[Call to Order] [00:00:10] >> WELCOME TO THE ALI-KHAMENEI PLANNING AN ZONING COMMISSION. BEFORE WE START IF ANYBODY WANTS TO SPEAK AT ANY IF YOU JUST FILL A CARD OUT AND HAND TO IT THIS YOUNG LADY UP HERE IN THE FRONT. [Pledge of Allegiance] BEFORE WE START WE START WITH THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. >> I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG . . . >> DO SOME INTRODUCTION. MY NAME IS RALPH, THE CHAIRMAN CURRENTLY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND STARTING ON THE DAIS IS PETE DAVIS COMMISSIONER DAVIS, NEXT TO HIM IS COMMISSIONER NORTON TO MY RIGHT, MR. BRIDGEMAN, TO MY LEFT JOE AND BILL GARRISON PLANNING COMMISSIONER AND TO HIS LEFT IS JAMES FOSSA THE CLAY COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD REPRESENTATIVE AT THESE MEETINGS AN NEXT TO HIM IS LIEUTENANT COLONEL RYAN FROM CAMP BLANDING. HE REPRESENTS CAMP BLANDING AT THESE ISSUES. BOTH THESE GENTLEMEN I UNDERSTAND ARE THEIR LAST MILDINGS AND REPLACEMENTS IN THE AUDIENCE SO WE WILL HAVE A COUPLE NEW FOLKS TAKING THOSE SEATS. WE HAVE DOTY SELIG WHO IS OUR CHIEF SENIOR PLANNER. BEHIND HER THERE IS MIKE BROWN OUR CHIEF OF ZONING, NEXT TO HIM BETH CARSON OUR CHIEF PLANNER. WHO ELSE HAVE WE GOT HERE? COURTNEY GRIMM OUR COUNTY ATTORNEY AND KELLY COLLINS AN ASSISTANT OUT OF THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT. WE WOULD LIKE CLAY COUNTY SHERIFFS OFF DEPUTY ASH HERE TO MAKE SURE WE ARE SAFE DURING THREES PROCEEDINGS. THERE BOARD IS AN ADVISORY BOARD TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MANY OUR VOTES WILL BE RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE COUNTY COMMISSION HOW TO HANDLE THESE ITEMS. DEPENDING ON THE ITEM SOME WILL BE HEARD NEXT TUESDAY, SOME WILL BE HEARD ON THE THIRD TUESDAY WHICH WOULD BE THE 23RD AND SOME OF THESE WILL BE HEARD ON BOTH NIGHTS WITH THE COUNTY COMMISSION. THEY DO HOLD THEIR ZONING PORTION OF THEIR MEETING DURING THEIR REGULAR MEETING AT 4:00 AN COME UP WHATEVER THEY COME UP IN THE BOARD AGENDA. CAN I ASK HOW MANY PEOPLE HAVE ATTENDED ONE OF THESE HEARINGS BEFORE? ANYBODY HASN'T BEEN TO ONE OF THESE HEARINGS PREVIOUSLY? REAL QUICK LET MEAL TELL YOU WHAT WE DO. AS WE GO THROUGH EACH ITEM OF THE AGENDA STAFF WILL GIVE US THEIR REPORT AND THEIR RECOMMENDATION FOR THE ITEM. WE WILL DO SOME CLARIFICATION QUESTIONING AND THEN WE WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. THE APPLICANT WILL HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT THEIR REASONS FOR THE CHANGE. THEN WE WILL HAVE ANYONE THAT WANTS TO SPEAK HAS TIME THREE MINUTES TO SPEAK DURING THAT ITEM. THEN WE WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. WE WILL FINISH OUR DISCUSSION HERE AND TAKE A VOTE ON THE ITEM. WE DO ASK THAT YOU PUT YOUR CELL PHONES ON SILENT AND SHOULD YOU NEED TO TAKE A CALL IF YOU WOULD PLEASE STEP OUTSIDE TO TAKE THE CALL. AM I FORGETTING ANYTHING? WITH THAT LET'S MOVE INTO OUR AGENDA FOR TONIGHT. ONE ITEM. APPARENTLY WE ARE HAVING TROUBLE WITH OUR MICROPHONE AT THE SPEAKER'S PODIUM HERE SO WE ARE GOING TO ASK ANYBODY THAT DOES COME TO SPEAK IF THEY WOULD COME SIT AT THIS DESK RIGHT HERE. THAT WAY THEY GET PICKED UP ON THE MICROPHONE AND GET PICKED UP ON THE RECORDING FOR POSTERITY. FIRST ITEM IS APPROVAL OF OUR [1.  Approval of Minutes] [00:05:03] MINUTES FROM LAST MONTH. WERE THERE ANY CHANGES CORRECTIONS? MOTION? >> I'LL MAKE A MOTION. >> I HAVE A MOTION FROM MR. NORTON SECOND FROM MR. DAVIS. ANY DISCUSSION? SEEING NONE ALL IN FAVOR OF APPROVING THE MINUTES STAY AYE, OPPOSED. ALL RIGHT. WE HAVE TWO GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD THAT ARE NOT SPECIFIC TO ANY ITEM ON THE AGENDA. I'M GOING TO OPEN THE FIRST ONE HERE. SO IF THERE'S ANYTHING THAT IS GER GERMANE, THEY CAN COME FORWARD AND TALK TO US ABOUT IT. I DON'T SEE ANYONE. CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING. WE WILL MOVE INTO OUR ITEMS FOR [1.  Public Hearing to consider LDC 2021-09, a text amendment to multiple sections of Article XII of the Land Development Code requiring public notice for comprehensive plan amendments. (D. Selig)] TONIGHT. FIRST ITEM, IT A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER LDC 2021-09 TEXT AMENDMENT TO MULTIPLE SECOND OF ARTICLE XII OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE. THIS WILL AA PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENT TO ALL FUTURE LAND USE MAP AMENDMENT APPLICATIONS AND WHO HAS THAT ONE? GO AHEAD, PLEASE. >> THIS ITEM WILL BE GOING ON TO THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS. IT WILL BE A TIME CERTAIN ITEM NOVEMBER 23RD. AND HERE IS THE SUMMARY OF THOSE CHANGES. YOU MAY REMEMBER THAT THIS COMING TO YOU MORE OR LESS AT YOUR DIRECTION TO HELP STANDARDIZE MAILING OF NOTICES TO PROPERTY OWNERS THAT ARE NEAR FUTURE LAND USE CHANGE IN A SIMILAR WAY WE DO FOR REZONING SO WE STANDARDIZED THE LANGUAGE AND WOUND IT UPNEEDING TWEAKS IN DIFFERENCES SECTIONS BECAUSE THEY'RE INTERCONNECTED AND YOU HAVE THE DETAILS OF THAT LANGUAGE IN FRONT OF YOU AND THE PRIMARILY WE ARE PROVIDING THAT REQUIREMENT TO MATCH ZONING AND FUTURE LAND USE CHANGES THROUGHOUT THE CODE. >> I JUST HAD ONE QUESTION ON THIS ONE. SINCE SOMETIMES WE DO HAVE A LAND USE AND A ZONING CHANGE KIND OF COMPANION, CAN ONE LETTER BE SENT OUT? >> YES. >> FOR BOTH OF THOSE TOGETHER? >> YES. >> DOESN'T HAVE TO BE SEPARATE. >> YOU HAVE TO REFERENCE BOTH ITEMS. >> I'M LOOKING TO SAVE A FEW DOLLARS FOR SOMEBODY HAVING TO MAIL THOSE OUT. ANYBODY HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ON THIS? IF YOU'LL REMEMBER WE ACTUALLY ASKED FOR THIS, WE DISCOVERED THAT LAND USE CHANGES APP AMENDMENTS DIDN'T COME UNDER QUALIFICATION FOR PUBLIC NOTICE EXCEPT THROUGH PUBLIC ADVERTISING SO ANYBODY AFFECTED BY ONE NEARBY MIGHT GET A LETTER FROM THE MAIL IT IN COUNTY. >> MR. CHAIRMAN. >> YES, SIR. >> ONE QUESTION POINT OF CLARIFICATION ON PARAGRAPH SECOND PAGE I GUESS IT'S 1-I IT SAYS NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE BOARD. CAN YOU SPECIFY THE LAST SENTENCE, NOTICE SHALL BE PUBLISHED AT LEAST 10 DAYS PRIOR TO THE PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE BOARD, YET WHEN WE ARE TALKING ABOUT THE PAYING OF LETTERS FURTHER DOWN IN SECTION I IT SAYS NOTIFICATION OF PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY [INAUDIBLE] BUT THERE'S NO AS FAR AS THE 10 DAY POSTING NO MENTION BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION. SHOULD THAT BE INCLUDED OR IS THAT NOT NESTER? -- >> THE NOTICE SHALL BE PUBLISH AT LEAST 10 DAYS PRIOR TO THE PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE BOARD. IN THE SECOND RED AREA IT'S REFERENCED AS THE PLANNING, THIS IS A LETTER REFERENCING THE PLANNING AGENCY AND THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS. IF WE ARE GOING TO SEND A LETTER WE OUGHT TO AT LEAST HAVE THEM POST NOTICE 10 DAYS PRIOR TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION MANY OTHERWISE PEOPLE THAT DON'T RECEIVE THE LETTER WON'T BE AWARE IF THEY'RE READING THE NEWSPAPER THAT THIS ITEM IS COMING UP FOR THE AGENDA. [00:10:18] >> COME ON DOWN. >> ALL RIGHT, SO ARE YOU LOOKING AT 12-2? >> PAGE 2. TOP. >> LITTLE 2? >> IT'S E1I. TOP RED CHANGE INDICATES TEN DAYS PRIOR BEFORE THE BOARD. >> I MEAN DOTY AND I CAN LOOK AT IT BUT I THINK BECAUSE YOU'RE ACTUALLY UNDER SECTION 6 WHICH IS BEFORE THE BOARD, SO WE MIGHT FEED TO ACTUALLY MODIFY. >> IT DOES SAY PUBLIC HEARING PLANNING AGENCY SUBJECT TO. >> FOLLOWING PUBLIC HEARINGS BEFORE THE BOARD. >> RIGHT. >> SO THIS IS THE SECTION THAT'S SPECIFICALLY BEFORE THE BOARD. >> WHERE IS THE REFERENCE TO THE LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY? I THINK WE CAN CLEAN IT UP BECAUSE I'M TO THE SURE -- WE WILL MAKE IT CONSISTENT BUT I DON'T THINK UNDER THE BOARD WE PROBABLY WILL JUST REFER TO THE BOARD. >> AND IT ALSO ONE OF THEM IS TALKING ABOUT MAILING THINGS OUT COURTNEY. THE OTHER ONE MAY BE JUST IT'S PUBLICATION OF NOTICES THAT COULD BE THE NEWSPAPER ADS TOO. >> OKAY. WE'LL LOOK AT THAT. >> LET'S MAKE SURE WE FIRST HAVE TO OPEN A PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS ONE. GO AHEAD. I'M SOAR. >> I WANT TO FOLLOW UP ON PETE'S QUESTION COURTNEY. SO, IF WE ARE DOING THIS 10 DAYS PRIOR TO THE BOARD MEETING AND WE ARE INCLUDING THERE BOARD AS PART OF THAT, WOULD THE MAILING BE A ONE-TIME MAILING BEFORE OUR MEETING? >> YES. >> THEN WOULD IT BE SPECIFIED IT IS FOR THIS MEETING AND THE MEETING OF THE BCC ON CERTAIN DATE. >> YES, I BELIEVE THAT'S THE POINT OF 5 LITTLE I. >> SO WE WOULDN'T HAVE TO DO IT TWICE. >> MY QUESTION WAS ACTUALLY DIFFERENT THAN GRURS. I WANTED TO MAKE SURE WHEN AN APPLICANT HAD BOTH A LAND USE AND A REZONING THAT THEY COULD GO OUT AND COMBINE THE LETTER AS WELL. LET ME OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS OF THE THIS ONE IS MORE ADMINISTRATIVE THAN ANYTHING. ANYBODY WANT TO MAKE A COMMENT ON THIS ONE? IF NOT I'M GOING TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AN BRING TO IT THE BOARD FOR MOTION. >> I MAKE A MOTION WITH THE CHANGES WE JUST DISCUSSED MODIFYING IT AND BRINGING IT UP TO SPEED. >> SO, THE MOTION IS RECOMMEND AMEND IT WITH CLARIFICATION OF LANGUAGE TO BE PROVIDED BY THE COUNTY ATTORNEY PRIOR TO THE BOARD MEETING. DO I HAVE A SECOND? >> SECOND. >> SECOND FROM MS. BRIDGMAN. ALL IN FAVOR AYE. OPPOSED? [2.  Public Hearing to consider PCD 2021-05, a Rezoning of two parcels from PCD to PCD. (D. Selig)] OKAY. ITEM NUMBER 2 -- AND I THINK YOU SAID DOTY THIS WOULD ONLY GO ONCE TO THE BCC ON THE 23RD? >> YES. SECOND ONE IS A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER PDC PLANNED COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT 2021-05 REZONING OF TWO PARCELS FROM PDC TO ALLOWING SELLING OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES ON ONE PARCEL OF LAND AND I'LL LET YOU TO DO THE REST OF IT. >> THERE ITEM WILL GO BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ON NOVEMBER 23RD. SO THE APPLICANT IS REPRESENTING THE PIZZA. THEY ARE REQUESTING THIS MODIFICATION. THERE'S AN EXISTING PASS BY COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT AND ALTHOUGH IT SAYS PDC TO PDC, IT WOULD ALLOW A RESTAURANT SELLING [00:15:05] ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES ON PARCEL A1 ONLY. SO THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING A STAND ALONE RESTAURANT PARCEL AND OF COURSE INTERIOR FOR TAKEOUT ORDERS OPEN AIR PATIO FOR OUTSIDE DINING AND FENCED IN PLAY AREA. THE EXISTING PCD SAYS THE BA ZONING DISTRICT ALLOWS RESTAURANTS WITHOUT BEER AND WINE AND RESTAURANTS LIMITED TO BEER AND WINE, PIZZA HAS A SUNDAY BRUNCH MENU THAT INCLUDES MOMOSAS AND BLOODY MARY'S THAT CONTAIN LIQUOR. THE PROPERTY IS EAST SIDE OF HIGHWAY 17 NORTH OF 220 AND THE SUBPAR SELL 1-A IS ON THE SOUTH SIDE, THE SMALL RECTANLE THAT IS FAINT IN THIS PICTURE. SO HERE IS AN ENLARGEMENT OF THAT THAT A-1 PARCEL IS THE BOTTOM OF THE SCREEN. THERE IS AN EXISTING BUILDING EAST SIDE OF THAT THEY'RE PROPOSE TO GO PUT THIS BUILDING CLOSE TO HIGHWAY 17 ON THE WEST SIDE. SO THE RESTAURANT WOULD BE CLOSEST TO THE ROAD AND THE PLAY AREA IN THE BACK. STAFF IS RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF PCD 21-05. THE APPLICANT IS HERE. THEY HAVE A PRESENTATION MANY SO CAN I ANSWER QUESTIONS NOW OR AFTER THEIR PRESENTATION. >> LET'S LET THE APPLICANT GO BECAUSE THEY MAY ANSWER SOME OF THE QUESTIONS. >> WHEN YOU SIT DOWN AT THE CHAIR AT THE BOTTOM OF THE MICROPHONE, JUST TAP THE LITTLE BUTTON TO TURN IT ON. >> THERE YOU GO. AND IF YOU GIVE US YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS PLEASE. >> GOOD EVENING. PLANNING COMMISSIONER I'M MAX GARCIA WITH MATTHEW'S DESIGN GROUPWALDO STREET THANK YOU FOR THE PRESENTATION. I WOULD LIKE TO GO AND PROVIDE THAT. I'M REPRESENTING V PIZZA WHERE AS THE PARTIES MENTIONED WE ARE REQUESTING NOT A WHOLE NEW RESTAURANT USE BUT SIMPLY A RESTAURANT WITH BEARD AND WINE SALES ANALYTIC OR SALES SO THEIR MENUS ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE OTHER V PIZZAS IN THE AREA. JUST TO GIVE YOU A QUICK IDEA WHERE WE ARE LOCATED. YOU CAN SEE THE BLUE STAR THERE IS WHERE THE PCD EAGLE PASS IS LOCATED, ACROSS THE STREET IS PACE ISLAND SUBDIVISION WILL IT'S ABOUT HALFWAY BETWEEN MOCCASIN SMALL PARK AND EAGLES RUD WHICH I'M SURE YOU'RE AWARE HAS COMMERCIAL USES LOCATED ABOUT A MILE NORTH OF THAT SITE AMONGST A MIXED USE CORRIDOR. CHANGE OF ZONING IN THIS PARCEL IS PCD TO THE SOUTH IS A PRIVATE SERVICES ZONED PROPERTY TO NORTH IS PCD CONTAINING I BELIEVE IT'S CALLED CHAPTER 11 OR A LARGE CHURCH LOCATED JUST NORTH OF THIS PROPERTY. NEXT SLIDE. THERE IS THE FEATURED LAND USE DESIGNATION OF THE MAP. THIS COMMERCIAL CORRIDOR IS ABOUT .8 MILES IN LENGTH. IT'S IN BETWEEN LIKE I MENTIONED HALFWAY BETWEEN MOCCASIN STALL PARK AND LARGE PUD AT THE INTERSECTION OF 220 AND HIGHWAY 17. NEXT SLIDE. QUICK SUMMARY REQUEST WE ARE REQUESTING TO AMEND THE WRITTEN STATEMENT OF THE EAGLE PASS PCD TO INCLUDE BEER WINE AND LIQUOR SALES LIKE I MENTIONED CLARIFYING WE ARE NOT ASKING FOR THE USE OF RESTAURANT BEER AND WINE SALES BUT JUST TO ADD ON THE LIQUOR SALES PORTION. THREES ARE ODC REFERENCES THAT INCLUDE THE ALLOWED USES OF BA-1 AND BA. NEXT SLIDE. JUST TO GIVE AN EXAMPLE HOW THIS PROPOSED CHANGE IS CAPABLE V PIZZA IS AN EXISTING RESTAURANT IN THE JACKSON METRO AREA HAS 7 LOCATIONS ONLY TWO LOCATED OUT OF STATE THE OTHER FIVE ALL LOCATED IN JACKSONVILLE AREA THE FIRST ONE EVER WAS V PIZZA AND SIDECAR SO IT IS A LOCAL RESTAURANT. IT'S BEEN ACTUALLY EXISTING IN THE EAGLES PAR BORROW PUD FOR ABOUT THREE YEARS NOW LOOKING TO GET ACTUAL LAND. THEY BOUGHT LAND. THEY WANT TO PUT A NICE RESTAURANT UP THERE FOR THE COMMUNITY. THIS IS CONSISTENT WITH THE COMMERCIAL CORRIDOR ON HIGHWAY [00:20:04] 17. THERE ARE OTHER FOOD SERVICES LIKE A DUNKIN' DONUTS AN BURGER KING AN ITALIAN RESTAURANT NORTH, BRICK AND MORE TAR V PIZZA WOULD STAND OUT. THEY WILL COMPLY WITH THE NOISE ORDINANCE AS WELL AS THE ALCOHOL ORDINANCE NOTHING BEING SOLD PAST 2 A.M. I THINK LATEST OPERATING HOURS IS MIDNIGHT LATEST STAY OPEN FRIDAY OR SATURDAY NIGHT N. ADDITION TO THIS FROM THE SITE IT'S ABOUT 575 FEET FROM THE SUBDIVISION LOCATED EAST OF OUR SITE AND THERE IS A MULTI-TENANT BUILDING BETWEEN HERE AND THERE. THIS IS ONLY PARCEL A-1. SORRY. NEXT SLIDE PLEASE MANY HERE IS THE MAP OF THE SITE FROM THE ACTUAL WRITTEN STATEMENT. IT DOES DIVIDE UP THE PARCELS A LITTLE BIT. PARCEL A DOES INCLUDE MULTI-TENANT BUILDING BUT WE ARE REQUESTING ONLY TO ALLOW THE ADDITIONAL USE ONTO THE PARCEL A-1 WHICH IS ONLY THAT SITE IN THE BOTTOM SOUTHWEST CORNER. AS DOTY EXPLAINED EARLIER IT'S PRETTY LARGE BUT THIS IS A FAMILY RESTAURANT. THERE'S A LARGE PLAY AREA IN THE TOP RIGHT CORNER IS A PICTURE FROM THEIR PLAYGROUND THAT'S LOCATED IN MANDARIN SO IT IS A FAMILY CENTRIC ENVIRONMENT THAT WOULD HAVE AN OUTDOOR PATIO SO THE ADULTS COULD RESPONSIBLY SUPERVISOR THEIR CHILDREN IN THE PLAY AREA. WE HAVE SUBMITTED OUR FIRST CONSTRUCTION PLANS AS OF I BELIEVE YESTERDAY FOR THE SITE SO WE WILL MAKE SURE IT'S COMPLETELY COMPLIANT WITH ODC RIRLTS. SO IN QUICK SUMMARY, THIS REQUEST IS CONSISTENT WITH THE ODC AND COMPREHENSIVE PLANS WE'VE BEEN PROVIDED. IT'S ALSO COMPLIANT WITH OUR ZONING AND LAND USE REGULATIONS. I HAVE TWO LETTERS OF SUPPORT ONE FROM THE CHURCH LOCATED NORTH OF THE PROPERTY AS WELL AS THE PROPERTY OWNER FOR THE REMAINDER OF THE PCD. I WOULD LIKE TO NOTE THAT THEY ARE CONSIDERED A QUALIFIED RESTAURANT BASED ON THE ODC REQUIREMENTS SO THEY AREN'T JUST SELLING LIQUOR SO THEY DON'T HAVE TO BE A CERTAIN DISTANCE FROM A CHURCH WHICH IS I THINK A THOUSAND FEET BUT THAT'S NOT THE CASE HERE SINCE IT'S A RESTAURANT 51 PERCENT OF THEIR SALES GO TO FOOD AND THE REMAINDER BEER WINE MISCELLANEOUS SO THEY DON'T HAVE TO MEET THAT SEPARATION REQUIREMENT. THOUGHT I WOULD CLARIFY THAT. OTHER THAN THAT WE ARE REQUESTING RECOMMENDS THIS PCD AMENDMENT TO BCC. MY CLIENT V PIZZA CAN ANSWER ANY OF YOUR QUESTIONS AND I'M HERE TO ANSWER QUESTIONS YOU MIGHT HAVE. >> DOES ANYBODY HAVE QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? GO AHEAD MR. GARRISON. >> JUST IN GENERAL, WHY IS IT ONLY FOR THAT PARTICULAR PARCEL? >> BECAUSE THAT'S THE LAND THEY PURCHASED SIR. THE REMAINDER OF THE PROPERTY IS OWNED BY SOMEBODY ELSE. >> BUT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT CHANGING THAT ENTIRE BLOCK. >> NO, SIR, JUST THE LAND THAT CONTAINS THE PROPOSED RESTAURANT. >> WELL, LITTLE CONFUSING. SO, THE REZONING THE EAGLE PASS YOU CAN'T JUST SORT OF BREAK IT UP SO YES IT APPLIES TO THE WHOLE PARCEL, WHICH REALLY TECHNICALLY TWO PARCELS BUT THE LANGUAGE IS LIMITING IT TO JUST A ONE WITHIN THE DRAWING THAT IS PART OF THE EAGLE PASS. >> WHAT IS THE OTHER PARCEL KNOWN AS? >> IF YOU HAD A MAP OF IT THERE DOTY. THERE'S ABOUT 5 DIFFERENT PARCELS. >> MY POINT IS SO THE OTHER PEOPLE DON'T HAVE THIS OPPORTUNITY F. THEY WANT TOO COME IN AND DO THE SAME THING WE HAVE TO COME UP HERE AND GO THROUGH THIS WHOLE THING AGAIN. >> CORRECT. >> I DON'T PARTICULARLY CARE FOR THAT. >> CAN YOU PUT THAT MAP UP? >> YES. THAT ONE. I SEE WHAT YOU MEAN. YES, THAT DOES SHOW HOW IT'S BROKEN UP. >> D-1, A-1 AND A-2. >> I JUST WAS CURIOUS. I KIND OF UNDERSTAND THE LOGIC OF IT. I DON'T NECESSARILY AGREE WITH IT. SEEMS TO ME WE WOULD DO IT FOR THE ENTIRE PCD. >> V PIZZA IS PURCHASING THIS PARTICULAR PIECE OF THIS ENTIRE PARCEL. IF IT'S GOING TO PLY TO ALL OF IT MR. HUNTLEY WOULD HAVE COULD COME IN AND MAKE APPLICATION FOR THE ENTIRE UNIT INSTEAD OF JUST [00:25:06] V PIZZA. V PIZZA CANNOT APPLY FOR MODIFICATION TO THE ZONING ON BEHALF OF MR. HUNTLEY IF MR. HUNTLEY HASN'T CONDONED IT OR WHATEVER. >> SO THIS PARCEL IS OUTSIDE OF THE PCD. >> NO, IT'S PART OF IT. >> IT'S PART OF THE PCD. WHEN IT WAS REZONED BACK IN '14 OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. I CAN'T REMEMBER. THE IDEA WAS TO ALLOW THESE OTHER USES IN THERE AND THE ONLY THING THAT'S BEING CHANGED IS NOT THE FACT WE ARE PUTTING A RESTAURANT THERE BUT JUST ALLOW THEM TO HAVE ALCOHOL, THE HARD STUFF. >> I DIDN'T HAVE ENOUGH OPPORTUNITY TO RESEARCH THE COUNTY ORDINANCES RELATED TO ALCOHOL IN RESTAURANTS. CAN SOMEBODY BRING ME UP TO SPEED ON THAT, COURTNEY? >> IF YOU HAVE IT'S ACTUALLY NOT THE COUNTY REGULATIONS. IT COMES MAINLY FROM THE STATE AND THE ALCOHOL SALES. IF YOU'RE A RESTAURANT AND IN OUR CODE WE KATE QUALIFYING RESTAURANT IF YOU'RE SELLING AT LEAST 51 PERCENT OR NOT SELLING, IF YOU'RE RECEIVING YOUR INCOME IS COME FROM 51 PERCENT PERCENT SALES OF FOOD THEN YOU DON'T HAVE TO MEET THOSE DISTANCE REQUIREMENTS. IF IT'S A RESTAURANT THAT ISN'T, GATHERING YOU KNOW THAT MUCH SALES FROM FOOD, THEN THEY FALL MORE UNDER BAR AND THEN THEY WOULD HAVE TO MEET THE REQUIREMENTS. SO. >> THIS IS A QUALIFIED RESTAURANT. >> THEY ARE A QUALIFIED RESTAURANT. ONE OF THE REASONS STAFF DIDN'T RECOMMEND MAKE A CHANGE APPLY FOYT THE WHOLE THING BECAUSE YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT NEXT RESTAURANT MIGHT BE AND DO THEY MEET THAT REQUIREMENT. >> SO DOES EVERY QUALIFIED RESTAURANT IN CLAY COUNTY HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO SELL ALCOHOL OTHER THAN BEER AND WINE? >> IT'S GOING TO DEPEND ON WHERE THEY'RE LOCATED. >> IT ALSO DEPENDS ON THE SIZE. YOU'VE GOT TO HAVE 150 SEATS IN YOUR RESTAURANT AND THEN BE IN THE RIGHT ZONING BUT YES. IT'S SOMETHING YOU MIGHT WANT TO LOOK INTO MORE IN DEPTH. THERE'S A DIFFERENT TYPE OF LIQUOR LICENSES IN FLORIDA. PTH I DON'T KNOW WHAT THEY'RE CALLED. IT'S WHAT THE STATE ISSUES DIRECTLY. WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT HERE IS A LICENSE THAT THE RESTAURANT CA APPLY FOR N. FACT IF THEY RELOCATE THEY HAVE APPLY FOR A LICENSE SPECIFIC TO THAT. >> I DON'T HAVE PROBLEMS WITH LIQUOR. THAT DOESN'T CONCERN ME AT ALL. >> I COULDN'T FIND -- I RESEARCHED THE ZONING REG SR. FOR THE COUNTY AND CAN I NOT FIND RESTAURANT WITH BEER WINE AND LIQUOR UNTIL I GOT DOWN TO PB-5 SO THAT'S PRETTY EVERY HEAVY DUTY. YOU'RE GOING OUT OF BA INTO BB FAR INTENSITY GOES SO THIS I'M ASSUMING IS CONDITIONAL USE WEATHER PUTING INTO A BB I MEAN A BA AND ALLOW THEM TO DO THIS. IS THAT RIGHT? >> IT'S NOT CONDITIONAL. IT'S A PRINCIPAL USE. >> OKAY. WE ARE ALLOWING IT BECAUSE OF THE SRX RULES. >> CORRECT. >> MY QUESTION IS WHO CERTIFICATES THE QUALIFICATION? WHERE DOES THAT COME FROM? HOW DO WE KNOW THAT THE SALES ARE NOT MORE OR LESS THAN. >> THE STATE MONITORS THOSE ALCOHOL LICENSES AND THEY SEND SPORS ON A REGULAR BASE NICE SO THEY'RE THE ONES THAT SIGN OFF. >> ON THE ALCOHOL LICENSE YES THEY ISSUE THAT. COUNTY HAS NO INVOLVEMENT IN THAT PART. >> THANK YOU. >> I HAVE ONE QUESTION THAT'S A LITTLE BIT OUTSIDE OF THIS SPECIFIC APPLICATION BUT THE EXPLANATION WAS GIVEN WHY THE FACT THERE'S A CHURCH WITHIN 1500 FEET THIS COUNTY THAT IT DOESN'T MATTER BECAUSE OF THE TYPE OF ESTABLISHMENT IT IS BUT JUST OUT OF CURIOSITY THE CHURCH THAT IS ON THE PCD PRETTY THAT 711 OR 11-7. SINCE THEY'RE NOT ON PS-1 PROPERTY WOULD THEY QUALIFY AS A CLUTCH UNDER THOSE RULES? YOU DON'T NEED TO ANSWER IT NOW. DO YOU UNDERSTAND THE QUESTION I'M ASKING? >> I THINK SO. >> THE REASON I ASK THIS IS THAT WE ALLOW CHURCHES TO MEET IN A NUMBER OF LOCATIONS UNDER THE PUBLIC ASSEMBLY CLAUSE THAT IS IN OUR ZONING BUT YET, THEY AREN'T PS-1 ZONED AND THEY CAN'T ACTUALLY PREVENT SOMEBODY FROM OPENING UP NEXT TO THEM WITH LIQUOR. [00:30:04] BECAUSE THEY'RE PUBLIC ASSEMBLY. WOULD YOU LOOK INTO THAT SEE IF YOU CAN GET SOME CLARIFICATION? >> I WILL. I WOULD THINK WOULD IT STILL APPLY BUT I'LL CHECK IT. >> OKAY. ANYONE ELSE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? >> I'VE GOT ONE QUESTION. AS PART OF YOUR PLAN I SEE YOU HAVE AN OUTDOOR PATIO. ARE YOU PLANNING ON HAVING ANY OUTDOOR VENUES AS FAR AS MUSIC GOES? >> I'M NOT AWARE OF ANY SPECIAL EVENT VENUES. I COULD SPEAK TO MY CLIENT. >> MY CONCERN IS DOES THE RELATIVE DISTANCE BETWEEN THAT AND THE RESIDENTIAL AREA TO YOUR EAST THERE IS A BUILDING THERE BUT THERE'S ALSO WIDE EXPANSE OF OPEN PARKING LOT, AS WELL AS THAT HOLDING POND BACK THERE WHICH SOUND TRAVELS PRETTY QUICK. I HATE TO DESTROY YOUR RELATIONSHIP WITH THE NEIGHBORS BACK THERE IF YOU'RE PLANNING ON HAVING AN OUTDOOR VENUE TYPE SCENARIO. >> CAN I SPEAK TO THE CLIENT TO FURTHER ADDRESS IT TO HAVE REGULAR EVENTS IN THAT REGARD AT LEAST. I IMAGINE ANY SORT OF EVENT THAT WOULD REQUIRE SPECIAL APPLICATION TO THE COUNTY WOULD BE REQUIRED BUT IF YOU'D LIKE IF YOU GIVE ME A MOMENT WITH MY CLIENT CAN I SEE IF THEY HAVE ANY REGULAR EVENTS. >> THAT'S NOT NECSSARY. >> OKAY. >> I'M JUST MAKING THAT POINT SO IT COMES UP IN THE FUTURE IT'S OKAY. >> BEING GOOD NEIGHBOR I COMPLETELY UNDERSTAND. >> BEFORE I OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING, THE CHANGE IS GOING TO ALLOW LIQUOR SALES. THE PRESENTATION TALKED ABOUT MIM MIMOMOSAS AND BLOODY MARYS. LET ME OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. DOES ANYBODY WANT TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM? SEEING NONE I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AN BRING IT BACK TO THE BOARD. ANYBODY WANT TO MAKE A MOTION? >> I MAKE A MOTION. >> ANYONE SECOND? >> I'LL SECOND. >> SECOND FROM MR. GARRISON. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? SEEING NONE, ALL IN FAVOR STAFF RECOMMENDATION TO STATE AYE? OPPOSED? OKAY. THANK YOU, SIR. >> THANK YOU COMMISSIONERS. ITEM -- OH AND THIS ONE WILL BE HEARD ON THE 23RD AT BCC. [3.  Public Hearing to consider CPA 2021-16, a Small Scale Comp Plan Map Amendment to change the Future Land Use of 19.60 acres of one parcel from BF MPC to BF PCN and 6.51 acres of a second parcel from BF PCN to BF MPC. (D. Selig)] ITEM NUMBER 3, THIS IS A SMALL SCALE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT TO CHANGE THE FUTURE LAND USE OF 19.6 ACRES OF ONE PARCEL FROM BF OR BRANAN FIELD MASTER COMMUNITY TO BRANAN FIELD PERMANENT CONSERVATION NETWORK AND 6.51 ACRES OF A SECOND PARCEL THE OTHER DIRECTION. MS. SELIG THUF ONE TOO. >> THIS ONE WOULD ALSO BE HEARD ON THE 23RD OF NOVEMBER. THE APPLICANTS ARE APPLYING FOR PROPERTY JUST SOUTH OF MIDDLEBURG HIGH SCHOOL. THIS IS IN DIRECT 4 COMMISSIONER CONDON. THE APPLICATION AS YOU SAID WOULD CHANGE FUTURE LAND USE. THERE'S ACTUALLY THREE PARTS OF PARCELS THAT I'LL PROVIDE IN A MOMENT THAT WOULD CHANGE ONE PORTION OF ONE PARCEL FROM BRANAN FIELD PCN PRIMARY CONSERVATION NETWORK TO BRANAN FIELD MASTER PLAN COMMUNITY AND TWO PORTIONS ON THE OTHER PARCEL IN THE REVERSE DIRECTION. SO THESE THREE PARCEL PIECES IF YOU WILL ARE SHOWN HERE THE MAP AND ON THE AREA. YOU SEE BLACK CREEK RUN THROUGH THE MIDDLE. THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO DEVELOPING THESE PARCELS AS PART OF A FUTURE SINGLE FAMILY GATE EVIDENCE COMMUNITY APPROXIMATELY 318 LOTS WITH AMENITIES. THE AMENDMENT WOULD PROVIDE CREATION OF AN ADDITIONAL 16 LOTS OF THOSE 318 ON THE 6.5 ACRE AREA. OF THEM, 12 OF THEM ARE WITHIN THE PCN AREA AS IT STANDS NOW. AT THE SAME TIME, THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO OFF SET THAT BY APPROXIMATELY THREE TILES AS MUCH ACREAGE BEING CONVERTED FROM MPC TO PCM. THOSE AREAS HAVE UP LANDS AS [00:35:03] WELL AS WETLANDS WHICH MAKE THEM ATTRACTIVE TO WILDLIFE IN THE AREA. SO IT'S LEFT IS EXISTING LAND USE, RIGHT IS THE PROPOSED. EXISTING PCN IN THE AREA IS PRETTY EXTENT I HAVE THIS NORTH SIDE OF BLACK CREEK. I HAVE A MAP THAT SHOWS THE DETAIL ON THAT. I BROUGHT DOWN THE MAP ON THE RIGHT HAS THE SITE AS IT'S POTENTIALLY DESIGNED AT THE MOMENT. THE TWO BLUE AREAS ARE THE NEW TO BE CONVERTED TO CONSERVATION AREAS, PARCEL 1 UP AT THE TOP IS MOSTLY UP LAND. THERE IS WET LAND ON THE NORTH PART OF IT. ALONG THE WEST SIDE OF IT AND THE OTHER HAD A LITTLE MORE WET LAND INVOLVED BUT THEY'RE CONTIGUOUS TO THE EXISTING PCN SO IT'S AN EXPANSION OF EXISTING CONSERVATION LANDS. THE EXISTING PCN THAT IS BEING PROPOSED TO BE CHANGED IS IN THE SOUTHWEST CORNER AND I HAVE AN ENLARGEMENT OF THAT AREA FOR YOU. SO, THIS IS THE 6.5 ACRE PIECE. THE BLUE LINE BETWEEN THE TWO BROWN LINES REPRESENTS THE BOUNDARY, SO EVERYTHING TO THE LEFT OF THE BLUE LINE IS THAT 6 AND A HALF ACRE PIECE. THE TWO BROWN AREAS, THE ONE ON THE RIGHT IS ALREADY IN CONSERVATION AREA. THAT'S THE EXISTING CEMETERY. THAT WON'T BE TOUCHED BY THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT OR BY THIS CHANGE OF LAND USE. THE OTHER IS THE ARSENAL DEPOT SITE AND I'LL POINT OUT THAT TWO OF THE PROPOSED LOTS ARE IMPACTED BY THAT OR UNDERNEATH, ONE A LITTLE CORNER OF THE ARSENAL SITE, THE OTHER ARSENAL IS PRETTY MUCH IN THE MIDDLE OF THAT SITE. THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO KEEP ACTUAL DEVELOPMENT OF THEIR AMENITIES OUT OF THE ARSENAL SITE. THERE IS A RESTROOM PROPOSED NORTH OF IT, LESSEN AND LIKE A KAYAK LAUNCH AREA ON THE RIVER SOUTH AND EAST OF IT SO THAT THOSE WOULDN'T BE IMPACTING THAT AREA. THEN THERE'S THE BLUFF WHICH IS A GOOD 20 FEET EASILY OVER THE RIVER RUNNING ALONG THE SOUTHERN SIDE. YOU CAN KIND OF SEE A BLACK LINE REPRESENTING THAT. THEN THE DARK BROWN WITH THE YELLOW DOTS VERY SOUTHWEST CORNER THAT IS AN EXISTING WET LAND AND THE APPLICANT HAS SAID THAT THEY WOULD PUT A CONSERVATION EASEMENT OVER THE WET LAND AND THE BLUFF AREA TO PROTECT THE BLUFF, TO THAT WOULD BE DEDICATED TO ST. JOHN'S RIVER WATER MANAGEMENT SO THAT WOULD BE EVEN THOUGH YOU WOULD BE CHANGING THE FULL 6.5 ACRES TO MPC FUTURE LAND USE THERE'S STILL CONSERVATION EASEMENT PROPOSED OVER THE MOST ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE PART OF THAT. IN ANALYZING THIS WE LOOK AT THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. THERE'S FUTURE LAND USE OBJECTIVE 1.2 THAT STATES THE COUNTY SHALL ENCOURAGE THE PROTECTION OF ITS HISTORIC CULTURAL ARCHEOLOGICAL HERITAGE POLICY 1.2.1 WHICH MAINTAINS THE COU COUNTY SHALL . . . THROUGH LISTING ON THE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES MAINTAINED BY THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF STATE. THE APPLICANT HAS STARTED THAT PROCESS AND IN ESSENCE BY REACHING OUT TO THE STATE THEY'VE HAD A PHASE 1 ASSESSMENT DONE FOR THE PROPERTY AND THAT WAS INCLUDED IN YOUR PACKET. THE SUMMARY OF THAT WAS THAT THE DEPOT SITE IS CONSIDERED HIGHLY SIGNIFICANT REGARDING RESEARCH POTENTIAL THAT THE SITE SETTLEMENT AREA AROUND IT RECOMMENDED AS POTENTIALLY ELIGIBLE FOR LISTING IN THE REGISTER AND THAT PRESERVATION OF THE SITE IS HIGHLY RECOMMENDED AND ANY PRESENT ANY [00:40:05] EXCAVATION RELATED TO MITIGATE THE IMPACT BY DEVELOPMENT WOULD REQUIRE PHASE 3 ASSESSMENT AND MONITORING OF CONSTRUCTION IS ALSO RECOMMENDED. STAFF IS RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OR TRANSMITTAL OF CPA 2021-16. I AM SURE THE APPLICANT IS HERE CAN ANSWER MORE DETAILED QUESTIONS. >> DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF BEFORE WE HEAR FROM THE APPLICANT? ONE THING JUST TO MAKE SURE EVERYBODY IS UNDERSTANDS, THERE IS A TRANSMITTAL HEARING OR TRANSMITTAL REQUEST, SO THIS WILL, OUR RELATION WILL GO TO THE BCC AND IF THEY ALSO RECOMMEND TRANSMITTAL, IT GOES TO TALLAHASSEE, WHERE THEY CAN LOOK AT IT, AND IT COMES BACK FOR FINAL APPROVAL BUT IT COMES BACK DIRECTLY TO THE BOARD, NOT TO US. AND DOTY JUST QUICKLY WITH ALL THE CHANGES THE LEGISLATURE MADE THIS YEAR EVEN THOUGH THIS IS A FAIRLY SMALL PARCEL IT STILL HAS TO GO TO TALLAHASSEE FOR COMMENT. >> IT IS A SMALL SCALE NOW THAT THEY'VE CHANGED THEIR SIZING. SO, THEY DON'T DO REVIEW OF THE -- THERE'S NOT THE 30 DAY REVIEW PROCESS, SO NO. IN THIS CASE IT WILL ONLY GO TO -- I APOLOGIZE MANY I SHOULD HAVE CHANGED THAT BEEN TRANSMITTAL. IT'S MISLEADING. IT WILL ONLY GO TO THE COMMISSIONERS COUNTY COMMISSIONERS FOR DECISION ON THE 23RD. WE WILL SEND A COPY AFTER THE FACT SO TO SPEAK. >> BUT NOT PRIOR. SO THIS IS HANDLEING THE NEW SMALL SCALE SO IT WON'T GO TO TALLAHASSEE. >> NOT FOR REVIEW. >> OKAY. I THINK I MIGHT HAVE A QUESTION. I THOUGHT I SOMEWHERE IN THE PACKET, THE I'M ASSUMING THIS IS THE BEGINNING STAGES OF CHECKING FOR ARCHEOLOGICAL AN HISTORIC. WHAT HAPPENS IF THIS GETS APPROVED THEY START TO BREAK GROUND AND START TO FIND ARTIFACTS. DOES IT SHUT THE PROJECT DOWN? >> OUR CODE DOESN'T ADDRESS THESE THINGS. THE CODE THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN JUST ENCOURAGES YOU KNOW RECOGNITION OF BUT WE DON'T REALLY HAVE MUCH LEGISLATIVE LEEWAY. >> SO IF THEY FIND SOMETHING IN THERE THAT'S VERY SIGNIFICANT, THEY CAN JUST DIG IT UP WITHOUT ANY SUPERVISION OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT? OKAY. I WAS JUST TRYING TO GET CLARIFICATION MANY SEEMS LIKE THE REPORT IS PRETTY EXTENSIVE. >> IT WAS. IT'S FASCINATING READING. I COULDN'T READ ALL OF IT. >> THEY LIST A LOT OF STUFF IN HERE. >> YES. >> YOU HATE TO SEE SOMETHING THAT IS OF SOME SIGNIFICANT HISTORICAL VALUE. >> ANY QUESTION? IF THE COUNTY DOESN'T HAVE ANY REQUIREMENTS ABOUT THE STATE TO IF SOMETHING COMES UP. RAISED,- >> I'M NOT SURE WHAT THEIR -- THEY'RE ABLE TO DO FOR SURE. >> OKAY. MAYBE THE APPLICANT CAN ANSWER THAT. MR. MILLER, ARE YOU THE APPLICANT ON THIS ONE? WE NEED YOU TO SIT OVER HERE TODAY, PLEASE. IT'S A TECHNICAL ISSUE. >> THANK YOU. YES, MY NAME IS FRANK MILLER. MY ADDRESS IS 1 INDEPENDENT DRIVE SUITE 2300 IN JACKSONVILLE. AT FIRST GLANCE THIS SEEMS COMPLICATED WHEN I DON'T THINK IT REALLY IS BUT LET ME AT LEAST START BY SAYING THAT IT'S INTERESTING THE WAY PCN AND THE BRAN FIELD PLAN IS DESCRIBED AN SHOWN ON MAPS. THE WAY IT'S SHOWN ON BRANAN FIELD WAS WAS OBTAINED FROM IN THE 80S OR 90S AND IT WAS ANNES YOU MAIGTS OF WHERE THE WET LAND LINE WAS. IT WAS INTENDED THAT THE WET [00:45:02] LAND AREAS LARGE WITNESS LAND AREAS WERE PRESERVED FOR WILDLIFE CORRESPOND DOORS AND JUST PRESERVATION OF WATER FACILITIES. BUT THE PCN IS ALSO CREDIT AS THE WET LAND LINE AN UP LAND UP THE HILL BY 25 FEET. BUT A MINIMUM OF 200 FEET WIDE. WHETHER WE -- WHETHER WE BEGAN LOOKING AT THIS WE DIDN'T RECOGNIZE THAT BLACK CREEK WASN'T CONSIDERED PRIMARY CONSERVATION NETWORK. SO THAT IF THAT WERE THE CASE, WE WOULDN'T BE HERE ASKING FOR AN AMENDMENT BECAUSE WE ARE ALREADY ACKNOWLEDGING WE ARE GOING TO PUT A 25-FOOT BUFFER UP FROM THE EXISTING WETLANDS. THE OTHER REASON WAS THAT THE CREEKSIDE PARK, WHICH IS WE'VE GOT SOME PICTURES AND RENDERINGS WE CAN SHOW YOU, BUT THERE WERE QUESTIONS IN DISCUSSING IT WITH STAFF WHETHER A PAVILION OR SHELTER COULD BE CONSTRUCTED WITHIN THE PCN. SO THERE ARE TWO REASONS WE ARE HERE AND WE DON'T THINK WE ARE DOING ANY DAMAGE TO ANY OR VIOLENCE TO ANY OF THE INTENTIONS OF THE BRANAN FIELD PLAN OR PCN. WE ARE INTENDING OR ASKING TO CHANGE THE PCN AND PARCEL WAS, WE DESCRIBED AS PARCEL 3 WHICH IS THE SOUTHWEST CORNER 6 AND A HALF ACRES OF THAT, PCN TO MASTER PLAN COMMUNITY AND AGAIN, IF IT WEREN'T FOR THE 200-FOOT WIDTH, WE WOULDN'T BE HAVING TO ASK FOR THAT. AND IN EXCHANGE FOR THAT, WE ARE OFFERING TO CHANGE A TOTAL OF 19.6 ACRES OF WHAT IS PRESENTLY MASTER PLAN COMMUNITY TO PRIMARY CONSERVATION NETWORK, WHICH HAS A PLUS IN ADDING TO THE PCN OF 13-SOMETHING ACRES. AGAIN, WE ARE NOT INTENDING TO AND DON'T BELIEVE WE ARE DOING ANY DAMAGE TO THE CONCEPT OR THE INTENT WITH RESPECT TO PCN BECAUSE THE WETLANDS WILL BE PRESERVED ALONG BLACK CREEK. WE ARE NOT GOING TO TOUCH THEM. WE ARE GOING TO PUT AT LEAST A 25 FOOT BUFFER UP LAND FROM THAT AND IN SOME CASES IT RUNS HIGHER BECAUSE WE ARE GOING TO TRY TO RUN THAT PCN OR CONSERVATION EASEMENT LINE ALONG THE 20 FOOT BLUFF ELEVATION AND I'VE GOT FOR YOU TO MAYBE UNDERSTAND A LITTLE BIT WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE. I'VE GOT PICTURES THAT WERE TAKEN TODAY FROM THE WATER IN THE BLACK CREEK AND IT KIND OF SHOWS YOU. I DON'T KNOW THAT IT DOES ENTIRE JUSTICE TO THE WAY IT LOOKS ON THE GROUND BUT I'M GOING TO HAND THESE OUT. IT IS A 20 FOOT RISE IN ELEVATION. I DIDN'T GIVE YOU TOO MUCH. AND I CAN'T SPEAK FOR STAFF BUT WHEN WE CAME TO TALK WITH THEM THEY WERE KIND OF SURPRISED WE NEEDED TO DO THIS AS WELL. THERE WERE ISSUES ABOUT WHETHER YOU COULD PUT A SHELTER IN THE PCN AND DIDN'T REALIZE OR RECOGNIZE WHAT IMPACT IT WOULD HAVE IF YOU HAD TO RUN 200 FEET FROM THE WET LAND LINE. AND IF YOU RUN 200 FEET FROM THE WET LAND LINE, YOU'RE WAY UP ON TOP OF THAT BLUFF. YOU'RE WAY UP THERE. SO YOU'VE ELIMINATED A LOT OF THE UP LAND AND THE BUFFER. I DON'T HAVE THE ANSWERS TO YOUR QUESTIONS ABOUT THE ARCHEOLOGICAL SITES BUT DO I HAVE WITH US DANA ST. CLAIRE ON BEHALF OF HERITAGE CULTURAL SERVICES, WHO PREPARED THE REPORT THAT Y'ALL HAVE SEEN AND HE'S GOING TO BE ABLE TO EXPLAIN THE PROCESS AND WHAT HAS OCCURRED TODAY. >> FOR THAT, I WANT TO SEE IF [00:50:01] ANYBODY HAS ANY QUESTIONS FOR YOU. ANY QUESTIONS FOR MR. MILLIONER? >> IF THIS MOVES FORWARD, DOES IT IMPACT THE PROPOSED LAY OUT? IF IT MOVES FORWARD. >> IS THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT LAYOUT IN THE PACKAGE CHANGE? >> IT SHOULDN'T. >> I HAVE A QUESTION. IT MIGHT BE A DUMB QUESTION BUT I'VE GOT TO ASK IT. THIS CONSERVATION AREA ALONG BLACK CREEK I ASSUME THAT WILL BE MAINTAINED AS CONSERVATION AREA AN PEOPLE THAT PURCHASE LOTS ALONG THAT WILL NOT BE BUILDING DOCKS ACROSS IT. >> NO, I THINK IT'S CONTEMPLATED THEY'LL BE ABLE TO PUT BOARD WALKS ACROSS IT AND DOCK ON THE OTHER SIDE BUT THEY CAN'T PUT ANY VERTICAL IMPROVEMENTS WITHIN IT. >> THAT WAS KIND OF MY QUESTION MR. MILLER TOO. I SAW THE PIECE IN HERE ABOUT ALLOWING BOARD WALKS. I DIDN'T THINK -- I DON'T THINK IT'S ELEVATED BOARD WALKS, BUT I THINK THAT'S KIND OF A THING THAT WE MAY WANT TO TALK ABOUT BECAUSE WE ARE SQUEEZING THAT CONSERVATION AREA SMALLER, AND I JUST WANT TO KNOW, ARE THERE ANY PLANS TO ALLOW THE HOMEOWNERS TO PUT FENCES ALONG THERE OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT THAT WOULD PREVENT THE MOVEMENT OF WILDLIFE ALONG THE BANK OF THAT RIVER? >> NO. I THINK THAT THE STANDARD OF THE CONVERSATION DISTRICT EASEMENT DOESN'T ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF FENCES. THAT WOULD -- I CAN'T IMAGINE THE DEVELOPER ALLOWING ANY HOMEOWNER TO DO THAT AND THE CONSERVATION EASEMENT YOU GIVE THE DISTRICT TYPICALLY RESTRICTS THAT. >> IN HERE I KNOW IT SAID IT WOULD ALLOW BOARD WALKS BUT DIDN'T SAY ELEVATED AND THAT WOULD ALLOW THEM TO PUT THEM RIGHT ON THE GROUND. IT SEEMS LIKE ELEVATED WOULD BE A BETTER IDEA GOING ACROSS THAT CONSERVATION LAND. IT'S SOMETHING I MIGHT PROPOSE IN OUR RECOMMENDATIONS. I JUST WONDER HOW YOU FELT ABOUT THAT. >> I DON'T THINK THAT WOULD BE A PROBLEM. YOU GOT TO REMEMBER YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT A BLUFF THAT'S TWICE AS TALL AS THIS SEEING THAT COMES DOWN TO THE WATER AND I'M SURE THERE WOULD BE STEPS BUT YOU ALSO HAVE FLOODING ALONG THE CREEK SO THERE'S A JUST FIREFIGHTER CASE OR THE HOMEOWNER TO KEEP IT OFF THE GROUND AS WELL. >> THE OTHER THING I HAVE. >> CAN YOU PUT UP THE MAP THAT WAS THE CLOSEUP OF PARCEL 3? RIGHT THERE. KAINT EVEN TELL FROM THE ONE WE HAVE HOW MANY LOTS ARE UNDER THAT BROWN AREA? I CAN SEE THERE'S ONE ON KIND OF THE LEFT SIDE OF THAT. IS THE OTHER LOT A REALLY LARGE LOT THAT COVERS ALL THE REST OF THAT SPACE IN THERE? >> I THINK THERE'S ONE AND A HALF THAT ARE AFFECTED. >> THE ONE REALLY LARGE ONE AND THEN THE PART OF SMALLER LOT THERE. >> YES. >> OKAY I KNOW THAT'S PROBABLY THE MOST VALUABLE LOT IN THIS WHOLE DEVELOPMENT. BUT WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IF YOU WERE TO LOSE THAT ONE LOT? >> IT HAS SOME SIGNIFICANT FINANCIAL COST BUT BEFORE YOU REACH CONCLUSIONS ON THAT, I THINK YOU WOULD PLEASED TO HEAR WHAT MR. ST. CLAIRE WILL EXPLAIN. >> I'M WAIT TO GO HEAR WHAT HE HAS TO SAY BUT I DON'T THINK HE CAN ANSWER THESE QUESTIONS I'M ASKING. >> I DON'T KNOW IF I CAN ANSWER THEM EITHER BUT I THINK IT'S A SIGNIFICANT ECONOMIC DAMAGE TO THE PROJECT. PROJECT? RE ANY PHASING IN THIS- >> I'M NOT AWARE OF ANY, BUT I DON'T KNOW THAT THERE ISN'T. >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? >> MR. MILLER? ARE YOU AWARE OF ANY OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD REACTION TO THIS PLAN? >> I HAVE NOT HEARD OF ANY. I KNOW TO THE WEST IS UNDEVELOPED. >> IT'S ALMOST ALL WETLANDS TO THE WEST. >> AND I'M NOT SURE WHAT'S TO THE RIGHT. >> OKAY. THANK YOU. >> WHAT IS THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE ARSENAL DEPOT SITE? IS THAT HISTORICAL? >> THE HISTORICAL PERSON IS GOING TO EXPLAIN THAT TO US. >> IT'S FASCINATING STUFF. IT REALLY IS. >> WELL, LET'S BRING HIM ON UP. [00:55:05] >> MR. CHAIRMAN, COMMISSIONERS, MY NAME IS DANA ST. CLAIRE. I'M A PROFESSIONAL ARCHAEOLOGIST WITH HERITAGE CULTURAL SERVICES. WE OPERATE OUT OF ST. AUGUSTINE, FLORIDA, AMONG OTHER PLACES, IF I MAY ANSWER, ONE OF THE EARLIER QUESTIONS THAT SEVERAL OF THE COMMISSIONERS HAD, THE COUNTY ORDINANCE DOVE TAILS NICELY WITH A REGULATORY PROCESS THAT IS OVERSEEN BY THE STATE DIVISION OF HISTORICAL RESOURCES STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICE AND IT'S PART OF A REGULATORY PROCESS THAT GOVERNS SECTION 106 REGULATORY PROCESS WHICH IS PURSUANT TO THE NATIONAL AN ANTIQUITIES LAW, SO ANY PERMITS INVOLVED IN THIS PROJECT INCLUDING ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS AN ST. JOHN'S RIVER WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT AT DEP AND OTHERS, THEY DEFER DIRECTLY TO THE SHIP OH'S OFFICE, U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS HAS THEIR OWN COMPLIANCE REVIEW OFFICE SO IN ORDER FOR THOSE PERMITS TO BE OBTAINED AMONG OTHER THINGS ONE OF THE THINGS THAT THE DEVELOPER HAS TO DO IS TO ARC LOGICALLY SURVEY THE PROPERTY, CALLED A PHASE ONE ARCHEOLOGICAL SURVEY OR CULTURAL ASSESSMENT SURVEY. THAT'S ALREADY BEEN DONE. ESSENTIALLY WHAT THAT INVOLVES IS A TEAM OF ARCHAEOLOGISTS GO OUT ON A PIECE OF PROPERTY WITH VARIOUS EQUIPMENT AND MEANS OF ANALYSIS, INCLUDING WE CALL OUR MINESWEEPERS OUR METAL DETECTORS, OTHER REMOTE SENSING DEVICES. WE CAN TEST PITS EXCAVATION UNITS. WE PROBE, WE WALK THE WETLANDS, WE COVER EVERY BIT OF TERRITORY ON A PIECE OF PROPERTY TO DETERMINE IF THERE ARE ARC LOBLG CAL OR HISTORICAL SITES ON A PIECE OF PROPERTY. IN THIS CASE THERE WERE SEVERAL. IN PARTICULAR THERE WERE A HANDFUL OF SIGNIFICANT SITES, THE ONES THAT YOU SEE HERE ALONG THE BLUFFS OF BLACK CREEK. FORTUNATELY, EARLY ON IN THE PROCESS WE WORKED HAND IN HAND WITH THE DEVELOPERS, IN IDENTIFYING THOSE SIGNIFICANT SITES, THOSE WHICH ARE ELIGIBLE FOR THE NATIONAL REGISTER FOR OF HISTORIC PLACES, WHICH THE CRITERIA BY WHICH SIGNIFICANCE IS MEASURED FOR ARCHEOLOGICAL HOESHGAL SITES. ONCE WE IDENTIFIED THE SITES AND UNDERSTOOD THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THEM WE WORKED HAND IN HAND WITH THE DEVELOPERS TO PRESERVE THEM, WHICH IS ALWAYS A GOOD THING FROM A PRESERVATION PERSPECTIVE ARC GROL GIST HISTORICAL RESEARCHERS ARE HISTORIC PRESERVATIONISTS AT THE CORE. I AM ONE OF THOSE. SO IT'S ALWAYS NICE WHEN WE CAN WORK WITH A DEVELOPER THAT CHOOSE TO MAKE CERTAIN ADJUSTMENTS AND MODIFICATIONS ON THEIR SITE PLAN TO PRESERVE CERTAIN SITES. THE MOST CONSPICUOUS WAS THE CEMETERY. THIS IS BRANAN CEMETERY WHICH WAS ESTABLISHED IN THE LATE 1820'S THROUGH THE 1830S THAT HAS BURIALS THROUGH THE 1850S. IT'S PROTECTED BY PARTICULAR STATUTES CALLED 872 AND TON MARKED BURIAL LAW. SO THE VERY BEST THING THAT CAN YOU DO IN A SITUATION LIKE THAT WHEN YOU FIND A CEMETERY OR BURIAL MOUND OR UNMARKED BURIAL IS TO LEAVE IT RIGHT WHERE IT IS AND THE DEVELOPERS HAVE ELECTED TO DO THAT. SO THAT CEMETERY THE BRANAN CEMETERY WILL BE PROTECTED AND PRESERVED IN PERPETUITY. THE OTHER SITES ALONG THE BLUFF, THE BLACK CREEK BASIN I SHOULD MENTION ARE ALSO IMPORTANT THE SITE OF GARY'S FERRY CROSSING, WHICH WAS A PRINCIPAL SEMINOLE INDIAN WAR PERIOD MILITARY CROSSING TO SAW MILLS BRANAN SAW MILL AN SCOTT'S MILL WHICH WERE DOWN ON THE WEATHER ARE GOING TO BE PRESERVED, NOT ONLY PRESERVED AND PROTECTED BUT THE DEVELOPERS HAVE PLANS TO BUILD A HISTORICAL [01:00:04] NATURE WALK WITH HISTORICAL MARKERS FOR THE COMMUNITY AND FOR SCHOOL CHILDREN AS I UNDERSTAND IT. THE OTHER SITE IN THE PERIPHERY WERE DETERMINED TO NOT BE POTENTIALLY ELIGIBLE FOR THE NATIONAL REGISTER. THE ONE SITE THAT IS CLOSEST TO THE WATER THAT HAS GARNERED A GREAT DEAL OF ATTENTION IS THE ORDINANCE DEPOT, OFTEN CALLED THE ARSENAL DEPOT SITE. THIS WAS A PALISADES LINE THAT THE MILITARY BUILT AND WAITS DESIGNED TO KEEP EVERYTHING FROM HORSES AND EQUIPMENT AND CANNONS AND VESSELS AWAY FROM THE PUBLIC AND ALSO TO KEEP THEM AWAY FROM ENEMY FORCES CHSHG NEVER ARRIVED, I SHOULD TELL YOU. THEY SPENT A GREAT DEAL OF TIME BUILDING THIS FORTIFICATION AND I THINK THE SEMINOLE INDIANS WERE SMART ENOUGH WHEN THEY SAW THAT TO UNDERSTAND THAT THAT SHOULDN'T BE AN OBJECTIVE FOR THAT. BUT, THE INTERESTING THING ABOUT THE ORDINANCE DEPOT ISN'T NECESSARILY THE MILITARY INSTALLATION, ALTHOUGH WE FIND ARTIFACTS RELATED TO THAT. WE HAVE FOUND A CONSIDERABLE AMOUNT OF THEM WHAT IS INTERESTING IS THAT DURING THE COURSE OF THE WAR, WHEN THE OUTLYING RURAL AREAS WERE BEING ATTACKED BY THE SEMINOLE INDIANS DURING THE SECOND SEMINOLE INDIAN WAR THE CIVILIANS SOUGHT REFUGE AND WENT TO A PLACE WHERE THEY THOUGHT WAS GOING TO BE PROTECTED WHICH WAS ALL AROUND THE ORDINANCE DEPOT. SOME OF OUR NUMBER EX-MATES RANGE UP TO A THOUSAND PEOPLE WHO WERE LIVING IN AREA. THEY WERE SETTING UP TEMPORARY SHELTERS MANY THE GOVERNMENT WAS PROVIDING THEM WITH PROVISIONS WITH WATER, HAY FOR THEIR HORSES, IN ORDER TO KEEP THEM ALIVE SO A LOT OF WHAT WE ARE FINDING OUT IN THE FIELDS ARE THESE PERIPHERAL ARTIFACT DEPOSITS THAT REFLECT THE ENCAMPMENTS AND THE BRIEF SETTLEMENTS OF THESE PEOPLE. THE MOST IMPORTANT PART OF THE ARSENAL OF THE ORDINANCE DEPOT IS EVERYTHING BACK TO THE EAST. TE LOTS ARE LOCATED ON THE EXTREME PERIPHERAL AREA, BUT EVERYTHING BACK TOWARDS THE CEMETERY AND ON THE EAST SIDE WE FOUND FLOORS, LIVING FLOORS, HEARTHS LAYERS OF ARTIFACTS. IT'S A PRETTY RICH SITE AND WHEN WE RECOGNIZE THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THOSE CULTURAL DEPOSITS THERE BE WENT TO THE DEVELOPER AGAIN AND SUGGESTED THAT THEY MOVE THE AMENITIES PACKAGE AROUND A LITTLE BIT AND THEY DECIDED TO MOVE IT COMPLETELY OFF THE SITE BACK INTO THE COMMUNITY. SO THE MOST IMPORTANT PART OF THIS SITE I'M HAPPY TO SAY AS AN ARCHAEOLOGIST HISTORIC PRESERVATIONIST WILL BE PROTECTED AS PART AFTER HISTORIC PRESERVATION PARK WHICH WILL HAVE HERITAGE TRAILS RADIATING FROM IT ALONG THE CREEK. BUT IT'S A PASSIVE PARK, THE WALK WAYS AND THERE'S ONE ACCESS ROAD THAT'S LOW I AM PACK. THE DEVELOPERS AGAIN WORKED WITH US IN CHOOSING THE MATERIALS TO PROTECT THAT. SO, I WILL TELL YOU IN MY CAPACITY AS YOUR UNOFFICIAL ARCHAEOLOGIST THAT WE HAVE SIGNIFICANT SITES THERE BUT THEY'RE ALMOST ENTIRELY PROTECTED. THE LOTS ARE LOCATED IN AN AREA THAT WE TESTED EXTENSIVELY, AND THE ARTIFACT DEPOSITS THERE ARE NOT ONLY LOW FREQUENCY BUT THEY ARE ALSO DISTURBED AS WELL, TOO. SO, IF THERE'S A PLACE TO PUT LOTS, IT WOULD BE RIGHT ON THE ADORNER WHERE THE DEVELOPERS ARE PROP PROPOSING THIS. HAVING SAID THAT ONCE WE'VE IDENTIFIED THE SITES WE HAVE DONE A PHASE 2 ASSESSMENT DETERMINING IF THE SITE WAS POTENTIALLY ELIGIBLE FOR THE NATIONAL REGISTER BUT IF IF DEVELOPER WANTS TO DEVELOP THAT SITE, THEN PART OF THE RECOMMENDATION THAT YOU'VE READ IN THE REPORT THE RECOMMENDATION TO THE SHIP OH WAS TO CONDUCT PHASE THROUGH ARCHEOLOGICAL [01:05:01] MITIGATIVE INVESTIGATIONS BEFORE ANY HOUSE ROAD ANYTHING GOES INTO THAT AREA SO WE CAN RETRIEVE A SIGNIFICANT SAMPLE DETERMINE WHAT IS THERE RECORD IT PHOTOGRAPHICLY SUBSURFACE SENSORS, REMOTE SENSING WE DO ALL OF THAT BEFORE THE GROUND IS IMPACTED BY DEVELOPMENT. SO, THAT'S THE PROCESS. WE HAVE COMPLETED THE PHASE ONE CULTURAL RESOURCE ASSESSMENT SURVEY. COMMISSIONERS I THINK YOU HAVE THAT IN YOUR PACKET MANY WE HAVE DONE ADDITIONAL PHASE 2 WORK AND DETERMINING OR DEPENDING ON WHAT THE DECISIONS WERE MADEIRA GOING FORWARD, WE ARE SCHEDULED TO DO PHASE 3 WORK IN THAT PARTICULAR AREA AND THE SURROUNDING AREAS. I HOPE I HAVEN'T TALKED TOO MUCH IN THE WAY I'VE ANSWERED YOUR QUESTIONS. >> AGO AHEAD. >> MR. SINCLAIR YOU MADE A COMMENT A MINUTE AGO YOU SAID ALMOST ENTIRELY PROTECTED. DOES PHASE 3 GIVE ANY MORE INSURANCE FOR IT TO BECOME ENTIRELY PROTECTED? >> WELL, COMMISSIONER, IF WE WERE TO DO A PHASE 3 EXCAVATION, THIS IS A HYPOTHETICAL AND WE WERE TO ENCOUNTER HUMAN SKELETAL MATERIAL IN CHAPTER 872 KICKS IN AND SHUTS IT DOWN AND WE DO AN ASSESSMENT AND DETERMINE THE BEST WAY TO PRESERVE IT OR TO CONTINUE WITH OUR MATE GATIVE EFFORTS. >> THANK YOU. >> THE PHASE 3 ASSESSMENT FIRST OF ALL I FOUND IT QUITE INTERESTING. I I REED YOUR WHOLE REPORT. IT WAS INFORMATIVE. I KNEW THERE WAS A LOT IN THAT AREA DATING BACK BUT I DIDN'T REAL IT'S HOW MUCH. PHASE 3 WHAT DO YOU DO EX-VIRGINIA INVESTIGATE DOWN TO WHAT I WOULD CALL VIRGIN SOIL SO YOU MAKE SURE YOU INVENTORY AND IDENTIFY EVERYTHING THAT WAS THERE BEFORE THE BULLDOZERS COME IN. >> YES, SIR. >> MR. CHAIRMAN, PHASE 1 WE DID TEST TO DETERMINE THE PRESENCE. FACES 2 IS TO DETERMINE THE NATURE OF DEPOSITS IF THEY ARE POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT. PHASE 3 ARE ACTUAL EXCAVATION UNITS AND WE TAKE THOSE DOWN 10 CENTIMETERS AT A TIME AND LOOKING FOR FLOORS, FIRE PITS, HOLLINGSWORTHS THAT MIGHT HAVE BEEN STANDING AT ONE TIME SO IT'S A VERY DETAILED PROCESS AND IT'S DESIGNED TO FINE WAS IMPACTED BY THE DEVELOPMENT. >> YOU GO DOWN UNTIL YOU THINK YOU'VE FOUND EVERYTHING. >> YES, SIR AND I DIDN'T ANSWER THAT QUESTION BUT WE DIG UNTIL WE DON'T FIND ANYTHING. WHEN WE HIT STERILE SOIL THIS, SITE IS RELATIVELY SHALLOW. WE FIND LOCAL HAVING IN THE FIRST 25, 30 INCHES. SO, WHICH IS GOOD BECAUSE IT ALLOWS US TO MOVE PRETTY FAST THROUGH THE AREA TO DETERMINE HOW SIGNIFICANT IT IS BUT YES, WE DIG UNTIL WE RUN OUT OF CULTURAL DEPOSITION. >> SO, THE PHASE 3 WOULD BE JUST REALLY THE TWO LOTS THAT ARE IMPACTED THERE? >> YES AND A LITTLE BIT ON THE PAVILION WHERE THEY DROP THE PILINGS, THE PAVILIONS, THAT'S THE NATURE OF THE PAVILION WHERE THE TRAILHEAD WILL BEGIN. SO ANY PILINGS, ANYTHING IN THAT AREA WE ARE GOING TO HAVE A LOOK AT THAT WE WILL DROP A SMALLER UNIT DOWN TO RETRIEVE ANY CULTURAL DEPOSITS AND INFORMATION BEFORE IT'S IMPACTED BY DEVELOPMENT. >> YOU PROBABLY SAID AND I MISSED WHAT TRIGGERED YOUR INVOLVEMENT? IS THERE SOME REQUIREMENT THAT TRIGGERED THAT OR DID THE DEVELOPER JUST SAY I WANT TO LOOK AT THIS? >> WELL, IN THIS CASE THE DEVELOPER WAS PREEMPTIVE. THEY KNEW THAT THEY HAD TO OBTAIN CERTAIN PERMITS FROM THE ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, FROM THE ST. JOHN'S RIVER WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT AND THE DEP AND THEY HAVE ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTISTS AND PLANNERS ADVISING THEM IN THAT RESPECT AS WELL, TOO. TYPICALLY, THE STATE WILL TRIGGER THE REQUIREMENT. ONCE THE PERMITTED GUYS TO THE SHIP OHS OFFICE, THE SHIP OH [01:10:03] WILL REVIEW THE PROJECT AN MAKE A DETERMINATION IF ARCHEOLOGICAL SURVEY OR ADDITIONAL WORK IS REQUIRED. IN THIS CASE WE KNEW THE DEVELOPER KNEW THAT WAS GOING TO BE THE CASE SO RICK WOOD HIRED HERITAGE CULTURAL SERVICES EARLY ON TO GET A HEAD START ON EVERYTHING WHICH IS PROBABLY A REALLY GOOD IDEA IN LOOKING AT EVERYTHING AND HOW WE HAVE IT. IT'S IN THE HANDS OF SHIP OH. THE REPORT IS BEING REVIEWED. WE THINK WE ARE GOING TO HAVE RESULTS PRETTY SOON. THEY GENERALLY FOLLOW MY RECOMMENDATIONS BUT THEY MAY HAVE MODIFICATION OF THOSE RECOMMENDATIONS AS WELL TOO. >> SO, FROM LOOKING AT YOUR REPORT IT DIDN'T LOOK LIKE THERE WERE ACTUALLY ANY STRUCTURES, JUST OUTLINES OF STRUCTURES. SO WHEN YOU LOOK AT THAT AND ONCE YOU MAPPED OUT AND DO WA WHATEVER YOU NEED TO DO AND MAP IT, AT THAT POINT YOU'RE FILLING THE HOLE BACK IN WITH DIRT? THERE'S NO STRUCTURE OR ANYTHING TO BE PRESERVED. >> NO. ALTHOUGH WE DID FIND STRUCTURES. WE FOUND THE FLOORS OF STRUCTURES, YOU KNOW, UP IN THE CORNER OF THE ORDINANCE DEPOT MANY WE KIND OF KNOW WHAT IT IS FROM THE TYPE OF ARTIFACTS THAT WE FOUND THERE. ARE DIFFERENT CLASSIFICATION OF ARTIFACTS WHEN YOU FIND A CERTAIN NUMBER AFTER CERTAIN KIND. WE KNOW WHAT IT IS, IT WAS THE KITCHEN, IT WAS THE COMMISSARY AND THE KITCHEN. WHOEVER WAS RUNNING THE KITSCH THAN DIDN'T KNOW HOW TO HANDLE THE SERVICE WARE VERY WELL BECAUSE IT'S BROKEN ALL OVER THE PLACE SO THAT'S A GOOD THING FOR ARCHAEOLOGISTS. WE ARE ALWAYS GRATEFUL FOR THAT. >> GO AHEAD. >> SOMEWHERE I BELIEVE I READ IN THE REPORT BUT CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG THAT UNDER EXCAVATION THERE WOULD BE AN INSPECTOR OR SOME ONE TO OVERSEE THE REMOVAL AND PROCESS OF DIGGING. IN SOME OF THOSE PARTICULAR LOTS AM I CORRECT IN THAT ASSUMPTION. >> YES, SIR AND THANK YOU FOR BRINGING THAT UP. THAT'S THE LAST COMPONENT OF ARC LOBLG CALMY GONZAGA CALLED ARCHEOLOGICAL MONITORING. WE HAVE A PROFESSIONAL TEAM OF ARCHAEOLOGISTS ON SITE AND WHEN THEY'RE CUTTING ROADS OR PUTTING IN UTILITY LINES WE ARE RIGHT THERE MONITORING EVERYTHING. IF THEY HIT A CANNON OR A TABBY FLOOR OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT WE STOP THE BULLDOZERS AND MAKE A DETERMINATION OF HOW SIGNIFICANT IT IS SO IT DOESN'T CAUSE TOO MUCH PROBLEM. >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR READING THE REPORT. I KNOW IT WAS LENGTHY AND NOT VERY MANY PEOPLE WHO WOULD DO THAT. ON BEHALF OF ARCHAEOLOGISTS EVERYWHERE. >> THEY TEST US ON THIS STUFF AT THE END OF THE MEETING. >> I COMPLIMENT THE DEVELOPER FOR REACHING OUT AN DOING THIS AS WELL BECAUSE WE ARE BUILDING AND GROWING AT A PRETTY RAPID RATE HERE AND THE FIRST TIME I'VE SEEN SOMEBODY COME IN FROM AN ARCHEOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVE. WE DON'T KNOW WHAT ELSE WE ARE DIGGING UP OUT THERE. >> MR. MILLER PROBABLY ONE YOU'LL NEED TO ANSWER. THE AMENITIES WE ARE TALKING ABOUT HERE, THEY'RE JUST FOR THE RESIDENTS OF THE GATED COMMUNITY? >> YES. >> AND LIKE IN HERE TALKS ABOUT PRESERVING A CEMETERY BY PUTTING MAYBE A PICKETT FENCE AROUND IT OR SOMETHING. IS THE HOMEOWNER ASSOCIATION GOING TO BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THAT? WHO IS GOING TO BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THAT ONGOING? >> I DON'T HAVE AN ANSWER TO THAT. >> SOMEBODY MIGHT WANT TO FIND OUT BEFORE IT GETS TO THE BCC. WE DON'T WANT THE COUNTY TAKING ON MAINTENANCE RESPONSIBILITY. >> I CAN ASSURE YOU IT WILL NOT BE THE COUNTY. >> OKAY. >> IF YOU DON'T MIND AND I'M SORRY WE ARE TAKING UP SO MUCH TIME ON THIS, BUT THIS IS I'M GOING TO HAND IT OUT. IT'S A RENDERING AND OUTLINE OF WHAT THE PAVILION, THE BOARDWALK THROUGH THE HISTORICAL AREA AND THEN THE KAYAK LAUNCH AROUND ABOUT WHERE THE GARY'S -- YES. I THINK I GAVE YOU THAT. IF NOT COME BACK. IT'S ONLY A RENDERING. [01:15:04] WE ARE NOT COMMITTING TO EXACTLY THIS BUT IT GIVES YOU AN IDEA WHAT IT WOULD LOOK LIKE. AND AGAIN, ONE OF THE REASONS WE HAD TO MAKE THE APPLICATION WAS BECAUSE THIS NATURE PAVILION IT WAS QUESTIONABLE WHETHER IT WOULD BE BUILT WITHIN THE PCN. SO, IN MAKING APPLICATION FOR THIS CHANGE WE WERE SURE WE WOULD BE IN A MASTER PLAN COMMUNITY THAT WOULD ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE PAVILIONS. OH YEAH. I'M SORRY. >> THANK YOU. >> ONE OR QUESTION MR. MILLER. I'M ASSUMING THAT WITH THE HISTORICAL SITE THAT, WOULD BE ON ACCESSIBLE IF YOU'RE A RESIDENT OR IS THAT OPEN ACCESSIBLE BY THE PUBLIC OR WHAT? >> WELL I THINK THE INTENT IS TO MAKE IT AVAILABLE TO SCHOOL CHILDREN AND PEOPLE WHO MAY BE ORGANIZATIONS THAT DESIRE TO SEE IT OR IT MAY JUST BE IT'S OPEN DURING THE DAY. IT'S I THINK GOING TO BE A GATED COMMUNITY BUT OTHERWISE MANY TIMES THE GATE IS LEFT OPEN ALL DAY. I DON'T KNOW. I DON'T HAVE A GOOD ANSWER FOR THAT. SO, WE WOULD ASK THAT YOU FAVORABLY RECOMMEND THIS TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS. >> I GOT TO OPEN A PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS ONE. I'M GOING TO OPEN A PUBLIC HEARING. I DON'T HAVE ANY CARDS ON THIS. DOES ANYBODY WANT TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM? SEEING NONE, I'M GOING TO CLOSE THIS AND BRING IT BACK TO THE BOARD. I DON'T THINK WE NEED TO NECESSARILY PUT IN THE RECOMMENDATION BUT I WOULD LIKE TO CAPTURE STAFF CAN BRING IT UP OR CAPTURE IN THE MINUTES. MY BIGGEST CONCERN WITH THIS IS THAT IT LOOKS LIKE THE ARCHITECTURAL OR HISTORICAL STUFF IS PRETTY WELL COVERED BUT WE DON'T DO ANYTHING WITH THESE, I FORGET WHAT THE EXACT WORDING WAS WHERE THE RESIDENTS CAN BUILD, IS UP FOR CREATION OR STAIR OR BOARDWALK FOR LOT OWNERS TO HAVE PRIVATE ACCESS TO RIVER THAT THEY DON'T DO ANYTHING TO IMPEDE WILDLIFE, MEANING ELEVATED, WHETHER WE REQUIRE THOSE TO BE ELEVATED BUT CERTAINLY NO FENCING OF ANY TYPE, ANYTHING IN THAT BUFFER AREA. ANYTHING? IF NOT, I'M OPEN TO A MOTION. >> I MAKE A MOTION TO MOVE TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS. >> CAN I GET A SECOND? SECOND FROM MR. ANSWER LOAN. NO FURTHER DISCUSSION? YOU HAVE SOMETHING PETE? >> DID YOU WANT TO MAKE THAT PART OF THE MOTION AS FAR AS THE ELEVATED ACCESS TO THE BLACK CREEK? >> DO YOU HAVE A PROBLEM? >> I DON'T. THE IDEA OF WHO IS GOING TO MAINTAIN THE HISTORICAL SITES IN PERPETUITY, WHO HAS THAT RESPONSIBILITY, TYPICALLY YOU WOULD IMAGINE THAT KIND OF THING WOULD BE AT THE HOA LEVEL SO I DON'T KNOW IF THAT NEEDS TO BE INCLUDED. >> NO, I THINK JUST GETTING THAT YOU GUYS WILL BRING THAT UP AT SOME POINT TO THE BOARD. SO CAN YOU AMEND YOUR MOTION THAT YOU REQUIRE THE BOARD WALKS TO THE RIVER TO BE ELEVATED? >> SURE. SO I'LL AMEND THE MOTION TO MOVE THIS TO THE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS AND ADD THAT ANY BOARD WALKS BE ELEVATED BOARD WALKS. >> TO ALLOW WILDLIFE MOVEMENT. >> TO ALLOW WILDLIFE MOVEMENT AND PREVENT DAMAGE. >> WITH THAT ANYTHING ELSE? ALL IN FAVORITE OF THE MOTION STATE AYE. ANYONE OPPOSED? OKAY. >> MR. CHAIRMAN, IF I COULD ASK A QUESTION FOR CLARIFICATION, TELL INVESTIGATED BOARD WALKS, YOU'RE THINKING ABOUT, THE ONES YOU'RE THINKING ABOUT ARE THE PRIVATE BOARD WALKS THAT A LOT OWNER WOULD HAVE. >> YES, BECAUSE IT'S HARDER TO CONTROL WHAT THEY DO ONCE THEY OWN THE PROPERTY. I THINK YOU GUYS WILL BE FINE WHAT YOU'RE DOING WITH THOSE AMENITIES. THOSE LOT OWNERS NEXT THING YOU KNOW THEY'RE PUTTING A FENCE UP. WE WOULD LIKE THEM TO REMAIN A ENVIRONMENTLY FRIENDLY AS POSSIBLE ON THAT CREEK. >> YES, SIR. >> OKAY. NEXT ITEM. WHEN IS THIS GOING TO THE BOARD, THE 23RD? 23RD. [01:20:01] FRANK YOU FLOW THIS O-- KNOW THS ONE GOES TO THE BOARD ON THE [4.  Public Hearing to consider LDC 2021-10, a text amendment to the Structure Course Depth Requirement. (R. Smith)] 23RD. ITEM 4 IS THE COUNTY EVENING NEAR HERE? >>, NO SIR HE'S NOT. >> ITEM NUMBER 4 IS A PUBLIC DEVELOPMENT CODE 2021-10 A TEXT AMENDMENT TO STRUCTURE COURSE OF DEPTH REQUIREMENT. DO YOU WANT TO DO 4 AND 5 TOGETHER? WE WILL HAVE TO TAKE SEPARATE VOTES. ARE THEY RELATED ENOUGH. >> NO NO, THEY'RE SEPARATE. >> GO AHEAD, PLEASE IN THE SITING WILL GO TO BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS NOVEMBER 9 FOR THEIR DECISION. BACKGROUND IN JUNE 2018 THE BCC APPROVED AN AMENDMENT TO THE STRUCTURAL CORE STEPS FOR MINOR AND RESIDENTIAL COLLECT ORS BUT DID NOT INCREASE THE DEPARTMENTS FOR OTHER ROADS. THE PROEMD AMENDMENT WOULD INCREASE THE DEPARTMENTS OF THE OTHER AND THEY WOULD LIKE A ONE INCH LIFT IN EACH APPLICATION. THIS IS THE POLICY THAT SHOWS THE ACTUAL DEPTH AND WE'VE ADDED TWO INCHES AS WELL AS STATEMENTS ABOUT IT BEING ONE INCH, EACH ONE. AND STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED A AMENDMENTS TO SECTION 19 C 1 . . . AS SHOWN. >> ANYONE HAVE QUESTIONS FOR STAFF ON THIS ONE? >> I'VE GOT ONE QUESTION. >> MR. DAVIS. >> DOES THIS APPLY ALSO TO? I KNOW WE HAVE NEIGHBORHOODS IN CLAY COUNTY THAT ARE ON A PRIVATE ROAD. DOES THAT ALSO APPLY TO PRIVATE ROAD CONSTRUCTION? >> YES, WE REQUIRE PRIVATE ROADS TO BE BUILT TO COUNTY STANDARDS. >> IS THIS PROSPECT OF ONLY, ROADS THAT ARE NON-CONFORMING WOULD STAY THAT WAY OR DO THEY ALL HAVE TO BE BROUGHT? >> IF THERE WAS A NEED FOR THEM TO BE BROUGHT TO STANDARDS THERE WOULD BE BUT THIS WOULD BE FOR NEW ROADS GOING FORWARD IS MY UNDERSTANDING. >> THANK YOU. >> COUNTY IS THE APPLICANT ON THIS BUT I'M GOING TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. I DON'T HAVE ANY CARDS. ANYBODY WANT TO TALK ON THIS ONE? COURTNEY DO YOU HAVE SOME? [INAUDIBLE] >> I BELIEVE IT WAS ADVERTISED FOR THE NINTH. WE'LL CHECK ON THAT. >> IT WILL GO TO THE COUNTY COMMISSION ON WHATEVER THE ADVERTISED DATE WAS. OKAY. I DON'T SEE ANYONE WILL I'M GOING TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. BRING IT BACK FOR A MOTION ON THIS. >> I MAKE A MOTION TO MOVE. >> MR. ANZALONE. ALL IN FAVOR AYE. OPPOSED. [5.  Public Hearing to consider LDC 2021-11, a text amendment to the Building Permit Roadway Requirement] OKAY. NEXT ITEM IS NUMBER 5 PARX HEARING TO CONSIDER LDC 2021-11 TEXT AMENDMENT TO THE BUILDING PERMIT ROADWAY REQUIREMENT. >> I BELIEVE THIS IS ADVERTISED FOR THE NINTH. WE WILL VERIFY THAT I MAY HAVE SET IT DOWN AT THE 23RD ORIGINALLY BUT I CHANGED IT IN JUNE 2021 THE BCC APPROVED AMENDMENT CONSTRUCTION TAN ZARDES TO REQUIRE THAT ROADWAYS BE INSTALLED TO THE TOP OF SUBGRADE ELEVATION PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF RESIDENTIAL BUILDING PERMITS. WE REQUIRED THAT UTILITIES BE INSTALLED AN STORM WATER BE INSTALLED. IF YOU RECALL THAT CHANGE WE WENT THROUGH. THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT WOULD CHANGE THE REQUIREMENT TO BE ROADWAY BASED RATHER THAN SUBGRADE ROADWAY BASED IS A MORE SUITED FOR CONSTRUCTION TRAFFIC. HERE'S THE ACTUAL TEXTED FOR THE POLICY. CHANGING THAT WORD. >> I THINK YOU'RE GOING TO EXPLAIN THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN [01:25:01] SUBGRADE AND ROADWAY BASED. >> THIS IS WHERE THE ENGINEERS WOULD HELP. I BELIEVE SUBGRADE IS JUST THE LIME. >> LIME ROCK? ROCK, AND THE ROADWAY ELEVATION IS THE JAVIER COURSE ROCK THAT PROVIDES MORE STABLE COP IMPACT ROAD SURFACE. >> DO YOU KNOW? >> I SHOULD KNOW. I THINK ROADWAY BASE IS THE FIRST ONE. >> IT TENDS TO HAVE A MUCH MORE STABILIZED BASE. >> I THINK THIS WHOLE THING RESULTED ORIGINALLY THE CHANGE THAT WAS MADE PREVIOUSLY WAS BECAUSE HOUSES WERE BEING BUILT, THE ROADS WEREN'T EVEN THERE YET. WE ARE JUST TRYING TO MAKE SURE ALL THE -- SO I THINK YOU'RE RIGHT THOUGH. YOU PROBABLY NEED THAT THE COMMISSIONER WOULD WANT TO KNOW BUT I THINK THE BASE IS THE FIRST LIFT, AND -- LET ME OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. ANYBODY WANT TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM? NO? OKAY. I'M GOING TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AND BRING IT BACK FOR MOTION ON THIS ONE. >> MOTION. >> MR. ANSWERS LOBE. SECOND? SECOND FROM MR. DAVIS, ANYTHING ELSE? IF NOT I'LL CALL THERE ONE. ALL IN FAVORITE AYE. ALL OPPOSED. [6.  Public Hearing to consider LDC 2021-08, text amendments to the Multi-Story Miniwarehouse Conditional Use in the Branan Field Master Plan Activity Center (B Carson)] HEARING NONE, OKAY. WE MOVE ON TO ITEM 6. THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER TEXT AMENDMENTS TO THE MULTI-STORY MINI WAREHOUSE CONDITION AAL USE IN THE BRANAN FIELD MULTI-USE ACTIVITY CENTER. YOU HAVE THIS ONE AS WELL. >> THIS IS AMENDMENT TO AS YOU SAID BRANAN . . . WAREHOUSE TAN ZARDES THE APPLICANT IS KIMLY HORN, MARK SHELTON IS HERE WITH KIMLY HORN TO REPRESENT THEM. THIS ITEM WILL DEFINITELY GEE TO THE NOVEMBER 9TH MEETING OF THE BOARD AS WELL AS THE NOVEMBER 23RD MEETING THAT REQUIRES TWO PUBLIC HEARINGS BY THE BORE. MULTI-STORY WAREHOUSES ARE CONDITIONAL USE MANY OF OUR ZONING DISTRICTS IN THAT THEY ARE SUBJECT TO SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS THAT ARE LISTED IN SECTION 20.3.5, THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING ONLY CERTAIN STANDARDS BE APPLIED ONLY TO THE MULTI-STORY MINI WEAR HOUSE IN BRANAN FIELD ACTIVITY CENTER. THE ACTIVITY CENTER JUST TO GIVE YOU BACKGROUND THE ACTIVITY CENTERS ARE PLANNED TO INCLUDE A RANGE OF ACTIVITIES EMPLOYMENT BASED OFFICE LIGHT INDUSTRIAL COMMERCIAL SERVICE RECREATIONAL AN HOUSING AND THESE ARE INTENDED TO BE HIGH INTENSITY URBAN AREAS INTENDED TO SERVE A REGIONAL POPULATION AT 75,000. THE PROPOSED CHANGES BACK TO THE MULTI-STORY MINI WEAR HOUSES DO NOT REQUIRE DIRECT ACCESS IN YOUR MATERIAL I PROVIDED YOU WITH A COMPARISON OF THE CURRENT STANDARD UNDER 3-5 AS WELL AS WHAT THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING THE EXCEPTIONS BASICALLY DIFFERENT STANDARD. SO THE FIRST IS IT WOULD NOT REQUIRE DIRECT ACCESS TO AN ARTERIAL ROADWAY, THE MAX IMPERVIOUS SERVICE INCREASED WOULD YOU LOUD UP TO 65 PERCENT. THIS IS MORE URBAN AREA SO YOU'RE LIKELY TO HAVE MORE IMPERVIOUS SURFACES IN THIS AREA. SETBACKS, WOULD ALLOW FOR THE BRANAN FIELD SHOPPING STREET STANDARD AND TO EXPLAIN THAT, WITHIN THE SHOPPING STREET, OR COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES THAT ARE BUILT LONG THE SHOPPING STREET ARE REQUIRED TO HAVE A MINIMUM 10 FOOT LANDSCAPED AREA ON THE FRONT AND SIDES OF ALL BUILDINGS AS WELL AS A 5 FOOT SIDEWALK SO WHILE THERE ARE NOT SETBACKS PER SE IN THE BRANAN FIELD ACTIVITY CENTER, YOUR SETBACKS ARE KIND OF ESTABLISHED BY THE SHOPPING STREET STANDARD FOR LANDSCAPING AND SIDEWALK. THERE THEY WOULD BE PROCEED POETING A SIDE AND REAR SET BACK OF 20 FEET. CURRENTLY IN THE GENERAL STANDARD FOR MINI WAREHOUSE IT IS 25 FEET, 15 FOOT ON THE SIDES 20 IN THE REAR. THE CURRENT STANDARDS REQUIRE THAT IF IT IS ADJACENT TO A RESIDENTIAL, THAT THERE BE A 25 FOOT REAR SET BACK AND THEY ARE PROCEED POISE TO GO KEEP THAT [01:30:06] SAME STANDARD. LOADING ZONES THEY'RE PROPOSING TO HAVE THEM THAT THEY MAY BE ON THE REAR OR THE SIDE, CURRENTLY THE STANDARD IS REAR ONLY. THE LANDSCAPING THEY'RE PROPOSING THAT THAT BE SUBJECT TO ARTICLE VI, WHICH IS A 20 FOOT B TYPE BUFF CHER REQUIRES A 6 FOOT VISUAL BARRIER. SOME OF THAT LANGUAGE IS CURRENTLY IN THE AND THAT ALONG WITH THE SHOPPING STREET STANDARD YOU WOULD HAVE AGAIN YOUR LANDSCAPING AROUND THE BUILDING. THAT ALSO REQUIRES 30 FOOT TREE PLANTING ON THE FRONT AND SIDES. THE CURRENT STANDARD IS 50 FOOT VEGETATIVE BUFFERS ON THE FRONT AND REAR OF THE PROPERTIES AS WELL AS A 30-FOOT ON SIDE SO WHEN YOU'RE LOOKING AT A MORE URBANIZED ENVIRONMENT THESE BUILDINGS WHICH TEND TO LOOK MORE LIKE AN OFFICE BUILDING, THEY ARE ALSO SUBJECT TO ARCHITECTURAL STANDARDS. OUR CURRENT STANDARD WOULD HAVE THEM PUSHED WAY BACK OFF THE STREET AS WELL AS THESE LARGE BUFFERS MANY OPEN STORAGE AREAS WOULD BE PERMITTED WIN THE FENCED AREA THAT'S 100 PERCENT OPAQUE. CURRENTLY IT'S A 50 FOOT SET BACK. THESE WOULD BE ALLOWED TO BE UP TO THE PROPERTY LINE BASICALLY UP TO THE BUFF THERE IS REQUIRED. AND WE HAD SOME CHANGES THAT I'VE HANDED OUT TO YOU, SOME MINOR LANGUAGE CHANGES WE NEEDED TO CLARIFY. THESE CHANGES THAT ARE BEING PROPOSED BY KIMLY HORN WOULD ONLY APPLY TO MINI WAREHOUSES THAT ARE PROPOSED IN THE BRANAN FIELD ACTIVITY CENTER NOT ANY OTHER PARTS OF THE COUNTY AND THERE WAS JUST SOME CLARG FIGHTING LANGUAGE THAT WAS NEEDED IN THE ORDINANCE. THERE WAS A QUESTION ABOUT THE HATE STANDARD AND CLAUSE LEFT OFF IN YOUR ORDINANCE THAT THE HIGHLIGHTED ON THE SECOND PAGE PROVIDED TO YOU. STAFF REPRESENTS APPROVAL OF THESE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS AND WOULD BE HAPPY TO ANSWER QUESTIONS IS AGAIN THE APPLICANT IS HERE AS WELL. >> QUESTIONS. MR. DAVIS. >> IF WE TAKE THESE OFF OF ACCESS TO ARTERIAL ROADWAY WAS, TYPES OF ROADWAY WOULD THEY BE ACCESSED FROM? >> TYPICALLY, THEY WOULD BE A ROADWAY THAT'S GOING TO ACCESS AN ARTERIAL OR COLLECTOR. THE ACTIVITY CENTER IS, I HAVE A MAP. ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH THE LOCATION OF THE ACTIVITY CENTERS? >> I AM NOT ENOUGH BUT. >> I HAVE A MAP TO SHOW YOU OF THAT. THIS IS THE BRANAN FIELD ACTIVITY CENTER. KIND OF THE ANGLE BI-SECTING THAT PINK AREA IS BLANDING. THE RIGHT PINK IS YOUR ACTIVITY CENTER. THERE'S ONE AT BLANDING AN FIRST COAST EXPRESS WAY AN THERE'S A SECOND ONE LOCATED UP BY KENDALLWOOD STRAIGHTER FURTHER UP NORTH. THERE IS CURRENTLY NO DEVELOPMENT IN THE KENDALLWOOD AT THIS TIME BUT THE BRANAN FIELD DEVELOPING. BLANDING IS ARTERIAL AND EXPRESS WAY LIMITED HIGHWAY SO YOU'VE GOT A LET OF MAJOR ROADS JENNINGS IN THIS AREA IT'S A COLLECTOR SO MANY OF THESE ROADS ARE COLLECTOR OR GREATER THAT THEY HAVE ACCESS TO. >> WHAT TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION WOULD BE IN AN ACTIVITY CENTER. >> YOU WOULD HAVE YOUR COMMERCIAL INDUSTRIAL. >> MOSTLY NON-RESIDENTIAL. >> MOSTLY UP TO 15 PERCENT OF THE ACTIVITIES CENTER CAN BE MULTI-FAMILY. >> MISS BRIDGMAN. >> WOULD YOU REPEAT WAS, COLOR ARE THE ACTIVITY CENTERS? >> THE ACTIVITY CENTERS KIND OF PINK PURPLISH. >> THAT ONE. THANK YOU. >> OKAY, ANYTHING ELSE? WE CAN HEAR FROM THE APPLICANT. >> GOOD EVENING, MY NAME IS MARK SHELTON CERTIFIED PLANNER KIMLY [01:35:04] ASSOCIATION MY ADDRESS IS [ADDRESS] JACKSONVILLE, FLORIDA. I START OFF THANKING STAFF FIVE MONTHS OF HARD WORK ON THIS AND THANK YOU FOR YOUR PATIENCE AND YOUR TIME TONIGHT. I KNOW YOU GUYS HAVE A HARD JOB AND ARE HERE TO LATE HOURS. I APPRECIATE THAT. WE CONCUR WITH THERE REPORT. SHE'S DONE A GREAT JOB. HER STAFF HAS HELPED DRAFT THIS LANGUAGE WHICH BRINGS STANDARD TO THE ACTIVITY CENTER FOR MINI STORAGE. WE BELIEVE THE NEW LANGUAGE IN THE OVERLAY WILL PROVIDE THE NEXT BUILT NIGHTED IN MIXED USE AREA FOR THIS TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT WHILE INSURING THE ARCHITECTURAL AN DESIGN STANDARD ARE PRESERVED AND THE ORIGINAL INTENT IS STILL GOING TO BE THERE. WE HAD NO PROBLEMS AGREEING TO THE HEIGHT REQUIREMENTS THAT ARE THERE RIGHT NOW, THAT WAS SCRIVNERS ERROR, MY APOLOGIES AND I THANK YOU AGAIN AN STAND BY FOR ANY QUESTIONS YOU HAVE. ANY QUESTIONS? >> I HAVE A COUPLE. THE FIRST ONE, I DON'T REALLY HAVE A GOOD REFERENCE FOR THIS. WHERE THE COMPARISON IS. DO YOU HAVE THE SAME DOCUMENT? >> YES, SIR. >> FOR OFF STREET PARKING ON THE FIRST ONE, IT SAYS PARKING WILL BE TO THE REAR SIDE OF THE BUILDING BEHIND THE FRONT FACADE WITH THE SCREEN WALLET SET A BUT THAT'S GOING TO BE CHANGED TO PARKING SHALL BE HIM TO IT THE SIDE AND REAR OF THE BUILDING. I'M NOT SURE I UNDERSTAND THOSE TWO. EITHER ONE OF YOU CAN ANSWER. >> MUCH OF THE BRANAN FIELD AREA PARKING IS REQUIRED TO IS SIDE OR REAR. WHEN IT'S TO THE SIDE THERE'S SUPPOSED TO BE A WALL OR 42 INCH SHRUB LINE TO SHIELD THAT THIS MULTI-STORY MINI WAREHOUSE IS REQUIRED TO SECURE THE SITE WITH A FENCE THAT WOULD BASICALLY SURROUND THE SITE SO THAT WOULD IN EFFECT TAKE THE PLACE OF THAT 42 INCH WALL OR SHRUB. BECAUSE IT WOULD HAVE A FENCE GOING AROUND THE ENTIRE PERIMETER. >> AND WE DEFINE SIDE AS THE AREA BEHIND THE PROJECTION OF THE FRONT OF THE BUILDING, LIKE THE FRONT OF BUILDING, THAT LINE CONTINUES AND HAS TO BE BEHIND THAT LINE. >> CORRECT. >> OKAY. THE OTHER ONE I SAW IN HERE THAT WAS A BIT LITTLE CONCERNING WAS ON THE SECOND PAGE AND IT'S A ROMAN NUMERAL XII AND IT'S ITEM M COMPARISON . . . PROVIDING THE STORAGE AREA IS INCLUDED IN THE REQUIRED FENCE AREA WITH CAPACITY OF 100 PERCENT. PREVIOUSLY WE HAD THAT SET AT 50 FEET. MY CONCERN WITH THIS ONE IS THE FENCING AND IT'S SOMEWHERE ELSE I HAVE TO GO FIND IT BUT I THINK THAT WAS 6 FOOT HIGH, THE OH PACETY. IF YOU'RE PARKING AN RV 50 FEET BEHIND IT I'M STANDING THERE LOOKING I DON'T SEE THE RV. IF YOU'VE GOT AN RV WHICH A LOT OF THEM ARE 12 FEET TALL, I STILL SEE 6 FEET OF THAT RV ABOVE THAT WALL THAT THE SEEMS TO KIND OF NEGATE WHAT WE ARE TRYING TO DO BY PUSHING THIS STUFF BACK OUT BEHALF IS KIND OF OUR SIGHT LINES. ANY COMMENTS ON THAT ONE. >> YES, SIR. FIRST OF ALL WE HAVE A 20 FOOT BUFFER WITH LANDSCAPING WITH 100 PERCENT OPACITY. THE REASON THEY HAD 50 BECAUSE WAITS MORE A RURAL TEXT IT WAS MEANT FOR RURAL AREAS OF THE THIS IS BEHIND A HOME DEPOT BEHIND THE LOWE'S RIGHT NEXT TO 3-4 STORY HOTEL SO IT'S NOT SUITABLE FOR SINGLE FAMILY HOMES RIGHT NEXT TO IT. LIKE I SAID THIS IS AN AREA OF MIXED USE BUT THIS DOES HAVE THAT BUFFER AND WE FELT THAT SIX FOOT 1100 % OH PACETY WOULD BE SUFFICIENT WITH THAT 20 FOOT REQUIREMENT INSTEAD OF THE 50. >> YOU'RE SAYING IF THE FRONT IS HERE IT'S 20 FEET OF SIX FOOT HOW OH PACETY? SO IS THAT THE 20-B BUFFER IS [01:40:05] WHAT WE ARE -- BECAUSE IF THAT'S THE CASE YOU KNOW YOU'VE GOT TOES RV'S PUSHED 20 FEET BACK FROM INQUIRY CAN STAND AND LOOK AT THEM. THAT'S KIND OF MY THING. IF IT'S JUST A SIX FOOT WALL I'M LOOKING AT THE TOP HALF OF THOSE RV'S PLUS ANY OUTDOOR STORAGE YOU MIGHT HAVE. >> SO IT IS A 20-FOOT GAP. YOU WOULD HAVE YOUR SIX-FOOT ISSUE IS WAL BARRIER BUT YOU HAVE TREE PLANNING AN IT WOULD BE EVERGREEN CANOPY PLANTING 30 FOOT ON CENTER SO YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE SOME HIGHER LEVEL VISUAL BARRIER. >> THAT WOULD BE ON THE OUTSIDE OF THE FENCE AREA, NOT ON THE INSIDE OF THE FENCED AREA. OR THAT BARRIER WON'T COME UP AGAINST AN AREA WHERE AS RALPH IS DESCRIBING IF YOU BACK AN RV INTO THAT, THAT IT WOULD BE MORE VISIBLE. >> YES. >> FOR THAT HEIGHT. SO THE FENCE WOULD BE HERE 20 FEET BEYOND THAT FEBRUARYS WOULD BE THE NATURAL BUFFER THAT WOULD HOPEFULLY START TO CLOSE OFF SOME MORE OF THAT VISUAL. >> THAT'S CORRECT. THEY COULD DO THE TREE PLANTING ON EITHER SIDE OF THE FENCE, BUT WE ARE KIND OF LEARNING HOW THESE THINGS WORK A LITTLE BIT THAT THE TREES NEED TO BE ON THE BACK SIDE TO PROTECT THEM IN PART SO THAT VEHICLES DON'T BACK INTO THEM, WHEEL BASES ON BOATS AN RV'S ARE A LOT LONGER, YOU KNOW, AND A NORMAL PARKING SPACE THEY CAN OVERHANG QUITE A BIT AND BACK INTO FENCES AND TREES SO WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT'S ALL ADDRESSED AND PROTECTED. >> I THINK THAT'S GOOD. WE LOOKED AT THAT MONTHS AND MONTHS AGO WHERE WE WERE LOOKING TO GET WHERE THE PUBLIX IS OVER IN HIBERNIA, SOME OF THAT OPAQUENESS CLEARED OUT BECAUSE OF THE LACK OF VISIBILITY OF THE ACTUAL BUILDING AND THE BIZ. SO THAT WOULD CERTAINLY MAKE SENSE TO ME. >> OKAY. THAT WAS JUST MY QUESTION ON THAT. I'M GOING TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. ANYONE WANT TO SPEAK ON THIS ONE? OKAY. SEEING NO ONE, I'M GOING TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND BRING IT BACK FOR MOTION. MR. NORTON, ANYONE WANT TO SECOND THAT? >> I'LL SECOND IT. >> MR. GARRISON SECOND. ANY DISCUSSION? SEEING NONE, ALL IN FAVOR STATE AYE. OPPOSED? OKAY. THANK YOU, SIR. >> NUMBER 7 PUBLIC HEARING TO [7.  Public Hearing to Consider LDC 21-13: Text Change to LDC to add Solar Facility as a Permited Use in Agriculture Zonign District. M.Brown, Zoning Chief] CONSIDERING LDC 2021-13 TEXT CHANGE TO ADD . . . AS PERMITTED AGRICULTURAL ZONING DISTRICT. MR. BROWN YOU HAVE THIS ONE. I BELIEVE WE ARE SIMPLY UNDOING WHAT WE DID. >> WELL, AGAIN THE APPLICANT IS CLAY COUNTY PLANNING AND ZONING DIVISION. AND AS YOU INDICATED MR. CHAIRMAN, SECTION 312 LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE TO ADD SOLAR FACILITIES PERMITTED USE IN THE AGRICULTURAL ZONING DISTRICT AND REMOVE SOLAR FARMS AS A CONDITIONAL USE IN THE AGRICULTURAL ZONING DISTRICT. FIRST READING, ON THE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS WILL BE NOVEMBER 9TH AND THE SECOND READING LOVE NOVEMBER 23RD. THIS IS THE REASON WE ARE ADDRESSING THIS IS IT'S ADOPTED AND GOVERNOR SIGNED INTO LAW ON JULY 1ST SECTION 163-3205 OF FLORIDA STATUTES, TITLED SOLAR FACILITY APPROVAL PROCESS WHICH HER -- PERMITTED, WHICH STATES THAT SOLAR FACILITIES SHALL BE PERMITTED IN ALL AGRICULTURAL ZONING DISTRICTS. AND ALLOWS THAT SETBACKS AN LANDSCAPE OF BUFFERS FOR THOSE FACILITIES AS LOCK AS IT'S CONSISTENT WITH OTHER LIKE FACILITIES IN THOSE AGRICULTURAL DISTRICTS. SO IT'S REALLY THE STATE LEGISLATURE ADOPTED THIS RULE AS WE WERE TRYING TO COME IN COMPLIANCE WITH THOSE RULES. [01:45:08] AND SO, SPECIFICALLY THE PROPOSED CHANGES WILL INCLUDE SOLAR FACILITY AS A LISTED PERMITTED USE IN THE AGRICULTURAL ZONING DISTRICT AND DELETE SOLAR FARM AS A LISTED CONDITIONAL USE IN THE AGRICULTURAL ZONING DRINK OF THE TODAY THAT'S HOW OUR CODE READ WILL SOLAR FACILITIES ARE CONDITIONAL USE IN AG AND SO THIS IS JUST DROPPING IT FROM THAT AND ADDING IT AS A PERMITTED USE. THAT'S JUST THE WORDING THAT IS BEING PROPOSED AND READ. WE HAVE INCLUDED AND CARRIED FORWARD THE SET BACK AND BUFFING REQUIREMENTS THAT ARE IN THE CODE TODAY FOR CONDITIONAL USE OF SOLAR FACILITIES SO THAT IS STAYING THE SAME. AND THEN AS I INDICATED, WE ARE DROPPING IT AS A CONDITIONAL USE BECAUSE IT IS BEING ADDED AS A PERMITTED USE. MENDING SECTION . . . AND REMOVING SOLAR FARMS FROM THE LIST OF CONDITIONAL USES IN SECTION 312 IS THE REASON IS TO BRING THE LKDC IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE LEGISLATION, STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF LDC CHANGE 2021-13 AS PROPOSED. ANY QUESTIONS OF STAFF AT THIS POINT. >> IF THIS WERE TO PASS, THEY COULD OUT SOLAR WITHOUT ANY OTHER REQUIREMENTS. >> OUTSIDE OF THE SET BACK. >> OTHER THAN. >> YEAH. >> MR. DAVIS. >> MY CONCERN IS WE HAVE GOT AN AWFUL LOT OF AG LAND BEING CONVERTED TO RESIDENTIAL ALL OVER THE COUNTY. I DON'T KNOW HOW MUCH WE'VE GOT LEFT BUT IF MR. JONES TAKES HIS 200 ACRES AN PLOPS IT DOWN IN THE MIDDLE OF THE AG AREA WITH 25-FOOT SETBACK A SOLAR FARM AND THE NEIGHBOR WANTS TO PUT IN RESIDENTIAL AREA THE HUNDRED FOOT SET BACK FOR NEXT YEAR RESIDENTIAL AREA IS ON ONE SIDE OF IT BUT 25 FOOT ON THE OTHER SIDE. >> THE SET BACK REQUIREMENTS WOULD COME INTO PLAY IF THERE WAS AN EXISTING RESIDENTIAL ZONE PROPERTY. SO, IF SOMEONE CAME IN IN THE MIDDLE OF AN AGRICULTURAL AND HAD AGRICULTURAL ZONE AROUND IT, IT WOULD ONLY BE 25 FOOT. IF SOMEONE CAME IN WITH AGRICULTURAL LAND TO DO -- >> I UNDERSTAND. I THINK MY CONCERN IS THERE'S AROUND THE NEIGHBORS AS FAR AS I GUESS ADVERSELY AFFECTING THEIR ABILITY TO DEVELOP THEIR PIECE OF PROPERTY TO FULLEST EXTENT WE WOULD ALLOW TO A RESIDENTIAL AREA BECAUSE 25 FEET VS. A HUNDRED FEET THAT'S A SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE AND BEING RIGHT NEXT TO A SOLAR FARM I'M NOT SURE I'D WANT TO BUILD A HOUSE RIGHT NEXT TO ONE 25 FEET FROM THE PROPERTY LINE. >> YOU COME IN AFTER THAT SOLAR FARM, IT'S TRUE. YES. >> MR. GRAHAM, DO YOU WANT TO COME IN ON THIS? I SEE YOU MOVED INTO POSITION. THIS IS THE DIRECTIVE FROM TALLAHASSEE. >> I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE EVERYBODY UNDERSTANDS IT'S ZACH FORLY REQUIRED SO WHAT WE'VE DONE IS IN CONNECTION WITH THE SETBACKS THAT ARE PROVIDED IS WHAT THE STATUTE PROVIDES IS THAT OUR BUFFER REQUIREMENTS, THEY MAY NOT EXCEED THE REQUIREMENT FOR SIMILAR USES IN THAT AREA. SO, IF YOU WANTED TO CHANGE THEM YOU WOULD NEED TO CHANGE IT IN THE OTHER AREAS SO WE WOULD HAVE THEM MATCH UP. THESE ARE WHAT ARE REQUIRED FOR SIMILAR USES. >> I DON'T KNOW WHAT OTHER TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT YOU WANT TO PUT ON SOMETHING THAT REQUIRES A SIMILAR BUFFER BUT IF YOU'VE [01:50:01] SEEN A SOLAR FARM, I DON'T THINK YOU'VE SEEN ANYTHING LIKE IT. IT'S QUITE A DISPLAY NOT BUT A HUNDRED ACRES OF MIRRORS. I AGREE TO THAT POINT. MY CONCERN IS TO THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY OWNERS AS FAR AS THAT MEANS IF IT'S GOING TO MAINTAIN A HUNDRED FOOT BUFFER THEY'VE GOT TO MAKE UP THE OTHER 75 FEET OPEN THEIR SIDE. THAT'S JUST. >> NO WE HAVE THE SALE CONCERN. STAT FORLY WE ARE STRAPPED. >> WHY DO WE HAVE TO LOOK AT IT? >> OUR CODE WAS AMENDED TO PROHIBIT HELP IN AG. >> PROHIBITED OR CONDITIONAL USE. >> I THINK WE PRIBTD IT UNLESS WERE YOU IN THE PROCESS AND WE PRIBTED IT SO WE HAD TO DELETE THAT REQUIREMENT AND ALLOW FOR IT IN AG AND WHAT WE WERE TRYING TO DO IS THE STATUTE DID ALLOW US TO SPECIFY CERTAIN BUFFER AND LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENTS AS LONG AS IT'S CONSISTENT. >> THE ONE YOU'RE THINKING OF IS FLORIDA POWER AN LIGHT CAME IN AND WE PUT THAT LARGE SOLAR FACILITY DOWN THERE WEST OF 17 SOUTH THE GREEN COAST DOWN THERE. PAFTER THAT I THINK THER SOME CONCERN AND WE CHANGED THE DIRECTION OF COUNTY COMMISSION. THEY WANTED TO MAKE IT MORE DIFFICULT TO PUT SOLAR FARMS IN IN THE FUTURE BUT I THINK THE LOBBYIST IN TALLAHASSEE DECIDED TO PREEMPT THEM IS WHAT IT AT TO. >> GOOD OLD HOME RULE. >> GOOD OLD HOME RULE. RIGHT. >> SMALLER GOVERNMENT. >> SMALL GOVERNMENT. SO WHAT YOU'RE SAYING COURTNEY AT SOME POINT IF WE WANTED TO LOOK AT SIMILAR, COULD WE AMEND THESE SETBACKS AS WE DID IT FOR EVERYTHING THAT'S SIMILAR? >> RIGHT. >> AT SOME POINT IN OKAY. BUT NOT RIGHT NOW. WE HAVE TO GO WITH THIS. WE ARE NOT GOING BECAUSE WE DON'T KNOW WHAT SIMILAR FACILITIES WOULD BE. >> RIGHT. >> THAT WOULD TAKE SOME TIME TO RESEARCH THAT SEE WHAT THAT WOULD BE. LET ME OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS ONE. ANYONE WANT TO TALK ABOUT TISSUE WITH THE SOLAR FARMS? SEEING NONE, I'M GOING TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND BRING IT BACK FOR MOTION. >> WE NEED A MOTION FOR THIS? >> SO MR. ABZ -- AND MS. BRIDGMAN. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR AYE? OPPOSED? >> NO. >> MR. DAVIS AND MR. GARRISON VOTE IN THE NEGATIVE. >> ALL RIGHT. >> IN REVIEWING THE STAFF REPORT [8.  Public Hearing to Consider Z-21-12: Rezone Single Parcel of Land from RB to AR. (Comm. Burke, District 5). (M.Brown)] [01:55:11] THAT WAS WRITTEN FOR THE 2014 REZONING AT THE TIME IT WAS BELIEVED THE PARCEL ONLY HAD FRONT DAMAGE ON BRICKYARD ROAD. THE ZONING DISTRICT REQUIRES A MINIMUM OF HUNDRED FOOT ZONING. THEREFORE, AT THE TIME THEY CAME IN TO REZONE SO THEY COULD MAKE THE PARCEL DEVELOPABLE. A SURVEY HAS BEEN SUBMITTED WITH THE APPLICATION ALONG WITH THE A LEGAL DESCRIPTION INDICATE THERE IS ACTUALLY 100 FOOT OF FRONT DAMAGE FOR THIS PARCEL ON BRICKYARD ROAD THAT MEET THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS FOR THE AR ZONING DISTRICT. THE APPLICANT HAS REQUESTED TO GO BACK TO THE A.R. ZONING DISTRICT OF THE HERE IS A MAP SHOWING THE EXISTING ZONING A.R. TO THE EAST AND WEST AND PARTIALLY ACROSS THE STREET BRICKYARD. TO THE REAR IS A RESIDENTIAL PUD. SURROUNDING LAND USE IS ALL URBAN CORE. THERE IS AN AERIAL OF THE PARCEL. THE APPLICANT ACTUALLY OWNS THE PARCEL DIRECTLY TO THE WEST. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A CHANGE ARE R.B. TO A.R., THE PROPOSED A.R. ZONING DISTRICT IS CONSISTENT WITH ADOPTED FUTURE LAND USE CATEGORY OF URBAN CORE. THE A.R. ZONING DISTRICT IS COMPATIBLE WITH THE SURROUNDING ZONING AND FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION. STAFF HAS REVIEWED THE APPLICATION AND DETERMINED THAT THE REQUEST IS CONSISTENT WITH THE GOALS OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES OF THE COMP PLAN AND IS CAPABLE WITH THE SURROUNDING ZONING AN FUTURE LAND USE. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS APPROVAL OF Z 2021-12. QUESTIONS OF STAFF. >> QUESTIONS? IS THE APPLICANT HERE? YES, SIR. COME ON UP. WE ARE GOING TO ASK YOU TO COME SIT HERE SO WE CAN HEAR YOU. THANKS FOR BEING PATIENT. >> NOT A PROBLEM. I CAN TELL YOU KID GROWING UP UP CABLE TELEVISION LIKE CSPAN. CHRIS [NAME] [ADDRESS]. >> ANYTHING YOU WANT TO COMMENT ON THIS? EVERY HOUSE ON THE ROAD IS AGRICULTURAL. NOT SURE WHY THE GENTLEMAN SWITCHED IT. I GOT AN 11-YEAR-OLD DAUGHTER, I GOT A COUPLE GOATS I'M TRYING TO GET APPROVED. >> I ACTUALLY WAS HERE WHEN WE DID THIS CHANGE AND I REMEMBER IT HAD TO DO STRICTLY WITH THAT FRONT DAMAGE AND THEY HAD TO MAKE IT A BUILDABLE LOT. APPARENTLY THE OLD SURVEY WAS WRONG. I MEAN IT PROBABLY NEVER SHOULD HAVE BEEN CHANGE IS UP FOR YOU HAD A BAD SURVEY. >> WHEN I FIRST BOUGHT THE PROPERTY I INQUIRED WHY DID YOU DO IT, THEY SAID I GUESS SO COULD YOU BUILD A BIGGER HOUSE. >> HE WANTED TO BUILD AND YOU COULDN'T BUILD WITH A.R. BECAUSE OF THE PROBLEM WITH THE FRONT DAMAGE SO IT MUST HAVE BEEN A BAD SURVEY. ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? NO? THANK YOU. LET ME OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING? ANYBODY WANT TO SPEAK ON THIS ONE? OKAY. BRING BACK FOR MOTION. >> MOTION TO APPROVE. >> SECOND. >> MR. ANZALONE MR. GARRISON. ANY DISCUSSION, SEEING NONE, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR AYE? OPPOSED? I THINK THIS ONE GOES TO THE 23RD. >> KELLY JUST POINTED OUT TO ME IT'S GOING TO GO TO THE NINTH. >> SO THE BCC WILL BE LOOKING AT THIS ONE NEXT WEEK. ONE WEEK. THE MEETING STARTS AT 4:00 AND THEY GET TO IT UNFORTUNATELY WHEN THEY DO. >> THESE ARE TIME CERTAIN FOR 5:00. OR SOON THERE AFTER. [02:00:01] >> OKAY. VERY GOOD. [9.  Public Hearing to Consider Z-21-10: Rezone 24.8 Acres from BB to BB-2. (Comm. Burke, District 5) (M.Brown)] ALL RIGHT. ITEM 9. THIS IS A PUBLIC TO CONSIDER V-216-10 . . . >> THE APPLICANT IS SUNCOAST PROPERTIES OF JACKSONVILLE. AS YOU INDICATED THIS IS A ZONING CHANGE OF 24-PLUS ACRES FROM B G TROOELT BUSINESS TO BB 2 COMMUNITY PROCESS BUSINESS PROPERTY LOCATED AT . . . AND COMMISSION DISTRICT 5. THIS IS GOING TO THE 23RD. JUST THE BACKGROUND ON THIS, THE ENTIRE PARCEL THAT THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED ON IS 53.6 ACRES BUT IT HAS SPLIT ZONING. THE REQUEST IS TO REZONE 24.8 ACRES OF THE PARCEL THAT IS PRESENTLY ZONED BB. THE REMAINDER OF THE PROPERTY IS PUD. THE 24 ACRES HAS FRONT DAMAGE ON PLANNING BOULEVARD, APPROXIMATELY 1750 FEET OF FOOTAGE. THE PROPOSED BB 2 ZONING IS LESS INTENSIVE COMMERCIAL THAN THE EXISTING BB. THE STATED PURPOSE IS TO FACILITATE THE DEVELOPMENT OF RECREATIONAL VEHICLE AN BOAT STAR FACILITY ON THE SITE AND WOULD ONLY BE ALLOWED WITHIN THAT 24.4 ACRES. REMINDER THE RECREATIONAL BOTH STORAGE IS A CONDITIONAL USE IN THE BB 2 ZONING DISTRICT. HERE IS A PICTURE OF THE ZONING. YOU CAN SEE THE SURROUNDING ZONINGS, FUTURE LAND USE IS COMMERCIAL FOR THIS SITE AND IS ALSO COMMERCIAL TO THE EAST WEST AND NORTH. WITH URBAN CORE TO THE SOUTH. HERE'S AN AERIAL OF THE SITE WITH THE 24.4 ACRES HIGHLIGHTED IN THE RED HATCH. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A CHANGE IN ZONING FROM BB TO BB 2 FOR 24.48 ACRES PROPOSED FUTURE LAND USE CATEGORY OF THE PROPERTY WHICH IS COMMERCIAL. BB 2 IS CAPABLE WITH THE SURROUNDING ZONING AN FUTURE LAND IT'S DESIGNATION. STAFF HAS REVIEWED THE APPLICATION AND DETERMINED THAT THE REQUEST IS CONSISTENT WITH THE GOALS OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND IS COMPATIBLE WITH THE SURROUNDING ZONING AN FUTURE LAND USE, STAFF REPRESENTS APPROVAL OF APPLICATION Z-21-10. >> WOULD YOU GO BACK ONE SLIDE? I WANT TO CLARIFY WE ARE TALKING ABOUT THE PORTION IN THE GRAY THE HATCHED PORTION. >> YES. >> THE RED. >> NOT THE PUD. IT'S THE OTHER HALF BASICALLY OF THE PROPERTY. IT'S NOT SUBJECT TO THIS REZONING REQUEST. ONLY IN THE RED HATCHED. >> IT'S THAT'S PUD EVEN THOUGH IT'S UNDEVELOPED DO THE BUFFER REQUIREMENT ON THE BB APPLY? BECAUSE THAT'S CONSIDERED RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY. >> IF IT, WHATEVER THE PUD IS IDENTIFIED FOR, THE SET BACK REQUIREMENT WOULD APPLY. BUFF ERRING REQUIREMENTS. >> EVEN THOUGH IT'S NOT DEVELOPED. >> RIGHT. >> THAT WAS MY QUESTION. >> IT'S LIKE 25 FEET. >> TO BE ONNETS I'M NOT SURE IF THE PUD, I BELIEVE THE PUD FOR THIS PROPERTY IS AN EXTENSION OF ALL THAT PUD WHICH WOULD BE RESIDENTIAL, BUT I CANNOT SIT HERE AND SAY THAT'S FOR SURE BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW IF IF IT'S PUD OR WAS DONE IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE OTHER. THAT SECTION OF THE PARCEL IS FAIRLY WET. DOESN'T PREVENT DEVELOPMENT BUT I KNOW IT'S FAIRLY WET. >> YOU MIGHT WANT TO TRY TO FIND THE ANSWER TO THAT BECAUSE I [02:05:05] HAVE A FEELING COMMISSIONERS ARE GOING TO ASK THAT QUESTION. >> MR. CHAIRMAN I'M CONCERNED WITH THE PUD WHETHER IT'S DEVELOPED OPACITY FOR THE BUFFER BECAUSE IF THEY'RE GOING TO ULTIMATELY IN THE FUTURE DEVELOP THAT I'D BE CONCERNED ABOUT THE WAY IT'S LOOKING FROM THE BACK SIDE. DO YOU HAVE ANY IDEA WHAT THE PLANNED INGRESS' REGRETS IS GOING TO BE? THAT'S A PRETTY ACTIVE CORNER. HIGH SCHOOL IS NOT FAR FROM THERE. BUSES ARE COMING IN AND OUT DIFFERENT TIMES OF THE DAY. >> I DO NOT THIS POINT. ANY DEVELOPMENT WOULD HAVE TO GO THROUGH DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE AN AGAIN ALTHOUGH I KNOW WHAT THE APPLICANT HAS INDICATED HIS DESIRE IS ONCE IT'S CHANGE TO BB 2 ANYTHING ALLOWED IN BB 2 COULD BE LOCATED THERE WILL THAT'S WHY DCC REVIEWS THOSE TYPES OF THINGS. >> I'M FAMILIAR WITH THE PROPERTY. I KNOW IT'S CLOSE TO THAT INTERSECTION. >> IT'S BEEN CLEARED OR THIS PORTION OF IT HAS BEEN CLEARED. >> WAIT A MINUTE. I KNOW THAT MR. GARRISON BROUGHT THIS UP BEFORE WE WERE TALKING ABOUT A STORAGE LOT. IS THERE ANY SCREENING REQUIREMENT ON THE ROAD SIDE FOR THESE IF IT'S AN RV LOT OR IS IT JUST WHATEVER SCREENING BB 2 REQUIRES? >> THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE DOES HAVE FOR CONDITIONAL USE OF RV BOAT STORES THERE ARE SETBACKS AND BUFFING REQUIREMENTS. I DON'T HAVE THEM OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD. I TRIED TO REMEMBER TO INCLUDE THOSE AND I DIDN'T IN THE PRESENTATION. BUT THERE ARE REQUIREMENTS FOR BUFFING AND SETBACKS WHICH THEY COME UNDER CONDITIONAL USE WOULD HAVE TO BE MET. >> THERE ARE TREE HAND LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENT. >> THE APPLICANT, IS THE APPLICANT PRESENT? YES, SIR. COME ON UP. GIVE US YOUR NAME AN ADDRESS AND ANY INFORMATION THAT YOU WOULD LIKE TO SHARE WITH US. >> MY NAME IS FREDDIE HASSEN. I LIVE AT 8003 JAILTS ISLAND TRAIL, JACKSONVILLE, FLORIDA AND I OWN THE REFERENCE PROPERTY THAT WE ARE TRYING TO DEVELOP INTO AN RV AND BOAT STORAGE. WE ARE TALKING ABOUT 24 ACRES HERE BUT ACTUALLY EYE GOING TO BE WAY LESS THAN THAT. THE 250 FEET FOR BLANDING BACK IS THE PROPERTY THAT WE ARE USING. THE OTHER COMMERCIAL PROPERTY THAT IS ZONED COMMERCIAL THAT WE ARE TRYING TO CHANGE IS WET ANYWAY. WE CAN'T BUILD ON IT. AND WE CAN'T MITIGATE ANY MORE THAN WE HAVE. AD THE IRONIC THING IS ACROSS THE STREET WE ARE BUILDING AN RV DEALERSHIP. WHICH HAS BEEN PERMITTED. IT'S BEEN TALKED ABOUT FOR FOUR YEARS AND WE FINALLY GOT AROUND TO IT. SO, I DON'T REALLY YOU KNOW SEE A PROBLEM BECAUSE WE ARE GOING TO SUBMIT PLANS. WE ARE GOING TO DO WHATEVER WE HAVE TO DO AND IT'S NOT A 24 ACRE PROJECT. ANY QUESTIONS? >> OKAY, THANK YOU SIR. >> YES, SIR. THANK YOU. PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS ONE. ANYBODY WANT TO SEE ON THIS ONE? YES, MA'AM. YOU GOT TO COME UP TO BE ON THE MIC. I DON'T HAVE A CARD ON YOU. IF YOU WOULD STATE YOUR NAME A DRESS. >> MY NAME IS NORMAL GARNELL, 1273 INDEPENDENCE DRIVE, ORANGE PARK, FLORIDA. I LIVE ON THE FIFTH HOUSE LOCATED ON INDEPENDENCE. OUR CONCERN BECAUSE WE LIVE THERE, WE HAVE ANIMALS, WILD ANIMALS AN WITH THE CONSTRUCTION [02:10:01] THE ANIMALS GET SO WILD LIKE TWO MONTHS AGO WE SEE A DEER RUNNING ON THE STREET. SO MY QUESTION IS WHAT IS THE PUD MEANS? >> ALL RIGHT. THIS REALLY ISN'T QUESTION AND ANSWER BUT I'M GOING TO ANSWER THIS ONE FOR YOU. IT'S PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT AND IT'S THE SAME AS YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD. IN OTHER WORDS, IT'S NOT COMMERCIAL. IT'S RESIDENTIAL. IT'S NOTHING RIGHT NOW. I THINK IT'S TREES THERE RIGHT NOW BUT IN THE FUTURE THE OWNER OF THAT PROPERTY COULD COME IN AND ASK TO BUILD MORE HOUSES IN THERE. RIGHT. IT'S NOT COMMERCIAL PROPERTY. IT'S RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY. THEY WOULD HAVE TO ASK TO HAVE THE LAND USE CHANGED FROM RESIDENTIAL TO COMMERCIAL WHICH IS ANOTHER WHOLE PROCESS BUT THEY COULD COME IN AND ASK TO PUT HOUSES ON THERE. >> THE YELLOW AREA PUD SO THAT'S COMMERCIAL. >> NO. THE GRAY AREA IS COMMERCIAL INTO THAT THE COMMERCIAL SO THE YELLOW ONE MORE HOUSES CAN BE BUILT? >> COULD BE YES. IF ALL THE REQUIREMENTS WERE MET YES BUT YES MORE >> POOR ANIMALS. >> YES, I KNOW. BUT THAT'S WHAT IT'S SET UP FOR NOW. >> OKAY. >> YOUR WELCOME. ANYONE ELSE? DO YOU HAVE -- SAME THING, MA'AM. YOUR NAME IS ADDRESS, PLEASE. >> MY NAME IS CYNTHIA SKINNER. I LIVE AT 1204 INDEPENDENCE DRIVE. SINCE THEY'VE ALREADY TORN DOWN TREES BACK TOWARD THE RED LINE OF THE PUD, THE NOISE LEVEL ON OUR STREET HAS INCREASED QUITE A BIT. SO I'M JUST CURIOUS AS TO WHETHER OR NOT, YOU KNOW, WHAT CAN BE DONE FOR THAT OR IF ANYTHING WILL BE DONE FOR THAT. AND WE'RE JUST GOING TO HAVE TO KIND OF SUFFER THROUGH THAT NOW. >> AGAIN, IT'S NOT REALLY A QUESTION AND ANSWER. BUT SINCE YOU WAITED SO PATIENTLY. >> SORRY. SORRY. >> THE ANSWER IS PROBABLY WHATEVER THEY'RE PLANNING ON DOING WILL HELP YOUR NOISE. AND THERE ARE SOME BUFFERING REQUIREMENTS THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE TO PUT IN. THEY'VE GOTTA DO SOME PLANNINGS IF THEY DIDN'T LEAVE THEM THERE. SO IT IS ALREADY ZONED COMMERCIAL. SO EVEN IF WE DON'T RECOMMEND THIS CHANGE, THAT PROPERTY CAN STILL BE USED FOR OTHER COMMERCIAL PROPERTY THAT ARE ALLOWED IN BB RIGHT NOW. >> ALL RIGHT. >> SO THEY HAVEN'T DONE ANYTHING IMPROPER SO FAR TO THIS POINT. THEY'RE JUST ASKING FOR A CHANGE THAT WILL LET THEM PARK RVS THERE. WHICH IN TRUTH MIGHT BE LESS THAN WILL GO UNDER BB. IT'S MUCH LESS INTENSE USE. >> IN OTHER WORDS, NOT ANOTHER STRIP MALL WHERE HALF OF THE SPACES ARE AVAILABLE AND NO ONE'S RENTING AND NO ONE'S DOING ANYTHING WITH THEM. >> YES, MA'AM. BUT THANK YOU FOR YOUR INTEREST. I KNOW I'M SORRY YOU GUYS HAD TO WAIT SO LATE FOR THIS. THESE GENTLEMEN HERE, MIKE, WHO ELSE IS HERE? THEY ALREADY LEFT. THIS IS OUR PLANNING. IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS ABOUT THIS, YOU CAN ALWAYS CONTACT THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT AND THEY WILL BE HAPPY TO ANSWER -- I MIGHT NOT BE HAPPY WITH THE ANSWERS, BUT THEY'LL ANSWER YOUR QUESTIONS. >> IT WAS INTERESTING AND I ENJOYED IT SO THANK YOU. >> ANYONE ELSE? ALL RIGHT. I'M GOING TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND BRING IT BACK FOR DISCUSSION OR A MOTION. WANT TO MOVE THIS ONE? >> I WAS GOING TO MOVE IT, TOO. >> MR. GARRISON, AND MR. ANSLON WILL SECOND IT. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. >> AYE. >> IMPOSE. THAT ONE PASSES, TOO. THAT COMES BACK TO THE BCC ON THE 23RD. THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS WILL HEAR THIS ONE ON THE 23RD OF THE MONTH, WHICH IS THREE WEEKS FROM TODAY. OKAY. I THINK THAT CONCLUDES OUR AGENDA FOR TONIGHT. RIGHT? YES. THERE IS ONE LAST GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT, WHICH I'M GOING TO OPEN. I DON'T HAVE ANY CARDS. LET ME CLOSE THAT. TAKE CARE OF THAT BUSINESS. AND THEN WE HAVE OLD BUSINESS, NEW BUSINESS. SO DOES ANYBODY FROM STAFF HAVE ANYTHING THEY WANT TO BRING UP? >> STAFF HAS NOTHING. >> I SEE MS. SHARICE SNUCK IN THE BACK THERE. OUR DIRECTOR. IS ANYTHING YOU WANT TO TELL US [02:15:04] ABOUT OUR UPCOMING MEETING IN DECEMBER OR ANYTHING? HUH? ANOTHER ONE. ANOTHER BIG AGENDA? >> -- >> OKAY. DO YOU KNOW IF THE BCC, THEY TYPICALLY DO NOT HAVE THE SECOND MEETING IN DECEMBER, SO THEY'LL JUST HAVE THE ONE MEETING IN DECEMBER, RIGHT? >> YES. >> OKAY. ANYBODY HAVE ANYTHING THEY WANT TO BRING UP? MR. FOSSA, WE'RE SORRY TO SEE YOU GO. COLONEL, WE'RE SORRY TO SEE YOU GO. GOOD LUCK IN YOUR NEW ENDEAVORS. AND I'M SURE YOUR REPLACEMENTS WILL DO YOU JUSTICE. ALL RIGHT. WITH THAT, I THINK WE'RE DONE. I'M ADJOURNING THE MEETING. THE NEXT MEETING IS ON DECEMBER 7TH. THAT'S PEARL HARBOR DAY, RIGHT? SEE YOU THEN. * This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.