Feb 20, 2020 Planning and Zoning Agency

[Call to Order]

[00:00:14]

>>> A GOOD AFTERNOON EVERYONE. LET'S BRING THIS MEETING TO ORDER.

THE MEETING OF THE PZA IS NOW CALLED TO ORDER ON FEBRUARY 20, 2020.

[Public Comment]

>> MY NAME IS JERRY GARDNER. MY ADDRESS IS 245 WILDWOOD DRIVE, SAINT AUGUSTINE, FLORIDA.

I HAVE ONE QUESTION FOR THIS COMMISSION; WHY IS IT THAT WHEN THE DEVELOPERS COME IN TO DEVELOP A PROPERTY THEY ARE ALLOWED TO GO IN AND CLEAR EVERY TREE, EVERY SHRUB OFF OF THE PROPERY BEFORE THEY DEVELOP IT? I KNOW SOME COUNTIES HAVE PROVISIONS THAT IF THERE IS ANY, ESPECIALLY HARDWOOD TREES ON THE PROPERTY THEY CAN ONLY CUT DOWN SO MANY OF THEM.

SOMETIMES FOR PINE TREES ALSO. ST. JOHNS COUNTY IS LAW -- ALLOWS THEM TO GO IN AND PUT COMPLETELY CLEARED OUT BEFORE THEY START BUILDING THEIR HOMES. THAT IS THE ONLY THING I GOT TO

SAY. >> THANK YOU, SIR. I WILL NOT DIRECTLY RESPOND IN ANSWER TO THAT. WHAT I WILL DO IS REFER YOU TO THE PLANNING STAFF AND WE WILL

GET YOU SOME ANSWERS. THERE ARE ANSWERS. >> OKAY.

THANK YOU. >> ANY OTHER PUBLIC COMMENT? PUBLIC COMMENT IS CLOSED.

LET'S SEE. THE NEXT THING WE HAVE, SET OF MINUTES FROM JANUARY 16.

[Approval of Minutes]

>> MOVE WE APPROVE. >> SECOND. >> MR. CHAIR, WE DON'T HAVE ANY

MINUTES FOR APPROVAL. >> LOOKING AT THE AGENDA, THERE IS NO MINUTES ON THE AGENDA.

I DIDN'T GET ANY OF MY PACKAGE. >> WE WILL DEFER REVIEW OF THE MINUTES UNTIL NEXT WEEK TO BE

SURE THAT YOU HAVE A COPY. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.

WE WILL HAVE THEM IN YOUR NEXT PACKAGE. >> LOST, WE HANDLED THAT WELL.

[Item 1]

[00:05:10]

SUPMAJ19-11 SIMS BYRD CAMP ROAD BORROW PIT. >> GOOD AFTERNOON.

JACOB SMITH, PRESENTING AGENDA ITEM NUMBER ONE. SUPMAJ19-11 SIMS BYRD CAMP ROAD BORROW PIT. REQUEST FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT PURSUANT TO LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE SECTION 2.03.10 TO ALLOW FOR A BORROW PIT WITHIN OPEN RURAL (OR) ZONING, SUBJECT TO THE CRITERIA OF SECTION 2.03.10 AND SECTION 6.04.09 OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE.

>> THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED SOUTH OF COUNTY ROAD 204 APPROXIMATELY 3 MILES WEST OF U.S. ONE IT IS A RURAL CIVIL CULTURE FUTURE LAND USE, AND LIES WITHIN OPEN RURAL ZONE.

LASTLY I HAVE AN AERIAL MAP DEPICTING THE STATE OF THE PROPERTY.

AGAIN, IT IS A REQUEST FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW FOR A BORROW PIT FOR LAND EXCAVATION OPERATIONS. THE PERMIT IS SUBJECT TO CRITERIA OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 2.03.1. AND PZA APPROVAL. CONSTRUCTING A PITS ON A 40-ACRE PRICE -- PARCEL. THE PROPOSAL IS FOR AN OPERATION TIME OF UP TO 10 YEARS.

CAPACITY OF 75 TRUCK TRIPS PER DAY IN OPERATING HOURS BETWEEN 7:00 A.M. AND 6:00 P.M. MONDAY

THROUGH SATURDAY. >> JUST FOR A BRIEF REVIEW, SPECIAL USE PERMITS MAY BE GRANTED IF THE APPLICATION SUBSTANTIALLY MEETS THE INTENT OF LINDA VELTMAN CODE ON THE COVER HAS A PLAN. THE USE MUST BE COMPATIBLE WITH THE SURROUNDING AREA AND NOT POSE AN EXCESSIVE BURDEN OR NEGATIVE IMPACT ON SUCH AREA. SPECIAL USES MUST REQUIRE WITH ALL REGULATION REQUIREMENTS. THE PROPOSED PIT MEANS ALL SETBACK REQUIREMENTS OF THE PROPOSAL IS NOT LOCATED IN A PROHIBITED AREA. THE APPLICANT WILL PROVIDE ALL REQUIRED FENCING AND THERE'S NO SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT OF THE GENERAL AREA OF THE PROPOSED PIT AREA AND ACCESS TO THE PIT WILL BE PROVIDED THROUGH A PRIVATELY MAINTAINED ROADWAY CONNECTING TO COUNTY ROAD 204. THE APPLICANT DID SUBMIT A SITE PLAN OF THE PROPOSED PIT.

IT IS CENTRAL TO THE LOT, CONSISTING OF A PROXIMALLY 30 ACRES IN SPACE ON THE EASTERN SIDE OF THE SITE MAP. CONTINUOUS WETLANDS THAT ARE BUFFERED.

IN THE BOTTOM LEFT QUADRANT THERE IS APPROXIMATELY 3.5 ACRES OF CONSERVATION AREA ALSO DEPICTED ON SITE. WE DO HAVE AN OPEN COMMENT FROM OUR ENVIRONMENTAL DIVISION.

IT STATES ADJACENT PROPERTIES INCLUDING INCLUDE THE FISHTAIL SWAMP MITIGATION BANK AND THE CONSERVATION AREA. BOTH ARE SIGNIFICANT ECOLOGICAL AND HYDROLOGICAL IMPROVEMENT AREAS FOR TWO LARGE WATERSHEDS. THE PROPERTY ITSELF IS WITHIN A 4-8-INCH RECHARGE AREA OF THE FRUIT HE OWED AQUIFER AND THE SURROUNDING PROPERTIES AND CONDITIONS COULD BE AFFECTED BY THE DRAWDOWN OF GROUNDWATER ASSOCIATED WITH THE PROPOSAL. ENVIRONMENTAL STAFF PROVIDED THIS MAP WHICH THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS CENTERED ON, IT. AND ON THE MAP, THE DARK YELLOW AND ORANGE COLORS INDICATE A HIGHER LEVEL OF AQUIFER CHARGE. ALSO DEPICTED ON THE MAP IS THE FISHTAIL SWAMP MITIGATION BANK TO THE WEST. STAFF ALSO PROVIDED AN ELEVATION OR WETLAND MAP OF THE AREA. AGAIN, THE CENTRAL SQUARE INDICATES THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.

THE WHITE INDICATING HIGHER ELEVATIONS IN THE GREEN ON THE MAP INDICATING WETLANDS.

FURTHER CONCERN TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL DIVISION INCLUDE THAT THE APPLICANT INDICATES A PUMP IS ANTICIPATED TO BE USED ON THE PROJECT, AN ESTIMATED FOUR TO 50,000 GALLONS PER DAY, NOT TO EXCEED 1 MILLION GALLONS PER DAY. THE APPLICANT ALSO INDICATES THAT IF A LARGER PUMP IS REQUIRED, 1 MILLION GALLONS PER DAY MAY BE EXCEEDED AND REQUIRE A PERMIT. THE STAFF QUESTION IS THAT THERE IS AN UNKNOWN EFFECT ON THE PUMPING INCLUDING THE VOLUME OF PUMPING ON THE EFFECT OF NOISE OF THE PUMPING OR ADJACENT LANDS. FOR PLANNING ANALYSIS, THE APPLICANT HAS DEMONSTRATED TO MEET THE SPECIAL USE REQUIREMENTS FOR A BORROW PIT. POTENTIAL COMPATIBILITY RELATED TO WATER PUMPING AND NOISE SHOULD BE ADDRESSED IN ORDER TO DEMONSTRATE COMPATIBILITY WITH

[00:10:05]

>> LET'S SAVE OUR QUESTIONS UNTIL WE HAVE HEARD FROM THE APPLICANT.

>> I HAD A CONVERSATION WITH MATT YESTERDAY WITH GULF STREAM DESIGN, REGARDING THE PROJECT.

>> ANYONE ELSE? >> I NEED TO DECLARE EX- MATE ALSO.

I HAD A DINNER PARTY LAST NIGHT AND TWO OF THE GUESTS, WE INADVERTENTLY DISCUSS THIS.

I ALSO DISCUSS THIS WITH MY WIFE, I DON'T IF I NEED TO DO -- DECLARE THAT EXPARTE ARE NOT? I DID WANT TO DRIVE IN TO THE SITE, BUT I HAVE BEEN WARNED BY COUNTY STAFF AGAINST POSSIBLE

TRESPASSING. >> IS THE APPLICANT HERE? >> THE APPLICANT IS PRESENT.

>> THANK YOU. FOR THE RECORD, GIVE US YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS.

THANK YOU. >> GOOD AFTERNOON. MATT WORKING WITH US ON THIS APPLICATION THAT THEY PROVIDED AND THE STAFF PRESENTATION.

AS JACOB MENTIONED, THE SITES ON THE SOUTHERN PORTION OF ST. JOHN'S COUNTY TO THE SOUTH OF COUNTY ROAD 204. WE ARE TO THE WEST OF THE FLORIDA RAILROAD AND US1, 95 IN THIS AREA. THE APPLICANT'S OWN THIS LAND AND IS SURROUNDED BY FAMILY.

WE HAVE A LETTER OF SUPPORT TO ACCESS THE PRIVATE ROAD. AS IT RELATES TO THE COMPONENT IN THE STAFF PRESENTATION ABOUT THE PUMPING I WOULD LIKE TO CLARIFY THAT.

THAT WAS A FAIRLY GENERIC NOTE THAT WE INCLUDE ON OUR PLANS TO INFORM THE APPLICANT OR ANYBODY THAT LOOKS AT THE PLANS IF THE PUMPING DOES EXCEED A MILLION GALLONS PER DAY, A PERMIT IS REQUIRED. WE PREPARED CALCULATIONS AND PLANS AND WE ARE ANTICIPATING ABOUT A 500,000-GALLON PER DAY DISCHARGE OR WITHDRAW FROM THE PUMP AS INDICATED.

THERE IS NO INTENTION OF REACHING THAT MILLION GALLONS PER DAY DISCHARGE.

I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE WE ARE CLEAR ON THAT RIGHT NOW. >> OTHER THAN THAT WE HAVE THE PROJECT BIOLOGIST HERE. WE ARE WORKING THROUGH THE ERP PERMITTING AS WELL AS THE TECHNICA PERMITTING WITH THE COUNTY THROUGH CHAPTER 14. IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, I

WOULD BE HAPPY TO ANSWER THEM. >> LET'S GO AHEAD WITH ANY QUESTIONS WE HAVE FROM THE STAFF

>> I DEFINITELY HAVE QUITE A FEW QUESTIONS. I AM REALLY CONCERNED ABOUT DRAWDOWN OF THE WATER TABLE, ADJACENT TO THE CREEK. THIS, YOU KNOW, LOOKS LIKE A GREAT SPOT FOR A BORROW PIT AND MIND LIKE THIS, UNTIL YOU REALIZE IT IS CONTIGUOUS WITH THE CREEK AND THE HEADWATER WETLANDS. AND THEN IT BECOMES REALLY, TO ME, AN UNATTAINABLE FOR A BORROW PIT. I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW, -- THE STAFF IS STILL CONCERNED ABOUT THAT MILLION GALLONS, I DON'T KNOW THAT THAT HAS BEEN ADEQUATELY ADDRESSED. A PERMIT FOR A MILLION GALLONS OR MORE IS NOT THAT DIFFICULT TO OBTAIN. I'M NOT ASSURED BY YOUR STATEMENT CONCERNING THAT.

HAVE YOU CALCULATED ANY DRAWDOWN OF THE WATER TABLE ON THIS? >> I HAVE AN EXHIBIT THAT I CAN SHOW YOU HERE? NO SIR, WE HAVE NOT PERFORMED AN ACTUAL DRAWDOWN REPORT YET.

[00:15:16]

[SILENCE] >> THIS IS REFERRING TO THE BORROW PIT IF YOU ARE LOOKING AT THE NORM OR WATER LEVELS IN THE ACTUAL WATER LEVELS ARE SET IN THAT WETLAND THERE WE ARE LOOKING AT AN AVERAGE OF 27. BASED ON THE STANDING ON THE TREES.

WE SET A NORMAL WATER LEVEL IN THE PIT AT 27 WHICH IT ADEQUATELY MAINTAINED THAT WATER LEVEL AND IN THE WETLANDS. OUR RIM DITCH HAS BEEN SET WITH THE BOTTOM OF 28 WHICH IS A

SEASONAL HIGH ELEVATION. >> IS THIS WITH THE PUMPING OF A HALF MILLION GALLONS OF WATER?

>> CORRECT. >> OF AGOSTO MILLION THIS WOULD BE SUBSTANTIALLY EXACERBATED?

>> I DON'T WANT TO ARGUE THE PROCESS ARE DISCUSSED HERE. >> ARGUE WAS ON THE RIGHT WORD.

THE TECHNICAL CALCULATIONS ARE NOT REQUIRED AS A PART OF THIS APPLICATION.

>> AT THE TIME OF THIS, WE HADN'T PREPARED THE FULL SET OF ENGINEERING PLANS.

WE HAD A PREPARED A FULL SET OF PERMIT APPLICATION PLANS TO GET THROUGH THE ZONING PROPONENTS OF THIS. THE NOTES ON THAT FIRST DRAWING ARE VERY LOOSE, BECAUSE WE DO NOT HAVE ALL OF THE FINAL DATA TO PREPARE THE TECHNICAL CLAIMS. I DO HAVE A CHOPPY WITH ME WITH THE PLANS AND CALCULATIONS. I CAN ASSURE YOU THAT THE PLANS THAT WILL BE SUBMITTED EARLY NEXT WEEK FOR THE ERP AND THE TECHNICAL COMPONENTS OF THIS ARE BASED ON 500,000 GALLONS PER

DAY. >> IS DISTILLING BASED AND THAT YOU HAVE.

I ASSUME THE WATER IS GOING TO BE PUMPED INTO THE STILLING BASIN?

>> THAT IS CORRECT. >> THAT IS ENGINEERED TO HANDLE THAT MUCH?

>> THAT IS CORRECT. >> HOW DEEP WILL THE BASIN BE? 'S WHILE YOU ARE LOOKING FOR TH, IT IS STATED IN THE MATERIALS THAT THE BORROW PIT WILL BE 60 FEET DEEP.

THAT IS WITHIN, FROM WHAT I CAN FIND IN THE LITERATURE, LESS THAN 30 FEET FROM THE TOP OF THE FLORIDA AQUIFER. I AM REALLY CONCERNED ABOUT EFFECTS ON THE FLORIDIAN AQUIFER. I ASSUME, FROM WHAT I HEAR, YOUR CLIENT IS AN EXPERIENCED MINER, BORROW PIT OPERATOR AND IS A GOOD PERSON. I CERTAINLY TAKE THAT AT FACE VALUE. I WAS JUST WONDERING IN THE BORROW PIT OPERATION, IS THERE

INTERNAL COMBUSTION ENGINES USED IN THAT? >> I'M NOT SURE EXACTLY HOW YOUR PHRASING YOUR QUESTION. THERE IS MECHANICAL EXCAVATION. THERE IS A MECHANICAL TRACK SO DOING THE EXCAVATION. THERE ARE MECHANICAL DUMP TRUCKS.

WITH THERE EVER BE ANY OIL POSSIBLY ASSOCIATED WITH ANY OF THAT?

>> I CAN'T SPEAK FOR MY CLIENT. THE MAJORITY OF THE EQUIPMENT SERVICE AND MAINTENANCE WAS NOT DONE IN THE BOTTOM OF THE PITS WHERE THE CONSTRUCTION SITE ON OUR PLANS WE HAVE SHOWN SOME STAGING AREAS AND WE HAVE SHOWN SOME AREAS OF CONSTRUCTION PLANS FOR THAT TO BE NONE OR WHATEVER

TO BE STAGED UP AND OUTSIDE OF THE PIT. >> I DID NOTICE IN YOUR MATERIALS YOU STATED THAT THERE WOULD BE NO AIR POLLUTION. I AM MORE CONCERNED ABOUT WATER POLLUTION. PARTICULARLY AT THE CREEK ON ITS HEADWATER WETLANDS.

AND THAT RUNNING DOWN THE RIVER. MATANZAS RIVER IS A JEWEL OF THIS COUNTY.

THIS IS AN ENVIRONMENTAL GEM. ANYTHING THAT MIGHT DEGRADE THAT IS AN EXTREME CONCERN TO ME.

I AM REALLY WORRIED ABOUT WATER POLLUTION DRAWDOWN OF THE LEVELS THERE.

WETLANDS DO NOT EXIST IN ISOLATION. I KNOW YOU HAVE THAT NICE RIDGE RIGHT THERE. IT'S OBVIOUS THERE WILL BE SAND, GRAVEL, AND ROCK UNDER THAT.

BEING DIRECTLY ADJACENT TO THE CREEK CONTINUOUS WITH IT, AS WELL AS THE CONSERVATION AREA RUN BY THE ST. JOHN'S DISTRICT IN THE MITIGATION BANK. THIS IS JUST A POOR LOCATION IN

MY OPINION FOR A CITING THIS PARTICULAR BORROW PIT. >> KEEPING IN MIND THAT IT IS

[00:20:07]

FERTILIZER AND PESTICIDE. >> THAT'S A MUCH WORSE USE FOR THE SITE.

IT WOULDN'T REQUIRE ANY PUBLIC HEARING. YOU KNOW?

>> MY PREVIOUS LIFE I WORKED QUITE A BIT [INAUDIBLE] I AM JUST REALLY CONCERNED ABOUT THAT. I HAVE SOME OTHER THINGS.

SEVENTY-FIVE TRUCKS PER DAY. IT STATED THERE WOULD BE, BY YOUR ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANT THAT WOULD BE NO IMPACTS ON FLORIDA BLACK BEAR. SEVENTY-FIVE TRIPS PER DAY ON A DIRT ROAD, I ASSUME THAT'S A DIRT ROAD, HE LOOKS LIKE, AS WELL AS IT RUNNING THROUGH A SMALL NECK OF THE AREA THAT RUNS OFF A SWAMP MITIGATION BANK. THIS IS POSSIBLY USED BY BEARS TO TRAVERSE THE AREA. I COULD SEE A FLORIDA BLACK BEAR BEAR IMPACTED FROM THE TRAFFIC ALONE. I GUESS Y'ALL DON'T SEE THAT THAT IS A PROBLEM.

I SEE A SEVERING OF A CONNECTION, LANDSCAPE CONNECTION >> THE ROAD IS THERE NOW, I CAN&

SEE THAT, IT'S BEING USED FOR TRUCKING. >> WERE NOT PLOWING A NEW

GREENWAY. THAT ROAD HAS BEEN THERE. >> I HAVE A FEW OTHER THINGS.

ARCHIE IF YOU WOULD INDULGE ME ONE MINUTE. OKAY.

>> WHILE YOU ARE LOOKING ARE THERE OTHER THE BOARD? >> YES, I JUST WANTED TO ASK, WITH THE 75 TRIPS, I THINK YOU AND I HAVE SPOKE ABOUT THIS. YOU HAVE A PLAN FOR THE

MAINTENANCE OF THOSE 75 TRIPS. >> IN THE TECHNICAL CONSTRUCTION PLANS THERE IS AN IMPROVEMENT TO THE DRIVEWAY THROUGH COUNTY ROAD 204 WITH THE SITE DISTANCES AND SITE TRIANGLES PLODDED ON THEIR TO ENSURE ALL OF THE DRIVEWAY CONNECTION COMPONENTS ARE MAINTAINED.

AS WITH ANY OTHER BORROW PIT IN THE COUNTY, WE HAVE A MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT WITH ROAD AND BRIDGE AND COUNTY ROAD 204. ALL OF THAT COMES SUBSEQUENTLY AS WE, YOU KNOW, PROCEED WITH

THE CONSTRUCTION PLANS. >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? >> YES, SIR.

THE DRAWING THAT YOU SHOWED US PRESUMABLY IS, YOU KNOW, POST CONSTRUCTION.

I ASSUME THAT YOU WILL BE USING WELL POINTING AS YOU DIG DOWN THE 60 FEET?

YOU'RE NOT GOING TO TAKE THE DIRT OUT? >> NO, SIR.

A BORROW PIT DOESN'T TYPICALLY USE A WELL.WHEN IT IS THIS DEEP. I CAN LET THE APPLICANT GET MORE INTO THE MEANS OF THE CONSTRUCTION. TYPICALLY, A COMPONENT OF THE PIT IS EXCAVATED TO A DEEPER LOCATION AND THE WATER IS WHERE THE PUMP IS LOCATED.

ALLOWING THE UPPER LEVELS OF THAT SOIL TO BE DRIED. BIG RETENTION PONDS ARE CONSTRUCTED THAT WAY IN PRIVATE DEVELOPMENT. IT IS NOT WELL APPOINTED WHERE THAT IS CONSTANTLY RUNNING IN DEEPWATER. IT IS MORE OF AN AS NEEDED BASIS. ULTIMATELY THEY SUMMED OUT THE BOTTOM OF THE PIT TYPICALLY SO THERE IS A COMPONENT OF IT THAT IS LOWER THAN THE BASE OF THE PIT.

THAT ALLOWS THE WATER TO HAVE THE AREA PUMPED UP TO THE RIM DITCH.

IN THEN FLOW INTO THE RIM DITCH AND WILL INFILTRATE BACK INTO RECHARGE.

>> FOR 10 YEARS, THE ELEVATION OF THE POND ASSUMING IT TAKES 10 YEARS TO CONSTRUCT IS GOING TO

BE WAY BELOW 27? >> YES, SIR. IT COULD BE.

I THINK 10 YEARS IS A STRETCH FOR CONSTANT PUMPING. I DON'T THINK, YOU KNOW, THE ECONOMICS WOULD SUPPORT A PUMP RUNNING FOR 10 YEARS. HOUSING AND ZONING APPROVALS AND THERE WHERE YOU ARE REQUIRED TO ASK FOR THE PERMIT. NOBODY WANTS TO BE HALFWAY THROUGH, OR TWO THIRDS THE WAY THROUGH THE PROJECT THAT MAY TAKE FIVE YEARS.

THERE IS NO WAY TO GAUGE THE MARKET OR TO GAUGE HOW QUICK OR HOW SLOWLY IT MAY BE EXCAVATED

[00:25:01]

FROM THAT PIT. >> ONE LAST QUESTION, I'M SORRY. I DON'T ASSUME ARE GOING TO DIG A 40-ACRE HOLE THAT IS ALL CONNECTED, AND IT WILL BE DONE IN STAGES.

>> LIKE I SAID IT IS NOT ECONOMICALLY FEASIBLE TO KEEP MORE THAN A 40-ACRE HOLE OPEN.

IT WOULD BE EXCAVATED IN STAGES. >> DO YOU KNOW WHAT THE STAGERS ARE ACREAGE WISE?

>> MY GUESS IS BETWEEN 5-10 ACRES. PROBABLY CLOSER TO THE 10.

>> THANK YOU. >> I WAS WONDERING IF YOU CONSIDER THIS ENVIRONMENTALLY

SENSITIVE AREA? >> MY PERSONAL OPINION? >> YES.

>> I BELIEVE THIS AREA IS A NATURAL PART OF THE COUNTY. THE POST OF ELEMENT OF THIS IT IS RESTORED BACK AND HAS A WATER SOURCE THAT IS CREATING -- I AM AN AVID OUTDOORSMAN, IT IS TO CREATE SOME OPEN SPACE, CREATE SOME WATER. YOU'RE NOT PUTTING HOMES THERE, OR FARMS THERE, OR THINGS THERE THAT HAVE THE FOREVER POSSIBILITY OF A POTENTIAL

IMPACT. >> ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW IS REQUESTING MORE INFORMATION ON THE SPECIFICS OF THE GROUNDWATER PUMPING AND ITS COMPATIBILITY WITH SURROUNDING LANDS.

YOU REALLY HAVEN'T PROVIDED THAT WHEN IT WAS ASKED FOR, AT LEAST I HAVEN'T SEEN IT YET.

AND THEN IN THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE IT STATES THAT LAND EXCAVATIONS AND BORROW AREA SHALL BE PROHIBITED WITHIN THE FOLLOWING LOCATIONS. WITHIN THAT STATE ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREAS. DEFINED IN ARTICLE 12, EXCEPT AS PERMITTED IN ARTICLE FOUR.

TO ME THIS IS AN ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREA, RIGHT BETWEEN TWO WELL-ESTABLISHED CONSERVATION AREAS, THE WETLANDS ADJACENT TO THE CREEK THAT FLOWS RIGHT TO THE MATANZAS RIVER AND, THIS IS AN AREA OF FLORIDA RECHARGE. WE DON'T HAVE ANY OF THOSE IN ST. JOHN'S COUNT. •-ELLIPSIS COUNTY. I THINK THIS BORROW PIT IN THIS LOCATION COULD SUBSTANTIALLY IMPACT GROUND WATER RESOURCES. THERE ARE WELLS IN THE AREA, NOT RIGHT NEXT TO IT. NOTE THAT THE APPLICANT LIVES ON THE PROPERTY JUST SOUTH OF THAT, I ASSUME HE HAS A WELL. THERE WOULD BE NO OTHER WAY TO GET WATER THERE.

I AM REALLY CONCERNED ABOUT DRAWDOWN EFFECTS, POLLUTION, LOWERING OF WATER QUALITY IN PALACE AIR CREEK, AND MATANZAS RIVER, IMPACTS ON BLACK BEARS, GROUNDWATER RECHARGE, PARTICULARLY FLORIDIAN AQUIFER. I DON'T THINK THIS IS AN APPROPRIATE LAND USE ONE THIS AREA. I JUST CAN'T SEE VOTING FOR THIS THAT IS MY OPINION.

THANK YOU. >> ANYONE ELSE IN THE AGENCY? DO WE HAVE ANY SPEAKER CARDS? WE ARE BACK IN THE AGENCY FOR COMMENT AND THEN WE WILL HEAR A MOTION.

[INAUDIBLE] >> YOU STATED THAT YOU HAVE YOUR BIOLOGIST HERE.

CAN HE ADDRESS ANY OF THE CONCERNS THAT MIGHT ALLEVIATE -- >> I WAS MAKING A LIST HERE.

I WAS GOING TO GO BACK AND GET WITH THEM AND MAKE SURE WE DIDN'T HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS

SO WE COULD ADDRESS THEM AT ONE TIME? >> IF YOU COULD HAVE HIM COME UP

AND ADDRESS THESE CONCERNS. >> WERE TALKING ABOUT THE BLACK BEAR?

>> RIGHT, THE DRAWDOWN OF THE AREA. >> THAT IS MORE OF AN ENGINEERING COMPONENT. THE DRAWDOWN ANALYSIS WILL BE PROVIDED WITH THE ENGINEERING PLANS REQUIRED WITH THE ERP. IT IS ON A CASE-BY-CASE BASIS WITH WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT.

IF THAT IS SOMETHING THAT THE BOARD WOULD LIKE THAT WE CAN PROVIDE THAT BEYOND REASONABLE ASSURANCE THAT THERE WILL BE NO NEGATIVE IMPACTS FOR POTENTIAL DRAWDOWN OF THIS.

>> IS NOT REQUIRED? >> NO MA'AM. >> BLACK BEAR AND WHAT OF THE

[00:30:06]

QUESTIONS FOR THE BIOLOGISTS? >> I THINK I HAVE ASKED MY QUESTIONS.

THOSE WERE HER QUESTIONS. I DON'T KNOW WHAT SHE WANTS ADDRESSED.

I HAVE ADDRESSED MINE. [INAUDIBLE] >> WHILE MATT IS TALKING TO HIS BIOLOGISTS, AS JACOB STATED, WE DO HAVE OUR ENVIRONMENTAL EXPERTS HERE IN CASE ANY MEMBER'S OF THE AGENCY WOULD LIKE TO QUESTION STAFF ON WHAT THEY ARE LOOKING FOR IN TERMS OF DEALING WITH THE DRAWDOWN ISSUE. THE REFERENCE TO COMPATIBILITY CAME UP.

I WOULD LIKE TO READ THE POLICY STATEMENT FOR WHAT IS DETERMINED TO BE COMPATIBLE WHEN YOU ARE LOOKING SPECIAL USE. THIS ONLY BE USED BY SPECIALTIES COMPATIBLE WITH WITH THE SURROUNDING AREAS. THE COMPATIBILITY OF LAND USE DEPENDS ON NUMEROUS CHARACTERISTICS WHICH MAY IMPACT ADJACENT OR SURROUNDING AREAS. THESE INCLUDE, BUT ARE NOT LIMITED TO, TYPE OF USE, DENSITY, INTENSITY, ODORS, NOISE, SMOKE, DUST, VIBRATION, TRAFFIC GENERATIONS, SANITATION, DRAINAGE, FIRE RISK, AIR QUALITY, VEGETATION, TOP-QUALITY , AQUIFER RECHARGE.

SANITARY SEWER AND OTHER NECESSARILY PUBLIC SERVICES. WHILE THE TECHNICAL ASPECTS OF DRAWDOWN ARE DONE THROUGH THE COMMERCIAL PLAN AND REVIEW, THIS AGENCY STILL HAS JURISDICTION AT THE SPECIAL USE LEVEL TO DETERMINE COMPATIBILITY WHICH INCLUDES THOSE COMPONENTS.

>> THANK YOU. ARE YOU READY TO COME BACK? COME ON.

>> TELL ME WHERE YOU WOULD LIKE TO START TELL WE WILL JUST TALK IT OUT? DO YOU WANT TO START WITH THE BEAR, THAT IS THE EASIEST ONE TO ME.

>> JUST A GENERALIZATION OF WHAT IS GOING TO HAPPEN WHEN THIS GOES IN.

WHAT IS YOUR OPINION OF WHAT IS GOING TO IMPACT THE SURROUNDING AREA.

>> IT IS NOT THE FIRST ONE WE HAVE DONE. IT SEEMS TO RECHARGE WETLANDS THAT WE CAN ACTUALLY MONITOR WETLANDS HERE IN THE COUNTY THAT HAVE BEEN DONE AND BY DOING THE REMNANTS AROUND THE POND, YOU'RE BASCALLY PUMPING LIKE WATER OUT WHEREAS THE OLDER PONDS 20 YEARS AGO WOULD PUMP WATER OUT AND BASICALLY PUMP WATER INTO ONE PLACE.

GO OFF OF AN AREA INTO ONE AREA, NOW YOU ARE CREATING THIS DITCH AROUND IT.

AND THEN THAT WATER IS GOING BACK DOWN INTO THE WETLANDS AND EVERYTHING ELSE THAT IS RIGHT AROUND THERE. THERE IS REALLY NO NET LOSS OF WATER GOING OFF IN ONE DIRECTION OR THE OTHER. YOU DO HAVE THE SYSTEM STEPHEN'S BRANCH OFF TO THE SIDES.

IT EVENTUALLY DOES MAKE ITS WAY DOWN TO PILSEN CREEK. AS A WAY THIS THING IS CONSTRUCTED YOU HAVE THIS RIM DITCH ON THE WATER WILL BE PUMPED UP BACK DOWN THROUGH THE DITCH BACK INTO STEPHEN'S BRANCH. BASED ON OTHER ONES WE HAVE DONE IN THE PAST, AND PRE- POST PERMITTING TO FINAL CONSTRCTION COMPLETED.

WHAT WE HAVE SEEN IS WITH THE RIM DITCH IS PAID AS LONG AS THEY ARE CONSTRUCTED CORRECTLY.

ANOTHER GEOLOGIST, I DON'T DO THE SOIL TESTING AND TO TELL YOU EXACTLY THIS IS WHAT THE DRAWDOWN WILL BE. I'M LOOKING AT IT FROM A BIOLOGICAL STANDPOINT.

WHAT WE CAN SEE ON THE GROUND FROM PRE- AND POST. AS LONG AS THEY ARE CONSTRUCTED CORRECTLY. WE ARE NOT SEEING ANY LONG-TERM DRAWDOWN FROM THESE BORROW PIT'S BEING CONSTRUCTED. EVEN DURING CONSTRUCTION WE ARE OUT THERE WE HAVE WATER MONITOR

[00:35:05]

WE ARE SEEING WHAT THEY'RE ACTUALLY DOING AS IT IS BEING CONSTRUCTED.

AGAIN, EVERY PROJECT IS A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT. YOU KNOW, THE RIM DITCH APPROACH IS DRAMATICALLY BETTER THAN WHAT IT USED TO BE WITH THE WAY THAT THESE PITS USED TO BE CONSTRUCTED, FROM A BIOLOGICAL STANDPOINT. RECHARGE OF WATER TO WETLANDS, AND THAT WILL OCCUR. AS FOR THE BLACK BEAR; YOU ARE DEFINITELY IN THE AREA OF BLACK BEARS. I WOULD NEVER SAY THAT YOU ARE NOT.

THIS IS A DIRT ROAD. TRUCKS ARE GOING TO BE FILLED DOWN WITH SAND.

THEY WILL BE GOING 10 MILES PER HOUR MAX. I MEAN, FROM A BIOLOGICAL STANDPOINT, IF YOU'VE EVER WATCHED BEARS, WHEN THEY GET SPOOKED THEY TAKE OFF.

AT MILE-PER-HOUR TRUCK, IF IT HITS A BEAR, THAT PERSON MUST HAVE BEEN TRYING TO HIT THAT BEAR. YOU KNOW, THE SAME WAY, A LOT OF TIMES YOU SEE A GROUP OF TOURISTS AND IT'S LIKE HOW DID YOU HIT THAT? YOU KNOW, IT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE.

SOMEBODY WAS DOING SOMETHING WRONG. I WOULD NEVER SAY THAT IT IS NOT GOING TO HAPPEN, BECAUSE I AM NOT THE ONE DRIVING THE TRUCK. IT COULD HAPPEN RIGHT NOW BECAUSE IT IS AN EXISTING ROAD. YOU CAN HAVE SOMEONE OUT THERE RIGHT NOW, AND ITS RIGHT TO THE SOUTH, ACTIVE TIMBER TO THE SOUTH. YOU'VE GOT A LOT OF TRUCKS GOING THROUGH THERE. IT COULD HAPPEN THEN ALSO. SEVENTY-FIVE TRUCKS A DAY, THERE IS A POTENTIAL FOR IT TO HAPPEN. I MEAN, THEY'RE REALLY NOT GOING FAST AT ALL ON A DIRT ROAD.

ANY BEAR SHOULD HAVE AMPLE TIME TO MOVE OUT OF THE WAY OF THE TRUCK.

OR THE TRUCK SHOULD HAVE AMPLE TIME TO STOP BECAUSE YOU WILL BE ABLE TO SEE IT.

FW SEE WILL HAVE PLENTY OF TIME TO COMMENT ON THAT ONCE THE ERP IS COMMITTED.

FWC IS COMMENTING ON EVERY SINGLE PROJECT RIGHT NOW. WHICH IS GOOD, BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T USED TO DO THAT. THEY WILL COMMENT ON ANY FEEDBACK THEY WILL REQUIRE FOR A

BLACKBERRY BEAR YOU'LL GET IT DURING THE COMMENTING PERIOD. >> MR. ROBINSON? DO WE HAVE ANYBODY FROM COUNTY STAFF THAT CAN HELP US UNDERSTAND THESE ENVIRONMENTAL

DRAWDOWNS, BLACK BEAR, CONTINUOUS WETLANDS? >> WE DO.

WE HAVE JAN HERE WHO IS THE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGER. I DON'T KNOW IF YOU WANT HER TO

JUST, YOU KNOW, AGREE THAT WHAT WAS SAID WAS ACCURATE? >> WHY DON'T YOU COME ON APPEAR.

THANK YOU. THE ISSUES THAT I HAVE, YOU CAN HELP ME HERE, DRAWDOWN OF

EXISTING AQUIFER. >> THIS IS JAN BREWER -- >> AND THE EFFECT ON THE ADJACENT WETLANDS. I BELIEVE THOSE WERE THE THREE ISSUES.

>> CORRECT. I AM JAN BREWER WITH THE ENVIRONMENTAL.

WE DID MAKE THOSE COMMENTS CONCERNING THE AQUIFER, BECAUSE WE DO NOT HAVE SUFFICIENT INFORMATION COME AT THIS TIME, TO MAKE A DETERMINATION. WE DON'T KNOW HOW THE ADJACENT WETLANDS WILL BE IN EFFECT, BECAUSE WHEN YOU DO PUMP IT IS NOT AFFECTING THE ONE PIECE OF PROPERTY YOU ARE ON, IT WILL BE DRAWING WATER ESSENTIALLY FROM THE SURROUNDING AREA.

WE ARE NOT SURE OF THE FRIENDS OF THAT. HOW FAR OUT IS NOT PUMPING GOING TO GO? THAT IS WHY WE ASK FOR THAT INFORMATION COME AT THIS TIME.

THIS ISN'T JUST A NORMAL AREA. WE HAVE A MITIGATION BANK, FISHTAIL SWAMP MITIGATION BANK, WHICH IS SOMEONE'S LIVELIHOOD. THEY GET PAID FOR USING CREDITS THERE.

THAT IS A BUSINESS. WE NEED TO MAKE SURE WE DON'T IMPACT THAT INDIVIDUAL.

WE ALSO HAVE PELLETS OR CREEK, WHICH AT THIS POINT, IT IS NOT AN OUTSTANDING FLORIDA WATER.

IF YOU TRAVEL FURTHER DOWN IT BECOMES AN OUTSTANDING FLORIDA WATER.

OBVIOUSLY THE WATERS ARE CONNECTED. WE WERE JUST ASKING FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION COME AT THIS TIME, TO MEET OUR COMPANY HAS A PLAN REQUIREMENTS FOR COMPATIBILITY. 1020 THANK YOU. --

>> THANK YOU. >> WE HAVEN'T CEMENTED OUR APPLICATION TO THE WATER

[00:40:01]

THE WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT IS EXTREMELY CONCERNED WHEN THEY REVIEW THIS PROJECT, BECAUSE THAT IS THEIR PROPERTY. BASICALLY EVERYTHING AROUND IT IS MANAGED BY THE WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT. AND THEN THE MITIGATION BANQUET, THEY ARE THE ONES THAT PERMITTED THAT. THEY ARE THE ONES AT THE END OF THE DAY THAT ARE GOING TO BE ABLE TO COME UP AND SAY WITH THE ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, COME UP AND SAY, WE ARE MAKING SURE THIS IS TAKEN CARE OF. WE ARE ALLOWING PEOPLE TO UTILIZE THIS AS WETLAND MITIGATION. THE WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT THROUGH THE INVITER RENTAL RESOURCE PROCESS IS GOING TO MAKE SURE THAT ALL OF THIS DRAWDOWN AND EVERYTHING IS VERY FINE TUNE THE REVIEW. THEY WILL BE ON EVERY LITTLE CORNER OF IT.

BASICALLY IT SURROUNDED BY THEIR PROPERTY. THERE NOT GOING TO JUST GO OKAY YEAH, THAT LOOKS GOOD AND BE DONE WITH IT. THEY WILL BE VERY STRICT IN

THEIR REVIEW OF >> THANK YOU. ANY MORE QUESTIONS?

>> I HAVE SOME. SO YOU SEE NO POTENTIAL, NO POSSIBILITY AT ALL FOR WATER POLLUTION OCCURRING ON THE SITE, FROM ALL OF THE TRUCKS, THE MACHINERY, ALL OF THE DIGGING

GOING ON? THAT'S JUST NOT GOING TO HAPPEN? >> I WOULD NEVER ANSWER THAT.

LIKE I WOULD NEVER ANSWER SAYING IF SOMEBODY GOT IN THEIR BOAT AND THEY WEREN'T TO GO RIGHT ON THE RIVER THEY'RE NOT GOING TO SPILL GAS. I MEAN, THERE IS ALWAYS THE POTENTIAL FOR ANYTHING TO HAPPEN. I CAN'T TELL YOU WHAT EVERY OPERATOR'S GOING TO DO. I'M NOT GOING TO BE OUT THERE HOLDING THEIR HANDS.

I WOULD PERSONALLY NEVER ANSWER A QUESTION LIKE THAT. >> THANK YOU.

>> IF YOU ARE LOOKING FOR OTHER POLLUTANT SOURCE GENERATORS, THE FLORIDA EAST COAST RAILROAD RUNS RIGHT DOWN OVER THE CREEK ON THE POTENTIAL FOR DIESEL OIL AND THINGS SPILLING.

DERAILMENTS WITH HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ARE PROBABLY MUCH MORE WORTHY OF CAUSE CONCERNING CONSIDERATION THAN THE POTENTIAL FOR ONE EXCAVATOR THAT'S GOING TO BE IN THAT WHOLE TO HAVE AN IMPACT. THOUSANDS AND THOUSANDS OF GALLONS OF DIESEL FUEL, ON THESE

TRAINS EVERY DAY WOULD CONCERN ME MORE. >> THEY DON'T GET REFUELED AS

THEY ARE GOING DOWN THE TRACKS. >> LET'S LET HIM ADDRESS -- >> OKAY.

>> YOU KNOW, LIKE I HAVE SAID, WE HAVE INDICATED STAGING AREAS WHILE OUTSIDE OF THE PIT FOR ANY OF THAT STUFF TO HAPPEN. NONE OF THAT STUFF WILL HAPPEN DOWN IN THE PIT.

KEEP IN MIND, YOU KNOW, JUST AS JAN INDICATED, FURTHER UPSTREAM IN FLAGLER COUNTY IS THE PALM COAST THERE IS THOUSANDS OF HOMES JUST ON THE OTHER SIDE. THAT IS ABOVE THE WATERMASTER DISTRICT PROPERTY ALSO TO THE SOUTH OF IT. OUTSIDE OF OUR COUNTY WE CANNOT CONTROL IT. THE PERSPECTIVE IS EVERYTHING HERE.

>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? MAY I STATE SOMETHING ELSE? I STILL AM CONCERNED THAT COUNTY STAFF AND ENVIRONMENTAL STAFF ASKED FOR SPECIFIC INFORMATION THAT STILL HAS NOT BEEN PROVIDED I DON'T THINK ENOUGH OR SUFFICIENT AMOUNT OF INFORMATION HAS BEEN PROVIDED TO THIS AGENCY BOARD TO MOVE FORWARD AND APPROVE THIS. YOU KNOW YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT ANOTHER COUNTY ALSO, YOU'RE RIGHT THAT'S OUT OF OUR CONTROL. I STILL DON'T SEE THAT THE QUESTIONS HAVE BEEN ANSWERED SUFFICIENTLY AND AN ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREA AND AN AQUIFER RECHARGE AREA, WILDLIFE AREA, ALL OF THESE CONSERVATION LANDS.

I JUST DON'T SEE IT. I'VE HEARD A LOT OF OPINION PRESENTED BUT I HAVEN'T SEEN THE FACTS YET. THAT IS WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO SEE.

>> OKAY. WE WILL HAVE TIME TO DISCUSS THOSE ISSUES WILL WE ARE BACK IN THE AGENCY AND WITH THOSE ISSUES HERE. THANK YOU.

DOCTOR MCCORMICK, DO YOU HAVE QUESTIONS? OKAY.

>> I HAVE AN OPINION. I IMAGINE OTHER PEOPLE WANT TO HAVE OTHER CONVERSATION, FIRST.

I WILL LET YOU DISCUSS IT. >> ANY MORE QUESTIONS FROM THE AGENCY? GOOD. WE ARE BACK IN THE AGENCY NOW. COMMENTS? DISCUSSIONS? A MOTION? GO AHEAD.

>> HOW TO TELL YOU, AS A DEVELOPER, YOU KNOW, NORMALLY THIS WOULD BE SOMETHING I WOULD

[00:45:05]

I DON'T THINK -- I'M A LITTLE CONCERNED ABOUT HOW THE VOTE MIGHT GO QUITE FRANKLY.

>> THANK YOU. ANY OTHER COMMENTS FROM THE AGENCY?

>> I AM PREPARED TO MAKE A MOTION. >> ANY OTHER COMMENTS BEFORE THE

MOTION? PROCEED. >> ALL RIGHT.

MY MOTION IS TO DENY SPECIAL USE PERMIT SUPMAJ19-11 SIMS BYRD CAMP ROAD BORROW PIT. REQUEST FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT PURSUANT TO LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE SECTION 2.03.10 TO ALLOW FOR A BORROW PIT WITHIN OPEN RURAL (OR) ZONING, SUBJECT TO THE CRITERIA OF SECTION 2.03.10 AND SECTION 6.04.09 OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE.

BASED ON FIVE FINDINGS OF FACT PROVIDED IN THIS STAFF REPORT. >> COMMENT TIME IS OVER.

YOU ARE FINISHED. YOU ARE FINISHED. >> OKAY.

>> I SECOND THE MOTION. >> WE HAVE HAD A MOTION TO DENY AT A SECOND.

I VOTE YES WILL BE TO DENY. ARE THERE ANY OTHER COMMENTS ON THAT MOTION?

>> YES. IF WE DENY TODAY, DOES THAT MEAN WE WAIT A YEAR TO COME BACK?

>> THAT IS CORRECT. UNLESS THE AGENCY WEIGHS THE ONE YEAR LIMITATION IN CASE THEY CAN COME BACK WITH ANOTHER SPECIALTIES PERMIT WITHIN THAT ONE YEAR TIME FRAME.

>> I REALIZE WE GAVE THE APPLICANT TIME TO SPEAK AND THEY DIDN'T ASK TO WITHDRAW.

AT THIS.HAS, I TO WITHDRAW THEIR MOTIONS AND LET THEM COME BACK WITH THE INFORMATION SO WE CAN MAKE A FULL EVALUATION AND NOT MAKE THEM HAVE TO WAIT FOR A YEAR.

THAT WOULD BE MY REQUEST. >> WE HAVE A MOTION OFFERED AND SECONDED AND A MODIFICATION OF A DENIAL OF THAT MOTION. THAT SEEMS REASONABLE. I'M NOT SURE PROCEDURALLY HOW TO

HANDLE THAT. >> RIGHT NOW, YOU HAVE A MOTION IN A SECOND.

AS THE CHAIR, YOU CAN CALL FOR A VOTE, OR YOU CAN HAVE ADDITIONAL DISCUSSION.

DOCTOR MCCORMICK CAN WITHDRAW HIS MOTION, AND REPLACE IT WITH A MOTION TO CONTINUE TO EITHER A DATE CERTAIN, OR A DATE UNCERTAIN FOR THE SAME ITEM TO COME BACK FOR ADDITIONAL

INFORMATION, OR YOU CAN TAKE IT UP OR DOWN. >> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.

I ECHO THE COMMENTS THAT, YOU KNOW, PERHAPS, THROUGH A CONTINUATION OF THIS AND THEY CAN COME BACK AND PRESENT THE EVIDENCE TO ADDRESS SOME OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS THAT HAVE

BEEN RAISED TO THE BOARD. >> I AM NOT PREPARED TO WITHDRAW MY SECOND.

I WOULD NOTE THAT THERE'S BEEN ABOUT SIX MONTHS TIME FOR THEM TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL MATERIAL THAT THE COUNTY REQUESTED. THERE ARE SIX MONTHS IT HAS NOT BEEN PROVIDED.

>> I'M SORRY. DOCTOR MCCORMICK, YOU MADE THE MOTION, AND YOU HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY, BASED ON WHAT HAS BEEN SAID TO WITHDRAW THE MOTION.

>> MY ANSWER WOULD BE THE SAME. I'M NOT PREPARED TO WITHDRAW MY MOTION.

>> THE MOTION TO APPROVE OR TO DENY IS TO ANSWER THE QUESTION. THAT MOTION IS TO DENY.

IF THE MOTION FAILS, THAT FAILS THE MOTION TO DENY. ANY OTHER AGENCY TO APPROVE, OR MAKE A FURTHER MOTION TO CONTINUE. IF IT IS NOT DENIED IT CONTINUES

ON IN ANOTHER FORM. >> MOTION TO DENY WOULD BE TO VOTE YES.

[00:50:05]

>> IF YOU VOTE YES YOU ARE VOTING TO DENY THE APPLICATION AS PRESENTED.

>> MR. CHAIRMAN, I HAVE A QUESTION -- MASS THE QUESTION? >> LET ME FOLLOW THE PROCEDURE

HERE AND ASKED MS. PERKINS FOR HER COMMENTS. >> I DON'T THINK IT IS FAIR, HE CAN'T COME BACK FOR ANOTHER YEAR AND REAPPLY IF HE'S DENY TODAY AND NOT HAVE ALL THE INFORMATION AVAILABLE TO US. I DON'T THINK IT IS FAIR FOR US TO TAKE A VOTE IN THE NEGATIVE WHEN HE HASN'T HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO PROVIDE SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE FOR US.

WE CAN GIVE HIM THE OPPORTUNITY AND THE TIMEFRAME FOR IT AND ALLOW HIM TO COME BACK.

AND THEN WE MAKE A DECISION, AND INFORMED DECISION SAYING NO. >> THANK YOU.

DOCTOR MCCORMICK, YOU WANTED TO SAY SOMETHING? >> MY POSITION IS STILL THE SAME FIRST OF ALL, I HAD A QUESTION FOR PAUL TO BEGIN WITH, AND THAT IS, ON A MOTION TO DENY IF IT IS

A 3-3 VOTES, THEN THE MOTION TO DENY DOES NOT PASS, CORRECT? >> CORRECT.

>> IN THAT CASE, THEN IT WOULD BE UP TO OUR MEMBERSHIP, IF IT DOES NOT PASS, THEN IT WOULD BE

UP TO OUR MEMBERSHIP HERE TO EITHER MAKE ANOTHER MOTION -- >> THAT IS CORRECT.

>> IN FACT, THAT WOULD BE THEIR ONLY -- YES, THEY CAN MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE AND IF THEY DECIDE TO DO THAT, AND IT PASSES BY A 4-2 VOTE, THEN IT WOULD BE APPROVED?

>> YES. >> OKAY. I AM STILL ON THE SAME POSITION

THAT I WOULD WANT TO SEE A VOTE TO DENY. >> THAT IS MY MOTION.

DO YOU WANT ME TO READ THE MOTION AGAIN? >> NO.

>> I WOULD JUST LIKE TO CLARIFY WITH THE COUNTY STAFF HOW LONG THEY HAVE BEEN DEALING WITH THIS ISSUE AND HOW LONG IT HAS BEEN SINCE THEY REQUESTED THIS INFORMATION?

>> YES, SIR. TO THE CHAIR, THAT IS WHAT THE APPLICANT WAS INDICATING.

WE HAD AN ADDITIONAL COMMENT BY STAFF THAT WAS ADDED ON DECEMBEE IT WAS TALKING ABOUT ALL OF THOSE TOPICS. YOU HAD INDICATED SIX MONTHS, FOR THIS PARTICULAR COMMENTED DID COME IN AND IT DOES SAY ADDITIONAL COMMENT DECEMBER 10, 2019, JUST FOR YOUR INFORMATION.

>> THE ADDITIONAL COMMENTS WERE RELATED TO THE ISSUES THAT WE HAVE QUESTION?

>> RECHARGE FLORIDIAN AQUIFER, WE ARE IN THE DRAWDOWN, THE PUMPING WITH REGARD TO THE CONSUMPTIVE USE PERMIT. THERE WAS ANOTHER ADDITIONAL COMMENT GOING FOR A TORTOISE RELOCATION PERMIT AS REQUIRED, & GUESS THAT IS INFORMATION ONLY. I THINK THAT MAIN ONE THOUGH, THE MAIN COMMENT ABOUT THE RECHARGE AND THE MITIGATION BANK ON THAT TOPIC WAS ADDED ON

DECEMBER 10. 1020 THANK YOU. >> ANY OTHER COMMENTS IN THE AGENCY? WE HAVE A MOTION. A MOTION TO DENY IS A YES VOTE.

A MOTION TO APPROVE IS A NO. >> THERE IS NO MOTION TO APPROVE, YOU ARE VOTING ON

WHETHER OR NOT TO DENY THE APPLICATION THAT'S IT. >> DENIES A YES VOTE?

>> YES. >> SHALL WE VOTE? THREE SN THREE NO.

>> THE QUESTION FAILS. YOU CAN'T MAKE THIS A MOTION UNLESS YOU DO A RECONSIDERATION.

ANY AGENCY MEMBER CAN MAKE ANY OTHER MOTION TO APPROVE, APPROVED OR CONTINUE THE

APPLICATION. >> MOTION TO CONTINUE. >> SECOND.

>> AM SORRY I DID NOT UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU SAID? >> 'S MOTION CONTINUE.

>> THAT IS TONCERTAIN. WE WILL RE- ADVERTISE IT. >> WE HAVE A MOTION TO CONTINUE TO A DATE UNCERTAIN AND WE HAVE A SECOND. LET'S SEE.

VOTE YES TO APPROVE THE CONTINUANCE. LET'S SEE.

WHAT DO I DO TO MAKE THIS THING COME UP WITH THE BALLOT? THERE WE ARE.

[00:55:05]

THE YES TO CONTINUE PASSES. THANK YOU VERY MUCH, ALL OF YOU. SINCE THIS IS MY FIRST TIME HERE , IN'S CHAIR, I AM ENJOYING THIS, BUT THOSE OF YOU I WILL REMEMBER YOU AFTER THIS.

[Item 2]

[LAUGHTER] LET'S SEE -- >> MR. CHAIR, THERE IS SOME EXPARTE COMMUNICATION INVOLVED IN THIS. I DID RECEIVE AN E-MAIL CORRESPONDENCE. IF YOU COULD DISCLOSE ANY EXPARTE CONTACTS WITH WHOM YOU HAVE TALKED TO, IF YOU REMEMBER THE NATURE AND EXTENT OF THOSE COMMUNICATIONS.

WHO THEY WERE WITH? >> YOUR COMMENT IS ON ITEM ONE? 1020 NO, THIS IS ITEM NUMBER

TWO. >> ANY EXPARTE ON ITEM NUMBER TWO.

>> I DO HAVE SOME EXPARTE COMMUNICATION FOR ITEM NUMBER TWO.

I DID RESPOND TO HIS E-MAIL, TO ALL OF US AND I JUST SAID THANK YOU FOR YOUR E-MAIL, HOPE YOU CAN BE AT THE MEETING AND CLARIFY. AND THEN SEAN -- SHANNON, I DID SPEAK WITH HER BY PHONE, TWICE ABOUT THIS. THOSE ARE MY TWO.

>> THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE WISH TO DECLARE EXPARTE?

MS. BISHOP, ITEM NUMBER TWO. >> THIS IS ITEM NUMBER TWO; MINMOD 2019-13 ROCK SPRINGS PUD. MINOR MODIFICATION TO THE ROCK SPRINGS PLANNED UNIT THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF US1 AND STATE ROUTE 206.

THIS IS THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP OF THE PROPERTY IT IS DESIGNATED RESIDENTIAL.

THE PROPERTY IS ZONED PUD. YOU CAN SEE THE GENERAL AREA THERE.

THIS IS THE AERIAL OF THE PROPERTY. CANNOT SAY IT HAS BEEN CLEARED, AND THERE IS SOME CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROJECT GOING ON. ROCK SPRINGS FARMS PUD WAS APPROVED IN 2017. AT THAT TIME IT HAD 202 DWELLING UNITS AND A DENSITY BONUS WAS REQUIRED TO REACH THAT 202 UNITS. THE APPLICANT PROVIDED FOR AN 8.8 PUBLIC PARK THAT WOULD BE CONSTRUCTED AND IN EXCHANGE FOR THE ADDITIONAL DWELLING UNITS.

THAT WAS THE DENSITY BONUS THAT THEY REQUIRED. >> THIS IS THE APPROVED MAP.

I WILL SAY THAT I DID HAVE A REQUEST TO PROVIDE SOME BETTER MAPPING TO SHOW YOU WHAT CHANGES HAVE BEEN MADE. I'M GOING TO TRY TO DO THAT IN THIS PRESENTATION.

I DID NOT HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO GET THOSE PREPARED, SO I APOLOGIZE FOR THAT.

THIS IS THE ORIGINAL PUD MAP. YOU CAN SEE, THIS IS THE ORIGINAL PARK AREA.

THIS BOARDWALK, ELEVATED BOARDWALK IN THIS WETLAND AREA WAS ALSO PART OF IT.

IT WAS 8.8 ACRES. THERE IS A MULTITUDE OF DIFFERENT FACILITY TYPES AND ACTIVITY TYPES THAT WAS INCLUDED INSIDE THE PARK. DURING THE DESIGN AND PERMITTING OF THIS PROJECT, IT WAS DETERMINED THAT THE STORM WATER MANAGEMENT WOULD NEED ADDITIONAL STORMWATER MANAGEMENT WAS NEEDED TO ACCOMMODATE ANY DEVELOPMENT THAT OCCURRED ON THAT SITE.

THE STORMWATER CHANGES THEN RESULTED IN THE REMOVAL OF 20 UNITS.

IT RESULTED IN THE CONSTRUCTION OF A COMPENSATORY STORAGE POND WHICH WAS REQUIRED, AND AN ADDITIONAL STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PONDS WERE REQUIRED AND THEN THAT RESULTED IN OVERALL CHANGES TO THE DESIGN AND PERMITTING OF THE OVERALL PUD WHICH IS DIFFERENT THAN WHAT WAS APPROVED BY A BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS. TO ACCOMMODATE THOSE CHANGES, A SMALL ADJUSTMENT WAS APPROVED IN 2019 AND IT SHOWED THE REMOVAL OF THE 20 UNITS, THE LOCATION OF THE FLOOD POND AND THE ADDITIONAL MODIFIED STORMWATER PONDS.

THE GENERAL LOCATION OF THE PUBLIC PARK, THE NUMBER OF ACRES AND THE PLANNED FACILITIES ALL

[01:00:05]

REMAIN THE SAME AT THE TIME. >> THIS IS NOT SMALL ADJUSTMENT MAP.

YOU CAN SEE THE PROPERTY THAT WAS THE PARK ALL THROUGH HERE, THIS IS STILL THE PARK THAT YOU CAN SEE, THE PUBLIC PARK, THE ELEVATED WALKWAY IS STILL INCLUDED, A STORMWATER WAS ADDED ADJACENT TO THESE LOTS, AS WELL AS THIS STORMWATER POND IS ADJACENT TO THE PARK.

THE STORMWATER PARK IS NOT INCLUDED IN THE PARK ACREAGE. IT IS NOT PART OF THE PARK.

AT THE SAME TIME, THAT SMALL ADJUSTMENT, THERE WAS THE FLOOD POND THAT WAS CREATED, THERE WAS A WALKWAY CREATED AROUND THE FLOOD POND. FOR THIS MINOR MODIFICATION, THE APPLICANT HAS DETERMINED THAT ADDITIONAL CHANGES WERE NEEDED TO ACCOMMODATE THE DEVELOPING OF THE PROJECT AS THEY ARE STILL GOING THROUGH THEIR DESIGN, PERMITTING AND CONSTRUCTION PLAN REVIEW. WHAT THIS HAS RESULTED IN IS THERE REDUCTION OF THE PUBLIC PARK SITE FROM 8.8 ACRES DOWN TO 8.5 ACRES. .3 ACRES IS REMOVED.

THEY ARE ALLOWING FOR SOME ADDITIONAL FLEXIBILITY WITH THE FLEX CORD, RATHER THAN JUST A BOX A BALL COURT. -- BASKETBALL COURT. THAT WILL REQUIRE OTHER ACTIVITIES THAT REQUIRES A HARD SURFACE. THEY HAVE REMOVED THE ELEVATED WALKWAY IN THE WETLAND AREA. THEY HAVE MITIGATED THAT BY THE PLACEMENT OF THE TRAIL AROUND THE FLOOD POND AND THEY HAVE CREATED THAT FLOOD POND TRAIL WITH PARKING, AND SIGNAGE TO DIRECT PEOPLE TO USE THAT TRAIL. THEY PROVIDED ADDITIONAL PARKING, AS I INDICATED AND THEN THEY HAVE ALSO REMOVED THE PAVED PARKING THAT WAS IN THE SOUTHEASTERN PART OF THE PROJECT. THAT WAS GOING TO SERVE FOR THE ELEVATED WALKWAY PARKING, AND THEY'RE JUST USING THAT NOW AS A GRASS COVER PARKING. THEY'RE ALSO MAKING CHANGES TO THEIR OWN DEVELOPMENT INSIDE THERE THAT DOES NOT INCLUDE THE PUBLIC PARK.

THEY ARE ASKING FOR PRIVAT PARK MODIFICATIONS WHICH INCLUDES A 1.2-ACRE AMENITY CENTER WHICH WILL SERVE THE RESIDENTS OF THE COMMUNITY. THEN THEY ARE INCORPORATING SMALL ADJUSTMENT CHANGES WITHIN ONE UNIFIED MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN.

THIS IS THE MINOR MODIFICATION MAP THAT IS PART OF YOUR PACKAGE.

IF YOU CHOOSE TO APPROVE IT TODAY THIS WILL BE THE MAP THAT WILL GET APPROVED.

YOU WILL SEE THAT THIS BASICALLY STAYS THE SAME. THIS IS THE PARK.

THE FACILITY STAY THE SAME WITH THE EXCEPTION OF SOME PARKING RESTROOMS ARE STILL INCLUDED.

RESTROOMS WERE IMPORTANT TO OUR BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS. THIS POND IS STILL THE SAME.

THEY HAVE ADDED SOME LAND OVER HERE THAT IS ALSO FOR THE PUBLIC.

AND IN THE ELEVATED WALKWAY IS REMOVED FROM THIS AREA AND THEN THERE IS -- TO GET TO THIS TRAIL THAT IS AROUND THIS POND, THE TRAIL GOES THROUGH THE SIDEWALKS , THROUGH THE DEVELOPMENT, THERE IS SOME PARKING AREAS HERE TO ACCOMMODATE THAT, IF YOU CHOOSE TO DRIVE AND THEN USE THE TRAIL. YOU CAN ALSO WALK FROM HERE, AND THEN THIS LOOP PAID THERE IS A LOOP NOW THAT IS CREATED WITH THIS FLOOD POND TRAIL. AND THEY ALSO HAVE SOME SIGNAGE THAT DIRECTS PEOPLE TO THAT FLOOD POND TRAIL. THE REDUCTION IN THE DWELLING UNITS AND 202 DOWN TO 182, AND THE NEED TO ACCOMMODATE ADDITIONAL STORMWATER FACILITATED THIS MINOR MODIFICATION. A REDUCTION IN UNITS NEGATED THE NEED FOR THE PUBLIC PARK DENSITY BONUS. HOWEVER THE APPLICANT WAS DETERMINED TO CONTINUE WITH THE PUBLIC PARK AS THEY KNEW IT WAS CONSIDERED AN IMPORTANT COMPONENT OF THE PUD PROJECT OVERALL. THE PUBLIC PARK SIZE AS I SAID IS REDUCED BY .3-ACRE. THIS IS IN THE MINOR MODIFICATION STANDARDS AND THRESHOLDS. THE REMOVAL OF THE ELEVATED WALKWAY RESULTED IN UNNECESSARILY WETLAND IMPACTS. IT'S UNKNOWN IF IT COULD HAVE EVEN GOTTEN PERMITTED BY THE WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT AT THIS POINT WAS. I AM UNAWARE.

AND THEN THE APPLICANT IS MEDICATED THE LOSS OF THE WALKWAY -- MITIGATING THE LOSS OF THE WALKWAY TO THE COUNTY BY THE INCLUSION OF THE TRAIL POND. THE FLEX COURT ALLOWS FOR

[01:05:07]

OTHER THAN THE REDUCTION OF THE .3-ACRE, THE PROVISION OF A FLEX COURT, AND THE REMOVAL OF THE ELEVATED WALKWAY, THE PUD BASICALLY REMAINS THE SAME AS WHAT WAS APPROVED IN 2017.

>> THE PROPOSED CHANGES COMPLY WITH THE MINOR MODIFICATION CRITERIA.

HOWEVER STAFF IS AWARE THAT THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS WAS VERY INVOLVED IN THE APPROVAL OF THE PUBLIC PARK WHEN IT RELATED TO THE DENSITY BONUS. AS I SAID THE APPLICANT DOES REMAIN COMMITTED TO PROVIDING THE PUBLIC PARK AND BUILDING THE PUBLIC PARK.

THE PUD IS BEING DEVELOPED IN ONE PHASE. WHICH GIVES US ASSURANCE THAT THAT IT WILL BE BUILT ALL AT THE SAME TIME. WE HAVE RECEIVED OPPOSITION.

THE OPPOSITION WAS IN YOUR PACKAGE. STAFF HAS TRIED TO ADDRESS THE OPPOSITION AS BEST AS WE COULD. MOST OF THE OPPOSITION LIES WITH THE CONCERN THAT THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS SHOULD SEE THIS APPLICATION AS OPPOSED TO BEING A MINOR MODIFICATION WITH THIS AGENCY MAKING IT SHOULD BE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS.

SHOULD YOU FIND, AS THE AGENCY FINE, THAT THE APPLICATION MEETS THE MINOR MODIFICATION CRITERIA.

STAFF DOES NOT OBJECT. WE DO HAVE FIVE FINDINGS FOR YOU TO APPROVE, AND 4 FINDINGS IF YOU CHOOSE TO DENY. THAT CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION. I WOULD TRY TO ANSWER ANY

QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE IN THE APPLICANT IS HERE AS WELL. >> WE WILL HEAR FROM APPLICANT AND THEN WE WILL ASK OUR QUESTIONS. THANK YOU.

>> GOOD AFTERNOON, AGENCY MEMBERS. SHANNON WHO MATTHEWS DESIGN GROUP, SEVEN WALDO STREET, SAINT AUGUSTINE, FLORIDA. OUR PROJECT FOR ROCK SPRINGS, AS TERESA BISHOP HAS MENTIONED, WE DO HAVE SOME MODIFICATIONS WE WOULD LIKE TO MAKE TO THE EXISTING PUD. BEFORE I GET INTO THAT I JUST WANT TO INTRODUCE OUR PROJECT TEAM WHICH IS HERE TODAY. OUR OWNER, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM ROCK SPRINGS FLORENCE -- FARMS, LLC. UM, I WILL TRY NOT TO DUPLICATE EFFORTS TO MUCH OF I DID WANT TO GIVE SOME BACKGROUND AND CLARIFICATION OF THE CHANGES THAT HAVE HAPPENED THROUGHOUT THE PROCESS OF THIS PUD. TO REWIND BACK TO THE VERY FIRST PUD THAT WAS APPROVED IN 2017 AND IT WAS FOR A 202 LOTS, SINGLE-FAMILY, RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION ON ABOUT 101 ACRES, 90 OF WHICH WERE UPLANDS. IN RESIDENTIAL FEE, THAT GET YOU A BASE DENSITY OF 180 UNITS.

AS WAS MENTIONED, THERE WERE SOME DENSITY BONUSES INVOLVED. THE MOST IMPORTANT OF WHICH WAS AN 8.8 ACRE PUBLIC PARK THAT WAS NOT ONLY TO BE DEDICATED TO ST. JOHN'S COUNTY, BUT ALSO THE DEVELOPER HAD MADE RESPONSIBILITY TO CONSTRUCT THE PARK AND ALSO TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR MAINTAINING THE PARK. IN ADDITION TO THAT THERE WERE A COUPLE OF ACRES AND UPLAND PRESERVATION WHICH TOTALED TO THE 202 UNITS.

LOOKING AT THE PROJECTS HISTORY, THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS APPROVE THAT ON OCTOBER 17, 2017. COINCIDENTALLY, SUBDIVISION CONSTRUCTION PLAN WAS ALSO SUBMITTED THE VERY SAME DAY. FAST-FORWARD A LITTLE WAYS, AND, AS WAS MENTIONED, THERE WAS DISCOVERED A NEED FOR COMPENSATORY STORAGE, NEW ENGINEER BECAME INVOLVED WITH THE PROJECT, MATTHEWS DESIGN GROUP. THE IDEA WAS TO INCREASE THE AREAS DEDICATED FOR DRAINAGE AND COMPENSATORY STORAGE. THIS RESULTED IN A NET LOSS OF 20 LOTS. WE DID PROPOSE TO PUT AN ADDITION OF NATURE TRAIL AROUND

[01:10:01]

WHY REDUCE THE NUMBER OF LOTS? THIS IS THE MDP MAP THAT WAS APPROVED WITH A SMALL ADJUSTMENT YOU CAN SEE WHERE THE FLOOD POND IS. YOU CAN SEE WHERE THE TRAIL, PUBLIC PORTION OF THE TRAIL STARTED AND ENDED RIGHT AROUND THERE.

THAT WAS PROPOSED EVEN WITH THE MALL ADJUSTMENT AS PUBLICLY DEDICATED LAND IN ORDER TO MAKE UP FOR SOME OF THE STORMWATER THAT COULD NOT BE COUNTED TOWARDS AFTER RECREATION ON THE PUBLIC PARK PORTION. JUST TO GIVE YOU AN IDEA. THE BLUE IS WATER, WHETHER IT BE STORMWATER OR COMPENSATORY STORAGE. THE ORIGINAL PUD HAD 13.2 ACRES OF STORM WATER RETENTION. WHEN WE ADJUSTED THE PUD, WE REDUCE THE LOTS SO THERE WASN'T AS MUCH NEED A STORMWATER. THERE WAS ALWAYS A NEED FOR COMPENSATORY STORAGE.

THE NET CHANGE ENDED UP BEING 12.66 ACRES OF FLOOD POND AND THEN THE STORMWATER AROUND 11 ACRES PUT US AROUND 23.7 ACRES AND THIS INCLUDES BOTH STORMWATER AND FLOOD POND.

YOU CAN SEE WHERE SOME OF THOSE LOTS WERE LOST. NOW, LOOKING AT THE MINOR MODIFICATION. THIS IS THE SITE PLAN THAT IS FOR YOUR REVIEW TODAY.

THE REASON THAT WE ARE DOING THIS IS TO FINALIZE SOME OF THE DESIGNS THAT WE LIKE TO DO PARTICULARLY ABOUT RECREATION THAT IS GOING TO BE PROVIDED. AS I MENTIONED, WE ARE LOOKING TO EXTEND THE POND TRAIL. THIS IS A LITTLE BIT TRICKY, BECAUSE YOU DO HAVE A PRIVATE LOT. WHAT WE ARE PLANNING TO DO IS PUBLIC ACCESS SO IT DOES COME FULL CIRCLE. WE THINK IT IS IMPORTANT THAT YOU CAN GET TO THE TRAIL ALL THE WAY AROUND AND CONNECT BACK TO SUNSTONE CIRCLE. AND THEN, THE GREEN THAT YOU SEE SORT OF ON THE NORTH AND OF THIS CENTRAL PARCEL, THAT IS PUBLICLY DEDICATED PAVED PARKING FOR THE TRAIL USE. CONVERTING WHAT WAS PREVIOUSLY PAID PARKING, ON THE SOUTH SIDE, TO A GRASSED OVERFLOW. AND THEN EDITING THE BASKETBALL COURT TO BE A FLEX COURT.

WE ALSO HAVE SOME DETAIL TO THE PRIVATE AMENITY CENTER WHICH YOU WILL SEE IN JUST A MOMENT.

THAT IS THE PURPLE CIRCLE IN THE MIDDLE THERE. HERE'S THE PLAN.

I TRY TO SPLIT IT UP WITH PURPLE BEING PRIVATE RECREATION AND GREEN BEING PUBLIC RECREATION TO VISUALLY ORIENT YOURSELF. AS YOU WILL NOTICE THE STORMWATER POND THAT IS WITHIN THE PUBLIC RECREATION SITE. THE ACTUAL BOUNDARY OF WHAT WAS ORIGINALLY PROPOSED, THAT IS NOT CHANGING. WHAT IS CHANGING IS THE ACRES THAT WE CAN COUNT TOWARDS OUR GROOVE -- ACTIVE RECREATION. THE ONLY CHANGE WAS IF YOU LOOK AT THIS LITTLE GREEN SQUARE.

IT WAS ORIGINALLY PRIVATE& RECREATION. IN ORDER TO MAKE SURE WE HAD ENOUGH ACREAGE THE ACTUAL BOARDWALK THAT WAS ORIGINALLY PROPOSED WOULD NOT BE COUNTED TOWARDS RECREATION. IN TOTAL IT ENDS UP BEING 8.52 ACRES VERSUS 8.8 A PUBLIC RECREATION WHICH WAS ORIGINALLY APPROVED WITH THE PUD. FOR THE PRIVATE RECREATION.

WE TOOK THIS OPPORTUNITY, NOW THAT WE HAVE A LITTLE BIT MORE DETAIL OF WHAT THE RESIDENTS ARE GOING TO WANT AT THE SITE WILL BE A POOL, AND SEPARATE RESTROOMS FROM THE PUBLIC RESTROOMS THAT ARE ALSO BEING PROVIDED AT THE PUBLIC PORTION OF THE PARK.

[01:15:02]

MOST OF IT IS STAYING THE SAME. THERE WAS A LOT OF DISCUSSION DURING THE BOARD HEARINGS FOR THE NEED OF MULTIPURPOSE FIELDS, SPORTS ACTIVITIES. THAT IS EXACTLY THE SAME.

IT'S IN THE SAME LOCATION. SHADE STRUCTURES, THE MULTI GENERATIONAL PLAYGROUND, PUBLIC RESTROOMS AND PUBLIC PARKING ARE ALL STAYING. AS I MENTIONED, ANOTHER LOT IS BEING ADDED. IN TERMS OF ELIGIBILITY FOR MINOR MODIFICATION, I WILL NOT GO THROUGH ALL 12 OF THESE. THIS IS KIND OF THE CONDENSED VERSION OF WHAT THE LAND DEVELO MY CODE THAT TRIGGERS SMALL ADJUSTMENTS, MINOR MODIFICATION OR MAJOR MODIFICATION.

THE IMPORTANT THING TO NOTE HERE IS THERE IS A PROVISION THAT THE CHANGES SHOULD NOT REDUCE OPEN SPACE OR RECREATION BY MORE THAN 5%. THIS IS WITHIN THE CRITERIA.

IF YOU WANT TO LOOK AT PUBLIC RECREATION, BY ITSELF, IT IS 3.1 I ALSO THINK IT IS IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT OPEN SPACE IS ACTUALLY INCREASED BY QUITE A BIT WITH THIS NEW PLAN.

THE ORIGINAL PUD HAD 29.23 ACRES AND NOW THAT HAS BEEN INCREASED TO 33.32 ACRES.

SOME OF THE OTHER TRIGGERS FOR MINOR MODIFICATION HAD TO DO WITH INTENSITY.

IN THIS CASE, WE ARE REDUCING LOTS, SO THE DENSITY IS GOING DOWN.

TRAFFIC WOULD GO DOWN. IMPACTS THAT WOULD BE RELATED TO THAT.

IN TERMS OF JUSTIFICATION COMPATIBILITY. I DID WANT TO JUST.OUT A COUPLE OF THINGS THAT I KNOW WERE IMPORTANT TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, AND PERHAPS THIS AGENCY, AS WELL WHEN THE PUD CAME FOR REVIEW. RESTROOMS ARE GOING TO BE PROVIDED. THE MULTIPURPOSE FIELD IS STAYING.

THERE WILL BE PARKING. EVEN THOUGH, ON THE SOUTH SIDE, IT WILL BE GRASS NOW INSTEAD OF PAVED. THERE IS ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PAVED PARKING ON THE NORTH SIDE.

THAT IS IN THE SAME CONFIGURATION AS IT WAS ORIGINALLY APPROVED.

AND THEN THERE'S ALSO SOME NEW PARKING THAT IS INTRODUCED WITH THIS MINOR MODIFICATION.

THIS IS PUBLIC PARKING. IT IS JUST NORTH OF THE PRIVATE AMENITY SITE.

THE IDEA WAS THAT IF SOMEONE WAS VISITING THERE IS A COUPLE OF SIGNS HERE TO POINT THEM IN THE DIRECTION OF THE NATURE TRAIL SO THAT THEY COULD PARK HERE. ALL THEY HAVE TO DO IS CROSS THE STREET AND THEY CAN GET TO IT EITHER FROM THE SIDE, OR THE SIDE AND IT DOES GO FULL CIRCLE.

REALLY, THE REASON WHY WE ARE TAKING OUT THE BOARDWALK. WE WANT TO PRESERVE THE AREA OF THE SOUTHEASTERN SIDE OF THE PUD. WE THINK WE HAVE A BETTER LOCATION FOR A SIMILAR TYPE OF AMENITY. THIS JUST KIND OF GIVES YOU AN IDEA, THIS IS AN OLD PHOTO. HERE IS THE WETLAND DELINEATIONS HAVE BEEN.

THE AREA WE ARE TALKING ABOUT REMOVING THE BOARDWALK IS ABOUT 200 FEET TYCO 400 FEET FROM U.S.

HIGHWAY ONE. HERE IS WHERE THE FLOOD POND IS BEING PROPOSED THIS WETLAND, YOU CAN HAVE A NICE PATH ALONG THE WETLAND, BUT NOT HAVE TO DO ANY WETLAND IMPACTS.

SO, I TOOK A COUPLE OF PHOTOS. I WANTED TO GIVE YOU AN IDEA OF SCALE AND SCOPE.

OBVIOUSLY THIS IS STILL UNDER CONSTRUCTION. IT GIVES YOU AN IDEA OF WHAT THE FLOOD POND IS GOING TO LOOK LIKE HE CAN SEE THE WETLANDS BEHIND AS I WILL NOT BE IMPACTED.

IN CONTRAST, THESE ARE THE WETLANDS WHERE THE BOARDWALK WAS ORIGINALLY PROPOSED.

IT'S NICE TO HAVE THIS AREA OF TREES, AND TO BE ABLE TO CONSERVE THIS AREA.

[01:20:02]

WHICH THAT DOESN'T INCLUDE SECOY IMPACTS. THAT'S NOT INCLUDING THE IMPACTS THAT WOULD BE REQUIRED FOR BUILDING THE BOARDWALK THROUGH THE WETLANDS.

IN TERMS OF LOOKING AT SIMILAR TYPE OF INFRASTRUCTURE FOR PUBLIC PARK USE.

THIS NATURE TRAIL IS MORE THAN 2600 LINEAR FEET. THE ORIGINAL BOARDWALK WAS 1025.

I WANTED TO POINT OUT, AGAIN, TO SCALE, THIS IS ABOUT 710 LINEAR FEET FROM TOP TO BOTTOM.

YOU HAVE A NICE VEGETATIVE BANK. ALONG HERE YOU HAVE ABOUT 820 LINEAR FEET OF TRAIL THAT IS BY THE NATURAL WETLAND. THIS IS JUST TO GIVE YOU AN IDEA OF THE TYPES OF CANOPY, PLANTS, AND SKATING YOU COULD DO. THIS IS TO GIVE YOU AN IDEA IN CASE ANYONE WAS CURIOUS.

ONE LAST THING I DID WANT TO POINT OUT, THE FLOOD POND IS DIFFERENT THAN A STORMWATER POND. IT IS NOT THERE FOR TREATMENT, IT IS ONLY THERE FOR HOLDING WATER. YOU CAN TAKE A LITTLE BIT MORE LIBERTY AND LANDSCAPING OPTIONS.

YOU CAN DO THINGS LIKE IRISES, GRASS, AND EVEN SOMETIMES TREES CAN BE, DEPENDING ON HOW LONG THEY HAVE WET FEET. COULD BE AN OPTION AS WELL. IN SUMMARY, WE BELIEVE THAT THIS PROPERTY IS WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF A MINOR MODIFICATION AS DEFINED BY THE LAND DEVELOPING CODE. WE BELIEVE IT IS COMPATIBLE WITH THE AREA, AND THE ORIGINAL INTENT. WE DO WANT TO KEEP THAT PUBLIC PARK DEDICATION.

WE ARE RETAINING THE RESPONSIBILITY FOR CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE, EVEN WITHOUT ASKING OR NEEDING TO DENSITY BONUS ANY LONGER. WE THINK IT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPANY HAS A PLAN AND WITH THE LAND DEVELOPING CODE AND THE ORIGINAL INTENT OF THE PUD.

WE REQUEST APPROVAL OF THIS MINOR MODIFICATION. >> THANK YOU, MA'AM.

ANY QUESTIONS FROM THE AGENCY, NOW IS THE TIME. >> I HAVE A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS.

WHAT IS THE TECHNICAL DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A STORMWATER POND AND A FLOOD POND? THE EXTENT THAT I KNOW IS IT IS NOT TREATED. I WOULD LET THE ENGINEER ANSWER

THAT QUESTION. >> IT WAS NOT IN THE MATERIAL THAT I MEANT TO ASK ABOUT OUT THE OTHER DAY WHEN WE SPOKE. GIVING IT A DIFFERENT NAME JUST SEEMS STRANGE WHEN THEY'RE

PROBABLY BOTH STORMWATER. THANK YOU. >> I AM WITH MATTHEW'S DESIGN GROUP. SHANNON MENTIONED, WHICH IS PRETTY MUCH CORRECT.

STORMWATER POND WE NEED FOR TREATMENT AND RETENTION OF WATER TO TREAT WATER THAT RUNS OFF IMPERVIOUS AREAS SUCH AS RUNWAYS TO TREAT ANY CHEMICALS THAT MAY BE ON THE ROADWAY.

FLOOD POND, THIS PROJECT SITE WAS IN A FLOOD ZONE. WHEN WE BUILT UP IN THE FLOOD ZONE. WE HAD TO HAVE SOMEONE -- SUMMARY FOR THE FLOODWATERS TO GO THAT WAS NATURALLY ON THAT PROJECT TO THE FLOOD POND IS REALLY JUST AREA FOR THAT WATER TO GO TO OFFSET FLOODING DOWNSTREAM. THE FLOOD POND TREATS THE WATER, THE STORMWATER ROUTES TO THE FLOOD POND. IT'S JUST FOR DURING HEAVY RAIN EVENTS WATER WILL GO TO THE FLOOD POND AND STAY IN THE FLOOD POND FOR AN EXTENDED.

OF TIME UNTIL THE BUILDS UP, AND THEN EXITS THE SITE. >> HOW DO YOU ACTUALLY TREAT

WATER IN THE STORMWATER PONDS? >> IT REALLY IS JUST HOLDING IT THERE FOR A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF

[01:25:02]

>> LOOKING AT THE PHOTOGRAPH OF THAT, THAT SHANNON SHOWED, A VIEW LOOKING WEST.

I KNOW IT'S NOT FINISHED, THE CONSTRUCTION IS NOT FINISHED, BUT I WAS JUST WONDERING THAT LOOKED LIKE A VERY STEEP SIDED -- ARE THERE GOING TO BE LITERAL SHELVES OR SOMETHING

LIKE THAT? >> I BELIEVE MOST OF THE 41 SLOPE WHICH IS CONSIDERED ACCEPTABLE IN ST. JOHNS COUNTY IT IS 25%. WE ARE NOT PROPOSING THAT.

IT WILL BE 25% OR LESS STEEP. >> THANK YOU. >> IT IS NOT CLEAR TO ME WHERE THE 8.8 ACRES VERSUS THE 8.5 ACRES ARE. I WOULD LIKE SOMEBODY TO MAKE

THAT VERY CLEAR. >> THAT IS A VERY FAIR QUESTION. I KNOW IT'S A LITTLE BIT CONFUSING. THIS IS PROBABLY A GOOD ONE TO LOOK AT.

I APOLOGIZE. HE RECEIVED AN E-MAIL FROM ME ABOUT AN EARLIER SUBMITTAL.

WHAT WE WERE THINKING WOULD BE A GOOD IDEA WAS TO DEDICATE THE WHOLE TRACT, WHICH WOULD FOLLOW THIS TOP LOT, COME ALL THE WAY DOWN, INCLUDE THIS EVEN THOUGH THERE IS NOTHING PROPOSED IN THE WETLANDS AND COME UP, WHICH WAS OVER 15-ACRE PIECE OF PROPERTY. WHAT WAS ORIGINALLY PROPOSED TO BE DEDICATED IN THE PUD WAS 8.8 ACRES AND THAT WAS ONLY INCLUDING PORTIONS OF ACTIVE RECREATION. THE REASON WHY WE CHANGE IT BACK TO THE 8.52 WAS TO WITH THAT DEFINITION TO AVOID CONFUSION. IT INCLUDED THIS WHOLE TRACT DOWN TO HEAR.

IT INCLUDED ONLY THE AREA OF THE BOARDWALK. IT DID NOT INCLUDE THIS WHOLE PARCEL TO BE DEDICATD. THE REASON WHY WE CANNOT MAKE IT WORK TO STILL ONLY KEEP THAT SAME BOUNDARY IS BECAUSE THE AMOUNT OF ACRES THAT THE STORMWATER POND TOOK UP.

SO WE HAD TO COME UP WITH A WAY, TO HAVE SOMETHING THAT WOULD MAKE UP THE DIFFERENCE OF PUBLIC RECREATION. EVEN THOUGH IT IS THE SAME GEOMETRY OF AREA, THIS IS NOT ACTIVE RECREATION. IT IS A STORMWATER POND. THAT IS PART OF THE REASON WHY WE DECIDED TO MAKE THE TRAIL, ALONG THE FLOOD POND, PUBLICLY DEDICATED VERSUS PRIVATE.

>> WE LOST SOME ACREAGE ON THE FRONTAGE AND WE PICKED IT UP AROUND THE POND IN PUBLIC PARK?

>> EXACTLY. THE TRACKS ARE THE SAME, BUT BECAUSE STORMWATER POND, YOU CANNOT COUNT THAT AS ACTIVE RECREATION. WE HAD TO INCREASE SOME KIND OF

INFRASTRUCTURE OF WHAT WAS GOING TO BE PROPOSED. >> THANK YOU.

>> I SEE NO MORE QUESTIONS. THANK YOU. SPEAKER CARDS?

>> SO WE TWO. FIRST SPEAKER IS CLAY SHEA. PLEASE SAY YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS

FOR THE RECORD. YOU WILL BE GIVEN THREE MINUTES. >> MY NAME IS CLAY SHEA, SAINT AUGUSTINE, FLORIDA, DISTRICT THREE RESIDENT. I WOULD ASK YOU TO DENY THE MINOR MODIFICATION, AND THE RATIFICATION OF SOME ADJUSTMENT CHANGES AND MOVE THIS INTO TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AS A MAJOR MODIFICATION.

I BELIEVE THE SMALL ADJUSTMENT WAS NOT SMALL, BY ANY SCOPE AND A MINOR MODIFICATION IS AN ADDITIONAL GRAB BY THE DEVELOPER TO REDUCE THEIR OBLIGATIONS IT TO COUNTY.

THE SMALL ADJUSTMENT COMPLETELY REDO THE ENTIRE PUD MAT. IT ELIMINATED THOSE 20 BUILDING LOTS. IT NECESSITATED A REDESIGN OF THE ROADS, AND THE STORMWATER PONDS. IT CREATED NEW STORMWATER PONDS, AND A FLOOD POND.

THE NEWMAN STORMWATER PONDS TOOK THE OPEN PARK SPACE THAT ELIMINATED ALL FUTURE GROWTH OPTIONS COME OF THE PARK, AS THE COUNTY GROCER. THEY'VE ELIMINATED TAYLOR PARK,

[01:30:06]

IT WAS PROMISES AS A CROWN JEWEL. THAT IS NOT WHAT WE ARE GOING TO BE RECEIVING. IN YOUR PACKET OF INFORMATION THAT YOU HAVE THERE, YOU HAVE MY DETAILED LETTERS, I WROTE SEVERAL. I DID SEVERAL MAPS OF COMPARISONS SHOWING THE CHANGES ARE NOT EQUAL IN SCOPE. THE CHANGES ONLY BENEFIT THE DEVELOPER, NOT THE COUNTY, NOT THE COUNTY RESIDENTS. THERE ARE MORE QUESTIONS THAN ANSWERS. THEY HAD UP UNTIL RECENTLY, NOT DECIDED I HAVEN'T TALKED ABOUT PARK LIGHTING WHICH IS CRITICAL TO THE BCC. THEY REMOVED THE OVERFLOW PARKING AS A PAVED PARKING AND GAVE IT AS GRASS. THEY HAVEN'T PROVIDE ADEQUATE NEW PARKING. THEY'VE ADDED THREE PARKING SPACES FOR THE NEW TRAIL AROUND THE FLOOD POND. THERE WAS PROBABLY 14 PAVED PARKING SPACES THAT THEY ELIMINATED. AND, IN THEY, THEY ARE ASKING TO REWRITE THEIR FUTURE MAINTENANCE OF THE PARK AS EITHER A SHARED OBLIGATION WITH THE COUNTY, OR SOMEONE ELSE WHEN THEY AGREED TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS THAT THEY WOULD COME NOT ONLY, INSTALL FOR THE PARK AND PAY FOR THE PARK BUT THEY WOULD MAINTAIN THE PARK IN PERPETUITY.

THAT IS A BUDGET ITEM THAT THEY ARE ASKING YOU TO APPROVE GREAT I DON'T THINK THIS IS THE FORUM FOR A BUDGET ITEM AT THE PZA LEVEL. YOUR LEGACY AS A PZA MEMBER WILL BE A RUBBERSTAMP OF THESE DEVELOPERS TO TO BREAK THEIR PROMISES, OR AS A STEWARD FOR THE COUNTY IN INSURING THE RESIDENCE GETS WHAT THEY WERE PROMISED.

PLEASE DENY THIS REQUEST, OR FORWARDED TO THE BCC THEY DO NOT LET THE DEVELOPER USE THIS CREATIVE WRITING, FUZZY MATH, TO MAKE EVERYTHING SEEM EQUAL WHEN IT IS NOT.

DINKY. -- THANK YOU. >> MY NAME IS DAVID.

[INAUDIBLE] I HAVE NO FURTHER COMMENT, QUESTIONS HAVE BEEN ANSWERED.

THANK YOU. >> THAT IS IT FOR PUBLIC SPEAKERS.

>> WITH THE APPLICANT LIKE TO RESPOND? >> THANK YOU, AGENCY MEMBERS.

YES, I WOULD LIKE TO RESPOND TO SOME OF THE CONCERNS. I THINK I CAN CLARIFY.

IN TERMS OF OPEN SPACE, AND RECREATION, AS I MENTIONED EARLIER.

THERE IS ACTUALLY MORE OPEN SPACE THAN THERE WAS BEFORE. THE NUMBERS DO ADD UP.

IT IS WITHIN THE ELIGIBILITY OF A MINOR MODIFICATION, BECAUSE IT IS LESS THAN 5%.

THE PREVIOUS MAP, NOT TO DWELL ON WHAT WAS PREVIOUSLY APPROVED. THE SMALL ADJUSTMENT, ALSO MET THE CRITERIA OF A SMALL ADJUSTMENT. IT DID NOT DECREASE ANY OF THE RECREATION AREAS. THERE IS A WHOLE CRITERIA OF WHAT CAN BE MET WITH.

A REDUCTION IN LOT DOES NOT TRIGGER A HEARING. ADDITION OF LOTS IS WHAT TRIGGERS A HEARING. I DID WANT TO CLARIFY THAT. IN TERMS OF THE NAMING OF THE PARK. I AM NOT SURE HOW RELEVANT IT IS.

I DON'T THINK ANYONE WOULD BE OPPOSED TO CHANGING THE NAME OF A PARK.

WE HAD ALREADY KIND OF WENT THROUGH THE MAPS. WHEN THOSE CHANGES WERE DONE, I WOULD BE HAPPY TO CLARIFY IF THERE WAS A PARTICULAR STICKING. THROUGHOUT THE PROJECT'S HISTORY OF MAP TO MATT. IF THERE WAS AN ISSUE THERE, RESTROOMS HAVE ALWAYS BEEN ON THE MAP AND ARE GOING TO BE CONSTRUCTED AS MS. BISHOP HAS MENTIONED. THIS IS ALL IN ONE PHASE. IT WILL HAVE TO BE BUILT IN ONE PHASE. THERE ARE ACTUALLY FOR PUBLIC PARKING SPACES THAT THAT HAVE BEEN ADDED. THE OVERFLOW AREA IS THE SAME AREA AS WHAT WAS PREVIOUSLY APPROVED. THERE IS NO REDUCTION IN PARKING.

THERE IS REDUCTION IN THE AMOUNT OF PAVED PARKING. ALSO TO MAKE UP FOR THAT THERE

[01:35:01]

THERE IS NO SHARED OBLIGATION TO ST. JOHN'S COUNTY. THIS WAS A PUD THAT WAS APPROVED TO BE CONSTRUCTED AND MAINTAINED BY THE DEVELOPER. THE ONLY QUESTION ITEM AT THIS.BECAUSE IT IS WHAT ARE THE DIFFERENT AVENUES TO GET THEIR? WE ARE WORKING WITH ST. JOHNS COUNTY LEGAL STAFF TO COME UP WITH AN AGREEMENT THAT EVERYONE FEELS COMFORTABLE WITH.

WHAT REALLY WAS THE EMPHASIS OF THAT WAS DEALING WITH LIABILITY AND WHETHER OR NOT WE COULD USE, OR SUB THE WORK WHETHER OR HOW TO GO THROUGH THE HOA. I DIDN'T WANT TO CLARIFY THAT THE COUNTY FINANCIALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY OF THE MAINTENANCE OF THE PUBLIC PARK.

>> REFINISHED? -- ARE YOU FINISHED? >> AS I MENTIONED BEFORE, REGARDLESS OF WHERE YOU DRAW THE BOUNDARY, EVEN THOUGH WE ARE WITHIN THE 5%, WE ARE STILL CARRYING FORWARD THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE ORIGINAL INFRASTRUCTURE.

IT IS JUST THAT THE STORMWATER WATER POND TOOK UP SOME OF THAT SPACE.

BECAUSE OF THAT, WE HAVE ACTUALLY ADDED NEW INFRASTRUCTURE ABOVE AND BEYOND

WHAT WAS ORIGINALLY PROPOSED. >> DO WE HAVE ANY FOCUS QUESTIONS?

>> I HAVE ONE, OR TWO. I KNOW THAT THE NUMBER OF HOUSES WAS REDUCED FROM 202 DOWN TO 182. GIVEN THE INCREASE IN STORMWATER PONDS, FLOOD POND, ET CETERA,

DID THE ACTUAL DENSITY PER ACRE COME OF HOUSES ON THE SITE GO UP >> THE DENSITY WENT DOWN.

IT WENT FROM 202 DOWN TO 182. THE STORM WATER RETENTION, ITSELF, IF YOU WILL NOTICE THAT WAS SLIGHTLY LOWER, BECAUSE THE NUMBER OF HOUSES WENT DOWN. THAT DIDN'T CHANGE THE FACT THAT WE STILL NEEDED TO HANDLE COMPENSATORY STORAGE. THAT IS WHAT DROVE UP THE AREA

OF WATER. >> WHEN HE SHOWED ABOUT, YOUR ORIGINALLY APPROVED PLAN AND WHAT YOU ARE PROPOSING NOW. IT LOOKED TO ME, PERHAPS THE LOTS WERE A LITTLE SMALLER.

EVEN THOUGH YOU'RE REDUCING THE NUMBER OF HOUSES BY 20, THE DENSITY PER ACRE ACTUALLY, DID

THAT GO UP? >> I SEE WHAT YOU ARE SAYING. THE LOT STANDARDS ARE THE SAME.

>> THEY ARE? OKAY. I WOULD LIKE TO ASK YOUR ENGINEER ANOTHER QUESTION. I JUST WONDER HOW THE WATER IS GOING TO BE HELD OR NOT HELD IN A FLOOD POND? IS NOT GOING TO BE A FLOW-THROUGH AREA, NO CULVERTS

OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT? NO RISERS TO. >> THERE ARE THERE AND WEIRS.

>> YOU CAN CONTROL THE LEVEL IN THEIR? >> YES.

>> IT'S NOT STRICTLY A FLOOD POND GULF FOZ NO, THAT MAY BE THE WRONG WORD.

WE DO CONTROL WHEN THE WATER WILL EXIT THE POND. THE REASON I AM ASKING THIS IS WHEN SHANNON WAS SHOWING A TABLE WITH CRITERIA FOR A MINOR MODIFICATION, ONE OF THE STATEMENTS DOWN LOWER, AND I DIDN'T GET IT ALL DOWN HERE WAS THAT IN THE AREA, INCREASE OF ANY USE EXCEPT FOR OPEN SPACE, SO WOULD CHANGING THE FLOOD POND AND THE STORM WATER AREAS SUBSTANTIALLY, LIKE A 50% INCREASE NEARLY, DOES NOT FALL UNDER THE CRITERIA.

I'M NOT SURE. >> WE CONSIDER THOSE STORMWATER PONDS AS A NECESSARY PART OF THE DEVELOPMENT. SO, IF YOU PLAN A DEVELOPMENT AND THEN YOU NEED ADDITIONAL STORMWATER, YOU HAVE INCREASED WELL, YOU MAY HAVE INCREASED THE DEVELOPMENT AREA THAT SO LONG AS YOU ARE WITHIN YOUR OPEN SPACE THRESHOLD, WE ALLOW THAT IN TERMS OF THE ENGINEERING

[01:40:02]

YOU NEED TO HANDLE YOUR STORMWATER. IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE, THE OPEN-SPACE IS INCREASING BY, YOU KNOW, LESS OF AN IMPACT ON WETLANDS PROVIDING RECREATIONAL AREA. WE CONSIDER THAT SEPARATE FROM DEVELOPMENT.

THE FLOOD POND, BECAUSE IT IS SUPPORTING THE DEVELOPMENT WOULD BE CONSIDERED JUST PART OF THE DEVELOPMENT THAT JUST SWITCHES FROM HOUSES INTO SOMETHING MORE COMPENSATORY STORAGE.

>> GOOD ANSWER. THANK YOU. >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. WE ARE IN THE AGENCY NOW FOR

DISCUSSION AND EMOTION. >> HAVE A QUESTION OF STAFF. >> JUST A SECOND AND I WILL GET

TO YOU. DOCTOR MCCORMICK? >> HAS GOING TO ASK YOU, AGAIN? ACTUALLY I THINK YOU ANSWER THE QUESTION THE AGREEMENT WITH THE COUNTY, WHEN YOU GOT THE PUD APPROVED WAS THAT THE ASSOCIATION WOULD PAY THE MAINTENANCE COSTS AND THEY WOULD EITHER DO THAT BY THEMSELVES, AND MAINTAIN IT THEMSELVES, OR THERE WOULD BE -- THEY WOULD

CONTRACT WITH THE COUNTY TO DO IT? >> THAT IS CORRECT.

>> THAT IS WHAT I UNDERSTAND YOU ARE SAYING NOW, NO WE STILL HAVE RESPONSIBILITY FOR MAINTEANCE.

FROM THAT STANDPOINT BECAUSE, I WAS CONCERNED ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT IT WAS GOOD TO GO BACK AND THE COUNTY COMMISSION WAS GOING TO HAVE TO, YOU KNOW, THEY WOULD BE HAPPY WITH THE FACT THAT THEY AGREED TO THIS. WHEN IN FACT IT'S ALREADY AND IT HASN'T CHANGED ONE BIT, RIGHT?

>> I THINK WE ARE ON THE SAME PAGE. THE FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY STAYS WITH THE DEVELOPER. THE QUESTION IS, WHAT ARE THE DIFFERENT AVENUES THAT WE CAN

USE TO GET THERE. >> THIS IS TREADING TO A LEGAL QUESTION AS JANET SAID.

IT'S ALL. THE COUNTY WILL OWN THE LAND IF IT'S DEDICATED AND WE ACCEPT IT.

THE QUESTION IS MAINTAINING OR PARK EQUIPMENT? HOW DO YOU CONTROL WHEN THEY MAINTAIN IT HOW OFTEN THEY MAINTAIN IT TO WHAT LEVEL OF SERVICE TO THEY MAINTAIN IT? DO YOU WANT THE PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION TO HAVE COMPLETE CONTROL OF THAT AND CHECK IN? OR, DO YOU WANT SOME OTHER FORM? THE FUNDAMENTAL ASPECTS OF THE FINANCIAL COSTS OF THE MAINTENANCE ARE BORN ON THE PROPERTY OF THE OWNERS ASSOCIATION.

THAT IS, YOU KNOW, A MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT THAT WE ARE CRAFTING AND WHAT IS THE BEST AVENUE TO GO ABOUT ENSURING THE MAINTENANCE WHILE RESOLVING LIABILITY.

>> THANK YOU. >> AGAIN, RAISES THE ISSUE AGAIN, WHICH IS WHAT WILL BE THE ULTIMATE COST AND IF THE COUNTY, WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IS THAT THE COUNTY REALLY HAS RESPONSIBILITY FOR THIS BECAUSE IT IS A PUBLIC PARK. THE CONCERN WOULD BE, WELL, IF THE DEVELOPER IS MAINTAINING IT, IS HE MAINTAIING IT TO THE LEVEL THAT THE COUNTY IS SATISFIED WITH SINCE IT IS THE PUBLIC PARK? THAT WAS WHY MY QUESTION.

I GUESS I DIDN'T GET OUT OF THAT WAY, BUT AFTER YOU SAID THAT. BECOMES AN ISSUE.

>> THOSE WERE NEVER ADDRESSED ORIGINALLY. WHICH IS WHY THE STATEMENT IS, OKAY, WE WILL HAVE AN AGREEMENT TO DETERMINE LEVEL OF MAINTENANCE, YOU KNOW, HOW OFTEN IS A MAINTAIN THE INSPECTION PROCESS WHICH TO SUBCONTRACT OUT.

WE NEED TO MAKE SURE THE PUBLIC& ARE ADEQUATELY PROTECTED AND THE EQUIPMENT IS MAINTAINED TO A

MANNER THAT IS SATISFACTORY TO THE COUNTY. >> THE ANSWER TO WHAT LEVEL OF

[01:45:20]

>> I WANT TO ASK A QUESTION. IT SEEMS TO ME LIKE THIS WHOLE THING TURNS ON WHETHER YOU MEET THE CRITERIA OR MINOR MODIFICATION. AS I READ THE CRITERIA AND THE STAFF REPORT, I LOOK AT NUMBER FOUR. IT SAYS THE CHANGES DO NOT REDUCE THE AMOUNT OF OPEN SPACE RECREATION AREA BY MORE THAN 5%. RESULTING IN ANY SUBSTANTIAL CHANGE IN THE LOCATION OF OPEN SPACE/RECREATION AREA. WE NOW HAVE SHIFTED THIS SPARK FROM A LONG LINEAR PARK WHAT IS CLEARLY A PUBLIC SPACE. I'M GLAD I'M NOT RUNNING THAT HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION AND TRY TO KEEP THOSE PEOPLE OUT OF THE SWIMMING POOL.

THAT CONCERNS ME. AND THEN WHEN I RE- NUMBER 12, 11, IT SAYS THE CHANGES DO NOT CHANGE THE LOCATION OF SPECIFIC LAND USES BY MORE THAN 10% OF THE TOTAL LAND AREA OF THE

SPECIFIC LAND USES. >> IT'S MORE OF A CONCERN WITH RESIDENTIAL AND NONRESIDENTIAL, INDUSTRIAL MIXES HERE. YOU HAVE A PURELY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT WITH AN OBLIGATION TO DEDICATE ACREAGE OF PUBLIC PARK. IT IS THIS AGENCY'S DETERMINATION OF WHETHER THIS MEETS THE CRITERIA WITHIN THE THRESHOLD OF THE REDUCTION.

WHETHER YOU'RE TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE RELOCATED ELEMENT OF THE TRADING THE ELEVATED WALKWAY. CONSTITUTES A SUBSTANTIAL CHANGE TO THE PUBLIC PARK OR

RECREATIONAL ASPECT. [INAUDIBLE] >> HAVE A QUESTION FOR US TO DISCUSS, IT'S NOT REALLY FOR THE APPLICANT. I THINK THIS HINGES ON, AS GREG JUST STATED, A MINUTE AGO. WE ARE TRYING TO DETERMINE IF THIS IS A MAJOR OR MINOR MODIFICATION. LOOKING BACK, AND I WAS NOT HERE IN JUNE OF 2019, ON THIS BOARD.

I CANNOT SECOND-GUESS IT. IT APPEARS TO ME THAT THE SMALL ADJUSTMENT APPROVED IN JUNE OF 2019 WAS REALLY A MAJOR MODIFICATION. WHAT WE HAVE NOW IS ACTUALLY A MINOR MODIFICATION. I THINK IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DECLARED A MAJOR MODIFICATION BACK IN JUNE. THAT MAY BE A MOOT. SOMETHING THAT WAS STATED TO ME IN A TELEPHONE CALL WITH THE CONSULTANT, AND THE APPLICANT, IS THAT THE COUNTY HAD DECIDED THEY WANTED ONLY THE ACTIVE RECREATIONAL COMPONENT OF THIS PARK TO BE DEDICATED TO THE COUNTY, NOT THE ENTIRE 15.56 ACRES OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.

I JUST WONDERED WHOSE CALL THAT IS TO DECIDE WHO GETS TO DECIDE? IS THAT WHAT YOU WANT DEDICATED TO THE COUNTY? THE PARK AND RECREATION STAFF? IS THAT PLANNING AND ZONING? IS THAT THIS BODY RIGHT HERE? THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS?

>> YES. [LAUGHTER] SO, RIGHT.

INVOLVED. ADMINISTRATION WOULD BE INVOLVED.

ULTIMATELY, THE BOARD WOULD MAKE THAT DECISION ON WHETHER TO ACCEPT A PUBLIC PARK.

[01:50:03]

IT IS A COLLABORATIVE EFFORT. >> THE BORDER OF AGENCY? >> MR. CHAIR, THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS HAS TO ACCEPT ANY AND ALL LANDS. WHAT WE WANTED TO MAKE SURE IS THAT THE ACREAGE IS ACTUAL USABLE PARK ACREAGE THAT YOU CAN STAND ON, AND ENJOY, AND WALK ON. THAT IS PARKING, THAT IS, YOU KNOW, YOUR GRASSY FIELDS, YOUR WALKING TRAILS, YOUR GAZEBOS, YOUR TOP LOTS AND NOT A STORMWATER POND.

THE STORM WATER POND IS PART OF THE MASTER IT IS DESIGNED TO ACCOMMODATE THE ENTIRE DEVELOPMENT. THIS IS A ONE PHASE CONSTRUCTION PLAN SET ALL AT ONCE.

THERE IS SOME CO- MINGLING OF SOME STORMWATER INVOLVED. >> HAVE ANOTHER COMMENT, IF I

MAY? >> I WOULD LIKE TO RESPOND TO SOMETHING IF THAT'S OKAY? I DON'T BELIEVE THAT WE APPROVE SMALL ADJUSTMENTS, RICHARD. CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG.

>> THOSE ARE USUALLY ADMINISTRATOR LEE DONE. AS SHANNON STATED, THE REDUCTION IN LOTS ITSELF CAN QUALIFY FOR WE SEE THAT ALL THE TIME WHEN DEVELOPMENTS ENCOUNTER USUALLY HIGH WATER TABLES. SOMETIMES IT IS A LOT OR TWO. SUBJECT TO CONSTRUCTION PLAN APPROVAL. AT THE PLANNING LEVEL, YOU KIND OF DO NOT KNOW WHAT IS UNDERNEATH THE DIRT. YOU CAN FIND SOMETHING AND IT WILL THROW YOU -- ARE CAREFULLY CONSTRUCTED PLAN IN ARRAY. WE ACCOMMODATE AN INCREASE IN STORMWATER PONDS.

IN THIS CASE, CLOSE BASIN THEY HAVE TO ACCOMMODATE A FLOOD POND YOU KNOW, THEY DID REDUCE THE ACTUAL STORMWATER POND. THEY HAVE THAT UNIQUE ASPECT TO THE DEVELOPMENT THAT RESULTED IN A REDUCTION IN LOTS. IT'S ONLY THE INCREASE IN LOTS THAT MAKES IT LEAVE THE SMALL

ADJUSTMENT ARE GO INTO THE MINOR MODIFICATION. >> I STAND CORRECTED IN.

>> EXCUSE ME. THIS IS BY NO MEANS AN ADMONISHMENT.

NEVERTHELESS, BETWEEN THESE MEETINGS, WE HAVE PLENTY OF TIME TO REVIEW THESE ISSUES WITH STAFF. THEY ARE AVAILABLE TO US. THIS LEVEL OF DETAIL GOING DOWN INTO THE WEEDS IS PRODUCTIVE, BUT IT CAN BE SUMMARIZED. I ENCOURAGE US TO DO THAT.

YOU HAD A COMMENT? ARE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS?

>> GENERAL COMMENT. I WOULD LIKE THIS BODY TO PAY MORE ATTENTION TO SOIL TYPES WHEN DEVELOPMENTS COME BEFORE IT. I PERSONALLY COULD HAVE FORETOLD THAT THIS SITE WAS GOING TO NEED MORE STORMWATER FLOOD POND AND STORAGE LOOKING OUT SOIL TYPES.

THEY ARE ALL POORLY DRAINED OR VERY POORLY DRAINED SOIL TYPES. MOST PEOPLE JUST LOOK AT THE VEGETATION AND THEY GO OH, IT IS ONE OF THE COUNTIES SIX ENVIRONMENTALLY PROTECTED VEGETATION TYPES. THIS WILL COME UP LATER TODAY. THEY ARE EXTREMELY IMPORTANT AND WHAT LEVEL OF DRAINAGE OF THAT SITE WILL EXPERIENCE, OR NOT EXPERIENCE.

ALL OF THE SOILS ON THEIR BASICALLY POORLY OR VERY POORLY DRAINED.

IT WAS STATED BY THE APPLICANT THAT THIS SITE WAS ACTUALLY IN A FLOOD ZONE.

I THINK THAT IS REALLY IMPORTANT FOR US TO PAY CLOSE ATTENTION TO SOIL TYPES.

>> THANK YOU. ANY COMMENTS FROM STAFF? WE ARE IN AGENCY.

ARE THERE OTHER COMMENTS, OR EMOTION? A MOTION.

[LAUGHTER] MY LEVEL OF PAIN IS M WHETHER THERE IS OR NOT.

PLEASE PROCEED. I EXPRESSED SOME OF THE CONCERNS AS FAR AS DETERMINING OR NOT THIS IS A MAJOR MODIFICATION VERSUS A MINOR MODIFICATION. I FEEL THIS IS COMPATIBLE.

THEREFORE, GOING TO MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE MINOR MODIFICATION,

[01:55:04]

THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED OFF US1, SOUTH OF SR 206. >> IS THERE A SECOND?

>> SECOND. >> PLEASE VOTE. THE MOTION CARRIES.

4-2. INC. YOU VERY MUCH. THE NEXT ITEM?

[Item 3]

>> FOR THE RECORD, BEVERLY FRASER, GROWTH MANAGEMENT. AGENDA MAJMOD 2019-11 SJSO TRAINING FACILITY. REQUEST FOR A MAJOR MODIFICATION TO THE ST.

JOHNS COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE THIS IS A REQUEST FOR A MAJOR MODIFICATION TO THE TRAINING FACILITY PUD THAT WAS APPROVED IN 2015. THIS IS TO REZONE ADJOINING LAND OF THE SITE DESIGN AND TO UPDATE THE MASTER DEVELOP AND PLAN. THIS IS A LOOK AT THE LOCATION MAP. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED WEST OF I-95 AND SOUTH OF STATE ROAD 16 AND COUNTY ROAD 208 WITH ACCESS PROVIDED BY AGRICULTURAL CENTER DRIVE.

THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP SHOWS THE SUBJECT PROPERTY DESIGNATED AS A MIXED USED DISTRICT.

RURAL TO THE WESTERN RESIDENTIAL TO THE NORTH AND EAST AND IT DOES HAVE AN AREA OF PUBLIC TO THE NORTH, AS WELL AS SOME LIGHT INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL USES. THE ZONING MAP YOU CAN SEE THE PUD. IT DOES HAVE AN AREA OF OPEN RURAL THROUGH THE CENTER AND A SMALL AREA THAT ARE SUBJECT TO THIS MODIFICATION AS REQUESTED AND DOES HAVE OPEN RURAL ZONING SURROUNDING. YOU CAN SEE FROM THE AERIAL MAP THAT THIS PROPERTY IS UNDER CONSTRUCTION WITH LAW ENFORCEMENT. THE ROADWAY UNDER CONSTRUCTION AS WELL AS THE AREA HAS BEEN CLEARED AND THEY STARTED WITH SOME OF THE TRAINING FACILITIES.

THE ORIGINAL PUD WAS APPROVED AND COMPRISED OF TWO SEPARATE PARCELS DIVIDED BY 100-FOOT ACCESS EASEMENT FOR THE FUTURE EXTENT MEANT OF AGRO CENTRAL -- [INAUDIBLE] UTILIZE PRIMARY FOR THE SHERIFF'S OFFICE FOR THE GENERAL PUBLIC AND EMERGENCY SERVICE USES AND WITHIN THE WESTERN 49-ACRE PORTION AND THE ALLOWANCE OF ADDITIONAL LIGHT INDUSTRIAL USES ON THE EASTERN 66 PARCEL. THIS IS A LOOK AT THAT ORIGINAL MAP TO SHOW YOU HOW THAT WAS LAID OUT WITH PRETTY MUCH ALL OF THE TRAINING FACILITIES ON THE ONE PARCEL AND FUTURE USE FOR THE INDUSTRIAL AREA. A MINOR MODIFICATION WAS APPROVED LAST YEAR THAT REVISED THE PHASING FROM A TWO 10 YEAR PHASE A A SINGLE 10 YEAR PHASE AND CONFIGURATION OF THE SITE DESIGN. THE EASEMENT FOR THE FUTURE EXTENSION OF AGRICULTURAL CENTER DRIVE WAS RELOCATED TO THE EASTERN BOUNDARY ADJACENT TO 95.

CONSTRUCTION PLANS HAVE BEEN APPROVED FOR THE INTERNAL ROAD STORMWATER RETENTION, THE TRAINING FACILITY, DRIVE TRACK, GUN RANGE, AND MENSTRUATION BUILDING AND PARKING.

THIS IS A LOOK AT THIS MINOR MODIFICATION MAP THAT WAS SEEN LAST YEAR.

IT DID NOT ADD THE LANDS, BUT RECONFIGURED THE SITE AS THEY WORKED ON TRYING TO ACCOMMODATE ALL OF THEIR ALLOWED USES WITHIN THE PROPERTY. THIS MODIFICATION DOES SEEK TO REZONE THOSE ADJACENT LANDS TO BE INCLUDED WITHIN THE PUD TO FURTHER ACCOMMODATE THE APPROVED USES AS PART OF THAT REDESIGN. THE 100-FOOT WIDE STRIP ADDS APPROXIMATELY 5 ACRES ON A SMALL PARCEL TO THE SOUTH AS ABOUT ANOTHER ACRE FOR A TOTAL OF SIX AND THE ENTIRE SITE IS ABOUT 72 ACRES. THIS IS THE PROPOSED MDP MAP. IT WILL COMPRISE OF PARCELS TO MAKE A SOLID PARCEL. WE HAVE THE EASEMENT THAT WILL BE AROUND THE ENTIRE TRAINING FACILITY. THE SMALL AREA ADDED ON THE SOUTH PART OF THE PARCEL WILL PROVIDE ENOUGH DISTANCE FOR THE HANGER AND AREAS LIKE THAT AT ARE REQUIRED TO BE A CERTAIN

[02:00:04]

IT CLARIFIES THE USE IS WITH THE GENERAL PUBLIC AND EMERGENCY SERVICE AND LIMITED ACCESSORY RESIDENTIAL. IT REMOVES THE ALLOWANCE OF THE LIGHT INDUSTRIAL USES THAT WERE SEPARATE. IT DIVIDES COMMENCEMENT AND COMPLETION FOR THE SINGLE TENURE PHASING HORIZON FOR THE DEVELOPING OF THE SITE. UPDATES THE PRESERVATION OF SPACE CALCULATION. THE REDESIGN OF THE TRAINING FACILITY LAYOUT TO INCORPORATE THE ADDITIONAL LANDS WITH THE RELOCATION OF CERTAIN USES SUCH AS THE HELLO PORT AND THE HANGAR SIMULATED CITY IN THE INDOOR GUN RANGE. THE MDP CONTINUES TO INCLUDE TWO WAIVERS, ORIGINALLY APPROVED WITH 4. SOME OF THEM ARE NOT REQUIRED NOW. THE TWO THAT ARE INCLUDED FROM ARTICLE 6, INCLUDE SOME FLEXIBILITY FOR PARKING TO BE STABILIZED WITH OTHER MATERIALS, BESIDES PAVING.

TO ALLOW FOR SPECIAL EVENT PARKING AND OPEN FIELD AND GRASSED AREAS, BASED ON THE TYPES OF USES THAT THEY HAVE. AS WELL AS ANOTHER ARTICLE SIX TO ALLOW FLEXIBILITY FOR THEIR LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENTS FOR SOME OF THEIR VARIOUS USES. THE APPLICANT PROPOSES TO PROVIDE THE LANDSCAPING WITHIN THE ADMINISTRATION BUILDING AREAS OF THINGS LIKE THAT.

LOOKING FOR SOME LENIENCY WITH SOME OF THE OTHER MORE UNIQUE USES SUCH AS THE DRIVING TRACT

AND SOME OF THE OTHER TRAINING AREAS. >> THIS MODIFICATION IS REQUESTED TO REZONE THOSE LANDS AND TO ACCOMMODATE THE REDESIGN. YOU KNOW, DEFY THE TYPES OF USES WITH DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE TRAINING FACILITY. DEVELOP AND OF THE SITE WILL BE REQUIRED TO MEET ALL OF THE SUPPLEMENTAL DESIGN STANDARDS FOR THOSE USES AND TO ENSURE THAT MORE INTENSE USES PROVIDE ADEQUATE SETBACKS. NO CHANGES ARE PROPOSED TO THE GENERAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS WHICH ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE MIXED USE DISTRICT FUTURE LAND USE AND PUD ZONING REQUIREMENTS. STAFF HAS NOT RECEIVED ANY CORRESPONDENCE REGARDING THIS APPLICATION AND RECOMMENDS APPROVAL. PROVIDING SIX FINDING IN FACT TO SUPPORT A MOTION FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNING -- SEVEN TO SUPPORT A MOTION FOR DIVINE -- DENIAL.

WE DO HAVE A MEMBER OF PUBLIC WORKS THAT CAN ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS REGARDING THE APPLICATION AS WELL. BEVERLY FRAZIER IF YOU DON'T MIND WE WILL HOLD OUR QUESTIONS

ON HERE FROM THE APPLICANT. >> OKAY. >> GOOD AFTERNOON.

BILL FREEMAN, ST. JOHNS COUNTY, PUBLIC WORKS, 2750 INDUSTRY CENTER DRIVE, SAINT AUGUSTINE,

FLORIDA. >> HAVE YOU ANYTHING TO ADD? >> I THINK BEVERLY DID A FINE JOB. WE ARE TRYING TO DO, SINCE WE HAVE ACQUIRED SOME ADDITIONAL PROPERTIES WE JUST WANTED TO CLEAN UP THE PUD AND GET EVERYTHING IN ONE NICE PACKAGE.

>> I SEE. >> IS THIS THE FIRST TIME ARE THE SECOND TIME YOU HAVE BEEN

BACK AFTER THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION? >> WE DID HAVE A MINOR

MODIFICATION PREVIOUSLY. >> DO YOU SEE ANYMORE COMING? >> I DON'T SEE.

>> TO WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT OR STAFF? >> COUNTRY TO HAVE ONE.

NUMBER ONE I THINK THIS IS A GREAT LOCATION I THINK IT'S A WONDERFUL USE.

I AM GLAD THE COUNTY AND THE SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT HAS THE FUNDS AVAILABLE TO HAVE SUCH A STATE STATE-OF-THE-ART FACILITY FOR TRAINING. I THINK IT IS VITALLY IMPORTANT FOR TRAINING ON LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES. I'M HAPPY ABOUT THAT.

VERY HAPPY. I AM PROUD TO SUPPORT THIS. I JUST HAVE ONE SINGLE QUESTION.

WHAT USE MIGHT REQUIRE A VARIANCE TO ALLOW A 60-FOOT TALL BUILDING?

>> AT THIS TIME WE DON'T HAVE ANYTHING THAT TALL PLANNED. WHY THERE WOULD BE SOMETHING FOR A 60-FOOT TALL VARIANCE? THE ONLY THING I COULD THINK OF IS PERHAPS A LOOKOUT TOWER.

THAT MIGHT COME UP IN THE FUTURE >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? THANK YOU.

[02:05:07]

COMMENTS AND EMOTION? >> MOVE FOR EMOTION. >> SECOND.

>> LET US VOTE. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ITEM 4.

[Item 4]

>> FOR THE RECORD, VALERIE STUKES PRESENTING AGENDA ITEM NUMBER FOUR, PUD 2019-13 FOUNTAINS NORTH. REQUEST TO REZONE APPROXIMATELY 33.32 ACRES OF LAND FROM OPEN RURAL (OR) TO PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) TO ACCOMMODATE FOR UP TO 300 MULTI-FAMILY UNITS, 120 AGE-RESTRICTED UNITS, 200,000 SQUARE FEET OF RETAIL, 80,000 SQUARE FEET OF PROFESSIONAL AND MEDICAL OFFICES, AND 30,000 SQUARE FEET OF OUTPATIENT SURGICAL/CLINICAL FACILITIES. THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED IN THE NE QUADRANT OF I-95 & CR 210 INTERCHANGE ALONG CE WILSON ROAD. THIS IS THE AERIAL MAP OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AT APPROXIMATELY 34 ACRES OF WHICH 1.3 ARE WETLANDS. WITH ACCESS FROM THESE FOUNTAINS AND APPROVED PUD IMMEDIATELY TO THE SOUTH. 650 SQUARE FEET WITH A MIXTURE OF USES, ALL USES ARE REQUIRED TO MEET THE SPECIAL USE CRITERIA OF THE LAND OF ELEMENT CODE SECTION 203 SUPPLEMENTAL DESIGN STANDARDS OF SECTION 608 AS APPLICABLE.

KNOWN AS THE FOUNTAINS. ALL REQUIRED BUT FIRST, WILL BE APPLIED TO THE PROPOSED PUD BOUNDARIES. ALL OPEN SPACE WILL BE PROVIDED. IF APPROVED, THIS PUD WILL BE AMONG MULTIPLE USED PUD'S. THIS IS THE MASTER DEVELOP MEANT PLAN MAPS SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT SHOWING WHERE THE ACCESS MAY BE CONNECTED TO THE FOUNTAINS WITH VARIOUS MARKINGS OF LOCATIONS OF WHERE THE RETAIL RESTAURANT, HOSPITAL ET CETERA MAY BE LOCATED.

THIS IS THE FIRST OF FIVE WAIVERS. THE FIRST IS TO SECTION 601-01, THIS IS REQUESTING A WAIVER TO THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF BUILDINGS TO BE 40 FEET.

SPECIFICALLY THE REQUEST IS FOR AN INCREASE IN THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF HOTEL USE FROM 40 UP TO 60 FEET AND A MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF THE HOSPITAL USE FROM 45 FEET UP TO 120 FEET.

INCREASED BUILDING HEIGHT AT THIS LOCATION ALONG I-95 ACCORDING TO THE APPLICANT DOES NOT NEGATIVELY IMPACT THE SURROUNDING PROPERTIES ARE USES AND IT IS NOT UNCOMMON TO HAVE HOTELS OR HOSPITALS TO BE LOCATED ALONG HIGHWAYS. ALL OTHER USES WOULD BE AT THE MAXIMUM OF 40 FEET. WE WERE NUMBER TWO, SECTION 606- FOR A AND B.

THIS IS REQUESTING A REDUCTION OF THE SETBACK AND SCREENING STANDARDS FROM 20B TO 10 A ON THE NORTH PROPERTY LINE. THE WEST PROPERTY BOUNDARY ON THE SOUTHERN PROPERTY LINE ADJACENT TO THE EXISTING FOUNTAINS PUD. THE JUSTIFICATION PROVIDED BY THE APPLICANT IS OUT THE WESTERN PROPERTY LINE IS I-95. AN ADDITIONAL SETBACK IS NOT WARRANTED FOR THE HOTEL AND OR COMMERCIAL USES ALONG THE CENTER STATE.

THE SETBACK AND BUFFER IS ADEQUATE. THE SOUTHERN PROPERTY LINE IS PROPOSED 10:00 A.M. BUFFER BECAUSE OF THE FOUNTAINS APPROVED TO THE SOUTH.

WAIVER NUMBER THREE, SECTION 605-02E, PARKING AND LOADING STANDARDS.

THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A REDUCTION TO THE PARKING STANDARDS FROM 2.25 SPACES PER UNIT 21 SPACE PER UNIT FOR MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL UNITS TO BE RESTRICTED SUCH AS INDEPENDENT LIVING UNITS. IT IS NOT SPECIFCALLY LISTED BY NAME IN THE CODE FOR PARKING STANDARDS. PURSUANT TO SECTION 605-02G1 AND 2.

REDUCTION IN THE PARKING SPACES FROM 2.25 DOWN TO ONE IS KEEPING WITH OTHER MUNICIPAL PARKING CODES. WAIVER NUMBER 4604-05 WHEN THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING THE USE OF ACCESS ROAD TO SERVICE THE SITE AND USES. THERE JUSTIFICATION, PROPOSING

[02:10:02]

AN EASEMENT WILL VACATION DOCUMENTS TO ENSURE CONTINUED ACCESS FOR THE PROPERTY OWNERS.

FINALLY THE FIFTH FIFTH WAIVER TO SECTION SECOND -- [INAUDIBLE] REQUESTING TO ALLOW EACH PARCEL WITHIN THE PUD TO HAVE AT LEAST ONE ON PREMISES SIGN FOR EACH PARCEL FRONTING THE INTERNAL PRIVATE ROAD CURRENTLY KNOWN AS WILSON.

THE REASON FOR THIS WOULD BE TO HAVE THE PROPOSED SIGNS FRONTING ON THE PRIVATE RIGHT-OF-WAY IN THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY. THE SIGN DESIGNS AND STANDARDS WOULD BE THE RESULT OF MATCHING THE ADVERTISING IN SITE LOCATION OF THE AND USE. TO ULTIMATELY BE DETERMINED AT THE TIME OF CONSTRUCTION PLAN APPROVAL. THIS CHART IS SHOWING THE TWO OPTIONS SUGGESTED BY THE APPLICANT. THE FIRST WITH HOSPITAL, AND OPTION NUMBER TWO WITHOUT. EACH HAVE 300 UNITS OF MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL PROPOSED WITH EITHER ONE. THE PROPOSED PUD IS AN FOR MORE INTENTIONAL USES, AT THE HIGHWAY INTERCHANGE. THE ANALYSIS PROVIDED HERE IN THIS CHART IS SHOWING THERE ARE BOTH PUD'S TO THE SOUTH. THE INTENSITY OF THE PROPOSED COMMERCIAL USES COMPATIBLE WITH THE SURROUNDING AREA. THE SCALE AND SIZE. [INAUDIBLE] THIS COMPATIBILITY MAP IS A VISUAL TO SHOW WHAT WAS JUST SHARED IN THE CHART SHOWING THE TWIN CREEK'S TO THE NORTH. THE APPROVED FOUNTAINS TO THE SOUTH, AND THE LANDS ALSO TO THE EAST. SOME WITH RESIDENTIAL SINGLE-FAMILY.

THERE HAS NOT BEEN ANY PHONE CALLS RECEIVED. IT WAS ONE E-MAIL SHARED WITH OUR TECHNICAL STAFF SHARING CONCERNS WITH ACCESS FROM THE EASTERN PROPERTY VOUCHER.

STAFF DOES NOT OBJECT TO THE AGENCY APPROVAL OF THE APPLICATION TO THE BOARD.

THERE ARE NINE FINDINGS OF FACT TO SUPPORT A MOTION, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL, OTHERWISE 10 FINDINGS TO DENY. THAT CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION ON THE APPLICANT IS PRESENT.

>> WOULD YOU STAND BY WHILE WE ASK THE APPLICANT? >> SURE.

>> WE CHARGE MORE FOR THAT, JUST SO YOU KNOW. >> I AM GOOD FOR THAT.

MY NAME IS BRAD WESTER. THAT AFTERNOON. I AM NOT AN ATTORNEY I AM A LAND USE PLANNER. IT IS A REAL ESTATE LAW FIRM THAT I WORK FOR AT ONE INDEPENDENT DRIVE SUITE 1200 IN JACKSONVILLE. I AM THE APPLICANT AND AGENT FOR THIS. WITHOUT BEING LONG-WINDED, AND THE INTEREST OF TIME, I WOULD JUST LIKE TO. I DO HAVE SOME EXHIBITS IF YOU NEED THEM.

I BELIEVE I ALSO PROVIDED WANT TO MR. WYCKOFF FOR THIS SLIDE THAT WE CAN REFERENCE ON THE SECOND. YOU WANT TO GO AHEAD AND PUT THAT UP THERE.

>> ARE ASKING US TO JUST GO TO THE QUESTIONS? >> YES, SIR.

I THINK WE WILL GET RIGHT INTO IT. ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS OF

EITHER THE APPLICANT OR STAFF? >> I KNOW THE STATE DID AWAY THIS PAST SUMMER WITH A CERTIFICATE OF NEED FOR HOSPITALS, WHICH I THINK PERSONALLY WAS UNFORTUNATE.

NONETHELESS THEY DID. I WAS JUST WONDERING, YOU HAVE A HOSPITAL AS A USE THERE.

DO YOU HAVE AN ACTUAL HOSPITAL LINED UP TO GO IN THERE. DO YOU HAVE LETTER OF INTENT

FROM HOSPITALS ARE GOING. >> CURRENTLY THAT IS A PRIVATE MATTER.

WE ARE ENTERTAINING OPTIONS BOTH RESIDENTIALLY ON NON- RESIDENTIALLY.

AT THIS TIME, I CANNOT DISCLOSE ANY WE ARE WORKING DILIGENTLY ON A NUMBER OF OPTIONS FOR THIS PROPERTY. A HOSPITAL USE IS CERTAINLY ONE OF THEM.

>> DO YOU KNOW WHAT IT COST PER BED TO DEVELOP A HOSPITAL? >> NO, I DO NOT.

>> IT'S ABOUT $1.5 MILLION PER BED, JUST A 25 BED HOSPITAL, WHICH IS REALLY SMALL, THAT'S LIKE A RURAL COUNTRY HOSPITAL, THAT WOULD BE NEARLY $40 MILLION RIGHT THERE, WHICH IS QUITE A COMMITMENT. I DID LOOK UP WHAT HOSPITALS AROUND HERE HAVE IN TERMS OF BED, FLAGLER HOSPITAL HAS 316 BEDS CURRENTLY. BAPTIST HEALTH, THIS IS AN AGGREGATE, 1168. WILSON CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL 216. IF YOU'RE JUST LOOKING AT SAY, A

[02:15:08]

I NOTICE ON YOUR PLANS, HE HAD HOTEL/HOSPITAL,. I'M JUST CONCERNED IF THERE'S NOT REALLY A HOSPITAL LINED UP I CAN CERTAINLY RESPECT CONFIDENTIALITY IN YOUR NEGOTIATIONS. I'M JUST WORRIED THAT WE ARE GETTING SET UP TO APPROVE THIS AND THEN COME BACK, BUT THERE'S NO HOSPITAL WERE GOING TO HAVE HOTELS THERE.

THAT IS A CONCERN THAT I HAVE. I WILL STATE THAT. >> LET'S SEE, THE SPACES, GOING DOWN TO ONE PARKING SPACE FOR THE ASSISTED LIVING, OR INDEPENDENT LIVING HOUSES, INDEPENDENT AS INITIALLY STATED. I JUST WONDERED, NUMBER ONE, A LOT OF PEOPLE THAT WOULD CHOOSE THAT KIND OF FACILITY HAVE TWO VEHICLES. NUMBER TWO, THEY GIVE VISITORS, SO WHERE VISITORS GOING TO PARK. WHERE WORKERS WANT TO PARK? I AM CONCERNED ABOUT THOSE THINGS AND LOWERING THAT. I'M CONCERNED ABOUT THE LACK OF A CONCURRENCY REVIEW FOR THIS.

YES IT IS MAINLY APPARENTLY A COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT BUT THERE ARE STILL 420, I BELIEVE THAT IS THE NUMBER, 420 MULTIFAMILY UNITS THAT INCLUDES THOSE INDEPENDENT LIVING.

THAT CALCULATED TO 57 SCHOOL AGED CHILDREN. I WONDERED WHAT HIGH SCHOOL PARTICULARLY THIS DEVELOPMENT IS PROPOSED TO BE. I DON'T KNOW -- 57 STUDENTS IS NO SMALL ADDITION TO THE SCHOOL THAT'S GOING TO BE EXPECTED TO RECEIVE THOSE.

I KNOW THERE IS A NEW 60 MILLION-DOLLAR HIGH SCHOOL THAT'S GOING OUT SOMEWHERE IN THE AREA. I DON'T KNOW THAT THAT WOULD BE READY IN TIME.

YOU DO HAVE A FIVE YEAR BUILDING HORIZON FOR THIS WHICH I THOUGHT SEEMED LONG TO ME, AS WELL.

AND THEN I NOTED THAT YOU DO HAVE IN NEAR OPTION ONE AND OPTION TWO, PAST THE HOSPITAL.

I'M JUST CONCERNED THERE MAY NOT REALLY BE A HOSPITAL THERE. I ASSUME YOU ARE AWARE OF THE SOIL TYPES. I'M GOING TO BRING THIS UP. SOIL TYPES ON THE PROPERTY.

RANGING FROM SOMEWHAT POORLY DRAINED TO VERY POORLY DRAINED SOIL TYPES.

YOU HAVE ONE LONG LINEAR HOLDING POND, STORM WATER POND ALONG I-95 AND THEN YOU'VE GOT TO RIDE AT THE ENTRANCE, I ASSUME THOSE ARE MORE LIKE LIKE AMENITIES, AESTHETIC AMENITIES AS YOU DRIVE IN. I THINK SOIL TYPES ARE A CONCERN FOR THIS PROPERTY.

I HAVE SOME OTHER COMMENTS I WILL SAVE THOSE FOR THE AGENCY. THANK YOU.

>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT OR FOR STAFF? THANK YOU.

>> SHOULD I GO AHEAD AND RESPOND >> THE CONCURRENCY AS WE KNOW, WE ARE BEEN NOTED THAT WE WILL HAVE TO DO A TRAFFIC STUDY ON THIS WITH CONCURRENCY FOR THE ITEMS THAT CERTAINLY TRIPPED OUT. THERE IS A CERTAIN COUNT, OR THRESHOLD WE WILL HAVE TO DO.

PRIOR TO ANY CONSTRUCTION PERMIT OR PLAN APPROVAL AT THE COUNTY, AT THE NEXT STEP, WE WILL HAVE TO GET THAT TRAFFIC ASSESSMENT AND THE CONCURRENCY APPLIED FOR INCLUDING SCHOOL CONCURRENCY.

CERTAINLY THAT WILL DOVETAIL INTO EITHER A PRO RATA SHARE FOR THE CONCURRENCY IMPACTS, OR WE WOULD ESSENTIALLY RIGHT SIZE THE DEVELOPMENT BASED ON THOSE IMPACTS AS WELL.

HOSPITAL BEDS, THERE ISN'T A BED COUNT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS RIGHT NOW.

WE ASKED FOR 500,000. THE EVOLUTION OF THIS STARTED ON THE NONRESIDENTIAL SIDE.

IT HAD COMMERCIAL RETAIL OFFICE INCLUDING IN THAT WAS A OFFICE. THE THERE WAS ALWAYS A MEDICAL COMPONENT. CLINICAL CARE COULD BE AN URGENT CARE CLINIC.

HOSPITAL IS A DIFFERENT ANIMAL. THAT OPTION DID COME IN LATER THROUGH THIS PROCESS.

IF THAT IS ANY INDICATION OF HOW IMPORTANT THIS SITE IS IN TERMS OF ITS PROXIMITY.

WE THINK HOSPITALS, FULLY JUSTIFIED AND IS ALLOWED IN THE MIXED-USE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LANGUAGE CATEGORY. THIS ENTIRE AREA IS MIXED-USE AND WE HAVE COMMERCIAL HIGHWAY

[02:20:02]

THIS IS REALLY AN EXTENSION OF THE CURRENT MARKET DEMAND FOR THE FOUNTAINS DEVELOPMENT.

THEY ARE PUSHING DIRT. IT WILL BE VERY SUCCESSFUL. VERY HIGH-END DEVELOPMENT.

THIS IS AN EXTENSION OF THAT. REALLY, THE MARKET IS DRIVING THAT.

INCLUDING ADDING HOSPITAL AS A USE. WE ARE VERY EXCITED ABOUT THAT.

WE FELT IF YOU LOOK AT THE DIFFERENT OPTIONS, OPTION ONE AND OPTION TWO.

WE INCLUDE THE 500,000 SQUARE FEET FOR THE HOSPITAL TYPE USE, WE DO PULL BACK ON A NUMBER OF OTHER SQUARE FOOTAGE IS INTENSITIES ON THOSE OTHER USES. BECAUSE WE REALIZE, IF A HOSPITAL IS GOING TO GO THERE, IT'S GOING TO BE PRIMARILY THE HOSPITAL WITH OTHER SMALLER USES POTENTIALLY. NOT THE BIGGER MIX OF USES THAT ARE IN ANOTHER OPTION THAT'S CURRENTLY LAID OUT IN THE PUD. THE PARKING RATIO, WE ARE ASKING FOR THE PARKING RATIO WAIVER FOR THE AGE RESTRICTED. ANYTHING THAT IS DEED RESTRICTED SPECIFICALLY, HAVE PERSONAL EXPENSE WITH THIS WITH SENIOR CARE HOUSING AND AGE RESTRICTED HOUSING.

ONE: ONE IS AN ACCEPTABLE PARKING RATIO. I'VE DONE NUMEROUS STUDIES, I HAVE REFERENCED THE MANUALS ON THE TRAFFIC GENERATION AND PARKING GENERATION STANDARDS.

AND OTHER CODES COME UPWARDS OF I THINK 10 DIFFERENT LAND OF ELEMENT CODES DO SITE 1-1 IS AN ACCEPTABLE PARKING RATIO FOR A SPECIFIC AGE REIT RESTRICTED USES.

AS I LIKEN IT. YOU KNOW, SOME OF PURSE 75% OF THESE AGE RESTRICTED COMMUNITIES AND THEY HAVE ONE CAR AT THAT STILL DOES ALLOW FOR ACCOMMODATION FOR THE THE FULL-TIME EQUIVALENCY FOR STAFF. NOT EVERYBODY IS GOING TO HAVE A CAR.

SOME OF THEM TO HAVE CARS, THEY LIKE TO PULL THE CARDS BACK -- CURTAINS BACK AND SEE THEIR CAR SITTING OUT IN THE PARKING LOT. NOT ONLY IS IT NOT A HIGH TRAFFIC GENERATING USE.

THE PARKING RATIO ARE THAT THAT THEY AREN'T AS DEMAND INTENSIVE. TO MEET THE NORMAL 2.25 FOR THE CONVENTIONAL MULTIFAMILY. WE ARE ASKING OUR MULTI- FAMILY CONVENTIONAL TO MEET THE PARKING CODES. IT'S REALLY JUST FOR THE AGE RESTRICTED.

AND THEN I WILL INDEMNIFY TO THE DEED RESTRICTED PROCESS. HOSPITAL BEDS, CONCURRENCY, PARKING RATIO, SOILS? 'S WE HAVE STUDIED THIS. WE HAVE A CIVIL ENGINEER ON BOARD. WE HAVE. THE PONDS THAT ARE REPRESENTED ON THEIR REPRESENT THE NORMAL ST. JOHNS RIVER WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT THRESHOLDS FOR THE AMOUNT OF IMPROVED LAND THAT WE ATTENDED VERSUS HOW MUCH POND WE NEED FOR STORMWATER RETENTION.

IT IS SAFE TO SAY THAT DEVELOPERS DON'T NECESSARILY LIKE TO PUT PONDS OUT THERE UNLESS THEY SERVE A PURPOSE. THAT IS EACTLY WHAT WE ARE SHOWING HERE.

WE FEEL THE LOCATION OF THESE PONDS REALLY PROVIDE MORE OF AN AESTHETIC VALUE FOR THIS SITE BOTH FRAMING THE ENTRYWAY AND THEN MORE OF A REFLECTION TONE ON THE INTERSTATE ITSELF.

THE SOILS ARE PRETTY WELL DRAINED SOILS OUT THERE. WE HAVE DONE SOME STUDIES OUT THERE. THOSE WELL-DRAINED SOILS ARE INDICATIVE, THERE ARE TWO GOPHER/TORTOISE BURROS OUT THERE. THEY LIKE SOIL HORIZONS THAT GO 10-20 FEET DOWN INTO THE GROUND. THAT IS INDICATIVE OF THE CONDITIONS OUT THERE RIGHT NOW.

IF THERE IS ANYTHING ELSE OUT THERE, THERE ARE SOME SMALLER WETLAND POCKETS THAT WILL MITIGATE TO PUT OUR DEVELOPING OUT THERE. I WISH I COULD PRESENT MORE TO YOU. IF IT WAS AN ARBY'S OR SOMETHING ELSE, BUT I HOPE I ANSWERED YOUR

QUESTION SO FAR. >> JUST FOLLOW QUICKLY. >> I DID NOTE THE GOPHER AND TORTOISES, THOSE ARE IN AN AREA OF SOIL THAT IS DEEPER, AND YOU NOTED THAT CORRECTLY.

I DO, AND I'M GOING TO BRING THIS UP NOW RATHER THAN SAVE IT FOR THE AGENCY.

YOU JUST DON'T THINK YOU CAN DO THIS DEVELOPMENT WITHOUT NUMBER ONE THE COUNTY VACATING THE ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY IN THERE, THE COUNTY OWNED ROAD. YOU NEED THE VACATED, DEDICATED TO YOU TO MAKE IT A PRIVATE ROAD? AND THEN THE VARIANCES OR WAIVERS ON THE HEIGHT. 60 FEET FOR THE HOTELS AND 120 FEET, I BELIEVE, FOR THE

[02:25:08]

WAIVERS THAT YOU ARE SEEKING TO MAKE THIS HAPPEN. >> MR. CHAIR, I'M NOT SURE FOR THIS PARTICULAR LOCATION AT THE VARIANCE TO THE HEIGHT IS REQUIRED.

IT'S ONLY WHEN YOU GET TO THE COASTAL AREA WHICH IS EAST OF THE INTERCOASTAL IS WHEN PUD'S HAVE A MAX THRESHOLD OF 35 FEET THAT THEY NEED TO SEEK A VARIANCE OR WAIVER.

AS LONG AS YOU ARE WITHIN THE MAINLAND AREA OF ST. JOHNS COUNTY, THEN YOU'RE JUST ANALYZING FOR COMPATIBILITY, MASS SCALE, OF THE PROPOSED MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF THE BUILDING IN RELATIONSHIP TO THE, YOU KNOW, MAXIMUM SQUARE FOOTAGE THEY COULD POTENTILLY BUILD.

THAT IS WITH THE AGENCY, YOU KNOW, MAY CONSIDER IN TERMS OF HOW HIGH, HOW BIG, THIS COULD

POTENTIALLY BE. >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? >> I HAVE TWO QUESTIONS.

ONE ABOUT THE HEIGHT. HE SPOKE ABOUT THE HEIGHT NOT BEEN THE PROBLEM BECAUSE YOU ARE

FACING I-95. >> AREN'T THERE RESIDENTIAL AREAS JUST BEHIND THOSE?

>> YES. LET ME GRAB THE POINTER. MY QUESTION ABOUT THAT IS, YOU ARE BLOCKING THEIR VIEW OF WHATEVER THEY WOULD SEE WITH LESSER HEIGHT RESTRICTION?

>> I CAN ADDRESS THOSE, TOO. CURRENTLY THE HEIGHT. IN ONE OF THE OPTIONS WE HAVE UP TO 60 FEET FOR HOTEL. THE HOTEL CLEARLY WOULD CAPITALIZE ON THE PROXIMITY AND VISIBILITY TO THE INTERSTATE ITSELF. IT WOULD BE ALONG THE INTERSTATE , AND A 60 FEET. YOU FIGURE FIVE FLOORS, MAYBE SIX DIFFERENT ARCHITECTURAL ROOF STYLE. THAT IS A VERY COMMON HOTEL HEIGHT.

IT REALLY IS. IT IS NOTHING OUT OF THE ORDINARY THERE.

I DON'T BELIEVE, JUST BASED ON THE CONTEXT OF WHERE WE PUT THE HOTEL PARCELS THAT IT WOULD BLOCK ANYBODY'S VIEW, TO BE HONEST WITH YOU. THIS IS A REALLY LONG DISTANCE, THE REMAINING PARCEL HERE, THIS IS THE OPEN RURAL PARCEL THAT REMAINS.

THIS IS PUD. WE ARE PROPOSING PUD HERE. AND THEN TRACTOR SUPPLY DOWN HERE, WHICH IS CURRENTLY UNDERWAY, ALMOST FINISHED. TO BLOCK VIEWS, WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, THE VIEWS WOULD BE BACK TO THE INTERSTATE. THE LENGTH BETWEEN THIS LAND HERE, AND THE LIMITED DEVELOPMENT AND INTENSITY THAT IS THERE RIGHT NOW, BACK TO THE INTERSTATE IS MINIMAL. YOU'RE NOT REALLY BLOCKING MANY VIEWS AT ALL.

THERE IS A -- TO INCREASE DOES HAVE A PROPOSED FOR THAT AREA, WHICH THIS IS NORTH.

WHERE THE POINTER IS RIGHT NOW. SO, THEY DO HAVE A MULTIFAMILY COMMUNITY PLANNED FOR THAT.

WE WOULD BE A MINIMUM OF 30 FEET SEPARATED BETWEEN A STRUCTURE IN THE DEVELOPMENT AND HOURS.

I DON'T BELIEVE WE WOULD BE BLOCKING ANY VIEWS THERE EITHER. THEIR VIEWS WOULD BE CENTRALLY LOCATED INTO THEIR STORMWATER POND AND THE PARK SYSTEM AND THINGS LIKE THAT.

NOT NECESSARILY TO THEY WILL HAVE BUT FIRST, PROGRAMMED AS WE WILL AS WELL IN OUR DEVELOPMENT.

THE HEIGHT ON THE HOSPITAL, 120 FEET, JUST FOR A FRAME OF, YOU FIGURE IF YOU INCLUDE THE DIFFERENT USES IN THE HOSPITAL ITSELF. THE ENTIRE HOSPITAL IF WE JUST SAY 500,000 SQUARE FEET IS NOT GOING TO BE ONE IT JUST DOESN'T WORK LIKE THAT IN A HOSPITAL.

HE MAY HAVE A CENTRALIZED TOWER AND THEN OTHER BUILDINGS THAT ARE TIERED OFF OF THAT.

THAT IS GENERALLY HOW EVERY HOSPITAL IS BUILT. YOU CAN GO DOWN TO FLAGLER, BAPTIST SOUTH, DOWNTOWN. ALL OF THE OTHER HOSPITALS. THEY GENERALLY HAVE A TOWER AND SEVERAL WINGS THAT SHOOT OFF OF THAT FOR VARIOUS PURPOSES. RADIOLOGY, ONCOLOGY, YOU NAME IT. OUR TOWER, 120 FEET, IF YOU JUST FRAME AND REFERENCED 10 STORIES IS NOT OUT OF THE ORDINARY FOR HOSPITAL EITHER. BUT, WE HAVE A RECOMMENDATION OF 40-FOOT IN THE MIXED USED DISTRICT. THE PUD WE ARE PROGRAMMING THOSE

[02:30:02]

I DON'T THINK EVEN 120 FEET IF YOU DO THE TOWER AT 120 FEET WITH OTHER ANCILLARY HOSPITAL USES IN THIS LAND, THAT YOU'RE GOING WE ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT A WALLED OFF DEVELOPMENT THAT IS COMPLETELY IMPENETRABLE TO VIEWS, LIKE AIR IN CIRCULATION BECAUSE ON THIS AREA.

WE FEEL IT IS VERY COMPATIBLE, NOT ONLY THE PROPOSAL WE ARE PITCHING FOR OPTION ONE AND OPTION TO BASED ON THE MARKET DEMAND. WE FEEL IT IS A VERY GOOD USE IN CONTEXT TO THE INTERCHANGE NOTE OF THE HIGHWAY. VISIBILITY, PROXIMITY AND PROMOTION OF THE BUSINESS IS KEY. THIS IS A PRIME SPOT.

EVEN FOUNTAINS ONE, AS I CALL IT, THE WHICH WE WILL GO THROUGH TO GET TO OUR DEVELOPMENT, AGAIN, DOES NOT HAVE PRIME VIEWS AS WE HAVE ON OUR FOUNTAINS DEVELOPMENT WHICH IS ESSENTIALLY

FOUNTAINS NORTH AS WE ARE CALLING IT. >> I APPRECIATE THE FULLNESS OF YOUR ANSWER TO MY QUESTIONS. WHERE THIS 120 FEET AREA WOULD BE IF YOU USED IT, AND THEN

POINT AT THE CLOSEST RESIDENTIAL AREA AS YOU GO AROUND THE SITE. >> THE CLOSEST RESIDENTIAL AREA THAT IS EXISTING RIGHT NOW, THERE'S A LARGE SQUARE HERE THAT IS OPEN RURAL THAT IS EXISTING NOW. AND THEN THERE IS A PUD, REGIONAL IMPACT CALLED THE NEW TWIN CREEKS. THEY HAVE A VERY DENSE MULTIFAMILY TOWNHOME COMMUNITY.

IT LOOKS LIKE 40-FOOT LOTS IN THIS AREA RIGHT HERE. A PLAN APPROVAL FOR THIS.HERE I- I BELIEVE THERE IS A PLAN APPROVAL BUT THE DEVELOPMENT IS UNDERWAY CURRENTLY FOR THAT.

THE NEAREST RESIDENTIAL, I WOULD SAY WE HAVE EXISTING RESIDENTIAL HERE.

AND THEN WE HAVE PLANNED RESIDENTIAL APPEAR WHICH IS SCALED RESIDENTIAL.

VERY INTENSE AND DENSE IN THE AREA. AS FAR AS THE HOSPITAL USE, IF A HOSPITAL WERE TO COME IN THEIR, WE HAVE GIVEN THEM A CAMPUS COME ON THE PROPERTY TO ALLOW THEM TO PLAN THE HOSPITAL ACCORDINGLY. GIVEN THEM PARCELS, THEN WE HAVE OTHER USERS LIKE MEDICAL, RETAIL, AND THEN ASSISTED LIVING FACILITY. IF A HOSPITAL COMES IN THERE.

WE WANT TO GIVE THEM THE ABILITY TO DESIGN THAT. GIVING THEM THE HOSPITAL USE ON THE ENTIRE BREADTH OF LAND HERE IS THE MOST FEASIBLE OPTION WITH THAT.

WE HAVE PULLED BACK OTHER USES. WE HAVE PULLED SQUARE FOOTAGE FOOTAGE INTENSITIES DOWN ON THE OTHER MIXTURE OF USES TO GIVE THE HOSPITAL ITS ABILITY TO DESIGN THAT LAND AS IT IS NEEDED. AS A PREMIER HOSPITAL SITE. I WOULD LIKE TO ADD, JUST SO I'M FOLLOWING UP ON THE RIGHT-OF-WAY. IT IS A COUNTY OWNED AND MAINTAINED ROADWAY. WHAT IT MAINTAINED, IT IS A DIRT ROAD.

MAINTAINED FROM DRAINAGE PURPOSES WITH A BLADE EVERY ONCE IN A WHILE.

IT IS AN OLD DIRT ROAD. WE ARE GOING TO VACATE THAT AND REALIGN IT.

WE HAVE AN EASEMENT OVER IT FOR ACCESS IN PERPETUITY FOR ANY OF THE RESIDENCE AT THAT EXIST OUT

THERE TODAY. THANK YOU. >> ANY MORE QUESTIONS FOR THE

APPLICANT? >> I HAVE ONE. I NEVER DID HEAR WHAT HIGH

SCHOOL THIS PROPERTY WAS OWNED FOR? >> THAT IS A GREAT QUESTION.

I DON'T HAVE THAT ANSWER. THERE IS ALWAYS ZONING CHANGES WITH HIGH SCHOOL.

TO BE HONEST OF YOU I CAN KEEP TRACK OF IT. WE HAVE DONE AN INITIAL ASSESSMENT ON THE SCHOOL CONCERT CURRENCY. THERE ARE DEFICIENCIES, THE ELEMENTARY MIGHT HAVE SOME AVAILABILITY. MAYBE THEY WILL COME UP WITH

THAT AS WE CONTINUE TALKING. I DON'T HAVE THAT ANSWER. >> I DO NOT KNOW THE ANSWER TO THE QUESTION AS HE STATED. THE SCHOOL DISTRICT MAINTAINS THE SCHOOL CAPACITY, LEVEL OF SERVICE. THEY BUILD SCHOOLS AND BRING THEM ONLINE AND REDISTRICTED THOSE LINES ALL THE TIME AS THEY DO THAT. AT THIS TIME, I DO NOT HAVE THE ANSWER. THERESE IS LOOKING OUT UP SO WE CAN GET TO THE CURRENT ONE.

IT DOES NOT MEAN IT WOULD BE THE CORRECT ONE WHEN THEY ACTUALLY PROPOSE RESIDENTIAL.

>> THE REASON I ASK IS WE HAD AN ITEM TWO WEEKS AGO THAT WAS PROPOSED TO ADD STUDENTS TO

TRAILS, AND THE SCHOOL WAS ALREADY AT CAPACITY. >> CORRECT.

THE SCHOOL DISTRICT WILL HANDLE THAT ANALYSIS. THEY MAY NEVER PROPOSE

[02:35:01]

RESTRICTED. >> THANK YOU, BOTH. >> MR. CHAIR, IF I MAY?

IT IS IN THE BARTRAM HIGH SCHOOL AREA. >> THANK YOU.

AND SPEAKER CARDS? YOU CAN SIT DOWN, IF YOU WISH. WE SHOULD HAVE PEOPLE LINED UP WITH QUESTIONS AND YOU COULD ANSWER THEM, BUT YOU DON'T HAVE TO.

WE ARE IN AGENCY NOW. COMMENTS FIRST ON A MOTION? >> MOTION TO APPROVE.

>> WE ARE NOT READY FOR A MOTION UNTIL I'M SURE THERE ARE NO COMMENTS? THERE ARE NO COMMENTS. WE WILL CERTAINLY ACCEPT THE MOTION.

LET'S SEE. WE CAN VOTE ON THIS. IF I CAN SEE THE VOTE SCREEN.

>> MR. CHAIR, FOR THE RECORD, I BELIEVE MS. PERKINS OFFERED THE SECOND, IS THAT CORRECT?

>> YES. WE CAN GO AHEAD AND VOTE. 4-2.

THE MOTION CARRIES. BEFORE WE GO TO ITEM FIVE LET'S TAKE A FIVE MINUTE RECESS..

>>> THE PLANNING AND ZONING AGENCY IS BACK IN SECTION. WE ARE ON ITEM FIVE.

[Item 5]

>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. JACOB SMITH WITH GROWTH MANAGEMENT PRESENTING ITEM NUMBER FIVE; PUD2019-14 BENCHIP COMMERCIAL. REQUEST TO REZONE APPROXIMATELY 33.4 ACRES OF LAND FROM OPEN RURAL (OR) AND COMMERCIAL GENERAL (CG) TO PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) TO ALLOW FOR A MIX OF UP TO 500,000 SQUARE FEET OF COMMERCIAL USES, LOCATED WEST OF THE INTERSECTION OF STATE ROAD 207 AND WILDWOOD DRIVE. THE PROJECT IT IS IN A MIXED USE FUTURE LAND USE DISTRICT AS WELL AS RESIDENTIAL B.

AS IT SITS THE CURRENT ZONING IS PRESENTED ON THE MAP. THE EASTERN MOST PORTION OF PROPOSED PUD IS COMMERCIAL GENERAL AND THE REST OF IT, THE REMAINDER IS OPEN RURAL.

THERE IS A VARIETY OF OTHER ZONING CLASSIFICATIONS IN THE NEARBY AREA.

LASTLY, AN AERIAL MAP DEPICTING THE LOCATION. >> IT IS A REQUEST TO REZONE 33 ACRES TO A PUD. IT IS PROPOSED COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT.

IT PROPOSES 500,000 SQUARE FEET AND INCLUDES ALLOWED USES INCLUDING NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL, COMMERCIAL GENERAL, HIGHWAY COMMERCIAL AND OFFICE AND PROFESSIONAL.

ALL USES WITHIN THE PUD REQUIRING SPECIAL USE PERMITS WILL BE ALLOWED BY SPECIAL USE CRITERIA. THE SECOND PHASE WILL ONLY INCLUDE NEIGHBORHOOD, COMMERCIAL AND OFFICE PROFESSIONAL USES WHICH ARE GOING TO BE LESS INTENSE THAN THE USES ALLOWED IN PHASE ONE. IT INCLUDES A UNIFIED SIGN PLAN TO ADDRESS SIGNAGE ALLOWANCES.

THE APPLICANT HAS PROVIDED A MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN MAP FOR THE PROPOSED PUD.

ON THE MAP YOU CAN SEE ON PHASE ONE, AN ACRE COMMERCIAL, WHICH I BELIEVE IS INTENDED TO BE A GROCERY STORE AND ALL OF THE PARKING ASSOCIATED WITH IT. THE MAP ALSO INDICATES FUTURE ACCESS. IT IS A LITTLE DIFFICULT TO SEE ON THIS MAP, BUT THERE IS A ROAD THAT WILL END UP BEING BUILT ON THE NORTHERN SIDE OF THE PROPERTY, AS WELL AS ACCESS BEING MAINTAINED TO THREE CURRENT SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES LOCATED IN ADJACENT A RURAL AREAS. IT IS A 70% MAXIMUM ASR. MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT OF 40 FEET. SETBACKS ARE ALSO LISTED. AS A PERIMETER BUFFET OR OF 20 FEET TO THE SOUTH AND WEST AND 10 FEET TO THE NORTH AND EAST.

THE APPLICANT HAS REQUESTED THREE WAIVERS TO THE PUD. THE FIRST IS FOR A WAIVER 2.2004 REQUIRING ACCESSORY USES. REQUIRING ACCESSORY USES TO BE LOCATED ON THE SAME PARCEL AS THE PRINCIPAL USE. THIS REQUEST TO WAIVE HER IS HER OFF-SITE STORMWATER RETENTION.

[02:40:03]

LASTLY, THERE IS A WAIVER REQUEST FOR SIGN RESTRICTION. IT ALLOWS FOR MAXIMUM NUMBERS OF SIGNS AND ADVERTISING DISPLAY AREA. THE APPLICANT REQUESTS INCREASED SIGNAGE AND DISPLAY AREA BASED ON THE OVERALL SIZE THEM UP -- MULTIPLE FRONTAGES OF THE PROPERTY. THE APPLICATION WAS REVIEWED BY THE TRANSPORTATION STAFF.

IT IS A NONRESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT. A DETAILED SITE ACCESS AND OPERATIONAL ANALYSIS WILL BE REQUIRED PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION PLAN APPROVAL.

THE PROPOSED PUD AS A COMMERCIAL BUSINESS CENTER APPEARS TO BE SUPPORTIVE OF THE FUTURE AND CURRENT OF ELEMENT IN THE AREA. THIS MIXED USE DESTINATION IS APPROPRIATE LOCATION FOR THE USE. THE PUD AND PROPOSED USES ARE GENERALLY COMPATIBLE WITH THE SURROUNDING AREA. STAFF, AS I MENTIONED EARLIER, THERE ARE SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES LOCATED ADJACENT TO THE PROPOSED PUD AND THE APPLICANT HAS ACKNOWLEDGED THAT ALL BUFFERING, SCREENING, AND ACCESS TO THOSE LOTS WILL BE PROVIDED. I HAVE A CHART HERE.

BROADLY THE PUD WILL EXPAND SLIGHTLY THE USES ALLOWED IN COMMERCIAL GENERAL AND ADD ALL OF THE COMMERCIAL USES. THE REMAINDER OF THE DEVELOP THAT WILL BE DEDICATED TO COMMERCIAL USES. PHASE ONE COMMERCIAL USES ARE ALREADY ALLOWED BY RIGHT IN THE EXISTING COMMERCIAL GENERAL ZONE. STAFF DOES NOT OBJECT TO THE PROPOSED WAIVERS AND ACKNOWLEDGED THE SIGNED WAIVER IS NOT EXCESSIVE CONSIDERING THE OVERALL LENGTH AND FRONTAGE, INCLUDING MULTIPLE FRONTAGES OF THE PROPERTY.

WE HAVE RECEIVED ONE PHONE CALL AND E-MAIL FROM AN ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER INQUIRING ABOUT THE STATUS OF THE PROJECT. STAFF HAS NOT RECEIVED ANY OTHER CORRESPONDENCE OR OBJECTIONS RELATED TO THE APPLICATION. STAFF SUPPORTS THE RECORDATION FOR APPROVAL OF PUD2019-14 BENCHIP COMMERCIAL. I HAVE PROVIDED NINE FINDINGS OF FACT TO SUPPORT A MOTION TO APPROVE AS WELL AS 10 FINDINGS TO NOT APPROVE. I'M AVAILABLE FOR QUESTIONS.

THE APPLICANT IS HERE AND I BELIEVE HAS A PRESENTATION. >> WE WILL HOLD THE QUESTIONS, IF IT IS ALL RIGHT WITH YOU, TELL THE PRESENTATION BY THE APPLICANT.

>> GOOD AFTERNOON, PZA, I AM CATHERINE WHITTINGTON. SAINT AUGUSTINE, 32084.

REPRESENTING THE PROPOSED DEVELOPER 207 DEVELOPMENT LLC. WITH ME HERE TODAY IS VICTOR, WITH THE PROPOSED DEVELOPER, ALSO BILL SCHILLING WITH KILLING HORN.

JACOB GAVE A THOROUGH PRESENTATION, AND HIS STAFF REPORT WAS VERY THOROUGH.

WE WILL TRY TO BE BRIEF OR I'M JUST GOING TO GIVE AN OVERALL VIEW OF THE PROJECT.

AND THEN I'M GOING TO ASK BILL TO COME UP AND GET INTO SOME OF THE MORE TECHNICAL POINTS.

IT IS A GROCERY ANCHORED SHOPPING CENTER WITHOUT PARTIALS PLAN FOR RETAIL SERVICE OFFICE, MEDICAL, EDUCATIONAL USES AND NO RESIDENTIAL USES. THIS IS A LOCATION MAP.

YOU CAN SEE IT AS A PROXIMATELY 1.5 MILES FROM I-95 AND JUST SOUTH OF WILDWOOD DRIVE AND THE 207 INTERSECTION. THIS IS A FUTURE LAND USE MAP THAT JACOB SHOWED YOU AS WELL.

IT IS WITHIN THE MIXED-USE AND LAND USE ALONG STATE ROAD 207 CORRIDOR WHICH IS THE HIGHEST LAND USE INTENSITY CATEGORY IN THE COUNTY. NO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN IS NECESSARY AT IT ALREADY COMPLIES WITH MIXED-USE LAND USE DECLINATION.

AS YOU CAN SEA ONE THE ZONING, AND AS A JACOB MENTIONED. 9.6 ACRES IS ALREADY ZONED ON THE FRONTAGE ON STATE ROAD 207 WHICH IS THE RIGHT ZONING FOR COMMERCIAL SHOPPING CENTER THAT

[02:45:06]

SOME OF YOU MAY REMEMBER THAT WE WERE IN PZA BACK IN JULY AND HEARD THIS PROJECT BEFORE.

IT WAS ORIGINALLY PROPOSED AS A MIXED-USE PUD WITH COMMERCIAL USES AND RESIDENTIAL MULTIFAMILY OR TOWNHOMES. IT WAS HEARD ON JULY 16, 2019. THE BOARD OBJECTED TO THE PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL USE AT THAT TIME WHEN THERE WAS A LOT OF RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT GOING ON IN THIS AREA. BUT, THEY DID GRANT US A WAIVER TO COME BACK WITHOUT HAVING TO WAIT A YEAR, REVAMP THE PROJECT AND WE DID THAT. THE APPLICANT LISTENED, WE ARE NOW BRINGING THEM BACK AS A NEW ENTIRELY COMMERCIAL PROJECT WITH NO RESIDENTIAL USES AT ALL.

PROJECT SUMMARY, 33.4 ACRES WITH UP TO 500,000 SQUARE FEET OF COMMERCIAL USES.

PHASE ONE IS THE HIGHER INTENSITY ALONG 207 COMMERCIAL NEIGHBORHOOD, COMMERCIAL GENERAL, COMMERCIAL HIGHWAY TOURISTS AND OFFICE PROFESSIONAL USES IN 15 PHASE.

PHASE TWO, FURTHER TO THE BACK OF THE PROJECTS, COMMERCIAL NEIGHBORHOOD AND OFFICE PROFESSIONAL USES ONLY, A SECOND FIVE-YEAR PHASE. NO RESIDENTIAL USES AND COMPLIES WITH THE MIXED-USE FUTURE LAND USE CRITERIA. THIS MAP SHOWS WHERE THE PHASING IS, PHASE ONE AT HIGHER INTENSITY USES ALONG STATE ROUTE 207, GRADUATING TO LESS INTENSE USES AS YOU GET AWAY FROM 207, TOWARD THE BACK, AND CLOSE TO THE RESIDENTIAL PARCELS THAT ARE ADJACENT. THIS IS FROM THE STAFF REPORT, WHICH DESCRIBES WHAT I JUST SAID AND THEIR OPINION THAT THIS LAYOUT FOLLOWS THE GUIDELINES SET FORCE TO MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT AND LAND-USE INTENSITIES. THIS IS A MAP OF THE SURROUNDING DEVELOPMENTS, EXISTING AND APPROVED, SOME NOT YET BUILT. THERE ARE OVER 4000 EXISTING OR APPROVED RESIDENTIAL UNITS WITHIN 2 MILES. I REALLY DEMONSTRATE THAT THIS IS TRUE IN FIELD DEVELOPMENT. IT IS IMMEDIATELY ADJUSTED AND INTERCUT -- AND WITH THE PUD AND WILL SHARE A COMMON SIGNALIZED ACCESS FROM STATE ROAD 207 AT ITS INTERSECTION WITH WILDWOOD DRIVE. THIS IS AN TWO INTERESTING SLIDE.

THIS AERIAL SHOWS THE EXISTING DEVELOPMENT IN THE CITY. ITS FUTURE IS COMING.

IT ALSO SHOWS THE DISTANCE OF THE EXISTING GROCERY STORE IN THE SOUTHEAST AREA OF THE COUNTY. ALL OF WHICH ARE OVER 2 MILES AWAY INTO THE EAST.

FOR VERMONT HEIGHTS RESIDENTS, THE CLOSEST GROCERY STORE IS OVER 6 MILES AWAY.

FOR ELKTON IT IS EVEN FURTHER THAN THAT. BY THE WAY, THE GREEN DOTS ARE THE GROCERY STORES THAT ARE EXISTING. THE RED STAR IS THE PROJECT.

THIS IS REALLY WHAT IS CALLED COMMONLY A GROCERY DESERT. A NEW GROCERY STORE IN THIS LOCATION WILL SERVE A SIGNIFICANT NUMBER OF RESIDENTS CLOSER TO THEIR HOMES AND MANY OF THEM WILL BE OF WALKING DISTANCE. WITH THAT SCUM I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE BILL COME UP AND TALK ABOUT THE SITE PLAN AND SOME OF THE MORE TECHNICAL DETAILS.

>> THANK YOU. I AM THE CIVIL ENGINEER THAT HAS BEEN WORKING ON THE PROJECT.

AGAIN, SIMILARLY, WANT TO SHARE A COUPLE OF ITEMS TO ADD A LITTLE MORE EXPLANATION ABOUT THE DESIGN OF THE PROJECT. ALSO, MORE INFORMATION RELATED TO THE WAIVERS.

THE NEXT SLIDE THAT WE WANT TO PRESENT IS THE ACCESS SLIDE RELATED TO NOT ONLY ACCESS TO THE PROJECT BUT INTERCONNECTION. THERE ARE A COUPLE OF THINGS THAT I WANTED TO POINT OUT AND MAKE SURE WE ARE STATING FOR THE RECORD, ONE IS FROM AN ACCESS PERSPECTIVE FOR ANY WAIVERS, WE CONTENT TO COMPLY WITH THE ACCESS REQUIREMENTS AND THE LAND OF ELEMENT CODE.

WE ARE ALSO PROPOSING INTERCONNECTIVITY BETWEEN PHASES ONE AND TWO WITHIN THE PROJECT.

[02:50:03]

WHICH WE UNDERSTAND WE HAVE TO CONTINUE TO HONOR. THERE WERE WORKED WITH THE D.O.T. AND IDENTIFIED AN ACCESS LOCATION FOR THEM TO CONTINUE TO BE ABLE TO ACCESS THE POND.

TOUCHING A LITTLE BIT ON THE ENVIRONMENTAL. ONE OF THE THINGS THAT IS VERY GOOD ABOUT THIS SITE IS THEY ARE NOT VERY MANY -- WE ARE ONLY ANTICIPATING ROUGHLY 1.5 ACRES OF IMPACT WHICH WILL BE MITIGATED THROUGH WETLAND MITIGATION.

THERE ARE NO SIGNIFICANT NATURAL COMMUNITY HABITATS IDENTIFIED ON THE SITE.

OUR ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTIST DID IDENTIFY SIX POTENTIALLY ACTIVE GOPHER/TORTOISE BURROS.

WE HAVE STATED A PUD, AT PERMIT, APPROVAL AND CONSTRUCTION WE WILL PERMIT THROUGH F WC TO RELOCATE ANY GOPHER/TORTOISE THAT ARE ACTUALLY ON-SITE. ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTISTS IDENTIFIED NO OTHER WILDLIFE, OR WILDLIFE FOR PLANT SPECIES ON THE PROPERTY.

NO SIGNIFICANT CULTURAL RESOURCES WERE IDENTIFIED. AND THEN AS WELL, I'VE GOT A SLIDE TO DEPICT THIS, PER THE CODE, WE HAVE PROPOSED AND ARE INCLUDING A 20 FEET BUFFERING ALONG ALL OF THOSE BOUNDARIES OF THE PROJECT THAT ARE ADJACENT TO RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES.

THOSE BOUNDARIES IN GREEN WILL HAVE BUT FIRST,, AND ALSO SO IT'S DATA FOR THE RECORD, WE HAVE ALSO WORKED WITH MR. AND MR. GATCHEL TO INSTALL A 6-FOOT TALL FENCE ALONG THE PROPERTY LINE. THAT IS SPECIFICALLY STATED IN THE PUD TEXT.

TALKING ABOUT TRAFFIC IN SCHOOLS, OUR INTENT IS THAT ALL OF THE ROADWAYS IN THIS PUD WILL REMAIN PRIVATE. AS I MENTIONED THE INTERCONNECTIVITY INTERNALLY, THE APPLICANT HAS ENTERED INTO A CAUTIONARY AGREEMENT FOR PORTIONS OF CONSTRUCTIONS OF RIO SAN JUAN ROAD FROM STATE ROAD 207 INTO THE DRIVEWAY'S FOR THIS.

WE ARE INTENDING, AND THE APPLICANT IS INTENDING FOR THERE TO BE A SHARED PARKING AND ACCESS AGREEMENT FOR ALL OF THE ANSWERS WITHIN THE SHOPPING CENTER AND COMMERCIAL CENTER.

CERTAINLY WITH THE REMOVAL OF THE RESIDENTIAL USES, RIGHT NOW, THERE WOULD BE NO SCHOOL IMPACTS ASSOCIATED WITH THIS PROJECT. ALSO, WITH ALL OF THE USES BEING NONRESIDENTIAL THE PROJECT IS EXEMPT FROM TRANSPORTATION TRAFFIC CURRENCY. EVEN WITH THAT, TO DATE, THE

PROPERTY OWNER HAS PREPAID OVER $473,942 IN ON THE ROAD FEES. >> A COUPLE OF MINUTES TO TALK ON EACH OF THE WAIVERS TO ADD MORE CLARITY. THE FIRST ONE BEING FOR THE OFF-SITE DRAINAGE. THIS IS THE EXHIBIT. THIS IS THE FUTURE RIO SAN JUAN ROAD THAT AS MENTIONED, THE APPLICANT HAS ENTERED INTO A A CAUTIONARY AGREEMENT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION PORTION. TODAY, THIS PORTION OF THE SITE DRAINS TO THE NORTH, ULTIMATELY TO THE CREEK WITH CONSTRUCTION OF RIO SAN JUAN ROAD AND THIS POND, IT WILL CHANGE SOME OF THE DRAINAGE PATTERNS. THIS POND IS ACTUALLY WITHIN THE SITE, ADJACENT TO US AND WE HAVE WORKED OUT AN ARRANGEMENT FOR US TO BASICALLY MAINTAIN EXISTING DRAINAGE FLOWS TO HAVE OUR STORMWATER CONNECTED TO THAT POND AS IT DOES TODAY TO THE CREEK.

THAT IS THE REASON FOR THIS WAIVER REQUEST. >> AS MENTIONED IN THE STAFF REPORT, THIS IS COMMON PRACTICE BETWEEN SIMILAR TYPE ZONING DISTRICTS AND IT APPEARS THAT THAT REQUEST IS NOT AN OBJECTION. THE SECOND WAIVER IS REGARDING

[02:55:05]

THE INTENT HERE, AND TO PROVIDE MORE BACKGROUND, THERE IS ACTUALLY NOT A SCHOOL WITHIN A THOUSAND FEET OF THE SITE BUT THERE ARE SOME CHURCHES WITHIN A THOUSAND FEET OF THE SITE, REQUIRING THIS WAIVER. THE EXAMPLE, AN EXAMPLE I WOULD GIVE FOR THE NEED FOR THIS WAIVER IS WITH THIS BEING A SHOPPING CENTER SITE, WE ANTICIPATE THAT THE SHOPPING CENTER OPERATOR OR GROCERY ANCHOR OPERATOR WOULD LIKELY WANT A COBRANDED LIQUOR STORE IN THE SAME CENTER WITH THEM, WHICH WOULD REQUIRE THE THOUSAND FOOT NEED WAIVER.

PART OF THE JUSTIFICATION WE BELIEVE FOR THE WAIVER IS THIS IS A MAJOR TRANSPORTATION NOTES AT THE 207 AND WILDWOOD DRIVE INTERSECTION. CERTAINLY WE ARE WITHIN A MIXED-USE DISTRICT, BEING ONE OF THE MOST INTENSE DISTRICTS ALLOWED WITH A CONFERENCE OF PLAN. WE BELIEVE THAT ALCOHOL SALES ARE CONSISTENT WITH THOSE USES THAT YOU WOULD TYPICALLY FIND IN THAT TYPE OF DISTRICT. WE ALSO BELIEVE AND I THINK IT IS GOOD IS THOSE CHURCHES THAT DO EXIST WITHIN A THOUSAND FEET ARE ALL SEPARATED FROM US BY STATE ROAD 207. WHICH WE BELIEVE DOES PROVIDE A REASONABLE BUFFER.

THE THIRD WAIVER WHICH IS RELATED TO SIGNAGE. BOIL THIS DOWN INTO THREE PARTS OF THE WAIVER, SO TO SPEAK. ESSENTIALLY WE ARE ASKING TO HAVE ONE ADDITIONAL SIGN ALONG OUR FRONTAGE AND STATE ROAD 207 AREA AND WE ARE ASKING FOR TWO OF THE SIGNS ALONG 207 TO BE 50 SQUARE FEET LARGER THAN ALLOWED BY THE CODE. WE ARE ASKING -- HERE IT SAYS ANCHOR, BUT ANY ANCHOR TENANTS THAT ARE TO HAVE UP TO AN ADDITIONAL 85 SQUARE FEET OF BUILDING SIGNAGE SO THAT THEY CAN HAVE SIGNAGE ON THE SIDE OF THE BUILDING.

WE WOULD GIVE A COUPLE OF EXAMPLES. AGAIN, I KNOW JACOB DID A GREAT JOB PRESENTING AND MENTIONED THAT STAFF HAD NO OBJECTIONS TO THIS WAIVER.

CONSIDERING THE OVERALL SIZE OF THE PROJECT AND THE GREAT AMOUNTS OF FRONTAGE THAT WE HAVE MULTIPLE FRONTAGES. THIS JUST GETS INTO A LITTLE BIT OF DETAIL.

WE DO HAVE FRONTAGE ALONG RIO SAN JUAN AND STATE ROAD 207 OVER 1100 FEET OF FRONTAGE.

THE SITE PLAN CALLS FOR, WHICH I THINK WAS ONE OF THE BENNETT -- BENEFITS OF OUR SIGNAGE.

WE ARE PROPOSING TWO, 100 SQUARE-FOOT SIGNS UP TO 100 SQUARE FEET OF ADVERTISING DISPLAY AREA ON RIO SAN JUAN ROAD. I KNOW THERE IS A LOT OF VERBIAGE ON THIS SLIDE. I WILL SUMMARIZE THE SLIDE WITH WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE ALLOWANCES FOR THE SIGNS IN THE LAND OF ELEMENT CODE AND PUT THE TWO FRONTAGES TOGETHER, ESSENTIALLY YOU COULD GET 27 ALLOWED SIGNS AND WE ARE AT SEVEN ALLOWED SIGNS.

WHAT WE ARE DOING IS PUTTING MORE OF OUR SIGNAGE ON 207 THAN TECHNICALLY THE CODE WOULD ALLOW ULTIMATELY WE ARE ENDING UP OVERALL WITH THE SAME NUMBER OF SIGNS, AND SLIGHTLY LESS SQUARE FOOTAGE THAN THE MAXIMUM THAT WOULD BE ALLOWED. THIS SHOWS THE EXAMPLE OF THE WAIVER FOR THE BUILDING SIGNAGE. THIS IS OUR GROCERY ANCHOR. PER THE CODE, THE GROCERY ANCHOR WOULD BE ALLOWED UP TO 150 SQUARE FEET FOR THE FRONT FAÇADE SIGN COME UP TO 37.5 SQUARE FEET FOR THE SECONDARY FRONT FAÇADE SIGN. THAT WOULD NOT LEAVE ENOUGH SQUARE FOOTAGE TO HAVE A SIDE SIGN. IT CANNOT BE PLACED ON THE REAR OR THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE BUILDING. THESE ARE SOME EXAMPLES OF THE

[03:00:07]

TIME TODAY. >> ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT OR FOR STAFF?

>> JUST A FEW QUESTIONS. SAN JUAN ROAD IS NOT CURRENTLY CONSTRUCTED, IS THAT CORRECT?

>> YES, SIR, THAT IS CORRECT. >> THE SUBDIVISION WILL CONSIST OF SEVERAL DISTINCT

NEIGHBORHOODS, OR WHATEVER? THOSE ARE NOT YET EITHER? >> THAT IS CORRECT, YES, SIR.

>> YOU SHOWED ON YOUR MAP OF STORM WATER POND THAT IS ON THEIR PROPERTY THAT YOU WOULD CO- UTILIZE WITH THEM, I FIND CO- UTILIZATION CERTAINLY ACCEPTABLE.

WHAT YOU SHOWED IT WAS A FLOW FROM YOUR PROPERTY AND TO WHAT I THOUGHT WAS A REALLY SMALL POND.

AND THEN IT FLOWING ON OUT MORE LIKE A FLOOD POND THAT WE HAD EARLIER TODAY.

AND THEN THAT FLOWS RIGHT INTO THE HEADWATERS OF THE CREEK. WHAT IS THE SIZE OF THAT GOING TO BE? WHAT IS THE CAPACITY, THAT DESIGN, WHEN IT IS BUILT? WE DON'T KNOW THAT YET, MAYBE THAT WAS APPROVED BY THIS BOARD OR THE COUNTY PREVIOUSLY.

I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE SIZE AND CAPACITY AND ALL OF THAT ARE. AND THEN I'M CONCERNED ABOUT POLLUTANTS LIKE OIL, GREASE, ASBESTOS FROM BRAKE LINES AND THINGS LIKE THAT COMING OFF THE PARKING LOT AND FLOWING RIGHT THROUGH INTO THE CREEK HAD WATER.

CAN YOU ADDRESS THAT? AND THEN I HAVE A COUPLE OF OTHER QUESTIONS.

>> YES, SIR. YOU ARE CORRECT IN THAT THIS POND WAS APPROVED AS A PART OF THE PUD. THE INTENT IS FOR THE POND TO PROVIDE TREATMENT.

VERY LIKELY THIS OUTFALL STRUCTURE TO THE NORTH THAT OUTFALLS TO THE CREEK WILL HAVE A WE'RE IN THE OUTFALL STRUCTURE BASICALLY FOR THE BOX THAT ESSENTIALLY WILL BE DESIGNED TO HOLD THE FIRST FLUSH OF RAINWATER THAT COMES OFF BOTH RIO SAN JUAN AND IS PART OF THE PROJECT. BASICALLY TO CAPTURE THOSE POLLUTANTS THAT COME INTO THE POND. SO, WHICH, PART OF THE ANSWER TO THE QUESTION.

THE OTHER PART OF THE ANSWER TO THE QUESTION IS, CERTAINLY THE SIZE OF THIS POND IS NOT ONE THAT IS LARGE ENOUGH TO CERTAINLY TREAT THE ENTIRE AREA. WE WILL HAVE OTHER PONDS COME ULTIMATELY WE WILL HAVE A NETWORK OF PONDS WITHIN THIS PROJECT THAT WILL PROVIDE TREATMENT. THEY WILL PROVIDE OPPORTUNITY AGAIN.

LIKELY OUR STRUCTURE WHERE OUR WATER WOULD COME IN WOULD BE UP HERE TO THE SOUTH, OR AT THE BOTTOM OF THE POND. THE OUTFALL WOULD BE UP AT THE NORTH.

WITH THE INTENT TO CREATE THE GREATEST DISTANCE -- I APOLOGIZE FOR THAT.

TO CREATE THE GREATEST DISTANCE POSSIBLE FOR THAT STORM WATER TO FLOW ACROSS THE POND FOR THOSE

[03:05:03]

AGAIN, THE OVERALL STORMWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM WE WILL NOT JUST RELY ON THAT ONE POND.

>> I DON'T WANT TO HARP ON THIS, BUT IT IS IMPORTANT. PARTICULARLY NOW THAT A LOT OF THE DEVELOPMENT OCCURRING IN THE COUNTY, IS ON FLATWOODS SITES WHICH IS IN AN ACTIVE FORM OF AGRICULTURE. I SUPPORT AGRICULTURE IN THIS COUNTY IS A PART OF OUR ECONOMIC BASE. YOU HAVE SOME VERY POORLY DRAINED SOILS ON THIS PROPERTY.

I'M SURE YOU KNOW THAT. I THINK THERE ARE SEVERAL THAT ARE VERY POORLY DRAINED.

I COULD LISTEN. YOU HAVE ST. JOHN'S FINE SAND, RIVIERA FINE SAND.

THAT GOES ON TO STATE IN THE MATERIALS THAT Y'ALL PROVIDED, THAT, SOILS FOUND THROUGHOUT THE SITE ARE SUITABLE FOR THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT. THAT'S A BLANKET STATEMENT.

I FEEL LIKE THAT IS GLOSSING OVER. I LOOKED ALL OF THESE UP AND I AM FAMILIAR WITH USING SOIL SURVEYS. AND THE SOIL SURVEY, YOU LOOK AT A COUPLE OF THEIRS -- THOSE SOIL TYPES, DEVELOPMENT IS NOT A RECOMMENDED USE ON THOSE SITES.

THOSE ARE FOR AGRICULTURAL PURPOSES. I AM CONCERNED ABOUT THAT.

THAT IS WHAT IS BEING DEVELOPED NOW IN THE COUNTY. THE SOILS ARE HEAVY, POORLY DRAINED, SLOW TO PERMEATE. MAYBE YOU COULD ADDRESS THAT. THAT I HAVE TWO MORE COMMENTS.

>> YES, SIR. SPECIFICALLY TO THAT QUESTION. WE DO HAVE A GEOTECH CONSULTANT THAT IS ON THE TEAM WORKING WITH US AND IS WORKING WITH US TO ADDRESS THOSE CONCERNS.

WE DO HAVE PROJECTS WITH SIMILAR TYPE SOILS WHERE WE HAVE BEEN ABLE TO USE THE METHODS WHERE WE ARE ABLE TO BRING IN SOME BETTER SOILS AND DO SOME BLENDING TO IMPROVE THE SITE.

IT'S VERY POSSIBLE WE MAY DO SOMETHING SIMILAR HERE. AGAIN, WE DO HAVE A GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANT DIVIDING INPUT AND GUIDANCE IN HOW TO LOOK AT THE SOILS ON THE SITE.

>> CONCERNING ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES. I'M CERTAINLY NOT A CRUSADER ON THIS ISSUE. I HAVE CERTAINLY CONSUMD MY FAIR SHARE OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES OVER THE YEARS. DO YOU HAVE A SIMILAR SLIDE. YOU SHOWED GROCERY STORES IN THE AREA WITHIN A 1-3-MILE RADIUS. DO YOU HAVE A SLIDE THAT SHOWS THE CHURCHES WITHIN A RADIUS.

THIS IS THE WORD Y'ALL USE. THE PUD AREA IS SATURATED WITH NUMEROUS CHURCHES AND SCHOOLS.

NOW YOU HAVE CLARIFIED THAT THERE WERE NO SCHOOLS, BUT IT IS SATURATED.

THE LDC THAT DOESN'T SAY JUST BECAUSE THEY ARE SEPARATED BY A COUNTY ROAD, COUNTY ROAD 207 THAT THAT DIMINISHES THIS PARTICULAR WAIVER REQUEST. I WONDER IF YOU COULD ADDRESS THAT? I WILL HAVE TO SAY, IT'S REALLY A SAD COMMENTARY ON THE SOCIETY THAT YOU STATE IT CAN'T BE A VIABLE SHOPPING CENTER WITH HAVC BEVERAGE SALES.

I'M NOT PREACHY HERE, OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT, IT'S JUST SAD COMMENTARY.

[INAUDIBLE] TRANSIENT ACROSS THE STREET, HOPEFULLY I WILL POINT TO THE RIGHT ONES. I BELIEVE THIS SITE IS AN ISLAMIC WORSHIP CENTER, ADJACENT TO IT IS A CHURCH THAT I BELIEVE IS A BAPTIST CHURCH, AND THEN THERE IS A JEWISH SYNAGOGUE THAT

IS RIGHT HERE. FAIRLY CLOSE TO THE INTERSECTION >> OKAY.

CONCERNING YOUR SIGNAGE REQUEST. THE ALLSTATE THAT THE LDC DID NOT ANTICIPATE MULTI- ROAD FRONTAGE REQUESTS FOR SIGNAGE. WE JUST HAD ONE A MONTH OR SO AGO WITH ALL THE UP OFF RACETRACK ROAD, AND THAT HAD TWO DIFFERENT SIGN REQUEST ON TWO DIFFERENT ROADS.

THAT WENT ULTIMATELY GOT APPROVED. I THOUGHT THEY MADE A VERY GOOD CASE FOR THE NEED FOR THOSE LARGER SIGNS. I DON'T SEE GOOD SOLID

[03:10:10]

I CAN SEE MAY BE INCREASING FROM FIVE SIGNS, PLUS SOME OF THOSE ENTRANCEWAYS -- ENTRANCEWAYS THAT YOU SHOW INTO PRIVATE PROPERTY, NOT TO YOUR DEVELOPMENT.

I FEEL CERTAIN THAT PEOPLE THAT MOVE INTO THIS AREA THAT ARE READY LIVE THERE WHEN THIS IS UNDER CONSTRUCTION, THEY'RE GOING TO KNOW WHAT IS IN THEIR WITHOUT SEEING A SIGN.

I UNDERSTAND THE NEED FOR COMMERCIAL SIGNS. CERTAINLY THOSE ARE JUSTIFIED.

AND INFORMATIVE. SEVEN SIGNS SEEMS LIKE AN AWFUL HIGH NUMBER, ALONG THE AREA.

SIGNS ARE NOT REALLY THAT ATTRACTIVE. ESPECIALLY WHEN YOU ARE REPLACING A NATURAL AREA LIKE INTACT FLATWOODS WITH COMMERCIAL AND SIGNAGE.

YOU KNOW, IT DOESN'T APPEAL TO ME PERSONALLY. >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS?

>> IF WE COULD GO BACK TO THE POWERPOINT, PLEASE? THANK YOU.

SPECIFICALLY TO THE QUESTION. THE REFERENCE TO THE LAND INVOLVEMENT CODE DOESN'T CONTEMPLATE COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENTS OF THIS SIZE, IT IS THE WAY THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE HAS BEEN STRUCTURED IS THAT BASICALLY IT PROVIDES A STRUCTURED NUMBER OF SIGNS UP TO 500 LINEAL FEET OF FRONTAGE. ONCE YOU GET 2501, YOU GET 24 SLIDES IN YOU ARE NO MATTER HOW MUCH FRONTAGE YOU HAVE. WE HAVE SIGNIFICANTLY MORE FRONTAGE ONTO FRONTAGES, THAT ARE MUCH MORE THAN 501 SQUARE FEET. THAT IS WHY WE ARE ASKING FOR THE ADDITIONAL SIGNS. THE REASON WE ARE ASKING FOR THE TWO SIGNS TO BE LARGER IS BECAUSE THOSE LARGER SIGNS ARE THE ONES THAT WILL BE THE MULTITENANT SIGNS THAT WILL BE NEEDED FOR ESSENTIALLY, THE ADVERTISING OF EVERYBODY IN THIS MAIN CENTER AND ANY FOLKS THAT COME IN AND PHASE TWO. AND AS WELL, STATE ROUTE 207, I KNOW IT IS A.

TYPICALLY TRAVELING FASTER THAN 45 MILES PER HOUR. THE BIGGER SIGNS LET THEM SEE AND READ WHAT THOSE USERS ARE FURTHER DOWN THE ROAD, GIVES THEM MORE CHANCE TO SEE THAT.

I KNOW WE ARE GOING BACK AND FORTH HERE. I DO HAVE A COUPLE OF EXAMPLES OF WHAT THOSE SIGNS MIGHT LOOK LIKE. THESE WOULD BE THE TWO LARGER TYPE SIGNS THAT WOULD BE UP TO 200 SQUARE FEET WHICH SIMILARLY THAT WOULD BE WHERE EVERYBODY THAT WOULD NOT BE IN FRONT PARCELS HAVE THEIR SIGNAGE UP ON 207 RATE AND THEN THE SLOWER ONE WOULD BE AN EXAMPLE OF ONE OF THE OUT PARCELS, THE SINGLE TENANT OUT PARCEL SIGN.

THOSE ARE SAMPLES OF WHAT THOSE SIGNS WILL BE LIKE. THIS SIGN IS APPROXIMATELY 200 SQUARE FEET. THAT GIVES YOU SOME SCALE AS TO, YOU KNOW, WHAT THAT EXTRA SQUARE

FEET LOOKS LIKE. >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? I HAVE A QUESTION.

WITH RESPECT TO THE SIGNS. YOU ASK FOR 150% GREATER AMOUNT OF SQUARE FOOTAGE, BECAUSE OF THE GEOMETRY AROUND THE SITE, AND THEN YOU PUT MOST OF THAT 50% ON ONE SIDE, I THINK.

IS THAT CORRECT? >> TECHNICALLY YOU ARE CORRECT. WE PUT THE ADDITIONAL SIGNAGE WE HAVE ASKED FOR ON STATE ROAD 207 SITE. THAT IS CORRECT.

>> ARE AGENCY EXPERT IS NOT HERE I AM AFRAID HE WILL CHASTISE ME IF I LET YOU WALK AWAY FROM HERE I WILL BRING IT UP LATER WHEN WE ARE BACK IN THE AGENCY AND ASK FOR A REDUCTION FOR THE

[03:15:03]

I THINK IT IS UNSIGHTLY. I WILL BRING IT UP AGAIN WHILE WE'RE AT THE THE AGENCY.

THANK YOU. I HAVE A QUESTION FOR STAFF. HELP ME OUT, MR. SMITH.

WHO DO WE HAVE ON STAFF THAT CAN ADDRESS THESE ENVIRONMENTAL SOILS AND GEOTECHNICAL ISSUES IN A SYSTEMATIC WAY SAYS WHAT TYPE OF REVIEW THAT YOU FOLKS DO AND HOW COMPLETE IS IT?

CAN WE DEPEND UPON THE REVIEW BY STAFF. >> I WOULD ABSOLUTELY ASSUME THAT WE CAN. JAN BREWER WHO SPOKE EARLIER, SHE LEADS THE ENVIRONMENTAL TEAM. I DON'T THINK I HAVE ANYBODY HERE FROM ENVIRONMENTAL, THIS POINT. I CAN ASSURE YOU THEY DO, OF COURSE, REVIEW ALL OF THESE THINGS. I BELIEVE IF THEY HAD MAJOR CONCERNS REGARDING THE SOIL

TYPES AND SO FORTH, HE WOULD HEAR ABOUT IT. >> I HAVE HEARD ON THREE PROJECTS TODAY WHERE THIS IS AN ISSUE. I THINK IT NEEDS AN AIRING,

EITHER AT THIS TIME, OR NEXT TIME. >> GOOD AFTERNOON, BEN PAULSON WITH THE TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT DIVISION GROWTH MANAGEMENT.

SOIL TYPES IS SOMETHING WE WILL SEE DURING THE CONSTRUCTION PLAN PHASE.

THAT IS WHEN WE GET THE GEOTECHNICAL REPORT FOR ANALYZATION WITH THE STORM WATER CALCULATIONS. USUALLY, AT THE PLANNING STAGE, WHICH WE ARE AT NOW, WE WON'T SEE DETAILED SIGN ENGINEERING THAT WILL INCLUDE THE GEOTECH. SOIL TYPES IS IMPORTANT, DEFINITELY. IT MAKES A BIG DIFFERENCE ON THE IT IS HARD TO GENERALIZE SOIL TYPES AS FAR AS HOW IT IS GOING TO REACT WHEN THE SITE IS DEVELOPED.

AS THE APPLICANT STATED, THEY DO A BUNCH OF BLENDING USUALLY WHEN THEY DEVELOP A SITE.

IT'S NOT UNCOMMON FOR ST. JOHNS COUNTY, ESPECIALLY WITH THIS AS LOW AS MOST OF THE COUNTY IS.

WE DON'T HAVE A LOT OF TOPOGRAPHIC RELIEF. YOU ARE RAISING MOST OF OUR DEVELOPMENT SITES. IT'S NOT UNCOMMON TO SEE PHIL COME IN ON THE COMMERCIAL SITE TO GET PROPER GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS FOR THE STORM WATER. YOU HAVE TO HAVE GRAVITY WORK ALL OF YOUR SYSTEMS. I DON'T KNOW IF THAT. WITH SOILS WE WILL SEE THAT AT

THE ENGINEERING STAGE. >> TO AVOID AT ALL COST, PUTTING IN A B ON THE SPOT.

THIS HAS COME, AND COME UP. I WILL GO NO FURTHER WITH IT TODAY.

WE WILL AIR THIS ISSUE OUT IF THE ISSUE ARISES. THE SPACE, THE DRAINAGE CAPACITY, AND THE METHODS OF MAKING SURE THAT POLLUTANTS DON'T GO INTO HEADWATERS.

I'VE HEARD THIS OVER AND OVER. THEY ARE REAL CONCERNS. IF THE ENVIRONMENTAL PERIOD THAT WE ARE LIVING IN. THAT SAID, WHEN I PUT YOU ON THE SPOT.

>> IT IS UNDERSTOOD ABSOLUTELY. IN REGARDS TO THE POLLUTANTS, ST. JOHNS COUNTY AS FAR AS OUR LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE GOES, IT'S MORE GEARED TOWARDS QUANTITATIVE VOLUMES OF WATER, NOT NECESSARILY QUALITY OF WATER. THAT IS USUALLY WHERE THE ST. JOHNS RIVER WATER MANAGEMENT PERMITTING COMES INTO PLAY. THEY REGULATE HOW LONG THE WATER HAS TO SIT IN THE STORM WANDERED MANAGEMENT FACILITY. FOR THE POLLUTANTS TO SETTLE OUT.

AND THEN IT IS SLOWLY RELEASED OVER TIME TO WHAT WE CALL THE POSITIVE OUTFALL.

A WAY OF WATER TO GET OUT TO A NATURAL OUTFALL AREA LIKE A CREEK OR OTHER TRIBUTARY.

OUR LDC IS MORE QUANTITY RELATED AND THE STATE IS MORE QUALITY RELATED TO THAT RESPECT.

>> THE POINT AT WHICH WE SHOULD BE ASKING THOSE QUESTIONS IS THAT THE STAGE OF THE PROJECT?

>> I CAN TELL YOU THAT THE ENGINEERING IS NOT DONE AT THIS STAGE, GENERALLY.

MY DEPARTMENT, FOR INSTANCE WILL NOT SEE ANYTHING UNTIL THE ENGINEERING PLANS AND REPORTS ARE SUBMITTED FOR PERMITTING THE COUNTY. GENERALLY WE SEE THAT AFTER THEY GET THEIR PLANNING APPROVAL WHICH IS AN INTERESTING TOPIC YOU BRING UP.

I DON'T KNOW IF IT IS THE CART BEFORE THE HORSE SITUATION. I KNOW A LOT OF APPLICANTS PROBABLY WAIT TO DO A GREAT DEAL OF THEIR ENGINEERING UNTIL THEY KNOW THEY'RE GOING TO I REALLY CAN'T SAY TOO MUCH MORE ABOUT THAT, I WOULD HAVE TO DEFER TO OTHER STAFF.

[03:20:05]

>> I WOULD BE VERY INTERESTED. I WOULD BE PREPARED. >> ABSOLUTELY.

>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT OR STAFF? >> MR. CHAIRMAN, I WAS GOING TO ASK IF YOU WOULD INDULGE ME A QUESTION, JUST TO CLARIFY. THE CONCERN HE RAISED IS NOT SPECIFICALLY RELATED TO THE ADDITIONAL 50 SQUARE FEET OF THE TWO SIGNS, THAT WAS A CONCERN?

>> MY CONCERN, AND I THINK IT WAS REFLECTED. THERE ARE A LOT OF SCIENCE HERE.

THERE'S 150% MORE SIGNS HERE THAN THE LAND OF ELEMENT CODE CALLS FOR.

IT DOESN'T APPEAR TO BE NECESSARY OR ATTRACTIVE. I THOUGHT, DURING OUR DISCUSSION , IN THE AGENCY. I WILL RAISE THAT ISSUE AND I WILL LOOK FOR SOME MODIFICATION

OF THAT. >> OKAY. THE REASON I ASK THAT, IN THE STAFF REPORT, ONE OF THE ITEMS THEY ADDRESSED AND I GLOSSED OVER ONE OF THOSE SLIDES I HAD A LOT OF WORDS ON IT. I KNOW ONE OF THE ITEMS THEY ADDRESSED, IF YOU DID LOOK AT OUR SITE, AND ESSENTIALLY WENT WITH A NUMBER OF SIGNS FOR LINEAL FOOT, IT WOULD END UP ROUGHLY 300% OF WHAT WOULD BE ALLOWABLE UNDER THE CODE. WE ARE ASKING FOR ROUGHLY HALF OF THAT. I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THAT WAS CLEAR.

WE ARE THROWING AROUND A LOT OF MATH AND A LOT OF NUMBERS. WE THINK THAT IN ACTUALLY KEEPING WITH A PRETTY STRAIGHTFORWARD, PRETTY SIMPLE AND MINIMAL SIGN PACKAGE.

IF YOU LOOK AT BOTH FRONTAGES, WHAT CAN BE ALLOWED YOU CAN BIND BOTH FRONTAGES, YOU COULD GET UP TO 900 SQUARE FEET AND IN OUR MIND, THE SQUARE FOOTAGE IS MAYBE MORE IMPORTANT THAN THE ACTUAL NUMBER OF SIGNS. RIGHT NOW WE ARE ASKING FOR 800. WHICH WOULD BE 100 LESS.

WE'VE SHIFTED SOME OF THAT TOWARDS TO A SEVEN TO GET THAT OFF STATE ROAD ONE.

>> I APPRECIATE THE CLARIFICATION. >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS?

DO WE HAVE ANY SPEAKER CARDS? >> WE DO. >> I AM IN THE MIDDLE OF ALL OF THIS MESS. I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH PHASE ONE , I WOULD HAVE LIKED TO HAVE SEEN MORE RESIDENTIAL IN PHASE TWO. OTHER THAN THAT, I AM GOOD WITH

IT. >> THANK YOU. THAT WAS BRIEF.

ANY OTHER SPEAKER CARDS? LET'S SEE. NOW WE ARE IN THE AGENCY.

>> I WOULD LIKE TO GIVE A SPEAKER CARD, I AM SORRY. >> WE WILL HAVE TO GIVE YOU --

CHARGE YOU EXTRA. >> I AM UP HERE NOT ABOUT THIS SPECIFIC PROJECT, BUT AS A DEVELOPER, I GET ASKED THE SAME QUESTIONS AND ESPECIALLY SINCE IT KEEPS COMING UP OVER AND OVER AGAIN ABOUT THE SOILS. WHEN WE DEVELOP A PROJECT, IT COSTS ABOUT $200,000, BY THE TIME WE DO THE ENGINEERING, THE SOILS, THE ENVIRONMENTAL. BECAUSE ZONING IS THE VERY FIRST STEP, YOU DON'T SPENT $200,000 TO TURN AROUND TO GET TURNED DOWN HERE.

YOUR STAFF, I CAN ASSURE YOU, IS EXTREMELY QUALIFIED. THEY HAVE TURNED ME UPSIDE DOWN FOR CHANGE BEFORE GOING THROUGH THE SOIL REPORTS THAT WE DO. TO MAKE SURE EVERY LITTLE THING IS TAKEN CARE OF AND HANDLED APPROPRIATELY. THEY ARE MORE THAN QUALIFIED TO

HANDLE IT AT THAT LEVEL. >> YOU MUST GIVE US A SPEAKER CARD.

WE ARE IN THE AGENCY FOR DISCUSSION AND A MOTION. ANY QUESTIONS.

FOR MYSELF, I THINK THE SIGNAGE IS EXCESSIVE. I WOULD LIKE IN THE MOTION TO CONSIDER A REDUCTION IN THE PERCENTAGE. FOR MYSELF, THE PROPOSAL IS SOUND, USEFUL, AND ATTRACTIVE. I SUPPORT IT, EXCEPT WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE SIGNS, THE

[03:25:10]

PERCENTAGE OF SIGNS. >> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. I APPRECIATE THE PRESENTATION AND THE PUBLIC COMMENT. I SUPPORT THIS, THE PROJECT, I THINK IT IS COMPATIBLE.

YOU KNOW, BRINGING 800 JOBS TO THE COUNTY WHICH I THINK IS, YOU KNOW, WE HEAR A LOT ABOUT TOO MUCH RESIDENTIAL HERE AND TOO MANY PEOPLE, YOU KNOW, LIVING IN ST. JOHNS COUNTY AND THEN DRIVING TO JACKSONVILLE TO WORK. I'M GLAD WE ARE BRINGING JOBS TO THE COUNTY.

I DON'T HAVE THAT MUCH OF AN ISSUE WITH THE SIGNS, TO BE HONEST WITH YOU.

I KNOW MIKE COPENHAGEN WOULD BE VERY PROUD, BECAUSE HE IS OUR SIGN GUY.

THAT IS HIS BABY. I THINK IT IS COMPATIBLE. THEY ARE TRYING TO, YOU KNOW, GROW THEIR BUSINESS AND ATTRACT CUSTOMERS. I AM READY TO OFFER A MOTION TO

SUPPORT -- >> ONE MORE QUESTION, DOCTOR MCCORMICK DO YOU HAVE A COMMENT?

>> ARCHIE, IF YOU WOULD PROPOSE A MOTION TO APPROVE THIS WITH CONDITIONS ON THE SIGNAGE, AS

YOU HAVE BEEN TALKING ABOUT, I AM PREPARED TO SUPPORT IT. >> THANK YOU.

I AM NOT IN A POSITION TO OFFER A MOTION. THAT IS A RESTRICTION.

>> JUST TO CLARIFY. THE CHAIR HAS ALL OF THE AUTHORITY AS A REGULAR SITTING MEMBER OF THE AGENCY, IT IS JUST THAT THE CHAIR OFFERS ANY MOTION TO ANY OTHER MEMBERS OF THE AGENCY. USUALLY IF THERE ISN'T A PREVAILING MOTION, THE CHAIR

DOES HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO MAKE THE INITIAL MOTION. >> WHAT I DO THAT AS AN

AMENDMENT TO A MOTION THAT SOMEONE ELSE MAKES? >> NO, YOU CANNOT AMEND SOMEONE ELSE'S MOTION. YOU CAN MAKE YOUR OWN MOTION, YOU KNOW, AS A MATTER OF COURTESY AND DECORUM IF THE OTHER AGENCY MEMBERS DO NOT MAKE THEIR OWN MOTION.

OR IF IT'S IN A PARTICULAR DISTRICT, IT'S KIND OF THE RULES OF THE PARTICULAR CULTURE OF THE

BOARD OR COMMITTEE. >> FINE. DOCTOR MCCORMICK, I WILL TAKE YOU UP ON YOUR OFFER. I WOULD OFFER A MOTION TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PUD2019-14 BENCHIP COMMERCIAL. SUBJECT AND NINE FINDINGS OF FACT AND THE STAFF REPORT WITH THE AMENDMENT THAT THE PERCENTAGE OF SCIENCE BE BROUGHT BACK TO THE LIMITS IMPOSED

EXISTING REGULATION. >> I WILL SECOND. >> I HAVE A MOTION ON A SECOND.

>> MR. CHAIR, TO VERIFY THE EFFECT OF THAT MOTION IT IS A RECOMMENDATION TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY OF COMMISSIONERS. YOU HAVE TO GET THE APPLICANT'S ASSENT TO MODIFY.

IT WOULD GO AS A CAVEAT RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL TO THE BOARD SAYING THAT IN GENERAL, THE PLANNING AND ZONING AGENCY SUPPORTS THE APPLICATION, BUT HAS SERIOUSLY -- SERIOUS CONCERNS ABOUT THIS PARTICULAR ASPECT WHICH IS THE SIGNS AND THE RECOMMENDATION IS TO REDUCE

THE SIGNAGE TO THE ALLOWANCES IN THE CODE. >> EXACTLY.

THANK YOU. DOCTOR MCCORMICK? I MADE THE MOTION AND IT HAS BEEN SECOND IN. ANY OTHER COMMENTS? PLEASE VOTE.

THE MOTION, AS AMENDED, PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. THANK YOU.

[Item 6]

ITEM NUMBER SIX. >> FOR THE RECORD, JOSEPH CLEARLY, GROWTH MANAGEMENT.

THIS IS A TRANSMITTAL HEARING FOR COMPAMD 2020-01 AMENDMENTS TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TEXT FOR NEW WORKFORCE HOUSING ZONING DESIGNATION. TRANSMITTAL HEARING FOR PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN "A LAND USE ELEMENT" AND "C HOUSING ELEMENT" TO CREATE A DENSITY CATEGORY FOR THE NEW WORKFORCE HOUSING ZONING DESIGNATION. THESE AMENDMENTS WILL PROVIDE FOR AN INCREASE IN THE RESIDENTIAL B, RESIDENTIAL C, AND MIXED USE LAND USE CATEGORIES FOR DEVELOPMENTS THAT REZONE TO THE PROPOSED WORKFORCE HOUSING ZONING DESIGNATION.

STAFF IS PROPOSING A NEW WORKFORCE HOUSE ZONING DISTRICT WITH NEW STANDARDS TO

[03:30:05]

WITHIN A SPECIFIED PRICE RANGE. MORE SPECIFICALLY THESE CHANGES WILL ALLOW ADDITIONAL DENSITY WITHIN THE LAND-USE FIRM FROM TWO DWELLING UNITS UP TO SIX DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE AND ALLOW THE CURRENT MAXIMUM DENSITY WITH A RESIDENTIAL SEA LAND MAINTAINING THE SIX DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE. [INAUDIBLE] WITHOUT THE NEED TO RESUME TO A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT OR PUD. PROBABLY AN HOUR CODE YOU HAVE TO RESUME TO PUD TO.

THIS WOULD SUFFICE FOR THE ZONING. IT ALSO INCLUDES THE TERM, WORKFORCE HOUSING, THEIR THE POLICIES. [INAUDIBLE] NOVEMBER 5, 2019, THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PUBLIC HEARING, STAFF TO WORKFORCE HOUSING THROUGH THE CREATION OF FLEXIBLE DESIGN STANDARDS AND DENSITY BONUSES AS WELL AS A FEW OTHER OPTIONS. THE COLLABORATION OF THE COMMISSIONER, VARIOUS STAKEHOLDERS IN VARIOUS STAFF RESULTED IN A THAT WOULD ALLOW THE FREE MARKET WORKFORCE HOUSING AND AFFIXED MARKET PRICE THE NEW ZONING DISTRICT REQUIREMENTS WOULD REQUIRE AN APPLICANT TO DEDICATE 40% OF THEIR OVERALL UNITS AS WORKFORCE UNITS.

THEY WOULD BE SOLD WITH A MAXIMUM SALES PRICE OF $210,000 OR BELOW.

JUST TO GIVE YOU A LITTLE BIT AND BREAK THAT DOWN TO MAKE SENSE OF THAT.

IT WOULD MEAN THAT A HOUSEHOLD MAKING APPROXIMATELY $65,000 PER YEAR, COULD AFFORD A HOME AT THIS PRICE POINT. I DID A LITTLE GOOGLING BEFORE I CAME IN HERE, AND YOUR AVERAGE ASSISTANT MANAGER AT MCDONALD'S ACE ABOUT $33,000 ANNUALLY. IF YOU HAD TWO ASSISTANT MANAGERS LIVING TOGETHER THEY COULD AFFORD THIS PRICE POINT. ANOTHER REQUIREMENT, THE UNIT MUST BE OWNER OCCUPIED UPON INITIAL TRANSFER OF TITLE. REQUIRING THE LAND OWNERS TO BEGIN CNSTRUCTION WITHIN TWO YEARS BACK TO THE ORIGINAL ZONING.

>> WE TOOK SOME DATA FROM THE PROPERTY APPRAISER, ABOUT FIVE YEARS WORTH OF PRICE POINTS OF NEWLY CONSTRCTED HOMES IN THE LAST FIVE YEARS ON WHAT THEY SOLD FOR.

THE NUMBER, THE QUANTITY, LOOKING AT THOSE WE SAW HOMES AT THE 195,000-DOLLAR RANGE AND BELOW REMAINS PRETTY LOW, AND CONSISTENT BUT I'M PLATEAUED AT THAT RATE.

I'M SORRY, THAT LOW INCOME BRACKET LOOKING IF IT IS THE 80-120% MODERATE INCOME BRACKET.

THAT IS THE HOME OF ABOUT 294,000. THEY CONSISTENTLY DROPPED OFF DRAMATICALLY. JUST TO GO THROUGH THE NEW STANDARDS OF THE LAND OF ELEMENT CODE THAT WOULD COME BEFORE YOU, AFTER AGENCY REVIEW. THE STANDARDS OF THIS WORKFORCE ZONING DISTRICT WOULD REDUCE ZONE SIZES AND LIFTS, REDUCE SETBACKS.

DUPLEXES AND TOWNHOMES, INCREASE LOT COVERAGE AND AND OF COURSE CITY BONDS.

JUST TO CONCLUDE, THE DEVELOPERS WOULD DONATE 40% OF THEIR OVERALL UNITS TO WORKFORCE HOUSING OR PRICE POINT AT $10,000 PER UNIT. THEY ENJOY ADDITIONAL DENSITY AND DESIGN STANDARDS, WITHOUT THE FREE MARKET PRODUCE HOUSING FOR THE PEOPLE THAT FALL WITHIN THAT 80-1 -- 100% IN ST. JOHN'S COUNTY. THAT IS 73,000 CURRENTLY, I THINK. AS OF 2019, 73,300. [INAUDIBLE]

[03:35:03]

THERE ARE SEVERAL STAKEHOLDERS HERE THAT PARTICIPATED IN THIS PROCESS, AS WELL AS STAFF.

IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS WE ARE HERE TO ANSWER QUESTIONS. >> QUESTIONS? THE TERM ZONING DISTRICTS, I LIKE THE IDEA OF AN OPPORTUNITY DISTRICT OR A COUPLE OF.

THIS WOULD APPLY COUNTYWIDE, DOES A BLANKET COUNTYWIDE? THE APPLICANT COULD FIND THE PIECE OF LAND THAT FELL WITHIN THE RESIDENTIAL OR BANKS TO THAT DISTRICT I COULD ASK HER TO BE REZONED. HOW DID THAT MORPH INTO A ZONING DISTRICT, A SPECIFIC AREA OF THE

COUNTY OR AN OPPORTUNITY ZONE INTO THE ENTIRE COUNTY. >> WE HAVE LOOKED AT SEVERAL OPTIONS. WE HAVE BEEN DIRECTED, THIS ONE'S GOING ON FOR TWO YEARS.

DIRECTED. IT IS ONE OF MANY TOOLS THAT WERE SUGGESTED AND SEVERAL WORK SHOTS AND CONVENTIONS THAT WE& HAVE ATTENDED. YOU KNOW, WE COME UP WITH THIS IDEA, FIND THE STAKEHOLDERS AND THE VARIOUS STAFF MEMBERS TO WHAT WE HAVE BEFORE YOU TODAY.

>> DON'T MISINTERPRET OR MISCONSTRUE WHAT I'M SAYING. ALL IN FAVOR OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING, AND WORKFORCE HOUSING. RATHER THAN TRYING IT, THEY COULD BE LARGE, AND A COUPLE AREAS OF THE COUNTY. IT IS NOT A GOOD IDEA. THAT IS A TREMENDOUS INCREASE.

IT'S ALARMING TO ME TO GIVE THE POTENTIAL INCREASE IN DENSITY OVER THE ENTIRE COUNTY OF SOMEBODY DEDICATES 40% OF THE DEVELOPMENT TO WORKFORCE HOUSING.

EVEN THOUGH I AM IN FAVOR OF AFFORDABLE AND WORKFORCE HOUSING, ABSOLUTELY.

>> LET ME ANSWER THIS REAL QUICK. THE ONLY INCREASE WE ARE GIVING WITHIN THE LAND USE IS RESIDENTIAL BE, INCREASING TWO UP TO SIX UNITS.

THAT IS THE MAJORITY OF OUR LAND IN ST. JOHN'S COUNTY. THE RESIDENTIAL SEE, THE MIXED-USE LAND-USE ALREADY MAINTAINED THOSE MAX DENSITIES. THOSE WILL NOT BE INCREASED AT ALL WE SAYING SAYING IS OPTIONAL FACTOR. IF YOU REZONED THE PUD YOU CAN HAVE THIS DENSITY. NOW WE ARE SAYING IF YOU REZONED TO WORKFORCE HOUSING DISTRICT

YOU CAN STILL HAVE THE SAME DENSITY. >> I UNDERSTAND THAT.

>> I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT IS CLEAR. >> IT IS.

>> IT IS PROPOSED AS A ZONING DISTRICT. THIS AGENCY IN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS HAS AUTHORITY TO REVIEW, IN TERMS OF COMPATIBILITY, IS THE PROPOSED AREA, OUR PROPOSED ZONING DISTRICT IN THIS PARTICULAR AREA COMPATIBLE WITH THE SURROUNDING COMMUNITY? AFFORDABLE DEVELOPMENTS LOOKING AT, IS THAT CLOSE TO COMMERCIAL TYPE AREAS? IS IT WITH -- WITHIN APPROPRIATE DENSITY THAT THE INCREASE WOULD NOT LOOK OUT OF SCALE WITH THE SURROUNDING DEVELOPMENT TO MORE OR LESS THE GREATER EXTENT.

THOSE ARE THINGS THAT WOULD OBVIOUSLY BE BUILT INTO THE CONSIDERATION FOR APPROVING OR RECOMMENDING FOR APPROVAL THIS PARTICULAR ZONING DISTRICT. THAT IS STILL WITHIN THE AGENCIES JURISDICTION, AND PROVISION. THAT'S NOT TAKING AWAY -- SOMEONE CANNOT SAY I WANT THIS BY RIGHT, THEY WOULD HAVE TO COME BEFORE THIS AGENCY, AND BOARD, TO YOU NOW, MAKE THEIR CASE THAT THIS IS AN APPROPRIATE PLACE AND HAS ALL OF THE NECESSARY INFRASTRUCTURE TO SUPPORT THE DENSITY, AND THE TYPE OF WORKFORCE HOUSING THAT

WOULD DEVELOP FROM IT. >> DO I UNDERSTAND YOU TO SAY THAT IT IS IN OUR PURVIEW TO

[03:40:07]

CERTAIN AREA OF THE COUNTY? >> UM, WELL, BECAUSE WHAT IT DOES IS IT CREATES -- THAT IS DIFFICULT TO DO AT THIS STAGE. THAT IS ALWAYS ON A CASE-BY-CASE ANALYSIS FOR EVERY SINGLE ZONING DISTRICT. ITS APPROPRIATE IN TERMS OF NECESSARY INFRASTRUCTURE TO SUPPORT THAT DEVELOPMENT. THIS ZONING DISTRICT IS APPROPRIATE, WHERE ADEQUATE INFRASTRUCTURE EXISTS WHERE, YOU KNOW, THERE IS WALKING DISTANCE TO COMMERCIAL AREAS, OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. IT'S A COMPLETE RECOMMENDATION THAT YOU CAN MAKE TO THE BOARD

AS WE SEND THIS UP FOR POTENTIAL TRANSMITTAL TO THE STATE. >> THANK YOU.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? SPEAKER CARDS? >> MR. BOB PORTER.

STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD. >> HI, I AM BOB PORTER, 4220 RACETRACK ROAD. I BROUGHT ALONG A LITTLE EXHIBIT THAT I WANT TO PUT UP ON THE

SCREEN. >> USE THE CENTER AND IT WILL SHOW.

>> I WANT TO SHOW YOU HOW -- [INAUDIBLE] WHAT WE WERE LOOKING AT WAS TO GET SOMETHING THAT WAS FOR THE LOW INCOME FAMILY OF 2-3 PEOPLE. IT COMES UP WITH TWO PEOPLE FOR A PRICE OF $197,500 OR THREE PEOPLE IT IS TO AND A $20,000. A SICKLY PICTURE NUMBER IN THE MIDDLE. THE IDEA BEING THAT SOMEONE IS AT 80% OF THE AREA.

WE HAVE FOLKS OUT THERE THAT CANNOT BUY A HOUSE IN ST. JOHN'S COUNTY.

THAT IS WHAT WE ARE TRYING TO DO. IT IS JUST ONE MORE ZONING CATEGORY. IF I FIND A SITE THAT I THINK WORKS FOR IT I STILL HAVE TO COME IN REZONED, BRINGING TO YOU GUYS, BRING IT TO THE COMMISSIONERS AND WE WILL HAVE ALL OF THE VARIOUS REASONS IF IT DOES OR DOESN'T. I WANTED TO SORT OF EXPLAIN TO THE COMMITTEE, WE HAD DEVELOPERS, WE HAVE BUILDERS, STAFF REPRESENTATIVES, WE ARE TRYING TO COME UP WITH, AND I'M WITH HORTON, WE HAVE PROBABLY BUILT THE MAJORITY OF THOSE HOMES THAT YOU SAW THAT WOULD NOT QUALIFY IN THE LAST COUPLE OF YEARS.

WE ARE TRYING TO FIND A WAY TO CONTINUE TO BE ABLE TO DO THAT COME AND GET SOMETHING THAT IS DEFINITE ENOUGH, IT WILL NOT SCARE BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS FROM TRYING TO MOVE ALONG WITH

IT. >> THANK YOU. I HAVE ONE QUESTION.

IN THE PROPOSAL, ATTACHMENT A, THE LAST SENTENCE ON THE PAGE IT IS DIFFICULT TO READ.

I WOULD ASK THAT YOU TAKE A LOOK AT THAT SENTENCE AND CLEAN IT UP A LITTLE BIT.

YOU NEED TO DO IT HERE. TRYING TO UNTANGLE IT IS DIFFICULT.

IT IS ATTACHMENT A, THE FIRST PAGE, IT IS THE SIXTH WHEREAS. >> I WILL DEFINITELY TAKE A LOOK

AT THAT AND WE WERE AT IT. -- REWORD IT. >> YOU WANT TO HAVE AN ADEQUATE

[03:45:06]

AND, AT THE SAME TIME YOU BALANCE IT OUT WITH OKAY, SOMEONE HAS A LOT OF EQUITY TO A HOME THAT THEY HAVE. IF YOU RESTRICT THEM FROM OBTAINING THE LIFT FOR 30 YEARS.

THERE IS A BALANCE HERE. >> ALL IT TAKES IS TURNING AFFORDABLE INTO AFFORDABILITY.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS ABOUT THIS? YES, MA'AM? COME FORWARD.

>> I WANT TO THANK THE STAFF. THEY HAVE WORKED TIRELESSLY ON THIS FOR TWO YEARS.

I CAN'T TELL YOU HOW MANY MEETINGS WE HAVE HAD ON THIS. THIS IS AN AMAZING FIRST STEP.

I SPEAK NOT ONLY FOR ME, PERSONALLY, BUT I HEAD UP THE CONTINUUM OF CARE FOR AFFORDABLE ALSO FOR THE BUILDERS ASSOCIATION IN ST. JOHN'S COUNTY.

ON BEHALF OF BOTH OF THOSE AGENCIES AS WELL. THIS IS AN EXCELLENT FIRST STEP

AND WE ASK THAT YOU PLEASE APPROVE THIS. >> I WILL ADD TO THIS.

YOU ARE THE SECOND MISTAKE I MADE TODAY. YOU'RE THE FIRST PERSON I GOT TO SPEAK TWICE. MY COLLEAGUES ARE GOING TO CRITICIZE ME LATER.

IT IS COMPENSATED FOR BY I MADE A MISTAKE, I FORGOT TO ASK THEM IF THEY HAD ANY EXPARTE

CONCERNING THIS ARE WE ARE EVEN. >> MR. CHAIR, THIS IS A COMPLETELY LEGISLATIVE PROCESS.

THIS APPLIES TO EVERYONE. IT COULD BE SOMEONE WHO THINKS THEY PROVIDE THIS TYPE OF ZONING DISTRICT CAN TAKE ADVANTAGE OF IT. THIS IS PURE POLICY DECISION.

>> ARE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FROM STAFF, OUR MEMBERS HERE? >> UM, MY QUESTION IS THIS, I KNOW THERE'S A FAIRLY SIGNIFICANT ORGANIZATION OF MANY PEOPLE.

BUILDERS ARE, FOR EXAMPLE. AS ONE OF OUR PGA MEMBERS ON THAT AND ET CETERA.

WHEN YOU HAVE BEEN MEETING WITH THE STAKEHOLDERS, HAS BEEN BEEN A LOT OF THOSE INDIVIDUALS ALSO,

OR ARE YOU TALKING PRIMARILY JUST BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS? >> WE HAVE BEEN MEETING WITH -- A LOT OF THE SUGGESTIONS AS WELL CAME FROM THE AFFORDABLE IN ST. JOHN'S COUNTY.

I AM TO LIAISON FOR THE COMMITTEE. >> I REMEMBER INITIALLY WHEN JERRY CAMERON WAS STILL HERE, AND THE HEAD OF OUR UNITED WAY, I THINK, THEY WERE CHAIR OF COMMITTEE, OR CHAIR OF THE COMMITTEE AND GAVE A MAJOR REPORT TO THE COUNTY COMMISSION.

WAS THAT THE ORGANIZATION THAT KEPT GOING ON? >> I FILLED IN FOR JERRY.

>> FILLED IN FOR JERRY?

THANK YOU. >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS BEFORE WE GOING TO AGENCY?

>> HADN'T SEEN ANYWAY IN YOUR PRESENTATION BUT THAT THIS WOULD ALSO ELIMINATE.

THE 25% OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENT. >> WILL SEE THAT IN THERE, YEAH. >> I THOUGHT IT WAS STATED IN

THE AGENDA ITEM? >> IT WAS. >> YOU ARE SAYING THAT IS NOT ELIMINATED? I DO THINK THAT LOW INCOME PEOPLE ALSO DESERVE TO HAVE SOME

OPEN SPACE AND SOME RECREATION. >> AFTER MUCH DISCUSSION WE DECIDED TO THROW BACK IN.

>> JUST TO CLARIFY. USUALLY SEE HER RECREATION REQUIREMENTS UNDER OPEN SPACE

[03:50:04]

TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT. ANY TYPE OF STRAIGHT ZONING. >> CAN I JUST FOLLOW UP ON THAT? SINCE THAT WAS APPARENTLY CHANGED, TWEAKED, OR WHATEVER, IT WAS ALSO STATED THAT TO QUALIFY FOR THIS, 40% OF THE UNITS IN THE DEVELOPMENT WOULD HAVE TO BE WORKFORCE HOUSING.

TO QUALIFY WOULD LIKE TO SEE IT BE AT 50% OR ABOVE AT THE THRESHOLD.

THANK YOU. >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FROM STAFF? THANK YOU. WE ARE IN THE AGENCY FOR COMMENTS.

I WOULD LIKE TO COMMENT. I THINK IT IS A WONDERFUL START. WE'RE GOING TO SEE THIS AGAIN, AND AGAIN IF THE COUNTY COMMISSIONER DECIDES TO APPROVE IT.

THIS IS A GREAT START. OTHER COMMENTS? HOLD YOUR HAND UP, BUT IF YOU WANT TO TALK BECAUSE MY SCREEN IS NOT WORKING. NO ONE WANTS TO TALK? SOMEONE WANT TO OFFER MOTION? GO.

I RECOMMEND COMPAMD 2020-01 AMENDMENTS TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TEXT FOR NEW WORKFORCE HOUSING ZONING DESIGNATION. TRANSMITTAL HEARING FOR PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN "A LAND USE ELEMENT" AND "C HOUSING ELEMENT" TO CREATE A DENSITY CATEGORY FOR THE NEW WORKFORCE HOUSING ZONING DESIGNATION. THESE AMENDMENTS WILL PROVIDE FOR AN INCREASE IN THE RESIDENTIAL B, RESIDENTIAL& C, AND MIXED USE LAND USE CATEGORIES FOR DEVELOPMENTS THAT

REZONE TO THE PROPOSED WORKFORCE HOUSING ZONING DESIGNATION. >> SECOND.

>> GO AHEAD AND VOTE. >> HOLD UP YOUR HAND IF YOU VOTED IN THE AFFIRMATIVE? PZA MR. CHAIR, IF YOU COULD DO A VOICE VOTE RATHER THAN A RAISING OF HANDS SO WE CAN HAVE IT ON THE RECORD THAT WE ARE RECORDING. JUST DO A ROLL CALL.

WHEN IS OUR NEXT MEETING? >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >> YOU ARE WELCOME.

WHEN IS OUR NEXT MEETING? ARE THERE STAFF REPORTS? AGENCY REPORTS?

[Reports]

>> THE FIRST MEETING IN MARCH. >> THE MEETING IS ADJOURNED.

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.