[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.

[54:34] » 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

[57:45] » 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.

Design Review Board - Sep 03 2026

Transcript