[1:05] Yeah, just all right.
[1:11] I uh more stomach
[5:06] Would
[5:13] you say
[5:24] I have
[5:50] Not going to get much.
[6:04] All right, if everybody could make sure.
[6:11] » Mine turned green. Hello. There you go.
[6:47] technical difficulties. We're getting
[6:49] there.
[6:51] We're all here though, so that's
[6:52] exciting.
[6:58] Hey, any
[7:00] good
[7:27] ready. Okay. All right. We're going to
[7:30] go ahead and open today um the September
[7:33] 3rd design review board.
[7:37] Um first item is the approval of the
[7:40] June 4th DRB minutes. Did everyone have
[7:42] a chance to look at those? Emiled them
[7:44] out separate. Anyone care to make a
[7:46] motion there? I move the approval as
[7:49] presented.
[7:50] » A second. Hey, motion and a second. All
[7:51] in favor?
[7:52] » I.
[7:54] » All right, Tim. Any announcements today?
[7:56] » No announcements.
[7:58] » Okay,
[8:00] want to roll on to item two?
[8:02] » Yes. Good afternoon. You've got me for
[8:04] three more meetings.
[8:07] [laughter]
[8:08] » Retirement countdown.
[8:12] At least I can't tell you the number of
[8:13] days like Bob can, but yeah, I guess
[8:16] it's the retirement countdown.
[8:17] » All right.
[8:18] » So
[8:24] So this is a less than minor development
[8:27] application submitted by by McNeel
[8:29] Carroll Engineering requesting approval
[8:31] to reduce the originally approved square
[8:33] footage of a commercial building on
[8:36] 56.07
[8:37] 7 acres with the future land use of and
[8:40] zoning of Bay Walton Sector Plan Town
[8:43] Center properties located in district 5
[8:45] on the north side of Highway 98. So this
[8:49] was previously approved by this board on
[8:51] January 5th, 2023.
[8:55] So they're wanting to downsize this
[8:57] building from 19,734
[9:00] square ft to 11,279
[9:04] square ft.
[9:06] So, with that, I'd please like to enter
[9:08] the staff report into the record.
[9:11] » All right. So, noted
[9:12] » And I'll answer any questions or I'll
[9:15] turn it over to the
[9:17] It's pretty straightforward. It's
[9:19] basically the same
[9:22] building
[9:24] but smaller.
[9:26] » Any questions of Tim?
[9:30] Mr. Carol, do you
[9:38] Good afternoon. Robert Carroll, McNeel,
[9:40] Carol Engineering, 17800 Panel City
[9:42] Beach Parkway. We are the engineer of
[9:43] record. As Tim stated, we were here
[9:46] several years ago. It was a two-story
[9:47] building uh and a completely different
[9:49] architect. So, we have completely
[9:51] changed the project. They're still
[9:52] allowing us to be part of the team, so
[9:54] we're grateful. But, uh the roadways,
[9:56] the parking, all of those are part of
[9:58] the master plan. Those were previously
[9:59] installed. We came here before. Uh so,
[10:03] Basically, all the infrastructure around
[10:04] it is installed. This is just for the
[10:06] building itself. The architect is here
[10:08] and she's brought a nice board and some
[10:11] colors and uh I think she's gonna
[10:13] control the show, but I was just here in
[10:15] case there were any site related or any
[10:16] questions that I could answer.
[10:19] » I have one um site related question on
[10:22] the first um
[10:26] site plan that's actually includes the
[10:28] frontage on Highway 98. There is a
[10:31] sidewalk shown and I can't recall if
[10:33] that sidewalk actually exists. And the
[10:35] reason part of the reason I'm asking is
[10:36] last month we had the uh large water
[10:39] sign come before us.
[10:42] » There's not one along 98. There the
[10:43] sidewalks are internal with the roadways
[10:45] but not along 98. We do not have a
[10:47] walkway out there.
[10:48] » Yeah. In other words, the packet that
[10:49] you all submitted shows a sidewalk on
[10:52] Highway 98.
[10:55] » New sixoot sidewalk. Yes.
[10:58] So, I was just curious. I mean, my
[11:00] question might be direct better directed
[11:02] to Tim. Um, but I know that that
[11:07] requirement to provide a sidewalk on the
[11:10] public rideway is frequently a
[11:11] requirement of the project. Is this is
[11:13] there supposed to be a sidewalk on
[11:14] Highway 98? Well, not with this
[11:17] particular project because it has no 98
[11:19] frontage, but yeah, I mean, the code
[11:21] does require
[11:24] » I don't go by there really, so I don't
[11:28] think it's currently there.
[11:30] » Okay.
[11:30] » I'm not sure, but when DOT widens the
[11:34] road, they will put in the sidewalk.
[11:36] » DOT's widening.
[11:39] » Yeah, 98 is going to be widened all the
[11:41] way to the Bay County line.
[11:44] I mean, pushed it back. I mean
[11:46] » Oh, I I see what you're saying. Yeah,
[11:47] but not as part of this project.
[11:49] » Not as part of this project. But in
[11:50] Okay. with the 98 widening DOT will
[11:54] install either a sidewalk or a mixed uh
[11:58] a multi-use path like this last segment
[12:01] they did from Mac Bayou Road to 3A. They
[12:04] put in a 10- foot multi-use path.
[12:07] » Okay.
[12:09] All right. I guess I'll uh maybe I'll
[12:10] bring it up as new business or something
[12:11] at the end of the meeting. Um
[12:13] » But this this particular project has no
[12:16] 98 frontage.
[12:17] » Okay. Yep. I pose the question because
[12:19] it was included in the packet. So
[12:22] » The internal sidewalks there are so we
[12:24] have the on the far east side. We have
[12:27] sidewalks from there all internal all
[12:28] the way through Publix all the way to
[12:30] the bank.
[12:31] » Yep.
[12:31] » So okay.
[12:33] » Pedestrians have free will to walk but
[12:34] just not along 98. Yep. [clears throat]
[12:37] » Thank you.
[12:38] » Thank you. Thank you.
[12:46] Hi, good afternoon. My name is Paula
[12:48] Neil and I'm with the architect of
[12:50] record
[12:52] Neil in
[12:56] uh I did bring a finish board um for
[12:59] y'all to look at. Um do you mind if I
[13:02] come up?
[13:13] So, we do have it's a planned um retail
[13:17] mixed use. Um I think St. Joe is
[13:20] planning on putting a restaurant in one
[13:22] and just a couple retail spaces in the
[13:25] rest. And um it does front both Merchant
[13:28] Lane and Port Plaza Way. and it's just a
[13:34] small 11,000 square foot building. Um
[13:39] the the character of the facade matches
[13:42] the rest of the town center with just a
[13:44] couple little tweaks um meeting the
[13:47] scenic corridor requirements and the
[13:49] mental color palette um which we're
[13:51] showing there. So, um but the plan is to
[13:57] have a little patio in the front and
[14:00] then a little patio behind um for the
[14:03] restaurant tours and uh and otherwise
[14:07] it's uh really in line with the rest of
[14:09] the town center development.
[14:12] Let me know if you have any questions.
[14:15] Be more than happy to answer.
[14:20] Any questions of our architect?
[14:25] » Uh, just to kind of confirm for the
[14:27] record, all of the mechanical units are
[14:30] located. Um, where and are they all
[14:33] screened?
[14:34] » So, actually, I did want to ask about
[14:36] that. I know one of the scenic
[14:38] requirements is a metal uh roof and we
[14:45] have parapits around the entire roof.
[14:48] So, you will actually
[14:50] that roof assembly and we're doing a low
[14:53] slope quarter inch per foot and so we
[14:56] feel like a PVC roof makes more sense in
[15:00] that case. Yes, the parapit is high
[15:02] enough to completely conceal the
[15:04] mechanical units which will be on the
[15:06] roof as well. It'll also make flashing
[15:10] to all the um curbs associated with
[15:13] those mechanical units much easier. Uh
[15:16] we do want
[15:19] Sarnophil PVC product which is fire
[15:21] resistant. Um it has you know the
[15:24] Florida building code approval. It has
[15:26] Miami Dade um approval. So I mean it's a
[15:31] it's a good quality project that will
[15:33] reduce you know that will resist any you
[15:36] know wind uplift or anything like that.
[15:39] Um so we are asking for a variance on
[15:42] that.
[15:45] I'm not sure if there's a process that
[15:47] we need to go through to get approval
[15:49] [clears throat] on that. Our drawings
[15:50] are currently showing the metal roofing
[15:53] only because that was a requirement, but
[15:55] we would like to change if possible to a
[15:58] PVC roof product.
[16:01] » Tim, can you answer a question?
[16:03] » Yes.
[16:04] » I mean, the metal roof requirement, in
[16:07] my opinion, was always associated with
[16:09] sloped roofs because we don't want
[16:11] asphalt shingles on 98.
[16:15] I never thought that that applied. I
[16:16] wouldn't have even thought this was a
[16:17] variance if they have a fully parapit a
[16:19] full, you know, four-sided parapit on
[16:22] this building that we would have to use
[16:25] a variance to approve a like a TPO type
[16:28] roof.
[16:35] » We have approved membrane multiple
[16:38] times. The code says barrel tile,
[16:42] standing sea metal, concrete tile,
[16:44] slate, copper, wood shingles, slshakes,
[16:47] dimensional asphalt shingles, but
[16:49] typically a parapit roof is is membrane,
[16:51] and we've done that plenty plenty of
[16:53] times.
[16:54] » So, I mean, I think what you're
[16:56] proposing is totally fine. I just
[16:58] » I put standing seam metal because that's
[16:59] what that's what you have on there.
[17:08] notion.
[17:12] » Well, and that's very typical. Like I
[17:14] said, we we've improved that plenty of
[17:16] times just because it is very typical.
[17:18] » Do we have to approve that because it's
[17:21] specifically not one of the items
[17:23] listed. That's not something that can go
[17:24] on a staff level.
[17:26] » We
[17:28] never have in the past.
[17:29] » An incredible burden.
[17:30] » We never have in the past. So from a
[17:33] process standpoint, because it was not
[17:35] advertised as a deviation, we cannot on
[17:38] the floor approve a deviation.
[17:40] » Right. All she really needs to do is
[17:42] resubmit it with the membrane route,
[17:45] » Right? And I don't think that you get
[17:48] any push back about that. Um the the
[17:50] deviation request process is is not um
[17:54] we're not like a like the board of
[17:56] zoning appeals, you know.
[17:57] » So we had originally submitted it as a
[17:59] PBC and that was a
[18:08] Technically, it's not, but I mean, we've
[18:11] » We've approved that plenty of times.
[18:13] » That might be something we need to
[18:15] adjust in the code then. I mean, if we
[18:16] think about a Walmart or any of these
[18:19] large buildings, they all have a
[18:20] membrane style roof.
[18:22] » Unfortunately, it doesn't look like
[18:23] they're going to let us move forward
[18:24] because of SP180. and you know we were
[18:27] in the process of doing these changes
[18:30] and I'm very much of a believer that
[18:32] it's not putting an additional burden on
[18:35] anyone. Um but yeah, I mean that would
[18:38] be ideal if we're in the process of
[18:40] changing it to add that.
[18:42] I don't know exactly how that came about
[18:44] because it's not specifically listed but
[18:47] we've been approving those for years.
[18:50] » Right.
[18:53] So from a process standpoint,
[18:55] unfortunately what we can do tonight is
[18:58] um take action on the project as it's
[19:00] presented.
[19:01] » Um but with a separate project um
[19:05] request that can come um probably next
[19:09] month if you can get that.
[19:10] » I think you can just make a condition
[19:12] and she can resubmit the plan.
[19:15] » I mean we've never made anyone else do a
[19:17] deviation for membrane roof. So why
[19:20] would why would
[19:22] » It's not going to alter
[19:23] » It this I mean clearly in the drawings
[19:26] it's not an AR it's not a standing seam
[19:28] roof. You couldn't do what what the
[19:30] drawings show with a standing seam roof.
[19:32] So I I think it's just the words on the
[19:34] piece of paper.
[19:36] » Um and so uh I'm very comfortable. Um
[19:40] » Okay.
[19:42] I just don't want there to be any any
[19:43] issues with [clears throat] with process
[19:45] on how we've done this. You just need to
[19:47] make it not a condition per se, but just
[19:50] put in your motion that they can change
[19:52] it out and then they just submit new
[19:55] plans.
[19:56] » Yeah. With the membrane. Well, actually,
[19:58] in this case, it's probably just a
[19:59] labeling thing.
[20:01] » I'm totally fine with that. I just want
[20:03] to make sure that the process isn't
[20:04] going to be
[20:04] » Correct the notation. Basically, that's
[20:06] it.
[20:07] » Yeah. I think all she would have to do
[20:09] if you guys approve it tonight is just,
[20:11] you know, upload a new set of plans and
[20:14] those will be the the final the final
[20:16] plans.
[20:17] » Okay, I'm good with that.
[20:19] » And we could cloud all those notes so
[20:21] that you can see that.
[20:23] » And I do appreciate the sections you
[20:25] provided with the view lines to the
[20:27] rooftop equipment. That was very
[20:28] helpful.
[20:30] Yeah, we even did one all the way to to
[20:32] 98 so that we saw that
[20:34] » You can see that there's just no
[20:36] visibility whatsoever.
[20:38] » Yeah, very helpful.
[20:41] » So, I have another um question. This
[20:43] this will probably confuse everybody for
[20:45] a second, but just indulge me. Um is
[20:47] there a a person who actually works with
[20:49] the St. Joe Company present?
[20:52] » Hi.
[20:53] » So, um I just came from the South Walton
[20:55] Fire District budget meeting. Um I'm a
[20:58] commissioner on that board and um at the
[21:01] last meeting we went through this board
[21:04] went through a lot of effort to make
[21:06] sure that uh the sign proposal that
[21:08] y'all brought was approved and we we
[21:10] kind of been over backwards to work
[21:11] through all the little challenges that
[21:13] came up and I think we're going to do
[21:14] the same thing tonight on this. Um, but
[21:17] uh, one of the things that I'm working
[21:18] on with that hat on, this fire district
[21:20] hat on, is is trying to get the fire
[21:22] station going in Water Sound and clearly
[21:25] you guys are moving forward with a lot
[21:26] of development. And right now, uh, my
[21:29] understanding after several
[21:30] conversations is we're hung up on
[21:33] getting an easement sorted out between
[21:34] Florida Power and Light and St. Joe. And
[21:37] I just want to encourage you to get
[21:39] whatever it needs to get done done
[21:41] because we're getting very frustrated
[21:43] about the amount of time and money. We
[21:45] have a fire we have a crew of guys and a
[21:47] truck crammed into the Inlet Beach
[21:49] Station that we need to have there that
[21:51] are supposed to be at this new fire
[21:53] station. So, um we really need to get
[21:55] that going. So, uh if you want to share
[21:59] with the other folks in your
[22:01] organization that at least one person
[22:03] who sits on multiple boards is getting
[22:05] very frustrated about this. Thanks.
[22:08] » I bet who's not here is Florida Power
[22:10] and Light.
[22:11] » They're Yes, I know. [laughter]
[22:13] But uh I think it's Kathy Katherine um
[22:19] you you have the background to know what
[22:20] it is I'm talking about. So I just uh
[22:22] again I'm uh going to show my um good
[22:26] faith that at whatever point that we
[22:28] finished our discussion I'm going to
[22:29] make a motion to approve the project.
[22:31] But if you bring another project back I
[22:34] might not be so nice next time.
[22:41] Is that an actual motion you want to?
[22:43] » Oh, yeah. Everybody I I didn't want to
[22:44] cut short the uh the discussion. I think
[22:46] it's a wonderful wonderful
[22:47] » No, I was just commenting for our light
[22:49] takes forever to do everything. So,
[22:50] » They do, but this has been this has been
[22:52] many years and we are starting to have
[22:54] um one of the things we discussed is how
[22:56] many times we've rolled over the m the
[22:57] budget.
[22:58] » Sure.
[22:58] » For this fire station and
[23:00] » The fire station is going to be there
[23:01] for a reason. Yeah. It need it needs to
[23:03] happen.
[23:05] So anyway, with that, if uh if we have
[23:07] finished discussing the building, um I'm
[23:10] gonna I'll make a motion to approve the
[23:12] project as presented with the
[23:14] understanding that the um roofing
[23:17] material inside the parapit is
[23:19] anticipated to be a PVC I believe.
[23:22] » Correct.
[23:23] » Um in lie of the standing seam metal.
[23:26] » Second motion and a second. All in
[23:28] favor?
[23:29] » I.
[23:30] » Motion passes. Thank you.
[23:31] » Thank you.
[23:34] All right, Tim. Item three, panhandle
[23:37] patio.
[23:38] » Well, it's actually honest, but I I I
[23:40] did misspeak. I guess there is a an
[23:42] announcement. We normally do
[23:45] continuances and whatnot under that
[23:47] heading. And item number four is being
[23:50] requested to be removed from the agenda
[23:53] because it was already previously
[23:55] approved by this board. So, it did not
[23:58] need to come back. So, we're just asking
[24:01] you to remove it from the agenda.
[24:06] » The monument sign for Santa Rosa Plaza.
[24:11] » Yes. It It's a little tricky because you
[24:14] guys approved it with their MSP. The MSP
[24:16] doesn't normally approve monument signs,
[24:21] but you didn't want to have them to come
[24:23] back, have to come back. It was right in
[24:26] front of you. So, you approved it at
[24:29] that time and I guess it just didn't get
[24:32] taken off the agenda and we don't see a
[24:34] reason to approve it a second time.
[24:40] » Tim, could you clarify which project
[24:42] that is?
[24:43] » Number four, Santa Rosa Plaza monument
[24:46] sign.
[24:48] Santa Rosa Plaza is at the corner of Don
[24:50] Bishop Road and Highway 98.
[24:52] » Okay. So, in the minutes of the last
[24:54] meeting, Santa Rosa Plaza MSP
[24:57] It says there was a discussion regarding
[24:58] building colors depicted in the packet
[25:00] and it was noted that the monument sign
[25:01] was not part of this approval.
[25:03] » Oh,
[25:10] » Well, we just approved. So, we need to
[25:12] open the minutes back up and fix that.
[25:16] So, I did add a note in the uh final
[25:19] decision of the workflow of Energ
[25:21] stating that and I rewatched the video
[25:24] that we did or that this board did
[25:28] make the approval a separate approval
[25:30] for the master sign plan and then a
[25:32] separate approval for the monument sign.
[25:35] Um since as what Tim said,
[25:39] » No
[25:48] Okay,
[25:49] » Got it. So then
[25:51] » Staff approved the monument sign. That's
[25:53] how the motion read, but that was my
[25:56] understanding of the motion.
[25:58] » So,
[26:00] » Okay. But I think we need to clarify the
[26:02] minutes because this sure reads like we
[26:04] specifically pulled the monument sign
[26:05] out. I I think we should we should amend
[26:08] these minutes to read that the monument
[26:10] sign was approved was considered
[26:12] administratively or something to that
[26:14] effect.
[26:15] » Okay.
[26:16] » Is that
[26:17] » I think that's fine.
[26:19] » I think proceed procedurally I think any
[26:22] we can reopen items.
[26:24] » We can. Yeah. So I guess is that does
[26:26] that need to be a vote to reopen the
[26:28] item?
[26:30] » The official
[26:30] » The minutes.
[26:32] » Yeah. The minutes. Yeah.
[26:33] » Okay.
[26:34] » Okay. So
[26:38] Y
[26:43] » Oh, yeah. We can do that, too.
[26:44] » So, I guess I'm going to move I think I
[26:46] think the correct uh parliamentary
[26:48] procedure is to reconsider.
[26:50] » Okay.
[26:50] » So, I make a motion to reconsider
[26:53] » The meeting minutes of
[26:56] » June
[26:57] » June 4th.
[26:59] » Right. We have a motion to reconsider.
[27:01] » Second.
[27:01] » All right.
[27:03] » All in favor?
[27:04] » I. All right.
[27:06] » May I May I ask what that means for the
[27:08] monument sign? Are we still going to
[27:10] hear that?
[27:11] » No.
[27:11] » Even though my intent is just to get the
[27:13] minutes look like we
[27:15] » Okay.
[27:15] » It sort of looks like we we didn't want
[27:17] to approve it the way the minutes are
[27:19] written and
[27:20] » But I remember we did say it could be
[27:22] approved
[27:22] » Administratively. Yes.
[27:23] » Right.
[27:24] » Okay. So I get I guess now the minutes
[27:26] are on the table.
[27:27] » The minutes are on the table. So if we'd
[27:28] like to have a motion to continue the
[27:30] minutes to the
[27:32] um October
[27:36] October 1st.
[27:43] [laughter]
[27:45] » October.
[27:47] » We're gonna miss you, Tim.
[27:49] » Can you just come back for fun? Um,
[27:52] October 1st, uh, DRB meeting.
[27:55] » So moved.
[27:58] » All right.
[28:00] I second. Okay. All in favor?
[28:03] » I. There we go.
[28:04] » Um, okay. Now, heading back to uh the
[28:07] removal of item four. Um, if we can
[28:13] » Don't know what motion,
[28:14] » No actions needed. We can just go. Okay.
[28:17] So, the next item on our agenda was item
[28:20] number three. So, let's head up to
[28:23] panhandle patio building sign.
[28:25] » Okay. Okay. So, the panhandle patio
[28:27] building sign item number three,
[28:29] SGN260099.
[28:33] This is a scenic corridor sign
[28:35] application submitted by submitted by
[28:37] Duncan Signs and Lighting on behalf of
[28:39] Northline Investments LLC requesting
[28:42] approval of a building sign measuring 35
[28:44] in by 221 in for a total of 53.71 square
[28:49] feet on 1.63 63 plus or minus acres with
[28:52] a future land use of mixed use in a
[28:54] zoning category of coastal center.
[28:56] Properties in district 4 at 1255 US
[29:00] highway 98 West and can be identified by
[29:03] the parcel number in your staff report.
[29:05] May I enter the staff report into the
[29:07] record?
[29:07] » All right. Noted.
[29:08] » Um may I also note that the applicant
[29:11] was not able to attend today? Um so if
[29:14] you do have any questions that need to
[29:16] be answered, I'll do my best to answer
[29:18] them and if I cannot then I'll have to
[29:20] pass those questions on to the applicant
[29:22] um if you all decide to continue based
[29:25] on those questions. With that said, um
[29:30] their proposal meets the minimum
[29:31] technical requirements and I don't have
[29:33] any comments further comments on that.
[29:36] So, do you have any questions for me?
[29:39] » Um is there any building lighting or
[29:41] anything that's going to illuminate the
[29:42] sign?
[29:45] » No, they're not proposing
[29:48] any lighting. It's a non-illuminated
[29:50] sign.
[29:52] So,
[29:52] » And there's nothing existing on the
[29:53] building that
[29:56] » I think the question is, is there
[29:57] anything on the building that's going to
[29:58] light up the sign in place of the sign
[30:00] being proposed is not illuminated?
[30:03] » No. From what I'm seeing in their
[30:05] renderings there, there's lighting on
[30:07] the building. Uh, but it's not directed
[30:10] upward toward the sign.
[30:12] » Just sconce lighting on the
[30:13] » Correct. Correct.
[30:14] » Nothing that they're going to be able to
[30:15] adjust to shine down or move around or
[30:17] anything like that. No.
[30:25] » Any other questions of um staff?
[30:28] » Um I
[30:34] » So I understand the letters based on the
[30:37] exhibit to be
[30:39] 20 and 12 in tall
[30:43] and they are described as being a half
[30:45] inch thick PVC.
[30:48] But the application
[30:51] says
[30:53] raised individual routed letters that
[30:55] are between six and 12 in in height
[30:57] shall have a minimum height of 3/4 in
[31:00] and raised individual routed letters
[31:01] between 12 and 24 in shall have a
[31:03] minimum rise of 1 in and the applicant
[31:06] had written NA
[31:09] all that but it seems like they are not
[31:11] thick enough
[31:14] I don't know if they can laminate two
[31:16] pieces inch thick PVC together. But I I
[31:21] think for a 20 inch tall letter, it has
[31:23] to be one inch thick.
[31:24] » Okay.
[31:26] » I would agree with you. The
[31:28] dimensionality that we've talked about
[31:31] um
[31:43] and the 9 in letters need to be at least
[31:46] 3 in.
[31:51] » I can pass that feedback on to the
[31:53] applicant. Um,
[31:59] yeah, I did not
[32:03] Yeah, they did not propose that level of
[32:06] thickness for those letters.
[32:09] So, that's definitely something that can
[32:12] be corrected.
[32:16] Typically, if the applicant was here, we
[32:18] would ask them if that they would be
[32:20] acceptable of that as a condition of
[32:22] approval.
[32:23] » Um,
[32:25] » From the conversations that I've had
[32:26] with the applicant, I believe that they
[32:28] would be they would be willing to
[32:30] » To make those.
[32:31] » Yeah. To make those changes. I don't
[32:32] think that they would have any push back
[32:35] because they really wanted to be able to
[32:37] make it today, but I told them that I
[32:39] would speak on their behalf.
[32:41] » Okay.
[32:44] I think in terms of the colors, the all
[32:46] that stuff, it looks great.
[32:49] » I guess do we uh would everybody be
[32:52] comfortable if we approved it contingent
[32:54] on the thicknesses meeting?
[32:56] » I would.
[32:56] » Minimum.
[32:58] » Absolutely.
[32:58] » Yes.
[33:00] » Okay.
[33:00] » Well, I will make a motion to Oh, I'm
[33:02] sorry. We got more to go.
[33:03] » Yep. I got um
[33:05] » We'll finish with staff and then we have
[33:07] a Yep.
[33:09] And we may have actually missed that one
[33:11] on origins because I don't have a check
[33:13] mark next to that. Um,
[33:17] if we opened and closed a public comment
[33:20] session, we did not.
[33:21] » Sorry, I scared them off with my
[33:23] [laughter]
[33:24] They moved pretty quick when
[33:27] » Um, apologies then. Um,
[33:30] let's finish up here and then we'll sort
[33:32] my
[33:34] hair.
[33:35] » Any other questions? Any other questions
[33:37] for item three? All right, seeing none,
[33:40] anyone from the audience want to speak
[33:41] on item three? And seeing no one, um
[33:46] would you care to make a motion?
[33:47] » I will.
[33:47] » Okay.
[33:48] » I move that we approve uh the panhandle
[33:51] patio furniture building sign as
[33:54] presented contingent on the
[33:58] uh larger letters being at least one
[34:01] inch thick and the lower uh patio
[34:05] furniture
[34:06] Word be 3/4 of an inch thick.
[34:11] » Second. Have a motion, a second. All in
[34:13] favor?
[34:14] » I
[34:16] » All right. The item passes.
[34:18] » Um
[34:20] » I did.
[34:21] » Do we need to go back and take any
[34:23] action for origins with the public
[34:25] comment or
[34:27] » Yeah.
[34:29] » Is anyone from the audience here to
[34:31] speak on item two, the origins building
[34:34] less than minor? and seeing no one.
[34:37] Sorry about that.
[34:40] Got ahead of my check marks.
[34:42] All right. Um so we have removed item
[34:45] four. Um going on to item um five and
[34:50] six, the Euro market signs. If you
[34:52] wouldn't mind to present them together,
[34:54] please.
[34:56] So this is the item number five and six
[34:59] zero market 3A building sign and
[35:01] monument sign uh SGN260000101
[35:07] and 000000102.
[35:10] These are both scenic corridor uh sign
[35:12] applications submitted by Euro market 38
[35:15] LLC on behalf of ING Arc LLC.
[35:20] Um requesting approval of the building
[35:22] sign measuring 144 in x 24 in for a
[35:27] total of 24 square ft and the monument
[35:31] sign measuring 48 in x 72 in for a total
[35:35] of 24 square ft on 649 plus or minus
[35:40] acres with the future land use of mixed
[35:42] use and a zoning category of village
[35:44] mixed use. Uh both properties are
[35:46] located or both signs are located in
[35:49] district 5 at 4770
[35:52] US highway 98 west and can be identified
[35:55] by the parcel number in your staff
[35:57] reports. May enter both staff reports
[35:59] into the record.
[36:00] » So noted.
[36:02] » So would this board like to start with
[36:04] the building sign
[36:06] discussion and then monument sign?
[36:09] » Yep, we can do that.
[36:10] » Okay. So, for the building sign, um,
[36:14] what the applicant proposed appears to
[36:17] meet our requirements.
[36:19] Um, I did not have any further comment.
[36:23] Um,
[36:26] well, I did have a discussion with the
[36:29] applicant about their rendering. Um,
[36:32] under exhibit C. I know that we measure
[36:35] our sign area based on the smallest
[36:38] rectangle around that copy area as
[36:41] possible. Um
[36:45] I know that they were trying to do their
[36:46] best there. Um so I'll leave that final
[36:50] decision with the board um on whether
[36:52] that will suffice. Uh but based on how
[36:56] they measured their sign area
[37:00] with the smallest rectangle around that
[37:02] copy area, it does meet the requirement.
[37:06] So do you have any questions regarding
[37:08] the building sign?
[37:09] » Do we have any additional information
[37:11] about how the sign is constructed or
[37:13] mounted
[37:15] » Material
[37:17] in there? And it appears like they
[37:19] furred this out over the doors. It
[37:22] appears like the
[37:23] » In the rendering,
[37:25] which looks fantastic, but it's it's
[37:27] just hard to tell how
[37:31] » It's like the applicant's here.
[37:43] eight months ago, but I translate if you
[37:46] don't mind.
[37:47] » Okay, sure. Um, we'll finish our
[37:49] presentation here and then we'll have
[37:50] you come up. Okay.
[37:56] » I can put how this lights go to the wall
[38:01] and
[38:03] lights inside.
[38:07] » So, it looks like we have aluminum and
[38:09] » LED.
[38:11] We're gonna have you go down to the
[38:12] microphone as soon as we're done with
[38:14] our planner discussion and we'll invite
[38:16] you up.
[38:18] » You're gonna handle staff questions
[38:21] first and then they're going to give you
[38:23] an opportunity to
[38:27] » Yeah, of course.
[38:54] Do you have any other questions for
[38:55] staff before I hand it over to the
[38:58] applicant?
[38:59] just if there's anything else missing
[39:00] from the packet that might notate um how
[39:03] this thing is actually connected or
[39:07] where the wiring is going to to provide
[39:08] the power or anything like that any sort
[39:10] of
[39:10] » No.
[39:11] » Okay.
[39:11] » No.
[39:12] » And also I noticed there were three
[39:13] other down lights proposed on this
[39:15] besides just this sign that are not
[39:18] currently on the building or are they
[39:19] and just not shown but they're shown in
[39:21] the rendering.
[39:23] » It is hard to tell and that was not
[39:25] provided in the packet. Um but based on
[39:31] one of the images on exhibit C, uh the
[39:34] first image, it appears that those
[39:37] additional lights are not placed on the
[39:39] building as of yet.
[39:41] » Right.
[39:41] » Um
[39:42] » So that would not be something that we
[39:44] would be approving today.
[39:45] » No, it would just be for the facade
[39:49] building sign and the monument sign.
[39:51] » Okay.
[39:59] Thank you.
[40:00] » Okay. And I believe the applicants um
[40:02] are definitely going to be willing to
[40:05] make whatever changes are necessary to
[40:07] help them reach compliance.
[40:17] Um there in the photograph of the
[40:19] existing condition, there is an object
[40:22] of some sort that is sort of just a few
[40:26] feet off the front of the building. I
[40:28] don't know if that is that a for sale
[40:29] sign. That object right there.
[40:34] But I want to make sure if it's an if
[40:35] it's another sign then it would have to
[40:38] come out of course for sale sign. Of
[40:40] course I'm not.
[40:49] » This is like a 4x4
[40:55] like 4x4 and
[40:58] » Oh it's just a post
[40:59] » Like I put like a chain to the row we
[41:03] cut after that.
[41:07] » Okay.
[41:08] » Only four by four.
[41:09] » Okay. So, it does not appear to be
[41:11] assigned.
[41:11] » It's not a sign. That's great. I just
[41:12] wanted to make sure. Yeah, it looked
[41:14] permanent. Whatever it was, I wanted to
[41:15] make sure it wasn't signed. Okay.
[41:20] » Any other questions of staff on the
[41:22] monument sign
[41:24] » Or the building sign?
[41:28] » And it's very similar renderings to the
[41:30] monument sign
[41:32] » Portion of this application, too. So I'm
[41:34] I'm I'm guessing the rendering shows
[41:37] that the monument side and the building
[41:38] are very close in color.
[41:40] » Yes.
[41:41] » Whereas in existence right now they're
[41:43] not part of that. So are they going to
[41:46] be painting that monument sign to match
[41:49] the building or are they making the
[41:50] building darker to match the monument
[41:52] sign
[41:54] » Or are they are you going to fac
[41:56] » So from the renderings my
[41:58] » Different facade. My assumption is that
[42:00] the monument sign would be painted to
[42:03] match the color of the building sign.
[42:06] » I think we'll have to ask that
[42:08] » Necessarily the architecture of the
[42:09] building, but maybe the applicant can
[42:11] speak to that a little bit better than
[42:13] what was provided in the renderings.
[42:15] » Okay.
[42:19] » Any other questions of staff?
[42:23] » Okay. our applicant would come up and
[42:25] we'll um to the microphone and state
[42:28] your name for the record please.
[42:32] » Hello. Uh my name is Vasili. Uh this is
[42:35] Anna. Uh she open I help you uh here
[42:39] from translated and opening this store
[42:41] grocery store. And uh we don't want to
[42:44] pay paint for this Stella. He's just put
[42:48] like a letter that's it. We don't want
[42:51] to paint
[42:54] » And I don't know what I need.
[42:59] Give you
[43:01] » Um
[43:03] » If you need something, you tell me.
[43:07] » Guess one thing. We're on the building
[43:10] sign right now. So, the building sign
[43:11] letters are back lit, channel letters.
[43:15] Can you confirm that the letters on the
[43:17] monument sign are not backlit?
[43:25] Uh we right now he's not to the lights
[43:29] because I bring this one. We need like
[43:32] uh put everything and then he's lighting
[43:36] » On the the monument sign. The letters do
[43:39] not have light or do have light
[43:41] » Have light same but a little bit
[43:43] smaller.
[43:48] Same same leather, same material.
[43:52] » We do.
[43:52] » Okay, that's right.
[43:55] » That's just not what the
[43:57] » Yeah, the rendering shows that it's
[43:58] looks like it's lit from above casting
[44:00] down, but that the letters are not lit
[44:02] themselves.
[44:03] » But the letters will be lit just like
[44:06] the building.
[44:12] Uh you like looking like a photo
[44:16] right now.
[44:27] » So I I think I might be able to answer
[44:29] that. So, it appears from the from the
[44:32] renderings that the building sign
[44:35] letters will be back lit, but the
[44:37] letters on the monument sign will be lit
[44:41] from that lighting that is Yeah, the
[44:44] down lit.
[44:44] » Okay.
[44:45] » Down lighting onto those letters. So,
[44:48] » And I'm wondering if that's just an
[44:50] issue with the rendering.
[44:51] » Yeah, I'm
[44:52] » Because there's not a light there in
[44:54] actuality.
[44:55] » I'm I'm guessing that the rendering has
[44:57] liberties. Yeah, we can do from uh if
[45:00] you want to we can put like this lights
[45:03] to the up and we can do uh put leather
[45:07] with uh lights like this. How you
[45:10] approve us? We put like this because
[45:13] right now this photo uh GPT
[45:17] » Yeah. [laughter]
[45:19] » Yeah. Is the the monument sign the
[45:22] monument sign out in front of the
[45:23] building. Is it double-sided?
[45:25] Yeah, he's double side but
[45:33] yeah both side is uh we can put because
[45:37] people when going you need see this
[45:40] market
[45:44] » Is then still compliant both side the
[45:46] sign face
[45:47] » Who side this side and behind side same
[45:51] » So
[45:55] From what I've been provided, um,
[45:57] there's no way of knowing for sure that
[45:59] it's double-sided, but they would
[46:02] definitely need to add that to the
[46:04] renderings
[46:05] um, for clarity.
[46:15] Yeah, as long as it's in the
[46:17] » Yeah, we do allow doublesided monument
[46:19] signs, but it would need to be defined
[46:22] in um more detailed renderings.
[46:28] I mean, I think if if this um math is
[46:32] correct, then we we do have enough room
[46:37] for the the two sign faces.
[46:40] » Yeah.
[46:41] » So,
[46:42] um
[46:45] » Based on the square footage of the copy
[46:46] area, I think that they can make that
[46:48] work.
[46:50] » We would just need to, I think, address
[46:53] that and conditions so that they don't
[46:55] have to come back.
[47:04] Um,
[47:07] any other questions of our applicant?
[47:11] All right. Thank you. Um, anyone from
[47:13] the audience want to speak on either
[47:15] item five or six?
[47:18] And not seeing anyone there. Um,
[47:23] does anyone have problem with the
[47:26] monument sign being either
[47:29] uplit or or sorry, down lit or
[47:33] halo lit?
[47:36] » As long as the maximum letter size is 24
[47:39] in, I'm
[47:41] » Okay.
[47:41] » They don't really have the structure
[47:44] above for the overhead lighting right
[47:45] now, right? you know that that crown is
[47:48] applied like straight onto the face.
[47:51] » So if it wasn't back lit, I think it
[47:53] would actually need to be lit from a
[47:55] ground light. So
[47:57] » If they were preferring to do back lit,
[47:59] I would just assume
[48:00] » I think it would look better, too,
[48:01] honestly.
[48:01] » Yeah, I like that one. I like the back
[48:03] lit because it really gives a nice
[48:04] streamline look.
[48:07] Um, I think that it probably makes sense
[48:10] to include,
[48:11] » But the address won't be back or it
[48:14] will.
[48:19] » How much glow are those?
[48:22] [clears throat]
[48:27] » It should be visible.
[48:28] » They're allowed to halo light all of
[48:30] these letters on the monument sign as
[48:31] well as the address, right?
[48:33] » Yes.
[48:33] » Yeah.
[48:33] » Okay. then that would probably be the
[48:36] recommendation that they keep it
[48:37] consistent.
[48:38] » Right. Right. I would think that if
[48:40] you're going to um have backlit letters
[48:44] on the monument sign, it would make
[48:46] sense to include the the address numbers
[48:49] in that
[48:52] just for consistency.
[48:54] » And what does the board think about
[48:55] keeping the existing sign a different
[48:58] color from the building itself?
[49:00] Um
[49:02] » You know in the rendering they show very
[49:03] similar
[49:04] » And clean and streamlined. However, in
[49:06] the existing
[49:07] » It's not Yeah,
[49:08] » Not at all. Yeah.
[49:10] » Um
[49:14] I mean we always ask that they do match.
[49:17] Um
[49:18] » Maybe whiteashing that.
[49:20] » Yeah, I think I mean I feel like that's
[49:22] probably
[49:24] » It would make those reasonable
[49:27] » Um for the monument sign to have
[49:30] a finished treatment to match the
[49:32] building.
[49:40] » Um so for the applicant what we are
[49:44] asking is the code states that the
[49:47] materials of a monument should reflect
[49:50] the materials on the building as well.
[49:53] So, since the building has whitewashed
[49:56] or white painted brick, we're asking if
[49:59] you would be willing to paint the
[50:01] monument prior to um your application of
[50:04] these sign letters so that the monument
[50:07] does indeed match the materials of the
[50:10] building.
[50:10] » Yeah, no problem. You want to uh I need
[50:14] painting like a stellar. Is this
[50:16] monument same color to the building?
[50:19] » Yes. Yes. No problem.
[50:31] » Yep.
[50:32] » Could I see the sample better again?
[50:35] [clears throat]
[50:36] » I'm a little confused how this thing
[50:37] where it gets wired into.
[50:40] » I just making sure that the I guess you
[50:43] call it serif.
[50:43] » It's very light.
[50:44] » Yeah, it's all all in there. So
[50:56] Are is your building sign
[51:00] every letter attached to the building?
[51:03] Every letter is attached to the building
[51:04] or is it on a bar behind it that they're
[51:06] attached on?
[51:09] » Uh every
[51:12] letter like this.
[51:13] » Okay. So you will use those connections.
[51:17] Okay.
[51:37] » Okay. So, we'll need two separate
[51:39] motions, one for the building and one
[51:41] for the monument. Um
[51:43] » I have I do have one one more uh comment
[51:46] to make. Um
[51:48] the lighting
[51:51] not not the not this lighting but the
[51:55] lighting on the building and the sign
[51:56] lighting. Um we want to make sure that's
[51:59] not overdone, not excessively bright. Um
[52:05] » No
[52:06] » I mean it's not on the
[52:08] » We're not approving that light.
[52:09] » Oh okay. We're not approving it. Okay.
[52:10] We've already Okay. Sorry, we're not
[52:12] focused on something else. Okay, great.
[52:13] Awesome. Thank you. That takes care of
[52:14] me.
[52:15] » Okay.
[52:16] » I was curious about that. I mean, it
[52:17] doesn't look bad, but there's no specs
[52:19] on it that there's no drawings on it.
[52:20] » No, that's I was I was just getting
[52:21] nervous that if we approved a light that
[52:22] we have,
[52:24] » It could be the wrong color. And the
[52:26] advertised as building and monument sign
[52:29] me.
[52:30] » And I'll make it clear to the applicants
[52:32] to not
[52:33] » Yeah. No. Yeah. No lighting.
[52:35] » If they want lighting, they just have to
[52:36] bring it back.
[52:37] » Correct. Correct. detail about the color
[52:40] and the intensity and all that stuff.
[52:42] » Definitely.
[52:42] » Cool.
[52:43] » We may.
[52:44] » All right. So, would someone care to try
[52:47] their hand at item five, the building
[52:49] sign?
[52:51] » I make a motion to approve item five,
[52:53] the building sign based on the example
[52:57] brought for the signage only, not the
[53:00] lighting.
[53:05] » Sorry.
[53:08] Right.
[53:10] » I motion to approve the signage for our
[53:13] item for Euro Market 30A for the signage
[53:17] only, not the lighting.
[53:21] » Building sign and monument sign.
[53:23] Correct.
[53:24] » Just building. Sorry, my bad.
[53:26] » Since there's no detail, maybe explain
[53:28] it as the black um aluminum
[53:32] » Black LED lit letters individually.
[53:36] I motion to approve that.
[53:41] » We have a motion and a second. All in
[53:44] favor?
[53:44] » I.
[53:46] » Okay.
[53:46] » Item six, the monument sign.
[53:51] » I'll make a motion to approve item
[53:53] number six, your market 38 monument
[53:55] sign.
[53:57] with the caveat that we whitewash or
[54:01] make the brick white to match the
[54:03] building in in color in some form to
[54:06] bring the design together there. The
[54:09] letters may be lit in halo dome lit and
[54:13] the address may be also lit.
[54:17] No other additional lighting to be added
[54:19] to that monument sign.
[54:23] » Okay, we have a motion.
[54:25] » Second.
[54:25] » Second. All in favor? I
[54:27] » I
[54:28] » All right. And we are approved on both
[54:31] five and six.
[54:33] » Thank you.
[54:33] » Thank you.
[54:34] » And um additional business.
[54:38] » I know you wanted to bring something up
[54:43] the sidewalk in
[54:46] » Yeah, that was a happy thing to see on
[54:47] the plan, wasn't it? It was
[54:49] » I feel like it goes back to the original
[54:51] master plan is where that's coming from.
[54:53] I think it just keeps getting copied
[54:54] over. Well, no, I understand. Thank you.
[54:59] [laughter]
[55:00] » Yeah, welcome.
[55:00] » We look forward to it.
[55:02] » Um, yeah, I just, you know, I'd like to
[55:04] see the codes of applied um and I do see
[55:08] people I saw some people on the way to
[55:10] this meeting uh riding bicycles um on
[55:13] the there is a little section of bike
[55:15] lane on on uh 98 right there,
[55:18] » But uh they would be a lot more
[55:19] comfortable. Well, there's a lot of
[55:20] pedestrians in that area going from the
[55:22] apartments coming from south of 98 and
[55:25] they're moving on that roadway. I think
[55:27] we require sidewalks of other
[55:30] developments. I think we should require
[55:32] it of this one.
[55:33] » Do do we have any idea of where FDOT is
[55:35] at with this and that's probably more of
[55:37] a question for Tim.
[55:38] » They're years away from the actual
[55:39] installation. They're still in in the
[55:41] they're at the end of the PD&E study and
[55:43] they've just selected the engineers to
[55:45] begin designing. I heard the next
[55:47] segment would be from 38 to 3:31,
[55:51] » Right?
[55:51] » So, it's going to be some time before
[55:53] they eventually it'll get widened, but
[55:56] no time soon.
[55:57] » Yeah.
[55:57] » So, David, you would like to see St. Joe
[56:00] go ahead and front the bell to put a
[56:01] sidewalk in and not wait on FDOT to
[56:04] finish.
[56:04] » Yeah. Now, is it possible that they did
[56:06] a payment in L or something for that?
[56:08] Uh,
[56:10] » I mean they showed it in their drawing.
[56:12] So,
[56:12] » But doubtful. Um,
[56:15] typically we don't allow that on 98
[56:18] because we want a continuous sidewalk.
[56:21] » I haven't really been involved with
[56:23] origins. So, I don't know. I mean, the
[56:26] code absolutely says a sidewalk is
[56:29] required. Why it hasn't been built yet.
[56:32] They may have some arrangement that they
[56:34] don't have to do it until a certain
[56:36] amount of development. Well, they
[56:37] haven't other people other people don't.
[56:40] Yeah, that's where I'm going is and as
[56:41] you heard, I'm getting increasingly
[56:44] frustrated
[56:45] » With St. Joe. They're very They're very
[56:48] They press us very hard. You got to
[56:49] approve this. You we got to do this now.
[56:51] And then when we ask for something
[56:54] » Yes, they they definitely pressed hard.
[56:57] » It's like they'll say, "Well, this
[56:58] isn't, you know, it's not real road
[57:00] frontage. The building's set back."
[57:02] » Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. We can't We can't We
[57:03] got to ask road frontage there.
[57:05] » Yeah. We're not sure if FDOT will let us
[57:07] move this piece of driveway, but we got
[57:09] them to move an entire highway one time,
[57:11] right? So, uh I don't I don't buy it.
[57:14] And you know, we represent the community
[57:16] and I'm here to say I'm getting
[57:17] frustrated with St. Joe's attitude and
[57:20] they're on the way to build a whole lot
[57:21] of stuff. And as I pointed out, I could
[57:24] have very easily said, I don't see the
[57:25] sidewalk. Your packet shows a sidewalk.
[57:27] You said it's not going to be in the
[57:28] project. Motion to deny.
[57:30] » And I would been perfectly justified in
[57:32] doing that.
[57:33] What's the hold up on the fire station?
[57:36] » They
[57:38] Yeah, this so we have to cross flour and
[57:42] lights
[57:44] » Easement
[57:44] » Easement
[57:45] » And
[57:47] um St. Joe is concerned that the
[57:52] easement that will be a temporary
[57:54] construction road easement is going to
[57:56] somehow
[57:58] cause them a problem because we have to
[58:00] get an easement across their property to
[58:02] get to the site that we negotiated and
[58:06] and have in good faith purchased from
[58:08] them.
[58:10] » It has been seven years since the
[58:12] conversation about this started.
[58:13] » That's the same thing over by Mac
[58:15] Valley.
[58:15] » Yeah.
[58:16] » Easement issue over there. They they
[58:18] keep falling back on, well, Florida
[58:20] Power and Lights got to think about it.
[58:21] If St. Joe would just say, "Look, we'll
[58:24] figure this all out. We're getting ready
[58:26] to try to build a at least 11.5 million
[58:29] fire station." And again, we're
[58:31] investing. We've bought millions of
[58:33] dollars worth a ladder truck to give you
[58:35] an idea cost $2.3 million. We've
[58:38] purchased that thinking we were going to
[58:40] have a fire station to put it in. And um
[58:44] we without falling down a rabbit hole, I
[58:47] just again the pattern I'm seeing with
[58:49] St. Joe is when we make it when the
[58:51] community makes an ask of them, they're
[58:53] very very slow to respond. When they
[58:56] want something, they expect us to wave
[58:59] this irregularity, I mean, bringing a
[59:02] set of drawings that have a PVC membrane
[59:04] roof relabeled as standing seam, that's
[59:06] ridiculous.
[59:08] » Yeah. Uh, so I just I'm just going to
[59:11] use this opportunity to put some
[59:13] pressure on them.
[59:14] » And again, I see a sidewalk drawn that
[59:16] everybody else has had to build. Why
[59:18] don't they have to build it?
[59:20] » Yeah, I don't have the answer. All I can
[59:22] tell you is the code absolutely requires
[59:24] a sidewalk on Highway 98.
[59:25] » And I'm sure it's on all of their
[59:27] drawings, all of the civil drawings.
[59:28] That's what I'm saying. It just gets
[59:29] copied over.
[59:30] » And I get internally, well, that's not
[59:32] my problem. That's private property.
[59:33] They they put that there if they want it
[59:34] there. Um, uh, the sidewalk on 98 is a
[59:37] community asset that they're supposed to
[59:39] provide. And they told us, "We've got
[59:41] all this frontage. You ought to let us
[59:43] do this non-compliant sign. Give us a
[59:45] variance." You know, and we were like,
[59:47] "Oh, yeah, sure. No problem." U, I just,
[59:50] you know, you got all that frontage, put
[59:52] a sidewalk on it.
[59:54] » So, there's a lot of frontage there.
[59:56] » Yeah,
[59:59] » That's the end of my rant, but um,
[1:00:01] » Maybe if staff could respond back. Um,
[1:00:04] well, that's that's on the south side.
[1:00:06] » Yeah. Who put that in the county, state?
[1:00:09] » That's a good question.
[1:00:10] » Combination.
[1:00:11] » Okay.
[1:00:11] » Combination of funds.
[1:00:13] » I do agree. I mean, there's so much more
[1:00:15] pedestrian and bike traffic, bicycle
[1:00:17] traffic, than there used to be. I mean,
[1:00:18] just 10 years ago, you didn't used to
[1:00:20] see tons of people on the side of the
[1:00:22] road. But with all the hidden runs and
[1:00:24] the accidents on 98,
[1:00:25] » I think.
[1:00:27] » Yeah. We first started talking about
[1:00:29] this in 2021. And I still have meeting
[1:00:32] minutes from a meeting with Chase about
[1:00:34] these sidewalks and the 10-year plan. I
[1:00:36] mean, he didn't call it a 10ear plan. I
[1:00:38] did
[1:00:38] » Because now we're five, six years into
[1:00:40] it. It's still progressing, right?
[1:00:43] » And yeah, St. Joe holds a lot of a lot
[1:00:45] of sway in different areas down on down
[1:00:47] in that way. So, I understand your
[1:00:48] frustration. I'm on the other end of
[1:00:50] town on the Mac Valley side, but it's
[1:00:51] been just frustrating for us. It's a
[1:00:52] very long process.
[1:00:54] » Yeah. And and I made the joke about
[1:00:56] Florida Power and Light because they are
[1:00:58] always at the tip of the iceberg with
[1:00:59] these easements and until you get
[1:01:01] lawyers involved, nothing ever gets
[1:01:02] done.
[1:01:03] » Yeah.
[1:01:04] » So,
[1:01:05] » Anyway,
[1:01:05] » Yeah, my understanding was is that uh
[1:01:08] Florida Power was much more cooperative
[1:01:11] than FPL.
[1:01:13] » You mean Golf Power?
[1:01:14] » Yeah. Oh, Golf Power.
[1:01:15] » Golf Power was fantastic. When Florida
[1:01:17] Power and Light came in, what did I say?
[1:01:18] » You said Power Golf Power. They were
[1:01:21] much more um
[1:01:22] » Southern company. They're very very
[1:01:24] engaged in their communities and uh
[1:01:27] » Florida Power and Light is
[1:01:29] » I had I have I had golf power till it
[1:01:31] became FPL.
[1:01:32] » We are
[1:01:33] » The problem on this particular
[1:01:34] » And they raised our rates 25%.
[1:01:35] » It would be nice if staff could figure
[1:01:37] it out. Um
[1:01:39] » Give us a report at our next meeting.
[1:01:40] » I don't know where it is. I'll try, but
[1:01:43] you know, Renee did all of that and when
[1:01:47] she left,
[1:01:48] » Rosanna did all and you know, neither
[1:01:50] one of them are here now. So,
[1:01:52] » I guess again I was my attempt was to
[1:01:54] try to give and that's why um
[1:01:57] » Catherine
[1:01:58] » Katherine I thought I recognized her.
[1:02:00] » Um it I went to them to get the message.
[1:02:04] I'm not kidding. The next item they
[1:02:06] bring to this board, I will I will hold
[1:02:10] it up over whatever deficiency I can
[1:02:12] find in their drawings.
[1:02:14] » Yeah, they wanted to come this to come
[1:02:15] immediately to the meeting. I cut them
[1:02:17] some slack.
[1:02:19] » Really? It should have went next month.
[1:02:22] » They should have corrected the drawings
[1:02:23] and brought it next month. Yeah,
[1:02:24] » But they were
[1:02:25] » Anyway next time again
[1:02:27] » Insistent on getting on this meeting. So
[1:02:29] I'm like, okay, fine.
[1:02:32] » Okay. Well, they got money tied up.
[1:02:35] » That's why. [snorts]
[1:02:37] » But it would it would be nice to know if
[1:02:40] if fees were paid or if they have a
[1:02:43] trigger somewhere in their plans of when
[1:02:45] that will get constructed.
[1:02:46] » Well, it's certainly possible, but I
[1:02:48] kind of doubt we would let them buy it
[1:02:49] out.
[1:02:50] » Well, I mean, it it's obviously shown
[1:02:52] somewhere in the civil package or it
[1:02:53] would not have shown up on their
[1:02:56] drawings.
[1:02:56] » Yeah.
[1:02:57] » Because a lot of that is from the master
[1:02:59] plan, correct? I mean, most of what he
[1:03:02] shows on his drawing is from the master
[1:03:04] plan.
[1:03:05] » No, absolutely. And and I mean, that's
[1:03:07] where it lives, you know. It's not They
[1:03:09] don't generate a new drawing set every
[1:03:11] time. I mean, that's
[1:03:13] » The You're just xing in.
[1:03:15] » I'll see what I can find out. Um there's
[1:03:19] a lot of dos there. So,
[1:03:21] » I mean, at some point, the sidewalk
[1:03:22] needs to be built, right? So who does it
[1:03:25] like it's supposed to be a part of their
[1:03:27] development and yet we keep approving
[1:03:29] all the things for them to build without
[1:03:31] » Sometimes
[1:03:32] » The public amenity
[1:03:33] » The developer will
[1:03:36] » Get an agreement with the county like
[1:03:39] Alice speech they had an agreement with
[1:03:40] their proportionate fair share so they
[1:03:43] didn't have to pay it all up front they
[1:03:45] paid it over like seven years or
[1:03:47] something till it was paid off now it's
[1:03:50] paid off
[1:03:52] » But Um, I don't know that that happened,
[1:03:54] but I'm just saying sometimes the
[1:03:56] developer will get an an agreement
[1:03:59] between them and the county approved to
[1:04:04] delay or what you know like typically
[1:04:07] you pay the proportion of fair share all
[1:04:08] upfront
[1:04:09] » Or or there's a trigger written in when
[1:04:12] a certain percentage of the development
[1:04:13] » Of the devel right
[1:04:16] we've worked on smaller developments
[1:04:17] where the county we're required because
[1:04:19] the sidewalks get destroyed during
[1:04:21] construction. Y
[1:04:22] » The developer has to put forth a bond.
[1:04:24] » Yeah.
[1:04:24] » For that.
[1:04:25] » Well, it's a letter of credit, but yeah,
[1:04:27] because
[1:04:28] » Yeah.
[1:04:28] » That's one of the last basically
[1:04:30] sidewalks and landscaping is the last
[1:04:32] thing they want to do because it'll get
[1:04:34] all torn up.
[1:04:36] » Sidewalks. If you notice Camp Creek,
[1:04:38] that whole master plan shows sidewalks
[1:04:41] at the development. They told me they
[1:04:43] put have no intention to put in the
[1:04:45] sidewalks because I was, you know, when
[1:04:47] I was designing the house in there, I
[1:04:49] said I called them because I said it
[1:04:51] shows that this owner, every owner has
[1:04:53] to put in their
[1:04:55] » Four foot sidewalk from property line to
[1:04:57] property line. I said I just drove
[1:04:59] through the development and there's none
[1:05:00] of them. They said, "Oh yeah, we gave up
[1:05:01] on this." [laughter]
[1:05:03] » So So there are no development or there
[1:05:06] are no sidewalks in Camp Creek. I'm
[1:05:08] surprised that uh that wasn't picked up
[1:05:11] by the BPR folks.
[1:05:13] » I'm not
[1:05:14] » Because they're looking at they should
[1:05:16] be looking at the master plan.
[1:05:20] » Is it possible to give developers
[1:05:22] deadlines for completing certain
[1:05:24] projects that if they're consistently
[1:05:26] showing a sidewalk on every plan for
[1:05:28] seven years that doesn't ever exist?
[1:05:30] » I'm just going to I'm going to use the
[1:05:32] same strategy.
[1:05:33] » Original developer site plan has those
[1:05:35] triggers built in. Like you said,
[1:05:36] there's a letter of credit, there's a
[1:05:37] bond, there's a note somewhere that says
[1:05:39] this is going to be built with this
[1:05:41] parcel development,
[1:05:42] » Right?
[1:05:42] » There's that data is required somewhere
[1:05:46] » On a certain percentage of buildouts.
[1:05:47] She's saying when you get to 60%
[1:05:49] » That way the county if the developer
[1:05:51] doesn't do it, the whole idea of we
[1:05:53] don't take bonds anymore. It's a letter
[1:05:55] of credit. The whole idea is if the
[1:05:59] developer goes bankrupt or whatever, the
[1:06:02] county will take that money and put in
[1:06:04] the sidewalks or landscaping or
[1:06:06] whatever.
[1:06:07] » There should be um that should be part
[1:06:10] of their their sign off
[1:06:11] » And they have to provide that before we
[1:06:14] allow them to plat it, right?
[1:06:17] And typically we get those two things,
[1:06:20] landscaping and sidewalks, because if
[1:06:23] they put it in up front, they tend to
[1:06:25] get torn up. So they'll give us a letter
[1:06:27] of credit, and that's basically the last
[1:06:30] thing they'll put in and and and
[1:06:34] you know, they have to have the DO
[1:06:35] inspector's final sign off that these
[1:06:38] things are in before they can plat the
[1:06:42] project. But to to the board's point,
[1:06:46] like it could take them 20 years to
[1:06:48] finalize all this project.
[1:06:49] » Yeah.
[1:06:50] » So David's saying, why do why does the
[1:06:52] community have to wait 20 years?
[1:06:53] » They're not driving they're not driving
[1:06:54] trucks across this anymore. They've
[1:06:56] landscaped everything around it. Um
[1:06:59] » Again, it's um
[1:07:01] » They just don't want to pay for,
[1:07:02] » You know, next time they come to this
[1:07:04] board. That's a possibility as well that
[1:07:06] they have to
[1:07:07] » I'm sure I can find something wrong with
[1:07:08] their application and we'll
[1:07:11] » I'm just letting you know what I'm going
[1:07:12] to do.
[1:07:14] » Well, I feel you. I mean, they certainly
[1:07:16] they certainly pressure us to, you know,
[1:07:18] get this stuff moved forward as quickly
[1:07:21] as possible.
[1:07:21] » Well, there's a there's a record.
[1:07:22] There's a paper trail somewhere and I
[1:07:24] think that it would be advantageous to
[1:07:28] find it.
[1:07:28] » Go back to 08. I would like to add to
[1:07:31] the record
[1:07:34] LDC section 5.04.03
[1:07:41] pointH sidewalks. That might answer some
[1:07:45] of the questions that you have about
[1:07:47] sidewalks and buyouts.
[1:07:49] » Okay.
[1:07:50] » The county.
[1:07:51] » Well, I mean basically that just says
[1:07:52] you have to do it.
[1:07:54] » Yeah. But this was this was approved
[1:07:56] what 18 years ago? I think it goes a
[1:07:58] little bit deeper than that.
[1:08:00] » So,
[1:08:01] » Okay.
[1:08:01] » I don't know what the code was when they
[1:08:02] when they
[1:08:03] » Now, this is a rule section of Highway
[1:08:05] 98. And if DOT keeps it a rule section,
[1:08:09] they typically won't put in a bike lane,
[1:08:13] which of course if you're using DOT's
[1:08:15] bike lane, you're taking your own life
[1:08:16] in your life in your own hands.
[1:08:19] » Can you rattle that section off again?
[1:08:21] But um
[1:08:23] typically they put in a sidewalk and
[1:08:25] they put a bike lane, but it has to be
[1:08:26] an urban section, not a rural section.
[1:08:31] » It's in chapter 5 of the land
[1:08:33] development code 5.04.03.H
[1:08:38] and the subsection title is sidewalks.
[1:08:41] » Sidewalks. Okay. But that would only be
[1:08:43] applicable
[1:08:45] for it wouldn't necessarily hold the
[1:08:47] vesting from
[1:08:48] » From that particular project master
[1:08:51] plan.
[1:08:52] » Yeah.
[1:08:52] » No, but it talks about where they're
[1:08:54] required,
[1:08:55] » Buying them out, exempting them.
[1:08:58] » Because it has to be in a rural area for
[1:09:00] exemptions. So we
[1:09:02] » At the end of the day, they're showing
[1:09:03] it on a plan set, which means it's in a
[1:09:05] plan set
[1:09:06] » Somewhere. Yeah. somewhere
[1:09:07] » Because they're using the same base
[1:09:10] every time they print out something for
[1:09:12] water. It's the exact same CAD base.
[1:09:15] » Yeah.
[1:09:15] » So, it's in their file, which means it's
[1:09:18] on a drawing somewhere.
[1:09:21] » I agree.
[1:09:22] » Which means it was
[1:09:24] » Somewhere. It's somewhere.
[1:09:25] » But just so you know,
[1:09:27] » You can only exempt a sidewalk in rural
[1:09:29] areas. And we've made the planning has
[1:09:32] made the determination that there's
[1:09:33] nothing rural in South Walton. If it was
[1:09:36] if it was exempted, it wouldn't be
[1:09:38] showing up in his C.
[1:09:39] » No, I'm just saying we're talking about
[1:09:41] sidewalks. There's a provision in the
[1:09:44] code for them to be exempted, but that's
[1:09:46] in rural areas, and we we're the
[1:09:49] planning department is saying there are
[1:09:51] no rural areas in South Walton.
[1:09:53] » Yeah.
[1:09:54] » There hasn't been for a really long
[1:09:55] time.
[1:09:56] » No, I get it. All right. Um well, thank
[1:09:58] you all
[1:09:59] » And um Karen, next month we're here.
[1:10:02] » Yes. All right. Thank you very much. And
[1:10:07] we're darned calling it.
[1:10:29] Chase.