PUBLIC HEARINGS

[1. 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.]

>> OKAY. FIRST ITEM TONIGHT IS PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER ZON 26-0012. MISS CARSON.

>> THANK YOU MR. CHAIR. THIS IS A TEXT AMENDMENT TO THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AND THIS WILL BE HEARD BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS BECAUSE IT IS A CODE CHANGE THAT AFFECTS USES. IT IS REQUIRED TO HAVE TWO HEARINGS AND IT WILL BE GOING SEPTEMBER EIGHTH AND SEPTEMBER 22ND. A LITTLE BIT OF BACKGROUND ON THIS. IN JUNE, STAFF PRESENTED YOU WITH A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT TO ADD A B F INSTITUTIONAL LAND USE. WHEN THE FIELD WAS ADOPTED THERE WERE PARCELS MAPPED AS B F INSTITUTIONAL BUT THERE WAS NO POLICY TO BACK IT UP SO THAT'S WHAT WE DID.

BACK IN JUNE WE TRANSMITTED THIS POLICY BELOW TO THIS AND WE RECEIVED NO COMMENTS. NO OBJECTIONS OR COMMENTS ON THAT. SO THE NEXT STEP WOULD BE TO DEVELOP THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE POLICY WHICH IS WHAT WE ARE HERE FOR TONIGHT. AGAIN, THEY P F INSTITUTIONAL IS INTENDED TO BE PUBLIC SEMIPUBLIC COMMUNITY SERVING USES.

THIS IS PART OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE POLICY THAT WE SUBMITTED TO YOU. THIS IS A STAFF INITIATED AMENDMENT TO CREATE THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE POLICIES.

SO THIS WOULD ALLOW FOR THE FOLLOWING USES.

BY RIGHT, PUBLIC OWNED FACILITIES INCLUDING WATER, WASTEWATER, ELECTRIC FACILITIES, PLACES OF WORSHIP, PRIVATE SCHOOLS, DAY CARE CENTERS, FIRE AND POLICE STATIONS, LIBRARIES, MUSEUMS, PARKS AND PUBLIC RECREATION FACILITIES AND UNIVERSITIES COLLEGES, TRADE SCHOOLS, AS WELL AS ENVIRONMENTAL TRANSFER STATIONS. THE CONDITIONAL USES, THIS ARE STANDARD CONDITIONAL USES WE HAVE THROUGHOUT BRANAN FIELD.

INCLUDING TEMPORARY STRUCTURE OR BUILDINGS.

THE INTENSITY MATCHES V CORRESPONDING LAND USE-- U.S.

FUTURE LAND USE CATEGORY OF 50% FLOOR AREA RATIO.

WITH THIS CATEGORY BEING POTENTIALLY LOCATED NEAR RESIDENTIAL, WE TOOK ON THE POLICIES THAT ARE SIMILAR TO OUR P O AND P'S WHICH HAVE STIPULATIONS FOR SIZES OF DEVELOPMENT TO ENTER THE INTENSITY IS NOT TOO MUCH FOR WHAT COULD BE POTENTIALLY NEAR A RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY.

TYPICALLY A RESIDENTIAL WILL BE ON YOUR LOCAL ROADS, YOUR MINOR COLLECTORS AND MAJOR COLLECTORS, ARTERIALS ARE MAJOR COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS. AND BECAUSE THIS IS BRANAN FIELD, YOU MAY HAVE ACTIVITY CENTER USES WHICH WOULD BE THE ARTERIAL TYPICALLY. SO FOR PLACES OF WORSHIP, WHAT WE ALSO FOUND WAS THAT THERE WAS NOT A CATEGORY FOR LESS THAN 10,000 SQUARE FEET. IT REALLY JUST STARTS AT THE TEN-- AT THE MINOR COLLECTOR LEVEL AND WAS NOT CLEAR.

SO YOU DID NOT HAVE ANY ALLOWANCE FOR ANY CHURCHES THAT WERE SMALLER THAN 10,000. SO WHAT WE'VE DONE WITH THIS POLICY IS ALLOWED THOSE TO BE ON THE LOCAL ROADS.

WE'VE CLEARED IT UP SO THE MINOR COLLECTOR, 10,000, 40,000, AND MAJOR COLLECTOR IS NO LIMIT AND THAT'S WHAT'S CURRENTLY IN BRANAN FIELD, THIS TWO. BUT THE LOCAL WAS NOT LISTED.

[00:10:01]

SO PRIVATE SCHOOLS FOLLOW WITH LOCAL NOT PERMITTED MINOR COLLECTOR YOU HAVE A LIMIT OF 3500.

MAJOR COLLECTOR NO LIMIT. DAYCARES SAME THING, SAME SIZES.

COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES, LOCALS NOT PERMITTED.

MINOR COLLECTOR, NO LIMIT, SAME WITH VOCATIONAL SCHOOLS.

SO THE PROPOSED BF INSTITUTIONAL ALSO INCLUDES HEIGHT LIMITATIONS AS WELL AS ARCHITECTURAL STANDARDS.

BEING THAT THIS IS NEAR RESIDENTIAL POTENTIALLY, WE HAVE PLACED A HEIGHT LIMITATION OF 3E WITHIN 50 FEET OF A LAND USE CATEGORY THAT'S RESIDENTIAL. BEYOND THAT, IT CAN GO UP TO 45 FEET. THE 35 IS PRETTY STANDARD FOR A RESIDENTIAL HEIGHT. THERE'S SIDEWALK PARKING AND LANDSCAPE STANDARDS, ARCHITECTURAL STANDARDS, IF IT IS ADJACENT TO AN ACTIVITY CENTER, COMMUNITY CENTER OR NEIGHBORHOOD CENTER IT'S REQUIRED TO DEVELOP WITH THE SAME ARCHITECTURAL STANDARDS THAT ARE REQUIRED IN THOSE DISTRICTS. ALSO PART OF THE ARCHITECTURAL IS ROOF LINE PITCH, WALL MATERIAL AND HAVING A COVERED ENTRY FACING THE STREET. THIS IS PART OF WHAT MAKES BRANAN FIELD, THESE ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS.

PEDESTRIAN SCALE STREET LIGHTING AND ALL OTHER EXTERIOR LIGHTING STANDARDS FOLLOW THE GENERAL BRANAN FIELD LIGHTING STANDARDS.

WITH THAT, STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF ZONE 26-12.

THE CAC REVIEWED THIS ITEM LAST NIGHT AT THEIR MEETING AND THEIR CHAIR IS HERE IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS.

QUESTIONS. >> ANY QUESTIONS OF STAFF? CLAR.

ON THE PRIVATE SCHOOLS AND THE DAY CARE, BOTH OF THOSE ARE OFTEN ASSOCIATED WITH A PLACE OF WORSHIP.

IS THERE ANY ISSUE WITH, YOU KNOW, LIKE, WE HAVE A LOCAL ROAD LESS THAN 10,000 SQUARE FEET BUT IF THEY WANTED TO ALSO HAVE A SCHOOL OR DAY CARE, WE ARE NOT PERMITTING THAT IN LOCAL.

ARE WE CREATING A CONFLICT BY DOING THAT? BECAUSE A LOT OF CHURCHES ALSO RUN DAYCARES.

>> SEVEN DAYS A WEEK OR JUST ON--

>> A LOT OF THEM SEVEN DAYS A WEEK.

I'M JUST GOING TO BRING THAT UP. MIGHT WANT TO DOUBLE CHECK ON THAT BEFORE THIS GETS TO THE BCC.

TO MAKE SURE THAT WE ARE NOT CREATING A CONFLICT THAT'S GOING TO SHOW UP LATER. AND THEN MY OTHER QUESTION ABOUT THE SCHOOLS IS, WHEN WE SAY PRIVATE SCHOOLS, DOES THAT

INCLUDE CHARTER SCHOOLS? >> CHARTERED SCHOOLS ARE

CONSIDERED PUBLIC. >> HOW THEY DEFINE THEM AND WHAT THEY ARE OR TWO DIFFERENT THINGS BUT CHARTER SCHOOLS TO MY UNDERSTANDING ARE ALLOWED TO LOCATE ANYWHERE WITHOUT RESTRICTION. IS THAT TRUE OR NOT? BECAUSE WE RUN INTO THIS WITH THEM BEFORE, WHERE WE GET A LOT OF COMPLAINTS ABOUT TRAFFIC AROUND THEM AND IT'S BECAUSE NOBODY CAN TELL THEM THAT THEY CAN'T PUT A SCHOOL SOMEWHERE.

>> I THINK THERE'S SOME MIND-SET ON THAT BUT I THINK OUR CODE ACTUALLY DOES HAVE LIMITATIONS, THAT THEY ARE SUPPOSED TO BE ON

COLLECTORS. >> ANOTHER THING .COM JUST BRINGING IT UP, THEY DON'T EVEN NEED AN ANSWER HONESTLY, I JUST

WANTED TO MENTION IT. >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OF STAFF? THIS APPLIES TO BRANAN FIELD, CORRECT?

>> BF INSTITUTIONAL ONLY, THIS. >> THIS IS A COUNTY APPLICATION SO WE DON'T HAVE AN APPLICANT SO.

>> YOU WILL HAVE AN APPLICANT. YOU WILL HAVE A CHURCH COMING NEXT MONTH. JUST TO BE HONEST, HE WILL SEE

THEY WILL BE COMING. >> NEXT MONTH?

>> YES. >> THAT WILL BE TO ASK FOR THE

ZONING RIGHT? >> CORRECT.

>> THIS IS JUST THE LAND USE. >> IT'S BRANAN FIELD SO ALL THE ZONING IS PUD. THE LAND USE IS THE BRANAN FI

FIELD. >> PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD.

I DON'T HAVE ANY CARDS ON THIS. THE CAC CHAIR IS HERE? DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING YOU WANT TO CHAIR OR HAPPY WITH IT THE WAY

IT IS? >> I JUST WANTED TO BE HERE TODAY IF THERE WERE ANY QUESTIONS ON IT.

>> I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND BRING BACK TO THE COMMISSION FOR DISCUSSION, RECOMMENDATION.

>> MR. CHAIR I WILL MOVE THIS STAFF REPORT.

>> WE HAVE A MOTION. SECOND?

[00:15:02]

>> SECOND. >> A MOTION AND A SECOND ANY

DISCUSSION? >> I WILL JUST ADD THAT I APPRECIATE STAFF RECOGNIZING THAT THERE WAS A HOLE THAT NEEDED TO BE PLUGGED AND FOR DOING THE WORK TO GET THE HOLE PLUGGED. SO THANK YOU SO MUCH.

>> MR. CHAIR, I WOULD LIKE TO THANK THE CAC CHAIR FOR BEING HERE BECAUSE SOMETIMES WE DO HAVE QUESTIONS AND WE DON'T REALLY HAVE ANYONE TO ASK THOSE QUESTIONS TO.

SO THANK YOU. >> NO FURTHER DISCUSSION? I WILL CALL THE MOTION. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.

[2. Public Hearing to consider Transmittal of COMP 26-0017. (District 5, Comm Burke) (D. Selig)This application is a Large Scale Comprehensive Plan Map and Text Amendment to change portions of one parcel (39.47 acres) from Business Park (BP) and Rural Reserve (RRSV) to Business Park (BP) and Rural Reserve (RRSV) and to change a second parcel (18.13 acres) from Agriculture (AG) to Business Park (BP). The application also includes text amendments to FLU Policy 1.4.1.14 and FLU Policy 1.10.2.]

ANY OPPOSED SAME SIGN. OKAY.

THANK YOU, MISS CARSON. SECOND ITEM, PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER TRANS TRANSMITTAL OF CP 26-0017.

>> GOOD EVENING. A LITTLE DELAY.

SO THIS ITEM, IT IS A LARGE SCALE MAP AND TEXT AMENDMENT.

IT WILL GO TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ON THE 22ND. THE APPLICANT IS MR. HAYDEN PHILLIPS WITH ROGERS TOWERS. THE PROPERTY INVOLVED IS BOUND ON THE SOUTH SIDE BY STATE ROAD 16 ON THE EAST SIDE BY COUNTY ROAD 315 AND ON THE NORTH SIDE BY ROSEMARY HILL ROAD.

THIS IS IN THE SPRINGS DISTRICT. THERE'S TWO PARCELS INVOLVED.

AS I SAID, THIS BOTH TEXT AND MAP COMPONENTS RELATED TO THIS APPLICATION. IT APPLIES TO THE BUSINESS PARK FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION. THE MAP CHANGES WOULD CHANGE 35.76 ACRES FROM BUSINESS PARK TO RURAL RESERVE PAIR 3.71 CHANGED FROM RURAL RESERVE TO BUSINESS PARK.

AND 18.13 ACRES FROM AGRICULTURE TO BUSINESS PARK.

SO ALTOGETHER, IT ACTUALLY ENDS UP WITH A NET INCREASE TO THE RURAL RESERVE LAND USE OF JUST OVER 32 ACRES AND A NET REDUCTION TO BUSINESS PARK LAND USE OF ABOUT JUST UNDER 14 14 ACRES. THE PROPOSED TEXT CHANGES, THIS TWO POLICIES IN THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT.

THE FIRST IS 1.4.1.14. THAT POLICY IS INTENDED TO SERVE REALLY THE EXISTING BP LAND USE DESIGNATION BUT ALSO PROVIDE THE COUNTY WITH SOME FLEXIBILITY FOR FUTURE PROJECTS THAT MIGHT DEVELOP UNDER BP. SO IT'S BROKEN UP INTO TWO LARGE PARAGRAPHS AND I PUT THEM IN HERE.

THE UNDERLINE IS NEW TEXT, THIS STRIKETHROUGH IS TEXT THAT WOULD BE DELETED. SO WE ARE CLARIFYING ITS LIGHT POLLUTION THAT IS THE ISSUE, NOT JUST LIGHTS THEMSELVES.

KIND OF CLARIFY THAT PERMITTED USES LIST, ADDED TO THAT LIST, PUBLIC SAFETY FACILITIES, HOSPITAL AND MEDICAL USES, EDUCATIONAL USES AND COMMERCIAL USES.

AND THEN REMOVED THE REFERENCE TO THE ACCESSORY USES AND REMOVED MULTI-TENANT REQUIREMENT FOR BUILDINGS.

AND THEN IN THE SECOND PARA PARAGRAPH, WE'VE REMOVED A PROJECT PHASING STATEMENT, ADDED AN ALLOWANCE FOR INTERNAL BALCONIES, MEZZANINES WITHIN THOSE LARGER INDUSTRIAL BUILDINGS TO NOT BE INCLUDED IN THE FAR CALCULATIONS FOR THE USE. WE'VE CLARIFIED THAT THIS APPLIES TO BOTH BP ZONING OR ANY OF THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICTS LIKE PCD, P I'D. WE'VE CLARIFIED THAT LANDSCAPED PARKING LOTS, WE TOOK OUT THE SHADED BY TREES PART AND THEN CLARIFIED THAT PARKING LOTS THAT ARE DEDICATED FOR TRUCK AND SEMI-TRAILER PARKING WILL PROVIDE PERIMETER TREES BUT ARE EXEMPT FROM THE INTERIOR PARKING LOT LANDSCAPING ISLAND REQUIREMENT. THAT'S MOSTLY DUE TO THE FACT THAT A LOT OF SEMI TRUCK PARKING CLOSE TOGETHER, ALL OF THAT EXHAUST AND ALL OF THAT CONCRETE REALLY PLAYS HAVOC WITH TREES AND PARKING ISLANDS, ESPECIALLY IT IMPEDES THE TRUCK CIRCULATION

[00:20:03]

AS WELL SO JUST KIND OF AN UNDERSTANDING OF THE NEEDS OF AUTO PARKING VERSUS TRUCK PARKING.

WE ADDED THE INDUSTRIAL WAREHOUSE DISTRIBUTION USES EXEMPTION FROM THE LANDSCAPE AREA ADJOINING THE BUILDING.

AGAIN, WHEN YOU HAVE A LARGE DISTRIBUTION USE, YOU NEED TO HAVE TRUCK ACCESS TO MANY SIDES IF NOT ALL SIDES OF A BUILDING.

SO PROVIDING LANDSCAPING ADJACENT TO THE BUILDING DID NOT MAKE SENSE. WE TOOK OUT THE TRANSIT FRIENDLY DESIGN STATEMENT AND INCORPORATED IN AN EXEMPTION AGAIN TO THE INDUSTRIAL AND WAREHOUSE DISTRIBUTION USES RELATED TO PEDESTRIAN BICYCLE PATHWAYS.

AND THAT WAS PRIMARILY THE CHANGES TO THAT PORTION OF THAT POLICY. THE SECOND POLICY IS 1.10.2 AND THAT POLICY, WE HAVE STRUCK IN ITS ENTIRETY.

AND JUST EARLIER PLANNED FOR THE BUSINESS PARK HAS NOW CHANGED AS THEY HAVE A WAY OF DOING OVERTIME.

SO THIS, NOW THAT WE HAVE A MOBILITY FEED SYSTEM, WE DON'T REALLY NEED THIS POLICY ANYMORE. SO SIGNAGE WAS PUT OUT AND MAILING LABELS WENT OUT TO PROPERTIES WITHIN THE AREA.

THERE'S LISTS OF ALL OF THE INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY OWNERS THAT RECEIVED MAILOUTS. WE HAVE ON THE LEFT THOSE PARCELS OR PORTIONS OF THE PRIMARY PARCEL I SHOULD SAY.

THE SMALL BOX AT THE TOP IN RED HATCH ON THE LEFT OR THE AERIAL IS YELLOW, THIS THE 18 ACRES, THEY THERE'S A PARCEL WITHIN THE LARGER PARCEL. SUBJECT PARCEL.

ONLY PORTIONS OF THE MAIN PARCEL ARE THE ONES HERE AND IT WILL MAKE MORE SENSE ON THE NEXT SLIDES.

ON THE LEFT IS THE EXISTING FUTURE LAND USE AND ON THE RIGHT IS THE PROPOSED AND YOU CAN SEE THAT THERE'S BUSINESS PARK ON THE RIGHT OF THAT CURVED LINE, AND I DON'T HAVE-- I DON'T HAVE THE LITTLE-- I'M SORRY, LITTLE RED LASER RIGHT, I WOULD POINT ONTO THE MAP UP THERE. THE INTENT HERE IS THAT WE'VE GOT A ROAD REALIGNMENT IN THE FUTURE FOR 315 WHERE IT'S GOING TO COME UP ON THE ROAD IT IS CURRENTLY AND MADE UP WITH ROSEMARY HILL ON THE CURVED ARC YOU SEE ON THE MAP.

AND THE INTENT IS TO MOVE ALL OF THE BUSINESS PARK TO THE WEST SIDE OF THAT ROADWAY AND HAVE ALL OF THE RURAL RESERVE, WHICH IS A RESIDENTIAL FUTURE LAND USE, ON THE EAST SIDE OF IT.

IT'S REALLY A SHIFT WITHIN THE LARGER PROJECT.

AND THIS IS THE ZONING MAP. IS CURRENTLY A LARGE PUD WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE PARCEL WITH THE 18 ACRES AT THE NORTH END.

THIS BRINGS THE AC WILL HEAR THIS ITEM AT THEIR MEETING ON SEPTEMBER NINTH. THEY HAVE NOT HAD A CHANCE TO HEAR IT YET. STAFF HAS GONE THROUGH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CRITERIA AND BELIEVES THEY ARE MET AND IS RECOMMENDING TRANSMITTAL. THIS IS LARGE SCALE AND THEREFORE IT IS TRANSMITTED TO THE STATE FOR A 30 DAY COMMENT PROCEDURE. SO WHEN WE GET COMMENTS BACK, THEN IT WILL COME BACK AGAIN TO THE BOARD FOR FINAL ADOPTION.

>> ANY QUESTIONS OF STAFF? >> IN THAT ONE PARCEL THAT'S UP ON THE UPPER LEFT-HAND SIDE, THIS TWO SMALL WHITE BOXES IN THERE. WHAT IS THAT?

>> THOSE ARE INDIVIDUAL RESIDENCES.

>> IN THAT SAME AREA? >> YEAH, THERE WERE THREE-- I BELIEVE THEY WERE ALL RELATED PROPERTY OWNERS.

THOSE TWO WERE CARVED OUT OF THE ORIGINAL PIECE SO THEY WENT TO FAMILY MEMBERS, THAT KIND OF THING.

THOSE ARE STILL OWNED BY INDIVIDUALS WHO LIVE THERE THAT THEY HAVE THEIR HOMES THERE. THE LARGER PIECE AS PART OF THIS PROJECT WAS RECENTLY CLOSED ON BY THE APPLICANT.

TO MY KNOWLEDGE IT DOESN'T HAVE A STRUCTURE, THIS NOT ANYBODY LIVING THERE. SO THEY'VE SOLD THAT NOW AND

[00:25:03]

IT'S NOW PART OF-- IT'S VACANT LAND.

>> THANK YOU. >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? REAL QUICK, YOUR WRITE UP REFERS TO AN ADDITIONAL ROAD.

THAT'S THE WHOLE PURPOSE OF THIS CHANGE.

IS THAT THE CURVED ARC? >> IT IS, YEAH,.

>> CHESTER ROAD? >> THERE'S TWO ROADS AND IT DOES NOT SHOW-- LET ME JUST LOOK AND SEE.

YOU CAN SEE IT IN THE AERIAL. IF YOU LOOK AT THE...LET'S SEE, HOW DO I DESCRIBE IT? I WILL PUT PARCELS ON THE RIGHT.

THE YELLOW PATCH. THERE'S ONE THAT TOUCHES ROSEMAR HILL AND IF YOU COME A LITTLE BIT SOUTH OF THERE AND GO TO THE WEST, YOU CAN SEE A LINE, KIND OF LOOKS LIKE A DIRT ROAD FROM HERE, THAT HEADS ALL THE WAY OUT TO THE WEST, THEY WHERE THERE'S A WHITE BOX. THAT'S THE FUTURE ROAD.

IT DOESN'T HAVE A NAME YET. IT'S A DASHED LINE ROAD ON OUR MAP. BUT IT WOULD BE DEVELOPED INTO AN ACTUAL PAVED CONSTRUCTED ROAD AS PART OF THE PROJECT AT SOME POINT. YES SIR?

>> WHO IS GOING TO BE RESPONSIBLE FOR BUILDING THE ROAD THROUGH THE BUSINESS PARK? IS THAT A COUNTY OR THE

DEVELOPER? >> IT IS GOING TO BE THE DEVELOPER MORE THAN LIKELY. DEPENDING ON--

>> I KNOW THAT WAS THE ORIGINAL PLAN LIKE 20 YEARS AGO.

I WAS ACTUALLY HERE AT THE TIME THIS CAME THROUGH THE FIRST TIME. OKAY.

AND I'VE GOT A QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT.

I WANT TO ASK. >> IS THE APPLICANT HERE?

>> YES, THANK YOU, GOOD EVENING. IS THIS ON?

>> YES. >> I'M HAPPY TO BEGIN TALKING OR

I CAN FIELD ANY QUESTIONS. >> FIRST TELL US WHO YOU ARE AND

WHERE YOU ARE FROM. >> HAYDEN PHILLIPS, I'M A LAND USE ATTORNEY REPRESENTING THE APPLICANT, VANTRUST REAL ESTATE.

I AM WITH ROGERS TOWERS LAW FIRM IN JACKSONVILLE.

JUST RIGHT UP THE ROAD. >> OKAY.

>> I HAVE A QUESTION IF I COULD. >> GO AHEAD.

>> MY MAIN QUESTION ABOUT THIS WAS, YOU MAY NOT REALIZE BUT ONE OF THE APPLICATIONS WE HAD LAST MONTH OR THE MONTH BEFORE, GOVERNOR'S PARK, WE REMOVED A BUNCH OF INDUSTRIAL ACREAGE FROM THAT. AND ONE OF THEIR ARGUMENTS FOR DOING THAT WAS ALL OF THIS THAT EXISTED.

WHAT I'M CURIOUS IS WHY ARE WE TAKING BUSINESS PARK ACREAGE AWAY FROM THIS DEVELOPMENT, 13 ACRES, WHEN HONESTLY WHY DIDN'T YOU FIND SOMEWHERE TO PUT 13 MORE ACRES OF BUSINESS PARK

IN THIS? >> I THINK SORT OF THE NET INCREASE IN RRSV AND DECREASE IN BP IS A BYPRODUCT OF WHAT'S REALLY HAPPENING. SO THE NEW PLANT LOCATION FOR THE MOBILITY ROAD, YOU KNOW, WITH THAT NEW LOCATION, THE PRIOR LAND USE CONFIGURATION JUST DOESN'T MAKE SENSE.

THERE'S BP ON THE EASTERN SIDE, WHERE THERE IS RRSV, AND SO IT'S KIND OF JUST A CLEANUP NECESSITY.

SO THAT THERE'S NO LINGERING BP PIECES ON THAT SIDE AND IT CAN CONSISTENTLY BE RRSV ON THAT SIDE AND CONSISTENTLY BP ON THE OTHER SIDE. AND THEN OF COURSE, AS WAS PREVIOUSLY NOTED, WE DID GET THAT OUT PARCEL THAT'S SORT OF TO THE NORTHWEST AND WE ARE ADDING BP TO THAT, WHICH I THINK MAKES TOTAL SENSE BECAUSE IT WAS SURROUNDED BY THE EXISTING BP

THAT'S ALREADY THERE. >> I AM JUST CONCERNED ABOUT THE LOSS OF ACREAGE FOR INDUSTRIAL USE IN THAT AREA, AFTER WE GAVE AWAY I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY ACRES IT WAS IN GOVERNOR'S PARK.

I WOULD-- KIND OF LOOKING AT THIS IN ROSEMARY HILL ROAD, WHICH YOU ARE FAMILIAR WITH, IT GOES TO OUR DUMP THAT'S UP THERE, OUR LANDFILL AND TRANSFER STATION.

SO I HONESTLY DON'T KNOW OF ANYBODY THAT WOULD WANT TO LIVE DIRECTLY ON ROSEMARY HILL. THAT'S NOTHING BUT GARBAGE TRUCKS UP AND DOWN THAT ROAD ALL DAY LONG.

SO PUTTING ADDITIONAL BUSINESS PARK ACREAGE ALONG THAT ROAD, I DON'T SEE WHERE THAT WOULD BE A PROBLEM BECAUSE I DON'T THINK

[00:30:02]

YOU ARE GOING TO PUT ANY RESIDENCES ON ROSEMARY HILL ROAD. AND I THINK IF YOU WENT OUTERE N YOUR CAR ON THAT ROAD ONE DAY DURING THE WEEK, HE WOULD CLEARLY SEE WHY. I MEAN, I CAN'T TELL YOU HOW MANY HUNDREDS OF DUMP TRUCKS-- NOT DUMP TRUCKS BUT GARBAGE TRUCKS RUN UP AND DOWN THAT ROAD EVERY SINGLE DAY.

BECAUSE THAT'S THE TRANSFER STATION.

THEY DON'T REALLY DUMP MUCH GARBAGE THERE NOW BUT THAT'S WHERE THEY ALL GO TO DUMP THEIR GARBAGE SO THAT IT CAN BE HAULED UP TO THE LANDFILL. SO IT'S A BIG TRANSFER STATION.

THERE'S ALWAYS TRASH ALONG THAT ROAD AND THAT KIND OF THING.

I WOULD ENCOURAGE YOU TO RETHINK THIS LOSS OF BP.

I KNOW EVERYBODY IS ALWAYS WE NEED RESIDENTIAL BUT I'M ALWAYS ABOUT THE RIGHT PLACE FOR SOMETHING AND IT JUST DOESN'T MAKE SENSE TO PUT RESIDENTIAL ALONG THAT ROAD.

AS LONG AS THAT TRANSFER STATION IS OUT THERE.

>> IF I MAY RESPOND TO THAT, I COMPLETELY UNDERSTAND YOUR CONCERN, BUT I TRULY THINK IT'S SORT OF AN UNIMPORTANT SORT OF DE MINIMIS BYPRODUCT OF WHAT WE ARE DOING BECAUSE WHAT WE ARE DOING IS FURTHERING OUR ABILITY TO DEVELOP INDUSTRIAL USES.

AND IF IT IS STEMMING FROM THE FACT THAT YOU DON'T WANT MORE RESIDENTIAL, I WILL JUST POINT OUT THAT THIS WILL IN NO WAY INCREASE-- SO THE LAND TO THE EAST OF THE CLAY DAIRY PARKWAY WILL REMAIN SUBJECT TO THE EXISTING PUD ON SITE AND SO WE ARE NOT INCREASING THE NUMBER OF UNITS ALLOWED.

IT'S 227 MAX UNITS. >> I JUST WANT TO BE CLEAR THAT BEMENT MY FELLOW COMMISSIONERS UP HERE, I'M NOT OPPOSED TO WHAT YOU ARE DOING. I JUST THINK-- I AM CONCERNED ABOUT THE LOSS OF INDUSTRIAL ACREAGE.

WE ARE ALWAYS LOOKING FOR PLACES TO PUT IT AND THIS SEEMS LIKE A VERY GOOD PLACE TO PUT IT. SO I'M JUST GOING TO LET IT GO

AT THAT. >> OKAY.

THANK YOU. >> ANYBODY HAVE QUESTIONS TO THE APPLICANT? THANK YOU, SIR, APPRECIATE IT.

>> THANK YOU. >> I DO HAVE ONE CARD ON THIS ITEM. MR. REYNOLDS.

PLEASE GIVE US YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD.

>> GOOD EVENING, MY NAME IS BRUCE REYNOLDS, LAKE ASBURY AREA. ADDRESS ON FILE.

CLAY COUNTY RECENTLY PASSED A ONE YEAR MORATORIUM ON DATA CENTER APPLICATIONS. HOWEVER, HERE'S A FRIENDLY HEADS UP. PETERS CREEK BUSINESS PARK DEVELOPER VANTRUST REAL ESTATE HAS FIGURED OUT A WAY AROUND SUCH MORATORIUMS. VANTRUST HAS A HISTORY OF GETTING ZONING, LAND USE, UTILITIES AND ENTITLEMENTS BASED ON APPLICATIONS FOR RELATIVELY BENIGN USES SUCH AS DISTRIBUTION CENTERS, OFFICES, LIGHT INDUSTRIAL AND SO FORTH.

HOWEVER, AFTER ALL THE APPROVALS AND AFTER THEIR PROJECTS ARE AT LEAST PARTIALLY COMPLETED, VANTRUST THEN SELLS LARGE BUILDING SHELLS TO DATA CENTERS. SO THE DATA CENTERS THEMSELVES ARE AVOIDING GOING THROUGH A NORMAL DATA CENTER APPLICATION PROCESS. VANTRUST HAS DONE THIS.

THEY DID IT IN LAS VEGAS, NEAR LAS VEGAS, NEVADA.

SELLING A 246,400 SQUARE FOOT BUILDING WITHIN THEIR DISTRIBUTION CENTER TO NOVA DATA CENTERS.

THEY ALSO DID THIS NEAR KANSAS CITY, KANSAS,, SELLING A 756000 SQUARE FOOT BUILDING IN THEIR NEW CENTURY COMMERCE CENTER TO QTZ, HE BLACKSTONE OWNED FIRM, FOR ANOTHER DATA CENTER. BLACKSTONE IF YOU DON'T ALREADY KNOW IS THE WORLD'S LARGEST OWNER AND DEVELOPER OF DATA CENTER INFRASTRUCTURE. NEITHER THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE COMP PLAN NOR THE STAFF REPORTS RECOMMEND OR IMPOSE ANY USAGE RESTRICTIONS THAT WOULD PREVENT DATA CENTERS.

THIS CREATES A HUGE LOOPHOLE. ESPECIALLY DURING THE ONE YEAR MORATORIUM WHILE THE COUNTY TRIES TO TACKLE THE WHOLE DATA CENTER APPLICATION ISSUE. FORTUNATELY, THERE'S AN EASY FIX. AD PROHIBITED USES TO THE PUD AND COMPREHENSIVE PLAN PARAGRAPH PROVIDED DRAFT LANGUAGE IN MY HANDOUT TO GIVE YOU A HEAD START.

VANTRUST DOESN'T INTEND TO SELL FUTURE PROPERTY IN THE PETERS CREEK BUSINESS PARK TO DATA CENTERS THEN THEY SHOULD NOT HAVE ANY PROBLEM WITH THESE USAGE RESTRICTIONS.

IF THEY PROTEST SUCH RESTRICTIONS, THEY IT'S A HUGE RED FLAG THAT SHOULD GRAB YOUR ATTENTION.

I BELIEVE TONIGHT'S AGENDA ITEM DEALS WITH A FEW PARCELS WITHIN WHAT WILL EVENTUALLY BECOME A 50 PLUS ACRE-- SORRY, 500 PLUS ACRE BUSINESS PARK. SO OF COURSE YOU WOULD NEED TO

[00:35:01]

ENSURE THE USAGE RESTRICTIONS INCLUDE THE ENTIRE PROJECT.

SO, IF YOU VOTE TO APPROVE THE CHANGES FOR THIS BUSINESS PARK, CAVEAT YOUR RECOMMENDATIONS WITH PROHIBITED USE LANGUAGE.

THE BC LOCKED THE FRONT DOOR IN JUNE.

NOW WE NEED TO LOCK THE BACK DOOR.

THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU MR. REYNOLDS.

I WOULD ENCOURAGE YOU MR. REYNOLDS TO ALSO ATTEND THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING AND SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS AT THE SAME TIME. I DON'T HAVE ANY OTHER CARDS.

DOES ANYONE ELSE WISH TO SPEAK ON THIS AGENDA ITEM? IF NOT I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND BRING IT BACK TO THE COMMISSION FOR DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION.

>> I WOULD LIKE TO HEAR THE APPLICANT RESPOND TO THAT

COMMENT. >> OKAY.

>> YES, THANK YOU. MISS CARSON DID PROVIDE THIS HANDOUT TO US A COUPLE MINUTES BEFORE THIS STARTED.

SO THANK YOU TO MR. REYNOLDS FOR COMING OUT AND PROVIDING THIS.

WE ARE NOT AWARE OF WHATEVER OTHER DIVISIONS OF VANTRUST HAVE DONE IN LAS VEGAS OR KANSAS CITY BUT I CAN PROMISE YOU WE ARE NOT TRYING TO SNEAK ANYTHING PAST YOU THROUGH ANY TYPE OF LOOPHOLE. THESE APPLICATIONS, THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT BEFORE YOU AND THE COMPANION PUD WHICH YOU WILL HEAR AT A LATER DATE, NOVEMBER THIRD, ARE NOT FOR A DATA CENTER. UNDER YOUR MORATORIUM, YOU CAN'T APPROVE A DATA CENTER RIGHT NOW ANYWAY SO NOTHING IN THESE APPLICATIONS FURTHERS OUR ABILITY TO BUILD A DATA CENTER AND WE DO NOT HAVE PLANS TO BUILD A DATA CENTER.

I WILL POINT OUT THAT, YOU KNOW, OBVIOUSLY SOME LARGE INDUSTRIAL TENANTS USE MORE POWER THAN A STANDARD COMMERCIAL USE AND I AM NOT THE MOST TECH SAVVY PERSON BUT THEY PROBABLY HAVE SIMILAR TECHNOLOGY OR EQUIPMENT ON A MUCH SMALLER SCALE.

BUT I DO NOT WANT THAT TO BE CONFLATED WITH A STAND-ALONE DATA CENTER, WHICH HAVE BEEN THE BIG TOPIC OF CONVERSATION LATELY. THAT TYPE OF USE IS NOT WHY WE ARE HERE. FURTHER, I THINK THIS IS MORE OF A PUD REZONING CONVERSATION. I THINK WHAT MR. REYNOLDS IS PROPOSING HERE IS TO INCLUDE THIS AS A PROHIBITED USE IN THE PUD AND SO MAYBE TODAY IS NOT THE DAY TO DO THAT.

BUT OPEN TO EXPANDING ON THAT OR ANSWERING ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS.

THANK YOU. >> QUESTIONS? OKAY. WE DO NOT HAVE ANYTHING IN OUR CODE THAT SPEAKS TO DATA CENTERS OF THIS MAGNITUDE, CORRECT?

>> DATA CENTERS ARE NOT IN OUR CODE AT ALL AT THIS TIME.

IT'S NOT A DEFINED USE. >> I THINK THE GOVERNOR HAS ALSO PUT A MORATORIUM ON THEM UNTIL WE GET SOME HEDGEROWS AROUND THE WHOLE PROCESS, PARTICULARLY AROUND WATER AND POWER.

>> THE COUNTY HAS A MORATORIUM IN PLACE AT THIS TIME.

WAS JUST RECENTLY ADOPTED ON THIS TOPIC.

>> I'M NOT SURE ABOUT THIS,, BACK DOOR SCENARIO THAT WAS HIGHLIGHTED HERE BUT IS THERE SUFFICIENT ENOUGH STOPPAGE TO PREVENT IN CASE SOMEBODY DOES DO SOMETHING-- THEY STILL HAVE TO COME THROUGH THE PLANNING PROCESS, CORRECT?

>> CORRECT. >> IT WOULD BE DIFFICULT FOR US TO PROHIBIT SOMETHING THAT DOESN'T EXIST.

>> IT WOULD BE PREMATURE PROBABLY YES AT THIS TIME.

>> THAT MIGHT BE SOMETHING WE MAY WANT TO CONSIDER THINKING

ABOUT MOVING FORWARD. >> THAT IS THE PURPOSE OF A MORATORIUM, TO GIVE STAFF RESEARCH TIME, THIS.

>> OKAY. >> WHEN DOES THE MORATORIUM

EXPIRE? >> I WOULD HAVE TO DEFER TO LEGAL. I'M NOT SURE.

>> IT WAS FOR A YEAR SO SO...[INDISTINCT]

>> TURN YOUR MICROPHONE ON. >> SORRY.

DO WE KNOW WHERE THE COUNTY IS AT AT THIS POINT IN THE

DISCUSSION OF-- >> NO, I DON'T.

NOT AT THIS TIME. >> MR. GARRISON.

>> I HOPE SOMEBODY CAN EXPLAIN THE MORATORIUM.

WHAT ARE THEY PROHIBITING? >> I WOULD HAVE TO DEFER TO LEGAL. I DON'T HAVE DETAILS ON THE

MORATORIUM. >> TO IDENTIFY OR DEFINE-- ARE THEY PROHIBITING PERMITTING OR...THAT'S THE QUESTION.

IF THEY AREN'T DEFINED, HOW DO YOU PROHIBIT THEM?

[00:40:02]

>> I WILL PULL IT UP FOR YOU BUT IT WAS THE JUNE MEETING SO IT WOULD BE A YEAR FROM JUNE. I MEAN, THEY CAME ALONG AFTER THE LEGISLATURE ENACTED THEIRS, WHICH HAS VERY STRICT REQUIREMENTS AS FAR AS ELECTRIC AND WATER AND NOT BEING ABLE TO ASSESS THE RESIDENTS BUT I WILL PULL IT UP FOR YOU.

>> I KNOW IT'S A HOT-BUTTON ISSUE AND I'M JUST CURIOUS.

THE GENTLEMAN MAKES A GOOD POINT.

I'M A LITTLE BIT IGNORANT TO THE WHOLE TOPIC FRANKLY.

>> WHEN THE COUNTY OR WHEN THE STAFF DECIDES HOW THEY ARE GOING TO DEFINE DATA CENTERS AND PUT THEM IN THE CODE SOMEHOW, THIS THAT CHANGE COME TO US FOR REVIEW?

>> IF ANYTHING IS A TEXT AMENDMENT, IT COMES TO YOU.

>> SO WE WILL HAVE A CHANCE AT THAT POINT TO COMMENT?

>> YES. >> DATA CENTERS IN THE FUTURE WILL BE A VERY IMPORTANT PUZZLE PIECE FOR OUR COUNTRY IN FLORIDA THAT I DON'T THINK THE GOVERNOR HAS ANY IDEA OF MOVING FORWARD ON UNTIL HE GETS HIS ARMS AROUND IT.

BECAUSE HE'S HEARD ALL OF THE NEGATIVE FEEDBACK AND EVERYTHING. EVERYBODY SEEMS TO THINK THAT THEY ARE GOING TO MOVE IN RIGHT NEXT DOOR.

TO THEIR HOUSE. AND SUCK UP ALL OF THEIR POWER AND WATER. BUT THAT'S NOT PART OF THE PLAN, THEY HAVE TO BE STAND-ALONE FUNCTION.

>> I AM NOT GETTING IT TO COME UP.

>> MR. CHAIR, I'M GOING TO SWITCH GEARS A SECOND WHILE WE ARE WORKING ON THAT. THANK YOU.

I WAS READING THROUGH THE CHANGES AND I JUST WANTED TO CONFIRM, IT SOUNDS LIKE WE ARE TIGHTENING UP-- IT SAYS LIGHT POLLUTION. SO I KNOW THAT'S BEEN A BIG TOPIC FOR OUR GROUP AS FAR AS WHEN WE ARE BUILDING THESE TYPES OF FACILITIES, THAT WE ARE NOT SHOOTING LIGHT OUT, EVERYTHING IS DOWN LIGHT, USING LAKE ASBURY STANDARDS.

IS THAT CONTEMPLATED IN THIS LANGUAGE?

>> THAT ACTUAL CHANGE HAD TO DO WITH THE FACT THAT WHAT IT WAS PROHIBITING WAS LIGHTS. AND THAT'S NOT THE ISSUE IT'S THE LIGHT POLLUTION BUT YOU DON'T PROHIBIT THE FEATURE, RIGHT, SO THAT'S WHY WE CLARIFIED THAT.

>> CLARIFY FOR ME A BIT MORE BECAUSE I DON'T UNDERSTAND.

LIGHT POLLUTION I UNDERSTAND IS WHEN YOU DUMP LIGHT ONTO YOUR NEIGHBOR OR ONTO THE ROAD OR WHATNOT.

SO THIS IS PRECLUDING THAT BUT IT STILL ALLOWS EXTERIOR

LIGHTING, DOWN LIGHTING. >> ABSOLUTELY.

IT DOESN'T ADDRESS WHAT KIND OF LIGHTING YOU HAVE TO HAVE OR NOT

HAVE OR WHATEVER. >> I THINK YOU WANTED THE

STANDARDS TO APPLY TO THIS. >> FROM WHAT I HAVE HEARD, THIS SOUNDS LIKE A GREAT PROJECT, I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE AREN'T GOING TO SHOOT LIGHT ONTO THE NEIGHBORS OR BLIND PEOPLE DRIVING DOWN THE ROAD. COMMISSIONER PUCKHABER BROUGHT THAT PICTURE OF COLLEGE I THINK IT WAS WHERE FOLKS WERE BLINDED AT NIGHT WHEN THEY WERE DRIVING BECAUSETHE LIGHT WAS SHOOTING

AT THEIR EYES. >> YES, EXACTLY.

STANDARDS THAT YOU WANT TO ADDRESS THAT REALLY IN MORE SPECIFICS WOULD BE IN THE PUD. WE COULD BRING THAT UP AT THAT POINT. THIS IS-- IN THE COMP PLAN IT'S A MORE GENERALIZED KIND OF SC SCOPE.

>> OKAY. >> SO THE MORATORIUM PRECLUDES THE ACCEPTANCE, REVIEW, PROCESSING OR APPROVAL OF ANY APPLICATIONS FOR LAND USE AMENDMENTS, REZONING, CONDITIONAL USES, PERMITS, DEVELOPMENT REVIEW OF SITE OR BUILDING PLANS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION, EXPANSION OR OPERATION OF DATA CENTER FACILITIES WITHIN THE UNINCORPORATED CLAY COUNTY. AND IT DEFINES A DATA CENTER, IT'S MUCH BROADER THAN WHAT IS ACTUALLY IN FLORIDA STATUTES.

SO THE DEFINITION OF A DATA CENTER IS A BUILDING, DEDICATED SPACE WITHIN A BUILDING, OR A GROUP OF BUILDINGS HOUSING COMPUTER SYSTEMS AND ASSOCIATED COMPONENTS SUCH AS TELECOMMUNICATION AND DATA PROCESSING SYSTEMS TO BE USED FOR REMOTE STORAGE, PROCESSING OR DISTRIBUTION OF LARGE AMOUNTS OF DATA.

EXAMPLES OF SUCH INCLUDE BUT ARE NOT LIMITED TO-- COMPUTATIONALLY INTENSIVE APPLICATIONS SUCH AS CRYPTOCURRENCY, MINING, ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE, COMPUTING, WEATHER MODELING, SOME KIND OF SEQUENCING APPLICATION HOSTING, CLOUD STORAGE, VIDEO AND TECHNICAL STREAMING SERVICES, ET CETERA.

SUCH FACILITIES MAY INCLUDE AIR HANDLERS, POWER GENERATORS, WATER COOLING AND STORAGE FACILITIES, SUBSTATIONS AND OTHER INFRASTRUCTURE TO SUPPORT OPERATIONS.

[00:45:01]

THIS MORATORIUM IS VERY SIMILAR TO NASSAU COUNTY AS WELL AS OTHER COUNTIES THAT ADOPTED THIS MORATORIUM.

>> SO BASED ON WHAT YOU ARE READING NEAR THE BEGINNING OF THAT, IF ANYBODY WANTED TO TRY TO SNEAK SOMETHING INTO ONE OF THESE BUILDINGS, THEY HAVE TO COME FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND THAT WOULD BE THE POINT IT WOULD BE STOPPED, CORRECT?

OKAY. >> WHAT HAPPENS AFTER JUNE?

>> THAT WILL BE UP TO THE BOARD. >> OKAY.

BRING IT BACK TO THE COMMISSION FOR DISCUSSION.

>> I HAVE ONE DISCLOSURE TO MAKE.

I JUST WANTED TO PUT ON THE RECORD THAT I DID SPEAK WITH LIAM O'REILLY ABOUT THIS PROJECT SO I HAD SOME QUESTIONS AND HE WAS ABLE TO ANSWER THEM SO I WANTED TO PUT THAT ON THE RECORD. THANK YOU.

>> ANY OTHER COMMENTS? CONCERNS?

>> I JUST-- WHEN MY-- WHEN COMMISSIONER BOURRE MADE THE REMARK ABOUT LIGHT POLLUTION BECAUSE THAT CAUGHT MY EYE, THIS SENTENCE SAYS THEY SHALL BE ALLOWED.

SO MANUFACTURING USES SHALL BE ALLOWED THAT OPERATE WITH MINIMAL DUST, FUMES, ODORS, REFUSE, SMOKE, VAPOR, NOISE, LIGHT POLLUTION AND VIBRATIONS. I DON'T KNOW IF THAT WAS

INTENTIONAL OR IF THAT'S-- >> WHAT LINE IS THAT?

>> 243. >> AS I'M READING THAT HE'S HAD A MANUFACTURING USE CAN BE ALLOWED IF IT OPERATES WITH A MINIMAL IMPACT TO ANY OF THESE SOMEWHAT OBJECTIONABLE TYPES.

SO IF IT'S MINIMAL LIGHT POLLUTION AND MINIMAL DUST OR

VAPOR OR SMOKE. >> I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH IT, IT'S AN INDUSTRIAL PARK. WHAT DO YOU EXPECT? I JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY IT'S NOT PROHIBITING IT.

>> NO, NOT AN OUTRIGHT PROHIBITION.

>> SO THAT GENERATES ANOTHER QUESTION.

IF TO DEAL WITH THE LIGHTING IS IN THE PUD, WHY IS IT IN HERE AT

ALL? >> WE WERE WORKING WITH AN EXISTING-- I DON'T KNOW WHY IT WAS ORIGINALLY ADOPTED THIS WAY TO BE HONEST BECAUSE MOST OF THIS POLICY REALLY IS ABOUT HALF OF IT IS ZONING. BUT, YOU KNOW, IT IS HERE RATHER THAN STRIKING THE ENTIRE THING. WE FELT IT WAS BETTER TO MODIFY

IT. >> WOULD IT CREATE A BIG PROBLEM IF WE RECOMMENDED ADDING BRAND INFIELD LIGHT STANDARDS TO THIS SINCE WE ARE ALREADY TALKING ABOUT LIGHTING? OR LAKE ASBURY OR WHICHEVER THE ONE WE USE?

-- BRANAN FIELD-- >> WE USUALLY REFER TO IT AS

LAKE ASBURY. >> WOULD ADDING THAT CAUSE A

PROBLEM? >> I'M SORRY?

[INDISTINCT] >> BETH IS SUGGESTING IT GOES IN

THE PUD. >> MAYBE WHAT WE SHOULD PUT IN HERE IS WE TALK ABOUT LIGHTING, LIGHTING STANDARDS, PLEASE REFER

TO THE PUD. >> THEY ARE GOING TO HAVE TO REFER TO THE PUD REGARDLESS. HOWEVER THEY ZONE IT.

BECAUSE THEY WILL BE-- IN ABOUT TWO MUNCIE WILL BE GETTING THAT.

>> WE WILL BE GETTING THE PUD? >> YES.

>> VERY GOOD. >> I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION.

>> I WILL MOVE THE STAFF REPORT. >> ANY DISCUSSION?

>> ONLY A COMMENT. I WISH WE HAD MORE ACREAGE IN THE BUSINESS PARK. [LAUGHTER]

>> NOTED. >> THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.

THOSE OPPOSED SAME SIGN. OKAY.

[3. Public Hearing to consider ZON 26-0018. (District 1, Sgromolo) (D. Selig)This application is a Rezoning to change 2.11 acres from Neighborhood Business District (BA) to Community Business District (BB-2).]

THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THE THIRD ITEM IS HEARING TO

CONSIDER ZON 26-00018. >> THIS ITEM WILL ALSO BE GOING TO THE SEPTEMBER 22ND MEETING. THE APPLICANT IN THIS CASE IS MATTHEW D'ANGELO, CPH CONSULTING.

THE PROPERTY IS AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF COUNTY ROAD 220 AND TARA FARMS DRIVE, IN THE OAK LEAF BRANDON RIDGE, PLANNING DISTRICT WHICH IS ALSO UNDER DISTRICT ONE.

ONE PARCEL OF LAND. TWO .11 ACRES AND THE APPLICATION, THEY REZONING WOULD APPLY TO CHANGE THE NEIGHBORHOOD BUSINESS DISTRICT WHICH IS BA TWO COMMUNITY DISTRICT WHICH IS BB-2. SIGNS WERE PLACED AND LETTERS MAILED TO ALL OF THE PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN OUR BUFFER DISTRICT. HERE WE HAVE THE PARCEL AND THE AERIAL ON THE RIGHT. SHOWING THE LOCATION ON THE

SOUTH SIDE OF 220. >> GO BACK ONE.

[00:50:05]

ONE MORE. AERIAL VIEW.

>> THERE WE GO. >> JUST POINT OF REFERENCE HERE, IF PEOPLE AREN'T AWARE, DIRECTLY ACROSS 220, THEY IS STILL SHOWING THE OLD BUILDINGS. THERE'S A BIG 7-ELEVEN UNDER CONSTRUCTION ACROSS THE STREET FROM THIS.

>> A BIG IMPROVEMENT TO THAT CORNER.

>> A LOSS OF-- >> I KNOW.

>> SO ON THE LEFT WE HAVE THE EXISTING ZONING AND ON THE RIGHT IS THE PROPOSED. AND ON AUGUST THIRD, THEY OAK LEAF BRANDON RIDGE, VOTED 4-0 TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL.

STAFF HAS LOOKED AT THE CRITERIA AND IS ALSO RECOMMENDING