[CALL TO ORDER] [00:00:11] >> WELCOME TO THE AUGUST 42026 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. THE MEETING IS NOW CALLED TO ORDER. AT THIS TIME WOULD YOU PLEASE PUT YOUR CELL PHONES ON SILENT OR VIBRATE. IF YOU NEED TO TAKE A CALL, WOULD YOU PLEASE STEP OUTSIDE INTO THE HALL BEHIND US. AT THIS TIME THE COMMISSIONER WILL LEAD US INTO THE PLEDGE. >> PLEASE RISE AND JOIN ME IN THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS, ONE NATION UNDER GOD, INDIVISIBLE, WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL. >> MY NAME IS PETE DAVIS, THEY CHAIRMAN OF THE CLAY COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION. MINUTES WILL BE TAKEN BY CHRISTINE BLANCHETT FROM THE CLERK OF THE COURT'S OFFICE. THANK YOU. PRESENT WE HAVE OUR PLANNING DIRECTOR, ONE OF OUR PLANNERS OR A LEAD PLANNER, THEY I APOLOGIZE. WE HAVE JAMIE FROM THE LEGAL DEPARTMENT AND WE HAVE COURTNEY, OUR COUNTY ATTORNEY. WE HAVE KELLI FROM DEVELOPMENT AND KELLI FROM REAL ESTATE. DID I MISS ANYBODY? I DON'T THINK SO. THE FOLLOWING COMMISSIONERS ARE, ON MY RIGHT, COMMISSIONER BO NORTON, COMMISSIONER RALPH PUCKHABER, COMMISSIONER TRANFOURTEEN, TO MY LEFT COMMISSIONER MICHAEL BOURRE, JOE ANZALONE IS NOT WITH US YET, HOPEFULLY HE WILL ARRIVE SOON COMMISSIONER BILL GARRISON. ON THE FAR END IS PAUL BEMENT, OUR SCHOOL BOARD REPRESENTATIVES. THE CLAY COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION ASSISTANT ADVISORY BOARD TO THE BCC. THE PLANNING COMMISSIONERS ARE VOLUNTEERS, RESIDENTS OF CLAY COUNTY APPOINTED BY THE BOARD WHICH SERVE TWO YEAR TERMS AND MUST REAPPLY IF THEY WISH TO CONTINUE TO SERVE. THE COMMISSIONERS DUTIES ARE OUTLINED IN THE FLORIDA STATUTES. APPLICATIONS FOR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS, LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE CHANGES AND REZONINGS. MOST OF THE DECISIONS MADE BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION ARE RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE BCC APPEAR TO BCC WILL HAVE THE FINAL SAY AT THEIR MEETING ON EITHER THE SECOND TUESDAY ONE WEEK FROM TODAY OR THE FOURTH TUESDAY THREE WEEKS FROM TODAY. BCC MEETINGS START AT 4:00 P.M. ZONING AND LAND USE STARTS AT 5:00 P.M. AND YOU NEED TO CHECK THE CLAY COUNTY WEBSITE FOR YOUR PARTICULAR ITEM THAT YOU ARE INTERESTED IN AND MAKE SURE TO JOIN THE AGENDA. WE ALWAYS WELCOME THE PUBLIC TO THE PLANNING BACKBONE OF OUR GOVERNMENT. YOUR PRESENCE HERE IS IMPORTANT AND APPRECIATED. IF THERE IS AN ITEM ON TONIGHT'S AGENDA YOU WISH TO SPEAK ABOUT OR YOU WANT TO TALK ABOUT DURING THE OPEN COMMENT PERIOD, PLEASE FILL OUT ONE OF THE COMMENT CARDS WHICH CAN BE FOUND IN THE ENTRY VESTIBULE AND GIVE IT TO MISS BLANCHETT. THERE'S A THREE MINUTE TIME LIMIT FOR EACH COMMENT. TIME IS KEPT BY THE LIGHTS ON THE PODIUM, THEY A RED LIGHT [APPROVAL OF MINUTES] INDICATES THE TIME IS UP. THE FIRST ITEM FOR ACTION FOR THE COMMISSION TONIGHT IS THE APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF JULY 7TH MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION. DO I HAVE A MOTION? WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. ANY DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE, THOSE IN FAVOR SAY [PUBLIC COMMENT] AYE. OPPOSED. THANK YOU. NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS A PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD. AT THIS TIME ANY MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC MAY COMMENT ON ITEMS NOT INCLUDED ON TONIGHT'S AGENDA BUT PERTINENT TO THE BUSINESS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION. I DON'T HAVE ANY CARDS THAT ARE MARKED FOR THAT. I DO HAVE ONE FROM-- MCLELLAN AND I KNOW YOU WANT TO SPEAK ON ITEM THREE SO WE WILL HOLD THAT UNTIL THEN. WITH THAT BEING SAID, I WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD AND ASK DOES ANYBODY IN THE AUDIENCE WISH TO COMMENT-- COME AND TELL US SOMETHING? SEEING NONE COMING FORWARD I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC. THE PROCESS FOR THE SCHEDULE PART OF THE MEETING WILL BE EACH ITEM IN THE PUBLIC HEARING AGENDA WILL BE PRESENTED BY A MEMBER OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT. AS PART OF THE PRESENTATION, STAFF WILL INDICATE WHETHER THEY RECOMMEND APPROVAL, OTHER REQUESTED CODE. NEXT THE APPLICANT WILL HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK. FOLLOWING THE APPLICANT, AFTER THE PRESENTATION I WILL OPEN THE FLOOR FOR MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC TO OFFER THEIR VIEWS. YOUR TIME IS WORTH STATING YOUR [00:05:01] VIEWS, NOT FOR ASKING QUESTIONS OF THE APPLICANT. MEMBERS OF THE STAFF OR THE COMMISSIONERS. YOUR COMMENTS ARE TO BE DIRECTED TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION. IF YOU WISH TO SPEAK TONIGHT DURING THE HEARING, YOU WILL NEED TO TAKE THE OATH WHICH MISS BLANCHETT WILL ADMINISTER MOMENTARILY. IF YOU AREN'T SURE WHETHER YOU WISH TO SPEAK, GO AHEAD AND TAKE THE OATH. AFTER STAFF, THE APPLICANTS AND THE PUBLIC HAVE ALL HAD THEIR CHANCE TO STATE THEIR VIEWS, THEY FLOOR WILL BE CLOSED FOR PUBLIC COMMENTS. THE APPLICANT WILL HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO RESPOND TO COMMENTS BY THE PUBLIC AND THEN THE COMMISSIONERS WILL DISCUSS THE MATTER AND IF NECESSARY AND RENDER A DECISION. AGAIN, HE THANK YOU AND COMMEND YOU FOR YOUR PARTICIPATION IN THIS PROCESS. BEFORE WE BEGIN THE PUBLIC HEARINGS, MISS BLANCHETT WILL GIVE THOSE THAT WISH TO SPEAK THE OATH. THOSE THAT WISH TO SPEAK, WOULD YOU PLEASE RISE AND MOVE-- MR. MILLER, APPLICANTS DON'T HAVE TO. WE KNOW WHERE YOU LIVE AND HOW TO GET YOU. >> DO YOU SOLEMNLY SWEAR THAT THE TESTIMONY YOU ARE ABOUT TO GIVE WILL BE THE WHOLE TRUTH AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH SO HELP YOU GOD? THANK YOU. [1. Public Hearing to consider COMP 26-0015 and ZON 26-0015. (District 5, Comm. Burke) (D. Selig)A. COMP 26-0015This application is a Small-Scale Comprehensive Plan Amendment to change the future land use designation of 5.0 acres from Agriculture (AG) to Rural Residential (RR).B. ZON 26-0015This application is a Rezoning to change 5.0 acres from Agricultural (AG) to Agricultural/Residential (AR).] >> THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT, FIRST ITEM ON THE HEARING IS COMP 26-0015 AND ZON 26-0015 >> GOOD EVENING. THIS APPLICATION COMES FROM A PROPERTY OWNER, MR. WYATT GRAYSON. THE PROPERTY IS ON AIRPARK LOOP WEST. DOESN'T HAVE AN ADDRESS. IT'S IN THE SPRINGS DISTRICT. COMMISSIONER BURKE DISTRICT FIVE. A SINGLE PARCEL. A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN APPLICATION WOULD CHANGE THE FUTURE LAND USE FROM AGRICULTURE TO RURAL RESIDENTIAL AND THE ACCOMPANYING ZONING APPLICATION WOULD CHANGE ZONING DISTRICT FROM AGRICULTURAL TO AGRICULTURAL/RESIDENTIAL. THE PROPERTY WAS POSTED WITH SIGNS AND MAILOUTS WENT TO ALL THE PROPERTIES WITHIN THE BOUNDARY DISTRICT, SHOWN ON THE MAP IN THE TOWN COLOR. THE PROPERTY IS A LONG THE WEST SIDE OF THE AIRPARK AND SITS AT THE END OF AIR PARK LOOP SOUTH. AND THESE ARE THE EXISTING FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION ON THE LEFT AND THE PROPOSED ON THE RIGHT. YOU CAN SEE THAT ALL OF THE PROPERTY TO THE RIGHT IS ALREADY RURAL RESIDENTIAL. AND THE COMPANION REZONING THE EXISTING ZONING IS ON THE LEFT AND THE PROPOSED ZONING IS ON THE RIGHT. ON JULY EIGHTH, SPRINGS, VOTED TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF BOTH ITEMS. STAFF HAS LOOKED AT THE CRITERIA FOR BOTH ITEMS AND RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF BOTH AS WELL. >> DO WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS TO STAFF? >> I HAVE JUST ONE. IN THE MAP, WHERE IT HAS THE YELLOW, IS THAT ALL AGRICULTURAL THAT SURROUNDS THIS VAN? >> EVERYTHING TO THE WEST IS AGRO. THAT BLUE COLOR. SO IT IS AN ISOLATED AGRICULTURAL ZONING DISTRICT. >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS TO STAFF? IS THE APPLICANT HERE? WOULD YOU COME FORWARD PLEASE? THANK YOU FOR COMING AND WOULD YOU PLEASE GIVE US YOUR NAME AND CURRENT ADDRESS? >> WYATT GRAYSON, DIRECTLY ACROSS FROM THE PARCEL AT 5363 AIR PARK LOOP WEST. >> IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THIS IS FOR YOUR RESIDENCE? >> IT WAS ORIGINALLY GOING TO BE, NOW I'M JUST ZONING IT OVER BECAUSE IT'S GOING TO BE FOR SALE, MEETING ALL OF THE REQUIREMENTS. >> OKAY. DO WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS TO THE APPLICANT? THANK YOU VERY MUCH, SIR, APPRECIATE YOUR TIME. >> THANK YOU. >> I DON'T HAVE ANY CARDS ON THIS ITEM. IS THERE ANYBODY WISHING TO SPEAK ON ITEM NUMBER 1? I OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. I SEE NONE. CLOSED AND BRING IT BACK TO THE COMMISSIONER FOR DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION. [00:10:02] >> MR. CHAIR, I'M GOING TO MOVE THIS STAFF REPORT. >> SECOND. >> OKAY WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. ANY DISCUSSION? >> IT NEEDS TWO VOTES. SO I MOVE THE-- PORTION. >> I WILL SECOND THAT. >> A MOTION AND SECOND FOR THE COMP PLAN. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. THOSE OPPOSED. >> MR. CHAIR, I WILL MOVE THE COMPANION ZONING AS WELL. >> SECOND THAT. >> A MOTION AND A SECOND. ANY DISCUSSION ON THE ZONING? THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. ALL OPPOSED SAME SIGN. [2. Public Hearing to consider COMP 26-0019 and ZON 26-0017 (District 5, Burke) (D. Selig)A. COMP 26-0019This application is a FLUM Amendment to change 0.74 acres from Lake Asbury Interchange Village Center (LA IVC) and Lake Asbury Rural Fringe (LA RF) to Lake Asbury Rural Fringe (LA RF) and Lake Asbury Interchange Village Center (LA IVC).B. ZON 26-0017This application is a Rezoning to change from Lake Asbury Interchange Village Center (LA IVC) and Lake Asbury Rural Fringe (LA RF) to Lake Asbury Rural Fringe (LA RF) and Lake Asbury Interchange Village Center (LA IVC). ] THANK YOU, I APPRECIATE YOU COMING UP, SIR. SECOND ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS COMP 26-0019 AND ZON 26-0017 >> THE APPLICANT IS SUSAN FRASER. PROPERTY IS ON THE EAST SIDE OF HENLEY AND VERBENA PARKWAY. THIS IS ASBURY PENNEY FARMS DISTRICT. COMMISSIONER BURKE'S DISTRICT FIVE. IT IS ONE PARCEL. AND IT'S ACTUALLY THE APPLICATION APPLIES TO 0.37 ACRES THAT WOULD BE CHANGING FROM IVC TO RURAL FRINGE AND ANOTHER 0.37 ACRES DOING THE OPPOSITE GOING FROM RURAL FRINGE TO IVC. THE ZONING MAKES THE SAME CHANGES EXCEPT TO THE ZONING MAP. SIGNS WERE POSTED AND MAILOUTS WERE SENT TO OTHER PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN THE BOUNDARY DISTRICT AND THAT IS REFLECTED THERE ON THE MAP. AND THAT RESULTED IN QUITE A FEW LETTERS, ALL LISTED HERE. THE AERIAL AND I THINK MAYBE ON THE MAP ON THE RIGHT PARCEL MAP IT'S A LITTLE EASIER TO SEE THE TWO PIECES THAT ARE CHANGING, WHICH ARE RED. ONE IS KIND OF A LIGHTNING BOLT SHAPE IN THE MIDDLE OF THE PARCEL AND THE OTHER IS ALL THE WAY AT THE LEFT, AT THE WEST AND RIGHT UP AGAINST HENLEY THERE'S A SMALL PORTION OF THE PROPERTY THERE THAT WOULD BE CHANGING. THESE ARE THE FUTURE LAND USE MAPS. YOU CAN SEE THE EXISTING ON THE LEFT AND THEN PROPOSED ON THE RIGHT. AND THEN THE SAME THING WITH THE ZONING. IT'S EXACTLY IDENTICAL. ON JULY NINTH, ASBURY PENNEY FARMS VOTED TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF BOTH ITEMS AND STAFF HAS LOOKED AT THE CRITERIA FOR BOTH AND THOUGHT THEY HAVE BEEN MET AND RECOMMENDS APPROVAL. QUESTIONS FOR ME? >> I DO. CAN YOU GO BACK TO THE MAP RIGHT THERE. ALL THAT STUFF IN PURPLE CROSSHATCH WE LOOKED AT RECENTLY, CORRECT? >> YES, IT'S ALL THE IVC. >> HOW DO THESE LITTLE PARCELS RELATE TO THE BIGGER THING? DO WE JUST MISS THEM OR? >> I WILL LET THE APPLICANT TELL YOU THAT, BUT I DON'T KNOW-- >> I WASN'T SURE. SOMEONE IS HERE. OKAY I WILL ASK THE APPLICANT. I WAS JUST CURIOUS HOW WE MISSED THOSE. >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OF STAFF? OKAY. APPLICANT, PLEASE. >> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. MY NAME IS TOM YOUNG AND I WORK WITH BLACK SOUND DEVELOPMENT, PROPERTY OWNER. SUSAN IS OUT OF TOWN SO HOPEFULLY I CAN DO ONE-TENTH AS GOOD A JOB ON THESE MATTERS. BUT I CAN ANSWER IF YOU LIKE THE QUESTION. IF YOU COULD PUT THAT MAP BACK UP. THAT ONE, THEY YES. SO WHEN WE-- WE DID NOT HAVE THAT WHEN WE WERE BACK HERE A FEW MONTHS AGO. CAN YOU SEE THAT SEMI-CIRCLE SHAPE UNDERNEATH THE ROAD THERE? WHEN THE COUNTY ORIGINALLY CREATED THAT ZONING DISTRICT, IT PLOPPED THAT CIRCLE DOWN THERE. THAT SEMI-CIRCLE. SO WE LOOKED AT THAT AS, YOU KNOW, WE WERE DOING THE RED OUTLINE WHICH IS THE PIECE OF PROPERTY THAT WE OWN, LET'S MAKE SURE THAT'S RESTATED AND RECONFIRMED, AND WHEN WE WERE HERE BEFORE IT JUST WASN'T NOTICED THAT THAT LITTLE TAIL WAS THERE KIND OF BETWEEN OUR PROPERTY LINE OR BETWEEN THE CIRCLE THAT WAS THERE BEFORE AND THE RIGHT OF WAY LINE, PROPERTY LINE. SO JUST A LITTLE BIT OF AN OVERSIGHT ON OUR PART AND WE APOLOGIZE FOR THAT. AND THEN THE REASON WE ARE DOING THIS SWAP IS WE WANTED TO KEEP THE ACREAGES THE SAME. APPROVAL A COUPLE MONTHS AGO WAS [00:15:03] FOR 52 ACRES AND SO IF WE WERE TECHNICALLY ADDING THE 0.37 HERE ON THE WEST TO THE IVC, WE WANTED TO BASICALLY TAKE THAT OFF SO THE BLACK PART WILL JUST BECOME RURAL FRINGE WHICH IS WHAT'S NEXT TO IT. WE WANTED TO KEEP THE NUMBERS THE SAME AND NOT HAVE TO COME BACK AND ASK FOR MORE. >> ANY QUESTIONS OF THE APPLICANT? THANK YOU VERY MUCH, SIR. >> MY PLEASURE. >> OPEN TO PUBLIC HEARING. I DON'T HAVE ANY CARDS ON THIS ITEM EITHER. WOULD ANYBODY LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS AGENDA ITEM? SEEING NONE I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND BRING IT BACK TO COMMISSION FOR A MOTION. >> I WILL MOVE THE STATUS REPORT ON THE COMP PLAN. >> I WILL SECOND THAT. >> WE HAVE A MOTION. THE COMP PLAN. A SECOND ANY DISCUSSION? SEEING NONE ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. ANY OPPOSED SAME SIGN. THANK YOU. >> I WILL MOVE THE ZONING AS WELL. THE COMPANION ZONING. >> SECOND. >> WE HAVE A MOTION ON THE ZONING PORTION. SECOND. ANY DISCUSSION? SEEING NONE ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. THOSE OPPOSED SAME SIGN. ALL RIGHT. [3. Public Hearing to consider COMP 26-0016 (District 5, Comm. Burke) (D. Selig)This application is a Small-Scale Comprehensive Plan Amendment to change 2.56 acres from LA MPC to LA GW and 0.70 acres from LA GW to LA MPC.] THANK YOU. NUMBER 3, PUBLIC HEARING CONSIDER COMP 26-0019. AS WELL NEED ONE VOTE. >> FOR THIS APPLICATION, FRANK MILLER IS THE APPLICANT. THE PROPERTY IS SOUTH OF FALLING STAR LANE WHICH IS A CROSS CREEK DEVELOPMENT. LAKE ASBURY PENNEY FARMS PLANNING DISTRICT UNDER COMMISSIONER BURKE, DISTRICT FIVE. AGAIN, ONE PARCEL AND THE APPLICATION WOULD CHANGE THE FUTURE LAND USE IN THREE SMALL PORTIONS OF THIS PARCEL. SO TWO .56 ACRES WOULD GO FROM MPC, WHICH IS MASTER PLANNED COMMUNITY, TO GREENWAY. AND THEN THE OTHER TWO AREAS, 0.66 AND ZERO .64 ACRES COLLECTIVELY AT 0.70. WE GO FROM GREENWAY TO MASTER PLANNED COMMUNITY. THERE WAS SIGNAGE PLACED AND LETTERS MAILED OUT TO ALL THE PROPERTIES. IN THIS CASE THE ONES IN GREEN. AND THERE WERE QUITE A FEW PARCELS IN THIS CASE. YOU CAN SEE ON THE AERIAL PROBABLY BETTER ON THE RIGHT, THEY THREE AREAS THAT ARE CHANGING ARE YELLOW. AND JUST TO GIVE YOU A REFERENCE, THEY A LARGER PIECE THAT'S ALL THE WAY ON THE LEFT IS THE PORTION THAT'S CURRENTLY UNDER MPAC COCKROACH'S RESIDENTIAL FUTURE LAND USE THAT WOULD BE CHANGED TO GREENWAY. THE OTHER TWO PORTIONS ON THE MIDDLE AND THE ONE IN THE FAR RIGHT WOULD BE CHANGED FROM GREENWAY TO MASTER PLANNED COMMUNITY. ON THE LEFT WE HAVE THE EXISTING FUTURE LAND USE AND ON THE RIGHT IS THE PROPOSED FUTURE LAND USE. AND THEN THIS IS A SITE PLAN THAT WAS SUBMITTED. IT'S NOT FINAL YET BUT THIS WAS THE LAYOUT. AND THIS IS THE LEFT HALF OF THAT SITE PLAN. YOU CAN SEE HERE, MORE DETAIL. SO THE BLUE IS THE PORTION THAT'S GOING FROM RESIDENTIAL TO GREENWAY AND THEN THE RED IS THE PART THAT IS GREENWAY THAT WOULD GO TO RESIDENTIAL. ON JULY NINTH, THEY LAKE ASBURY PENNEY FARMS CAC VOTED TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THIS ITEM AND STAFF HAS LOOKED AT THE CRITERIA, THAT THEY HAD BEEN MET, AND RECOMMENDS APPROVAL AS WELL. >> ANY QUESTIONS OF STAFF? MR. MILLER. >> GOOD AFTERNOON. THANK YOU FOR ALLOWING ME TO SPEAK ON THIS. LET ME START BY POINTING OUT THAT THE PARCEL OF WHICH THESE LITTLE PIECES ARE A PART IS A TOTAL OF ABOUT 60 ACRES, 62 ACRES I BELIEVE. IT PRESENTLY IS-- HAS LAND USE AND ZONING OF MASTER PLANNED COMMUNITY WHICH WOULD ALLOW 186 SINGLE FAMILY UNITS. WHAT THEY ARE TRYING TO DO IS REDUCE THE NUMBER OF UNITS TO 100, INCREASE THE SIZE OF THE LOTS, AND IN ORDER TO MAKE THAT [00:20:03] FIT, WE ARE ASKING FOR THESE MINOR LITTLE CHANGES. I WOULD POINT OUT THAT WE ARE CHANGING 7/10 OF AN ACRE FROM THE GREENWAY TO MASTER PLANNED COMMUNITY. THOSE ARE THE TINY LITTLE PIECES THEY'RE. AND THEN WE ARE ALSO CHANGING TWO AND A HALF ACRES FROM THE MASTER PLANNED COMMUNITY TO GREENWAY. SO WE ARE ADDING 1.8 ACRES TO THE GREENWAY. THIS WAS APPROVED BY THE CAC AND IT'S A MINOR ADJUSTMENT TO ALLOW A BETTER PROJECT, AND I WOULD BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. IT'S NOT A COMPLICATED ITEM, I DON'T BELIEVE. >> QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? >> JUST ONE. I'M LOOKING AT THE MAP HERE. THE ENTRANCE TO THESE NEW HOMES IS GOING TO BE THROUGH THE EXISTING SUBDIVISION? >> YES. >> IT LOOKS LIKE THERE'S A CONNECTING ROAD THERE ALREADY. AND THIS PARCEL HAS BEEN ADDED TO THE CDD FOR CROSS CREEK. SO IT'S GOING TO BE BASICALLY COMBINED INTO THE WHOLE THING. >> HOW LONG HAS THAT ROAD BEEN THERE? INTO THE RESIDENTIAL AREA? OR IS THIS JUST A PLANNED ROAD? >> THE ROAD THAT THIS PARCEL WILL USE TO ACCESS, I BELIEVE IT'S JUST A GRASS RIGHT OF WAY, I DON'T BELIEVE THERE'S PAVEMENT ON IT YET. WHEN THIS PROJECT IS DEVELOPED, THEY WILL EXTEND THE ROAD INTO THE PROPERTY. I BELIEVE THAT'S THE CASE. >> SHALL WE BRING UP THE MAP OF THIS PARCEL AND THEN THE RESIDENTIAL AREA? >> SURE, HE YES. THAT HELPED? YES. , ROAD, THIS SO YOU KNOW, IS A REQUIREMENT CROSS CONNECTION. SO WHEN CROSS CREEK WAS DONE, THEY STUB OUT WAS REQUIRED SO THAT WHEN THIS PROPERTY DEVELOPED THERE WOULD BE A CONNECTION. >> THAT ROAD HAS ALWAYS BEEN THERE WHEN CROSS CREEK WAS DEVELOPED? >> IT'S A PLATTED ROAD, PART OF THE PLAT OF CROSS CREEK. >> IS NOT PAVED AT THIS TIME, IT'S JUST GRASS? >> I DON'T THINK IT'S PAVED. >> BUT IT IS RESERVED FOR THAT? >> CORRECT. >> OKAY. >> IF I COULD. MR. MILLER, GOOD EVENING, IT'S GOOD TO SEE YOU. SO AS I UNDERSTAND THIS, IT'S A TOTAL NET REDUCTION OF FIVE DWELLING UNITS? >> NO. 86. >> EIGHTY-SIX. OKAY. THIS CHART LOOKS LIKE-- WE'VE GOT SEVEN REDUCTION AND THEN TWO ADDITION. >> THOSE ARE ACRES. ARE YOU ASKING ACRES? >> IT SAYS DWELLING UNITS ON THIS CHART. THAT'S WHY I GOT A LITTLE CONFUSED. I WAS TRYING TO FIGURE OUT-- >> NO, WE ARE REDUCING THE GREENWAY BY 7/10 OF AN ACRE AND INCREASING THE GREENWAY BY TWO AND A HALF ACRES. THE NUMBER OF UNITS-- AS I SAID, UNDER THE MPC, WE WOULD BE ENTITLED TO PUT ABOUT 186 UNITS ON THIS PARCEL AND RATHER THAN DOING THAT, THEY ARE REDUCING THAT NUMBER TO 100. >> THANK YOU. >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? >> IT'S REALLY NOT GERMANE TO OUR DISCUSSION BUT YOU SAID THE LOTS WOULD BE BIGGER? >> YES. >> HOW WIDE ARE THEY GOING TO BE? >> 60-FOOT AND 70-FOOT. >> THANKS. >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? THANK YOU MR. MILLER. IS THE CAC REP HERE, CHAIRMAN? MAY I BORROW YOU A MINUTE? >> HELLO. HELENA CORMIER, MY ADDRESS IS ON FILE. >> YOU ARE THE CHAIR OF THE-- >> LAKE ASBURY PENNEY FARMS CITIZEN ADVISORY. >> YOU HEARD THIS ITEM? >> YES SIR. >> DID YOU HAVE ANY REPRESENTATION FROM THE PUBLIC OUTSIDE OF THE APPLICANT? >> NOT THAT I CAN RECALL. >> BUT YOU VOTED FOR RECOMMENDED APPROVAL? >> YES. HE HAD EXPLAINED THAT THERE WAS THE 0.7 OF THE ACRE AND THEY HAVE TO GIVE MORE ON THE [00:25:04] GREENWAY, SO IT'S INCREASED IN SIZE. AND SO IT MADE SENSE ON THE LAND. I CANNOT REMEMBER IF I ASKED ABOUT THE ROAD IN THIS COMMUNITY, BECAUSE IT WAS ONE I'D SEEN THROUGH THE DRC BUT I DON'T WANT TO MIX UP THE DRC MEETING I WITNESSED QUITE SOME TIME AGO VERSUS WHAT THE CAC-- THAT ROAD AND THE HOMES WAS INTERESTING. >> THANK YOU. ANYBODY HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? THANK YOU. I HAVE SEVERAL CARDS ON THIS ITEM SO I'M GOING TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. AND WE WILL GO THROUGH THEM ONE AT A TIME. WE WILL START WITH-- FROM MOLTEN. DID I SAY THAT RIGHT? IF HE WOULD GIVE US YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS. >> MY NAME IS JENNIFER, I AM A RESIDENT OF CROSS CREEK, I LIVE AT 2644-- DRIVE, LOT 468. I GUESS I WASN'T AWARE OF ALL OF THE MASTER PLANNED DEVELOPMENT RESIDENTIAL THAT HAS ALREADY TAKEN PLACE SO MY OPPOSITION TODAY IS MORE FOR ALL OF IT VERSUS JUST THESE SMALLER LITTLE PARCELS. BUT I GUESS I'M A LITTLE TOO LATE. SO I GUESS JUST AS A RESIDENT, IN MY OPINION, OUR HOUSES HAVE ALREADY BEEN BUILT UP. I DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S A FLOOD ZONE BACK THERE WHERE PETERS CREEK IS BUT I KNOW THE FEMA FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAPS DO NOT SHOW ELEVATION. SO MY CONCERN IS, WHERE MY FENCE LINE IS AND WHERE THE 10 FEET OF GREEN SPACE IS, YOU GO ARE GOING TO BUILD UP A HOME RIGHT IN THE BACK OF WHERE MINE IS TO BE ON THE SAME LEVEL AS MINE, WHERE MY 8-FOOT FENCE, THEY WILL LOOK STRAIGHT INTO THEIR BACKYARD. I DON'T FEEL THAT THAT'S FAIR. I THINK THAT THERE'S A FEW THINGS THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISCLOSED WHEN WE WERE PURCHASING THAT THEY DID NOT. THAT'S NOT YOUR PROBLEM EITHER. BUT I JUST FEEL KIND OF DUPED AND I THINK THE MAJORITY OF US ON THAT PLOT OR STRIP FEEL THE SAME WAY. THE ROAD FOR THE ACCESS IS NOT EXISTING. IT'S LISTED ON THE SITE MAP AS A FUTURE ACCESS ROAD. WE DID NOT KNOW WHETHER IT'S RESIDENTIAL, WHETHER IT'S TO GO BACK TO CATHEDRAL OAKS PARKWAY, OR WHAT IT'S FOR. IF THAT MAKES SENSE. THANK YOU FOR LISTENING. >> MR. PALMER. >> MY NAME IS ADAM PALMER, I LIVE AT 2654 OAK STREAM DRIVE. WHEN I BOUGHT THE HOUSE, I WAS TOLD THAT IN THE VERY BACK IT WOULD NOT BE MESSED WITH, IT WOULD NOT BE TOUCHED WITH, IT WAS RESERVED. I MOVED OUT HERE FOR PEACE AND QUIET WITH A DIVORCE BEGINNING SO I'M THIS IS GOING ON. THE ROAD INFRASTRUCTURE IS NOT BUILT UP. AS IT IS, EVERYTHING GOING NOW WITH ALL THEIR HOUSES BUILT UP ALL AROUND THEIR. I WAS ALSO INFORMED THAT WHEN THEY DO THIS, THEY BUILD THIS, THEY DON'T PAY THE SEED FEES THE, THEY AREN'T PAYING ANY FEES ON THAT. AS WE IN CROSS CREEK ARE PAYING SEED FEES. THEY ALSO TOLD US WE WOULD HAVE ACCESS TO THE CENTER WHICH IS ALREADY FULL AS IT IS. -- CDD FEES-- YOU BUILD THOSE SITES UP AND IT'S GOING TO BE MORE CROWDED, IT'S GOING TO BE MORE-- IT'S NOT RIGHT, IT'S NOT FAIR. I FOUND OUT ALL OF THIS GOING ON MAYBE ABOUT FIVE OR SIX MONTHS AGO. I DON'T THINK IT'S RIGHT AND I DON'T THINK IT'S FAIR. IT'S NICE WHEN I GO OUT AND SIT ON THE BACK STEP, I SEE ALL THE TREES AND EVERYTHING RIGHT THERE. AND IT'S TAKING THAT PEACE AWAY FROM ME. AS THEY BUILD UP, THAT MEANS IT'S GOING TO CHANGE THE WATER FLOW, POSSIBLY FLOOD AN AREA. SO I WOULD HOPE YOU WOULD ALL TAKE CONSIDERATION OF NOT LETTING THIS GO THROUGH. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. >> THANK YOU MR. PALMER. >> GOOD EVENING COMMISSIONERS, MY NAME IS BARBARA GOULD, I RESIDE AT 2654 OAK STREAM DRIVE. LIKE THE OTHER RESIDENTS, I HAVE LIVED HERE ALL MY LIFE, ALL 55 YEARS OF IT. I WAS BORN AND RAISED HERE AND I'M PROUD OF IT. THIS RIGHT HERE IS RIDICULOUS. THERE WAS NO ROAD THERE. NOT TO BEGIN WITH. RUSSELL ROAD HAS BEEN A-- THAT WASN'T ME. >> YOU ARE GOOD. >> RUSSELL ROAD HAS BEEN TWO LANES. THAT ROAD WAS NEVER THERE. THAT CHURCH HAD ONLY BEEN THERE A FEW YEARS AND THEN THEY STARTED PUTTING THAT THERE. [00:30:01] CROSS CREEK, THAT ROAD WAS NEVER-- THAT ROAD WAS NOT EVEN THERE. YOU GO THERE RIGHT NOW, IT'S FULLY GREEN, THERE'S NO ROADWAY PLANNED. RIGHT NOW IF YOU PUT A ROAD RIGHT THERE, YOU ARE GOING TO RUN OAK STREAM DRIVE. WE PAY FOR THAT ROAD IN OAK STREAM DRIVE, IT'S NOT COUNTY MAINTAINED. WE PAY FOR IT OUT OF OUR HOMES AND CDD AND EVERYTHING ELSE. WE PAY FOR THAT. WHO IS GOING TO PAY FOR ALL THE CONSTRUCTION THAT'S GOING ON AND MESSING UP THE ROADS WHEN WE GET IN THERE? THERE'S CHILDREN THAT PLAY ON THAT ROAD. NOT THE ROAD, THIS SIDEWALKS. YOU'VE GOT KIDS PLAYING FOOTBALL AND VOLLEYBALL AND BASEBALL IN THAT EMPTY FIELD RIGHT NOW. EVERYBODY SAYS WHY DON'T WE DO STUFF FOR THE KIDS? THEY ARE DOING IT NOW BUT YOU'VE GOT CONSTRUCTION PEOPLE, YOU'VE GOT DEVELOPERS THAT WANT TO TAKE THAT AWAY FROM PEOPLE. THAT'S NOT RIGHT. WHEN YOU'VE ACTUALLY GOT PEOPLE WHO WANT TO DO GOOD, WHO WANT TO RIDE THEIR BIKES, WHO WANT TO HAVE FAMILIES ON THAT ROAD. I DON'T THINK IT'S FAIR. WE WERE PROMISED THAT WE WOULD HAVE A WOODED LOT BEHIND US, NOBODY WOULD BUILD BEHIND US. NOW THEY ARE DOING THIS TO US. I REMEMBER WHEN SANDRIDGE ROAD, A WAS ONE OF THE FIRST PEOPLE. ME, THEY PATRICK'S AND THE LEAVES WERE THE ONLY ONES ON THAT ROAD BEFORE THE DAIRIES EVEN GOT THERE, BEFORE ROLLING HILLS WENT IN THERE, BEFORE ANYTHING WAS IN THERE. SO IF YOU WANT TO KNOW IF THAT WAS A ROAD OR NOT, IT WASN'T, BECAUSE I REMEMBER IT. SO I'M ASKING YOU, PLEASE, TAKE THIS INTO CONSIDERATION AND DO NOT ALLOW THIS TO GO THROUGH. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU MISS GOULD. MR. MCLELLAN. >> THANK YOU. I'M KIND OF WITH MY NEIGHBORS HERE TO TALK ABOUT THIS. THEY BROUGHT UP A LOT OF GOOD POINTS IN THE SENSE OF THE ROAD-- >> I'M SORRY, I NEED YOUR FULL NAME AND YOUR ADDRESS. >> DOCTOR MARSHALL MCLELLAN, 26 '04 OAK STREET DRIVE. SO ON THAT ROAD THAT'S PLANNED TO BE PUT IN, THIS A CULVERT RIGHT THERE, A DRAINAGE CULVERT. ALL THAT WILL HAVE TO BE DUG UP IN ORDER FOR A ROAD TO BE PUT THERE BECAUSE LITERALLY RIGHT WHERE THEY ARE PROJECTING THE ROAD IS A DEEP CULVERT THAT WILL HAVE TO BE DUG OUT. SO THAT ROAD IS 20 FEET WIDE AND IF YOU PROJECT NOT 180 SOMETHING BUT EVEN 100 HOMES, TWO CARS PER HOME, THAT'S 200 ADDITIONAL CARS SNAKING THROUGH THAT NEIGHBORHOOD. THAT IS NOT-- IT'S ALREADY NOT FUN, TO BE HONEST. IT'S NOT GOING TO BE FUN. THAT'S PART OF MY CONCERN. MY BIGGER CONCERN REALLY IS THE PROPERTY ITSELF. MAYBE I'M PUNCHING AFTER THE BELL BUT THAT PROPERTY IS THE LAST REFUGE FOR SOME WILDLIFE IN THAT AREA. YOU HAVE 996-- 998 HOMES THAT CROSS CREEK RIGHT NEXT TO THAT IS THE GRANARY, 761-- 771 HOMES. RIGHT NEXT TO THAT IS THE PROPERTY THAT HAS 326 HOMES BEING BUILT WITH AN ADDITIONAL 250, BRINGING IT UP TO 526 HOMES LITERALLY RIGHT NEXT TO EACH OTHER. THE LAST REFUGE OF NATURE AND HABITATION IS THAT SECTION RIGHT THERE. WHICH RUNS RIGHT UP AGAINST PETERS CREEK. SO I'M CONCERNED. I MEAN WE'VE GOT DEER, TURKEY, WE'VE GOT ALL OF THE HABITAT THAT YOU AND I LOVE AND WE MOVED HERE FOR. I'M FROM GAINESVILLE, FOUR GENERATION FLORIDIAN, AND I'M RETIRED MILITARY, DEPLOYED FOUR TIMES, BEEN GONE FOR ALMOST THREE YEARS FROM MY FAMILY. I TOLD MY WIFE IF WE DID NOT MOVE TO GAINESVILLE, WE MOVED HERE, THE ONE THING I NEEDED WOULD BE WOODS BEHIND MY HOUSE. THAT'S WHAT I HAVE BUT ACCORDING TO THIS I WON'T. SO THE REAL ISSUE IS THE HABITAT. THE OTHER PIECE THAT IS OF CONCERN IS THE MUCK LAYER. YOU ARE GOING TO PACK 100 HOMES, ABOUT 48 OF THEM RIGHT NEXT TO THE MUCK LAYER ON THAT CREEK WITH ALL THE PESTICIDES, ALL THE WEED AND FEED AND EVERYBODY IS GOING TO HAVE TO PUT IT ON THEIR LAWNS, ALL THAT WILL SEEP INTO PETERS CREEK. YOU ARE GOING TO GET ALGAE LAYER PROBLEMS, ALL KINDS OF PROBLEMS, FISH ARE GOING TO DIE AND IT'S GOING TO BECOME AN EPA MESS. SO JUST SOMETHING TO THINK ABOUT AS WE GLORIOUSLY EXPAND OUR COUNTY. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU MR. MCLELLAN. I DON'T HAVE ANY OTHER CARDS. IS THERE ANYBODY ELSE? >> MY NAME IS HELENA CORMIER AND MY ADDRESS IS ON FILE. I DO LIVE IN ROLLING HILLS AND THE ATTORNEY FOR OUR COMMUNITY IS ALSO THE ATTORNEY THAT REPRESENTS CROSS CREEK AND BETWEEN ALL THE DIFFERENT VERY DISSATISFIED IN ROLLING HILLS AS YOU HEARD ME SAY A FEW TIMES, THERE'S DIFFERENT CONVERSATIONS THAT I HAVE HEARD BETWEEN THE DRC MEETINGS AND SOME OF THE OTHER MEETINGS THAT HAVE HAPPENED ON THIS LAND AND WHEN IT GOT PLATTED AND ONE OF THE THINGS WAS THE DEVELOPER STILL [00:35:01] HAD THE MAJORITY OF THE BOARD WHEN THEY ANNEXED IN THAT LAND. AND THAT ANNEXATION IS WHAT IS THE REAL PROBLEM THAT THESE RESIDENTS ARE TALKING ABOUT, THAT HAS ALREADY BEEN DONE AND SOME OF THEM WERE TOLD THAT THEY ARE GOING TO BE DRIVING ON YOUR ROADS SO YOU MIGHT AS WELL LET THEM IN HERE, LET THEM BE A PART OF YOUR COMMUNITY. BUT PEOPLE DON'T ALWAYS UNDERSTAND WHAT IS BEING DONE HERE AND WHEN THE DEVELOPERS HAVE THE MAJORITY OF THE BOARD, IT'S EASY FOR THEM TO PUSH THAT VOTE THROUGH. AND I HATE THAT FOR SOME OF THE RESIDENTS. WHEN I SAT IN THE DRC MEETING, ONE OF THE PROBLEMS WITH THAT SITE, IF THEY WOULD HAVE JUST DONE THE HOUSES THAT THEY WOULD HAVE BEEN ZONED FOR, AND IF THEY WEREN'T ANNEXED IN FACT THEY WOULD HAVE HAD TO HAVE BUILT A ROAD TO RUSSELL ROAD AND SO THE REDUCTION IN HOMES IS ALSO TO KEEP IT UNDER A SMALL AMOUNT. THERE'S A LOT OF DIFFERENT REASONS AND A LOT OF DIFFERENT THINGS AND WE ARE REALLY LATE IN THE GAME ON THIS PART OF IT. THIS PART IS JUST KIND OF FINE TUNING THOSE PARCELS THAT HAVE BEEN PLANTED AND APPROVED AND ANNEXED AND THIS IS PART OF THE REASON WHY I TRY DESPERATELY TO GET PEOPLE TO GO TO THEIR CDD MEETINGS, TO BE A VOICE AT THOSE COMMUNITIES AND TO PAY ATTENTION TO WHAT THE ATTORNEY THAT REPRESENTS WHETHER IT BE THE DEVELOPER, THE ENGINEERS, CDD, THEY PAY ATTENTION, TO READ THE DOCUMENTS BECAUSE THINGS LIKE THIS HAPPEN BECAUSE WE DON'T ALWAYS DO OUR PART. SO THANK YOU FOR LISTENING, THANK YOU FOR UNDERSTANDING AND I HOPE THAT THAT COMMUNITY WILL BE PAYING ATTENTION. AND THEY DID REASSURE US WHEN I ASKED ABOUT THAT ANNEXATION AND THEM BEING IN THERE THAT THEY WERE SUPPOSED TO HAVE CONTRIBUTED A BUNCH OF MONEY FOR THE CDD AND PAYING INTO IT. SO I DO HOPE THAT THE DEVELOPER DID GET CHARGED PROPERLY. I KNOW IN OUR COMMUNITY THE ATTORNEY IN MY OPINION, THEY WORKED BETTER FOR THE DEVELOPER THAN THEY DID FOR US, THEY RESIDENTS AND THE CDD. DISSATISFIED WITH ALL OF THAT AS A WHOLE. THANK YOU FOR LISTENING AND THANK YOU FOR ALL THAT YOU ALL DO. >> THANK YOU. IS THERE ANYBODY ELSE WISHING TO SPEAK ON THIS AGENDA ITEM? I'M SORRY, I COULDN'T... >> WANTED TO KNOW IF SHE COULD ASK QUESTIONS. >> NO, THANK YOU. SEEING NONE I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND BRING IT BACK TO THE APPLICANT. MR. MILLER. >> THANK YOU. LET ME FIRST REITERATE, WHAT IS BEFORE WHO IS NOT THE DEVELOPABILITY OF A 60-ACRE PARCEL. THIS IS SIMPLY REVISING THE BOUNDARIES OF THE MASTER PLANNED COMMUNITY AND THE GREENWAY. LET ME RESPOND, IF I COULD, TO A COUPLE OF THINGS. IN THE ANNEXATION, THIS PARCEL WILL PAY THE SAME CDD FEES THAT THE EXISTING COMMUNITY PAYS. FURTHER, THEY ARE GOING THROUGH THE BONDING PROCESS NOW AND OUT OF THE PROCEEDS OF THOSE BONDS, A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT, AND I DON'T HAVE THOSE NUMBERS WITH ME, BUT A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT WILL BE CONTRIBUTED TO THE CDD, BACK TO THE BOURRE OR USED BY THE CDD FOR ENHANCEMENT OF THE EXISTING AND POTENTIALLY ADDITIONAL AMENITY CENTER FACILITIES. I ALSO UNDERSTAND THAT WITHIN THAT FUNDING, THERE IS GOING TO BE A RESERVE FOR THIS DEVELOPER TO USE TO IMPROVE OR REPAIR ANY DAMAGE OR IMPACT ON THE ROADS IN CONNECTION WITH THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROPERTY. YOU KNOW, I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY TIMES WE'VE HEARD I WAS TOLD THIS WOULD NEVER BE DEVELOPED AND I WAS GOING TO LIVE NEXT TO AN OPEN FIELD OR I WAS GOING TO LIVE-- AND UNFORTUNATELY THAT'S-- WE DID NOT DO THAT. THAT'S A REALTOR'S PROBLEM OR A DEVELOPER'S PROBLEM, NOT OURS. AND I APPRECIATE THAT BECAUSE THAT WOULD FRUSTRATE THE HECK OUT OF ME, IF I BOUGHT SOMETHING HAVING BEEN TOLD IT WOULD BE THIS. BUT I REMIND YOU, WE PRESENTLY, WITHOUT THIS CHANGE, ARE ENTITLED TO PUT 186 UNITS, SINGLE FAMILY UNITS ON THIS PROPERTY. WE HAVE AN ACCESS ROAD THAT ALLOWS ACCESS THROUGH THE CROSS CREEK COMMUNITY AND IT WAS PART OF THE COUNTY'S ENFORCEMENT OF ITS PROVISIONS OF THE ZONING CODE TO HAVE THAT ROAD FOR ACCESS. AND THE ROAD IS NOT CONSTRUCTED BUT IT WILL BE AND IT WILL BE CONSTRUCTED TO COUNTY STANDARDS. [00:40:04] THE CDD WILL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR MAINTAINING THIS ROAD, THE ROADS WITHIN THIS DEVELOPMENT, JUST AS IT IS IN THE CROSS CREEK DEVELOPMENT, AND WILL BE-- THE FUNDS FOR THAT WILL BE DRAWN FROM THE RESIDENTS WHO BUY IN THIS PIECE. I REMIND YOU TOO THAT THE GREENWAY WAS ESTABLISHED FOR THE PURPOSE OF WILDLIFE CORRIDORS. WE ARE TAKING 7/10 OF AN ACRE OUT OF THAT AND WE ARE ADDING TWO AND A HALF ACRES TO IT. SO THAT IS ACTUALLY-- SHOULD BE CONSIDERED AN IMPROVEMENT TO THE GREENWAY AS OPPOSED TO ANY DETRIMENT TO IT. I THINK THAT ADDRESSED-- AND CONCERN ABOUT FLOODING. I THINK THE STAFF REPORT CONFIRMS THAT THEY ARE GOING TO HAVE TO SATISFY ALL OF THE CONDITIONS AND REQUIREMENTS OF THE ZONING CODE AND DEVELOPMENT CODE FOR IMPACTS TO FLOODWAYS, AND ASSURING THAT THE FLOODING AND THE DISTRICT WILL SUPPOSEDLY REVIEW THEIR ENGINEERING TO ENSURE THAT THERE WON'T BE FLOODING ON ADDITIONAL PROPERTIES. I WOULD BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY OTHER QUESTIONS BUT I ASK YOU TO FOCUS ON WHAT IS BEFORE YOU AND NOT WHAT WE DON'T HAVE BEFORE YOU TODAY. >> I DON'T THINK I'VE GOT IT IN MY PACK AND I CAN'T FIND IT BUT YOU HAVE KIND OF-- UNDERSTANDING IT'S JUST KIND OF A WHAT IF, WHAT THE HOUSES WOULD LOOK LIKE, CAN WE PUT THAT BACK UP? THAT ONE. YES. OKAY. I HAVE A QUESTION HERE. PROBABLY MORE FOR YOU. I KNOW WHY THERE'S A CONNECTION TO-- I GUESS THAT'S CROSS CREEK, YOU KNOW, WE ASKED FOR THAT. AND THIS IS SOMETHING YOU PROBABLY NEED TO TAKE BACK TO YOUR CLIENT. THERE OUGHT TO BE ANOTHER ROAD LIKE GOING OFF TO THE RIGHT OF THAT THAT WOULD BE A POTENTIAL CONNECTION TO THE NEXT PARCEL THAT WOULD BE DEVELOPED AND WOULD EVENTUALLY GO OUT TO RUSSELL ROAD. I MEAN, I REALIZE THIS IS NOT A FINAL PLAN BUT WOULDN'T THAT BE A REQUIREMENT, THE SAME WAY THAT WE REQUIRED THAT OTHER ACCESS? >> I WILL TAKE A LOOK AT THE CODE. CLEARLY THERE WAS A REASON WHY IT WAS NOT PUT IN THERE. CERTAINLY IT'S THE WETLANDS ZONE ON THE OTHER THREE SIDES. MAYBE THERE'S WETLAND THERE. >> I WOULD NOT EXPECT YOU TO BUILD A ROAD TO RUSSELL ROAD RIGHT NOW BUT IT SEEMS THERE OUGHT TO BE A CONNECTION POINT FOR FUTURE GOING IN THAT DIRECTION. >> SO THAT THESE PEOPLE CAN COMPLAIN WHEN WE TRY TO CONNECT. >> ABSOLUTELY. [LAUGHTER] BUT IT SHOULD BE THERE. IT SHOULD BE SECONDARY CONNECTION AT SOME POINT BECAUSE THAT LAND, I'M NOT SURE WHICH WAY IS NORTH IN THIS PICTURE, IS THE TOP NORTH? TO THE EAST. EVENTUALLY THAT PROPERTY TO THE EAST, BETWEEN THERE AND RUSSELL ROAD IS PROBABLY GOING TO BE DEVELOPED. AND WHEN IT IS, THERE SHOULD BE INTERCONNECTIONS. SO WITH THAT SAID, WHICH IS REALLY NOT GERMANE TO THIS DISCUSSION, BUT I WANTED TO GET THAT OUT, I WILL SHARE THAT. I WANT TO MAKE A COUPLE OF COMMENTS, AND THIS IS AS MUCH FOR PEOPLE IN THE ROOM AS ANYONE ELSE. I THINK MR. MILLER HAS EXPLAINED ABOUT THE CDD AND ALL BUT I THINK WHAT'S REALLY IMPORTANT FOR EVERYBODY TO UNDERSTAND IS THAT-- WILL YOU PUT THE MAP UP AGAIN? THE OTHER ONE. THAT ONE. THAT ALL THAT AREA THAT IS IN BROWN RIGHT NOW WITHIN THAT YELLOW SQUARE IS ALREADY ZONED AND ENTITLED TO BE BUILT ON. IT'S ALREADY THERE. IT'S MASTER PLANNED COMMUNITY. AS LONG AS THE DEVELOPER WANTS TO GO IN AND BUILD ON IT, THEY CAN BUILD ON IT. SO THE QUESTION BECOMES, WHAT IS THE BEST OPTION? AND I THINK THIS ITEM THAT IS BEFORE US IS SIMPLY TO MOVE A LITTLE BIT OF THE LAND USE AROUND. IT DOESN'T CHANGE THE FACT THAT A DEVELOPER COULD GO IN THERE, CONNECT TO THAT STUB OUT ROAD AND BUILD HOUSES. SO I ALSO SYMPATHIZE WITH-- PROBABLY MORE THAN A LOT OF PEOPLE ABOUT-- I DON'T KNOW HOW ELSE TO SAY IT EXCEPT THE REALTORS ARE NOT BEING STRAIGHT WITH YOU WHEN YOU TELL YOU THERE'S NEVER GOING TO BE ANYTHING BUILT ON THAT. THAT IS ALREADY ZONED FOR HOUSES. IF A REALTOR TOLD YOU THAT, THEY WERE NOT BEING STRAIGHT WITH [00:45:02] YOU. IT'S BEEN ZONED THAT WAY FOR-- 2020, WHEN WE DID THE LAKE ASBURY MASTER PLAN. IT'S BEEN SITTING THERE UNDEVELOPED BUT IT'S NEVER BEEN PROHIBITED FROM BEING DEVELOPED. SO WITH THAT IN MIND, IF I COULD, MR. CHAIR, I'M GOING TO MOVE THIS. >> WE ARE NOT-- >> WE HAVE MORE? >> ANYBODY ELSE HAVE-- >> ONE COMMENT. I JUST WANT TO THANK MR. PUCKHABER FOR CLARIFYING THAT, WITH REGARD TO IF THIS IS APPROVED OR NOT, HOUSING HAS BEEN APPROVED IN THE PAST. SO THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THAT PIECE. THANK YOU. >> YOU KNOW, WE HAVE THE PLANNING PEOPLE HERE, THIS STAFF. AT SOME POINT, THEY ARE GOING TO COME FORWARD WITH A DESIGN. IT HASN'T HAPPENED YET. AND I THINK AT THIS POINT IT WOULD JUST GO TO DESIGN REVIEW, IS THAT CORRECT? YES. SO YOU HAVE TO KEEP YOUR EAR TO THE GROUND ON THIS. WHEN IT GOES FOR DESIGN REVIEW. THAT'S A PUBLIC MEETING AS WELL, ISN'T IT? YES. THAT YOU CAN COME IN AT THAT POINT AND MAKE COMMENTS ABOUT WHAT THE DEVELOPER IS PROPOSING AND WHETHER IT'S APPROPRIATE OR NOT. BUT THAT'S NOT REALLY WHAT WE ARE BEING ASKED TO DECIDE ON TONIGHT. WE ARE SIMPLY BEING ASKED TO DECIDE ARE WE WILLING TO SWAP A LITTLE BIT OF PROPERTY AROUND? THAT'S ALL THIS IS AT THIS POINT. >> WITH THAT BEING SAID, I WILL SECOND THE MOTION ON THE FLOOR IF I COULD. I'M SORRY I, THEY MISUNDERSTOOD. >> I'VE GOT A COUPLE QUESTIONS. ONE OF THE RESIDENTS INDICATED THAT THE ROAD THROUGH THAT NEIGHBORHOOD IS A PRIVATE ROAD, THIS ARE CORRECT, MR. MILLER? >> I DON'T BELIEVE SO. >> IF THEY ARE MAINTAINING IT AND PAYING IT OUT-- >> THAT'S THE NATURE OF A CDD. THE CDD IS I BELIEVE THE OWNER OF THE ROAD AND WILL BE THE OWNER OF THE ROAD BUILT IN THIS PROJECT. >> WILL IT BE A COMBINED CDD FOR THIS NEIGHBORHOOD AS WELL? >> THIS HAS BEEN ANNEXED INTO THE CDD. ONE CDD IS GOING TO BE THE OWNER AND THE ASSESSOR FOR MAINTENANCE OF ALL THE ROADS WITHIN THIS PROJECT. AND IT MAYBE THAT IT'S A PRIVATE ROAD BUT THEN I DON'T THINK THAT'S THE CASE. I THINK IT'S JUST LIKE THE COUNTY HAS NOW SAID IT'S NOT GOING TO MAINTAIN ANY ROADS IN THE COUNTY, SO EITHER THE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION IS GOING TO HAVE TO MAINTAIN THEM OR A CDD IS GOING TO HAVE TO MAINTAIN THEM. BUT ON THE PLATS, AND I'M SORRY, I HAVEN'T REVIEWED THE CROSS CREEK PLATS, THE GRANTS TO ALL OF THEIR RESIDENTS TO POLICE, FIRE AND ALL OF THOSE, ACCESS THROUGH THERE ON THEIR ROADS. >> THAT'S UNDERSTOOD. WAS THERE ANY THOUGHTS ABOUT AN ALTERNATIVE ROUTE INTO THIS AREA? >> I'M NOT-- I AM NOT AWARE OF ANY BUT I DON'T HAVE ANY INFORMATION TO RESPOND TO THAT. >> OKAY. THE HOMES ON THE NORTH SIDE THAT'S GOING TO BE BUILT IN THIS AREA, THE PLAT PORTION. ACCORDING TO THE CODE, THEY CAN BUILD UP TO THE FENCE LINE. IS THAT CORRECT? THE LOT? WILL THERE BE ANY SEPARATION FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD THAT'S ESTABLISHED AND THE NEW NEIGHBORHOOD? >> THE BUILDING PAD, THESE LOTS NOT ONLY WILL BE WIDER BUT THEY ARE GOING TO BE DEEPER THAN WOULD OTHERWISE BE. I THINK THEY WILL ALL BE 130 FEET DEEP. WHICH WOULD BE-- AND THE BUILDING PAD WILL BE WITHIN THAT. I CAN'T RECALL, A I'M SORRY, WHAT THE BUILDING PAD IS INTENDED TO BE, BUT IT'S USUALLY SIGNIFICANTLY LESS THEN THE SIZE OF THE LOT. AND I'M SORRY, I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE DISTANCE WOULD BE FROM THE BACK OF THE LOT TO THE HOME. >> I'VE GOT A LOT OF QUESTIONS. IT'S NOT A MATTER OF THIS COMMISSION TO DISCUSS. BUT PRIVATE ROADS CONCERN ME BECAUSE IF THERE'S NO CLEAR CUT DEFINITION OF WHETHER IT IS OR IS NOT, THAT COULD BE PROBLEMS FURTHER DOWN THE ROAD, SO TO SPEAK. >> I CAN ANSWER THAT QUESTION. IT IS NOT A PRIVATE ROAD. SO THE COUNTY AT THIS POINT, IF THERE'S A SUBDIVISION BUILT, EITHER YOU HAVE TO-- IF THE COUNTY RECEIVES IT AND IT'S DEDICATED TO THE COUNTY, THEN YOU HAVE TO SET UP AN MSP AND AT THAT POINT ALL THE RESIDENTS ARE CHARGED. SO WHEN THERE IS A CDD AND YOU ALREADY HAVE THAT STRUCTURE FOR [00:50:04] ASSESSMENT, THE COUNTY ASKS THE CDD TO RETAIN THEM AN ASSESSMENT. >> OKAY. THANK YOU, MR. MILLER. >> THANK YOU. >> MR. CHAIR, I'M GOING TO MOVE THE STAFF REPORT AND IF I COULD I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A COMMENT AFTER I GET A SECOND. >> SECOND. >> WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. >> I THINK WE UNDERSTAND THIS BUT I WANT TO EMPHASIZE THIS AGAIN SO THAT ALL THE RESIDENTS HERE UNDERSTAND IT. THE ONLY THING WE AS THIS BOARD ARE BEING ASKED TO LOOK AT TONIGHT IS ARE WE WILLING TO SWAP THOSE LITTLE TINY PARCELS, KIND OF REARRANGE THEM A LITTLE, WHERE THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE EVENTUAL DEVELOPMENT THAT'S GOING TO TAKE PLACE. THEY ALREADY HAVE THAT ENTITLEMENT. I THINK, YOU KNOW, I'VE MADE MY COMMENTS ABOUT CONNECTIVITY. I WOULD LIKE TO SEE. BUT ACTUALLY THAT'S ALL GOING TO BE THROUGH THE DESIGN REVIEW, WHICH IS PART OF THE COUNTY, PART OF THE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT. AND I WOULD SUGGEST THAT YOU ASK-- I DON'T KNOW WHO CAN GIVE THEM THE INFORMATION ABOUT WHEN THAT MIGHT HAPPEN BUT TO FIND OUT WHEN THAT MEETING IS GOING TO BE AND COME AND TALK AT THAT MEETING APPEARED WITH THAT, I'M DONE, THANK YOU. >> ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I WAS GOING TO ASK FRANK, HE DID A GREAT JOB EXPLAINING, WE ARE NOT HERE DECIDING WHETHER THIS IS GOING FORWARD. IT'S ALMOST AN ADMIN TYPE OF A THING, MOVING GREENWAY. BUT HELENA DOES A GREAT JOB OF ATTENDING THESE MEETINGS, BEING INVOLVED. I KNOW IT'S TIME CONSUMING. BUT FOR THE OTHER RESIDENTS, THIS WAS APPROVED INITIALLY 20 YEARS AGO. SO YOU DON'T STAND A CHANCE OF KNOWING WHAT HAPPENED 20 YEARS AGO. AND I AGREE WITH YOU, IF THERE IS SOMEBODY-- REALTORS ARE LICENSED. THEY HAVE A BOARD OF ETHICS. IF YOU-- IF SOMEBODY TOLD YOU THAT, THAT'S A LIE, IS WHAT THAT WAS, AND THEY SHOULD BE CHALLENGED ON IT. BUT MY POINT WAS GOING TO BE, THE COUNTY IS AS ACCESSIBLE AS ANY GOVERNMENT IS AND THEY SEND OUT A WEEKLY I THINK ALMOST EMAIL ABOUT THE DRC MEETINGS, DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETINGS, YOU CAN BE ADDED TO THE LIST AND YOU WILL GET EVERY SINGLE EMAIL OF WHEN THESE MEETINGS OCCUR. I GET THAT IT'S A CHALLENGE BUT YOU JUST HAVE TO STAY INFORMED. BUT ANYWAY. I MAINLY WANTED YOU TO KNOW THAT YOU HAVE ACCESS TO A WEEKLY EMAIL THAT SAYS EXACTLY WHAT'S HAPPENING AROUND HERE. THAT'S IT. >> FOR THOSE IN ATTENDANCE TONIGHT, HERE'S THE BOTTOM LINE. THIS IS NOT A ZONING ISSUE. IT REALLY IS NOT A PLANNING ISSUE. THE PLANNING HAS ALREADY BEEN DONE. IT WAS DONE YEARS AGO. THIS IS JUST AN ADMINISTRATIVE TYPE THING, OF CHANGING TWO AND THREE QUARTER ACRES OF SOME LAND TO ONE THING TO ANOTHER. WE COULD DENY THAT BUT THAT DOESN'T REMOVE THE RIGHTS OF THE PROPERTY OWNER TO BUILD HOUSES ON IT. IT DOES NOTHING TO DO THAT. SO IT'S ALREADY THERE AND THE HOUSES, THEY ARE GOING TO COME. SO WE JUST HOPE THAT WHOEVER MR. MILLER IS REPRESENTING DOES WHAT THEY POSSIBLY CAN DO TO PROTECT YOUR RESIDENTIAL AREA, YOUR ROADS, YOUR ACCESS, AS WELL AS YOUR PRIVACY THAT YOU HAVE. WITH THAT, WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. NO FURTHER DISCUSSION. I WILL CALL FOR A VOTE. THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. ANY OPPOSED SAME SIGN. [4. Public Hearing to consider PUD 26-0006 (District 3, Renninger) (B. Carson)This application is a Rezoning to change 18 acres from Shopping Center District (BSC) to Planned Commercial Development District (PCD)] THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THE NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS PUBLIC HEARING COMP 26-0016. PUD 26-0006 -- BEFORE THE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ON AUGUST 25TH. THE PROPERTY OWNER AND THE AGENTS, SORRY FOR THE FORMATTING ON THAT. WE HAVE AGENTS. MR. DILLON IS HERE AS WELL AS [00:55:04] MARK. THE LOCATION OF THE PROPERTY IS 1910 WELLS ROAD. AND THIS IS LOCATED WITHIN THE PLANNING-- THE GATEWAY PLANNING DISTRICT WHICH IS IN DISTRICT THREE. THE REQUEST IS TO REZONE APPROXIMATELY 18 ACRES FROM B.S. SHOPPING CENTER DISTRICT TO PLANNED COMMERCIAL DISTRICT. PCD. THE MAP ON THE LEFT IS THE LOCATION MAP WHICH SHOWS THAT THE PARCEL IS LOCATED EAST OF LANDING AND SOUTH OF WELLS ROAD. THE AERIAL ON THE RIGHT GIVES YOU A LITTLE BETTER VIEW OF THE PROPERTY. IT'S ACTUALLY AT THE CORNER OF ORANGE PARK NORTH WAY LANDING AND SOUTH OF WELLS ROAD BUT DOESN'T ACTUALLY TOUCH WELLS ROAD. THIS PARCEL INCLUDES THE PORTION OF THE SEARS BUILDING THAT'S ATTACHED TO THE MALL AS WELL AS THE OUTPARCEL WHICH USED TO BE THE AUTO CENTER WHICH IS UP ON THE HILL. THIS IS ONE SINGLE PARCEL AND ONE SINGLE OWNERSHIP. THE MAP ON THE LEFT IS OUR NOTIFICATION MAP. WE NOTIFIED EVERYONE IN THE GREEN AREA, WHICH IS THE 350-FOOT BUFFER. THAT'S THE LIST OF THE PROPERTY OWNERS WHO WERE CONTACTED. AND PHOTOS OF THE SIGNS THAT WERE POSTED. THE MAP ON THE LEFT IS THE EXISTING ZONING. IT IS CURRENTLY THE BSC WHICH IS THE GREEN AND THE GRAY ACROSS THE STREET IS COMMERCIAL ZONING AS WELL. AND ON THE RIGHT IS A PROPOSED ZONING, TO GO TO THE PCD, WHICH IS A YELLOW INDICATED THERE. AND WITH THE PCD, THEY HAVE TO HAVE A BINDING SITE PLAN AS WELL AS A WRITTEN NARRATIVE. SO THE PARCEL IS SEPARATE OWNERSHIP FROM THE BALANCE OF THE MALL. THERE'S SEVERAL OWNERS OF THE MALL AT THIS POINT. THE PCD OFFERS A UNIFIED PLAN WHICH INCLUDES LANDSCAPING AND SIGNAGE. UNDER THAT SINGLE OWNERSHIP. THE LIST OF USES ARE SIMILAR TO THE PREVIOUS BSC BUT INCLUDES SOME UPDATED USES THAT WERE NOT CONTEMPLATED BACK IN THE TIME THAT THAT WAS DONE YEARS AGO. SO IT ALSO INCLUDES MEDICAL OFFICES, URGENT CARE, FOOD TRUCKS. NOT FOR OVERNIGHT USE. AND ACCESSORY USES SUCH AS TASTING ROOMS FOR FOOD AND BEVERAGE STORES. THERE ARE SPECIAL REGULATIONS THAT APPLY TO LARGE LOUNGES. THIS IS WHAT'S CALLED A SPECIAL REGULATIONS FOR WELLS ROAD, SECTION 3-47 AND THAT APPLIES TO A CORRIDOR EXTENDING ALONG WELLS ROAD AND ACROSS THE INTERSECTION OF WELLS AND LANDING. THIS PARCEL DOES EXTEND INTO IT AND WOULD BE SUBJECT TO IT AS IT IS SINGLE OWNERSHIP AT THIS TIME BECAUSE A PORTION FALLS WITHIN THAT AREA. WAIVERS. ONE IS A WAIVER FROM THE DISTANCE REQUIREMENTS IN SECTION 3-47 FOR A BUSINESS SELLING ALCOHOL OR OFF PREMISES CONSUMPTION, HAVING AN ACCESSORY USE OF A TASTING ROOM. THAT WAS THEIR PURPOSE FOR ASKING THAT. THE ADDITIONAL WAIVER THAT THEY ARE ASKING FOR IS FROM THE BUFFERING REQUIREMENTS FOR DUMPSTERS AND LOADING DOCKS. THE BUFFERING WOULD INHIBIT THE ACTUAL SERVICE OF THE DUMPSTERS AS WELL AS THE LOADING DOCKS, ACCESS TO THE LOADING DOCKS. THEIR SITE PLAN ON THE LEFT, THE NORTHERN PART, THE TOP SIDE OF THIS PLAN, YOU WILL SEE WHERE THE EXISTING MALL IS. SO THEY ARE GOING TO DEMOLISH THE EXISTING SEARS AND THEY WILL BUILD BUILDING SEPARATE BUILDINGS THAT WILL NOT BE ATTACHED TO THE EXISTING MALL. YOU WILL HAVE A LOADING AREA THAT'S IN BETWEEN THE TWO. THEY ARE PROPOSING SEVERAL DIFFERENT USES AS WELL AS SOME OUTPARCELS THAT WOULD BE ACCESSED BY THE INTERNAL RING ROAD THAT GOES AROUND THE MALL. AND THEY ARE PROPOSING TWO STORMWATER PONDS. APOLOGIZE, IT'S ACTUALLY PUD 266. CRITERIA FOR REZONING HAVE BEEN MET AND GENERALLY RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THIS PUD BUT FURTHER RECOMMENDS THAT THE LIGHTING STANDARDS, SIMILAR TO THOSE IN THE BRANDON FIELD MASTERPLAN, BE APPLIED TO THE OUT PARCELS ALONG 21 LANDING. THERE IS NO ACTIVE CAC IN THE GATEWAY PLANNING DISTRICT SO THERE ARE NO COMMENTS TO PROVIDE THERE. >> QUESTIONS OF STAFF? >> THIS ISN'T NECESSARILY GERMANE. I WILL USE COMMISSIONER PUCKHABER'S WORD. BUT I AM INTERESTED IN THIS. AND I'M CURIOUS HOW THEY ARE GOING TO SEPARATE THE BUILDING FROM SEARS TO THE EXISTING MALL IF THEY ARE DIFFERENT OWNERS. [01:00:01] THAT IS GOING TO HAVE TO BE DEMOED AND ANY EXISTING BUILDING STAYS ON THE PROPERTY LINE FOR THE MALL? >> SO WE HAVE THE APPLICANT HERE TO EXPLAIN. >> I'M PREPPING HIM BY ASKING YOU BUT I'M EXPECTING THAT HE WILL COME UP AND GIVE US-- >> THE PCD HAS THE SETBACK STANDARDS AND EVERYTHING THAT'S IN THERE AND SO MAYBE I'M NOT QUITE UNDERSTANDING. >> I'M CURIOUS. THE EXISTING MALL. AFTER THAT WING, THIS YEARS WING IS REMOVED, IS THERE A SETBACK FOR THE EXISTING MALL THAT THEY WILL HAVE TO MEET NOW OR THEY ARE JUST GOING TO WALL IN WHERE THE ENTRANCE FROM SEARS INTO THE MALL WAS AND IT'S JUST A FLAT WALL RIGHT THERE? RIGHT ON THE PROPERTY LINE? >> THAT IS SOMETHING THAT WOULD HAVE TO BE ADDRESSED BY THE APPLICANT. >> IT'S AN INTRIGUING PROJECT. I'M CURIOUS TO SEE WHAT HE WILL SAY. THANK YOU. >> CAN YOU PUT THE MAP BACK UP FOR A SECOND? THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION, MR. BOURRE, BUT IF YOU GO BACK TO THE ONES BEFORE THIS, THE ZONING MAPS, I THINK THERE WAS ONE-- >> THE AERIAL? >> SEE THAT RIGHT THERE, SEE HOW THAT YELLOW LINE IS? IT'S VERY WEIRD BUT I DID A LITTLE RESEARCH ON THIS OUTSIDE OF HERE. APPARENTLY SEARS, BACK WHEN THIS MALL WAS BUILT, SEARS WAS A BIG DEAL, YOU KNOW, THEY HAD A LOT OF POWER. AND THIS SAME SITUATION EXISTED AT A NUMBER OF MALLS THAT SEARS WAS IN, WHERE THEY HAVE CLOSED. THIS IS NOT A DIVISION OF PROPERTY THAT THIS APPLICANT IS ASKING FOR. THIS IS HOW THE MALL WAS BUILT ORIGINALLY. SO IT MUST BE GRANDFATHERED IN AT A MINIMUM, THAT THEY CAN BE RIGHT ON THAT PROPERTY LINE. SEARS ALWAYS OWNED THE PROPERTY UNDER THEIR BUILDING AND THEIR PARKING LOT. >> AND I WOULD EXPECT THAT THE MALL WOULD NOT BE REQUIRED TO DEMO MORE OF A MALL IN ORDER TO CREATE THE SETBACK, I JUST WANT TO HEAR HOW THAT IS GOING TO TRANSPIRE WHEN THE APPLICANT COMES UP BUT TO YOUR POINT, I COMPLETELY AGREE. THAT'S WHY I FIND THIS INTRIGUING. >> I HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT IT TO THE APPLICANT TOO. I HAVE MORE THAN ONE QUESTION. >> I HAVE QUESTIONS TO THE APPLICANT AS WELL. CONSIDERING THE ELEVATIONS ON THAT, HOW YOU WILL DEAL WITH THAT. BUT WHEN QUESTIONED A STAFF. IF YOU ARE RECOMMENDING APPROVALS, ALSO RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE TWO WAIVERS THEY ARE ASKING FOR? >> THAT'S WHY I'M SAYING GENERALLY. I DID NOT FEEL THAT THAT WAS STAFF'S ROLE, TO MAKE THAT DECISION NECESSARILY. WITH THE TASTING ROOM, THAT IS FALLING UNDER ALCOHOL LICENSE. BUT IT IS NOT SELLING, IT IS MERELY SAMPLES OF THE PRODUCT BUT IT IS NOT SELLING SO IT SHOULD BE WITHIN THE STATE LICENSING. SO. >> ALL RIGHT. THE APPLICANT, PLEASE. >> THE APPLICANT HAS A POWERPOINT PRESENTATION AS WELL. >> GOOD EVENING. MARK SHELTON. 12740 GRAND BAY PARKWAY WEST, SUITE 2350 JACKSONVILLE, FLORIDA. 32258. WITH ME TODAY IS COREY. >> PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: . F2 ORANGE PARK AND DILLON WITH THE LAW FIRM. I DO WANT TO SAY THANK YOU FIRST OF ALL FOR YOUR TIME TONIGHT. HAPPY TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTIONS. THIS IS A GREAT REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT. I'M EXCITED TO BE HERE. IT'S LIKE A PLANNER'S DREAM. I ALSO WANT TO SAY THANK YOU TO STAFF. FROM BETH, OTHERS, I APPRECIATE YOUR EFFORT IN HELPING US GET THIS PROJECT TO WHERE WE ARE RIGHT NOW. LET'S SEE. SO THERE'S A REDEVELOPMENT TEAM AS OPPOSED TO A DEVELOPMENT T TEAM. NEXT SLIDE. SO THIS IS A REUSE OF THE EXISTING OLD SEARS PARCEL WHICH IS A PORTION OF THE ORANGE PARK MALL, AS YOU KNOW. THE SITE IS 18 ACRES AND HAS FRONTAGE ALONG LANDING BOULEVARD AND ORANGE PARK NORTH WAY. WE WILL BE REVISING THE DESIGN OF THE SITE IN ACCESS ADDING NEW NATIONAL RETAILERS, ADDING FIVE OUTPARCELS WHERE THERE USED TO BE A SEA OF PARKING. TO GET TO THIS POINT WE HAD TO WORK WITH PLANNING STAFF, PUBLIC WORKS, FDOT, WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT, CLAY COUNTY UTILITY AUTHORITY AND MORE. IT HAS DEFINITELY BEEN A TEAM [01:05:03] EFFORT. NEXT SLIDE. AND AS BETH ALREADY STATED, THIS WOULD BE PCD, NOT PUD. NEXT SLIDE. THESE NEXT SLIDES SHOW THE ADJACENT-- SHOW THE EXISTING CONDITIONS OUT HERE. THIS IS AN AERIAL VIEW OF WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE RIGHT NOW. AND THE NEXT SLIDE AFTER THAT. IS GOING TO SHOW THE STREET VIEW OF WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE RIGHT NOW WITH A LITTLE BIT OF DILAPIDATED LANDSCAPING, FADED STRIPING AND A SEA OF ASPHALT. NEXT SLIDE. SO SLIDE SEVEN SHOWS OUR NEW SITE PLAN WITH OUR NEW BUILDING DESIGN FOR OUR FIVE NATIONAL RETAIL ANCHORS. AND AS BETH MENTIONED, WE ARE CURRENTLY REMOVING THE TWO EXISTING BUILDINGS ON THE SITE AND PREPARING A LOCATION FOR THE TWO PONDS. NEXT SLIDE. ON THIS SLIDE, HE WILL SEE HOW THE ACCESS TO THIS PARCEL HAS TO CHANGE BECAUSE OF THE INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS BY FDOT. WHAT USED TO BE A FULL ACCESS ON LANDING, THE BOTTOM RED CIRCLE, IS NOW GOING TO BE TURNED INTO A RIDE IN RIDE OUT BECAUSE OF THE MEDIAN PUT IN. THEIR CHOICE, NOT OURS, BUT IT'S FOR SAFETY. THE TOP RIGHT CIRCLE IS A RIGHT IN THAT WE ASKED FDOT TO BUILD FOR US, WHICH THEY AGREED TO, THE TRAFFIC THAT COMES EASTBOUND IS SIGNIFICANT ENOUGH WHERE WE DON'T WANT TO HAVE TO MAKE THEM GO ANOTHER HALF MILE OR SO TO TAKE THE NEW TURN AND COME ALL THE WAY BACK. SO THEY ALLOWED US TO-- LISTENED TO US AND DESIGNED AND PUT IN THAT RIGHT IN RIGHT THERE. NEXT SLIDE. SO HERE'S A COLORIZED VERSION OF THE SITE PLAN WHICH MORE CLEARLY SHOWS THE ANCHOR, THEY OUT PARCELS, THE NEW POND AND LANDSCAPING LOCATIONS. PLEASE NOTE THE LOCATIONS OF THE LOADING AND UNLOADING DOCK THAT BETH MENTIONED AT THE TOP OF THIS RIGHT ABOVE THE RETAIL AND TO THE LEFT OF THE GROCER. I WILL GET TO THAT IN A MINUTE. NEXT SLIDE. SO TO SUMMARIZE, THE REVISED SITE DESIGN, WE ARE PRESERVING THE RING ROAD TO HAVE A CONTINUAL FEEL, THEY SAME WAY IT IS RIGHT NOW, BEING PART OF THE MALL. WE ARE ADDING LANDSCAPING, A LOT MORE LANDSCAPING THAN IS THERE RIGHT NOW, ABOUT 100% OF WHAT THE CODE REQUIRES, BUT SIGNIFICANTLY MORE TO BRING THIS TO A MORE ESTHETIC FEEL. WE ARE CREATING A UNIFIED PLAN. A USP IS NEW TO THE CODE. IT'S NOT REQUIRED. WE ARE OFFERING IT UP BECAUSE WE FOUND THIS TO BE MORE USEFUL INSTEAD OF HAVING TO KEEP COME TO BETH ASKING QUESTIONS, WE MADE IT PART OF THE PCD. THERE'S GOING TO BE A GREAT REDUCTION IN IMPERVIOUS SURFACE AREA AND IMPERVIOUS SURFACE RATIO MAINLY FOR MORE LANDSCAPING AND MORE PONDS. NEXT ONE. BECAUSE OF THAT, THERE IS LESS STORMWATER RUNNING OFF TO LANDING. WATER MANAGEMENT WAS HAPPY TO HEAR ABOUT THAT AS WELL AS FDOT. AND LAST ONE. THIS IS TRUE OF MANY OLDER MALLS. THERE'S A SEA OF PARKING, A SEA OF ASPHALT. BY CREATING THE OUT PARCELS ON THE OUTSIDE OF THE RING ROAD AND PUTTING MORE LANDSCAPING AND PONDS ON THE INSIDE, YOU ARE BREAKING UP THAT SEA OF PARKING TO MAKE IT MORE USER FRIENDLY. WE ARE ALSO ADDING SUCH USES TO THIS DISTRICT BECAUSE RIGHT NOW BUSINESS SHOPPING CENTER, BSC, DOES NOT ALLOW FUEL PUMPS. BECAUSE WE HAVE PARKERS KITCHEN COMING IN, WE ARE ADDING FUEL PUMPS. IT'S AMAZING BECAUSE THE SAME PLACE IT USED TO BE ABLE TO REPAIR A CAR, TAKE IT APART AND PUT IT BACK TOGETHER, BUT YOU CAN'T FILL IT WITH FUEL. WE HAD TO ADD THAT USE IN THERE. ALSO DRIVE THRUS. YOU ARE ALLOWED TO HAVE A DRIVE IN, DRIVE UP, BUT NOT DRIVE THROUGH. MEDICAL AND DENTAL OFFICES AND CLINICS WERE NOT PART OF BSC. WE ADD THAT USE. IT WOULD HAVE BEEN-- SUCH USES AS MEDICAL MARIJUANA AND THE ABILITY TO DEVELOP RESIDENTIAL. ALONG WITH THIS, AS BETH MENTIONED, WE HAD A FEW WAIVERS THAT WE HAVE TO ASK YOU ALL FOR BECAUSE WE ARE KIND OF A SQUARE PEG ROUND HOLE KIND OF THING, WE ARE TRYING TO BRING A NEW DEVELOPMENT INTO AN OLD ZONING DISTRICT CALLED BSC AND THAT'S WHAT WE BASED OUR DESIGNS ON AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE. NEXT. SO THIS IS OUR UNIFIED SIGN PLAN. SHOWING LOCATIONS, THE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF SIGNS. OUR WRITTEN DESCRIPTION FOR THIS U.S. P WILL BE ADOPTED AS PART OF THE PSD. THERE'S A MAP BUT A WRITTEN DESCRIPTION GOES WITH IT. NEXT ONE. THIS IS A CONCEPTUAL ILLUSTRATION SHOWING OUR [01:10:02] PROPOSED MASTER PLAN IDENTITY SIGN. YOU CAN SEE THE ARCHITECTURAL STYLE THAT'S GOING TO BE CONSISTENT THROUGHOUT THIS AREA. IT WILL BE COMPATIBLE WITH THE REST OF THE SIGNS WITHIN THIS PARCEL. SO FINALLY, IN ORDER TO ACCOMMODATE THESE NATIONAL RETAILERS, WE NEED TO REQUEST A FEW WAIVERS TO ADDRESS THE TASTING ROOM, AS BETH POINTED OUT, THE PARKING LANDSCAPE ISLANDS. RIGHT NOW YOU HAVE 100-FOOT SEPARATION WHICH MEANS EVERY 10W LANDSCAPE ISLAND TO MAKE UP FOR THE PARKING AND TO COMPLY WITH ALL THE PARKING REQUIREMENTS CALCULATIONS, A LOT OF THAT ASPHALT WENT AWAY BECAUSE OF THE PONDS, SO WE ARE ASKING FOR AN EXTENSION OF THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE LANDSCAPE ISLANDS TO BE MORE THAN 100 FEET. FINALLY, THEY PERIMETER LANDSCAPING. THIS IS ADJACENT TO THE PROPERTY LINES THAT ARE EXISTING. ONE IS WE DON'T WANT PERIMETER LANDSCAPING BETWEEN THE EXISTING MALL AND OUR NEW BUILDING. IT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE. RIGHT NEXT TO EACH OTHER, ABOUT 20 FEET APART. THE OTHER IS ADJACENT TO THE ORANGE PARK NORTH WAY, THERE'S A 45-DEGREE SLOPE. WE ARE GOING TO KEEP THAT EXISTING LANDSCAPING THE WAY IT IS. HALF OF IT IS IN THE RIGHT OF WAY AND HALF IS OUR PROPERTY. THE OTHER PORTIONS OF THE RING ROAD ALONG THE NORTH PROPERTY LINE, WE DON'T WANT TO DIVIDE THIS PROPERTY. WE STILL WANT TO MAKE IT LOOK UNIFORM. WE WILL ABIDE. WE ARE NOT TRYING TO SEPARATE OURSELVES FROM THE REST OF THE MALL. SO I KNOW THERE'S A LOT IN THERE AND I'M HAPPY TO STAND BY WITH ANY QUESTIONS. MY TEAM WILL STAND BY AS WELL. >> I HAVE A VERY SHORT QUESTION. CAN YOU TALK ABOUT THE ALCOHOL WAIVER? >> YES SIR, ABSOLUTELY. SO AS PART OF THE WINE RETAIL STORE, THAT IS OUR MAJOR ANCHOR, THEY ARE ON THE RIGHT SIDE OF OUR FIVE MAJOR BUILDINGS, THEY WOULD LIKE A TASTING ROOM. AS BETH MENTIONED, THIS IS NOT FOR PEOPLE TO COME IN AND BUY OR SIT DOWN AND BUY ALCOHOL AND DRINK IT RIGHT THERE. THIS IS A TASTING. THE LICENSE THEY HAVE TO GET TO DO THAT THROUGH ALCOHOL BEVERAGE AND TOBACCO IN THIS STATE IS A FOUR COPY LICENSE. FOUR MEANING LIQUOR, BEER AND WINE, COPY MEANING CONSUMPTION ON PREMISES. EVEN THOUGH IT'S THAT MUCH, IT'S NOT A SIT DOWN BAR, THEY STILL HAVE TO GET THAT LICENSE. THEREFORE IT'S NOT IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE EXISTING LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE BECAUSE CLAY COUNTY'S CODE DOES NOT CONTEMPLATE THAT WHICH DID NOT REALLY EXIST 30 YEARS AGO. >> THANK YOU. >> CAN YOU JUST EXPAND ON THAT REAL QUICK? I WAS GOING TO ASK THAT DEFINITION. THE OTHER ONE IS SRX LICENSE. WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE? >> AND'S' LICENSE IS WHEN YOU HAVE 51% OF YOUR PROFITS COMING FROM FOOD. THIS IS YOUR RUBY TUESDAY'S, YOUR CHILI'S. THEY HAVE MOST OF THEIR INCOME COMING FROM FOOD, 51% HAVE TO HAVE 2500 SEATS. I'M SORRY, 150 SEATS, 2500 SQUARE FEET. THAT QUALIFIES THEM IN THE STATE AS A BONA FIDE RESTAURANT. >> I'M FAMILIAR WITH BOTH OF THESE, I JUST WASN'T SURE WHAT THE NAMES WERE. THANK YOU. BECAUSE THERE'S ANOTHER LICENSE TOO, THE ONE THAT YOU GET THROUGH THE LOTTERY WITH THE STATE, THE ONE A LOT OF BARS USE. >> THAT'S THE FOUR COP. >> ISN'T? OKAY. >> I HAVE A SERIES OF QUESTIONS BUT I WANT TO MAKE SURE THERE'S NO PUBLIC COMMENT FIRST. >> YES, I WANTED TO UNDERSTAND THE PLANS FOR THE OUTPARCELS. DID I UNDERSTAND CORRECTLY THAT THOSE WOULD BE MEDICAL SERVICES AND OFFICE BUILDIGS AND THINGS OF THAT NATURE, NOT RETAIL, OR DID YOU SAY? >> THEY COULD BE. THEY COULD BE RETAIL, THEY COULD BE RESTAURANT, THEY COULD BE DENTAL CLINIC. IT WILL BE CONSISTENT WITH WHAT YOU SEE RIGHT NOW IN WELLS ROAD. IT WILL FALL IN LINE. BUT I CAN'T SAY WHAT WE HAVE DEFINITE RIGHT NOW BECAUSE WE ARE STILL IN NEGOTIATIONS WITH THEM. BUT IT'S NOT JUST GOING TO BE THAT. WE WILL STILL HAVE OUR LIST. >> YOU MIGHT HAVE TOUCHED ON IT BUT THE OLD AUTO PARTS CENTER IS ON TOP OF THE HILL. ARE YOU GOING TO MAINTAIN THAT HILL AND THEN THE OUTPARCEL WILL BE ON TOP OF IT, IS THAT HOW IT WORKS? >> YES SIR. >> SLOPE DOWN TO THE OTHERS? >> YES SIR. WE AREN'T GOING TO REDUCE THAT OR BRING THE HILL DOWN. WE ARE GOING TO BUILD ON IT. WE HAVE TO MAKE SURE THAT IT FLOWS CORRECTLY AS OPPOSED TO WHEN IT WAS DEVELOPED IN THE 70S. AND SO WE ARE NOT GOING TO BE REDUCING THAT SLOPE. THE EAST PROPERTY LINE, I'M SORRY, SOUTH PROPERTY LINE, HAS THAT 45-DEGREE ANGLE HILL THAT GOES UP TO ORANGE PARK NORTH [01:15:02] WAY. THAT'S THE BEGINNING OF THE HILL. BUT WE AREN'T TAKING IT DOWN. >> AND I'VE GOT A QUESTION OF LEGAL. IF I MAY. THE ISSUE CONCERNING A WAIVER ON THE ALCOHOL AND A WAIVER ON THE DUMPSTERS, ARE WE EMPOWERED TO GRANT THAT OR IS THAT SOMETHING THAT HAS TO BE DONE UNDER A SEPARATE RULE? [INDISTINCT] THE BOARD HAS THE POWER TO DO THIS ONE OFF TYPE THING? [INDISTINCT] OKAY. I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE WE DON'T TREAD ON SOMEBODY ELSE'S TOES. ALL RIGHT. >> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. >> GOOD EVENING, IT'S GOOD TO SEE YOU. COULD YOU DO ME A FAVOR AND JUST ADDRESS THE DECIMATION OF SEARS? I USED TO BUY MY CRAFTSMAN TOOLS THERE BY THE WAY SO SOME OF US HAVE BEEN AROUND FOR A WHILE. CAN YOU JUST TALK US THROUGH THAT PROCESS? I'M VERY INTERESTED. >> YES SIR. I BELIEVE COMMISSIONER PUCKHABER PUT IT CORRECTLY. AS SOON AS HE HAS PUT THE PROPERTY LINE THAT SEPARATES THEIR BUILDING FROM THE MALL YEAH THEY ARE STILL CONNECTED, KIND OF THROUGH THEIR MALL AND THEIR BUILDING INTO WHAT'S CALLED LEGAL NON-CONFORMING STATUS BECAUSE YOU ARE SUPPOSED TO HAVE A 20-FOOT SETBACK. I WARN MY DEVELOPERS, WHENEVER YOU PUT ARBITRARY PROPERTY LINES YOU ARE CREATING SETBACK REQUIREMENTS YOU NEED TO WATCH OUT FOR. SO THE MALL PORTION OF THIS WOULD BE CONSIDERED LEGAL NON-CONFORMING BECAUSE THE BUILDING SHOULD BE SETBACK. I THINK IT IS 20 FEET. OURS WILL BE SET BACK 20 FEET, THEREBY CONFORMING IT AND WE WILL USE THAT SEPARATION AS AN AREA THAT WE CAN USE FOR BACK OF HOUSE DELIVERY. >> OKAY. SO SEARS-- I'M SORRY, THE REST OF THEM ALL IS NON-CONFORMING, NOT YOUR CONCERN? >> CORRECT. >> NOT NECESSARILY NON-CONFORMING. IT KIND OF DEPENDS ON WHERE YOU DETERMINE YOUR SITE TO BE. SO THE BSC HAS LANGUAGE IN THERE THAT SAYS THAT WHERE THE ADJOINING LOT IS ZONED FOR BUSINESS, THE BUILDING MAYBE PLACED UP TO THE SIDE LOT LINE, PROVIDING THE BUILDING IS CONSTRUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE REGULATIONS AND THE BUILDING CODE. SO, YOU KNOW, OBVIOUSLY YOU HAVE BUILDINGS THAT ARE BUILT NEXT TO EACH OTHER WHEN YOU HAVE A MALL COMBINED. >> SO THE EXISTING WOULD BE TO THE PROPERTY LINE AS LONG AS WE ARE ALL BUILT TO THE BUILDING CODE FOR FIRE AND EVERYTHING, THAT SHOULD BE SATISFACTORY. >> OKAY, THANK YOU FOR THE CLARIFICATION. THE OTHER QUESTION I HAD AND I WAS A LITTLE BIT CONFUSED BY THE SITE PLAN SO I'M GOING TO ASK THE QUESTION, I'M ASSUMING THAT THERE'S STILL INTERCONNECTIVITY BETWEEN YOUR PARKING LOT AND THE ADJACENT PARKING LOTS EXISTING IN THE MALL? >> YES SIR. WE ARE GOING TO MAINTAIN THE RING ROAD AND STILL HAVE INTERCONNECTIVITY BETWEEN THE OUT PARCELS, IT WILL BE ENCOURAGED AND REQUIRED. >> IN ALL OF THIS, IS IT ALL ACCESSIBLE WITHIN THE CONFINES, THERE'S NO CURB CUTS OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT ALONG BLANDING? >> THAT'S CORRECT. NO EXTRA CURB CUTS. WE ARE USING THE EXISTING ACCESS THROUGH ORANGE PARK NORTH WAY. THE RIDE IN RIDE OUT AND LEFT IN JUST PAST THAT SEARS GOING NORTH, WHAT USED TO BE-- WERE THE MAJOR SIGN IS RIGHT NOW NORTH ON BLANDING, THAT WILL BE RIDE IN RIDE OUT. NO IN CURB CUTS. >> I THINK THE QUESTION-- BECAUSE I HAD THE SAME QUESTION BUT SINCE HE OPENED IT, AT THE TOP OF THAT DRAWING WE HAVE GOT THE RING ROAD, WHICH YOU ARE CLEARLY GOING TO REROUTE, RIGHT? BUT AS LONG AS THAT STAYS, IT'S STILL GOING TO BE THE SAME WIDTH, IS JUST GOING TO BE THAT RING? >> YES SIR. >> TOP RIGHT CORNER, THAT LOOKS LIKE IT'S SOME KIND OF LANDSCAPE ISLAND OR SOMETHING IN THERE. AM I GOING TO BE ABLE TO MOVE FROM THIS PARKING LOT TO THE OTHER PART OF THE MALL PARKING LOT WITHOUT GOING OUT ON THAT RING ROAD? >> YES SIR. IT WILL HAVE THAT INTERCONNECTIVITY. IF YOU GO STRAIGHT UP TO THE TOP RIGHT, THAT MIGHT BE A MISTAKE ON OUR PART, IT LOOKS LIKE IT'S CLOSED AS LANDSCAPING, THAT WILL BE OPEN AND CONTINUOUS. >> THE SAME THING ON THE LEFT OVER HERE? >> YES SIR. >> OKAY. AND THEN THE OTHER QUESTION ABOUT THE CONNECTIVITY. FIRST OF ALL, EVERYTHING I SAY, TAKE THIS WITH A GRAIN OF SALT. I THINK THIS NEEDS-- WE'VE BEEN WANTING THIS REDEVELOPED FOR SO LONG. IT'S HORRIBLE. IT LOOKS LIKE A DEAD MALL WHEN YOU ARE ON BLANDING BOULEVARD BUT IF YOU GO AROUND THE CORNER THERE'S A TON OF PEOPLE THERE. SO OTHER THAN THE PARKING LOT, IS THERE ANY PEDESTRIAN CONNECTIVITY THAT'S GOING TO MAKE IT EASY FOR ME TO WALK AROUND TO THE MALL? >> YES SIR. [01:20:03] PART OF OUR REQUIREMENTS, WE ALREADY HAVE OUR PLANS IN FOR SEVERAL REVIEW, WE HAVE TO REESTABLISH ADA SIDEWALKS WITH GRADING BR JTA WANTS TO RELOCATE THE BUS STOP. WE ARE GOING TO HAVE THAT CONNECTIVITY THROUGH SIDEWALKS AND STRIPING WITHIN THE PARKING LOT. >> THAT WAS ANOTHER QUESTION I HAD ABOUT THE BUS THAT STOPS THERE, WHAT WE WERE GOING TO DO ABOUT THAT. SO THEY ARE JUST GOING TO FIND ANOTHER SPOT? >> YES SIR. JTA WOULD LIKE TO LOCATE THAT ON SITE AS OPPOSED TO ON ORANGE PARK NORTH WAY AND WE ARE STILL NEGOTIATING WITH THEM WHERE THAT COULD BE. THAT WOULD BE CONSISTENT WITH OUR ADA ROUTES AND OUR PARKING. >> KIND OF A GENERAL QUESTION, BECAUSE I DO HAVE SOME ISSUES WITH YOUR SITE PLAN I WANT TO GET TO. BUT OVERALL, GOOD ANSWERS. GIVE ME AS BRIEF A STATEMENT AS YOU CAN. I KNOW YOU MENTIONED WHY THIS NEEDS TO BE A PCD, OTHER THAN JUST GOING UNDER SHOPPING CE CENTER. BECAUSE THE WAY I'M READING THIS AND LOOKING AT IT, HONESTLY, IT LOOKS LIKE WHAT YOU ARE DOING IS TRYING TO GET A WHOLE LOT OF SIGNS IN THERE THAT I DON'T THINK WE NEED. AND THERE'S A COUPLE OF THEM FOR SURE. WE HAVE BEEN TRYING FOR YEARS AND YEARS AND YEARS TO GET SOMEBODY TO CLEAN UP BLANDING BOULEVARD. IT'S HORRIBLE. WE KNOW IT'S HORRIBLE. IT'S HARD. YOU COULD BE THE GERMINATION OF THE THING THAT STARTS TO CLEAN THAT UP, IF IT'S DONE CORRECTLY. KIND OF EMBARRASS SOME OF THE OTHER PROPERTY OWNERS INTO DOING SOMETHING A LITTLE BETTER. SO JUST GIVE ME A QUICK SYNOPSIS ON WHY THIS IS BETTER THAN JUST GOING SHOPPING CENTER. >> YES SIR. LET ME FIRST ADDRESS THE SIGNAGE. WE BASED OUR SIGN PLAN ON THE EXISTING SIGN CODE. WHEN IT CAME TO LOCATIONS, WHEN IT CAME TO HEIGHTS, STYLE. SO WE MIMICKED THAT AND WE TRIED TO SHOW IT INTO WHERE WE THINK THESE LOCATIONS WILL BE. SO THAT WAS OUR BASIS, BASED ON EXISTING CODE. THIS IS ALSO NOT EXACTLY-- THEY ARE NOT GOING TO MAXIMIZE THIS, THIS IS THEIR OPTIONS. THEY DON'T HAVE TO MAKE EVERY ONE OF THESE SIGNS. THEY COULD PAIR THAT DOWN MORE IF THEY WANTED TO BUT WE HAVE TO GIVE-- AS RETAILERS WE HAVE TO GIVE THEM THE OPTION OF ADVERTISING SPACE ALONG BLANDING. WE ALSO WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE DON'T CONFLICT WITH THE OFF SITE RESTRICTION. BECAUSE OUR FIVE MAJOR RETAILERS ARE NOT ALONG BLANDING. WE HAVE TO MAKE SURE THAT THEIR SIGNAGE CAN STILL BE VISIBLE AND NOT BE IN CONFLICT WITH THE NO OFF SITE REQUIREMENT. NO OFF-SITE SIGNAGE REQUIREMENT. >> ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH HOW THEY DO A LOT OF SIGNAGE ON FLEMING ISLAND IN EAGLE HARBOR AREA? >> NO, SIR,, I'M NOT FAMILIAR WITH THAT. >> OKAY. BECAUSE THOSE SIGNS I THINK MEET ALL THE CRITERIA AND ARE NOT AS MONSTROUS AS THESE THAT YOU ARE PROPOSING. THAT'S A BIG CONCERN THAT I HAVE, ESPECIALLY THE MASTER PLAN IDENTITY SIGN. 40 FEET. 40 FEET! THAT'S TALLER THAN SOME OF THE BILLBOARDS. THEY ACCOMPLISH THE SAME THING THAT YOU ARE SPEAKING ABOUT OVER ON FLEMING ISLAND, USING MUCH SMALLER MONUMENT SIGNS. AGAIN, TRYING TO CLEAN UP BLANDING. AND JUST ENCOURAGING GIANT SIGNS ON BLANDING IS GOING THE WRONG DIRECTION. >> YES SIR. >> SO I HAVE SOME REAL CONCERN ABOUT THAT ONE IN PARTICULAR. BUT IN GENERAL, I THINK YOU GUYS OUGHT TO TAKE A DRIVE OVER TO COUNTY ROAD 220 U.S. 17 IN EAGLE HARBOR AREA. TAKE A LOOK AT WHAT THEY'VE DONE WITH THEIR SIGNAGE. IT'S FAR LESS OBTRUSIVE THAN SOME OF THE STUFF YOU ARE PROPOSING. YET ACCOMPLISHES I THINK EVERYTHING YOU ARE TRYING TO DO. AND SO THE SIGNAGE IS KIND OF AN ISSUE WITH ME. AND I WON'T BORE. THE OTHER THING I DID WANT TO ASK ABOUT SPECIFICALLY WAS THE FLAGPOLES. 80-FOOT FLAGPOLES? THAT'S LIKE SEVEN OR EIGHT-STORY BUILDING. I KNOW WE HAVE SOME IN THE COUNTY. I DON'T KNOW THAT THEY ARE A GOOD IDEA. BUT IN HERE IT DID SAY THAT EACH PARCEL IS ALLOWED A FLAGPOLE. COULD KEEP IN MIND THAT WE ARE TALKING KIND OF ONE PARCEL RIGHT [01:25:03] NOW BUT IN YOUR WRITTEN DESCRIPTION, YOU ARE GOING TO BREAK THIS UP INTO A LOT OF OTHER BLOCK/PARCELS, SO EACH ONE OF THESE BUSINESSES CAN HAVE AN 80-FOOT FLAGPOLE? I COULD KIND OF SEE ONE FOR THE WHOLE PROJECT. AND THEN, YOU KNOW, IF YOU'VE GOT MORE THAN HALF AN ACRE, YOU ARE GOING TO HAVE TWO FLAGPOLES. AND THEN YOU NEVER SPECIFY WHAT KIND OF FLAGS ARE GOING TO BE ON THERE. I MEAN, ARE THEY GOING TO BE COMPANY FLAGS OR ADVERTISING FLAGS OR WHAT HAVE YOU? I KNOW IT REFERS TO ANOTHER PART OF THE CODE BUT REALISTICALLY DO YOU REALLY NEED ABOUT 15 FLAGPOLES 80 FEET HIGH ON THIS PROPERTY? I DON'T THINK SO. I THINK ONE, AND I DON'T KNOW IT NEEDS TO BE 80 FEET, BUT THE ONLY FLAGS THAT OUGHT TO BE ON IT ARE THE U.S. FLAG AND THE STATE OF FLORIDA FLAG. IT SHOULD NOT BE ANYTHING ELSE ON THE FLAGPOLE. SO I HAVE AN ISSUE WITH THAT. LET ME SEE. I JUST HAD A FEW OTHER COMMENTS. >> IF I MAY ADDRESS THAT? >> YES PLEASE. >> WE HONESTLY HAVE NO INTENTION TO PUT A BUNCH OF FLAGPOLES. WE HAVE NO INTENTION TO BUILD THEM AS HIGH AS WE CAN POSSIBLY GET. WE LITERALLY TOOK THE CODE AND MIMICKED IT. SO THAT'S NOT ON PURPOSE BUT WE WOULD BE HAPPY TO LOOK AT THAT. IN FACT I CAN GUARANTEE YOU WE CAN REDUCE THE HEIGHT AND WE CAN REDUCE THE AMOUNT OF FLAGPOLES AND WE CAN TAKE THAT WITH A REVISED USP. >> I KNOW YOU BASE THIS ON OUR CODE BUT THE PROBLEM IS OUR CODE IS NOT THAT GREAT. THE IDEA OF A PCD IS YOU ARE SUPPOSED TO HAVE A PRODUCT THAT IS BETTER THAN WHAT YOU CAN DO UNDER THE CODE. THAT'S THE ISSUE. IS THIS BETTER THAN WHAT'S UNDER THE CODE? AND WHEN YOU SAY WELL THE CODE LETS YOU DO THAT SOMEWHERE ELSE, IT DOESN'T MATTER. THIS IS A PCD, THIS IS SUPPOSED TO BE BETTER THAN WHAT WE COULD DO ELSEWHERE, WHICH I THINK BRINGS ME TO MY LAST COMMENT BECAUSE I LIKE TO TALK AND THESE GUYS GET TIRED OF LISTENING TO ME. BUT THE LIGHTING. AND YOU ARE NOT THE ONLY ONE. EVERYBODY THAT COMES IN HERE BEAR DOWN LIGHTING CAN'T KEEP THEM FROM GOING OFF PREMISE. IT'S SOMETHING BLANDING NEEDS. WE HAVE A STANDARD THAT WE USE. THIS NEEDS TO SAY LIGHTING WILL COMPLY WITH THAT. NOT WITH THE COUNTY CODE. BECAUSE I HAD A LITTLE SLIDE SHOW IN HERE A FEW MONTHS AGO THAT I SHOWED WHAT WE CAN DO UNDER OUR CODE AND IT'S CRAZY. SO WE NEED TO RESTRICT THE LIGHTING TOO. SO THOSE ARE KIND OF MY-- AND LET ME SAY, A I LOVE THE FACT YOU ARE DOING I THINK THIS IS SO BADLY NEEDED. I THINK IT WILL CLEAN UP THAT STRETCH OF BLANDING. I THINK THE MALL WILL BENEFIT FROM IT. YOU GUYS HAVE A PRETTY GOOD PRODUCT HERE. I JUST DON'T LIKE SOME OF THE SIGNAGE AND I DEFINITELY DON'T LIKE THE LIGHTING. >> LET ME ADDRESS THE LIGHTING QUICKLY. YES SIR, I AGREE WITH WHAT YOU ARE SAYING. BETH MADE ME AWARE THERE'S NEW LIGHTING STANDARDS IN THE DEVELOPMENT CODE AND SHE AND I DISCUSSED THIS AND WE AGREED THAT ALONG THE BLANDING BOULEVARD, WHICH IS UNLIKE ANYWHERE ELSE, OVERLAY RESTRICTIONS. I WENT AS FAR AS TO CHECK WITH PARKERS KITCHEN AND THEY AGREED WITH IT AS WELL SO THAT'S WHY I ASKED FOR THE CHANGE OR CONDITION TO SAY ALONG ALL OUTPARCELS ADJACENT TO BLANDING BOULEVARD WE WILL COMPLY BUT WE WANT THE LIGHTING TO BE CONSISTENT ON THE EASTERN PORTION CLOSER TO THE ACTUAL MALL ITSELF, FOR THAT LIGHTING TO BE ALL CONSISTENT. >> CONSISTENT IN WHAT WAY? >> EXISTING. >> DOWN LIGHTING. WE HAVE TO GET DOWN LIGHTING AND WE HAVE TO STOP THAT SPREAD. OF LIGHTING. SO I'M SORRY BUT I WOULD DISAGREE WITH THAT. >> YES SIR. >> THE WHOLE SITE NEEDS-- THE LONG TERM GOAL, BECAUSE WE ARE KIND OF PLANNERS OR PLANNING ADVISORS, IS EVENTUALLY WE WANT THE WHOLE COUNTY TO LOOK LIKE BLANDING-- BRANDON FIELD AS FAR AS LIGHTING GOES. AND IF WE DON'T DO IT NOW, IT JUST POSTPONES WHEN WE CAN FINALLY GET TO THAT. SO YES, THEY LIGHTING AND THE FLAGPOLES AND THE HEIGHT OF SOME OF THESE SIGNS IS A LITTLE CONCERNING. TAKE A LOOK OVER WHAT THEY DID IN EAGLE HARBOR. I THINK PETE LIVES IN THAT AREA AND HE CAN TELL YOU. YOU CAN FIND ANYTHING YOU WANT. THEY ARE NOT BIG FLASHY SIGNS, THEY ARE NOT BIG TALL SIGNS. [01:30:01] IT'S ALL THERE. ENOUGH SAID. I'M GOING TO BE QUIET AND LET THESE GUYS DO THEIR THING. >> I'VE GOT ONE LAST COMMENT. I LIKE THIS AND I'M GLAD SOMEBODY IS FINALLY TAKING ACTION TO CLEAN UP THAT BLIGHT. I DO HAVE ONE QUESTION. IT WAS MENTIONED BUT I DID NOT HEAR AN ANSWER AND THAT WAS WHEN YOU RAISED THE OLD SEARS DOOR, IT HAD ACCESS TO THE MALL. WILL THERE BE AN ACCESS AVAILABLE OR WILL THIS JUST BE A BLANK WALL AFTER YOU TAKE THE SEARS PORTION OFF AND JUST BREAK IT UP, OR WILL THERE BE ANY KIND OF ACCESS TO THE INNER MALL FROM THAT SIDE? >> YES SIR, I WILL ASK MY CLIENT TO COME UP TO SPEAK ABOUT THAT. I HAVEN'T BEEN PART OF THE ACTUAL CONSTRUCTION WITH THEM ALL PORTION OF IT, I'VE JUST BEEN WRITING CODE AND MAKING PLANS. SO IF YOU WANT TO SPEAK TO THAT. >> GOOD EVENING. COREY, NEPTUNE BEACH [INDISTINCT] THANKS FOR ALL YOUR TIME, EXCITED TO BE HERE. YES, SPECIFIC TO THIS, IT HAS BEEN-- I'M NOT AN ENGINEER OR REALLY EVEN IN CONSTRUCTION NECESSARILY BUT IT'S BEEN QUITE THE CASE STUDY AS WELL FOR ME. THE WALL THERE, THE PORTAL WILL BE CLOSED. RIGHT NOW THERE'S A PORTAL. WE ARE 20 FEET OFF OF-- SO THERE'S GOING TO BE NO CONNECTIVITY FROM A PEDESTRIAN PERSPECTIVE. THAT CHILD'S PLAY AREA THERE. THE PORTAL WILL BE CLOSED AND THAT'S ACTUALLY A STRUCTURAL WALL CURRENTLY. TECHNICALLY IT'S A SEARS WALL, OUR WALL. SO WE ARE GOING TO BE LEAVING THAT IN PLACE SO THAT THE MALL DOESN'T HAVE TO DO ALL KINDS OF CRAZY BRACING AND THINGS LIKE THAT. WE ARE GOING TO BE BRACING IT ON OUR SIDE OF THE WALL JUST FOR EXPEDIENCE AND BEING GOOD NEIGHBORS. SO WE ARE GOING THROUGH THAT RIGHT NOW. THAT'S WHY YOU HAVEN'T SEEN THE BUILDING. WE HAVE DEMO PERMITS AND WE ARE WORKING ON THAT RIGHT NOW. INSIDE THE BUILDING, GETTING THAT PREPARED SO WE CAN TAKE THE BUILDING DOWN. SAFELY AT THAT POINT. SO THERE WILL NOT BE CONNECTIVITY. WE WANT TO KEEP-- THE CUSTOMER WANTS TO FEEL LIKE THEY CAN MOVE FREELY WITHIN THE MALL BECAUSE THE MALL IS IN GREAT SHAPE, AS YOU MENTIONED, WE THINK THIS WILL REALLY ACCELERATE MORE AT THE MALL AS WELL. I MEAN IT'S GOING TO BRING NEW LIFE AND EVERYTHING AND SO WE ARE EMBRACING THAT AND TRYING TO INCORPORATE INTO THEM ALL SO THAT THEIR CUSTOMERS CAN BE OUR CUSTOMERS AND VICE VERSA. AND SO BUT FROM A PHYSICALITY STANDPOINT, WE ARE JUST-- WE NEED THE SERVICE BACK THERE AS WELL ANYWAY. I WANT TO MENTION WE ARE NOT GOING TO BE PUTTING FLAGPOLES UP. WE WILL ADDRESS THAT IN TERMS OF THAT. THE SIGNAGE, WE WILL DEFINITELY LOOK AT CALMING THAT DOWN A LITTLE BIT. WE WON'T BE OVERBUILDING THAT SO WE WILL ADDRESS THAT. I THINK THAT WAS THE MAIN THINGS. THANK YOU. >> JUST OTHER QUESTION IF I COULD. NOT NECESSARILY WITH PLANNING AND ZONING BUT I'M CURIOUS. PARKING LOT REQUIREMENTS OR PARKING SPACE REQUIREMENTS. OBVIOUSLY YOU ARE GOING TO MEET YOURS FOR YOUR DEVELOPMENT BUT WHAT DOES THAT DO TO THE PARKING REQUIREMENTS FOR THE MALL? ARE THEY GOING TO BE SHORT NOW OR ARE THEY STILL IN GOOD SHAPE? >> NO, SIR,, FIRST OF ALL IT'S A GREAT QUESTION. I DID NOT COUNT EVERY SPACE FOR SPACE BUT I CAN TELL YOU FROM A PLANNERS POINT OF VIEW THERE IS AN ABUNDANCE OF PARKING, PROBABLY OVER THE REQUIREMENTS TODAY. I CAN SAY THAT WITH A LOT OF CONFIDENCE. WE WILL BE MEETING OURS ON SITE, OUTPARCELS AS WELL AS MAJOR RETAILERS. WE MADE SURE WE WILL MEET THAT MINIMUM QUALIFICATION AND SPECIFICATION FOR THE EXISTING CODE. >> THANK YOU. >> MAY I? I DID SEE IN YOUR WRITTEN STATEMENT YOU ARE PLANNING ON GETTING TO THAT THROUGH SHARED USE PARKING, A CORRECT? >> YES SIR. WHICH IS ALSO SOMETHING THAT'S IN THE CODE. CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG BUT I THINK IN THE BRANDON FIELD OVERLAY YOU ARE ALLOWED THE SHARED PARKING. OTHERWISE YOU ARE NOT. SOMETHING TO ADD TO THE CODE. >> THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? OKAY, I'M GOING TO MOVE TO-- THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I'M GOING TO MOVE TO PUBLIC HEARING. DOES ANYBODY WISH TO SPEAK ON THIS AGENDA ITEM? SEEING NONE, I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD AND BRING IT BACK FOR A MOTION DISCUSSION. >> I WILL MOVE APPROVAL. >> SECOND. >> WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. ANY DISCUSSION? >> I JUST WANT TO SAY I'M GOING TO VOTE NO ON THIS BUT NOT BECAUSE I DON'T LIKE THE PROJECT. YOU GUYS HEARD, AND THE MINUTES WILL REFLECT, SOME OF THE CONCERNS I HAD WITH IT. AND IF THOSE GET ADDRESSED BEFORE IT GETS TO THE BCC, GREAT. BUT THAT'S WHY I'M GOING TO VOTE NO. I WANT TO GO ON RECORD ABOUT THAT. >> ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? [01:35:05] ONE LEGAL QUESTION. I KEEP COMING BACK TO THIS BUT I WANT TO MAKE SURE WE HAVE EVERYTHING IN ONE BAG. BECAUSE THE PRODUCT, THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT GENERATES, DID NOT ADDRESS THE TWO WAIVERS. DID WE NEED A SEPARATE MOTION ON THAT OR JUST ASSUME IT'S OKAY? >> SO I GUESS I'M NOT CLEAR. SO YOUR STAFF'S APPROVAL DID NOT INCLUDE THE TWO WAIVERS? >> I MADE IT A GENERAL APPROVAL. GENERALLY APPROVE IT EXCEPT FOR THE WOULD RECOMMEND THE LIGHTING. SO IN THEORY I AM RECOMMENDING APPROVAL ON THE ALCOHOL, BUT THAT'S REALLY THE SEPARATION DISTANCE IS SOMETHING THAT THE BOARD WOULD WANT TO MAKE THAT FINAL DECISION ON. I DON'T-- LET ME PUT IT THIS WAY, I DON'T NECESSARILY OPPOSE THAT BUT I THINK THAT IS SOMETHING THAT THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS WOULD BE THE ULTIMATE SAY ON THAT. >> AND YOUR ADDITION WAS THE LIGHTING REQUIREMENT? >> THE LIGHTING. >> WHICH YOU DID NOT GET IN THE MOTION. >> WHEN I MADE THE MOTION TO APPROVE STAFF'S REPORT, WHICH IS THE APPROVAL OF THE PUD, I ASSUMED THOSE WERE INCLUDED IN THAT AND THAT WE DID NOT HAVE TO CARVE THOSE OUT. I ASSUME THAT'S ALL IN IT. >> IT'S IN IT, YES. AS FAR AS THE LIGHTING. >> OKAY. ALL RIGHT. MOTION AND A SECOND. ANY DISCUSSION? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. ANY OPPOSED? THANK YOU ALL VERY MUCH. I KNOW WE GOT DEEP IN THE WEEDS ON THAT BUT IT WAS VERY INTERESTING. [5. Public Hearing to consider ZON 26-0012 (B. Carson)This application is a land development code text amendment to Article III to add the Branan Field Institutional (BF INST) district.] >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >> ITEM NUMBER 4-- FIVE. PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER ZON 26-0012. A REQUEST FOR CONTINUANCE ON THAT. I WILL GO THROUGH THE MOTION. I ANYBODY WISHES TO SPEAK ABOUT IT. AND WE WON'T HAVE A PRESENTATION FROM THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT SO I WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. IF ANYBODY WANTS TO TALK ABOUT THE LAST AGENDA ITEM. SEEING NONE, SO WE HAVE A REQUEST TO CONTINUE THIS UNTIL THE NEXT MEETING. >> MOVE TO CONTINUE. OR SOON THEREAFTER AS IT CAN BE. >> IS THERE A MOTION AND A SECOND? >> MOTION. >> SECOND. >> ANY DISCUSSION? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. ANY OPPOSED? OKAY, I WILL OPEN THE LAST PUBLIC HEARING. DOES ANYBODY WISH TO SPEAK? YOU DON'T GET TO-- AND. [LAUGHTER] >> HELENA CORMIER. MY ADDRESS IS ON FILE. I JUST WANT TO SAY THANK YOU AGAIN FOR ALL OF THE ATTENTION TO DETAIL AND READING THAT YOU GO THROUGH BECAUSE I FEEL THAT SAME STRUGGLE SOMETIMES. BUT IT'S A GOOD CATCH. WHO WOULD HAVE WANTED UMPTEEN FLAGPOLES IN THAT AREA IF SOMEBODY HAD NOT HAVE READ THAT? SO THANK YOU FOR CATCHING SOME OF THOSE THINGS. WHEN IT COMES TO THE COMMUNITY WITH CROSS CREEK AND THE STUFF THAT HAPPENED ON THAT ONE, YES, THE LAND WAS ALLOWED TO HAVE THE ZONING THAT IT HAD ALREADY, BUT THE DIFFICULTY FOR THEM TO HAVE BUILT THAT SUBDIVISION, IF IT WOULD HAVE BEEN A STAND-ALONE SUBDIVISION, WAS THE COST OF THE ROAD TO CONNECT TO RUSSELL ROAD. AND SO BY THEM BEING ABLE TO GET IT ANNEXED INTO THAT COMMUNITY, IT ALLOWED THAT DEVELOPER TO SAY OKAY, I WILL GO AHEAD AND CLOSE ON THAT PROPERTY AND MOVE THAT THROUGH. I PERSONALLY DON'T THINK THAT IT'S FAIR WHEN THE DEVELOPER APPOINTED BOARD MEMBERS STILL CONTROL THE MAJORITY AND THEY ARE ABLE TO PUSH THOSE THROUGH. AND THEY ARE GOING TO DO IT WHETHER THE OTHER TWO BOARD MEMBERS SUPPORT IT OR NOT. BUT IF THE ATTORNEY AND EVERYBODY DOESN'T ENLIGHTEN THE BOARD THAT IS SITTING THERE, THEY PEOPLE DON'T UNDERSTAND AND THEY DON'T ALWAYS GET ALL THE DETAILS THAT ARE IN THE BEST INTERESTS OF THEIR RESIDENTS. THAT DEVELOPER DEFINITELY WOULD NOT HAVE PAID THE SAME MONEY FOR THAT LAND HAD IT NOT BEEN ANNEXED. I DON'T KNOW WHAT'S BEST ON THAT ONE BUT THE PEOPLE IN THE COMMUNITY, WHEN THEY BOUGHT IN THAT COMMUNITY, THEY DID EXPECT IT TO BE A CERTAIN SIZE AND A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF HOMES IN THAT COMMUNITY. AND AS IT KEEPS GETTING ANNEXED AND ANNEXED AND ANNEXED, THEN ALL OF A SUDDEN THE COMMUNITY THAT THEY BOUGHT INTO IS DIFFERENT AND THEY REALLY DON'T GET TO SAY OKAY, I LIKE THIS. THEY ARE STUCK THERE AND IT'S JUST DIFFICULT. SO AGAIN, AS THE RESIDENTS HEAR THIS OUT THERE IN OUR COMMUNITY, IT IS IMPERATIVE THAT THEY TAKE THE TIME TO GO TO THE CDD MEETINGS IN FACT THAT THEY SERVE PUBLIC OFFICE AND HOLD ONE OF THOSE SEATS, BECAUSE IT IS A LOCAL GOVERNMENT TYPE, WE ARE [01:40:01] UNDER THE SUNSHINE LAW, AND THE DECISIONS THAT WE MAKE TO AFFECT THAT COMMUNITY. EVEN IF THEY WOULD HAVE JUST VOICED OUT AN OBJECTION WHEN IT CAME BEFORE THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, THEY COULD HAVE SEEN THAT THIS WASN'T A UNANIMOUS VOTE OR SOMETHING. BUT AGAIN, WHEN YOU HAVE AN ATTORNEY THAT STEERS A DIRECTION OR INFLUENCES IN A WAY THAT YOU THINK IT SOUNDS GREAT, YOU DON'T ALWAYS KNOW WHAT YOU DON'T KNOW. AND THAT'S WHAT I'VE LEARNED IN MY COMMUNITY, SERVING IN ROLLING HILLS, AND I'VE TRIED TO ENCOURAGE SOME OF THE OTHER CDD BOARD MEMBERS. WITH ROLLING HILLS, OUR COMMUNITY IS A LOT OLDER SO THE ROADS IN OUR COMMUNITY ARE NOT OWNED BY THE CDD. AS A REALTOR, THAT IS SOMETHING THAT IS VERY IMPORTANT THAT I EXPLAIN TO A PERSON BUYING BECAUSE SOME OF THESE NEWER CDD, THE ROADS IN THERE BELONG TO THE CDD AND IF THEY DON'T HAVE THOSE RESERVES, THEY WILL BE IN A WORLD OF TROUBLE LATER ON DOWN THE ROAD. SO I HOPE THAT THE RESERVES GET PUT IN THERE FROM THE DEVELOPER. AND ALL WE CAN DO IS KEEP HOLDING PEOPLE ACCOUNTABLE AND READING DOCUMENTS. SO THANK YOU SO MUCH. >> ONE POINT YOU MIGHT CONSIDER, ESPECIALLY IN YOUR FUTURE IF YOU HAVE AN ITEM COMING BEFORE YOUR COMMITTEE, IF YOU THINK IT MIGHT BE SOMEWHAT CONTENTIOUS, THAT YOU REACH OUT TO THE HOA OR SOMEBODY AND TELL SOMEBODY THAT MAYBE YOU OUGHT TO ATTEND THIS MEETING BECAUSE IT MAY HAVE SOME IMPACT ON YOUR RESIDENTIAL AREA. I'VE DONE THAT IN THE PAST AND IT CHANGES THE DYNAMICS AND IT CERTAINLY GIVES AN OPPORTUNITY FOR THE RESIDENTS TO HAVE THEIR SAY, BUT ALSO GIVES THE DEVELOPER AN OPPORTUNITY TO INTERACT WITH THE RESIDENTS SO THAT THEY FEEL MORE COMFORTABLE WITH WHAT'S GETTING READY TO HAPPEN. IT'S JUST ALL OF A SUDDEN, BOOM, HERE IT IS. >> YES SIR, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, THE CAC MEETINGS AND AGENDAS FOR THOSE AREN'T ADVERTISED TO THE PUBLIC AND IT'S BEEN TOLD TO ME KIND OF THAT THEY WOULD REALLY RATHER THEM COME TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING MEETING WHERE IT'S ACTUALLY RECORDED BECAUSE OUR CAC'S AREN'T RECORDED. WE TAKE NOTES AND MINUTES BUT THEY WANT THEIR RESIDENTS TO COME TO YOUR MEETING. BUT I WOULD LOVE FOR CAC MEETINGS TO BE RECORDED SO THAT COMMUNITY MEMBERS WOULD HAVE THAT EXTRA INVITE. SO THAT'S JUST MY PERSPECTIVE. THANK YOU. >> WE WON'T GET INTO THE WEEDS ON THAT BUT I DON'T NECESSARILY AGREE WITH THAT PHILOSOPHY. ANY NEW BUSINESS? * This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.