SPECIAL STAFF RECOGNITION

[16. Notice of Intent and Award of Bid No. 21/22-20, Aquarius Concourse Underground/Utility Relocation Project and the Accompanying Agreements (K. Smith/R. Smith)]

IT CARRIES 5-0. >> NUMBER 16.

>> ACTUALLY WE HAVE A MOBILITY FEE AGREEMENT IN CONNECTION WITH THE CROSS CREEK SUBDIVISION AND DR HORTON.

WHAT IS UNIQUE IS THIS IS ALL CREDITS THAT WE NEED AND CONNECTION WITH RIGHT-OF-WAY AND PONDS FOR OUR BOND OF TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM. THIS IS JUST ONE PHASE.

THIS IS THE RIGHT-OF-WAY ALONG 209 THAT WE NEEDED AS WELL AS MORE PONDS. TWO OF THEM WILL BE JOINT USE AND TWO OF THEM WILL BE THE MEANING WE WERE ON THEM AND CONSTRUCT THEM OURSELVES. DR HORTON HAS BEEN GENEROUS HELPING US PUT THIS TOGETHER, I KNOW AN ANSWER TO COMMISSIONER CONDON'S QUESTION, YES THEY DO NEED THE MOBILITY FEE CREDIT.

THEY HAVE PAID IN CONNECTION WITH THE WORK THEY HAVE DONE CLOSE TO $2 MILLION IN MOBILITY FEE SO THEY ARE ANXIOUS TO HAVE THIS CREDIT AND THAT IS WHY WE ARE BRINGING IT BEFORE YOU NOW.

>> DOES THIS GO OVER THE WETLAND AREA?

>> NO. THAT IS THE CONNECTION FROM SANDRIDGE-209 WE HAVE FORGOTTEN THEIR BECAUSE WE ARE WAITING ON THE STUDY THE ENGINEERS ARE DOING.

>> THIS IS STRAIGHT DOWN 209 AND IT WILL BE THE RIGHT-OF-WAY AND THE FOUR PONDS. WE WILL COME BACK TO YOU WITH ANOTHER AGREEMENT IN CONNECTION DO THAT.

>> IN EXCHANGE FOR THE MOBILITY FEE CREDITS THE COUNTY DOES NOT HAVE TO WRITE A CHECK FOR THE PONDS AND RIGHT-OF-WAY FOR THE BOND OF TRANSPORTATION ROAD FOR THE WIDENING OF 209.

>> WE HAD AN APPRAISAL DONE AND THEY'RE WILLING TO TAKE THE

CREDIT INCENTIVE A CASH PAYMENT. >> ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS?

MAKE A MOTION. >> I WILL MOVE APPROVAL.

>> SECOND. I HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.

FURTHER DISCUSSION ALL IN FAVOR INDICATE BY SAYING AYE.

OPPOSED SAME SIDE IT CARRIES 5-0.

NOW WE ARE ON NUMBER 16. NOTICE TO AWARD AQUARIUS

CONCOURSE. >> RICHARD SMITH CLAY COUNTY ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT. THIS IS THE PROJECT ON THE WESTERN EDGE OF ORANGE PARK. WE HAVE JOINT WITH CLAY COUNTY UTILITY AUTHORITY PUTTING THE ROADS -- REBUILDING THE ROAD THEY WILL BE REPLACING SOME ESPRESSOS CONCRETE LINED PIPE

[00:50:03]

THAT NEEDS TO BE REPLACED. ANY QUESTIONS?

>> WE ARE NOT PAYING FOR THAT ARE WE?

>> NO, OUR PORTION IS TO .9 MILLION THERE'S IS ONE POINT 1 MILLION. IT IS AN AGREEMENT THAT WHEN WE OPEN THE STREET THE TRENCH WILL OPEN AND WE CAN DO OUR WORK OF REMOVING FAILED STORM DRAIN AND REPLACING IT WITH NEW STORM DRAIN. BACON REMOVE THE ESPRESSOS THEY.

>> WE ENTERED INTO AGREEMENT WITH CCUA A WHILE AGO AND NOW WE HAVE A CONTRACTOR WITH THE AMENDMENT AND THIS IS TO PROVIDE FOR ONE INSPECTOR. BEFORE WE WORK POINT TO HAVE OUR OWN INSPECTOR NOW WE WILL SHARE AND USE ONE INSPECTOR AND HAVE A FURTHER SPLIT OF COST AS WELL AS SHARED COSTS.

>> DO WE HAVE TO VOTE ON 1-3 SEPARATELY?

>> YOU CAN INCLUDE THEM IN ONE MOTION IF YOU LIKE.

AWARD OF THE BID, AWARD OF THE AGREEMENT AND THE BID.

>> THE ONLY COMMENT I HAVE AND IT IS A RHETORICAL QUESTION.

WHILE DEVIATION IN THE BIDS. FOR SITE PREP ANYWHERE FROM $2 MILLION TO 700,000 AND THE FINAL BID IS CLOSE WITH THE FOUR

CONTRACTORS. >> IS IT TRULY RHETORICAL, OR DO YOU WANT MY OPINION? AS I'VE BEEN THROUGH THIS BEFORE. THEY ARE WILDE.

THEY ARE WILDLY DIFFERENT. >> I THINK ONE IS POSSIBL THE UNKNOWN ASPECT OF THE PIPE. I THINK A FEW CONTRACTORS DID THEIR HOMEWORK AND FOUND OUT IT COULD BE DONE.

IN ONE BID IT WAS A DIFFERENCE OF IMMOBILIZATION.

I THINK SOMEONE WASN'T REALLY SURE HOW THEY WOULD TAKE CARE OF THAT AND THEY WERE NOT GOING TO BE LEFT LITERALLY HOLDING THE E BE LEFT LITERALLY HOLDING THE ABESTOS FILLED BAG. WE FEEL LIKE WE HAVE A QUALIFIED CONTRACTOR THAT HAS A GOOD REPUTATION.

>> AND THE LOWEST BID. >> AND THE LOWEST BID, YES, SIR.

>> I MOVE APPROVAL FOR ITEM NUMBER 16.

>> ONE, TWO AND THREE? >> YES.

>> I SECOND. >> I HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.

FOR THE DISCUSSION ALL IN FAVOR INDICATE BY SAYING AYE.

[17. Agreement with LSA Sales, LLC for the Management of Knights Marina (K. Morgan/J. Pierce)]

OPPOSED SAME SIDE, IT CARRIES 5-0.

>> NUMBER 17. MANAGEMENT OF -- MANAGEMENT OF

KNIGHTS MARINA. >> GOOD AFTERNOON.

MARK AND REX IS SEEKING APPROVAL FOR LSA SALES WITH THE OPTION OF ONE-YEAR RENEWALS BEGINNING APRIL 1.

THE MARINA MANAGER INCREASES THE MONTHLY RENT FROM $1,200 $21,400 WITH A 3.5% RATE INCREASE FOR AN ADDITIONAL TWO YEARS OF THE TERM. THE LEASE ALSO MODIFIES THE MARINA BIRTHING AGREEMENT WHICH IS ATTACHED TO THE AGREEMENT FROM SIX HOURS PER FOOT TO TRACK $10 PER FOOT -- PER FOOT.

THE COUNTY WILL RECEIVE 1 DOLLAR PER FOOT PER MONTH FOR EACH VESSEL RENTING A WET SLIP. I HAVE JOHN WITH ME IF YOU HAVE

ANY QUESTIONS. >> QUESTIONS ANYONE?

>> THE RATES ARE A LITTLE LOWER THAN HEAVY COMMERCIAL, BUT --

>> YOU WOULD KNOW. >> I WOULD.

>> I WILL TAKE A MOTION. >> I MOVE APPROVAL.

>> I HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. FOR THE DISCUSSION.

ALL IN FAVOR INDICATE BY SAYING AYE.

OPPOSED SAME, IT CARRIES 5-0. NUMBER 18.

[18. Notice of Intent and Award of RFP No. 21/22-15, First Coast Connector (FCC) - SR 23 to Maryland Avenue Design-Build (E. Dendor)]

FIRST COAST CONNECTOR. >> GOOD EVENING BOARD AND CHAIR.

[00:55:01]

ON THE PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION AND WITH ME THIS EVENING IS CARLOS AND ERIC OUR REPRESENTATIVE.

ITEM NUMBER 18 IS A REQUEST TO AWARD THE RFP NUMBER 21/22-15 WHICH IS A DESIGN FOR THE FIRST COAST CONNECTOR IT GOES BACK TO COUNTY ROAD 315 AT MARYLAND AVENUE.

THE REQUEST WAS SET TO ONE OTORI FIVE INTERESTED PARTIES ON JANUARY 31 THE COUNTY RECEIVED FOR BIDS AND OF THOSE WHEN THEY WERE OPEN ON FEBRUARY 1. BOTH WERE SUPERIOR CONSTRUCTION COMPANY SOUTHEAST, ALLEN CORE CONSTRUCTION AS WELL AS WATSON CIVIL CONSTRUCTION. SUPERIOR CONSTRUCTION PROVIDED THE LOWEST BID AT $34 MILLION. AFTER THE OPENING OF THE BID TECHNICAL REVIEW CONSISTED OF MYSELF, THE PROGRAM ADMINISTRATOR, THE OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE AND PROGRAM MANAGER THE OWNERS REPRESENTATIVE PROJECT MANAGER DETERMINE THE SUPERIOR CONSTRUCTION ( INDISCERNIBLE ) IN SUMMARY BASED ON THE FINDINGS WITH THE COMMITTEE'S RECOMMENDATION WE ARE REQUESTING AN AWARD OF THE RFP NUMBER 21/2T CONNECTOR. DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS?

>> THE ONLY QUESTION I HAVE SUPERIOR IS A MAJOR CONTRACTOR OUT OF THE BELTWAY. DO THEY HAVE THE CAPACITY TO DO

THIS AS WELL? >> EXCESS CAPACITY AND WILL WAKE

>> TO DO BOTH JOBS. I'M SURE THEY LOOKED AT THIS.

THEY ARE A MAJOR CONTRACT. >> AS SOON AS THEY FINISH THAT UP THEY WILL FINISH THE RE- MOBILIZATION.

>> AREN'T THEY WAY AHEAD OF SCHEDULE TOO?

>> I BELIEVE SO, ON THAT PROJECT.

>> SOLD THE TOTAL $34.7 MILLION, IS THAT ON TARGET FOR WHAT WE

THOUGHT IT WOULD BE? >> IT WAS OVER THE ORIGINAL INCENTIVE AMOUNT I THINK WE HEARD THAT.

AND IT DID COME IN OVER WHAT WE ORIGINALLY PURPORTED BUT OUR INTENT IS TO STAY WITHIN THE $131 MILLION WE HAVE FOR THE OVERALL TRANSPORTATION BUDGET. THAT IS MOVING THE PIECES AROUND

ON THE OTHER PROJECT. >> IS THERE ANY WAY TO CHECK -- ALL I KNOW WE HEAR EACH MONTH THAT THIS IS NOT TO YOU, IS SUPPLY CHAIN, PRICES ARE GOING UP, BUT AT SOME POINT, THEY ARE NOT ALWAYS GOING UP OR BECAUSE PEOPLE ARE PUTTING THEM UP FOR DIFFERENT BIDDERS. USUALLY IN THAT SITUATION YOU HAVE SOMEONE COME IN AND LITTLE BIT EVERYONE ELSE AND MAKE PRICES COME BACK DOWN. WE HAVE SEEN IT WITH GAS PRICES THIS WEEK. I GUESS, IT WAS TO BE CAUTIOUS ON SOMETHING LIKE THIS, THERE IS NOT WHERE WE WILL JUST MOVE EVERYTHING UP BECAUSE EVERYTHING ELSE IS GOING UP IN THE

TRANSPORTATION WORLD. >> WERE NOT MOVING EVERYTHING UP. IT'S REALLY A SITDOWN DISCUSSION, FOR EXAMPLE, YOU SEE THE PROJECT RISK COMING UP.

EVERYONE IS A CONTRACTOR LOOKING AT THE QUANTITIES AND WHAT ARE THE REQUIRED QUANTITIES AND THE UNIT PRICE AND WE ARE BOUNCING BACK OFF OF THE PRICES WE ARE SEEING.

>> IS THERE A NOT TO EXCEED OF THESE PROJECTS, THEY CAN'T COME

BACK TO RAISE PRICES MORE? >> THIS IS LOW BUILD, I CAN'T SAY WE CAN'T COME BACK IF THERE IS A DISCOVERABLE BUT I DON'T FORESEE ANY OF THAT. BUT WE WANT TO GET THIS LAID OUT

>> >> WE WOULD'VE THOUGHT WE COULDN'T DO ANYTHING LESS THAN THAT, THAT'S A HUGE DIFFERENCE.

WHY WOULD THAT BE. >> WE WERE FORTUNATE, DEPENDING ON WHAT THE WORKLOAD IS I'M SURE THEY DON'T PUT MONEY IN THEIR,

[01:00:14]

THEY ARE TRYING TO GET THE LOWEST POSSIBLE PRICE.

>> THANK GOODNESS FOR SUPERIOR. >> I MOVE APPROVAL THIS IS TO SHOW THIS IS PART ONE AND PART TWO, WE CAN CARRY BOTH TOGETHER.

>> I LEAVE ROOM FOR NUMBER ONE AND NUMBER TWO.

>> I SECOND THE MOTION. >> ALL IN FAVOR INDICATE BY

SAYING AYE. >> LET'S DO 19 AND THEN WE WILL

[19. Acknowledgement Declining Use of SRMC Subgrant Funding, Re: Sheriff's Office Middleburg Generator Project (D. Garrett)]

DO THE TIME CERTAIN SPIRIT IT'S THE SHERIFFS GENERATOR PROJECT.

>> GOOD EVENING I'M WITH THE SHERIFFS OFFICE, I AM HERE TO SEEK APPROVAL TO DECLINED MODIFICATION TO CLAIM ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS FOR THIS PROJECT.

THIS WAS INITIATED ON BEHALF OF THE COUNTY FOR A COUNTY OWNED BUILDING FOR A GENERATOR. UNFORTUNATELY, WITH TURNOVER, THESE COSTS WERE NOT ATTRACTED I DON'T HAVE THE RECORDS TO RE-CREATE. I FULLY RECOGNIZE THE IMPORTANCE OF TAKING ON THAT OPPORTUNITY IN THE FUTURE AND WE'RE WORKING WITH THE COUNTY TO IMPLEMENT A PROCESS TO MAKE SURE WHEN A GRANT DOES AFFORD THIS OPPORTUNITY WE HAVE THE RECORDS IN PLACE TO ESTABLISH THAT AND SEEK REIMBURSEMENT.

BUT UNFORTUNATELY IN THIS CASE WE ARE REQUESTING A DECLINE AND

IT IS IN THIS AMOUNT. >> LET ME JUST SAY, THE FINANCE AND AUDIT COMMITTEE, GRANTS HAVE TWO BASIC COMPONENTS, ONE IS DEVELOPMENT. HOW DO WE TELL THE STORY TO CONVINCE THE FUNDER WE NEED THIS SPIRIT AND THE OTHER IS MANAGEMENT AND EVERY PURCHASE SAYING, A LOT OF ADMINISTRATION.

AND IT'S EASY TO SCREW UP, EVERY GRANT HAS ADMINISTRATION.

THIS IS A COUNTY GRANT THAT WAS REQUESTED BY THE CHAIRMAN.

I'M GOING TO RECOMMEND WE APPROVE THIS BUT, I WOULD THINK IT WOULD BE WORTH OUR TIME TO LOOK AT CONSOLIDATION OF THE GRANT FUNCTION WITHIN THE COUNTY.

THE DEVELOPMENT AND THE ADMINISTRATION AND THE MANAGEMENT. LET THE EXPERTS DO THE EXPERTS PART. I RAN THE AVIATION CENTER AND THE REPORTING REQUIREMENT I WOULD TAKE CARE OF THE I RECOMMEND WE TAKE A LOOK AT BRINGING GRANT DEVELOPMENT AND MANAGEMENT IN-HOUSE, AND LET THE PROFESSIONALS DO WHAT THEY DO BEST. THAT IS OPERATE THAT EQUIPMENT THAT WAS ALONG WITH IT. MAYBE WE NEED THE BUT THAT SITE RECOMMENDATION. BRING EVERYTHING UNDER OUR ROOF THAT'S MY RECOMMENDATION. I MOVE APPROVAL WE HAVE OF

[01:05:04]

MOTION. >> I WAS CLARIFYING IF WE ARE VOTING ON COMBINING OF THE RENT WHICH I THINK IS A BIGGER CONVERSATION THAT WOULD BE MY OPINION.

>> WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.

ALL IN FAVOR INDICATE BY SAYING AYE.

IT CARRIES 5-0. AS FAR AS THE GRANT ONE OF YOU

[21. 5:00 p.m. or as soon thereafter as can be heard - Final Public Hearing to consider adoption of LDC-2021-14. (M. Brown)]

[22. 5:00 p.m. or as soon thereafter as can be heard - Final Public Hearing to consider adoption of LDC-2021-15. (M. Brown)]

BRING IT UP AT THE END OF THE MEETING.

>> THAT BRINGS US, WE WILL GO TO TIME CERTAIN'S, ITEM 21.

>> ACTUALLY WE CAN DO 21 AND 22 TOGETHER.

>> I'M MIKE BROWN. PLANNING AND ZONING.

TWENTY-ONE AND 22, THEY BOTH ASKED TO BE CONTINUED UNTIL APRIL 26. WE ARE STILL WORKING ON WORDING

AND WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION >> WE HAVE TO DO A HEARING.

>> IT SO I WILL OPEN -- FIRST OF ALL ANY QUESTIONS ON WHY WE ARE

CONTINUING IT? >> WE WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING ON ITEMS 21 AND 22, DOES ANYONE WANT TO ADDRESS THOSE ISSUES. I DON'T SEE ANYONE JUMPING UP I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. BRING IT BACK TO THE BOARD AND NOW THE ISSUE IS, DO WE WANT TO CONTINUE IT TO APRIL 26.

>> I WILL CONTINUE IT. >> I SECOND A.

>> I HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. TO CONTINUE UNTIL APRIL 26.

[23. 5:00 p.m. or as soon thereafter as can be heard - Final Public Hearing to consider adoption of REZ-2022-02. (District 4, Comm. Condon) Planning Commission voted 8-0 to recommend approval. (M. Brown)]

ALL IN FAVOR INDICATE BY SAYING AYE.

OPPOSED THE SAME, CARRIES 5-0. >> ITEM 23, IT IS A REZONING THE APPLICANT IS TO REZONE 0.772 ACRES FROM RB SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL TO RE SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE.

IT IS AN DISTRICT FOR. COMMISSION DISTRICT FOUR.

THE PARCEL IS LOCATED IN THE HIGH RIDGE SUBDIVISION WHICH WAS RECORDED IN 1970. THE EXISTING DISTRICT DOES NOT ALLOW FOR MOBILE HOMES WHEREAS THE PROPOSED DISTRICT WOULD ALLOW FOR MOBILE HOME SPIRIT IN ADDITION THE ZONING DISTRICT LIMITS UP A LIVING AREA TO 1,000 SQUARE FEET.

AND WHEREAS THE PROPOSED RE ZONING DISTRICT, ALLOWS FOR A MINIMUM AREA OF 750 SQUARE FEET FOR A DWELLING AND MOBILE HOME.

THE SAME CONDITIONAL USES ARE ALLOWED IN BOTH ZONING DISTRICT AND THE ZONING DISTRICT IS ALLOWED AND THE FUTURE LAND USE CATEGORY. HERE, YOU CAN SEE ON THIS SLIDE THE AERIAL AND THE ZONING. ACROSS FROM THIS PARCEL, JUST TO THE SOUTH IS RE ZONING BUT AROUND IT, THE OTHER AREAS WITHIN THE SUBDIVISION IS THAT RE ZONING.

JUST TO SUMMARIZE THE CHANGE TO THE DISTRICT IT WOULD ALLOW FOR A MOBILE HOME TO BE PLACED ON THE PARCEL WHICH OTHER HOMES, WOULD NOT BE ALLOWED. IT ALSO WOULD ALLOW FOR SMALLER LIVING AREA REQUIRED AND OTHER PARCELS IN THE SAME SUBDIVISION.

SEEK THE RES I MENTIONED EARLIER, IT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE FUTURE LAND USE CATEGORY. STAFF RECOMMENDED AND IT IS STILL A RECOMMENDATION, THAT DENIAL OF THE APPLICATION DUE TO

[01:10:08]

INCOMPATIBILITY WITH THE ALLOWANCE OF THE MOBILE HOME AND LIVING AREA. THE PLANNING COMMISSION DID VOTE 8-02 RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE ZONING DISTRICT.

DOES ANYONE HAVE QUESTIONS OF STAFF?

>> I HAVE NO QUESTIONS. I THINK THIS IS SHOCKING THAT THIS IS A CONSIDERATION WE WOULD NOT APPROVE IT.

I DID NOTE THIS ZONING WAS THERE.

DIRECTLY ACROSS THE STREET FROM YOU IS A MOBILE HOME.

>> I WAS JUST CURIOUS, I CAN SEE ZONING IS COMPATIBLE ON BOTH SIDES. ONE ON ONE SIDE AND ONE OF THE OTHER. ARE THE OTHER HOMES --

>> IT IS PREDOMINANTLY UNDEVELOPED.

THERE ARE FEW STRUCTURES BUT THEY ARE VERY SPARSE.

>> YOU ARE IN THE BACK? >> YES.

>> THE PRETTY PART. >> EMOTION?

>> WE HAVE TO HAVE A PUBLIC HEARING.

>> I'M SORRY. I WOULD HAVE VOTED YES.

>> OKAY, APPLICANT, DO YOU WANT TO TALK TO US.

>> I APPRECIATE EVERYONE. >> WE WILL OPEN UP THE PUBLIC HEARING. DOES ANYONE WANT TO ADDRESS THIS ONE. WE WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. BRING IT BACK TO THE BOARD.

>> I MOVE FOR APPROVAL. >> SECOND.

>> I HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. FURTHER DISCUSSION? STAFF RECOMMEND DISAPPROVAL IS THAT CORRECT?

>> THAT WAS SOME OF THEIR LOGIC. >> THERE ARE MOBILE HOMES ALL

OVER THE PLACE. >> WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND PERIOD WE HAVE DONE THE PUBLIC HEARING.

ALL IN FAVOR INDICATE BY SAYING AYE.

IT CARRIES 5-0. >> WELCOME TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

[24. 5:00 p.m. or as soon thereafter as can be heard - Final Public Hearing to consider adoption of LDC-2022-01. Planning Commission voted 7-0 to recommend approval. (D. Selig)]

[25. Resolution 89-21R(B) (D. Selig)]

>> I'M GOING TO GIVE YOU A COMBINED PRESENTATION BECAUSE THEY ARE LINKED TO EACH OTHER. THIS IS FOR THE 1ST AND THE SECOND ONE. SO IT WOULD BE COLD CHANGE A CHANGE ARTICLE 12 THE INTENT IS TO HAVE STANDARDIZED OPERATING PROCEDURES FOR THE ADVISORY COMMITTEES.

THE RESOLUTION WILL UPDATE THE MAP WE NOTICED A THIS WOULD REPLACE THE SANCTIONS. PART OF THAT WOULD RENUMBER ARTICLE 12 BECAUSE WE ARE INSERTING THIS AS SECTION 12-8.

AND THUS STANDARD PROCEDURES THAT WE ARE RECOMMENDING STAFF REACHED OUT TO THE CURRENT AND FORMER CHAIR OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE WHICH IS OUR ONLY ACTIVE ADVISORY COMMITTEE TO FACT CHECK AND TO MAKE SURE WHAT WE WERE PROPOSING WAS STANDARD WITH WHAT THEY HAVE BEEN DOING. THE COMMITTEES HAD A JOINT MEETING AND WE PROVIDED THEM WITH A COPY OF THE PROPOSED CHANGES. ALL OF THE MEMBERS ARE AWARE.

THIS JUST CHANGE THE DEFINITION AND REMOVES ONE OPTIONAL WORD.

[01:15:07]

THIS IS ANY APPLICANT GOING TO ANY MEETINGS WITH THEIR PROJECT WHO WILL HAVE THE SAME EXPERIENCE.

THIS IS THE MAP. WHERE WE RAN INTO AN ISSUE WAS EAST OF 209 THIS AREA ON THE PREVIOUS MAP WAS SHOWN AS FLEMING ISLAND BUT IT IS AS VERY.

SO, THE PLANNING COMMISSION, BOTH OF THE ITEMS ON THE MARCH FIRST MEETING WITH RESPECT TO THE COLD CHANGE THOSE HAVE BEEN ( INDISCERNIBLE ). THEY VOTED 7-02 RECOMMEND THE APPROVAL WITH THE CHANGES AND 7-04 THE RESOLUTION.

SO IT IS STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION TO YOU TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF

BOTH OF THESE ITEMS. >> ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS? WE WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. WE WILL TAKE THESE TWO TOGETHER FOR ANYONE WISHES TO SPEAK ON EITHER ONE OF THEM.

TWENTY-FOUR AND 25. NO ONE WISHING TO STEP UP WE WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. WE WILL BRING IT BACK TO THE BOARD. AND ENTERTAIN A MOTION.

>> I MOVE APPROVAL OF BOTH ITEMS 24 AND 25.

>> I HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. FURTHER DISCUSSION? ALL IN FAVOR INDICATE BY SAYING AYE OPPOSED SAME SIDE IT CARRIES

[26. 5:00 p.m. or as soon thereafter as can be heard - Final Public Hearing to consider DRI 2021-02.(District 5, Comm. Burke) Planning Commission voted 6-0 to recommend approval. (B. Carson)]

5-0. NUMBER 26.

>> THIS ITEM IS THE ABANDONMENT OF THE SARATOGA SPRINGS DEVELOPMENT. THE PROJECT IS IN DISTRICT FIVE.

THERE ARE THREE APPLICANTS. THIS IS GOVERNED BY STATE STATUTE AND TWO OF THE REQUIREMENTS HAVE TO DO WITH THIS AND OUT OF THE DEVELOPMENT DONATIONS AND THE DEVELOPMENT ORDER HAVE BEEN RECEIVED BY THE CELTIC.

STAFF IS RECOMMENDING SUPPORT OF THIS REQUEST TO ABANDON THE DRI.

>> OKAY, ANY QUESTIONS? WE WILL OPEN A PUBLIC HEARING -- WILL APPLICANT. 4 MINUTES.

>> SUSAN FRAZIER I LIVE IN JACKSONVILLE.

I'M HERE REPRESENTING THE REINHOLD CORPORATION AND CLAY COUNTY UTILITY AUTHORITY. WE ARE REALLY HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU MAY HAVE, YOU HAVE SEEN THIS AS PART OF THE PACKAGE EARLIER IN THE FALL. IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS WE ARE

HAPPY TO ANSWER THEM FOR YOU. >> NO QUESTIONS, THANK YOU.

>> NOW WE WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING.

ITEM 26. ANYONE WISHING TO COMMENT ON THAT? CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING BRING IT BACK TO THE BOARD. THIS IS COMMISSIONER BURKE'S

ROOM HERE. >> IN CONNECTION TO APPROVE THE ORDINANCE FOR THE ABANDONMENT STAFF WOULD ALSO REQUEST APPROVAL FOR THE CHAIRMAN TO SIGN A NOTICE THAT WE HAVE TO RECORD WITH THE CLERK'S OFFICE, A NOTICE OF THE ABANDONMENT AND A STATUTORY REQUIREMENT SO WE WANT THAT ADDED INTO THE MOTION.

>> RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THAT. >> I WILL SECOND THE MOTION.

>> OKAY. WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND TO APPROVE THAT. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? THIS ME BE THE TIME TO ADJOURN AFTER THIS JUST GETTING.

ALL IN FAVOR INDICATE BY SAYING AYE IT CARRIES 5-0.

THAT BRINGS US TO I HAVE THE -- NUMBER 27.

[27. Consideration of Agreements for donation of land for community park, civic site and fire station site (District 5, Comm. Burke) (C. Grimm)]

[01:20:03]

>> FOR ITEM NUMBER 27, WE HAVE BEFORE YOU TWO AGREEMENTS ONE IS AN AGREEMENT FOR DONATION OF A N THAT WILL BE FROM PETER CREEK INVESTMENTS, AND THEN THE SECOND IS THE DONATION OF A 21-ACRE SITE FOR A PARK IN CIVIC COMMUNITY CENTER.

THE 4-ACRE SITE FOR THE FIRE STATION IS A STRAIGHT DONATION THAT WILL BE DONATED TO THE COUNTY AND DOES NOT REQUIRE ANY FUNDING OR ANY FUTURE IMPACT THESE.

THE SECOND AGREEMENT FOR THE 21-ACRE SITE DOES REQUEST ANY IMPACT FEES FOR A FUTURE PARK SITE IN CONNECTION WITH THAT, AND THAT WOULD BE IF YOU ADOPT AN ORDINANCE IN THE AMOUNT OF

$760,000. >> IN THE -- THIS IS FOR IF THIS

HAPPENS IN THE FUTURE. >> IF YOU HAVE ANY SPECIFIC QUESTIONS SUSAN OR GEORGE ARE AVAILABLE.

>> NO QUESTIONS. I WILL TAKE A MOTION.

>> I MOVE APPROVAL. >> A MOTION AND A SECOND.

FURTHER DISCUSSION? ALL IN FAVOR INDICATE BY SAYING

[28. 5:00 p.m. or as soon thereafter as can be heard - Second Public Hearing to consider Adoption of CPA 2021-10. (District 5, Comm. Burke) (B. Carson)]

AYE OPPOSED SAME SIDE, IT CARRIES 5-0.

>> 28, THE SECOND PUBLIC HEARING.

>> THIS IS THE ADOPTION OF CPA2. MAP AMENDMENT AND TEXT AMENDMENT. IT'S ALSO IN THE DISTRICT FIVE.

IT'S THE SAME THREE APPLICANTS. THE BOARD APPROVED THE TRANSMITTAL OF THIS PACKAGE ON OCTOBER 26 OF LAST YEAR, BUT MAY LOOK FAMILIAR. ON THE RIGHT WE HAVE THE OUTLINE OF THE AREA A LITTLE OVER 24 ACRES.

THIS IS THE MASTER-PLANNED COMMUNITY AND THE RURAL FRENCH MIXED-USE CONSERVATION LAND USE. ON THE RIGHT WE HAVE THE NEW FUTURE LAND USE CATEGORY. AS I SAID THEY WERE POLICY TEXT AMENDMENT THREE IN POLICY AND THREE AND FUTURE LAND USE.

I WILL BREAK IT DOWN FOR YOU. THE STATE REVIEWING AGENCIES SOLVE THE PACKAGE THERE WERE NO COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS, THERE WERE TWO SUGGESTIONS, AND STAFF IS RECOMMENDING APPROVAL THE

APPLICANT HAS APPLICANT. >> QUESTIONS IF YOU HAVE ANY THIS WAS TRANSLATED IN THE LATE FALL YOU PRETTY MUCH KNOW THE DETAILS WELCOME TO PUBLIC HEARING ITEM NUMBER 28 ANYONE.

WE WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING, BRING IT BACK TO

COMMISSIONER BURKE. >> RECOMMEND APPROVAL.

>> OUR SECOND. >> I HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.

FOR THE DISCUSSION. ALL IN FAVOR INDICATE BY SAYING

[29. 5:00 p.m. or as soon thereafter as can be heard - Final Public Hearing to consider REZ-2021-11. ( District 5, Comm Burke) Planning Commission voted 6-0 to recommend approval (M. Brown)]

[30. 5:00 p.m. or as soon thereafter as can be heard - Final Public Hearing to consider REZ-2022-01. (District 5, Comm Burke) Planning Commission voted 6-0 to recommend approval. (M. Brown)]

[31. 5:00 p.m. or as soon thereafter as can be heard - Final Public Hearing to consider adoption of REZ-2021-19. (District 5, Comm Burke) Planning Commission voted 6-0 to recommend approval (M. Brown)]

AYE. OPPOSED, SAME SIDE IT CARRIES

5-0. >> WE WILL TAKE 29, 30 AND 31

PUBLIC COMMON AS A GROUP. >> MR. CHAIRMAN.

THE NEXT THREE ITEMS ARE ALL INTERRELATED AND TIED WITH THE ACTIONS YOU HAVE TAKEN WITH THE ABANDONMENT OF THE DRI DESIGNATION SPIRIT REZONING 2119, REZONING 2211, AND 2201,

[01:25:05]

THEY ARE THE SUBJECT OF THE NEXT THREE ITEMS. 2111, IS A REQUEST TO CHANGE WARM THOUSAND 108 ACRES FROM PUD TO 1414 ACRES OF A -- LA MPC MASTER PLAN.

AND REZONING 5 ACRES FROM PUD TO PUBLIC SERVICE TWO.

AND REZONING 21 -- ZERO ONE IS CHANGING 11 ACRES FROM PLANT UNIT DEVELOPMENT TO LAKE AS VERY MASTER-PLANNED.

THESE ARE ALL IN COMMISSIONER BURKE DISTRICT, DISTRICT FIVE.

AS I INDICATED THESE ARE COMPANION ZONING.

ALL THREE OF THESE AREAS ARE LOCATED WITHIN THE LAKE AS VERY MASTER-PLANNED AREA. YOU VOTED ON THE LAND USE CHANGE WHICH CHANGE THE AREAS TO LAKE AS VERY MASTER-PLANNED COMMUNITY. LIKE ASBERRY VILLAGE CENTER AND LAKE ASBURY GREENWAY. SECTION THREE STATES THE COUNTY SHALL REZONE UNDEVELOPED PROPERTY WITHIN THE LAKE AS VERY MASTER-PLANNED TO THE DISTRICT FOR EACH LAND USE SPIRIT THE BASE ZONING DISTRICTS FOR EACH OF THOSE LAND USES ARE THE LAKE AS VERY MASTER-PLANNED COMMUNITY, LIKE ASBERRY VILLAGE CENTER, AND LAKE ASBURY GREENWAY.

SECTION THREE OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE ALSO PERMITS THE PUBLIC SERVICE TO ZONING DISTRICT ALLOWED IN THE FUTURE LAND USE MASTER-PLANNED COMMUNITY.

JUST A QUICK BREAKDOWN. REZONING 2111 IS AN APPLICATION BY PETERS CREEK AND GOING FROM PUD TO 1,414 ACRES OF THE MASTER-PLANNED COMMUNITY. FORTY-SIX ACRES OF LIKE ASBERRY VILLAGE CENTER AND 350 ACRES OF LAKE ASBURY GREENWAY.

>> STRETCH 50. >> 350.

>> I SAID 35. >> WE HAVE YOUR BACK.

>> REZONING 2119 IS AN APPLICATION BRIGHT CC YOU A TO CHANGE 5 ACRES TO PUBLIC SERVICE AND UTILIZING THAT SITE FOR A UTILITY SITE. REZONING 2020 -- 2022 -- 012 REZONE 11.13 ACRES FROM PUD TO LAKE AS VERY MASTER-PLANNED.

THIS SHOWS YOU A GENERAL, ALTHOUGH IT IS HARD TO SEE THE LOCATION AND THE LARGE BLUE IN THE MIDDLE IS 2111 REZONING.

CCUA IS TO THE UPPER LEFT. AND DOWN BELOW THAT ON THE WEST SIDE IS REINHOLD AMENDMENT 22 -- RIGHT 2022 -- ZERO ONE.

THIS IS THE REZONING FOR THE PROPERTY.

THIS IS THE CONSERVATION. THE PURPLE IS THE LAKE ASBERRY VILLAGE CENTER. IN THE PUBLIC SERVICE AREA WHERE THEIR PROPERTY IS AND THE 11 ACRES IS THE SAME AS THE MASTER PLAN. ALL OF THE STANDARDS FOUND WITHIN THE LAKE AS VERY MASTER-PLANNED FOR EACH OF THOSE ZONING DISTRICTS WILL BE MET. THEY ARE ALL CONSISTENT WITH THE RECENTLY ADOPTED FUTURE LAND USE FOR EACH OF THE AREAS.

STAFF IS RECOMMENDING APPROVAL ON ALL THREE APPLICATIONS THE

[01:30:05]

PLANNING COMMISSION VOTED 6-02 RECOMMEND EACH ONE OF THOSE FOR APPROVAL. DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS?

>> YES. I WANT YOU TO REITERATE, EVEN THOUGH ZONING IS CHANGING AND NOT INCREASING DENSITY FOR WHOEVER IS WATCHING TO MAKE SURE THEY UNDERSTAND YOU MADE SURE ZONING IS THE SAME FROM WHAT WAS ALREADY APPROVED.

>> YES. IT IS ALL CONSISTENT.

>> I KNOW THERE WILL BE REMARKS AND I WANT TO MAKE SURE WE PUT

THAT ON RECORD. >> NO FURTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE STAFF. WE WILL HEAR FROM THE APPLICANT.

>> I DO HAVE ANOTHER POWERPOINT OF THE MAPPING THAT MAY BE HELPFUL. THIS IS ANOTHER USE WHERE YOU CONSIDER THIS IN YOUR LAST ACTION SO THIS IS TO SIGN BOTH ZONING. THIS IS THE WESTERN PORTION OF WHAT WAS SARATOGA WEST OF PETERS CREEK.

WE TALK ABOUT SARATOGA WEST INDIES.

MIKE HAS GONE THROUGH THE ACREAGE SPIRIT TERESA CAN YOU GO TO THE LAST SLIDE. THIS IS REALLY AN EXPANSION OF THE LAKE AS VERY LAND USE. IT'S.

IT'S THE SAME APPLICATION YOU ARE SEEING THROUGHOUT THE DISTRICT. THIS MAP DOES INCLUDE THE LOCATION OF THE SCHOOL SITES. WE HAVE AN AGREEMENT WITH THE SCHOOL DISTRICT FOR A HIGH SCHOOL AND K-8.

WHEN YOU SEE THE UTILITY SITE THAT IS WATER TREATMENT PLANT.

THEY PURCHASE THAT TWO YEARS AGO.

THE DOUBLE STAR IS THE HIGH SCHOOL.

THE SINGLE STAR IS K-8. THE SQUARE ON THE OTHER SIDE, THIS IS ACTUALLY THE PARK SITE THAT YOU APPROVE THE AGREEMENT FOR THAT LAND DEDICATION. AGAIN, WE ARE HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS BUT THIS WILL SHOW YOU THE ADDITIONAL INFRASTRUCTURE INCLUDED IN THE PROJECT. THANK YOU.

>> DOES ANYONE HAVE QUESTIONS? >> THE PUBLIC HEARING, WE WILL TAKE PUBLIC COMMENT ON 29, 30 AND 31.

DOES ANYONE WISH TO SPEAK? CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING AND BRING IT BACK TO THE BOARD. COMMISSIONER BURKE.

>> CAN WE HAVE SEPARATE VOTES ON ALL THREE OF THEM.

>> MOVE FOR APPROVAL ON 29. >> SECOND PERIOD.

>> I HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. FOR THE DISCUSSION.

ALL IN FAVOR INDICATE BY SAYING AYE.

OPPOSED SAME, IT CARRIES 5-0. NUMBER 30.

>> RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF NUMBER 30.

>> I SECOND THE MOTION. >> I HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.

ALL IN FAVOR INDICATE BY SAYING AYE.

OPPOSED SAME SIDE, CARRIES 5-0. ITEM 31.

>> MOVE APPROVAL OF 31. >> SECOND.

>> I HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. FURTHER DISCUSSION? ALL IN FAVOR INDICATE BY SAYING AYE.

OPPOSED SAME SIDE, IT CARRIES 5-0.

[32. Public Hearing to consider PUD-2021-06. (District 5, Comm Burke) Planning Commission voted 6-0 to recommend approval. (M. Brown)]

[33. 5:00 p.m. or as soon thereafter as can be heard - Final Public Hearing to consider PUD-2021-09. (District 5, Comm Burke) Planning Commission voted 6-0 to recommend approval. (M. Brown)]

[34. 5:00 p.m. or as soon thereafter as can be heard - Final Public Hearing to consider adoption of PCD-2022-01. (District 5 Comm. Burke) Planning Commission voted 5-2 to recommend approval. (M. Brown)]

>> OKAY WE WILL GROUP 32, 33 AND 34 FOR THE PUBLIC HEARING.

>> MR. CHAIRMAN. THE NEXT THREE REZONING ALL ENCOMPASS THE REMAINING PROPERTIES WITHIN THE SARATOGA SPRINGS DRI. THESE ARE ALL PROPERTY EAST OF PETERS CREEK, WITHIN THE FORMER DRI.

PUD 2106 IS FOR ZONING CHANGE OF -- IN THE AREA THAT IS NOW DESIGNATED FOR FUTURE LAND USE. PUD 2109 ZONING CHANGE PLUS ACRES FROM PUD TO PUD AND AN AREA NOW DESIGNATED MIXED USE.

PCD THE PLANNED COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT 22-01 IS REZONING FROM PUD TO PCT. -- PCD.

PUD 2106, IS PRIMARILY A RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT AND

[01:35:04]

ALLOWS RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT. IT IS ASSOCIATED WITH THE RURAL FRENCH FUTURE LAND USE SPIRIT THE RESIDENTIAL DENSITY ALLOWED WILL MEET THE STANDARDS FOUND IN FUTURE LAND USE POLICY 1-4 AND 5. THE RANGE OF DENSITY IS FROM ONE DWELLING UNIT TO THREE DELL -- DWELLING UNITS.

AS PART OF THE ADOPTION OF THIS PUD, THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, CONSISTENT WITH THE STANDARDS SET FORTH IN THE OVERLAY AND THE ZONING DISTRICT WILL APPLY. WHAT THE APPLICANT HAS PROPOSED, AND WHAT IS BEING RECOMMENDED IS AN EXPANSION OF THE STANDARDS YOU FOUND IN THE MASTER-PLANNED TO THIS AREA.

AND REALLY TO ALL THREE OF THE AREAS BUT I WILL TOUCH ON EACH ONE SO THERE WILL BE A CONSISTENT DEVELOPMENT STANDARD FOR THAT AREA THAT WAS ENCOMPASSED BY THE DRI.

THIS WILL SHOW YOU THE LOCATION OF PUD2106 AND THE AREA OF A.

>> 2109, THAT IS A REQUEST TO CHANGE 94.6 ACRES FROM PUD TO PUD. THIS IS ASSOCIATED WITH THE MIXED USE USE AND CONSERVATION. 75 ACRES WILL GO -- IT COVERS THE MIXED-USE AREA AND THE ACRES THAT COVER THE CONSERVATION AREA ON THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP. THE 75 ACRES WILL BE DEVELOPED CONSISTENT WITH THE STANDARDS FOUND IN POLICY 14110 FOR MIXED-USE LAND USE, AND THE 19 ACRES WILL BE DEVELOPED CONSISTENT WITH THE STANDARDS IN THE POLICY FOR CONSERVATION LAND USE. AGAIN IN THIS CASE, THE LAKE AS VERY MASTER-PLANNED DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS WILL APPLY FOR ALL DEVELOPMENT AND ALL ASSOCIATED WITH THE MIXED-USE.

THIS PUD WILL REQUIRE A DISTRICT MASTER AND ACCESS MANAGEMENT PLAN TO BE DEVELOPED AND SUBMITTED AND APPROVED BY STAFF PRIOR TO ANY DEVELOPMENT TAKING PLACE.

PRIMARILY, ONE OF THE MAIN THINGS IT FOCUSE ON IS MAKING SURE WE PROTECT FIRST KO'S ACCESS.

THERE WILL BE AND ACCESS MANAGEMENT PLAN DEVELOP FOR THAT. AND ALL FUTURE DEVELOPMENT, THAT WILL BE A GENERAL PLAN BUT ALL FUTURE SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT THAT COMES IN AFTER THAT IN THIS AREA WILL HAVE TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THAT PLAN. IT IS A MECHANISM TO PROTECT

FIRST KO'S CONNECTOR. >> MIKE WINDT WILL THAT HAPPEN?

>> THERE IS NO TIMING FOR IT BUT THEY CAN'T DO ANY DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THAT PUD 2109 UNTIL THAT IS DONE AND APPROVED BY STAFF.

STAFF PROVIDES PROTECTION FOR THE COUNTY AND PROTECTS THE

CONNECTOR. >> THE NEXT SLIDE SHOWS YOU THE LOCATION. YELLOW ON THE AERIAL.

THE NEXT ONE, DISCOVERS THE FINAL 42 ACRES THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS PROPOSED, AND THE PLANNED COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT, ZONING CONSISTENT WITH THE STANDARDS SET FORTH IN THE MASTER PLAN AND CONSISTENT WITH THE TWO PREVIOUS REZONING OR THE

[01:40:03]

ONES SPOKE ABOUT TO THE WEST AND SOUTH.

AS I INDICATED EARLIER, A COMMON DEVELOPMENT STANDARD FOR THE ACRES COVERED BY THE FORMER DRI. THIS ALSO REQUIRES, THIS PLAN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT, ALSO REQUIRES AN ACCESS MANAGEMENT PLAN TO BE APPROVED PRIOR TO ANY DEVELOPMENT AND IF THE PRIMARY PURPOSE IS TO IDENTIFY AND PROTECT ACCESS TO THE FIRST KO'S CONNECTOR AND VEHICLE AND PEDESTRIAN CIRCULATION AND CONNECT IT TO OUTSIDE AREAS. THIS SHOWS YOU THE LOCATIO OF THE 42 ACRES. STAFF HAS REVIEWED ALL THREE APPLICATIONS I DETERMINE THE FUTURE LAND USE.

STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF PUD 2106.

2109 AND PLANNED COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 2201.

THE PLANNING COMMISSION VOTED 6-02 RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF BOTH 2106 AND 21 -- ZERO NINE AND 5-2 TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNED COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 22-01. IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OF

STAFF -- >> WAS THERE A PROBLEM WITH THAT QUICKSAND IT WAS TOO ABOUT THE ABILITY TO ALLOW ELECTRONIC SIGNS THAT IS WHAT WAS STATED BY THE CHAIRMAN WHO VOTED AGAINST IT. HE WAS SUPPORTIVE OF EVERYTHING ELSE. BUT HE DID NOT LIKE THE ELECTRONIC SIGNS SO KEEP VOTED AGAINST IT.

>> I HAVE A QUESTION. IN THE BACKUP LIKE PAGE 15, THIS MAY BE SOMETHING WE HAVE CONDITIONAL USES ALONG WITH DIFFERENT THINGS, ONE IS A MULTI STORY WAREHOUSE.

THAT MEAN THEY HAVE TO GET CONDITIONAL APPROVAL TO OPEN

THOSE IN THAT PARTICULAR AREA? >> YES.

>> SO ON 34, IF YOU GOAL SIX PAGES THEN IT IS EXHIBIT EIGHT THERE'S A LONG LIST OF EITHER CONDITIONAL OR PERMITTED USES IN ONE IS A MINI WAREHOUSE. IS THERE A DISCREPANCY THERE,

SHOULD THEY BOTH BE THE SAME? >> I BELIEVE, I SHOULD DEFER TO THE APPLICANT BECAUSE WE HAD DISCUSSION OF THAT.

IT WAS A CONSCIOUS DECISION BY THE APPLICANT, THERE WILL -- IT IS UNLIKELY WITH THE FIRST KO'S CONNECTOR, THAT THERE WILL BE AN ARTERIAL THAT WOULD CONNECT WITHIN THAT DEVELOPMENT.

THAT WOULD PREVENT, RATHER THAN TRYING TO PROTECT ACCESS, THAT WOULD PREVENT THAT USE FROM HAPPENING WITHIN THAT DEVELOPMENT. AND I THINK THE APPLICANT CAN RESPOND BETTER THAN I CAN. BEING ABLE TO HAVE THAT USE, AND KNOWING THERE WOULD NOT BE ARTERIAL TIME WITHIN THE FIRST KO'S CONNECTOR, THAT IS WHY THAT WAS INCLUDED AS IT IS.

>> RIGHT NOW AS THE CODE INDICATES WEEK CAN'T HAVE THAT ON ARTERIAL ROADWAY. ONE ITEM WE HAVE UNTIL APRIL 26 IS JUST THAT. THE ADOPTION OF CHANGE IN THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE TO MAKE THIS WHERE IT CAN BE PLACED WHEREVER THE DEVELOPER WANTS IT. IS THAT DIFFERENT THAN THIS BECAUSE THIS IS COVERED UNDER PUD.

[01:45:10]

THIS WOULD NOT OPEN UP ANY OTHER AREA.

>> IF SOMEONE WANTED TO OPEN A WAREHOUSE, THE BOARD WOULD STILL HAVE APPROVAL OVER WHETHER THEY WOULD DO THAT OR NOT?

>> IT'S AN ALLOWABLE CONDITION USE SPIRIT THE SAME REASON I

HAVE A PROBLEM WITH NUMBER 21. >> I BELIEVE THE BOARD SHOULD HAVE THAT ABILITY ESPECIALLY AS IT RELATES TO WHAT THEY ARE TRYING TO DO THEIR WORK THEY WANT TO BUILD STORAGE WAREHOUSES. WE WANT TO PUT THEM ON NON- ARTERIAL ROADWAY SPIRIT I THINK, TO ME THAT SHOULD BE A CONTENTS -- CONTINUAL USE SPIRIT JUST LIKE FLEA MARKETS AND MEDICAL MARIJUANA DISPENSARIES. I WOULD LIKE TO HEAR FROM THE APPLICANT, WHETHER THAT IS A GAME CHANGER OR NOT.

>> ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS WERE STAFF?

>> QUICKLY BEFORE WE MOVED TO THE APPLICANT.

IN CONNECTION WITH THIS WE PROVIDED YOU WITH A REVISED WRITTEN STATEMENT THAT'S DIFFERENT FROM THE ONE ATTACHED TO YOUR BACKUP. THE REASON IS, THE WRITTEN STATEMENT INCLUDED, ONCE THEY HAVE THE PARK, THE WRITTEN

STATEMENT. >> WE WILL HEAR FROM THE

APPLICANT. >> GOOD EVENING.

SUSAN FRAZIER PARK STREET IN JACKSONVILLE.

THIS IS SARATOGA EAST WHICH IS THE NON- LAKE AS VERY PART.

AS MICAH SAID WE HAVE LITERALLY TAKEN THE MASTER-PLANNED REQUIREMENTS WHICH YOU ARE WELL-VERSED IN AND CONTINUED THEM OVER LITERALLY TO THE COUNTY ROAD 315.

SO WE HAVE THREE ZONES WHEN YOU WILL CONSIDER TONIGHT ON THE SIDE. WHEN WE APPLIED, WE HAD 90 ACRES OF MIXED USE. WHEN THE BOARD DID THIS YOU SAID THIS WAS ALL YOU ARE WILLING TO SUPPORT.

THE ACREAGE CHANGE IS WHEN THIS GOT SMALLER THE LAND WENT INTO THE PROPERTY. THAT IS ONE OF THE CHANGES THAT

YOU SEE. >> THE OTHER ONE IS THE RELOCATION OF THE PARK. FOR THOSE OF YOU IN THE PARK DISCUSSIONS, IT HAS FINALLY LANDED IN THE LOCATION I SHOWED YOU ON THE LAST SLIDE. IT IS NOW ON THE WEST SIDE OF THE CREEK AND NO LONGER IN THE PUD AT ALL.

THOSE ARE THE THINGS THAT HAVE CHANGED.

THIS IS PUD 2106 AND THIS WAS CONTEMPLATED TO BE COMMERCIAL AND OFFICE ALL OF THE WAY DOWN 315.

>> THIS WAS APPROVED BEFORE YOU ABANDONED IT ONE HOUR AGO.

>> THIS IS WHAT THE PLANT USED TO LOOK LIKE.

THIS IS ONLY A RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT.

NOW THE MAJORITY OF THE ROAD WILL BE RESIDENTIAL.

WE WILL TALK ABOUT HOW THIS IS SMALLER IN AREA.

WE HAVE TAKEN ALL OF THE STANDARDS AND MOVE THEM ACROSS THE CREEK. THIS IS THE AREA THEY HAVE STARTED CONSTRUCTION AND THEY ARE GETTING READY TO START

[01:50:06]

CONSTRUCTION ON THE SCHOOL SITE PARISH THE SECOND REZONING YOU

WILL CONSIDER IS. >> THERE WILL BE LESS THAN 75 ACRES IN MIXED USE (THIS IS BEFORE THE LAND IS TAKEN OUT FOR THE FIRST KO CONNECTOR. THE CURRENT AND PROPOSED ZONING ALLOWS THE SAME THING SO THE GRI ALLOWED COMMERCIAL AND THIS IS THE PARTICULAR ZONING WE ARE SEEKING THIS EVENING.

THE STANDARDS WILL BE APPLICABLE AS WELL.

AGAIN THIS IS WHAT THE DR I SHOWED FOR THIS AREA.

THE NUMBER THREE NORTH OF THE WHITE LINE IS WHERE THE CONNECTOR USED TO BE LOCATED. A LITTLE SOUTH THAN WHERE IT IS

TODAY. >> THIS IS UP AGAINST THE CREEK NOT ON 315 ALLOWS COMMERCIAL AND OFFICE PICK.

>> THE THIRD ITEM IS, THE PARK STANDARDS THAT WILL APPLY.

WE WILL HAVE THIS IS INTENDED TO BE WHERE PEOPLE CAN WALK TO SERVICES AND RETAIL RESTAURANTS. THERE ARE SMALL-SCALE AND COMMERCIAL USES ALLOWED, THE LARGE-SCALE USES ARE NOT PERMITTED UNLESS THERE IS A 60-FOOT BUFFER.

>> THIS PROCESS WE WILL HAVE A MASTER PLAN BEFORE ANYTHING CAN BE CONSTRUCTED. THE TIMELINE FOR DEVELOPMENT, THE FIRST KO'S CONNECTOR WILL OPEN IN 24.

WHILE THERE WILL BE PLANNING IN ADVANCE ON THE ROAD CONSTRUCTIONIST UNLIKELY DEVELOPMENT WILL OCCUR.

THE LAST ITEM IS COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT ON 315.

THIS WILL ALLOW US THIS IS JUST A 42-ACRE DISTRICT.

THE LAKE AS BERRIES. >> IS DUE APPLIED.

IN EXCESS OF WHAT WILL APPLY. THIS IS A 42-ACRE PARCEL.

I THINK IT WAS PARTICULAR TO THIS PARCEL WOULD NOT JUST ANY.

IF YOU APPROVE IT HERE, THAT'S BECAUSE WE HAVE CONVINCED YOU IT'S IN AN APPROPRIATE LOCATION. IF YOU DETERMINE IS NOT APPROPRIATE ANYWHERE ELSE YOU WANT TO PROVE THAT.

WE ARE ASKING YOU TO CONSIDER. THE FIRST KO'S CONNECTOR, WE CAN HAVE MANY WAREHOUSES AS A CONDITIONAL USE WITHOUT COMING BACK TO YOU THE WAY WE COULD ANYWHERE IN CLAY COUNTY.

WE TALKED TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION RESET THE STEPS OF THIS PARCEL RUNS PARALLEL TO 315 IF YOU LOOK AT THE BOTTOM WHERE IT SAYS WILLOW SPRINGS ROAD THAT IS THE MAIN ENTRANCE TO THE SUBDIVISION AND THERE WILL BE A FOUR-WAY INTERSECTION TO TO THIS PROPERTY. SOUTH OF THAT LINE, THIS IS ELEMENTARY R. THERE IS LIKELY THERE IS A ROAD CONNECTING THE ROAD TO THE WEST UP TO THE FIRST KO'S CONNECTOR.

THE PLANNING COMMISSION SUPPORTED US IN SAYING IF WE WERE TO PUT A MINI WAREHOUSE ALONG THAT ROAD, NOT ON 315, MAYBE NOT ON THE FIRST KO'S CONNECTOR, MAYBE YOU DON'T WANT IT THERE, ON THAT ROAD IT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE.

THAT WOULD MEAN USE WILL OCCUR WITHOUT THE DRIVEWAY BEING ON

[01:55:04]

THE FIRST KO'S CONNECTOR. SOME OF YOU DRIVE DOWN AND YOU SEE THE WAREHOUSE SOUTH OF SUZANNE AND IT IS RIGHT ON THE ROAD AND A SMALL BUFFER. WE DON'T KNOW IF THAT IS A USE YOU WANT TO SEE. IF YOU MAKE IT CONDITIONAL, IT WOULD HAVE ACCESS TO THE CONNECTOR.

IF YOU ALLOW US WHAT WE ARE REQUESTING IT WILL BE ON A SIDE

STREET. >> QUESTIONS?

>> MY ONLY QUESTION IS, YOU ARE ASSUMING THAT WILL BECOME ARTERIAL, IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE UNLESS WE DETERMINE IT.

THE LIKELIHOOD OF IT BEING ARTERIAL WOULD BE REMOTE AND HE

SAYING, THAT WOULD BE THE CASE. >> BOOK CONNECTOR WILL BE

CLASSIFIED AS A MINOR ARTERIAL. >> HOW DOES THAT GET JUSTIFIED

AS AN ARTERIAL. >> IT CONNECTS A FEDERAL HIGHWAY TO AN INTERSTATE. THE DEFINITION IS HOW THE ROADS CODE. SO U.S. FEDERAL HIGHWAY

CONNECTING TO AN INTERSTATE. >> AS IT STANDS NOW SOMEONE ONE TO PUT UP A MINI WAREHOUSE, IN THIS AREA REGARDLESS OF WHERE IT IS IN THE SITE PLANT THEY WOULD BE ABLE THAT'S RIGHT THEY WOULD BE ABLE TO DO THAT WITHOUT COMING BACK TO THE BOARD?

>> WITH ACCESS TO THE FIRST KO'S CONNECTOR, GETS.

>> AND UNDER CONDITIONAL USE WITH THEY HAVE THAT ABILITY?

>> UNDER FIRST KO'S CONNECTOR, YES.

IF YOU GIVE US WHAT WERE ASKING IT WOULD BE ALLOWED BUT OFF OF

THE FIRST KO'S CONNECTOR. >> I MAY HAVE MISUNDERSTOOD YOUR QUESTION BECAUSE I WAS REFERRING TO THE ROAD SUSAN REFER TO.

THAT WILL NOT BE AN ARTERIAL. FIRST KO'S CONNECTOR COULD BE AN ARTERIAL. AND I APOLOGIZE IF I'VE

MISUNDERSTOOD -- >> MY POINT IS THIS.

WE HAVE NUMBER 21 WHICH THEY ARE TRYING TO CHANGE TO PERMIT MORE ACCESS. I HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THAT.

>> I WANT TO MAKE SURE WE ARE COVERED SO IF SOMEONE WILL PUT ONE THEY WILL UP TO TELL US WHERE THEY WILL PUT IT LIKE THE ONE ACROSS FROM THE HOSPITAL. AND WE WERE ABLE TO APPROVE THAT BUT THEY HAD TO GET THE APPROVAL.

I AM NOT SAYING I AM AGAINST IT BUT I WANT TO MAKE SURE BASED ON WHAT I'VE BEEN TOLD IN DISCUSSIONS WITH THE DEVELOPER WHO WANTS TO CHANGE THE LCD, THAT WE WILL HAVE THE SAME ABILITIES TO APPROVE WHAT WILL BE IN THERE.

>> I DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW U.S. 17 CONNECTS TO AN INTERSTATE BECAUSE IT DOESN'T. IF YOUR LOOKING AT STATE ROAD

I-10 THAT'S AN INTERSTATE. >> CORRECT, BUT IF YOU THINK OF THE CONNECTOR THERE WILL BE AN INTERSECTION WITH 17, AND IT WILL GO ON 315 IT WILL DIP DOWN THROUGH WILLOW SPRINGS.

IT WILL CONTINUE ALL OF THE WAY TO THE INTERSTATE.

>> WHICH INTERSTATE? >> THAT'S NOT AN INTERSTATE THAT STATE ROAD 23. THAT IS STATE ROAD 23.

>> IT DOES NOT GO INTO ANOTHER STATE.

>> WELL IN FACT CONNECTOR IS NOT , THEN I CAN HAVE A MAIN WAREHOUSE. IF THE FIRST KO'S CONNECTOR IS NOT AN INTERSTATE, AND NOT ARTERIAL, I CAN'T HAVE A MINI

WAREHOUSE. >> I HAVE HEARD SEVERAL DIFFERENT THINGS IS IT AN ARTERIAL OR IS THE NET?

>> NOT TRYING TO HOLD US UP BUT WE HAVE ITEM 21 WHICH WILL COME BACK AND THEY WILL BE LOOKING TO PUT A MINI WAREHOUSE ON EVERY

CORNER IN THE COUNTY. >> I THINK THIS IS IMPORTANT BECAUSE DETERMINING WHAT IS AN ARTERIAL ROADWAY, THIS IS GOING THROUGH A NEIGHBORHOOD. I'M NOT SURE WE WANT AN ARTERIAL ROADWAY GOING THROUGH A NEIGHBORHOOD.

>> GO AHEAD. >> ONCE IT IS CONSTRUCTED, ( INDISCERNIBLE ) AND ALTHOUGH IT IS A TOLLROAD, IT IS CONSIDERED

[02:00:04]

A STATE ROAD. >> SO BASICALLY, BY APPROVING THE FIRST KO'S CONNECTOR WE TOOK AWAY THE ABILITY TO HAVE MANY WAREHOUSES WHERE WE WANT TO BECAUSE OF WHAT THEY ARE SAYING? NEEDS TO ROADS WILL CROSS EACH OTHER?

>> DON'T SHOOT THE MESSENGER. WHAT IT IS SAYING IS ANYONE ALONG THE EXPRESSWAY CAN PUT UP A MINI WAREHOUSE BECAUSE, BECAUSE THE EXPRESSWAY CROSSES IT?

>> ANYONE IN THE WAREHOUSE WOULD HAVE TO HAVE COMMERCIAL ZONING AND THAT IS YOURS TO GRANT OR DENY.

>> NOT NECESSARILY. >> I'M JUST SAYING I THINK WE SHOULD TAKE MINI WAREHOUSE OUT OF THIS BECAUSE YOU CAN APPROVE IT AND THEN ELIMINATE THE NEED AND REVISIT THIS AND I THINK, I THINK IT IS AT RISK HERE BECAUSE YOU HAVE HOW DOES THAT DEVELOPER

NOT SAY -- >> THIS IS MY PROBLEM.

THIS IS A PROBLEM WHEN WE GET TO >> IF WE LEAVE IT AS A

CONDITIONAL USE -- >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR

MS. FRAZIER? >> MR. CELLA IF YOU APPROVE IT

-- >> DOESN'T SOLVE THE PROBLEM IF WE MAKE IT CONDITIONAL AND COME BACK TO YOU IF SOMEONE WANTS TO -- IT IS A 40-ACRE COMMERCIAL CENTER WITH A WORLD SO THE COMMERCIAL PLACES THAT ROAD INSTEAD OF THE FIRST GOALS

CONNECTOR. >> IF WE MAKE IT CONDITIONAL --

>> WE BEAT THAT ONE TO DEATH. >> I AGREE, YOU HAVE AN ISSUE.

>> WE ARE DONE. >> ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS FOR MS? THANK YOU. LET'S OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING ON ITEMS 32-34. ANYONE WISHING TO DISCUSS THESE? I HOPE NOT, BUT WE WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.

BRING IT BACK TO THE BOARD. AND I THINK WE HAVE TO VOTE ON

THESE ONE AT A TIME. >> YES, AND WITH RESPECT TO EACH OF THE MOTIONS, WHAT WE WOULD LIKE TO REQUEST IS THAT THERE ARE SPECIFIC SITE PLANS IN CONNECTION WITH EACH ONE AND WE WOULD THIS IS FOR ITEMS 30 THROUGH 34.

I WOULD LIKE THE ORDINANCES THAT YOU HAVE TO ALLOW US TO ATTACH THE SITE PLAN TO EACH OF THEM. IF YOUR MOTION COULD INCLUDE

THAT. >> THERE WE GO.

>> THAT IS CLEAR. >> WE WILL LET COMMISSIONER BURKE FIGURE THIS ONE OUT. WE ARE AT 32.

>> I WOULD LIKE TO MOVE APPROVAL >> I WANT TO MOVE PUD 22109 TO INCLUDE THAT SITE PLAN AS EXHIBITS C.

>> SECOND. >> A MOTION IN THE SECOND.

ALL IN FAVOR INDICATE BY SAYING AYE.

OPPOSED SAME SIDE. ALL RIGHT, WE HAVE SOME ISSUES WITH THIS ONE. LET'S GIVE IT A SHOT.

>> THIS IS TO CHANGE CONDITIONAL USE.

[02:05:11]

THIS IS THE WRITTEN STATEMENT TO >> EMOTION AND IN SECOND PERIOD

DOES THIS FIX THE ISSUE? >> ALL IN FAVOR INDICATE BY SAYING AYE. OPPOSED SAME IN CARRIES 5-0.

>> I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE THE ITEMS WERE CLEAR FOR NUMBER 32. WE PROVIDED THE REVISED WRITTEN STATEMENT AND I WANTED TO MAKE SURE YOUR MOTION INCLUDED THE

[35. 5:00 p.m. or as soon thereafter as can be heard - Final Public Hearing to consider adoption of CPA 2022-01. (District 5, Comm. Burke) Planning Commission voted 7-0 to recommend approval. (D. Selig)]

[36. 5:00 p.m. or as soon thereafter as can be heard - Final Public Hearing to consider adoption of PUD 2022-02. (District 5, Comm. Burke) Planning Commission voted 5-2 to recommend approval. (D. Selig)]

REVISED WRITTEN STATEMENT. >> OKAY.

GROUP 35 AND 36 TOGETHER. >> THESE TWO ITEMS BOTH ARE TIED TO THE SAME PARCELS SO WE WILL PROVIDE YOU THOSE TOGETHER, CPA 2022 -- ZERO ONE AND PUD 2022 -- ZERO TWO.

THE APPLICATION IS A SMALL-SCALE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT TO THE 2040 FUTURE LAND USE MAP THE APPLICATION WOULD CHANGE THE FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION OF A PORTION OF ONE PARCEL 8492 ACRES FROM RURAL FRENCH TO COMMERCIAL. THE OTHER APPLICATIONS A REZONING OF ONE PARCEL FROM PUD TO PUD THE PARCEL IS PART OF THE WILLOW SPRINGS PUD AND WILL BE KNOWN AS WILL SPRINGS NORTH.

ON THE LEFT IS THE COMMERCIAL PORTION.

AND ON THE RIGHT IS THE WHOLE PARCEL WHICH IS THE PUD.

THIS IS THE COMMERCIAL PART AND ON THE LEFT IS THE CURRENT FUTURE LAND USE AREA AND THIS IS THE PROPOSED ADDITION TO THE EXISTING COMMERCIAL. IT WAS LEFT OFF, LET ME EXPLAIN SOME OF THE. ORIGINALLY THE ROAD CAME ACROSS HERE AND THAT'S WHY IT'S NOT COMMERCIAL.

NOTE THE ROAD WILL BE COMING IN FROM THE SOUTH INSTEAD.

THAT WAS PART OF THE REASON FOR THE CHANGE.

THIS IS THE SITE FOR THE PUD THE AREA SHOWN IN THIS AREA.

THIS IS THE STORMWATER AREA. >> ANY QUESTIONS ON STAFF.

>> FRAZIER IF YOU COULD GO THROUGH THE LAST FIVE THIS IS A PLAN AMENDMENT THAT WILL MOVE THE VISITORS FROM THE NORTH TO THE SOUTH SIDE. THIS IS PART OF A LARGER PUD WE ARE GOING FROM 5 ACRES TO 13.92 BUT THERE'S ONLY A FEW LEFT AFTER THE FIRST GOALS CONNECTOR. SO THIS IS UNDER THE PROPERTY THAT WILL BE PART OF THE FIRST GOALS CONNECTOR.

THE RESIDENTIAL USE AND PUD OVERALL, I THINK THIS IS WHAT THEY DESCRIBED AND WE ARE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.