4. Disclosures and Declarations of Conflict - None

GENERAL BUSINESS

5. Special Area Plan Workshop - Review and discussion on Lake Talquin/Wetumpka and Midway/Hwy 90 Special Area Plan

Mr. Matheny commented they are now in the advertised Workshop. He said they would finish working up the US 90 Special Area Plan and start with the Lake Talquin/ Wetumpka Special Area Plan. He reminded the Commission this was a workshop and no votes would be made. He stated they would come back at a later date and would have the changes to any of the amendments, US 90 and Lake Talquin Plan all presented in an advertised public hearing, then on to the County Commission. He conveyed to the Commission they would start with Lake Talquin/Wetumka, but when they start to feel weary they can end the presentation. He said he would leave in the hands of the Chairman. He said they would not go over Amendments in detail and that they were approved. He said they were included to show them were they updated and made changes to reflect what we are proposing in the Area Plans, so they are consistent. He then presented Jon Sewell and Artie White both of Kimley – Horn.

Jon Sewell, Property Manager for Kimley-Horn addressed the Commission and presented a detailed presentation on the Draft Special Area Plan for US 90, Maps, Lake Talquin/ Wetumpka Special Area Plan draft and two elements: Conservations and the Future Land Use Element. He noted the Future Land Use Element had no changes, since the last time they were presented, it was only provided as a reference. The Conservation Element was modified based on language that was provided by Commissioner Allen, he said it was brought to their attention there was language that was adopted by the County, but was not included. He said they would start with the US 90 East Corridor and should complete at this workshop. He stated Commissioner Ganus provided them with comments and suggestions for tweaking.

Gadsden County – Us 90 East Corridors – Special Area Plan

Overview – Special Area Plans were developed based on:

§ Work completed by previous and current consultants

§ Oversight and guidance from the Planning Commission

§ Specific input from staff

§ Specific input from Planning Commission

Commissioner Ganus comments:

Ø Grammatical changes

Ø Page 4-policy 11.b.1.3 (read verbatim) - I think the fencing requirements in sectors A and B, may be to be too restrictive for the Agricultural Land Use Categories, as I have stated in past meetings field fencing with top strands of barb wire should be acceptable. I would suggest maybe a separate category for Ag 2 or 3 land uses, more restrictive would be ok for Ag 1 and rural residential lands.

Public Comment

§ Marion Laslie, 5 Dante Court – She provided a list concerns to the Consultant.

Ø Page 1. – The original intent of the plan was to have light industrial uses as the most intense use and low impact commercial and public.

Mr. Matheny commented the only thing comes to his mind is the Budweiser Plant on Highway 90.

Chair Sheffield reminded them of the Trust Plant, but recalled it was in Midway.

Mrs. Lasley stated she was not in favor of more industrial zoning.

Mr. Sewell said they first need to identify those sections. He said they could change the wording to light industrial if that was the consensus of the Commission.

Mr. Sewell stated they couldn’t use the policy; the intent what not to use in a & B.

Chair Sheffield reminded the Commission of the things that they should look into and is it what County Commission would want; they are trying to bring businesses to the County.

Page 8 – Policy 11.B.3.17 – This watershed protection language does nothing for other watersheds like the Little River and Quincy Creek watersheds and all of their creeks and the tributaries. Please strengthen the language to offer more protection in the study area.

Consensus of the Commission to add all water sheds within all 3 sectors.

Policy 11.B.3.18 – Pollution will not be controlled by landscaped buffers. What is the intent here? Also, why limit it to Sector C only? Include the whole area.

Consensus to add All watersheds and tributary to be included. Combine 17 & 18 and generalize it.

Page 10 – Policy 11.B.5.1& 11.B.5.2 – Please add CENTRAL before sewer in both policies.

Consensus of the Commission to add word central before sewer.

§ Attorney Darrin Taylor, Carlton Fields representing Anderson Columbia he commented they represent Sector C, especially the part south of 90. He disclosed the part they own is completely controlled by the development order, it is a DRI. He said the uses are pretty specific as far as in the DRI, what was negotiated as far as the SIC codes. He said that is something they can’t amend without coming back before the Planning Commission, County and State; he added it was locked in. He said recently they spoke to the County Commission regarding this piece of property (Anderson-Columbia portion –South of 90). He said they had a preliminary plat on the site to the south, it has expired. He said shortly they will be coming in with a new plat. He said if they look at the development order there is a lot of industrial that could be placed out there. He said the reality is they won’t build a 1/10 of what they could on that piece of property. He reminded them this was the last large piece that’s in the County of the lands not platted with the DRI. He said they would be presenting detailed presentation at later date. Point of clarification on the storm water standard that would be applied in Policy 11.B318. He asked was this a new requirement, would the policy be seeking a different standard than we normally would under the Code.

Commissioner Allen inquired about page 5 of the Conservation Element, his concern is with Policy 5.2.20. He asked about stricken policy which contained the language Policy 5.2.20: Wetlands, slope forests, steep heads, and flood plains. He pointed they added 20, but struck through 5.20, which was 5.2.21. He pointed out the changes are completely different.

Mr. Sewell stated these are the changes that were provided by Commissioner Allen. He said maybe they misunderstood the directions given on those policies. He commented they would follow-up and bring back changes at the next meeting.

It was also brought to Mr. Sewell attention that Revised Map in the Lake Talquin/Wetumpka should read Lake Talquin/Wetumpka and not Revised US 90 East SAP Map.

Commissioner Allen commented on Policy 1.13.4(Future Land Use Element) Mining use can be eliminated.

Mr. Sewell responded by way of Land Use Amendment.

Commissioner Allen then referenced Objective 1.5.

Commissioner Sheffield asked was did he want the 19.9 acres eliminated.

Commissioner Allen stated yes.

Mr. Matheny conveyed he would not get into the legalities without analyzing. He asked was he suggesting they reroute or remove this section.

Chair Sheffield inquired of mines, once they get mined out they are obsolete or replaced.

Mr. Matheny commented it varies. He pointed out it went through the process and it was a Small Scale Land Use Amendment approve by both Boards and the State.

Discussion occurred among the Commission.

Attorney Weiss added there is nothing that says you can’t change designation. He said he would need to look at document to make judgment.

Commissioner Allen said the Remedial Stipulation Settlement Agreement – Ordinance 94-001(An act amending Gadsden County Comprehensive Plan). He said it had not been followed through.

Mr. Sewell said it normally applies to specific amendment applies to specific land.

Mr. Sewell stated staff would need a copy from Mr. Allen relating to the claims and they would research information.

Chair Sheffield felt in was the developments located on Lake Talquin that DCA didn’t approve.

Commissioner Allen stated she was referring to the Highlands, he said this is strictly with the policies that are within the County.

Commissioner Robinson asked when it was approved in 2007 did they place exceptions.

Mr. Sewell said staff would take a look at it and get back with the Commission.

Mr. Matheny commented he would meet with all players and see how it applies to the Special Area Plan.

Commissioner Dr. Bridges – Bright suggested tabling this issue until the next meeting.

Next Steps

§ Finalize US 90 East Special Area Plan

§ Address feedback on Wetumpka/Lake Talquin Special Area Plan

§ Workshop Special Area Plans with BOCC

§ Finalize both Wetumpka – Lake Talquin Special Area Plan

§ Adopt Special Area Plans and EAR – based Amendments

Wetumpka/ Lake Talquin Overlay

Suggestions that were made per page.

§ Chair Sheffield stated the word central be added in all places needed.

§ Commissioner Robinson pointed out 11.A.1.3 reads funny and should be tweaked for clearer understanding.

§ Commissioner Allen referred to page 2– A hydro geological study to be completed by 2013. He asked was this a realistic date.

Mr. Matheny stated the County is going through severe challenges; We would have to have establish boundaries. He said there are different ways to approach, that’s why 2013 is the date.

§ Commissioner VanLandingham -Page 5 – 11.A.1 e, can we add eco –tourism related Sheffield.

§ Page 6 – Policy 11.A.1.1 – undue burden to mail to all those property owners

Mr. Sewell stated being consistent with Citizens Bills of Right; GIS exercise on how many households & then you can decide.

§ Chair Sheffield - Page 7 (Policy 11.A.1), asked is it doable.

§ Commissioner VanLandingham asked for clarification of language in policy in 11.A.1. In Policy 11.A.141 by taking the first shall out and correction of typographical error in e) 3 of the same section.

Mr. Sewell stated these Policies will need further work and discussion. He said they would bring back at next meeting.

§ Policy 11.A 44

§ Policy 11.1.34 (Future Land Use Amendment)

§ Policy 11.13.4 (FLUT)

§ Policy 11.A.3.2

§ Policy 11.A.1.18

§ Policy 11.A.2.12

§ Policy 11.A.3.8

§ Policy 11.A .3.13

Public Comment:

§ Marion Lasley, 5 Dante Court, commented on the wording of the environmentally sensitive land is protected. She said when you say wetland you’re discounting everything else. She referenced page 2 that it should be healthy policies that work in reality.

§ Darrin Taylor, 215 S. Monroe, study will provide information needed, until done it’s difficult to make decisions. 11. A.19 – page 6; page 10 (b) plans allows for that now. (d) reality is if I had to do amendment I have to ; instead of singling out mining – things you have to do(plan amendments)

e) Referenced what’s in Code or remove it. II.A.43 – creates wide net; it impacts other uses.

6. PUBLIC COMMENT – None

Next Meeting Date

Ø June 14, 2012 Next meeting

7. ADJOURNMENT/9:05 P.M.