Posted August 14, 2017 05:15 am - Updated August 14, 2017 05:01 pm
By jake.martin@staugustine.com
By jake.martin@staugustine.com
Grand Oaks, a proposed 999-home project off S.R. 16, up for transmittal on Tuesday
UPDATE (MONDAY, 5 p.m.): Developers behind the Grand Oaks project have asked to have its scheduled transmittal hearing before the St. Johns County Commission removed from the Tuesday agenda, according to county officials.
“The applicant for agenda item number two related to COMPAMD 2016-08 Grand Oaks Transmittal on the August 15, 2017 St. Johns County Board of County Commissioners meeting agenda has requested that the item be removed from the agenda,” according to a county press release. “COMPAMD 2016-08 Grand Oaks is a request to amend the Future Land Use Map from Rural/Silviculture (R/S) to Residential-C. The Board of County Commissioners will consider the request to remove the item and vote accordingly during the August 15, 2017 meeting. A rescheduled date has yet to be determined.”
Those seeking additional information regarding the removal of this item are asked to contact St. Johns County Growth Management at 209-0580.
***
Grand Oaks, a proposed 999-home project on the south side of State Road 16 between County Road 208 and Pacetti Road, has its transmittal hearing before the St. Johns County Commission on Tuesday.
The developer, Day Late Enterprises, is seeking a comprehensive plan amendment to change the future land use map from rural silviculture to residential, as well as a rezoning of the property from open rural to planned unit development (PUD). The applicant is proposing a 524-acre, mixed-use project to include a text amendment limiting development to a maximum of 999 single-family residential units, 50,000 square feet of office space and 100,000 square feet of commercial space.
Other large developments have had trouble getting approval in recent months, due largely to road and school capacity concerns, particularly in the northwest sector of the county. However, the project received a 5-1 recommendation from the county’s Planning and Zoning Agency for the board to transmit its request to state and regional agencies for review.
During the June 15 meeting, PZA members raised questions regarding the timing of funding and mitigation for nearby roads, many of which were deemed deficient. Although transportation mitigation is required within the first two years of the project or with construction documents, and can be realized through funding or construction of facilities by the developer, the degree of mitigation that will be required has not yet been determined.
According to the county staff report, the project, as proposed, is expected to generate 1,099 new, external afternoon/ evening peak hour trips. In the meantime, numerous stretches of S.R. 16 are in need of widening, as the report indicates, but other developments coming online in the area also have obligations toward improvements.
There were mixed views among PZA members regarding the ability for the proposed mitigation to adequately address the projected impacts, particularly given the existing deficiencies in this fast-growing area of the county.
As written in the county staff report: “It was noted that the proposed road improvements could have a positive impact on relieving congestion in the area, but there are no apparent solutions to the school capacity issue. The large number of future residential units that are already entitled was raised. Some members had concerns about the size of the project.”
In its applications, the developer noted its proposed densities for Grand Oaks are consistent with residential densities and non-residential intensities of nearby Murabella, Windward Ranch, Whisper Ridge and other developments. As outlined in the county staff report, these locations have densities ranging from two units per acre to six units per acre, as well as higher intensities for commercial, office and light industrial uses at the nearby interchanges.
The developer says benefits include proximity to existing public facilities and services, as well as the possibility for economic development, by increasing the county’s tax base through property taxes and by job creation for county residents.
Additionally, the developer proposes the dedication of about 30 acres for a future school — without seeking credits toward requirements for a proportionate fair share or impact fees.
The subject property and its immediate surroundings are a mixed bag.
The property is currently vacant and primarily utilized as a farmstead with just two single-family homes, several agricultural structures, grazing pastures and large stands of trees. It includes about 93.5 acres of wetlands.
Meanwhile, the Star-4 Mitigation Bank abuts the property to the south, while the St. Johns County Turnbull Creek Conservation Area is situated to the west. Wetlands associated with the Twelve Mile Swamp Preservation Area and some residential lots of varying sizes lie to the north.
Although the parcel to the immediate east is undeveloped grazing land, the Windward Ranch and Whisper Ridge PUDs are situated east of this lot, and the recently approved Tomoka Pines PUD is located on the northeast side of S.R. 16 across from Grand Oaks. The whole area is just a couple miles west of Interstate 95.
Additionally, the future County Road 2209 and Murabella community lie to the west and, as outlined in the staff report, C.R. 2209 may intersect with the subject parcel at the southwest corner.
On Aug. 1, the transmittal hearing for Steeplechase, a proposed 980-home development in the same neck of the woods as Grand Oaks, off Pacetti Road near C.R. 208, was continued to the board’s Sept. 19 meeting at the developer’s request.
In May, the PZA had recommended denial of transmittal by a 4-3 vote. Despite acknowledging several positive elements about the project, including donation of substantial conservation lands, PZA members cited concerns about traffic congestion, crowded schools and bad timing.
Upon the continuance, County Attorney Patrick McCormack said the developers wanted to wait until after a joint meeting between the county and the school board, which has since taken place, in which issues of capacity and growth, and, specifically, impact fees, were discussed.
No comments:
Post a Comment