTMENT PRODUCES FOR THE MAILED NOTICE NOR DO WE MAILED A NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC THAT IS HANDLED BY COUNTY STAFF SO I HAVE NO INVOLVEMENT RELATED TO THE NOTICE THAT THE GENTLEMAN RECEIVED OR DIDN'T RECEIVE. AT THE END OF THE DAY YOU HAVE A DEVELOPMENT AREA BOUNDARY AND A NEED FOR WORKFORCE HOUSING AND WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE NEED IT'S NOT GETTING FILLED. WE HAD PROMISES A NUMBER OF PRODUCTS THAT MAY COME IN THE PROJECT THAT MAY COME BY IN LARGER MULTIFAMILY. I KNOW THE APPLICATION WAS TAGGED WITH MAXIMUM DENSITY. HOW MANY ACRES WHAT'S THE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF UNITS ON THE PROPERTY AND WORKFORCE HOUSING THEREFORE YOU GET 66 OR 60 POTENTIAL HOMES THAT'S NOT WHAT THIS IS ABOUT.

I WILL TELL YOU CLEARLY IT WOULD NOT TAKE A LOT OF MATH TO FIGURE OUT A PROJECT OF THIS MAGNITUDE WOULD NEVER SEEK MORE THAN 44 BECAUSE 44 IS THE MAGIC NUMBER TO BE A MINOR PROJECT FOR TRAFFIC CONCURRENCY. WE WOULD NOT BRING THIS FORWARD UNLESS IT WAS A MINOR PROJECT ANYWAY. HAVE TOO MANY PSYCH RELATED IMPROVEMENTS TO MAKE AND HAVE TO DEAL WITH FAIR SHARE ON THE ORDER OF MAGNITUDE THAT THE PROJECT CANNOT AFFORD EVEN IF IT WAS 66 OR 68 IT DOES NOT MAKE SENSE. THIS WAS ENVISIONED TO BE A SMALLER UNIT PROJECT. INTERESTING TO ME WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE COMMENTS MADE AND I WILL GO TO THIS VIEW, THE ONE GENTLEMAN IMMEDIATELY TO THE WEST OF US OR ON THE LEFT , HE AND HIS SON BOTH SPOKE, THE PROPERTY IT IS A NON-HOMESTEAD MOBILE HOME PROPERTY ACCORDING TO THE APPRAISER DATABASE AND THE ONE GENTLEMAN WHO SPOKE ABOUT PRIVACY, HIS PROPERTY IS LARGELY CLEAR AND TO THE WEST OF HIM IS THE PROPERTY WHICH I THINK IS WHERE THE COMPANY , YOU HAVE WHAT I SHOWED ON THE SCREEN EARLIER THE LARGE WAREHOUSE BUILDING, THE TRACTOR-TRAILERS, CORROSIVE CHEMICALS BEING STORED THERE ON THE PROPERTY. IT IS A COMMERCIAL TYPE USE AND TO THE EAST ON THE NORTHEAST IS PRETTY COMMERCIAL LOOKING USE ON THAT PROPERTY AS WELL. A COUPLE OTHER COMMENTS ON THIS IS WE DO HAVE DIRECT ACCESS, THAT TRIGGERS INTO THE 200 UNIT RANGE WHERE YOU NEED MORE THAN ONE ACCESS TO A PROJECT, MOST OF THIS SIZE WHETHER THE ACREAGE EVEN SIGNIFICANTLY MORE ACREAGE OR UNITS THAN THIS YOU WOULD ONLY HAVE ONE ACCESS POINT TYPICALLY. THE GREAT THING IS THE SITE IS DIRECT ACCESS COUNTY ROAD 208 WHICH IS ABLE TO ALIGN PERFECTLY WITH THE SUBDIVISION TO THE NORTH OF IT. SO THERE'S A LOT OF GOOD IN THE PROJECT AND I WILL GO BACK TO WHERE I STARTED.

[01:55:03]

WITH HER WANT WORKFORCE HOUSING OR YOU DON'T. THIS IS IN THE DEVELOPMENT AREA BOUNDARY SO THE COUNTY SAYS THIS IS WHERE WE WANT DEVELOPMENT AND ON TOP OF THAT WORKFORCE HOUSING WE NEED WORKFORCE HOUSING AND NO ONE CAN DISAGREE WITH THAT. WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE TYPE OF PRODUCT BECAUSE THAT'S WORTH LOOKING.

WE CAN BUILD ALL APARTMENTS ALL DAY LONG BUT THAT IS NOT GOING TO PROVIDE HOUSING FOR PEOPLE THAT ARE LOOKING FOR THE FIRST HOME OR JUST A GOOD HOME AND SO YOU KNOW THERE'S VERY FEW WORK FORCE HOUSING PROJECTS COMING FORWARD. OBVIOUSLY WE HAVE ONE ON LEWIS SPEEDWAY MOVING FORWARD BUT OTHERWISE IT'S KIND OF LIMITED. WITH THAT IT'S UP TO YOU GUYS IF YOU WANT IT OR NOT.

>> QUESTIONS? >> I KNOW FOR REZONING YOU DON'T HAVE TO SUBMIT A SITE PLAN, BUT I THINK FOR EVERY OTHER WORKFORCE HOUSING CONSIDERATION WE HAVE DELIBERATED ON WE HAVE SEEN SOME KIND OF PLAN. WHERE ARE THOSE 30% GOING TO BE, ARE THEY CLUSTERED OR SPREAD OUT? YOU DON'T HAVE THAT. THE COUNTY ASK ABOUT, AND YOU DON'T HAVE TO PROVIDE EITHER FOR REZONING, BUT POSSIBLE SPECIMEN TREES ON THE SITE , THAT WAS REBUFFED ALSO BECAUSE IT IS REZONING WE DON'T HAVE TO DO THAT. I WOULD LIKE TO SEE A LITTLE BIT MORE CONCRETE DEFINITION AND PLANS FOR THE SITE BECAUSE REALLY HAVE NO IDEA WHAT YOU'RE GOING TO PUT ON THERE OTHER THAN IF WE APPROVE THIS YOU WILL GET ZONING THAT'S GOING TO ALLOW 68 UNITS ON THE PROPERTY. NOT REALLY MUCH MORE INFORMATION THAN THAT.

>> THAT'S INTERESTING, THE MOST I'VE DONE ON A WORKFORCE HOUSING PROJECT IS TO SHOW SITE BY NOT HAVE A MAP NOT TIED TO A SITE PLAN FOR WORKFORCE HOUSING. THE WHOLE PURPOSE BEHIND WORKFORCE HOUSING IS TO MAKE IT EASIER SO YOU ENCOURAGE PEOPLE TO DO THIS. THE OTHER THING I WILL TELL YOU AND YOU BRING UP SOMETHING REALLY ON POINT. IF I HAD DONE A SITE PLAN ON ONE OF THE PROJECTS WE WOULD'VE AT WORKFORCE HOUSING SHOVED OVER HERE IN THE CORNER AND WE WILL PUT THOSE OVER HERE BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT AS GOOD AS THE REST AND THE DEVELOPER ON ONE OF THOSE SAYS WE HAVE A NEW PRODUCT. WE BLEND THEM ALL IN. IF WE HAD COME THROUGH WITH THE SITE PLAN WE SURE WOULD HAVE SOMETHING TODAY BUILT UNDER CONSTRUCTION THAT PUT ALL THE WORKFORCE HOUSING HERE, AND EVERYBODY ELSE THAT COULD AFFORD NORMAL HOUSES OVER HERE AND THE STIGMA WOULD ATTACH BUT WE HAVE THE FLEXIBILITY. I'M NOT SURE WHAT'S GOING ON WITH THIS BUT I CAN TELL YOU THERE'S REASON FOR THAT. ALL THE ISSUES ON ENVIRONMENTAL WOULD NOT MATTER WHAT WE SAW IN THE ZONING LEVEL.

EVEN IF YOU MISS IT AT THE ZONING LEVEL WHEN YOU GO TO PULL THE CONSTRUCTION PLANS AND THE COUNTY SAYS THERE IS WETLAND HERE NOW OR WE ARE FINDING THERE'S A CERTAIN TYPE OF TREE OR WHATEVER IT MAY BE YOU HAVE TO DEAL WITH IT. CONSTRUCTION PLANS IF YOU GET ZONING 10 YEARS LATER YOU COME IN FOR APPROVAL ALL OF THE ISSUES HAVE TO BE LOOKED AT SO THAT'S PART OF WHAT THE PROCESS IS MORE STREAMLINED AT THE END OF THE DAY YOU GO TO PULL THE CONSTRUCTION PLANS TO BUILD THE SITE YOU HAVE TO PROVIDE DETAIL TO COUNTY STAFF AND THEY WILL REVIEW. THE ISSUE OF THE LARGE TREE AND OF THE ROAD HAS TO CURVE TO GO AROUND IT AND WILL BE DEALT WITH IN THE ORDINARY COURSE IT'S NOT LIKE STUFF IS NOT PHYSICALLY GOING OUT TO LOOK AT THE SITES LIKE A TREE SURVEY IS NOT REQUIRED WITH ENGINEERING. THAT'S THE BEST RESPONSE I CAN GIVE YOU.

>> GOOD POINTS. CAN YOU SPEAK TO THE COMPATIBILITY TABLE? I KNOW YOU SAY THIS ONE PROPERTY IS NOT HOMESTEAD. THIS ONE HAS H2O WHATEVER IT WAS WITH THE TRAILER TRUCKS AND ALL. OTHER THAN THAT LOOKING AT THE PEOPLE AROUND THERE AND THE DENSITY ON ALL THOSE PARCELS . CAN YOU, OTHER THAN GOING BACK THROUGH WHAT YOU JUST WENT THROUGH, BECAUSE I LOOK AT THIS AND I LOOK AT THE TABLE AND I SEE THIS AS INCOMPATIBLE.

>> THAT'S AN INTERESTING POINT. BY THE WAY, WHAT MAY BE A PROBLEM FOR STEVE I BELIEVE THIS PROPERTY, IT MAY BE HE IS FORMER

[02:00:09]

LAW ENFORCEMENT OR SOME OTHER PROTECTED CLASS BECAUSE YOU CANNOT CLICK ON THE PARCEL AND SEE WHO OWNS IT. MAYBE THAT HAS CAUSED THE PROBLEM WITH NOTICE. I DON'T KNOW I CAN SEE THE ADDRESS. THAT PARCEL IS CLEARLY SOMETHING MORE THAN RESIDENTIAL.

IF YOU WALK AROUND NEXT-DOOR IS MULTI-FAMILY EXCUSE ME, MOBILE HOMES THAT ARE NOT HOMESTEADED AND ON THE OTHER SIDE INFECT THE ONE SPEAKER GWEN PIERCE OF 2375 , THAT SHOWS CLEARLY ON THE PROPERTY APPRAISER DATABASE AS BEING MULTIFAMILY WITH MULTIPLE MOBILE HOMES ON THE PROPERTY. SO THE CONCEPT OF THIS IS SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES IN THE ARE AND THESE ARE SINGLE-FAMILY PARCELS , THAT'S NOT EXACTLY WHAT IS THERE. IT IS MORE THAN THAT AND I WOULD SUBMIT TO YOU THAT A SUBDIVISION WHERE YOU HAVE WORKFORCE THAT GETS BUILT SINGLE-FAMILY IS NOT GOING TO IMPAIR OR NEGATIVELY IMPACT RESIDENCE AROUND IT. BEYOND THAT LOOK WHAT'S ACROSS THE STREET AND THE DENSITY ACROSS THE STREET. GRANT YOU IT IS NOT ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF 208 BUT IS THE AREA COUNTY DESIGNATED FOR DEVELOPMENT.

>> WHISPER RIDGE IS TWO UNITS PER ACRE. I DID NOT SAY OR IMPLY THOSE WERE SINGLE-FAMILY PARCELS. I JUST SAID THE DENSITY. LET'S SAY THE ONE THE NORTHEAST HAS THREE TRAILERS, I DON'T KNOW. WHAT I WOULD NOT CALL THAT MULTI FAMILY.

NECESSARILY. YOU SAID IT SHOWS ON THE PROPERTY APPRAISER SITE

AS MULTIFAMILY? >> YES SIR, THE PARCEL RIGHT HERE. IS CLEARLY TWO MOBILE HOMES, THE PROPERTY APPRAISER LISTED IT AS TWO MOBILE HOMES MULTIFAMILY SPECIFIC

DESIGNATION. THE SIGNIFICANCE . >> STILL , THE DENSITY IS MUCH LOWER PER ACRE ON EVERYTHING AROUND THE SITE INCLUDING ACROSS THE ROAD. I DO NOT SEE THIS AS COMPATIBLE.

>> IS THERE A DENSITY LEVEL YOU WOULD BE WILLING TO RECOMMEND IN CONNECTION THAT WE COULD PUT IN THE ORDINANCE? I WOULD ASK RATHER THAN MAKE OUTRIGHT DENIAL, MAKE IT CONDITIONED ON THE DENSITY THAT THE APPLICANT AGREES TO THE DENSITY THAT YOU

STATE. >> I WISH I WAS SMART ENOUGH TO COME UP WITH THAT OF THE TOP OF MY HEAD BUT THAT IS A GOOD POINT. I'M NOT PREPARED TO DO THAT AT THIS TIME. THAT IS A VALID POINT. PLUS ANYTHING I SAID WOULD NOT COME FOR MUCH AND IT WOULD ONLY BE A RECOMMENDATION. I AM ALL FOR WORKFORCE HOUSING. I WOULD LIKE TO SEE SOME DEVELOPMENTS. I ONLY KNOW OF ONE THAT IS ALL WORKFORCE HOUSING. THE CLUSTER OF WORKFORCE HOUSING ONE CORNER HAPPENED TO PROPERTY OWNER NEAR CRUICKSHANK ELEMENTARY, THAT DID HAPPEN. I WOULD LIKE TO SEE WHEN THINGS ARE FLESHED OUT ON THIS. HAVING A HARD TIME WITH THIS

ONE. >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, MISS

SPIEGEL? >> HI . YOU DO A GOOD JOB. NOT ALWAYS EASY TO BE UP THERE . AS MUCH AS I LOVE WORKFORCE HOUSING OR DO LOVE WORKFORCE HOUSING, THERE IS SO MUCH NUANCE TO IT THAT IS A LITTLE TROUBLING. THE $260,000 PRICE POINT AND IT WILL PROBABLY BE A COUPLE YEARS BEFORE HOUSING IS DEVELOPED IN THIS AREA SO WE'RE TALKING 288,000, MAYBE, DEPENDING ON THE MARKET AND HOW THINGS GO. IT IS SINGLE-FAMILY, DID NOT KNOW THAT, NOT YOUR FAULT. UNDERSTAND WHAT THE RULE ARE BUT IT MAKES IT DIFFICULT TO MAKE A DECISION IF WE JUST DO NOT HAVE ANYTHING.

THE WHOLE 22 UNITS FOR ME WAS A SURPRISE AND I KNOW IT WAS A SURPRISE FOR EVERYBODY. IT IS ZONED RIGHT NOW 11 UNITS CORRECT? 11 UNITS COULD BE BUILT ON THE PROPERTY AT ONE UNIT PER

ACRE? CORRECT? >> JUST TO HOP IN. JACOB SMITH

[02:05:07]

WITH STAFF. THE STANDARD FOR OPEN WORLD ZONING IS MINIMUM LOT SIZE OF ONE ACRE. I DON'T KNOW THAT'S HOW MANY UNITS YOU WOULD

END UP ON THE PROPERTY. >> OKAY ALL RIGHT. DID NOT KNOW THAT. RESIDENTIAL B DID NOT WORK. SO I DID A LOT OF LOOKING AROUND AND I DID NOT KNOW IF WE'RE GOING TO GET TOWN HOMES, MULTIFAMILY APARTMENTS I DID NOT KNOW AND I FOUND QUITE A NUMBER OF TOWNHOMES AVAILABLE IN OUR COUNTY ARE VERY CLOSE TO $200,000 WAY BELOW THE WORKFORCE HOUSING RATE AND THAT TROUBLES ME. I KNOW IT IS CODE AND THAT'S NOT YOUR FAULT, BUT IT SEEMS LIKE THIS IS A DISRUPTION TO A COMMON PEACEFUL AREA. I GET THE DENSITY ACROSS THE STREET. I AM HAVING A HARD TIME WITH THIS AS MUCH AS I WANT TO SUPPORT WORKFORCE HOUSING. DEED RESTRICTION IS ALWAYS A PROBLEM FOR ME SO WE ARE TALKING ABOUT SEVEN WORKFORCE HOUSING HOMES OUT OF THE 22 I THINK, 30% OR MAYBE EIGHT IF THEY ROUND UP. I GUESS I'M NOT REALLY ASKING ANY

QUESTIONS AM I? >> ANYWAY, I'M GOING TO STOP

FOR NOW. >> IF I MAY HAVE ONE COMMENT.

THE ONLY THING I WOULD COMMENT ON SO IT IS CLEAR TO EVERYBODY UP THERE AND THIS IS RELEVANT TO THE WORKFORCE HOUSING ASPECT.

TOWNHOMES ARE FROM A LENDER PERSPECTIVE SO LONG AS IT'S A TRUE DOWN-HOME SO THE ON THE DIRT UNDERNEATH IS THE SAME AS SINGLE-FAMILY FOR FIRST-TIME HOMEBUYERS AND HOMEBUYERS IN GENERAL TRADITIONAL FINANCING. THE TOWNHOME STIGMA WE PUT ON CONDOMINIUMS BECAUSE CONDOMINIUMS REQUIRE MORE DOWN PAYMENT, NOT NORMALLY FIRST TIME HOME BUYER INCENTIVES BECAUSE OF THE RISKS ASSOCIATED WITH CONDOS VERSUS SINGLE-FAMILY ON

TOWNHOMES. >> A COUPLE OF QUICK THINGS.

DOUG, YOU HAVE THE LAYOUT ON THE LOT, COULD YOU PUT IT BACK UP?

>> I HAVE TO GO A FEW FORWARD. >> KIND OF HARD TO READ IT. ONE BACK. WHY AM TRYING TO FIGURE OUT. IF THIS HAPPENS , ALL THE WETLANDS ARE GOING TO BE GONE? CORRECT? IF YOU DO THIS LAYOUT?

>> IF YOU STRICTLY DID THIS LAYOUT, IT WOULD INCLUDE THE WETLAND IMPACT. YOU CAN SEE WHERE THEY ARE IN THE CENTER SECTION. THIS IS THE ONLY WETLANDS ON THE SITE IN THE

CENTER SECTION. >> SO THAT WOULD BE TOTALLY GONE. THE OTHER THING I NOTICED, THERE IS SOME ANIMAL BOROUGHS .

WHAT IS ACTUALLY THERE? >> OBVIOUSLY HABITATS , I'M NOT AN EXPERT. THE WETLAND IS NOT WHERE THEY GO TO.

>> THIS WAS NOT IN THE WETLAND AREA.

>> I CANNOT SEE WHAT'S THERE. >> OKAY. JUST SO YOU KNOW THOSE PRODUCTS ARE CIRCULATION PUMPS, WATER AREAS, FILTERS, FISH STOCKING, LOOKING AT THE PICTURE THAT'S PROBABLY FISH HOLDING TANKS THAT THE TRANSPORT THE FISH IN. DIVING SERVICE, HAVE ALGAE AND HERBICIDES SO THAT'S WHAT THE PRODUCT IS.

>> I WON'T COMMENT ABOUT WHAT I COULD FIND ONLINE FOR RESEARCH RELATED TO THE COMPANY. SO YOU SAID TOXIC CHEMICALS I WAS CONCERNED SO THAT'S WHY I LOOKED IT UP.

>> I THINK I SAID CORROSIVE CHEMICALS. I AM REFERRING SPECIFICALLY TO SOMETHING THAT'S ONLINE.

>> LOOKING AT THE DENSITY AND COMPATIBILITY , YES WE HAVE SOME DENSITY ACROSS THE STREET TO THE EAST AND WEST SIDE IS NOT COMPATIBLE WITH THOSE TWO AREAS AND DENSITY IS DEFINITELY A CONCERN COMPARED TO THE EAST AND WEST SIDE. THAT'S ALL I HAVE.

>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? ALL RIGHT BACK, NO PUBLIC COMMENT, NO MA'AM I'M SORRY. NO MA'AM I'M SORRY

[02:10:05]

THANK YOU. THAT'S OKAY. MA'AM, PUBLIC COMMENT IS OVER. I'M SORRY. I DON'T WANT TO BE RUDE, BUT , THAT'S OKAY. MA'AM YOU ARE SO SWEET. I DON'T WANT TO YELL AT YOU. OKAY. WE ARE BACK TO THE AGENCY FOR A MOTION AND ANY DISCUSSION. ONE WAY OR THE OTHER WE HAVE TO HAVE A MOTION. MR. MATOVINA.

>> BY MR. MATOVINA. IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND , ANY DISCUSSION?

>> YES. IF YOU GO TO PAGE 3 OF OUR STAFF REPORT AND YOU LOOK AT THE MAP THERE. BASICALLY OF TWO UNITS TO THE ACRE ACROSS THE STREET IN WHISPER RIDGE AND THEN IF YOU LOOK AT THE ACTUAL ZONING MAP YOU'LL SEE THE PUD TO THE EAST WHICH IS PINES BOULEVARD AND THAT IS A COMMUNITY TWO UNITS TO THE ACRE. NEXT TO THE TARA PINES LOOKING AT THE ZONING MAP YOU HAVE THE OR PROPERTY , IT IS IN MIXED-USE. AND SO THAT IS A PRETTY BIG TRANSITION FROM THE AREA OF DENSITY OVER A LONG 16 ALL THE WAY TO THIS PIECE. IF THERE WAS A LOGICAL PARCEL TO THE WORKFORCE HOUSING IN MY OPINION IT WOULD BE THE ONE IMMEDIATELY EAST , BUT YARD HAVE MIXED USES ZONING SO YOU DON'T NEED IT. SO IF THERE WAS A LOGICAL PARCEL WEST IT WOULD BE JUST WEST OF TARA PINES BUT THIS PIECE WAS JUST OUT BY ITSELF AND I LIVE ON ONE ACRE LOTS ON A STREET THAT IS TRANSITIONED OVER THE YEARS FROM A LOT OF HORSES TO LESS HORSES AND A LOT OF PEOPLE MEGAN'S AGE WHO WANTED A STANDARD HOUSE ON A BIG LOTS OF THE COMMUNITY HAS CHANGED BUT IT IS STILL ONE ACRE LOTS. YOU KNOW THERE ARE STILL CHICKENS AND THERE IS ONE HORSE ON THE STREET AND I THINK THIS AREA IS GOING TO CHANGE. I HATE TO TELL THE RESIDENTS OF THIS BUT YOUR IN RESIDENTIAL B AND IT'S GOING TO CHANGE BECAUSE RESIDENTIAL B ALLOWS TWO UNITS TO THE ACRE. I JUST CAN'T VOTE THIS FAR AWAY

FROM THE EXISTING DEVELOPMENT. >> ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? LET'S REGISTER THE VOTE, A YES VOTE IS FOR DENIAL.

OKAY THE MOTION PASSES, THANK YOU MR. BURNETT. ALL RIGHT.

THANK YOU. WE CAN TAKE

>> ALL RIGHT WE'RE GOING TO COME BACK INTO ORDER. MR. WHITE

[6. NZVAR 2025-09 Bass Pro Shops Interstate Identification Sign. Request for a Non-Zoning Variance to Section G.6 Signage of the World Commerce Center PUD to allow for a combined Advertising Display Area (ADA) to exceed the maximum 300 square feet for an Interstate Identification Sign, pursuant to Section 7.02.05.B.1 of the Land Development Code, specifically located at 355 World Commerce Center Parkway.]

HOUSE WE HAVE SOME EX PARTE. OKAY FIRST UP, MR. LABANOWSKI.

>> HAD A CONVERSATION WITH MR. WHITE HOUSE AND I DID MULTIPLE

SITE VISITS. >> MISS SPIEGEL.

>> DITTO AND I HAD IT IN PERSON CONVERSATION AND PHONE

CONVERSATION. >> MR. MATOVINA.

>> I HAD A PHONE CALL CONVERSATION WITH MR. WHITE HOUSE, I HAD TO CHEW MY WIFE OFF THE PHONE SO I COULD TAKE HIS CALL AND I NEED TO TELL YOU, YOU MIGHT WANT TO ASK FOR CONTINUANCE BECAUSE APPARENTLY I VOTED AGAINST THREE OUT OF FIVE

ITEMS SO FAR. >> MR. GREEN.

>> HAD A CONVERSATION WITH MR. WHITE HOUSE DID I-95 DRIVE BOTH

WAYS SITE VISIT AND >> DR. HILSENBECK.

>> I HAVE BEEN UP 95 AND DOWN 95 AND THE WORLD COMMERCE AND ARE

[02:15:04]

DRIVING TO COSCO. I ALSO RECEIVED A CALL FROM MY OLD FRIEND HENRY DEAN THIS MORNING ASKING THAT I GIVE THIS SERIOUS