PROCLAMATIONS/RESOLUTIONS

[4. Master Services Agreement with Quantum Partners, LLC dba SwiftGov for Compliance and Planning Platform Services (T. Nagle)A) Approval of the Master Services Agreeement with Quantum Partners, LLC dba SwiftGov for Compliance and Planning Platform Services for a three-year term beginning on October 1, 2026, in the amount of $1,870,000.00, with the option to renew for two additional one-year terms. Fees include configuration, software services, and professional services. B) Approve the sole source purchase.C) Approve Advanced Payment of 50% configuration fee ($42,500.00) ]

ALL RIGHT. NUMBER 4.

>> ITEM FOUR. ANY TIME WE HAVE A SOLE-SOURCE CONTRACT I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE A LOOK AND MAKE SURE THE PUBLIC UNDERSTANDS WHY WE GO TO SOLE-SOURCE.

SO IF WE COULD HAVE SOMEONE EXPLAIN THE REASON FOR

SOLE-SOURCE IN THIS ITEM? >> MADAM CHAIR, I WOULD LIKE TO ASK TROY TO GIVE US A BRIEF ON THAT?

[LAUGHTER] >> WELCOME BACK.

>> WHAT WAS THE QUESTION? SOLE-SOURCE?

>> SOLE-SOURCE IN THE SWIFTGOV CONTRACT.

>> SWIFTGOV IS OUR SOLUTION TO DO MULTIPLE THINGS.

ONE IS TO LOOK AT LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE REVISIONS, USING A SOFTWARE SOLUTION, AND ALSO TO DO PLANNED REVIEW, BOTH LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, OR YOUR PLANNING ZONING REVIEW, AND THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT REVIEW. THE REASON THAT WE FELT THAT IT WAS SOLE-SOURCE IS THAT IT IS ONE COMPANY TO DO ALL OF THE PIECES TOGETHER. WHILE, YES, THERE ARE COMPANIES THAT MAY DO PIECES IN PARTS, IT IS THE ONLY COMPANY WE FOUND THAT CAN DO IT ALTOGETHER, AND AT THE LEVEL THAT WE NEED IT DONE. THERE ARE PEOPLE THAT WILL DO THE BUILDING CODE REVIEW, BUT THEY WILL NOT DO THE DEVELOP AN SERVICES REVIEW. THERE ARE PEOPLE THAT MAY DO THE PLANNING REVIEW, BUT NOT TO THE ZONING REVIEW.

OR DO THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE REVIEW AS PART OF THE OVERALL COMPREHENSIVE PACKAGE, AND THEN ALSO HAVE THE ABILITY TO WRITE IN WITH YOUR PERMITTING SYSTEM OVER THE NEXT SEVERAL MONTHS, SIX MONTHS. I THINK THAT ANSWERS YOUR

QUESTION. >> THAT ANSWERS MY QUESTION.

AFTER EXTENSIVE CONVERSATION WITH SWIFTGOV, I THINK THAT WE ARE DEALING WITH ONE OF THE MOST LEADING COMPANIES, IN THE NATION QUITE HONESTLY, IN REGARD TO IMPLEMENTATION OF AI.

AND WE HAVE SOMEONE BACK THERE WHO CAN EXPLAIN ANY OF THIS STUFF FOR ANYONE ELSE, BUT I WOULD BE HAPPEN-- HAPPY TO MOTION FOR APPROVAL FOR ITEM SIX.

SWIFTGOV SOLE-SOURCE CONTRACT. >> I SECOND--

>> I'M SORRY. ITEM FOUR.

>> COMMISSIONER, I SECOND YOURS-- PERSPECTIVE.

FROM A PUBLIC PERSPECTIVE, OUR PUBLIC IS VERY DIVERSE.

WE HAVE SMALL BUSINESS OWNERS. WE HAVE PEOPLE THAT BUILD THINGS ON THEIR PRIVATE PROPERTY. AND ONE OF THE THINGS THAT HAS BEEN A RECURRING THEME IN THE PAST TWO YEARS, IS THE PROCESS, THE PERMITTING PROCESS, THE TURNAROUND TIMES.

AND WITH THE CUTTING-EDGE TECHNOLOGY THAT SWIFTGOV PROVIDES, WE SHOULD INSTANTLY START TO SEE BETTER TERM TIMES ON THESE PERMITS, AND IN THE PROCESS.

SO I THINK WE ARE DEFINITELY GOING IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION.

[00:55:01]

BUT WITH THE THINGS WE HAVE TO PROCESS, IT WILL MAKE THINGS A LOT MORE EFFICIENT. SO I AM EXCITED ABOUT THAT.

>> MADAM CHAIR, IF I MAY, ONE OF THE THINGS I FOUND TO BE MOST FASCINATING ABOUT MY BRIEF WITH THEM IS THE TIMING OF ALL OF THIS. WE HAVE THE STATE LEGISLATURE IMPOSING SOME CHANGES THAT IS REQUIRING ASPECTS OF THE PROCESS TO BE COMPLETED FAR MORE QUICKLY.

AND THE ONLY WAY WE WOULD BE ABLE TO MEET SOME OF THOSE RESTRICTIONS IS BY ONBOARDING MORE STAFF.

AND SO IT SEEMS LIKE THE TIMING COULD NOT BE MORE PERFECT IN MOVING IN THIS DIRECTION. SO I AM EXCITED TO SEE HOW THIS

UNFOLDS FOR US. >> ALL RIGHT.

I HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. ALL OF THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.

ANY OPPOSED? GOOD, THAT PASSES.

[6. First Amendment to Agreement No. 2024/2025-78 with Dewberry Architects Inc. for the Clay County Judicial Facility Master Plan (G. Price)Approval of the First Amendment to Agreement No. 2024/2025-78 with Dewberry Architects Inc. in the amount of $205,616.00 to add Phase 2 of the Master Plan development services for the Clay County Judicial Facility Master Plan to be completed within eight (8) months. ]

NUMBER 6? >> MADAM CHAIR, THE SECOND ITEM IS ITEM NUMBER 6, A STUDY BY DEWBERRY, WHICH WE COMMISSIONED ALMOST A YEAR AGO, I THINK. FINAL REPORT CAME OUT.

IT WAS A TWO PHASED CONTRACT, WE WILL DO PHASE ONE THAT AND LOOK AT PHASED PHASE ONE WAS COMPLETED APRIL OF THIS YEAR, I THINK-- SORRY, FEBRUARY OF THIS YEAR.

AND IT LOOKED AT OUR CURRENT FACILITIES.

AND THE CAPACITY TO PERFORM IN THE COURTS, AND THE JUDGES FOR CLAY COUNTY AS IT GROWS. SO IF YOU LOOK AT CAPACITY, HOW MUCH CAPACITY DO WE HAVE IN CLAY COUNTY CURRENTLY.

AND THEY REPORTED OUT AND SAID BASICALLY-- WE HAVE ENOUGH CAPACITY THROUGH 2035. OKAY, THAT IS NOT THAT FAR AWAY WHEN YOU THINK ABOUT-- IF YOU HAVE TO EXPAND, YOU RUN OUT OF CAPACITY AND YOU HAVE TO EXPAND. PHASE TWO.

LET ME ALSO STATE, ONE OF THE-- ONE OF THE PROBLEMS WE HAVE HAD WITH THAT FACILITY WAS ENVIRONMENTAL.

AND THERE IS A LOT OF FINGER-POINTING ABOUT AIR QUALITY. AND I THINK THAT THEY REPORTED OUT-- MAYBE YOU CAN TELL ME, WHAT DID THEY FIND WITH AIR QUALITY IN THE CURRENT STRUCTURES WE HAVE THERE?

>> CURRENT PRACTICE IS THAT IF THERE IS A COMPLETE ABOUT THE AIR WE GET PROFESSIONALS IN THERE.

THIS WAS JELLY AIR SOLUTIONS THAT CAME IN WITH AN ASSESSMENT, AND THEY REPORTED BACK THAT THE MOLD SPORES INSIDE WERE LOWER THAN OUTSIDE. THERE WAS NO ISSUES SO THE CURRENT FACILITY DOES NOT HAVE AN AIR PROBLEM.

AND THE REPORTED READING THAT WE ARE IDENTIFYING IS THAT WE WILL RUN OUT OF SQUARE FOOTAGE IN 2035.

SO PHASE TWO WILL GO FORWARD PENDING APPROVAL OF-- WHAT DOES THAT LOOK LIKE IN 2035 WITH-- DO WE RENOVATE? WHAT THE CURRENT STRUCTURE IS THERE A, FOR A BETTER USE OF SPACE? PERHAPS.

OR DO WE DEMO ONE SIDE AND BUILD IT UP ON THE FOOTPRINT THERETO MEET THE NEXT 25 YEARS OR 50 YEAR DEMAND? SO IT WILL PROVIDE LAYOUTS AND COST ESTIMATES TOO.

SO WE ARE TRYING TO GET AHEAD OF IT EARLY TO BE ABLE TO BUDGET OR

PLAN FOR IT IN THE FUTURE. >> I WANT TO POINT OUT THAT THIS ITEM BEFORE US TONIGHT AUTHORIZES OUR CONTRACT WITH DEWBERRY TO GO THROUGH WITH TASK 2.4.

WHICH IS JUST TO LOOK AT THE FACILITIES, AND WHAT DOES IT COST TO DEMO, RENOVATE, OR MOVE THE FACILITY TO ANOTHER SITE.

AFTER TASK 2.4 IS THE-- THAT WOULD BE ANOTHER AMENDMENT ON THE CONTRACT, I GUESS, IF WE GET THERE TO APPROVE IT AND LOOK AT THE COST OF ALL OF THOSE. THE ACTUAL GOLD OUT OF THOSE THREE OPTIONS. THEY ARE GOING TO GIVE US A ROUGH ORDER OF MAGNITUDE. HOW MUCH WOULD IT COST TO MOVE THE WHOLE FACILITY TO ANOTHER SITE.

HOW MUCH WOULD IT COST TO DEMO THE COURTHOUSE.

HOW MUCH WOULD IT COST TO RENOVATE.

BASED ON ROUGH ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE.

SO THIS AMENDMENT BEFORE US TONIGHT GOES TO TASK 2.4, WHICH WOULD BE HALFWAY THROUGH TASK TWO, AND AT A LATER DATE WE WILL GET A REPORT OUT FROM THIS AND SEE WHICH OPTION WE WANT, ONE, TWO OR THREE. THE RIGOR WITH WHICH YOU GO WITH EACH ONE OF THOSE OPTIONS IS FAIRLY EXTENSIVE.

SO YOU DO NOT WANT TO WASTE YOUR TIME ON AN OPTION WE ARE NOT GOING TO APPROVE. UNLESS YOU HAVE SOMETHING ELSE, I'M READY TO MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE ITEM NUMBER 6.

>> I WILL SECOND. >> I HAVE A MOTION, A SECOND.

>> I HAVE A QUESTION FOR GENE. DO YOU KNOW IF THE CURRENT PACE OF THE STUDY INCLUDES ANY CAPACITY INCREASES WE HAVE

ATTEMPTED? >> IT DOES.

AND INCORPORATES THE STATE ATTORNEY OFFICE BUILDUP IN TO

[01:00:01]

THE SHELL. THAT WAS ADDRESSED.

THEY DID LOOK AT ALL THE SQUARE FOOTAGE OVER THERE.

WHETHER WAS THE SHELL OR NOT. OVERALL WITH THE CURRENT SQUARE FOOTAGE THAT WE SEE HERE IN 2035.

AND WHAT THAT IS BASED ON IS THE PROGRAMMING FROM PHASE ONE.

WITH THE COUNTY GROWTH, WE ARE GOING TO HAVE TO HAVE MORE JUDGES, MORE STATE ATTORNEY OFFICES.

MORE CLERKS OFFICE PERSONNEL. SO THAT'S WHY THE SQUARE FOOTAGE

ADDS UP TO THAT 2035 ARC. >> GOT IT.

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

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, SAY AYE. ANY OPPOSED? THAT PASSES 5-0. ALL RIGHT.

[13. Public Hearing on Ordinance and Resolution to Amend the Capital Improvement Plan and Resolution for Other Budget Adjustments (M.Rood)Staff has asked a continuance of this item at the August 11, 2026 Board meeting.]

WE ARE RIGHT ON THE.. 5:00.

HOW ABOUT THAT. WE WILL MOVE ON TO NUMBER 13.

AMENDMENTS TO MEND THE CAPITAL PLAN, AND BUDGET ADJUSTMENTS.

AND STAFF WAS ASKED TO CONTINUE. WE WILL STILL HAVE A PUBLIC HEARING. FOR OUR OPEN PUBLIC HEARING, WOULD ANYONE LIKE TO SPEAK? I WILL CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING AND

TAKE A MOTION. >> I MOVE, MADAM CHAIR, THAT THIS ITEM BE RESCHEDULED FOR AUGUST 11, 2026.

>> SECOND. >> MOTION AND A SECOND.

ALL OF THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. ANY OPPOSED?

[14. Final Public Hearing to consider COMP 26-0002. (District 5, Comm. Burke) (D. Selig) This item is being readvertized for an upcoming Planning Commission Meeting (Date TBD). This application is a FLUM amendment to change 46.39 acres from Branan Field Primary Conservation Network (BF-PCN) to Branan Field Master Planned Community (BF-MPC). ]

THAT PASSES. ALL RIGHT, NUMBER 14.

FINAL PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER COMPED 26-0022.

THIS ITEM IS BEING REITEMIZE FOR AN UPCOMING MEETING.

IT'S A AMENDMENT TO CHANGE 46.8E CONSERVATION NETWORK TO THE MASTER-PLANNED COMMUNITY. AND I WILL OPEN UP THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR THAT. ANYONE? CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING. ALL RIGHT.

[15. Final Public Hearing to consider adoption of COMP 26-0011 and ZON 26-0011. (District 5, Comm. Burke) (D. Selig)A. This application is a Small-Scale Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment to change multiple portions of two parcels from and to the following designations: Lake Asbury Village Center (LA VC), Lake Asbury Master Planned Community (LA MPC) and Lake Asbury Greenway (LA GW).B. This application is a Rezoning to change a portion of a single parcel of land (2.67 acres) from Lake Asbury Village Center (LA-VC) to Public Ownership (PO-1) and another portion of the same parcel (also 2.67 acres) from Public Ownership (PO-1) to Lake Asbury Village Center (LA-VC).]

MOVING ON DOWN THE ROAD HERE. NUMBER 15.

FINAL PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER ADOPTION OF COMPED 26-01-- 0011, AND 26-0011. THIS IS A SMALL-SCALE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT TO CHANGE MULTIPLE PORTIONS OF TWO PARCELS FROM AN TO THE FOLLOWING DESIGNATIONS.

LAKE ASBURY VILLAGE CENTER, LAKE ASBURY MASTER-PLANNED COMMUNITY-- MASTER-PLANNED COMMUNITY, AND LAKE ASBURY GREENWAY. THIS APPLICATION IS A REZONING TO CHANGE JAYSON GO PARCEL OF LAND FROM LAKE ASBURY VILLAGE CENTER TO PUBLIC OWNERSHIP, AND ANOTHER PORTION OF THE SAME PARCEL FROM PUBLIC OWNERSHIP TO LAKE ASBURY VILLAGE CENTER.

DOES ANYONE HAVE ANY ISSUES ON THIS MATTER? THAT YOU MUST DISCLOSE? ALL RIGHT.

WE WILL HAVE A SWEARING IN OF ANYONE WHO WANTS TO SPEAK.

IF YOU COULD COME TO THE CENTER OF THE ROOM.

ANYONE? ACTUALLY.

IF YOU ARE GOING TO SPEAK ON 15, 16-- 15 OR 16?

-- >> FIFTEEN AND 18.

>> YOU WILL JUST GET SWORN IN. IF YOU ARE SPEAKING ON 15, 16-- OR... EVERYBODY COME TO THE CENTER OF THE ROOM TO BE SWORN IN SO YOU CAN BE ON CAMERA. YES.

STAND RIGHT THERE IN THE MIDDLE. RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND.

YOU WILL BE SWORN IN. >> DO YOU SOLEMNLY SWEAR AND CONFIRM THAT THE TESTIMONY YOU ARE ABOUT TO GIVE WILL BE THE WHOLE TRUTH AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH, SO HELP YOU GOD?

>> YES. >> THANK YOU.

>> THE APPLICANT FOR THIS PROJECT IS CASEY.

THE PROPERTIES ARE AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SANDWICH ROAD AND NORTHEAST COAST EXPRESSWAY.

THERE ARE TWO PARCELS INVOLVED, AND I WILL GO THROUGH THE INDIVIDUAL PIECES OF THEM THAT ARE CHANGING.

THE SITES WERE NOTICED WITH SIGNAGE, AND MAIL OUTS TO ALL THE PROPERTY OWNERS, WHICH ARE REPRESENTED BY THE PINK.

THE PORTIONS THAT ARE CHANGING, YOU CAN SEE THEM ON THE PARCEL MAP AND ON THE AERIAL. THE AERIAL IS A LITTLE EASIER.

YOU CAN SEE THE SOUTH COAST EXPRESSWAY, WHICH AT THE TIME WAS STILL UNDER CONSTRUCTION FOR THIS AREA.

SANDRIDGE ROAD IS RUNNING EAST-WEST AT THE BOTTOM OF THE MAP. THE YELLOW PORTIONS MARKED ON THEIR ARE THE PORTIONS OF THE PROPERTY THAT ARE ACTUALLY BEING CHANGED BY THESE VARIOUS PLAN AMENDMENTS AND THE REZONING ACTION. FIRST UP IS THE FUTURE LAND USE CHANGES. ON THE LEFT IS THE EXISTING, AND ON THE RIGHT IS PROPOSED. I WILL GIVE YOU THE ZOOMED INVERSION ON THE NEXT SLIDES. SO YOU DO NOT HAVE TO STRAIN YOUR EYES. THERE ARE A LOT OF TINY LITTLE PIECES AT THIS SCALE. BUT THEY ARE CHANGING ALONG THE

[01:05:03]

LINE BETWEEN THE GREEN AND THE PINK ARE MOST OF THE LITTLE PARCELS. THEY ARE GOING BETWEEN GREENWAY AND VILLAGE CENTER. SUMMER GOING FROM GREENWAY TO VILLAGE, AND SOUTH OF VILLAGE TO GREENWAY.

AND THERE ARE TWO RECTANGLES THAT ARE VILLAGE CENTER AND MASTER-PLANNED COMMUNITY. ALONG THE YELLOW LINE THERE.

THAT IS THE FUTURE FIRE STATION LOCATION, WHICH IS CHANGING SLIGHTLY IN IT'S ORIENTATION. IT'S A RECTANGLE THAT STARTED AS AN EAST-WEST PORTION, AND IT'S GOING TO A NORTH-SOUTH ORIENTATION. THESE ARE THE ZONING MAPS.

I AM SORRY, IT'S A LITTLE BIT-- THE COLORS ARE A BIT OF AN EYE STRAIN. BUT I WILL GIVE YOU THE NEXT PAGE AS THE ZOOMED INVERSION. IT WILL BE EASIER TO READ.

IT IS 2.6 ACRES CHANGED-- CHAINED FROM EAST-WEST TO NORTH-SOUTH. YOU CAN SEE THE VILLAGE CENTER IS THE RED COLOR IN THE PO, WHICH IS PUBLICLY OWNED.

THAT IS THE ZONING FOR THE PRESENT FIRE STATION SITE, AND WHEN IT TURNS IT WILL CONVERT THE VILLAGE CENTER TO PL ONE.

AND THE EXISTING PL ONE WILL GO TO BE VILLAGE CENTER.

THESE APPLICATIONS WENT ON JUNE 11TH TO THE LAKE ASBURY PENNY FARM CA SEE. THEY VOTED 8-02 RECOMMEND APPROVAL. ON JULY 7TH, THE PLANNING COMMISSION VOTED 7-02 RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF APPLICATIONS.

STAFF LOOKED AT THE CRITERIA FOR THE APPLICATIONS AND FOUND THEY WERE MET AND THEY RECOMMEND APPROVAL.

THE APPLICANT HAS THE PRESENTATION FOR YOU, BUT I WILL

BE HAPPY TO ANSWER QUESTIONS. >> THANK YOU FOR THE PRESENTATION. GOOD AFTERNOON, EVERYONE.

THANK YOU COMMISSIONERS AND THE PUBLIC FOR YOUR TIME.

TODAY WE ARE GOING TO DISCUSS THE SMALL-SCALE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT AND REZONING APPLICATION-- THANK YOU.

>> PULLED THE MICROPHONE DOWN A LITTLE BIT IF YOU DON'T MIND.

>> OKAY. WE ARE GOING TO DISCUSS A SMALL-SCALE COMPREHENSIVE AMENDMENT APPLICATION, AND A REZONING APPLICATION FOR A SITE WITH-- LOCATED WITHIN THE DEVELOPMENT, DIRECTLY ASSOCIATED WITH THE RELOCATION OF FIRE STATION 15. AS MENTIONED, THE SITE IS WITH-- WITHIN HIGHLAND TRAIL, IT'S LOCATED WITHIN THE LAKE ASBURY MASTER-PLANNED AREA. MORE SPECIFICALLY THE SITE IS LOCATED IN THE SOUTHEASTERN CORNER OF THE HIGHLAND TRAIL DEVELOPMENT. NORTH OF SANDWICH ROAD, IMMEDIATELY WEST OF THE EXPRESSWAY.

FOR CONTEXT, BACK IN 2024, WE CAME INTO THE LAND-USE EXCHANGE FOR HIGHLAND TRAIL, ASSOCIATED WITH THE LATE ASHBURY CENTERED, FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION AND ZONING DISTRICT.

DURING THAT TIME WE ALLOCATED WHERE LAND WAS DESIGNATED FOR THE RELOCATION OF FIRE STATION 15.

AND WHEN THE SITE WAS CHOSEN, IT WAS CHOSEN MORE OF LIKE A HORIZONTAL DESIGN. ANDESITE ENGINEERING PROGRESSED, SITE KIND OF TOOK MORE OF A VERTICAL LAYOUT.

AND ADDITIONALLY, 20 ACRES OF GREENWAY WAS ADDED TO THE SITE.

BUT DURING THAT TIME, THEY WERE ADDED THROUGH AERIAL INTERPRETATION. NOW WE DID A FIELD SURVEY, AND THEY ARE MORE ACCURATE AND DISTRICT APPROVED.

SO THAT IS HOW YOU SEE THE FEW PATCHES OF GREENWAY BEING ADDED.

NOW, AS YOU CAN SEE, THE SITE TOOK MORE OF A VERTICAL DESIGN, AND IN THE BOTTOM YOU CAN SEE HOW THE SOUTHERN PORTION WAS ALLOCATED IN THE NORTH. AND IN SUMMARY, THE SITE IS-- I AM SORRY. THE PUBLIC-- I AM SO SORRY.

THE SITE IS BEING RECONFIGURED TO ALLOW BETTER ENGINEERING AND SITE DESIGN. IT ALSO IMPROVES THE EMERGENCY RESPONSE TIME. THE AMENDMENT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE CLAY COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND THE LAKE ASBURY MASTER PLAN. AS MENTIONED, THE CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE RECOMMENDED APPROVAL ON-- UNANIMOUSLY, AND

[01:10:06]

THE PLANNING COMMISSION ALSO RECOMMENDED APPROVAL UNANIMOUSLY. AND I AM AVAILABLE IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS. AND THERE ARE MEMBERS OF THE TEAMS HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.

>> MAYBE YOU CAN HELP WITH THIS. IN MY BRIEFING OF THIS, THIS WILL ALSO GIVE US THE ABILITY FOR A ROADWAY, RIGHT? ON THE BACKSIDE OF THE FIRE STATION, IF I REMEMBER

CORRECTLY? >> WE ARE LOOKING.

WE DID GET SOME LAND, AND RICHARD CAN BETTER ANSWER THAT, BUT THERE WAS A REALIGNMENT HAVING TO DO WITH A ROADWAY THAT WAS ALONG THE FIRST COAST EXPRESSWAY SIDE.

>> I GUESS WHAT I AM GETTING AT IS-- MY UNDERSTANDING OF THE BRIEFING WAS THAT THIS WILL DEVELOP THAT ROADWAY.

>> HELLO. THAT IS CORRECT, COMMISSIONER.

NS TWO, ROLLING HILL BOULEVARD, THE EXTENSION FROM THE SOUTH, SANDRIDGE, MOBILITY ROAD AND AND APF.

IT IS PROJECTED FROM SANDRIDGE TO THE NORTH TO BE CONSTRUCTED BY THE DEVELOPER. YOU HAD AN AGREEMENT BEFORE YOU AND ON THE CONSENT AGENDA FOR THE PORTION OF THAT ROAD.

THE DEVELOPER WILL ALSO CONSTRUCT THE ROAD NORTH OF THE FIRE STATION UP TO FUTURE WHAT WE CALL EW ONE.

WHICH WILL CONNECT THEM. SO, YES, NS TWO WILL PROBABLY COME ALONG A LITTLE BIT SOONER BECAUSE OF THE FIRE STATION.

>> I'M GOING TO OPEN PUBLIC HEARING.

WOULD ANYONE LIKE TO SPEAK? ALL RIGHT.

I WILL CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING AND BRING IT BACK TO THE BOARD.

>> MADAM CHAIR, I WILL MAKE A MOTION-- WE ARE ON BOTH OF THEM? I WILL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE ITEM A FOR THE SMALL-SCALE COMP

PLAN AMENDMENT TO. >> I SECOND THAT MOTION.

>> I HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.

>> AYE. >> ANY OPPOSED? WE GO ONTO THE APPLICATION TO CHANGE A REZONING OF A SINGLE PARCEL LAND TO PUBLIC OWNERSHIP OF LAND.

DID WE GO OVER THIS? WE DID GO OVER THIS PART? YOU WENT OVER THIS PART? I WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR THIS PART. CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING AND BRING

IT BACK TO THE BOARD. >> I WILL MOVE APPROVAL OF THE REZONING FOR THE LAKE ASBURY VILLAGE CENTER TO PUBLIC

OWNERSHIP. >> I SECOND THAT.

>> MOTION AND A SECOND. ALL OF THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.

ANY OPPOSED? THAT PASSES UNANIMOUSLY.

[16. Final Public Hearing to consider adoption of PUD 25-0009. (District 5, Burke) (B. Carson) PUD 25-0009 This application is a Rezoning to change 2.46 acres from Commercial Recreation District (BB-5) to Planned Commercial Development District (PCD). The applicant will provide further details regarding the status of the revised application materials]

>> A FIRE STATION AND A DEVELOPER PAVED ROAD.

>> DEFINITELY APPROVED. WE ARE MOVING ON TO 16.

FINAL PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER ADOPTION 25-0009.

THIS APPLICATION IS A REZONING TO CHANGE 2.46 ACRES FROM COMMERCIAL RECREATION DISTRICT TO PLANT COMMERCIAL DEVELOP AND DISTRICT. THIS APPLICANT WILL PROVIDE FURTHER DETAILS REGARDING THE STATUS OF THE REVISED APPLICATION MATERIALS. HAS ANY COMMISSION OR HAD ANY COMMUNICATIONS ON THIS MATTER THAT NEEDS TO BE DISCLOSED? -- HAS ANY COMMISSIONER HAD ANY COMMUNICATIONS ON THIS MATTER

THAT NEEDS TO BE DISCLOSED? >> I THINK I...

>> NO. DID YOU WANT TO SAY WHAT IT WAS?

>> IT WAS WITH THE DEVELOPER. >> WE ARE ON 16.

>> SORRY. >> ALL RIGHT.

BETH? >> BETH CARSON, DIRECTOR OF PLANNING AND ZONING. THE APPLICANT FOR THIS ITEM IS HERE, MR. SINGH, IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS TONIGHT.

THE LOCATIONS OF THE PROPERTY IS 3075 HIGHWAY 17.

U.S. 17 AND COUNTY ROAD 209, WERE ALL THE CONSTRUCTION IS GOING ON RIGHT NOW. THE PLANNING DISTRICT IS THE SPRINGS AND THIS IS COMMISSIONER BURKE'S DISTRICT.

THE APPLICATION WOULD CHANGE THE ZONING DESIGNATION OF 2.45 ACRES FROM A COMMERCIAL RECREATION DESIGNATION TO PLANT COMMERCIAL.

[01:15:02]

THE MAP ON THE LEFT IS THE NOTIFICATION MAP.

AND THE PICTURE ON THE RIGHT IS ONE OF THE SIGNS.

THE SIGNS HAVE BEEN OUT THERE A GOOD BIT OF TIME BECAUSE WE DID THIS ITEM A FEW TIMES. ON THE LEFT IS THE LAND USE APP, AND THE RED IS THE COMMERCIAL LAND USE DESIGNATION THAT RUNS ALONG BOTH SIDES OF U.S. 17. THE PURPLE AREA IN THE MIDDLE IS U.S. 17. THE MAP ON THE RIGHT IS THE EXISTING ZONING. YOU WILL SEE THIS TRIANGULAR PIECE RIGHT THERE. HE STEP HIGHWAY 17, WEST OF COUNTY ROAD 209. THAT IS THE PROPERTY.

ZONE BB FIVE. THE ADJACENT SIMILAR AROUND IT IS COMMERCIAL AT DIFFERENT LEVELS OF ZONING DESIGNATION.

THE SUBJECT PARCEL CONTAINS A FORMER CONVENIENCE STORE THAT HAS BEEN REDEVELOPED AS A RESTAURANT.

IN 2023 THE PROPERTY WAS REZONED TO ALLOW THE RESTAURANT TO SELL ALCOHOLIC AVERAGES. BECAUSE THEY ARE LOOKING TO REDEVELOP THE SITE WITH FURTHER DEVELOPMENT, WE RECOMMENDED AND HAVE WORKED WITH THEM ON A PLANT COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT, WHICH ALLOWS FLEXIBILITY IN THE DESIGN.

IT ALSO REQUIRES A SITE PLAN AND A WRITTEN NARRATIVE TO BE PART OF THE ORDINANCE AND THE DEFINING FACTORS FOR THIS PROJECT. SO THE PCD REQUIREMENT INCLUDED A LIST OF PERMITTED USES. AND THESE ARE THE USES THAT HAVE BEEN SHOWN THAT THE APPLICANT WANTS TO HAVE SMALLER SCALE RETAIL BUSINESSES, SHIPPING BEAUTY SALON, TANNING SALON AND PROFESSIONAL OFFICES. THEY MAY LOOK TO HAVE ANOTHER RESTAURANT, INCLUDING RETAINING THEIR CURRENT RESTAURANT.

CONTRACTOR'S OFFICES AND OPTIONS FORINDOOR GAMING ROOMS, CLIMBING WALLS, ET CETERA. A BANKING FACILITY, A DRIVE-THROUGH COFFEE FACILITY, A LIQUOR STORE, A MEDICAL SPOT, CHIROPRACTOR OR BOTOX OR ACUPUNCTURE.

THOSE ARE THE PERMITTED USES. THE CONDITIONAL USES, THEY ARE LOOKING TO ALLOW SERVICE STATION AND MEDICAL MARIJUANA TREATMENT CENTER AND DISPENSARY. THE CONDITIONAL USES LISTED WOULD-- THE CONDITIONAL USE LISTED WITHIN THE BB FIVE CATEGORY THAT WOULD BE PROHIBITED FROM USE WOULD BE ADULT ENTERTAINMENT AND ORIENTED BUSINESSES, THAT CANNOT OCCUR ON THIS SITE. THEY HAD TO DEFINE THEIR DESIGN GUIDELINES. SO THEY PROVIDED THEIR SETBACKS.

THE MAXIMUM LOT COVERAGE AND MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF THE STRUCTURES WOULD BE PER THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE.

MAXIMUM FLOOR AREA RATIO IS 40% AND THE WRITTEN NARRATIVE DESCRIBES ALL OF THIS. IT PROVIDES THE REQUIREMENTS FOR LANDSCAPE, ADDITIONAL LANDSCAPE BUFFERING, LIGHTING STANDARDS, AND THE BUFFERS ARE SHOWN ON THE SITE PLAN.

THERE HAVE BEEN SIGNIFICANT CHANGES TO THE PCD SINCE THIS PROCESS HAS GONE ALONG. ONE OF THE QUESTIONS THAT WAS BROUGHT UP BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION WAS THERE WAS AN OUTSIDE STORAGE LANGUAGE IN THEIR, AND THAT HAS BEEN REMOVED TO CLARIFY AND SAY THAT THERE CAN BE OUTDOOR REAL-- RETAIL DISPLAY, BUT IT'S LIMITED IN SIZE.

IT CANNOT BE OUT OVERNIGHT. SO IT'S LIMITED TO JUST BEING IN FRONT OF THE DOOR OF THE RETAIL OPERATION.

PHASE ONE WILL INCLUDE LANDSCAPING AND SCREENING ADJACENT TO COUNTY ROAD 209. THE LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENTS HAVE BEEN AMENDED TO MATCH THE COUNTY REQUIREMENTS FOR HEIGHT AND PLANTING. AND THE LIGHTING STANDARDS WERE REVISED TO BE LIMITED TO ZERO FOOT-CANDLES AT THE PROPERTY AND HAVE POLL LIGHTS. ANY PULL LIGHTS WITHIN 50 FEET OF THE PROPERTY HAVE TO HAVE A SHUT OFF AT 10:00 P.M.

THIS IS THE SITE PLAN. YOU CAN SEE THEY ARE SHOWING-- YOU SEE WHERE THE RESTAURANT IS THERE.

ABOUT TWO THIRDS OF THE WAY DOWN.

THERE LOOKING TO ADD TWO OTHER BUILDINGS AND A POSSIBLE DRIVE-THROUGH COFFEE SHOP. THE SPRING CACM VOTED 6-0 TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE ZONING.

THEY SAW A DIFFERENT PLAN. WHICH HAD AN ADDITIONAL BUILDING ON IT AND HAD A BROADER LIST OF USES.

SINCE THAT TIME IT HAS BEEN REFINED DOWN TO THIS LIST.

[01:20:03]

THAT DID NOT GO BACK TO THEM BECAUSE IT WAS LESS INTENSE THAN WHAT THEY HAD ORIGINALLY SEEN. BASED ON THE CRITERIA IN THE STAFF REPORT, THE REVISED NARRATIVE AND SITE PLAN PROVIDED BY THE APPLICANT'S, WE RECOMMEND APPROVAL.

THE PLANNING COMMISSION VOTED 7-02 RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THIS ITEM. AND WE ARE HERE-- THE OWNERS HERE IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS. OR I CAN ANSWER QUESTIONS.

-- 7-2. >> THAT MAY HAVE BEEN AT THE PLANNING COMMISSION. THEY ARE NOT IN FAVOR OF THAT POLE SIGN. [INDISCERNIBLE]

>> I DID NOT INCLUDE THAT. I CAN GO BACK AND DOUBLE CHECK

THAT. >> DO WE HAVE SIGNAGE?

>> THERE IS SIGNAGE IN THE PCD. >> IN THAT AREA DO WE HAVE HOLES

ON THOSE OTHER BUSINESSES? >> THERE ARE GENERAL SIGNAGE STANDARDS. -- PULLS.

>> THERE ARE GENERAL SIGNAGE STANDARDS.

YES. ANYBODY HAVE QUESTIONS YET?

>> DO WE HAVE THE ABILITY TO ELIMINATED CONDITIONAL USES?

>> THE APPLICANT COULD REMOVE THE CONDITIONAL USES FROM THE

LIST OF USES. >> I WAS GIVEN THE APPROVED USES. BUT THAT SECOND PART WAS NOT THERE. THE GAP AND MEDICINAL MARIJUANA.

>> IT WAS A GAS STATION PRIOR TO WHAT IT IS NOW.

>> ANYONE ELSE? >> DOES THE APPLICANT WANT TO SPEAK? IS YOUR REPRESENTATIVE HERE?

OKAY. >> SPECIFICALLY ON THE CONDITIONAL USES, IF YOU CAN ANSWER THAT QUESTION.

>> MY QUESTION IS WOULD YOU BE WILLING TO REMOVE THOSE AS CONDITIONAL USES FOR THE PROPERTY?

>> I WOULD PREFER NOT TO IF THERE IS ANY SPECIFIC CONCERN WE CAN ADDRESS IT. SINCE IT WAS A GAS STATION BEFORE. JUST IN CASE IN THE FUTURE IT BECOMES A GAS STATION AGAIN, AND THE OTHER, A MEDICAL MARIJUANA TREATMENT FACILITY, OR A SALES PLACE, WE ARE PROBABLY MORE AMENDABLE TO THAT. AND ANY CONCERNS AT THAT, WE

WILL BE MINDFUL OF. >> PERSONALLY, I AM JUST ONE COMMISSIONER, I WOULD BE OKAY WITH A GAS STATION.

I'M NOT THRILLED ABOUT IT, BUT OKAY WITH IT.

BUT THE OTHER ONE, I WOULD RATHER NOT SUPPORT THAT IF IT IS

IN THEIR. >> IF IT KEEPS US FROM APPROVING

IT WOULD A-- YOU TAKE IT OUT? >> THE MEDICAL MARIJUANA AND GAS? NOT THE GAS.

WE ARE-- AS I SAID-- I WAS GOING TO SEE IF WE COULD GET A CONTINUANCE ON THIS. WE ARE MOVING AHEAD ON THE SITE AND THE PROJECT THAT WE WANT. BUT AS I SAID, IN THE FUTURE, BECAUSE THERE ARE ALREADY GAS TANKS THERE AND WE NEED TO REMOVE THEM ANYWAYS, WE WILL SEE IF WE CAN WORK AROUND IT.

BUT IS THERE A CONCERN ABOUT IT BEING A GAS STATION IN THE FUTURE WHEN IT WAS ALREADY A GAS STATION?

>> DID YOU HAVE SOMETHING ELSE YOU WANT TO SAY?

>> I DO NOT CONTEST THE GAS STATION.

BUT I DO CONTEST THE MEDICAL MARIJUANA FACILITY.

YOU HAVE A SECONDED ME, WE'VE HAD THIS CONVERSATION AS A BOARD BEFORE AND I WAS IN THE MINORITY.

>> I THINK WE CAN REMOVE THE MEDICAL MARIJUANA PART IF THAT

IS MOST OF THE CONCERN. >> DOES ANYONE ELSE HAVE A

QUESTION FOR HIM? >> I AM IN AGREEMENT ACTUALLY ON THAT, WITH THE LOCATION TO THE RESIDENCES.

I THINK I WOULD NOT SPEAK IN GENERALIZATIONS.

I THINK THERE WAS ONE OTHER TIME THAT I VOTED IN FAVOR.

IT WAS A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT SITUATION FOR ME.

IT WAS A BOULEVARD AT A SHOPPING CENTER.

DIFFERENT FROM THIS. I KNOW IT IS HIGHWAY 17.

THERE IS TOO MUCH RESIDENTIAL THERE AROUND IT.

AND PARKING AND-- IT WAS A GAS STATION BEFORE OUR RULES ABOUT GAS STATIONS CHANGED. SO I AM NOT EVEN SURE IF IT WOULD MEET OUR CURRENT CODE FOR A GAS STATION.

BUT I CANNOT SPEAK ON NOT COMPLETELY NOW.

BUT MY QUESTION WAS ABOUT THE SCIENCE.

[01:25:01]

I KNOW THE PLANNING COMMISSION WANTED THE TALL SIGN TAKEN DOWN.

IT IS AN EYESORE. ESPECIALLY WITHOUT, THE CHANGE IN THAT INTERSECTION BUT THE TRAFFIC PATTERN AND THE LIGHTS, I WAS INTERESTED IN SEEING THAT TAKEN DOWN.

WHAT ARE YOUR FEELINGS ON THAT, C.J.

>> I AM SORRY? >> WHAT ARE YOUR FEELINGS ON

TAKING THE SIGN DOWN. >> WE CAN REFURBISH IT, AMENDED, MAKE IT LOOK BETTER. AND THERE IS ANOTHER MONUMENT SIGN, A 10-FOOT SIGN IN THE PCD ON THE OTHER SIDE.

SINCE THIS ONE IS ALREADY THERE, WE WILL REFURBISH IT, IT'S ALREADY THERE AS GRANDFATHERED, AND WE WOULD HAVE A BETTER MONUMENT SIGN TOWARDS RUSSELL ROAD AS IT STAYS ON THE PCD.

AND WE DEFTLY WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT IT LOOKS MORE PRESENTABLE.

SO WE ARE WILLING TO COMPLETELY REFURBISH IT.

>> SOME CLARIFYING QUESTIONS, LET'S SAY YOU WERE ABLE TO PUT A COPY DRIVE-THROUGH. MY TWO QUESTIONS ARE, WOULD PEOPLE ENTER AT THE 17, IF THEY ARE GOING NORTHBOUND AT 17, WITH A ENTER AT THE 17 ENTRANCE, GO THROUGH THE PARKING LOT, GET THE COFFEE, WITH A SPILL ON TO 209? IS THAT HOW THEY EXIT?

>> ALL THREE ENTRANCES TO THIS PARCEL ARE A TWO WAY ENTRY AND EXIT. THE FLOW OF TRAFFIC IS SUCH WHERE ANYBODY CAN ENTER AND EXIT IN ALL THREE DIRECTIONS.

TO ACCOMMODATE THAT WE HAVE ELIMINATED THE RETENTION POND-- MADE IT AN UNDERGROUND RETENTION POND.

SO THAT CAN BE ACCESSED INBOUND AND OUTBOUND FROM ALL THREE

DIRECTIONS. >> AND YOU MAY KNOW THIS OR NOT, RICHARD MIGHT KNOW, FOR PEOPLE TRAVELING 17 SOUTHBOUND, ARE THEY GOING TO BE ABLE TO COME IN THE 17 ENTRANCE?

>> YES. >> I-- YOU CANNOT TURN LEFT INTO

IT ON 17 NOW. >> NO.

I'M SORRY. SOUTH, PEOPLE COMING FROM GREEN COVE CAN MAKE A RIGHT IN TO THE PARCEL ON 17.

PEOPLE COMING FROM FLEMING ISLAND WOULD HAVE TO GO TO 209

AND GO THROUGH THE BACK. >> BUT THEY CAN'T COME THROUGH

17. >> THEY CANNOT, NO.

>> THAT MAKES SENSE. >> MADAM CHAIR, CHRISTIE PULLED UP THE MINUTES FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, AND THERE WAS A MOTION BY RALPH, SECONDED BY MICHAEL, TO BUILD THE MONUMENT SIGN THAT THE GENTLEMAN SPOKE ABOUT, AND REMOVE THE 35-FOOT SIGN, AND IT PASSED THE PLANNING COMMISSION 7-0.

>> AND TO LIMIT THE HEIGHT TO 3. APOLOGIES, I MISSED ALL THAT.

>> BUT THAT WOULD BE A REQUIREMENT.

THAT WOULD BE TAKING AWAY OUR TALL SIGN AND REPLACING IT WITH A MARQUEE. NOT TO LEAVE IT THERE.

SO WE WILL BE VOTING, BUT THAT IS WHAT PASSED THE PLANNING COMMISSION. SO AFTER PUBLIC HEARING WE WILL

DISCUSS ALL THAT. >> OKAY.

JUST THE SIGN, RIGHT? >> THE MARQUEE.

>> AND THE HEIGHT. >> THE HEIGHT AS IT STANDS WOULD MEET THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE. I THINK IT IS 35 FEET.

SO THAT SHOULD BE FINE? >> IT HAS TO BE REMOVED BECAUSE THE PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVED THAT.

>> HOLD ON. LET HER READ ABOUT THE HEIGHT OF

THE BUILDINGS. >> THE HEIGHT OF THE BUILDINGS

WAS THE 35-FOOT. >> WE WOULD PREFER-- AS PER OUR CALCULATIONS, I CAN SHOW YOU A NICE RENDERING OF IT, IT LOOKS BEAUTIFUL, WITH A NICE FACADE, AND OFFICES ON TOP, AND A NICE STUCCO BRICKWORK AND ALL OF THAT.

BUT IF YOU HAVE A 10-FOOT FIRST-FLOOR WITH A 2-FOOT FOR UTILITIES, ACN DUCTWORK, THAT'S ONLY 12-FOOT.

SO TIMES THREE SHOULD BE 36, 37. MY ARCHITECT AND WHAT WE ARE DESIGNING WOULD SAY 36, 37 FEET, TWO, 2 FEET.

IT LOOKS BETTER WITH THE ESTHETICS AND MAKES IT LOOK PRETTIER THAN JUST A BLOCK RESTRICTED BY THE [BOOS] RESTRICTED BY THE HEIGHT.

>> I MEAN TYPICALLY, IT'S ONLY THE BUILDING CODE, RELATED TO THE TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION THAT IS A LIMITATION ON THE HEIGHT BASED ON MATERIALS PART OF THE CONSTRUCTION.

[01:30:02]

THERE'S REALLY NO LIMIT IN COMMERCIAL, IT'S DEFINED BY THE BUILDING CODE. THERE'S A LIMIT IN RESIDETIAL

BUT NOT ON COMMERCIAL. >> SO WHERE DID THE 35 NUMBER COME FROM? THAT'S NOT IN THE CODE.

>> THE PLANNING COMMISSION. >> 35?

>> BASED ON THREE STORIES. BASED ON THREE STORIES 35 FEET.

PNEUMOCOCCI. OKAY.

>> I DON'T THINK WE HAVE TO TALK ABOUT THAT ONE YET.

>> I HAVE A RENDERING I WAS NOT ABLE TO SHOW IN THERE, I CAN SHOW IT, THE RENDERING OF. WE ARE HOPING TO ACHIEVE, THERE

IS A SITE PLAN. >> HOW TALL?

>> THIS IS 37 AND A HALF ALMOST 38 FEET.

>> OKAY, ANYBODY ELSE HAVE QUESTIONS? WE WILL HAVE A PUBLIC HEARING, OKAY?

I HAVE KATHY FIRST. >> KATHY, I AM VERY CONCERNED.

RIGHT NOW ON 2009, THE MAJORITY OF PEOPLE THAT GO UP AND DOWN

ARE RESIDENTS OF THE ROAD -- >> PULL THE MICROPHONE TO YOUR

MOUTH PLEASE. >> AT THIS POINT, EVEN THE SAINT JOHNS APARTMENTS, THE MAJORITY RIGHT NOW ARE RESIDENTS.

THE OPENING ON 2009 AND THE COFFEE SHOP AND ALL THAT, NOW WE WILL HAVE TRAFFIC. I WOULD LIKE TO SEE MORE OF A BUFFER, MORE SUBSTANTIAL THAN JUST TREES.

BUSHES AND TREES DIE. WILL THEY BE REQUIRED TO REPLACE THEM? IS THAT IN WRITING SOMEWHERE? I WOULD LIKE TO SEE A BRICK WALL, BLOCK WALL, SOMETHING THAT IS MORE SECURE AND WILL HELP THE BUSINESS TOO.

PEOPLE WHO WANT TO RENT THOSE OFFICES I WOULD THINK WOULD BE PLEASANTLY SURPRISED TO SEE SOMETHING NICER THAN JUST TREES AND BUSHES. BEFORE ANY OF YOU CAN SAY YES AT LEAST CONSIDER THAT AND DISCUSS IT AND MAKE SURE WE ARE PROTECTED, NOT JUST THE PEOPLE THAT DON'T WANT TO GO TO THE BUSINESSES AND COFFEE SHOPS BUT US, THE RESIDENTS.

THANK YOU. >> ALL RIGHT.

EDDIE? WIN THANK YOU THANK YOU FOR ALL YOU DO. I DEFINITELY AGREE WITH WHAT KATHY SAID ABOUT THE BARRIER WALL.

IT'S A RESIDENTIAL AREA THAT HAS BEEN THERE FOR MANY YEARS.

BUSINESS, BUT WE ARE OPPOSED TO -- WE DO WANT SOMETHING MORE SUBSTANTIAL. AND AGAIN, WE ARE NOT OPPOSED TO THIS BUSINESS. HE SEEMS TO BE VERY AGREEABLE, HE WANTS TO WORK WITH THE PEOPLE.

AND THAT IS BASICALLY ALL I HAVE TO SAY, IF HE COULD MODIFY HIS PLANS TO GIVE SOMETHING A BIT MORE SUBSTANTIAL ON THAT WALL ON 17TH, POSSIBLY VINYL PANEL, SOMETHING LIKE THAT, SOMETHING THAT WILL BE ESTHETICALLY GOOD FOR US.

AND FUNCTIONAL AS WELL. THAT'S WHAT WE WOULD LIKE.

>> ANYBODY ELSE? GO AHEAD, SIR.

>> 17 RIVER BIRCH LANE. I WAS AT THE PLANNING COMMISSIONERS MEETING, THERE WAS A LOT OF DISCUSSION THAT WENT ON HERE, AND TO SEE THE DETAILS THAT COME UP NOW THAT YOU GUYS WILL VOTE ON, ARE VERY VAGUE. WHEN THEY COME BACK THERE'S A LOT OF DETAIL ABOUT THE TREES, JUST COMES BACK AS A SCREEN.

WHICH CAN BE INTERPRETED HOWEVER YOU WANT, THAT IS A WAY TO GET AROUND STUFF. THE WAY I LOOK AT STUFF IS, THEY ARE VENDORS, AND WE NEED TO TELL THEM WHAT WE WANT, WRITER TO.

BECAUSE THEY WILL COME BACK AND MOVE EVERYTHING.

THEY TALKED ABOUT MARIJUANA SHOPS, THEY SAID THEY WOULD GO BACK AND TALK ABOUT IT BUT IT SEEMS THEY JUST VOTED FOR IT ANYWAYS. THE PARKING, THERE WAS

[01:35:02]

DISCUSSION ABOUT PARKING AND HOW MUCH OF IT THEY NEEDED, AND IT LOOKS LIKE THAT HAS JUST DISAPPEARED.

THE SIGN, YES THAT WAS A DISCUSSION, THEY SAID THEY WOULD WORK IT OUT AND IT LOOKS LIKE THEY HAVE.

DON'T THINK ANYTHING WILL REALLY CHANGE.

THEY TALKED ABOUT THE BUILDING HEIGHT, AND NOW ALL OF A SUDDEN, YOU WILL PICK ONE NUMBER, AND THE PLANNING COMMISSION, FIX ANOTHER. WHICH ONE IS IT A? WHO WILL DO WHAT? YOU GUYS HAVE ALL THESE QUESTIONS THAT ARE STILL SITTING HERE AND YOU'RE GOING TO VOTE? AND IT'S OVER, AND THEY WILL JUST DO WHAT THEY WANT BASED ON THE FACT THAT THE THING IS WRITTEN SO VAGUE.

I WAS IN AN INDUSTRY WHERE I WITH VENDORS ALL THE TIME, I DID NOT TRUST THEM TO GO A MILLISECOND.

THAT'S WHAT THEY DO, THEY SAY WHAT THEY WANT, THEY TELL YOU WHAT YOU WANT TO HEAR AND THEN BOOM, THEY MOVE ON BECAUSE YOU GUYS BUY IT. SO THAT'S ALL I HAVE TO SAY NOW.

I HAVE NO INTEREST IN THAT AREA. BUT STILL, I WENT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION, AND WHAT HE IS TALKING ABOUT VERSUS WHAT THEY DISCUSSED UP HERE, I DON'T SEE ANY SIMILARITIES.

>> THANK YOU, SIR,, CAN YOU LEAVE A CARD PLEASE? YEAH, IF YOU CAN JUST THROW IT OUT, THANK YOU.

ANYBODY ELSE? DO YOU HAVE A CARD ALREADY?

>> GOOD EVENING, THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR LISTENING TO US.

I AM INCLINED TO, BEFORE BUSINESS IS OPENING, I'M SURE THIS GENTLEMAN WILL HAVE A GOOD OPERATION, BUT I THINK WHEN WE ARE LISTENING, WE ARE ALSO CONCERNED ABOUT THE VAGUENESS.

NOTHING DEFINITIVE CAME TO A POINT OF 35 FEET, WHICH I LISTENED TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MEMBERS, WAS VERY INTERESTED IN WHAT THEY SAID. AND I WOULD REALLY LIKE TO SEE SOMETHING MORE DEFINITIVE WRITTEN DOWN, AND I HAD TO COME UP ONE OF THE HAD THE IDEA ABOUT THE VEGETATION, AND I BELIEVE THAT IF IT IS WATER, AND IF IT'S TAKEN CARE OF, IT'S FINE.

OTHERWISE IF IT'S LEAVES AND BRUSHING, THE LIGHTNING HITS IT, FALLS DOWN, WHO'S GOING TO MAINTAIN HER? MY SUGGESTION, I REALIZE IT'S AN ADDITIONAL COST, BUT I THINK IT WOULD BE A CAUSE THAT WOULD HAVE TO HAVE A 6-FOOT HIGH BRICK WALL GOING DOWN TO 20. WHEN YOU SEE THE RESIDENTIAL AREAS, PROBABLY ABOUT A MILE AND A HALF CAN YOU SEE THAT THEY HAVE A BRICK WALL. NOT ONLY ENHANCES WHAT WE SEE FROM THE ROAD, BUT GIVES PRIVACY.

THAT WOULD ALSO HELP THAT BUSINESS.

IT WOULD GIVE PRIVACY, AND WE COULD SEE SOMETHING ATTRACTIVE.

I AM NOT FOR THE VINYL OR THE POOLING OR WHATEVER IT IS EITHER, I'M 82. I PLAN TO LIVE TO BE 102.

I WANT MY PROPERTY -- I DID NOT GIVE YOU MY NAME AND ADDRESS, MY NAME IS JILL BEASLEY, 3134 BEASLEY ROAD.

WE BUILT OUR HOUSE IN 1975, AND THEY TELL YOU ABOUT BUILDING UP NEW WINDOWS BECAUSE IT WILL KEEP -- HELP WITH THE RESALE VALUE, I'M NOT INTERESTED I WANT THE COMMUNITY TO BE ENHANCED.

AND I THINK THIS BUSINESS CAN ENHANCE IT, AND WITH A BARRIER THAT IS PERMANENT AND ATTRACTIVE AND MAKES OUR NEIGHBORHOOD SAFE.

THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU.

ANYBODY ELSE? MY ADDRESS IS ON FILE.

I'M HERE TO TALK ABOUT THE FLOCK CAMERAS --

>> THIS IS JUST THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR THIS ITEM, YOU CAN

WAIT FOR PUBLIC COMMENTS. >> AT THE END OF THE MEETING?

>> YES. MAKE SURE TO GET A CARD IN THE BACK -- OKAY GREAT KAK. ANYBODY ELSE FOR THIS ITEM? OKAY. I WILL CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING AND BRING IT BACK TO THE BOARD. I NEED TO ASK QUESTIONS.

I DON'T REMEMBER US NOT SEEING THAT IT WAS TALKED ABOUT -- I MEAN I KNOW IN THE BRIEF IT WAS SPOKEN ABOUT, ABOUT THE FENCE,

[01:40:01]

ABOUT THE SIGN, WHY IS IT NOT IN OUR MATERIAL HERE?

>> BECAUSE I MISSED IT AND I DID NOT PUT IT IN POWERPOINT.

I DID NOT INCLUDE THAT IN THE VOTE SO I APOLOGIZE FOR NOT

INCLUDING THAT. >> THE WRITTEN STATEMENT?

>> IT IS AN UPDATED WRITTEN STATEMENT THAT INCLUDES THE HEIGHT. IF YOU LOOK AT THE LANDSCAPING SECTION IT DETAILS THE FENCE THAT THEY PROPOSED.

>> OKAY TELL ME ABOUT THE FENCE? >> IT IS A 6-FOOT FENCE, I DO NOT HAVE THE LATEST IN FRONT OF ME, YOU SHOULD HAVE THE LATEST.

IT'S ALSO ON THE SITE PLAN. BUFFER B AND BUFFER C I BELIEVE.

THE ORDINANCE, AND THEN IT SHOULD BE IN THE MATERIAL THERE AS WELL. [INAUDIBLE]

>> WE HAVE A NEW PROGRAM FOR AGENDAS --

>> SO WHICH PART? >> IT SHOULD BE PART OF THE WRITTEN NARRATIVE, LOOK SOMETHING LIKE THIS, BUT IT

SHOULD ALSO BE IN THE ORDINANCE. >> OKAY.

>> I JUST REMEMBER YOU SAYING SOMETHING ABOUT A FENCE WITH SOMETHING IN IT? I DO NOT KNOW WHERE THAT WOULD

BE. >> THAT IS IN THE LANDSCAPING

DESCRIPTION. >> THAT IS THE BUFFER.

AT THE BOTTOM? BUFFER C?

>> WHAT IS THAT MADE OF? WHAT IS THE FENCE MADE OF? IT JUST HAS FENCING, THERE'S NO DETAILS IF IT'S WOOD OR VINYL.

>> VINYL FENCE. [INAUDIBLE]

>> VINYL? >> IT SAYS VINYL FENCE.

>> OKAY, AS FAR AS THE PARKING, WASN'T THERE ANOTHER BUILDING IN THERE BEFORE AND NOW THERE ISN'T?

>> ORIGINALLY THEY HAD MORE, THE, REVIEWED THE PLAN WITH MORE BUILDINGS ON IT. THE PARKING WOULD BE EVALUATED EVERY TIME BEFORE THE SITE COMES TO DRC, WE WOULD REVIEW IT TO MAKE SURE THERE'S ADEQUATE PARKING FOR THE ENTIRE SITE.

>> SO THAT DOESN'T HAVE TO ALL BE EVALUATED NOW?

>> CORRECT. THEY HAVE BASED THEIR PARKING ON

GENERAL GUIDELINES. >> OKAY, IS IT GOING TO BE CLEAR CUT? IS ALL THAT WOOD GOING TO BE BEHIND YOUR RESTAURANT GOING TO BE GONE? CAN I ASK YOU THAT? ARE YOU CLEAR WITH EVERYTHING -- ARE YOU CLEARING EVERYTHING BEHIND THE RESTAURANT? CAN YOU MAKE YES THE SITE PLAN AS IT STANDS, ALL THE PARKING, THE FENCE IS A VINYL FENCE AND WE HAD THE TREE BUFFERS, WE WENT BACK AND FORTH THREE TIMES WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION.

A LOT OF QUESTIONS, A LOT OF GOOD INPUT AND THAT'S WHAT WE CAME UP WITH. THE WHOLE SITE WILL BE FLAT.

AND WE WILL HAVE THE BARRIER AS PER CODE AND ENHANCE THE CONCRETE POLES WITH 6-FOOT VINYL.

THE WHOLE PARCEL WOULD BE GRADED, WITH SHRUBBERY.

>> OKAY SO THIS IS THE BOTTOM? OKAY SO BEHIND THE RESTAURANT PRETTY MUCH ALL THE WAY TO YOUR BUILDING, WE DON'T REALLY CLEAR CUT THAT DO WE? IT WILL BE THE SAME AS IT IS

NOW, WHY WOULD YOU FLATTEN IT? >> PARKING.

>> PARKING IN THE BACK? >> AND ALSO SLOW UP TRAFFIC -- THE DESIGN, IT'S INSIDE OF THE PARCEL.

>> I DID NOT SEE THAT. OKAY.

SO WHAT IS YOUR FEELING ON THE WALL OR THE FENCE?

[01:45:07]

>> WE ALREADY AMENDED WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSIONER WHAT IS REQUIRED. I THINK IF YOU LOOK AT THE VINYL FENCE, I MEAN YOU CAN'T SEE ON EACH SIDE.

WE CURRENTLY HAVE ONE THAT IS 6-FOOT HIGH.

I THINK A BRICK WALL IS AN OVERKILL.

THERE'S NO PARCEL BEHIND US. THE WHOLE NEIGHBORHOOD OF PEOPLE THAT I THINK ARE FURTHER DOWN THE STREET.

I THINK THE 6-FOOT FENCE AND THE VINYL, IS A NICE ESTHETIC.

IT WOULD ACCOMPLISH WHAT THEY WANT.

WE ALREADY AGREED TO DO A SIDEWALK ON THE FRONT AMONGST

OTHER STUFF. >> IT'S OVERKILL FOR YOU, BUT THESE PEOPLE THAT HAVE LIVED HERE ALL THEIR LIFE, IT'S NOT

OVERKILL FOR THEM. >> I MEAN THEY ALSO WANTED A HUNDRED FOOT -- IT CAME UP THREE TIMES THEY WANTED 100-FOOT BARRIER SETBACK, 50-FOOT SETBACK.

IT STARTED FROM A LOT MORE. >> IT NEVER HURTS TO ASK RIGHT?

>> OF COURSE. JUST A HAPPY MEDIUM WHERE I THINK CONCERNS ARE MET, THAT THERE IS NO VISIBILITY.

THERE IS A BRICK WALL OR VINYL FENCE THAT IS ANCHORED IN CONCRETE. WE CURRENTLY CANNOT SEE ON THE

OTHER SIDE AT ALL. >> THERE'S WOODS THERE NOW.

>> WE HAVE ONE -- I DON'T KNOW IF YOU VISITED THE SITE.

>> I HAVE. >> IT IS SEPARATED, IN THE FRONT RIGHT NEXT TO THE RESTAURANT, I HIDE THE SHRUBBERY BEHIND IT.

THE VINYL FENCE, THE SHRUBBERY BEHIND IT FROM OUR CURRENT PARKING LOT. AND I THINK THAT IT WILL ACHIEVE

THAT. >> IS THERE A CERTAIN BUFFER HERE YOU SAY YOU WOULD LIKE TO DO, YOUR THINK BUFFER ISN'T WHAT

YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT? >> KELLY, THE LANDSCAPE ENGINEER, SHE COULD NOT BE HERE RIGHT NOW.

WE WENT THREE TIMES TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION, THEY BROUGHT A LOT OF [UNCLEAR]. WE WORKED WITH THEM.

I'M NOT SURE THAT THE HEIGHT, I SEE WHAT IT IS, THIS DESIGN AS PER THE CODE AND SOME, WHICH I AM OKAY WITH.

I THINK IT IS A GOOD PLAN, TO ACHIEVE THE 6-FOOT BARRIER.

AND THE SHRUBBERY COULD ADD SOME MORE.

I THINK ADDITIONAL LANDSCAPING WHICH WE HAVE AGREED TO WAS AGREEABLE. I THINK IT ACHIEVES THE PURPOSE.

>> ALL RIGHT. ANYTHING ELSE RIGHT NOW?

>> I'M SORRY? >> ANY QUESTIONS?

>> I HAVE A QUESTION. THE RENOVATION IS TO TAKE DOWN THE 25-FOOT SIGN, THE MONUMENT SIGN.

ARE YOU IN AGREEMENT WITH THAT I GUESS MY QUESTION? THAT'S WHAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDS.

>> I UNDERSTAND THEY DID RECOMMEND THAT.

WE PREFER NOT TO, BUT IF IT HAS TO IT HAS TO.

WE WOULD AGREE TO REFURBISH IT PROPERLY, ESTHETICALLY MAKE IT BETTER, BECAUSE THE THING IS, FIRST OF ALL, IT IS OLD AND WE COULD PROBABLY USE IT NICELY. NOW SINCE THAT RUSSELL ROAD CANNOT COME IN DIRECTLY, THERE IS ALREADY AN ISSUE GETTING INTO IT, THAT SIGN WOULD HELP US, WHAT IS NEEDED FROM HAVING IT RECOGNIZED FROM FURTHER AWAY. WE ARE LOOKING AT AND TALKING -- DON'T QUOTE ME BUT WE DISCUSSED WITH A UPS STORE, OTHER RETAIL, THAT PEOPLE WOULD BE ABLE TO RECOGNIZE IT A LITTLE FURTHER AWAY. AND WE ARE BUILDING ALL OF THIS AND SPENDING ALL OF THAT TO DO THE BEST THAT WE CAN ESTHETICALLY. TRUST ME WE WILL REFURBISH IT TO

[01:50:03]

DO THE BEST OF OUR ABILITY. BUT BECAUSE OF THIS WEIRD TRAFFIC FLOW AND RECOGNIZING THE BUSINESSES COMING, WE WANT PEOPLE TO COME BY, THAT WHOLE SIGN WILL BE VERY MUCH REQUIRED

FOR RECOGNITION PURPOSES. >> ANYBODY ELSE?

>> I HAVE A QUICK CLARIFYING QUESTION.

WHEN IT SAYS OPAQUE FENCING, FROM THE DEVELOPMENT PERSPECTIVE

WHAT DOES THAT MEAN? >> IT HAS TO BE SOLID FENCING.

NO VISIBILITY. >> PLASTIC 6-FOOT --

>> VINYL. IN THIS CASE IT SAYS VINYL BUT YOU COULD DO A WOODEN FENCE. THERE COULD BE NO GAP BETWEEN THE BOARDS. THE PROBLEM WITH THE WHITE, IF

IT'S TAKEN CARE OF -- >> WE WERE DEBATING TO PUT THE WOOD AS COMPARED TO THE WHITE VINYL, VINYL IS EASY TO PRESSURE WASH AS OPPOSED TO WOULD. IF WE PREFER THE WOOD WE CAN DO WOOD. BUT, I THINK WHITE VINYL LOOKS

MORE -- >> THE VINYL LOOKS GOOD, AS LONG AS YOU'RE GOING TO PRESSURE WASH IT AND TAKE CARE OF IT.

YOU KNOW -- >> A LEASE WITH MULTIPLE BUSINESSES IN THE STABLE, THEY WOULD BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THEIR PORTION OF THE MAINTENANCE. SO WE WILL HAVE A PROPERTY MANAGER, ALL THE TENANTS INCLUDING ALL RETAILERS WILL CONTINUE TO ACT IN A PROFESSIONAL MANNER THERE, THEY ALL HAVE TO CHIP IN. IT'S IN EVERYBODY'S INTEREST TO HAVE THAT VINYL FENCE LOOK PRETTY, THERE FOR CUSTOMERS TO

COME TO THEM. >> IN THE SAME RESPECT THEY'RE ALSO GOING TO BE TRIPPING ON ANY OTHER COSTS HERE.

WE WANT TO MAKE IT LOOK NICE, THE RESIDENTS WANT IT TO LOOK NICE. YOU KNOW, SO -- OKAY.

ANYBODY ELSE? ALL RIGHT HERE IS WHAT I WOULD PREFER, I WOULD DEFINITELY WANT THE SIGN DOWN, WE HAVE LITTLE TINY MARQUIS, THAT IS WHAT WE ARE ALLOWED TO.

EVERYBODY FOUND OUT WHERE WE ARE.

YOU WILL HAVE TO DO BETTER THAN THAT PROBABLY.

>> TRAFFIC ON HIGHWAY 17, THIS IS THE ONLY DEVELOPMENT.

AND WE'RE TRYING TO GET BUSINESSES [UNCLEAR] IF YOU ARE IN A COMMUNITY WITH A LOT OF TRAFFIC, STOPPING.

IN THIS CASE IT'S ON THE HIGHWAY AND THERE'S NOT AN IMMEDIATE COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT AROUND WHERE PEOPLE COULD MAKE A SPECIFIC TRIP. THAT'S THE CHALLENGE OF BEING ON HIGHWAY 17. AS OPPOSED TO A SIMILAR DEVELOPMENT IN A DENSELY POPULATED AREA.

>> IS THERE A RULE ON THE MARQUIS SIGNS?

MONUMENT SIGNS? >> WE HAVE POLICIES THAT

ESTABLISHES THE MAXIMUM SIZE. >> WHAT IS THE MAXIMUM SIZE?

>> I DON'T KNOW THAT OFFHAND. THERE ARE LIMITATIONS.

>> THE WRITTEN STATEMENT SAYS THE MONUMENT SIGN WOULD BE LIMITED TO A MAXIMUM SQUARE FOOTAGE OF 200 SQUARE FEET, 250 SQUARE FEET, THAT IS FOR THE SECOND SIGN.

IT'S ON THE TOP. AS CURRENTLY WRITTEN, THE SIGN IS TO REMAIN. AND IF IT IS TO BE REPLACED IT MUST BE REPLACED WITH A MONUMENT SIGN FOR THE CODE SECTION 7978.

>> ARE YOU TALKING A POLE SIGN? >> YES.

>> WHERE DOES IT SAY THAT? NOT BECAUSE OF WHAT THEY APPROVED, YOU'RE TALKING IN OUR CODE NOW?

>> IN A WRITTEN STATEMENT [UNCLEAR]

>> THAT'S WHAT THEY WANT TO DO? OKAY.

SO THEY ARE SAYING THAT IT WOULD BE 10-FOOT TALL?

[01:55:04]

>> RIGHT. >> WE DON'T KNOW WHAT OUR CODE

IS? >> IT'S IN THE WRITTEN STATEMENT AS FAR AS THE CODE, NO I DON'T KNOW WHAT OFFHAND.

>> IF I MAY, IN THE FUTURE, IF WE DO CHANGE THE SIGN, ONCE THE DEVELOPMENT IS DONE AND UP AND RUNNING FOR A NUMBER OF YEARS, WE RECOGNIZE WHAT THE ESTABLISHMENT BUSINESS IS AND AFTER A NUMBER OF YEARS IF WE TAKE THE SIGN DOWN AND REPLACE IT WITH A MARQUEE SIGN THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL.

>> I AM NOT FOR THAT AT ALL. AGAIN MY BUSINESS IS IN A CONDO BUILDING WITH TONS OF OTHER BUSINESSES IS MY JOB TO GET OUT AND ADVERTISE AND TELL PEOPLE WHERE I AM.

YOUR BUILDING YOUR AREA WILL DEFINITELY BE VISUAL.

EVERYBODY IN THE AREA WILL KNOW WHERE THAT IS.

I DON'T THINK YOU WILL HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT THAT.

I'M SORRY, ADDING ANOTHER MARQUEE MONUMENT SIGN, THAT IS WHAT I WANT. AS FAR AS THE HEIGHT, I DON'T KNOW WHAT TO DO ABOUT THE HEIGHT.

35 WAS WHAT IT WAS THERE, THAT'S WHAT THE COMMISSION SAID.

YOU SAID 36 PROBABLY COULD DO. >> 38 AS PER OUR RENDERING, WITH STUCCO AND CANOPY COMING OUT. WE WOULD PREFER THAT.

IF YOU APPROVE 35 YOU WILL HAVE TO -- LIKE A PLAIN VANILLA BOX.

IF YOU DO 35, THAT'S FINE. BUT 37 AND THREE QUARTERS IF WE WANT TO MAKE IT A NICE. I WISH YOU COULD SEE THIS RENDERING OF. THAT'S FINE.

[UNCLEAR] >> OKAY.

I AM AGAINST THE MEDICAL MARIJUANA, I'M ACTUALLY AGAINST THE GAS STATION. I DON'T THINK A GAS STATION, WE DON'T WANT TO GO BACK THERE. NO MEDICAL MARIJUANA.

AND THE BUFFER THREE, BUFFER C IS WHAT I WOULD RECOMMEND.

WHAT ELSE? I WILL LET SOMEBODY ELSE FIGURE OUT THE HEIGHT BECAUSE I HAVE NO IDEA.

I DON'T KNOW WHY THE PLANNING COMMISSION SAID 35.

>> I COULDN'T IMAGINE WHY, THIS IS BECOMING A SHOPPING CENTER.

PART OF 17, IT WASN'T INTENDED TO BE A SHOPPING CENTER.

ALL THE OTHER COMMERCIAL I AM A NO ON THIS.

I WILL GO AHEAD AND SAY THAT. BECAUSE IT'S NOT -- IT'S NOT JUST A FRONT OF 17. ALL THE OTHER COMMERCIAL ON BOTH SIDES, WHATEVER GOES IN THERE, ALL OF THIS IS ONLY THE PART THAT FLAGS 17. WE HAD THE WHOLE CONVERSATION ACROSS THE ROAD. IT WAS A BIG LIFT FOR US TO GET THE CPA OFFICE IN THERE. IT WAS A BIG LIFT TO GET HER TO -- 3080 FEET? YOU'RE HALFWAY TO FOUR! STORY IS! -- 38 FEET -- THREE AND A HALF STORIES HIGH ALMOST. THAT'S WHY THEY LIMITED, TRYING TO LIMIT IT TO WHAT THE CODE SAYS, 35 FEET, TO JUST KEEP IT THE TWO STORIES OR WHATEVER IT WAS.

WITH THAT AT THE TOP. I JUST CANNOT IMAGINE FOLKS THAT LIVED BEHIND THIS, THIS IS A LOT MORE.

EVEN IF THE LIGHTS TURN OFF AT 10:00 P.M., AND THERE IS A 6-FOOT FENCE BUFFER, IF YOU HAVE A TWO STORY HOUSE, THE LIGHT COMING INTO BEDROOM WINDOWS EVEN IF YOU HAVE BLINDS.

ALL OF THAT. WHAT IF IT WERE TO BE DEVELOPED? EVERYTHING BEHIND IT, EVERYTHING TO THAT SIDE OF THE MAP, IS

>> WHAT IS ALLOWED FOR THE COMMERCIAL RECREATION DISTRICT

THAT IS ALREADY THERE? >> THE PURPOSE TO GO TO THAT WAS

[02:00:04]

ALCOHOL, IT COULD HAVE DIFFERENT RECREATION TYPE USES.

>> HOW MANY BUILDINGS CAN GO ON THERE WITHOUT THEM YOU KNOW --

>> THERE'S REALLY NO LIMIT. THERE IS AN AREA RATIO THAT WE'RE LIMITED TO THE AMOUNT OF DEVELOPMENT, AGAIN I DON'T HAVE

IT WITH ME. >> THE HEIGHT AS IT IS CURRENTLY

ZONED? >> FACTORS IN THE HEIGHT, EACH FLOOR, THE SQUARE FOOTAGE AS WELL, DEPENDING ON HOW MANY HAVE TOGETHER IT LIMITS THE AMOUNT YOU COULD POTENTIALLY HAVE ON

THE WHOLE SITE. >> WHEN I WAS IN FAVOR OF THIS WHEN IT WAS JUST THE ONE BUILDING AND THEY WERE GOING TO BUILD THE SECOND BUILDING BESIDE IT, AND I EVEN SUPPORTED THE ALCOHOL BECAUSE I UNDERSTAND FOR A RESTAURANT, A LOT OF PEOPLE EXPECT -- NOT MOST, A LOT OF PEOPLE EXPECTED A.

I WAS FINE TO SUPPORT THAT BUT I DID NOT KNOW IT WAS THE WHOLE

BLOCK SO. >> DID YOU SEE THE PLAN, A LOT MORE THAN THIS ON IT? IT WAS QUITE A BIT MORE.

>> IF WE CAN LIMIT IT TO 35, RIGHT OF THE AREA RATIO TO 40%.

THE SIZE OF A DEVELOPMENT YOU CAN DO ON A PARCEL LIKE THIS.

IF 35 FEET, IF WE CAN DO THAT, MOVE THE MEDICAL MARIJUANA PART OF THAT. JUST TO POINT OUT, THERE IS BUSINESSES COMING. THEIR SALES TAX COMING.

EMPLOYMENT COMING. >> HOW MANY BUSINESSES ARE YOU

PLANNING TO HAVE IN THERE? >> THE SQUARE FOOTAGE IS FIXED, 8000 SQUARE FEET OF RETAIL, 100 SQUARE FEET COFFEE SHOP.

IT'S NOT A RESIDENTIAL. WE LIVE HERE.

THIS IS BENEFITS OF EMPLOYMENT, MOBILITY, SALES TAX, PROPERTY TAX THAT THE COUNTY IS LOOKING FOR.

I THINK WITH ALL THE RESID RESIDENTIAL, WE NEED -- THAT'S WHY I THINK THERE IS A NEED FOR COMMERCIAL.

>> A LOT OF RESIDENTIAL IS HERE, TRUST ME.

WE DID NOT DO [LAUGHS] AND THE 8000?

>> IS 5000 SQUARE FEET ON A BUILDING D AND 3000 SOMETHING ON BUILDING C. AND A COFFEE SHOP, SORRY.

>> IF WE DON'T APPROVE IT WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO THEN?

>> SELL IT TO A GAS STATION. >> I THINK IT WOULD BE A GREAT AREA FOR A GAS STATION ON THAT CORNER.

>> I KNOW BUT WE ARE TALKING EIGHT OR NINE BUSINESSES AND ALL THIS BENEFIT THAT I TOLD YOU. DEPENDS ON WHAT WE WANT IN THE

QUALITY OF LIFE IN CLAY COUNTY. >> DID YOU HEAR WHAT COMMISSIONER CONNERS SAID TO YOU? THAT'S NOT WHAT THIS AREA WAS MEANT FOR.

>> I'M NOT ANTICOMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT, YOU WILL HEAR ME SAY THAT LATER AND WE UNDE UNDERSTAND, WE UNDERSTAND THE PUBLIC WANTS PROPERTY TAX REFORM.

AND RELIEF. AND COMMERCIAL HELP SIDE.

I HEAR YOU ON THAT. IT DOESN'T MEAN THAT THIS COMMISSIONER IS GOING TO VOTE TO JUST PUT COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT WHEREVER, WHERE IT WAS NOT INTENDED.

AND AGAIN, IT -- IT TAKES UP THE WHOLE SECTION.

WE JUST HAD A CONVERSATION LITERALLY ACROSS THE ROAD.

THAT'S WHERE I STAND. I'M NOT ANTICOMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT, I UNDERSTAND IT BRINGS JOBS.

HERE'S THE OTHER THING, THESE ARE SERVICES, I GET THAT.

THAT PEOPLE WILL LOOK FOR. THAT HOWEVER IS THEY ARE NOT A HIGH WAGE JOBS. IT'S NOT THE SAME AS MEDICAL COMMERCIAL OR THOSE KINDS OF THINGS.

I TALKED WITH -- AND MY DISTRICT, I HAVE A BUSINESS OWNER WHO WENT OUT OF BUSINESS. HE WAS A USED CAR SALESMAN.

HE CLOSED HIS BUSINESS AND HE SAID I CANNOT SELL CARS TO THE PEOPLE THAT WORK AT THE BURGER KING THAT IS ACROSS THE ROAD

[02:05:02]

FROM ME OR THE DOLLAR TREE THAT IS ON THE OPPOSITE CORNER FROM ME. THIS WAS IN MIDDLEBURG ON BRANDON BOULEVARD. I'M NOT UNFAMILIAR WITH THE SITUATION. I UNDERSTAND.

IF YOU WANT A CUP OF COFFEE, THE RACE TRACK IS ACROSS THE ROAD.

AND THE SPEEDWAY IS RIGHT DOWN THE ROAD.

I DON'T KNOW. I LIVE IN AN AREA, WE DON'T HAVE A LOT OF SERVICES BY CHOICE, SO I JUST FEEL -- HERE'S THE OTHER THING, SOME OF THESE NEWER DEVELOPMENTS, I KNOW THERE'S COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT DOWN IN LAURELTON, COMMERIAL DEVELOPMENT IN -- ARE BEING TALKED ABOUT ON 16 AND GREEN COVE. BUT THE DIFFERENCE FOR ME IS THAT IF I MOVE INTO A SUBDIVISION THAT HAS A COMMERCIAL SECTION AND THEN RESIDENTIAL, AS ONE OF THE SPEAKERS POINTED OUT, OFTEN A BRICK WALL THAT SEPARATES, BUT SECONDLY, I KNOW WHAT WE ARE MOVING INTO.

FOR THESE PEOPLE WHO HAVE LIVED THERE FOR 50 YEARS, THAT'S NOT WHAT THEY ARE MOVING INTO. THEY ARE NOT CHOOSING THAT.

THAT'S WHERE I FEEL LIKE -- WOULD CHANGE THE ZONING ON THIS ONE, I WAS COMFORTABLE WITH THAT.

I'M NOT COMFORTABLE WITH THIS. >> I WILL MAKE A MOTION TO DENY.

>> MOTION TO DENY. >> I WILL SECOND THE MOTION.

>> MOTION AND SECOND, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE? OKAY. 3-2.

[17. Final Public Hearing to consider transmittal of COMP 26-0009 (District 5, Burke) (B. Carson) This application is a FLUM amendment to change approximately 1,264 acres from Agriculture (AG) and Commercial (COM) to Planned Community (PC). The property is proposed to be added to the Governors Park DRI and PUD. ]

THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU.

>> OKAY NUMBER 17, FINAL PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER TRANSMITTAL OF COMP 26-0009, AN APPLICATION IS A FLUM AMENDMENT TO CHANGE APPROXIMATELY 1264 ACRES FROM THE AGRICULTURE AND COMMERCIAL TO PLANNED COMMUNITY. THE PROPERTY IS PROPOSED TO BE ADDED TO THE GOVERNOR PARK AND PUD.

>> APOLOGIZE FOR THE DELAY, THIS IS A LARGE SCALE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, LAND USE AMENDMENT. THIS IS BEING PRESENTED TO YOU WITH A QUESTION OF WHETHER YOU CARE TO TRANSMIT THIS ITEM TO THE STATE. THE APPLICANT IS GOVERNOR'S.

PROPERTY HOLDINGS LLC, THE REPRESENTATIVE IS HERE TODAY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. AND THE INTERSECTION OF 16 WEST SPRINGBANK ROAD IS THE LOCATION OF THIS PROPERTY, REFERRED TO AS THE RANCH LAND. THIS IS LOCATED WITHIN THE SPRINGS PLANNING DISTRICT, COMMISSIONER BURKE THIS IS ALSO YOUR DISTRICT. THIS IS SEVEN PARCELS, THREE PARCEL PARCELS. THE REQUEST IS TO CHANGE THE FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION OF 1264 ACRES APPROXIMATELY FROM AGRICULTURAL AND COMMERCIAL TO PLANNED COMMERCIAL, TO BE INCORPORATED IN THE GOVERNOR'S. DRY.

ON THE LEFT IS A NOTIFICATION MAP, THESE ARE THE INDIVIDUALS WE REACHED OUT TO. THE APPLICANT PROVIDED THESE SIGNS, WHAT DO WE DO IN THOSE LARGE ACREAGES IN SIGNS REQUIRED, THESE ARE THE SIGNS WE PUT OUT THERE.

UP ON THE LEFT INDICATES THE LOCATION OF THE PROPERTY, YOU CAN SEE IT'S ON THE EAST SIDE OF SPRINGBANK ROAD, SOUTH OF U.S.

16. THE COASTAL EXPRESSWAY.

AND THE AREA IS LOCATED ON THE RIGHT.

THE MAP ON THE LEFT IS THE EXISTING LAND USE.

THE WHITE INDICATES AGRICULTURE, THERE IS A TINY PORTION WHICH IS COMMERCIAL IN THE UPPER LEFT PORTION OF 16.

THEY ARE PROPOSING TO TAKE IT TO PLANNED COMMERCIAL --, PLANNED COMMUNITY, SAME AS GOVERNOR'S PARK WHICH IS THE AREA IMMEDIATELY SOUTH. THE PLAN IS TO INCORPORATE THIS LAND ULTIMATELY INTO THE GOVERNOR'S PARK DRI.

WITHOUT THEY ARE NOT ENTITLING THIS LAND SEPARATELY, IT WOULD BE A MATTER OF JUST SPREADING THE ENTITLEMENTS OR PART OF

[02:10:04]

GOVERNANCE PARK OVER THIS LAND. THERE IS A LITTLE BIT OF A SHIFT IN THE PROPOSED USES, THE RESIDENTIAL NORTH OF IT AND ADDITIONAL COMMERCIAL THAT IS BEING PROPOSED TO BE LOCATED ON THIS LAND. THERE WILL BE COMPANION APPLICATIONS COMING IN SEPTEMBER, ONE IS A DEVELOPMENT ORDER WHICH IS ASSOCIATED WITH THE GOVERNOR'S PARK TO ADD THIS LAND AND ADD THE ADDITIONAL ENTITLEMENTS.

AND THERE WILL ALSO BE AN APPLICATION, PUD, THE ZONING UNDER THE PLANNED COMMUNITY. COMP 26-0009, STAFF FINDS THE CRITERIA FOR THE AMENDMENT HAS BEEN MET AND RECOMMENDS TRANSMITTAL OF THIS ITEM TO THE STATE.

THE PLANNING COMMISSION VOTED 70 TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL FOR TRANSMITTAL OF THIS ITEM, AND VOTING 3-3 TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THIS ITEM. AND THE AGENTS FOR THE APPLICANT HAVE AN ADDITIONAL PRESENTATION THAT THEY WOULD LIKE TO MAKE.

HAPPY TO ANSWER QUESTIONS IF YOU HAVE THEM OR DEFER TO LATER.

ANY QUESTIONS? >> GOOD EVENING MADAM CHAIR COMMISSIONERS FOR THE RECORD, ELLEN AVERY SMITH.

IN ST. AUGUSTINE. I DO NOT WEAR MY HIGHEST HEELS TODAY. BEFORE I BEGIN, I AM NOT NEVER IN CHARGE OF THE REMOTE CONTROL, EVEN AT HOME.

IS THERE A REMOTE CONTROL FOR THE POWERPOINT PRESENTATION? WE WILL DO THAT WAY. I HAVE A PRINTED OUT A COPY SO WE WILL WING OUR WAY THROUGH THIS.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH. SO THE FIRST SLIDE, MUNICIPALITIES I'VE ALREADY INTRODUCED YOU TO MYSELF, ELLEN AVERY SMITH. BEHIND ME OBVIOUSLY IS KEVIN KRAMER, MISS CARSON ALREADY INTRODUCED YOU TO.

HE IS WITH A LANDOWNER GROUP CHARACTERS TWO LANDOWNERS THAT WE WILL IDENTIFY IN JUST A MINUTE AS WE GO THROUGH THE PRESENTATION. ALSO THERE IS CASEY,, MCDANIEL AND ALSO THOMAS KATCHER. AND THEN LOOKING AT THE ROSTER OF ALL OF OUR PROJECT, MANY OF WHOM ARE NOT HERE BUT IF WE NEEDED THEM FOR OUR SUBSEQUENT HEARINGS, WE KNOW WHERE TO FIND THEM. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE.

AS MISS KRISTEN MENTIONED TO YOU, THIS IS A TRANSMITTAL HEARING FOR A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT TO CHANGE THE FUTURE LAND USE. THIS APPLICATION WILL MARRY UP WITH A MODIFICATION -- APPLICATION TO MODIFY THE PARK DRI APPROVED BY YOUR BOARD OR SUBSEQUENT BOARD IN 2008, AND ALSO THE GOVERNOR'S PARK PUD. WE ARE ADDING THE 1265 ACRES G BAR RANCH PROPERTIES PUTTING THE ENTITLEMENTS FROM THE EXISTING GOVERNANCE PARK DRI AND PUD ONTO THIS LAND AND WE WILL TALK ABOUT THAT A. AND ALSO TALKING ABOUT INCREASING COMMERCIAL AND MEDICAL OFFICE WITHIN GOVERNOR'S PARK ITSELF, AND I WILL SHOW YOU THAT OUT ON THE MAP.

AND THEN TO CHANGE THE PHASE. IF YOU GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE,, AND THANK YOU FOR THE HELP.

SO IF YOU LOOK INTO THE MAP, THE EXISTING MAP ON THE LEFT, YOU SEE SAINT ROAD 16, THE PROPOSED PLAY AREA PARKWAY WHICH WAS FORMERLY KNOWN AS GREEN COVE SPRINGS BYPASS, AND HOW IT GOES SOUTH TO INTERSECT WITH [UNCLEAR] AND LOOP EAST THROUGH GOVERNANCE PARK AND CONNECT TO US 17.

THAT IS THE CURRENT PLAN FOR GOVERNOR'S PARK.

AND THEN YOU SEE THE PROPERTY THAT WE WILL TALK ABOUT IN THE NEXT APPLICATION BELOW THAT. YOU ALSO NOTE ON THIS MAP, THE YELLOW DASHED LINE IS WHAT DO YOU CALL THE DEVELOPMENT AREA BOUNDARY OR THE URBAN SERVICE BOUNDARY.

SO IF YOU LOOK AT THE MAP ON THE RIGHT-HAND SIDE, WHEN YOU SEE CLAY, YOU SEE THE G BAR RANCH, THAT'S THE PROPERTY WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE, 1265 ACRES, IT IS NOW OWNED BY PLAY PROPERTY HOLDINGS. IT WAS OWNED BY FAMILY AS CATTLE RANCH BEFORE. SO NOW WE ARE PLANNING TO INCORPORATE THAT PROPERTY INTO GOVERNANCE PARK, AND THEN CONTINUE TO ROADWAY NETWORK AS YOU SEE ON THE RIGHT, HAVING CLAYBURY PARK ACROSS, OVER OR UNDER I'M NOT QUITE CLEAR ON

[02:15:03]

THAT. ANYWAY, INTERSECT WITH THE EXPRESSWAY, AND THEN PROCEED DOWN THROUGH GOVERNANCE PARK INTO AGRICOLA AND CONNECT TO US 17.

SO ANY MASTER ROAD SECTION FOR THIS REGION TO ALLEVIATE TRAFFIC ON U.S. 17. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE.

THE COMP PLAN AMENDMENT AS MENTIONED, US TO GO FROM AGRICULTURE ON THE LEFT SIDE, AND COMMERCIAL, TO PLANNED COMMUNITY, AGAIN WITH THE IDEA TO MERGE THE PLANNING COMMUNITY FUTURE LAND USE WITH THE PLANNED COMMUNITY FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION THAT ALREADY EXISTS FOR GOVERNANCE PARK.

SO IF YOU LOOK AT THIS MAP FOR EXISTING IMPROVEMENTS THAT ARE BEING DONE WITHIN GOVERNANCE PARK, JUST TO GIVE YOU AN UPDATE. SO YOU SEE THE PARKWAY THAT IS IN THE PINK COLOR, IT'S ALREADY UNDER CONSTRUCTION.

THE PART SHOWN ON THIS MAP SHOULD BE COMPLETED NEXT YEAR,ÚS $23 MILLION. THEN IN THE GREEN COLOR YOU SEE THE EXPRESSWAY RAMPS, THOSE SHOULD START CONSTRUCTION LATER ON THIS YEAR, AND BE FINISHED BY 2028.

THAT IS AN ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST OF $40 MILLION TO TIE INTO THE FIRST EXPRESSWAY.

AND THEN THE ROAD THAT YOU SEE IN THE RED COLOR IS CHAPEL ROAD, THAT STARTED CONSTRUCTION THIS YEAR, WILL BE COMPLETED NEXT YEAR, ESTIMATED COST OF $3 MILLION.

AND THEN YOU SEE THE PURPLE COLOR, AT MEDALLION PARKWAY, SORRY, BOULEVARD, AND LANGLEY DRIVE.

THAT CONSTRUCTION WILL COMMENCE THIS YEAR, COMPLETED NEXT YEAR.

THAT'S AN ESTIMATED COST OF $17 MILLION.

THAT IS FOR GOVERNOR'S PARK APPROVED TODAY.

AND IF YOU GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE, THE IDEA IS TO ENHANCE -- BUILD ON THOSE ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS WE JUST TALKED ABOUT, THE MAP ON THE LEFT DOES NOT INCLUDE THE PROPERTY OF THE G BAR, THE MAP ON THE RIGHT DOES INCLUDE THE G BAR PROPERTY, AND YOU SEE IN THE BROWNISH COLOR, YOU SEE THE COMMERCIAL ROAD PROPOSED ON STATE ROAD 16, UP IN THE G BAR LAND.

BUT MOST OF THE COMMERCIAL IS CENTERED AROUND THE PARKWAY AT THE FIRST COAST EXPRESSWAY INTERCHANGE.

THAT IS WHERE THE ADDITIONAL COMMERCIAL SQUARE FOOTAGE AND MEDICAL, YOU WILL GET A MEDICAL OFFICE AND A MEDICAL CAMPUS THERE THAT IS ALREADY PROPOSED, WILL EXIST.

AND WE HAD SOME DISCUSSIONS OVER THE LAST FEW MONTHS ABOUT NOT INCREASING RESIDENTIAL DENSITY ON THIS PROPERTY OR IN THIS PROJECT. IF YOU LOOK AT THE MAP ON THE LEFT, THAT IS THE EXISTING AND THE MAP ON THE RIGHT IS PROPOSED, AND ADDING THE G BAR. THERE PROPOSED A NUMBER OF RESIDENTIAL UNITS IS THE 7000. NO INCREASE IN RESIDENTIAL UNITS. THE PROPOSED NONRESIDENTIAL IS ABOUT 2.3 MILLION SQUARE FEET, SAME THING ON THE TABLE TO THE RIGHT, ABOUT 2,350,000 SQUARE FEET, ADDING MORE COMMERCIAL AND MEDICAL, TAKING AWAY SOME LIGHT INDUSTRIAL SPACE.

ALSO REDUCING BY 200 HOTEL ROOMS IF YOU LOOK ON THE LEFT, IS 400 ROOMS, ON THE RIGHT IS 200 ROOMS, AND THEN LEAVING THE OPTION OF DOING THE GOLF COURSE WITHIN THE DRI.

AGAIN NO ADDITIONAL RESIDENTIAL UNITS, JUST SWAPPING AROUND NONRESIDENTIAL SQUARE FEET TO MEET THE MARKET.

YOU MENTIONED EARLIER HIGH PAYING JOBS, MEDICAL OFFICE, REALLY CONCENTRATED RETAIL TO SERVE THIS WHOLE AREA OF SOUTH CLAY COUNTY. THAT IS WHERE THE VISION OF THE PLAN ON THE RIGHT IS. AND SO -- NEXT SLIDE.

I'LL FINISH TALKING NOW. IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS LET ME KNOW, WE HAVE OUR WHOLE TEAM HERE AND THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR THE GOOD STAFF REPORT. WE WORKED VERY HARD AND IT IS TO

BE COMMENDED SO THANK YOU. >> MADAM CHAIR HOW ARE YOU? SO WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF REDUCTION IN HOTEL ROOMS?

>> I WILL ASK MR. KRAMER TO COME UP.

>> HELLO, KEVIN KRAMER, ORLANDO, FLORIDA.

REALLY, TRAFFIC. WE WERE MAKING SURE WE WERE MANAGING THE TRAFFIC IMPACTS, THERE HAS BEEN A TRAFFIC STUDY, SO REDUCING TO 200 HOTEL ROOMS. I DON'T KNOW IF THAT IS SOMETHING WE CAN LOOK AT FROM A FOOTPRINT FROM WHERE THE HOTEL WOULD BE, IT IS ACTUALLY A NEED IN CLAY COUNTY ESPECIALLY WITH ALL THESE PEOPLE THAT WILL BE LIVING IN THIS AREA, THE

[02:20:03]

EXPRESSWAY BEING THERE. I SIT ON THE TOURISM AND DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL SO WE TALK ABOUT THAT ALL THE TIME, OUR REVENUES TO THE COUNTY THROUGH TOURISM, ARE CAPPED BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE ENOUGH HOTELS. I DO NOT KNOW IF WE CAN UNPACK THAT MORE BUT THE REASONING WHY WITH TRAFFIC.

>> I CAN ADD TO THAT ALSO. WE HAVE GONE OUT TO MARKET, WE HAVE VERY HIGH DEMAND FOR NONRESIDENTIAL.

IT'S VERY SPECIFIC ABOUT WHAT THEY ARE LOOKING FOR AND WHAT THEY NEED. THE HOTEL I CAN TELL YOU, IF THERE WAS A DEMAND FOR 400 UNITS IT WOULD REMAIN IN THERE.

IT ALSO HAD TO DO WITH THE CURRENT DEMAND.

AND YOU WILL SEE THE INCREASE IN THE COMMERCIAL AND OFFICE SQUARE FOOTAGE KIND OF COUPLED WITH A REDUCTION IN INDUSTRIAL.

WE DID NOT HAVE DEMAND FOR THE LIGHT INDUSTRIAL.

A LOT OF THAT HAS TO DO WITH THE PETERS CREEK BUSINESS CACTUS A LOT OF INDUSTRIAL. IT'S A COMPLEMENTARY RESIDENTIAL. SO REALLY PRECISE MARKET DEMAND

FOR WHAT WE ARE GETTING. >> DON'T WE HAVE -- [UNCLEAR]

>> IN THE DRI, WE ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT THE DEVELOPMENT ORDER TODAY BUT JUST SO YOU KNOW, THERE IS A LAND USE CONVERSION MATRIX. IF THE MARKET CHANGES, BECAUSE THERE IS A 100-ACRE REGIONAL PARK THAT IS PROPOSED IN PART OF THE MODIFICATIONS FOR THE GOVERNOR'S.

DRI, SO TO YOUR POINT, OF THAT GROWS AND THERE IS A LOT OF DEMAND FOR HOTEL ROOMS, THERE IS A WAY TO CONVERT BETWEEN LAND USE TO ACHIEVE THOSE ADDITIONAL HOTEL ROOMS.

>> BEFORE THE DEVELOPMENT IS GOING IS THAT WHAT YOU ARE

SAYING? >> YES.

>> BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY WHEN EVERYTHING IS BUILT OUT IT WILL BE VERY HARD TO TURN THAT SWITCH BACK.

>> ONCE EVERYTHING IS BUILT OUT, LET'S JUST TAKE THE SCENARIO -- UNTIL THE PROJECT IS BUILT OUT, YOU CAN DO THE LAND USE EXCHANGE. UNDER THE DRI DEVELOPMENT ORDER.

IF THE PROJECT IS BUILT OUT BUT THERE IS VACANT LAND, THERE IS THE PROPERTY OWNER THAT HAS THE RIGHT TO COME BACK TO YOUR BOARD AND SAY, WE FEARED THIS REGIONAL PARK HAS CREATED GREAT DEMAND FOR THE HOTEL ROOM, WE HAVE A VACANT SPOT IN OUR TOWN CENTER.

WILL YOU GIVE US 200 MORE HOTEL ROOMS? AND THE BOARD HAS THE LEGAL AUTHORITY TO DO THAT.

>> WHERE IS THE 100-ACRE REGIONAL MAP?

>> IF YOU CAN GO BACK TO THE SLIDE THAT HAS THE COLORED ROAD ON IT? THE ONE WITH THE WHITE BACKGROUND? THAT ONE.

OKAY. IF YOU LOOK TO THE TOP RIGHT, THE FIRST COAST EXPRESSWAY JUST SOUTH OF THAT.

YOU SEE THERE IS A PLANNED, BUT THERE IS ALSO AN AREA THAT WOULD

-- IT IS SHADED FOR THE PARK. >> RIGHT OFF THE EXPRESSWAY?

>> YES. IT'S HARD TO SEE ON THIS MAP I'M SORRY ABOUT THAT. IT IS A LITTLE SHADED AREA, JUST SOUTH OF THE FIRST COAST EXPRESSWAY.

>> IS THE 100 ACRES, IS THAT ATHLETIC FIELDS?

>> THE CURRENT PUD REQUIRES AROUND 46, OR 48 ACRES OF A PARK THAT A DEVELOPER DEVELOPS, AND THEN IT'S A COUNTY PARK DEDICATED TO THE COUNTY. AND I BELIEVE THE DEVELOPER THEN HAS TO MAINTAIN IT OVER TIME. I THINK IT IS FOR BASEBALL FIELDS. EXPANDING IT TO 100 ACRES, STILL HAVE THE BASEBALL FIELDS, WOULD REALLY LIKE TO GET SOME OTHER TYPES OF FIELDS IN THERE. SOME COURTS SOCCER FIELDS, TRY TO ADD TO IT WITH ADDITIONAL LAND.

BUT IT WILL REMAIN DEVELOPER CONSTRUCTED, DEVELOPER

MAINTAINED. >> ONE OF THE GOOD THINGS ABOUT THIS, THIS IS A SIGNIFICANT INCREASE IN COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT. YOU TAKE IT ONE ITEM AT A TIME BUT, IF YOU CARE ABOUT COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT THIS IS A

PRETTY SIGNIFICANT INCREASE. >> AND NO INCREASE IN

RESIDENTIAL. >> AND SPREADING IT OUT KIND OF

UNIQUE. >> OKAY.

I WOULD LIKE TO KEEP THE HOTEL ROOMS BUT YOU MIGHT I GET IT BUT

-- >> THE WAY IT LOOKS NOW DEFINITELY DIFFERENT HOW IT WILL LOOK LATER, BUT IF YOU HAVE THAT CONVERSION, YOU CAN CHANGE IT TO.

[02:25:03]

>> THE ESTIMATES FOR FINAL DEVELOPMENT, FULL DEVELOPMENT IS

LIKE 30 YEARS. >> SURE.

>> BY THE TIME ALL THE HOMES ARE BUILT AND ALL THE COMMERCIAL BUILT OUT. IT'S A DECADES.

>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT I WILL OPEN PUBLIC HEARING. I HAVE TERESA BROWN FIRST?

>> HELLO. I AM TERESA BROWN, 2974 ROSE LANE. I'M ALSO ON THE CLAY COUNTY [UNCLEAR]. A LOT OF PEOPLE REACHED OUT TO ME ABOUT THESE THINGS. AND I AM A READER, SO I HAVE GONE THROUGH A LOT OF THIS. I DO THINK THAT THE HOTEL ROOMS ARE VERY IMPORTANT, WE HAVE FAMILIES COME TO TOWN AND ALL THAT. A LOT OF THINGS ARE BROUGHT TO MY ATTENTION. ONE OF THE THINGS THAT REALLY BOTHERS ME MOST IS THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS.

BECAUSE RIGHT NOW WE ARE GOING TO BE PUSHING ALL THE WAY UP TO THE EXPRESSWAY, AND I THINK DOING THAT REALLY ELIMINATES A LOT OF HABITATS. ESPECIALLY, I DID NOTICE THAT THE STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS AND THE EXHIBIT THAT WAS IN THE PACKAGE WAS THE WILDLIFE AND HABITAT ASSESSMENT.

WHAT BOTHERS ME IS THAT THE ASSESSMENT IS FROM 2021.

WHICH HAS YOU KNOW, THE DIFFERENCE IS HUGE, ESPECIALLY IN THIS PARTICULAR PARCEL. EVERYBODY KNOWS WHAT A GOPHER IS I HOPE, BUT THE FLORIDA GOPHER HAS GONE IN JUST A FEW YEARS FROM BORDERLINE ENDANGERED TO NOW A DESIGNATED THREATENED SPECIES. IT MEANS WE CAN LOSE THEM.

I KNOW IT SOUNDS VERY MINUTE WHEN YOU HAVE A BIG PROJECT LIKE THIS, BUT IT IS IMPORTANT TO US. I LIVE IN CLAY COUNTY ON THE RIVER. I KNOW THE CONSTRUCTION AND EVERYTHING GOING ON HAS REALLY PUSHED WILDLIFE.

I DON'T SEE AS MUCH OF IT AS I DID.

SO I GUESS MY BIGGEST QUESTION IS IF WE CAN TAKE A LOOK AT THIS AND WHAT THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT IS.

BECAUSE THE STAFF REPORT DOES NOT INCLUDE WHAT IS ACTUALLY EXISTIN NOW. THESE GOPHERS, NOT ONLY IS IT THEM, BUT THEIR BURROWS SUPPORTED BY 350 DIFFERENT SPECIES IN OUR FORESTS. I AM HOPING THAT YOU GUYS WOULD CONSIDER THAT AND MAYBE TAKE A LOOK AT THE REPORT AND WHY IT WAS SO DATED. AND IF THERE'S ANY SERIOUS ISSUES AS FAR AS THE ENVIRONMENT GOES.

THANK YOU A LOT. >> RYAN IS NEXT.

>> THANK YOU CHAIR. RYAN, 5665 SHARON ROAD.

YES, I COMMUTE DOWN SPRING BANK EVERY DAY.

LOOKING AT THIS I AM OPPOSED TO LOSING AGRICULTURE AREA, ESPECIALLY SOUTH OF 16. I KNOW WE LOST SO MUCH MORE.

WE HAVE I THINK THOUSANDS OF RESIDENTIAL HOUSES WAITING TO BE BUILT, AND WITH AN EXPANSION OF THIS URBAN SPRAWL, WITHOUT A LOT OF BENEFITS -- I NOTICED SOME MENTION OF COMMERCIAL BENEFITS, I DON'T SEE A LOT OF THIS THAT WOULD Y THE LOSS OF THIS LAND. IF YOU'RE LOOKING AT BLACK BEAR ACTIVITY REPORTED IN THE AREA, I WOULD ARGUE THAT IS ALSO BLACK BEAR HABITAT AS WELL. AND OF COURSE THAT BEING MY DAILY COMMUTE I'M ALSO WORRIED ABOUT TRAFFIC WHICH I BELIEVE IS INEVITABLE AND I'M SURE YOU HEAR ABOUT IT IN EVERY REZONING REQUEST. I URGE YOU TO VOTE NO ON THIS, I UNDERSTAND THERE IS A SIGNIFICANT BENEFIT ADDING ON DEVELOPMENT IN THIS AREA, BUT I JUST DON'T SEE IT THE WAY IT IS

[02:30:05]

PRESENTED. THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU RYAN. LINDSAY?

>> HELLO, LINDSAY. SORRY -- [LAUGHTER] SOME OF THE THINGS I WAS GOING TO SPEAK ON THE LAST TWO SPEAKERS SPOKE ON, THE GOPHERS, JUST FROM LOOKING AT THAT MAP WHICH APPARENTLY IS OUTDATED, I SAW AT LEAST 25-30 BURROWS. RELOCATION NUMBERS FOR THOSE, IT CAUSES A LOT OF STRESS. MANY OF THEM PACE BACK AND FO FORTH, BY NATURE AND INSTINCT THEY WILL PACE BACK AND FORTH, I WOULD SAY LIKE 93-95% ON AVERAGE SURVIVAL RATE FOR THEM.

BUT SOME OF THEM YES, THEY DO STARVE TO DEATH OR THEY ARE TO COMPACT IN INTO PLACES WHERE THEY ARE REHOMED.

SO DISEASE AND THINGS LIKE THAT. SO FOR THE SURVIVAL OF THE SPECIES THERE NEEDS TO BE 98% -- SORRY.

THE SURVIVAL OF THE SPECIES THE NUMBERS NEED TO BE AROUND 98%.

LIKE OTHERS HAVE MENTIONED, 350 OTHER ANIMALS RESIDE WITHIN THOSE BURROWS, THEY ARE NOT REHOMED.

THEY ARE UNCOVERED AND KIND OF JUST RIPPED OUT FROM -- EXPOSED TO PREDATORS, MACHINERY, WHATEVER IS GOING ON.

SOME OF THEM FROM WHAT I READ RELOCATED AROUND PROPERTIES, BUT IT'S KIND OF A MESSY SITUATION. I HAD SOMETHING HERE -- AND BEYOND THE SURFACE -- I ALSO WANTED TO MENTION THE PLANS THEMSELVES, SOME OF THE 250 ACRES OF WETLANDS ARE PRESERVED, BUT NOTHING IS REALLY DONE TO PRESERVE THE UPPER PLAINS. IT'S VERY HIGHLY CONDENSED WHICH AS WE ALL KNOW KEEPS THE WETLANDS FROM BEING ABLE TO DO THEIR JOB, AND ALLOWS ESPECIALLY WITH DEVELOPMENT LIKE THIS, A LOT OF GREEN GRASS REQUIREMENTS, PROBABLY PESTICIDES AND FERTILIZER AND THINGS LIKE THAT THAT CAN RUN OFF INTO OUR WATERSHED, AND ALSO MASS DEVELOPMENTS LIKE THIS REALLY ARE TAXING ON OUR AQUIFERS. WE HAVE SEEN A LOT OF THINGS LIKE THAT. I AM OUT OF TIME.

>> THANK YOU. NEXT SPEAKER?

>> 417 RIVER BIRCH LANE. I WANT TO FIRST OF ALL THANK THE PEOPLE WHO WERE UP HERE WITH THEIR PRESENTATION, IT WAS BEAUTIFUL. THE THING IS, I WOULD LIKE TO TOUCH BASE FIRST IN THIS, NOBODY ASKED THEM ANYTHING ABOUT WHY THEY WILL BE CHANGING IT AND ADDING 1700 ACRES.

I DON'T THINK ANY OF YOU ASKED THAT QUESTION, THE SAME QUESTION CAME UP AT THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND THEY GAVE GOOD REASONS LIKE, AS THEY ALWAYS DO, IT'LL MAKE IT EASIER FOR TRANSFER STUFF, FOR OUR INVESTORS, MOVING STUFF TOGETHER. AND THAT IS THE HEART OF WHAT THEY ARE TRYING TO DO NOW. OTHER THINGS I AM LOOKING AT IS, I WANTED TO SEE A STUDY ON THE TRAFFIC FLOW.

THEY ARE TALKING ONCE THE FIRST COAST HIGHWAY WENT IN, NOW ALL OF A SUDDEN EVERYBODY WILL BE USING IT.

THAT IS A TOLL ROUTE, AN EXPENSIVE TOLL ROUTE.

PEOPLE WON'T GET HONORED TO DRIVE TO EXITS AND PAY A DOLLAR AND $0.20. THEY USE IT.

SO RIGHT NOW IT'S A MESS. IT BACKS UP ON GREEN COVE SPRINGS, ODD ALL THESE OTHER ONES IN AND THEN THE ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES IN TERMS OF THE TURTLES AND EVERYTHING ELSE.

PLUS IF ANY OF YOU READ THE ORIGINAL PLANS FROM 2008, TO SEE WHAT THEY SAID THEY WOULD DO. BECAUSE WHEN I WAS AT THE PLANNING COMMISSION, WE MAY DO A GOLF COURSE, WE MAY NOT.

ALL THESE DIFFERENT THINGS ARE VAGUE.

THEY ARE NOT GIVING YOU REAL ANSWERS, YOU WILL JUST WAIT AND SEE WHAT HAPPENS. THIS HUGE COMMUNITY 21 MILLION ON A A BRAND NEW FIRE DEPARTMENT, WHERE WE ALREADY HAVE THREE BUILT AND WILL PROBABLY BUILD ANOTHER ONE IN

[02:35:04]

SANDBRIDGE? ARE YOU GUYS ASKING WHAT NEEDS TO BE ASKED AND GETTING A FIRM ANSWERS FROM THEM THAT YOU CAN COME BACK FROM LATER? THEY'RE ALL OUT THERE, BUT SOMEBODY NEEDS TO BE ADDRESSING THESE.

I WOULD STILL LOVE TO SEE THIS TRAFFIC STUDY THAT THE STATE OF FLORIDA DID. THEY SAID THE ONLY REASON THEY WERE ABLE TO -- BECAUSE EVERYBODY WOULD USE THE FIRST COAST HIGHWAY WHICH I DOUBT IT. YOU DON'T SEE ANYBODY ON IT NOW.

>> THANK YOU. ANYBODY ELSE?

>> BHELLO, I'M IN JACKSONVILLE, 32257.

I'M NOT NECESSARILY FOR OR AGAINST THESE DEVELOPMENTS BUT I WANT TO KNOW AGAIN ARE THESE IMPACT STUDIES ARE VERY VAGUE WITH WHAT THEY WILL DO, WHAT IT IS GOING TO LOOK LIKE IN THE END. THE U.S. DROUGHT MONITOR, WHICH IS UNIVERSITY OF NEBRASKA LINCOLN MONITORS THE DROUGHT LEVELS ALL ACROSS THE COUNTRY AND HOW SEVERE THEY ARE.

AS OF JULY 21ST, THEY HAVE A MOST OF CLAY COUNTY IN EXTREME DROUGHT, LEVEL D3 OUT OF 4 LEVELS.

AS ANY WATER USAGE STUDY BEEN DONE FOR THESE NEW AND NEWLY PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT OR FOR THE WATERSHED IMPACTS AND IF SO, HOW RECENTLY? THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU. DID YOU TURN YOUR CARD IN?

DO YOU WANT TO GO NEXT? >> KATHERINE FRISBY.

FLORIDA. MY CONCERN, [UNCLEAR] MOST OF YOU KNOW WE ALREADY HAVE TRAFFIC WITHIN CLAY COUNTY FAIRGROUND.

I CANNOT EVEN IMAGINE WHAT IT WILL BE LIKE WITH THIS DEVELOPMENT THERE. THAT'S ONE OF MY MAJOR CONCERNS IS THE TRAFFIC. IS IT GOING TO BE AN EXIT AND ENTRANCE ON THE OVERPASS ON SPRING BANK? NO THERE IS NOT? SO HOW ARE WE -- BECAUSE I HAVE TO GO UP SPRING BANK ROAD EVERY DAY TO GET TO 16, UNLESS YOU GO TO THE BACK ROAD, HOW ARE WE SUPPOSED TO GET OFF OF SPRING

BANK ROAD? >> GO AHEAD AND FINISH WHAT YOU HAD AND WE WILL TRY TO ADDRESS IT.

>> OKAY THAT'S MY BIGGEST CONCERN IS THE WILDLIFE IS ANOTHER CONCERN, OFF OF SPRING BANK ROAD.

WE HAVE TURKEYS, WE HAVE TURTLES, WE HAVE BEARS, WE HAVE EVERYTHING THERE. ONCE YOU CLEAR THAT PROPERTY, WHERE ARE ALL THOSE ANIMALS GOING TO GO?

THOSE ARE MY CONCERNS. >> MAKE SURE TO GIVE THE CARD.

>> I WILL. >> ANYBODY ELSE? YOU MIKE I AM AGAINST THE DEVELOPMENT, MY NAME IS DAVID.

MY ADDRESS IS ON FILE. BECAUSE WE HAVE A LOT OF GOOD FARMLAND OUT HERE THAT IS GOOD FOR CATTLE, AND WE ARE SITTING HERE IMPORTING MEAT FROM ARGENTINA BECAUSE WE ARE HAVING A TROUBLE WITH OUR COUNTRY'S FOOD CHAIN? WE SHOULD PROBABLY LOOK AT TRYING TO GROW OUR CATTLE SO WE CAN FEED THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, NOT DEVELOPERS AND THEIR POCKETS. THANK YOU.

YOU MIKE ANYBODY ELSE TO SPEAK? OKAY.

-- >> ANYBODY ELSE TO SPEAK?

>> I DID NOT PLAN ON SPEAKING ON THIS ITEM BECAUSE IT WAS A COMPLETE SURPRISE. I ACTUALLY AM A KEYSTONE PIECE OF THE AGRICULTURE DEVELOPMENT. UNDERSTAND THAT WE ARE GOING TO ADD ANOTHER THOUSAND ACRES TO THIS DEVELOPMENT, APPALLS ME.

YOU ARE THE STEWARDS OF CLAY COUNTY.

WE ARE THE RESIDENTS. I HAVE LIVED IN CLAY COUNTY ALL OF MY LIFE. I HAVE LIVED OFF OF LENA ROAD IN CLAY COUNTY SOUTH OF GREEN COVE SPRINGS FOR OVER 40 YEARS NOW.

[02:40:05]

MY HUSBAND HAS WANDERED THESE WOODS ALL OF HIS LIFE.

HE IS TO TURN 69 THIS YEAR. WE HAVE THE DEER, WE HAVE BEARS, WE HAVE FROGS, WE HAVE EAGLES. THE GOPHERS.

WHEN YOU APPROVED FOR THE SOLAR FIELD TO BE BUILT OFF OF LINO ROAD, THERE WERE ORIGINALLY THE ESTIMATED ONLY 100 GOPHERS WERE GOING TO BE REMOVED FROM THE SITE.

AT THE END, THEY CAME BACK AND TOLD US IT WAS ALMOST A THOUSAND GOPHERS REMOVED AND TRANSPORTED DOWN SOUTH.

IT'S NOT JUST -- IT'S A WAY OF LIFE FOR THE MAJORITY OF THE PEOPLE WHO LIVE IN THIS AREA. WE HAVE LIVED HERE BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT WE CHOSE TO LIVE. AND WE HAVE PAID OUR PROPERTY TAXES, WE HAVE DONE WITHOUT COUNTY SERVICES FOR YEARS.

WE DON'T HAVE A GROCER STORE ANYWHERE CLOSE TO US WITHOUT DRIVING OVER 15 MILES IN ONE DIRECTION.

YOU WANT TO IMPROVE CLAY COUNTY? GET US A GROCERY STORE.

OKAY? YOU WANT TO DO AN IMPROVEMENT AND GET JOBS? THEN GET JOBS.

BUT DON'T PUSH PUTTING HOUSES UPON HOUSES WHERE THERE IS NO DRAINAGE, WHERE YOU WILL END UP HAVING TO DO MITIGATION UPON MITIGATION FOR THESE DEVELOPMENTS.

>> THANK YOU, MA'AM. ANYONE ELSE? I WILL NEED YOUR CARD FROM BOTH OF THOSE.

OKAY. I HAVE TO FINISH THE PUBLIC HEARING FIRST. ANYONE ELSE? OKAY, I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.

>> JUST 2 MINUTES OF REBUTTAL, IF YOU CAN GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE AFTER THIS ONE PLEASE, JUST TO CONCLUDE, JUST TO CLARIFY.

WE ARE TALKING IN THIS APPLICATION ABOUT THE PROPERTIES IN THE RIGHT HAND -- ON THE RIGHT-HAND SIDE MAP IS THE G BAR PROPERTY, WITHIN THE DEVELOPMENT PROPERTY BOUNDARY ALREADY.

IT IS A HISTORIC USE OF A DAIRY FARM.

AND YOU CAN SEE ON THE SLIDES ON THE LEFT AND RIGHT, THERE ARE NO ADDITIONAL RESIDENTIAL UNITS BEING PROPOSED EVEN WITH THE ADDITION OF THIS 1265 ACRES. AND YOU ARE GETTING SIGNIFICANTLY MORE COMMERCIAL AND MEDICAL OFFICE AND THINGS WITHIN THE ENTIRETY OF THE PARK. THERE WILL BE SERVICE COMING, THE LAW DOES REQUIRE COMPLIANCE WITH ENVIRONMENTAL LAW INCLUDING GOPHER, AND TORTOISE RELOCATION, ALL OF THAT.

CERTAINLY THIS CLIENT AND PROPERTY WILL BE REQUIRED TO COMPLY WITH ALL THE REQUIREMENTS.

WE ARE HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MIGHT HAVE.

>> I GUESS ANSWER THIS GENTLEMAN'S QUESTION IS WHY DO YOU WANT TO DO IT? IF THEY ARE NOT GOING TO ADD RESIDENTIAL WHY DO THEY WANT TO ADD MORE?

>> BECAUSE IT ALLOWS THE EXPANSION OF THE COMMERCIAL -- I'M SORRY, THE RESIDENTIAL. LESS DENSITY THAT ALSO ALLOWS THE CONCENTRATION OF WHAT I WOULD CALL COUNTY CENTER AROUND

THAT INTERCHANGE. >> SO THE MULTIFAMILY, WE REDUCED THE NUMBER OF MULTIFAMILY UNITS, INCREASED THE NUMBER OF SINGLE FAMILY. IT'S LARGER LOTS, NEED MORE LAND TO SPREAD THOSE. TAKING ADVANTAGE OF THE LAND TO BE ABLE TO DO MORE SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED LOTS, INSTEAD OF MULTIFAMILY LOTS AND ROOM FOR COMMERCIAL.

COMMERCIAL SUPPORTS THIS IN SOUTH CLAY COUNTY.

>> OKAY THANK YOU. I WILL BRING IT BACK TO THE BOARD? DISCUSSION?

>> I JUST HAVE ONE COMMENT, FOR THE MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC THAT HAVE SPOKEN, I GET IT, I UNDERSTAND IT, I THINK THAT THIS BOARD HAS THE OPPORTUNITY TO WORK WITH THIS DEVELOPER TO MOLD

[02:45:02]

AND DIRECT THIS DEVELOPMENT IN THE WAY THAT WE ARE LOOKING FOR, FOR ME, COMMERCIAL IS A HUGE PRIORITY.

THEY ARE MORE THAN DOUBLING COMMERCIAL AND RETAIL SERVICE IN THIS PORTION OF THIS APPLICATION.

ONE OF THE THINGS SAID TONIGHT THAT RINGS TRUE IS THIS DEVELOPMENT IS NOT GOING TO HAPPEN OVERNIGHT.

ONE THING I HAVE SEEN HAPPEN IN THE PAST TWO YEARS ON THE COMMISSIONERS AS MARKET TRENDS CHANGE, IT CAN CHANGE A LOT OF THINGS IN TERMS OF LOOKING THINGS AS A DEVELOPER, IF YOU'RE NOT GOING TO BE PROFITABLE, YOU DON'T JUST DEVELOP IT.

THE REALITY IS AS WE MOVE FORWARD THERE ARE GOING TO BE CHANGES, THIS BOARD OF FIVE COMMISSIONERS CANNOT STOP WHAT HAS ALREADY BEEN APPROVED, BUT WE CAN GUIDE IT AND BE SMART WITH IT MOVING FORWARD. AND FOR ME I AM IN SUPPORT OF THIS BECAUSE OF THE SIGNIFICANT INCREASE OF COMMERCIAL AND THE SIGNIFICANT DECREASE IN MULTIFAMILY.

THAT'S MY PIECE. >> YEAH,, I UNDERSTAND THE CONCERNS ABOUT CONSERVATION. I HEAR YOU.

WE TALK ABOUT CONSERVATION, BUT JUST AS IN THE SERVICE BOUNDARY ALREADY I'M NOT IN FAVOR IN ANY WAY OF ANY OTHER DEVELOPERS NOT IN FAVOR OF MOVING THE URBAN SERVICE BECAUSE THAT IS PROTECTED. BUT THAT URBAN SERVICE BOUNDARY SAYS IS THERE IS ENOUGH HOUSING WITHIN THAT URBAN SERVICE BOUNDARY TO MEET THE NEEDS FOR THE NEXT 20 YEARS.

IN THE COUNTY. BUT WHAT I DO REALLY LIKE ABOUT THIS, LINDSEY AND I WERE MESSAGING ABOUT THIS OVER THE WEEKEND, THIS IS VERY DIFFERENT TO ME BECAUSE THEY ARE SPREADING OUT THE RESIDENTIAL, THEY ARE LISTENING TO COMMUNITY ABOUT LARGER LOTS. THEY ACTUALLY TOLD ME THEY WATCHED MEETINGS ABOUT OTHER DEVELOPMENTS AND LISTENED TO WHAT PEOPLE ARE LOOKING FOR, AND THOSE HIGHER WAGE JOBS.

THIS PROPOSAL OVER A PERIOD OF TIME INCLUDES TWO GROCERY STORES, AS OUR LAST SPEAKER SAID THERE ISN'T A GROCERY STORE.

I LIVE WHERE THERE ISN'T GROCERY STORE SO I COMPLETELY SYMPATHIZE, WALMART PLUS COMES TO MY HOUSE MORE OFTEN THAN SOMETIMES MY HUSBAND LIKES BUT IT'S BECAUSE MY NEPHEW IS LIVING WITH US. I FORGOT HOW MUCH TEENAGE BOYS EAT. ANYWAYS.

I UNDERSTAND THE NEEDS OF THE COMMUNITY AND THE BALANCE FOR IT. SO IT'S NOT -- THIS IS NOT THE SAME FOR ME AS ANY OTHER DEVELOPMENT THAT HAS BEEN PRESENTED TO US, BECAUSE OF THE WAY THEY ARE DOING IT.

THE OTHER THING THAT HASN'T BEEN MENTIONED THAT I WANT TO BRING UP, THIS IS NOT THE FIRST TIME THAT THE TRANSMITTAL OF THIS LARGE SCALE LAND USE AMENDMENT HAS COME IN FRONT OF THE BOARD SINCE I HAVE BEEN A COMMISSIONER.

BUT IT WAS A DIFFERENT OWNER OF THE PROPERTY, NOT THE G BAR PROPERTY, OF THE GOVERNOR'S PARK PROPERTY.

A DIFFERENT OWNER, FIRST RIGHT OF REFUSAL ON THE G BAR.

WHAT WE LEARNED AT THAT TIME, THEIR PROPOSAL WAS A LOT MORE HOMES, LIKE EVERY OTHER DEVELOPMENT THAT HAS COME BEFORE US. I WAS NOT IN FAVOR OF THAT.

SECONDLY WHAT I FOUND OUT THEN IS THAT G BAR IS NOT OWNED BY ONE LANDOWNER. IT'S ONE FAMILY, IT'S DIFFERENT PARCELS. I DID A LOT OF RESEARCH AND READING AFTER THAT AFTER WE WITHDREW IT BECAUSE THEY RECOGNIZED IT WOULDN'T PASS THAT NIGHT.

AND IT IS ZONED IN SUCH THAT THESE INDIVIDUAL PARCELS COULD ALL BE SOLD OFF, AND THESE SMALL SUBDIVISIONS.

I DON'T THINK THAT'S WHAT WE ARE LOOKING FOR EITHER.

SO CLEARLY THE FAMILY THAT OWNS THIS IS INTERESTED IN NOT RETAINING THERE. MY UNDERSTANDING IS THEY ARE RETAINING SOME PROPERTY THAT IS MORE IN THE MIDDLE, ADDITIONALLY THE SCHOOL DISTRICT WANTS THEIR HIGH SCHOOL SITE NOT TO BE DOWN ALONG THE COASTAL EXPRESSWAY. I KNOW THAT IS THE SAME PROXIMITY AS CLAY HIGH AND PEOPLE DON'T UNDERSTAND THAT BUT THAT'S WHAT THE SCHOOL DISTRICT ASKED FOR.

THERE'S A LOT ABOUT THIS THAT SEEMS TO BE DIFFICULT FOR US TO NOT LISTEN TO WHAT THE STATE HAS TO SAY ABOUT IT.

ADDITIONALLY THIS GENTLEMAN ASKED ABOUT WHY WE HAVEN'T ASKED A LOT OF QUESTIONS? I DID, I'VE READ ALL THEIR

[02:50:03]

DOCUMENTS, I JUST DID NOT DO IT ON THE BOARD FOR.

AND THE TRAFFIC STUDY IS QUITE INTERESTING, IT DOES HAVE RECOMMENDATIONS IN IT, AND BY MOVING THIS FORWARD AND GETTING THE STATE'S COMMENTS BACK, WE WOULD BE ABLE TO IMPLEMENT THOSE THINGS IN THEIR DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT IN SEPTEMBER WHEN THEY COME. AS WE SIT TODAY, THEY CAN GO DEVELOP GOVERNOR'S PEERK, LAURELTON AND AGRICOLA, THE WAY THEY ARE APPROVED TODAY. WE DON'T HAVE A SAY OVER THAT.

SOME OF THOSE THINGS I WOULD LIKE TO SEE DONE.

ONE OF THEM IS A CONNECTION ROAD BETWEEN AGRICOLA AND GOVERNOR'S PARK, WHATEVER IT IS CALLED THE. SO THAT YOU KEEP TRAFFIC OFF OF 17 AND 16 AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE. I AGREE WITH COMMISSIONERS ♪ COMMISSIONERS." WE HAVE TO CONSERVE WHAT WE CAN CONSERVE. WE HAVE TO RESPECT THE PROPERTY RIGHTS OF PEOPLE WHO HAVE THE RIGHT TO SELL THEIR PROPERTY THEY HAVE A RIGHT TO ASK FOR CONSIDERATION, I DON'T THINK THIS IS A BAD CONSIDERATION. THANK YOU.

>> JUST ONE COMMENT, LOOKING AT THESE PROPERTIES BEFORE, ONE OF THE ADVANTAGES OF A SINGLE DEVELOPER IS THE CONNECTIVITY AND COLLABORATION BETWEEN ALL THE PROPERTIES.

WHEN WE LOOKED AT THE PROPERTIES THE ROADS DO NOT CONNECT, WITH GOVERNOR'S PARK. WE HAD PROBLEMS WITH THAT BUT NO WAY TO RESOLVE IT UNTIL NOW. AS TO SERVICES, INDUSTRY DOESN'T -- INDUSTRY LIKES DENSITY. I UNDERSTAND SUPERMARKETS ARE HARD TO FIND. THEY WON'T BE ONCE THIS DEVELOPMENT GETS IN PLACE. THERE ARE CERTAIN ADVANTAGES AND

I AM IN FAVOR OF. >> THE ONLY THING I WOULD ADD IS JUST TO HIGHLIGHT A COMMENT THAT I HEARD FROM THE BOARD, AND THAT'S MOVING FORWARD IN THIS PROCESS WHERE THE TRANSMITTAL GETS THE STATE'S PERSPECTIVE ON NOT JUST CLAY COUNTY, BUT HOW THIS WOULD IMPACT THE REGION. AND I AM SUPPORTIVE OF ALMOST ALWAYS GETTING AN OUTSIDE OPINION FROM A MORE MACRO PERSPECTIVE. SO A TRANSMITTAL OF THIS PROJECT DOES NOT WEAR ON MY SENSIBILITIES AT ALL.

I WILL VOTE IN FAVOR. >> IF I MAY,, COMMISSIONER COMPARE JUST BROUGHT TO MIND. SOMEBODY ASKED ABOUT WATER, THAT'S A VERY INTERESTING, WE HAD THIS CONVERSATION EARLIER TODAY. WHILE THEY HAVE THEIR USE PERMIT FROM THE WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT, ONE OF THE THINGS MY CONSTITUENT DOES NOT LIVE NEAR THIS AREA, ACTUALLY NOT FAR FROM LINDSAY, BUT TO ME IS THAT NOBODY LOOKS AT THE OVERALL CONSUMPTION OF WATER IN ALL THESE DEVELOPMENTS.

IN THEORY THEY DO, THE CONSUMPTIVE USE PERMITS, IT DOESN'T INCLUDE INDIVIDUAL WELLS IT DOESN'T NECESSARILY ALWAYS INCLUDE A LOT OF COMMERCIAL USE OR TIMING, IF EVERYTHING WILL BE BUILT AT ONE TIME WHAT IF ALL OF THAT PERMIT WAS USED AT THE SAME TIME. THAT IS SOMETHING I WILL BE WORKING WITH OUR REPRESENTATIVES TO SEE IN TALLAHASSEE IF THAT COULD BE ADDRESSED, BECAUSE THAT WOULD BE STATEWIDE.

THAT'S NOT A LOCAL ISSUE. AS OF RIGHT NOW IT'S NOT A STATUTE THAT WE CAN USE THAT AS A CRITERIA TO APPROVE OR DENY CAN I JUST TO SAY IN AN AREA WHERE THERE IS NO SERVICE, IT DOESN'T APPLY TO THIS BUT, WE DO HAVE A LOT OF THE COUNTY THAT IT DOES APPLY TO THAT DOESN'T HAVE THE SERVICE IS THAT A REASON TO DENY? THAT IS NOT A CRITERIA WE CAN USE TO DENY NOW. I UNDERSTAND A LOT OF PEOPLE ARE TALKING ABOUT THE DROUGHT AND THE AQUIFER AND DRINKING WATER AND THIS KIND OF THING WOULD RAISE THAT CONCERN, I JUST WANTED TO SAY THAT WHILE THAT IS NOT SOMETHING THAT WE CAN CONTROL, FOR THIS PARTICULAR AREA, UNDER THE CONSUMPTIVE USE PERMIT, THEY TOOK A 30% REDUCTION LAST YEAR.

[02:55:04]

AND ST. JOHN'S COUNTY, THEIR WATER UTILITY, THEY JUST TRIED TO GET THEIR CONSUMPTIVE USE PERMIT APPROVED AND TWO WEEKS AGO IT WAS DENIED BY THE WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT.

THEY'RE NOT JUST APPROVING THESE PERMITS.

IT IS SOMETHING TO CONSIDER, MAYBE THAT IS SOMETHING THE

STATE COMES BACK WITH. >> I DON'T REMEMBER THE NUMBERS, BUT SAID WE ARE NOT EVEN USING HALF OR THREE QUARTERS OF OUR

CONSUMPTIVE USE. >> IT IS LOWER THAN HALF.

>> OKAY, I HAVE A FEW THINGS. ANYBODY WHO KNOWS ME KNOWS THIS GIVES ME MAJOR HEARTBURN, WE ARE ALL RESIDENTS HERE, I HEARD YOU SAY THAT. ANYBODY THAT COMES TO OUR MEETINGS REGULARLY OR LISTENS KNOWS THAT THIS BOARD TAKES IT VERY MUCH INTO CONSIDERATION WHEN WE HAVE TO REZONE.

IT IS A HUGE DEAL. AND I DON'T KNOW IF I EVEN, AS FAR AS REZONING I PROBABLY MYSELF ONLY VOTED 4 TO IN MY SIX YEARS ON HERE. SO I DO TAKE IT VERY SERIOUSLY, IT'S VERY EMOTIONAL FOR ALL OF YOU OUT THERE.

I KNOW THAT I LIVE IN AN AREA, NOT LIKE YOU DO BUT WE HAVE WILDLIFE AND IT BREAKS MY HEART. I SEE IT REGULARLY.

HOWEVER THIS AREA, I'M TRYING TO REMEMBER WHAT WAS THE AMOUNT IN HOMES THEY WERE TRYING TO GET LAST TIME HERE.

FOR THIS PROPERTY. >> AROUND THREE OR 4000.

>> THEY WILL KEEP COMING BACK. THIS IS A BIG DEAL THAT THEY ARE NOT GOING TO BE ANY RESIDENTIAL, MULTI-FAMILY, IT WILL BE LESS TRAFFIC. IT'S THE SAME DEVELOPER.

WE WON'T WORRY ABOUT WHO KNOWS WHAT KIND OF HORRIBLE HOMES MAY COME IN THIS OTHER -- IF WE WERE TO WAIT AGAIN.

THIS COMMISSION IS NOT GOING TO BE HERE FOREVER.

I WILL BE GONE IN TWO YEARS, I DON'T KNOW WHO'S COMING AFTER ME. SO IF WE WAIT AGAIN, WHO KNOWS WHAT IS TO COME. SOMEBODY IS GOING TO GET THAT PROPERTY. IT IS IN THE URBAN SERVICE BOUNDARIES, THIS IS THE SECOND TIME THEY HAVE COME.

SO THEY ARE SELLING AT. APPEARED REGULARLY, PEOPLE SOLD THEIR PROPERTY. TALKING ABOUT GROCERY STORES? I WOULD LOVE TO TELL SOMEBODY TO PUT A GROCERY STORE WHEREVER IN GREEN COVE. I EVEN TRIED TO GET I CAN SAY IT BECAUSE I DID NOT DO IT, WE WERE TALKING ABOUT IT THERE.

BUT HE WOULDN'T MOVE ON HIS PIECE OF PROPERTY.

WE DON'T DETERMINE WHO COMES THERE.

WHOEVER SELLS IT, SELLS IT TO HER DAUGHTER OR GENERAL OR CAR .

I HAVE NEVER MET YOU BUT TALKING ABOUT GOING THROUGH THESE QUESTIONS AS COMMISSIONER TRENTON SAID WE SPENT A LONG TIME GOING OVER EVERYTHING HERE, AND SPEAKING TO APPLICANTS AND ASKING QUESTIONS AND THE PART TIME JOB WE HAVE.

EVEN THOUGH WE DON'T ASK IT ALL HERE, WE DEFINITELY ASK QUESTIONS. DON'T WORRY WE ARE HERE BEFORE YOU ALL AND WE DO LISTEN. I THINK YOU WERE ABLE TO SEE THAT EARLIER TONIGHT. THERE IS NO AGRICULTURE HAPPENING ON THAT PROPERTY. FROM WHAT I UNDERSTAND IT HASN'T HAPPENED IN A LONGER TIME. THAT A PART OF THE FAMILY HAS BEEN TRYING TO SELL IT. SO NO MATTER WHAT IT DOES, IT GIVES ME HEARTBURN, BUT I THINK THIS IS THE RIGHT FIT.

SO I WILL BE VOTING FOR APPROVAL.

IF SOMEBODY ELSE WANTS TO GET EMOTION.

>> MOVE APPROVAL. >> MOTION AND SECOND, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE? ANY OPPOSED?

[18. Final Public Hearing to consider transmittal of COMP 26-0010. (District 5, Burke) (B. Carson) This application is a text amendment to the Capital Improvements Element of the 2045 Comprehensive Plan to remove policy CIE 1.3.6. The applicant has provided a transportation study as required by the policy.]

PASSES 5-0. WE MOVE ON TO 18, FINAL PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER COMP 26-0010 THIS APPLICATION IS A TEXT AMENDMENT TO THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS ELEMENTS OF THE 2045 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO REMOVE POLICY C SIX.

>> THE APPLICANT FOR THIS KIND OF WE HAVE THE SAME AGENT TEAM

[03:00:06]

AS LAST APPLICATION. THIS APPLIES EXCLUSIVELY TO THE AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT SOUTH OF 23 WEST OF U.S. 17, SOUTH OF THE GOVERNOR'S PARK DEVELOPMENT. THE PLANNING DISTRICT IS SOUTHEAST CLAY DISTRICT. THE COMMISSION DISTRICT IS YOUR DISTRICT, COMMISSIONER BURKE. TWO PARCELS INVOLVED WITH THE LAND THAT IS SUBJECT TO THIS. THE APPLICATION IS REQUEST TO REMOVE POLICY 1.3.6 FROM THE 2045 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.

SOME SIGNPOSTING, THE APPLICANT USED STANDARD LANGUAGE FOR POSTING SIGNS WE DON'T USUALLY POST SIGN AMENDMENTS BUT THE ADDED ONE DO DELETE THIS POLICY, JUST FOR CLARIFICATION.

SOME BACKGROUND, IN 2024 THE AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT WAS APPROVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS.

AT THAT TIME THE ACCESS POINTS WERE SHOWN AS GLENVIEW ROAD SOUTH, U.S. 17, ALSO AT U.S. 17. RAISING CONCERNS ABOUT THE IMPACTS TO U.S. 17 AND THE LACK OF CONNECTIVITY THAT WAS ALSO A CONCERN BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, NOT MUCH CONNECTIVITY TO THE PARK. THE PARKWAY OR THE STATE ROAD 23. SO WITH THAT, CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS POLICY 1.3.6 WAS ADDED TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, AND IT WAS ADOPTED TO MARK A THRESHOLD OF ESSENTIALLY THE FIRST TWO PAGES OF RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS, AND IT PROMPTED THE REEXAMINATION OF TRAFFIC IMPACTS AND REQUIRES THE DEVELOPER TO DO A TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY TO LOOK AT WHAT POTENTIAL IMPACTS AND IMPROVEMENTS WOULD BE NEEDED TO MITIGATE THOSE.

SINCE 2024, AGRICOLA, HAS CHANGED HANDS.

AND WILL BE COMING FORWARD IN THE NEXT COUPLE OF MONTHS WITH THE REVISED DEVELOPMENT PLANS INCLUDING THE CONNECTION TO GOVERNOR'S PARK. THE MAP ON THE RIGHT IS SHOWN WITH THE NEW CONNECTION WHICH IS MORE DIRECT ROUTE WHICH WILL GET TO THE FIRST COAST EXPRESSWAY. MARCH 2026, THE DEVELOPER CONDUCTED A TRAFFIC ANALYSIS STUDY.

FACTORING IN THE AGRICOLA ENTITLEMENTS WHICH PROPOSED TO BE DEVELOPED IN AGRICOLA AS WELL AS THE BACKGROUND AND THE DEVELOPMENT THAT EXISTS OUT THERE AND THE TWO NEW POINTS OF CONNECTION TO GOVERNOR'S PARK. SOME CHANGES COMING IN THE FUTURE. THE FINDINGS OF THIS STUDY, TWO SEGMENTS OF U.S. 17 THAT WILL EXCEED CAPACITY.

THAT IMPACT WAS NOT DUE TO THIS PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT, IT WAS DUE TO OTHER TRAFFIC. AGRICOLA WOULD NOT BE ADDING SIGNIFICANT IMPACT DURING PHASES ONE, TWO OR FOUR.

THIS APPLICATION IS ATTACHED TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND THIS IS A REQUEST TO TRANSMIT TO THE STATE AGAIN FOR REVIEW, IT'LL BE ONE OF THE AGENCIES AS WELL AS THE LAST APPLICATION, FISH AND WILDLIFE, ALL PART OF THE REVIEW.

STAFF FINDS THAT THE APPLICANT'S PROVIDED TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CI POLICY 1.3.6 AND RECOMMENDS APPROVAL TO TRANSMIT THE POLICY AMENDMENT TO THE STATE PLANNING COMMISSION VOTED 6-1 TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL TO TRANSMIT AS WELL.

THE SPRING, VOTED 6-0 TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF COMP 26-0010. AND THE APPLICANT HAS A

PRESENTATION AS WELL. >> GOOD AFTERNOON, PLANNING MANAGER, 14775 OLD ST. AUGUSTINE ROAD.

THANK YOU BETH. IF YOU WANT TO GO AHEAD AND GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE. I WAS VERY FROM THE INTRODUCTION EVERYBODY THAT ELLEN ALREADY INTRODUCED, OVERALL, THIS IS AN APPLICATION FOR AGROCHOLA, WHICH WE DISCUSSED IN THE LAST APPLICATION AS WELL, AN EXISTING DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AND

[03:05:04]

ALREADY HAS A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ON THE PROPERTY.

THIS APPLICATION IS FOR A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TEXT AMENDMENT WAS FILED AS AN APPLICATION TO A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT MODIFICATION. ALL OF WHICH WILL COME BACK TO IN SEPTEMBER TOGETHER. THIS APPLICATION FOR THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TEXT AMENDMENT IS REALLY TO REEVALUATE THE TRAFFIC, CONNECTING TO GOVERNANCE PARK AS IT RELATES TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TEXT POLICY.

JUST TO GET A LITTLE BIT ORIENTED AGAIN, LOOKING AT THE OVERVIEW OF THE PROPERTY, AGRICOLA, WE HAVE THE FIRST COAST EXPRESSWAY CONNECTING OVER TO 16 JUST BEFORE THE BRIDGE.

WE HAVE CLAY DAIRY PARKWAY, WHICH OF COURSE IS A PORTION IS UNDER CONSTRUCTION AS ELLEN COVERED IN THE LAST APPLICATION.

THAT WILL ULTIMATELY GO ALL THE WAY UP NORTH TO CATHEDRAL OAK PARKWAY AND HEAD BACK TO 17TH PROVIDING A BYPASS.

WE ALSO HAVE THE INTERCHANGE RAMPS AT CLAY DAIRY PARKWAY AND THE FIRST COAST EXPRESSWAY WHICH WE ANTICIPATE TO GO UNDER CONSTRUCTION LATER THIS YEAR. SINCE THIS APPLICATION WAS PREVIOUSLY BEFORE YOU IN APRIL OF 24, CATHEDRAL PARKWAY HAS COMPLETED ITS CONSTRUCTION AND IS OPEN TO THE PUBLIC.

NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. TAKING A LOOK AT THE APPLICATION I DO NOT KNOW IF YOU CAN SEE BUT THE AGRICULTURAL PROPERTY, YOU CAN SEE SOME THIN BLACK LINES. THOSE BLACK LINES SHOWED THE ORIGINALLY APPROVED TRANSPORTATION NETWORK FOR AGRICOLA. ALL OF THE TRAFFIC FOR AGRICOLA CAME IN FROM 17 AT BELLAMY ROAD SOUTH TO CLARIFY, THAT'S NOT THE HISTORIC BELLAMY ROAD, IT'S JUST SOUTH OF THAT.

AND ALSO HAD A CONNECTION POINT DOWN AT LINO ROAD.

ALL TRAFFIC FOR AGRICOLA CAME IN FROM 17 AND CAME OUT AT 17.

WITH THIS APPLICATION, THEY ARE PROPOSING -- EXCUSE ME, A BIT OF HISTORY THERE IS THAT STAFF WHEN THIS ORIGINALLY CAME THROUGH ASKED FOR A CONNECTIVITY BUT THERE WAS SEPARATE OWNERSHIP ON THE TWO PROPERTIES. AND THE GOVERNOR'S PARK OWNER DID NOT WANT TO CONNECT WITH AGRICOLA, SO THIS APPLICATION WAS TRANSMITTED BY THIS BOARD, WENT TO THE STATE AND THE STATE CAME BACK AND SAID, THERE IS A BREAK ON 17, IN THAT AREA IDENTIFIED AS A RED LINE IN THE SPRINGS AREA.

LET'S PUT A STOP AT THE 1251ST UNIT AND BEFORE YOU CAN PROCEED WITH THE DEVELOPMENT THERE, CONDUCT A TRAFFIC STUDY.

IDENTIFY ANY LEVEL OF SERVICE FAILURES, AS A RESULT OF THE AGRICOLA PROJECT, AND PROPOSE AN AMENDMENT TO DEVELOP AN AGREEMENT TO ADDRESS WHAT MODIFICATIONS ARE NEEDED FOR THAT. SO WE ADDED IN THE C POLICY ON 3.6. THAT SUMMARY OF THE POLICY AS WE JUST DISCUSSED REQUIRED US TO COME BACK AT THE 1251ST SPOT BEFORE WE COULD PROCEED. IF YOU MOVE FORWARD, NOW THAT THE GOVERNOR'S PARK AND AGRICOLA ARE UNDER A SIMILAR OWNERSHIP, SAME AFFILIATED OWNER, THEY NOW WISH TO CONNECT.

OUR TRAFFIC ENGINEER CONDUCTED A TRAFFIC STUDY, LOOKING AT THE TWO CONNECTIONS FROM 17 AND AGRICOLA AT BELLAMY ROAD SOUTH ALL THE WAY UP TO DOWNEY BOULEVARD CONNECTING TO THE GREEN SPRINGS BYPASS. WHERE THAT TRAFFIC STUDY IDENTIFIED IS AS A RESULT OF THAT CHANGE THERE IS NO LEVEL OF SERVICE FAILURES AS A RESULT OF THE AGRICOLA PROJECT.

THEY REQUIRE THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW ROAD SOUTH MAKE THAT CONNECTION TO 17 PRIOR TO THE PHASE THREE DEVELOPMENT PERIOD COULD ALSO REQUIRES COORDINATION OF THE INTERSECTION AT 17 WITH BELLAMY ROAD SOUTH, WE WILL DO AN ANALYSIS WITH D.O.T. TO ANALYZE WHAT KIND OF CONTROL EVALUATION WOULD BE NEEDED THERE. AND IT ALSO REQUIRED A WIDENING OF A PORTION OF THE CLAY DAIRY PARKWAY BETWEEN MEDALLION PARKWAY AND MEDALLION BOULEVARD AND THE FIRST COAST EXPRESSWAY FROM FOUR TO SIX LANES. AS A RESULT OF THAT, IN YOUR PACKET WE HAVE AN AMENDED AND RESCINDED DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, IT'S NOT HERE ON THE FLOOR BUT THAT IS IN YOUR PACKET BECAUSE IT'S IN THE APPLICATION. THAT WILL BE VOTED FOR IN SEPTEMBER, BUT WE WENT AHEAD AND PUT IN THIS PRESENTATION A SNIPPET FROM THAT DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WHICH TAKES THE REQUIREMENTS OF THAT STUDY, THE FINDINGS, THE CONNECTION UP TO GOVERNOR'S PARK AND CONNECTION TO 17 AND THE EVALUATION ON THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT. I WON'T READ IT TO YOU BUT THAT'S WHAT THAT SAYS. AND IT ALSO REFERENCES THE MAP THAT IS ADJACENT TO THAT. IT TALKS ABOUT THAT ROAD ALL THE WAY TO GOVERNOR'S PARK. NEXT SLIDE.

[03:10:01]

JUST A REMINDER OF GOVERNOR'S PARK, WWW.WASAPPROVEDIN2024ONTHELEFTSI DE,WEHAVETHATTRANSPORTATIONNETWO RK THAT DID NOT GO INTO GOVERNOR'S PARK AND THE ORIGINAL APPROVAL IS 4000 UNIT, 2 MILLION SQUARE FEET OF NONRESIDENTIAL USE. AS WE ARE COMING FORWARD AGAIN IN SEPTEMBER, WE RETAINED THE 4000 UNITS BUT WE SIGNIFICANTLY REDUCED THAT NONRESIDENTIAL BECAUSE ALL OF THAT, THE MARKET SHOWS IT IS REALLY NEEDED IN GOVERNOR'S PARK WHICH WE TALKED ABOUT IN THE LAST APPLICATION. THAT WOULD REDUCE DOWN TO 950,000 SQUARE FEET. A PART OF THAT REDUCTION IS THE ORIGINAL AGRICOLA DEVELOPMENT PATTERN AND EDUCATIONAL CAMPUS FOR HIGHER EDUCATION AND THE MARKET IDENTIFIED THAT HERE.

THAT IS A PORTION OF THAT ELIMINATION.

NEXT SLIDE. IN SUMMARY THIS REQUEST IS TO RECOMMEND TRANSMITTAL OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TEXT AMENDMENT TO DELETE THE CIE POLICY 1.3.6 BASED ON THE TRAFFIC STUDY THAT THERE IS NO LEVEL OF SERVICE FAILURES AS A RESULT OF THE AGRICOLA COMMITTEE, THE MODIFICATION REQUIRING THE CONNECTION TO CLAYBURY PARKWAY AS REQUIRED IN THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT THAT HAS BEEN INCLUDED AS A SUPPLEMENTAL DOCUMENT, THAT WE'LL TALK ABOUT IN SEPTEMBER.

AND THE REDUCTION IN THE NONRESIDENTIAL TRAFFIC.

WITH THAT THAT CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION, OUR TEAM MEMBERS ARE HERE AND I'M AVAILABLE FOR ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS.

>> OPENING THE PUBLIC HEARING. >> HELLO, KELLY JONES, 9575 MARTY CIRCLE IN JACKSONVILLE. 32257.

I WAS HERE FOR THE PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING FOR THIS AS WELL, IT WAS A LITTLE BIT CONFUSING, THIS TRANSPORTATION STUDY, FOR THE GOVERNOR'S PARK IN AGRICOLA, THEY SAID THE STUDY WAS FOR 4000 HOMES, AND THEN THEY APPLIED FOR ADDING THE THIRD PROPERTY, THE WRITTEN STUFF, INCREASING HOMES.

THEY SAID THEY WON'T INCREASE HOMES, BUT THEY ARE INCREASING THE COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT, IS THAT INCLUDED IN THIS TRAFFIC STUDY? THIS WHOLE THIRD PROPERTY? OR IS THAT FOR JUST THOSE TWO? THAT'S MY QUESTION.

>> THIS TRAFFIC STUDY IS JUST THE AGRICULTURE DEVELOPMENT, SEPARATE STUDY FOR THE GOVERNOR'S PARK.

>> THE SOUTHERN PORTION THAT HOLDS ALL THE ELEMENTS.

ANYBODY ELSE? OKAY.

GO AHEAD. >> MY QUESTION IS, THIS REFERENCES FEATURE ANALYSIS TO BE DONE AWAY WITH, AND I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY A FEATURE ANALYSIS THAT IS GOING TO BE DONE 10 TO 15 YEARS OUT, THIS BOARD HAS ANY SAY OVER.

THAT WE SHOULD ELIMINATE THAT PART OF OUR PROCESS? I DON'T UNDERSTAND IT. WE KNOW THAT MORE PEOPLE ARE GOING TO MOVE IN CAN I AND WE REDUCED THE AMOUNT OF RESIDENTS, BUT WE INCREASED THE COMMERCIAL. SO WE ARE ACTUALLY GOING TO BE CREATING MORE TRAFFIC. IF WE CREATE COMMERCIAL, WE NEED TO CREATE JOBS, PEOPLE TRAVEL BACK AND FORTH FOR THESE JOBS.

>> THIS IS ABOUT AGRICULTURE, NOT THE COMMERCIAL PART --

>> THERE IS A COMMERCIAL PORTION THAT IS SUPPOSED TO BE IN AGRICULTURE. IT WAS ORIGINALLY ON THEIR SUBMISSION PLANS FOR COMMERCIAL AND MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT CLAIM WENT TO THE STATE AND COULD NOT BE CHANGED.

IT WAS GOING TO BE LOCKED IN. TO THAT DEVELOPMENT PLAN.

BECAUSE I WAS HERE FOR ALL OF THE MEETINGS.

[03:15:01]

AND WE WERE TOLD -- AND WE SAT DOWN BECAUSE THEY CAME TO MY

HOUSE! >> I AGREE.

>> AND SAT WITH ALL OF MY NEIGHBORS AND SAID THIS IS WHAT WE WANT ONCE THIS GOES TO THE STATE, THERE WILL BE NO CHANGES.

IT'S LOCKED INTO THE STATE. SO NOW WE ARE SAYING THAT WE ARE NOT LOCKED IN ANYMORE? THAT IS MY QUESTION.

AND WE ARE DOING AWAY WITH REQUIREMENTS THAT THE COUNTY SAYS THEY HAVE TO DO ANOTHER TRAFFIC ANALYSIS LATER ON.

SO WE ARE JUST GOING TO DO AWAY WITH IT, WE ARE NOT GOING TO DO THAT BECAUSE WE DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT IS GOING TO BE LIKE.

AND THAT WAS TWO LANES. AND WE HAVE FOUR TIMES THE AMOUNT OF TRAFFIC NOW. I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY TIMES WE RAN OFF THE ROAD ON HIGHWAY 17. SO THAT WAS A BLESSING.

SO WE ARE PUTTING MORE TRAFFIC OUT THERE AND WE ARE JUST GOING TO ELIMINATE THE NEED TO REEVALUATE THIS DOWN THE ROAD BECAUSE IT'S GOING TO COST THEM MORE MONEY.

AND THEY HAVE PROBLEMS COMING UP WITH A $93 MILLION THAT THEY HAD

TO PURCHASE THE PROPERTY -- >> THANK YOU, MA'AM.

>> DO YOU HAVE A PERSON HERE BY ANY CHANCE WHO WOULD BE BETTER TO ANSWER THE TRAFFIC STUDY QUESTION?

>> THIS IS THOMAS WHO DID THE TRAFFIC STUDY FOR BOTH PROJECTS.

>> GOOD AFTERNOON, THOMAS HATCHER, TRAFFIC ENGINEER.

AT ETM, 14775 IN JACKSONVILLE, FLORIDA.

SO THE CONDITION IN THE CIE POLICY WAS FOR US TO CONDUCT THE TRAFFIC STUDY BEFORE THE 1251ST HOME.

FIND WHAT ISSUES THERE ARE, PROPOSED A SOLUTION AND THAT IS WHAT WE HAVE DONE. WE REALIZE THAT REALLY WHAT WE NEED TO DO IS GET TRAFFIC TO THE FIRST COAST EXPRESSWAY INTERCHANGE. AND IN DOING SO, MAKING THE CONNECTION UP THROUGH GOVERNOR'S PARK, WE GET MOST OF OUR TRAFFIC TO THE INTERCHANGE, OFF OF 17, ONTO THE BYPASS, WHICH IS THE WHOLE PURPOSE OF THE BYPASS. NOT SURE IF THAT ANSWERS ANY

OTHER QUESTIONS. >> SHE IS ASKING WHY YOU DO NOT HAVE TO DO ONE LATER AFTER THE 251ST.

WHY ARE YOU ASKING TO NOT DO THAT?

>> KEVIN CRAMER, BTI PARTNERS. WHAT THE POLICY SAID WAS THAT EVEN THOUGH THE COMMUNITY WAS APPROVED FOR 4000 UNITS OF, THAT IF YOU WANT TO DO ALL 4000 UNITS, IF YOU WANT TO DO MORE THAN 250, YOU HAVE TO COME IN WITH A TRAFFIC SOLUTION.

THERE IS CAPACITY OUT THERE CURRENTLY FOR THE 1250 UNITS, TO DO MORE THAN THAT, THERE NEEDS TO BE A TRAFFIC SOLUTION THAT WE NEEDED TO COME PRESENT THAT TO YOU FROM THE TRAFFIC STUDY WITH WHAT THE FIXES WOULD BE. LIKE A LIST OF THESE ARE THE ROAD IMPROVEMENTS THAT WILL HAPPEN IN ORDER TO MITIGATE THIS WITHOUT OUTSIDE IMPACT. SO THAT IS WHAT IT SAID.

I JUST WANTED -- THOMAS CAN ANSWER BETTER, BUT I BELIEVE THE TRAFFIC STUDY THAT IS DONE, IT IS COMPREHENSIVE.

IT IS NOT ONLY ALL OF AGRICOLA, IT ALSO INCLUDED THE FULL BUILDOUT OF GOVERNOR'S PARK WITH THE NONRESIDENTIAL.

AS ISN'T IT ALSO ALL OTHER APPROVALS REGIONALLY?

EXPLAIN I GUESS -- >> WE LAYERED ON OUR PROJECT TRAFFIC ON TOP OF THE GOVERNOR'S PARK AND BAR TRAFFIC.

SO THE TRAFFIC STUDY THAT YOU SAW PRIOR, WE ADDED AGRICOLA ON

TOP OF THAT. >> MAKING THAT POINT THAT THIS WAS NOT JUST A TRAFFIC STUDY OF THE PROPERTY.

IT IS THE FULL BUILD OUT AND THEN OF OTHER APPROVED DEVELOPMENTS REGIONALLY, PLUS WHAT IS THE EXISTING BACKGROUND

[03:20:02]

TRAFFIC. >> BUT HOW ARE YOU ABLE TO -- WHEN IT'S NOT 250 HOMES THERE ARE, HOW ARE YOU ABLE TO SAY YOU DON'T HAVE TO DO IT, YOU DON'T NEED TO DO IT LATER? I MEAN THE HOMES AREN'T THERE YET.

SO THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT SAID AFTER THAT.

>> I MEAN I DON'T BELIEVE THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS -- RIGHT,

ALL OF IT. >> [INAUDIBLE]

>> SO THE STUDY HAS ALREADY BEEN DONE, IT WOULD HAVE BEEN DONE.

>> JUST FOR CLARIFICATION, THE TEXT DID NOT SAY A TRAFFIC STUDY HAD TO BE DONE AT THAT TIME. IT WAS JUST TO DO MORE UNITS THAN THAT, YOU NEED TO COME IN WITH A TRAFFIC STUDY SHOWING THAT THE PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS CAN SUPPORT MORE UNITS THAN THAT. SO THERE WASN'T A TIMING MECHANISM, IT WAS JUST COME IN, SHOW WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE AND COMMIT TO DOING THIS TO EXCEED 1250 UNITS TO GET TO THE 4000.

>> MADAM CHAIR, I REMEMBER WHEN THIS CAME UP, THIS WAS THE REASON THAT THE FORMER COMMISSIONER VOTED AGAINST AGRICOLA. AND HIS ISSUE WAS THE CONNECTIVITY. AND BECAUSE I REMEMBER HIM SAYING THEY ARE GOING TO COME BACK IN TEN, 15, 20 YEARS AND WANT THE COUNTY TO BUILD THIS ROAD.

THAT WAS HIS REAL ISSUE, THAT THERE WASN'T CONNECTIVITY.

HE THOUGHT THERE WASN'T NEED FOR CONNECTIVITY AND HE WANTED THE ROAD TO BE BUILT AND HE THOUGHT THAT WOULD FALL BACK TO THE COUNTY AS A LOT OF ROADS HAVE AND STILL DO.

AND COMES TO MIND, BUT AT ANY RATE, SO I REMEMBER THAT THERE WAS -- ONE OF THE THINGS HE SAID WAS HOW MUCH OF THE DEVELOPMENT WILL BE BUILT. AND I THINK THAT WAS WHERE THAT 1250 HOME LIMIT CAME IN TO THAT AGREEMENT.

AND OF COURSE THAT WAS SEVERAL YEARS AGO.

I MEAN I'M NOT PASSIONATE ABOUT IT EITHER WAY, I JUST DID REMEMBER THAT WAS A SOURCE OF CONTENTION AND I THINK THIS WAS A MECHANISM TO TRY TO ALLEVIATE SOME OF THAT CONCERN.

>> OF COURSE NOW THERE IS THAT CONNECTIVITY.

>> SURE. >> AND REMOVAL OF THAT ONE, EVENTUALLY, HOPEFULLY, REMOVAL OF THAT ONE ENTRANCE OFF OF 17

WAY SOUTH. >> THE PLAN THAT YOU WILL SEE IN SEPTEMBER SHOWS THAT THERE IS STILL A CONNECTION FROM THE ROAD DOWN THERE. BUT IT DOESN'T COME UP THROUGH THE DEVELOPMENT. IT JUST COMES TO SERVE THOSE PARCELS THAT ARE IMMEDIATELY DOWN THERE.

BUT NOT PROVIDING CONNECTION ALL THE WAY UP THROUGH THE

DEVELOPMENT. >> OKAY.

ANYBODY ELSE HAVE QUESTIONS? YOU GOOD?

ALL RIGHT. >> I HAVE ALREADY CLOSED THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS ITEM. ALL RIGHT.

I WILL TAKE A MOTION. >> I'M SORRY, MA'AM, DO WE HAVE

THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS? >> SHE SPOKE.

>> THAT'S RIGHT, I DO REMEMBER THAT.

IT JUST FELT LIKE A LONG TIME AGO.

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

>> SECOND. >> THIS IS FOR THE TRANSMITTAL?

YES, I SECOND THAT MOTION. >> THAT THE MOTION IS SECONDED, ALL IN FAVOR? ANY OPPOSED?

[19. Second Public Hearing for consideration of the Draft Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Consolidated Plan for 2026-2030 and for the Draft Annual Action Plan for 2026. (J. Hysler)]

PASSES 5-0. ALL RIGHT, 19, SECOND PUBLIC HEARING FOR DRAFT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT GRANT FOR 20262030 AND THE DRAFT ANNUAL ACTION PLAN FOR 2026.

>> HYSLER, COMPLIANCE MANAGER? >> SO AFTER THE FIRST PUBLIC HEARING, THERE WAS SOME CONCERN ABOUT DISTRICTS NOT BEING SERVED AS WELL AS OTHERS. SO IN ORDER TO MAKE AN ADJUSTMENT, THE PROPOSAL THAT YOU HAVE BEFORE YOU THIS EVENING PROPOSES A SHIFT IN THE PERCENTAGES OF THE PLAN OVER THE COURSE OF THE FIVE YEARS IN THE CONSOLIDATED PLAN.

[03:25:02]

AND WHAT WE DID WAS SHIFT 15% OUT OF INFRASTRUCTURE AND INTO PARKS. SO THAT LEVELS US A LITTLE BIT, TO 45% IN INFRASTRUCTURE, 40% IN PARKS.

AND I DO HAVE A POWERPOINT. MIGHT BE EASIER TO SEE IT.

THERE WE GO. YOU CAN GO TO THE NEXT ONE.

45% IN INFRASTRUCTURE, 40% FOR PARKS AND PUBLIC FACILITIES.

AND THEN THERE WAS NO CHANGE IN THIS PROPOSAL TO THE NONPROFIT EXPANSION AT 10% OR TO ADMINISTRATION AT 5%.

WITH THE INCREASE IN FUNDING TOWARDS PARKS, THE IDEA IS THAT IT LEVELS THE PLAYING FIELD A LITTLE BIT, THAT WOULD BE THE HOPE. THAT IT WOULD LEVEL THE PLAYING FIELD AND ALLOW THOSE FUNDS TO BE UTILIZED MORE EQUITABLY ACROSS THE BOARD. SO WE WOULD NEED TO LOOK AT THAT AND MAKE A DECISION ON THOSE PERCENTAGES FOR THE CONSOLIDATED PLAN. AND THEN THE ANNUAL ACTION PLAN WOULD FOLLOW WITH THE ACTUAL DOLLAR AMOUNTS FOR THE FIRST YEAR OF THE PLAN. SO WHAT YOU SEE IN FRONT OF YOU IS THE FIRST YEAR PLAN AT 1,000,772, NOW MIRRORING THOSE PERCENTAGES WITH 45% IN INFRASTRUCTURE, 40% IN PARKS AND THEN THE SAME AMOUNT AT THE 10% IN NONPROFIT EXPANSION.

SO THAT IS THE PROPOSAL THAT IS ON THE FLOOR AT THIS POINT FOR YOUR REVIEW. I AM HERE TO ANSWER ANY

QUESTIONS. >> ANY QUESTIONS?

YES? >> I DON'T UNDERSTAND THE PLAYING FIELD COMMENT. YOU KNOW, INFRASTRUCTURE -- I THINK SERVICE TO THE COMMUNITY AS WELL AS SAFETY, THAT IS WHERE I HAVE A LITTLE TROUBLE WITH THIS.

WE HAVE THIS SAFETY ASPECT, WE HAVE KNOWN NEEDS AND WE HAVE UNKNOWN NEEDS. I WILL JUST GIVE YOU AN EXAMPLE.

WE HAVE A SCHOOL AND THE SCHOOL SYSTEM LETS OUR KIDS OUT THE BACK GATE, THEY HAVE NO WAY TO GET HOME, OTHER THAN WALKING ON THE ROAD. SO THE SOLUTION IS A SIDEWALK.

UNFORTUNATELY I THINK THAT IS FAIRLY EXPENSIVE FOR A SOLUTION.

SO I DON'T KNOW. I GUESS SOMEBODY HAS TO CONVINCE ME THAT WE NEED PARKS MORE THAN INFRASTRUCTURE.

TO WARRANT A CHANGE IN PRIORITIES.

AND THROUGHOUT THE DOCUMENTS WE TALK ABOUT SAFETY AND SECURITY, INFRASTRUCTURE AND I JUST DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW THAT IS LEVELING

THE PLAYING FIELD. >> IF I MAY, THROUGH THE CHAIR.

I THINK THERE ARE TWO EXAMPLES OF WHERE THIS COULD COME INTO PLAY ON THE PARK SIDE. ONE IS YOU HAVE MOODY PARK, WHICH YOUR BOARD BASICALLY SAID HEY, WE NEED TO PULL THAT OUT OF THE BUDGET AND WE QUALIFY FOR FUNDING.

SO YOU COULD THEORETICALLY, WITH YOUR 40%, PAY FOR THE PARK FOR THE NEXT 2-3 YEARS. THAT IS A $700,000 PROJECT THAT YOU BASICALLY SAID YOU COULD FLOAT RIGHT DOWN THE BUDGET.

AND THE OTHER PLACE WITH PARKS IS -- THIS IS A PRIME EXAMPLE OF, WE WERE APPROACHED BY A PARK IN YOUR DISTRICT, ♪ ♪ OF HEY, WE'VE GOT SOME MONEY TO SPEND, WE CAN'T PAY FOR AN ENTIRE PROJECT BUT WE CAN PAY FOR HALF THE PROJECT.

AND THIS CAN BE USED TO MATCH THAT DONATION OR THAT COMMITMENT FROM THAT ASSOCIATION TO HELP PAY FOR IT.

SO I DO THINK THERE ARE DOLLARS THERE THAT CAN BE LEVERAGED.

YOU GET TWO FOR ONE THAT WAY. AND SO THE PARK HAS COME TO THE TABLE AND SAID WE'VE GOT MONEY TO HELP FIX THE BATHROOMS, THEY DON'T HAVE ALL THE MONEY, WE DON'T HAVE IT IN THE BUDGET RIGHT NOW, FOR SURE. BUT YOU CAN USE THIS MONEY TO MATCH IT. I DON'T KNOW IF THAT DIRECTLY

ANSWERS YOUR QUESTION BUT -- >> BECAUSE WE CAN DO THAT ANYWAY, WITH THE ORIGINAL ALLOCATION.

I THINK WE CAN ACCOMPLISH WHAT WE WANT TO, I JUST DON'T SEE HOW

[03:30:02]

SHIFTING IS GOING TO SOLVE IT. SO ONE IS FOR RECREATION PURPOSES AND THE OTHER IS FOR SAFETY AND SECURIY.

THE INFRASTRUCTURE WANTS AND IF ANYONE CAN HELP ME UNDERSTAND IT, I APPRECIATE THAT. WHAT WOULD YOU PROPOSE IN TERMS

OF THE SPLIT? >> I WANT TO KNOW WHY IT WAS

CHANGED FROM THE ORIGINAL SPLIT. >> IT WAS 60-25.

60% INFRASTRUCTURE, 25% FOR PARKS.

>> SINCE WE CHANGED IT, I JUST WANT TO KNOW WHY WE CHANGED IT.

>> I THINK THE PROPOSAL THAT YOU HAVE BEFORE YOU IS BASED ON THE COMMENTS FROM THE FIRST PUBLIC HEARING AT THE PREVIOUS BOARD MEETING FROM SOME OF THE COMMISSIONERS.

>> A COMMENT, HELP ME UNDERSTAND WHAT THE COMMENT WAS AND HOW

THIS LEVELS THE PLAYING FIELD. >> AND MAYBE THAT TERMINOLOGY -- I THINK THE ATTEMPT WAS -- MY UNDERSTANDING OF THE CONCERN WAS THAT THERE WASN'T ENOUGH INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS IN EVERY DISTRICT TO MAKE IT MAKE THE DOLLARS EQUITABLE ACROSS THE BOARD. AND THIS CHANGE, SINCE EVERYONE HAS PARKS AND WE KNOW THAT THERE ARE DOLLARS NECESSARY FOR PARKS THAT ARE CURRENTLY NOT IN THE BUDGET AND PARK PROJECTS THAT HAVE BEEN APPROVED THAT MAY HAVE TO GO ON HOLD, THAT WAS KIND OF

THE MIND-SET. >> BECAUSE I WOULD ARGUE THERE IS CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS, IN MY OPINION.

I'M KIND OF -- COMMISSIONER, I'M JUST ASKING, ARE YOU AGAINST

60-25? >> I'M OKAY WITH IT.

>> BUT YOU ARE OKAY WITH 60-25 INFRASTRUCTURE?

BECAUSE I'M IN FAVOR OF THAT. >> THAT'S WHAT IT WAS.

ALL I'M ASKING IS WAS THERE A DEFINITIVE REASON WE SWITCHED? YOU KNOW THE COMMENT -- TO ME IT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE.

>> I THINK WE ARE JUST TRYING TO ADDRESS THE CONVERSATION THAT HAPPENED AT THE LAST BOARD MEETING, THE PREROGATIVE IF THE BOARD WANTS 900. IT IS THE BOARD'S PREROGATIVE.

BASED ON CONVERSATIONS THAT HAPPENED IN THIS BOARD ROOM AND CONVERSATIONS AFTER THAT INDIVIDUALLY STAFF FELT THAT GOING TO THIS SPLIT WAS GOING TO ALLOW US TO DO SOME OF THE THINGS LIKE COST SHARE, I WILL GO BACK TO THE PARK.

I DON'T MEAN TO BELABOR THAT ONE.

AT THE NUMBER THAT WE HAD BE BEFORE, 30% -- A. YEAR.

SO TO DO MOODY PARK, IF YOU'RE NOT GOING TO DO IT WITH THIS AT $200,000, YOU EITHER SPEND ALL OF YOUR MONEY ON MOODY PARK THE FIRST YEAR OR WILL TAKE YOU FOUR YEARS TO GET ENOUGH MONEY FROM MOODY PARK. WE WERE DOING IT BASED ON OTHER BUDGET CONSIDERATIONS, WE WERE TRYING TO HELP BALANCE THE CONVERSATION WE HAD AT THE LAST MEETING, THE BUDGET WORKSHOP, THE NEEDS HAD BEEN EXPRESSED. AND AGAIN, IF THE BOARD CHOOSES, CHOOSES TO SAY IT IS 90-10 AND OTHER PERCENTAGES, THAT IS

REALLY YOUR PREROGATIVE. >> I UNDERSTAND.

IT OUGHT TO BE OUR PREROGATIVE BASED ON FACTS, OKAY? WHAT WE NEED TO DO, WHAT WE SHOULD BE DOING AND ALL THAT.

SP WHEN YOU HAVE A REPORT THAT SHOWS ALMOST A MILLION DOLLARS IN NEEDS BETWEEN SIDEWALKS AND PARKS.

SO THAT HAS BEEN OUT THERE. AGAIN, WE WERE JUST TRYING TO

BALANCE THE TWO EFFORTS. >> WHAT YOU WERE SAYING IS WE HAVE MORE NEEDS THAN WE HAVE RESOURCES.

I MEAN I UNDERSTAND ALL THAT. >> WE'VE GOT SIDEWALK NEEDS, PARK NEEDS, IT'S REALLY YOUR PREROGATIVE.

>> WHAT WAS THE HURT IN DOING THIS? WHAT IS THE HURT OF DOING THIS? WHAT DO YOU NOT LIKE?

>> THE STAFF CAME UP WITH AN ALLOCATION BUT THEY CHANGED IT.

AND MY QUESTION IS WHY. IF IF IS TO LEVEL THE PLAYING FIELD, THAT DOESN'T MEAN ANYTHING TO ME.

>> I THINK WHAT HE'S TRYING TO SAY IS IT'S A WAY TO FUND THE

MOODY PARK PROJECT. >> OR OTHER PROJECTS.

>> WHICH IS IN YOUR DISTRICT. >> I KNOW.

I'M NOT ARGUING FROM THE POINT OF OWNERSHIP THERE.

BECAUSE I HAVE NEEDS. SIDEWALKS, PARKS, EVERYTHING.

>> WE ALREADY STARTED ON THE FIRST HEARING, THROUGH THE WORKSHOP TO TODAY AND DIFFERENT PLACES.

[03:35:05]

SO WHEN WE WERE AT THE FIRST MEETING, THE FIRST ALLOCATIONS, WE WERE IN A DIFFERENT PLACE THAN WE ARE BASED ON YOUR BUDGET WORKSHOP. AGAIN, IF THE 60-35 IS WHAT THE BOARD -- IF THAT IS THE NUMBER THAT WORKS FOR EVERYBODY, WE'LL

MOVE BACK TO 60-35. >> DOES IT WORK FOR STAFF?

>> I THINK STAFF WANTS TO ACCOMPLISH THE PROJECTS THAT YOU GUYS AS A BOARD WANT TO ACCOMPLISH.

>> WE ARE NOT GOING TO LOSE A MILLION.

>> WHAT DOES THAT DO FOR MOODY? WE CAN'T HELP THEM? IF WE HAVE 35 ONLY? WHAT?

>> YOU HAVE TO MAKE A DECISION, JUST USING THE PARK AS THE EXAMPLE. YOU HAVE TO MAKE A DECISION AND YOU CAN FRONT LOAD THE THING AND SAY WE'LL USE ALL 35% OF THE MONEY ON PARKS AND THEN USE YOUR OTHER 65% THE NEXT FOUR YEARS.

YOU DON'T HAVE TO USE IT ALL, IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE THIS WAY LAID OUT EACH YEAR AND I THINK THAT'S WHAT WE ARE LOOKING FOR, THE DIRECTION FROM THE BOARD IS HOW YOU WANT THE OVERALL FIVE YEAR SPLIT TO BE AND HOW MUCH OF THAT YOU WANT TO PUT AWAY.

THAT IS THE TWO QUESTIONS AT HAND.

>> THAT IS THE CONSOLIDATED PLANS?

>> YES, SIR. YOU'VE GOT AN OVERALL PERCENTAGE FOR THE ENTIRE FIVE YEARS. IT DOESN'T MEAN YOU CAN'T REVISIT IT IN TWO YEARS, YOU ALSO HAVE THE ANNUAL PLAN THAT YOU NEED TO ADOPT AND BOTH OF THOSE REALLY NEED TO BE FINALIZED -- I. HATE TO SAY IT, TONIGHT, BECAUSE THEY HAVE TO BE SUBMITTED TO THE STATE BY THE FIRST.

SO THAT IS -- UNFORTUNATELY THAT IS THE PRESSURE WE ARE UNDER.

>> YOU MENTIONED REVISITING IT. SO WE CAN ADJUST THE PERCENTAGE

TO THE TWO YEARS? >> YOU CAN, IT WOULD BE A CHANGE TO THE CONSOLIDATED PLAN WHICH WOULD THEN HAVE TO DO THIS WHOLE PROCESS AGAIN. BUT ABSOLUTELY IT CAN BE DONE.

>> ESPECIALLY IF THE FACT IS YOU FRONT LOAD.

SO IF YOU SAID YOU WERE GOING TO DO THE WHOLE $800,000 PARK AND THEN YOU WANTED TO CHANGE THE PERCENTAGES, IT WILL CHANGE T

THAT. >> AS ONE, I DID NOT HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THE ORIGINAL PERCENTAGE ALLOCATION.

SO I'M GOOD GOING BACK TO THE 60-25.

I'M GOOD WITH IT. AND THAT IS WHAT I SHARED WITH YOU IN OUR BRIEFING. SO WHATEVER THE PLEASURE OF THE BOARD IS, I HAD A SIMILAR CONVERSATION OR VANTAGE POINT AS THE COMMISSIONER IN THAT THIS TIME LAST YEAR, WE WERE TALKING ABOUT THE INFRASTRUCTURE OF SIDEWALKS.

AND FOR YOU TO HIGHLIGHT THAT POINT, YOU DIDN'T KNOW THAT WAS THE NATURE OF MY CONVERSATION WITH THE STAFF.

AND SO FOR ME, IT MAKES SENSE TO HYPER FOCUS ON INFRASTRUCTURE.

SO IF THERE IS AN APPETITE TONIGHT TO GO BACK TO THE ORIGINAL PROPOSAL FROM STAFF, I'M HAPPY TO DO IT.

>> WE CAN'T DO MOODY THEN? CORRECT?

WE DON'T HAVE IT IN THE BUDGET. >> KNOW YOU CANNOT DO MOODY.

I THINK WHAT I WOULD RECOMMEND TO THE BOARD, IF IT IS YOUR PLEASURE, DECIDE YOUR CONSOLIDATED ACTION PLAN FIRST.

IS IT THE 65 -- 60-25? IF IT IS THE 60-25 VERSUS WHATEVER IS IN THIS PLAN, I THINK YOU DECIDE THAT FIRST.

THAT IS A QUESTION THAT HAS TO BE ANSWERED.

AND THEN I THINK THE SECOND QUESTION THAT HAS TO BE ANSWERED IS HOW YOU WANT TO ALLOCATE THAT MONEY IN YOUR FIRST YEAR OF THE ACTION PLAN. IF THAT PLEASURES THE BOARD, I THINK THAT WOULD BE AN EASIER WAY TO APPROACH THE TWO HALVES

OF THE CONVERSATION. >> MADAM CHAIR, IF I MAY.

IF YOU GO TO THE PLAN, THE CONSOLIDATE PLAN AS TROY MENTIONS AND YOU WANT TO LOOK AT FACTS AND NUMBERS AND SURVEYS, JODY AND THE TEAM CONDUCTED MANY TOWN HALL MEETINGS TO GATHER THE PUBLIC'S OPINION. I WOULD ASK YOU ALL TO TAKE A LOOK AT THAT PUBLIC SURVEY AND MAYBE PERHAPS DETERMINE YOUR PERCENTAGE FROM THAT. I WOULD ASK YOU TO TAKE A LOOK AT NUMBER 1. THE QUESTION SAYS OVERALL, HOW IMPORTANT DO YOU BELIEVE COMMUNITY INVESTMENTS ARE FOR IMPROVING QUALITY OF LIFE THROUGHOUT CLAY COUNTY? IT IS 13 OUT OF 14 PEOPLE, IT IS THE NUMBER 1 MOST IMPORTANT.

IF I TAKE YOU DOWN TO NUMBER 3, IT SAYS HOW WOULD YOU RATE THE NEED FOR INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS SUCH AS SIDEWALKS, DRAINAGE, PEDESTRIAN SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS IN YOUR COMMUNITY? THE VERY HIGH NEED WAS FIVE. HIGH NEED THREE, MODERATE NEED FIVE, LOW NEED ONE. SO AGAIN, YOU CAN LOOK AT IT, IT'S NOT EXACTLY VERY IMPORTANT VERSUS VERY HIGH.

[03:40:01]

BUT THAT KIND OF STUCK OUT FOR ME, WHEN YOU LOOK AT HOW PEOPLE RATED THESE. FROM THE TOWN HALL MEETINGS.

THERE ARE OTHER ONES ON THERE. WE COULD SPEND ALL NIGHT, TAKING A LOOK AT EACH ONE OF THESE. BUT I THINK IT IS HARD TO NAIL DOWN THE EXACT PERCENTAGE. AND I THINK WE DID OUR INITIAL STEP TO TRY TO GET IT. ADDITIONAL DATA CAME IN FROM THE LAST BOARD MEETING AND JODY MADE SOME ADJUSTMENTS.

AND AS TROY HAS BRIEFED, OTHER FACTORS WERE AT PLAY.

IT WAS VERY DYNAMIC AND WE WERE TRYING TO GET TO IT.

GO AHEAD, SIR. >> I WAS JUST GETTING INVOLVED, BUT I'M GETTING CONFUSED -- IF YOU ARE LOOKING AT SAYING THE BUDGET FOR 26, IS THAT ALREADY AN APPROVED BUDGET? WHERE ARE YOU GOING? WHERE WAS IT LAST YEAR? WHERE IS IT GOING THIS YEAR? IS IT UP OR DOWN? THERE'S NONE OF THAT HERE. WE HAVE NO IDEA.

THE PEOPLE THAT ARE DOING THIS FIVE YEAR PROGRAM, WHAT ARE THEIR PLANS OVER THE NEXT FIVE YEARS? BECAUSE THERE IS NOTHING HERE. SO WHAT IS IT? WILL YOU DO IT BASED ON PRIORITIES OF NET PRESENT VALUE TOWARDS WHAT'S MORE IMPORTANT AND WILL BE MORE EXPENSIVE IN FIVE YEARS? OR ARE YOU GOING TO LOOK -- HOW WILL YOU LOOK AT IT? AND I DON'T UNDERSTAND.

YOU CAN PLAY WITH THE PERCENTAGES ALL DAY LONG, WHO CARES? WHAT DO THESE PEOPLE NEED AND WHAT IS THE MOST IMPORTANT THINGS AT THIS POINT ON THE NET PRESENT VALUE OF IT? I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE BUDGET -- THIS MILLION DOLLARS, IS THAT FOR THIS ONE YOU HAVE JUST

INCREASED THE MILLAGE RATE FOR? >> WE DID NOT INCREASE IT YET.

AND I KNOW YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND IT BECAUSE YOU HAVEN'T SEEN IT BEFORE, BUT JODY WANTED TO ANSWER THAT.

SO SHE WILL ANSWER THAT FOR YOU. >> THOSE ARE THE THINGS THAT I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND. THE PLANS, THE DOLLAR AMOUNTS, HOW IT WILL ESCALATE. ALL OF THESE TYPES OF THINGS.

NONE OF IT IS HERE FOR THIS PLAN.

>> GO AHEAD JODY, YOU CAN ANSWER THAT.

>> SO THE CONSOLIDATED PLAN -- THIS IS AN ENTITLEMENT PROGRAM THROUGH HUD. THIS IS THE SECOND FIVE-YEAR PLAN, WE'RE IN THE FIFTH YEAR OF THE FIRST FIVE-YEAR PLAN.

SO EVERY FIVE YEARS, YOU HAVE TO PUT TOGETHER A CONSOLIDATED PLAN, IT IS AN OVERARCHING LOOK AT THE PROPOSAL FOR HOW THESE DOLLARS WILL BE SPENT OVER THE COURSE OF THAT FIVE YEAR TIME.

AND THEN EACH YEAR YOU COME BACK AND PRESENT AN ACTUAL BUDGET TO HUD FOR THAT PARTICULAR YEAR IN THE GRANT.

>> IT IS A GRANT. >> AND THE AMOUNT IS DETERMINED BY THEM AND IS AN AWARD AND IS ROUGHLY A MILLION OR A LITTLE OVER A MILLION EACH YEAR OVER THE COURSE OF THE FIVE YEARS.

IT IS ABOUT FIVE AND A HALF MILLION DOLLARS TOTAL OVER THE COURSE OF FIVE YEARS. AND WILL DETERMINE HOW MUCH YOU

CAN GET EACH YEAR. >> LET ME ADD THAT THIS IS FOR LOW AND MODERATE INCOME SEGMENTS OF THE COUNTY.

WE CAN'T JUST SPEND IT ANYWHERE IN THE COUNTY.

WE HAVE TO LOCALIZE IT TO AN LMI AREA, WE HAVE TO ASSESS WHAT THE NEEDS ARE AND GET THESE RESOURCES TO MEET THESE NEEDS.

IT IS A COMPLEX PROBLEM WE ARE TALKING ABOUT.

>> WE HAD SIX PUBLIC MEETINGS AROUND THE COUNTY.

>> I THINK THERE WAS -- DID YOU WANT TO SPEAK TO THIS? OKAY. ANYONE ELSE? ALL RIGHT, CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING, BRING IT BACK TO THE

BOARD. >> I HAVE ONE MORE QUESTION.

WHICH PERCENTAGE BETTER MEETS THE NEEDS IN THOSE AREAS?

ORIGINAL OR MODIFIED? >> HONEST ANSWER.

>> HONEST ANSWER WOULD BE IT DEPENDS ON THE DIRECTION OF THE BOARD. IT'S JUST LIKE YOUR REGULAR BUDGET. IT'S LIKE ASKING YOU TO -- IT'S LIKE ASKING YOU TO PICK WHICH OF YOUR KIDS IS YOUR FAVORITE.

IS INFRASTRUCTURE MORE IMPORTANT OR IS PARKS MORE IMPORTANT? OR GOVERNMENT BUILDINGS? IT IS ALL IMPORTANT, WE ALL KNOW

-- >> AND THE IMPORTANCE IS TO

[03:45:01]

COMMUNITY CENTERS. WE HAVEN'T EVEN TALKED --

>> AND WE HAD PEOPLE THAT SHOWED UP TO THE MEETING --

>> WE DON'T EVEN REALLY HAVE THE TRUE --

>> ON NUMBER 5, IT HAS ACCESSIBILITY IMPROVEMENTS, NUMBER 4, DEFINE ACCESSIBILITY. THAT CAN BE PARKS OR SIDEWALKS.

AGAIN, IT IS ALL IN THE EYE OF THE BEHOLDER, FOR LACK OF A BETTER TERM. I THINK THOSE ARE IMPORTANT TO THE COMMUNITY. WE KNOW THERE ARE NEEDS IN BOTH AREAS, WE'VE DEALT WITH SURVEYS AND OTHER STUFF.

>> SECOND LAST QUESTION. WHAT WAS THE PERCENTAGE FROM THE

PREVIOUS CONSOLIDATED FUND? >> I WOULD HAVE TO GO BACK AND LOOK. WE SHIFTED IT THIS LAST YEAR, WE TOOK EVERYTHING. SO THE PREVIOUS FIVE YEARS HAD A REALLY SIGNIFICANT EMPHASIS ON HOME REHABILITATION.

SO THOSE WERE INDIVIDUAL HOMES THAT WERE BEING REHABILITATED.

I THINK WE ENDED UP DOING 15 TOTAL OVER THE COURSE OF THE FIVE YEAR. AND THEN BECAUSE OF THE NEED FOR INFRASTRUCTURE, WE TOOK ANY UNSPENT DOLLARS AND DID A SUBSTANTIAL AMENDMENT, WHICH CHANGED THE BUDGET FOR THESE LAST TWO YEARS TO HAVE AN EMPHASIS ON INFRASTRUCTURE AND SIDEWALKS. WE HAD OVER A MILLION DOLLARS IN

THIS FIFTH YEAR FOR SIDEWALKS. >> MADAM CHAIR, CLARIFYING QUESTION. WHAT IS OUR NORMAL -- LET'S SAY NORMAL, ANNUAL SPEND ON SIDEWALKS? NOT COUNTING THE GRANT, JUST THE COUNTY.

>> RICHARD SMITH, COUNTY ENGINEER.

WE HAVE A SIDEWALK FUND THAT WE COLLECT KAKUZU ARE FAMILIAR WITH, FROM THE NEW DEVELOPMENTS THAT COME TO THE COUNTY.

AND IF I HAD TO PUT MY FINGER ON IT, IT IS A VERY LARGE PART OF

IT. >> THAT IS FACTORED INTO THAT

FUND? >> NO, I'M JUST SAYING IF YOU SAID TAKE THAT OUT OF OUR BUDGET, I WOULD PROBABLY SAY WE

ARE LESS THAN $500,000 A YEAR. >> FOR THE WHOLE COUNTY?

>> AND A LOWER AMOUNT. OH, YES.

AND THAT INCLUDES -- >> HEARING THAT, I AM BETTER WITH THE 45-40. IF WE ARE USING LESS THAN 500,000 A YEAR IN SIDEWALKS, THIS HELPS US AND GIVES US ANOTHER 45% ON TOP OF THE SIDEWALK FUND, BUT THAT --

>> 100% OF THAT -- WHAT YOU WOULD GIVE US, WE USE.

THAT IS WHAT WE ARE SAYING. YOU GIVE US 5 MILLION, WE WILL BUILD THOSE SIDEWALKS. WE CAN PUT SIDEWALKS TO KEY

KEYSTONE. >> SO I GUESS I'M HEARING YOUR POINT DIFFERENTLY. YOU ARE SAYING THAT THERE IS A NEED AND THAT IS WHY YOU EXPEND ALL THOSE DOLLARS.

SO FOR ME, WHEN I HEAR COST ALLOCATION FOR SIDEWALKS, YOU HAD $500,000 OR LESS, SO YOU ENDED UP HAVING TO SPEND ALL OF THAT, BUT THE PROJECTS, LIKE EVERYTHING ELSE, EXCEED THE AMOUNT OF MONEY THAT WE HAVE TO SPEND ON IT.

SO THAT IS WHY WHEN I WAS DISCUSSING EARLIER, WHAT IT LOOKED LIKE FOR ME, I AM LOOKING, BROADLY, AT WHAT HAS BEEN AN ISSUE. AND I THINK ABOUT THIS NOT JUST FROM THE COMMISSION STANDPOINT, BUT ONE OF THE ISSUES THAT WE HAD, LIKE I SAID, ABOUT THIS TIME LAST YEAR, WAS GETTING STUDENTS TO AND FROM SCHOOL. AND OUR SIDEWALKS -- THEY WERE SO NOTICEABLY ABSENT THAT WE STARTED TRYING TO BRAINSTORM AND THERE WERE PROJECTS IN OTHER PARTS OF THE STATE THAT WERE TALKING ABOUT AT, I WENT TO A TPO MEETING AND THEY WERE TALKING ABOUT REALLY TROUBLESHOOTING THIS PROBLEM.

SO FOR ME, I UNDERSTAND THAT THE REAL RUB IS EITHER INFRASTRUCTURE OR FACILITIES IN PARKS.

ALL OF THEM BEING A NEED, I'M WONDERING HOW THESE DOLLARS CAN BE STRETCHED TO NOT JUST HELP OUR AGENTS, BUT THE OTHER AGENCIES THAT ARE BEARING ON US BECAUSE AT THE END OF THE DAY, I FIND THAT SAFETY -- IF WE ARE GOING TO TALK ABOUT PUBLIC SAFETY BEING OUR NUMBER 1 MISSION, I DON'T SEE HOW THIS IS DISCONNECTED WITH THAT GOAL. SO I AM COMFORTABLE WITH THE INITIAL PROPOSAL -- THE INITIAL PROPOSAL THAT YOU SUBMITTED TO

ME, FOR THAT REASON. >> IS THAT A MOTION?

>> I BELIEVE SO. >> SO THEN MY MOTION TONIGHT IS

[03:50:02]

YES, AS I HAVE MENTIONED. >> 6725?

>> YES. >> MOTION AND SECOND ALL IN FAVOR? ANY OPPOSED?

>> SO MADAM CHAIR, I GUESS THE QUESTION BEFORE THE BOARD IS THEN, DO YOU WANT TO KEEP THE ACTION PLAN ON THAT SAME SPLIT EACH YEAR? OR DO YOU WANT TO FRONT LOAD SIDEWALKS OR FRONT LOAD PARKS OR JUST KEEP THAT SAME FOR THE FIRST YEAR, STRAIGHT INTO THE 60-25?

>> I THINK WE NEED TO LEAVE IT WHERE IT IS BECAUSE I DON'T THINK WE HAVE ENOUGH INFORMATION TONIGHT.

>> THAT'S FINE. >> SO WE ARE GOING TO LOOK AT IT

EACH YEAR? >> MAYBE NEXT YEAR.

SEE HOW IT GOES THIS YEAR. BECAUSE THERE WERE ENOUGH PARK PROJECTS -- WALTER ODOM COMES TO MIND, THERE WERE A COUPLE OTHERS. MOODY WE WON'T BE ABLE TO DO, BUT WALTER ODOM WASN'T GOING TO GET PARKING IMPROVEMENTS, TWIN LAKES WASN'T GOING TO GET PARKING IMPROVEMENT.

THERE WERE ENOUGH PARKS IN AREAS THAT WE HAD TO CUT THAT JUSTIN HAS PROJECTS THAT GO THROUGH THE FIRST ACTION PLAN, PROBABLY.

AND THEN WE WILL SEE. AND MAYBE WE DO MOODY ON THE

BACK END. >> SO WE REEVALUATE NEXT YEAR?

>> YES. >> GREAT.

[20. Public Hearing to consider adoption of the Stormwater Utility and Assessment Ordinance and, thereafter, consideration of Initial Stormwater Assessment Resolution (T. Nagle)]

THANK YOU. NUMBER 20, PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER ADOPTION OF THE STORMWATER UTILITY AND ASSESSMENT ORDINANCE AND THEREAFTER, CONSIDERATION OF INITIAL STORMWATER ASSESSMENT RESOLUTION.

>> SO BEFORE YOU IS THE ORDINANCE RESOLUTION TO TAKE THE NEXT STEP ON THE STORMWATER FEE PROPOSAL.

THIS WOULD BE THE STEP TO ADOPT A RESOLUTION ORDINANCE, WHICH WOULD THEN ALLOW US TO SEND OUT THE LETTERS AS REQUIRED BY THE STATUTE TO ALL PROPERTY OWNERS, TO TELL THEM YOU WERE LOOKING TO ESTABLISH STORMWATER, INCLUDING THEIR CALCULATIONS AND THEIR ESTIMATED COST. AND THEN WE WOULD COME BACK -- IF YOU APPROVE THIS TODAY TO MOVE FORWARD, YOU WOULD COME BACK IN AUGUST AT A SECOND MEETING TO DO THE FINAL ADOPTION FOR STORMWATER FEE, IF THAT IS THE PROPOSAL OR THE DESIRE OF THE BOARD. IF YOU HAVE GOT ANY QUESTIONS FOR ME, HE DOES HAVE A PRESENTATION IF YOU WANT TO SEE IT NOW, OR IF YOU WANT TO WAIT UNTIL THE AUGUST MEETING.

AND THEN JAMIE HAS BEEN WORKING FROM THE ATTORNEY'S OFFICE IF YOU HAVE GOT ANY QUESTIONS FROM A LEGAL PERSPECTIVE.

>> ANY OF THOSE? THERE'S A FEW OPTIONS HERE.

>> YOU CAN JUST -- WE HAVE ALL DISCUSSED THIS INDIVIDUALLY.

A FEW TIMES. SO IT IS REALLY THE DESIRE OF

THE BOARD AT THIS POINT. >> QUESTIONS? LET'S OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. OPEN PUBLIC HEARING.

YES, SIR? >> SORRY I KEEP COMING UP.

>> WE LOVE IT, GO AHEAD. >> I WOULD JUST LOVE TO KNOW, WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT THE COST, WHAT WOULD THE INDIVIDUAL -- IT WOULD BE NICE FOR EVERYONE TO KNOW WHAT THE ESTIMATED COST IS AS AN AVERAGE, AGAINST EVERY ONE, BEFORE YOU DO SOMETHING LIKE THIS, BEFORE YOU JUST APPROVE IT, BOOM, BOOM, BOOM AND THEN A LETTER COMES OUT WHERE MONEY GOES OUT OF OUR POCKETS AGAIN. IT WOULD BE NICE TO KNOW AN ESTIMATED VALUE AND WHAT IT'S GOING TO COST THE RESIDENTS OF

THE COUNTY, INDIVIDUALLY. >> GO AHEAD.

>> THROUGH THE CHAIR, I CAN ANSWER THAT.

THE AVERAGE HOMEOWNER WOULD BE $85 A YEAR.

THAT WOULD BE THE AVERAGE HOMEOWNER.

IT WOULD BE BILLED AS PART OF YOUR NONVALOREM TAXES.

>> ALONG WITH THE WASTE AND ALL THAT?

>> OKAY. ANYONE ELSE? YES, SIR? ABOUT THIS ITEM.

ANYONE ELSE? I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.

BRINGING IT BACK TO THE BOARD. >> I WILL MOVE APPROVAL OF ITEM NUMBER 20. THE ADOPTION OF CONSIDERATION --

>> REAL QUICK, WE NEED TWO MOTIONS.

ONE IS THE ADOPTION OF THE ORDINANCE WHICH CREATES IT AND THE SECOND IS THE ADOPTION OF THE RESOLUTION.

>> I MOVE APPROVAL OF THE ADOPTION OF THE ORDINANCE.

[03:55:01]

>> I HAVE A MOTION. >> I WILL SECOND IT.

>> MOTION AND SECOND, THOSE IN FAVOR? CLOSE THAT. DO WE NEED TO WAIT? WE HAD A MAJORITY. WE JUST VOTED.

I HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND, THOSE IN FAVOR? ANY OPPOSED? ALL RIGHT.

NOW FOR THE RESOLUTION ON NOTICE.

>> I MOVE APPROVAL. >> MOTION?

>> SECOND. >> MOTION AND SECONDED FOR RESOLUTION OF THE NOTICE. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR?

ANY OPPOSED? >> THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU. AND THIS WILL BE COMING BACK TO

US, AUGUST 11TH. >> SECOND BOARD MEETING, AUGUST

22ND. >> AUGUST 25TH.

>> THAT IS WHEN WE WILL HAVE THE PRESENTATION.

[12. Approval of the FY 26/27 Maximum Millage Rates and setting the date, time and location for the First Public Hearing for the adoption of the FY 2026/2027 Clay County Tentative Budget]

>> AND THAT WILL BE THE FINAL VOTE.

>> AND WE WILL GO BACK TO NEW BUSINESS, 12.

APPROVAL OF THE FY 2026-27 MAXIMUM MILLAGE RATES AND SETTING THE DATE, TIME AND LOCATION FOR THE FIRST PUBLIC HEARING FOR THE ADOPTION OF THE FY 2026-2027 BUDGET.

>> MADAM CHAIR AND COMMISSIONERS, GOOD EVENING.

AND THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE COUNTY'S ANNUAL BUDGET, THE STATE OF FLORIDA MANDATES THAT THE COUNTY FOLLOW THE TRUTH AND MILLAGE PROCESS THAT IS GOVERNED BY FLORIDA STATUTES, CHAPTER 200 AND FLORIDA ADMINISTRATIVE CODE CHAPTER 12D.

THIS PROCESS REQUIRES THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS TO ADVISE THE PROPERTY APPRAISER OF ITS APPROVED MASTER MILLAGE RATES, THE BCC SHALL PROVIDE THE DATE, TIME AND PLACE AT WHICH THE FIRST PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD VIA CERTIFICATION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE DOCTOR FOR 20 FORMS WITHIN 35 DAYS OF THE PROPERTY CERTIFICATION OF THE COUNTY TAXABLE PROPERTY VALUES. COUNTY STAFF IS PREPARED TO PROPOSED MILLAGE RATE CALCULATIONS BASED ON THE CERTIFIED FINAL TAXABLE VALUE, ENSURING THAT ALL REQUESTS TO THE COUNTY CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS AND THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS RECEIVED FAIR EVALUATION AND APPROPRIATION.

THE CLAY COUNTY PROPERTY APPRAISER PRESENTS THIS INFORMATION TO CLAY COUNTY PROPERTY OWNERS VIA THEIR TRIM NOTICE. THE FY 2026-2027 PROPOSED BUDGET IS BASED ON NO INCREASE IN THE OVERALL PROPOSED MILLAGE RATE.

THREE OPTIONS ARE PRESENTED TO THE BOARD FOR SELECTION AND APPROVAL OF MILLAGE RATES TONIGHT.

THE THREE OPTIONS BEFORE YOU TODAY ARE OPTION ONE, AN INCREASED MILLAGE RATE, WHICH IS ATTACHMENT A, OPTION TWO, KEEP THE CURRENT MILLAGE RATE, THAT IS ATTACHMENT B AND STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION. AND OPTION THREE, ROLLBACK MILLAGE RATES AND THAT IS ATTACHMENT C.

OPTION ONE, INCREASED MILLAGE RATES AND ATTACHMENT THEREFORE, THE TOTAL MILEAGE WOULD BE 9.5529, WITH A REVENUE OF 192 MILLION, $571,423. AND THE CURRENT MILLAGE RATE, STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS REFLECTED IN AN ATTACHMENT B 5.5471, CONSERVATION LANDS PROGRAM, 0.2, UNINCORPORATED SERVICES 0.1477, LAW ENFORCEMENT MSTU, 2.4014, FIRE CONTROL MSTU, 0.5748, LAKE ASBURY MSBD, ZERO, CHALLENGER CENTER 3.0 FOR A TOTAL OF 8.801. WITH A TOTAL AMOUNT OF REVENUE OF 181,181,000, $854. AND OPTION THREE FOR THE ROLLBACK MILLAGE RATE, AS DEPICTED IN ATTACHMENT C, THE TOTAL MILLAGE WOULD BE 8.5245 WITH A REVENUE OF $175,516,026.

A CHANGE FROM THE CURRENT RATE WOULD BE A NEGATIVE 5,665,846.

THERE ARE TWO ACTION ITEMS NEEDED TODAY AFTER DISCUSSION.

ACTION ONE HAS THREE PARTS FOR ROLL CALL VOTE.

ACTION TWO IS TO APPROVE THE SCHEDULING OF PUBLIC HEARINGS FOR THE ADOPTION OF THE ANNUAL BUDGET.

ACTION ONE, ROLL CALL VOTE TO APPROVE THE MAXIMUM MILLAGE RATE. AGAIN, ATTACHMENT B IS THE CURRENT MILLAGE RATE AND THAT WAS 8.801, THAT IS RECOMMENDED

[04:00:05]

BY STAFF. AND PART ONE OF THE FIRST ACTION, A ROLL CALL VOTE AS FOLLOWS FOR COUNTY SERVICES, UNINCORPORATED MSTU, LAW ENFORCEMENT MSTU AND FIRE CONTROL MSTU. AND THIS OPTION REQUIRES A TWO-THIRDS VOTE OF THE BOARD. MADAM CHAIR, OVER TO YOU.

>> LOOKING FOR A MOTION TO VOTE. >> MADAM CHAIR I MOVE THAT WE LEAVE THE MILLAGE RATE WHERE IT IS.

>> I SECOND THE MOTION. >> ALL RIGHT.

DO WE NEED A ROLL CALL? OR DO WE JUST TAKE THE VOTE?

>> IS THERE A MAXIMUM FOR THE LAW ENFORCEMENT MSTU, FIRE

DEPARTMENT MSTU? >> SO THE MAXIMUM FOR THE FIRE AND LAW ENFORCEMENT MSTU IS GOING TO BE ON YOUR ATTACHMENT A, THE FIRST EXAMPLE GIVEN ON THE SCRIPT.

SO THAT WOULD BE AT 2.5567 WHICH IS 110% FOR THE ROLLBACK RATE, WHICH WOULD REQUIRE A UNANIMOUS VOTE.

>> BUT THAT IS JUST THIS YEAR. IS THERE A TOTAL MAXIMUM?

>> IF I MAY, THE TOTAL ADDED FOR ALL TAXING UNITS WOULD BE TEN.

>> SO ALL OF THEM. >> ALL OF THEM COMBINED

TOGETHER, YES, SIR. >> THAT ANSWERED MY QUESTION,

THANK YOU. >> YOU SAID THE MAX WAS 2.55?

>> THE MAX PER FIRE IS 0.5377 WITH THE LAW ENFORCEMENT AT 2.5567. THAT IS 110% OF THE ROLLBACK

RATE. >> GOT IT.

>> COMMISSIONER, THAT WAS BASED UPON THE QUESTION OF WHAT THE

MAXIMUM AMOUNT WOULD BE FOR IT. >> GOT YOU.

>> WE HAVE THREE ROLL CALL VO VOTES.

I AM MOVING TO LEAVE THEM ALL WHERE IT WAS.

>> OH GOODNESS, SORRY ERIC. MY MIC WASN'T ON.

SO FOR COUNTY SERVICES, UNINCORPORATED SERVICE, MSTU, FIRE CONTROL MS2 AND LAW SERVICES MS2, I MOVE THAT WE

LEAVE IT WHERE IT WAS. >> AT A MOTION?

>> JOHN DID. >> A SECOND.

AND THEN DO I HAVE ROLL CALL? >> YES.

>> YES. >> CHAIR?

>> COMMISSIONER? >> YES.

>> PART TWO OF THE FIRST ACTION --

>> FOR CHALLENGE -- I. HAVE TO DO IT.

I DON'T. >> PERFECT, THAT WOULD BE GREAT.

>> YOU REALLY WANT TO READ IT ALL? FOR CHALLENGE MSTU, I VOTE WE LEAVE THE MILLAGE WHERE IT WAS.

>> WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND, ROLL CALL?

>> COMMISSIONER? >> FANTASTIC, THANK YOU.

NOW FOR ACTION TO VOTE TO APPROVE SCHEDULING PUBLIC HEARINGS FOR THE ADOPTION OF THE CLAY COUNTY 2026-27 ANNUAL BUDGET. THE FIRST PUBLIC HEARING WILL OCCUR ON TUESDAY SEPTEMBER EIGHTH, 2026 AT TIME FIVE '05 P.M. HERE AT THE CLAY COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS BOARDROOM. THE SECOND AND FINAL PUBLIC HEARING WILL OCCUR ON TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 22ND, 2026 AT FIVE

'05 P.M. HERE IN THE BOARDROOM. >> I'M LOOKING FOR A MOTION.

MOTION AND SECOND, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR?

ANY OPPOSED? >> THANK YOU.

AND WE WILL GO DOWN TO 21, LETTERS OF ACTION.

[21. Discussion of Appointment to the Green Cove Springs Community Redevelopment AgencyAn application was received from Rhonda Jett for consideration of appointment.]

[04:05:01]

>> MADAM CHAIR I MOVE APPROVAL FOR CONSIDERATION FOR

APPOINTMENT. >> MOTION AND SECOND, ALL IN

[22. Bid Opening Tabulation for July 10, 2026:A. Bid No. 25/26-094, Drainage Repair and/or New Public Works Construction]

FAVOR? ANY OPPOSED? PASSES. MEETING TABULATION FOR

[PUBLIC COMMENTS]

JULY TENTH, 2026 FOR DRAINAGE REPAIR AND/OR NEW PUBLIC WORKS CONSTRUCTION. AND THEN I WILL OPEN UP THE SECOND PUBLIC COMMENT. GO AHEAD.

>> JUST WANTED TO POST MY CONCERNS ABOUT THE FLOCK CAMERAS AND EVERYTHING. BECAUSE I DO REALLY THINK THEY ARE A NATIONAL SECURITY THREAT, ESPECIALLY WITH CONGRESS COMMITTING TREASON LAST WEEK AND MERGING THE ISRAELI TECHNOLOGICAL GOVERNMENT WITH OURS.

I THINK THAT IS TREASO AT THE HIGHEST LEVELS AND I THINK OUR COUNTRY HAS BEEN INFILTRATED AND I DON'T THINK IT IS A JOKE.

LOOK AT WHAT IS GOING ON, LOOK AT WHAT TRUMP HAS BEEN DOING.

THAT IS NOT THE GUY THAT EVERYONE VOTED FOR.

HE HAS COMPLETELY FLIP FLOPPED ON THIS COUNTRY.