Sep 06, 2022 Planning Commission

[Call to Order]

[00:00:08]

>> LET'S GET GOING. WELCOME, EVERYONE WELCOME TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING FOR SEPTEMBER 6 FOR CLAY COUNTY. BEFORE WE START ANY OF OUR BUSINESS HERE, I WOULD ASK THAT EVERYBODY STAND AND WE WILL

RECITE THE PLEDGE. >> PLEASE JOIN ME AND PLEDGING ALLEGIANCE TO OUR NATION. I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS, ONE NATION UNDER GOD PINDIVISIBLE WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL.

>> THANK YOU. BEFORE WE GET STARTED, I WOULD LIKE TO DO INTRODUCTIONS. STARTING OVER HERE ON THE RIGHT WE WILL START WITH COMMISSIONER PETE DAVIS.EXT TO HIM IS BO NORTON AND THEN MARY AND MY NAME IS RALPH I AM THE CHAIRMAN THIS YEAR. AND THEN ON MY LEFT WE HAVE JOE ANSALONE AND THEN ON THE END REPRESENTING CLAY COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD IS LANCE ADDISON. AND HANNAH, WILL YOU KNOW THAT MICHAEL BURRAY IS ABSENT TONIGHT? ALSO WE HAVE MIKE BROWN WHO WAS THE CHIEF OF ZONING.

BETH CARSON HE WAS THE CHIEF PLANNER.

SAMANTHA OLSON NEXT TO HER IT WAS ONE OF OUR PLANNERS, AND OVERHEAR HIDING IN THE CORNER OVER THERE I SEE IS ED LAYMAN THE PLANNING AND ZONING DIRECTOR AND COURTNEY GRAHAM, THE COUNTY ATTORNEY. SITTING IN THE AUDIENCE ALSO IS OUR ASSISTANT COUNTY ATTORNEY JAMIE HOVDA.

I THINK THAT'S EVERYBODY THAT'S HERE.

I GOT HANNAH. SHE IS TAKING THE MINUTES.

ALWAYS KEEPING US SAFE WE HAVE A COUPLE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE SHERIFF'S OFFICE HERE. WE HAVE OFFICER UBLER AND SERGEANT DUGGAR. WE APPRECIATE THEM BEING HERE.

BEFORE WE GET STARTED, THERE ARE -- I WOULD ASK THAT IF YOU HAVE YOUR CELL PHONE, IF YOU WOULD PUT THEM ON VIBRATE.

AND IF YOU HAVE TO TAKE A CALL, PLEASE STEP OUT INTO THE VESTIBULE TO DO SO. IF ANYBODY IS HERE OTHER THAN AN APPLICANT OR A CAC REPRESENTATIVE AND WANTS TO SPEAK ON AN ITEM, THESE CARDS RIGHT OUTSIDE THE DOOR.

IF YOU WOULD FILL ONE OUT FOR US, PLEASE.

AND WE ARE AN ADVISORY PANEL, SO OUR DECISIONS HERE TONIGHT WILL GO AS RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS EITHER NEXT WEEK OR TWO WEEKS FROM -- NEXT WEEK OR THREE WEEKS FROM TONIGHT, AND AS WE GET OUR PRESENTATIONS FROM STAFF, THEY WILL TELL US WHAT DAY THEY WILL GO.

IN THE COMMISSION MEETS AT 4:00 IN TESE CHAMBERS, AND THEY TAKE UP ZONING ISSUES STARTING AT 5:00.

SO IF YOU WERE HERE FOR AN ITEM, YOU WILL WANT TO COME BACK WHEN THAT ITEM IS HEARD BY THE FULL BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS. I DON'T SEE TOO MANY NEW FACES, BUT JUST SO YOU KNOW, KIND OF THE ORDER WE GO THROUGH HERE, WE WILL HAVE ONE OF THE MEMBERS OF STAFF WHO WILL GIVE US THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON EACH ITEM.

WE MAY ASK THEM QUESTIONS. WE WILL THEN OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AND WE WILL DO ALL OF THE PUBLIC HEARING PORTION.

WE WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.

WE MAY HAVE FURTHER DISCUSSION AMONG US OR ARE YOU MAY HAVE

[1.  Approval of Minutes]

OUR FIRST ITEM IS APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FROM LAST MONTH.

DID EVERYBODY GET A CHANCE TO LOOK AT THEM, AND OTHER ANY QUESTIONS OR CORRECTIONS? IF NOT, I NEED A MOTION.

>> MOTION TO APPROVE. >> SECOND.

>> A SECOND FROM MR. NORTON. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF APPROVING THE MINUTES FROM AUGUST 2 STATE AYE.ALL OPPOSED?

[00:05:02]

[1.  Public Hearing to consider LDC-2022-12 to add RV and Boat Storage as a conditional use in LA RC. (D. Selig)]

WILL PRESENT. >> I AM FEELING AND TONIGHT, OBVIOUSLY. THIS ITEM ORIGINALLY HEARD AT THE AUGUST PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, BUT YOU OPTED TO PCONTINUE IT TO THIS MONTH'S MEETING SO THAT THE LAKE AS BARRY CNC COULD DISCUSS THE ITEM FURTHER.

AND BECAUSE IT'S A LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE CHANGE, IT WILL GO TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS WERE TO PUBLIC HEARINGS. THE FIRST WILL BE NEXT TUESDAY, THE 13, AND THEN IT WILL ALSO GO ON THE 27TH.

THE APPLICATION IS FOR A CHANGE TO ARTICLE 3 NUMBER, AND THE SECTION IS THE LAKE ASBURY RURAL COMMUNITY WHERE THIS IS PROPOSED TO BE AN ADDED CONDITIONAL USE.

THE LAKE ASBURY CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON AUGUST 12, THE COMMITTEE VOTED 6 TO 1 TO APPROVE THIS ITEM WITH THE TEXT CHANGE BELOW. RV AND BOAT STORAGE SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING PROVISIONS. THE PARCEL SIZE SHALL BE A MINIMUM OF 10 ACRES AND THE RV AND BOAT PARKING STORAGE AREA ACCOMPANYING DRIVING AISLES SHALL NOT EXCEED 50 PERCENT OF THE SITE. AND WE HAVE A REPRESENTATIVE

FROM THE CAC HERE TONIGHT. >> YOU ARE NOT FINISHED.

I WAS JUST TELLING MU AREN'T QUITE THERE YET.

>> SO WITHIN THE CONDITIONAL USE REQUIREMENTS FOR RV AND BOAT STORAGE, THESE ARE THE REQUIREMENTS WE CURRENTLY HAVE IN PLACE. IT REQUIRES A MINIMUM OF THREE ACRES. IT'S REQUIRED TO HAVE DIRECT ACCESS TO A MAJOR COLLECTOR ROADWAY AND EXAMPLES WOULD BE RUSSEL RHODES OR COUNTY ROAD 218.

THOSE ARE THE ONES IN PARTICULAR RELATED TO THE RURAL COMMUNITY LAND USE DESIGNATION. THERE IS A 30 FOOT LANDSCAPE BUFFER WITH EVERGREEN CANOPY TREES PLANTED EVERY 30 FEET WITHIN 10 FEET OF THE PROPERTY LINE AND ALSO A SIX FOOT SOLID FENCE OR WALL REQUIREMENT. 20 PERCNT OF THE SITE HAS TO BE REMAINING IN OPEN SPACE AND THE DRIVE AISLES HAVE TO BE PAVED. IN THESE PLANS ALL GO BEFORE OUR OUR DRC AND ARE REVIEWED BY OUR STAFF.

THESE AREN'T THINGS THAT CAN POP UP OVERNIGHT.

WE DO LOOK AT THE LIGHTING STANDARDS IN THE BUFFER STANDARDS IN THE PAVEMENT. WE LOOK TO MAKE SURE THAT EVERYTHING IS MEETING THESE CONDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS.

THIS IS A MAP SHOWING THE POTENTIAL AREAS THAT ARE RURAL COMMUNITY THAT WOULD HAVE THE POTENTIAL FOR THIS RV AND BOAT STORAGE. YOU CAN SEE ALONG RUSSEL RHODES, TO THE UPPER NORTHEASTERN PART AND THEN DOWN AROUND THE THUNDER ROAD AREA SOUTH OF COUNTY ROAD 218.

AND THEN THERE IS A SMALL AREA ALONG THE EXPRESSWAY THERE.

SO WITH THAT STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF LCD 2022-12.

WE HAVE PROPOSED THAT IT HAVE JUST THE LANGUAGE OF THE CONDITIONAL USE IN THE DISTRICT WITH NO ADDITIONAL STANDARDS.

THERE WERE SOME EXPLANATION OF WHY WE ARE NOT PROPOSING THAT.

RURAL COMMUNITY ALREADY REQUIRES A MINIMUM LOT SIZE BE FIVE ACRES. THERE'S ALSO A REQUIREMENT THAT A RESIDENTIAL LAND USE HAS TO BE SEPARATE FROM -- YOU CAN'T HAVE MORE THAN ONE USE OF THE PROPERTY, SO YOU WOULD HAVE TO HAVE YOUR PARCELS SEPARATE IF YOU HAD A RESIDENCE AND WANTED TO HAVE A PARCEL FOR RV AND BOAT STORAGE YOU WOULD NEED TO HAVE A SEPARATE FIVE VEHICLE PARCEL.

SO YOU WOULD STILL HAVE TO HAVE A MINIMUM FIVE ACRES TO MEET THE ACTUAL ZONING DISTRICT REQUIREMENTS.

SO EVEN THOUGH THE CONDITIONAL USE IS THREE ACRES, FIVE ACRES IS WHAT WOULD BE REQUIRED IN RURAL COMMUNITY.

AND I CAN TRY AND EXPLAIN THAT A LITTLE BIT BETTER IF THAT'S CONFUSING. BUT THAT'S WHY WE CHOSE TO GO THIS ROUTE RECOMMENDING THIS RECOMMENDATION.

[00:10:01]

>> CAN YOU LOOK BACK TO THE MAP AGAIN? I WANT TO CLARIFY BECAUSE I KNOW WE SAW THIS LAST MONTH BUT IS IT THE YELLOW AREAS THAT ARE ALL THE AREAS THAT ARE AFFECTED

BY THIS? >> YES.

YELLOW AND GREEN. >> I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S GREEN

OR YELLOW. >> THOSE ARE THE AREAS THAT ARE

AFFECTED BY THIS? >> IS WITH THE POTENTIAL RURAL COMMUNITY AREAS. AND I THOUGHT THIS MAP HAD BEEN -- SORRY. THOSE OF THE RURAL COMMUNITY AREAS. IF YOU SEE THE PURPLE DESIGNATIONS -- THE LINES, THOSE OF THE THREE ACRES FRONTING ON THE REQUIRED COLLECTOR ROADS.

THE ONLY ROAD YOU CAN DO THIS WOULD BE RUSSEL RHODES OR 218.

AND SO YOU SEE THESE LITTLE TINY MARKS.

THOSE ARE THE POTENTIAL SITES, SO IT'S NOT 100 PERCENT

COVERED. >> IS THAT BECAUSE THOSE ARE THE SITES THAT ARE AT LEAST THREE ACRES?

>> THAT'S CORRECT. >> IS IN THE LEGEND BUT IT'S A LITTLE SMALL. I'M GLAD YOU BROUGHT THIS UP SO

WE COULD CLARIFY THIS. >> AND YOU HAD THOSE MARKED AS INDIVIDUAL PARCELS. THERE'S PROBABLY, WHAT, 20 OR

25? >> CORRECT BUT -- YES.

>> BETH, CAN YOU GO BACK TO THE CAC'S RECOMMENDATION ON THIS

FIRST PAGE? >> YES.

>> THANK YOU. ANY REASON WHY THEY VOTED?

I WILL WAIT FOR THAT. >> AND THE C AND C HAS A REPRESENTATIVE HERE. IF YOU WOULD GIVE US YOUR NAME

AND ADDRESS, PLEASE. >> AND LET ME SAY BEFORE YOU START THAT WE ARE JUST PLEASED THAT THERE IS A CAC AFTER NOW

TO HELP US WITH LAKE AS BARRY. >> AND THANK YOU FOR BOUNCING THIS BACK AND GIVING US THE OPPORTUNITY TO TALK ABOUT.

>> IT WAS IN OUR LAST MEETING AUGUST 11 A LONG CONVERSATION ABOUT BOAT AND RV STORAGE. AND TO YOUR QUESTION, OUR CONCERN WAS WITH THIS COMING OUT INTO A RURAL COMMUNITY AREA AND THE INTENSITY OF LIGHTING THAT WILL BE REQUIRED FOR BOAT AND RV STORAGE, THAT MEANS 24 HOURS OF LIGHTING FOR A RURAL COMMUNITY AREA. SO THE FIRST THING WE DID, THE COMMITTEE DIDN'T WANT TO COME BACK AND COMMENT TIA IS PERHAPS YOU WOULD CONSIDER FOR FUTURE SUBDIVISION DEVELOPMENT THAT THEY CAN CONSIDER SPACE FOR BOAT AND RV STORAGE BECAUSE THAT IS WHAT'S CREATING THE NEED FOR BOAT AND RV STORAGE.

OUSES WOULD BE TIGHTLY PACKED BOATS AND RV NEAR THE PROPERTY SO WE'VE GOT TO MOVE IT OUT TO THE RURAL COMMUNITY.

SO I WOULD ENCOURAGE THE THOUGHT THAT IT BE KEPT IN THE COMMUNITY WHERE THE PEOPLE ARE AND THAT WILL REDUCE TRAFFIC DEMANDS AND WILL CERTAINLY REDUCE LIGHTING THAT WILL BE OUT IN THE RURAL COMMUNITY. SO BACK TO YOUR BASIC QUESTION.

WE WERE WRECKING THE 10 ACRES BECAUSE A SIX FOOT TRANSIENT SMALL STRAWBERRY IS NOT GOING TO BLOCK THE LIGHTING REQUIREMENTS FOR BOAT AND RV STORAGE.

SO BY KEEPING IT AT 50 PERCENT OF THE PROPERTY WE HOPED THERE WOULD BE MORE OF THE POSSIBLE BUFFERING SO THE LIGHT WON'T INTRUDE ALL OF THE PROPERTY AROUND.

ANY QUESTIONS I CAN ANSWER? >> I'M STILL TRYING TO JIVE WITH WHAT YOU ARE RECOMMENDING VERSUS WHAT STAFF IS RECOMMENDING. ARMY ON THE SAME PAGE OR NOT?

IT DOESN'T APPEAR TO BE.>> IT DOESN'T APPEAR TO BE.

>> THE STAFF IS STICKING WITH THE ORIGINAL RECOMMENDATION WHICH WAS THREE ACRES. IT WAS THREE, WASN'T IT?> THE CONDITIONAL USE IS THREE, HOWEVER, LAKE ASBURY RURAL FRINGE, THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE IS GOING TO BE FIVE ACRES BECAUSE YOU CAN'T HAVE ANYTHING SMALLER.

IT WOULD NOT BE A CONFORMING LOT SO THE SMALLEST YOU COULD BE WITH THE FIVE. WE WERE CONCERNED WITH 10 ACRE MINIMUM BECAUSE YOU ARE INTRODUCING COMMERCIAL AND A LOT MORE LIGHTING AND REQUIRING A LARGER LOT DIDN'T SEEM TO BE COMPATIBLE NECESSARILY WITH RESIDENTIAL TO ADD AN EVEN LARGER DD2 HAVE A MINIMUM OF ANY AGENT EVEN LARGER LOT.

[00:15:04]

>> IF I COULD ADD A COMMENT ON THE MAP.

>> THIS IS WHAT YOU ARE HERE FOR.

THE OTHER THING I WOULD LIKE TO HEAR IS YOU GUYS HAD A COUPLE OF RECOMMENDATIONS FOR US TO CONSIDER.

HAD YOU HAD TO LIVE JUST ON THE STAFF'S REPORT, WOULD IT'S STILL HAVE BEEN A POSITIVE BOAT AND I'D LIKE YOU TO TOUCH ON THAT IF YOU HAVE A FEELING FOR THAT.

>> BASED ON THE DISCUSSION PARTICULARLY WHEN THE DISCUSSION OF THE LIGHTING WAS BROUGHT UP, I DON'T -- I COULDN'T SAY POSITIVELY IT WOULD BE A POSITIVE BOAT.

IN BRINGING UP THE 10 ACRES. AND NUMBER OF STORAGE SPACES THAT AT LEAST GAVE A COUPLE OF MEMBERS TO POSITIVE THOUGHT.

>> BETH, CAN YOU PUT THE MAP UP?

>> THE OTHER THING I WOULD NOTE THAT WAS BROUGHT TO OUR ATTENTION IS THOSE ARE THE CURRENT ROADS IN THE CURRENT PLANNED FEEDER ROADS. THAT DOES NOT MEAN THERE WILL NOT BE ADDITIONAL FEEDER ROADS IN THE FUTURE, WHICH COULD ALSO MEAN ADDITIONAL SPACES. .

KNOWING THAT THERE ARE NOT MANY POTENTIAL SITES RIGHT NOW, FUTURE FEEDER ROADS, THERE COULD BE ADDITIONAL SITES AVAILABLE. THERE IS A DEMAND BUT NOT NECESSARILY THAT MUCH OF A DEMAND FOR THE RURAL COMMUNITY.

NOW, IF IT'S NOT GOING TO BE RURAL COMMUNITY ANYMORE THAT'S A DIFFERENT STORY AND CHANGES THE WHOLE PLAN ALTOGETHER.

>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? ANYTHING THAT YOU WANT TO ADD?

>> (AWAY FROM MIC). >> SO IN A SENSE WHERE SOMEONE WOULD WANT TO SPLIT THEIR LOT THEY HAD A HOME ON IT AND THEY WANT TO GO TO FIVE ACRES, WOULD THEY HAVE THE SAME SETBACK REQUIREMENTS AS WHAT THE CAC WAS RECOMMENDING AS FAR AS 30 FOOT WITH THE BUFFER WITH THE TREES, THE FENCE, ALL THAT KIND OF STUFF, WITH THAT WHOLE TRUE ALSO FOR A SMALLER FIVE ACRE

LOT? >> YES.

THE FACTS WOULD BE THE SAME. >> WHAT HAPPENS WITH THREE ACRES? CAN YOU TELL ME OR TELL US WHAT

THAT WOULD BE? >> SETBACKS ARE ALL THE SAME.

IT'S A SAME BUFFER. THE DIFFERENCE I THINK JODI WAS POINTING OUT IN THE STAFF REPORT IS WHEN YOU HAVE YOUR COMMUNITY LOT YOUR SETBACK IS 30 FOOT PLUS YOUR RESIDENTIAL SETBACK, SO YOU ARE SEPARATING ANY POTENTIAL PARKING -- PARKED VEHICLES FROM YOUR HOUSING CHAIN THERE IS A SUBSTANTIAL

GAP. >> IT WILL ALSO 50 PERCENT TO 50 PERCENT OF THE AREA HAD TO BE ROADS OR 50 PERCENT OF THE AREA WAS JUST FOR VEHICLES, RVS.

>> OF THE CURRENT STANDARD IS 20 PERCENT OF THE SITE HAS TO BE OPEN SPACE. THE CAC RECOMMENDED 50 PERCENT.

(AWAY FROM MIC). >> THEY WERE RECOMMENDED WITH THE REST OF THE PROPERTY COULD BE USED FOR, BUT THE ACTUAL PARKING ACCESS ROAD TO THE PARKING SPACE, NOT BE MORE THAN

50 PERCENT OF THE PROPERTY. >> IT WAS THE INCONSISTENCY OF THE 50 PERCENT VERSUS THE 20 PERCENT.

ON THE OTHER. >> THERE ARE TWO THINGS.

YOU'RE CHANGING THE PARTS ON THE SIDES MINIMUM AND THE

COVERAGE AREA. >> YES.

I WANTED TO KNOW WHETHER OR NOT THE 50 PERCENT WERE ALSO APPLY TO THE SMALLER LOTS. LIKE THE THREE ACRE AND THE FIVE ACRE ALSO APPLY TO DATA WITH THAT GO BACK TO THE 20

PERCENT. >> THAT'S BASED ON THE 10 ACRES. SO THE 20 PERCENT IS BASED ON THE THREE ACRES OR WOULD BE THE FIVE HITLER AS WELL.

>> THAT WOULD NOT CHANGE. >> THAT WOULD NOT CHANGE.

BUT THIS 50 PERCENT IS TIED TO THIS 10 ACRE AND THEIR LANGUAGE

THAT THEY PROPOSED. >> WE WILL CLARIFY BEFORE WE TAKE A VOTE. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS?

>> GOING BACK TO YOUR CA -- CAC LETTER WE TALKED ABOUT THE DISCUSSION, WAS THE 10 ACRE ISSUE A KEY PART IS NOT, OR WAS THERE SOMETHING ELSE DRIVING IT BUT TOOK IT TO 10 ACRES?

>> JUST TRYING TO LOOK AT THE AVAILABLE PROPERTIES PUT THE 10 ACRES WITH LIMITED AVAILABLE PROPERTY SOME BASED ON THAT

[00:20:02]

THAT WAS LOGIC. >> THANK YOU YES?

>> WE STILL HAVEN'T HEARD FROM THE APPLICANT, BY THE WAY.

>> THAT'S WHAT I WAS GETTING AT.

JANICE IS HERE. >> I ALSO WANT TO MAKE A COMMENT ABOUT THE APPLICANT. WE WERE VRY SUPPORTIVE OF THE APPLICANT'S PARCEL BECAUSE IT IS BETWEEN THE RAILROAD AND ANOTHER COMMERCIAL PROPERTY. SO IT MADE PERFECTLY GOOD SENSE THAT IT WOULD NOT BE A PROBLEM WITH THE RURAL COMMUNITY NEXT TO IT. THAT WAS THE APPLICANT'S PARCEL. WE WERE SUPPORTIVE OF THAT.

T'S LOOKING AT ALL THE OTHER POTENTIAL PARCELS.> THAT'S

WHAT WE HAVE TO LOOK AT. >> THANKS, JEN.

THE APPLICANT IS HERE. >> SO IF YOU COULD GO -- AND WANT TO GO OVER A FEW THINGS. A LITTLE HISTORY.

WE HAVE BEEN WORKING -- MY CLIENT, JOE WIGGINS HAS BEEN WORKING WITH COUNTY STAFF FOR OVER A YEAR NOW.

WE ORIGINALLY WERE LOOKING FOR -- TO DO A LAND USE CHANGE TO ADD THEIR PROPERTY INTO VILLAGE CENTER AND AT THAT POINT IN TIME THERE ADDING RV AND BOAT CENTER -- STORAGE AND STAFF ASKED US TO PULL IT BACK AND DO IT A DIFFERENT WAY AND WE SAID FINE. OUR GOAL IS TO WORK WITH THE COUNTY. YOU UNDERSTAND WHAT WE WANT AND THEY BEEN SUPPORTIVE OF WHAT WE WANT.

AND THEN WE TALKED ABOUT POTENTIAL (INDISCERCERNIBLE) WITH A PUD AND THEN WE WERE CONCERNED ABOUT THE POTENTIAL OF ADDING RESIDENTIAL WITH THE MORATORIUM IN LAKE ASBURY AND IF I'M INCORRECT, BETH WITH THAT PROBLEM.

SO WE DETERMINED THIS WAS THE BEST ROUTE TO GO.

SO WE LOOKED AT THE RESTRICTIONS THAT WERE EXISTING IN THE CODE WHICH ARE PRETTY RESTRICTIVE.

ADDING -- AND I'VE LEARNED A LOT IN THE LAST MONTH OR SO ABOUT THE LAKE ASBERRY. I THINK THE LAST TIME YOU ASKED ME TO COUNT PARCELS AND I DIDN'T -- IF YOU GO BACK TO THAT MAP FOR A MINUTE, I JUST WANT TO SHOW YOU A FEW THINGS.

NUMBER ONE, I APPRECIATE THE TIME WE SPENT BECAUSE WE DID HAVE A LONG DISCUSSION AND IT WAS A GOOD DISCUSSION.

THE ADDING OF ADDITIONAL ROADS, THE IDEA YOU HAVE TO BE ON A MAJOR COLLECTOR, WE ARE ONLY TALKING ABOUT THE GREEN AREAS.

SO THE ROAD (INDISCERCERNIBLE) CAN YOU ENVISION WITHOUT A MAJOR CHANGE AND WITH A -- MAJOR DEVELOPMENT A LAND USE CHANGE TO ADD MORE RURAL -- RURAL COMMUNITY OR MORE IMPORTANTLY, A MAJOR ROAD LIKE TO 18 OR RUSSEL RHODES IN THAT AREA? I DON'T THINK YOU WOULD ENVISION IT AND THE NORTHERN PART.

I MEAN, YOU ARE BASICALLY CLOSE TO THE CREEK AND I THINK EVEN SOUTH OF THAT BECAUSE IT'S THE OWNERS.

SO YOU ARE REALLY LIMITED TO WHAT YOU'VE GOT.

I'M NOT SAYING TO DATE NOBODY HAS A CRYSTAL BALL -- WHAT THE FUTURE COULD BRING, BUT THE IDEA THERE WOULD BE ANOTHER MAJOR COLLECTOR WHICH IS THE REQUIREMENT, I THINK THAT'S PROBABLY NOT CONCEIVABLE LOOKING AT IT.

AND I KNOW THAT WAS A CONCERN WITH THE CAC, WHICH I UNDERSTAND. THE OTHER PROBLEM IS THIS FIVE-ACRE REQUIREMENT. SO IN LAKE ASBERRY, EVEN THOUGH THOSE LITTLE PARCELS ARE NOT CONFORMING RIGHT NOW BECAUSE THEY DON'T HAVE FIVE ACRES. THOSE ARE ABOUT THREE ACRE PARCELS IF I'M CORRECT. SO IF YOU ARE CHANGING IT INTO A USE AND THIS IS MORE TO MY COLLEAGUES OVER HERE, BUT IF YOU'RE HAVING AN EXISTING HOUSE ON A THREE ACRE PARCEL WHICH RIGHT NOW IS NONCONFORMING IN THIS SOME BETTER BUSINESSES

[00:25:02]

SO YOU ARE REALLY EVEN LIMITED BEYOND THAT.

ANY NEW DEVELOPMENT COMING IN HERE THAT'S GOING TO MEET CONDITIONAL USE YOU ARE GOING TO HAVE TO HAVE FIVE ACRES.

SO ALL -- MOST OF THOSE LOTS WOULD NOT MEET IT.

AND IF YOU HAVE AN EXISTING HOUSE ON THAT PROPERTY -- AND I KNOW MR. SIMILAR IS HERE AND HE PUT A CARD IN -- THEY HAVE SEVEN OR EIGHT ACRES IN THE HOUSE.

THEY CANNOT SPLIT TO MEET THE CURRENT REQUIREMENT IF THEY WERE TO SPLIT THE PROPERTY TO GIVE A FIVE ACRE TRACT OR A THREE ACRE TRACT, WHICHEVER WAY YOU GO, TO CREATE AN RV BOAT STORAGE, AND THEY'D HAVE TO CREATE A FIVE ACRE TRACT BECAUSE THEY CAN'T CREATE ANYTHING LESS IN LAKE ASBURY.

HE COULDN'T DO IT BECAUSE THEIR HOUSE WOULD BE LESS, SO THEY WOULD HAVE NONCONFORMING USE. SO IF THEY WANTED TO CREATE AN RV AND BOAT STORAGE ON THE PROPERTY, THEY WOULD HAVE TO BASICALLY GET RID OF THEIR HOUSE.

THAT'S A CHOICE I HAVE, BUT I'M JUST SAYING.

THIS LOT SPLITTING WHICH WAS A MAJOR CONCERN -- AND LIKE I SAID, I LEARNED A LOT SINCE THE LAST MEETING.

AND I APPRECIATE -- WE HAD A LONG CONVERSATION.

SO THAT'S I THINK SOMETHING TO THINK ABOUT.

YOU REALLY ARE LIMITED TO PROPERTIES SO ALL OF THOSE THAT ARE IN PURPLE, MOST OF THEM AREN'T HAPPY AND IF YOU'VE GOT THE LARGE ACRES, I THINK THERE'S ABOUT AN 878 ACRE AND SOME OTHER -- THEY WILL NOT DEVELOP WITH BOAT AND RV YOU ARE GOING TO DO A MASTER PUD ON THE LARGER PARCELS IN THAT AREA. SO I THINK WE ARE REALLY LIMITED IN WHERE YOU CAN GO. ALSO, TO 50 PERCENT -- THIS WAS -- AND WE ARE GOING BACK AND FORTH AND THIS IS MY UNDERSTANDING. THEY KEPT ASKING THIS QUESTION TO MAKE SURE THE CAC UNDERSTOOD IT.

IT WAS NOT SAYING THAT IF YOU HAD A 10 ACRE LOT 50 PERCENT COULD BE DEVELOPED FOR YOUR RV AND BOAT STORAGE OF 50 PERCENT WOULD BE OPEN SPACE UNLIKE YOUR CURRENT REQUIREMENT THAT IT REQUIRES 50 PERCENT OPEN SPACE. IT WAS THE PART THAT WAS YOUR RV PUT STORAGE WHERE YOU GOT YOUR BOAT PARKING SPACES AND THE LANES THAT COULD BE 50 PERCENT OF YOUR PARCEL AND THEN YOU COULD USE THE REST OF YOUR PARCEL FOR -- AND DD-214 OTHER FACILITIES FOR RV AND BOAT STORAGE WHETHER IT'S REFILLING IT OR WHATEVER ELSE YOU SHOULD USE IT FOR.

THAT'S A DIFFERENTIATION BETWEEN YOU HAVE IN YOUR CURRENT ONE THAT SAYS 20 PERCENT OPEN SPACES.

AND REMEMBER UNDER CONDITIONAL USE WILL BE ON ANYTHING AS A CONDITIONAL USE IT'S ALL OR NOTHING.

IT'S NOT THAT YOU CAN SEND GOING TO DO ONE, TWO, THREE BUT DO YOU MIND PUTTING IT BACK ON THE CURRENT REQUIREMENTS IS ALL. YOU CANNOT PICK I'M GOING TO DO THREE OF THE FIVE PAGE YOU HAVE TO DO ALL OF THOSE REQUIREMENTS IN ORDER FOR YOU TO HAVE IT. HE WOULD HAVE TO HAVE THEM AND EVEN THOUGH IT'S A MINIMUM OF THREE ACRES AND ACTUALLY IN LAKE ASBURY IT'S MINIMUM OF FIVE ACRES BECAUSE THE LAKE ASBERRY MASTER PLAN DOES LONG. SO I THINK THAT'S IMPORTANT ON THAT. I DON'T REALLY THINK WE ARE GOING TO HAVE YOUR ACCESS ON A MAGE IN HER -- LOOK AT THE GREEN AREAS TO TRY TO FIGURE OUT WHAT YOU MIGHT HAVE ANOTHER MAJOR COLLECTOR THAT WOULD ALSO MEET THOSE REQUIREMENTS.

YOU KNOW, WE WILL GO WITH EITHER WAY BECAUSE MY CLIENT IS FINE WITH THAT. HE NEEDS IT.

BUT WE REALLY APPRECIATE STAFF GOING BACK TO THE WRONG RECOMMENDATIONS. EITHER WAY WE ARE HAPPY BUT WE HOPE YOU ENJOY WITH YOUR STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND SINCE THE CAC MEETING AND LEARN MORE ABOUT THIS WHOLE FIVE ACRES IN HEALTHWORKS AND LAKE ASBERRY. SO I REALLY THINK YOU ARE LIMITED IN THE NUMBER OF PARCELS IN THAT GREEN AREA THAT YOU CAN ACTUALLY DO AN RV AND BOAT STORAGE AND AND UNFORTUNATELY IT IS NEEDED BECAUSE WE ARE IN FLORIDA AND PEOPLE LIKE TO HAVE A BOAT AND LIKE TO BE ABLE TO TAKE AN RV SOMEWHERE. WE HAD A LOT OF DISCUSSION WITH CAC IN THE SUBDIVISION ALL HAS REQUIREMENTS THAT HOA SAID YOU CAN'T PARK YOUR BOAT IN YOUR YARD.

[00:30:03]

AS A LOCKBOX SITUATION AND THEN YOU DRIVE YOUR CAR IN TO GET YOUR BOAT OR RV AND IT PROBABLY -- FISHERMAN TENTACLE EARLY IN THE MORNING. WE KNOW THAT.

IT JUST IS IN YOUR AREA.T WOULD NOT BE THE WHOLE NEIGHBORHOOD -- THE WHOLE FIVE ACRES LIT UP.

IT WOULD ONLY BE WHERE WE ARE TRYING THEY GO OFF AS YOU GET YOUR UNIT AND THEY COME BACK ON AS YOU DRIVE.

AND THERE IS OTHER REQUIREMENTS AND HAS TO BE POINTED DOWN.

IT CAN'T SPELL OFF ONTO NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES.

THAT'S NOT ALLOWED ANYWHERE IN YOUR CODES WE WOULD HAVE TO COMPLY WITH ALL OF HIS REQUIREMENTS ON TOP OF THESE HERE. ANYWAYS.

>> ANY QUESTIONS? NO? ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, MA'AM.

I'M GOING TO DID I THINK I DID BUT I'M GOING TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AND I ONLY HAVE ONE CARD FROM MR. LARRY SEAMER.

PLEASE COME UP AND GIVE US YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS, SIR.

>> I AM LARRY SEAMER AND I LIVE AT 2341 RUSSELL RHODES.

-- ROAD. THE PROPERTY IS -- OLD FERRY RUNS ALONG THE BACK PART OF IT. MY APOLOGIES.

I DON'T DO PLANNING AND USE WORK.

I AND AN OFFICE IN THIS THING. I WASN'T PRIVY TO THE MEETING WITH THE CAC OR ANYTHING. I DIDN'T GET AS ORGANIZED PERHAPS AS I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE BEEN COMING INTO TONIGHT.

SO WITH IT BEING PERHAPS A LITTLE -- I AM TIME-LIMITED BY

WHAT? >> NORMALLY WE DO THREE MINUTES. WE DON'T HAVE A LINE OF PEOPLE HERE. SO AS LONG AS YOU ARE

REASONABLE I WILL TRY -- >> I WILL TRY TO KEEP IT TO THREE MINUTES. A LITTLE BACKGROUND ON MYSELF AND MY WIFE. I HAVE LIVED A LIVING NOW ON RUSSELL ROAD FOR 30 YEARS. 30 YEARS AS OF LAST MONTH.

SO I'M PRETTY FAMILIAR WITH THE COMMUNITY.

AND I HEAR ALL THE TALK AND I UNDERSTAND THAT THE NAME OF THIS AREA IS THE LAKE ASBURY RURAL COMMUNITY IN SOME RESPECTS I AGREE THAT IT'S RURAL.

WHEN I MOVED HERE 30 YEARS AGO IT WAS RURAL.

I CAME OUT THERE BECAUSE MY WIFE, THE LOVELY WOMAN THAT SHE PWAS AND IS, KEPT HORSES OUT THERE.

THAT'S WHAT BROUGHT US OUT THERE.

WE HAD 2000 ACRES OF RIDING TRAILS.

I THINK THE GENTLEMAN WHO OWNED IT WAS -- WHICH KEPT THEM AT DAVE'S PLACE. BUT SINCE THAT TIME, YOU COULD PULL OUT OF OUR DRIVEWAY ONTO RUSSELL ROAD WITH YOUR EYES) PROBABLY NOT TELLING ANYBODY THINGS THEY DON'T KNOW.

BUT THAT ISN'T WHAT MY AREA OF LAKE ASBURY AND RUSSELL ROAD AND GREEN COVE IS ANYMORE. THERE IS AN INTERSTATE HALF A MILE FROM MY HOUSE. THERE IS A DEVELOPMENT 1000 FEET FROM THE END OF MY DRIVEWAY THAT I UNDERSTAND IS 71 ACRES. IT APPEARS TO BE ONE OF THE SMALLER DEVELOPMENTS GOING UP AND DOWN RUSSELL RHODES ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE ROAD. ALONG WITH THAT, I CAN SIT AT THE END OF MY DRIVEWAY FOR FIVE MINUTES WAITING TO GET OUT.

I CAN SIT WITH AN ADULT BEVERAGE AROUND MY POOL AND WATCH THE BOATS FLOAT DOWN OLD FERRY ROAD, NOT AT A CONSTANT STREAM BUT WITH A FAIR -- A FAIR NUMBER OF BOATS RUNNING DOWN THERE. TO STATE A THEME, I SUPPORT THE REPORT THAT WAS FILED BY STAFF. AGAIN, I WASN'T -- I HAVEN'T HAD A CHANCE TO ANALYZE OR ANYTHING ABOUT THE 10 ACRES AND

[00:35:01]

AS I UNDERSTAND IT, THE ONLY DRIVEWAY YOU CAN HAVE IS ONTO RUSSELL ROAD. NOT BACK ONTO OLD FERRY.

THE COUNTY APPROACHED US 20 YEARS AGO.

TO DO EXACTLY THIS. WITH THAT PIECE OF LAND.

BECAUSE OF THE BOAT STORAGE AND PARKING PROBLEMS WITH THE OLD FERRY BOAT RAMP. THE SHIP HAS SAILED ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF RUSSELL ROAD. THERE ARE HUNDREDS -- YOU PROBABLY KNOW THE NUMBER BETTER THAN I DO.

THERE ARE HUNDREDS AND HUNDREDS OF UNITS AND BOATS GOING UP AND DOWN THE ROAD EVERY DAY. RVS GOING UP AND DOWN THAT ROAD. IT'S DEVELOPED.

AND I THINK THAT THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE ANCILLARY SERVICES BOAT STORAGE. RV STORAGE AND THAT KIND OF THING NEEDS TO BE KEPT TO PACE AND I WOULD QUESTION WHETHER YOU COULD ACTUALLY -- THERE IS A 10 ACRE THING.

WE DON'T LIVE IN A GATED COMMUNITY.

THE STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION KIND OF KEEPS TRACK WITH WHAT THE OTHER CITIZENS OF CLAY COUNTY. AND IT KIND OF PICKS WINNERS AND LOSERS. NOBODY HAS ANY IDEA WHETHER ANYBODY HAS ANY DESIRE TO DO ANY OF THIS.

THEY MAY WANT TO DO SOMETHING ELSE AND YOU MAY NOT GET THE BOAT STORAGE WHICH IS THE POINT OF MAKING THE CHANGE.

AND AGAIN, IT PICKS WINNERS AND LOSERS.

THERE ARE PEOPLE THAT HAVE TODAY MOST BOAT STORAGE PLACES, TO MY KNOWLEDGE, AROUND -- I'VE DONE A BIT OF A MARKET LOOK AT THAT ARE SOMEWHERE BETWEEN AN ACRE OR TO AND MAYBE 56 ON THE OUTSIDE I DON'T KNOW IF ANYBODY'S GOING TO BUY A 10 ACRE PLOT AND ONLY BE ABLE TO USE IT FOR THE PURPOSE OF PURCHASING IT BECAUSE THEY ARE ALLOWED TO USE IT.

THE LONG AND SHORT OF IT IS I SUPPORTED AND I THINK THAT THE -- WE ARE TALKING ABOUT AS I UNDERSTAND STAFF.

IT'S A FIVE-ACRE REQUIREMENT PRETTY MUCH ANYWAY BECAUSE IT'S GOT TO BE (INDISCERCERNIBLE) PEOPLE AND I CAN TELL YOU, YOU CAN PROVIDE WHATEVER SECURITY IS ON THAT LIST AND YOUR NEIGHBORS -- MY NEIGHBORS NEVER KNOW WHAT WAS THERE, BOTH OF THEM. SO THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU, SIR. ANYONE ELSE? I'M GOING TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.

DOES ANYBODY DID YOU HAVE A QUESTION FOR STAFF.

WHERE DID THE THREE ACRES IN YOUR PROPOSAL COME FROM?

IS THAT ELSEWHERE IN THE CODE? >> I THINK WE COULD ASK MR. MILLER.HEN HE ADDED DUTY WHEN HE APPLIED TO CHANGE THE VILLAGE CENTER TO ALLOW FOR RV AND BOAT STORAGE, I BELIEVE THAT THREE ACRES WAS ADDED AT THAT TIME.

>> DO YOU KNOW, MR. MILLER? >> NOT TO PUT HIM ON THE SPOT

BUT I BELIEVE HE WAS. >> MY RECOLLECTION WAS WE WANTED SOME MINIMUM SIZE SO THAT YOU WOULDN'T HAVE MOM AND POP HIM DROPPING SOMETHING IN THAT REALLY WHEN YOU GOT TO IT YOU COULDN'T SATISFY THOSE SETBACKS IN THE BUFFERS AND ALL OF THAT. THAT WAS THE JUSTIFICATION.

>> OKAY. LET ME ASK YOU WHILE YOU WERE THERE. IS THERE ANYTHING THAT YOU KNOW OF -- I'M TRYING TO FEEL OUT HERE IS IF WE WENT TO A LARGER ACRE, WHAT ARE WE GOING TO IMPACT? OTHER THAN THE VILLAGE CENTER MIGHT HAVE TO HAVE THE LARGER SIZE. ANYTHING YOU CAN THINK OF?

NO? >> OFFHAND I CAN'T.

>> MR. CHAIRMAN, THE THREE ACRES WOULD REMAIN THE SAME FOR EVERYWHERE ELSE. IT WOULD BE THE FIVE ACRES IN RURAL COMMUNITY. THAT'S THE DISTINCTION.

[00:40:15]

>> A QUESTION FOR STAFF. IF YOU WENT TO 10 ACRES HOMICIDES WOULD DROP OFF OF THIS MAP THAT YOU'VE CREATED.

>> I HONESTLY DON'T KNOW. ARE MOST OF THE SITES 10 ACRES OR MORE? THAT ARE ELIGIBLE?

>> IT LOOKS LIKE IT. THOSE ARE THREE OR FIVE I WOULD THINK ALONG RUSSELL WROTE THERE.

>> IS A 10 ACRE. I DID A LITTLE ANALYSIS AS AN ANCHORAGE. ALL THE SMALL ONES OR LESS.

THE FIVE OR 10. THERE IS PROBABLY -- IF YOU STUCK TO THE 10 OR MORE, IT MIGHT BE ABOUT FIVE OF THEM.

FIVE OR 10 AT THE MOST. BECAUSE ON THE OTHER HAND IS I THINK AS HE SAID IF YOU'RE ATTENDING YEARS OR MORE -- WELCOME IF IT'S GOING TO BE A LARGER PARCEL YOU WILL DEVELOP SOME SORT OF PUD WERE LARGER DEVELOPMENT THE OTHER THING I FORGOT TO MENTION EARLIER IS IF YOU LOOK AT -- IF YOU LOOK AT THE OTHER FACILITIES IN NORTHEAST FLORIDA -- THE VALUE OF THE LAND, IT BECOMES MORE VALUABLE FOR OTHER USES WHEN YOU BECOME BIGGER THAN FIVE ACRES.

>> ANYBODY ELSE?BECAUSE I'VE GOT A THOROUGHNESS.

BETH, YOU SAID IF SOMEBODY WANTED TO DO WHEN THEY'VE GOT TO HAVE FIVE ACRES. RIGHT? BECAUSE IT'S RC.O IT SEEMS TO ME THAT RATHER THAN A THREE ACRE MINIMUM WHICH MIGHT BE REASONABLE IN THE VILLAGE CENTER OUT HERE, IT SHOULD BE FIVE ACRES.

IT LINES UP WITH WHAT PEOPLE HAVE TO HAVE ANYWAY.

OTHERWISE IT'S GOING TO BE A CONFUSION BETWEEN THREE ACRES AND THE CODE AND THE FIVE-ACRE REQUIREMENT.

THEY ARE GOING TO COLLIDE. WE KNOW THAT FIVE ACRES TAKES PRECEDENT, BUT WE WERE JUST TALKING ABOUT THIS, HOW CONFUSING SOME OF THIS CAN BE. SO MY THOUGHT WOULD BE RECOMMEND FIVE ACRES, KEEP IT ALL THE SAME.

AND WHAT EVER -- WHATEVER YOU WANT TO DO WITH THIS, I'M OKAY

WITH WHATEVER. >> KIND OF QUESTION TO ASK.

IS IT THE INTENT OF THE CAC TO BUMP IT TO 10 ACRES BECAUSE THE SITE IF I HEARD CORRECTLY IT'S BETWEEN RUSSELL ROAD AND THE RAILROAD TRACKS. SO THERE'S NOT VERY MUCH CHANCE. FIVE ACRES UNLESS THERE'S SOMEBODY WALKING DOWN THE TRACKS.

THERE'S THE INTENT TO PRECLUDE OTHER AREAS ALONG TO 18 THAT ARE MORE OPEN TO RESIDENTIAL AREAS OR SURROUNDING THEM TO LIMIT THAT AS FAR AS LOWER INCOME RESIDENTIAL AREAS.

IS THAT THE INTENT OF THE PLAN HERE FOR THE 10 ACRES? OUTSIDE OF THAT, I DON'T THINK HE HAS A PROBLEM WITH THE FIVE ACRES. SO I GUESS WHAT I'M ASKING YOU IS IT'S ALMOST LIKE A FLIP OF A COIN WHICH WAY YOU GO WITH THIS AND I DON'T KNOW. IT'S TOUGH.

>> I GUESS IN MY MIND I ASK A SIMPLE QUESTION WE ASKED THE CAC TO LOOK AT AND THEY CAME UP WITH A RECOMMENDATION WHY

WOULDN'T WE DEFER TO THEM? >> DO YOU WANT TO MAKE A MOTION? GO AHEAD.

>> AND MAKE A MOTION THAT WE -- WILL CHANGE THE STAFF

RECOMMENDATION TO 10 ACRES. >> WELL HE MADE TWO RECOMMENDATIONS AND ONE WAS THE COVERAGE AREA OF 50 PERCENT OF

THE SITE AND THE 10 ACRES. >> I WILL MAKE A MOTION TO THAT THAT WE THE ST. PETE 10 ACRES AND THAT IT SHALL NOT EXCEED 50

[00:45:06]

>> YOUR MOTION IS TO ACCEPT THE STAFF REPORT WITH THE FOLLOWING CHANGES THAT THE PARTIAL SITE SHOULD BE A MINIMUM OF 10 ACRES AND THE RV BOAT PARKING STORAGE SHALL NOT EXCEED 50

(INDISCERCERNIBLE). >> YES.

DOES ANYONE WANT TO SECOND THAT?

>> SECONDED. >> AND LIKE TO DISCUSS THIS A SECOND. SO THINKING ABOUT TO THE CONVERSATION WE JUST HAD ABOUT THE LONG-TERM NATURE OF ALL OF THESE DECISIONS AND JUST TRY TO IMAGINE A 10 ACRE PARCEL AND IF YOU TOOK IT SQUARE FOOT IT WOULD BE 660 FEET BY 660 FEET.

WO FOOTBALL LINKS BY TWO FOOTBALL LINKS.

SO ALL OF THESE STORAGE FACILITIES HAD TO BE A MINIMUM OF 10 ACRES. SO PERSONALLY I'M LITTLE BIT CONCERNED ABOUT THESE GIGANTIC RV SUPERCENTERS IF YOU WILL TALKING ABOUT EARLIER PRETTY MS. INSIDE THE SUBDIVISIONS AND THEY WILL NEVER BE 10 ACRES AND I GUESS IT WOULD HAVE TO BE SOME RATIO OF THE NUMBER OF LOTS AND THEY'RE WILLING TO AGREE MAKE IT FIVE ACRES AND BE DONE WITH IT.

I GUESS THAT'S REALLY IT. NOBODY IS A HUGE FAN OF THESE BUT EVERYBODY'S GOT TO HAVE THEM.

YOU DON'T LIVE OUT WHERE I LIVE FOR YOU PARK YOUR RV AND YOUR BOAT IN YOUR OWN YARD. YOU KNOW, I'M JUST CONCERNED ABOUT SAYING THAT THE MINIMUM SIZE HAS TO BE 10 ACRES.

>> IT WILL REDUCE THE NUMBER. >> IT WILL REDUCE THE NUMBER OF THEM BUT NOW -- I DON'T KNOW. JUST MY THOUGHTS.

>> AND HONESTLY, IF YOU CHOOSE TO VOTE AGAINST THE MOTION, WE WILL HAVE IT IN THE MINUTES THAT WE HAVE THIS DISCUSSION OR ARE YOU CAN TAKE A LOOK AT IT AGAIN BECAUSE I'D RATHER IT BE FIVE ACRES. I SUPPORT THIS MOTION FOR THE

PURPOSE -- >> AND KIND OF CURIOUS.

IF WE MAKE THIS 10 ACRES THE APPLICANT HAS MET PARCEL IS HOW

BIG? >> IT'S OVER 10.

>> RESIDENCE -- THERE'S THE RESIDENCE ON THIS PARCEL, IS THERE? DO YOU WANT TO TALK? COME ON UP. WE ARE TRYING TO LOOK FOR A BALANCE HERE.> JOE WIGGINS. THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY.

Y PROPERTY IS UNIQUE. WE ALREADY HAVE THAT AND WANT TO KEEP THAT ON THE FRONT AND TO THE BOAT AND RV STORAGE IN THE BACK WHICH IS AGAINST THE INDUSTRIAL SIDE BASICALLY THE RAILROAD TRACK. I AM FINE BUT I HAVE TO GO WITH MR. GARRISON. THE AMOUNT OF ACRES -- I ALREADY HAVE A BUSINESS GOING. IT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE TO USE 10 ACRES WERE BOAT AND RV STORAGE. SO YOU'RE REALLY GOING TO KNOCK HIM OR THESE THINGS ARE GOING TO GO JUST BY ECONOMICS IF YOU

KEEP IT AT 10 ACRES. >> THE SET 50 PERCENT ARE YOU? IS HE STILL GOING TO BE ABLE TO -- HAVE HIS PLANT NURSERY?

>> SO FAR 50 PERCENT OF THE PARKING DOESN'T LIMIT ME TO THE OTHER AREA. BECAUSE I'M ALSO GOING TO HAVE PROPANE, GASOLINE THAT WILL FILL UP THAT AREA.

>> ALL OF WHICH COULD BE LIVED -- LIT.

IT'S NOT JUST YOUR PARKING AREA COULD BE LIT.

BUT SO WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT A 10 ACRE PARCEL YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT A LOT OF LIGHT THERE AS OPPOSED TO A SMALLER LOT WITH LIGHTING. SO THAT WAS STAFF'S BASIS FOR YOUR INSERTING A COMMERCIAL USE INTO RESIDENTIAL AREAS AND WE WERE THINKING THAT THE 10 ACRES LARGE JUST TO BE THERE.

>> IS THE SPECIFIC TO THE LAKE ASBURY COMMUNITY OR IS THIS COUNTYWIDE? SHOULD THIS ORDINANCE PASSED, IT WOULD BE SPECIFICALLY FOR -- THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST WOULD JUST BE TOO ADD A CONDITIONAL USE TO RURAL COMMUNITY AS THE STANDARDS ARE LISTED HERE WITH

[00:50:10]

YOU WOULD HAVE TO ABIDE WITH THAT.

ALL OF THESE STANDARDS WOULD APPLY JUST BY ADDING IT AS A CONDITIONAL USE. IF YOU WERE TO GO THE OTHER ROUTE AND WITH THE CAC'S REQUIREMENT, THAT CHANGES.

THEN IT'S THE DIFFERENT ACREAGE AND YOU WOULD BE GOING TO THEIR

STANDARD. >> 10 ACRES AND 50 PERCENT.

>> THE LARGE AREAS THAT ARE MARKED OFF NOW (AWAY FROM MIC).

>> THE LARGE AREAS THAT ARE MARKED OFF NOW WOULD BE AT THE END OF SANDRIDGE AND RUSSELL ROAD AND THEN THE OTHER LARGE PROPERTIES WOULD BE ON THE 218 SIDE.

I AM CONCERNED WITH ALL OF THAT PSTUFF FROM HENLEY DOWN TO THAT BAND WHERE ALL OF THOSE SMALL LOTS ARE AND THERE ARE PROBABLY -- FOR THE MOST PART THREE ACRE LOTS POTENTIALLY MAYBE ONE OR 25 ACRE LOTS AND I DON'T WANT TO SEE THAT THE WHOLE ROW BE PUT STORAGE. THERE'S PLENTY OF SPACE ON 218.

THAT'S A LOT OF ROOM. I THINK THAT'S A LOT OF BOATS

AND RVS. >> I AGREE WITH ONE OF THE COMMENTS. I THINK 10 ACRES IS TOO BIG.

IT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE TO CREATE A MEGA RV SITE.

PERSONALLY, I WOULD LIKE IT TO BE FIVE ACRES TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE ACREAGE REQUIREMENT OUT AND THAT WOULD CUT A LOT OF THE SMALL LOTS OUT AND THE REALLY BIG LOTS, I THINK WE ALL KNOW THEY ARE NOT GOING TO USE -- THEY MIGHT USE IT TEMPORARILY AS INCOME STREAM BUT THE FIRST TIME A DEVELOPER OFFERS MONEY FOR THE BIG LOTS THEY ARE GONE AND THEY WON'T STAY RURAL COMMUNITY. THEY'RE GOING TO COME IN AND ASK FOR A PUD OR SOME OTHER USE SO THEY CAN DEVELOP THOSE THE WAY THEY WANT. SO I PROBABLY WON'T SUPPORT THE MOTION WITH THE 10 ACRES AND IT ONLY 50 PERCENT.

I WOULD LIKE TO SEE IT STAY AT THE 20 PERCENT AND GO TO A FIVE

ACRE LOT FOR CONSISTENCY. >> IS A MINIMUM AND MAXIMUM.

>> ELIMINATES ANYONE WHO'S GOT A SMALL LOT AUTHOR DECIDED TO

PUT BOOTS ON. >> I AM CONCERNED THAT'S RIGHT UP THERE. HAVING ONE AFTER THE OTHER

AFTER THE OTHER. >> REMEMBER LAKE ASBURY HAS PRETTY SPECIFIC STANDARDS AND IT SO THERE SHOULDN'T BE A LOT OF PROBLEMS WITH LIGHTING SPILLOVER AND I'D BE MORE CONCERNED WITH THE PEOPLE COMING IN AT 3:00 A.M. TO GET THEIR VOTES. THAT'S WHAT FISHERMEN DO.

THERE'S NOT MUCH YOU CAN DO ABOUT IT.

BUT WE DO HAVE A MOTION ON THE FLOOR AND THEN UNLESS THERE'S ANY MORE DISCUSSION ON THAT MOTION I'M GOING TO CALL THAT ONE. ANYTHING ELSE? SO THE MOTION ON THE FLOOR IS THE STAFF REPORT AMENDED TO SHOW A MINIMUM OF 10 ACRES AND 50 PERCENT COVERAGE ON THE LOT.

ALL THAT WILL SUPPORT THAT MOTION STATE AYE.

ALL OPPOSED?YE. >> YOU CAN'T ABSTAIN.

YOU VOTE YES? WHO ELSE VOTED YES?

(ROLL (OVERLAPPING SPEAKERS). >> I CAN TAKE ANOTHER MOTION THAT WE CAN TALK ABOUT OR ARE YOU WILL SEND THIS TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS WITH NO RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE

PLANNING CONDITION. >> I MOVE THAT WE ADOPT THE STAFF IS MY RECOMMENDATION AND MAKE IT FIVE ACRE MINIMUM CONSISTENT REMOVAL LANGUAGE ABOUT THREE ACRES AND THERE'S NO QUESTION OF WHETHER THAT'S EVEN THERE.

ANYWAY, I MADE THAT MOTION. >> SECOND.

>> I THINK WE NEED SOME INTERPRETATION BECAUSE WE DID NOT ADVERTISE TO CHANGE THE CONDITIONAL USE STANDARD 25 ACRES, SO COULD WE -- WE CAN'T CHANGE THAT?

>> IS PART OF THE ADVERTISEMENT.

>> (AWAY FROM MIC). >> CORRECT THAT I BELIEVE MR. GARRISON WANTS TO CHANGE THE MINIMUM STANDARD CONDITION

(OVERLAPPING SPEAKERS). >> PUT THE LIST UP AGAIN.

[00:55:03]

>> IF IT CAN'T BE THREE ACRES ANYWAY.

>> (AWAY FROM MIC). >> CORRECT AND THIS IS ALSO THE STANDARD THAT APPLIES COUNTYWIDE.

THIS IS NOT JUST LAKE ASBURY. THIS IS EVERYWHERE IN THE COUNTY. IT'S A MINIMUM OF THREE ACRES.

RURAL COMMUNITY IT WOULD BE FIVE ACRES BECAUSE YOUR MINIMUM LOT SIZE IS FIVE ACRES. IT'S CONFUSING.

I UNDERSTAND. >> I GET IT.

THREE ACRES WOULD APPLY TO THE REST OF THE COUNTY UNLESS THERE WAS SOME OTHER RULE THAT THE MINIMUM IS FIVE ACRES.

>> THE QUESTION THAT BETH HAD IS THE WAY IT WAS ADVERTISED AND WE HAVE A MOTION SO WE HAVE TO GO WITH THIS.

>> YOU HAVE TO GO WITH STAFF OF THE COMMUNICATION.

>> THAT'S FINE. THREE ACRES, FIVE ACRES.

>> SO I WOULD MOVE (OVERLAPPING SPEAKERS) STAFF REPORT AS

PRESENTED. >> ANYTHING FURTHER?

>> COMMANDER STANDS SPECIFICALLY -- THIS IS THE

STAFF REPORT? >> MINIMUM PARTIAL PARCEL SIZE

AND IT'S FIVE ACRES. >> THE PARCEL HE IS DEVELOPED

[2.  Public Hearing to consider Z-2022-15 (District 1, Comm. Cella) (M. Brown)]

USE APPROVAL IN 1973. >> THIS IS A SMALL-SCALE

[3.  Public Hearing to consider CPA-2022-10. (District 2, Comm Bolla) (S. Olsen)]

[01:04:11]

THE APPLICANT IS GORDON CHEVROLET AND THE AGENT IS THE TINPOT RAT LOCATED BETWEEN BLANDING BOULEVARD AND HANSEN AVENUE. IT'S A SINGLE PARCEL 1.041 ACRES IS MADE UP OF THREE LOTS IN A PLATTED SUBDIVISION FROM 1964 ASKING TO CHANGE THE FUTURE LAND USE PLAN URBAN CORE TO COMMERCIAL. DO YOU HAVE A PERSONAL MATTER AND AN AERIAL IMAGE IN AN EXISTING LAND USE IT'S THE

[01:05:09]

IT WAS WAS SLIGHTLY DEVELOPED BECAUSE IT DOESN'T MEET THE REQUIREMENTS FOR AN NFL PARCEL. SO STAFF WILL HAVE TO

RECOMMEND. >> I THINK WE SHOULD TALK ABOUT THIS ONE: LOOK AT THE ZONING. AS THE APPLICANT HERE? WHAT ADAM LOGAN THEM. WE PURCHASED THIS LAND IS CONTINUOUS TO OUR DEALERSHIP. I BELIEVE OUR BUSINESS IS GROWING TREMENDOUSLY. AS WE LOOK TO THE FUTURE DEVELOPMENT NEEDS, THE SITE OF OUR CURRENT RETENTION POND IS GOING TO PRECLUDE US FROM HAVING DEVELOPMENT WE THINK WILL NEED IN THE FUTURE. PRIMARILY ME TIME TO RELOCATE THAT RETENTION POND TO THIS SITE AND IN ADDITION TO THAT THERE WOULD BE SOME PAVING OF THE THREE LOTS ON HAND OUR DESIGN INCLUDES PAVING GOES BACK TO LOTS AND ENCROACHING -- OUR CONVERSATIONS AND UNDERSTAND WE CAN REMOVE THE RETENTION POND TO PARK FOR THE NEEDED PARKING SPACE FOR EITHER EXCESS INVENTORY.LSO SOME OF THE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS WERE COMMERCIAL WITH OUR POND WILL ALLOW US TO BE MORE FLEXIBLE WITH IT THOUGH WE DO NOT INTEND TO DO ANY ENCROACHING ON THAT THE WAY OUR PROPERTY SETS. THE NORTHWESTERN EDGE OF THE NEXT RESIDENTIAL LOT IS ON HINSON AVENUE.

IF YOU LOOK AT THE SATELLITE IMAGE IS A TREAT IMAGE.

DRAWING WHICH WE WOULD INCREASE ON THAT WE WOULD LEAVE THE

LANDSCAPING THERE. >> ANYBODY HAVE ANY QUESTIONS

FOR THE APPLICANT? >> THE RETENTION POND EXISTS NOW IT LOOKS LIKE IN THIS IMAGE IT'S DRY BUT YOU HAVE A RETENTION POND RIGHT BEHIND THE DEALERSHIP.

>> WE DO IN THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE LOT.

>> SO THAT WOULD MOVE BASICALLY WHERE THE MOBILE HOME IS NOW.

>> MOBILE HOME HAS BEEN TAKEN DOWN.

>> FOR FUTURE USE OF LYRID -- IN NORMAL TIMES WE HAVE ACCESS NEW CAR INVENTORY AND ACCESS USED CAR INVENTORY AND CUSTOMER VEHICLES DOWN THE ROAD WITH ANY FUTURE DEVELOPMENT WE WOULD

LIKE THAT AVAILABILITY. >> RETENTION POND.

>> THEY'VE DONE A DRAWING OF IT AND WE ARE CONFIDENT WE CAN PLACE IT. WITHOUT ENCROACHING BEYOND WHAT

YOU SEE IN THE DRAWING. >> ANYONE?

>> I DO HAVE A QUESTION. ON THE BACKSIDE OF THE PROPERTY RIGHT NOW I'M TALKING ABOUT THE MAIN PIECE OF PROPERTY THAT'S

ON THE LANDING, >> ITS TOWNHOMES.

[01:10:03]

>> I KNOW THAT. I'M WONDERING WHAT THE BUFFER OF THE WALL IS THAT'S THERE. IS IT JUST THE FENCE?

>> IS A FENCE, YES. >> IS IT A REGULAR FENCE?

>> IT'S A CYCLONE FENCE.>> CYCLONE FENCE? WOULD YOU BE CONTINUING ON AROUND?

>> RIGHT NOW, THE NEW SITE WE PURCHASED IS ALL FENCED.T WAS FENCED ORIGINALLY IF MEMORY SERVES ME CORRECTLY THERE WAS A WOODEN FENCE PUT IN BY THE APARTMENT COMPLEX AND THAT'S ANOTHER CYCLONE FENCE THAT WAS PUT IN BY THE PREVIOUS OWNER OF THE PROPERTY. WHEN WE PURCHASED THE LOT JUST FOR SAFETY SAKE WE WENT AHEAD AND CONTINUED THE FENCE LINE AND SEALED OFF FROM HANSEN AND HAVING A GATE COMING IN.

>> THAT'S PROBABLY BECAUSE -- BUT THEY HAVE TO BUFFER THIS

NEW PORTION? >> MEANING YOU AND -- THEY WON'T HAVE TO GO BACK TO THE OLD BECAUSE IT'S A SEPARATE

PARCEL. >> THEY WOULD HAVE TO DO THE

NEW BUFFER. >> YOU ARE PROPOSING ADDITIONAL

PAVEMENT? >> IT WOULD BE CURRENTLY A LITTLE BIT -- THERE WOULD BE BUFFERING REQUIRED BECAUSE IT'S CHANGING THE SITE AND BRINGING THAT PERSON (OVERLAPPING

SPEAKERS). >> ALONG THE BACK OF THE DEALERSHIP AND THE ONE ON THE RIGHT THERE, WITH THE BUILDING AND THE DEALERSHIP, THERE'S NOTHING BUT A CHAIN-LINK FENCE.

>> THEY'RE SAYING THEY'RE GOING TO GO FROM A RETENTION POND TO A PAVED AREA AND THAT'S WHY THEY WILL REQUIRE THE BUFFER.

(OVERLAPPING SPEAKERS). >> ALONG THE HOLDBACK OF THE EXISTING (OVERLAPPING SPEAKERS).

>> THE RESIDENTIAL IS A BUFFER WHICH IS A SIX FOOT VISUAL BARRIER WITH TREEPLANTING 30 FOOT ON CENTER.

SO THAT WOULD HAVE TO BE -- >> THEY WOULD LOSE 20 FEET OF THEIR SPACE BACK THERE TO THE BUFFER.

>> YES. >> ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT ONLY

NEW PIECE OF PROPERTY? >> ON THE OLD.

THAT'S WHAT I WAS TRYING TO GET CLARIFIED IS IF YOU WOULD HAVE TO ADHERE TO THE NEW BUFFER SINCE YOU ARE MAKING THAT CHANGE. WHICH MEANS YOU WILL LOSE -- I THINK IT'S 25 -- IT'S A 20 FOOT BUFFER SO YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO COME IN 20 FEET INTO A BUFFER --

>> THAT WOULD BE ONLY IF WE IMPROVE THE PAYMENT?

>> HIM. >> IF YOU PUT A RETENTION POND.

>> THAT'S PROBABLY NOT GERMANE TO WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT HERE. SOMETHING THAT WE ARE ASKING BECAUSE -- IS SOMETHING YOU NEED TO KEEP IN MIND.

MIGHT BE MORE TO THIS IF YOU START LOOKING AT IT.

>> ANY OTHER QUESTION? >> YOU ARE GOING TO BE BACK IN A MINUTE FOR THE ZONING. I AM LOOKING FOR A MOTION ON

THIS. >> THERE'S NOBODY HERE TO SPEAK

ON IT. >> (OVERLAPPING SPEAKERS).

>> IF YOU LOOK AT THE EXISTING -- CONVERTING THIS TO THE BBC, IT'S MATCHING THE EXISTING ZONING SET UP ON MADISON AVENUE. I BELIEVE 25 YEARS AGO -- I BELIEVE THAT WAS RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY AT ONE TIME CONVERTED TO COMMERCIAL AND AUTO PARTS STORE AND A COMPLEX NOW BUT THEY WOULD ESSENTIALLY MIRROR EACH OTHER AT THAT POINT.

>> OKAY. THANK YOU.

I'M GOING TO A PUBLIC DUTY OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING.

I DON'T HAVE ANY CARDS AND I DON'T SEE ANYONE SO I'M GOING TO CLOSE IT AND BRING IT BACK FOR MOTION OR DISCUSSION.

ANY DISCUSSION? >> I WILL TELL YOU MY CONCERN WITH THIS IS YOU CAN SEE A LITTLE BIT FURTHER TO THE NORTH. COMMERCIAL DOES GO BACK THIS FAR BUT WE ARE LEAVING THIS FINGER OF RESIDENTIAL STICKING UP IN THE MIDDLE OF COMMERCIAL. AND I THINK THAT THE MAJORITY OF WHAT THE APPLICANT WANTS TO DO HE CAN DO WITHOUT THE LAND USE CHANGE AND MEANWHILE I WOULD ENCOURAGE YOU TO TRY TO ACQUIRE SOME OF THE OTHER PARCELS BECAUSE IF YOU OWNED ALL OF THE STUFF ON THE OTHER SIDE WHERE WAS ALL COMMERCIAL ON THE SAME DISTANCE THAT WOULD LOOK MUCH MORE FAVORABLE.

SO I WOULD BE DISINCLINED TO SUPPORT THIS TODAY DEPENDING ON HOW THINGS CHANGE IN THE FUTURE.

[01:15:03]

MOTION ON THIS ONE? >> I CAN'T SUPPORT THIS BECAUSE -- THAT'S ALWAYS BEEN A NO NO. THAT'S SOMETHING WE DON'T

NORMALLY DO. >> I RECOMMEND WE SUPPORT THE

STAFF REPORT. >> I SECOND THAT FOR PURPOSES

OF DISCUSSION. >> WE ARE CREEPING DOWN HERE WHICH IS WHAT THE STAFF REPORT SAYS.

COMMERCIAL CREEPING DOWN INTO RESIDENTIAL.

WHAT THEY ARE REALLY DOING IS MOVING THIS POND ONTO THAT PROPERTY. AND THEN YOU PICK UP A BUFFER AND THAT SORT OF STUFF AND THEY SAY MAYBE IT'S NOT AS BAD AS I INITIALLY THOUGHT. IT'S MUDDYING THE WATER AND I DON'T LIKE THE IDEA OF THE COMMERCIAL EXPANDING I UNDERSTAND IS A LONG-STANDING BUSINESS THAT'S BEEN IN THE COMMUNITY FOREVER. GREAT COMMUNITY NEIGHBORS.

SO JUST PROVIDE AN OPPORTUNITY FOR MORE JOBS TO PUT THE BODY SHOP IN. THAT COMMERCIAL PIECE ON THE OPPOSITE THAT NORTHEAST CORNER THERE IS A LARGE RV CENTER WHICH IS RECENTLY APPROVED THAT LAST SEVERAL MONTHS.

SO THE ONLY DOWNSIDE TO IT IS THAT LITTLE FINGER OF SEVERAL RESIDENTS THERE. I DON'T KNOW.

>> AND I THINK BASED ON WHAT I HEARD IS THEY CAN DO PROBABLY 90 PERCENT OF WHAT THEY WANT TO DO WITHOUT CHANGING IT.

AND DEPENDING WHAT HAPPENS TO THOSE OTHER PARCELS --

>> YOU COULD PUT A RETENTION POND ON THERE WITHOUT CHANGING

THE ZONE? >> YEAH.

THEY CAN'T DO ANYTHING ELSE TO IT RIGHT NOW.

THEY'VE BEEN DOING THEIR RETENTION POND WITHOUT DOING

COMMERCIAL. >> THEM WILL BE ABLE TO PARK

CARS. >> WE HAVE A MOTION ON THE

FLOOR. >> I WANT TO KEEP THE DISCUSSION GOING TO REMEMBER US LONG AGO COULD HAVE BEEN A YEAR AGO -- I'M SORRY. I SHOULD JUST LEAVE IT ON.

REMEMBER MAYBE A YEAR AGO OR MORE THAN A YEAR AGO WE HAD A SIMILAR SITUATION IF YOU REMEMBER OFF OF COLLEGE WHERE WE DID GRANT A COMMERCIAL CHANGE TO A RESIDENTIAL AREA LIKE THIS. THIS IS KIND OF REMINDED ME A LITTLE BIT OF THAT AS WELL AND PERSONALLY, I DON'T REALLY SEE THEM DOING ANYTHING HERE TO MAKE THAT NEIGHBORHOOD LESS ATTRACTIVE WITH THE BUFFERS AND FENCE THAT HAS TO GO UP AND EVERYTHING ELSE. DEPENDING -- THE ONLY THING THAT I MIGHT HAVE A PROBLEM WITH IS IF YOU'RE GOING TO PAY THAT ENTIRE THING AND PARKED CARS OUT THERE WHEN THAT ALL COMES BACK AGAIN I MIGHT HAVE A LITTLE BIT OF A PROBLEM WITH THAT IF IT WAS A LESSER AMOUNT THAT WAS GOING TO BE USED AS AN OVERFLOW PARKING. I MEAN, THAT, TO ME WHAT KIND OF BE ACCEPTABLE IN THAT PARTICULAR LOCATION.

>> WITH THE BUFFER HAVE TO GO ALONG HANSEN?

>> NOW. BECAUSE THAT'S A STREET.

>> IT HAS TO BE FENCED AND IF IT'S A RETENTION POND.

>> IT WOULD BE A FENCE OR A RETENTION POND.

>> (AWAY FROM MIC) (OVERLAPPING SPEAKERS).

[01:20:21]

>> WE INTEND TO HIM THAT BECAUSE THE TREES WERE THERE

AND WE WERE GOING TO A MINUTE. >> THINKING.

>> THE OTHER THING TO KEEP IN MIND IS IF THIS GOES THROUGH YOU STILL HAVE LIGHTING ISSUES THAT YOU ARE GOING TO INCUR.

(OVERLAPPING SPEAKERS) BUT THAT WHOLE AREA IS LIT WITH THE LIGHTING THEY HAVE NOW I'M SURE IT AFFECTS ALL OF THOSE RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES THAT ARE THERE.

>> MAYBE NOT THAT FAR BACK. >> I DON'T KNOW.

>> IF YOU HAVE FIVE HOUSES ACROSS THE STREET (OVERLAPPING

SPEAKERS). >> THEY ARE ACTIVELY USING ALMOST UP TO THAT STREET RIGHT NOW.

SO I WOULD THINK THAT THERE'S GOT TO BE SOME EFFECT OF THAT IN THAT PARTICULAR PART OF THAT SUBDIVISION RIGHT NOW.

I WANT TO ASK ONE QUESTION OF STAFF.

IS THE DATING NOT RECOMMENDING THIS DUE TO THE SIZE OF THE

LOT? >> IS NOT RECOMMENDED BECAUSE OF THE INFILL POLICY WHERE IT REQUIRES -- IF WE WERE TO RECOMMENDED IT WOULD HAVE TO BE ALREADY SURROUNDED BY COMMERCIAL ON BOTH SIDES AND THAT'S NOT THE CASE NOT JUST

TOUCHING ONE SIDE. >> AND THEN THEY HAVE ANOTHER OPTION AS WELL OR THEY COULD GET IT APPROVED THE UNIFIED PLAN BUT THEY DON'T QUALIFY FOR THAT BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT -- HAVE TO BE OFF MINOR CORRECTOR AND THEY ONLY HAVE BLANDING BOULEVARD. HANSEN DOES NOT QUALIFY.

>> OKAY. THANK YOU.

I'M GOING TO GO AHEAD AND CALL THE MOTION.

THE MOTION IS TO SUPPORT THE STAFF REPORT WHICH IN EFFECT WOULD BE A RECOMMEND TO DENY THE CHANGE.

SO ALL OF THOSE IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION, STATE AYE.

AND OPPOSED? >> AYE.

>> OKAY. SO THAT'S 6-1 --

>> (AWAY FROM MIC). >> THERE'S ONLY SIX OF US HERE.

[4.  Public Hearing to consider REZ-2022-19. (District 2, Comm. Bolla) (S. Olsen)]

>> 5-1. MR. ANSOLONE WAS THE DISSENTING VOTE. WE STILL HAVE TO RECOMMEND A ZONING CHANGE AS WELL.ND WE WILL HEAR FROM STAFF BUT LET ME POINT OUT TO YOU AS WE LISTEN TO THIS, KEEP IN MIND, TRY TO LOOK AT THE ZONING IS A SEPARATE ISSUE BECAUSE WHEN THE BCC GETS THIS IF THEY DECIDE THIS IS FINE THEY'RE GOING TO CHANGE IT TO COMMERCIAL, WE WANT TO TELL THEM WHETHER WE THINK THE ZONING IS FAIR OR NOT.

>> THIS IS THE COMPANION APPLICATION REZONING 2022-19 AND THEY ARE ASKING TO REZONING FROM AR TO BB-3.

THE ENTIRE PLATTED SUBDIVISION THAT'S ALL THAT THEY ARE RUNNING UP AND DOWN HANSEN THE PROPOSED ZONING WILL NOT BE COMPATIBLE WITH THE SURROUNDING RESIDENTIAL ZONING SO STAFF WOULD RECOMMEND DENIAL OF THE APPLICATION.

>> CAN YOU ELABORATE A LITTLE BIT ON WHAT IS IN THE BB-3 ZONING? YOU DON'T NEED TO READ THE WHOLE THING.UST GIVE US A SHORT SYNOPSIS.

>> IS VEHICLE RELATED. GAS STATIONS, AUTOMOBILE REPAIR

SHOPS, RENTAL, MOBILE HOMES. >> AUTO REPAIR?

>> PAWNSHOPS. >> CARWASH.

>> CARPET STORES, ADULT ENTERTAINMENT ESTABLISHMENTS

ARE ALSO PERMITTED. >> OKAY.

THE ONLY REAL QUIET ONE IN THERE IS THE FUNERAL HOME.

>> THE UPHOLSTERY SHOP. >> OKAY.

DO YOU WANT TO COME BACK AND -- I MEAN, REMEMBER, WE STILL HAVE TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION ON THE ZONING.

[01:25:01]

>> IT'S THE SAME REASONING. THE REASON FOR THE BB-3 WAS ESSENTIALLY TO MAKE IT ALL OF THE PROPERTY CONTIGUOUS FOR PURPOSES OF ZONING AND THEN BE ABLE TO PUT THE POND IN THE MOST FEASIBLE MANNER WITHOUT THE NEED FOR THE RESIDENTIAL SETBACKS THAT WOULD BE REQUIRED.

>> OKAY. THANK YOU.

ANY COMMENTS? MY COMMENTS ARE KIND OF THE SAME THING AND IF YOU LOOK, WE'VE GOT BB-3 TO THE NORTH AND THEN WE'VE GOT DB WHICH IS EVEN WORSE IN ALL OF THE OTHER GREAT AREA. IF IT WAS NOT FOR THOSE FIVE RESIDENTIAL LOTS STICKING DOWN IN THERE, I DON'T THINK THIS IS TOO UNREASONABLE. BUT TODAY, IT SEEMS A LITTLE BIT TOO MUCH TO ME. IF YOU COULD BUY UP SOME OF THOSE LOTS, IT WOULD LOOK REALLY GOOD IF WE DIDN'T HAVE THE FIVE RESIDENTIAL LOTS STICKING DOWN IN THERE.

IN THIS ONE -- YOU GET TO VOTE ON THIS ONE BECAUSE THIS WILL

REDUCE THE LOAD ON THE SCHOOL. >> ANY OTHER DISCUSSION ON THIS? ALL RIGHT.

THIS ONE ALSO IS A STAFF RECOMMENDS DENIAL.

DOES ANYBODY WANT TO MAKE A MOTION?

>> I WILL MAKE A MOTION.> STAFF REPORTS?

A SECOND? >> MR. DAVIS IS A SECOND.

ANYTHING ELSE? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION WHICH IS TO RECOMMEND NOT TO APPROVE, STATE AYE.

ANY OPPOSED? AND LANCE OPPOSES.

SO THAT'S 6-1. >> WHO ELSE OPPOSED

(OVERLAPPING SPEAKERS). >> I WANT TO SEE HANDS.

>> I MISSED JOE. AND LET ME JUST SAY FROM THE COUNTY, THAT'S A VERY GOOD BUSINESS TO THE COUNTY.

WE UNDERSTAND THAT. THEY HAVE -- THEY ARE A GOOD NEIGHBOR. THIS IS REALLY MORE ABOUT OUR FEELINGS AROUND THE ACTUAL USE OF THAT PIECE OF PROPERTY.

THIS IS NOTHING NEGATIVE TOWARDS THE CAR DEALER THAT'S THERE. AND THIS WILL BE THE 27TH.

BE BACK ON THE 27TH AFTER THEY TAKE IT UP AT 5:00.

THANK YOU. THANKS FOR COMING ALL OF THE WAY FROM VERO. THAT STRETCH OF 95 CAN BE CHALLENGING, ESPECIALLY THROUGH ST. JOHNS COUNTY.

>> (AWAY FROM MIC). >> OKAY.

SO THAT WAS THAT ONE. NUMBER 5. PUBLIC HEARING --

[5.  Public Hearing to consider PCD 22-08 (District 1, Comm. Cella) (M. Brown)]

A REZONING OF ONE ACRE FROM BB-3 2 PCD, PLANNED COMMERCIAL

DEVELOPMENT. >> CHAIRMAN, THE APPLICANT FOR THIS APPLICATION IS THE WHITE PRE-MEDICAL CLINIC AND THE AGENT IS MR. DONALD PHAN. HIS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE WAY. AND AS YOU INDICATED IS A ZONING CHANGE OF ONE ACRE FROM BB-3 TO PLANNED COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT, PCD. THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 302 COLLEGE DOCTOR AND THIS IS ALSO COMMISSION DISTRICT 1 AND WILL GO BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ON SEPTEMBER 27.

JUST A LITTLE BACKGROUND, THE PARCEL IS DESIGNATED COMMERCIAL ON THE ADOPTED FUTURE LAND USE MAP AND AS I INDICATED IS LOCATED 302 COLLEGE DOCTOR FOR A FREE DENTAL CLINIC CLINIC FOR BOTH THE MEDICAL AND DENTAL. THE PROPOSED REZONING IS -- REQUESTED TO ALLOW FOR DEVELOPMENT OF THE SITE FOR MEDICAL OFFICES WHICH THE EXISTING BB-3 ZONING WOULD NOT

[01:30:02]

AND IT'S HARD TO READ BUT THERE IS A SITE PLAN THAT SHOWS THE EXISTING BUILDING OUTLINED IN THE DARKER SQUARES THE ADDITION THAT'S PROPOSED. THE PROPOSED PCD IS LOCATED ON COLLEGE DRIVE ACROSS FROM ST. JOHNS RIVER STATE COLLEGE AND THE PROPOSED ZONING IS CONSISTENT WITH THE FUTURE LAND USE CATEGORY OF COMMERCIAL AND STAFF HAS REVIEWED THE APPLICATION AND DETERMINED THAT THE REQUEST IS CONSISTENT WITH THE SURROUNDING ZONING USES AND COMPATIBLE WITH THE SURROUNDING AREA. STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF PCD 22-08 WITH THE INCLUSION OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT AND SITE PLAN THAT WAS SUBMITTED WITH THE APPLICATION AND WAS INCLUDED IN YOUR STAFF REPORT TO REVIEW.

AND WITH THAT, DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OF STAFF?

>> ANYBODY? NO?> I WAS TRYING TO LOOK UP

WHY DOES IT HAVE TO BE PCD? >> THE EXISTING ZONING DISTRICT WOULD NOT ALLOW THAT USE SPECIFICALLY.

>> IS NOT SPECIFICALLY (OVERLAPPING SPEAKERS).

>> AND THERE IS MINOR ADJUSTMENTS TO SOME OF THE SETBACKS ALSO AND THE APPLICANT WILL PROBABLY GET INTO DETAIL ON THAT. BUT NOTHING THAT STAFF THINKS WOULD BE ADVERSE TO THE SURROUNDINGS SINCE.

>> THINKING MR. BROWN. >> IS THE APPLICANT PRESENT.

>> I GUESS I'M NOT THE APPLICANT.

AND THE CIVIL ENGINEER ON THE PROJECT.

2276 LAUREL GROVE LN. WITH ME IS THE APPLICANT WHO IS THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE WAY. STAFF IS DONE A BRILLIANT JOB OF COVERING MY OPENING SPEECH I HAVE NOTHING MUCH TO SAY.

ONE THING I WANTED TO POINT OUT.

WITH PAY SCHOOL -- >> ANYWAY.

IT'S ALL KIND OF PART OF THAT WHOLE THEORETICAL PACKAGE.

THE REASONS -- BACK TO MR. GARRISON'S QUESTIONS THE REASON FOR GOING THE PCP ROUTE -- AND WE WERE TRYING TO MIMIC MORE OR LESS BA-2 NUMBER WHICH ALLOWS MEDICAL USE, WHICH WE ARE.

HOWEVER, BA-2 NUMBER LIMITS MEDICAL BILLINGS 2500 SQUARE FEET IN THE BUILDING OUT THERE IS ALREADY 5000.

THAT'S ONE MODIFICATION AND ANY OTHER MODIFICATION IS A SLIGHT SETBACK MODIFICATION ON THE BACKSIDE BECAUSE UNDER BA-2 NUMBER ZONING WITH RESIDENTIAL ON THE BACK WE WOULD HAVE A 25 FOOT BUILDING SETBACK WITH THE EXISTING BUILDING, IT'S ONLY 20. SO WE ARE KIND OF JUST TWISTING BA-2 NUMBER SLIGHTLY IN ORDER TO MEET EXISTING CONDITIONS, REALLY. THOSE OF THE MAJOR CHANGES.

>> ANYTHING ELSE? OR ANY QUESTIONS? JUST FOR EDIFICATION, I'M GOING TO ASK MR. PHAN IF HE WILL TELL US WHAT THE WAY IS A LITTLE BIT.

>> SURE. 16 YEARS AGO, THE WAY FREE MEDICAL CLINIC BECAME THE ONLY PRIVATELY FUNDED MEDICAL CLINIC IN CLAY COUNTY. AND WITHIN THE LAST COUPLE OF YEARS, A DONOR EMERGED AND SAID WOULD YOU LIKE ANOTHER PROPERTY SO THAT YOU CAN EXPAND YOUR IMPACT? AND WE THOUGHT THAT WOULD BE A GOOD IDEA.

DURING THE TIME WHEN WE WERE BEGINNING TO CONCEPTUALIZE WHAT THIS WOULD LOOK LIKE, THE COUNTY ACTUALLY APPROACHED US AND SAID WOULD YOU CONSIDER HOSTING THE GREEN COVE SPRINGS DENTAL CLINIC IN THIS FACILITY BECAUSE THAT BUILDING THAT THE

[01:35:01]

AND WE KNOW THAT THERE ARE COVERED LIVES THAT WETAKE CARE OF IN THE COUNTIES THAT WE ARE NOT ACCESSING BECAUSE TRANSPOTATION IS DIFFICULT FOR A LOT OF THE LOW INCOME FOLKS AND SO FORTH. SO THIS FACILITY IS GOING TO BE -- BECOME A HUB FOR US TO DO OUR DE FACTO ESSENTIAL MEDICAL

SERVICE HERE. >> THANK YOU.

>> AND CURIOUS. IS THE CURRENT FACILITY GOING TO STAY OPEN OR ARE YOU GOING TO CLOSE IT CANNOT QUICKLY WILL STAY IN GREEN COVE SPRINGS AND WE WILL HAVE TO RELOCATE THAT BECAUSE THAT'S PROPERTY SLATED FOR PARKING, BUT I FEEL CONFIDENT THAT BETWEEN THE COMMITMENT OF THE CITY OF GREEN COVE SPRINGS TO HAVE US STAY AND HOPEFULLY THE GENEROSITY OF ST. VINCENT'S ACROSS THE STREET WE SHOULD BE ABLE TO FIND A

SPOT TO LAND THE CLINIC. >> ANYBODY ELSE?

THANK YOU. >> I'M GOING TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. I DON'T HAVE ANY CARDS ON THIS ONE AND I DON'T SEE ANYONE APPROACHING.

I WILL BRING IT BACK FOR A MOTION.

>> I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE. >> SECOND.

>> I HAVE A SECOND. ANYTHING ELSE.

IF NOT, ALL IN FAVOR OF SUPPORTING THE STAFF REPORT, AND ANY OPPOSED? VERY GOOD.

THANK YOU. THIS ONE COMES AT THE 27TH?

>> 27 FOR THE BCC. >> ALL RIGHT.

[6.  Public Hearing to consider LDC 2022-07. (M.Brown)]

[7.  Public Hearing to consider CPA 2022-09. (M.Brown)]

QUANTIFICATION OF USES. >> MR. CHAIRMAN, IF I MAY, THE FOLLOWING ITEMS, ITEMS 7 IS A COMPANION CHANGE TO THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE BASICALLY THAT'S THE SAME THING.

I HAVE COMBINED TRYING TO EXPEDITE THINGS AND COMBINE THE

ACTS 20. >> THAT WOULD BE FINE WITH ME.

GO AHEAD. >> WE NEED TWO VOTES ON EACH OF

THOSE. >> THE APPLICANT IS FRANK MILLER AND THERE ARE TWO REQUESTS AMENDMENT TO SECTION 3 NUMBER 33 PP SIX OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AND A COMPANION TEXT CHANGE TO LAKE ASBURY LAND USE POLICY JANUARY 4, 2010 OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND THE TWO CHANGES WOULD RESULT IN EXEMPTING LAKE ASBURY VILLAGE CENTERS WHICH ARE LESS THAN 10 ACRES IN SIZE FROM THE QUANTIFICATION OF USES SET UP IN THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AND THE COMP PLAN.

THERE ARE EIGHT VILLAGE CENTERS IN LAKE AS BURIED MASTER PLAN.

AND BOTH THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AND THE COMP PLAN REQUIRE A MIX IN PERCENTAGES OF USES WITHIN EACH OF THE VILLAGE CENTERS. AND THEY ARE LAID OUT HERE FOR YOU. THE MIX OF USES AND THE TYPES OF USES AND THE PERCENTAGES ARE EXACTLY THE SAME IN THE COMP PLAN AND THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE.

THIS IS -- OF THE EIGHT VILLAGE CENTERS, THERE WAS ONLY ONE THAT IS LESS THAN 10 ACRES. THAT'S THE ONE LOCATED AT HANLEY ROAD AND ITS TWO PARCELS, 6.42 ACRES IN SIZE.

SO THIS PROPOSED CHANGE WOULD ONLY IMPACT THAT VILLAGE CENTER. NONE OF THE OTHER ONES WOULD BE IMPACTED BY THIS CHANGE. THE EXISTING VILLAGE CENTER THAT'S IN QUESTION, THE NORTHERN -- NORTHERN 1.85 ACRES IS DEVELOPED WITH A RETAIL USE LEAVES 4.6 ACRES VACANT.

JUST LOOKING -- UTILIZING THE PERCENTAGES SET FORTH IN BOTH

[01:40:05]

AS I INDICATED, THE NORTHERN 1.85 ACRES IS ALREADY DEVELOPED WITH RETAIL USE. THE SPECIFIC PLANS FOR THIS -- AND THE REASON I BELIEVE THEY ARE ASKING FOR THIS REQUEST IS THAT THEY HAVE A DESIRE TO DEVELOP TWO ADDITIONAL ACRES AS RETAIL USE. AND ALTHOUGH THAT WOULD FIT IN THE MIX OF USES, YOU HAVE 0.65 ACRES WOULD HAVE TO BE SPECIFIC AND OPEN SPACE.ND THAT WOULD RESULT IN 1.92 ACRES REMAINING IN THIS VILLAGE CENTER WITH -- WHICH WOULD BE REQUIRED TO BE RESIDENTIAL BASED ON THE NEXT OF USES.

THE FIELD BY THE APPLICANT AND THE CLIENT OR THE AGENT CAN ADDRESS IT SPECIFICALLY, BUT THE BELIEF IS THAT IT'S REALLY INEFFICIENT FOR THIS SMALL VILLAGE CENTER TO BE HELD TO THE PERCENTAGES THAT ARE REQUIRED FOR THE LARGER ONES.

AND AS I INDICATED EARLIER, IN BOTH THE COMP PLAN AND THE MAIN DEVELOPMENT COAT THE PERCENTAGES OF MIXED USES ARE THE SAME. THE PROPOSED CHANGE WOULD STATE IN EACH OF THE COMP PLAN AND LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, ADD THE WORDING BELOW THE TABLE THAT NOTWITHSTANDING THE FOREGOING, ANY DELL AVC CONSISTING OF LESS THAN 10 ACRES EXISTING AS THE DATE OF THE ADOPTION OF THIS ORDINANCE SHALL NOT BE SUBJECT TO THE MIX OF USES DESCRIBED IN THE ABOVE MATRIX.

THE LAKE ASBURY CAC REVIEWED THE PROPOSED CHANGE TO THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AND THE COMP PLAN ON AUGUST 11.

THE CAC VOTED 7-02 RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE TEXT CHANGES TO BOTH PLANS STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THE AMENDMENT TO SECTION THREE- P336 OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AND THE TEXT AMENDMENT TO THE LAKE ASBURY FUTURE LAND USE POLICY 1.4.10 OF THE COMP PLAN CONSISTED WITH WHAT I STATED EARLIER WHICH BASICALLY STATES THAT NOTWITHSTANDING THE FOREGOING, ANY LAND THE L AVC CONSISTING OF LESS THAN 10 ACRES EXISTING AS THE DATE OF THE ADOPTION OF THIS ORDINANCE SHALL NOT BE SUBJECT TO THE MIX OF USES DESCRIBED IN THE ABOVE MATRIX.

DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OF STAFF?

>> CAN YOU GO BACK TO THE MAP FOR A SECOND?

>> HOW DID THIS VILLAGE CENTER ENDED UP ONLY BEING 10 ACRES?

>> I CAN'T ANSWER THAT. I HAVE NO IDEA.

I BELIEVE AT THE TIME -- AND THIS IS JUST CONJECTURE -- THAT THE COMMERCIAL TO THE NORTH, IT WAS AN OLD PUD AND WAS BASICALLY CARRIED FORWARD AS COMMERCIAL AND I BELIEVE THERE WAS PROBABLY SOME THINKING THAT THERE WOULD BE SOME MUTUAL BENEFIT OR MAYBE NOT HAVING TO HAVE THAT AS LARGE BECAUSE OF THAT EXISTING COMMERCIAL, BUT THAT'S JUST CONJECTURE AT THIS

POINT (OVERLAPPING SPEAKERS). >> DOES ANYBODY REMEMBER?

>> (OVERLAPPING SPEAKERS). >> I'M GOING TO DO THIS IN THE RIGHT ORDER AND COVER THE APPLICANT.

IT'S SUPPOSED TO BE THE APPLICANT FIRST.

>> I'D LIKE TO HEAR FROM THE CAC REPRESENTATIVE FIRST.

>> WE COULD. DO YOU WANT TO COME UP FIRST?

JIM RYAN. >> A LITTLE OF OUR BACKGROUND

[01:45:12]

OUR CONCERN WHEN THE INITIAL STAFF RECOMMENDATION WAS THAT ANYTHING LESS THAN 10 ACRES -- WE HAD HAD A PREVIOUS MEETING AND LOOKED AT THE VILLAGE CENTER AT THE CORNER OF RUSSELL AND 730 9B. AN APPLICANT HAD TAKEN PART OF THE VILLAGE CENTER PROPERTY AND WAS LOOKING AT THAT MIX BUT WASN'T FOLLOWING ALL OF THE MIX.

ONE, THERE WAS NO PARK PROPERTY ON THEIR DESIGNATED AREA.

OUR QUESTION TO STAFF WAS WHAT HAPPENS WITH THE REST OF THE SMICS REQUIREMENT. WHILE WHOEVER GETS THE NEXT PIECE OF PROPERTY HAS TO MEET THE MINIMUM FOR THIS VILLAGE CENTER. WE ARE CONCERNED IF THERE WASN'T A VERBIAGE IN THERE, THE 10 ACRES AT THE TIME OF ADOPTION, THE FUTURE VILLAGE CENTERS MAKE IT SLICED UP AND THERE BE A PARCEL LESS THAN 10 ACRES THAT WITHIN WANT TO FOLLOW THIS RECOMMENDATION. SO THAT'S WHY WE SPECIFICALLY REQUESTED THAT IT ONLY BE PROPERTIES THAT MEET US AT THIS TIME AND THIS IS THE ONLY PARCEL THAT DOES.

>> THANK YOU. NOW THE APPLICANT.

>> THANK YOU. MY NAME IS FRANK MILLER MY ADDRESS IS 1 INDEPENDENT DOCTOR, SUITE 2300 IN JACKSONVILLE. THIS REQUEST AND APPLICATION IS TO MAKE USE OF THIS SMALL PARCEL AND I THINK AS MR. BROWN POINTED OUT IF YOU APPLY THE PERCENTAGES REQUIRED WITHIN THE VILLAGE CENTER, YOU COME UP WITH SOMETHING THAT REALLY DOES NOT MAKE THIS PIECE EVEN VIABLE.

BECAUSE YOU'VE GOT 1.9 ACRES FOR RESIDENTIAL, WHICH MAYBE YOU COULD PUT TWO HOMES ON OR MAYBE PUT TOWNHOMES ON, BUT YOU WOULD NOT GET VERY MANY, AND IT JUST WOULDN'T FIT.

AND THEN YOU'VE GOT THE EXISTING GAS STATION, AND ACTUALLY, THERE IS A DOLLAR GENERAL, I BELIEVE, WHO'S INTERESTED THERE AND A DUNKIN' DONUTS THAT'S INTERESTED THERE.

AND IT JUST LOOKS LIKE WHEN YOU PUT THIS IN THE SCHEME OF WHAT WAS INTENDED BY THE VILLAGE CENTERS, THIS ONE OBVIOUSLY DOESN'T MEET WHAT WAS -- THE CONCEPT OF VILLAGE CENTER. IT'S LESS THAN SEVEN ACRES AND VILLAGE CENTERS ARE IN THE 60 ACRE RANGE.

AND I'D BE HAPPY TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTIONS AND WOULD ASK THAT YOU APPROVE THE STAFF'S RECOMMENDATIONS.

>> ANY QUESTIONS? >> YOU HAVE TO COME UP HERE BECAUSE THIS GETS RECORDED AND IF YOU ARE TO THE MIC IT DOES

NOT GET PICKED UP. >> THE COMMITTEE WAS INTERESTED TO SEE WHAT I HAVE ACRE PARK WOULD LOOK LIKE.

BECAUSE IF YOU HAD A PARKING SPACE IS GONE.

>> ANY QUESTIONS ON ANYTHING? IF NOT I'M GOING TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING NO CARDS ON THIS ONE SO I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC

HEARING. >> I ACTUALLY HAVE A QUESTION.

>> YOU CAN ASK IT NOW. >> WE DIDN'T HAVE THIS MATH IN THE DEEP MAP IN THE MATERIALS. AT LEAST I DIDN'T.

DID I? >> YOU PROBABLY DIDN'T.

I APOLOGIZE. >> I NEED SOME ORIENTATION ON THIS. IT'S CONFUSING TO ME THAT SAYS THAT THE NORTHERN PARCEL IS 1.85 ACRES NORTH AT THE TOP?

>> YES. >> SO WHICH ONE?

THE REDSKIN HE WENT -- >> NOW.

THE RED IS NOT BEING DISCUSSED. THAT'S SEPARATE.

>> IT'S THE PURPLE ONE? >> SO THE 1.85 ACRES IS THE LITTLE SQUARE AT THE TOP OF THE PAGE?

>> YES. >> AND THAT'S A SERVICE STATION

RIGHT NOW? >> YES.

>> THE RED CONFUSED ME. >> I THINK THERE'S A GROCERY

STORE. >> THE RED IS WINN-DIXIE

(OVERLAPPING SPEAKERS). >> ANYTHING ELSE?

>> MR. CHAIRMAN, ONE THING, I JUST WANT TO REMIND YOU

(OVERLAPPING SPEAKERS). >> IT'S PROBABLY APPROPRIATE TO

[01:50:05]

>> OKAY. >> QUESTION BEFORE ME DO THIS.

MR. MILLER MENTIONED DUNKIN' DONUTS AND A FEW OTHER TYPES OF BUSINESSES. IS THAT WHAT IS BEING PLANNED FOR THERE OR IS THERE SOME OTHER TYPE OF BUSINESS? MY CONCERN IS BECAUSE I KNOW THERE IS A SCHOOL IN THAT PARTICULAR AREA AND THAT SCHOOL IS OF PRIMARY CONCERN TO ME RIGHT NOW AND I LIKE TO KNOW IT'S GOING TO GO IN THERE IF WE

MAKE THIS CHANGE. >> I DON'T KNOW.

I KNOW THERE HAVE BEEN DISCUSSIONS BETWEEN THE OWNES AND POTENTIAL BUYERS OR LESSEES OF THE PROPERTY, BUT THE USES WOULD BE LIMITED TO WHAT WOULD BE ALLOWED IN A VILLAGE CENTER.

SO, I MEAN, I DON'T KNOW WHAT -- THIS CHANGE DOESN'T CHANGE

ANY OF THAT. >> IT BASICALLY JUST SAYS WE

DON'T NEED RESIDENTIAL. >> ME WILL TAKE THE RESIDENTIAL

OUT IF IT'S NOT -- >> IN THE PARK.

>> ALL RIGHT. SO IF THERE'S NO FURTHER DISCUSSION, FIRST, WE NEED A MOTION TT I NEED A MOTION ON THE TEXT AMENDMENT TO THE LAKE ASBURY FUTURE LAND USE POLICY.

>> MOTION APPROVED. >> A SECOND TO MS. BRIDGMAN.

SEE NOTE DISCUSSION. ALL IN FAVOR, STATE AYE.

ANY OPPOSED? OKAY.

AND THEN WE WILL DO A TEXT AMENDMENT TO ARTICLE 3 NONE OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE TO EXEMPT THE CENTER.

>> SO MOVED. >> MS. BRIDGMAN AND MR. DAVIS IS A SECOND. ALL RIGHT.SEEING NONE, ALL IN FAVOR, STATE AYE. ANY OPPOSED? OKAY. THIS WAS ON THE 27TH.

>> NO. IT'S A TRANSMITTAL THAT HAS TO BE THE TEXT AMENDMENT HAS TO BE TRANSMITTED FIRST TO THE STATE.

THAT'S A REQUIREMENT. THAT WILL COME NEXT TUESDAY AND WILL BE THE REQUEST FOR THE BOARD TO TRANSMIT THE COMP PLAN AND THE ONE THAT COMES BACK WE WILL TAKE THEM BOTH TO THE

BOARD FOR ADOPTION. >> NEXT WEEK ON THE 13TH IT'S

JUST THE TEXT AMENDMENT. >> FOR TRANSMITTAL.

>> TO THE FUTURE LAND USE? >> YES.

AND THEN WE HAVE TO ADVERTISE FOR BOTH OF THEM BUT WE WON'T

HAVE THE MATCH AT. >> IS WHAT TAKES ABOUT 25

STATES WITH THEM. >> 30 TO 35 DAYS.

[8.  Public Hearing to Consider Transmittal of Proposed Changes to Map 1 of the Transportation Element (E. Lehman)]

>> ALL RIGHT.

NUMBER EIGHT. A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER TRANSMITTAL OF PROPOSED CHANGES TO MAP ONE OF THE TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT. OKAY.

>> COURTNEY, YOU'VE GOT THIS. >> SO AT THE LAST BOARD MEETING THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ENTERED INTO A RESOLUTION TO ADD RADAR RD., TOWN CENTRE BOULEVARD AND PINES BOULEVARD/ROYAL PINES DRIVE TO THE COUNTY ROAD SYSTEM AND THE PURPOSE OF THIS COMP PLAN AMENDMENT IS TO TRACK THOSE CHANGES AND JUST TO LET YOU KNOW, THE REASON THE RADAR WROTE WAS NEEDED TO BE ADDED TO THE COUNTY ROAD SYSTEM IS BECAUSE THE COUNTY IS DOING IMPROVEMENTS IN CONNECTION WITH RADAR ROAD AND INTENDS TO USE IMPACTING MONEY IN ORDER TO COMPLY WITH IMPACT FEE ORDINANCE IT HAS TO BE PART OF THE COUNTY ROAD SYSTEM AND THE REASON TOWN CENTRE BOULEVARD IS BEING ADDED IS BECAUSE RADAR ROAD CONNECTS WITH U.S. 17 AND TOWN CENTER IN ORDER TO HAVE RADAR LTD THEY BARELY CONNECT.

THEY DON'T CONNECT. >> THEY WILL.

>> THEY ARE GOING TO CONNECT. >> YES.

RADAR ROAD CONNECTS WITH 17 IN ORDER TO CONTINUE IT TO TOWN CENTER THAT'S WITH THE IMPROVEMENT WILL BE DISSEMINATED TO ADD TOWN CENTER SO YOU HAVE BOTH CONNECTIONS.

TIMES BOULEVARD WE WERE DELAYED IN ADDING THAT TO THE COUNTY SYSTEM. IT WAS CONSTRUCTED A WHILE AGO AND WE NEEDED TO UPDATE IT FOR THAT.

SO THE PURPOSE FOR THE TRANSMITTAL IN FRONT OF YOU IS TO ADD THOSE TO THE TRANSPORTATION TO THE MAP AND UPDATE THE MAP AND CONNECT BACK WITH A RESOLUTION.

>> OKAY. ANY QUESTIONS ON THAT?

[01:55:01]

>> IT'S BEEN CHALLENGING BECAUSE OF THAT ON TOWN CENTER.

>> THERE GOING TO TAKE THAT OUT, RIGHT?

>> ALL RIGHT. I'M GOING TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS ONE. I HAVE NO CARDS ON THIS SO I'M GOING TO CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING AND BRING IT BACK FOR

DISCUSSION A MOTION. >> I WILL MAKE A MOTION TO

APPROVE. >> DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING?

>> NO. I'M GLAD TO SEE IT.

LET ME TELL YOU WHY. >> WAIT A SECOND.

I HAVE A MOTION AND I NEED A SECOND.

>> SECOND. >> A COUPLE OF YEARS AGO, THEY APPROVED 16 PER ACRE ON THAT PARCEL ACROSS FROM THE CHURCH.

THE ACCESS IS ON 17 AND THE FEAR WAS SOMEBODY'S GOING TO GET KILLED THERE SO THIS WAS AN EFFORT BY THE COUNTY TO OPEN UP RADAR ROAD TO ALLOW PEOPLE COMING OUT OF THE FACILITY TO TOWN CENTRE BOULEVARD SO THEY COULD GET TO ALIGHT SOMEPLACE

ELSE. >> IT MAKES A LOT OF SENSE BECAUSE THE ONLY WAY TO GET TO THE BALLFIELDS AND ALL WAS OFF OF 17. PARK AT THE LIBRARY AND

WALKOVER. >> THAT'S WHAT THEY DO NOW.

>> ALL RIGHT. I HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE TRANSMITTAL. ALL IN FAVOR.

ANY OPPOSED? >> OKAY.

THAT GOT RID OF THAT.

>> UNDER OLD BUSINESS WE HAD SOME OF THE SCHOOL BOARD ABOUT MACRO THEY WEREN'T HERE.

>> THANK YOU MR. CHAIRMAN. I WILL ECHO THE COMMENTS AS FAR AS PROPOSING 3000 SINGLE-FAMILY AND 1000 MULTIFAMILY AND IT'S CONTINUING TO THE GOVERNORS WITH SARATOGA SPRINGS IF SHE BAR RANCH IS PASSED THROUGH AN GOVERNORS PARK THOSE DEVELOPMENTS AND IT PUTS A HUGE STRAIN ON THE SCHOOL SYSTEM TO BUILD SCHOOLS FASTER THAN WE COULD POSSIBLY BUILD AND I DON'T WANT TO SAY THAT WHAT I AM SAYING IS IT PUTS A STRAIN ON THE SCHOOL SYSTEM TO BUILD THE SCHOOLS THAT FAST. ABOUT THREE WEEKS AGO MAYBE A MONTH AGO WE WENT TO ST. JOHN'S COUNTY AND LOOKED AT ? HIGH SCHOOL AND THEY BUILT THE CONTRACT WAS A COPRE- COVID-19 IMPOSE COVID-19 WE ARE LOOKING AT HUNDRED 20 240 MILLION TO POSSIBLY BUILD A HIGH SCHOOL.

SO THAT TELLS YOU THE FINANCIAL BURDEN THAT SOME OF THIS MIGHT PUT IT ON THE SCHOOL SYSTEM AND HOW FAST THE DEVELOPMENT COMES TO WHERE WE CAN'T NECESSARILY HANDLE IT ALL AT ONCE AND THOSE ARE THE THAT IS WHAT I WANTED TO LET THEM KNOW THAT THEY ASKED ME MY OPINION THEY ASKED ME TO, AND SPEAK AND THAT'S BASICALLY WHAT I SAID NOT ONLY THAT AS YOU KNOW TRANSPORTATION FOR SCHOOLS ARE WHERE HAVING A HARD TIME ALSO SO IF YOU CAN IMAGINE AN EXTRA 17,000 TRANSPORTATION ELEMENTS AND IT'S NOT JUST THE SCHOOL ITSELF BUILDING THE SCHOOL HAVING THE PROPERTY IT'S ALSO EVERYTHING ELSE THAT GOES INTO IT WITH THE TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT AND EVERYTHING IT TAKES TO SUPPORT THOSE SCHOOLS ALSO.

>> ARE YOU ABLE TO GET SOMETHING THAT SIZE, A DONATIO .

[INDISCERNIBLE] >> YES WE HAVE DONATIONS FROM THE GROUP AND SARATOGA SPRINGS WE DO HAVE THE DONATION OF LAND UNFORTUNATELY, IN MY OPINION THAT DOESN'T COVER WHAT IT COST TO BUILD A SCHOOL. SO YES THAT DOES HELP, DON'T GET ME WRONG.ND WHAT IT

[02:00:02]

WOULD GENERATE. AND IMPACT FEES >> WE RECEIVE PROBABLY ABOUT 11 MILLION A YEAR AND IMPACT FEES. ABOUT 120. WE ARE ESTIMATING HUNDRED AND 2200 40 MILLION AND OUR FIRST PRIORITY RIGHT NOW WOULD BE K8 IN THE SARATOGA SPRINGS AREA SO THAT'S WHERE WE'RE GOING TO FOCUS OUR ATTENTION RIGHT NOW WE ARE ESTIMATING THAT TO BE ABOUT 80 MILLION BECAUSE WE HAD TO RELIEVE SOME OF THE SCHOOLS IN THAT AREA OBVIOUSLY WE HAD SPRING PART COMING UP IT WILL OPEN AUGUST OF 23 AND THAT WILL HELP.

THAT IS A CASE SIX.TRICTLY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL BUT WE MIGHT SHIFT OUR ATTENTION TO K8 TO TRY TO THWART SOME OF THE COSTS THAT IT COSTS TO BUILD MULTIPLE SCHOOLS.

SO I JUST CURIOUS MR. BROWN, [INDISCERNIBLE] WE ARE NOT THE ONLY COMMUNITY IN THE UNITED STATES. [INDISCERNIBLE] IS THERE NOT SOME MECHANISM WITH TIME DEVELOPMENT TO INFRASTRUCTURE AND I GET IT'S A CHICKEN AND AN EGG BUT YOU DON'T GET THAT UNTIL SOMEBODY. [INDISCERNIBLE] ALL SORTS OF DEVELOPMENT HAS HAPPENED I KNOW THAT CCU AA DOES NOT PUT THEIR STUFF IN. SOMEBODY IS PAYING FOR THAT.

AM JUST CURIOUS.I AM ALL IN FAVOR OF TRYING TO TIE THEM TOGETHER.

NOBODY I PROMISE YOU WE DON'T WANT TO END UP IN A POSITION OF ST. JOHN'S COUNTY WHERE THERE IS SO MUCH DEVELOPMENT THAT THE COMMUNITY AND THE ELECTED LEADERS TURN AGAINST THE DEVELOPMENT INDUSTRY. NOBODY IS LOOKING FOR THAT. SO I WOULD THINK THE DEVELOPMENT INDUSTRY AND I WOULD JUST SPEAK FOR MYSELF. WOULD BE 100 PERCENT IN FAVOR OF MECHANISM THAT TIES US TOGETHER WHICH IS. [INDISCERNIBLE] AND THE DEVELOPERS BECAUSE THE DRI DOES NOT PREVENT CLAY COUNTY FROM CREATING ITS OWN REGULATIONS AND I WASN'T BEING OVERLY SARCASTIC EARLIER AND I SAID WE HAD TO LOOK AT THE MIRROR TO FIND THE BLAME OF THE SITUATION. THE DEVELOPERS ARE ONLY GOING TO GO AS FAST AS SOMEBODY WILL LET THEM. ANYWAY.

I DON'T KNOW I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE MECHANISM IS BUT I HAVE NEWS FOR YOU, I TRIED AS FAR AS CONCURRENCY GOES IN THIS MIGHT GO ALONG THE LINES OF WHAT YOU ARE ASKING.

WHEN I GIVE CONCURRENCY I HAVE TO GIVE RESERVATIONS FOR THAT DEVELOPMENT AS THEY COME IN AND APPLY FOR CONCURRENCY NORMALLY IF THEY START CONSTRUCTION ON THOSE THREE YEARS THEY GET THOSE SEATS AND AS I CONTINUE TO ISSUE CONCURRENCY THOSE SEATS FILL UP IN THE SCHOOLS THE CAPACITY OF THE SCHOOL WITH THE ENROLLMENT AND ALSO THE RESERVATIONS FOR CONCURRENCY THAT DETERMINES HOW MANY SEATS ARE RESERVED AS OF RIGHT NOW ALL OF MY HIGH SCHOOLS ARE COMPLETELY FILLED I DON'T HAVE ANY SPOTS AVAILABLE AND WITH THAT BEING SAID IF THERE ARE NOT SEATS IN THE ZONE AND I HAVE TO GIVE CONCURRENCY BECAUSE THE STATE WON'T LET US BUILD A SCHOOL UNLESS OUR SCHOOLS ARE FILLED UP SO WITH THAT BEING SAID, I HAVE TO BE ABLE TO BUT WHAT HAPPENS IS WHENEVER CONCURRENCY IS FILLED AND THE SCHOOL CAPACITY IS FILLED THE RESERVATIONS ARE FILLED WE GO TO A WE HAVE A STUDENT GENERATION RATE WITH A STUDENT GENERATION RATE WE DETERMINE HOW MUCH IT COSTS PER STUDENTS STATION AND WE TALK WITH THE DEVELOPERS OF HOW THEY ARE GOING TO MITIGATE THE SEATS THAT THEY ARE GOING TO CREATE

SO >> SO CONCURRENCY IF THERE IS CAPACITY IF THERE IS NO CAPACITY CAN THE DEVELOPMENT STILL GO FORWARD? IS THAT ALLOWING IT TO

CONTINUE? >> I HAVE TO ISSUE A PROP SHAR

. [INDISCERNIBLE] >> WE CAN HAVE A STATE RULE

[02:05:02]

IF THEY AGREE TO THAT, THAT'S A DIFFERENT STORY.

>> AT THAT POINT THEY ARE PAYING AHEAD OF TIME?

>> EITHER THEY DONATE LAND, THEY BUILD A SCHOOL OR THEY PAY THE IMPACT FEES UPFRONT SO THAT'S WHAT THE PROP SHARE WILL BE ABLE TO ABLE GET CREDITS ON THOSE IMPACT FEES.

>> JUST LOOKING DOWN THE LINE HOW MUCH DO YOU THINK THE COUNTY NEEDS TO SPEND IN SCHOOLS TO MAKE THIS PROJECTED DEMAND?

>> SO WE HAVE OUR EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES AND WE PLANNED OUT 10 YEARS AND IN 10 YEARS WE ARE PLANNING IT SHOULD PASS IN THE NEXT BUDGET BOARD MEETING ABOUT 335 MILLION TO BUILD.

WE ARE PLANNING ON BUILDING 70 TO 80 SCHOOLS AND IT WILL COST US 335 MILLION.

WITH THAT BEING SAID THAT DOESN'T TAKE INTO ACCOUNT MANY FACTORS THAT IS JUST WHAT THE STATE SAYS IT COSTS US TO BUILD A SCHOOL THERE ARE MANY FACTORS THAT THE STATE DOESN'T TAKE INTO ACCOUNT SO FOR EXAMPLE IF THE STATE SAYS THE COST 21,000,004 SCHOOL TECHNICALLY WITH EVERYTHING ELSE WE HAVE TO ADD ON RIGHT AWAY IS A HARDENING OF THE SCHOOL.

IT NORMALLY COST US 40 MILLION. THAT'S AN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL.

>> AND THE GENERAL SOURCE OF REVENUE IS ? >> WE HAVE AND A HALF CENT SALES TAX WE CAN USE FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION.

>> WE MIGHT MAKE THAT A 30 YEAR >>. [INDISCERNIBLE]

>> I HAVE TO LOOK AT THE BUDGET LINES I'M NOT SURE EXACTLY WHERE EACH BUDGET LINE GOES BUT YES THERE ARE SOME THAT WE CAN'T USE FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION. I DON'T KNOW THE EXACT BUDGET LINES THAT'S NOT WHAT I GET INTO.

>>. [INDISCERNIBLE] >> WE STILL HAVE NEW BUSINESS USUALLY IF CHARISSE HAS SOME SHE WOULD BE HERE TO TELL US I HAVE THE LAST PUBLIC COMMENT THAT I HAVE TO OPEN. WE WILL DO THAT. I DON'T HAVE ANYBODY.

WE WILL CLOSE THAT. THE NEXT MEETING IS ON OCTOBER 6 I THINK.

VERY. ANYONE KNOW WHAT THE DATE IS?

>> OCTOBER 4 SO WE WILL SEE HOPEFULLY EVERYBODY HERE ON OCTOBER 4. THANKS FOR BEING

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.