LAND USE AND ZONING








                Proceedings held on Wednesday, September 3,


           2008, commencing at 5:05 p.m., City Hall, Council


           Chambers, 1st Floor Jacksonville, Florida, before


           Tina Hutcheson, a Notary Public in and for the State


           of Florida at Large.






                ART GRAHAM, Chair

                STEPHEN JOOST, Vice Chair

                JOHNNY GAFFNEY, Committee Member

                RAY HOLT, Committee Member

                DON REDMAN, Committee Member

                JACK Webb, Committee Member



           ALSO PRESENT:


                WARREN JONES, City Council Member

                JOHN CROFTS, Deputy Director, Planning Dept.

                SEAN KELLY, Chief, Current Planning

                KEN AVERY, Planning and Development Dept.

                FOLKS HUXFORD, Zoning Administrator

                SHANNON ELLER, Office of General Counsel

                MARILYN ALLEN, Legislative Assistant

                MERRIANE LAHMEUR, Legislative Assistant



                                  - - -





                            Tina Hutcheson, Inc.






       1                  P R O C E E D I N G S


       2   September 3, 2008                          5:05 p.m.




       4             CHAIRMAN GRAHAM:  Good afternoon,


       5        everybody.


       6             Let the record show it's about five after


       7        five.  And I apologize, I was tied up in


       8        another meeting.


       9             On Wednesday, September the 3rd, this is


      10        the Land Use and Zoning Committee meeting.


      11             And, Mr. Crofts, let's start with you and


      12        go around the bend.


      13             MR. CROFTS:  Yes, sir, Mr. Chairman.


      14             John Crofts is my name and I'm with the


      15        Planning and Development Department as Deputy


      16        Director.


      17             MR. KELLY:  Sean Kelly, Planning and


      18        Development.


      19             MR. AVERY:  Ken Avery, Planning and


      20        Development.


      21             MR. HUXFORD:  Folks Huxford, Planning and


      22        Development.


      23             MS. ELLER:  Shannon Eller, General


      24        Counsel's Office.


      25             MR. REDMAN:  Don Redman, District 4.



                            Tina Hutcheson, Inc.






       1             MR. GAFFNEY:  Councilman Gaffney, District


       2        7.


       3             MR. HOLT:  Ray Holt, District 11.


       4             CHAIRMAN GRAHAM:  Art Graham, District 13.


       5             MR. JOOST:  Stephen Joost, Group 3,


       6        at-large.


       7             MR. WEBB:  Jack Webb, District 6.


       8             CHAIRMAN GRAHAM:  Let the record show we


       9        have an excused absence for Richard Clark who


      10        is out counting votes or confirming votes, or


      11        whatever he is.


      12             Okay.  Let's start.


      13             Page 2, top of the page.


      14             2005-1228 is deferred.


      15             2006-24 is deferred.


      16             2006-220 is deferred.


      17             2006-658 is deferred.


      18             2007-384 is deferred.


      19             2007-581 is deferred.


      20             Now, what I'm going to do is I'm going to


      21        go through the entire agenda and let you know


      22        what's deferred so you're not sitting here


      23        waiting on a bill that we're not going to take


      24        any action on, and then we'll come back and


      25        take action on some of these bills.



                            Tina Hutcheson, Inc.






       1             2007-803 is deferred.


       2             2007-1086 is deferred.


       3             Top of Page 5, 2008-236, -413, -414 are


       4        all deferred.


       5             Top of Page 6, -515, -516, -517 are all


       6        deferred.


       7             Top of Page 7, -418, -419, -420 are all


       8        deferred.


       9             Top of Page 8 -- bottom of the Page 8.


      10        I'm sorry.  2008-541 we're deferring.


      11             Top of page 9, -542, bottom of Page 9,


      12        -545, all deferred.


      13             Top of Page 10, -546, bottom of Page 10,


      14        -549 are deferred.


      15             Page 11, -550, -551, -552 are all


      16        deferred.


      17             Page 12, we will be doing something on all


      18        that, at least opening a public hearing.


      19             On Page 13, bottom of the page, -606 --


      20        nope.  We're at least having a public hearing


      21        on that one.


      22             Bottom of Page 14, 2008-650 -- am I losing


      23        you?


      24             COURT REPORTER:  No, sir.  I'm fine.


      25             CHAIRMAN GRAHAM:  -650, we're deferred.



                            Tina Hutcheson, Inc.






       1             Page 15, -651, -652, -653, -654, we are


       2        all deferred.


       3             And Page 16 and 17, which is -713, -714,


       4        -715, -716, -717, -718, -719 and -720 are all


       5        second rereferred.


       6             I said that so no one is sitting here and


       7        be disappointed that they sat here for a couple


       8        of hours and the bill was deferred.


       9             Okay.  We are back on Page 4.


      10             2007-1350.  We will open the public


      11        hearing.


      12             Seeing no speakers, we'll continue that


      13        public hearing and take no further action.


      14             2008-23.  Open the public hearing.


      15             And we'll continue that public hearing and


      16        take no further action.


      17             Over to Page 8, top of the page.


      18             2008-493.  We'll open that public hearing.


      19             And we have Roger, is it Futch?


      20             Come on down, sir.  Please give us your


      21        name and address for the record, and you have


      22        three minutes.


      23             MR. FUTCH:  My name is Roger Futch.  I


      24        live at 284 Broward Road, Jacksonville,


      25        Florida.  I'm here for the rezoning of the



                            Tina Hutcheson, Inc.






       1        property at -- I'm the owner of the property at


       2        12547 Dunn Creek Road, and also the adjacent


       3        property, 2510 New Berlin.


       4             The reason I'm trying to get it rezoned,


       5        right now it's the CO and I can't do any kind


       6        of retail sales.  I don't have any plans for it


       7        right this minute, but if I wanted to sale


       8        Christmas trees or anything there, to be


       9        compliant, I'd have to have it CCG-1.


      10             So that's really all my statement, if any


      11        questions.


      12             CHAIRMAN GRAHAM:  So you're here for


      13        questions?


      14             MR. FUTCH:  Right.


      15             CHAIRMAN GRAHAM:  Okay.  I don't see any


      16        questions right now.  So we will -- just hold


      17        on.


      18             We'll close the public hearing.


      19             (Inaudible motion and second)


      20             CHAIRMAN GRAHAM:  Bill's been moved and


      21        seconded.


      22             Any further discussion on the bill?


      23             COMMITTEE MEMBERS:  (No response)


      24             CHAIRMAN GRAHAM:  Seeing none, please open


      25        the ballot.



                            Tina Hutcheson, Inc.






       1             (Committee ballot opened)


       2             CHAIRMAN GRAHAM:  Close the ballot and


       3        record the vote.


       4             MR. GRAHAM:  (Votes yea)


       5             MR. JOOST:  (Votes yea)


       6             MR. REDMAN:  (Votes yea)


       7             MR. GAFFNEY:  (Votes yea)


       8             MR. HOLT:  (Votes yea)


       9             MR. WEBB:  (Votes yea)


      10             (Committee ballot closed)


      11             MS. LAHMEUR:  Six yea, zero nay.


      12             CHAIRMAN GRAHAM:  By your action, you've


      13        approved 2008-493.


      14             Sir, thank you for coming down.  You're


      15        good to go?


      16             MR. FUTCH:  Good.


      17             CHAIRMAN GRAHAM:  2008-517.  Open the


      18        public hearing.


      19             Seeing no speakers, we'll continue that


      20        public hearing.


      21             -518.  Open the public hearing.


      22             Seeing no speakers, we'll continue that


      23        public hearing.


      24             We are on Page 9.  We will open the public


      25        hearing for both 2008-543 and -544.  We'll open



                            Tina Hutcheson, Inc.






       1        those public hearings.


       2             First speaker is Alice Barrett.


       3             Come on down, ma'am.  Name and address for


       4        the record.


       5             AUDIENCE MEMBER:  Alice Barrett, 1888 Lake


       6        Shore Boulevard.


       7             I'm just basically here if anyone has any


       8        questions.


       9             CHAIRMAN GRAHAM:  Okay.  Hold tight.


      10             Any questions?


      11             COMMITTEE MEMBERS:  (No response)


      12             CHAIRMAN GRAHAM:  Seeing none, we will


      13        close the public hearing on both of those.


      14        Hold on.


      15             We'll start with -543.


      16             (Inaudible motion and second)


      17             CHAIRMAN GRAHAM:  Bill's been moved and


      18        seconded.


      19             Any discussion on the bill?


      20             COMMITTEE MEMBERS:  (No response)


      21             CHAIRMAN GRAHAM:  Seeing none, please open


      22        the ballot.


      23             (Committee ballot opened)


      24             CHAIRMAN GRAHAM:  Close the ballot and


      25        record the vote.



                            Tina Hutcheson, Inc.






       1             MR. GRAHAM:  (Votes yea)


       2             MR. JOOST:  (Votes yea)


       3             MR. REDMAN:  (Votes yea)


       4             MR. GAFFNEY:  (Votes yea)


       5             MR. HOLT:  (Votes yea)


       6             (Committee ballot closed)


       7             MS. LAHMEUR:  Five yea, zero nay.


       8             CHAIRMAN GRAHAM:  By your action, you have


       9        approved 2008-543.


      10             2008-544.  Move the amendment?


      11             Can we hear the amendment, please.


      12             MR. CROFTS:  Yes, Mr. Chairman.


      13             The amendment is as follows.  There are


      14        nine conditions for the PUD and they are as


      15        follows:


      16             "The developer shall be subject to the


      17        original legal description dated July 27,


      18        2007."


      19             Number 2, "The developer shall be subject


      20        to the original written description dated


      21        September 27, 2007."


      22             Number 3, "Developer shall be subject to


      23        the revised site plan dated August 14, 2008."


      24             Number 4, "Signage shall be limited to


      25        wall signage and no larger than four square



                            Tina Hutcheson, Inc.






       1        feet."


       2             Number 5, "All requirements of Section


       3        656.1216 of the zoning code shall be met;


       4        however, the fence height may remain at


       5        six feet."


       6             Number 6, "Access shall be limited to one


       7        driveway on Fair Street and located within


       8        40 feet of the southern property line."


       9             Number 7, "An evergreen hedge shall be


      10        provided in front of the existing six-foot


      11        fence to screen the vehicular use area from the


      12        Fair Street right-of-way."


      13             Number 8, "The Development shall be


      14        subject to the development services division


      15        memorandum dated June 24, 2008, or as otherwise


      16        approved by the Planning and Development


      17        Department."


      18             Number 9, "No trees shall be required as


      19        part of the uncomplimentary buffer."


      20             That concludes the amendment.


      21             CHAIRMAN GRAHAM:  Ma'am, are you in


      22        agreement with all those?


      23             MS. BARRETT:  Sound fine to me.


      24             CHAIRMAN GRAHAM:  That sounds like yes.


      25             (Inaudible motion and second)



                            Tina Hutcheson, Inc.






       1             CHAIRMAN GRAHAM:  We've moved and seconded


       2        the amendment.


       3             Any further discussion on the amendment?


       4             COMMITTEE MEMBERS:  (No response)


       5             CHAIRMAN GRAHAM:  Seeing none, all in


       6        favor say aye.


       7             COMMITTEE MEMBERS:  Aye.


       8             CHAIRMAN GRAHAM:  Those opposed?


       9             COMMITTEE MEMBERS:  (No response)


      10             CHAIRMAN GRAHAM:  By your action, you


      11        approve the amendment.


      12             (Inaudible motion and second)


      13             CHAIRMAN GRAHAM:  Bill's been moved and


      14        seconded as amended.


      15             Any further discussion on the bill?


      16             COMMITTEE MEMBERS:  (No response)


      17             CHAIRMAN GRAHAM:  Seeing none, please open


      18        the ballot.


      19             (Committee ballot opened)


      20             CHAIRMAN GRAHAM:  Close the ballot and


      21        record the vote.


      22             MR. GRAHAM:  (Votes yea)


      23             MR. JOOST:  (Votes yea)


      24             MR. REDMAN:  (Votes yea)


      25             MR. GAFFNEY:  (Votes yea)



                            Tina Hutcheson, Inc.






       1             MR. HOLT:  (Votes yea)


       2             MR. WEBB:  (Votes yea)


       3             (Committee ballot closed)


       4             MS. LAHMEUR:  Six yea, zero nay.


       5             CHAIRMAN GRAHAM:  By your action, you've


       6        approved 2008-544.


       7             Guys, I -- let me use a little discretion


       8        as the Chair.  If we could go over to the


       9        bottom of Page 12.  I'm sorry I didn't do this


      10        earlier.


      11             2008-566.  I want to open that public


      12        hearing.


      13             Name and address for the record, please.


      14             MR. HAZOURI:  Tommy Hazouri, 12175


      15        Dividing Oaks Trail West, Jacksonville,


      16        Florida, 32223, here to represent Matt Carlucci


      17        for a sign waiver moving his present sign one


      18        block up the street to his new facility.  It's


      19        10 foot to 5 feet, and he did this about three


      20        years ago at the present site and now he's


      21        built a new building.


      22             CHAIRMAN GRAHAM:  Seeing no other speakers


      23        for this bill, we have closed the public


      24        hearing.


      25             MR. WEBB:  Move.



                            Tina Hutcheson, Inc.






       1             MR. JOOST:  Second.


       2             CHAIRMAN GRAHAM:  It's been moved and


       3        seconded to grant the waiver.


       4             Any discussion on the amendment?


       5             COMMITTEE MEMBERS:  (No response)


       6             CHAIRMAN GRAHAM:  Seeing none, all in


       7        favor signify by say aye.


       8             COMMITTEE MEMBERS:  Aye.


       9             CHAIRMAN GRAHAM:  Those opposed?


      10             COMMITTEE MEMBERS:  (No response)


      11             CHAIRMAN GRAHAM:  By your action, you've


      12        approved the amendment.


      13             (Inaudible motion and second)


      14             CHAIRMAN GRAHAM:  The bill's been moved


      15        and seconded to grant.


      16             Any discussion on the bill?


      17             COMMITTEE MEMBERS:  (No response)


      18             CHAIRMAN GRAHAM:  Seeing none, please open


      19        the ballot.


      20             (Committee ballot opened)


      21             CHAIRMAN GRAHAM:  Close the ballot and


      22        record the vote.


      23             MR. GRAHAM:  (Votes yea)


      24             MR. JOOST:  (Votes yea)


      25             MR. REDMAN:  (Votes yea)



                            Tina Hutcheson, Inc.






       1             MR. GAFFNEY:  (Votes yea)


       2             MR. HOLT:  (Votes yea)


       3             MR. WEBB:  (Votes yea)


       4             (Committee ballot closed)


       5             MS. LAHMEUR:  Six yea, zero nay.


       6             CHAIRMAN GRAHAM:  By your action, you've


       7        approved to grant the waiver on 2008-566.


       8             MR. HAZOURI:  Thank you, Mr. Chairman and


       9        councilmembers.  Appreciate it.


      10             CHAIRMAN GRAHAM:  All right.  Now, where


      11        were we?


      12             Let's go to Page 10, middle of the page.


      13             2008-547 and -548.  We will open a public


      14        hearing on both of those.


      15             Seeing no speakers, we will continue that


      16        public hearing and take no further action.


      17             (Inaudible comment)


      18             CHAIRMAN GRAHAM:  We're not taking any


      19        action on that.  We asked for a deferral.  We


      20        had a request for deferral from the district


      21        councilperson.


      22             Page 11, bottom of the page.


      23             2008-562.  Open the public hearing.


      24             We have Ms. Alberta Hipps.


      25             MS. HIPPS:  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.



                            Tina Hutcheson, Inc.






       1             Alberta Hipps, 1650 Margaret Street,


       2        32204.


       3             I'm here to answer any questions.  We've


       4        asked for any action on this to be deferred


       5        until we work out some issues with the site


       6        plan.  But I'm here for the public hearing.


       7             CHAIRMAN GRAHAM:  Okay.


       8             MS. HIPPS:  Thank you.


       9             CHAIRMAN GRAHAM:  Seeing no other


      10        speakers, we will continue that public hearing


      11        and take no further action.


      12             Top of the Page 12.


      13             2008-563.  We'll open a public hearing.


      14             We have Robert Blade.


      15             Sir, come on down.  Your name and address


      16        for the record, followed by Deryle -- I'm


      17        sorry.  Mr. Calhoun.  Please make your way down


      18        as well.


      19             MR. BLADE:  Hi.  My name is Robert Blade


      20        at 2334 Broadmoor Lane, Jacksonville, 32207.


      21             I'm speaking in opposition to the Jackson


      22        Square development on Philips Highway.


      23             I'm all for mass transit in neighborhoods


      24        clustered to bring pedestrian friendly shops,


      25        but this proposed Jackson Square development



                            Tina Hutcheson, Inc.






       1        has too many unanswered questions.  Three to be


       2        specific.


       3             What kind of housing is going to be built


       4        there?  900 units, especially in today's


       5        housing market, is a lot to fill.


       6             Will federal Section 8 rent subsidies


       7        vouchers be used to fill them?  The Atlantic


       8        Magazine in a piece last July had compelling


       9        evidence that showed a huge upswing in violent


      10        crime in a once peaceful area of Memphis,


      11        Tennessee, where Section 8 subsidies were used.


      12        The parallels with the San Marco area are


      13        vividly clear.


      14             How will all the new traffic brought on by


      15        900 housing units be handled?  Children would


      16        in all probability go to Hendricks Avenue


      17        Elementary School.  Would River Oaks Road then


      18        become a major through street where it's now a


      19        quiet -- mostly quiet residential street?  What


      20        happens to the quality of life for the people


      21        who live on River Oaks?  What will happen to


      22        FEC Park near the proposed development?  The


      23        City's master plan has it as a passive park.


      24        If the developers use it as part of their green


      25        space, what happens to its passive purpose?



                            Tina Hutcheson, Inc.






       1        What happens to the neighborhoods around the


       2        park?


       3             Until these issues and similar ones can be


       4        resolved to the satisfaction of everyone, I


       5        urge the committee to deny the rezoning.


       6             Thank you.


       7             CHAIRMAN GRAHAM:  Thank you.


       8             Mr. Blade, just for your information, this


       9        bill is going to be deferred until October 7.


      10        So there's plenty of time for you guys to get


      11        questions and answers.


      12             Mr. Jones, hold on just a second.


      13             Go ahead.


      14             MR. JONES:  Through the Chair to


      15        Mr. Blade.


      16             I hope -- this is in District 9 that I


      17        represent.  I know you live in Mr. Shad's --


      18             MR. BLADE:  Shad's district, yes, sir.


      19             MR. JONES:  To my knowledge, there is no


      20        evidence, and I'd like to get that, that


      21        there's a correlation between poor people and


      22        crime, first of all.


      23             Secondly, I would think that the


      24        development that's proposed, some of those


      25        questions you have can be answered once they



                            Tina Hutcheson, Inc.






       1        finalize their plan unit development.


       2             And the park use, if it's a passive park


       3        today, it would certainly be a passive park


       4        once the zoning -- if the zoning is approved by


       5        the council.


       6             MR. BLADE:  I mean I think that's the


       7        whole point, that we want some of these issues


       8        resolved before anything goes forward on this.


       9             MR. JONES:  Through the Chair, I


      10        understand there is a meeting between the


      11        developer and the community association.


      12             MR. BLADE:  There was one last Thursday,


      13        but nothing really was resolved.


      14             MR. JONES:  Okay.  And I think there's


      15        another one scheduled, and I hope -- I'm going


      16        to try to attend, but it's a quasi-judicial


      17        function and I'm not sure I can.  I'll have to


      18        talk to my legal counsel here, but I hope that


      19        y'all can get together and work through some of


      20        those issues.


      21             MR. BLADE:  Yeah.  Compromises are great.


      22             MR. JONES:  Thank you.


      23             MR. BLADE:  Thank you.


      24             CHAIRMAN GRAHAM:  Thank you, sir.


      25             Mr. Calhoun?



                            Tina Hutcheson, Inc.






       1             MR. CALHOUN:  Good afternoon.  Deryle


       2        Calhoun, Jr., 2319 Broadmoor Lane.  I


       3        appreciate the opportunity to address the


       4        committee today, and I too am opposed to the


       5        development that's currently proposed.


       6             First, let me say redevelopment of the


       7        subject property is important.  Philips Highway


       8        has its challenges here, but not the


       9        residential development density that negatively


      10        impacts the character of our neighborhood and


      11        puts additional strain on resources such as


      12        roads, in particular River Oaks, and schools.


      13        Hendricks Elementary already has plenty of


      14        portables and a very small cafeteria.


      15             I support commercial development of the


      16        property.  A show of hands by about 100


      17        attendees at the community meeting hosted by


      18        San Marco Preservation indicated overwhelming


      19        approval of smart commercial development at the


      20        property.


      21             Commercial development would take many


      22        more cars off the road.  San Marco residents


      23        currently have to travel to Regency, Baymeadows


      24        or I-10 to shop at a Home Depot or a Target.


      25        Look at the residents' disappointment at the



                            Tina Hutcheson, Inc.






       1        delayed Publix project to understand how we're


       2        starving for commercial.


       3             If the proposed residential component


       4        remains, there are a number of objections to


       5        the current proposal.  The development claims


       6        to be transit oriented, yet there are no


       7        agreements in place with JTA.  If it were a


       8        TOD, the proposed parking of one half the


       9        typical required of a development of this type


      10        would make more sense, and the pioneers who


      11        move there will most certainly need a car.


      12        There will be plenty of roommates to share the


      13        rent with multiple vehicles per unit.  My


      14        understanding is a transit commitment typically


      15        precedes a TOD application.


      16             The application says off-site parking


      17        adjacent to the development shall be credited


      18        against any parking requirements.  Where are


      19        those spaces and how much sense does it make to


      20        park along Philips Highway or River Oaks Road


      21        and walk into the development?


      22             The application indicates a height of


      23        buildings up to 75 feet at the railroad.  Train


      24        noise will be unbearable to the residents in


      25        the buildings and then will bounce off those



                            Tina Hutcheson, Inc.






       1        buildings into our neighborhood.  The buildings


       2        are indicated to be located right at the River


       3        Oaks Road crossing in the path of the train


       4        horn.  And I live about a third of a mile from


       5        both the River Oaks and the Atlantic crossings


       6        and can tell you train noise is already an


       7        issue.  I'm awakened some nights and can't


       8        imagine anyone paying good money for rent or a


       9        condo immediately adjacent to a very active


      10        railroad.


      11             Lighting impacts to the neighborhood


      12        should also be considered.  All lighting in


      13        parking and on buildings should be required to


      14        be directed back into the development.


      15             Traffic impacts to River Oaks Road warrant


      16        closing it at the railroad.  It's incredible to


      17        think what will become of a 25-foot road and


      18        the property values of roughly 65 homes on it


      19        and three dead-end side streets.  I can tell


      20        you many of us already use it as a cut-though


      21        between Hendricks and Philips.  This


      22        development will degrade the quality of life


      23        for River Oaks residents.  Railroad crossing at


      24        River Oaks should be a condition of the


      25        development.



                            Tina Hutcheson, Inc.






       1             Finally, a request for a 90 percent


       2        maximum lot coverage versus the typical


       3        residential high density coverage at 50 percent


       4        with 25 percent natural seems excessive.  A


       5        more green friendly coverage will make the site


       6        more appealing to potential residents.


       7             I appreciate the time.


       8             CHAIRMAN GRAHAM:  Thank you, sir.


       9             Philip?


      10             MR. ELSON:  Thank you, Chairman Graham.


      11             My name is Philip Elson.  I live at 1608


      12        River Oaks Road.  I am here to speak in


      13        opposition to the PUD for the Jackson Square


      14        development.


      15             I'm just -- I just urge you to take a real


      16        good look at this, the staff recommendations


      17        and the PUD application itself.  I think there


      18        are some fairly significant problems with the


      19        application itself.  Many things I think will


      20        be brought up by the San Marco Preservation


      21        Society as it relates to just what's included


      22        and what's not included.


      23             I've lived in this neighborhood for 15


      24        years.  It's a beautiful little enclave in San


      25        Marco.  Sidewalks on either side of the road.



                            Tina Hutcheson, Inc.






       1        If you go out during the evening, people are


       2        walking their dogs, they're pushing their kids


       3        in strollers.  And I've got three small


       4        children that we try to keep out of River Oaks


       5        Road just because of the problems we already


       6        have with traffic.  And that's really the issue


       7        that I have is the impacts that this


       8        development is going to have on traffic.  And


       9        specifically putting all -- having an entrance


      10        onto River Oaks Road from this main


      11        development.


      12             The traffic counts that they have have


      13        over 6,000 trips per day just relating to the


      14        residential aspect of this.  And that's


      15        basically traffic that's going to be funneled


      16        right down River Oaks Road.  So I really don't


      17        think the impacts to the neighborhood have been


      18        taken into consideration.


      19             I think the big part of this is the


      20        residential aspect of it.  We're all for the


      21        redevelopment of this site.  An infill


      22        redevelopment is something personally I've been


      23        involved with, brownfields redevelopment, for


      24        over ten years with this community.  So it's


      25        not the issue of development of the site, but



                            Tina Hutcheson, Inc.






       1        it really is an issue of 900 units of


       2        residential apartment being built right


       3        adjacent to our neighborhood, and then having


       4        the traffic impacts onto River Oaks Road.


       5             I just really urge you to kind of take a


       6        look at, and I hate to do this, but in regards


       7        to your zoning legislation, Section 656.125 as


       8        it relates to what the limitations on the


       9        rezoning of land.  There's one section in here


      10        that I think really hits home as it relates to


      11        this project, and it's Item Number C5.  The


      12        proposed rezoning and redevelopment permitted


      13        thereunder will detract from the character and


      14        quality of life in the general area of the


      15        neighborhood by creating excess traffic, noise,


      16        vibration, fumes, dust, odors, physical


      17        activities and other detrimental effects or


      18        nuisances.


      19             That's exactly what's going to happen.


      20        You've heard Deryle talk a little bit about


      21        that with the train noise; traffic on River


      22        Oaks Road.  It's basically going to be really


      23        the death blow for our little enclave there on


      24        River Oaks Road in San Marco.


      25             Appreciate your time.



                            Tina Hutcheson, Inc.






       1             CHAIRMAN GRAHAM:  Thank you, sir.


       2             Shane, is it Sheffield?


       3             Name and address for the record, sir.


       4        You've got three minutes.


       5             MR. SHEFFIELD:  My name is Shane


       6        Sheffield.  I live at 1534 Marco Place.  I'm on


       7        the corner of Marco and Pine Ridge Road next to


       8        FEC park across the railroad from this


       9        property.


      10             I agree with all those comments that


      11        Deryle made and oppose it for all those


      12        reasons.


      13             The biggest concern I have about this


      14        property, obviously, it's a very industrial


      15        area.  It's worked well zoned as such.  I do


      16        think the property as proposed in this PUD, it


      17        doesn't -- it's just going to have a very huge


      18        impact on our area from a traffic standpoint.


      19             And what concerns me most, in addition to


      20        those things, is that my children attend


      21        Hendricks Avenue Elementary.  In fact, I'm


      22        lucky to be here.  My wife is due to have our


      23        third child at any moment now, so I know I'll


      24        be attending that school or being involved in


      25        that school for the next 11 years.  My daughter



                            Tina Hutcheson, Inc.






       1        is in a portable right now at Hendricks Avenue.


       2        The school does not have much room for


       3        expansion.  And my concern is 900 units and the


       4        impact it would have upon that school as well


       5        as traffic.  It's a nice quiet neighborhood and


       6        I'm afraid of what this development might do.


       7             Thank you for your time.


       8             CHAIRMAN GRAHAM:  Sir, for your


       9        information, they're in the process of


      10        redistricting the schools now, so in about 2010


      11        you may not be going to that school.


      12             MR. SHEFFIELD:  Hope so.


      13             CHAIRMAN GRAHAM:  Paul Harden.


      14             MR. HARDEN:  Paul Harden, 1301 Riverplace


      15        Boulevard.


      16             I was going to wait until the meeting


      17        where we had scheduled this hearing, which was


      18        done at the request of these folks, but I feel


      19        compelled to respond.  Let me just talk about


      20        first the status of the application.


      21             Before the Planning Department takes in an


      22        application, they do a sufficiency review.


      23        They go through and determine whether or not


      24        the application is sufficient.  The Planning


      25        Department, your professional staff, asked us



                            Tina Hutcheson, Inc.






       1        for additional information before they accepted


       2        the application.  We provided that additional


       3        information.  They did that review.  We have


       4        filed everything that the ordinance code


       5        requires.  There are things in there that may


       6        be required if the Planning Department deems so


       7        necessary that we have not filed, and those are


       8        the documents that the gentlemen are talking


       9        about.  We have provided everything the


      10        Planning Department requires, the ordinance


      11        code requires, and they have plenty of


      12        information to do the review.


      13             Now, the site is not in fact industrial.


      14        The site is currently zoned CCG-2.  For your


      15        information, on 17 acres we could set back off


      16        the site 30 feet under the CCG-2 zoning


      17        category, go 165 feet in the air and build


      18        about 3,000 hotel rooms.  You can do that


      19        without changing the current zoning on the


      20        site.


      21             So the proposal that we have made, the


      22        massing of it, the location, the access is not


      23        in fact going to change the available traffic


      24        count on River Oaks Road.  What can go on River


      25        Oaks Road now off the site if it were built out



                            Tina Hutcheson, Inc.






       1        would be about three times what we are


       2        proposing on the site.


       3             What we have proposed for the site are


       4        multi-family use, commercial use, a mixed-use


       5        activity.  We haven't proposed to add traffic


       6        onto River Oaks Road.  In Fact, we've done the


       7        traffic study, and about 90 percent of the


       8        traffic goes onto Philips Highway.  One of the


       9        proposals the Planning Department has made is


      10        that we have a stub-out to allow traffic to


      11        head to the north into the San Marco area.


      12             So I want you to remember when you listen


      13        to these comments, currently the site is zoned


      14        CCG-2.  There are a multitude of uses on the


      15        site that could go that would substantially --


      16        would provide substantially more impact than


      17        we're proposing on this site.  For instance, we


      18        could get probably a 24-hour Wal-Mart and a


      19        24-hour Target on 17 acres at the site; could


      20        build those, you know, about 60 feet in the air


      21        without changing the setbacks.  And I suspect


      22        that the traffic off River Oaks Road would be


      23        substantially different.


      24             We've offered to meet with the folks in


      25        San Marco.  I have attended every meeting



                            Tina Hutcheson, Inc.






       1        they've had.  We've gotten absolutely no


       2        impact.  The only issues they're raising is


       3        close River Oaks Road.  That's not our issue.


       4        We can't close River Oaks Road notwithstanding


       5        the comments of the neighbors.  If there are


       6        traffic issues you want us to deal with in the


       7        conditions, we'll he happy to do that, but that


       8        being said, what's allowed on the site now


       9        would provide for substantially more impact.


      10             If people have questions, and I know


      11        you've been getting e-mails, if you have


      12        questions arising from those, please let me


      13        know.


      14             Thank you, Mr. Chairman.


      15             CHAIRMAN GRAHAM:  I have a question.


      16             I don't understand -- actually, Mr. Jones


      17        and Mr. Gaffney both have questions.


      18             MR. HARDEN:  Okay.


      19             CHAIRMAN GRAHAM:  Why would you close


      20        River Oaks Road and now you're cutting off


      21        access to that park?


      22             MR. HARDEN:  I have not proposed closing


      23        River Oaks Road.  I haven't proposed that being


      24        our only access.  I haven't proposed closing


      25        access to the road.



                            Tina Hutcheson, Inc.






       1             You know, that's a traffic issue.  I


       2        understand the issue of the neighbors.  If I


       3        had a 20-acre park that I could cut anybody


       4        else from use off on, I might make a run at it


       5        too.  If I had a road that was built by the


       6        City and I could make a run at cutting off any


       7        other access, I might make a run at it too.


       8             There's been two attempts to close River


       9        Oaks Road.  Both of them have failed.  It's not


      10        our issue.  If you want to close River Oaks


      11        Road, please deal with that as a council, but


      12        we don't want to get our issue mixed up with


      13        that.  We're not adding additional traffic that


      14        can't already go there.  We aren't proposing


      15        closing it or leaving it open, either way.  We


      16        do think there ought to be open access to the


      17        park.


      18             CHAIRMAN GRAHAM:  I just -- and I guess I


      19        can't speak for the district councilperson, but


      20        if you're looking to put in -- even if you're


      21        looking to put in five apartments, I mean


      22        there's going to be kids in those apartments.


      23        You want for them to get to that park and not


      24        have to jump over railroad tracks, and this way


      25        you can walk where there is a break.  I mean



                            Tina Hutcheson, Inc.






       1        there's a road that goes through there.


       2             MR. HARDEN:  Yes, sir.


       3             CHAIRMAN GRAHAM:  It doesn't make any


       4        sense to close that off.


       5             Anyway, Mr. Jones.


       6             MR. JONES:  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.


       7             Through the Chair to Mr. Harden, have you


       8        scheduled another meeting with the neighborhood


       9        to try to work out -- explain the conditions


      10        that are being placed on the planning and


      11        development?


      12             MR. HARDEN:  Councilman Jones, you


      13        suggested at the -- well, let's start with


      14        there had been a meeting scheduled, apparently


      15        it got cancelled because of the storm.  At the


      16        last council meeting, representatives of the


      17        San Marco group asked for a deferral to allow


      18        them to have their meeting.  You suggested at


      19        that time that after that meeting they meet


      20        with us.  I went to that meeting.  I answered a


      21        few questions.  I was then asked not to answer


      22        any more questions or suggested that that


      23        wasn't the reason for the meeting.  So I


      24        haven't heard back from them.


      25             I am available.  I have let those folks



                            Tina Hutcheson, Inc.






       1        know, those folks that have been communicating


       2        directly with me that I am available to meet


       3        with them.  As of yet, I have not heard from


       4        them, but I will tell you I'm happy to meet


       5        anywhere anytime.  I am out of town for some of


       6        the period the next five weeks, that's why it's


       7        delayed for five weeks, but I'm happy to do it.


       8        We'll do it at your suggestion at your office


       9        or I'll meet with them, you know, closer into


      10        the neighborhood.


      11             MR. JONES:  Okay.  I hope that we can


      12        schedule a meeting so that you can work through


      13        some of these issues.  Maybe all of them can't


      14        be resolved, but certainly some of the issues.


      15        And maybe they are nonissues once the


      16        conditions are added to the PUD.


      17             MR. HARDEN:  Yeah.


      18             MR. JONES:  Some of the questions that


      19        were raised today may not be issues at all by


      20        the time it comes back for a final vote.


      21             MR. HARDEN:  There was in fact one


      22        meeting, and you attended part of the meeting,


      23        and there were comments made.  We respond to


      24        that, filed an amended written description and


      25        an amended site plan in response to that.  At



                            Tina Hutcheson, Inc.






       1        that meeting as well I suggested that if there


       2        are further comments, I'll be happy to take


       3        that input.


       4             MR. JONES:  Okay.  And one final question


       5        through the Chair to staff, to Mr. Crofts, I


       6        guess, or whomever.


       7             The property is zoned CCG-2 right now, and


       8        that would allow for the development as


       9        Mr. Harden described earlier for 3,000 hotel


      10        rooms?


      11             MR. KELLY:  That's correct.  The property


      12        is zoned CCG-2.  There is that development


      13        potential on there.


      14             MR. JONES:  That would not require any


      15        additional action by this committee or the


      16        council, just a matter of permit?


      17             MR. KELLY:  That's correct.


      18             MR. JONES:  Thank you.


      19             CHAIRMAN GRAHAM:  All right.  Mr. Gaffney


      20        followed by Mr. Redman.


      21             MR. GAFFNEY:  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.


      22             Through the Chair, Mr. Harden, how you


      23        doing?


      24             MR. HARDEN:  I'm fine, Dr. Gaffney.


      25             MR. GAFFNEY:  Good.  Just a quick



                            Tina Hutcheson, Inc.






       1        question.


       2             I know there's going to be plenty of


       3        discussions on this.  It's not affordable


       4        housing, are they?


       5             MR. HARDEN:  Councilman Gaffney, it is not


       6        planned to be affordable housing.  Personally,


       7        I don't think that should be an issue, but


       8        because the question's been raised, I will tell


       9        you that's not the business Cypress is in.  I


      10        suggested to the folks at the meeting the other


      11        night if they go on the web page for Cypress,


      12        they will see that every development that


      13        they've built has been infill, high-end,


      14        mixed-use products.  They've built them all


      15        over the country.  It is not going to be


      16        affordable housing.  It's going to be what I


      17        would call expensive housing.  I don't want to


      18        say it's unaffordable, but it's going to be


      19        relatively high-end apartment use and mixed


      20        use.


      21             MR. GAFFNEY:  That kind of was my point.


      22        They're executive homes?


      23             MR. HARDEN:  There's a mix of folks who


      24        rent apartments in that strata.  People moving


      25        to town that haven't found a high-end house



                            Tina Hutcheson, Inc.






       1        they want to build; it's young couples, both


       2        with jobs.  There's a mix of people that rent


       3        those.  But I think executive housing would be


       4        one of the large niches, yes, sir.


       5             MR. GAFFNEY:  Okay.  Thank you.


       6             CHAIRMAN GRAHAM:  Thank you, Dr. Gaffney.


       7             Don Redman.


       8             MR. REDMAN:  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.


       9             There seems to be some concern about the


      10        overcrowding of Hendricks school.  Knowing the


      11        area fairly well, Spring Park Elementary would


      12        be actually closer to this development than


      13        Hendricks, so would not any children that lived


      14        in this development be going to Spring Park?


      15             MR. HARDEN:  Well, we had suggested that


      16        Spring Park was the closest elementary school.


      17        One of the neighbors said they called the


      18        school board or looked at a map on the school


      19        board and said that Hendricks was the school.


      20        But unrelated to what school it is, schools are


      21        now part of the concurrency requirement so that


      22        if there are issues relating to schools, we


      23        have to deal with them in the concurrency


      24        review so that there is available capacity for


      25        the schools.



                            Tina Hutcheson, Inc.






       1             River Oaks Road, quite frankly, is closer


       2        to Spring Park Elementary than Hendricks.  So I


       3        don't know how the school board does their


       4        districting.  Councilman Graham indicated there


       5        is a redistricting going on.  Unrelated to all


       6        that, development now has to meet a concurrency


       7        requirement on school uses, and we will go


       8        through that review.


       9             MR. REDMAN:  And I know Spring Park is


      10        underattended (sic), so they have plenty of


      11        room.


      12             MR. HARDEN:  Available capacity at Spring


      13        Park.  We're aware of that, yes, sir.


      14             CHAIRMAN GRAHAM:  I don't see anybody


      15        else, so thank you.


      16             MR. HARDEN:  And I told this to the folks


      17        at the meeting the other night so we can


      18        clarify, this is scheduled to be back in front


      19        of the LUZ Committee five weeks from tonight.


      20        There was some confusion --


      21             CHAIRMAN GRAHAM:  October 7th.


      22             MR. HARDEN:  Sir?


      23             CHAIRMAN GRAHAM:  October 7th.


      24             MR. HARDEN:  Yes, sir.  Thank you.


      25             CHAIRMAN GRAHAM:  If there's no further



                            Tina Hutcheson, Inc.






       1        speakers, we'll continue this until October 7th


       2        and take no further action.


       3             2008-564.  We will open a public hearing.


       4             Seeing no speakers, we will continue that.


       5             2008-565.  We will open that public


       6        hearing.


       7             We have Steve Powers.


       8             Sir, come on down.  Name and address for


       9        the record, please.


      10             MR. POWERS:  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.


      11             I'm Steve Powers, 3423 Loretto Road,


      12        pastor of Mandarin Assembly of God.


      13             We are sort of in the process to try to


      14        work on a sign to -- we are a growing church


      15        that has a lot of -- has been growing the last


      16        two years and a lot of ministries for our


      17        community, as well as the largest Portuguese


      18        congregation in the area, growing Spanish


      19        congregation, a school, two voting precincts,


      20        polling districts, marriage ministries, and on


      21        and on it goes.  We have a tremendous amount of


      22        ministries.  And I have at least 50, 60 times


      23        my first year here alone, people said, I wish I


      24        knew you had this or that, or, We didn't even


      25        know the church was there.  And we used to have



                            Tina Hutcheson, Inc.






       1        an outside interior illuminated sign, and they


       2        had -- before I got there they took that down


       3        and they put the monument sign that they have


       4        up when they purchased the nextdoor piece of


       5        property.  So we thought, Well, how do we go


       6        about this.


       7             And it was suggested that maybe we try


       8        rezoning.  And so we went that route until --


       9        it was all good right up until the very end.  A


      10        couple of neighbors called.  So I met with


      11        Mr. Kelly and a couple of other men, and they


      12        said, Well, maybe just go with a sign waiver.


      13        I said that would be fine.  We just want to


      14        better serve our community.


      15             So we began that process.  Looked like


      16        everything was going well, met with Mr. Huxford


      17        for a while concerning that, and, you know,


      18        everything was thumbs up and I don't think


      19        there was a problem.  We were expecting to hear


      20        by the 22nd the positive report, and nothing


      21        came.  Came to city council, stood here in case


      22        there was questions, there wasn't any


      23        questions.  And then at 5:00 on Labor Day


      24        weekend I got the e-mail that said they


      25        recommend it would be denied.  It was just sort



                            Tina Hutcheson, Inc.






       1        of stunning to me because I didn't know there


       2        was a problem with it.


       3             Councilman Webb, I apologize.  I was going


       4        to get with you, I just didn't want to bother


       5        you because in my mind it was told, Well, this


       6        is not going do be an issue.  It's sort of just


       7        an easy thing.


       8             We are just putting a much nicer sign,


       9        exactly the same sign.  So from everything I


      10        was told through the process, it wasn't going


      11        to be an issue until I got this e-mail.  So I'm


      12        looking at the e-mail and seeing the things


      13        that were listed, you know.


      14             Is it in consistent character with that


      15        street?  Well, we have a Lil' Champ that has a


      16        sign, we have Loretto School, St. Joe's Church.


      17        There's other signs in that area.  And what


      18        we're looking for is something very modest.


      19             Is it going to reduce the value of the


      20        property?  It says yes.  We're taking an old


      21        beaten down like VW out of the yard and putting


      22        a brand new BMX in the driveway.  We're going


      23        to put a beautiful new sign there that's going


      24        to be nice and it's going to be very


      25        conservative and aesthetically pleasing.  So



                            Tina Hutcheson, Inc.






       1        some of these things I didn't understand.


       2             It says it would be detrimental to road


       3        traffic.  We're taking away the exterior


       4        lighting that blinds in your eyes as you drive


       5        by and putting some nice soft amber lighting


       6        and a modestly-lit sign.  It's going to create


       7        public health and safety and welfare issues.


       8        So I guess the best thing I guess I can do is


       9        ask is deferment (sic) because I'm sort of


      10        shocked by this e-mail which came late, which


      11        came just before last weekend, and I wasn't --


      12        didn't have any information on it.


      13             CHAIRMAN GRAHAM:  Thank you, sir.  Hold on


      14        just a second.


      15             Mr. Webb.


      16             MR. WEBB:  Thank you for coming down


      17        tonight.  I apologize.  This matter -- we are


      18        going to -- we're going to continue the public


      19        hearing and take no further action on this


      20        matter this evening.


      21             Like you, sir, I was somewhat surprised


      22        that the Planning Department had recommended


      23        denial of the waiver.  As my understanding,


      24        kind of just watching this go through the


      25        process, that there were no snags.  So if you



                            Tina Hutcheson, Inc.






       1        can contact my office tomorrow or we'll give


       2        you a call, we'll work something out.  We'll


       3        work on the Planning Department a little bit.


       4             MR. POWERS:  Thank you, sir.


       5             MR. WEBB:  Thank you.


       6             MR. POWERS:  Appreciate it.


       7             CHAIRMAN GRAHAM:  I see no further


       8        questions and I see no further speakers, so we


       9        will continue this and take no further action.


      10             Councilmembers, top of the Page 13.


      11             2008-567.  Open the public hearing.


      12             We have Ralphael Floyd.


      13             Sir, name and address for the record, and


      14        you have three minutes.


      15             MR. FLOYD:  Thank you.  My name is Saint


      16        Ralphael Floyd and I live at 628 Phelps Street,


      17        and this is right in front of the property that


      18        they are planning on building on.  What


      19        happened, though, due to the weather and so


      20        forth and conditions, I missed the two meetings


      21        on this matter, and I wanted to talk to my city


      22        councilman first, if I could, before I make


      23        anything public.


      24             CHAIRMAN GRAHAM:  I'm sorry.  I didn't


      25        hear what you said, sir.



                            Tina Hutcheson, Inc.






       1             MR. FLOYD:  I would like --


       2             CHAIRMAN GRAHAM:  You need to speak into


       3        the microphone.  I can't hear you.


       4             MR. FLOYD:  I would like to talk to my


       5        city councilman first before I make anything


       6        public about this building in front of my


       7        house.


       8             CHAIRMAN GRAHAM:  Okay.  Well, we are not


       9        going to take any action on this tonight.


      10             MR. FLOYD:  Good.


      11             CHAIRMAN GRAHAM:  So you can always


      12        contact his office or however you want to get a


      13        hold of him, send him an e-mail.


      14             MR. FLOYD:  All right.  When will the


      15        action be taken care of, after we discuss this?


      16        When the next action will be --


      17             CHAIRMAN GRAHAM:  Somebody from Planning?


      18        When are we moving forward with this?


      19             MR. FLOYD:  Okay.  Thank you.


      20             CHAIRMAN GRAHAM:  Hold on a second, sir.


      21             You're going to talk to him?


      22             MR. CROFTS:  (Nods head)


      23             CHAIRMAN GRAHAM:  Okay.  Head over here to


      24        the Green Room and they'll talk to you, sir.


      25        Thanks.



                            Tina Hutcheson, Inc.






       1             Seeing no further speakers, we'll continue


       2        that public hearing and take no further action.


       3             2008-588.  We will open the public


       4        hearing.


       5             Seeing no speakers, we will continue that


       6        public hearing and take no further action.


       7             -589.  Oh, that's the appeal.  We're


       8        supposed to take that at the end.  Hold on a


       9        second.  We'll come back to that one.


      10             Let's move on.  We are over to middle of


      11        Page 14.


      12             2008-627 and -628.  We will open the


      13        public hearing on both of those.


      14             The first one is Harry Wagner, followed by


      15        Dallas -- it's hard to read this last name.


      16        Cook maybe.


      17             MR. WAGNER:  We're talking about -628?


      18             CHAIRMAN GRAHAM:  -627, -628.  We're doing


      19        both at the same time.


      20             MR. WAGNER:  Okay.


      21             Hey.  I'm Harry Wagner.  Live at 13659


      22        Dunn Creek Road, Jacksonville, Florida, 32218.


      23             I'm a member of the Planning District 6


      24        CPAC.  I'm also a member of the governmental


      25        affairs in which we look at all zoning and



                            Tina Hutcheson, Inc.






       1        everything as a subcommittee before we even


       2        move on it and then make a recommendation to


       3        the full CPAC.  The CPAC is the one that makes


       4        the motions.  And I'm talking to the choir


       5        here.


       6             The first time I heard this piece of


       7        property going to the land use change was -- I


       8        don't know what the date is, but I asked the


       9        specific question at our subcommittee and the


      10        question was, What are you going to do with


      11        this property.


      12             And the answer that I got that bedded into


      13        my mind was it's going to be 400-plus homes,


      14        single-dwelling homes along with some office


      15        buildings, some office park on the front of the


      16        road, which is Starratt Road.  And I asked the


      17        question specifically.


      18             I live a half a mile from this property


      19        and I was concerned.  Plus, right across the


      20        street from this property is my church and we


      21        were building a new sanctuary at that time and


      22        I was concerned about the single-dwelling homes


      23        to see how many it was going to be.  We may


      24        have to enlarge our sanctuary.  And that's why


      25        I can remember the question that I asked.



                            Tina Hutcheson, Inc.






       1             Well, I was told later that I


       2        misunderstood, especially when it came back for


       3        the second time, came back I guess for the


       4        zoning change.  And then was nothing mentioned


       5        about this thing but the single-dwelling homes,


       6        and they were going to do everything but.  They


       7        were going to put apartments or either condos


       8        or townhomes.


       9             That part of town, of Jacksonville cannot


      10        handle that, the road to start with, and we


      11        don't need that in that area of town.  It's in


      12        a single-dwelling home established neighborhood


      13        on both north, east and south and west of this


      14        property, and it just doesn't make sense to be


      15        able to do something like this.


      16             I think as far as my concern, I'm told


      17        that that's not what happened when I first


      18        asked the question, but CPAC did not -- opposed


      19        when we found out it was going to be apartment


      20        houses and we just -- we didn't want them and


      21        we didn't need them.  The road will not take


      22        it, and it's just an unfortunate situation the


      23        way it came about.


      24             The property, the area is still conducive


      25        to single-family homes with the frontage on



                            Tina Hutcheson, Inc.






       1        Starratt Road of office buildings.  The area


       2        doesn't have no problem with that.  But when it


       3        comes to the other, and it's a catch-all zoning


       4        called an RPI, that's the one that got us in


       5        trouble.


       6             Thank you very much.


       7             CHAIRMAN GRAHAM:  Thank you, sir.


       8             Dallas, followed by Loren Kivo.


       9             MR. COOK:  Good evening, sir, councilmen.


      10             My name is Dallas Cook.  I live at 1085


      11        Seattle Slew Lane, Jacksonville, 32218, the


      12        Saddlewood subdivision.


      13             I'm representing several residents in and


      14        around the area.


      15             If you would just stand up.


      16             (Involved audience members stand)


      17             MR. COOK:  The reason for this is that we


      18        are not going to hammer you with everybody


      19        speaking.  We've gotten together and we've


      20        selected a few people.  We respect your time,


      21        we respect your intelligence on this.  But


      22        there's a few points that we want to come out


      23        with.


      24             Number one is this is a spot zoning


      25        amendment or request.  There is nothing,



                            Tina Hutcheson, Inc.






       1        nothing around our community that is


       2        multi-family.  Multi-family, according to the


       3        2010 plan, needs to be around interstate


       4        highways, which we're far from that.  The roads


       5        in the area cannot handle it.  The density,


       6        they want to put 672 multi-family dwellings


       7        there.  We have a very big problem with that.


       8        We do not oppose single-family homes, but we do


       9        stringently oppose the density, the spot zoning


      10        and the whole idea of anything going in that


      11        area like that.


      12             We are a community that is trying to


      13        protect our whole general community.  This is


      14        not just for Saddlewood.  It is for North


      15        Creek, it is for The Cape, it is for Amelia


      16        View, it is for Ashford Wood, all the areas


      17        around there.


      18             This is a very, very, very bad plan.  I


      19        was sitting there listening to Mr. Harden a


      20        while ago saying what they could do with the


      21        proper zoning, which they have the proper


      22        zoning in another area, with 17 acres, putting


      23        165-foot-high buildings there.  Can you imagine


      24        if we just let it go and if we don't stand up


      25        as a community to protect our way of life, what



                            Tina Hutcheson, Inc.






       1        could they do with 87 acres or 89 acres, which


       2        one it is?


       3             We stand firm.  We stand very firm and we


       4        ask you to really back us up as a community, as


       5        people that support you, and use your best


       6        judgment on this.  We plead with you to go


       7        against this.


       8             Thank you.


       9             CHAIRMAN GRAHAM:  Thank you, sir.


      10             Mr. Kivo.  Did I pronounce that correctly?


      11             Name and address for the record, please.


      12             MR. KIVO:  My name is Loren Kivo.  I live


      13        at 13526 War Admiral Court, 32218.


      14             I agree with what Dallas said and I'm with


      15        this group of people here.


      16             I just would like to point out the fact


      17        that the application that was turned in to the


      18        DCA with the five-year road improvement plan


      19        included a couple of roads on the northside


      20        which affect this property or thought to affect


      21        the property.  I'd just like to say that if you


      22        were to leave this property and go to any of


      23        the major thoroughfares, you would not drive on


      24        any of the roads that are being improved over


      25        the next five years.  It would take roads that



                            Tina Hutcheson, Inc.






       1        are in place today to go to like 9A or 95, and


       2        I just wanted to kind of point that out.


       3             Thank you.


       4             CHAIRMAN GRAHAM:  Thank you, sir.


       5             Tanya Mauro.


       6             MS. MAURO:  Hi.  My name is Tanya Mauro.


       7        I live at 1103 Gallant Fox Circle North.  I'm


       8        also with these people in the Saddlewood


       9        community.


      10             I'm just -- I just want to say that I


      11        agree with everything they're talking about,


      12        and I want to reiterate -- I'm actually a CFO


      13        for a mortgage company -- what the impact would


      14        be on our community value when you put our PI


      15        density in there depending on -- next to all


      16        single-family residences.  I think it would be


      17        a strong impact on the value of all the


      18        communities around us, and I just wanted to


      19        point that out.


      20             Thank you.


      21             CHAIRMAN GRAHAM:  Thank you, ma'am.


      22             Dahte.


      23             MS. KEREKES:  Good evening.  My name is


      24        Dahte Kerekes.  Nothing like it's spelled.


      25        1047 Gallant Fox Circle North, Saddlewood.  I'm



                            Tina Hutcheson, Inc.






       1        with all the good folks behind me as well.  I


       2        agree with the previous speakers.


       3             I'd just like to touch basically a little


       4        bit on some of the traffic concerns that we


       5        have.  The developer of this property is


       6        optimistic and he indicates that the increase


       7        in the net peak hour traffic of 1,184 net


       8        average daily traffic of 5,858 will result from


       9        their project.  We find that their figures are


      10        incorrect.  Using the accepted standard for


      11        determining traffic impact, it suggests that


      12        per every thousand square feet of gross


      13        leasable area, these following numbers would


      14        apply:


      15             11.01 trips daily for the general office


      16        building, which they're estimating at 128,000


      17        square feet, would bring it to 2,217 trips.


      18        Six trips daily per dwelling unit for the


      19        condos and townhomes that they're estimating


      20        out there, that would come up to 4,032 trips


      21        per day, totalling 6,249 trips per day in


      22        addition to the already heavy traffic flow that


      23        we're experiencing out there.  When you take


      24        into consideration the condos that they're


      25        talking about as well, that would bring the



                            Tina Hutcheson, Inc.






       1        numbers up to 9,280.  There's a medical office


       2        building, calculating the numbers for that and


       3        a convenience store at 2,500 square feet, we're


       4        coming up with the condos and the square


       5        footage for the general office and the medical


       6        buildings to 6,065.  And a shopping center,


       7        calculating 48 trips per thousand square feet,


       8        and again this is 128,000, plus condos, we are


       9        getting an additional 10,176 additional trips


      10        on this rural road.  And the gas station, we're


      11        estimating another 4,264 to 4,032, plus the


      12        condos, again we're at 9,184.  In addition,


      13        there is an office retail development on the


      14        corner of Webb Road right across from our


      15        entrance that has already been approved, and


      16        that's about 15-20,000 square feet of retail --


      17        I'm sorry -- 15,000 square feet of retail and


      18        20,000 of professional which we're estimating


      19        837 trips a day.  Anyway, combining all these


      20        trips, we're looking at a low of 6,900 to a


      21        high of 11,000.


      22             Also, the left-hand turns coming from this


      23        commercial center would block the traffic as it


      24        comes west on Duval Station.  And the developer


      25        did indicate that he also owns the land across



                            Tina Hutcheson, Inc.






       1        the street from this proposed activity and that


       2        a four-lane road would be constructed, which


       3        we're all well aware of as well that's coming


       4        in there.


       5             We as a group understand that this road is


       6        going to be -- with approval of this proposed


       7        project, it will bring the Starratt Road


       8        operating down to a level of F.  So we all ask


       9        you to please deny this bill, 2008-627 and


      10        -628.


      11             Thank you.


      12             CHAIRMAN GRAHAM:  Thank you, ma'am.


      13             Steven.  I'm not even going to try your


      14        last name.


      15             MR. PAGLIOCCA:  Good evening.  Steve


      16        Pagliocca, 13417 Dunn Creek Road, Jacksonville,


      17        Florida, 32218.  I'm here as part of this


      18        contingent to voice my opposition to -627 and


      19        -628.  I want to reiterate all the reasons are


      20        just.  Traffic issues, density issues, spot


      21        zoning.


      22             I moved here about two and a half, three


      23        years ago.  Before I moved here, I consulted


      24        the 2010 Comprehensive Plan.  I wanted to live


      25        in a rural area out away from primary



                            Tina Hutcheson, Inc.






       1        congestion.  That's why I chose this area to


       2        live in.  The zoning that they're looking


       3        for -- I'm sorry -- the land use change they're


       4        looking for is in direct contradiction to that


       5        2010 plan.  It would substantially change the


       6        complexion of the entire area.  We're talking


       7        about multi-family, multi-story.  That's not at


       8        all what's out there.


       9             I like where I live, and as Americans, we


      10        get to choose where we live.  And quite


      11        frankly, we as a community have a say as to


      12        what goes on where we live.  That's why we are


      13        here in such force.


      14             I used to run an operation out at the


      15        Craig Airport.  I was on the other side of the


      16        Craig Airport runway extension.  I wanted it,


      17        but the surrounding community didn't, and they


      18        were there voicing their opinions and being


      19        heard.  I saw how the process works.  The


      20        community didn't want it, and I really


      21        respected that and their ability and their


      22        right to fight for it.  And now here I am.


      23             That's why we are here.  We don't want to


      24        change the complexion of where we live like


      25        this so drastically.  We understand progress,



                            Tina Hutcheson, Inc.






       1        that's fine.  But throwing in high-density,


       2        multi-story, multi-family, in a one-acre LDR


       3        kind of area does not make sense, and it's no


       4        good for any of us.  That is my point.


       5             Thank you very much for your time.


       6             CHAIRMAN GRAHAM:  Thank you, sir.


       7             Paige Johnston.


       8             Name and address for the record.  You have


       9        three minutes to speak.


      10             MS. JOHNSTON:  Hello.  I'm Paige Johnston,


      11        1301 Riverplace Boulevard.  I am representing


      12        the land owner and the developer in this matter


      13        in this settlement agreement.  I have limited


      14        time, so I'm going to hit the highlights, and


      15        if you have additional questions, please ask me


      16        and I'll be more particular.


      17             As you heard, this is a settlement


      18        agreement dealing with a land use amendment


      19        that was submitted.  It was adopted by the City


      20        Council in May 2007, and in July 2007, DCA


      21        found 17 out of 22 or 23 land use amendments in


      22        noncompliance.  DCA's issue with these 17 land


      23        use amendments was traffic methodology.  One of


      24        those amendments was the Moody Amendment.  It


      25        had additional concerns, so it's not really



                            Tina Hutcheson, Inc.






       1        related.  There were 16 that dealt specifically


       2        and only with traffic methodology.


       3             The land owner, developer intervened in


       4        the proceeding in August 2007.  The City and


       5        the land owner and developer have participated


       6        in the settlement negotiations since that time,


       7        and no one in the audience who is sitting here


       8        today intervened at all in the settlement


       9        proceedings before DOA and DCA.


      10             I understand that Saddlewood residents


      11        understood how to initiate the process because


      12        I have e-mails from members of Saddlewood to


      13        DCA asking how they can appeal a decision.  So


      14        they were aware of the fact that they could


      15        intervene in the settlement proceedings.  But


      16        that being said, the applicant participated


      17        with the City in settlement negotiations.  The


      18        issue was traffic methodology.


      19             After discussions with DCA, the City and


      20        all the applicants with traffic issues met with


      21        DCA to discuss an improved methodology.  This


      22        is the same methodology that DOT has approved,


      23        that the metropolitan planning council uses,


      24        which I think they have a new name and I don't


      25        know what it is, but the city traffic engineer



                            Tina Hutcheson, Inc.






       1        certified the methodology to DCA.  Each of the


       2        applicants submitted traffic studies by


       3        certified traffic engineers.  Ours is on file.


       4        Wayne Petrone (phonetic) of King Engineering


       5        prepared it.


       6             There is a fair share contract for this


       7        project that has already been approved.  It


       8        went through TEU last year when Mr. Holt was on


       9        the committee.  It's approved for 672


      10        multi-family dwelling units and 128,000


      11        commercial uses.  Mr. Holt had indicated in the


      12        recent weeks that he had questions about


      13        traffic methodology, but when we provided


      14        information and Mr. Killingsworth and Ms. Catry


      15        (phonetic) provided information, it appeared


      16        that his issues were not about methodology and


      17        perhaps about use.


      18             The PUD has not been approved at this


      19        point, it's pending while this is going on.


      20        The specific limitations in the remedial


      21        amendment are nonspecific for residential and


      22        for commercial uses because we understand that


      23        those types of things need to be determined in


      24        the zoning and not in the land use stage.  The


      25        RPI land use category allows for a multitude of



                            Tina Hutcheson, Inc.






       1        uses.  We should be allowed to use any of those


       2        uses within the land use context, and then in


       3        the PUD, if there's specific uses that are not


       4        agreeable to residents or to council members,


       5        those can be vetted and those can be discussed


       6        and negotiated with the applicant.


       7             And I'm cut off.


       8             CHAIRMAN GRAHAM:  Seeing no further


       9        speakers, we will close the public hearing.


      10             Hold on a second.  We've got some


      11        questions for you.


      12             First is Mr. Webb.


      13             MR. WEBB:  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.


      14             Through the Chair, what was the reason for


      15        the DCA's denial or rejection of the


      16        amendments?  The traffic methodology, was that


      17        the sole issue?


      18             MS. JOHNSTON:  Yes, sir.


      19             MR. WEBB:  So that's really the only --


      20        but the modifications of the comp plan text


      21        amendment was vetted with respect to uses and


      22        things of that nature?


      23             MS. JOHNSTON:  Yes, sir.  And the --


      24             MR. WEBB:  Subject to public hearing and


      25        all of that?



                            Tina Hutcheson, Inc.






       1             MS. JOHNSTON:  Yes, sir.  Compatibility


       2        and consistency with the comprehensive plan


       3        were not issues raised by DCA, only traffic


       4        methodology.


       5             MR. WEBB:  Okay.  What was the DCA's issue


       6        with respect to the traffic methodology?


       7             MS. JOHNSTON:  I may have to defer -- I'll


       8        explain it the best I can and then I'll let the


       9        City respond if I've explained it incorrectly.


      10        But it's my understanding, based on our


      11        negotiations with DCA that they had two issues


      12        with the City in the determination of traffic


      13        methodology.  The first issue is that certain


      14        land use categories that are --


      15             MR. WEBB:  That's okay.  Again, my


      16        question is just --


      17             MS. JOHNSTON:  Okay.  The traffic


      18        methodology had to do with -- I'm going to have


      19        to ask Bill to answer that.


      20             MR. WEBB:  My only question, the issue the


      21        DCA had with the substance of the plan --


      22             MS. JOHNSTON:  It was traffic methodology.


      23             MR. WEBB:  -- was traffic methodology?


      24             MS. JOHNSTON:  Yes, sir.


      25             MR. WEBB:  All right.  Fair enough.



                            Tina Hutcheson, Inc.






       1             CHAIRMAN GRAHAM:  Any other questions?


       2             Thank you, Ms. Johnston.


       3             We've opened and closed the public hearing


       4        on -627 and -628.


       5             We'll move -627 first.


       6             (Inaudible motion and second)


       7             CHAIRMAN GRAHAM:  Been moved and seconded.


       8             Any discussion on the bill?


       9             Mr. Holt.


      10             MR. HOLT:  Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I


      11        appreciate you giving me the deferral at the


      12        last meeting so that I could get a chance to


      13        talk to Mr. Killingsworth and some of the


      14        Planning Department and the attorneys about


      15        this and really understand what a settlement


      16        agreement is and what this particular


      17        settlement agreement says.  And I'm going to be


      18        talking about the settlement agreement and the


      19        land use kind of synonymously because they're


      20        really wrapped up together.


      21             The land use hasn't really been approved


      22        until this settlement agreement is approved by


      23        us, by the council and by the DCA.  I learned a


      24        lot.  Bill and I went over some of this


      25        information, and I wanted to expound on here



                            Tina Hutcheson, Inc.






       1        for the committee.  And if I could ask the


       2        Planning Department some questions.  I don't


       3        know who would be best to answer them.


       4             But the trip generation estimation


       5        indicates that RPI land use creates 409 more


       6        peak trips than the previously approved land


       7        use; is that right?


       8             MR. KILLINGSWORTH:  Bill Killingsworth,


       9        Chief of Community Planning.


      10             Actually, I believe I sent a revised one.


      11        The number is still positive, but it's my


      12        belief now after conferring with Laurie that


      13        that number is approximately 108 net new peak


      14        hour trips.


      15             MR. HOLT:  108?


      16             MR. KILLINGSWORTH:  Correct.


      17             MR. HOLT:  What was the drastic --


      18             MR. KILLINGSWORTH:  The equation there for


      19        commercial use, it's a natural logarithm


      20        equation.  The planner who did that


      21        miscalculated it.


      22             MR. HOLT:  Okay.  So the numbers that we


      23        reviewed the other day --


      24             MR. KILLINGSWORTH:  There's still -- I


      25        sent you and Dylan the new -- the spreadsheet.



                            Tina Hutcheson, Inc.






       1        There is still a positive net number of trips,


       2        approximately 108 peak hour trips.


       3             MR. HOLT:  Okay.  And that has to do with


       4        the commercial portion of it?


       5             MR. KILLINGSWORTH:  The reason the number


       6        dropped from the time you and I talked was,


       7        yes, that the number of trips generated from


       8        the commercial aspect was miscalculated.


       9             MR. HOLT:  Okay.  When did you find that


      10        out?


      11             MR. KILLINGSWORTH:  Laurie responded this


      12        afternoon and I sent it to Dylan and yourself


      13        this afternoon.


      14             It dropped from -- I scratched it out so I


      15        can't actually read it.  I think it's 650 peak


      16        hour trips to 417 peak hour trips, the


      17        commercial aspect.


      18             MR. HOLT:  Okay.  So it's 108 additional


      19        trips, peak hour trips?


      20             MR. KILLINGSWORTH:  Correct.


      21             MR. HOLT:  Okay.  And in the settlement


      22        agreement, the two projects that you list as


      23        offsetting the impact of this development are


      24        the three-laning of a portion of Starratt Road


      25        and the addition of the east-west connector or



                            Tina Hutcheson, Inc.






       1        Airport Center Drive; is that right?


       2             MR. KILLINGSWORTH:  That's correct.


       3             MR. HOLT:  Okay.  And how did you pick


       4        those two projects?


       5             MR. KILLINGSWORTH:  Basically, those


       6        projects were picked through negotiations with


       7        DCA.  Maybe if I go back, just kind of answer


       8        the other Councilmember Webb's question a


       9        little bit so we can have some history on how


      10        we are where we are.


      11             Those 17 amendments were sent to DCA,


      12        actually adopted.  They were found out of


      13        compliance.  The reason that they were found


      14        out of compliance was our comp plan doesn't


      15        have -- at that time did not have impact


      16        standards in them.  We had impact standards


      17        that we used to do the analysis, but they were


      18        not adopted into our comprehensive plan.


      19        Because they weren't adopted into our


      20        comprehensive plan, DCA took the position that


      21        they couldn't verify our impacts.  For


      22        instance, one of the items, particularly with


      23        nonresidential properties, there is no Fleurieu


      24        ratio or there's no lot coverage in a height


      25        restriction.  And because of that, they



                            Tina Hutcheson, Inc.






       1        couldn't calculate the actual impacts


       2        independent of the department, so they couldn't


       3        verify our work.


       4             Since that time, we've adopted those


       5        development impact standards into our


       6        comprehensive plan and they have not found any


       7        of our land use amendments out of compliance.


       8        They have, however, found some others, but not


       9        our land use amendments.  So that's kind of how


      10        we got to where we got to.


      11             Additionally -- that was the first item


      12        that they objected to.  The second item that


      13        they objected to was the actual methodology in


      14        which we used to do the transportation impact


      15        analysis.  So we negotiated with FDOT and DCA


      16        on how we would do impact analysis going


      17        forward.  For that series, we asked the


      18        applicants to prepare a transportation impact


      19        report and provide that to DCA.  My


      20        understanding is DCA found all of those


      21        sufficient because they didn't come back and


      22        ask for additional studies.


      23             At that point, we were asked to identify


      24        roadway projects that we felt offset the


      25        impacts of the particular amendments.  In this



                            Tina Hutcheson, Inc.






       1        case, the applicant had a fair share in place


       2        already, so what the applicant chose to do, why


       3        you see a cap on the land use is that they


       4        capped their land use to match the fair share.


       5        So in essence, they have an existing


       6        proportionate share agreement that exactly


       7        matches the trip count that they anticipate


       8        having on this land use amendment.  And these


       9        two items are two of what I think are four


      10        items that are listed in the fair share, and


      11        DCA agreed to that.  So that's how we are where


      12        we are right now.


      13             MR. HOLT:  So they rejected your


      14        methodology, and as a way of offsetting that,


      15        you listed these two road projects?


      16             MR. KILLINGSWORTH:  Correct.


      17             MR. HOLT:  Okay.  Well, it's my contention


      18        that those two road projects don't offset the


      19        impact of the development.  And I brought a


      20        map, if the Chair will let me, I want to point


      21        out these two road projects.


      22             CHAIRMAN GRAHAM:  Sure.


      23             MR. HOLT:  And I'll just have to use my


      24        loud voice.


      25             (Mr. Holt approaches map)



                            Tina Hutcheson, Inc.






       1             MR. HOLT:  This is probably the best


       2        location I can put it so that all the members


       3        can see, but this is the area that we're


       4        talking about here.  If you can see this little


       5        pink line here, this is the development area --


       6        (provided microphone) -- thank you very much.


       7             This is the development area right here,


       8        okay.  And these are the two road projects that


       9        they're talking about.  They will be


      10        three-laning this road from here to here,


      11        Starratt Road.  Project's going on right now


      12        going from two to three lanes, which according


      13        to the engineers, increases the capacity of


      14        that road by five percent.  The widening does


      15        not go down here, so there are no additional


      16        lanes.  There's no additional center lane in


      17        front of the actual development.  And the


      18        east-west connector is the other road project


      19        they listed.  It's a new road that will go from


      20        here down to here.


      21             And those projects, although they're very


      22        important, they may help -- they will


      23        definitely help these people down here, but


      24        they will not help the people who live here.


      25        The people who live here, if they want to get



                            Tina Hutcheson, Inc.






       1        to 95, they go straight to 95.  They don't


       2        touch this road.  They certainly wouldn't go


       3        down here to go to here to go through there.


       4        So this road doesn't help them in any way to


       5        get that direction.  It doesn't help them to


       6        get to Main Street.  It doesn't help them to


       7        get over here to Dunn Creek, which is the


       8        primary way they get to 9A.


       9             See, I know the traffic patterns in that


      10        area, I live there.  These people that are here


      11        tonight, they live there, and they know that


      12        when they want to go to 9A, they turn here,


      13        they go down here, they get to 9A right here,


      14        okay.  And these road projects don't improve


      15        that in any way.  When they want to get to 95,


      16        they go another route.  So I don't understand


      17        why the Planning Department -- well, I do


      18        understand that the Planning Department is


      19        required to defend the action of the last


      20        council, whether they supported it in the past


      21        or not.  Any settlement agreements, our


      22        Planning Department is required to support the


      23        action of the last council.


      24             But these two road projects, if they


      25        improve these folks' lives at all, the traffic



                            Tina Hutcheson, Inc.






       1        for these folks at all, it is very minimal.  A


       2        two to three lane only improves this road five


       3        percent.  And that's -- it's even debatable


       4        whether these people will be taking this road


       5        very often.  Like I say, they always go this


       6        direction to go to 95, this direction to go to


       7        9A.  So if you guys could look at that map


       8        while I'm finishing up my comments, I'd


       9        appreciate it.


      10             (Mr. Holt returns to seat)


      11             MR. HOLT:  And unfortunately, this is one


      12        of those cases where the last council was


      13        pressured into approving this land use without


      14        having the zoning nailed down.  You know, we've


      15        seen it over and over again where -- we pass


      16        through the land use and zoning together for a


      17        reason.  They didn't do it in this case.  They


      18        separated the two.  And this was a very tough


      19        case.


      20             For those of you who were not around back


      21        then, I was actually in the audience when it


      22        happened.  The rezoning subsequently was denied


      23        five to nothing.  When it came to the land use


      24        that night, I'll tell you what was said.


      25        Mr. Clark, I'm sorry he's not here tonight, but



                            Tina Hutcheson, Inc.






       1        Mr. Clark spoke vehemently against it and voted


       2        against it.  This is what Mr. Clark said that


       3        night.


       4             He said, "I've looked online at all the


       5        pictures.  I've zoomed in on the pictures.


       6        I've looked at all the land use.  Everything


       7        out there is rural and low density residential.


       8        There's nothing touching this piece of property


       9        that's anywhere near this density.  And just


      10        because we want to do master-planned


      11        communities to the north of this doesn't mean


      12        that master-planned communities are going to


      13        push, you know, the higher levels of density in


      14        an area that's just not.  To create a


      15        transition, they're creating their own


      16        transition within their own, you know, little


      17        area here.  That being said, you know, if -- if


      18        we make a land use change, we're in.  I'm not


      19        going to support the land use change," he said.


      20        I'm quoting him directly there.


      21             And he made a very good point.  If we make


      22        the land use change, we're in.  And then the


      23        committee came back later, that same committee,


      24        and rejected -- and that's something else that


      25        just reminded me.



                            Tina Hutcheson, Inc.






       1             When the zoning came through on this, it


       2        was for 590 units.  Now they want 672 units.


       3        That seems a little disingenuous to me to come


       4        back and ask for more than what we've already


       5        refused as a council.  I think what they're


       6        trying to do is they'll ask for 672, and then


       7        they'll come back and negotiate down and


       8        they'll still get the 590 that was previously


       9        refused to them and come off looking like they


      10        have been so magnanimous to come down.


      11             I'll tell you one other reason why the


      12        committee did that night.  My predecessor,


      13        Mr. Alvarez, was putting on a lot of pressure


      14        to push it through.  I'll quote him.


      15             He said, "The land use can go forward


      16        with -- land use you can go forward with, but


      17        the zoning, we want no holdup on the zoning


      18        because I think most everybody that spoke to


      19        this was speaking of zoning matters.  I know


      20        it's confusing to y'all.  To the zoning


      21        committee, it's very, but to those, it's all


      22        one big bundle.  So I'm glad that you let them


      23        speak about it.  So the land use can go


      24        forward, but I think the zoning -- and I'll


      25        speak to that when they speak to the zoning



                            Tina Hutcheson, Inc.






       1        issues."


       2             So Mr. Alvarez pushed for these two to be


       3        separated, and I respect the committee for


       4        listening to this district council member on


       5        that, but I think that was a bad decision.  And


       6        now we have a chance to correct that.  This


       7        land use has not been passed until we approve


       8        of the settlement agreement and the DCA


       9        approves of the settlement agreement.


      10             So for all those reasons, I'm going to


      11        move an amendment to repeal the land use of RPI


      12        and return to the original land use of LDR, and


      13        that will certainly be satisfactory to the


      14        State.  So I move that amendment.


      15             (Inaudible second)


      16             CHAIRMAN GRAHAM:  Amendment has been moved


      17        and seconded.  Now we are on the --


      18             MR. JOOST:  May I ask a question?


      19             CHAIRMAN GRAHAM:  Sure.  To clarification?


      20             MR. JOOST:  Yes.


      21             (Inaudible discussion)


      22             CHAIRMAN GRAHAM:  Okay.  We'll get her to


      23        explain it.


      24             MR. HOLT:  Yes.  That would be great,


      25        Ms. Eller.



                            Tina Hutcheson, Inc.






       1             MS. ELLER:  To the committee, -627 is the


       2        stipulated settlement agreement.  It is -- the


       3        City, intervenor, Valerie Britt,


       4        intervenor/applicant and the DCA, it's just a


       5        proposed settlement agreement.  Councilmember


       6        Holt's amendment would change the settlement


       7        agreement to reflect that the City would take


       8        the remedial action to change the land use back


       9        to its original land use designation.  And I


      10        assume that the City and DCA would agree to


      11        that.  I don't think the State would object if


      12        we're going back to what it was before.  I'm


      13        assuming that the applicant would no longer


      14        sign on to that settlement.  I don't -- I can't


      15        speak for the other intervenor Britt on that


      16        particular issue.


      17             So what would happen is if it's ultimately


      18        passed, this settlement agreement as amended


      19        would go to DCA, and if they agree and they


      20        sign off on it, then the DCA and the City have,


      21        in essence, settled their issues.  If the


      22        intervenor, who's still a part of the case,


      23        wants to proceed, it's my understanding that


      24        DCA typically at that point dismisses the case,


      25        so the case, in essence, goes away.  Now,



                            Tina Hutcheson, Inc.






       1        whether or not the applicant could have some


       2        other, you know, cause of action against the


       3        City for reversing course at this point, I


       4        don't know, we could see what happens then, but


       5        that's a risk you take in every legislative


       6        decision that you make.


       7             Additionally, if the amendment does pass


       8        and the settlement agreement passes as amended,


       9        the remedial amendment that's its companion


      10        would then need an amendment also to reflect


      11        the changes made to the settlement agreement.


      12             CHAIRMAN GRAHAM:  Thank you, Ms. Eller.


      13             I have a question, if I can, Ms. Johnston.


      14             Here where you have the saying the land


      15        use change I guess is -628 where you're talking


      16        about the 672 dwelling units, why the


      17        difference between the 672 and the 590 that


      18        Mr. Holt was speaking of?


      19             MS. JOHNSTON:  Well, first of all, the


      20        traffic information that was submitted with the


      21        original land use amendment before DCA found


      22        any of the applications in noncompliance, the


      23        City requested applicants provide a traffic


      24        study.  The information for March 2007 I think


      25        is the date, that was the information that was



                            Tina Hutcheson, Inc.






       1        submitted to DCA, and it included 672


       2        multi-family units and the commercial.


       3        Subsequent to that, DCA asked for additional


       4        information.  We revised the traffic study and


       5        kept everything the same, in part because the


       6        PUD zoning has not been approved at this point,


       7        and it was my understanding that when


       8        negotiations kind of soured on the PUD zoning


       9        that all bets were off the table.


      10             I think at one point the applicant was


      11        willing to reduce the number of units.  They


      12        got to a point where the members of Saddlewood


      13        were kind of chipping away and asking for


      14        additional things, and finally they walked away


      15        and said, We'll handle this later, basically.


      16        So from my viewpoint, 590 was off the table


      17        sometime in midsummer last year.


      18             CHAIRMAN GRAHAM:  Okay.  Thank you.


      19             Mr. Webb.


      20             MR. WEBB:  (Shakes head)


      21             CHAIRMAN GRAHAM:  Okay.


      22             Any other discussion on the amendment?


      23             Seeing none, all in favor say aye.


      24             COMMITTEE MEMBERS:  Aye.


      25             CHAIRMAN GRAHAM:  Those opposed?



                            Tina Hutcheson, Inc.






       1             COMMITTEE MEMBERS:  (No response)


       2             CHAIRMAN GRAHAM:  By your action, you


       3        approve the amendment.


       4             (Inaudible motion and second)


       5             CHAIRMAN GRAHAM:  Bill's been moved and


       6        second as amended.


       7             Any discussion on the bill?


       8             Mr. Webb.


       9             MR. WEBB:  No, none.


      10             CHAIRMAN GRAHAM:  Okay.


      11             MR. WEBB:  Actually, I do have one


      12        question.


      13             Shannon, these stipulated settlements,


      14        these are all discreet settlements regarding


      15        different land uses throughout the city on the


      16        comp plan; is that correct?


      17             MS. ELLER:  Correct.  The package of


      18        amendments that we sent are considered one


      19        package.


      20             MR. WEBB:  Got it.  So we just got dinged


      21        on a number of issues.


      22             MS. ELLER:  Yeah.  But they're one package


      23        at DCA and they file them under one case at


      24        DOA, but then the DOA parcels them out as


      25        individual settlements and individual cases.



                            Tina Hutcheson, Inc.






       1             MR. WEBB:  Understood.  Thank you.


       2             CHAIRMAN GRAHAM:  Any other discussion?


       3             Seeing none, we're on -627, open the


       4        ballot.


       5             (Committee ballot opened)


       6             CHAIRMAN GRAHAM:  Close the ballot and


       7        record the vote.


       8             MR. GRAHAM:  (Votes yea)


       9             MR. JOOST:  (Votes yea)


      10             MR. REDMAN:  (Votes yea)


      11             MR. GAFFNEY:  (Votes yea)


      12             MR. HOLT:  (Votes yea)


      13             MR. WEBB:  (Votes yea)


      14             (Committee ballot closed)


      15             MS. LAHMEUR:  Six yea, zero nay.


      16             CHAIRMAN GRAHAM:  By your action, you've


      17        approved 2008-627 as amended.


      18             -628, Miss General Counsel, do we have to


      19        make the same amendment on this one as well?


      20             MS. ELLER:  Correct.  The structure that


      21        we have in place is that the settlement


      22        agreement is a stand-alone document, and in the


      23        settlement agreement, it indicates what


      24        remedial action the City will take.  So then


      25        the separate remedial action would be -- if you



                            Tina Hutcheson, Inc.






       1        had approved the original proposal, would be to


       2        add these limitations onto the future land use


       3        map.  Now the remedial action would be to


       4        change our local map, even though it hadn't


       5        become final, back to the original land use


       6        designation.  We'll send all that information


       7        up to DCA and see what they do with the case at


       8        that point.


       9             CHAIRMAN GRAHAM:  Well, is it necessary to


      10        even move forward with this bill?  I mean


      11        wasn't it all just handled in -627?


      12             MS. ELLER:  That's not the structure that


      13        DCA has put in place.  They have a very


      14        specific formulaic settlement agreement which


      15        has this exhibit attached which identifies what


      16        the City will do as a remedial action in a


      17        separate act.  And additionally, this would --


      18        under -628, it would make clear that -- I could


      19        put in language that you're, in essence,


      20        reversing what you did in 2007-383E, which was


      21        the original land use map amendment bill.  So


      22        in order to keep it clear and clean, that's the


      23        process that's been requested by the State.


      24             CHAIRMAN GRAHAM:  Okay.  So we will move


      25        forward with the Holt amendment.  Did I get a



                            Tina Hutcheson, Inc.






       1        second?


       2             (Inaudible second)


       3             CHAIRMAN GRAHAM:  It's been moved and


       4        seconded.


       5             Any discussion on the amendment?


       6             Seeing none, all in favor say aye.


       7             COMMITTEE MEMBERS:  Aye.


       8             CHAIRMAN GRAHAM:  Those opposed.


       9             COMMITTEE MEMBERS:  (No response)


      10             CHAIRMAN GRAHAM:  By your action, you


      11        approve the amendment.


      12             (Inaudible motion and second)


      13             CHAIRMAN GRAHAM:  Bill's been moved and


      14        seconded as amended.


      15             Any further discussion on the bill?


      16             Mr. Crofts.


      17             MR. CROFTS:  Just for the record, Shannon,


      18        could you tell me is the MDR on the schedule,


      19        the agenda, is the bill correct or is it RPI?


      20             MS. ELLER:  The bill is correct and the


      21        maps attached to the bill are correct.  I


      22        believe the agenda title has an error in it


      23        where it talks about the bill, the original


      24        land use map amendment going to MDR, but that's


      25        just an agenda error.



                            Tina Hutcheson, Inc.






       1             CHAIRMAN GRAHAM:  Seeing no other


       2        discussion, please open the ballot.


       3             (Committee ballot opened)


       4             CHAIRMAN GRAHAM:  Close the ballot and


       5        record the vote.


       6             MR. GRAHAM:  (Votes yea)


       7             MR. JOOST:  (Votes yea)


       8             MR. REDMAN:  (Votes yea)


       9             MR. GAFFNEY:  (Votes yea)


      10             MR. HOLT:  (Votes yea)


      11             MR. WEBB:  (Votes yea)


      12             (Committee ballot closed)


      13             MS. LAHMEUR:  Six yea, zero nay.


      14             CHAIRMAN GRAHAM:  By your action, you've


      15        approved 2008-628 as amended.


      16             Bottom of Page 15.


      17             2008-678.  Open the public hearing.


      18             Seeing no speakers, we'll close that


      19        public hearing.


      20             (Inaudible motion and second)


      21             CHAIRMAN GRAHAM:  Amendment's been moved


      22        and seconded.


      23             Any discussion on the amendment?  Can we


      24        hear the amendment?


      25             MS. ELLER:  To the committee, this is



                            Tina Hutcheson, Inc.






       1        another DOA matter whereby the DCA found our


       2        Interlocal Agreement regarding public school


       3        concurrency out of compliance.  And in this


       4        case, they have asked us just to make one


       5        administrative, almost scrivener's change, and


       6        we're going to do that.  So this bill would


       7        accomplish that, and I wanted to attach the


       8        settlement agreement to the bill so that way it


       9        was complete.  Originally when we filed the


      10        bill, we did not have that settlement agreement


      11        from DCA.


      12             CHAIRMAN GRAHAM:  Okay.  Any further


      13        discussion on the amendment?


      14             Seeing none, all in favor say aye.


      15             COMMITTEE MEMBERS:  Aye.


      16             CHAIRMAN GRAHAM:  Any opposed?


      17             COMMITTEE MEMBERS:  (No response)


      18             CHAIRMAN GRAHAM:  By your action, you


      19        approve the amendment.


      20             (Inaudible motion and second)


      21             CHAIRMAN GRAHAM:  Bill's been moved and


      22        seconded as amended.


      23             Any further discussion on the bill?


      24             Seeing none, please open the ballot.


      25             (Committee ballot opened)



                            Tina Hutcheson, Inc.






       1             CHAIRMAN GRAHAM:  Close the ballot and


       2        record the vote.


       3             MR. GRAHAM:  (Votes yea)


       4             MR. JOOST:  (Votes yea)


       5             MR. REDMAN:  (Votes yea)


       6             MR. GAFFNEY:  (Votes yea)


       7             MR. HOLT:  (Votes yea)


       8             (Committee ballot closed)


       9             MS. LAHMEUR:  Five yeah, zero nay.


      10             CHAIRMAN GRAHAM:  By your action, you've


      11        approved 2008-678 as amended.


      12             We are back now on the appeal.  I guess I


      13        have a question for the court reporter.


      14             How do you feel?


      15             COURT REPORTER:  I'm fine.


      16             CHAIRMAN GRAHAM:  All right.  I just


      17        wanted -- because we figure it's going to be


      18        another good half hour to 45 minutes.  You're


      19        good?  Our standard is normally every two hours


      20        to give you a break.


      21             COURT REPORTER:  I'm good.  Thank you.


      22             CHAIRMAN GRAHAM:  All right.  March on.


      23             2008-589 we have an appeal, Page 13.


      24             We will open that public hearing.


      25             We will give both sides --



                            Tina Hutcheson, Inc.






       1             (Inaudible comment)


       2             CHAIRMAN GRAHAM:  Let's do it right now.


       3             Mr. Holt.


       4             MR. HOLT:  Thank you, Mr. Chair.


       5             I spoke today with Mr. Wyman Duggan about


       6        this discussing exactly what the plan was to


       7        incorporate those two parcels together.


       8             Thank you.


       9             CHAIRMAN GRAHAM:  Okay.  Any other


      10        ex-parte?


      11             Mr. Webb.


      12             MR. WEBB:  Thank you, Mr. Chair.


      13             I rise to declare ex-parte.


      14             I as well had a conversation at 4:30 p.m.


      15        today in my office with Wyman Duggan regarding


      16        the background facts relating to this appeal.


      17             Thank you.


      18             CHAIRMAN GRAHAM:  Thank you, sir.


      19             Mr. Joost.


      20             MR. JOOST:  Yes, sir.


      21             Mr. Chairman, I as well would like to


      22        declare ex-parte communication with Wyman


      23        Duggan again of Rogers Towers regarding this


      24        project and the background information, et


      25        cetera.



                            Tina Hutcheson, Inc.






       1             CHAIRMAN GRAHAM:  Dr. Gaffney.


       2             MR. GAFFNEY:  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.


       3             I too wish to declare ex-parte


       4        communication with Wyman Duggan with Rogers


       5        Towers in reference to some background


       6        information.


       7             CHAIRMAN GRAHAM:  Okay.  He spoke to me as


       8        well about background information.


       9             All right.  This is how we're going to


      10        handle this.  We are going to have


      11        Mr. Franklin, we will give you 10 minutes --


      12        well, actually, you've got 15 minutes.  You


      13        decide how much you want to use upfront and


      14        then you can use what's ever left to rebut.


      15        And we will give Mr. Duggan, or whoever he


      16        wants to bring up here, his 15 minutes.


      17             MR. FRANKLIN:  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.


      18             Tim Franklin, 418 Seagate Avenue, Neptune


      19        Beach, Florida.  I'm here on behalf of the


      20        Harbortown Marina Condo Association.  I would


      21        like to, I guess, take about 12 minutes, if you


      22        could set the timer for that, and reserve about


      23        three for rebuttal.


      24             CHAIRMAN GRAHAM:  Sure.


      25             MR. FRANKLIN:  Also, I've got real quickly



                            Tina Hutcheson, Inc.






       1        some materials just to turn in to the record


       2        and then as well a handout here for each of


       3        you.


       4             The handout that I'm passing out to you is


       5        a redacted version of what I'm putting into the


       6        record, but the top page there references


       7        everything that's going in.


       8             First of all, the decision before you


       9        today is two things.  One, it's about what's


      10        very simple and it's about what's fair.  The


      11        simple thing is that the Planning Commission


      12        goofed in granting this minor modification.  30


      13        wet slips -- or 30 parking spaces for a


      14        165-wet-slip marina is wholly insufficient to


      15        deal with the parking on that.  What's fair


      16        here is that the City should stand behind the


      17        original PUD and the intent of that that was


      18        relied upon by the, for instance, HMY Yacht


      19        Sales, a very large national company that owns


      20        approximately 17 of the slips in here, Custom


      21        Marine, as well as all the individual


      22        homeowners who have a right to expect to have


      23        adequate parking for a marina of this size.


      24             Just to give you a quick time line,


      25        councilmembers.



                            Tina Hutcheson, Inc.






       1             The PUD went through in 2002.  It was


       2        approved for 150 wet slips with 100 parking


       3        spaces.  The terms of the PUD, the written


       4        description said that the parking could be


       5        changed by administrative modification but so


       6        long as all concurrent uses were adequately


       7        taken care of.  That was one of the conditions


       8        for granting an admin modification.


       9             2003 a site plan was approved.  That site


      10        plan showed approximately 100 spaces, all up by


      11        the marina.  Starting in about the middle --


      12        end of '03 and '04, condominium documents were


      13        filed and started being sold on the units with


      14        that site plan and renderings based on it


      15        prominently used in the sales presentations.


      16             In '05 the Planning Department granted an


      17        administrative modification, and that's


      18        something that's very much related to this


      19        minor mod.  That admin modification reduced the


      20        parking from 100 spaces to 30.  Additionally,


      21        they said that the 30 spaces could be


      22        distributed among four residential parcels --


      23        or three residential parcels.  I'll tell you


      24        that one of the residential parcels that's


      25        supposed to have the eight parking spaces on it



                            Tina Hutcheson, Inc.






       1        is a gated community.  There's no way to even


       2        reach those for the marina people.  And the


       3        spaces that they set in there, they're not even


       4        required to be dedicated to the marina facility


       5        inside the three separate residential


       6        communities.  They can be used by guests, they


       7        can be used by someone coming to mow the lawn,


       8        whatever.  They're just undifferentiated


       9        spaces.  So essentially, that admin


      10        modification totally eliminated the requirement


      11        to have parking for the marina.  I'll come back


      12        to that in a minute.


      13             '07, they filed a condominium amendment,


      14        and that created 165 wet slips, even though the


      15        PUD has not been modified on that issue,


      16        limited to 150, they went to 165.  I'm assuming


      17        that was some administrative determination.


      18        What they did was actually split a couple of


      19        the end wet slips that were on what you call


      20        the T out there into two separate ones.  But in


      21        any event, it went from 150 to 165 now with 30


      22        parking spaces split between three


      23        developments.


      24             '08, minor mod comes up dealing with


      25        height amendment and also changing the site



                            Tina Hutcheson, Inc.






       1        plan to allow two parcels to be combined.  And


       2        the reason for that, if you read the


       3        department's report closely, they are -- what


       4        the developer's proposing is they sold it to


       5        Julian LeCraw, who is going to develop it not


       6        with condominiums, but with apartments.  Same


       7        number of residential units, but a different


       8        type of use, and I submit to you a use that's


       9        highly unlikely to use wet slips.  In any


      10        event, between the Planning Department and the


      11        Planning Commission, that decision is just


      12        wrong, and I'll tell you the four reasons.


      13             First of all, the code of the City


      14        Jacksonville, the basic code, is two parking


      15        spaces for every three wet slips.  That's by


      16        code.  And as you know, a PUD is not intended


      17        to get around parking requirements or any other


      18        normal code requirement.  It's to allow


      19        efficiencies in development, allow for


      20        creativity and things.  Other codes I'll tell


      21        you are a lot or one for two is what you see a


      22        lot.  I put some materials in there.


      23        Miami-Dade County, St. Augustine, Fort


      24        Lauderdale does one for two.  There are some


      25        refueling facilities that have to provide more.



                            Tina Hutcheson, Inc.






       1        And St. Johns County, for example, starts at


       2        one per two but then requires every three


       3        passengers the boat can carry to have an


       4        additional parking space, so they end up


       5        somewhere between one and two and two and


       6        three.  But in any event, the City's is two and


       7        three, and that's what the PUD that you


       8        originally as City Council approved and


       9        required here, approximately 100 spaces, 150


      10        wet slips.


      11             I'm just going to tell you what we're


      12        looking for here from this committee tonight


      13        would be a reversal of the minor modification.


      14        What we'd like to see is you require the minor


      15        modification, which you can do.  It's a de novo


      16        appeal.  You can either send it back, deny it,


      17        or you can grant it and put, from my


      18        understanding, new conditions on it.


      19             We'd like to see 60 parking spaces.


      20        That's what we need here.  That comes out to on


      21        165 wet slips, somewhere between one and three


      22        and one and two.  One and three would be 55


      23        spaces, one and two would be 80.  We'd like to


      24        see 60.


      25             But I just wanted to give you that



                            Tina Hutcheson, Inc.






       1        background information on some of the other


       2        codes to see that's well within, in fact a


       3        little less, frankly, than other communities,


       4        similar communities, waterbase, would require.


       5        So the code, first of all, it's reasonable,


       6        what we had.


       7             Second, the biggest reason the admin mod


       8        was granted and the Planning Commission did


       9        what they did with the minor modification, and


      10        I'd point out that the Planning Department


      11        recommended for a height increase and for these


      12        things to add 30 parking spaces, seemingly out


      13        of the blue because the minor mod really didn't


      14        go into parking except to the extent that the


      15        units were being sold, being combined, Parcels


      16        A and B, for leased property rather than


      17        condominiums.  But the Planning Department came


      18        up with that because I think they went back and


      19        realized that there had been a goof back in '05


      20        and here was a chance to correct it.  And I


      21        point out what Councilmember Holt said a minute


      22        ago.  We put the same thing to you.  You get a


      23        chance to correct your decision and correct the


      24        decision of the Planning Commission here.


      25             One of the reasons they did what they did



                            Tina Hutcheson, Inc.






       1        in '05 and '07 is the developer and the


       2        developer's counsel asserted that the wet slips


       3        were going to be sold in conjunction with


       4        ownership of a condominium.  In fact, their


       5        letter in the admin mod file said it's


       6        reasonable to assume that these numbers will


       7        continue.


       8             I don't know where they got their numbers


       9        from because the numbers they were showing


      10        were, for instance, out of 75 units, 65 wet


      11        slips were sold corresponding to that.  Right


      12        now I'm telling you with the association's


      13        records, out of 165 slips, we have 20 owned by


      14        owners, three of those are leased, one of those


      15        that's being leased is in foreclosure.  So out


      16        of 165 slips right now total, 17 are owned by


      17        people that live within the PUD.  So the fact


      18        that these are going to be sold to owners or


      19        sold with wet slips, that's not happening,


      20        period.


      21             Now, Julian LeCraw does own approximately


      22        45 more slips.  The rest of these are owned by


      23        private individuals, 20 who live in the PUD,


      24        the majority who don't.  Approximately 16 are


      25        owned by HMY Yacht Brokers, and then there's



                            Tina Hutcheson, Inc.






       1        another couple of slips owned by other people.


       2        But if you take their numbers at 45 and work it


       3        out, you're going to find a rate of about --


       4        right now it's 12 percent owner occupied, if


       5        you will.  You extrapolate that out, it comes


       6        out to about the maximum expected would be


       7        about 16 percent people that live within the


       8        PUD owning a wet slip.


       9             What people did, the people that did


      10        purchase a wet slip initially with their


      11        condominium found the wet slip had a lot higher


      12        value.  They got a deal between the two, they


      13        sold the wet slips off as soon as they can.


      14        There were no restrictions in the '05 mod or in


      15        the '07 minor mod requiring a tying between if


      16        you own a unit, the wet slip goes with it.


      17        That could easily have been done, but it wasn't


      18        required by the Planning Department or the


      19        Planning Commission when they did what they


      20        did, nor was it done in the original PUD


      21        because that was sort of an afterthought when


      22        they came in on the admin mod.  But in any


      23        event, they're not owner occupied, and that was


      24        their strongest basis for getting the reduction


      25        to 30 spaces undifferentiated, and it's a



                            Tina Hutcheson, Inc.






       1        complete falsehood, misleading at best I think.


       2             The third point would be the 30 spaces,


       3        the required in the 2005 admin mod, again


       4        they're not accessible.  They're all within


       5        these three communities, eight of them are


       6        located within a gated community.  They're not


       7        of any use to the marina owners.


       8             The fourth point I'd make, again, the 520


       9        units that are still on the table that were


      10        going to be condominiumized, they're going to


      11        be an apartment building now.  That's what they


      12        increased the height for.  Combine the two


      13        buildings, combine the parcels and build a huge


      14        apartment building.  Apartment dwellers, even


      15        in the luxury high-end apartment, aren't going


      16        to own a wet slip also.  If they were going to


      17        do that, they would buy one of the condos.  As


      18        you know, we have a lot of condos right now,


      19        that's why they're going to apartments.  The


      20        people who are going to buy these are not going


      21        to need a condo.


      22             I'd point out too just general ITE


      23        standards, I think the Planning Department will


      24        back this up, when you have a multi-family


      25        dwelling or tenant space, if you will, versus



                            Tina Hutcheson, Inc.






       1        an owner-occupied space, there are more trips


       2        that go out.  I can't tell you the factors for


       3        why that is, but there are a significant number


       4        of trips associated with that.  I think you'd


       5        see in there too the traffic engineering


       6        department when they went for the minor mod


       7        opposed this on some of those bases.


       8             Again, the biggest thing this did or


       9        violated, I think where the Planning Commission


      10        goofed is the parking admin mod and the minor


      11        mod.  It doesn't change the associated


      12        characteristic of land use, and here it


      13        absolutely does.  The changed characteristic is


      14        you do not have owner-occupied properties.


      15        You've got tenant-occupied properties or people


      16        that own these that do not own the wet slips.


      17        That fact was again I think misrepresented to


      18        the Planning Department which they represented


      19        to the Planning Commission.  At best it was


      20        just incorrect information given or an


      21        assumption that proved to be false.  But now


      22        you know that, you know it's false.  I've


      23        tendered the numbers into the record.


      24             So again -- and there's also a letter in


      25        there you'll see from the president of Mira



                            Tina Hutcheson, Inc.






       1        Vista, which is the gated community in the


       2        back.  I'm here representing Harbortown, which


       3        are the marina owners.  Mira Vista also opposed


       4        this minor modification on all of those bases.


       5        These are residents living in a brand new


       6        condominium complex who feel like that they got


       7        a little shafted here by the reduction in the


       8        parking up front because they feel it's just


       9        going to send people on the street.  And I can


      10        tell you that's what's going to happen.


      11        Summertime when people go to get on their boat,


      12        invite their neighbors to go with them, get the


      13        mechanic on the boat because it broke down,


      14        those kind of things, you're going to see


      15        people parking willy-nilly, people parking up


      16        on Atlantic Boulevard on the rights-of-way.


      17        They have basically two spaces for offloading


      18        space, and that's insufficient as well.


      19             The proposal now, as I understand it, and


      20        I'll let Mr. Duggan speak to this, the proposal


      21        I understand is they're building a parking


      22        garage and expect to put all the parking, the


      23        30 spaces in that parking garage with two


      24        offloading spaces, and otherwise people will


      25        ferry their stuff across a street.  That makes



                            Tina Hutcheson, Inc.






       1        no pedestrian safety sense with that point.


       2        But there's a letter you're going to see in the


       3        materials I've submitted from HMY Yacht


       4        Brokers, and I'll tell you the president of the


       5        association is here if you've got any questions


       6        of him.


       7             CHAIRMAN GRAHAM:  Mr. Franklin, your 12


       8        minutes is up.  Do you want to continue?


       9             MR. FRANKLIN:  30 seconds.  Thanks,


      10        Mr. Chair.


      11             CHAIRMAN GRAHAM:  Okay.


      12             MR. FRANKLIN:  Leaving two and a half.


      13             But you'll see in the letter here they


      14        manage a lot of marinas and yacht sales


      15        operations across the country, and to the


      16        extent it's a professional-considered opinion,


      17        their letter states it very plainly, 30 spaces


      18        for 165 wet slips is ludicrous.  That makes no


      19        sense.  It's going to create a public welfare


      20        problem.  It's going to create a problem for


      21        the residents.


      22             And so again, we would like to see 60


      23        spaces.  It's very close to one and three.


      24        It's far less than the code would require, it's


      25        far less than what they agreed to originally,



                            Tina Hutcheson, Inc.






       1        and it's in keeping with the original


       2        understanding which was the slips would be sold


       3        separately in this.  They came back in with,


       4        no, they won't, we're going to sell them


       5        together.  That hasn't proved true.  So we'd


       6        like to see you go back to the latest greatest


       7        information, the Planning Commission did not


       8        have it in front of them, and do the right


       9        thing here.  And we'd like to see 60 slips


      10        dedicated to the marina near the marina.


      11             Thank you.


      12             CHAIRMAN GRAHAM:  Mr. Franklin, you have


      13        about two and a half minutes left.


      14             Mr. Duggan, come on down.  You have 15


      15        minutes to wow us.


      16             MR. DUGGAN:  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.


      17        I'll be brief.


      18             First of all, we didn't seek this minor


      19        modification to do an apartment use.  That's


      20        inaccurate.  We could always do an apartment


      21        use.  And secondly, we did not ask to


      22        increase -- let me back up.


      23             Nothing in our application addressed the


      24        parking issue because the marina is a


      25        separately-owned parcel from our land.  We



                            Tina Hutcheson, Inc.






       1        don't have an ownership interest in their land


       2        and they don't have an ownership interest in


       3        our land.  The minor modification to the --


       4        excuse me -- the administrative modification to


       5        the PUD obligated our parcel to provide 12


       6        spaces to serve the marina.  The Planning


       7        Commission more than doubled that to 30.  So


       8        they've already gotten relief on the parking


       9        issue.  You cannot put this inordinate burden


      10        on our land that they don't own, that they


      11        don't have an ownership interest in, nor was it


      12        a subject of our application.  There's no


      13        ownership tie between the marina and our land.


      14             Contrary to what Mr. Franklin said, the


      15        traffic engineer did not oppose our


      16        application.  She had concerns about the


      17        operation of how the proposed roundabout would


      18        work.  Those issues will have to be addressed


      19        in engineering.  I believe that they have been.


      20             So to sum up, all that we asked for was to


      21        combine two parcels into one, keep the same


      22        number of units, do an apartment use, which the


      23        PUD always contemplated.  We asked for an


      24        increase in height so we could cluster the


      25        development in the middle of the parcel to



                            Tina Hutcheson, Inc.






       1        provide more setback, more open space.  I


       2        personally think a greater height right there


       3        on the waterway is a better planning approach


       4        rather than covering the whole site in low-rise


       5        buildings.  The Planning Department reviewed


       6        it, recommended approval.  Planning Commission


       7        heard several pages of testimony.  You can look


       8        through your binders and see how long this


       9        hearing lasted.  There were six or seven


      10        speakers from the community or slip owners.


      11        The only area the Planning Commission felt was


      12        worth addressing was the parking issue.  They


      13        more than doubled our obligation to provide


      14        parking for the marina.  I think that's a


      15        reasonable result and I would ask you to


      16        support the findings of the Planning


      17        Department, the ruling of the Planning


      18        Commission.


      19             And just to summarize, I would point out


      20        that I haven't seen what Mr. Franklin put into


      21        the record, I haven't gotten a copy of it, but


      22        certainly nothing he says counts as evidence on


      23        which you can overturn this decision.  The case


      24        law is quite clear that attorney testimony is


      25        not competent substantial evidence.



                            Tina Hutcheson, Inc.






       1             Thank you.


       2             CHAIRMAN GRAHAM:  You're not going to use


       3        technical terms like willy-nilly?


       4             MR. DUGGAN:  Not at this time.


       5             CHAIRMAN GRAHAM:  Okay.  Thank you.  Hold


       6        on a second.


       7             Mr. Webb, is this for -- do you want to


       8        wait until after we close?


       9             MR. WEBB:  (Inaudible comment)


      10             CHAIRMAN GRAHAM:  Okay.  Mr. Franklin, you


      11        have two and a half minutes.


      12             MR. FRANKLIN:  Thank you, Mr. Chair.


      13             First of all, it's true that minor


      14        modification did not need approval to go to an


      15        apartment.  It's still multi-family use whether


      16        you build it as a condo or whether you build it


      17        as this.  What they did need to do in order to


      18        make the apartment building workable and


      19        financially feasible was to combine the parcels


      20        and put it into one building.  So that's the


      21        extent of it.  That's what happened on it, and


      22        that was the reason for it.


      23             Second issue, I would just disagree with


      24        Mr. Duggan.  The letter's in the file.  In the


      25        minor mod, Lisa King recommend disapproval



                            Tina Hutcheson, Inc.






       1        unless the roundabout issue was dealt with.


       2        This goes back to January.  The Planning


       3        Department approved it, or Planning Commission


       4        approved it with a condition that they work


       5        with them and the final plans subject to their


       6        review and approval.  The original


       7        recommendation was to oppose this.


       8             Third here, I think the biggest misnomer


       9        is Crescent Properties developed this entire


      10        parcel.  They're the master developer, they


      11        filed the master restrictions for the parcel


      12        and still controlled the master common area on


      13        this.  Crescent Properties has always been


      14        represented by Rogers Towers.  I believe they


      15        may also in some cases represent Julian LeCraw,


      16        but I believe they're here for Crescent


      17        Properties on this.  And the common area where


      18        the parking was slated to be originally is


      19        still controlled by them and can be put there.


      20             The word on the street -- similar to a


      21        willy-nilly comment, the word on the street is


      22        that they don't want parking up by the marina


      23        because it would block the views of the people


      24        looking out over the towers, even though when


      25        they originally came in, brought the site plan



                            Tina Hutcheson, Inc.






       1        in that was approved and drew up all the fancy


       2        renderings, that's exactly what it showed.


       3        That's what everybody's been expecting the


       4        whole time because that's where you want your


       5        marina parking so you can pull up, unload your


       6        gear, unload your stuff, unload your cooler,


       7        unload your family in a safe place and walk


       8        right out to your boat and get on that.  That's


       9        pedestrian safe and it's expected.  It's a


      10        ground-level parking.


      11             What they now want to do is go back and


      12        put a big parking garage behind this and


      13        preserve open views and things like that.  But


      14        the idea that we are trying to somehow get a


      15        little bit of their property or something that


      16        we're not entitled to is just absolutely not


      17        true.  It's a question of how the property


      18        that's available for parking is used.  And


      19        again, 60 spaces is immanently reasonable for a


      20        165-wet-slip marina.


      21             What I tendered into the record in there


      22        were the records from the master association on


      23        ownership of the parcel.  The highlighted


      24        people, there's approximately 20 of them, the


      25        highlighted ones are owner occupied, and then



                            Tina Hutcheson, Inc.






       1        where there's renters, there's three of those.


       2        So those are the master association's records


       3        that I tendered in there.


       4             And again, on standby, 60 spaces is


       5        reasonable, 30 spaces is not.  It's an


       6        associated characteristic land use.  The


       7        Planning Commission got it wrong.  The Planning


       8        Department when they did the admin mod got it


       9        wrong based on misinformation.  You've got a


      10        chance to correct the decision here tonight,


      11        and I ask for your support.


      12             Thank you.


      13             CHAIRMAN GRAHAM:  Thank you, sir.  That


      14        all being --


      15             MR. DUGGAN:  Regrettably, Mr. Chairman, I


      16        do have to use one of those legal terms.


      17        Mr. Franklin's comment about "the word on the


      18        street" is total hearsay.


      19             CHAIRMAN GRAHAM:  Mister mister.


      20             Okay.  Thank you.


      21             The public hearing is closed, and I


      22        have -- Mr. Webb, I thought you were first.


      23        How did Mr. Joost get in front of you?


      24             MR. WEBB:  I'll yield.


      25             CHAIRMAN GRAHAM:  Mr. Joost.



                            Tina Hutcheson, Inc.






       1             MR. JOOST:  Through the Chair to legal, my


       2        question is -- or to whoever can speak to the


       3        contention that one space is required per two


       4        wet slips.  Is that true or not?


       5             MR. KELLY:  The code requirement is that


       6        there's two spaces required for every three


       7        slips, two parking spaces per three slips.


       8             MR. JOOST:  So let me ask you this, how


       9        did we get around that whole issue to begin


      10        with?


      11             MR. KELLY:  Well, originally, as they had


      12        proposed, the original PUD was contemplated to


      13        meet Part 6 of the zoning code, the two spaces


      14        per three slips.  Subsequent to that, based on


      15        the purchasing and the owner-occupied units,


      16        the LeCraw company at the time hired Rogers


      17        Towers to file for an administrative


      18        modification to the PUD basically to reduce the


      19        required number of parking spaces, that 100


      20        spaces, down to 30 spaces to be distributed on


      21        the three parcels.  One of the parcels is the


      22        subject of this appeal, Parcel B.


      23             MR. JOOST:  What was the underlying basis


      24        of their -- of the change from the number of


      25        parking spaces?



                            Tina Hutcheson, Inc.






       1             MR. KELLY:  Their argument was that the


       2        residents at that time that were buying the


       3        units were also buying the boat slips.  So the


       4        majority of the slips that were being purchased


       5        were being purchased by the residents who


       6        already had parking available to them with


       7        their residential unit.  So they essentially


       8        requested a reduction from 100 down to 30,


       9        basically a 70 percent reduction.


      10             Our code, in a sense, is a little


      11        deficient when it comes to marinas because it


      12        doesn't specifically anticipate the mixed use.


      13        If you had a stand-alone marina with no


      14        dwelling units, then yes, certainly you would


      15        need the two spaces for every three slips.  But


      16        when you have a mixed-use residential, people


      17        living there, then it's questionable whether or


      18        not those number of spaces are warranted.  And


      19        based on the information that we received and


      20        the administrative --


      21             MR. JOOST:  So what you're saying is the


      22        higher ratio is needed when the residents


      23        actually live on the premises versus -- what


      24        I'm saying, the boat owner and the resident is


      25        one in the same, therefore, the higher ratio is



                            Tina Hutcheson, Inc.






       1        required of the two to three versus, "I'm


       2        parking my boat at that particular marina, but


       3        I do not live there," therefore, not as many


       4        parking spaces are needed?


       5             MR. KELLY:  That was the thinking,


       6        correct, that basically the need for the


       7        parking was diminished by the fact that the


       8        people that owned the slips at the marina were


       9        living on site.


      10             MR. JOOST:  Were living on site?  So in


      11        reality, what's happened -- so you're saying


      12        the higher ratio is needed when people have


      13        their boats at the marina but do not live on


      14        site?


      15             MR. KELLY:  Correct.  If it was a


      16        stand-alone marina, then yes, we would expect


      17        it to meet the full requirement under the code,


      18        which was the two spaces per three boat slips.


      19             MR. JOOST:  How do you -- well, I guess


      20        how do you verify the residential ratio there


      21        currently now living there?


      22             MR. KELLY:  The residential parking


      23        requirements are to code and probably exceed


      24        code requirements.  Generally, a two bedroom


      25        requires two spaces, and then for each



                            Tina Hutcheson, Inc.






       1        additional bedroom beyond a two bedroom there's


       2        another quarter space required.  So generally,


       3        the residential parking I believe in this


       4        instance is to code or exceeds code.


       5             MR. JOOST:  Mr. Franklin, can I ask you a


       6        question, please.


       7             So what your contention is is that's not


       8        what -- the boat owner and the condo owner are


       9        now two different parties?


      10             MR. FRANKLIN:  Correct, for the most part.


      11             MR. JOOST:  And therefore, you need more


      12        parking?


      13             MR. FRANKLIN:  That's correct.


      14             And just to Mr. Kelly's point real quickly


      15        and off what you said, while the residential


      16        may meet or exceed code for the residential,


      17        the additional spaces they had available were


      18        the ones that were first tagged to be the eight


      19        spaces and 12 spaces and five spaces, however


      20        that adds up to 30, the 30 extra spaces were


      21        incorporated into what they had additional and


      22        extra there that again are not required to be


      23        marked for marina spaces, not required to be


      24        located close to the marina or closest to the


      25        marina.  They're there for guests or anybody



                            Tina Hutcheson, Inc.






       1        else at the residence.


       2             MR. JOOST:  How did you compile your --


       3        well, I guess since you're representing the


       4        homeowners association you would know, but how


       5        did you comprise your information?  I mean how


       6        do you know only X number of people living


       7        there actually have boat slips also?


       8             MR. FRANKLIN:  Going off the addresses


       9        that we had available from the management


      10        company.  The records I've given you were


      11        supplied and they're essentially the billing


      12        records for the management company for billing.


      13        Every month or every three months, I believe,


      14        with the association there's an assessment


      15        levied.  That bill goes out, and so the address


      16        for the person is not Mira Vista or Harbortown


      17        or Waters Edge or one of those condominium


      18        complexes.  They don't live there.  And then as


      19        well, if you lease your slip, you're required


      20        to give us notice and give us the name of the


      21        tenant and what kind of boat they're using and


      22        stuff, so we have those.  For every one that's


      23        leased, we have that information as well.  So


      24        that's, again, the 20 we know live there, and


      25        of those, the three tenants.



                            Tina Hutcheson, Inc.






       1             MR. JOOST:  Mr. Duggan, would you dispute


       2        his information as far as the residential ratio


       3        to boat owners goes?


       4             MR. DUGGAN:  I would.  I haven't seen any


       5        of that information.  It hasn't been provided


       6        to me, I can't validate it.  I have no idea.


       7        He's made statements tonight that I know aren't


       8        true.  I'm not going to take that one at face


       9        value.


      10             MR. JOOST:  All right.  Thank you.


      11             CHAIRMAN GRAHAM:  I have a question,


      12        Mr. Webb, if I may.


      13             To the Planning Department, when the


      14        spaces were reduced from 100 spaces down to 30


      15        spaces and then they kind of divvied it up


      16        between the different projects, how many


      17        different projects are we talking about?  Are


      18        we talking about -- go ahead.


      19             MR. KELLY:  There's multiple parcels.


      20        Mr. Duggan's client owns Parcel A and B.  The


      21        parking was distributed between Parcel D,


      22        Parcel B, which Mr. Duggan owns, and Parcel E.


      23             CHAIRMAN GRAHAM:  How was that


      24        distributed, the 30 parking spaces, 10, 10, 10?


      25             MR. KELLY:  10 to Parcel D, 8 to Parcel E



                            Tina Hutcheson, Inc.






       1        and 12 to Parcel B, the subject of the


       2        modification.


       3             CHAIRMAN GRAHAM:  So Mr. Duggan, his


       4        burden was 12 parking spaces?


       5             MR. KELLY:  Correct, initially.


       6             CHAIRMAN GRAHAM:  Okay.  And initially,


       7        his piece was considered to be a condo that's


       8        now going apartment; is that correct?


       9             MR. KELLY:  The change in the use, I


      10        guess, that was not the subject of the


      11        modification request.


      12             CHAIRMAN GRAHAM:  Okay.  Second question,


      13        the other two pieces that were burdened with


      14        parking, those are apartments or condos?  Those


      15        are owners or leases?


      16             MR. KELLY:  I believe they're all owners.


      17             CHAIRMAN GRAHAM:  Okay.  So the only thing


      18        that potentially has changed from the beginning


      19        of all this is that Mr. Duggan's current client


      20        is proposing to go to apartments, but that


      21        wasn't part of the minor mod?


      22             MR. KELLY:  That's correct.  The minor mod


      23        obviously contemplated the height issues and


      24        some setbacks and open space issues, which were


      25        really the main requirements.  When we reviewed



                            Tina Hutcheson, Inc.






       1        the application, I think we kind of thought a


       2        little bit twice about the original


       3        administrative modification that was approved


       4        that reduced that number so significantly


       5        because we had a lot of calls and a lot of


       6        questions about opposition on this minor mod,


       7        but when it turned out at the public hearing,


       8        the opposition wasn't really for anything that


       9        they were requesting, but it was for the


      10        parking.  And we essentially knew that was


      11        coming, and in light of that, we made


      12        consolation, I guess, to increase the required


      13        number of parking spaces for the marina portion


      14        of their property on their site.


      15             Initially, they wanted to do it in the


      16        parking garage, tie it to their development,


      17        but we had requested that it be specifically in


      18        front of the marina.  So they went from the 12


      19        required to the 30 provided.  Plus, you've got


      20        10 additional on Parcel D and 8 additional on


      21        Parcel E.  So you're really looking now total


      22        at 48 spaces, which based on the number of


      23        slips, cuts the original PUD approved, 2002


      24        PUD, basically by 50 percent.


      25             CHAIRMAN GRAHAM:  Okay.  Mr. Webb, I'm



                            Tina Hutcheson, Inc.






       1        sorry.


       2             MR. WEBB:  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.


       3             All right.  Through the Chair to Sean,


       4        what parcel is the marina on?


       5             MR. KELLY:  Well, the marina is in the


       6        water so --


       7             MR. WEBB:  Well, I appreciate that.  Where


       8        is the ship store and where is the parking for


       9        the marina?


      10             MR. KELLY:  If you look at the site plan,


      11        it should be in your package, it's dated


      12        3/4/08, that's Parcel A and B that basically


      13        fronts.  So the marina is not, but the parking


      14        for the marina is on I think parcel -- I want


      15        to say Parcel B.


      16             MR. WEBB:  All right.  And how many spots


      17        were there?


      18             MR. KELLY:  Initially, the overall PUD was


      19        required to do 100 spaces.  Based on the sales


      20        that occurred over the course, and they had


      21        applied for an administrative modification, we


      22        reduced that requirement down to 30 spaces for


      23        the overall development, 12 of which would be


      24        on Parcel B.  As a result of the minor


      25        modification, we basically required Parcel B to



                            Tina Hutcheson, Inc.






       1        increase from 12 to 30 spaces.


       2             MR. WEBB:  Say that again, that last line.


       3             MR. KELLY:  The minor modification, one of


       4        the conditions was that we felt the 12 spaces


       5        weren't sufficient, that we wanted to gain some


       6        additional parking spaces for the marina


       7        facilities and go to 30.


       8             MR. WEBB:  Right.  Okay.  So --


       9        interesting.  Okay.  But once again, the minor


      10        modification had nothing to do with the use of


      11        the property, that is it just had to do with


      12        the linking it or the combining of the two?


      13             MR. KELLY:  That's correct.  The


      14        parcelization was --


      15             MR. WEBB:  I tell ya what, let's cut to


      16        the chase here.  What effect did the minor


      17        modification have on overall parking between --


      18        what effect did it have on overall parking?


      19        Was there a reduction, was it just moot, what


      20        was the net?


      21             MR. KELLY:  In actuality, what they


      22        requested as part of the minor modification had


      23        no effect on the parking.  The parking was a


      24        condition we recommended in our review of it in


      25        light of I guess some of the anticipated



                            Tina Hutcheson, Inc.






       1        opposition that was calling and in light of we


       2        felt that we probably under -- or


       3        overcorrected -- the original reduction we felt


       4        was a little too much.


       5             MR. WEBB:  So that decision had been made,


       6        again, but the minor mod had nothing to do on


       7        the overall parking situation?


       8             MR. KELLY:  Correct.  We didn't think that


       9        the minor modification --


      10             MR. WEBB:  Okay.


      11             MR. KELLY:  One, it couldn't supervent --


      12        or supersede the original administrative


      13        modification that reduced the parking in the


      14        first place.


      15             MR. WEBB:  Okay.  Fair enough.  All right.


      16        So again, back to the supposition that if


      17        apartments are there as opposed to


      18        condominiums, what is the assumption, that that


      19        would require a greater number of spots?  Is


      20        that what I'm hearing?


      21             MR. KELLY:  No.  We are -- essentially,


      22        from the zoning perspective, we're ownership


      23        neutral.  So the use is the use, it's


      24        multi-family, based on the number of units,


      25        that's how we look at it.



                            Tina Hutcheson, Inc.






       1             MR. WEBB:  Okay.  All right.  Thank you.


       2        I have no further questions.


       3             CHAIRMAN GRAHAM:  I have -- I was going to


       4        say let me back up.


       5             Initially, there was -- if this was just a


       6        stand-alone marina, there's 100 parking spaces


       7        that would be associated with this marina,


       8        correct?


       9             MR. KELLY:  (Nods head)


      10             CHAIRMAN GRAHAM:  And since they made the


      11        argument that some of these marina slips are


      12        going to be owner occupied, we cut that number


      13        down to just a little bit more than a third, so


      14        we cut it down to 30 spaces; is that correct?


      15             MR. KELLY:  (Nods head)


      16             CHAIRMAN GRAHAM:  And of the 30 spaces, 12


      17        of those were associated with Mr. Duggan's PUD?


      18             MR. KELLY:  (Nods head)


      19             CHAIRMAN GRAHAM:  So if you wanted to use


      20        the assumption that somebody that's in an


      21        apartment is probably not going to own a boat


      22        slip, then -- you had ratcheted down by a


      23        third, and you'd probably have to ratchet it


      24        back up by the third to be back, assuming that


      25        100 percent of the apartment people will not be



                            Tina Hutcheson, Inc.






       1        owning boat slips.  Does that make sense?


       2             MR. KELLY:  There's an assumption there.


       3        I don't know, you know, to what -- whether or


       4        not that's so entirely accurate.


       5             CHAIRMAN GRAHAM:  So even if the


       6        assumption that apartment people or the people


       7        in the apartment won't be owning boat slips,


       8        ratcheting that back up by three times only


       9        brings it back up to 36 spots.  So they're


      10        really only six spots shy of the argument that


      11        they're making; is that correct?  You're just


      12        multiplying the 12 spots that they had to


      13        initially provide, multiply that by three.


      14             MR. KELLY:  Correct.  36 spaces.  Again,


      15        it's all based on, you know --


      16             CHAIRMAN GRAHAM:  It's all very


      17        subjective, but if the argument that people


      18        living in a place -- I mean owning a place


      19        compared to renting a place aren't going to be


      20        someone that's going to own a boat slip, and


      21        I'm just going off of that assumption that was


      22        out there.


      23             MR. KELLY:  (Nods head)


      24             CHAIRMAN GRAHAM:  Okay.  I just wanted to


      25        get that straight in my head.  So we're only



                            Tina Hutcheson, Inc.






       1        really talking about six spots instead of 60


       2        spots.  Well, we're talking about 36 spots


       3        opposed to 60 spots.


       4             MR. KELLY:  The condition of approval was


       5        that they provide 30.  They were already


       6        required to provide 12.  I think the argument


       7        now became -- and it was kind of unclear at the


       8        time whether or not it was 30 in lieu of 12 or


       9        30 in addition to the 12 that they were already


      10        providing.  So is it 42 or is it 30?


      11             CHAIRMAN GRAHAM:  I understand that there


      12        is a burden out there and there's people out


      13        there looking for places to park and there's


      14        just not parking available.


      15             Mr. Joost.


      16             MR. JOOST:  Through the Chair to


      17        Mr. Kelly.


      18             Can you back up a second?  Originally,


      19        you're saying there's roughly 100 parking


      20        spaces, then we knocked it down to 30, and then


      21        we divided that 30 up to 9, 9 and 12?


      22             MR. KELLY:  8, 10 and 12.


      23             MR. JOOST:  Okay.  Close enough.  What


      24        happened to the other 18?  I mean are they


      25        still designated for boat owners?



                            Tina Hutcheson, Inc.






       1             MR. KELLY:  They're a requirement under


       2        that administrative modification to the overall


       3        PUD.


       4             MR. JOOST:  So if we go up to 30, there's


       5        still -- that would make a total of 48,


       6        wouldn't it, that's set aside for boat owners?


       7             MR. KELLY:  That's correct.


       8             MR. JOOST:  The other 10 and 8 are in


       9        other parcels?


      10             MR. KELLY:  That's correct.  18 would be


      11        on Parcels D and E, and then, correct, 30 on


      12        Parcel B.  So 48 total.


      13             MR. JOOST:  There would be a total of 48


      14        spaces available if we went with the 30.  Okay.


      15        That answers my question.


      16             Thank you.


      17             CHAIRMAN GRAHAM:  Mr. Webb.


      18             MR. KELLY:  To the Chair, though, to point


      19        out, I think they did indicate that the number


      20        of slips was increased, although not through


      21        the PUD.  The PUD I don't believe specifically


      22        regulated the number of slips, but it was


      23        increased from 150 to 165, so there's 15


      24        additional slips that were added.


      25             CHAIRMAN GRAHAM:  Okay.  So rather than



                            Tina Hutcheson, Inc.






       1        the initial burden being 100, the initial


       2        burden would have been -- what's two thirds of


       3        165?  It's 110.


       4             All right.  I don't have anybody in the


       5        queue, so we opened and closed the public


       6        hearing, now we need to make an amendment to


       7        approve to grant the appeal or to deny the


       8        appeal.


       9             Ms. Eller, if we move to grant the appeal


      10        means that we're overturning the minor mod; is


      11        that correct?


      12             MS. ELLER:  Correct.


      13             CHAIRMAN GRAHAM:  If we move to deny the


      14        appeal, that means we're moving for the minor


      15        mod as written?


      16             Do we have within our purview to change


      17        the minor mod as it came before us?


      18             MS. ELLER:  Yes.  This is a de novo


      19        appeal, which means that you hear all of the


      20        evidence anew and you can approve the appeal


      21        and you can approve portions of the minor mod,


      22        you can change portions of the minor mod, you


      23        can do any of those things.  If you do do those


      24        things, I suggest that we ask the applicant on


      25        the record if they agree or they don't agree.



                            Tina Hutcheson, Inc.






       1        If they don't agree, then your choice is to


       2        either approve something over their objection


       3        or just take that off the table and deny or


       4        approve flat out.


       5             CHAIRMAN GRAHAM:  Okay.  I just wanted to


       6        figure out where we are.


       7             Mr. Joost.


       8             MR. JOOST:  Through the Chair to


       9        Mr. Duggan.


      10             Just one question for you.  Say we're five


      11        years down the road, the economy's much


      12        improved, all the boat slips, condominiums,


      13        apartments are sold.  Where do all these people


      14        park?


      15             MR. DUGGAN:  Well, I would say there's a


      16        lot of assumptions in that question.


      17             MR. JOOST:  Well, I mean obviously you


      18        don't build a project not to sell it out.  I


      19        mean I don't.  So at some point just say it's


      20        90 percent occupied, I mean you're always going


      21        to have some turnover, where is everybody going


      22        to park?


      23             MR. DUGGAN:  Are you talking about for the


      24        apartments on my client's parcel, is that your


      25        question?



                            Tina Hutcheson, Inc.






       1             MR. JOOST:  The whole thing.  Because


       2        originally it all started out as one ownership


       3        deal.


       4             MR. DUGGAN:  Okay.  Now I understand.


       5             On our parcel, the parcels formerly A and


       6        B, now one, we're providing two parking


       7        garages, so we're going to have more than


       8        sufficient parking to park all of the people


       9        who reside there either as apartments or


      10        condos.  Again, we didn't need approval to do


      11        apartments.  The original PUD approved it for


      12        multifamily.  So either way, we're going to


      13        park all those people.


      14             MR. JOOST:  Has there ever been any


      15        thought to putting some of the spaces in the


      16        garage to designate for the marina boat owners?


      17             MR. DUGGAN:  Yes, there was.  That was


      18        suggested by me at Planning Commission.


      19        Planning Commissioners did not want to go that


      20        route.  They wanted to provide the spots closer


      21        to the water, and that's what we have done.


      22        Our site plan that has been submitted for


      23        ten-set approval shows those spots in that main


      24        access road in close proximity to the marina.


      25             Now, just to finish answering your



                            Tina Hutcheson, Inc.






       1        question, the other two parcels are built out.


       2        They've sold out.  They've got parking.


       3        They've got 18 spaces -- I think their


       4        testimony was that 17 people who live out there


       5        have slips, so they're fully parked.  So


       6        they're fully parked.  Our garages are going to


       7        fully park our site.


       8             MR. JOOST:  So what do you do -- I mean if


       9        the contention is most of the people that live


      10        there don't own boats, so therefore, the ratio


      11        of parking for the marina needs to be closer to


      12        the two to three versus where are we at now,


      13        one to three?  What do you do -- what do you do


      14        with all those boat owners that don't have a


      15        place to park?


      16             MR. DUGGAN:  Well, my response to that


      17        would be that's not my client's obligation.


      18        That's an interesting hypothetical.  It's not


      19        what we sought review for.  It's not -- you


      20        can't put all of that burden on us.  We're


      21        providing 48 spaces.  I would submit to you --


      22        by the way, I believe there was actually


      23        another PUD amendment in 2005 to add the 15


      24        marina slips.  It explicitly provided that the


      25        administrative modification provisions would



                            Tina Hutcheson, Inc.






       1        continue to control the parking issue.  But


       2        that's an aside.


       3             I don't think that you are going to have a


       4        day, even if you assume that 165 of those slips


       5        are full, and I don't know of a marina around


       6        town that has every one of its slips full, I


       7        don't think you're going to have a day where


       8        every one of those people comes out there and


       9        wants to use their boat.


      10             I've done work, as Mr. Webb knows, we


      11        represented an attempt to redevelop the


      12        Julington Creek Marina at San Jose.  They only


      13        have about 30 spots.  They're doing fine.  They


      14        don't have days where they've got problems with


      15        too much parking -- I mean not enough parking,


      16        too many cars.  So I just think -- I understand


      17        your question.  Does it exist within the


      18        universe of risk?  Yes, but I think it's a


      19        vanishingly small probability.


      20             MR. JOOST:  Okay.


      21             Thank you.


      22             CHAIRMAN GRAHAM:  Mr. Duggan, you said


      23        something, and maybe I misheard you.  You said


      24        that you're providing 48 parking spaces?


      25             MR. DUGGAN:  The 30 on our parcels, the 18



                            Tina Hutcheson, Inc.






       1        on the other two parcels combine for 48.


       2             CHAIRMAN GRAHAM:  Okay.  I just wanted to


       3        make sure I got you correctly.  I thought


       4        you -- I just wanted to make sure I got you


       5        correctly.


       6             MR. DUGGAN:  Thank you.


       7             CHAIRMAN GRAHAM:  Well, guys, this is just


       8        my own opinion.  I don't think the burden of


       9        the parking is on Mr. Duggan's property.  I


      10        understand that it may be hard finding parking


      11        spaces.  I think if you go to any boat dock,


      12        you'll find it would be hard to be finding


      13        parking spaces.  I mean that's just the nature


      14        of the beast.  It sounds like the Planning


      15        Commission did some equitable things, assuming


      16        some of these assumptions that we made, and


      17        bumped those parking numbers up to the 30


      18        parking spaces.  Sitting here at the Chair, I


      19        can't make the amendment, but --


      20             (Inaudible motion and second)


      21             CHAIRMAN GRAHAM:  Thank you.  It's been


      22        moved to amend to deny and there's been a


      23        second.


      24             Any further discussion on the amendment?


      25             I have Mr. Webb.



                            Tina Hutcheson, Inc.






       1             MR. WEBB:  Very briefly.


       2             I'm very sensitive to the needs of boaters


       3        in this community as a boater myself, however,


       4        I think Mr. Duggan's comments regarding the 48


       5        spots for 165 wet slips is very well taken.


       6        Clearly, that's anecdotal, it's not competent


       7        substantial evidence, but I think we'll take,


       8        you know, council notice of the fact that you


       9        go down to any marina this day and age and


      10        you're not going to have -- I think 48 --


      11        again, I spend a lot of time at marinas, and 48


      12        dedicated slips (sic) for 165 wet slips I think


      13        is adequate.  And again, I don't think there's


      14        been competent substantial evidence offered


      15        before this committee to warrant overturning


      16        the granting of the minor modification.  As


      17        such, I urge my colleagues to support the


      18        motion to amend to deny.


      19             CHAIRMAN GRAHAM:  Any further discussion


      20        on the amendment?


      21             AUDIENCE MEMBER:  There are not another 18


      22        spaces available, so that 48 number is totally


      23        incorrect.


      24             CHAIRMAN GRAHAM:  Other than the fact


      25        you're out of order, sir, thank you for your



                            Tina Hutcheson, Inc.






       1        comment.


       2             Seeing no further comments, all in favor


       3        say aye.


       4             COMMITTEE MEMBERS:  Aye.


       5             CHAIRMAN GRAHAM:  Those opposed?


       6             COMMITTEE MEMBERS:  (No response)


       7             CHAIRMAN GRAHAM:  By your action, you


       8        approve the amendment.


       9             Move the bill is amended to deny.


      10             Any further discussion on the bill?


      11             Seeing none, please open the ballot.


      12             (Committee ballot opened)


      13             CHAIRMAN GRAHAM:  Close the ballot, record


      14        the vote.


      15             MR. GRAHAM:  (Votes yea)


      16             MR. JOOST:  (Votes yea)


      17             MR. REDMAN:  (Votes yea)


      18             MR. GAFFNEY:  (Votes yea)


      19             MR. HOLT:  (Votes yea)


      20             MR. WEBB:  (Votes yea)


      21             (Committee ballot closed)


      22             MS. LAHMEUR:  Six yea, zero nay.


      23             CHAIRMAN GRAHAM:  By your action, you have


      24        approved 2008-589 as amended.


      25             We have two bills left, guys.



                            Tina Hutcheson, Inc.






       1             We're going to open the public hearing on


       2        -606 and -607.


       3             The public hearing is open.


       4             We have no speakers.


       5             We will continue that and take no further


       6        action.


       7             That all being said, I just want to point


       8        out to you guys, I thought it was interesting,


       9        I supported Mr. Holt on that land use change


      10        out in his district, but if I recall the


      11        arguments that were made on that fair share


      12        that somebody being so far down the path and


      13        now having to change, it was undue burden on


      14        the property owner, and I think that's just


      15        what we did with that land use change.


      16             MR. WEBB:  There's a fair share


      17        agreement -- if there's a modification of the


      18        land use change, the fair share agreement is --


      19             CHAIRMAN GRAHAM:  No, no, no.  I'm just


      20        giving the example of what we did with that


      21        last fair share that was calculated


      22        incorrectly.  And the reason why we didn't


      23        charge them that extra million dollars was


      24        because we said we were being unfair to that


      25        guy.  And I'm saying, Well, this guy went down



                            Tina Hutcheson, Inc.






       1        the path and spent a lot of money, but yet we


       2        thought nothing about changing his land use


       3        back to what it originally was.


       4             MR. WEBB:  I would -- through the Chair, I


       5        would respectfully disagree somewhat and defer


       6        to the General Counsel's Office.


       7             MS. ELLER:  The applicant can make that


       8        assertion, of course.  Of course, any applicant


       9        can assert that they've relied upon decisions


      10        by the council.  However, with land use map


      11        amendments, we do include in the original


      12        legislation that they are not final until the


      13        Department of Community Affairs process is


      14        completed.  So there is notice to applicants


      15        when an amendment is adopted by the council in


      16        the ordinance text itself that that amendment


      17        does not become final until the Department of


      18        Community Affairs gives that final stamp stamp.


      19        And that, of course, has not happened because


      20        they challenged it.


      21             CHAIRMAN GRAHAM:  Do we not make that same


      22        announcement with the fair shares, that they're


      23        not final until they're approved by the


      24        council?


      25             MS. ELLER:  Yes.



                            Tina Hutcheson, Inc.






       1             CHAIRMAN GRAHAM:  Okay.  I just wanted to


       2        make sure I made my point.


       3             Thanks.


       4             Anyway -- oh, Mr. Holt.  I'm sorry.


       5             MR. HOLT:  I would just say I appreciate


       6        your comment there and I'm sure that when it


       7        comes to council, something will be said to


       8        that effect.  Maybe they'll even say something


       9        about Burt Harris, but as far as I know,


      10        there's no case law that supports a Burt Harris


      11        claim when the land use was never granted.


      12             CHAIRMAN GRAHAM:  Trust me, I'm in full


      13        support of the district councilperson, and if


      14        you're looking for a way to correct errors that


      15        were made in the past, I support you.


      16             Seeing nothing else, we're adjourned.


      17             (The above proceedings were adjourned at


      18   7:25 p.m.)


      19                          - - -















                            Tina Hutcheson, Inc.






       1                  C E R T I F I C A T E


       2   STATE OF FLORIDA)


       3   COUNTY OF DUVAL )


       4        I, Tina Hutcheson, Court Reporter, certify that


       5   I was authorized to and did stenographically report


       6   the foregoing proceedings and that the transcript is


       7   a true and complete copy of my stenographic notes.




       9        Dated this 8th day of September 2008.






      12                           _______________________________

                                   Tina Hutcheson




























                            Tina Hutcheson, Inc.