[0:16] >> commissioner norton will lead us in the pledge. Would y'all please stand, and gentlemen, please remove your

[0:39] covers. >> I my name is pete davidson. I'm the chairman of planning county

[0:45] commission. Minutes tonight are being taken by christine blanchet, recording secretary from the

[0:50] clerk of the court's office. Thank you, ms. Blanchet.

[0:55] other staff present, we have a planning

[1:01] director. Kellyn from economic development. Jamie from the legal department.

[1:07] we have tonight also selig and jenny bryla from the

[1:15] planning staff. We thank deputies butler and ek from the clay county

[1:22] sheriff's office. They're here to make sure we behave ourselves, and I don't see anybody else I need to

[1:27] recognize right off the bat. My fellow commissioners to my right are vice chair

[1:34] chairman beau norton, puck hp haber, mary bridgeman, to my left -- clay county planning commission

[1:48] is assistant advisory board to the clay county board of county commissioners or

[1:53] commonly referred to as bcc. All planning commissioners are volunteers, residents

[1:57] of clay county appointed by the board of county commissioners. We serve two- year terms and

[2:03] must reapply if we wish to continue to serve. The commission's duties are outlined in section 163 of

[2:09] the florida statutes. We hear applications for comprehensive plan amendments, land development

[2:13] code changes, and rezonings. Most of the decisions made by the planning commission are recommendation to the bcc.

[2:19] the bcc will have the final say at their meeting either on

[2:24] the second tuesday, one week from today, or the fourth tuesday, three weeks from today.

[2:34] zoning and land matter issues start at 5 p.m. And you can check the bcc agenda on the clay county website

[2:44] for agenda items and times. If there's an item on tonight's agenda that you wish to speak

[2:49] about, please fill out a comment card, which you can find in the

[2:55] vestibule and give to ms. Blanchet. So if you're planning to speak tonight, we need one of these

[3:03] from you. At this time please put your cellphones on silent or vibrate. If you

[3:10] need to leave the meeting during the meeting, please do so quietly. First item for action by the commission tonight is approval of the minutes from

[3:19] the december meeting of the planning commission. Do I hear a motion? >> so moved.

[3:24] >> second. >> any discussion? All those in favor say aye. >>

[3:29] aye. >> any opposed

[3:34] same sign. Part of the agenda is we have a section on the agenda that's

[3:39] called public comment. For this time anything --

[3:44] if you want to discuss anything that's not on the agenda but pertinent to this committee,

[3:49] that's what the public comment period is. I don't have any cards for that, but I'm going to open the

[4:00] public comment period. Does anybody wish to speak concerning anything relevant to the planning commission?

[4:05] seeing none, I'll close public comment period.

[4:11] you're always welcome to the public -- always welcome the public to planning commission

[4:17] meetings as citizen participation is the backbone of our democratic form of government. Your presence here

[4:21] is important and appreciated. The process for the meeting will be each item on the

[4:26] public hearing agenda will be presented by a member of the planning and zoning department, as part

[4:32] of the presentation staff will indicate whether they recommend approval of the requested land

[4:36] use zoning or land development code change. Next the applicant will have

[4:40] an opportunity to speak. Following the applicant presentation, I'll welcome the floor for members of the

[4:46] public to offer their vews. If you wish to speak during this hearing, you will need to fill out a comment card and give

[4:53] it to ms. Blanchet, and take the

[4:57] oath, which ms. Blanchet will administer momentarily.

[5:04] your speaking time will be limited to 3 minutes. The lights on the podium will help keep track of your

[5:09] time. Your time is for stating your views, not for asking questions of the applicant,

[5:13] members of the staff, or the commissioners. Your comments are to be directed to the planning

[5:18] commission. After the staff, the applicant, and public have had their chance to state their views, the floor will be closed, and the

[5:26] public comments -- for public comments. And the applicant will have an opportunity to respond to comments by the public.

[5:31] after that, the commissioners will discuss the

[5:35] matter, if necessary, and render a decision. Again, I thank you and commendyou for your participation in

[5:42] the process. We have one card, so if anybody wishes to speak, would you please stand and ms.

[5:50] blanchet will issue the oath. >> that's including the applicant, please.

[5:55] ms. Susan, are you speaking at all?

[6:01] okay. Perfect. Thank you. Raise your right hand please. Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you're about

[6:07] to give will be the truth, the whole truth so help you god? I appreciate you, sir.

[6:12] >> mr. Schiff, are you speaking tonight? >> yes, sir. >> you need to take the oath,

[6:16] please. >> do you solalmly swear the testimony you're about to

[6:20] give will be the truth, the whole truth so help you god? Thank you,

[6:26] sir. >> thank you. Okay, before we jump into the agenda, I want to make note

[6:30] that item number 4 on the agenda has been withdrawn, and so we won't be hearing that tonight.

[6:35] it might reappear at a later date, but -- so that will not be

[6:41] discussed. So with that being said, we'll move right onto the first

[6:46] agenda item. Public hearing to consider

[6:52] comp 25-0017 and zoning 25-037.

[6:56] and we'll need two votes on this. Ms. Bryla.

[7:01] >> thank you, chair. Jenny bryla here to present the small scale comp plan amendment

[7:09] comp 25- 0017, and the companion rezoning piece 25- 0037, as you

[7:18] indicated. So this is for a 2- acre portion of a lot that is located southeast of blanding

[7:31] boulevard and west of the intersection of

[7:40] philmore. The hospice facility will not

[7:45] be changing. However, the undeveloped portion of the lot to the east is what the proposal is for. You'll notice that the

[7:50] area slated for development has split zoning and land use.

[7:54] this is because the way the county administratively

[8:00] applied commercial uses along blanding boulevard. The property currently has a

[8:04] land use of commercial and core 10 in a zoning of bb and

[8:10] ps3. So here you can see the location of the site that is centralally located along

[8:20] blanding boulevard and the parcel or the

[8:25] tract they are currently proposing to redevelop. So here you can clearly see

[8:29] the split land use. So the commercial component is

[8:34] 300 feet from the center line of blanding boulevard.

[8:38] so that's consist how the county had rezoned property to

[8:44] stimulate the corridor for commercial uses, but then the piece to the south is still

[8:52] uc-10. So in order to avoid the split zoning and land use, they have to rezone the entire thing to commercial, or redesignate

[9:02] the land use for the whole thing to commercial. And these are some

[9:08] of the comp plan policies that support the change in land use. One is the commercial land

[9:13] use definition in the plan, and the other outlines how land uses can be designated in the plan.

[9:22] either to redesignate something as commercial, it either has to be infill or create a unified

[9:28] plan, and I believe that this proposal does both of

[9:35] those. So as always, florida statutes

[9:43] requires us to review a proposal to determine that sprawl is not created. And it does that by identifying

[9:50] at least four of a 12- prong grouping that says that it

[9:58] is not sprawl. So staff found that the project does not support sprawl based

[10:03] on the fact that it directs economic growth towards areas that are currently have infrastructure in place.

[10:10] and, two, it's considered in fill development as the lot is currently vacant and surrounded on all sides by

[10:17] commercial development. And, three, preserves agricultural lands by leaving

[10:21] areas on the fringes of undeveloped. And finally, the project

[10:27] does not provide further impact to undeveloped open spaces as the project takes advantage of

[10:33] infrastructure and services already in place.

[10:37] and so, this is the zoning

[10:42] component. As you can see the bb3 portion that's adjacent to

[10:48] blanding boulevard and the ps3 portion

[10:52] in that hot pink in the graphic on the left.

[10:57] and because you can rezone something to bb any longer, the entire parcel needs to be

[11:02] rezoned to ba, which allows for child

[11:08] care facilities. And this is the proposed site plan for the facility. You'll see that the parking is

[11:14] adjacent to blanding boulevard. The playground is in the rear of

[11:21] the facility, in which case they will have to -- because

[11:26] of the commercial land use, our landscape code requires a

[11:33] 10a buffer adjacent to the residential land use on the

[11:37] southeast side. So on december 1st the brand new

[11:44] oak leaf brandon ridge cac voted 5- 0 to recommend

[11:48] approval, and based on the criteria in staff report, staff has

[11:53] determined it's consist with the comprehensive plan and finds that it is consistent with the land development

[12:02] code, so I do therefore recommend approval of both items. And I'm happy to answer any questions, and the applicant is here to take any questions

[12:08] you might have. >> any questions of staff? Applicant?

[12:18] you want to share anything with us? >> hi.

[12:23] good morning commissioner and chairman. My name is andrew johnson. I'm project manager for

[12:35] insight. >> it's on the actual mic.

[12:39] >> I agree with everythingeveryt hing ms. Bryla said, and I'm here for any questions.

[12:46] I would just like to add the intent of this vacant lot when the hospice center was developed was for future

[12:52] development. All utilities are stubbed to

[12:56] this site with st. John's river water district, we have the about to amend the former permit

[13:02] because there was planning for storm water management already done at the rear of the site. We have the no problem complying with the landscape

[13:09] buffers that will be need to be complied with, and I'm here for any other

[13:19] questions. >> I remember, I think, ralph and I were sitting here when this was originally zoned for

[13:28] this before that hospice went in. And, yes, it was planned for future development. My concern, though, because I'm very familiar with

[13:35] that area. I travel it every day -- is

[13:40] the ingress and egress for that particular tract. There's a traffic light right there at fox ridge, and

[13:48] then you're -- literally that lot is probably 100, 150 feet just north, I guess, of

[13:55] that particular location. What is the plan for getting cars flout of there? Are you planning to use that

[14:03] same ingress for the hospice? >> the intent is to use the same access points that

[14:09] the hospice facility currently uses. We're not proposing any new access or

[14:14] entry points along blanding boulevard. We are also conducting a traffic study currently that's

[14:18] under way, which we're working with florida dot to understand whether the turning

[14:23] lanes within blanding boulevard immediately adjacent to this site need to

[14:27] be configured in any way. Preliminary indications from florida dot state we we

[14:34] are doing a traffic study to confirm. >> thank you. >> I just had one question. So the same

[14:41] folks that own the hospice are going to develop this? >> we are the developer. We'll be purchasing the land

[14:46] from them. >> okay.

[14:51] I was wondering because there'd been a for sale sign on

[14:56] it, so that's what I was trying to understand. Thank you. >> any other questions of the

[15:00] applicant? Thank you, sir. >> thank you very much. >> at this time I'll open

[15:05] the public hearing. I don't have any cards on this. Is there anybody here who wishes to speak on this agenda

[15:13] item? Seeing none, I'll close the public hearing and bring it back to commission for discussion.

[15:17] >> mr. Chair, I have a question for staff, please.

[15:23] actually, I have two. In the comp plan staff report,

[15:29] we go through these, you know, eight items, right? And as I've said before, I consider them to be subjective

[15:37] answers, not objective. But in the case of this one, I just wanted to point somethingsomething that I think

[15:44] is incorrect in there. The second staff finding, it's right above for

[15:55] the recommendation. It talks about being an infill development. Located between another commercial land use

[16:01] parcel and a future institutional use

[16:06] fire station. There's no fire station there. The building that's on the other side of this parcel belongs to

[16:12] at&t. It's a central office.

[16:16] it doesn't change, you know, the application in any way, but I think it's important that

[16:22] we state that correctly. That building that's just to the north, that's an at&t central

[16:32] office. And the parcel after that is not owned by the county, so I don't know where the

[16:37] information about a fire station came from, but I don't believe that to be

[16:43] correct. >> there is a fire station on blanding, but it's probably a mile and a half or so

[16:50] north of that location. >> not here. The other -- the other item in the zoning one that I would

[17:00] take a little issue with is the last staff finding, when it says

[17:05] the intensity and density on the subject parcel will not be changed by this rezoning, to my knowledge it

[17:17] would be. We -- I've lived in this county for well over 40 years, and that's been a vacant lot,

[17:22] so if you put anything on it, it's going to change -- >> commissioner, it would be that it's a bb lot, and

[17:28] the intensity of a bb allowance. >> it won't go any worse than that?

[17:34] okay, I get it. Okay, thank you. Just wanted to ask that.

[17:40] >> any discussion? >> I move approval of the staff report for comp

[17:46] 25-0017. >> second. >> okay, we have a motion and a

[17:51] second. Further discussion? I'd like to also make note that this plat -- the site plat

[17:57] is part of the application. So if anything else goes

[18:02] in there under ba, it'll have to come back to us. All those in favor of the

[18:07] motion say aye. >> aye. >> those opposed same sign. Now we need a motion on the

[18:14] zoning portion. >> so moved.

[18:22] >> motion. Second. >> and you

[18:27] second. Any discussion? All those in favor say aye. >> aye. >> all opposed same sign. Okay, it

[18:32] passes. >> thank you very much. >> thank you,

[18:51] sir. >> okay, second agenda item is public hearing to consider zon

[18:59] 25-0036. Ms. Bryla again. >> yes, sir.

[19:04] this is a staff initiated code change that we're excited

[19:10] to bring before you. This is a request that has

[19:29] been initiated by staff to allow a zero lot line produc. Currently the only district that would allow for an attached

[19:36] single- family product would be rc or rz based on the

[19:41] density, and those properties also in -- include the

[19:47] master plans in the discussion necessarily. Based on the density it's allowed in rc and rd.

[19:56] however, the setback criteria in those two districts do not allow for such a product. You could do an

[20:02] attached single-family product in a pd if you had 5 acres. And in brannenfield, and lake

[20:16] asbury, as I shared. The amendment will change

[20:22] the zoning criteria and it will also sunset the rc zoning district. So starting with article

[20:33] iii, we are proposing that we sunset the rc zoning district. This district is intended

[20:39] to support 2 and 3- family units. This comprises 45 parcels within the county of which 38 are

[20:49] well-established. Should someone propose to redevelop the existing eight rc parcels with the

[20:55] attached single- family product, they would need to transition to the rd zoning district for develop

[21:00] as a duplex or triplex. So this we're

[21:12] requesting it sunset after the january 13,

[21:17] 2026, bocc hearing. So you couldn't rezone the same as bb. You couldn't rezone a

[21:22] property to rc. And then continuing with article

[21:28] iii, we remove the density requirement for a maximum of 100 acres is required within the urban core category because

[21:36] it's no longer necessary. And then here is the bulk

[21:45] of this change request. So we as staff decided

[21:53] a table would be much easier to understand and make it clearer for the applicant to see

[21:57] where they are with their front setbacks and side

[22:02] setbacks. So you can see there the building width line is 25

[22:06] feet with a 0- foot setback for a

[22:11] fesable product and a 10-foot for ncaps.

[22:18] and I'm happy to go through these changes in depth

[22:22] if you have anymore questions. Then with this table, we can then delete all of these many words that were following in the

[22:35] code. So then to support that change in article iii, we're changing some definitions in article

[22:46] 1, and we've added in multi-family or multi-

[22:52] dwelling uses. This is consistent in florida statute. We have deleted definitions that

[22:58] are inconsistent with that and then renumbered accordingly.

[23:03] we've also changed the definition of "lot" to

[23:10] indicate lots with open waterfrontage. Many switch their lot front and rear, which in other places

[23:16] in the code. We're just making it, again, clearer for the user to understand their opportunities.

[23:25] and then, again, we're adding a definition of a curved lot so

[23:32] there's no ambiguity or

[23:38] lenience. It makes it very clear for people that have a curved

[23:43] lot line how to measure the

[23:47] distances. So that's it in a nutshell, and I'm happy to go through any other

[23:56] changes that you might have, but I know -- or questions you might have. I have had an applicant who

[24:01] does not have 5 acres, so that a pd

[24:09] is not allowable for them, and they wanted to do a fee simple townhome product, and we have no way to allow that because we don't

[24:16] have zero lot line product or setback. >> any questions for staff?

[24:24] >> I do. So these would be fee simple

[24:33] lots? >> correct. >> so basically we're going to build row houses, right?

[24:37] >> it's a townhome product. >> well, I'm going to call them row houses, because if zero

[24:46] lot lines on both sides -- do we have any restriction on how

[24:51] long those buildings can be? Zero restriction in the code that says they can --

[24:55] >> it's limited to the lot width. >> so if I had a lot that

[25:00] was, you know, a thousand feet wide I could just string an uncontin ws building?

[25:06] >> the building code is going to dictate some of that. Outside of the building code will limit how long you can

[25:13] run. Sorry, I didn't mean to jump in on you. >> no, that's fine. >> the florida building code does have restrictions.

[25:20] >> because I'm familiar with zero lot line products, but all the ones I've ever seen are more of a single -- single-

[25:30] family variety, where one side is zero lot and they still have a little bit of an alleyway or gangway

[25:35] on the other side and the other side is 6 feet. So this really is just mimicking townhomes, or I prefer

[25:43] to call them row houses, just a common wall between all the items.

[25:47] is that what we're talking about? >>

[25:53] that's correct. And it's the same code in the brannenfield and lake lake asbury

[26:00] master plan. >> and the rest of this chart is standard stuff. So we're still looking to make

[26:05] sure they have 100- foot depth on the lot. >> yep.

[26:10] >> and we're still going to have

[26:15] the 25 and 15-foot setbacks front and

[26:21] rear. Okay. Mike, do you know what the length of the building is that's allowed before it

[26:25] becomes an issue? >> so we would have to probably bring in the chief building

[26:30] official to answer that formally, but I know you've got to have fire separation walls between tenants, and then

[26:35] you've got to have an even bigger wall after I think it's four assembly

[26:42] product, and you've got to build something that's even a

[26:46] two hour rate of assembly. So we'd have to bring the fire marshal

[26:52] in. >> I'm sure it becomes more of an issue when the buildings go up, but I have a feeling the fire

[26:59] chief is going to want to have some say about getting his trucks around the back of these.

[27:03] >> if it's a one or two- story product I don't expect the fire marshal is going to have any product with this.

[27:09] this is pretty standard. If it's something bigger, I would assume the concern

[27:13] would be ladder trucks and how tall it is as opposed to how high the ladder truck will go.

[27:18] that's the only concern I've ever seen or heard from a fire marshal.

[27:27] >> okay. I'm just aware of a situation where they made a guy move a portable building because they figured it was in the way

[27:33] of the fire trucks getting behind the building. But that's not really our

[27:38] issue. That's it. I think it clarifies it. Thank you. >> I just have one question,

[27:44] if I could, mr. Chair. I think this is a good addition to our code. I see the value in it.

[27:49] I just want to ask a general question in does it

[27:55] constrict or reduce in any way what we're currently doing? >> the only restriction it would be for the rc district.

[28:02] you couldn't rezone to rc any longer, but we only have, like

[28:07] I said, 45 parcels in the whole county that are zoned

[28:11] rc. >> okay. Okay, thank you. Appreciate it. >> so as of the 13th, the

[28:16] rc goes away? >> it still remains. You just couldn't rezone to it.

[28:21] >> everything prior to the 13th is there, but as far as moving forward --

[28:25] >> I think your question is can they still build under the rc code if it's zoned that today?

[28:31] >> yes. >> if it's zoned that way, yes. >> same with bb, yes, sir.

[28:36] >> okay, I don't have any cards on this, but I'm opening the public hearing.

[28:41] does anybody wish to speak concerning this agenda item? I see none, so I'll close the public hearing and bring it back to the commission for

[28:50] a discussion and recommendation.

[28:55] >> I'll move approval of zon

[29:01] 25-0036. >> I'll second. >> okay, we have a motion and

[29:05] a second. Any discussion? All those in favor say aye.

[29:10] >> aye. >> those opposed same sign.

[29:14] okay. >> thank you very much. >> thank you, ms. Bryla. Next agenda item is

[29:22] public hearing concerning zon 25-0030. Under ms. Selig's

[29:43] tutelage. >> good evening. Thisitem is -- it's a text -- zoning text amendment.

[29:52] it is a carbon copy of a change that was made in the

[29:57] comprehensive plan just about a year ago. I think it was february, march of last year.

[30:04] and so that's why I passed out that handout because I realized I didn't include the comprehensive

[30:10] plan language. All this is changing is it affects the lake lake asbury interchange village

[30:17] center zoning district, and it is a request to change commercial specifically in a

[30:22] table of uses that's .

[30:29] the percentage of -- if you flip over on the attachment

[30:38] interchange is -- actually, it's the third page of what's in the comprehensive

[30:42] plan now. It shows commercial slash retail a minimum of 5% and a maximum permitted of 65%.

[30:51] and so this zoning is doing some exact same thing as going from the existing 40% maximum to the same 65.

[31:04] for that reason staff is recommending approval,

[31:09] since it is -- anything in the zoning code is required to support what the policies that are in

[31:16] the comprehensive plan, so they can't conflict with each

[31:20] other. So this is matching what's existing in the

[31:27] comprehensive plan. And it only applies I should say

[31:31] to that -- >> there's only two, right? >> there's only two properties in the county that

[31:36] actually applies to, and actually this is the only one of them.

[31:41] >> there's one at state road 16 the express by the way, and one at the express road in --

[31:48] >> hently. >> the other. >> what corner of 16 and the

[31:53] expressway? >> it's the area around -- >> the whole --

[31:57] >> the interchange village center there's a little node about 150

[32:02] acres. >> I think it's 150. >> a little node right there around that interchange. >> northwest.

[32:06] >> I don't have the map so I can't -- >> the node I knew.

[32:11] there was a node there, I didn't realize this one of the two you just talked

[32:15] about. >> but this doesn't change anything of the village center

[32:19] itself? >> it doesn't touch village centers at all, and it's only the interchange village center. And it's only, yeah, only those

[32:30] two parcels. >> any questions of staff? Other questions of staff?

[32:38] ms. Frasier, you're listed here as the agent. >> always.

[32:44] good evening. Susan frasier in jacksonville.

[32:51] and the county approved a planning amendment a year ago, literally february last year

[32:55] that made this change. It recognized there was quite a lot of residential in lake lake

[33:04] asbury and that having higher commercial percentage particularly in these two areas, which is at the interchanges where we're seeing

[33:11] finally some access and demand for nonresidential use, that this was an appropriate

[33:16] amendment. And so correspondingly, the article 3, which defines all the nuts and bolts how

[33:23] you develop needs to be amended to match that land use percentage that's currently in the comp

[33:27] plan. So I'm happy to answer any questions you might have.

[33:32] >> any question of the applicant?

[33:37] none? Okay, then I will open up public hearing. And I do have one card.

[33:43] mr. Schiff. >> thank you, commissioners, for having me today.

[33:51] I'm here in favor of increasing the

[33:57] commercial retail. I live in village park, which is right --

[34:01] >> hate to interrupt. We need your name and address for the record. >> oh, I'm sorry.

[34:06] >> that's all right. >> gary schiff, 3272 crocus lane green cove springs,

[34:15] 32003. >> thank you, sir. >> so I'm speaking today, I'm the hoa vice president

[34:24] for village park, which is the subdivision right next to this

[34:30] interchange village center, and my house will be actually the closest house to the village center, so I'm kind of

[34:39] wearingtwo hats. But I'm in agreement with our developer that we need more retail.

[34:46] this is an ivc. As mentioned there's only

[34:53] two, this one and 16. So we really need to maximize any commercial retail, but

[34:59] I'm in agreement. But at the same time I'd like you to consider reducing the residential requirements.

[35:06] this ivc is in an area where we have completely 100%

[35:17] single- family homes. There are no condos, no

[35:22] apartments. This is what I consider the golden triangle bordered by henley, russell and sand

[35:37] ridge road, so this is our only opportunity for retail. If we can eliminate is go to 0% for residential and not

[35:45] require, even though the developer may want to include it, but this way he wouldn't be mandated to

[35:50] have the 10%. So please consider that in -- in future discussions.

[35:56] thank you very much. >> thank you, mr. Schiff. Is there anybody else who wishes

[36:03] to speak on this item?

[36:07] >> my name is helena, and my address is on

[36:13] file. >> do you mind taking the oath, please? >> I'm sorry. I did come in late.

[36:18] >> raise your right hand. Do you solemnly swear the testimony you're about to give will be the truth, and

[36:24] whole truth so help you god? >> I do. Sorry about that.

[36:29] I just want to say they're trying to keep all of the things matching up. It's very important for the consistency to be there, so

[36:35] I am grateful on that one. As we're talking about the -- this type of zoning with the industrial component as

[36:43] well that's in there, I don't know if everybody was fully thinking about some of the

[36:48] industrial components that are -- there's no max on that one, and, you know, there's an

[36:53] area I do believe off of 17 where you've got a bunch of the homes in

[36:58] residential, but now there'll be an asphalt company.

[37:03] you know, and of course the industrial component allows stuff like that. I can't even imagine. I live out there in lake lake

[37:13] asbury, some of those industrial uses allowed in there. I know we want the niagraws

[37:17] and the good ones and we may support, but then we get stuck with some of the stuff that

[37:22] may be a deterrent for some of the home owners. Be mindful of the decisions of things we don't quite

[37:30] realize when we're doing stuff. But I am grateful they're going to match up. It's very important for

[37:36] consistency. Thank you. >> thank you. >> if I could, the industrial uses in interchange village

[37:44] center, they are permitted in the interchange village center at state road 16. Again, that's 150 acres, so

[37:50] there was felt to be sufficient land to put commercial uses on 16 and at the interchange

[37:54] and then in the back. 150 acres is a lot of commercial. Industrial uses are

[37:59] not permitted in the interchange village center at henley. So the current --

[38:04] the comprehensive plan does not allow that use in the interchange at village center at

[38:12] henley. And so I think the suggestion that the residential could be reduced, currently the comp

[38:21] plan sets that minimum, and this is a regulation consistent with that. If the county wishes to

[38:26] consider changing that, it would require an amendment to the comprehensive plan to implement something that's

[38:33] already adopted. But, yes, industrial was thought to be the land was too small to try and fit all of

[38:39] that into one package. >> anybody else wishes to speak on this agenda item? Seeing none, I'm going to

[38:45] close the public hearing. And, susan, you've

[38:50] already explained your portion of that, so you have anything else to

[38:55] tell us? All right, let's bring it back to the commission for

[39:01] discussion. >> I'll move the -- excuse me. I'll move the staff report. >> I'll second.

[39:06] >> I think, if I could, the most important factor is

[39:12] consistency. We got it in one place, we really need it to be

[39:16] the same in the other place. >> well, before we vote on

[39:23] that, we have a motion and a second and discussion.

[39:27] mr. Schiff recommendation to reduce residential we can't necessarily do that because it will then all of a

[39:33] sudden become inconsistent with the comp plan. >> yeah. If you felt strongly that it was something you wanted staff

[39:39] to look into, we could look at that. But we would need to bring you back a comprehensive plan

[39:44] change first and then again a matching zoning. >> so the goal here is to

[39:49] move this forward, and then if we really want to change the residential area, we need to come back through the

[39:56] other door? >> exactly, yes. >> okay, any discussion? All those in favor say

[40:01] aye. >> aye. >> those opposed same sign.

[40:05] okay. Thank you all very much. That concludes our agenda except for one business item

[40:15] that we have.

[40:21] and we have an administrative thing, and that is the voting

[40:27] of chairman and vice-chairman. When I assumed this role it

[40:31] was my understanding it was for a two- year term. However, if you all wish to

[40:35] change, I'll be more than happy to step aside and turn it over to whoever else wants it.

[40:41] >> I would say that I would ask for just a vote by

[40:47] acclimation we keep it as is. >> I think you've done a marvelous

[40:52] job. >> there you go.

[40:57] >> remember, you're next.

[41:02] >> all right then, unless there's any further

[41:06] discussion, we'll leave the leadership as far as chairman and

[41:11] vice-chairman as is for another year. >> take a vote? >> I think we do. I'll make a motion that pete

[41:18] stays. >> I'll second. >> and bo stays.

[41:24] >> those in favor say aye. >> aye. >> those opposed same sign. Okay,

[41:30] that's all we have for tonight. So I guess unless anybody else -- oh, wait. I'll open the public

[41:36] hearing. Does anybody else have anything they want to share with the commission before we adjourn?

[41:40] seeing none, I'll close the public hearing, and we're

Jan 06, 2026 Planning Commission

Agenda

Transcript