Ponte Vedra Club PUD – Change in Date
The meeting started off with a statement from Chair Matovina that the Ponte Vedra Resort PUD would not be heard and has been continued to September 21.
For those interested in this PUD, there are other important meetings associated with this PUD review:
- Sept 6, 5:00 PM, the Architectural Review Committee Meeting at the Sawgrass Mariott
- Sept 11, 11:00 AM, the Ponte Vedra Planning and Adjustment Board at the County Auditorium, 500 San Sebastian View, St. Augustine
- Sept 21, the Planning and Zoning Agency Meeting, time certain of 10:00, at the County Auditorium, 500 San Sebastian View, St. Augustine (subject to change.)
- Nov 7 – the Board of County Commissioners meeting, 9:00 at the County Auditorium, 500 San Sebastian View, St. Augustine (subject to change.)
Mr. Matovina then shared some additional information for the Board. These items are reported as recorded in the meeting transcript with some editing for grammar:
“I want to make sure that we all understand that staff doesn’t work for us. We don’t give instructions to staff. They work for the St. Johns County Manager who ten reports to the board so I think that, that is something we should understand. There is a lot of discussion about that item. And staff should not be asked to take direction from us. So that is number one.
Number two, I want to point out, the potential for conflict of interest. Because when we think of conflict of interest, we normally think of a monetary situation. Several that I have declared have been because DR Horton is my biggest customer.
If they have a rezoning up here, I clearly should declare a conflict of interest. But there are nonmonetary conflicts of interest. If you live next door to the development, you have a nonmonetary conflict of interest because you live next door to it. Our charge is to not only avoid an actual conflict of interest but also the perception of a conflict of interest.
So, I think thse are all things that are important for us to remember. Because there is going to be a lot of controversy surrounding this particular item on the 21st. And we could potentially, you know, put any decision that is made in danger by not following rules that we are supposed to follow.
So, That’s all I have to say about that matter.”
Items on the Regular Agenda
The first two items were minor and did not have extensive discussion. Approved by the PZA were a Zoning Variance in District 5 and a Minor Modification in District 4 to allow a Rear Yard setback to accommodate a swimming pool.
Item 3, in District 2
Elevation Pointe – Request for a Major Modification to the Elevation Pointe at Anderson Park PUD (Ordinance 1996-66, as amended) to increase wetland impacts with a corresponding decrease in preserved wetlands, open space and upland buffers; increase development area; reconfigure commercial outparcels; and decrease approved commercial entitlements from 190,000 SF to 170,000 SF.
“APPLICATION SUMMARY This is a request to modify the Elevation Pointe at Anderson Park PUD in order to accommodate a planned Publix Supermarket within the commercial portion of the development. The use is proposed at the corner of the future realigned CR 208 and SR 16. The applicant is seeking to reconfigure the commercial outparcels to allow for the use, which will result in additional impacts to adjoining wetlands and open space areas due to an increase in the development area. The applicant also proposes to decrease allowed commercial square footage within the PUD from a maximum 190,000 square feet to 170,000 square feet.”
Included in the package for Thursday is a summary of comments received from the Public prior to the meeting.
“PHONE CALLS/CORRESPONDENCE Staff has received several phone calls regarding the proposed Major Modification. A majority of the calls were informational in nature with no stated objections. Several residential property owners to the west have called to express concerns about the proposed impacts to the wetlands, and the possibility of exacerbating drainage issues in the area. Several members of the public have also voiced frustration with regard to another Publix supermarket being built along SR 16, which would be the third Publix located along the SR 16 corridor between I-95 and International Golf Parkway. Staff noted to these callers that the County is unable to prohibit specific businesses from occupying designated commercial properties if the proposed use is allowed by right within the development.”
This was approved 4-1
Item 4, in District 5
Whole 9 Yards. Request to rezone approximately 1.37 acres of land from Open Rural (OR) to Industrial Warehousing (IW), located at 5285 Big Oak Road S. This is property located in the Airport District.
Several residents spoke against this development because of the impact on the residential nature of the area.
There was quite a bit of discussion about what is allowed in the Airport District. Of note, the Airport Authority will need to review this item before it is presented to the Commissioners in September.
The application was denied by the PZA.
Item 5, in District 2
Deer Run Road PUD. Request to Rezone approximately 25.12 acres of land from Open Rural (OR) to Planned Unit Development (PUD) to allow up to 26 duplexes for a total of 52 dwelling units, specifically located at 2380 Deer Run Road, 1109 Fazio Road, and 1150 Fazio Road.
This development appears to represent more much needed attainable housing in St. Johns County.
“APPLICATION SUMMARY The Applicant is seeking to rezone approximately 25.12 acres of land from Open Rural (OR) to Planned Unit Development (PUD) to allow for a maximum of 52 dwelling units consisting of 26 residential duplexes. The applicant asserts that the development will provide multi-family housing options for residents that are employed at the area businesses near the SR 16 and I-95 corridor at a price that they can afford. The applicant points out that the proposed duplexes will provide a more affordable and lower maintenance option as compared to single-family homes without the higher density of multi-family townhomes and apartments.” Deer Run Road Presentation
Questions were asked of the applicant if this was truly Workforce Housing. They indicated they did not know the threshold for Workforce Housing. When told that the threshold was $260,000, the acknowledge this is not workforce housing but at a range of $300,000 would be more affordable than other homes in the area.
Local residents objected to the development because of the impact on traffic on 4-Mile Road.
After discussion, this was approved 3-2.
If you are finding value in these updates, please subscribe to my blog so you get notifications when I publish an update. Feel free to share with others who may find value in the content.
Beth Tate 