[Call to Order] [00:00:11] >> , TO THE APRIL SEVENTH, 2026 CLAY COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION -- PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING THE MEETING IS CALLED TO ORDER. IF YOU WOULD, PLEASE PUT YOUR CELL PHONES ON SILENT OR VIBRATE. IF YOU NEED TO TAKE A CALL DURING THE MEETING, PLEASE STEP OUTSIDE. IF YOU NEED TO DO LEAVE THE MEETING, PLEASE DO SO QUIETLY. WOULD YOU PLEASE STAND AND JOIN ME IN THE PLEDGE. I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS, ONE NATION UNDER GOD, INDIVISIBLE, WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL. >> MY NAME IS PETE DAVIS, I'M THE CHAIRMAN OF THE CLAY COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION. THE MINUTES ARE BEING TAKEN BY CHRISTINE BLANCHETT, THE RECORDING SECRETARIAT FROM THE CLERK'S OFFICE. OTHER STAFF MEMBERS INCLUDED TONIGHT, WE HAVE MR. CARSON, THE DIRECTOR OF PLANNING AND ZONING AND WE HAVE OUR CHIEF PLANNER. AND WE HAVE THE LEGAL DEPARTMENT. I DON'T SEE ANY OTHERS. WE THANK DEPUTIES FROM THE CLAY COUNTY SHERIFF DEPARTMENT HERE TO OVERSEE OUR PROCEEDINGS. TO MY RIGHT IS THE VICE C VICE CHAIRMAN, COMMISSIONER MICHAEL BERRY, COMMISSIONER BILL JHARRISON, OUR SCHOOL BOARD REPRESENTATIVE MR. PAUL BEMENT. THE CLAY COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION'S IS A CITIZEN ADVISORY BOARD TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OR THE BCC. ALL PLANNING COMMISSIONERS ARE VOLUNTEERS, RESIDENTS OF CLAY COUNTY APPOINTED. WE SERVE TWO YEAR TERMS AND MUST REAPPLY IF WE WISH TO CONTINUE TO SERVE. THE COMMISSION'S DUTIES ARE OUTLINED IN SECTION 163.3 OF THE FOUR OF STATUTES. WE HEAR APPLICATIONS FOR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS, LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE CHANGES AND REZONING. MOST OF THE DECISIONS MADE BY THE PLANNING COMMISSIONER RECOMMENDATION TO THE BCC. THE BCC WILL HAVE THE FINAL SAY AT THEIR MEETING ON THE SECOND TUESDAY, ONE WEEK FROM TODAY, OR THE FOURTH TUESDAY, THREE WEEKS FROM TODAY. THE BCC MEETING STARTS AT 4PM, ZONING AND LAND ISSUES MATTERS START AT 5PM. YOU NEED TO CHECK THE BCC AGENDA ON THE CLAY COUNTY WEBSITE FOR ACTUAL TIMES AND LOCATIONS. WE ALWAYS WELCOME THE PUBLIC TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S MEETINGS, AS CITIZEN PARTICIPATION IS THE BACKBONE. YOUR PRESENCE IS IMPORTANT IS IMPORTANT AND APPRECIATED IF THERE'S AN ITEM ON TONIGHT'S AGENDA YOU WISH TO SPEAK TO ABOUT OR YOU WANT TO TALK ABOUT DURING THE OPEN COMMENT. , PLEASE FILL OUT ONE OF THE COMMENT CARDS FOUND AT THE ENTRY VESTIBULE, AND GIVE IT TO MISS BLANCHETT. THERE IS A THREE MINUTE TIME LIMIT FOR EACH TIME. TIME -- THE RED LIGHT INDICATES [1. Approval of Minutes] THE TIME IS UP. FIRST ITEM FOR ACTION TONIGHT IS APPROVAL OF MINUTES. DO I HEAR A MOTION? A MOTION MADE TO SECOND. ANY DISCUSSION. THOSE IN FAVOR, SAY AYE. A COUPLE OF OTHER THINGS. THERE IS KEYSTONE PD 202-6001, IS THERE ANYONE HERE TONIGHT TO SPEAK TO THAT? IF THERE IS, IT IS NOT ON THE AGENDA, IT DID NOT MAKE THE AGENDA CUT. THAT WILL MOST LIKELY SHOW UP EITHER IN MAY OR POSSIBLY JUNE. [Public Comment] PLEASE CHECK THE AGENDA FOR THAT. THE OTHER THING I WOULD LIKE TO BRING UP IS, LET'S GET INTO PUBLIC COMMENTS. I HAVE ONE CARD FOR PUBLIC COMMENT. THE PUBLIC COMMENT. AT THIS TIME, ANY MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC MAY COMMENT ON ANY ITEMS NOT INCLUDED ON THE ADVICE AGENDA BUT PERTINENT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION. AT THIS TIME, I WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC COMMENT. I HAVE ONE CARD. MR. DANIELS. >> GOOD EVENING. [00:05:03] I WAS HERE A YEAR AND A HALF A AGO. I CAME HERE TO GET SOME INFORMATION. THE MEETING THAT NIGHT WAS CANCELLED. SO IT WAS JUST ME SITTING IN THE AUDIENCE. THEY ASKED ME, DO YOU WANT TO ASK A QUESTION. I DID, AND YOU GAVE ME SOME INFORMATION. SO I AM BACK TO FURTHER MY EDUCATION. I HAVE TWO QUICK QUESTIONS. WHAT IS THE RELATIONSHIP OF THE FLEMING ISLAND CDP WITH CLAY COUNTY? IN REGARDS TO PLANNING OR ANY TYPE OF FINANCIAL ISSUES THAT THEY DO TOGETHER. >> EACH ONE OF THE PLANNING DISTRICTS, THEIR OPTION HAS WHAT WE CALL AN ADVISORY GROUP. FLEMING ISLAND ADVISORY GROUP IS A GROUP THAT HAS BEEN IN FORCE SINCE THE EARLY 80S. THEY ARE RESPONSIBLE TO REVIEW ZONING APPLICATIONS AND OTHER THINGS PERTINENT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND THE PLANNING BOARD OF COMMISSION BEFORE IT GETS TO THE COUNTY COMMISSION. THEY MEET WITH THE DEVELOPER. THEIR MEMBERSHIP, I THINK THEY HAVE TEN MEMBER SEATS. I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY SEATS THEY HAVE FILLED. AND THAT IS THE COURSE OF EVENTS. THEY MEET WITH THE ADVISOR GROUP, THEN THEY MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO US AND WE WILL MEET WITH THE DEVELOPER IN THE PUBLIC AND MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS. >> THEY ARE A STARTING POINT BUT IN REGARDS TO THE CDP ITSELF, ARE THEY INVOLVED WITH ANY OF THAT? >> THEY ARE NOT PART OF THE CDD. YOU MAY HAVE MEMBERS SITTING ON THERE THAT ARE MEMBERS OF THE CDD BUT THEIR FUNCTION IS COMPLETELY INDEPENDENT. >> I GO TO THE CDD MEETINGS ALL THE TIME. I HAVE A SMALL ISSUE GOING ON FOR TWO AND A HALF YEARS. I AM WONDERING IF I CAN CONTACT A COUNTY COMMISSIONER THAT COVERS THE AREA AND TRY TO SEE IF THEY COULD GET INVOLVED WITH AN ISSUE THAT I HAVE. WITH THE CDC. >> I'M NOT FAMILIAR -- NUMBER 1, WE NORMALLY DON'T HAVE THIS TYPE OF EXCHANGE. BUT IF YOU WANT MORE INFORMATION ON THAT, I WOULD RECOMMEND THAT YOU GET AHOLD OF BETH CARSON, SHE CAN FILL YOU IN ON THAT. >> THANK YOU. ANY QUESTIONS AT ALL, THE LIKELY STARTING POINT MIGHT BE WITH YOUR COUNTY COMMISSIONER. >> THAT'S WHAT I FIGURED. YOU GUYS WERE VERY HELPFUL BEFORE BUT THERE WASN'T AN AUDIENCE HERE. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. [1. Public Hearing to consider COMP 26-0002. (District 5, Comm. Burke) (D. Selig)] >> YOU ARE WELCOME. THE NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS PUBLIC HEARING COMP 260002. I HAVE SEVERAL CARDS FOR THIS, THIS ITEM HAS BEEN CONTINUED UNTIL MAY. IT WON'T BE COMING BEFORE US BUT I DO HAVE -- I'VE GOT ABOUT FOR OR FIVE CARDS HERE. SIX MORE. THE APPLICANT IS NOT HERE SO WE WON'T BE HEARING A PRESENTATION BUT YOU ARE MORE THAN WELCOME TO SPEAK ON THIS AGENDA ITEM. YOU CAN EITHER SPEAK TONIGHT OR SPEAK WHEN IT COMES BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION IN MAY OR YOU CAN SPEAK TONIGHT AND COME BACK IN MAY. IT IS YOUR CHOICE. I WILL GO THROUGH THE NAMES AND YOU CAN TELL ME AT THAT TIME WHETHER YOU WANT TO SPEAK NOW OR SPEAK LATER OR WHATEVER YOU WANT TO DO. THE FIRST NAME I HAVE IS QUENTIN CARROLL. MR. CARROLL, ARE YOU HERE? >> IS GOING TO WAIT UNTIL MAY. >> OKAY. JEREMY MILTON? >> HE IS GOING TO WAIT. >> OKAY. LYNN HERRING. >> I DO HAVE TO SWEAR THEM IN IF THEY SPEAK. >> I COMPLETELY SKIPPED OVER THAT. ANYBODY THAT WANTS TO SPEAK TONIGHT ON ANY OF THE AGENDA ITEMS HAS TO BE SWORN IN BY MISS BLANCHETT. THOSE THAT ARE GOING TO BE SWORN IN, I HAVE SEVERAL CARDS, THOSE THAT WISH TO SPEAK TONIGHT, WOULD YOU PLEASE STAND UP AND MOVE TO THE CENTRE SO MISS BLANCHETT CAN SWEAR YOU IN. >> RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND. DO YOU SOLEMNLY SWEAR AND AFFIRM THE TESTIMONY YOU ARE ABOUT TO GIVE WILL BE THE WHOLE TRUTH AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH SO HELP YOU GOD? THANK YOU ALL. >> THANK YOU, MISS BLANCHETT. [00:10:01] THE FLOOR IS YOURS. >> GOOD EVENING. I AM A RETIRED ADMIRAL AND PRESIDENT OF THE FOX MIDDLE CIVIL ASSOCIATION AND I'M HERE TO REPRESENT THE 574 HOMES IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD. >> EXCUSE ME COULD YOU GIVE US YOUR ADDRESS. >> 1063 CACTUS COURT ROAD. >> THANK YOU. I'M HERE TO SAY THAT THE BULK OF THE COMMUNITY IS IN IMMEDIATE CONCERN FOR WHAT IS HAPPENING HERE IN THIS 46.39 ACRES. THE PLANNING THROUGHOUT PLANNING AVENUE HAS BEEN UTILIZED THIS CONSERVATION AREA FOR THE LAST 27 YEARS. AND NOW, BY MEANS, WE SEE THAT GREED HAS CANCELLED THAT CONSERVATION NEED AND PLANNING EFFORT AND TRIED TO TURN IT IN AS AN ERROR. AND WE CONTEND THAT IF THE ERROR WAS MADE, IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN CORRECTED 26 YEARS AGO. MY RECOMMENDATION AND OUR RECOMMENDATION IS THAT IF THIS IS IN FACT TRUE, THEN THIS COMMISSION HAS THE OPPORTUNITY TO NOMINATE THIS PIECE OF PROPERTY AS A CONSERVATION AREA TO THE COMMITTEE, ESTABLISHED THIS YEAR, AND SOLVE THE PROBLEM. WE SEE THIS AS AN ERROR ON OUR PART, A BIGGER PART IN ALLOWING A CONSERVATION AREA TO POTENTIALLY BECOME ONE MORE DEVELOPED AREA IN OUR LOCATION. THIS WILL HAVE A SEVERE IMPACT AND WE ARE VERY CONCERNED. I PLAN ON BEING BACK HERE ON THE FIFTH. WE WILL BE BACK FOR THE FINAL MEETING WITH SIGNIFICANTLY MORE REPRESENTATION. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU. >> STEVEN VAN BLUEWIN. >> THANK YOU, SIR. I JUST CAME ON BEHALF OF THE OAKLEY BRAND RIDGE CITIZEN ADVISORY COMMITTEE. I'M PROVIDING MYSELF, IF YOU NEED ANY QUESTIONS ANSWERED. I THINK YOU WILL FIND IN THE NOTES THAT WE HAVE LEFT FROM OUR LAST MEETING REGARDING THIS PARTICULAR TOPIC SEEMS TO ECHO THE SAME THING THAT THE ADMIRAL THAT JUST SPOKE, THE COMMENTS ALSO, WE FEEL THE SAME WAY. THIS WAS A UNANIMOUS DECISION TO RECOMMEND DISAPPROVAL. IF THERE IS ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS, I AM AVAILABLE FOR THIS AND I WILL ALSO COME BACK ON THE 5TH OF MAY FOR THIS MEETING. >> THANK YOU. >> ERIN SAYER. PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS. >> GOOD EVENING. MY NAME IS ERIN SAYER. I LIVE AT 2100 SPENDER COURT, WHICH IS ON THE NORTH PRONG OF BLACK CREEK, ACROSS A VERY NARROW WATERWAY FROM THE SITE. I LIVE ON THE CREEK. I SPEND TIME IN THAT WATER, AND LIKE MANY PEOPLE HERE, I CHOSE TO LIVE WHERE I DO BECAUSE OF THE NATURAL BEAUTY AND CHARACTER OF THE AREA. I AM HERE TONIGHT TO STRONGLY OPPOSE THE FUTURE LAND USE AMENDMENT BEING PROPOSED HERE AT THE HEART OF THIS ISSUE IS A VERY SIMPLE QUESTION, IF CONSERVATION LAND CAN JUST BE RE DESIGNATED WHEN IT BECOMES PROFITABLE ENOUGH, THEN WHAT DOES CONSERVATION EVEN MEAN? THIS PROPOSAL IS NOT JUST A MAT -- A. MAP CHANGE. IT HAS REAL CONSEQUENCES FOR THE PEOPLE THAT LIVE HERE AND FOR THE CREEK ITSELF. MORE DEVELOPMENT HERE MEANS MORE RUNOFF, MORE POLLUTION, MORE FERTILIZERS AND CHEMICALS WASHING INTO BLACK CREEK, MORE PRESSURE ON AN ALREADY SENSITIVE WATERWAY AND MORE LONG TERM DAMAGE TO WATER QUALITY. IT ALSO MEANS LOSS OF NATURAL HABITAT, MORE EROSION AND MORE STRAIN ON A PART OF CLAY COUNTY THAT PEOPLE VALUE PRECISELY BECAUSE IT HAS NOT BEEN OVERBUILT LET'S TALK ABOUT FLOODING. THAT ALONE SHOULD GIVE THIS BOARD PAUSE WE CONTINUE TO PAVE OVER LAND THAT NATURALLY ABSORBS WATER AND THEN ACT SURPRISED WHEN FLOODING GETS WORSE. CONSERVATION LAND SERVES A PURPOSE. ONCE IT'S GONE, WE DON'T GET THAT PROTECTION BACK. THIS ALSO AFFECTS QUALITY OF LIFE FOR THE PEOPLE WHO LIVE ON AND USE BLACK CREEK TODAY. PEOPLE BOAT HERE, THEY FISH HERE, SWIM HERE, RAISE FAMILIES HERE AND CHOOSE THIS PART OF CLAY COUNTY BECAUSE IT FEELS LIKE ONE OF THE FEW PLACES THAT HASN'T BEEN TURNED INTO JUST ANOTHER SUBDIVISION. IMPORTANTLY, HAS A COUPLE OF THE GENTLEMEN HAVE MENTIONED ALREADY, THE CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE UNANIMOUSLY RECOMMENDED THIS APPROVAL. THAT COMMITTEE, IF I NEED TO REMIND YOU, EXISTS TO REPRESENT THE PEOPLE WHO ACTUALLY LIVE HERE, UNLIKE THE PEOPLE THAT ARE APPLYING TO HAVE THIS LAND USE DESIGNATION CHANGE. I'M RUNNING OUT OF TIME, I GUESS. I HAVE TO ASK WHO EXACTLY IS THIS FOR BECAUSE IT DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE FOR THE RESIDENTS OF THE COUNTY. IT DOESN'T APPEAR TO BE THE [00:15:03] HEALTH OF BLACK CREEK. FRANKLY IT FEELS LIKE WHAT PEOPLE ARE SO TIRED OF SEEING, SOMEONE BUYS CONSERVATION LAND, THEY ENJOY THE BENEFITS THAT COME FROM OWNING IT AND THEY LATER TRY TO CASH IN BY CHANGING THE RULES WHEN IT BECOMES CONVENIENT. THAT IS NOT STEWARDSHIP, THAT IS OPPORTUNISM. I'M ASKING YOU TO DO THE RIGHT THING WHEN THIS FINALLY COMES BEFORE YOU AND VOTE NO ON THIS APPLICATION. PLEASE DON'T CONTINUE TO CHIP AWAY AT OUR COMMUNITY. >> THANK YOU. >> THIS ISN'T A THEATER, PLEASE. SHIRLEY HATCHER. THANK YOU. I'M SHIRLEY HATCHER, I RESIDE AT 425 BANKS ROAD ON MIDDLEBROOK ON THE NORTH PRONG OF BLACK CREEK. THIS DEVELOPMENT. I ALSO HAVE A BUSINESS LESS THAN A QUARTER OF A MILE FROM THIS PROPERTY. THIS DEVELOPMENT FOR ALL THE REASONS EVERYONE ELSE HAS SAID AND I WILL NOT REPEAT THEM BECAUSE I AGREE WITH EVERYTHING THAT HAS BEEN SAID, I'VE BEEN ON MY PROPERTY FOR 30 YEARS, I RAISED MY CHILDREN ON THE CREEK, AND EVERYONE ELSE'S KIDS THAT CAME OVER. I'M STRONGLY OPPOSED TO IT. WE AS CITIZENS VOTED ON THE CONSERVATION PROGRAM. SO I DON'T KNOW HOW WE GO ABOUT GETTING THIS TO BE SUBMITTED AS A POSSIBLE PROPERTY WE PURCHASED UNDER THE LAND PROGRAM. THAT IS AN OPTION MAYBE THAT COULD BE CONSIDERED RATHER THAN HAVING DEVELOPMENT. IT COULD TRULY BE A CONSERVATION RATHER THAN JUST A DESIGNATION ON THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, WHICH IS APPARENTLY NOT GOOD ENOUGH TO KEEP CONSERVATION LAND AS IT SHOULD BE SO I'M OPPOSED TO IT AS WELL. I DON'T HAVE ANY OTHER COMMENTS. THANK YOU SO MUCH. >> THANK YOU. KEITH TAYLOR. >> HELLO. MY NAME IS KEITH TAYLOR. 2113 IKERCORP. I AM RETIRED SERGEANT FIRST CLASS. I AGREE WITH THE ADMIRAL AND EVERYONE ELSE THAT SPOKE ABOUT THIS LAND USE. MY FAMILY HAS LIVED IN THIS COUNTY FOR MULTIPLE GENERATIONS. I SERVED MY COUNTRY FOR MY ENTIRE ADULT LIFE AND I NOW SERVE THE FIRE DEPARTMENT HERE IN CLAY COUNTY. MY ENTIRE ADULT LIFE I HAVE SPENT SERVING MY COUNTRY AND THIS COUNTY. I GREW UP ON THE BLACK CREEK. MY KIDS WILL GROW UP ON BLACK CREEK. I'M WORRIED THAT THE MORE OF THIS TYPE OF LAND THAT GETS WASTED ON MONEY, BASICALLY, THAT OUR KIDS AND YOUR KIDS AND GRANDKIDS OR ANYBODY ELSE'S WILL NOT BE ABLE TO USE IT ONE DAY. THERE ARE ALREADY SO MANY BOATS OUT HERE, WE CAN'T DO ANYTHING HERE I JUST WANTED TO TAKE THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK AGAINST IT LIKE EVERYBODY ELSE. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU, SIR. RICHARD SATTLER. ROBIN SATIRE. I APOLOGIZE. I ALSO HAVE OTHER CARDS FOR JEREMY MIDDLETON ALSO AGAINST THIS. ARE THERE ANY OTHERS THAT WISH TO SPEAK ON THIS AGENDA ITEM? BEFORE I CLOSE IT OUT HERE ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >> I WOULD LIKE TO SAY SOMETHING. >> A COUPLE OF THINGS. ONE PERSON ASKED ABOUT THE CONSERVATION COMMITTEE. I AM FAMILIAR WITH THE COUNTY'S WEBSITE. IT'S ACTUALLY A PRETTY GOOD WEBSITE. IT'S CALLED CLAY, IT'S A WEIRD URL, IT'S CLAY COUNTY DEL SPACE GOV.COM. BUT IF YOU GO IN THERE AND SEARCH, YOU CAN FIND ON THE CONSERVATION COMMITTEE, THEY MEET ONCE A MONTH ON THE THIRD TUESDAY OF THE MONTH, SO THAT'S IN 12 WEEKS AT 6PM AND IT'S IN THIS BUILDING AND IT'S PROBABLY IN THIS ROOM, THE SAME ROOM IN TWO WEEKS AT 6:00. IF YOU WANTED TO COME AND SPEAK BEFORE THEM ABOUT LAND CONSERVATION, THAT IS THE GROUP. I KNOW THEY HAVE A LOT OF INPUT TO THAT MONEY. I DON'T KNOW HOW THOSE DECISIONS ARE MADE. BUT THAT'S THE GROUP TO TALK TO. CLAYCOUNTYGOV.COM. >> CAN I ADD SOMETHING? I AM.ORG SELIG, I'M THE CHIEF [00:20:05] PLANNER AND ALSO THE ONE ORGANIZING THAT SAME COMMITTEE. I JUST WANTED TO SAY THAT YOU CAN GO ON OUR WEBSITE AND MAKE APPLICATION. ANYONE IN THE PUBLIC, YOU DON'T HAVE TO OWN THE PROPERTY BUT ANYONE CAN MAKE AN APPLICATION TO HAVE A PROPERTY CONSIDERED BY THAT COMMITTEE. THERE MAY BE LANGUAGE, BECAUSE WE HAD AN OPEN WINDOW THAT ACTUALLY ENDED AT THE END OF FEBRUARY. HOWEVER, THAT LAND CONSERVATION COMMITTEE HASN'T MET YET FOR THE FIRST TIME FOR ACTUALLY REVIEWING THOSE PARCELS. THEY ARE STILL DOING A PRACTICE EXERCISE. SO THIS COMING MEETING WILL BE MORE OF A PRACTICE MEETING. WE ARE ANTICIPATING MAY WILL BE THE FIRST MEETING THAT THEY ACTUALLY TAKE A LOOK AT NEW PROPERTY. SO THERE'S A BIT OF A WINDOW HERE, IF SOMEBODY WANTS TO, WE COULD TAKE ANOTHER APPLICATION THAT THEY MIGHT RECEIVE IN THE NEXT FEW WEEKS TO THE MAY MEETING. SO I JUST WANTED EVERYONE TO KNOW THAT THAT IS AN OPTION. >> MY SUGGESTION, AND I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S POSSIBLE, BUT THIS COMMITTEE IS FACED WITH AN OPPORTUNITY. THIS COMMITTEE IS PART OF THE GOVERNMENTAL PROCESS. IF, IN FACT, THIS 46 ACRES IS FOUND TO BE CONSERVATION IN ERROR, THAN THE RIGHT THING TO DO WOULD BE FOR THIS COMMISSION TO RECOMMEND TO THAT COMMITTEE THAT THAT PROPERTY GO TO THE HEAD OF THE LIST. >> I APPRECIATE THAT BUT -- >> IT'S GOVERNMENT FIXING GOVERNMENT. >> THIS COMMITTEE CAN'T DO THAT. IT IS A CITIZEN GENERATED APPLICANT GENERATED PROGRAM. THE COMMITTEE CAN'T DO THAT, UNFORTUNATELY. BUT YOU, THE CITIZENS, CAN. >> MISTER CHAIR, JUST ONE OTHER THING, I DID WANT TO ADD, CAN I ASK STAFF A QUESTION? SINCE THIS -- SINCE WE ARE GOING TO CONTINUE BECAUSE WE DIDN'T GET ALL OF THE INFORMATION IN OUR PACKAGE CAN YOU TELL ME WHERE THIS PIECE OF PROPERTY IS THAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT? >> IT IS ON THE EAST SIDE OF LANDING, JUST SOUTH OF 220. >> SOUTH OF 220. >> YES, SOUTH OF 220. >> WE WILL HEAR IT NEXT MONTH. I'VE MADE MY POSITION ABOUT CONSERVATION LAND KNOWN PREVIOUSLY. WE WILL SEE WHAT YOU'VE GOT TO SAY NEXT MONTH. >> ONCE AGAIN, THIS ITEM WILL COME BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION NEXT MONTH IN MAY. I MOVE CONTINUANCE OF THIS ITEM TO THE NEXT MEETING, IN MAY. WHAT WAS THE DATE MAY FIFTH, ON MAY 5TH OR SOON THEREAFTER, AS IT CAN BE HEARD. >> WE HAVE A MOTION. ANY DISCUSSION? THOSE IN FAVOR, SAY AYE. THANK YOU ALL VERY MUCH. THOSE THAT WISH TO COME BACK, WE [2. Public Hearing to consider ZON 26-0006 (Sign Code Amendment) (D. Selig)] WILL BE GLAD TO SEE YOU ON MAY THE FIFTH. OUR NEXT AGENDA ITEM IS PUBLIC HEARING CONSIDER ZON 26-0006 SIGN CODE AMENDMENT. >> GOOD EVENING. THIS ITEM WILL BE COMING TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ON APRIL 28TH. >> HANG ON ONE SECOND. PLEASE TAKE YOUR DISCUSSIONS OUT TO THE VESTIBULE. THANK YOU. GO AHEAD. >> THE APPLICANT IS FRANK MILLER. THE EFFECT, THE AREA THAT IT WOULD BE AFFECTED BY THE APPLICATION IS THE LAKE ASBURY MASTER PLAN AREA AND THOSE AREAS IN THE COUNTY OUTSIDE THE BRANDON FIELD MASTER PLAN. AT THIS TIME, THE BRANAN FIELD MASTER PLAN AREA, THEIR ASSIGNED CODE WOULD BE AFFECTED BY PROPOSED CHANGES. THE APPLICATION HAS ORDINANCES, ONE FOR ARTICLE THREE, THE ZONING CODE AND ONE FOR ARTICLE SEVEN, WHICH IS THE SIGN CODE. THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO CREATE A MASTER SIGN PLAN APPROVAL PROCESS. IT WOULD APPLY TO PROJECTS THAT MEET A DEFINITION THAT IS A NEW DEFINITION CALLED A UNIFIED [00:25:02] LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT. THE DEFINITION IS THERE FOR YOU. A COMPREHENSIVE MASSIVE PLANNED MULTI-PHASE DEVELOPMENT WITH MIXED USE AND CONSISTING OF NOT LESS THAN 2000 ACRES FOR AS I SAID, THERE ARE ARTICLES. THE CHANGES TO ARTICLE THREE, SPECIFICALLY ARE MINIMAL. THERE ARE SMALL CHANGES TO SOME OF THE PROHIBITED SIGNS, SPECIFICALLY POINTING BACK TO ARTICLE SEVEN. AND THEN THERE'S A NEW SECTION THAT DESCRIBES THE UNIFIED LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENTS. AGAIN,'S REGULATION UNDER THAT PROGRAM BACK TO ARTICLE SEVEN, SO THAT WE KEEP ALL OF THE REGULATIONS IN ONE PLACE IN THE CODE, SO TO SPEAK. THE CHANGES TO ARTICLE SEVEN ARE MORE EXTENSIVE. I WON'T GIVE YOU ABSOLUTELY EVERY SINGLE CHANGE BUT I'M GOING TO HIT THE HIGHLIGHTS AND I ASK YOU TO BEAR WITH ME BECAUSE THERE ARE QUITE A FEW CHANGES. WE HAVE MADE SOME TWEAKS TO SOME EXISTING DEFINITIONS BUT WE HAVE SOME NEW DEFINITIONS THAT WE HAVE CREATED. WE HAVE DIRECTIONAL SIGN, WHICH IS A SIGN THAT IS IN THE RIGHT OF WAY, PROVIDES LIMITED NAVIGATIONAL GUIDANCE, INCLUDES ARROWS AND SYMBOLS, MINIMAL TEXT, SPECIFICALLY INDICATING LOCATION OR DIRECTION TO A GEOGRAPHIC AREA, PUBLIC FACILITY, CIVIC USE OR LEGALLY PERMITTED LAND USE. UNDER THIS CODE, THE DIRECTIONAL SIGNS WOULD BE ALLOWED IN THE RIGHT OF WAY BUT ONLY IF IT'S PART OF A MASTER PLAN. WE HAVE GATEWAY FEATURE SIGN, THAT IS A SIGN STRUCTURE THAT IS LOCATED EITHER AT THE BEGINNING OR THE END OR BOTH OF A GEOGRAPHIC AREA DESIGNED TO ESTABLISH IDENTITY FOR THAT GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION. AGAIN, IT CAN INCLUDE SYMBOLS OR MINIMAL TEXT TO INCORPORATE THE GEOGRAPHIC AREA. AND THEN FEATURES CAN BE LOCATED IN THE RIGHT OF WAY IN THE SAME WAY IF IT IS PART OF A MASTER SITE PLAN. THE MASTER SIGN PLAN IS A UNIFIED SIGN PLAN GOVERNED BY A COHESIVE DESIGN STANDARD. IT INCLUDES LOCATION, SIZE, HEIGHT, PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF MULTIPLE SIGNS, AND THEY HAVE TO BE WITHIN A DEFINED GEOGRAPHIC AREA AND THEY HAVE TO BE UNDER UNIFIED CONTROL. THERE IS NONRESIDENTIAL MONUMENT SIGNS, AS A DEFINITION AND ALSO RESIDENTIAL MONUMENT SIGNS. THEN WE HAVE UNIFIED CONTROL. AND THAT MEANS OWNERSHIP. LEASE HOLDS OR A RECORDED AGREEMENT OF SOME TYPE THAT ESTABLISHES THE RESPONSIBILITY FOR ALL THE SIGNS WITHIN THAT MASTER SIGN. AGAIN, WE HAVE THE NEW DEFINITION OF UNIFIED ART SCALE DEVELOPMENT. UNDER A MASTER SIGN PLAN, THE APPLICANT SUBMITS A MAP SHOWING THE BOUNDARY OF THE MASTER SIGN PLAN AREA AND THE LOCATION OF ALL OF THE SIGNS. A SIGN SCHEDULE, THE DESIGN STANDARDS, WHICH WOULD BE THE DIMENSION INFORMATION AND THEN DOCUMENTATION SHOWING THE UNIFIED CONTROL ON THE PROPERTY, INCLUDED IN THE BOUNDARY. THERE ARE THE FOURMAC TYPES OF SIGNS THAT WE ARE CREATING UNDER THE MASTER SIGN PLAN. THESE ARE THE HEIGHTS AND THE SIGN FACE AREA THAT ARE ALLOWED UNDER THAT. AND I'VE ADDED UNDERNEATH IT, REQUIREMENTS FOR SIMILAR SIGNAGE, SO YOU CAN KIND OF SEE THAT IT'S TAKEN MOSTLY FROM THE EXISTING CODE. UNDER LAKE ASBURY, THERE IS AN OFFICE COMPLEX SIGN THAT'S 15 FEET HIGH AND 150 SQUARE FEET, THE SAME AS A GATEWAY FEATURE FOR THE NONRESIDENTIAL MONUMENT. AND THEN THERE'S A NONRESIDENTIAL MONUMENT SIGN IN LAKE ASBURY AND THERE'S THE RESIDENTIAL MONUMENT SIGN. THE DIRECTIONAL SIGNS ARE ALLOWE THE MINIMAL TEXT NECESSARY TO IDENTIFY THE DESTINATION AND CONVEY THE DISTANCE. THEY ARE NOT TO INCLUDE COMMERCIAL ADVERTISING OR PROMOTION LANGUAGE OR PRICING INFORMATION. THEY HAVE TO MEET THE DESIGN STANDARDS OF ALL OF THE SIGNS WITHIN THE MASTER SIGN PLAN. AND TO BE SEPARATED BY A DISTANCE OF 2000 FEET. HOWEVER, WITHIN 1000 FEET OF AN INTERSECTION, THERE IS A PROVISION IF THE INTERSECTION IS A COLLECTOR ROAD OR HIGHER, THERE IS AN ALLOWANCE FOR ONE DIRECTIONAL SIGN FOR EACH DIRECTION OF TRAVEL WITHIN THAT [00:30:01] THOUSAND FOOT. THE MASTER SIGN PLAN SHALL RUN WITH THE LAND THAT ALL OF THE SIGNS WILL BE INSTALLED AND MAINTAINED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE APPROVED PLAN, THAT ANY MODIFICATIONS WOULD REQUIRE AN AMENDMENT TO THE MASTER SIGN PLAN AND FAILURE TO MAINTAIN COMPLIANCE MIGHT RESULT IN REMOVAL OF SIGNS THAT DON'T CONFORM. THERE IS AN ADMINISTRATIVE PROOF PROCESS CREATED UNDER THIS. THE DIRECTOR OF PLANNING AND ZONING HAS AUTHORIZED VARIANTS OF THE CODE FOR SIGNS IN THE MASTER SIGN PLAN FOR THINGS SUCH AS HEIGHT AND SIGN FACE AREA BUT WITHIN CERTAIN LIMITS. THE SIGNS EITHER HAVE TO MEET THE HEIGHT AND SIGN FACE AREA OR THERE IS AN ALLOWANCE FOR A WAIVER OF 10% OR 15%, DEPENDING ON SIGN TYPE. THE REVIEW OF THE APPLICATION SHOULD BE COMPLETED WITHIN 15 BUSINESS DAYS, AND IT SHALL USE THE SAME CONTENT CRITERIA AS THE BOARD WOULD BE USING. I DIDN'T REPRODUCE THAT BUT YOU HAVE THAT IN YOUR PACKET. AND SIGNS WHICH DON'T MEET MASTER SIGN PLAN REQUIREMENTS UNDER ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL MAY SEEK APPROVAL FROM THE BOARD. UNDER THE BOARD'S APPROVAL PROCESS, THE BOARD HAS THE OPTION TO CONSIDER A COUPLE OF DIFFERENT SIGN SCENARIOS. ONE WOULD BE MASTER SIGN APPLICATION, WHICH EITHER DIDN'T RECEIVE A DECISION WITHIN THE TIME FRAME OR WAS GRANTED CONDITIONS OR MODIFICATIONS OR THAT WAS DENIED UNDER THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS. ANOTHER IS THE MASTER SIGN PLAN THAT DOESN'T INCLUDE A MEANS OF UNIFIED CONTROL FOR ALL OF THE PROPERTIES. A THIRD SCENARIO WOULD BE ANY SIGN THAT WAS REMOVED FROM A MASTER SIGN PLAN THROUGH AN ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL PROCESS, IF IT WAS GREATER IN HEIGHT OR SIGN FACE AREA THAN WOULD BE PERMITTED UNDER THE ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL. AND AGAIN, THE BOARD'S REVIEW IS BASED ON THE SAME CRITERIA. THERE IS AN AMENDMENT PROCESS, A MASTER SIGN PLAN CAN BE AMENDED TO EITHER ADD OR DELETE ANY SIGN OR ANY PROPERTY FROM THE BOUNDARIES OF THE SIGNED PLAN. HOWEVER, IN NO CASE SHALL THE BOUNDARY BE REDUCED BELOW THE MINIMUM THRESHOLD REQUIRED FOR UNIFIED LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT AT 2000 ACRES. ANY SIGN ON A PARCEL OF LAND THAT IS REMOVED FROM THE MASTER SIGN PLAN, WHERE THAT SIGN DOESN'T MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF ARTICLE SEVEN AT THE â– TIME THE PARCEL IS REMOVED FROM THE MASTER SIGN PLAN, THAT SIGN NEEDS TO BE BROUGHT INTO COMPLIANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS WITHIN 180 DAYS OR BE REMOVED FROM THE PARCEL. AND A MASTER SIGN PLAN SHALL BE AMENDED IN THE SAME MANNER AS AN ORIGINAL APPLICATION. DUE TO SOME SCHEDULING CONFLICTS, THE LAKE ASBURY CITIZEN ADVISORY COMMITTEE HAS NOT HEARD THIS YET, THEY WILL HEAR THIS THURSDAY OF THIS WEEK. STAFF FINDS THE CRITERIA FOR THE ZONING AMENDMENT IS RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF BOTH UNDER ZONING 26-0006. THERE WERE A FEW CONVERSATIONS THE LAST MINUTE TWEAKING, WHICH IS NOT UNCOMMON TO AN ORDINANCE. SO I WANTED TO LET YOU KNOW THAT WE AS STAFF DISCUSSED THE GATEWAY SIGN, POSSIBLY REMOVING THAT FROM THE LOCATION LIMITATION AND INCORPORATING THE SAME LANGUAGE THAT WE HAD FOR DIRECTIONAL SIGNS FOR GATEWAY SIGNS BUT WE COULD ADD IN THE EXACT SAME CRITERIA. THAT'S THE KIND OF LANGUAGE THAT SAYS NO MORE THAN THE MINIMUM TEXT NECESSARY, NOT TO INCLUDE COMMERCIAL ADVERTISING. THOSE CHANGES WILL PROBABLY BE HAPPENING. WE JUST DIDN'T HAVE A CHANCE TO GET THEM DRAFTED AND TO YOU IN TIME. >> ANY QUESTIONS OF STAFF? >> MISTER CHAIR, I HAVE A COUPLE. BUT WOULD IT BE BETTER TO ASK MISS SELIG OR THE APPLICANT? >> IT'S A SERIES OF JOINT MEETINGS. IT IS THE APPLICANT'S APPLICATION. >> I WOULD RATHER ASK THE [00:35:03] APPLICANT. >> ANYONE ELSE WITH QUESTIONS? I HAVE ONE QUESTION. THIS REVIEW, IS THIS SOMETHING THAT APPLIES TO NEW VENTURES, NEW LARGE DEVELOPMENTS COMING IN OR ONLY EXISTING? >> THE APPLICANT IS PLANNING TO BRING FORWARD A MASTER SIGN PLAN RIGHT ON THE HEELS OF THIS ORDINANCE ADOPTION. IT CAN APPLY TO THE ONLY PROJECT REALLY THAT HAS THAT SIZE THAT IS FORTHCOMING WOULD BE THE GOVERNOR PARK PROJECT. BUT WE DID MAKE SURE THAT IN THIS ORDINANCE, THERE IS THE PROVISION FOR AN EXISTING PROJECT, IF IT MEANT THE SIZE REQUIREMENTS AND WANTED TO EITHER CREATE OR REDO EXISTING WAY FINDING BRANDING SIGNAGE THAT THEY MAY ALREADY HAVE. THAT OPTION IS AVAILABLE IN THE CODE FOR THE BOARD TO CONSIDER. >> THIS MSP, YOU ARE ALL STILL WORKING AT? YOU ARE MEETING WITH THE APPLICANT AND MAKING CHANGES AS WE ARE SITTING HERE? I WONDER READY OR -- I. WONDER WHETHER THIS IS READY OR NOT FOR SHOWTIME. >> I CAN SAY YES. >> IT IS READY FOR SHOWTIME? OR IT'S NOT. >> THE VERSION YOU HAVE IN FRONT OF YOU, NO. OUR LEGAL TEAM AND STAFF NOTICED A FEW THINGS THAT WE WANTED TO MAKE THOSE TWO CHANGES THAT WE TALKED ABOUT. >> THE OTHER QUESTION I HAVE, WILL THESE MSPS ACCOMPANY THE APPLICATION FOR THE DEVELOPMENT? WILL THEY COME IN AS ONE PACKAGE OR IS THIS SOMETHING THAT DRIBBLES IN AFTER? AFTER WE'VE REVIEWED THE APPLICATION? >> FOR THE ONE THAT'S COMING IN NOW, THAT IS SARATOGA SPRINGS. THAT DIDN'T COME BEFORE THE BOARD. IT DID IN THE SENSE THAT IT WAS ORIGINALLY A DR I.. REMEMBER WHEN IT CAME FROM YOU TO MOVE FROM DRI INTO REGULAR CODE AND THERE WERE A COUPLE OF PODS THAT WERE CREATED AT THE SAME TIME. SO IT IS AFTER THAT HAS BEEN CREATED BECAUSE THAT WAS ALMOST TWO YEARS AGO NOW. WE HAVEN'T DISCUSSED THIS WITH GOVERNORS PARK. I'M SURE THAT THEY WILL PROBABLY TAKE US UP ON IT. BUT THAT PROJECT ALSO, AGAIN, THAT IS A DR I. THAT HAS BEEN OUT THERE FOR A WHILE THAT IS JUST NOW STARTING TO BUILD. SO I'M NOT SURE WHAT THEIR RESPONSE WILL BE. BUT I WOULD ANTICIPATE THAT THEY WOULD PROBABLY WANT TO DO THIS AS WELL. >> ANYBODY ELSE? >> MR. MILLER. >> GOOD EVENING. MY NAME IS FRANK MILLER. MY ADDRESS IS ONE INDEPENDENT DRIVE, SUITE 2300, IN JACKSONVILLE. THIS HAS BEEN A PROCESS. STAFF HAS BEEN REMARKABLE TO WORK WITH. THE CONCEPT OF A MASTER SIGN PLAN WAS SOMETHING THAT WE PROPOSED, AND ACTUALLY OUR PROPOSED LANGUAGE FOR IT WAS VERY SHORT. AND STAFF HAS TAKEN THAT AND RUN WITH IT AND REALLY CREATED A CORRECT WAY TO ADDRESS THESE ITEMS. THE REASONING IS YOU'VE GOT A HUGE PROJECT, SARATOGA SPRINGS AS AN EXAMPLE. YOU'VE GOT A HUGE GEOGRAPHICAL LOCATION THAT THEY ARE GOING TO BE OCCUPYING. AND FOR THEIR BENEFIT, FOR THE BENEFIT OF COMMUNITY AND FOR THE ESTHETICS OF IT, TO HAVE A SIGNED PLAN CONCEPT THAT HAS UNIQUE, COHESIVE, COORDINATED SIGNAGE FOR THE WHOLE PROJECT IS A BENEFIT TO EVERYBODY. AND BECAUSE IT'S SUCH A LARGE PROJECT, THERE WERE A COUPLE OF ITEMS IN THE CURRENT SIGN CODE THAT DIDN'T QUITE MAKE IT. FOR INSTANCE, THE GATEWAY SIGN. THE GATEWAY SIGN IS A SIGN THAT WILL BE AT THE ENTRANCE FROM ONE END OF CATHEDRAL OAK AND ON THE OTHER END OF CATHEDRAL OAK. AND IT WILL BE LIMITED BY THE TERMS OF THE SIGN CODE -- IT WOULD NOT REALLY WORK. YOU ARE ENTERING A HUGE [00:40:01] GEOGRAPHIC AREA. IT'S GOING TO BE KNOWN AS SARATOGA SPRINGS, JUST LIKE YOU HAVE A FLEMING ISLAND POST OFFICE ADDRESS, AND THIS WOULD LIKELY BECOME THE SARATOGA SPRINGS POST OFFICE. I THINK WE ARE TO THE END OF THE DRAFTING OF IT WITH THE EXCEPTION OF A COUPLE OF LITTLE TWEAKS. AND THAT'S REALLY IT. EVERYTHING ELSE HAS BEEN BLESSED AND APPROVED. AND AGAIN, STAFF, BOTH PLANNING STAFF AND LEGAL STAFF HAVE BUSTED THEIR ON IT. I WOULD LIKE TO TAKE CREDIT FOR THE DRAFTING BUT MY DRAFTING WAS LONG AGO AND TOSSED ASIDE. I AM HAPPY TO ANSWER QUESTIONS. >> I THINK YOU ANSWERED THE FIRST ONE. THIS IS REALLY DESIGNED FOR SARATOGA SPRINGS. GOVERNOR'S PARK IS PROBABLY THIS BIG. IS AGRICOLA THIS LARGE? I DON'T REMEMBER THE TOTAL ACREAGE ON THAT. SO AT LEAST THERE ARE OTHERS THAT ARE ALREADY ON THE BOOKS THAT WOULD QUALIFY FOR THIS. THERE ARE A COUPLE OF THINGS THAT I WANTED TO ASK ABOUT IN THIS, AND WHOEVER WROTE IT CAN ACTUALLY ANSWER IT. IT KEEPS TALKING ABOUT A MASTER PLAN FOR THE WHOLE AREA. I'M JUST GOING TO THROW SOME CVS, WALGREENS, THE ONES THAT GO IN THERE, WILL THEIR SIGN HAVE TO CONFORM TO WHATEVER PLAN YOU PUT IN PLACE? AND WHAT WOULD THAT MEAN THAT THEY WOULD HAVE TO CONFORM? >> IT WOULD CONFORM IN TERMS OF COLORS, DESIGN, PRESENTATION. I'M NOT A SIGN GUY, I'M SURE THERE IS STRUCTURE. SO THAT IT IS A COHESIVE PRESENTATION ACROSS THE COMMUNITY OF THE SIGNAGE. >> THE DEVELOPER WOULD SAY FOR THIS TYPE OF BUSINESS, HERE IS A PATTERN OR A PROTOTYPE SIGN. SO OTHER THAN SOME SMALL DIFFERENCES, WALGREENS AND CVS AND ANY OTHER DRUGSTORE, ANYTHING LIKE THAT MIGHT BASICALLY LOOK THE SAME. I'LL TELL YOU WHAT I'M THINKING OF, IF YOU'RE FAMILIAR WITH THIS. HAVE YOU EVER BEEN TO CORAL SPRINGS DOWN IN BRIER COUNTY? IT IS VERY INTERESTING. THEY'VE GOT A SIGN ORDINANCE THAT EVERYTHING LOOKS THE SAME. THAT'S WHY I AM ASKING THAT. I HAD A COUPLE OF OTHER QUESTIONS WHEN I READ THROUGH THIS. THE UNIFIED CONTROL WOULD TAKE CARE OF THAT. IF I WANTED TO COME IN AS A BUSINESS UNDER THIS PLAN, A HARDWARE STORE, AND I'M GOING TO TELL YOU, YOU CAN'T TELL ME WHAT MY SIGN IS GOING TO BE. IS THAT GOING TO BE SOME KIND OF COVENANT OR HOW IS THAT GOING TO BE ENFORCED AGAINST AN INDIVIDUAL BUSINESS? >> ACTUALLY, THE MASTER SIGN PLAN ORDINANCE WILL REQUIRE THAT IT BE RUN WITH THE LAND, SO THAT ANYBODY WHO ACQUIRES PROPERTY WITHIN THE MASTER SIGN PLAN BOUNDARIES IS GOING TO BE SUBJECT TO IT BY WAY OF -- IT HASN'T BEEN DETERMINED WHETHER IT WILL BE A SEPARATE DOCUMENT RECORDED OR IT WILL BE INCORPORATED INTO HOME OWNERS ASSOCIATION DOCUMENTS BUT THERE% WILL BE A RECORDED DOCUMENT THAT PUTS ANY BUYER OR LANDOWNER, ALL LAND OWNERS ON NOTICE THAT THEY ARE SUBJECT TO IT. SECONDLY, IT RUNS WITH THE LAND, SO IT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT THEY CAN SAY I DIDN'T KNOW ABOUT IT. AND THIRDLY, AND I THINK IT WILL PROVIDE FOR THE COUNTY TO ENFORCE IT. >> THAT MEANS CODE ENFORCEMENT. >> OKAY. THIS QUESTION IS PROBABLY NOT EVEN FOR YOU GUYS. CODE ENFORCEMENT. WE DON'T ENFORCE CODES IN THIS COUNTY UNLESS SOMEONE COMPLAINS. IN OTHER WORDS, CODE ENFORCEMENT CAN'T JUST GO OUT AND ENFORCE ORDINANCE UNLESS SOMEBODY COMPLAINS ABOUT IT. SO THE FALLBACK IS GOING TO BE TO THE DEVELOPER TRYING TO ENFORCE THAT. >> OR WHOEVER IS GIVING THE AUTHORITY UNDER, FOR INSTANCE, THE HOME OWNER ASSOCIATION DOCUMENTS OR POTENTIALLY THE CD. AND THERE IS CERTAINLY A PROTECTION. WHEN YOU'VE GOT 2000 ACRES OF DEVELOPMENT, IT'S NOT GOING TO HAPPEN IN A COUPLE OF YEARS AND THE DEVELOPER IS GONE. [00:45:02] THE DEVELOPER IS GOING TO BE THERE FOR TEN, 15 YEARS AND DURING THAT TIME, THE ASSURANCES THAT THE DEVELOPER IS NOT GOING TO ALLOW VARIATIONS THAT MESS UP THE PLAN FOR THE WHOLE PROJECT BECAUSE IT'S A UNIFIED PLAN THAT IS SUPPOSED TO BENEFIT EVER EVERYBODY. >> I'M GOING TO BRING UP A COUPLE OF THINGS THAT I HAVE A BIT OF AN ISSUE WITH IN THIS. ONE OF THEM IS LINE 205 IN THE DOCUMENT. A REVIEW OF THE MASTER SIGN PLAN APPLICATION SHALL BE COMPLETE WITHIN 15 DAYS. FRANKLY, THIS IS A HUGE DEVELOPMENT. IT COULD HAVE TAKEN MONTHS AND MONTHS TO PUT THIS SIGNED PLAN TOGETHER BUT WE ARE GOING TO REVIEW IT IN 15 BUSINESS DAYS, THAT SEEMS VERY SHORT TIME FRAME TO REVIEW SOMETHING THAT COULD AFFECT SUCH A LARGE AREA OF THE COUNTY. SO I HAVE ISSUES WITH THAT FAIR. >> LET ME RESPOND TO THAT, FIRST OF ALL, GETS 15 BUSINESS DAYS. IT'S THREE WEEKS. BUT WHAT WILL BE PRESENTED WILL BE A BOUNDARY, A LAYOUT OF THE WHOLE PROJECT WITH DOTS WHERE THE SIGNS WILL BE. AND THEN PICTORIAL REPRESENTATION OF THE DIFFERENT TYPES OF SIGNS, LIKE THE RESIDENTIAL MONUMENT SIGN, THE COMMERCIAL MONUMENT SIGN, ALL OF THE SIGNS. AND THOSE SPECIFIC SIGNS, THERE WILL BE DIMENSIONS TO IT AND IT REALLY SHOULDN'T TAKE THAT LONG TO REVIEW. BUT I WILL ALSO SAY THAT THAT WAS STAFF'S TIME. >> THAT WAS OUR TIME. >> IT IS VERY SIMILAR TO WHAT WE HAVE FOR PLAN REVIEW FOR -- Y YEAH. >> I HAD ONE OTHER NOTE IN HERE. SINCE THIS WILL INCLUDE LAKE ASBURY, WHICH WE OFTEN HOLD UP AS AN EXAMPLE FOR LIGHTING AND CONTROL, IN LINE 284, IT SAYS THESE SIGNS WILL BE DESIGNED TO BLEND IN WITH THE LANDSCAPE AND ARCHITECTURE, AND THE DESIGN STANDARDS SHALL BE PROVIDED. WHEN IT TALKED ABOUT LIGHTING THE DESIGN IN HERE, I'M LOOKING FOR THE NOTE, I CAN'T FIND IT, BUT IT DIDN'T SAY TOO MUCH ABOUT THE LIGHTING OTHER THAN IT SHOULD NOT BE TOO GLARING OR WHATEVER. IT DIDN'T REALLY SPECIFY WHETHER WE WOULD HAVE INTERNAL OR EXTERNAL LIT SIGNS. HOW BRIGHT THE LIGHTING WOULD BE, THE TYPE OF LIGHTING, THAT KIND OF THING. I WOULD SURE LIKE TO SEE SOMETHING THAT CONTROLS THE LIGHT A LITTLE BIT BETTER. UNDER ILLUMINATION WHERE IT SAYS, LINE 160, WHERE IT SAYS NO FLASHING OR PULSATING LIGHTS WILL BE PERMITTED ON ANY SIGN BUT THERE'S NOT A DEFINITION OF A PULSING OR A FLASHING. IT'S NOT CONSIDERED FLASHING OR PULSING. THINK ABOUT HOW MANY TIMES IN A MINUTE, THAT'S A LOT. I WOULD THINK THESE SIGNS SHOULD BE MORE STATIC AND BE DEFINED A LITTLE BIT BETTER. AND OTHER THAN THAT, THE ONLY OTHER ISSUE WAS WHERE YOU COULD ASK FOR WAIVERS ON THE SIGNS. THERE WAS NOTHING IN THERE THAT SAID WHAT PERCENTAGE, I WOULD SAY. LIKE IF YOU CAME IN AND ASKED FOR A WAIVER ON THE SIGN, WHAT PERCENTAGE OF THAT SIGN CAN BE GRANTED A WAIVER. UNDER THIS WORDING, IF I READ IT CORRECTLY, BASICALLY YOU CAN COME AND ASK FOR A WAIVER FOR EVERY SIGN. >> BUT THERE ARE LIMITS ON THE EXTENT OF THE WAIVER. >> BUT BASICALLY, 10% OR WHATEVER. WHAT I'M SAYING IS -- 10% ON EACH SIGN. >> IT COULD BE 10% ON EACH SIGN. I'M THINKING IT SHOULD BE MORE LIKE 10% IS FINE BUT FIVE, TEN, 15% OF THE SIGNS COULD BE WAIVED. THE LOWER THE NUMBER THE BETTER, SO YOU DON'T GET PEOPLE COMING IN AND ASKING FOR WAIVERS ON EVERY SIGN. >> WE WOULD LIKE FOR THAT DECISION TO REST WITH THE DIRECTOR OF ZONING. IF THE DIRECTOR OF ZONING FEELS THERE ARE TOO MANY WAIVERS SOUGHT AND EVERY SIGN IN THERE IS THOUGHT TO BE TEN TO 15% [00:50:02] TALLER THAN OTHERWISE, THEN THE PLANNING DIRECTOR CAN REFUSE TO APPROVE IT AND THE OPTION FOR THE DEVELOPER IS TO GO TO THE BOARD AND ASK FOR A SPECIFIC APPROVAL OF THOSE INCREASED SIGNS. >> I AGREE. BUT WITHOUT A CEILING IN THEIR, IT IS DIFFICULT FOR ANYBODY TO JUST SAY NO BECAUSE THEN IT BECOMES ARBITRARY. IT SHOULD BE MORE CODIFYING. BUT THAT'S ALL I'VE GOT. I JUST WANTED TO MAKE THOSE COMMENTS. THANK YOU. >> THIS IS JUST A GENERAL QUESTION COULD YOU SUMMARIZE THOSE WOULD YOU SUMMARIZE TO SAY THE OBJECTIVE OF THIS IS TO BE MORE RESTRICTIVE WITH SIGNS IN THESE DEVELOPMENTS? >> YES. AND MOSTLY TO CREATE AND OBLIGATE THEM TO HAVE A UNIFIED, COHESIVE SIGN PLAN. IF YOU DRIVE DOWN SANDRIDGE, YOU'VE GOT ALL OF THOSE PROJECTS ALONG THERE, THEY'VE GOT THEIR OWN SEPARATE SIGN AND THEY ARE ALL DIFFERENT. AND IT WOULD BE NICE, THOUGH THAT'S PROBABLY NOT THE KIND OF THING TO WORK WITH BUT IF ALL OF THE SIGNS WERE COHESIVE, HAD THE SAME COLORS. AND THAT'S WHAT THIS IS ATTEMPTING TO DO. >> THE OTHER THING IS THIS ORDINANCE WOULD BE COUNTY WIDE. >> EVERYWHERE EXCEPT BRANAN FIELD. >> OKAY. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU MR. CHAIR. GREAT JOB ON THE PRESENTATION. THANK YOU FOR YOUR HARD WORK ALONG WITH STAFF TO PUT THIS TOGETHER. I KNOW IT'S A LOT OF WORK. UNDER -- UNDER NUMBER 91 ON THE LINE ITEM, IT CLARIFIES AND SAYS THIS APPLIES TO 2000-ACRE PARCELS AND BIGGER. IF WE HAVE, AND I WILL USE THE REFERENCE AS WALGREENS, IF WE HAVE WALGREENS THAT'S GOING ON A CORNER, IS NOT PART OF THAT 200S NOT APPLY TO THAT. >> THAT IS CORRECT. WITH THIS CAVEAT. THERE IS A PROCESS BY WHICH LAND OWNERS COULD GET TOGETHER AND SAY WE WANT TO JOINTLY DO A MASTER SIGN PLAN SO THAT WALGREENS OR CVS WOULD BE INCLUDED IF THEY BOTH JOIN IN THE APPLICATION AND THEIR PROJECT TOTALS MORE THAN 2000 ACRES, THAN THAT CORNER WOULD BE SUBJECT TO THIS AND WOULD BE BOUND BY THE TERMS OF IT. IF HE'S NOT WITHIN THE MASTER SIGNED PLANNING AREA, IS OUTSIDE OF IT, YOU ARE RIGHT, HE CAN DO WHATEVER THE SIGN ORDINANCE PRESENTLY ALLOWS THEM TO DO. >> THE THING THAT PROBABLY WASN'T CLEAR IS WE ARE TALKING ABOUT SARATOGA SPRINGS BUT THIS IS AN AUTONOMOUS OR UNIQUE BOUNDARY, WHICH IN THIS CASE MAY BE THE SAME BUT IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE. PART OF THIS IN HERE SAYS THAT THE APPLICANT WOULD COME IN, THEY CAN COME IN WITH 2000 -- >> AND SO YOU MENTIONED APPLICATION. SO THAT'S MY SECOND QUESTION SO ANY PROJECT THAT IS 2000 ACRES OR MORE, WHICH WE DON'T HAVE A LOT OF THEM, JUST TO UNDERSTAND THIS, ALREADY SUBMITTED, ALREADY THROUGH THE APPROVAL PROCESS, THIS WOULD NOT APPLY TO THAT IS THAT CORRECT? UNLESS THEY VOLUNTARILY CAME ON BOARD. >> EXACTLY. THIS IS A DEVELOPER APPLICANT GENERATED PROCESS. SOMEONE EITHER PRESENTLY IS BUILT OUT OR IS BUILDING AND THEY DON'T WANT TO GO THROUGH THIS PROCESS, THEY DON'T HAVE TO. BUT THOSE THAT DO, THEY COULD COME BACK LATER AND SAY WE WOULD LIKE TO CHANGE ALL OF OUR SIGNS AND WE HAVE A MASTER SIGN PLAN THAT WE WOULD LIKE FOR YOU TO REVIEW. >> IT IS MORE LIKE AN OVERLAY. JUST AN OVERLAY. >> YEAH. AND ACTUALLY, THERE ARE PROVISIONS IN THERE THAT ONCE A SIGNED PLAN IS APPROVED, IT WILL BE SHOWN ON SOME COUNTY MAP AS AN OVERLAY. AND THAT OVERLAY COULD, TO YOUR POINT, I THINK YOU SAID IT COULD BE -- IT COULD BE TWO OR THREE PROJECTS THAT GET LUMPED INTO THAT. >> MY LAST QUESTION WAS, A LITTLE BIT OF CLARITY. WE TALKED ABOUT, WALGREENS I. THINK WAS THE REFERENCE THAT WAS USED, SO WHEN WE HAVE COMPANIES THAT COME IN AND THEY BRAND THEMSELVES A SPECIFIC LETTER STYLE COLOUR STYLE, WALGREENS IS THE RED, OR JOHN DEERE IS A GREEN. [00:55:02] HOW WOULD THIS APPLY TO THOSE CORPORATIONS THAT BRAND THEMSELVES SPECIFICALLY TO A COLOUR AND A STYLE? >> I THINK, AND I'VE GOT A REPRESENTATIVE HERE THAT MAY BE ABLE TO CLARIFY BUT I THINK THE ANSWER IS, THERE IS THE SIGN AND THEN THERE IS THE SIGN FACE. SO LET'S SAY THE SIGN IS A MONUMENT SIGN. IT'S THE SAME COLOUR, MADE OF THE SAME ROCK OR WHATEVER IT IS. BUT ON THE SIGN FACE, WALGREENS AND YOU HAVE PROBABLY SEEN IT, WALGREENS AND THEY HAVE THE LITTLE LOGO ON IT. OR CVS OR ACE HARDWARE. BUT THAT IS JUST IN THE SIGN PHASE ITSELF. IF I'M READING THAT -- >> SO IS THAT THE COLOUR. >> THEY COULD USE RED AND USE THEIR LITTLE LOGO. BUT THAT IS JUST THAT ONE PANEL ON THE SIGN. >> SO THE FACE. BUT THE STRUCTURE OF THE SIGN IS REALLY WHAT YOU ARE GOING AT. >> EXACTLY. >> TO MAKE IT LOOK UNIFORM. >> EXACTLY. AND THEY CAN'T PUT A PYLON SIGN OUT SAYING WALGREENS OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT. IT HAS TO BE ON THE SIGN THAT IS APPROVED BY THE MASTER SIGN PLAN FOR. >> , CAN I TELL YOU WHAT I THINK. IT BRINGS UP ANOTHER QUESTION. THE DIRECTIONAL SIGNS, WHICH WE HAVE SAID AREN'T GOING TO HAVE ANYTHING OTHER THAN NECESSARY DIRECTION INFORMATION. ARE YOU GOING TO ALLOW THEM TO PUT A LOGO ON THAT SIGN, WALGREENS THIS WAY? OR IT WOULD JUST BE THE FONT. >> IT IS PRIMARILY INTENDED TO SAY SARATOGA SEDGEBROOK THIS WAY OR THIS WAY OR THE NEXT DEVELOPMENT. >> , THE POINT YOU MADE ABOUT THE COLORS. GO VISIT CORAL SPRINGS. IT'S THE ONLY PLACE I HAVE EVER BEEN WHERE STORES DON'T HAVE THEIR CORPORATE COLORS. IF THEY HAVE THIS AREA AND THE SIGNS ARE ALL GREEN, EVERYBODY HAS THE SAME COLOUR AND THE SAME FONT. >> SOMEONE ASKED EARLIER ABOUT WHEN THIS WOULD HAPPEN. IT WOULD NOT HAPPEN WHEN SOMEONE COMES TO YOU WITH A 2000-ACRE PROJECT TO GET APPROVAL FOR DEVELOPMENT THAT IS WAY TOO EARLY IN THE PROCESS. ONCE A DEVELOPMENT IS APPROVED AND THEY'VE SPENT THE MONEY TO GET THE PERMITS AND EVERYTHING, IT'S ABOUT THEN THAT THEY ARE GOING TO SPEND THE MONEY WITH AN ARCHITECT OR AN ENGINEER OR A SIGNED PERSON TO DESIGN THE SIGN PLAN. IT WOULD BE AT THAT POINT THAT THEY WOULD SUBMIT AN APPLI APPLICATION. WE WOULD SURE LIKE FOR YOU ALL% TO BLESS THIS. BUT IF YOU HAVE MORE QUESTIONS, I AM HAPPY TO ANSWER THEM. >> I HAVE THE SAME CONCERN YOU HAVE, THAT IT'S STILL BEING DRAFTED. YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT TWEAKING IT. IF YOU COULD ADDRESS A COUPLE OF THOSE DETAILS. >> I CAN. LET ME SEE IF I CAN FIND THIS HERE. >> IN GENERAL, I AM CERTAINLY IN FAVOR OF ANYTHING THAT HELPS MANAGE THE SIGNS. LET ME FIND IT ON THE STAFF REPORT. AROUND LINE 134, WHAT I HAVE ON THE SCREEN, DIRECTIONAL SIGNS SHALL AND WE HAVE FOUR CRITERIA FOR THEM, WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT IS ADDING IMMEDIATELY UNDER THAT A GATEWAY FEATURE SIGN SHALL, AND HAVING THE SAME CRITERIA. SO THAT IS ONE OF THE CHANGES. AND THE OTHER CHANGE WAS IN LOCATION, WHICH WAS JUST A LITTLE FURTHER DOWN THE SAME PAGE. LINE 151. WRONG LINE. IT'S NOT IN THE STAFF REPORT, [01:00:11] IT'S IN THE ACTUAL ORDINANCE. THAT IS UNDER E LOCATION. IT READS DIFFERENTLY THAN THE LINE IN THE SAME PLACE IN THE STAFF REPORT. THE ORDINANCE SAYS, DIRECTIONAL OR GATEWAY FEATURE SIGNS MAY BE LOCATED WITHIN A ROAD RIGHT OF WAY, AND SHOULD BE DESIGNED TO MEET BREAKAWAY STANDARDS FOR SAFETY. WE WANT TO REMOVE GATEWAY SIGNS FROM THAT. THE DIRECTIONAL SIGNS ARE ANTICIPATED TO BE THE KINDS OF SIGNS THAT YOU SEE ON THE SIDE OF THE ROAD. THEY ARE THERE FOR THE PURPOSE OF DIRECTING TRAFFIC. FOR SAFETY'S SAKE, THOSE SHOULD BE A POLE SIGN, A BREAKAWAY SIGN. BECAUSE IF YOU GET HIT BY YOUR SOMEBODY -- IF YOU GET HIT BY SOMEBODY AND YOUR CAR DRIFTS OFF TO THE MEDIUM, YOU WANT THAT SIGN TO LAY FLAT AND LET YOUR CAR GO OVER IT. HOWEVER, A GATEWAY FEATURE SIGN IS INTENDED TO BE A MORE SIGNIFICANT STRUCTURE. AND IF IT'S IN THE RIGHT OF WAY, WE ARE ENVISIONING THAT AS ROUNDABOUT, WHERE IT IS PROVIDING A TRAFFIC CALMING EFFECT, ESSENTIALLY. AND IN THAT CASE, IT'S GOING TO BE A MORE SUBSTANTIAL STRUCTURE. A BREAKAWAY POLE SIGN ISN'T APPROPRIATE THERE SO WE WOULD LIKE TO MAKE THAT ONE DELETION AND JUST LEAVE IT AS DIRECTIONAL SIGNS THAT HAVE TO BE BREAKAWAY SIGNS. THOSE ARE THE ONLY CHANGES THAT I AM AWARE OF. CORRECT ME IF I AM WRONG. >> ONE MORE QUESTION, I MEANT TO ASK THIS EARLIER WE KIND OF BROKE OUT OFF PREMISE SIGNS SEPARATELY BUT THE WORDING ALSO SAYS PROHIBITED EXPRESSLY AUTHORIZED WITHIN THE HEALTHY HEARTS OF LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATION. SO WE ARE NOT SUDDENLY GOING TO PERMIT A WHOLE BUNCH OF OFF SITE SIGNS HERE? >> NO, THEY ARE SPECIFICALLY IN LAKE ASBURY ARTICLE THREE PROVISION. WE ARE SAYING THEY ARE PROHIBITED BECAUSE THAT'S A LIST OF PROHIBITED SIGNS BUT ALLOWING THEM ONLY UNDER THE MASTER SIGN PLAN OPTION. >> I THINK THAT WAS MY QUESTION. PRETTY MUCH WE PROHIBIT OFF SITE SIGNS IN THIS COUNTY. IS THIS GOING TO ALLOW MORE OF THOSE? IT'S KIND OF HARD THE WAY IT'S WORDED FOR ME TO BE SURE OF WHAT IT SAYS BECAUSE IT TALKS ABOUT AN OFF PREMISE SIGN BEING OFF THE PARCEL. AND IT SAYS OFF PREMISE, OFF SITE SIGNS PROHIBITED, EXCEPT AS EXPRESSLY AUTHORIZED WITHIN THE LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS. WE DON'T ALLOW THEM IN VERY MANY PLACES TO BEGIN WITH. THERE ARE A FEW BUT WE DON'T, WE GENERALLY DON'T ALLOW THEM. I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THIS ISN'T SOMEHOW GOING TO PROLIFERATE A BUNCH OF OFF PREMISE SIGNS. >> THEY ARE ONLY PERMITTED UNDER THIS MASTER PLAN AND THE MASTER PLAN IS PROVIDING THE LOCATIONS OF THE SIZE. AND THAT'S WHY WE HAVE THAT 200T THERE'S A GOOD AMOUNT OF SPACE. >> I HAVE A QUICK QUESTION. THE, MEETS WHEN, THE NINTH? >> YES, THURSDAY, THE NINTH. THE DAY AFTER TOMORROW. >> THANK YOU. >> ANYBODY ELSE? I ONLY HAVE A COUPLE OF CON CONCERNS. MR. CARSON'S GOING TO HAVE TO MAKE THE DECISION BUT THE -- THE ADDITIONAL WORKLOAD ON THE PLANNING STAFF, IT'S GOING TO BE A BIG BURDEN. NOW THEY'VE GOT SIGNS TO REVIEW AND PLACEMENT AND THAT SORT OF STUFF. IS THAT WHAT I'M HEARING? >> YES. POTENTIALLY. BUT I WOULD OFFER UP TO YOU THAT I SUSPECT THAT BETH IS SO FAMILIAR WITH THESE SIGNS RIGHT NOW THAT SHE IS FED UP WITH THEM. >> I'M SURE SHE IS. THE OTHER THING WHICH CONCERNS ME, THAT IS ENFORCEMENT. I'M ALL IN FAVOR OF STANDARDIZING THIS WHOLE PROCESS SO WE CAN DO AWAY WITH SOME OF THESE EXTRANEOUS SIGNS. BUT IF THERE ARE NO TEETH IN IT [01:05:04] AND WE HAVE AN ENFORCEMENT ISSUE OFTENTIMES LIKE TONIGHT, SOMEBODY SHOWED UP AT THIS MEETING AND WANTED TO KNOW WHO TO CALL, THAT TYPE OF THING BECAUSE OUR CODE ENFORCEMENT AREA IS WAY UNDERSTAFFED. THEY CAN ONLY RESPOND TO THINGS PER COMPLAINT. THE OTHER THING, THE SPIN OFF WHICH IS LIGHTING FOR THE COUNTY IS AN ISSUE HERE YOU'VE GOT THE BRANAN FIELD SAFETY LIGHTING STANDARDS, MAYBE THAT OUGHT TO BE INCORPORATED INTO THIS SO THAT WE CAN ENSURE THAT LIGHTING STANDARDS FOR THE WHOLE ENTIRE COUNTY ARE MAINTAINED. BUT THOSE ARE JUST MY COMMENTS. WITH THAT, I WILL BACK DOWN. THANK YOU MR. MILLER. WITH THAT, I OPEN PUBLIC HEARING. I DON'T HAVE ANY CARDS ON THIS BUT SOMEBODY IS STANDING. DID YOU TAKE THE OATH? >> I DID NOT APPEAR I'M SORRY. I DIDN'T PLAN ON SPEAKING BUT I WILL TAKE IT. >> DO YOU SOLEMNLY SWEAR THAT YOU ARE ABOUT TO GIVE THE WHOLE TRUTH AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH. >> I DO. >> MY ADDRESS IS 2839 WOODBRIDGE CROSSING COURT. I JUST HAD A QUESTION. I DIDN'T QUITE UNDERSTAND THIS UNTIL IT WAS PRESENTED HERE TODAY. I WAS KIND OF SURPRISED THAT WHEN I GOT THE INFORMATION ABOUT THE, FOR THURSDAY NIGHT, WE WILL BE HEARING ABOUT THIS. I JUST DIDN'T UNDERSTAND HOW COME IT WAS PUSHED FORWARD BUT YOU DIDN'T COME TO US, WHY THEY DIDN'T WAIT UNTIL NEXT MONTH. I JUST DON'T UNDERSTAND THAT PART OF IT. I'M SURE WE WILL FIGURE THAT OUT. THEY WILL EXPLAIN THAT TO ME. AND I KNOW IT IS NOT SUPPOSED TO BE QUESTION AND ANSWER TYPE THINGS. THANK YOU AGAIN FOR EVERYTHING YOU ARE DOING AND FOR ALL OF US AS WE ARE TRYING TO FIGURE THIS OUT I FEEL LIKE THERE IS STILL SOME IRONING OUT GOING ON AND I'M NOT SURE HOW IT'S GOING TO BE PRESENTED TO US BUT THAN THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU. THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION. BECAUSE WE RELY ON INPUT FROM THE CAC. IS THERE A REASON WE ARE NOT HEARING FROM THEM? >> I WILL HAVE STAFF RESPOND TO. BUT UNDERSTAND, THIS IS COUNTY WIDE EXCEPT FOR BRANAN FIELD. THIS IS NOT JUST LAKE ASBURY AREA. >> YOU KIND OF BEAT ME TO WHAT I WAS GOING TO ASK, WHICH IS, IT OCCURRED TO ME AS SHE WAS SPEAKING, IT IS COUNTY WIDE. WHAT CAC IS GOING TO LOOK AT, AND ALL OF THEM SHOULD BE LOOKING AT IT IF IT'S A COUNTY WIDE ISSUE. WE ARE TALKING SARATOGA SPRINGS. BUT IT DOES AFFECT OTHER AREAS. IT COULD AFFECT ANYWHERE IN THE COUNTY AS LONG AS IT'S NOT BRANAN FIELD. IF SOMEONE COBBLED TOGETHER 200. >> THE CAC RECEIVES THE TEXT AMENDMENTS THAT ARE SPECIFIC TO LAKE ASBURY. THEY ARE GETTING ARTICLE THREE CHANGES BECAUSE THOSE ARE SPECIFIC TO THEM, NOT ALL OF ARTICLE SEVEN CHANGES. WE DON'T SEND CODE CHANGES TO ALL OF THE CAC. PARTLY BECAUSE THAT BECOMES A HUGE ADDITIONAL TIME REVIEW ISSUE BUT ALSO BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE ACTIVE CAC EVERYWHERE. AND SO IT'S AN EQUITY ISSUE. SO IT CAN'T BE THAT WE SEND TO THE ONES THAT WE HAVE AND THEN DON'T SEND TO WHERE WE DON'T HAVE A CAC. SO WE HAVE THIS PUBLIC MEETING AND WE RELY ON THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO BE THAT PUBLIC MEETING. HOWEVER, BECAUSE THE ARTICLE THREE CHANGES ARE SPECIFIC TO LAKE ASBURY, THEY ARE DEFINITELY GOING TO GET THE ARTICLE THREE PORTION AND PRESENT THEIR, LIKE YOU AND STAFF WERE ALL RECOMMENDING BODIES TO THE BOARD. WE TRIED TO GET THEIR TIMING BEFORE YOUR MEETING BUT THAT DIDN'T WORK OUT THIS TIME. WE WILL HAVE THEIR COMMENTARY BUT NOT UNTIL AFTERWARDS. >> ONE COMMENT I WILL ADD TO THE CONVERSATION IS WE ABSOLUTELY LOVE OUR FEEDBACK FROM THE CAC BECAUSE IT HELPS TO HEAR FROM THE BROADER VOICE WHEN WE ARE MAKING DECISIONS OR RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE BCC. THAT BEING SAID, IT'S NOT A PREREQUISITE OR A REQUIREMENT TO BE HEARD PRIOR TO NECESSARILY IN ORDER FOR YOU TO COME TO THIS BODY AND THIS BODY RENDER A SUGGESTED DIRECTION. [01:10:01] SO AS MUCH AS I WOULD HAVE LOVED TO HAVE HAD IT OR HAVE BEEN HEARD BY THE LAKE ASBURY CAC, IT'S NOT A REQUIREMENT, AS FAR AS I UNDERSTAND. >> CORRECT. >> TO FOLLOW UP ON THAT, THEY WOULD HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO GO TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONER MEETING IF THEY WANTED TO VOICE SOME OPINION. >> THEY BEING? >> THE CAC. >> YES, THEY GO TO THE BOARD. >> THEY COULD GO DIRECTLY. >> THE CHAIR WILL GO AND REPORT. >> SO I AGREE WITH THE COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS. >> THE ONLY COMMENT I'VE GOT ABOUT THAT IS IF WHAT YOU SAY IS TRUE, NOT EVERY DISTRICT HAS A CAC. NOT THOSE THAT HAVE SPENT THE TIME AND ENERGY TO CREATE A CAC. IF THEY HAVE A CAC, THEY SHOULD BE ENTITLED TO BE REVIEWING THESE CLAUSES COUNTY WIDE. IF FOR NO OTHER REASON, THAT THEY KNOW THAT IT'S OUT THERE AND THEY ARE AWARE OF IT. NOTHING IS MORE EMBARRASSING THAN TO HAVE A CAC MEETING WHERE A POLICY HAS BEEN APPROVED COUNTY WIDE AND YOU HAVEN'T HAD A CHANCE TO WEIGH IN ON IT. THAT'S MY ONLY CONCERN. OKAY. I WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. IT IS OPEN NOW. DOES ANYONE WISH TO SPEAK ON THIS? SEEING NONE, I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND BRING IT BACK TO COMMISSION FOR DISCUSSION. >> I MOTION TO APPROVE THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION TO PASS THIS FORWARD. >> I SECOND THE MOTION. >> THIS REFERS TO ARTICLE THREE AND ARTICLE SEVEN. >> SO YES, ONE AGENDA ITEM. >> TO BASICALLY INCLUDE THE CLERICAL ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES THAT THE STAFF IS MAKING SURE THERE ARE ITEMS THAT DOTY MENTIONED. >> DO WE NEED TWO MOTIONS? ARE WE OKAY WITH ONE? >> I HAVE A COMMENT. >> DO WE NEED TO OR IS IT JUST ONE? >> A OR B. >> WE COULD PUT THEM TOGETHER. I JUST WANTED TO BE CLEAR THAT IT WAS ARTICLE THREE AND SEVEN. >> MY ARTICLE -- MY MOTION INCLUDES BOTH ORDINANCE ARTICLE THREE AND RELATED TO ARTICLE SEVEN. WE COULD CREATE THESE MASTER SIGN PLANS. >> ANY DISCUSSION. >> I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THIS CONTINUED UNTIL THE BRANAN FIELD CAC WEI.Z, AND ANY OTHERS. I'M SORRY, THE LAKE ASBURY WEIGHS IN ON THIS. IT WOULD ALSO GIVE THE STAFF A FEW WEEKS TO TWEAK ANYTHING ELSE THAT THEY HAVE TO. >> I WOULD AGREE BUT I WAS ALSO GOING TO SAY SINCE WE HAVE A MOTION ON THE FLOOR, I'M GOING TO ADDRESS THE MOTION. I'M PROBABLY RIGHT. I DIDN'T LIKE THIS WHEN I GOT HERE BUT I THINK I'VE GOTTEN SOME CLARIFICATION. THIS IS GOING TO BE ONE OF THOSE 4951% DECISIONS. IF YOU'RE GOING TO CALL THE QUESTION, I'M PROBABLY GOING TO END UP SUPPORTING IT. I WOULDN'T MIND GOING ANOTHER MONTH BUT I DON'T KNOW THE OUTCOME WITH THE WAIT. >> I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH THAT. I WAS GOING TO ASK MR. MILLER, IS THERE A TIME TO THIS. >> THERE IS. THERE ARE ACTUALLY PERMITS PENDING NOW SUBJECT TO APPROVAL BASED ON THIS THAT STAFF UNDERSTOOD WE WERE PROCESSING AND THE TIME WOULD BE BETTER FOR US TO GET IT APPROVED NOW. >> I ASKED A QUESTION EARLIER, THERE WERE ONLY TWO ITEMS STILL BEING ANALYZED, FINALIZED, THOSE ITEMS ABOUT THE BREAKAWAY SIGNS. THEY ARE NOT MATERIAL TO THE INTENT OF THIS ORDINANCE. >> IF I COULD CLARIFY, IT'S NOT A QUESTION OF FURTHER DISCUSSION. IT'S JUST A QUESTION OF CHANGING THE TEXT. >> CLERICAL IN NATURE. >> I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S APPROPRIATE LEGALLY. >> I AM GETTING NODDING HEADS OVER THERE. I AM COMFORTABLE MOVING FORWARD WITH IT. >> OKAY. ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, AYE. THANK YOU, MR. MILLER. [3. Public Hearing to consider COMP 26-0004 and ZON 26-0005. (District 4, Comm. Condon) (B. Carson)] NEXT AGENDA ITEM IS PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER COMP PLAN [01:15:05] 26-0004 AND ZON 26-0005. WE NEED 12 VOTES ON THIS. WE NEED TWO VOTES ON THIS. >> THANK YOU MR. CHAIR. THIS IS A SMALL SCALE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT. A COMPANION REZONING APPLICATION. BOTH ITEMS WILL BE HEARD OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ON APRIL 28TH. THE APPLICANT FOR THIS ITEM IS LUKE MAHLER WITH FNC HOLE. THE LOCATION OF THE PROPERTY IS 40 5:30 EIGHT MAYFLOWER STREET WHICH IS IN THE MIDDELBURG CHLOER -- THAT'S DISTRICT FOUR. THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT 26-0 FOR WOULD CHANGE THE FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION FROM COMMERCIAL TO RURAL RESIDENTIAL. THE COMPANION ZONING WOULD CHANGE THE ZONING FROM NEIGHBORHOOD BUSINESS, BA TO RURAL ESTATES DISTRICT, A R--- A. R-2. THIS IS THE MAP ON THE LEFT, THE BUFFER FOR WHICH WE SENT OUT NOTIFICATIONS AND THAT IS THE LIST OF PEOPLE WE CONTACTED AS WELL AS THE SIGNS. THE LOCATION OF THIS PROPERTY IS SOUTH OF 218, IN THE FLOWER AREA UP IN MIDDLEBURG, WHERE YOU'VE GOT ALL OF THE STREETS NAMED AFTER FLOWERS. WEST OF CARNATION AND JUST OFF OF MAYFLOWER. YOU CAN SEE THE AREA IS LARGELY DEVELOPED BY VERY RURAL DEVELOPMENTS, A LOT OF MOBILE HOMES AND SOME SINGLE FAMILY HOMES. NOT A LOT OF BUSINESSES OUT THERE. BUT YOU'VE GOT A LOT OF RESIDENTIAL. THE MAP ON THE LEFT IS THE EXISTING LAND USE MAP THE RED IS THE COMMERCIAL. THE YELLOW IS THE RURAL RESIDENTIAL. CARNATION, MAYFLOWER ARE ALL UNPAVED ROADS. AND SO IF YOU WERE TO HAVE COMMERCIAL HERE, THE COUNTY WOULD REQUIRE THAT THOSE ROADS BE PAVED SO THAT THERE WAS PAVED ACCESS TO THE COMMERCIAL. THE MAP ON THE RIGHT IS THE PROPOSED LAND USE, WHICH WOULD BE TO TAKE IT BACK FROM THE COMMERCIAL TO RESIDENTIAL. AND SO I'M GOING TO SHOW YOU ANOTHER MAP BECAUSE THESE MAPS ARE QUITE HONED IN ON THIS AREA AND IF YOU LOOK AT THIS IMAGE IT LOOKS LIKE THERE'S A WHOLE LOT OF COMMERCIAL AROUND AND IT SEEMS LIKE IT WOULD BE CRAZY TO CHANGE IT FROM COMMERCIAL. BUT IF YOU LOOK AT THE OVERALL AREA, YOU SEE THAT THE COMMERCIAL IS REALLY JUST A SMALL AREA, AND THAT THE OVERRIDING LAND USE AND ZONING AROUND HERE IS RESIDENTIAL. THE MAP ON THE LEFT IS THE EXISTING ZONING, WHERE IT WAS CHANGED TO THE COMMERCIAL ZONING YEARS AGO. THE MAP ON THE RIGHT IS THE PROPOSED ZONING, WHICH WOULD TAKE IT TO THE AR2. ON MARCH 16TH, THE MIDDLEBURG CLAY, HEARD THE ITEM AND VOTED 6-0 TO RECOMMEND THE APPROVAL BOTH OF THE APPLICATION. STAFF REVIEWED THE CRITERIA FOR COMP 26-0 FOR AND FOR THE PLAN AMENDMENT AND FOUND IT MET THE REQUIREMENTS TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THIS ITEM AS WELL AS THE ZONING ITEM 26-05. DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? >> I AM CURIOUS, HOW DID THAT END UP BEING COMMERCIAL ANYWAY? DO YOU HAVE THE HISTORY OF HOW THE AREA, WHICH IS PREDOMINANTLY RESIDENTIAL, BUT THERE ARE SEVERAL PARCELS THAT HAVE COMMERCIAL LAND USE. >> I DON'T KNOW. THE DATE IN THE STAFF REPORT, IT WAS YEARS AGO THAT THEY DECIDED TO WRAP THAT WHOLE AREA AS COMMERCIAL. BUT IT IS NOT A PAVED ROAD. IT IS NOT CERTIFIED UTILITIES OR ANYTHING. >> MAY BE PART OF THE INITIAL ADMINISTRATIVE ZONING WHEN IT WENT DOWN. >> THERE IS ONE BUILDING THAT APPEARS TO BE AN OFFICE OR IT'S LISTED AS AN OFFICE ON THE COUNTY PROPERTY APPRAISER'S LISTING. RESIDENTIAL. >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? IS THE APPLICANT HERE? ANYTHING TO SHARE WITH US? >> NO, SIR. >> ANY QUESTIONS OF THE APPLICANT? OKAY. I WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. I HAVE NO CARDS. DOES ANYONE SPEAK -- WISH TO SPEAK ON THE AGENDA ITEM SEEING NONE. I CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. >> MR. CHAIR, I MOVE THE COMP PLAN AMENDMENT. >> SECONDED. >> WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. DISCUSSION. ANY INPUT. >> NOT ON THIS ONE. >> OKAY. THOSE IN FAVOR,. >> SPEAKER-08: AYE. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. [01:20:05] >> MR. CHAIR, I WILL MOVE THE ZONING CHANGE AS WELL. >> WE HAVE A MOTION AND SECONDED ANY DISCUSSION. THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. ALL RIGHT. [4. Public Hearing to consider ZON 26-0004. (District 5, Comm. Burke) (B.Carson)] THAT TAKES CARE OF THAT. THE NEXT ITEM IS PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER ZON 260004. >> THIS ITEM WILL ALSO BE HEARD BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AT THEIR APRIL 28TH MEETING. THE APPLICANT FOR THIS ITEM IS FIRST COAST ENERGY AND JASON GABRIEL IS HERE REPRESENTING THE APPLICANT. THE LOCATION IS 240 OX ROAD. IT IS WITHIN THE OAK LEAF BRANAN FIELD PLANNING DISTRICT, WHICH IS COMMISSION DISTRICT FIVE COMMISSIONER BURKE. THERE ARE 12 PARCELS INVOLVED WHICH TOTALED APPROXIMATELY 0.36 ACRES. THE APPLICATION IS SEEKING TO REZONE THE PARCELS FROM A R, WHICH IS AGRICULTURE RESIDETIAL TO LET IT BE LET IT BE TO COMMUNITY BUSINESS DISTRICT. IN 2003, IT WAS AMENDED TO COMMERCIAL VIA ORDINANCE 200359. AT THE TIME, LIKE A FEW OTHER PROPERTIES IN THE COUNTY, IT WAS NOT REZONED I'M NOT SURE WHY. THE PROPOSED USE WOULD BE FOR A CONVENIENCE STORE WITH GAS STATION PUMPS AND A CAR WASH. THE MAP ON THE LEFT SHOWS A LOCATION. IT'S BASICALLY THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF COUNTY ROAD 220 AND NIGHT BOX ROAD. ACROSS THE WAY FROM THE ANIMAL SHELTER AND NEXT TO THE SUBDIVISION. THE MAP ON THE LEFT IS THE EXISTING ZONING, WHICH IS SHOWING THE A R AND THE MAP ON THE RIGHT SHOWS THE PROPOSED BB TO. THIS IS THE NOTIFICATION MAP AND SIGN. ON MARCH SECOND, THE OAK LEAF BRANDON BRIDGE CAC VOTED 5-02 VOTE APPROVAL OF THIS ITEM. STAFF HAS DONE THE ANALYSIS AND IT MEETS THE CRITERIA FOR REZONING AND RECOMMENDS APPROVAL ON ZONE 25-000 FOR. ANY QUESTIONS. >> I HAVE ONE QUESTION. CAN WE GO BACK TO THE MAP. EITHER ONE WILL DO. IT WILL BE FINE. IS THAT ODD SHAPE ON THE LEFT CACTUS THAT FOLLOW A PARCEL? >> YES. >> SO THERE'S A PARCEL IN THERE THAT HAS A LITTLE LEG THAT HOOKS DOWN. OKAY. THAT'S ALL. I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT WAS CORRECT. >> I HAVE ONE QUESTION, IS THIS IN THE MASTER PLAN AREA? IT WOULD HAVE TO COMPLY, THE COUNTY SIGNED ORDINANCE. >> WHO IS HERE TO REPRESENT T THEM. >> APPLICANT. >> GOOD EVENING, MY NAME IS JASON GABRIEL. JACKSONVILLE, FLORIDA. I'M HERE WITH OUR LEAD PROJECT ENGINEER. WE APPRECIATE YOUR TIME HERE THIS EVENING. AS YOUR STAFF POINTED OUT, THIS IS A REZONING FROM, I THINK IT'S CALLED AR AGRICULTURAL TYPE UNDERLINE ZONING TO THE BB NUMBER 2 DISTRICT, WHICH IS WHAT I WOULD SUBMIT AS A VERY MODERATELY COMPATIBLE COMMERCIAL DISTRICT THAT CONFORMS TO THE ZONING OF THE -- THAT'S CALLED FOR UNDER THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT. THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP OR FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT IS COMMERCIAL. SO REALLY THIS ZONING REQUEST BRINGS INTO CONFORMANCE THE ZONING DISTRICT IN LINE WITH AND CONSISTENT WITH THE OVERRIDING FUTURE LAND USE MAP MY CLIENT IS FIRST COAST ENERGY, THAT HAS OWNED THIS PROPERTY FOR ABOUT 20 YEARS NOW. THERE WAS A PUD ZONING ON THIS PROPERTY ABOUT 21 YEARS AGO OR SO CALLED THE LITTLE BLACK CREEK PUD, WITH A COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT ON THIS PARTICULAR PART OF THE PROPERTY. IT WAS A 14-ACRE PIECE. THERE WERE 8 ACRES AND THE RESIDENTIAL PIECE OFF TO THE NORTHWEST FOR SOME RESIDENTIAL -- WE ARE SEEKING REZONING -- [01:25:04] THAT PUD ACTUALLY HAD 6000 SQUARE FEET OF COMMERCIAL OFFICE INSTITUTIONAL USES AND ALONG WITH A NEIGHBORHOOD CONSISTING OF 65 SINGLE FAMILY HOME LOTS BUT ANY EVENT THAT'S TO GIVE HISTORICAL CONTEXT. MY UNDERSTANDING IS THE WAY THAT CLAY COUNTY LOOKS AT ITS ZONING CODE HAS, IF I BELIEVE, IF I'M NOT MISTAKEN, AN EXPIRATION SO THAT THAT POD IS ACTUALLY -- THAT HAS EXPIRED AND SO THE ZONING REFERRED BACK TO THE AG. SO THIS REQUEST TO BRING THE ZONING INTO CONFORMANCE WITH THE OVERRIDING FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT FOR AS WAS POINTED OUT, ON MARCH SECOND, OUR PROJECT WAS REVIEWED BY YOUR CITIZEN ADVISORY COMMITTEE. IN THIS CASE, THE OAKLEY BRANAN FIELD, -- CAC, AFTER DISCUSSION, THEY RECOMMENDED APPROVAL AS YOUR STAFF HAS POINTED OUT HERE TODAY, THE ZONING REQUEST IS IN LINE WITH THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP. THE STAFF REPORT THAT THAT IS IN THE AGENDA DATED FEBRUARY 24TH, 2026, RECOMMENDS APPROVAL. I'M NOT GOING TO GO THROUGH ALL OF THE CRITERIA BUT ON PAGES TEN AND 11 OF THAT PROFESSIONAL STAFF REPORT, WHICH SERVES A SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE, THEY POINT OUT SUCH THINGS AS THIS REZONING IS CONSISTENT WITH AND IN FACT BRINGS THE ZONING IN LINE WITH LAND USE DESIGNATION OF THE PROPERTY AS COMMERCIAL. ZONING WOULD SERVE A LEGITIMATE PUBLIC PURPOSE AND MAKE THE SITE COMPATIBLE WITH A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION OF THE PROPERTY AND FINALLY THIS WOULD PERMIT APPROPRIATE COMMERCIAL USES THAT WOULD SERVE THE NEEDS OF THE IMMEDIATE RESIDENTIAL AREAS IN AND AROUND THAT PART OF THE COMMUNITY CONSISTENT WITH THE DESIGNS AND ELEMENTS OF THE COUNTY'S PLANS WITH THAT, I WILL TRY TO KEEP IT BRIEF. I'M CERTAINLY AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS YOU MIGHT HAVE. WE WOULD RESPECTFULLY REQUEST THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION ALSO RECOMMEND APPROVAL TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSION. AGAIN, WE ARE APPRECIATIVE OF YOUR TIME AND AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS YOU MIGHT HAVE FOR. >> THIS IS A LITTLE OVER 8 ACRES CACTUS PARCEL. AND I THINK MISS CARSON SAID THAT YOU ARE LOOKING AT A GAS STATION AND A CAR WASH THEY CAN'T POSSIBLY OCCUPY THE WHOLE 8 ACRES. >> THAT IS CORRECT. IT WILL NOT. WE CAN CERTAINLY SHARE WITH YOU, WE TECHNICALLY NOT GERMANE TO THE ZONING AND REZONING ITSELF BUT WE DO HAVE A SITE PLAN THAT WE PROPOSE BECAUSE IT IS NO SECRET, WHAT WE ARE PROPOSING IS A CONVENIENCE STORE, A C SUITE TYPE COMMERCIAL ESTABLISHMENT. ABOUT 8000 SQUARE FEET OR SO WITH A ASSOCIATED FUEL STATION AND CAR WASH. BUT TO YOUR POINT, YOU ARE RIGHT, THAT WOULD BE THE LIMITS OF THE DEVELOPMENT. IF YOU LOOK AT THE SITE PLAN, AND I THINK IT'S THE PARCEL YOU MAY HAVE BEEN MENTIONING ON THE WESTERN HALF OF THE PROPERTY, I THINK IT'S ABOUT 6 ACRES OR SO, PURELY FOR STORM WATER RETENTION. IF YOU LOOK AT THE SITE PLAN, THE DEVELOPABLE PART OF IT IS MUCH LESS THAN THE 8 ACRES. 8 ACRES IS QUITE BIG FOR THIS OVERALL ESTABLISHMENT. >> OKAY. BECAUSE IT'S NOT IN OUR PURVIEW. PART OF THAT ZONING YOU ARE REQUESTING IS A SITE PLAN SHOULD BE SUBMITTED TO THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL PRIOR TO OBTAINING THE BUILDING PERMIT FOR ALL USES WITHIN THIS DISTRICT. THAT'S WHY I WAS ASKING. YOU HAVE PLANS FOR THE WHOLE THING THAT FALLS WITHIN THE ZONING. >> YES, ABSOLUTELY. THAT'S RIGHT. >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS. >> I HAVE ONE >> GOOD EVENING MR. GABRIEL, A TO MEET YOU. IT IS A TWO PART QUESTION, I UNDERSTAND THE ZONING, WOULD YOU CONSIDER THAT PUD JUST TO REDO THEY PUD THAT WAS ALREADY ON HERE BEFORE? >> WE HAD THAT DISCUSSION, I THINK IT WAS BECAUSE THIS PARTICULAR CONVENTIONAL ZONING DISTRICT COVERED ALL THE TERRITORY, I BELIEVE IT WAS PREFERRED TO DO THIS. IT WAS CONSIDERED, WE DO HAVE A WORTH, THAT I THINK CONFINES THE PROJECT, IT WAS CONSIDERED, IT'S -- >> IT'S NOT REALLY A REQUIREMENT BUT HE WOULD HEAR CONCERNS FROM THE MISSION IS BILL LIGHTING AND SIGNAGE, THOSE COULD ALL BE ADDRESSED IN A PUD AS OPPOSED TO STRAIGHT ZONING. THE OTHER QUESTION I HAVE IS UNDER A LOVABLE USES OR EXCUSE ME, USES PERMITTED -- ALLOWABLE [01:30:05] -- NUMBER 3 OPENS UP A CONCERN FOR ME REGARDING THEIR PROXIMITY TO THE HOUSING DEVELOPMENTS. AS LONG AS WE HAVE -- A PUD WOULD HAVE ADDRESSED THIS, BUT AS LONG AS WE UNDERSTAND THIS IS NOT GOING TO BE ANYTHING OTHER THAN A GAS STATION AND A CAR WASH THEN I THINK THAT ANSWERS MY QUESTION. I JUST WANTED TO REITERATE THAT. >> WE APPRECIATED. I KNOW, CONVENTIONAL REZONING YOU CAN'T NECESSARILY CONDITION AND AS YOU COULD IN A PUD OR PD, BUT WE ARE CERTAINLY HAPPY -- ACTUALLY IN OUR APPLICATION WE DID COMMIT TO A SITE PLAN, WHICH HAS BEEN TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT THE METRIC LIMITATIONS AND EVEN THE NOISE BARRIER AND THAT SORT OF STUFF. THIS CONVERSATION WAS HAD WITH THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER. IF THIS IS SOMETHING THAT HAD TO BE MEMORIALIZED IN SOME FASHION I THINK YOU COULD PROBABLY WORK OUT A WAY TO DO THAT. >> IS THAT SOMETHING WE ARE ABLE TO DO? CARVE OUT UNDER STRAIGHT ZONING. >> WE DON'T TYPICALLY, YOU HAD A CONCERN? THAT IS LIMITED BY PROXIMITY TO RESIDENTIAL AND WITH RESIDENTIAL LIGHTING NEXT TO IT WOULD PREVENT IT. >> IS ALREADY A NONISSUE, OKAY. SORRY, I SHOULD HAVE UNDERSTOOD. IF YOU WERE WORRIED ABOUT THAT THAT IS WHY THERE IS A LIMITATION ANYWAY ON THE DISTANCE. >> I WAS HERE WHEN WE PUT IT ALL AND PLEASE, JUST HAS BEEN SO LONG THAT I FORGOT TO. THANK YOU YOU MAKE IS A PRETTY WELL THOUGHT THROUGH CODE COUNCIL. >> IT IS PROBABLY TOO CLOSE AS WELL. >> THANK YOU. >> THE ONLY CONCERNS I HAVE, THE ZONING SEEMS TO BE, MIGHT NOT BE COMPATIBLE WITH THE SURROUNDING AREAS, ESPECIALLY IN THE AREA OF LIGHTING. SOME OF THE USES LIKE THE CAR WASH AND THINGS. I AM GLAD YOU ARE COMMITTING TO THE SITE PLAN THAT, THE ZONING, THAT IS NOT USABLE, YOU CAN CHANGE THAT TOMORROW. IF THE GAS STATION DOES NOT WORK OUT, THAT PUD PREVAILS. AND THE BB-2 DOESN'T HAVE TO COME BACK TO ANYBODY. CAN GET ON WITH THAT. SO... I THINK WITH THEIR PROXIMITY TO THE RESIDENTIAL AREA, MY CONCERN IS THE OVERFLOW OF LIGHTING AND A LOT OF NOISE AND THAT SORT OF STUFF. AND WITH THAT WE WILL GO FROM THERE. THANK YOU SIR, APPRECIATE YOUR INPUT. >> APPRECIATED. >> WITH THAT, I DON'T HAVE ANY CARDS -- I HAVE ONE COURT ON THIS, DENISE ROBERTSON? PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND GIVE US YOUR ADDRESS. >> GOOD EVENING EVERYONE WHEN HE WAS DENISE ROBERTSON, 113738 BEDFORD DRIVE, I AM THE PRESIDENT OF THE FOXWOOD, WE ARE THE NEIGHBORHOOD ADJACENT TO THE PLOT OF LAND DEVELOPED. WE ARE NOT OPPOSED, BUT WE HAD SOME OF THE SAME CONCERNS YOU DO, WE ARE CONCERNED ABOUT LIGHTING, NOISE, WE HAVE ON SOME OF OUR HOUSES THAT WILL BACK RIGHT UP TO THAT DEVELOPED AREA AND THAT IS WHERE PEOPLE SLEEP AT NIGHT. WE ARE CONCERNED ABOUT THE LEVEL OF NOISE. WE ARE ALSO CONCERNED ABOUT TRAFFIC. WE HAVE A HARD TIME GETTING IN AND OUT OF OUR NEIGHBORHOOD AS IT IS RIGHT NOW BECAUSE OF THE BRIDGE CLOSURE, SO NIGHT BOX ROAD IS NOW THE SHORTCUT TO COUNTY ROAD 220, THERE IS NO TURNING LANE, SO IT'S LIKE DAYTONA 500 COMING OUT OF OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. WE ARE CONCERNED HOW MUCH IS THIS NEW DEVELOPMENT GOING TO IMPACT OUR TRAFFIC FLOW COMING IN AND OUT OF OUR SUBDIVISION. AGAIN LIGHTING, TRAFFIC, NOISE, WE'RE JUST CONCERNED AND WE WANT TO MAKE SURE WE MAKE THOSE KNOWN TO YOU KIND OF THOSE ARE SOME WE THINK VIABLE CONCERNS GOING FORWARD. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU. ANY OTHER CARDS? YES, MA'AM? >> L.A. KNIGHT, MY ADDRESS IS ON FILE. THANK YOU FOR THE EXPERTISE AND UNDERSTANDING THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE ZONING VERSES IF [01:35:03] THEY DID THAT PUD, I WISH THEY WOULD HAVE SO IT WOULD HAVE LIMITED THE USAGES. I TOO WAS CONCERNED ABOUT THE ENTERTAINMENT ASPECT AND WHAT IT CAN DO, WE ALL KNOW IN REAL STATE, THERE MAY BE AN INTENTION OF SOMEBODY BUYING SOMETHING AND THE SITE PLAN THEY PLAN ON DOING, THEN SOMETHING CHANGES AND HERE WE ARE WITH THE ZONING THAT ALLOWS MANY DIFFERENT THINGS. IF THERE'S ANY WAY THEY COULD HAVE DONE A PUD, SOMETHING THAT WOULD HAVE GUARANTEED THAT THIS IS WHAT YOU ARE GETTING WHEN YOU PROVE IT -- APPROVE IT, IT WOULD BE BETTER. IT IS A BLANKET APPROVAL. THANK YOU FOR YOUR DO DILIGENCE AND UNDERSTANDING AND THE EFFORTS, WE WANT TO SEE THE DEVELOPMENT AND THINGS COME IN BUT WE ALSO WANT TO PROTECT THE COMMUNITIES THAT ARE RIGHT THERE SO BE THINK. >> THANK YOU, MA'AM. ANYBODY ELSE WISH TO SPEAK THEIR COMMENT? SEEING NONE I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND BAKE IT BACK TO THE COMMISSION FOR DISCUSSION. >> THANK YOU. WOULD YOU EXPLAIN THE BUFFERING REQUIREMENT FOR -- WE THINK 25-FOOT SETBACK AND 10-FOOT BUFFER? NO? I GET THEM MIXED UP, IT'S DIFFERENT FOR ALL OF THEM. >> IF YOU LOOK AT THE MAP ON THE RIGHT, THE GRAY AREA WOULD BE THE COMMERCIAL. EVERYTHING THAT IS GREEN, RED, YELLOW, THE OTHER GREEN IS ALL RESIDENTIAL. THEY WOULD HAVE TO BE A 20-FOOT BUFFER, 20-FOOT BUFFER WITH THE 6-FOOT VISUAL SCREEN WHICH IS EITHER AN OPAQUE FUNDS OR SHRUB PLANTING, 6 FEET HEIGHT. AND EVERGREEN TREE PLANTING, 30-FOOT ON CENTER. ON ALL OF THE PARAMETERS, WHERE IT IS ADJACENT TO THE GREEN, THE RED, THE YELLOW. BECAUSE THAT IS ALL RESIDENTIAL. >> OKAY. THE OTHER COMMENT, I WANTED TO MENTION, THERE IS A BUFFER, NOT FULLY ADEQUATE BUT WE CAN DO THE BEST WE CAN TO SEPARATE THE USES, AND THE COMMENT ABOUT THE TRAFFIC, I DON'T THINK IT IS THE CUTTHROAT, -- CUT ROAD, IT'S THE ONLY ONE, I USE THE ROAD TOO, THE TRAFFIC A HOPEFUL COOL BACK KIND OF WHERE IT WAS ONCE 220 GETS OPENED. BY NIGHT BOX WHAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE ZONING, IT IS DESPERATELY IN NEED OF A MIDDLE PLACES THAT HE HAVE TO MAKE LEFT TURNS OFF THE ROAD AND THERE IS NO LEFT TURN LANE. A GETS A LITTLE BIT DICEY SOMETIMES. THE USES ARE NOT PARTICULARLY ONEROUS TO ME FOR THIS LOCATION. THIS WAS -- I GO THROUGH HERE A LOT, 220 WHEN THEY FINISH THE BRIDGE HOPEFULLY IT WILL TAKE A LOT OF THE TRAFFIC PEOPLE ARE TRYING TO BYPASS AT LEAST FOR A WHILE. I AM SURE THAT'S WHAT THEY WANT TO PUT A GAS STATION HERE, EXPECT A LOT MORE TRAFFIC IN FRONT OF THIS PROPERTY. I HAVE NOT SEEN THE SITE PLAN. I DON'T KNOW IF IT IS IN ORDINANCE OR IF IT'S NOT IN THE PACKAGE, I WOULD JUST ENCOURAGE, ENCOURAGE THE DEVELOPERS, WE ALL, ESPECIALLY MEAN, I AM THE MAIN ONE, BUT WE ALL BECOME MORE CONCERNED ABOUT LIGHTING. I WOULD VERY MUCH APPRECIATE THE DEVELOPERS TAKING THAT INTO ACCOUNT, WHATEVER THEY DO, DOWN LIGHTING, WHEREVER POSSIBLE, THERE IS NO REASON TO LIGHT UP THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD. AND ANOTHER THE DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE WILL PROBABLY TALK ABOUT THAT, ABOUT MAYBE DOING THAT KIND OF LIGHTING HERE. IS NOT TO MAKE YOUR PROPERTY IN A DARKER, JUST KEEPS THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD TO HAVE TO LIVE WITH ALL THAT LIGHT. SO THAT IS MY ONLY COMMENT. >> WOULD JUST ADD, I WOULD ENCOURAGE AND I AM SURE YOU GUYS ARE AWARE OF THESE MODERN DEVELOPMENT TECHNIQUES WE HAVE A BETTER LIGHTING, BETTER SIGNAGE, FRANKLY THE SIGNAGE AND PARTICULARS LESS EXPENSIVE. AND I WILL TAKE SOME PHOTOS BUT THAT IS A NEW CONVENIENCE STORE, LARGE CONVENIENCE STORE COMPARABLE TO THIS, DIFFERENT BRAND, IT OPENED UP NOT TOO LONG AGO, AND YOU PASS IT AT NIGHTTIME AND HE BARELY NOTICED THE LIGHTING, IT IS NOT SPILLOVER. BUT OBVIOUSLY YOU CAN SEE UNDER THE PUMPS. AND PRETTY SURE THAT IS CONTEMPORARY DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS. I WOULD DADO WHAT RALPH WAS [01:40:01] SAYING, LIGHTED APPROPRIATELY AND SIGN IT APPROPRIATELY. >> ANYBODY ELSE? >> MY BIGGEST CONCERN ABOUT THIS WHOLE THING IS THE LIGHTING. MOSTLY FROM STANDPOINT, WE HAVE NO GUARANTEE ABOUT THE LIGHTING. JUST WHATEVER HAPPENS HAPPENS. WE HAVE A 20-FOOT BUFFER BUT WITH COMMERCIAL, OFTEN TIMES IT'S NOT ADEQUATE. I AM DEEPLY CONCERNED ABOUT THAT BECAUSE THE RESIDENTS ARE EXTREMELY CLOSE. >> I WANT TO GO ON RECORD SAYING I AM CONCERNED ABOUT THE BUFFERING AROUND IT, 20 FEET TO ME IS JUST NOT MUCH. I WOULD OPPOSE THIS UNTIL -- UNLESS IT CAN BE ADJUSTED. >> OKAY. MOTION? >> I WILL MOVE THE STAFF REPORT ON THIS ONE. >> DO YOU HAVE A SECOND? ANY DISCUSSION? SEEING NONE, THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE,. >> OKAY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >> YOU WERE A NUMBER? >> I AM A NO. >> THAT COMPLETES OUR AGENDA -- >> WAS AT A 4-2 VOTE? >> 3-2. >> OKAY THANK YOU. >> WE HAVE NO PRESENTATIONS, DO YOU HAVE ANY OLD BUSINESS OR NEW [Public Comment] BUSINESS? SEEING NONE. I WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING, COMMENTS, ONE LAST TIME, DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANYTHING THEY WOULD WISH TO SHARE BEFORE WE ADJOURN? SEEING NONE, I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC COMMENTS PERIOD -- MEAN. >> MR. CHAIR, I MAY HAVE A PUBLIC COMMENT, COMMISSIONER COMMENT WHATEVER YOU WANT TO CALL IT. I JUST WANTED TO NOTE THE PASSING OF TWO ITEMS IN THIS COUNTY RECENTLY WHICH ANYBODY WHO HAS LIVED HERE VERY LONG WOULD BE AWARE OF, THE PRICE STORE IS NO LONGER, IT HAS BEEN KNOCKED DOWN, THE NEW TANKS HAVE BEEN PUT IN, THE SLAB IS THERE AND THEY ARE BUILDING THE NEW BUILDING ON THE PROPERTY. ANYBODY THAT HAS BEEN HERE FOR A LONG TIME, THAT IS A LITTLE PIECE OF IT, COUNTY HISTORY THAT HAS GONE AWAY. >> PRICELESS. >> IT WAS PRICELESS. THE OTHER THING IF YOU GUYS DID NOT SEE IT AND IS... CHANGED HANDS. I DON'T KNOW IF ANYBODY SAW THAT. I THOUGHT THEY WERE STILL WORKING ON IT? SO I AM JUST PLEASED THAT IT IS GOING TO REMAIN A RESTAURANT FOR THE TIME BEING. I JUST WANTED TO NOTE THOSE TWO ITEMS THAT ARE KIND OF ITEMS OF NOTE IN THE COUNTY. >> ANYBODY HAVE ANY * This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.