[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