OFFICE OF THE CITY COUNCIL
CHERYL L. BROWN 117
WEST DUVAL STREET,
DIRECTOR 4TH FLOOR, CITY
HALL
OFFICE (904) 630-1452
FAX (904) 630-2906
E-MAIL: CLBROWN@coj.net
JOINT LUZ COMMITTEE/PLANNING COMMISSION
WORKSHOP ON ZONING OVERLAYS MINUTES
October 8, 2013
9:30 p.m.
City Council Chamber
1st floor, City Hall
117 West Duval Street
Attendance:
LUZ Committee: Council
Members Lori Boyer (Chair), Robin Lumb, Matt Schellenberg, Jim Love, Don Redman
(arr. 9:48) and Bill Bishop (arr. 9:52)
Planning Commission: Nate Day, Lisa King, Jerry Friley, Tyler Leonhert,
Marvin Hill, Tony Robbins, Chris Hagan, Laura Diettrich
Also: Paige
Johnston and Jason Gabriel – Office of General Counsel; Phillip Zamarron and
Paula Shoup – Legislative Services Division; Jeff Clements – City Council
Research Division; Folks Huxford and Samantha Paul – Planning and Development
Department
Council Member Boyer called
the meeting to order at 9:36 a.m. and all attendees identified themselves for
the record. Ms. Boyer introduced the
workshop topic – zoning overlays.
Samantha Paul of the Planning
and Development Department gave an overview of the City’s 8 zoning overlays (7
neighborhoods and 1 for industrial properties) and their relation to and effect
on the Zoning Code and designated historic districts. The 7 neighborhood districts are: Riverside/Avondale,
San Marco, Springfield, Mandarin Road, Mandarin (building height), Downtown
(mostly regulated by the DIA and Downtown Development Review Board) and
Mayport. Ms. Paul explained the
differences in the types of regulations between the zoning overlays (property
use, parking, setbacks, signage, etc.) and the historic districts (historic
resources, external appearance), some of which co-exist in historic areas like
Riverside/Avondale, San Marco and Springfield.
She briefly reviewed the definitions of relevant terms, including
contributing and non-contributing structures, original use and historic use,
mass, scale, outside sales and service and sidewalk café’.
In response to several
questions from the committee, Ms. Paul and Folks Huxford stated that the zoning
overlays can be overridden by means of a PUD rezoning with specific
requirements that may differ from what the overlay allows. Where the PUD doesn’t address a specific
issue, the zoning overlay’s requirements fill in the gaps. Ms. Boyer stated that the Planning Commission
and LUZ Committee need to consider how PUD conditions do or do not reflect the
zoning overlay of the area and should make a conscious decision to waive
overlay requirements and state why for the record. Ms. Paul also described
“character areas” as sub-areas within zoning overlays that each have their own
specific character as a result of historical development patterns and that
merit particular attention to factors such as typical setbacks, parking
patterns, typical building styles and materials, etc. In response to a question Ms. Paul stated
that the overlays and the Planning Department’s reviews of their effects do not
take into consideration transition zones between the character areas since
historic development patterns had what today are considered incompatible uses
side-by-side, so historically there were not such gradual transitions as are
currently required.
Ms. Paul indicated that the
overlays are very strict about preventing the conversion of non-commercial to commercial
uses in residential character areas, requiring that all Zoning Code
requirements for the commercial use be met and prohibiting administrative
deviations. Such conversions are
possible if the lot is of sufficient size to allow all the relevant requirements
(required on-site parking spaces, setbacks, etc.) to be met, but practically
speaking there will be very few sites where that can be accomplished. In response to a question from Council Member
Schellenberg about parking lots being posted with “customers only” signs, Mr.
Huxford said that it is not specifically covered in Zoning Code, although
parking spaces in public rights-of-way may not be so marked.
Council Member Boyer stated
that the City should not turn a blind eye to the enforcement of difficult
provisions of the Zoning Code (e.g. no parking allowed in front yards). If the
code or overlays are unworkable then they need to be changed to reflect the
reality, not simply ignored. Mr. Huxford said that “grandfathering” is a term
that does not appear in the Zoning Code, but the concept as correctly titled
does not apply to uses that were not legal before the overlay was adopted. If it was not allowed prior to the overlay,
then it’s not allowed now. Ms. Boyer noted that Code Enforcement has a difficult
time trying to enforce issues that depend on historical events, such as whether
a non-conforming use existed before the adoption of an overlay or not. The burden of proof is on the City to prove
when the use started and therefore whether it is protected as a legal
non-conforming use or not. In response to a question from Ms. Boyer about
whether the intent of the zoning overlays is to freeze conditions as of the
time of adoption or to try to cause a reversion to original historical uses,
Ms. Paul stated that the primary purpose is to prevent further degradation, and
secondarily to recover past development patterns if and when possible.
In response to a question
from Council Member Love, Ms. Paul indicated that when a relatively modern
building (post-1948) is removed and replaced, the new building can be built in
any style as long as it meets the district design criteria with regard to size,
massing, window placement, height, and the like. It is not necessary to build a
historic-looking building; modern architecture is fine as long as it meets the
criteria. In response to a question from
Ms. Boyer about whether a painting or mural on the side of a building is
considered a sign, Mr. Huxford quoted the definition of a sign from the Zoning
Code. The definition is very broad and could cover almost any kind of painting
that conveys a message, but practically speaking the department interprets it
to mean a painting that has a recognizable logo, name, or other specific
identifier of the building’s occupant.
Ms. Boyer suggested painted walls as signs as a topic for a future workshop.
Planning Commissioner Marvin
Hill said that the San Marco area has reached its saturation point for parking
capacity, but several vacant storefronts still exist. How is the City going to deal with proposals
to redevelop those properties when there is no practical solution to the
parking problems? Mr. Huxford said that
it will be a policy call for the City Council to determine if and when the
available parking is no longer sufficient to accommodate any more traffic
generation. He noted that in the San Marco Square area much of the available
parking inventory is on public streets, which raises another interesting
question about how the City could prevent a future developer from being
entitled to receive credit for some portion of that resource for his/her
development when all the other business in the area are allowed utilize it for
credit. Planning Commissioner Day asked if there are guidelines for determining
when a certain area has reached its saturation point for a particular land use,
for example bars and restaurants. Are
there criteria for determining when an area has reached a tipping point and is
becoming unbalanced in its development based on historical patterns? Mr. Huxford indicated that this is another
policy call for the City Council.
Planning Commissioner King indicated that the commission is the “first
line of defense” in seeing these trends developing, but on what grounds could
the commission say that an area has reached the saturation point and doesn’t
need any more restaurants or bars? Ms. Boyer suggested using the goals and
policies of the Comprehensive Plan to help draw the line and make these
judgment calls.
Ms. Boyer also noted that she
has been working with a group of private real estate attorneys on a new and
improved template for development orders.
A ruling in a state court case (Koontz) has found that conditions on PUD
rezonings must be reasonable and be able to pass a rational nexus test. She is concerned that the current PUD
statements of conditions are too generic and standardized and may be subject to
challenge for not making sufficient findings of justification to meet the new
court standard.
Commissioner Day asked that
the Planning Commission be notified of the topics of the LUZ’s upcoming
pre-meeting workshops so that interested commissioners might attend.
There being no further
business, the agenda meeting was adjourned at 1:22 p.m.
Jeff Clements, Council Research
Division (904) 630-1404
Posted
10.8.13
6:00
p.m.