Apr 16, 2020 Planning and Zoning Agency

[Call to Order]

[00:00:05]

>> GOOD AFTERNOON, EVERYBODY AND TWHROMENT PLANNING AND ZONING AGENCY'S MEETING FOR APRIL 16, 2020, AND I HAVE 1:30 BY MY WATCH, AND I'M GOING TO CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER TODAY.

WE'RE GOING TO GO AHEAD AND TAKE A ROLL CALL. I'M GOING ON ROLL CALL EACHY MEMBER'S NAMES AND IF YOU WOULD SAY HERE OR AFFIRMATIVE OR NOT, THAT WOULD BE IDEAL.

SO BEGINNING WITH DR. MCCORMICK. >> .

BILL MCCORMICK, ARE YOU HERE? HERE WE BEING REMOTELY OAT TELEPHONE.

I DON'T HAVE AN AFFIRMATIVE FOR BILL. DR. HILSENBECK.

>> PRESENT. >> MR. WAINRIGHT? >> YES.

>> I CAN SEE YOU. MR. KOPPENHAFER IS CERTAINLY HERE.

MS. PERKINS. >> HERE. >> MR. ALAIMO.

>> HERE. >> AND MR. MATOVINA. >> HERE.

>> ALL RIGHT. I HAVE SIX OF THE SEVEN. NEXT WE'RE GOING TO START WITH A READING OF THE VIRTUAL QUORUM AND REMOTE PUBLIC PARTICIPATION FORM.

AS A PRELIMINARY MATTER, I AM MIKE KOPPENHAFER PLAN OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING AGENCY.

PERMIT ME TO CONFIRM ARE CONFIRM THAT ANY BORT AND STAFF MEMBERS WHO ARE NOT PHYSICALLY PRESENT CAN HEAR ME. MEMBERS, WHEN I CALL YOUR NAME PLEASE RESPOND IN THE AFFIRMATIVE. STAFF, WHEN I CALL YOUR NAME, PLEASE RESPOND IN THE

AFFIRMATIVE. MR. ROBESON. >> HERE.

>> MS. BISHOP. >> SHE IS HERE. SHE IS WITH THE STAFF.

>> ALL RIGHT. MR. MCCORMICK. >> PRESENT.

>> MS. MORRIS. >> . SHERRY AND PETER.

WAVING HI. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

GOOD AFTERNOON. THIS MEETING OF THE ST. JOHNS COUNTY PLANNING AND ZONING AGENCY IS BEING CONDUCTED CONSISTENT WITH DOVER DESANTIS' EXECUTIVE ORDER NUMBER 2069 SUSPENDING THE REQUIREMENT OF A PHYSICAL QUORUM AND PROVIDING FOR A VIRTUAL QUORUM DUE TO THE CURRENT STATE OF EMERGENCY IN THE STATE GIVEN THE OUTBREAK OF THE NOVEL CORONAVIRUS COVID-19. IN ORDER TO FURTHER MITIGATE THE TRANSMISSION OF THE CORONAVIRUS AND REDUCE THE RISK OF COVID-19 ILLNESS, THE BOARD BOARD OF Y COMMISSIONERS HAS ADOPTED PROCEDURES TO CONDUCT MEETINGS USING REMOTE PARTICIPATION THROUGH EMERGENCY PROCLAMATION NUMBER 2020-3 SO THAT THE PUBLIC HAS A MEANS TO COMMENT DURING THE MEETING WITHOUT PHYSICALLY ATTENDING. ALONG WITH PRIOR COMMUNICATIONS INCLUDING EMAIL, THE PUBLIC WILL BE ABLE TO COMMENT BY TELEPHONE WHILE WATCHING THE MEETING VIA G TV OR BY STREAMING POSTED ON THE COUNTY'S WEBSITE. THE WEBSITE ALSO PROVIDES THE TELEPHONE NUMBER TO USE TO CALL INTO THE MEETING. EVEN IF MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC DO NOT PROVIDE COMMENT, PARTICIPANTS ADVISED THAT PEOPLE MAY BE LISTENING WHO DO NOT PRESERVATIVE HAVE PROVIDE COMMENT, AND THOSE PERSONS ARE NOT REQUIRED TO IDENTIFY THEMSELVES.

PLEASE NOTE THAT THIS MEETING IS BEING RECORDED. FOR THOSE OF YOU CALLING IN TO COMMENT, IF YOU RECEIVE A BUSY SIGNAL, PLEASE CALL BACK. IN ADDITION, CONTINUE TO WATCH GTV WHILE YOU ARE COMMENTING BECAUSE THE THREE-MINUTE TIMER WILL BE VISIBLE TO YOU.

FINALLY, PLEASE MUTE YOUR PHONE WHILE YOU ARE WAITING TO COMMENT.

PLEASE BE AWARE THAT THERE WILL BE A FIVE TO NINE SECOND DELAY IN THE VISUAL PRESENTATIONS AND PERHAPS UP TO 30 SECONDS OF DELAY IN THE VERBAL RESPONSE TIMES.

IF WE EXPERIENCE ANY TECHNICAL DIFFICULTIES, WE WILL RECESS WHILE THEY ARE BEING RESOLVED AND THEN RESUME THE MEETING. MEETING MATERIALS. THERE ARE MATERIALS FOR THIS MEETING AVAILABLE ON THE COUNTY'S WEBSITE UNDER AGENDAS AND MINUTES.

ONCE YOU FIND THE MEETING AGENDA, YOU CAN CLICK ON AGENDA ITEM TO ACCESS ALL OF THE SUPPORTING MATERIALS. FINALLY, IF ANY MEMBER OF THE BOARD IS PARTICIPATING REMOTELY, EACH VOTE TAKEN IN MEETING WILL BE CONDUCTED BY ROLL CALL VOTE. AND WE'LL DO THAT IN THE SAME SEQUENCE WE DID IT CALLING THE ROLL. ALL RIGHT.

NEXT UP IS THE REASONED OF THE PUBLIC NOTICES STATEMENT WHICH WILL BE DONE BY MY VICE CHAIR,

MR. WAINRIGHT. >> AFTER A DEEP BREATH, PUBLIC NOTICE.

THIS IS A PROPERLY NOTICED PUBLIC HEARING HELD IN CONCURRENCE WITH REQUIREMENTS OF FLORIDA LAW. THE PUBLIC WILL BE GIFFEN AN OPPORTUNITY TO COMMENT ON TOPICS RELEVANT TO THE AGENCY'S AREA OF JURISDICTION AND THE PUBLIC WILL BE GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY TO OFFER COMMENTS AT A DESIGNATED TIME DURING THE HEARING. ANY MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC DESIRING TO SPEAK MUST INDICATE SO BY COMPLETING A SPEAKER CARD WHICH IS AVAILABLE IN THE FOYER.

[00:05:06]

SPEAKER CARDS MAY BE TURNED IN TO STAFF. THE PUBLIC SHALL SPEAK AT A TIME DURING THE MEETING ON EACH ITEM FOR A LENGTH OF TIME AS DESIGNATED BY THE CHAIRMAN, WHICH SHALL BE THREE MINUTES. SPEAKERS SHALL IDENTIFY THEMSELVES, WHO THEY REPRESENT, AND THEN STATE THEIR ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD. SPEAKERS MAY OFFER SWORN TESTIMONY. IF THEY DO NOT, THE FACT THAT TESTIMONY IS NOT SWORN MAY BE CONSIDERED BY THE AGENCY IN DETERMINING THE WEIGHT OR TRUTHFULNESS OF THE TESTIMONY.

TWO, IF A PERSON DECIDES TO APPEAL ANY DECISION MADE WITH RESPECT TO ANY MATTER CONSIDERED AT THE HEARING, SUCH PERSON WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS AND MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. ANY PHYSICAL OR DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE PRESENTED DURING THE HEARING, SUCH AS DIAGRAMS, CHARTS, PHOTOGRAPHS OR WRITTEN STATEMENTS, WILL BE RETAINED BY STAFF AS PART OF THE RECORD. THE RECORD WILL THEN BE AVAILABLE FOR OTHER BOARDS OF THE COUNTY AND ANY REVIEW OR APPEAL RELATED TO THE ITEM. III, BOARD MEMBERS ARE REMIND AT THE BEGINNING OF EACH ITEM THAT THEY MUST STATE WHETHER THEY HAD ANY COMMUNITY WAITION WITH THE APPLICANT OR ANY OTHER PERSON REGARDING THE SUBS OF SUBSTE ITEM OUTSIDE THE FORMAL LEARNING OF THE ANGST. IF SUCH COMMUNICATION HAS OCCURRED, THE AGENCY MEMBERS SHALL THEN IDENTIFY THE PERSON INVOLVED AND THE MATERIAL CONTENT OF THE COMMUNICATION.

IV, CIVILITY CLAUSE. WE WILL BE RESPECTFUL OF ONE ANOTHER EVEN WHEN WE DISAGREE.

WE WILL DIRECT ALL COMMENTS TO THE ISSUES. THE WE WILL AVOID PERSONAL

ATTACKS. >> THANK YOU. LEGAL.

>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A COMMENT. I THINK JUST ABOUT THE PROCESS FOR THE PZA, PARTICULARLY BECAUSE THERE HAVE BEEN SOME MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC, INCLUDING THE THOUSAND FRIENDS OF FLORIDA WHICH HAVE VOICED OBJECTIONS TO THE COUNTY PROCEEDING WITH LAND USE-RELATED AGENDA ITEMS DURING THE CURRENT COVID-19 PANDEMIC. AND I WOULD LIKE TO, I THINK, MAKE THE FOLLOWING REMARKS. FIRST OF ALL, FOR YOUR PLANNING AND ZONING AGENCY AGENDA TODAY, THAT EACH OF THE ITEMS HAS BEEN ADVERTISED AS PER STATE LAW AND AS PER THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE PROVISIONS. AND MR. ROBERSON, CAN YOU JUST AFFIRM THAT ON THE RECORD.

>> THAT IS CORRECT. >> RIGHT. AND IN ADDITION TO THOSE, A FURTHERMORE CMT NOTICE HAS GONE OUT TO THE PUBLIC ON HOW TO PARTICIPATE REMOTELY IN YOUR PLANNING AND ZONING AGENCY MEETING AND HEARING TODAY. SO I WANTED TO MAKE A NOTE OF THAT. AND I THINK AS THE AGENCY MEMBERS KNOW AND SOME MEMBERS OF THE LISTENING PUBLIC SHOULD KNOW THAT IN ADDITION TO THE STATE LAW REQUREMENTS, THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE REQUIREMENTS, WHICH HAVE BEEN MET FOR EACH OF YOUR ITEMS, THE CMT NOTICE, THERE'S ALSO THE NEIGHBORHOOD BILL OF RIGHTS, THERE ARE ALSO YOUR HEARINGS, INCLUDING THE DATE, TIME OF THE HEARING AND THE AGENDA ITEMS AND THE AGENDA ITEM BACKUP ARE POSTED ONLINE FOR THE PUBLIC IN ADVANCE OF THE MEETING. SO I DID WANT TO MENTION THAT, AND AS HAS ALWAYS BEEN THE CASE, IN ADDITION TO VOICING CONCERNS TO THE AGENCY BY VOICE, THERE HAS ALWAYS BEEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO VOICE THOSE BY EMAIL, WHICH COMMONLY THE AGENCY MEMBERS GET.

I DO BELIEVE ALSO THAT THERE IS A, KIND OF A SPECIAL EMAIL PUBLIC HEARING EMAIL LINE OR EMAIL ADDRESS TO SEND MATERIALS INTO, AND IT MAY BE THAT SOME OF THE AGENCY MEMBERS RECEIVE SOME

[00:10:02]

BUT WITH THOSE NOTES, MR. CHAIR, I JUST WANTED TO GIVE THE AGENCY MEMBERS AND THE MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC SOME CONFIDENCE IN THE MEETING AND HEARING TODAY. 6 6 I WILL SAY THE BOARD OF COUY COMMISSIONERS, THEIR PRIMARY GOAL IS THE PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE.

BUT TO THE EXTENT THEY REASONABLE Y CAN AVOID ECONOMIC DAMAGE AND FINANCIAL DAMAGE TO CITIZENS, RESIDENTS, PROPERTY OWNERS, BUSINESS OWNERS OF THE COUNTY, THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS WISHES TO DO SO. I JUST WANTED TO MENTION THAT AS A FINAL NOTE.

THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. >> THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT.

[Approval of Minutes]

MARCH 5TH AND MARCH 19TH, 2020. >> SO MOVED.

>> IS THAT ONE OF THE MEMBERS? SO MOVED. IS THAT WHAT I HEARD?

>> I MOVED, YES. THIS IS BILL MCCORMICK. >> BILL MCCORMICK IS HERE.

>> YEAH. >> IS THAT FOR BOTH OF THEM, BILL.

>> YES. >> WE HAVE A MOTION. DO WE HAVE A SECOND?

>> SECOND FROM MR. WANE RIGHT. LET'S GO THROUGH THE ROLL CALL, AGAIN APPROVAL FOR MARCH 5TH

AND 19TH. DR. MCCORMICK. >> A.

>> DR. HILSENBECK. >> YES. >> MR. WAINWRIGHT.

>> YES. >> MR. KOPPENHAFER YES. MS. PERKINS.

>> YES. >> THANK YOU. MR. ALAIMO.

>> YES. >> AND MR. MATOVINA. >> YES.

>> GREAT. THE MEETING IS APPROVED. YOU.

NEXT IS PUBLIC COMMENTS. THIS IS THE TIME WHEN THE PUBLIC CAN SPEAK ON ANYTHING THAT GOES NOT ON THE AGENDA TODAY. DO WE HAVE ANY PUBLIC COMMENTS ONLINE?

ALL RIGHT. >> THERE'S NO CALLERS FOR PUBLIC COMMENT AT THIS TIME.

>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. WE'LL CLOSE OUT PUBLIC COMMENTS WHICH WILL PUT NEWS AGENDA ITEM

[Item 1]

NUMBER 1. >> MR. CHAIR, THIS IS A QUASI-JUDICIAL ITEM.

SO I'D LIKE TO REMIND YOU IF YOU HAVE HAD ANY EX-PARTE COMMUNICATION OR MATE ANY SITE VISITS, IS NOW IS THE TIME TO KLIS CLOSE THOSE COMMUNICATION THE SUM AND SUBSTANCE OF THOSE

COMMUNICATIONS AND WHO THOSE COMMUNICATIONS WERE MADE WITH. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

LET'S GO THROUGH THE ROLL CALL. DR. MCCORMICK. >> NONE.

>> DR. HILSENBECK. >> NONE. >> MR. WAINRIGHT.

>> NONE. >> MR. KOPPENHAFER SAYS NONE. MS. PERKINS.

>> NONE. MR. ALAIMO. >> YES, MR. CHAIRMAN.

I SPOKE WITH THE APPLICANT OR THE OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE YESTERDAY ABOUT THE AGENDA ITEM.

>> OKAY. AND MR. ALAIMO -- I'M SORRY. MR. MAT MAT MAT MATOVINA.

>> NONE. >> EARTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT. THIS IS ITEM NUMBER 1, IT IS A REZONING 2020-01 AND IT'S CALLED CONTENT A1A PROPERTIES. THIS IS A REQUEST TO REZONE APPROXIMATELY .74 ACRES FROM COMMERCIAL GENERAL TO RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY RS 3 TO ALLOW FOR THREE SINGLE FAMILY HOMES. THIS IS AN AERIAL OF THE SUBJECT

[00:15:03]

BASED ON THE APPLICATION MATERIALS, THE OWNER INTENDS TO CONSTRUCT THREE SINGLE FAMILY HOMES ON THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. THREE PLATTED LOTS, AND UNDER CURRENT CG ZONING THE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE NOT ALLOWED UNLESS IT ISEST ACCESSORY TO A COMMERCIAL TYPE USE.

THE SUBJECT PROPERTY REMEMBER, AS I SAID IT'S COMPRISED OF THREE LOTS, LOTS 11, 12 AND 13 OF THE MIX LER SUB COMMISSION THAT IT EXPIRT WAS PLATTED IN 1952.

EACH LOT MEASURES APPROXIMATELY 63 NEAT BY 170 FEET IN LENGTH AND THERE'S APPROXIMATELY 10,700 SQUARE FOOT LOT AREA. LOTS ARE CONSIDERED NON-CONFORMING PER THE LAND

DEVELOPMENT CODE. THIS PROVISION SECTION 10.0302. >>> G1 OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE ACTUALLY EXEMPTS LOTS RECORD PRIOR TO THE ADOPTION OF THE CURRENT CODE MEETING THE MINIMUM LOT AREA, MIN MUN LOT WIDTH OF THE RS 3 ZONING DISTRICT SO THESE LOTS ARE NON-CONFORMING LOTS OF RECORD AND THEY CAN CONTINUE. THEY HAVE TO ANITA SET TBOORKS REQUIRED FOR RS 3. THIS IS JUST A SAMPLE OF THE LOTS.

LITTLE SITE PLAN THAT WAS ARRIVED BY THE APPLICANT. THERE'S BEEN SOME SIMILAR ZONINGS IN THIS GENERAL AREA. THE REZ REZONING 2017-15 WAS PREVIOUSLY APPROVED FOR THE ADJOINING RESIDENTIAL LOTS FOR ORDINANCE 1826-6 THAT SCWS REZONE LOT 16, VEAFN AND 18 FROM CG TO RS-3. THE SAME AS THIS REQUEST IS ASKING.

AND THEN IT ALSO ALLOWED 4 THE CONSTRUCTION OF THREE SINGLE FAMILY HOMES.

THIS IS JUST A COMPATIBILITY MAP KIND OF SHOWING THE GENERAL AREA AND SHOWING WHERE ORDINANCE 2818-6 IS. STAFF'S ANALYSIS SHOWED THAT THE RS3 WOULD ALLOW FOR THE PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL USES. IT IS COMBATSABLE WITH THE DESCRERVEL C COASTAL LANDS USE DESIGNATION. IT IS LOCATED IN AN AREA WITH SIMILARLY RESIDENTIAL ZONED LOTS, AND IT IS WOULD ELIMINATE THE COMMERCIAL USES THAT'S CURRENTLY ALLOWED UNDER THE CG.

STAFF HAS NOT RECEIVED ANY PHONE CALLS OR CORRESPONDENCE REGARDING THE REQUEST.

AND WE FINE THAT IT'S SUBSTANTIALLY MEETS THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND THE LAND DEVELOPMNT CODE, AND WE OFFER FOUR FINDING OF FACT TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL AND FOUR FINDINGS TO RECOMMEND DENIAL. THAT CONCLUDES THE SPHAF PRESENTATION, AND THEN IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, I WILL TRY TO ANSWER THEM.

AND I BELIEVE THE APPLICANT MAY BE HERE REMOTELY. >> OKAY.

WE'VE GOT A PRETTY HEAVE AGENDA SO I'M GOING TO ASK THE AGENCY MEMBERS TO HOLD QUESTIONS FOR STAFF UNTIL THE APPLICANT HAS PRESENTED, AND THEN WE CAN CAPTURE ALL THAT AT ONE POINT IN TIME. SO WITH THAT SAID, IF WE COULD HAVE THE APPLICANT STEP FORWARD

OR TURN ON. >> YES. BILL MILLER FOR CALDWELL BANKER PREMIER PROPERTIES. MY RESIDENCE IS AT 288 -- ROAD ST. AUGUSTINE, FLORIDA.

AND I'M WORKING ON BEHALF OF --

SOMETHING TO THAT PRESENTATION FROM TERESA? >> YES.

APPROXIMATELY TWO YEARS AGO WE REZONED THE ADJACENT PROPERTIES BEHIND IT WHERE THE INTENT IS TO BUILD VERY SIMILAR PRODUCT ON THOSE PROPERTIES THERE ON A1A. I'VE BEN FIXING THEM AND SELLING THEM AND WORKED WELL AND VERY COMPATIBLE WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD IN THAT AREA.

>> SO YOU WERE THE APPLICANT ON THE POARKS JUST WEST OF THIS, THIS PARCEL?

>> YES, SIR. >> THOSE HOMES ARE CONSTRUCTED. >> YES, SIR.

AND OCCUPIED.& >> WONDERFUL. ALL RIGHT.

DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING MORE TO ADD TO THAT PRESENTATION OF YOURS? >> NO, SIR.

STAFF HAS EVERYTHING THEY NEED TO MAKE A DECISION. >> IF YOU CAN HOLD ON THERE, WE'LL GO THROUGH AND SEE IF THERE'S ANY QUESTIONS FROM OUR END OF IT.

>> HAPPY TO DO SO. THANK YOU. >> I'M SORRY.

FIRST WE'RE GOING TO DO PUBLIC COMMENT ON THIS. >> I HAVE NO CARDS.

>> MR. CHAIR. >> YES, MA'AM. >> WE'VE BEEN IN EVIDENCE THERE'S MAYBE A ONE-MINUTE DELAY BETWEEN WHAT WE'RE DOING HERE AND WHAT THE PUBLIC IS SEEING AT HOME SO WE MAY WANT TO TAKE A MOMENT TO ALLOW PUBLIC COMMENT TO CATCH UP WITH US JUST TO MAKE

[00:20:04]

SURE. >> WE'LL GIVE PUBLIC COMMENT A MINUTE.

>> NO CALLERS FOR PUBLIC COMMENT AT THIS TIME. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

ALL RIGHT. THEN WE HAVE NO PUBLIC COMMENT. WE ARE BACK IN THE AGENCY FOR QUESTIONS FOR STAFF OR FOR THE APPLICANT. THE RIGHT WAY TO HANDLE THIS IS TO GO DOWN THE ROLL CALL LIST ONCE AGAINST. DR. MCCORMICK DO YOU HAVE ANY

QUESTIONSSOME. >> NO QUESTIONS. >> DR. HILSENBECK?

>> I HAVE NO QUESTIONS, BUT WOULD I LIKE TO SAY THAT WHAT I'M SEING ON MY TELEVISION AND HEARING ON THE TELEVISION VERSUS ON MY PHONE IS ABOUT A FIVE-SECOND DELAY.

MR. WAINRIGHT. >> NO QUESTIONS. >> I HAVE NO QUESTIONS.

MS. PERKINS. >> NO QUESTIONS. >> MR. ALAIMO.

>> NO QUESTIONS. >> AND MR. MATOVINA. >> MR. CHAIRMAN, I WAS WONDERING WHERE YOU'RE NON-CONFORMING GET A HAIRCUT MANAGIA HAIRCUT SO REGULARLY.

NO QUESTIONS. >> I ENJOY THE LEVITY. >> HE FEELS COMFORTABLE SAYING

THAT REMOTELY. >> IT'S SHIENG. I'M WATCHING MYSELF ON TV.

>> MR. CHAIRMAN. >> YES. >> I MOVE TO APPROVE.

>> ALL RIGHT. WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE. WE HAVE A SECOND.

>> SECOND. >> SECOND FROM MR. WAINRIGHT. ANY OTHER COMMENTS?

>> RIGHT. AND SO TECHNICALLY THIS WOULD BE A MOTION TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL AS SET FORTH IN THE AGENDA ITEM. MOTION RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF REZONING 2020-01 CONTENT A1A

PROPERTIES AS SET FORTH IN YOUR AGENDA ITEM. >> DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT, BILL?

>> YES. >> AND YOU AGREE? >> AND BASED ON FOUR FINDINGS OF

FACT, RIGHT. >> DO YOU WANT TO READ THE MOTION THAT CAPS CHEWER.

>> MOTION TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF REZONING 2020-01, CONTENT A1A PROPERTIES REQUEST TO REZONE APPROXIMATELY .74 ACRES OF LAND FROM COMMERCIAL GENERAL TO RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY RS-3

BASED ON FOUR FINDINGS OF FACT AS PROVIDED IN THE STAFF REPORT. >> WONDERFUL.

DID -- >> SECOND. >> STILL HAVE OUR SECOND.

MOTION AND SECOND. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? SEEING MON NONE, PLEASE VOTE.

I'M SORRY. WHAT AM I SAYING? BECAUSE ARCHIE THREW ME OFF.

WE'RE GOING TO DO A ROLL CALL. WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE. YES AND OBVIOUSLY PUSHING HA AND NO IS TO NOT A REVENUE. IN MR. MCKERR COULD CORE MECHANIC.

>> I'M GOING TO SAY YES. >> DR. HILSENBECK. >> J.

>> MR. WAINWRIGHT. >> MR. HOPE KOPPENHAFER SAYS YES.

MS. PERK IBS. >> . >> MR. ALAIMO.

>> YES. >> AND MR. MAT VEEN, MR. FUNNYMAN.

>> YES. YES, SIR. >> WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE.

UNANIMOUS. MOVING ON TO ITEM NUMBER 2. >> MR. CHAIR, THIS IS AS WELL AS

[Item 2]

AN EX PAR TO A HEARING IF YOU WILL DISCLOSE, PLEASE. >> BEFORE 73 START, SLEENLA, IF WE CAN GO THROUGH THIS ROLL CALL ONCE AGAIN. DOES ANYONE HAVE ANY EX PARTE TO

DECLARE? DR. MCCORMICK? >> NO.

>> DR. HILSENBECK. >> NO. >> MR. WAINRIGHT.

>> NO. >> MR. KOPPENHAFER NO. MS. PERKINS.

>> NONE. >> MR. ALAIMO. >> YES, MR. CHAIRMAN.

I DID HAVE A CONVERSATION WITH KAREN TAYLOR REGARDING THE AGENDA ITEM.

>> OKAY. AND MR. MATOVINA. >> NONE.

>> ALL RIGHT. SELENA. >> GOOD AFTERNOON.

[00:25:07]

MAY I PRESENT AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 2, THE REZONING 2020-02 FOR ENTERPRISE RENTAL SUITE PARKING.

-- STREET PARKING. THE REQUEST TO REZONE APPROXIMATELY 0 WANT 24 ACRES OF LAND FROM COMMERCIAL GENERAL INFOMERCIAL INTENSIVE. IT'S LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF US-HAWAII 1 SOUTH SOUTH OF STATE ROAD 212 WEST AND APPROXIMATELY 225 FEET SOUTH OF SHORE DRIVEN==. THIS IS A LOCATION MAP. YOU CAN SEE 312 WEST IS, SHORE DRIVE AND THE PROPERTY IS DOWN TO THE SOUTH. HERE'S THE AERIAL MAP.

LOOKING CLOCKWISE, THE PROPERTY ITSELF IS IN YELLOW. NORTH OF THAT IS THE CITGO GAS STATION AND OIL CHANGE FACILITY. DIRECTLY TO THE EAST OF THE PROPERTY IS RESIDENTIAL.

IT'S VACANT RESIDENTIAL. SOUTH IS CURRENTLY AT THE ENTERPRISE OFFICE.

AND WEST IS PONS DELOW LEE ON MALL WITH A BANK AND RETAIL SHOPS.

PONS DE LEON. THE REQUEST IS TO REZONE 0.24 ACRES FROM COMMERCIAL GENERAL TO COMECIAL INCENTIVE TOOL HOW ADDITIONAL RENL FLEET PARKING FOR ADJACENT VEHICLE RENTAL BUSINESS. THE PROPERTY IS CURRENTLY DEVELOPED WITH A MULTI-STORY OFFICE WHICH WAS BUILT IN 1973. THE OWNER PLANS TO DEMOLISH THE EXISTING BUILDING AND INSTALLING A NEW PARKING AREA FOR THE INTREER RENT RENT-A-CAR LOCAD IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT TO THE PROPERTY. THS IS THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP.

>> . THIS IS THE CURRENT ZONING MAP. A SIMILAR REZONING TO COMMERCIAL INTENSIVE WAS PREVIOUSLY APPROVED THROUGH ORDINANCE 2005-42 FOR THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY TO THE SOUTH WHERE THE ENTERPRISE OFFICE IS CURRENTLY LOCATED.

THE COMMERCIAL INTENSIVE ZONING WOULD ALLOW FOR TYPE OF USE PROPOSED WHICH IS AUTO, RENTAL AND STORAGE, AND THAT FALLS UNDER THE HIGH INTENSITY COMMERCIAL TAGHT CATEGORY.

HERE WE EVER A TABLE SHOWING THE MER MITTED IT'S CATEGORY OF COMMERCIAL INTENSIVE WHICH IS PROPOSED AND THEN THE COMMERCIAL GENERAL AND THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE TWO.

THE PROPOSED REZONING AND USE IS SIMILAR TO OTHERS IN THE GENERAL AREA.

THE PROPOSED USE IS COMPAT YOU WILL BE WITH THE MIXED USE FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION.

A 20-FOOT BUFFER WILL BE REQUIRED ALONG THE ADJACENT RESIDENTIAL ZONED FROT PROPERTY TO THE EAST. THEN HERE'S A TABLE SHOWING THE FUTURE LAND USE FOR THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS MIXED USE. NORTH OF IT'S MIXED USE. SOUTH IS MIXED USE.

WEST IS MIXED USE. BUT EAST IS RESIDENTIAL. SO THAT'S WHERE THE 20B BUFFER WILL BE COMING IN, IS ADJACENT TO THE RESIDENTIAL C FUTURE LAND USE AND THEN THE RESIDENTIAL RS3 ZONING WHICH IS A VACANT RESIDENTIAL. ALTHOUGH THIS OWNER PLANS ON TO USE THE SPACE FOR RENTAL FLEET PARKING, STAFF FINDS THAT THE REQUESTED REZONING DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS APPEAR COMPARABLE TO THE CURRENT ZONING. SO HERE WE HAVE A TABLE SHOWING THE STANDARDS FROM COMMERCIAL INTENSIVE WHICH IS PROPOSED TO COMMERCIAL GENERAL.

THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF STRUCTURE IS STILL THE SAME. THE SETBACKS ARE STILL THE SAME.

THE THE IMPERVIOUS SURFACE RATIO THERE'S A 5% DIFFERENCE. AND THEN THE FLOOR AREA RATIO IS THE SAME. SO IF THEY DECIDE TO BUILD BUILDING A THERE IT WON'T BE TOO MUCH A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE COMMERCIAL INTENSIVE GENERAL AND COMMERCIAL INTENSIVE ZONING.

STAFF HAS NOT RECEIVED ANY PHONE CALLS OR CORRESPONDENCE REGARDING THIS REQUEST.

STAFF FINDS THAT THE REQUEST APPEARS TO MEET THE PROVISION OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE. STAFF HAS PROVIDED FOUR FINDINGS OF FACT TO SUPPORT A MOTION FOR APPROVAL AND FIVE FINDINGS OF TO SUPPORT A MOTION FOR DENIAL. THAT CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION.

THE APPLICANT KAREN TAYLOR SHOULD BE PRESENT HERE TODAY WITH HER OWN PRESENTATION.

AND I AM HERE FOR ANY QUESTIONS. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. MS. TAYLOR.

GOOD TO SEE PEOPLE IN PERSONALG. >> I HAVE MY LITTLE SPRAY IN MY AUXILIARY POCK.

[00:30:04]

>> IS THAT THE ONLY THING FROM THE DISTILLERY? >> YOU CAN'T DRINK IT.

GOOD AFTERNOON. KAREN TAYLOR 77 SARAH GOTION A STREET, AND WITH ME IS MATT FILL EXPIPS HE IS THE CIVIL ENGINEER FOR CHAY COR FORWARD AND FOR THIS PROJECT SO HE IS HE IN CASE YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS THAT I CAN'T ANSWER. SELENA DID A PRETTY THOROUGH JOB SO I'LL TRY TO GO THROUGH THIS PRETTY QUICKLY. LOCATION-WISE YOU PROBABLY KNOW WHERE THIS IS. YOU PROBABLY HAVE DRIVEN BY THE A ZILLION TIMES.

AND IT'S KIND OF TUCKED IN THERE, AND THAT BUILDING HAS BEEN USED FOR I CAN'T TELL YOU HOW MANY DIFFERENT THINGS OVER THE YEARS. BUT AS SMEE EXPLAINED, IT'S SOUTH DID -- SHE EXPLAINED IT'S SOUTH OF THE IS CITGO AND NORF THE SITE THAT ENTERPRISE CURRENTLY USES FOR THEIR BUSINESS AND ACROSS FROM THE MALL.

AND I DID INCLUDE THAT BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY SHOWING THE EXISTING ENTERPRISE SITE KIND OF IN DASHED LINES TO GIVE YOU THE RELATION OF WHAT THE END RESULT IS GOING TO BE.

IT'S IN MIXED USE, AS MENTIONED, RIGHT UP NEXT TO REPRESENTATIVES, AND THEN THE TWO DIFFERENT THINGS. I HAVE VERY MUCH SIMILAR MAPS AS TO WHAT SHE HAS.

SO WILE KIND OF GO THROUGH THOSE. IT IS .24 ACRES, SO THAT'S ABOUT A QUARTER OF AN ACRE ON THE EAST SIDE OF US-1 AND IT IS PRO PROVIDE PARKING FACILITY FOR THE BUSINESS THAT EXHIBITS EXISTS TO THE SOUTH. AND IT'S NOT AN EXPANSION OF THE BUSINESS. THEY SIMPLY HAVE TOO MANY CARS AND THEY DON'T HAVE ENOUGH ROOM TO PARK THEM, AND I HAVE SOME PICTURES A LITTLE BIT LATER TO SHOW THAT.

RIGHT NOW IT HAS A 3,136 SQUARE FOOT BUILDING, AND THAT BUILDING AND THE PARKING TAKES UP THE ENTIRE SITE. THERE'S A LITTLE BIT OF GREEN SPACE IN FRONT OF IT, AND THAT'S ABOUT IT. AGAIN, DIFFERENT STANDARDS IN DIFFERENT TIME PERIODS FOR DEVELOPMENT. THERE IS A RETAINING WALL ALONG THE EAST SIDE, AND I'LL BE SHOWING YOU SOME PICTURES OF THAT AS WELL. SO THAT'S AND SO THAT'S US, THE DIFFERENCE IN ELEVATION BETWEEN ST. AUGUSTINE SOUTH AND THIS, AND THERE ALSO WILL BE A BUFFER, AS SELENA MENTIONED, THAT DOES NOT INCLUDE THE RETAINING WALL SECTION BUT WILL MEET THE 20 FEET. IT IS A MIXED USE AREA, AND IT CERTAINLY HAS A LOT OF SIM HAR BUSINESSES ALL UP AND DOWN USE 1. THIS GIVES YOU A REALLY CLOSE VIEW OF IT, AND AS MENTIONED, JUST KIND OF FOR THE -- -- I GUESS THAT'S NOT -- THERE IT IS.

ANYWAY, AS I MENTIONED, THERE'S THE SITE, AND YOU CAN SEE ACTUALLY THE BUILDING AND THE PARKING AREA ACTUALLY GOES BACK TO THAT RETAINING WALL THAT'S IN THE BACK.

AND THIS IS THE PARKING THAT IS FOR THIS PARTICULAR BUILDING. YOU CAN SEE THE ENTERPRISE BUILDING HERE, AND YOU CAN ALSO SEE THE LIMITS OF WHAT THEY HAVE FOR PARKING AS WELL.

THIS KIND SHOWS THAT SITE, ADDS THAT SITE, AND THERE'S A REAL BRIEF LIGHT LINE THAT SHOWS THAT EASEMENT THAT GOES ACROSS. THIS IS A COPY OF THE, BASICALLY OF THE SITE PLAN AND IT SHOWS WHAT'S BEING ADDED TO. THERE'S EXISTING PARKING IN THE MIDDLE THAT IS A PARKING AREA, AND THEN THEY'RE BASICALLY ADDING DDITIONAL PARKING, THE PARKING TO HERE, AND A CONNECTION TO THE OTHER SITE. I DID INCLUDE A COPY OF THE LANDSCAPE PLAN THAT'S BEEN UPDATED. WE DID NOT SHOW A FENCE ON THIS PLAN BEFORE.

THERE IS A FENCE IN THE EXISTING SITE, AND THIS WOULD BE THE EXISTING SITE, THIS WOULD BE THE SITE YOU'RE LOUNGE AT LOOK. SO THERE ISN'T A FENCE BACK IN HERE BUT WE'RE PUTTING A FENCE ALONG THE PROPERTY LINE AS WELL. JUST SOME PICTURES, AS I SAID. THIS IS THE EXISTING ENTERPRISE SUBJECT PROPERTY KIND OF BEHIND IT, WHICH WOULD BE TO THE NORTH. THIS IS THAT PARTICULAR PROPERTY, AND THAT BASICALLY SHOWS THE GREEN SPACE THAT EXISTS ON THAT SITE.

THAT'S THE BUILDING, AND AS I SAID IT'S BEEN USED FOR A LOT OF DIFFERENT THINGS.

THIS IS A PICTURE IN THE BACK, AND IT SHOWS THAT THEIR PARKING RIGHT NOW GOES BACK ACROSS THAT EASEMENT AND INTO THAT RETAINING WALL AREA AS THE FENCE GOES ALONG THE TOP OF THE RETAINING WALL. WHICH THIS IS LOOKING SOUTH, SO THE SAME THING TOWARDS THE EXISTING PROPERTY. THIS IS JUST THE BACK AND WHERE IT GOES BETWEEN THE TWO SITES,

[00:35:05]

AND AGAIN, I KIND OF CLOSED THIS JUST TO SHOW THAT THEY DO HAVE VERY LIMITED PARKING ON-SITE.

SO WE FEEL LIKE THIS IS A VERY LOGICAL CHOICE. IT'S IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT TO EXISTING BUSINESS. THERE'S A NUMBER OF OTHER TYPES OF BUSINESSES.

IT'S VERY CONSISTENT WITH THOSE ALONG THAT AREA. AND IT'S CERTAINLY NOT A VERY INTENSE ADDITION FOR THIS. AND JUST AS A POINT, THE SITE, EVEN AT A QUARTER ACRE, EVEN IF YOU COMBINE IT WITH THE OTHER ONE, AND ENTERPRISE GOES WAY IN THE FUTURE, IT'S REALLY SMALL FOR ANY REALLY INTENSE USES, AND THE INTENSE USES THAT ARE ALONG THERE, LIKE THE CITGO OR SOMETHING, WOULDN'T FIT ON THOSE SITES THESE DAYS WITH THE REQUIREMENTS FOR STORM WATER AND FOR LANDSCAPING AND FOR ALL THE DIFFERENT THINGS. SO IT WILL REMAIN -- IT WON'T BE TAKEN ADVANTAGE OF THOSE. WE FEEL LIKE THIS IS COMPATIBLE, A VERY LOGICAL EXTENSION, VERY SIMILAR HAD TO OTHERS IN THE NORTH AND SOUTH. AS WE SAID, WE ARE BUFFERING THE RESIDENTIAL. THIS IS NOT A HOUSE ON THOSE TWO LOTS BEHIND WHERE THE RETAINING WALL IS, BUT THERE WILL BE ADEQUATE BUFFERING IF THEY EVER DO DECIDE PO FOWT ONE POINT AND SO WITH THAT, WE FEEL IT'S CONSISTENT WITH THE GOALS AND POLICIES AND OBJECTIVES OF THE COMP PLAN AND THE LDC, AND WE WOULD REQUEST A RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL.

AGAIN WANT MATT'S WITH ME IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS. >> OKAY.

I'M BEING TOLD THAT WE'RE GOING TO ASK FOR PUBLIC COMMENT, AND DURING THAT DOWN TIME AS WE WAIT THAT MINUTE OR SO, WE'RE GOING TO SEE WHAT QUESTIONS THE AGENCY HAS HERE.

SO IF WE CAN ASK FOR PUBLIC COMMENTS, YOU OF NO CARDS, I ASSUME.

>> NO. >> IF WE CAN GET THEM IN THE BACK TO WORK THAT MAGIC OUT, WE'LL GO THROUGH THE ROLL CALL AND SEE IF ANYONE HAS ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF OR THE

APPLICAT. DR. MCCORMICK, QUESTIONS? >> DR. MCCORMICK DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? YES OR NO I TAKE THAT AS A NO. THERE DR. HILSENBECK.

>> NO QUESTIONS. >> THANK YOU, MR. WAINRIGHT, ANY QUESTIONS?

>> YES, TWO. FOR BOTH THE APPLICANT AND PLANNING STAFF.

THE FIRST ONE, WHY IS A CHANGE NECESSARY? >> THE CHANGE IS NECESSARY BECAUSE IT'S A EXTENSION OF A BUSINESS THAT'S REQUIRED TO HAVE CI ZONING, SO IF IT WAS PARKING FOR AN OFFICE BUILDING, IT WOULD BE FINE. BUT THE RENTAL CAR BUSINESS HAS TO HAVE THE CI ZONING, SO SINCE IT'S GOING TO SERVE THAT, IT HAD TO MATCH.

>> THANK YOU. SAME QUESTION FOR BOTH OF YOU. GIVEN THE CHANGE IN THE ZONING, WHICH WILL CARRY WITH THE DEED, I EXPECT, IS THERE ANY DELETERIOUS USE THAT YOU'RE NOT COVERING HERE THAT MIGHT AFFECT NEGATIVELY THE ADJACENT BUSINESSES?

>> AGAIN, I DON'T BELIEVE SO. AND THE TWO SITES COMBINED ARE LESS THAN A HALF AN ACRE, SO YOU'RE NOT GOING TO HAVE A TRUCK STOP OR ANY LARGE KIND OF BUSINESS THAT WOULD GENERATE LOTS OF TIME, LOTS OF LIGHTS AND NOISE, AND THOSE TYPES OF THING THINGS.

SOME OF THE MORE INTENSE USES IN CI ALSO ARE NOT NECESSARILY BY RIGHT.

A LOT OF THEM ARE BY SPECIAL US USE. SO YOU HAVE ANOTHER BITE COMING IN AND SEEING YOU BEFORE YOU WOULD GET APPROVAL OF SOME OF THOSE, LIKE BARS AND TAVERNS.

>> MR. WAINRIGHT, IF I MAY. MICHAEL ROBERSON. THAT'S ONE OF THE REASONS THE STAFF PUT THAT CHART IN THERE, SO YOU COULD TAKE A LOOK, AND REALLY YOU'RE ADDING THE HIGH INTENSITY COMMERCIAL USE CATEGORY TO THAT ZONING DISTRICT.

THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE DOING. AND HIGH INTENSITY COMMERCIAL USES CAN BE, ALTHOUGH IT'S A VERY SMALL SITE WUSH SOMEWHAT LIMITED. YOU CAN DO CAR LOTS, THOSE TYPES OF THINGS. SOMETIMES LOUDER NOISES LATE INTO THE NIGHT TYPE OF THINGS,

[00:40:02]

>> I WAS -- FOR EXAMPLE, A CONCRETE CRUSHER MANT, BUT THAT'S NOT ALLOWED IN THAT CATEGORY. BUT I THOUGHT I WOULD ASK ANYWAY.

DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING TO ADD TO THAT, MS. RANDALL? >> NO, THE SIZE OF THE LOT WAS PRETTY MUCH THE DETERMINING FACTOR BETWEEN THE CI AND THE CG.

THE HIGH INTENSITY ITEMS LIKE THE BUILDING SUPPLY CENTER, SUPER CENTERS, IT'S LARGE ITEMS.

AND THEN THE LOT ITSELF IS NOT, THAT. >> THANK YOU BOTH, ALL THREE.

>> I HAVE NO QUESTIONS. FOR EITHER STAFF OR THE APPLICANT.

MS. PERKINS. >> NO QUESTIONS. >> MR. ALAIMO.

>> YES. APPARENTLY CAN WE FIND OUT HOW MANY ADDITIONAL PARKING SPOTS ARE GOING TO BE ADDED WITH THE DEMOLITION OF THE BUILDING. AND WHEN IS THE PROJECT GOING TO

BE STARTED? >> I DID FIND OUT, MATT SAID IT'S ABOUT 24 THAT THEY CAN STACK. IT'S NOT EXACTLY PARKING SPACES, PER SE.

YOU KNOW, THEY WOULD BE HOLDING THE CARS OR WHATEVER. I BELIEVE THEIR INTENTION IS AS SOON AS HE GETS THE CONSTRUCTION PLANS APPROVED, THAT THEY'RE READY TO START, BUT LET ME VERIFY. HE'S SHAKING HIS HEAD. SO, YES, I KNOW HE'S GOT THE CONSTRUCTION PLANS IN AND IS NOW IN A RESUBMITTAL, SO AS SOON AS THIS IS DONE, I THINK THEY'RE

READY TO GO BREAK GROUND. >> THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU.

>> QUESTION FOR MR. MATOVINA. >> NONE. >> THANK YOU.

ALL RIGHT. DID WE HAVE ANY PUBLIC SPEAKERS? >> NO CALLERS FOR PUBLIC

COMMENT. >> THAK YOU VERY MUCH. ALL RIGHT.

WE ARE BACK IN THE AGENCY, THEN, FOR THOUGHTS OR COMMENTS OR A MOTION.

>> MIKE. >> YEP. >> AM I UP? I STARTED TO MAKE COMMENT BEFORE, BUT I'M GLAD I DIDN'T BECAUSE OTHER PEOPLE HAD A CHANCE TO ASK QUESTIONS. I USE THAT ENTERPRISE SITE QUITE OFTEN FOR RENTAL CARS, AND IN TERMS OF THE SPACE THAT THEY HAVE RIGHT NOW, THEY CERTAINLY CAN USE THAT ADDITIONAL SPACE, BASED ON MY EXPERIENCE OVER THERE. SO I'M PREPARED TO MAKE A

MOTION. >> PLEASE DO. >> MOTION TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF REZONING 20-02, ENTERPRISE RENTAL FLEET PARKING REZONING REQUEST, REQUEST TO REZONE APPROXIMATELY 0 .24 ACRES OF LAND FROM COMMERCIAL GENERAL TO COMMERCIAL INTENSIVE BASED UPON

FOUR FINDINGS OF FACT THAT'S PROVIDED IN THE STAFF REPORT. >> WE HAVE A MOTION AND EVE HAVE WE HAVE A SECOND FROM MR. WAINWRIGHT. I HEAR NO OTHER DISCUSSION.

WE'LL GO AHEAD AND VOTE. I HEAR NO OTHER DISCUSSION, SO LET'S GO THROUGH THE ROLL CALL LIST TO VOTE. WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE REMEMBER, RECOMMENDED APPROVAL.

DR. MCCORMICK. >> YES. >> DR. HILSENBECK.

>> YES. >> MR. WAINRIGHT. >> YES.

>> MR. KOPPENHAFER SAYS YES. MS. PERKINS. >> YES.

>> MR. ALAIMO. >> YES. >> AND MR. MATOVINA.

>> YES. >> ALL RIGHT. MOTION CARRIES UNANIMOUS.

[Item 3]

MEGAN CUNY? >> YES. >> WOW.

I NEVER GET THAT RIGHT. WELL, WELCOME. >> THANK YOU.

GOOD AFTERNOON, AGENCY MEMBERS, MEGAN CUNY PRESENTING AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 3, REZONING APPLICATION 2020-3 PFIZER BOULEVARD. THE REQUEST IS TO REZONE APPROXIMATELY 370 ACRES OF LAND FROM OPEN KOURIL RIEWR AND INDUSTRIAL WAREHOUSE TO EXPHECIAL INTENSIVE. AS YOU CAN SEE FROM THE AERIAL MAP, THIS SUBJECT PROPERTY IS CURRENTLY UNDEVELOPED AND IS LOCATED ON IEWRVES USE OF 1 NORTH JUST NORTH OF CHASE WOOD DRIVE AND SOUTH OF ST. AUGUSTINE ROAD. THE REQUEST IS TO REZONE APPROXIMATELY 3.7 AREAS, OF LAND FROM OPEN INDUSTRIAL WAREHOUSE TO COMMERCIAL SPHEFN TO ALLOW FOR COMMERCIAL INTENSIVE USES. AND YOU CAN SEE FROM THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP THAT IT'S LOCATED ALONG A MIXED USE DISTRICT CORRIDOR. FROM THE ZONING MAP YOU CAN SEE OTHER COMMERCIAL INTENSIVE PROPERTIES AS WELL AS INDUSTRIAL WAREHOUSE PROPERTIES IN THE ARE AREA. COMMERCIAL INTENSIVE ZONING ALLOWS HIGH INTENSITY USES, INCLUDING YOU THE WHEN THE BUTTS NOT LIMITED TO GAS STATIONS, DRIVE-THROUGH RESTAURANTS, CAR WASH FACILITIES, OUTDOOR STORAGE, VETERINARY ANIMAL HOSPITALS.

BY RESOAK FROM INDUSTRIAL WAREHOUSE AND OPEN RURAL TO COMMERCIAL INTENSIVE, THE

[00:45:02]

THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED ALONG THE MIX USE CORRIDOR WITH A POTENTIAL TO DEV A VARIETY OF COMMERCIAL USES. COMMERCIAL INTENSIVEY DESIGN STANDARDS WOULD APPLY, AND A 20 FEET INCOMPAT A BIT UNIVERSITY OF MAY BE RUR TO RESIDENTIAL ZONING TO THE EAST.

AS YOU CAN SEE FROM THE COMPATIBILITY MAP, THE SUBJECT PROPERTY BEING REQUESTED TO BE REZONE TO COMMERCIAL INTENSIVE. THE PROPERTY TO THE NORTH IS SOAFNED INDUSTRIAL WAREHOUSE, WHICH IS CURRENTLY BEING USED FOR STORAGE WAREHOUSING AND AUTOMOTIVE REPAIR SHOP.

TO THE EAST THAT RESIDENTIAL THOUGHT I WAS TALKING ABOUT FOR FUTURE SINGLE FAMILY WHICH WOULD REQUIRE THAT OF THE 20 FEET COMPATIBILITY BUFFER. THE SOUTH PROPERTY IS ZONED OPEN RURAL BUT IT'S GOING TO BE A FUTURE RIGHT-OF-WAY. AND THE PROPERTY TO THE WEST ACROSS US-1 IS THE CORDOVA PALMS PUD WHICH IS APPROVED FOR IS HAVE 50 RESIDENTIAL UNITS AND 150,000 SQUARE SPHEEFT FEET OF COMMERCIAL. HERE IS THE DEVELOPMENT CRITERIA THAT WOULD APPLY FOR THE COMMERCIAL INTENSIVE. THE SETBACKS AND THE MAXIMUM IMPERVIOUS SURFACE RATIO IS 75%. STAFF HAS NOT RECEIVED ANY CORRESPONDENCE OR PHONE CALLS REGARDING THE REQUEST OF THE REZONING OF THIS PROPERTY. STAFF DOES NOT OBJECT TO THE RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL OF THE REZONING APPLICATION 2020-3 PLASNER HAVE HAD BOULEVARD.

SPHAF FINDS THAT IT SUBSTANTIALLY MEETS THE KAMENEV LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE.

STAFF FOUND FOUR FINDINGS OF FACT TO SUPPORT THE MOTION. THAT CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION.

THE AP PRANT IS PRESENT. I'LL STAND BY FOR ANY QUESTIONS. >> IF WE COULD HAVE THE

APPLICANT STEP FORWARD WITH PLEASE. >> MR. CHAIR, I'LL WHIEGHT WAITING FOR APPLICANT COULD YOU DISCLOSE ANY EX-PARTE COMMUNICATIONS, PLEASE.

>> LET'S GO THROUGH EX PAR TO A COMMUNICATIONS. DR. MCCORMICK.

DR. MCCORMICK. DR. HILSENBECK. >> I'M SORRY.

I'M MUTED. I SAID NONE. >> DR. HILSENBECK.

>> NONE. >> MR. WAINRIGHT. >> NONE.

>> MR. KOPPENHAFER HAS NONE. MS. PERKINS. >> NONE.

>> MR. ALAIMO. >> NONE. >> AND MR. MATOVINA.

>> NONE. >> OKAY. MS. TAYLOR, YOU'RE UP AGAIN.

>> GOOD AFTERNOON AGAIN. >> LONG TIME. >> KAREN TAIR 77 SARAGOSS A STREET AND I'LL GO KIND QUICK ON THIS ONE AGAIN. THIS IS PRETTY STRAIGHTFORWARD.

I DID THE ZONING A LITTLE WHILE AGO TO THE SOUTH OF THIS. I'M SURE YOU ALL PROBE REMEMBER THAT. IT'S KIND OF A LONG RANGE ONE. IT JUST GIVES YOU AN IDEA SHOWING YOU WHERE THE EVENTUAL 313 KIND OF COMES IN RELATION TO THIS PROPERTY.

I THOUGHT THAT WAS A GOOD AERIAL SHOWING THAT. AND THIS IS DEFINITELY WITHIN A CERTAIN AREA, DRIVE BY THE ALL THE TIME UP. IT'S FULLY WITHIN A MIXED USE AREA, AS MEGAN MENTIONED. AND I DID POINT OUT THAT THE -- AND READ THE OTHER PROPERTY THAT WAS REZONED TO THE SOUTH THAT WE RECENTLY, REASONABLE DID. AND IN SHOWING THESE TOGETHER AND THE ZONING, TOO, YOU DO SEE THE OR PIECE IN THE MIDDLE WHICH WILL REMAIN.

WE DID TALK TO THE COUNTY FOR A LITTLE BIT ABOUT COMBINING THE TWO SITES AND PROVIDING AN EASEMENT RATHER THAN LEAVING A ROADWAY THERE. AND THEY GOT WITH D HAVE TO TFT AND SAID, NO WE STILL WANT A ROADWAY THERE, SO THEY WILL BE SEPARATED BY THE FUTURE ROADWAY, AND THEIR PLANS ARE TO DEVELOP THE PORTION OF AT A AS A AND DO THAT TOGETHER IN ORDER TO PROVIDE ACCESS TO THEIR SITES. SO IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE, THIS IS 3.7 ACRES ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THAT FLAGLER BOULEVARD, WHICH IS UNOPENED. AND AS MENTIONED, THE ADJACENT PROPERTY IS CI AND IW. IT'S VERY HEAVY. THE SMALL PARCEL ON THE NORTH SIDE IS PART OF THAT INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT, AND THE LARGER PARCEL, AGAIN A PART OF THE ENTRANCE TO THAT SANTIAGO PARK SUBDIVISION. SO THE SMALL PARCEL WILL STILL

[00:50:01]

BUT AGAIN, WANTS TO DO THE SAME KIND OF COOPERATIVE EFFORT AS WITH THE OTHER ONE.

THAT IS A CLOSER VIEW, KIND OF GIVES YOU AN AERIAL. ONE HUCK TO NOTE, TOO, IS THE SITE, THE WAY THAT IT'S IT'S LAID OUT, IT'S GOT A LOT OF FRONTAGE BUT IT HASSLE VERY LITTLE IN THE BACK SO IT'S STUL EXPOSURE TO THE SCRECIAL IS ONLY THOSE TWO LOTS.

THOSE, OF COURSE, DO HAVE TO BE BUFFERED, BUT IT'S NOT AS -- THE OTHER ONE ACTUALLY HAS A LOT MORE, A LOT MORE EXPOSURE TO THE RESIDENTIAL BUT HE'S PURCHASED A NUMBER OF THOSE LOTS BECAUSE THERE'S A LOT OF WETLANDS TO BE BUFFER. AGAIN KIND OF SHOWING THE TWO TOGETHER, CLOSE UP. AGAIN WE FEEL LIKE THIS IS ALSO VERY COMPATIBLE.

WE'VE GOT THE SAME KIND OF ZONING IN THE AREA. I THINK, TOO, COMBINING WITH THE OTHER ONE IT WILL -- THERE TE COMPATIBLE WITH EACH OTHER. AGAIN, IT HAS THE VERY SMALL AND LIMITED AMOUNT OF SPACE THAT IS NEXT TO THE RESIDENTIAL. AND WITH THAT WE FEEL LIKE IT'S CONSISTENT WITH THE GOALS AND POLICIES AND OBJECTIVES OF THE COMP PLAN AND WILL BE WITH ALL THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE. WITH THAT OBJECT I'LL REQUEST THAT THIS -- THIS IS ALSO ANOTHER ONE WE ARE REQUESTING FOR RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL,

AND I'M HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. >> THANK YOU.

AS WE GO TO QUESTIONS, WE'LL ASK DO YOU HAVE ANY PUBLIC SPEAKER CARDS? IF WE CAN HAVE THE TECHNICAL FOLKS IN THE BACK SEE IF WE HAVE ANY PUBLIC SPEAKERS.

AND GIVE THEM A MINUTE OR TWO. WE'LL GO THROUGH QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT AND FOR STAFF AT THIS POINT. ROLL CALL IS DR. MCCORE MUCK,IEST QULES.

>> NONE. >> DR. HILSENBECK. >> DR. HILSENBECK, ANY

QUESTIONS? >> I HAVE NO QUESTIONS. >> MR. WAINRIGHT.

>> NO. >> I HAVE A QUICK ONE. SO YOU HAVE NO USE ON THIS, NO POTENTIAL SITE PLAN OR ANYTHING, RIGHT? WHICH IS A LOT LIKE THE PROPERTY

TO THE SOUTH YOU GUYS LOOKED AT. >> YEAH, THE ONE TO THE SOUTH SHE'S GOING TO DO LIKE A FLEX SPACE ON THE FRONT, AND YOU STILL HAVE TO COME BACK 150 FEET, SO BASICALLY THAT'S WHERE THEIR DRIVEWAY ENTRANCE AND SO THEY'RE IMPROVING 150 FEET OF THAT.

AND HE'S AGREED WITH THEY HAVE AN AGREEMENT TOGETHER TO DO THAT.

>> MS. PERKINS, QUESTIONS? >> NONE. >> MR. ALAIMO?

>> NONE. >> AND MR. MATOVINA. >> RIGHT.

DO WE HAVE ANY PUBLIC SPEAKERS VIA TECHNOLOGY? >> NO CALLS FOR PUBLIC COMMENT.

>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU, KAREN. I THINK WE'RE BACK IN THE AGENCY, THEN. DO A ROLL CALL OR WHOEVER WANTS TO MAKE A MOTION OR DISCUSSION.

>> MOVE APPROVAL, GREG MATOVINA. >> MR. MATOVINA HAS A RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL.

>> SECOND. >> AND WE HAVE A SECOND. IS THAT GOOD ENOUGH?

>> AGAIN, IS THAT FOR APPROVAL CONSTRUED AS THE ADOPTING THE MOTION TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL AS

SET FORTH IN YOUR AGENDA PACKAGE 1234. >>

1234? >> YES. >> THANK YOU.

>> THAT'S QUESTION ON THE SECOND. >> WE HAVE A MOTION.

WE HAVE A SECOND. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? SPEAK UP.

OTHERWISE, WE'LL TAKE A ROLL CALL VOTE AGAIN. DR. MCCORMICK.

>> YES. >> DR. HILSENBECK. >> YES.

>> MR. WAINRIGHT. >> YES. >> MR. KOPPENHAFER IS YES.

MS. PERKINS. >> YES. >> MR. ALAIMO.

>> YES. >> AND BRINGING UP THE REAR, MR. MUST BE YES.

>> YES. >> WILL. >> WE .

WE HAVE ANOTHER UNANIMOUS. THAT'S ITEMS NUMBER 3. THANK YOU.

[Item 4]

>> MS. KATZ COULD NOT BE WITH US TODAY. THIS IS ITEM NUMBER 4, A MAJOR

[00:55:03]

THE PROPERTY IS DESIGNATED MIXED USE. ZONE PUD.

AND THE APPLICATION SUMMARY INCLUDES THE REQUEST TO ALLOW FOR COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES WITHIN THE WORLD COMMERCE CENTER TO SERVE ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE, BEER AND WINE, FOR ON PREMISE CONSUMPTION WITHIN 100 FEET OF AN ESTABLISHED SCHOOL. IT'S TO ALLOW FOR SIDEWALK CAFES AND OUTDOOR SEATING AND INDUSTRIAL TIEWSES PARCEL T AND UPDATE THE MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN TO INCLUDE ALL OF THE EMERGENCY DECLARATION EXTENSIONS AND LAND USE CONVERSIONS.

THAT'S BEEN APPROVED. THERE IS AN ESTABLISHED SCHOOL THAT IS ACROSS FROM INTERNATIONAL GOLF PARKWAY FROM THE NEW GROCERY STORE THAT HAS BEEN APPROVED IN THE WORLD COMMERCE CENTER, A MINOR MODIFICATION WAS APPROVED FOR THAT TO ALLOW -- WAS APPROVED FOR LESS THAN 1,000 FEE, SIN OF E. SECTION OF WILL I 700 FEET AWAY FROM A SCHOOL.

THIS THERE IS A HIGH SCHOOL THS ALSO LAND PLANNED TO BE BUILT ACROSS FROM THE MILL CREEK ACADEMY. THIS IS JUST A MAP SHOWING THE WORLD COMMERCE CENTER AND THE COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES THAT ARE THERE. THIS MAP IS SHOWING THE GREEN LINE IS ACTUALLY SHOWING THE 1,000-FOOT LIMIT, AND THEN THE PROPERTY WITHIN THE GREEN LINE, THE DOTTED GREEN LINE IS LESS THAN 1,000 FEET FROM THE WORLD COMMERCE CENTER PROPERTY AND THE PROPOSED NEW HIGH SCHOOL. AND THEN THIS IS JUST THE PROPOSED NEW HIGH SCHOOL AND THE LOCATION IS ABOUT 110 FEET. FROM THE SCHOOL PROPERTIES. THE APPLICANT PROVIDES THAT THE NORTHWEST SECTOR SCENIC EDGES AND DEVELOPMENT EDGES AND THAT NO INFRASTRUCTURES WILL BE BUILT IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT TO THAT PROPERTY LINE, GIVEN THE PROBABLE LOCATION OF COMMERCIAL USES, THEY WILL BE WITHIN 1,000 FEET OF THE ACTUAL BUILDING, BUT THEY'RE STILL WITHIN 1,000 FEET OF THE PROPERTY LINE. AND THEN THE APPLICANT ALSO MAKES THE ASSUMPTION THAT THE NEW SCHOOL WILL BE SET BACK FROM INTERNATIONAL GOLF PARKWAY AT LEAST AS FAR AS THE MILL CREEK ACADEMY. STAFF'S ANALYSIS SHOWED THAT THE APPLICANT PROVIDED THAT AN IMPORTANT FACT IS THAT THE WORLD COMMERCE CENTER PUD WAS APPROVED 17 YEARS AGO AND THAT WAS BEFORE THIS HIGH SCHOOL WAS ENVISIONED, AND THE APPLICANT STATES THAT THIS REQUEST IS TO PRESERVE THE WORLD COMMERCE CENTER RIGHTS TO DEVELOP SMALL RESTAURANTS THAT SERVE BEER AND WINE FOR ON-PREMISE CONSUMPTION WITHIN THAT PROPERTY ONCE THE NEW HIGH SCHOOL IS ALSO CONSTRUCTED. THE DEVELOPMENT AT THE INTERSECTION OF STATE ROAD 16 AND INTERNATIONAL GOLF PARKWAY IS A COMMERCIAL NOTE WITH THE ESTABLISHED COMMERCIAL AND RECENTLY APPROVED COMMERCIAL TO THE IMMEDIATE WEST OF THE WORLD COMMERCE CENTER PROPERTIES.

AND THEN THIS PROPOSAL IS CONSISTENT WITH THE COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL AND MIX USES LOCATED AT THIS INTERSECTION. THE POTENTIAL COMMERCIAL USES ARE LOCATED IMMEDIATELY EAST OF THE NEW DWROISH STORE, AND THERE ARE MANY ESTABLISHED RESTAURANTS AND OTHER COMMERCIAL TYPE ACTIVITIES IN THIS AREA. THEY'RE ALSO ASKING FOR A MAP CHANGE TO GO FROM -- THEORY ASKING TO ADD AN INDUSTRIAL USE ONTO WHAT THEY CALL THEIR PAR TELL T DISMIED THE WORLD COMMERCE CENTER, AND ADDITION OF THE INDUSTRIAL IS APPROXIMATELY 15.17 ACRES.

IT'S DESIGNATED FOR COMMERCIAL. IT WOULD ALLOW FOR INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL TYPE USES TO OCCUR ON PARCEL 17. OR PARCEL T. I'M SORRY.

THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS SURROUND BY SIMILAR LAND USES, COMMERCIAL MIXED USE, INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL WITHIN THE WORLD COMMERCE CENTER, AND SOME INDUSTRIAL USES THAT ARE ALLOWED IN THE PUD ALLOW FOR TEXTILE TYPE BUSINESSES, COMMERCE, ELECTRONIC AND ELECTRONIC EQUIPMENT, FOOD PRODUCT PRODUCTION, AND THOSE TYPE OF THINGS.

THIS IS THE SUBJECT PROPERTY PARCEL T. YOU CAN SEE RUEON IS IN THAT GENERAL LOCATION, RAIN POWER IS ALSO IN THAT GENERAL LOCATION, SO IT ALREADY IS DEVELOPING WITH COMMERCIAL -- OR INDUSTRIAL TYPE ACTIVITIES. AGAIN, HERE'S JUST A MAP SHOWING THE CHANGE. SURROUNDING EXISTING USES IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT TO THE SUBJECT PROPERTY, RAIN POWER, I WENT THROUGH THAT WHEN YOU LOOKED AT THE MAP.

BASED ON THE ADJACENT LAND USES AND ITS EXISTING USES, THE PROPERTY APPEARS TO BE COMPATIBLE AND THIS CHANGE APPEARS TO BE COMPATIBLE WITH THE SURROUNDING AREA.

AND THE USES WITHIN THE WORLD COMMERCE CENTER. THERE THEY'RE ALSO AND GO TO D THEIR PHASING BASED UPON THE LEGISLATIVE EXTENSIONS. THOSE WERE JUST GIVEN TO THEM.

[01:00:02]

THEN THEY HAVE ALSO ADDED I BELIEVE IT'S 115 RESIDENTIAL UNITS IN EXCHANGE FOR NON-RESIDENTIAL SQUARE FOOTAGE. AND THEN THEY HAVE THE LEVEL OF SERVICE HAS BEEN UPDATED TO ADDRESS THE ADDITIONAL RESIDENTIAL UNITS OF .8 ACRES OF RECLATION AND A SCHOOL MITIGATION AGREEMENT HAS BEEN APPROVED BY THE SCHOOL DISTRICT. STAFF HAS NOT RECEIVED ANY CORRESPONDENCE RELATED TO THIS APPLICATION. WE HAVE RECEIVED PHONE CALLS AND WE HAVE ANSWER DOLLARS GENERAL INFORMATION ON THIS APPLICATION. STAFF FINDS THAT THE REQUEST IS CONSISTENT WITH THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AND THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.

WE PROVIDE SIX FINDINGS OF FACTS TO SUPPORT YOUR MOTION TO APPROVE TONIGHT.

THAT CONCLUDES STAFF'S PRESENTATION, AND THE APPLICANT IS HERE WITH A PRESENTATION AS

WELL. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. IF WE COULD HAVE THE APPLICANT

STEP FORWARD. YES, MA'AM QUASI-JUDICIAL. >> YES, IT'S TIME TO DISCLOSE,

PLEASE. >> ALL RIGHT. WE'LL DO THE ROLL CALL IN TERMS

OF DECLARING EX PAR TO A. DR. COMK. >> MCCORMICK.

>> YES I HAD EX PAR TO A WITH AVERY SMITH. >> DR. HILSENBECK.

>> ELLEN AVERY SMITH CALLED ME TWICE. I CALLED HER BACK TWICE BUT WE NEVER ACTUALLY CONNECTED SO MIEMENT SURE THAT QUALIFIES OR NOT.

>> MR. WAINRIGHT. >> NO. >> MR. KOPPENHAFER, YES, I HAD A TELEPHONE CONVERSATION WITH MS. AVERY SMITH ABOUT THIS PROPERTY AND THE SUBJECT.

MS. PERKINS. >> NO. >> MR. ALAIMO.

>> YES, I DID HAVE A CONVERSATION WITH ELLEN AVERY SMITH REGARDING THIS AGENDA ITEM

BRIEFLY. >> AND MR. MATOVINA. >> I ALSO HAD A TELEPHONE

CONVERSATION WITH ELLEN AVERY SMITH ABOUT THIS ITEM. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

GOT THAT OUT OF THE WAY. MS. ELLEN AVERY SMITH. >> GOOD AFTERNOON, MR. CHAIRMAN.

MR. VICE CHAIRMAN, FOLKS AT HOME, OUR BOARD MEMBERS AT HOME. I HOPE YOU'RE DOING WELL.

>> WE'RE HANGING IN THERE. >> THAT'S ALL WE CAN DO, RIGHT? >> YEAH, RIGHT.

>> SO I AM ELLEN AVERY SMITH OF ROGERS TOWERS 100 WET STONE PLACE HERE IN ST. AUGUSTINE AND WITH ME TODAY IS MICHAEL PHILS WHO IS THIS REPRESENTATIVE WORLD COMMERCE CENTER LLP WHICH IS THE PROPERTY OWNER AND ALSO STEINYMAN DEVELOPMENT COMPANY WHICH IS THE MASTER DEVELOPER OF AND PUD, AND THEN ALSO TONY ROBINS WHO IS THE PROJECT PLANNER FROM PROSSER.

MS. BISHOP WITH DID AN EXCELLENT JOB OF PITCH HITTING AS SHE USUALLY DOES ON APPLICATIONS, BUT JUST TO ORIENT YOU, WORLD COMMERCE CENTER ACTUALLY SITS BETWEEN INTERNATIONAL GOLF PARKWAY AND STATE ROAD 16 IN THIS GENERAL AREA. YOU SEE WORLD COMMERCE CENTER PARKWAY HERE. THE PROJECT, THE DRI WAS ACTUALLY APPROVED IN 2002.

SO AS A PRIMARILY NON-RESIDENTIAL PROJECT. AND SO BECAUSE OF THAT, IT'S BEEN A LONG TIME IN THE MAKING. IF YOU KNOW THAT THE MARKET IN ST. JOHNS COUNTY HAS PRIMARILY BEEN FOR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT, THIS PROJECT HAS BEEN PRIMARILY FOR NON-RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPENT, INCLUDING THESE ENTITLEMENTS HERE, ABOUT 1.3 MILLION SQUARE FEET OF RETAIL, ABOUT 2.1 MILLION SQUARE FEET OF OFFICE, 950 HOTEL ROOMS, ABOUT HALF A MILLION SQUARE FEET OF LIGHT INDUSTRIAL SPACE, AND RIGHT NOW, BECAUSE WE DID CONVERT TO 115 ADDITIONAL MULTI-FAMILY UNITS, 1200 VURN RESIDENTIAL 121271 RESIDENTIAL UNITS. SOME OF THE BUSINESSES WITHIN WORLD COMMERCE CENTER THAT HAVE ACTUALLY DEVELOPED ARE RAIN POWER CORPORATION, RULOWN, THE STATE VA NURSING HOME, AND AS YOU LADIES AND GENTLEMEN WOULD KNOW FROM LAST YEAR, THERE IS A PUBLIX GREENWISE THAT WILL BE CONSTRUCTED WITHIN THE PROJECT ON THE WESTERN SIDE AND SO TO ORIENT YOU AGAIN, HERE'S WHERE THE PUBLIC SCREEN AND SHOPPING CENTER WILL BE CONSTRUCTED.

YOU'VE GOT RULON AND RAIN POWER. HERE'S RING POWER. RULON OVER HERE.

YOU'VE GOT SEGOVIA WHICH ARE THE RESIDENTIAL COMPONENT IN THE MIDDLE, THE SHEPHERD ASSISTED LIVING FACILITY, THE VA NURSING HOME AND OTHERS. AND SO ZOOMING IN A LITTLE BIT ON THAT, YOU SEE AGAIN MOST OF THE PROPERTIES IN THE WORLD COMMERCE CENTER ARE MIXED USE IN NATURE. AND SO GOING TO THE WORLD COMMERCE CENTER PUD, IT WAS

[01:05:04]

THAT WAS THE ONLY SUBJECT OF THE MINOR MODIFICATION APPLICATION THAT CAME TO YOU LAST YEAR.

AND YOU'LL GUERRILLA U. RECALL THAT THE SCHOOL BOARD DID NOT OBJECT TO THAT WAIVER AT THE TIME. NOW THE SCHOOL BOARD HAS PURCHASED THIS HIGH SCHOOL SITE RIGHT NEXT TO MILL CREEK ACADEMY, AND SO THAT MAKES MORE OF WORLD COMMERCE CENTER WITHIN 1,000 FEET OF THE SCHOOL SITE. AND SINCE WORLD COMMERCE CENTER HAS EXISTED SINCE 2002, THEN WE FEEL LIKE WE SHOULD -- WE NEEDED TO FILE THIS APPLICATION TO MAKE SURE THAT WORLD COMMERCE CENTER'S PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS SEE THIS 1,000-FOOT DISTANCE, YOU SEE THE OUTLINE OF THE SHOPPING CENTER THAT MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN OF WHAT WAS ALREADY APPROVED, AND SO YOU JUST -- AGAIN, MS. BISHOP ALREADY WENT THROUGH THE DETAIL OF DISTANCE AND SEPARATION.

IT'S REALLY SUPPOSED TO BE MEASURED FROM THE PROPERTY LINE, AND HENCE EVEN MORE OF A REASON TO ASK FOR THE WAIVER OF THE 1,000 FEET, AND I DO WANT TO SAY IT IS ONLY FOR, AGAIN, SMALL RESTAURANTS WHICH ARE LESS THAN 150 SEATS AND OCCUPYING FEWER THAN 2500 SQUARE FEET OF SPACE TO SELL BEER AND WINE ONLY FOR ON-PREMISES CONSUMPTION. SO NO LOWCOUNTRY SERVICE, NO BARS -- NO LIQUOR SERVICE, NO BARS, SIMPLY MOM AND POP, SMALLER CHAIN RESTAURANTS THAT WOULD NATURALLY GO IN SHOPPING CENTERS AND THAT KIND OF COMMERCIAL ESTABLISHMENT OR COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT. AND AGAIN, THE WAIVER IS BEING REQUESTED BEFORE THE HIGH SCHOOL OPENED. HERE'S THE MAP THAT SHOWS THAT WORLD COMMERCE CENTER IS NOT WITHIN 1,000 FEET OF ANY CHURCHES OR ANY OTHER SCHOOLS. AND SO AGAIN, THE PUD ALSO SEEKS TO ALLOW SIDEWALK CAFES AND OUTDOOR SEATING, SIMILAR TO THE SHOPPING CENTER, MINOR MODIFICATION APPROVED BY THIS BOARD LAST YEAR. IT REFLECTS PHASING AND EXPIRATION DATE EXTENSIONS BASED ON GUBERNATORIAL EMERGENCY DECLARATIONS FROM THE LAST FEW YEARS, AND THEN ALSO IT INCORPORATES THE PRIOR LAND USE CONVERSION OF SOME NON-RESIDENTIAL SQUARE FOOTAGE TO THE 115 ADDITIONAL MULTI-FAMILY UNITS.

AND THE SCHOOL BOARD ACTUALLY APPROVED THAT CONCURRENCY, SCHOOL CONCURRENCY OR MITIGATION AGREEMENT ON TUESDAY. AND THEN AGAIN TO REVISE THE MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN MAP TO SHOW THE CHANGES WE'VE DISCUSSED EARLIER, INCLUDING THE INDUSTRAL LAND USE, AND SO WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THIS PROPERTY RIGHT HERE WHB WHICH IS OWNED RING POWER, CURRENTLY IS ONLY COMMERCIAL, AND WE'RE SEEKING TO ADD THE INDUSTRIAL. THAT'S WHY TONY'S GOT HIS LITTLE BUBBLES AROUND IT. AND YOU SEE THAT THE ADJACENT USES ARE INDUSTRIAL ALREADY.

SO TOTALLY CONSISTENT, COMPATIBLE WITH WHAT'S GOING ON IN THAT AREA WITHIN WORLD COMMERCE CENTER. STAFF HAS RECOMMENDED APPROVAL OF THIS APPLICATION AND WE WOULD APPRECIATE YOUR RECOMMENDING TO THE COUNTY COMMISSION THAT WORLD COMMERCE CENTER HAVE APPROVAL OF THIS PUD MAJOR MODIFICATION SO THAT IT RETAINS ITS EXISTING PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS.

AND I AM HERE WITH ANY QUESTIONS. >> OKAY.

BEFORE WE ASK YOU THE QUESTIONS, I WILL SEE IF WE HAVE ANY PHYSICAL PUBLIC SPEAKER CARDS.

>> ONE SPEAKER CARD. >> WE HAVE ONE. WE'LL HAVE THAT ONE SPEAKER COME UP, AND THEN WE'LL ASK IF THERE ARE ANY ELECTRONIC SPEAKERS. ON THE PHONE.

>> YOU HAVE THREE MINUTES. IF YOU GIVE US YOUR NAME AND PROCEED.

>> YES. MY NAME IS SCOTT NORTHCUTT PUM UM A RESIDENT OF THE SEGOVIA NEIGHBORHOOD. I WILL GO BACK TO THE MAP HERE, BUT I NOTICE THAT, YES, NOTICE THAT WE GOT THE NOTICE FOR THIS REZONING BECAUSE OUR NEIGHBORHOOD, OUR BACKYARD BACKS

[01:10:04]

WITHIN THE SEGOVIA COMMUNITY. >> I'M SORRY. BEFORE MS. SMITH SPEAKS, SIR, COULD YOU INDICATE ON THE MAP WHERE YOUR PROPERTY IS AND THE ADDRESS.

>> YES. WE'RE ACTUALLY RIGHT HERE. SO ACCORDING TO THE REZONING MAP THAT WE GOT, THE TREES THAT ARE ALL AROUND HERE ARE INCLUDED IN THIS MAP.

SORRY TO INTERRUPT YOU HERE, ELLEN, BUT DO WE WANT TO SEE IF WE HAVE ANY OTHER PUBLIC SPEAKERS BEFORE YOU START TO ANSWER? SIR, IF YOU'RE DONE, YOU CAN

HAVE A SEAT. >> THANK YOU. >> DO WE HAVE ANY ELECTRONIC OR

TECHNICAL PUBLIC SPEAKERS? >> THERE ARE NO MORE PHYSICAL CARDS.

>> NO CALLERS FOR PUBLIC COMMENT. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

ELLEN. >> ALL RIGHT. SO IF YOU LOOK AT THIS MAP OF WORLD COMMERCE CENTER, AND I BELIEVE THE GENTLEMAN SAID HE LIVES IN THIS AREA, YOU SEE ZEV ILL SHEERS SEVILLA AND DWHRAWPS ALL PRESERVED WETLAND AREA. ALL OF THE -- ANY WETLANDS OR OPEN SPACE WITHIN SEVILLA OR SEGOVIA NOT OWNED BY WORLD COMMERCE CENTER AND ALSO, SO HE WILL FEEL MORE COMFORTABLE, LET ME -- I THINK IT WAS ACTUALLY THE MAP WAS IN MS. BISHOP'S PORTION OF THE PRESENTATION, BUO HERS? BECAUSE SHE HAD ACTUALLY THE OUTLINE. KEEP GOING BACKWARD, PLEASE. ALL THE WAY -- SHE HAD THE OUTLINE OF THE ACTUAL PUD. OKAY. SO THIS MAP IS VERY IMPORTANT IN ANSWERING THIS GENTLEMAN'S QUESTION BECAUSE THE ONLY PROPERTIES THAT ARE SUBJECT TO THIS APPLICATION ARE OWNED BY WORLD COMMERCE CENTER, AND I'M GOING CALL THEM STYLES, THE OWNER OF THIS PROPERTY, WHICH IS THE PUBLIX GREENWISE SHOPPING CENTER.

ONLY THE CROSS-HATCHED AREAS ARE SUBJECT TO THIS APPLICATION, SO NOT SEVILLA AND SEGOVIA WHICH ARE IN HERE AND NONE OF THESE PROPERTIES THAT ARE OWNED BY OTHER PARTIES.

>> OKAY. THANK YOU. DO BEVE A PUBLIC SPEAKER? IS THAT WHAT ARCHIE'S GRABBING ME FOR? YOU DON'T OPERATE IT WILL FROM THERE. CAN WE GO BACK TO TECHNICAL GUYS AND DOUBLE-CHECK WEEK MAKE SURE WE DON'T HAVE ANY PUBLIC SPEAKERS. WE HAVE ONE? OKAY. IF WE CAN HAVE THAT PUBLIC SPEAKER START, THEN.

>> MY NAME IS JIM LOFTON. I RESIDE AT 100 SPANISH MARSH DRIVE IN ST. AUGUSTINE, FLORIDA.

I AM CALLING AS A REPRESENTATIVE OF THE JACKSON PARERS IN. WE ARE THE COMPANY THAT WAS ACQUIRING THE RETAIL LAND FOR THE PUBLIX GREENWISE, AND -- OR THE DEVELOPER FOR THAT PROJECT, AND I JUST WANTED TO SAY THAT WE SUPPORT THE ENTIRE PROPOSAL. OF PARTICULAR INTEREST TO THE RESTAURANT COMPONENT OF IT, WE HAVE HAD SIGNIFICANT INTEREST FROM COFFEE CHAINS, PIZZA RESTAURANTS, SUSHI TYPE RESTAURANTS, TACO/BURR EAT'S THAT ARE ALL UNDER THE 2500 QUARE FOOT RANGE THAT WOULD ALL LIKE TO SERVE BEER AND WINE. JUST IN SUMMARY, JUST WANT TO LET EVERYBODY KNOW THAT I FULLY SUPPORT EVERYTHING THAT'S BEING PROPOSED HERE TODAY.

THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT.

BACK TO THE TECHNICAL GUYS, DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER PUBLIC SPEAKERS?

>> NO CALLERS FOR PUBLIC COMMENT AT THIS TIME. >> THANK YOU.

NOW WE'RE CLOSING OUT OF PUBLIC COMMENT. PATRICK.

>> YEAH,, MR. CHAIR, AGENCY MEMBERS, I JUST WANTED TO CONFIRM, AND, ELLEN, YOU MAY HAVE MENTIONED THIS IN YOUR REMARKS, THAT THE SCHOOL BOARD WOULD HAVE BEEN SUBJECT TO

GETTING NOTICE, IS THAT CORRECT? >> YES.

RECEIVED NO CORRESPONDENCE FROM THEM. >> OKAY.

AND I WANTED TO CONFIRM DID THEY GET THE FORMAL NOTICE, WRITTEN NOTICE?

[01:15:05]

>> I CAN'T CONFIRM UNLESS WE LOOK BUT THEY SHOULD HAVE, SO WE CAN LOOK INTO IT.

>> IN OTHER WORDS, PRESUMPTIVELY THEY DID. THEY WERE A PROPERTY OWNER

WITHIN 300 FEET OF THE SUBJECT. >> AND MS. SMITH, YOU HAVE HAD ACTUAL CONVERSATIONS, AND YOU'RE

REPRESENTING THAT THEY ARE AWARE OF THIS. >> THEY ARE, AND I HAVE HAD NUMEROUS EMAIL CORRESPONDENCES AND TELEPHONE CALLS WITH NICK COAL COULD HAVEAGE AND SENT HER

ALL THE OF THE MATERIALS FOR THIS APPLICATION. >> AND TO YURNLG, YOUR KNOWLEDE THERE'S NO OBJECTION TO THE 1,000-FOOT REQUEST, THE LESS THAN 1,000-FOOT.

>> NO, AND THEY DID NOT OBJECT TO THE PUBLIC SIP AND STROLL LAST YEAR NOR HAD DID THEY OBJECT TO, IF YOU GO SOUTH TO STATE ROAD, THEY ALSO DID NOT OBJECT TO THE LOCATION THAT

SERVE I BEER AND WINE IN MURA BELLA. >> THANK YOU, MS. SMITH.

THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. >> THANK YOU. WE ARE BACK IN THE AGENCY FOR

THOUGHTS AND COMMENTS. >> WELL, I GUESS I'M UP. ELLEN AND I DID HAVE A DISCUSSION, BUT WE REALLY DIDN'T GET INTO WHAT THE SCHOOL DISTRICT POSITION WAS ON THIS.

I THINK THAT'S BEEN PRETTY WELL CLARIFIED BY ELLEN TODAY, THOUGH, BUT YOU MENTIONED TUESDAY THERE WAS A DISCUSSION. WAS THAT WITH THE SCHOOL BOARD, ELLEN?

>> I'M SORRY, DR. MCCORMICK. CAN YOU REPEAT YOUR QUESTION? I WAS HAVING A SIDE BAR CONVERSATION. I APOLOGIZE. YOU WANTED TO KNOW ABOUT THE

SCHOOL BOARD? >> I BELIEVE HE WAS ASKING ABOUT THE TUESDAY CONVERSATION THAT

YOU MAY HAVE HAD. >> YES, ON TUESDAY WE APPEARED TELEPHONICALLY AT THE SCHOOL BOARD MEETING, AND THE SCHOOL BOARD UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED THE SCHOOL PROPORTIONATE SHARE

MITIGATION AGREEMENT FOR THE TOOLINGS 115 MULTI-FAMILY UNITS. >> AND AS PART OF THAT, THEY

WERE AWARE OF REALLY THE FULL APPLICATION? >> YES, THEY WERE.

IN FACT, MR. ALLEN, BOARD MEMBER ALLEN RAISED IT DURING THE MEETING.

>> VERY GOOD. DOES THAT SATISFY YOU, BILL 123? SILENCE MUST BE YES.

OKAY. AGAIN, LOOKING FORWARD TO HEARING ANY MORE THOUGHTS AND/OR

MOTION. >> I HAVE SOME THOUGHTS ON IT. THIS IS RICHARD HILSENBECK.

IF YOU CALLED MY NAME, DIDN'T HEAR IT. >> GO AHEAD, SIR.

>> I HAVE SEVERAL COMMENTS AND MAYBE A COUPLE QUESTIONS. I DON'T REALLY HAVE ANY OBJECTIONS TO THE BEER AND WINE BEING SERVED ON FOR ON-PREMISS CONSUMPTION WITHIN APPROXIMATELY 1,000 FEE OF A CHURCH OR SCHOOL, ESPECIALLY SINCE ONE OF THE SCHOOLS IS NOT EVEN BUILT YET. I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH SIDEWALK CAFES OR OUTDOOR SEATING. I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM AT ALL WITH THE INDUSTRIAL USE CHANGES TO PARCEL T. HOWEVER, I DO HAVE CONCERNS ABOUT THE 115 NEW RESIDENTIAL UNITS THAT ARE BEING PROPOSED IN A COUNTY THAT HAS NEARLY 60,000 UNITS ALREADY ON THE BOOKS THAT ARE PERMITTED BUT NOT YET BUILT. I HAVE A CONCERN WITH 133 ACRES OF WETLAND IMPACTS, AND OUT OF S ACRES ON THE SITE, TO IMPACT 133 OF THOSE ACRES, THAT'S NEARLY 40% OF THE WRETLAND BEING DESTROYED, THIS IS CHS A VERY HIGH PERCENTAGE FOR ANY TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT.

SO I'M CONCERNED SPECIFICALLY ABOUT THOSE TWO ITEMS. AS LONG AS THOSE EVER LINKED WITH THE BEER AND WINE SALES, AD THE SIDEWALK CAFES AND THE PARCEL T CHANGES, I JUST CANNOT SUPPORT THIS. ALSO, I'M CONCERNED -- I'VE SAID THIS BEFORE IN OTHER MEETINGS -- ABOUT THE SOILS THAT ARE PRESENT ON THE SITE, IF ANY OF THOSE ARE POORLY TO VERY POORLY DRAINED SOILS, IT STATES IN A TABLE IN THE APPLICATION MATERIALS, THOSE HAVE A MEDIUM POTENTIAL TO REDEVELOPMENT. I WOULD QUESTION THAT. MOST OF THE PROFESSIONAL SOIL SURVEYS FROM THE SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICES WITHIN THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE DO NOT SPECIFICALLY STATE THAT THEY HAVE A MEDIUM DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL.

THEY SAY, PARTICULARLY FOR POORLY DRAINED AND VERY POORLY DRAINED SOILS, THAT YOU HAVE VARIOUS AGRICULTURAL USES. SO I DON'T THINK IT'S WISE TO DEVELOP SO MUCH ON A SITE WITH

[01:20:04]

OTHERS, I CANNOT SUPPORT THIS. >> ELLEN, DO YOU WANT TO ANSWER THAT?

IS YOUR MICROPHONE ON? >> I'LL GO TO THIS ONE. DR. HILSENBECK, I APPRECIATE YUB COMMENTS. JUST A LITTLE BIT OF BACK ROUNDING ROUND GROUNDS.

WORLD COMMERCE CENTER DRI WAS APPROVED IN 2002 AND THE PUD WAS APPROVED IN 2004.

THE DRI HAS ALWAYS INCLUDED A LAND USE CONVERSION MATRIX THATT WILL LOUSE CERTAIN LAND USES TO BE EXCHANGED FOR ONE ANOTHER. AND SO THE 115 RESIDENTIAL MULTI-FAMILY UNITS WERE THE RESULT OF A LEGALLY ALLOWED OR PERMITTED LAND USE CONVERSION UNDER THE DRI.

SO LEGALLY THAT HAS ALWAYS BEEN THE CASE, AND THE DEVELOPER HAS THE LEGAL RIGHT TO CONVERT THOSE UNITS. THAT ISSUE IS NOT PART OF THIS APPLICATION.

ON THE 133 ACRES OF WETLAND IMPACTS, AGAIN, THAT NUMBER OF ACRES FOR PRESERVATION OF 197 ACRES AND WETLAND IMPACTS HAVE BEEN IN THE DRI AND PUD HISTORICALLY SINCE THE EARLY 2000S. AND THAT IS NOT A CHANGE THAT IS BEING MADE IN THIS APPLICATION.

ADDITIONALLY, ON THE SOILS, AGAIN, THE SOILS HAVE BEEN THE SAME SINCE THE DRI AND PUD WERE APPROVED BACK 18 AND 16 YEARS AGO, AND SO THE SOILS ARE NOT BEING CHANGED AS PART OF THIS

APPLICATION. >> OKAY. WELL, I WAS CERTAINLY NOT ON THE PLANNING AND ZONING AGENCY BOARD 16 AND 17 YEARS AGO, SO I WOULD HAVE NOT VOTED FOR IT AT THAT TIME, BUT I UNDERSTAND YOUR COMMENTS AND I APPRECIATE THOSE. THANK YOU.

>> ALL RIGHT. MR. WAINRIGHT, QUESTIONS? >> THIS CONVERSION THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT FROM YOUR POINT VIEW, FROM YOUR KNOWLEDGE OF THE SITUATION, IT'S INTACT?

>> YES, SIR. >> THANK YOU. >> MR. CHAIR, MAY I ALSO ADDRESS

A QUESTION THAT CAME UP? >> YOU MAY. >> THE QUESTION CAME UP IS THE SCHOOL DISTRICT FROM OUR OFFICE OF COUNTY ATTORNEY, IF THE SCHOOL DISTRICT RECEIVED THE 30E

THEY ARE ON OUR LIST. THEY DID RECEIVE IT. >> IT'S VERY CLEAR, THEN.

ALL RIGHT. WE APPROVE THE SIP AND -- WHARF, STROLL, WHATEVER THAT'S CALLED.

I DON'T THINK THIS BOARD HAS EVER NOT APPROVED SOME SORT OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE CONSUMPTION,

BUT I COULD BE MISTAKEN. MS. PERKINS. >> NO QUESTIONS.

>> MR. ALAIMO. >> NO QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS AT THIS TIME.

>> AND MR. MATOVINA. >> NO QUESTIONS. >> OKAY.

THE QUESTION PART IS DONE WE'RE BACK IN THE AGENCY, THEN. ANY COMMENTS, THOUGHTS, MOTIONS?

SHUFFLING OF PAPERS IN THE BACKGROUND. >> THIS IS GREG MATOVINA.

I WILL MOV APPROVAL IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CONDITIONS STIPULATE IN THE STAFF REPORT.

>> SECOND. >> I'LL SECOND THAT. >> GOOD.

>> WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE. I'M SORRY. MOTION TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL AND A SECOND. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSIONS, SPEAK UP.

ALL RIGHT. SEEING NONE, WE'RE GOING TO GO AHEAD AND DO THE VOICE VOTE.

DR. MCCORMICK. >> YES. >> DR. HILSENBECK.

>> NO. >> MR. WAINRIGHT. >> YES.

>> MR. KOPPENHAFER YES. MS. PERKINS. >> YES.

>> MR. ALAIMO. >> YES. >> MR. MATOVINA.

>> YES. >> MOTION CARRIES 6-1. >> GOOD AFTERNOON.

[Item 5]

[01:25:04]

WE FOUND THAT ALL OTHER JURISDICTIONS OR A MAJORITY OF THEM ADDRESSED IT IN THE SAME WAY WE DID WITH THE REPLANTING REQUIREMENTS. SOME OF THEM DID HAVE PROPOSED FINES OR DID HAVE ACTUAL FINES, AND SOME OF THEM DID HAVE AN AFTER-THE-FACT HERMIT FEE WHICH IS WHAT WE HAVE NOW. WE FOUND ONLY TWO COUNTIES THAT HAD A TIERED APPROACH, ONE IS WITHIN OUR JURISDICTION WHICH IS THE CITY OF ST. AUGUSTINE. THE BORE REQUESTED SPECIFIC FINES FOR SPECIMEN TREES. MORE OTHER COUNTY THAT WE RESEARCHED HAD A DEFINITION FOR SPECIMEN TREES THE WAY THE COUNTY DOES, BUT THEY DID HAVE OTHER DEFINITIONS FOR LARGER TREES AND THEY DID HAVE FINES WHEN THOSE LARGER TREES WERE REMOVED.

CURRENTLY THE COUNTY PROVIDES STRICTER REQUIREMENTS FOR THE PROTECTION OF CEDAR TREES WHEN THEY ARE WITHIN THREE MILES OF THE ATLANTIC OCEAN. THAT'S HOW THE CURRENT CODE READS. SO CEDAR TREES ARE PROTECTED ALL OVER THE COUNTY.

THESE REQUIREMENTS WOULD BE FOR ALL UNINCORPORATED AREAS OF THE COUNTY.

BUT THIS IS SOMETHING SPECIFIC TO OUR COASTAL REGION WITHIN THREE MILES.

THE BOARD HEARD THIS AND REQUESTED THAT THAT THREE MILE DEMARCATION BE CHANGED.

THEY WANTED SOMETHING THAT IS MORE SPECIFIC THAT WOULD BE EASIER TO DEFINE AND UNDERSTAND.

SO WE NEEDED TO CHANGE ARTICLE 12 OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE WHERE OUR PROTECT TREE DEFINITION LIES. SO ALL TREES 8 INCHES OR GREATER, NO MATTER WHERE THEY FALL WITHIN THE COUNTY, THE YOU CAN RATED AREAS OF THE COUNTY ARE DEFINE AS A PROTECTED TREE.

THE YOU CAN UNINCORPORATED. WE LIR SPHRIRKT PROTECTION FOR THOSE COASTAL CEDAR TREES, BUT THEY ALSO WANTED TO PROTECT MARITIME HAMMOCK. SO WE ADDED IN PROTECTION OF 2-INCH SAND LIVE OAK TREES IN THOSE COLT AREAS. THAT WILL PROTECT OUR MARITIME HAMMOCK HABITAT IN THOSE AREAS. SO WE HAVE CHANGE DOLLARS THE THROW MILE LIMIT BECAUSE IT WAS HARD TO DETERMINE. DO I MEASURE THAT FROM A MEAN HIGH? DO YOU HAVE TO DEBT S. ATE A THREE MILE LIMIT? THAT WAS CUMBERSOME AND NEBULOUS, SO NOW IT'S VERY EASY FOR EVERYONE TO UNDERSTAND ANYTHING EAST OF THE INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, MATTANZAS, ALL OF THOSE WILL HAVE A STRICTER PROTECTION FOR S SAND LIVE OAKS. TWO MORE JURISDICTIONS THIS A FEE FOR WHEN YOU CAN NOT TERM

[01:30:05]

THE OTHER WAS $10,000. SO AN AVERAGE WOULD BE $30,000 PER ACRE.

AND ALL THE JURISDICTIONS WE RESALUD DID REVIEWED DID HAVE A TIME DELAY FOR APPROVAL THEIR DEVELOPMENT PERMITS. SOME WERE A MATTER WEEKS.

SOME WERE EVEN UP TO A YEAR. SO THIS IS WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING. THIS IS CURRENTLY IN THE CODE.

SO WE'RE STILL GOING TO REQUIRE THAT YOU REPLACE THOSE TREE INCHES.

SO AGAIN, IF YOU TOOK OUT 10 INCHES OF TREES, MUST REPLACE THEM.

IF YOU DO NOT REPLACE THEM, THEN YOU MUST PAY INTO THE TREE BANK FUND.

SO THAT'S GOING TO STAY THE SAME. WHAT'S GOING TO BE ADDED ARE ACTUAL FINES FOR UNAUTHORIZED TREE REMOVAL. SO NOT ONLY DO YOU HAVE TO MITIGATE, THEN YOU WILL BE PENALIZED. SO THE PENALTIES FOR ANY PROTECTED TREE REMOVAL ARE LISTED HERE. THESE HAVE BEEN SEEN BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AS WELL. WHAT WE DO HAVE HERE, THOUGH, IS FOR OUR STRICTER PROTECTIONS FOR OUR COASTAL 2-INCH TREES OR GREATER ARE GOING TO HAVE THESE FINES STARTING AT 2 INCHES. SO INSTEAD OF YOU TOOK OUT AN 8-INCH TREE IN THE COASTAL AREA, YOU COULD ONLY TAKE OUT -- IF YOU TOOK OUT -- EXCUSE ME. THE IF YOU TOOK OUT A 2-INCH TREE IN THE COASTAL AREA, YOU WOULD PAY THESE HIGHER FINES. THEN WE ALSO ARE RECOMMENDING A FINE FOR SPECIMEN TREES, SO THAT WILL BE A $5,000 PER FEE. WE ARE RECOMMENDING $30,000 PER ACRE WHEN YOU CAN NOT TELL WHEN THE TREES LOST HAVE BEEN REMOVED.

SO YOU WILL BE PAYING THAT AS YOUR FINE. AND THEN WE ARE RECOMMENDING THAT ALL DEVELOPMENT PERMITS BE SUSPENDED FOR A PERIOD OF SIX MONTHS.

ALL FINES SHALL BE ACCOMPLISHED WITHIN THAT 30-DAY TIME FRAME AFTER NOTIFICATION OF THE VIOLATION, AND ALL MITIGATION MUST BE COMPLEELT COMPLETELY WITHIN THE SIX MONTH SUSPENSION PERIOD. SO THIS IS THE ARTICLE 12 CHANGE.

WE ARE ADDING IN SAND LIVE OAKS TO BE PROTECTED. THE 2-INCH SAND LIVE OAKS IN THE COASTAL AREA WERE NOT PROTECTED PRIOR TO THIS, SO WE ARE RECOMMENDING TO ADD THAT IN.

THAT WILL COVER OUR MARITIME HAMMOCK AREA. AND AS REQUESTED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, WE ARE REMOVING THAT THREE-MILE DEMARCATION AND MAKING IT SOMETHING THAT EVERYONE CAN EASILY UNDERSTAND. YOU HAVE TWO MOTIONS, ONE TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL AND ONE TO RECOMMEND DENIAL. I HAVE RECEIVED -- FOR THE FIRST TWO PUBLIC MEETINGS THAT WERE IN FRONT OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, DID I NOT RECEIVE ANY COMMENTS THE. P I DID RECEIVE THIS MORNING SIX COMMENTS OR SIX EMAILS.

THOSE EMAILS SHOULD HAVE BEEN FORWARDED TO THE REMOTE AGENCY VIA THEIR EMAIL, AND I BELIEVE THAT THEY ARE IN A RED FOLDER THAT WE HAVE PROVIDED TO AGENCY MEMBERS THAT ARE HERE PRESENT TODAY. AND THAT CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION.

>> THANK YOU. YES, MA'AM. >> IN THE SPHAF REPORT YOU HAD ACTUALLY ADD A THIRD OPE SHON, THE MOTION FOR APPROVAL WITH CHANGES, AND I WAS GOING TO MENTION THAT TO THE AGENCY MEMBERS, IF THAT WAS THE ORIGINAL INTENT, TO HAVE

ACTUALLY THREE MOTIONS. >> THE AGENCY CAN CHANGE OR RECOMMEND ANY CHANGES THEY WOULD

LIKE. >> SURE. I JUST WANT TO LET YOU KNOW WHEN YOU'RE HAVING YOUR DISCUSSION, THERE'S ACTUALLY THREE OPTIONS. AND WHEN A MOTION IS MADE, IF THE AGENCY MEMBER COULD USE THE WORDING IN THE STAFF REPORT. THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ALL RIGHT. DO WE HAVE ANY PUBLIC SPEAKER

CARDS ON THIS? >> NO. >> CAN WE ASK THE TECHNOLOGY FOLKS TO SEE IF THERE ARE ANY PUBLIC SPEAKERS. AND I EXPECT THERE ARE.

I'M INSTRUCTED THERE MIGHT BE A COUPLE. CAN WE QUEUE THOSE UP.

PLEASE START. >> HELLO? >> HELLO.

>> HI. >> YOU'RE ON. >> THIS IS MAUREEN LONG.

LIVE AT 1821 1821 CAST STEELT MENENDEZ PARK. >> MA'AM, YOU HAVE THREE

MINUTES. GO AHEAD. >> I WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS THE COUNTY'S DEFINITION OF PROTECTED TREES AS IT REGARDS THE SOUTHERN RED CEDAR AND STAND LIVE OAK SHALL BE A PROTECTED TREE WHENEVER IT OCCURS WITHIN THREE MILES OF ATLANTIC OCEAN ON LANDS LYING EAST OF THE INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY KALAMATA RIVER OR MA SANZ ABSENCE RIVER.

[01:35:07]

TO ONLY PROTECT THESE FREES IN ONE PART OF THE COUNTY AND OTHERS DIMINISHES HAVING PROTECTED STATUS OF TREES AND DEFEATS THE PURPOSE OF HAVING DESIGNATIONS FOR SPECIFIC TREES.

I DON'T AGREE WITH PLACING LOCATION QUALIFICATIONS ON WHETHER OR NOT A TREE RESPECTED, FOR EXAMPLE, WOULD YOU DARE SAY SEA TURTLES ARE ONLY PROTECTED WHEN THEY NEST ON THE BEACH BUT NOT ON SARATOGA ST. AUGUSTINE IMPEACH. TO SAY THESE TREES ARE EAST TITLE EAST OF IN ST. JOHNS COUNTY SENDS A MEANINGS THAT THE TREES TO WEST AND THE RESIDENTS WHO LIVE THERE ARE NOT AS IMPORTANT AS OUR NEIGHBORS EAST OF THE ICW.

SLIDE 3. PLEASE. STUDIES OF SOUTHERN RED CEDAR SHOW TBOAFNT ECOSYSTEM WHILE BEING ABLE TO WITHSTAND NATURAL AND MANMADE STRESSES SUCH AS WINDS FROM HURRICANES, TROPICAL STORMS AND FLOODING AND POLLUTION.

RESEARCH BY THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA SCIENTISTS SHOW THAT SAND SLIDE OAKS WHICH IS FOUND THROUGHOUT NORTH FLART MOST RESISTANT TO WIND DAMAGE. BUT THESE TREES HOLD SIGNIFICANT TOPIC AND HURRICANE STORM FORCES, AS WE HAVE SEEN IN OUR PAST.

SLIDE 5, PLEASE. FROM THE ST. JOHNS RIVER'S WARD THROUGHOUT ST. JOHNS COUNTY, THERE ARE MANY TREEKS AND TRIBUTARIES WHICH CONNECT DROACT ICW.

THESE TREES GROW ALONG THE BANK THE WATERWAY PROVIDING STRONG ROOT SYSTEMS FILTERING OUTS POLLUTANTS AND YOU ARE A VITAL MEANS OF PROVIDING EROSION CONTROL THEREBY HELPING CONTROL THE FLOODING ASSOCIATED WITH MANY STORMS. SLIDE 6.

REPLACE BE LARGE TREES WITH MUPPET SMALLER TREES DOES NOT REPLACE THE CARBON STORING CAPACITY WE LOSE WHEN WE SACRIFICE THESE TREES. WE ARE HARMING OUR RETIREMENT.

OUR EXPLIEMENT MALT OURSELVES WHEN WE ALLOW OUR TREE CANOPY TO BE RAVAGED BY DEVELOPMENT.

SLIDE 7, PLEASE. E. FINES FOR UNAUTHORIZED PROTECTED TREE REMOVAL PROPOSED ARE NOT SUFFICIENT TO DETERY DEVELOPERS FROM DEMOLISH THESE TREES.

THEY ARE MORE IN THE LINE OF THE REPLACEMENT COSTS THAT WE HAVE SEEN IN 1980.

THESE PROPOSED FINES TO DEMOLISH AN ENTIRE ACRE IS ONLY EQUIVALENT TO THE FINES IMPOSED FOR REMOVING SIX SPECIMEN TREES AT $5,000 PER TREE. THESE FINES RMED WILL BE AN INSIGNIFICANT DOLLARS TO LARGE DEVELOPING COMPANIES THAT COME TO OUR COUNTY TO BUILD AND

SHOULD BE AT LEAST THREE TIMES MORE THAN WHAT'S PROPOSED. >> MA'AM, YOU HAVE ABOUT 30

SECOND REMAINING. >> LET'S TAKE THIS TIME TO KEEP ST. JOHNS COUNTY HEALTHY AND STRONG BY PRESENTING OUR TREES. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME TODAY, GENTLEMEN AND WOMAN.

>> THANK YOU.

COME TO OUR COUNTY TO BUILD AND TO BE AT LEAST THREE TIMES MORE THAN WHAT IS PROPOSED.

>> MA'AM, YOU HAVE ABOUT 30 SECONDS REMAINING. >> REMAINING.

>> DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER SPEAKERS? THE TECHNOLOGY FOLKS IN THE BACK THERE, IF WE CAN WATCH THE LOOPING, I THINK WE'VE GOT A COUPLE OF THEM LOOPED.

DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER SPEAKERS ON THE PHONE CALLS? >> NO.

NONE THAT I SEE LISTED HERE.

>> HELLO? >> HELLO. >> HI.

YOU'RE ON WITH THE PZA AND PUBLIC SPEAKER SECTION. IF YOU'D LIKE TO STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD, WE'LL GIVE YOU TREE THREE MINUTES.

>> THANK YOU. MY NAME IS JANET PAT ON I'M AT 7265A1A SOUTH, CRESS EBT BEACH.

GOOD AFTERNOON, PZA MEMBERS. FIRST I WANT TO ENCOURAGE YOU TO EXTEND THE TREE ORDINANCE FOR THE SAND LIVE OAK AND THE RED CEDAR TO THE ENTIRE COUNTY WHERE THE PROMOTES EXIST.

AS DRAFTED, THE ON THE OTHER HAND IS ONLY APPLICABLE TO THE LAND EAST OF THE INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, AND I FIND IT EXTRAORDINARILY LACKING BY NOT INCLUDING ALL COUNTY LAND.

SECONDLY, THE FINE STRUCTURE NEEDS TO BE INCREASED TO ACT AS A GREATER DETERRENCE AND TO MORE CONTRACTUALLY STICK PARTICULARLY COVER THE COST OF TREE REPLACEMENTS.

I HOPE YOU WILL CONSIDER MAKING THESE MORE MEANINGFUL CHANGES TO THE ON THE OTHER HAND.

FINALLY, I WOULD BE REMISS IF I DID NOT COMMENT ON WHY THE PZA IS CONDUCTING THESE

[01:40:05]

THANK YOU AGAIN FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION THANK YOU.

TO THE FOLKS WHO MIGHT BE PUBLIC SPEAKING, IF YOU COULD TURN DOWN YOUR VOLUME ON YOUR PHONE OR TV OR COMPUTER WHEN YOU SPEAK, WE WON'T GET THE FEEDBACK. ANYONE ONLINE?

>> YEP, I'M ON THE PHONE. >> PLEASE GO AHEAD. >> THIS IS DR. VIRGINIA QUELLCH 158 LAWN ST. AUGUSTINE, AND I REPRESENT THE ORGANIZATION, CITIZENS FOR NEW TREE ORDINANCE.

I'D LIKE TO POINT OUT THAT OUR GROUP STARTED IN 2015 OVER TREES THAT WERE CUT DOWN AT THE BARNES & NOBLE, AND WE HAVE WORKED TOWARDS INCREASED TREE FINES, FINES FOR CLEAR CUTTING AND REMOVAL OF ALL OF THE PROTECTED TREES. SINCE THAT TIME, AND IRONICALLY HERE WE ARE FIVE YEARS LATER AND WE'RE BACK TO THE FINES AGAIN. AND SO I WOULD LIKE TO SAY THAT WE FEEL VERY STRONGLY THE FINES ARE NOT HIGH ENOUGH AND WE ALSO AGREE THAT LIMITING THESE FINES TO JUST EAST OF THE INTRACOASTAL IS REALLY MAYBE THE BEST WE CAN HOPE AS A SMALL STEP IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION, BUT -- AND IT MAY BE PERHAPS A DOWN PAYMENT ON GETTING A MORE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR THE COUNTY TO SAVE OUR TREE CANOPY. I WOULD LIKE TO COMMEND JAN BREWER FOR WORKING ON THIS DILIGENTLY. THIS IS NOT THE ONLY PROPOSAL THAT SHE'S WORKED VERY DILIGENTLY ON. AND AS I SAY, I HOPE THIS IS A POSITIVE STEP IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION, BUT I WOULD LIKE TO SEE AND MY ORGANIZATION WOULD LIKE TO SEE INCREASED FINES AND THIS TO BE INSTITUTED OVER AT LEAST THE WESTERN PORTION OF THE

MARITIME HAMMOCK. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU.

ANYONE ELSE? >> YES, SIR. >> PLEASE GO AHEAD.

>> GOOD AFTERNOON, MY NAME IS JENN LUMBRICK I CURRENTLY SIEFS YOUR MATANZAS RIVER KEEP WE ARE A NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATION DEDICATED TO PROTECT TECH HETDZ OF THE MANDS ANZA THROUGH ADVOCACY, COMMUNICATION AND COMMUNITIENING GAINING AND WE ARE LOCATED AT 291 CUBBAGE ROAD.

SO I WOULD LIKE TO ECHO SOME OF THE COMMENTS THAT WERE MADE BY THE PREVIOUS SPEAKERS WITH REGARD TO LIMITING THE PROTECTED TREE STATUS FOR SOUTHERN RED CEDARS AND SAND LIVE OAKS TO AREAS LOCATED TO THE EAST OF THE INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, AND THERE ARE A COUPLE OF REASONS FOR THAT. THE FIRST BEING THAT WE LOTZ A LOT LOST A LOT OF OUR CEDARS AND OUR SAND OAKS DURING HURRICANES MATTHEW AND IRMA.

THESE TREES ARE VERY SALT TOLERANT AND WIND TOLD WANT BUT THE STRESS FROM TWO SEVERE HURRICANES WINDS A YEAR OF EEMP OTHER KILLED A LOT OF THE CEDARS AND SAND OAKS LOCATED ON OUR BARRIER ISLANDS. YOU JUST TO HAVE DRIVE THROUGH WASHINGTON OAK STATE PARK TO SEE JUST HOW DEVASTATING THOSE STORMS WERE TO OUR MARITIME HAMMOCKS.

SO THE POINT THAT I'M GETTING AT IS THAT A LOT OF THE CEDARS AND SAND OAKS THAT REMAINED IN OUR COUNTY AND OUR ARE STILL HERE TO BE SAVED ARE, IN FACT, LOCATED TO THE WEST OF THE INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY WHERE THEY WERE A LITTLE BIT MORE PROTECTED FROM THE IMPACT OF THE STORMS. ANOTHER INTERESTING POINT IS THAT THE EVENT THAT KIND OF PURCHASED SPURRED THE CREATION OF THIS ORDINANCE WAS THE UNAUTHORIZED CLEARING LAND AT 370 GUN CLUB ROAD LASSIE FALL, AND THAT PROPERTY IS -- LAST FALL AND THAT PROPERTY IS LOCATED TO THE WEST OF THE INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY. SO AS CURRENTLY DRAFTED, THIS ORDINANCE WOULD NOT HAVE PROTECTED THE CEDARS AND SAND OAKS THAT ARE LOCATED WHO THAT PROPERTY.

SO I WOULD RECOMMEND THAT YOU EXPAND THE DEFINITION OF PROTECTED TREES TO INCLUDE ALL SOUTHERN RED CEDARS AND SAND LIVE OAKS WITH THE GREARN 2 INCHES REGARDLESS OF THEIR PROXIMITY TO THE YOU INTRA COASTAL WATERWAY OR AT THE VERY LEAST TO PICK A MORE WESTWARD BOUNDARY USE AS YOUR DEMARCATION LINE. ADDITIONALLY I WOULD ENCOURAGE TO YOU CONSIDER INCREASING THE PROPOSED FINES FOR UNAUTHORIZED PEOPLE OF SAND OAKS AND RED

[01:45:01]

IT IS IMPORTANT TO UNSCORE THE FACT THAT THIS CHANGE IS ONLY GOING TO AFFECT PARTIES THAT ARE ILLEGALLY REMOVING TREES SO IT'S NOT GOING TO BE A FINANCIAL BURDEN ON DEVELOPERS.

THOSE ARE THE PRO CHANNEL TO OBTAIN TREE REMOVAL PERMITS. SO THANK YOU FOR YOUR

CONSIDERATION, AND STAY WELL. >> THANK YOU. >> IS ANYONE UP NEXT?

>> MR. GARDEN, ARE YOU THERE? >> HELLO. >> HELLO?

>> YOU'RE ON AT THE PZA. COULD YOU STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD, PLEASE.

>> YES. MY NAME IS CHARLENE VINCENT 14 VISTA ROAD ST. AUGUSTINE,

FLORIDA. >> DO YOU HAVE ANY COMMENTS? >> YES, I DO.

I HAVE FIVE COMMENTS THAT I'D LIKE TO MAKE IN MY TIME, PLEASE. THE FIRST IS THAT MY DEVELOPMENT, WHICH WAS DEVELOPED 20 YEARS AGO, WAS DEVELOPED AS A FLORIDA NATIVE INDIGENOUS FRIENDLY DEVELOPMENT. IT WAS A PROJECT THAT WAS DONE WITH THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA.

IT IS A NATURAL HABITAT FOR ALL OF THE BIRDS AND ALL OF THE WILDLIFE IN OUR AREA AND IT'S A PLEASURE TO LIVE HERE. AND I WOULD RECOMMEND THAT WE HAVE MORE OF THESE DEVELOPMENTS.

BUT WE CAN'T DO THAT IF WE KEEP KNOCKING DOWN ALL THE TREES BEFORE WE BUILD THE DEVELOPMENTS. SO THEN WE NAMED THE DEVELOPMENT THE NICE NAME LIKE ORCHARD PARK, WHICH BORDERS TREATY PARK BUT IT'S NEITHER AN ORCHARD NOR A PARK.

SO THOSE ARE TWO MAIN POINTS. I ECHO THE SENTMENTS. OTHER PEOPLE AS FAR AS THE FEES ARE CONCERNED, AND I WOULD SAY FURTHERMORE THESE ARE AFTER-THE-FACT MITIGATIONS THAT ARE NOT GOING TO DETER DEVELOPERS OR DEVELOPMENTS WHO CAN AFFORD TO PAY THESE PIT ANSWERS OF A FINE TO T. PITTANCES OF A FINE TO DESTROY TREES THOUSANDS OF YEARS OLD AND MAKE THIS COUNTY AS BEAUTIFUL AS IT IS. AND HOW MANY TREES HAVE BEEN FELLED SINCE THESE THREE HEARINGS HAVE BEEN HEARD? I WOULD SAY THOUSANDS AND MILLIONS OF TREES THAT WE HAVE NOT BEEN LISTENING TO, AS YOU HAVE BEEN LISTENING TO THESE HEARINGS. SO I AM IN TOTAL SUPPORT OF UPPING THESE FINES AND FINDING OTHER WAYS TO MITIGATE THIS PROBLEM IN OUR COUNTY. SO THAT'S MY COMMENTS.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >> THANK YOU.

DO WE HAVE ANYONE ELSE ON THE LINE? HELLO?

ANYONE ELSE TO PUBLICALLY SPEAK ON THIS ITEM? >> NO MORE CALLS FOR PUBLIC

COMMENT AT THIS TIME. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ALL RIGHT.

WE'RE OUT OF THE PUBLIC "COMMENTS" SECTION, THEN. MS. BREWER, IF YOU WANTED TO

ADDRESS SOME OF THOSE COMMENTS COMMENTS==. >> CERTAINLY.

JAN BREWER AGAIN. I THINK THERE'S BEEN A MISUNDERSTANDING.

CEDAR TREES AND SAND LIVE OAK TREES ARE PROTECTED THROUGHOUT THE COUNTY IN THE AREAS OF OF OUR JURISDICTION, SO CITY OF ST. AUGUSTINE AND THE CITY OF ST. AUGUSTINE BEACH BEING INCORPORATED, THEY HAVE THEIR OWN REQUIREMENTS, BUT CEDAR TREES, SAND LIVE OAK, ANY TREE THAT'S 8 INCHES OR GREATER, NOT INCLUDING PINE TREES, ARE PROTECTED HERE IN ST. JOHNS COUNTY, AND THOSE ARE THE TREES WE'RE TALKING ABOUT. THOSE ARE THE TREES THAT WILL BE ALSO GETTING THE FINES. THE FIRST TIER FINES. NOW, IF I COULD GO BACK TO MY PRESENTATION, SO HERE WE ARE. THIS IS FOR ALL OF ST. JOHNS COUNTY.

YOU WILL GET THESE FINES IF YOU REMOVE A TREE WITHOUT AUTHORIZATION.

NOW, IF YOU REMOVE A SAND LIVE OAK OR SOUTHERN RED CEDAR THAT HAPPENS TO BE ON AIR BARRIER ISLANDS -- OUR BARRIER ISLANDS, THOSE ARE MORE STRICT. IT GOES FROM AN 8 INCHES PROTECTED SIZE DOWN TO A 2-INCH PROTECTED SIZE. SO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS RECOGNIZED THE IMPORTANCE OF THE MARITIME HAMMOCK ON OUR BARRIER ISLAND, SO THAT'S WHY THEY WANTED STRICTER FINES BY REDUCING THE SIZE OF THE TREE REMOVED FOR THOSE TWO TYPES OF TREES ON OUR BARRIER ISLANDS. SO IF I REMOVE A CEDAR TREE ON THE WEST SIDE OF THE INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, AND IT'S 8 INCHES OR GREATER, I WILL GET

[01:50:05]

SO, YES, IF A 2-INCH TREE TO REPLACE A 2-INCH TREE, TO REPLANT IT COSTS $275 TO $375, I'VE GOT TO DO THAT FIRST. SO I'VE GOT TO REPLACE THAT 2-INCH TREE.

BUT IF I TAKE OUT THE TREE, THEN I ALSO HAVE TO PAY A FINE. SO IT'S NOT JUST THE FINES WE'RE LOOKING AT. IT'S REPLACING THE TREES, REPLACING THE TREE INCHES.

IF YOU CAN'T RELAYS PLACE THEM ALL, THEN YOU ALSO ARE GOING TO HAVE A TREE BANK FUND PAYMENT, SO ALL OF THAT'S MITIGATION. THEN YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE THESE FINES ON TOP OF IT.

IF I CAN ASK A CLARIFICATION. YOU HAD USED AN EXAMPLE OF A TEN TENANTS' TREE.

SAY YOU REMOVED A 10-INCH TREE AND YOU RECEIVED A FINE. YOU HAVE TO, A, PAY THE FINE, AND THEN REPLACE IT WITH 10 CAP PER INCHES OF TREE, IS THAT RIGHT?

>> RIGHT. THE WAY THE CODE IS CURRENTLY WRITTEN, IT'S LIKE A TIERED APPROACH RIGHT NOW, TOO, BUT NOT WITH THE FINES. IT SAYS IF YOU TAKE OUT A 10-INCH TREE, YOU HAVE TO REPLANT A 10-INCH TREE. MANY TIMES THAT'S NOT FEASIBLE.

1ST MANY TIMES YOU CAN'T FIND A 10-INCH TREE OR IF YOU REPLACE THE 10-INCH TREE, IT'S NOT AS SUCCESSFUL BECAUSE IT IS SUCH A LARGE TREE AND TAKES A LOT OF TIME AND CARE TO GET THAT TREE ESTABLISHED. SO THE CODE NOW ALSO ALLOWS TO TAKE OUT A 10-INCH TREE, YOU HAVE TO RE PLANT 10 INCHES THAT OF SAME SPECIES OF TREE, BUT IT HAS TO START AT A 2-INCH CALIPER. SO I WOULD REPLACE 5 OR USE FIVE 2-INCH TREES TO REPLACE THAT TREE. IF I CAN'T REPLACE ALL OF THOSE CALIPER INCHES ON IT, FOR WHATEVER REASON, AND THAT IS HAS TO BE APPROVED BY THE COUNTY -- IT'S NOT AS JUST BECAUSE YOU DON'T WANT TO -- SO IF I WANT PUT THEM ALL BACK ON THE PIECE OF PROPERTY, THEN I ALSO REPLACE WHAT I CAN, SO MAYBE I CAN REPLANT TWO 2-INCH TREES AND THEN I HAVE TO PAY INTO THE TREE BANK FUND AT THE COST OF REPLACING A 2-INCH TREE. SO ICE NOT JUST THE SAME $25 PER TREE INCH THAT WE HAVE. IT WOULD BE $275 OR WHATEVER THE CURRENT MARKET VALUE IS OF THAT 2-INCH TREE OR HOW MANY INCHES ARE REMAINING AT THAT CURRENT MARKET VALUE, I WOULD PAY INTO THE TREE BANK FUND. THEN ON TOP OF ALL OF THAT, I WILL NOW HAVE A FINE.

WE DON'T HAVE A FINE NOW. >> OKAY. BACK TO THAT EXAMPLE, I. IF SAY A TUT YOUR HONOR CUTS DOWN A 10-INCH TREE AND SHAME ON YOU IF YOU DID THAT.

YOU HAVE TO REPLACE THAT AGAIN WITH A FINE BUT REPLACE THAT WITH FIVE 2-INCH TREES.

THOSE FIVE 2-INCH TREES IN TEN YEARS CERTAINLY AREN'T GOING TO BE 10 INCHES BUT THAT 10-INCH TREE IS 14 INCHES AT THAT POINT. NOW YOU HAVE FIVE MORE TREES THAT ARE NOW 5 INCHES OR 4 INCHES, WHATEVER THEY ARE. THE MATH EXPONENTIALLY GROWS, IT SEEMS LIKE.

THERE'S A AMOUNT, THAT'S HOW IT'S BEEN EXPLAINED TO ME FROM LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS IN THE

PAST, AND THAT'S THE WAY IT WORKS. >> YES.

>> MR. WAINRIGHT, DO YOU HAVE A QUESTION? >> YES.

MS. BREWER, DO YOU THINK THAT THESE FINES -- THIS IS AN AESIS QUESTION, VERY DIFFICULT TO ANSWER. ARE THE FINES AND THE EFFECT OF THE REPLACEMENT WEEK ARE THEY

ECONOMICALLY SIGNIFICANT ENOUGH TO CAUSE THEM TO BE ADHERED TO? >> WELL, CERTAINLY, YOU KNOW, THIS IS THE FIRST TIME WE'VE HAD THESE FINES. WE DID RESEARCH THOSE OTHER COMMUNITIES. WE HAD 14 OTHER DIRS EVER JUNIORS DIXIE THAT WE RESEARCHED, AND THESE NINES THAT WE'RE PROPOSING ARE IN LINE WITH THOSE OTHER JURISDICTIONS YOU, INCLUDING THE CITY OF ST. AUGUSTINE. SO THAT'S HOW WE CONCLUDED AND CAME UP WITH SOME OF THESE DOLLAR FIGURES, AS LOOKING AT OTHER PROJECTS, WHAT THEY HAVE DONE BECAUSE WE HAVE NEVER USED A FINE SYSTEM BEFORE. THEY HAVE.

SO WE WERE RELYING UPON THOSE OTHER JURISDICTIONS TO GET AN IDEA OF WHAT WE THINK WOULD BE A STANDARD FINE. CERTAINLY, $30,000 AN ACRE TO -- IF I REMOVE ALL OF THE TREES AND STAFF, YOUR COUNTY STAFF CAN'T DETERMINE THE TREE INCHES LOST, THAT SEEMS TO BE A DETERRENT TO

CHARGE $30,000 PER ACRE REMOVED. >> THANK YOU. AND IT WILL BE INTERESTING TO

SEE HOW YOUR PROGRAM WORKS. >> JE. >> THANK YOU.

>> PATRICK. >> YEAH, I JUST WANTED TO MENTION, AND AND I APOLOGIZE, HAVEN'T REALLY SPOKEN TO YOU ABOUT THIS BEFORE, I'M JUST A LITTLE CONCERNED ABOUT SORT OF THE EVIDENTIARY LEVEL FOR ENFORCEMENT ON THIS. JUST TO GIVE AN EXAMPLE, LET'S SAY, FOR SIMPLE EXAMPLE, THERE'S AN ACRE OF PROPERTY. OVER A WEEKEND IT GETS CLEARED.

AND THEN THERE'S SHORT OF AN ARGUMENT ABOUT, WELL, WHAT KIND OF TREES OR HOW BIG OF TREES WERE THERE? I JUST THINK PROBABLY THAT TYPE OF SCENARIO NEEDS TO BE THOUGHT

[01:55:04]

LITTLE BIT. THAT'S ALL. >> OKAY.

WE'RE GOING TO GO THROUGH THE ROLL CALL FOR QUESTIONS FROM THE AGENCY MEMBERS.

DR. MCCORMICK, QUESTIONS. >> YEAH. YEAH, I'M ON.

AND I WANT TO FOLLOW UP ON SOME OF THE THINGS PATRICK SAID, BUT BEFORE I DO THAT, I NEED TO DISCLOSE MY EX PAR TO A BECAUSE THERE'S BEEN A LAST THEM. EX PARTE.

ONE WAS ST. JOHNS COLONY, ADVISORY. >> DR. MCCORMICK -- BILL WEBSITES NOT NECESSARY FOR THIS ITEM. -- IT'S NO NECESSARY FOR THIS

ITEM. >> IT'S NOT? >> NO, SIR.

>> IT'S NOT NECESSARY FOR ANY EX PAR TO A. >> EX PARTE IN.

>> NOT ON THIS ITEM. >> IN THAT CASE, THEN I STILL HAVE COMMENTS BECAUSE, LIKE I SAY, I HAVE EX PART AI EX PARE FROM SEVER DIFFERENT ORGANIZATIONS, ET CETERA, AND FOLLOWING UP ON WHAT PATRICK SAID, HAS SAID BEFORE, THIS IS A VERY CONTROVERSIAL ISSUE ST. JOHNS COUNTY, AND THE CIVIC ASSOCIATION REBOUNDTABLE WAS ONE EXAMPLE OF THAT, MATANZAS RIVER KEEPER WAS ANOTHER. ELLEN AVERY SMITH AND I TALKED ABOUT IT WAS ANOTHER BECAUSE IN ADDITION TO THESE HEARINGS, TOSS WHAT IN OUR REPORT HERE, THERE WERE ACTUALLY THREE WORKSHOPS THAT WERE HELD BEFORE THAT OCTOBER 15TH REPORT WAS GIVEN. AND WHEN THAT OCTOBER 15TH REPORT WAS GIVEN, THERE WAS A LOT OF PEOPLE FROM THE PUBLIC THAT SPOKE AT THAT MEETING.

AND IT WAS BECAUSE OF THAT THAT THE STAFF WAS SENT BACK, GIVEN 60 DAYS TO DRAFT A NEW PROPOSAL TO COME FORWARD. AND THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS GAVE THEM GUIDANCE AT THAT TIME. NOW, RIGHT NOW WE'RE LISTENING TO A REPORT, AND I GIVE JAN BREWER CREDIT, BELIEVE ME. SHE WAS THE ONE THAT WAS IN ALL THOSE MEETINGS WITH THE OTHER PEOPLE THAT WERE -- I ATTENDED ALL THOSE MEETINGS, ALSO, WORKSHOPS BEFORE THIS.

BUT THERE WERE -- THERE HAVE BEEN SOME SIGNIFICANT INPUT OVER THE TELEPHONE TODAY FROM PUBLIC MEMBERS. THEY MADE A NUMBER OF RECOMMENDATIONS.

I DON'T THINK THAT WE CAN TAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THIS AT THIS TIME, NOR CAN WE REALLY APPROVE WITH CHANGES AT THIS TIME UNLESS WE'RE GOING TO REALLY LOOK AT ALL OF THIS WRITTEN MATERIAL THAT HAS BEEN PROVIDED TO US TODAY BY THE PUBLIC. SO THAT'S MY TWO CENTS FOR NOW.

>> THANK YOU. DR. HILSENBECK. >> I HAVE SEVERAL COMMENTS, AND THE FIRST ONE IS A TECHNICAL DIFFERENCE BETWEEN WHAT IS CALLED SAND LIVE OAK AND WHAT IS LIVE OAK. MOST MARITIME HAMMOCKS, WHETHER IT'S IN ST. JOHNS COUNTY OR ELSEWHERE ON THE LOWER SOUTHEASTERN COAST OF THE U.S., THE PREDOMINANT SPECIES IN A MARITIME HAMMOCK, AND THAT'S WHAT THE COUNTY COMMISSION IS MOSTLY INTERESTED IN PROTECTING HERE, THE DOMINANT AND TALLEST TREES IN THOSE ARE LIVE OAKS, WHICH IS NOT SAND LIVE OAK.

SAND LIVE OAK TYPICALLY OCCURS IN SAND HILL OR SCRUB HABITAT. NOW, THEY CAN BE INTERMIXED WITH REGULAR LIVE OAKS, DIFFERENT SPECIES, IN A MARITIME HAMMOCK, BUT AGAIN JUST BECAUSE WE HAVE SANDY SOILS EAST OF THE MATANZAS RIVER AND THE TAL MEDIA OH RIVER AND INTRACOASTAL.

DOESN'T MEAN THAT THE TREES GROWING IN THOSE MARITIME COMMUNITIES ARE SAND LIVE OAKS.

THEY ARE TIP CLIVE OAKS. SO LIVE OAKS HAVE TO BE -- TYPICALLY LIVE OAKS.

SO LIVE OAKS HAVE TO BE INCLUDED IN THIS, NOT JUST SAND LIVE OAKS.

FOR EXAMPLE, I HAD BOTH IN MY YARD. IF LIVE IN A MARITIME HAMMOCK.

I'VE GOT BOTH LIVE OAKS AND SAND LIVE OAKS. SAND LIVE OAKS ARE FAR FEWER, BUT AGAIN, THERE'S I THINK A MANAGES INTERPRETATION OF WHAT A SAND LIVE OAK IS AND WHERE IT

[02:00:08]

ALSO, IF YOU ARE DRIVING ALONG USE OF THE 1 NORTH OF CAST PIO DRIVE WHERE WARN ANKLE BILL'S RESTAURANT USED TO BE AND DRIVE NORTH FROM THERE YOU CAN LOOK ACROSS THE SALT MARSH OVER ACROSS THE SAN SEBASTIAN RIVER AND YOU CAN SEE WHAT ARE BONA FIDE MAYOR TIME HAM OX.

ALSO PORTIONS OF THE COAST WHICH ARE WEST OF THE INTRACOASTAL ARE MAYOR MARITIME HAM OX.

SO IF YOU WANT TO PROTECT MARITIME HAM OX, JUST RESTRICTING THE PROTECTION TO SAND LIVE OAK AND RED CEDAR EAST OF THOSE GEOGRAPHIC PIECES ISN'T GOING TO WORK.

IT NEEDS TO BE BROADENED, AND LIVE OAKS MUST BE INCLUDED IN THE DEFINITION, AND I'D ALSO BE IN FAVOR DOUBLING THE FINES THAT ARE PROPOSED IN THE SCHEDULE. AND THEN ONE MORE QUICK QUESTION, ONE MORE COMMENT, IF THIS ORDINANCE PASSES, I JUST WANT TO BE CORRECT IN SPELLING OF JUNEIPE,S AS IS SOUTHERN CEDAR. IT DOES NOT HAVE THE LETTER "O" IN IT SO IF YOU WANT TO SPELL I CORRECTLY YOU'VE GOT TO CHANGE THAT.

THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU. MR. WAINRIGHT, ANY OTHER

QUESTIONS? GO AHEAD. >> MS. BREWER, WOULD YOU HELP OUTS A LITTLE BIT MORE. I AM THE OLDEST TREE HUGGER IN THE ROOM.

I THINK THIS IS TERRIFIC. IT'S NOT A QUESTION SO FAR. YOU DO NOT HAVE TO AGREE OR DISAGREE. I THINK THIS IS A NICE PIECE OF WORK.

SO I ONLY HAVE TWO QUESTIONS. WHY ARE WE HEARING THESE COMMENTS ABOUT ADDITIONS, DELETIONS AND SO ON AND SO FORTH AT THIS POINT? DID THESE COME UP BEFORE?

>> NO. IN THE PAST TWO HEARINGS, THERE WAS ONLY ONE PUBLIC SPEAKER THAT CAME IN THE PAST TWO HEARINGS, AND THAT INDIVIDUAL SPOKE IN FAVOR OF THE TREE FINES, BUT

NONE OF THESE ISSUES CAME TO ME >> THANK YOU. I HAD TWO QUESTIONS.

YOU TOOK CARE OF BOTH OF THEM. THANK YOU. >> AND THIS KOPPENHAFER.

I DON'T HAVE A QUESTION BUT COMMENTS. IT'S AN EMOTIONAL TOPIC, IT SEEMS, AND I'M SURE VERY WELL THOUGHT OUT, BUT I THINK THESE ARE PRETTY SIGNIFICANT COSTS HERE, AND $30,000 AN ACRE IS NOTHING TO SNEEZE AT IN MY WORLD, EVENING DEALING WITH DEVELOPERS. SO THERE'S A LOT OF PENALTY HERE.

AND YOU ALSO HAVE GOT TO FIGURE OUT WHAT THIS THING TAKES TO PASS.

I MEAN, YOU CAN'T MAKE AT THIS TIME WORST THING IN THE WORLD OR THE BCC IS JUST GOING TO SAY FORGET ABOUT IT. I THINK YOU'VE DONE A LOT OF HARD WORK ON THIS THING, AND I'M GOING TO VOTE YES FOR WHAT'S HERE IN FRONT OF US BECAUSE I THINK IT'S A GREAT START.

CAN IT BE FINESSED? ABSOLUTELY. BUT EVERYTHING EVOLVES, AND I THINK THIS IS VERY GOOD BEGINNING POINT. AND IT HAS ENOUGH TEETH AND MEAT IN IT THAT IT'S GOING TO WORK HERE. BUT THAT'S MY TWO CENTS.

THE OTHER COMMENT WAS THERE'S BEEN THREE OTHER PUBLIC HEARINGS ABOUT THIS, RIGHT? AND THEN SOME OF THESE OTHER ONES THAT DR. MCCORMICK HAD TALKED ABOUT.

>> YEAH, MIKE WEEK I SPEAK FOR A MINUTE? >> NOT YET 1 HOLD ON.

>> OKAY. >> AND THE PEOPLE WHO GAVE US A HARD TIME FOR HAVING THIS HEARING IN THE MIDDLE OF THIS COVID-19 THING, WE'RE -- SOMEONE'S GOT TO READ LEAD THIS THINGS, SOMEBODY SOMEONE'S GOT TO POOF THIS STUFF FORWARD. YOU HAVE HAD THE CHANCES IN THE PAST AND YOU STUL HAVE ANOTHER ONE US BA IT'S GOING BEFORE THE BCC, CORRECT?

>> THAT'S CORRECT. >> I'M GOING TO GO THROUGH THE LIST, DR. MCCORMICK, AND THEN I'LL COME BACK TO YOU. MS. PERKINS, MI COMMENTS, QUESTIONS?

>> NO QUESTIONS. I JUST -- I APPRECIATE MS. BREWER GOING THROUGH EVERYTHING AND EXPLAINING IT. I DID HAVE QUESTIONS AT THE BEGINNING, BUT SHE SEEMED TO ANSWER THEM PRETTY THOROUGHLY, AND IT SEEMS TO BE PRETTY IN LINE WITH THE SURROUNDING

[02:05:03]

COUNTIES, SO I WOULD DEFINITELY SUPPORT THIS. >> THANK YOU.

MR. ALAIMO. >> YES. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.

AND I DON'T HAVE ANY QUESTIONS AT THIS TIME WITH, BUT I ECHO YOUR COMMENTS IN THAT THAY THIS IS A GREAT JOB BY JAN BREWER. IT'S A GREAT START. AND I'M IN SUPPORT OF IT.

I THINK THE FINES, LIKE YOU SAID, $30,000 PER ACRE IS NOTHING TO SNEEZE AT, SO I THINK

THAT IS PRETTY SUBSTANTIAL AND I'M GOING TO SUPPORT IT AS-IS. >> MR. MAT VENO MATOVINA.

>> SORRY, MR. CHAIRMAN. I WAS ON MUTE. I AM GOING TO SPEAK FOR A SECOND OR A MINUTE OR TWO FROM A STANDPOINT OF A DEVELOPER. AND I WILL TELL YOU THAT A COUPLE OF DIFFERENT THINGS. ONE, HAVING BEEN INVOLVED IN THESE SORT OF STRUGGLES OVER WHAT TREES SHOULD BE PROTECTED AND WHICH ONES SHOULD NOT BE, I WOULD TELL YOU THAT TRYING TO GAIN AN OVERALL CONSENSUS FROM PEOPLE IS EXTREMELY DIFFICULT. AND TYPICALLY THE DEVELOPERS ARE JUST SITTING ON THE SIDELINE SAYING, JUST TELL US WHAT IS THE RULES ARE, AND EVERYBODY HAS A DIFFERENT OPINION ABOUT WHAT SHOULD AND SHOULD NOT BE PROTECTED.

EVEN THE EXPERTS SEEM TO -- JAN IS PROBABLY PULLING HER HAIR OUT.

I KNOW WHEN NASSAU COUNTY WENT THROUGH CHANGING THEIR TREE PROTECTION ON THE ISLAND, THEY WERE SO DISGUSTED WITH DEALING WITH THE PUB ON IT THAT THEY SHOULD TER THOUGHT OF BRINGING IT UP AGAIN. SO THAT'S ONE POINT I WANT TO MAKE.

AND THEN THE SECOND ONE I WOULD TELL YOU I WANT TO MAKE IS MOSTS ATTEMPT TO COMPLY WITH THE RULES, IN MY OPINION, BUT WHEN YOU GET OUT IN A HEAVILY FORESTED SITE, YOUR SURVEYOR WILL COME UP WITH A SURVEY, YOU'LL THEN HIRE A ARBORIST TO GO CHECK IT WHO WILL MAKE CHANGES TO IT, AND THEN YOU'LL HAVE A CONTRACTOR OUT THERE, AND YOU'LL ALL BE STANDING THERE IN THE WOODS AND YOU'LL GO, THIS CAN'T BE THE 24-INCH TREE. THIS THING IS ONLY 12 INCHES.

AND IT'S THE DARNEDEST THING TO TRY TO COMPLY WITH. THAT BEING SAID, SHOULD YOU NOT BE FINED IF YOU MAKE A MISTAKE? NO, BECAUSE YOU PROBABLY SHOULD STOP AND NOT KNOCK THAT TREE OVER BEFORE YOU GET THE QUESTION ANSWERED. SO THAT'S THE QUESTION I'M GOING COMPLY WITH THE ORDINANCE. IT STILL IS VERY DIFFICULT. THE FINAL POINT I'M GOING TO MAKE IS THAT IF YOU DON'T -- IF YOU TRY TO GET AROUND THE ORDINANCE AND YOU DO NOT GET A PERMIT, PERIOD, AND JUST GO OUT AND CLEAR, $30,000 AN ACRE IS A LOT OF MONEY, BUT IT'S KIND OF LIKE TRYING TO GET AWAY WITH, YOU KNOW, SOME SORT OF FAIRLY HEINOUS CRIME, IN MY OPINION.

MAYBE NOT HANIE 81, BUT SOME SORT OF TRIAL. SIGNIFICANT COMPANIES YOUR STEALING FROM THE PUBLIC. YOU SHOULD PAY FOR IT. SO WHAT I'M GOING TO TELL IS YOU IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT BUILDERS ASSOCIATION DOES NOT HAVE ANY ISSUES WITH THIS, AS STATED. WE COULD DEBATE IT FOR 24 MODS NOW AND THERE WOULD BE DIFFERENT

PUBLIC OPINION INPUT ON IT, AND I INTEND TO VOTE FOR THIS. >> THANK YOU.

DR. MCCORMICK, BACK TO YOU. >> ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

AND AGAIN, I WANT TO REITERATE WHAT REALLY WHAT MAUREEN LONG HAS SAID PUBLICALLY AND EVERYBODY OL PANEL, ON THE AGENCY HAS PRETTY MUCH SAID THE SAME THING, THAT JAN BREWER, YOU DESERVE A LOT OF CREDIT FOR WHAT YOU HAVE GONE THROUGH IN BRINGING THIS OUT AFTER ALL OF THESE HEARING HAVE BEEN SAID AND DONE. IT IS A COMPLICATED ISSUE.

I'M NOT -- I DON'T DENY THAT AT ALL. I THINK SOME GOOD COMMENTS WERE MADE, PARTICULARLY ABOUT THINKING MORE, AT LEAST 1 ABOUT THE WESTSIDE BUT NOT JUST THE ISLAND. BUT THE WESTERN PART OF THE COLONY AS WELL.

I THINK THERE'S SOME GOOD COMMENTS THERE THAT MIGHT BE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION.

BUT IN TERMS OF THE FINES, IS IT GOING TO STOP ANYBODY? I DON'T KNOW.

MAYBE, MAYBE NOT. PEOPLE HAVE SAID IN SOME CASES THEY'RE SUBSTANTIAL.

AND, YES, THE BUILDERS DO HAVE A REAL PROBLEM, REAL PROBLEMS IN TERMS OF BRINGING THEIR DEVELOPMENTS AND ABIDING WITH ALL THE GUIDELINES AND CODES THAT THEY HAVE TO ABIDE BY.

SO I GIVE THEM CREDIT, ALSO. SO IN THE END I'M GOING TO SUPPORT THIS AND WE'LL SEE WHAT

[02:10:05]

>> THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. EVERYONE'S HAD THEIR SAY AND

THEN SOME. >> MAY I SAY ONE MORE COMMENT? I WANT TO VOTE FOR THIS PARTICULAR ORDINANCE, BUT IF IT DOES NOT INCLUDE LIVE OAK, WHICH WOULD BE AN EGREGIOUS OVERSIGHT HERE, AND I DO APPLAUD JAN BREWER FOR HER WORK, I JUST WANT VOTE FOR IT BECAUSE THAT'S THE PREDOMINANT TREE OF MARITIME HAM OX MARITIMEOCKS.

>> AGAIN WITH EVERYONE'S GOTTEN THEIR DHOONS CHANCE TO ASK S AND HAVE COMMENTS.

AT THIS POINT I'M LOOKING FOR A MOTION. >> MR. WAINRIGHT?

>> I'LL MAKE A MOTION. I'M GOING TO MAKE A MOTION TO -- WFLEL WELL, MY MOTION IS TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO ARTICLES 4 AND 12, FINDING THE MODIFICATIONS OF FLORIDA LAW AND THE ST. JOHNS COLONY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.

LOOKING FOR A SECOND. >> SECOND. >> WE HAVE A MOTION AND WE HAVE A SECOND. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? ARE HEARING NONE, LET'S DO THE ROLL CALL VOTE. DR. COMK. THAT'S A YES?

>> YES. >> DR. HILSENBECK. >> NO.

>> MR. WAINRIGHT. >> YES. >> MR. KOPPENHAFER YES.

MS. PERKINS? >> YES. >> MR. ALAIMO.

>> YES. >> AND MR. MATOVINA. >> YES.

>> MOTION CARRIES 6-1. THANK YOU ALL. I KNOW IT'S A VERY EMOTIONAL SUBJECT, AND I DON'T THINK YOU CAN MAKE ANYBODY HAPPY DOING THIS.

WE'RE GOING TO TAKE A TEN-MINUTE RECESS, AT THEY:43 BY THE CLOCK UP HERE, 3:44 NOW.

WE'LL >> WELCOME BACK, EVERYBODY. NICE LITTLE RECESS THERE.

BIOBREAK AS THEY CALL IT NOWADAYS. THESE NEXT THREE ITEMS ARE

[Item 6]

[Item 7]

[Item 8]

MAYBE HE'S IN THE BIOBREAK. DR. HILSENBECK. >> AGAIN, ELLEN AVERY SMITH CALLED ME TWICE, I CALLED HER BACK TWICE, BUT WE NEVER ACTUALLY QUECTD, AND THIS IS ONE

OF THE ISSUES, SO I DON'T KNOW HOW YOU WANT TO TAKE THAT. >> MR. WAINRIGHT.

>> YES, INDEED. DR.EN AVERY SMITH AND I TALKED BUT WE DID NOT TALK ABOUT ANY OF

THESE PROJECTS. >> MR. CONE HAFER, FOR ME I DID SPEAK WITHEN AVERY SMITH ABOUT IT. KEITH TRILLIUM IS A NEWER CLIENT FOR FISH KOPPENHAFER CLIENTS SO I'M NOT GOING TO VOTE ON THIS IN AN ABUNDANCE OF CONSERVATIVE CAUTION THERE.

MS. PERKINS. NO. >> MR. ALAIMO.

>> YES, MR. CHAIRMAN. I DID HAVE A CONVERSATION WITH ELLEN AVERY SMITH YESTERDAY

ABOUT THIS AGENDA ITEM. >> AND MR. MATOVINA. >> YES, I DID SPEAK TO ELLEN

AVERY SMITH ON THE PHONE ABOUT THESE THREE GLIEMENTS THANK YOU. >> MR. CHAIRMAN.

>> YES. >> BACK IN. I WAS ON MUTE, I'M SORRY.

YES, I ALSO HAD EX PARTE CONVERSATIONS WITH ELLEN AVERY SMITH ON ALL THREE ITEMS.

>> THANK YOU. AGAIN WE'RE GOING TO HEAR ALL THREE AT ONCE FROM MS. BISHOP AND THEN WE'LL HAVE MS. AVERY SMITH WHO IS NODDING IN THE BACKGROUND FOLLOWING THAT

BACKUP. PLEASE GO FORWARD. >> THANK YOU.

TRACEY BISHOP, GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT, AND THIS IS ITEM 6, 7 AND 8.

IT IS A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT, A PUD, REZONING AND A ROAD CAPACITY CHARGE ORDINANCE CHANGE. IT IS THE ADOPTION HEARING TO AMEND THE COMPREHENSIVE MAN SITE AMENDMENTS THAT GOES WITH THE& DURBIN PARK TROJAN A111M80, AND IT IS TO REZONE APPROXIMATELY 1200 EARNLINGS FROM OR TO PUD. IT'S ANMONDMENT TO THE ROAD CAPACITY ORDINANCE WHICH IS ORDINANCE 20-O.6 THE PROPERTY IS ROBOTIC SOUTH SIDES OF RACETRACK ROAD ESCAPEES OOHS AND WEST OF 90. IF COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT AMOUNTS THE SITE SPECIFIC POLICY RELATED TO THE DURBIN PARK URBAN SERVICE AREA TO PROVIDE FOR HOSPITAL USES AND TO PROVIDE FOR

[02:15:03]

EAST PAYTON PARKWAY WITH RESPECT TO THOSE SHALL MAINTAIN A 10-FOOT SCENIC EDGE FOR ALL NON-RESIDENTIAL USES, AND A MINIMUM 30-FOOT AVERAGE, 50-FOOT FOR RESIDENTIAL USES, AND THEN RACETRACK ROAD WILL BE DEVELOPED WITH A 30-FOOT SCENIC EDGE FOR ALL USES.

THE PUD REZONING ALLOWS FOR THE DEVELOPMENT A MIXED USE PROJECT. THAT INCLUDES 2,265 MULTI-FAMILY DWELLING UNITS, 1.6 MILLION SQUARE FEET OF COMMERCIAL, 2.2 MILLION SCWAWR FEET OF OFFICE, A 350 ROOM HOTEL, AND 375,000 SQUARE FEET OF HOSPITAL USES.

THE REQUEST TO MODIFY THE DURBIN CREEK NATIONAL ROAD CAPACITY CHARGE ORDINANCE IS TO ADD THE HOSPITAL USES AGAIN TO AMEND THE ROAD CAPACITY CHARGE TABLE TO REFLECT IF REVISED PLAN OF DEVELOPMENT, CONSISTENT WITH THE DURBIN PARK PUD, AND INCORPORATE LAND USE CONVERSIONS.

AND THEN UPDATE THE ANTICIPATED REVENUE OF 12.8 MILLION AS A RESULT OF THE ABOVE CHANGES.

THIS IS AN AERIAL OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. YOU CAN SEE THE MAJORITY OF THE TROT PROPERTY IS VACANT. YOU CAN SEE THE AREA ON THE EAST SIDE OF STATE ROAD 9B.

THAT IS THE AREA THAT IS DEVELOPING RIGHT NOW AS DURBIN PAVILION.

AND THEN THIS IS THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP. IT IS INTENSIVE COMMERCIAL.

THE PROPERTY IS ZONED OR, AND THEN THE PUD. THE PROPERTY WAS DESIGNATED COMMERCIAL AND INTENSIVE COMMERCIAL IN THE YEAR 2000. THE URBAN SERVICE AREA WAS APPROVED IN 2015. THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT TAX INCREMENT FINANCING AGREEMENT, AND THE ROAD OF THE EXA CHARGE ORDINANCE WAS APPROVED IN 2015. AND THEN THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WAS AMENDED IN 2016. THE CURRENT DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT ALLOWS FOR 999 MULTI-FAMILY UNITS, 350 HOTEL ROOMS, 2.7 MILLION SQUARE FEET OF OFFICE, AND 2.3 MILLION SQUARE FEET OF COMMERCIAL RETAIL. AND THEN DURBIN PAVILION WAS APPROVED SUBSEQUENTLY AFTER ALL THESE A IMPROVEMENTS. THE DURBIN PAVILION PUD WAS APPROVED IN 2016. IT ALLOWS UP TO 700,000 SQUARE FEET OF COMMERCIAL RETAIL AND IT IS UNDER CONSTRUCTION. AND PRETTY MUCH BUILT. DURBIN PAVILION IS UNDER CONSTRUCTION. THERE'S NO NEW PACS THAT'S ASSOCIAED WITH THIS AMENDMENT, WITH THIS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT, ROADWAY AND INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS ARE REQUIRED, AND OBLIGATED BY THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT. WATER, SEWER AND REUSE ARE ALL PROVIDED THROUGH JEA. AND THE PROJECT IS WITHIN FIVE MILES OF A FIRE STATION, ONE THAT'S LOCATED ON BARTRAM PARK BOULEVARD IN JACKSONVILLE AND THEN ONE THAT'S UNDER CONSTRUCTION AT RACETRACK AND BARTRAM'S PARKWAY. THE AMENDMENT CLARIFIES THE ADDITION OF HOSPITAL USES.ÚIT CE THOSE USES WITHIN THE URBAN SERVICE AREA, AND THEN HOSPITAL USES ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE INTENSIVE COMMERCIAL FUTURE LAN& USE DESIGNATION.

WITH RESPECT TO THE END 62 I CAN EDGE, I WENT OVER THIS A LITTLE BIT EARLIER, BUT THE EAST PEYTON PARKWAY SHALL MAINTAIN A 10-FOOT MINIMUM SCENIC ELK FOR ANY NON-RESIDENTIAL TYPE USES 1 A MINIMUM 30-FOOT FOR RESIDENTIAL USES WITH AN AVERAGE OF 50-FOOT. RACETRACK ROAD SHALL MAIN PAIN A 30-FOOT SCENIC EDGE FOR ALL RESIDENTIAL AND NON-RESIDENTIAL USES, AND THEN THEY ARE THEY HAVE THOSE REDUCTIONS IN LANDSCAPING CONSISTENT WITH THE EXISTING LANDSCAPED EDGES WITHIN THE DURBIN PAVILION WILL BE PROVIDED. THIS IS THE PUD DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS. THE MINIMUM LOT WIDTH FOR BOTH RESIDENTIAL AND FOR NON-RESIDENTIAL IS 9 AND REMEMBER THAT'S MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL.

NONE. THIS IS NO MINIMUM LOT AREA. THE IMPERVIOUS SURFACE RACIAL RARE I DON'T FOR THE 95%. 75 FOR NON-RESIDENTIAL. THERE'S NO LOT COVERAGE.

SETBACKS ARE FOR THE NON-RESIDENTIAL, THERE ARE NO SETBACKS.

FOR THE RESIDENTIAL IT'S BE A 20 FRONT SIDE, FINANCE IN THE SIDE AND 5 IN THE YEAR.

THE HACKS MUM IT'S FOR NON-RESIDENTIAL 120 PEET FETE. THE THE RESIDENTIAL IS WEREN'T HUNDRED FEET. ALL PARKING AND ALL RECREATION LANDSCAPING AND ROUGHERS HAVE BUFFERS PURSUANT TO THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE BASED ON THE USE.

THE PUD DOES INCLUDE 37 WAIVERS. THE WAIVERS EVER RELATED TO SIGNAGE, SEASONAL SALES OF HOW

[02:20:04]

THE PROPOSED AMOUNT BASED ON THE HOSPITAL USES AND THE USES THAT ARE BEING ADDED IS THE $12.8 MILLION. WITH RESPECT TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, STAFF FINDS THAT THE REDUCTIONS IN THE SCENIC EDGE AND THE ADDITION OF THE HOSPITAL USE WITHIN THE URBAN SERVICE AREA CONSISTENT WITH THE DEVELOPMENT PATTERN IN THE AREA.

WITH RESPECT TO THE PUD, STAFF FINDS THE REQUESTED WAIVERS ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE DEVELOPMENT PATTERN OF THE AREA. WE FIND THAT THE DEVELOPMENT OF STATE ROAD 9B, DURBIN PAVILION AND BARTRAM PARK HAS RESULTED IN THIS AREA HAVING A MORE URBAN CHARACTER THAN RURAL OR SUBURBAN WEEKS, THEN PUD APPEARS COMPAT YOU WILL BE WITH THE SURROUNDING DEVELOPMENT.

AREA. AND IN THE AMENDMENT TO THE ROAD CAPACITY CHARGE ORDINANCE, STAFF FINDS THE REQUEST CONSISTENT WITH THE DUR BUN PARK PUD, THE COMP PLAN AMENDMENT, AND THE PROPOSED MODIFICATION TO THE DURBIN CREEK NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT.

A COMMUNITY MEETING WAS HELD ON DECEMBER THIRD, 2019. THE APPLICANT'S TEAM WAS THERE AND THREEY RESIDENTS WERE IN ATTENDANCE, AND MOST OF THE INGREDIENTS WERE FAVORABLE OF DURBIN PAVILION, AND THEY IRRELEVANT INQUIRED ABOUT EXISTING BUSINESSES AND PUT BUSINESSES AND POTENTIAL JOBS THAT MAY BE COMING INTO THE AREA.

STAFF HAS RECEIVED PHONE CALLS. WE'VE TALKED ABOUT THIS PROJECT WITH THE INQUIRIES.

WE HAVE NOT HAD ANY WRITTEN CORNS TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE.

STAFF DOES NOT OBJECT TO APPROVAL OF THE COMP PLAN. WE OFFER FOUR FINDINGS OF FACT TO APPROVE OR DENY. WE DO NOT OBJECT TO THE APPROVAL OF THE PUD.

WE OFFER NINE FINDINGS OF FACT TO APPROVE OR DENY. AND WE DO NOT OBJECT TO THE AMENDMENT TO THE ROAD CAPACITY CHARGE ORDINANCE, AND WE FIND THAT CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, PLAN DEVELOPMENT CODE, AND THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT.

THAT CONCLUDE STAFF'S PRESENTATION. IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, I WILL TRY TO ANSWER THEM, AND THE APPLICANT DOES HAVE A PRESENTATION AS WELL.

>> THANK YOU, TERESA. IF WE CAN HAVE THE APPLICANT STEP FORWARD, WE'LL HOLD THE

QUESTIONS UNTIL AFTER THAT. >> GOOD AFTERNOON AGAIN, MR. CHAIR, VICE CHAIR AND BOARD MEMBERS ON THE PHONE. AND MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC. ELLEN AVERY SMITH, ROGERS TOWERS, 100 WETSTONE PLACE IN ST. AUGUSTINE. I AM HERE ON BEHALF OF DURBIN CREEK NATIONAL AND BE AFFILIATED GATE PAROLE COMPANY AND SOME OF OUR TEAM ARE LISTENS LISTENING ON THE N. ON THE PHONE INCLUDING DREW FRIK FROM GATE. ALSO WITH ME TODAY FROM PROSSER, WHICH IS OUR TEAM ENGINEERING AND PLANNING FIRM, ARE TONY ROBINS WHO IS SITTING IN THE BACK HERE AND THEN BRAD DAVIS IS ON THE TELEPHONE. CHAPMAN OUR PROJECT TRANSPORTATION ENGINEER IS ALSO AVAILABLE ON THE TELEPHONE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.

AND SO WE'LL TAKE THIS STEP BY STEP. YOU DO HAVE THREE APPLICATIONS BEFORE YOU. THIS WILL BE A COMBINED PRESENTATION, JUST FOR EXPEDIENCY, AND YOU SEE HOW ALL THESE APPLICATIONS DOVETAIL TOGETHER FOR A TRUE MIXED USE PROJECT. MS. BISHOP ALREADY TOLD YOU A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT. IT HAS GONE THROUGH THE STATE COORDINATED REVIEW PROCESS, AND NONE OF THE STATE AGENCIES HAD ANY ISSUES OR CONCERNS ABOUT IT. AND OUR TEAM HAS ADDRESSED ALL OF STAFF'S COMMENTS ABOUT THIS APPLICATION IN PARTICULAR. THE AMENDMENT TO THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, I'LL TELL YOU A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE HISTORY OF THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT IN A FEW MINUTES AND THE ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS THAT ARE BEING CONSTRUCTED BY THIS PROJECT, WHICH WILL GREATLY ENHANCE THE REGIONAL ROADWAY NETWORK. AND THEN WE ALSO HAVE THE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT. YOU WILL RECALL ABOUT FOUR YEARS AGO THIS BOARD APPROVED A PUD FOR A VERY SMALL PORTION OF IN OVERALL SITE, AND NOW WE'RE BACK TO BASICALLY REZONE THE REST OF THE PROPERTY WITH ABOUT 1.7 MILLION SQUARE FEET OF COMMERCIAL, 2.3 MILLION QUARE FEET OF OFFICE, 350 HOTEL ROOMS, 375,000 SQUARE FEET OF HOSPITAL FOR A NEW FLAGLER HOSPITAL

[02:25:02]

AND WE'LL TALK THROUGH THE DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM TEST WSHES WETLAND IMPACTS LETTERS AND GREENLAND PRESERVATION AND WETLAND PRESERVATION. I KNOW THAT'S VERY IMPORTANT TO SOME OF THE BOARD MEMBERS. AND THEN TALK THROUGH THE MASTER PLAN WITH YOU.

AS AN OVERVIEW, AS MS. BISHOP SAID, WE ARE REQUESTING TO ADD A HOSPITAL AS A PERMITTED USE, REZONE THE PROPERTY TO PUD, AND MAKE CHANGES TO PHASING AND DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS THAT WERE SET FORTH IN THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT THAT WAS APPROVED BY THE COUNTY COMMISSION IN 2015.

THESE MODIFICATIONS ARE REQUESTED TO APPROVE AGAIN TO EXPEDITE THE APPROVAL OF A NEW FLAGLER HOSPITAL CAMPUS IN DURBIN PARK WHICH WILL INCLUDE A BRAND NEW HOSPITAL WITH APPROXIMATELY 150 BEDS AS WELL AS ALL KIND OF MEDICAL OFFICE AND OTHER SERVICES, AND PERHAPS AN EDUCATIONAL COMPONENT. YOU WILL RECALL THAT FLAGLER HOSPITAL IS THE ONLY HOSPITAL SITUATED IN ST. JOHNS COUNTY AND WOULD LIKE TO EXPAND TO NORTHERN RETAINING ITS EXISTING CAMPUS IN THE SOUTHERN PART OF ST. JOHNS COUNTY AND ST. AUGUSTINE. THE OWNER IS NOT STEENG SEEKING TO TERMINATE OR MAKE ANY CHANGES TO DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS WITHIN THE EXISTING DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, ONLY TO CONDUCT LAND USE EXCHANGES AND MAKE SOME CHANGES TO THE PHASING BASED ON THE CURRENT MARKET CONDITIONS, ESPECIALLY IN LIGHT OF RECENT ECONOMIC INTERESTING SITUATIONS.

THIS ON THE SCREEN IS THE CONCEPTUAL MASTER PLAN FOR THE PROJECT.

SO AGAIN, THIS ENTIRE PROPERTY IS WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT FOR THE COMP PLAN AMENDMENT AND THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT. THIS PORTION IS WHAT'S BEING REZONED TO PUD.

THIS IS THE EXISTING DURBIN PART PHASE 1 PUD, WHICH IS ALSO CALLED DUR PAVILION NOW.

THAT'S WHERE THERE'S A WALMART, HOME DEPOT, SIN MARK THEATERS THAT HAVE ALREADY BEEN CONSTRUCTED. SO JUST TO ORIENT YOU A LITTLE BIT, HERE'S RACETRACK ROAD.

I95 THAT DUTIES THEREON THE THRH THE PROJECT. YOU WILL SEE STATE ROAD 9-B AND WEST PEYTON PARKWAY. STATE ROAD 9-B AND PEYTON PARKWAY WERE CONSTRUCTED AS PART OF THE DEVELOPENT AGREEMENT APPROVED IN 2015, SO THAT BOX HAS BEEN CHECKED FOR THAT INITIAL CONSTRUCTION. WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT NOW WILL INCLUDE HERE'S THE FLAGLER HOSPITAL SITE DOWN HERE, THEN YOU HAVE COMMERCIAL, MULTI-FAMILY AND OFFICE COMPONENTS HERE, MORE MULTI-FAMILY, COMMERCIAL, AND THEN ON THE EAST SIDE OF I-95, OFFICE -- EXCUSE ME, COMMERCIAL AND MIXED USE. YOU'LL ALSO SEE EXTENSIVE WETLANDS LAR CONTIGUOUS WETLANDS THAT ARE BEING MAINTAINED AND THE DURBIN CREEK PRESERVE AREA HERE, WHICH WILL REMAIN IN ITS EXISTING CONDITION AND BE PRESERVED UNDER A DIFFERENT LAND USE DESIGNATION. AND SO I WILL ORIENT YOU THIS. THIS IS WHAT WE'RE GOING TO TALK ABOUT. EAST PEYTON PARKWAY, WHICH DOES NOT EXIST YET, BUT WILL DIRECT INTERCHANGE OF 9-B AND WEST PEA TOWN TO RACETRACK ROAD, THIS IS WHAT WE REFER AS TO THE DURBIN LOOP ROAD WHICH WILL PROVIDE ACCESS TO FLAGLER AND THESE IEWTSZ OVER TO THE EAST SIDE OF THE WESTERNMOST PIECE. SO AGAIN GOING TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT, AS MS. BISHOP POINTED OUT TO YOU, THE FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION OF THE MOST OF THE PROPERTY IS INTENSIVE COMMERCIAL. WE'RE PRESERVING THE RURAL CIVIL CULTURE TO PROTECT DURBIN CREEK AND ITS ASSOCIATED WET NL. THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT ITSELF ALREADY GAVE THIS PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS. SO THIS PROPERTY HAS BEEN -- HAS HAD DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS SINCE 2015, AND THEY WERE GIVEN IN EXCHANGE FOR SPECIFIC TRANSPORTATION MITIGATION, AND WE WILL STEP THROUGH WHAT THAT MITIGATION IS PIECE BY PIECE IN A MINUTE.

IT ALSO ESTABLISHED A TAX INCREMENT FINANCING COMPONENT FOR THE ENTIRE PROJECT TO HELP OFFSET SOME OF THE COST OF PROVIDING THE TRANSPORTATION MITIGATION, WHICH IS OVER $60 MILLION. AND IT PROVIDE ROAD CAPACITY CHARGE HAD TO FUND THE REMAINDER OF THE ROAD CONSTRUCTION COSTS. THE ROAD CAPACITY CHARGES CAME TO A TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE.

IT JUST HAS A DIFFERENT NAME. SO GOING TO PHASE 1, AGAIN YOUR BOARD HAS ALREADY APPROVED THIS DISPIT AND IT HAS ALREADY BEEN CONSTRUCTED. THIS IS THE PHASE 1 PUD WHICH IS CALLED BURR DIN DURBIN PAVILION IF YOU GO OUT TO RACETRACK ROAD AND DOMINION HFT B NOW THAT'S WHAT'S ALREADY CONSTRUCTED. THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT WHICH WAS APPROVED IN 2015

[02:30:03]

SO THERE WAS -- THIS IS A NEW ROAD THAT WAS NOT PART OF THE NORTHWEST SECTOR PLAN ROADS, AND IT IS A MORE URBAN SETTING. THERE WERE AGREED-UPON PROTECTIONS OF RACETRACK ROAD WHICH HAS A MORE SUBURBAN CHARACTER TO IT NOW, SO THE 30-FOOT MINIMUM ESCAPEE SEENIC EDGE AS PROTECTED ALONG RACETRACK ROAD BACK SEVERAL YEARS AGO.

SO BRINGING THAT POLICY FORWARD, WE ARE 16, EAST PEYTON PARKWAY WILL BE A SIX-LANE URBAN ROADWAY, 9-B IS AN CELEBRATE HIGHWAY, AND CELEBRE HIGHWAY, AND THOSE ROADS BF THE -- THAT MS. BISHOP WENT OVER WITH YOU A FEW MINUTES AGO. THE TECHS AMENDMENT AS THE A HOSPITAL AS A USE OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT AND WE ALSO ADDED THATD SCENIC EDGES WILL BE MAIN DIEWND BY DURBIN OR THE CDD. THAT'S BASICALLY THE CHANGES THOUGHT TECHS POLICY THAT WAS APPROVED IN 2016. THE PUD AGAIN FOR A LITTLE BIT OF DETAIL, MOST OF THE PROPERTY, 900 ACRES OR SO, IS LOCATED WEST OF I-95.

ABOUT 385 ACRES EVER LOCATED EAST OF I-95. WE TALKED AGAIN ABOUT THIS NUMBER OF NON-RESIDENTIAL SQUARE FOOTAGE. THE HOSPITAL IS LISTED IN SQUARE FEET. THAT EQUALS 150 BEDS. YOU'VE SEEN THAT IDEA IN THE PUD TEXT. AND THEN THERE ARE 2265 MULTI-FAMILY UNITS TO PROVIDE WORKFORCE HOUSING FOR THESE USES. CONSERVED WETLAND WILL BE ABOUT 400 ACRES AND IMPACT WETLANDS WILL BE A MAXIMUM OF 100 ACRES. HERE'S THE PHASING TABLE AGAIN THAT YOU WILL SEE IN THE PUD TEXT AS WELL AS THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT.

A LITTLE BIT OF A CHANGE. SO YOU SEE PHASE 1A OF THIS PUD IS ONLY FOR FLAGLER HOSPITAL.

SO FLAGLER HOSPITAL'S CAMPUS, WHICH I WILL SHOW YOU AGAIN ON THE MAP IN A MINUTE, WILL INCLUDE 375,000 SQUARE FEET OF HOSPITAL USE, WHICH IS THE EQUIVALENT OF 150 BEDS, AND THEN 340,000 SQUARE FEET OF OFFICE. AND THAT'S GOING TO BE IMPORTANT WHEN WE TALK ABOUT THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AND TRANSPORTATION MITIGATION IN A MINUTE BECAUSE FLAGLER HOSPITAL NEEDS TO GET GOING AND IT WOULD LIKE TO BREAK GROUND THIS SUMMER, AND SO WE'RE TRYING TO EXPEDITE THE CONSTRUCTION OF FLAGLER HOSPITAL. CONCURRENTLY WITH THE ROAD CONSTRUCTION FOR EAST PEYTON PARKWAY. THEN THE REMAINDER OF PHASE 1, LB WHAT'S CALLED PHASE 1B ON THIS CHART. LIRCHGHTSD TO THE EX PENSION OF EAST PEYTON PARKWAY, WHICH I'LL SHOW YOU GRAPHICALLY IN A MINUTE.

PHASE 2 INCLUDES THESE DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS THAT YOU SEE TO THE CHART.

AND THEN PHASE 3 INCLUDES THESE RIGHTS, AND THEN THE TOTALS ARE AT THE BOTTOM.

AND YOU SEE THE YEARS OF THE PHASING. AGAIN THIS IS JUST A CONCEPTUALIZED MAP THAT SHOWS YOU AGAIN THIS IS WHERE FLAGLER HOSPITAL IS GOING, SO THIS WILL BE PHASE 1A. PHASE 1B WILL BE IN THIS AREA. AND THEN PHASES 2, 3 AND 4 ARE IN THESE AREAS. NOT GEOGRAPHICALLY TIED BUT TIED TO DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS, WHICH TRANSLATE TO TRANSPORTATION TRIPS. THIS IS THE ACTUAL MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR FOR THE . SO AGAIN YOU SEE THIS FLAGLER HOSPITAL SITE.

YOU SEE THE DURBIN LOOP ROAD. AND THEN YOU SEE THE PERMITTED USES ON EACH OF THE PROPERTIES, PARCELS A, B, C AND D. YOU SEE THE ROSTER OF COMMERCIAL HOTEL OFFICE, MULTI-FAMILY USES THAT ARE POSSIBLE IN THESE VARIOUS AREAS. AND AGAIN YOU SEE DURBIN CREEK CONSERVATION CORRIDOR THAT IS BEING LEFT ALONE. THESE ARE PONDS.

AND AGAIN, GOING FORWARD, JUST SO YOU CAN SEE THIS BETTER ON THE EAST SIDE, YOU'VE GOT PAR Z HERE WITH AGAIN THE ROSTER USES THAT ARE ALLOWED IN EACH PARCEL, AND THEN AGAIN THE CONTINUATION OF THE DURBIN CREEK CONSERVATION CORRIDOR. THEN GOING TO THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT MODIFICATION, WHAT'S BEFORE YOUR BOARD IS ACTUALLY A CHANGE IN THE ROAD CAPACITY ORDINANCE, BUT WE THOUGHT IT WOULD BE GOOD FOR YOU'RE BOARD TO UNDERSTAND THE RAM -- OR THE MAGNITUDE OF THE IMPROVEMENTS THAT ARE BEING CONSTRUCTED BY GATE IN CONJUNCTION WITH THIS PROJECT. THE ROADWAY CONTRIBUTIONS ARE SIGNIFICANTLY MORE THAN WOULD BE REQUIRED UNDER THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE. IF TODAY -- IF WE COMPLIED WITH

[02:35:03]

THE EXISTING DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT SAYS THAT THAT'S ABOUT $31 MILLION.

THAT'S WHAT GATES ALREADY AGREED TO. AND THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT ACTUALLY INCREASES THAT COST TO $32 MILLION. AND SO -- AND ALL OF THESE ARE FROND-LOADED DUE TO THE ALREADY DEDICATED RIGHTS-OF-WAY FOR STATE ROAD 9B AND RACETRACK ROAD. AGAIN, FOR THE ROAD CAPACITY CHARGE ORDINANCE, ADDING HOSPITALS, A PERMITTED USE, WHICH CHANGES THE TABLE WITHIN THAT ORDINANCE AND THEN CONVERTING SQUARES FOOTAGE OF OFFICE SPACE TO SOME MULTI-FAMILY UNITS TO PROVIDE MORE WORKFORCE HOUSING IN DURBIN. SO HERE'S THE CONVERSION OF THE USES, AND THERE WAS A QUESTION ABOUT TAX REVENUES, AND SO AGAIN, THE CONVERSION OF ACTUALLY BENEFITS THE COUNTY BY GENERATING HIGHER PROPERTY TAX REVENUES THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN -- THAN WOULD HAVE BEEN UNDER THE EXISTING DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT. SORRY FOR THE OVERRAP IN THE SLIDE, BUT AGAIN THE CALCULATED IMPACTS ARE ALMOST $23 MILLION. THE DEVELOPER'S TRANSPORTATION MITIGATION IN THE DEVELOPMENT TREATMENT WAS $31 MILLION& SO -- AND A TIF WAS ESTABLISHED TO PAY FOR APPROXIMATELY ONE-HALF OF THE COST OF THE ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS.

THE TIF IS TIED TO THE ROAD CAPACITY CHARGE ORDINANCE. SO BECAUSE THE TIF HASN'T GENERATED A LOT OF PROPERTY TAXES, TAX REVENUES TO DATE BECAUSE DURBIN PARK JUST GOT STARTED. THE DURBIN PAVILION IS GRAND BRAND NEW AND THERE ARE VERY FEW DOLLARS IN THE KITT FOR GATE TO AM COULD BACK AND CAPTURE THESE ROADWAYS.

THE SORIANO PROPOSING TO AMEND THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT IN ORDER TO PROCEED FORWARD WITH THE DEVELOPMENT, PRIMARILY FLAGLER HOSPITAL FIRST, AND THEN GOING INTO THE WHOLE REST OF THE COMMERCIAL OFFICE AND HOTEL USES WITHIN THE PROJECT. TALKING ABOUT THE ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS, SO PHASE 1, WHICH IS ALREADY CONSTRUCTED, INCLUDED THE RIGHT-OF-WAY OF 9B AND WEST PEYTON PARKWAY. THAT RIGHT-OF-WAY AND THE DESIGN OF THESE ROADS, THE PRELIMINARY DESIGN WAS $19.7 MILLION, AND THAT HAS ALREADY BEEN CONTRIBUTED.

AS YOU ALL KNOW, 9B AND WEST PEYTON ARE ALREADY OPEN. SO THE PROPOSED REVISION TO PHASE 2 OULD BE TO DESIGN EAST PEYTON ALL THE WAY UP TO RACETRACK ROAD AS A SIX-LANE FACILITY, BUT CONSTRUCT JUST THIS PORTION TO THE DURBIN LOOP ROAD TO ALLOW ACCESS TO FLAGLER HOSPITAL SITE SO THAT THEY CAN START CONSTRUCTION RIGHT AWAY. SO THAT'S $3.2 MILLION TO BE DONE IMMEDIATELY. THE NEXT PHASE OF TRANSPORTATION MITIGATION WOULD BE TO CONSTRUCT THE REMAINDER OF FOUR-LANING OF EAST PEYTON FROM THE LOOP ROAD HERE ALL THE WAY TO RACETRACK ROAD TO CONNECT HERE. THAT 16.3 ON THE $16.4 MILLION. THE NEXT PHASE OF CONSTRUCTION WOULD BE TO WIDEN EAST PEYTON FROM FOUR LANES TO SIX LANES ALL THE WAY FROM THE INTERCHANGE A 9B TO RACETRACK ROAD. THAT'S $2.7 MILLION. AND.

>>> THIS THE PHASE ARE IN WHEN IS FORMERLY PHASE 3 ROADWAY IMPROVEMENT, WOULD BE TO I HAD WOOEN THE TWO LANE PORTION OF RACETRACK ROAD FROM BARTRAM PARK BOULEVARD OVER TO I-95 TO WHERE THE EXISTING TWO LANE GOES TO FOUR LANE NEAR BARTRAM SPRINGS. SO THERE HAVE BEEN SOME CONVERSATIONS WITH DOT ABOUT, AS PART OF THE TEN-LANING OF I-95. THE DOT WOULD ACTUALLY BUILD THIS BRIDGE. SO IF DOT BUILDS THIS BRIDGE, THIS DOLLAR AMOUNT CHANGES SOME.

BUT IF DOT DOESN'T BUILD THE BRIDGE, THEN THIS PROJECT WILL BUILD THE BRIDGE OVER I-95.

AND WE ARE PROPOSING TO REMOVE THE FORMER PHASE 4 MITIGATION WHICH WOULD HAVE BEEN THE SHISKS LANING OF RACETRACK ROAD, ONE THAT TRAFFIC IS NOT -- OR THAT SIX-LANING IS NOT CAUSED BY PROJECT TRAFFIC, AND THE TESTIFYIF WHICH WILL STAY IN PLACE FOR MANY YEARS WILL HAVE FUNDS FOR THE COUNTY TO DO THE SIX-LANING IF THE COUNTY EVER NEEDS TO DO THAT SIX-LANING.

SO IN TOTAL, BETWEEN THE TIF AND THE ROAD CAPACITY CHARGES, THE OWNER WILL PAY ABOUT $63 MILLION FOR ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS. AGAIN, HALF OF WHICH WILL BE PAID BY EACH OF THOSE FUNDING SOURCES. THE OWNER WILL BE DRUNGT ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS WITH ITS OWN MONEY UNTIL FUNDS ARE AVAILABLE FROM EITHER THE ROAD CAPACITY CHARGES OR THE TIF, AND OWNER WILL NOT

[02:40:04]

YOU'VE GOT THREE APPLICATION DOCUMENTS AND STAFF REPORTS, SO WE MAY HAVE QUESTIONS, BUT I'M

TIRED OF TALKING SO I'LL ANSWER WHATEVER QUESTIONS YOU HAVE. >> THAT WAS A LOT THERE.

>> LET'S START BY DOING THE PUBLIC COMMENTS. WE CAN START THAT FROM THE E ELECTRONIC SIDE. ARCHIE, DO YOU HAVE ANY SPEAKER CARDS HERE?

>> NO. AND MR. VICE CHAIR, MR. PHILLIPS IS GOING TO HELP IF YOU NEED ANY ASSISTANCE ON THAT IN THE MEANTIME LET'S GO THROUGH THE ROLL CALL AND FOR THE APPLICANT

OR FOR STAFF. DR. MCCORMICK. >> DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS,

PHIL? MUTE. NONE. >> DR. HILSENBECK.

>> THESE WERE PRESENTED TOGETHER, ITEMS 6, 7 AND 8 AND I CAN UNDERSTAND WHY, THEY'RE ALL

LINKED LINKED, BUT ARE WE VOTING ON THEM SEPARATE? >> WE ARE, YES.

>> OKAY. SHOULD I ASK QUESTIONS ABOUT SOME NOW OR DO YOU WANT TO QUEUE

UP PUBLIC COMMENTS FIRST? >> IT TAKES A COUPLE MINUTES TO QUEUE UP THE PUBLIC COMMENTS.

WE HAVE TWO. LET'S GO AHEAD AND JUMP TO THOS THOSE.

>> PUBLIC COMMENT, YOU'RE ON. PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS.

>> THIS IS BRAD DAVIS WITH PROSSER. I DON'T HAVE ANY COMMENT.

I'M JUST HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE. >> THANK YOU, BRAD.

WE'LL KEEP YOU ON IN THE BACK GROUND. AND THEN THE NEXT ONE.

>> IF YOU CAN HEAR US, GO AHEAD AND GIVE US YOUR NAME, ADDRESS, AND YOU HAVE THREE MINUTES.

>> DO WE HAVE SOMEONE ON FOR PUBLIC COMMENTS? LAST CHANCE.

ARE YOU ON FOR PUBLIC COMMENTS? IS THAT IT. >> THIS IS AUSTIN CHAPMAN.

I'M THE TRANSPORTATION ENGINEER AND I'M HERE SHOULD ANY QUESTIONS FOR ME.

>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >> AN ADDITIONAL 1,066 RESIDENTIAL UNITS WHICH HAD READ IN ALL THE MATERIALS WOULD BE RENTAL UNITS. YOU'RE CONVERTING 355,119 SQUARE FEET OF OFFICE SPACE INTO THOSE 1,266 MULTI-FAMILY UNITS. IF YOU DID AN EQUIVALENT A SQUARE FOOTAGE, EACH OF THOSE RESIDENTIAL UNITS WOULD BE ABOUT 280 SQUARE FEET WHICH I DON'T THINK IS PROBABLY ADEQUATE. IF YOU SAID EACH OF THOSE RESIDENTIAL UNITS, RENTAL UNITS WITH APARTMENTS, MULTI-FAMILY UNITS WERE 1,000 SQUARE FEET, YOU'RE UP TO 1,266,000 SQUARE FEET, WHICH IS NEARLY AN ADDITIONAL 1 MILLION SQUARE, FEET OF BUILDING THAT WOULD BE ALLOWED TO BE CONSTRUCTED ON THE PROPERTY. SO I JUST DO NOT SEE THAT AS A FAIR TRADE IN REDUCTION OF SQUARE FOOT IN ONE TYPE OF USE AND A GREAT INCREASE IN SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THE OTHER. SO MAYBE YOU COULD ADDRESS THAT. I'M ALSO ARE CONCERNED THAT THE

[02:45:07]

SO WHO IS GOING TO BE DOING THAT? IS IT THE COUNTY, , FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OR WHO WOULD BE CHARGED WITH MAINTAINING THOSE ROADWAYS?

AND THAT'S ABOUT IT. BUT THANK YOU. >> MR. CHAIR --

>> AND I DO LIKE THE HOSPITAL. >> IF YOU WANT TO ADDRESS THEM -- IF YOU WANT TO GO

THROUGH THEM AS THEY COME UP. >> SURE. AND DR. HILSENBECK, I REALIZE THAT IN 2015 YOU WERE NOT ON THIS BOARD, SO A LITTLE BIT OF HISTORY.

WHEN WE DID THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WITH THE COUNTY COMMISSION AND THIS BOARD IN 2015, THERE WAS A CONVERSION MATRIX THAT WAS INCLUDED WITHIN THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, AND BASICALLY THAT ALLOWS, JUST LIKE A DRI, IT ALLOWS THE CONVERSION OF LAND USES BASED ON TRANSPORTATION TRIPS. SO YOUR MATH IS ACCURATE, THAT IF YOU HAVE 1,000 SQUARE FOOT APARTMENT, THE MATH DOESN'T JIBE, BUT THAT'S NOT THE WAY THE MATHEMATICS WORKS UNDER THE CONVERSION MATRIX. IT'S BASED ON TRANSPORTATION TRIPS.

AND SO MR. CHAPMAN, WHO IS ON THE PHONE WITH US TODAY, HE KNOWS THE TRIP GENERATION RATES FOR EVERY SINGLE LAND USE. IT'S BASED ON THE INSTITUTE OF TRANSPORTATION ENGINEER'S METHODOLOGY. THOSE CONVERSION RATES WERE APPROVED BY OR REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY THE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION STAFF. AND THE CONVERSION OF THE OFFICE TO THE RESIDENTIAL UNITS WAS DOESN'T BASED ON THAT APPROVED CONVERSION METHODOLOGY.

I WILL ALSO MENTION JUST BY WAY OF HISTORY THAT BACK IN 2015 WHEN THIS DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WAS APPROVED, THE STATE OF FLORIDA STILL HAD A THING CALLED A DEVELOPMENT OF REGIONAL IMPACT UNDER CHAPTER 380 .06 FLORIDA STATUTES. YOU MAY OR MAY NOT KNOW THAT DRIS HAVE AT LEAST TEMPORARILY GONE THE WAY OF A DODO BIRD. THEY AND SO THERE'S NO SUCH THING AS A DRI NOW. AND THAT'S ONLY IMPORTANT BECAUSE THE ONLY REASON THAT THE NUMBER OF RESIDENTIAL UNITS IN THIS PROJECT WAS CAPPED AT 999 AT THE TIME WAS TO ONLY DEAL WITH THE TRANSPORTATION NETWORK AND THE ASSOCIATED DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS BECAUSE AT THAT TIME THE DOT WAS COMING THROUGH, AND THIS GOES TO ANOTHER ONE OF YOUR POINTS ABOUT ROADS, SO BACK IN 2014 AND '15, DOT WANTED TO COME AND BUILD 9B INTO ST. JOHNS COUNTY, AND THAT ALSO REQUIRES THE CONSTRUCTION OF WEST PEYTON PARKWAY TO CONNECT RACETRACK ROAD AND ST. JOHNS PARKWAY TO 9B. AND SO GATE OWNED THAT RIGHT-OF-WAY.

AND SO THE SOLUTION TO GET EVERYBODY WHERE THEY NEEDED TO GO IN A FASTER TIME FRAME THAN A DRI WOULD HAVE PERMITTED WAS TO DO THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT. NOW THERE'S NO SUCH THING -- SO THE 999 UNITS WAS ONLY A PLACEHOLDER. THE CONVERSION IS ALLOWED UNDER THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, AND THAT WAS ALWAYS CONTEMPLATED. YOU ALSO MENTIONED ABOUT RENTALS. THESE MULTI-FAMILY UNITS CAN BE EITHER A RENTAL OR FOR SALE.

THEY CAN BE TOWNHOMES WHO ARE APARTMENTS. SO WE NEED TO CLARIFY THAT.

TO YOUR POINT ABOUT ON THE VARIANCES AND WAIVERS, MANY OF THESE ARE THE SAME VARIANCES AND WAIVERS THAT WERE APPROVED FOR THE PHASE 1A PUD, AND IN A NUTSHELL, THEY ARE REQUIRED BECAUSE OF THE MIXED USE NATURE OF THIS PROJECT. IN SIMPLE TERMS, THE ST. JOHNS COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE DOESN'T CALL FOR A PROJECT THAT IS THIS LARGE OR, I'M GOING TO USE THE TERM SOPHISTICATED, MORE LIKE MIXED USE. AND SO THESE WAIVERS, AND AGAIN WE CAN GO THROUGH THEM ONE BY ONE, IF YOU'VE GOT ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THEM SPECIFICALLY, BUT

[02:50:01]

EAST PEYTON PARKWAY, ONCE IT IS CONSTRUCTED, WILL BECOME A COUNTY ROAD.

AND RACETRACK ROAD IS ALREADY A COUNTY ROAD. AND IT WILL BE WIDENED BY THIS

PROJECT. >> . >> ANYTHING ELSE,

DR. HILSENBECK? >> NO THANK YOU. APPRECIATE THE CLARIFICATION.

>> MR. WAINRIGHT. >> YES. I HAVE TWO OR THREE QUESTIONS.

FIRST, THE CHANGE IN REDUCED SCENIC EDGE, ARE THERE AREAS WHERE THAT CHANGE IN SCENIC EDGE IS ADJACENT TO RESIDENTIAL AREAS? AND IF THEY ARE, CAN YOU TALK

ABOUT IT A LITTLE BIT. >> OKAY. I'M GOING TO GO BACK TO THE MAP.

THERE MAY BE A MAP AFTER THE QUESTION MARK. NO, SORRY.

HOLD ON A MINUTE, MR. WAINRIGHT. I APOLOGIZE. P >> .

>> I DON'T KNOW WHAT WE'RE GOING TO DO IF YOU DON'T HAVE A SLIDE READY TO GO.

>> IT WOULD BE A MIRACLE. OKAY. SO YOU'LL RECALL BACK IN 2015 AND '16 THERE WAS THE RACETRACK ROAD SCENIC EDGE WAS AGREED TO BE REDUCED TO 30 FEET, AND THEN THERE WAS ENHANCED LANDSCAPING. BECAUSE THIS PORTION OF THE PROJECT WAS ONLY COMMERCIAL, SCENIC EDGES ALONG WEST PEYTON AND 9B WERE REDUCED TO 10 FEET WITH ENHANCED LANDSCAPING.

NOW WE'RE GOING TO THIS SIDE WHICH INCLUDES MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL SO.

ADJACENT TO THE NON-RESIDENTIAL PODS, AGAIN RACETRACK ROAD IS GOING TO MAINTAIN THAT 30-FOOT SCENIC EDGE. COMMERCIAL AND OFFICE, SO COMMERCIAL SPACE, THERE IS NO OFFICE ABUTTING THIS ROAD, BUT FOR THIS COMMERCIAL IT WILL BE A MINIMUM 10 FEET.

ADJACENT TO THE MULTI-FAMILY THERE WILL BE MINIMUM 30-FOOT, AVERAGE 50-FOOT SCENIC EDGE ALONG EAST PEYTON PARKWAY. SO THE MULTI-FAMILY HAVE WILL LARGERSKIS THAN SKI SCENIC E

NON-RESIDENTIAL. >> THANK YOU. MY SECOND QUESTION HAS TO DO WITH COST. LIFE CYCLE COSTS. DO THESE CHANGES AFFECT THE COSTS TO THE COUNTY THAT INCREASE OR DECREASE IN TERMS OF MAINTENANCE OR LOSSES IN

REVENUE? >> THEY DO NOT CHANGE THE COST TO THE COUNTY.

THEY INCREASE THE COST TO THE DEVELOPER. AND THAT'S WHAT THE DEVELOPER IS AGREEING TO. AS FAR AS ROAD CONSTRUCTION. THE COUNTY WILL MAINTAIN EAST PEYTON PARKWAY, WEST PEYTON PARKWAY, AND RACETRACK ROAD. THOSE WILL BE PUBLICALLY DEDICATED. THEY'RE PART OF THE REASONABLE ROADWAY NETWORK.

9B IS START THE STATE HIGHWAY SYSTEM. >> AND MY QUESTION, AND I THINK YOUR ANSWER IS APPROPRIATE, BUT JUST TO CHECK, LIFE CYCLE COSTS, TOTAL ALL-IN COSTS ALL THE WAY

INTO THE FUTURE. >> DO NOT CHANGE. DON'T CHANGE FROM THE

DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT THAT WAS APPROVED IN 2015. >> MR. CHAIR, MAY I HAVE A SIDE BAR JUST FOR ONE MOMENT, MR. CHAIR, MR. VICE CHAIR? I'M GOING FOOSE SOMETHING --

>> TO PASS SOMETHING. >> SURE. >> OKAY.

SO MR. MCCORMICK WANTS ME TO CLARIFY THAT FLAGLER LOP IS A NOT-FOR-PROFIT -- HOSPITAL IN S.

A NOT-FOR-PROFIT CORPORATION. AGAIN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THIS IDEA, THIS WHOLE PROJECT IS INCLUDED IN A TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT. THAT WAS APPROVED IN 2015.

[02:55:01]

JUST MEANS GATE WILL BE REASON BURRED FROM THE TIF LATER IN TIME BUT THAT'S A COST TO GATE,

NOT ST. JOHNS COUNTY. >> SO BACK TO THE QUESTION, AND I DON'T WANT TO BELABOR IT, BUT PRIOR TO THIS MOMENT, THE HOSPITAL WASN'T IN, WAS NOT IN, AND THAT WAS TAXABLE PROPERTY.

>> CORRECT. >> THE HOSPITAL IS IN NOW, AND NOW IT IS NOT TAXABLE PROPERTY.

>> CORRECT. BUT THE TIF WILL GENERATE THE SAME AMOUNT OF MONEY, JUST OVER A LONGER PERIOD OF TIME, AND SO I'M GOING TO GO BACK TO THE SLIDE AT THE VERY END BECAUSE I THINK THIS IS WORTH TALKING ABOUT. ALL THESE ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS, AND I'M CLICKING THROUGH RIGHT NOW, IN THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT GATE IS GOING TO SPEND $63 MILLION TO BUILD THE ROADS I JUST WENT THROUGH WITH YOU. EAST PEYTON PARKWAY TO SIX LANES EVENTUALLY AND THEN THE FOUR-LANING OF RACETRACK ROAD. OVER TIME, THROUGH ALL THE PHASE PHASES THAT COSTS $63 MILLION. HALF OF THAT MONEY COMES FROM THE TIF WHICH WILL BE SLOWER IN GAINING FUNDS BECAUSE OF THE NOT-FOR-PROFIT STATUS OF FLAGLER HOSPITAL.

BUT EVERYBODY HAS TO PAY THE ROAD CAPACITY CHARGES. THAT'S WHAT THESE ARE.

THEY ARE AKIN TO ROAD IMPACT FEES. SO WHILE THERE MAY BE PAY SLOWER REIMBURSEMENT FROM THE TIF, THE ROAD CAPACITY CHARGES ACTUALLY GO UP.

SO ALL IN ALL, WE'RE GOING FROM ABOUT IN THE CURRENT DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT -- HOLD ON, I'VE GOT TO FIND MY MESE OF PAPER -- I HAVE MY FILES IN THE BACK, BUT IT'S APPROXIMATELY $54 MILLION $54 MILLION -- I'M GOING TO ASK TONY -- YES, APPROXIMATELY $54 MILLION TO APPROXIMATELY

$6 MILLION. SO THAT IS AN INCREASE. >> OKAY.

JUST ONE QUESTION ABOUT THAT. NET PRESENT VALUE, YOU SAID THESE STROAMS COME IN THOSEE IN LATER. THAT MEANS THEY'RE WORTH LESS. I'M NOT TRYING TO BEAT THIS HORSE TO DEATH, BUT IF IT COMES IN LATER, IT'S WORTH LESS, AND I WAS ASKING IN TERMTS OF SIGH OF

LIFE SALES COSTS TOTAL. >> AGAIN, GOING TO -- GATE TO GOING TO PAY FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE ROADS. ONCE THE ROADS ARE CONSTRUCTED AND THE COUNTY APPROVES THE ROAD CONSTRUCTION, VERIFIES IT'S BEEN DONE CORRECTLY, THE RIGHTS OF RIGHT-OF-WAY IN THE ROADS HAD BEEN DEAD TBAITD TO S. JOHNS COUNTY. HAT THAT POINT THEY BECOME THE TAXPAYER'S OBLIGATION FOR MAINTENANCE. WHETHER THAT COST COMES SOONER OR LATER IS REALLY THE SAME COST. THAT'S NOT CHANGING.

>> LAST QUESTION. ARE THERE T. ROADWAYS ADEQUATE FOR THE TRAFFIC COMING?

>> WELL, WE'VE GOT OUR TRAFFIC ENGINEER ON THE PHONE. I THINK FONG'S ON THE PHONE.

BUT MY LAYPERSON'S ANSWER TO YOU IS YES. WE HAVE VETTED THIS THROUGH.

I CAN'T TELL YOU HOW MANY REASMS TRAFFIC STUDIES ARE SITTING ON THE FLOOR OF MY OFFICE, AND I BELIEVE THAT MR. NEN AND MS. TRAMPTON HAVE GONE THROUGH ALL OF THIS WITH A FINE TOOTH 'EM COL AND HAVE TWEAK IT SUBJECT ON A COUPLE OF CHASING WE NEED TO MAKE TO FIX ONE

NUMBER. >> MS. BISHOP, DOES THAT AGREE WITH YOUR UNDERSTANDING?

NOT THAT I WOULD EVER DOUBT. >> YES, SIR. I DO CONCUR WITH THAT.

THAT IS MY UNDERSTANDING AS WELL. AND AS MS. ELLEN AVERY SMITH MENTIONED, FONG ENG NGUYEN AND MTH TRANTHAT MANY ARE BOTH ON THE PHONE P THEY ARE HERE

REMOTELY IF THEY WANT TO CHIME IN ON THAT. >> PLEASE DO.

FONG, DO YOU WANT TO ADD SOMETHING TO THIS OR JAN, DO YOU WANT TO GO FIRST?

>> AGENCY MEMBERS, THIS IS JAN, TRANSPORTATION PLANNER. CAN YOU GUYS HEAR ME?

[03:00:02]

>> YES, WE CAN. >> OKAY, GOOD. YES, SO WE HAVE -- WENT THROUGH THE REVISED DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT OR THE PROPOSED MODIFICATION OF THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, PROPOSED TRANSPORTATION MITIGATION, AND WE FIND THAT IT IS ADEQUATE FOR THE PROPOSED TRAFFIC GENERATED BY THE DEVELOPMENT. THE ONLY CHANGE THAT IS IN QUESTION IS THE REMOVAL OF THE SIXTH LANE. WE BASED ON GROWTH RATES AND PROJECTED TRAFFIC AT BUILD-OUT, THE SAKES $6.00 LANE ON RACETRACK ROAD MAY BE REQUIRED.

THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING TO REMOVE THAT FROM THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FROM BEING THEIR OBLIGATION AS WE INDICATED.

TIF FINANCING WILL BE IN PLACE FOR MANY, MANY YEARS SO THERE IS A FINANCING MECHANISM IF THE TRAFFIC DOES BEAR OUT AND THAT SIXTH LANE IS NEEDED, WE WILL HAVE A FUNDING MECHANISM TO CONSTRUCT IT FROM THE COUNTY'S STANDPOINT. THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT IS OVER A 20-YEAR LIFE CYCLE, SO THAT IT IS DIFFICULT TO PROJECT. SO WE ARE SUPPORTIVE OF WAITING

TO SEE IF THAT SIXTH LANE IS ACTUALLY NEEDED. >> THANK YOU.

FONG, DID YOU HAVE ANYTHING TO ADD TO THAT? >>>I DON'T THINK FONG IS ON THE LINE. IF YOU NEED TO TALK TO HIM WE CAN GET HIM ON THE LINE.

>> I DON'T THINK SO. ARE YOU SATISFIED? >>>I HAVE ONE MORE

QUESTION. >> OF COURSE, YOU DO. AFTER YOUR ONE MORE AND ONE MORE QUESTION. GO AHEAD. YOU ALWAYS SAY THAT.

>> THIS IS THE ONLY ONE MORE QUESTION AND I WOULDN'T HAVE TO ASK IT IF YOU WERE AVAILABLE.

YOU'RE THE EXPERT IN THIS AREA SO I'M COVERING IT FOR YOU. SIGNAGE.

USUALLY MIKE COVERS THAT THOROUGHLY. ARE WE OKAY ON THAT? FOR THIS P-U-D IS SIMILAR, IF NOT THE SAME AS WHAT IS PROPOSED IN DURBIN PAVILION.

THE WHOLE PROJECT THERE, WITH RESPECT TO THE EAST AND WEST SIDES OF THE ROADS, WILL ALL KIND OF MATCH AND THEY'LL ALL BE COHESIVE. I'M ANTICIPATING A GOOD LOOKING

PROJECT IN THE FUTURE WHEN THIS PROJECT ALL DEVELOPS. >> THANK YOU.

MY CHAIRMAN WILL NOT EXSCOREUATE YOU FOR TAKING TO LONG OF AN ANSWER FOR THAT.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >> THANK YOU. >> ONE LAST QUESTION?

YOU SURE? >>>NO. >> OKAY.

I'M UP NEXT. WE VETTED ALL THIS STUFF OUT AND DID THE WEST SIDE OF 9B.

YEAH. I'M HAPPY BECAUSE THE SIGNAGE IS THE SAME AS I'VE READ IT MYSELF.

YOU KNOW, IT'S A DIFFERENT AREA. I WAS GOING TO ASK THIS FOR THE TIME ISSUE BUT TONY DID THIS A COUPLE OF FIVE YEARS AGO WHEN WE ASKED HOW ARE YOU TRYING TO GET THREE MILLION OR WHATEVER THE NUMBER OF SQUARE FEET IS ON THIS PIECE OF PROPERTY? THAT'S BECAUSE THE, AND I'M PARAPHRASING. THE DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS TO BASICALLY 12 MILE SWAMP JUST GOT TRANSFERRED UP AND THAT WAS A DONATION TO MAKE THAT WHATEVER 12 MILE SWAMP IS.

NEVER BEEN THERE. PUT UP IN INTOO THIS PARCEL HERE.

IS THAT CORRECT, GIVE OR TAKE? >> THAT AND TWIN CREEK. THEY TRANSFERRED THE DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS FROM THE SWAMP TO THIS PROPERTY AND THE 12 MILE CREEK PROPERTY SITTING ACROSS THE

DURBIN CREEK ME PENCE LA. >> UP NEXT IS MS. PER CONSISTENCY.

QUESTIONS? >> NO QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS.

>> NO QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS. >> MR. MATAVINA? >> NONE.

>> ARCHIE TOOK ALL OF OUR TIME IT LOOKS LIKE. OKAY.

SO WE'VE HAD THE APPLICANT PRESENT, HAD PUBLIC SPEAKING, WENT TO THE QUESTIONS ABOUT THINGS. BACK IN THE AGENCY NOW. AGAIN, WE'RE GOING TO HEAR THESE ONE AT A TIME. ITEM NUMBER SIX IS FIRST. I'D LIKE TO HEAR A MOTION THEN.

>> I'D OFFER A MOTION ON THE FIRST NUMBER ITEM SIX. >> PLEASE DO.

>> MOTION TO APPROVE COMP PLAN 201905 DURBIN PARK BASED ON FOUR FINDINGS AS FACT BASED ON

THE STAFF REPORT. >> SECOND. >> WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION PLEASE SPEAK UP? HEARING NONE I'M GOING TO DO THE ROLL CALL VOTE FOR ITEM SIX. MOTION TO APPROVE.

[03:05:01]

DR. MCCORMICK? >> I'M SORRY I WAS MUTED AGAIN.

YES. >> DR. HILLSONBECK? >> YES.

>> MR. WANERIGHT? >> YES. >> MR. COPENHALFER IS NOT

VOTING. >> MS. PERKINS? YES.

>> MR. LAMO? >> YES. >> MR. MATAVINO?

>> YES. >> THAT'S MOTION TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL JUST AS A

NOTE. THANK YOU. >>>MY BOOK SAYS MOTION TO

APPROVE COMP PLAN. >> I KNOW BUT IT SHOULD BE MOTION TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL.

I THINK IT'S JUST CON TRUED THAT WAY, THANK YOU. >> NOT A PROBLEM.

THANK YOU FOR VOTE ON ITEM SIX. ITEM SEVEN LOOKING FOR A MOTION. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION?

>>>I OFFER MOTION IF NO ONE ELSE. >> PLEASE DO.

>> MOTION TO APPROVE P-U-D2019-12. MOTION TO RECOMMEND.

2019-12 DURBIN PARK BASED ON NINE FINDINGS OF FACT AS PROVIDED IN THE STAFF REPORT.

>> DO I HAVE A SECOND? >> SECOND. >> TWO SECONDS.

ALL RIGHT. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE WE'LL DO A ROLL

CALL VOTE? DR. MCCORMICK? >> YES.

>> DR. HILLSONBECK IS THIS >> NO. >> MR. WANERIGHT?

>> YES. >> I'M NOT VOTING. MS. PERKINS?

>> YES. >> MR. LAMO? >> YES.

>> MR. MATAVINA? >> YES. >> MOTION CARRIES.

MOVING ONTO ITEM NUMBER EIGHT. >> THIS WAS THE MOTION THAT I WAS MOST CONCERNED WITH.

I WOULD OFFER A MOTION. TO HEAR NO OTHER COMMENTS. I OFFER MOTION TO APPROVE THE

AMENDMENT OF THE ROAD CAPACITY CHARGE. >> I'LL SECOND THAT ONE.

>> GIVE ME A SECOND. ORDNANCE 2015-6 AS AMENDED FINDING THE ORDNANCE CONSISTENT WITH THE ST. JOHNS COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE.

>> NOW YOU CAN SECOND, BILL. >> SECOND. >> WE HAVE A MOTION TO

APPROVE AND A SECOND. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? >> I HAVE A QUESTION AND A COMMENT. I'M CONCERNED ABOUT THE DEVELOPERS REQUEST TO REMOVE THAT SIX LANE PORTION OF HIGHWAY THAT OUR COUNTY PLANNER CHANGED. I RESEARCHED WHAT IT COST TO BUILD VARIOUS ROADS PER MILE IN URBAN AREA JUST 2 LANE ROAD COST THREE TO FIVE MILLION PER MILE.

A 4 LANE ROAD COST EIGHT TO TEN MILLION PER MILE. [INAUDIBLE] MAYBE 12 MILLION PER MILE. I WANT TO KNOW HOW MANY MILES IS THAT STRETCH IN LENGTH SO WE CAN GET AN ESTIMATE WHAT THE COUNTY MIGHT BE ON THE HOOK FOR IN TERMS OF FUNDING THAT.

THEN I WANT TO CLARIFY THAT ALL THREE OF THESE OTHER ROADS ARE GOING TO HAVE TO BE COUNTY [INAUDIBLE] BY RESEARCH INCLUDING FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION REPORT ABOUT 17% EITHER ON AN ANNUAL OR A FIVE YEAR BASIS. I COULDN'T TELL.

IN ANY EVENT I AM CONCERNED ABOUT THOSE COSTS BEING, HAVING TO BE COVERED BY THE COUNTY DOWN

THE ROAD, SO TO SPEAK. THANK YOU. >> ALL RIGHT.

WE'LL HAVE A APPLICANT ANSWER THAT. >> GOOD AFTERNOON.

IN ANSWER TO YOUR QUESTION THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT LEAVES THE TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT FUND IN PLACE. I'M SORRY THE TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT IN PLACE SO THAT THE COUNTY CAN USE MONEY GENERATING FROM THIS PROJECT TO DO THE SIX LANING IF IT'S WARRANTED IN THE FUTURE. THE REASON WE'RE SEEKING TO REMOVE IT IS BECAUSE THE PROJECT TRAFFIC ITSELF DOES NOT WARRANT THE SIX LANING BUT IF THE PROJECT TRAFFIC IN CONJUNCTION WITH GROWTH IN THE SURROUNDING AREA WEREN'T THE SIX LANES THE COUNTY WILL HAVE THE FUNDS FROM THE DURBIN T-I-F TO PAY FOR THAT SIX LANING. NOTHING HAS CHANGED FROM 2015

[03:10:03]

THEY ARE PART OF THE REGIONAL ROADWAY NETWORK JUST LIKE COUNTY ROAD 210 OR COUNTY ROAD 2209 OR

ANYTHING ELSE. >> HOW MANY MILES IS THAT PARTICULAR STRETCH THAT WOULD BE

SIX LANES? >> I DON'T KNOW THE ANSWER TO THAT QUESTION.

>> OKAY. >> TERESA? >> I DO NOT KNOW THE

ANSWER TO THAT QUESTION TO THAT ANSWER EITHER. >> THIS IS JAN.

I DON'T HAVE THE DISTANCE. I CAN MEASURE IT AND GET BACK TO YOU OR DICK CAN DO THAT WHILE I'M TALKING. I JUST WANT TO POINT OUT TWO THINGS.

ONE, THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT REQUIRES THE APPLICANT TO DESIGN THE SIX LANES IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE FOUR LANE THEY WILL BE CONSTRUCTING. IN ADDITION, THE D-O-T IS PLANNING TO CONSTRUCT THE OVERPASS, WHICH IS A HUGE PORTION OF THIS SEGMENT, AND IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE OVERPASS THEY WILL LIKELY INCLUDE IMPROVEMENTS ON EITHER SIDE THAT WILL ALSO FACILITATE THE WIDENING OF THE ROAD.

I JUST WANT TO POINT THOSE THINGS OUT AND SEE, I DON'T KNOW, DICK, WERE YOU ABLE TO GET

THE DISTANCE? >> THIS IS DICK. IT'S APPROXIMATELY ONE AND A HALF MILES FROM WHERE IT CURRENTLY ENDS TO WHERE WE WOULD CONNECT THAT RACETRACK ROAD.

>> CAN I ASK ONE FURTHER THING. I READ A COUPLE OF PLACES AND APPLICATION MATERIALS THAT THESE NUMBERS WERE BASED ON $2,014 FIGURES.

IS THAT CORRECT OR DID I MISREAD SOMETHING?

>> I BELIEVE THE MODIFICATIONS IN THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT IS UPDATING TO $2,019.

>> CORRECT. >> JAN, THANK YOU. >>>OKAY.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS ON ITEM EIGHT FROM AGENCY MEMBERS?

ALL RIGHT. WHERE DID WE LEAVE THAT OFF? >> YOU HAVE A MOTION AND A

SECOND. >> YES. ANY OTHER COMMENTS, QUESTIONS? ALL RIGHT. SEEING NONE WE'LL GO DOWN ROLL CALL.

DR. MCCORMICK? >> YES. >> DR. HILLSONBECK?

>> NO. >> MR. WANERIGHT? >> YES.

>> MS. PERKINS? >> YES. >> MR. LAMO?

>> YES. >> AND MR. MATAVINA? >> YES.

>> MOTION CARRIES. THAT IS ALL FROM OUR AGENDA. STAFF REPORTS?

[Reports]

THANK YOU ALL. >> MR. CHAIR MIKE ROBERTSON HERE.

THE ONLY THING TO REPORT IS OUR NEXT PZ A MEETING WILL BE THURSDAY ON MAY 7TH UNLESS

SOMETHING CHANGES. >> OKAY. CAN ALL OF OUR MEMBERS EITHER

MAKE IT ON THE PHONE OR MAKE IT IN PERSON? >> YES.

>> YES. >> MR. CHAIRMAN, I CAN MAKE IT.

I JUST WANTED TO ALSO ADD SINCE I HAVE THE NOTEBOOKS HERE AND THEY'VE BEEN DROPPING THE NOTEBOOKS OFF AT MY HOUSE. I GUESS I NEED TO GET THESE BACK TO THEM.

HOW DO WE GO ABOUT DOING THAT? BRING THEM IN OR? >> SHERRY WILL CALL YOU

ABOUT IT. >> OKAY. >> OR YOU CAN SELL THEM, YOU KNOW, HOLD THEM HOSTAGE. OKAY. AGENCY REPORTS?

FROM US? AGENCY MEMBERS? >> I ALREADY SOLD MINE.

>> BILL SOLD HIS. THERE YOU GO. I HAVE NOTHING.

THANK YOU ALL VERY MUCH FOR YOUR PARTICIPATION AND PATIENCE IN DEALING WITH, I HEARD A LOT ABOUT PATIENCE IN THE LAST THREE WEEKS. IN DEALING WITH ALL THIS NONSENSE HERE. BUT CONGRATULATIONS TO THE STAFF FOR MAKING THIS WORK AND KEEPING IT GOING FORWARD AND EVERYBODY ELSE. THANK YOU GUYS.

APPRECIATE IT. WE HAVE A MOTION TO ADJOURN? >> SO MOVE.

>> S

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.