Apr 06, 2021 Planning Commission

[Call to Order]

[00:00:07]

>>> WELCOME, EVERYONE, TO THE APRIL MEETING, APRIL 6 OF THE CLAY COUNTY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION.

I'D LIKE TO START WITH FIRST, LET'S START WITH THE PLEDGE OF

[Pledge of Allegiance]

IN THE PLEDGE, PLEASE. >> HAPPY TO.

THANK YOU. >> I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS, ONE NATION UNDER GOD, INDIVISIBLE, WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL.

>> CHAIRMAN PUCKHABER: THANK YOU.

>> COMMISSIONER BOURRÉ: THANK YOU, SIR.

>> CHAIRMAN PUCKHABER: START WITH INTRODUCTIONS TONIGHT.

MY NAME IS RALPH PUCKHABER. I'M THE CHAIRMAN OF THE COMMISSION THIS YEAR. I'M GOING TO START OVER HERE.

WAY ON THE RIGHT, SOME OF THEM YOU CAN'T SEE BUT WE HAVE FROM A CLERK'S OFFICE WHO TAKES THE MINUTES FOR US.

CHRISTINE BLANCHETT AND STACIE TOWNS.

WE HAVE KELLY COLINS FROM THE PLANNING OFFICE.

WE HAVE OUR ED LEHMAN, OUR DIRECTOR OF, HE IS THE PLANNING AND ZONING DIRECTOR. WE HAVE ON THE DAIS HERE, PETER DAVIS, BO HOWARD, VICE CHAIRMAN MARY BRIDGMAN AND TO MY LEFT MICHAEL BOURRÉ, JOE ANZALONE, BILL GARRISON AND ON THE FAR END THERE IS JAMES FOSSA WHO I AM USED TO BEING OVER THERE.

JAMES IS THE CLAY COUNTY SCHOOL REPRESENTATIVE AT THESE MEETINGS. WE ALSO HAVE THE COUNTY ATTORNEY, COURTNEY GRIMM HERE. AND THANK YOU TO THE -- OH, THE NEWEST PLANNING PERSON OUR NEW CHIEF OF THE ZONING MIKE BROWN IS HERE. AND AS ALWAYS, THANK YOU TO THE CLAY COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE FOR PROVIDING US SECURE ENVIRONMENT.

THANK YOU. THIS BOARD IS AN ADVISORY BOARD TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS.

MOST OF THE DECISIONS MADE BY THE BOARD ARE RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE B.C.C. THE NEXT -- THERE ARE A FEW ITEMS TONIGHT THAT WILL HAVE TWO HEARINGS.

HEARING AT THE B.C.C. ON APRIL 13 AND A FINAL HEARING ON APRIL 27. WHICH IS THREE WEEKS FROM TONIGHT. ED, DOES THE B.C.C. STILL START

AT 4:00? >> YES, SIR.

>> CHAIRMAN PUCKHABER: WOULD THESE BE TIME CERTAIN? 5:00 TIME CERTAINS. OKAY.

WITH THAT, WE CAN MOVE IN TO THE AGENDA FOR TONIGHT.

WE DO HAVE A FAIRLY SHORT AGENDA.

SO HOPEFULLY THIS WILL GO RATHER QUICKLY.

I DON'T KNOW IF ANYBODY IS HERE SPECIFICALLY.

THERE WAS A FUTURE LAND USE AMENDMENT TO CHANGE ABOUT 4,500 ACRES FROM A.R. TO P.C. THAT APPLICATION HAS BEEN WITHDRAWN. SO THAT IS THE -- IS ANYBODY HERE FOR THAT ONE? THAT WAS DOWN NEAR CAMP LANDING.

OKAY. GREAT.

SO OUR FIRST, WE HAVE TWO PUBLIC FIRST PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD I'LL OPEN UP. THIS COMMENT PERIOD IS JUST FOR ANYTHING THAT IS PERTINENT TO THIS BOARD THAT IS NOT ON THE AGENDA FOR TONIGHT. I DON'T HAVE ANY CARDS.

I DON'T SEE ANYONE. I'LL CLOSE THE HEARING.

WE'LL MOVE TO THE FIRST ITEM. >> APPROVAL OF MINUTES.

[1.  Approval of Minutes]

>> CHAIRMAN PUCKHABER: APPROVAL OF MINUTES.

THANK YOU. HAS EVERYONE READ THE MINUTES?

DO I HAVE A MOTION? >> MOVE FOR APPROVAL.

>> CHAIRMAN PUCKHABER: OKAY. I'LL GIVE IT TO MIKE.

AND THE SECOND TO MARY. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF APPROVAL, STATES AYE.

OPPOSED? IS EVERYBODY HERE TONIGHT? YEAH.

SEVEN. >> FULL HOUSE.

[1.  Public Hearing to Consider A Land Development Change to Add RV and Boat Storage as a Conditional Use in Certain Master Plan Districts]

>> CHAIRMAN PUCKHABER: NOW WE CAN MOVE TO THE FIRST PUBLIC HEARING. THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER LAND DEVELOPMENT CHANGE TO ARD R.V. AND BOAT STORAGE AS A CONDITIONAL USE IN CERTAIN MASTER PLAN DISTRICTS.

THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING A CHANGE TO THE LAND DEVELOMENT CODE TO ADD R.V. AND BOAT STORAGE TO SEVERAL DISTRICTS IN BRANAN FIELD AND LAKE ASBURY MASTER PLANS.

YOU THIS ONE? >> YES, SIR.

[INAUDIBLE] >> THE APPLICANT IS HERE TONIGHT. FRANK MILLER.

>> TURN YOUR MIC ON. >> YOU CAN HEAR ME.

>> CHAIRMAN PUCKHABER: WE CAN HEAR YOU NOW.

WATCHING THE FLASHING RED LIGHT. APPLICANT IS HERE TONIGHT.

FRANK MILLER. IS ANYTHING ON THE SCREEN

ANYWHERE? >> CHAIRMAN PUCKHABER: WE GOT

IT. >> YOU GOT?

>> CHAIRMAN PUCKHABER: YEAH. >> WE ARE LOOKING TO ADD R.V.

AND BOAT STORAGE AS CONDITIONAL USE.

THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THEY ARE PROPOSING TO AMEND TO ADD THEM

[00:05:04]

FROM THE L.D.R.S, THE COUNTY'S INTENT FOR ADDITIONAL USES IN THE V.F. COMMUNITY CENTER FOR SURROUNDING RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY. SO OBVIOUSLY, THE R.V. AND BOAT WOULD SERVE THE SURROUNDING RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY IN THE COMMUNITY CENTER AREA. CURRENTLY, R.V. AND BOAT STORAGE ARE ONLY ALLOWED IN BRANAN FIELD IN CONDITIONAL USE AS THE ACTIVITY CENTER. SO QUITE A DISTANCE BETWEEN THE ACTIVITY CENTER AND THE AGAINMENT IN BRANAN FIELD.

LAKE ASBURY ARE THE NEXT CENTRAL PLACE OF A VILLAGE AND SHALL PROVIDE COMMUNITY SHOPPING AND THE PARKS FOR A WALKABLE AND A HUMAN SCALE MANNER AND IT TALKS ABOUT THE NEW ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS AS WELL. LIMITED SMALL SCALE USES.

VILLAGE CENTERS ARE DESIGNATED ON THE PLAN.

PER CODE, THIS PROPOSED AMENDMENT WOULD ALLOW R.V. AND THE BOAT STORAGE AS CONDITIONAL USE FOR THE INTERSTATE VILLAGE CENTERS OF WHICH THERE ARE TWO. ONE LOCATED AT THE NORTH/SOUTHEAST CORNER OF HENLEY AND THE EXPRESS WAY AND THE OTHER IS LOCATED AT THE STATUTE ROAD 16.

AND EXPRESSWAY INTERCHANGE. PRESENTLY R.V. AND BOAT STORAGE ARE ONLY CURRENTLY ALLOWED IN LAKE ASBURY OF THE ACTIVITY CENTER. ONE AREA THEY ARE ALLOWED AND NO OTHER AREA WITHIN LAKE ASBURY ARE THEY ALLOWED.

THIS ONE IS A LITTLE MORE CONFUSING.

THIS IS WITHIN THE MASTER PLAN COMMUNITY.

IF NEIGHBORHOOD CENTER ZONE IS A SMALL SCALE BUSINESS AREA WITH A CIVIC PARK AREA. BETWEEN 2-10 ACRES IN.

SO AGAIN, BRANAN FIELD THEY HAVE A MASTER PLAN COMMUNITY.

WITHIN THERE, THEY HAVE THE NEIGHBORHOOD CENTER ZONES AND THE VILLAGE ZONES. NEIGHBORHOOD CENTER ZONES ARE SUPPOSED TO BE THE FOCAL POINT OF THE VILLAGE.

AND THEN VILLAGE ZONE IS THE RESIDENTIAL AREA SURROUNDING THE NEIGHBORHOOD CENTER.% AS YOU GO FURTHE OUT, YOU GET LESS DENSITY, AS YOU GO AWAY FROM THE MASTER PLAN COMMUNITY NEIGHBORHOOD CENTER. SO ALL THREE OF THE PROPOSALS HAVE THE R.V. AND THE BOAT STORAGE PROPOSED IN THE FOCAL POINT. THE CENTER OF THE VILLAGE.

AGAIN, THE MASTER PLAN COMMUNITY HAS IT WITHIN THE NEIGHBORHOOD CENTER. THE VILLAGE ZONE, THE RESIDENTIAL AREA WE DID HAVE A LONG DISCUSSION BY E-MAIL TODAY WITH MR. MILLER. MAKING SURE HE ADDRESSES THE NEED THERE. POPULATION AREA.

WE THINK CONSISTENT WITH THE OTHERS, BECAUSE IF YOU SEE HOW THEY ARE DESIGNED THE BRANAN FIELD COMMUNITY CENTER ARE THE FOCAL POINT OF DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THERE.

VILLAGE CENTERS ARE THE FOCAL POINT OF THE NONRESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT WITHIN A VILLAGE. SO YOU HAVE THE RESIDENTIAL SURROUNDED, SURROUNDING A VILLAGE CENTER SO YOU WOULD LOCATE THE R.V. AND THE BOAT STORAGE IN THE VILLAGE CENTER.

NEIGHBORHOOD CENTER, SAME CONCEPT.

ALL THREE OF THE CONCEPTS, COMMUNITY CENTER ARE THE FOCAL POINT. THAT IS WHERE THE SERVICES ARE PROVIDED, R.V. AND BOAT STORAGE SURROUNDED BY RESIDENTIAL.

VILLAGE CENTER AND THE LAKES ABURY, SAME CONCEPT.

THE NEIGHBORHOOD ZONE, SAME CONCEPT.

THAT IS WHY THE VILLAGE ZONE, I'D LIKE FRANK TO ADDRESS THAT.

WE RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED CHANGE.

APPLICANT INCLUDED PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE CONDITIONAL USE CRITERIA FOR THE R.V. AND BOAT STORAGE BUT DUE TO A STAFF ADVERTISING SNAFFU, I SCREWED UP SO THE PROPOSED CHANGES WILL BE HEARD NEXT MONTH. THE APPLICANT IS HERE.

A ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF?

>> IF I COULD. UPDATE THE ZONE AND UPDATE THE WALL REQUIREMENTS. I FIGURED YOU HAD IT HANDY.

>> I KNEW SOMEONE WOULD ASK THIS.

THESE ARE THE REQUIREMENTS FOR RECREATIONAL VEHICLE AND THE BOAT STORAGE. LIKE YOU SAID IT'S A CONDITIONAL USE. 20% OF THE SITE SHALL BE AN OPEN SPACE. LANDSCAPE BUFFER AND THE OTHER VEGETATED AREAS MAY BE USED TO ACHIEVE THE 20% REQUIREMENT.

DRIVE AISLE SHALL BE PAVED. YOU DON'T CARE ABOUT THAT.

SITE SHOULD BE SECURE WITH THE OPEC WALL AND FENCE SIX FEET IN

[00:10:01]

REQUIREMENTS. >> THANK YOU.

>> DID YOU HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT CAPACITY?

>> I DID. ANYONE ELSE? I HAD ONE. WHAT IS THE MAXIMUM SIZE THAT

STORAGE YARD COULD BE? >> I DON'T THINK THERE IS IDENTIFIED HERE. I DON'T WANT YOU TO GET TOO CAUGHT UP ON THAT. IN THE PROPOSED CHANGES THAT MR. MILLER SUBMITTED HE HAS A MAXIMUM -- HE HAS MINIMUM, SOME

SIZE PROPOSED. >> WE WILL LET HIM TELL US.

>> IF THE STAFF WAS ON THE BALL AND ADVERTISED THAT CORRECTLY

YOU'D HEAR THAT TODAY. >> ANYTHING ELSE?

IF NOT, APPLICANT, COME ON UP. >> THOSE --

>> SORRY. >> I'M LATE TO THE QUESTION ROUND. CURIOUS, PART OF THIS IS HEARD NEXT MONTH. WILL THE WHOLE THING GO TO THE

B.C.C. AS ONE PACKAGE? >> NO.

THIS GOES SEPARATELY WITHIN THE 13 AND 27.

FIRST WE'LL APPROVE THE LAND USE AND THEN LOOK AT WE WANT TO CHANGE THE CONDITIONS. SO THEY MIGHT APPROVE OKAY THIS IS AN APPROPRIATE LAND USE WITHIN THE CENTER.

WE'LL HAVE TO CONSIDER OKAY, THE CHANGE IN THE USES.

BECAUSE THE WAY THE CONDITIONAL USES ARE WRITTEN NOW, IT'S VERY DIFFICULT TO LOCATE THESE WITHIN THESE AREAS WITHOUT SOME CHANGES. LET'S FIRST APPROVE THESE.

GO FROM THERE. OR DENY THEM AND THEN WE PROBABLY DON'T HEAR THE SECOND PART, RIGHT, FRANK?

>> JOE? AND ONE QUESTION, ED.

IS THERE ANY MAP SHOWING THE DESIGNATED AREA SPECIFICALLY?

>> I COULD BRING THEM UP. I CAN'T BRING THEM UP HERE BUT I

CAN PROVIDE THOSE TO YOU. >> WE ARE SEEING A LOT OF AREAS.

>> WHILE FRANK IS TALKING I SHOULD HAVE SOME LUCK WITH THAT.

>> I'M NOT SURE IF HE HAS THEM IN HIS PACKAGE OR NOT.

>> NO. >> COMMISSIONER ANZALONE: NO?

>> OKAY. ANYONE ELSE?

MR. MILLER NOW, PLEASE. >> THANK YOU.

GOOD EVENING. MY NAME IS FRANK MILLER, AND MY ADDRESS IS 1 INDEPENDENT DRIVE SUITE 2300 IN JACKSONVILLE.

I'M HERE ON BEHALF AN R.V. AND BOAT STORAGE DEVELOPER.

JUST A COUPLE OF QUICK THINGS YOU MAY KNOW.

BUT THE R.V. INDUSTRY HAS GONE CRAZY IN THE LAST COUPLE OF YEARS. THE INCREASES HAVE BEEN AS HIGH

AS 31% YEAR OVER YEAR. >> PULL THE MIC IN A LITTLE BIT

CLOSER. >> HOW ABOUT THIS?

>> YEAH. >> BETWEEN THE EXPECTED INCREASE IN THE R.V. SALES BETWEEN 2021 AND 2020 ESTIMATED TO BE 20% INCREASE. THAT IS OVER 500,000 UNITS BEING SOLD. 11% OF THE U.S. HOUSEHOLDS OWN RECREATIONAL VEHICLE. AVERAGE -- THIS IS INTERESTING.

THE AVERAGE R.V. OWNER IS A MALE BETWEEN THE AGES OF 38 AND 55.

BUT THERE IS ALSO INTERESTING A RISE IN THE SOLO FEMALE OWNERSHIP. MILLENNIALS HAVE REALLY PUSHED THE INDUSTRY TO THE RECORD HIGHS IN RECENT YEARS.

38% OF THE 40 MILLION PEOPLE WHO OWN RECREATIONAL VEHICLES ARE MILLENNIALS. AS I INDICATED, THE PROPOSED OR THE EXPECTED INCREASE IN THE MANUFACTURER OF THE R.V.

VEHICLES THIS YEAR IS AN US THE PATED TO BE ABOUT 20% INCREASE -- ANTICIPATED TO BE ABOUT 20% INCREASE.

THE OTHER THING YOU MAY KNOW AND THIS IS FROM YOUR OWN COUNTY'S, I GUESS FROM THE TAX AGENT, THE TAX AGENCY, THERE ARE OVER 11,000 BOATS REGISTERED IN CLAY COUNTY.

IN TERMS OF THE NUMBER OF SALES OF RECREATIONAL BOATS, IT'S ANTICIPATED TO INCREASE BY OVER 12% IN THE NEXT YEAR.

IT'S ON TOP OF THE INCREASES OVER THE LAST THREE YEARS.

SO ANY EVENT, THAT IS JUST A BACKGROUND OF WHAT IS GOING ON IN THAT INDUSTRY. AND HOW MANY OF THOSE THINGS

[00:15:04]

WHEN YOU LOOK AT CLAW COUNTY, YOU LOOK AT THE STRAIGHT ZONING AREAS, IT'S PRETTY MUCH YOU ARE LIMITED TEST TO INDUSTRIAL OR HY COMMERCIAL AREAS YOU ARE ALLOWED TO PUT THE R.V. OR BOAT FACILITY. IN BRANAN FIELD PLAN IT'S ONLY ALLOWED IN THE ACTIVITY CENTER. ACTIVITY CENTER IS NOT, IT'S BIG BUT IT'S PRETTY WELL FILLED UP BY NOW.

IT'S ONE SPOT. YOU MAY REALIZE AND KNOW THAT IN MOST RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISIONS THESE DAYS, COVENANTS AND RESTRICTIONS PROHIBIT PARKING OF AN R.V. OR A BOAT IN YOUR YARD.

ABSOLUTELY ALL OF THEM REFUSE TO ALLOW YOU TO HAVE THEM IN YOUR DRIVEWAY. SOME AND MANY DON'T EVEN ALLOW THEM IN THE BACKYARD. SO THESE 11,000 BOATS REGISTERED IN CLAY COUNTY HAVE TO BE KEPT SOMEWHERE.

IF YOU RESTRICT IT SOLELY TO THE ACTIVITY CENTERS YOU HAVE PEOPLE DRIVING FROM ALL OVER THE BRANAN FIELD MASTER PLAN AREA AND ALL OVER FROM THE LAKE ASBURY AREA AND GET THE R.V. AND BOAT AND BRING IT BACK TO THE HOUSE TO PACK IT UP AND TAKE IT BACK WHEREVER THEY ARE GOING WITH IT. IT MAKES SENSE LOGICALLY AND PLANNING WISE TO HAVE LOCATIONS CLOSER TO THE RESIDENTIAL AREAS THAT WOULD ALLOW THE STORAGE OF THESE THINGS.

I'LL COME BACK IN A MINUTE TO THE AREAS WE ARE PROPOSING.

BUT WHAT I SAY IN CONNECTION WITH THE BUFFERS AND THAT SORT OF THING, RIGHT NOW, WHEREVER R.V. AND THE BOAT STORAGE FACILITIES IS ALLOWED IT'S A CONDITIONAL USE.

I DON'T THINK THERE IS ANYPLACE IN CLAY COUNTY TO ALLOW IT AS A USE BY RIGHT. SO YOU HAVE TO GO TO THE CONDITIONAL USE SECTION OF THE CODE.

THAT IS WHERE IT DESCRIBES CRITERIA THAT YOU HAVE TO FOLLOW. AND COMPLY WITH TO CONSTRUCT OR DEVELOP RECREATIONAL VEHICLE AND THE BOAT STORAGE FACILITY.

SO THAT IS WHAT WE GET TO HEAR NEXT MONTH.

SO ASSUMING THAT WHATEVER THOSE CHANGES TURN OUT TO BE, WHATEVER THEY ARE, CONSISTENT AROUND THE COUNTY, WE ARE SIMPLY TRYING TO ALLOW FOR R.V. AND BOAT STORAGE FACILITIES CLOSER TO THE RESIDENCES. YOU WILL FIND IN THE BRANAN FIELD MASTER PLAN AND I BELIEVE THE LAKE ASBURY MASTER PLAN, IN THE MASTER PLAN COMMUNTY WHERE THERE ARE TYPICAL RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISIONS, SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED HOMES, IT ALLOWS FOR RECREATIONAL BOAT STORAGE WITHIN THAT SUBDIVISION SOLELY FOR THE PEOPLE THAT LIVE IN THAT SUBDIVISION.

AND THAT IS GREAT, EXCEPT THAT IN DOING THAT THE DEVELOPER IS GIVING UP A LOT HE WOULD OTHERWISE BE ABLE TO SELL FOR A HOME AND MAKE MONEY OFF. SO THERE ISN'T INCENTIVE FOR THE SUBDIVISIONS TO CREATE A SPACE TO PUT THESE BOATS AND R.V.S.

SO WHAT WE ARE ASKING IS THAT YOU CONSIDER ADDING TO THE COMMUNITY CENTER IN IF BRANAN FIELD PLAN AND IN THE VILLAGE ZONES -- I HAVE TO GET IT RIGHT -- VILLAGE CENTERS IN THE LAKE ASBURY MASTER PLAN, SO THAT THEY CAN BE IN THOSE LOCATIONS THAT ARE CLOSER TO THE RESIDENCES AND NOT JUST PLOPPED IN ONE SPOT IN THE MASTER PLAN, WHICH IS THE ACTIVITY CENTER.

WE ARE ALSO ASKING ■THATINTHE MASTER PLAN COMMUNITY CATEGORY OF THE BRANAN FIELD PLAN THAT YOU ALLOW THE R.V. AND BOAT STORAGE WITHIN THE NEIGHBORHOOD CENTER, WHICH IS THE LITTLE COMMERCIAL DISTRICT WITHIN EACH PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OR LARGE DEVELOPMENT. BUT ALSO IN THE VUL LAGE ZONE.

IF YOU THINK OF IT -- THIS IS THE CONCEPT IN THE BRANAN FIELD PLAN. YOU HAVE HOWEVER BIG THE AREA IS AND FRANKLY I THINK, I MAY BE WRONG BUT THE BIGGEST PORTION OF

[00:20:03]

YOU WILL HAVE A NEIGHBORHOOD CENTER, THEN SUPPOSEDLY AROUND THAT YOU HAVE A VILLAGE CENTER WITH HIGHER INTENSITY, MORE INTENSE DEVELOPMENT. THEN OUTSIDE OF THAT, YOU ARE TO HAVE A SUBURBAN ZONE, SINGLE FAMILY, TYPICAL SUBDIVISION.

WE WERE ASKING FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD CENTER BECAUSE IT'S THE PRIMARY CENTRAL FOCUS OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD OR THE COMMUNITY.

WE ARE ALSO ASKING FOR THE VILLAGE ZONE BECAUSE THERE YOU HAVE A HIGH DENSITY TOWN HOME APARTMENTS.

NONE OF THOSE WILL HAVE ANY LOCATION FOR PEOPLE TO PUT BOATS AND R.V.S. AND IT JUST SEEMED TO BE AN APPROPRIATE LOCATION AS OPPOSED TO A SUBURBAN SPRAWL DEVELOPMENT TO HAVE IT WITHIN MORE INTENSE AND THE DENSE USE.

AND THEN WITH RESPECT TO THE LOCATIONS OF THESE FA FACILITIE, YOU PROBABLY NEED TO APPRECIATE IT'S LIKELY TO BE A RELATIVELY TEMPORARY USE. WHEN THE R.V. AND THE BOAT FACILITY IS PLACED IN FOR INSTANCE A COMMUNITY CENTER, OVER TIME THAT COMMUNITY CENTER IS GOING TO BE DEVELOPED.

THERE WILL BE STRONG PROFIT PRESSURE TO CONVERT A PIECE THAT IS AN R.V. AND BOAT STORAGE FACILITY TO OFFICE BUILD OG A RETAIL CENTER. WHEN WE ASK IT BE ALLOWED IN A VILLAGE ZONE WE ANTICIPATE IT WON'T BE AN R.V. AND A BOAT STORAGE FACILITY FOREVER BUT IT WOULD BE THERE TO SERVE THOSE WHO ARE IN THE VILLAGE ZONE INITIALLY.

I DON'T KNOW IF THAT HAS RAISED QUESTIONS OR ANSWERED QUESTIONS BUT I'M HAPPY TO DISCUSS IT WITH YOU AND HOPEFULLY SATISFY YOU

WITH THE REQUEST. >> CHAIRMAN PUCKHABER: ANY

QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? >> COMMISSIONER: I HAVE A COMMENT. I DON'T KNOW IF -- I'M NOT -- FIRST, I'LL SAY I SUPPORT THE IDEA OF R.V. AND BOAT STORAGE BUT I'M VERY CONCERNED ABOUT MICHAEL'S QUESTION OF THE BUFFERS AND THE WALL AROUND IT. THE COVERING.

I SENT ED A PHOTO EARLIER. THERE IS ONE OUT ON 228 THAT IS ADVERTISED AS A R.V. AND BOAT STORAGE.

IT HAS R.V. AND BOATS AND IT HAS A BUNCH OF OTHER STUFF IN IT.

THERE IT IS RIGHT THERE. AND --

>> WHERE DID IT GO? >> ON THE SCREEN.

YOU DON'T KNOW. I APOLOGIZE FOR GETTING IT TO YOU LATE, ED. ONE OF THOSE DAYS.

>> I SEE IT PERFECTLY. >> I SEE IT OVER THERE.

>> OH, IT'S APPEARING OVER THERE!

>> NAY CAN BECOME THE EYESORE QUICKLY.

YOU GET THE NEED FOR THEM. THERE IS A NEED FOR THEM.

THOSE OTHER TWO FOR A LATER CONVECONVERSATION.

BUT THAT IS MY PRIMARY CONCERN. I SENT AN E-MAIL EARLIER AND ED ASSURED ME THERE ARE LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENTS.

>> THE LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENTS ARE RELATIVELY NEW.

THESE ONS HERE ARE GRANDFATHERED IN.

THEY ARE DIFFERENT THAN THE BLOCKERS UP NORTH OF GREENCO

SPRINGS. >> THIS HAS BEEN THERE A LONG TIME. I THOUGHT I HAD TAKEN THE SIGN OUT. BUT IT DOESN'T MATTER.

THOSE ARE MY CONCERNS. I'M IN FAVOR OF THE IDEA OF R.V.

AND CURIOUS OF AN R.V. STORAGE IDEA BUT CURIOUS ABOUT THE LOCATION. THANK YOU FOR ASKING FOR A MAP.

>> FRANK, I HAD ONE QUESTION. ED DIDN'T ANSWER AND YOU DIDN'T.

WHAT DO YOU SEE THE SIZE OF THESE TO BE?

>> WELL, WHAT WE WERE PROPOSING AND AGAIN NOT TO MOVE TO NEXT MONTH'S DISCUSSION BUT WHEN WE WERE, WHAT WE WERE THINKING OF AND THE CONDITIONAL USE PROVISIONS IT HAD TO BE A MINIMUM OF FIVE ACRES. WE DIDN'T EVEN CONSIDER, YOU WE ARE NOT OPPOSED TO IT, I DON'T THINK WE ARE OPPOSED TO IT, WE JUST DIDN'T EVEN THINK ABOUT IT.

[00:25:01]

IT WOULDN'T BE MANAGED WELL. IT WOULDN'T BE MAINTAINED MAYBE WELL. IN THAT REGARD WE THINK OF A MINIMUM TO BE A REAL R.V. BOAT STORAGE OPERATOR FOLKS WHO KNEW

WHAT THEY WERE DOING. >> CHAIRMAN PUCKHABER: OKAY.

ANYONE ELSE? I'M GOING TO OPEN PUBLIC HEARING

AND WE CAN TALK ABOUT IT. >> BO HAS A QUESTION.

>> I GOT QUESTIONS. IF I MAY.

ONE IS ARE THESE ONLY FOR THE RESIDENTS OF THE PLANNED COMMUNITY OR ANYBODY CAN DRAG A BOAT IN THERE AND STORE IT?

>> IT'S AVAILABLE, IT'S A COMMERCIAL SITUATION.

YOU GET TO STORE YOUR BOAT -- >> OPEN TO THE COUNTY OR --

>> YES. >> COMMISSIONER: OR GEORGIA WHO DRUG A BOAT DOWN HERE AND SAVE TO GET ON ST. JOHNS.

>> YES. >> COMMISSIONER: I UNDERSTAND THE MONEY DRIVE AND THE WHOLE THING BUT WHAT WOULD BE THE DECISION CRITERIA TO SAY OKAY, IT'S NO LONGER, IT SHOULD BE AN OFFICE BUILDING THAN BOAT STORAGE? IT SEEMS LIKE A BAIT AND SWITCH SCENARIO THERE.

I'M WITH MR. GARRISON THERE, I THINK THEY ARE NEEDED.

I THINK THE D.R.I.S THAT WE HAVE SEEN IN THE PAST OVERLOOKED THAT. SO CONSEQUENTLY PEOPLE HAVE BOATS STASHED TEN MILES FROM THEIR HOUSE OR WHATEVER THE CASE MIGHT BE. I HATE TO SEE IT A SITUATION WHERE YOU GET YOUR CUSTOMERS IN THERE AND I CAN MAKE IT MORE MONEY IN A THREE-STORY OFFICE BUILDING AND TELL YOU ALL TO

FIND A NEW HOME. >> I'M NOT THE DEVELOPER.

I'M NOT THE ECONOMIST. THEY DON'T DO THESE THINGS NOT MAKE MONEY. OBVIOUSLY, THE OPERATION OF AN R.V. BOAT STORAGE IS PROFITABLE. IF THEIR RETURN IS 5% PER ANUMBER AND SOMETHING AND THEY CAN GET 30% ON CONSTRUCTION OF BUILDING, IT COULD HAPPEN. YOU DON'T KNOW.

>> OKAY. >> CHAIRMAN PUCKHABER: THANK YOU. I'M GOING TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. ANYBODY WANT TO COMMENT ON THIS BEFORE I CLOSE IT AND BRING IT BACK TO THE BOARD? IF NOT, I'LL CLOSE IT AND BRING IT BACK TO THE BOARD.

IF YOU HAD ANY OTHER COMMENTS YOU WANTED TO MAKE?

GO AHEAD, JOE. >> COMMISSIONER ANZALONE: MY CONCERN, I'M WITH BILL ON THAT AS WELL.

I KNOW THERE IS A BIG NEED FOR THIS IN THE COUNTY.

MY BIG CONCERN, THOUGH, IS WHEN I HEAR ABOUT THE VILLAGE CENTERS AND THINGS LIKE THAT, THEY ARE SUPPOSED TO BE THE ECONOMIC PROPERTIES I BELIEVE WHERE THEY PUT GAS STATIONS IN AND BUSINESSES TO, YOU KNOW, SELL WHATEVER TO PEOPLE THAT ARE IN THERE. I THINK ABOUT THE, YOU KNOW, ESPECIALLY WHEN I HEAR "LAKE ASBURY" AND THE HENLEY ROAD AREA WHICH I TRAVEL OFTEN. IT'S THE AESTHETICS OF IT.

SIX-FOOT, 100% CAPACITY WALL IS GREAT.

BUT THESE THINGS ARE PRETTY TALL.

YOU WILL HAVE A SLEW OF THEM PARKED IN THERE WITH A BUNCH OF OTHER THINGS. IF I WAS A DEVELOPER AND THAT AREA IS GOING TO BE DEVELOPING, YOU KNOW, QUITE NICELY AS THAT EXPRESS WAY IS COMPLETED, IN A LOT OF SENSES IT COULD DEVALUE A LOT OF PROPERTY IN THE AREA. I'D BE CONCERNED AS A CITIZEN TO NOT KNOW WHERE IT IS GOING. YOU'D PREFER TO SEE IT IN A LESS TRAFFICKED AREA. YOU KNOW, WHERE IT COULD KIND OF BE MORE HIDDEN. I'M NOT OPPOSED.

THEY ARE NEEDED BUT WHERE DO WE ACTUALLY PUT THIS THING? I WANT TO SEE A MAP TO SEE WHERE THEY PROPOSE IT GOES.

>> MR. CHAIR? >> I HAVE A QUESTION.

>> CHAIRMAN PUCKHABER: GO DOWN THE LINE.

MIKE? >> COMMISSIONER BOURRÉ: THIS IS A NEED OF THE COMMUNITY. ECONOMIC DRIVER FOR THE COMMUNITY. GLAD TO HEAR THE STATISTICS OF THE NUMBER OF THE MILLENNIALS.

30% SOME ODD AND I LOVE TO HEAR THAT.

DRIVING THE TRAFFIC TO THE CLAY COUNTY AND SUPPORT THE COMMUNITY. I'M IN SUPPORT OF THIS.

>> CHAIRMAN PUCKHABER: DO YOU HAVE A QUESTION, MARY?

>> VICE CHAIRMAN BRIDGMAN: I HAD A COMMENT.

I APPRECIATE MR. MILLER'S FULL DISCLOSURE ABOUT WHAT MIGHT HAPPEN TO ONE OF THESE STORAGE UNITS IN A FEW YEARS IF THE

[00:30:02]

AN THE NEEDS AND THE USE OF THE PROPERTY.

SEEMS LIKE A PRUDENT MOVE FOR A NUMBER OF REASONS.

I THOUGHT ABOUT THAT. WHAT WILL HAPPEN WITH ALL THE BUILDINGS THAT HAVE BEEN SITTING EMPTY ALL THESE YEARS? IT'S UNREALISTIC TO THINK THAT THEY ARE ALL GOING TO FILL RIGHT BACK UP OR THAT THERE IS A BIG DEMAND FOR THE COMMERCIAL CONSTRUCTION. ANOTHER THING TO THROW IN THE

MIX. >> CHAIRMAN PUCKHABER: BO?

>> COMMISSIONER: I HAVE MIXED FEELINGS.

I UNDERSTAND THE NEED. BUT THE COMMUNITY THAT I LAST LIVED IN WAS A PLANNED COMMUNITY OF 5,000 HOMES.

WE HAD AN R.V. STORAGE LOT. THERE WERE H.O.A. RESTRICTIONS ABOUT THE BOATS AND R.V.S. THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE PEOPLE IN THE COMMUNITY DID NOT OWN A BOAT OR R.V. AND THEY WERE QUITE HAPPY TO HAVE THE FACILITY STUCK AWAY TO WHERE THEY DIDN'T HAVE TO VIEW IT. TO SOME OF THE POINTS THAT HAVE BEEN BROUGHT UP. THEY RECOGNIZE THE NEED FOR IT AND THEY COMMUNITY BUT THEY DIDN'T WANT IT IN THE MIDDLE OF THE COMMUNITY CENTER. MY QUESTION IS WHAT IS THE PUBLIC THINKING OUTSIDE OF THE BOAT OWNERS AND THE R.V. OWNERS WHO MAY BE FAVORING IT BUT WHAT ABOUT EVERYBODY ELSE?

>> CHAIRMAN PUCKHABER: ANYTHING ELSE, PETE? OKAY. I HAD COMMENTS MYSELF.

THE INTERESTING PART IS I FIND MYSELF IN AGREEMENT WITH

MR. BOURRÉ. >> COMMISSIONER BOURRÉ: THAT

IS UNUSUAL. >> CHAIRMAN PUCKHABER: I KNOW.

[LAUGHTER] A COUPLE OF COMMENTS ON IT.

IF YOU HAD BEEN HERE FOR A WHILE YOU KNOW ONE OF MY ONGOING ISSUE I BRING UP ALL THE TIME THERE IS NOWHERE FOR PEOPLE TO PUT BOATS AND R.V.S EXCEPT FOR MY NEIGHBORHOOD.

BECAUSE I LIVE LIKE BILL,FULLY A NEIGHBORHOOD THAT DOESN'T HAVE H.O.A. AND -- I LIVE IN A NEIGHBORHOOD THAT DOESN'T HAVE H.O.A. OR COVENANTS. I DON'T SEE A PROBLEM WITH IT.

GRANTED MY LOTS ARE LARGER BUT WITHIN A FEW HOUSES OF ME I HAVE TWO R.V.S, A BOAT -- THREE R.V.S, BOAT AND A SEMI.

SO, YOU KNOW IT'S FINE. I DON'T SEE THE PROBLEM WITH IT.

I THINK PEOPLE SHOULD BE ABLE TO KEEP THOSE THINGS CLOSER TO THEIR HOMES. I WOULD LIKE TO SEE EVEN THE COUNTY WHEN WE GET THESE LARGE COMMUNITY PLANS THAT OUR CODE SAID YOU HAVE GOT TO PROVIDE A SPOT FOR PEOPLE TO PUT THEIR R.V. AND BOATS. WE HAD AN APARTMENT COMPLEX A FEW MONTHS BACK COME THROUGH HERE.

ONE OF THE QUESTIONS I ASKED WAS ARE YOU PROVIDING PARKING FOR THE OWNERS? NO.

WE ARE NOT DOING THAT. WHERE DO THE BOATS END UP? THEY END UP IN MY NEIGHBORHOOD. THEY END UP IN BILL'S NEIGHBORHOOD. FORTUNATELY, WE HAVE IMPROVED SOME OF THE CODES SO THE POINT WHERE YOU CAN'T BUILD.

TO YOUR POINT, MR. MILLER, SOMEBODY HAS A SMALL LOT, THEY CAN'T JUST THROW BOATS IN AND CALL IT STORAGE.

YOU HAVE TO HAVE PAVED DRIVEWAYS, YOU HAVE TO BE PAVED STREETS OR ALLEYS OR WHATEVER YOU CALL THEM INSIDE THERE.

YOU HAVE TO HAVE SCREENING AND WALLS.

THEY ARE REALLY NOT AN EYESORE THE WAY THEY ARE BUILT TODAY.

THERE IS A COST TO PUT IN THE PAVEMENT AND ALL THAT.

PEOPLE ARE NOT GOING TO SAY I GOT TWO ACRES HERE AND I WILL THROW BOATS IN IT. IT WILL COST MONEY TO PUT UP THE BUFFERING, TO PUT IN THE PAVEMENT AND SO ON AND SO FORTH.

I'M NOT EVEN SURE IF A FIVE-ACRE MINIMUM IS NECESSARY.

I THINK IT COULD BE SMALLER. I WOULDN'T GET TOO SMALL BUT I THINK IT COULD BE SMALLER. I THINK THERE NEEDS TO BE A MAXIMUM SIZE. I WOULD LIKE YOU TO THINK ABOUT THAT. BECAUSE THEY CAN GET SO LARGE THEY BECOME, THEY JUST GET TOO BIG.

THERE IS A LOT OF STUFF IN THERE.

I'M ALL FOR BUILD THESE IN PLANNED COMMUNITIES FOR PEOPLE TO LIVE THERE. TO YOUR POINT, COULD PEOPLE

[00:35:02]

NO ONE WILL COME PAY A PREMIUM TO PUT A BOAT IN A FACILITY AND A NEIGHBORHOOD LIKE THAT. WITH THAT, I'LL ASK FOR A

MOTION. >> MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE

STAFF RECOMMENDATION. >> VICE CHAIRMAN BRIDGMAN:

SECOND. >> CHAIRMAN PUCKHABER: I HAVE A SECOND -- I HAVE A MOTION AND SECOND FROM BRIDGMAN.

FURTHER DISCUSSION? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, STATE AYE.

>> COMMISSIONER: AYE. >> CHAIRMAN PUCKHABER: THAT IS 6-1 WITH COMMISSIONER ANZALONE OPPOSING.

>> COMMISSIONER ANZALONE: MY OPPOSITION IS NOT KNOWING WHERE THE DESIGNATED AREAS GOING TO BE.

NOT HAVING THE FACILITY FOR RECREATIONAL VEHICLES OR BOATS.

I'M CONCERNED WHERE THEY ARE GOING TO BE.

PHYSICALLY LOCATED. >> DULY NOTED.

>> IT'S A DONE DEAL NOW. >> CHAIRMAN PUCKHABER: ALL RIGHT. THE NEXT ITEM -- LET ME RESTATE.

I'M SURE YOU KNOW THIS, MR. MILLER.

BUT FOR ANYBODY WHO IS WATCHING AND THIS BEING A LAND DEVELOPMENT CHANGE, TWO HEARINGS AT THE B.C.C.

NEXT TUESDAY ON THE 13TH. THREE WEEKS FROM TONIGHT ON THE 27TH. ALL RIGHT.

MOVING ON TO THE NEXT ITEM. ALREADY MENTIONED THAT THAT HAD BEEN WITHDRAWN. THAT WAS AN APPLICATION FOR SOME PROPERTY DOWN NEAR CAMP LANDING AND WITHDRAWN.

[3.  Public Hearing to Amend Land Development Code to Increase Maximum Square Footage of Accessory Dwelling Units]

MR. BROWN? >> CHAIRMAN AND COMMISSION, GOOD EVENING. MIKE BROWN.

ZONING CHIEF, CLAY COUNTY. THIS CODE CHANGE AS YOU UNDERSTOODCATED IS A COUNTY INITIATED -- INDICATED IS A COUNTY INITIATED STAFF INITIATED CHANGE TO SECTION 3.5C TO INCREASE ALLOWABLE SIZE OF ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT FROM THE PRESENT MAXIMUM CAP OF 1,000 SQUARE FEET TO 1,250 SQUARE FEET. A LITTLE BACKGROUND, SECTION 3083-57 OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE SETS FORTH REQUIREMENTS THAT MUST BE MET FOR ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT AS A CONDITIONAL USE. SPECIFICALLY PARAGRAPH OF THAT SECTION STATES IN PART THAT THE ACCESS ARE YOU DWELLING UNIT SHALL BE NO LESS THAN THE 375 SQUARE FEET.

AND NO GREATER THAN 40% OF THE PRIMARY BUILDING GROSS FLOOR AREA UP TO THE MAXIMUM OF 1,000 SQUARE FEET, WHICHEVER IS LESS.

THE PROPOSED CHANGE WOULD ALLOW MAXIMUM SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THE A.D.U. TO BE NO GREATER THAN 40% OF THE PRIMARY BUILDING GROSS SQUARE FOOTAGE OR 1,250 SQUARE FEET, WHICHEVER IS LESS.

THE CHANGE BECAUSE OF THE 40% MAXIMUM PERCENTAGE ONLY AFFECTS THE PARCEL WITH THE PRIMARY STRUCTURE OF THE 2,500 SQUARE FEET. UP TO THE 3,125 SQUARE FEET.

THIS ADDITIONAL 250 SQUARE FEET FOR THE A.D.U. WOULD PROVIDE FLEXIBILITY FOR THOSE INDIVIDUALS OR FAMILIES THAT OWN THE PRIMARY RESIDENCE THAT ARE GREATER THAN THE 2,250 SQUARE FEET IF -- 1, 250 SQUARE FEET IF THEY WANT A LARGER A.D.U.

IT WOULD PHASE OUT FOR ANY RESIDENTS ABOVE 3,125 SQUARE FEET. WHICH POINT 40% LIMIT WOULD, THE 40% MAXIMUM OF THE PRIMARY RESIDENTS WOULD LIMIT SIZE OF THE A.D.U. ALL THE OTHER CONDITIONS THAT ARE SET FORTH IN THE CODE FOR THE ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT WOULD REMAIN THE SAME. THIS WOULD BE THE ONLY CHANGE.

THIS IS AN INDICATION. IN THE RED SPECIFIC CHANGE TO THE CODE. THAT IS PROPOSED.

LOOKING AT WHAT THE SURROUNDING COUNTIES HAVE FOR THIS TYPE OF LIMIT ON A.D.U.S, I KNOW PUTNAM COUNTY RIGHT NOW HAS

[00:40:01]

STAFF? >> COMMISSIONER: I DO.

>> CHAIRMAN PUCKHABER: START WITH MR. BOURRÉ HERE.

>> COMMISSIONER BOURRÉ: FIRST OFF, MR. BROWN.

THANK YOU SO MUCH. EXCELLENT PRESENTATION.

I HAVE TWO QUESTIONS. WHAT IS DRIVING THE CHANGE?

>> IT'S PRIMARILY WE ARE STARTING TO GET A LOT OF QUESTIONS UP FRONT WHEN PEOPLE COME IN AND THEY ARE ASKING AND THEY DESIRE A LARGER SQUARE FOOTAGE.

WERE MORE THING WITH AGING POPULATION.

WE HAVE DESIRE TO HAVE THE FAMILY MEMBERS THAT MAYBE DON'T NEED A FULL-TIME UNDER THE MEDICAL HARDSHIP BUT WANT TO COME IN AND BE CLOSER TO FAMILY. ESPECIALLY ELDERLY.

TO TAKE CARE OF THEM. THIS PROVIDES MORE FLEXIBILITY THAN 250 SQUARE FEET. NOT A LOT BUT IT DOES PROVIDE

SOME FLEXIBILITY IN THAT. >> COMMISSIONER BOURRÉ: BASED ON THE FEEDBACK YOU ARE GETTING FROM THE COMMUNITY THE EXTRA 250

SQUARE FEET MEETS -- >> YEAH.

I MEAN, AGAIN, IT'S SORT OF A STAB AT STAFF MAKING -- I BELIEVE IT WOULD BE. YOU GIVE A LITTLE MORE ROOM.

>> COMMISSIONER BOURRÉ: MY SECOND QUESTION JUST DEALS WITH THE PERVIOUS AND THE IMPERVIOUS AREA OF THE DEVELOPED LOT.

IS THERE A CALCULATION IN HERE THAT CONTEMPLATES THAT?

ANOTHER SIDE OF THIS? >> THAT DOESN'T CHANGE.

IT STAYS THE SAME. >> COMMISSIONER BOURRÉ: OKAY.

>> YEAH. THE ONLY CHANGE WOULD BE THAT THE SQUARE FOOTAGE. SET-BACKS, EVERYTHING ELSE STAYS

THE SAME AS IT IS TODAY. >> COMMISSIONER BOURRÉ: THANK

YOU, MR. BROWN. >> JUMP IN FOR A SECOND HERE.

MIKE IT'S HOO HERE AND IT ANSWER -- HERE, TOO, TOO AND IT ANSWERS YOUR QUESTION. MAXIMUM COVERAGE IS 35% OR LESS SO IT LEAVES A LOT OF THE PERVIOUS SURFACE UNLESS YOU POUR CONCRETE IN WHOLE YARD, I GUESS. THANK YOU, MR. BROWN.

I DON'T THINK IT'S FOR THE PARENTS.

THE ONLY WAY THE PARENTS GET KIDS OUT OF THE HOUSE.

[LAUGHTER] DO YOU HAVE A QUESTION?

>> I DO. WHAT THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT OF SQUARE FOOTAGE BUILT ON ANY LOT? WHETHER IT'S 15,000 SQUARE FOOT LOT. THERE IS A PERCENTAGE OF WHAT IS

COVERED? >> YEAH.

THAT GOES BACK I THINK TO MR. BOURRÉ'S QUESTION ABOUT THE LOT COVERAGE AND IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE.

>> IS THAT 35%? >> 35%.

MY QUESION OR COMMENT WHAT IF SOMEONE HAS A LARGE LOT, 2 ACRE LOT BUT ONLY 1800 TO 2,000 SMALL FARMHOUSE OR SOMETHING AND THEY WANT TO BUILD ANOTHER STRUCTURE? ARE THEY LIMITED TO THE 40% OF THE 2,000 SQUARE FEET? THEN THEY ONLY BUILT 800 SQUARE FOOT STRUCTURE? WHY CAN'T THEY WITH THAT SPACE

BUILD 1250 SQUARE FOOT? >> WELL, WHAT USUALLY WOULD HAPPEN AND WHAT I RAN IN TO IN MY PREVIOUS LIFE, SOMEBODY WOULD COME IN AND THEY WOULD WANT TO MAKE THE NEW STRUCTURE THE PRIMARY STRUCTURE. IT WOULD BE BUILT LARGER AND YOU'D STILL BE CAPPED FOR THE ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT, IT WOULD BE CAPPED ON WHATEVER THE CAP IS.

SO IT WOULD BE 1,250 SQUARE FEET.

COULDN'T GO LARGER. >> EVEN THOUGH THE HOUSE IS -- GOING BY PERCENTAGE HERE. MAXIMUM OF 40%.

>> 40%. SO IF THE, SO THE REALITY IS

[00:45:06]

THE WAY IT WORKS IN REALITY IS THEY COME IN AND THEY SAY I WANT TO MAKE THE NEW STRUCTURE MY PRINCIPAL USE AND THEY WILL BUILD THAT BIGGER AND THEN THE EXISTING STRUCTURE BECOMES THE ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT. BUT IT STILL CAN'T EXCEED 40% OR

1250 SQUARE FEET. >> WHAT HAPPENS IF THAT PERSON WANTED TO THEN ADD ON TO THE HOME VERSUS BUILDING AN

ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT? >> THEY CAN DO THAT.

THEY JUST HAVE TO MEET -- >> THEN THEY KICK IT OUT AND MAKE IT AS BIG AS THEY WANT. IT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE TO ME WE DON'T JUST CAP WHATEVER SIZE AT 1250 AND BE DONE WITH IT RATHER THAN 40% -- THE RATIO THAT HAS TO WORK OUT?

>> ONCE YOU GET OVER THE 30% 125.

>> IT SHOULD STILL BE 1250 SQUARE FEET.

>> NO THE BIGGER SQUARE FOOTAGE MEANS YOU BUILD A BIGGER

BUILDING AT 40%. >> OKAY.

>> OR CAP. >> THE CAP WAS 1250.

THERE IS WHERE I'M CONFUSED. >> LET'S MAKE SURE -- IT'S A CAP. AT 1250.

IT SAYS IT CAN BE 40% OR 1,250, WHICHEVER IS LESS.

>> IF I HAVE 4100 SQUARE FEET, MAXIMUM REGARDLESS OF THE SIZE OF THE HOUSE I HAVE, NOT REALLY, THE MAXIMUM SIZE OF THE ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT CAN ONLY BE 1,250.

>> YES. >> RIGHT.

>> OKAY. >> I LIKE 1,250 PERIOD.

BE DONE WITH IT. >> ANY QUESTIONS?

ANY QUESTIONS? >> THOUSAND COMMENTS BUT YOU'LL

KEEP THEM TO MYSELF. >> GO BACK TO THE POINT YOU ARE RAISING. BROUGHT UP, BUILT A NEW HOUSE.

THE OTHER ONE BECAME ACCESSORY BUILDING AND UP TO 6,000 SQUARE FEET. TO HIT 1250 MAX.

>> THAT IS WHAT I MEAN. THAT IS A HUGE HOME.

IF YOU FIGURE MAYBE THE AFTERNOON HOUSE IN CLAY COUNTY COULD BE 2500 SQUARE FEET ON A 20,000 SQUARE FOOT LOT YOU ARE RESTRICTING THE SIZE OF THE DWELLING.

WHERE IT COULD GO UP TO 1250 TO MAKE IT MOTHER/DAUGHTER SITUATION OR A PARENT OR FAMILY MEMBER WOULD HAVE TO LIVE IN THE FACILITY AND RESTRICTING THE SIZE, WHAT HAPPENS IF THERE IS A SPECIAL NEEDS SITUATION? LIKE I HAVE A SPECIAL NEEDS CHILD IN MY FAMILY. I LOOK AT THAT AND WHAT HAPPENS IF THERE IS MORE SPACE THAT IS ACTUALLY NEEDED FOR THAT PURPOSE? WE ARE RESTRICTING THE SIZE OF THAT. I WOULD LIKE TO SEE IT BE A FLAT NUMBER OF 1250 SQUARE FEET REGARDLESS.

I'M SORRY, THAT IS MY FEELING. >> I THINK THE IDEA IS TO KEEP IT FROM HAVING TWO BUILDINGS OF THE SAME SIZE.

YOU WANT A PRIMARY BUILDING AND A SUBORDINATE BUILDING.

>> RIGHT. BUT AT 2,500 SQUARE FEET, IT WOULDN'T BE, IT WOULD BE HAVE THE SIZE OF THE MAIN STRUCTURE.

>> WE ARE TALKING TWO DIFFERENT THINGS HERE.

YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT A.D.U. AS A SEPARATE STRUCTURE FROM THE HOUSE. YOU CAN, AN A.D.U. CAN BE PART OF THE DOMICILE ITSELF. IF YOU HAVE AN ACRE OF LAND, 41,000 SQUARE FEET, TAKE 35% OF THAT, YOU COULD BUILD 14,000

SQUARE FEET HOUSE ON THERE. >> NOT IF THERE IS A RESTRICTION OF THE MAXIMUM SIZE OF THE SECOND DWELLING.

>> I'M TALKING ABOUT THE PRIMARY DOMICILE.

>> CORRECT. >> SO IN OTHER WORDS MY POINT IS IF I HAD A NEED, SAY A CHILD A.D.A. OR WHATEVER THE CASE MIGHT BE AND I NEEDED MORE THAN THE 1200, I WOULD ADD ON MY HOUSE. I HAVE PLENTY OF ACREAGE, AS LONG AS I DON'T EXCEED THE 35% I'M COOL.

>> THAT IS WHERE I'M GOING WITH PART OF THE CONVERSATION.

>> I THINK THIS IS ADDRESSED MORE TO, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE SO MANY HOMES OUT THERE NOW, THEY ARE ON ONE-THIRD OF AN ACRE OR LESS. THEY ARE MAXED OUT, I DON'T KNOW, 2,025 SQUARE FEET. NO WAY THEY WILL BUILD A SEPARATE STRUCTURE WITHOUT EXCEEDING 35% F.A.R. ON THAT PIECE OF LAND. MOSTLY ADDRESSES THE PEOPLE WHO WANT TO BUILD A SEPARATE STRUCTURE FROM THE PRIMARY RESIDENCE. AS FAR AS LIKE THE GRANDMOTHER'S HOUSE IN THE BACKYARD OR SOMETHING TO THAT EFFECT WHERE THEY COULD, THEY ARE STILL MOBILE BUT THEY ARE NOT READY FOR LEG ROW OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.

SO THEY STILL HAVE THE CAR AND ALL OF THAT STUFF.

THEY DON'T WANT TO COME LIVE WITH BILLY OR SUZIE BUT WANT TO

[00:50:05]

>> ALL RIGHT. >> I'M IN AGREEMENT.

>> COUPLE THINGS FOR CLARIFICATION.

IN ORDER TO DO AN A.D.U. YOU HAVE TO HAVE A THIRD OF AN ACRE.

SO THIS DOESN'T WORK ON SMALLER LOTS, RIGHT? THAT IS ONE THING YOU HEARD PEOPLE MENTION.

THE OTHER ONE TO YOUR POINT PETE, ADD ON TO THE HOUSE.

YOU CAN ALWAYS BUILD HOUSE UP TO THE MAXIMUM SIZE IS FOR THE LOT.

HOWEVER, IF YOU HAVE AN A.D. NASHVILLE IS PART OF THAT HOUSE, IT STILL HAS SIZE RESTRICTIONS WITH THE SEPARATE ENTRANCES AND IT HAS TO HAVE AN OUTSIDE ENTRANCE.

AND THAT TYPE OF THING. >> I UNDERSTAND.

BUT I WOULD JUST -- I GOT TWO ENTRANCES.

ONE IN THE BACK AND ONE IN THE FRONT.

>> IT HAS TO BE -- >> PART OF MY HOUSE.

>> IT HAS TO BE SEPARATE. >> I WOULDN'T CALL IT AN A.D.U.

>> OKAY. KEEP IN MIND, TOO, ONE OF THE WHOLE REASONS FOR THE A.D.U.S INITIALLY AND WHAT MR. BROWN SAYS IS PROBABLY TRUE A LOT OF PEOPLE ARE LOOKING AT THEM TO BRING PARENTS, YOU KNOW, CLOSER TO THEM.

HAVE THEM NEARBY. THERE IS A CERTAIN NUMBER OF THE PEOPLE TRYING TO GET THE KIDS OUT OF THE HOUSE.

THEY NEED A BUILDING TO PUT THEM IN.

BUT THEY WERE ALSO, IT ALSO REQUIRES THAT THE PRIMARY STRUCTURE BE OCCUPIED BY THE OWNER.

THAT LANGUAGE PUT IN HERE WHEN WE DID THE A.D.U.S SO PEOPLE WOULDN'T GO OUT AND BUY A HOUSE, BUILD A BUILDING ON THE PROPERTY AND TRY TO RENT THEM BOTH OUT. THE A.D.U. CAN BE RENTED.

WE LOOKED AT THAT SOME YEARS AGO FOR THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND WE THOUGHT IT MIGHT BE A SOLUTION FOR SOMEBODY LOOKING FOR RENTAL INCOME, PUT A.D.U. IN THERE.

RENT IT TO A SINGLE MOTHER WITH ONE CHILD OR SOMETHING, THEY GET AFFORDABLE HOUSING. WIN-WIN FOR EVERYBODY TO DO THAT. AS LONG AS THE PRIMARY RESIDENT LIVES ON THE PROPERTY. THE OWNER.

SO WITH THAT -- >> RALPH, CAN I EXPAND A LITTLE BIT NOW THAT I HAVE SOME NUMBERS TO WORK WITH HERE? IN REGARD TO THE PETE'S COMMENT ALSO.

MINIMUM LOT SIZE OF 15,000 SQUARE FEET, THE MAXIMUM STRUCTURE IS 5250. THAT IS ON THIRD OF AN ACRE.

HUGE HOUSE ON ONE THIRD OF AN ACRE.

AVERAGE HOME THAT IS 2,500 SQUARE FEET, IF YOU GO WITH THE 40% RULE, MAXIMUM THEY CAN BUILD THAT OUT IS 1,000 SQUARE FEET TO MAKE THE TOTAL 3,500. 250 MORE SQUARE FEET ONLY BRINGS THEM TO 3750. IT'S STILL 1,500 SQUARE FEET LESS THAN THE 15,000 SQUARE FOOT LOT.

THAT IS MY POINT. >> I KNOW.

>> I WANT EVERYONE TO UNDERSTAND WHERE I'M GOING.

>> THERE IS NO APPLICANTS SINCE THE DOWNTOWN IS THE APPLICANT.

I WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. ANYBODY HERE WANT TO SPEAK ON THE ISSUE? NO? OKAY. CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND

BRING IT BACK FOR A MOTION. >> MOVE APPROVAL.

>> MR. GARRISON MOVES APPROVAL. SECOND FROM MR. HOWARD.

FURTHER DISCUSSION? ALL THOSE IN --

>> MR. HOWARD? >> CHAIRMAN PUCKHABER: NORTON.

WHY DID I THINK HOWARD? SORRY.

>> THAT IS HIS FIRST NAME. >> CHAIRMAN PUCKHABER: SORRY, BO. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, THE MOTION STATE AYE.

OPPOSED? YOU GET TO VOTE ON THIS. 8-0.

>> I WAS AN AYE. I'M HOPING MAYBE THE COMMISSIONERS WILL HEAR THIS. THINK A LITTLE ABOUT INCREASING

THE NUMBER. >> CHAIRMAN PUCKHABER: IS

[Old Business/New Business]

>> COMMISSIONER GARRISON: I HAVE I GUESS OLD BUSINESS.

PULL THE OTHER TWO PHOTOS THAT I SENT.

PULL THOSE UP, PLEASE. I WANT TO SHARE WITH YOU A FEW MONTHS AGO A GUY GAME IN AND WANTED TO ADD A TOW SALVAGE YARD IN TO A RESIDENTIAL AREAS. WE HAD A LOT OF GOOD CONVERSATION ABOUT IT. THANK YOU, RALPH, EDUCATING ME WE DID HAVE A RIGHT TO HAVE A SAY IN THAT.

YOU MAY REMEMBER THE NEIGHBOR TO IT WAS HERE.

THEY WERE CONCERNED. WITHIN A DAY OR TWO OR A WEEK OF THE B.C.C. DENYING IT, I WENT TO THE B.C.C. MEETING AND I FOLLOWED UP AND SPOKE AGAINST IT AS WELL.

DOWN THE ROAD IN A MORE INDUSTRIAL PART OF THE

[00:55:02]

THAT IS ONE OF THE FACILITY. THERE IS ANOTHER NEARBY.

THERE IS NOT ANYBODY, YOU DON'T THINK ANYBODY WANTS ONE OF THOSE NEXT DOOR TO THEM. IT'S LIKE THE R.V./BOAT STORAGE.

THEY HAVE A NEED, NO DOUBT THEY HAVE A NEED BUT THEY HAVE A CERTAIN PLACE THEY NEED TO BE. AESTHETICS MATTER.

AS THE COUNTY COUNTIES TO GROW, I WANT TO ENCOURAGE CITIZENS TO BE INVOLVED IN THE PROCESS. TO MANY OF THE MEETINGS WE COME AND SOMETHING IS BEFORE US. FRUSTRATED RESIDENTS COME IN.

EXPRESS THEIR CONCERN. THAT SORT OF THING.

THEY HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO BE INVOLVED.

MR. DAVIS IS A PERFECT EXAMPLE OF THAT.

FLEMING ISLAND IS A PERFECT EXAMPLE OF WHAT YOU CAN DO IF YOU GET INVOLVED. SO I AM ENCOURAGING ANYBODY WHO IS LISTENING TO THIS TO GET INVOLVED.

I THINK THERE IS ONLY ONE CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE IN CLAY COUNTY. THERE ARE, THERE COULD BE A CITIZEN ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR EVERY PLANNING DISTRICT IF SOME ONE WANTED TO HAVE INITIATIVE TO GET ONE STARTED.

THAT IS HOW I ENDED UP SITTING UP HERE AS AN ACTIVE CITIZEN AND WATCHED WHAT THE FRIENDS OF FLEMING ISLAND DID WITH FLEMING ISLAND. I WAS CONCERNED ABOUT OUR COMMUNITY AND I GOT INVOLVED. WE MANAGED AFTER A FEW YEARS TO TOOK LITERALLY A FEW YEARS TO MAKE IT HAPPEN.

BUT WE HAD AN OVERLAY PLAN TO ADDRESS THE COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT. AS YOU CAN SEE FROM THE PHOTOGRAPH, NOT NECESSARILY ENFORCED STRONGLY AS SOME OF US WOULD LIKE. THE PREVIOUS PHOTO HE PUT UP AN ATTEMPT TO CREATE VISUAL BARRIER.

THE 4,500-ACRE APPLICATION WAS WITHDRAWN AND IT MAY OR MAY NOT COME BACK. IF IT'S NOT THAT 4,500 ACRES IT WILL BE ANOTHER 4,500 ACRES OR 500 OR WHATEVER THE SIZE OF THE DEVELOPMENT WILL BE. I'M ALL FOR IT.

IF IT'S UP BEFORE THE COUNTY COMMISSION TO APPROVE IT'S LATE TO COMPLAIN ABOUT IT. IF YOU GET INVOLVED EARLY ON, YOU CAN SHAPE THE COMMUNITY. I ENCOURAGE PEOPLE TO GET INVOLVED. THAT IS IT.

>> CHAIRMAN PUCKHABER: ANY OLD USINESS? NEW BUSINESS? ANYTHING FROM YOU, MR. LEHMAN?

NO? >> NO.

>> CHAIRMAN PUCKHABER: OKAY. WE HAVE THE LAST PUBLIC HEARING I'M JUST GOING TO HAVE TO OPEN THAT.

I DON'T HAVE ANY CARDS. YOU DON'T SEE ANYONE.

I'LL CLOSE THAT. JUST REMINDER THAT THE TWO ITEMS WE TALKED ABOUT TONIGHT GET TWO HEARINGS BEFORE THE B.C.C.

SO, ON THE 13TH AND THE 27TH.

THIS MONTH. NEXT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING IS MAY 4. IF THERE IS NO OTHER BUSINESS,

MR. FOSSA? >> THANK YOU, RALPH.

I WANT TO DOVETAIL ON WHAT HE WAS SAYING HERE.

CITY OVERSIGHT WITH THE ED FIRST SYSTEM FOR THE SCHOOL DISTRICT? WE PASSED HALF CENT SALES TAX SO WE ARE LOOKING FOR CITIZENS TO BE ON THE OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE. GO TO 1CLAY.NET WEBSITE TO LOOK FOR THE CITIZENS OVER SIGHT FOR THE ED FIRST OR HALF CENT SALES TAX WE NEED FOLKS TO BE ON THAT.

THAT IS ALL, THANK YOU. >> CHAIRMAN PUCKHABER: ANYONE ELSE? SEEING NONE? WE'LL ADJOURN AND SEE YOU

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.