OFFICE OF THE CITY COUNCIL

 

CHERYL L. BROWN                                                                                                         117 WEST DUVAL STREET, SUITE 425

            DIRECTOR                                                                                                                                                                                 4TH FLOOR, CITY HALL

   OFFICE (904) 630-1452                                                                                                                                                          JACKSONVILLE, FLORIDA  32202

     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.