[00:00:12] AND ZONING AGENCY BOARD FOR JANUARY 15TH MEETING IS NOW IN ORDER, SO WOULD YOU PLEASE RISE FOR THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS, ONE NATION UNDER GOD INDIVISIBLE, WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MISS SPIEGEL WILL YOU PLEASE READ THE PUBLIC NOTICE STATEMENT? OH, THERE IT GOES. >> THANK YOU. THIS IS A PROPERLY NOTICE PUBLIC HEARING HELD IN CONCURRENCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF FLORIDA LAW, THE PUBLIC WILL BE GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY TO COMMENT ON TOPICS RELEVANT TO THE AGENCY'S AREA OF JURISDICTION. AND BE GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY TO OFFER COMMENT AT A DESIGNATED TIME DURING THE HEARING. THE PUBLIC SHALL SPEAK AT A TIME DURING THE MEETING ON EACH ITEM AND FOR A LENGTH OF TIME AS DESIGNATED BY THE CHAIRMAN WHICH SHALL BE THREE MINUTES. SPEAKERS SHOULD IDENTIFY THEMSELVES, WHO THEY REPRESENT, THEN STATE THEIR ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD. SPEAKERS MAY OFFER SWORN TESTIMONY. IF THEY DO NOT, THE FACT THAT THE TESTIMONY IS NOT SWORN MAY BE CONSIDERED BY THE AGENCY IN DETERMINING THE WEIGHT OR TRUTHFULNESS OF SUCH TESTIMONY. IF A PERSON DECIDES TO APPEAL ANY DECISION MADE WITH RESPECT TO ANY MATTER CONSIDERED AT THE HEARING, SUCH PERSON WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS AND MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE. WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. ANY PHYSICAL OR DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE PRESENTED DURING THE HEARING SUCH AS DIAGRAMS, CHARTS, PHOTOGRAPHS OR WRITTEN STATEMENTS SHALL BE PROVIDED TO THE CLERK FOR INCLUSION INTO THE RECORD. THE RECORD WILL THEN BE AVAILABLE FOR OTHER BOARD AGENCY COMMITTEE OR THE COUNTY TO REVIEW IN APPEAL RELATING TO THEM. AGENCY MEMBERS ARE REMINDED THAT THE BEGINNING OF EACH ITEM THEY SHOULD STATE WHETHER THEY HAD ANY COMMUNICATION WITH THE APPLICANT OR ANY OTHER PERSON REGARDING THE SUBSTANCE OF THE ITEM OUTSIDE THE FORMER HEARING. EACH AGENCY MEMBER SHOULD THEN IDENTIFY THE PERSON INVOLVED IN THE MATERIAL CONTENT OF THE COMMUNICATION. CIVILITY CLAUSE, WE WILL BE RESPECTFUL OF ONE ANOTHER, EVEN WHEN WE DISAGREE. WE WILL DIRECT ALL COMMENTS TO THE ISSUES AND WE WILL AVOID [PZA Meeting Minutes for Agency Approval: 12/04/25 and 12/18/25] PERSONAL ATTACKS. >> THANK YOU MISS SPIEGEL, NEXT WE HAVE TWO SETS OF MINUTES FROM PVA MEETINGS, THE FIRST SET OF MINUTES WE NEED TO APPROVE IS FROM DECEMBER 4TH SO WE WILL DO A VOICE VOTE, IS THERE A MOTION QUESTION MARK >> I HAVE TWO THINGS I WOULD LIKE TO POSSIBLY RING FORWARD FOR CORRECTION. THE DECEMBER 4TH MEETING MINUTES ON ITEM NUMBER ONE, WE HAVE A TIGHT OF WAY INSTEAD OF RIGHT-OF-WAY, IF WE CAN HAVE THAT CORRECTED, AND IN THE APPLICATION ITEM FOR NUMBER SIX, NO, THAT'S NOT IT, I APOLOGIZE. AND NUMBER SEVEN, ON THE HOSPITAL SIGNS, IF WE COULD ADD THE WORD DRIVE TO SERGEANT HUTTON DRIVE, SO PEOPLE KNOW THAT IT IS ACTUALLY A ROAD, I DON'T KNOW IF THAT IS GENERALLY -- OKAY, THOSE ARE MY TWO AMENDMENTS. OTHERWISE I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE. >> SECOND. >> ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE , OPPOSED? WE WILL MOVE ON TO APPROVING THE DECEMBER 18TH MEETING MINUTES. DO WE HAVE ANY CORRECTIONS? >> MOVED TO APPROVE. >> OKAY, MOTION TO APPROVE AND SECOND FROM MR. LABANOWSKI ALSO, ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE . ANY [Public Comments] OPPOSED? THAT PASSES UNANIMOUSLY, BEFORE WE GO TO PUBLIC, WHICH IS WHAT WE TYPICALLY DO NEXT, I WANT TO MAKE AN ANNOUNCEMENT THAT ITEM NUMBER FIVE WHICH IS THE WEST KING STREET PUD MODIFICATION FOR A SPECIAL USE, FOR AN OPIOID TREATMENT CENTER AND THE OVERLAY DISTRICT, IT HAS BEEN WITHDRAWN. SO IF ANYONE IS HERE TO SPEAK TO THAT ITEM, THERE IS REALLY NO [00:05:07] NEED TO PROVIDE ANY PUBLIC TESTIMONY AT THIS TIME, THIS IS WITHDRAWN AND THE STAFF TELLS ME THAT THE CHANCES OF THIS COMING BACK ANYTIME SOON ARE MINIMAL AND THAT THEY WOULD -- YOU ARE NOT SUPPOSED TO HAVE A PUBLIC OUTBURST LIKE THAT BUT I UNDERSTAND YOUR EMOTIONS ON THIS, SO THANK YOU FOR THAT, SO THERE'S REALLY NO NEED TO COMMENT UNLESS SOMEONE FEELS A BURNING NEED TO SPEAK TO THE ITEM. IF SO, YOU CAN COME UP TO ONE OF THE THREE MICROPHONES AND MAKE A THREE-MINUTE STATEMENT BUT THE STAFF WILL NOT BE BACK UNLESS THERE IS ALREADY SUBSTANTIAL COMMUNITY SUPPORT AND THERE ARE MEETINGS HELD BY THE APPLICANT. THERE IS NO ONE TO SPEAK? THE ITEM IS WITHDRAWN, NOT COMING BACK. SOMEBODY WISHES TO SPEAK, COME FORWARD SIR. STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD AND YOU WILL HAVE THREE MINUTES. >> [INDISCERNIBLE] NOT SO MUCH TO SPEAK, BUT I WANT THIS ON FILE, THAT YOU HAVE A SIGNATURE, I WILL READ WHAT IT SAYS, COMMUNITY ORGANIZATION THAT WILL [INDISCERNIBLE] AND STILL IN EXISTENCE TODAY, TODAY I EXPRESSED CONCERN ABOUT THE CLINIC ON WEST KING STREET, THERE IS NO DOUBT THE SERVICE IS NEEDED, KING STREET IS THE BEST LOCATION FOR THIS. THE COMMUNITY HAS WORKED DILIGENTLY TO REVIVE THIS AREA AND FACTOR IN THIS MATTER. THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK BUT I JUST WANT TO GET THIS ON FILE THAT YOU KNOW, PEOPLE SIGNED THE PETITION, IT'S ONLY LIKE 100 SIGNATURES HERE, BUT WE HAD OVER 127 PEOPLE AT THE MEETING THE OTHER NIGHT, SO I WOULD LIKE TO ASK YOU GUYS, IF SOMETHING LIKE THIS COMES UP BECAUSE I GOT A LOT OF HELP ON THE PROPERTY BUT THE COMMUNITY ONLY KNOW ABOUT IT BECAUSE PEOPLE WERE LETTING PEOPLE KNOW ABOUT IT. BUT THE WORD IS KIND OF MISLEADING, THAT WORD MINOR KIND OF STUCK INSIDE ME, I KNOW I HAVE DEADLINES THAT DETERMINE MINOR AND MAJOR. BUT I WOULD JUST LIKE THIS TO BE ON FILE THAT IN THE FUTURE IF SOMETHING COMES BACK IN FRONT OF YOU GUYS, YOU CAN LET THE ORGANIZATION KNOW THAT THIS MATTER IS LOCATED IN OUR AREA, I APPRECIATE IT. >> APPRECIATE THOSE COMMENTS, THANK YOU. JACOB, FOR THE RECORD, HOW CAN PEOPLE BE ADDED TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD ALERT THAT GOES OUT WHEN ITEMS COME OUT? >> MR. CHAIR, MIKE ROBBERSON, FOR THE RECORD, WE DID COMMUNICATE AFTER THIS WAS KNOWN WITH THE WEST AUGUSTINE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AS WELL. THEY HAD REMOVED THEMSELVES OFF THE LIST INADVERTENTLY SO THEY DIDN'T GET THIS, SO WHAT THAT MEANS IS ANY APPLICATION THAT COMES WITHIN THAT WEST AUGUSTINE, THEY WILL GET A NOTIFICATION, SO THEY HAVE TO SIFT THROUGH AND FIND OUT WHAT IS IMPORTANT TO THEM IF THERE IS AN ISSUE SO I THINK THAT ISSUE HAD BEEN RESOLVED AND OF COURSE WE HAVE OUR STANDARD COUNTY ADVERTISING THAT IS REQUIRED WHICH THIS GENTLEMAN INDICATED, BUT I THINK THAT WILL SOLVE THE ISSUE. >> OKAY, THANK YOU. WE MOVED TO PUBLIC -- OH, ANOTHER PERSON. WELCOME. >> HELLO. MY NAME IS AMY AND I ALSO LIVE NEAR THE WEST KING, 440 COLUMBUS STREET, I TOOK TIME OUT OF MY DAY TODAY TO COME HERE AND SPEAK TO YOU GUYS ABOUT NOT [00:10:01] PUTTING THE METHADONE CLINIC IN THAT AREA. IT'S NOT ABOUT THE TREATMENT, I THINK THAT IS NEEDED, I THINK IT IS MORE ABOUT THE LOCATION, SO I JUST WANT TO SAY THANK YOU FOR POSITING THAT AND I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO LET THIS BE ON RECORD AND THEY WROTE A FORMAL STATEMENT AS WELL. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU, APPRECIATE IT. OKAY, WE ARE MOVING ONTO THE REGULAR PUBLIC COMMENTS, YOU MAY COMMENT ABOUT ANY ISSUE WHETHER IT IS ON THE AGENDA OR NOT, BUT IF YOU SPEAK ON ONE OF THE AGENDA ITEMS AT THIS TIME, YOU WILL NOT BE ALLOWED TO SPEAK TO THAT ITEM WHEN IT COMES UP. YOU WILL HAVE AMPLE TIME WHEN THE ITEM APPEARS TO SPEAK ON IT WHEN YOU HAVE THREE MINUTES, UNLESS YOU ARE A DESIGNATED SPEAKER. BUT IF THERE IS ANYONE WHO WANTED TO COMMENT ON SOMETHING NOT ON THE AGENDA, PLEASE COME FORWARD AND YOU HAVE THREE MINUTES TO STATE YOUR NAME AND [1. Election of Chair and Vice-Chair. The Planning and Zoning Agency is required to annually elect a Chair and Vice-Chair. Please see the attached Nomination and Voting procedures. ] ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD, OTHERWISE WE WILL MOVE ON TO THE REGULAR AGENDA. NO SPEAKERS. WE WILL MOVE ON TO ITEM NUMBER ONE, THE ELECTION OF THE CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR, I'M JUST THE TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN AT THIS POINT IN TIME AND MISS SPIEGEL IS THE TEMPORARY VICE CHAIR AT THIS TIME, I WAS A LITTLE BIT CONFUSED, I READ THIS ITEM SEVERAL TIMES BUT IT SAID I COULD ALLOW PUBLIC COMMENT FROM PEOPLE IN THE AUDIENCE TO SPEAK ON THE PERSON THEY WOULD WANT ELECTED, OR SUGGEST TO THE BOARD, IT HAS TYPICALLY BEEN MY EXPERIENCE OVER SIX YEARS, THE BOARD SHOULD DISCUSS THIS AND NOMINATE INDIVIDUALS, IS THAT CORRECT, JACOB? >> JACOB SMITH FOR THE RECORD, IT IS CUSTOMARY TO HAVE ANY ACTION AT THE PLANNING AGENCY PERFORMS TO BE ABLE TO ALLOW FOR PUBLIC COMMENT, TYPICALLY THE CONVERSATION WILL START AT THE BOARD LEVEL PRIOR. >> OKAY, THAT'S WHAT I THOUGHT, SO WE WILL BEGIN TO TAKE NOMINATIONS, FIRST FOR THE CHAIR AND THE VICE CHAIR AFTERWARDS, BUT IF YOU FEEL COMPELLED TO SPEAK AFTER WE START THIS PROCESS, YOU WILL BE GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY. I CAN SEE MR. OLSON . >> MR. CHAIR, I NOMINATE [INDISCERNIBLE] I BELIEVE HE HAS GAINED A LOT OF CAPABILITY AS OUR MOST RECENT ACTING CHAIR, SO THAT IS MY NOMINATION. >> WE HAVE A NOMINATION FOR MR. RICHARD HILSONBACK. ANY OTHER NOMINATIONS FOR CHAIR? OKAY, WE ARE GOING TO VOTE ON THAT ONE, AND PUBLIC COMMENT FIRST. I SEE MISS SPIEGEL HAS A COMMENT. >> GENERALLY SPEAKING, THERE IS ONE PUBLIC COMMENT FOR BOTH THE VICE CHAIR AND THE CHAIR, SO IF ANYBODY HAS ANY OPINIONS ABOUT THAT THING, WE SHOULD KNOCK IT OUT IN THAT ONE. I THINK YOU CAN GET YOUR NOMINATIONS FOR VICE CHAIR AND YOU CAN OPEN IT UP FOR PUBLIC COMMENT AND I'M HOPEFUL THAT WON'T BE NECESSARY. >> I WAS JUST GOING TO NOMINATE YOU. >> OKAY. NOW WE ARE TAKING NOMINATIONS FOR VICE CHAIR AND I SEE MR. MATOVINA WOULD LIKE TO NOMINATE SOMEONE . >> I NOMINATE JUDY SPIEGEL . >> WE HAVE A NOMINATION OF MISS SPIEGEL OF VICE CHAIR EMMA SECOND BY MR. OLSON . NOW WE ARE GOING TO TAKE PUBLIC COMMENT. UNLESS THERE IS ANY DISCUSSION BY THE BOARD. ANY COMMENT ON THIS? BAD IDEA, GOOD IDEA? OKAY, WE ARE READY TO VOTE. I SEE IT, THANK YOU. >> I HOPE BOTH OF YOU WANT IT AND ACCEPT IT BECAUSE I THINK IT IS TWO GREAT PEOPLE TO DO THE JOB. >> APPRECIATE YOUR COMMENT AND THAT IS A BIG RESPONSIBILITY AND I WILL ACCEPT THE NOMINATION. >> GOOD, JUDY? SORRY, I NEVER LOOK. I HAVE TO TURN PEOPLE'S MICROPHONES ON. >> THANK YOU, WELL I'M SURPRISED BUT I WAS THINKING ABOUT THIS MORNING, ANY OF US WOULD DO A GREAT JOB, WE HAD SUCH A GOOD BOARD, I APPRECIATE IT AND I WOULD BE HONORED. [00:15:02] >> IT WOULD BE MY PLEASURE TO WORK FOR BOTH OF YOU THEN. >> I SEE ONE PERSON COMING FORWARD AT THIS TIME TO SPEAK. YES, COME UP TO THE MICROPHONE. SAY WHAT YOU WANT, THREE MINUTES. >> JUST WANTED TO SEE IF YOU COULD TURN THE VOLUME UP BECAUSE NONE OF US BACK HERE CAN HEAR YOU. >> AND IF YOU DO COME TO SPEAK FOR AN ITEM, MAKE SURE YOU SPEAK DIRECTLY INTO THE MICROPHONE, THAT WOULD HELP. I GUESS WE WILL DO A VOICE VOTE FOR THE CHAIR, FOR RICHARD, ALL OPPOSED? NONE. OKAY. SO, VICE CHAIR, A VOTE FOR VICE CHAIR, ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE . ALL OPPOSED? NONE. OKAY. NOW WE ARE ONTO ITEM NUMBER ONE, NUMBER TWO EXCUSE ME. I WASN'T NERVOUS UNTIL NOW. OKAY, THANK YOU. AFTER SIX LONG YEARS OF [2. ZVAR 2025-16 203 Canal Boulevard (Rails Family). Request for a Zoning Variance to Section 2.02.04.B.4 of the Land Development Code to allow for the eave height of an Accessory Structure to be greater than the eave height of the Main Use residential building, located at 203 Canal Boulevard.] DOING THIS. WE ARE ONTO ITEM NUMBER TWO, THE PRESENTER IS BRUCE HUMPHREY, THE ZONING REQUEST FOR 203 CANAL BOULEVARD, THE CHAIR IS YOURS. >> THANK YOU, BRUCE HUMPHREY, THANKS AGAIN FOR MEETING WITH US TODAY, THE LAST TIME WE WERE HERE WE TALKED ABOUT CERTAIN PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS TO THE PROPERTY INCLUDING LANDSCAPING AS WELL AS MODIFICATIONS TO THE BUILDING, WE HAVE DONE THAT. I PREPARED TODAY'S PRESENTATION IN POWERPOINT, GENERALLY IN ANTICIPATION OF MS. PERKINS BEING HERE AND HELPING HER UNDERSTAND WHERE WE'VE BEEN AND WHERE WE ARE GOING AND HOW WE ARE GOING TO GET THERE, BUT OBVIOUSLY SHE IS NOT HERE YET. >> EXCUSE ME ONE SECOND, I NEED TO ASK FOR EXPERT TAKE FROM OUR BOARD, ANYONE TO DECLARE? SORRY TO INTERRUPT YOUR FLOW. MISS SPIEGEL ? >> YES, I DID HAVE A CONVERSATION WITH BRUCE HUMPHREY, I HAD A BRIEF CONVERSATION WITH COMMISSIONER JOSEPH AND A PHONE CONVERSATION WITH CHRISTIAN WHITEHURST REGARDING THIS. >> MR. GREEN ? >> YES, JUST HAD A CONVERSATION WITH A FORMER WARD MEMBER, COMMISSIONER WHITEHURST, AND I DID QUITE A BIT OF DRIVING AROUND THE WHOLE NEIGHBORHOOD, LET'S PUT IT THAT WAY. >> OKAY, MR. MATOVINA ? >> I HAD A CONVERSATION LAST NIGHT WITH ASHLEY WHO REPRESENTS SEVERAL HOMEOWNERS IN THE AREA. THE PICTURE LOOKED DIFFERENT TO ME. BUT ANYWAY, I HAD A DISCUSSION WITH HER LAST EVENING ABOUT SOME OF THEIR IDEAS ON WHY THIS WAS INCOMPATIBLE WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD. >> OKAY, MR. LABANOWSKI ? >> YES, I HAVE DRIVEN BY THE PLACE IN NOVEMBER AND DECEMBER AND SO FAR THIS YEAR, LAST WEEK I TALKED TO SEVERAL RESIDENTS IN THE AREA IN REGARDS TO IT AND ALSO TALKED TO CHRIS AND JOSEPH. >> OKAY, MR. OLSON ? >> IN NOVEMBER, PRIOR TO THE EARLIER OCCURRING ON IT, AND ALSO AT THAT TIME, I RECEIVED A CALL FROM MR. HUMPHREY AND HAD A BRIEF CONVERSATION. >> THANK YOU. I SPOKE WITH MR. BYRON CANNON ON TELEPHONE THIS MORNING, I TALKED TO THE COUNTY ATTORNEY AND SOME OF THE STAFF ABOUT SOME OF THE MATERIALS WE HAVE RECEIVED IN LETTERS OF OBJECTION TO THIS AND IN THE LETTERS OF OBJECTION, THERE WAS A SERIES OF STATEMENTS THAT WERE ATTRIBUTABLE TO ANYONE, BUT THEY PROFESSED SOME LEGAL OPINIONS FOR THIS CASE LAW. I WANTED TO KNOW WHERE THAT CAME FROM. I WAS TOLD IT CAME FROM MR. CANNON BUT WHEN I CONTACTED HIM BY PHONE TO ASK IF HE WAS AN ATTORNEY AND WROTE THOSE, HE SAID NO HE'S NOT AN ATTORNEY AND HE DIDN'T [00:20:03] WRITE THOSE. BUT THEY WERE IN OUR PACKET AND THEY ARE NOT ATTRIBUTABLE TO ANYONE BUT, THERE WAS SOME COMPELLING STATEMENTS AND I WANTED TO KNOW WHO WROTE THOSE AND WHERE THEY CAME FROM SO I TALKED TO HIM, HE IS NOT ABLE TO BE AT THE MEETING TODAY BUT HE DID NOT WRITE THOSE. SO IF ANYONE WOULD LIKE TO SAY THEY WROTE THOSE, IF THEY COME UP TO SPEAK, I WOULD BE GRATEFUL BECAUSE THERE'S SOME DISCREPANCIES AND SOME ASSERTIONS MADE THAT I WOULD LIKE TO CLARIFY, FACTUAL NATURE. AND WHETHER THE LEGAL OPINIONS CITED ARE VALID. THAT'S IT. I'M SORRY TO INTERRUPT YOU. >> THANK YOU, SO AS YOU RECALL, THE RAILS PROPERTY IS LOCATED ON THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF CANAL BOULEVARD, AS YOU CAN SEE IN THIS PHOTOGRAPH, IT IS VERY SHALLOW WHICH LIMITS ITS ABILITY TO BE UTILIZED AND ACCOMMODATE THE CODE AS IT RELATES TO RV BUILDING. AND JUST A FRESH RECOLLECTION, IF THIS IS YOU LOOKING ALONG THIS TRAIL WITH THE RAILS PROPERTY UP AHEAD ON THE RIGHT, YOU CAN SEE TO THE RIGHT OF THE RAILS PROPERTY IS A VERY HIGH WHITE STRUCTURE AND THAT IS THE BORTHWICK'S PROPERTY, JUST TO GIVE YOU SOME ORIENTATION, THAT'S WHAT YOU HAVE THERE. THIS IS A VIEW OF THE RAILS PROPERTY AND THE RV GARAGE, TODAY THIS IS OBVIOUSLY NOT COMPLETED, AND YOU KNOW THE PERMITS WERE REVOKED. THERE IS AN ADDITIONAL DRIVEWAY THAT WOULD BE ADDED TO THE RIGHT SIDE GARAGE DOOR, THERE'S ANOTHER DRIVEWAY ON THE PROPERTY WHICH IS A CONDITION OF THE PERMIT, OBVIOUSLY THAT WILL HAPPEN AND WE ARE ALLOWED TO GO FORWARD. THIS IS A VIEW LOOKING ACROSS CANAL AND AGAIN, NO FURTHER WORK HAS BEEN DONE GIVEN THE REPLICATION OF THE PERMIT BUT AS WILL BE DISCUSSED, ADDITIONAL IMPROVEMENTS WILL BE NEEDED. THIS IS THE SOUTHWEST VIEW OF CANAL BOULEVARD WITH THE RAILS PROPERTY ON THE LEFT AND THIS WOULD BE BASICALLY IN FRONT OF MR. AND MRS. BORTHWICK'S HOUSE. THIS IS THE ZONING MAP IN THE AREA, YOU ARE FAMILIAR WITH CANAL BOULEVARD, THERE'S A NUMBER OF RESTAURANTS IN THE AREA, ON CANAL BOULEVARD, THERE IS PIZZA, A BAR, THERE'S ALSO SOME CG COMMERCIAL LOCATED ACROSS THE STREET, FURTHER TO THE EAST ON CANAL BOULEVARD. BUT THE RAILS PROPERTY IS ZONED O.R. WHICH IS OPEN RURAL WHICH IS IN THE OPEN RURAL DISTRICT SO TECHNICALLY IT IS NOT A RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT PROPERTY, EVEN THOUGH THE COUNTY HAS BEEN USING A RESIDENTIAL CRITERIA AND CODE SECTION IN ORDER TO ANALYZE THE APPLICABILITY OF WHETHER IT COMPLIES OR NOT WITH CODE SO, THERE IS A LITTLE BIT OF LEEWAY THAT IS GIVEN APPARENTLY, THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT AND ADMINISTRATION AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT AS IT RELATES TO THIS, ALL THIS IS GENERALLY A RESIDENTIAL AREA EVEN THOUGH IT IS O.R. ZONING, THEY WILL TRY TO APPLY THE RESIDENTIAL CRITERIA BUT I THINK IT APPLIES TO THIS VARIANCE APPLICATION RECOGNIZING THE O.R. ZONING AND OTHER USES IN THE AREA, THEN IT MAKES IT SEEM AS IF THIS IS NOT AS OFFENSIVE AS WOULD BE WITH ANY STRICT RESIDENTIAL ZONING AREA. SO, JUST TO REFRESH, THE TIMELINE, THE RAILS PURCHASED THE PROPERTY IN JANUARY OF 2023, SUBMITTED THE SITE PLAN IN MARCH, ALL OF THAT WAS APPROVED, THE NUMBER WAS ISSUED, AND A PERMIT WAS OBTAINED IN AUGUST OF 2023, CONSTRUCTION BEGAN THEREAFTER AND A COMPLAINT WAS FILED FEBRUARY 2024, THE STAFF CONTACTED THE RAILS , THEY WORKED ON A COUPLE OF DIFFERENT ALTERNATIVES, ONE WAS TO ATTACH THE RV GARAGE TO THE EXISTING HOUSE. THAT ACTUALLY WAS APPROVED AT A LATER DATE BUT A VOTE BY THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR [00:25:04] IN JULY OF 2024 AND IN FEBRUARY 2025 THE COUNTY ISSUED A CODE ENFORCEMENT CITATION, CITING THIS SECTION, AND THERE IS A TYPO, IT IS 2.04 B4. SO, ESSENTIALLY, THIS WASN'T NECESSARILY CAUSED DIRECTLY BY THE RAILS, THEY CONSTRUCTED IT BUT ON THE PERMIT AND TO ADDRESS YOUR QUESTION ABOUT ONE OF THOSE CASES THAT WAS CITED, IT WAS SAYING THAT TECHNICALLY WHILE RELIANCE ON A BUILDING PLAN DOESN'T NECESSARILY ABSOLVE SOME OF THE ULTIMATE RESPONSE ABILITY, IT IS CERTAINLY SOMETHING THAT CAN BE CONSIDERED, BUT THEN ULTIMATELY AS THAT CASE FURTHER ARTICULATED, SHOULD THE RAILS NOT BE ABLE TO OBTAIN A VARIANCE AND BY VIRTUE OF THE RELIANCE, THEY WOULD HAVE A CLAIM OF CONDEMNATION AGAINST THE COUNTY, SO YOU KEEP ON READING THE CASE, THE COUNTY WOULD BE RESPONSIBLE FOR PAYING FOR ALL OF THE COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE CONSTRUCTION OF THIS RV STORAGE GARAGE. AND I THINK THE OTHER CASE THEY CITED, THAT WAS, I THINK IT WAS AN APARTMENT THAT WAS UNDER CONSTRUCTION IN SOUTH FLORIDA THAT THE COURT ORDERED THEM TO DEMOLISH THE BUILDING BECAUSE IT WAS IN VIOLATION OF THE PARTICULAR BUILDING CODE AND IN THAT INSTANCE, THE ABILITY TO CONSTRUCT THOSE IMPROVEMENTS WAS BEING LITIGATED AT THE TIME THE BUILDINGS WERE CONSTRUCTED SO IN THAT INSTANCE, THAT DEVELOPER, THAT BUILDER ROLLED THE DICE AS TO WHETHER THEY WOULD BE REQUIRED TO DEMOLISH THE BUILDING, AS OPPOSED TO WAITING UNTIL IT WAS FULLY ADJUDICATED. IN THIS INSTANCE, THERE IS REASON TO RELY ON THE BUILDING ISSUE PERMIT AND GO FORWARD AND OBVIOUSLY FIND OURSELVES WHERE WE ARE TODAY, SO I THINK THOSE ARE THE TWO DISTINCTIONS THAT YOU SHOULD TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION WHILE LOOKING AT THOSE CASES. SO ESSENTIALLY, THROUGH NO FAULT NECESSARILY OF THE RAILS, HERE WE ARE TODAY SEEKING THIS VARIANCE. SO IN ORDER TO OBTAIN THE ZONING VARIANCE, THESE ARE THE FOUR CRITERIA. IT IS AVAILABLE WHEN GRANTING SUCH A VARIANCE DOES NOT CONFLICT WITH THE PUBLIC INTEREST SO, THAT IS A PRETTY BROAD STATEMENT AND OBVIOUSLY WE'VE HEARD LOTS OF COMMENTARY AT THE LAST MEETING AND I'M SURE YOU'RE GOING TO HEAR SOME MORE TODAY BUT I'M GLAD YOU GUYS HAVE BEEN DRIVING AROUND THE NEIGHBORHOOD, AS I HAVE BEEN DOING A LITTLE BIT OF THAT MYSELF. HERE IS A SHOT FROM GOOGLE THAT SHOWS SOME OF THE USES IN THE AREA, AGAIN YOU CAN SEE THE PIZZA ON CANAL BOULEVARD, A LANDSCAPING SUPPLY WHICH IS A VERY COMMERCIAL USE ON CANAL BOULEVARD JUST TO THE WEST. TO THE NORTH, ON NORTH WILDERNESS TRAIL IS, AT 560 NORTH WILDERNESS TRAIL IS A AMERICAN LEGION POST, SORRY FOR THE TYPO. YOU CAN SEE THIS STRUCTURE IS NOT RESIDENTIAL IN CHARACTER . IT IS TALLER THAN THE ADJOINING STRUCTURE. AND I'M SURE IT HAS BEEN THERE FOR A WHILE BUT AN EXAMPLE OF THE ECLECTIC NATURE OF THIS NEIGHBORHOOD. THIS IS A PROPERTY AT 591 SOUTH WILDERNESS TRAIL, ACROSS THE STREET AND A LITTLE BIT TO THE NORTH OF THE AMERICAN LEGION. I INCLUDED THIS PHOTOGRAPH OF THIS PROPERTY, YOU CAN SEE THE VERY TALL RV GARAGE STRUCTURE JUST BEYOND THE GATE. YOU CAN SEE THE BAMBOO IN THIS PICTURE, THIS IS AN EXAMPLE WHERE A DETACHED GARAGE OF THAT SIZE AND SHAPE IS ALLOWED AS LONG AS IT CAN BE SCREENED WHICH IS ONE OF THE THINGS THAT THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT EXPLORED WITH THE RAILS BUT GIVEN THE DEPTH OF THE PROPERTY, IN ORDER TO SCREEN THE FRONT OF THE RAILS RV GARAGE, YOU WOULD BE ABLE TO USE IT, THERE'S NOT ENOUGH SPACE BETWEEN WILDERNESS TRAIL AND THE GARAGE ITSELF IN ORDER TO ESTABLISH A SCREEN ACROSS THE FRONT. NOW THIS IS INTERESTING, THIS IS AT 541 WEST WILDERNESS TRAIL, THIS WAS UNDER CONSTRUCTION, THIS IS VERY TALL OBVIOUSLY AND INCLUDES AN RV STORAGE GARAGE THERE. I INCLUDED THIS PHOTOGRAPH BECAUSE IT'S AN EXAMPLE OF OTHER USES WITHIN THE [00:30:05] NEIGHBORHOOD, THIS STRUCTURE COULD HAVE BEEN CONSTRUCTED ON THE RAILS PROPERTY HAD BEEN VACANT, IT WOULD BE IMPOSING AND HANGING OVER AND ABOVE THE PROPERTY THEY ARE CONCERNED ABOUT AND YET THAT WOULD BE COMPLETELY IN COMPLIANCE WITH CODE AND WE WOULDN'T BE HERE TODAY. SORRY, I SKIPPED AHEAD, BUT ANYWAY, THIS IS A FIRE STATION , EVERYONE WANTS A FIRE STATION CLOSE TO THEIR HOUSE BUT AGAIN YOU CAN SEE THIS IS VERY COMMERCIAL IN NATURE, THIS IS ON 130 CANAL BOULEVARD JUST TO THE WASTE -- WEST OF THE WILDERNESS TRAIL. THIS IS A PHOTOGRAPH OF THE LANDSCAPE COMPANY ON THE CORNER OF ROSCOE AND CANAL. THIS IS A HOUSE AT 250 SOUTH WILDERNESS TRAIL AND YOU CAN SEE THIS IS THE DRIVEWAY, YOU CAN SEE A VERY LARGE, VERY TALL RV WAREHOUSE METAL STRUCTURE IN THE DISTANCE THAT TOWERS OVER THE HOUSE THAT IS CLOSER TO THE FRONT. AGAIN, THIS IS GIVEN THE SIZE AND SHAPE OF THE LOT, THEY ARE ABLE TO BUILD THIS DETACHED STRUCTURE AND ACCOMMODATE THE CODE BECAUSE THEY CAN SCREEN IT AND IT IS FARTHER OFF THE ROAD. THIS IS A HOUSE AT 121 SOUTH WILDERNESS TRAIL, AND INTERESTINGLY, THIS IS TWO DOORS DOWN FROM THE RAILS'S PROPERTY , THE HOUSE TO THE LEFT IS IMMEDIATELY SOUTH OF THE RAILS PROPERTY AND THIS IS A TALL TWO STORY GARAGE, EXTENDING WELL ABOVE THE EXISTING RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE. WHEN I FIRST SAW THIS, I THOUGHT THIS WAS A BRAND-NEW HOUSE IN ITS ENTIRETY, ACTUALLY THAT GARAGE IS IN ADDITION, THAT WAS RECENTLY ADDED AND THE HOUSE IS STILL UNDER CONSTRUCTION, YOU CAN SEE THE SIGN. SO, THERE IS A PROVISION IN THE CODE THAT SAYS YOU CAN ADD A HIGHER GARAGE, HIGHER HEIGHT TO AN EXISTING STRUCTURE AND IT IS CITED IN THE REVOCATION LETTER, AS LONG AS THEY SHARE A LOAD BEARING WALL. I'M NOT REALLY SURE HOW THEY ADDED THIS GARAGE INTO THAT EXISTING SINGLE-STORY, SINGLE FAMILY HOME, THEY ARE NOW SHARING A LOAD BEARING WALL IN SUCH A WAY THAT THE RAILS COULDN'T DO IT BUT FOR WHATEVER REASON, THE COUNTY DETERMINED THIS PROPERTY, THIS GARAGE COULD BE ADDED TO THE HOUSE BUT THE RAILS PROPERTY COULD NOT SOMEHOW. SO, I INCLUDED THIS PHOTOGRAPH BECAUSE AS YOU HEARD AND MR. AND MRS. BURTHWICK WERE CONCERNED ABOUT THEIR FRONT YARD, NONE OF THE RESIDENCE HAVE TO LOOK AT THIS GARAGE FROM THEIR BACKYARD AND THAT IS GENERALLY WHERE EVERYONE GOES TO RELAX AND COOKOUT OR GRILL OUT, YOU KNOW GET SOME RELAXATION OVER THE WEEKEND AND THIS VIEW IS FROM THE RAILS PROPERTY BACK PATIO OF THE BURTHWICK'S GARAGE . AGAIN, OBVIOUSLY IT MEETS CODE BUT WHEN WE ARE TALKING ABOUT THE PUBLIC INTEREST AS A WHOLE AND WHAT'S THERE, I THINK THERE SHOULD BE SOME CONSIDERATION TO THAT. SO AGAIN, THE DEPTH OF THE RAILS PROPERTY IS SUCH THAT IT CAN'T BE SCREENED AND IT CAN'T BE UTILIZED IN ANY WAY WITH THE GARAGE MUCH LIKE OTHER PROPERTIES IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD WITHOUT ESSENTIALLY PUTTING IT WHERE IT IS LOCATED AND HAVING IT APPEAR AS IT CURRENTLY DOES. SO, DEMOLITION AND RECONSTRUCTION OF THE HOUSE IS TO BE INCONSISTENT, NOT GOING TO GET THE RAILS WHERE THEY WANT TO GO AND THAT IS WITH THE RV GARAGE ON THE PROPERTY, GIVEN INSUFFICIENT DEPTH, YOU CAN'T SCREEN IT AND MODIFICATION OF THE EXISTING GARAGE OR THE HOUSE IS NOT NECESSARILY DESIRABLE AS WELL AND IS IMPRACTICAL. SO AS WE DISCUSSED FROM THE LAST MEETING, WE EXPLORED ADDITIONAL IMPROVEMENTS MADE TO THE HOUSE, IN ORDER TO MAKE IT LESS OFFENSIVE TO THE RESIDENCE AND THE BURTHWICK'S IN PARTICULAR, MRS. BAER WHO LIVES ACROSS THE STREET WITH THE HORSE FARM, SHE ACTUALLY CALLED MRS. RAILS AND APOLOGIZED FOR SOME OF THE BEHAVIOR OF THE RESIDENCE AND [00:35:02] SHE INDICATED THAT NOT EVERYONE IS NECESSARILY OPPOSED TO THIS BUT OBVIOUSLY MORE PEOPLE COME OUT AND SPEAK AGAINST MAN IN FAVOR. WE ALSO REACHED OUT TO THE BURTHWICK'S TO DISCUSS THE PROPOSED LANDSCAPING MODIFICATIONS AND THEIR ATTORNEY REACHED OUT TO ME AND SAID THAT REALLY WOULDN'T BE NECESSARY AND I THINK WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE COMMENTS THAT WERE SUBMITTED BY THE BURTHWICK'S TO THE COUNTY, YOU GET THE IMPRESSION THAT NO AMOUNT OF LANDSCAPING OR WINDOWS OR IMPROVEMENTS ARE GOING TO HELP THE SITUATION. SO ANYWAY, FOR THE RECORD, WE ATTEMPTED TO REACH OUT AND DISCUSS THAT WITH THEM. SO THE RAILS DID MEET WITH THE LANDSCAPE EXPERT AND DEVELOPED A PLAN THAT WOULD INCLUDE A HEDGE OF NONINVASIVE BAMBOO BEHIND THE GARAGE. INTERESTINGLY ENOUGH, NONINVASIVE BAMBOO ACTUALLY GROWS FASTER THAN THE BASIC BAMBOO DOES. AND BAMBOO CAN GROW PRETTY FAST. SO THE SOONER WE GET THIS DONE, THE SOONER THAT GETS PLANTED AND THE SOONER THAT SCREENS OFF THE GARAGE FROM THE FRONT YARD. THEY ARE GOING TO ADD A WINDOW TO THE BUILDING ON THE SIDE OF THE BOULEVARD, AND I HAVE A GRAPHIC YOU ARE GOING TO SEE IN A MINUTE. AND WE AGREED WITH MR. MATOVINA, IF YOU'RE GOING TO DO SOMETHING LIKE THAT, TO STAGGER IT, WHETHER YOU GO UP TO FOUR, IT IS A FUNCTION OF THE SIZE OF THE MAGNOLIA YOU BUY TO BEGIN WITH. THE RAILS STILL WANT TO USE THE OVERHEAD DOOR AND THE SIDE DOOR THAT IS THERE, SO THE CONCENTRATION OF THE TREES WILL BE MORE TO THE END WHERE THAT OVERHEAD DOOR AND SIDE DOOR ARE NOT. THEY ALSO ARE PROPOSING AS CONDITION OF THE VARIANCE TO ADD AWNINGS TO THE OVERHEAD DOORS AND ENTRY DOORS, THIS MAKES IT LOOK A LITTLE LESS INDUSTRIAL AND A LITTLE MORE RESIDENTIAL, AND ALSO THEY NEED TO COMPLETE THE HARD SCAPE FOR THE PERMIT AND WILL BE PLANTING SHRUBBERY ALONG THE REMAINING NON-DOOR PORTIONS OF THE NORTH SIDE ALONG CANAL AND THE WEST SIDE ALONG WILDERNESS AS WELL. SO HERE IS A GRAPHIC THAT SHOWS HOW THAT WOULD BE COMPLETED, YOU CAN SEE THE BAMBOO HEDGE ALONG THE EASTERN BOUNDARY LINE. YOU CAN SEE MAGNOLIAS IN THE SHRUBBERY AS WELL AS THE AWNINGS ON THE SIDE THAT FACES CANAL. AND THIS IS HOW THE AWNING WOULD LOOK OVER THE TWO DOORS AS WELL AS WITH THE COMPLETED DRIVEWAY AND SIDEWALK ALONG WILDERNESS WITH THE MAGNOLIAS OFF TO THE SIDE. AND KEEPING WITH THE SPIRIT OF THE CODE, THE ATTEMPT IS TO TRY TO MAKE IT LOOK A LITTLE MORE PALATABLE, AS YOU KNOW, IF THE LOT WAS DEEP ENOUGH, THEY COULD JUST BUILD IT, WOULDN'T HAVE TO ADD AWNINGS OR EXTRA LANDSCAPE OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT, THEY COULD JUST SCREEN IT OFF. ABSENT BEING ABLE TO SCREEN IT OFF, I WAS TOLD WE WOULD BE ABLE TO USE ITEMS TO ENHANCE THE AESTHETIC APPEAL OF THE PROPERTY AND MAKE IT LOOK A LITTLE MORE TOLERABLE TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD, REGARDLESS OF SOME OF THIS USE. THIS NEIGHBORHOOD IS ECLECTIC, THERE'S NO QUESTION, IT IS O.R. ZONING, THERE'S NOT A TRUE GOVERNING COVENANTS AND RESTRICTIONS, I LIVE IN AN RESTRICTIVE COMMUNITY AND I GET FRUSTRATED AT TIMES WHEN I CAN'T PARK THE BOAT IN THE STREET, CAN'T PARK THE CARS OVERNIGHT IN THE STREET, CAN'T PARK THE BOAT OVERNIGHT, YOU HAVE TO PAINT A CERTAIN WAY, THERE IS AN ADDITION TO PAYING THE QUARTERLY DUES. YOU MAY NOT HAVE THIS IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD WHICH IS GREAT BECAUSE THERE IS SOME FREEDOM, BUT THERE'S ALSO THE RISK THAT YOUR INVESTMENT MAY BE SUBJECT TO A NEIGHBOR PAINTING THEIR HOUSE A COLOR THAT YOU DON'T LIKE OR USING IT A CERTAIN WAY THAT YOU COULD FORESEE. IN THIS INSTANCE, WE FEEL LIKE THIS PROPOSED PLAN WITH THESE CONDITIONS ACHIEVES THE OBJECTIVE OF THE RAILS WITHIN THE CONTEXT AND THE SPIRIT OF THE CODE WHILE AT THE SAME TIME MINIMIZING IMPACT ON THE NEIGHBORS, THE RAILS , IT'S REALLY INTERESTING WHEN YOU DIG INTO THE CODE AND YOU START LOOKING AT WHAT THEY COULD OR COULDN'T DO GIVEN THE VARIOUS HEIGHT OF THE MAIN STRUCTURE, IN ORDER TO ALLEVIATE ALL OF THESE ISSUES AND NOT EVEN BE HERE TODAY, THEY COULD ADD A SECOND STORY OVER THE GARAGE, THAT [00:40:04] WOULDN'T NECESSARILY NEED TO BE HEATED AND COOLED SPACE, IT COULD JUST BE A STRUCTURE THAT RAISES THE OVERALL HEIGHT OF THE MAIN STRUCTURE BY MAKING THIS RV GARAGE IN ITS CURRENT FORM COMPLIANT. IS THAT REALLY WAS IN THE CONTEXT OR THE SPIRIT OF THE CODE? I DON'T THINK SO, I THINK DOING THINGS LIKE THIS IS AND THAT IS WHY WE HAVE PZA AND THE VARIANCE PROCESS IN ORDER TO ACHIEVE THAT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >> THAT CONCLUDES YOUR PRESENTATION FOR NOW? >> YES, IT DOES. >> OKAY, ANY QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD? MR. OLSON . >> I HAD A QUESTION FOR COUNCIL ABOUT THE PRESENTATION AND THE POINT BEING THAT THIS PROPERTY IS WITHIN O.R. ZONING DISTRICT, DOES THAT CHANGE IN ANY WAY, THE WAY, THE FACTORS THAT ARE TO BE CONSIDERED AND CONSIDERING A VARIANCE? AT THIS LOCATION. >> MR. OLSON , FOR THE CHAIR, I WILL CHIME IN ON THAT. SO THE APPLICANT HAD MADE MENTION OF THE ZONING DISTRICT AND THE RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT. WHEN WE APPLIED STANDARDS TO ACCESSORY USES, THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE IS VERY STRAIGHTFORWARD AND ARTICLE 202 04, IT SAYS THE REVIEW OF ACCESSORY USES SHOULD BE THE SAME AS IS REQUIRED FOR THE PRINCIPAL USE. >> OKAY, THANK YOU. >> MR. MATOVINA . >> I HAVE TWO QUESTIONS FOR STAFF. ONE, PREVIOUSLY I THOUGHT FROM THE LAST MEETING THAT THE APPLICANT JUST WOULD NOT ATTACH THIS GARAGE AT ALL TO THE HOUSE, THE TESTIMONY WE JUST HEARD, I THOUGHT SAID THEY ACTUALLY DID APPLY FOR THAT AND GOT A PERMIT AND THAT PERMIT WAS REVOKED. WHICH OF THOSE IS CORRECT? >> IT IS TRUE THAT THEY DID COME IN AND WORK WITH STAFF, WHAT MR. HUMPHREY PRESENTED IS TRUE SO MAYBE THERE WAS CONFUSION, BUT THEY DID COME IN AND WE STARTED WORKING WITH THEM. HOWEVER, THE LETTER FROM THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR SOLIDIFIED THAT WAS NOT APPROPRIATE. >> OKAY BUT DOESN'T OUR CODE ALLOW THAT? >> NOT ACCORDING TO THE LETTER FROM THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR, INTERPRETING THE CODE. >> OKAY, SO MY SECOND QUESTION IS, IN THE TESTIMONY WE JUST HEARD, THE APPLICANT SAYS THAT IF THE LOT WERE BIGGER AND I COULD ADD MORE SCREENING, THEN THE FACT THAT THE HEIGHT OF THE DETACHED STRUCTURE EXCEEDS THE HEIGHT OF THE PRIMARY STRUCTURE WOULD MATTER AND THEY COULD GET APPROVAL WITHOUT A VARIANCE. I'M NOT AWARE OF THAT SITUATION. >> YES, SIR, SO WHEN WE TALK ABOUT PRIVATE GARAGES AND STORAGE BUILDING, THAT IS WHAT THE CODE, WHAT WE ARE WORKING WITH HERE, IT SAYS THE E HEIGHT CANNOT BE HIGHER THAN THE PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE UNLESS IT IS PLACED IN SUCH A MANNER ON THE LOT THAT THE STRUCTURE CANNOT BE VIEWED FROM THE FRONT PROPERTY LINE EITHER DUE TO DISTANCE OR BUYING FULLY SCREENED WITH OPAQUE FENCING OR LANDSCAPE. >> FULLY SCREENED, OKAY THANK YOU. >> NO OTHER QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD, I HAVE A FEW FOR MR. HUMPHREY. YOU SHOWED A SERIES OF STRUCTURES THROUGHOUT THE NEIGHBORHOOD, VARIOUS HOMES IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD, RESTAURANTS, THINGS LIKE THAT, DO ANY OF THOSE STRUCTURES THAT YOU SHOWED, DO THEY NEED A VARIANCE, DO THEY NEED A VARIANCE TO BUILD THEM OR NOW TO REMAIN AS A LEGAL STRUCTURE? >> FOR EXAMPLE, THE ONE THAT I SHOWED AT THE HOUSE THAT WAS A VERY LARGE GARAGE, THAT WAS AT THE REAR OF THE LOWER RESIDENTIAL HOUSE TO THE FRONT, WE LOOK AT AERIALS, THAT IS A SEPARATE STRUCTURE, IT IS NOT ATTACHED. AND LISTENING TO THE CODE THAT WAS JUST CITED , THE SCREEN FROM THE ROAD, YOU CAN SEE IT BACK THERE FROM THE ROAD, SO THAT WOULD BE AN EXAMPLE OF POSSIBLY A VIOLATION THAT WOULD NEED A VARIANCE IN ORDER TO KEEP THAT STRUCTURE THERE. I DID NOT RESEARCH WHETHER ANY VARIANCES WERE APPLIED OR USED OR NOT, NOT FOUND OR ANY OF THESE OTHER STRUCTURES HAD CODE VIOLATIONS, MY UNDERSTANDING WAS THAT THE COUNTY HAS OR HASN'T DONE ELSEWHERE DOESN'T REALLY APPLY [00:45:03] TO THIS INDIVIDUAL ANALYSIS OF THE RAILS'S PROPERTY. I DO TAKE ISSUE WITH THE STATEMENT THAT ACCESSORY STRUCTURES ARE ALL ANALYZED UNDER 2.0.4, B4, BECAUSE THAT SECTION OF THE CODE DEALS STRICTLY WITH RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT, AND IT IS WITHIN A RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT, IT HAS RESIDENTIAL LAND USE, IF WE ARE GOING TO BE TECHNICAL WITH THAT. AND I AM AWARE OF OTHER STRUCTURES IN THE COUNTY THAT ARE O.R. ZONE, O.R. DISTRICT PROPERTIES, WHICH HAVE VERY LARGE RV BUILDINGS THAT ARE DETACHED FROM THE SINGLE-STORY HOME. YOU CAN SEE PLAIN AS DAY FROM THE ROADWAY. THERE'S LOTS OF STRUCTURES, EITHER THAN ST. JOHNS COUNTY, WEST OF 95, SO I DRIVE UP AND DOWN 13A AND 208 AND 214 ALL THE TIME, YOU CAN JUST DRIVE AROUND AND SEE THEM, THIS IS DIFFERENT, THIS IS MULTIMILLION DOLLAR HOMES AND YOU CAN SEE THEM, JUST DRIVING AROUND THE STREET, AND AGAIN THIS IS THE CODE, GIVEN THE NATURE OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND YOU KNOW, THE ISSUES ASSOCIATED WITH THE DEPTH, THE UNIQUE NATURE OF THE DEPTH OF THE LOT AND THE INABILITY TO USE THE RV GARAGE WHILE SCREENING IT COMPLETELY FROM THE ROADWAY. >> SO, THAT FIRST EXAMPLE THAT YOU GAVE AND YOUR ANSWER TO ME ABOUT THE LARGE WHITE HOUSE THAT HAD A TWO STORY STRUCTURE ADDED ON THAT YOU SAID SHOULD HAVE BEEN ADDED TO THE LOAD BEARING WALL. I THOUGHT YOU SAID THAT WAS ADDED TO THAT HOUSE. IS THAT NOT ATTACHED TO THAT HOUSE? >> IT IS ATTACHED. AND YOU CAN SEE IT, BUT HOW THOSE TWO STRUCTURES HAVE A COMMON LOAD BEARING WALL, I'M NOT REALLY SURE. >> I'M NOT EITHER BUT I CAN'T ANSWER THAT QUESTION, I GUESS COLIN COULD ANSWER THAT, BUT YOU INDICATED TO ME IN YOUR ANSWER THAT IS NOT FULLY ATTACHED TO THE HOUSE. >> NO, THIS WAS THE HOUSE THAT I WAS REFERRING TO, THIS IS ON SOUTH WILDERNESS TRAIL AND IN THE DISTANCE IS A VERY LARGE, VERY TALL GARAGE TYPE STRUCTURE OF SOME USE THAT TOWERS OVER THE RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE , THAT IS IN THE FOREGROUND. AND THIS IS THE VIEW DOWN THE DRIVEWAY, YOU CAN SEE IT FROM THE ROAD, SO IT IS NOT FULLY SCREENED AS TECHNICALLY REQUIRED BY CODE. >> OKAY, IN YOUR OPINION, IS THAT DOOR SCREENED OR OPAQUE FROM THE VIEW AND IT IS NOT IN THE FRONT YARD, THEN THE RAILS'S STRUCTURE , NO QUESTION THAT IS MORE HIDDEN? >> NO QUESTION. >> OKAY, YOU SPECIFICALLY MENTIONED THE BURTHWICK'S GARAGE, I JUST WANTED TO KNOW IF IT IS IN VIOLATION? >> NOT THAT I KNOW OF. ONLY TO THE EXTENT THAT, LOOKING AT RESPECTIVE VIEWS OF DIFFERENT PROPERTIES AND TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION, THE PRINCIPLES, IT IS A FACT, IT IS OUT THERE AND IT IS THERE, SO -- >> OKAY, I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW, THERE HAVE BEEN ASSERTIONS MADE ABOUT THE PERMIT AND THINGS STATED IN THE PRINTED PERMIT THE COUNTY ISSUES, HAVE YOU SEEN THE BUILDING PERMIT? >> I HAVE SEEN A BUILDING PERMIT, I HAVE SEEN THE CONSTRUCTION PLANS THAT WERE SUBMITTED AND I HAVE SEEN THE RESPONSES TO THE QUESTIONS THAT WERE SUBMITTED BY STAFF IN RESPONSE. >> SO, THERE'S SEVERAL STATEMENTS GOING AROUND, PARTICULARLY IN THE LETTERS OF OPPOSITION TO THIS, IT SAID, IT WAS STATED THAT THE PROPERTY , FOR THE PERMIT APPLICATION, THAT THE PROPERTY WAS OWNER-OCCUPIED AND WE COME TO FIND OUT THAT THE PROPERTY IS RENTED, IS THAT IN FACT STATED IN THE APPLICATION FOR THE BUILDING PERMIT? [00:50:06] >> NO , I KEEP WANTING TO SAY YOUR HONOR, BUT THAT STATEMENT IS COMING FROM THE APPLICATION THAT ALLOWS THE PROPERTY OWNER TO BE THEIR OWN CONTRACTOR, THEIR OWN APPLICANT. SO THE APPLICANT WAS THE OWNER BUT I DON'T SEE ANYWHERE IN THE APPLICATION WHERE THEY ASSERTED THAT THE PROPERTY WAS OWNER-OCCUPIED. THE APPLICATION IS BY THE OWNER THAT THE OWNER ACTED AS ESSENTIALLY THEIR OWN CONTRACTOR FROM WHAT I UNDERSTAND. AND SO, YOU KNOW THE APPLICATION WAS MADE, THEY GOT THE CLEARANCE, THEY ORDERED THE BUILDING, ALL OF THE PLANS WERE SUBMITTED TO THE COUNTY BY THE BUILDING COMPANY, APPROVED BY THE COUNTY, EVERYTHING THERE IS TO KNOW ABOUT THE EXISTING STRUCTURE AS WELL AS THE PROPOSED STRUCTURE WAS ALL APPROVED AND THEREFORE THEY WENT OUT AND BUILT IT AND IT WAS ONLY AFTER IT WAS BUILT THAT THERE WAS AN ISSUE RAISED ABOUT THE HEIGHT AND THE DISPARITY BETWEEN. AND IT'S INTERESTING, I SAID AT THE LAST HEARING, IF THE RAILS PROPERTY WAS VACANT, THEY COULD BUILD OUT THERE, A BUILDING THAT TOWERS OVER ALL OF THE BURTHWICK'S PROPERTY AND BE ON THE CORNER AND LOOK LIKE A BARN AND HAVE THIS APPEARANCE AND HAD THAT BEEN THE PRIMARY STRUCTURE OF THAT HEIGHT AND THAT SIZE, IT WOULD HAVE BEEN APPROVED AND WE WOULDN'T BE HERE. >> BUT THAT IS SIMPLY NOT THE CASE. I REMEMBER YOUR ASSERTION FROM LAST TIME AND IT WAS IN THE APPLICATION MATERIALS BUT, THERE IS ALREADY A SINGLE-FAMILY HOUSE THERE THAT HAS THE HEIGHT OF 8.7 FEET AND IS HAS A HEIGHT OF 18 OR POSSIBLY ACCORDING TO ONE LETTER, THE GRID SHOWING IT 23 FEET, AT LEAST DOUBLE THE HEIGHT OF THE SINGLE-FAMILY STRUCTURE. >> HENCE THE PROCESS OF GOING THROUGH THE APPLICATION AND GETTING THE PERMIT FROM THE COUNTY, AND NOW THAT THAT HAS BEEN REVOKED, THIS IS THE PROCESS IN ORDER TO RECTIFY THAT SITUATION. >> OKAY, I HAD A COUPLE MORE QUESTIONS FROM YOU BUT COULD I ASK OUR STAFF AND OUR ATTORNEY, HAVE YOU SEEN THE BUILDING PERMIT AND LOOKED AT IT AND IS THERE ANY PROVISION THAT STATES WHETHER IT IS OWNER OCCUPIED PROPERTY AND THEY STATE AFFIRMATIVE YES, THIS IS OWNER OCCUPIED PROPERTY, I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW THAT. I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW IF THERE WAS A LIMIT OF $30,000 PLACED IN THE BUILDING PERMIT ON THE STRUCTURE AND YOU ASSERT ALSO THAT THEY SPENT 120,000 ON THIS, I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW THINGS LIKE THAT. BECAUSE WE HAVEN'T SEEN THE PERMIT. IT WOULD HAVE BEEN NICE PERHAPS TO INCLUDE THE PERMIT AND TO ALL OF OUR MATERIALS. SO WE HAVE THAT. BECAUSE I SURE HAVEN'T SEEN IT. THERE HAS BEEN QUESTIONS RAISED AND I WOULD LIKE TO GET WHAT IS FACTUAL. >> I'M HAPPY TO LOOK INTO THAT, I HAVE SEEN IT BUT IT IS NOT SOMETHING I HAVE COMMITTED TO MEMORY, I WILL TRY TO BRING IT UP BUT I WANT TO POINT OUT THAT IT SOUNDS LIKE WHAT YOU'RE LEANING TOWARDS IS THE RESIDENT LIVING IN THE HOUSE WHETHER IT IS OWNER OCCUPIED OR NOT AND THAT DOES BECOME A LITTLE BIT OF A SEMANTIC ON THE APPLICATION OF THE BUILDING PERMIT BECAUSE WE DON'T REGULATE OWNER OCCUPATION INSIDE A RESIDENCE AT ALL. SO I WOULDN'T LEAN TOWARDS THAT AS OPPOSED TO AGAIN, WE ARE HERE FOR A VARIANCE ON THE HEIGHT AND NOT HOW SOMEBODY USES THEIR HOME. >> RIGHT. I JUST WANTED TO DETERMINE IF THERE WERE INACCURATE STATEMENTS MADE IN THE BUILDING PERMIT THAT MAY HAVE POSSIBLY LED TO ITS ISSUANCE, IN ERROR. SO I'M JUST TRYING TO GET AT THAT. BUT I WILL GET OFF THAT AT THIS POINT. SO, IT IS STATED IN SOME OF THE LETTERS THAT AMBER LEE RAILS IS A REAL ESTATE PROFESSIONAL, IS SHE A LICENSED REAL ESTATE -- >> NOT THAT I KNOW OF, I DON'T THINK SHE IS INVOLVED IN THAT. >> SO, THERE WAS A STATEMENT MADE THAT SHE IS A REAL ESTATE PROFESSIONAL IN CALIFORNIA IN TERMS OF RESIDENTIAL, COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL PROPERTIES, IS THAT NOT A FACTUAL STATEMENT? THAT IS A FACT? >> [INDISCERNIBLE] >> YOU DID, OKAY AND YOU ARE NOT [00:55:02] A REALTOR BUT YOU ARE A PROPERTY MANAGER THEN? OKAY. PROFESSIONALLY. >> IF YOU WANT TO GET THAT PRESENTATION OR TESTIMONY INTO THE RECORD, THEN WE SHOULD -- >> WE WILL DO THAT AT SOME POINT, OKAY, YOU KNOW, IT STATES THAT A VARIANCE WILL NOT BE CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST, SUCH A VARIANCE, DO YOU THINK IN YOUR OPINION THAT THE PUBLIC INTEREST, WHICH IS GREATER, THE PUBLIC INTEREST OF AN ENTIRE NEIGHBORHOOD OR THE PUBLIC INTEREST OF ONE LANDOWNER, ONE HOMEOWNER? >> I THINK, I DON'T HAVE ANY EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE FOR THIS OTHER THAN PURE OPINION BUT IT IS BASED UPON WHAT I HAVE READ, MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT REQUIREMENT IS MORE APPLICABLE TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC INTEREST. THE GENERAL AREA, NOT NECESSARILY ONE PARTICULAR PROPERTY OWNER VERSUS THE OTHER. >> OKAY, SO WHAT YOU ARE INDICATING IS THE NEIGHBORHOOD OR AREA, RESIDENTIAL AREA, THEIR PUBLIC INTEREST MIGHT OUTWEIGH THAT OF ONE INDIVIDUAL HOMEOWNER? >> I WOULD SUBMIT THAT WOULD BE A CONSIDERATION, YOU KNOW, THE VARIANCE SHOULD BE NECESSARILY AGAINST OVERALL PUBLIC INTEREST. >> OKAY, LET'S SEE IF I HAVE SOMETHING ELSE HERE. I KNOW WE HAVE A LOT OF PEOPLE THAT ARE HERE TO SPEAK ON THIS, SO RATHER THAN ME CONTINUE QUESTIONING, WE DO HAVE MORE BOARD STATEMENTS HOWEVER, SO WE WILL GET TO PUBLIC TESTIMONY SHORTLY THAT WE HAVE OTHER BOARD MEMBERS THAT WANT TO ASK QUESTIONS. MR. MATOVINA . >> COULD YOU PULL UP THE SLIDE THAT YOU SAY IS THE VIEW OF THE NEIGHBORS TO THE EAST, FROM THE RAILS'S BACK PORCH. YES, THAT SLIDE, THANK YOU, SO ARE YOU SAYING THAT THIS IS THE END OF THEIR GARAGE? >> I BELIEVE THAT CONSTITUTES A PORTION OF THEIR GARAGE AS WELL AS THE RESIDENCE, I THINK THE GARAGE EXTENDS OFF TO THE LEFT, WHERE IT BEGINS AND ENDS I'M NOT REALLY SURE. >> COULD YOU PULL UP THE AERIAL THEN PLEASE? SO, WOULDN'T YOU SAY THE ONE-STORY STRUCTURE THAT STICKS OUT CONSIDERABLY FROM THE HOUSE IS THE GARAGE? THAT WOULD BE AN AWFUL DEEP GARAGE IF IT GOES INTO THAT TWO-STORY AREA WHERE THE ENDING IS. >> YES, I WOULD AGREE WITH THAT. >> THANK YOU. MR. LABANOWSKI ? >> THE 280, WEST OR SOUTH, WHICHEVER IT IS, THAT YOU HAVE A PICTURE UP THERE, YOU WEREN'T SURE IF IT WAS ATTACHED OR NOT, OR YOU SAID IT WAS NOT ATTACHED, WHERE I'M LOOKING RIGHT NOW, AS SMALL AS IT MAY BE, THERE IS AN ATTACHMENT BETWEEN THE GARAGE AND HOUSE. BACK, YOU HAD IT. YEAH, 250, THERE IS AN ATTACHMENT BETWEEN THE GARAGE AND THE HOUSE. ACCORDING TO THE AERIAL I'M LOOKING AT RIGHT NOW. >> THE AERIAL I'M LOOKING AT DIDN'T SEEM TO INDICATE THAT AND EVEN IF IT IS, I'M STILL NOT SURE HOW THAT ATTACHMENT WOULD BE ANY DIFFERENT THAN THE ATTACHMENT THAT THE RAILS SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO DO BECAUSE I SERIOUSLY DOUBT THAT ATTACHMENT CONSTITUTES SHARING THE BEARING WALL. >> UNDERSTAND. THAT IS ALL. >> OKAY, BEFORE WE GET TO PUBLIC COMMENT, I HAVE ONE MORE QUESTION, MR. HUMPHREY DID YOU HAVE ANY PROPOSED MITIGATION SUCH AS PLANTING MAGNOLIA TREES OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT, THAT WE HAVEN'T SEEN THAT YOU PRESENTED TODAY, BECAUSE WHAT YOU PRESENTED TO ME IS NOT ADEQUATE IN MITIGATION TO ACTUALLY OBSCURE, HIDE, MASK THE STRUCTURE IN ANY WAY. SO I JUST WONDERED IF THERE WAS ANYTHING ELSE BECAUSE THERE WAS NOTHING ELSE IN OUR PACKET AND I JUST WONDERED IF YOU HAD ANYTHING YOU DIDN'T PRESENT THAT WAS PROPOSED MITIGATION. >> SO, THE NONINVASIVE BAMBOO ALONG THE EASTERN PROPERTY LINE ETWEEN THE GARAGE AND THE BORTHWICK'S PROPERTY, ONCE THAT Select to skip to this part of the video">ETWEEN THE GARAGE AND THE BORTHWICK'S PROPERTY, ONCE THAT BAMBOO GROWS AND REACHES MATURITY, IT SHOULD BLOCK THE [01:00:05] ENTIRE VIEW OF THE GARAGE FROM THE BORTHWICK'S PROPERTY. SO THERE'S THAT. >> BUT WE HAD SEEN THAT PREVIOUSLY. >> WE DIDN'T HAVE THAT THE LAST TIME. >> I MEANT TODAY, WHAT YOU PRESENTED TODAY. I KNOW WE DID NOT HAVE THIS LAST TIME, THE BAMBOO. OKAY. >> AND THE WINDOW, THAT IS NEW FROM THE LAST TIME. AND THEN THE RECOGNITION THAT THE MAGNOLIA TREES SHOULD BE STAGGERED, ALONG THAT SIDE WHILE MAINTAINING THE UTILITY OF THE DOOR TO BE INCORPORATED. >> OKAY, APPRECIATE IT, THANK YOU, WE WILL GO TO PUBLIC COMMENT, SO LINEUP AT ONE OF THESE THREE PODIUMS APPEAR AND WHEN YOU COME UP, PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD AND YOU HAVE THREE MINUTES. I DON'T KNOW IF WE HAVE ANY SPEAKERS. >> WE ARE GOING TO HAVE SPEAKERS ON MULTIPLE ITEMS TODAY. >> DO WE HAVE PEOPLE THAT ARE GOING TO GET MORE THAN THREE MINUTES CORRECT? >> CORRECT, HE HAS 15 MINUTES, HE IS ONE OF THE NEIGHBORS. WE JUST GOT IT. >> FOR THE CHAIR, I REPRESENT SEVERAL RESIDENTS IN THE COMMUNITY, THEY HAVE GRANTED ME THEIR TIME. BEFORE I GET INTO SOME OF THE RESPONSE TO WHAT MR. HUMPHREY SAID, I THINK IT STARTS FROM THE PREMISE THAT YOU HAVE AN INHERENT RIGHT TO BUILD A STRUCTURE LIKE THIS, TO STORE RV ON THE PROPERTY. YOU DON'T, YOU HAVE A RIGHT IF THE PROPERTY ALLOWS FOR IT, OBVIOUSLY THE ZONING CODE IS REPLETE WITH RESTRICTIONS ON SETBACKS AND THINGS OF THAT NATURE, BASED ON THE SETUP OF YOUR PROPERTY, THERE MIGHT BE THINGS THAT YOU CAN'T DO THAT YOUR NEIGHBOR CAN DO. AND WE WILL TALK A LITTLE BIT MORE ABOUT THAT, BUT I THINK THAT IS THE FUNDAMENTAL FLAW, WITH RESPECT TO THE ARGUMENT AND SHOWING SOME OF THE PICTURES IN THE COMMUNITY BECAUSE IT IS OVERRULED SO YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE A LITTLE BIT OF A HODGEPODGE IN CERTAIN AREAS BUT I THINK THERE IS DISTINCT CHARACTERISTICS ON EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THE PROPERTIES SHOWN, FOR EXAMPLE, A VERY LONG DRIVEWAY. THAT PICTURE IS OBVIOUSLY ZOOMED IN, STANDING FROM THE STREET YOU MIGHT HAVE A PROBLEM SEEING THAT REGARDLESS OF WHETHER IT IS ATTACHED OR NOT. AND I MENTIONED THIS IN OUR PROCEDURAL STANDPOINT, THEY ARE ASKING FOR A VARIANCE WITH RESPECT TO THE ALLOWABLE HEIGHT OF THE PROPERTY, READING THE CODE, IT APPEARS THAT WOULD BE SOMETHING ONLY THE COUNTY COURT OF COMMISSIONERS COULD APPROVE BUT I UNDERSTAND, AGAIN, IF THE HOUSE WASN'T THERE, THIS MIGHT FALL ON THIS BOARD. I JUST WANTED TO BRING THAT UP, THE CODE IS FAIRLY STRAIGHTFORWARD IN TERMS OF HOW THESE THINGS ARE HANDLED. AND I THINK MR. HUMPHREY DID A GREAT JOB IN TERMS OF SUMMARIZING THE REASONS THAT A VARIANCE CAN BE GRANTED AND THE FACTORS THAT GO INTO THAT AND OBVIOUSLY I DON'T WANT TO REITERATE AND TAKE UP THE BOARDS TIME WITH RESPECT TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST TO A GREAT EXTENT, OTHER THAN THE FACT THAT I THINK FROM THE PICTURES THAT YOU SEE IN THE APPLICATION, THAT THE BOARD EVALUATES THE PUBLIC INTEREST NOT ONLY FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF THE APPLICANT BUT OBVIOUSLY THE SURROUNDING COMMUNITY AND THE PICTURES SPEAK FOR THEMSELVES, IT DOES NOT FIT IN WITH THE CHARACTER OF THE COMMUNITY. FURTHER, SOME OF THE STRUCTURES THAT INCLUDED A GARAGE THAT YOU COULD STORE AN RV, OBVIOUSLY THEY COMPLIED FOR A LOT OF DIFFERENT OTHER REASONS BUT THE PROPERTIES THEMSELVES ARE COMPLETELY DIFFERENT FROM THE PROPERTY HERE. OBVIOUSLY IT IS A CORNER LOT, THE CODE HAS SPECIFIC RULES FOR THE CORNER LOT AND YOU KNOW THAT WHEN YOU GET INTO IT, AND WE WILL TALK A LITTLE BIT MORE ABOUT THAT. BUT I THINK IT IS PRETTY CLEAR THAT THE MAIN ISSUE HERE, THE MAIN REASON WE ARE HERE IS THE CRITERIA, GRANTED THE VARIANCE WOULD ALLEVIATE A HARDSHIP, THAT HARDSHIP IS SPECIFIC TO THE NATURE OF THE PROPERTY ITSELF. AND I THINK THE CHAIR REFERENCED, THERE WERE SOME REFERENCES TO THE CASE LAW AND LEGAL PREFERENCE, I DID NOT SUBMIT THAT SO I DON'T KNOW EXACTLY WHERE THAT CAME FROM THAT I AM GOING TO TALK ABOUT THE LEGAL PRECEDENTS, BUT YOU CAN'T CREATE THE HARDSHIP, YOU CAN'T MAKE THE HARDSHIP AND ASK THE BOARD TO FIX IT FOR THEM. IT HAS TO BE TIED TO THE LAND AND SORT OF RUN WITH THE LAND. HERE IT DOESN'T. AND I SYMPATHIZE [01:05:01] WITH THE APPLICANT'S, THEY DID RECEIVE A PERMIT BUT THEY ARE THE ONES THAT SUBMITTED THE PERMIT. ONCE YOU SUBMIT THE PERMIT, YOU NEED TO HAVE ACTUAL CONSTRUCTIVE KNOWLEDGE OF THE RULES REGARDING WHAT YOU CAN AND CANNOT DO. IF THERE WAS A MISTAKE ON THE COUNTY'S PART IN TERMS OF WHAT WAS IN THAT PERMIT OR WHAT HAVE YOU, I DON'T KNOW, I HAVEN'T SEEN THE PERMIT EITHER BUT THE FACT IS, ONCE YOU SUBMIT THAT PERMIT, YOU ARE CHARGED WITH KNOWING THE RULES OF THE ROAD AND THAT'S WHY MOST PEOPLE DON'T SUBMIT THE PERMITS THEMSELVES, THEY HAVE A CONTRACTOR SUBMIT IT FOR THEM. BUT THE FACT IS, WHEN THAT PERMIT IS SUBMITTED , IT IS WELL KNOWN AND STATED IN THE CODE, IT IS OBVIOUS THAT YOU CANNOT EXCEED THE HEIGHT OF THE EXISTING STRUCTURE. AND I AGREE WITH WHAT THE PRESIDENT SAID, YOU CAN'T IMAGINE IF THE HOUSE ISN'T THERE, THERE'S A LOT OF FOLKS THAT I'M SURE WOULD LIKE TO PUT A LIQUOR STORE NICE -- NEXT TO A CHURCH , BUT YOU HAVE TO COMPLY WITH THE CODE AND THEY DON'T AND THEY CREATED THE HARDSHIP THEMSELVES AND AGAIN, IT MIGHT BE MY MISTAKE BUT THEY CREATED THE HARDSHIP. AND FOR THE COURTS TO BE CLEAR ON THIS, THERE IS A CASE, BASED ON, IF YOU SUBMIT IT, IF THERE IS A MISTAKE BY THE COUNTY, THAT IS NOT AN EXCUSE TO GRANT THE VARIOUS. IF YOU CREATE THE NUISANCE AND COME AFTER THE FACT TO SAY THIS VARIANCE WAS FIXING THE PROBLEM, THEY SHOULD BE ABLE TO BENEFIT FROM THAT. AND THEN YOU TALK ABOUT WHAT THE RATIFICATIONS ARE BECAUSE I KNOW THIS BOARD HAS THOUGHT ABOUT THIS. T MATTERS. IF YOU DENY THIS VARIANCE, WHAT DOES THAT MEAN? WELL, IT MEANS THE BUILDING HAS TO COME DOWN. AND UNFORTUNATELY, FLORIDA CASE LAW DOESN'T MEET WITH THAT ACTUAL RESULT AND MR. HUMPHREY REFERRED TO THIS, THE STATUTORY RULE IS IF YOU BUILD IT IN THE COURT LATER APPROVES IT AND SAYS IT IS INCONSISTENT WITH CODE, IT HAS TO COME DOWN. AND THAT IS THE RAMIFICATIONS AND AGAIN, I SUPERVISE WITH THE APPLICANTS ON THIS, BUT AGAIN, THEY CREATED THE PROBLEM. AND FLORIDA CASE LAW IS CLEAR, THAT IS NOT GOING TO FIX IT. AND THE CITY OF HOLLYWOOD CASE AND MR. HUMPHREY REFERRED TO THAT, GOVERNMENT ERROR ISN'T A REASON YOU CAN GO OUTSIDE THE CODE EITHER. EVEN IF IT TURNED OUT THAT HOWEVER THAT PERMIT WAS DONE WAS COMPLETELY 100% ON THE GOVERNMENTS FAULT, THAT IS THE PERMIT THAT BUILT IT, IT STILL FALLS UPON THE APPLICANT TO MAKE SURE IT IS COMPLIANT WITH THE ZONING CODE AND THE RULES AND REGULATIONS. SO EVEN IF IT WAS 100% THE COUNTY'S FAULT, THE COUNTY IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR THAT. AND THIS IS CLEAR AND OBVIOUSLY THIS BOARD SITS AND HEARS A LOT OF VARIANCES COME ALMOST ALL ARE DONE BEFORE THE BUILDING IS CONSTRUCTED, NOT AFTER. THAT IS A SERIOUS PROBLEM WITH RESPECT TO THIS CASE. WE HAVE TALKED A LOT ABOUT THE CONSISTENCY AND I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS BUT I DID WANT TO ADDRESS A COUPLE THINGS THAT MR. HUMPHREY STATED. SPECIFICALLY WITH RESPECT TO OPEN RURAL, THE FACT IS THAT IT DOES HAVE TO COMPLY WITH WHAT THE PROPERTY IS BEING USED FOR, SO THE FACT THAT IT IS OPEN RURAL DOESN'T CHANGE THAT. THE FACT, WHAT COULD BE ON THAT PROPERTY, WHAT COULD BE IN SOME DIFFERENT SITUATIONS ISN'T APPLICABLE HERE EITHER, THE FACT IS THAT YOU HAVE A HOUSE ON THIS PROPERTY, IT IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE NATURE OF THE SURROUNDING AREAS. ALL OF THE SHOPS THAT YOU SAW , NONE OF THEM ARE THE SAME AS THIS. NONE OF THEM COME CLOSE TO THE SETUP OF THIS PROPERTY AND I UNDERSTAND BECAUSE IT IS A CORNER LOT AND FAIRLY SHALLOW, THAT THEY WOULD LIKE TO DO WHAT MAYBE SOMEBODY ELSE COULD DO, THAT IS UNFORTUNATELY WHAT COMES WITH THE NATURE OF THE LAND. I THINK THAT BRINGS UP THE FINAL POINT THAT I REFERENCED FROM OUR READ OF THE CODE, THERE IS ANOTHER PROBLEM WITH THIS. OUTSIDE OF THE HEIGHT OF THE BUILDING. BECAUSE CLEARLY YOU COULD HAVE BUILT THIS BUILDING IN A WAY THAT WAS COMPLIANT, IT MIGHT NOT BE ABLE TO STORE AN RV BUT YOU DON'T HAVE THE INHERENT RIGHT TO STORE AN RV ON YOUR PROPERTY, YOU JUST DON'T, IT IS EFFECTIVE THE TWO FRONT LOT. NOW, THE CODE, I HAD TO READ IT SEVERAL TIMES MYSELF, HOW SIDE LOTS ARE DETERMINED VERSUS HOW FRONT LOT ARE DETERMINED, BUT A [01:10:03] FRONT YARD IS DEFINED AS A REQUIRED YARD EXTENDING BETWEEN SIDE LOT LINES, ADJOINING THE PUBLIC OR PRIVATE ROAD, THAT IS THE FRONT OF THE HOUSE WHERE IT IS ON THE RESIDENTIAL PIECE OF THE PROPERTY. A REQUIRED YARD EXTENDING FROM THE REAR LINE, THE REQUIRED FRONT YARD TO THE REAR LOT, OR THE ABSENCE OF ANY CLEARLY DEFINING REAR LOT LINE, FROM THE FARTHEST INTERSECTION OF THE SIDE STREET IS THE SIDE YARD, I'M NOT GOING TO TRY TO EXPLAIN THAT BECAUSE I HAD TO READ IT ABOUT 17 TIMES BUT WHAT IS MORE IMPORTANT IS THE NEXT PART, IN THE CASE OF THE CORNER LOT, AFTER THE FRONT YARD HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED, ON THE FRONTAGE, IT IS CONSIDERED THE SIDE, WHICH YOU CAN JUST LOOK AT THE PICTURES AND STRUCTURE, THEY HAVE LARGE BAY DOORS ON EACH SIDE OF THE BUILDING. BECAUSE THEY HAVE FRONTAGE ON TWO ROADS, THAT MEANS THEY HAVE TWO FRONT YARDS, ACCESSORY STRUCTURES LIKE THIS ARE NOT ALLOWED IN YOUR FRONT YARD AND THEY HAVE TWO. AGAIN, YOU LOOK AT THE PROPERTY, THAT IS A PROBLEM BECAUSE WHERE ELSE WOULD YOU PUT IT? UNFORTUNATELY THAT COMES WITH THE PROPERTY, THAT IS NOT THE RESPONSE ABILITY OF THIS BOARD OR THE COUNTY TO FIX THAT SCENARIO. I'M SYMPATHETIC TO THE FACT THAT IT IS THE BUILDING PERMIT, THAT CANNOT BE EXCUSED BY BLATANT VIOLATION OF THE CODE. IT GOES BACK TO THE FACT, THAT OTHER FOLKS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD CAN DO THIS OR OTHER BUILDINGS LOOK LIKE THIS. UNFORTUNATELY THAT IS NOT A SCENARIO, THAT IS NOT A REALITY FOR THIS BOARD, IT COMES DOWN TO WHAT THE LAW SAYS. AND THIS DOES NOT QUALIFY IN ANY READING OF THE ZONING CODE FOR A VARIANCE, AND BECAUSE OF THE FACT THAT IT IS SIMPLY A RESULT OF WHAT IN THE BEST LIGHT IS A MISTAKE BY THE COUNTY, THAT IS NOT GROUNDS TO GRANT VARIANCE. I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS, I HOPE I FILLED IN THE BLANKS BUT I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT THE BOARD MAY HAVE. >> BOARD MEMBERS, DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? SEEING NONE, IF THAT IS THE CONCLUSION OF YOUR PRESENTATION, WE WILL MOVE ON TO PUBLIC COMMENT. >> YES, SIR, THANK YOU. >> GOOD AFTERNOON, MY NAME IS GREG LEONARD, 227 PALMETTO DRIVE, AS PRESIDENT OF THE ASSOCIATION, I'M HERE TO REPRESENT THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS AND THEIR OPPOSITION TO THE ACCESSORY STRUCTURE LOCATED AT 203 CANAL BOULEVARD. THE ASSOCIATION REQUEST YOU DENY THIS APPLICATION FOR THE FOLLOWING FACTUAL REASONS. ACCORDING TO COUNTY RECORDS, THEY WERE MADE AWARE AFTER THEY FILED THIS APPLICATION THAT IT DID NOT MEET THE CRITERIA ASSOCIATED WITH AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE FOR A RESIDENCE IN ST. JOHN'S COUNTY, THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE CLEARLY STATES THAT A PRIVATE GARAGE AND STORAGE BUILDING MAY BE APPROVED PROVIDING SUCH STRUCTURE SHOULD BE AN ACCESSORY TO THE RESIDENTIAL BUILDING BUT THE NEW STRUCTURE SHOULD BE NO GREATER THAN THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF THE MAIN STRUCTURE UNLESS THE STRUCTURE DISPLAYS IN SUCH A MANNER THAT THE STRUCTURE CANNOT BE VIEWED FROM THE FRONT PROPERTY LINE EITHER DUE TO DISTANCE OR BUYING -- BY BEING SCREENED BY LANDSCAPE. AS YOU KNOW, IT IS AT LEAST NINE FEET HIGHER THAN THE MAIN RESIDENTIAL BUILDING, ALSO IT IS NOTED THAT THE STRUCTURE IS PLACED ON THE PROPERTY WHERE IT IS CONSPICUOUSLY VIEWED FROM NOT ONE BUT TWO FRONT PROPERTY LINES. SECONDLY, ACCORDING TO THE COUNTY ATTORNEY REVIEW INCLUDED IN THE STAFF PACKAGE, ANY ACT OF THE OWNER THAT CREATES A HARDSHIP THAT IS NOT CONSIDERED A HARDSHIP JUSTIFYING A VARIANCE. WHILE THE RAILS CLAIM HARDSHIP AND I QUOTE , AS THEY RELIED ON ST. JOHN'S COUNTY BUILDING DEPARTMENT TO ACCURATELY INTERPRET THE BUILDING CODE, ACCORDING TO THE STATE OF FLORIDA PUBLIC RECORDS, AMBER RAILS IS A LICENSED REAL ESTATE OWNER AND THE CONTRACTOR THAT MANAGED THIS PROJECT, THE FATHER, DANA BURKART IS A LICENSED CONTRACTOR IN FLORIDA, THE FACT THAT THEY KNOWINGLY TOOK ADVANTAGE OF THIS CLERICAL MISTAKE AND DECIDED TO MOVE FORWARD WITH CONSTRUCTION DESPITE BEING AWARE THAT IT DID NOT COMPLY WITH THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, THIS APPEARS TO BE A CASE OF DOING EXACTLY [01:15:02] WHAT YOU WANT TO DO AND ASKING FOR FORGIVENESS LATER. FINALLY, THIS APPLICATION IS CLEARLY CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST AND IN CONFLICT WITH THE SURROUNDING DEVELOPMENT. ALLOWING AN ACCESSORY BUILDING SUBSTANTIALLY TALLER THAN THE ASSOCIATED RESIDENCE ALTERS THE NEIGHBORHOOD'S CHARACTER AND SET A PRECEDENCE UNDERMINING THE UNIFORM ENFORCEMENT. PLEASE DENY THIS VARIANCE REQUEST. THE LAST THING I WILL SUBMIT BECAUSE IT CAME UP IN ONE OF YOUR QUESTIONS, MR. CHAIR, IS IN THE STAFF PACKAGE THERE IS AN AFFIDAVIT FROM THE OWNERS IN WHICH THE ELEMENT IS INITIALED BY BRIAN RAILS, IF I UNDERSTAND, THE BUILDER IS A ONE FAMILY RESIDENCE BUT THE BUILDING MUST BE FOR MY OWN USE OR OCCUPANCY, THAT MIGHT BE WHAT YOU REFERRED TO EARLIER. >> YOU STATED THAT THE RAILS ARE NOTIFIED, QUOTE, SOON AFTER, THAT THE PERMIT ISSUED WAS NOT GOING TO BE IN COMPLIANCE WITH ORDINANCES IN THE LDC? >> IT IS MY UNDERSTANDING. IT WAS MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THERE WAS AN INITIAL RESPONSE RECEIVED TO THE INITIAL BUILDING PERMIT THAT POINTED OUT THAT ISSUE. AND THAT BUILDING PERMIT, THAT APPLICATION CAME BACK A SECOND TIME AND A COUPLE OF THE ISSUES APPARENTLY THERE WAS MORE THAN ONE ITEM ON THAT, AND I CANNOT SPEAK TO THAT IN DETAIL. I HAVE NOT SEEN THE BUILDING PERMIT, IT IS NOT IN THE STAFF PACKAGE. BUT THAT IS OUR OPINION. >> WE HAVE NEVER HEARD THAT. >> I WOULD LIKE TO SUBMIT THE DOCUMENT THAT I JUST REFERRED TO. >> THANK YOU. IF WE HAVE MORE SPEAKERS, YOU ARE WELCOME TO COME UP TO ONE OF THE PODIUMS AND GIVE YOUR TESTIMONY. >> GOOD AFTERNOON, MY NAME IS JACK BILLINGS, 109 SOUTH WILDERNESS TRAIL, MY ONLY QUESTION IN THIS WHOLE THING IS, I HAVE BUILT THERE, I HAVE APPLIED FOR A PERMIT, I GOT IT FROM THE COUNTY, AND I BUILT THERE. 10 YEARS AGO. BUT, WHERE WAS THE BUILDING INSPECTOR, HE WAS ON MY DOORSTEP EVERY OTHER WEEK. DOES THE COUNTY NOT HAVE BUILDING INSPECTORS ANYMORE? AND THAT IS MY QUESTION. THAT IS IT. >> ANYONE ELSE TO SPEAK TO THIS ITEM? IF YOU DO WANT TO SPEAK TO THE ITEM, SINCE WE HAVE A LOT OF PEOPLE HERE, PLEASE COME TO ONE OF THE MICROPHONES. >> THANK YOU, MY NAME IS SELENA BROWN, I'M WITHIN 250 YARDS OF THIS PROPERTY, I JUST WANT TO SPEAK TO WHAT JACK BILLINGS MENTIONED ABOUT THE INSPECTION, IF YOU LOOK AT THE PERMIT ONLINE, ALL INSPECTIONS WERE ON HOLD UNTIL CONVERSATION WITH BUILDING OFFICIALS. SO, IT LOOKS LIKE ALL THE INSPECTIONS WERE ON HOLD. >> MAY I ASK YOU WHAT THE DATE WAS? >> FEBRUARY OF 24, SO THEY STARTED THIS PROCESS IN 23, THEY PUT A SLAP DOWN, WE ALL SAW IT, WE REALLY DID KNOW WHAT WAS GOING ON SO THERE WAS ONE INSPECTION AND AFTER THAT, ALL INSPECTIONS WERE ON HOLD. SO, IT LOOKS LIKE IT MAY HAVE BEEN COMPLETED, EVEN THOUGH ALL INSPECTIONS WERE ON HOLD. AND THE REPRESENTATION OF THE PICTURE, THEY'VE BEEN USING THAT, THAT GARAGE OPENING TO THE RIGHT, THEY'VE BEEN USING THAT BECAUSE THE LAND, I THINK YOU GUYS HAVE DRIVEN BY, THE GRASS IS WORN OUT, SO THEY'VE BEEN USING THAT AS A DRIVEWAY. ALSO, I DON'T KNOW FOR SURE BUT THE OPENING ON THE CANAL BOULEVARD SIDE, THE GARAGE DOOR ON THAT SIDE, I'M NOT POSITIVE BUT, BECAUSE YOU CAN'T FIND THE PICTURES ONLINE ANYMORE, BUT I DON'T KNOW IF THAT WAS IN THE PERMIT APPLICATION, THAT WOULD BE A GARAGE OPENING ON THE CANAL SIDE, BUT I'M NOT SURE ABOUT THAT. SO THEY ARE WANTING TO USE BOTH ENTRANCES. I JUST WANTED TO MENTION THAT, THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME, OUR ATTORNEY IS REPRESENTING US AS WELL. I [01:20:01] DON'T HAVE ANYTHING MORE TO ADD TO THAT, THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU. I JUST WANT TO REMIND PEOPLE THAT IF YOU HAVE SIGNED FOR YOUR ATTORNEY TO SPEAK FOR YOU, YOU HAVE YIELDED YOUR TIME TO THEM AND YOU ARE NOT SUPPOSED TO TAKE EXTRA TIME TO GIVE PUBLIC COMMENT YOURSELF. ANYONE ELSE TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM QUEST MARK IF NOT, WE ARE BACKING MR. HUMPHREY FOR REBUTTAL REMARKS. >> JUST TO CLARIFY A COUPLE THINGS, AS FAR AS THE TIMING IS CONCERNED, I THINK THE PRIDE COMPLAINT WAS FILED IN FEBRUARY 2024 AFTER THE BUILDING WAS COMING UP. AND THAT'S WHEN THE HOLD ON FUTURE INSPECTIONS ESSENTIALLY STOPPED OR THE ORDER WAS ISSUED. EVERYTHING YOU SEE WITH EXCEPTION TO THE ADDITIONAL LANDSCAPING AND AWNINGS, THE ACTUAL BUILDING ITSELF, THREE DOORS AND TWO ON THIS SIDE AND THE THIRD ONE ON THE CANAL BOULEVARD SIDE, THAT WAS ALL PART OF THE ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION PLANS, THAT WAS ALL REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY THE COUNTY. KEEP IN MIND, THIS IS NOT A USE VARIANCE, THIS IS MORE OF THE DIMENSIONAL VARIANCE AND I THINK THERE'S DIFFERENT CRITERIA THAT APPLIES WHEN YOU ARE ANALYZING THAT. YOU KNOW, THEY COULD HAVE, EVEN THOUGH I KNOW THEY DIDN'T BECAUSE THEY RELIED ON THE COUNTY, BUT THEY COULD HAVE BUILT MORE OF A BARN STYLE RV GARAGE WITH THE HEIGHTS THAT DROP ALL THE WAY DOWN TO MATCH THE EXISTING HOUSE, IT STILL WOULD HAVE BEEN VERY TALL, IT STILL WOULD HAVE BEEN AN RV GARAGE, JUST MAY BE MORE CODE COMPLIANT. BUT THEY WENT INTO THE COUNTY WITH THIS CONCEPT WITH THESE PLANS AND THAT WAS ALL APPROVED PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. SO, JUST KEEP THAT IN MIND. THE PROPERTY OWNERS INDICATED THAT VARIANCES DON'T FIX MISTAKES BUT THEY CAN BE USED TO FIX MISTAKES, THAT'S WHY WE HAVE THIS PROCESS. IT'S AN UNFORTUNATE CIRCUMSTANCE, AS NOBODY WOULD WANT TO BE HERE, AND TO ADDRESS THE OTHER COMMENT THAT THEY ROLLED THE DICE, NOBODY SPENDS OVER $100,000 ON THIS TYPE OF A GARAGE, LET ALONE BY THE PROPERTY IN ANTICIPATION OF PUTTING THIS TYPE OF GARAGE THERE. ON THE HOPE THAT SOMEDAY MAYBE WE WILL GET A VARIANCE. THAT IS BASICALLY LUDICROUS. THEY RELIED ON THE COUNTY, AND WAS GOING TO BUILD WHAT WAS LATER PERMITTED AS FAR AS ATTACHING IS CONCERNED AND ULTIMATELY IT WAS REVOKED BY THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR, WHEN YOU READ THAT LETTER FROM THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR, THE LAST SENTENCE SUGGESTED THEY GET WITH THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT AND ADDRESS WAYS TO ACCOMMODATE THIS AND TO DEAL WITH IT AND APPLYING FOR A ZONING VARIANCE IS EXACTLY ONE OF THE ALTERNATIVES TO CONSIDER AND THAT IS WHY WE ARE HERE. THANK YOU. >> COULD YOU PLEASE GO OVER THE OTHER ALTERNATIVES THAT WERE DISCUSSED? TO REMEDY THE SITUATION. YOU SEND A ZONING VARIANCE APPLICATION WAS ONE PROCESS, WHAT WERE THE OTHERS? >> THE OTHER ALTERNATIVE WAS TO TEAR IT DOWN, OR THE OTHER ALTERNATIVE IS TO RAID THE HEIGHT OF THE EXISTING HOUSE SO THAT THE OVERALL HEIGHT WOULD NOT BE OUT OF COMPLIANCE AND YOU COULD DO THAT. YOU COULD ADD A SECOND FLOOR ABOVE THE GARAGE AND USES TO -- USE IT FOR STORAGE, AND THIS ALL GOES AWAY. AND LOOKING AT IT, THE TRADE-OFF IS, YOU HAVE AN ATTEMPT TO MAKE WHAT IS THERE A LITTLE MORE AESTHETICALLY APPEALING WITH THE SCREEN AND THE LANDSCAPING AND THE WINDOWS AND AWNINGS AND SO ON AND SO FORTH, OR DO YOU JUST FORCE THEM TO CONSTRUCT A SECOND STORY OVER THE GARAGE? OR, THE LAST ALTERNATIVE, AND THIS IS WHY WE ARE GOING THROUGH THIS PROCESS BECAUSE IN ORDER TO HAVE THE INVERSE ACCOMMODATION CLAIM, YOU HAVE TO EXHAUST OTHER REMEDIES AND SEEKING A VARIANCE IS A PART OF THAT PROCESS, THANK YOU. >> I APPRECIATE THAT, THANK YOU. WE ARE BACK TO THE BOARD FOR DISCUSSION, AND MR. LABANOWSKI IS UP FIRST. >> JUST ONE THING I WANT TO CLEAR UP BECAUSE IT CAME UP AND IT IS A LEGAL, QUICK QUESTION. I [01:25:05] RECEIVED THIS DOCUMENT THEY SUBMITTED WHEN THEY MADE THEIR APPLICATION. MY UNDERSTANDING OF THE FACTS IS THAT THE RAILS WERE USING THE GARAGE PORTION OF THIS PROPERTY TO STORE THEIR RV AND BOAT, MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT IS NOT DISPUTED. THE ACTUAL PORTION THEY ARE SAYING THEY MISSTATED TO THE COUNTY OR POTENTIALLY LIE TO THE COUNTY ON SAYS THAT THE BUILDING OR RESIDENCE MUST BE FOR MY OWN USE OR OCCUPANCY. AND SINCE THEY ARE USING IT TO STORE THEIR OWN PERSONAL BOAT AND RV, THEY MOST LIKELY COMPLY WITH THIS. SO I DON'T KNOW, THE THOUGHT THAT THEY MADE MISSTATEMENTS TO THE COUNTY MAY BE OUTSIDE OF SOME THINGS YOU SHOULD BE WORRYING ABOUT IN THIS SITUATION, I THINK I WOULD CONTAIN IT BACK DOWN TO THE VARIANCE AND WHETHER IT IS APPROPRIATE. >> THANK YOU, APPRECIATE THAT. MR. LABANOWSKI . >> MR. HUMPHREY, QUICK QUESTION. YOU STATED JUST A MINUTE AGO, AS THE BUILDING WAS BEING PUT UP, IT WAS PUT ON HOLD. WAS IT PUT ON HOLD HALFWAY THROUGH THE CONSTRUCTION OR AFTER THE CONSTRUCTION WAS COMPLETED? >> TECHNICALLY RIGHT NOW CONSTRUCTION IS NOT COMPLETED BECAUSE THE DRIVEWAY IS THE HARD SCAPE. >> I WILL REPHRASE THAT, THE BUILDING. >> THE BUILDING ITSELF WAS COMPLETED, MY UNDERSTANDING, PRIOR TO THE COMPLAINT FILED, PRIOR TO THE ORDER BEING ISSUED. THE TIMING OF THAT REPORT? >> YES, THE EVIDENCE OF THE BUILDING PERMIT WOULD SUGGEST, AT THE TIME THE WORK ORDER WAS PLACED, THE STRUCTURE WAS THERE, THE GARAGE DOORS ARE UP, THE STRUCTURE IS THERE AND APPEARS TO BE SUBSTANTIALLY COMPLETED. >> OKAY, THANK YOU. MISS SPIEGEL . >> THIS IS A TOUGH ONE, THIS IS A HARD ONE, I DON'T KNOW THAT ANY DECISION WE MAKE IS GOING TO MAKE EVERYONE HAPPY. FOR ME A LITTLE BIT, IT COMES DOWN TO WHAT DID THEY KNOW AND WHEN DID THEY KNOW IT, AS FAR AS THE CODES GO, IT IS MY UNDERSTANDING THAT WHEN THE CLEARANCE SHEET WAS GIVEN TO YOUR CLIENT IN MARCH OF 2023, THAT IT INCLUDED THE STATEMENT OF LDC 202.4 B4 REGARDING THE HEIGHT, SO THAT WAS PROVIDED ON THE CLEARANCE SHEET BEFORE THE PERMIT WAS PROVIDED TO YOUR CLIENT, SO THAT INFORMATION HAD BEEN COMMUNICATED, WHETHER OR NOT IT WAS NOTICED BY YOUR CLIENT OR DOES OF -- THE DEVELOPER, I DON'T KNOW. AND OUTSIDE OUR PURVIEW, IT IS THAT JUST BECAUSE YOU WERE NOT AWARE OF THAT OR CONTINUED ON DESPITE THAT, MAYBE BECAUSE IT WAS THERE, MAYBE NOT, IT DOESN'T NEGATE THE FACT THAT THAT COMMUNICATION DID HAPPEN AND THAT INFORMATION WAS PROVIDED. HAD YOU HEARD THAT, DID YOU KNOW THAT. >> IT IS MY UNDERSTANDING, LOOK AT THE CORRESPONDENCE, 202.2 WAS ADDRESSED AND SUBSEQUENTLY AND UPON REVIEW OF THE PLANS, REVIEWED AND CONCLUDED FOR WHATEVER REASON, THAT IS MY UNDERSTANDING. >> SO YOUR UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THERE IS VERBIAGE OR DOCUMENTATION WITHIN THE CLEARANCE SHEET, STATING THAT 202.4 DOES NOT APPLY TO THIS APPLICATION. >> I DON'T KNOW IF THERE IS SPECIFIC LANGUAGE THAT SAYS IT DOES APPLY, EITHER IT WAS OVERSEEN OR FOR WHATEVER REASON LATER NOT APPLIED, I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT IS EXACTLY DOING WITH THE PLANS OF THE PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION RELATIVE TO THE EXISTING HOUSE. >> >> AND I KNOW MR. HUMPHRE DOESN'T HAVE ALL THIS. CAPTURE MANAGEMENT WHICH IS ZONING AND WE ARE BUILDING. THE VERTICAL CONSTRUCTION IS REGULATED BY THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT. HOWEVER, THIS IS REALLY A ZONING ISSUE. SO A COUPLE OF THINGS THAT WE [01:30:07] TALKED ABOUT. MS. BIEGEL, YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT THE CONVERSATION INITIALLY WHEN THIS HAD COME IN. AND WE DID PUT COMMENTS. THIS IS IN OUR CLEARANCE SHEET. STAFF REVIEWS. THEY LOOK AT IT. AND THEY MADE TWO COMMENTS. SPECIFICALLY, ONE IS CITING THE CODE THAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT. ACCESSORY STRUCTURE. SO THAT IS IRRELEVANT. THE OTHER ONE WAS PLEASE PROVIDE A SITE PLAN THAT THE PICS THAT YOU HEIGHT BECAUSE I DON'T THINK THE HEIGHT WAS DEPICTED, OR LABELED, RATHER, FOR THE ACCESSORY STRUCTURE FOR THE RECORD. >> MAY NOT HAVE BEEN FULL INFORMATION. >> INDICATED BEFORE. THE APPLICANT DID RESUBMIT WITH THE LABEL. BUT THAT YOU HEIGHT WAS STILL 18 FEET AND STAFF MADE THE MISTAKE AND WENT FORWARD FROM THAT POINT. >> OKAY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR CLARIFYING THAT. THE OTHER QUESTION THAT I HAVE, SIR, IS REGARDING THE HARDSHIP. CAN YOU, AGAIN, VERBALIZE EXACTLY WHAT THE CLIENT'S HARDSHIP IS IN THIS CASE? >> TEARING THE BUILDING DOWN AND FORGO POSSIBLY ALL OF THE MONIES THAT THEY SPENT ON THAT. SO, YOU KNOW, YES. TECHNICALLY, YOU DON'T GET AN AUTOMATIC VARIANCE. INCORRECTLY ISSUED A PERMIT. ONE OUT AND SPENDED A BUNCH OF MONEY. TECHNICALLY THE COUNTY COULD DENY THE VARIANCE AND SAY, SORRY. WE ARE PROCEEDING WITH CODE ENFORCEMENT AND YOU HAVE TO TEAR THE BUILDING DOWN. AT WHICH POINT, HAVING EXHAUSTED ALL ADMINISTERED REMEDIES, THE RAILS WOULD BE SUING THE COUNTY BASED UPON THE RELIANCE ON THE BUILDING PERMIT AND THE MONIES EXPENDED. SO ESSENTIALLY FROM A CONSTITUTIONAL STANDPOINT, YOU ARE FORCING THE RAILS IN THIS INSTANCE TO LOSE MONEY FOR THE COMMON GOOD. WHICH SHOULD BE PAID FOR BY THE COMMUNITY. WHICH IS AGAIN, JUST LIKE YOU SAID, A TOUGH SITUATION. THIS IS A SITUATION IN WHICH THE RAILS WOULD REALLY, REALLY, REALLY NOT LIKE TO BE IN. BUT, NEVERTHELESS, HERE WE ARE. THE MONEY WAS SPENT. THE GARAGE WAS BUILT. AND THE VARIANCE IS A MECHANISM FROM WHICH THE BUILDING CAN BE FOUND COMPLIANT. ADD SOME FEATURES TO MAKE IT A LITTLE BIT MORE TOLERABLE. AND WE CAN ALL MOVE ON. >> OKAY. SO, AS FAR AS PROPERTY RIGHTS AND, YOU KNOW, THE INHERENT RIGHT TO PARK AN RV, WE CAN'T EVEN PARK AN RV ANYWHERE NEAR OUR HOUSE. WHEN YOU PURCHASE A HOME, AS MY HOME IS, WHERE YOU HAVE TWO FRONT YARDS, THAT IS SOMETHING THAT IS INCUMBENT I BELIEVE UPON THE PURCHASER. WHAT ARE WE GOING TO TRY TO DO HERE? AND IF THE IDEA IS TO TRY TO PARK AN RV AND VOTE THAT THAT WOULD BE SOMETHING THAT THEY WOULD BE OKAY WITH. BUT THE IDEA THAT THE HARDSHIP IS BECAUSE WE WANT TO PROTECT THE BOAT AND RV AND THEREFORE WE HAVE TO BUILD THIS BUILDING WHICH IS TALLER THAN THE HEIGHT OF THE HOUSE. THAT IS KIND OF HOW I PARSE THE VARIANCE REQUEST DOWN TO. NOT THAT THE COUNTY MADE A MISTAKE. WE DIDN'T PAY ATTENTION OR, YOU KNOW, PUT TOGETHER THAT YOU HEIGHT COMMENT ABOUT OUR CODE AND WE WENT AHEAD AND BUILT THIS BUILDING ANYWAY. AND WE STILL WANT TO PUT OUR BOAT AND RV UNDER STORAGE, UNDER SHELTER. THAT IS NOT ALLOWED. TO ME, THE FIRST HARDSHIP CREATED THE SECOND HARDSHIP BECAUSE IT WENT AHEAD AND WENT UP REGARDLESS OF THE REASONING BEHIND IT. >> IF I COULD ADDRESS THAT. >> YES. >> LOOKING AT OLDER GOOGLE EARTH IMAGES, THE PRIOR OWNER STORED A VOTE -- BOAT OUT IN THAT AREA OF THE YARD. AND WE HAVE ALL DRIVEN THROUGH NEIGHBORHOODS AND SEEN FOLKS STORE VARIOUS ITEMS IN THEIR YARD . AND I THINK IN THIS INSTANCE, FOLKS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD WOULD RATHER LOOK AT THAT BUILDING THEN A BUNCH OF ITEMS. >> SO HERE YOU ARE. >> I JUST KNOW FROM A CODE PERSPECTIVE, OPEN STORAGE LOTS THAT ARE AVAILABLE REQUIRE A LOT OF THE SCREENING AND VERY PARTICULAR USE. AND YET THERE IS NO REGULATION ON OPEN STORAGE. >> I SUPPOSE. AGAIN, AFFECT THE PUBLIC GOOD. THAT IS KIND OF WHERE WE ARE AT. AND WE ARE [01:35:02] GOING TO HAVE DIFFERENCES OF OPINION. I DO APPRECIATE BOTH SIDES OF THIS. THIS IS A VERY, VERY DIFFICULT DECISION. SO HOWEVER IT GOES, I AM SURE IT WILL BE GOING ON ONE WAY OR ANOTHER. >> SO , WHEN YOU ARE LOOKING AT YOUR HARDSHIP ANALYSIS, SOMETHING YOU MAY WANT TO TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION IS THIS IS A COURT OF LAW. ANOTHER THING. IF THIS WAS A BRAND-NEW APPLICATION AND HE WERE COMING TO THIS BOARD AND THE WORST -- WAS NOT A GARAGE THERE ALREADY OR ACCESSORY STRUCTURE, HE WOULD BE COMING BEFORE YOU AND POTENTIALLY SAYING THAT WE HAVE THE OPTION WHERE WE CAN PUT THIS GARAGE IN AND CANNOT COMPLETELY SCREEN AT BUT WE COME PARTIALLY SCREEN IT AND WERE ASKING YOU, ESSENTIALLY PUTTING THE QUESTION ON WOULD YOU RATHER US PUT A SIMPLE VERY LARGE GARAGE AND THEN ADD A STORY TO OUR HOUSE. OR WOULD YOU LIKE TO GIVE US A VARIANCE BECAUSE WE CAN PUT A SECOND STORY ON OUR HOUSE AND STILL HAVE THIS VERY LARGE GARAGE HERE AND THEN WE DON'T EVEN NEED TO PUT IN ANY SCREENING. THIS IS A POSITION WHERE THE COUNTY, THEY CAN COME INTO COMPLIANCE BY PUTTING A SECOND STORY ON THE PRIMARY RESIDENCE, AND THEY WILL BE IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE CODE. WHEN YOU ARE LOOKING AT THIS THROUGH A HARDSHIP ANALYSIS, YOU ARE LOOKING AT IT TO THE ANALYSIS OF, IS IT SOMETHING WE WANT TO DO AS A COUNTY TO PROVIDE THEM A VARIANCE TO OUR CODE AND FIND THAT THEY HAVE A HARDSHIP BECAUSE OF THE CORNER LOT AND BECAUSE THEY CURRENTLY HAVE A SINGLE-STORY HOUSE? NOW, YOU DON'T HAVE TO DO THAT. IT IS COMPLETELY WITHIN YOUR PURVIEW TO ALSO SAY THAT DOESN'T MEET THE HARDSHIP CRITERIA. BUT THIS IS A MUCH TOUGHER SITUATION THAN A SIMPLE THIS OR THAT. BECAUSE NOBODY IS GOING TO BE HAPPY IF THE ACCESSORY STRUCTURE STAYS THERE. THEY PUT A SECOND STORY ON. AND IT REMAINS THERE AND THERE IS NO SCREENING. PART OF THE PROBLEM WITH THIS ACCESSORY STRUCTURE IS THERE'S CURRENTLY NO SCREENING. BECAUSE COUNTY STAFF CANNOT PROVIDE THEM ENOUGH SCREEN -- THERE CANNOT BE 100% SCREENING, WHICH IS WHAT IS REQUIRED IN THE CODE. SO THAT IS WHAT IS KIND OF BEFORE THIS BOARD TODAY. IF YOU CAN FIND A COMPROMISE, GREAT. IF YOU CAN'T FIND A COMPROMISE, I AM VERY HAPPY TO TRY TO DEFEND THE COUNTY. AND WE HAVE GOOD DEFENSES. SO IT MAY BE, I AM NOT ASKING THIS BOARD TO BE WORRIED ABOUT DEFENDING THE COUNTY AT THIS POINT, IF MAKES SENSE. RECOGNIZE THERE IS ANOTHER WAY FOR THEM TO COME INTO COMPLIANCE AND FINDING THERE IS A HARDSHIP ALLOWS YOU TO PROVIDE A VARIANCE WITH CONDITIONS. SO I WANT TO FRAME IT SO THAT YOU ARE MAKING AN ANALYSIS THAT TAKES A WHOLE SITUATION INTO CONSIDERATION. >> MR. GREEN, FIRST. SORRY. MR. GREEN, YOU ARE UP. >> QUITE A FEW QUESTIONS HAVE BEEN ANSWERED. ONE OF THEM WAS THE STOP WORK ORDER. SO ONE WAS THE PERMIT ISSUED? AND WHEN WAS THE STOP WORK ORDER PUT ON? JUST BECAUSE A PERMIT IS ISSUED DOES NOT MEAN THAT WORK STARTS. YOU HAVE GOT A LOT OF TIMES I AM SURE A YEAR. I AM JUST CURIOUS. >> YES. YES. THE ORIGINAL PERMIT, GIVE ME ONE QUICK MOMENT HERE. >> THAT'S OKAY. WHILE YOU LOOK IT UP, I UNDERSTAND YOUR ARGUMENT. THIS REMINDS ME, WHEN I DROVE THERE, THIS NEIGHBORHOOD IS VERY NEGLECTED, I WOULD SAY. IT REMINDS ME OF GOING BACK INTO THE '70S. YOU SEE A LOT OF MOBILE HOMES. NEW MEDAL BUILDINGS. PEOPLE WITH HORSES. VOTE -- BOAT TRAILERS. RVS. BUT THIS THING IS SLOWLY STARTING TO CHANGE. AND I DON'T THINK PEOPLE WHO LIVE THERE REALIZE WHAT O.R. REALLY MEANS. PROBABLY A LOT OF PEOPLE BOUGHT HERE BECAUSE THERE ARE NO HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATIONS. SO, YOU KNOW, THIS -- THIS THING HAS GOT US AND YOUR CLIENT IN THIS AUDIENCE BETWEEN A ROCK AND A HARD PLACE TO BE HONEST. THERE IS NO RIGHT ANSWER. I AM SURE THIS IS GOING TO APPEAL TO THE BCC WHETHER WE VOTE IT UP OR DOWN. WHETHER YOU DO IT OR THE AUDIENCE DOES. IT IS A VERY UNIQUE NEIGHBORHOOD. I UNDERSTAND WHY PEOPLE LIKE IT. [01:40:03] AND I UNDERSTAND WHY THEY WERE UPSET OVER THIS. THIS DOESN'T LOOK GOOD. I MEAN, IT REALLY DOESN'T. BUT I JUST WANTED TO MAKE A COPY, AND I'M SURE YOUR CLIENT IS NOT HAPPY WITH HAVING TO GO THROUGH THIS EITHER. >> CHAIR, THE BUILDING PERMIT WAS ORIGINALLY APPROVED IN AUGUST OF '23. THEN THE CODE ENFORCEMENT CAME IN. I DON'T HAVE IT IN FRONT OF ME BUT IT WAS THE FEBRUARY DATE AND THE STOP WORK ORDER WAS PLACED IN MAY OF '24. >> OKAY. THERE WAS A CODE ENFORCEMENT AND THEN A STOP WORK ORDER. OKAY. BECAUSE THERE WAS SO MANY DATES, SO THAT MAKES SENSE. CODE ENFORCEMENT. THEN STOP WORK. THANK YOU. >> MS. SPIEGEL ? >> IT IS A LITTLE MUDDY, THIS ENTIRE THING. I DO APPRECIATE THE CHANGES YOU HAVE MADE. I THINK THAT IT IS BETTER. IT DEFINITELY LOOKS BETTER. MY THINKING WAS, OKAY, IF THIS WAS WITHIN CODE AND IT STILL LOOKS THE SAME, WOULD IT STILL HAVE THE SAME IMPACT ON THE NEIGHBORS? I DON'T KNOW IF THERE IS AN EASY ANSWER TO THAT. I UNDERSTAND THE CONSTRAINTS THINK TWO TREES IS ANYWHERE NEAR SUFFICIENT FOR THAT CORNER THERE. AND THEN YOU HAVE THE ONE DRIVEWAY. THERE IS GOING TO BE A DRIVEWAY ON THE OTHER SIDE AS WELL GOING TO CANAL STREET. NO. THEY ARE GOING TO USE IT AND DRIVE OFF THE GRASS. HOW ABOUT THE OTHER BAY IN THE FRONT? DRIVEN THROUGH BUT WITH NO HARD SCAPE? >> NO. THERE WILL BE NO DRIVEWAY THERE. IT IS MY UNDERSTANDING BASED ON BUILDING DEPARTMENTS, COMMUNICATIONS WITH THE PROPERTY OWNER, YOU CAN SEE IT ON THE AERIALS, THERE IS A THIRD DRIVEWAY. >> ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE HOUSE. >> YEAH. THAT DRIVEWAY WILL ACTUALLY BE REMOVED PRIOR TO THAT, THE WHEN YOU SEE LEADING TO THAT. SO THEY WOULD THEN BE COMPLIANT AT LEAST AS FAR AS THE DRIVEWAYS ARE CONCERNED. >> NOBODY IS GOING TO GET FOUR DRIVEWAYS ON THE PROPERTY. OKAY. WELL, THANK YOU. >> MR. MATOVINA ? >> I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION, MR. CHAIRMAN. >> OKAY. >> MOVE AWAY. >> I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO DENY VARIANCE REQUEST 2025 16 CANAL BOULEVARD RAILS FAMILY BASED UPON FOUR FINDINGS OF FACT. AND, IF YOU WOULDN'T MIND IF I GET A SECOND, I WOULD LIKE TO DO MY EXPLANATION FIRST, IF THAT IS OKAY. >> WE HAVE A MOTION. SECOND BY MR. LABANOWSKI . >> SO, IN MY OPINION, THE CHARGE OF THIS BOARD IS NOT TO WRITE CODE. WE HAVE TO DEAL WITH THE CODE WE HAVE. IT IS NOT TO VOTE BASED ON WHETHER OUR VOTE EXPOSES THE COUNTY TO LITIGATION BASED ON ALLEGED ERRORS. THAT IS NOT FOR US TO DO. IT IS NOT TO DETERMINE WHO SCREWED UP AT WHAT POINT IN THE PERMITTING PROCESS. MY OPINION ON ALL THAT IS REALLY NOT RELEVANT TO WHAT WE ARE SUPPOSED TO DO HERE. WE HAVE ON PAGE 9 OF OUR REPORT THE FOUR CRITERIA THAT WE ARE SUPPOSED TO JUDGE THIS BY. SUBJECTS BREEZE WILL NOT BE CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTERESTS. BY UNUSUAL. LEVEL OF WOW. -- BLAH, BLAH, BLAH . THERE IS OBVIOUSLY MORE TO IT THAN THAT. BUT THAT IS OUR JOB IN MY OPINION TO DECIDE TODAY. THE REST OF IT IS UP TO OTHER PEOPLE IN THE COUNTY. DEAL WITH IT. QUITE FRANKLY, I UNDERSTAND WHAT LEX SAID ABOUT THE FACT THEY COULD ADD A SECOND STORY TO IT AND THEY WOULDN'T HAVE TO PROVIDE ANY SCREENING. I THINK THE SCREENING THEY HAVE HAD IS QUITE MINIMAL. I COULD DO A LOT MORE SCREENING THAN WHAT THEY HAVE DONE HERE. THIS YARD BETWEEN THE DRIVEWAY THAT YOU CAN SEE ON THIS PICTURE AND THE OTHER DRIVEWAY SHOULD HAVE BUSHES. THERE IS NO REASON WHY IT COULDN'T HAVE BUSHES AND TREES. SO I AM USUALLY THE TOUGHEST PERSON ON THESE VARIANCES. AND, IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE, I DON'T THINK THEY MET ANY OF THE FOUR CRITERIA. COULD ARGUE FOUR [01:45:02] CRITERIA FAILED. THAT IS ALL I HAVE TO SAY, MR. CHAIRMAN. >> I APPRECIATE THOSE COMMENTS IN MY FOLLOW-UP COMMENTS WERE ACTUALLY GOING TO READ THOSE VARIANCE CRITERIA. AND ALSO STATE THAT I DON'T THINK THEY MET ANY OF THEM, AS WELL. SO I AM GOING TO WITHHOLD ANY OF MY OTHER QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS IN LIEU OF WHAT YOU STATED. AND WE HAVE A MOTION ON THE FLOOR. AND A SECOND. AND ANYONE ELSE TO SPEAK BEFORE WE VOTE? READY TO VOTE? MOTION TO DENY IS A YES VOTE. A MOTION TO DENY. SO, IF YOU VOTE YES, IT IS TO DENY THE PERMIT. DENIED UNANIMOUSLY. THAT CONCLUDES ITEM NUMBER 2. >> MR. MATOVINA , JUST AS A QUESTION, IS THERE ANY -- WE WILL TALK AFTERWARDS. >> FIVE MINUTES. OKAY. WE WILL >> WE HAVE ALL THE MEMBERS BACK EXCEPT ONE, SO LET'S RECONVENE [3. NZVAR 2025-16 UF Health St. Johns Signage. Request for a Non-Zoning Variance to Sections 7.02.04.C and 7.02.04.D of the Land Development Code to allow for 803.2 square feet of total Advertising Display Area (ADA) for the UF Health St. Johns wall signage in lieu of the maximum 200 square feet of signage per business, and to allow three (3) signs to exceed the maximum of 150 square feet per sign, located immediately south of State Road 312 and east of U.S. 1 South. ] THE MEETING AND MR. GREEN SHOULD BE BACK SHORTLY. SO WE ARE GOING TO ITEM NUMBER 3. AND MIRZA SHMORR IS THE PRESENTER. UF HEALTH. ST. JOHN SIGNAGE. >> GOOD AFTERNOON. MY NAME IS ACTUALLY PATTY AND I AM HERE AS AGENT FOR UF HEALTH. >> OH. WE NEED X PARTAKE. I ALWAYS FORGET THAT. X PARTAKE ON HE SIGNAGE AT UF HEALTH. SO MS. SPIEGEL? >> YES. MANY, MANY, MANY SITE VISITS, SADLY. I DID HAVE A PHONE CONVERSATION WITH WAYNE MARSHALL WHO IS THE BRANDING PRESIDENT. AND I HAD A PHONE CONVERSATION. CONSTRUCTION FACILITY DESIGN WAS INVOLVED IN THAT. I SPOKE TO LORI. ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT. AND I THINK THAT IS IT. THANK YOU. >> MR. LABANOWSKI. >> YES. THIS IS THE SITE IN NOVEMBER. DRIVE BY THERE MANY, MANY TIMES. ALSO SPECIFICALLY WENT THERE LAST WEEK IN REGARDS TO VISIBILITY OF THE BUILDING ITSELF. >> MR. ALSTON? >> THE SITE OVER THE YEARS AND DROVE THROUGH THE SITE RECENTLY SINCE THE LAST HEARING. >> MR. GREEN? >> YES. DRVE BY IT EVERY DAY, BUT ACTUALLY DID DRIVE THROUGH THE WHOLE SITE. >> AND IT WOULD BE IMPOSSIBLE FOR ME TO SAY I HAVEN'T DRIVEN BY THEIR HUNDREDS OF TIMES. ESPECIALLY OVER THE LAST MONTH OR SO WITH PARTICULAR INTEREST TO THE SIGNAGE AND THE PLACEMENT OF THE SIGNAGE OR THE LACK OF SOME POSSIBLE SIGNAGE. SO. >> OKAY. >> SORRY TO INTERRUPT YOU. >> AGAIN, ADDIE MENTRY. SAINT AUGUSTINE, FLORIDA. SO, FIRST, GOOD AFTERNOON. THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO RE-EVALUATE THIS REQUEST AND THE THOUGHTFUL FEEDBACK THE BOARD HAD IN THE DECEMBER MEETING. WE UNDERSTAND THAT THE BOARD'S PRIMARY CONCERN WAS THE REQUESTED SIGNAGE SIZE. WE TALKED ARE CONCERNED VERY SERIOUSLY AND USED IT TO GUIDE HOW WE RE-EXAMINE THIS REQUEST. TODAY'S PRESENTATION IS INTENDED TO CLEARLY CONTAIN THE TECHNICAL RESTRAINTS OF THE SITE. THE INSTITUTIONAL TRANSITION THAT HAS OCCURRED AND WHY THE SIGNAGE BEING REQUESTED REPRESENTS A MINIMUM RELIEF NECESSARY FOR HOSPITAL OF THIS SCALE RESPONSIBILITY. THIS REQUEST IS NOT ABOUT ADVERTISING OR EXCESS SIGNAGE. IT IS ENSURING THAT THE ONLY HOSPITAL IN THE CITY OF SAINT AUGUSTINE CAN BE CLEARLY, SAFELY, AND APPROPRIATELY IDENTIFIED IN A WAY THAT IS RESPECTFUL OF THE BUILDING, COMPATIBLE WITH THE CAMPUS, AND BENEFICIAL TO THE COMMUNITY THAT IT SERVES. SO HERE IS THE GENERAL LOCATION IN THE VICINITY MAP . THAT IS ON SCREEN. CAMPUS IS POSITIONED [01:50:01] BETWEEN TWO MAJOR TRANSPORTATION CORRIDORS. U.S. HIGHWAY 1, ALSO KNOWN AS DIXIE HIGHWAY AND STATE ROAD 312 WEST. THIS IS ALSO VISIBLE FROM THE BRIDGE CONNECTING THE BEACH IN THE MAINLAND. THESE QUARTERS SERVE LOCAL RESIDENTS, AND REGIONAL PATIENTS, MANY OF WHOM ARE UNFAMILIAR WITH THE AREA AND RELY ON LONG-DISTANCE VISUAL IDENTIFICATION TO SAFELY LOCATE THE HOSPITAL. HERE IS THE PARCEL MAP . THE PROPERTY IS COMBINED MULTIPLE PARCELS AND SPANS OVER 25 ACRES, WHICH IS SIGNIFICANTLY LARGER THAN TYPICAL COMMERCIAL PARCELS IN THE COUNTY OR ANY INSTITUTIONAL SITE THAT IS REGULATED UNDER THE SAME SIGNAGE STANDARDS. DUE TO THIS SKILL, HOSPITAL TOWERS ARE SENT BACK A SUBSTANTIAL DISTANCE FROM THE SURROUNDING ROADWAYS CREATING VISIBILITY AND IDENTIFICATION CHALLENGES. WITHIN THE STANDARD SIGNAGE LIMITS. SO BEFORE I GO INTO THIS SPECIFIC REQUEST, I WOULD LIKE TO REINTRODUCE AND TALK ABOUT THE COMMUNITY IMPACT WE HAVE HAD SINCE THE ACQUISITION. UF HEALTH HAS SERVED THIS COMMUNITY. MORE THAN 130 YEARS. AND CONTINUES TO FUNCTION AS A CORNERSTONE OF HEALTHCARE IN ST. JOHN'S AND SPECIFICALLY THE CITY AS ITS ONLY HOSPITAL. TODAY IT IS A 335 BED HOSPITAL PROVIDING A WIDE RANGE OF ESSENTIAL AND SPECIALIZED SERVICES INCLUDING BARIATRIC, BEHAVIORAL HEALTH, HEART AND VASCULAR AND MATERNITY SERVICES, NEUROSURGERY, ORTHOPEDICS, PEDIATRICS, RADIOLOGY. IT HAS HOSPITAL ACCREDITATIONS FROM THE PRIMARY STROKE CARE CENTER AND THE CENTER OF EXCELLENCE FOR BARIATRIC SURGERY. IN SEPTEMBER 2023, FLAGLER HOSPITAL WAS ACQUIRED BY UF HEALTH. THE TRANSITION WAS SIMPLY NOT A NAME CHANGE BUT A LONG-TERM INVESTMENT IN EXPANDING ACCESS TO SPECIALTY CARE , RESEARCH-BASED MEDICINE, AND COMMUNITY-BASED HEALTHCARE SERVICES. SINCE THE ACQUISITION, UF HEALTH HAS TAKEN TANGIBLE STEPS TO BRING HEALTHCARE CLOSER TO RESIDENTS, THROUGH SEVERAL COMMUNITY-FOCUSED GROUPS -- PROGRAMS. THE MOBILE OUTREACH CLINIC DELIVERS MEDICAL CARE DIRECTLY TO UNDERSERVED AREAS PROVIDING ON-SITE HEALTHCARE, HEALTH EDUCATION, AND RESOURCE COORDINATION. THE IN SCHOOL WELLNESS PROGRAM PROVIDES STUDENTS AND FAMILIES WITH VIRTUAL ACCESS TO HEALTHCARE, WHICH REDUCES MISSED SCHOOL DAYS, IMPROVES EARLY INTERVENTION, AND ENSURES FAMILIES CAN HAVE ACCESS TO TIMELY HEALTHCARE. THEY ALSO HAVE PATRIOT PLACE, WHICH OPENED IN EARLY 2024 THAT SUPPORTS VETERANS EXPERIENCING HOMELESSNESS AND PROVIDING HOUSING STABILITY, TRANSPORTATION SUPPORT, AND OTHER SERVICES. THIS PROGRAM REFLECTS UF HEALTH'S COMMITMENT TO ADDRESSING NOT ONLY MEDICAL NEEDS, BUT THE BROADER SOCIAL DETERMINATION OF HEALTH IN OUR COMMUNITY. THE BRAVE PROGRAM WHICH STANDS FOR BE RESILIENT AND VOICE EMOTIONS CONNECT STUDENTS TO MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES MORE QUICKLY THAN SIGNIFICANTLY REDUCING WAIT TIMES SINCE ITS INCEPTION. BRAVE HAS FACILITATED 311% INCREASE IN STUDENT REFERRALS, DEMONSTRATING A MEASURABLE IMPACT ON COMMUNITY. IN ADDITION TO THE DIRECT PROGRAMS, UF HEALTH PLAYS AN ACTIVE ROLE IN LONG-RANGE COMMUNITY PLANNING. THE 2025 COMMITTEE HEALTH ASSESSMENT NEEDS. THIS ASSESSMENT WAS A CRITICAL TOOL TO IDENTIFY AND PRIORITIZE MOST PRESSING HEALTH NEEDS ACROSS FLORIDA, PARTICULARLY FOR UNDERSERVED POPULATIONS. THE CHNA HELPS GUIDE PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT , AND LONG-TERM HEALTHCARE STRATEGY TO ENSURE SERVICES ALIGN WITH WHAT THE COMMUNITY ACTUALLY NEEDS. UF HEALTH IS ALSO A PARTNER OF THE JACKSONVILLE NONPROFIT HOSPITAL PARTNERSHIP, ALONGSIDE RESPECTED NONPROFIT SYSTEMS SUCH AS MAYO CLINIC , ST. VINCENT'S, AND BAPTIST HEALTH. THIS COLLABORATION STRENGTHENS A REGIONAL HEALTHCARE COORDINATION AND REINFORCES UF HEALTH'S ROLE AS A TRUSTED INSTITUTIONAL PARTNER. COLLECTIVELY, THESE EFFORTS DEMONSTRATE THAT UF HEALTH IS NOT ONLY THE OPERATOR OF THE HOSPITAL, BUT A DEEPLY EMBEDDED COMMUNITY PARTNER THAT IS COMMITTED TO IMPROVING OUTCOMES AND ACCESS TO CARE AND OVERALL QUALITY OF LIFE IN ST. JOHN'S COUNTY. THIS LEVEL OF COMMUNITY RESPONSIBILITY IS AN IMPORTANT CONTEXT AS WE MOVE INTO THE VARIANCE REQUEST. TODAY, WE ARE BRINGING TWO REQUESTS IN FRONT OF YOU THAT YOU HEARD IN DECEMBER. SO WE ARE REQUESTING TO ALLOW FOR 803.2 SQUARE FEET IN TOTAL ADVERTISING DISPLAY AREA TO UF HEALTH ST. JOHN'S WHILE SIGNAGE IN LIEU OF [01:55:02] 200 SQUARE FEET, WHICH IS AN INCREASE OF SQUARE FEET. WE ARE ALSO ALLOWING THREE SIGNS WHICH EXCEEDS A MAXIMUM OF 350 FEET PER SIGN. HERE IS THE SITE PLAN WHICH SHOWS THE HOSPITAL CAMPUS AND THE PLACEMENT OF THE PROPOSED SIGNS. IMPORTANTLY, THE SIGNAGE FLAGLER HOSPITAL AND ARE CURRENTLY FLAGLER HOSPITAL ADVERTISING. THIS PROPOSAL REPLACES EXISTING WALL SIGNAGE AND DISTRIBUTE IDENTIFICATION ACROSS MULTIPLE ELEVATIONS TO REDUCE CONCENTRATION. SO THIS IS THE FIRST ELEVATION. THIS IS THE WEST ELEVATION, WHICH FACES U.S. ONE AND SERVES AS THE PRIMARY IDENTIFICATION FOR THE MAIN ENTRANCE OF THE HOSPITAL. HERE IS AN ELEVATION WITH THE SIGN THAT IS SUPERIMPOSED. SO THIS IS WHAT YOU WILL SEE WITH THE SIGN AS YOU ARE DRIVING TO THE MAIN ENTRANCE OF THE HOSPITAL. THIS SHOWS THE OVERALL, YOU KNOW, SIZE AND SCALE HERE OF THAT ELEVATION. AND I WANTED TO POINT OUT THAT, OF THE TOWER, THE TOTAL ELEVATION IS APPROXIMATELY 35,505 SQUARE FEET , THE ELEVATION SURFACE AREA, WHICH MEANS THAT THIS PROPOSAL AND EVEN A 438 SQUARE FEET IS ONLY REPRESENTS 1.23 OF THE TOTAL SURFACE ELEVATION. SO ONLY ABOUT LESS THAN 1 1/2% OVERALL PROPORTIONATELY. THIS DEMONSTRATES THAT THE SIGNAGE IS HIGHLY PROPORTIONAL TO THE BUILDING AND DOES NOT VISUALLY DEMONSTRATE -- DOMINATE THE FACADE, PARTICULARLY GIVEN THE HEIGHT AND SCALE OF THE HOSPITAL TOWER. NORTH ELEVATION. PROPOSED AT 182.6 SQUARE FEET. THIS SIGN HERE IS VISIBLE FROM THE ANASTASIA BRIDGE FROM THE BEACH TO THE MAINLAND. THIS ELEVATION IS -- HAS A TOTAL SURFACE AREA OF 61,695 SQUARE FEET, WHICH MEANS THAT 182.6 SQUARE FOOT SIGN ONLY REPRESENTS ABOUT 0.3 % THE MODEST, PROPORTIONAL, AND ARCHITECTURALLY INTEGRATED. >> THIS IS A SIGN FOR THE EAST ELEVATION. IT IS ALSO PROPOSED AT 182.6 SQUARE FEET . YOU CAN SEE IT HERE AGAIN. THIS IS ALSO VISIBLE FROM THE ANASTASIA BRIDGE. THIS IS THE SMALLEST ELEVATION REPRESENTING 19,575 SQUARE FEET OF SURFACE AREA. AND WHILE THIS IS STILL THE SMALLEST ELEVATION, TO SIGN ONLY REPRESENTS .93% OF THE TOTAL ELEVATION AREA CONFIRMING THE PROPORTIONALITY AND COMPATIBILITY OF A SCALE OF THE BUILDING. THE JUSTIFICATION FOR THIS IS BASED ON SEVERAL INTERCONNECTED FACTORS. TECHNICAL SITE CONDITIONS. GROWTH IN DEMAND. INSTITUTIONAL TRANSITION AND COMMUNITY UNDERSTANDING. AND THE FACT THAT THIS REPRESENTS THE MINIMUM AND PROPORTIONAL RELIEF. FIRSTLY, THE TECHNICAL AND SITE-SPECIFIC CONSIDERATIONS. THIS MAP ILLUSTRATES THE EXCEPTIONAL DEPTH OF THE HOSPITAL CAMPUS. SO FROM THE EAST ELEVATION, YOU CAN SEE AT THE HIGHEST POINT OF THE BRIDGE, THE VISIBILITY IS 3503 FEET. THE NORTH ELEVATION IS 1149 FEET FROM STATE ROAD 312. AND THE WEST ELEVATION IS 1451 FEET FROM U.S. HIGHWAY 1 . THESE DISTANCES FAR EXCEED WHAT TYPICAL SIGNAGE REGULATIONS ARE DESIGNED TO ACCOMMODATE AND WHAT IS ALLOWED IN THE ST. JOHN'S LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE. SO , ALSO, THE AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC BASED ON FDOT IS ABOUT 42,500 DAILY DRIVERS ON THAT ROAD. AND STATE ROAD 312, THEY GET 37,000 VEHICLES DAILY. SO THIS IS A VISIBILITY READING DISTANCE CHART FOR YOU. NATIONALLY RECOGNIZED BY THE U.S. SIGN COUNSEL. SO THE ELEVATION USES [02:00:04] 71 INCH PROVIDING OPTIMAL VISIBILITY. AT 710 FEET, AS WE KNOW, THE WEST ELEVATION IS 3500 FEET. MAXIMUM VISIBILITY AT THE TOP OF THE ANASTASIA BRIDGE. SO WHILE IT SEEMS THAT THE SIGN IS VERY LARGE, WHEN YOU'RE AT 3500 FEET TRYING TO VIEW THIS, THE OPTIMAL -- THE OPTIMAL HEIGHT OF THOSE LETTERS REALLY SHOULD BE VERY MUCH LARGER. SO WE BELIEVE THAT THESE SIGNS ARE PROPORTIONAL. EVEN AT THESE DISTANCES, THEY DON'T CREATE LONG DISTANCE VIEWING CONDITIONS CREATED BY THE SIGN SETBACK AND THE VISIBILITY THAT YOU CAN SEE. SPECIFICALLY, ALSO, ON THE ANASTASIA BRIDGE, THE POSTED SPEED LIMIT IS 50 MILES PER HOUR. SO VEHICLES ESSENTIALLY TRAVEL 73 FEET PER SECOND. SO, WITH THE VIEWING DISTANCE THAT IS ROUGHLY 3400 FEET FROM THE TIME THAT YOU CAN SEE THE HOSPITAL FROM ONE SIDE, PARTICULARLY WHEN YOU ARE DRIVING FROM THE BEACH. YOU HAVE ABOUT 3400 FEET THAT IS VISIBLE OF THE DISTANCE THAT YOU CAN SEE OUT. THAT MEANS THAT DRIVERS HAVE ROUGHLY 46 SECONDS TO SEE, IDENTIFY, AND PROCESS THE HOSPITAL. THAT IS THE HOSPITAL'S IDENTIFICATION. SO THE NEXT GROWTH AND DEMAND. ST. JOHN'S COUNTY EXPERIENCED APPROXIMATELY 22.5% OF POPULATION GROWTH BETWEEN 2020 AND 2024, MAKING IT ONE OF THE FASTEST GROWING COUNTIES IN FLORIDA. THE CITY OF SAINT AUGUSTINE CONTINUES TO GROW AS WELL, WITH THE POPULATION INCREASING 15% BETWEEN 2020 AND 2025. THIS GROWTH REINFORCES DEMAND FOR THE HEALTHCARE SERVICES SPECIFICALLY BECAUSE THIS IS THE ONLY HOSPITAL THAT IS IN IDENTIFICATION. OH, GOODNESS. SORRY. SO THE INSTITUTIONAL . COMMUNITY UNDERSTANDING. THIS IS A HISTORIC HOSPITAL TRANSITIONING TO A NEW INSTITUTIONAL OPERATOR. FLAGLER'S HOSPITALS ACQUISITION REPRESENTS A SYSTEMWIDE TRANSITION, NOT SIMPLY A NAME CHANGE. CLEAR IDENTIFICATION HELPS THE COMMUNITY UNDERSTAND CONTINUITY OF CARE AND OWNERSHIP AND THAT UF HEALTH BRINGS NEW SERVICES TO THE AREA TO PROVIDE FOR THEM. MANY PATIENTS, SPECIFICALLY REFERRAL PATIENTS, OR DIRECTED SPECIFICALLY TO UF HEALTH AND OUT-OF-STATE PATIENTS OFTEN SEARCH THE HEALTHCARE SYSTEM NAME, NOT JUST SIMPLY HOSPITAL. THESE SIGNS MARK THE PHYSICAL LOCATION OF UF HEALTH'S CAMPUS AND HELP BUILD PUBLIC COMFORT AND TRUST AND UNDERSTANDING DURING THIS TRANSITION. I KNOW I HAVE ALREADY GONE INTO A LOT OF THE COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIP AND PUBLIC BENEFIT. BUT UF HEALTH IS ASKING THE COUNTY TO BE A PARTNER IN SUPPORTING THE REGIONAL HEALTHCARE ANCHOR , AND THIS BEING THE ONLY HOSPITAL IN THE AREA. PROPORTIONAL SIGNAGE SUPPORTS INSTITUTIONAL SUCCESS WHILE REINFORCING UF'S A LONG-TERM COMMITMENT TO THIS COMMUNITY HEALTH OUTREACH AND INVESTMENT. FINALLY, THIS REQUEST REPRESENTS THE MINIMUM RELIEF. THE SIGNAGE IS WALL-MOUNTED. IT REPLACES EXISTING SIGNAGE AND IS DISTRIBUTED ACROSS ELEVATION IS TO REDUCE IMPACT. EXISTING SIGNAGE ALREADY EXCEEDS THE ALLOWABLE SQUARE FOOTAGE, CONFIRMING THE PRESIDENT FOR A DEVIATION OUTSIDE OF THE LDC BECAUSE OF THE USE AND BECAUSE OF THE PROPORTION OF THE BUILDING. THE APPROVAL SUPPORTS PUBLIC HEALTH, PUBLIC SAFETY, AND THE GENERAL WELFARE ALIGNS WITH THE INSTITUTIONAL NATURE OF THIS SITE. IN CLOSING, WE WANT TO THANK THE BOARD, AGAIN, FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO REVISIT THIS REQUEST AND FURTHER THOUGHTFUL FEEDBACK AT THE DECEMBER MEETING. WE HEARD THE BOARD'S CONCERNS PARTICULARLY REGARDING THE SIZE OF THE PROPOSED SIGNAGE. AND WE HOPE TODAY'S PRESENTATION HAS CLEARLY DEMONSTRATED WHY THIS REQUEST HAS BEEN STRUCTURED . WHY THE SIGNAGE HAS BEEN STRUCTURED TO BE MEASURED PROPORTIONAL, AND APPROPRIATE FOR THE BUILDING SITE. THIS PROPOSAL IS NOT ABOUT ADVERTISING OR VISUAL PROMINENCE. IT IS ABOUT ALLOWING A LONG-ESTABLISHED HEALTH HOSPITAL CAMPUS NOW OPERATING AS PART OF THE UF HEALTH SYSTEM AND SERVING AS THE ONLY HOSPITAL WITHIN THE CITY OF SAINT AUGUSTINE TO BE CLEARLY AND [02:05:01] SAFELY IDENTIFY ALL -- IDENTIFIABLE. THIS SITE'S EXCEPTIONAL DEPTH, HIGH-RISE ARCHITECTURE, AND LONG VIEWING DISTANCES, TRAFFIC VOLUMES, AND GROWING POPULATION ALL CREATE CONDITIONS THAT ARE STANDARD SIGNAGE REGULATIONS WERE NOT DESIGNED TO ADDRESS. AT THE SAME TIME, UF HEALTH HAS DEMONSTRATED A CLEAR AND ONGOING COMMITMENT , NOT ONLY AS THE SECOND LARGEST EMPLOYER IN THE COUNTY, BUT AS A TRUSTED HEALTHCARE PARTNER PROVIDING ESSENTIAL SERVICES AND OUTREACH. THE SIGNAGE PROPOSED TODAY IS WALL-MOUNTED, DISTRIBUTED ACROSS ELEVATIONS TO REDUCE VISUAL IMPACT, AND REPRESENTS THE MINIMUM RELIEF NECESSARY TO ACHIEVE EFFECTIVE IDENTIFICATION WHILE REMAINING RESPECTFUL OF THE BUILDING AND OF THE COMMUNITY. FOR THOSE REASONS WE RESPECTFULLY REQUEST THE BOARD'S FAVORABLE RECOMMENDATION AND APPRECIATE YOUR TIME AND SERVICE HERE TODAY. I HAVE SOME OF THE UF HEALTH TEAM HERE IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS. I AM ALSO AVAILABLE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU. VERY GOOD PRESENTATION. QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD? MR. OLSON? >> YES. YOU MAKE A GOOD ARGUMENT ABOUT THE DISTANCE AND THE NEED TO HAVE, AS YOU SAY, QUOTE, CLEARER HOSPITAL IDENTIFICATION FROM GREAT DISTANCES, INCLUDING PEOPLE COMING FROM THE EAST, THE WHOLE BEACH AREA, FROM OTHER DIRECTIONS. SO, I GUESS, MY QUESTION IS SORT OF WHAT I ASKED LAST TIME. THERE ARE A LOT OF -- I WILL PREFACE IT. THERE ARE A LOT OF MEDICAL OFFICE BUILDINGS. SEVERAL ON THAT SITE. AND A NUMBER UP AND DOWN LIKE U.S. 1 NEAR THERE. HOW CAN -- HOW CAN -- HOW COULD IT BE THE SIGNAGE YOU ARE PROPOSING VIA CLEAR IDENTIFICATION OF HOSPITAL WHEN THE WORD HOSPITAL DOESN'T EVEN APPEAR IN TWO OF YOUR THREE SIGNS? >> THAT'S A GREAT QUESTION, BOARD MEMBER OLSON. SO THE SIGNS ARE OBVIOUSLY TALL ON THE BUILDING, ON THE HIGH-RISE TOWER. AND THEY ARE MEANT TO BE VIEWED FROM THE ANASTASIA BRIDGE AND FROM DIFFERENT VANTAGES, BECAUSE THEY ARE SO HIGH. I THINK HERE THE INTENT OF THESE SIGNS IS TO SAY, HEY, I KNOW THAT THE UF HEALTH IS THERE. I KNOW THAT UF HEALTH, I HAVE BEEN RECOMMENDED TO COME THERE OR I HAVE RESEARCHED THERE AND IT IS IN MY INSURANCE NETWORK. BUT THERE IS ALSO, ONCE YOU GET CLOSER, THERE IS WAYFINDING SIGNAGE THAT SUPPORTS THE HOSPITAL TO BRING YOU EXACTLY WHERE YOU NEED TO GO. SO THIS IS INTENDED TO BE SIGNAGE THAT IS WAYFINDING, BUT ALSO IT IS DESIGNED TO HAVE UF HEALTH BECAUSE, I DON'T KNOW ABOUT YOU, BUT I DON'T LOOK FOR HOSPITAL AND FOR IT TO NECESSARILY SAY HOSPITAL. WHEN I THINK ABOUT HOSPITAL, I AM FROM THE TAMPA BAY AREA, I SAY I WANT TO GO TO TBH. I WANT TO GO TO THE TAMPA BAY HOSPITAL. IT IS IMPORTANT THAT THE COMMUNITY KNOWS THIS IS FLAGLER HOSPITAL. OBVIOUSLY, THIS IS A LONG-STANDING HOSPITAL. IT HAS BEEN AROUND SINCE 1899. BUT THE COMMUNITY UNDERSTANDS THAT THIS IS UF HEALTH NOW WHICH BRINGS EVEN MORE SERVICES INTO THE COMMUNITY. BUT THE SIGNAGE ITSELF IS THEIR VANTAGES THAT ARE FAR AWAY AND IS SUPPORTED WITH GROUND-MOUNTED SIGNAGE THAT IS THERE TO TAKE YOU TO YOUR SPECIFIC LOCATION OR TO THE HOSPITAL, THE EMERGENCY ROOM. >> WELL, JUST TO FOLLOW UP ON THAT, WE HAVE A HUGE VISITATION INDUSTRY IN THIS COMMUNITY. A LOT OF PEOPLE ARE HERE FROM AREAS WHERE UF HEALTH IS NOT ANYTHING FAMILIAR. OTHER THAN, AGAIN, I THINK, AND PERHAPS WHEN, IN SITUATIONS WHERE SOMEONE WANTS TO QUICKLY GET TO A HOSPITAL, MAYBE TO THE EMERGENCY ROOM AT A HOSPITAL, AND THEY ARE SIMPLY LOOKING . SOMEONE IS POINTING OUT THAT THERE IS A HOSPITAL TWO MILES DOWN THAT ROAD OR ACROSS THE BRIDGE. HOW DO THEY KNOW THAT THAT IS THE HOSPITAL? I JUST DON'T UNDERSTAND. BUT I DON'T KNOW HOW ELSE TO ASK THE QUESTION. BUT I THINK THE -- IF THE OBJECTIVE IS CLEAR IDENTIFICATION OF HOSPITAL, WHICH YOU EMPHASIZED, I'M NOT [02:10:07] SURE THAT THIS OVERSIZED SIGN FITS THE BILL. >> YEAH. I RESPECT YOUR VIEW. I UNDERSTAND THAT SOMEBODY WOULD WANT A HOSPITAL SIGN. I THINK THAT IF SOMEBODY IS IN AN EMERGENCY SITUATION, THE GREAT THING ABOUT OUR TECHNOLOGY NOW IS WE CAN GOOGLE. RIGHT? IN AN EMERGENCY. ALSO, IF SOMEONE IS GOING FOR AN EMERGENCY, THEY COULD BE IN AN AMBULANCE AND THEREFORE THOSE EMTS KNOW WHERE THEY ARE GOING. THIS IS ALSO A HOSPITAL THAT HAS SPECIALTY SERVICES. THERE IS A HOSPITAL THAT HAS OUT-OF-STATE PEOPLE THAT COME TO IT. THEY WILL KNOW THAT IT IS UF HEALTH. I THINK UF HEALTH IS DOING A LOT OF WORK IN THE COMMUNITY TO INGRATIATE ITSELF AND TO HAVE THE UNDERSTANDING THAT THIS IS NOW UF HEALTH AND THIS IS THE HOSPITAL. ALSO , WE FIND IT IMPORTANT TO HAVE HOSPITAL IN THE SIGN. THERE IS ONE OF THE SIGNS THAT HAVE FLAGLER HOSPITAL BECAUSE WE UNDERSTAND THE IMPORTANCE. BUT I THINK IT IS IMPORTANT FOR THE BRAND, UF HEALTH, FOR THE COMMUNITY TO KNOW THAT THAT IS THE HOSPITAL. THAT'S WHY THOSE TWO SIGNS ON THE HOSPITAL ARE DESIGNATED WITH THAT BRANDON. >> MS. SPIEGEL? >> WELL, I WAS ONE OF THE PEOPLE WHO WAS PRETTY OPPOSED BEFORE. HAVING BEEN THERE A LOT LATELY, I CHANGE MY MIND A LOT. A LOT OF THE QUESTIONS TO MR. OLSON'S CREDIT, I REALLY DID HAVE A LOT OF THE SAME CONCERNS. BUT I HAD A REALLY GOOD CONVERSATION WITH MR. MARSHALL. I SEE HIM GETTING UP. YOU CLARIFIED SO MUCH OF WHAT YOU CONSTRAINED TO BE ABLE TO DO AND WHAT YOU CAN DO AND WHAT YOU WON'T. I WANT TO ASK ONE QUESTION THOUGH. ADDIE, COULD YOU GO BACK TO THE PICTURE OF THE SIGN THAT HAS HOSPITAL ON IT. NUMBER 1 . >> WHAT YOU JUST LIKE THE SIGN OR ON THE ELEVATION? >> I WANT THE SIGN. I DON'T REALLY CARE ABOUT THE ELEVATION. I WANT TO SEE WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE IN-PLACE. NOW, FLIP TO THE NEXT ONE. OKAY. SO YOU HAVE "HOSPITAL" THERE AND BIG SIGN ON U.S. 1 THAT SAYS "HOSPITAL." YOU DO NOT OWN THE PROPERTY. YOU CAN PUT SOMETHING THERE. IS THERE A POSSIBILITY. NOW, FLIP AHEAD TO THE NORTHEAST ELEVATION. OKAY. YOU CAN GO BACK ONE. IS THERE A POSSIBILITY THAT A SIGN COULD BE PUT ON THE TOP NORTHWEST CORNER THERE? IS THAT CONSTRAINED FOR SOME REASON? BECAUSE I DO SEE THE ONE THAT AS YOU COME OVER THE BRIDGE, YOU SEE THE TWO ON THE TALL TOWER. BUT, DRIVING THERE AT NIGHT, IT'S REALLY DIFFERENT. AND THE UF SHOWS UP GREAT. THE "HEALTH," NOT SO MUCH. I AM THINKING MAYBE AN ADDITIONAL SIGN MIGHT BE A BONUS OR BENEFIT. AND THEN, OKAY, AND YOU KNOW WHAT THE CURRENT FOOTAGE IS THERE RIGHT NOW? >> ON THIS ELEVATION, IT IS 225 SQUARE FEET, I BELIEVE, FOR THIS SIGN. FOR THIS ONE. THEN THE OTHERS ARE 120 SQUARE FEET AND THEY ONLY REPRESENT THE KIND OF CROSS LOGO. >> OKAY. MR. MARSHALL, WOULD YOU PLEASE LET US KNOW ABOUT, YOU KNOW, IDENTIFYING EMERGENCY AND HOSPITAL AND ALL THAT. >> YES. AND THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO DO THIS. FIRST OF ALL, THE BRANDING OF A HOSPITAL, SUCH AS BEST JUST -- BAPTIST. THOSE ARE THE NAMES THAT THEY GO BY. WE GO BY UF HEALTH. I UNDERSTAND. AND WHAT WE DID DO ON THIS ONE IS WE DID KEEP FLAGLER HOSPITAL. SO UF HEALTH FLAGLER HOSPITAL. AND WHEN WE BUILD DURBAN AND OPENED IT UP IN SEPTEMBER, UF HEALTH URBAN PARK HOSPITAL. SOME OF THEM WILL SAY DURBAN PARK. SOME OF THEM WILL SAY DURBAN PARK HOSPITAL. SO IT [02:15:03] IS BRANDING ON THAT TO GET PEOPLE USED TO THE NAME. THERE IS LOTS OF PEOPLE WHO COME FROM ALL OVER HERE, ESPECIALLY DURING THIS TIME OF THE YEAR. AND SO GETTING THEM USED TO THAT NAME. AS FAR AS THE SIGNAGE,OUT ON THE STREETS THERE IS AN H SIGN. I CAN WE HAVE THE BLUE H SIGN TO ANYPLACE THAT HAS AN EMERGENCY ROOM WITH ACUTE CARE. IF IT IS A FREESTANDING EMERGENCY ROOM, WHICH WE ARE GOING TO PUT THREE OF THOSE UP, IT CAN'T HAVE THE H SIGN THERE UNLESS THERE IS AN AMBULANCE STATIONED 24/7/365 ON IT. AND THEN ONCE YOU GET ON CAMPUS THE CAMPUS -- EMERGENCY IS SPECIFICALLY GUIDELINES FROM JOINT COMMISSION FOR THE STATE AND ALL OF THAT. CMS EMERGENCY IS A RED SIGN WITH WHITE LETTERS ON IT. WHETHER YOU ARE OUTSIDE OF THE HOSPITAL OR EVEN ONCE YOU GET INSIDE THE HOSPITAL FOR WAYFINDING. THERE ARE RED SIGNS IN THERE THAT SAY EMERGENCY. SO ON THE OUTSIDE WE HAVE THE H SIGNS. THAT MEANS YOU ARE GOING TO AN EMERGENCY ROOM WITH ACUTE CARE BEDS. IN OTHER WORDS, YOU CAN BE ADMITTED OR ARE GOING TO A FREESTANDING EMERGENCY ROOM THAT HAS AN AMBULANCE SITTING THERE 24/7 TO BE ABLE TO BRING PEOPLE TO AN ACUTE CARE FACILITY. THE WAYFINDING IS, WE HAVE THE BIG EMERGENCY SIGNS OVER THE MAIN ENTRANCE AND OVER THE AMBULANCE ENTRANCE, AND THEN WE HAVE RED SIGNS ON THE WAYFINDING THROUGHOUT, INSIDE AND OUTSIDE THE HOSPITAL, WHICH DIRECT YOU TO AN EMERGENCY ROOM WITHIN THE FACILITY. SO I THINK THAT GOT THE COUPLE QUESTIONS THAT YOU HAD THEIR. >> THOSE TWO, YEAH. ARE THE SIGNS LIT UP? THE EMERGENCY SIGNS? THE LEFT WAS THERE, YEAH ? >> OUTSIDE, THEY ARE LIT UP. YOU KNOW WHICH IS THE FRONT OF THE HOSPITAL AND WHICH IS THE EMERGENCY ROOM ENTRANCE AND WHICH IS THE AMBULANCE ENTRANCE, WHICH IS AROUND BACK. >> THANK YOU, MR. JOHNSON. THEN THE POSSIBILITY OF ADDING A SIGN TO THAT NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE MAIN BUILDING. >> YEAH. I AM MORE THAN HAPPY TO LOOK AT THAT. I REALLY WANT TO GET WAYFINDING ON THE OUTSIDE OF THE HOSPITAL AND NOT ON THE INSIDE OF THE HOSPITAL TO REPRESENT UF HEALTH TO ACTUALLY BE ABLE TO GET THERE. I HAVE ONLY BEEN THERE ABOUT 2 1/2 GOING ON THREE MONTHS. I GET MYSELF LOST ON CAMPUS JUST SO I CAN CHECK OUT MY WAYFINDING. AND I BRING PEOPLE AROUND. I WOULD DO IT ANYWAY. AND I'M GOING TO BUILDING 300. I DON'T KNOW WHERE BUILDING 300 IS BUT WE FOLLOW THE SIGNS AND IF I FIND A SIGN. SO WE ARE REDOING THE INSIDE. REDOING THE OUTSIDE. BUT WE DO HAVE SOME GUIDELINES WE HAVE TO FOLLOW BY CMS GUIDELINES. >> FOR ACCREDITATION. >> FOR ACCREDITATION. >> WELL, THANK YOU FOR CLARIFYING. >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD? I HAVE A FEW OF MR. LABANOWSKI. SORRY. >> JUST CHIME IN. YOU HAD THE SIGN THAT IS ON ROUTE 1. VERY VISIBLE. YOU ALSO HAVE THE BLUE SIGNS ON EVERY STREET AROUND THERE. UNFORTUNATELY, IF YOU GET TO THE INTERSECTION OF 312 AND ROUTE 1, YOU CAN SEE YOUR BUILDING. NONE OF IT. ENLARGING THAT SIGN IS GOING TO HELP ANYTHING OTHER THAN SEEING GET FROM ROUTE 1, WHERE THERE IS ALREADY THE STREET SIGN. IF YOU COME ACROSS 312 OF THE BRIDGE, IT IS VISIBLE THEN. ONCE YOU DROP DOWN OFF THAT BRIDGE, IT IS NOT VISIBLE. YOU HAVE GOT THE BUILDINGS AND THE TREES FROM STREET LEVEL LOOKING UP. IT IS ALL BLOCKED. SO I DON'T KNOW IF ENLARGING IT IS GOING TO HELP OR NOT. AND, AGAIN, THE TOTAL SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THE EXISTING WAS 120-120 -- 225. WOULD YOU SAY? >> YES, 120. AND THE ONE THE FACES HIGHWAY 1 IS 225. >> SO THAT IS 465 AS A GRAND TOTAL. OKAY. I THINK THAT IS EVERYTHING I HAD. THANKS. >> YOU'RE WELCOME. >> I HAD SOME COMMENTS. AND I AM GOING TO ALLOW MYSELF TO HAVE SOME COMMENTS RATHER THAN QUESTIONS RIGHT NOW. >> OKAY. >> BECAUSE I WANTED TO THANK MR. MARSHALL FOR HIS COMMENTS. I WILL SAY THAT I REALLY WAS NOT ADAMANTLY OPPOSED TO YOUR REQUEST LAST TIME. THE BOARD WAS TENDING TOWARD POSSIBLY DENYING [02:20:05] THE REQUEST. AT LEAST THEY WANTED A CONTINUANCE, SO I WENT ALONG WITH THAT. I WAS ACTUALLY IN MY OWN MIND IN FAVOR OF YOUR REQUEST LAST TIME. AND YOU HAVE ADDED THE WORD HOSPITAL TO ONE OF THE SIGNS, SO THAT IS GOOD. AND I THINK THE REASON YOU'RE PROBABLY NOT ADDING IT TO THREE OR TWO OF THE OTHER SIGNS IS JUST TO KEEP THE SQUARE FOOTAGE DOWN OR YOU PROBABLY WOULD HAVE IT, BECAUSE I'M SURE THE EXPENSE PROBABLY ISN'T THAT GREAT. YOU KNOW? FLAGLER HOSPITAL IS THE LARGEST BUILDING IN ST. JOHN'S. I LOOKED IT UP. TRIED TO GOOGLE IT. NOT SURE I GOT ACCURATE RESPONSES. A I GOT INVOLVED, SO WHO KNOWS WHAT HAPPENED. IT IS PROBABLY THE LARGEST VOLUME. JUST IN TERMS OF SHEER SIZE AND THEN THE NUMBER OF FLOORS, IT IS OVER 1 MILLION SQUARE FEET IS WHAT I READ. SO IT IS NOT ONLY THE LARGEST VOLUME. IT IS REALLY AMONG THE MOST IMPORTANT BUILDINGS, IF NOT THE MOST IMPORTANT BUILDING, EXCEPT THE ONE WE ARE IN, OF COURSE. KIDDING. IN THE COUNTY. IT IS A MATTER OF LIFE AND DEATH THAT PEOPLE FIND THAT. AND PEOPLE GO THERE FOR URGENT TREATMENT. AND I DIDN'T REALIZE IT WAS THE SECOND LARGEST EMPLOYER IN THE COUNTY, BUT THAT COULD HAVE EASILY BEEN GOOGLED AND PROBABLY STATED BEFORE. YOU KNOW? THIS ISN'T JUST HOBBY LOBBY OR EVEN A HOME DEPOT OR A LOWS. IT IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN LOW'S. WHAT GOES ON THERE IS EXTREMELY IMPORTANT. SO I AM CERTAINLY INCLINED TO SUPPORT THIS REQUEST. AS IS. BECAUSE THE DISTANCES ARE IMMENSE COMING OFF THE 312 BRIDGE AND U.S. 1. HIDDEN BY THE TREES ALONG HEALTH PARK BOULEVARD. BUT YOU DO HAVE A NICE MONUMENT SIGN RIGHT THERE AT U.S. 1 AND HEALTH PARK BOULEVARD. I LIKE THAT MONUMENT SIGN. NOW, MS. SPIEGEL STATED YOU CANNOT HAVE A MONUMENT SIGN AT 312 AND SERGEANT PUTNAM DRIVE BECAUSE YOU DO NOT ON THE PROPERTY. IT IS THE WHAT STILL PROPERTY. I KNOW SOME OF THE WHAT STONES. AND I THINK THEY ARE CIVIC MINDED, COMMUNITY MINDED, AND SPIRITED PEOPLE. IF YOU ASK THEM IF YOU COULD PUT A MONUMENT SIGN ON THEIR PROPERTY OR ENTERED INTO A MINIMAL LEASE WITH THEM, YOU COULD HAVE A MONUMENT SIGN IN THERE. I THINK IT IS IMPORTANT. THE VOLUME. I DIDN'T REALIZE 37 CARS COME OFF OF ANASTASIA ISLAND EVERY DAY ON 312. SO, IF YOU -- AND I THINK IT IS IMPORTANT TO HAVE A MONUMENT SIGN RIGHT THERE BECUSE ONCE YOU COME OFF THE BRIDGE AND PEOPLE ARE GOING NOT JUST 50 ON THAT BRIDGE. TODAY, THEY WERE GOING 65 WHEN I CAME OVER THE BRIDGE. SO, ONCE YOU COME OVER THE BRIDGE, YOU CAN SEE THE HOSPITAL REALLY ANYMORE. THERE'S THINGS BLOCKING IT. SO I THINK IT IS IMPORTANT IF YOU HAD A MONUMENT SIGN THAT WAS VERY VISIBLE. AT 312, THAT WOULD HELP. I KNOW IT WOULD BE AN ADDED EXPENSE AND ADD TO YOUR SQUARE FOOTAGE BURDEN, BUT A WARRANTED ADDITION TO YOUR SIGNAGE. SO I WOULD PERSONALLY LIKE TO SEE ONE, BUT IF YOU DON'T WANT TO DO THAT, THAT IS NOT GOING TO KEEP ME FROM VOTING FOR THIS. AND I DO AGREE THAT THE SIGNAGE YOU ARE PROPOSING IS PROPORTIONAL TO THE SCALE OF THE HOSPITAL AND THE OVERALL CAMPUS. THIS IS A HUGE, IMPORTANT BUILDING. SO THAT'S PRETTY MUCH ALL I HAVE TO SAY ABOUT THIS BECAUSE WE HAVE GOT A LONG AGENDA. AND I AM GOING TO SUPPORT YOUR REQUEST, SO THANK YOU. AND, YES, WE ARE GOING TO GET TO PUBLIC COMMENT. >> NEXT UP, WE HAVE MR. GREEN TO SPEAK. >> AS SOON AS YOU'RE READY TO BRING IT BACK INTO THE AGENCY, I AM READY TO MAKE A MOTION. WELL, WE DO NEED PUBLIC COMMENT, FIRST. SO ANYONE FOR PUBLIC COMMENT? SEEING NONE, MR. GREEN? >> YES. I WOULD LIKE TO MOVE APPROVAL. I WILL JUST MAKE ONE COMMENT. COMES TO MIND IS MAYO CLINIC. NONE OF THOSE HAVE HOSPITAL. ADVENTHEALTH AT GULF COAST. A BIG WIN THERE ON 95. CROSSING ALL THE CAR DEALERSHIPS. I THINK IT IS A BIG BUILDING. IT IS FAR AWAY. SO I'M GOING TO MAKE THE MOTION TO [02:25:02] APPROVE A NON-ZONING VARIANCE 2025-16. BASED ON FINDINGS OF FACT AND SUBJECT OF CONDITIONS. >> I SAW MR. LABANOWSKI SECOND AND MS. SPIEGEL SECOND, SO WHOEVER IS TAKING THE NOTES, PUT ONE OF THEM DOWN. ALL RIGHT. SO WE HAVE A MOTION ON THE FLOOR. ANYMORE COMMENT? SEEING NONE, LET'S A VOTE, IF THEY WILL RESET OUR VOTING. OKAY. THERE WE [4. NZVAR 2025-10 U-Haul Wall Signs. NZVAR 2025-10 U-Haul Wall Signs, request for a Non-Zoning Variance to U-Haul of Mill Creek located within the Bridle Ridge Planned Unit Development (ORD. 2010-42, as amended) pursuant to Section 7.02.04.B.6 of the Land Development Code, to allow for an Advertising Display Area (ADA) of 745.9 square feet on Building A and 566.8 square feet on Building B in lieu of the required maximum of 200 square feet for walls signs per building, specifically located at 6235 County Road 16A. UPDATE: request to allow for 636.14 square feet on Building A and 576.91 square feet on Building B. ] GO. PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. 6-0. >> THANK YOU SO MUCH. >> HAVE A GREAT DAY. ALL RIGHT. ITEM NUMBER 4. THE NON-ZONING VARIANCE TO THE U-HAUL WALL SIGNAGE OUT THERE ON 16 AND 16A, AND YOU LOOK FAMILIAR FROM LAST TIME. >> YES, SIR. BRIAN MANN. LAST TIME I WAS HERE IN EARLY DECEMBER. YOU GUYS MENTIONED YOU WANTED TO SEE KIND OF WHAT I WAS PROPOSING OR ASKING FOR VERSUS WHAT CODE ALLOWS AND IT IS PRETTY MUCH WHAT WE DID. OUR UNDERSTANDING WITH THE MONUMENT SIGNS AND THE 200 SQUARE FEET, THIS WOULD BE ALLOWED. WE SEE A MONUMENT SIGN ON THE RIGHT HAND OF THE SCREEN. AND THIS WOULD BE IT WITHOUT. SO THE SIGN ON THE ACTUAL BUILDING WOULD ESSENTIALLY STAY THE SAME. MONUMENT SIGN . AND WHAT WE ARE ASKING FOR IS BASICALLY IN LIEU OF THE MONUMENT SIGNS TO ADD ADDITIONAL SQUARE FOOTAGE ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THE BUILDING, WHICH FACES OUR PARKING LOT. THIS IS THE SAME, EITHER WAY. ACTUALLY, I APOLOGIZE. THIS IS THE 200 SQUARE FOOT ON OUR CURRENT CODE AND THIS WOULD BE THE ADDITIONAL SQUARE FOOTAGE. WEST ELEVATION AND NORTH ELEVATION. UNDER THE CURRENT CODE WOULD JUST BE A SIMPLE U-HAUL SIGN. AND THIS WOULD BE WITH THE ADDITIONAL SQUARE FOOTAGE. NORTH ELEVATION IS FACING THE PARKING LOT. WEST ELEVATION WOULD BE FACING TRAFFIC COMING TO THAT INTERSECTION. THAT IS EAST ELEVATION, WHICH WE SAW FROM THE CORNER. SOUTH AND EAST THERE. THAT WOULD BE WITH THE ADDITIONAL SQUARE FOOTAGE. THAT, RIGHT HERE, WAS ALSO -- WOULD BE UNDER COMPLIANCE WITH CURRENT CODE. U-HAUL. DRIVING STORAGE. AND THAT IS IT . PRETTY SIMPLE. SUITE. TO THE POINT. >> OKAY. JUST WAIT ONE MINUTE WHILE I ASKED BOARD MEMBERS FOR EX PARTE ON THIS. >> SORRY. >> THAT IS MY FAULT. I DIDN'T ASK PREVIOUSLY. >> I DRIVE BY THAT PLACE CONSTANTLY. >> MS. SPIEGEL? >> YES. SITE VISIT AND TRAVELED THE COUNTY LOOKING FOR STORAGE FACILITIES. >> MR. HOLSTON? >> DRIVE-BYS IN NOVEMBER FOR ME. >> ANYONE ELSE? I AM SURE WE HAVE ALL DRIVEN BY IT. OKAY. ANY QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD? MR. LABANOWSKI? >> JUST REAL QUICK. HOW TALL IS THAT MONUMENT SIGN? >> I BELIEVE IT WAS 20 FEET. >> 20 FEET. OKAY. >> MS. SPIEGEL? >> THREE OF THEM TOTAL. TWO OF THE ENTRANCES HAVE NOT BEEN CONSTRUCTED YET THOUGH. YES, MA'AM. BUT WE WOULD OBVIOUSLY 86 THOSE AND GET RID IF YOU GUYS APPROVED IT. >> SO I'M SORRY. YOU ARE JUMBLING A LOT OF INFORMATION TOGETHER IN MY BRAIN. POSTED NOTES. >> I APOLOGIZE. >> THAT'S OKAY. THREE MONUMENT SIGNS YOU ARE ENTITLED TO RIGHT NOW. RIGHT? THREE ENTRYWAYS? IF THE SIGNAGE ON THE BUILDING IS APPROVED, THE THREE MONUMENT SIGNS WILL NOT HAPPEN? >> CORRECT. WE WILL NOT CONSTRUCT THOSE. >> THIS IS YOUR ASK. IT IS MORE IMPORTANT FOR YOU TO HAVE MOVING AND STORAGE CONTAINERS, DRIVING, ON THE BUILDING. THAT IS YOUR [02:30:02] PREFERENCE? YOU WOULD PREFER TO HAVE THE SIGNAGE ON THE BUILDING THEN HAVE MONUMENT SIGNS? >> CORRECT. YES, MA'AM. >> OKAY. COULD YOU JUST FLIP THROUGH THOSE SLOWLY AGAIN. OKAY. DRIVE-IN STORAGE. THIS IS THE BACK OF THE BUILDING? >> SOUTH ELEVATION IS ACTUALLY GOING TO BE ON THE ROAD FACING EAST. >> ALL RIGHT. NORTH ELEVATION WAS IN THE PARKING LOT IN THE BACK THAT YOU REALLY CAN'T SEE FROM THE ROAD. >> CORRECT, MA'AM. >> I HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT WHY WE NEED THAT. OKAY. THEN MOVING CONTAINERS. IS THAT A -- IS THAT LIKE A PODS KIND OF THING? >> ESSENTIALLY, BUT I CAN'T SAY THAT WORD. >> I KNOW. I WILL SAY IT FOR YOU. YEAH. >> THAT IS A VERY EXPENSIVE MISTAKE WE'VE MADE. HE WILL BE ABLE TO SEE. CELLS PER ELEVATION IS CROSSING. >> OKAY. SO CAN YOU JUST RUN THROUGH EACH ONE OF THEM AGAIN? EVERY SURFACE? YOU BOX. YOU BOX. AND IT NEEDS TO BE CLARIFIED THAT IT IS MOVING CONTAINER THAT BIG. THAT IS WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT. >> WE WOULD LIKE TO. THAT SIGN WOULD STAY THERE REGARDLESS OF IF YOU APPROVED TODAY ARE NOT. 200 SQUARE FEET. >> OKAY. THIS ONE IS FACING? >> THAT IS THE EAST ELEVATION. SAME ONE FROM THE SCREEN EARLIER. JUST BIGGER. IT IS THE INTERSECTION, BASICALLY. >> OKAY. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. >> MR. OLSON? >> YEAH. FIRST A COMMENT. IF A 25 FOOT HIGH SIGN AS SHOWN CONSTITUTES WITHIN THE DEFINITION OF A MONUMENT SIGN, I AM VERY SORRY I ARGUED FOR MONUMENT SIGNS AT THE LAST MEETING. I DIDN'T KNOW THAT MONUMENT SIGNS COULD DO THAT. I THOUGHT THEY WERE MORE HUGGING THE GROUND AND HAD LANDSCAPING AROUND THEM THAT WEREN'T RAISED AND DID NOT HAVE PROMOTIONAL CRISES -- PRICING OF TRUCKS ON IT. ANYWAY, MY ONLY THOUGHT ABOUT THE PROPOSED AT THIS POINT IS THAT I THINK THE SIGNAGE IS STILL TOO LARGE AND SHOUTS AT YOU RATHER THAN IDENTIFIES THE BUILDING ITSELF. I MEAN, THE WHOLE PRESENCE OF THE BUILDING, IT'S HUGE. AND IT'S ON A CORNER. I THINK MY VIEW IS IT IS VERY ADEQUATELY EXPLAINS WHAT IT IS WITHOUT THE SIZE BEING PROPOSED. >> OKAY. I HAVE A COUPLE QUESTIONS. I HAVEN'T DRIVEN BY THEIR IN A WHILE. AND WHEN I DO, I'M ACTUALLY WATCHING OTHER VEHICLES ON THE ROAD. BUT YOU CAN'T MISS THIS BUILDING. THERE IS NO POSSIBLE WAY. BUT ONE OF THE LETTERS OPPOSING THIS THAT WE RECEIVED, IT STATED THAT YOU HAVE SIGNAGE IN MOST OF YOUR WINDOWS. IS THAT CORRECT? >> THERE MAY BE BANNERS HANGING UP OR STORAGE UNIT THAT YOU CAN SEE. >> YOU DO HAVE SUCH? >> A BANNER. >> BANNERS OR SIGNS IN THE WINDOWS? >> YES, SIR. >> EVEN THOUGH IT IS NOT A FIXED TO THE OUTSIDE OF THE BUILDING. >> YES. >> WHEN WE GRANTED THE CONTINUANCE LAST TIME, I THOUGHT WE HAD ASKED YOU AND I DON'T REMEMBER EXACTLY WHAT YOU SAID AT THE LAST MEETING. I THINK WE ASKED YOU TO COME BACK WITH A COUPLE OF OPTIONS FOR REDUCING EXACT OPTIONS THAT YOU ARE PRESENTING TO US TODAY? >> TO SHOW THE DIFFERENCE. A MAJORITY OF THE SIGNAGE, LIKE THE BOX WAREHOUSE, THAT WOULD ACTUALLY BE COMPLIANT OR UNDER CURRENT CODE. SO THAT WOULD NOT CHANGE. A LOT OF THE ADDITIONAL SQUARE FOOTAGE IS COMING FROM SIGNAGE ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THE BUILDING THAT FACES THE PARKING LOT. SO WHEN YOU LOOK AROUND THE BUILDING FROM THE ROAD, THE SIGNAGE ISN'T GOING TO CHANGE FROM CURRENT CODE TO WHAT WE ARE ASKING. DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? >> NO. NOT TO ME. I'M SORRY. >> SO, ESSENTIALLY, LIKE, THIS WOULD BE IN COMPLIANCE UNDER CURRENT CODE. >> RIGHT. THAT ONE SIGN. >> ON THE BUILDING AS WELL. AND IT IS THE SAME THING. IT WOULD STILL BE UNDER COMPLIANCE. WHAT [02:35:04] WE ARE ASKING FOR, IT IS STILL THERE. SO THERE IS NO CHANGE. THE ADDITIONAL SIGNAGE IS GOING TO COME AT THE NORTH SIDE OF THE BUILDING THAT FACES OUR PARKING LOT. THAT IS WHERE WE WOULD LOSE THE SQUARE FOOTAGE OF SIGNAGE IF YOU GUYS DENIED IT. >> OKAY. I APPRECIATE THAT. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD? MR. GREEN? I HAVE GOT TO TURN YOUR MIC ON. OKAY. >> THERE WE GO. I UNDERSTAND THERE IS THREE SIDES OF THE BUILDING THAT IS GOING TO HAVE SIGNS. >> THERE WILL BE -- >> THAT YOU ARE ASKING FOR. >> CORRECT. >> TWO OF THE MEET THE CODE TODAY. ONCE I DOES NOT. I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE I'M ON THE CORRECT PAGE . >> IF WE HAVE TO CUT IT DOWN, WE HAVE TO PUT THE SIGNS ON THE SIDES WHERE THE ROAD OR AT NOT FACING THE PARKING LOT. >> I UNDERSTAND. >> IS THERE ANY PUBLIC COMMENT ON THIS ITEM? SEEING NONE, I SUPPOSE WE ARE BACK INTO THE AGENCY FOR A MOTION AND DISCUSSION. SO DO WE HAVE A MOTION? MR. GREEN? >> YEAH. >> SO WE DENIED THIS. YOU ARE STILL GOING TO PUT THOSE TWO SIGNS ON THE ROAD SIDE? >> YES, SIR. >> YOU KNOW, THE OTHER ONE IS IN THE PARKING LOT. IT IS NOT GOING TO BE SEEN EXCEPT FOR PEOPLE PULLING INTO THE PARKING LOT. >> AND WE WOULD NOT DO THE MONUMENT SIGNS, AS WELL. >> THREE MONUMENT SIGNS COME DOWN OR WON'T BE PUT UP, I GUESS. >> WE DO NOT HAVE A DESIRE TO PUT THEM UP. >> I WOULD MUCH RATHER HAVE THESE SIGNS ON THE BUILDING. IT IS A BIG BUILDING. I DON'T THINK IT IS GOING TO OVERPOWER IT. SOMETIMES, YOU GET THE SIGNS A LITTLE TOO SMALL LIKE THEY DIDN'T FIT. I'M GOING TO MAKE A MOTION. APPROVE VARIANCE 2025-10. BASED ON THE EIGHT FINDINGS OF FACT AND THE FIVE CONDITIONS THAT WAS PROVIDED IN OUR STAFF REPORT. >> WE HAVE A MOTION. DO WE HAVE A SECOND? WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. ANY DISCUSSION? MR. LABANOWSKI? >> I AM A LITTLE FOGGY ON THIS ONE. YOU ARE GOING TO LEAVE UP THREE SIDES OF THE BUILDING? RIGHT NOW THERE ARE FOUR SIGNS? >> WELL, THERE IS TWO DIFFERENT BUILDINGS AND THERE IS NOT GOING TO BE ANY SIGNAGE WHERE THE BUILDINGS. THE SIGNAGE THAT IS GOING TO BE FACING THE ROADWAYS WE WOULD KEEP . THAT IS UNDER COMPLIANCE. WE ARE ASKING FOR THE ADDITIONAL, MAINLY FOR THE NORTH ELEVATION WHICH FACES OUR PARKING LOT. >> OKAY. THERE IS NOT GOING TO BE ANYTHING ON THE END THAT IS FACING THE FIELD GOING TOWARDS THE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL? THERE IS AN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL DOWN THE STREET. >> YES, SIR. >> THERE WILL BE A SIGN ON THE END? >> YES. >> ALSO A SIGN FACING 16A? AND YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT REMOVING THE SIGN FACING THEIR PARKING LOT? >> I AM TALKING ABOUT NOT PUTTING UP THE MONUMENT SIGNS. WE HAVE THREE ENTRANCES APPROVED ON-SITE. ONLY ONE OF THEM HAS BEEN BUILT . SO INSTEAD OF DOING THE MONUMENT SIGNS, WE ARE ASKING FOR THE ADDITIONAL SQUARE FOOTAGE AND THE SIGNAGE ON THE BUILDINGS AND THE ADDITIONAL SQUARE FOOTAGE IS ESSENTIALLY GOING ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THE BUILDING WHICH FACES THE PARKING LOT. >> THAT CLARIFIES IT. THANKS. >> I APOLOGIZE FOR THE CONFUSION. >> ANY OTHER COMMENTS? ALL RIGHT. WE HAVE A MOTION ON THE FLOOR. SECOND IT AND LETS VOTE. THEY HAVE GOT TO RESET UP. OKAY. [6. MAJMOD 2025-09 Las Calinas US-1 Commercial Area. Request for a Major Modification to the Las Calinas Planned Unit Development (Ordinance 2005-109) to allow for an increase in the maximum square footage allowed for non-residential uses from 19,000 square feet to 49,000 square feet, located on the southeastern corner of US-1 North and Abbotts Way.] THAT MOTION FAILS, 4 TO 2. THANK YOU, GUYS. ALL RIGHT. ITEM 5 HAS BEEN WITHDRAWN, SO WE MOVE ON TO ITEM NUMBER 6. MAJOR MODIFICATION, 2025-09, LAS CALINAS US-1 COMMERCIAL AREA. >> POTENTIALLY THERE ARE OTHER MOTIONS THAT ARE AVAILABLE SO [02:40:02] THE BOARD NEEDS TO JUST CONFIRM THAT THAT IS WHAT THEY ONE. THE MOTION IS TO DENY. IT WOULD BE BETTER IF WE HAD A MOTION TO DENY AND A VOTE. >> NOT DONE IT BOTH WAYS WERE WE DIDN'T PUT A FUND MOTION ON? >> I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE, ESPECIALLY WITH A LOT OF THESE THINGS THAT THERE IS NO OTHER MOTION THAT WOULD COME. BECAUSE , WHEN YOU'RE SLIDING DOWN TO DO THE NEXT, WHEN YOU HAVE DENIED A MOTION TO APPROVE, POTENTIALLY THERE ARE OTHER MOTIONS TO APPROVE WITH OTHER CONDITIONS. AND I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE ARE GETTING A CLEAR DENIAL AND YOU COULD POTENTIALLY DO IT BY VOICE VOTE. CONFIRM ON THE RECORD THAT THERE ISN'T ANY OTHER MOTIONS. >> OKAY. >> AND THAT IT'S THE SAME BOAT -- VOTE. >> I WILL ASK THE BOARD. WERE THERE ANY OTHER MOTIONS OR CONSIDERATIONS THAT NEEDED TO BE DISCUSSED WITH THIS THAT ANYONE HAD IN MIND? OKAY. >> SUFFICIENT. I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE DON'T SKIP SO FAST THAT WHEN WE DENY AN MOTION TO APPROVE THERE IS NOT ANOTHER MOTION POTENTIALLY ON THE TABLE AND THAT IT IS AN ACTUAL DENIAL AND THAT EVERYBODY IS COMFORTABLE FLIPPING IT BECAUSE EVERYBODY WOULD WANT TO MAKE ANOTHER CONDITION. >> POINT WELL TAKEN. THANK YOU, SIR. I NEED EX PARTE ON THIS, PLEASE. AND I ACTUALLY REMEMBERED MR. LABANOWSKI . >> YES. I HAVE VISITED THAT SITE SEVERAL TIMES AND ALSO HAD A MEETING WITH THE HOMEOWNER, JOHN LATHAM, ABOUT THE CONCERNS OF WHAT WAS GOING TO BE PUT INTO THAT AREA. >> MR. OLSON? >> SO THE SITE YESTERDAY AND RECEIVED GOOD NUMBER. MAYBE CLOSE TO A DOZEN LETTERS OF OPPOSITION TO THE MAJOR MODIFICATION. >> MS. SPIEGEL ? >> YES. MR. CHAIR, I DID A SITE VISIT AS WELL AND RECEIVED THOSE SAME EMAILS. >> MR. GREEN? >> RECEIVED EMAILS AND ALSO DID A SITE VISIT. >> I HAVE DRIVEN BY THE AREA MOST RECENTLY A WEEK OR SO AGO. BUT I ALSO RECEIVED ABOUT A DOZEN EMAILS OPPOSING THIS. >> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN, FOR THE RECORD. ST. JOHN'S LAW GROUP. HERE IN ST. JOHN'S COUNTY, FLORIDA. I'M HERE ON BEHALF OF THE PROPERTY OWNER OF THIS COMMERCIAL PORTION OF THE LAS COLINAS. IT IS LOCATED ON U.S. ONE HIGHWAY JUST TO THE NORTH OF INTERNATIONAL GOLF PARKWAY IN VALENCIA. OKAY. SO HERE YOU CAN SEE -- VERY STRANGE. HERE YOU CAN SEE WHERE THE PROPERTY OF THE PROPERTY IS OUTLINED IN GREEN. MULTIPLE COMMERCIAL LOCATIONS THERE ON U.S. ONE. IT IS PROVED CURRENTLY FOR 19,000 FEET OF USES. THEN, YOU CAN SEE HEAR FROM THE ARIAL, YOU CAN SEE WHERE U.S. 1 IS. YOU CAN SEE WHERE U.S. 1 IS HERE. YOU CAN SEE THE INDUSTRIAL PORTION THAT IS APPROVED ON THE OTHER SIDE. YOU CAN SEE ALL THE COMMERCIAL THAT IS LOCATED THERE AT THE FRONT OF THE VALENCIA DEVELOPMENT. RESTAURANTS, ET CETERA. HERE, YOU CAN SEE -- THIS IS ALL FROM YOUR STAFF REPORT -- THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP. YOU CAN SEE OUTLINED IN GREEN WITH A LITTLE GREEN DOT WHERE WE ARE. JUST TO THE NORTH OF THAT AREA, YOU CAN ALSO SEE THE ZONING MAP. THIS WAS PREVIOUSLY APPROVED BY THE COUNTY COMMISSION FOR NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL USES, WHICH ARE STILL ALLOWABLE ON THIS SITE. THEY WERE FOUND TO BE COMPATIBLE. DOWN AT THE BOTTOM YOU CAN SEE THE AREA THAT IS CLEARLY OUTLINED ON THE LAS CALINAS MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN MAP , A NEIGHBORHOOD/COMMERCIAL. AGAIN, THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP. STAFF REPORT SHOWS WHERE LOCATED UP HERE. JUST OFF U.S. 1 . AND, LIKE I SAID, AS WELL AS THE ZONING, APPROVED FOR COMMERCIAL USES WITHIN THE LAS CALINAS P.U.D. IT IS ALSO ON THEIR MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND [02:45:03] TALKS ABOUT THE COMMERCIAL SECTION OF THE LAS CALINAS P.U.D. AND PROPOSED ACCESS OFF OF ABBOTTS WAY . AS I SAID, WITHIN THE LAS CALINAS P.U.D., IT IS APPROVED FOR 19,000 FEET OF USES AND THIS WOULD ADD COMPATIBLE COMPLEMENTARY SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THOSE ALREADY ALLOWED NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL USES. THE EXACT LANGUAGE OF THAT P.U.D., I HAVE THE INTRODUCTION UP ON THE SCREEN. IT IS ONE OF THREE PUDS. THE DEVELOPMENT WAS PROPOSED BY THE MASTER DEPARTMENT PLAN. MARKET DEMAND FOR SINGLE-FAMILY HOUSING BY CONCENTRATING COMPACT AND CONTINUOUS DEVELOPMENT NEAR THE U.S. 1 CORRIDOR, WHERE URBAN INFRASTRUCTURE IS ALREADY IN PLACE. IT TALKS ABOUT THE PROJECT LOCATION IN CHARACTER WITHIN THAT. YOU CAN SEE FROM THE LANGUAGE THAT IT WAS APPROVED FOR 19,000 SQUARE FEET OF COMMERCIAL. THIS WOULD ADD ADDITIONAL SQUARE FOOTAGE TO THAT APPROVAL. AS YOU SEE, YOU CAN SEE WHERE IT IS LOCATED AT THE FRONT OF THE KENSINGTON AND TO THE SOUTH OF WHERE LAS CALINAS P.U.D. APPROVALS ARE. YOU CAN SEE THAT THIS IS GOING TO BE JUST UP ON THE FRONT PART. I WILL SHOW YOU THE PROPOSED SITE PLAN IN A MINUTE BUT IT IS UP ON U.S. 1 BUFFER FROM THOSE NEIGHBORHOODS. AGAIN, FOR THE DESIGN CRITERIA WAS OUTLINED WITHIN THAT P.U.D., AND IT SAID THE MAXIMUM FLOOR AREA IS 50%. MAXIMUM ISR OR IMPERVIOUS SERVICE RATIO IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE ST. JOHN COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. THIS MAJOR MODIFICATION REQUEST TO ADD SQUARE FOOTAGE ASKS FOR NO CHANGE AT ALL IN THE DESIGN CRITERIA. NO INCREASE IN THE SAR OR THE ISR. WE ARE ALSO NOT ASKING FOR ANY CHANGE TO ANY OF THE USES OR ANY ADDITIONAL USES. AS YOU SEE, THIS IS A LANGUAGE FROM THE P.U.D. ITSELF, WE ARE ASKING FOR AN INCREASE BUT NOT ANY . THE FOLLOWING WERE APPROVED AS COMPATIBLE UNDER THIS P.U.D. WHEN THIS LAS CALINAS P.U.D. WAS APPROVED IN 2005 AND IT INCLUDED CULTURAL, INSTITUTIONAL USES, OFFICE AND PROFESSIONAL SERVICES , OUTDOOR PASSIVE USES, AND NEIGHBORHOOD PUBLIC SERVICE AND EMERGENCY SERVICE USES. I WILL GET INTO WHAT THAT ALLOWS IN A LITTLE BIT, BUT THERE IS A NUMBER OF USES THAT CAN COME WITHIN THAT 19,000 SQUARE FOOT IN THAT AREA. AND WE ARE ASKING FOR NO CHANGES IN THE USE CATEGORIES. AGAIN, WE ARE ALSO NOT ASKING FOR ANY CHANGE IN THE DESIGN CRITERIA. WE ARE NOT ASKING FOR INCREASED ISR. SO THIS STILL IS WITHIN THE SPIRIT AND INTENT OF WHAT WAS REQUESTED AND APPROVED IN 2005 WHEN THE LAS CALINAS P.U.D. WAS APPROVED . SO, TO REITERATE, THIS TYPE OF USE, NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL USE, WAS PREVIOUSLY APPROVED BY THE COUNTY COMMISSION AS COMPATIBLE ON PARTICULAR LAND ON U.S. 1. WITHIN THAT P.U.D., IT CLEARLY SAYS APPROVAL WAS DESIGNED TO BE FLEXIBLE TO ALLOW CHANGES IN ARKET DEMANDS AND TRENDS. AS I SAID, APPROVAL OF THIS WILL ALLOW ADDITIONAL NEIGHBORHOOD SQUARE FOOTAGE, BUT NO CHANGE IN THE USES OR ADDITIONAL USES. ALSO NO CHANGE IN THE DESIGN CRITERIA. NO INCREASE IN SAR OR ISR. THIS IS A COPY OF THE PROPOSED SITE PLAN. AS YOU CAN SEE, IT IS WITHIN YOUR PACKET AND THE STAFF REPORT, THE REQUEST FOR THE ADDITIONAL COMPATIBLE AND COMPLEMENTARY NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL SQUARE FOOTAGE FITS ONTO THIS LOT BUFFERING THE PROPERTIES BEHIND IT . NO IMPACTS ON THE WETLANDS. AND ALSO NOT REMOVING ANY PROPOSED ACCESS THAT THERE WAS TO ABBOTTS WAY BECAUSE WE HEARD THE COMPLAINTS AS SUCH. YOU CAN SEE HERE IN THE GREEN, ALL AREAS OF NONDEVELOPMENT. THOSE ARE ALL WETLAND PROTECTION AREAS. AND THE PROPOSED SQUARE FOOTAGE IS UP ON HAND ONE. IT WILL BE ACCESS ONLY FROM U.S. 1. NO IMPACTS TO THE WETLANDS. THE APPLICANTS SEEKING TO MODIFY TO ALLOW ADDITIONAL SQUARE FOOTAGE AND HAVE COMPLETE ACCESS OFF U.S. 1. WE HAVE ALREADY HAD DISCUSSIONS WITH THE FDOT AND THEY ARE FINE WITH HAVING THE ACCESS OFF U.S. 1. WHEN WE LOOK AT REQUESTS FOR MODIFICATIONS OR REZONINGS, WE LOOK TO SEE WHETHER MEET THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR COMPATIBILITY, WHICH IS DEFINED IN OUR COMPREHENSIVE [02:50:01] PLAN TO MEET A CONDITION IN WHICH LAND USES CAN COEXIST IN RELATIVE PROXIMITY TO EACH OTHER IN A STABLE FASHION OVER TIME, SUCH THAT NO USE IS DULY NEGATIVE BY ANOTHER USE. THE USES PROPOSED AS PART OF THIS APPROPRIATE UPDATE TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL AREA LAS CALINAS P.U.D., WHICH WAS FOUND TO BE COMPATIBLE IN 2005, ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE APPROVED NEIGHBORHOOD USES AND DESIGNATION OF THE AREA AND THE VISION OF THE ST. JOHN'S COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR COMMERCIAL USES ALONG U.S. 1. IS COMPLEMENTARY AND COMPATIBLE USES WILL INCREASE SQUARE FOOTAGE AREA APPROVED USES THAT HAVE BEEN FOUND TO BE COMPATIBLE IN THE AREA AND WILL HELP TO CONTINUE A PICTURE OF USES IN THE DISTRICT AS SPECIFICALLY ADVOCATED BY OUR COUNTY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. THE P.U.D., ITSELF, STATED DESIGNED TO BE FLEXIBLE FOR CHANGES IN MARKET DEMANDS AND DEVELOPMENT TRENDS. AS YOU SEE FROM YOUR STAFF REPORT, STAFF SPECIFICALLY NOTES THAT THIS -- WHEN THE APPLICANT CLAIMS THIS IS COMPATIBLE INCREASE ALLOWING U.S. 1 COMMERCIAL PARCEL, STAFF NOTES THAT THIS PARCEL IS THE ONLY LAND CURRENTLY DESIGNATED FOR COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT IN THE ENTIRETY OF THIS P.U.D. THEREFORE, THE ONLY LOCATION ON U.S. 1 NORTH BETWEEN PINE ISLAND ROAD AND VALENCIA THAT CURRENTLY ALLOWS FOR COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT. UNDER DEPARTMENTAL REVIEW, THERE ARE NO OPEN COMMENTS AS REVIEWED BY ALL THE DEPARTMENTS. THE PLANNING STAFF SPECIFICALLY POINTS OUT THAT THE CLASSIFICATIONS THAT ARE BEING ASKED FOR IN NEIGHBORHOOD/COMMER CIAL ARE ALREADY ALLOWED AS APPROVED WITHIN 2005 AND THERE ARE NO CHANGES PROPOSED TO THE ALLOWABLE USES THAT WERE ORIGINALLY CONTEMPLATED FOR THIS PARCEL IN 2005. AGAIN, YOU SEE WITHIN YOUR STAFF REPORT, THEY SHOW YOU THAT FROM BOTH THE LAS CALINAS P.U.D. AS WELL AS THE KENSINGTON P.U.D., BOTH OF THESE APPROVED PLANNING DEVELOPMENT SHOW NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL PARCEL AS COMPATIBLE WITHIN THE AREA. THE INITIAL APPROVED MAP SHOWS TWO ACCESS POINTS WERE CONTEMPLATIVE. ONE OFF ABBOTTS WAY, ONE OFF U.S. 1. KENSINGTON P.U.D. ALSO CONTEMPLATED ACCESS TO THIS PARCEL, WHICH IS REFERENCED AND CAN BE SEEN IN THE KENSINGTON PUD. THE LANGUAGE OF THE LAS CALINAS P.U.D. ALSO TALKS ABOUT THE ACCESS AND DEPICTS THE PRELIMINARY VEHICULAR CIRCULATION SYSTEM THAT ALLOWS ALL PROPOSED POINTS OF CONNECTION WITH PUBLIC RIGHTS-OF-WAY. AS YOU ALL KNOW, INTERCONNECTIVITY WITHIN PUDS IS ADVOCATED . AGAIN, YOU CAN CLEARLY SEE FROM THE APPROVAL OF THE KENSINGTON P.U.D., PROPOSED ACCESS TO THE COMMERCIAL PARCEL OF LAS CALINAS OUTLINED IN GREEN. IT WAS ALSO CURRENTLY CONTEMPLATED IN THE ORIGINAL APPROVALS AND IN THE APPROVED P.U.D. CONSTRUCTION PLANS. YOU CAN SEE IT CIRCLED IN GREEN ON THOSE CONSTRUCTION PLANS. FINALLY, YOU CAN SEE THAT THE ACCESS HAS ALREADY BEEN BUILT ON ABBOTTS WAY. SO THERE CAN BE NO -- THERE CAN BE NO TESTIMONY THAT SAYS THEY DID NOT KNOW IT WAS GOING TO BE HERE. BUT WE WILL TELL YOU THAT WE HAVE HEARD THE COMPLAINTS AND THE OWNERS ARE PREPARED TO REMOVE THAT GIVEN THE OBJECTIONS OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD ITSELF TO TAKE THOSE TRIPS OFF OF THEIR ROAD AND PUT THEM ON U.S. 1, WHICH HAS ALREADY BEEN DISCUSSED WITH THE FDOT AND THEY HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH THAT BEING THE ACCESS FOR THIS PARTICULAR DEVELOPMENT. AGAIN, AS YOU SEE FROM YOUR STAFF REPORT, IT TALKS ABOUT HOW THE CONCERNS WERE CENTERED MOSTLY ON THE PROPOSED ACCESS POINT ON ABBOTTS WAY, AND THAT IS WHY WE HAVE GONE AHEAD AND TAKEN THAT OUT OF OUR PROPOSAL. IT WILL NOT BE ACCESSED ON ABBOTTS WAY. FINALLY, THEY GIVE YOU THE FLOOD MAP. ALSO, YOU SEE IN THE STAFF REPORT THAT IT HAS BEEN CLEARLY OUTLINED BRONCO -- . YOU ALSO SEE DEPARTMENT REVIEW. THIS DOES NOT REQUIRE CONCURRENCY IS A COMMERCIAL PROJECT AND THAT WILL ALL BE EVALUATED AT CONSTRUCTION PLAN APPROVAL AND OBVIOUSLY ANY SITE RELATED IMPROVEMENTS WILL HAVE TO BE DONE BY THIS PARTICULAR APPLICANT AT THAT STAGE. ALSO, YOU SEE THERE IS UTILITIES AVAILABLE. THERE WAS AN ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION OF THIS PARTICULAR SITE. THEY POINT OUT THE FACT THAT THERE IS NO INTENT TO IMPACT ANY OF THE WETLANDS. NUMBER ONE. NUMBER TWO. THEY REQUESTED THAT THERE BE A GOPHER TORTOISE SURVEY PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION OR DURING [02:55:03] CONSTRUCTION PLAN REVIEW AS WELL AS A WOODS-TO-WORK ANALYSIS. AGAIN, THE OWNERS ARE PREPARED TO REMOVE THE ACCESS TO ABBOTTS WAY AND HAVE DIRECT ACCESS ON U.S. 1. REQUEST TO ALLOW THIS IN ADDITION OF NEIGHBORHOODS COMMERCIAL ON U.S. 1 AND NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL SQUARE FOOTAGE IS APPROPRIATE AND REASONABLE WITHIN COUNTY DESIGNATED AND APPROVED NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL AREA APPROVED IN 2005 AND FOUND TO BE COMPATIBLE WITH THE AREA ALONG U.S. 1 AS PART OF THE LAS CALINAS P.U.D. WE ASKED RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL TO ALLOW THIS ADDITIONAL SQUARE FOOTAGE WHICH FURTHERS THE GOALS, OBJECTIVES, AND POLICIES OF OUR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR THIS U.S. 1 COMMERCIAL AREA WITHIN YOUR PACKET. THE STAFF HAS GIVEN YOU A SUGGESTED MOTION WITH SIX FINDINGS, AND I AM AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. >> THANK YOU, MR. WHITEHOUSE. WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD? NOT AT THIS TIME. MR. OLSON? SORRY. >> JUST TO CLARIFY, WHEN I VISITED THE SITE, I BELIEVE I SAW A FOR SALE SIGN ALONG U.S. 1 FOR THIS PROPERTY. IS IT FOR SALE? WHAT IS THE STATUS OF THAT? >> I DON'T KNOW. >> OH. OKAY. OKAY. >> PLEASE REFRAIN FROM ANY OUTBURSTS. IT JUST DELAYS THE PROCEEDINGS. >> MY OTHER QUESTION IS, HAVE THE 35 ACRES OF IMPACTED WETLANDS -- OTHER WETLANDS? I AM JUST READING OFF THE -- AM I READING THAT INCORRECTLY? >> THERE IS NO IMPACTED WETLANDS. >> IS THAT THE ORIGINAL? AM I READING OFF THE ORIGINAL P.U.D.? IS THAT RIGHT ? PAGE 12. 8125. NOT MORE THAN 35 ACRES OF WETLANDS SHALL BE IMPACTED WITHIN THE LAS CALINAS P.U.D. >> THROUGH THE CHAIR, I BELIEVE THAT IS A REFERENCE TO THE ENTIRE P.U.D. , NOT SITE-SPECIFIC. >> SO THE ANSWER IS NO? TO QUESTION? >> WHAT WAS QUESTION? >> WILL ANY OF THE WETLANDS BE IMPACTED ON THIS PROPERTY BY THIS ACTION BEING REQUESTED? >> NO, SIR. >> OKAY. THANK YOU. >> ANY OTHER BOARD MEMBER WISH TO ASK A QUESTION AT THIS TIME? I GUESS WE ARE GOING TO RESERVE OUR QUESTIONS UNTIL AFTER PUBLIC COMMENT. EVERYONE HAS BEEN PATIENT WHO HAS BEEN WAITING, I >> MR. CHAIR, THERE ARE TWO DESIGNATED SPEAKERS. ZACH MILLER IN THE JOHN SMITH. WE HAVE GOT A LONG LIST. ANYONE WHO HAS DESIGNATED THEIR TIME TO ONE OF THOSE TWO SPEAKERS SHOULD NOT GET IN LINE TO SPEAK AFTERWARDS. >> OKAY. SO AT THIS TIME I GUESS WE ARE GOING TO ASK FOR ZACH MILLER TO COME FORWARD AND MAKE HIS PRESENTATION. >> GOOD AFTERNOON. ZACH MILLER. GOOD TO SEE YOU ALL AGAIN. I REPRESENT THE KENSINGTON HOA IN OPPOSITION TO THIS. AND I BELIEVE I HAVE OVER 100 PEOPLE WHO HAVE AUTHORIZED ME TO SPEAK ON THEIR BEHALF. I WASN'T QUITE CLEAR ON, I HEARD THEY WERE PREPARED TO GET RID OF THE ABBOTTS WAY ACCESS, BUT EVERY NOTICE WE HAVE SEEN, EVERY DEVELOPMENT PLAN, EVERY VERSION HAS THE ACCESS OFF OF ABBOTTS WAY. SOMEBODY ADDRESSED THAT POINT, STILL. OBVIOUSLY, THIS IS THE PROPERTY. CAME RIGHT FROM YOUR SITE PLAN. THIS IS AN OUTLINE. INCLUDES THE TWO PARCELS THAT KIND OF HAVE THAT NORTHEASTERN CORNER. YOU CAN SEE THIS BACKS UP. YOU HAVE GOT SEVERAL HOMES. THEN ALSO THE AMENITIES CENTER FOR THE KENSINGTON HOA IS RIGHT THERE. THIS IS THE SITE PLAN THAT THEY HAVE SUBMITTED. AND IT CLEARLY SHOWS ACCESS OFF OF ABBOTTS WAY AND U.S. 1. AGAIN, I HEARD PREPARED TO GET RID OF THAT. I HAVEN'T SEEN A SITE PLAN. HERE IS A ZOOM IN ON THAT SITE PLAN AND THE BUILDING THEY SHOW AT 38,000 SQUARE FEET. ANOTHER IS 11,000 SQUARE FEET. WE WILL TOUCH ON THAT. HERE'S MY GUESS ON WHY THEY ARE PREPARED TO GET [03:00:05] RID OF IT. PROPERTY IS OWNED BY THE HOA. THERE IS NO RECORDED EASEMENT. THERE IS NO DEED. KNOW WHEN THEY CAN POINT TO. SHOWED ACCESS OFF OF ABBOTTS WAY. THAT IS NOT AN LAWFUL ACCESS TO USE IT FOR ACCESS. THE POINT BEING IS, THEY DON'T HAVE LAWFUL ACCESS. SO, IF THEY ARE PREPARED TO MOVE IT, THAT WOULD BE RECOMMENDED. THIS IS INTERESTING. HERE'S A SITE TABLE FROM THE MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN. YOU SEE THE NORMAL ITEMS THAT ARE IN HERE. THE ONE THING THAT IS MISSING IS HEIGHT FOR THIS PROPERTY. THEY DON'T DESIGNATE A HEIGHT LIMITATION FOR IT. NOW, WHEN IT IS 19,000 SQUARE FEET YOU KNOW OVER 10 ACRES, THAT IS NOT GOING TO BE A VERY TALL BUILDING. IF YOU INCREASE THAT BY UP TO 49,000 SQUARE FEET, YOU CAN GO HIGHER. THIS IS WHAT IS IN THE P.U.D. THIS ISN'T CHANGING. SO FOR COMMERCIAL, YOU COULD GO UP TO 75 FEET IN HEIGHT. AGAIN, AT 19,000 SQUARE FEET, YOU ARE NOT GOING TO DO THAT. IT IS NOT ECONOMICAL. AT 49,000 SQUARE FEET, YOU CAN GO PRETTY HIGH. HOW CLOSE THIS IS TO THE AMENITIES CENTER AND ALSO THE HOMES. ONE OF THE THINGS, AND I HAVE OBVIOUSLY SERVED ON THIS BOARD. GOING TO INCREASE THE INTENSITY OF A COMMERCIAL AREA, USUALLY YOU WERE GOING TO HAVE MORE SPECIFICITY IN WHAT YOU ARE GOING TO DO. THIS IS LIFTED RIGHT FROM THE STAFF REPORT. THESE ARE THE COMMERCIAL USES THAT ARE CURRENTLY ALLOWED ON THERE. THEY ARE NOT CHANGING. BUT HERE IS WHAT IS INCLUDED. FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS, WITH OR WITHOUT DRIVE-THROUGH. CONVENIENCE STORES WITH OR WITHOUT GAS PUMPS. I AM GOING TO COME BACK TO THIS IN A SECOND. GROCERY STORES. HERE'S WHAT I SUSPECT THEY'RE PROBABLY DOING. PERSONAL PROPERTY MINI WAREHOUSES. SOME OF WHICH IT 19,000 SQUARE FEET ARMED -- ARE NOT ECONOMICAL. AT 49,000 FEET, IT IS LIKELY WHAT YOU ARE GOING TO DO. HERE ARE SOME OF THE OTHER USES AND I WILL TOUCH ON WHY I'M GOING TO BRING THIS UP. SCHEDULED OR EMERGENCY SERVICES BY PHYSICIANS AND DENTISTS. AGAIN, MAY BE APPROPRIATE AT A CERTAIN SIZE BUT NOT AT 49,000 SQUARE FEET. THIS IS INTERESTING. THIS IS FROM YOUR SITE STAFF REPORT. THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT OF A SHOPPING CENTER. ESTIMATED TO GENERATE, I DON'T WANT TO FOCUS ON THE OVERALL, BUT THE 233 TRIPS. THAT IS USUALLY WHAT YOU FOCUS ON. P.M.. PEAK HOUR. THE STAFF NOTE THAT THE MAXIMUM IMPACT USE WAS DETERMINED. RESPECTFULLY, THAT IS NOT THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT. GROCERY STORE. THERE IS ALSO THIS OUT PARCEL THEY SHOW ON THEIR SITE PLAN AT 11,000 SQUARE FEET. WELL, IF YOU WERE TO DO A CONVENIENCE MARKER WITHOUT GAS PUMPS AT 11,000 SQUARE FEET, AND THIS IS FROM THE GENERATION MANUAL THAT IS AVAILABLE ANYWHERE ONLINE. YOU SIMPLY GO INTO AN EXCEL SHEET, PUMP IN THE SQUARE FOOTAGE, YOU GET MORE THAN THAT. ALMOST 150 MORE TRIPS P.M. HOUR, JUST FROM THAT 11,000 SQUARE FOOT FACILITY THAT IS THE OUT PARCEL. OKAY. SUPERMARKET. GROCERY STORE. SPECIFICALLY ALLOW. YOU DID ONE 49,000 SQUARE FOOT GROCERY STORE, YOU WOULD BE 367 P.M. PEAK HOUR TRIPS. IF YOU DID A WALK-IN BANK, 594. IF YOU DID A DRIVING BANK, OVER 1000 P.M. PEAK HOUR TRIPS. THIS IS WHY GOING TO INCREASE THE COMMERCIAL INTENSITY. YOU USUALLY HAVE MORE SPECIFICITY AND USE. THERE MIGHT BE SOME USES THAT ARE APPROPRIATE FOR A SMALL INCREASE OF THIS BUT THE BLANKET INCREASE OF 2 1/2 TIMES WITH THESE GENERAL USES ARE COMPATIBLE. I DID NOT SEE THIS ANYWHERE IN THIS PRESENTATION BUT I THINK IT IS WORTH POINTING OUT. THIS PROPERTY IS IN THE MARSHALL CREEK DRI. YOU DO NOT HEAR A LOT OF DRIS ANYMORE. LEGISLATURE GOT RID OF THOSE IN 2011. BUT THIS PROPERTY IS IN A DRI AND THAT IS REALLY IMPORTANT. THIS IS THE MAP H MASTER PLAN. YOU CAN SEE YOU HAVE GOT LAS CALINAS. YOU HAVE GOT VALENCIA. IT HAS GOT COMMERCIAL USES. IT HAS GOT RESIDENTIAL USES. THIS IS A ZOOM IN. THE PROPERTY IS JUST NEXT TO THAT RED ARROW. AND IT IS [03:05:03] IDENTIFIED AS A TYPICAL VILLAGE PARCEL. AND YOU CAN SEE THERE ARE DIFFERENT PROPERTIES DESIGNATED DIFFERENT TYPES OF COMMERCIAL. GENERALLY DESIGNATED WITHIN THE DRI, TWO TYPES OF COMMERCIAL USES. THIS IS THE MAP OF THE ENTIRE DRI. THERE IS NO ACCESS POINT TO THIS PROPERTY. SO ARGUABLY THERE SHOULD'VE BEEN A NOTICE OF PROPOSED CHANGE TO ADD ACCESS TO IT . THIS IS WHAT THE DRI SAYS FOR THIS SECTION. A TOTAL OF 119,000 SQUARE FEET OF NONRESIDENTIAL SPACE. SO THAT IS WHAT IS IN THE DRI. I KNOW ALL OF YOU HAVE DONE THIS FOR A WHILE. YOU DON'T SEE A NUMBER LIKE THAT WITHOUT A REASON BEHIND IT. IT IS A VERY SPECIFIC NUMBER. 119,000. AGAIN, THAT IS GOING TO BE IMPORTANT IN A SECOND. IF THE CLICKER ACTUALLY CHANGES. HERE WE GO. INTERESTING. THE TEXT OF THE DRI SAYS 119,000 FOR THE DENSITY VILLAGE CENTER AREAS. BUT ACTUAL CHART THAT IT REFERS TO SAYS 110. SO WE WILL SPOT THEM THE EXTRA 9000. WELL, THE MIXED-USE PARCELS THAT ARE ALL AROUND THE PERIPHERY AND TO THE SOUTH OF THE PROPERTY, THAT IS THE 490,000 SQUARE FEET OF NONRESIDENTIAL THAT IS ALLOWED. WHAT WE ARE IN, IN THE DISSECTION OF THE DRI IS THE 110 OR 119. AS YOU CAN SEE THAT YOU HAVE MIXED-USE AREAS. THAT IS THE 490. AND THEN YOU HAVE THE VILLAGE. THERE IS TWO AREAS THAT ARE DESIGNATED FOR THE NONRESIDENTIAL IN THE VILLAGE SECTION. ONE IS OUR PROPERTY. THE OTHER ONE IS THE VILLAGE CENTER AREA. AND IF YOU GO THROUGH AND YOU ADD UP ALL OF THE NONRESIDENTIAL SPACE IN THERE, YOU COME OUT TO APPROXIMATELY 100,000 SQUARE FEET OF COMMERCIAL. THE POINT BEING THAT FOR THAT DENSITY B, VILLAGE CENTER, THERE WAS 119,000 SQUARE FEET OF NONRESIDENTIAL. 100,000 OF IT HAS ALREADY BEEN USED AT THE VILLAGE CENTER. THE PROPERTY WE ARE TALKING ABOUT WAS DESIGNATED FOR THEIR MENTOR. WHY WAS THAT IMPORTANT? BECAUSE EVEN THOUGH DRIS NO LONGER EXIST, YOU HAVE TWO OPTIONS IN ORDER TO GET OUR RIGHTS. YOU CAN SWAP FOR RESIDENTIAL OR INDUSTRIAL TO GET THE COMMERCIAL SQUARE FOOTAGE. OR YOU HAVE TO GO FOR A NOTICE OF PROPOSED CHANGE. THAT IS NOT BEFORE YOU TODAY. SO THAT IS THE TECHNICAL REASON. BUT EVERYBODY THAT HAS BOUGHT A HOME IN HEAR FROM EVERYBODY THAT OPENED A BUSINESS IN HERE MADE A DECISION AND THEY LOOKED AT THIS AND SAID IT IS 119,000 SQUARE FEET BASED ON THESE TWO AREAS. THAT IS WHAT WAS APPROVED. THAT IS WHAT WAS APPROPRIATE. YEAH . I THINK I BEAT MY RECORD. ONLY GOT 10 MINUTES. HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MIGHT HAVE. >> THAT'S A LOT. >> JUST DO IT AGAIN. >> HAPPY TO SPEAK TO A SPECIFIC ISSUE RATHER THAN DO IT AGAIN. >> TALK ABOUT THE LAST FEW MINUTES. >> WHY DON'T YOU GO BACK FIVE SLIDES. ONE MORE. >> SO WE WILL GO THROUGH THIS ONE. KIND OF RUN THROUGH THAT AGAIN BECAUSE THIS IS ALL NEW INFORMATION. >> SO USUALLY DEALING WITH, AT LEAST YOU USED TO WITH THREE DIFFERENT CATEGORIES. ONE IS COMPREHENSIVE PLANS. MIXED-USE. I GET IT. THAT'S FINE. ZONING. CONVENTIONAL ZONING'S OR PUDS. BUT IT USED TO BE THAT IF YOUR DEVELOPMENT IS LARGE ENOUGH, YOU HAD TO GO GET A DRI DEVELOPMENT ORDER. THERE ARE 70 HOMES AND SO MUCH NONRESIDENTIAL, INSTITUTIONAL, THAT YOU HAVE TO HAVE ONE PLANNING DOCUMENT THAT PUTS EVERYTHING IN IT. AND IN THIS PLANNING DOCUMENT, WHICH IS WHAT IS THE CURRENT VERSION, I THINK THIS WAS LAST MODIFIED IN 2004, THERE WAS TWO SETS OF COMMERCIAL OR WE WILL CALL IT NONRESIDENTIAL USES. THERE WAS THE DENSITY B RESIDENTIAL CENTER COMMERCIAL AND THEN THERE WAS THE FULL MIXED-USE. IT CAPPED HOW MUCH YOU COULD HAVE. THE MIXED-USE, I THINK THIS WAS ON THE MAP, MIXED-USE AREAS ARE ALL THOSE AREAS THAT WERE POINTED OUT EARLIER OF WHY THIS WOULD BE [03:10:04] CONSISTENT. THAT IS WHERE THE 490,000 SQUARE FEET. YOU GO THROUGH EACH ONE OF THEM AND GO TO YOUR PROPERTY APPRAISER AND START ADDING THEM UP, YOU GET PRETTY CLOSE TO THAT. THAT IS WHERE THE STRIP CENTERS ARE. THAT IS WHERE THE STORAGE SPACE IS. THE WHOLE AREA ALONG U.S. 1. THE AREA THAT THIS PROPERTY IS IN IS IN THAT DENSITY B AREA. AND THERE WERE TWO PROPERTIES WITHIN THE DRI, WITHIN THE P.U.D., THAT ARE SUBJECT TO THAT. VILLAGE AND THIS PROPERTY. SO THE TOTAL UNDER THE DRI OF NONRESIDENTIAL SPACE THAT YOU COULD HAVE THERE, AGAIN, IT IS INCONSISTENT IN THE DRI BUT WE WILL SPOT THEM THE LARGER FIGURE. 119,000. THAT IS HERE. EVEN THOUGH HERE SAYS 110. SO WE WILL SPOT THEM THE 119,000. IF YOU TAKE THE SECOND AREA DESIGNATED FOR IT, IT IS AT 100,000. THIS WASN'T BY ACCIDENT. THE LEFT OVER, I DON'T WANT TO CALL IT THAT, BUT THE REMAINDER WAS FOR THIS PROPERTY. THAT IS WHAT WAS DETERMINED. THIS PROPERTY IS APPROPRIATE FOR 19,000 SQUARE FEET. SO , ONE FROM A TECHNICAL PERSPECTIVE, IF YOU WANT TO GO ABOVE THAT, YOU HAVE TO GET A CHANGE FROM THE DRI. BUT FROM A PLANNING PERSPECTIVE, FOR ALL THESE HOMES IN HERE, EVERYBODY WHO LOOKED AT THIS, EVERYTHING THAT WAS LAID OUT WHEN THE COUNTY APPROVED THIS ORIGINALLY IN THE LATE 90S AND EVERY SUBSEQUENT TO THAT, WHAT WAS LAID OUT WAS WE ARE HAVE THIS INTERNAL VILLAGE COMMERCIAL AREA. IT IS A REALLY COOL AREA IF YOU DRIVE AROUND. RESIDENCES ABOVE. NEIGHBORHOOD SERVICES IN THERE. PRETTY INTERESTING. BUT IT IS RELATIVELY INTENSE. THEN YOU ARE GOING TO DO WHAT MOST PLAN DOCUMENTS DUE. SET UP A NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL AREA ALONG THE ENTRANCE. USUALLY VERY LOW INTENSIVE AND USUALLY DESIGNED TO SERVE JUST THE RESIDENTS WHO ARE COMING IN AND OUT. YOU DON'T WANT TO DRAW A LOT OF PEOPLE. SO TECHNICAL SPREAD EFFECTIVE -- PERSPECTIVE, INCREASING IT TO A HALF TIMES IS NOT APPROPRIATE. ESPECIALLY IF YOU ARE NOT GOING TO SPECIFY WHAT THE USES ARE. >> THOUGHT YOUR MIKE WAS STILL ON. MS. SPIEGEL, I'M SORRY. >> I TURNED IT OFF. I APOLOGIZE. SO WE RECENTLY DID A DRI. I'M GOING TO STOP. WE RECENTLY JUST DID A DRI WHERE WE TRADED OUT SOME COMMERCIAL FOR RESIDENTIAL UP NORTH . BUT THERE AREN'T THAT MANY DRIS LEFT. THAT WAS A PROCESS WE HAD TO DO. THEY HAD THESE NUMBERS THAT COULD BE CONVERTED BUT IT TOOK AWAY SOME ENTITLEMENTS. SO WHAT I'M HERE TO SAY IS THERE ARE ENTITLEMENTS THAT ARE THERE BUT THEY HAVE TO BE TRADED WITH SOMETHING ELSE TO BE ABLE TO INCREASE AND THAT WAS NEVER PRESENTED. IT HAS NEVER BEEN PUT FORWARD. IS THAT WHAT I AM UNDERSTANDING? I'M JUST TRYING TO CLARIFY THIS. >> TO THE CHAIR, SIMPLE ANSWER, YES. SOME DRIS ARE SET UP THAT YOU COULD TRADE THEM WITHOUT GETTING THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSION AND SENDING IT TO THE STATE FOR REVIEW. IN THIS CASE, BECAUSE YOU HAVE A SUBSET OF THE AREA THAT IS DESIGNATED, IN ORDER TO GO ABOVE THAT, YOU NEED A NOTICE OF PROPOSED CHANGE. NEEDS TO BE SENT TO TALLAHASSEE. >> THAT IS MY QUESTION. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >> THAT ALSO GETS TO MY QUESTION. I WAS GOING TO ASK YOU BECAUSE I REMEMBER THE DRI DAYS. NOT ALL THE LEGAL ASPECTS, LIKE YOU. BUT UNDER THE DRI, THE SQUARE FOOTAGE OF COMMERCIAL, WHICH IS THE MORE OVERRIDING DOCUMENT? THE DRI SPECIFYING THE 119,000 OR IS IT THE ST. JOHN'S PLAN AND LDC? HOW DOES MESH? >> THAT IS A COMPLICATED QUESTION. I WOULD SAY THAT THE DRI HAS TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. SO ASSUME THE MIXED-USE DESIGNATION WAS PROBABLY AT THE SAME POINT IN TIME THE ORIGINAL DRI WAS APPROVED. AND THOSE DENSITIES SPREAD OUT OVER THE ENTIRE AREA OF THE DRI. PROBABLY MATCHES UP WITH WHAT IS IN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. I DIDN'T FOCUS ON THE ENTIRE AREA OF MIXED-USE. >> THE DENSITY B AREA. >> THE FLORIDA AREA RATIO. >> OKAY. SO IN THE DRI, ADDING ANOTHER 30,000 SQUARE FEET OF NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL WOULD NOT BE COMPATIBLE IN TERMS OF [03:15:02] ST. JOHN'S COUNTY COMP PLAN AND LDC? >> I THINK THERE IS A LEVEL OF ANALYSIS YOU COULD DO FOR THAT. I DON'T THINK YOU GET TO THAT BECAUSE IT IS NOT CONSISTENT WITH THE DRI. BEFORE YOU EVEN GET TO THE COMP PLAN ANALYSIS, THE DOCUMENT THAT COVERS THIS ENTIRE AREA , YOU GOT TO CHANGE THAT YOU MAKE IT CONSISTENT. AND THEN YOU GO THROUGH THE ANALYSIS THAT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. >> YOU TOUCHED ON THIS BRIEFLY. MS. SPIEGEL 'S QUESTION. IS THERE REALLY A MECHANISM CURRENTLY FOR AMENDING DRI SINCE DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS IS LONG GONE AND OTHER ASPECTS OF THE DEMISE OF THE DRI? >> UNDER 380-06, HAVEN'T CHECKED IT SINCE LAST YEAR. IT IS A SPECIFIC APPLICATION FOR NOTICE OF PROPOSED CHANGE THAT YOU HAVE TO DO. >> OKAY. THAT IS AN EXISTING METHOD OF APPROVALS. >> YES. >> IN YOUR OPINION, SHOULD BE GONE THROUGH BEFORE. >> YES. REPRESENT THE HOA. DOES NOT SHOW AN ACCESS POINT ON IT. A LOT OF AREAS WITH ACCESS POINTS. THAT WOULD REQUIRE SIGNOFF WITH MY CLIENT IN ORDER TO DO THAT. AGAIN, THEY SAY THEY'RE PREPARED TO NOT HAVE THAT . THERE IS ALSO THE QUESTION OF WHETHER YOU BE THE MASTER DEVELOPER, HOWEVER WAS THE DEVELOPER OF THIS PROPERTY, TO SIGN OFF ON THE DRI, TOO. >> THAT IS IT FOR NOW. MR. MATOVINA ? >> MR. CHAIR. >> YES. >> IS TO MAKE SOME CLARIFICATIONS ABOUT THIS PROPERTY, THIS WAS IN THE MARSHALL GREAT DRI WHICH ENTERED INTO A BUILDOUT AGREEMENT IN 2021 WITH THE COUNTY. AND THAT BUILDOUT AGREEMENT BROADLY SPEAKING BROADLY INDICATES THAT THERE ARE NO NO MORE OBLIGATIONS FROM THE DRI OR THE DRI DEVELOPER. AND , FURTHERMORE, IT DOESN'T MAKE CLARIFICATIONS FOR ADDITIONAL REMAINING DEVELOPMENT. AND, AGAIN, BROADLY SPEAKING IT CALLS OUT THAT FUTURE DEVELOPMENT IS NOT TO MEET ANYTHING RELATED TO THE DRI BECAUSE IT IS BUILT OUT AND IT HAS TO STAND ON ITS OWN MERITS. I HAVE ALL THE CITATIONS IF WE NEED TO GET INTO THE READING OF IT. BUT IT IS CONSIDERED BUILT OUT AND EVERYTHING IS STANDING ALONE FOR ANY FUTURE CHANGES. >> OKAY. I COULDN'T QUITE HEAR YOU. MR. WHITEHOUSE WAS TALKING BACK THERE. SO WHAT YOU ARE SAYING IS THE DRI IS CONSIDERED BUILT OUT. THEY ARE NO LONGER SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE DRI. SO WHAT WE ARE GOING ON HERE NOW IS COMP PLAN AND LDC? >> YES, SIR. >> THANK YOU. >> AND I BELIEVE I HAVE ONE MINUTE LEFT IF I CAN RESPOND TO THAT. >> YOU MAY RESPOND TO THAT BEFORE MR. MATOVINA ASKED HIS QUESTION. >> WELCOME I WILL ANSWER. >> MR. CHAIR, CAN I GO FIRST, PLEASE? >> OKAY. >> I DON'T HAVE A QUESTION. MY WIFE HAD A PROCEDURE THIS MORNING AND I AM NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO STAY. SHE IS HOME ALONE. >> WE UNDERSTAND. WISH HER WELL. THAT IS PERFECTLY UNDERSTANDABLE. I'M SORRY. >> AND I WILL TRY NOT TO GO OVER THE 30 SECONDS TO RESPOND WHAT STAFF SAID EVEN THOUGH THE CLOCK IS RUNNING. >> NO. YOU CAN RESPOND. >> VERY QUICKLY, BUILDOUT JUST MEANS THERE IS OBLIGATIONS. WHEN YOU HAVE A DRI THERE IS MITIGATION BUILT IN FOR SCHOOL IMPROVEMENTS, ENVIRONMENTAL IMPROVEMENTS. THAT DOESN'T MEAN THAT THE GOVERNING DOCUMENT FOR WHAT THE USES ARE GO AWAY AND YOU'RE JUST ALLOWED TO DO WHATEVER YOU WANT UNDER IT. IN ORDER TO DO THOSE OTHER THINGS ARE NOT SUBJECT TO AMENDING ANY MEDICATION THAT IS IN THE DRI. IT IS STILL THE GOVERNING DOCUMENT. EVEN IF THAT WASN'T TRUE, THAT IS STILL THE EXPECTATION OF EVERYBODY THAT BUILT IN . >> OKAY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. YOU MAY BE CALLED BACK UP HERE. JOHN SMITH IS THE NEXT DESIGNATED SPEAKER. 15 MINUTES. >> MR. SPEAKER, WHEN YOU START ASKING QUESTIONS OF AN APPLICANT OR ANYONE PROVIDING TESTIMONY TO THE BOARD, GENERALLY SPEAKING THE TIME IS TOLD AND OR SLASHED. IT IS YOUR PREROGATIVE AS CHAIR TO MANAGE WHAT QUESTIONS, IF YOU WANT TO REIN THEM BACK IN OR CONSOLIDATE OR ASK QUESTIONS LATER. YOU DO THAT. YOU DON'T [03:20:04] NEED THE TIME OR NECESSARILY TO KEEP GOING. AND IT IS PROBABLY MORE PERFECT FOR YOU TO BE KEEPING TRACK OF AND KEEPING ON TRACK. >> APPRECIATE THOSE COMPLIMENTS. THANK YOU. >> I AM JOHN SMITH. THE AGGREGATION OF FOUR COMMUNITIES. THAT IS KENSINGTON. MARSHALL CREEK. THE ORIGINAL AND START OF WHERE ALL THE PUDS CAME FROM AND THEN SUITE WOODCREEK. ORIGINALLY NORTH WHAT'S. IT BECAME SWEETWATER CREEK. WITHOUT GETTING INTO THE MEAT OF THE MATTER, 18,927 PEOPLE. AROUND 10,000 OR SO DISTRICT VOTERS THAT ARE CONCERNED ABOUT THIS AFFECT OF HOW THIS IS BEING APPROACHED. INCREASING THE 19,000 SQUARE-FOOT BUILDING, WE ARE NOT AGAINST THE ORIGINAL DESIGN OF A 19,000 FOOT PIECE OF PROPERTY. WE WOULD WELCOME THAT. BUT A 49,000 SQUARE-FOOT BUILDING AND THE SIZE IT REPRESENTS AND INCREASING THE PARKING LOT TO 80 OR 90 VEHICLES. I LOOKED AT THE TENTATIVE PROPOSED PLANS, WHICH YOU WILL HAVE IN FRONT OF YOU AS WELL, IS NOT GOING TO GIVE THE RESIDENTS ANY ADDITIONAL -- IN FACT, IT IS GOING TO TAKE WAY FROM OUR COMMUNITY. I SERVED AT THE SWEETWATER BOARD. I AM THE VICE CHAIR OF THE CDD THERE. AS A RESULT, BOTH PERSONS AND SWEETWATER CREEK, LAS CALINAS, AND A LOT OF MY FRIENDS IN KENSINGTON ARE NOT HAPPY WITH THIS CONSIDERATION FOR MODIFYING THE BUILDING SIZE. THE VISUAL APPEAL AND THE SCOPE AS YOU DRIVE TODAY FROM PARKWAY AND YOU DRIVE NORTH PAST KENSINGTON, IF YOU HAD A 49,000 SQUARE-FOOT BUILDING THERE, IT WOULD BE PRETTY UNSIGHTLY. TODAY, WE HAVE DEVELOPED PROPERTIES . REASONABLE HEIGHTS. ONE OR TWO STORIES. AND IT IS A VERY NICE VISUAL AND A NICE FEELING. IF YOU WERE TO SEE A SIX-STORY, SEVEN STORY MAKE A LEFT AS YOU MAKE A RIGHT INTO ABBOTTS WAY, THAT WOULD BE DETRACTING FROM THE HOUSE VALUES OF THE PEOPLE IN KENSINGTON. SO I SPEAK UP TO YOU GUYS WITH AN APPEAL TO CONSIDER THE AESTHETICS OF SUCH A DIFFERENT SIZED BUILDING VERSUS WHAT WAS ORIGINALLY PLANNED IN THE ORIGINAL 119,000 SQUARE FEET DONE BACK IN THE 1990S. I KNOW YOU MAY OR MAY NOT LIVE THERE, BUT WE DO. WE DO LIKE THE COMMUNITY BECAUSE OF THE VISUAL APPEAL OF THE COMMUNITY. THE LAST I WOULD SAY IS THAT SUCH A BUILDING WOULD NOT SERVE THE INTERESTS . WE WOULD RATHER HAVE ANOTHER RESTAURANT OR TWO. ANOTHER COUPLE OF SMALL BUSINESSES. AND HAVING ONE EGRESS IN AND OUT OF HIGHWAY 1, WE ARE NOT GOING TO GET A RED LIGHT THERE. TRUST ME. WE'VE GOT ALL THE RED LIGHTS WE ARE GOING TO GET. SO HAVING LARGE TRAFFIC FLOWS BECAUSE OF THE OVER SIZE OF THE BUILDING WOULD BE DETRIMENTAL TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST IN MY OPINION. JOHN SMITH. YOU CAN REACH ME AT ONLINE AT SDDFORSWEETWATER. IF YOU HAVE ANY TIME, I'M GOING TO YIELD FOR OTHER SPEAKERS. ANY QUESTIONS? >> ANY QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD? MS. SPIEGEL ? >> I'M SORRY. THIS IS FOR THE ATTORNEY. IF PEOPLE SEATED TIME TO HIM AND HE DIDN'T USE ALL THE TIME -- >> SO OUR RULES PROVIDE FOR ONE PERSON TO BE DESIGNATED TIME. IT IS UP TO THE CHAIR IF YOU ARE GOING TO CHANGE ANY OF THAT. BUT OUR RULES DON'T ALLOW FOR SEEDING TIME BACK AND FORTH TO OTHER PEOPLE. GENERALLY SPEAKING, IF THERE'S A GROUP AND HE HAS GOT A GROUP PRESENTATION, HISTORICALLY, WE HAVE HAD NO ISSUE WITH THEM DESIGNATING TWO OR THREE PEOPLE TO COME UP, TOO. KEEP THAT UNDER CONTROL. >> I HAVE -- WHERE IS THE SHERIFF? I HAVE THE SHERIFF FROM MARSHALL CREEK HERE. >> GOT A CONSIDERABLE AMOUNT OF TIME LEFT. MAYBE WE CAN KEEP THESE PEOPLE TO THREE MINUTES EACH. I DON'T KNOW IF THAT WORKS WITH THIS PRESENTATION. IT IS UP TO YOU. >> HOW DO YOU WANT TO PROCEED? >> I THINK WE SHOULD STOP YOUR TIME RIGHT NOW FOR ONE THING AND [03:25:01] TALK ABOUT THIS. >> OKAY. >> I'M NOT SURE HOW TO HANDLE IT. SINCE YOU DIDN'T TAKE ALL YOUR TIME, IN FACT, I WOULD SAY ADD A MINUTE BACK ONTO YOUR TIME, BUT I DON'T KNOW EXACTLY WHERE IT WAS SO I WANT TO BE FAIR HERE. THE PEOPLE DESIGNED TO ALLOW YOU TO SPEAK FOR 15 MINUTES, I THINK ALLOWING, SAY, THREE OF THEM TO HAVE ANOTHER THREE MINUTES ADDED TO THEIR TIME WOULD BE FINE WITH ME. IF THAT IS OKAY, LEGALLY. >> DISCRETION OF THE CHAIR. >> WELL, I DON'T WANT TO DO ANYTHING. I AM TORN HERE. >> NO. IF JAMES PRESENCE AND HE HAS GOT EXPERTS THAT COME UP AND PRESENT, THAT'S NOT A PROBLEM. IT HASN'T BEEN HISTORICALLY. >> OKAY. MAY I ASK FROM THE AUDIENCE, HOW MANY PEOPLE HERE ASSIGNED TO HAVE JOHN SMITH SPEAK ON BEHALF OF THEM? OH. THERE ARE QUITE A FEW. SO HOW WOULD WE CHOOSE THREE? >> REPRESENT THE LARGER COMMUNITY OF THE FOUR COMMUNITIES INVOLVED IN HOW THIS VISUALLY AFFECTS OUR COMMUNITY. >> OKAY. DID THOSE SAME PEOPLE ALSO SIGNED YOU HAVE ZACH MILLER SPEAK ON THEIR BEHALF? >> YEAH. >> BUT I ALSO WILL REMIND THE CHAIR THERE IS 100 SIGNATURES IN ZACH'S ALONE. SO HE HAD WELL OVER THE AMOUNT NECESSARY. >> OKAY. >> TO GET 15 MINUTES. >> WELL, HOW ABOUT IN ONE MINUTE, THOSE OF YOU WHO SIGNED DECIDE WHICH THREE PEOPLE ARE THE MOST IMPORTANT TO SPEAK AND YOU GET THREE MINUTES ADDED TO YOUR TIME IN ONE MINUTE. I DON'T KNOW WHAT TO DO HERE. >> SO MAY I RECOMMEND -- >> YES, YOU MAY. >> HE HAS GOT 10 MINUTES LEFT. IF HE WANTS TO BREAK THAT 10 MINUTES UP AMONG THREE PEOPLE AND YOU ARE OKAY WITH IT, JUST USE THIS TIME AND DESIGNATE. THESE ARE POTENTIALLY PROBABLY PEOPLE THAT DONATED TIME TO HIM IN THE FIRST PLACE. SO I THINK THAT IS HOW I WILL CONTROL IT IF I WERE YOU. >> IS IT HIS DISCRETION OR MINE? >> BOTH. HE CAN PICK. SO IF HE SAYS HE HAS GOT THREE PEOPLE THAT HE WANTS TO BRING UP AND WERE OKAY WITH THAT, YOU CAN. >> WHO ARE THE THREE PEOPLE? I SEE ONE. >> THIS LADY, HERE. >> MICHELLE CAMPBELL. SECRETARY. >> I HAVE NEVER SEEN A SITUATION LIKE THIS BEFORE. >> MICHELLE CAMPBELL. 505 DRIVE. >> YOU GET TO SPEAK FOR SIX MINUTES. >> I'M ON HERE TO SPEAK. I SUBMITTED WAIVERS OF TIME AND I SUBMITTED A SPREADSHEET AND BLOCKED OUT THE WAIVERS THAT WENT TO THE ATTORNEY AND THE WAIVERS THAT WENT TO JOHN. SO THERE WERE NAMES. THERE WERE NOT DUPLICATE NAMES. THE PEOPLE HERE DON'T KNOW WHAT NAMES I GAVE TO WHO. THAT IS WHY EVERYONE'S HANDS WENT UP AND CREATED THE CONFUSION. >> OKAY. >> BUT IT WAS SUBMITTED TO JENN, AND I UPLOADED THAT TO THE PORTAL. I WAS GIVEN A FOLDER ON THE COUNTY WEBSITE TO PUT ALL OF THIS INFORMATION AND THEN I FOLLOWED IT UP WITH PAPER COPIES, SO YOU HAVE NAMES WITH THE CORRECT SPEAKERS. EXCUSE ME. THE CROWD JUST DOES NOT KNOW WHO WAS DESIGNATED TO WHO BECAUSE I DO NOT THINK IT WAS IMPORTANT TO LET THEM KNOW. >> BUT THERE ARE AT LEAST THREE PEOPLE HERE THAT RAISED THEIR HANDS THAT DONATED THEIR TIME THAT HE WOULD SPEAK ON BEHALF OF THEM AND GET HIS 15 MINUTES. >> THERE ARE 150-SOMETHING WAIVERS, OF WHICH -- >> SO THERE ARE THREE PEOPLE HERE CERTAINLY. >> MOST DEFINITELY, YES. >> OKAY. SO WE HAVE TO DECIDE WHICH THREE PEOPLE ARE GOING TO GET AN EXTRA THREE MINUTES. >> I WOULD SUGGEST WHOEVER ELSE MAY WANT TO SPEAK COMPLETE IT IN THE 11 MINUTES BECAUSE YOU'RE ADDING ONE MORE BACK ONTO THE CLOCK THAT THEY HAVE LEFT AND THEN EVERYBODY THAT HAS DESIGNATED THEIR TIME THAT IS NOT GOING TO SPEAK BECAUSE THEY HAVE DONATED THEIR TIME TO THESE DESIGNATED SPEAKERS. >> YES. WE CANNOT HAVE DUPLICATES SPEAKING. >> OKAY. >> THIS GENTLEMAN. THIS GENTLEMAN. DO YOU WANT TO COME UP? I YIELD MY 10 MINUTES TO THIS GENTLEMAN. >> OKAY. 11 MINUTES. ALL RIGHT. [03:30:04] YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS, PLEASE. >> I AM TOMMY HAMMOND. EXCUSE ME. 305 DRIVE IN KENSINGTON. SUPPOSED TO GET A ROOT CANAL TOMORROW. I JUST WANTED TO ADD, I CANNOT ADD TOO MUCH TO WHAT ZACH SAID BECAUSE HE WAS WORRIED ABOUT THE TECHNICALITIES OF THIS. I DUG BACK INTO THE ORIGINAL P.U.D. THAT WAS DONE IN 2005. IF YOU GO BACK AND LOOK AT THE MINUTES FROM WAY BACK THEN, THERE WAS MUCH BACK AND FORTH FROM THE DEVELOPER. TO HIS POINT ABOUT THE 35 ACRES, IT WAS A BIG CONVERSATION ABOUT LAS CALINAS. THEY WANTED TO LIMIT WHAT THE WETLAND IMPACTS WERE GOING TO BE. THEY BROUGHT THIS COMMERCIAL SITE IN. OUR SITE. THAT WAS PART OF THE OVERALL P.U.D., BUT THEY WANTED TO LIMIT THE COMMERCIAL IMPACT IN THE AREAS THAT WERE BUFFERING UP AGAINST DIRECT RESIDENTIAL. IN THIS CASE, THE ORIGINAL P.U.D. WAS PASSED IN 2005. HAD A CONCEPT PLAN WITH IT. WITH THAT, IT SHOWED, YOU KNOW, 12,000 SQUARE FEET OF A BUILDING AND ACCESS GOING IN OFF OF U.S. 1. WHEN THE PROPERTY WAS SOLD TO THE CURRENT OWNER, EXCUSE ME, IN 2019, THEY HAD A SITE PLAN THAT HAD , LO AND BEHOLD, 12,000 SQUARE FEET, ACCESS OFF U.S. 1, AND THEY WERE PROPOSING ACCESS ON ABBOTTS WAY. SO THE GENTLEMAN THAT OWNS THE PROPERTY NOW, WHEN HE BOUGHT THIS, HE KNEW ABOUT THIS RESTRICTION. IN FACT, HE USED THE RESTRICTION OF THE 19,000 SQUARE FEET TO GET A LOWER PRICE. THE PRICE BACK THEN WAS $1.3 MILLION IN 2019 AND HE BROUGHT THE PROPERT FOR . I PULLED THIS LISTING TODAY. I AM ACTUALLY A REAL ESTATE BROKER MYSELF. I KNOW JOHN MOORE, THE REAL ESTATE AGENT. REALLY GOOD MAN. NICE MAN. GOOD CHRISTIAN GUY. LOVE HIM TO DEATH. I ACTUALLY CALLED HIM WHEN IT BLEW DOWN. I CALLED HIM. I TOLD JOHN, YOUR SIGN IS DOWN. I'M SORRY? AND, ANYWAY, HE HAS GOT IT LISTED. AND I PULLED THIS OFF THIS MORNING FOR $4,995,000. I WAS TOLD THERE IS A CONTINGENCY CONTRACT. CONTINGENT UPON THIS BEING APPROVED FOR 49,000 SQUARE FEET. HOWEVER, WHEN I DID MY OWN ANALYSIS OF THIS, I SAW A LOT OF LAND IN NORTH FLORIDA MYSELF. I HAVE PROPERTIES UP AND DOWN U.S. 1. THIS PROPERTY IS WORTH AS IS 4.4 TO $4.8 MILLION. THAT IS WHAT IT IS WORTH. THAT IS WHAT IT COULD BE SOLD FOR. IT DOES NOT HAVE TO HAVE 49,000 SQUARE FEET. MY PROPERTY LINE TOUCHES THIS PROPERTY LINE. >> YOUR TIME IS UP . >> OKAY. MY BIGGEST CONCERN IS THE HEIGHT THAT THEY COULD GO. SO THERE GO. >> THANK YOU, SARR. -- SIR. CHAIRMAN OF THE MARSHALL CREEK CDD. >> MY NAME IS HOWARD. I LIVE AT 144 AUGUSTINE ISLAND WAY , AND ALTHOUGH I AM HERE TO SPEAK AS AN INDIVIDUAL, I AM CHAIRMAN OF THE MARSHALL CREEK CDD, ALSO KNOWN AS PALENSIA. TOGETHER WITH MY FELLOW HOMEOWNERS IN MARSHALL CREEK, WE HAVE INVESTED OVER $1 BILLION IN OUR REAL ESTATE. THE TAXES GO TO PROMOTE THE ACTIONS OF ST. JOHN'S AND ITS MANAGEMENT. WHEN WE CHOSE TO MOVE INTO PALENCIA, WE DID SO WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT STRICT ZONING LAWS WOULD BE MAINTAINED. THESE REGULATIONS ARE DESIGNED TO PROMOTE AND MAINTAIN THE UNIQUE ATMOSPHERE OF OUR NEIGHBORHOOD AND TO SERVE THE NEEDS OF WE AS ITS RESIDENTS. OUR COMMUNITY, ALONG WITH ALL THE COMMUNITIES ADJACENT TO US AND ALL THE ASSOCIATED DEVELOPMENT ARE ALL LOW RISE STRUCTURES. AND THIS REINFORCES THE COHESIVE FEELING AND PROVIDES VALUABLE SERVICES TO THE RESIDENTS. THE PEOPLE I'VE SPOKEN TO OVER THE LAST TWO WEEKS WHO KNOW ME AS A BOARD MEMBER WHO CALL ME AND TALK ABOUT THESE ISSUES ARE STRONGLY OPPOSED TO ANY CHANGES THAT WOULD NEGATIVELY AFFECT THE FLAVOR OF OUR COMMUNITY. SO WE URGE YOU TO UPHOLD THE STANDARDS [03:35:04] THAT HAVE MADE PALENCIA AND THE NEIGHBORHOOD COMMUNITIES DESIRABLE PLACES TO LIVE. WE ASK YOU TO REJECT THIS AMENDMENT. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. WHO IS NEXT? THE GENTLEMAN STANDING UP THERE? >> WELL, AT THIS TIME, FREE-FORM TO THE PEOPLE WHO HAVE NOT SIGNED A WAIVER AND LET THEM ADDRESS THE BOARD. AND I WANT TO THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND HEARING ME OUT. I DO APPRECIATE IT. YOU ARE ALWAYS WELCOMED IN PALENCIA. APPRECIATE IT. >> THE PEOPLE WHO SIGNED THAT TIME OVER TO YOU, THEY WILL GET TO SPEAK, ANYWAY. HE COULD SPEAK TO THE BALANCE OF YOUR TIME . OKAY. YOU ARE THE ONLY OTHER PERSON THAT IS GOING TO USE HIS TIME. >> OKAY. THANK YOU. GIVE ME A FEW SECONDS. I AM GOING TO PUT THESE TWO BOARDS OUT IN FRONT OF YOU AS EXHIBITS. >> SIR, IF YOU WILL PUT THEM ON THE X, EVEN IF THEY ARE LARGE. IT IS ON THE COUNTER TABLE. IT IS BETWEEN YOU AND ME. IT WILL GO ON THE OVERHEAD AND SHOULD BE ABLE TO ZOOM OUT ENOUGH TO SEE IT. >> UPSIDE DOWN. >> DONE THIS BEFORE? THAT GOOD? MY NAME IS JOHN LAPIN. I LIVE 505. I BUTT UP AGAINST THIS PROPERTY ON 317 TAVISTOP DRIVE. MOST OF THE STUFF I AM NOT GOING TO TALK ABOUT BECAUSE ZACHARY HAS COVERED THOSE THINGS THAT WE NEEDED TO HEAR. I'M GOING TO PRESENT SOMETHING, A COUPLE INCONSISTENCIES, AND ALSO A VISUAL OF WHAT IS ACTUALLY IN THE WETLANDS IN THIS PARCEL. IF YOU SEE UP ABOVE, THE FIRST TWO PICTURES, WE TALKED ABOUT, WAS THE ENTRANCE TO KENSINGTON. YOU SEE ON THE SECOND PICTURE, THAT IS THE STRIP OF LAND THAT KENSINGTON OWNS. ALL OF US RESIDENTS THAT CANNOT BE TOUCHED TO GO ACROSS. THAT SEEMS LIKE THAT IS BEING YIELDED. WILL NEVER BE TOUCHED. WE MOVE ON FROM THERE. YOU SEE THE WETLANDS THAT ARE IN THAT ECOSYSTEM THERE. PICTURE SPEAK A THOUSAND MILLION WORDS. WHAT IS ACTUALLY IN THAT LOCATION. NOW, WHEN YOU ARE GIVEN A CERTAIN SQUARE FOOTAGE TO BUILD, YOU HAVE MEDICATION THAT HAS TO HAPPEN. WHEN YOU GO FOR A LARGER SQUARE FOOT WITH THE ABILITY TO BUILD UP, YOU ARE NEEDED -- MITIGATION TO WETLAND TO FORM RETENTION PONDS. OKAY? WELL, RETENTION PONDS ACTUALLY AFFECT THE QUALITY OF WETLANDS. WHAT IS PROPOSED IN THEIR SITE PLANS IS TO TAKE A RETENTION POND AND PLACE THAT RETENTION POND DIRECTLY IN THE MIDDLE OF THE WETLANDS. NOW, WHEN I BOUGHT THE PROPERTY, I SPOKE TO HIS -- A PROPERTY LAWYER. OH, YOU'RE GOOD, SIR. THAT LAND CAN NEVER BE TOUCHED BECAUSE THAT IS STATE WETLANDS. OKAY? WELL, THEN I ASKED, WHAT IS REQUIREMENTS FOR STATE WETLANDS. AND THEY TOLD ME THAT IT HAS TO BE A SETBACK FROM THE STATE WETLANDS. 25 FEET. AND THEN 25 FEET TO WHERE THE BUILDING IS. THAT IS A TOTAL OF 50 FEET TO THE WETLANDS. OKAY? WELL, THAT WAS TOLD TO BE AND I BOUGHT THE PROPERTY KNOWING I WOULD HAVE A SAFE, BEAUTIFUL THING THAT WOULD NEVER BE CHANGED BEHIND MY HOUSE. OKAY? NOW, THIS COMES UP RECENTLY. WAIT A MINUTE. A RETENTION POND IN THE MIDDLE OF THAT. THEN I CONTACTED TALLAHASSEE. I FOUND OUT PUTTING A RETENTION POND IN THE MIDDLE OF A WETLAND IS HIGHLY, HIGHLY, HIGHLY RESTRICTED. NOW, WHEN I HEAR MR. WHITEHOUSE SPEAK ABOUT WHAT MITIGATION HAS BEEN DONE, I DIDN'T HEAR A SINGLE WORD ABOUT WHAT MITIGATION HAS ALREADY BEEN [03:40:04] DONE FOR THIS PROPERTY. AS I SAID, IT IS A VERY, VERY UNUSUAL TO GIVE ANY TYPE OF EASEMENT TO PUT A RETENTION POND IN THE MIDDLE OF A WETLAND. OKAY? NOW, MY SECOND EXHIBIT HERE. OKAY. OVER THE 10 YEARS I'VE BEEN ON THIS PROPERTY I HAVE TAKEN PICTURES OF THE ANIMALS THAT HAVE FREQUENTED THE BACK OF MY PLACE AND IN THIS WETLANDS. SOME OF THEM ARE ANIMALS THAT YOU MIGHT SAY, OH, WE DON'T CARE ABOUT RACCOONS AND SO FORTH. BUT, NO, IT HAS ACTUALLY BEEN FREQUENTED BY BOBCAT, BOX TURTLE, WOODPECKR, OTTERS, ALLIGATORS, IF YOU LIKE, MANY DIFFERENT BIRDS THAT I PRESENTED TO THE HOA, SNAPPING TURTLES, BARRED OWL, AND THE INCONSISTENCY. OH . NO WOOD STROKES HAVE BEEN SEEN. WELL, YES, THERE HAS BEEN WOOD STORK THERE AND PHOTOGRAPHED BY ME. NOW, YOU COULD SAY BIRDS FLY AWAY BUT MY POINT IS IT IS AN ECOSYSTEM. IT DOES HAVE REGULATIONS OF WHERE IT CAN BE. YOU KNOW? AS FAR AS RETENTION PONDS AND MESSING WITH THAT WETLANDS. BASICALLY THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION AND IF THERE IS ANY QUESTIONS FOR ME, PLEASE ASK. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. APPRECIATE THAT. OKAY. WE WILL CONTINUE WITH THE REGULAR PUBLIC HEARING. THOSE PEOPLE WHO HAD NOT SIGNED OVER THEIR TIME TO EITHER ZACH MILLER OR SMITH MAY COME UP AND SPEAK FOR THREE MINUTES AT THIS POINT. STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD AND YOU GET THREE MINUTES. >> THANK YOU. MY NAME IS CHRIS MULLER. I LIVE AT 267 HOLLAND DRIVE, KENSINGTON NEIGHBORHOOD. A COUPLE OF POINTS I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE. ONE WAS THE WETLANDS. SECONDLY, THERE IS NO RED LIGHTS. >> POINT THE MIC TOWARD YOU A LITTLE. >> THERE IS NO RED LIGHT PROPOSAL. WE HAVE A MAJOR ACCIDENT OUTSIDE OF OUR NEIGHBORHOOD EVERY SINGLE YEAR. PEOPLE DRIVE 65 MILES AN HOUR. IT IS LIKE AN MATT HOUSTON THERE. ALL THE NUMBERS THAT HE GAVE, THAT ZACH GAVE, THE NUMBER OF CARS . INCREASE THOSE ODDS. WE HAVE A TON OF CHILDREN THAT LIVE IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD IN A TON OF YOUNG DRIVERS. IT IS ONLY GOING TO INDUCE AND POTENTIALLY HAVE MORE ACCIDENTS IN THERE THAT NOBODY WANTS TO SEE. SECONDLY, SCHOOL BUS PICKUP IS RIGHT DOWN THE STREET FROM THIS PLACE. SCHOOL YEAR THROUGH THE SUMMER YEAR. CONTINUOUSLY GETTING ON SCHOOL BUSES. THEY HAVE TO GET IN AND OUT OF THAT NEIGHBORHOOD, AS WELL, WITH NO RED LIGHT. THAT IS A HUGE DEAL FOR THEM. IF YOU PUT SOMETHING POTENTIALLY 60 FEET TALL IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD, THE PEOPLE THAT LIVE RIGHT ON TAVINOCK, YOU ARE GOING TO SEE AN EYESORE. WE TALKED ABOUT THIS EARLIER TODAY. HOW CAN YOU IMPROVE A FACILITY THAT IS GOING TO BASICALLY ALLOW THE PEOPLE TO HAVE A BUILDING YET YOU CAN IMPROVE SOMETHING, HIDE IT, AND MAKE IT SO THE PROPERTY VALUES ARE NOT AFFECTED BY THAT. I DON'T KNOW HOW YOU'RE GOING TO IMPROVE SOMETHING AT A 60 FOOT HEIGHT LEVEL THAT IS GOING TO HIDE THE FACILITY AND MAKE EVERYTHING OKAY. JUST NOT A POSSIBILITY. BAMBOO IS NOT GOING TO GO THAT TALL. SOMETHING WE NEED TO CONSIDER FURTHER THE NEIGHBORHOOD. THE WETLANDS IS HUGE. THE 60 FOOT HEIGHT IS HUGE. OUR CHILDREN ARE A BIG DEAL. I THINK WE NEED TO CONSIDER THAT. I WOULD LIKE YOU TO BASICALY NOT APPROVE THIS AMENDMENT THAT THESE GUYS ARE ASKING FOR. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU. APPRECIATE IT. NEXT SPEAKER, PLEASE. AND IF ANYONE WHO IS GOING TO SPEAK WOULD LIKE TO LINE UP AT ONE OF THE MICROPHONES TO SAVE TIME, THAT WOULD BE GREAT. YES, SIR. >> GOOD AFTERNOON. MY NAME IS DANIEL. I LIVE AT 200 DRIVE FIGHT IN KENSINGTON. I AM ALSO THE HOA PRESIDENT. I LOOKED WITH MR. WHITEHOUSE. A COUPLE OF HIS SLIDES WERE A LITTLE CONTRADICTORY. ONE SHOWED ACCESS FROM ABBOTTS WAY. THEN THERE WAS ANOTHER SLIDE THAT SHOWED THE LITTLE X . MAYBE OR CONSIDER NO ACCENTS. I THINK COUNSEL HAS [03:45:01] POINTED OUT CORRECTLY, KENSINGTON OWNS THAT STRIP. WE WILL NEVER, EVER ALLOW ACCESS VIA ABBOTTS WAY. WE ARE NOT AGAINST THE 19,000 SQUARE FOOT THAT WAS ORIGINALLY APPROVED. WE ARE DEADLY AGAINST THE 49,000 THAT IS BEING PROPOSED. AS A POINT OF REFERENCE, YOU MADE REFERENCE TO HOW MANY OPPOSITION LETTERS YOU RECEIVED. WE HAVE GENERATED OVER 500 IN THE SHORT TIME WE WERE ABLE TO GATHER OUR TRIPS TOGETHER. THE INDIVIDUALS ON THE ZONING BOARD. INDIVIDUALLY OR TO ANOTHER. I THINK SHE MENTIONED JENN OR ZEN. I DON'T REMEMBER HER NAME. SO WE HAD OVER 500 OPPOSITION LETTERS. WE RECEIVED A NOTIFICATION RIGHT OVER CHRISTMAS. BASICALLY WE HAD LIKE TWO WEEKS TO MOBILIZE OUR TROOPS TO GET PEOPLE AWARE BECAUSE WITH THE 300 RADIUS, FEET, HALF FOR PROBABLY THREE QUARTERS OF KENSINGTON NEVER EVEN KNEW ABOUT THE HEARING. SO THEY KNOW ABOUT IT NOW. AND THIS IS JUST THE START OF OPPOSING THIS PROPOSAL. AGAIN, WE ARE NOT AGAINST THE 19,000. IT WAS APPROVED. EVERYTHING CAN BE PUT IN THE MIDDLE. YOU CAN HAVE TWO ENTRANCES OFF OF U.S. 1. BUT AS I USED THE ANALOGY BEFORE, WHAT THEY ARE ATTEMPTING TO DO IS TO PUT A GEN ENGINE INTO A VOLKSWAGEN, AND THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT IS BEING ATTEMPTED HERE. AGAIN, I THINK YOU FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION AND HOPEFULLY THE BOARD WILL REJECT THE 49,000 SQUARE FOOT BECAUSE QUITE FRANKLY THERE IS NO REASON TO PUT A 49,000 SQUARE FOOT BUILDING ON THAT PROPERTY. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU, SIR. HOLD THE APPLAUSE, PLEASE. ANY OTHER SPEAKERS? THREE MINUTES TO SPEAK. SEEING NONE, WE ARE GOING TO MOVE BACK INTO THE AGENCY. GIVE A REBUTTAL TIME TO MR. WHITEHOUSE. TO ADDRESS THE QUESTIONS AND CONCERNS THAT WERE BROUGHT UP. >> OKAY. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. SO I WANT TO ADDRESS A NUMBER OF THINGS THAT WERE BROUGHT UP BECAUSE THERE WAS A NUMBER OF THINGS THAT WERE NOT ACCURATE OKAY. SO , WITH ALL DUE RESPECT TO MR. MILLER, EVEN THOUGH HE SAT ON THE SPORT AND HE HAS DONE THIS FOR A LONG TIME, HE IS WRONG. YOU HEARD IT FROM YOUR OWN PLANNING STAFF. THERE IS A AGREEMENT CALLED THE MARSHALL GREAT ORIGINAL BUILDOUT AGREEMENT WHICH WAS ENTERED INTO IN THE 26TH OF OCTOBER, 2021, BETWEEN ST. JOHN'S AND THE DEVELOPERS OF THIS AREA. I'M GOING TO DIRECT YOUR ATTENTION DIRECTLY TO THIS SECTION THE JACOB REFERRED YOU TO, WHICH IS SECTION 6 DOWN ON THE BOTTOM OF PAGE 5 OF THAT AGREEMENT WHICH WAS ENTERED INTO BY ST. JOHN'S COUNTY. THE PARTIES, INCLUDING ST. JOHN'S, CONCLUDED IN EXCESS OF THE REMAINING DEVELOPMENT AS DEFINED IN THIS AGREEMENT IS UNLIKELY TO OCCUR. NEVERTHELESS, IN THE UNLIKELY EVENT THAT FUTURE DEVELOPMENT BEYOND THE REMAINING DEVELOPMENT IS REQUESTED BY THE DEVELOPER OR ANY OTHER PROPERTY OWNER WITHIN THE PROPERTY, SUCH FUTURE DEVELOPMENT SHALL BE ASSESSED ON ITS OWN MERITS WITHOUT REGARD TO THE DRI D.O. AND REQUIRED TO COMPLY WITH THE ST. JOHN'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AS IT EXISTED AT THE TIME OF APPLICATION WHICH GOES BACK TO WHAT EXACTLY YOUR PLANNING DEPARTMENT JUST TOLD YOU IS THE DRI DOES NOT APPLY. SO EVERYTHING YOU HEARD AS TO THOSE NUMBER OF UNITS DOES NOT APPLY. THIS IS SUPPOSED TO BE EVALUATED AS PER ITS OWN MERITS WITH THE CONFERENCE OF PLAN AND [03:50:01] LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AS I THINK THE CHAIRMAN REFERRED. SECONDLY, MOVING BACK TO THE OTHER PODIUM, SECONDLY, THERE WAS A NUMBER OF -- THERE WAS A NUMBER OF COMMENTS SAYING THAT I WASN'T CLEAR AS TO WHETHER OR NOT WE MAY OR WE MAY NOT OR WESER -- WERE SUGGESTING. NO. I WILL REPEAT IT SO IT IS CLEAR. CRYSTAL-CLEAR. REMOVING ANY SUGGESTION OF ACCESS ONTO ABBOTTS WAY. SO THAT IS NO LONGER A PART OF THIS CONSIDERATION. THE CONSIDERATION IS THE DEVELOPMENT ITSELF ON THE PROPERTY. NO WETLAND IMPACTS. ACCESS FROM U.S. 1 AS DISCUSSED WITH THE FDOT. SO THAT IS THE FACTS OF THIS APPLICATION. AGAIN, THERE WAS SOME DISCUSSION ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT THERE IS GOING TO BE WETLAND IMPACTS, AND PEOPLE KNOW THERE IS GOING TO BE WETLAND IMPACTS. THERE IS ZERO WETLAND IMPACTS. THERE HAS BEEN AN MDP . AS ALL THE BOARD MEMBERS KNOW, YOU HAVE TO SUBMIT A MAP AND THE MAP BREAKS DOWN DEVELOPMENT ON THAT SITE AND ANY APPROVAL IS SUBJECT TO THAT MAP. THAT MAP CLEARLY MAKES IT APPARENT THAT THERE IS NO WETLAND IMPACTS. THERE IS NO WETLAND IMPACTS FROM THE RETENTION PONDS. THERE IS NO WETLAND IMPACTS AT ALL ON THIS PARTICULAR PROPOSAL. WE TALKED ABOUT ACCESS TO THIS SITE. WE HAVE ALREADY MET WITH FDOT AND ARE IN THE PROCESS OF MOVING FORWARD WITHOUT ACCESS. LEGAL ACCESS IS REQUIRED FOR ANY PROPERTY. YOU HAVE TO LET A PROPERTY HAVE ACCESS. SO THE FDOT IS GOING TO GRANT ACCESS TO THIS PROPERTY. NEXT, IT IS NOT GOING TO BE SIX STORIES. THERE IS NOTHING THAT WOULD POINT YOU TO THE FACT THAT THIS IS SIX STORIES. THERE IS BUILDINGS THAT ARE SHOWN . THE BUILDINGS ARE SHOWN WHETHER PEOPLE LIKE HOW LONG THE BUILDINGS ARE OR NOT. IF YOU TOOK THE BUILDINGS AT THAT LENGTH, AND THIS IS WHAT IS PROPOSED, AS YOU SEE, AGAIN, GOING BACK TO THE FACT YOU HAVE TO SUBMIT A MDP MAP AND WERE SUBJECT TO THAT MDP MAP . WHEN YOU BUILT THE SUGGESTED BUILDINGS ON THIS PROPERTY, SIX STORIES, 75 FEET HIGH, YOU KNOW HOW MANY SQUARE FEET THAT WOULD BE? WAY BEYOND 49,000 SQUARE FEET. I WILL TELL YOU THAT. NEXT, I WANT TO POINT YOUR ATTENTION TO, AND I WANT TO GO BACK TO THIS CENTER PODIUM AGAIN. THIS IS THE SHOPS OF VALLEY RIDGE, WHICH IS DIRECTLY ON U.S. 1. VERY SIMILAR TO THIS PROJECT. AT COUNTY ROAD 210. >> WITH THE MURMURING IN THE AUDIENCE JUST CALM DOWN SO WE COULD HEAR MR. WHITEHOUSE, PLEASE. THANK YOU. >> THIS WAS APPROVED FOR ASH PROPERTIES NOT TOO LONG AGO. THIS WAS APPROVED FOR 90,000 SQUARE FEET. SO ALMOST DOUBLE THE AMOUNT OF WHAT IS BEING ASKED FOR HERE. 25 UNITS IN THAT PARTICULAR DEVELOPMENT. I WILL SHOW YOU SOME PICTURES IN A MINUTE. APPROXIMATELY 2400 SQUARE FEET EACH IN THAT. AGAIN, THIS IS DOUBLE THE AMOUNT ON U.S. 1. NOT 65 FOOT BUILDINGS. THIS PARTICULAR PROPERTY FOR 90,000 SQUARE FEET WAS 12 ACRES. THE PROPERTY WE HAVE HERE IS 10 ACRES FOR 49,000 SQUARE FEET. THIS IS SPREAD OUT OVER TWICE AS MUCH ON 12 ACRES. AGAIN, THESE ARE PICTURES FROM THEIR WEBSITE FOR THE SHOPS OF VALLEY RIDGE. THESE ARE PICTURES THAT WERE APPROVED BY ST. JOHN'S COUNTY. AGAIN, THIS IS OUR SITE PLAN. SHOWS CLEARLY THAT IT IS 10.25 ACRES. IT SHOWS CLEARLY THAT WE ARE STILL DEVELOPING WITHIN THE SPIRIT AND INTENT OF THE SAR AND ISR THAT WERE APPROVED FOR THIS SITE FOR THE 19,000 SQUARE FEET. FINALLY, WE TALKED A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE SITE PLAN AND I WANT TO DRAW YOUR ATTENTION TO THE FACT WE ARE ASKING FOR ZERO ACCESS ON ABBOTTS WAY. THAT HAS BEEN REMOVED SO YOU DON'T HAVE TO BE CONFUSED ABOUT THAT. THERE IS NO CONFUSION. ALL ACCESS WILL BE OFF U.S. 1 AND THERE WILL BE NO WETLAND IMPACT. ZERO WETLAND IMPACT. COULD YOU SWITCH BACK? FINALLY, I WANT TO GO THROUGH [03:55:09] FOR A MINUTE BECAUSE THERE WAS REFERENCE TO THE FACT THAT -- THERE WAS REFERENCE TO THE FACT THAT YOU HAD OVER 100 OR 150 LETTERS THAT YOU CAUGHT. I WANT TO POINT YOUR ATTENTION TO THE FACT THAT THOSE LETTERS WERE A FORM LETTER SIGNED BY THAT MANY PEOPLE, BECAUSE I GOT A COPY OF ALL OF THEM SO I WANT TO GO THROUGH EACH OF THOSE STATEMENTS WITHIN THIS FORM LETTER THAT YOU HAVE FROM OVER 150 PEOPLE AND GROWING. IT TALKED ABOUT TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN, THIS REQUEST CONSTITUTES A SUBSTANTIAL CHANGE FROM THE ORIGINAL APPROVAL AND RAISES SERIOUS CONCERNS ABOUT LAND-USE INTENSITY, NEIGHBORHOOD, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION, AND LEGAL ACCESS. I'M GOING TO GO THROUGH EACH ONE. FIRST, THE PROPOSED BUILDING IS OBTRUSIVE AND OUT OF CHARACTER WITH THE SURROUNDING AREA. STRUCTURE WOULD SIGNIFICANTLY ALTER THE VISUAL CHARACTER. IT WILL GREATLY DECREASE THE HOME VALUES OF KENSINGTON NEIGHBORHOOD. WELL, IF THERE'S ANYTHING ON THE RECORD THE TALKS ABOUT THE HOME VALUES OF KENSINGTON, BUT THE FACT OF THE MATTER IS I SHOWED YOU THE BUFFERING. FOUND TO BE COMPATIBLE ON THIS PARTICULAR LOT. AND THERE IS ZERO WETLAND IMPACT PROPOSED AND THERE IS ZERO ACCESS TO ABBOTTS WAY. AGAIN, THERE IS THE SITE PLAN THAT IS PART OF OUR PROPOSAL. ZERO ACCESS TO ABBOTTS WAY. ALL ACCESS ON U.S. 1. BUILDINGS THAT ARE BUFFERED BY NATURAL BUFFERS. NO IMPACT ON WETLANDS. SO I WOULD SUGGEST THAT THE ACCUSATION OF PARAGRAPH ONE ARE NOT ACCURATE. AS TO PARAGRAPH TWO, PARAGRAPH TWO, THEY SAID SECONDLY AND MOST CRITICALLY THE APPLICANT LACKS ANY LEGAL EGRESS OVER ABBOTTS WAY, WHICH IS PRIVATELY OWNED. DEFECTIVE. THE FACT OF THE MATTER IS WE HAVE ALREADY TALKED ABOUT THAT. WE ARE NOT GOING TO ACCESS ABBOTTS WAY. SO NUMBER TWO PARAGRAPH IS OUT. AS FOR THE THIRD, THE PROPOSED EXPANSION SERIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS IMPINGING ON STATE-DESIGNATED WETLANDS. THE INCREASED BUILDING AND IMPERVIOUS SURFACE AREA THREATEN WETLAND BUFFERS, STORM WATER MANAGEMENT AND THE ECOLOGICAL INTEGRITY OF THE AREA. AS YOU SEE FROM THE MDP PROPOSAL, THERE ARE NO WETLAND IMPACTS SUGGESTED. THERE IS NO ENVIRONMENTAL. WE HAD A FULL ENVIRONMENTAL OF THIS SITE. YOU SAW THAT. IT IS IN YOUR POCKET. AND THE ONLY TWO THINGS THEY ASKED TO BE EVALUATED WERE GOPHER TORTOISES AND TO SEE IF THERE IS WOOD STORKS. AND THEY SAID THERE IS ONLY IMPACT ON THE WOOD STORKS IF YOU IMPACT THE WETLANDS, WHICH, AGAIN, WE HAVE ZERO WETLAND IMPACT. SO, FINALLY, ALL I WILL SAY IS THIS PARTICULAR SITE IS BUFFERED APPROPRIATELY AND NATURALLY FROM THE ADJACENT USES. THE PARTICULAR SITE PLAN THAT WAS SUBMITTED GOES OVER THE FACT THERE IS NO WETLAND IMPACT. IT CLEARLY STATES NOW THAT THERE IS GOING TO BE NO -- NO ACCESS ON ABBOTTS WAY AND THE FACT THAT I WILL POINT OUT TO YOU. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL USES, WHICH YOU ALL KNOW INCLUDE, AND MR. MILLER POINTED OUT, A LOT OF DIFFERENT USES ARE ALLOWED AND HAVE FOUND TO BE COMPATIBLE ON THIS SITE. SO AN INCREASE IN THE SQUARE FOOTAGE, WHICH IS, LIKE I TOLD YOU AND SHOWED YOU, HALF AS MUCH AS WAS APPROVED ON U.S. 1 ON A SIMILAR PROPERTY IS APPROPRIATE FOR THIS PARTICULAR AREA, ESPECIALLY WHEN YOU LOOK TO THE SOUTH AND YOU SEE THE FACT THERE IS LARGE COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT AT THE FRONT OF PALENCIA. THAT IS WHY YOU HAVE NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL. SO THE NEIGHBORHOODS CAN USE IT. U.S. 1. I FIND IT INTERESTING THAT MR. MILLER TALKED ABOUT THE FACT THERE WAS THAT MAJORITY OF THE AREA OF COMMERCIAL WAS SUPPOSED TO BE IN THE TOWN CENTER OF PALENCIA. NOT ACCORDING TO OUR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. ACCORDING TO OUR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT ON THOROUGH FAIRS AND MAJOR COLLECTORS. NOT ON NEIGHBORHOOD ROADS. THIS PARTICULAR PROPOSAL IS FOR INCREASED NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL SQUARE FOOTAGE ON ONE OF THE MAJOR ROADS TO OUR COUNTY. UNITED STATES HIGHWAY FEDERAL 1. AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. [04:00:01] >> PLEASE REFRAIN FROM THOSE COMMENTS IN THE AUDIENCE. PLEASE. MAKES IT MORE DIFFICULT. OKAY. SO QUESTIONS. MS. SPIEGEL , FIRST. >> OKAY. THANK YOU, SIR. THANK YOU. IT IS A GOOD THING TO HAVE COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT. NOW, A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS FOR YOU. ON YOUR MDP, I DO SEE THE POSSIBILITY OF A RETAINING WALL BETWEEN THE STORM WATER POND IN THE WETLANDS. IS THAT STILL SOMETHING YOU ARE CONSIDERING? >> YES. IT DEPENDS ON WATER MANAGEMENT. >> AND SOMEBODY MADE A COMMENT ABOUT THE TALLER THE BUILDING THE MORE STORMWATER THAT IS REQUIRED. I DON'T KNOW IF THAT IS FOR YOU OR FOR STAFF. I DON'T KNOW IF THAT IS AN ACTUAL THING. I CAN'T IMAGINE HOW THAT WOULD BE. >> AGAIN, WE HAVE TO DEVELOP WITHIN THE REQUIREMENTS AS DESIGN REQUIREMENTS. I DON'T KNOW THE HEIGHT OF THE BUILDING. >> IF I UNDERSTAND THE QUESTION CORRECTLY, WE ARE TALKING ABOUT THE STORM WATER RETENTION? >> YEAH. THAT A TALLER BUILDING WOULD REQUIRE MORE STORMWATER RETENTION. >> STORMWATER RETENTION IS ABOUT THE SURFACE AREA COVERED. OUR DRIVEWAYS. ARGUABLY, YOU ARE GOING TO HAVE LESS IF YOU GO UP . >> THAT IS WHERE I THOUGHT I WANTED TO CLARIFY THAT. MAY I ASK YOU A QUESTION, SIR? IS THERE A POSSIBILITY THAT YOU WOULD CONSIDER A HEIGHT RESTRICTION OF 45 FEET? >> YES. >> BECAUSE THE PEOPLE ARE FAR ENOUGH AWAY. YOU HAVE GOT THAT HUGE WETLAND. I DROVE AROUND. I LOOKED. I THINK THAT WOULD PROBABLY KEEP -- AND THOSE BUILDINGS YOU SHOWED ARE BEAUTIFUL. THIS COULD BE SOMETHING REALLY NICE. THAT WOULD BE A CONDITION I WOULD ADD FOR APPROVAL ON THIS THING. >> YES, MA'AM. >> MR. LABANOWSKI ? >> YEAH. I FIND IT SCARY . INCREASE THE SQUARE FOOTAGE BY 258%. AND, AGAIN, I WAS RIGHT ABOUT THE HEIGHT. EXISTING RIGHT NOW, YOU'RE LOOKING AT 19,000 SQUARE FEET. WHAT IS THE HEIGHT OF A BUILDING WITH THAT? 19,000 SQUARE FEET? >> I'M NOT SURE BECAUSE WE HAVEN'T LISTED ON THE ENGINEERING PLANS WITH THE HEIGHT OF THE BUILDING WAS BUT I THINK IT IS RESTRICTED TO THE AMOUNT. AND WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE DIMENSIONS OF THAT BUILDING ITSELF, CLEARLY THAT IS NOT A 65 FOOT BUILDING, THE DIMENSIONS OF IT. NOW, COULD WE MAKE THE DIMENSIONS SMALLER WE MADE IT HIGHER? PROBABLY. THIS IS TYPICAL OF WHAT THE SHOPS OF VALLEY RIDGE WAS DEVELOPED, WHICH IS ONE AND TWO STORY RETAIL AND OFFICE BUILDING. SO, AGAIN, THAT WITHIN 45 FEET AS SUGGESTED. WE WOULD BE WILLING. >> ONE OF MY MAJOR CONCERNS BECAUSE OF WHAT HAS BEEN BUILT IN THAT AREA, UNBEKNOWNST TO A NUMBER OF HOMEOWNERS. YOU HAVE GOT THAT BIG STORAGE FACILITY STUCK IN THE BACK, WHICH IS VERY TALL. I CAN'T SEE THAT OUT THERE IN FRONT OF THE ENTRANCE. >> YES, SIR . THAT WOULD BE REASONABLE. >> I AM ALSO LOOKING AT THE RETENTION PONDS THAT YOU WOULD BE PUTTING IN THERE. TO SAY THAT DOES NOT AFFECT THE WETLANDS IS WRONG BECAUSEI'VE SEEN IT HAPPEN OVER AND OVER AGAIN THROUGHOUT THIS COUNTY. WHAT YOU PUT IN THE STORM WATER POND, THAT WATER HAS A TENDENCY TO DRAIN INTO THE POND. IT WILL AFFECT THE WETLANDS TO SOME EXTENT. >> THAT IS WHY OUR CODE REQUIRES THE BUFFERS. >> AND OTHER BUFFERS ARE THERE. BUT EVEN WITH THAT BUFFER IT IS STILL GOING TO AFFECT THE WATER LEVEL IN THE WETLAND AREA. THAT IS ONE OF MY MAJOR CONCERNS. >> I THINK IF YOU HAD OTHER SUGGESTIONS , AND WE WOULD BE AMENABLE TO CONSIDER. >> I WOULD LOVE TO SEE THE RETENTION SONDE -- POND IN THE MIDDLE OF THE LITTLE COVE BACK THERE MOVED AWAY FROM THERE. BECAUSE THAT WATER, I WENT BACK IN THERE. THAT WATER IS DEEP . IT IS DEFINITELY GOING TO DRAIN INTO THAT RETENTION POND. JUST A PRESSURE ALONE. >> AND THAT MAY BE WHY WE NEED TO PUT THE RETAINING WALLS AS YOU HEARD REFERRED BY MS. SPIEGEL . >> BUT, STILL, THAT IS GOING TO BE UP AGAINST THE PARKING AREA AND THE AREA AROUND THE BUILDING. IS THERE ANY WAY OF MOVING THAT POND AWAY FROM THAT WETLAND? >> I MEAN, WE COULD LOOK AT THAT. AND WE CAN LOOK AT THAT IN BETWEEN NOW AND WHEN WE GO TO THE COUNTY COMMISSION. I'M NOT AN ENGINEER. I AM NOT AN ENVIRONMENTALIST. I SHOULD BE BY YOUR EXPERT ENVIRONMENTAL STAFF [04:05:01] IN YOUR EXPERT ENGINEERS AND THEY HAVE SAID THAT THIS WAS APPROPRIATE, THERE'S NO OPEN COMMENTS ON IT. SO I UNDERSTAND WHEN MEMBERS HAVE ISSUES OR THE PUBLIC HAVE ISSUES. YOU KNOW? I HAVE SEEN STORMWATER PONDS AFFECT WETLANDS. I GET IT. THE FACT OF THE MATTER IS THAT AS WE -- WHITE WE RELY ON THE EXPERTS. I AM A LAWYER. I AM NOT AN ENVIRONMENTALIST OR ENGINEER. IF THIS IS THE WAY WE DO IT IN THE COUNTY TO SIGN ON -- OFF ON IT, IT MUST BE APPROPRIATE IF THAT WAS THE CASE. YES, SIR. >> UNFORTUNATELY IT DOES MAKE IT 100% CORRECT. IT IS A LEVEL YOU CAN LOOK AT WITH PLANNING. AGAIN, AFTER BEING OUT THERE VISUALLY OVER THE PAST SIX YEARS IN A LOT OF THESE AREAS, I HAVE SEEN THE WETLAND WATER LEVEL DROP. >> YES, SIR . >> THAT IS A CONCERN. >> WE CAN LOOK THAT UP. >> I'M GOING TO ASK STAFF. HOW MANY LETTERS OF OPPOSITION DID YOU ACTUALLY GET? DO YOU KNOW? BECAUSE I HAVE BEEN HEARING DIFFERENT NUMBERS. HEAR 500 AND THEN I HEAR 150. >> MR. LABANOWSKI , I WOULD ADVISE YOU TO -- >> I WAS JUST WONDERING. >> I DON'T THINK YOU EVEN WANT TO KNOW HOW MANY LETTERS BECAUSE THAT IS CLAMOR OF THE CROWD. ANYBODY THAT TALKS TO YOU, ALL 100 AND HOWEVER MANY CAN PROVIDE YOU EVIDENCE, BUT YOU NEED TO RELY ON INDIVIDUAL PIECES OF EVIDENCE. SO THE FACT THERE IS 100 OR 200 OR 500 SHOULD MAKE NO DIFFERENCE TO YOU. BUT -- BECAUSE IT CAN'T LEGALLY. >> OKAY. I UNDERSTAND. THANK YOU. >> OKAY. JAMES, I WILL GIVE YOU STIPULATIONS PUT FORTH THAT THERE IS GOING TO BE NO WETLAND IMPACTS WHATSOEVER. >> YES, SIR. >> SEE OR ACCESS TO ABBOTTS WAY. >> YES, SIR. >> I THINK YOU ARE WISE TO BACK OFF THAT PROBABLY. ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS PERHAPS MINIMIZED. THE BUFFERING IS ADEQUATE. ALL OF THAT. WHAT IS IT? AND NOBODY IS QUIBBLING WITH YOUR CLIENTS, RIGHT, TO PUT 19,000 FEET OF NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL ON THAT. IN FACT, SOME OF THESE NEIGHBORS HAVE SAID THEY ARE FINE WITH THAT. THEY WELCOME IT. SO WHAT IS IT THAT JUSTIFIES THE INCREASE FROM 19,000 TO 49,000 SQUARE FEET? >> YES, SIR. I THINK IT IS THE CHANGE IN MARKET CONDITIONS. SPECIFICALLY REFERENCED WITHIN THE LAS CALINAS P.U.D. TO ALLOW FOR CHANGES IN MARKET TRENDS AND MARKET DEMAND. SINCE 2005, AS YOU KNOW, THE MARKET ON U.S. 1 HAS CHANGED A LOT, AS YOU KNOW. AND THE FACT IS THAT IN THE AREA, IN FACT, THERE WAS A NUMBER OF THINGS IN THAT PALENCIA COMMERCIAL AREA, AND I WOULD JUST REFER TO IT AS THAT. I MEAN THAT HAS GONE FROM BEING STRIP ON THE OTHER SIDE TO TENS OF THOUSANDS OF SQUARE FEET OF COMMERCIAL. THAT IS WHY I THINK YOU SAW SPECIFIC REFERENCE BY THE STAFF THAT THIS IS THE ONLY AREA WHEN YOU'RE GOING NORTH THAT THERE'S ANY COMMERCIAL THAT IS APPROVED. THIS OWNER ON THIS PROPERTY SINCE 2018 OR '19. IT IS NOT LIKE THEY JUST BOUGHT IT YESTERDAY. LOOKED AT IT AND TRYING TO FIND WAYS. MAYBE IT IS ON THE MARKET. I'M NOT DISPUTING. MAYBE IT IS ON THE MARKET BECAUSE HE DOES NOT KNOW WHETHER HE'S GOING TO GET INCREASED SQUARE FOOTAGE. IT WAS AT ABOUT 500,000. THEN IT WENT UP TO 700-SOMETHING THOUSAND. THEN IN 2022 AT ONE FROM 750,000 TO DOUBLED. IT DOUBLED IN 2022 IF YOU LOOK AT THE TAX COLLECTORS. AND SO NOW HE IS PAYING DOUBLE THE TAXES ON A PROPERTY THAT WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE LANGUAGE I THOUGHT IT WAS IMPORTANT TO POINT OUT HE IS STILL MEETING THE DESIGN CRITERIA. THIS HAS A HUGE AMOUNT FOR 19,000 SQUARE FEET OF COMMERCIAL. I WOULD POSIT TO YOU THAT THAT WAS A THROW IN TO THE P.U.D. BECAUSE YOU LOOK BACK WHEN THEY WERE APPROVED IN THE 2005 TIME PERIOD AND I KNOW BECAUSE I DO LAND-USE. AND THE FACT IS THERE WAS ALWAYS SO IS TO SAY LET'S PUT SOME COMMERCIAL IN SO WE CAN GET OUR ADDITIONAL RESIDENTIAL. SO THAT IS, IF I HAD TO GUESS, AND THIS IS JUST A GUESS. THE FACT IS THAT WAS THROWN INTO SAY, [04:10:03] LISTEN, GIVE US SOME RESIDENTIAL. THIS PROPERTY SPEAKS IRRESPECTIVE OF WHAT YOU HAVE HEARD TO MORE COMMERCIAL BASED ON THE UPLANDS OF IT. LOOK AT ALL THE BUFFER. THE NATURAL BUFFER. SO THE FACT OF THE MATTER IS TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, IT IS THE MARKET DEMAND THAT REQUIRES THE ADDITIONAL AND THIS IS NOT EVEN WHAT THE OTHER DEVELOPMENTS ALONG THERE ASKED FOR. LIKE I SHOWED YOU, THE ONE TO THE NORTH OF IT, YOU DON'T REALLY GET A LOT OF COMMERCIAL UNTIL YOU GET UP TO NEICE HIGH SCHOOL. 90,000 SQUARE FEET. ALL WE ARE ASKING FOR IS HALF OF THAT. I THINK IT IS APPROPRIATE ON THIS SITE. GIVEN THE CONDITIONS A FEW MEMBERS HAVE STATED, I THINK THIS IS AN APPROPRIATE PLACE FOR THIS. >> SO, AS YOU STATED A MINUTE AGO ABOUT 1018 AND ALL THE COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT ALONG U.S. 1 THERE, BOTH SIDES OF THE ENTRANCE THERE, MAIN ENTRANCE, YOU SAID THERE IS 100,000 OR TENS OF THOUSANS OF SQUARE FEET. IS THAT NOT PART OF THAT 119,000 SQUARE FEET OF COMMERCIAL THAT WAS ALLOWED UNDER THE DRI INITIALLY? >> AGAIN, WHEN THE DRI WAS PASSED DECADES AGO -- >> 2005. >> NO. THAT WAS PRIOR. >> CORRECT. >> SO I DON'T KNOW THE EXACT DATE. PROBABLY IN THE LATE-90S. THE MARKET DEMAND WAS DIFFERENT, OBVIOUSLY. THE CONCEPT WAS VERY INTERESTING BECAUSE IT WAS AT A PLACE THAT WE ALL KNOW. THE ONLY REAL DEVELOPMENT WAS OVER ON THE INTERSTATE. AND THEN WHEN YOU CAME DOWN TO U.S. 1, THERE WAS NOTHING AND PEOPLE THOUGHT WE ARE GOING TO PUT A BIG DEVELOPMENT RIGHT HERE ON U.S. 1 AWARE YOU DON'T HAVE ACCESS TO THE BEACHES IN ST. JOHN'S? WELL, THAT'S WHAT THEY DECIDED TO DO. BUT GOING BACK TO YOUR QUESTION, THOSE SQUARE FOOTAGE IS, WHEN THIS AGREEMENT WAS ENTERED INTO BY ST. JOHN'S SAYING THAT ANY FUTURE DEVELOPMENT, BECAUSE WE FEEL LIKE IT WAS BUILT OUT APPROPRIATELY, THERE MAY BE SOME OTHER DEVELOPMENT IN THE FUTURE AND IF IT IS, IT WILL STAND ON ITS OWN MERITS. THAT'S WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT NOW. THE MERITS OF THIS ON A SAME OR SIMILAR AREA ALONG U.S. 1 . A STONE'S THROW FROM WHERE YOU HAVE THE BURGER KING AND THE STARBUCKS AND ALL THE OTHER DEVELOPMENTS, NOT TO MENTION ANYBODY IN PARTICULAR. BUT JUST DIFFERENT COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT. NOT VERY FAR TO THE NORTH OF THAT, HOW IS IT ANY DIFFERENT? IT IS THE SAME. WHY WOULD IT NOT BE APPROPRIATE FOR SMART TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT? ESPECIALLY IF WE ARE ALREADY TALKING ABOUT A PLACE THAT WAS FOUND TO BE COMPATIBLE FOR NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL? WE ARE NOT ASKING FOR DIFFERENT KIND OF COMMERCIAL. WE ARE TALKING ABOUT NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL INCREASE OF SQUARE FOOTAGE ON A FEDERAL HIGHWAY THAT IS ONE OF THE MAIN ROADS IN ST. JOHN'S WHICH IS WHERE OUR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN WANTS US TO PUT COMMERCIAL. >> YOU ARE STILL ASKING FOR 2 1/2 TIMES WHAT WAS ALREADY APPROVED. >> YES. >> SO WHAT IS IT IN YOUR OPINION THAT LEGALLY COMPELS THIS BOARD TO GRANT THIS REQUEST? WHY MUST WE GRANT 49,000 SQUARE FEET OF COMMERCIAL ON THIS? >> I THINK THAT THE NUMBER IS LESS COMPELLING THAN THE AREA AND THAT'S WHY I HAVEN'T TALKED ABOUT THE NUMBER. THAT IS WHY WHEN BOARD MEMBERS ASK ABOUT REASONABLE CONDITIONS BEING PLACED ON IT THAT MIC WHITE -- CLIENT IS AMENABLE TO THAT, THEIR INTENT IS TO BUILD A SITE. THAT IS WHERE THEY HAD ENGINEERS AND ENVIRONMENTALISTS LOOK AT IT. THAT IS WHERE THEY HAVE TALKED TO FDOT. WE WANT IMPACT. EVEN THOUGH BOTH PUDS , WE WANT ACCESS THAT. WE MAY BE ABLE TO GO AND ARGUE THAT AND LEGALLY WIN THAT. WE WANT TO BE IN A SPOT WHERE THIS IS APPROPRIATELY DEVELOPED COMPLEMENTARY TO THE AREA AROUND IT. AND THIS PARTICULAR ASK, IT IS NOT THE NUMBER OF THE 49,000. INCREASING IT BECAUSE THAT IS WHAT FITS WITH NO WETLAND IMPACTS. THAT WHY IT IS AN APPROPRIATE NUMBER. >> SO YOU HAVE ASSERTED IN YOUR REBUTTAL THAT 49,000 SQUARE FEET OF COMMERCIAL IS COMPATIBLE WITH THE AREA. SO THAT IS YOUR OPINION. PERHAPS IT IS A LEGAL OPINION. I DON'T KNOW. BUT YOU [04:15:07] HAVE GOT ALL THESE PEOPLE. THIS IS A GOOD POINT. YOU HAVE GOT ALL THESE NEIGHBORHOODS. HUNDREDS OF PEOPLE SAYING IN THEIR OPINION, IT IS INCOMPATIBLE. WHAT MAKES YOU RIGHT? >> I WOULD ASSERT THAT THE MAIN ISSUE CAME, BECAUSE I KNOW IT DID, BECAUSE THAT WAS THE FIRST THING THAT CAME TO US. RIGHT. ABBOTTS WAY. THAT WAS THE FIRST INDICATION THAT I GOT. IT WASN'T MR. MILLER. IT WAS A SEPARATE MR. MCKAY. AND HE CALLED ME OR EMAIL ME OR WHATEVER. AND I SAID, YEAH, HOW CAN WE WORK THIS OUT? HE SAID I AM NOT REPRESENTING THEM ANYMORE. AND SO I SAID, OKAY. WE WILL SEE. THAT'S WHY I KNOW THAT'S WHAT WAS FIRED UP INITIALLY. THIS ACCESS ON ABBOTTS WAY. IMMEDIATELY, I WENT TO MY CLIENT AND SAID, IF WE DON'T HAVE ACCESS, IF WE DON'T HAVE THE AGREEMENT FOR THE EASEMENT OVER THE HOA PROPERTY, THEN WE NEED TO THINK ABOUT NOT HAVING ACCESS ON ABBOTTS WAY. FDOT SAID, YOU CAN ACCESS ON U.S. 1 WITH THIS TYPE OF A USE. SO THAT'S WHY IT ALL FIRED UP AT FIRST IF YOU ASK ME MY OPINION. SECONDLY, AS FAR AS THE COMPATIBILITY, I THINK ALL THOSE THINGS FOLLOWED ONTO THAT AND MAYBE A LOT OF THEM DIDN'T KNOW WE WERE TAKING THAT ACCESS OFF ALTHOUGH I HAD ALREADY TALKED TO THE COUNTY ABOUT IT AND TAKING THAT OFF THE MDT. >> PLEASE DON'T INTERRUPT THE SPEAKER, PLEASE. IT JUST MAKES IT MORE DIFFICULT TO DO THIS. >> SO, IN ANY CASE, I THINK THAT WAS THE MAIN ISSUE HERE. NOW THESE OTHER THINGS THAT HAVE ALL FOLLOWED ON AND I TRIED TO GO THROUGH THE LETTERS. YOU KNOW? THE ACCUSATIONS OF THE LETTER AND I THINK I HAVE SHOWN YOU THAT WITH NO WETLAND IMPACT WHICH USUALLY WE COME WITH THESE KIND OF ELEMENTS BECAUSE I KNOW YOU ARE THE ONE WHO POINTS OUT THINGS. WE TALK ABOUT WETLAND IMPACT. ALL THESE WETLAND IMPACTS OR THE IMPACT YOU ARE HAVING OR WE TALK ABOUT, YOU KNOW, IT IS IN THE MIDDLE OF A NEIGHBORHOOD AND IT IS GOING TO CAUSE PROBLEMS WITH, YOU KNOW, THE NEIGHBORHOOD. THIS DOESN'T CAUSE PROBLEMS WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD. THIS IS ON U.S. 1, JUST NORTH OF ALL THE SHOPS THAT THEY ALL GO TO. SO IT IS NOT INAPPROPRIATE TO HAVE A USE LIKE THIS. AGAIN, IF I WAS COMING TO YOU AND THIS WAS A LITTLE SHOEBOX AND I WAS SAYING, NO, SORRY, MS. SPIEGEL , WE HAVE GOT TO FIT 49,000 SQUARE FEET IN, I WOULD UNDERSTAND. BUT THAT IS NOT WHAT WE ARE SAYING. IF YOU DON'T AGREE WITH THE WAY THE BUILDING IS LAID OUT, THEN TELL US. TELL ME SOMETHING LIKE THAT. BUT DON'T TELL ME THAT IT DOESN'T FIT ON THE SITE BECAUSE IT CLEARLY FITS ON THE SITE. >> SO YOU HAVE ASSERTED OR AT LEAST SUGGESTED THERE IS SOME SORT OF CERTAIN DEVELOPMENT PATTERN AS YOU MOVE UP U.S. 1 BECAUSE THERE IS NO COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT BETWEEN PALENCIA AND 210. THAT, IN ESSENCE, JUSTIFIES LARGER OR GREATER. 49,000 SQUARE FEET, FOR EXAMPLE, COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT. IS THERE IN YOUR MIND SOME SET DISTANCE ALONG U.S. 1 WHERE THERE NEEDS TO BE A COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT OR NOT? >> WELL, I DIDN'T SAY IT. THERE ISN'T COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT FOR 2 1/2 MILES. YOU COULD PUT 19,000 SQUARE FEET ON THERE TODAY. >> WELL, LET'S LOOK AT 207. LET'S LOOK AT 210. I DON'T GET TO DECIDE HOW EVERYTHING IS DEVELOPED. I KNOW. THERE WAS NOTHING. CIMMARON WAS THE ONLY THING THERE. THERE WAS A DIRT ROAD TO GET OUT TO 13. SO TO SAY THAT, YOU KNOW, WE SHOULD HAVE TO TELL YOU HOW THE COUNTY SHOULD DEVELOP UP AND DOWN HAD ONE, I DON'T THINK THERE IS ANY QUESTION. >> I WAS ASKING IF THERE WAS ANY, IN YOUR MIND, SORT OF A SET DISTANCE WHERE COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT WAS APPROPRIATE. EVERYTHING SHOULD BE DEVELOPED COMMERCIALLY? >> NO. YOU LOOK AT EACH PROPERTY INDIVIDUALLY. WHETHER YOU HAVE PRECONCEIVED NOTIONS OF HOW THINGS SHOULD BE DEVELOPED BASED ON PEOPLE SHOW UP, THAT IS NOT REALLY HOW IT WORKS IN THE LAW AS YOU KNOW. IT IS AN APPROPRIATE PROPERTY. ARE THEY WILLING TO PUT REASONABLE CONDITIONS ON IT TO MOVE FORWARD THAT TRY TO ADDRESS SOME OF THE ISSUES AND I THINK WE HAVE DONE ALL OF THAT. 49,000. 90,000. I JUST SHOWED YOU AT 210. THIS IS [04:20:02] HALF OF THAT. AT THIS DID NOT HAVE A DESIGNATION OF MAKING ON IT, YOU WOULD SAY 49-39-69. I DON'T KNOW HOW YOU MEASURE THAT. MOST PEOPLE WOULD. IT JUST SO HAPPENS THAT THIS HAD A LABEL OF 19 ON IT. THAT SAID IT IS DESIGNED TO ALLOW FOR MARKET TRENDS. THIS IS A SITE THAT ESPECIALLY IF WE APPLY THE CONDITIONS WE HAVE TALKED ABOUT, TAKE AWAY ANY ACCESS TO WHAT THEY CALL A NEIGHBORHOOD ROAD. TAKE OFF THE HEIGHT WHICH WAS ONE OF THE COMPLAINTS. HAVE NO WETLAND IMPACT AND HAVE ACCESS ON A FDOT HIGHWAY IN AN AREA THAT IS A STONE'S THROW FROM SOMETHING VERY SIMILAR TO THIS. IT SEEMS LIKE IT IS AN APPROPRIATE SPOT. IF WE WERE PLOWING UNDER THE WETLANDS, IF WE WERE TRYING TO GO 75 FOOT ON THE LOT, I WOULD AGREE WITH YOU BUT I DON'T THINK THE FACTS BEAR OUT. MAKING THIS AN APPROPRIATE. >> >> THINGS HAVE REALLY CHANGED ALONG PALENCIA NORTH. THINGS HAVE REALLY CHANGED. ONE THING THAT HAS REALLY CHANGED AND THAT EVERYBODY HAS NOTICED AND IS A FACT IS THE TRAFFIC. MUCH, MUCH, MUCH WORSE. IN FACT, THE TRAFFIC ON U.S. 1 RIGHT THERE IS ALREADY AT 122% OF COMMITTED TOTAL, TOTAL COMMITTED TRAFFIC. >> >> SO, WITH 122%, 123%, AROUND 122.9%, YOU HAVE GOT 123% OF CAPACITY ON U.S. 1 RIGHT THERE, AND THAT, TO ME, IS A REASON NOT TO VOTE FOR THIS, BECAUSE IF YOU PUT 19,000 SQUARE FEET ON THAT, BUT YOU ARE 2 1/2 TIMES THAT -- >> THAT IS TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION. >> YOU ARE GOING TO BE ADDING A LOT MORE TRAFFIC THAN YOU ALREADY HAD, I THINK IT'S ALREADY OVER CAPACITY IN TERMS OF TOTAL COMMITTED DAILY TRAFFIC. >> ALONG WITH EARLY APPROVAL THAT WE APPROVE ON U.S. ONE. >> YEAH, I AGREE, I FULLY AGREE WITH THAT, THAT IS A DEFINITE CONCERN IN MY OPINION, AND IT WOULD BE A REASON FOR ME TO VOTE AGAINST THAT. I DON'T SEE THIS AS BEING COMPATIBLE, I DON'T SEE THIS BEING SOMETHING THAT CAN BE OVERCOME EASILY, SO I HAVE TROUBLE SUPPORTING THIS. BECAUSE OF THOSE TWO FACTORS UNDER THE COMP PLAN, WITH 8.1.2.5 C , WOULD BE REASONS FOR ME TO SAY THIS IS ASKING TOO MUCH, IN MY OPINION. SO, AND YOU MADE VERY GOOD ARGUMENTS . ALL RIGHT, WELL, YOU WANTED TO SPEAK. >> I WAS JUST GOING TO SUGGEST WE TRY EMOTION AND SEE WHAT HAPPENS, WHAT DO YOU THINK? OKAY? ALL RIGHT. I'M GOING TO MAKE A MOTION TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL , OF MAJOR MODIFICATION 202 -09 BASED UPON PROVIDED IN THE STAFF REPORT, WITH THE CONDITIONS THAT NO ACCESS WILL BE RESTRICTION >> I WILL SECOND IT. >> ALL RIGHT, WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION BY THE BOARD? SEEING NONE, LET'S VOTE. YESES TO APPROVE. THAT MOTION IS DENIED. >> TO DENY? >> LEX, DO WE NEED TO TURN IT AROUND -- >> ALL WE NEED TO DO -- YEAH, THAT WOULD BE THE EASIEST. THE OTHER WOULD BE JUST TO CONFIRM THERE ARE NO MORE MOTIONS AND THE RECOMMENDATION WILL BE TWO TO THREE -- JUST MAKE SURE THERE ARE NO MORE MOTIONS FROM THE BOARD. >> ARE THERE ANY OTHER MOTIONS [04:25:04] FROM THE BOARD OR WOULD ANYONE LIKE TO COME FORWARD AT THIS TIME CONCERNING THIS ITEM? MR. OLSON, ANY OTHER MOTIONS FROM YOU ALL? NONE FROM ME, SO -- >> AND THE VOTE WILL BE THE OPPOSITE. WE REPORT TO THE BOARD. [7. SUPMAJ 2025-24 Momin School and Community Center. Request for a Special Use Permit to allow for a Private School within Open Rural (OR) zoning, pursuant to Section 2.03.17 of the Land Development Code; specifically located at 6174 and 6192 Race Track Road. ] >> ROUND ONE. >> ALL RIGHT, MOVING ON, IF YOU ALL COULD SETTLE DOWN -- I KNOW YOU'RE EXCITED AND ALL, BUT WE ARE NOW GOING TO THE SCHOOL AND COMMUNITY CENTER, THIS IS ITEM NUMBER 7 ON THE AGENDA AND WE WILL HAVE X PARTAKE. I WILL GET THAT DOWN AT SOME POINT. OKAY. MISS SPIEGEL, LET ME GET YOUR MICROPHONE ON. >> THE THANK YOU, YES, I DID DO A SITE VISIT AND I HAD A MEETING WITH MATT AND KRISTEN REED AT THE SCHOOL. >> MR. >> YES, I DID A SITE VISIT AND ALSO HAD 10 EMAILS. >> AND I DID HAVE SEVERAL EMAILS, I DIDN'T COUNT THEM, BUT I BELIEVE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD OF 10, SO -- I'M SORRY, MR. GREENE? >> I KNOW WHERE THE SITE IS, I HAVE BEEN BY >> I ALSO RECEIVED EMAILS, A NUMBER OF THEM. >> OKAY, THE FLOOR IS YOURS. >> WONDERFUL, THANK YOU, MY NAME IS KRISTEN REED, I AM A CERTIFIED PLANNER, AND I AM HERE TODAY TO PRESENT OUR REQUEST FOR A PRIVATE SCHOOL UNDER SPECIAL USE PERMIT 2524. THIS FIRST SLIDE SHOWS A WHERE THE SITE IS AND THE EXISTING USE CATEGORIES. THE SITE IS OUTLINED IN BLUE ON THE SLIDE. THE LAND USE OF THE SUBJECT SITE IS MARAZZO CULTURE, BUT AS YOU CAN SEE, EVERYTHING AROUND IT IS IN A MORE URBAN LAND USE CATEGORY BUT WE HAVE INTENSIVE COMMERCIAL TO THE EAST, RESIDENTIAL TO THE SOUTH, A MIXED-USE DISTRICT TO THE WEST, MORE INTENSIVE COMMERCIAL, AND TO THE NORTH IS A PARK OF DEVELOPMENT REGIONAL IMPACT WITH THE RACETRACK. HERE IS THE CURRENT ZONING AND SURROUNDING ZONING. AGAIN, THE PROPERTY IS IN RURAL ZONING, THE OPEN RURAL OR O.R., AND ANYTHING AROUND IT IS THROUGH PLANNED DEVELOPMENT. THESE PUD'S ENTITLE A MIX OF USES, INCLUDING MULTI FAMILY TO THE EAST, SINGLE-FAMILY TO THE SOUTH AND WEST, AND THE PROPERTY WITH THE PUD LABEL ON IT IS ACTUALLY A NEWLY CONSTRUCTED SELF STORAGE FACILITY. AND AGAIN TO THE NORTH IS THE PARK WITH THE COMMERCIAL FRONTING RACETRACK. THIS MAP GIVES YOU A BETTER PERSPECTIVE OF THOSE USES THAT ARE AROUND IT. THIS IS OUTLINED IN BLUE. YOU'VE GOT MULTIFAMILY TO THE EAST, AND THAT IS ALLOWED AT UP TO SIX FEET IN HEIGHT, I BELIEVE THEY ARE FOUR STORIES POINT YOU HAVE SINGLE-FAMILY TO THE SOUTH AND WEST WITH CONSERVATION BETWEEN THE TWO. THERE AGAIN IS THE SELF STORAGE FACILITY THAT IS UNDER CONSTRUCTION, THAT IS ALSO PERMITTED AT 60 FEET. TO THE NORTH IS A COMMERCIAL SHOPPING CENTER WITH A VARIETY OF RETAIL AND OFFICE USES. AND THIS SITE IS SITUATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF RACETRACK ROAD BETWEEN PHILLIPS HIGHWAY, WHICH IS ABOUT THREE QUARTERS TO THE EAST AND BARTRAM SPRINGS PARKWAY, WHICH IS ABOUT .3 MILES TO THE WEST. THIS IS AN OVERVIEW OF THE PROJECT. THIS IS LOCATED ON RACETRACK ROAD, IT IS APPROXIMATELY EIGHT ACRES IN SIZE, AND THE SPECIAL USES REQUESTING A PRIVATE SCHOOL. IT WILL BE A K-8 PRIVATE SCHOOL WITH UP TO 30 STUDENTS. THE TYPICAL HOURS OF OPERATION ARE GOING TO BE 7:00 A.M. TO 6:00 P.M. WITH EARLY RELEASE ON FRIDAYS AT NOON. IT IS ANTICIPATED AFTER THE SCHOOL IS OPEN THAT IT WILL GO TO FULL ENROLLMENT OVER A PERIOD OF FOUR TO FIVE YEARS. NOW, ALONG WITH THIS SPECIAL USE REQUEST, WE ARE ALSO PROPOSING TO DEVELOP A COMMUNITY CENTER ON THE SITE. THE COMMUNITY CENTER IS A USE THAT IS ALREADY PERMITTED BY RIGHT OF THE ZONING DISTRICT AND COULD COMMENCE TODAY. HOURS OF OPERATION FOR THE COMMUNITY CENTER ARE INTENDED TO BE OPPOSITE THOSE OF THE SCHOOL, SO THEY WILL NOT OVERLAP, SO EVENINGS AND WEEKENDS. IN ADDITION TO THE REQUEST FOR THE SPECIAL USE FOR THE PRIVATE SCHOOL, WE HAVE ASKED FOR TWO OTHER CONSIDERATIONS. THE FIRST ONE IS TO EXTEND THE PROJECT COMMENCEMENT FROM ONE YEAR TO THREE YEARS. THIS IS BECAUSE THE SCHOOL IS GOING TO BE RUN BY A [04:30:04] NONPROFIT, AND THE NONPROFIT IS GOING TO DO FUNDRAISING FOR CONSTRUCTION. THEY CAN'T TO DO FUNDRAISING IN GOOD FAITH WITHOUT KNOWING THAT THEY CAN IN FACT DO THIS WORK, SO THAT IS WHY WE ARE HERE BEFORE YOU AND ASKING FOR AN EXTENSION OF THE COMMENCEMENT. THE SECOND ADDITIONAL REQUEST IS TO GRANT THE USE TRANSFERABLE, SO THAT IT RUNS WITH THE LAND. THIS IS CONSISTENT WITH THE LANGUAGE IN THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE THAT SAYS IF DEVELOPMENT IS GOING TO BE OF A PERMANENT NATURE RESULTING FROM THE SPECIAL USE,% BUT IT IS REASONABLE TO GRANT A TRANSFERABLE. AND IN THIS INSTANCE, IT IS ENTITLING DEVELOPMENT OF A STRUCTURE THAT WOULD BE ESPECIALLY DEVELOPED FOR SCHOOL USE, SO GRANTING A TRANSFERABLE WOULD INCREASE THE VIABILITY OF THE SITE. NOW I WOULD LIKE TO WALK YOU THROUGH THE SITE PLAN. THERE IS A LOT GOING ON HERE. THERE IS FACING PLANS, BUFFERING, I WOULD LIKE TO TALK ABOUT THE REASONS THAT THE SITE PLAN IS LAID OUT THE WAY IT IS, THEN WE CAN GET INTO TRAFFIC. SO, YOU WILL SEE A LOT OF COLORS ON THERE, AGAIN, THIS IS GOING TO BE A PHASED DEVELOPMENT PLAN. NONPROFITS ARE GOING TO BE RUNNING THIS, SO THEY WILL BE DOING FUNDRAISING AS THEY GO THROUGH DEVELOPMENT OF THE SITE, BUT ULTIMATELY, THE PLAN IS GOING TO LOOK LIKE THIS, THE BOXES IN YELLOW. SO, THE PROPOSED SCHOOL IS IN THE NORTHEAST PORTION OF THE SITE, THAT IS THE PURPLE AND GREEN. TWO PHASES THERE. IT WILL BE UP TO FOUR STORIES AND 65 FEET IN HEIGHT WITH A TOTAL OF 40,000 SQUARE FEET. NOW, TO CLARIFY, THE 65 FEET IN HEIGHT, WE TOOK INTO CONSIDERATION SURROUNDING DEVELOPMENT PATTERNS. I MENTIONED EARLIER, THE MULTI FAMILY TO THE EAST AND SELF STORAGE TO THE WEST, BOTH ALLOW DEVELOPMENT AT UP TO 60 FEET IN HEIGHT, SO THIS IS IN SCALE WITH DEVELOPMENT IN THE AREA. THE COMMUNITY CENTER IS THE PURPLE BOX IN THE CENTER. YOU WILL SEE A DARK BOX OVER THAT, A SMALLER ONE, SO THIS IS PART OF THE PHASING PLAN. SO, CURRENTLY IN THAT LOCATION, THERE IS A TWO STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING, AND THAT SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING INITIALLY IS GOING TO BE CONVERTED TO THE COMMUNITY CENTER, SO THAT IS PHASE 1 OF THIS WHOLE PROJECT, THE COMMUNITY CENTER, AND THEN THE YELLOW IS A SEPARATE GARAGE BUILDING THAT IS ON THE SITE, AND THEN TO YELLOW TO THE WEST IS A SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING THAT IS STILL PARENTAL OCCUPIED CURRENTLY. BUT AS THE PROJECT PROGRESSES AND THEY RAISE MORE FUNDS, THAT SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING WILL BE DEMOLISHED AND REPLACED WITH THAT FORMAT STORY, 18,000 SQUARE-FOOT COMMUNITY CENTER. THE OTHER ITEMS YOU SEE ON THERE ARE ACCESSORY USES TO BOTH THE USES. THERE IS A MULTIPURPOSE ROOM IN LIGHT BLUE ON THE EAST SIDE OF THE SITE. IN PINK, THERE IS A PROPOSED PLAYGROUND AREA. YOU CAN SEE THERE IS CURRENTLY A TWO ACRE POND ON THE SITE. THE INTENT IS TO USE THAT FOR BOTH STORMWATER AND RECREATION. RECREATION AND THE FACT THAT THE PINK YOU SEE AROUND IT WILL BE A WALKING TRAIL. AS YOU GO TO THE WESTERN SIDE OF THE SITE, THERE ARE BASKETBALL COURTS, PICKLEBALL COURTS, AND A SOCCER FIELD. AND THE WAY THE SITE HAS BEEN LAID OUT, THERE IS A LOT OF THOUGHT THAT WAS PUT INTO THIS AND A LOT OF EFFORT, THAT WE WANTED TO CLUSTER THE BUILDINGS TO THE EAST SIDE OF THE SITE AWAY FROM SINGLE-FAMILY, AND WE ALSO HAVE FOUR SPECIMEN TREES ON THE SITE THAT CANNOT BE REMOVED. THERE ARE THREE LAUREL OAKS AND ONE LIVE OAK. THE THREE RURAL -- LAUREL OAKS, YOU CAN SEE ON THE SITE PLAN, THOSE ARE THE TREES IN AREAS THAT WE CANNOT DISTURB THE GROUND. SO, IN ORDER TO EFFECTIVELY USE THE SITE, THE CLUSTERING OF THE BUILDINGS TO THE EAST WAS THE MOST EFFECTIVE AND PUTTING RECREATION FIELDS BETWEEN THE TREES ON THE WESTERN PORTION OF THE SITE WORKED WITH ALL OF THE PARAMETERS THAT WE NEEDED TO LAY IT OUT APPROPRIATELY. UM, ONE OF THE CONCERNS THAT I HAVE HEARD RAISED IS THE LOCATION OF THE RECREATION FIELDS APPROXIMATE TO THE RESIDENTIAL. AND THIS IS A STONECREST NEIGHBORHOOD TO THE WEST. THAT IS GOING TO INCLUDE A SIX-FOOT FINAL -- VINYL FENCE, THAT IS GOING TO BE SIMILAR COLOR TO WHAT IS ART EXISTING, SO IT WILL BE MATCHING. THERE WILL BE EVERGREEN TREES PLANTED AT LEAST 20 FEET, THERE WILL BE 10 FEET UPON PLANTING. WE HAVE OFFERED TO CLOSE THE RECREATION FIELDS FROM DUSK TO DAWN, SO THERE WILL BE NO LIGHTING TO ACTIVATE THOSE AREAS IN THE EVENINGS. STAFF IT HAS ACTUALLY RECOMMENDED A CONDITION TO THAT NATURE IN THEIR REPORT. WE DO ASK THAT YOU CONSIDER THAT [04:35:08] LIMITATION ONLY RESPONDED TO THE SOCCER FIELDS AND THE PICKLEBALL COURTS. WE WOULD LIKE TO KEEP THE BASKETBALL COURTS AND THE PLAYGROUND OPEN. A LITTLE LATER. AND FOR PERSPECTIVE, THE BASKETBALL COURTS IS 175 FEET EAST OF THE WESTERN PROPERTY LINE, SO EFFECTIVELY, THERE WOULD BE 185 FEET BETWEEN THE BASKETBALL COURT AND THE REAR OF THE STONECREST RESIDENTIAL LOTS, AND THAT WOULD ALSO BE BUFFERED BY THOSE TWO SPECIMEN TREES THAT YOU SEE, AS WELL AS THE 20 FOOT BUFFER WITH TREES. OKAY, SO THE NEXT ONE, WE SPENT A LOT OF TIME ALSO ANALYZING OUR TRAFFIC FOR THE SCHOOL USE. WE KNOW THAT THAT CAN CREATE ISSUES, SO WE WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT WE COULD CAPTURE SUFFICIENT AREA FOR THE DROP-OFF AND PICKUP WITHOUT IMPACTING THE THREE LANES ON RACETRACK ROAD. SO, AS YOU CAN SEE, AND ON THE LAST SITE PLAN, YOU CAN SEE ALSO, WELL, WE ARE GOING TO HAVE A K-8 PRIVATE SCHOOL WITH 340 STUDENTS WITH NO BUSING, SO THIS IS GOING TO BE A DROP OFF /PICK UP SCHOOL. WE DID ANALYSIS, AND OUR ANTICIPATED QUEUE FOR DROP OFF AND PICK UP IS A MAXIMUM OF 2800 FEET. WE ARE PROPOSING A CAPACITY WITH THREE CIRCULATING LANES AND 3100 FEET OF CAPACITY, SO A LITTLE BIT LONGER THAN WHAT WE ANTICIPATE THE NEED TO BE. THIS CUING STUDY WAS BASED ON FOUR SIMILAR CHARTER SCHOOLS. THREE OF THEM WERE STUDIES FROM 2022, AND ONE THAT WAS FROM AN IN PERSON OBSERVATION, OBVIOUSLY NOT IN AUGUST 2026. SO, IN AUGUST 2025 WHEN SCHOOL JUST STARTED. WE HAD OUR TRAFFIC ENGINEERS GO OUT AND OBSERVE IS SCHOOL OF A SIMILAR NATURE, A CHARTER SCHOOL OF NO BUSING, AND DETERMINES THE CAPACITY PER STUDENT, WHICH CAME UP WITH OUR QUEUING PLAN. IT WILL SUFFICIENTLY ADDRESS OUR QUEUING CAPACITY, AND I JUST WANT TO NOTE THAT IN THE STAFF REPORT, THE STAFF REPORT STATED THAT THE SITE DESIGN AS PRESENTED TO THE TRANSPORTATION STAFF PROVIDES FOR ON-SITE VEHICLE STOCKING AND A TRAFFIC QUEUING PLAN HAS BEEN DEVELOPED TO PREVENT ANY BACKUP ONTO RACE TRACK ROAD. FINAL SITE ACCESS DESIGN AND ACCESS IMPROVEMENTS SUCH AS TURN LANES ON RACE TRACK ROAD WILL BE DETERMINED BASED ON THE SITE ACCESS ANALYSIS AT THE TIME OF CONSTRUCTION OF PLANNED REVIEW. ONE THING I DIDN'T POINT OUT IS YOU CAN SEE THE TURN LANES ON RACE TRACK ROAD, THERE IS A PROPOSED NEW TURN LANE , RIGHT TURN LANE INTO THE SITE FOR TRAFFIC , AND THEN AN EXTENSION OF THE LEFT TURN LANE. OKAY, SO IN ORDER TO GRANT A SPECIAL USE APPLICATION, THERE ARE CRITERIA BUT WE HAVE GONE THROUGH IN OUR APPLICATION AND REVIEWED ALL THOSE CRITERIAAND PROVIDED A NARRATIVE A DETAILED NARRATIVE, JUSTIFYING HOW WE NEED THOSE. WE HAVE LOOKED AT THINGS SUCH AS COMPATIBILITY AND IMPACTS TO THE ADJACENT AREA, AND SETTING OUT THE SITE AND THE USES IN A WAY THAT WILL NOT CAUSE A NUISANCE ON ABUTTING PROPERTIES. WE LOOKED AT TRAFFIC GENERATION THROUGH OUR QUEUING PLAN, AND WE HAVE CONSIDERED WHETHER THERE ARE ADEQUATE PUBLIC FACILITIES, AND IN OUR JUSTIFICATION, WE FEEL THAT WE MEET ALL OF THE CRITERIA AND HAVE TAKEN EVERYTHING INTO CONSIDERATION TO DEVELOP A USE THAT IS BOTH OF BENEFIT TO THE AREA AND WILL HAVE A POSITIVE IMPACT ON THE SITE. AND JUST GOING BACK TO THAT BUFFER A LITTLE BIT, THIS IS AN ILLUSTRATION WE PUT TOGETHER THAT SHOWS THE VIEW FROM THE REAR RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES AND THE ABUTTING STONECREST NEIGHBORHOOD, SO YOU CAN SEE THE PROPERTY LINE, AND THEN THERE IS A 10 FOOT DRAINAGE EASEMENT BETWEEN THE REAR OF THE PROPERTIES AND OUR PROPERTY. AND THEN WE PROPOSE A SIX FOOT VINYL FENCE, AND THAT IS VERY MUCH LIKE THE FENCE THAT IS ALREADY AT STONECREST. AND IT SHOWS YOU THE EVERGREEN TREES THAT WOULD BE PLANTED AT 10 FEET IN HEIGHT, AT LEAST EVERY 20 FEET. IT SHOWS YOU THE SPECIMEN TREES THAT ARE ALREADY ON THE PROPERTY, THOSE MATURE TREES THAT ALREADY PROVIDE A BUFFER. THE PROPOSED BUILDING YOU SEE IS THE COMMUNITY CENTER, AND JUST A REMINDER THAT THE COMMUNITY CENTER IS A PERMITTED USE AND THE HEIGHT IS PERMITTED WITH THE ZONING. THAT WILL BE THE COMMUNITY CENTER -- IT WILL BE APPROXIMATELY 280 FEET EAST OF THIS PROPERTY LINE. THE SCHOOL IS GOING TO BE 475 FEET EAST OF THIS PROPERTY LINE, AND I THINK YOU CAN GET A LITTLE KIND OF [04:40:01] GLIMMER AT IT IF YOU LOOK CLOSELY BEHIND THAT SPECIMEN TREE WITH THE MEASUREMENT ON IT. SO, THOSE BUFFERS, THAT PLANTING WILL DO QUITE A BIT ALREADY BUFFER THE SITE. NOW, EVERGREEN CANOPY TREES GROW APPROXIMATELY ONE FOOT PER YEAR, SO IN 10 YEARS, THESE TREES ARE ANTICIPATED TO BE 20 FEET TALL, SO NOW YOU SEE THE NEWLY PLANTED TREES AT A MORE MATURE GROWTH, AS WELL AS THE SPECIMEN TREES ON THE SITE OF THE BUFFER THAT THEY WOULD PROVIDE. SO, NOVEMBER 11TH, WE DID HOST A MEETING WITH THE STONECREST HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION. SEVEN OF THEIR MEMBERS ATTENDED. WE DID A PRESENTATION SOMEWHAT SIMILAR TO THIS POINT WE HAD AN OPEN DISCUSSION. THEY DID HAVE SOME CONCERNS ABOUT LIGHTING, NOISE, AND HOURS OF OPERATION. THEY DID SAY THAT THEY WERE GENERALLY PRESENTED TO THEM. WE DID TALK ABOUT LIMITING LIGHTING ON THE SIDE, ESPECIALLY THE RECREATION FIELDS. IF THERE IS ANY LIGHTING ON THE PICKLEBALL COURTS OR THE OPEN SOCCER FIELD, IT WOULD BE JUST SUFFICIENT TO PROVIDE SECURITY. NOT TO ACTIVATE THOSE AREAS. NOISE THROUGH LIMITED HOURS OF OPERATION, WE SAID WE WOULD CLOSE THOSE FACILITIES DUSK TO DAWN, AND THEN THERE ARE OPPOSITE HOURS OF OPERATION FOR THE SCHOOL AND FOR THE COMMUNITY CENTER ALSO , TO NOT OVERBURDEN THE SITE AND THE TRAFFIC. I DO UNDERSTAND THAT THERE WAS A LETTER FROM THE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION WITH SOME -- NOT OPPOSITION, BUT WITH SOME QUESTIONS ABOUT THINGS SUCH AS NOISE LIMITATIONS AND HOURS OF OPERATION AND LIGHTING. AND THERE ARE ALSO REQUIREMENTS IN THE CODE THAT REQUIRE THAT THE LIGHTING BE DESIGNED IN A MANNER THAT DOES NOT CREATE TRESPASS ONTO ADJACENT RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES. OKAY. SO, WITH THAT, I AM HERE FOR ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE, OR WE HAVE SOME REPRESENTATIVES OF THE PROJECT AND OUR TRAFFIC ENGINEER AS WELL. >> THANK YOU, MR. OLSON? >> YES, YOU HAVE GONE TO NICE DETAIL TO ANALYZE YOUR QUEUING REQUIREMENTS OR NEEDS THAT YOU ARE DOING ON-SITE, AND ALSO MAKING THE POINT THAT ALL THE STUDENTS WILL BE ARRIVING BY LIKELY PARENTS OR DRIVERS AND BRINGING THEM AND DROPPING THEM OFF. AND YOU ALSO SAID THAT THE TRAFFIC MOVEMENTS ON RACE TRACK ROAD INGRESS AND EGRESS WILL BE FURTHER STUDIED, AND DEALT WITH AS YOU APPROACH CONSTRUCTION . I AM WONDERING IF THAT IS SOMETHING THAT REALLY IS A BIG ISSUE THAT NEEDS TO BE LOOKED AT , ALONG WITH THE -- THIS ACTION. AND AS I ASK THAT, I AM REALIZING THAT THERE COULD BE OVER 300 CARS, I GUESS, IN THEORY. COMING AND GOING IN THE MORNING AND THE AFTERNOON, AND COMING TO A LIKELY QUITE SPECIFIC WINDOW TIMEFRAME, SO YOU HAVE ALL THESE VEHICLES WANTING TO GET OFF RACETRACK FROM TWO DIFFERENT DIRECTIONS, AND WANTING TO GET BACK ON TWICE A DAY , A VERY COMPRESSED PERIOD OF TIME. HOW IS THAT GOING TO BE PROGRESSED? >> THROUGH THE CHAIR TO BOARD MEMBER OLSON, I WILL POINT TO THE STAFF REPORT WHERE THEY TALKED ABOUT THE DIRECTLY ACCESSED LINK. IT IS CURRENTLY OPERATING AT 58.6% OF CAPACITY, BASED ON 2025 P.M. PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC, AND THEN 86% OF CAPACITY BASED ON TOTAL COMMITTED TRAFFIC. OUR PROJECT IS NOT GOING TO PUT IT OVER THE CAPACITY, BUT I DO HAVE MY TRAFFIC ENGINEER HERE THAT CAN ANSWER SOME ADDITIONAL -- >> THAT WOULD BE GOOD BECAUSE THIS IS AN UNUSUAL USE TO DEAL WITH, BECAUSE OF THE NUMBER OF VEHICLES AND THE COMPRESSED TIMEFRAME THAT THEY WILL BE NEEDING TO GET ON THE SITE AND OFF, SO YES, I WOULD VERY MUCH LIKE TO HEAR ABOUT -- MORE ABOUT TRAFFIC. >> OKAY, THANK YOU. >> HELLO, JACK , I HAVE DONE SOME OF THE TRAFFIC ANALYSIS FOR THIS PROJECT. TO ADDRESS SOME OF YOUR CONCERNS, WE HAVE DONE SOME OF THE TRAFFIC ANALYSIS ALREADY. WE HAVE GOTTEN TURNING MOVEMENT COUNTS OUT THERE AT THE [04:45:01] INTERSECTION THAT WE ARE GOING TO BE ACCESSING, AS WELL AS INTERSECTIONS EAST AND WEST OF THERE, AND WE HAVE RUN THE FUTURE PROJECT TRAFFIC WITH OUR TRIP GENERATION BASED ON THE INSTITUTE -- THE ITE TRIP GENERATION MANUAL, AND BASICALLY, WE HAVE TWO ACCESS POINTS. ON THE EASTERN END OF OUR SITE, WE HAVE A RIDE IN-RIDE OUT, AND ON THE OTHER SIDE, A FULL MEDIAN OPENING, SO THAT WOULD BE A FULL ACCESS DRIVEWAY. AND WHAT WE ARE SEEING IS THAT THAT WESTERN DRIVEWAY DURING THE PEAK PICKUP AND DROP OFF PERIODS MOST LIKELY NEEDS TO BE CONTROLLED BY A POLICE OFFICER TO MAKE IT FUNCTION SORT OF LIKE A TRAFFIC SIGNAL, SO THAT BASICALLY VEHICLES WOULD ONLY EXIT THE SCHOOL, WOULD MAKE THAT LEFT TURN OUT WHEN THE POLICE OFFICER IS STOPPING TRAFFIC ON RACE TRACK ROAD TO LET THEM DO SO. >> ARIK MCENTEE FURTHER ADDRESS -- I GUESS -- THERE WOULD LIKE TO BE IS SOME STACKING JUST BECAUSE OF THE TURN MOVEMENT ON RACE TRACK , COMING BOTH DIRECTIONS, AND THEN THERE WILL BE U-TURN MOVEMENTS , SO, HAVE YOU CALCULATED THE CAPACITY TO EFFICIENTLY ABSORB OR HANDLE A HIGH CONCENTRATED VOLUME OF U-TURN MOVEMENTS AND QUEUING EVEN FOR THE U-TURN MOVEMENT, BECAUSE WHEN YOU DO AN UN-SIGNALED U-TURN, YOU HAVE TRAFFIC COMING AT YOU FROM ANOTHER DIRECTION, SO IT IS NOT LIKE A FREE THING. TO ME, THIS WHOLE THING NEEDS -- NEEDS TO GO BEYOND THE QUEUING PLANNING FOR ON-SITE, BECAUSE OF UNUSUAL NATURE OF ALL THESE VEHICLES ARRIVING AT ONE TIME, LEAVING AT ONE TIME , TWICE A DAY. >> CORRECT, YES, WE HAVE ANALYZED THE U-TURN MOVEMENT. I WHEN THE PROJECT IS EXITING OUR SITE, THEY'RE GOING TO TURN ONTO RACE TRACK ROAD AND THEN YOU TURN AT THE FIRST OPPORTUNITY? WE HAVE COUNTED THAT, I HAVE PERSONALLY DRIVEN OUT THERE AT THE A.M. PERIOD AND THE P.M. PERIOD, AROUND THE 3:00 TO 4:00 PERIOD WHEN TRAFFIC WOULD BE PEAKING IN THE AFTERNOON. I WILL SAY, I HAVE SOME OBSERVATIONS, AND IF YOU GIVE ME A SECOND, I CAN PULL THEM UP FOR THAT U-TURN. >> I GUESS AS YOU WERE LOOKING, I JUST WANT TO ADD TO MY -- I GUESS COMMENTS, IS RACE TRACK IS GOING TO CONTINUE TO HAVE A HUGE RUN UP OF TRAFFIC BECAUSE OF THE OTHER DEVELOPMENTS LOCATED ON THERE, SO, ANY CURRENT ANALYSIS OF HOW A U-TURN MIGHT WORK , THAT WOULD NEED TO TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION THE RUN-UP OF TRAFFIC VOLUME BECAUSE OF WHAT ELSE IS HAPPENING BOTH ALONG RACE TRACK AND WHAT RACE TRACK CONNECTS TO. >> CORRECT. SO, YEAH, TO ANSWER THAT QUESTION, WE DID CONSIDER FUTURE BACKGROUND GROWTH NOT RELATED TO OUR PROJECT. WE ARE CONSIDERING A PRETTY AGGRESSIVE GROWTH RATE BASED ON ST. JOHNS COUNTY TAS, THEY PREDICT A 5% PER YEAR GROWTH RATE ON RACE TRACK ROAD IN OUR PROJECT AREA AND WE ARE INCLUDING THOSE GROWTH PROJECTIONS IN OUR ANALYSIS. BUT GOING BACK TO THE U-TURN, YOU KNOW, LIKE I SAID, I VISITED THE AREA DURING THE A.M. PEAK HOUR, I MADE THAT U-TURN 15 TIMES, JUST TIMED RANDOMLY. OF THOSE 15 TIMES, I MADE THE U-TURN WITHOUT STOPPING AT ALL EIGHT TIMES, SO LITERALLY ZERO DELAY OVER HALF THE TIME I TRIED IT. THE OTHER TIMES I TRIED IT, I DID RECORD THE DELAY, HAD SOMEBODY ELSE RIDING WITH ME, REGARDING THE DELAY FOR SAFETY. AND OVER 15 ATTEMPTS, THE AVERAGE DELAY TO MAKE THE U-TURN WAS ONLY SIX SECONDS IN THE A.M. PEAK HOUR, AND P.M. PEAK HOUR AS WELL. TRIED IT 23 TIMES IN THE P.M. PEAK HOUR, AND THE AVERAGE DELAY WAS ONLY 16 SECONDS TO MAKE THAT U-TURN. >> ARE YOU PROJECTING THAT THIS SCHOOL HAPPENING THERE WILL NOT [04:50:09] REQUIRE ANY CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS TO ACCOMMODATE THESE MOVEMENTS ON RACE TRACK -- >> KNOW. AS YOU CAN SEE ON THE EXHIBIT SHE IS SHOWING, WE ARE PRESENTING A RIGHT TURN INBOUND TO THE SCHOOL, AND IT IS NOT SHOWN ON THE EXHIBIT THERE, BUT WE BELIEVE BASED ON OUR SITE ACCESS ANALYSIS SO FAR, WE DO BELIEVE THAT THE LEFT TURN LANE INTO THE SCHOOL NEEDS TO BE EXTENDED. >> YEAH, OKAY, THANK YOU. >> OKAY. >> MR. CHAIR? BEFORE WE MOVE ON, I JUST WANTED TO MAKE A COMMENT FROM STAFF'S STANDPONT, I JUST WANTED THE BOARD TO BE AWARE THAT WE HAVE COMMENTS IN THE STAFF REPORT REFLECTING SITE ACCESS , SPECIFICALLY THAT ADDITIONAL SITE-SPECIFIC ACCESS WILL HAVE TO BE DONE PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION PLANS. SOUNDS LIKE THE APPLICANT IS PERFECTLY WELL AWARE OF THAT AND WORKING ON IT, I JUST WANTED TO BRING UP THE POINT THAT WE WANT TO BE ABLE TO PROVIDE SOME FLEXIBILITY FOR THE APPLICANT WITH THE SITE DESIGN WHEN WE MOVE FORWARD, IF THIS SPECIAL USE WAS TO GET A RECOMMENDATION -- GET AN APPROVAL. SO, JUST BE AWARE OF THAT WHEN WE COME BACK TO THAT, WE WANT TO BE LOOKING FOR SPECIFICALLY THAT THE SITE PLAN CAN ACCOMMODATE ANY CHANGES IN SITE PLAN ACCESS. >> OKAY, THANK YOU FOR THAT. MR. LABANOWSKI? >> YEAH, JUST REAL QUICK, I AM GLAD YOU ARE WORKING ON THE ACCESS LANES, YOU TALKED ABOUT NO LIGHTING AS FAR AS THE SPORTS FIELDS ARE CONCERNED, EXCEPT FOR THE BASKETBALL AND THE PLAYGROUND. BUT THEN YOU SAID YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE LIGHTING FOR SECURITY PURPOSES IN THAT AREA WHERE THE FIELDS ARE GOING TO BE. >> THROUGH THE CHAIR TO BOARD MEMBER , FORGIVE ME, LABANOWSKI. SOME MINIMAL LIGHTING, I MEAN, IT'S ALWAYS GOOD TO BE ABLE TO SEE WHAT'S HAPPENING ON THE PROPERTY, I'M SURE THE PEOPLE DON'T WANT A DARK AREA WITH SOME OPEN FIELDS IN IT, BUT IF THAT IS AN ISSUE, WE CAN CERTAINLY MOVE THAT FURTHER, AND THEN THERE ARE THREE SPECIMEN TREES ON THAT SIDE THAT ARE GOING TO BE ALREADY MATURE AT FULL GROWTH, AND THAT IS ALSO GOING TO HELP, AS WELL AS ALL THE LIGHTING HAS TO BE DOWNCAST, AND THEY DID HAVE A COPY OF -- JUST A SUMMARY OF THE LIGHTING CODE. EXCEPT I WENT TOO FAST. >> YEAH, JUST REAL QUICK. MAYBE I CAN CUT IT SHORT, INSTEAD OF PUTTING TALL LIGHTS ALONG THAT COMMUNITY'S PROPERTY LINE, IF YOU HAVE FENCE LEVEL LIGHTS THAT ARE ACTUALLY MOUNTED INSIDE THE FENCE, THAT WAY YOU'RE NOT GOING TO HAVE INVASION OF THE LIGHTS GOING INTO THE NEIGHBORHOOD. >> YEAH, ABSOLUTELY, AND I KNOW THAT IS THE INTENT OF THE CODE, TO PREVENT TRESPASS UNDER RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES, AND ESPECIALLY PROTECT THEM. EVERYONE WANTS TO BE GREAT NEIGHBORS, THIS IS A GREAT COMMUNITY USE, THEY HAVE OFFERED ACCESS TO THE RESIDENTS OF STONECREST TO COME OVER HERE AND USE THEIR RECREATIONAL FACILITIES BECAUSE THEY HAVE LIMITED FACILITIES WITHIN THEIR OWN DEVELOPMENT, SO THEY HAVE TO BE REALLY GREAT PARTNERS WITH THOSE PEOPLE, AS WELL AS WITH THE COMMUNITY AND GIVING YOUTH A PLACE TO COME AND GET TOGETHER. NOT BE ON THEIR COMPUTERS AND ISOLATED , AND BEING MORE SOCIAL, WHICH I THINK WE NEED. >> THE ONLY OTHER QUESTION I HAVE, IN THE DIAGRAM, YOU HAVE A LITTLE LAYOUT IT SHOWED THE FENCE BETWEEN THE BUILDINGS AND THE POND. IT DIDN'T SHOW THAT YOU HAD IT UP THERE. >> NO, THE OVERALL SITE PLAN? >> THE OVERALL SITE PLAN, YES. >> GOT A BIT OF A DELAY HERE. THERE WE GO. THAT'S OKAY. YOU HAVE A FENCE THERE THAT IS SHOWING. IS THE FENCE GOING TO GO AROUND THE ENTIRE POND ITSELF? BECAUSE I HAVE GOT CONCERNS, YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE KIDS THERE, WATERING KIDS LIKE MAGNETS, AND YOU HAVE GOT THE FENCE THERE IN BETWEEN THE BUILDINGS AND THE POND. CAN WE HAVE THE FENCE ALL THE WAY AROUND THAT POND? AND I KNOW YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE THAT IS RECREATIONAL, BUT AGAIN, KIDS WILL BE KIDS AND THEY ARE GOING TO BE DRAWN TO THE WATER. >> KIND OF THE NUISANCE INAUDIBLE ] . AROUND THAT FOR SECURITY FENCE AROUND THE ENTIRE TWO ACRE. >> WE CAN DO, KIND OF ALUMINUM FENCING, JUST TO >> OH, YEAH, JUST TO KEEP THE KIDS FROM BEING DRAWN TO THE WATER AND GETTING INTO THE WATER. >> OR STEEL FENCING. >> OKAY, THANK YOU. [04:55:08] >> MISS SPIEGEL? >> OKAY. I DID GET A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS ANSWERED ON THE TRAFFIC, I APPRECIATE THAT, THANK YOU, MR. SMITH, AND YOUR TRAFFIC ENGINEER THAT WAS HERE. A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS FOR YOU. YOU ARE ON SEPTIC AND WELL RIGHT NOW ON THIS PROPERTY, SO THERE IS GOING TO HAVE A HUGE, MAJOR OVERHAUL THING THAT IS GOING TO HAVE TO HAPPEN IN ORDER FOR YOU TO BE ABLE TO GO FORWARD. I DIDN'T SEE AJ EA LATER -- LETTER OF AVAILABILITY ON YOUR PACKET, BUT YOU SAID YOU HAVE GOTTEN THAT, FOR THE RECORD. >> FOR THE RECORD, YES, WE REACHED OUT TO THEM AND CONFIRM THEY HAD CAPACITY TO SERVE THE FACILITY, YES POINT >> OKAY, THANK YOU. AND YOU ARE GOING TO BE USING YOUR WELL FOR IRRIGATION, IS THAT WHAT I UNDERSTAND? OR ARE YOU GOING TO BE HOOKING INTO THE ADDITIONAL WATER FOR IRRIGATION? >> IT CERTAINLY COULD BE USED FOR IRRIGATION, THAT IS A POTENTIAL. >> OKAY, ALL RIGHT, TRAFFIC CONCERNS, YES. WE TALKED ABOUT THAT. ALL RIGHT, AS FAR AS THE LIGHTING GOES AND THE FENCE, THERE IS A SIGNIFICANT HEIGHT DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE FENCE ON THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY OF STONECREST AND YOURS, YOUR PROPERTY IS A LOT LOWER THAN THEIRS WAS AS I WALKED AROUND, THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR THAT, A BEAUTIFUL PLACE. THERE IS A SIGNIFICANTLY HIGHER FENCE, SO JUST FOR LIGHTING, JUST SO YOU KNOW, IT IS PROBABLY THREE FEET TALLER, THEIR SIDE. OKAY. AND WHY 65 FEET ON THE HEIGHT, WHY NOT 60? YOU REFERENCED NEIGHBORS HAVE 60 FEET, WHY NOT 60? JUST CURIOUS. >> THAT IS THE PROPOSED HEIGHT THAT WE WANTED TO START WITH. X DO YOU HAVE A REASON THAT 65 IS THE MAGIC NUMBER? >> THE KIDS, BECAUSE WHEN YOU DO 60, THE AC, HEIGHT IS KIND OF BETWEEN EIGHT TO NINE FEET, THAT IS WHY WE TRY FOR AT LEAST 10 FOOT. WE NEED 65 FEET. >> OKAY, SO HOW MANY STORIES ARE YOU INTENDING THIS SCHOOL TO BE ? >> WE ARE INTENDING THREE TO FOUR STORIES BUT >> THE COMMUNITY CENTER IS GOING TO BE FOUR POINT >> ARE GOING TO LOSE A LOT OF SQUARE FOOTAGE. X FIRE SAFETY, RIGHT, I UNDERSTAND THAT. OKAY, AND I HAD A QUESTION ABOUT THE NAME OF THE PROPOSAL FOR THE RECORD, WE HAD A DISCUSSION ABOUT THIS, AND I WOULD LIKE SOMEBODY WHO HAD SOMETHING TO DO WITH NAMING THIS TO PLEASE COME FORWARD AND PUT THAT ON THE RECORD IF YOU WOULDN'T MIND. >> GOOD AFTERNOON. I ACTUALLY HAVE TWO HOMES IN STONECREST. MY SON, WHO WAS GROWING UP -- 28-YEAR-OLD, AND HE DIED IN AN ACCIDENT. I HAVE SOME MONEY IN THE I.R.A., AND WHATEVER I HAVE, I DECIDED INAUDIBLE ]. >> SO, THIS WAS IN MEMORY OF YOUR SON? >> YES, THAT WAS HIS NAME. >> HIS NAME WAS MOMIN? BECAUSE THERE IS A MOMIN AFFILIATED THING IN NORTH TEXAS, I DON'T KNOW IF YOU KNOW THAT, BUT -- >> IT IS A COMMON NAME. IT MEANS FAITH. SOMEBODY FAITHFUL. >> OKAY, I JUST WANTED TO HAVE ON THE RECORD THAT YOU ARE NOT LIKE AN OFFSPRING OF THAT GROUP >> NO. >> OKAY, AND I AM TERRIBLY SORRY ABOUT YOUR LOSS, SIR, AND I THINK IT IS A VERY NOBLE THING TO REACH OUT AND HELP YOUR COMMUNITY IN HIS NAME AND HIS MEMORY, AND GOD BLESS YOU. THANK YOU. OKAY, I THINK THAT WAS THE QUESTIONS I HAD. >> IS THERE ANY PUBLIC COMMENT? SEEING NONE, WE ARE BACK INTO THE AGENCY FOR A MOTION AND DISCUSSION. >> MR. LABANOWSKI, SORRY, I DIDN'T SEE YOU. >> I WAS JUST GOING TO MAKE A MOTION IF EVERYONE IS READY. I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE -- YEAH, SUPMAJ 2025-24 [05:00:07] MOMIN SCHOOL AND COMMUNITY CENTER BASED ON EIGHT FINDINGS OF FACT AND NINE CONDITIONS AS PROVIDED IN THE STAFFORD . >> MR. CHAIR, CAN WE MAKE SURE WE GET AN EXTRA CONDITION FOR SITE ACCESS? >> OKAY, PLEASE DO. YOU WANT TO -- >> I WILL ADD THAT, SIDE ACCESS AS WELL. >> OKAY, IS THERE A SECOND WESTERN MARK OKAY. DOES THE APPLICANT HAVE -- BEFORE WE VOTE? >> IF I MAY, WE ARE IN AGREEMENT WITH THE CONDITIONS, THERE WAS JUST ONE CONDITION, I BELIEVE IT WAS CONDITION NUMBER 3, THAT TALKED ABOUT -- FORGIVE ME, ONE SECOND. NEED TO LOOK FOR THE PAGE OF THE STAFF REPORT. CONDITION 3 TALKS ABOUT THE HOURS OF OPERATION. THE LAST SENTENCE SAYS THE OUTDOOR RECREATIONAL FIELDS WILL BE CLOSED BETWEEN DUSK AND DAWN. CAN WE LIMIT THAT TO THE SOCCER AND THE PICKLEBALL, SO THAT THE BASKETBALL FIELDS THAT ARE 175+ FEET AWAY, AND THE PLAYGROUND CAN REMAIN OPEN? THAT IS MY ONLY REQUEST. >> IT'S OKAY WITH ME IF IT IS -- SEEMS TO BE CONSENSUS, SO FINE. >> I WILL HAVE THAT REMOVED, THE CONDITION REMOVED. ADDED IT? OKAY. GOT IT. >> MR. OLSON, DID YOU HAVE ANOTHER COMMENT? >> NO. >> ALL RIGHT, WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND WITH SOME AMENDMENTS TO IT, SO LET'S VOTE. PASSES UNANIMOUSLY, 5-0, CONGRATULATIONS. >> THANK YOU, THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR TIME THIS EVENING. >> RATHER THAN CALL A FIVE MINUTE RECESS BECAUSE I KNOW PEOPLE WANT TO GET OUT OF HERE [8. ZVAR 2025-28 Annunziata Residence. Request for a Zoning Variance to Table 6.01 of the Land Development Code to allow for reduction in the front yard setback from the required twenty-five (25) feet to fifteen (15) feet to accommodate a single-family dwelling in Residential, Single-Family (RS-2) zoning, located at 4400 Coastal Highway. ] AND THEY ARE TIRED, I'M JUST GOING TO ASK MRS. SPIEGEL TO SIT HERE FOR A COUPLE OF MINUTES. OKAY, YEAH. ITEM 8, THE ANNUNZIATA RESIDENCE. >> OH, I HAVE TO ASK ]. BEFORE YOU GO? OKAY. OKAY. I DON'T KNOW HOW TO TURN IT ON. ANYWAY, MR. LABANOWSKI? I DON'T KNOW HOW TO TURN IT ON. LIKE THAT? I TURNED THEM ALL OFF. YOU DID A SITE VISIT? >> YEAH, I DID A SITE VISIT. >> I KNOW THIS SITE VERY, VERY WELL. I LIVE IN MARSHFIELD, WHICH IS RIGHT ACROSS A 1A, AND THAT IS OUR ACCESS POINT , RIGHT ACROSS FROM THIS PROPERTY. >> I HAD A PHONE CONVERSATION WITH SUZANNE , EMAIL, AND I DID A SITE VISIT AS WELL. >> GOOD EVENING, MY NAME IS KEVIN PARTEL. I AM A COASTAL CONSULTANT, BEEN IN TOWN FOR ABOUT 40 YEARS OR SO NOW. THE REASON WHY WE ARE HERE IS TO ASK FOR PRODUCTION AND FRONT YARD SETBACK FROM 25 FEET TO 15. IT HAS BEEN A TYPICAL REQUEST ALONG THIS PORTION OF THE SHORELINE, STARTING SOMEWHERE UP AROUND NORTHSIDE OF THE GATE STATION, ALL THE WAY DOWN THROUGH PORTIONS OF SINCE THE COASTAL CONSTRUCTION CONTROL LINE WAS RELOCATED BACK ON JANUARY 28TH OF 1988. I USED TO WORK FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION RESOURCES AT THE TIME. SO, JUST TO GIVE YOU A LITTLE BIT OF BACKGROUND. I PROBABLY PERMITTED OR REQUESTED VARIANCES FOR SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLINGS ALONG THIS IT OR SO MILES OF SHORELINE IN THE LAST 35 YEARS. VARIANCE REQUEST , HOUSE IS LOCATED APPROXIMATELY 19 MILES -- EXCUSE ME, 19 FEET WEST OF THE PROPOSED PROPERTY LINE. A FOUR FOOT CANDLE THE 15 FOOT SETBACK. THE CLOSEST PORTION OF THE HOUSE WILL BE ON THE SOUTHWEST CORNER. DIDN'T KNOW PROPERTY LINES ARE SKEWED TO THE HIGHWAY AND NOT PERPENDICULAR. THE BOARD HAS ALWAYS BEEN CONCERNED ABOUT VEHICLES BACKING OUT ON THE HIGHWAY AS A RESULT OF THIS REQUEST, AND IF YOU LOOK AT THE [05:05:02] PICTURES I WILL SHOW COMING UP, YOU WILL SEE THAT THERE IS A CONCRETE BLOCK WALL ACROSS THE ENTIRE WEST PROPERTY LINE , ALONG WITH TWO CONCRETE ACCESS APRONS THAT ARE CURRENTLY IN PLACE. PREVIOUS HOME WAS REMOVED DUE TO DAMAGES SEEN DURING HURRICANE MATTHEW AND IRMA. PROPERTY WAS UNDERMINED AND SEEWALD, IT PARTIALLY FAILED. AND BACK IN 2017, THEY PUT A NEW WALL IN. THE HOUSE WAS SO DAMAGED THAT THEY REMOVED THE STRUCTURE IN THE LAST TWO YEARS. GRANTING THIS REQUEST WOULD ONLY -- WOULD BE FOR ONE REASON, THAT WOULD BE TO ALLOW FOR REASONABLE USE, GIVEN THE FACT THAT THE COASTAL CONSTRUCTION CONTROL LINE IS ON THE WEST SIDE OF THE PROPERTY LINE. ANY ACTIVITIES THAT WE PROPOSE, THE DEPARTMENT REQUIRES THAT WE PROVIDE LAND LOCATION FOR THAT STRUCTURE. THE ADJACENT STRUCTURES -- HERE WE GO. SO, HERE IS THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 4400 COASTAL HIGHWAY. FUTURE LAND USES, RESIDENTIAL C, SHOWS THAT IT IS RESIDENCE, RS-2 SINGLE-FAMILY. THAT SHOWS THE LOT CLEARED. AS MR. OLSON SAID, IT IS DIRECTLY ACROSS FROM THE ACCESS TO MARSHFIELD. THE SURVEY UP THERE SHOWS THAT TWO ADJACENT STRUCTURES, AS WELL AS THE PROPOSED STRUCTURE, AND YOU CAN SEE ON THAT SOUTHEAST CORNER -- OR EXCUSE ME, SOUTHWEST WARNER, THAT IS GOING TO BE THE CLOSEST POINT. THE HOUSE STARTS, LIKE I SAY, 19 FEET OFF, AND HAS A FOUR FOOT FOOT SETBACK AS WELL. AS SHOWN THERE. THIS IS A PICTURE LOOKING NORTH ALONG THE EAST SIDE OF THE PROPERTY AT THE DUNES STRUCTURE THAT WAS RE-ESTABLISHED PROBABLY TWO OR THREE YEARS AGO. THIS IS LOOKING SOUTH , AGAIN, TO THE ADJACENT THE BUILDING PAD DIRECTLY IN FRONT OF YOU AND IT SHOWS THE HEALTH -- HOUSE TO THE NORTH, AS WELL AS THERE IS THE WALL WE WERE TALKING ABOUT ON THE WEST SIDE OF THE PROPERTY WITH THE CONCRETE ALREADY IN PLACE. THE GOOD THING ABOUT THAT IS IT ELIMINATES THE OPPORTUNITY OF HAVING TO BACK OUT ONTO THE HIGHWAY GIVEN THE FACT THAT YOU COULD HAVE A U-TURN WITHIN THE PROPERTY BOUNDARIES ONCE THE HOUSE IS ESTABLISHED. THIS IS THE PROPERTY LOOKING SOUTH AT THE BUILDING PAD, SHOWING ADJACENT STRUCTURE AND THE ALIGNMENT WITH THAT COMPARED TO THE NORTHWEST. THIS IS LOOKING WEST , DIFFICULT TO SEE, BUT THAT IS THE BUILDABLE AREA ABOVE THE SNOW PAD. AGAIN, HARDSHIP IS THE LOCATION OF THE CONTROL LINE, FORCES US TO PUSH IT LANDWARD. GIVEN THE FACT THAT THE PROPERTY IS ODD SHAPED, IT IS KIND OF UNIQUE TO HAVE TO SITUATE THE HOUSE ON A SKU AND BEING LIMITED BECAUSE OF THE SKU, IT DOESN'T ALLOW FOR -- IT DOESN'T ALLOW FOR PALATABLE AS POSSIBLE TO BUILD A REASONABLE SIZED HOME. 90% OF THE STRUCTURES, BOTH NORTH AND SOUTH OF THIS PROPERTY, APPEAR TO HAVE BEEN GRANTED SIMILAR REQUESTS. I AM RESPONSIBLE FOR PROBABLY 80 OR SO. BY ALLOWING THIS, IT CREATES MINIMAL IMPACTS TO THE ADJACENT PROPERTY, IT IS NOT AFFECTING THE VALUE OF THE ADJACENT PROPERTIES, KNOWING THAT THEY HAVE SOUGHT VARIANCES AS WELL. I THINK THAT WAS THE LAST ONE. NUMEROUS ]. THIS SECTION OF COASTAL HIGHWAY HAVE BEEN APPROVED, SEVERAL VARIANCES YOU KNOW THAT RIGHT IN THE IMMEDIATE AREA, THEY ARE THERE. OUR ADJACENT PROPERTIES ARE AT THE 15 FOOT SETBACK AS WELL. SINCE CONTROL LINE WAS RESET IN JANUARY 1988, THE STATE OF FLORIDA INAUDIBLE ] OVER THE COURSE OF THE LAST 38 YEARS, FROM ABOUT TWO MILES SINGLE-FAMILY HOUSE A HOME PROPOSED UPON THIS REACH, HAS BEEN REQUIRED TO APPEAR IN FRONT OF THIS BOARD FOR A SIMILAR INAUDIBLE ] . BECAUSE OF THE CONTROL LINE, PARTICULAR -- [05:10:06] LOCATED PARTICULARLY AT THE WEST PROPERTY LINE, THE ONLY QUESTION MY CLIENT HAS FOR YOU IS TO SEEK APPROVAL FROM THIS BOARD. LASTLY, THE CURRENT DRIVEWAYS APPEAR TO BE ON THE NORTH AND SOUTH SIDE AND ALLOW FOR ANY BACKING OUT OF THE HIGHWAY. THANK YOU FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION AND FOR ALLOWING ME TO PREPARE THIS PRESENTATION AND BRING IT IN FRONT OF YOU AND MAKE THIS REQUEST. >> SORRY, DIDN'T TURN ON, THERE IT GOES. OKAY. I THINK THE JUSTIFICATION FOR GRANTING THIS VARIANCE IS THAT THE ADJACENT TWO STRUCTURES, ONE ON THE NORTH AND ONE ON THE SOUTH, ARE ACTUALLY MORE ENCROACHING . SO, EVEN THOUGH I GUESS IT IS TECHNICALLY POSSIBLE TO BUILD, STILL, IN A WAY, IT IS TO BUILD SOME FORM OF BEACH HOME WITHIN THE SETBACK REQUIREMENT , I THINK . IT CAN BE JUSTIFIED BY THE ADJACENT . BUT I WANT TO USE THIS TO MAKE A POINT. IS THAT -- OH, LET ME ALSO SAY THAT NEW CONSTRUCTION TO THE NORTH, AND THERE IS ONE UNDERWAY NOW, THREE STORIES, DID NOT REQUIRE A VARIANCE, BECAUSE I DIDN'T SEE THAT ON THE VARIANCE LIST. THE TREND ALONG A 1A IS BIGGER HOUSES. THEY CAN'T GO ABOVE THREE FEET, SO THE HOUSES TEND TO GET BIGGER. THE SAND DUNE TENDS TO MOVE EAST. BECAUSE OF THE EFFORTS OF THE FEDS AND COUNTY AND STATE TO REBUILD THE DUNES, BUT WHO KNOWS HOW LONG THAT MONEY IS GOING TO BE THERE. SO, IT'S IMPORTANT TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO DEAL WITH THIS MATTER OVER TIME OF FURTHER DWINDLING BUILDING AREA . WHAT'S HAPPENING WITH STRUCTURES GETTING LARGER, THERE ARE MORE CARDS. AND UNLIKE THIS SITUATION, MANY OF THEM ARE -- I MEAN, ARE JUST SIMPLY JAMMED ONTO THE SITE AND HAVE TO BACK OUT ONTO A1A TRAFFIC, BECAUSE A1A TRAFFIC IS EXPANDING, AND WHENEVER THERE ARE SERVICE VEHICLES THERE, THEIR PARKING IN WHAT IS CALLED A BIKE LANE, AND SO, I THINK THERE IS AN ISSUE THAT NEEDS TO BE LOOKED AT, A BIGGER ISSUE FROM PLANNING STANDPOINT, IS HOW THIS ALL IS GOING TO BE DEALT WITH, BECAUSE THERE IS GOING TO BE CONTINUED PRESSURE TO BUILD BIGGER HOUSES ALONG THERE. I MEAN, THAT'S WHAT'S HAPPENING. THE HOUSE THAT'S UNDER CONSTRUCTION NOW, I GUESS IT IS TWO DEEP, I DON'T KNOW WHETHER IT IS A 40 FOOT DEPTH ON THE SIDE, BUT IT HAS GOT AN ELEVATOR AND IT IS VERY COMPRESSED BETWEEN THE DROP OFF OF THE DUNE AND ENOUGH AREA TO DRIVE INTO THE GARAGE ON THE OTHER SIDE. SO, I DON'T KNOW WHAT ELSE TO SAY OTHER THAN THAT THAT IS THE BACKGROUND I HAVE BEEN LOOKING AT FOR 10 YEARS ALONG A1A, AND I GUESS I DO HAVE A QUESTION. I DON'T THINK THE ROAD IS ALWAYS EQUIDISTANT TO THE PROPERTY LINE AS A1A GOES NORTH, AND THAT MAY BE WHY 4510 WAS ABLE TO BUILD CLOSER TO A1A THAN THIS APPEARS TO BE HAPPENING. DO YOU HAVE ANY IDEA ABOUT THE ALIGNMENT OF THE ROADBED? >> I WOULD AGREE WITH YOU THAT IT DOES VARY. USUALLY, THE OFFSET FROM THE EDGE OF PAVEMENT TO THE PROPERTY LINE IS 15 TO 18 FEET ON AVERAGE, BUT NO, I LIVE RIGHT BEHIND THE CASTLE FOR THE LAST 36 YEARS, SO I AM WELL VERSED WITH THIS AREA. IT DOES -- I DIDN'T DO THOSE PROPERTIES, BUT YES, SIR, IT DOES APPEAR THAT THEY ARE SOMEWHAT CLOSER, ONLY DUE TO THE [05:15:03] FACT THAT THE HIGHWAY APPEARS TO BE FURTHER IS THE CLUB? SERENATA, IT APPEARS TO STRAIGHTEN BACK OUT AND VEER AWAY FROM THE EASTERN PROPERTY LINE. YES, SIR. >> THANK YOU. MR. LABANOWSKI? OKAY. >> YEAH, JUST REAL QUICK, I JUST WANT TO CONFIRM THAT THAT CIRCULAR DRIVEWAY IS STAYING THERE. >> YES, SIR, THE DIAGRAM ON PAGE 5 OF THE DOCUMENTS HERE, IT SHOWS JUST A SINGLE DRIVEWAY GOING IN. >> I THINK THAT WAS -- >> A LITTLE PENCIL DRAWING. >> THAT WAS MY DRAWING, IT WASN'T PRECISE >> CANNOT BE REMOVED IF WE WANTED TO MAINTAIN , WE HAVE TO MAINTAIN THOSE TWO ACRES. >> OKAY, BECAUSE I WAS JUST CONCERNED WITH THAT BEING A T INTERSECTION THERE WITH THE TRAFFIC. >> ANY PUBLIC COMMENT? SEEING NONE, WE ARE BACK IN THE AGENCY FOR A MOTION AND DISCUSSION. MR. OLSON? >> SO, SORRY AHEAD. >> I MOVED TO APPROVE ZONING VARIANCE ZVAR 2025-28 . THE ANNUNZIATA RESIDENCE. AND MR. GREEN? >> ALL RIGHT, WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND, ANY DISCUSSION? OKAY, LET'S VOTE. PASSES [9. ZVAR 2025-30 4800 Shore Drive Carport. Request for a Zoning Variance to Land Development Code (LDC) Section 6.01.03.E.3 to allow for a reduction in the second Front Yard setback from the required twenty (20) feet to seven (7) feet to accommodate a carport and LDC Section 6.01.03.H.5 to allow storage of Recreational Vehicles (Boat and Motor Home) to be located within the required front yard in Residential, Single Family (RS-3) zoning. ] UNANIMOUSLY. CONGRATULATIONS POINT >> GOD BLESS YOU ALL, THANK YOU. >> ALL RIGHT, ITEM NUMBER 9. ZONING VARIANCE SHORE DRIVE CARPORT. AND DO WE NEED INAUDIBLE ], AND I SEE MR. LABANOWSKI HAS -- >> ON THE BALL. >> I DID VISIT THE SITE AND I ALSO TALKED WITH MRS. STANDERA. UNFORTUNATELY, HER HUSBAND WAS BUSY WATCHING THE JAGUARS GAME. >> IT IS SPIEGEL? >> YES, I DID A SITE VISIT AS WELL AND I SPOKE WITH MR. STANDERA THE DAY AFTER POINT >> MR. OLSON? >> I VISITED THE SITE YESTERDAY. >> ALL RIGHT, THE FLOOR IS YOURS, SIR. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. MR. CHAIRMAN AND ESTEEMED BOARD MEMBERS, MY NAME IS TONY STANDERA, I AM HERE WITH MY WIFE, DAWN. WE ARE PROPERTY OWNERS OF 4800 SHORE DRIVE. WE MOVED TO SAINT AUGUSTINE ABOUT FOUR MONTHS AGO, AND THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. AND I WOULD LIKE TO EXTEND MY THANKS TO ALL THE PLANNING AND ZONING EMPLOYEES WHO HELPED US WITH OUR PROJECT. >> OKAY. HERE IS THE LOCATION MAP OF OUR PARCEL, WE ARE RIGHT ACROSS THE STREET FROM THE SHORE DRIVE RAMP, LOVELY AREA. HERE IS OUR ZONING MAP, WE ARE RS-3. HERE IS THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP. LITTLE RESIDENTIAL C. AND HERE IS AN AERIAL PHOTO OF OURS. SO, TODAY, OUR REQUEST -- WE ARE LOOKING FOR A RELAXATION OF SECOND FRONT YARD SETBACK FROM THE REQUIRED 20 FEET TO 7.2 FEET TO ACCOMMODATE METAL CARPORT FOR STORAGE OF A MOTORHOME AND BOAT. SORRY. SECONDLY, WE ARE ASKING FOR A VARIANCE TO ALLOW FOR STORAGE OF THE RECREATIONAL VEHICLES WITHIN THE REQUIRED SECOND FRONT YARD. UM, TODAY, WE WILL DO OUR BEST TO EXPLAIN HARDSHIP . WE WILL EXPLAIN THAT SUCH A VARIANCE WILL NOT BE CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST, AND BY REASON OF THE NARROWNESS, SHALLOWNESS, OR UNUSUAL SHAPE OF OUR PROPERTY, INCLUDING TOPOGRAPHY. THE LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THIS CODE WOULD CAUSE US UNDUE HARDSHIP, AND WE WOULD LIKE TO PROVE THEIR AGREEMENTS WOULD NOT BE CONTRARY TO THE SPIRIT AND PURPOSE OF THIS CODE. HERE ARE THE CONDITIONS. NOT ALL OF THEM ARE SPECIAL, BUT THEY ARE ALL RELEVANT. WE HAVE AN EXISTING CARPORT ON THE PROPERTY THAT WAS [05:20:07] PERMITTED BY A ZONING VARIANCE IN 2014. WE ARE SIMPLY ASKING TO REPLACE THAT STRUCTURE WITH A LARGER STRUCTURE IN THE SAME LOCATION OF THE PROPERTY, WITH THE SAME VARIANCE TO THE SETBACK. WE HAVE AN IRREGULARLY SHAPED LOT. I WILL GET IT. WE HAVE A CORNER PARCEL WITH TWO FRONT YARDS. A LARGE PROPORTION OF OUR ACREAGE IS IN FRONT YARD SETBACKS AND RESULTS IN NARROWNESS AND LACK OF USABLE SPACE . AND OUR TOPOGRAPHY MAKES IT SUCH THAT WE HAVE NO OTHER OPTION TO INCREASE OUR STORAGE CAPACITY, AS YOU WILL SEE. THIS IS THE EXISTING CARPORT THAT WAS PERMITTED BY ZONING VARIANCE IN 2014. IT IS BEHIND A PRIVACY FENCE. THIS IS A SURVEY OF OUR PROPERTY, WHICH I WILL USE EXTENSIVELY HERE IN THE PRESENTATION. WE HAVE AN IRREGULARLY SHAPED LOT , PARCEL OF THE FRONT LOT THERE ON SHORE DRIVE IS KIND OF A PENTAGON OR KIND OF TRIANGULAR, FORGOT MY GEOMETRY THERE. SO, IRREGULARLY SHAPED LOT. WE HAVE GOT A CORNER PARCEL WITH TWO FRONT YARDS, WHICH IS NOT THAT UNUSUAL, BUT I WOULD SAY THAT OUR PARCEL IS ONE OF THE SMALLER CORNER LOTS IN THE AREA. AND A LARGE PORTION OF THE PROPERTY IS WITHIN THE 20 FOOT FRONT YARD SETBACKS. THIS IS WHAT THOSE SETBACKS LOOK LIKE. WHEN YOU OVERLAY THEM ON THE SURVEY, AND IN PURPLE, I HAVE HIGHLIGHTED THAT EXISTING CARPORT, SO, WE HAVE VERY FEW OPTIONS. THE STRUCTURE OF THE HOME IS LOCATED KIND OF TOWARD THE BACK LOT. WE HAVE A LITTLE BIT OF ROOM THERE AT THE TOP OF THE FRAME, KIND OF TOP LEFT OF THE FRAME. BEHIND THAT 20 FOOT SETBACK, BUT THAT IS THE LOCATION OF OUR SEPTIC SYSTEM , AND A MATURE OAK STAND ON THE PROPERTY. AND THE TOPOGRAPHY THERE IS NOT SUITABLE FOR ESTABLISHING A STORAGE STRUCTURE. THIS IS THE OTHER SIDE OF OUR DRIVEWAY, THE SOUTH SIDE. THERE IS ABOUT A 30 INCH DROP THERE, SO IT IS NOT REALLY FEASIBLE TO WIDEN OUR DRIVEWAY TO GET ANY EXPANDED STORAGE SPACE. THIS IS THAT AREA OF THE YARD I WAS JUST DESCRIBING TWO SLIDES AGO. THAT IS ABOUT A FOUR FOOT DROP IN ELEVATION FROM SHORE DRIVE THERE, YOU CAN SEE THE BOAT RAMP IN THE BACKGROUND. DOWN TO THE BOTTOM WERE THOSE OAK TREES ARE LOCATED. AND WE HAVE RECENTLY REWORKED THE SEPTIC SYSTEM IN THIS PART OF THE YARD, AND ARE JUST KIND OF SEPTIC TANK. AND THAT CIRCLE APPROXIMATES THE LOCATION OF OUR SEPTIC DRAIN FIELD, WHICH MAKES THAT PART OF OUR PROPERTY UNUSABLE FOR ANY TYPE OF BUILDING OR STRUCTURE. UM, NOW I WOULD LIKE TO EXPLAIN TO YOU THE UNNECESSARY AND UNDUE HARDSHIP THAT THE LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THESE CODES IS CAUSING FOR US. SINCE WE HAVE THE IRREGULAR PARCEL SHAPE, AND HAVING TWO DESIGNATED FRONT YARDS, AND A HIGH PROPORTION OF ACREAGE IN FRONT YARD SETBACKS, HE GREATLY LIMITS OUR OPTIONS FOR INCREASING STORAGE ON OUR PROPERTY. THE PROPOSED CARPORT LOCATION, WHICH IS THE SAME AS EXISTING CARPORT LOCATION, WOULD MAKE USE OF ONLY FEASIBLE LOCATION ON THE PARCEL FOR ADDING A MODEST AMOUNT OF STORAGE. CURRENTLY, OUR RV HAS PARKED IN OUR DRIVEWAY AND OCCUPIES HALF THE DRIVEWAY SPACE AND RENDERS HALF OF OUR GARAGE SPACE UNUSABLE FOR PARKING VEHICLES. AS A RESULT, WE END UP PARKING A VEHICLE IN THAT SECOND DRIVEWAY APPROACH IN FRONT OF THE CARPORT, WHICH BLOCKS THE VIEW OF OUR DRIVEWAY, AND THE INTERSECTION OF JASMINE ROAD AND SHORE DRIVE FOR DRIVERS THAT ARE TRAVELING SOUTH. ALSO, VEHICLES THAT WE PARKED IN OUR DRIVEWAY INTERFERE WITH OUR IRRIGATION SYSTEM AND THE VEHICLES THAT WE USE FOR IRRIGATION. >> THE RV PARKED OUTSIDE AND THE [05:25:01] ELEMENTS GREATLY REDUCE ITS LIFESPAN DUE TO PRECIPITATION AND IT IS DECREASING IN VALUES AS IT SITS THERE. AND THE ALTERNATIVE OF STORING THE RV IN A STORAGE FACILITY WOULD BE INAUDIBLE ]. SO, I HAVE THE EXISTING SITE PLAN AND THE PROPOSED SITE PLAN FROM THE NEW CARPORT FOR YOU. CIRCLED IN BLUE ON THE LEFT IS A EXISTING CARPORT. 14 FEET WIDE IT IS 7.2 FEET AWAY FROM THE PROPERTY LINE. >> CONCRETE DRIVEWAY , ON THE RIGHT YOU CAN SEE OUR PROPOSED SITE PLAN FOR 4100 SHORE DRIVE. THE NEW PROPOSED CARPORT WOULD BE 10 FEET WIDER THAN THE EXISTING CARPORT AND TWO FEET HIGHER, SIDE HEIGHT, TO ALLOW FOR STORAGE OF OUR RV, WHICH CURRENTLY IS TOO TALL TO FIT UNDER THE EXISTING CARPORT AS WELL AS OUR FISHING BOAT WHICH I'D LIKE TO KEEP HER THERE AS WELL. AND, THE HANDY HOUSE SHED CAN BE EASILY MOVED TO THE OTHER SIDE OF THE CARPORT WOULD HAVE NO FURTHER INTRUSION WAS PERMITTED BY VARIANCE IN 2014. WE HAVE NO INTENTION OF WIDENING THE EXISTING CONCRETE DRIVEWAY, THAT WILL REMAIN AS IS. IN THIS LIGHT, I HAVE IMPOSE THE FOOTPRINT OF THE NEW CARPORT THAT WE ARE HOPING TO GET WITH THE VARIANCE, ON THE AERIAL PHOTO OF THE PROPERTY, AS YOU CAN SEE, IT REMAINS BEHIND OUR PROPERTY, PRIVATE FENCE, AND WOULD BE FAIRLY IN OBTRUSIVE, A LITTLE BIGGER AND TALLER THAN THE EXISTING CARPORT BUT WILL BLEND IN WITH THE SURROUNDING AREA. WE'VE GOT LETTERS OF SUPPORT THAT WERE SUBMITTED WITH OUR APPLICATION FROM OUR THREE CLOSEST NEIGHBORS AND WE HAVE HAD NO NEGATIVE INTERACTIONS THROUGH THE PROCESS WITH ANYBODY IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD , AND ALL THE INTERACTIONS WE'VE HAD WITH MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC OR NEIGHBORS HAVE SIMPLY BEEN TO GET MORE INFORMATION ON THE PROJECT SINCE THE SIGNS ARE POSTED IN THE YARD . THAT'S RV THAT WON'T FIT UNDER THE EXISTING CARPORT THAT WE'D LIKE TO HAVE UNDER SHELTER, THIS IS ANOTHER SHOT OF THE EXISTING CARPORT BEHIND THE PRIVACY FENCE. THAT'S MY OLD MINNESOTA FISHING BOAT THAT I GOT RID OF. SO , HERE IS ONE OF THE VEHICLES THAT IS PARKED IN THE SECONDARY DRIVEWAY AND AS YOU CAN SEE, IT DOES BLOCK THE VIEW OF OUR DRIVEWAY IF YOU APPROACH, AND YOU CAN SEE IT'S BEING STAINED BY IRRIGATION WATER AND THIS IS KIND OF AN OVERLAY OF THE APPROXIMATE FOOTPRINT OF OUR PROPOSED NEW CARPORT, IN FRONT OF THE EXISTING STRUCTURE. AND THESE ARE THE DIMENSIONS OF OUR PROPOSED CARPORT. SO IN SUMMARY, WE HAVE AN IRREGULAR PARCEL, TWO DESIGNATED FRONT YARDS, THE LARGE PART OF THE PARCEL IS IN THE FRONT YARD SETBACKS. THE PROPOSED LOCATION OF THE NEW CARPORT WOULD MAKE USE OF THE ONLY FEASIBLE LOCATION WE HAVE ON THE PARCEL, FOR ADDING A MODEST AMOUNT OF STORAGE CAPACITY FOR OUR STAFF. THE RV PARKED IN OUR DRIVEWAY OCCUPIES HALF OF OUR DRIVEWAY, RENDERING HALF OF THE GARAGE UNUSABLE FOR PARKING VEHICLES, RESULTING IN ANOTHER VEHICLE PARKING IN THE SECOND DRIVEWAY APPROACH WHICH CAN BLOCK THE USE OF DRIVERS APPROACHING, DRIVING SOUTH ON JASMINE. WE'RE HAVING SOME INTERFERENCE WITH THEIR IRRIGATION SYSTEM FROM THAT VEHICLE PARKED IN THE SECOND DRIVEWAY . WE WOULD MUCH RATHER HAVE OUR RV PARKED UNDER A [05:30:02] CARPORT TO GET IT OUT OF THE ELEMENTS, AND ALTERNATIVE STORAGE IN A STORAGE FACILITY WOULD BE INCONVENIENT FOR A NUMBER OF REASONS FOR US, AND RESULT IN WHAT WE FEEL IS AN UNNECESSARY EXPENSE GIVEN WE HAVE HOPEFULLY AN OPPORTUNITY TO INCREASE OUR STORAGE CAPACITY ON THE PROPERTY. WITH THAT, I'D BE HAPPY TO TAKE ANY QUESTIONS. >> ANY QUESTIONS FROM BOARD MEMBERS? >> THIS IS FOR STAFF, IN REGARDS TO THE HEIGHT, WITH A CARPORT -- >> THROUGH THE CHAIR, IS THE EAVE HEIGHT FOR A CARPORT APPLICABLE TO THE SAME REGULATIONS THAT WE HEARD EARLIER ABOUT A GARAGE OR A BARN AND I WOULD SAY, YES, SO WE LOOKED INTO THIS ON THIS PARTICULAR PROPERTY BECAUSE IT WAS BROUGHT TO OUR ATTENTION THAT THE EAVE HEIGHT EXCEEDED THE HOUSED HEIGHT AND THIS HAS A FAIRLY UNIQUE EAVE SET UP WHERE IT'S ON THE FRONT OF THE HOUSE FACING SHORE DRIVE AND THERE'S A SECONDARY SET OF EAVES, LIKE ONE AND A HALF STORY, IF YOU WILL, PROBABLY WHERE THE LIVING ROOM IS AND IT HAS A HIGHER SET OF EAVES, SO THE RULE IS APPLICABLE BUT IN THIS CASE, IT CAUSES NO ISSUE. >> THANK YOU FOR ASKING THAT BECAUSE THAT WAS GOING TO BE MY QUESTION. THAT WAS GOING TO BE MY QUESTION. MR. GREEN, ANY OTHER COMMENT FROM BOARD MEMBERS BEFORE A MOTION? MR. GREEN, YOU ARE UP, COME MAKE A MOTION. >> ANYBODY IN THE PUBLIC? >> NO, NO PUBLIC COMMENT. >> OKAY, I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE VARIANCE 2025-30 48 SHORE DRIVE CARPORT, I BELIEVE HE DID A GREAT JOB EXPLAINING . >> THANK YOU. >> MOTION AND A SECOND, ANY DISCUSSION? SEEING NONE, LET'S VOTE. CONGRATULATIONS. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH, I [10. MINMOD 2025-17 The Greenery at Bronz Glow Way. Requests for a Minor Modification to The Technology Center at St. Marks Planned Unit Development (ORD. 1998-08, as amended) to allow for an increase in impacted wetland acreage to accommodate a proposed Commercial Business with outdoor storage, fuel stank storage, and office/warehouse space, associated parking and utilities, located south of International Golf Parkway at the corner of Bronz-GlowWay and Saint Marks Pond Boulevard. ] APPRECIATE EVERYBODY PUTTING IN A LONG DAY. >> ALL RIGHT, ITEM NUMBER 10, MATTHEW LAHTI TO PRESENT 2025-17, THE GRANARY AT RON'S GLOW WAY. EX PARTE, MR. LEVIN ASCII >> I VISITED THE SITE NUMEROUS TIMES SINCE MY RV IS ACROSS THE STREET . >> I DID A SITE VISIT THE LAST TIME THIS WAS UP HERE AND I DID ANOTHER SITE VISIT TODAY OR YESTERDAY, THANK YOU. >> MR. LOTTIE, THE FLOOR IS YOURS. >> 2225, SAINT AUGUSTINE, FLORIDA, THANK YOU SO MUCH, THANKS FOR YOUR DEDICATION TO TODAY, IT'S BEEN A LONG DAY, I'VE BEEN HERE, SO I WILL GET TO THIS AS QUICKLY AS I CAN, THIS IS THE GRANARY THE APPLICANT AND LANDOWNER IS HERE, A LITTLE BIT OF BACKGROUND, THEY ARE A LAWN CARE AND LAWN MAINTENANCE FACILITY THAT HAS SPACE IN THE DUVAL COUNTY AREA AND THEY ARE LOOKING TO RELOCATE THEIR REGIONAL HEADQUARTERS HERE. THEY'VE OWNED THIS PIECE OF PROPERTY FOR A WHILE, AS YOU CAN PROBABLY READ, THEY HAD DELAYS DUE TO THE MITIGATION CREDITS AND THEY ARE BACK AND READY TO GET THIS BUILD. SO APPROXIMATELY 2.89 ACRES HERE, ST. MARK'S BOULEVARD AND BRONZ GLOW WAY. IT IS WITHIN THE PUD, EXISTING LAND USE IS INDUSTRIAL. THIS IS KIND OF AN OVERVIEW GRAPHIC THAT WE CREATED FOR THIS TECHNOLOGY CENTER AT ST. MARK'S PUD, JUST GIVING AN OVERVIEW OF THE BREAKDOWN THERE AND AGAIN OUR SITE IS OUTLINED. JUST A QUICK HIGH-LEVEL THERE, THIS IS THE ACCESS ROAD TO THE ST. MARK'S POND LANDFILL. THIS REQUEST IS TO INCREASE OUR WETLAND IMPACTS FROM .132 .02. THIS WAS FOUND DURING THE SITE VISIT DURING THE PERMITTING PROCESS. YOU CAN SEE A GRAPHIC HERE, SHOWING THAT ORIGINAL WETLAND IN 2017. THIS NEWLY FORMED WETLAND SIX YEARS LATER THIS WAS APPROVED UNANIMOUSLY IN [05:35:07] DECEMBER 2023, THE PROJECT DID NOT COMMENCE CONSTRUCTION BECAUSE WE COULDN'T GET WETLAND MITIGATION, THE CREDITS HAVE BEEN PURCHASED AND WE ARE READY TO MOVE FORWARD. THIS IS OUR MDP MAP, GOING TO BE LARGELY A GRAVEL YARD AND SOME PLANT STORAGE. A GRAVEL EMPLOYEE PARKING AREA TO THE WEST AND PAVED PARKING FOR ANYBODY FROM THE PUBLIC WHO MAY SHOW UP. THEY WILL HAVE A FUEL TANK IN THE BACK FOR THEIR EQUIPMENT TO FUEL ON-SITE, BUT SMALL, MODULAR BUILDINGS, STORMWATER PUMP. I'M HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. THE APPLICANT AND LANDOWNER IS HERE. >> ANY QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD? NO PUBLIC COMMENT, I ASSUME? I SEE ONE PERSON LEFT OUT THERE. BESIDES STAFF. OKAY, MR. OLSON, YES SIR. >> QUICK QUESTION, I'M CURIOUS, LOOKING AT YOUR MAP AND THE WETLANDS, HOW MANY CREDITS OR WHAT SIZE CREDIT DID YOU HAVE TO BUY? >> IT WAS A FRACTION. >> >> OKAY, MR. GREEN. YES SIR. >> THE MAN IN MOTION. >> OKAY. >> GO AHEAD, SIR. >> I DON'T WANT TO GET AHEAD OF THE CHAIRMAN, MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE MINMOD 2025-17, GRANARY AT BRONZ GLOW WAY, BASED UPON THE FINDINGS OF FACT . >> I'LL SECOND. >> EMOTION AND A SECOND, ANY DISCUSSION? HEARING MAN, LET'S VOTE, CONGRATULATIONS, OH, OKAY. I WAS GOING TO SAY SOMETHING ELSE? >> ARE WE GOOD, PAUL? >> ANY AGENCY REPORTS? >> THANK YOU. NO STAFF REPORTS, MR. CHAIR. >> I MEAN STAFF REPORT. >> I HAVE ONE COMMENT. I JUST RAISED MY HAND. I WANT TO CONGRATULATE YOU ON YOUR NEW * This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.