May 05, 2020 Board of County Commissioners

[Call to Order]

[00:00:11]

I NOW WILL CALL TO ORDER THE REGULARMEETING OF THE ST. JOHNS COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS. THIS IS MAY 5, 2020. GOOD MORNING TO ALL AND WELCOME TO THIS REGULAR MEETING OF THE ST. JOHNS COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS.N ORDER TO MITIGATE THE TRANSMISSION OF THE CORONAVIRUS AND REDUCE RISK OF THE COVID-19 ILLNESS, THE GOVERNOR HAS SUSPENDED THE REQUIREMENT OF THE PHYSICAL QUORUM AND THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS HAS ADOPTED PROCEDURES TO CONDUCT MEETINGS USING REMOTE PARTICIPATION DURING EMERGENCY PROCLAMATION 2020-3 SO THE PUBLIC AS A MEANS TO COMMENT WITHOUT PHYSICALLY ATTENDING. ALONG WITH PRIOR COMMUNICATIONS PUTTING EMAIL, THE PUBLIC WILL BE ABLE TO COMMENT BY PHONE WHILE WATCHING THE MEETING VIA GTV OR BY THE STREAMING POSTED ON THE WEBSITE. THE WEBSITE PROVIDES A TELEPHONE NUMBER TO USE TO CALL INTO THE MEETING. IF MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC DO NOT PROVIDE COMMENT, PARTICIPANTS ARE ADVISED THAT PEOPLE MAY BE LISTENING TO DO NOT PROVIDE COMMENT.

THOSE PERSONS ARE NOT REQUIRED TO IDENTIFY THEMSELVES. THIS MEETING IS BEING RECORDED.

THOSE CALLING IN TO COMMENT IF YOU RECEIVE A BUSY SIGNAL, PLEASE CALL BACK.

CONTINUE TO WATCH GTV WHILE YOU ARE WATCHING BECAUSE A TIMER SHOULD BE VISIBLE TO YOU.

PLEASE LEAVE YOUR PHONE WHILE YOU ARE MAKING COMMENT. THERE MAY BE A 5 TO 9 SECOND DELAY IN THE VISUAL PRESENTATIONS AND IF WE EXPERIENCE ANY DIFFICULTIES WE WILL RECESS AND TAKE CARE OF THAT. MEETING MATERIALS ARE AVAILABLE ON THE WEBSITE UNDER AGENDA AND MINUTES AND ONCE YOU FIND THE AGENDA MATERIAL THAT YOU ARE LOOKING FOR YOU CAN CLICK ON THE AGENDA ITEM TO ACCESS ALL OF THE SUPPORTING MATERIALS.

BECAUSE WE HAVE ONE COMMISSIONER THAT IS NOT PRESENT WITH US TODAY, ALL BOOKS WILL BE DONE VIA ROLL CALL VOTE. MAY I HAVE THE CLERK PLEASE CALL THE WILL? MUCH. OUR INVOCATION WILL BE DONE BY REVEREND ELLIOTT.

GOOD MORNING TO YOU AND THANK YOU FOR COMING IN. THANK YOU FOR BEING PATIENT

WITH US. >> LET'S PRAY. HEAVENLY FATHER IN THESE TRYING TIMES WE SEEK YOUR WISDOM AS WE LEAN IN ON THE BUSINESS IN THE AFFAIRS.

TO OUR COUNTY OFFICIALS TO THOSE WHO ARE IN THE FRONTLINES OF FIRST RESPONDERS AND I ASK THAT YOUR HAND WILL BE OVER THEM HE WILL GUIDE THEM SAFELY THAT YOU WOULD CONTINUE TO GIVE US THE WISDOM TO DEAL WITH THE INFRASTRUCTURE ISSUES, THE ECONOMIC IMPACT AND MOVING FORWARD, JUST THE AMOUNT OF CHANGES THAT NEED TO TAKE PLACE FOR THE SAFETY OF OUR COMMUNITY. ASKED THAT WE WOULD NOT DEAL WITH THESE ISSUES LATELY AND THAT WE WOULD SEEK YOUR FACE. WE WOULD FOLLOW YOUR WORD AS YOU SAY IN YOUR WORD THAT WE WOULD SEEK JUSTICE AND WALK CALMLY BEFORE YOU. WE ASK THIS IN CHRIST'S

PRECIOUS NAME. AMEN. >> MR.SMITH: PLEASE JOIN US IN THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE AND THE FLAG OF OUR COUNTRY.I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS, ONE NATION UNDER GOD INDIVISIBLE WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL.

[Proclamations]

COURT MONTH. COMMISSIONER BLOCKER. >> WE WILL READ THIS PROCLAMATION. THIS IS ON OUR NATIONAL DRUG COURT MONTH WHEREAS 2020 MARKS THE 31ST ANNIVERSARY OF TREATMENT COURTS IN THE NATION WHICH MIAMI-DADE DRUG COURT WAS THE FIRST COURT TO SPARK A NATIONAL REVOLUTION WHICH CHANGED THE FACE OF THE AMERICAN JUDICIAL SYSTEM AND WHEREAS FOR THE PAST 31 YEARS DRUG COURTS HAVE SERVED 1.5 MILLION INDIVIDUALS RESTORED LIVES, REUNITED FAMILIES AND MADE COMMUNITY GETS ACROSS THE NATION SAFER NOW RECOGNIZED AS THE MOST SUCCESSFUL CRIMINAL JUSTICE INTERVENTION OUR NATION'S HISTORY. WE ARE 75 PERCENT TREATMENT COURT GRADUATES WILL NEVER SEE ANOTHER PAIR OF HANDCUFFS AND AN AVERAGE OF $6000 WAS SAVED FOR EVERY INDIVIDUAL SERVED.

[00:05:02]

ST. JOHNS COUNTY URGING CITIZENS TO RECOGNIZE THE PRACTITIONERS AND PARTICIPANTS IN ORDER TO SUSTAIN DRUG COUNTS IN OUR COUNTY AND THE CONTRIBUTIONS FROM REDUCING DRUG USAGE AND CRIME PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF ST. JOHNS COUNTY, FLORIDA THIS FIFTH DAY OF MAY, 2020 ATTEST BRANDON HAD A CLERK OF COURTS JEB SMITH CHAIRMAN. IF I MAY BRIEFLY SAY EARLY IN MY CAREER AS A PROSECUTOR HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO SERVE AS A DRUG COURT LIAISON IN PUTNAM COUNTY IT WAS A REMARKABLE TRANSFORMATION MANY WOMEN AND SINGLE MOTHERS THAT WERE STRUGGLING WITH DRUG ADDICTION BEEN ABLE TO OVERCOME THAT BECAUSE YOU HAVE HARD-WORKING MEN AND WOMEN WHO DONATED THEIR TIME AND EFFORTS TO RESTORE THAT. SO DRUG COURT WORKS AND I

APPRECIATE THIS OPPORTUNITY FOR US TO RECOGNIZE IT. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

IS ANYBODY FROM DRUG COURT HERE TODAY? ALL RIGHT.

I WILL DO THE NEXT PROCLAMATION THIS MORNING. PROCLAMATION OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ST. JOHNS COUNTY, FLORIDA. WHEREAS THE JEWISH COMMUNITY OF ST. JOHNS COUNTY PROBABLY LABORS TO KEEP THE LIVE JEWISH HERITAGE AND WHEREAS IN 2005 REPRESENTATIVE DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ OF FLORIDA AND SENATOR ARLEN SPECTER DESIGNATED A MONTH TO HONOR JEWISH AMERICAN HERITAGE AND CULTURE WHICH BOTH HOW CONGRESS PASSED UNANIMOUSLY AND BROWSED ON APRIL 20, 2006, RESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH SIGNED AN OFFICIAL DOCUMENT DECLARING THE MONTH OF MAY TO THE JEWISH AMERICAN HERITAGE MONTH AND WHEREAS THE ST. JOHN ÃST.

AUGUSTINE JEWISH HISTORICAL SOCIETY HAS INCORPORATED AS A KNOT-FOR-PROFIT UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA TO EXPLORE THE POSSIBILITY AND POSSIBILITY THAT THE FIRST JEWS IN WHAT WOULD BECOME THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA CAME ASHORE IN SAINT AUGUSTINE, FLORIDA AND TOOK PART IN THE FOUNDING OF OUR COUNTRY'S FIRST EUROPEAN CITY IN THE VERY BEGINNINGS OF AN AMERICAN JEWISH HERITAGE AND WHEREAS THE OLDEST SYNAGOGUE IN CONTINUOUS USE IS FOUND IN ST.

JOHNS COUNTY AND WHEREAS THE JEWISH COMMUNITY OF ST. JOHNS COUNTY PLAYED A VITAL PART IN THE QUEST FOR CIVIL RIGHTS LED BY REVEREND MARTIN LUTHER KING JR. AND ST. AUGUSTINE DURING THE SUMMER OF 1964 NOW THEREFORE BE IT PROCLAIMED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF ST. JOHNS COUNTY, FLORIDA, THAT MAY COME 2020 BE DESIGNATED AS ST. JOHNS COUNTY JEWISH HERITAGE MONTH IN RECOGNITION OF THE FACT THAT THE PAST REMIND US OF HUMAN TRUTHS AND ALLOWS FOR PREPARATION F NOURISHING CULTURAL TRADITIONS HERE IN ST.

JOHNS COUNTY, FLORIDA. PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF ST.

JOHNS COUNTY, FLORIDA, THIS FIFTH DAY OF MAY, 2020, BRANDON PATTY CLERK OF COURTS TO TEST SUPPORTED ST. JOHNS COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF FLORIDA SHARED JEB SMITH.

THANK YOU, VERY MUCH. MOVE ALONG TO THE NEXT PROCLAMATION.

>> IT IS AN HONOR TO PROVIDE A PROCLAMATION RECOGNIZING MAY 2020.

I'VE KNOWN QUITE A FEW PEOPLE WITH FOSTER CHILDREN AND WAS A JOY TO GET OUT OF DOING SO IN THINGS THAT THEY LEARNED FROM THE KIDS THAT THEY TAKE CARE OF.

THE OPPORTUNITY TO PROVIDE A SAFE HOME FOR KIDS THAT OTHERWISE MAY NOT HAVE THEM IS TRULY AN HONOR TO BE ABLE TO PROVIDE THIS. WHEREAS ST. JOHNS COUNTY, FLORIDA, FAMILY INTEGRITY PROGRAM MAKES ALL EFFORTS TO PROVIDE COMMUNITY SERVICES TO MEET THE NEEDS OF FAMILIES LOVING AND NURTURING HOMES FOR CHILDREN IN OUR COMMUNITY DURING CHALLENGING TIMES. AND WHEREAS LOCAL FOSTER FAMILIES RECOGNIZE AND SUPPORT ATACHMENT TO THE FAMILY FAITH CULTURE TO HELP REDUCE THE TRAUMA OUT OF HOME CARE AND WHEREAS FOSTER FAMILIES ARE VALUED MEMBERS OF THE CARRYING TEAM THAT STRIVES TO MEET ALL THE NEEDS OF THE CHILD AND TO ACHIEVE THE BEST POSSIBLE OUTCOME.

WHEREAS ALL OF OUR LOCAL FAMILIES HOMES AND HEARTS DURING THEIR GREATEST TIME OF

[00:10:06]

JOHNS COUNTY FLORIDA ATTEST BRANDON PATTY CLERK OF COURTS JEB SMITH CHAIR.

>> IS THERE ANYBODY HERE THAT RECEIVE THAT DOCUMENT THIS MORNING?

WE WILL GET IT TO YOU LATER. >> GOOD MORNING. THIS PROCLAMATION IS VERY IMPORTANT FOR OUR COMMUNITY. A LOT OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION IN OUR COMMUNITY AND WE HAVE STAFF THAT WORKS HARD TO KEEP THAT I APPRECIATE THAT. THIS IS A PROCLAMATION BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ST. JOHNS COUNTY LIGATURES WHEREAS NATIONAL TRUST RESTORED RESERVATIONS ESTABLISHED MAY AS HISTORIC PRESERVATION MONTH IN 2005 EXTENDING THE NATIONAL PRESERVATION WEEK WHICH BEGAN IN 1975. WHEREAS NATIONAL PRESERVATION MONTH IS A WAY TO PROMOTE HISTORIC PLACES FOR PURPOSE OF INSTILLING NATIONAL AND COMMUNITY PRIDE PROMOTING TOURISM, AND SHOWING THE SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC BENEFITS OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION AND WHEREAS ST. JOHNS COUNTY HAS A RICH HISTORY SPANNING OVER 10,000 YEARS OF NATIVE AMERICAN, EUROPEAN, AFRICAN AND AMERICAN HISTORY AND WHEREAS LOCAL HISTORIC PRESERVATION IS AN EFFECTIVE TOOL FOR REVITALIZING NEIGHBORHOODS FOSTERING LOCAL PRIDE IN MAINTAINING COMMUNITY CHARACTER AND WHEREAS IT IS IMPORTANT IN OUR LIVES IN THE CONSERVATIONS MADE BY THE DEDICATED INDIVIDUALS IN HELPING TO PROVIDE TANGIBLE ASPECTS OF THE HERITAGE THAT HAS SAVED US AS THE PEOPLE.

NOW THEREFORE BE IT PROCLAIMED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF ST. JOHNS COUNTY, FLORIDA THAT MAY 2020 BE DESIGNATED AS NATIONAL HISTORIC PRESERVATION IN ST.

JOHNS COO PROTECT AND PRESERVE AND ADOPTED THIS FIFTH DAY OF I WILL SAY THIS. IT'S A GREAT TIME TO GET OUT AND GET DOWNTOWN BEFORE THE CROWDS COME BACK AND VISIT THE AREAS. I WILL STILL WANT TO GO DOWN

THERE AND VISIT OUR NEW AREAS. THANK YOU. >> ANYBODY HERE TO RECEIVE UP Ã

THIS PROCLAMATION THIS MORNING? THE NON-MRS. LUNDQUIST? >> APPEARED TO BE AN ADDITIONAL WHEREAS THE NATIONAL DAY OF PRAYER HAS BEEN A VITAL PART OF OUR HERITAGE WHEN CONGRESS GAVE THE TWO ASKED THE COLONIES TO PRAY FOR JASON PERFORMING NATION GRASSY CALL TO PRAYER IS CONTINUED THROUGHOUT HISTORY INCLUDING PRESIDENT LINCOLN PUBLIC NATION OF A DAY OF BUT WE MUST CONTINUE TO ASK GOD FOR WISDOM, COMFORT AND STRENGTH AND PRAY FOR THOSE WHO HAVE SUFFERED HARM OR LOST LOVED ONES. AND WHEREAS IT STANDS TO CALL LES PAUL TO HUMBLE BEFORE GOD UPON PEOPLE. AND WHEREAS THIS YEAR'S NATIONAL TEAM ACROSS OUR PRAYER IS IMPORTANT TO OUR NATION IN THE WORLD TODAY AS IT WAS IN

[00:15:23]

PASSED AND ADOPTED BY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ST. JOHNS COUNTY FLORIDA THIS FIFTH DAY OF MAY, 2020. TEST BRANDON PATTY, CLERK OF COURTS, BOARD OF COUNTY

COMMISSIONERS SIGNED JEFF S SMITH, CHAIRMAN. >> THANK YOU FOR READING THOSE IN AND THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO DO THAT FROM THE DIOCESE.

I WILL NOW ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO ACCEPT THESE PROCLAMATIONS. >> HAVE A MOTION BY PCOMMISSIONER WALTER NANOSECOND BY COMMISSIONER JOHNS. ANY DISCUSSION? SEEING THAT WE WOULD DO A ROLL CALL VOTE COMMISSIONER AGAIN?

[Public Comment]

>> I WILL BE A GAS AS WELL. PASSES 5 TO 0. WE WILL NOT OPEN IT UP FOR PUBLIC COMMENT

>> AT THIS TIME THE BOARD WILL OPEN UP FOR PUBLIC COMMENT ON MATTERS THAT ARE NOT ON THE REGULAR AGENDA. THEY WILL HAVE THEIR OWN PUBLIC, PERIOD.

ANY PERSON WISHING TO ADDRESS THE BOARD SHOULD COME TO THE PODIUM.

STATE HIS OR HER NAME AND ADDRESS AND EACH PERSON WILL BE PROVIDED APPROXIMATELY THREE MINUTES TO SPEAK AND SHALL COMPLY WITH THE BOARD'S RULES OF DECORUM.

THE REASON THOSE PRIESTLY COMMENTS SHOULD BE ADDRESSED TO THE BOARD AS A WHOLE IF YOU HAVE ANY MATERIALS PLEASE PROVIDE THOSE TO THE CLERK OF COURT AND COME FORWARD.

MR. REYNOLDS, GOOD MORNING. >> TOM REYNOLDS 50 BRIGANTINE CT.

I WANT TO THANK THE ADMINISTRATION AND I FOUND OUT THERE IS FOLKS HELPING WITH THE RENTAL ASSISTANCE THAT TELEPHONE NUMBER FOR THE COUNTY IS 209, 1250.

WAS REALLY NICE TO KNOW THEY HAVE HELPED OVER 300 PEOPLE SO I STAND CORRECTED.

GENTLEMEN, I WANT TO EXPLAIN SOMETHING TO YOU HERE. I HAVE BEEN OVER 1000 PUBLIC MEETINGS. I HAVE HEARD PEOPLE SPEAK IN FOUR STATES AND PUBLIC MEETINGS. I CAN TELL WHEN I LISTEN SOMETIMES I KNOW WHAT FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY IS AND WHAT IT ISN'T. I DO BELIEVE THE COUNTY COMMISSION IS PHYSICALLY RESPONSIBLE. I BELIEVE THEY COUNTY ADMINISTRATION ALL THE YEARS I'VE BEEN COMING HERE IS PHYSICALLY RESPONSIBLE.

BUT I WANT TO TELL YOU THIS. SOMETHING COMING UP IF YOU HAVE A MOMENT YOU CAN TAKE A LOOK AT CITY AND IN YOUR OWN COUNTY. COMING UP IN JUNE ON THE FIRST MONDAY NIGH IS GOING TO BE A VOTE IN ST. AUGUSTINE BEACH. THAT IS A CITY IN ST. JOHNS COUNTY AS YOU ALL KNOW AND IS GOING TO BE THE MOST IMPORTANT VOTE IN ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT BOOKS I'VE EVER WITNESSED IN MY LIFE. I WANT TO BE THERE. IT'S BEEN GOING ON FOR THREE YEARS BUT THEY HAVE BEEN SUBSIDIZING FOR 10 YEARS AND NOW THE CITY IS BROKE.

THERE IS A POSSIBILITY THAT YOU WILL HAVE RIGHT HERE BEFORE YOU ST. AUGUSTINE BEACH HAVING TO DISSOLVE. IT COULD BE INSOLVENCY THERE. I KNOW THEIR BUDGET THEY BEEN SPENDING OVER $1 MILLION A YEAR SUBSIDIZING THE WASTE DISPOSAL THERE'S 790 RESIDENTS AND THEY ARE CONDO OWNERS AND PAY PROPERTY TAXES. BECAUSE IT GOES INTO THE GENERAL FUND. THEY ARE TAKING THE MONEY OUT OF THE GENERAL FUND TO SUBSIDIZE THE WASTE DISPOSAL. 790 CONDO PROPERTY OWNERS DON'T RECEIVE A CHECK FOR THE SUBSIDY BECAUSE THEY HAVE PRIVATE WASTE DISPOSAL. SO IT'S MORE THAN JUST A VOTE.

IT'S A BOAT THAT'S GOING TO SHOW THE INTEGRITY OF THE CITY COMMISSIONER BECAUSE THEY KNOW FOR YEARS NOW THEY'VE BEEN CHEATING THESE 790 PROPERTY OWNERS.

IF YOU GET A CHANCE PLEASE WATCH BACK VOTE BECAUSE YOU WILL KNOW THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN INTEGRITY AND HONESTY, COMPARED TO VOTING TO CHEAT OTHER PEOPLE.

[00:20:05]

THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >> ANY FURTHER PUBLIC COMMENT AT THIS TIME, PLEASE COME

FORWARD. >> NO CALLS FOR PUBLIC COMMENT. >> MR. CHAIRMAN NOT SEEING ANYONE COME FORWARD AND NO CALLS ONLINE WE WILL CLOSE PUBLIC COMMENT

>> PUBLIC COMMENT NOW CLOSED BACK TO THE BOARD FOR DELETIONS TO THE CONSENT AGENDA.

[Consent Agenda]

>> NONE >> COMMISSIONER BLOCKER >> NO SIR

>> COMMISSIONER JOHNS? >> NO. >> WE DID HAVE AN ADDED ITEM TO THAT WHICH WAS CONSENT AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 12. WE HAD A LETTER THAT WAS PLACED IN THERE FROM ÃA LETTER OF RECOMMENDATION FROM THE BOARD Ã THE PARKS AND RECREATION RECOMMENDING THAT THEY BE Ã THAT'S IN THEIR ADMINISTRATION.

[Regular Agenda]

PASSES 5 TO 0 >> YOU SHOULD HAVE BEFORE YOU FOUR DIFFERENT ITEMS RELATED TO THE NON-RECOVERY THAT MS. SANDERS WILL BE PRESENTING THIS MORNING.

>> ANY DELETIONS OR SUBMISSIONS?

ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO ACCEPT Ã A PREVIOUS REGULAR AGENDA >> MOTION FOR ASHLEY WELCH AND SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER BLOCKER. ANY DISCUSSION? SEEING THE ROLL CALL VOTE, COMMISSIONER?

[Item 1]

>> I WOULD BE A YES AND THE AGENDA PASSES 5 TO 0 AND WE WILL NOT ENTER INTO THE REGULAR AGENDA. AGENDA ITEM NUMBER ONE. GOOD MORNING.

THIS IS AN EXPERT TODAY I BELIEVE AS WELL SO WE WILL TAKE THOSE.

ANY DISCLOSURES THAT NEED TO BE MADE AT THIS TIME? COMMISSIONER DEAN, ANY

DISCLOSURES YOU NEED TO MAKE? >> NO >> COMMISSIONER BLOCKER?

>> NO, SIR. >>

GOOD MORNING. >> GOOD MORNING. ITEM NUMBER ONE IS FOR PLAT 2021 SUBDIVISION. THE REQUEST IS TO VACATE THE ENTIRETY OF CLAY SUBDIVISION FOUND IN MAP BOOK 10 PAGE 82. PROPERTY IS LOCATED NORTH OF W. KING ST. AND WEST OF MASTER'S INN DRIVE. THE AERIAL IMAGE YOU CAN SEE THE PROPERTIES PRIMARILY SURROUNDED BY SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCES THE PLAT WAS ORIGINALLY RECORDED IN 1961 AND IS CURRENTLY UNDEVELOPED AND CONSISTS OF 14 SINGLE-FAMILY LOTS AND IT OPEN RIGHT AWAY IS APPROXIMATELY 3.78 ACRES IN SIZE IF APPROVED THE INTENT IS TO CONSTRUCT A HOME FOR THEMSELVES AND THEIR PARENTS. ALL DEPARTMENTS HAVE REVIEWED AND THEY ARE COMMENTS THE PLANNING AND ZONING AGENCY VOTED UNANIMOUSLY ON MARCH 19 TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL AND THERE IS NO PUBLIC COMMENT. STAFF HAS NOT RECEIVED ANY RESPONDENTS ON THIS REQUEST. THE PROPOSED LOCATION DOES NOT DENY CONVENIENT ACCESS. AND THE APPLICABLE SECTIONS OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLANS. THAT CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION.

[00:25:28]

>> I THINK SHE SAID I'M GOOD AND I DON'T HAVE TO TALK.

>> AT THIS TIME YOU WILL HEAR PUBLIC COMMENT ON AGENDA ITEM NUMBER ONE. PLEASE COME FORWARD.

PUBLIC COMMENT ON AGENDA ITEM NUMBER ONE.

MR. CHAIRMAN NOT SEEING ANYONE COME FORWARD

>> NO CALLS FOR PUBLIC COMMENT. >> NOT SEEING ANYONE COME FORWARD OR BECAUSE WE WERE CLOSE PUBLIC COMMENT ON AGENDA

ITEM NUMBER ONE >> WITH PUBLIC COMMENT CLOSE WE ARE BACK TO THE BOARD AND THIS IS DISTRICT 5 WILL ENTERTAIN A

MOTION. >> THIS IS COMMISSIONER DEAN.

I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION. >> OKAY.

MOTION TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 2020 Ã148.

2020 Ã01 BASED ON THREE FINDINGS OF FACT.

>> I HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER DEAN AND THE SECOND BY COMMISSIONER BLOCKER. ANY OTHER DISCUSSIONS? SEEING NINE, WE WILL NOW DO A ROLE CALL WITH COMMISSIONER DEAN.

>> I WILL BE YES AS WELL AND IT PASSES 5 TO 0. CONGRATULATIONS.

[Item 2]

AGENDA ITEM NUMBER TWO THIS MORNING.

>> >> 2020 MARCH 4, 1931 ROAD FENCE WE WILL DO X PARQUE. COMMISSIONER DEAN?

>> NONE >> COMMISSIONER JOHNS?

>> I RECEIVED A PHONE CALL FROM JOHN WHITE YESTERDAY AND REQUESTING CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL AND I HAVE RECEIVED NOTHING AS WELL. STAFF PRESENTATION FOR 10 MINUTES PUBLIC, AFTER THAT. I'M NOT AWARE THERE'S ANY DESIGNATED REPRESENTATIVE OF ANY GROUP ON THIS MATTER BUT IF THERE IS THERE'S A PROVISION FOR THAT AND THEN REBUTTAL.

STAFF MAY COMMENT THAT THE APPLICANT HAS AN OPPORTUNITY FOR REBUTTAL. I SHOULD SAY THE APPELLANT HAS THE OPPORTUNITY AND THEN IT'S BACK TO THE BOARD FOR COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS OF THE STAFF APPELLANT AND APPELLEE, IF ANY. AND MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC.

AND THEN FINAL QUESTIONS OF THE VOTE.

>> THANK YOU. MR. SMITH, IT'S ALL YOURS.

>> THIS IS PLANNING APPEAL 2020 MARCH 4, 1931 LUKE FENCE.

ABOUT A MILE NORTH OF COAL VALLEY ROAD IS A RESIDENTIAL FUTURE QIANYU SUN LIES WITHIN OUR S3 FAMILY SONY AND LASTLY AN AERIAL MAP OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.

THIS IS AN APPEAL TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING AGENCY JANUARY 16, 2020. THE APPLICATION IS PREVIOUSLY PRESENTED FOR THE PLANNING AND ZONING AGENCY SEPTEMBER 19, 2019 IS CONTINUED UNTIL JANUARY 16, 2000 WHERE IT WAS DENIED WITH A VOTE OF 4 TO 3. THE APPLICATION ÃTHE PATIENT IS FILED AS AN APPEAL TO THE DECISION AT THAT MEETING AND THE ZONING VARIANCE REQUEST ORIGINATED AS A PRIVATE REPORT FOR DEFENSE EXCEEDING THE. THE APPLICANT REQUESTS THE

[00:30:05]

THEY PROVIDED A PROPOSED SITE PLAN THAT REDUCES THE IT DOES HAVE ADJACENT RESIDENTS TO THE NORTH, SOUTH AND EAST AND FACES THE INTERCOASTAL WATERWAY ON THE WEST AND THERE'S LIMITED VARIATIONS FOR THE SITE AND STAFF DOES NOT RECOGNIZE A HARDSHIP AS DEFINED BY THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE.

THIS APPEAL WAS FILED IN A TIMELY MANNER THE APPELLANT OFFERS THE CONSISTENT OF THE PZ A AND IT OFFERS THE ADEQUATE Ã TO FURTHER OFFER CLARITY THAT WAS NOT SUBSTANTIALLY UNDERSTOOD AS SHOWN IN THE APPELLANT HAS OFFERED AN UPDATED SITE PLAN INDICATING THAT SUCH AN OFFENSE AND SHALL EXCEED SIX FEET IN HEIGHT. STAFF HAS RECEIVED SEVERAL LETTERS AND EMAILS AND CORRESPONDENCE FROM RESIDENTS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD INCLUDING BOTH ADJACENT NEIGHBORS TO THE NORTH AND SOUTH AND THREE LETTERS ARE IN SUPPORT OF THE VARIANCE IN ONE IS OPPOSED. PUBLIC COMMENT WAS MADE PRIOR AT THE PRIOR PCA PUBLIC HEARING.

I AM AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS AND I BELIEVE THE APPLICANT IS PRESENT AND I HAVE A SHORT PRESENTATION FOR YOU.

>> I JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY FOR THE BOARD IS THIS DEEMED AS HAD BEEN REQUESTED AT THE PCA OR IS IT ANY DIFFERENT THAN WHAT HAD

BEEN REQUESTED AT THE PCA? >> IT IS A CHANGE SPECIFICALLY THE APPLICANT WAS LOOKING TO HAVE CYBER AND LASTLY MAJOR CHANGE. ALL CIDER FENCING WILL BE IN COMPLIANCE WITH LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE BUT THEY ARE STILL ASKING FOR RELIEF FOR THE SIX FOOT FENCING WAS IN THE FRONT YARD SETBACK. FOR THEIR FINAL VOTE, DID THE APPLICANT OFFER THE COMPROMISE OR CONCESSION THAT WAS NOT DONE AND IN THAT CONCESSION OR COMPROMISE THE APPLICANT ATTEMPTED TO BE ABLE TO RESOLVE THE PROBLEM BUT ULTIMATELY THE

BOARD DECIDED TO VOTE TO DENY. >> WE WILL MOVE ALONG NOW.

[00:35:14]

>> GOOD MORNING, COMMISSIONERS. SHARON ACEVEDO 7 WALDO ST. FOR THE RECORD. SO THIS IS A REQUEST AS MR. SMITH HAD MENTIONED A DECISION BY THE

>> THIS JUST KIND OF GIVES YOU A GENERAL IDEA OF WHAT IS THERE TODAY LOOKING AT THE FRONT ENTRY WHERE YOU HAVE THE BRICK AND IRON AND THEN JUST TO GIVE YOU SOME PERSPECTIVE OF HOW THE HEIGHT EBBS AND FLOWS ALONG THE SIDE BOUNDARIES.

THE SOUH SIDE OF THE CENTER PHOTO IS WHERE THE TALLEST PPORTION OF THE FENCE IS AS MR. SMITH MENTIONED THIS WHETHER IT'S GOOD FENCING OR BRICK. THIS GIVES YOU A COUPLE MORE PERSPECTIVES. THERE WAS RETAINING WALL ON THE NORTHERN SIDE SO THAT'S WHERE YOU GET THE SHORTER, THE FORFEIT. THERE WAS SOME PROCESS OF HOW TO MAKE THIS COMPATIBLE BETWEEN THE MAJOR NEIGHBORS.

THE ZONING VARIANCE WAS FILED TO APPROVE ORIGINALLY THE FENCES BUILT THE PCA HEARD IT AND DURING THE HEARING WE DID HEAR FROM OUR NEIGHBOR AND ADJACENT NEIGHBOR TO THE NORTH WHO HAD CONCERNS ABOUT THE FENCE AND SO WE HAVE REQUESTED A CONTINUANCE TO WORK THROUGH THIS CONCERNS WITH OUR NEIGHBOR. AND WITH THAT WE CAME BACK TO THE PCA ON JANUARY 16 LIMITING THE HEIGHT TO SUCCEED ON THAT SIDE SO THE NEIGHBORS FENCE TO THE NORTH AND THE CLIENTS FENCE WILL BE THE SAME HEIGHT. AND THAT WAS WHERE IT WAS DENIED BY 4 TO 3 VOTE BRINGING US TODAY TO THIS APPEAL HEARING. AND YOU CAN KIND OF SEE.

SO WHAT HAD BEEN PRESENTED JUST TO CLARIFY WAS THE SIX WEEK ON THE NORTHERN BOUNDARY. SO IN TERMS OF APPEAL CRITERIA WE REALIZE THIS HAS TO BE SOMETHING THAT'S ADVERSELY AFFECTED AND IN THIS CASE IT IS MY CLIENT THE PROPERTY OWNER AND THE REASON WHY THEY WOULD BE ADVERSELY AFFECTED IS BECAUSE THERE'S A SENSE OF SECURITY AND ENJOYMENT OF PRIVACY OF THEIR HOME. WE COULD MAKE SOME CONDITIONS TO BRING THE FENCE DOWN AS CLOSE AS POSSIBLE.

UNFORTUNATELY THE PORTION OF THE FRONT WHICH WE WILL GET TO IN A BIT THEY BASICALLY HAVE TO TEAR IT DOWN.

IN THE FRONT SETBACK YOU ARE LIMITED TO 4 FEET AND THAT'S A CONSTANT CONCRETE STRUCTURE SO WE WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO MODIFY THAT THE WAY BECAUSE THE WOOD FENCING.

IN TERMS OF SPECIFIC AREA I WANT TO HIGHLIGHT A COUPLE OF THINGS. ONE IS CLARIFICATION OF HARDSHIP TO THE ADJACENT NEIGHBORS.

THERE WAS MENTION THAT THE HARDSHIP WAS MORE PERHAPS TO THE NEIGHBOR WITH CONCERNS THAN TO THE ACTUAL APPLICANT FOR THE ZONING VARIANCE, AND I JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY IT'S DIFFICULT WHEN YOU HAVE PICTURES WITH EXISTING CONDITIONS AND THE FENCE BEING TALLER THAN THE ADJACENT

[00:40:02]

THE DIFFERENCE IS WE HAVE COME BACK WITH THIS REVISED ÃTHE NEIGHBOR TO THE SOUTH WAS IN FAVOR OF THE FENCE THE WAY IT IS.ND I JUST WANT TO POINT OUT THERE'S BEEN A FAIR AMOUNT OF TURNOVER BETWEEN THE PCA, THE FIRST HEARING THERE WERE ONLY FOUR MEMBERS PRESENT AND OTHERS FOR THREE OF THEM WERE REMAINING ON THE SECOND HEARING SO THERE WAS A BIT OF CHANGE THEY ARE. THE LAST THING I WANTED TO MENTION IS BUILDING PERMIT REQUIREMENTS.

THIS DID NOT COME UP IN THE CONTINUED HEARING BUT IT WAS MENTIONED AND DISCUSSED DURING THE FIRST HEARING WHAT CONSTITUTES THE NEED FOR A BUILDING PERMIT FOR FENCING.

AND I LEARNED SOMETHING IN THE PROCESS HERE.

I DIDN'T THINK WOULD FENCE WAS REQUIRED PERMITS AND COUNTY WITH THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT WAS MASONRY WALLS REQUIRE THEM, AND ANY FENCING, WHETHER IT'S WITH OR OTHERWISE TEST OVER FEET WHICH BEEN RETROSPECT MAKES A LOT OF SENSE BECAUSE MOST OF THE FENCING CODE WITHIN THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE IS LIMITED TO SIX FEET. IN THIS CASE WE WOULD BE BRINGING EVERYTHING TO SUCCEED TO MEET AND COMPLY WITH THE ST.

JOHNS COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE.

AND IT'S JUST KIND OF SHOWING YOU THE AREAS THAT ARE CURRENTLY ABOUT SIX FEET THAT WOULD BE RECTIFIED AND MEET THIS CONDITION. AND I JUST WANT TO SPEND A QUICK MOMENT ON REVIEWING THE VARIOUS CRITERIA, THAT IT SHOULD NOT BE CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC THERE IS A NEED FOR HARDSHIP AND IT SHOULD BE IN HARMONY WITH THE PERSON INTENT OF THE CODE. AS I MENTIONED EARLIER THE HARDSHIP IN THIS CASE IS BEING ABLE TO MAKE SURE WE CAN HAVE PRIVACY OWNER. SHE HAS PETS ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS. IT'S NICE TO HAVE FENCING FOR YOUR DOGS TO RUN AROUND. SHE WAS ACTUALLY A VICTIM OF THEFT NOT THIS RESIDENCE BUT A PRIOR RESIDENCE BUT IT GIVES HER A CERTAIN SENSE OF SECURITY TO HAVE PARAMETERS OF THE SECURITY. I WANTED TO FOCUS ON NOT BEING CONTRARY TO PUBLIC INTEREST AND REALLY THE REASON FOR THAT WAS THERE ARE A LOT OF BRICK AND IRON FENCING TYPE CONSTRUCTION.

AS I MENTIONED THAT'S WHERE WE GOT INSPIRATION.

I DON'T THINK THIS PORTION OF THE FENCE WAS OF CONCERN BY THE AGENCY MEMBERS OR THE FEEDBACK WE RESERVE.

IT WAS MOSTLY ABOUT THE WOODEN FENCING ON THE SIDE THAT WENT ABOVE SIX FEET BUT IN TERMS OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTERISTICS, IT IS VERY SIMILAR AND THIS GIVES YOU A COUPLE OF WHAT WE SEE IN THE IMMEDIATE AREA.

A LOT OF THESE FENCES ARE CLOSE TO THE RIGHT OF WAY WITHIN WHAT WOULD BE THE FRONT SETBACK. SO WE REQUEST REVERSAL OF THE P ZA DECISION THEREBY APPROVING ZONING VARIANCES WITH THIS LIMITATION AS YOU SAW IN THE SITE PLAN.

THERE IS SUFFICIENT REASONING DEMONSTRATING A NEED TO CLARIFY THESE FACTS AND FURTHER EXPLAIN THE APPLICATION.

AS I MENTIONED, THE SITE IS BEING MODIFIED TO THE EXTENT FEASIBLE TO GET JUST AS CLOSE AS POSSIBLE OF MEETING THE HEIGHT REQUIREMENTS OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AND ADDRESSING THOSE CONCERNS WE HAVE HEARD BEFORE.

THIS VARIANCE REQUEST WOULD ADDRESS HARDSHIP AND COMPATIBILITY WITH THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD.

SO THAT IS THE REQUEST. THANK YOU.

>> ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

WE WILL CONTINUE ON INTO PUBLIC PCOMMENT.

>> AT THIS TIME WE WILL HEAR PUBLIC COMMENT ON THIS AGENDA ITEM. IF YOU HAVE PUBLIC COMMENT, PLEASE COME FORWARD. GOOD MORNING.

>> MY NAME IS ELIZABETH HOWELL I AM THE OWNER AND RESIDENT OF 21 ROAD THE PROPERTY TO THE NORTH OF 31.

I HAVE SPOKEN EVERY TIME AND THIS IS, SINCE SEPTEMBER.

I AM NOT SURE WHY WE ARE HERE. IF YOU LOCKED IT DOWN, THE

[00:45:07]

IT SHOULD BE SIX FEET AND WE ALL COMPLY.

YOU CAN DRIVE UP AND DOWN ROSCOE AND THERE'S NOT ONE OTHER STRUCTURE THAT LOOKS LIKE THIS INEXPENSIVELY WALL THAT I CALL IT. I AM SIX FEET TALL AND I CAN'T REACH THE TOP OF IT ON MY SIDE. I REACHED IT TO SEE THEY HAVE CLAIMED WHERE IT WAS A FEW INCHES TALL.

THE WAY THEY ARE SORT OF COVERING THIS IS DIFFERENT THAN THE REST OF US IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

YOU KNOW, I AM ALL ABOUT PROPERTY RIGHTS BUT DO IT THE RIGHT WAY. THESE PEOPLE NEVER ASK PERMISSION. THEY ASK FOR FORGIVENESS AND I JUST WANT THEM TO COMPLY WITH THE REST OF US AND KEEP OUR NEIGHBORHOOD PARKLIKE AS THE PICTURE THEY SHOWED WHICH SHE DID NOT SHOW THE WALL WE ALL REFERRED TO.

IF ST. JOHNS COUNTY HAS RULES WE ALL HAVE TO PLAY BY THEM.

AND AS FAR AS THEM BUILDING THE FENCE, THERE WAS A HUGE NATURAL BARRIER, 30 OR 40 FEET HIGH WITH LUH TREES AND I CAME HOME AND THEY HAD CLEAR CUT IT TO PUT UP THIS WALL.

THEY ARE NOT AS ÃTRYING TO MAKE IT PLEASANT FOR THE NEIGHBORS AS THEY CLAIM TO. THEY NEVER ADDRESSED OR ASKED ANYONE ON THE STREET. IT'S NOT PERSONAL.

I JUST WANTED TO COMPLY LIKE THE REST OF US.

>> IF YOU DON'T MIND, SOME OF THE OTHER COMMISSIONERS HAVE SOME QUESTIONS IF YOU DON'T MIND BEFORE WE MOVE ALONG.

DO YOU HAVE AN ISSUE WITH THE FRONT FENCE?

>> NO. ABSOLUTELY NOT.

THAT LOOKS LIKE PALM VALLEY. IT'S THIS WALL THAT'S ON THE

SIDE THIS HORIZONTAL BOARD. >> THAT'S THE ONLY QUESTION I

HAD. >> THANK YOU.

THIS MAY SOUND ODD BUT I HAVE WORKED FOR ELIZABETH HOWELL I'VE NEVER MET IN PERSON. I DON'T THINK IT'S YOU BUT I

WANTED TO MAKE SURE >> MY SISTER IN LAW IS ELIZABETH HOWELL OF ATLANTIC BEACH.

>> COULD BE THE ELIZABETH. I'VE NEVER MET HER IN PERSON I'VE DONE WORK FOR THEM THROUGH MY ENGINEERING COMPANY SO I

WANTED TO MAKE SURE >> I DOUBT IT.

>> THANK YOU. ANY OTHERS?

>> ANY OTHER PUBLIC COMMENT? >> GOOD MORNING.

>> MY NAME IS ANGIE SMITH AND I LIVE AT 51 ROAD.

I JUST WANTED TO MAKE A COMMENT TO SAY THAT I THINK THE HOMEOWNERS HAVE PUT A LOT OF TIME AND ENERGY INTO UPGRADING THE NEIGHBORHOOD TO MAKE ALL OF OUR PROPERTY VALUES INCREASE.

I DO NOT HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THE FENCE AND I AM TWO HOUSES OVER IT. I HAVE A FENCE BUT IT DOES NOT LOOK LIKE THEY ARE OURS BUT I DON'T HAVE AN ISSUE WITH IT.

I THINK THE FENCE ON THE NORTH SIDE ÃI LIVED THERE IT WOULD MAKE ME FEEL UNCOMFORTABLE. THERE IS A LOT OF OVERGROWN YARD. I WOULD BE SCARED IF I HAD A PET. AND THERE WERE IT WAS DISHEVELED LOOKING. SO I UNDERSTAND THE REASON FOR THAT AND MAYBE YOU COME HOME AND YOU DON'T WANT TO LOOK AT THAT AS WELL. ALSO FOR THE PUBLIC SAFETY ASPECT OF IT HAVING A LITTLE PRIVACY FROM SEEING SOMEONE'S YARD THAT MAY NOT HAVE THE SAME GRASS OR HAVE ANY GRASS AT ALL RATHER THAN HAVING ÃI WOULD SAY A DIRT ROAD, TREES EVERYWHERE WHICH IS FINE. BUT I THINK IT BRINGS DOWN OUR PROPERTY VALUE OVER ALL. I THINK GIVING THEM THE VARIANCE WOULD BE A BEST WAY. IT'S THE BEST WAY TO COME TO A HAPPY CONCLUSION. SO WE COULD GET THIS ALL OVER WITH. IT'S BEEN GOING ON FOR MONTHS AND MUST. AND HOMEOWNERS HAVE EXPENDED MONEY WHETHER IT'S LEGAL FEES I THINK THAT EVERYBODY SHOULD BE

ABLE TO COME TO A HAPPY MEDIUM. >> THANK YOU SO MUCH.

>> NO MORE PUBLIC COMMENT. >> NOT SEEING ANY PUBLIC

[00:50:02]

>> THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER, WITH PUBLIC COMMENT CLOSE WE ARE ÃIF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS

>> I NEED TO DISCLOSE MATTHEWS DESIGN GROUP IS PROVIDING LANDSCAPE DESIGN SERVICES ON AN UNRELATED PROJECT OUTSIDE THE COMPANY DID NOT CONNECT THE DOTS NOT DOING THE WORK DIRECTLY WITH THEM. IT JUST IS AVOIDING THE APPEARANCE OF ANY KIND OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST AND I FEEL LIKE I NEED TO DISCLOSE THAT AND NOT PARTICIPATE IN THIS

AGENDA ITEM. >> THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER.

SEE YOU ARE RECUSING YOURSELF? >> YES.

>> ALL RIGHT. WE WILL OFFER OPPORTUNITY FOR

REBUTTAL. >> I WILL JUST KEEP IT SHORT.

I KNOW A PICTURE IS A THOUSAND WORD AND IN THIS CASE WE ARE LOOKING TO RECTIFY AN ISSUE. MY CLIENT HAS REACHED OUT TO SOME CONTRACTORS TO FIGURE OUT THAT WILL HAVE TO BE CHANGED IN ORDER TO MEET THE SIX FOOT MAXIMUM THAT WE ARE PRESENTING AND THE CONDITION SITE PLAN. THIS GIVES YOU A GENERAL IDEA OF WHAT THAT MEANS IN TERMS OF SLATS AND THIS IS BOTH LOOKING AT SIDE PROPERTY LINES IN ONE BEING YOU CAN SEE WHERE IT'S NEARING SEVEN FEET AND THEN IN A TALLER SECTION 3 WOULD HAVE TO BE REMOVED JUST KIND OF GIVES YOU A GENERAL IDEA VISUALLY WET WILL LOOK LIKE WHEN THE WORK IS DONE.

HOPEFULLY THIS TAKES CARE OF THE WOOD FENCING LOOKING MORE

LIKE A WALL THAN A FENCE. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

ANY QUESTIONS? >> GOOD MORNING.

HOW ARE YOU. I JUST WANT TO GO OVER BRIEFLY.

THIS IS A QUASIJUDICIAL PROCEEDING AND OUR IT IS TO KNOW WELL WHICH MEANS WE CAN DO AND WHAT HAPPENED AT BP THE AGE. HOWEVER, ONE OF THE CONDITIONS OF THE VARIANCE IS AN EXISTING CONDITION OR UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCE OF THE PROPERTY THAT THE LIBERAL APPLICATION CONSTITUTES A HARDSHIP. CAN YOU EXPLAIN FOR US AS A BOARD WHAT IS A HARDSHIP THAT IS CURRENTLY IN PLACE?

THAT'S AFFECTING YOUR CLIENT? >> UNFORTUNATELY WE DID LOOK AT THE GRADE CHANGE. THERE ARE CERTAIN GRADE CHANGES DUE TO WHAT I THINK IS A SEPTIC FIELD WHERE THE TOPOGRAPHY CHANGES, BUT IN TERMS OF LOOKING AT OVERALL AVERAGE GRADE BETWEEN THE TWO PROPERTIES, I COULD NOT SAY THAT THERE IS A SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT OF GRADE THAT WOULD NECESSITATE THE NEED FOR A HEIGHT.

IN THIS CASE THE HARDSHIP WOULD BE THE NEED FOR SECURITY ON THE PART OF THE PROPERTY OWNER BEING THAT IN THE FRONT SETBACK THE BRICK, THE STONE COLUMNS, AND THE IRON GATE, THE PROBLEM IS DICTATING IN BETWEEN IS RIGHT AT HIS FEET AND BECAUSE IT'S INSTALLED AND THERE'S NO WAY TO MODIFY THAT OTHER THAN TO DEMOLISH IT. SO THAT'S REALLY THE HARDSHIP THERE. WHEN WAS THAT FENCING PUT IN

PLACE? >> IT WAS PUT IN 2018 AFTER

TONY AND HER HUSBAND MOVED IN. >> OUR LAND USE CODE HAS BEEN

REPLACED FOR SOME TIME. >> ONE OF THE QUESTIONS THAT OFTEN COMES UP IS SOMETIMES PEOPLE WILL CALL AND ASK DO I NEED A BUILDING PERMIT FOR A FENCE AND THE ANSWER IS USUALLY NOT. THEY JUST DON'T REALIZE THERE ARE STILL LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE REGULATIONS IN PLACE.

WHAT HAPPENED IN THIS CASE IS THEY ARE LOOKING AROUND SEEING THE TYPES OF FENCING THAT'S Ã UNTIL IT'S TOO LATE WHICH PUTS US IN THIS KIND OF PRECARIOUS SITUATION OKAY, WHAT CAN WE DO TO MEET THE CODE WITH FEASIBILITY

>> I AM SYMPATHETIC TO THAT. PROPERTY OWNERS, SOMETIMES THAT

[00:55:10]

>> THE PROPERTY OWNERS HAVE TWO SMALL DOGS.

THERE ARE SOME LARGER DOGS AND THEY SEE HAVE SEEN COYOTES SOMEWHAT OF A RURAL AREA AND THAT THEY ARE RELAXED AND YOU GET CRITTERS THAT COME AND GO. AND SO HAVING FENCING ALL THE WAY AROUND THE PERIMETER WOULD GIVE THEM A SENSE OF SECURITY AND SAFETY FOR THEMSELVES AND THEIR PETS.

THERE WAS ALSO ÃTHIS MIGHT BE MORE DETAILED THAN YOU ARE LOOKING FOR BUT THE RESTAURANT MANAGERS, THEY ARE LITTLE BIT MORE VISIBLE IN THE PUBLIC AND THE ÃTHEY RECEIVED SOMETHING FROM ÃIT LOOKED LIKE IT WAS FROM A CHILD, SOMETHING THAT HAD BEEN DONE IN THE RESTAURANT BUT IT WAS POSTED ON THE DOOR AND SO THEY WERE KIND OF WONDERING HOW DO THEY KNOW WHERE I LIVE? SO JUST LITTLE INCIDENTS LIKE THAT IF YOU HAVE FENCING ALL THE WAY AROUND, IT GIVES PROPERTY OWNERS A LITTLE BIT MORE SECURITY AND SAFETY IN

THEIR HOME. >> AND WHAT IS THE HEIGHT OF

THE FENCE? >> WELL, IT DOESN'T.

THAT'S WHY WE ARE BRINGING IT DOWN TO 6 FEET.

RIGHT NOW THE HARDSHIP WE ARE LOOKING AT IS THEY WOULD HAVE TO TAKE DOWN THE PILLARS PUT IN PLACE?

>> EXACTLY. YOU WOULD HAVE TO REMOVE THE

FRONT PORTION >> AND THE SAFETY CONCERNS WOULD BE ÃBUT THE UNITED A CLEAR LOOKING AT THE POLICE REPORT AND A SPECIFIC CRIME IN THE AREA WE ARE LOOKING AT UNDERSTANDABLE CONCERNS IN THE PUBLIC IGURE AND SOMEONE COMING UP THERE WITH SOMEONE FOR SOMETHING MORE CONCRETE

THAN THAT. >> IF I MAY, I THINK FOLLOWING COMMISSIONER BLOCKER'S QUESTION.

MAY I PRESUME THAT THE PROPERTY OWNER ÃPROPERTY OWNERS THEMSELVES DID NOT CONSTRUCT THE FENCE BUT PERHAPS THEY HAD

CONTRACTED TO DO THAT? >> YES.

>> AND ARE YOU AWARE OF WHO THAT CONTRACTOR IS OR WAS?

>> I DON'T RECALL. >> OKAY

>> I THINK SHE MIGHT HAVE MENTIONED IT TO ME.

I THINK SHE MAY BE ON THE PHONE THROUGH THE CONFERENCE LINE IF WE NEED TO ASK THE CLIENT A QUESTION.

>> AND MR. CHAIR, THE REASON I THINK THAT BE HELPFUL FOR THE BOARD TO KNOW IS CONTRACTOR MORE THAN THE GENERAL PUBLIC MAY BE AWARE OF THE CERTAIN LIMITATIONS.

IT JUST MIGHT BE ILLUMINATING FOR THE BOARD IF THAT COULD BE ASCERTAINED. I DON'T THINK IT'S ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY FOR THE BOARD PROSPECT DECISION BUT IF THAT

INFORMATION WAS OUT THERE Ã >> I HAD ONE FOLLOW-UP QUESTION. YOU MENTIONED THE APPLICANT WAS THE OWNER OF A LOCAL RESTAURANT.

WHAT RESTAURANT IS THAT? >> I DON'T REMEMBER THE NAME OF IT.T'S IN THE PALM VALLEY AREA.

CAN WE CHECK AND SEE IF SHE'S ON THE LINE?

>> THIS LADY HERE MAY HAVE AN ANSWER.

>> PALM VALLEY OUTDOORS. >> THANK YOU.

>> ANYTHING ELSE? >> NO, SIR.

>> IS THAT HER ON THE PHONE? >> JUST WHILE YOU ARE OUT THERE. THEY SAY THERE'S REALLY NO HARDSHIP WITHOUT A PERMIT. THE QUESTION IS WHETHER WE ARE GOING TO ALLOW THE FENCE TO CONTINUE TO FENCE ON THE FRONT.

>> THERE'S BEEN A COUPLE OF OTHER CASES AND THERE IS HARDSHIP BUT THERE'S ALSO COMPATIBILITY TO CONSIDER AND WE HAVE SEEN SOME CASES IN THE PAST AND I THINK THERE WAS ONE

ON THE ROAD THAT WAS APPROVED. >> OKAY.

WE SEEM TO BE CALLING SOMETHING A HARDSHIP.

THE HARDSHIP IS MORE ON THE PERCEIVED SAFETY OF THE PROPERTY OWNER VERSUS WHAT YOU WOULD TYPICALLY HEAR FROM A HARDSHIP WHICH WOULD BE MORE TOPOGRAPHIC CONDITIONS AND SITE CONFIGURATIONS AND THOSE SORTS OF FACTORS.

>> THANK YOU. >> ANYTHING ELSE? COMMISSIONER DEAN? DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OR

[01:00:01]

COMMENTS? >> NO, SIR.

>> MR. CHAIR, SORRY TO INTERJECT AGAIN, JUST TO GO BACK TO COMMISSIONER WALDRON'S QUESTION, I DID WANT TO POINT OUT PERTAINING TO YOUR CODE PERSONAL OR FAMILY FINANCIAL DIFFICULTIES TOPOGRAPHIC CONDITIONS OR OTHER Ã EXCEPTIONAL NEARNESS SHALLOWNESS OR UNUSUAL SHAPE OF A SPECIFIC PIECE OF PROPERTY OR BY REASON OF EXCEPTIONAL TOPOGRAPHIC IS BECAUSE OF SOME SITUATION AS DESCRIBED.

>> THANK YOU. ON PAGE 12 OF THE STAFF REPORT IT SAYS STAFF DOES NOT RECOGNIZE A HARDSHIP AS DEFINED. I THINK IT WAS PRETTY CLEAR AS WELL. SO THANK YOU FOR ABOUT ADDITIONAL INFORMATION. ANYTHING ELSE FROM THE BOARD?

>> THE WAY IT'S WRITTEN ON THE WAY IT'S ENFORCED WE HAVE TO FIND A HARDSHIP. WANT TO BE SENSITIVE TO THE HOMEOWNERS CONCERNS HERE I THINK THE HARDSHIP AS FAR AS THE PERSONAL HARDSHIPS ARE DIFFICULT TO RECONCILE HIM I WANT TO BE MINDFUL THERE'S A COST ASSOCIATED PROPERTY RIGHTS ARE IMPORTANT AND THEY ARE IMPORTANT TO LAW IMPORTANT TO RESIDENTS. I DON'T WANT TO SEE GOVERNMENT AND WILL NOT BUT WE HAVE AN EQUAL PLAYING FIELD THAT HAS TO BE ENFORCED. TAX IN AN ABUNDANCE OF CAUTION BECAUSE THIS IS A CMT HEARING, AND THE PROPERTY OWNER MAY BE REMOTE FROM THEY THOUGHT THE PROPERTY OWNER HAD SOMETHING TO SAY TO THE WARM I WOULD LIKE TO GIVE IF MISS ACEVEDO COULD CONTACT BY PHONE HER CLIENT AND RELAY ANY SORT OF LAST STATEMENT SAY THAT IN AN ABUNDANCE OF CAUTION BECAUSE THIS IS A CMT TYPE OF THING AND I THINK THE BOARD WANTED TO MAKE SURE IT HEARD EVERYTHING WHAT IF MISS ACEVEDO JOB THAT THEY ARE TRYING TO CONTACT THE HEARING OR NOT?

[01:06:51]

>> GOOD MORNING. HOW ARE YOU.

>> GOOD MORNING. HOW ARE YOU.

COULD YOU STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS?

>> YES, SIR. 31 ROAD PONTE VEDRE BEACH YOU ARE THE APPLICANT IN THIS APPEAL.

HAVE YOU BEEN ABLE TO I THINK WHAT THE BOARD MAY WANT TO HEAR PARTICULARLY FROM YOU IS YOUR SENSE OF THE HARDSHIP, THE ZONING HARDSHIP PERTAINING TO THIS REQUEST.

IF YOU UNDERSTAND WHAT THAT IS AND IF YOU COULD STATE THAT TO

THE BOARD.>> YES, SIR. SO ABOUTA YEAR AGO, I HIRED A CONTRACTOR TO PUT THE FENCE AND AND AFTER A FEW MEETINGS AND SOME CONCERNS FROM ONE OF MY NEIGHBORS BUT DID NOT LIKE THE HEIGHT OF THE FENCE ME BEING UNAWARE THAT I NEEDED A PERMIT FOR IT, WE CHANGED THE SITE PLAN TO HAVE IT DOWN TO 6 FEET.

THE FRONT ENTRANCE HAS PICKET FENCES.

IT'S NOT IN THE 25 PIECE BUT IT'S SUPPOSED TO BE BUT IT IS IN LINE WITH ALL OF THE NEIGHBORS.

I KNOW FINANCIAL IS NOT A HARDSHIP.

THE FENCE HAS ALREADY BEEN INSTALLED AND TO REMOVE IT I WOULD BE ABNORMAL IN COMPARISON TO MY NEIGHBORS.

I WOULD BE PUSHED IN AND THEY WOULD BE PUSHED OUT.

AND FINANCIALLY IT'S NOT WORTH IT WHAT IT WOULD COST TO TAKE IT DOWN AND REPLACE IT. I THINK THERE'S A 15 FOOT DIFFERENCE I UNDERSTAND THAT THIS IS SIX FEET BUT MY FRONT FENCE IS SIX FEET AND IN LINE WITH THE REST OF THE NEIGHBORS AND IN LINE WITH MOST OF THE ONES HERE.

>> COMMISSIONER BLOCKER? >> GOOD MORNING.

HOW ARE YOU. >> HOW ARE YOU?

>> GOOD. THIS IS JEREMIAH BLOCKER.

AND THIS IS MY DISTRICT. SO I WANT TO TOUCH BASE.

ONE OF THE THINGS I'M STRUGGLING WITH AND I SPOKE TO YOUR REPRESENTATIVES AND YOU DID A VERY GOOD JOB.

WHAT I'M STRUGGLING WITH IS THE CODE IS SPECIFIC ON HARDSHIP AND IT SOUNDS LIKE FROM THE FACTS PRESENTED TODAY THAT YOU

[01:10:02]

>> YES, SIR. >> SO YOU LEARNED ABOUT THIS

AFTER THE FACT? >> YES, SIR.

BY THE CODE ENFORCEMENT LETTERS IS HOW I LEARNED ABOUT IT.

>> WHAT WAS THE TIMEFRAME OF THAT? HOW LONG AFTER THE FENCE WAS IN PLACE DID YOU RECEIVE THAT?

>> IT'S AN ESTIMATED 60 TO 90 DAYS.

THE NEIGHBOR THAT CALLED CODE ENFORCEMENT WAS IN THE PROCESS OF SELLING HER HOME AND SHE HAS NOW SOLD HER HOME, SO WHEN SHE HAD CONCERNS, I TALKED TO THE CONTRACTOR AND EVERYTHING WAS FINE AND THEN SHE MOVED AND I SPOKE TO THE ONE NEIGHBOR IN OPPOSITION VIA TEXT MESSAGE AND AT THE TIME SHE HAD NO PROBLEM.

THERE WAS NO PROBLEM. I WAS NOT THINKING THERE WAS A PERMIT ISSUE. I WAS THINKING A PRIVACY ISSUE AND I SPOKE TO EVERYONE BUT NOBODY HAD A PROBLEM WITH ANYTHING SO WE MOVED FORWARD. UNAWARE OF ANYTHING LIKE THIS

AS FAR AS A PERMIT. >> DID THE CODE ENFORCEMENT COMPLAINT AT THE TIME THE FENCE WAS BEING INSTALLED?

>> NO > SO THIS WAS AFTER THE WORK HAD BEEN COMPLETED?

>> YES. >> DID YOU CONTACT THE CONTRACTOR AND ASKED THEM WHY THEY DID NOT BUILD IN COMPLIANCE OR DID YOU HAVE ANY DISCUSSIONS IN LINE WITH THEM?

>> I CALLED THEM ÃI ORIGINALLY ÃBEFORE I GOT THE CODE COMPLIANCE I STARTED HAVING A BOW TO IT AND I CALLED THEM AND LET THEM KNOW THIS WAS INSTALLED AND THEY WERE GOING TO COME OUT AND I THINK BECAUSE I DID THAT THEY DID NOT WANT TO COME OUT TO FIX IT SO EVERY CALL I MADE AN MESSAGES THAT I LEFT, I HAVE NOT SPOKEN WITH THEM SINCE MY ORIGINAL PHONE CALL BUT THE ONE SIDE OF THE FENCE IS COMPLETELY BOWED OUT.

WHICH I HAVE ANOTHER CONTRACTOR THAT I'M WORKING WITH THAT'S GOING TO FIX THE BOAT AND TAKE THE FENCE DOWN TO 6 FEET ON ONE SIDE TO CORRECT THAT ISSUE. BUT I HAVEN'T BEEN ABLE TO CONTACT THEM. MY ATTORNEY S FILING A COMPLAINT WITH THE BETTER BUSINESS BUREAU AND TRYING TO HELPED ME. IT'S A LONG AND EXPENSIVE PROCESS.

>> I UNDERSTAND. YOUR REPRESENTATIVE HAD MENTIONED THAT YOU HAVE CONCERNS ÃCOULD YOU ELABORATE

ON THIS A LITTLE BIT FOR US? >> YES.

WHEN THE RESTAURANT OWNER VERY WELL KNOWN IN THIS COMMUNITY.

I HAVE HAD HARSHER WITH ROBBERIES IN THE PAST.

JUST A VERY CHEERFUL PERSON SO THAT WAS THE WHOLE PURPOSE ANYWHERE OUTSIDE OF A NATURE WAY AND THAT'S MY ORIGINAL REASON WANTING A FENCE HIGHER THAN SIX FEET WAS THE ACTUAL DATE. BUT THAT SO I'M SORRY THAT I BROKE YOUR PICNIC TABLE AND IT WAS LEFT ON MY DOORSTEP WHEN I CAME HOME FROM WORK AT MIDNIGHT SO SOMEONE HAD ACCESS TO MY HOME. NOT ACCESS TO MY HOME.

MAKES ME FEEL SECURE. >> I UNDERSTAND THAT AND I APPRECIATE YOU SHARING THAT. THE STANDARD WE HAVE TO OPERATE

[01:15:02]

THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU SO MUCH.

YOU HAVE A WONDERFUL DAY. >> WE ARE BACK TO THE BOARD.

>> MR. CHAIRMAN, AFTER HEARING FROM ÃI WANT TO GO BACK TO MY ORIGINAL FOR THE COUNTY ATTORNEY.

THESE ARE DIFFICULT DECISIONS TO MAKE BECAUSE WE WANT TO MAKE SURE WE ARE FOLLOWING THE LAW. I DO UNDERSTAND AND I THINK THIS HAS GIVEN US A CLEAR PICTURE PNEUMATIC CONTRACTOR THAT WAS HIRED TO BUILD A FENCE AND OBVIOUSLY THIS CONTRACT, CONTRACTOR HAS ISSUES. SOMETIMES WE CAN IMPOSE THE LETTER OF THE LAW TO THE POINT WHERE IT CAN BE DETRIMENTAL.

IN LIGHT OF THAT, I WILL RELUCTANTLY MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THIS REQUEST AND I WANT TO BE CONGRESS COGNIZANT WE HAVE NEIGHBORS WHO HAVE COME HERE AND SPOKEN WITH CONCERNS.

I DO UNDERSTAND THE FINANCIAL HARDSHIP EVEN THOUGH THIS GOES OUTSIDE SOME OF THE LEGAL REQUIREMENTS, I DO THINK THIS IS ONE OF THE VERY RARE CIRCUMSTANCES WHERE WE COULD DO EQUITY AS BEING THE EXCEPTION. NO FURTHER ADO I WILL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE REQUEST TO APPEAL THE PLANNING AND ZONING VARIANCE CVA ARE 2019-18 TO ALLOW EXISTING FENCING TO REMAIN ALONGSIDE CERTAIN PORTIONS OF THE PROPERTY BOUNDARY EXCEEDING THE REQUIRED HEIGHT LIMITATIONS RESIDENTIAL SINGLE-FAMILY ZONING. BASED ON THE REASONS I STATED

EARLIER. >> IF I MAY, MR. JARED.

IT MAY BE, AND I WOULD HAVE MR. SMITH COME UP AGAIN.

IT MAY BE THE SORT OF CURRENT STATE OF THE PAST MAY BE A LITTLE DIFFERENT THAN WHAT'S ACTUALLY IN THE MOTION.

>> THAT IS CORRECT. EARLIER IN THE PRESENTATION I DID SHOW YOU THAT THE APPLICANT HAS PROPOSED SIX FEET FENCING ALL THE WAY ACROSS THE PROPERTY SO ALL OF THEIR SIDE YARD FENCING WILL BE IN COMPLIANCE. WE ARE SPECIFICALLY BEING ÃOR MAKING A VARIANCE FOR SIX FEET FENCING IN THE FRONT YARD

SETBACK. >> WITH YOUR PERMISSION I WILL AMEND MY MOTION TO STATE THAT. DO I NEED TO RESTATE THAT FOR

THE RECORD? >> I THINK YOU COULD ADOPT MR. SMITH'S COMMENTS INTO YOUR MOTION TO REVISE YOUR MOTION TO BASICALLY AS REVISED BY MR. SMITH'S COMMENTS

>> MR. CHAIR AT THIS TIME, I WILL REVISE MY MOTION IN A MINUTE. MR. SMITH ALL OF THE FENCING WILL BE TAKEN DOWN TO SUCCEED WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE FRONT

PORTION. >> THAT IS CORRECT.

ALL OF THE FENCING IN THE PROPERTY WILL BE MEETING CODE REQUIREMENT EXCEPT FOR THE FRONT FENCING WHICH WILL BE SIX

FEET IN HEIGHT. >> THANK YOU.

>> DO YOU HAVE THAT IN WRITING? >> IS THERE?

>> I HAVE THIS SITE PLAN. I'M NOT SURE THAT I ÃMR. CHAIR, WHAT MIGHT BE HELPFUL MRS. ACEVEDO IS HERE THAT SHE WOULD CONCUR WITH THE DESCRIPTION OF THE ASSETS MR.

SMITH HAD DESCRIBED IT. >> YES, I AGREE.

AND ALSO, MR. SMITH, WOULD YOU LET US KNOW THE 25 FOOT SETBACK? THERE'S ONLY A CERTAIN PORTION OF THE SIDE FENCE THAT IS NOT 25 FEET.

IT'S THE WHOLE FRONT PORTION WE ARE ACCEPTING AND JUST A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF THE SIDE THAT WOULD NORMALLY BE FOUR FEET BUT PIT'S NOT A FULL 25 FEET BECAUS THAT'S 25 FEET FROM THE SETBACK. DO YOU KNOW WHAT THAT WOULD BE.

>> THE ENTIRE 25 FEET IS ÃAS IT SAYS IS OUT OF COMPLIANCE WOULD BE BROUGHT TO SIX FEET AND ACCEPTED AS SIX FOOT FRONT

FENCING WITHIN THE FRONT YARD. >> I THINK THAT'S ÃIF THE BOARD SHOULD APPROVE THIS, I PTHINK WE HAVE ENOUGH TO FASHIO THE ORDER IN LINE WITH THE DESCRIPTION.

>> AND I ALSO WOULD LIKE TO POINT OUT TO THE BOARD, IT WOULD BE FOR MEMBERS VOTING. IT WOULD ÃA TWO ÃTWO I WANT TO SAY THAT AHEAD OF TIME. I HAVE QUESTIONS. MOTION YOU HAVE HAD IT MODIFIED SIX FOOT ALL THE WAY AROUND AND EVEN IN THE FRONT. THAT IS CORRECT.

THERE WILL BE A VARIANCE ON 25 FOOT SETBACK IN SOME OF THE

[01:20:01]

I WOULD ASK STAFF TO FIND OUT WHO THE CONTRACTOR IS TO MAKE SURE I DON'T KNOW IF THEY ARE LICENSED IN ST. JOHNS COUNTY.

THAT'S SOMETHING WE NEED TO FIND OUT.

BECAUSE THIS IS NOT ACCEPTABLE. THEY HAVE A LITTLE SKIN IN THIS

GAME. >> COMMISSIONER BARBARA?

>> I WAS GOING TO SAY MAYBE WE SHOULD HAVE MRS. ACEVEDO STATE ON THE RECORD I DON'T KNOW IF WE NEED THAT ON THIS POINT CLEARLY WE ARE GREEN TO THE BUY-IN

>> THE ASK WOULD BE SIX FOOT MAXIMUM HEIGHT WITHIN THE FRONT

SETBACK WHICH IS 25 FEET. >>

[Item 3]

>> >> AT THIS POINT, COMMISSIONER DEAN DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING YOU WOULD LIKE TO DISCLOSE OR NEED

TO DISCLOSE? >> NONE.

>> COMMISSIONER WALKER? >> NO, SIR

>> COMMISSIONER WALDRON? >> I HAD A PHONE CALL FROM LAURA DIETRICH THE LOCATION AND ATTENDING TO EXPAND NATIONAL GUARD. I HAD AN EMAIL FROM MS. DIETRICH ON EVERY 24, 2020. EXPLAINING THE PROJECT AND THE SCOPE OF IT. ACTUALLY ASKING TO REQUEST A MEETING WHICH WE NEVER MET IN PERSON BUT DID HAVE THAT EMAIL WHICH GAVE A PRETTY BRIEF OVERVIEW OF WHAT THIS PROJECT IS. ALL RIGHT.

MR. SMITH? >> AGAIN, THIS IS MAJOR MODIFICATION 2019 SIX ROBERT INSULIN ARMORY PUD.

>> IS A REQUEST FOR MAJOR MODIFICATION TO THE INSULIN ARMORY PUD FOR TO ALLOW FOR EXPANSION OF A 60,000 500 SQUARE FOOT TO THE EXISTING PRINCIPAL ARMY NATIONAL GUARD

HEADQUARTERS. >> PROJECT IS LOCATED ON STATE ROAD 207 APPROXIMATELY A MILE OR SO NORTHEAST OF THE I-95 AND 207 INTERCHANGE. IT'S LOCATED WITHIN A MIXED-USE DISTRICT AND IS A PUD AND IT IS SURROUNDED BY A VARIETY OF OTHER ZONING TYPES. AND LASTLY AN AERIAL MAP OF THE CURRENT CONFIGURATIONS. THE PROPOSED BUILDING EXPANSION OF 60,500 SQUARE FEET AND ALSO AN EXPANSION OF 199 NEW PARKING SPACES IN ADDITION THERE WILL BE RECONFIGURED STORMWATER PONDS FOR THIS PROJECT. UP ON THE SCREEN THE CHANGES WILL BE IN ADDITION TO 60,000 SQUARE FEET PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE AND THEY WILL REMOVE THE HELICOPTER PATH AND RECONFIGURE THE WATER PONDS ALONG WITH THE NEW PARKING SPACES.

THE APPLICANT PROVIDED A NEW MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN MAP HIGHLIGHTED ON THE PARKING SPACES AND I HAVE STARTED THE STORM WATER RETENTION PONDS. FOR REVIEW, THE PROPOSED

[01:25:07]

A SMALL PORTIONS OF WETLANDS OF APPROXIMATELY .4 ACRES WILL BE IMPACTED DUE TO THE EXPANSION OF ACCESSORY FACILITIES AND NO EXPANSION OF SIGNAGE OR ACCESS ARE PROPOSED.

THE APPLICANT HAS REQUESTED SEVERAL WAIVERS ASSOCIATED WITH THE MODIFICATION AND ALL OF THESE WAIVERS ARE THE SAME AS ORIGINALLY REQUESTED AND APPROVED IN THE ORIGINAL PUD STAFF DOES NOT OBJECT TO THE PROPOSED WAIVERS WHICH INCLUDES SCREENINGS AND SOLID WASTE AND STORAGE AND MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT UNIFIED SIGN FOR SITE PLAN AND SIGNS AND OFFSTREET VEHICULAR USE AREAS. STAFF ANALYSIS THIS PROPOSED MAJOR MODIFICATION DOES NOT APPEAR TO CONFLICT WITH FUTURE CURRENT DEVELOPMENT IN THE AREAS CONSISTENT WITH REZONING OF THE ORDINANCE 2008 Ã54. THE WAIVERS INCLUDED IN THE APPLICATION ADDRESS THE CURRENT EXISTING FACILITIES AND LAYOUT OF THE SITE NOT PROVED TO BE OTHERWISE INCOMPATIBLE WITH SURROUNDING LANDS. THE PUD IS DESIGN STANDARDS AND DEVELOPMENT CRITERIA ARE GENERALLY CONSISTENT WITH THE REGULATION INCLUDING THE MIXED-USE DESIGNATION SETBACKS IMPERVIOUS SURFACES AND BUFFERING.

STAFF IS RECEIVED NO CORRESPONDENCE OR OBJECTIONS RELATED TO THIS APPLICATION AND ON MARCH 5, 2020 THE PLANNING AND ZONING AGENCY HEARD THIS ITEM AND VOTED 7 TO 0 TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL. STAFF DOES SUPPORT THE RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL AND DOES RECOMMEND APPROVAL FOR THIS ITEM STAFF FINDS THE REQUEST IS COMPATIBLE WITH THE MIXED-USE FUTURE LAND USE AND SUBSTANTIALLY MEETS THE REQUIREMENT OF A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN STAFF HAS PROVIDED SIX FINDINGS OF FACT TO SUPPORT THE MISSION.

I AM AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS AND AS WELL AS I BELIEVE THE APPLICANT IS PRESENT AND MAY ALSO HAVE A

PRESENTATION. >> ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? WE WILL NOW HEAR FROM THE APPLICANT.

>> GOOD MORNING. OUR DIETRICH OF DIETRICH PLANNING 1332 AVONDALE AVENUE, JACKSONVILLE, FL 32205.

IT'S A PLEASURE TO PHYSICALLY BE IN FRONT OF YOU INSTEAD OF ON A ZOOM CAMERA WITH PAJAMAS AND A NICE SHIRT.

WITH THAT I JUST WANT TO MAKE ONE CLARIFICATION ON SQUARE FOOTAGE. IT'S IN ADDITION BRINGING THE TOTAL FACILITY WHEN CONSTRUCTED TO 156,909 SQUARE FEET.

AND ALSO FOR CLARIFICATION THE REASON WHY THE WAIVER EXISTED IN THE BEGINNING IS BECAUSE IN 1992 WHEN THIS FACILITY WAS CONSTRUCTED IT WAS DONE SO UNDER THE UNDERSTANDING THAT THEY OFFER IT UNDER FEDERAL STANDARDS WHICH WAS NOT DEEMED NECESSARY. WE BROUGHT THE SITE UP TO EXISTING RECURRENT CODE BY ACKNOWLEDGING EVERYTHING THAT HAD BEEN CONSTRUCTED EVERYTHING THAT HAD BEEN IMPACTED AND PUT THAT INTO A PUD THAT WAS CREATED AFTER THE FACT TO BRING IT INTO COMPLIANCE SO ANYTHING THAT COMES IS A MODIFICATION SO I AM HERE FOR ANY QUESTIONS AND THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME.

>> ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? SEE AMAG WE WILL NOW GO TO PUBLIC COMMENT

>> AT THIS TIME THE BOARD WITH THE PUBLIC COMMENT ON AGENDA ITEM NUMBER THREE. PUBLIC COMMENT ON AGENDA ITEM NUMBER THREE. PLEASE COME FORWARD.

>> THIS IS DISTRICT 3. I WILL MAKE A MOTION TO ENACT ORDINANCE 2020 BASED ON SIX FINDINGS OF FACT AS PROVIDED IN THE STAFF REPORT. HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER WALDRON AND A SECOND BY BLOCKER.NY FURTHER DISCUSSION? WE WILL GO TO A ROLL CALL VOTE.

COMMISSIONER DEAN? >> YES

>> COMMISSIONER WALKER? >> YES

>> COMMISSIONER WALDRON >> YES

>> COMMISSIONER JOHNS >> GUESS

[Item 4]

>> THIS IS ALSO A QUASIJUDICIAL ITEM EX PARTE REQUIRING

DISCLOSURES >> I DO ON NUMBER FOUR.

I HAVE A PHONE CALL DISCUSSION ON MARCH 30 AND [INDISCERNIBLE]

[01:30:12]

CHANGE BEING [INDISCERNIBLE] >> COMMISSIONER BLOCKER?

>> NO, SIR. >> COMMISSIONER WALDRON?>> YES. I HAVE THE SAME PHONE CALL CONFERENCE COMMISSIONER DEAN HAD AND WE DISCUSSED GOING BACK TO COMMERCIAL AS PREVIOUS. I DON'T THINK WE NEED TO DISCLOSE THE PRIOR MEETINGS OR OUR LAST HEARING

>> I THINK THOSE ARE INCORPORATED INTO THE RECORD.

>> THAT'S ALL I HAVE. VERY GOOD.

THANK YOU. >> I HAD A PHONE CONFERENCE ON MARCH 26 WITH MR. SCHILLING AND THE OTHER ONES TO DISCUSS THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN PREVIOUSLY PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT IN THIS ONE AS WELL AS THE EFFORTS TO REACH OUT TO THE COMMUNITY TO DISCUSS DIFFERENT SINS AND WHAT'S BEING PROPOSED.

>> I ALSO HAD A PHONE CONFERENCE ON MARCH 26, 2020 AT 11:30 A.M. PICTURE NEUROSIS AND MIKE REUTER: MICHAEL DAN OUR TRIP WE DISCUSSED THE DENIAL BY THE BCC BEING GRANTED TO BE ABLE TO BRING IT BACK SOONER AND DISCUSS THE RESIDENTIAL BEING ELIMINATED AND NONRESIDENTIAL BEING ADDED.

PCA VOTE OF 70 WITH THE CONDITION ON SIGNAGE AND WE DISCUSSED THREE WAIVERS ACCESSORY USE TO USE ON-SITE ALCOHOL SALES THAT THREE CHURCHES WITHIN 1000 FEET IN THE SIGNAGE REQUEST FOR MONUMENT SIGNS.

JACOB SMITH PRESENTING BEEN SHIPPED COMMERCIAL AS A REQUESTER REASON APPROXIMATELY PROJECT IS LOCATED ON STATE ROAD 207 APPROXIMATELY WEST OF 207 AND WILDWOOD DRIVE.

IT IS LOCATED PREDOMINANTLY IN THE MIXED-USE FUTURE LAND USE AND AGAIN A ZONING MAP INDICATING ITS CURRENT STATUS OF OVERALL COMMERCIAL GENERAL AND SMALL PORTIONS OF PUD.

LASTLY AN AERIAL MAP DEPICTING THE UNDEVELOPED SITE AS WELL TO THE DIRECT WEST AND SOUTH OF PTHE SITE AND YOU CAN SEE THERE ARE SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES WHICH I WILL TOUCH ON A LITTLE LATER IN THE PRESENTATION. THE PROPOSAL IS TO PHASES WITH A MAXIMUM SQUARE FEET OF NONRESIDENTIAL USES ALLOWED USES INCLUDE NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL, VIRTUAL GENERAL, HIGHWAY COMMERCIAL AND PROFESSIONAL AND OFFICE.

ALL USE REQUIRE SPECIAL YOU SHALL BE ALLOWED BY RIGHT AND WILL MEET SPECIAL USE CRITERIA. PHASE 2 OF THE PROJECT WILL ONLY INCLUDE NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL AND OFFICE AND PROFESSIONAL USES. THE PUD DOES INCLUDE A UNIFIED SITE PLAN TO ADDRESS SIGNAGE. THE APPLICANT HAS PROVIDED A MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN. IT INCLUDES ACCESS TO THE EXISTING SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES THE FIRST WAIVER IS FOR ACCESSORY USES TO ALLOW THEIR REQUESTING TO HELP OFF-SITE STORMWATER WITH AN AGREEMENT TO THE PUD TO THE NORTH.

THE SECOND WAIVERS FOR ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE DOES REQUIRE A THOUSAND FOOT SEPARATION FROM CHURCHES AND SCHOOLS FOR VENDORS SERVING ALCOHOL THE APPLICANT SITE LOCATION IS A MAJOR TRANSPORTATION MODE THE MIXED-USE LAND DEVELOPMENT TYPE AS WELL AS THE COMMONALITY OF AREA FOR SIMILAR COMMERCIAL CENTERS TO INCLUDE ALCOHOL SALES. APPROXIMATELY THREE OR FOUR RELIGIOUS CENTERS ACROSS THE STREET FROM THIS PROJECT.

AND THE LAST WAIVER FOR SIGNAGE, THIS WAIVER INCLUDES

[01:35:11]

STAFF DOES NOTE THAT THERE ARE THREE SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES LOCATED ADJACENT TO THE PROPOSED P E AND ACKNOWLEDGES THE APPLICANT WILL PROVIDE ALL THE OFFERINGS, SCREENINGS AND ACCESS FOR THESE LOTS. IN A COUPLE OF COMMERCIAL USES ADDED SPECIFICALLY HIGHWAY COMMERCIAL HIGHWAY AND PROFESSIONAL. THE DEVELOPMENT IS PLANNED FOR THE MOST INTENSE USES ADJACENT TO STATE ROAD 207 WITH THE REMAINDER OF THE DEVELOPMENT DEDICATED TO LESS INTENSE COMMERCIAL USE. PHASE 1 COMMERCIAL USE ARE ALLOWED BY RIGHT. STAFF HAS RECEIVED ONE PHONE CALL OR EMAIL FROM AN ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER INQUIRING ABOUT THE STATUS OF THE PROJECT. STAFF DOES NOT RECEIVE ANY OTHER CORRESPONDENCE OR ANY OBJECTIONS RELATING TO THE MODIFICATION. STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL 2019 Ã14 ADVISOR REQUEST COMPATIBLE WITH THE MIXED-USE FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION AND SUBSTANTIALLY MEETS THE REQUIREMENT OF THE CONFERENCE OF PLAN.

STAFF HAS PROVIDED NINE FINDINGS OF FACT TO SUPPORT A MOTION. IF YOU HAVE ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS I AM AVAILABLE AND THE APPLICANT IS ALSO PRESENT I

BELIEVE FOR THE PRESENTATION. >> ANY QUESTIONS OR STAFF? SEEING NINE, WE WILL MOVE ON AND HEAR FROM THE APPLICANT.

>> GOOD MORNING CHAIRMAN AND COMMISSIONERS.

I AM CATHERINE WHITTINGTON 236 SAN MARCO AVENUE REPRESENTING THE APPLICANT AND DEVELOPER. HERE WITH ME TODAY IS VICTOR WITH 207 DEVELOPMENT LLC. AND BILL WITH KIMLEY HORN WHO IS THE PROJECT PLANNERS AND ENGINEERS FOR THE PROJECT.

FIRST, I WOULD LIKE TO THANK YOU FOR HOLDING THIS MEETING AND ALLOW BUSINESS TO GO FORWARD IN THIS CHALLENGING TIME WE ARE IN. JACOB GAVE YOU A VERY THOROUGH PRESENTATION AND STAFF REPORT, AND SOME OF YOU MAY HAVE SEEN SOME OF THESE SLIDES, BUT SOME HAVE NOT.

AND FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE VIEWING PUBLIC, WE WILL GO THROUGH THEM QUICKLY AND TRY TO BE AS BRIEF AS POSSIBLE.

I'M JUST GOING TO GET AN OVERVIEW AND THEN I'M GOING TO ASK THEM TO COME UP OVER SOME OF THE TECHNICAL POINTS.

MR. SMITH HITS ON THE PROJECT HISTORY WHICH IS RELEVANT.

YOU WILL REMEMBER THIS PROJECT AND WE BROUGHT UP BEFORE YOU LAST JULY. IT WAS ORIGINALLY PROPOSED AS A MIXED-USE PROJECT WITH 1000 SQUARE FEET OF GROCERY STORE AND OUT PARCELS UP IN THE FRONT JANUARY 2, 2007.

YOU ARE UNHAPPY WITH THE PROPOSED USE WHEN THERE WAS A LOT OF RESIDENTIAL GROWTH IN THE AREA AND IT WAS DENIED BUT YOU GRANTED US A WAIVER TO REVAMP THE PROJECT AND BRING IT BACK BEFORE YOU WITHOUT HAVING TO WAIT A YEAR TO REAPPLY AND AT THAT TIME SUGGESTING THAT MAYBE WE AT MORLAND AND MAYBE OFFICE USE AND MAYBE REDUCE. NO RESIDENTIAL WHATSOEVER.

[01:40:18]

THERE ARE OVER 4000 UNITS WITHIN TWO MILES OF THIS PROPERTY. IT'S IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT WITH THE ENTRADA PUD AND WILL SHARE AND ACCESS FROM 207 AT ITS INTERSECTION WITH WILDWOOD DRIVE.

THIS IS AN INTERESTING SLIDE. THIS AERIAL SHOWS EXISTING ALREADY BUILT DEVELOPMENT IN THE VICINITY IS LOCATED 1 1/2 MILES FROM INTERSECTION WITH I-95.

AND BEST SHOWS YOU ALL OF THE EXISTING GROCERY STORES IN THE GREEN DOTS. ALL OF WHICH ARE TWO MILES AWAY TO THE EAST AND THE CLOSEST STORE IS OVER SIX MILES AWAY AND ELKTON IS EVEN FURTHER. PHASE 1 IN BLUE UP IN THE FRONT. OFFICE PROFESSIONAL USES WHICH IS PRETTY MUCH TEXTBOOK MIXED-USE PLANNING ON 207 IN THE FRONT. BUT THAT I'M GOING TO ASK STEVE TO COME UP. I'M BILL SCHILLING WITH KIMLEY HORN. JACKSONVILLE, FLORIDA.

GOOD MORNING. SO I WILL START WITH THE FIRST TWO I'M GOING TO CLICK BACK A SLIDE TO SHOW THE SITE PLAN AND THE FIRST IS RELATED TO THE WAIVER FOR BEING ABLE TO USE AN OFF-SITE POND. THIS POND THAT IS SHOWN ON THE MVP MAP IS OUTSIDE OF THE PUD AND IT'S BEING CONSTRUCTED WITH ENTRADA AS PART OF THE ENTRY ROAD RIO SAN JUAN THAT'S GOING TO BE CONSTRUCTED.THE APPLICANT AND THE DEVELOPER OF ENTRADA HAVE ENTERED INTO AN AGREEMENT TO SHARE IN THE COST OF CONSTRUCTING THIS POTION OF ENTRY ROAD IN THIS POND.

PORTIONS OF THE PUD PROPERTY CURRENTLY TRAINED TO THE NORTH AND LOGICALLY FROM A DRAINAGE PATTERN IT MAKES SENSE TO TREAT IT IN THIS POND. SO THAT'S THE REASON FOR THE REQUEST AND ALLOWING US TO BE ABLE TO USE THE POND FOR

[01:45:04]

SPECIFICALLY THE GROCERY ANCHORS THAT ARE CURRENTLY IN DISCUSSION WITH ÃHAVE A DESIRE TO HAVE AN AFFILIATED LIQUOR STORE IN THE CENTER WITH THEM AS YOU SEE SEVERAL GROCERY STORES ARE DOING IN THIS MARKET.

THAT REQUIRES US TO HAVE THIS WAIVER FOR THAT LIQUOR SALE USE WITH AN 80 ÃWE HAVE RELIGIOUS FACILITIES AND WE HAVE A TEMPLE THOSE INSTITUTIONS. ONE OF THEM TOOK US UP ON A MEETING AND MR. VICTOR LYRICIST MET WITH REPRESENTATIVES OF TEMPLE BETH AND THEY HAVE NO OBJECTION TO THE REQUEST FOR THE WAIVER. THE OTHER TWO THE ISLAMIC CENTER AND THE FREEDOM BAPTIST CHURCH, WE HAVE ON NUMEROUS OCCASIONS REACHED OUT TO THEM TO NO SUCCESS, AND WE DID SEND THEM CERTIFIED LETTERS MAKING THEM AWARE OF OUR PROPOSED PUD AND THE REQUEST FOR THE AND THEY ARE WITHIN THEY ALSO RECEIVED PUBLIC NOTICE OF THIS HEARING TODAY AND THE PZA

HEARING >> ABOUT LIKE TO PUT COPIES OF THE CORRESPONDENCE TO THE TWO WE WERE NOT ABLE TO CONTACT

INTO THE RECORD. >> ALL RIGHT.

THE THIRD AND FINAL WAIVER REGARDING SIGNAGE I WILL TALK QUICKLY ABOUT THAT. SO AT THE P CA HEARING THE MEMBERS DID RAISE CONCERN ABOUT THE SIZE OF SOME OF THE SIGNAGE, AND WE WERE REQUESTING A WAIVER FOR TWO OF THE MONUMENT SIGNS TO BE LARGER THAN ALLOWED IN THE LAND PDEVELOPENT CODE. WE HAVE SINCE WITHDRAWN THAT WAIVER REQUEST AND REDUCE THOSE SIGNS TO COMPLY WITH THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AND I WILL WALK THROUGH REAL QUICKLY TO HIGHLIGHT. THIS SHOWS THE OVERALL SIGN PLAN. WE ARE NO LONGER ÃTHESE ARE THE TWO LARGER COMMERCIAL SIGNS THAT WE WERE ORIGINALLY ASKING UP TO 200 SQUARE FEET OF ADA FOUR.

WE HAVE TAKEN EXAMPLES OF OTHER SIMILARLY SIZED SIGNS.

WE HAVE SINCE REDUCED THE REQUEST TO REMOVE THAT WAIVER.

SO THESE TWO SIGNS NOW COMPLY WITH THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE.

NO NEED FOR A WAIVER REQUEST. THE SECOND GROUPING OF SIGNS WHICH ARE THE SIGNS ON RIO SAN JUAN RD. WHICH WERE CALLING OUR COMMERCIAL IDENTITY SIGNS, THESE ALSO COMPLY WITH THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AND ACTUALLY WE HAVE FURTHER REDUCED THE HEIGHT OF THE SCIENCE TO THE APPROPRIATE WITH THE ENTRADA COMMUNITY. THERE WILL BE NO TALLER THAN 10 FEET WHICH IS ACTUALLY SHORTER THAN WHAT'S ALLOWED BY THE CODE. AND BESIDES, THE ACTUAL DISPLAY AREA OF THE SIZE WILL COMPLY WITH.

WHERE WE ARE STILL REQUIRING THE WAIVER IS FOR OUR THREE OUT PARCELS SIGNS. PER THE CODE, ANY COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT HAVING 500 LINEAR FEET OF FRONTAGE FOR GREATER IS LIMITED TO A TOTAL OF FOUR MONUMENT SIGNS, WHICH WE ACHIEVE THROUGH THE PRIOR TWO SETS OF SIGNS I SHOWED YOU.

SO IN ORDER TO HAVE SIGNS FOR OUR OUT PARCEL USERS, WE WILL NEED THE WAIVER FOR THESE THREE ADDITIONAL OUT PARCEL SIZE.

BUT WE HAVE PUT SIGNIFICANT RESTRICTIONS ON THESE THESE SIGNS WILL NOT BE GREATER THAN EIGHT FEET TALL.

FOR THE OUT PARCELS IT WILL BE LIMITED TO 75 SQUARE FEET OF SIGN AREA AND FOR THE PL PARCEL THE TRIANGULAR ONE THAT'S LESS THAN AN ACRE IT WILL BE LIMITED TO 50 SQUARE FEET.

THIS IS A QUICK EXAMPLE OF OUR BUILDING SIGNAGE FOR OUR SMALL AND MEDIUM TENANTS. THESE SIGNS WILL COMPLY WITH THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE. THERE'S NO WAIVER REQUESTED.

[01:50:01]

THIS IS LIMITED TO RIO SAM WARREN RD.

ONLY AND THE ANCHOR TENANTS WILL BE ABLE TO HELP UP TO AN ADDITIONAL 85 SQUARE FEET OF BUILDING SIGNAGE ABOVE AND BEYOND THEIR FRONT BUILDING SIGNAGE TO BE ABLE TO PLACE A SIGN ONLY FACING RIO SAM WARREN RD.

THOSE ARE THE TWO COMPONENTS OF THE SIGNAGE WAIVER.

THE REMAINING PORTIONS OF THE SIGNAGE WAIVER THAT WERE PRESENTED IN PZA HAVE BEEN WITHDRAWN.

>> AND WITH THAT I WILL BRING IT BACK TO THE CONCLUSION AND SUMMARIZE. I KNOW THIS WHITTINGTON SHARED THE BENEFITS OF THE PROJECT AND WE BELIEVE THEY ARE SIGNIFICANT BENEFITS TO THE COUNTY AND SPECIFICALLY TO THIS AREA OF THE COUNTY. IN JOBS, AND ADDED TAX REVENUE FROM IMPACT FEES, SALES TAX, AD VALOREM TAX AND THEN FINALLY THIS DOES PROVIDE A CRITICALLY NEEDED RETAIL DEVELOPMENT IN THIS AREA OF THE COUNTY.ODAY IS A GROCERY DESERT AND WE BELIEVE THIS IS GOOD USE FOR THIS AREA OF THE COUNTY.

I WILL END ON AND THE TEAM IS HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT THE COMMISSIONERS MAY HAVE OR ANY COMMENTS THAT COME FROM

THE PUBLIC. >> ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE

APPLICANT? >> I JUST HAD A STATEMENT I WANT TO COMMEND YOU FOR THE GREAT WORK YOU PUT INTO THIS.

REALLY CAME BACK WITH ÃI APPRECIATE THE GREAT WORK

YOU'VE DONE ON THAT. >> SEEING NINE ÃCOMMISSIONER DEAN? DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OR

COMMENTS? >> NO

>> MOVING INTO PUBLIC COMMENT >> THE BOARD WILL HEAR PUBLIC COMMENT ON AGENDA ITEM NUMBER FOUR PLEASE COME FORWARD.

I BELIEVE WE DO HAVE ÃGOOD MORNING.

>> CHRISTINA KRAMER SAINT AUGUSTINE FLORIDA.

MY PARENTS ARE THE PROPERTY OWNERS OF THE ADJACENT RESIDENTS THEY ARE SPEAKING OF. WE ACTUALLY HAVE A LARGE SQUARE IN THE MIDDLE OF THE DEVELOPMENTS THAT WAS PRESENTED. IT IS A RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY AND WE DO LIVE THERE. WE ARE REQUESTING DENIAL OF THIS BUILDING. WE WERE NOT REALLY CONTACTED AND WHEN WE WERE CONTACTED WE WERE SUBJECT TO CHANGES.

THERE'S A FEW REASONS WHY. THE SPEAKER PRESENTED SAYING IT IS A MAGNITUDE OF A SHOPPING CENTER.

SO IT IS RATHER LARGE AND WE ARE IN THE MIDDLE AT RESIDENCE.

WE ARE SLEEPING THERE WE LIVED THERE AND WE HAVE OUR LICENSE.

AND FOR A SHOPPING CENTER TO GO IN THE ACCESS TO THE HOME WILL CHANGE. THERE'S A LOT OF CHANGES THAT WILL OCCUR. IN 2019 IT WAS DENIED BECAUSE OF A HIGHER TRAFFIC IN THE AREA AND THIS IS GOING TO INCREASE THAT TRAFFIC SIGNIFICANTLY THEIR FIRST RESIDENTIAL AROUND THE RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY. HIGHER TRAFFIC PRODUCE A SOLUTION ACCESS TO OUR PROPERTY IS GOING TO CHANGE OUR PROPERTY VALUE WILL CHANGE SIGNIFICANTLY AND THE TAXES WILL PROBABLY CHANGE. THE WATER DRAINAGE IS A BUILDING ALL OF THESE COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS AROUND US AND THEY ARE GOING TO HAVE OFF-SITE WATER IN THAT WATER DRAINAGE WILL TRAIN RIGHT INTO THE PROPERTY.

AND THEN THE OTHER THING IS Ã AND I UNDERSTAND NEEDING A GROCERY STORE AND I UNDERSTAND THE NEED FOR THE RETAIL AND THE JOBS AND THAT'S ALL FAIR AND WELL AND GREAT, HOWEVER, THERE IS NO CONSIDERATION BEING TAKEN FOR US BEING IN THE CENTER OF THEIR DEVELOPMENTAL PROPERTY OF COMMERCIAL AROUND US AND IF YOU GUYS PUT YOUR SELF IN THE SAME SITUATION IF THIS IS YOUR HOUSE IF YOU WANT BUILDINGS AND LIGHT POLLUTION AND HIGHER TRAFFIC AROUND YOUR HOME. SO I THINK IN CONCLUSION WE ARE

[01:55:03]

THANK YOU, MA'AM. >> PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS. GO AHEAD, SIR.

>> I AM A PROPERTY OWNER IN THE MIDDLE OF THIS WHOLE THING.

WITH HAVING THE COMMERCIAL AROUND ME, I GET BACK.

THAT'S THEIR DENIAL ON THAT. OTHER THAN THE MAIN COMMERCIAL I'M NOT TOO CONCERNED ABOUT THAT BUT MORE OF A COMMERCIAL RIGHT AROUND THIS. THAT'S ABOUT IT.

>> SHERRY BADGER, 2772 S. COLLINS AVENUE.

THIS SEEMS REAL FAMILIAR. RETAIL WANTED TO MOVE INTO RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS. I CAN ASSURE YOU GENTLEMEN IF YOU MOVE INTO MY NEIGHBORHOOD YOU EXAMINED THE PACKET THAT THEY FIRST PRESENTED WHICH WAS A PST AND THEN CHANGE TO A PUD AND CHANGED TO A STRIP MALL WHICH WAS NOT SUPPOSED TO HAVE ALCOHOL. THEY DID MOVE THE ALCOHOL TO THE OTHER END OF THE CHURCH. THE LIGHTING IS STILL NOT RIGHT AND THEY MOVED THE LIGHTING FROM WHERE THEY HAD IT AND HE MOVED IT UP TO MAKE IT MORE CONVENIENT FOR THEIR TENANTS.

SO MANY OF THESE ÃTHESE PEOPLE DO NOT CARE ABOUT THE RESIDENTS THAT LIVE IN THAT NEIGHBORHOOD, I CAN ASSURE YOU.

THANK YOU. >> MR. CHAIRMAN, NOT SEEING ANYONE ELSE COME FORWARD NOT SEE ANYMORE WAITING BECAUSE WE WILL CLOSE, CLOSE PUBLIC COMMENT

>> >> RIGHT.

MR. CHAIR ÃIF WE COULD GO BACK AND I RECOGNIZE MR. GATCHEL IS ONE OF THE PEOPLE WHO SPOKE, I'M NOT SURE IF THE FIRST SPEAKER ALSO LIVES IN THIS SAME PROPERTY.

I KNOW SHE MENTIONED SHE WAS SURROUNDED BY PHASE 2. I KNOW THAT WE HAVE BEEN THE APPLICANT AND I HAVE SPENT A GOOD AMOUNT OF TIME WITH MR. AND MRS. GATCHEL.

I KNOW THAT WE HAVE WORKED WITH THEM TO PROVIDE A 20 FOOT BUFFER ALONG THEIR PROPERTY AND HAVE AGREED TO PROVIDE A SIX FOOT PRIVACY FENCE AROUND THEIR PROPERTY.

>> CAN I GO INTO THE STAFF REPORT AT THIS POINT?

[02:00:09]

>> THANK YOU. BACK TO THE BOARD.

ANY DISCUSSION, COMMENTS, QUESTIONS?

>> THE LADY WHO SPOKE WHO WAS ONE OF THE PUBLIC COMMENTERS WAS THE DAUGHTER OF THE RESIDENT ÃTHE HOMEOWNERS THAT LIVE CONTIGUOUS TO THIS PROJECT, AND SHE EXPRESSED CONCERN ABOUT THE STORMWATER RUNOFF FLOODING HER PARENTS'S PROPERTY. AND I WOULD LIKE TO ASK ANYONE REPRESENTING THE APPLICANT [INDISCERNIBLE] AND I THOUGHT THE APPLICANT HAS YET TO APPLY [INDISCERNIBLE] BEFORE YOU GO TO THE [INDISCERNIBLE] COULD YOU BRIEFLY COMMENT ON STORMWATER MANAGEMENT AND HOW YOU WOULD REGULATE?

>> MR. CHAIRMAN, THANK YOU AND COMMISSIONER DEAN, THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION AND I WILL ANSWER THAT QUESTION AND REMIND YOU OF A COUPLE OF OTHER THINGS TO ADDRESS IF WE ARE TALKING ABOUT THIS PARCEL ALONG THE SOUTHERN EDGE.

COMMISSIONER DEAN YOU ARE CORRECT.

WE HAVE NOT YET STARTED THE APPLICATION PROCESS WITH THE WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT FOR OUR STORMWATER SYSTEM BUT THAT WILL BE THE NEXT STEP IN THE PROCESS WHERE WE WILL BE FILING AN APPLICATION FOR THE DESIGN APPROVAL OF OUR STORMWATER SYSTEM. WHICH WILL REQUIRE THAT THE PRE-AND POST-FLOWS STORMWATER FLOWS ON THIS SITE ARE ACCOMMODATED SO THAT ANY CURRENT FLOW TO THIS PROPERTY TO THE SOUTH WOULD NOT BE INCREASED IN THE FUTURE.

WE DO IN 10 TO HAVE PONDS ON THE SITE WITH A FAIRLY SIZABLE POND IN THE CENTER PORTION OF THE SITE AND SO WE ARE ANTICIPATING THAT WE WILL ACCOMMODATE ALL OF OUR STORMWATER TREATMENT ON THE PROJECT.

RIGHT NOW WE ARE ANTICIPATING THAT THE OUTFALL FOR THE STORMWATER WILL BE TOO THE NORTH TO MOULTRIE CREEK.HE OTHER TWO THINGS THAT I DID WANT TO MENTION THAT I SHOULD HAVE BEFORE, I NOTE THERE WAS MENTION OF ACCESS, AND IT IS CORRECT MR. AND MRS. GATCHEL AN EASEMENT ACROSS THE PROPERTY FOR ACCESS TO THEIR PROPERTY AND ALSO, THERE IS ACCESS PROVIDED TO THIS PROPERTY ACROSS THE FRONT CORNER OF THE PROPERTY. THE APPLICANT HAS COMMITTED TO THE GATCHEL'S AND CERTAINLY WOULD COMMIT TO THE PUBLIC SPEAKER THAT CALLED IN AHEAD OF THEM THAT WE ARE COMMITTED TO MAINTAINING THAT ACCESS AND DOES ACCESS EASEMENTS IN THE ACCESS EASEMENTS DO ALLOW FOR THEM TO BE RELOCATED AS DEVELOPMENT COMMENCES AND MOVES FORWARD, BUT WE ARE COMMITTED AS WE MOVE FORWARD TO MAINTAIN ACCESS.

THERE IS ONE OTHER THING SLIPPING MY MIND.

THE APPLICANT IS COMMITTED TO MAINTAINING THOSE ACCESS POINTS. THAT MAY BE SOMEWHERE IN THE APPLICATION OR TEXT. IT IS NOT ALREADY THERE OR IS THAT SOMETHING BASICALLY ÃWE CAN VERIFY THAT REAL QUICKLY.

BUT I FEEL CONFIDENT OF THAT. WHICH THE SECOND ITEM I DID WANT TO MENTION THAT I REMEMBERED IS THAT IN ADDITION TO THE 20 FOOT BUFFER AROUND THE GATCHEL'S THE PUD CURRENTLY ALSO PROVIDES A 20 FOOT BUFFER ALONG THIS PROPERTY AS WELL.

SO THAT HAS BEEN INCLUDED WITHIN THE PUD.

[02:05:17]

>> >> IT IS ON THE TEXT ON PAGE 9 UNDER INTERCONNECTIVITY VEHICULAR INTERCONNECTIVITY WILL ALSO BE PROVIDED TO THE ENTRADA PUD ROAD INTO THE WEST PROPERTY IDENTIFIED AS 1813 STATE RD. 207 THAT CURRENTLY CONTAINS THE SAME FAMILY RESIDENCE.

I AM NOT CLEAR IF THE FIRST CALLER WAS THAT SAME PARCEL OR THE ONE TO THE SOUTH. IN ANY EVENT WE HAVE NEVER HEARD FROM THE PROPERTY TO THE SOUTH.

SO WE ARE HAPPY TO ADD LANGUAGE THAT SAYS WE ARE ALSO MAINTAINING ACCESS TO THE ONE TO THE SOUTH.

>> CORRECT. >> AND 1813 STATE RD. 207 IS

THE PROPERTY >> AND THAT'S ALREADY IN THE

>> WHICH IS IN THIS PROPERTY RIGHT HERE.

>> MAY ALSO HAVE A COMMITMENT TO THEM TO RELOCATE THE UTILITIES THAT SHOULD BE REQUIRED.

>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? COMMENTS?

ALL RIGHT. >> THANK YOU.

>> I WILL MAKE A MOTION TO ENACT ORDINANCE 2020-13 APPROVING PUD 2019 Ã14 SUBJECT TO NINE FINDINGS OF FACT AS LISTED IN THE STAFF REPORT AND STATING THE ACCESSIBILITY TO THE OTHER PROPERTIES AS NOTED HERE SOUTH PARCEL IN THE NORTH

PARCEL. >> SECOND

>> I HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER WALDRON AND A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER JONES. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? SEEING NO AND WE WILL PROCEED WITH A ROLL CALL VOTE

>> >>

[Item 5]

THIS IS ASPARTAME. PROCEED WITH ANY DISCLOSURES THAT NEED TO BE MADE. COMMISSIONER DEAN?

>> NOT >> COMMISSIONER BARBARA?

NOT >> COMMISSIONER WALDRON?

NONE >> COMMISSIONER JON SCOTT

>> NON- >> I HAVE NONE AS WELL.

MR. KELLY, GOOD MORNING. >> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR.

I WILL BE PRESENTING AGENDA ITEM NUMBER FIVE AND THIS IS MAJOR MODIFICATION 2019-10 CUMBERLAND INDUSTRIAL PARK.

THIS IS A REQUEST TO MODIFY THE CUMBERLAND INDUSTRIAL PARK PUD TO ADD COMMERCIAL RECREATION AND OFFICE PROFESSIONAL USES TO THE EXISTING BUILDINGS LOCATED ON LOT 1 PARCEL B PROVIDED HERE IS AN AERIAL MAP OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY ALONG COUNTY TO 10 W.

THE SUBJECT PROPERTY HAS A FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION OF MIXED USE AND IT IS CURRENTLY ZONED PUD.

THE PROPOSED ADDITIONAL USES WOULD BE LIMITED TO LOT 1 LOCATED WITHIN PARCEL B OF CUMBERLAND INDUSTRIAL PARK AND THE CURTAIN ORDINANCE LIMITS USES TO THOSE GENERALLY ASSOCIATED WITH COMMERCIAL INTENSIVE AND LIGHT INDUSTRIAL USES. THIS REQUEST IS BEING MADE TO BRING THE EXISTING USES THAT ARE ON THE POPERTY INTO COMPLIANCE BY UPDATING THE TEXT AND THE APPLICANT ALSO ASSERTS THESE USES WILL BETTER REFLECT THE NATURE OF THE COUNTY ROAD WEST. REVIEW BY STAFF SHOWS SUBJECT PROPERTY CONSISTS OF APPROXIMATELY 20,000 SQUARE FEET OF WAREHOUSE AND FLEX SPACE.

THIS WILL NOT ÃNO ADDITIONAL SCREENING WOULD BE REQUIRED.

PROVIDED HERE IS THE MAP FOR CUMBERLAND INDUSTRIAL PARK DEPICTING PARCELS A, B, AND D. THE AREA LABELED LOT 1 IS THE LOCATION OF THE PROPOSED MAJOR MODIFICATION REVIEW BY STAFF SHOWS LOTS TO AND FOUR ARE ALSO DEPICTED HERE ON THE MAP WERE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED FOR OFFICE AND PROFESSIONAL USES FOR ORDINANCE 2011 Ã34. LISTED ON THIS SLIDE WITHIN THE PPROVIDED STAFF REPORT ARE THE CURRENT ÃCOMMERCIAL RECREATION AND OFFICE PROFESSIONAL USES BEING PROPOSED BY THE APPLICANT IN THESE USES ARE COMPATIBLE WITH THE FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION OF MIXED-USE AND MISSION SIMILAR USES ÃTHIS ITEM WAS HIRED AND WAS UNANIMOUSLY RECOMMENDED FOR

[02:10:04]

IS PRESENT AS WELL. >> ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? SEEING THAT WE MOVE ALONG TO THE APPLICANT.

GOOD TO SEE YOU TODAY. HELLO TO YOU IN THE SKY.

FOR THE RECORD, MY NAME IS ALAN AVERY SMITH ROGERS TOWERS 100 WHITESTONE PLACE IN AUGUSTINE. WE HAVE THE OWNERS OF THE PROPERTY SUBJECT TO THIS APPLICATION.

DEMAND SOURCE ARE LITERALLY SMALL BUSINESS OWNERS.

THEY HAVE INVESTED IN THIS PROPERTY WHICH IS LOCATED IN THE CUMBERLAND INDUSTRIAL PARK AND IS ABOUT 3 1/2 ACRES WHICH IS LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF COUNTY ROAD 210 EAST OF I-95 AND WEST OF U.S. 1. THEY HAVE CONSTRUCTED WAREHOUSE SPACE WITHIN THEIR PROPERTIES SO NO ADDITIONAL SPACE IS BEING PROPOSED WITH THIS APPLICATION. THE FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION IS MIXED-USE DISTRICT WHICH ALLOWS THE USES THAT WERE ÃTHE NATURE OF THIS COMMUNITY HAS CHANGED OVER TIME AS MANY OF YOU WHO HAVE LIVED HERE FOR A LONG PERIOD OF TIME NO COUNTY ROAD 210 USED TO BE A RURAL ROAD.

AND SO THE REQUEST FOR THIS APPLICATION IS SIMPLY TO AMEND AND RESTATE THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED ORDINANCES FOR THIS PROPERTY ONLY. BECAUSE THERE ARE A VARIETY OF OWNERS WITHIN CUMBERLAND INDUSTRIAL PARK DID NOT

ENDEAVOR >> DANCE CLASSES FOR KIDS PHYSICAL THERAPY OFFICES PROFESSIONAL OFFICES AND THINGS THAT REFLECT CHANGING NATURE OF THIS NEIGHBORHOOD.

SO WE HAVE A STAFF RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL AND WE HAVE PZA RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL AND WE WOULD JUST REQUEST THAT YOU ALSO ÃOR YOU VOTE TO APPROVE THIS PUD MAJOR MODIFICATION SO THAT THESE FOLKS ARE RUNNING TO TENANTS SO THANK YOU. SEEING THAT WE WILL OPEN IT UP

FOR PUBLIC COMMENT. >> AT THIS TIME YOU WILL YOUR PUBLIC COMMENT ON AGENDA ITEM NUMBER FIVE.

PUBLIC COMMENT ON AGENDA ITEM NUMBER FIVE PLEASE COME

FORWARD. >> NOT SEEING ANYONE COMING FORWARD WE WILL CLOSE PUBLIC COMMENT ON AGENDA ITEM NUMBER

FIVE. >> PUBLIC, NOW CLOSED

>> I WILL BE GLAD TO MAKE A MOTION BASED ON SIX FINDINGS OF FACT. I HAVE A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER WALDRON.NY DISCUSSION? SEEING THAT WE WILL PROCEED WITH A ROLL CALL VOTE.

[Item 6]

>> I WILL BE A YES AS WELL IT PASSES 5 TO 0. CONGRATULATIONS.

WE MOVE ALONG TO AGENDA ITEM NUMBER SIX.

AGENDA ITEM NUMBER SIX. GOOD MORNING.

>> JEFF PETRIE WITH COURSE MANAGEMENT PRESENTING THE CITY INSTRUCTION. IT'S 2019 Ã04.

THIS REQUEST IS .22 ACRES AND IN THE HASTINGS LAND AND IMPROVEMENT SUBDIVISION. THAT'S IN BLOCK 12.

[02:15:11]

AS YOU CAN SEE ON THE MAP THAT'S THE AREA AND THERE ARE A TOTAL OF 12 LOTS FOR THEM IS PLANNING ON COMBINING THEM TO MAKE THEM EXTRA LONG LOTS IN THE REMAINING THREE PROPERTY OWNERS HAVE JOINED ONTO THE APPLICATION VIA CONSENT TO JOIN HER. THE POST LOCATION DOES NOT AFFECT ANY ACTUAL OR LEGAL ACCESS AND HAS NO KNOWN DRAINAGE FACILITIES. ALL UTILITIES HAVE BEEN CONTACTED AND EXPRESSED NO INTEREST IN FUTURE USE OF THE ALLEYWAYS. COUNTY ENGINEERING AND ALL APPROPRIATE DEPARTMENTS HAVE BEEN REVIEWED AND THERE HAVE NOT BEEN NO OBJECTIONS TO THIS REQUEST.

>> ALL NEIGHBORHOOD BILL OF RIGHTS AND ADVERTISEMENTS HAVE BEEN SATISFIED STAFF IS NOT RECEIVED ANY INPUT FROM THE PUBLIC REGARDING THIS. STAFF FINDINGS RECOMMENDED ACTION ARE THAT STAFF DOES NOT HAVE AN OBJECT ÃOBJECTION TO THE APPROVAL OF VACATION ROAD, 2000 1904 STAFF FINDS THIS REQUEST SUBSTANTIALLY MEETS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE. THAT CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION WE OWNED EIGHT BLOCKS AND IF I COULD GET THE POWERPOINT GOING UP THERE. BEING TIED TOGETHER AS YOU CAN SEE ON THE SITE PLAN, ALONG EAST COCHRAN IS WHERE THE HOUSE WILL BE LOCATED. ANYWAY YOU CAN SEE THE FOUR IN THE CONSTRUCTION AND THE FUTURE HOMEOWNER IS WITH ME.

BUT BECAUSE THEY CAN BE DEVELOPED SO MR. ANTONIO SAID THEY WILL DEED THE LOT BE ABLE TO TIE THEM TOGETHER SO THEY WILL HAVE A BIGGER LOT. THE PROBLEM WITH THAT IS WITH THESE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAYS WHICH ARE SUBSTANDARD AND UNUSUAL RUNAWAYS TO BEGIN WITH THE HOMEOWNER CAN'T FENCE ACROSS THE ALLEYWAY OR WON'T BE ABLE TO PUT AN ACCESSORY USE OF THE BACK LOT BECAUSE THEY ARE SEPARATE LOTS.

SO WHILE VACATING THOSE TWO WILL BE TAUGHT TOGETHER THEY CAN MAKE USE OF WHICH WILL OTHERWISE BE BASICALLY UNUSABLE LOTS. SO IT'S CURRENTLY NOT OPEN AND NORTH PETRIE IS CURRENTLY NOT OPEN AND VERY LIKELY NOT GOING TO BE OPEN BUT IT'S STILL DOES NOT AFFECT THE ACCESSIBILITY AS MR. PETRIE SAID THE OTHER THREE LOT OWNERS HAVE BOTH CONSENTED.

THIS IS JUST AN AERIAL SHOWING THE AREA AND AS YOU GO TO THE NORTHEAST HERE, TOWARDS PETRIE, THAT AREA IS ACTUALLY FAIRLY WET AND PROBABLY WILL NEVER BE DEVELOPED ANYWAY.

AS PART OF THE FLOODWAY THAT GOES OUT TO THE ST. JOHNS. SO THESE ARE JUST A FEW PHOTOGRAPHS I TOOK OF SHOWING Ã

[02:20:06]

THERE'S NOTHING BACK THERE. THIS IS THE NORTH, SOUTH ALLEYWAY ÃTHE EAST-WEST ALLEYWAY WHICH IS ALSO FULLY TREED AND THIS IS WHERE THE TWO ALLEYWAYS COME TOGETHER AND THIS IS MS. MATTHEWS'S HOUSE IN THE CORNER.

SO IT'S CURRENTLY NOT BEING USED WHICH ALSO SHOWS THAT THERE ÃONCE WE HAVE HOMEOWNERS AROUND THERE, IF WE HAD PUBLICLY ACCESSIBLE LAND BACK THERE THAT'S NOT IMPROVED IT CREATES A SAFETY ISSUE. YOU WOULD HAVE LEGALLY PEOPLE WOULD BE ABLE TO WALK BETWEEN THE HOUSES AND AROUND THEM IN THE BACK WITHOUT ANY WAY OF KNOWING OR CONTROLLING THAT ACCESS. SO WITH THAT, I'M OPEN TO

WHATEVER QUESTIONS YOU HAVE >> ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? SEEING MEN, WE WILL MOVE ALONG

INTO PUBLIC COMMENT >> AT THIS TIME, THE BOARD WILL ENTERTAIN PUBLIC COMMENT ON AGENDA ITEM NUMBER SIX.

PUBLIC COMMENT ON AGENDA ITEM NUMBER SIX.

PLEASE COME FORWARD. >> NO CALL ON PUBLIC COMMENT

>> NOT SEEING ANYONE COME FORWARD AND NO CALLS WAITING WE WILL CLOSE PUBLIC COMMENT ON AGENDA ITEM NUMBER SIX

>> WE ARE BACK TO THE BOARD FOR ANY COMMENTS OR DISCUSSIONS AND IF NOT I WILL MOVE THIS. IT'S IN MY DISTRICT.

MOTION TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 2020- 149, APPROVING BAC ROA 2019- 04 CITY CONSTRUCTION ALLEWAYS IN BLOCK 12 HASTINGS

LAND AND IMPROVEMENTS >> WE WILL PROCEED FOR THOSE.

[Item 7]

ANYTHING YOU NEED TO DISCLOSE? >> NONE X COMMISSIONER BLOCKER?

>> NO SIR >> I REQUESTED THIS BE ABLE TO MOVE FORWARD AS SOON AS POSSIBLE IT WAS APRIL 13 AT 2020. NOTHING ELSE

>> FOR THE RECORD VALERIE STUDENTS PRESENTING AGENDA ITEM NUMBER SEVEN PUD 20 1913 FOUNTAINS NORTH.

THIS IS A REQUEST TO REZONE APPROXIMATELY 33 ACRES OF LAND FROM OPEN ROAD TO PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT NOTE NORTHEAST QUADRANT OF I-95 AND COUNTY ROAD 210.

THE INTERCHANGE ALONG WILSON ROAD.

THIS IS AN AERIAL MAP SHOWING THE APPROXIMATE 33 ACRES WITH MADE ACCESS COMING FROM AN EXISTING PUD TO THE SELF KNOWN AS THE FOUNTAINS. THIS FUTURE LAND USE MAP SHOWS THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND THE SURROUNDING PROPERTIES OF THE EAST DESIGNATED AS MIXED USE AND ZONING IS CURRENTLY OPEN RURAL. TO SUMMARIZE, THE APPLICATION, THE PROPOSAL IS FOR UP TO 650,000 SQUARE FEET OF A MIXTURE OF USES ALL USE IS REQUIRED TO MEET THE SPECIAL USE CRITERIA IN THE SUPPLEMENTAL DESIGN STANDARDS OF THE LDC AND THIS PUD IS DESIGNED TO BE AN EXTENSION ALL OF THE REQUIRED BUFFERS WILL BE APPLIED TO THE PROPOSED PUD RANGING FROM 10 A TO 20 B FOR THE BUFFERING SCREENING STANDARDS IN THE OPEN SPACE WILL BE PROVIDED.

IF APPROVED THIS BEAUTY WILL BE AMONG MULTIPLE MIXED-USE PUD'S INCLUDING RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL USES.

THIS IS AN AMOUNT SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT.

THIS IS THE FIRST OF FOUR WAIVERS AND THE FIRST TO BUFFERING AND SCREENING REQUIREMENTS FOR COMMERCIAL SETBACKS AND PUD'S. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A REDUCTION OF THE SECOND SCREENING STANDARD FROM THE 20 FEET TO 10 A ON THE WESTERN PROPERTY LINE ALONG I-95 IN THE SOUTHERN PROPERTY ALONG THESE EXISTING FOUNTAINS PUD.

WAIVER NUMBER TWO TO THE PARKING FOR MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL USES THAT ARE PROPOSED WITH DEED RESTRICTIONS. SUCH AS THE INDEPENDENT LIVING UNITS. WAIVER NUMBER THREE TO THE ACCESS MANAGEMENT CODE. THIS APPLICANT IS REQUESTING THE USE OF PROPOSED PRIVATE ACCESS ROADS TO SERVE AS USES.

[02:25:05]

FINALLY THE FOURTH WAIVER TO SIGNAGE THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING WAIVERS TO VARIOUS SECTIONS OF ARTICLE 4 TWO ALLOW A SIGN WITH ANY PUD INTERNAL ACCESS ROAD CURRENTLY KNOWN AS CE WILSON ROAD. ADDITIONALLY A WAIVER TO 503 F TO ALLOW A JOINT UNIFIED SITE PLAN FOR THIS PROPOSED PUD FOUNTAINS NRTH AND EXISTING PUD FOUNTAINS TO THE SOUTH.

THIS IS AN APPROPRIATE TRANSITIONAL USE.

AT THE HIGHWAY INTERCHANGE KNOWN FOR EITHER OF THE OPTIONS THAT ARE SHOWN ABOVE. THE FIRST IS WITH HOSPITAL AND WITHOUT SPECIAL CARE HOUSING ALONG WITH SOME PROFESSIONAL MEDICAL OFFICE USES RETAIL AND RESTAURANT, OUTPATIENT AND MULTIFAMILY. THE SECOND WITH HOSPITAL AND SPECIAL CARE HOUSING AND AGAIN WITH MORE OF THE RETAIL AND RESTAURANT SOME PROFESSIONAL MEDICAL OUTPATIENT AND MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL. THIS IS COMPATIBILITY ANALYSIS CHART SHOWING SOME OF THE USES WE ARE SEEING IN THE MAPS PREVIOUSLY SHOWN MOST OF THEM ARE MIXED-USE PUD'S AND INTENSITY OF THE COMMERCIAL USES COMPATIBLE WITH THE SURROUNDING AREA AND IS COMPARABLE TO THE BUSINESSES OF THE FOUNTAINS. THAT IS THE PUD TO THE SOUTH AND THAT WILL SERVE AS THE SURROUNDING RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL AREAS. THIS IS A MAP DEPICTING THE COMPATIBILITY CHART JUST SHOWING THE PREVIOUS SLIDE.

THERE WAS A WRITTEN CORRESPONDENCE WITH CONCERNED Ã THE VACATING OF CE WILSON ROAD POND AMENITIES AND SOME QUESTIONS ON SOILS PROPOSED MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT CONCURRENCY REGARDING PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL USES AND REQUESTED WAIVERS. STAFF DOES NOT OBJECT TO APPROVAL OF THE APPLICATION BY THE BBC AND THERE ARE NINE FINDINGSOF FACT TO SUPPORT A MOTION TO SUPPORT

>> THAT CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION AND STAFF IS PRESENT IN THE APPLICATION IS PRESENT.

>> WE HEAR FROM THE APPLICANT. >> GOOD MORNING.

BRAD WESTER DRIVER MCABEE. I WILL PUT UP AN AERIAL HERE SHOWING OUR PUD PLAN AS FAR AS ADJACENT PROPERTIES.

I WILL PUT IT UP RIGHT HERE. I WILL QUICKLY ORIENT YOU WITH THE PROPERTY ITSELF. SO THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION IS THIS SUBJECT PROPERTY OUTLINED, AND IT IS THE PUD REQUESTED AND IT IS ESSENTIALLY AN EXTENSION OF WHAT'S CALLED THE FOUNTAIN ALL COMMERCIAL RETAIL OFFICE USES AND OUR PUD IS AN EXTENSION OF THAT. ESSENTIALLY YOU CAN THINK OF IT AS AN INFIELD PUD.WE HAVE THE FOUNTAINS PUD, WE HAVE 10 TWIN CREEKS TO THE NORTH. THERE IS ALSO A TRACTOR SUPPLY WHICH IS ALONG TO 10. IT IS A LIKE DEVELOPMENT SAME DEVELOPER SAME OWNER AND THIS IS MARKET DRIVEN SO OBVIOUSLY THE WHEREWITHAL WAS TO EXPAND THE ORIGINAL FOUNTAINS INTO THIS 34 ACRE SITE AS WELL. EXPOSURE IS MUCH BETTER ALONG I-95 AS YOU KNOW. THAT IS THE KEY TO ECONOMIC GROWTH DEVELOPMENT IS EXPOSURE TO 95 IN THIS INTERCHANGE NODE AT 210 AND 95. AND SO WE HAVE INCREASED THE

[02:30:09]

EVERYTHING ELSE MEETS THE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS.

WE DID HAVE ONE CONCERN ABOUT THE ACCESS EXPERIENCED CEU WILSON ROAD AND THAT'S THE MAIN ROAD OFF OF 210 AND FEEDS THE EXISTING FOUNTAINS DEVELOPMENT. AND ALSO SERVES THE ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS. WE ÃIT'S A DIRT ROAD THAT'S MAINTAINED IT'S AN UNIMPROVED ROADWAY.

THAT'S SHOWN ON THE MDP PLAN. WE HAVE MULTIPLE ARROWS THAT SHOW ACCESS TO THE ADJACENT PROPERTIES.

AND IN THE FUTURE WE WILL OBVIOUSLY DO A RIDE AWAY ABANDONMENT TO REALIGN CE WILSON ROAD.

AROUND TREES AROUND NATURAL SITE CONDITIONS.

TO THE ADJACENT PROPERTIES. I BELIEVE THERE SOMEBODY ON THE ADJACENT CALL. IN THE ADJACENT INTEREST OF TIME. BUT STAFF HAS BEEN GOOD TO WORK WITH. I DID ASK

>> THANK YOU. IF I MAY THROUGH THE CHAIR, SO I THINK IN THE STAFF REPORT AND ACTUALLY THE MDP TEXT, ONE ÃA WAIVER FROM THE LDC FOR THE USE OF AN ACCESS ROAD TO SERVE THE SITE AND ABUTTING USES, SO THAT WOULD BE THE PRIVATE ROAD JUST TO BE SURE, THIS PUD APPLICATION ITSELF OBVIOUSLY DOES NOT VACATE THAT ROAD AND THAT'S WHY YOU ARE ASKING FOR THAT WAIVER TO USE THE PRIVATE ROADS.

NUMBER TWO, THAT ROAD VACATION WHEN APPLIED FOR WOULD BE A SEPARATE HEARING AND SUBJECT TO SEPARATE DECISION OF THE BOARD AFTER HEARING FROM THE APPLICANT AND THE PUBLIC.

WHAT WOULD WE REACHED OUT TO THE PROPERTY OWNERS.

THEY ARE A PARTY TO THIS APPLICATION.

AS WELL AS THE ABUTTING PROPERTY OWNERS.

WE HAVE AGREEMENTS VERBALLY FROM ALL OF THEM IN THE FUTURE ON WHAT TO TAKE PLACE FOR AND THE REALIGNMENT OF IT AND PROVIDING ACCESS IN THE FUTURE. WE FEEL CONFIDENT IN OUR DISCUSSIONS WITH THE ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS ABOUT THE FUTURE POTENTIAL FOR CE WILSON ROAD TO BECOME PRIORITIZE Ã PRIVATIZE AND PROVIDE AN EASEMENT NEXT TO THE PROPERTY SO WE HAVE HAD DISCUSSIONS WITH THE ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS.

WE WILL ACCOMMODATE THIS AS WELL AS THE ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS. YOU ACKNOWLEDGE ANY WOULD HAVE

TO BE THROUGH APPLICATION. >> WE WILL NOW PROCEED TO

PUBLIC COMMENT >> AT THIS TIME THE BOARD WILL HEAR PUBLIC COMMENT ON THIS AGENDA ITEM IF YOU HAVE ANY PUBLIC COMMENT PLEASE COME FORWARD.

>> I DO BELIEVE WE HAVE SOME CALLS HERE.

GOOD MORNING. >> HELLO.

>> PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS, FOR THE RECORD.

>> I AM DONNA WILSON AND MY ADDRESS IS 6360 ROCKY POINT RD.

. >> THANK YOU.

PLEASE Ã >> MY BROTHERS LIVE ON THE

[02:35:33]

WE WANT TO GO ON THE RECORD SAYING OPEN RURAL TO CUT IN FACT WE WELCOME IT PROVIDED IT DOES NOT JEOPARDIZE CE WILSON ROAD. THAT'S OUR MAIN CONCERN.

WHILE THERE IS A SEVERAL ELEMENTS OF A REFERENCE TO THE ACCESS EXHIBIT C DOES NOT PROVIDE ANY OUTLINE OF WHAT IT ACTUALLY CONSISTS OF. AND SO IT DOES SHOW WHERE THE PROPOSED ENTRY IS IT TO OUR PROPERTY BUT IT DOES NOT SHOW WHAT KIND OF RIGHT AWAY THAT'S GOING TO GOING TO BE A PARKING LOT IS GOING TO BE AT LEAST CONTINGENT IT WAS REFERENCE THAT THAT'S A DIRT ROAD. IT'S A DIRT ROAD BUT IT'S A WELL MAINTAINED DIRT ROAD. AND IT HAS BEEN MAINTAINED BY THE COUNTY FOR YEARS. SO THERE IS A REQUEST FOR PHASE 1 TO VACATE THE SECTION OF CE WILSON ROAD THAT COMES FROM COUNTY ROAD TO 10 THROUGH THE FOUNTAINS.

THERE IS A SECTION THROUGH THE FOUNTAINS NOR.

IT'S MAINTAINED BY THE COUNTY THAT THEY ARE PROPOSING TO VACATE. DOES NOT SHOW ANY CLEAR PICTURE OF WHAT THAT'S GOING TO LOOK LIKE.

WE JUST ÃANY REPLACEMENT OF CE WILSON ROAD.

WE WILL BE DISTURBED OUR ACCESS WITH CONSIDERATION GIVEN TO HISTORICAL USE AND FUTURE DEVELOPMENT USES PERMITTED BY THE COUNTY.ND THAT WE UNDERSTAND IT'S A SEPARATE MATTER OF THE REZONING THAT'S GOING ON TODAY BUT WE JUST WANTED TO MAKE OUR CONCERNS PART OF THE RECORD.

WE ARE NOT PROPOSING THE REZONING PROPOSING IT DOES NOT JEOPARDIZE THE FUTURE OF CE WILSON ROAD.

THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU, MA'AM.

>> THERE ARE NO MORE CALLING >> NOT SEEN THERE ANYMORE BECAUSE WE WILL CLOSE PUBLIC COMMENT AT THIS TIME

>> WITH PUBLIC COMMENT NOW CLOSED, DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING

YOU WOULD LIKE TO ADD? >> NO.

I AM GLAD THAT THE FAMILY CALLED IN.

WE ARE WORKING FOR THE FAMILY AND THERE'S NO OPPOSITION TO THE PUD HERE AND WE UNDERSTAND THE RIGHT-OF-WAY REALIGNMENT IS A COMPLETELY SEPARATE MATTER. WE WILL ACT IN GOOD FAITH AND WORK WITH THE PROPERTY OWNERS ON THE EXACT CONFIGURATION NEEDED FOR THE ROADWAY TO ACCOMMODATE THE ADJACNT PROPERTY OWNERS. IT WILL BE IMPROVED AND SO WE WILL WORK WITH THE PROPERTY OWNERS AND I'M HERE TO STATE

THAT ON THE RECORD >> QUESTIONS FOR THE BOARD?> THEY QUESTION I HAVE IS ABOUT THE ONE PER UNIT AND MULTIFAMILY. I CAN'T AGREE WITH THAT AT ALL.

WE HAVE PRODUCTION PARKING STANDARD FROM 2.5 SPACES FOR MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL AND DEED RESTRICTED USES.

HOW DO YOU JUSTIFY DROPPING 1 A FOURTH PARKING FOR YES, SIR.

SO THE REDUCTION IN THE PARKING FROM THE NORMAL DASHBOARD NORMAL PARKING STANDARD FOR MULTIFAMILY AND STAFF CAN CORRECT ME IF I AM OUT OF LINE HERE.

IT'S TYPICALLY 2.25 PER UNIT FOR MULTIFAMILY.

AND THAT'S CONVENTIONAL MULTIFAMILY APARTMENTS.

WHAT WE ARE PROPOSING SHOULD ONLY ONE TO ONE.

ONE PARKING SPACE PER ONE UNIT FOR AGE RESTRICTED SO THAT'S ASSISTED LIVING, INDEPENDENT LIVING AND THE LIKE.

VERY COMMON PRACTICE AROUND THE STATE.

I HAVE SPECIFIC EXPERIENCE WITH THE STARLING INDEPENDENT LIVING AND NOVELTY IN A COUPLE OF YEARS AGO I DID GET AN INTERPRETATIN FROM THE PAST PLANNING DIRECTOR AND SOME STAFF IS STILL HERE AND ONE TO ONE WORKS AND SO EVEN THOUGH

[02:40:03]

GENERALLY SPEAKING AT ALL TIMES.

SO THERE IS ITE THAT IS TRAFFIC ENGINEERING MANUALS.

THERE ARE TRAFFIC GENERATION AND MODELS THAT POINT IS TYPICALLY LASTLY COLLECT IN ST. JOHNS COUNTY SPECIAL WAREHOUSING FOR AGE RESTRICTED AND INDEPENDENT IS GENERATES MUCH LESS TRAFFIC 30 PERCENT LOWER.

SO I ALSO I NEEDED ONLY A FEW FOR INTERPRETATION.

LEE COUNTY IS ONE TO ONE CITY OF ORLANDO IS 1 TO 1. VERO BEACH IS 1 TO 1 AND PALM BEACH IS 1 TO 1.

>> HOW MANY OF THOSE HAVE MASS TRANSIT?> I WOULD IMAGINE

ALL OF THEM. >> IF YOU GO ONE TO ONE ASSISTED LIVING FACILITY I CAN UNDERSTAND THAT.

BUT MULTIFAMILY AS OPTIONS. I DON'T KNOW.

I DON'T UNDERSTAND OR DON'T ACCEPT IT.

IF YOU GO ON THE ROADWAYS, MRS. 55.

MY WIFE DOESN'T DRIVE IT. MY PARENTS ARE IN THEIR 80S AND THEY DRIVE MORE THAN I DO. NOT FOR THE LAST MONTH AND 1/2.

WE HAVE SEEN THAT NUMBER COME UP HERE IT'S NO BIG DEAL RIGHT NOW, BUT IT WILL BE WHEN IT FILLS UP AND PEOPLE COME FROM THAT FAMILY THAT COMES AND VISITS.

AND THAT'S AN ISSUE IF I GO VISIT FRIENDS IN ORLANDO OR NAPLES, YOU HAVE THIS FOR YOUR UNIT OR YOU ARE PARKING IN SOMEBODY ELSE'S SPOT. I HAVE SOME QUESTIONS ON THE LAND, THE RIGHT-OF-WAY VACATION BUT I CAN SAY THAT.

>> SO JUST TO REAFFIRM, I NEED SUBSTANTIAL QUANTIFIER BOTH EVIDENCE TO GET THIS INTERPRETATION RENDERING FROM STAFF IN THE PAST FOR THE MARKETING, THE STARLING NOT

CRITIQUE COMMUNITY >> I CAN TELL YOU I DON'T AGREE

WITH THAT. >> I UNDERSTAND.

>> I CAN SAY I DON'T AGREE >> I WAS JUST FOLLOWING WHAT

THE CODE REQUIRES. >> THAT WAIVER WAS THE ONLY ONE I HAD ANY QUESTIONS AS WELL. DO I REMEMBER CORRECTLY AGE RESTRICTED USES ARE ONLY FOR CERTAIN NUMBER OF YEARS AFTER WHICH IT CAN BE CONVERTED TO STANDARD SINGLE-FAMILY USES

>> TYPICALLY, IT WOULD BE DEEPER'S DRIFTED.

SO I DON'T HAVE INFORMATION ON THAT ABOUT ANY LIMITATION OR A SUNSET ON THE SO I DON'T KNOW OF ANY EXAMPLES EVEN LOCALLY IN ST. JOHNS COUNTY OR SOMETHING WAS AGE RESTRICTED THAT HAS FLIPPED TO CONVENTIONAL TO HAVE A DETRIMENT ON THE PARKING ISSUES. SO I CAN ONLY SPEAK TO THIS

>> YOU MIGHT BE ABLE TO PROVIDE CLARIFICATION.

THERE IS A TIME LIMIT AFTER WHICH IT CAN BE CONVERTED.

I DON'T REMEMBER THE TIMELINE WHETHER IT'S 20, 30 OR 40 YEARS. RESTRICTED.

I SHARE SIMILAR CONCERNS THAT OF AGE RESTRICTED MEANS 55 AND OLDER WE ARE A VERY ACTIVE COMMUNITY WHEN IT COMES TO PEOPLE WHO HAVE RETIRED HERE. WITH VEHICLES INDEPENDENT MAY MOVE HERE BECAUSE WE LIKE TO BE ABLE TO TRAVEL TO DOOR AND WE DON'T HAVE THE PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION OPPORTUNITIES THAT OTHER COMMUNITIES HAVE AND TRANSPORTATION IS A HIGH PRIORITY OF OUR COMMUNITY COMPELLING OURSELVES REGULARLY TO U.S. 21, 17, WE DON'T WANT TO BECOME LIKE THIS AND HAVING DEVELOPMENT SUCCESSFUL, THIS IS A CRITICAL ASPECT OF IT, BEING ABLE TO WORK CLOSE TO WHERE THEY ARE LIVING OR FAMILY MEMBERS ARE COMING TO VISIT AN OLDER AGE RESTRICTED LIMIT WHERE IT'S MORE LIKELY PEOPLE TRAVELING INDEPENDENTLY, THEN WELL MAYBE THAT'S NOT IN OUR PRACTICE OF SPEAKING TO ACHIEVE THE INTENT OF THE GOAL IS WHERE I'M LOOKING WHEN IT COMES TO

>> TO RESTRICT THE PARKING SPACES.

YOU ARE RIGHT. THIS MAY NOT BE IN OUR CODE AND WE WILL PROBABLY BE CHANGING UNTIL WE HAVE ENOUGH OF THESE FACILITIES BUILT TO SEE WHAT THE IMPACT IS LIKE PERFORMING

[02:45:06]

YOU HAVE OTHER OPTIONS FOR USE OF THE PROPERTY.

I UNDERSTAND THE PARKING RESTRICTION IS ONLY FOR THE AGE RESTRICTED OPPORTUNITY BUT I WANT TO MAKE SURE THIS OPPORTUNITY IS SUCCESSFUL IF IT'S BUILT TO EVERYBODY'S STANDARDS AND EXPECTATIONS. PTHE PROPERTY OWNERS AND THE

SURROUNDING COMMUNITY >> UNDERSTAND.

OUR INTENT WAS ONLY 130 UNITS FOR THIS SPECIAL CARE WITH A ONE TO ONE FOR THE PLATITUDE. THAT WAS THE INTENT.

THAT WAS THE OBJECTIVE AS FAR AS THIS PUD.

IT WASN'T MEANT TO CIRCUMVENT AND SAY WE ARE SEEKING AUTONOMOUS FOR 300 MULTIFAMILY UNITS AND WE WILL PLAY A SHELL GAME IN 30 YEARS DOWN THE ROAD PULPIT FROM 1 TO 1 PER BUCKET TO A CONVENTIONAL APARTMENT AND KEEP THAT ONE TO ONE RATIO.

THAT'S NOT THE INTENT. AND I THINK YOU UNDERSTAND WELL. IT WAS ONLY 130 UNITS WE WERE ASKING FOR WAS OCCASIONALLY AND THUS A MIXED-USE CAMPUS, SO CLEARLY, WITH INTEGRATED WALKWAYS AND INTEGRATED SIDEWALKS TO SHIFT TRUCKING WOULD BE WITH JUST MEDICAL OFFICE AND SHARED PARKING WOULD BE THE NORM IN THIS DEVELOPMENT

>> I DON'T BELIEVE THERE WAS ANY INTENT THE WAY IT'S LAID OUT. NOBODY CAN SAY WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN IN A YEAR FOR NOW. NOT SITE-SPECIFIC.

OBVIOUSLY PEOPLE ARE LOOKING FOR MORE.

WE HAVE TO BE THE ADVOCATES FOR THOSE WHO DON'T NECESSARILY SPEND TIME THEY NORMALLY WOULD AND THIS HAS BEEN A RECURRING QUESTION OR MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT.

SUFFICIENT PARKING THERE IS NOT BLEED OVER INTO THE AREAS OTHER USES THAT WOULD INDICATE PEOPLE ARE NOT ÃI WILL STATE THIS TO THE COMMISSION. THE ASSISTED LIVING FACILITY REALLY WAS IN CONCERT WITH THE LAND-USE MIXED-USE AND THE FACT IT WAS A MEDICAL OFFICE HOSPITAL CAME ON.

WE HAVE THE HOSPITAL UNDER CONTRACT AND UNDER FULL DISCLOSURE I CANNOT RELEASE WHO THAT IS.

SPECIAL CARE HOUSING PORTION. BECAUSE CLEARLY THE HOSPITAL ALF MAY BE COMING SATELLITE PARCEL IN THEIR AS A USE.

WHAT WE WERE TRYING TO DO WAS GIVE A TENANT A CLEANER CAMPUS TO THE DESIGN FROM AND THAT MORE FLEXIBLE PART TO RATIOS INCLUDING SHARED POTENTIAL IN THAT AREA.

I AM REALLY EXCITED AND MAKE AN ANNOUNCEMENT WE HAVE DUE DILIGENCE BUT THIS IS FIRST MAJOR CRITICAL STEP.

SO I DON'T WANT THE ONE ÃWHAT THEY WANT TO ONE BECOMING DISTRACTED. BECAUSE HOSPITALS CLEARLY ON

THE FOREFRONT FROM THIS. >> BUT BRANDON I WOULD LIKE TO

[02:50:02]

ACCOMMODATE THAT. >> ONE LAST QUESTION.

IS IT POSSIBLE TO SPECIFY IF AN ALF IS WHAT'S FINALLY PROPOSED FOR CONSTRUCTION AT 1 TO 1 PARKING APPLY TO THAT USE AND KEEP THE 2 1/2, 2 A FOURTH SPACES FOR OTHER TYPES OF USES TO PREVENT THE NEED FROM HAVING TO COME BACK IF THAT'S THE ONLY

CHANGE? >> I THINK THAT'S A WISE USE OF EVERYBODY'S TIME AND I WILL WORK ON THE LANGUAGE THE COUNTY AND ATTORNEY STAFF TO MAKE SURE THAT SPECIFIED IN THEIR DEBT THAT MAY ONLY BE APPLIED TO THAT.

>> IF THAT PROVIDES YOU THE CAMPUS YOU ARE LOOKING FOR?

>> YES. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

>> COMMISSIONER BLOCKER? >> MR. BLOCKER: I THINK MY QUESTIONS WERE ANSWERED.HANK YOU.

>> MR.SMITH: ALL RIGHT. COMMISSIONER DEAN, ANY COMMENTS

OR QUESTIONS? >> MR. DEAN: NONE.

>> MR.SMITH: ALREADY. WE DID DO PUBLIC COMMENT.

I THINK SO. SO WE ARE BACK TO THE BOARD.

THIS IS DISTRICT NUMBER ONE. MR. CHAIR, LEGAL, HELPED ME OUT IF I NEED TO MAKE ANY CHANGES. MY RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL IS GOING TO BE CONTINGENT ON CHANGING THE WAIVER REQUEST FOR PARKING TO ONLY APPLY IF AN ASSISTED LIVING FACILITY IS THE PROPOSED USE AND OTHERWISE THE 2.25 SPACES PER UNIT ACCORDING TO OUR CODE WOULD BE APPLIED. IT IS NOT SUFFICIENT?

>> I THINK IT IS. I HAVE A LITTLE BIT OF A TECHNICAL QUESTION AND THIS MAY BE FOR STAFF AND BRAD MAY KNOW.

IF IT IS ONE FOR ONE FOR THE ALF THERE HAS TO BE PROVISIONS

FOR THE PARKING. >> END ONE PER ONE AND CODES ARE CITED USES THAT PROVISION. THE ONE TO ONE ACCOMMODATES THE FULL-TIME EQUIVALENT FOR STAFF AND EMPLOYEES AS WELL AS THE STUDY ON THE AMOUNT OF PEOPLE THAT ACTUALLY HAVE CARS IN

THESE FACILITIES. >> SO YOU ARE SAYING THE ONE TO ONE AS A PACKAGE BASICALLY INCLUDES Ã30 PERCENT OF THE RESIDENTS DON'T HAVE VEHICLES AT ALL.

THAT'S THE PARKING FOR THE EMPLOYEES.

AND I WOULD ASK IF WE JUST DEFER TO THE CODE AS OPPOSED TO PUTTING THE 2.25 BECAUSE I THINK THAT'S AN AVERAGE.

WE HAVE A CERTAIN SQUARE FOOTAGE OF CONVENTIONAL MULTI FAMILY AND I DON'T WANT TO GET PIGEONHOLED INTO HEAEN AND 100 FOOT SQUARE FOOT APARTMENT AND HAVING A 2.25 WERE IN ONLY ONE

PERSON IS GOING TO LIVE THERE. >> UNLESS IT'S AN ALF AND THEY DON'T FOLLOW THE CODE. I SHOULD HAVE MENTIONED ALF 1 TO 1 INCLUDES EMPLOYEE, STAFF, ETC. IN THAT COUNT.

I KNOW THAT FROM THE DESIGN EXPERIENCE BUT TO VERBALIZE IT.

I'M GLAD YOU BROUGHT IT UP. IS THAT SUFFICIENT? WITH THAT I MAKE A MODIFICATION TO ENACT IT APPROVING PUD 2019-13 NORTH BASED ON NINE FINDINGS OF FACT AS LISTED IN

THE STAFF REPORT. >> I SECOND

>> I HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER JOHNSON OF SECOND BY COMMISSIONER WALDRON. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION?

>> OBVIOUSLY, THE MOTION INCLUDES THE CHANGE WE JUST

TALKED ABOUT. >> ALRIGHTY.

NO OTHER DISCUSSION, WE WILL MOVE TO A ROLL CALL VOTE.

IT'S 5 TO 0. CONGRATULATIONS. FOR THOSE THAT ARE LEFT, WE ARE GOING TO DO THIS. WE WILL HEAR AGENDA ITEM NUMBER EIGHT AND THEN WE WILL TAKE A BREAK, IF THAT WORKS FOR YOU.

ALL RIGHT. WE WILL DO THAT.

SO ANYBODY ELSE ÃI DON'T KNOW HOW LONG AGENDA ITEM NUMBER EIGHT WILL TAKE, AND I DON'T KNOW ÃMAYBE 45 MINUTES FOR A BREAK OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT MIGHT WORK.

[Item 8]

AGENDA ITEM NUMBER EIGHT, MR. KELLY.

>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. THIS IS A QUASIJUDICIAL ITEM.

>> IT IS. I APOLOGIZE.

THANKS FOR REMINDING ME. ANY DISCLOSURES?

[02:55:04]

COMMISSIONER DEAN? >> MR. DEAN: NONE.

>> MR.SMITH: COMMISSIONER BLOCKER?

>> NO SIR >> COMMISSIONER WALDRON?

>> I THINK MS. TAYLOR MIGHT HAVE SENT US AN EMAIL ON THIS.

>> SHE DID. AND I DON'T THINK I EVEN ANSWERED IT. I GENERALLY ANSWER ALL OF THEM.

>> COMMISSIONER JOHNS? >> THAT EMAIL IS THE ONLY CORRESPONDENCE I RECALL AND I WILL ASK MS. TAYLOR IF WE HAD ANY VERBAL CORRESPONDENCE BUT I DON'T RECALL ANY.

>> MR.SMITH: I HAD AN EMAIL MARCH 23, 2020, A BASIC OVERVIEW OF THE PROJECT AND A SYNOPSIS AND SUMMARY MR. KELLY,

THANK YOU FOR THAT. >> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR.

JUSTIN KELLY. AGENDA ITEM NUMBER EIGHT REZONING 2019 Ã18 STOKES INDUSTRIAL.

THIS IS A REQUEST TO REZONE APPROXIMATELY 9.24 ACRES FROM INDUSTRIAL WAREHOUSING TO COMMERCIAL WAREHOUSE.

PROVIDED HERE IS AN AERIAL MAP OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY WHICH IS LOCATED ALONG U.S. 1 NORTH JUST NORTH OF STOKES LANDING ROAD. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS A FUTURE LAND USE OPERATION OF MIXED USE AND IS MENTIONED IS CURRENTLY ZONED INDUSTRIAL WAREHOUSING AND OPEN WORLD.

THIS REQUEST IS TO REZONE APPROXIMATELY 9.42 ACRES TO COMMERCIAL WAREHOUSE WHICH WOULD ALLOW FOR FLEX WAREHOUSE FLEXIBILITY IN ORDER TO OPERATE WIDE USES THAT WOULD BE RESTRICTED IN THE CURRENT ZONING DISTRICTS. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY -- EXCUSE ME -- IS COMPRISED OF THREE LOTS. THE LOTS ARE EXCLUDED FROM THE ZONING REQUEST.

THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO LEAVE A 20 FOOT WIDE STRIP IN ORDER TO PROVIDE A BUFFER TO THE ADJACENT RESIDENTIAL USES. A PORTION OF THE SOUTHEASTERN PARTIAL WILL REMAINED IW.

IT WILL ABUT RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY AT THE COMMON BOUNDARY LINE.

AT APPROXIMATELY 1.5 ACRE PORTIONS OF THE -- ON THE -- THIS IS THE SITE OF THE PROPOSED SITE OF A MANUFACTURING BUSINESS. EXCUSE ME.

SO REVIEW BY STAFF SHOW SUBJECT OF THE PROPERTY WERE SEWN TO 2009 Ã54 PROPOSED INDUSTRIAL PARK. THIS PROJECT NEVER COMMENCED SIMILAR REZONING WAS APPROVED FOR NEIGHBORING PROPERTY TO THE NORTH. PER ORDINANCE 2011 ÃTWO THIS REZONING ALLOWED LIGHT INDUSTRIAL COMMERCIAL USES THAT ARE PROPOSED AS A PART OF THIS REQUEST. PROVIDED HERE IS A COMPATIBILITY MAP.

THIS SHOWS THE SIMILAR ZONED PROPERTIES THAT ARE LOCATED ALONG THE SECTION.

IN THIS IS THE SITE THAT WAS PROVIDED BY THE APPLICANT SHOWING THE LAYOUT.

THE DEVELOPMENT CONSISTS OF A FIVE WAREHOUSE BUILDINGS EACH VARYING IN SIZE AND TOTALING AROUND 97,400 SQUARE FEET COMBINED. THE CABINETMAKING WAREHOUSE WILL BE LOCATED ZONED IW IN THIS BUILDING WILL BE APPROXIMATELY 22,500 SQUARE FEET. SO PROVIDED HERE IS A TABLE SHOWING THE TYPES OF USE CATEGORIES THAT WOULD BE PERMITTED AS PERMITTED. THEY WOULD ALLOW FOR THE USES FOR PROPOSED. IT'S REQUEST WITH THE LAND-USE DESIGNATION OF THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED IN THE AREA WITH OTHER NEARBY COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL ZONE PROPERTIES.

IT WILL ELIMINATE USES CURRENTLY ALLOWED SUCH AS MINING AND EXTRACTION, SOLID WASTE FACILITIES AND CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES. THIS ITEM WAS HEARD BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING AGENCY ON MARCH 5 AND WAS RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL.

THERE WAS ONE PUBLIC COMMENT FROM A NEIGHBORING PROPERTY OWNER.

AT THIS HEARING HE WAS CONCERNED ABOUT USES OFFERING A POTENTIAL WATERSHED ONTO HIS PROPERTY, IF THERE WERE ANY WETLANDS THAT WERE GOING TO BE ALTERED.

THE STAFF ALSO RECEIVED ONE PHONE CALL REGARDING THIS REQUEST FROM A NEIGHBORING PROPERTY OWNER WHO WAS ALSO CONCERNED WITH ALLOWED USES AND POSSIBLE FLOODING.

OVERALL STAFF FINDS THAT THE REQUEST MEETS THE REQUIREMENT OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE IN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND PROVIDED THE BOARD. THIS CONCLUDES THE STAFF PRESENTATION AND I BELIEVE KAREN HAS A PRESENTATION AS WELL

[03:00:03]

>>CHAIRMAN SMITH: ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? GOOD AFTERNOON.

>> GOOD AFTERNOON. KAREN TAYLOR 77 -- I HAVE BROUGHT A COPY OF THAT EMAIL JUST IN CASE (LAUGHING) BECAUSE THAT WAS A WHILE AGO AND LIKE CATHERINE COME APPRECIATE YOU GUYS GOING OUT IN SCHEDULING THIS AS WELL SO WE CAN GET STARTED ON DEVELOPMENT ON THIS.

SO I'M GOING TO GO THROUGH THESE QUICKLY. IT GIVES YOU A BETTER VIEW OF WHERE THIS IS JUST SOUTH OF IDP, NORTH OF STOKES AND YOU KIND OF ALL KNOW THAT AREA IF YOU DRIVE US ONE AT ALL YOU KNOW WHAT ACTIVITIES ARE ALONG THE.

I DID THIS LOCATION MAP JUST TO SHOW YOU THAT THE OVERALL SITE WAS 13.04 ACRES, 862 FEET OF FRONTAGE AND THERE IS NOW THREE OWNERS TO THAT OF THE OWNERS SHOULD BE SHOWN IN THE YELLOW PORTION OF IT. AND AS JUSTIN MENTIONED, THE GENTLEMAN THAT OWNS THE VERY NORTHERN PIECE DOES HAVE CONSTRUCTION PLANS IN AND IS MOVING FORWARD.

SO HE JUST WANTED TO KEEP THE ZONING THAT HE HAS. YOU CAN ALSO SEE THE ADJACENT USES HERE ON THIS MAP. THIS IS THE FUTURE LAND USE FOR THE AREA.

IT'S DEFINITELY POLLING WITHIN A MIXED-USE AREA. THIS GIVES YOU A LITTLE BIT DOWN -- OBVIOUSLY, THE INDUSTRIAL CLASS, WHICH YOU CAN SEE DRUMMOND AND YOU CAN SEE DOBA. ZONING ALSO IS KIND OF BURIED ALONG HERE, BUT THERE IS A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT USES RANGING FROM ORC CNG ICW, KIND OF NAME IT. WILL WE GET TO OUR SPECIFIC SITE, AND AGAIN, WHEN THEY STARTED GETTING INTO THE DEVELOPMENT AND IT KIND OF HAPPENED WITH THAT NORTH SIDE, WE REALIZE THAT THE BACK AREA THAT THEY WOULD LIKE TO HAVE USED FOR RETENTION OBVIOUSLY HAS TO BE ZONED TO INCLUDE RETENTION ON IT. AND THE QUESTION CAME UP REGARDING BUFFERING AS WELL. AND SO TO ASSURE THAT BUFFERING WE LEFT THE 20 FEET ALONG THE ENTIRE BOUNDARY FOR THOSE RESIDENTS THAT WOULD BE ADJACENT TO IT.

AGAIN, THAT'S JUST SHOWING YOU KIND OF THE ZONING TO THAT. IT'S VERY ODD LOOKING, BUT THERE IS A REASON FOR THAT. AND AGAIN, THAT WAS TO KIND OF PUT AROUND THE BORDER OF THE PROPERTY. JUSTIN SHOWED YOU THIS MAP THIS IS A CONCEPT PLAN, THE GENTLEMAN THAT'S ON THE NORTHERN SIDE, THAT'S PRETTY CLOSE TO WHAT HIS COMPANY DID WANT TO BE ABLE TO HAVE -- MOVE THAT UP AND BE ABLE TO USE A PORTION OF THAT IS A TURNAROUND. HE MENTIONED THAT THERE WERE A COUPLE PEOPLE THAT CAME TO PLANNING AND ZONING AND WE MET WITH THEM AFTERWARDS AND DISCUSSED WITH THEM ABOUT THOSE PARTICULAR USES, BUT THAT'S GENERALLY THE USE FOR IT. AND SOME OF THE THINGS -- AND AGAIN, WE LEFT AT HOME SO ON THE SOUTHERN SIDE AS WELL. JUST A FEW PICTURES, JUST TO GIVE YOU AN IDEA YOU WILL PROBABLY DRIVE THIS OFTEN ENOUGH TO SHOW WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE. THAT'S FROM CORNWALL LOOKING NORTH.

THAT'S AN ADJACENT INDUSTRIAL -- THIS IW AND CW. AGAIN THE NORTH PORTION OF THE SITE. YOU CAN SEE CORNWALLIS ACROSS THE WAY.

SO AGAIN, THE OVERALL IS ABOUT 13 13.04 ACRES. AS WE SAID THE CABINET BUSINESS IS KEEPING THE OH IW ZONING. IT IS TO ALLOW FOR THE FLEXIBLE USES AND AS JASON JUST NOTED, THERE ARE A NUMBER OF USES THAT ARE SIMILAR, BUT AS YOU KNOW, IN THE CW FROM ONE OF OUR RECENT ONES, THERE IS MORE INTENSE USES AND CW BUT MOST OF THE MORE INTENSE ONE ONLY BY SPECIAL USE. AND AGAIN, WE DID LEAVE THE SITE -- WE DID LEAVE THE AREA

[03:05:11]

WE DO FEEL LIKE THE USES ARE COMPATIBLE WITH THE AREA. IT'S SIMILAR ALL UP AND DOWN U.S. ONE. AGAIN, WE HAVE PROVIDED FOR THE BUFFERING AND WE WILL IS REQUIRED. AND THIS IS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE MIXED-USE CATEGORY IN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. SO WITH THAT, WE ARE ASKING YOU FOR APPROVAL OF THIS.

IT WAS RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL BY THE PGA AND WE TALK TO THE NEIGHBORS.

AND I DON'T KNOW IF ANYBODY HAS CALLED IN OR NOT BUT THEY SEEM COMFORTABLE AFTER WE DISCUSSED IT WITH THEM AS TO WHAT THIS WOULD MEAN. WITH THAT, I WILL OPEN UP ANY

QUESTIONS. >> ANY QUESTIONS? ALL RIGHT. SEEING NONE WE WILL OPEN UP FOR PUBLIC COMMENT.

>> AT THIS TIME THE BOARD WILL HEAR PUBLIC COMMENT ON AGENDA ITEM NUMBER EIGHT.

PLEASE COME FORWARD. I DON'T SEE ANY CALLS. I SEE NO ONE COMING FORWARD.

MR. CHAIRMAN -- (INDISCERNIBLE) -- ON AGENDA ITEM NUMBER EIGHT.

>> PUBLIC COMMENT CLOSED. >> MR. CHAIR MAY HAVE A

TWO-MINUTE SIDEBAR? >> SURE.

>> MR. CHAIR? >> YES, SIR.

COMMISSIONER. >> SINCE THIS PROJECT WAS DESIGNED BY MATTHEWS DESIGN GROUP, I BELIEVE COUNSEL I WILL HAVE TO TALK ABOUT HOW TO CONDUCT ENGINEERING BUSINESS AND MAKE SURE THAT IT FITS PROPER CONDITIONS.

ARM'S-LENGTH TRANSACTIONS. WE DON'T SEE THE ISSUES I DON'T HAVE ANY CORRESPONDENCE DIRECTLY RELATED TO THIS PROJECT BUT SINCE THEY HAVE NOT PROVIDED LANDSCAPE -- SINCE THEY HAVE PROVIDED SERVICES NOT RELATED TO THIS CLIENT OR ANYTHING RELATED TO THIS AN ABUNDANCE OF CAUTION I WILL RECUSE MYSELF FROM VOTING ON THIS ITEM.

>>CHAIRMAN SMITH: )WANTED TO MAKE A COMMENT. I DO NOT KNOW THAT THIS IS A STRICT, LEGAL, YOU KNOW, VOTING CONFLICT. THERE IS LANGUAGE IN A QUASIJUDICIAL SORT OF A FAIRNESS TYPE THING. EVEN IF IT'S NOT A TECHNICAL VOTING ONE SO I DID DISCUSS THE MATTER WITH THE COMMISSIONERS. SO THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER BLOCKER.

>> MR. CHAIRMAN, I'M MAKING A MOTION THAT'S 2020.

>> 16. I REQUEST TO -- 9.42 ACRES OF LAND FROM INDUSTRIAL WAREHOUSE TO COMMERCIAL WAREHOUSING IS PROVIDED IN THE STAFF REPORT.

>> I WILL SECOND THAT. >> WE HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER BLOCKER. ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? SEEING NONE WE WILL PROCEED WITH A ROLL CALL VOTE. .

1010 (ROLL CALL)

[03:10:09]

>>CHAIRMAN SMITH: WE WILL NOW RECONVENE. HERE AT 1 O'CLOCK.

[Item 9]

>> GOOD AFTERNOON, COMMISSIONERS. MR. CHAIR.

I'M MERCEDES HAROLD CULTURAL RESOURCES GRENADA. AS A STAFF LIAISON, I DID WANT TO THANK YOU ALL FOR RECOGNIZING MAY AS NATURAL HISTORIC PRESERVATION MONTH.

>>CHAIRMAN SMITH: I THINK WE HAVE SOME EX PARTE ON THIS ONE. LET ME MAKE SURE THAT EVERYONE HAS AN OPPORTUNITY. COMMISSIONER DEAN, ARE YOU ON THE LINE?

>>MR. DEAN: I AM. >>CHAIRMAN SMITH: COMMISSIONER

BLOCKER. >>MR. BLOCKER: YES, SIR.

>>CHAIRMAN SMITH: COMMISSIONER WALDRON.

>>MR. WALDRON: YES. I DID SEE THE PRESENTATION AT THE CULTURAL RESOURCE REVIEW BOARD MEETING. OKAY. SO YES.

I SAW THE PRESENTATION. >>CHAIRMAN SMITH: COMMISSIONER JOHNS THREE YES. I DID NOT HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO WRITE DOWN THE DATE.

SHE DISCUSSED THE REASONING -- THE REASONS FOR OPPOSING THIS AGENDA ITEMS. IN A FEW OTHER DETAILS JUST RELATED TO HER INTEREST IN HISTORY IN THE SAINT AUGUSTINE IN ST. JOHN'S COUNTY. I SPOKE WITH BOB SMITH WAS EITHER YESTERDAY OR FRIDAY

ABOUT THE SAME SUBJECT. >> ACTUALLY HAVE BEEN CONTACTED BY CHRIS STANTON AND HE'S -- ON MARCH 31 APRIL 13 TO APRIL 23 IN THE MAY 1 ABOUT HIS CONCERNS FOR THE DESIGNATION AND ALSO THE POTENTIAL USES OF THE PROPERTY.

NONETHELESS, THAT DISCLOSES ALL THAT I HAVE HAD COMMUNICATION.

>> AGENDA ITEM NUMBER NINE IS A COUNTY LANDMARK -- FOR THE JAIL.

A LOCAL RESIDENT BROUGHT THE APPLICATION TO STAFF AND ANY COUNTY RESIDENT CAN NOMINATE A PROPERTY AS A COUNTY LANDMARK BUT IT'S UP TO REVIEW. ACTIVE FEBRUARY 3, 2020 CULTURAL RESOURCES REVIEW BOARD MEETING THEY VOTED TO APPROVE. IF A COUNTY LANDMARK IS DESIGNATED, NO ALTERATION, DEMOLITION RELOCATION OF CONSTRUCTION MAY TAKE PLACE ON A DESIGNATED LANDMARK WITHOUT THE ISSUANCE OF A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS.

THE COA IS REVIEWED BY THE -- AND IF THE DETERMINATION BY THE CAR BE -- IT CAN BE APPEALED.

>> THIS IS A LOCATION MAP OF THE JAIL. IS LOCATED AT 107 E. CRAWFORD AVENUE HASTINGS, FLORIDA. HERE IS AN AERIAL MAP OF THE AREA.

THE PROPERTY IS OWNED BY ST. JOHN'S COUNTY AND IS CURRENTLY BEING LEASED BY CPI TOWERS AND COMCAST IS THE ONLY ONE USING THE TOWER AT THE MOMENT. THIS GREENLEAF IS RETIRED FROM THE ST. JOHN'S COUNTY OFFICE WHICH IS THE REASON SHE WAS INTERESTED IN THE DESIGNATION.

AND SHE WAS INTERESTED IN RESEARCHING AND PROPOSING THE CASE IN JAIL AT THE COUNTY LANDMARK. STAFF CONTACTED A SITE VISIT ON SEPTEMBER 2019 AND THE STRUCTURE IS SEMI- VACANT. THE INTERIOR SHOWS EVIDENCE OF MODIFICATION, BUT THE EXTERIOR OF THE STRUCTURE MAINTAINS MUCH OF ITS INTEGRITY INCLUDING A BARRED WINDOW AND A HEAVY METAL DOOR. THESE ARE PHOTOS OF THE EXTERIOR OF THE STRUCTURE.

STAFF REVIEWED THE APPLICATIONS BASED ON THE CRITERIA ON THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE SECTION 30103C. STAFF FOUND THAT THE APPLICATION MEET THE CRITERIA AND POORLY REPORTED THE APPLICATION CONSIDERATION. ALL THE COUNTY LANDMARK APPLICATION IS CONSISTENT WITH THE CRITERIA OUTLINED IN THE OBC SECTION STAFF REVIEWED THE APPLICATIONS BASED ON THE CRITERIA ON THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE SECTION 30103C. STAFF FOUND THAT THE APPLICATION MEET THE CRITERIA AND POORLY REPORTED THE APPLICATION CONSIDERATION. ALL THE COUNTY LANDMARK APPLICATION IS CONSISTENT WITH THE CRITERIA OUTLINED IN THE OBC SECTION 3030 SEE THE PROPERTIES OLDER THAN SIX YEARS OLD. IT MUST MEET THREE OF THE SEVEN ATTRIBUTES OF INTEGRITY AND IT MEETS ALL ATTRIBUTES IT MUST MEET ONEADDITIONAL CRITERIA AND EATS SIX. PRIOR TO THE CRR BE MEETING -- PHONE CALLS IN SUPPORT OF THE NOMINATION. SINCE THIS PRESENTATION WAS MADE, WE HAVE RECEIVED TWO

[03:15:01]

AS HE FEBRUARY 3, 2020 MEETING, THEY VOTED UNANIMOUSLY TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL WITH THE COUNTY LANDMARK DESIGNATION STAFF FINDS THAT THE APPLICATION FOR LANDMARK STATUS MEETS THE REQUIREMENT AND THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND STAFF HAS PROVIDED FOR FINDINGS OF FACT TO SUPPORT THE MOTION. AND THAT CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION.

>>CHAIRMAN SMITH: THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ANY QUESTIONS? SEEING NONE, WE WILL OPEN UP FOR PUBLIC COMMENT.

>> AT THIS TIME THE BOARD WILL HEAR PUBLIC COMMENT. PUBLIC COMMENT ON AGENDA ITEM NUMBER NINE. MR. CHAIRMAN, NOT SEEING ANY CALLS NOT SEEING ANYONE COME FOR WILL CLOSE PUBLIC COMMENT ON AGENDA ITEM NUMBER NINE.

>> HELLO? >> HELLO.

PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS PLEASE?

>> MY NAME IS MR. ELLIS MY ADDRESS IS 2614 DELLWOOD AVENUE JACKSONVILLE FLORIDA,

>> ARE YOU CALLING ABOUT AGENDA ITEM NUMBER NINE, SIR? THIS IS THE COUNTY LANDMARK

APPLICATION. >> NO.

I THINK I WAS CALLING ABOUT THE UPDATED RESTRICTIONS FOR -- OKAY.

WE ARE TAKING PUBLIC COMMENT ON AGENDA ITEM NUMBER NINE.

>> I'M SORRY. >> I CAME IN LATE.

>> OKAY. THANK YOU, SIR. OKAY MR. CHAIRMAN NOT SEEING ANY FURTHER PHONE CALLS OR ANYONE COMING FORWARD WE WILL CLOSE PUBLIC COMMENT ON AGENDA NUMBER NINE. ANY DISCUSSION OR COMMENTS?

>> ALL RIGHT. THIS IS MY DISTRICT I WILL MOVE IT.

MOTION TO APPROVE 2019 Ã05 HASTINGS JAIL GRANTING ST. JOHN'S COUNTY LANDMARK LOCATED AT 106 -- HASTINGS FLORIDA ADAPTING FINDINGS OF FACT.

>> DO WE HAVE SOMEBODY ON THE LINE THERE? OKAY.

ALREADY. WITH THAT, IS THERE ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? SEEING NONE, WE WILL PROCEED WITH A ROLL CALL VOTE.

(ROLL CALL). >>CHAIRMAN SMITH: IT PASSES

[Item 10]

GOOD MORNING -- GOOD AFTERNOON. >> GOOD AFTERNOON CHAIRMAN.

JOE JIM AN DISASTER RECOVERY. SO GOOD AFTERNOON. I'M GOING TO TALK ABOUT THE FEMA CATEGORY B EMERGENCY FIRM UPDATE AND TELL YOU WHERE WE ARE WITH THE -- WHAT THE DECISION POINTS ARE FOR THE BOARD OF WHAT THE FUTURE LOOKS LIKE ON THIS PROJECT.

SO, WE GO KIND OF -- I SIMPLY DOWN I DON'T WANT TO MAKE IT COMPLICATED, BUT TO BREAK IT INTO FOUR PHASES WE'RE LOOKING AT PROJECT DEVELOPMENT DESIGN CONSTRUCTION AND CLOSEOUT.

WE'VE COMPLETED ALL THE STEPS WITHIN THE PROJECT OF ELEMENT. SO WHAT THAT MEANS IS WE'VE GONE THROUGH FEMA. WE'VE GONE THROUGH ALL THE PROJECT INITIAL DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROJECT, GONE THROUGH ALL THE INITIAL GRADING OF THE PW IN GOING THROUGH THOSE STEPS.

ONE OF THE BIG STEPS THAT WE HAD IN THE PROCESS WHICH KIND OF TOOK THE MAJORITY OF THE TIME WAS THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW. THE REVIEW FOR THIS PROJECT TOOK OVER A YEAR TO. WE JUST GOT THAT APPROVAL AND DONE WHILE WE WERE GETTING READY TO START THE DESIGN, A LITTLE MORE IN DEPTH OF THE DESIGN, WE WOUND UP GETTING THE FEMA APPROVAL FOR THE PWS WELL. SO THAT IS WHAT HAPPENED DURING THOSE PHASES.

SO WE ARE IN KIND OF A DECISION POINT RIGHT NOW AS WE MOVE FORWARD AND ALL SPEAK OF THAT A LOW BIT LATER. BUT WE ARE IN THE DESIGN CANAPC RIGHT NOW WE ARE LOOKING TO -- CONNECT WITH THE DESIGN PIECE OF IT. IN THAT SECTION, IF YOU WILL, WE STARTED LOOKING AT PROCUREMENT OPTIONS OF WHAT ARE OUR OPTIONS TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS PROJECT. THERE'S A LOT OF THINGS THAT HAPPEN IN THIS STEP.

WE WILL HAVE TO LOOK FOR A DESIGNER. WE WILL DO PERMITTING, THERE'S ALL KINDS OF THINGS THAT HAPPEN CONCURRENTLY WHILE GOING THROUGH THIS STEP.

SOME OF THE OPTIONS THAT WE LOOKED AT IN THE PROCUREMENT WORLD FOR THIS AS WE MOVE FORWARD, THERE IS JUDGMENT WE LOOK AT THE DESIGN BUILD. WE LOOKED AT TRYING TO GO ANY

[03:20:09]

ACCESS POINTS AND THINGS LIKE THAT. OBVIOUSLY WE GET INTO THE CONSTRUCTION. WE LOOKED AT THE DIFFERENT WAYS OF ACTUALLY CONSTRUCTING THIS PROJECT. DREDGING IS NOT FEASIBLE FOR THIS TYPE OF PROJECT.

THE AMOUNT OF SAND IT'S NOT FEASIBLE TO PUMP THAT MUCH TO MOVE THE PIPE EVERY SO OFTEN TO GET THIS AMOUNT OF SAND SO IT'S LOOKING LIKE A TRUCK PROJECT IS WHAT WE ARE ANTICIPATING.

YOU'RE LOOKING AT 20, 25,000 TRUCKLOADS OF SAND THAT HAS TO COME DOWN TO THE BEACH.

THERE ARE CHALLENGES AS WELL. THOSE ARE THINGS WILL HAVE TO WORK OUT.

IT WILL ALLOW THE DESIGNER TO COMMAND AND DESIGN THE PROJECT AS WELL AS OPEN UP INNOVATION ON THEIR PART TO HELP US FIGURE OUT HOW TO GET THAT MUCH SAND ON THE BEACH WITHOUT IMPACT.

YOU'RE ALSO LOOKING AT A TRUCK PROJECT BETWEEN THE YEARLY YEAR-AND-A-HALF.

ON THE BEACH. AND THEN OUR ANTICIPATED SUMMER 2020 WE ARE ANTICIPATING THAT WE GO THROUGH THE DESIGN BUILD NOW IT TAKES A COUPLE OF MONTHS TO GET THROUGH THE PROCESS AND MAKE SURE WE HAVE PERMITS IN PLACE AND WE CAN CONSTRUCT TIME EARLY NEXT YEAR FOR THE REST OF THE TIME. THAT'S KIND OF THE PROCESS THAT WE ARE FLOWING.

AND IT FLOWS OUT MORE ADMINISTRATIVE AND MORE MY END AND WE CLOSE OUT THE PROJECT.

I WILL SAY WE WILL REIMBURSE ALONG THE WAY. AS WE ACCOMPLISH A CERTAIN TASK WITHIN THE PROJECT, WE HAVE TO PUT SAND AT LEAST SOMEWHERE FOR US TO SAY THAT WE'VE MET THE ACCOMPLISHMENTS SO THAT I CAN SEEK REIMBURSEMENT OF WHAT WE SPENT.

THAT'S HOW YOU FOLLOW THAT PROGRESSION. THIS SLIDE SHOWS THE CURRENT PROJECT LOCATIONS THAT WE SEE RIGHT NOW. THE ORIGINAL WAS THE ENTIRE COASTLINE. RIGHT AFTER THIS FORMS WE DID NOT KNOW SO WE JUST DID EVERYTHING. SO THE PW IS A LITTLE DIFFERENT THAN IT IS RIGHT NOW.

THIS IS WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE TODAY. YOU'RE LOOKING AT A DUPLICATION OF DIFFERENT PROJECT SO IT SHRINKS THE LOCATION AND SHRINKS IT OUT.

WE HAVE THE FEMA PROJECT -- YOU CAN'T HAVE THAT OVERLAP. THERE'S A LOT OF COMPLICATED MOVING PIECES. THIS IS HOW WE SEE THE PROJECT RIGHT NOW.

SO I WILL SAY WE DID GET FEMA APPROVAL Ã(BACKGROUND NOISE) -- WHICH IS 16.8 MILLION.

THE REASON WHY WANTED TO TALK ABOUT THIS PARTICULAR ITEM WAS WHEN WE DID THE ORIGINAL WE HAD A SPECIFIC AMOUNT OF SAND THAT WE AT THE TIME WITH THE DOLLAR AMOUNT AT THAT TIME.

NOW FAST FORWARD TO 2020 THE SAND DOLLAR CHANGED. THE PROJECT CHANGES A LITTLE BIT SO THAT THE PROJECT AMOUNTS ARE DIFFERENT. I WILL SAY THAT FEMA'S POLICY IS TO PAY ON ACTUAL EXPENSES FOR LARGE PROJECTS. THIS IS CONSIDERED A LARGE PROJECT. WHATEVER WE PUT OUT WHATEVER WE ARE REIMBURSE BACK.

IF WE GO OVER THE $16 MILLION. THERE IS AN ADMINISTRATIVE ASPECT ON MY STAFF SIDE.

IT'S NOT -- IT'S IN POLICY THAT OF THE ACTUAL EXPENSES. WE ARE NOT ADDING ANYTHING THAT'S NOT OUT OF THE ORDINARY. IT'S IN THEIR POLICY. I JUST WANTED TO MAKE THAT CLEAR. SO, BACK IN THE BEGINNING, LET'S GO BACK.

THE ORIGINAL BOARD DIRECTION TO ME WAS TO GO FORWARD AND LOOK FOR ALL THE REIMBURSEMENT POSSIBLE THAT WE CAN FOR HURRICANE MATTHEW. SO THAT IS WHAT STARTED ALL OF OUR PWS. THAT'S WE STARTED LOOKING AT ALL THE PROJECTS.

THIS IS BIGGER AND MORE COMPLICATED. OBVIOUSLY TAKES A LITTLE LONGER. PLUS THE ENVIRONMENTAL PIECES SENSITIVE.

YOU HAVE TO DO THAT PIECE BEFORE YOU CAN MOVE FORWARD. SO TODAY'S DOLLARS AS I MENTIONED BEFORE NOW THE PROJECT IS ROUGHLY $22.2 MILLION JUST FOR THE FEMA PART WE WILL GET REIMBURSED ON EXPENSES SO THAT SHOULD NOT BE A CONSIDERATION.

THE NUMBER CAN FLUCTUATE. IT IS IN ALL IN COST AS WE KNOW RIGHT NOW.

I DO NOT ANTICIPATE COMING BACK AND ASKING FOR MORE MONEY BECAUSE OF SOMETHING THAT WE

[03:25:08]

ONE OF THE THINGS THAT IS NOT OUTLINED IN THE SPECIFIC PW WHICH IS REIMBURSABLE IS THERE ARE GOING TO BE POTENTIALLY SOME PERMITTING THAT'S GOING TO ACCOMPANY THE PROJECT WHAT I MEAN IS THERE IS A REQUIREMENT THAT WE PLANT OUR VEGETATION ON THE DUNES TO PROTECT -- THAT IS ESTIMATED AT ABOUT $1 MILLION AS WE GO FORWARD WITH THE ENTIRE POJECT.

WE LOOKED AT PREVIOUS DATA OF DUNES THAT WERE JUST DONE LOOKING AT SIX TO 10 TONS.

WE DID THE MATH ON THAT RIGHT NOW. WE WENT WITH THE HIGHER END.

I DO NOT WANT TO KEEP COMING BACK TO THE BOARD. I WANT TO GIVE YOU THE FULL AMOUNT. THAT MILLION DOLLARS IS NOT REIMBURSABLE.

IT'S NOT PART OF THE PW. FEMA DOES NOT ALLOW FOR THOSE TYPES OF ACTIVITIES.

SO THAT'S SOMETHING THE STATE PUTS ON US AND THAT WILL HAVE TO DO THIS AGENDA ITEM TODAY DOES NOT ADDRESS THAT MILLION DOLLARS AND I'M NOT ASKING FOR MONEY FOR THAT MILLION DOLLARS.

THAT'S THE NEXT CHECKPOINT WHEN I COME BACK TO THE BOARD THAT'S WILL TALK ABOUT THE SPECIFICS OF THE DOLLAR AMOUNT AND YOU HAVE A CLEAR PICTURE OF WHAT THE ACTUAL TRUE DOLLARS GOING TO BE MOVING FORWARD WITH THIS PROJECT. SO WHAT ARE WE ASKING FOR

TODAY? >> FOR TODAY WHAT WE ARE LOOKING FOR IS $200,000 TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THE DESIGN PORTION OF THIS.

THIS WOULD ALLOW US -- NOT THE FULL DESIGN, TO GET US TO THE PROCUREMENT FOR THE DESIGN.

THE DESIGN BUILD CONTRACT WE HAVE TO DO INTERNAL ANALYSIS. WE HAVE TO PROVIDE A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF LEVEL OF DESIGN. DESIGN CRITERIA PACKAGE, THAT HAS TO BE DONE.

THAT'S WERE LOOKING FOR TODAY FOR THE $200,000. IT HELPS US FINALIZE STANDARD SOURCING, SURVEYING, IT DOES A LOT OF THOSE KINDS OF THINGS. WE CAN THEN START POTENTIALLY DOING OKAY SAID SOME CONCURRENT THINGS THAT THE STAFF WILL DO SO WILL WE COME BACK WHEN THE PROCUREMENT IS READY TO GO YOU WILL HAVE A BETTERPICTURE OF EXACTLY WHAT WE ARE PROPOSING.

SO, IN SUMMARY, REALLY, WHAT WE ARE ASKING FOR TODAY IS THE $200,000 GOING FORWARD TO ALLOW US TO GO FORWARD AND DO THAT PRELIMINARY DESIGN PACKAGE SO WE CAN GO OUT AND ACTUALLY GET A DESIGN BUILD CONTRACTOR ON BOARD. THAT'LL BE THE NEXT CHECKPOINT.

I WILL COME BACK TO THE BOARD WHEN THE DESIGN PACKAGE -- OR WHEN THE DESIGN HAS GONE THROUGH PROCUREMENT AND WE ARE AT THE POINT WHERE THE BOARD NEEDS TO COMMIT THE REST OF THE MONEY TO DO THE PROJECT. WITH THAT BEING SAID THE SECOND MOTION IS FOR THE BOARD TO ALLOW FOR OMB TO PUT A FINANCE TEAM TOGETHER TO ALLOW US TO LOOK AT FINANCIAL OPTIONS THAT THEY CAN BRING BACK TO THE BOARD FOR THE FULL FINANCING OF THE PROJECT.

AND WITH THAT -- IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS I AM HERE.

>> ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? >> I HAVE A FUNERAL LITTLE BIT.

THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. NO QUESTIONS COME OPEN FOR

PUBLIC COMMENT. >> THANK YOU.

THIS TIME WE WILL TAKE PUBLIC COMMENT ON A JUDGE IN A MAC AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 10.

PLEASE COME FORWARD. GOOD MORNING,

>> GOOD AFTERNOON. >> ONE MINUTE.

(LAUGHING) I THINK THAT'S OKAY, BUT JUST IN CASE. OKAY.

MY NAME IS LORI MOFFAT. I LIVE AT 917 PUNTER FEATURE BOULEVARD AND PODGE OF EGYPT.

I LIKE TO THINK THE COMMISSION THIS AFTERNOON FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION OF THE FEMA BERM THAT JOE PRESENTED AN URGE YOU TO TAKE A POSITIVE ACTION RIGHT NOW TO FINALLY BEGIN RESTORING ST. JOHNS COUNTY'S BERM SYSTEM FOR YEARS AFTER IT WAS DEVASTATED BY HURRICANE MATTHEW. THANK YOU FOR POTENTIALLY FOLLOWING THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT'S LEAD HERE. WHILE WE ARE ALL IN THE MIDST OF CALVIN'S DESTRUCTION RIGHT NOW, UNFORTUNATELY, FOR ST. JOHNS COUNTY, WE HAVE ANOTHER LOOMING POTENTIAL DISASTER ON THE WAY THIS HURRICANE SEASON. THE HIGHLY RESPECTED AND FOLLOWED COLORADO STATE HURRICANE MODELS NOW FORECAST AT 2020 HURRICANE SEASON MAY POSE FOR THE HIGH RISK FOR ST.

JOHNS COUNTY WITH 16 FORECASTED NAME STORMS INCLUDING FOUR MAJOR HURRICANES.

AS SUCH, THEY EXPECT THERE IS CURRENTLY AT 45 PERCENT CHANCE OF A MAJOR HURRICANE MEANING CATEGORY THREE, FOUR, FIVE STRIKING THE EAST COAST OF THE UNITED STATES, INCLUDING FLORIDA. THIS TRANSLATES INTO VERY HIGH RISK FOR OUR COMMUNITY HERE IN ST. JOHN'S COUNTY. FOR COMPARISON, AT THIS TIME LAST YEAR, RESEARCHERS WERE

[03:30:27]

WE ARE A BEACH COMMUNITY AND THAT IS THE SINGLE LARGEST DRIVER IN OUR ECONOMY IS OUR BEACH. FROM TOURISM TO PROPERTY VALUES.

MANY BUSINESSES THAT WE WANT TO REOPEN ARE HERE BECAUSE OF THE BEACH.

WE MUST CONSEQUENTLY FUND AND MAINTAIN OUR BEACHES. I'VE BEEN SAYING THIS FOR A LONG TIME. AND IT'S COMPLETELY RELEVANT RIGHT NOW AS WE ARE FACING KOBE REOPENING'S. YOU'VE RECEIVED HUNDREDS, IF NOT THOUSANDS OF EMAILS FROM THE COMMUNITY ON HOW IMPORTANT THE BEACH WAS THE END TO OPEN IT.

PLEASE DO YOUR PART TO PROTECT IT FOR EVERYONE. I EMPLOY YOU ALL TO PLEASE TAKE POSITIVE ACTION HERE IN DO YOUR PART TO EXPEDITE PLACEMENT OF THE BERM IN ADVANCE OF ANOTHER POTENTIAL MAJOR HURRICANE HITTING ST. JOHNS COUNTY IN THE COMING MONTHS.

WE HAVE A TIGHT TIMEFRAME BUT AS YOU KNOW, THE BEACH IS THE NUMBER ONE REASON THAT PEOPLE LIVE IN ST. JOHN'S COUNTY AND TOURISTS COME HERE AS WAS MADE CLEAR TO BY THE RECENT BEACH CLOSURES. THANK YOU FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION.

>> THANK YOU, MA'AM. >> ANY FURTHER PUBLIC COMMENT? MR. CHAIRMAN I DO NOT SEE ANY CALLS WAITING AND I DO NOT SEE ANYONE COMING FORWARD.

WE WILL CLOSE, CLOSE PUBLIC COMMENT.

>> ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD?

>> COMMISSIONER BLOCKER? >>MR. BLOCKER: I WANT TO DIRECT THIS TO THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR INTO STAFF. IN THE INTEREST OF PREPARING FOR HURRICANE SEASON -- UNDERSTAND RIGHT NOW ARE DEALING WITH ONE CRISIS, BUT I DO NOT WANT TO TAKE OUR EYE OFF THE BALL FOR WHAT COULD BE COMING AS WELL.

SO HAVE YOU HAD A CHANCE TO LOOK AT SOME OF THIS OR LOOK AT SOME OF THE LONG-TERM -- I BELIEVE RIGHT NOW THERE STATE FUNDS AND FEDERAL FUNDS THAT ARE COMING, BROADLY SPEAKING, HAVE YOU ALL HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO LOOK AT THIS TO SEE IF SOME OF THE MEASURES OR CLARIFICATIONS WE NEED TO PUT IN PLACE TO MAKE SURE THAT WE ARE PREPARED HE.

>> MR. CHAIR? SPECIFICALLY WHAT ARE YOU REFERENCING.

>> ALL RIGHT NOW WE HAVE A NUMBER OF -- WE HAVE THIS PROJECT AND OTHER PROJECTS POTENTIALLY COMING OUT THAT ARE IN THE DESIGN PHASE OF THE BEACH.

HAVE YOU ALL HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO LOOK AT THAT WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT WE HAVE A HURRICANE SEASON COMING, WHAT PREPARATIONS WE NEED TO TAKE AND WHAT BOARD ACTION WE NEED TO CONSIDER? ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU.

COMMISSIONER BLOCKER, WHAT YOU'RE REFERENCING IS SPECIFIC TO NORTH PUNTER FEATURE BEACH RENOVATION PROJECTS. WE HAVE A COUPLE PROJECTS THAT ARE ASSOCIATED WITH THOSE PROJECTS. YOU WILL HAVE AN ITEM BEFORE YOU ON WHAT YOU'RE REFERENCING IS SPECIFIC TO NORTH PUNTER FEATURE BEACH RENOVATION PROJECTS.

WE HAVE A COUPLE PROJECTS THAT ARE ASSOCIATED WITH THOSE PROJECTS.

YOU WILL HAVE AN ITEM BEFORE YOU ON 19 MAY WHICH IS RELATED TO THE BOND ISSUANCE FOR THE ARMY CORPS PROJECT FOR SOUTH PONTEVEDRA. AND I BELIEVE WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT IS A DISCUSSION RELATED TO FUNDING THAT WAS APPROPRIATED FOR NORTH PUNTER VISUAL RESTORATION PROJECT, WHICH, I THINK AT THIS POINT IS ESTIMATE ABOUT $40 MILLION.

THERE WERE SOME ALLOCATIONS FROM THE BOARD BASED ON THE DIRECTION ABOUT $3 MILLION IN THE STATE FUNDING IF THE GOVERNMENT SIGNED THAT INTO LAW.

THAT WOULD BE A MATCHING $3 MILLION. I THINK FROM THE STAFF'S PERSPECTIVE, IT'S DIFFICULT FOR US TO DO A LONG-TERM PLANNING WITHOUT SOME LONG-TERM DECISION-MAKING FROM THE BOARD THE POLICYMAKING OR EVEN JUST DISCUSSION.

IT MIGHT BE APPROPRIATE FOR THE UPCOMING BUDGET HEARING FOR THAT DISCUSSION TO OCCUR FOR THE STAFF TO GET SOME DIRECTION. AT THIS TIME, THE FUNDING IS NOT ADEQUATE FOR LAUNCHING ANY ADDITIONAL CONSTRUCTION. THE STAFF IS PLANNING TO BRING BACK THE FEASIBILITY BALL STUDY THAT WAS DIRECTED BY THE BOARD IN A COUPLE MEETINGS WHEN THAT

IS COMPLETE. >> IT MAY BE GOOD TO ADDRESS IS I THINK WE MADE A DECISION LAST YEAR ABOUT SOME OF THE BONDS. HAVE YOU FACTORED THOSE INTO YOUR CALCULATION? CAN YOU ELABORATE ON THAT?

>> WE HAVE. WE LOOKED INTO THE DECISION AND THE DIRECTION WAS GIVEN BY THE BOARD SPECIFIC TO THE ALLOCATION FOR THE FIFTH CATEGORY, THE BOARD MADE A DECISION TO ISOLATE 1/5 CATEGORY THAT COULD POTENTIALLY BE USED AS A FUNDING SOURCE FOR NORTH PONTEVEDRA RESTORATION PROJECT. HOWEVER THERE HASN'T BEEN ANY DECISION THAT WAS MADE TO ALLOCATE ANY LONG-TERM FUNDING FOR THE PROJECT.

[03:35:03]

SO THAT WOULD BE AN APPROPRIATE USE.

>> KIND OF GOING FORWARD BEING THAT WE ARE COMING UP ON HURRICANE SEASON, LET'S PRAY AND HOPE THAT WE DO NOT HAVE A CATEGORY THREE OR FOUR HURRICANE SHOW UP.

THAT WILL ONLY ADD TO THE CHALLENGES WE ARE DEALING WITH NOW.

I THINK IT REEMPHASIZES OUR NEED. WE HEARD FROM A NUMBER OF RESIDENTS ABOUT THE BEACHES AND HOW IMPORTANT THE BEACHES ARE. I THINK GOING FORWARD I WOULD ASK THAT YOU AND YOUR TEAM BE MINDFUL OF THAT AND BRING WHAT NEEDS TO COME TO OUR ATTENTION.

WHAT MIGHT BE HELPFUL IS LOOKING AT MORE OF A LONG-RANGE STRATEGIC VIEW AND NOT ON HOW ALL THESE DIFFERENT PROJECTS ARE INCORPORATED GOING FORWARD WITH FUNDING.

BUT IF YOU NEED MORE DIRECTION I'D BE HAPPY TO ASK THE BOARD FOR CONSENSUS.

BUT I THINK WE NEED SOME INPUT FROM YOU ON WHAT YOU NEED FROM US AND WE CAN HELP PREPARE.

WE HAVE SOME OF THE SMALL BUSINESSES THAT ARE DEPENDED ON THE BEACHES.

WE HEARD FROM SOME OF THEM THIS MORNING. WHAT WE DO?

THANK YOU, COMMISSIONERS. >> JUST TO KIND OF BREAK IT UP INTO THE MULTIPLE PIECES THAT WE HAVE FOR YOU AND THE REMAINDER OF THE BOARD.

WE HAVE THE BERM. WE HAVE THE ONGOING APPEAL AS WELL AS THE FINANCING.

THAT WILL COME BEFORE THE BOARD ON THE 19TH RELATED TO THE ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS PROJECT.

THAT THIRD PIECE IS THE RESTORATION WHICH MS. ANDREWS ALLUDED TO.

THAT'S -- THE FEASIBILITY STUDY HAS NOT COME BACK ON IT. THERE ARE ABOUT FOUR PIECES, IF YOU WILL, TO THE COASTLINE RESTORATION THAT'S IN PLACE IN IMPROPER.

SO IF THERE WAS ANY DIRECTION BEYOND THE THREE PIECES SPECIFICALLY THAT HAS COME BEFORE THE BOARD, THE ONE HERE TODAY, THE APPEAL WHICH WE ARE WAITING ON AS WELL AS THE PROJECTS TO BE CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD ON 19 MAY, ANYTHING BEYOND THAT WE WOULD NEED DIRECTION AS TO WHAT SPECIFICALLY THE BOARD WANTS US TO DO.

BECAUSE WE DO HAVE THE NORTH PONTEVEDRA. WE HAVE THAT PROJECT.

THE FEASIBILITY IS STILL BEING DONE. ONCE THAT IS COMPLETE SS THE BOARD FOR DIRECTION ON WHAT WE SHOULD DO AT THAT POINT. ESPY AS AN ENTIRE BEACH PRE-NOURISHMENT PROGRAM STAFF COULD COME UP WITH SOME PLANS WORKING WITH EITHER A CONSULTANT OR OUR COASTAL DEVELOPMENT. THEY COULD SEE SOME MORE DIRECTIVE FOR US AND THE CONSENSUS FROM THE BOARD BECAUSE I WILL REQUIRE A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF TIME AND EXPENSES BEYOND WHAT WE ARE DOING.

EITHER TODAY OR THE 19TH+ THAT FORCE PAYS THAT'S BEING REFERENCED IN NORTH PONTEVEDRA WEDNESDAY FEASIBILITY STUDIES COMPLETE.

>> AFTER THE 19TH, IF YOU FEEL LIKE THERE'S MORE DIRECTION THAT YOU NEED THAT'S MORE STRATEGIC WILL LIST THOSE FIRST. HE WILL NOT CONVERSATION WE TALKED ABOUT I THINK AT THAT POINT YOU INDICATED YOU NEED MORE TIME IS THAT STILL THE CASE? DO YOU STILL NEED TIME TO REFLECT ON THAT?

>> SPECIFICALLY. P >> AN ENTIRE PLAN.

>> YES, SIR. I THINK WE WOULD BE DIRECTION FROM THE BOARD OF THE BOARD IS PUSHING FOR US TO MOVE IN THE DIRECTION WE ARE MOVING APART FROM THE FOUR PROJECTS THAT WE HAVE NOW DISASTER RECOVERY BOTH ON IRMA AND MATTHEW WITH THE BERMS AS WELL AS THE ARMY CORPS PROJECTS AND THEN GOING ON TO -- ARE WE LOOKING AT -- IS THE BOARD WISHING, THAT POINT LOOKING TO BRING BACK AN ENTIRELY NOURISHMENT PROJECT ARE WE FOCUSING ON NORTH PONTEVEDRA THAT HAS FUNDS THAT HAVE BEEN ALLOCATED OR ARE WE LOOKING AT GOING BEYOND THAT?

>> CERTAINLY WE CAN BRING SOMETHING BACK TO THE BOARD AS FAR AS AN ENTIRE ST. JOHNS COUNTY RE-NOURISHMENT PROGRAM BEYOND JUST NORTH PONTEVEDRA.

>> I THINK IT'S DEEPER THAN THAT. WHERE IS THERE A NEED? IS THERE A NEED FOR THAT? CAN YOU IDENTIFY SOME LONG-RANGE PORTIONS.

A LOT OF OUR NEIGHBORS HAVE IMPLEMENTED SOME DIFFERENT MEASURES.

I'M REALLY KIND OF LOOKING FOR STAFF TO HELP GIVE US INSIGHT, NOT THE STUDY, BUT WE MIGHT NEED TO TAKE SOME MEASURES BEYOND THAT. WE HAVE A FEASIBILITY STATEMENT THAT WILL GIVE US MORE DIRECTION, BUT REALLY NOT NECESSARILY LOOKING FOR DECISIVE ACTION TODAY, WE ARE LOOKING FORWARD TO PUT THIS ON FORGIVING DEAL WITH THIS EVERY YEAR. WERE GOING TO BE DEALING WITH COASTLINE EROSIONS.

DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? YES, SIR.

>> OKAY. THANK YOU.

>> I HAVE -- AND I, MR. CHAIRMAN,

>> COMMISSIONER DEAN GO AHEAD, COMMISSIONER.

[03:40:03]

>>MR. DEAN: CAN I ADD TO THAT? >> YES, SIR.

>> THIS IS A RELATED ITEM AND IS NOT INVOLVING LONG-TERM PLANNING.

IT'S REALLY JUST THIS FISCAL YEAR THAT WE HAD IN OUR BUDGET. I WANT TO SEEK A CONSENSUS ON POSSIBLY IF EVERYONE IS COMFORTABLE. I WANT TO -- VERY QUICKLY, GO BACK TO MARCH 2019. AND REMEMBER BECAUSE THAT IS WHAT WE DID THE FIFTH CATEGORY, REALLOCATION. AND THAT WAS GOING TO BE USED AN ESTIMATED 2.3 MILLION AT THE TIME AND OF THAT WE DISCUSSED 1.8 MILLION BEING ALLOCATED FOR THE -- (INDISCERNIBLE) -- THE LONG-TERM PROJECT BECAUSE OUR COUNTY LOCALLY MATCHED. THAT WAS IN MARCH 2019.

IN MAY 2019, THAT ISSUE SURFACED AT OUR BUDGET WORKSHOP LAST MAY 2019.

AND THE QUESTION WAS RAISED BY MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC ABOUT THE STATUS OF THAT MONEY FOR THE NORTH PONTEVEDRA BEACH. IT WOULD BE APPROXIMATELY 500,000.

I SAID AT THAT TIME -- IF I RECALL MY OWN REMARKS, I INDICATED THAT IT WOULD BE THIS COMING YEARS, THIS 20 -- COMING YEAR BEING THE , THIS 20 -- COMING YEAR BEING THE 2020 FISCAL YEARS BECAUSE THAT DISCUSSION TOOK PLACE IN MAY 2019.

I WAS LOOKING FOR A CONFIRMATION, THE CONSENSUS AMONG THE BOARD MEMBERS THAT THE STAFF PUT IN THE BUDGET AND WE ANTICIPATED BEING IN THIS YEAR'S BUDGET WE ARE IN NOW, THE THIRD QUARTER THAT $500,000 THAT WOULD GO IS OUR LOCAL MATCH TOWARD NEXT YEAR'S LEGISLATIVE MATCH WHICH WILL HAVE COMMITTEE MEETINGS AND THE WANT TO KNOW OUR POSITION AS EARLY AS OCTOBER NOVEMBER. AND SO WHEN LOOKING FOR THIS AFTERNOON -- AND I HATE TO BE DOING THIS BY PHONE. I WISH I WERE THERE IN PERSON. WHAT I'M SEEKING IS A CONFIRMATION, A CONSENSUS, THAT IF WE LOOKING AT PONTEVEDRA BEACH DONE IN 10 OR 20 YEAR BUT IN THIS YEAR'S BUDGET, THAT WE ARE CURRENTLY IN, IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING, THAT WE HAVE 500,000 ALLOCATED AND THE STAFF IS LOOKING FOR MORE DIRECTION BECAUSE I WAS A LITTLE UNCLEAR LAST SUMMER, I THINK. ALTHOUGH I RAISED IT IN THE MAY BUDGET WORKSHOP.

SO I WOULD ASK AT THIS TIME -- AND THIS IS A LITTLE MAYBE SLIGHTLY OFF THE DIRECT SUBJECT OF THE FEMA BERM BUT IT TIES DIRECTLY INTO THE SECTION THAT COMMISSIONER BLOCKER JUST DAD.

I WOULD ENCOURAGE A CONSENSUS OF THE BOARD, RECOGNIZING THE FACT THAT THERE IS A 500,000 IN THIS YEAR'S BUDGET, 2019 Ã2020 BUDGET. THAT'S THE COMMON I WANTED TO

MAKE, MR. CHAIRMAN. >>CHAIRMAN SMITH: THANK YOU.

I'LL LET THE ADMINISTRATION ADDRESS THAT. I DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S 2.3 MILLION IN THE TDT AT THIS POINT EITHER.

>> I HAVE WATCHED THE VIDEO THAT WAS REFERENCED FROM LAST YEAR IN REGARD TO THE FUNDS.

THE APPEARANCE FROM THE VIDEO FIRST BALL IN REFERENCE TO COMMISSIONERS DEANS CONFERENCE WERE ANYTHING ABOVE THE 1.8. I WANT TO BE CLEAR IT'S NOT BONDED TO THE TDT.

YOU CAN'T FIND DOLLARS TO TORSO. BUT THEY WILL REPAY.

THE FIRST 1.8 IS PRESUPPOSING THAT ON THE 19TH, SHOULD THE BOARD CHOOSE TO GO FORWARD WITH THE FUNDS THAT THE FUNDS WILL BE BONDED TO THAT. ANYTHING ABOVE THAT 1.8, INSIDE OF THE FIFTH CATEGORY, 1.8, COULD BE USED FOR WHATEVER THIS BOARD CHOOSES.

IT APPEARED AT THAT MEETING THAT THE RECOMMENDATION THAT THE BOARD WAS TO BE USED FOR SOME TYPE OF BEACH RESTORATION SPECIFICALLY RELATED TO NORTH PONTEVEDRA.

IT WILL NOT WAY AND WHETHER THAT WAS THE ACTUAL CONSENSUS AS YOU CAN MAKE THAT DECISION TODAY OR ANOTHER DAY. THAT WAS THE APPEARANCE FROM STAFF.

TO YOUR QUESTION SPECIFICALLY, COMMISSIONER SMITH, THERE IS NO DOUBT IN MY MIND ALTHOUGH I COULD BE WRONG BECAUSE TOURISM DOLLARS SALES TAX IN THOSE THINGS, REMITTED 60 DAYS LATER SO WE HAVE NOT EVEN BEGUN TO SEE WHAT MARCH OR APRIL OR MAY PWILL LOOK LIKE.

SO I DO NOT EXPECT THERE TO BE ANYTHING ABOVE 1.8. I'M NOT SO SURE THAT THERE WILL BE 1.8 IN THERE THIS YEAR. THAT DOESN'T MEAN THAT THERE SHOULD NOT BE CLARITY SHOULD THE BOARD CHOOSE TO DO ANYTHING ABOVE THE 1.8 TODAY AND THAT IT ADDRESSES YEAR BY YEAR BECAUSE

[03:45:01]

1.8 MILLION. >> OF LIKE TO GET THIS PASSED ON TASK BECAUSE I BELIEVE THAT'S A DISCUSSION FOR THE 19TH WHEN WE ARE DISCUSSING THE BONDING. COMMISSIONER DEAN, THINK THAT DISCUSSION WOULD ACTUALLY BE QUITE RELEVANT ON THE 19TH OR DISCUSSING THE 22 MILLION BONDING FOR THE SOUTH PONTEVEDRA BEACH THAT WOULD TAKE -- THAT WOULD BE DEDICATED TO THAT TO REPAY THE GENERAL FUND. BUT -- NOT THAT IT DOESN'T NEED TO BE BROUGHT UP IT WOULD BE MORE RELEVANT AT THAT TIME ESPECIALLY WHEN WE HAVE SOMEONE HERE.

I THINK WE MAY NEED DIRECTION ON FEMA FUNDS TODAY WHICH I HAVE QUESTIONS BUT I THINK MR.

JOHN STEEL QUESTIONS AS WELL? >> THANK YOU, MR. JILL --

CHAIR. >> HOW MUCH OF WE SPENT TO

DATE? >> WE ARE ROUGHLY AROUND

$300,000 SPENT TO DATE. >> AND HOW MUCH MORE DO WE NEED TO SPEND BEFORE WE CAN REQUEST REIMBURSEMENT STAGES?

>> SO THE FIRST WILL BE THE $200,000 WOULD BE A DESIGN CRITERIA PACKAGE AND THEN WOULD BE HOW WE SET THE CONTRACT UP FOR THAT DESIGNER, IT WOULD BE THE NEXT -- WE ACTUALLY HAVE AN ACCOMPLISHMENT OF SAND ON THE BEACH. IT'S A DIFFICULT QUESTION TO ANSWER. I DO NOT KNOW HOW MUCH THE DESIGN WILL COST US TO GET TO THAT LEVEL, BUT FROM A TIME PERSPECTIVE YOU'D HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE PROCUREMENT PROCESS WHICH IS 120 DAYS ON AVERAGE, AROUND 30 DAYS FOR US TO GET THE PACKAGE TO PROCUREMENT.

YOU'RE LOOKING AT 4 TO 5 MONTHS FOR US TO COME BACK. NEGOTIATE THAT CONTRACT, GO THROUGH THE DESIGN WHICH ON AVERAGE THREE OR FOUR MONTHS AND BEING TOLD WERE DESIGNED THAT WE GO INTO CONSTRUCTION. I THINK AT THAT TIME THAT SO WE CAN REQUEST MONEY BACK.

>> SOMETIME THE END OF THIS YEAR WOULD BE EARLY SCHEDULE.

>> CORRECT. >> OKAY.

AND REGARDING THE VEGETATION, THAT'S NOT REIMBURSED BY FEMA BUT IT MAY BE REQUIRED BY THE

STATE? >> CORRECT.

YOU ARE RIGHT. THE LANGUAGE IN THERE IS THAT IF YOU DISTURB VEGETATION, HAVE TO PUT IT BACK. THE QUESTION AT HAND IS IF THERE'S NO VEGETATION AND WE PUT SAND DOWN ARE WE REQUIRED TO PUT SEALS ON TOP OF IT. I'M NOT SURE RIGHT NOW.

THAT'S WHY THE -- WHAT WE REQUESTED -- IS THE TOTAL DOLLAR AMOUNT IF WE HAD TO REPLACE ALL VEGETATION ON EVERY PIECE OF SAND THAT WE PUT ON THE BEACH.

>> TO BE DETERMINED. >> CORRECT.

I WANTED TO SHOW YOU NOW SO YOU KNEW NOT TO BE SURPRISED WHEN I COME BACK LATER AND SAY I NEED ANOTHER MILLION DOLLARS YOU HAVE THE FULL PROJECT.

>> WE SPENT CLOSE TO $300,000 FILLING A BREACH ON ALL DAY ONE AID TO ACCESS THREE OR FOUR PRIVATELY OWNED HOMES AND WAS THE THIRD TIME IT HAD TO BE REPAIRED IF I REMEMBER RIGHT,

EARLIER THIS YEAR. >> I BELIEVE SO.

>> OKAY. I UNDERSTAND THE VALUE OF THE BERM.

I FULLY BELIEVE IT NEEDS TO BE VEGETATED BECAUSE MOVING WATER AND SAND MIX WAY TOO WELL.

IN THIS TIME PERIOD THAT IT TAKES TO ACQUIRE REIMBURSEMENT, WE ARE FRONTING THAT MONEY.

>> CORRECT. >> 30 PERCENT OF OUR RESIDENTS ARE OUT OF WORK RIGHT NOW. WE DON'T KNOW HOW MANY BUSINESSES WILL RESUME.

I HOPE ALL OF THEM DO. PRACTICALLY SPEAKING, THEY WILL NOT ALL DO SO.

WE ARE COBBLING TOGETHER A FEW HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS TO COME IN THE SHORT TERM, HELP OUR RESIDENTS PAY THEIR BILLS, GET FOOD. THAT IS THE BASIC HEALTH AND SAFETY WELFARE OF OUR COMMUNITY. WHILE I VALUE AND UNDERSTAND THE NEED FOR THE BERM, WE HAVE AN IMMEDIATE NEED TO ADDRESS WITH OUR BUSINESSES AND OUR RESIDENTS TODAY THAT WE CAN CLEARLY QUANTIFY WHAT THE NEED IS.

MR. CONRAD ALLUDED TO WHAT WE ARE ABOUT TO FACE AS AN ECONOMIC TRAIN WRECK BECAUSE OF THE LACK OF FUNDING SOME WEEKS DOWN THE ROAD WE WILL SEE IT IN OUR LOCAL BUDGET, OUR STATE BUDGET AND FEDERAL BUDGET. WE ARE ALREADY GETTING REQUEST FOR ENTITIES THAT HAVE CONTRACTED WITH THE COUNTY TO PAY US FOR THE CONTRACTS THEY HAVE THROUGH SALES TAX REVENUE, PRIMARILY, THAT THEY'RE EXPECTED NOT TO RECEIVE. THE RISKING NOT TO PAY ANY MORE

[03:50:09]

THERE'S THE SIGNS TO LOOKING THE PAST OF HOW MANY HURRICANES WE HAVE HAD AND HOW MANY WE MAY OR MAY NOT HAVE. WE CAN GO YEARS WITH HURRICANE. THE FORECAST IS WILL HAVE MORE FREQUENT HURRICANES. BUT EVEN IN THE PAST TWO YEARS -- I HAVE A HARD TIME LOOKING SOMEBODY IN THE EYE THAT'S UNEMPLOYED TO SAM SORRY. WE WILL HELP PAY FOR YOUR GROCERIES IN ORDER TO SPEND STAFF TIME FORECASTING SOMETHING THAT HAS NOT HAPPENED. I THINK WE NEED TO CONTINUE. I DO NOT WANT TO SAY CONGRATULATIONS ON GETTING THIS MONEY APPROVED BY FEMA I EXPECT IS NEEDED IN THE LONG TERM.

THE HOUSE VALUES ARE PROJECTED TO DROP ALONG THE BEACHES BY 50 PERCENT OR MORE.

IT WILL DECIMATE OR BUDGETED I REMEMBER THE WORDS I USE CORRECTLY.

IT DIDN'T HAPPEN. VALUES OF HOMES ON THE BEACHES HAVE GONE UP -- I'M THANKFUL FOR THAT. BUT TO HEAR THE FEAR THAT'S BEING PROJECTED VERSUS THE FACTS THAT EXIST TODAY OUR FOCUS SHOULD BE ON THE PEOPLE WERE EMPLOYED GETTING BUSINESSES BACK OPEN IMMEDIATELY. WITH FUNDS THAT ARE AVAILABLE FOR ANY OTHER POTENTIAL CAPITAL EXPENSES. AND AS I SAID MAKING LOANS SO THE MONEY COMES BACK TO US FOR THESE TYPES OF EXPENSES BUT THE FEAR MONGERING, IT DOESN'T WORK FOR THE REST OF THE COUNTY. I'M ADVOCATING AS A COMMISSIONER FOR EVERYBODY IN THIS COUNTY WHILE I BELIEVE THAT WE NEED THIS I WANT TO BE CAUTIOUS ON WHERE WE SPENT HUMAN RESOURCE OR FINANCIAL RESOURCES OR TAXPAYER MONEY. THIS IS NOT PRIVATE INDIVIDUAL MONEY. THIS IS EVERYBODY'S MONEY IS BEING CONSIDERED FOR THESE HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS ARE MILLIONS OF DOLLARS FOR SOMETHING THAT MAY GET WASHED AWAY IN THE NEXT NOR'EASTER OR HURRICANE. I FEEL LIKE INDIVIDUALS NEED TO BE EMPOWERED TO PROTECT THE PROPERTY, GET GOVERNMENT OUT OF THE WAY SO IT DOESN'T TAKE THREE AND HALF YEARS WE STILL HAVE NO SEE AND ON THE BEACH. NO COMPLAINT TO USE THE STATE OR THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. I UNDERSTAND THE PROCESS YOU'RE DOING A HERCULEAN JOB MOVING THE BOARD. IT'S MOVING FAST COMPARED TO WHAT OTHER STATES HAVE EXPERIENCED I WANT TO CONGRATULATE YOU AND YOUR STAFF AND EVERYBODY ELSE FOR MOVING THIS IN THE DIRECTION. THIS IS JUST HOW LONG IT TAKES. WHILE WE ARE COMPARING THIS SCENARIO WHERE PEOPLE ARE OCCUPYING THE BEACHES AS THEY ARE TODAY.

IT'S NOT FOR THE TOURISTS. THEY'RE COMING IN DROVES. IT'S FOR THE PROPERTY OWNERS ON THE BEACHES. LET'S BE CLEAR ABOUT THAT. AND WHILE WE NEED TO PROTECT EVERYBODY THE ONES WHO ARE UNEMPLOYED, NEED TO BE OUR HIGHEST PRIORITY.

IT'S NOT THINGS LIKE THIS WILL WE NEED TO SPEND TIME FORECASTING FUTURE NOURISHMENT PLANS FOR 50 YEARS IN THE FUTURE. IT SHOULD BE THE TOP PRIORITY.

IT SHOULD BE HELPING SAVE THE WELFARE OF THE PEOPLE TODAY THAT NEED IT.

THE PEOPLE ARE CALLING LOOKING FOR FOOD HOW CAN WE SPENT SO MUCH TIME IN SOMETHING LIKE THIS? AS REPRESENTATIVES OF THE COUNTY, I CANNOT.

I WANT TO APPROVE WHAT'S NECESSARY TO HOLD THIS SOMEPLACE WE DON'T LOSE IT TO ANOTHER LOCATION, BUT OUR FIRST PRIORITY SHOULD BE TAKING CARE OF PEOPLE WHO BE THAT MOST INVERSE. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR.

>>CHAIRMAN SMITH: COMMISSIONER DEAN, HOLD ON. WE'VE GOT A LONGER.

I'LL PUT YOU ON A SECOND. >> FIRST OF ALL THE GOVERNMENT IS NOT THE SOLUTION. WE WILL BE ABLE TO SAVE EVERY BUSINESS AND WHO THINKS THE GOVERNMENT IS THE SOLUTION IS MISTAKEN. WERE NOT TO BE ABLE TO SAVE EVERY LOCAL BUSINESS IN ST. JOHN'S COUNTY THAT STRUGGLING. WHAT WE ARE DOING IS WHAT OUR ADMINISTRATION IS A PLAN OF ACTION FOR US TO TAKE CONCRETE STEPS TO HELP OUR LOCAL ECONOMY. THAT'S OUR RESPONSIBILITY. IT'S OUR RESPONSIBILITY TO LOOK AFTER THE WHOLE COUNTY. THE GOVERNMENT IS NOT THE ANSWER BUT FEAR MONGERING AND TALKING ABOUT PEOPLE STARVING AND IT'S OUR JOB TO FEED THEM, THAT'S NOT THE GOVERNMENT'S RESPONSIBILITY OR JOB. WHAT IS THE GOVERNMENT'S RESPONSIBILITY IN JOB IS TO IDENTIFY LONG-RANGE CHALLENGES THAT COME UP WITH REAL SOLUTIONS AND TONE DOWN THE RHETORIC A BIT. WE TALK ABOUT DUMPING SAND ON THE BEACH.

THAT WAS A SUMMER HAVEN WHERE WE HAD A LEGAL REQUIREMENT TO DO THAT BECAUSE IT WAS AN ORDER IN PLACE A LEGAL, BINDING ORDER THAT PROMPTED US TO DO THAT. THIS WAS IN US JUST DUMPING SAND ON THE BEACH. OUR ECONOMY IS -- THIS IS NOT JUST A BUNCH OF RESIDENTS

[03:55:11]

SO I THINK YOU CHARACTERIZE THIS AS A COUPLE OF PEOPLE IN THE BEACH -- IS INACCURATE AND UNFAIR. LET'S GET BACK TO THE FACTS. WE HAVE A MECHANISM IN FRONT OF US BUT WE CAN TAKE PROACTIVE MEASURES TO HELP PROTECT THE BEACHES.

GOING FORWARD. EVERYONE IS ST. JOHNS COUNTY -- THIS IS A ST. JOHNS COUNTY PROBLEM. WE REPRESENT ST. JOHNS COUNTY HERE.

SO IT'S OUR RESPONSIBILITY NOT TO SOLVE EVERY PROBLEM OUT THERE.

THAT'S NOT THE GOVERNMENT'S JOB. THAT'S CORRECT THAT.

IT'S NOT OUR JOB TO FEED THE POOR. THAT'S CALLED SOCIALISM.

THAT'S NOT WHAT WE'RE DOING HERE TODAY. WHAT WE'RE DOING IS TRYING TO MAKE DECISIONS BASED ON THE FACTS IN FRONT OF US AND THE FACT THAT YOU PRESENTED DID NOT DO THAT. THAT'S WHAT I WANT TO PUT OUT THERE MR. CHAIRMAN.

>>CHAIRMAN SMITH: COMMISSIONER DEAN?

>> YES. THANK YOU. JUST A FOLLOW-UP MR. BLOCKER'S COMMENTS, I AM TOTALLY AND COMPLETELY COMMITTED TO ASSISTING THE UNEMPLOYED IN THIS COUNTY. WE HAVE A ROUGH ROAD TO HOE IN THE FUTURE.

BUT LET ME TELL YOU, THE PRIMARY NUMBER ONE INDUSTRY IN THIS COUNTY IS TOURISM.

I BELIEVE TOTALING ABOUT THE JOBS RELATED IS ROUGHLY 27,000. LET'S JUST SAY THAT 5000 ARE GOING TO BE OUT OF WORK. IF WE DON'T CONTINUE TO TAKE CARE OF OUR BEACHES, WE ARE GOING TO HAVE AS BIG AN IMPACT ON THOSE SERVICE WORKERS BEING WITHOUT A JOB BECAUSE THERE ARE NO BEACHES JUST AS THE COVID-19 IS HAVING AN IMPACT. SO I AM SHOCKED THAT A COMMISSIONER WOULD SUGGEST THAT IF WE TRY TO DO BEACH RESTORATION GOING FORWARD, AND LEAVE THE UNEMPLOYED AND ATTENDED THAT THAT IS BAD. THE VERY REASON NOT BEEN WORKING FOR FOUR YEARS ON BEACH RESTORATION AND BEACH READ NOURISHMENT IS TO MAKE SURE THE NUMBER ONE INDUSTRY IN THIS COUNTY STAYS STRONG. IT'S ONLY GOING TO STAY STRONG WITH ADEQUATE, HEALTHY, STRONG BEACHES. IT'S NOT JUST FOR THE BEACHFRONT HOMEOWNERS. BY THE WAY, THOSE BEACHFRONT HOMEOWNERS FROM MILANO UP TO JAY TURNER BOB ARE PAYING THEIR FAIR SHARE THROUGH THE CREATION OF THE MSB YOU.

IT'S NOT LIKE THEY'RE GETTING A FREE RIDE. SO I AM COMMITTED TO GOING FORWARD AND AT THE APPROPRIATE TIME PREPARED TO MAKE A MOTION ON THIS ITEM.

THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER.

DID YOU WANT TO SAY -- GOD. GO AHEAD COMMISSIONER WALDRON.

>> WE DO WE HAVE TO HAVE THIS IN?

>> THERE'S NO HARD AND FAST DATE. IT'S SUBJECTIVE.

>> WE HAVE ANY IDEA ON WILL HAVE TDT TESTAMENTS? DO KNOW -- WE HAPPEN TO KNOW IT'S IN THERE NOW BUT DO WE KNOW IT'S IN THE FOUR CATEGORIES ARE FIVE.

>> HAVE TO ASK MR. DUNN TO COME DOWN. I COULD GET HIM BUT JUST WAS YOUR QUESTION A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE ESTIMATES, WE ARE 60 DAYS BEHIND.

>> THERE'S GOT TO EXTENDED 30 DAYS. SO COULD BE 90 DAYS BEFORE WE SEE THE DOLLARS. I DON'T KNOW IT'S IN THE ACCOUNT RIGHT NOW.

I COULD ASK MR. DUNN TO COME FORWARD TO SEE IF HE COULD PROVIDE THAT INFORMATION TO

HAVE A FRAME OF REFERENCE. >> YEAH.

I THINK WE NEED TO MOVE ON WITH THIS PROJECT. THE OTHER PROJECTS WE NEED TO VERIFY WORKING TO PAY FOR IT, JUST LIKE THIS, YOU KNOW, ONE THING I DO SIT ON BOARDS AND WE HAVE ANOTHER MEETING, WHICH THE LAST ONE WAS CANCELED, ORGAN HAVE TO DO FOR TOURISM IS FIGURE OUT WHAT'S THE BEACHES OR ADVERTISING. IT MAY BE SOMETHING WE HAVE TO LOOK AT THIS YEAR. IN THE NEXT YEAR. YOU KNOW, WHAT DO WE NEED TO DO TO HELP OUT THAT INDUSTRY? IT'S OURNUMBER ONE INDUSTRY COMPARED TO WHAT THE COST WILL BE IN THE LONG RUN? I HAVE NO DOUBT HER PREDICTIONS WERE GOOD.

I DO NOT KNOW IF WE WERE AHEAD OF IT BEFORE THIS STARTED I THINK WERE A LITTLE OUT OF IT.

BUT THERE IS A CONCERN WE WILL NOT HAVE MONEY TO FUND THE OTHER PROJECTS.

AND I KNOW WE STILL HAVE TO GO TO FUNDING BUT WE'VE ALREADY SAW THAT ARMY CORPS PROJECT.

WE HAD TO SIGN ALL THAT. SO THERE ARE SOME CONCERNS THERE.

I WANT TO MAKE SURE WE HAVE ALL THE INFORMATION WE NEED TO MAKE THE DECISION.

[04:00:01]

>> I'VE GOT A FEW QUESTIONS. >> YOU CAN TELL THEM LATER AND APPRECIATE THAT. BUT THE DURATION OF PROJECTS YOU MENTIONED WAS 12 TO 18

MONTHS; IS THAT CORRECT? >> CORRECT.

>> TRUCK CALL 25,000 HOW MANY THOUSAND LOADS?

>>. >> 30.

THE ESTIMATE IS 25 TO 30,000. >> OF THE MASSIVE AMOUNT OF DIRT. A LOT OF TRAFFIC ON OUR HIGHWAYS AND A LOT OF WEAR AND TEAR ON OUR ROADS, TOO. HOW MANY PARCELS IS THIS GOING TO AFFECT?

>> THROUGHOUT THE WHOLE COUNTY YOU'RE LOOKING AT 800. WE TALK ABOUT EASEMENTS 800 EASEMENTS IS OVER LOOKING AT ACCOMPLISHING.

>> 800 EASEMENTS. HOW MANY PUBLIC? HOW MANY OF THOSE ARE PUBLICLY

OWNED? >> HAVE THAT HERE.

>> APPRECIATE THAT. I DID GIVE HIM A HEADS UP. HE KNOWS WERE MASKING MOST OF IT THEY REALLY ADDRESS THE MINUTES PRESENTATION.

>> ALWAYS PREPARED (LAUGHING). >> THE QUESTION WAS HOW MANY TOTAL EASEMENTS OR PROPERTIES IT WAS 800. WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT RIGHT NOW S 48 PUBLIC PARCELS THAT WE WOULD BE ASSISTING.

>> ALL RIGHT. VERY GOOD.

>> NOW ONE OF THE PAGES IN YOUR PRESENTATION HAS A TENTATIVE COST ESTIMATE.

THERE IS A CHANCE IT COULD BE HIGHER.

>> THERE'S ALWAYS A CHANCE. BUT I THINK THE STAFF DID A GOOD JOB IN TRYING TO SHOW YOU -- I WON'T SAY THE WORST CASE, WE DO A LOT OF ANALYSIS TO COME UP WITH.

>> WE NEED TO UNDERSTAND THAT THERE'S A POSSIBILITY. AND THAT HAS TO DO WITH WHERE THE SAND WILL COME FROM, THE LOCATION, THE DISTANCE TO HALL AND HOW TO GET ONTO THE BEACH.

LOGISTICS IS THAT GOING TO BE CRITICAL IN COST.

>> CREEK. >> HOW DO YOU GET IT DOWN? I THINK WE HAD DISCUSSIONS AND SOME MAY HAVE TO BE HAULED NINE MILES DOWN THE BEACH.

THAT COULD -- PUT TRAFFIC IT FOR HAULING MACHINES. I WOULD GUESS AS WELL.

BUT WITH THIS ESTIMATE THE COUNTY CONTRIBUTIONS GOING TO BE $2,777,500, WHICH WOULD ALSO -- WE WOULD HAVE TO OF THE MILLION DOLLARS -- I'M TRYING TO ADD THIS ALL UP TO WHAT THE COSTS ARE ASSOCIATED DIRECTLY TO THE COUNTY THAT WE ARE GOING TO HAVE TO PAY FOR.

LIKEWISE, THE INTEREST ON A BOND IS NOT REIMBURSABLE IS THAT CORRECT?

>> THAT IS CORRECT. >> SO HOW LONG DO WE THINK WE WILL BE BORROWING THIS CAPITAL AND WHAT WOULD BE THE BOND RATE ON THEIR.

>> WE DISCUSSED SOME OF THIS THE OTHER DAY PREMATURELY, ANYWAY.

>> COMMISSIONER, IF I COULD. >> YES.

IF YOU WILL FOLLOW ME FOR A SECOND HERE ON THE SECOND MOTION.

IF WE GET PAST -- IF THE BOARD CHOOSES, THE FINANCING TEAM WOULD HAVE TO BE PUT INTO PLACE

TO DETERMINE. >> WE UNDERSTAND THAT MR. CONRA THE REASON I'M ASKING THIS IS BECAUSE 200,000 IS STEPPING IN THAT DIRECTION.

AND IF WE DON'T SPEND THE 200,000, WE DON'T STEP IN THAT DIRECTION, THE NET WILL BE A DISCUSSION, BUT I THINK IT'S RELEVANT TO BE ABLE TO ADDRESS SOME OF THESE COSTS THAT WE ARE NOT SEEING RIGHT NOW THAT WE NEED TO HAVE AT LEAST -- AND WE TALKED ABOUT IT SO THEY ARE GOING TO BE SURPRISED BY IT. I HAD SOME PRELIMINARY NUMBERS AND I LIKE TO HAVE THEM DONE PUBLICLY SO FOLKS CAN KNOW. WHAT KIND OF BOND RATE ARE WE LOOKING AT RIGHT NOW.

>> GOOD AFTERNOON. CURRENTLY WITH THE PROPOSAL WE ARE BRINGING BOARD ON THE 19TH THROUGH THE ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS PROJECT, THE INTEREST RATE WITH THAT WITH NO PREPAYMENT PENALTY IS POINT -- (INDISCERNIBLE) -- THAT IS OVER A 12 YEAR.

>> 2.7 PERCENT $22 MILLION ON THAT ONE. AND YOU HAD A PRE--- THAT WAS -- WHAT ARE YOU PROJECTING TO BE THE LOAN -- THE BOND TIME, THE DURATION OF THIS AS WELL I

[04:05:06]

WILL GET A COUPLE YEARS OR. >> THAT IS SOMETHING THAT WE WOULD HAVE TO MODEL AS FAR AS HOW MUCH WE WOULD EVEN NEED TO BORROW WE ARE GOING TO GET REIMBURSED THROUGH DIFFERENT STAGES OF IT SO WE WOULD TRY TO MINIMIZE OUR BORROWING, THE COUNTIES BORROWING. IN THE DURATION AS WELL THAT WE HAVE TO WORK ON IT WITH OUR

FINANCIAL ADVISOR. >> APPRECIATE THAT.

GOING TO RECOGNIZE THAT THE INTEREST IS NOT REIMBURSABLE. THAT'S AN ADDITIONAL COST OF WILL SEE HERE. ANOTHER 2.7 PERCENT BOND RATE, THAT COULD BE A SIGNIFICANT

AMOUNT OF MONEY. >> ASSUMING A 10 YEAR PAYBACK.

>> 3.1. >> 200,000 IN INTEREST PER

MILLION DOLLARS BORROWED. >> I CAME UP WITH 2.7 OVER 10 YEARS OF 3,159,000 -- IS THAT CORRECT.

>> MY ESTIMATE IS A LITTLE LESS.

>> THAT'S WHAT I CAME UP WITH. THAT'S A LOT OF MONEY. I WANT TO RECOGNIZE -- THAT DOES NOT INCLUDE PAYOUT. WE'VE GOT THE ISSUES WITH HOW QUICKLY CAN BE PAID DOWN BECAUSE WERE PAYING AS WE GO ALONG FEMA WILL CONTRIBUTE THE STATE WILL CONTRIBUTE ALONG THE WAY. I WANT TO RECOGNIZE THAT THERE IS A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF MONEY THAT COULD BE ABOVE AND BEYOND THESE DOLLARS THAT WE HAVE HERE.

I WANT TO MAKE SURE THEM CORRECT IN THAT ASSUMPTION. NUMBER ONE HE COULD BE HIGHER.

NUMBER TWO, ORGANIZATION LIKELY MILLION DOLLARS. INTEREST IS NONREIMBURSABLE IN THE PERMITTING, IS IT NOT COVERED AS WELL?

>> I READ THAT MATT CAUGHT ME OFF GUARD AS WELL. I HAD A COUPLE OTHER THINGS I WANTED TO ASK. THE 200,000, IT'S REIMBURSABLE.

>> CORRECTLY OF THE SHOWN ACCOMPLISHMENT.

>> AND THAT'S WHY COME BACK TO. WE TAKE THAT STEP TODAY IF WE CONTINUE TO COMMIT.

WE CAN BOND OUT THE ENTIRE $20,000. THOUGHT I HAVE ONE MORE QUESTION HERE THAT'LL DO IT. I'M SURE I CAN OVERDO IT MYSELF.

BUT THANK YOU FOR ANSWERING MY QUESTION.

>> LEGAL? WHAT EXISTS. FIRST OF ALL, THE TERM, BOND, THERE'S GOING TO BE SOME TYPE OF FINANCING MECHANISM A DEBT OBLIGATION WHETHER IT'S A BOND OR SOME OTHER INSTRUMENT I THINK THAT REMAINS TO BE DETERMINED FOR BOTH OF THESE.

I WANTED TO MENTION A COUPLE OF THE COMMISSIONERS MIGHT'VE MENTIONED SUMMER HAVEN AND I'LL PUT A LEGAL CAVEAT ON THAT. IF THE COUNTY DOES HAVE A SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT PERTAINING TO THAT AREA I WOULD SAY THAT IT SPEAKS FOR ITSELF AND I WOULD JUST LEAVE IT AT THAT.

THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU.

COMMISSIONER JOHNS? >> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR.

ONE LAST QUESTION WHAT IS OUR CURRENT BONDING CAPACITY? WE ARE LOOKING AT BONDING $22 MILLION. I DO NOT WANT TO GET IN A SITUATION WHERE OTHERS HAVE MAXED OUT THE CREDIT CARD AND ANOTHER EMERGENCY, HURRICANE, ANOTHER RESURGENCE OF THE VIRUS AND WE NEED FUNDING FOR OTHER SEVERE ISSUES.

>> GOOD AFTERNOON MANAGEMENT BUDGET JESSE DONE. I WILL GET YOU THAT MAXIMUM DEBT CAPACITY. OBVIOUSLY WOULD NEVER WANT TO GET TO THAT LEVEL.

THE BE PUT, IF I CAN, A SILVERLINING ON AT LEAST THIS FINANCING.

THERE IS SOME TIME ON THIS. THIS MOTION IS TO ASSEMBLE A TEAM.

MY SILVERLINING ON THIS IS AT SOME LEVEL, WHAT I UNDERSTAND, ON THE TENTATIVE SCHEDULING IS WE WOULD BE LOOKING AT THE FINANCING. PAST THE $200,000 CONSIDERATION, INTO DECEMBER OR THE FIRST QUARTER OF NEXT CALENDAR YEAR.

SO WE WOULD BE PASSED -- AT THE VERY LEAST, OUR HURRICANE SEASON.

AT THAT POINT, WE WOULD UNDERSTAND WHAT OUR HURRICANE SEASON HAD LOOKED LIKE.

WE HAVE NO IDEA WHAT THE COVID-19 SECOND PHASE MADE OR COULD BE.

[04:10:02]

WE WOULD LOOK TO SEE HOW WE GET THROUGH THIS FISCAL YEAR HOW THE NEXT FISCAL YEAR IS GOING TO LOOK BECAUSE AGAIN -- AND YOU ALLUDED TO SOME OF THE SALES TAX.

WERE GOING TO SEE POTENTIALLY REVENUE BEHAVIORS THAT ARE GOING TO CHANGE.

BUT MOVING FORWARD WITH THE FINANCING TEAM NOT SPEAKING FOR THE FIRST MOTION, PROVIDES US SIX OR SEVEN MONTHS TO COME UP WITH OTHER OPTIONS. WE'VE CERTAINLY LOOKED AT INTERNAL LOANS AND UTILIZED THEM THIS PAST YEAR. WE COULD LOOK AT THOSE OPTIONS AS WELL. IT DOES NOT ALL HAVE TO BE AS THE COUNTY ATTORNEY REFERENCE -- THERE ARE MULTIPLE FINANCING INSTRUMENTS THAT ARE OUT THERE. THE SHORT ANSWER IS I WILL GET YOUR MAXIMUM DEBT CAPACITY. WE WOULD NOT BRING THE RECOMMENDATION FORWARD IF WE WERE AT THAT MAXIMUM RIGHT NOW. I WILL GET YOU THAT. FURTHER ON, THIS DISCUSSION WILL ALSO ARISE ON THE 19TH WILL WE DISCUSS THE RELATED FINANCING FOR THE ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS PROJECT. SO GET YOU THAT. IF THE CHAIR WILL ALLOW ME TO ADDRESS THE QUESTION ON THE TDT FUNDING.

>> YES. >> THE CATEGORY FIVE RELOCATION OCCURRED LAST MARCH. IT WAS EFFECTIVE LAST MARCH. THE BEGINNING BALANCE FOR CAT FIVE -- AS OF SEPTEMBER 30 OF LAST YEAR -- I'M GOING TO KEEP THIS NUMBER AROUND MORE FOR MY CONSIDERATION THAT ANYONE ELSE'S. THAT'S 1,000,005.

IT WAS BROUGHT FOR ON THAT. WE HAD ANTICIPATED CERTAINLY A FULL ALLOCATION FOR THIS YEAR.

ABOUT $2.2 MILLION. IN RESPONSE TO BEHAVIORAL CHANGES, OBVIOUSLY HAVERHILL CHANGES, WE ARE ANTICIPATING LOWER TOWARD DEVELOPMENT TAX PROCEEDS FOR THIS YEAR.

CLOSER TO 1.3 THIS YEAR THAN 2.2. SO ABOUT $900,000.

I HATE -- I'M RELUCTANT TO PUT THAT NUMBER OUT THERE BECAUSE AS I SAID, WE ARE -- AS MR. CONRAD REFERENCED, WE HAVE RECEIPTS FOR FEBRUARY RIGHT NOW.

WE'LL KNOW WHAT HAPPENED. MARCH WAS SPRING BREAK TPC HEAR PEOPLE HERE SUDDENLY AND WE HAD TO SHIFT OFF. WE HAVEN'T EVEN SEEN THE BEHAVIORAL EFFECTS.

WE ARE ALREADY PROJECTING SOME OF THE TOURIST DEVELOPMENT EFFECTS OF THE SUMMER.

WERE GOING TO TALK ABOUT THAT AGAIN IN MAY. I'M SORRY AT THE SUBSEQUENT MEETING BUT 1,000,005 WAS THE BEGINNING BALANCE. ABOUT $700,000 TO DATE.

WE WERE CERTAINLY ANTICIPATING HIGHER BALANCES. BUT AS WE MOVE FORWARD, WE WILL BRING THE UPDATED REVENUES TO YOU.

>> OKAY. THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU. LEGAL?

>> THANK YOU MR. DUNN. BEFORE YOU GO AWAY, THIS MAY HAVE BEEN MENTIONED DURING THE BOARD'S CONVERSATION TODAY, I BELIEVE THE BOARD MEMBERS HAVE BEEN GENERALLY BRIEFED ON THIS.

LET ME START BY SAYING THE COUNTY ATTORNEY HAS NO POSITION ON THE GO, NO GO ON THIS.

JUST IN TERMS OF THE LEGAL ASPECTS. UPON THE BOARD PROVIDING UP TO 22 -- 22,220,000 FOR THE CONSTRUCTION, IT'S NOT ANTICIPATED THAT THE COUNTY WILL BE ACTUALLY IN A POSITION WHERE SAY 22 MILLION+ OR MINUS BEFORE THE REIMBURSEMENT STARTS IS THAT CORRECT. I MEAN IS THERE ANY TYPE SORT OF LIKE THE ESTIMATE DELTA BETWEEN THE MONEY OUT IN THE -- THE REIMBURSEMENT IS? IF YOU UNDERSTAND MY QUESTION.

>> LET ME -- I HOPE SO. WE -- THE OBLIGATION FOR THE COUNTY IS 22 -- IF THE PROJECT COMES IN THE OBLIGATION IS 22 MILLION. THERE'S $1 MILLION FOR CEOS ETC. WHATEVER THE PROJECT COMES IN WHERE WE GET INTO HOW WERE GOING TO FINANCE THAT THIS IS WHY IS SIX LEAD ON THIS IS IMPORTANT. IT IS TO UNDERSTAND THE PHASING OF THE PROJECT, HOW QUICKLY WE WILL HAVE A TURNAROUND ON THAT RELATED TO THE PROJECT WE WOULD

[04:15:02]

>> BUT MY QUESTION WAS MORE FOR SAY THE 22 MILLION, IT'S NOT LIKE THE COUNTY IS GOING TO -- 22 MILLION ON DAY X IN OTHER WORDS MORE LIKELY IT WOULD BE WRITING CHECKS AND THEN GETTING REIMBURSEMENT. WRITING CHECKS, GETTING REIMBURSEMENT.

>> THAT'S CORRECT. >> THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU. ANYTHING ELSE? ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR

COMMENTS. >> COMMISSIONER DEAN I KNOW YOU'D LIKE TO USE THIS -- MOVE THIS.

>> I WOULD. I WILL MAKE A MOTION TO TRANSFER 200,000 FROM THE GENERAL FUND RESERVE TO COMPLETE THE DESIGN BUILD PACKAGE FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF BAKER FIRMS RELATING TO HURRICANE MATTHEW DAMAGES. I SO WE NEED TO DO THIS ITEM

WAS TWO SEPARATE MOTIONS. >> YES, SIR.

>> WE HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER DEAN.

>> SECOND. >>, SECOND.

>> ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION. >> COMMISSIONER JOHNS, DUE TO THE UNCERTAINTY OF WHAT OUR ECONOMY IS GOING TO GO THROUGH ANYWHERE OF A 20 TO 50 PERCENT DROP IN REVENUE FUNDS, I WOULD BE IN FAVOR OF CONSIDERING THIS AT A LATER DATE WE HAVE MORE CERTAINTY INTO THE ABILITY OF OUR IMMEDIATE NEEDS AND THIS NEED.

FOR THOSE REASONS I'LL BE VOTING -- ALL RIGHT WE HAVE A MOTION AT A SECOND.

ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? SEEING MEN, WILL GO THROUGH A ROLL CALL VOTE.

COMMISSIONER DEAN, >> YES.

>> COMMISSIONER BLOCKER. >> COMMISSIONER WALDRON.

>> MR. JONES, NO. MR. TO GO UP IF YOU WOULD YOU CAN GO AHEAD AND MOVE THE SECOND MOTION. OKAY. I MOVE TO AUTHORIZE THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR DESIGNEE TO ASSEMBLE A FINANCING TEAM TO PREPARE THE NECESSARY FINANCING DOCUMENTS TO PROVIDE UP TO $22,220,000 FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF FEMA CATEGORY FIRMS RELATING TO HURRICANE MATTHEW DAMAGES.

>> I HAVE A MOTION TO HAVE A SECOND.

>> SECOND. >> ANY OTHER DISCUSSION?

>> ENGLAND WE WILL PROCEED WITH THE ROLL CALL VOTE.

>> (ROLL CALL). >> 3-2.

THEY PASSES. WELL, WE ARE MOVING FORWARD. CONGRATULATIONS AND WE WILL

[Additional Item ]

AND I BELIEVE THESE DOCUMENTS ARE READ FULL WORD FOR US. SOME OTHERS MAY HAVE THEM THEY MAY BE AVAILABLE OUTSIDE OF WHAT OF THE CASES. MRS. SANDERS?

>> GOOD AFTERNOON. I APOLOGIZE FOR THE DELAYED PACKAGE.

IT'S AN UNCONVENTIONAL PROCESS BUT I BELIEVE THE MEMBERS HAVE BEEN BRIEFED BY MR. CONRAD AS WE MOVE FORWARD TO IDENTIFY RESOURCE BASED ON DIRECTION OF THE BOARD TO LOOK AT A HOLISTIC A WAY OF ASSISTING ECONOMIC RECOVERY. SO THE FOUR ITEMS BEFORE YOU ARE RELATED AS FAR AS OUR EFFORT TO PROVIDE ASSISTANCE. NUMBER 11 A ITEM -- IN A MOTION ON -- I'M GOING TO TRY TO WALK THE BOARD THROUGH THESE PRETTY QUICKLY AS YOU ARE FAMILIAR WITH THE CONTACT. 11 A IS RELATED TO IDA, SMALL BUSINESS EMERGENCY ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS. AS YOU RECALL, MS. KERN HAD BRIEFED THE BOARD IDA IS VOTED UNANIMOUSLY TO PROVIDE $250,000 GRANTS TO THE COUNTY FOR THE COUNTY TO DESIGN A PROGRAM TO PROVIDE ASSISTANCE TO -- UP TO 250,000.

>> UP TO $250,000. I THINK AS OF THIS AFTERNOON WE RECEIVED A CHECK AT RIGHT AROUND $250,000. WE HAVE THAT IN OUR BANK ACCOUNT.

IDA HAS LEFT THE BOARD AND THE STAFF TO DESIGN A PROGRAM TO ASSIST WITH ECONOMY RECOVERY AS A RESPONSE TO THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC. SO THE MOTION, NUMBER ONE, IS

[04:20:13]

IF I CAN JUST -- TALK ABOUT THE PROGRAM THAT WE HAVE DESIGNED, IT IS REALLY A COLLABORATIVE EFFORT. IN LOOKING AT ALL THE RESOURCES THAT WE WERE ABLE TO IDENTIFY THE PAST COUPLE WEEKS WAS A MATTER OF WEEKS. WE APPRECIATE THE SUPPORT IN THEIR QUICK RESPONSE TO THE NEEDS OF FUNDING. THIS PROGRAM IS ACTUALLY -- THIS IS BASICALLY PROPOSED TO BE USED FOR EMERGENCY GRANTS. IT'S NOT ALONE.

YOU CAN PUT THE PROGRAM DESIGN ON. SO VERY QUICKLY, THE TASK FORCE CAME TOGETHER. THERE CONSISTS OF THE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, THE BUSINESS REPRESENTATIVES, TOURISM INDUSTRY, CITY AND THE CITY OF SAINT AUGUSTINE BEACH AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENTS. TOURIST DEVELOPMENT FROM OUR INTERNAL STAFF AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATION. SO COLLECTIVELY WE'VE HEARD THE COMMUNITY.

THERE WERE A LOT OF CONCERNS ABOUT APPLYING FOR FEDERAL AND STATE LOAN PROGRAMS AND THE DISBURSEMENT OF THOSE LOANS WERE VERY MUCH DELAYED AND SOME OF THEM WERE NOT ABLE TO GET THROUGH THE TECHNICAL CHALLENGES WITH THE WEST SIDE AND EVEN THE ONES WHO WERE APPROVED WERE NOTIFIED THAT THEY WERE GOING TO ACTUALLY GET THE FUNDS WITHIN A MATTER OF EVEN FOUR WEEKS. SO THE BOARD IS GIVEN THE DIRECTION TO THE STAFF TO MAKE SURE THAT WE LOOKING FOR EVERY RESOURCE WE CAN FIND TO BRIDGE THE GAP.

THIS IS THE EFFORT TO BRIDGE THE GAP. -- I'M NOT GOING TO ALL THE MESSAGES THAT WE PUT OUT. THIS IS MORE OF AN EXTERNAL USE FOR APPLICANTS TO UNDERSTAND ART STATUTORY REQUIREMENT HOW WE WOULD ASK OUR APPLICANTS TO HELP US TO ESTABLISH THE NEXUS BETWEEN THE USE OF PUBLIC FUNDS AND THEIR BUSINESS SURVIVAL. SO WE WOULD ASK FOR THE APPLICANT TO IDENTIFY HOW THEY WERE AFFECTED AFFECTED NEGATIVELY IN THE PROGRAM WOULD ASK TO PROVIDE THEIR PROOF. THE KEY POINTS OF THIS PROGRAM DESIGN I'M GOING TO RUN THROUGH THEM QUICKLY. IT IS A LIMITATION OF THE NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES.

COLLECTIVELY AND WITH FULL SUPPORT OF EVERYONE ON THE TASK FORCE THE 5 TO 20 EMPLOYEES WOULD BE A GOOD TARGETED AREA WITH THE NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES THAT THEY WOULD BE ABLE TO RETAIN TO MAXIMIZE THE USE OF $250,000. WE WOULD OFFER UP TO $5000 AS A BRIDGE GRANT. THEY WOULD HAVE TO IDENTIFY THEY'VE APPLIED OR ATTEMPTED TO APPLY FOR OTHER GRANT FUNDING FOR THIS TO BE A KNOWLEDGEABLE APPLICATION HOWEVER, THEY SHOULD HAVE NOT RECEIVED ANY GRANT OR LOAN FUNDING YET FOR THIS TO BE ACTUALLY AN EFFECTIVE BRIDGE GRANT. BECAUSE OTHERWISE IT WILL BE A DUPLICATION OF BENEFITS.

SO WE WERE TRYING TO ELIMINATE THAT FOR APPLICANTS. SO THERE ARE SOME CRITERIA THAT IS LISTED HERE THAT THE BUSINESS WOULD HAVE TO BE REGISTERED WITH ST. JOHNS COUNTY. THEY WOULD HAVE TO HAVE 5 TO 20 EMPLOYEES AND THAT HAVE TO SHOW EMPLOYEES ON THEIR PAYROLL AND THAT WERE -- AND ALSO WE HAVE ELIGIBLE USE FOR THE USE OF THE EMERGENCY GRANTS THAT WOULD BE RENT, THAT OCCURRED BETWEEN MARCH, APRIL, MAY AND JUNE TIMEFRAME. THERE'S GOING TO BE A COMPLIANCE PERIOD THAT THEY WOULD HAVE TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY ARE USING ALL FUNDS TO THE INTENT OF THIS GRANT PROGRAM AND ANY MISUSE OR ABUSE OF THE FUNDS WOULD RESULT IN REPAYMENT TO THE COUNTY.

SO THIS ACTUALLY CONCLUDES THE GRANT PROGRAM THAT WE WOULD ASK FOR THE EXPERIENCE OF THE PROGRAM WE WOULD ASK THEM TO APPLY ONLINE AND WE WERE -- WE WOULD WORK WITH THE CLERK'S OFFICE TO MAKE SURE THAT THE WIRING OF THE DEPOSITS WOULD OCCUR AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE.

AND THAT CONCLUDES THE GRANT DESIGN. LAUREN YOU WANT TO GO BACK TO

THE MOTION? >> SO THAT WILL LEAD US TO THE MOTION NUMBER TWO WHICH IS THE APPROVAL OF THE SMALL BUSINESS GRANT PROGRAM AND AUTHORIZE THE

[04:25:04]

IN THE NUMBER THREE MOTION, IT'S A PACKAGE IS ACTUALLY A TEMPLATE.

ONCE WE GO THROUGH THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PROGRAM WITH THE SIGNED AGREEMENTS WITH INDIVIDUAL AWARDEES SO THAT WE CAN MAKE SURE -- SO THAT ALL THE CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATION WILL BE MET IN THE COMPLIANCE OBLIGATION WILL BE MET. SO BEFORE YOU ARE THREE MOTIONS RELATED TO THE IDA SMALL BUSINESS EMERGENCY ASSISTANCE PROGRAM.

>> ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS? COMMISSIONER BLOCKER?

>> FIRST I WANT TO THANK YOU FOR THE HARD WORK YOU PUT INTO THIS.

YOU PUT TREMENDOUS EFFORT IN THIS IS A SOLUTION. AND THANK YOU FOR THE HARD WORK

YOU PUT INTO THIS. >> THANK YOU.

>> I HAD A COMMENT. THIS WILL BE A LITTLE BIT MORE LIBERAL IN ITS APPLICATION BECAUSE IT'S GOING TO HAVE A LOT TIGHTER PARAMETERS. BEING A FEDERAL GRANT AS WELL.

THANK YOU. THIS IS 92 PERCENT OF YOUR LETTER IT SAYS 92 PERCENT OF THEIR AVAILABLE ASSETS THAT THEY HAVE PROVIDED FOR SMALL BUSINESSES AND I THINK IT'S NICE TO TRY TO -- APPRECIATE THE PROGRAMS DIRECTIVE IN TRYING TO ADDRESS NOT HAVING DUPLICITY OUT THERE AS WELL TO MAKE SURE THAT THOSE HAVE NOT BEEN ABLE TO RECEIVE FUNDING ARE ABLE TO HAVE SOME KIND OF ASSISTANCE. THANK YOU FOR THAT.

COMMISSIONER JOHN SKI. >> THANK YOU.

I ALSO WANT TO THANK THE IDA AND THE STAFF FOR PUTTING THIS TOGETHER.

THIS IS WHAT I'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT FOR THE LAST MONTH. FINDING WAYS TO MEET THE NEEDS OF OUR COMMUNITY TODAY, SHORT TERM, THAT'S NOT DUPLICATIVE OF WHAT THEY'VE OFFERED IN OTHER RESOURCES AND AS I'VE DONE IT VOLUNTARILY. THEY WERE MEN THAT HE DID YOU DO IT. THEY SAID YOU NEED TO CHECK IN AND MAKE THIS LOOK GOOD FOR YOUR ORGANIZATION. THERE DOING THIS BECAUSE THIS IS WHAT THE HEART OF OUR COUNTY REPRESENTS PEOPLE HELPING PEOPLE IN WAYS THEY CAN'T HELP THEMSELVES SHORT-TERM.

IT'S FOR IMMEDIATE NEEDS. I WANT TO THANK THE IDA FOR PUTTING THIS TOGETHER I WANT TO THANK STAFF ARE THE DETAILS YOU'VE DONE A FANTASTIC JOB. IT MAKES SENSE TO EVERYBODY.

AND TO GET THE FUNDING OUT THERE AS QUICKLY AS WE CAN TO THOSE WHO NEED IT MOST.

>> IS BEEN HEAVY LIFTING AND YOU HAVE DONE IT QUICKLY. ALTHOUGH WE CAME LATE LAST NIGHT. IT WAS DONE THANK YOU. YOU CAN GO ON TO 11 BE AND WILL COME BACK AND WILL CONSIDER -- WHAT WILL DO IS THIS -- I MEANT TO SAY THIS UP FRONT.

WE WILL CONSIDER PUBLIC COMMENT ON ALL OF THESE ITEMS UNDER ITEM NUMBER 11 F THE COMMISSION AS QUESTIONS GO ANIMAL AS THEM AT THE END.

>> BEFORE YOU DO GO INTO B, I DID WANT TO SAY FOR ITEM A AM AMAZED AT HOW QUICKLY THIS WAS PUT TOGETHER. AND I -- YOU DISCUSSED ONE ISSUE WITH REBECCA IN OUR OFFICE AND I DON'T THINK WE MADE IT BACK TO ADMIN ON THIS. ONE THING IS IF THE BOARD WILL APPROVE THIS LATER, IT WILL BE SUBSTANTIALLY IN THE FORM INCLUDED HERE.

I DID NOTICE FOR INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS, AS YOUR COUNTY ATTORNEY I'M PLEASED IN THAT THE INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS I THINK ARE QUITE RIGOROUS. IT'S UP TO MINIMUM LIMITS, $1 MILLION PER OCCURRENCE AND 2 MILLION AGGREGATE. I AM JUST WONDERING THOUGH, IN THIS STRESS TIMES, WHETHER THAT'S A PRETTY RIGOROUS PAYING AND IF THE BOARDS APPROVE SUBSTANTIALLY IN THE FORM OF COULD SOME ASPECT LIKE THAT BE LOOKED AT POTENTIALLY ON A CASE-BY-CASE BASIS, AND WE HAVE SOME BUSINESS OWNERS HERE ON THE BOARD.

I'M JUST -- IT WOULD BE REGRETTABLE IF PERHAPS IT'S TOO RIGOROUS FOR SOME APPLICANTS.

I JUST WANT TO POINT THAT OUT THERE JUST FOR LATER ON FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION.

THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU.

I THINK IT'S PRETTY STANDARD INSURANCE. THANK YOU FOR THE

CONSIDERATION. >> ITEM 11 BE RELATES TO THE CARES ACT GRANT. IT IS A GRANT ISSUED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN

[04:30:05]

LIKE WHAT MS. CONRAD ALLUDED TO IN THE BEGINNING OF THE SPECIAL MEETING, WE HAVE DISTRIBUTED THE FIRST BATCH OF OUR PPE KIDS AND WERE VERY WELL RECEIVED. AND CERTAINLY, IT VALIDATES THE FACT THAT WE -- IT'S A NEED FROM THE COMMUNITY. SO THE PROPOSED USE FOR THIS GRANT IS TO CONTINUE TO PROVIDE ADDED ACCESS FOR THE SMALL BUSINESS WILL NEED ACCESS TO REOPEN SAFELY AND IN A HEALTHY WAY. THE OTHER USE THAT IS IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE GRANT DOCUMENTS. SO THE MOTION BEFORE YOU IS SIMILAR TO THE PREVIOUS ONE TO RECOGNIZE AND ALLOCATE AN APPROPRIATE THE REVENUE RECEIVED. IT ACTUALLY HAS BEEN RECEIVED IN FIRE RESCUE BANK ACCOUNT WITHIN 2020 GENERAL FUND BUDGET AND IT'S IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE GRANTS.

AND IF THERE'S ANY QUESTION -- ANY OTHER QUESTIONS ON 11 B?

>> ALL MOVED TO 11 C. 11 NUMBERS IS RELATED TO THE GRANT AND CITIZEN PARTICIPATION PLAN.

WITHIN THE CARES ACT, THERE IS AN ALLOCATION RELATED TO COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT THAT IS SPECIFIC FOR COVERT 19 RESPONSE. THE COUNTY HAS BEEN ALLOCATED FOR $585,519. THIS ITEM IS TO ASK THE BOARD TO APPROVE RECOGNIZING AND APPROPRIATING THESE FUNDS WITHIN 2020 GENERAL FUND BUDGET.

THERE ARE SOME CLERICAL ACTIONS THAT HAVE TO BE TAKEN BY THE BOARD FOR THE UTILIZATION OF THE FUNDS INCLUDING -- ONE OF THEM IS TO AMEND THE ANNUAL ACTION PLAN TO INCLUDE THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AS ONE OF YOUR OBJECTIVES AS WELL AS AMENDING THE CITIZEN PARTICIPATION PLAN WHICH IS REALLY RELATED TO THE FLEXIBILITY OF THE WAIVER OF THE TIMEFRAME THAT WE HAVE TO PROVIDE FOR THE CITIZENS TO PARTICIPATE FROM 30 DAYS TO NO LESS THAN FIVE DAYS. IF THERE IS NO QUESTION, I WILL MOVE ON TO 11 D.

>> ANY QUESTIONS ON 11 C? >> THANK YOU.

MOVE ALONG. >> 11 D HAS TWO MOTIONS.

THE NUMBER ONE MOTION -- IT RELATES TO OUR CONSULTANT -- CAPITAL ACCESS INCORPORATED IS OUR EXISTING VENDOR WHO PROVIDES TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE TO OUR STAFF.

BECAUSE OF EXPEDIENCY REQUIREMENTS THAT WE ARE FACED WITH, THROUGH THE MOST QUALIFIED VENDOR THAT WE KNOW OF WITHOUT SPENDING A LOT OF TIME TO FIND A BETTER CONSULTANT OR WE WILL INCUR EXTRAORDINARY AMOUNT OF LIABILITY TO THIS FUNDING HOUSE AND IN AN EXPEDITIOUS WAY. THE MOTION IS TO APPROVE FOR THE BOARD TO APPROVE THE STAFF TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THE CAPITAL ACCESS INCORPORATED CHANGE ORDER.

THE PROPOSAL BEFORE YOU IS THE CAPITAL ACCESS WILL -- FINANCIALLY, THEY WILL CHARGE FIVE PERCENT TO THE AMOUNT OF THE FUNDS THAT THEY WILL DISPERSE BASED ON THE PROGRAM DESIGN THAT IS PER APPROVED BY STAFF. ONE THING I WANT TO MENTION WITH THIS GRANT, THAT IT'S DIFFERENT FROM IDEA THAT IS COMFORTING FOR POTENTIALLY THE BUSINESS THAT MIGHT NOT BE QUALIFIED FOR UNDER IDA WITH THE NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES RESTRICTION IS THAT WE POTENTIALLY -- WITH THE BIGGER POT OF FUNDING, WE CAN SERVE EMPLOYEES POTENTIALLY LESS THAN FIVE AND MORE THAN 20 AND POTENTIALLY UP TO 50 EMPLOYEES.

SO YOU MIGHT HAVE A GAP IMPACT ON THE EMPLOYEES WITH THE BUSINESS MIGHT NOT BE QUALIFIED UNDER IDA EMERGENCY ASSISTANCE GRANTS. SO THIS IS NUMBER ONE IS TO PROCURE CAPITAL ACCESS AS OUR VENDOR WHO WILL DESIGN THE PROGRAM AS WELL AS DISTRIBUTE THE PROGRAM AND THEY WILL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE COMPLIANCE AND REPORTING.

[04:35:09]

IT'S AN AGREEMENT TEMPLATE. THIS WILL BE THE TEMPLATE IN SUBSTANTIALLY THE SAME FORM AND FORMAT FOR US TO USE TO SIGN WITH OUR QUALIFIED AWARDEE TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THEIR GRANT DISTRIBUTION. AND THAT WILL CONCLUDE THE ENTIRE ITEM NUMBER 11.

>> OKAY. COMMISSIONER JONES.

>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. JOY THANK YOU FOR THE SUMMARY. THIS BACKGROUND INFORMATION STATES THAT THIS WILL ASSIST APPROXIMATELY 2000 BUSINESSES IN ST. JOHN'S COUNTY.

I WAS SO WE HAVE ABOUT 1000 BUSINESSES WITH FEWER THAN 20 EMPLOYEES.

APPROXIMATELY, HOW MANY BUSINESSES DO WE HAVE REGISTERED?

>> AFTER GET THAT INFORMATION BACK TO YOU, COMMISSIONER JOHNS .

>> TO HAVE AN OVERALL SUMMARY OF BETWEEN ALL OF THESE ITEMS, THE PPE OF THE OTHER LOAN GRANT OPPORTUNITIES TO HAS ANYBODY CALCULATED HOW MUCH MONEY IS AVAILABLE AND HOW MANY BUSINESSES WILL BENEFIT? I'VE BEEN GIVING THE HELP NUMBER LINE OUT FOR INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE LOOKING FOR HELP ONE WAY OR ANOTHER EITHER AS A BUSINESS OR FOR THEIR EMPLOYEES WHETHER IT'S FOOD OR JUST INFORMATION. THERE'S A FLURRY OF ACTIVITY OF WANTING TO KNOW HOW TO HELP EACH OTHER OUT. I'D LIKE TO HAVE THE NUMBERS BECAUSE IT'S COMING FROM HERE AND THERE. OVERALL I'D LIKE TO DEMONSTRATE HOW EFFECTIVE YOU AND EVERYBODY ELSE HAS BEEN IN MEETING THE NEEDS OF OUR COMMUNITY.

>> WE BE HAPPY TO PROVIDE THAT. >> THANK YOU.

>>CHAIRMAN SMITH: ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? ALL RIGHT.

SEEING NONE WILL OPEN UP FOR PUBLIC COMMENT.

>> I'M SORRY MR. CHAIR, TO APOLOGIZE, APPARENTLY, THERE HAD BEEN A LITTLE BIT -- A PHONE GLITCH OR SOMETHING. THERE WAS ONE MORE CONSTITUENT THAT TRIED TO TALK ON ITEM NUMBER 10 WAS BEEN WAITING THROUGH ALL ITEM NUMBER 11. AND IF THE BOARD WOULD ALLOW THAT CONSTITUENT HE'S BEEN ON THE PHONE ALL THE TIME WAITING OR IF NOT, TO PUT IT LATER, BUT I JUST WANTED TO SAY THAT YOUR FIRST COLOR MAY BE FOR NUMBER 10.

>> SURE. OKAY.

>> AT THIS TIME, THE BOARD WILL HEAR PUBLIC COMMENT ON AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 11.

AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 11. WILL MOVE TO THE PHONES.

>> GOOD AFTERNOON. PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS.

>> HI. MARY -- PONTEVEDRA.

>> HI, MARY. >> HI.

>> PLEASE, YOU CAN GO AHEAD AND TALK.

>> YES. I WANTED TO BRING SOMETHING TO YOUR ATTENTION ON THIS LAST ITEM. MANY TIMES, RECENTLY, IN THE LAST YEAR OR SO I LISTEN TO ALL THESE REASONS ABOUT WHY MR. JOHNS DOES NOT WANT THE BEACHES TO HAVE ANY MONEY.

WITH HER IT'S MILANA BEECHER PONTEVEDRA BEACH OR WHATEVER EVEN THOUGH, IF THEY WERE GOING TO PAY FOR THEMSELVES, AND I THINK THAT HE'S USING THE EXCUSE NOW OF THE CORONA VIRUS BECAUSE WE ONLY FOR FOLKS THAT WERE SUPPOSED TO BE GIVING MONEY TO AND I'M A THE LIST FOR THAT ONE. I THINK THAT WHEN THE PUBLIC IS HEARING A COMMISSIONERS SAY THAT THE PEOPLE IN PONTEVEDRA SHOULD BE AT THE END OF THE LINE, HE IS FORGETTING THAT 45 ÃPEGGY USED TO BE 45 MAYBE IT'S MORE OR LESS PERCENT OF THE TAX MONEY IN THIS COUNTY COMES FROM UP HERE IN PONTEVEDRA. NOW I'M ALL FOR OUR NEIGHBORS IN PALM VALLEY BUT I KNOW WHERE THE MONEY COMES FROM. BUT I ALSO KNOW THAT THESE PEOPLE ARE WILLING TO PAY FOR THEMSELVES BY TAXING THEMSELVES.

PEOPLE FROM VILLANO BEACH ALL THE WAY APPEAR TO PONTEVEDRA. THEY'RE GOING TO PAY FOR THEMSELVES. SO I JUST THINK THE PUBLIC SHOULD HAVE AN UNDERSTANDING HERE THAT NOBODY UP HERE IS ASKING FOR A HANDOUT AND TO MAKE THESE KIND OF SNIDE COMMENTS AS IF THEY WERE BY ONE OF OUR COMMISSIONERS, MR. JONES, IS BEYOND -- SO

[04:40:02]

SO THANK YOU, GENTLEMEN. >> WE APPRECIATE YOU CALLING IN. THANK YOU.

>> YOU'RE WELCOME. IT'S ALWAYS A PLEASURE TO HEAR YOU.

BYE. >> MR. CHAIR, IF I MAY SAY, FOR THE RECORD, I DID NOT WHO THE CALLER WAS OR WHAT THE MESSAGE WAS JUST THAT THERE WAS A COLOR

FOR NUMBER 10. >> THANK YOU.

QUICKLY MAKE SURE -- MR. CHAIRMAN, NOT SEEING ANY FURTHER CALLS NOT SEEING ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE WILL CLOSE PUBLIC COMMENT ON AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 11.

>> OKAY. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD?

>> IS YOUR BLOCKER? >> MR. CHAIRMAN I'VE SAID THIS.

I WANT TO THANK MR. CONRAD. YOU CAME IN HERE IN NOVEMBER DECEMBER AND YOU HAVE JUMPED RIGHT INTO THIS CHALLENGE. IF GOT GREAT STAFF. THIS IS UNPRECEDENTED.

NO ONE EXPECTED A GLOBAL PANDEMIC. THESE ARE REAL SOLUTIONS TO REAL PROBLEMS. OUR SMALL BUSINESS IS THE LIFEBLOOD OF OUR COMMUNITY.

I WANT TO COMMEND YOUR TEAM UNPROMPTED WITH SOME OF THE CHALLENGES THEY'VE HAD.

THESE ARE REAL SOLUTIONS. THESE ARE SOLUTIONS FOR DOLLARS AT THE STATE AND FEDERAL LEVEL.

SO, THANK YOU TO YOUR TEAM. THEY GIVE MS. SANDERS AND MR. CHAIRMAN.

WITH YOUR PERMISSION, I'D BE WILL TO MAKE MOTION ON THESE MATTERS.

>> ALL RIGHT. WELL LET'S START BACK AT THE BEGINNING.

WILL START WITH 11 A. I THINK THERE WERE THREE THERE. THEN THEY ARE ON THE SCREEN.

MR. CHAIRMAN, I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO RESOLUTIONS 20-20.

>> 150. >> RECOGNIZE APPROPRIATE INTUITIVE $50,000 WITHIN THE FY 2020 BUDGET FROM THE ST. JOHN'S COUNTY INDUSTRIAL AUTHORITY TO SUPPORT LOCAL BUSINESS ASSISTANCE PROGRAM TO ASSIST WITH RECOVERY EFFORTS FROM THE

COVID-19 PANDEMIC. >> I HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER BLOCKER I'VE A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER JOHNS. ANY DISCUSSION.

>> YES. I HAVE NOT PUT IN MY TWO CENTS WORTH ON 11 YOU.

THIS IS HENRY. I'LL BE BRIEF. I JUST WANT TO SAY THAT I AM TOTALLY BLOWN AWAY BY THE STAFF'S QUALITY OF WORK AND THE RAPIDITY RUGGEDNESS, IF YOU WILL OF PUTTING THIS TOGETHER. BLOWN AWAY. BLOWN AWAY.

THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER DEAN. MR. MCCORMICK, IBA HAD SET UP TO TUNE OF $50,000 BUT THEY WROTE A CHECK RETURNED 50,000. IT IS $250,000. WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.

ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? >> SEEING NONE, ROLL CALL

LOADS. >> (ROLL CALL).

>> ALL RIGHT. THANKS.

>> I BELIEVE THERE ARE SOME OTHER PORTIONS. THESE HAVE TO BE WRITING

SEPARATELY? >> I WOULD RECOMMEND READING

THEM IN EACH. >> MOTION TO ADOPT THE SMALL BUSINESS EMERGENCY ASSISTANCE PROGRAM AND AUTHORIZES THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR OR HIS DESIGNEE TO TAKE THE STEPS NECESSARY TO IMPLEMENT THE PROGRAM.

>> A MOTION BY MR.COMMISSIONER BLOCKER TO HAVE A SECOND.

>> I HAVE A SECOND. ANY DISCUSSION? ROLL CALL VOTE.

>> (ROLL CALL). >> 5 TO 0. NEXT?

>> MOTION TO APPROVE THE TERMS CONDITIONS AND PROVISIONS AND REQUIREMENTS OF THE GRANT AGREEMENT TEMPLATE AND AUTHORIZE THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR OR HIS DESIGNEE TO EXECUTE IN THE SAME FORM. WITH GRANTEES WHO ARE AWARDED FUNDS UNDER THE GRANT PROGRAM.

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

ANY OTHER DISCUSSION PROCEED WITH THE ROLL CALL VOTE.

>> (ROLL CALL). >> 5-0.

MOVING ALONG TO 11 B. WOULD YOU LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION COMMISSIONER.

[04:45:19]

>> MOTION TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 2020.

>> 151. >> APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF WECARE'S ACT PROVIDE A REALLY FUN PAYMENT AUTHORIZING THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR OR DESIGNEE TO CERTIFY THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS ON BEHALF OF THE COUNTY RECOGNIZING APPROPRIATING REVENUE OF $172,519.82 WITHIN THE FY 2020 GENERAL FUND BUDGET AND THE RELIEF FUND PAYMENT WILL ONLY BE USED TO PREPARE FOR AND

RESPOND TO THE CORONAVIRUS. >> I HAVE A MOTION.

>> SECOND. DO WE HAVE ANY DISCUSSION?

>> PROCEED WITH THE ROLL CALL VOTE,

>> (ROLL CALL). >> 5-0.

11 C. >> JUST MY THOUGHTS.

>> MOTION TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 2020.

>> 152. >> ACCEPTING BLOCK GRANT FUNDS THE AMOUNT OF THE AMOUNT OF $585,519 AUTHORIZING THE CHAIR OF THE BOARD TO SIGNED CERTIFICATIONS. RECOGNIZING APPROPRIATING $585,519 WITHIN FY GENERAL FUND BUDGET APPROVING THE AMENDED CITIZEN PARTICIPATION PLAN IN ACCORDANCE WITH 24 CR SECTION -- .105 AND AUTHORIZING TO AUTHORIZE A LETTER HAD SENIOR COMMUNITY REPRESENTATIVE WE PROVIDED DETAILS OF THE AMENDMENT AND AUTHORIZE THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR OR RESIST DESIGNEE TO SUBMIT THE AMENDMENT TO THE 2019 2020 ACTION PLAN AND 2020 CONSOLIDATED PLAN THROUGH HODS INTEGRATED DISBURSEMENT SYSTEM.

>> DO WE HAVE ANY DISCUSSION? SEEING NONE WILL PROCEED WITH THE ROLL CALL VOTE.

COMMISSIONER DEAN? >> COMMISSIONER BLOCKER.

>> COMMISSIONER JOHNS? >> I WILL BE A YES AS WELL.

ON 211 D. >> A MOTION TO ADOPT ST. JOHN'S

COUNTY RESOLUTION 2020. >> 153.

>> APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS AND REQUIREMENTS OF CHANGE ORDER NUMBER TWO TO MASTER CONTRACT NUMBER 19 ÃMCC ÃCAP Ã10718 BETWEEN ST. JOHN'S COUNTY AND THE CAPITAL ACCESS. THEY AUTHORIZE THAT THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR OR THEIR DESIGNEE TO EXECUTE THE CHANGE ORDER IS ATTACHED.

>> SECOND. >> I HAVE A MOTION ANY

DISCUSSION? >> HE NOW WILL PROCEED WITH THE ROLL CALL VOTE. COMMISSIONER DEAN?

>> (ROLL CALL). >> IT PASSES 5-0.

>> THE MOTION TO ADOPT ST. JOHN'S RESOLUTION 2020.

>> 155. >> APPROVING THE TERMS, CONDITIONS REQUIREMENTS OF THE ATTACHED OF THE TEMPLATE AND AUTHORIZING THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR OR DESIGNEE TO EXECUTE THE AGREEMENT. THE GRANTEES ARE AWARDED FUNDS UNDER THE COUNTY SMALL DISTRICT COVERAGE PROGRAM.

>> OF A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER BLOCKER. YOU HAVE A SECOND?

>> I HAVE A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER JOHNS. SHE HAVE ANY DISCUSSION? SEEING NONE WE WILL PROCEED WITH THE ROLL CALL VOTE.

>> (ROLL CALL). >> IT IS 5-0.

ANYTHING ELSE THAT NEEDS TO COME BEFORE THIS BOARD? ANYTHING ELSE?

[Reports]

BLOCKER. >>MR. BLOCKER: THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. I JUST WANT TO BRIEFLY BRING UP COMMENT I HAD A GENTLEMAN, MR. RICK MANSFIELD OF PONTEVEDRA COME UP WITH WHAT I THOUGHT WAS A GOOD IDEA AND I WANT TO BRING IT TO THE BOARD OF MR. CONRAD'S ATTENTION. ESSENTIALLY TO DESIGNATE A DAY SOMETIME IN THE SUMMER AS AN APPRECIATION DAY FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT AND FIRST RESPONDERS OR EVERY PERSON COUNTY WILL PLACE IN THE DRIVEWAY A CANDLE THAT CAN BE SEEN FROM THROUGHOUT THE COUNTY AS A WAY OF A QUIET SOLEMN WAY OF SHOWING APPRECIATION FOR LAW

[04:50:01]

HE'S A PUNCHER VIDOR RESIDENT AND HE'S DONE AN INCREDIBLE JOB BRINGING IDEALS TO ME BEFORE ABOUT HOW WE CAN HELP SAVE COSTS TO TAXPAYERS.

>> ANY OTHER COMMENTS? ALL RIGHT.

>> THE OTHER ISSUE I WANT TO BRING BEFORE THE BOARD IS I WILL BE -- OF BEEN MOBILIZED UNDER THE NATIONAL GUARD TITLE 32 ORDER TO REPORT FOR DUTY TO SOUTH FLORIDA, MIAMI.

I'M SUPPOSED TO REPORT THIS AFTERNOON THIS EVENING. I'LL BE LEAVING FOR 30 DAYS.

IT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT I WAS HOPING WOULD HAPPEN BUT IMPORTANTLY, I HAVE BEEN CALLED UP TO ASSIST WITH THE COVIDIEN RESPONSE. IN LIGHT OF THAT I'VE REACHED OUT TO THE CHAIRMAN AND NOTIFIED HIM IN HER COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR IN OUR COUNTY ATTORNEY MY PLAN -- MY HOPE IS I'LL BE ABLE TO PARTICIPATE IN OUR UPCOMING MEETINGS TELEPHONICALLY. I APPRECIATE THE BOARD PATIENTS AND ALLOWING ME TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS DIFFICULT TIME. DO I FORMALLY PROVIDE A COPY OF MY ORDERS TO -- TO OUR STAFF -- I APPRECIATE YOU ALLOWING ME TO DO THAT.

>> ABSOLUTELY. ALL RIGHT. IS THAT ALL?

>> YOU SAID. >> COMMISSIONER DEAN?

>> YES. WELL, ON THAT NOTE, AS COMMISSIONER BLOCKER GOES TO SERVE OUR COUNTRY, IT APPEARS UNDER THE EXECUTIVE ORDER THAT THE NEW LANGUAGES THAT ELDERLY FOLKS ARE ENCOURAGED, NOT DEMAND THAT THEY STAY HOME. IT LOOKS LIKE NEXT TUESDAY MORNING IT LOOKS LIKE YOU MAY BE STUCK WITH ME IN PERSON RATHER THAN ON THE PHONE.

I LOOK FORWARD TO REJOINING THE GROUP. I WANT TO BE BRIEF BUT I WANT TO MENTION ONE QUICK THING. THIS IS AN EXAMPLE OF HOW NEWSPAPER EDITORS CAN EDIT STORIES AND LEAVE A LITTLE BIT OUT OF WHAT WAS REALLY SAD. THIS MORNING, IN THE SAINT AUGUSTINE RECORD I WANT TO ON MONDAY DEAN SAID HE BELIEVES THE COUNTY HAS MADE AND IS MAKING THE RIGHT DECISION ABOUT BEACHES. HE POINTED TO THE NUMBER OF DEATHS IN ST. JOHN'S COUNTY PERIOD. WHILE THAT IS TAKEN OUT OF CONTEXT A LITTLE BIT. THAT LEAVES ONE'S IMAGINATION AS TO WHAT I MEANT.

WHAT I SAID IN THE ENTIRETY IS THAT IF YOU LOOK AT THE STATES POPULATION AND YOU LOOK AT ST.

JOHN COUNTY POPULATION AND YOU LOOK AT THE NUMBER OF DEATHS STATEWIDE, AND THE NUMBER OF DEATHS IN ST. JOHN'S COUNTY THE STATE IS AT APPROXIMATELY 1500 DEATHS AS OF THIS MORNING A NUMBER NUMBER, BASED ON POPULATION -- LOOKING AT PER CAPITA OUR DEATH WOULD BE AROUND 16 INSTEAD IT'S 4. MY POINT WAS I THINK WE'VE DONE A GOOD JOB IN MANAGING COVID-19 BECAUSE I THINK THE NUMBER IS ASTOUNDING. THAT WAS THE POINT I WAS TRYING TO MAKE I WASN'T MENTIONING DEATHS. WITH THAT SAID, I AM DONE WITH

MY REPORT. >> COMMISSIONER DEAN, WE LOOK FORWARD TO HAVING YOU BACK IN PERSON. YOU ARE GREATLY MISSED.

WE APPRECIATE YOU COMING IN OVER THE PHONE. HE SEEMS TO BE WORKING QUITE WELL. I HOPE NOT TO LEAVE YOU BUT THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR

PARTICIPATION. >> WILL THANK YOU.

COMMISSIONER WALDRON? >> JUST ONE THING.

I WANT TO TAKE THIS TIME TO WISH MY WIFE, STEPHANIE HAPPY BIRTHDAY.

I'M NOT GOING TO TELL HER AGE. JOE GET UPSET. SHE IS A YEAR OLDER THAN I AM.

CAN I SING HAPPY BIRTHDAY? >> I'M NOT A GOOD SINGER.

>> YOU CAN STARTED. >> WE WISH HER A HAPPY

BIRTHDAY. >> AND THE OTHER THING I JUST -- I WANT TO THANK OUR RESIDENTS FOR THEIR PATIENTS FOR THE MOST PART OF THIS PROCESS. THINGS ARE STARTING TO LOOK BETTER FOR US.

HOPEFULLY THEY CONTINUE. AND EVERYBODY JUST BE PATIENT AND DO WHAT YOU THINK IS RIGHT FOR YOU AND YOUR FAMILY AS FAR AS WHETHER YOU GO OUT AND TRAVEL IN THE AREA AND ALL THAT. I DO LOOK FORWARD TO SEEING THE COMMISSIONER BACK IT'S BEEN A WHILE I WANT TO SEE IF HE SPORTING THE MELODY SAID HE HAD BUT WE WILL SEE.

>> COMMISSIONER JOHNS. >> I WANT TO THANK OUR RESIDENTS AND BUSINESS OWNERS FOR BEING SO PATIENT WITH THIS PANDEMIC.

[04:55:05]

STATISTICS ARE PEOPLE. I DO NOT WANT TO JUST LOOK AT STATISTICS, BUT PRAISE THE PEOPLE WHO MADE THINGS HAPPEN AND BEEN SO EFFECTIVE. WE'VE HAD MUCH BIGGER CHALLENGES IN OTHER COUNTIES AND STATES. BUT TO THAT EFFECT IS WHEN YOU'RE GETTING OVER THE FLU, THAT'S WHEN YOU REALLY HAVE TO BE CAREFUL BECAUSE YOU HAVE THE DRIVE AND ENERGY TO JUMP BACK INTO THINGS, JUST HAVE TO BE SURE TO DO IT CAREFULLY AND CAUTIOUSLY SO THAT WE DO NOT HAVE A REBOUND. WE DON'T WANT TO GO BACK TO THIS AGAIN. THERE IS NO ANTIVIRUS FOR IT AT THIS TIME EVERYBODY IS PULLING FOR EVERYBODY AND IT SHOWS THAT'S WHAT MAKES HER COUNTY NUMBER ONE.

I WANT TO THANK OUR STAFF, OUR MILITARY LAW ENFORCEMENT, WORKING LONG HOURS ARE MEDICAL SERVICE INDUSTRY WORKING JUST TO DO WHATEVER IT TAKES TO KEEP THE HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE.

IT MAKES ME PROUD TO SEE YOU LIKE TO SAY THAT I LIVE HERE AND GROW UP HERE.

A COUPLE OF EXAMPLES FROM -- CREEK SOFTBALL ASSOCIATION AND PONTEVEDRA BASEBALL BOTH DONATED FUNDS TO MEET THE NEEDS OF OUR COMMUNITY. THEY DID NOT ASK FOR SPECIAL RECOGNITION GOING TO GIVE THEM A SHOUT OUT TO SAY THEY'RE CONTRIBUTING TO NEEDS THAT THEY RECOGNIZE IN OUR PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT WITHOUT ANY ACCOLADES REQUESTED ESPECIALLY IN A TIME LIKE THIS. IT SHOWS THE HEART OF HER COMMUNITY AS ONE OF THOUSANDS OF OTHERS THAT WE CAN GIVE. I WANT TO THANK THEM FOR THAT EVEN THOUGH IT'S ON OUR CONSENT. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR.

>> I HAD A COUPLE OF THINGS. FOOD FOR THOUGHT POTATO HARVEST IS IN FULL SWIG.

IF YOU WOULD BE CAREFUL OF SLOW-MOVING VEHICLES. THEIR CABBAGE HARVEST ARE RAMPING UP. IF YOU WOULD IF YOU'RE GOING THROUGH -- IT'LL BE HARD TO MOVE THROUGH THE POTATO CROP NOW. I WANT TO GIVE A CONGRATULATIONS TO THE SHE WAS FROM ST. JOHN'S COUNTY. I WILL TELL YOU THINK MOST OF US RECEIVE THAT IN A BEAUTIFUL PIECE OF ARTWORK AND WE'VE GOT A LOT OF TALENT ADMINISTRATION.

>> NOTHING. >> ONE BIT OF HOUSEKEEPING.

THE SECOND MOTION, 11 B, THE CLERK AND FORM IT SHOULD BE RESOLUTION 154.

NO NEED FOR REVOTE. JUST TO MENTION ON THE RECORD THAT WILL BE RESOLUTION

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.