Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Deering Park Innovation Center topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission adopts Deering Park Innovation Center comprehensive-plan changes after heated public debate
Summary
By 4-1 votes the commission approved two comprehensive-plan amendments to allow an —industrial mixed use' designation for a roughly 1,618-acre area known in the application as the Deering Park Innovation Center; the decision drew lengthy public comment about wetlands, stormwater and long-term commitments from the applicant.
The City Commission voted to adopt two related comprehensive-plan amendments that clear the way for a proposed Deering Park Innovation Center on about 1,618 acres south of State Road 44 and west of I-95.
Staff and the applicant described the change as a planning step that enables a future negotiated planned unit development (PUD) and master development agreement (MDA). Planning staff and the applicant said the concept would reserve at least roughly 400 acres for conservation, require a regional stormwater management approach (including a stormwater bond), and phase development so that a minimum amount of nonresidential construction is completed before residential development proceeds. The applicant's team said the site would accommodate up to 6,000,000 square feet of nonresidential space and up to 2,150 residential units at ultimate buildout; they emphasized commitments to conservation easements, habitat corridors and other public benefits.
The proposal drew extensive public testimony on both sides. Supporters, including local business groups and some residents, said the designation would diversify the tax base, add higher-wage job opportunities near regional assets and enable regional planning rather than parcel-by-parcel development. Opponents and environmental advocates expressed concern about wetland impacts, river and lagoon hydrology, the Saint Johns River watershed, the need to address technical agency comments (including suggestions from the St. Johns River Water Management District), and the wisdom of approving a map change before finalizing the PUD/MDA details. Several speakers urged postponement to allow more public workshops; others said the comp-plan amendment is a necessary first step and that the PUD process will provide the required technical scrutiny.
Applicant counsel Glenn Storch described the exercise as a regional planning effort and said that no development can occur until the PUD and MDA are negotiated and approved by the commission; he pointed to the applicant's commitments on stormwater, conservation, a police-site dedication and a regional sports complex. St. Johns district and other agency comments were discussed; staff and the applicant said many comments will be addressed during the PUD review, and that adopting the comp-plan amendment is procedurally necessary to preserve the agency review window.
After extended discussion, a motion to adopt the text change (Ordinance 34-24) and the specific future-land-use map amendment (Ordinance 42-24) passed by roll-call votes (both 4-1). Commissioners stressed that the approval creates a framework for later negotiations and that the PUD/MDA, jurisdictional delineations, stormwater modeling and other technical work remain required before any project-level approvals or construction could occur.
