[00:00:05]
          >> ALL RIGHT. WELCOME EVERYONE. 
          [Call to Order]
I'M GOING TO BRING TO ORDER THE CLAY COUNTY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING OF AUGUST 3RD, 2021. 
          BEFORE WE BEGIN WITH ANY OF OUR BUSINESS, I'M GOING TO ASK 
          [Pledge of Allegiance]
COMMISSIONER BO NORTON TO LEAD US IN THE PLEDGE, PLEASE. 
          >> PLEASE RISE, I PLEDGE LIENS TO THE FLAG OF UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS ONE NATION UNDER GOD INDIVISIBLE WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL. 
          >> THANK YOU. I ONLY HAVE UP HERE ONE COMMENT CARD. THE APPLICANTS AREN'T REQUIRED BUT ANYBODY THAT IS HERE TO SPEAK ON ONE OF THE ITEMS ON THE AGENDA AND I KNOW YOU JUST GOT THE AGENDA, THESE COMMENT CARDS ARE OUT ON THAT TABLE IN THE VESTIBULE. 
          IF YOU COULD FILL ONE OUT PLEASE AND BRING IT UP HERE SO WE CAN CALL YOU AT THE APPROPRIATE TIME. 
          OKAY. MY NAME IS RALPH PUCKHABER. 
          I'M THE CHAIRMAN THIS YEAR OF THE COMMISSION AND I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE SOME INTRODUCTIONS HERE. PEOPLE MOVED AROUND A LITTLE. 
          MIKE BROWN, WHO IS OUR CHIEF OF ZONING IS OUT HERE, AS IS KELLY COLLINS, WHO RUNS THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT AS THE ADMIN PERSON. 
          WE HAVE A NEW PERSON WITH US TONIGHT. 
          SITTING AT THIS TABLE IS DODY SELIG THE NEW SENIOR PLANNER FOR THE COUNTY JUST HIRED RECENTLY. THEN STARTING UP HERE ON THE DAIS IS COMMISSIONER PETE DAVIS, COMMISSIONER BO NORTON, NEXT TO ME IS OUR VICE CHAIR, MARY BRIDGMAN TO, MY LEFT IS COMMISSIONER MICHAEL BOURRÉ AND JOE ANZALONE, BILL GARRISON IS ABSENT TONIGHT. AND OUR CAMP BLANDING REPRESENTATIVE COLONEL RYAN LEONARD IS NOT HERE. 
          WHO ELSE HAVE WE GOT? OVER HERE WE HAVE JAMES FOSSA. 
          HE REPRESENTS THE CLAY COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD AT THESE HEARINGS AND OVER HERE TO IS SIDE SHARICE STEWART WHO IS DIRECTOR OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT SERVICES AND NEXT TO HER COURTNEY GRAHAM, OUR COUNTY ATTORNEY. OH, AND TAKING NOTES OF OUR MEETING OUR REPRESENTATIVES FROM THE CLERK'S OFFICE, CHRISTINE BLANCHARD AND STACY TOWNES ARE OUT THERE. 
          WE WOULD LIKE TO THANK OFFICER LEONARD FOR BEING HERE, KEEP US ALL SAFE TONIGHT, AND WITH THAT, WE WILL KIND OF GET GOING HERE. 
          CLAY COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WE ARE AN ADVISORY BOARD TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND MOST OF THE DECISIONS THAT WE MAKE ARE RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND HELD THE H HAVE -- THEY WILL HAVE THEIR MEETING NEXT WEEK. AS WE GET EACH ITEM I'LL POINT OUT THEY WILL HEAR SOME OF THIS A WEEK FROM TODAY ON AUGUST 10TH AND THE REMAINDER OF THE ITEMS WILL BE HEARD ON JULY, I'M SORRY, AUGUST 24TH, WHICH IS THE THREE WEEKS FROM NOW. 
          I ALREADY MENTIONED ABOUT THE COMMENT CARDS. 
          WE DO ASK THAT IF YOU GET A PHONE CALL ON YOUR CELL, PLEASE STEP OUTSIDE TO TAKE THE CALL. AND I JUST WONDER, HOW MANY PEOPLE HAVE NEVER ATTENDED ONE OF THESE HEARINGS BEFORE IN THE AUDIENCE? OKAY. 
          PEOPLE TEND TO GET A LITTLE LOST WITH THE WAY WE DO THIS, SO WHAT WE DO IS AS WE GET TO EACH ITEM, THE STAFF PERSON RESPONSIBLE FOR IT WILL GIVE US A PRESENTATION. WE CAN HAVE, WE WILL HAVE QUESTIONS AT THAT POINT AND THEN I WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AT WHICH POINT ANYBODY THAT WANTS TO SPEAK ON THE ITEM CAN DO SO. USUALLY THE APPLICANT WILL GO FIRST. AT SOME POINT, EVERYBODY WILL HAVE SPOKEN, WE WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND THIS BOARD WILL DISCUSS WHAT WE'VE HEARD AND WE WILL RENDER A VOTE WITH A 
          [00:05:06]
RECOMMENDATION. WITH THAT OUR FIRST ITEM ON THE 
          [1.  Approval of Minutes]
AGENDA FOR TONIGHT IS APPROVAL OF OUR MINUTES. 
          ARE THERE ANY CORRECTIONS? IF NOT CAN I HEAR A MOTION? 
          >> MOTION TO APPROVE. >> OKAY, I GOT A MOTION FROM MR. BOURRÉ AND SECOND FROM MR. NORTON. 
          ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION APPROVED -- ACTUALLY THIS ISN'T 
          LAST MONTH IT'S. >> MAY 4TH. 
          >> PLEASE STATE YEA. OPPOSED THAT WOULD BE UNANIMOUS. 
          [Public Comment]
FIRST PUBLIC COMMENT IS A GENERAL COMMENT PERIOD. 
          IT'S NOT RELATED TO ANY ITEM ON THE AGENDA BUT MAY BE PERTINENT TO THIS BOARD. I DON'T HAVE ANY CARDS IF ANYONE WANTS TO SPEAK. IS THERE ANYONE THAT WANTED TO SPEAK ON A GENERAL TOPIC? LET ME OPEN THAT HEARING AN CLOSE THAT HEARING. AND WE WILL GET INTO OUR PUBLIC HEARING FOR TONIGHT. OUR FIRST HEARING IS A PUBLIC 
          [1.  Public Hearing to consider CPA 2021-08 to change 14 acres from Lake Asbury Master Planned Community to Lake Asbury Village Center]
HEARING TO CONSIDER CPA 2021-08 TO CHANGE 14 ACHERS FROM LAKE ASBERY MASTER PLAN TO LAKE ASBURY VILLAGE CENTER. 
          DODI. GOOD EVENING. 
          >> HOPEFULLY THAT MIC WILL PICK UP. 
          >> THEY PICK UP PRETTY WELL. >> THIS ITEM BEFORE YOU TONIGHT IS PUBLIC HEARING. IT IS FOR A SMALL SCALE LAND USE AMENDMENT TO LAKE ASBURY, SPECIFICALLY THE VILLAGE CENTER DESIGNATION ALSO JUST TO MAKE YOU AWARE THE FLORIDA LEGISLATURE THIS SUMMER PASSED A LAW THAT THE GOVERNOR SIGNED A LITTLE OVER A MONTH AGO, CHANGING THE SIZE OF WHAT IS DEEMED A SMALL CALL COMPREHENSIVE PLAN A MAP AMENDMENT UP TO NOW THAT'S BEEN A MAXIMUM OF 10 ACRES. 
          HOWEVER, WITH THIS LAW CHANGE, NOW THAT IS A MAXIMUM OF 50 ACRES. SO THAT CHANGED THE STATUS OF THIS APPLICATION AND IT'S NOW SMALL SCALE. 
          IT WOULD HAVE GONE TO YOU AS A LARGE SCALE BUT NOW IT'S CONSIDERED SMALL. SO, THE PROPERTIES, WE HAVE THE PENNY TARMS ASBURY PLANNING DISTRICT UNDER COMMISSIONER BURKE DISTRICT 5 THE APPLICANT IS APRIL STONE AND WE ANTICIPATE THE ITEM GOING TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ON AUGUST 10TH. THE MAP HERE IN FRONT OF SUE A 14 ACRE PARCEL OR PORTION I SHOULD SAY OF THIS PARCEL. 
          IT'S THE HATCHED PORTION. THE FULL PARCEL IS A RECTANGLER SHAPE SO THE SEMI CIRCLE PART RIGHT OF THE HATCHED AREA IS PART OF THE PARCEL BUT THE PARCEL IS SPLIT BY THE TWO FUTURE LAND USES IT HAS AT THE MOMENT. 
          THE EXISTING FUTURE LAND USE OVER THIS PORTION THAT IS HATCHED IS LAKE ASBURY MASTER PLAN COMMUNITY AND THE PROPOSED CHANGE WOULD BE TO LAKE ASBURY VILLAGE CENTER. 
          SO, HERE IS A VISUAL DEPICTION ON THE LEFT OF THE FUTURE LAND USE AND THE RIGHT OF THE ZONING. SO, WE ARE MAINLY FOCUSED ON THE FUTURE LAND USE, WHICH IS THAT LEFT PICTURE. 
          YOU CAN SEE THE PINK COLOR IS THE EXISTING VILLAGE CENTER AREA AND THIS CHANGE WOULD EXPAND THAT INTO THE ENTIRETY OF THIS PARCEL. SO, THE WHOLE PARCEL WOULD HAVE ONE FUTURE LAND USE. IN THE AREA YOU CAN SEE THE SURROUNDING AREAS QUITE A LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL USE. 
          IN TERMS OF LEVEL OF SERVICE, THERE IS WITHIN THE URBAN SERVICE AREA. THERE'S CAPACITY FOR SOLID WASTE. STAFF ASSESS TRAFFIC POTENTIAL WHEN WE DO THAT FOR THIS IT WAS LOOKED AT AS SUPERMARKET USE. 
          THAT IS ONLY BECAUSE WHEN WE DO CAPACITY WE LOOK AT THE MOST INTENSE USE POSSIBLE UNDER THAT DESIGNATION OF LAND USE. 
          SO THAT, DOES NOT MEAN A SUPERMARKET IS GOING THERE, JUST THAT'S A CALCULATION INTENSITY. AND THEN IN TERMS OF STORM WATER MANAGEMENT ANY DEVELOPMENT WILL REQUIRE STORM WATER FACILITY TO BE CREATED ON SITE. POTENTIAL DENSITY UNDER MASTER 
          [00:10:04]
PLAN COMMUNITY IS THREE UNITS AN ACRE FOR SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED OR UP TO 10 UNITS AN ACRE FOR ATTACHED SINGLE FAMILY. 
          UNDER VILLAGE CENTER, IT'S A DIFFERENT CALCULATION, THAT'S AN FAR FLORIDA AREA RATIO AT .7 SO STAFF IS RECOMMENDING THE VILLAGE CENTER DECEMBER NATION BE APPLIED TO THE ENTIRE SITE THERE. IS A CAP AT THE MOMENT IN OUR CODE THAT SAYS THAT THE INDIVIDUAL VILLAGE CENTERS WILL NOT EXCEED 75 ACRES. AT THE PRESENT TIME THAT VILLAGE ACRES. IS AT 56 AND A HALF - SO ADDING THE 14 ACRES I BELIEVE WILL TAKE YOU TO 70 ACRES MAXIMUM. 
          AND SO STAFF IS RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THIS ITEM. 
          DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? I'LL BE HAPPY TO ANSWER THEM. 
          APPLICANT IS HERE AS WELL. >> DOES ANYBODY HAVE QUESTIONS OF STAFF? NO. 
          ALL RIGHT. DOES APPLICANT WANT TO COME AND MAKE A STATEMENT? [INAUDIBLE] 
          >> OKAY. WITH THAT I'M GOING TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING F. ANYBODY WANTS TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM UNDER THE PUBLIC HEARING. SEEING NONE, AND HAVE NO CARDS I'M GOING TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND I WANT TO BRING IT BACK FOR ANY COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD. 
          I DO HAVE ONE MYSELF THAT I'D LIKE TO MAKE. 
          >> THE ONLY COMMENT I'LL MAKE MR. CHAIR IS THAT WAS DODI'S FIRST PRESENTATION TO THE COMMISSION AND SHE DID AN 
          EXCELLENT JOB. >> THANK YOU. 
          ANYBODY ELSE HAVE HAD ANY QUESTIONS? 
          >> DO WE HAVE -- TURN YOUR MIC ON. 
          >> DO YOU HAVE ANY IDEA OR PLANS OR KNOW WHAT IS PLANNED FOR THIS 
          SECTION IF IT'S APPROVED? >> NO, SIR. 
          CURRENTLY I [INAUDIBLE] >> WAITED, COME UP TO THE MIC BECAUSE IF YOU'RE NOT IT DOESN'T GET ON THE RECORDING. 
          >> YES, SIR. >> WE'VE MOVED IT OVER HERE. 
          SEE AT THIS TIME POED YUMD AND WE JUST NEED YOUR NAME AND 
          ADDRESS PLEASE BEFORE YOU START. >> MAY NAME IS APRIL STONE. 
          I LIVE AT 3034 RUSSELL ROAD. CURRENTLY IT'S AGRICULTURE USED FOR LIVESTOCK. I REALIZE WHEN K.B. HOMES STARTED BUILDING AND ME IT WAS TIME FOR ME AND MY CATTLE TO MOVE AND I HAVE BEEN TRYING TO SELL THIS LAND AND IT IS HARD WHEN IT'S GOT SPLIT USAGES AN NOT UNIFIED SO I'VE BEEN TRYING SINCE MARCH TO GET IT UNIFIED BUT I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT IT WILL 
          BE USED FOR. >> ANYONE ELSE HAVE QUESTIONS TO THE APPLICANT? NO, I DON'T HAVE ANY EITHER. 
          THANK YOU. >> OKAY. 
          >> I DO HAVE SOME FOR THE STAFF. THANK YOU. 
          >> OKAY. >> I THINK MISS STONE SPOKE TO US IN PUBLIC COMMENT A COUPLE MONTHS AGO TALKING ABOUT THE WAY VILLAGE CENTERS CHOP UP PARCELS BECAUSE WE JUST RANDOMLY DRAW CIRCLES. WITH THIS AMENDMENT IT'S GOING EAT UP MOST OF THE SQUARE FOOTAGE. 
          SO I'M WONDERING KIND OF ON A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT ISSUE BUT SINCE WE HAVE OUR PLANNERS HERE, LIKE THERE IS THE INTERSECTION. 
          WHY DON'T WE AS A COUNTY GO BACK AN SQUARE THESE THINGS OFF SO 
          THEY MATCH PROPERTY LINES? >> WELL, AS A MATTER OF FACT, THE NEXT MEETING STAFF HAS BEEN LOOKING AT ABOUT TWO OF THE -- WELL, WE LOOKED AT ALL OF BUT WE ARE FOCUSING ON TWO OF THE VILLAGE CENTERS TO DO EXACTLY THAT. 
          SO YES, THIS INTERSECTION AND THEN THE OTHER END OF SAND RIDGE ROAD WE'VE HAD QUITE A FEW PEOPLE KIND OF COME FORWARD AND EXPRESSING SOME OF THAT SAME SENTIMENT. 
          CERTAINLY WE ARE SEEING DUE TO THE ROAD COMING THROUGH, AN INTEREST IN DEVELOPMENT SO WE JUST NEED TO BE A LITTLE AHEAD OF THAT AND TRY TO SQUARE UP THIS SO WE DON'T HAVE THE SPLIT 
          PARCELS. >> I'M LOOKING AT THIS PARTICULAR INTERSECTION AND TO THE APPLICANT'S POINT SHE'S PROBABLY GOT ONLY A THIRD OF HER LOT IN THE VILLAGE CENTER. 
          THERE'S ONE BACK HERE THAT'S JUST KIND OF A LITTLE SLIVER SO WE GOT TO I THINK CUT PEOPLE OUT OF THE VILLAGE CENTER THAT ONLY HAVE LITTLE SLIVERS AND THEN BRING IN THE ENTIRE LOTS ON THE ONES WHERE THEY HAVE A LOT BECAUSE WE GET PLENTY OF REQUESTS OVER TIME TO CHANGE THESE BOUNDARIES AROUND BUT GET THEM KIND OF ON THE PROPERTY LINES FOR NOW. 
          >> YES. >> OKAY. 
          I KNOW THAT WAS A LITTLE BIT OFF TRACK BUT APPARENTLY YOU GUYS 
          [00:15:04]
ARE ALREADY WORKING ON IT. EXCELLENT WORK W. THAT I'LL TAKE 
          A MOTION. >> I MOVE THAT THE APPLICATION 
          BE GRANTED. >> SECOND. 
          >> OKAY, I HAVE A MOTION FROM MISS BRIDGMAN AND SECOND FROM MR. BOURRÉ. ALL THOSE -- ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? SEEING NONE, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, VOTE AYE. ANYONE OPPOSED? NO. DODI WILL THIS BE ON THE 10TH? TO THE APPLICANT. THIS ONE WILL BE. 
          THIS IS TWO HEARINGS. SO THERE WILL BE A HEARING ON THE 10TH AT THE B.C.C. THEY WON'T TAKE A VOTE. 
          THEY'LL HAVE A SECOND HEARING ON THE 24TH WHERE THEY'LL VOTE ON. 
          THIS OKAY. THANK YOU. 
          >> BECAUSE IT'S SMALL SCALE, IT DOESN'T GO FOR THE SECOND. 
          >> OH, IT WILL BE JUST NEXT WEEK ONE TIME? ALL RIGHT. THEY'RE CHANGING THE RULES ON US. THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU DODI. ALL RIGHT. 
          [2.  Public Hearing to consider CPA 21-09]
ITEM 2 ON OUR AGENDA PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER CPA 2109 A FUTURE LAND USE AMENDMENT ACRES ON NIGHT BOX RIGHT. 
          >> CHAIRMAN, MIKE BROWN. >> MIKE PULL YOUR MIC CLOSE NEAR MR. CHAIRMAN MIKE BROWN, ZONING CHIEF CLAY COUNTY THIS APPLICATION IS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT 21-09 IT'S ALSO A SMALL SCALE LAND USE AN JUST TO GIVE A HEADS UP THERE'S AN ASSOCIATED ZONING CHANGE THAT WILL FOLLOW THIS ON SEPARATE ITEM. THE APPLICANT IS EDGLAN, INC., AGENT JEFF LYNCH AS INDICATED SMALL SCALE LANCE LAND USE AMENDMENT 1.23 ACRES, LOCATION 59 H 51 NIGHT BOX ROAD. 
          THIS HEARING WILL ALSO GO NEXT WEEK AUGUST 10TH TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS. SO BACKGROUND, THIS PARCEL IS TOTALLY 2.9 ACRES. IT HAS TWO LAND USE DESIGNATIONS. THE WESTERN 1 ON THE 06 ACRES IS DESIGNATED COMMERCIAL WE WILL THE EASTERN 1.23 ACHE CERTIFICATES DESIGNATED URBAN CORE. 
          THE REQUEST IS TO CHANGE THE EASTERN 1.23 ACRES FROM URBAN CORE 10 TO COMMERCIAL. THE PORTION OF THE PARCEL THAT IS SUBJECT TO THE PROPOSAL LAND USE CHANGE IS PRESENTLY A.R. AND IS CURRENTLY VACANT AND AS I INDICATED THERE'S A COMPANION REZONING FOR THAT PARCEL, WHICH YOU WILL HEAR NEXT. 
          THIS SHOWS THE LOCATION OF THE PARCEL. 
          NIGHT BOX ROAD IS TO THE WEST. THIS SHOWS THE EXISTING LAND USE AND ZONING DISTRICTS. THE VONDROUSOVAING USE IS TO THE NORTH. YOU HAVE OFFICE AND MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL. SOUTH IS SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL. WEST IS VACANT. 
          AND THEN EAST IS ALSO VACANT RESIDENTIAL. 
          THE SUBJECT PARCEL IS SERVED BY CCUA AND THEY HAVE ADEQUATE WATER AND  SEWER, SOLID WASTE CAPACITY FOR ANY DEVELOPMENT AT THE SITE THERE, IS ADDED CAPACITY ON NIGHT BOX ROAD WHICH OPERATES AT ACCEPTABLE LEVEL OF SERVICE AN DEVELOPMENT AT THIS SITE WILL NOT EXCEED ADOPTED LEVEL OF SERVICE FOR NIGHT BOX AND AGAIN, STORM WATER WILL MEET ALL COUNTY AND REQUIREMENTS. 
          THE URBAN CORE LAND USE ALLOWS FOR TWO DRAWING UNITS PER NET ACRE UP TO A MAXIMUM OF 10 WITH CERTAIN PROVISIONS MAY GO TO 16. 
          AND SO, CHANGING THAT FROM COMMERCIAL TO COMMERCIAL WHICH HAS AN INTENSITY OF .4 FLOOR AREA RATIO. 
          [00:20:03]
YOU SEE POTENTIAL DECREASE OF 12 DWELLING UNITS BUT POTENTIAL INCREASE OF 21,431 SQUARE FEET OF COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT. 
          FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, AS REQUESTED, THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT WOULD CHANGE THE FUTURE LAND USE DEGSZ NATION OF 1.23 ACRES URBAN CORE TO COMMERCIAL. 
          THE CHANGE WOULD ULTIMATELY RESULT IN AN INCREASE IN THE DEPARTMENTS OF THE EXISTING COMMERCIAL LAND USE OF THE SUBJECT PARCEL FROM NIGHT BOX ROAD. 
          THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE GOALS OBJECTED IFS AND POLICIES OF THE PLAN AND IS THE CAPABLE WITH THE SURROUNDING USES AN DOESN'T PROMOTE URBAN STALL. 
          STAFF PROPOSES APPROVAL TO AMEND THE FUTURE AND USE MAP FOR THE 1.23 ACRES FROM URBAN TO COMMERCIAL. 
          QUESTIONS FROM STAFF ON THIS. >> QUESTIONS ON THIS ONE? 
          >> I'LL GO. >> GO AHEAD, PETE. 
          >> I NOTICED YOU OPEN DOWN NIGHT BOX AS FAR AS THE MAP GOES IT'S ALL COMMERCIAL. BUT THE PARTICULAR SITE IS SURROUNDED ON THREE SIDES WITH RESIDENTIAL URBAN CORE. 
          >> YES. >> ARE WE NOT CONCERNED ABOUT ENCROACHMENT OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT AS FAR AS A DOING A DIVE WITH MORE COMMERCIAL INTO A RESIDENTIAL IDENTIFIED ZONE? 
          >> FROM THE STAFF STANDPOINT I BELIEVE WE WILL SEE THE EXTENSION OF COMMERCIAL IN THOSE OTHER PARCELS BUT TO GET TO YOUR POINT SPECIFICALLY, THE REQUIRED BUFFERING AND REQUIREMENTS OF THE CODE STAFF BELIEVES WILL ADDRESS THAT ISSUE FROM ADJACENT, FOR ADJACENT RESIDENTIAL UNITS. 
          >> SO YOU FORESEE MORE COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT? 
          >> I BELIEVE WE WILL SEE, ALONG THE AREA OF NIGHT BOX WHAT HAPPENED WAS MUCH LIKE WHAT WE SAW ON THE PREVIOUS CASE. 
          THE LINE WENT, THEY WENT IN. >> 300 FEET. 
          >> A CERTAIN NUMBER OF FEET AND DREW THE LINE STRAIGHT DOWN DISREGARDING ANY PARCELS, AND SO YOU'VE GOT LIKE THERE IN THIS CASE, A NUMBER OF THOSE PARCELS HAVE TWO LAND USE CATEGORIES. 
          AND SO, IT'S STAFF BELIEF THAT WE WILL SEE THOSE IN THE FUTURE ALSO SWITCH TO OR DESIRE TO SWITCH TO COMMERCIAL BECAUSE THE FRONT DAMAGE -- FRONTAGE IS PART OF THOSE PARCELS. 
          >> I'M GOING TO ASK IF THE APPLICANT WANTS TO SAY ANYTHING ON THIS ONE. YOU'RE THE APPLICANT? 
          OKAY. >> EVERYTHING AROUND THERE IS 
          COMMERCIAL. >> OKAY. 
          HOLD ON ONE SECOND. DOES ANYONE HAVE QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? OKAY. 
          OKAY, THANK YOU. THEN LET ME OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. I DON'T HAVE ANY CARDS ON THIS ONE. CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND BRING IT BACK FOR MOTION OR COMMENTS. 
          >> MOTION. >> SECOND. 
          >> SECOND BY BO. I JUST WANT TO MAKE ONE COMMENT REAL QUICK. MR. BROWN ALLUDED TO IT, BUT WE DO STUMBLE ACROSS THESE FROM TIME TO TIME BECAUSE BACK IN '92 WHEN THE ORIGINAL COMP PLAN WAS DONE IT'S PRETTY MUCH 300 FEET WENT 300 FEET OFF THE ROAD THESE MAJOR MINOR ARTERIALS AND SAID IT'S COMMERCIAL AND SOME PEOPLE HAVE LINES THAT GO DEEPER THAN THAT SO YOU WILL SEE THIS FROM TIME TO TIME ANY. 
          OTHER DISCUSSION? SEEING NONE I'LL FUTURE QUESTION TO VOTE. ALL IN FAVOR OF THE RECOMMENDATION FROM STAFF SAY AYE? OPPOSEED THAT WOULD BE UNANIMOUS AS WELL. 
          [3.  Public Hearing to consider rezoning application Z-21-02]
ITEM 3 ON THE AGENDA IS COMPANION REZONING APPLICATION 
          FOR THE SAME PARCEL OF PROPERTY. >> YES. 
          >> THAT WE JUST LOOKED AT FOR THE LAND USE. 
          CPA -- I'M SORRY Z-21-02 IS THE ZONING APPLICATION. 
          MR. BROWN. >> AGAIN, MR. CHAIRMAN AND BOARD, THE SAME APPLICANT AND AGENT AND THIS IS A REQUEST FOR 
          [00:25:06]
ZONING CHANGE OF 1.23 ACRES FROM AG RESIDENTIAL TO BB-3, SPECIALTY BUSINESS, SAME LOCATIONS 51 NIGHT BOX ROAD. 
          AGAIN, IT'S THE SAME ISSUE, IS UP IT'S GOT SPLIT ZONING T2.29 ACRES HAS TWO ZONING DISTRICTS. THE WESTERN, WITH FRONTAGE ON NIGHT BOX IS DESIGNATED BUSINESS BB-3 WITH THE REMAINDER AG RESIDENTIAL. THE REQUEST IS TO BRING THE ENTIRE PARCEL UNDER THE BB-3 ZONING SO IT'S ALL CONSISTENT. 
          JUST TO POINT OUT ON MAY 27TH IN' O'3 THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS APPROVED THE REZONING OF THE PARCEL FROM COMMERCIAL AND PROFESSIONAL OFFICE BA-22, BB-3. 
          SO THIS IS HAS BEEN INDICATED A CAN YUN TO JUST HERMD ENACTED ON FUTURE LAND USE CHANGE. AS STATED IN THE APPLICATION, THE PURPOSE OF THE REZONING IS TO REQUEST -- IS TO FACILITATE THE DEVELOPMENT ON R.V. BOAT STORAGE. 
          JUST POINT OUT R.V. BOAT STORAGE IS CONDITIONAL USE IN BB-3 SO IT'S NOT AN AUTOMATIC THING THEY CAN DO. 
          THEY STILL HAVE TO MEET THE CONDITIONAL USE REQUIREMENTS IF THAT'S THE USE THAT ULTIMATELY THEY WANT TO DO OUT THERE. 
          HERE IT SHOWS YOU THE ZONING. YOU HAVE MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL TO THE NORTH AS WELL AS DIRECTLY NORTH OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. AND THEN AG RESIDENTIAL TO THE EAST AND SOUTH. IT SHOWS YOU THE AERIAL AND THE EXISTING FUTURE LAND USE, WHICH YOU'VE JUST ACTED ON AND MADE A RECOMMENDATION ON. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS THE APPLICANT HAS REQUESTED A ZONING CHANGE FROM A.R. TO BB-3 FOR THE EASTERN 1.23 ACRES OF THE PARCEL. 
          THE REQUESTED ZONING WILL BRING THE ENTIRE PARCEL UNDER SINGLE ZONING BB-3. THE PROPOSED BB-3 ZONING IS CONSISTENT WITH THE PROPOSED COMPANION CPA 21-09 THAT IF APPROVED WILL AMEND THE LAND USE TO URBAN CORE, FROM URBAN CORE TO COMMERCIAL, THIS IS MAKING THE BB-3 ZONING CONSISTENT WITH THE FUTURE LAND USE. STAFF HAS REVIEWED THE APPLICATION AND DETERMINED THE REQUEST IS CONSISTENT WITH THE PROPOSED, I WANT TO EMPHASIZE PROPOSED COMP PLAN AMENDMENT AND IS CAPABLE WITH THE AREA, STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF Z-21-02 CONTINGENT UPON ADOPTION OF COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT 
          21-04. >> IT SHOULD BE 09 I THINK. 
          >> 09, YES. >> OKAY. 
          >> ANY QUESTIONS OF STAFF? >> THE ONLY ONE I HAD REAL QUICK IS WHEN WILL THIS GO TO THE BOARD? 
          >> BOTH OF THESE WILL GO TO NEXT WEEK AUGUST 10TH. 
          I DO APOLOGIZE FOR THE WRONG NUMBERS ON THE SLIDE. 
          >> ANY QUESTIONS? IF NOT THE APPLICANT ALREADY STATED HE REALLY DOESN'T HAVE MUCH TO SAY ON THIS SO I'M GOING TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. I DON'T SEE ANYBODY WANT TO GO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM. SO I'LL BRING IT TO CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING AND BRING IT BACK TO THE BOARD FOR MOTION OR DISCUSSION. 
          >> SECOND. >> SO, MR. ANZALONE AND MS. BRIDGMAN ON THE MOTION AND THE SECOND. 
          ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION STATE AYE? OPPOSED? OKAY. 
          [4.  Public Hearing to Amend Land Development Code to Allow PUD as Permissible District In Agriculture Land Use and Allow Campground/RV Park as Conditional Use in Agricultural and Agricultural/Residential Districts]
WE ARE GOING TO MOVE ON NOW TO ITEM NUMBER 4, WHICH IS A PUBLIC HEARING TO AMEND THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE TO ALLOW PUD AS AGRICULTURAL USE AN CAMPGROUND USE AG ANING A RESIDENTIAL. 
          THERE IS ALSO A COMPANION REZONING WITH THIS ON ITEM 5 WHICH IS THE REZONING APPLICATION FOR THE PUD. 
          [00:30:04]
IT'S THE CHAIR'S OPINION THAT WE REALLY ARE PROBABLY GOING TO END UP TALKING ABOUT BOTH OF THESE AT THE SAME TIME SO THAT WE UNDERSTAND THE RATIONALE FOR THE FIRST ONE. 
          AND WITH THAT, I'M GOING TO GIVE COMMISSIONER BOURRÉ A MOMENT TO 
          SPEAK. >> THANK YOU MR. CHAIR. 
          IN THIS INSTANCE WHICH I THINK IS THE FIRST TIME THAT I AM AWARE WE'VE DONE THIS I AM THE APPLICANT FOR THIS SO WITH THAT TO REMOVE ANY CONFLICT I'M GOING TO RECUSE MYSELF. 
          I'M GOING TO SIT IN THE CROWD AND LET YOU DELIBERATE. 
          THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU MR. BOURRÉ. 
          DO YOU HAVE THIS ONE? >> I'VE GOT ALL OF IT. 
          >> SO, MR. BROWN, IT PROBABLY AS MUCH FOR ME AND FOR EVERYONE UP HERE WHEN WE DO GET THESE TEXT AMENDMENTS UNDERSTANDING THEY'RE A SEPARATE ISSUE. WE UNDERSTAND THAT WE WILL TAKE A VOTE ON THAT, BUT OFTEN WE NIGHT TO UNDERSTAND WHAT THE REZONING IS IN ORDER TO UNDERSTAND WHY WE ARE TRYING TO CHANGE THE TECHES AND THE COMP LAN SO IF YOU WANT TO ADDRESS BOTH OF THOSE AT THE SAME TIME THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL, AND SO THE APPLICANT UNDERSTANDS WHAT I'M DOING AFTER HE DOES THAT AND COME UP AND PROBABLY GOING TO HAVE A LOT OF QUESTIONS. 
          >> OKAY. THE ZONING REQUEST IS TO ALLOW FOR A PUD. PRESENTLY, THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AND THIS REQUEST PART OF THIS REQUEST IS TO AMEND SECTION 3.9 OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE. 
          PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT PRESENTLY IS NOT ALLOWED IN AN AGRICULTURAL FUTURE LAND USE. THERE'S THREE AND IT JUST ONE OF THOSE AND THAT IS -- AND THEY WANT AND THE DESIRE BY THE APPLICANT IS TO REQUEST A PUD TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE LAND USE, YOU NEED TO CHANGE AN ALLOW FOR PUD IN AGRICULTURAL LAND USE. 
          THAT'S THE MAJORITY THEREOF REASON FOR THE TWO, FOR AMENDMENT, FOR THIS TEXT AMENDMENT. 
          THEY'RE ASKING FOR ALONG WITH THE AMENDMENT TO SECTION 3.9 OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE THAT WOULD ALLOW THE PUD AS A PERMISSIBLE ZONING DISTRICT THEY'RE ALSO REQUESTING AN AMENDMENT FOR SECTIONS 312 WHICH IS THE AGRICULTURAL ZONING DISTRICT AND SECTION 313 WHICH IS THE AGRICULTURAL RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICT TO ADD THE CAMPGROUND RECREATIONAL USE AS ALLOWABLE CONDITIONAL USE IN BOTH THOSE DISTRICTS. 
          AGAIN, BECAUSE OF THE PRESENT ZONING FOR THE PARCELS IN THE SUBJECT TO THE PUD HAS THE AG AND A.R. ZONING DISTRICT SO THEY'VE REQUESTED TO ADD CAMPGROUND AS A CONDITIONAL USE IN THOSE, BECAUSE CAMP GROUNDS ARE ONLY ALLOWED PRESENTLY IN THE PS-2 ZONING DISTRICT SO THAT'S THE CRUX AROUND HOW THESE 
          ARE INTERTWINED. >> OKAY. 
          >> THIS CASE AND THE TEXT AMENDMENT HERE AND THE NEXT PUD REZONING. AS I'VE INDICATED ALREADY, THE PUD IS NOT ALLOWED IN AGRICULTURE RECREATIONAL PRESERVATION AN CONSERVATION LAND USE. 
          THEY'RE ALLOWED IN ALL THE OTHER ONES BUT THOSE THREE THEY'RE NOT. AND THEN, AGAIN, THE PROPOSED CHANGE WOULD ALSO EXPAND THE ZONING DISTRICT IN WHICH CAMPGROUND AND R.V. WOULD BE ALLOWED AS A CONDITIONAL USE. 
          JUST TO POINT OUT THAT THERE WOULD BE NO CHANGES TO WHAT THE CONDITIONAL USE IS SAYING FOR CAMP GROUNDS, THOUGH THAT STAYS THE SAME. IT GIST ALLOWS IT AS AN OPTION 
          IN THOSE ZONING DISTRICTS. >> MR. BROWN CAN YOU EXPAND ON 
          WHAT THE CONDITIONAL USES ARE? >> YES. 
          IT'S HARD TO READ BUT I INCLUDED THE ENTIRE SECTION FROM THE CODE. UNDER 3.9 OF THE CONDITIONAL USE OF A CAMPGROUND OR RECREATIONAL PARK. 
          [00:35:06]
ANYBODY THAT WANTS TO DO THAT AS A CONDITIONAL USE NEEDS TO MEET 
          ALL OF THESE REQUIREMENTS. >> RIGHT. 
          OKAY, SO THIS IS ALL THAT DEFINES EVERYTHING? 
          >> YES, THIS IS DEFINITIONS. WE HAVE MULTIPLE PAGES HERE. 
          IT TALKS ABOUT SIZES OF THE PROPERTY, WHAT ACCESSORY USES CAN HAPPEN THERE, DESIGN STANDARDS, YOU KNOW, ADDITIONAL RECREATIONAL USES TO BE USED, WHAT ARE THE STANDARDS, DEPENDING ON THE TYPES OF CAMPGROUND YOU HAVE, WHETHER IT'S R.V. SITES OR TENT SITES OR COMBINATION. 
          IT TALKS ABOUT WHAT THOSE TAN ZARDES ARE, WHICH HAVE TO BE MET. TALKS ABOUT OPERATIONS AN MISCELLANEOUS THINGS SO ANYBODY THAT DESIRES TO DO IT AS A CONDITIONAL USE HAS TO MEET THESE. 
          NONE OF THIS IS CHANGING. SO EVEN IF DEPENDING ON HOW THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ULTIMATELY ACTS ON THIS, THESE WILL STAY THE SAME AND JUST TO WHEREVER A CAMPGROUND OR R.V. 
          PARK WOULD BE ALLOWED AS A CONDITIONAL USE. 
          >> SO, WHAT WE ARE SAYING HERE IS THAT EVEN WITHIN A PUD, ALL 
          THESE CONDITIONS -- >> THAT'S FOR CONDITIONAL USE AND YOU BROUGHT UP A GOOD POINT MR. CHAIRMAN W. THE PUD, THE PUD ALLOWS FOR THE SPECIFIC ZONING AND BECAUSE A PUD HAS TO BE ACTED ON BY THE BOARD WHAT IS A CONDITIONAL USE DOES NOT NECESSARILY -- THAT'S A STAFF FUNCTION TO APPROVE, SO WHEN WE GO THROUGH A PUD FOR A CONDITIONAL USE WE DO BASICALLY A CHECK OFF MAKE SURE THEY MEET IT BEFORE WE AUTHORIZE IT W. A PUD IT GOES TO THE BOARD AND THAT SETS THE ZONING. 
          THE REASON THAT THE APPLICANT AND PEOPLE RESPOND IS BETTER THAN ME BUT ONE OF THE REASONS THEY'VE ASKED FOR THE PUD IS THEY WANT TO DEVIATE A LITTLE BIT FROM SOME OF THESE CONDITIONS THAT WOULD BE REQUIRED AS CONDITIONAL USE. 
          >> SO WE ARE SAYING THAT IF THE PUD IS SILENT ON SOMETHING THEN 
          THIS WILL TAKE OVER. >> YES. 
          >> OKAY. ANYTHING ELSE? 
          >> NOW, I MEAN I JUST WANT TO POINT OUT WHERE THE PROPOSED CHANGES WOULD BE IN THE TEXT, THERE'S SECTION 39. 
          THEY WOULD ADD PUD AS AN ALLOWABLE ZONING DISTRICT IN THE AGRICULTURE FUTURE LAND USE. SECTION 312 OF THE AG DISTRICT WOULD ADD CAMPGROUND AN RECREATIONAL PARK A CONDITIONAL USE AND SECTION 313 AGRICULTURAL RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICT WOULD ADD CAMPGROUND RECREATIONAL PARKING A AS CONDITIONAL USE MANY THAT'S JUST TO SHOW YOU WHERE THE SPECIFIC 
          CHANGE THAT IS BEING REQUESTED. >> IS THERE A SIZE LIMIT ON THESE? DO THEY HAVE TO BE OF A CERTAIN 
          SIZE? >> FROM A, IN THE CONDITIONAL USES FOR CAMPGROUND IT HAS TO BE A MINIMUM OF TEN ACRES. 
          THERE'S NO MAXIMUM IN THE CODE FOR CONDITIONAL USE. 
          JUST UNDER TEN ACRES. IT HAS TO BE A MINIMUM OF TEN 
          ACHERS IN SIZE. >> OKAY. 
          > WITH ALL THAT, STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF LAND DEVELOPMENT COAT 21-04 TO ADD PUD AS PERMISSIBLE ZONING DISTRICT IN THE AG LAND USE AND ADD CAMPGROUND R.V. PARK AS ALLOWABLE CONDITIONAL USE IN THE A.G. AND A.R. ZONING DISTRICTS. 
          >> ANYBODY HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ON THIS BEFORE I ASK? 
          >> I GOT ONE QUESTION. >> GO AHEAD. 
          >> IF THE GOAL HERE IS FOR R.V. CAMPGROUND/WHATEVER, WHY DON'T YOU GO WITH PUD AND THE OTHER STUFF? 
          >> THE PUD REQUEST IS FOR AN R.V. RESORT PRIMARILY FOR RV'S. 
          THEY'VE INCLUDED AS PART OF THEIR CONDITIONS IN THEIR WRITE UP THAT THEY WOULD NOT HAVE TENT CAMPING. 
          [00:40:04]
          THAT'S THEIR CHOICE. >> SO IT'S REALLY TO LIMIT THE OTHER IDENTIFIABLE CAMPGROUND TYPE ACTIVITIES? 
          >> YES. IT'S JUST PRIMARILY AN R.V. 
          RESORTED IS WHAT THEY'VE PROPOSED. 
          IT'S GET INTO IT A LITTLE BIT ON THE NEXT CASE. 
          I THINK IT'S 550 UNITS OR SITES. >> THAT'S BIG. 
          I SUPPOSE THAT'S WHY THEY'RE EXCLUDING PICKUP CAMPERS. 
          >> I THINK THAT'S A QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT MORE THAN STAFF. 
          OKAY THANK YOU MR. BROWN. SO I DO HAVE SOME QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT. I WANT TO MAKE SURE EVERYBODY UNDERSTANDS AT THIS POINT WE ARE JUST LOOKING AT AMENDING THE TEXT TO ALLOW THESE USES IN THESE ZONES. 
          >> JUST FOR STAFF, WHAT'S THE BACKGROUND AS TO WHY PUD WAS NOT INCLUDED IN THOSE THREE CATEGORIES PREVIOUSLY? 
          >> I CANNOT TELL YOU TO BE HONEST. 
          I WAS SURPRISED WHEN I DISCOVERED THAT. 
          I DON'T KNOW. IT WAS DONE WELL BEFORE I GOT 
          HERE AND I DON'T KNOW. >> I THINK THEY JUST DIDN'T EVER THINK PEOPLE WOULD BUILD OUT IN THE AG LANDS. 
          BUT WE ARE GETTING THERE NOW. >> SURE. 
          >> SO, I'M GOING TO ASK THE APPLICANT AT SOME POINT I'M GOING TO BRING SOME DISCUSSION HERE TO THE BOARD. 
          IT'S SOMETHING I SAW IN HERE THAT CONCERNS ME AND THEN I WOULD LIKE THE APPLICANT TO KIND OF RESPOND TO IT. 
          I'M GETTING AHEAD OF MYSELF A LITTLE IN THAT THE PROJECT LOOKS REALLY GOOD. I MEAN, THE WAY I READ IT, I THINK WE ARE BASICALLY DOING SOMETHING I'VE ASKED ABOUT FOR A NUMBER OF YEARS IS TINY HOMES BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT THOSE PARK MODELS ARE IS TINY HOMES MANY THEY'RE 500 SQUARE FEET I THINK THEY'RE LIMITED TO SO WE ARE BUILDING A KIND OF RESORT. 
          I'VE STAYED AT PLACES WHERE I TRAVELED WHERE THERE ARE PARK MODELS AND PLACE FOR RV'S AND HAVE A AMENITIES AND CAN BE VERY NICE MANY WHAT WORRIES ME ABOUT THIS TEXT AMENDMENT IS NOT THE AG PORTION BUT THE A.R. PORTION. WE HAVE A 10 ACRE, WE HAVE A HECK OF A LOT OF A.R. LAND IN THIS COUNTY, AND ADDING CAMP GROUNDS TO A.R., IF I GOT A TEN ACRE PARCEL NEXT TO ME AND I'M A.R. ALL AFTER SUDDEN THEY'RE BUILDING A CAMPGROUND IN THERE IF I DO. THIS THAT CONCERNS ME. 
          SO ONE OF THE THINGS I WOULD LIKE THE APPLICANT TO ADDRESS IS THAT ISSUE AND BECAUSE WHAT WOULD HAVE MADE A LOT MORE SENSE TO ME WOULD HAVE BEEN TO ADD PUD TOING A OR HAVE THE LAND USE CHANGED TO AG. THEN WE WOULDN'T HAVE TO MESS WITH A.R. I THINK A.R. IS KIND OF A MINE FIELD DOWN THE ROAD. I MEAN, IF YOU LOOK AT THE MAP OF THE LAND USE IN THIS COUNTY THERE'S AN AWFUL LOT OF A.R. 10 ACRE PARCELS AROUND THE COUNTY AND THIS COULD BE OPENING THINGS UP BECAUSE WE ARE NOT TAILORING THIS ENOUGH FOR ONE PROJECT WHICH IS WHY WHEN I LOOKED AT IT SAID WHY AREN'T WE JUST ASKING TO CHANGE THE LAND USE ON THOSE PARCELS TO AG AND THEN THE PUD AND AG COVERS IT AND WE DON'T HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT THAT A.R. 
          LAND. SO DOES THE APPLICANT, CAN YOU ADDRESS THAT SOMEBODY? AND TELL US, BECAUSE WE ARE REALLY OPENING UP A CAN OF WORMS WHEN WE DO THIS. 
          >> GOOD EVENING. I'M WYMAN DUGGIN, I'M THE ATTORNEY AND AGENT FOR THE APPLICANT. 
          WE WILL HAVE THE APPLICANT'S EVENING NEAR HERE TO ANSWER QUESTIONS. SO, THE IMMEDIATE ANSWER TO YOUR QUESTION IS WE WORKED WITH MR. LAYMAN AND MR. BROWN ON ADDRESSING THE ISSUES HOW TO GET THIS USE APPROVED FOR THE SITE. 
          IT'S JUST AS STAFF REPORTS IT'S JUST TWO AND A HALF MILES SOUTH OF WHERE THE PROPOSED INTERCHANGE IS GOING TO BE SO FOR R.V.ERS IT'S GOING TO BE CONVENIENT FOR THEM. 
          THIS IS THE KIND OF COMMUNITY WHERE THEY WANT TO CKCOME AND VISIT AND SEED AND STAY A WHILE SPEND THEIR MONEY. 
          AS MR. BROWN ALLUDED TO WE PUT IN THE PUD A LOT OF RESTRICTION, 
          [00:45:02]
WE HAVEN'T JUST PROHIBITED TENT CAMPING AN PRIMITIVE CAMPING. 
          WE HAVE ALSO RESTRICTED THE KIND OF VEHICLE THAT EVEN CAN COME IN THERE. SO, THE GUIDANCE THAT WE RECEIVED FROM STAFF WAS THIS IS THE ROAD MAP. 
          SO, I UNDERSTAND YOUR QUESTION BUT IT REALLY WAS THE DIRECTION WE RECEIVED FROM STAFF IS HERE'S THE ROADMAP HOW WE GET TO THIS USE ON THIS SITE. MAJORITY OF THE SITE IS A.R. BUT TODAY IT'S A BORROW PIT FOR THE MOST PART WITH THE ACTIVITY OUT THERE. THIS WILL BE A GOOD INFILL USE THAT'S GOING TO BE LOW IMPACT TO YOUR COUNTY INFRASTRUCTURE, OBVIOUSLY NO CHILDREN IN THE SCHOOLS. 
          WE HAVE THE EVENING NEAR HAS DONE PROBABLY TEN OF THESE AROUND THE STATE. HE CAN TESTIFY AS TO THE CLIENTELE AND THE MODE OF OPERATION. 
          THEY COME IN, THEY KIND OF SHUT THINGS DOWN ABOUT 10:00, YOU'RE NOT GOING TO HAVE A LOT OF POLICE AND FIRE RESOURCES DIRECTED TO. THIS SO IT'S A GREAT, CLEAN REVENUE GENERATING USE AND WE WORKED WITH STAFF TO TRY TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO PLACE IT THERE AND THERE'S THE DIRECTION WE 
          GOT. >> DO YOU UNDERSTAND THE CONCERN THAT I HAVE ABOUT THE A.R. ZONING IN THIS? A THIRD OF THIS COUNTY IS A.R. I THINK. 
          AND I DON'T WANT TO BE OPENING UP AN R.V. PARK ON EVERY TEN ACRE PARCEL IN THIS COUNTY. DO YOU SEE ANY ISSUES WITH TAKING A SIGHTLY DIFFERENT TACK THAN ASKING FOR A LAND USE CHANGE TO APG AND THEN IT SOLVES YOUR PROBLEM OR MY PROBLEM? 
          >> SO I WOULD SAY THERE ARE PROBABLY TWO REASONS WHY. 
          CERTAINLY I UNDERSTAND YOUR CONCERN. 
          I UNDERSTAND THAT INTEREST ELECTRICALLY UNDERSTAND THE CONCERN AND I SEE WHY IN THE CODE WERE YOU WORRIED ABOUT THAT. I WOULD SAY AS A PATRICAL MATTER FOR FACILITIES LIKE THIS, TEN ACRES ISN'T GOING TO BE BIG ENOUGH BY ITSELF. THERE'S ONLY SO MANY PLACES WHERE THIS IS REALLY GOING TO WORK SUCCESSFULLY THAT PEOPLE ARE GOING TO WANT TO TRY AND GET IT ENTITLED, PUT IN THE INFRASTRUCTURE FOR EACH SPACE THAT'S REQUIRED, FOR EXAMPLE YOU GOT TO HAVE WATER AND HOOK UP FOR EACH SPACE SO WHILE YES THEORETICALLY LOTS OF PROPERTIES COULD BE SUBJECT TO THIS USE I THINK ECONOMICALLY THEY WON'T BE PRACTICAL. 
          THAT'S THE FIRST THOUGHT I HAVE. THE SECOND THOUGHT I HAVE AS YOU'VE SEEN TONIGHT A LOT OF PARCELS HAVE ZONING THAT WAS, PLACE HOLDER ZONING AND AS THE COUNTY DEVELOPS AND MORE DENSITY COMES, THOSE USES ARE GOING TO BE CHANGED. 
          IN A.R., DOESN'T ALLOW A LOT SO I'M NOT SURE THAT AN A.R. LAND USE, THE OWNER OF LAND THAT HAS A.R. IS GOING TO THINK THAT PUTTING IN A CAMPGROUND IS THEIR GOLDEN TICKET. 
          WHAT THEY'RE GOING TO COME AND DO IS TRY AND INCREASE THE LAND USE DENSITY INTENSITY THAT'S PERMITTED ON THE PROPERTY AS YOU SAW THE WOMAN WITH THE VILLAGE CENTER PARCEL, SHE SAID K.B. 
          HOMES IS BUILDING AROUND ME AND I NEED TO EXITED THIS PROPERTY. 
          THAT I THINK IS THE MORE LIKELY SCENARIO YOU'RE GOING TO SEE TO 
          ADDRESS YOUR CONCERN. >> MR. BROWN, WHAT WOULD THE COUNTY'S POSITION BE IF I CAME IN HERE WITH MY 10 ACRE PARCEL AND SAID I WANT TO PUT AN R.V. PARK ON IT AND I MET THOSE 
          CONDITIONAL USES? >> IT WOULD BE APPROVED. 
          IF CAN YOU MEET THE CONDITIONAL USE ALL THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CONDITIONAL USE WITH THIS CHANGE, IF THIS CHANGE WENT THROUGH, IT WOULD -- IT WOULD BE APPROVED. 
          I DON'T THINK WE WOULD HAVE A CHOICE IF YOU MET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CONDITIONAL USE. 
          >> BECAUSE I'LL TELL YOU, I KNOW THAT SOMETIMES PEOPLE THINK I'M A LITTLE DOOM AND GLOOM ON THIS STUFF BUT COULD I EASILY SEE SOMEBODY WITH A 20 ACRE PARCEL THAT IS NEAR THE FAIRGROUNDS OR NEAR THE RIVER OR NEAR ANYWHERE THAT MOST PEOPLE ON THIS BOARD DON'T REMEMBER WE HAD A REQUEST FOR A CAMPGROUND COME IN HERE NOT TOO LONG AGO OUT ON 220, NO 218 THAT WAS QUITE A PROBLEM BECAUSE IT REQUIRED A ZONING CHANGE AT THAT POINT AND ULTIMATELY IT WAS DENIED. WITH THIS CHANGE, THAT SAME INDIVIDUAL COULD HAVE COME IN HERE AND TO HECK WITH THE 
          [00:50:01]
NEIGHBORS AND EVERYTHING ELSE AND SAID I'VE GOT THE ACREAGE AND THIS IS WHAT I'M DOING. HENCE ME CONCERN ABOUT THIS. 
          AND I DO WANT TO SAY WITH THAT, I THINK IT'S A GREAT PROJECT. 
          I DON'T DISLIKE THE PROJECT. I'M WORRIED ABOUT WHAT HAPPENS IN THE FUTURE IF WE MAKE THAT CHANGE IN A.R. 
          BECAUSE I LIVE ON A.R. LAND. PROPERTIES AROUND ME ARE A.R. 
          AND I DO NOT WANT MY NEIGHBOR DECIDING HE'S GOING TO PUT A CAMPGROUND IN BECAUSE NOW HE CAN DO THAT. 
          >> MR. CHAIRMAN? >> YES. 
          >> IS IT POSSIBLE FOR TO US HEAR FROM THE SITE EVENING NEAR? I BELIEVE HE'S HERE AS WELL. I'D LIKE TO KNOW IN YOUR PARTICULAR SCENARIO WHAT, NOT NECESSARILY WHAT THE COST WOULD BE BUT WHAT IT WOULD ENTAIL TO MAKE THAT TEN ACRES A CAMPGROUND BECAUSE TO THE ATTORNEY'S POSITION, IF I UNDERSTOOD THIS CORRECTLY THE COST OF THE INFRASTRUCTURE OF DEVELOPING THAT TEN ACRES MAY WELL EXCEED WHATEVER REVENUES MIGHT COME FROM THAT SO THIS INDIVIDUAL MIGHT BE ABLE TO SHED SOME LIGHT 
          ON THAT FOR US. >> YOU'RE PART OF THE APPLICANT GROUP. JUST GIVE US YOUR NAME AND 
          ADDRESS, PLEASE. >> HENRY [INAUDIBLE] AVA ENGINEERS, PRESIDENT. LIKE MR. DUGGIN I LOST COUNT. 
          WE HAVE ABOUT 4-5 IN THE OFFICE NOW SCATTERED THROUGHOUT THE STATE, I'VE WORKED WITH HIM ON THREE OR FOUR NOW. 
          THE PROBLEM TO MR. COMMISSIONER, IT'S THESE THINGS ARE NOT VERY CHEAP TO LET YOU KNOW THE COST OF AN R.V. SPACE IS NEARLY AS EXPENSIVE AS A SUBDIVISION LOT, $25,000 HUFF 30,000 SO TO SPEAK TO THE CHAIRMAN'S UNDERSTANDING OF EVERYONE COULD DO THIS IS A LITTLE BUILT MORE DIFFICULT THAN THAT. 
          THE CONDITION THE COUNTY HAS PROPOSED THROUGH THE CURRENT ZONING RULES ARE VERY STRICT. THERE'S 15 FEET OF LANDSCAPE BUFFER BETWEEN THE LOTS. THE LOTS ARE SUPPOSED TO BE 40-FOOT WIDE. ON TEN ACRES WE USUALLY SAY WE CAN GET AROUND 80-90 LOTS FUTURE. 
          LOOK AT THE COUNTY REQUIREMENTS FOR THE SIZE OF THOSE LOTS AND THE OTHER RESTRICTIONS ON THE SIZE OF THE ROADS THOSE ARE SOME VERY DATED REQUIREMENTS AND THEY WOULD MAKE IT VERY IMFPATRIC -- IMCHIROPRACTIC ALTOE DO. WATER ATTRACTS PEOPLE WHETHER IT'S R.V.ERS OR WHATEVER, SO TO THINK THAT WOULD HAPPEN ALL OVER, THEY'RE ALSO VERY INTENSIVE ON THE ENGINEERING SIDE. THEY NEED UTILITIES TO BE PRACTICAL BECAUSE 64-E WHICH GOVERNS SEPTIC TANKS SO YOU BARELY CAN GET A HUNDRED ON ANYONE PARCEL. 
          WE HAVE TRIED TO DO SEPTIC SYSTEMS ON LARGER FACILITIES BEFORE, THE STATE PUTS THAT WHOLE PARK UNDER THAT ONE UMBRELLA SO IF YOU OWN 500 ACRES YOU CAN ONLY GET ABOUT 80 ACRES ON IT SO I THINK THAT WOULD PRECLUDE A LOT OF PEOPLE JUST GOING OUT AND OPENING UP A PARK ANYWHERE. 
          YOU HAVE TO DO FIRE PROTECTION. YOU HAVE TO DO SOME FORM OF WATER TREATMENT. THEN YOU GOT TO THROW IN YOUR STORM WATER RETENTION. THEY'RE NOT FOR THE FAINT OF HEART TO BE DEVELOPING. IT'S PRETTY MUCH A SUBDIVISION WITH A LOT OF OTHER BELLS AND WHISTLES. 
          SO IT WOULD BE, COULD THEY DO IT, YES, BUT IN ALL PATRIC -- PRACTICALITY IT WOULD BE TOUGH. IT'S A LOCAL ECONOMY FOR EVERY SPACE OCCUPIED PER DAY IT'S A $200 PER DAY IMPACT ON LOCAL ECONOMY. NOT ON YOUR SERVICES BUT ON YOUR -- THAT'S WHAT THE COUNTY GIVES SEASON ECONOMIC IMPACTS SO THESE ARE HUGE GRAND PROJECTS THAT BRING PEOPLE AN RECOGNITION TO THE COUNTY PROVIDE A VERY GOOD NEED FOR THE COUNTY. 
          IT'S A PLACE WHERE THEY CAN COME AND STAY AND IT'S WITH HARDLY NO INFRASTRUCTURE OR SERVICES PROVIDED BY THE COUNTY SO IT'S A 
          [00:55:02]
          CLEAN INDUSTRY SO TO SPEAK. >> OKAY. 
          I'M GOING TO -- I DON'T WANT TO MONOPOLIES THIS CONVERSATION BUT BACK TO STAFF. THE LOTS THAT ARE A.R. IN RURAL RESERVE LAND USE CATEGORY ACCORDING TO THE MAP ON THE WEB SITE. SO MY QUESTION IS WHY ARE WE ADDING THIS TO EVERY LAND USE CATEGORY IN A.R. IF WE ONLY NEED IT IN RURAL RESERVE THAT SIGNIFICANTLY CUTS DOWN ON THE ABILITY OF OTHER PROPERTY OWNERS. 
          AND AGAIN TO YOUR POINT, IT'S A GREAT PROJECT. 
          I LOVE THE PROJECT. I'M NOT THINKING ABOUT THIS SPECIFIC PROJECT. I'M THINKING WAS GOING TO LATCH IF WE MAKE THIS CHANGE TOVRG. THAT'S PART OF OUR JOB HERE IS TO LOOK AT THE WHOLE COUNTY. IF YOU DON'T HAVE IT HANDY I'VE GOT THE MAP. I PRITD IT -- PRINTED IT OFF THE G.I.S. SYSTEM. I DIDN'T ACTUALLY SEE IT IN THE 
          PACKET ANYWHERE. >> MR. CHAIRMAN I HAVE A QUESTION IN THE MEANTIME. CAN I ADDRESS TO ENGINEEER. 
          >> JUST OUT OF CURIOSITY, IF SOMEBODY WAS TO TAKE -- LET ME BACK UP. IF YOU WERE LOOKING AT THE TOTAL SUM COSTS THAT ARE GOING TO BE REQUIRED BEFORE YOU CAN OPEN THE GATE WHAT WOULD BE THE MINIMUM ACREAGE THAT YOU THINK WOULD MAKE THIS SUFFICIENT IN ORDER TO HAVE A POSITIVE CASH FLOW? 
          >> THE SMALLEST ONE WE'VE DONE SO FAR HAS BEEN 40 ACRES. 
          >> 40 ACHEERS >> 40 ACRES OF LAND. 
          >> I SEE. THANK YOU. 
          >> BECAUSE PUD PLANNING DEVELOPMENT IS ALLOWED ALREADY IN THE RURAL RESIDENTIAL IN THE FUTURE LAND USE. 
          SO BECAUSE WE ARE TALKING BOTH ZONING AND LAND USE RIGHT NOW. 
          IN THE SAME CONVERSATION BUT THE REASON WHY THERE WAS NOT A REQUEST TO ADD THE PUD IN THE R.R. LAND USE BECAUSE IT'S ALREADY ALLOWED SO THAT THE AMENDMENT THE TEXT AMENDMENT TO SECTION 3.9 OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE JUST WOULD ADD PU DID TO THE AG'S FUTURE LAND USE. 
          BECAUSE IT'S NOT ALLOWED RIGHT NOW BUT A PUD IS ALLOWED IN THE R.R. FUTURE LAND USED TO. SO THAT'S WHY IT WASN'T ASKED TO 
          BE INCLUDED IN THAT. >> COULD YOU NOT JUST, IF PUD IS AVAILABLE IN THAT ZONING OR IN A.R. 
          >> COME IN AND ASK FOR THE PUD. >> AND WE DON'T NEED CAMPGROUND AS A USE IN A.R. THEY WOULD HAVE TO COME IN AND DO A PUD. THAT'S A MORE DIFFICULT PROCESS. 
          >> RIGHT. AND MORE DIFFICULT AND MORE INSURANCES TO BOTH THE COUNTY NEIGHBORS AND EVERYBODY ELSE. 
          >> THAT'S WHAT I'M TRYING TO GET RIGHT THERE. 
          >> AND FROM A STAFF STANDPOINT I BELIEVE THAT WHERE YOU'RE GOING, IN MY MIND, WITH ADDING THE PUD TEXT AMENDMENT TO AG THEY COULD THEN PURSUE A PUD FOR WHAT THEY WANT TO DO. 
          >> WITHOUT TOUCHING. >> AND WE WOULDN'T HAVE TO TOUCH THE CONDITIONAL USE AS PART OF THE TO THOSE. 
          AND I THINK IT WOULD GET THE SAME RESULTS. 
          [01:00:03]
          >> AND IF SOMEBODY CAME IN IN THE FUTURE AND SAID I GOT TEN ACRES OVER HERE AND I WANT TO DO SOMETHING THEY WOULD HAVE TO DO A PUD IF THEY'RE A.R. WELL WE GET TO LOOK AT A PUD AND YOU GUYS WOULD HAVE INPUT INTO THAT AS WELL. 
          SO THAT'S WHERE I WAS TRYING TO DRIVE THIS CONVERSATION. 
          I THINK THAT'S A MUCH MORE ELEGANT SOLUTION THAT PROTECTS OUR FUTURE, AND PROTECTS THIS PROJECT. 
          I DON'T THINK IT IMPACT EITHER ONE IF WE DO THAT. 
          >> IT TWO ALLOW THEM STILL PURSUE THE PROJECT THAT THEY PROPOSE UNDER THE PUD. WE DON'T NEED TO ADDRESS ADDING THAT AS A CAMPGROUND AS A CONDITIONAL USE BECAUSE THEY'RE 
          PURSUING THE PUD. >> OKAY. 
          DO YOU GUYS UNDERSTAND THAT? DO YOU KIND OF AGREE WITH THAT? 
          >> YES, MR. CHAIRMAN I UNDERSTAND THAT POSITION AS LONG AS IT'S CRYSTAL CLEAR WE ARE PURSUING THE TEXT AMENDMENT BECAUSE THAT WAS THE DIRECTION WE WERE GIVEN. 
          I DON'T THINK WE ARE INVESTED IN KEEPING THE TEXT AMENDMENT. 
          >> WELL YOU'RE STILL GOING TO NEED A TEXT AMENDMENT FOR PART 
          OF THIS. >> FOR THE A.R. 
          THAT WAS THE DIRECTION WE RECEIVED AS LONG AS ABANDONING THAT DOES NOT PROHIBIT THEM FROM GETTING THE PUD FOR THIS 
          PROJECT. >> OKAY. 
          AND I'M GLAD, WHAT YOU HAVE TO UNDERSTAND IS THAT WE ONCE HAD A PLANNING DIRECTOR HERE YEARS AGO WHO TOLD US IF WE AGREE 100 PERCENT OF THE TIME WITH THE PLANNING STAFF THEY'RE DOING SOMETHING WRONG OR WE ARE DOING SOMETHING WRONG. 
          THAT IS THAT SMALL PERCENTAGE WHERE I THINK WE OFFERED INPUT EVERYTHING GETS WHAT THEY WANT AND IT WORKS OUT BETTER FOR THE COUNTY. THAT'S PART OF THE REASON WE ARE HERE. SO WITH THAT IN MIND, DOES ANYBODY ELSE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ON THIS? I STILL HAVE TO OPEN THE HEARING. 
          >> CAN WE MAKE AMENDMENTS ON THE FLY SO TO SPEAK TONIGHT AND THEN 
          VOTE ON IT? >> MM-HMM. 
          >> OKAY. >> THREES GUYS ARE GOING TO GO BACK AND STUDIED BECAUSE THEY HAVE UNTIL THE BOARD MEETING TO FINALIZE THIS BUT WHAT I THINK WHAT WE ARE PROPOSING IS GOING TO ALLOW THE PROJECT TO GO FORWARD AND PREVENT THE COUNTY FROM STEPPING ON SOME LAND MINES IN THE FUTURE OR AT LEAD GIVE US AN OPPORTUNITY TO TRY AND STOP THEM. 
          >> MR. CHAIRMAN YOU SAID WHAT WE ARE PROPOSING TONIGHT, CAN WE FLESH OUT THAT PROPOSAL? BECAUSE I UNDERSTAND THE DIRECTION AND THE CONCERN BUT I WANT TO KIND OF HEAR IT. 
          >> I THINK WHAT WE ARE PROPOSING AND COURTNEY YOU PROBABLY NEED TO BE PAYING ATTENTION. WHEN WE LOOK AT THIS, WE ARE GOING TO RECOMMEND THAT THE CONDITIONAL USE IS GOING INTO A.R. TO BE REMOVED FROM THIS TEXT AMENDMENT. 
          THE PUD WILL STILL GO IN. CAMP GROUNDS, YOUR PROJECT WILL CITY GO IN AS A PUD. IT WILL BE ADDED AS A USE IN THE PUD. WHAT WE ARE SAYING IS THAT YOU CAN ALREADY DO A PUD IN RUSHL RESIDENTIAL LAND USE SO THERE'S NOTHING TO PREVENT YOU ASKING FOR A APU UD ON THE LOTS THAT ARE THERE THAT ARE IN THE RURAL RESIDENTIAL LAND USE CATEGORY AND THEN IT WOULD BE ADDED TO AG AND ALL THE PROPERTY THAT YOU 
          HAVE WITH WOULD QUALIFY FOR PUD. >> [INAUDIBLE] 
          >> NO, THERE'S NONE. >> EXCUSE ME I'M GOING TO LEAVE 
          THE PODIUM. >> DIDN'T INCLUDE THE FUTURE LAND USE. I PULLED THIS OFF TODAY. 
          [INAUDIBLE] >> SORRY FOLKS. 
          [01:05:05]
          SOMETIMES WE GET IN THE WEEDS. >> JUST SO I UNDERSTAND THE TEXT AMENDMENT WOULD BE LIMITED TO ADDING PUD TO THE AG FUTURE LAND USE CATEGORY, KEEPING IT AS ADDING IT AS CONDITIONAL USE TO THE AG ZONING DISTRICT BUT NOT THE A.R. ZONING DISTRICT? 
          JUST SO I UNDERSTAND. >> YOU DON'T NEED TO ADD FROM A STAFF STANDPOINT IF WITH THE CHANGE TO ALLOW THE PUD IN THE AG FUTURE LAND USE, WE REALLY DON'T NEED FOR THEM TO MOVE FORWARD WE DON'T NEED TO ADDRESS ALLOWING A CAMPGROUND AS CONDITIONAL USE BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT GOING TO PURSUE THE CONDITIONAL USE MANY THEY'RE PURSUING A PUD ZONE TO GO ALLOW 
          THAT USE. >> SO YOU'RE SAYING IF WE RECOMMEND JUST ADDING PUD TO AG AS AN ALLOWABLE ZONING IN AG, EVERYTHING THEY WANT TO DO MOVES FORWARD. 
          >> YES. THEY NEED TO GO THROUGH THE PUD PROCESS AND GET THAT APPROVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS. BUT YES. 
          >> AGAIN I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT YOU CAN HAVE UNDER PUD YOU HAVE A CAMPGROUND RECREATIONAL PARK. 
          >> THAT'S THE ONE THING I'M TRYING TO MAKE SURE. 
          >> I'M TRYING TO LOOK THAT UP. >> STAND BY. 
          >> I BELIEVE YOU WOULD PROBABLY HAVE TO CALL IT -- BECAUSE WE DO HAVE A PIECE. IT'S EITHER PUD OR P.C.D. 
          WE HAVE THOSE TWO DESIGNATIONS. >> SO I THINK YOU NEED TO GO BACK AND RELOOK AT THIS BECAUSE I GUESS I'M NOT SURE WHY WE WENT DOWN THE PUD ROUTE BECAUSE UNDER PUD THE CONDITIONAL USES, SO THE CONDITIONAL USES DO NOT PROVIDE FOR A CAMPGROUND RECREATIONAL PARK. SO WE WOULD NEED TO ADD THAT UNDER THE CONDITIONAL USES FOR A PUD. 
          >> RIGHT. >> AND COURTNEY I THINK THAT'S WHAT I WAS SAYING WE NEED TO DO THAT BUT WE DON'T NEED TO ADD CAMP GROUNDS R.V. PARKS AS A CONDITIONAL USE UNDER A.R. 
          BECAUSE PUD IS ALREADY ALLOWED SO BY PUTTING THAT INTO A PUD WE TAKE CARE OF ALL THE LOTS WE ARE TALKING ABOUT WITHOUT CHANGING A BUNCH OF -- SHARICE KNOWS IN HER NEIGHBORHOOD WHERE HE LIVES THERE'S A LOT OF A.R. LAND OUT THERE. 
          >> SO, JUST SO I'M CLEAR ON YOUR MAP, THE CURRENT LAND USE 
          CATEGORY FOR THE PARCEL IS WHAT? >> IT'S SPLIT BETWEEN AG AND 
          R.R. >> YEAH. 
          ARE YOU LOOKING AT THE PACKAGE STUFF? 
          >> THERE'S SIX PARCELS INCLUDED. I THINK THREE OF THEM ARE AG AND 
          THREE ARE R.R. FUTURE LAND USE. >> THEY'RE R.R. WITH A.R. 
          ZONING. >> OKAY. 
          SO UNDER THE LAND USE CATEGORIES CURRENTLY UNDER AG RESIDENTIAL YOU CAN HAVE A PUD AND UNDER RURAL RESIDENTIAL YOU HAVE PUD BUT UNDER AG YOU DO NOT SO FOR THAT LAND YOU NEED TO DEFINITELY 
          ADD THE PUD. >> YES. 
          >> BUT THEN IN ORDER TO UNDER A PUD, YOU'LL NEED TO ADD THE 
          [01:10:09]
CONDITIONAL USE, WHICH IS THAT IS NOT EVEN -- SO CURRENTLY. 
          SO CURRENTLY WHAT HAS BEEN ADVERTISED DID NOT INCLUDE UNDER THE 3-33 CAMPGROUND RECREATIONAL PARK WHICH IS THE IMPORTANT PART THAT NEEDS TO BE ADDED. SO I THINK IF I'M FOLLOWING YOU WHAT WOULD LIKE TO DO, YOU WOULD LIKE TO PROVIDE TO MOVE FORWARD WITH ADDING THE PUD UNDER THE AG LAND USE BUT THEN NEED TO GO BACK AND PROVIDE FOR A CAMPGROUND RECREATIONAL PARK TO BE A CONDITIONAL USE UNDER A PUD. 
          >> YES. >> SO I MEAN TO DO THAT, YOU'LL TO HAVE READVERTISE FOR THAT PORTION, TO ADD IT UNDER THE 
          PUD. >> SO, THE CONDITIONAL USE IN AG DOESN'T TAKE CARE OF THAT PROBLEM. 
          >> THEN YOU DON'T NEED TO ADD IT'S LAND USE DEVELOPMENT. 
          >> ALL RIGHT. SO I MEAN WE CAN'T MOVE FORWARD EXCEPT WITH WHAT'S IN FRONT OF US TO APPROVE OR DENY IT. 
          WE CAN MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE BOARD BUT I BELIEVE COURTNEY WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IS WE WOULD HAVE TO READVERTISE THIS AND BRING IT BACK NEXT MONTH IN ORDER TO TAKE CARE OF THIS. 
          COULD WE GO AHEAD AND MOVE FORWARD ON THE -- TO DO THE 
          REZONING WITHOUT THIS? >> NO. 
          IF YOU'RE GOING TO NOT ACT OR TABLE THIS FIRST TEXT AMENDMENT YOU WOULD NEED TO HOLD OFF ON THE PUD BECAUSE IT WILL NOT BE CONSISTENT WITH LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE OR THE COMP PLAN AT THAT POINT. SO THAT COULD BE STAFF'S 
          RECOMMENDATION. >> JUST A QUICK QUESTION FOR STAFF TOO, IF WE MOVE AHEAD WITH RECOMMENDING OR STAFF DOES ADDING THE CONDITIONAL USE UNDER THE PUD COULD YOU BE ABLE TO TELL BECAUSE THE IMPACT OF THAT MIGHT BE? 
          IF ANY. >> THINKING AHEAD, IF THE CHANGE WE HAVE BEEN -- IT WOULD BE VERY LIMITED AND HERE'S WHY. 
          THIS IS JUST A PERSONAL FEELING. THERE SEEMS THERE'S IN MY MIND A DISCONNECT WHEN YOU'VE GOT A PUD WHICH SETS THE ZONING FOR A PIECE OF PROPERTY, WHY WOULD YOU HAVE A CONDITIONAL USE TIED TO THAT? BECAUSE THE PUD SETS THE ZONING AND TO CHANGE THAT TAKES AN ACTION OF THE BOARD AND SO, IT'S JUST A FUNCTION OR A THOUGHT I BELIEVE AN ISSUE WITH OUR CODE THAT ALLOWS CONDITIONAL USE WITHIN A PUD. 
          BUT THAT'S WHY I THINK IT WOULD BE VERY MINOR IMPACT OF THAT BECAUSE YOUR PUD SETS YOUR ZONING AND ALL THE USES IN A CONDITIONAL USE THAT WASN'T INCLUDED IN THAT PUD IS GOING TO HAVE TO GO TO AMENDMENT TO PUD. SO YOU KNOW, THAT'S FROM A STAFF POINT JUST AN INITIAL OFF THE COUPLE AND REALLY DOESN'T HAVE -- I DON'T THINK THERE'S A LOT OF DOWN SIDE TO IT. 
          >> THANK YOU. >> MISS GRAHAM ARE YOU STILL -- 
          [01:15:12]
          >> TRYING TO FIND OUT WAY TO DO IT. 
          >> SO FROM YOUR OPINION, CAN WE PROCEED TO -- SINCE THESE ARE RECOMMENDATIONS AND NOT FINAL DECISIONS CAN WE NOT IN ESSENCE RECOMMEND NOT MOVING AHEAD WITH THE TEXT AMENDMENT BUT STILL APPROVING THE PUD REZONE AS A RECOMMENDATION? 
          >> YES. CAN YOU MOVE FORWARD WITH RECOMMENDING THAT THE AGRICULTURAL LAND USE CATEGORY INCLUDE THE PUD YES. AND RECOMMEND THAT YOU NOT MOVE FORWARD WITH CAMPGROUND RECREATIONAL PARK AS CONDITIONAL USE UNDER THE AG AND A.R. AND THEN RECOMMEND BUT WILL HAVE TO BE ADVERTISED BUT RECOMMEND THAT AS A CONDITIONAL USE THE CAMPGROUND RECREATIONAL PARK BE ADDED TO PUD. 
          >> AND THEN IT WOULD ALL COME TOGETHER. 
          >> IT WOULD HAVE TO COME BACK TO YOU FOR THAT PART. 
          >> BUT WHEN WE DID THAT EVERYTHING WOULD BE THERE FOR 
          THEM TO PROCEED. >> PART ONE WOULD BE OKAY. 
          WE JUST HAVE TO FINALIZE PART 2. >> THAT WOULD BE A 30 DAY DELAY 
          FOR YOU GUYS. >> MR. CHAIRMAN, I THINK STAFF NEEDS ALONG WITH COURTNEY NEEDS TO THINK THIS THING THROUGH RATHER THAN TRYING TO DO IT ON THE FLY TONIGHT. 
          >> ME TOO. >> ALL RIGHT. 
          BUT I'M TRYING TO ACCOMMODATE THE APPLICANT BECAUSE IT'S A GOOD PROJECT. I DON'T THINK THE WAY WE ARE TRYING TO ACCOMPLISH IT WAS THOUGHT OW WELL ENOUGH FROM THE ZONING LAND USE CATEGORY. THE PROJECT LOOKS GREAT AT LEAST 
          TO ME. >> CAN I ASK A PROCESS QUESTION? SOUND LIKE EVERYBODY IS IN AGREEMENT THAT WE NEED TO ADD PUD TO THE AG FUTURE USE CATEGORY. 
          YOU CAN TAKE ACTION ON THAT WE ARE FINE WITH ABANDONING THE ADDITION OF CONDITIONAL USES TO AG OR A.R. ZONING DISTRICTS SO IF YOU WANT TO AMEND THE TEXT AMENDMENT YOUR RECOMMENDATION WOULD BE STRIKE THOSE SO YOU CAN ACT ON ALL THAT TONIGHT. 
          >> YES. >> WE UNDERSTAND WE NEED TO 
          AMEND THE PUD. >> YOU'RE AN ATTORNEY AS WELL SO YOU PROBABLY HOPEFULLY UNDERSTAND EXACTLY WHAT COURTNEY 
          SAID. >> I DO. 
          WHAT I'M ASKING AND INQUIRING IS SINCE YOUR ACTION IS ADVISORY, CAN YOU GO AHEAD AND VOTE OUT THE PUD RECOGNIZING IT'S GOING TO HAVE TO WAIT AT COUNCIL UNTIL WE COME BACK AND MAKE THE TEXT 
          AMENDMENT. >> I'M PERSONALLY FINE WITH THAT. IT'S A VOTE OF THE BOARD. 
          I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT COURTNEY SAYS IT'S OKAY FOR TO US DO THAT. IS THAT OKAY? 
          >> YES, IF I'M FOLLOWING YOU. >> YOU MAY NEED TO HELP WITH US THE MOTION THAT WE ARE GOING TO PROPOSE HERE AT SOME POINT. 
          SO WITH THAT MIND I NEVER OPENED THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS. 
          I'M GOING TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AND SEE IF ANYBODY HAS COMMENTS ON THAT THAT WANTS TO CHIME IN. 
          IF NOT I'M GOING TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND -- 
          >> I'LL MAKE THE MOTION. >> LET COURTNEY HELP YOU. 
          >> THE WAY I SEE THIS, I'M GOING TO MOVE TO APPROVE BUT BASED ON THESE CHANGES THAT THE PUD BE ADDED TO THE AG RATHER THAN A. 
          RFRMENT AND THE PUD NEEDS CONDITIONAL USE FOR CAMPGROUND 
          AND RECREATIONAL PARKS. >> SO YOU CANNOT MOVE FORWARD WITH ADDING THE CONDITIONAL USE TO THE PUD BECAUSE THAT WAS UNADVERTISED SO AS PART OF YOUR MOTION YOUR RECOMMENDATION IS TO SOLELY MOVE FORWARD WITH ADDING PUD TO THE AGRICULTURAL LAND USE 
          CATEGORY. >> CORRECT. 
          >> AND NOT MOVE FORWARD WITH ADDING CAMPGROUND RECREATIONAL 
          PARK AS A CONDITIONAL USE. >> A.R. 
          >> OR A.R. AND AG. >> OKAY. 
          >> AND TO BE CLEAR [INAUDIBLE] >> CORRECT. 
          >> OKAY. THE PUBLIC HEARING IS CLOSED. 
          ARE YOU GUYS OKAY WITH THAT? >> WE ARE FINE WITH EVERYTHING SHE JUST ARTICULATED BUT I DIDN'T GET AN ANSWER ON A QUESTION CAN YOU GO AHEAD AND RECOMMEND THE PUD RECOGNIZING IT'S GOING TO HAVE TO WAIT AT THE C UNTIL IT COMES BACK WITH 
          YOUR SUGGESTION. >>. 
          [01:20:01]
          >> I THINK IT'S A SEPARATE THING. 
          >> SO STATE WHAT WERE YOU ASKING. 
          >> MY QUESTION IS I'M 100 PERCENT WITH YOU ON EVERYTHING YOU JUST ARTICULATED AND WILL DO THAT WE AS THE APPLICANT ARE HAPPY STRIKING THE CONDITIONAL USE AS PART OF THE TEXT AMENDMENT. THE QUESTION I ASKED WAS SINCE THE PUD SINCE THIS BODY'S ACTION IS ADVISORY TO THE B.C.C. AND SINCE EVERYBODY SEEMS COMFORTABLE WITH THE PROJECT CAN THEY GO AHEAD AND RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE PUD RECOGNIZING THAT THE B.C.C. IS NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO TAKE AXTON THE PUD UNTIL THE TEXT AMENDMENT THE SECOND TEXT AMENDMENT TO USED PUD AS ADDITIONAL USE COMES BACK BEFORE THIS BODY AND THEN WHEN THAT SECOND TEXT AMENDMENT IS ACTED UPON AND GOES TO B.C.C. AT LEAST THE P.U.C. HAS BEEN BLESSED BY THIS BODY. 
          >> THE PART I GUESS TO ADD THE CONDITIONAL USE TO THE PUD WAS 
          NOT ADVERTISED. >> I GET THAT. 
          >> THAT'S THE PART THAT CANNOT BE ADDED. 
          >> AND COURTNEY THAT'S IN THE LAND USE PART. 
          THAT'S IN ITEM 5 ON OUR OR ITEM 4. 
          ITEM 5 IS THE ACTUAL REZONING APPLICATION. 
          CAN WE GO AHEAD AND MOVE ON THE REZONING APPLICATION? I THINK THAT'S THE QUESTION. RIGHT? YES. BECAUSE ONCE WE CLEAR UP THE PUD ISSUE THEN THE BOARD CAN ACT ON THE REZONING ISSUE. 
          >> OH, YES. SO YOU CAN GO AHEAD AND ACT ON NUMBER 5 BECAUSE YOU'RE REZONING IT TO PUD. 
          BUT THEN YOU WILL HAVE TO WAIT UNTIL YOUR PUD GETS THE CONDITIONAL USE AND THEN YOU CAN COME BACK. 
          >> COME BACK FOR BUILDING PERMITS, RIGHT? 
          >> YES. >> SO DOES THAT ANSWER YOUR 
          QUESTION. >>. 
          >> YES, SIR. THANK YOU ALL. 
          >> MIKE, ARE YOU IN AGREEMENT WITH THAT? 
          >> YES. >> OKAY. 
          >> WE DON'T HAVE TO READ THAT MOTION BACK, DO WE? BECAUSE I'M GOING TO ASK CHRISTINE TO DO THAT. 
          >> LET COURTNEY HELP YOU SO WE GET IT STATED CORRECTLY. 
          >> CAN YOU DO THIS ON MY BEHALF? WE ARE HERE FOR ITEM NUMBER 4 SO WE ARE HERE FROM ITEM 4 IN CONNECTION WITH ITEM NUMBER 4 THE MOTION IS TO APPROVE AMENDING THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE TO ALLOW PUD AS A PERMISSIBLE DISTRICT IN THE AGRICULTURAL LAND USE. AND AT THIS TIME, TO NOT MOVE FORWARD WITH AND NOT RECOMMEND ALLOWING CAMPGROUND A.R. PARK AS CONDITIONAL USE IN TAG AND THE A.R. DISTRICTS. 
          >> OKAY. AND WELL, IS THAT YOUR MOTION 
          JOE? >> I KIND OF LOST YOU AT THE END THERE BECAUSE I THOUGHT WE HAD TO ADD THE PUD NEEDED THE 
          CONDITIONAL USE. >> WE CAN'T DO THAT. 
          THAT'S NEXT MONTH. >> WE ALREADY DID THAT. 
          NO, WE CAN'T DO THE CONDITIONAL USE PART UNTIL WE ADVERTISE IT. 
          >> IN THE AG. >> RIGHT. 
          >> SO WE CAN LEAVE THAT PART OUT FOR NOW. 
          >> YES. >> I'M FINE WITH THAT. 
          >> YOUR MOTION IS GOOD. >> I'M GOOD WITH THE MOTION. 
          >> I NEED A SECOND. >> SECOND. 
          >> NOW YOU HAD A QUESTION. >> FOR THE INTEREST OF TRYING TO KEEP THIS THING IN THE SAME BUCKET WHY ARE WE PARCELLING THIS OUT IN TWO DIFFERENT THINGS? IT'S GOING TO BE DLAITD UNTIL SEPTEMBER ANYWAY. 
          WHY CAN WE NOT JUST PULL THE APPLICATION AN PUT ALL THIS THING IN ONE PIECE AND BRING IT BACK SO THAT WE GET ONE LOOK AT ALL THE PARTS OF IT AND IT GOES RIGHT TO THE BOARD AND IS DONE? 
          >> I THINK WE KNOW WHAT THE PARTS ARE. 
          AND IT REALTYY IS TWO SEPARATE ISSUES. 
          DION THINK WE NEED TO LUMP THEM TOGETHER. 
          I THINK WE ARE OKAY TAKING THEM ONE AT A TIME, SO I THINK WE'RE GOOD TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THE VOTE. 
          >> AND I THINK FOR THE APPLICANT, THE REASONING IS WHY YOU WOULD BE MOVING FORWARD IS YOU NIGHT TO MOVE FORWARD WITH ITEM NUMBER 4 TO ALLOW THE PUD AS A HER MISSABLE DISTRICT IN AG SO THAT YOU COULD THEN MOVED FORWARD WITH NUMBER 5 TO ALLOW 
          IT TO BE REZONED TO A PUD. >> YES. 
          >> OKAY. ANYONE ELSE? THEN I'M GOING TO CALL THE QUESTION. 
          ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF JOE'S MOTION, PLEASE STATE AYE. 
          ANY OPPOSED? OKAY. 
          YOU HAVE A LITTLE WORK TO DO OVER THE NEXT MONTH. 
          I'M SORRY WE DID THAT BUT I THINK IT'S THE BEST SOLUTION FOR 
          [01:25:01]
THE COUNTY. ALL RIGHT. 
          SO THE NEXT ITEM. WHEN WILL THIS COME UP, AUGUST 10TH? I MEAN WE JUST MADE A 
          RECOMMENDATION. >> YEAH, THE 24TH. 
          >> ALL RIGHT, ITEM NUMBER 5. THIS IS NOW THE PUBLIC HEARING 
          [5.  Public Hearing to Consider Rezoning Application PUD-21-01]
TO CONSIDER REZONING APPLICATION PUD 21-401 APPLICATION 43.3 ACRES OF GRUELING ZONE PROPERTY AND 46.89 ACRES OF AG PROPERTY TO PUD. GO AHEAD, MIKE. 
          I KNOW YOU GOT THE WHOLE THING. >> CHAIRMAN AND COMMISSION, THE APPLICANT IS GNT PATENT PROPERTIES AND NBA DEVELOPMENT INC. REQUEST REZONE 43.48 ACRES OF AG RESIDENTIAL AND 46.9 ACRES OF AGRICULTURAL ZONE PROPERTY TO PUD. 
          THE LOCATION IS 5268 SOUTH HIGHWAY 17 AND 11172 BATTEN ROAD. HERE'S THE ZONING AND THE AERIAL FOR THE SITE FOR THE TOTAL SITE. LIKE I SAID THERE'S A TOTAL OF SIX PARCELS. THE SITE HAS BEEN UTILIZED FOR AGRICULTURE AND CULTURAL ACTIVITIES. 
          THE SITE CONTAINS AN EXISTING 15 ACRES BORROW AREA AND THE BORROW AREA IS SUPPOSED TO BE RECLAIMED AS A POND TO SUPPORT THE CAMPGROUND R.V. PARK. THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN INCLUDES 550 R.V. SITES WITH ASSOCIATED ACCESSORY USES TO SUPPORT THE R.V. RESORT WHICH INCLUDE CONVENIENCE STORE LAUNDRY FACILITIES POOL CLUBHOUSE RESTAURANT AND RECREATIONAL FACILITIES MANY THERE WILL BE A SINGLE ACCESS OFF OF U.S. 
          HIGHWAY 17 AND I BELIEVE TERRIBLE PRIVATE ROAD NETWORK FOR CIRCULATION. JUST THE PUD IF AND WHEN ADOPTED FOR THE PROJECT WILL PROVIDE ASSURANCES TO THE COUNTY TO THE APPLICANT TO THE NEIGHBORS WHAT WILL HAPPEN THERE. 
          THAT BASICALLY WILL SET THE ZONING FOR THE PROJECT. 
          STAFF FINDS THAT THE PROPOSED PUD IS CAPABLE WITH THE SURROUNDING USES. I CAN'T MAKE THE NEXT STATEMENT. 
          IT WILL DEPENDS ON FUTURE CHANGES WHEN IT COMES BACK. 
          HOWEVER STAFF DOES RECOMMEND THAT PUD 21-01 WITH SHOWN IN THE ATTACHED WRITTEN DESCRIPTION CONTINGENT CHANGES TO COME IN THE FUTURE TO ALLOWING CAMPGROUND AS A CONDITIONAL USE TO PUD THAT THE APPLICATION BE APPROVED BASED ON THAT TRYING TO WORD IT RIGHT WITH THE RECENT CHANGES. 
          >> OKAY. I THINK WE GET IT. 
          ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF ON THIS? I AGAIN HAVE SOME FOR THE APPLICANT, BUT I'M GOOD WITH STAFF FOR RIGHT NOW. DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? TO THE APPLICANTS, DO YOU WISH TO ADD ANYTHING OR JUST TAKE 
          QUESTIONS? >> WYMAN DUGGIN. 
          WE WILL STAND BY FOR QUESTIONS. I THINK EVERYBODY IS UP TO 
          SPEED. >> I KNOW YOU SPOKE ABOUT THIS BEFORE. DOES ANYBODY WANT TO ASK THE APPLICANT ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT IN PARTICULAR PROPOSAL? OKAY. I JUST HAD SOME THE PUD DESCRIPTION THAT I EITHER NEED WOULD LIKE CLARIFIED OR JUST GET SOME COMMENTS INTO THE MINUTES. I'M KIND OF FAMILIAR WITH THESE STEPS. I'VE STAYED IN THEM BEFORE AND THEY'RE USUALLY THE KIND OF CLUBHOUSE COMMON AREA THE POOL WHATEVER YOU MIGHT HAVE THERE. THEN THERE'S A BUNCH OF R.V. 
          SITES AND KIND OF TOWARD THE BACK SO MANY ROWS ARE RESERVED FOR PARK MODELS. THAT KIEKIND OF YOUR PLAN? 
          [01:30:06]
THE PARK MODEL RESIDENTS TONIGHT TO BE EITHER YEAR-ROUND OR LIKE VACATION WEEKEND HOMES SO THEY DON'T HAVE TO HAUL AN R.V. BACK AND FORTH. THEY JUST SHOW UP. 
          >> SO I WILL LET MR. [UNCLEAR] TAKE THE MEAT OF IS THAT. 
          >> I SAW THE LIMIT FOR R.V.'S BUT IT SAYS RECREATIONAL VEHICLES MAY STAY UP TO 180 DAYS WHICH [UNCLEAR] WHICH LAST 
          UNLIMITED DURATION. >> THE SENTENCE SAYS INDIVIDUALS MAY STAY UP TO 180 CONSECUTIVE DPAIS. 
          >> BUT IF I OWNED A PARK MODEL IN YOUR FACILITY YOU'RE BASICALLY TELLING ME I COULD ONLY USE IT HALF THE YEAR. 
          I'M TRYING TO DO WITH ONCE I'M FAMILIAR WITH THE ONES I'M FAMILIAR WITH HAVE PERMANENT RESIDENTS IN THE BACK AND R.V. 
          >> HENRY, A.V.A. ENGINEERS. I DON'T WANT TO HOLD EVERYBODY UP HERE ALL NIGHT BUT THERE ARE THREE DISTINCT PEOPLE THAT GO IN R.V. PARKS, THE PULL THROUGHS AFTER HOURS AT NIGHT AND MAKE EVERYBODY ELSE MAD WITH THEIR LIGHTS AND LEAVING TEND TO MAKE EVERYBODY MAD. THOSE ARE ALWAYS AT THE FRONT AND IF YOU ZOOM DOWN ON OUR SITE PLAN THE ENTRY COMES ALL 17 THROUGH THAT WINDING PARCEL TO THE RIGHT OR THE EAST. 
          AS YOU COME IN YOU WANT THOSE UP FRONT. 
          THEN AROUND THE LAKE IS WHERE PUT THE NORMAL RVERS STAYCATION ON THE WEEKEND OR MONTH WHATEVER, MODELS ARE GENERALLY IN A SEPARATE POD WE CALL THEM AND USUALLY IN THE BACK SO YOU DO PUT THEM BUT GENERALLY SPEAKING THESE THINGS AREN'T FOR SALE. MOST OF THE TIME YOU CAN BUY THEM AT SOME PLACES AND SOME PLACES YOU CAN'T BUY THEM. 
          USUALLY THE PARK SOME COMMUNITIES AND GUEST COMMUNITIES BUY THEM AND RENT THEM OUT BUT THEIR LIMITED FOR STATE LAW IF I'M NOT MISTAKEN TO 180 DAYS. 
          >> OKAY. I DON'T HAVE AN ISSUE WITH PEOPLE STAYING THERE FULL-TIME, BUT I SEE WHAT YOUR PLAN IS AND THAT WAS MY QUESTION. I LIKE THE IDEA IN HERE THAT WE ARE GOING TO HAVE GENERAL PUBLIC WHICH MEANS I GUESS YOU HAVE FACILITIES THAT HAVE LIKE FRIDAY FOOD TRUCKS OR SATURDAY THINGS. 
          >> YES, AND THEN THEY HAVE THE CHILI COOKOFF, CAR SHOWS FOR VETERANS TO ATTRACT NOT JUST PEOPLE FROM AWAY FROM THE AREA, IT'S AROUND THE AREA ONE OF THE LARGER PARKS IN JACKSONVILLE THAT WE WORKED ON WAS FLAMINGO LAKES. 
          >> THAT'S ON THE NORTH SIDE. >> YES, SIR. 
          MORE THAN HALF THE GUESTS THE PAST 15 YEARS SINCE I WORKED ON THAT PROJECT MOST OF THEM IF YOU LOOK AT THEIR TAGS AND TALK FROM THEM THEY'RE ALL FROM AROUND JACKSONVILLE CLAY COUNTY BAKER NASSAU. THE DYNAMICS OF R.V. PARKS HAVE 
          CHANGED THE PAST 5-6 YEARS. >> OUTSIDE STORAGE OF RECREATIONAL VEHICLES IS THAT GOING TO BE A LIMITED AMOUNTED OF SPACES? I CAN'T SEE THAT PLAN. 
          >> YES. THE SITE IS LARGE ENOUGH AND THAT'S OBVIOUSLY JUST A CONCEPT PLAN. 
          IT WILL CHANGE BASED ON STORM WATER AND UTILITIES. 
          THERE'S A LARGE MELT AM BUILDING THAT WILL PROBABLY BE CONVERTED TO SOMETHING THAT'S OUTDOOR SEATING AND OFFICE SPACE AND GOLF CAR RENTALS AND SUCH LIKE THAT. 
          AND R.V. AND IT'S NOT SO MUCH BOAT STORES. 
          SOME R.V.ERS DO DRAG BOATS. AS WE KNOW THERE ARE PEOPLE FROM UP NORTH THAT COME AND ENJOY THE WARMER TEMPERATURES IN THE WINTER. A LOT OF THEM LIKE THE SAIL BOATS YOU SEE AT GREEN COVE. THEY LEAVE THEM FOR A FEE AND THEN NEXT YEAR THEY COME BACK AND DRAG IT FROM OUT OF STORAGE AND THEY SET IT BACK UP RATHER THAN DRIVE IT ALL THE WAY HOME AND BACK SO THAT'S A REVENUE STREAM FOR THE R.V. OWNER. 
          >> HOPEFULLY I GUESS THE POINT I BECOME TOO LARGE A PART OF THIS. 
          IT JUST TAKES CARE OF THE NEED. I THINK YOUR TYPICAL HOTEL OPERATION YOU MENTIONED HERE YOU ADDRESSED THAT. 
          WHAT YOU HAVE IS ACCESSORY USE TYPICAL ANCILLARY USES, AGAIN SINCE YOU DON'T HAVE OWNERS THAT'S PROBABLY ADDRESSED 
          [01:35:03]
BECAUSE YOU CAN CONTROL THAT. YOU KNOW THE PARK MODELS ARE OWNED BY SOMEBODY. NEXT THING THEY'RE PUTTING IN AN ATTACHED BUILDING AND PRETTY SOON THE PARK MOD SELL BIGGER 
          THAN DOUBLE WIDE. >> MOST OF THE GUYS WE DEAL THAT EVERYBODY DOING THIS ALL THEIR LIFE WE WANT TO KEEP THAT SPACE 40 BY 60 AS SHOWN IN OUR TYPICAL BECAUSE AS THEY SAY THE LARGER THE SPACE THE MORE JUNK SHOWS UP SO THEY'RE TRYING TO KEEP THEM TO THAT SPACE. THAT'S WHY MR. DUGGIN TO CONVINCE THE BOARD THIS ISN'T A MOBILE HOME PARK. 
          >> SO THE SPACES WILL SAY THESE ARE NOT FOR SALE. 
          >> CORRECT. >> LAVATORY FACILITIES. 
          THIS SEEMED LIKE A SMALL AMOUNT FOR ME ONE TOIL EPT AND LAV TRID FOR EVERY 50 R.V. SPACES. THAT THE ONLY 11 FOR 550 SITES. 
          >> THERE WILL BE MORE THAN THAT. THAT'S JUST ONE OF THE PUD'S WE 
          USED BEFORE. >> OKAY. 
          >> THEY DO WANT MORE BECAUSE IF YOU'RE AN R.V.ER YOU KNOW ONE THING ON THE BLOGS AN WEB SITES FIRST THING THEY TALK ABOUT IS 
          HOW NICE THE BATDZ ROOMS ARE. >> BECAUSE THIS BIG AN R.V. THEY WANT TO GO INTO A CLUBHOUSE AND GET A NICE SHOWER FROM TIME TO TIME. ALL RIGHT. 
          >> THE SHOWER AND R.V.'S GENERALLY USED AS A SECONDARY 
          CLOSET. >> YES. 
          IT'S THE NIGHTTIME PLACE. >> YES, SIR. 
          I SAID THE SHOWERS NOT THE TOILET. 
          >> USUALLY THE SAME ONE. THEN THE COUPLE OF THINGS THAT I ALWAYS HAVE AN ISSUE WITH, THE SIGNAGE. 
          WE HAVE HERE A SIGN EIGHT FEET BY 16 FEET CAN BE DIGITAL. 
          MY QUESTION IS, UNLESS IT'S COVERED SOME WHERE ELSE, I DIDN'T SEE HOW HIGH THAT SIGN CAN BE. 
          IS IT GOING TO BE 235 FEET IN THE AIR OR BE A MONDAY. 
          SIGN? >> GENERALLY SPEAKING IT'S SOME SORT OF WHATEVER THE PARK IS GOING TO BE CALLED. 
          IT SURROUNDS THAT TEAM. MOST OF THEM THAT WE HAVE SEEN HAVE THE BIG PONDEROSA PINES OR SMALL SIGNS. 
          IF YOU GO TO AN R.V. PARK IT'S NOT SOMETHING YOU DRIVE DOWN THE ROAD AND THINK I'LL GO IN THERE. IT'S MORE A DESTINATION SO SIGNAGE IS IMPORTANT AS WITH OTHER BUSINESSES. 
          >> I'M LOOKING AT THE HEIGHT OF IT. 
          CAN YOU PUT THAT SIGN UP AS A MONUMENT SIGN IT'S PROBABLY NOT BAD OR ON A 30 FOOT POLE YOU CAN SEE IT FROM FIVE MILES AWAY. 
          >> WOULDN'T THAT FALL INTO OUR CURRENT SIGNAGE CODE RIGHT NOW? 
          >> IF IT'S NOT STIPULATED IN THE PUD SPECIFICALLY THEN IT WOULD 
          FALL UNDER THE SIGNAGE CODE. >> THEN THE OTHER ONE AND I THINK YOUR DESIGN IS PROBABLY GOING TO TAKE CARE OF THIS. 
          DOES WORDING HERE ABOUT LIGHTING BELL LOCALIZED ILLUMINATION ONTO THE PROPERTY BASICALLY MEAN DOWN L 
          LIGHT SOMETHING. >> RIGHT. 
          PEOPLE THAT GO TO THESE 10:00 THEY ROLL THE SIDEWALKS UP. 
          THEY DON'T LIKE THE BRIGHT LIGHTS. 
          >> WE ARE LOOKING TO KEEP THE SKY DARK. 
          >> IT'S GROUND BASE. NO POLE LIGHTING. 
          >> MOST PARKS KEEP IT MINIMAL BECAUSE AT NIGHT WANT JUST ENOUGH LIGHTED TO SEE. THAT'S ALL I HAD. 
          ANYBODY ELSE EVER QUESTIONS? >> NO, BUT I WANTED TO ADD YOU WERE PRESSING 180 DAYS. I WOULD THINK THAT WHEN YOU COME INTO A CAMPGROUND LIKE THERE THEY'RE RUNNING IT AS A RESORT LIKE A LOW TELL FLYER GOING TO SIGN SOME SORT OF PAPERWORK AND STIPULATE YOU CAN'T STAY MORE THAN 180 DAYS. 
          >> NO, I'M FINE WITH IT. I WAS JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND HOW COULD HAVE PARK MODELS THERE FULL TIME AND ONLY 180 BECAUSE THE ONES I'M MOSTLY FAMILIAR WITH THE PARK MODELS ARE INDIVIDUALLY OWNED. PEOPLE RENT THOSE SPACES OUT. 
          IN THIS CASE IT'S GOING TO BE MORE LIKE A HOTEL SETUP. 
          >> OKAY. ANYTHING YOU GUYS WANT TO ADD? NO? ALL RIGHT. 
          LET ME OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS PART. 
          THERE IS FOR THE PUD ZONING. I'M GOING TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. NO CARDS ON THIS ONE. 
          ANYBODY WANT TO SPEAK ON THIS? IF NOT, BACK FOR MOTION. 
          [01:40:01]
          >> I MOTION TO APPROVE THE APPLICATION. 
          >> OKAY, SECOND. >> SECOND FROM MISS BRIDGMAN. 
          ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? I KNOW YOU'RE TIRED OF HEARING FROM ME. I'LL CALL THE QUESTION. 
          ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION VOTED AYE? OPPOSED? THANK YOU GUYS. 
          I KNOW YOU GOT WORK TO DO AND YOU KNOW WHO TO GET HOLD OF. 
          MR. RAY, COME ON BACK. WE ARE DONE WITH YOURS. 
          NOW YOU CAN COME HAVE THE FUN ONE. 
          >> THANK YOU MR. CHAIR. >> THANK YOU. 
          >> ALL RIGHT. ITEM NUMBER 6 ON OTHER AGENDA IS 
          [6.  Public Hearing to Consider Rezoning Application PUD-21-02]
PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER REZONING APPLICATION PUD 21-02. 
          TO REZONE FROM PUD TO PUD. SO IT'S A REPUD. 
          >> MR. CHAIRMAN, THE APPLICANT IS WIGGINS INVESTMENT OF NORTH FLORIDA. AGENT IS MISS JANICE FLEET. 
          AND IF YOU'RE FAMILIAR WITH THE RAVINE'S PUD THAT'S WHAT THIS IS RELATED TO. THIS REQUEST IS TO MODIFY WHAT'S KNOWN AS THE LODGE FROM A SHORT TERM STAY HOTEL TO A MULTI-FAMILY STRUCTURE, THE LOCATIONS THEREOF SPECIFICITY PARCEL IS 3145 RAVINES ROAD. THIS IS A ONE ACRE PARCEL THAT IS LOCATED IN AS I SAID EARLIER THE EXISTING RAVINES PLANTED UNIT DEVELOPMENT. PARCEL CONTAINS WHAT IS KNOWN AS THE LODGE CLASS A 12 UNIT STRUCTURE UTILIZED IN THE PAST AS A HOTEL FOR SHORT TERM RENTALS. 
          THE RAVINE PUD WAS ORIGINALLY APPROVED FOR THE FIRST TIME IN 1978. THE COUNTY ADOPTED AN MELTED TO THE PUD IN 1987 WHICH ALLOWED FOR 477 UNITS BOTH SINGLE FAMILY AND MULTI-FAMILY AS WELL AS THE HOTEL UNITS. 
          IN 1999 THE OWNERS RECEIVED A VESTING DETERMINATION FROM THE STATE ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING OFFICE WHICH GAVE THEM THE DEVELOPMENT ENTITLEMENTS THAT WERE ADOPTED IN THE 1987 AMENDMENT TOTAL CAPPED AT 477 UNITS. 
          THE 2013 PLANNING STAFF AT THE TIME DETERMINED THAT THE LODGE COULD NOT BE REDEVELOPED AS APARTMENTS UNITS WITHOUT REDUCING THE LIKE NUMBER OF RESIDENTIAL UNITS ELSE WHERE IN THE PUD. BECAUSE IT WOULD EXCEED THE 477 UNIT CAP. AND I INCLUDED A COPY OF THAT LETTER IN YOUR PACKET FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES. 
          HERE THE IS THE SPECIFIC PARCEL WHERE INTEREST IN THE SUBJECT OF THIS AMENDMENT, THE ZONING ALL AROUND IT PUD. 
          IT'S ALL PART OF THAT. THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT WOULD MODIFY THE USE OF THE LODGE FROM A 12 ROOM SHORT TERM STAY HOTEL TO AN 11 DWELLING UNIT MULTI-FAMILY STRUCTURE. 
          THE AMENDMENT AS PROPOSED WOULD NOT RESULT IN ANY ADDITIONAL DWELLING UNITS BEING ADDED TO THE PUD T11 UNITS WERE INTENDED TO BE TRANSFERRED FROM OTHER AREAS WITHIN THE PUD TO OFF SET THE 11 UNIT MULTI-FAMILY UNITS. THERE'S A BREAKDOWN OF EACH OF WHERE THOSE UNITS FROM COMING FROM BY PARCEL. 
          AND WITH THAT I WOULD NEED, I NEED TO BRING UP STAFF AN ISSUE 
          [01:45:05]
HAS COME UP. STAFF MET WITH ONE OF THE OWNERS OF THESE PARCELS THAT THE UNITS WERE BEING TRANSFERRED FROM AND THAT THE OWNERS HAVE INDICATED THAT THEY DID NOT AGREE WITH THOSE UNITS COME FROM THAT PARCEL. 
          WHAT HAD HAPPENED IS A COUPLE OF THESE PARCELS WERE ONE WAS TWO UNITS CAFE PARCELS THAT WERE COMBINED INTO ONE. 
          ANOTHER ONE WAS FIVE THAT WAS COMBINED INTO ONE. 
          THE APPLICANT RECOGNIZED THOSE NOTICED THAT AND TRIED TO USE THOSE UNITS, THOSE EXCESS UNI-IT TO ADDRESS THE 11 HE NEEDED SO HE DIDN'T HAVE TO INCREASE THE NUMBER OF UNIKNITS THE PUD. 
          SO, WITH THAT STAFF DESIRES TO AMEND THE RECOMMENDATION ON THIS PROJECT. FROM THE STANDPOINT USE, STAFF STILL BELIEVES THAT UTILIZING THE LODGE HAS RESIDENTIAL ARTS OR MULTI-FAMILY IS CONSISTENT WITH WHAT'S THE ALLOWABLE USE IN THE PUD. WE BELIEVE IT'S CAPABLE WITH THE SURROUNDING USES WHICH CONDOS TO THE NORTH AN MULTI-FAMILY ALSO IN THAT AREA. HOWEVER, STAFF BELIEVES THAT THE PROJECT SHOULD BE APPROVED ONLY IF VERIFICATION AND AUTHOR AUTHORIZATION FROM THE OWNERS OF THOSE PARCELS IS PROVIDED THAT THEY RECOGNIZE THAT THOSE UNITS ARE BEING TRANSFERRED TO THE LODGE SITE. 
          TIED WITH THAT, STAFF DID RECEIVE A LETTER FROM THE APPLICANT'S AGENT THIS EVENING WITH FROM THE ENTITY THAT OWNS TWO OF THOSE PARCELS SAYING THAT THEY ARE IN AGREEMENT WITH THE TRANSFER. HOWEVER THE OTHER TWO PARCELS STAFF HAS NO INDICATION THAT THEY ARE IN AGREEMENT WITH THAT AND SO, AGAIN, WE WOULD LIKE TO BE MAKE IT CONTINGENT ON RECEIVING AUTHORIZATION FROM THE OWNERS THAT THEY'RE IN AGREEMENT WITH WITH TRANSFER OF THOSE UNITS AND YOU'VE GOT A SPEAKER CARD FOR ONE. THE ONE THAT STAFF MET WITH TODAY THAT IS NOT IN AGREEMENT, BUT WITH THAT, I'LL LEAVE IT FOR ANY QUESTIONS YOU HAVE AS STAFF AND LET THE APPLICANT RESPOND TO SOME OF THOSE SPECIFIC QUESTIONS WHICH I'M SURE YOU HAVE. 
          >> ANY QUESTIONS? GO AHEAD. 
          >> MR. BROWN, ARE THESE PARCELS IN QUESTION HERE, ARE THESE 
          VACANT LOTS? >> THEY'RE NOT VACANT BECAUSE LIKE I SAID ONE OF THEM WAS TWO LOTS THAT WAS COMBINED TO ONE. 
          ANOTHER ONE WAS FIVE LOTS IN ONE. 
          >> WHAT WILL HAPPEN TO THOSE RESIDENCES? 
          >> THEY'RE ALREADY COUNTED. WHAT'S IN QUESTION IS THE EXCESS. YOU HAVE ONE WITH FIVE. 
          YOU BUILT ONE OUT OF IT SO IN ESSENCE THERE'S IN EXCESS OF FOUR UNITS THAT WEREN'T USED. THE OTHER ONE WAS TWO THAT WAS DONE WITH ONE. SO IN ESSENCE YOU HAVE ONE UNIT 
          THAT WASN'T USED. >> SO THAT'S GETTING THE FIVE 
          FROM THE FOUR IN ONE. >> YES AND THERE IT WAS TWO PARCELS AN THIS IS WHERE THE APPLICANT HAS PROVIDED US A LETTER FROM THE OWNER OF THOSE TWO PARCELS THAT OWNED ACTUALLY THE MULTI-FAMILY UNITS, THOSE HAVE MULTI-FAMILY STRUCTURES ON 
          [01:50:05]
THEM BUT THEY DID NOT UTILIZE ALL THE MULTI-FAMILY UNITS THAT WERE ATTRIBUTABLE TO THEM. THOSE ARE WHAT WOULD BE 
          TRANSFERRED. >> AND ONE LAST THING, THE SIX THE MAP HERE DOES THAT MAKE UP THE TOTAL 11? 
          >> YES. >> WHAT IS CURRENTLY IN THAT LOT 
          SPACE? >> UP TO THE NORTH. 
          >> WITH THE 6. >> THOSE ARE MULTI-FAMILY. 
          >> THEY'RE CURRENTLY MULTI-FAMILY. 
          >> YES, BUT THEY DID NOT UTILIZE ALL THE ATTRIBUTABLE, ALL THE UNITS THEY WERE ENTITLED TO. SO WE ARE STILL, THE WHOLE GAME HERE IS TO KEEP IT UNDER THE 477 NOT TO EXCEEDS THAT 477 COUNT. 
          SO BY MOVING THEM FROM SIX OF THEM FROM THE MULTI-FAMILY THAT WEREN'T USED IN THAT MULTI-FAMILY PORTION DOWN THERE THE OTHER FIVE ARE IN COULD BECAUSE WE HAVE NOT RECEIVED ANY INDICATION FROM THE OWNERS THAT ERR AMENABLE TO THAT. 
          >> I HOPE THAT ANSWERS THE QUESTION. 
          >> MR. BROWN, WHAT WE ARE SAYING IS THEY NEED 11 LOTS. 
          THE LOTS WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THERE'S NO STRUCTURES ON THEM PER SE. I UNDERSTAND THE ONE DOWN HERE WHERE THEY COMBINE TWO LOTS AN BUILT ONE HOUSE SO THERE'S REALLY ONE LOT THAT'S NOT BEING UTILIZED EVEN THOUGH THERE'S A STRUCTURE SITTING ON PART OF IT. THERE MIGHT BE SIX UP THERE. 
          ARE THERE SIX VACANT MULTI-FAMILY LOTS THERE? 
          >> NO, BECAUSE IT'S MULTI-FAMILY IT'S A TOTAL NUMBER. 
          THEN I MAY HAVE TO ASK JANICE TO HELP OUT ON THAT BECAUSE SHE 
          MIGHT BE MORE FAMILIAR. >> WE WILL GET HER IN JUST A MINUTE. ANYTHING ELSE? 
          >> I'M JUST TRYING TO CLARIFY THAT WE HAVE 11 EMPTY LOTS AND THEN THE QUESTION IF WE DON'T THE QUESTION IS STILL ON THE 
          TABLE. >> WE DON'T ACTUALLY HAVE -- THE RAVINES HAS BEEN AN ISSUE WITH PLANNING FOR A LONG TIME BECAUSE IT PREDATES THE ORIGINAL EED 92 COMP PLAN AND THROUGH A NUMBER OF THE COMP PLAN. IT'S NOT LOTS. 
          IT'S UNITS AND THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN THAT IS THAT A MULTI-FAMILY LOT COULD HAVE LIKE 8 UNITS. 
          THEY MAY HAVE ONLY BUILT A FOURPLEX ON IT SO THAT'S WHERE THE EXTRA UNITS COME FROM. IN THE CASE OF THE INDIVIDUAL BUILDING LOTS, THEY'VE COMBINED LOTS TOGETHER TO GET A BIGGER LOT TO BUILD A HOUSE ON. IS THAT ACCURATE? 
          >> YES. >> OKAY. 
          I DID HAVE ONE QUESTION ABOUT THIS. 
          SO IN THE EFFORT TO DO THIS REPUD, IF THESE OWNERS OF THESE LOTS, WHICH I ASSUME LIKE WHERE YOU HAD THE TWO LOTS MADE INTO ONE, DID THEY GO THROUGH THE PROCESS OF COMBINING THAT INTO A 
          SINGLE PARCEL NUMBER? >> YES. 
          >> THESE ARE SINGLE PARCEL NUMBERS. 
          >> YES. >> THE MULTI-UNIT STUFF WOULD BE A COUNT. WHO WOULD BE THE PERSON SAY CAN 
          I GIVE THOSE UNITS UP? >> YES, THE OWNER AND ACTUALLY 
          IT'S I'VE GOT THE -- >> IS IT A BUILDING WITH A 
          SINGLE ONNER? >> IT'S THE WHOLE COMPANY. 
          >> SO THOSE ARE RENTAL. COURTNEY, ARE YOU OKAY WITH ALL 
          THIS? >> THERE'S ONE MORE THING. 
          WITH THE COMBINATION OF THESE LOTS, AND THERE BEING ONE OWNER OF THE FIVE AND ONE OWNER OF THE TWO, IF THIS CHANGE IS MADE, THAT WOULD PRECLUDE THEM FROM EVER SUBDIVIDING THOSE LOTS OUT 
          [01:55:02]
          AGAIN. >> YOU BET YOU. 
          >> IT DOESN'T PREVENT THEM FROM SPLITTING THE LOTS BACK UP. 
          IT POTENTIALLY PREVENTS SOMEBODY FROM BEING ABLE TO BUILD A UNIT 
          ON IT. >> AND JUST HAVE A LOT. 
          >> SAME DIFFERENCE. >> COURTNEY I'M A LITTLE WARY ABOUT MOVING FORWARD ON SOMETHING THAT IS CONTINGENT ON SOMETHING. I DIDN'T THINK THAT WE WERE 
          ALLOWED TO DO CONTINGENCIES. >> IS THE CONTINGENCY -- 
          >> THAT WAS BASED ON THE INFORMATION TODAY THAT WAS STAFF'S CHANGE IN THE RECOMMENDATION. 
          THAT'S ALL IT WAS. TO MAKE IT CONTINGENT ON RECEIVING AUTHORIZATION FROM THOSE OWNERS OF THE PROPERTIES WHERE THE UNITS ARE BEING TRANSFERRED FROM. 
          >> WE ARE BASICALLY TAKING DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS AWAY FROM PEOPLE THAT HAVE NOT AGREED TO THAT. 
          AND THAT'S MY CONCERN. I MEAN IF WE HAD A PACKET AND WE HAD ALL THESE OWNERS SIGNING OFF SAYING I'M OKAY WITH THIS, BUT I DON'T THINK THAT WE CAN DO A MOTION THAT SAYS WE RECOMMEND 
          APPROVAL UNDER THESE CONDITIONS. >> YOU'VE DONE THAT. 
          YOU'VE DONE THAT IN OTHER SITUATIONS WHERE YOU'VE CHANGED. 
          THAT IS UP TO YOU. YOU HAVE DONE IT WHERE YOU SAID WE WOULD RECOMMEND APPROVAL BUT WE WANT TO CHANGE OF XY AND Z. 
          >> DOES THAT OPEN THE COUNTY TO LIABILITY? 
          >> THIS IS JUST YOUR RECOMMENDATION TO THE BOARD. 
          >> IF THE BOARD DECIDES TO APPROVE THAT. 
          >> BUT CAN YOU ALSO DO YOUR MOTION TO CONTINUE. 
          >> ANYBODY ANY THOUGHTS ON THIS? >> I WOULD LIKE TO HEAR FROM THE APPLICANT AND FROM THE COMMUNITY BEFORE WE GET TOO FAR DOWN THE 
          ROAD. >> AND SPECIFICALLY THE ONE. 
          >> CAN I ASK ONE QUESTION? >> SURE. 
          >> IF THEY ONLY COME UP WITH NINE LOTS DOES THAT MEAN THAT THEY COULD GO BACK TO THE OLD LODGE AND JUST SAY OKAY WE ARE GOING TO TURN IT INTO NINE APARTMENTS? 
          >> I WOULD THINK THAT THEY WOULD HAVE TO ASK FOR THE PUD AGAIN. 
          >> WELL, AND I WILL HAVE TO RELY ON COURTNEY BUT I BELIEVE IF IT'S NOT MORE INTENSE THAN WHAT THEY ASKED FOR, COULD THEY RECOMMEND LESS? IF THAT ANSWERS YOUR QUESTION. 
          >> YES, MA'AM. I'M JANICE FLEET, ARCHITECTS PLANNERS, JACKSONVILLE. HISTORY OF MY AGENT PLANNER, THE 477 NUMBERS WAS BACK WHEN THE DRI THRESHOLDS WERE ESTABLISHED. 
          IT WAS BASED ON AT THAT TIME THE POPULATION IN COUNTIES SO YOU HAD THRESHOLDS THAT WERE BY THE NUMBER OF POPULATION IN THE COUNTY IS HOW MANY DWELLING UNITS MADE A DEVELOPMENT SUB-DRI. FOR INSTANCE IN JACKSONVILLE THEY HAVE NO RESIDENTIAL DRI. THEY'RE ALL COMMERCIAL. 
          AT THE TIME OF THE RAVINE, AT THE TIME THE DEO., THE DEPARTMENT SAID YOU WERE, IF YOU WERE LESS THAN 75 PERCENT OF THE THRESHOLD YOU WERE DEEMED NOT A DRI. 
          IF YOU WERE 100 PERCENT YOU WERE DEEMED IT. 
          SO THEY DID A LETTER AT 477. MAGNOLIA POINT COUNTRY CLUB CAME LATER. CLAY COUNTY GREW. 
          THEY WERE AT 975 BECAUSE OF MAGNOLIA POINT. 
          JUST A LITTLE BIT OF BACKGROUND HISTORY SO THAT'S WHY THAT NUMBER COMES UP AND SINCE THIS WAS AS MIKE SAID A PRE-COMP PLAN OR THE U.S. CHAIRMAN SAID THAT THAT'S WHAT IT IS, THAT'S THE 
          [02:00:01]
HISTORY. THAT'S HOW THESE STRANGE NUMBERS OF THESE LARGE DEVELOPMENTS CAME UP AND AT SOME POINT THE DEVELOPERS DECIDED TO INCREASE IT OR JUST SAID WE ARE STICKING TO THAT AND THAT'S WHAT THEY STUCK TO SO THAT'S HOW THEY HAVE THIS MAGIC 477 NUMBER. SO HOW THESE UNITS CAME UP THEY HAD HOST MULTI-FAMILY UNITS. THEY'RE VACANT AND IF THEY REDEVELOP AT SOME POINT IN TIME HE'S PROBABLY GOING TO DO IT FOR GOLF CLUB USE. LODGE WAS HOTEL USE. 
          IT WAS NOT GIVING ANY OF THESE 477 UNITS SO IT WAS HOTEL WHICH IS USUALLY MORE INTENSE DEVELOPMENT. 
          IT'S A COMMERCIAL TYPE INTENSE DEVELOPMENT AND OVER THE YEARS IT'S BEEN VACANT. ANYBODY RIDDEN BY THERE I'VE GOT PICTURES AN GOT IN BAD SHAPE AND AROUND THE NEIGHBORHOOD THEY'RE A DEVELOPMENT WAS NICER THAN THAT ONE WAS A LOT. 
          HOW DO YOU REDEVELOP IT, THIS IS IN TALKING WITH SOME OF THE COUNTY STAFF IS WE CAN FIGURE OUT A WAY TO GET UNITS TRANSFERRED THAT AREN'T BEING USED. 
          AND WE FOUND OUT TODAY THAT WE NEED TO GET THESE OTHER LETTERS SO WE WERE PULLING THEM. AND WE WILL DO WHATEVER WE HAVE TO DO TO MOVE IT FORWARD. IT'S NOT LIKE WE WERE TRIKE TO HIDE ANYTHING. THAT HAD BEEN REQUESTED. 
          THAT WE DO HAVE AS AS SOON AS WE GOT ONE, THE UNIQUE ONE MR. CATCH POLES HOUSE IS IN THE MIDDLE BUT MORE IMPORTANT HE HAS ON HIS PROPERTY A CONSERVATION EASEMENT WITH DEP BECAUSE HE HAD SOME ISSUES WITH DEVELOPING IN THE WENT LANDS AND THAT THE ONLY READING THE PUBLIC RECORD. IN READING IT AND TRYING TO DO SOME INVESTIGATION OF HOW THOSE LOTS GET COMBINED. 
          SO WE'VE BEEN TALKING TO HIM IN THE PAST AND HE WAS RESPONSIVE OF US. WE HAD SOME EMAIL COMMUNICATION HE HAD TO GET A DOCTORS APPOINTMENT OR SOMETHING SO WE WILL WORK WITH HIM. MR. WILKIE IF HE IS NOT HAPPY WE CAN REDUCE IT AS COURTNEY MENTIONED IF WE HAVE TO GO DOWN TO 10 UNITS INSTEAD OF 11. THE REASON I TALKED TO THE PROPERTY APPRAISER'S OFFICE TO FIND OUT WHY DO PEOPLE COMBINE UNITS IN CLAY COUNTY IS SAVINGS AND TAXES BECAUSE SINCE WE HAVE SAVED THE SAVE OUR HOMES CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT YOU ARE LIMITED ON A HOMESTEADED PROPERTY TO 3 PERCENT OF YOUR PROPERTY VALUE INCREASE PER YEAR BUT IF IT'S A NON-HOMESTEADED PROPERTY ANOTHER PARCEL IT'S 10 PERCENT A YEAR AND THIS I GOT PROPERTY APPRAISERS OFFICE. - PEOPLE THROUGHOUT THE COUNTY AND PROBABLY THROUGHOUT THE STATE OF FLORIDA WILL COMBINE LOTS BECAUSE MY LOT HOMESTEAD IF I OWN TWO LOTS IF THEY'RE SEPARATE PARCELS, THE VACANT LOT PROPERTY TAXES CAN INCREASE MORE OVER YEAR AND NON-PROPERTY IS LIMITED. 
          ONE PARCEL THE TOTAL PARCEL ACREAGE COULD INCREASE 3 PERCENT. THAT'S WHY PEOPLE GO TO THE PROPERTY APPRAISER AND ASK. PEOPLE WANT TO SAVE MONEY BUT THAT'S WHY THEY ARE COMBINED BUT THAT'S WHAT WE BECAUSE OF THAT THAT'S HOW WE CAME WITH THE EXTRA PARCELS. 
          WE WERE WILLING TO GET THE LETTERS FOR THE OTHER END AND WE FEEL WE CAN GET IT AND HE'S LIMITED WITH HIS D.E.P. 
          CONSERVATION ON HIS PROPERTY SO HE THOUGHT HE TRANSFERRED IT SO WHEN I TALKED TO HIM BACK IN OCTOBER SO WE ARE GOING FROM THERE BUT THAT'S WHERE WE ARE AT. 
          WE WOULD LIKE TO, WE ARE TRYING TO MAINTAIN THE 477 WHICH IS THIS MAGIC NUMBER THAT GOES WAY BACK AND ON THE OTHER HAND REDEVELOP A PROPERTY THAT IS IN NEED OF REDEVELOPMENT AND FITS IN WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD. IT'S KIND OF THE PARCEL RIGHT NEXT TO IT IS THE EXACT SAME BUILDING AND IT'S MULTI-FAMILY SO IT'S JUST KIND OF AND THIS IS -- AND I CAN PROVIDE THESE 
          [02:05:02]
PICTURES IF YOU WANT. THERE IS THE PARCEL NEXT TO IT WHICH IS MULTI-FAMILY. AND THIS IS THE LODGE. 
          WHICH IS VACANT. >> IT'S SOMETHING WE FEEL WILL BE OF BENEFIT TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD SOTS THAT HAD WHERE 
          WE ARE AT. >> MR. BOURRÉ. 
          >> SO YOU'VE ALREADY HEARD SOME OF THE CONCERNS. 
          >> I HAVE NO ISSUE WITH THIS PROJECT. 
          I THINK IT'S A GOOD PROJECT. THAT'S A GREAT THING. 
          FROM A DEVELOPABLE UNIT OWNERSHIP RIGHT I TWO NEVER VOTE 
          TO TAKE THAT AWAY FROM ANYBODY. >> WOULD YOU BE ABLE TO DEFER TO IT THE NEXT MEETING? I CAN'T ANSWER FOR HIM. 
          >> JOE WIGGINS. [ADDRESS]. 
          >> THERE'S NO INTENT TO TAKE SOMEBODY ELSE BUILDING. 
          TO ME THEY'RE TAKING LEGAL ACTION THIS IS THEIR INTENT. 
          I HAVE NO PROBLEM THE WILKIE'S. EXPRESSED HER DISPLEASURE. 
          WE CAN PULL THAT ONE OUT NO PROBLEM. 
          IS THERE A WAY WE CAN MOVE FORWARD WITH A CONDITION THAT IT'S APPROVED IF I GET THE LETTER FROM THE OTHER OWNER FOR THE FOUR UNITS? IF NOT, THEN IT GOES DOWN TO SIX UNITS. THAT WOULD BE MY REQUEST TO THIS 
          BOARD. >> OKAY, I'LL DEFER TO THE CHAIR ON ANSWERING THAT OR ADDRESSING THAT MR. WIGGINS. 
          I THINK THE IDEA HERE IS WE WANT TO SEE THIS PROJECT MOVE FORWARD. IT LOOKS LIKE A GREAT PROJECT. 
          I KNOW YOU'RE A GREAT BUILDER SO THERE'S NO CONCERN THERE. 
          IT'S JUST MAKING SURE THAT WE HAVE GIVEN THE FOLKS WHO CURRENTLY HAVE THOSE DEVELOPAL RIGHTS THE OPPORTUNITY TO SAY YES OR NO. THAT'S WHAT IT COMES DOWN TO. 
          >> DOES ANYBODY ELSE HAVE A COMMENT BEFORE I SPEAK? MR. WIGGINS, I AGREE WITH MIKE ON THIS. 
          REGARDLESS OF, I DON'T THINK YOU CAN SAY THE GUY HAD FIVE LOTS AN GAVE UP THE RIGHT TO SUBDIVIDE AND BUILD ON THOSE LOTS AGAIN. 
          I CERTAINLY, THE OTHER ONE THAT I'D LIKE TO HEAR YOU MENTION WHAT YOU WOULD BE ABLE TO DO, THE MULTI-FAMILY STUFF, IS RAVINES HOLDINGS, THEY'VE SAID THAT THEY'RE OKAY, BECAUSE WHAT I'M TRYING TO GET TO AND I WANT TO MAKE SURE COURTNEY IS OKAY WITH THIS THAT WE GET DOCUMENTS FROM THESE OWNERS THAT ARE LEGALLY BINDING SO LATER ON IF THE GENTLEMAN WITH THE FIVE LOTS CAME BACK AND SAID I WANT TO SPLIT MY PROPERTY AN BUILD ANOTHER HOUSE WE ARE GOING TO TELL HIM HE CAN'T DO IT AND WE NEED SOMETHING THAT'S LEGALLY BINDING FROM HIM THAT SAYS HEY, YOU GAVE UP THAT RIGHT ON THIS DATE. 
          SO, NOT ONLY JUST A LETTER FROM THE OWNERS. 
          SOMETHING THAT PROTECTS THE COUNTY THAT SAYS SORRY, YOU SIGNED AWAY THOSE RIGHTS ON SUCH AND SUCH A DAY. 
          THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE GETTING AT. >> WE KNOW MR. CATCH MORE LAST A CONSERVATION EASEMENT WITH THE DEP. 
          [02:10:02]
I KNOW MY CLIENTS ARE PROBABLY NOT HAPPY BUT WE FEEL WE CAN GET THE OTHER ONE. WE JUST FOUND OUT TODAY SO WE CAN COME BACK TO YOU WITH SIGN THAT THEY UNDERSTAND WHAT'S HAPPENING IF THAT'S YOU WHAT WANT ME TO DO. 
          >> THE INTENT HERE IS TO MAKE SURE YOU GET AS MANY UNITS AS YOU CAN. WE JUST HAVE TO MAKE SURE THOSE UNITS ARE ALLOWABLE TO BE TRANSFERRED. 
          >> UNDERSTAND. >> ALL RIGHT. 
          I'M GOING TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING BECAUSE I DO HAVE ONE CARD FROM BARBARA WILKIE AND YOU WANT TO SPEAK ON THIS ISSUE. 
          YES, PLEASE. NORMALLY WE LIMIT YOU TO THREE MINUTES BUT I'M GOING TO GIVE YOU A LOT OF LEEWAY BECAUSE YOU'RE THE ONLY ONE THAT WANTS TO TALK. 
          >> AS I UNDERSTAND IT NOW I'VE NEVER BEEN TO A MEETING BEFORE, I DON'T UNDERSTAND A LOT OF THE LANGUAGE YOU ALL ARE USING I'M BELL PERFECTLY ON -- HONEST WHAT I'M HEARING IS THAT THEY MAY BE WILLING TO DROP OUR ADDRESS OUR LOT OUR UNIT OUT OF THAT. 
          IF THEY'RE WILLING TO DO THAT, WE ARE HAPPY WITH THAT. 
          I'M ONE PERSON AND MY HUSBAND IS ALSO THAT WE WOULD LIKE TO SEE THE RAVINES MOVE FORWARD. IT'S BEEN IN A LAND LOCK AND FIGHT YOU KNOW ABOUT THIS AND WE WOULD LIKE TO SEE IT MOVE FORWARD BUT I WOULD LIKE TO SAY MY PIECE SO IT WOULD GO INTO THE PUBLIC RECORD SO THAT YOU ALL UNDERSTAND WHERE MY HUSBAND AND 
          I ARE COMING FROM. >> MA'AM ARE YOU THE ONE WITH 
          TWO LOTS. >> YES, I'M THE ONE WITH TWO 
          LOTS. >> SO THAT WOULD TAKE ONE OFF 
          THE TABLE. >> YES, SIR. 
          >> CAN YOU GIVE US YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS? 
          >> MY NAME IS BARRA WILKIE AND WE LIVE AT 3787 CREEK HOLLOW LANES IN THE RAVINES LOT 195. THIS PAST WEEKEND WE WERE MADE AWARE THAT THE ADDITIONAL LOT WE PURCHASED IN 1996 WHICH IS LOT NUMBER 196 APPEARS IN A REZONING APPLICATION YOU WERE CURRENTLY CONSIDERING. WE PURCHASED THIS ADDITIONAL LOT WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT WE COULD BUILD ANOTHER DWELLING ON IT AT ANY TIME THAT WE WISHED. BOTH LOTS ARE GROUPED INTO ONE LOT, AND TAXES ARE PAID ACCORDINGLY. 
          WE WERE ADVISED THAT OUR ABILITY TO BUILD ON THE VACANT LOT WOULD NOT BE AFFECTED THAT THEY COULD BE SEPARATED. 
          THE RAVINE ASSESSMENT FEES HAVE ALSO BEEN PAID SEPARATELY ON BOTH LOTS FOR THE ENTIRE TIME THAT WE HAVE OWNED THEM. 
          THE CURRENT APPLICATION SEEKS TO REMOVE OUR RIGHT TO DEVELOP LOT 196 IN THE FUTURE AND PROVIDES THE APPLICANT WITH THE ADDITIONAL UNIT. PLEASE NOTE THAT THE APPLICATION WAS WRITTEN WITHOUT NOTIFICATION OR CONSENT FROM THE APPLICANT TO US. THE APPLICANT HAS APPROACHED US IN THE PAST ABOUT PURCHASING THE BUILDING RIGHTS TO THAT LOT. 
          FOR THAT LOT WE HAVE CHOSEN TO IGNORE THE REQUEST. 
          HE ASKS THAT IF WE WERE INTERESTED, WE WERE NOT INTERESTED IN SELLING OR RELINQUISHING THE RIGHTS TO DEVELOP THAT LOT. WE RESPECTEDLY REQUEST THE APPLICATION BE DENIED AND OUR LOT BE REMOVED FROM ANY FUTURE 
          REZONING APPLICATIONS. >> THANK YOU, MA'AM. 
          WELL PUT. THANK YOU. 
          >> THANK YOU. >> ANYONE ELSE? I'M GOING TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. 
          ANY FURTHER DISCUSSIONS? I'VE GOT A QUESTION FOR MISS GRAHAM. SORRY. 
          IT'S YOUR NIGHT TONIGHT. WHAT WOULD A MOTION LOOK LIKE IF WE WERE INCLINED TO RECOMMEND THIS? CLEARLY WE HAVE ONE UNIT OUT ALREADY. 
          DO WE SPECIFY THE NUMBER OF UNITS? AND HOW DO WE PUT IN THERE THE CONDITION THAT ALL THE DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS THAT THEY'RE TRYING TO GATHER TOGETHER 
          EVERYBODY PROPERLY RELEASEED. >> YOU'LL JUST NEED TO DESIGNATE YOU WANT THOSE RECEIPT VISIONS MADE TO THE WRITTEN STATEMENT SO YOU'RE GOING TO MAKE THE REVISION UNDER THE WRITTEN STATEMENT THAT IT WOULD BE REDUCED FROM WHAT THE 11 UNITS 
          [02:15:06]
TO THE TEN UNITS. BUT THE TEN UNITS WOULD BE CONDITIONED ON WHETHER THE OTHER FOUR IT COULD HAVE TO BE REDUCED TO SIX SO IT'S CONDITIONED ON WHETHER THE OTHER FOUR IF THEY RECEIVE DOCUMENTATION FROM THE OWNER INDICATING THAT THEY'RE WILLING TO GIVE UP THOSE FOUR DWELLING UNITS. 
          >> IS IT FOUR OTHER OWNERS YOU'RE DEALING WITH? 
          >> IT'S ONE OTHER OWN THERE HAS FIVE UNITS. 
          >> IT'S ONLY ONE OTHER OWNER WHO OWNS FIVE LOTS AND BUILT ONE 
          LARGE HOUSE. >> HE'S THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY BUT THE MULTI-FAMILIES THAT YOU'RE TRYING TO GOET IS ONE PERSON. SO YOU'RE DEALING WITH TWO 
          PEOPLE. >> WE JUST GOT LETTERS THIS 
          AFTERNOON AND HE'S HERE TONIGHT. >> IS THE LETTER FROM THE 
          MULTI-UNIT DWELLING? >> YES. 
          >> MAY I ASK THIS QUESTION. WHAT HAPPENS IF THE OWNER OF THE FIVE LOTS COMES BACK AN HAS EXACTLY THE SAME POSITION AS THIS FAMILY THAT JUST SPOKE? WOULD YOU WANT TO CONTINUED TO 
          PURSUE FOR SIX UNITS VS. >> YES. 
          >> OKAY. SO COULD WE POTENTIALLY PUT THIS ON HOLD UNTIL NEXT MONTH HAVE A CONTINUANCE TO LET THEM HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO GET THE LETTER OR WHATEVER NECESSARY DOCUMENTATION THEY NEED FROM THE OTHER LAND OWNER AND THAT GIVES US THE ABILITY TO THEN BLESS IT OR DENY IT. 
          >> WE COULD DO THAT. I THINK I WOULD LIKE TO ASK THE APPLICANT IF THEY WANT TO WAIT A MONTH BECAUSE IF THEY DON'T, I THINK WE ARE IN A POSITION ACCORDING TO COURTNEY, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL WITH THOSE CONDITIONS IN IT. 
          >> EITHER WAY. >> SO YOU'D LIKE IT. 
          WE WANT YOUR SUPPORT. I FEEL I HAVE IT BUT I WANT TO 
          MAKE SURE WHATEVER IS BEST. >> IS ANYBODY IN TOTAL OPPOSITION TO THIS PROJECT IS OR IS IT MORE THE COUNT WE ARE 
          TRYING TO GET RIGHT? >> I'M NOT IN OPPOSITION TO THE PROJECT. THIS THING HAS BEEN ON THE BOOKS SINCE DIRT BUT I WOULD LIKE TO SEE IT LAST A PACKAGE AS OPPOSED TO A CONTINGENCY UPON THIS OR THAT AND IF IT REQUIRES THEM TO DELAY IT UNTIL SEPTEMBER IN ORDER TO GET, I GOT TEN UNITS SIGNED SEALED AND DELIVERED, WORKS FOR ME. 
          LET'S MAKE IT HAPPEN. >> I AGREE WITH PETE. 
          I WOULD RATHER SEE THIS A CLEAN PACKAGE. 
          THEN IT'S VERY EASY TO GIVE IT A YES VOTE. 
          >> ANYBODY ALSO HAVE A AN OPINION? 
          >> I JUST DON'T WANT TO TAKE AWAY SOMEBODY'S PROPERTY RIGHTS. 
          >> I WOULD PREFER IT AS A SINGLE PACKAGE. 
          I WOULD RATHER COME IN HERE AND HAVE YOU GUYS ASK FOR SOMETHING SPECIFIC AND HERE IS EVERYTHING WE NEED TO DO THAT. 
          IT'S A LITTLE CLEANER FOR US. ARE YOU OKAY WITH THAT? 
          >> YEAH, I'M PREPARED. I'M PREPARED TO MAKE A MOTION. 
          I WOULD MAKE A MOTION WE TABLE THIS FOR 30 DAYS TO GIVE THE APPLICANT AN OPPORTUNITY TO GATHER SUPPORTING LETTERS AND THAT WE RECONVENE THIS NEXT MONTH IN SEPTEMBER WITH ALL THE DOCUMENTATION AND AT THAT POINT WE CAN HEAR IT AND APPROVE IT. 
          >> BEFORE YOU SECOND IT WE NEED TO PUT THE DATE IN THERE. 
          I THINK SEPTEMBER 8TH IS THE NEXT MEETING, SEPTEMBER 7TH. 
          >> OKAY. SO, ON ADVICE OF COUNSEL WE ARE GOING TO MAKE A MOTION TO CONTINUE, WHICH MEANS WE DON'T HAVE TO READVERTISE AND THEN WE WILL BRING THIS BACK UP IN 
          SEPTEMBER. >> IS IT SEPTEMBER 7TH? 
          >> I THINK IT'S THE 7TH. >> IT WILL BE THE FIRST TUESDAY 
          SEPTEMBER, 7:00. >> SO THE MOTION IS TO CONTINUE THIS ITEM, ITEM PUD 21-02 TO SEPTEMBER SEVENTH OR AS ON OF THAT AS IT CAN BE HEARD. SO YOU DON'T HAVE TO ADVERTISE 
          IT AGAIN. >> ROGER THAT. 
          >> OKAY, NO MORE DISCUSSION. I'LL CALL THE QUESTION ON THAT. 
          EVERYBODY IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION TO CONTINUE STATE AYE. 
          OPPOSED. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. 
          WITH THAT WE HAVE CONCLUDED OUR PUBLIC HEARINGS FOR TONIGHT. 
          ON OLD BUSINESS NEW BUSINESS, I THINK WE ARE ALMOST DONE. 
          [02:20:03]
DOES ANYBODY NEED A QUICK BREAK. ARE YOU OKAY? 
          [Old Business/New Business]
OLD BUSINESS NEW BUSINESS, DISCUSSION OF APPOINTMENTS TO THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING ADVISORY COMMITTEE. 
          WHO PUT THIS ON THE AGENDA? WHOSE AGENDA ITEM IS THIS? 
          >> IT'S BEEN ON BECAUSE THE TERM HAS EXPIRED SO THE BOARD IN APPOINTING PEOPLE REALIZED THE TERM HAD EXPIRED AND IT NEEDS TO BE FILLED. SO I BELIEVE IT'S YOUR SEAT YOU'VE HAD FOR A WHILE THAT HAS BEEN TURNED OR EXPIRED. 
          SO IT NEEDS TO BE FILLED BY A MEMBER OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION WHICH CAN BE ANY OF YOU IF YOU WANT TO CONTINUE. 
          >> JUST MAKE THAT A LITTLE CLEARER. 
          AFFORDABLE HOUSING ADVISORY COMMITTEE HAS A CERTAIN NUMBER OF SEATS ON IT AND THOSE SEATS ONE GOES TO THE BANKING INDUSTRY ONE TO THE BUILDERS ONE OF THOSE SEATS BELONGS TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION. I HAVE BEEN THAT PERSON FOR MANY YEARS. I AM WILLING FOR SOMEONE ELSE TO HAVE THIS OPPORTUNITY BUT IF NO ONE ELSE WANTS IT I'LL CONTINUE. 
          WHY WOULD I DO THAT IF I'M TRYING TO GIVE IT TO SOMEBODY ELSE? [INAUDIBLE] 
          >> YOU END UP MEETING ONCE, TWICE A YEAR AND IT'S MAINLY TO LOOK AT BUDGE EPTS NUMBERS AND SOME PLANS AND I'M SAYING SHIP BUT IT'S THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROGRAMS IN THE COUNTY THAT COMMITTEE HAS OVERSIGHT OVER THEM AND HAS TO HAS TO APPROVE LIKE THEIR SOME OF THEY'RE FINANCES AND SOME OF THEIR PLANS. IT'S A CHECK BOX THAT HAS TO GO ON THEIR DOCUMENTS BEFORE THEY SEND THEM BACK TO TALLAHASSEE. 
          AND THEY USUALLY MEET ABOUT 10:00 IN THE MORNING ON THE 
          WEEKDAY. >> I RECOMMEND BO FOR THAT 
          POSITIONS. >> WHAT DAYS OF THE WEEK. 
          >>. >> THEY USUALLY DO ON A WEDNESDAY OR THURSDAY IF I RECALL RIGHT. 
          IT'S SO INFREQUENT I THINK IT'S NOT TUESDAY. 
          I KNOW THAT. >> IN THE SPIRIT OF PUBLIC 
          SERVICE. >> TURN YOUR MIKE ON. 
          >> IN THE SPIRIT OF PUBLIC SERVICE I WOULD BE WILLING TO. 
          >> HONORED. >> TO TAKE YOUR PLACE. 
          >> THANK YOU. SO CONTRIBUTION -- CAN WE SHOW THAT IN THE MINUTES? I DON'T THINK WE NEED A VOTE ON THAT MR. BO WILL BE OR REPRESENTATIVE. 
          IF YOU NEED AN ALTERNATE I CAN BE THAT. 
          IF YOU COULDN'T MAKE IT LET ME KNOW. 
          >> SO MR. NORTON WOULD BE THE PLANNING COMMISSION. 
          >> RECOMMENDATION. >> RECOMMENDATION TO THE BOARD 
          FOR APPOINTMENT. >> YES, BECAUSE TECHNICALLY THE BOARD HAS TO APPROVE HIM CORRECT. 
          [Public Comment]
ALL RIGHT. WE HAVE OUR LAST GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD. I DON'T HAVE ANY CARDS, I DON'T SEE ANYONE. I'LL OPEN IT CLOSE THAT. 
          I HAVE ONE ITEM FOR STAFF I WAS GOING TO ASK IF SOMEBODY, I KNOW YOU HAVE ZERO TIME AVAILABLE BUT IF YOU'VE GOT ANYTHING AS YOU POINTED OUT MR. BROWN OR MAYBE IT WAS DODI WHEN SHE WAS UP THERE SOME OF THE RULES CHANGED THIS YEAR IN THE LEGISLATURE LIKE SIZE OF, IT WOULD BE REALLY NICE TO GET A SUMMARY IF WE COULD ON WHAT THOSE CHANGES WERE THIS YEAR. 
          I KNOW THERE ARE WHO DID THIS COME FROM THOUSAND FRIENDS OF FLORIDA, THEY'VE HIGHLIGHTED SEVERAL HERE, I'M SURE YOU GUYS KNOW WHAT THESE ARE WHERE THERE'S BEEN CHANGES TO COMP PLAN REQUIREMENTS OR JUST A SHORT SUMMARY SO THAT WE ARE AWARE OF THOSE CHANGES. [INAUDIBLE] 
          >> OKAY. >> MR. CHAIRMAN, I HAVE A 
          QUESTION. >> YES, SIR. 
          >> THE TRAINING THAT WE'VE TALKED ABOUT ON AND OFF FOR THE STAFF, IS THERE ANYTHING GOING ON WITH THE TRAINING YOU'VE ATTENDED IN THE PAST, AS WELL AS MARY YOU HAVE TOO, THAT FOR SOME OF US THAT WEREN'T AVAILABLE TO DO THAT? 
          [02:25:05]
          >> SO, I HAD BEEN WORKING ON THAT BECAUSE MARY HAD REQUESTED THE SAME THING HAND HE HASN'T BEEN ABLE TO FIND SOMEONE WHO COULD COME PROVIDE THAT FOR YOU AND HASN'T BEEN ABLE TO FIND A PROGRAM FOR IT. SO, I MEAN HE'S WORKING ON IT. 
          [INAUDIBLE] >> I THINK HE LOOKED AT THAT AND THE EXPENSE WAS AN ISSUE BUT WE CAN REVISIT IT. 
          [INAUDIBLE] >> WE ARE FAMILIAR. 
          I TOOK JEAN BOLL'S CLASS AT LEAST TWICE SO I KNOW BIT. 
          >> LOCAL SECTION USUALLY PUTS ONE ON ONCE A YEAR IN THE AREA. 
          >> AND THEN THERE'S ALSO IF YOU GUYS, ONE OF THE OTHER PLACES JEAN BOLL IN THE PLANNING ASSOCIATION IS FOCUSED ON PLANNING EVERYTHING BUT A LITTLE HEATER LEVEL OVERALL PLANNING MARY HAS BEEN AT SOME OF THESE A THOUSAND FRIENDS OF FLORIDA AND YOU CAN GO TO THEIR WEB SITE GET ON THEIR MAILING LIST. 
          THEY OFTEN HAVE WEBINARS ABOUT DIFFERENT ISSUES IN THE STATE WHICH MAY INTEREST YOU, WHICH CAN BE VERY EDUCATIONAL AT TIMES. BUT I KNOW THE ONES THAT I WENT TO THAT I BEEN, WE DID TWO OF THEM HERE WE BROUGHT JEAN BOLLS IN BUT I THINK AT THE TIME HE IT WAS DOING IT KIND OF PRO BONO AND DOESN'T DO THAT ANYMORE. THERE WAS SOME YEARS AGO NORTH FLORIDA PLANNING PEOPLE PUT ON ONE OVER IN ST. JOHN'S COUNTY BUT FOR ALL THE NORTHEAST FLORIDA COUNTIES THERE. 
          WERE PLANNING COMMISSION PEOPLE FROM ALL THE NORTHEAST FLORIDA COUNTIES THAT WENT TO THAT SO SOMETHING LIKE THAT WOULD BE REALLY GOOD IF THEY DO ONE OF THOSE BUT THAT'S UP TO THEM NOT US. THEY DID IT OVER AT THE EMERGENCY OPERATIONS CENTER IN ST. JOHN'S COUNTY SO THERE WERE PEOPLE FROM ST. JOHN'S, CLAY, A NUMBER OF THE NORTHEAST FLORIDA COUNTIES. IT WAS PRETTY GOOD. 
          IT WAS A TWO DAY SEMINAR. ANYTHING ELSE? ALL RIGHT. NO FURTHER BUSINESS. 
          THE NEXT
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.