>> COMMISSIONER NORTON WILL LEAD US IN THE PLEDGE. WOULD Y'ALL PLEASE STAND, AND GENTLEMEN, PLEASE REMOVE YOUR COVERS. >> I MY NAME IS PETE DAVIDSON. I'M THE CHAIRMAN OF PLANNING COUNTY COMMISSION. MINUTES TONIGHT ARE BEING TAKEN BY CHRISTINE BLANCHET, RECORDING SECRETARY FROM THE CLERK OF THE COURT'S OFFICE. THANK YOU, MS. BLANCHET. OTHER STAFF PRESENT, WE HAVE A PLANNING DIRECTOR. KELLYN FROM ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT. JAMIE FROM THE LEGAL DEPARTMENT. WE HAVE TONIGHT ALSO SELIG AND JENNY BRYLA FROM THE PLANNING STAFF. WE THANK DEPUTIES BUTLER AND EK FROM THE CLAY COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE. THEY'RE HERE TO MAKE SURE WE BEHAVE OURSELVES, AND I DON'T SEE ANYBODY ELSE I NEED TO RECOGNIZE RIGHT OFF THE BAT. MY FELLOW COMMISSIONERS TO MY RIGHT ARE VICE CHAIR CHAIRMAN BEAU NORTON, PUCK HP HABER, MARY BRIDGEMAN, TO MY LEFT -- CLAY COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION IS ASSISTANT ADVISORY BOARD TO THE CLAY COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OR COMMONLY REFERRED TO AS BCC. ALL PLANNING COMMISSIONERS ARE VOLUNTEERS, RESIDENTS OF CLAY COUNTY APPOINTED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS. WE SERVE TWO- YEAR TERMS AND MUST REAPPLY IF WE WISH TO CONTINUE TO SERVE. THE COMMISSION'S DUTIES ARE OUTLINED IN SECTION 163 OF THE FLORIDA STATUTES. WE HEAR APPLICATIONS FOR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS, LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE CHANGES, AND REZONINGS. MOST OF THE DECISIONS MADE BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION ARE RECOMMENDATION TO THE BCC. THE BCC WILL HAVE THE FINAL SAY AT THEIR MEETING EITHER ON THE SECOND TUESDAY, ONE WEEK FROM TODAY, OR THE FOURTH TUESDAY, THREE WEEKS FROM TODAY. ZONING AND LAND MATTER ISSUES START AT 5 P.M. AND YOU CAN CHECK THE BCC AGENDA ON THE CLAY COUNTY WEBSITE FOR AGENDA ITEMS AND TIMES. IF THERE'S AN ITEM ON TONIGHT'S AGENDA THAT YOU WISH TO SPEAK ABOUT, PLEASE FILL OUT A COMMENT CARD, WHICH YOU CAN FIND IN THE VESTIBULE AND GIVE TO MS. BLANCHET. SO IF YOU'RE PLANNING TO SPEAK TONIGHT, WE NEED ONE OF THESE FROM YOU. AT THIS TIME PLEASE PUT YOUR CELLPHONES ON SILENT OR VIBRATE. IF YOU 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 THE DECEMBER MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION. DO I HEAR A MOTION? >> SO MOVED. >> SECOND. >> ANY DISCUSSION? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. >> AYE. >> ANY OPPOSED SAME SIGN. PART OF THE AGENDA IS WE HAVE A SECTION ON THE AGENDA THAT'S CALLED PUBLIC COMMENT. FOR THIS TIME ANYTHING -- IF YOU WANT TO DISCUSS ANYTHING THAT'S NOT ON THE AGENDA BUT PERTINENT TO THIS COMMITTEE, THAT'S WHAT THE PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD IS. I DON'T HAVE ANY CARDS FOR THAT, BUT I'M GOING TO OPEN THE PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD. DOES ANYBODY WISH TO SPEAK CONCERNING ANYTHING RELEVANT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION? SEEING NONE, I'LL CLOSE PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD. YOU'RE ALWAYS WELCOME TO THE PUBLIC -- ALWAYS WELCOME THE PUBLIC TO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETINGS AS CITIZEN PARTICIPATION IS THE BACKBONE OF OUR DEMOCRATIC FORM OF GOVERNMENT. YOUR PRESENCE HERE IS IMPORTANT AND APPRECIATED. THE PROCESS FOR THE MEETING WILL BE EACH ITEM ON 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 OF THE REQUESTED LAND USE ZONING OR LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE CHANGE. NEXT THE APPLICANT WILL HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK. FOLLOWING THE APPLICANT PRESENTATION, I'LL WELCOME THE FLOOR FOR MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC TO OFFER THEIR VEWS. IF YOU WISH TO SPEAK DURING THIS HEARING, YOU WILL NEED TO FILL OUT A COMMENT CARD AND GIVE IT TO MS. BLANCHET, AND TAKE THE OATH, WHICH MS. BLANCHET WILL ADMINISTER MOMENTARILY.
YOUR SPEAKING TIME WILL BE LIMITED TO 3 MINUTES. THE LIGHTS ON THE PODIUM WILL HELP KEEP TRACK OF YOUR TIME. YOUR TIME IS FOR STATING YOUR 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. AFTER THE STAFF, THE APPLICANT, AND PUBLIC HAVE HAD THEIR CHANCE TO STATE THEIR VIEWS, THE FLOOR WILL BE CLOSED, AND THE PUBLIC COMMENTS -- FOR PUBLIC COMMENTS. AND THE APPLICANT WILL HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO RESPOND TO COMMENTS BY THE PUBLIC. AFTER THAT, THE COMMISSIONERS WILL DISCUSS THE MATTER, IF NECESSARY, AND RENDER A DECISION. AGAIN, I THANK YOU AND COMMENDYOU FOR YOUR PARTICIPATION IN THE PROCESS. WE HAVE ONE CARD, SO IF ANYBODY WISHES TO SPEAK, WOULD YOU PLEASE STAND AND MS. BLANCHET WILL ISSUE THE OATH. >> THAT'S INCLUDING THE APPLICANT, PLEASE. MS. SUSAN, ARE YOU SPEAKING AT ALL? OKAY. PERFECT. THANK YOU. RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND PLEASE. DO YOU SOLEMNLY SWEAR THAT THE TESTIMONY YOU'RE ABOUT TO GIVE WILL BE THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH SO HELP YOU GOD? I APPRECIATE YOU, SIR. >> MR. SCHIFF, ARE YOU SPEAKING TONIGHT? >> YES, SIR. >> YOU NEED TO TAKE THE OATH, PLEASE. >> DO YOU SOLALMLY SWEAR THE TESTIMONY YOU'RE ABOUT TO GIVE WILL BE THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH SO HELP YOU GOD? THANK YOU, SIR. >> THANK YOU. OKAY, BEFORE WE JUMP INTO THE AGENDA, I WANT TO MAKE NOTE THAT ITEM NUMBER 4 ON THE AGENDA HAS BEEN WITHDRAWN, AND SO WE WON'T BE HEARING THAT TONIGHT. IT MIGHT REAPPEAR AT A LATER DATE, BUT -- SO THAT WILL NOT BE DISCUSSED. SO WITH THAT BEING SAID, WE'LL MOVE RIGHT ONTO THE FIRST AGENDA ITEM. PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER COMP 25-0017 AND ZONING 25-037. AND WE'LL NEED TWO VOTES ON THIS. MS. BRYLA. >> THANK YOU, CHAIR. JENNY BRYLA HERE TO PRESENT THE SMALL SCALE COMP PLAN AMENDMENT COMP 25- 0017, AND THE COMPANION REZONING PIECE 25- 0037, AS YOU INDICATED. SO THIS IS FOR A 2- ACRE PORTION OF A LOT THAT IS LOCATED SOUTHEAST OF BLANDING BOULEVARD AND WEST OF THE INTERSECTION OF PHILMORE. THE HOSPICE FACILITY WILL NOT BE CHANGING. HOWEVER, THE UNDEVELOPED PORTION OF THE LOT TO THE EAST IS WHAT THE PROPOSAL IS FOR. YOU'LL NOTICE THAT THE AREA SLATED FOR DEVELOPMENT HAS SPLIT ZONING AND LAND USE. THIS IS BECAUSE THE WAY THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVELY APPLIED COMMERCIAL USES ALONG BLANDING BOULEVARD. THE PROPERTY CURRENTLY HAS A LAND USE OF COMMERCIAL AND CORE 10 IN A ZONING OF BB AND PS3. SO HERE YOU CAN SEE THE LOCATION OF THE SITE THAT IS CENTRALALLY LOCATED ALONG BLANDING BOULEVARD AND THE PARCEL OR THE TRACT THEY ARE CURRENTLY PROPOSING TO REDEVELOP. SO HERE YOU CAN CLEARLY SEE THE SPLIT LAND USE. SO THE COMMERCIAL COMPONENT IS 300 FEET FROM THE CENTER LINE OF BLANDING BOULEVARD. SO THAT'S CONSIST HOW THE COUNTY HAD REZONED PROPERTY TO STIMULATE THE CORRIDOR FOR COMMERCIAL USES, BUT THEN THE PIECE TO THE SOUTH IS STILL UC-10. SO IN ORDER TO AVOID THE SPLIT ZONING AND LAND USE, THEY HAVE TO REZONE THE ENTIRE THING TO COMMERCIAL, OR REDESIGNATE THE LAND USE FOR THE WHOLE THING TO COMMERCIAL. AND THESE ARE SOME OF THE COMP PLAN POLICIES THAT SUPPORT THE CHANGE IN LAND USE. ONE IS THE COMMERCIAL LAND USE DEFINITION IN THE PLAN, AND THE OTHER OUTLINES HOW LAND USES CAN BE DESIGNATED IN THE PLAN. EITHER TO REDESIGNATE SOMETHING AS COMMERCIAL, IT EITHER HAS TO BE INFILL OR CREATE A UNIFIED PLAN, AND I BELIEVE THAT THIS PROPOSAL DOES BOTH OF THOSE. SO AS ALWAYS, FLORIDA STATUTES REQUIRES US TO REVIEW A PROPOSAL TO DETERMINE THAT SPRAWL IS NOT CREATED. AND IT DOES THAT BY IDENTIFYING AT LEAST FOUR OF A 12- PRONG GROUPING THAT SAYS THAT IT IS NOT SPRAWL. SO STAFF FOUND THAT THE
PROJECT DOES NOT SUPPORT SPRAWL BASED ON THE FACT THAT IT DIRECTS ECONOMIC GROWTH TOWARDS AREAS THAT ARE CURRENTLY HAVE INFRASTRUCTURE IN PLACE. AND, TWO, IT'S CONSIDERED IN FILL DEVELOPMENT AS THE LOT IS CURRENTLY VACANT AND SURROUNDED ON ALL SIDES BY COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT. AND, THREE, PRESERVES AGRICULTURAL LANDS BY LEAVING AREAS ON THE FRINGES OF UNDEVELOPED. AND FINALLY, THE PROJECT DOES NOT PROVIDE FURTHER IMPACT TO UNDEVELOPED OPEN SPACES AS THE PROJECT TAKES ADVANTAGE OF INFRASTRUCTURE AND SERVICES ALREADY IN PLACE. AND SO, THIS IS THE ZONING COMPONENT. AS YOU CAN SEE THE BB3 PORTION THAT'S ADJACENT TO BLANDING BOULEVARD AND THE PS3 PORTION IN THAT HOT PINK IN THE GRAPHIC ON THE LEFT. AND BECAUSE YOU CAN REZONE SOMETHING TO BB ANY LONGER, THE ENTIRE PARCEL NEEDS TO BE REZONED TO BA, WHICH ALLOWS FOR CHILD CARE FACILITIES. AND THIS IS THE PROPOSED SITE PLAN FOR THE FACILITY. YOU'LL SEE THAT THE PARKING IS ADJACENT TO BLANDING BOULEVARD. THE PLAYGROUND IS IN THE REAR OF THE FACILITY, IN WHICH CASE THEY WILL HAVE TO -- BECAUSE OF THE COMMERCIAL LAND USE, OUR LANDSCAPE CODE REQUIRES A 10A BUFFER ADJACENT TO THE RESIDENTIAL LAND USE ON THE SOUTHEAST SIDE. SO ON DECEMBER 1ST THE BRAND NEW OAK LEAF BRANDON RIDGE CAC VOTED 5- 0 TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL, AND BASED ON THE CRITERIA IN STAFF REPORT, STAFF HAS DETERMINED IT'S CONSIST WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND FINDS THAT IT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE LAND DEVELOPMENT 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 YOU MIGHT HAVE. >> ANY QUESTIONS OF STAFF? APPLICANT? YOU WANT TO SHARE ANYTHING WITH US? >> HI. GOOD MORNING COMMISSIONER AND CHAIRMAN. MY NAME IS ANDREW JOHNSON. I'M PROJECT MANAGER FOR INSIGHT. >> IT'S ON THE ACTUAL MIC. >> I AGREE WITH EVERYTHINGEVERYT HING MS. BRYLA SAID, AND I'M HERE FOR ANY QUESTIONS. I WOULD JUST LIKE TO ADD THE INTENT OF THIS VACANT LOT WHEN THE HOSPICE CENTER WAS DEVELOPED WAS FOR FUTURE DEVELOPMENT. ALL UTILITIES ARE STUBBED TO THIS SITE WITH ST. JOHN'S RIVER WATER DISTRICT, WE HAVE THE ABOUT TO AMEND THE FORMER PERMIT 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 BUFFERS THAT WILL BE NEED TO BE COMPLIED WITH, AND I'M HERE FOR ANY OTHER QUESTIONS. >> I REMEMBER, I THINK, RALPH AND I WERE SITTING HERE WHEN THIS WAS ORIGINALLY ZONED FOR THIS BEFORE THAT HOSPICE WENT IN. AND, YES, IT WAS PLANNED FOR FUTURE DEVELOPMENT. MY CONCERN, THOUGH, BECAUSE I'M VERY FAMILIAR WITH THAT AREA. I TRAVEL IT EVERY DAY -- IS THE INGRESS AND EGRESS FOR THAT PARTICULAR TRACT. THERE'S A TRAFFIC LIGHT RIGHT THERE AT FOX RIDGE, AND THEN YOU'RE -- LITERALLY THAT LOT IS PROBABLY 100, 150 FEET JUST NORTH, I GUESS, OF THAT PARTICULAR LOCATION. WHAT IS THE PLAN FOR GETTING CARS FLOUT OF THERE? ARE YOU PLANNING TO USE THAT SAME INGRESS FOR THE HOSPICE? >> THE INTENT IS TO USE THE SAME ACCESS POINTS THAT THE HOSPICE FACILITY CURRENTLY USES. WE'RE NOT PROPOSING ANY NEW ACCESS OR ENTRY POINTS ALONG BLANDING BOULEVARD. WE ARE ALSO CONDUCTING A TRAFFIC STUDY CURRENTLY THAT'S UNDER WAY, WHICH WE'RE WORKING WITH FLORIDA DOT TO UNDERSTAND WHETHER THE TURNING LANES WITHIN BLANDING BOULEVARD IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT TO THIS SITE NEED TO BE CONFIGURED IN ANY WAY. PRELIMINARY INDICATIONS FROM FLORIDA DOT STATE WE WE ARE DOING A TRAFFIC STUDY TO CONFIRM. >> THANK YOU. >> I JUST HAD ONE QUESTION. SO THE SAME FOLKS THAT OWN THE HOSPICE ARE GOING TO DEVELOP THIS? >> WE ARE THE DEVELOPER. WE'LL BE PURCHASING THE LAND FROM THEM. >> OKAY. I WAS WONDERING BECAUSE THERE'D BEEN A FOR SALE SIGN ON IT, SO THAT'S WHAT I WAS TRYING TO UNDERSTAND. THANK YOU. >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OF THE APPLICANT? THANK YOU,
SIR. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >> AT THIS TIME I'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. I DON'T HAVE ANY CARDS ON THIS. IS THERE ANYBODY HERE WHO WISHES TO SPEAK ON THIS AGENDA ITEM? SEEING NONE, I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND BRING IT BACK TO COMMISSION FOR DISCUSSION. >> MR. CHAIR, I HAVE A QUESTION FOR STAFF, PLEASE. ACTUALLY, I HAVE TWO. IN THE COMP PLAN STAFF REPORT, WE GO THROUGH THESE, YOU KNOW, EIGHT ITEMS, RIGHT? AND AS I'VE SAID BEFORE, I CONSIDER THEM TO BE SUBJECTIVE ANSWERS, NOT OBJECTIVE. BUT IN THE CASE OF THIS ONE, I JUST WANTED TO POINT SOMETHINGSOMETHING THAT I THINK IS INCORRECT IN THERE. THE SECOND STAFF FINDING, IT'S RIGHT ABOVE FOR THE RECOMMENDATION. IT TALKS ABOUT BEING AN INFILL DEVELOPMENT. LOCATED BETWEEN ANOTHER COMMERCIAL LAND USE PARCEL AND A FUTURE INSTITUTIONAL USE FIRE STATION. THERE'S NO FIRE STATION THERE. THE BUILDING THAT'S ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THIS PARCEL BELONGS TO AT&T. IT'S A CENTRAL OFFICE. IT DOESN'T CHANGE, YOU KNOW, THE APPLICATION IN ANY WAY, BUT I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT THAT WE STATE THAT CORRECTLY. THAT BUILDING THAT'S JUST TO THE NORTH, THAT'S AN AT&T CENTRAL OFFICE. AND THE PARCEL AFTER THAT IS NOT OWNED BY THE COUNTY, SO I DON'T KNOW WHERE THE INFORMATION ABOUT A FIRE STATION CAME FROM, BUT I DON'T BELIEVE THAT TO BE CORRECT. >> THERE IS A FIRE STATION ON BLANDING, BUT IT'S PROBABLY A MILE AND A HALF OR SO NORTH OF THAT LOCATION. >> NOT HERE. THE OTHER -- THE OTHER ITEM IN THE ZONING ONE THAT I WOULD TAKE A LITTLE ISSUE WITH IS THE LAST STAFF FINDING, WHEN IT SAYS THE INTENSITY AND DENSITY ON THE SUBJECT PARCEL WILL NOT BE CHANGED BY THIS REZONING, TO MY KNOWLEDGE IT WOULD BE. WE -- I'VE LIVED IN THIS COUNTY FOR WELL OVER 40 YEARS, AND THAT'S BEEN A VACANT LOT, SO IF YOU PUT ANYTHING ON IT, IT'S GOING TO CHANGE -- >> COMMISSIONER, IT WOULD BE THAT IT'S A BB LOT, AND THE INTENSITY OF A BB ALLOWANCE. >> IT WON'T GO ANY WORSE THAN THAT? OKAY, I GET IT. OKAY, THANK YOU. JUST WANTED TO ASK THAT. >> ANY DISCUSSION? >> I MOVE APPROVAL OF THE STAFF REPORT FOR COMP 25-0017. >> SECOND. >> OKAY, WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. FURTHER DISCUSSION? I'D LIKE TO ALSO MAKE NOTE THAT THIS PLAT -- THE SITE PLAT IS PART OF THE APPLICATION. SO IF ANYTHING ELSE GOES IN THERE UNDER BA, IT'LL HAVE TO COME BACK TO US. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION SAY AYE. >> AYE. >> THOSE OPPOSED SAME SIGN. NOW WE NEED A MOTION ON THE ZONING PORTION. >> SO MOVED. >> MOTION. SECOND. >> AND YOU SECOND. ANY DISCUSSION? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. >> AYE. >> ALL OPPOSED SAME SIGN. OKAY, IT PASSES. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >> THANK YOU, SIR. >> OKAY, SECOND AGENDA ITEM IS PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER ZON 25-0036. MS. BRYLA AGAIN. >> YES, SIR. THIS IS A STAFF INITIATED CODE CHANGE THAT WE'RE EXCITED TO BRING BEFORE YOU. THIS IS A REQUEST THAT HAS BEEN INITIATED BY STAFF TO ALLOW A ZERO LOT LINE PRODUC. CURRENTLY THE ONLY DISTRICT THAT WOULD ALLOW FOR AN ATTACHED SINGLE- FAMILY PRODUCT WOULD BE RC OR RZ BASED ON THE DENSITY, AND THOSE PROPERTIES ALSO IN -- INCLUDE THE MASTER PLANS IN THE DISCUSSION NECESSARILY. BASED ON THE DENSITY IT'S ALLOWED IN RC AND RD. HOWEVER, THE SETBACK CRITERIA IN THOSE TWO DISTRICTS DO NOT ALLOW FOR SUCH A PRODUCT. YOU COULD DO AN
ATTACHED SINGLE-FAMILY PRODUCT IN A PD IF YOU HAD 5 ACRES. AND IN BRANNENFIELD, AND LAKE ASBURY, AS I SHARED. THE AMENDMENT WILL CHANGE THE ZONING CRITERIA AND IT WILL ALSO SUNSET THE RC ZONING DISTRICT. SO STARTING WITH ARTICLE III, WE ARE PROPOSING THAT WE SUNSET THE RC ZONING DISTRICT. THIS DISTRICT IS INTENDED TO SUPPORT 2 AND 3- FAMILY UNITS. THIS COMPRISES 45 PARCELS WITHIN THE COUNTY OF WHICH 38 ARE WELL-ESTABLISHED. SHOULD SOMEONE PROPOSE TO REDEVELOP THE EXISTING EIGHT RC PARCELS WITH THE ATTACHED SINGLE- FAMILY PRODUCT, THEY WOULD NEED TO TRANSITION TO THE RD ZONING DISTRICT FOR DEVELOP AS A DUPLEX OR TRIPLEX. SO THIS WE'RE REQUESTING IT SUNSET AFTER THE JANUARY 13, 2026, BOCC HEARING. SO YOU COULDN'T REZONE THE SAME AS BB. YOU COULDN'T REZONE A PROPERTY TO RC. AND THEN CONTINUING WITH ARTICLE III, WE REMOVE THE DENSITY REQUIREMENT FOR A MAXIMUM OF 100 ACRES IS REQUIRED WITHIN THE URBAN CORE CATEGORY BECAUSE IT'S NO LONGER NECESSARY. AND THEN HERE IS THE BULK OF THIS CHANGE REQUEST. SO WE AS STAFF DECIDED A TABLE WOULD BE MUCH EASIER TO UNDERSTAND AND MAKE IT CLEARER FOR THE APPLICANT TO SEE WHERE THEY ARE WITH THEIR FRONT SETBACKS AND SIDE SETBACKS. SO YOU CAN SEE THERE THE BUILDING WIDTH LINE IS 25 FEET WITH A 0- FOOT SETBACK FOR A FESABLE PRODUCT AND A 10-FOOT FOR NCAPS. AND I'M HAPPY TO GO THROUGH THESE CHANGES IN DEPTH IF YOU HAVE ANYMORE QUESTIONS. THEN WITH THIS TABLE, WE CAN THEN DELETE ALL OF THESE MANY WORDS THAT WERE FOLLOWING IN THE CODE. SO THEN TO SUPPORT THAT CHANGE IN ARTICLE III, WE'RE CHANGING SOME DEFINITIONS IN ARTICLE 1, AND WE'VE ADDED IN MULTI-FAMILY OR MULTI- DWELLING USES. THIS IS CONSISTENT IN FLORIDA STATUTE. WE HAVE DELETED DEFINITIONS THAT ARE INCONSISTENT WITH THAT AND THEN RENUMBERED ACCORDINGLY. WE'VE ALSO CHANGED THE DEFINITION OF "LOT" TO INDICATE LOTS WITH OPEN WATERFRONTAGE. MANY SWITCH THEIR LOT FRONT AND REAR, WHICH IN OTHER PLACES IN THE CODE. WE'RE JUST MAKING IT, AGAIN, CLEARER FOR THE USER TO UNDERSTAND THEIR OPPORTUNITIES. AND THEN, AGAIN, WE'RE ADDING A DEFINITION OF A CURVED LOT SO THERE'S NO AMBIGUITY OR LENIENCE. IT MAKES IT VERY CLEAR FOR PEOPLE THAT HAVE A CURVED LOT LINE HOW TO MEASURE THE DISTANCES. SO THAT'S IT IN A NUTSHELL, AND I'M HAPPY TO GO THROUGH ANY OTHER CHANGES THAT YOU MIGHT HAVE, BUT I KNOW -- OR QUESTIONS YOU MIGHT HAVE. I HAVE HAD AN APPLICANT WHO DOES NOT HAVE 5 ACRES, SO THAT A PD 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 HAVE ZERO LOT LINE PRODUCT OR SETBACK. >> ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? >> I DO. SO THESE WOULD BE FEE SIMPLE LOTS? >> CORRECT. >> SO BASICALLY WE'RE GOING TO BUILD ROW HOUSES, RIGHT? >> IT'S A TOWNHOME PRODUCT. >> WELL, I'M GOING TO CALL THEM ROW HOUSES, BECAUSE IF ZERO LOT LINES ON BOTH SIDES -- DO WE HAVE ANY RESTRICTION ON HOW LONG THOSE BUILDINGS CAN BE? ZERO RESTRICTION IN THE CODE THAT SAYS THEY CAN -- >> IT'S LIMITED TO THE LOT WIDTH. >> SO IF I HAD A LOT THAT WAS, YOU KNOW, A THOUSAND FEET WIDE I
COULD JUST STRING AN UNCONTIN WS BUILDING? >> THE BUILDING CODE IS GOING TO DICTATE SOME OF THAT. OUTSIDE OF THE BUILDING CODE WILL LIMIT HOW LONG YOU CAN RUN. SORRY, I DIDN'T MEAN TO JUMP IN ON YOU. >> NO, THAT'S FINE. >> THE FLORIDA BUILDING CODE DOES HAVE RESTRICTIONS. >> BECAUSE I'M FAMILIAR WITH ZERO LOT LINE PRODUCTS, BUT ALL THE ONES I'VE EVER SEEN ARE MORE OF A SINGLE -- SINGLE- FAMILY VARIETY, WHERE ONE SIDE IS ZERO LOT AND THEY STILL HAVE A LITTLE BIT OF AN ALLEYWAY OR GANGWAY ON THE OTHER SIDE AND THE OTHER SIDE IS 6 FEET. SO THIS REALLY IS JUST MIMICKING TOWNHOMES, OR I PREFER TO CALL THEM ROW HOUSES, JUST A COMMON WALL BETWEEN ALL THE ITEMS. IS THAT WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT? >> THAT'S CORRECT. AND IT'S THE SAME CODE IN THE BRANNENFIELD AND LAKE LAKE ASBURY MASTER PLAN. >> AND THE REST OF THIS CHART IS STANDARD STUFF. SO WE'RE STILL LOOKING TO MAKE SURE THEY HAVE 100- FOOT DEPTH ON THE LOT. >> YEP. >> AND WE'RE STILL GOING TO HAVE THE 25 AND 15-FOOT SETBACKS FRONT AND REAR. OKAY. MIKE, DO YOU KNOW WHAT THE LENGTH OF THE BUILDING IS THAT'S ALLOWED BEFORE IT BECOMES AN ISSUE? >> SO WE WOULD HAVE TO PROBABLY BRING IN THE CHIEF BUILDING OFFICIAL TO ANSWER THAT FORMALLY, BUT I KNOW YOU'VE GOT TO HAVE FIRE SEPARATION WALLS BETWEEN TENANTS, AND THEN YOU'VE GOT TO HAVE AN EVEN BIGGER WALL AFTER I THINK IT'S FOUR ASSEMBLY PRODUCT, AND YOU'VE GOT TO BUILD SOMETHING THAT'S EVEN A TWO HOUR RATE OF ASSEMBLY. SO WE'D HAVE TO BRING THE FIRE MARSHAL IN. >> I'M SURE IT BECOMES MORE OF AN ISSUE WHEN THE BUILDINGS GO UP, BUT I HAVE A FEELING THE FIRE CHIEF IS GOING TO WANT TO HAVE SOME SAY ABOUT GETTING HIS TRUCKS AROUND THE BACK OF THESE. >> IF IT'S A ONE OR TWO- STORY PRODUCT I DON'T EXPECT THE FIRE MARSHAL IS GOING TO HAVE ANY PRODUCT WITH THIS. THIS IS PRETTY STANDARD. IF IT'S SOMETHING BIGGER, I WOULD ASSUME THE CONCERN WOULD BE LADDER TRUCKS AND HOW TALL IT IS AS OPPOSED TO HOW HIGH THE LADDER TRUCK WILL GO. THAT'S THE ONLY CONCERN I'VE EVER SEEN OR HEARD FROM A FIRE MARSHAL. >> 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 OF THE FIRE TRUCKS GETTING BEHIND THE BUILDING. BUT THAT'S NOT REALLY OUR ISSUE. THAT'S IT. I THINK IT CLARIFIES IT. THANK YOU. >> I JUST HAVE ONE QUESTION, IF I COULD, MR. CHAIR. I THINK THIS IS A GOOD ADDITION TO OUR CODE. I SEE THE VALUE IN IT. I JUST WANT TO ASK A GENERAL QUESTION IN DOES IT CONSTRICT OR REDUCE IN ANY WAY WHAT WE'RE CURRENTLY DOING? >> THE ONLY RESTRICTION IT WOULD BE FOR THE RC DISTRICT. YOU COULDN'T REZONE TO RC ANY LONGER, BUT WE ONLY HAVE, LIKE I SAID, 45 PARCELS IN THE WHOLE COUNTY THAT ARE ZONED RC. >> OKAY. OKAY, THANK YOU. APPRECIATE IT. >> SO AS OF THE 13TH, THE RC GOES AWAY? >> IT STILL REMAINS. YOU JUST COULDN'T REZONE TO IT. >> EVERYTHING PRIOR TO THE 13TH IS THERE, BUT AS FAR AS MOVING FORWARD -- >> I THINK YOUR QUESTION IS CAN THEY STILL BUILD UNDER THE RC CODE IF IT'S ZONED THAT TODAY? >> YES. >> IF IT'S ZONED THAT WAY, YES. >> SAME WITH BB, YES, SIR. >> OKAY, I DON'T HAVE ANY CARDS ON THIS, BUT I'M OPENING THE PUBLIC HEARING. 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 A DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION. >> I'LL MOVE APPROVAL OF ZON 25-0036. >> I'LL SECOND. >> OKAY, WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. ANY DISCUSSION? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. >> AYE. >> THOSE OPPOSED SAME SIGN. OKAY. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >> THANK YOU, MS. BRYLA. NEXT AGENDA ITEM IS PUBLIC HEARING CONCERNING ZON 25-0030. UNDER MS. SELIG'S TUTELAGE. >> GOOD EVENING. THISITEM IS -- IT'S A TEXT -- ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT. IT IS A CARBON COPY OF A CHANGE THAT WAS MADE IN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN JUST ABOUT A YEAR AGO. I THINK IT WAS FEBRUARY, MARCH OF LAST YEAR.
AND SO THAT'S WHY I PASSED OUT THAT HANDOUT BECAUSE I REALIZED I DIDN'T INCLUDE THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LANGUAGE. ALL THIS IS CHANGING IS IT AFFECTS THE LAKE LAKE ASBURY INTERCHANGE VILLAGE CENTER ZONING DISTRICT, AND IT IS A REQUEST TO CHANGE COMMERCIAL SPECIFICALLY IN A TABLE OF USES THAT'S . THE PERCENTAGE OF -- IF YOU FLIP OVER ON THE ATTACHMENT INTERCHANGE IS -- ACTUALLY, IT'S THE THIRD PAGE OF WHAT'S IN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN NOW. IT SHOWS COMMERCIAL SLASH RETAIL A MINIMUM OF 5% AND A MAXIMUM PERMITTED OF 65%. AND SO THIS ZONING IS DOING SOME EXACT SAME THING AS GOING FROM THE EXISTING 40% MAXIMUM TO THE SAME 65. FOR THAT REASON STAFF IS RECOMMENDING APPROVAL, SINCE IT IS -- ANYTHING IN THE ZONING CODE IS REQUIRED TO SUPPORT WHAT THE POLICIES THAT ARE IN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, SO THEY CAN'T CONFLICT WITH EACH OTHER. SO THIS IS MATCHING WHAT'S EXISTING IN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. AND IT ONLY APPLIES I SHOULD SAY TO THAT -- >> THERE'S ONLY TWO, RIGHT? >> THERE'S ONLY TWO PROPERTIES IN THE COUNTY THAT ACTUALLY APPLIES TO, AND ACTUALLY THIS IS THE ONLY ONE OF THEM. >> THERE'S ONE AT STATE ROAD 16 THE EXPRESS BY THE WAY, AND ONE AT THE EXPRESS ROAD IN -- >> HENTLY. >> THE OTHER. >> WHAT CORNER OF 16 AND THE EXPRESSWAY? >> IT'S THE AREA AROUND -- >> THE WHOLE -- >> THE INTERCHANGE VILLAGE CENTER THERE'S A LITTLE NODE ABOUT 150 ACRES. >> I THINK IT'S 150. >> A LITTLE NODE RIGHT THERE AROUND THAT INTERCHANGE. >> NORTHWEST. >> I DON'T HAVE THE MAP SO I CAN'T -- >> THE NODE I KNEW. THERE WAS A NODE THERE, I DIDN'T REALIZE THIS ONE OF THE TWO YOU JUST TALKED ABOUT. >> BUT THIS DOESN'T CHANGE ANYTHING OF THE VILLAGE CENTER ITSELF? >> IT DOESN'T TOUCH VILLAGE CENTERS AT ALL, AND IT'S ONLY THE INTERCHANGE VILLAGE CENTER. AND IT'S ONLY, YEAH, ONLY THOSE TWO PARCELS. >> ANY QUESTIONS OF STAFF? OTHER QUESTIONS OF STAFF? MS. FRASIER, YOU'RE LISTED HERE AS THE AGENT. >> ALWAYS. GOOD EVENING. SUSAN FRASIER IN JACKSONVILLE. AND THE COUNTY APPROVED A PLANNING AMENDMENT A YEAR AGO, LITERALLY FEBRUARY LAST YEAR THAT MADE THIS CHANGE. IT RECOGNIZED THERE WAS QUITE A LOT OF RESIDENTIAL IN LAKE LAKE ASBURY AND THAT HAVING HIGHER COMMERCIAL PERCENTAGE PARTICULARLY IN THESE TWO AREAS, WHICH IS AT THE INTERCHANGES WHERE WE'RE SEEING FINALLY SOME ACCESS AND DEMAND FOR NONRESIDENTIAL USE, THAT THIS WAS AN APPROPRIATE AMENDMENT. AND SO CORRESPONDINGLY, THE ARTICLE 3, WHICH DEFINES ALL THE NUTS AND BOLTS HOW YOU DEVELOP NEEDS TO BE AMENDED TO MATCH THAT LAND USE PERCENTAGE THAT'S CURRENTLY IN THE COMP PLAN. SO I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MIGHT HAVE. >> ANY QUESTION OF THE APPLICANT? NONE? OKAY, THEN I WILL OPEN UP PUBLIC HEARING. AND I DO HAVE ONE CARD. MR. SCHIFF. >> THANK YOU, COMMISSIONERS, FOR HAVING ME TODAY. I'M HERE IN FAVOR OF INCREASING THE COMMERCIAL RETAIL. I LIVE IN VILLAGE PARK, WHICH IS RIGHT -- >> HATE TO INTERRUPT. WE NEED YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD. >> OH, I'M SORRY. >> THAT'S ALL RIGHT. >> GARY SCHIFF, 3272 CROCUS LANE GREEN COVE SPRINGS, 32003. >> THANK YOU, SIR. >> SO I'M SPEAKING TODAY, I'M THE HOA VICE PRESIDENT FOR VILLAGE PARK, WHICH IS THE SUBDIVISION RIGHT NEXT TO THIS INTERCHANGE VILLAGE CENTER, AND MY HOUSE WILL BE ACTUALLY THE CLOSEST HOUSE TO THE VILLAGE CENTER, SO I'M KIND OF WEARINGTWO HATS. BUT I'M IN AGREEMENT WITH OUR DEVELOPER THAT WE NEED MORE RETAIL. THIS IS AN IVC. AS MENTIONED THERE'S ONLY TWO, THIS ONE AND 16. SO WE REALLY NEED TO MAXIMIZE ANY COMMERCIAL RETAIL, BUT I'M IN AGREEMENT. BUT AT THE SAME TIME I'D
LIKE YOU TO CONSIDER REDUCING THE RESIDENTIAL REQUIREMENTS. THIS IVC IS IN AN AREA WHERE WE HAVE COMPLETELY 100% SINGLE- FAMILY HOMES. THERE ARE NO CONDOS, NO APARTMENTS. THIS IS WHAT I CONSIDER THE GOLDEN TRIANGLE BORDERED BY HENLEY, RUSSELL AND SAND RIDGE ROAD, SO THIS IS OUR ONLY OPPORTUNITY FOR RETAIL. IF WE CAN ELIMINATE IS GO TO 0% FOR RESIDENTIAL AND NOT REQUIRE, EVEN THOUGH THE DEVELOPER MAY WANT TO INCLUDE IT, BUT THIS WAY HE WOULDN'T BE MANDATED TO HAVE THE 10%. SO PLEASE CONSIDER THAT IN -- IN FUTURE DISCUSSIONS. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >> THANK YOU, MR. SCHIFF. IS THERE ANYBODY ELSE WHO WISHES TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM? >> MY NAME IS HELENA, AND MY ADDRESS IS ON FILE. >> DO YOU MIND TAKING THE OATH, PLEASE? >> I'M SORRY. I DID COME IN LATE. >> RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND. DO YOU SOLEMNLY SWEAR THE TESTIMONY YOU'RE ABOUT TO GIVE WILL BE THE TRUTH, AND WHOLE TRUTH SO HELP YOU GOD? >> I DO. SORRY ABOUT THAT. 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 I AM GRATEFUL ON THAT ONE. AS WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE -- THIS TYPE OF ZONING WITH THE INDUSTRIAL COMPONENT AS WELL THAT'S IN THERE, I DON'T KNOW IF EVERYBODY WAS FULLY THINKING ABOUT SOME OF THE INDUSTRIAL COMPONENTS THAT ARE -- THERE'S NO MAX ON THAT ONE, AND, YOU KNOW, THERE'S AN AREA I DO BELIEVE OFF OF 17 WHERE YOU'VE GOT A BUNCH OF THE HOMES IN RESIDENTIAL, BUT NOW THERE'LL BE AN ASPHALT COMPANY. YOU KNOW, AND OF COURSE THE INDUSTRIAL COMPONENT ALLOWS STUFF LIKE THAT. I CAN'T EVEN IMAGINE. I LIVE OUT THERE IN LAKE LAKE ASBURY, SOME OF THOSE INDUSTRIAL USES ALLOWED IN THERE. I KNOW WE WANT THE NIAGRAWS AND THE GOOD ONES AND WE MAY SUPPORT, BUT THEN WE GET STUCK WITH SOME OF THE STUFF THAT MAY BE A DETERRENT FOR SOME OF THE HOME OWNERS. BE MINDFUL OF THE DECISIONS OF THINGS WE DON'T QUITE REALIZE WHEN WE'RE DOING STUFF. BUT I AM GRATEFUL THEY'RE GOING TO MATCH UP. IT'S VERY IMPORTANT FOR CONSISTENCY. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU. >> IF I COULD, THE INDUSTRIAL USES IN INTERCHANGE VILLAGE CENTER, THEY ARE PERMITTED IN THE INTERCHANGE VILLAGE CENTER AT STATE ROAD 16. AGAIN, THAT'S 150 ACRES, SO THERE WAS FELT TO BE SUFFICIENT LAND TO PUT COMMERCIAL USES ON 16 AND AT THE INTERCHANGE AND THEN IN THE BACK. 150 ACRES IS A LOT OF COMMERCIAL. INDUSTRIAL USES ARE NOT PERMITTED IN THE INTERCHANGE VILLAGE CENTER AT HENLEY. SO THE CURRENT -- THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DOES NOT ALLOW THAT USE IN THE INTERCHANGE AT VILLAGE CENTER AT HENLEY. AND SO I THINK THE SUGGESTION THAT THE RESIDENTIAL COULD BE REDUCED, CURRENTLY THE COMP PLAN SETS THAT MINIMUM, AND THIS IS A REGULATION CONSISTENT WITH THAT. IF THE COUNTY WISHES TO CONSIDER CHANGING THAT, IT WOULD REQUIRE AN AMENDMENT TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO IMPLEMENT SOMETHING THAT'S ALREADY ADOPTED. BUT, YES, INDUSTRIAL WAS THOUGHT TO BE THE LAND WAS TOO SMALL TO TRY AND FIT ALL OF THAT INTO ONE PACKAGE. >> ANYBODY ELSE WISHES TO SPEAK ON THIS AGENDA ITEM? SEEING NONE, I'M GOING TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AND, SUSAN, YOU'VE ALREADY EXPLAINED YOUR PORTION OF THAT, SO YOU HAVE ANYTHING ELSE TO TELL US? ALL RIGHT, LET'S BRING IT BACK TO THE COMMISSION FOR DISCUSSION. >> I'LL MOVE THE -- EXCUSE ME. I'LL MOVE THE STAFF REPORT. >> I'LL SECOND. >> I THINK, IF I COULD, THE MOST IMPORTANT FACTOR IS CONSISTENCY. WE GOT IT IN ONE PLACE, WE REALLY NEED IT TO BE THE SAME IN THE OTHER PLACE. >> WELL, BEFORE WE VOTE ON THAT, WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND AND DISCUSSION. MR. SCHIFF RECOMMENDATION TO REDUCE RESIDENTIAL WE CAN'T NECESSARILY DO THAT BECAUSE IT WILL THEN ALL OF A SUDDEN BECOME INCONSISTENT WITH THE COMP PLAN. >> YEAH. IF YOU FELT STRONGLY THAT IT WAS SOMETHING YOU WANTED STAFF TO LOOK INTO, WE COULD LOOK AT THAT. BUT WE WOULD NEED TO BRING YOU BACK A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CHANGE FIRST AND THEN AGAIN A MATCHING ZONING. >> SO THE GOAL HERE IS TO MOVE THIS FORWARD, AND THEN IF WE REALLY WANT TO CHANGE THE RESIDENTIAL AREA, WE NEED TO COME BACK THROUGH THE OTHER DOOR? >> EXACTLY, YES. >> OKAY, ANY DISCUSSION? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY
AYE. >> AYE. >> THOSE OPPOSED SAME SIGN. OKAY. THANK YOU ALL VERY MUCH. THAT CONCLUDES OUR AGENDA EXCEPT FOR ONE BUSINESS ITEM THAT WE HAVE. AND WE HAVE AN ADMINISTRATIVE THING, AND THAT IS THE VOTING OF CHAIRMAN AND VICE-CHAIRMAN. WHEN I ASSUMED THIS ROLE IT WAS MY UNDERSTANDING IT WAS FOR A TWO- YEAR TERM. HOWEVER, IF YOU ALL WISH TO CHANGE, I'LL BE MORE THAN HAPPY TO STEP ASIDE AND TURN IT OVER TO WHOEVER ELSE WANTS IT. >> I WOULD SAY THAT I WOULD ASK FOR JUST A VOTE BY ACCLIMATION WE KEEP IT AS IS. >> I THINK YOU'VE DONE A MARVELOUS JOB. >> THERE YOU GO. >> REMEMBER, YOU'RE NEXT. >> ALL RIGHT THEN, UNLESS THERE'S ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION, WE'LL LEAVE THE LEADERSHIP AS FAR AS CHAIRMAN AND VICE-CHAIRMAN AS IS FOR ANOTHER YEAR. >> TAKE A VOTE? >> I THINK WE DO. I'LL MAKE A MOTION THAT PETE STAYS. >> I'LL SECOND. >> AND BO STAYS. >> THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. >> AYE. >> THOSE OPPOSED SAME SIGN. OKAY, THAT'S ALL WE HAVE FOR TONIGHT. SO I GUESS UNLESS ANYBODY ELSE -- OH, WAIT. I'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. DOES ANYBODY ELSE HAVE ANYTHING THEY WANT TO SHARE WITH THE COMMISSION BEFORE WE ADJOURN? SEEING NONE, I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING, AND WE'RE