welcome to the uh planning commission meeting um we're going to ask for approval of the uh we'll call it the order and ask for approval of the agenda mr chair i have a modification to the agenda yes sir um mr chair items 5.1 that's c25 000 030 forest meadow west small-scale comprehensive plan amendment and item 7.1 z25 00031 forest meadows west rezoning those applications have been withdrawn by the applicant sure um i'd like to amend the motion to remove uh those two items from the agenda second i second that any comments all in favor aye opposed we're good our first item we do a few other things right approval of the agenda public comments um and then we're going to go to legislative do we need to okay you'll do what you need to do when we start so on 5.2 on the agenda mr chair yes um we do need to ask if there's anyone in the audience who'd like to make uh public comment on items not on the agenda i thought you were good i was gonna i assumed you were gonna i was gonna say that and then you were gonna clean it up thank you we'll do it we'll do it your way okay we're good i don't see anybody walking up to the podium mr chair do people understand the difference okay so on this one yeah so are you ready to move now to item 5.2 i am ready to move to i know that's removed but i was looking at this i'm going my point and it says yeah okay z25-000033 rock ventures small scale comprehensive plan amendment a and we're going to have the planner move forward and read this but i think you will handle that in your presentation hi good evening mr chair this is matey bangatar good evening blackwood county growth management department um just wanted to say before i begin that uh you have been handed a document that we received uh today it's uh from the presbytery of st augustine can you speak up a little or the mic i'm not sure if the mic is working yeah yeah now it is um so i was just saying that we received a document today from presbytery of st augustine incorporated it's in relation to this item and also uh z25 00032 so you can read it there uh in regards to the uh meeting that was held last year and there was a motion from that body to approve the uh this application uh moving forward with eventually selling the parcel the applicant can fill you in on more details about that i just wanted to bring it to your attention thank you so uh with that uh this is d25 00033 rock ventures a small scale comprehensive plan amendment the application is uh for a small scale comprehensive plan amendment which would amend the future land use on a parcel about 1.26 acres from institutional to commercial i'm not so sure we're getting the mic that's it's working yeah i think you need to be a little closer we can hear you but not all right i just don't want to put my mouth all over it can you guys hear um so if this is approved it will allow for a wide range of commercial uses within the commercial land use designation and the uh z25 00032 is a request uh following this for rezoning which would uh rezone to the ba commercial zoning district this slide shows the uh location map you can see this is on southwest archer road west of i-75 and it is uh to the southeast of the southwest 75th street also known as tower road and southwest archer road intersection this application is located within the archer tower activity center and that yellow star shows the location of this application and the the red outline is the activity center the aerial image shows that this site is vacant uh the request has been made uh by the church as they have the church on the parcel immediately to the south and this parcel is vacant and they are looking to divest uh this parcel this is why this application has come forward uh as you can see southwest archer road located to the north and southwest 75th terrace to the west uh within this activity center there's a mix of uses including to the north uh a planned development there's a cbs and the mayfair apartments to the north of uh archer road to the east is a uf health facility and to the south as i mentioned the church and to the west is the grand preserve planned development the slide will show you the existing land use map and this site has institutional land use designation as well as the parcel to the east and the south and also uh within this activity center a mix of land use designations including medium medium high and office and commercial could you repeat that last sentence yes so this is all these are all within the all the parcels you see on this screen within the archer tower activity center and i was just saying there's a mix of land use designations in this activity center and you can see the medium density medium high density office and commercial land uses in the vicinity thank you if this application is approved that land use designation on this site would change to commercial the site has an existing zoning of agricultural if the subsequent rezoning is approved that would be changed to ba to implement the commercial land use designation as i mentioned several pds are in the vicinity of this site and then the uf health facility has a hm hospital medical zoning following slides show what the site looks like from the road this is taken from the southwest this is from southwest archer road viewing from the northwest you can see the church there in the rear this is from the northeast and this is from the southeast sidewalk which leads to the uf health facility so staff has analyzed this request which is currently a vacant institutional parcel with agricultural zoning and the parcel is within the archer tower activity center and commercial land use policies which speak to where commercial land uses should be situated our bases for approval of this application are shown in this slide including policy 3.1.2 of the future land use element which speaks to location commercial uses policy 3.3.1 future land use element which requires adequate facilities for commercial policy 2.2.5 of the future land use element that is the archer tower activity center intent explains what that activity center purpose is and policy 3.4.1 of the uh should say sorry that should say conservation and open space which is a environmental resource assessment that's included with the application in our environmental protection department reviews that to ensure that it's consistent with protection of natural resources the the staff recommendation for this is that the local planning agency recommend that the board of county commissioners approve z25 000 033 with the basis that we have in our stack report and that concludes our presentation on this item i can take any questions are there any questions okay um does this land use allow uh residential or the mixed use uh mr chair this would be only commercial this wouldn't be a mixed use designation i personally have uh i think it's this is inside the urban um boundary area and we really should be zoning mixed use we shouldn't it's kind of an older style just zoning commercial or residential or industrial we should be uh rezoning on a more mixed use uh place to allow for um kind of future redevelopment or whatever might happen not just having one single use and that's it so um that would be my thought is trying to get this uh mixed use land use instead of commercial definitely since the surrounding area is a mix of that as well thank you chair comments a question if i may uh mr bankater uh the uh is this within uh an area of uh what what do we call it development it is mr chair within an activity center archer tower activity center do you have a do you have something that shows uh the limits of that activity center uh yes mr chair on this slide this red outline that's uh one of the county's designated activity centers where uh commercial land uses are encouraged and could you point out where the uh subject property is on on this please so this yellow stars the location of the site right there yellow star i'm hovering the mouse above it oh okay thank you so this is really right in the center uh yes mr chair okay thank you questions i think i would um echo your sentiments about encouraging this to be more mixed use considering the area um that's that's the only comment i would have mr chair uh the question i would ask staff is we have in our attorneys is that a place for us to go if people want to discuss it further is it um we're taking a direction and now we're zigzagging and um there are there could be some good and there could be some pitfalls into this mr chair we don't um in alachua county we don't really in the unincorporated have a um a mixed use land use designation um we have we do have mixed use shown on our future land use map in a few places um but that's been implemented with some specific policy language in each of those particular instances so for example in the spring hills activity center we have a mixed use land use designation um but that is not a sort of general category that we can implement anywhere without specific policy direction about what what's in it so in the county we've we've not really um approached those mixed use land use categories that way within many of our land use categories we allow a mixture of uses um already um the commercial land use category and its implementing districts are are usually much more intense um and certainly on a site this small don't necessarily lend themselves well to um to a real mixed use um development this is just a few acres that we're talking about my comments thank you for your input um mr chair mr chair yes i have a kind of a just a statement more than anything so i think that you know just west of that is grand oaks it's been undeveloped you know for the most part for us you know 10 plus years now it seems like and then brighton right behind it is not fully developed also so i think what adrian is kind of alluding to i believe is that you'd want to have a mixed use of residential and some commercial which i think it already has the residential part of it around it um whereas you know it maybe needs some of the commercial and i guess what just chris just explained and everything that we don't really have a mixed use in the county so i believe that's kind of what's already there so i want i walk the property and i as i met of course try to walk or at least stand in looking at somebody's yard or whatever we can do that's that's um appropriate um one point one and a quarter acres is a little tough to do for on a mix and you almost you know there's no rule for this but it doesn't have that and it has um that has a depression you know it has some slope to it and water retention already it's it's going to be um it has its challenges to be a mixed use on that size but we can um i'm just that's my builder hat and developer hat but that's um it's a possibility and so i'm not trying to stop it i'm just trying to give you an opinion as to the feasibility of it you've got two sides with roads and you're gonna have setbacks and commercial may be a good use for it but i i personally have always liked the mix use it's it's just balance yes sir thank you chair and yeah i don't i don't think we should force mixed use on the property that's not what i'm saying when i say mixed use only i'm saying that um developer may want to change to a portion of a commercial to or maybe 20 30 years from now they want to change and the demands are there and i think that's where we should be looking in our future land use is uh preparing for kind of the future so they don't have to come back before the board it's expensive to come back before a board and have to pay consultants and to do all this this um this work to to change it to whatever it might be in the future nothing really stays the same in the cities um so i think that's one thing that i would like to suggest that we have as a discussion point we're talking about the uh the county comp plan uh next week i believe is that correct yeah and uh having a discussion on on mixed use zoning this this western urbanized portion of our county here is it's urbanized um and it is a city in essence and i think we should uh make sure we have land use categories that fit that thank you chair mr chair yes um i'd like to speak um i think it's great that it can have a combination however the applicant will only request them for commercial at this time which in my opinion of course this was with the um this chance you are and matter of fact i'm familiar with the property so with that in mind that i'm gonna move that um we um we um approve the staff recommendation for application z25-000033 is there a second i'll second okay we have a first and a second discussion anymore it's a good thing not a bad thing no yeah the discussions are we are you all ready to vote yes chair will need um the applicant may wish to make a presentation oh that is a good idea and we would also need to take public comment mr chair okay i'm too ready okay breaking the the rule to speak when i'm ready to vote i appreciate the chance to speak to you i'm place wager um i'm very happy to be working with knapaw presbyterian church mr and mr walkie are here from the church as you saw in the materials that were submitted um the the church has um part of their planning is to sell this property to help um have additional funding for to keep their church uh facilities up to date and up up to speed so um it'll benefit the church and they respectfully ask this change in land use and then the rezoning coming forward uh mr hayes santos made a really good point um about mixed use and you you all are going to have a chance to look at the comprehensive plan um coming up in i think next week or in two weeks and one thing that the the county commercial land use does not allow in a lot of land use districts now or a lot of places in commercial you can you can do residential and so that that i think that would be a really good conversation to have uh for you all um this really is a very small parcel it's just over one acre so realistically this would probably be the future home of one small business or store um when you get done with storm water and tree protections and things like that so uh and this is in an activity center as um mr much um questioned and and was shown that the comp plan is very tightly written and that it really wants commercial land uses and activities to be in those activity centers they don't want to see it spread out in a radial style on the roads and outside of these activity centers so this is really right in the center of all of that activity and a pretty uh broad mix of uses between single family multi-family a church um state arterial roadway and a and the archer braid trail so hopefully it'll be a nice addition if you see fit to letting this move forward thank you i have i have a question yes the applicant this is a little bit premature because uh we're not supposed to be talking about the zoning when we're talking about the land use classification but the applicant the church is asking for a business automotive style or designation on the zoning could you read the uh permitted uses in the ba the entire list yeah it's not that long um i don't have that entire list right in front of me i don't know if staff might have that chair i do have that in the rezoning presentation well i can't find it i i had found it earlier when i was going through this but i think it's important before we change the comprehensive plan designation to know what the applicant is asking for on the zoning so could you point point us to the or could you read the permitted uses i can pull up mr chair i can pull up the other presentation um for the rezoning it would be useful i miss yeah yeah i think that'd be great i don't think the i don't think the applicant knows what the permitted uses are we want to do a good job i know okay so mr chair this is taken from actually in our code that you won't see it listed like this it'll just be a use table and so you'll have to go through the use table and write each of these uses out like i have um because it's it's not showing this format can we should we ask because you're you're thinking about something so if you said what it was well let me tell you thank you yeah thank you mr chairman i'm concerned that uh the applicant doesn't understand the intensity of uses that are here now uh clearly from the standpoint of well this is a small parcel of property it's probably enough for a service station on the p uh could you tell us what the pl yeah so mr chair this is p those uses are permitted by right l limited a would be accessory and se would be a special exception okay now why do what's the l how do you get the l l for limited which means it is allowed but there are conditions or the criteria that need to be applied for it to be allowed okay and i'd like the applicant to come forward and and tell us whether or not they understand that um in the limited area it's restaurants convenience store pharmacy dry cleaner media sales and rental large-scale retail i don't know where that's going to go in sexually oriented media sex shop and then vehicular repair i don't know if the church understands that this would allow a sexually oriented media facility in other words i guess videos and and things of pornographic nature or a sex shop i don't know how far that goes in our uh application and i don't i don't know if the church really would like to have oh you can go down to cannabaha turn left at the sex shop and go into into uh services i don't think that's what you want uh but you're not going to have uh any uh well you're not really going to have any type of control over what can go there on these issues in the future if if this goes on and i don't know if these two people represent the session or if they're just congregants uh is there anyone else is uh from the church mr mr chair um we do have um regulations in our land development code regarding secular sexually oriented businesses and their um proximity to places of worship um the closest that it could be would be 500 feet and that's measured property line to property line and since these are adjacent properties you wouldn't be able to establish a sexually oriented business on this property okay okay ready to move forward that's fine i'm just fine no no i'm i'm looking at the looks mr chair yeah i think the applicant is aware of what you know what they want okay next next step mr chair if the board doesn't have any other questions for the applicant or for staff it would be a time to call for public comment are we ready yes okay all in favor aye opposed thank you very much it passes you you can count me as a yes i'm ready for um 5.3 z25 zero zero zero zero three four seven eight one six southwest archer road small scale uh comprehensive plan amendment good evening mr chair jerry brewington senior planner alachua county department of growth management um also for the record all of these items were properly advertised as part of this evening's public hearing um this is the first uh two items related to another property within the archer tower activity center and this is yet another small scale amendment z25 zero zero zero zero thirty four similar to mr bengatar's presentation this is going to be a brief overview of the comprehensive plan amendment map amendment for this property also located within the archer tower activity center in this case the applicant is to application excuse me is to amend the future land use on an approximately eight acre parcel going from medium density residential which is four to eight dwelling units an acre to medium high density residential which is eight to fourteen dwelling units an acre in our land use step up ladder as it were between it goes from low to medium to medium high to high this is a request to go to medium high which is eight to fourteen dwelling units an acre if approved there's a related rezoning request that you will hear under the quasi-judicial portion of the application of the evening for the application to go to r2a zoning which would implement this land use if approved uh the site again is in the archer tower activity center you can see the land view the location map here it is located directly on archer road and just down the road uh south and west from the church property that you just approved the land use change on um you can actually see the parcel that you just talked about 7060-1 off to the side this is 7065-1 which is located adjacent to the park lane uh pd which is a mixed-use development which has both residential and non-residential uh development within it it is approximately eight acres in size you can see that it is bordered to the east by the park lane apartments to the north by what will be a future phase of park lane and to the south by archer road and to the east by the chestnut village single-family subdivision this open area across from 79th is actually a stormwater retention facility that is part of that development right now the land use designation on this property is medium density residential that allows four to eight dwelling units per acre the applicant is requesting to go to medium high 8 to 14 again the next step up on the residential density land use scale if 14 units would be allowed per acre the maximum number of units on this parcel would go to 112 and that again is spread over approximately eight acres this parcel does lie within the archer tower activity center it fronts archer road with access via southwest 79th way there will be interconnectivity with park lane to the east park lane at present has 645 residential units over 60 acres a density of 10.45 dwelling units per acre and the maximum number of units permitted would be 112 if this land use change is approved that it would be an increase from the 64 units allowed under maximum for the medium density residential land use designation uh proposed request is consistent with the comprehensive plan overall and with the following policies our adopted level of service standards will not be adversely impacted by this request in other words if there is more density we still have enough infrastructure capacity to handle the increased density and that is future land use element policy 1.5.1 is consistent with the tower archer activity center policies which do call for a mix of residential and non-residential uses within the activity center and that against future land use element policy 2.2.5 the proposed small scale land use element is consistent with principle three of the transportation and mobility element which provides for the efficient use of the urban cluster by directing new development and infrastructure to areas where mobility can be provided via multiple modes of transportation in this particular case rts has a route that runs up down archer road and then up tower road that is route 75 this route has 30 minute headways on weekdays with 90 minute headways on weekends and lastly by providing greater density within the activity center the proposed request is consistent with policy 3.1.4 of the energy element which provides residential development with an easy access of public transport transport and urban amenities this is in an activity center mr chair so just down the street is a public shopping center which again has a public's has restaurants it has banks it has all those urban amenities that would be found and associated with greater densities in the urban cluster with all that having been said mr chair staff recommends that the planning commission acting as the local planning agency which is your role tonight for these legislative items find the proposed land use amendment consistent with the plan and recommend that the board adopt the ordinance approving this land use change request that concludes staff presentation unless there's any questions questions yes is there any concerns with coming out of what was that 79th you know and taking a left east back into gainesville um that just seems to be a very kind of congested or you're saying because of connectivity to park lane that they would all filter through park lane well i would say that some of the traffic would go to park lane because of the interconnectivity but mr lawani is here from department of public works and he can provide a little more commentary on the interconnectivity with state road 24 and that would occur at southwest 79th good evening mr chair commissioners um yeah we had um you know there's connectivity to park lane actually it's park avenue i think so there is connectivity to the north and connectivity to the east east um those then connect to tower road which is a signalized connection and because there is no signal here at present uh the south the 79th way then the residents have an option to get to tower road and use the signalized intersection to head east uh the people that want to head west on archer road can definitely go south on 79th and then head west on archer road so um and dot um owns that southwest archer road so they are familiar with the concerns that the chestnut village people have uh you know stated to them um so they are very well aware of that so um as far as we are concerned uh for this project we do we have the connectivity to adjacent bars so i if i may add a comment to that so i'm very familiar with that area there's two major subdivisions chestnut village being the newest hickory forest is there there is an incredible challenge if you want to go east and i've experienced that personally and yes mr chair yes we are very familiar with that we have brought those concerns to dot they're the ones that would dictate you know what sort of improvements would be needed yeah i will add that um adding park lane park ave those two entries and exits off of tower road is not acceptable it wouldn't be an acceptable option considering the traffic that's also on tower road you chair um similar concerns the last one uh the proposed land use is not really a um a truly mixed use uh land use i know there's some limited um commercial on it but a lot of it's uh doesn't really go too far um this is on archer road which is a main corridor it's an activity center i i think just wanted to have this bring it up for our discussion next week on our our comp plan um that we should be looking at mixed use also even just for the density um i think this has a maximum uh density up to 14 units per acre um kind of a common rule of thumb for uh we we've talked a lot about having our community about having good public transit public transit was mentioned here uh 30 minute headways um i think on the very minimum during the week and that's a 90 other times um public transit and a rule of thumb doesn't really work very well under 20 units an acre um so i think that's something to keep in mind when we're looking at uh putting in our land uses is uh that's kind of what's necessary just for kind of minimum number of people to use public transit for it to actually work in the land so thank you chair i'm going to save my comments until later mr chair for uh me uh for uh well i will move uh this application be approved and that it conforms with the other elements of the comprehensive plan of alachua county and uh this is z25 00034 is that correct mr burlington that is correct mr chair okay and uh so that's my motion is there a second we have further further information from the uh plaintiff i just came in from a four-day four-day meeting that's showing more like defendant thank you mr chair ryan thompson with mv5 agent for the applicant um i appreciate everybody's comments here um this is an eight acre site um you know we look at the activity center in alachua county as a whole and there is commercial uh we feel that it is compatible with the adjacent development and uh appreciate the the experience uh with the area but feel that the interconnectivity um will benefit uh the project and its development and um yeah it's essentially an extension of the uh development pattern that's already occurring with the mayfair and the park lane apartments um you know we we have multiple uh points of ingress and egress from the from the site that give options to uh the future residents of this site there are adequate public facilities to serve the higher density that's being requested and we think it's compatible with the development pattern so with that i'm happy to answer any direct questions for me yes i mean back to the whole intersection and coming left and coming east and everything i mean i believe is this something that where if the county approves this then fdot can can say that they'd have to put in a light or something in the future i mean are we just looking at just approving this as as a board and then potentially down the line it could get additional requirements added on mr chair at the time of development review this traffic study will be submitted and at that point any improvements uh needed would be evaluated by got so so to answer the question we would approve this and then potentially it could get shot down later if fdot comes in and says they need to put in a light and the developer says we're not going to put in a light mr chair i think the best way to respond to that is that any development on any property has to meet all of the conditions of alachua county's land development regulations as well as any access management criteria that might be in place for a state agency so i think saying that that particular thing could could be you know something that kills the property or kills a project is difficult because there's lots of regulations that would apply we don't know exactly what an applicant or a person might propose for development on this property if this land use change were approved they could achieve they could propose you know one more unit than is allowed by the current density and need this this land use amendment so um it's it's it's really difficult to say you know that a particular thing would be the thing that stops it there can be conditions though from so from any of those agencies about exactly how the property is developed and what improvements might be required mr chair yes um just hearing everything i'm concerned also with the traffic and with that i won't support the um application i'd like to make a couple comments um one is that i've gone through the process of traffic lights and where they've had to study and we've had to write a check but there were multiple checks and so it's it's uh at that time when we did it and i'm not familiar with the current rules so i'm being careful but there are processes for it and the developers have to work through it the second part i wanted to ask there's a behind to the behind the street um and the property that isn't that is being uh examined is there is that the the land clearing that's going on now is that for a different phase of this will they will be all the same the same uh property at one at some future point mr chair the the property that you see that looks cleared right now is now all houses this is a fairly old aerial i'm just looking so that the lots that you see sort of platted out there but looks like they don't have houses every one of those has a house now and in addition the property to the north is currently being constructed and that's the sort of next phase of the park lane pd so there's a substantial amount of construction happening out there i think i was trying to ask another question which is will this be is this another phase of what is currently being um started to build or starting to clear i was on the property today i was just curious um mr chair i i think i'm getting the sense of your question um approving this uh application would give it the opportunity to be a future phase consistent with the development to the north and to the east thank you and the density of the that you're asking for is it equal to or higher than to my knowledge it is equal to what is to the east and to the north okay thank you are there any other comments who have we missed we have the we have staff we have the owner's representative public the public we favor is there anybody from the public who would like to address this okay was that him up there no i'll move uh the application v25-00034 okay is there a second okay so we have uh we have a motion and a second and we need discussion mr chair yes ma'am um there's multiple steps between um land use and zoning and development and this area is not planned well for multimodal transportation it's very car dependent there's a lot of developments however at this point um the first step in that long process and i the um the harder part is down the line so um we need to need to stay within the urban boundaries so i will support the mission that's yes sir mr chairman i'm concerned that the density is not um great enough uh to be in this area i think that uh mr uh santos's uh comment that the uh the amount or the density that is needed to support uh public transportation in other words bus services is uh it should be more than 12 units per acre um and i'm concerned that we if we don't go to a higher density on the land use plan that we're somehow hindering uh what can be built there in the future if and i guess someone could come in and ask for an increase in uh intensity but um and i've not heard about the uh the number of trips per day that could be generated at 12 units and coming out on the north south collector that goes into archer road and already that's a a problem intersection there's no discussion about the the number of trips per day at that site along archer road or along that road that goes north south um and i think it might be better uh to go to a higher density than it would be the 14 dwelling units uh maximum that we would be approving with this uh motion are you trying to do an amendment to it or are you trying to just make a comment well i don't think that we have the ability with something that has been advertised for no more than 12 units per acre to increase the intensity of use by fiat of the commission i think the appropriate procedure would be to deny this application with a recommendation to come back with a higher intensity of use could we have a legal opinion on that with some guidance mr chair as far as this application goes the application before you you could either vote to approve it or recommend approval by the board or uh recommend denial of the board of county commissioners i would not suggest that on the fly you alter the application to be a higher density so i would stay within the confines of the application you have in other words you're saying that in order to have a higher intensity of use we would have to deny this and then make a recommendation that they come back or have a recommendation that the planning commission initiate a higher intensity use at this stage it's a recommendation to the board of county commissioners so it would be a recommendation of denial to the board of county commissioners under that that process yes sir mr chair if i may if that is the direction of this commission could it not equally be a recommendation for a land use category in this case that they find most suitable to direct the board of county commissioners rather than a recommendation for denial i think that the that this group has a little bit of conversation to go because we have higher lower not and so i think we need to try and build some kind of consensus and that's what i'm trying to do at this point and it seems to me to be a good direction and to commissioner much's point if if you start to get into those more um intense or dense approvals you might run into an issue where that has not been noticed so somebody might say well up to 12 units breaker i don't care i'm not going to come out and speak to that but if it's up to 20 units they would not have been noticed to come out and talk to that issue all right part of my concern has to do with the possibilities of the impact on the single family to the south to the southwest and because you can have a lot of people coming out um of the development and you do have alternate ways to go but that can be dealt with by um by the you may have to have some small modification of in and out you know instead of i'm just 79 you know coming out of you and then you're probably going to have to have an acceleration i don't know i'm just winging so there are different possibilities of which i don't think at this stage we're supposed to have the engineering well i guess we do have engineering to some degree but i would say that not the engineering that you would need and um public works would like to speak to that that could be useful and if you want to punt i understand it's just either way mr chair i'm going to usurp public works um i i'm going to make note that in the justification report for the comprehensive plan amendment application the applicant did provide an analysis of the estimated trip generation comparing the current future land use designation to the proposed future land use designation their analysis shows an additional 276 daily trips under the proposed future land use designation and an additional total 17 trips during the am peak and 36 during the pm peak so that's additional numbers not not the total if you maxed out the density it's the the difference between them because keep in mind that this property already has a medium density future land use designation and could already be developed at up to eight units per acre so um i just wanted to point that out that that analysis is there in addition as i mentioned just like with any project that comes in there's a whole host of development standards that have to be analyzed and demonstrated consistency with as you move through the development process and one of those are one of that one of those criteria is the access management criteria and that would deal with things like turn lanes or acceleration or deceleration lanes those kinds of things so um we don't have have that analysis tonight and we don't typically have that kind of analysis at the comp plan level because the applicant is probably doesn't have a full development um proposed yet so that's kind of where we are mr chair i just wanted to provide that additional information i appreciate you saying that i've been in the in the place of knowing that it's expensive to get some of the answers before you have your you know before you have the uh first step so um other comments yeah uh thank you chair and mr much i i very much agree with you i think there should be higher uh density um my only worry is um is that going up to the next higher density has um minimums as well um and i think that's one thing we should discuss in our comp plan as well as admins maxim is that it makes it very difficult for um for developers to get this exact amount so being able to kind of give them more flexibility to be able to meet the demand of the market i think would be a good idea also mr much i think i think looking at this uh land use category um i think we should look at increasing the density of it i think for kind of for the land use category itself so we might be able to capture it uh that way thank you other comments and just to confirm did i hear right that the land use density for this proposal is the same as the property that's to the west that's already the east is it the same this is the land use designation showing the property as it is now you can see that the property to the east which is park lane is a mix of medium high density residential which is what they are asking for and then medium density residential so park lane is is this parcel all in through here so they have a mix of land use designations on their property some medium high some medium the overall density for park lane is 10.45 dwelling units an acre this is in the medium high density residential so that's in that 8 to 14 because they did a mix but they had more property with the higher density residential land use so um but that's the land use that they are asking for if they propose you can see how it would play out so it's it's surrounded by a a development that has uh a density within the medium high category overall mr chair i have a question i was noticing this earlier i was going to ask of it since that was brought up um to the east the pd that's there the there's a line down the middle of that parcel um and that usually doesn't happen does it a line where at the land use different land uses on the same parcel oh no that's quite we see a mix of land uses all the time land use designations mr chair do not go by parcel boundary it seems to mostly do it though right mostly but not always i i don't want to say it's rare it's it's uncommon but no we this occurs quite a bit where we have to estimate overall and do a mixing of densities between one higher and one maybe not as high within a single development proposal adding on the pd complication on top of that mr chair i just was also going to point out that that may have been a parcel boundary in the past yeah there's been development within the park lane pd over 20 something years um that i've been working and longer than that um and there were you know splits and reconfigurations both of the land use designations to achieve certain unit counts as well as the parcels that are within it so park lane pd is is kind of unique in that not unique it's not the only one in the county that's like that but it's certainly unique in that it has some history and there were changes made for particular reasons because even though we look at what that is now i mean what it is on the map what it is now is is the probably the same density as the parcel that's that question if you look at the aerial miss mr chair if i may add to the history of this um because park lane is a pud it was able to blend density over the entire property um to and it was master plan so they had a number of dwelling units that they needed to achieve for that we were actually the representatives the agents for that applicant when that occurred and we worked with staff to create the differentiation between the medium high and the medium which created this boundary and allowed them to get to the 10 units per acre that staff quoted so it it looks like there's a separation or there's some kind of gap but it was really just to get a certain acreage of the medium and a certain acreage of the medium high to hit a target number to allow their development in the pud that's specified that number of dwelling units is my understanding mr chair any questions i mean i guess just another comment i mean i'd be more concerned raising the density out there because then you're gonna you know run into basically the light situation i was trying to ask questions about earlier i mean i understand about you know raising it a little you know a little bit in you know when the concern and i guess dot will determine that later um but raising it to high high density or even more and everything i don't think's a good idea in my opinion right i would share the same sentiment and therefore i would be supporting manager madam same thing same concerns yes adrian wants to say something i just want to point out intensities in the city of gainesville but the minimum density in essence is 36 units an acre for a single family district with adus that are on there actually no it's hard 24 because they don't allow it when it's 1200 so 24 24 units an acre and is in essence what you can build in the city of gainesville right now the question is can you functionally do it because sometimes we we have if we have the uh approval but we don't have it to work yeah yeah we do and the functionally do it in this process is further down the line i mean it can functionally be done that's not what we're really focused on right now it's the next step so we'll determine that and that part of that can it be done and is it functionally can be done is the transportation component largely the transportation limit for this area some concerns about the impact on the single family depending upon the roadways and but i also believe that we need the density because otherwise we get sprawl and so the question is how do we do both of those and make it work and that's that to me is is the challenge and what i think we're doing is we're either going to you know deny you know or go negative which doesn't be it which doesn't we're not that would not be the end of the process and to looking at one of the things that makes me relieved is having the open space on 79th as you go out because it lessens the impact of the multi-family on the single family and i think that's not because of us that's because that's how the land was formed but it was very convenient to have that and there are issues this is one of those where it's a little early um but i have been in their in their shoes and i understand it and i know why we need to move forward and i would um am i am i correct that if we are negative it doesn't necessarily stop it it just means we don't have that and then it can be done at the commissioner level mr chair the planning commission um acts as the local planning agency and makes a recommendation to the board of county commissioners you do need to make a recommendation one way or the other i understand that but you answered my other question too you did a twofer okay so that's all ready are there other comments are we ready to move forward all in favor aye all opposed aye okay my understanding the motion is to approve it right okay no no okay so adrian aye galen no sam no brent aye i'm an aye jancey no christian aye okay really okay so what's your count mr chair did you get commissioner much as a vote yes that's it thank you i have four four no's and three ayes i think it's the opposite three no should we should we do this again i think it's four i think it's four okay sorry sorry that's fair i was a no and i was like i'm sure there was more yes okay we're ready to go to the uh uh quasi-judicial ex-party communication disclosure has any member of the commission received any communication regarding the items on the agenda tonight no i did i uh at my own uh volition i had questions concerning uh the validity of uh the applications from knappa presbyterian church because of the uh issues of church management and what was going on and i had discussions with the staff i had discussions with the legal department and i had discussions with the uh uh uh saint augustine uh presbyterian uh presbyterian saint augustine uh and everything was resolved as to whether or not the applications were uh appropriately before the commission and i found that they were thank you from your we're okay we're done with the ex parte yes okay thank you very much anything else determination of party status and mr chair we do not have any requests for party status but generally for everyone's knowledge a party would be somebody who is more substantially or more directly impacted by a decision of this board on one of the items uh they would have an opportunity to cross-examine witnesses to present testimony additional time to make those presentations as i said we don't have any party requests uh anybody else who would like to speak may speak as a member of the public and be given their free minutes if anybody wants to have a longer time they should go through this process okay judicial quasi-judicial items uh z25 000031 whoops yeah mr chair we'll need to do this we'll need to do the swearing in before we uh take any testimony all right for all those who plan to speak at tonight's meeting please stand and raise your right hands do you swear from that testimony you provide today is the best the truth to the best of your knowledge or relief thank you i'll try this again we got z25 0000 32 rock ventures rezoning mr chair yes sir made to bring guitar again intellectual accounting growth management the application is a rezoning for rock ventures the application number z25 000 032 before you go forward where does rock ventures come from is that an applicant uh that was the applicant listed for this application and who is rock ventures i will let the applicant explain that because no go ahead okay uh so mr chair this uh application is to rezone the same parcel that you saw with the conference of plan amendment um from its current agricultural zoning to ba which is a commercial zoning district if this rezoning is approved there are commercial uses consistent with ba that would be allowed again to show you this site is an area that is west of i-75 along south sarcher road again the same slides showing from the comprehensive plan amendment this is for the record a 1.26 a group parcel it's to the south east of southwest archer road and southwest 75th terrace intersection adjacent to a uf health facility and adjacent to the south of uh to the south is kanapah presbyterian church which owns this parcel as well as the church parcel and to the west is grand preserve pd and to the north uh several uses as mentioned in the other application uh for the uh plan development that exists to the north the existing future land use map if this is approved uh at the board of county commissioners for the land use uh would be institution or sorry is it is institutional um this slide is what i was trying to say is that if that is approved at the county commission it will now be commercial and therefore this rezoning would implement that uh future land use designation so again the existing uh zoning of agricultural would be rezoned to ba so that it can be consistent with the commercial land use designation as we brought this up on the uh prior discussion there are a lot of uses that ba would allow by right as well as limited uses so those are uses that can occur if certain criteria are met so i'd be happy to go through any of them we can pull up the use table if necessary but for this slide the uh p represents permitted those would be by right uses the l would be limited with certain criteria needing to be met they would be accessory and se would be only approved with a special exception so uh we have bases listed in our stack report uh for why this application should be approved the first of which is that it would implement the new commercial land use designation in section 40277 of the future land use of the uldc which has uh criteria for rezoning and policy 7.1.2 of the future land use element which has a criteria similar in policy 3.4.1 of the conservation open space element which is related to the environmental resource checklist and our recommendation on this rezoning is that the planning commission recommend to the county commission to approve z25 00032 with our bases and our stack report and that is the end of this presentation i can take your questions questions yes um mr chairman has the staff received any inkling about what is proposed for the site other than just commercial uh mr chair i haven't gotten any uh evidence from the applicant as to what they're intending to do or the new owners um other than um other than this request for ba i mean we're going to have uh rock sales at the site or uh and uh who is who is who is buying the property the rock ventures who is that uh mr chair i would let the applicant explain if they have a buyer that has been identified at this point i'm not sure i haven't had that discussion please okay i i think what we're doing is we are looking at the i'm not trying to be the attorney i because i'm not um but you can you put the use on it and then it can be sold and somebody else could go in a different direction i mean there's there's no guarantees as to even if somebody was there and said i'm doing it there's not a guarantee because it can't flip to somebody else oh i understand that but i'd like to know i mean other than in the introduction not not even the introduction it's called rock ventures and no place in the remainder of either uh recommendation from the staff do we find out who rock ventures are i don't know if this is joe rock and it's the rock family ventures or uh you know who it is and it would make a uh i just don't understand why it isn't in the name of canapa presbyterian church incorporated yeah mr chair i don't know the significance of why that name was chosen um that was the name that was associated with this application when it was applied for so i have a property owner affidavit right that says it's owned by canapa presbyterian church incorporated it doesn't even say it's owned by the corporation it's just owned by the church yeah that when they submitted this application in our uh online portal this is the name that was put in so was it a mistake i don't believe so i think that the applicant can explain what this rock ventures well it looks like we're going to have a chair uh clay swagger with eda consultants i'd like to provide clarification to the board so the applicant is canapa presbyterian church they do own the property there's a contract to sell this parcel to a development company called rock ventures and they do commercial type developments throughout the united states so there that is the arrangement why this is called rock ventures it probably really shouldn't be called that but they are the prospective developer if everything goes favorably so i hope that answers your question as to um the arrangement and the name and the organization located in rock city i i no i don't think so not sure where the name came from but uh okay yes sir i mean and truthfully you know this could be you know rock ventures could take ownership of the property and not do anything with it and sell it again to you know disney you know or you know whatever name also i think we're just looking at it for the zoning the va zoning and specifically what can be done in the zoning and approving it or not you know regardless it doesn't matter to me it doesn't really matter so much the name so there are questions mr chair does the applicant complete his presentation or their presentation mr chair uh really just echoing the same comments from before the product the location and the activity center uh the proposed zoning is commercial and does implement the now recommended for approval commercial land use designation it's a very small parcel so in reality it's really just a it's perfect for a commercial type out parcel and that's the opportunity that rock ventures and the church are looking to explore thank you okay yes mr chair i move that we approve staff recommendation for application z25 dash 00032 second second okay so we have a we have a motion and we have a second comments questions corrections anything are you ready to vote well keep doing that i'm sorry yes and thank you very much i appreciate you okay public anybody from the public okay but it was an important step thank you very much we need to be proper okay well my question is they're not a less intense commercial district that would be appropriate for this one and a quarter acre lot because we don't know what's going what's going on there we've already said okay we're not going to get any sex yeah we can skip that thanks and i'm glad about that but um i don't my concern is it is it a convene a 24-hour convenience store located on this uh lot and how that would affect uh the church and the emergency room and other things uh surrounding it uh i i just think it would be they could be a little more open about what use they intend to use it for or if they don't even have anything they don't know what they're going to do let us know and that may change a vote it's it's an awkward situation to try and you know this is a land use not a what it is it's not a pd it's a land use and it has a broad category and i know i understand that and that's why i think it should i would like to see a little more certainty curious but i don't think that's what they're asking well i think that would be probably out of call but i i hear you and i think that's fair curiosity that you would have and there are things there's going to have to be some modification of the road somewhere yeah because they have parking you know there and and there's going to be and i understand the applicants representative said that it'd probably be a small store and that would be you know that would be helpful i mean you don't have by the time you handle your water you run off and stuff oh i understand it won't be that much um okay the other question i have and i'd like to ask the applicant or the people that the applicant is representing i wonder if the church is going to have enough parking on what they have remaining on the site it's a it's that's when i've gone to the church it's everybody on the north field and everybody sets it up but i don't know um don't know what the situation is today i don't know if you're creating a situation for uh for a problem with the parking mr chair yes i understand what sam is saying however i'm pretty sure the church probably worked out what they need to work out especially if it's going to be adjacent to the church thank you that's finally the person i want to hear from is sitting at the here we go yes sir my name is bill balke i represent canapahall presbyterian church this evening i'm a session member which is our governing body unfortunately our church has gone through some very hard times starting back with the covet parking is not a problem for us i've been a member of the church for three years i've never seen anyone park in that period of time on the lot that we're selling we do have a parking area in the back of our church which people use and then the parking area in the front of our church and a lot of people just because it's convenient for wheelchair reasons park along the side of the church but we unfortunately have plenty of parking and we want to try to increase our membership that's our number one goal coming up but if we get up to 40 50 people it would be a miracle uh and uh like i said we do have we do unfortunately have plenty of parking thank you very much are we ready everyone good all in favor aye opposed thank you thank you sir for coming up okay okay this is d26 000 i think it was 017816 southwest archer road request by nb5 mr chair good evening again jerry bruinton senior county uh alachua excuse me senior planner alachua county department of growth management i have been sworn my resume is on file um this item is the follow-up to the previous land use amendment approved by the local planning agency again these will both go to the board of county commissioners at next month's meeting this is a request from r1b zoning to r2a zoning this is implementing the proposed medium high density residential land use designation by allowing for an r2a zoning district the r1b zoning district that is presently on the property implements the medium density residential land use and allows single family residential only either attached or detached at up to 8 dwelling units an acre this if approved would actually get that number up to 14 and would be allowing multi-family multi-family like apartments on the property again that is the usual implementation of r2a and again these slides i will go through very quickly you've seen them all you know the location of the site within the archer tower activity center the aerial photograph again showing the property uh surrounded on all sides which now the proposed medium high density residential land use designation r1b zoning on the property right now again that is the highest density single family residential uh zoning district we have we would be going to r2a which would allow up to 14 dwelling units an acre again that is a multi-family zoning district uh apartments and the like uh this property again it lies within the archer tower activity center with frontage on archer road via 79th interconnectivity to park lane and again that 10.45 dwelling units an acre but this time the transition from single family development allowed by that medium density residential land use to multi-family which is now allowed by the medium high density residential land use with r2a zoning if approved this proposal is request this requested proposal is consistent with the comprehensive plan and our unified land development code specifically it is consistent with the archer tower activity center policy it's calling for a mix of land uses and zoning districts within the activity center that is future land use element policy 2.2.5 a1 we have criteria within our comprehensive plan that call for when changes of zoning go through uh criteria for rezoning requests these include the availability of infrastructure to serve the proposed rezoning and the relationship of the proposed development to existing development in the area again as outlined in your staff report this policy is consistent with the proposed zoning request lastly we also have criteria in our uldc that is section 402.77 when considering a land use and zoning change actually a zoning change only it provides criteria within the code to consider for a zoning request in this case the r2a zoning is consistent with the criteria found in 402.77 these again deal with things like availability of infrastructure surrounding development and the like and again it is consistent with this section of the uldc uh again just a brief overview mr chair this is again a recommendation so the staff recommends that the planning commission this time acting as the planning commission find the proposed rezoning request from r1b to r2a consistent with the plan and our uldc and recommend that the board adopt the resolution approving the request again a request to change from r1b to r2a that concludes staff presentation mr chair if there's any questions i'll be here that's good thank you we're going to go this first round are you ready for the come on up thank you mr chair again for the record ryan thompson with mv5 agent for the applicant um staff mentioned it uh i think a couple times but it's worth emphasizing again that this zoning district would allow um the opportunity for multi-family development on the site currently with the r1b you're only allowed to do attached products it's challenging to get even eight units per acre with an attached product so allowing the additional type of use the multi-family use is a benefit to this site and is consistent with the proposed land use with that i'm happy to answer any questions tangential and not a request but maybe an exploration i think it'd be helpful if um we and the public were presented with with a table that shows what's allowable now versus what's available in future with the change mr dawson talked about the number of trips that would be generated on the max number now versus what we see before it says application i think those things would be helpful in getting a clear picture of the change between the two do we have the mr chair i just want to be clear do you you want that now do you or do you mean just in in the presentation in the presentation something to explore in the future okay that would be helpful thank you mr chair i appreciate that the chair gets no credit in that conversation i was a bystander thank you very much okay what else do you comments thoughts discussions i remove i i move uh approval of uh whatever the number is uh z26 000 000 and uh that it's in can uh it would become in compliance with the recommendation we are making to the board of county commissioners concerning this property for the land use plan so just so i'm clear i think we were in favor correct for the first vote that coincides with this particular item yes so it would be counterintuitive to vote against it right right right i just want to make sure you should uh yes that that would be true but it doesn't mean oh i hear you yeah just wanna yes this is this is not a um flippant or you know superficial yeah you know vote this is something that we do and if you think that you need to have a different vote then you should and we could go yes no this is my understanding for our kind of this is quasi-judicial so we're supposed to be looking at is this consistent with the land use that we've already approved correct not the the like take a separate like we can kind of have our more personal opinions on land use and then this is more does it fit the rules that are in there yes yes these are companion items they're allowed to be brought forth together and you're looking at it as though that other uh the previous application has gone through we look at it like it's the primary you know like we're the primary vote but we all know we're not right yes but we are doing this is you know this is advisory it's a step it's a move it's important there's nothing there's nothing flippant about what we're doing and um so that's why i keep going back and asking you know is there any more comments any more thoughts because sometimes you just think about something you know that's later on and it doesn't mean if you did something that it couldn't be um i don't know i've never seen i have not seen it very frequently but to go back and reconsider and i'm not trying to go there um but i am i am trying to give the time to have the conversations to have the thoughts and then we can then we can vote i mean that's what i'm trying to do i'm not trying to stall or push or whatever and so is everybody ready to vote we need to do the public comment oh i keep doing it i threw you off a little bit i'm sorry do you know what we're going to do for this one next public we're right on the back of this one with tape that we can remove okay i'm going to come in with my checklist next time sorry yes public we're good we ready to vote yes we have our number and we have our oh let's see all in favor aye all opposed it felt that way okay but you you need to go through everything and everybody needs their opportunity to vote and make their points yes okay we're doing that one so we go on to approval of the minutes is there a second of what what meeting the last meeting okay the one you don't have it it's clear you know yes clearly in your mind yeah okay all in favor aye opposed we're counting on you okay attendance report matter of course okay mr chair i just want to i was late today but i was here can we make sure you were so quiet it's just fine okay um okay just a moment public comment okay for for any item uh not on this agenda planning commission or comments see everyone next okay great yes mr chair i did just want to remind the commission that we do have a special meeting next wednesday six o'clock in this room and the only item on that agenda is the evaluation and appraisal amendments and those we presented by staff which are serious not not that's not judgmental but it's part of the process it's serious i like to think that everything we bring to you mr chair is serious okay mr chair yes i'm supposed to be out of town next week and i was told that i can zoom in is that correct or watch the video live yes and not have any input is that right that's correct mr chair you can watch the the video yes but you you can't participate in the meeting that's correct but there is yeah i would just say though um obviously the amendments are out there they're published with the agenda please take a look at them and if you have comments we don't limit comments or you know input to just the planning commission and the board we want input from the public as well so even in your own personal you know person you can submit those comments okay that's good are we are we ready to move a motion for adjournment so move second