Jan 16, 2020 Planning and Zoning Agency

[Call to Order]

[00:00:12]

HAVING A READING OF THE PUBLIC NOTICE STATEMENT BY THE VOICE CHAIR.

>> THIS IS A PUBLIC NOTICED 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. -- RELATIVE TO THE AGENCY'S AREA OF JURISDICTION AND THE PUBLIC WILL BE GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY TO OFFER COMMENT AT A DESIGNATED TIME DURING THE HEARING. ANY MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC DESIRING TO SPEAK MUST INDICATE SO BY COMPLETING A SPEAKER CARD WHICH YOU CAN PICK UP IN THE OUTSIDE OR WE'LL BRING YOU ONE. ANY ADDITIONAL SPEAK ERRS MAY BE HEARD ONLY AT THE DISCRETION OF THE CHAIRMAN.

SPEAKER CARDS MAY BE TURNED IN TO STAFF. 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. SPEAK ERRS SHOULD IDENTIFY THEMSELVES, WHO THEY REPRESENT AND THEN STATE THEIR ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD. SPEAKERS MAY OFFER SWORN TESTIMONY. IF THEY DO NOT, THE FACT THE TESTIMONY IS NOT SWORN MAY BE CONSIDERED BY THE AGENCY IN DETERMINING THE WEIGHT OR TRUTHFULNESS OF THE 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 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 BASED. ANY PHYSICAL OR DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE PRESENTED DURING THE HEARING SUCH AS DIAGRAMS, CHARTS, PHOTOGRAPHS OR WRITTEN STATEMENTS WILL BE RETAINED BY STAFF AS PART OF THE RECORD. THE RECORD WILL THEN BE AVAILABLE FOR OTHER BOARDS IN THE COUNTY IN ANY REVIEW OR APPEAL RELATED TO THE ITEM.

BOARD MEMBERS ARE REMIND AT 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 FORMAL HEARING OF THE AGENCY. IF SUCH COMMUNICATION HAS OCCURRED, THE AGENCY MEMBER SHALL THEN IDENTIFY THE PERSON INVOLVED AND 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. WE'LL AVOID PERSONAL ATTACKS.

>> CHAIRMAN: WE WILL. THANK&-PS PUBLIC COMMENTS. THIS IS WHEN THE PUBLIC CAN SPEAK ON ANYTHING THAT IS NOT ON TODAY'S AGENDA. SEEING NONE, WE'LL CLOSE PUBLIC COMMENTS. UP NEXT IS MEETING

[Approval of Minutes]

MINUTES. >> BOARD MEMBER: I'D OFFER A MOTION TO ACCEPT THE MINUTES, THREE SETS OF MINUTES OF OCTOBER 17TH, DECEMBER 5TH AND 19TH

>> CHAIRMAN: I THINK I'VE GOT MORE THAN THAT ON MY AGENDA. I'VE GOT OCTOBER 17TH,

NOVEMBER 7TH, NOVEMBER 21ST, DECEMBER 5TH AND DECEMBER 19TH. >> BOARD MEMBER: SOME OF THOSE I

DON'T HAVE. >> CHAIRMAN: IS THAT YOUR MOTION?

>> BOARD MEMBER: I WILL MOD FOY MY MOTION TO INCLUDE ALL THE MINUTES IN YOUR POSSESSION.

>> CHAIRMAN: OKAY. WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. DO A VOICE VOTE? ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. OPPOSED? AYE. ALL RIGHT. MOTION CARRIESMENT MEETING MINUTES

APPROVED. JUMPING ON TO ITEM NUMBER 1. >> COUNTY ATTORNEY: BEFORE WE

[Item 1]

READING OF THE FORM ABQ. >> CHAIRMAN: THANK YOU. MR. KELLY?

>> SPEAKER: GOOD AFTERNOON, AGENCY MEMBERS. JUSTIN KELLY GROWTH MANAGEMENT. I'LL BE PRESENTING THE FIRST ITEM TODAY. SUPMIN 2019-08 ANNA SHAW MOBILE HOME. THIS IS A REQUEST FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW A MOBILE HOME AS A RESIDENCE IN RS ZONING. PROVIDED IS AN AERIAL

[00:05:06]

THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS DESIGNATED RURAL CIVIL CULTURE ON THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP AND IT IS CURRENTLY ZONED RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY RS3. AS MENTIONED, THE APPLICANT IS SIEGING SPECIAL USE APPROVAL TO ALLOW FOR THE INSTALLATION OF A NEW MOBILE HOME. ACCESS TO THE SITE WILL BE PROVIDED BY A DRIVEWAY ALONG SECOND STREET AND WATER AND SEWER WILL BE PROVIDED BY PRIVATE WELL AND SEPTIC SYSTEM. STAFF REVIEW SHOWS THAT THE LOT WAS PLATTED AS PART OF THE ELWAITED SUBDIVISION IN 1952. THE LOT MEASURES APPROXIMATELY .25 ACRES AND IS ROUGHLY 10,455 SQUARE FEET AND MEETS THE STANDARDS FOR LOT WIDTH AND AREA. AS MENTIONED, THE PROPERTY IS DESIGNATED RURAL CIVIL CULTURE. RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT REQUIRES A MINIMUM LOT SIZE OF 100 ACRES. HOWEVER, POLICY A163 EXEMPTS PARCELS RECORDED BEFORE SEPTEMBER 14, 1990, AND PERMITS ONE DWELLING UNIT. SINCE THE SUBJECT PROPERTY WAS RECORDED BEFORE THIS DATE THE PROPOSED USE WOULD BE COMPATIBLE. SECTION 20301 OF THE LDC DOES PRESCRIBE GENERAL PROVISIONS. SOME OF THESE PROVISIONS ARE PROVIDED HERE. THE PROPOSED MOBILE HOME CAN BE GRANTED WITHOUT DETRIMENT TO THE PUBLIC AND WITHOUT IMPAIRING THE INTENT OR PURPOSE OF THE LDC.

THE USE IS COMPATIBLE WITH THE SURROUNDING AREAS AND WILL NOT HAVE IMPACT ON ADJACENT USES.

AND THE USE DOES COMPLY WITH ALL REQUIRED REGULATIONS OF THE RS3 ZONING AND LAND USE DESIGNATION.

THE APPLICANT HAS ACKNOWLEDGED ALL TOWING GEAR WILL BE REMOVED AND EXTERIOR SKIRTING INSTALLED AROUND THE MOBILE HOME. THIS IS THE PROPOSED SITE PLAN SHOWING THE LOCATION OF THE MOBILE HOME AND ADHERENCE TO ALL REQUIRED STANDARDS OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE. PROVIDED ON THIS SLIDE IS A COMPATIBILITY MAP SHOWING THE LOCATION OF OTHER MOBILE HOMES LOCATED IN THE SURROUNDING AREA. SINCE THE WRITING OF THE STAFF REPORT, STAFF HAS REVVED SEVERAL LETTERS IN SUPPORT OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT BY SURROUNDING NEIGHBORS AND THESE HAVE BEEN INCLUDED IN YOUR PACKETS. STAFF FINDS THE REQUEST MEETS THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AND THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND HAS PROVIDED THE AGENCY WITH 11 CONDITIONS AND 5 FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL AS WELL AS 5 FINDINGS FOR DENIAL. THIS CONCLUDES STAFF'S PRESENTATION. THE APPLICANT IS PRESENT AND STAFF WILL STANDBY FOR QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS. THANK YOU.

>> CHAIRMAN: THANK YOU VERY MUCH. WE'LL ASK FOR THE APPLICANT TO STEP FORWARD

PLEASE. >> PUBLIC SPEAKER: MY NAME IS ANNA SHAW. RIGHT NOW I'M STAYING WITH MY DAUGHTER IN JACKS JACKSONVILLE. 1167 THORN APPLE

DRIVE. >> CHAIRMAN: WOULD YOU LIKE TO ADD ANYTHING TO MR. KELLY'S

PRESENTATION? >> PUBLIC SPEAKER: NO. THEY'VE ALL HELPED ME WITH THE PAPERWORK

AND EXPLAINED MOST ALL MY QUESTIONS TO ME. >> CHAIRMAN: GREAT. WE HAVE A

GREAT STAFF HERE. >> PUBLIC SPEAKER: I WAS A TEST TO THEIR PATIENCE

[LAUGHTER] >> CHAIRMAN: OKAY. THANK YOU. DO WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE

APPLICANT? I SEE NONE. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >> PUBLIC SPEAKER: THANK YOU.

>> CHAIRMAN: DO WE HAVE ANY PUBLIC SPEAKER CARDS? WE HAVE NO PUBLIC SPEAKER CARDS SO WE'RE CLOSING PUBLIC SPEAKERS. WE'RE BACK IN THE AGENCY. HI QUESTIONS FOR STAFF IN

DR. MCCORMICK? >> BOARD MEMBER: I DON'T HAVE ANY QUESTIONS.

>> CHAIRMAN: I SEE NO OTHER ONES. GO AHEAD. PLEASE DO. I'M NOT GOING TO CALL ON YOU NEXT TIME IF IT'S GOING TO TAKE THIS LONG [LAUGHTER]

>> BOARD MEMBER: A MOTION TO APPROVE SPECIAL USE PERMIT MIN2019-08 ANNA SHAW MOBILE HOME SUBJECT TO 11 CONDITIONS AND BASED ON FIVE FINDINGS OF FACT AS PROVIDED IN THE STAFF REPORT.

>> BOARD MEMBER: SECOND. >> CHAIRMAN: WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. DR. HILL?

>> BOARD MEMBER: I WAS GOING TO SECOND IT BUT I JUST WANTED TO ALSO COMPLIMENT THE LANDOWNERS

[00:10:04]

SO THANK YOU. >> CHAIRMAN: VERY GOOD. WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? SEEING NONE, PLEASE VOTE. MOTION CARRIES UNANIMOUS. THANK YOU. ITEM 2.

[Item 2]

MR. SMITH? WELCOME. >> SPEAKER: THANK YOU MR. CHAIRMAN. GOOD AFTERNOON AGENCY MEMBERS. JACOB SMITH WITH GROWTH MANAGEMENT PRESENTING ITEM 2, ZONING VARIOUS 2019-18 THE KARA PROPERTY FENCE. TO DO A BRIEF ORIENTATION WHERE THIS IS LOCATED, IT IS ON CAT ROAD APPROXIMATELY A MILE NORTH OF PALM VALLEY ROAD NEAR ROSCOE BOULEVARD. THAT IS A RESIDENTIAL A FUTURE LAND USE. AND LIES WITHIN RS3 ZONING.

LASTLY, I HAVE AN AERIAL MAP DEPICTING THE PROPERTY WITH THE SURROUNDING RESIDENCES TO THE NORTH, SOUTH AND EAST. TO REITERATE, THIS IS A REQUEST FOR A ZONING VARIANCE TO SECTION 2.02204 TO ALLOW FOR EXISTING FENCING TO REMAIN EXCEEDING THE HEIGHT LIMITATIONS IN SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONING. SPECIFICALLY ITS LOCATED AT 31 CAT ROAD. THIS APPLICATION WAS PREVIOUSLY PRESENTED TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING AGENCY ON SEPTEMBER 19, 2019. AFTER STAFF AND THE APPLICANT'S PRESENTATION AND ASSOCIATED QUESTION AND ANSWER SESSION, PUBLIC COMMENT WAS MADE BY THE PROPERTY'S ADJACENT NEIGHBORS FROM THE NORTH AND SOUTH. COMMENT INCLUDED OPPOSITION AND SUPPORT TO THE VARIANCE WHICH ULTIMATELY LEAD TO THE CONTINUATION OF THE APPLICATION. AT THE REQUEST OF THE APPLICANT THE PZA VOTED 4-0 TO RECOMMEND THE CONTINUATION.

DO A BRIEF REVIEW OF THIS APPLICATION. THE APPLICANT REQUEST THE ABILITY TO ALLOW FOR EXISTING FENCING UP TO 8 FEET ALONG THE SOUTHERN SIDE YARD OF THE PROPERTY AND FOR EXISTING FENCING UP TO 6 FEET TO REMAIN IN THE FRONT YARD SETBACK. THE APPLICANT HAS SUGGESTED THAT DUE TO VARIATIONS IN THE TOPOGRAPHY AS WELL AS PRIVACY THOSE ARE THE REASONS FOR SEEKING THE VARIANCE. SPECIFICALLY THERE ARE MINOR TOPOGRAPHICAL CONDITIONS IN SIDE YARDS AND ADEQUATE PRIVACY AND SAFETY WERE CITED. I HAVE TWO SITE PLANS TO SHOW HERE. THE FIRST ONE IS THE CURRENT STATE OF THE PROPERTY AND GENERALLY SPEAKING THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE PROPERTY IS OUT OF COMPLIANCE AS IT SITS. BOTH THE NORTH AND SOUTHERN BOUNDS ARE OVER 6 FEET AND THE MAJORITY OF IT AND THE FRONT YARD SETBACK HAS 6 FOOT FENCING IN IT AS WELL. SO THE APPLICANT HAS COME BACK FROM THE PREVIOUS BASED ON COMMENTS FROM THE PREVIOUS MEETING AND HAS SHORTENED WITH -- HAS REDUCED THE HEIGHT OF THE FENCE ON THE NORTHERN BOUNDARY TO NO MORE THAN 6 FEET ACROSS THE ENTIRETY OF THE NORTHERN BOUNDARY. THE SOUTHERN BOUNDARY REMAINS THE SAME AS DOES THE FRONT BOUNDARY OF THE PROPERTY. DURING A SITE VISIT I TOOK PICTURES OF THE PROPERTY SHOWING THE SOUTHERN FENCE AS WELL AS THE FRONT GATE AND WHERE YOU CAN SEE THE NORTHERN FENCES AS WELL. I WOULD NOTE THAT GENERALLY SPEAKING YOU ARE NOT -- FROM THE ROADWAY YOU ARE NOT REALLY ABLE TO SEE THE 8 FOOT FENCES THEY'RE SO DEEP. IT'S ABOUT A 400 FEET DEPTH LOT.

SO THE SECTIONS OF THE HIGHEST FENCING ARE NOT READILY VISIBLE FROM THE ROADWAY. LITTLE BIT OF REVIEW ON WHAT'S GOING ON WITH THE PROPERTY. IT IS DEVELOPED AS A SINGLE FAMILY LOT. THERE'S A RECTANGULAR LOT WITH THREE SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES TO THE NORTH, SOUTH AND EAST. AND THE PROPERTY CONTAINS MINOR VARIATIONS IN TOPOGRAPHY ON THE SIDE YARDS. THE APPLICANT CITES PRIVACY AND SAFETY AS THE MAIN CONCERNS. THIS DID ORIGINATE AS A PRIDE REPORT WHICH IS WHY WE'RE HERE. PER STAFF REVIEW THE PROPERTY DEMONSTRATES LIMITED TOP RALPH K58 CONDITIONS. STAFF OBSERVED THE EIGHT FOOT SECTIONS ARE NOT READILY VISIBLE FROM THE ROADWAY AND I OBSERVED SEVERAL PROPERTIES WITH WITHIN THE GENERAL AREA WITH SIMILAR FRONT FENCING. THE REQUEST AS SUBMITTED DOES NOT APPEAR CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST AND SHOULD THE AGENCY FIND SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO APPROVE STAFF HAS PROVIDED THE FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS TO SUPPORT. WE HAVE RECEIVED THREE LETTERS AND ONE EMAIL OF CORRESPONDENCE FROM RESIDENTS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD INCLUDING ADJACENT NEIGHBORS. THREE ARE IN SUPPORT AND ONE LETTER WAS OPPOSED TO THE VARIANCE REQUEST. OVERALL, STAFF DOES NOT OBJECT TO THE

[00:15:04]

OTHERWISE, I AM AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS. >> CHAIRMAN: THANK YOU VERY MUCH. IF WE COULD HAVE THE APPLICANT COME FORWARD WHO IS NO STRANGER TO THIS ROOM. THAT SIDE OF THE ROOM IS A LITTLE BIT FUNNY ISN'T IT? SORT OF BALANCES OUT THIS SIDE.

>> PUBLIC SPEAKER: GOOD AFTERNOON SCHONO ACEVEDO WITH MATTHEWS DESIGN GROUP 7 WALDO STREET. I'LL KEEP IT VERY BRIEF. THANK YOU, AGENCY MEMBERS. THIS WAS A CONTINUANCE FROM A PRIOR HEARING AND SOME OF YOU HAVE HEARD IT, SOME HAVE NOT. BUT ESSENTIALLY WE'RE LOOKING AT A PRIDE CASE TO GIVE A LITTLE BIT OF BACKGROUND ON THE PROJECT. THE NEIGHBOR TO THE DIRECT SOUTH HAD PUT IN AN INCIDENT REPORT FOR POTENTIAL CODE COMPLIANCE ISSUE. AND THAT'S HOW WE'RE HERE TODAY. THE NEIGHBOR TO THE SOUTH WAS LOOKING TO SELL THEIR HOME AND THE POTENTIAL BUYER WASN'T REALLY INTERESTED IN HAVING A FENCE THAT TALL. SO WE ENDED UP -- THERE IT IS. SO, AS I WAS SAYING, WASN'T REALLY INTERESTED IN HAVING A FENCE, ESPECIALLY OF THAT HEIGHT ON THE ADJACENT LOT WHICH BRINGS US HERE TODAY. JUST TO GIVE A LITTLE HISTORY ON THE NEIGHBORHOOD. THAT NEIGHBOR HAS SINCE SOLD THE LOT, MOVED OUT AND ACTUALLY ONE OF THE LETTERS OF SUPPORT IS FROM THAT VERY PROPERTY OWNER WHO INHABITS THAT HOME TODAY. THE OWNERS TONY AND MATT HAVE LIVED THERE SINCE 2018. THEY DECIDED TO BUILD THE FENCE FROM GETTING INSPIRATION FROM OTHER FENCES IN THE AREA. UNFORTUNATELY, THEY WERE NOT AWARE OF THE ZONING REQUIREMENTS AND SO BUILT A FENCE THAT WAS OUT OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE WITH ORIGINALLY SOME PORTIONS OF THE SOUTHERN BOUNDARY REACHING 8.5 FEET. YOU WILL SEE ON THE SITE PLAN THAT WE'VE PROVIDED THAT THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT ON THAT SOUTHERN BOUNDARY IS NOW 8 FEET.

THERE WAS SOME LITTLE GAPS AND HOLES AND MINOR GRADING THAT HAD TO TAKE PLACE TO EVEN THAT OUT IN CASE YOU WERE WONDERING. AND THAT HAS SINCE BEEN DONE. SINCE THEN OUR ZONING VARIANCE WAS FILED AND THEN AS A STAFF MEMBER HAD MENTIONED WE DID HAVE THE HEARING ON SEPTEMBER 19TH. AT THAT TIME, WE WEREN'T AWARE OF ANY OPPOSITION TO THIS VARIANCE AND SO WE DO APPRECIATE THE OPPORTUNITY TO COME FORTH ON A CONTINUANCE TO WORK THROUGH SOME OF THOSE ISSUES. WHAT WE'VE TRIED TO DO IS FRAGMENT THIS IN A WAY THAT IS EASILY READABLE ON THE SITE PLAN TO SHOW THAT NOT ALL OF THE AREAS ARE AS TALL AS 8 FEET. IN FACT, WHAT WE'RE REALLY LOOKING AT HERE IS THE AREAS THAT ARE CLOSE TO THE HOME, THAT'S WHERE WE'RE SEEING THAT MAXIMUM 8 FOOT. AND WE'VE BRACKETED OUT WHERE THE OTHER AREAS ARE. SO, YOU'VE GOT MAXIMUM OF 7 FEET HERE. AND SOME PORTIONS IT'S GOING TO GET LOWER THAN THAT. AND ORIGINALLY AS YOU CAN SEE HERE THIS WAS UP TO AROUND 7 FEET. AND THAT NORTHERN BOUNDARY IS WHERE WE'VE MADE SOME STRIDES IN BRINGING THAT FENCE HEIGHT DOWN. ESSENTIALLY WE'RE LIMITING IT TO 6 FEET ON THAT NORTHERN BOUNDARY. JUST TO GIVE YOU AN IDEA WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE AND GET A SENSE OF HOW THE HEIGHTS EBB AND FLOW. THE ARCHITECT OF THE FENCE DID KIND OF TRANSITION DOWNWARD. SO, IT'S NOT JUST THIS MONOTONOUS LONG PIECE OF WOOD THAT DOESN'T FLUCTUATE. YOU CAN KIND OF SEE THAT IN THIS MIDDLE SECTION. THIS IS THE SOUTH SIDE. SO, THIS IS THE TALLEST PORTION OF THE FENCE.

AND YOU CAN SEE AS IT COMES DOWN AS YOU GET PAST THE MASSING OF THE HOUSE THERE IS A TRANSITION

[00:20:05]

THAT'S DUE TO A RETAINING WALL. ONE THING I JUST WANTED TO MENTION IS WHEN THIS FENCE WAS INS INSTALLED SOME CONSIDERATION HAD BEEN MADE TO THE ADJACENT NEIGHBORS. AND ONE THING THAT WAS DONE, THERE'S A COUPLE BANANA TREES HERE THAT ARE PRETTY NICE THAT HAPPEN TO BE PRETTY CLOSE TO THE PROPERTY LINE. AND SO MY CLIENT DECIDED TO MOVE THE FENCE UPWARD A LITTLE BIT IN THAT AREA IN ORDER TO SAVE THOSE TREES. SO, IN TERMS OF WHY WE'RE HERE TODAY, THE ZONING VARIANCE, I DID WANT TO TOUCH ON LOOKING AT PUBLIC INTEREST AS WELL AS WHAT MEETS THE CRITERIA OF A HARDSHIP IN THIS SITUATION AND HOW THIS VARIANCE APPROVAL CAN BE IN HARMONY WITH THE INTENT OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE. IN TERMS OF CHARACTERISTICS AND MANAGING SURE THAT THIS IS NOT GOING TO CREATE SOME INCONSISTENCIES WITH COMPATIBILITY WITH THE SURROUNDING AREA, WE DID LOOK AT SOME OTHER FENCES LOCAL EITHER ON CAT ROAD OR ALONG ROSCOE BOULEVARD WHICH IS NEARBY. AS YOU CAN SEE FROM SOME OF THE EXAMPLES, WHAT'S PROVIDED ON MY CLIENT'S PROPERTY IS PRETTY SIMILAR IN AESTHETICS AND HEIGHT TO WHAT'S THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. IN TERMS OF HARDSHIP, PRIVACY IS VERY IMPORTANT TO MY CLIENT. SHE WORKS AT A RESTAURANT THAT'S NEARBY THAT'S VERY MUCH IN THE PUBLIC. SHE NOT AT THIS LOCATION BUT AT A PRIOR LOCATION SHE HAS SUFFERED A BREAK-IN.

SO, HAVING THAT LITTLE BIT OF EXTRA HEIGHT DOES REAP SOME VALUE FOR HER AND HER PERSONAL SITUATION. IN ADDITION, THE OWNERS HAVE PETS. THIS IS AN AREA WHERE YOU SOMETIMES GET COYOTES OR OTHER WILD ANIMALS, BIGGER DOGS THAT ARE NEARBY. SO, HAVING THAT ADDITIONAL HEIGHT ALSO HELPS IN THAT REGARD. JUST TO FOLLOW UP ON THE STAFF PRESENTATION. WE HAVE RECEIVED THREE LETTERS OF SUPPORT FROM NEIGHBORS. AS I MENTIONED, WE DID RECEIVE SOME CORRESPONDENCE AT THE LAST HEARING IN OPPOSITION FROM A NEIGHBOR TO THE IMMEDIATE NORTH.

AND THAT WAS THE REASON WHY WE DECIDED TO BRING THAT PORTION OF THE FENCE DOWN TO THE SIX FEET.

WHAT YOU SEE CIRCLED THERE, THOSE ARE THE AREAS THAT WE'VE REVISED ON THIS SITE PLAN THAT YOU ARE LOOKING AT TODAY FOR THE FINAL SITE PLAN TO BE INCLUDED WITHIN THIS APPLICATION. I JUST WANTED TO GIVE A BRIEF PHOTO SINCE WE DIDN'T HAVE THIS BEFORE JUST TO GIVE YOU AN IDEA OF SOME OF THOSE MINOR GRADING CHANGES. NOW WE'RE A LOOKING AT THE SOUTHERN BOUNDARY OF EVENING THAT OUT. THAT'S IT FOR ME UNLESS YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR ME.

>> CHAIRMAN: DO WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? I DON'T SEE ANY. THANK YOU. DO

WE HAVE ANY PUBLIC SPEAKER CARDS? >> BOARD MEMBER: YES WE HAVE ONE. MS. ELIZABETH HOWELL. WOULD YOU GIVE US YOUR FULL NAME AND ADDRESS AND YOU HAVE THREE

MINUTES. >> PUBLIC SPEAKER: MY NAME IS EAU LIES BEDSIDES MARY HOWELL.

I LIVE AT 21 CAT ROAD. I AM THE RESIDENT AND OWNER OF THAT PROPERTY. SECOND TIME WE'VE BEEN HERE BECAUSE IT'S BEEN POSTPONED. WHEN MY NEW NEIGHBORS MOVED IN, TWO YEARS NOW, THEY HAD CLEAR CUT TOLD ME THEY WERE GOING TO PUT IN A FENCE IN THEIR PROPERTY FOR THEIR THREE POMERANIANS. I SAID THAT'S GOOD. THEN THEY PROCEEDED TO BUILD THIS WALL. THEY KEEP USING THE WORD "FENCE." IT'S NOT A FENCE IT'S A WALL. TRUMP WOULD BE PROUD. I ASSURE THERE IS NO OTHER FENCE LIKE IT ON ROSCOE, CAT ROAD, PALM VALLEY ROAD. I BROUGHT SOME PHOTOS TO

[00:25:08]

SHOW YOU WHAT I GET TO LOOK AT. DO I PUT THEM OVER HERE? >> CHAIRMAN: RIGHT ON THE CENTER

ON THAT ANGLED PIECE OF WOOD PLEASE. >> PUBLIC SPEAKER: SO THIS IS WHAT CAT ROAD LOOKS LIKE. IT'S VERY PARK-LIKE. THIS IS AT LEAST THREE OR FOUR PROPERTIES.

THERE ARE FENCES HERE. MY NEIGHBORS ALL HAVE DOGS. THEY ALL GET ALONG. IT'S BEAUTIFUL.

THEN THE NEW NEIGHBORS BUILT THIS. THIS IS HIGHER THAN SIX FEET. UP AT THE HOUSE IT'S WAY HIGHER. AS FAR AS COYOTES OR ANYTHING GETTING IN AND THEIR LITTLE POMERANIANS, AN ANIMAL WOULD HAVE NO PROBLEM HOPPING IN THERE. LAST TIME IT WAS REPRESENTED TO YOU THAT THEIR FENCE WAS ONLY A COUPLE OF INCHES TALLER THAN MY LEGAL 6 FOOT FENCE. THAT IS MORE THAN A COUPLE OF INCHES. THEN THIS IS A REPRESENTATIVE OF WHAT I GET TO LOOK AT. THAT'S MY 90 POUND GERMAN SHEPHERD. AND THAT'S THE WALL. AND THERE'S NO FOOTERS. IT WAS THROWN UP IN A COUPLE OF DAYS. IT'S CHEAP. A GOOD WIND MAKES IT WAVE. IT'S JUST A DETRIMENT TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND, YOU KNOW, IF YOU WANT PRIVACY MOVE TO MARKS LANDING. THAT'S ALL I HAVE. THANK YOU.

>> CHAIRMAN: THANK YOU VERY MUCH. DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER PUBLIC SPEAKER CARDS?

>> NO. >> CHAIRMAN: OKAY. ALL RIGHT. REBUTTAL?

>> SPEAKER: IT IS A LITTLE BIT OF A PREDICAMENT WE'RE IN THAT WE HAVE AN EXISTING FENCE THAT IS ALREADY BUILT. THERE'S SOMETIMES MORE FLEXEDBILITY BEFORE SOMETHING GETS CREATED IN ORDER TO NEGOTIATE CHANGES. I DID SPEAK WITH MRS. HOWELL A LITTLE BIT AFTER OUR LAST HEARING AND SHE HAD SHARED WITH ME HER THOUGHTS ABOUT THE AESTHETICS OF THE FENCE, WHAT SOME OF HER CONCERNS WERE AT THE BEGINNING. BUT SHE DID SAY THAT REALLY THE MOST IMPORTANT ASPECT FROM HER PERSPECTIVE WAS THAT THE CODE WAS FOLLOWED. I DID ASK HER IF THERE WAS ANYTHING THAT COULD BE DONE TO INCREASE COMPATIBILITY ON HER SIDE AND I DID MENTION THE INTENT THAT WE WOULD BE BRINGING THE FENCE DOWN TO SIX FEET. BECAUSE SHE HAD MENTIONED THAT AT THE BEGINNING THERE WAS SOME ISSUES WITH LANDSCAPING AND CLEAR CUTTING. HOWEVER, SHE'S AT THE POINT NOW WHERE HER LANDSCAPING IS KIND OF WHERE SHE WANTS IT TO BE AND DID NOT REALLY WANT TO MESS WITH THAT AT LEAST ON HER SIDE OF THE PPROPERTY TOO MUCH. SO WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT HERE TODAY IS LOOKING TO DO A LITTLE BIT OF PROBLEM SOLVING TO SEE WHAT WE CAN DO TO BEST RECTIFY THE SITUATION. AND THE BEST SOLUTION THAT WE WOULD COME UP WITH IS TO BRING THE FENCE DOWN TO SIX FEET IN KEEPING WITH THE STANDARDS OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE ON THAT SIDE OF

THE PROPERTY. >> CHAIRMAN: THAT SIDE BEING THE NORTH SIDE?

>> SPEAKER: EXACTLY. >> CHAIRMAN: WHAT WAS THE RELOBBEDANCE TO DO THE SAME ON

THE SOUTH SIDE? >> SPEAKER: WELL AS YOU ARE PROBABLY AWARE THERE IS A SIGNIFICANT INVESTMENT MADE IN PUTTING UP THIS FENCE. AND THE NEIGHBOR TO THE SOUTH ACTUALLY IS A FAN OF THE FENCE AS IT SITS TODAY AND IS ACTUALLY ONE OF THE LETTERS OF CORRESPONDENCE THAT

WAS IN FAVOR OF LEAVING IT THE WAY IT IS. >> CHAIRMAN: ALL RIGHT. I'M SORRY I MIGHT HAVE MISUNDERSTOOD. SO THE OPPOSITION, MS. HOWELL, IS

LIVING ON THE NORTH SIDE? >> SPEAKER: THAT'S CORRECT. >> CHAIRMAN: WHERE YOU HAVE

MOVED THE FENCE DOWN TO SIX FEET? >> SPEAKER: EXACTLY.

>> CHAIRMAN: IS IT SIX FEET ON ONE SIDE AND HIGHER ON THE OTHER? IS THERE GRADE CHANGE

ACROSS THERE? >> SPEAKER: I THINK THE GRADE CHANGE IS MINIMAL. I DON'T HAVE THE ACTUAL ELEVATIONS FOR THE NEIGHBOR'S PROPERTY. BUT I DON'T THINK THAT THERE'S A LARGE SLOPE

IN BETWEEN THEM. >> CHAIRMAN: OKAY. >> SPEAKER: EXCEPT FOR THE

RETAINING WALL. BUT THAT PORTION WAS AT FEET -- FOUR FEET ANYWAY. >> CHAIRMAN: THE 4.3 FOOT

SECTION? >> SPEAKER: EXACTLY. >> CHAIRMAN: I ASSUME THAT IS A

SEPTIC MOUND OR SOMETHING? >> SPEAKER: I THINK SO. I'M NOT ENTIRELY SURE.

>> CHAIRMAN: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. DO WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT OR FOR STAFF?

[00:30:03]

DR. HILLSEN BECK >> BOARD MEMBER: WHEN THAT PHOTO WAS TAKEN THAT SHOWED YOUR FENCE AND THE FENCE IN QUESTION OR THE WALL IN QUESTION BEING MUCH TALLER?

>> PUBLIC SPEAKER: LAST WEEK. >> BOARD MEMBER: SO IT WAS NOT REMEDIATED? THE FENCE DOWN TO

SIX FEET ON THAT SIDE? >> SPEAKER: NOT YET. >> BOARD MEMBER: BUT IT WILL BE?

>> SPEAKER: EXACTLY THAT WOULD BE A CONDITION OF THIS APPROVAL. >> PUBLIC SPEAKER: MAY I ADD ONE THING? I SPOKE WITH SHANNON. SHE CALLED ME THE DAY AFTER THE HEARING BACK IN SEPTEMBER. AND, YOU KNOW, ASKED ME THESE QUESTIONS. WHAT COULD BE DONE TO MITIGATE THE SITUATION. I SAID ALL I WANT IS THEY COMPLY LIKE THE REST OF US DO. AND THESE PEOPLE HAVE A HISTORY OF ASKING FOR FORGIVENESS AND NEVER PERMISSION. I JUST WANT THEM TO, YOU KNOW, MAKE IT LOOK LIKE IT BELONGS THERE WHICH, YOU KNOW, DOES OR DOESN'T BUT AT LEAST BRING IT DOWN SO IT DOES NOT LOOK LIKE A WALL. AND I HAD SAID TO SHANNON THAT, YOU KNOW, IT WASN'T UP TO ME TO MAKE THE DECISION OF WHAT IS TO BE DONE IT'S A UP TO YOU ALL. THEN I DID FLAT OUT ASK YOU, ARE YOU JUST TRYING TO FIND OUT WHAT WILL IT TAKE FOR ME NOT TO PROTEST, AND SHE SAID YES. I

SAID I WILL SEE YOU AT THE NEXT MEETING. >> CHAIRMAN: ALL RIGHT. THANK

YOU. >> PUBLIC SPEAKER: THANK YOU. >> CHAIRMAN: DR. HILLSENBECK,

AOTHER QUESTION? >> BOARD MEMBER: YES. MS. HOWELL, HOW TALL IS YOUR FENCE?

>> PUBLIC SPEAKER: WHERE THE DOG IS? I'M SIX FEET TALL AND I CAN BARELY TOUCH THE TOP.

>> BOARD MEMBER: SO YOUR FENCE IS HOW TALL? >> PUBLIC SPEAKER: I OWN A FENCE

ON MY SIDE WHICH IS SIX. VINYL. >> BOARD MEMBER: SIX FEET? >> PUBLIC SPEAKER: CORRECT.

THEIR FENCE IS THIS MUCH HIGHER. >> BOARD MEMBER: RIGHT. BUT IT WILL BE REMEDIATED OR BROUGHT DOWN TO SIX FEET AND BE LEVEL WITH THE TOP OF YOUR FENCE. IS THAT CORRECT?

>> SPEAKER: CORRECT. >> BOARD MEMBER: THANK YOU. >> CHAIRMAN: DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT OR STAFF? I SEE NONE. WE'RE BACK IN THE PUBLIC AGENCY.

SO, TYPICALLY ON THESE LARGER OCEANFRONT AS WELL AS LET'S SAY THE INTERCOSTAL FRONT YOU GET THESE DECORATIVE POSTS AND RAILING FENCES AND ENTRY FEATURES, LET'S CALL THEM THAT.

IN THE PAST WE'VE -- ESPECIALLY WHEN THEY'RE SEE THROUGH, WHEN THEY'RE NOT OPAQUE, THEY'VE ALWAYS, AS I RECALL, GOTTEN A NOD OF APPROVAL. SO THAT SO ME IS NOT THE OBJECTIONABLE PART.

IT'S JUST THE LONGER FENCE. BUT LOOKING FOR A MOTION. >> BOARD MEMBER: I WAS GOING TO OFFER A COMMENT. I KEEP PUSHING THIS BUTTON HERE BUT I DON'T HAVE THE TOUCH. THERE THAT'S IT. FOR ME THIS IS SENSITIVE TO ME. NEVERTHELESS, MY POINT OF VIEW IS CLEAR, AT LEAST TO ME, THAT THE HARDSHIP HERE IS MORE ON THE NEIGHBOR THAN IT IS ON THE PERSON WHO WANTS THIS TO HAVE HAPPEN. IT IS A MASSIVE FENCE. IT CERTAINLY BLOCKS VISION. IT'S ISOLATING. IT'S NOT IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE CODE. I DON'T SEE ANY -- I HAVE A PROBLEM UNDERSTANDING WHERE PRIVACY AND SAFETY ARE ANY OR ISSUE HERE THAN THERE ARE FOR ANYONE ANYWHERE. AND WHILE I'VE TRIED TO SEE SOME FEATURES HERE THAT MAKE THIS DIFFERENT I DON'T. I CAN'T SUPPORT THIS

ISSUE. >> CHAIRMAN: JUST TO HELP YOU ALONG, THEY ARE BASICALLY SAYING ON THE NORTHERN BOUNDARY OF THIS IT WILL GO DOWN TO SIX FEET AND THAT FRANKLY DOESN'T COME BEFORE

OUR EYES. IT'S JUST BECAUSE IT WAS EIGHT. A PRIDE COMPLAINT. >> BOARD MEMBER: MY POSITION IS THAT I DON'T WANT TO GET DOWN IN THE WEEDS. IF THEY'RE NOT IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE CODE, IT'S

NOT OKAY WITH ME. >> CHAIRMAN: OKAY. LOOKING FOR A COMMENT OR A MOTION.

MR. WAINWRIGHT? >> BOARD MEMBER: I'D OFFER A MOTION TO DENY ZBAR2019-18 REQUEST FOR A ZONING VARIANCE 2.02.04B12 OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE TO ALLOW FOR

[00:35:03]

>> CHAIRMAN: WE HAVE ONE MOTION. DO WE HAVE A SECOND? >> BOARD MEMBER: SECOND.

>> CHAIRMAN: WE HAVE A SECOND. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? SEEING NONE, WE WILL VOTE. PRIOR TO YOUR VOTING, BILL, THIS GOES FOR YOU, A VOTE OF YES IS A VOTE OF DENIAL. OKAY? A VOTE OF NO IS A NOT DENIAL. GOT IT? PLEASE VOTE. YES IS A DENIAL. MOTION CARRIES 4-3. ITEM NUMBER 3.

[Item 3]

MS. MAY, HOW ARE YOU TODAY? >> SPEAKER: VERY WELL THANK YOU. CYNTHIA MAY GROWTH MANAGEMENT.

THIS IS AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 3. THIS IS A NON-ZONING VARIANCE FOR DURBIN CREEK CROSSING SPECIFICALLY FOR ALL THESE SIGNS. THE NON-ZONING VARIANCE IS IS TO THE DURBIN CREEK CROSSING PUD UNIFORM SIGN PLAN FOR ALTI LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF RACE TRACK ROAD WEST OF THE INTERSECTION WITH ST. JOHNS PARKWAY. HERE IS AN AERIAL VIEW OF THE PUD IN ITS ENTIRETY. IT HAS A FUTURE LAND USE MAP DESIGNATION OF A BIG [INAUDIBLE] WITH THE LOWER THIRD OF THE PROPERTY IN CONSERVATION LAND. IT IS ZONED PUD. TO LOOK AT IT A LITTLE ZOOMED OUT VIEW OF THE REGION, YOU CAN SEE HERE IS RACE TRACK ROAD, ST. JOHNS PARKWAY, THAT IS THE ACTUAL LOCATION WHERE ALDI'S WILL BE. A CLOSER LOOK. IT'S RIGHT ACROSS FROM THE INTERSECTION WITH THE RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY ON THE OTHER SIDE. THIS IS THE MDP MAP. THE YELLOW OUTLINES THE LOCATION OF THAT PROPOSED ALDI'S. THERE WILL BE A TRAFFIC SIGNAL AT THAT INTERSECTION.

THE APPLICANT IS SEEKING A NON-ZONING VARIANCE TO THE DURBIN CREEK CROSSING PUD UNIFORM SIGN PLAN TO ALLOW WALL SIGNS TO EXCEED MAXIMUM ADVERTISING DISPLAY AREA.

UNIFORMED SIGN PLAN PERMITS WALL SIGNS ON THE FRONT. THEY ARE MEASURED AT APPROXIMATELY -- WELL EXACTLY ONE SQUARE FOOT OF ADVERTISING DISPLAY AREA WHERE LINEAL FEET OF FRONTAGE AND THAT MAXIMUM ADA WOULD BE 48 SQUARE FEET. ON THE SIDES IT WOULD BE AT 75% OF WHAT WOULD BE PERMITTED AT THE FRONT AND THE REAR IS THE SAME AS THE FRONT. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING TWO WALL SIGNS TO BE 76 SQUARE FEET EACH AND THAT'S FOR THE ADVERTISING DISPLAY AREA. THEY WOULD CAP THE TOTAL NUMBER OF SIGNS TO TWO AND THOSE WOULD BE LOCATED ON THE FRONT AND EAST FACADES. ON THE SOUTH AND WEST SIDES, THE APPLICANT WOULD NOT NEED SIGNS BECAUSE ONE WOULD FACE THE RESIDENTIAL PART OF THE PROJECT AND THE OTHER WOULD FACE ANOTHER COMMERCIAL USE TO THE WEST. THE UNIFORMED SIGN PLAN PERMITS 168 SQUARE FEET OF ADVERTISING DISPLAY AREA TOTAL FOR FOUR SIGNS IF THEY WERE ALL IN PLACE AND THE PROPOSED SIGN WOULD LIMIT THAT WITH THE TWO SIGNS TO 152 SQUARE FEET TOTAL. LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 7004C CALCULATES THE ALLOWANCE OF WALL SIGNS AT A SLIGHTLY LARGER REQUIREMENT WHICH IS 1.5 SQUARE FEET PER LINEAR FOOT. AND THAT IS NOT TO EXCEED 200 SQUARE FEET OF ADVERTISING DISPLAY AREA PER BUSINESS. THE APPLICANT PRO PROVIDED JUSTIFICATIONS TO THE FINDINGS THAT ARE REQUIRED FOR A NON-ZONING VARIANCE. THE FIRST IS THAT PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES IN CARRYING OUT THE STRICT LETTER OF THE REGULATION AND THE GROCERY STORE IS SETBACK 217 FEET FROM THE PAVEMENT EDGE OF RACE TRACK ROAD. THE DECISION WOULD NOT BE BASED EXCLUSIVELY ON A DESIRE TO REDUCE COST AND THERE IS NO COST SAVINGS TO PROVIDE LARGER SIGNS. IT WOULD NOT SUBSTANTIALLY INCREASE

[00:40:03]

THE NON-ZONING VARIANCE WOULD NOT SUBSTANTIALLY DIMINISH PROPERTY VALUES, ALTER THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. THE LARGER SIGN WOULD BE PROVIDING INCREASED VISIBILITY AS WELL AS ENHANCE THE PROJECT. AND IT IS IN HARMONY WITH THE GENERAL INTENT OF THE CODE.

LARGER SIGNS WOULD BE IN HARMONY WITH THE GENERAL INTENT OF THE CODE. AND THAT IS ALL THE APPLICANT'S JUSTIFICATION. THESE ARE THE TWO ELEVATIONS. THE TOP ONE WOULD BE THE FRONT OF ALDI'S FACING RACE TRACK ROAD. THE SIDE ELEVATION WHICH WOULD BE FACING THE ACCESS ROAD INTO THE DURBIN CREEK CROSSING DEVELOPMENT. HERE'S THE IMAGE OF THEIR SITE PLAN SHOWING THE LOCATION OF THE BUILDING, KIND OF IN THE SOUTHWEST CORNER. THEY ARE 217 FEET FROM THE STOREFRONT TO THE EDGE OF PAVEMENT. THEY ARE SIGNIFICANTLY FURTHER TO THE POINT ON RACE TRACK ROAD WHERE INDIVIDUALS DRIVING WEST ON RACE TRACK ROAD WOULD BE ABLE TO SEE THAT SIDE SIGN. FROM THE OFFICE OF COUNTY ATTORNEY, THE REQUEST FOR NON-ZONING VARIANCE DOES NOT REQUIRE THE APPLICATION TO IDENTIFY SPECIAL CONDITIONS SUCH THAT A LITERAL INTERPRETATION OF THE CODE RESULTS IN A HARDSHIP. THE AGENCY MUST HOWEVER FIND WHETHER OR NOT THERE IS SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE TO MEET THAT CRITERIA OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE IN SECTION 100404B. EXAMPLES OF COMPETENT SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE WOULD BE SIMILAR TO NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTER, LOT SIZES OR WIDTH, ON THE DENSITY OF DEVELOPMENT. THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE SECTION 70204A PROVIDES ADDITIONAL VARIANCE CRITERIA SPECIFIC TO SIGNAGE. THE APPLICANT MUST PROVE THE COPY FACE OR MESSAGE WOULD NOT BE EFFECTIVELY VIEWED FROM THE NEAREST ROAD CONSIDERING DISTANCE, SPEED LIMIT, VISIBLE IMPACT FROM THE ROAD RAND INTEGRATION OF THE SIGN INTO THE BUILDING. THE APPLICANT HAS PROVIDED THAT 48 SQUARE FEET OF SIGN WOULD BE DIFFICULT TO READ FROM RACE TRACK ROAD BECAUSE THE FACADE IS 217 FEET FROM THE EDGE OF THE PAVEMENT. THE SPEED LIMIT IS 45 MILES AN HOUR AND THEY'RE REQUIRED TO HAVE ENHANCED LANDSCAPING ALONG THE SCENIC EDGE. THE REQUEST FOR THE INCREASED SIGN AREA, THIS IS A GROCERY ANCHOR. IT'S LOCATED ON A CORNER THROUGH LOT FACING RACE TRACK ROAD. THE PROPOSED 78 SQUARE FEET PER SIGN WOULD BE INTEGRATED INTO THE BUILDING AT A SIZE APPROPRIATELY SCALED TO THE BUILDING FACADES. THERE WOULD BE NO WALL SIGNS THAT WOULD FACE THE RESIDENTIAL USES TO THE SOUTH. THE APPLICANT WOULD CAP THE TOTAL NUMBER OF WALL SIGNS TO TWO AND THE TWO THEY WOULD PROVIDE WOULD BE FACING ROADWAYS. THE POSTED SPEED LIMIT IS 45 MILES AN HOUR.

THE ENHANCED LANDSCAPING AND THERE ARE OTHER LARGER SIZE SIGNS ON RACE TRACK ROAD FOR BUSINESSES WEST OF THIS SIDE. STAFF HAS NOT RECEIVED ANY CORRESPONDENCE OR PHONE CALLS REGARDING THE REQUEST. STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THE NON-ZONING VARIANCE FINDING IT SUBSTANTIALLY MEETS THE REQUIREMENT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, IN PARTICULAR THE REQUIRED FINDINGS OF SECTION 10043B AND THE DURBIN CREEK CROSSING PUD.

STAFF HAS PROVIDED FIVE CONDITIONS AND SEVEN FINDINGS OF FACT TO SUPPORT A MOTION TO APPROVE. THAT CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION. I AM AVAILABLE FOR QUESTIONS. THE APPLICANT

ALSO HAS A PRESENTATION. >> CHAIRMAN: THANK YOU, MS. MAY. IF WE COULD HAVE THE APPLICANT

STEP FORWARD. A FAMILIAR FACE HERE. HELLO. >> SPEAKER: GOOD AFTERNOON.

CASEY DEN DOOR, PLANNER WITH ENGLAND TIMES AND MILLER 14475 OLD ST. AUGUSTINE ROAD. I HAVE LINDSEY HAGA A SENIOR PLANNER. I ALSO HAVE TOM MUNDY WITH FERBER, MICHAEL AND JASON. AS CYNTHIA MENTIONED THIS IS LOCATED WITHIN THE DURBIN CREEK CROSSING PUD SOUTH OF RACE TRACK ROAD AND WEST OF COUNTY ROAD 2209. TO THE WEST IS THE JULINGTON CREEK PUD WHICH ALLOWS A WIDE RANGE OF USES FROM RESIDENTIAL TO NON-RESIDENTIAL AND THEN TO THE EAST WE HAVE THE URBAN SERVICE AREA WHERE DURBIN PARK PUD EXISTS AS WELL AS THE BARTRAM MARKET PUD AND THE PARKWAY PLACE PUD. WE ARE SEEKING RELIEF TO THE SELF-LIMITED UNIFIED SIGN PLAN FOR WALL SIGNAGE SPECIFIC TO THE ALDI TENANT. WHEN THE PUD WAS APPROVED WE DID NOT HAVE AN END USER OTHERWISE WE WOULD HAVE BROUGHT THIS FORWARD WITH OUR UNIFIED SIGN PLAN AT THE TIME.

WE ARE PROPOSING TWO WALL SIGNS. ONE ALONG THE NORTH ELEVATION AND ONE AT THE EAST ELEVATION.

THE SIGN ON THE NORTH ELEVATION MEASURES APPROXIMATELY 217 FEET FROM THE MEDIAN OF RACE TRACK

[00:45:07]

THE LOCATION OF THIS PROPERTY IS WITHIN THE TRANSITION AREA FROM RURAL TO URBAN AND THAT IS FROM THE WILLIAM BARTRAM SCENIC HIGHWAY STATE ROAD 13 TO COUNTY ROAD 2209. THE AREA DOES HAVE LIMITATIONS TO THEIR SIGNAGE ALLOWANCE IN THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE OF ARTICLE 7.

THOSE LIMIT THE GROUND SIGN HEIGHT AND ADA THEN REQUIRES WALL SIGNS TO COMPLIMENT THE BUILDING. PER THE UNIFIED SIGN PLAN WE WOULD BE PERMITTED FOUR SIGNS. ONE ON THE FRONT, ONE ON THE SOUTH AND TWO ON EACH SIDE FOR A TOTAL OF 168 SQUARE FEET MAX. AND WHAT WE ARE REQUESTING IS TWO WALL SIGNS. ONE ON THE NORTH AND ONE ON THE EAST ELEVATION FOR A TOTAL OF 152 SQUARE FEET, 76 SQUARE FEET EACH. THIS IMAGE DOES SHOW THE 76 SQUARE FOOT SIGN AND HOW IT DOES COMPLIMENT THE FACADE OF THE BUILDING THROUGH CREATION OF BALANCE. THE REQUEST IS CONSISTENT WITH OTHER SIGNS IN THE AREA. TO THE WEST WITHIN THE JULINGTON CREEK PUD THERE IS AN ATLANTIC SELF-STORAGE WHICH HAS A FRONT SIGN ALONG RACE TRACK ROAD MEASURING 150 SQUARE FEET.

JUST TO THE SOUTH OF THE ATLANTIC SELF-STORAGE IS A D. R. HORTEN WITH A SIGN ON THE FRONT FACADE FACING RACE TRACK ROAD WITH 128 SQUARE FEET. TO THE EAST THE PUBLIX LOCATED IN BARTRAM MARKET HAS A 120 SQUARE FOOT SIGN. THE OVERALL BUILDING HAS 190 SQUARE FEET OF SIGNAGE BETWEEN THE FRONT AND SIDE ELEVATONS. THIS ALDI IS DIFFERENT FROM THE ATLANTIC SELF-STORAGE AND THE DR HORTON IN THAT IT DOES HAVE FRONTAGE ON RACE TRACK ROAD AS WELL AS THE INTERNAL ROADWAY TO THE EAST. THEN I JUST WANTED TO SHOW YOU ONE MORE IMAGE. THIS IS FROM THE VIEW IF YOU WERE IN THE LEFT TURN LANE GETTING READY TO TURN INTO THE DEVELOPMENT. YOU CAN SEE THE BUILDING AND ON THAT BUILDING THERE IS THE 76 SQUARE FOOT SIGN BUT IT IS HIDDEN BY THE SCENIC EDGE PLANTINGS. BUT AS YOU CONTINUE FURTHER AND JUST BEHIND THAT FURTHER TO THE EAST YOU WOULD BE ABLE TO SEE THE SIGN. AND THAT CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION. I WILL STANDBY

FOR ANY QUESTIONS. >> CHAIRMAN: THANK YOU VERY MUCH. DO WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS

FOR THE APPLICANT? MR. WAINWRIGHT? >> BOARD MEMBER: HI. I AM SENSITIVE TO BEING CRITICAL ON TWO ITEMS IN A ROW. MY GRANDMOTHER WOULDN'T TOLERATE THAT. I'M STILL TROUBLED. IT WOULD APPEAR THAT YOU ARE ASKING FOR MORE SQUARE FOOTAGE BECAUSE

YOU WANT MORE SQUARE FOOTAGE. >> SPEAKER: NOT NECESSARILY. THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE PERMITS 1.5 SQUARE FEET PER LINEAR FOOT OF FRONTAGE WITH MAXIMUM OF 150 NOT TO EXCEED 200 SQUARE FEET IN ADA FOR THE OVERALL BUILDING. WHEN WE WROTE THE MDP TEXT IN OUR UNIFIED SIGN PLAN WE SELF-LIMITED TO 48 SQUARE FEET ON THE FRONT FACADE AND 78 PERCENT OF THE SIDE ELEVATION. OUR REQUEST IS CONSISTENT WITH THE ALLOWANCES OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE.

WE'RE JUST REQUESTING RELIEF FROM WHAT WE SELF-LIMITED OURSELVES.

>> BOARD MEMBER: THANK YOU. >> CHAIRMAN: MR. HILLSENBECK? >> BOARD MEMBER: WELL, IT STATES HERE IN THE ITEM THAT YOU ARE SUPPOSED TO PROVE THAT A SIGN OF 48 SQUARE FEET WOULD NOT BE VISIBLE FROM THE ROAD. I HAVEN'T REALLY SEEN THAT. I SEE THE 76 SQUARE FOOT SIGN LOOKS

LIKE IT WOULD BE QUITE VISIBLE. AS WOULD A 48 SQUARE FOOT SIGN. >> SPEAKER: IF YOU TAKE A LOOK AT THE ELEVATION THE 48 SQUARE FOOT SIGN IS MUCH SMALLER. WITH THE 45 MILE-PER-HOUR SPEED LIMIT AND SCENIC EDGE PLANTINGS IT WOULD BE DIFFICULT AND QUITE DANGEROUS FOR PASSERS-BY TO BE PAYING ATTENTION TO THE WALL SIGNAGE. IF THE SIGN WERE TO BE LARGER IT WOULD BE BETTER ABLE TO RECOGNIZE THE SIGN. ALSO, JUST TAKING A LOOK AT THE ELEVATION, YOU CAN SEE THAT THE 76 SQUARE FOOT SIGN FITS MUCH BETTER INTO THAT FAY FACADE AREA FOR THE SIGNAGE IN COMPARISON TO

THE 48 SQUARE FOOT SIGN. THAT'S SHOWN ON THE SCREEN. >> CHAIRMAN: MR. ALAIMO?

>> BOARD MEMBER: THANK YOU. IS THIS A STANDARD WITH ALDI? AS FAR AS THE OTHER LOCATIONS. I

[00:50:05]

>> SPEAKER: YES. >> CHAIRMAN: I'M USUALLY THE SIGN POLICE HERE AND I LIKE THE PROPORTION OF THE SIGN TO THE BUILDING AT 76. AND I I DON'T DISAGREE WITH THE VISIBILITY FROM THE ROAD. AS THEY COMPRESS THE SETBACKS THEY'VE ADDED MORE LANDSCAPING TO THEM PLUS THE LDC ALLOWS 200 SQUARE FEET. SO, IT IS THE WORSE OF TWO EVILS. DR. MCCORMICK?

>> BOARD MEMBER: FIRST OF ALL I JUST WANTED TO DECLARE EX-PARTE BECAUSE I DID GO OUT AND VISIT THE SITE TO SEE HOW IT WOULD LOOK. YOU KNOW, OBVIOUSLY THERE'S NOT A BUILDING SO IT'S TRULY HARD TO JUDGE. BUT BASICALLY I'M NOT GOING TO MAKE A COMMENT OTHER THAN TO SAY EX-PARTE BECAUSE I VISITED THE SITE TO GET AN IDEA WHAT IT WOULD LOOK LIKE FROM THE ROAD.

>> CHAIRMAN: OKAY. DO WE HAVE ANY PUBLIC SPEAKER CARDS? ALL RIGHT. DO WE HAVE ANYTHING MORE

FROM THE APPLICANT? >> SPEAKER: NO. >> BOARD MEMBER: THANK YOU VERY MUCH. BACK IN THE AGENCY. THOUGHTS, COMMENTS, M MR. MATOVINA? WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? SEEING NONE, PLEASE VOTE. MOTION CARRIES UNANIMOUS.

[Item 4]

>> SPEAKER: THIS SITE IS LOCATED JUST WEST OF STATE ROAD 9B AND IT IS ON NORTHWEST SIDE OF RACE TRACK ROAD AND EAST OF BARTRAM TRACK BOULEVARD. IT IS UNDER CONSTRUCTION AND A LOT FURTHER ALONG THAN THIS IMAGE SHOWS. THE FUTURE LAND DESIGNATION IS COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL ACROSS FROM INTENSIVE COMMERCIAL. ZONING TOSS THE WEST. THE REQUEST IS FOR A MINOR MODIFICATION TO THE BARTRAM PARK PUD TO ALLOW PACKAGED LIQUOR SALES FOR OFF SITE CONSUMPTION TO BE LOCATED WITHIN A THOUSAND FEET OF AN ESTABLISHED CHURCH. THE PROPOSED PUBLIC LIQUOR STORE, THIS IS A PACKET STORE, ADJACENT TO THE PUBLIC MARKET UNDER CONSTRUCTION AT BARTRAM MARKET. THE USE IS NOT PERMITTED WITHIN A THOUSAND FEET OF AN ESTABLISHED CHURCH OR SCHOOL AND THE CREEK SIDE CHRISTIAN CHURCH IS LOCATED 715 FEET TO THE WEST AND THAT'S AMERICAN ORING THE PUD -- MEASURING THE PUD PROPERTY LINE. THE APPLICANT BEARS THE BURDEN OF DEMONSTRATING THROUGH COMPETENT SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE THE REQUIRED CONDITIONS OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE ARE MET. THE REQUEST IS NOT INCOMPATIBLE WITH THE SURROUNDING AREA AND CHANGES ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE APPROVED PUD. THE PROPOSED LIQUOR STORE WILL INCLUDE PACKAGE SALES FOR OFF-SITE CONSUMPTION. BARTRAM PARK PUD DOES PERMIT THE SALE OF THE ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES WITHIN THE MARKET BUT THAT IS SUBJECT TO SPECIAL USE CRITERIA LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE SECTION. SPECIAL USE PERMIT USE CRITERIA REQUIRES PACKAGE SALES OTHER THAN MALT BEVERAGES TO BE LOCATED 1,000 FEET OR MORE FROM AN ESTABLISHED SCHOOL OR CHURCH UNLESS A VARIANCE IS GRANTED BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING AGENCY. IN THIS CASE, A VARIANCE MAY BE GRANTED AS A WAIVER TO THE PUD THROUGH A MINOR MODIFICATION. LOOKING AT AN AERIAL IMAGE. THE BARTRAM MARKET IS SHOWN ON THE RIGHT SIDE OF THE IMAGE. THE PUBLIX THAT'S UNDER CONSTRUCTION AND THE PROPOSED LIQUOR STORE WOULD BE JUST EAST OF THAT. THE PROPERTY LINE TO PROPERTY LINE IS 715 FEET. THE PROPOSED LIQUOR STORE TO THE PROPERTY LINE IS OVER A THOUSAND FEET.

AND THE PROPERTY LINE TO THE EDGE OF THE WETLANDS ON THE CREEK SIDE CHRISTIAN CHURCH IS ALSO OVER A THOUSAND FEET. SPECIAL-USE GENERAL PROVISIONS AND NEEDS ARE STAFF FINDINGS.

FIRST FINDING WOULD BE THAT SPECIAL USE IS NOT SUBSTANTIALLY DETRIMENTAL TO THE PUBLIC GOOD.

[00:55:02]

THERE'S A PRACTICAL DISTANCE BETWEEN THE PROPERTIES THAT EXCEEDS A THOUSAND FEET. NUMBER 2. SPECIAL USE IS COMPATIBLE WITH THE SURROUNDING AREA. PACKAGED STORE USE IS COMPATIBLE WITH SHOPPING CENTER USE. PUBLIX LIQUOR STORES ARE TYPICALLY LOCATED ADJACENT TO THEIR GROCERY STORES. DURBIN PAVILION IS THE NEAREST MEMBERS TO THE SOUTHEAST AND CONSERVATION LAND TO THE WEST AND NO ESTABLISHED SCHOOLS WITHIN A THOUSAND FEET. LOOKING AT THE COMPATIBILITY MAP, THE PUD FOR BARTRAM MARKET IS LOCATED MORE OR LESS IN THE CENTER OF THE SCREEN. THE CREEK SIDE CHRISTIAN CHURCH SITE IS LOCATED TO THE WEST APPROXIMATELY 715 FEET AWAY. THE CONSERVATION LAND IS BETWEEN THEM. AND JUST FOR REFERENCE DURBIN PAVILION SHOPPING CENTER IS ACROSS THE STREET. ITEM NUMBER 3 UNDER GENERAL PROVISIONS FOR STAFF FINDINGS. THE SPECIAL USE COMPLIES WITH THE REQUIRED REGULATIONS AND STANDARDS OF ARTICLE 2 OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE. THE STORE IS LOCATED WITHIN AN APPROVED PUD THAT ALLOWS ALCOHOL SALES. THEIR REQUEST IS TO WAIVE THAT DISTANCE REQUIREMENT TO CHURCH PROPERTY ON STORES OVER A THOUSAND FEET FROM THE CHURCH PROPERTY WHILE THE PROPERTIES ARE ABOUT 715 FEET APART. AND THE PROPERTIES ARE SEPARATED BY AN EXTENSIVE CONSERVATION AREA.

THIS REQUIRES APPROVAL OF A MINOR MODIFICATION BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING AGENCY. AND THE PROPOSED USE APPEARS TO MEET ALL OTHER REQUIREMENTS OF THE SPECIAL USE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AND COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. THE SPECIAL USE SECTION 20302, AGAIN STAFF FINDINGS FOR A NEARBY CHURCH AND SCHOOL. THE SALE OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES MAY BE PERMITTED AS A SPECIAL USE SUBJECT TO THE REQUIREMENT NO VENDOR MAY BE LOCATED WITHIN A THOUSAND FEET. THE REQUEST IS TO WAIVE THAT REQUIREMENT. I'VE ALREADY SAID THAT THE PROPOSED LIQUOR STORE WOULD BE MORE THAN A THOUSAND FEET FROM THE CHURCH PROPERTY. STAFF HAS NOT RECEIVED ANY CORRESPONDENCE REGARDING THE REQUESTED MODIFICATION. THERE WAS ONE PHONE CALL ASKING ABOUT THE PROPOSAL WITH NO CONCERNS. STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THE MINOR MODIFICATION FOR BARTRAM PARK PUD FINDING IT SUBSTANTIALLY MEETS THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE. THERE ARE 11 CONDITIONS PROVIDED AND SIX FINDINGS FOR YOUR APPROVAL. THAT CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION. CHAIRMAN KOPPENHAFER: THANK YOU

VERY MUCH. IF WE COULD HAVE THE APPLICANT STEP FORWARD PLEASE. >> SPEAKER: CASEY DEIGNEDOR PLANNER. I HAVE LINDSEY HAGA SENIOR PLANNER AND DAVID SMITH. WE ARE LOCATED WITHIN THE BARTRAM MARKET PUD WHICH IS NORTH OF RACE TRACK ROAD AND WEST OF BARTRAM PARK BOULEVARD.

AS CYNTHIA STATED, THIS IS A REQUEST TO ALLOW A LIQUOR STORE FOR PACKAGED SALES OFF SITE CONSUMPTION WITHIN ONE THOUSAND FEET OF AN ESTABLISHED CHURCH. THE SITE IS LOCATED IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT TO THE PUBLIX. THIS PUD IS APPROVED FOR OVER 166,000 SQUARE FEET OF COMMERCIAL AND OVER 22,000 SQUARE FEET OF OFFICE USES. THIS DOES INCLUDE ALCOHOL SALES WITH MEETING THE SPECIAL USE CRITERIA. THE CLOSEST MEASUREMENT TO THE CREEK SIDE CHRISTIAN CHURCH PROPERTY LINE IS 714 FEET. THE SPECIAL USE CRITERIA REQUIRES THAT 1,000 FEET IS MET FROM PROPERTY LINE TO PROPERTY LINE. THIS MEASUREMENT IS MET IN VARIOUS WAYS TO ARE THIS PROPERTY. THE CURVATURE OF RACE TRACK ROAD GIVES THE SITE A NEW NORTH-WEST ORIENTATION WHICH ORIENTS THE REAR OF THE PROPERTY CLOSER TO THE CREEK SIDE CHRISTIAN CHURCH PROPERTY. THE TWO PROPERTIES ARE UNIQUE IN THAT THEY'RE DIVIDED BY THE JULINGTON DURBIN PRESERVE. IN 2015 A CONSERVATION EASEMENT WAS GRANTED TO THE STAGE RIVER WATER MANAGEMENT -- ST. JOHNS RIVER WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT BY THE CHURCH. IF WE WERE TO MEASURE FROM THE PROPERTY LINE TO THE EDGE OF THE CONSERVATION EASEMENT WE WOULD BE 1093 FEET. MEASUREMENT FROM THE LIQUOR SALES IS OVER 1,100 FEET. AND THEN MEASUREMENT FROM ANOTHER PORTION OF THE PROPERTY LINE TO THE CHURCH PROPERTY LINE IS 1079 FEET. IN ADDITION, THE MEASUREMENT ALONG THE ROADWAY EXCEEDS 2,000 FEET. THIS REQUEST HAS A SPECIAL CONDITIONS IN THAT IT IS DIVIDED BY THE JULINGTON DURBIN PRESERVE AND THE CONSERVATION EASEMENT. THE CONFIGURATION OF RACE TRACK ROAD WITH THAT NORTHWEST ORIENTATION THE 1,000 FOOT REQUIREMENT IS MET. OR EXCUSE ME THE ALCOHOL

[01:00:05]

HOWEVER, THEY WERE NOT WILLING TO WRITE A LETTER OR SPEAK ON BEHALF. THIS CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION AND WE'RE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. CHAIRMAN KOPPENHAFER: THANK YOU.

>> BOARD MEMBER: THANK YOU AND I THANK YOU FOR THE PRESENTATIONS. D

DO THEY SELL ALCOHOL IN THE PUBLIX THERE'S ALREADY THERE? >> SPEAKER: THE STATE REQUIRES THERE ARE TWO SEPARATE ENT ENTRANCES. ONE FOR THE LIQUOR AND ONE FOR THE GROCERY STORE.

I DO HAVE DAVID SMITH WHO REPRESENTS PUBLIX AND HE WOULD BE ABLE TO SPEAK FURTHER IF YOU

ARE INTERESTED IN THAT >> BOARD MEMBER: THE OTHER QUESTION WITH THE TRANSFERABILITY. DOES THAT MEAN IT CAN GO TO ANOTHER ENITY OR IS THAT LIKE IF ANOTHER LIQUOR STORE LIKE ABC WANTS TO COME IN WE DON'T HAVE TO GO THROUGH THIS PROCESS AGAIN?

>> SPEAKER: THAT'S CORRECT. BUT IF YOU WANTED TO LIMIT IT TO NON-TRANSFERRABLE WE WOULDN'T

OBJECT TO THAT. >> BOARD MEMBER: THANK YOU. CHAIRMAN KOPPENHAFER: I SEE

NONE. DR. MCCORMICK, DO YOU HAVE A QUESTION. >> BOARD MEMBER: JUST A COMMENT AGAIN. NUMBER ONE EX-PARTE AGAIN. I VISITED THE SITE. I'M FOLLOWING YOU AROUND CASEY IS WHAT I AM DOING. BUT I WOULD SAY THIS IN TERMS OF THE CHURCH. THERE'S A LOT OF EXPANSION AS YOU KNOW WHERE THAT CHURCH IS. I MEAN, THERE'S A TREMENDOUS AMOUNT OF EXPANSION THAT THE CHURCH ITSELF IS DOING. SO, BUT IN THE PAST SINCE I'VE BEEN ON THE AGENCY MOST OF THE PROPOSALS THAT HAVE COME THROUGH HERE, WHETHER IT'S BECAUSE OF DISTANCE FROM SCHOOLS OR DISTANCE FROM

CHURCHES HAVE BEEN APPROVED. SO, I TEND TO APPROVE THIS ALSO. >> CHAIRMAN KOPPENHAFER: THANK

YOU. DO WE HAVE ANY PUBLIC SPEAKER CARDS? >> BOARD MEMBER: WE HAVE ONE SPEAKER CARD. MR. DAVID M. SMITH. SIR, IF YOU'LL GIVE US YOUR FULL NAME AND ADDRESS AND

YOU WILL HAVE THREE MINUTES. >> PUBLIC SPEAKER: THANK YOU VERY MUCH. DAVID M. SMITH DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENT AND ZONING FOR THE LAW FIRM OF STONES, WEBER, MILLER. I REPRESENT PUBLIX PRETTY MUCH STATEWIDE ON THEIR ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE LICENSING. I WAS HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MIGHT HAVE RELATIVE TO THE REQUEST.

>> CHAIRMAN KOPPENHAFER: DO WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE SPEAKER? I SEE NONE. ARCHIE WANTED ME TO ASK IF YOU HAND OUT COUPONS [LAUGHTER]

FOR NEW LOCATIONS. >> PUBLIC SPEAKER: AS A PUBLIC COMPANY I BELIEVE THEY'RE

PROHIBITED FROM HANDING OUT FREE SAMPLES. >> CHAIRMAN KOPPENHAFER: I'M SURE THEY ARE. MY EXPERIENCE ON THE BOARD IS LONGER THAN BILL'S BUT I THINK BACK IN THE DAY AND TERESA YOU WOULD KNOW BETTER THAN ANYONE HERE, IT USED TO BE FROM DOOR-TO-DOOR AND NOT

PROPERTY LINE TO PROPERTY LINE; IS THAT CORRECT? >> YES, SIR, THAT IS CORRECT. I DON'T REMEMBER THE EXACT DATE AND TIMEFRAME ON WHEN THAT CHANGED BUT THAT IS CORRECT.

>> CHAIRMAN KOPPENHAFER: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. SO, IN MY OPINION, THERE'S ADEQUATE SEPARATION. THERE'S A FAIRLY SIGNIFICANT WETLAND BETWEEN THE CURVE OF THE ROAD. YOU DON'T EVEN SEE THE CHURCH. BILL, TO YOUR COMMENT. THE CHURCH WOULD ONLY BUILD NORTH WHERE THE UPLAND IS AT THAT POINT. WHICH ISN'T ANY CLOSER. IF THESE THINGS WERE SIDE-BY-SIDE YOU COULD HAVE AN ARGUMENT THAT'S ACCESSIBLE. BUT I DON'T SEE THIS AS BEING A DIFFICULT THING.

AT ANY RATE, THAT'S JUST PAST EXPERIENCE. ANY OTHER COMMENTS? LOOKING FOR A MOTION. GO AHEAD,

BILL. >> BOARD MEMBER: I WANTED TO DO THAT TO CORRECT MY LAST TIME.

ALL RIGHT. MY MOTION IS TO APP APPROVE MINMOD2019-17 BARTRAM MARKET PUD PUBLIX LIQUOR STORE REQUEST FOR MINOR MODIFICATION FOR THE BARTRAM PARK PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE 2019-9 AS AMENDED TO ALLOW FOR LIQUOR PACKAGE SALES FOR OFF SITE CONSUMPTION WITHIN 1,000 FEET OF AN ESTABLISHED CHURCH, SPECIFICALLY LOCATED NORTH OF RACE TRACK ROAD AND WEST OF BARTRAM PARK BOULEVARD ADOPTING 11 CONDITIONS AND BASED ON SIX

FINDS OF FACT TO SUPPORT APPROVAL. >> BOARD MEMBER: SECOND.

[01:05:01]

>> CHAIRMAN KOPPENHAFER: WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? SEEING NONE, PLEASE VOTE. MIN MOD MOTION CARRIES UNANIMOUS. ITEM 5. HOW ARE YOU TODAY?

[Item 5]

>> SPEAKER: A MINOR MODIFICATION 2019-14 FOR THE MORITZ WORKSHOP. THIS IS A REQUEST TO MINOR MODIFICATION TO THE PALM VALLEY PLAN SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT WHICH WAS APPROVED FOR ORDINANCE 19 ONLINE 37 TO ALLOW A SIDE YARD SETBACK OF TEN FEET TO ACCOMMODATE PLACEMENT OF A USE STRUCTURE LOCATED AT 204 CLATTER BRIDGE ROAD. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED NORTH OF PALM VALLEY ROAD AND WEST OF THE INTERCOSTAL WATERWAY WITH ACCESS FROM CUTTER BRIDGE ROAD. IT IS LOCATED WITHIN THE PLAN SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT. IT DOES HAVE SURROUNDING PLAN UNIT DEVELOPMENT AND OPEN RURAL ZONING. AND THE PROPERTY IS CURRENTLY DEVELOPED WITH A SINGLE-FAMILY HOME AND ASSOCIATED ACCESSORY STRUCTURES. THE PROPERTY IS ABOUT ONE ACRE IN SIZE TOTAL. SO THE APPLICANT IS SIEGING RELIEF -- SEEKING RELIEF FROM THE SOUTHERN SIDE YARD SETBACK TO CONSTRUCT A WORKSHOP TO THE REAR OF THE EXISTING HOME. AN ENCHROMED OF FIVE FEET INTO THE REQUIREMENT YARD WHICH WILL BE APPROXIMATELY 175 SQUARE FEET OF THE 1050 SQUARE FOOT STRUCTURE. PLACEMENT OPTIONS ARE LIMITED DUE TO THE IRREGULAR LOT SHAPE, LOCATION OF THE EXISTING HOME, THE SEPTIC TANK AND SWIMMING POOL. THE MASTER DEVELOP PLAN REQUIRES ACCESSORY STRUCTURES SUCH AS THIS TO MEET THE SAME SETBACK AS THE MAIN USE STRUCTURE. THIS IS A LOOK AT THE MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN MAP FROM 1989. YOU CAN SEE THE EXISTING STRUCTURE ON LOT 3 PREDATES THIS DEVELOPMENT AND HAS THE SETBACK SHOWN. THE PSD OUTLINES SIDE SETBACKS BASED ON THE LOT'S SHAPE, SIZE AND CONFIGURATION THAT RANGES FROM FIVE TO 45 FEET. THE STANDARD OF TEN FEET IS REQUIRED FOR LOTS 5, 6, 7, 8 AND 9 AND THE NORTHERN SIDE OF LOT 4. YOU CAN SEE THE HIGHLIGHTED AREA. THIS LOT WHERE PLATTED SMALLER THAN THE PROPERTY. SO, THIS LOT SIZE IS JUST OVER 30,000 SQUARE FEET AND THE SMALLEST LOT WITHIN THIS NINE LOT SUBDIVISION. THIS IS A LOOK AT THE PLAT. I'VE OUTLINED THE PARCEL IN BLUE. YOU CAN KIND OF SEE IT'S ORIENTED TO THE SIDE. BUT THE NORTHERN PROPERTY BOUNDARY LOOKS LIKE ABOUT 284 FEET IN DEPTH AND THE SOUTHERN IS ABOUT 187 WHICH CREATES AN ANGLE AT THE FRONT PROPERTY LINE AS WELL AS THE PROPERTY DOES HAVE A 20 FOOT EASEMENT TO THE REAR FRONT. THIS IS A LOOK AT THE PROPOSED SITE PLAN FOR THE PROPOSED WORKSHOP. YOU CAN SEE THAT OUTLINED IN BLUE AS WELL.

I'VE DONE A HATCHING KIND OF ON THE AREA OF THAT WORKSHOP THAT WOULD BE THE ENCROACHMENT. SO, YOU CAN SEE KIND OF WHERE IT'S LOCATED. THE HOUSE IS ORIENTED TO THE NORTHERN PROPERTY LINE.

THE EXISTING POOL ALSO PREDATES A LOT THE CONSTRUCTION AS WELL. IT DOES HAVE A NOTE THAT THE EXISTING SHED WOULD BE REMOVED HERE BUT THE PUMP HOUSE WOULD REMAIN A NON-CONFORMING ACCESSORY STRUCTURE. SO, LOT 3 MEETS THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE OF 30,000 SQUARE FEET AS REQUIRED BY THE PSD IS AND IRREG YOU LAR IN SHAPE. THE HOME IS CONSTRUCTED CLOSER TO THE NORTHERN BOUND RID OF THE LOT AND PROVIDES A NORTHERN SIDE YARD OF FIVE FEET AND THE FRONT YARD RANGES FROM 60 TO 90 FEET IN DEPTH. THE REQUIRED YARDS OUTLINED FOR LOT 3 AND THE ADJOINING PROPERTIES MAY HAVE BEEN PRESCRIBED FOR THE PREEXISTING HOME TO INCREASE THE BUFFER FOR THE NEW HOME CONSTRUCTION ON ADJACENT LOTS. THE APPLICANT DESCRIBES THE HOME CONSTRUCTED IN 1950 AS POSITIONED OFF CENTER PREDATING THE SUBDIVISION DEVELOPMENT.

THE LOCATION OF THE EXISTING MAIN USE AND ACCESSORY STRUCTURES INCLUDE A SEPTIC TANK WHICH COMBINED WITH THE SHAPE OF THE LOT CREATE A HARDSHIP. THE REDUCTION OF FIVE FEET TO PROVIDE A SIDE YARD OF TEN FEET IS GENERALLY CONSISTENT WITH THE OTHER SIDE YARD SETBACKS REQUIRED FOR LOTS WITHIN THE SUBDIVISION. THE APPLICANT PROVIDED A COPY OF THE APPROVAL FROM THE HOMEOWNER'S ASSOCIATION FOR THE WORKSHOP AND PROVIDED LETTERS OF SUPPORT FROM ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS THAT ARE INCLUDED IN THE STAFF REPORT. STAFF DID COMPLETE A SITE VISIT AND NOTES THE WORKSHOP PLACEMENT WOULD HAVE VERY LIMITED VISIBILITY FROM CLATTER BRIDGE

[01:10:03]

>> CHAIRMAN KOPPENHAFER: THANK YOU VERY MUCH. IF WE COULD HAVE THE APPLICANT STEP FORWARD

PLEASE. >> SPEAKER: GOOD EVENING. JOHN MORITZ.

>> CHAIRMAN KOPPENHAFER: WOULD YOU LIKE TO ADD ANYTHING TO THE PRESENTATION?

>> SPEAKER: I THINK MS. FRAZIER DID A GOOD JOB OF DESCRIBING THE PROJECT, THE SUPPORT FROM THE NEIGHBORS. I THINK THE POSITION WE WANT TO PUT THE PROJECT ON THE LOT IS THE LEAST INTRUSIVE TO THE NEIGHBORS WHICH IS WHY THEY LIKE IT. IT'S A NOT VERY VISIBLE FROM THE ROAD. AS SHE SAID, THE HOUSE AND THE POOL AND THE SEPTIC TANK AND MANY OTHER FEATURES PREDATE THE PSD. THE HOUSE IS SOMEWHAT AWKWARDLY POSITIONED ON THE LOT BECAUSE IT PREDATES THE PSD MAKING THIS SOUTHEAST CORNER, YOU KNOW, THE IDEAL LOCATION TO ADD AN ACCESSORY USE STRUCTURE. I THINK ALTERNATIVE CONSIDERATIONS THAT WE'VE LOOKED AT FOR PUTTING IT IN A DIFFERENT POSITION OR FOR, SAY, REDUCING THE FOOTPRINT AND MAKING IT A TWO STORY STRUCTURE OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT WOULD BE MORE INTRUSIVE TO THE NEIGHBORS, MORE VISIBLE FROM THE ROAD AND THE INTERCOSTAL WATERWAY. SO WE FELT LIKE THIS WAS THE BEST COMPROMISE TO MEET THE NEEDS OF THE COMMUNITY CONSISTENT WITH THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN. SO, I'LL LEAVE IT AT THAT UNLESS YOU HAVE SPECIFIC

QUESTIONS. >> CHAIRMAN KOPPENHAFER: DO WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE

APPLICANT? DR. HILLSENBECK? >> BOARD MEMBER: I WAS -- WHILE I'M INCLINED TO VOTE FOR THIS I WAS WONDERING ABOUT THE FIVE FOOT WIDE FRONT PORCH ON THAT. IF YOU DIDN'T HAVE THAT FRONT

PORCH YOU WOULDN'T EVEN NEED TO REQUEST THIS VARIANCE. >> SPEAKER: CORRECT. GOOD POINT. BECAUSE OF THE LOCATION ON THE LOT AND THE FACT IT'S DIRECTLY ADJACENT TO THE POOL AND VERY VISIBLE FROM THE REAR OF THE HOUSE, WE FELT THAT WE NEEDED TO HAVE A PORCH ASTATICALLY TO MATCH THE REST OF THE HOUSE. THE PSD DOES REQUIRE US TO MAKE IT ARCHITECTURALLY CONSISTENT WITH THE REST OF THE HOUSE AND THE ENTIRE BACK OF THE HOUSE HAS PORCHES FACING THE BACKYARD AND FACING THE POOL. SO, FOR CONSISTENCY, ARCHITECTURAL CONSISTENCY AND FOR THE LOOK EVEN FROM THE NEIGHBOR'S YARD WE FELT THAT A PORCH WAS IMPORTANT BECAUSE IT

DOES DIRECTLY BUTT UP TO THE POOL. >> BOARD MEMBER: A FOLLOW-UP QUESTION IF I MAY. IS THERE GOING TO BE PLUMBING WITHIN THE WORKSHOP OR JUST ELECTRIC?

>> SPEAKER: THERE IS A PLAN FOR A BATHROOM, A SINGLE BATHROOM WITHIN THE WORKSHOP, YES.

>> BOARD MEMBER: DO YOU EVER ANTICIPATE THIS BEING USED AS A GUEST HO US?

>> SPEAKER: NOT FOR ME. OBVIOUSLY, I PLAN FOR IT TO BE A WORKSHOP. BUT I COULDN'T SPEAK

FOR A FUTURE OWNER. >> CHAIRMAN KOPPENHAFER: M MR. MATOVINA?

>> BOARD MEMBER: MY QUESTION IS RECOGNIZING THAT WE WOULDN'T WANT TO ACHIEVE THE SAME SIZE BY GOING TWO STORY. WHY IS IT REQUIRED TO BE THIS SIZE AND IF IT IS THE SQUARE FOOTAGE YOU AFTER WHY COULDN'T YOU MAKE IT MEET THE SETBACK BUT THEN MAKE IT A LITTLE WIDER FROM EAST TO

WEST? >> SPEAKER: SO THERE IS A SEPTIC TANK TO THE WEST, TWO SEPTIC TANKS TO THE WEST, AND I HAVE A LIMIT AS TO HOW CLOSE I CAN GO TO THAT. SO, I CAN'T GO FARTHEST WITH. I COULD MAKE IT SLIGHTLY LONGER TO THE EAST AND STILL MEET THAT SETBACK BUT I DON'T THINK THAT WOULD MAKE UP THE FULL SQUARE FOOTAGE DIFFERENCE.

>> CHAIRMAN KOPPENHAFER: ALL RIGHT. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? I SEE NONE.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH. DO WE HAVE ANY PUBLIC SPEAKER CARDS? >> BOARD MEMBER: NO.

>> CHAIRMAN KOPPENHAFER: WE'RE BACK IN THE AGENCY. THOUGHTS, COMMENTS, MOTIONS?

MR. WAINWRIGHT? >> BOARD MEMBER: IF NO ONE ELSE WISHES TO, I'LL OFFER A MOTION.

I'D OFFER A MOTION TO APPROVE MINMOD 2019-14 MORITZ WORKSHOP BASED ON SIX FINDINGS OF FACT

AND SUBJECT TO SIX CONDITIONS AS PROVIDED IN THE STAFF REPORT. >> BOARD MEMBER: SECOND.

>> CHAIRMAN KOPPENHAFER: WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? SEEING NONE, PLEASE VOTE. MOTION CARRIES. ALL RIGHT. MAKING GOOD HEADWAY LET'S TAKE ITEM NUMBER 6. MS.

[Item 6]

[01:15:07]

FRAZIER? >> SPEAKER: THANK YOU. FOR THE RECORD, BEVERLY FRAZIER GROWTH MANAGEMENT. THIS IS AGENDA ITEM 6 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT 2019-06 FOR THE FAVOR DYKES HOME SITES. THIS IS A REQUEST, A TRANSMITTAL HEARING TO REQUEST A CHANGE FOR THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP CLASSIFICATION FOR APPROXIMATELY 16.48 ACRES OF LAND FROM RURAL SILL VI CULTURE TO RESIDENTIAL A. IT DOES INCLUDE A TEXT AMENDMENT LIMITATION OF FIVE DWELLING UNITS. SO THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED TO THE EAST OF US1 AND INTERSTATE 95 AND TO THE SOUTH OF FAVOR DYKES ROAD AS WELL AS THE CREEK. AND THE CURRENT FUTURE LAND USE IS RURAL SLL VI CULTURE AS WELL AS THE ADJACENT PROPERTIES. THEY'RE REQUESTING THE RESIDENTIAL A FUTURE LAND USE AS SHOWN ON THE MAP. THE ZONING IS OPEN RURAL FOR THIS PROPERTY AS WELL AS ADJACENT PROPERTIES AS WELL AS A PLANNED RURAL DEVELOPMENT IS LOCATED TO THE WEST. THIS SHOWS THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. IT IS CURRENTLY IMPROVED WITH JUST TWO SICK AM FAMILY HOMES TO THIS WILL ALLOW ADDITIONAL THREE DWELLING UNITS. THESE TWO HOMES WERE DEVELOPED BASED ON THE FAMILY FARM PROVISIONS. THE REQUEST WILL ALLOW RECONFIGURATION OF THE TWO EASTERN PARCELS AND DISSOLUTION OF THE FAMILY FARM. THE DESIGNATION LIMITS RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ONE DWELLING UNIT. RESIDENTIAL A ALLOWS ONE DWELLING UNIT PER NET ACRE WHICH INCREASES THE DEVELOPMENT ENTITLEMENTS CONSISTENT WITH THE OPEN RURAL ZONING AND TEXT AMENDMENT PROVIDES A FIVE DWELLING LIMITATION CONSISTENT WITH THE EXISTING DIVISIONS.

THIS IS A LOOK AT THE OWNERSHIP MAP AND DIVISIONS A I THEY SIT WITH FIVE DIFFERENT PARCELS.

THE THREE TO THE SOUTH FOR FAMILY FARM AS WELL AS THE TWO PARCELS TO THE NORTH. OPEN RURAL ZONING WILL BE MAINTAINED. CONTINUED TO ALLOW LIMITED RESIDENTIAL AND AGRICULTURAL USES CONSISTENT WITH THE PROPOSED LAND USE AND ALTHOUGH THE RESIDENTIAL A LAND USE WILL INCREASE THE ALLOWABLE RESIDENTIAL DENSITY IT SHARES SIMILAR ALLOWABLE USES AND WILL LIMIT THE TYPES OF PERMITTED USES AS COMPARED TO RURAL SILL VI CULTURE. CONCURRENCY AND TRANSPORTATION REVIEW PROVIDED BY THE MAXIMUM PROPOSED DENSE ANY OF FIVE SINGLE FAMILY UNITS.

IT'S ESTIMATED WITH THE THREE NEW HOMES TO GENERATE 28 DAILY TRIPS AND THREE NEW EXTERNAL PEAK HOUR TRIPS. THERE IS ADEQUATE CAPACITY AT THE DIRECTLY ACCESS ROADWAY SEGMENT LINK 116 THAT IS CURRENTLY OPERATING WITH A 51.7% CAPACITY BASED ON THE TOTAL COMMITTED TRAFFIC. ALSO IMPACT REVIEW LOOKING AT THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS. THE DEVELOPMENT OF THREE ADDITIONAL SINGLE FAMILY HOMES IS ONLY ESTIMATED TO GENERATE .72 STUDENTS BASED ON THE GENERATION RATE PER HOUSEHOLD FOR THE PET RA MENENDEZ -- PET RA MENENDEZ AREA. FUTURE DEVELOPMENT MAY REQUIRE MITIGATION TO ADDRESS SCHOOL CAPACITY. A SCHOOL CONCURRENCY DETERMINATION WILL BE PRIOR TO APPROVAL. IF MITIGATION IS ACQUIRED PAYMENT CAN BE MADE TO THE SCHOOL BOARD PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF A BUILDING PERMIT. MINOR LOOK AT THE APPLICANT ALSO DOES INTEND TO DEVELOP THE PROPERTY WITH A PRIVATE WATER AND SEWER WHICH IS CONSISTENT WITH THE SURROUNDING RURAL RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS WHICH MAY, YOU KNOW, RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT MAY PERMIT PRIVATE UTILITIES WITH A MINIMUM ONE ACRE SIZE AND 100 FOOT LOT WIDTH. THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED IN THE ST. JOHNS COUNTY SERVICE TERRITORY AND MAY HAVE THE OPTION TO REQUEST SERVICE AVAILABILITY FOR PUBLIC UTILITIES IN THE FUTURE.

MINIMAL IMPACT TO PUBLIC PARKS AND RECREATION IS ESTIMATED WITH THE DEMAND FOR RECREATION OPEN SPACE CALCULATED AS .036 ACRES. BASED ON THE FIVE PARCELS THE DEVELOPMENT AFFORDED ADEQUATE OPEN SPACE. IN ADDITION THE PROPERTIES ARE LOCATED LESS THAN A QUARTER MILE FROM FAVOR DYKES STATE PARK WHICH PROVIDES OPPORTUNITIES FOR BIKING, HIKING, CAMPING AND FISHING.

TECHNICAL DIVISION DID A REVIEW OF THE DAVIS FAMILY PROPERTIES A LITTLE OVER SEVEN ACRES.

COMPLETED THE APPLICATION FOR THE FAMILY FARM DIVISION IN 2002. AT THAT TIME THEY RECEIVED APPROVAL FOR A NON-ZONING VARIANCE. ACCESS FOR THESE PARCELS ARE PROVIDED BY A

[01:20:04]

THE PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL A FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION WILL ALLOW DEVELOPMENT OF THREE ADDITIONAL LOTS AND WITH ONE DWELLING UNIT ON EACH EXISTING PARCEL THAT RANGES FROM TWO ACRES TO ABOUT FOUR ACRES IN SIZE. THE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ALONG FAVOR DYKES ROAD IS COMPRISED OF LOTS RATE TO ONE TO 11 ACRES. THERE'S A FEW SMALL PARCELS OF LAND IN THE VICINITY THAT ARE MUCH SMALLER. THE HYDE PARK PLAN RULE DEVELOPMENT THE JOINING OF THE WESTERN BOUNDARY IS PLANNED FOR 37 SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES AND A TOTAL OF 178 ACRES WITH A AREA OF DEVELOPMENT LIMITED TO 15 ACRE AND THE REMAINING 163 ACRES CLASSIFIED AS RESERVE. CREATION OF A RESIDENTIAL A DEVELOPMENT AREA IN THIS LOCATION APPEARS COMPATIBLE BASED ON THE EXISTING RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT PATTERN AND DENSITY IN THE SURROUNDING AREA. EXISTING RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT IS PRIMARILY NON-CONFORMING PARCELS THAT ARE INCONSISTENT WITH THE DESIGNATION OF RURAL SILL VI CULTURE. STAFF DID RECEIVE TWO PHONE CALL INQUIRIES REGARDING THIS REQUEST BUT NO OBJECTION WHEN DISCUSSING THE APPLICATION AND STAFF HAS NOT RECEIVED ANY WRITTEN CORRESPONDENCE. STAFF DOES RECOMMEND TRANSMITTAL A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT 2019-06 AND PROVIDES FOUR FINDINGS OF FACT TO SUPPORT A MOTION. I'D BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. THE APPLICANT HAS A PRESENTATION WITH

ADDITIONAL DETAILS. >> CHAIRMAN KOPPENHAFER: THANK YOU. IF WE COULD HAVE THE

APPLICANT STEP FORWARD PLEASE. >> SPEAKER: GOOD AFTERNOON. KAREN TAYLOR, 77 SAFER AGOSSA -- SARAH GOSSA STREET. I'LL TRY TO GO THROUGH MINE. BEVERLY REALLY COVERS EVERYTHING. BUT WE'LL JUST TRY TO KIND OF ADD TO IT, IF I CAN. WITH ME IS CHRIS SHE. CHRIS SHE IS THE OWNER OF THE MASTER CRAFT PROPERTIES WHICH ARE THE ONES I'M CALLING TO THE EAST. AND THERE IS A REPRESENTATIVE I UNDERSTAND OF THE DAVIS FAMILY WHICH I'M CALLING THE WESTERN PARCELS.

BEVERLY IS CALLING THE SOUTHERN. THEY KIND OF GO SIDEWAYS. ANYWAY, IF YOU GET CONFUSED BETWEEN HER PRESENTATION AND MINE, WHAT I AM CALLING WEST IS WHAT SHE IS CALLING SOUTH OR VICE VERSA. SO THE LOCATION IS ON FAVOR DYKES ROAD EAST OF I-95 AND US1 INTERSECTION. IT'S KIND OF ABOUT HALFWAY UP THAT ROADWAY. JUST TO GIVE YOU A BASIS OF THE DIFFERENT THINGS AS BEVERLY EXPLAINED. WE HAVE A FAMILY FARM FOR THE DAVIS FAMILY. YOU CAN DEFINITELY SEE THE THREE PARCELS. TWO HAVE BEEN BUILT ON. THEN THIS WOULD BE THE MASTER CRAFT OR CHRIS'S PARCELS. AND THEY WERE DIVIDED AT ONE TIME BUT NOT BEFORE THE REQUIREMENT. SO, THOSE WERE ILLEGALLY DIVIDED. SO THOSE ACTUALLY IS THE 8.799 ACRES BUT IT SHOWS UP AS TWO PARTICULAR LOTS. AS MENTIONED, THE OVERALL NEIGHBORHOOD KIND OF HAS A MIX. YU HAVE ANYTHING FROM EIGHT TO TEN ACRE LOTS DOWN TO QUARTER ACRE LOTS DEPENDING ON WHERE THEY ARE AND KIND OF TYPICAL OF WHAT I CALL OLDER RURAL ST. JOHNS COUNTY. SO, YOU'VE GOT THE SMALLER ONES DOWN IN HERE. YOU'VE GOT SOME MID-SIZED ONES AND THEN YOU'VE GOT LARGE ONES. AND THEN THE PARK OF COURSE IS UP IN THIS PARTICULAR AREA. THIS IS A COPY OF THE EXISTING FUTURE LAND USE MAP. I DO MINE JUST A LITTLE DIFFERENT THAN SHE DOES. YOU CAN SEE THE SITE WHICH WOULD BE IN THIS LOCATION. YOU CAN SEE THE EXTENT OF THE RURAL SILL VI CULTURE, THE EXTENT OF THE MIXED USE DISTRICT THAT IS AROUND THE INTERSECTION HERE. AND FOR THOSE THAT'S BEEN ON THE BOARD FOR A WHILE, WE HAVE THIS LITTLE RESIDENTIAL DOWN HERE WHICH IS RESIDENTIAL A WHICH IS THE PELL ASIR CREEK FAMILY WHICH I CAME TO YOU FOR A COMP PLAN AMENDMENT NOT TOO LONG AGO. IT ALSO LIMITED THE NUMBER OF UNITS THEY WERE ALLOWED TO PUT ON THERE. SO, WITH THE PROPOSED CHANGE THAT'S WHAT IT WOULD LOOK LIKE. WE HAVE OFFERED UP AND IS INCLUDED IN THE PACKAGE A TEXT AMENDMENT THAT WOULD LIMIT THAT DAVIS FAMILY TO THE THREE LOTS THAT THEY ALREADY HAVE. THEY JUST WOULDN'T BE WITHIN THE FAMILY FARM ANYMORE. THEN TWO UNITS ON THE OTHER ONE. MR. ED SHE WOULD LIKE TO RECONFIGURE THOSE LOTS THOUGH BECAUSE OF WETLANDS THAT EXIST ON THE SITE.

[01:25:06]

AND I HAVE TALKED TODAY TO ONE OF THE LOCAL RESIDENTS ABOUT SOME CONCERNS THAT HAVE TO DO WITH THERE IS LIKE A SWAMPY AREA IN HERE. SO, WE'LL ADDRESS THAT AS WE GO ON. BUT BASICALLY THIS DOESN'T SHOW THE DIVISION BETWEEN THE TWO FAMILIES BUT JUST SHOWS YOU THE DIFFERENCE IN CASE THERE'S SOME QUESTIONS THAT COME UP. SO THE REQUEST IS TO AMEND THE COMP PLAN FOR THE TOTAL 16.48 ACRES WHICH IS WHAT KICKS IT INTO BEING A FULL SCALE AMENDMENT RATHER THAN A SMALL SCALE. AND THAT'S TO ALLOW THAT RECONFIGURATION FOR THE EASTERN PARCEL WHICH WOULD BE CHRIS'S PARCEL. AND THEN FOR THE FAMILY FARM TO DISSOLVE JUST SO IN THE FUTURE IF SOMEBODY, THEY WANTED TO SELL ONE OF THE LOTS OR ONE OF THE HOUSES THAT IT WOULDN'T HAVE TO BE IN THE FAMILY. JUST GIVE EVERYBODY A LITTLE -- THAT'S CHANGED KIND OF OVER THE YEARS. WHEN THAT FIRST KIND OF CAME OUT THE COUNTY WAS KIND OF LIKE OKAY EVERYBODY LIVES THERE FOR A YEAR, YOU GET YOUR MAIL, YOU GET A RESIDENTIAL ESTABLISHED, AND THEN YOU CAN SELL IT. WELL THAT WAS BEING REALLY KIND OF TAKEN ADVANTAGE OF TYPE THING AND I THINK THEY REVISITED IT AND CERTAINLY LOOKED AT IT. SO THE FAMILY FARM ONCE YOU -- ONCE ONE OF THE PROPERTIES COMES OUT OF THE FAMILY FARM, THEN THE FAMILY FARM GETS DISSOLVED BASICALLY. THEN THE PEOPLE THAT OWN THE REMAINING HOMES CAN'T -- THEY CAN MAINTAIN THEIR HOMES BUT THEY CAN'T DO ANY IMPROVEMENTS.

THEY CAN'T DO ANY CHANGES TO IT. SO, YOU ARE GOING TO SEE A NUMBER OF THOSE FOR THE NEW MEMBERS. YOU WILL SEE THESE COMING IN BECAUSE THEY'RE FAMILY SITUATIONS. AND AS TIME MOVES ON YOU ARE NOT ALWAYS GOING TO HAVE A FAMILY THAT'S GOING TO BE ABLE TO BUY IT. ANYWAY, AND IT DOES SHOW YOU THE DIVISION OF THE TWO DIFFERENT PARCELS. AND THERE ARE THE TWO EXISTING SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES. THERE ARE THREE THAT ARE VACANT. BUT ONE OF THOSE THAT'S VACANT THAT'S IN THE FAMILY FARM BASICALLY ALREADY HAS THE DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS OF A LOT FROM THE FAMILY FARM. SO THAT REALLY YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT TWO NEW HOMES. IN ESSENCE THAT WHOLE PIECE WHICH WOULD BE THAT EASTERN PIECE, 8.799 ACRES, WOULD BE ALLOWED ONE UNIT. SO, WE'RE ACTUALLY INCREASING IT BY ONE. SO, WE'LL KIND OF GET WITH STAFF ON THAT. BUT BASICALLY I'M KIND OF GIVING YOU THE EXPLANATION. WE FEEL LIKE THIS IS VERY CONSISTENT WITH WHAT'S AROUND IN THE AREA AS WELL. IT IS ON FAVOR DIKES PARK. I SHOWED YOU THE DIFFERENCE IN THE SIZE OF THE UNITS. REALLY THIS IS KIND OF A BETTER CORRELAION FOR THE COMP PLAN AND HOW THINGS RELATE TO IT. AGAIN, THE ZONING WILL STAY THE SAME. SO, THERE WON'T BE ANY CHANGES TO THAT. I TOOK SOME PICTURES AND IT'S HARD BECAUSE IT IS A VERY RURAL KIND OF AREA AND HEAVILY TREED AND THOSE KIND OF THINGS BUT JUST TO GIVE YOU AN IDEA IF YOU DIDN'T HAVE A CHANCE TO GO OUT THERE.

THIS IS THE MAJOR ENTRANCE ROAD AREA THAT COMES FROM US1. AND THERE'S A CURB THERE. I'M LOOKING THE OPPOSITE WAY, ACTUALLY, THAT WOULD BE TAKING YOU INTO THE NEIGHBORHOOD. THIS IS AT THE OTHER END OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. AND THIS IS THE ENTRANCE TO FAVOR DYKES STATE PARK. IF YOU HAVEN'T BEEN THERE, IT'S WELL WORTH TAKING A DRIVE DOWN THERE AND A NICE WALK FOR AB AFTERNOON OR TAKING YOUR BOAT. IT IS A GREAT LITTLE PARK. THIS IS JUST THE PROPERTY AS YOU CAN KIND OF SEE IT FROM THE ROADWAY. YOU CAN SEE THE ROAD ALONG. THAT IS WHERE THE SIGN'S POSTED. AND THE SAME THING ON THIS. I DID INCLUDE THE AREA THAT WE WERE TALKING ABOUT WHICH IS THAT WETLAND AREA THAT THERE'S SOME CONCERN ABOUT. AND IT APPEARS THAT IT WAS SOMETHING THAT WAS DUG MANY YEARS AGO TO GET FILL FOR THE ROAD. AND THEN TURNED INTO KIND OF A -- IT IS A DIFFERENT KIND OF WETLAND. THAT IS THE DAVIS PROPERTY. YOU CAN SEE THE DRIVEWAY THAT GOES ALL THE WAY BACK TO THE OTHER UNITS. THAT IS THE PIECE THAT WOULD BE TO THE DIRECT EAST OF CHRIS'S PIECE AND THAT IS ANOTHER FAMILY FARM AS WELL. AND THAT KIND OF SHOWS YOU WHEN YOU CAN SEE THE THREE MAILBOXES YOU KNOW THERE'S THREE UNITS THERE. JUST A FEW RANDOM

[01:30:06]

OF THAT? DID YOU SAY IT? SEPTEMBER 14TH, 1990. >> SPEAKER: YES. AND I DON'T KNOW WHY I WAS THINKING -- ANY WAY. CONSISTENCY. THE FIVE PARCELS ON 16.48 ACRES, AGAIN, WILL STILL MAINTAIN THOSE TYPES OF THINGS. WE'RE REALLY NOT INCREASING IT OVER WHAT IT GENERALLY LOOKS LIKE RIGHT NOW EXCEPT FOR THE ONE PARTICULAR LOT. AND IT REALLY ALLOWS FOR THE VALIDATION OF THESE PROPERTIES WITHIN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD. THE TEXT AMENDMENT THAT WE HAVE PROPOSED IS LISTED AND BASICALLY LIMITS IT TO THOSE FIVE WHICH WOULD BE THE THREE ON THE WESTERN SIDE OR THE SOUTHERN SIDE WHICHEVER WE WANT TO CALL IT AND I CAN FIX THAT IF WE DECIDE TO CHANGE THAT. AND THEN TOO ON THAT EASTERN PARCEL. AND THERE WAS SOME DISCUSSION WITH ONE OF THE RESIDENTS AND I'M NOT GOING TO TAKE AWAY WHAT THEY'RE GOING TO DISCUSS BUT I THINK MY CLIENT IS ALSO WILLING TO ADD SOME ADDITIONAL LANGUAGE TO THAT REGARDING THE WETLAND SITUATION. SO, ONCE THEY'VE SPOKEN, WHATEVER, WE CAN DISCUSS THAT.

BUT WE DO FEEL THIS IS CONSISTENT. WE DO FEEL IT'S COMPATIBLE WITH THE AREA. AND, OF COURSE, ANY DEVELOPMENT THAT WOULD OCCUR ON THE LOTS WOULD BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE. AND SO AT THIS POINT WE'RE JUST ASKING FOR TRANSMITTAL TO THE STATE. I'M

HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. >> CHAIRMAN KOPPENHAFER: THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ANY QUESTIONS

FOR THE APPLICANT? MR. WAINWRIGHT? >> BOARD MEMBER: YES. MS.

TAYLOR JUST TWO. HOW MANY TOTAL RESIDENTIAL UNITS? >> SPEAKER: THERE WILL BE FIVE

ON THE 16 POINT -- >> BOARD MEMBER: THEY'RE ALL ON SEPTIC?

>> SPEAKER: THERE'S NO WATER OR SEWER HERE. >> BOARD MEMBER: THANK YOU.

>> CHAIRMAN KOPPENHAFER: DR. HILLSENBECK. >> BOARD MEMBER: I JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY THE RECORD AND THE ITEM. ON PAGE 6 OF THE ENTIRE ITEM AND YOU HAVE ADDRESSED THIS, BUT IT STATES IN THE ITEM THAT THE PROPERTY CONTAINS NO WETLANDS WHICH IT DOES. YOU'VE ALREADY STATED IN YOUR ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT FROM ACCESS ENVIRONMENTAL STATES THERE IS A BASIN SWAMP IN THE AREA YOU SHOWED IN A PHOTO SORT OF A GRASSY OPEN AREA. IT'S NOT WHAT'S DESCRIBED IN THE ACCESS ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT. IT IS DESCRIBED AS A BASIN SWAMP WITH RED MAPLE AND OTHER TREES IN THERE. SO, I THINK THERE IS A BONA FIDE FORESTED WETLAND ON

THE SITE NOT THAT OPEN GRASSY AREA. >> SPEAKER: OKAY. SO, MAYBE I

TOOK THE WRONG PICTURE. >> BOARD MEMBER: IT'S TOWARD THE FRONT OF THE PROPERTY.

>> SPEAKER: THERE'S A HAMMOCK AT THE FRONT. >> BOARD MEMBER: RIGHT. A HAMMOCK. IT'S STATED THERE MIGHT BE A DEREK HAMMOCK ON THE PROPERTY. THE ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT DESCRIBES WHAT IS DEFINITELY A ZARIC HAMMOCK AND THAT IS ONE OF THE SIX NATURAL COMMUNITY TYPES IN ST. JOHNS COUNTY THAT HAS TO HAVE AT LEAST TEN PERCENT OF IT PRESERVED

BECAUSE IT IS A SIGNIFICANT NATURAL COMMUNITY. >> SPEAKER: WHEN YOU ARE DOING A

DEVELOPMENT, YES. >> BOARD MEMBER: RIGHT. >> SPEAKER: WE'RE NOT DOING A

[01:35:01]

DEVELOPMENT. >> BOARD MEMBER: ANY LAND CLEARING I WOULD HOPE. I DON'T

KNOW THE ANSWER TO THAT. >> SPEAKER: I DON'T KNOW THE ANSWER TO THAT.

>> BOARD MEMBER: IN ANY EVENT, I WANT YOUR CLIENT TO BE FULLY AWARE. I'M SURE THEY ARE. BUT, FOR EXAMPLE, ON PAGE 9 OF THE APPLICATION, THIS PROPERTY IS A CLASS 10 PROPERTY IN TERMS OF FIRE SERVICE REVIEW. SO THAT'S THE LOWEST CLASS BECAUSE IT'S SO FAR FROM A FIRE STATION. FAVOR DYKES STATE PARK DOES CONDUCT PRESCRIBED FIRE AND IS AN EX-PARTE COMMUNICATION I CALLED THE PARK TODAY AND JUST ASKED THEM AGAIN. I KNOW THEY DO PRESCRIBED FIRE BUT ASK IF THEY'RE STILL CONDUCTING PRESCRIBED FIRE AND THEY DO. I JUST CAUTION AGAINST THAT. EVEN THOUGH PEOPLE ARE VERY GOOD AT PRESCRIBED FIRE WITHIN DEP AND WRECK AND PARKS THERE IS GOING TO BE PRESCRIBED FIRE. I WOULD HOPE THERE WOULD BE A BUFFER BETWEEN ANY BUILDINGS THEY HAVE

AND THE BACK LOT LINE WHERE IT TOUCHES THE PARK. >> SPEAKER: WE DON'T REALLY TOUCH -- WELL I GUESS WE WOULD. THERE IS A POINT, THAT ONE CORNER BACK IN THE -- THERE IS ALSO A CONSERVATION AREA THAT I DIDN'T MENTION THAT IS THAT YELLOW LINE THAT RUNS DOWN THERE AS WELL. AND THAT'S ACTUALLY ALONG THAT THAT'S PART OF THE UTILITY LINE OR WHATEVER. BUT THERE'S ACTUALLY A CONSERVATION AREA THAT THEY CAN'T DO ANYTHING IN. THEY'RE NOT ALLOWED TO

CLEAR IT OR WHATEVER. >> BOARD MEMBER: I'M GLAD YOU HAVE THIS SLIDE UP. BECAUSE I DID WANT TO CLARIFY A COUPLE OF OTHER THINGS. WHAT IS DESCRIBED IN THE ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT AS -- LET ME LOOK AT IT. AND THIS IS FOR THE MASTER CRAFT PARCELS OR PARCEL. IT DEFINITELY SAYS THERE'S A SCRUB ON THE PROPERTY WHICH IS SHOWN ON THIS AS WELL AS PINE ZIRIC OAK IN THE FLUX PLAN. IT SAYS THERE IS PINE ZIRIC OAK AND GOES ON TO DESCRIBE THAT. THAT IS DEFINITELY A SAND HILL NATURAL COMMUNITY. THAT'S THE BULK OF THE MATRIX PROPERTY OF FAVOR DYKES. SAND HILL IS ANOTHER ONE OF THE SIX RECOGNIZED RARE NATURAL COMMUNITIES WITHIN ST. JOHNS COUNTY. SO, AGAIN, TEN PERCENT OF THAT SHOULD BE CONSERVED. THE NMIXED OAK HAMMOCK THAT'S A ZIRIC HAMMOCK. SO THAT'S ONE OF THOSE. SO, YOU'VE GOT THREE OF THE SIX ON THIS PROPERTY OF THE RARE NATURAL COMMUNITIES. SO, I JUST HOPE THAT THOSE WOULD BE -- THERE WOULD BE CARE TAKEN IN THE BUILDING OF HOUSES AS WELL TO CONSERVE A PORTION OF THOSE NATURAL COMMUNITIES AS WELL AS THERE ARE 14 ACTIVE GOPHER TORTOISE BOROUGHS ON THE PROPERTY WHICH IS A SUBSTANTIAL NUMBER. I JUST WONDERED IF THE CONSULTANT, IF YOU KNOW THE ANSWER TO THIS. SINCE THE SURVEY WAS DONE DECEMBER 30, 2018, IT WAS PROBABLY COLD THEN.

AT LEAST IT WAS WINTER TIME. IF THEY USED A FIBEROPTIC CAMERA TO LOOK DOWN THOSE GOPHER TORTOISE BOROUGHS AND SEE IF THERE WERE EASTERN REFUGE SNAKES. BECAUSE THAT IS A FEDERALLY THREATENED

SPECIES BY THE U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE >> SPEAKER: WE KNOW THEY EXIST.

I DON'T KNOW IF THE DID THAT AND I DON'T HAVE HIM HERE TODAY. WHATEVER -- BUT IN MY EXPERIENCE WHEN YOU ARE DOING LARGE LOT SINGLE FAMILY, YOU CAN ACTUALLY LIVE WITH GOPHER TORTOISES.

IT'S NOT AN ISSUE WITH IT. SO THAT IS KIND OF -- AGAIN, WHEN CHRIS IS TALKING ABOUT POSSIBILITY DIVIDING THIS PIECE FOR THAT -- AND I APPRECIATE ALL THE INFORMATION ON THE OTHER ONES. I'M NOT SURE WE HAVE TO BUT IT'S SOMETHING WE CAN PUT IN, YOU KNOW, INI KIND OF SALES LITERATURE OR WHATEVER THAT GOES WITH THAT. BASICALLY, THEY'RE BACK IN HERE. AND HE WANTS TO

DIVIDE IT THIS WAY INSTEAD OF THIS WAY. >> BOARD MEMBER: LONG AND

LINEAR. >> SPEAKER: INSTEAD OF LINEAR CORRECT. SO THAT WOULD GIVE HIM AREAS BEING ABLE TO DO THAT. SO, I CAN CHECK INTO THAT AND I WILL MAKE SURE I HAVE THE ANSWERS TO THOSE BEFORE WE -- WHEN WE COME BACK -- IF THIS GETS TRANSMITTED.

>> BOARD MEMBER: OKAY. I WONDERED WHAT THE PLAN WAS TO CROSS THAT BASIN MARSH -- SWAMP.

>> SPEAKER: IT DOES EXIST RIGHT NOW. IT DOES KIND OF. AND THAT'S WHERE WE-- WE'VE BEEN DISCUSSING. ALONG HERE. WHAT WE WOULD DO IS A MIRROR EASEMENT ON THE DAVIS PROPERTY. YOU KNOW, THEY RIGHT NOW HAVE ONE THAT RUNS ALONG THAT COMMON BORDER. SO, THIS ONE WOULD BE,

[01:40:02]

YOU KNOW, FROM THAT. >> BOARD MEMBER: RIGHT. BUT IT SEEMS THAT IF YOU TOOK THE SHORTEST ROUTE FOR ACCESS OFF OF FAVOR DYKES ROAD RUNNING TO THE NORTH-WEST, ACCESS ROADS WOULD HAVE TO RUN THROUGH THAT BASIN SWAMP. THAT'S THE LOW TOPOGRAPHIC POINT ON THE

PROPERTY. SO WHATS THE PLAN TO GO THROUGH THAT WETLAND? >> SPEAKER: WE HAVEN'T HAD -- NOW THIS ISN'T SURVEYED. THIS IS GPS TYPE THING OR WHATEVER. SO IT WOULD APPEAR THAT YOU WOULD HAVE ENOUGH ROOM FOR A 30 FOOT EASEMENT HERE. THE COUNTY CODE REQUIRES A 30 FOOT EASEMENT

FOR UP TO 2 RESIDENTIAL UNITS. HUH? >> WE RECENTLY CHANGED THAT TO

UP THE AMOUNT. SO, YOU CAN HAVE FIVE. >> SPEAKER: SO NOW YOU CAN DO FIVE? OKAY. HE WOULD ONLY BE DOING TWO PARCELS IT WOULD ACTUALLY ONLY BE ACCESS TO ONE PARCEL. SO WE COULD DO A 30 FOOT -- THAT WAS THE INTENT WAS TO DO A 30 FOOT EASEMENT ALONG THIS SIDE. AND JUST TO KIND OF GO A LITTLE FURTHER ABOUT WHAT I WAS TALKING ABOUT SOME OF THE RESIDENTS ABOUT IF IS PUTTING A LIMITATION ON ANY FILL TO THAT BASIN TOO FOR THE FUTURE. SO THAT NEXT PERSON THAT COMES ALONG DOESN'T -- AND THAT WE WOULD ADD SOMETHING TO THE TEXT

AMENDMENT REGARDING THAT. >> BOARD MEMBER: OKAY. JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE YOU WERE

AWARE OF ALL THESE POINTS. >> SPEAKER: THANK YOU. >> BOARD MEMBER: THANK YOU.

>> CHAIRMAN KOPPENHAFER: MS. PERKINS? >> BOARD MEMBER: I WAS WONDERING

IF YOU HAVE A PROPOSED SITE PLAN FOR THE TWO ADDITIONAL HOUSES? >> SPEAKER: I DON'T. AND BASICALLY -- AGAIN, IT REALLY WOULD BE TO -- THERE IT IS. SORRY. IT REALLY WOULD BE -- SO THIS IS THE LINE BETWEEN THE DAVISES AND MR. SHEE'S PROPERTY. SO THE LINE REALLY WOULD GO ABOUT IN HERE. SO, YOU WOULD HAVE ONE LOT THERE AND ONE LOT THERE.

>> BOARD MEMBER: THANK YOU. >> SPEAKER: WHEN I STARTED MR. SHEE WAS GOING TO DO THREE.

SO, I DID HAVE A SITE PLAN SHOWING THAT. BUT AS HE LOOKED AT IT AND LOOKED AT THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND ALL THESE KINDS OF THINGS HE DECIDED JUST TO GO BACK TO THE TWO AS WELL. SO, I

DON'T HAVE ONE FOR THE TWO. >> BOARD MEMBER: DR. MCCORMICK, QUESTION?

>> BOARD MEMBER: YEAH. KAREN, I ALSO DID AN EX-PARTE TRIP TO FAVOR DYKES. WE HAVE FRIENDS THAT LIVE OUT THERE TOO ON THE OTHER SIDE OF FAVOR DYKES ROAD. SO, WE KNOW THAT THIS CONCERN THAT THEY HAVE ANY TIME THAT THERE'S A PLANNED FIRE. BECAUSE OF THE FACT THAT THERE IS NO ACCESS TO THE WATER. AGAIN, IT'S RATED NUMBER 10 THIS IS THE WORST POSSIBLE RATING FOR THAT.

SO THAT'S AN ISSUE FOR THE PEOPLE THAT LIVE OUT THERE FOR SURE. THE OTHER ISSUE OR QUESTION THAT I HAVE IS ABOUT -- BEFORE IT GETS OR AFTER IT GETS TRANSMITTED, I GUESS, IS WHEN YOU WILL GET INPUT FROM THE SCHOOLS IN TERMS OF THE IMPACT ON THE SCHOOL? IS THAT RIGHT.

THAT TAKES PLACE AFTER THE TRANSMITTAL OR BEFORE? >> SPEAKER: YOU CAN'T APPLY FOR STUFF LIKE CONCURRENCY KIND OF THINGS. BUT, IN THIS CASE, AND, LIKE I SAID, I KIND OF TAKE -- RIGHT NOW THERE ARE THREE LEGITIMATE LOTS. THERE'S ACTUALLY FOUR LEGITIMATE LOTS.

THERE'S THE THREE IN THE FAMILY FARM AND THEN THERE'S THE ONE THAT'S BEEN ILLEGALLY DIVIDED.

SO, WE'RE ADDING ONE HOUSE. SO IT'S NOT THREE. IT'S ONE. SO, I THINK WITH THAT IT'S KIND OF A DA MIN AMOS AMOUNT. I HAVE TO GET WITH NICOLE TO FIGURE OUT WHAT WE WOULD NEED TO DO FOR

THAT. >> BOARD MEMBER: WELL YOU HAVE THAT OTHER DEVELOPMENT PAST YOU WHICH IS GOING TO HAVE, WHAT, 37, 38 HOMES, IS THAT RIGHT? THAT WOULD NOT IMPACT THIS

DEVELOPMENT. >> SPEAKER: NO. AND I DON'T EVEN KNOW IF THAT ONE'S VALID ANYMORE. I DON'T REMEMBER WHEN IT WAS APPROVED BUT IT'S BEEN QUITE A WHILE.

>> BOARD MEMBER: OKAY. THAT'S ALL. >> CHAIRMAN KOPPENHAFER: ALL RIGHT. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? DO WE HAVE ANY PUBLIC SPEAKER CARDS?

>> BOARD MEMBER: WE HAVE FIVE. >> CHAIRMAN KOPPENHAFER: PLEASE CALL THEM UP. THANK YOU, KAREN.

>> BOARD MEMBER: I'LL TAKE THEM IN ORDER THAT I RECEIVED THEM. MR. BRIAN FISHER. ARE YOU HERE? IF YOU WILL, GIVE US YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS AND YOU WILL HAVE THREE MINUTES.

>> PUBLIC SPEAKER: GOOD AFTERNOON. BRIAN FISHER. I LIVE ON 800 FAVOR DYKES ROAD. I DON'T HAVE ANY OBJECTIONS TO ANY OF THE REZONING OF THE PROPERTY AS DISCUSSED. THE ONLY CONCERN I HAVE IS THE WATER AND THE LOW LYING POTENTIAL SWAMP AREA. I DON'T WANT TO CLASSIFY THAT AS

[01:45:09]

COUPLE OTHER PICTURES HERE. SO, AGAIN THE INTENT FROM MY PERSPECTIVE IS NOT TO STOP ANY OF THIS BUT THIS IS AN ITEM OF CONCERN HERE. BECAUSE ONCE THIS WATER GETS TO A CERTAIN HEIGHT ON THAT SWAMPY AREA IT WILL SPILL OVER THE ROAD AND GO ACROSS THE STREET INTO ANOTHER NEIGHBOR AND AFFECT HIS RESIDENCE. SO, SOMETHING FOR CONSIDERATION. THANK YOU.

>> CHAIRMAN KOPPENHAFER: THANK YOU. >> BOARD MEMBER: MS. ELIZABETH

P. NORITE. >> PUBLIC SPEAKER: THANK YOU. MY NAME IS ELIZABETH P. NORITE.

815 FAVOR DYKES ROAD. MY CONCERN IS STRICTLY THE IMPACT THAT ANY KIND OF FILL WOULD HAVE. THERE'S A CREEK THAT RUNS FROM THE PARK AROUND THE BACKSIDE OF THIS PROPERTY. IT COMES OVER INTO ANOTHER CREEK THAT GOES OUT INTO THE MAIN CREEK. IF THAT IS IMPACTED IN ANYWAY, THEN IT'S GOING TO IMPACT EVERYBODY'S PROPERTY INCLUDING MINE. I'M ON THE CREEK SIDE. BUT BECAUSE THERE IS NO OTHER NATURAL DRAINAGE, ANY FILL WOULD GO INTO THAT ESTUARY AND BACK OUT INTO THE CREEK. AND I WOULD JUST LIKE TO BE ASSURED THAT NONE OF THAT NATURAL DRAINAGE WOULD BE AFFECTED BY ANY KIND OF FILL BEING DONE FOR CONSTRUCTION.

THAT'S MY WHOLE PROBLEM. >> CHAIRMAN KOPPENHAFER: THANK YOU.

>> BOARD MEMBER: MS. FRANKIE POSETTI. >> PUBLIC SPEAKER: HI. FRANK MY POSETTI724 HANSON ROAD. AND I WANT TO EXPRESS WHAT SHE SAID. WORKS FOR ME. HOWEVER, I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH THE GENTLEMAN WANTING TO BUILD A COUPLE OF HOMES THERE. MY PROBLEM IS, LIKE SHE SAID, WITH DRAINAGE. THAT COULD BE A SERIOUS PROBLEM THAT WE DON'T NEED. AND I DON'T THINK THAT FILL SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO BE BROUGHT IN IF IT'S GOING TO AFFECT THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY. ANYTHING THAT WOULD AFFECT THE PROPERTY THAT'S WITHSTANDING IN A BAD WAY SHOULD NOT BE DONE. BASICALLY, I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM OTHERWISE WITH ANYTHING ELSE. THANK YOU VERY

MUCH. >> BOARD MEMBER: THANK YOU. >> CHAIRMAN KOPPENHAFER: THANK

YOU. >> BOARD MEMBER: THE NEXT SPEAKER, RICHARD DARVIS -- DAVIS, I'M SORRY. I MEAN, YOU ARE ALLOWED TO SPEAK ON YOUR OWN?

[LAUGHTER] >> PUBLIC SPEAKER: YES, SIR. MY NAME IS RICHARD DAVIS. WE LIVE

[01:50:01]

>> BOARD MEMBER: THANK YOU. MR. WILLIAM MACINTOSH? >> PUBLIC SPEAKER: I'VE GOT SOME PICTURES. WILLIAM MCINTOSH 877 FAVOR DYKES ROAD. THIS PROPERTY IS ACROSS THE STREET FROM ME.

THE PROPERTY WE'RE SPEAKING OF ON THE EAST SIDE OF THE PROPERTY. YOU CAN SEE THIS IS THE DRIVEWAY THAT GOES BACK INTO THE PROPERTY. I'M OVER HERE ON THIS SIDE OF THE CREEK. WE'RE ON 3.1 ACRES THAT GOES BACK DOWN TO PELL ASIR CREEK. LET ME SHOW YOU A PICTURE OF THE PROPERTY ACROSS THE STREET. THIS IS THE SWAMP WE'RE TALKING ABOUT. FROM HERE IT RUNS BACK IN TO HERE.

THIS IS WHAT WE REFER TO AT MY HOUSE AS OUR RETENTION POND. THAT'S A WETLANDS. WHEN IT FILLS UP, THE WATER COMES ACROSS THE STREET DURING A HURRICANE SITUATION IT FLOODS MY YARD. IT FLOODS MY FARM. SO THE PARTICULAR AREA ACROSS THE STREET KEEPS ME FROM FLOODING MOST OF THE TIME. IF FOR SOME REASON THAT WAS TO BE FILLED, EVERY TIME IT RAINED I WOULD HAVE A FLOODED YARD. I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH THE HOUSE IS GOING IN. ALL I ASK IS WE DO NOT DO

ANY FILL. THANK YOU. >> BOARD MEMBER: THERE ARE NO MORE SPEAKER CARDS.

>> CHAIRMAN KOPPENHAFER: ANY OTHER PUBLIC SPEAKERS? I SEE NONE. CLOSE OUT PUBLIC SPEAKING. KAREN, IF YOU'D LIKE TO STEP UP AND ANSWER ANY OF THOSE OR REBUT ANY OF THOSE.

>> SPEAKER: I DON'T KNOW THAT I CAN ANSWER SOME OF THOSE. AGAIN, I DO LITTLE BETTER INFORMATION. BUT IF WE CAN PULL TIS THIS UP. I DID HAPPEN TO PULL OUT OF IT THE FLOOD MAP.

AND THE AREAS THAT THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT. SO, THE LADIES THAT SPOKE ARE TALKING ABOUT THE LITTLE CREEK THAT COMES BACK IN THROUGH HERE WHICH IS CLEAR ON THE FLOOD MAP. AND IT DOES SHOW THE FRONT OF MR. HIGHERS PROPERTY AND THE FRONT OF MR. SHEE'S PROPERTY IS IN THAT FLOOD ZONE. SO THAT'S KIND OF SOMETHING THAT'S BEEN THERE AND DONE THAT. WHATEVER. WE WERE DISCUSSING BEFOREHAND KIND OF ON THE FLY IS THE COMP PLAN AMENDMENT WE WOULD INCLUDE THAT THE ONLY FILLING THAT WOULD BE ALLOWED WITHIN THOSE WETLANDS -- THAT WETLAND AREA WOULD BE ENOUGH THAT IF IT WAS NECESSARY FOR THAT DRIVEWAY. NOW THE LADIES DID EVIDENTLY HAVE A DRIVEWAY BUT THEY MAY HAVE JUST HAD A DRIVEWAY. THEY MAY NOT HAVE AN EASEMENT. I MIGHT HAVE IT BEFORE I GET TO THE COMMISSION MEETING. BUT AS TO GETTING THAT 30 FOOT WHITS AND MAKING SURE YOU CAN GET THE STABILIZED ENVIRONMENT AND EVERYTHING THAT YOU NEED FOR THE FIRE TRUCK. SO THAT WOULD BE THE ONLY AREA THAT WOULD BE -- AND IT SHOWS HERE THAT FLOOD ZONE DOESN'T EVEN GO OVER TO THERE. SO, I THINK WE'RE GOING TO BE OKAY WITHOUT IT. BUT I THINK MR. SHEE IS CERTAINLY WILLING TO ADD LANGUAGE TO THAT, TOO. AND THAT SHOULD HELP WITH THEM SO THEY KNOW THERE'S NOTHING MORE GOING INTO THAT. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS?

>> CHAIRMAN KOPPENHAFER: DR. HILLSENBECK? >> BOARD MEMBER: YOU JUST STATED HE WOULD BE WILLING TO ADD LANGUAGE TO THAT. WOULD THAT BE INCLUDING NO FILLING OF THAT

WETLAND? >> SPEAKER: YES IN THE TEXT AMENDMENT. YES, SIR.

>> BOARD MEMBER: OKAY. >> SPEAKER: NOW I CAN'T PROMISE THAT NECESSARILY FOR A HOUSE ITSELF. BUT AS A GENERAL RULE WHEN YOU ARE GOING TO BE IN THAT ZONE YOU MIGHT BUILD YOUR HOUSE UP YOU ARE NOT GOING TO FILL YOUR LOT. NOT ON THOSE BIG OF LOTS.

>> BOARD MEMBER: OKAY. THANK YOU. >> CHAIRMAN KOPPENHAFER: ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? I SEE NONE. THANK YOU. WE'RE BACK IN THE AGENCY THEN. KEEP IN MIND THIS IS A TRANSMITTAL HEARING WE'LL HEAR THIS AGAIN. AND HAVE MORE

DETAIL AT THAT POINT. >> SPEAKER: YES THIS DOES COME BACK AGAIN NEXT HEARING. SO,

[01:55:04]

>> CHAIRMAN KOPPENHAFER: AND SCRUTINY. ALL RIGHT. >> COUNTY ATTORNEY: FOR THE NEW MEMBERS THE BOARD. I THINK THIS PLANNED AMENDMENT. WHAT THIS IS IS THIS IS ACTUALLY A LEGISLATIVE DECISION. SO YOU ARE MAKING POLICY. AND THE POLICY YOU ARE MAKING IS WHETHER OR NOT TO CHANGE THE FUTURE LAND USE OR THE FUTURE DEVELOPMENT PATTERNS OF THIS PARTICULAR AREA WITH THE APPROPRIATE TEXT LIMITATIONS. SO, RIGHT NOW THE TEXT LIMITATIONS LIMITS IT TO FIVE DWELLING UNITS AND THEY'VE PROFFERED THEY'RE ALSO GOING TO, WHEN IT COMES BACK, AMEND THE TEXT AMENDMENT TO LIMIT ANY FILLING OF THE AVAILABLE WETLANDS. SO, YOU WILL YOUR REVIEW IS THE BROADEST IT IS. SO, YOU HAVE A LOT OF WIDE DISCRETION TO APPROVE OR TO RECOMMEND DENIAL OF THIS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT. FUNDAMENTALLY HOW I'M DESCRIBING IT IS HOW DO YOU WANT THE COUNTY TO GROW WITHIN 20 YEARS, 25 YEARS ON THE PLANNING HORIZON AND JUST KIND OF DUMBING IT DOWN TO THAT PARTICULAR ASPECT. THIS IS A WIDE RANGING POLICY

DECISION THAT THE AGENCY IS STATUTORILY REQUIRED TO MAKE. >> CHAIRMAN KOPPENHAFER: THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. FOR THE FOLKS THAT SPOKE, THIS IS AN INITIAL HEARING THAT TRANSMITS THIS TO TALLAHASSEE. IT COMES BACK BEFORE -- TALLAHASSEE WILL HAVE THEIR SAY, WHATEVER THAT IS, AND IT WILL COME BACK INTO THE COUNTY HERE AND IT WILL COME BACKBEFORE US. YOU CERTAINLY HAVE THE ABILITY TO SPEAK ON THAT. I THINK FROM A -- AT A HIGH LEVEL HERE WHEN YOU -- WHEN A OWNER HAS A PIECE OF PROPERTY HE IS NOT ALLOWED TO FILL IT ALL AND LET IT DRAIN ON TO SOMEONE ELSE'S PROPERTY. HE HAS TO MAINTAIN THAT WITHIN HIS BOUNDARIES. WE HAVEN'T GOTTEN INTO THAT DETAIL YET AND I THINK THE APPLICANT AND HIS REPRESENTATIVE HAVE HEARD WHAT YOU ARE SAYING THERE. BUT THAT'S JUST NOT ALLOWED ANYMORE LIKE IT MIGHT HAVE BEEN MANY, MANY YEARS AGO. HOPEFULLY THAT MIGHT ALLEVIATE SOME OF THE FEARS. ANYMORE DISCUSSIONS? I'D

BE WILLING TO HEAR A MOTION. MS. PERKINS. >> BOARD MEMBER: I MAKE A MOTION TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL FOR TRANSMITTAL OF COMP PLAN 2019-06 FAVOR DYKES HOME SITES BASED ON

FOUR FINDS OF FACT. >> CHAIRMAN KOPPENHAFER: WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? SEEING NONE, PLEASE VOTE. MOTION CARRIES UNANIMOUS. WE'RE GOING TO TAKE A

FIVE MINUTE RECESS HERE. THANK >> CHAIRMAN KOPPENHAFER: 7. MS. BISHOP?

>> SPEAKER: THIS IS A TRANSMITTAL OF A COMPRO HPSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT FOR POLICY

CHANGE. CAMP PLAN 2019-05 AND IT IS DURBIN PARK. >> CHAIRMAN KOPPENHAFER: I NEED TO DECLARE EX-PARTE. I HAD A CONVERSATION WITH THE APPLICANT. THE APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE ABOUT MORE OR LESS THE DETAILS OF TWO OR THREE CHANGES HERE THE OTHER DAY. MR. MATOVINA?

>> BOARD MEMBER: I ALSO HAD EX-PARTE COMMUNICATION WITH THE AGENT.

>> CHAIRMAN KOPPENHAFER: MS. PERKINS? >> BOARD MEMBER: I HAD AN

EX-PARTE CONVERSATION WITH MS. SMITH. >> CHAIRMAN KOPPENHAFER:

DR. HILLSENBECK. >> BOARD MEMBER: I LIKEWISE WISH TO CLAIM EX-PARTE.

>> CHAIRMAN KOPPENHAFER: MR. WAINWRIGHT? >> BOARD MEMBER: I AS WELL.

>> CHAIRMAN KOPPENHAFER: I'M GOING TO BACK YOU UP. I AM GOING TO RECUSE MYSELF ON THIS VOTE. I'LL STILL ACT AS CHAIRMAN HERE. BUT I WILL NOT BE VOTING. GATE IS A CLIENT OF MY FIRM. WHILE I HAVE NO PERSONAL GAIN, I JUST WANTED TO MAKE THAT CLEAR. IF THERE'S A TIMING ISSUE FOR PUBLIC SPEAKER ARCHIE IS GOING TO HAVE THE REIGN OF THAT.

>> COUNTY ATTORNEY: BECAUSE IT IS A VOTING CONFLICT OF INTEREST AND NOT CONTINUING. AND YOU HAVE DISCLOSED IT BEFORE THE VOTING PROCESS. WHILE YOU CANNOT VOTE, THE DECLARATION DOES ALLOW YOU TO PARTICIPATE IN THE MATTER. THAT'S USUALLY FOR SPEAKING FOR OR AGAINST THE APPLICATION BECAUSE IT PERTAINS TO YOUR CLIENT'S SPECIAL PRIVATE GAIN OR LOSS. AT THIS POINT AND

[02:00:04]

VICE CHAIR. THANK YOU. >> CHAIRMAN KOPPENHAFER: THANK YOU. SORRY.

[Item 7]

>> SPEAKER: THANK YOU. THIS IS A TRANSMITTAL HEARING TO AMEND COMPREHENSIVE PLAN SITE SPECIFIC POLICY RELATED TO THE DURBIN PARK COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT URBAN SERVICE AREA THAT WAS ADOPTED. IT IS POLICY A111M80. IT IS TO PROVIDE FOR HOSPITAL USES WITHIN SIDE THAT URBAN SERVICE AREA AND PROVIDE REDUCE SCENIC EDGES FOR NON-RESIDENTIAL ALONG PORTIONS OF EAST PEYTON PARKWAY. AND WHEREVER THAT IS CURVING, THERE'S ENHANCED LANDSCAPING IN THESE AREAS. I DO WANT TO POINT OUT THAT YOUR STAFF REPORT DID COMMENT ABOUT ALSO REDUCED EDGES ALONG RACE TRACK AS WELL AS REDUCED EDGES ON WEST PEYTON. THOSE WERE ALREADY APPROVED.

THEN THIS PROPERTY IS LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF RACE TRACK ROAD EAST AND WEST OF I-95 AT STATE ROAD 9-B. THIS IS JUST AN AERIAL SHOWING THE PROPERTY. AGAIN, IT IS TO PROVIDE FOR HOSPITAL USES. IT IS TO PROVIDE FOR REDUCED AND ENHANCED BUFFERING ALONG EAST PEYTON PARKWAY. AND THEN EAST PEYTON PARKWAY SHALL MAINTAIN A MINIMUM OF TEN FEET SCENIC EDGE FOR NON-RESIDENTIAL USES AND MINIMUM OF 30 FOOT SCENIC EDGES WITH AN AVERAGE OF 50 FEET FOR RESIDENTIAL USES. RACE TRACK ROAD WILL MAINTAIN A 30 FOOT SCENIC EDGE FOR ALL USES. THIS IS THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP OF THE PROPERTY AS DESIGNATED INTENSIVE COMMERCIAL. AND THIS IS JUST THE ZONING. YOU CAN SEE IT IS CURRENTLY ZONED O.R. AND THEN THE PORTION THAT IS PUD IS THE PHASE I A PORTION OF THE WHOLE DURBIN NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT. JUST A LITTLE HISTORY. THE PROPERTY WAS DESIGNATED INTENSIVE COMMERCIAL IN AND AROUND THE YEAR 2000. AN URBAN SERVICE AREA BOUNDARY WAS APPROVED IN 2015. AT AT THE SAME TIME THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS APPROVED A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, TAX INCREMENT FINANCING AGREEMENT AND ROAD CAPACITY CHARGE AGREEMENT WAS ALL APPROVED IN 2015. THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WAS THEN MODIFIED AND AMENDED IN 2016. THE CURRENT DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT ALLOWS FOR 999 MULTI-FAMILY UNITS, 350 HOTEL ROOMS, APPROXIMATELY 2.7 MILLION SQUARE FEET OF OFFICE, AND 2.3 MILLION SQUARE FEET OF COMMERCIAL RETAIL. DURBIN DEVELOPMENT PUD WAS APPROVED IN 2016 AND IT ALLOWS UP TO 700,000 SQUARE FEET OF COMMERCIAL RETAIL. DURBIN PAVILION IS CURRENTLY UNDER CONSTRUCTION. IT HAS APPROXIMATELY 588,000 SQUARE FEET THAT IS EITHER IN THE GROUND AND OPEN FOR BUSINESS OR IT IS IN REVIEW WITH THE COUNTY. THERE IS NO NEW IMPACTS THAT'S ACTUALLY ASSOCIATED WITH THIS AMENDMENT. IT IS SIMPLY REVISING A SITE SPECIFIC AMENDMENT TO ADD IN THE ADDITIONAL PROPERTIES INTO THERE AND TO ADDRESS EAST PAYTON PARKWAY. ROADWAY AND OTHER INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS ARE REQUIRED BY THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT. WATER, SEWER AND REUSE IS PROVIDED THROUGH JEA. THE PROJECT IS WITHIN FIVE MILES OF A FIRE STATION. IT'S LOCATED THAT FIRE STATION RIGHT NOW IS LOCATED ON BARTRAM PARK BOULEVARD WITHIN JACKSONVILLE BUT IT IS ALSO WITHIN FIVE MILES OF A CURRENT STATION UNDER CONSTRUCTION IN ST. JOHNS COUNTY AT VETERANS. THE ADDITION OF HOSPITAL USES. THAT SIMPLY CLARIFIES THE INTENT TO HAVE A HOSPITAL USE AND MEDICAL CAMPUS WITHIN THE APPROVED URBAN SERVICE BOUNDARY AND THAT HOSPITAL USES ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE INTENSIVE COMMERCIAL FUTURE LAND USE MAP DESIGNATION. THE SCENIC EDGE PROVISION IS EAST PEYTON SHALL MAINTAIN A MINIMUM OF TEN FOOT SCENIC EDGE FOR NON-RESIDENTIAL USES, A MINIMUM OF 30 FOR RESIDENTIAL USES WITH AN AVERAGE OF 50 FOOT FOR RESIDENTIAL USES. RACE TRACK SHALL MAINTAIN THE 30 FOOT SCENIC EDGE FOR ALL RESIDENTIAL AND NON-RESIDENTIAL USES THEN ENHANCED LANDSCAPING IS CONSISTENT WITH THE EXISTING LANDSCAPING EDGES IN THE DURBIN PAVILION. STAFF FINDS THESE REDUCTIONS TO THE SCENIC EDGE CONSISTENT WITH THE DEVELOPMENT PATTERN IN THAT GENERAL AREA.

THE DEVELOPMENT OF SR9B, THE DURBIN PA SHRILL ONPROJECT AND BARTRAM PARK HAS RESULTED IN THIS AREA HAVING AN URBAN CHARACTER. A COMMUNITY MEETING WAS HELD ON DECEMBER 3RD AND IN

[02:05:07]

TRANSMITTAL MEANS THAT IT WILL BE SENT TO ALL THE STATE AND REGIONAL AND ADJACENT LOCAL GOVERNMENTS FOR A 30-DAY REVIEW PERIOD. ONCE COMPLETED, ADOPTION HEARINGS ARE SCHEDULED THEN IT WILL COME BACK TO YOU AT THAT TIME. WHEN IT DOES COME BACK TO YOU AT THAT TIME YOU WILL ALSO BE REVIEWING THE MODIFICATION TO THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AND A PUD ZONING.

HOWEVER, THE MODIFICATION TO THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WILL GO STRAIGHT TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS. IT DOES NOT REQUIRE A PZA RECOMMENDATION. WHEN IT COMES BACK YOU WILL SEE THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT AND THE PUD REZONING AT THAT TIME. STAFF DOES NOT OBJECT TO THIS TRANSMITTAL AND WE OFFER FOUR FINDINGS OF FACT TO APPROVE OR DENY. WITH THAT, THAT CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION. I'LL TRY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE. AND THE APPLICANT IS

HERE AS WELL. >> CHAIRMAN KOPPENHAFER: DR. HILLSENBECK, QUESTION?

>> BOARD MEMBER: I WAS WONDERING IF THIS PARTICULAR TRANSMITTAL, BECAUSE I DON'T BELIEVE YOU MENTIONED IT, INCLUDES AN ADDITIONAL 1264 MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL UNITS?

>> SPEAKER: THIS TRANSMITTAL DOES NOT. THAT IS IN THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT

MODIFICATION THAT WILL BE COMING FORWARD IN THE FUTURE. >> BOARD MEMBER: IN THE FUTURE?

OKAY. THANK YOU. >> CHAIRMAN KOPPENHAFER: MR. WAINWRIGHT?

>> BOARD MEMBER: YES. THE CHAIRMAN HAS ASKED US TO USE THE TIME AFTER EVERYONE HAS PRESENTED TO USE OUR -- PRESENT OUR QUESTIONS. BUT SOME THAT I WILL BRING UP THEN IS JUST BASICALLY THE QUESTION OF ADDITIONAL STRESS ON -- ADDITIONAL OR SUBTRACTION OF STRESS ON THE INFRASTRUCTURE IN THAT AREA. BUT I'LL SAVE THAT UNTIL LATER.

>> SPEAKER: THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WILL ADDRESS ANY OF THOSE INFRASTRUCTURE TYPE NEEDS YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT. THOSE ARE IN THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT. THEY'RE NOT PART OF THIS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT. THERE ARE NO NEW IMPACTS WITH THIS AMENDMENT ITSELF. THIS IS AMENDING THEIR POLICY THEY ADOPTED PREVIOUSLY TO ALLOW FOR EAST PEYTON PARKWAY REDUCTIONS TO THE SCENIC EDGE AND FOR HOSPITAL USES BECAUSE THEY DID NOT HAVE THAT IN THERE

AND TO ALLOW FOR THE MEDICAL CAMPUS. >> BOARD MEMBER: THANK YOU.

>> CHAIRMAN KOPPENHAFER: OKAY. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? SEEING NONE, CAN WE HAVE THE

APPLICANT STEP FORWARD. >> SPEAKER: GOOD AFTERNOON, MR. CHAIRMAN, BOARD MEMBERS.

ELLEN AVERY SMITH ROGERS TOWERS 100 WETSTONE PLACE IN ST. AUGUSTINE. I HAVE A WHOLE CAST OF CHARACTERS WITH ME START. STARTING WITH MELISSA AND DREW FROM GATE PETROLEUM OR AS THIS PROPERTY IS COMMONLY -- IS OWNED BY DURBIN CREEK NATIONAL. ALSO, TONY ROBBINS, BRAD DAVIS AND AUSTIN CHAPMAN FROM PROSSER. SO, IF I NEED A LITTLE BACK-UP, I'VE GOT ALL MY EXPERTS TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MIGHT HAVE. BUT WE'LL GO FOR IT. OKAY JUST A LITTLE BACKGROUND. THE PROJECT, IF YOU HAVE DRIVEN ALONG RACE TRACK RIDE IN THE RECENT PAST OR EVEN OVER THE PAST FEW YEARS YOU'VE NOTICED DURBIN PAVILION WHICH IS THE FIRST PHASE OF THIS PROJECT THAT IS ALREADY OPEN IN SOME COMPONENTS ARE UNDER CONSTRUCTION. SO, YOU HAVE SEEN ALL OF THIS LOVELY -- ALL OF THE SIGNAGE AND TREES AND EVERYTHING THAT GO ALONG WITH THAT DEVELOPMENT. JUST A LITTLE BIT OF BACKGROUND. AND MS. BISHOP ALLUDED TO THIS IN HER PRESENTATION. BACK IN 2000, WHICH WAS UNBELIEVABLY 20 YEARS AGO, ALL OF THIS LAND THAT IS SHOWN IN THE YELLOW ON THIS MAP WAS OWNED BY THE COMER TRUST. AS PART OF A DEAL, I WON'T GO INTO THE WHOLE HISTORY, BUT AS PART OF A DEAL TO SELL MOST OF THAT PROPERTY TO THE ST. JOHNS RIVER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT FOR THE 12 MILE SWAMP, THE COMER TRUST MOVED ALL THE DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS FROM THIS PROPERTY. SO, THIS BECAME THE 12 MILE SWAMP. THIS PROPERTY GOT CERTAIN LAND

[02:10:03]

AND DURBIN CREEK WHICH RUNS BETWEEN THE TWO PROPERTIES WAS GIVEN A CONSERVATION CORRIDOR AND CANNOT BE DEVELOPED. SO, AGAIN, YOU SEE TWIN CREEKS IS BEACH WALK TODAY IF YOU HAVE DRIVEN DOWN COUNTY ROAD 210 YOU HAVE SEEN THAT PROJECT. THEN DURBIN PARK UP WHERE 9B AND WEST PEYTON PARKWAY AND TO MR. WAINWRIGHT'S POINT WE'RE GOING TO TALK ABOUT ROADWAYS TOO. SO, ZOOMING IN. DURBIN CREEK NATIONAL ALSO KNOWN AS GATE OWNS ABOUT 1624 ACRES IN THIS AREA THAT'S OUTSIGNED BY THIS MAGIC LINE. IT DOES INCLUDE THIS RURAL SILL VI CULTURE LAND WHICH HAS BEEN SET ASIDE FOR DURBIN CREEK AND WILL NOT BE IMPACT. THE REMAINDER OF THE PROPERTY IS INTENSIVE COMMERCIAL LAND USE. ABOUT FIVE YEARS AGO THIS BOARD AND THE COUNTY COMMISSION HEARD ABOUT AN URBAN SERVICE AREA. YOUR BOARD RECOMMENDED APPROVAL OF THAT. THE COUNTY COMMISSION APPROVED. THE CREATION OF AN URBAN SERVICE AREA, IT IS THE ONLY ONE IN ST. JOHNS'S COUNTY, AND IT BASICALLY HAS SAID, HEY, WE'RE GOING TO BRING A LOT OF VERY URBAN SERVICES, DENSE DEVELOPMENT TO THIS AREA OF THE COUNTY, THIS IS THE APPROPRIATE PLACE. SO THAT WAS RECOGNIZED.

A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, MR. WAINWRIGHT, THIS GOES TO YOUR QUESTIONS ABOUT THE ROADWAY, THERE WAS A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT THAT WAS APPROVED AT THE SAME TIME THAT TALKS ABOUT WHAT ROADS ARE GOING TO BE CONSTRUCTED TO MITIGATE FOR THE TRANSPORTATION IMPACTS ON THE ROADWAY NETWORK. AND WE'LL TALK ABOUT THAT IN A JUST A MINUTE. THAT INCLUDED ABOUT 5 MILLION SQUARE FEET OF NON-RESIDENTIAL USES, OFFICE, COMMERCIAL, 350 HOTEL ROOMS AND 999 RESIDENTIAL UNITS WERE INCLUDED IN THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT. AGAIN, THAT WAS APPROVED FIVE YEARS AGO. IT ALSO SET UP A TIFF TO FUND THE ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS THAT I'LL SUMMARIZE FOR YOU IN A MINUTE AND SET UP A ROAD CAPACITY CHARGE WHICH IS REALLY THE EQUIVALENT OF A TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE FOR THIS PROJECT. AND SO GOING FORWARD JUST TO MOVE YOU THROUGH THE PROJECT, THE FIRST 700,000 SQUARE FEET ARE -- HAVE BEEN CONSTRUCTED AND ARE STILL UNDER CONSTRUCTION IN THIS PORTION OF THE SITE. SO, GOING THROUGH MR. WAINWRIGHT ON YOUR QUESTIONS. GATE ACTUALLY DEDICATED THE RIGHT-OF-WAY FOR STATE ROAD 9B, WHICH IS OPEN NOW. THEY ACTUALLY MADE THE 9B CONNECTION INTO ST. JOHNS COUNTY POSSIBLE. HAD IT NOT BEEN FOR THAT RIGHT-OF-WAY DEDICATION THE COUNTY AND D.O.T. COULD NOT HAVE AFFORDED TO MAKE THE CONNECTION AT THAT POINT. WEST PEYTON PARKWAY HAS ALSO BEEN CONSTRUCTED TO MOVE PEOPLE FROM RACE TRACK ROAD DOWN TO STATE ROAD 9B. AND SO GOING FORWARD -- SO THOSE WERE THE FIRST ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS RELATED TO THE PROJECT. THE OTHER ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS WILL INCLUDE AN EAST PEYTON PARKWAY, WHICH WILL CONNECT FROM 9B UP TO RACE TRACK ROAD, AND ALSO IMPROVEMENTS TO RACE TRACK ROAD IN THE EXISTING TWO-LANE SEGMENT. THOSE ARE ALL SET FORTH IN THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT. WHEN WE GET TO THE PUD STAGE, WHICH WILL BE THE NEXT TIME WE SEE YOU, WE WILL GO THROUGH THOSE ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS IN MORE DETAIL.

BUT JUST TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION MR. WAINWRIGHT, THE COUNTY MADE DARN SURE THAT ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS WERE CONNECTED TO THOSE FIVE MILLION SQUARE FEET TO MAKE SURE THEY DID NOT CREATE TRAFFIC PROBLEMS. THE PROJECT IS ALSO GOING TO BUILD AN INTERNAL LOOP ROAD FOR INTERNAL CIRCULATION. AGAIN, IN ABOUT -- BACK IN 2015 THE COUNTY COMMISSION AND THIS BOARD APPROVED A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TEXT AMENDMENT THAT PROVIDED FOR THE REDUCED SCENIC EDGES ALONG WEST PEYTON PARKWAY AND STATE ROAD 9B IN CONNECTION WITH THE PHASE I A DEVELOPMENT OR DURBIN PAVILION. WHAT WE'RE SEEKING TO DO IS TRANSLATE THOSE SAME REDUCED SCENIC EDGES ON TO EAST PEYTON PARKWAY WHICH IS THE NEW ROAD THAT'S GOING TO BE IN THE NEW SECTION OF THE PROJECT. SO THAT'S THE FIRST COMPONENT. AND WE'VE ALSO, BACK IN 2015, TALKED TO STAFF ABOUT KEEPING RACE TRACK ROAD A MORE RURAL LOOKING ROAD. AND SO WE AGREED AT THAT POINT THERE WOULD BE A 30 FOOT MINIMUM SCENIC EDGE ALONG RACE TRACK ROAD. SO, WE'RE GOING TO TRANSLATE THAT 30 FOOT SCENIC

[02:15:03]

DR. HILLSENBECK, GOING TO YOUR QUESTION, WE ARE PROPOSING IN THE PUD TO GO FROM THE 999 RESIDENTIAL UNITS TO 2265 IN THE PUD. JUST BY WAY OF SUMMARY, THE 999 WAS A PLACEHOLDER.

BECAUSE BACK IN 2015 THERE WAS SUCH A THING AS A DEVELOPMENT OF REGIONAL IMPACT. THERE ISN'T ANYMORE. WE'VE BEEN IN DISCUSSIONS, DR. MCCORMACK, WITH THE SCHOOL BOARD. THEY'RE QUITE AWARE OF THIS PROJECT AND THE INCREASED NUMBER OF RESIDENTIAL UNITS AND WE'RE WORKING CLOSELY WITH NICOLE AND HER STAFF ON PROVIDING THE MITIGATION FOR THAT. AND THAT WILL BE BROUGHT FORWARD, AGAIN, IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE PUD. GOING IN AGAIN, TRACKING THE CHANGES TO THE TEXT AMENDMENT SINCE THE LAST. WE'RE GOING FROM COMMERCIAL AND OFFICE SINCE WE'RE ADDING HOSPITAL WE'RE GOING TO CALL ANYTHING THAT'S NOT RESIDENTIAL NON-RESIDENTIAL. SO, AGAIN THE SCENIC EDGES WILL BE ALONG THE RIGHT-OF-WAYS OF 9B WEST PEYTON PARKWAY THEN WE'RE ADDING IN EAST PEYTON PARKWAY THE MINIMUM OF TEN FEET FOR NON-RESIDENTIAL AND MINIMUM OF 30, AVERAGE 50 FOR RESIDENTIAL USES. THE SCENIC EDGES ADJACENT TO RACE TRACK ROAD THROUGH THE ENTIRE LENGTH OF THE PROJECT WILL BE 30 FEET FOR BOTH RESIDENTIAL AND NON-RESIDENTIAL USES. THEN AGAIN AS I MENTIONED BEFORE DURBIN CREEK NATIONAL OR GATE HAS DEDICATED THE RIGHTS-OF-WAY FOR 9B AND RACE TRACK ROAD AND WEST PEYTON PARKWAY. THEY WILL DONATE OR DEDICATE THE RIGHT-OF-WAY FOR EAST PEYTON PARKWAY AS WELL. SO THAT WILL BE A PUBLIC ROAD. IT WILL ADD TO THE REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION NETWORK AND IS MUCH NEEDED. SO, MR. WAINWRIGHT GOING TO YOUR POINT, WE ARE PROVIDING FOR LOTS OF TRANSPORTATION MITIGATION TO OFF-SET THE IMPACTS OF THE PROJECT. LOOKING AT THE CONCEPT PLAN JUST SO YOU HAVE A LITTLE PRECURSOR TO WHAT'S COMING.

YOU'VE GOT DURBIN PAVILION HERE. YOU ARE GOING TO SEE THE MIXTURE OF USES IN THE EASTERN PORTION OF THE PROPERTY. THIS IS WHERE FLAGLER HOSPITAL WILL GO. SO THE PROJECT WILL START IN THE SOUTHWEST CORNER. YOU HAVE PROBABLY READ IN THE NEWSPAPER ABOUT VARIOUS COMMERCIAL USERS THAT WILL GO HERE AND MULTI-FAMILY THEN TO SERVE THE COMMERCIAL AND HOSPITAL AND ANY MEDICAL OFFICE USES WILL START OUT IN THIS QUADRANT. HERE'S EAST PEYTON PARKWAY THAT WILL CONNECT TO RACE TRACK ROAD. AND THEN HERE'S THE LOOP ROAD THAT CONNECTS INTERNALLY THROUGH THE SITE. AND YOU SEE ALL THE PRESERVED WETLANDS. THESE ARE ALL CONTIGUOUS WETLANDS. HERE IS DURBIN CREEK. WHICH AGAIN IS BEING PROTECTED. THIS ALSO INCLUDES THE PROPERTY EAST OF I-95 THAT WILL BE OFFICE AND COMMERCIAL WITH SOME MIXED USE PROPONENT OR COMPONENT OVER IN THIS AREA. SO THAT'S THE CONCEPT PLAN THAT IS IN WITH YOUR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT. HERE'S THE MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN JUST A SPEAK FOR THE PUD THAT WILL BE FORTHCOMING A LITTLE MORE DETAIL ABOUT SITE ACCESS. FROM EAST PEYTON PARKWAY. AND THEN ALSO THE VARIOUS USES. AGAIN, PRESERVING THOSE WETLANDS AND CORRIDORS OF DURBIN CREEK.

AGAIN, SHOWING YOU MORE OF THE INTERNAL ROAD NETWORK THAT WILL BE PROVIDED FOR THE REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM. SO, AFTER THIS, AGAIN, THIS IS A TRANSMITTAL HEARING. WE GO TO THE COUNTY COMMISSION NEXT MONTH. THEN IN MARCH THERE WILL BE STATE REVIEW. APRIL WE ARE HOPING TO COME BACK TO YOUR BOARD. SO WE WILL HAVE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TRANSMITTAL.

[02:20:05]

TO ANSWER. >> CHAIRMAN KOPPENHAFER: ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? I

SEE NONE. DO WE HAVE ANY PUBLIC SPEAKER CARDS? >> BOARD MEMBER: NO.

>> CHAIRMAN KOPPENHAFER: WE'RE BACK IN THE AGENCY. THOUGHTS, COMMENTS, MOTIONS? MR. MATOVINA.

>> BOARD MEMBER: I MOVE APPROVAL IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE STAFF REPORT.

>> BOARD MEMBER: I'LL OFFER A MOTION UNLESS SOMEONE ELSE WOULD.

>> CHAIRMAN KOPPENHAFER: GREG JUST DID. >> BOARD MEMBER: SORRY.

>> BOARD MEMBER: SECOND. >> CHAIRMAN KOPPENHAFER: HOLD ON. ALL RIGHT. MOTION TO APPROVE. ANY OTHER COMMENTS? SEEING NONE, PLEASE VOTE. MOTION CARRIES UNANIMOUS. THAT MOVES ON. THANK YOU. ITEM NUMBER 8. ELECTION OF CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR. PAOLO

[Item 8]

>> COUNTY ATTORNEY: JUST STANDARD PROCEDURES. THAT IS JUST A RECOMMENDED PROCEDURAL ASPECT YOU CAN JUST PROCEED AS, YOU KNOW, YOU WOULD WANT. JUST RECOMMENDATION THAT YOU WOULD GO FOR THE CHAIR FIRST AND THEN THE VICE CHAIR. OTHERWISE THE STANDARD PROCEDURES IS WE START OFF WITH PUBLIC COMMENT FOR ANY PERSON TO SPEAK ON HIS OR HER BEHALF OR ON BEHALF OF ANY MEMBER OF THE AGENCY. AND THEN WE MOVE ON TO WHATEVER NOMINATION PROCEDURES THAT THE

CURRENT SITTING CHAIR WISHES TO USE. >> CHAIRMAN KOPPENHAFER: SO I'LL ASK IF THERE IS ANY PUBLIC COMMENT? SEEING NO ONE IN THE PUBLIC, LET'S CLOSE THAT OUT.

NOW MEMBER COMMENT? MR. ALAIMO? >> BOARD MEMBER: I JUST HAD A QUESTION FOR PAOLO. IS THE ELECTION DUE TO THE FACT THAT OUR VICE CHAIRMAN MR. WOODARD HAD TERMED OUT AND SO NOW WE'RE -- OR IS THIS JUST PART OF OUR CONTINUAL ELECTION EACH YEAR? IS THAT HOW IT WORKS

>> COUNTY ATTORNEY: YES, EACH YEAR AND AS WITH MOST BOARDS, EACH YEAR THERE IS AN ELECTION AND SELECTION OF THE CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR. MR. WOODARD'S ABSENCE IF WE JUST DEFAULT BACK TO ROBERT'S RULES OF ORDERS IN WHICH CASE THE CHAIR APPOINTS A SITTING VICE CHAIR FOR THE INTERIM PROVISIONS. SO, AT THIS POINT IN TIME REGARDLESS OF MR. WOODARD REMAINED ON THE AGENCY OR NOT, WE WOULD BE RECOMMENDING THE ELECTION OR SELECTION OF THE CHAIR AND

VICE CHAIR. >> BOARD MEMBER: OKAY. THERE IS NO TERM LIMIT FOR THE CHAIR? HOW HAVE WE DONE IT IN THE PAST? IS THERE A ROTATION OR HOW DOES THAT WORK?

>> COUNTY ATTORNEY: I THINK I'VE ONLY BEEN HERE SIX YEARS. IN WHICH CASE IT REALLY DEPENDS UPON THE STANDARDS AND PRACTICES OF EACH AGENCY AND EACH BOARD. THERE IS NO TERM LIMIT FOR THE CHAIR OR VICE CHAIR SELECTION. THE ONLY TERM LIMITS APPLIES TO THE APPOINTMENTS THEMSELVES.

BUT IT'S UP TO THE BOARD WHETHER TO CONTINUALLY APPOINT A CHAIR OR A VICE CHAIR TO THAT

PARTICULAR POSITION. >> CHAIRMAN KOPPENHAFER: ALL RIGHT. WE GOT A FEW MORE UP

HERE. DR. HILLSENBECK? >> BOARD MEMBER: ARE WE READY TO NOMINATE OR DO YOU HAVE MORE

BUSINESS? >> CHAIRMAN KOPPENHAFER: WE'RE READY TO NOMINATE UNLESS YOU

HAVE QUESTIONS? >> BOARD MEMBER: I WOULD LIKE TO NOMINATE MIKE KOPPENHAFER AS THE

CHAIR. >> BOARD MEMBER: SECOND. >> CHAIRMAN KOPPENHAFER: GOT A

[02:25:02]

>> BOARD MEMBER: WE DIDN'T SAY WE WERE GOING TO VOTE FOR YOU YET

[LAUGHTER] >> CHAIRMAN: ALL RIGHT. LET ME MAKE SURE I'M DOING THIS

CORRECTLY. >> COUNTY ATTORNEY: YOU CAN DO VOICE VOTE.

>> CHAIRMAN KOPPENHAFER: NOMINATION FOR ME BEING CHAIR ONCE AGAIN, ALL IN FAVOR SAY

AYE. AYE. OPPOSED. THAT'S DECIDED. >> BOARD MEMBER: I DID MEAN TO

ASK WHAT DO WE GET FROM YOU? >> CHAIRMAN KOPPENHAFER: THAT SAME COUPON THAT THE PUBLIX GUY DIDN'T GIVE YOU [LAUGHTER] LET'S SEE. NOW NOMINATIONS FOR VICE CHAIR? I'M GOING TO NOMINATE MR. ARCHIE WAINWRIGHT. WE HAVE A SECOND. ANY OTHER NOMINATIONS FOR VICE CHAIR? SEEING NONE, PLEASE VOTE. LET'S DO A VOICE VOTE. IN FAVOR SAY AYE. OPPOSED. WE HAVE OUR CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR. YOUNG AND YOU

YOUNGER [LAUGHTER] >> BOARD MEMBER: IF YOU ARE NOT

GIVING ANYTHING I'M NOT GIVING ANYTHING. >> CHAIRMAN KOPPENHAFER: IS THAT

WRAPPED UP WITH A NICE BOW? >> COUNTY ATTORNEY: PERFECT. >> CHAIRMAN KOPPENHAFER: WHAT

[Reports]

NONE. MOTION TO ADJOURN? >> BOARD MEMBER: SO MOVED. >> CHAIRMAN KOPPENHAFER: THANK

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.