1 CITY OF
2 LAND USE AND ZONING
3 COMMITTEE
4
5
6 Proceedings held on Tuesday, May 6, 2008,
7 commencing at 5:00 p.m., City Hall, Council Chambers,
8 1st Floor,
9 Tropia, a Notary Public in and for the State of
10
11
12 PRESENT:
13 MICHAEL CORRIGAN, Chair.
CLAY YARBOROUGH, Vice Chair.
14 RICHARD CLARK, Committee Member.
E. DENISE LEE, Committee Member.
15 ART SHAD, Committee Member.
JACK WEBB, Committee Member.
16
17 ALSO PRESENT:
18 RAY HOLT, City Council Member.
JOHN CROFTS, Deputy Director, Planning Dept.
19 SEAN KELLY, Chief, Current Planning.
FOLKS HUXFORD, Zoning Administrator.
20 KEN AVERY, Planning and Development Dept.
21 MARILYN ALLEN, Legislative Assistant.
MERRIANE LAHMEUR, Legislative Assistant.
22
- - -
23
24
25
Diane M.
Tropia,
2
1 P R O C E E D I N G S
2 May 6, 2008 5:00 p.m.
3 - - -
4 THE CHAIRMAN: Good afternoon, everyone.
5 Let's call to order the Tuesday, May 6th
6 meeting of the Land Use and Zoning Committee.
7 I'm Land Use and Zoning Chair, Michael
8 Corrigan. My vice chair is Councilmember Clay
9 Yarborough. We also have Councilmember Richard
10 Clark and Councilmember Jack Webb with us.
11 Councilwoman Mia Jones is excused, and I believe
12 a couple other council members will be here in a
13 few minutes.
14 We're going to start the agenda. I will
15 tell you that we're going to move around a
16 little bit on the agenda tonight. There's some
17 items that we need to make sure that we get
18 taken care of due to transmittal regulations.
19 We'll try to get to everything in a timely
20 process, but I may skip something and come back.
21 Before I start on -- item number 38 on
22 page 12 is 2008-258, which is repealing part 10
23 of the zoning code. Is there anyone here for
24 that particular bill tonight in the audience?
25 AUDIENCE MEMBERS: (Indicating.)
Diane M.
Tropia,
3
1 THE CHAIRMAN: We are not going to take any
2 action on that bill tonight. I would be happy
3 to get somebody from the Planning Department to
4 get with you and explain the process and the
5 timing of that process. There is a public
6 hearing that will be open tonight, but we will
7 not take any action.
8 You're welcome to speak, but your comments
9 may be more effective at the meeting where we
10 actually will take action.
11 So who from the Planning Department wants
12 to kind of get with them to --
13 MR. KELLY: (Inaudible.)
14 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Kelly will come down and
15 explain to you real quick what I'm talking
16 about.
17 Okay. Committee members, let's begin on
18 page 2 of our agenda. Items 1, 2, and 3 --
19 2005-718, 2005-1228, and 2006-24 -- are all
20 deferred.
21 Page 3. Item 4, 2006-220, is deferred;
22 item 5, 2006-360, is -- I'm going to open that
23 public hearing.
24 Seeing no speakers, we're going to close
25 that public hearing.
Diane M.
Tropia,
4
1 At the request of the applicant, we're
2 going to do no further action and wait and
3 readvertise the public hearing in September.
4 Appreciate it.
5 Item number 6, 2006-520.
6 MR. CLARK: Move to withdraw.
7 MR. YARBOROUGH: Second.
8 THE CHAIRMAN: I have a motion and second
9 to withdraw that bill.
10 Seeing no discussion, open the ballot and
11 record the vote.
12 (Committee ballot opened.)
13 MR. CORRIGAN: (Votes yea.)
14 MR. YARBOROUGH: (Votes yea.)
15 MR. CLARK: (Votes yea.)
16 MR. WEBB: (Votes yea.)
17 (Committee ballot closed.)
18 MS. LAHMEUR: Four yeas, zero nays.
19 THE CHAIRMAN: By your action, you've
20 withdrawn 2006-520.
21 Item number 7, 2006-658. We'll open that
22 public hearing.
23 Seeing no speakers, we'll continue that
24 public hearing until June 3rd.
25 Top of page 4. Item 8, 2007-144. We'll
Diane M.
Tropia,
5
1 open that public hearing.
2 Seeing no speakers, we'll continue that
3 public hearing to June 17th.
4 Item 9, 2007-145. We'll open that public
5 hearing.
6 Seeing no speakers, we will continue that
7 public hearing on June 17th -- until June 17th.
8 Item 10, 2007-384 is deferred, as well as
9 item 11 and 12, 2007-581 and 2007-803. Those
10 are deferred.
11 Bottom of page 5, 2007-1046. We'll open
12 that public hearing.
13 Seeing no speakers, we'll continue that
14 public hearing with no further action.
15 Item 14, 2007-1061. We'll open that public
16 hearing.
17 Seeing no speakers, we'll close that public
18 hearing.
19 (Mr. Shad enters the proceedings.)
20 (Ms. Johnston approaches the podium.)
21 MS. JOHNSTON: Mr. Corrigan.
22 THE CHAIRMAN: Yes. I'm sorry, Paige.
23 MS. JOHNSTON: I'm here for that item.
24 THE CHAIRMAN: We do have a speaker.
25 MS. JOHNSTON: You're moving too fast for
Diane M.
Tropia,
6
1 me.
2 THE CHAIRMAN: We'll reopen that public
3 hearing.
4 Paige Johnston. Good afternoon.
5 MS. JOHNSTON: Paige Johnson, 1301
6 Riverplace Boulevard, on behalf of --
7 THE CHAIRMAN: Paige, hang on one second.
8 Let the record reflect that Councilmember
9 Art Shad has joined us.
10 Go ahead, Paige.
11 MS. JOHNSTON: Paige Johnston, 1301
12 Riverplace Boulevard, on behalf of the
13 applicant.
14 This is a companion rezoning to a land use
15 amendment which was approved in the fall 2007
16 series and it permits light industrial uses on
17 the property.
18 I am available for questions.
19 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. Thank you,
20 Ms. Johnston.
21 Seeing no questions for the speaker, we'll
22 close that public hearing.
23 We have an amendment.
24 MR. CLARK: Move the amendment.
25 MR. WEBB: Second.
Diane M.
Tropia,
7
1 THE CHAIRMAN: A motion and second on the
2 amendment.
3 We'll go to the Planning Department to
4 explain the amendment.
5 MR. CROFTS: The amendment is the
6 following, Mr. Chairman:
7 Condition number 1, "The development shall
8 be subject to the original legal description
9 dated January 9th, 2008."
10 Condition number 2, "The development shall
11 be subject to the revised written description
12 dated April 30, 2008."
13 Number 3, "The development shall be subject
14 to the revised site plan dated March 17, 2008."
15 Number 4, "The development shall be subject
16 to the review and approval of the Development
17 Services Division pursuant to their memorandum
18 dated February 1, 2008, and the Transportation
19 Planning Division's memorandum dated
20 February 19, 2008, or as otherwise approved by
21 the Planning and Development Department."
22 Condition number 5, "The developer shall
23 install a buffer along the northern boundary of
24 the subject property consistent with the buffer
25 diagram dated May 2nd, 2008, attached hereto."
Diane M.
Tropia,
8
1 Thank you.
2 THE CHAIRMAN: Ms. Johnston, do you agree
3 with those amendments?
4 MS. JOHNSTON: Yes, we do.
5 THE CHAIRMAN: All right. She agrees with
6 the conditions.
7 Seeing no discussion on the amendment, all
8 in favor signal by saying aye.
9 COMMITTEE MEMBERS: Aye.
10 THE CHAIRMAN: All opposed.
11 COMMITTEE MEMBERS: (No response.)
12 THE CHAIRMAN: The amendment carried.
13 MR. CLARK: Move the bill as amended.
14 MR. WEBB: Second.
15 THE CHAIRMAN: A motion and second on
16 2007-1061 as amended.
17 Seeing no discussion, open the ballot and
18 record the vote.
19 (Committee ballot opened.)
20 MR. CORRIGAN: (Votes yea.)
21 MR. YARBOROUGH: (Votes yea.)
22 MR. CLARK: (Votes yea.)
23 MR. SHAD: (Votes yea.)
24 MR. WEBB: (Votes yea.)
25 (Committee ballot closed.)
Diane M.
Tropia,
9
1 MS. LAHMEUR: Five yeas, zero nays.
2 THE CHAIRMAN: By your action, you've
3 approved 2007-1061.
4 MS. JOHNSTON: Thank you.
5 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you.
6 I forgot to mention that Councilmember Ray
7 Holt is with us this evening. He joined us to
8 visit.
9 So welcome.
10 We are on page 6, item 15, 2007-1085.
11 We'll open that public hearing.
12 Seeing no speakers, we'll continue that
13 public hearing with no further action.
14 Item 16, 2007-1086. Open that public
15 hearing.
16 Seeing no speakers, we'll continue that
17 public hearing.
18 Let the record reflect also that Council
19 President Davis has joined us this afternoon.
20 Welcome, Mr. President.
21 Item 17, 2007-1121. Open that public
22 hearing.
23 Seeing no speakers, we'll continue that
24 public hearing.
25 Item 18, 2007-1125. We'll open that public
Diane M.
Tropia,
10
1 hearing.
2 Seeing no speakers, we'll continue that
3 public hearing.
4 Committee members, items 19, 20, and 21 are
5 all companion rezonings and I'm going to go
6 ahead and open all three of those public
7 hearings at one time.
8 So the public hearing for 2007-1310, -1311,
9 and -1312 are all open.
10 (Mr. Harden approaches the podium.)
11 MR. HARDEN: Paul Harden, 1301 Riverplace
12 Boulevard.
13 The Planning Department recommended
14 approval. We agree with them.
15 I don't have anything else.
16 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Harden.
17 Seeing no speakers -- no questions-- excuse
18 me -- for Mr. Harden, we'll close that public
19 hearing.
20 MR. CLARK: Move the bill.
21 MR. WEBB: Second.
22 THE CHAIRMAN: We have a motion and second
23 on 2007-1310.
24 Seeing no discussion, open the ballot and
25 record the vote.
Diane M.
Tropia,
11
1 (Committee ballot opened.)
2 MR. CORRIGAN: (Votes yea.)
3 MR. YARBOROUGH: (Votes yea.)
4 MR. CLARK: (Votes yea.)
5 MR. SHAD: (Votes yea.)
6 MR. WEBB: (Votes yea.)
7 (Committee ballot closed.)
8 MS. LAHMEUR: Five yeas, zero nays.
9 THE CHAIRMAN: By your action, you've
10 approved -1310.
11 MR. CLARK: Move -1311.
12 THE CHAIRMAN: A motion and a --
13 MR. YARBOROUGH: Second.
14 THE CHAIRMAN: -- second on 2007-1311.
15 Seeing no discussion, open the ballot,
16 record the vote.
17 (Committee ballot opened.)
18 MR. CORRIGAN: (Votes yea.)
19 MR. YARBOROUGH: (Votes yea.)
20 MR. CLARK: (Votes yea.)
21 MR. SHAD: (Votes yea.)
22 MR. WEBB: (Votes yea.)
23 (Committee ballot closed.)
24 MS. LAHMEUR: Five yeas, zero nays.
25 THE CHAIRMAN: By your action, you've
Diane M.
Tropia,
12
1 approved -1311.
2 MR. CLARK: Move -1312.
3 MR. YARBOROUGH: Second.
4 THE CHAIRMAN: A motion and second on
5 2007-1312.
6 Seeing no discussion, open the ballot and
7 record the vote.
8 (Committee ballot opened.)
9 MR. CORRIGAN: (Votes yea.)
10 MR. YARBOROUGH: (Votes yea.)
11 MR. CLARK: (Votes yea.)
12 MR. SHAD: (Votes yea.)
13 MR. WEBB: (Votes yea.)
14 (Committee ballot closed.)
15 MS. LAHMEUR: Five yeas, zero nays.
16 THE CHAIRMAN: By your action, you've
17 approved 2007-1312.
18 Committee members, we did have a speaker's
19 card back on 2007-1125 on page 7, so we'll
20 reopen that public hearing and I'll call up
21 Jack Morgan on 2007-1125.
22 (Audience member approaches the podium.)
23 THE CHAIRMAN: Sorry about that. Good
24 evening.
25 AUDIENCE MEMBER: Good evening.
Diane M.
Tropia,
13
1 I'm here because we were approved pending
2 an agreement letter between Parks and Recreation
3 and Lil' Nuggets, and we made every effort to
4 receive that letter. And there was a mix-up
5 with the secretary to the Parks and Recreation.
6 And although we did submit some correspondence
7 to them, they have not responded back with an
8 agreement to us.
9 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. Can somebody from the
10 Planning Department get with him to -- or at
11 least --
12 Mr. Kelly, you want to comment on that or
13 not?
14 MR. KELLY: I would just say that we did
15 receive an e-mail from Shorty Robins regarding
16 the parking situation, and that they were not in
17 a favorable light to allow for the shared
18 parking arrangement. So that's basically why
19 it's still in this -- it's still sitting.
20 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. Do you understand
21 that, Mr. Morgan?
22 MR. MORGAN: Yes. But when we met with
23 Ms. Robins, she did indicate that there was a
24 section of their parking area that they would
25 allow us to use if we agreed to bring it up to
Diane M.
Tropia,
14
1 standards for parking. And we do have a letter
2 stating that we would agree to that, and we were
3 expecting them to come back with an agreement
4 allowing us to do that.
5 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. What we'll do is --
6 we're going to continue this public hearing
7 anyway, and we'll look into it between now and
8 the next LUZ meeting and see if we can't get
9 some resolution and take action at the next
10 committee meeting.
11 MR. MORGAN: Thank you.
12 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Appreciate it.
13 MR. MORGAN: All right.
14 THE CHAIRMAN: Seeing no further speakers,
15 that public hearing is closed.
16 Okay. Committee members, we are on the top
17 of -- or actually page 8, item 22, 2007-1350.
18 We will open that public hearing.
19 Seeing no speakers, we'll continue that
20 public hearing with no further action.
21 Item 23, 2008-23. We'll open that public
22 hearing.
23 Seeing no speakers, we'll continue that
24 public hearing.
25 Item 24, 2008-25, is deferred.
Diane M.
Tropia,
15
1 Page 9, 2008-27. We will open that public
2 hearing.
3 Seeing no speakers, we'll continue it.
4 Councilmember Shad.
5 MR. SHAD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
6 Just wanted to note that Finance did take
7 action. Why is it not on here? Yeah, we moved
8 this out of Finance for -- in the affirmative.
9 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay.
10 MR. SHAD: So I don't know why it's not
11 marked accordingly.
12 Do y'all know why the Finance --
13 THE CHAIRMAN: They brought it to my
14 attention immediately following the agenda
15 meeting, and what we talked about doing was --
16 since we didn't have time to notify about the
17 public hearing, we'll bring it up next --
18 MR. SHAD: Absolutely. Whatever you'd
19 like. This is the final committee that -- it
20 rests in here.
21 Thank you.
22 THE CHAIRMAN: Perfect. Our goal is to
23 take it up. We're actually going to -- our next
24 meeting is on the 20th, so we'll open and
25 continue that to May 20th and attempt to take
Diane M.
Tropia,
16
1 action at that point.
2 Thank you, Councilmember Shad.
3 We are now on item 26, 2008-40. We'll open
4 that public hearing.
5 Seeing no speakers, we'll continue that
6 public hearing to June 3rd.
7 Bottom of page 9, 2008-145. We'll open
8 that public hearing.
9 Seeing no speakers, we'll continue it till
10 June 3rd.
11 Committee members, we're on page 10,
12 item 28, 2008-192. We'll open that public
13 hearing.
14 Seeing no speakers, we'll close that public
15 hearing.
16 We have a substitute.
17 MR. YARBOROUGH: Move the sub.
18 MR. SHAD: Second.
19 THE CHAIRMAN: A motion and second on the
20 substitute.
21 Any discussion on the substitute?
22 COMMITTEE MEMBERS: (No response.)
23 THE CHAIRMAN: This is actually a bill that
24 I proposed. I encourage all the committee
25 members to take a look at the substitute when it
Diane M.
Tropia,
17
1 passes this committee, and we will be taking
2 action in the next several meetings.
3 Seeing no discussion, open the ballot and
4 record the vote.
5 MR. CLARK: (Inaudible.)
6 THE CHAIRMAN: Oh, I'm sorry.
7 All in favor of the sub signal by saying
8 aye.
9 COMMITTEE MEMBERS: Aye.
10 THE CHAIRMAN: All opposed.
11 COMMITTEE MEMBERS: (No response.)
12 THE CHAIRMAN: The sub carries.
13 MR. YARBOROUGH: Move to rerefer.
14 MR. SHAD: Second.
15 THE CHAIRMAN: A motion and second to
16 rerefer to LUZ as substituted.
17 Seeing no speakers, open the ballot, record
18 the vote.
19 (Committee ballot opened.)
20 MR. CORRIGAN: (Votes yea.)
21 MR. YARBOROUGH: (Votes yea.)
22 MR. CLARK: (Votes yea.)
23 MR. SHAD: (Votes yea.)
24 MR. WEBB: (Votes yea.)
25 (Committee ballot closed.)
Diane M.
Tropia,
18
1 MS. LAHMEUR: Five yeas, zero nays.
2 THE CHAIRMAN: By your action, you've
3 rereferred 2008-192 as substituted.
4 Thank you for clarifying that for me.
5 Item 29, 2008-227. We'll open that public
6 hearing.
7 Seeing no speakers, we'll continue that
8 public hearing.
9 2008-228. Open that public hearing.
10 Seeing no speakers, we will continue that
11 public hearing.
12 We are on page 11, 2008-229. We'll open
13 that public hearing.
14 Seeing no speakers, we'll close that public
15 hearing.
16 MR. WEBB: Move the bill.
17 MR. CLARK: Second.
18 THE CHAIRMAN: A motion and second on -229.
19 Seeing no speakers -- or seeing no
20 questions, open the ballot and the record the
21 vote.
22 (Committee ballot opened.)
23 MR. CORRIGAN: (Votes yea.)
24 MR. YARBOROUGH: (Votes yea.)
25 MR. CLARK: (Votes yea.)
Diane M.
Tropia,
19
1 MR. SHAD: (Votes yea.)
2 MR. WEBB: (Votes yea.)
3 (Committee ballot closed.)
4 MS. LAHMEUR: Five yeas, zero nays.
5 THE CHAIRMAN: By your action, you've
6 approved -229.
7 Item 32, 2008-236. Open the public
8 hearing.
9 Seeing no speakers, we'll continue that
10 public hearing.
11 Item 33 and 34 begin a series of companion
12 bills. We'll open 2008-240 and -241
13 simultaneously and we have a couple of speakers.
14 Paige Johnston. Actually, Paige Johnston
15 is here on both bills.
16 MR. CROFTS: Mr. Chairman, those are in
17 Ms. Lee's district.
18 THE CHAIRMAN: Oh, that's right. I'm
19 sorry.
20 MR. CROFTS: She had requested --
21 THE CHAIRMAN: Councilmember Lee has asked
22 us to go over these. I just didn't mark it down
23 here. We'll actually come back to those two, so
24 we'll just leave them open until she arrives.
25 Somebody remind me to go back there after
Diane M.
Tropia,
20
1 she gets here. I would appreciate it.
2 Item 35 and 36 we're going to pass over for
3 just a minute and get the rest of these items
4 and come back to it in just a couple of minutes.
5 Item 37, 2008-247. We'll open that public
6 hearing.
7 Seeing no speakers -- -247. I'm sorry. We
8 do have a speaker. Paige Johnston on -247.
9 (Ms. Johnston approaches the podium.)
10 THE CHAIRMAN: Sorry about that.
11 MS. JOHNSTON: No problem. Sorry to keep
12 you waiting.
13 Paige Johnston,
14 on behalf of the applicant.
15 This is a companion rezoning to a land use
16 amendment that was heard before the LUZ two
17 weeks ago. It's for the
18 activity center. It encompasses about 850 acres
19 of multiuse, and the PUD sets forth the
20 requirements and development criteria.
21 We have the support of the CPAC, and we've
22 also been meeting with Ray Holt and discussed
23 the project with him, and we would ask for your
24 support as well.
25 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you.
Diane M.
Tropia,
21
1 Seeing no questions, we'll close that
2 public hearing.
3 MR. CLARK: Move the amendment.
4 MR. WEBB: Second.
5 THE CHAIRMAN: I have a motion and second
6 on the amendment to -247. Go to the Planning
7 Department.
8 Mr. Crofts.
9 MR. CROFTS: Yes, sir. The amendment is as
10 follows:
11 Condition number 1, "The developer shall be
12 subject to the original legal description dated
13 January 25, 2008."
14 Number 2, "The developer shall be subject
15 to the revised written description dated
16 April 23rd, 2008."
17 Number 3, "The developer shall be subject
18 to Exhibit J dated April 23rd, 2008."
19 Number 4, "Transportation improvements
20 shall be made in accordance with the Development
21 Services Division memorandum dated March 10,
22 2008, and the Transportation Planning Division's
23 memorandum dated March 24, 2008.
24 The developer shall submit a traffic impact
25 study to the Planning and Development Department
Diane M.
Tropia,
22
1 and the Florida Department of Transportation for
2 review and approval. Projects identified in
3 this transportation impact study shall be
4 completed prior to the issuance of any building
5 permit."
6 Continuing, condition number 5, and lastly,
7 "The developer shall provide two future access
8 points to the parcel to the east."
9 Thank you, sir.
10 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you.
11 Do you agree to those conditions?
12 MS. JOHNSTON: Yes, we do.
13 I believe, however, the last condition was
14 modified slightly at Planning Commission to
15 identify it a little more correctly than just
16 the parcel to the east. And it may be in the
17 Planning Commission minutes, but I just want to
18 clarify that for the record.
19 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. Do we have input on
20 that?
21 MR. KELLY: I think it had to do with the
22 location.
23 MS. JOHNSTON: I believe we said something
24 along the lines of the parcel located at the
25 northeast quadrant of
Diane M.
Tropia,
23
1 MR. KELLY: That's correct.
2 It specified that it's the property that
3 parallels the rail line. It would be at the
4 northeast corner of
5 the railway.
6 MS. JOHNSTON: And that's correct. I just
7 wanted to clarify that for the record.
8 THE CHAIRMAN: Sure. I appreciate the
9 clarification.
10 Seeing no discussion, all in favor of the
11 amendment signal by saying aye.
12 COMMITTEE MEMBERS: Aye.
13 THE CHAIRMAN: All opposed.
14 COMMITTEE MEMBERS: (No response.)
15 THE CHAIRMAN: The amendment carries.
16 MR. WEBB: Move the bill as amended.
17 MR. CLARK: Second.
18 THE CHAIRMAN: A motion and second on
19 2008-247 as amended.
20 Seeing no discussion, open the ballot and
21 record the vote.
22 (Committee ballot opened.)
23 MR. CORRIGAN: (Votes yea.)
24 MR. YARBOROUGH: (Votes yea.)
25 MR. CLARK: (Votes yea.)
Diane M.
Tropia,
24
1 MR. SHAD: (Votes yea.)
2 MR. WEBB: (Votes yea.)
3 (Committee ballot closed.)
4 MS. LAHMEUR: Five yeas, zero nays.
5 THE CHAIRMAN: By your action, you've
6 approved -247.
7 MS. JOHNSTON: Thank you.
8 THE CHAIRMAN: Item 38 is the one we
9 mentioned earlier, 2008-258. We'll open that
10 public hearing.
11 Seeing no speakers, we'll continue that
12 public hearing.
13 All the items on page 13 are going to be
14 deferred. They are 2008-262, -263, -264, -265
15 and -266.
16 On page 14, all the items will be
17 deferred: 2008-267, -268, -269, and -270.
18 On page 15, all those items will be
19 deferred: 2008-271, -272, -273, and -274.
20 On page 16, all the items will be
21 deferred: 2008-275, -276, -277, and -278.
22 On page 17, all the items will be
23 deferred: 2008-279, -280, -281, and -282.
24 On page 18, item number 60, 2008-294.
25 We'll open that public hearing.
Diane M.
Tropia,
25
1 We have one speaker, Staci Rewis.
2 (Audience member approaches the podium.)
3 THE CHAIRMAN: Good afternoon.
4 MS. REWIS: Good afternoon.
5 Staci Rewis,
6 Suite 400,
7 This is an NOPC to the Interstate Business
8 Center DRI to allow the conversion of
9 multifamily units within the DRI. We're also
10 proposing to modify Map H to show the general
11 location and multifamily units and to extend the
12 buildout date of the DRI to November 30th,
13 2015.
14 The extension is taking advantage of the
15 automatic three-year extension that was approved
16 by the 2007
17 I'm here to answer any questions, as is
18 Coen Purvis, one of the developers.
19 THE CHAIRMAN: I don't see any questions,
20 so we'll go ahead and close that public hearing.
21 MR. WEBB: Move the bill.
22 MR. CLARK: Second.
23 THE CHAIRMAN: A motion and second on -294.
24 Seeing no discussion on the bill, open the
25 ballot, record the vote.
Diane M.
Tropia,
26
1 (Committee ballot opened.)
2 MR. CORRIGAN: (Votes yea.)
3 MR. YARBOROUGH: (Votes yea.)
4 MR. CLARK: (Votes yea.)
5 MR. SHAD: (Votes yea.)
6 MR. WEBB: (Votes yea.)
7 (Committee ballot closed.)
8 MS. LAHMEUR: Five yeas, zero nays.
9 THE CHAIRMAN: By your action, you've
10 approved 2008-294.
11 THE CHAIRMAN: Item 61, 2008-305. We will
12 open that public hearing.
13 Seeing no speakers, we'll close that public
14 hearing.
15 MR. WEBB: Move the amendment.
16 MR. CLARK: Second.
17 THE CHAIRMAN: A motion and second on the
18 amendment.
19 Mr. Crofts, do you have input on the
20 amendment?
21 MR. CROFTS: Briefly, the amendment is the
22 revision of an exhibit that basically alters the
23 prioritization and funding arrangements for some
24 transportation improvements that affect the
25 Pecan Park RAC, as we have identified in the
Diane M.
Tropia,
27
1 north district, and it's simply a text
2 amendment.
3 Thank you.
4 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Crofts.
5 Seeing no discussion on the amendment, all
6 in favor of the amendment signal by saying aye.
7 COMMITTEE MEMBERS: Aye.
8 THE CHAIRMAN: All opposed.
9 COMMITTEE MEMBERS: (No response.)
10 THE CHAIRMAN: The amendment carries.
11 MR. WEBB: Move the bill as amended.
12 MR. YARBOROUGH: Second.
13 THE CHAIRMAN: A motion and second on
14 2008-305 as amended.
15 Seeing no discussion, open the ballot,
16 record the vote.
17 (Committee ballot opened.)
18 MR. CORRIGAN: (Votes yea.)
19 MR. YARBOROUGH: (Votes yea.)
20 MR. CLARK: (Votes yea.)
21 MR. SHAD: (Votes yea.)
22 MR. WEBB: (Votes yea.)
23 (Committee ballot closed.)
24 MS. LAHMEUR: Five yeas, zero nays.
25 THE CHAIRMAN: By your action, you've
Diane M.
Tropia,
28
1 approved 2008-305.
2 Now, the following items will be second and
3 rereferred: 2008-313, -314, -315, and
4 2008-343.
5 Committee members, we're now ready to go
6 back to page 12, top of the page, 2008-242 and
7 -243 are companion bills. We will go ahead and
8 open the public hearing on both of those bills.
9 I know we have a number of speakers. If
10 you could please make your way down to the
11 front, I would appreciate it.
12 Okay. Let me explain how we're going to
13 work this tonight. We're going to take up both
14 2008-242 and -243. I will tell you there's been
15 a great deal of input already on these two
16 bills. I appreciate the involvement of the
17 community and the involvement of the agent on
18 this.
19 I'll repeat what we say at City Council,
20 that we're going to be here tonight, we're going
21 to do this in a professional manner. And I --
22 we look forward to hearing input from everybody
23 that's concerned, but we're going to do it
24 professionally. We're not going to have rounds
25 of applause or anything else, no matter what the
Diane M.
Tropia,
29
1 applicant says positive and you want to react
2 with applause, please try to hold back.
3 But we'll first hear from the applicant,
4 and then we'll hear from the opposition. When
5 you come up, you can speak on both bills. If
6 you want to try to separate your comments, you
7 can, but go ahead and speak on both of them will
8 be the most efficient way to do it.
9 I've asked the agent for the applicant to
10 bring up a board tonight to give you an
11 indication of the revised site plan that was
12 proposed at Planning Commission. I appreciate
13 his cooperation on that.
14 The committee members have also been handed
15 out copies of that map so we have them up here
16 to reference when you make your comments.
17 I think we're in good order, and we are
18 ready to begin.
19 We will begin with Tom Ingram and continue
20 from there.
21 (Mr. Ingram approaches the podium.)
22 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Ingram, good evening.
23 MR. INGRAM: Good evening.
24 Tom Ingram,
25 Suite 400,
Diane M.
Tropia,
30
1 Y'all have seen this before, and most of us
2 have talked and met. I've given you an outline
3 of the project. I believe when most of us spoke
4 previously, this project entailed access on
5 Alta Drive and New Berlin Road, and we had
6 explained the importance of that
7 access to the developer that we were working
8 with, Taylor and Mathis.
9 In response to concerns raised, we have
10 deleted the
11 is only provided by
12 proposing a cap of two-and-a-half million square
13 feet of warehouse distribution uses on this
14 site.
15 We have also provided buffer requirements,
16 and those are explained in the handouts and also
17 in the April 22nd -- or excuse me, April 23rd
18 written description, and revised the site plan
19 that's dated April 22nd.
20 Basically, as I said before, this is an
21 area of strategic importance to the city of
22
23 port. It's less than two miles from the Dames
24 Point terminal. It's very close to State
25 Road 9A, which is the future I-295. It's
Diane M. Tropia,
31
1 located between two warehouse distribution
2 sites, North Point to the north, and Lannie Duke
3 (phonetic) and the Sears distribution center to
4 the south.
5 We have proposed to exceed the minimum
6 requirements of the industrial situational
7 compatibility zone.
8 And I'd be happy to go into that in more
9 detail if you'd like. It's --
10 MS. ELLER: Tom, I'm sorry to interrupt.
11 I'm sorry to interrupt, Mr. Chairman.
12 Just because I know there's been a lot of
13 questions and concerns, I just want to correct
14 that the current site plan is April 21, 2008.
15 MR. INGRAM: Thank you.
16 MS. ELLER: That's the date.
17 And I just know that we'd received a lot of
18 e-mails and comments for the current date, and I
19 just want everyone in the audience to know that
20 it is the April 21st site plan. There was not a
21 different one submitted on April 22nd.
22 MR. INGRAM: That is correct.
23 MS. ELLER: Sorry to interrupt.
24 THE CHAIRMAN: Go ahead, Tom.
25 MR. INGRAM: With that, I'd just like to
Diane M.
Tropia,
32
1 reserve my time for rebuttal.
2 Thank you.
3 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Appreciate it.
4 And I should have mentioned this when we
5 started. Mr. Ingram, as the agent, will have
6 rebuttal opportunity after the speakers speak
7 so we can have a similar amount of time for both
8 sides. So I apologize about not explaining that
9 in the beginning.
10 Thank you.
11 MR. INGRAM: Thank you.
12 THE CHAIRMAN: Tom, did you speak on both
13 of them?
14 MR. INGRAM: Yes, sir.
15 Just -- and one final thing. On the land
16 use amendment, it is currently approved for low
17 density residential, which allows up to seven
18 units an acre under the future land use map.
19 In addition, it is currently zoned for 650
20 single-family homes with access on
21 and
22 So this -- this is not a proposed
23
24 proposed here. This is a conversion of an
25 approved single-family residential project,
Diane M.
Tropia,
33
1 rather intense to this warehouse distribution
2 center.
3 We think it's the right use given the
4 Mitsui terminal that's coming and the expansion
5 of the port, and we'd ask your support.
6 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Ingram.
7 The next speaker I have is Jerry Mallot.
8 (Audience member approaches the podium.)
9 AUDIENCE MEMBER: Mr. Chairman, members of
10 the commission, thank you for the opportunity to
11 be here.
12 We have long worked on this --
13 THE CHAIRMAN: Jerry, give me your name and
14 address for the record, please.
15 AUDIENCE MEMBER: Excuse me.
16
17
18 Regional Chamber, head the economic development
19 efforts.
20 And in our work over the years, in fact,
21 for 10 or 12 years, we have worked on
22 development of this and properties around it for
23 industrial development related to port expansion
24 and growth.
25 It is probably the best industrial site
Diane M.
Tropia,
34
1 that relates to business. It's been part of our
2 strategic plan for a long period of time, and
3 I'm very pleased to see the execution coming to
4 you for action.
5 We really believe that it is the right
6 use. The port is growing in the way we all
7 hoped that it would come about. Its property is
8 close to and nearly adjacent to the port that
9 make the most sense for use of -- or for
10 accommodations of that growth and expansion.
11 And in addition to that, as we tried to do
12 some analysis on what the impact on the city
13 would be, it's very profitable for the city
14 really. Not only does it create jobs-- and I
15 know that's been one of the elements -- it also
16 creates value.
17 In doing an analysis of a buildout, if it
18 was used for housing on one side or industrial
19 on the other, the net value annually to the city
20 at buildout would be a net positive of about a
21 little over $2 million difference. It would be
22 a negative under housing. It would be about
23 1.7 million if it was developed as industrial.
24 So we -- we're pleased that you're about to
25 take action. We urge you to consider the
Diane M.
Tropia,
35
1 relationship of how our port is developed, how
2 our city is trying to develop, and that this is
3 very prime property and a great opportunity for
4 the community.
5 Thank you, sir.
6 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Jerry.
7 Our next speaker is Tracie Cox Loftis,
8 followed by Maryann Vaccaro.
9 (Audience member approaches the podium.)
10 THE CHAIRMAN: Good evening.
11 AUDIENCE MEMBER: Good evening.
12 My name is Tracie Loftis. I live at 2983
14 We're here today not in opposition of this
15 entire plan, just the details of the plan that
16 could make this application a win/win for not
17 just the developer, but also the city and the
18 homeowners.
19 Each time the issues of Alta access and
20 protecting the residential corridor have been
21 brought up for a vote in both CPAC, which denied
22 the proposal 19 to 4, and in the Planning
23 Commission, which heard this proposal twice and
24 then denied it four to one, the developer was
25 given the message to work harder to make this
Diane M.
Tropia,
36
1 good for our community.
2 The application states that the site is
3 located in an area which is designated on the
4 industrial preservation map as being an area of
5 situational compatibility. There's a problem
6 with this.
7 This area is zoned LDR and RR, and only
8 areas that are zoned industrial were to be
9 included in this area of compatibility. This
10 doesn't meet its own requirements for the
11 overlay and, therefore, the whole basis for this
12 application is on faulty ground.
13 This is not a situation where a group of
14 homeowners just can't get happy. When the Alta
15 access was removed and it was conceded as a bad
16 idea by the developer, we rejoiced. He then
17 went on to rewrite the PUD and take out
18 everything that was acceptable in it and change
19 many of the things that made it okay to the
20 homes that were surrounding this industrial
21 area.
22 As homeowners, frankly, we're not sure what
23 to think. We were told before that -- based on
24 the Planning Commission staff recommendations,
25 that the requested exit to the north was being
Diane M.
Tropia,
37
1 removed.
2 What we have been told now is that this
3 most recent PUD that's before you still includes
4 this language, so I'll speak to it today.
5 One of my biggest concerns is the request
6 with the connecting neighborhood developments to
7 the north of the property, with just an easy
8 agreement to North Point and using their
9 existing roads, Alta residents would be faced
10 with the developer's deal-breaker issue of
11 trucks on Alta again, now even further into the
12 heart of our neighborhoods, traveling almost
13 twice the distance on Alta to reach 9A.
14 While we don't argue against east or south
15 exits, entering from North Point would be
16 devastating and insulting to the people that
17 have worked so hard on this.
18 Other changes just -- basically let's just
19 not forget that this is a request for change.
20 This land is currently zoned residential.
21 Change should only be considered if it protects
22 the surrounding communities that have already
23 invested in the area.
24 Precedents have been set, and the Planning
25 Commission was very vocal on those precedents
Diane M.
Tropia,
38
1 and made their recommendations based on those.
2 Making one offer and then using that offer as an
3 excuse to remove everything that's acceptable in
4 this plan is not a genuine compromise.
5 The developers had months to come up with a
6 compromise that's acceptable, and then we're
7 here today with changes that you'll hear from
8 some of the other speakers which really don't
9 make it that way.
10 Thank you for your time.
11 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you.
12 Our next speaker is Maryann Vaccaro,
13 followed by Bob McNeill.
14 (Audience member approaches the podium.)
15 THE CHAIRMAN: Good evening.
16 AUDIENCE MEMBER: Good evening.
17 My name is Maryann Vaccaro, and I live at
19 subdivision.
20 I'm here again today to bring your
21 attention to the changes brought by the
22 developer after what appeared to be a concession
23 to the community.
24 Although the developer has purportedly
25 changed his PUD to exclude the Alta access, he
Diane M.
Tropia,
39
1 has actually, in effect, let the door open that
2 will enable him to open -- pardon me -- to
3 obtain access to
4 option to, quote, add additional access points
5 and driveway connections along the northern,
6 southern, and eastern boundaries of the property
7 through adjacent properties without additional
8 approvals, end quote.
9 This provides the developer an opportunity
10 to purchase land or to lease land use for access
11 rights, providing the ability to reach Alta
12 Drive through other means, namely North Point.
13 We are not opposed to southerly access, for
14 instance, accessing
15 adamantly opposed to any additional access
16 points that will afford access any further north
17 than
18 The proposed revised written description
19 actually gives the developer more than they
20 originally requested by drastically reducing
21 buffers along
22 Circle; increasing the square footage of
23 warehouse space from 2 million 182 to 2 million 5,
24 which is an approximately 14 percent increase;
25 and by reserving the access, the ability to
Diane M.
Tropia,
40
1 access Alta to the north, south, and east by
2 other means.
3 So they get everything they want and more:
4 More square footage of warehouse space and more
5 land closer to the residents of
6 Aldersgate, and Misty Marsh. And all of this
7 has been proposed under the pretense of removing
8 the Alta access.
9 In addition, wherein in their initial
10 proposal there was a clear buffer and berm to
11 hide warehouses from view on Alta, they have
12 effectively removed these by radically reducing
13 or in some cases eliminating the buffers in lieu
14 of setbacks.
15 If parcel A's land use and subsequent
16 zoning becomes light industrial, other land uses
17 that are incompatible with residential -- many
18 of which are included in the applicant's
19 permitted uses -- could be considered.
20 If the land use for parcel A is changed to
21 light industrial, we ask that a transitional
22 usage be considered, along with increased
23 buffers and a maximum building height at
24 35 feet, et cetera.
25 However, if the land use changes, a new
Diane M.
Tropia,
41
1 precedent will be set, essentially opening the
2 door for other property owners, and then it will
3 make it difficult for the City to oppose it once
4 the precedent has been set. So your decision
5 impacts much more than the current property in
6 question.
7 The developer has repeatedly refused to
8 make this project a win/win for both parties.
9 While we have compromised tremendously in
10 agreeing that 85 percent of the property should
11 be used as light industrial, we are only asking
12 that 15 percent remain residential with no
13 access for truck traffic.
14 The landowner continues to press that this
15 is a make or break deal for the City, insisting
16 that 100 percent of the land must be light
17 industrial, and giving absolutely no
18 consideration for the people who will be living
19 with this project.
20 The only parties who will benefit from
21 these ordinances as currently written is the
22 landowner. It's all about them getting more
23 money, if the entire project is light
24 industrial, and if they have dual access. It
25 doesn't make any difference to the port or the
Diane M.
Tropia,
42
1 City, just the landowner's pocketbook.
2 I'm out of time. Thank you for your time.
3 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you.
4 Our next speaker will be Bob McNeill,
5 followed by Debbie Rudd.
6 (Audience member approaches the podium.)
7 THE CHAIRMAN: Good evening.
8 AUDIENCE MEMBER: Good evening.
9 I'm with -- I'm living in my dream home at
11 I'm actually not going to speak. I just
12 wanted to make sure that two things got to you.
13 One is an e-mail I sent about 3:30 this
14 afternoon. I'm not sure if you guys got that,
15 but I do have copies for everybody.
16 THE CHAIRMAN: I would go ahead and let us
17 pass them out, please.
18 MR. McNEILL: Okay. That would be great.
19 They're also done by names.
20 And also in the e-mail, I did reference
21 700 petitioners. And this is the petition
22 (indicating). I'd like to turn that in as well.
23 Thank you for your time.
24 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. I appreciate it.
25 Our next speaker is Debbie Rudd, followed
Diane M.
Tropia,
43
1 by Nancy Landau.
2 (Audience member approaches the podium.)
3 THE CHAIRMAN: Good evening.
4 AUDIENCE MEMBER: Hi. My name is Debbie
5 Rudd.
I live at
6 Marshwinds subdivision.
7 The residents of this area have offered
8 numerous ways that this project could fit with
9 the character of the neighborhood. The most
10 obvious is that they can move the ponds. Their
11 response is that it's just not cost effective.
12 But what they're leaving out is that they've
13 already made their money on those ponds when
14 they dug them out and sold the dirt in 2005.
15 We have offered options that will protect
16 both noise issues and aesthetics for the
17 surrounding areas, requesting interior storage
18 buildings along the residential properties,
19 simple changes such as a brick exterior to
20 buildings that will be seen by
21 surrounding homes, and matching the height of
22 any adjacent buildings to the height restriction
23 of the surrounding homes, which is 35 feet.
24 Other industrial developments have done
25 these small types of concessions and proven that
Diane M.
Tropia,
44
1 if smart planning is involved, both industrial
2 and residential can be good neighbors.
3 Thank you very much.
4 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you.
5 Nancy Landau, followed by Bobby Taylor.
6 (Audience member approaches the podium.)
7 THE CHAIRMAN: Good evening.
8 AUDIENCE MEMBER: Good evening.
9
10 I live in the Eagles Hammock subdivision on
12 For the record, I oppose both 2008-242 and
13 -243.
14 The community continues to have concerns
15 with the most recent revisions to this request.
16 This is not strictly a concern for the
17 homeowners who live within the immediate radius
18 of this property. It's a concern for homeowners
19 of the entire Alta/Yellow Bluff corridor, as you
20 can probably tell from the volume of
21 correspondence many of you have received about
22 this already.
23 The homeowners throughout this corridor
24 acknowledge the value that this property can
25 bring to
Diane M.
Tropia,
45
1 it were modified to a light industrial use, not
2 all.
3 We continue to try and pursue a win/win
4 compromise for the community, the City, and the
5 developer. We continue to request the developer
6 work with the City and the community to
7 establish reasonable compromises for just the
8 15 percent of the property that is closest to
9 the
10 The property owner's newest proposal did
11 eliminate their
12 turn requested unfettered access via properties
13 to the north, south, and east.
14 We have asked for a compromise on just
15 15 percent of the property closest to the Alta
16 corridor. And, instead, they've asked for a
17 14 percent increase in warehouse space.
18 Suggested land uses in their request are
19 very broad and allow for uses such as cell
20 towers and recycling facilities that are just
21 encroachment into adjacent low-density
22 residential and rural uses.
23 The revised request reduced their proposed
24 buffer zones to setbacks that meet the absolute
25 minimums required by law. They refused the City
Diane M.
Tropia,
46
1 planner's recommendations to at least adjust the
2 request to provide a more typical vegetative
3 buffer outlined by the City.
4 The applicant's counsel called the City
5 planner's recommendations aspirational, despite
6 the fact that other industrial developers have
7 apparently met these aspirations.
8 They refuse to consider residents and
9 Planning Commission suggestions to keep the
10 15 percent area as a natural retention and
11 drainage, which would be consistent with much of
12 the current vegetation of that section of
13 property.
14 (Ms. Lee enters the proceedings.)
15 MS. LANDAU: The property owners also
16 refuse suggestions to provide transitional usage
17 from low density to light office to light
18 industrial.
19 Now I ask you to refuse, refuse both
20 2008-242 and -243. At this point the landowner
21 has not demonstrated to the community nor to the
22 Planning Commission that they have a willingness
23 to find a non-encroaching transitional land use
24 that makes long-term sense for the area.
25 The request, as they stand today, do not
Diane M.
Tropia,
47
1 advance a reasonable compromise between land
2 uses, despite the community's and the City's
3 attempts to find such a compromise.
4 Please help ensure the property owners hear
5 the message today by concurring with your
6 Planning Commission's recommendations to deny
7 both of these requests.
8 Send a clear message to the developer and
9 property owner that it's critical that they work
10 with the community and with the City to develop
11 both a land use strategy and a development plan
12 that provide consistency with existing
13 communities and land uses and that retains the
14 residential corridor without encroachment.
15 Thank you.
16 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you.
17 Let the record reflect that Councilwoman
18 Denise Lee has joined us.
19 Our next speaker is Bobby Taylor, followed
20 by Scott Crosby.
21 (Audience member approaches the podium.)
22 THE CHAIRMAN: Good evening.
23 AUDIENCE MEMBER: Good evening.
24 My name is Bobby Taylor. I reside at 9441
Diane M.
Tropia,
48
1 CPAC, and I'm also chair of the Governmental
2 Affairs Subcommittee of the
3 We heard this 2008-242. We made a 19 to 4
4 motion opposing the zoning to LI. And almost
5 without exception, those who spoke against it
6 were concerned about the safety issue of
7 accessing heavy trucks to
8 We did not make any motion on -243 as that
9 is -- would flow from the semiannual review, and
10 we would consider 2008-243 at a later date at
11 the CPAC.
12 And I just wanted to -- we have a letter in
13 transit to y'all showing that we oppose that,
14 but I felt it was important that I come and let
15 you know what the vote was for the CPAC.
16 Thank you.
17 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Taylor.
18 Quick question for you. When was the vote
19 that you took? When was that taken?
20 MR. TAYLOR: That was taken at our last
21 CPAC general membership meeting, which I believe
22 was Wednesday a week ago.
23 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. Thank you.
24 Appreciate it.
25 Our next speaker is Scott Crosby, followed
Diane M.
Tropia,
49
1 by Johanna Logue.
2 (Audience member approaches the podium.)
3 AUDIENCE MEMBER: I don't think I made her
4 too happy. Sorry.
5 THE CHAIRMAN: Good evening.
6 AUDIENCE MEMBER: Good evening. Thank you
7 for having me here this evening.
8 My name is Scott Crosby. I live at 11699
9 Donato Drive, which is part of the Marshwinds
10 subdivision.
11 The young ladies there are passing out a
12 document that outlines several areas of the 2010
13
14 development is in direct inconsistencies with,
15 so I'll just have that for you to take a look
16 at.
17 There are -- the Northside has been a
18 rapidly expanding area, and it's a direct result
19 of the hard work of the City Council to
20 encourage growth into the Northside area. It
21 happens to be the fastest growing area in the
22 city as a percent of population over the last
23 four years.
24 This type of a development moving into that
25 area is going to be quite contrary to the
Diane M.
Tropia,
50
1 residential corridor that has been established
2 within the Alta/Yellow Bluff corridor.
3 One of the Planning Commissioners made a
4 very wise and profound statement when we met
5 with him and he said that we should be careful
6 not to approve land use based on the current
7 market conditions. One of the reasons that
8 we're talking about this today is that the
9 housing market has had a downturn. It was
10 approved previously for residential purposes.
11 We, as we have indicated, are not opposed
12 to it being rezoned as light industrial, but
13 what we would like to see is that the
14 residential corridor be maintained by allowing
15 the 15 percent of that -- of the property to
16 remain residential.
17 There are several neighborhoods that are
18 one-street or two-street neighborhoods up and
19 down Yellow Bluff and the
20 we feel that that would be an ideal use of that
21 land.
22 The only compromises actually that have
23 come from the developer at this point have been
24 a direct result of defeats that they've received
25 at the CPAC and Planning Commission, so we don't
Diane M.
Tropia,
51
1 feel like they've actually come to us to work
2 with us. It's been forced upon them by
3 commissions like yourself.
4 The situational compatibility overlay, as
5 indicated previously, this property never should
6 have been placed in it. It is currently zoned
7 low density residential, and it should be
8 industrial use for being considered for that
9 area.
10 Situational compatibility. It says that it
11 may be used for certain -- for industrial uses
12 under certain circumstances. And I would like
13 to contend that it does not based on residential
14 to the north, south, and west of the property.
15 And, lastly, the current development
16 actually has the developer filling in wetlands
17 right on
18 opposed to, as well as a significant reduction
19 in the buffers which will pretty much disappear
20 once Alta is widened, which I believe is
21 expected within the next several years.
22 Thank you.
23 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you.
24 Our next speaker is Johanna Logue, followed
25 by Lou Vaccaro.
Diane M. Tropia, P.O. Box 2375, Jacksonville, Fl 32203
52
1 (Audience member approaches the podium.)
2 THE CHAIRMAN: Good evening.
3 AUDIENCE MEMBER: Good evening.
4 My name is Johanna Logue. I live at 13474
5 Teddington Lane in the Victoria Lakes
6 subdivision on Yellow Bluff Road.
7 I want to express my opposition to 2008-242
8 and -243, as well as my disappointment with the
9 landowner -- the landowner, Alta Lakes, L.L.C.,
10 and the proposed development of the property.
11 This has been an ever-shifting request from
12 them.
13 It has been very apparent throughout this
14 process that Alta Lakes, L.L.C., is not
15 concerned with the area or the residents, only
16 with profit.
17 We have attempted to discuss with the
18 representing attorney alternatives in this
19 development, only to be met with resistance. We
20 have only a few requests for the developer and
21 the landowner. That's to eliminate the access
22 to Alta Drive. This would include access to
23 Alta from any of the neighboring properties.
24 We'd also like to keep Alta Drive residential by
25 allowing parcel A as low density residential.
Diane M. Tropia, P.O. Box 2375, Jacksonville, Fl 32203
53
1 This would follow the current precedence of
2 the Pattillo development set in 2001 in which a
3 portion of that property that borders Alta Drive
4 is low density residential while the remaining
5 property is light industrial and office space.
6 It seems that in providing the concession
7 to remove any Alta Drive entrance to the
8 property, the owner has also seen fit to remove
9 almost all of the visual impediments to his
10 property that were in the original proposal.
11 The buffer areas are now gone and have been
12 replaced by substantially reduced setbacks on
13 all areas around the property.
14 They have also indicated that there are
15 changes that any buffers or visual blocks may or
16 may not be landscaped. They've also increased
17 their warehouse space by 14 percent to encroach
18 on any setback and they are proposing to build
19 warehouses at 50 feet in height. This is
20 actually higher than the buffer is long and will
21 be clearly visible from Alta Drive and the
22 surrounding properties.
23 The concessions proposed by the developer
24 would do more harm to our area than good.
25 Frankly, I wouldn't call this a concession on
Diane M. Tropia, P.O. Box 2375, Jacksonville, Fl 32203
54
1 behalf of the landowner. It looks like the
2 residents are receiving the short end of the
3 stick.
4 If you allow this zoning, it will ruin the
5 view of the residential roads with the addition
6 of 50-foot warehouses right on Alta Drive,
7 Aldersgate, and Alta Circle. It will likely
8 cause the surrounding property values to drop
9 and cause additional traffic and safety issues
10 in the area and for our residents.
11 This owner is concerned with only his
12 property and not the impacts with the
13 surrounding area and the residential
14 properties. Please do not allow the interest of
15 the developer to outweigh the needs of the area
16 and the residents.
17 In conclusion, I would like to request that
18 this commission deny the proposition as
19 written. It is unacceptable. By denying, you
20 will send a clear message to the owner and the
21 potential developer, and it will require them to
22 go back to the drawing board and rethink the
23 development, keeping the neighborhood and the
24 city in mind.
25 Thank you very much for your time.
Diane M. Tropia, P.O. Box 2375, Jacksonville, Fl 32203
55
1 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you.
2 Our final speaker is Lou Vaccaro.
3 (Audience member approaches the podium.)
4 THE CHAIRMAN: Good evening.
5 AUDIENCE MEMBER: Good evening.
6 My name is Lou Vaccaro. I reside at 11707
7 Donato Drive. I want to be on record that I'm
8 opposing 2008-242 and -243.
9 Ordinarily, light industrial is not
10 compatible with residential. The only way it
11 can be compatible is with tight zoning
12 restrictions.
13 Since we don't support the existing PUD
14 because the parameters have not been fully
15 defined yet, we cannot support the land use
16 change at this time, and ask that you deny both
17 the land use and the zoning change request.
18 Thank you.
19 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you.
20 I do not have any further speaker cards.
21 I'll call Mr. Ingram back up for rebuttal.
22 (Mr. Ingram approaches the podium.)
23 MR. INGRAM: Thank you.
24 I'll just go quickly through it.
25 Ms. Loftis had mentioned in our latest PUD
Diane M. Tropia, P.O. Box 2375, Jacksonville, Fl 32203
56
1 application that we had requested the ability to
2 access properties to the north through the Alta
3 Lakes project -- or to go through North Point.
4 Staff found that to be unacceptable. We
5 withdrew that. And you'll see in the staff
6 conditions that one of its conditions would
7 limit -- would prevent us from doing that but
8 would allow us to go to the east or south. To
9 the east is New Berlin Road and to the south is
10 Faye Road. And we're fine. We're not fighting
11 the staff with that.
12 The next issue had come up about the
13 reduction in the width of the setback and buffer
14 on Alta Drive. We had originally proposed that
15 in the beginning a 300-foot setback and later
16 amended to a 200-foot-wide landscaped area as a
17 concession to the neighborhood to try to
18 minimize our impacts on Alta, even though we
19 were going to have access on Alta.
20 When we deleted the access point on Alta
21 Drive, we also deleted what is a very large
22 buffer, but let me tell you a little more about
23 it. And this is -- this may be just me, but
24 people perceive other uses, not from the
25 helicopter and not from the sky or aerial
Diane M. Tropia, P.O. Box 2375, Jacksonville, Fl 32203
57
1 photographs, but from what they see when they're
2 driving their cars or what they can see in their
3 backyards.
4 The buffer has always been proposed to be
5 eight feet tall with 85 percent opacity, using a
6 mixture of vegetation and berms. An earlier
7 proposal had a five-foot berm. Now it's a
8 four-foot-high berm, but it still has to come up
9 to eight feet tall with planting, and it's the
10 same as for Alta, Aldersgate, and Alta Circle.
11 We have not reduced that proposed buffer from
12 what we had proposed in the previous revision,
13 and I do have a schematic to show you for that.
14 And this should be in the handouts you
15 received. But, basically, if Alta Drive's edge
16 of right-of-way were on the left or in a
17 residential lot --
18 THE CHAIRMAN: Tom, let me interrupt you.
19 We have copies of that. Turn that enough
20 so the public can see that more than we can see
21 it. We can look at our copy.
22 MR. INGRAM: (Complies.)
23 Yes. So basically on the left-hand side,
24 there is a -- whether it's a lot line or
25 right-of-way, then you'd have a vegetative
Diane M. Tropia, P.O. Box 2375, Jacksonville, Fl 32203
58
1 buffer at least 45 feet in width with a
2 four-foot high berm, with the total height being
3 eight feet and 85 percentage opacity.
4 MS. LEE: Mr. Chairman.
5 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Ingram, hold on one
6 second.
7 MS. LEE: May I interrupt for one minute?
8 I know the gentleman dropped his easel.
9 People are standing up. Can you put it back on
10 the easel so they can see it?
11 MR. INGRAM: Sure.
12 MS. LEE: Mr. Chairman, I saw the gentleman
13 was standing up in the back.
14 MR. INGRAM: (Complies.)
15 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Tom.
16 MR. INGRAM: Yes, no problem.
17 The other thing I wanted to point out is
18 that's the bare minimum. It shows a
19 50-foot-tall building. It's unlikely that all
20 the buildings would be 50 feet tall. Warehouses
21 are typically one story. I've never heard of a
22 two-story warehouse. And typically they are
23 looking for a 32-foot clear space within the
24 building to store materials.
25 So the question about the industrial
Diane M. Tropia, P.O. Box 2375, Jacksonville, Fl 32203
59
1 situational compatibly zone -- there had been an
2 argument that it shouldn't have been designated
3 that. The situational compatibility zone, in
4 fact, imposes more restrictions on industrial
5 development there and not less. It would be
6 better for an industrial developer if a site was
7 not in the industrial situational compatibility
8 zone because, with this situational
9 compatibility zone, you have this 150-foot
10 setback requirement.
11 And finally, I mean, I just, you know,
12 remind you about where the site is located. And
13 I've included it in my handouts, but it really
14 is in very close proximity to the port of
15 Jacksonville. It has industrial uses to its
16 north and south. They're not going to make any
17 more land over there. There's a great deal of
18 marshes. The Timucuan Preserve is to the east.
19 If it is ever built as residential, it is very
20 unlikely that it would ever be taken back to a
21 job-producing use.
22 Again, I appreciate your time. Thank you.
23 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you.
24 Seeing no further speakers, we will close
25 the public hearing.
Diane M. Tropia, P.O. Box 2375, Jacksonville, Fl 32203
60
1 I'll go to the district councilmember,
2 Councilmember Ray Holt.
3 MR. HOLT: Thank you, Mr. Chair, for
4 allowing me to come tonight and speak to the
5 committee.
6 I guess the first thing I probably need to
7 do is declare all my ex-partes, which are very
8 extensive on this one, as you might imagine.
9 Yeah, we'll be here for a while.
10 I spoke with Tom Ingram and Logan Holtz
11 (phonetic) on August 7th of last year, 10/15 of
12 last year, February 27th of this year, 3/5 of
13 this year, 3/19 of this year. And at that same
14 time, I spoke with a representative from Taylor
15 and Mathis, spoke with Denise Wallace, Lance
16 Perallie (phonetic) and other Marshwinds
17 residents on February 26th.
18 Met with about a dozen Marshwinds residents
19 at one of their homes on 3/20 of this year. Had
20 a noticed meeting with Council President Davis
21 and several neighbors on 3/3/08, and the subject
22 of all those meetings was primarily the Alta
23 access and the buffering and the traffic counts
24 and the traffic affects on Alta Drive.
25 Okay. Got that out of the way.
Diane M. Tropia, P.O. Box 2375, Jacksonville, Fl 32203
61
1 MS. LEE: Did you see Denise Wallace at the
2 residence?
3 MR. HOLT: No. She is a representative, I
4 believe, of their homeowners association. I
5 think she is with the management organization.
6 Is that right, guys?
7 MS. VACCARO: That's correct.
8 MR. HOLT: Okay. She's with their
9 management company. Yeah, I believe she used to
10 be with the City.
11 Okay. Well, I think most people will
12 remember that early on in the process on this
13 land use change I opposed it on the basis of the
14 Alta access, and that we'd be dealing with in
15 the rezoning.
16 And the entrance would have caused too much
17 noise, traffic backups, and would have been a
18 danger to all the school children that have
19 school bus stops along there. It would have
20 also made a traffic light necessary at that
21 intersection of Misty Marsh.
22 And this is a very important road, Alta
23 Drive, for not only Marshwinds, but there are a
24 lot of other neighborhoods all up and down Alta
25 and Yellow Bluff, that whole corridor, probably
Diane M. Tropia, P.O. Box 2375, Jacksonville, Fl 32203
62
1 5,000 homes. On a daily basis, they have people
2 coming down that road to access 9A, so it's very
3 important.
4 But we now know that, in the rezoning, it
5 will not include an Alta access. So there won't
6 be noisy trucks traveling up and down Alta from
7 this development.
8 Now, I've heard several folks mention
9 tonight setting aside parcel A as a residential
10 buffer. I want to be really clear about this.
11 I'm 100 percent against that. And the reason
12 is, if there are homes in there, then they will
13 be forced to drive in and out of the light
14 industrial park every day to get to their home.
15 They would have a worse situation than the
16 Marshwinds folks would have with the access to
17 Alta because they would have no buffer. They
18 would be the buffer.
19 It don't really seem -- it doesn't seem
20 fair to create a neighborhood to be your buffer
21 so that you don't have to hear it, but they do.
22 So . . .
23 I have to look at this, being the district
24 councilmember, from the standpoint of what is
25 best for my community, the whole community. And
Diane M. Tropia, P.O. Box 2375, Jacksonville, Fl 32203
63
1 we have two choices here: a light industrial
2 project, which is proposed, or the previous
3 rezoning, which is 650 homes -- single-family
4 homes.
5 And what I'm going to do is I'm going to go
6 through several issues and give my thoughts on
7 each one of those and kind of compare the light
8 industrial to the 650-home project that is
9 currently rezoned -- that it's currently zoned
10 for.
11 First traffic. With the proposal that we
12 have here, there's no Alta access, so there
13 wouldn't be no -- there would be no added
14 traffic to Alta, and there would be no
15 intersection at Misty Marsh.
16 With the residential project that it is
17 currently zoned for, there would be a traffic
18 light at Misty Marsh, and that would stop
19 traffic from all those neighborhoods that are
20 coming down, back and forth every day, up and
21 down Alta and Yellow Bluff, not to mention the
22 1,200 cars or so that are going to be coming out
23 of those 650 homes onto Alta every day,
24 primarily at rush hour time.
25 (Mr. Webb exits the proceedings.)
Diane M. Tropia, P.O. Box 2375, Jacksonville, Fl 32203
64
1 MR. HOLT: Next is property values.
2 There's a very valid concern that people have
3 mentioned. And I think that if the Alta access
4 was still there, it would have an impact, but
5 it's not.
6 With the proposed buffering, I don't think
7 you'll see the buildings. I'm looking at the --
8 this exhibit here. And I'm looking at a map of
9 the area, GIS map, and it is wooded all along
10 Alta Drive in that area. So what you're looking
11 at on this exhibit shows trees, and there are
12 trees all along there.
13 So if you kind of imagine the road over
14 here on the opposite side of those trees, you
15 would -- and how you would have to look from a
16 car or from your home, you would have to look
17 over those trees to possibly see the building.
18 But at any rate, they're required to
19 conceal it by 85 percent. So that's a definite,
20 that it would be concealed by at least
21 85 percent. I don't think you'd see it at all.
22 The noise from the trucks that are already
23 at their destination on parcel A I think would
24 be minimal. I'm sure that some of the people on
25 Aldersgate would, from time to time, hear the
Diane M. Tropia, P.O. Box 2375, Jacksonville, Fl 32203
65
1 trucks when they back up. They have the little
2 alarms that let you know they're backing up.
3 I'm sure they'll hear that. But they won't be
4 running loud and fast because they're at their
5 destination. They're in a parking lot. So --
6 I say all that to say that I don't think
7 there's going to be an effect on property
8 values.
9 I know some of the folks in the
10 neighborhood have spoken to real estate agents
11 because I spoke to some of the same real estate
12 agents and what I was told that if you really
13 wanted to protect your property values, you'd do
14 whatever you could to stop that residential
15 neighborhood from coming in because it's zoned
16 for 650 homes on lots of 50 to 70 feet and there
17 are no requirements for a minimum square
18 footage. They could be 12-, 1,500-square-foot
19 homes. There are no requirements for
20 construction materials. They could be made out
21 of vinyl siding, thin vinyl siding. And that's
22 honestly where the market is going right now.
23 What's going to be built there would not be
24 another Marshwinds. Marshwinds has half a
25 million dollar homes and up. I'm being frank
Diane M. Tropia, P.O. Box 2375, Jacksonville, Fl 32203
66
1 here. It would be lower cost homes that would,
2 in the short-term, severely depress the value of
3 the folks in Marshwinds. And in the long-term,
4 it would provide a substantial decrease in the
5 valve of their homes. And that's what I was
6 told by real estate agents.
7 Add to that the fact that over 1,000
8 children would be added to our local schools,
9 which are, all three, over capacity. It would
10 stress police and fire services in the area.
11 I'm hard-pressed to find a negative on
12 changing from those 650 homes to light
13 industrial. And I know this puts me at
14 loggerheads with a lot of my constituents, and
15 I'll have to deal with that fact, but I've got
16 to do what I feel like is right for the
17 neighborhood, and that includes all the people
18 up and down Yellow Bluff, all those people in
19 Oceanway that use that road, Alta Drive.
20 So I'm asking the committee to support the
21 land use change, and I'm asking you to support
22 the rezoning with the April 21st site plan, the
23 April 23rd written description, and the Planning
24 Department's condition of eliminating the
25 northern access, which would ultimately have
Diane M. Tropia, P.O. Box 2375, Jacksonville, Fl 32203
67
1 given them access to Alta. I would like that
2 eliminated so that there's no possibility that
3 the traffic is going to access Alta at all.
4 And with the requirements of the 45-foot
5 wooded buffer with a 4-foot berm, with four feet
6 of landscaping on top of that, and a maximum
7 height of 50 feet on parcel A.
8 I appreciate your giving me the time and
9 considering my thoughts on this.
10 Thank you.
11 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Councilmember
12 Holt.
13 Quick question for you. When you talk
14 about the north access, was the thought there
15 that potentially trucks would go north and turn
16 left and come back to Alta? Is that the
17 reason --
18 MR. HOLT: Correct.
19 Just north of this is another industrial
20 park called North Point. And I think the
21 thought pattern on the part of the developer was
22 to go up there, work out a deal with Pattillo
23 that they could access there and then go over to
24 Alta, but we want that eliminated.
25 THE CHAIRMAN: Because the Pattillo project
Diane M. Tropia, P.O. Box 2375, Jacksonville, Fl 32203
68
1 can already access Alta?
2 MR. HOLT: Correct.
3 THE CHAIRMAN: That's the only truck
4 traffic?
5 MR. HOLT: Correct.
6 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. Thank you. I
7 appreciate you clarifying that.
8 Okay. We are -- we are going to take up
9 2008-242, which is the land use amendment
10 first. We've had the public hearing. There
11 is -- the agenda may be marked --
12 MR. CLARK: Move the bill.
13 THE CHAIRMAN: I have a motion.
14 Do we have a second?
15 MR. SHAD: Second.
16 THE CHAIRMAN: A motion and a second on
17 -242.
18 Does anybody need to speak on it?
19 MR. SHAD: I want to say something.
20 THE CHAIRMAN: Councilmember Shad.
21 MR. SHAD: Thank you.
22 To the Planning Department or Councilmember
23 Holt, through the Chair, just on the part that
24 the -- some of residences considered for
25 residential. You know, that could be accessed
Diane M. Tropia, P.O. Box 2375, Jacksonville, Fl 32203
69
1 without -- you know, you could have a divider
2 between that and the industrial park. They
3 certainly could access that from Alta, the
4 residential there, right? And then the rest of
5 the park could be accessed.
6 Anyway, I just -- it seems like there would
7 certainly be a way for the residential if that
8 part -- sounds like you don't want it, but if
9 that part was to stay residential, certainly
10 seems like you could access with Alta -- through
11 Alta without the rest of the park having access
12 to Alta.
13 So I just threw that out there for
14 discussion. I mean, I think --
15 AUDIENCE MEMBERS: (Applause.)
16 MR. SHAD: I don't think that -- no, we
17 don't do that here.
18 THE CHAIRMAN: No applause, please.
19 MR. SHAD: Yeah.
20 But I'm going to support you in this, and
21 it sounds like a great compromise. It sounds
22 like you worked really long and hard to get
23 this. So I commend you on your work, and I look
24 forward to supporting you on this.
25 Thank you.
Diane M. Tropia, P.O. Box 2375, Jacksonville, Fl 32203
70
1 THE CHAIRMAN: Councilmember Holt, you want
2 to respond to that?
3 MR. HOLT: I appreciate your support on
4 it. One of the main points for me -- the only
5 point for me was to eliminate that Alta access.
6 And, again, the -- any additional strain on that
7 road is just killing me, so I'm trying to
8 eliminate the strain on that road.
9 THE CHAIRMAN: Let me ask a question on
10 that, if I could, Councilman Holt. When you say
11 "eliminate the strain on that road," what is
12 going to be the impact on the road during the
13 construction of this project? I mean, is it --
14 I don't do construction, so I don't know what
15 that is.
16 MR. HOLT: Well, they wouldn't be accessing
17 from Alta at all in order to construct the
18 project.
19 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. Thank you.
20 Councilmember Lee.
21 MS. LEE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
22 I came in while this discussion was going
23 on, and I have a couple of questions real
24 quick.
25 Obviously, there was a compromise reached.
Diane M. Tropia, P.O. Box 2375, Jacksonville, Fl 32203
71
1 I would like to know who was involved in the
2 compromise. Was there a representative from the
3 community, the president of the association?
4 And is there an existing -- I think there is a
5 community organization, and I would like to know
6 who was involved in the compromise.
7 And I can ask that to Mr. Holt.
8 MR. HOLT: Thank you.
9 Through the Chair to Ms. Lee, there were
10 several folks from Marshwinds and one gentleman
11 from Aldersgate, I believe, Bob McNeill, and the
12 Vaccaros were involved in that. And I know that
13 they just spoke against it, so I don't really
14 feel like they felt like it was a complete
15 compromise, but --
16 MS. LEE: Well, my question is --
17 MR. HOLT: There was movement, if that's
18 what you're asking.
19 MS. LEE: Excuse me. I can't hear you.
20 MR. HOLT: There was a movement on the part
21 of -- eliminating the Alta access was the
22 movement on the part of the developers. So --
23 MS. LEE: Well, during the negotiations of
24 the compromise, did anybody in the community
25 agree with it, with the access?
Diane M. Tropia, P.O. Box 2375, Jacksonville, Fl 32203
72
1 I think the original argument of the
2 neighborhood was that they did not want the
3 project to be accessed from Alta Road.
4 MR. HOLT: Right.
5 MS. LEE: This is what I heard in my
6 office, all of the complaints basically.
7 Was that the main concern of the
8 neighbors?
9 MR. HOLT: I think that was the main
10 concern, but I think they still have --
11 MS. LEE: You've got to speak up.
12 MR. HOLT: I think that was the main
13 concern. It was certainly for me. But I would
14 have to let them speak for what concerns they
15 still have. But I --
16 MS. LEE: Well, let me ask you this:
17 During the compromise -- through the Chair to
18 Mr. Holt, what were the concerns raised when you
19 reached a compromise? Was there a vote, or that
20 was just something that you negotiated with the
21 developers?
22 MR. HOLT: Well, I think what I did was to
23 go back to the developers and said, "Look, the
24 neighbors are willing to work with you to get
25 behind you on this, but we've got to have some
Diane M. Tropia, P.O. Box 2375, Jacksonville, Fl 32203
73
1 movement from you. We are dead set against you
2 accessing Alta." And so we just kind of held
3 the line.
4 MS. LEE: Okay. Well -- I'm sorry,
5 Mr. Holt. Through the Chair to Mr. Holt, no, my
6 question was, when this compromise was reached,
7 were you-all in a room or a library or
8 something? How was the compromise reached?
9 MR. HOLT: I think shortly after it was
10 defeated in CPAC, the developers made the call
11 and called me up and said, "After careful
12 consideration, we've decided to eliminate the
13 Alta access."
14 MS. LEE: Okay. And so it was more or less
15 a verbal thing because that's why I asked who
16 was in the negotiation. And you said there were
17 people from neighborhood, but that is not true;
18 am I correct?
19 MR. HOLT: No, they didn't -- we weren't
20 all in a room when he announced that. He told
21 me, and then I told the neighbors that they had
22 eliminated the Alta access.
23 MS. LEE: And what was the response to you
24 from the neighbors when you told them that the
25 access had been eliminated?
Diane M. Tropia, P.O. Box 2375, Jacksonville, Fl 32203
74
1 MR. HOLT: Well, they were excited about
2 that. But several of them still have concerns
3 about buffering, as you just heard.
4 MS. LEE: Okay. Again, would you reiterate
5 what the remaining concern is?
6 You resolved one concern, and that was the
7 access, so that we don't have to worry about
8 that traffic coming out Alta now; am I correct?
9 MR. HOLT: Right.
10 MS. LEE: Okay. So then what was the other
11 concern that the neighbors had?
12 MR. HOLT: The other concern was that they
13 didn't want to see it or hear it, and so the
14 buffering was the issue there. They wanted more
15 buffering to keep it concealed and out of
16 earshot.
17 MS. LEE: And what was the recommendation
18 for the buffering? What was the suggestion?
19 What was going to be used to buffer?
20 MR. HOLT: Well, originally the buffering
21 was larger when they had an access point there,
22 but now it is 45 feet of wooded buffering on all
23 sides.
24 MS. LEE: What other options could you use
25 to buffer it since that's a concern of the
Diane M. Tropia, P.O. Box 2375, Jacksonville, Fl 32203
75
1 neighbors? What other options were to be used
2 to buffer, or were there any at all?
3 MR. HOLT: I don't think anything else was
4 put out there as an option other than the wooded
5 buffer with a berm and landscaping on top, eight
6 feet tall.
7 MS. LEE: Is that going to be done?
8 MR. HOLT: Yes, that will be done.
9 That will be part of this -- as part of
10 this written description, that in all directions
11 there will be a four-foot berm with four feet of
12 landscaping on top of that. And they would use
13 crape myrtles and saw palmettos as a kind of
14 local --
15 MS. LEE: And that's actually 45 feet from
16 Alta Road?
17 MR. HOLT: Right. Well, it's 45 feet
18 within their property -- 45 feet of their
19 property. So there's another -- I don't know
20 how many feet from their property line to the
21 road.
22 MS. LEE: So did they recommend more than
23 45 feet? That's just what I'm trying to see
24 where was it different. If they asked you for
25 more buffer, what were they asking for?
Diane M. Tropia, P.O. Box 2375, Jacksonville, Fl 32203
76
1 MR. HOLT: I really don't know what -- if
2 they have all come together to have an amount
3 that they want.
4 MS. LEE: You didn't think you needed to
5 take that --
6 MR. HOLT: If you wanted to ask one of
7 these people with their hands raised, they might
8 answer.
9 MS. LEE: Just a moment, please.
10 Well, Mr. Holt, I guess I'm asking you
11 these questions because you made the compromise,
12 which is fine. But my concern is, did you take
13 into consideration their request for more
14 buffering? And you would know that answer.
15 MR. HOLT: Right.
16 MS. LEE: Did you?
17 MR. HOLT: Well, I got several different
18 answers from several different people. So I
19 didn't have a consensus from anybody, from all
20 the folks on what they wanted on buffering.
21 Some people are saying that they want this
22 parcel A area to be a residential neighborhood
23 and basically a giant buffer neighborhood, and
24 some people are saying that they want more of a
25 wooded buffer. So I didn't have a consensus
Diane M. Tropia, P.O. Box 2375, Jacksonville, Fl 32203
77
1 that I could go to --
2 MS. LEE: And the reason you were opposed
3 to the residential neighborhood because then
4 that would mean that what they don't want
5 somebody else would be getting?
6 MR. HOLT: Exactly.
7 MS. LEE: I think that's what I
8 understood.
9 So, in other words, you struck out that.
10 Did you share that with the people, why you were
11 opposed to it before today?
12 MR. HOLT: No. I haven't spoken with them
13 about that today because -- until today.
14 MS. LEE: Okay. Then the second -- the
15 second recommendation was what relative to --
16 that you looked at that, could have given some
17 relief to that thought if it were possible? You
18 just settled with 45 feet? You did not look at
19 anything else?
20 MR. HOLT: I'm sorry?
21 Well, it's 150 of a building setback. But
22 the actual wooded buffer is 45 feet, and I was
23 satisfied with that.
24 MS. LEE: Okay. Through the Chair real
25 quick to the lady out in the audience.
Diane M. Tropia, P.O. Box 2375, Jacksonville, Fl 32203
78
1 Who's the spokesperson for the group?
2 (Ms. Loftis approaches the podium.)
3 MS. LEE: Are you the president of the
4 community association?
5 MS. LOFTIS: No. I'm on the board.
6 MS. LEE: Okay.
7 AUDIENCE MEMBER: We've elected her to
8 speak.
9 MS. LOFTIS: They've asked me to speak.
10 The reason we've not been able to get a
11 consensus to Mr. Holt is we can't get a message
12 to Mr. Holt. Since the Planning Commission
13 meeting, we've tried numerous times to reach
14 him, and he shared that he's not speaking to
15 anybody about the issue.
16 The original buffers was a 300-foot buffer
17 from Alta with 200 feet of landscape. Our
18 concern is -- even the Planning Commission staff
19 gave them and said you shouldn't have anything
20 less than 75 feet. They gave them two buffers
21 to choose from. They said 75 feet or 50 feet,
22 heavily wooded. And they said that that's
23 what's being approved on all the other
24 industrial requests that are coming through
25 Planning, that they're trying to get a
Diane M. Tropia, P.O. Box 2375, Jacksonville, Fl 32203
79
1 consistent buffer between all the different
2 plans that are going through, and they made the
3 recommendation that, at a minimum, this should
4 be a 75-foot buffer to protect the residents.
5 MS. LEE: Is that what the Planning
6 Department recommended?
7 MS. LOFTIS: Yes. I have their pictures.
8 The Planning Department said, before it was
9 denied, the staff had requested two things. One
10 was to eliminate the north exit, and the other
11 was they did not feel that their 45-foot buffer
12 was adequate, and gave them two other
13 recommendations and said that they should accept
14 one of these.
15 MS. LEE: Okay. Let me --
16 THE CHAIRMAN: Ms. Lee, before you
17 continue, for the record, that's -- Tracie
18 Loftis is speaking on behalf of the
19 neighborhood.
20 MS. LOFTIS: Yes.
21 MS. LEE: I'm sorry. Miss who? Loftis?
22 MS. LOFTIS: Loftis, yes, ma'am.
23 THE CHAIRMAN: Loftis.
24 MS. LEE: L-o-f-t-u-s maybe?
25 THE CHAIRMAN: -t-i-s.
Diane M. Tropia, P.O. Box 2375, Jacksonville, Fl 32203
80
1 MS. LOFTIS: -i-s.
2 MS. LEE: -t-i-s. Okay.
3 Well, I would have to ask Mr. Holt -- well,
4 did you state, through the Chair, to any
5 residents that you were not willing to talk to
6 anybody anymore; is that true?
7 MR. HOLT: No. Probably what was said was
8 that I can't -- I can't make a commitment
9 because this is a quasi-judicial matter, so I
10 can't come out and say whether I'm for or
11 against anything.
12 MS. LEE: Well, through the Chair to legal,
13 aren't City Councilmembers allowed to talk with
14 their constituents, be ye quasi-judicial or
15 not? I mean, aren't you allowed to talk to
16 people?
17 MS. ELLER: Yes, you are. However, it's my
18 understanding that Mr. Holt believes the
19 communication may have been misunderstood in
20 that he was communicating that he can't take a
21 position on the quasi-judicial, which is a
22 standard recommendation.
23 With any quasi-judicial bill, you're not
24 permitted to take a position, whether you
25 support it or you don't, until you have all the
Diane M. Tropia, P.O. Box 2375, Jacksonville, Fl 32203
81
1 evidence before you, but it doesn't permit you
2 from communicating that or listening to their
3 concerns.
4 MR. HOLT: Right. And as you've heard --
5 MS. LEE: Did you communicate that to them
6 personally, what your feelings were?
7 MR. HOLT: Right. And that was exactly
8 what Shannon had just said. That was what my
9 communication with them was.
10 MS. LEE: Did you communicate that to their
11 representative?
12 Mr. Holt, let me say this: I know this is
13 your district and, obviously, this is a very
14 somewhat contentious issue, as it has been, and
15 it's been very controversial. It is not my
16 district, but, you know, I am on this committee
17 and I, as a district councilmember, have not
18 always received the full support of my
19 constituents, you know. So I've been in the
20 position you've been in relative to that.
21 I guess my concern is -- I just want to
22 make sure that people have been given adequate
23 information and an opportunity to express
24 themselves, and that's why I'm just asking you
25 these questions. I want to make my conscience
Diane M. Tropia, P.O. Box 2375, Jacksonville, Fl 32203
82
1 clear when I take a vote, that things have been
2 fairly, you know, done.
3 MR. HOLT: Right. I understand.
4 MS. LEE: And that's why I'm questioning
5 it.
6 MR. HOLT: Right. I understand.
7 THE CHAIRMAN: Ms. Lee, Councilman Holt --
8 MR. HOLT: And you weren't here at the
9 time, but --
10 THE CHAIRMAN: If I can interrupt you.
11 We need to kind of get back on the focus.
12 We're on the land use portion of this.
13 MS. LEE: Okay. Well --
14 THE CHAIRMAN: When we get into buffers and
15 all -- that's kind of on the --
16 MR. HOLT: Okay.
17 THE CHAIRMAN: That's on the --
18 MS. LEE: On the zoning.
19 THE CHAIRMAN: -- on the zoning. So we need
20 to focus on --
21 MS. LEE: Well --
22 THE CHAIRMAN: What we're really
23 considering now is should this area go from low
24 density residential and RR to LI. That's what
25 really we're debating at this point. So if we
Diane M. Tropia, P.O. Box 2375, Jacksonville, Fl 32203
83
1 could stay on that.
2 MS. LEE: Well --
3 THE CHAIRMAN: And when we get to -243, we
4 can talk about the other stuff.
5 MS. LEE: Mr. Chairman, I do appreciate you
6 bringing that to my attention, but they do go
7 together.
8 THE CHAIRMAN: I know they go together.
9 MS. LEE: I mean, they really do go
10 together.
11 MS. LOFTIS: However, if the land use is
12 approved without a rezoning that is well-defined
13 and has everything in place -- the land use
14 should have a plan behind it that is going to be
15 acceptable to the residential area beside it.
16 MS. LEE: Okay. Hold it one minute.
17 Through the Chair to Mr. Holt -- and I'm
18 staying on it. I'm going to try to stay on
19 this. I don't think I'm getting off of it.
20 Mr. Holt, through the Chair, Ms. Loftis has
21 said that the Planning Department recommended
22 75 feet.
23 MR. HOLT: Right.
24 MS. LEE: Why are you opposed to 75 feet?
25 MR. HOLT: I'm not opposed to it.
Diane M. Tropia, P.O. Box 2375, Jacksonville, Fl 32203
84
1 MS. LEE: Oh, you're not?
2 MR. HOLT: No, I'm not opposed to more
3 buffering, but I feel like I'm satisfied with
4 45 feet. So if they want to -- if they're
5 wanting to move -- if they are willing to move
6 to 75 feet to satisfy the Planning Department,
7 I'm fully behind it.
8 MS. LEE: No. I'm asking you as a district
9 councilperson, were you opposed to the 75 feet
10 that the young Ms. Loftis is saying?
11 MR. HOLT: No, I'm not opposed to a 75-foot
12 buffer.
13 MS. LEE: You're not?
14 MR. HOLT: But I guess to answer your
15 question, if this were to come to council today
16 with a 45-foot buffer, I'd vote for it because I
17 feel like that's enough. But if they want to
18 move to 75, even better.
19 MS. LEE: Mr. Holt, I think the bottom line
20 is everybody is looking for your leadership, and
21 I'm just curious as to if that's something you
22 want to do. You know, yes or no, would you
23 entertain making it 75? Or does that in some
24 kind of way put some prohibition to the
25 developer? Does that in some kind of way
Diane M. Tropia, P.O. Box 2375, Jacksonville, Fl 32203
85
1 stagnate the developer or something?
2 THE CHAIRMAN: Ms. Lee, I'd like to get the
3 developer's response to that, if I could,
4 please.
5 MS. LEE: Okay.
6 MR. HOLT: That would the best way to
7 answer.
8 MS. LEE: Because Mr. Holt -- Mr. Chairman,
9 I just want to make sure I understand Mr. Holt.
10 He said he's not opposed to it, but he did not
11 make a recommendation, you know, to do the
12 75 feet inasmuch as it was recommended.
13 So if that's the case, I was just trying to
14 find out why he didn't do it. And the only
15 thing I can assume is that he has agreed with
16 the developer to let them do what it is they
17 want to do. And I want to make sure I'm not
18 assuming.
19 So that's why I asked, Ray. That's the
20 only reason.
21 MR. HOLT: Right. Well, you'll have to ask
22 them whether they're willing to move on it. I
23 just --
24 MS. LEE: Well, they're not going to go
25 to 75.
Diane M. Tropia, P.O. Box 2375, Jacksonville, Fl 32203
86
1 MR. HOLT: They'd have to agree to it.
2 MS. LEE: Okay.
3 Through the Chair, what do you mean?
4 MS. ELLER: If we impose a condition upon a
5 PUD that the applicant doesn't consent to,
6 because it's their property --
7 MS. LEE: Okay.
8 MS. ELLER: -- and we pass it, they can
9 turn around and sue us for -- and get it
10 overturned. So we -- they have -- if we're
11 going to impose conditions upon them, they have
12 to agree.
13 If we can't come to an agreement, then you
14 can either vote it down or defer it, but you
15 can't -- you can't put restrictions on
16 somebody's dirt without their consent. So you
17 either -- so you either --
18 MS. LEE: Well, that's called downzoning,
19 isn't it?
20 MS. ELLER: No.
21 MS. LEE: The property?
22 MS. ELLER: You either -- if there are --
23 in a PUD, if you cannot agree upon the specific
24 conditions with the developer, then your option
25 is to not approve it, instead of approving it
Diane M. Tropia, P.O. Box 2375, Jacksonville, Fl 32203
87
1 with conditions that they don't consent to
2 because then they'll just go to court and get it
3 overturned because they didn't consent.
4 MS. LEE: Does that happen frequently?
5 MS. ELLER: Typically what happens is, when
6 you get to that stalemate point, they'll defer
7 it and try to work it out because they don't
8 want to go through that whole process to undo
9 something that they didn't agree to. And they
10 also don't want to risk getting it voted down,
11 so they usually defer it to work it out.
12 MS. LEE: Legal, inasmuch as the Planning
13 Department made that recommendation, was
14 consideration given to the 75 feet? Was there
15 discussion between the developer and the
16 Planning Department or legal or somebody to
17 increase it to 75 feet? Was that consideration
18 even discussed?
19 I would like to think that somebody talked
20 about it.
21 MS. ELLER: I believe that the Planning
22 Department made the recommendation of the
23 75 feet or 50 feet as one of the options, and
24 then the developer did not agree and wanted to
25 move forward with their proposal of the 45-foot
Diane M. Tropia, P.O. Box 2375, Jacksonville, Fl 32203
88
1 wooded area with the 150-foot setbacks to the
2 buildings.
3 So I believe it's a Planning Department
4 recommendation and a developer who has a
5 different position and a district council member
6 who has explained that he is satisfied with the
7 45-foot buffer that the applicant has proposed.
8 MS. LEE: Well, I understand that he said
9 he was satisfied, but the people weren't talked
10 to, and that's what's disturbing to me, that --
11 whether you're for or against it, I just
12 don't -- you know.
13 Let me hear --
14 (Mr. Ingram approaches the podium.)
15 MR. INGRAM: Tom Ingram --
16 MS. LEE: Hey, how are you doing?
17 MR. INGRAM: Good, good.
18 Well, I mean, I could be better, but this
19 is what I do. So --
20 MS. LEE: What's your name?
21 MR. INGRAM: I'm Tom Ingram.
22 And I just -- I'd suggest this project and
23 proposal has been vetted thoroughly.
24 MS. LEE: That's not my question. My
25 question is why are you opposed to the 75 feet?
Diane M. Tropia, P.O. Box 2375, Jacksonville, Fl 32203
89
1 MR. INGRAM: It goes to the ability to
2 develop the land. We have proposed 85 percent
3 opacity, an 8-foot-high screen, 45-feet wide, at
4 least 150 feet between any building and any
5 residential property line, and at least 150 feet
6 between any truck court and any residential
7 property line.
8 A truck court is where the semi trucks
9 maneuver, so that would be 150 feet away. So
10 what we're really asking for is can we have --
11 after that 45 feet, can we have a parking area
12 for the employees, can we have an access road
13 that's internal to the site in that area.
14 But the buildings are still pretty far
15 back, and that's one of the drawings I showed
16 you.
17 So the question is, can we get enough of --
18 you know, can we use vegetation to obscure the
19 view of the residents and those who are driving
20 on Alta Drive of the buildings in 45 feet,
21 8 feet tall, 85 percent opaque.
22 We believe that's adequate because we
23 are -- you know, we're also so many feet tall
24 and we're going to be looking this way
25 (indicating). We're not going to be looking
Diane M. Tropia, P.O. Box 2375, Jacksonville, Fl 32203
90
1 down from a helicopter. So can you obscure the
2 view? And I think you can.
3 If you drive out Alta Drive to Marshwinds
4 today, you'll see that there is a 15-foot buffer
5 on the residents that are north of us that have
6 lots that back up to Alta. And in that 15-foot
7 buffer, it's very heavily vegetated. Obviously,
8 those residents found that to be acceptable to
9 them when they moved into those lots.
10 MS. LEE: Yeah, but they weren't -- nobody
11 was getting ready to build any warehouses
12 either.
13 MR. INGRAM: The area is north of us, the
14 area I'm referring to.
15 MS. LEE: Yeah.
16 MR. INGRAM: So we're trying to, you know,
17 realize some --
18 MS. LEE: Okay.
19 MR. INGRAM: -- economic return out of
20 this, obviously. You know, we're capitalists,
21 and so it's about how much you can build in the
22 site.
23 MS. LEE: So the final question is, are you
24 saying that the reason you are opposed to the
25 75 feet is because you won't be able to
Diane M. Tropia, P.O. Box 2375, Jacksonville, Fl 32203
91
1 facilitate a parking lot, or you could
2 facilitate a parking lot, but you would prefer
3 not to have to go back any further?
4 MR. INGRAM: Well, it's a question of --
5 yeah, if you have 75 feet in vegetative buffer,
6 that's 30 feet less that you could do in a
7 parking area or accessway and so forth.
8 MS. LEE: Okay. But if you did do the
9 75 feet, you still could build a parking lot; am
10 I correct?
11 MR. INGRAM: It all goes to the ability to
12 build on one's property, about how many feet of
13 buffer. You know, it's unusable land, this
14 landscape buffer.
15 So we have separated the -- there's a
16 setback and a buffer. We've always proposed
17 150 feet between the nearest building and the
18 residential property lines. That's a long
19 distance.
20 MS. LEE: Okay. I'm going to try one last
21 time. If you did 75 feet, would you still be
22 able to build a parking lot? Yes or no.
23 MR. INGRAM: Somewhere on the property.
24 Yes, ma'am, we could build a parking lot
25 somewhere. You can make it a lot bigger than
Diane M. Tropia, P.O. Box 2375, Jacksonville, Fl 32203
92
1 that --
2 MS. LEE: Okay. I just -- well, honestly,
3 Mr. Ingram, I'm just trying to -- and as you
4 know, this has been a very -- whatever issue.
5 And I guess I should say that I have talked
6 to, I think, Mr. Stokes about this. I need
7 to -- don't you need to say who you talked to
8 since this is a -- quasi-judicial, right.
9 Okay. So I'm making that comment. I haven't
10 talked to any of the residents on this.
11 So I -- it's not my district. I don't have
12 a -- but I am somewhat sensitive to district
13 council issues. I don't get this in my district
14 from my colleagues, but, you know, I'm concerned
15 about it.
16 Alta Road is a very narrow road, as we all
17 know, and it is growing unbelievably.
18 I think that -- okay. That's all.
19 MR. INGRAM: Thank you, ma'am.
20 MS. LEE: And I have one last question of
21 Ms. Loftis.
22 (Ms. Loftis approaches the podium.)
23 MS. LEE: Ms. Loftis, do you think -- am I
24 correct in assuming that the major concern of
25 the residents was the access from Alta Road?
Diane M. Tropia, P.O. Box 2375, Jacksonville, Fl 32203
93
1 Was that the number one concern?
2 MS. LOFTIS: Right.
3 We had two issues when we went in. One was
4 access to Alta, and the other was protecting the
5 character of the surrounding neighborhoods.
6 MS. LEE: Okay.
7 MS. LOFTIS: Which the offer we gave was to
8 have it residential. But then, since then,
9 we've offered, you know, larger buffers, making
10 the height of the building the same height of
11 the houses, a red brick exterior, moving the
12 ponds. You know, we've offered so many ways
13 that they can make that happen that are still
14 very profitable to them.
15 MS. LEE: Okay. But do you agree, though,
16 that these recommended changes are -- differ
17 from what initially was there?
18 MS. LOFTIS: Right.
19 The first PUD that we had looked at gave,
20 you know, 300 feet off of Alta with 200 feet of
21 vegetative buffer. And then when they gave
22 access -- or they took the access away, they
23 decided to basically take the PUD and scrap it
24 back down to the bare bones. They said that
25 security chain-link fencing was an acceptable
Diane M. Tropia, P.O. Box 2375, Jacksonville, Fl 32203
94
1 landscape buffer. They said that, you know, the
2 berms didn't have to be five feet, they can just
3 be four. They said, you know, instead of
4 planting one tree every 15 feet, we'll put it
5 every 25 feet.
6 They basically scalped the plan, which all
7 of a sudden brought the residents back to, "Wait
8 a minute. We thought we were working towards a
9 compromise." And it was almost a smoke screen.
10 It was, "Here," you know. "We're going to take
11 the accessway away, but instead of," you know,
12 "this size of a warehouse, we're going to grow
13 it by 14 percent. So we're even further
14 encroaching up upon your homes."
15 MS. LEE: Is that what happened?
16 MS. LOFTIS: Yes, ma'am.
17 MS. LEE: Is that true?
18 THE CHAIRMAN: I think Mr. Ingram would be
19 the best one to answer that question.
20 MS. LEE: Okay. I'm sorry.
21 Mr. Ingram.
22 MR. INGRAM: Yes, we have proposed to have
23 a maximum of two-and-a-half million square feet
24 of industrial, of warehouse distribution uses on
25 the site, and originally it was 2.2 with the
Diane M. Tropia, P.O. Box 2375, Jacksonville, Fl 32203
95
1 Alta Drive access.
2 The Alta Drive access provided us an
3 interchange access six-tenths of a mile away.
4 It was -- it made it a very desirable --
5 MS. LEE: Why did you scrap what you
6 originally said you were going to do?
7 MR. INGRAM: So that we can develop the
8 property fully while trying to buffer the site.
9 And I know we're talking about the
10 buffers. And I've said that 85 percent opaque,
11 eight feet tall. Whether it's 2.2 or 2.5 should
12 not have a significant difference on the
13 surrounding residences given the buffers and
14 given that the sole access point is on New
15 Berlin Road. So --
16 MS. LEE: Okay.
17 MR. INGRAM: Thank you.
18 MS. LEE: Okay, Mr. Ingram.
19 (Ms. Loftis approaches the podium.)
20 MS. LEE: Ms. Loftis.
21 MS. LOFTIS: Just one other thing to
22 consider is that these buffers they're talking
23 about are from the current edge of Alta Drive.
24 It's already planned to be moved four lane. So
25 whatever they're offering, just figure out
Diane M. Tropia, P.O. Box 2375, Jacksonville, Fl 32203
96
1 however much further it takes to widen, they're
2 going to have that much less buffer.
3 And they're putting that buffer right on
4 the edge, so we're going to scalp however much
5 it takes to widen this road into what they've
6 offered. So we'll have even less at the end
7 than what they're offering.
8 THE CHAIRMAN: Let me ask a question on
9 that to the Planning Department.
10 If we widen the road by two lanes, what is
11 a typical width of the roadway? Does somebody
12 know that answer or not?
13 MR. CROFTS: A lane -- I understand that in
14 this particular case that the right-of-way may
15 have to go further to the east because of the
16 fact that the right-of-way on the left may be
17 already encroached upon by the developer.
18 THE CHAIRMAN: Right. There's houses
19 there.
20 MR. CROFTS: There's houses there.
21 MS. LOFTIS: So both of the lanes will have
22 to go towards this development.
23 THE CHAIRMAN: Yeah, but my question is,
24 how wide is a typical two-lane road
25 right-of-way?
Diane M. Tropia, P.O. Box 2375, Jacksonville, Fl 32203
97
1 MR. CROFTS: I think with the existing
2 right-of-ways -- but the typical would be -- for
3 a four-lane road would be 110 feet or
4 thereabouts.
5 THE CHAIRMAN: But there's already a
6 two-lane. So you're talking about 55 feet?
7 MS. ELLER: (Inaudible.)
8 MS. LOFTIS: That's our whole buffer.
9 THE CHAIRMAN: On the microphone, please.
10 MS. ELLER: Yes.
11 I think that in order for you to evaluate
12 this appropriately, you would need for the
13 Planning Department or somebody from Traffic
14 Engineering to explain the width of unused
15 right-of-way that already exists because it may
16 not be -- it may not be that the edge of their
17 property gets taken for the remaining two
18 lanes. It may be that there is actually already
19 some right-of-way out there from the existing
20 ditch, et cetera, that would be taken up prior
21 to getting to the edge of the property line.
22 I just want to caution you on considering
23 that evidence, unless you have the proper person
24 to testify to it.
25 THE CHAIRMAN: Perfect.
Diane M. Tropia, P.O. Box 2375, Jacksonville, Fl 32203
98
1 Well, there's other questions to be asked.
2 If you want to take a break, I'll be --
3 MS. LEE: Well, I want to get out of here
4 and I know you do too, so I'm not --
5 THE CHAIRMAN: I want to make a good
6 decision. I don't want to get out of here.
7 MS. LEE: But, Mr. Chairman, I think that
8 was a very good question, and I --
9 Mr. Holt, I don't mean to, at any point,
10 give any inference that I am trying to undo what
11 you've done, but I do think that this is a very
12 serious matter. And I just want to know by
13 Mr. Ingram -- based on what our attorney just
14 told us, do we have an expert in here to answer
15 that question so that they can feel safe that
16 they will not be -- that's only fair. You know,
17 we all live in neighborhoods.
18 MR. HOLT: I think that's a very good
19 point, and I would like to get an expert in here
20 to tell us that because there would be a
21 difference in how much space is used when you go
22 from a rural road with ditches to curb and
23 gutter. You would actually gain -- you wouldn't
24 use as much space.
25 So we might already have all of the
Diane M. Tropia, P.O. Box 2375, Jacksonville, Fl 32203
99
1 right-of-way we need for a four-way -- for a
2 four-lane divided road, but I'd love to know
3 that too.
4 MS. LEE: Right.
5 And, Mr. Chairman, let me say this, please,
6 real quick.
7 Through the Chair to Mr. Holt. Mr. Holt, I
8 intend to -- my intentions were to be able to
9 support this because I was told that a
10 compromise was reached, and I was always of the
11 opinion that the biggest problem was access on
12 Alta Road. That's what was on the television.
13 But I do think that -- in all fairness,
14 that to undo what the initial offer was, to go
15 back it's kind of like penalizing you. "Okay.
16 Well, if we give you this, we're going to take
17 away this," you know. And I have some issues
18 with that.
19 And I'm just saying, I want to support this
20 because I -- I mean, we all care about jobs and
21 stuff like that, but I don't live in the
22 neighborhood. I'm not going to be subjected to
23 it.
24 And I want to be able to support you as a
25 district councilperson, and I came in here with
Diane M. Tropia, P.O. Box 2375, Jacksonville, Fl 32203
100
1 the intentions of doing that. And I don't see
2 too much that would more or less change that
3 from me supporting you, other than getting these
4 questions answered and getting Mr. Ingram to
5 agree maybe -- to maybe ante up a little
6 something so that we can vote on this and I can
7 be supportive of what it is you're trying --
8 you-all are trying to do.
9 I do think -- and I agree with you. We
10 find ourselves in some relatively sensitive
11 positions because of the quasi-judicial matter
12 that you couldn't -- and I admire you for not
13 wanting to mislead the people, but I do think
14 there should have been a little more
15 communication just to say that, even if it was
16 in writing, you know, because oftentimes in
17 these emotional issues people kind of think
18 we're against them when we aren't.
19 But I do think that there are some
20 legitimate concerns, and I do think that the
21 Alta residents need to be a little understanding
22 because there has been a big consensus made.
23 There were people ready to vote on this and not
24 even be with you. I wasn't going to be one of
25 them. But I think Mr. Holt went and negotiated
Diane M. Tropia, P.O. Box 2375, Jacksonville, Fl 32203
101
1 and got the best deal. But I think you do have
2 a legitimate concern now, and that's why I'm
3 doing all this questioning.
4 I am prepared to vote for this right now,
5 but I do want to make sure that everything has
6 been put on the table and that there is some
7 kind of consensus that can be given just a
8 little more to make sure with the expert in the
9 Planning Department, what they just explained to
10 us.
11 (Mr. Ingram approaches the podium.)
12 MS. LEE: Mr. Ingram.
13 MR. INGRAM: Councilwoman Lee, you're very
14 persuasive.
15 What we would --
16 MS. LEE: No, I'm really not.
17 THE CHAIRMAN: Tom, are you on the land use
18 or on the zoning?
19 MR. INGRAM: I am on the zoning right now.
20 THE CHAIRMAN: Yeah, I'm on the land use.
21 Let me explain to the committee where I am.
22 I think it's critical that this gets -- the
23 land use get transmitted. I think it's critical
24 that this goes back to light industrial for many
25 reasons that Mr. Mallot spoke of earlier in the
Diane M. Tropia, P.O. Box 2375, Jacksonville, Fl 32203
102
1 development of the port. I have questions on
2 the zoning as well.
3 The screen is lit up here. Anybody have
4 any other discussion on the land use aspect of
5 it?
6 MS. LEE: On the land use, I need to ask
7 you, Mr. Chairman, my concern about the expert,
8 what our attorney conveyed to us, is that --
9 does that coincide with the land use?
10 THE CHAIRMAN: No. That coincides with --
11 MS. LEE: That's zoning?
12 THE CHAIRMAN: That's a zoning issue.
13 MS. LEE: Okay. Then what about the
14 75 feet, what does that coincide with?
15 THE CHAIRMAN: The zoning.
16 MS. LEE: The zoning.
17 Okay. So are you all clear that this land
18 use -- so what do -- you don't have any problems
19 with the land use?
20 MS. LOFTIS: The only concern on passing
21 the land use was that the zoning would need to
22 be -- you know, the only way that light
23 industrial and residential can work together is
24 with very restrictive zoning. And what we've
25 seen so far, what the developer has offered so
Diane M. Tropia, P.O. Box 2375, Jacksonville, Fl 32203
103
1 far is not acceptable to the residents, to the
2 CPAC, to the Planning Commission. And so that
3 was our only concern in passing the land use is
4 there's nothing behind it which indicates that
5 this is going to be a good plan.
6 MS. LEE: Well, based on what my chairman
7 just told me, those issues that you are most
8 concerned about are more or less relative to the
9 zoning.
10 MS. ELLER: (Inaudible.)
11 MS. LEE: Am I incorrect on that,
12 Mr. Corrigan, or am I correct?
13 THE CHAIRMAN: Well, you are correct,
14 except when the public testified that they'd
15 like to have some residential as part of this
16 development, that affects the land use somewhat.
17 MS. LEE: Okay. Well, then, let me speak
18 on -- now you've got me thinking.
19 I think that to create a residential
20 neighborhood for a buffer would somewhat be
21 unfair because if you were one wanting to come
22 out and build something like that, then if the
23 noise affects what's existing, then obviously
24 it's going to affect any newcomers. And so I
25 think that's a little --
Diane M. Tropia, P.O. Box 2375, Jacksonville, Fl 32203
104
1 MS. LOFTIS: Well, it's really -- when you
2 look at it, though, if you see the piece that we
3 had looked at, basically that would mean
4 600 feet would be against industry, where now
5 you have 1,300 feet on Aldersgate, 1,300 feet on
6 Alta Circle, and all the properties across Alta,
7 on Misty Marsh.
8 So you actually -- if you push the
9 residential line back to that 15 percent that we
10 had talked about, you actually have less
11 neighbors that are going to be backed up against
12 industrial. You actually have a smaller amount
13 of footage that would line up against that
14 industrial.
15 By placing parcel A in there, you've now
16 encompassed everybody coming down Alta Circle,
17 Aldersgate and Misty Marsh.
18 You know, I know Mr. Holt had said that,
19 you know -- I'm not sure where he got the idea
20 that we would ask these residents to drive
21 through the industrial park to get out. Of
22 course a residential access is not anything
23 compared to semis coming out onto Alta. So that
24 was never part of our request, was that we would
25 put a neighborhood there and they'd travel
Diane M. Tropia, P.O. Box 2375, Jacksonville, Fl 32203
105
1 through.
2 MS. LEE: But he made it clear that you
3 wouldn't have that traffic now, that it's been
4 moved off of Alta.
5 MS. LOFTIS: Right.
6 MS. LEE: Do you agree that that is --
7 that's a fact?
8 MS. LOFTIS: Yes. That if -- in their
9 request that they are not asking for Alta
10 access.
11 MS. LEE: Right.
12 MS. LOFTIS: And we were saying the Alta
13 access that everybody has been worried about is
14 the industrial Alta access. And so if it was to
15 remain residential in that small area, no one
16 would be concerned about, you know, 15 to 20
17 houses exiting on Alta Drive. That was never a
18 concern. It was just the semis. That was
19 everybody's worry, was the semis coming out.
20 So by moving that residential, you're
21 actually affecting less homes because now we
22 have just about 600 feet that will line up
23 against industrial instead of rows of homes.
24 It's like a U-shape, and everybody along
25 the U is going to be reached versus just putting
Diane M. Tropia, P.O. Box 2375, Jacksonville, Fl 32203
106
1 a top across the top, which you can see on this
2 map (indicating).
3 Basically we have homes all along here
4 (indicating), we have homes all along here, and
5 we have homes here. If we build residential
6 here (indicating), only the homes that are on
7 this edge would be affected.
8 So it's really not placing a neighborhood
9 as a buffer. It's having actually less homes
10 that would be affected by the industrial, you
11 know.
12 MS. LEE: But anyway, homes will still be
13 affected; do you agree?
14 MS. LOFTIS: They will still be affected,
15 and I would hope that it would be even less work
16 for the developer to have to just accommodate,
17 you know, seven or eight homes along the back
18 versus, you know, all the homes that encompass
19 three roads.
20 MS. LEE: All right. Thank you.
21 MS. LOFTIS: Thank you.
22 MR. KELLY: To the Chair --
23 THE CHAIRMAN: Seeing no further speakers
24 on 2008-242, open the ballot and record the
25 vote.
Diane M. Tropia, P.O. Box 2375, Jacksonville, Fl 32203
107
1 (Committee ballot opened.)
2 MR. CORRIGAN: (Votes yea.)
3 MR. YARBOROUGH: (Votes yea.)
4 MR. CLARK: (Votes yea.)
5 MS. LEE: (Votes yea.)
6 MR. SHAD: (Votes yea.)
7 (Committee ballot closed.)
8 MS. LAHMEUR: Five yeas, zero nays.
9 THE CHAIRMAN: By your action, you've
10 approved 2008-242.
11 We're now on 2008-243. I'll have a number
12 of ex-parte declarations.
13 We'll start with Councilmember Yarborough.
14 MR. YARBOROUGH: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
15 2008-243, I had ex-parte March 31, 2008,
16 8 o'clock a.m. in my office with Mr. Vaccaro to
17 discuss the impact to the surrounding
18 properties.
19 Thank you.
20 THE CHAIRMAN: Any other declarations of
21 ex-parte need to be done?
22 COMMITTEE MEMBERS: (No response.)
23 THE CHAIRMAN: I don't see any.
24 On my screen I have Councilmember Clark
25 first.
Diane M. Tropia, P.O. Box 2375, Jacksonville, Fl 32203
108
1 You're on the zoning.
2 MR. CLARK: I first want to thank
3 Mr. Holt. I think he's been stuck in a hard
4 spot, as we all have through time on things like
5 this. They're never easy.
6 THE CHAIRMAN: I believe he became a
7 councilmember this week.
8 MR. CLARK: Yeah, it's always fun to have
9 ones like this.
10 You know, I have to agree with Councilwoman
11 Lee. What I've heard over and over and over was
12 the beating of the drum of you cannot, do not
13 ever allow them to enter Alta. And in any kind
14 of compromise, there's a give and take. And a
15 buffer with a berm and a 150-foot setback and
16 darn near 50 feet of berm and vegetation and
17 trees is -- it's a heck of a --
18 I wish that we had a lot more in my
19 district that had that kind of a buffer, I
20 really do, because we don't. Everything is
21 smack up against the wall.
22 I personally support the way the zoning is
23 today with the compromise that's been made. All
24 I heard from day one was, "Don't let the
25 developer get on Alta." They didn't.
Diane M. Tropia, P.O. Box 2375, Jacksonville, Fl 32203
109
1 I found that most of these things, when
2 everybody kind of walks away with a little pain,
3 that you probably -- you probably did your job.
4 Everybody had to give a little to get what they
5 want.
6 And so I'm in support, as it sits today, of
7 the zoning.
8 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you.
9 Councilmember Lee.
10 MS. LEE: Okay. Mr. Chairman, I'm back
11 where I was before Mr. Ingram was at the
12 thing -- at the podium. And my concern is,
13 based on what Ms. Loftis said, what are you-all
14 willing to do?
15 And I can't imagine that you would not be
16 willing to do something. Inasmuch as the people
17 did not talk to their district councilperson for
18 whatever reason, the Planning Department is
19 recommending one thing.
20 And through the Chair, before you speak,
21 what is it you-all are recommending?
22 MR. KELLY: We've got -- the department is
23 recommending buffer standards that were
24 basically adopted as part of the industrial land
25 use analysis study. There was a variety of what
Diane M. Tropia, P.O. Box 2375, Jacksonville, Fl 32203
110
1 Miller Sellen, the consultant, basically
2 identified as various degrees of buffering.
3 And so we've tried to standardize
4 essentially by exhibits and having a --
5 there's -- we've got --
6 (Tenders documents.)
7 MS. LEE: What's the bottom line?
8 MR. KELLY: In the package that we handed
9 out, we've got two suggestions as a means to
10 resolve the buffering, which was a -- there's
11 two sections, section I and section J.
12 Section I is a 75-foot buffer with very
13 specific planting requirements and berming
14 requirements. And section J is another buffer,
15 which is a 50-foot buffer, which has, again,
16 additional planting requirements, berming
17 requirements, and a masonry wall requirement.
18 And then there's a top view of that section
19 also as far as the spacing of the material that
20 would go in that buffer. It's very specific,
21 very detailed.
22 And along with a lot of other, I guess,
23 land use amendments and companion rezonings that
24 have gone through in the last series, this is
25 something we've implemented in that time. And
Diane M. Tropia, P.O. Box 2375, Jacksonville, Fl 32203
111
1 we're trying to be consistent with the other
2 developments that have moved forward and
3 basically accepted that as a condition.
4 MS. LEE: Okay. Through the Chair, may I
5 continue?
6 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Crofts has something to
7 add to that explanation.
8 MR. CROFTS: Could I just -- just to kind
9 of clarify, the difference between the two,
10 Ms. Lee, is the fact that I think we're -- in
11 the developer's proposal, he was taking about a
12 four-foot berm, and then on top of that a fence
13 or landscaping.
14 MS. LEE: Tell me again what a berm is.
15 MR. CROFTS: A berm is just a terrace -- a
16 terrace, a mound.
17 In our case, we're asking basically for
18 more vegetation in the 50- or the 75-foot
19 buffer. Our berm in the 50 foot is four feet
20 high. And in the 75-foot buffer, it's eight
21 feet high. But the difference in the 50 foot
22 is -- I think the bugaboo here to some degree is
23 the six-foot solid wall masonry fence on our
24 50 foot. That's the difference between where we
25 want to go, and where I think -- what I think
Diane M. Tropia, P.O. Box 2375, Jacksonville, Fl 32203
112
1 I'm hearing, they could possibly go.
2 So it's the berm and the permanency of the
3 wall versus more intense vegetation from our
4 point of view.
5 MS. LEE: So through the Chair to
6 Mr. Crofts, you're basically saying it would at
7 least bring some relief and it would be more
8 attractive?
9 MR. CROFTS: Correct.
10 MS. LEE: And that, to some degree, be a
11 little more soothing for people living in the
12 neighborhood to have homes valued at $500,000
13 and less -- or $500,000 or more.
14 And you think that the 50 foot would at
15 least be somewhat adequate. It would not put
16 such a strain even on the developer to go
17 75 feet. So you would -- you could live with
18 50 feet? Right now it's 45.
19 MR. CROFTS: (Nods head.)
20 MS. LEE: So five more, you know, isn't a
21 real strain on the developer; am I correct?
22 MR. CROFTS: It's the five feet and it's
23 the masonry wall that goes on top.
24 MS. LEE: Right.
25 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Crofts, we need to --
Diane M. Tropia, P.O. Box 2375, Jacksonville, Fl 32203
113
1 we're absolutely confused up here. You need to
2 keep the mic.
3 Who's proposing which one? Who wants the
4 wall and who wants the berm?
5 MR. CROFTS: Okay. The Planning Department
6 wants the wall, which is obviously more
7 expensive, to go on top of the berm.
8 The applicant is basically asking for an
9 85 percent opacity in terms of vegetation or
10 some other alternative less expensive than the
11 wall.
12 That's the difference in our 50-foot buffer
13 proposal, along with enhanced vegetation.
14 THE CHAIRMAN: So the solid surface and the
15 Planning Department recommendation is eight foot
16 high, and the solid surface in the applicant's
17 agreement is four foot high?
18 MR. CROFTS: Correct. In the form of a
19 berm.
20 And the reason -- the other part of the
21 eight feet with 85 percent opacity of the
22 landscaping --
23 MR. CLARK: Can I -- hold on. The wall
24 goes on top of the berm?
25 MS. ELLER: (Inaudible.)
Diane M. Tropia, P.O. Box 2375, Jacksonville, Fl 32203
114
1 MS. LEE: Mr. Crofts, may I?
2 THE CHAIRMAN: Yes, please continue.
3 MS. LEE: Well, you-all really scared me,
4 you and Richard. I mean, you-all -- it was
5 bonkers then. I didn't know what was --
6 MR. CLARK: (Inaudible.)
7 MS. LEE: Mr. Chairman, I would have to ask
8 you, did I ask a question that was in error?
9 MR. CLARK: No. We're talking --
10 (Inaudible discussion.)
11 MS. LEE: Okay. Mr. Crofts, did you have
12 an opportunity -- well, I guess through the
13 Chair really to Mr. Holt.
14 Mr. Holt, the explanation that had just
15 been given seems very reasonable. Was that
16 articulated to you by -- did you meet with the
17 Planning Department maybe to have this
18 discussion inasmuch as you did not get an
19 opportunity to discuss that phase with your
20 constituency?
21 MR. HOLT: Thank you so much for pointing
22 that out.
23 I have not spoken to the folks at the
24 Planning Department about a wall, but I have
25 spoken to them several times about what the
Diane M. Tropia, P.O. Box 2375, Jacksonville, Fl 32203
115
1 proposal has right now, which is four feet of
2 berm with four feet of hedge on top of that, and
3 that would be required to be 85 percent opaque.
4 That meaning, you can only see through
5 15 percent of it. And that is in addition to
6 the wooded area.
7 What I also mentioned to the Planning
8 Department and I haven't heard is that I would
9 appreciate it if the berm was on the back side
10 of that wooded area so that if we did widen the
11 road and it got up to the wooded area, we didn't
12 take out our berm. I don't want the berm to be
13 on the road side. I want the berm to be on the
14 development side so we don't end up taking out
15 any of that berm.
16 MS. LEE: Are you saying that's to protect
17 your people?
18 MR. HOLT: Yes. To make sure that the berm
19 stays to provide that field.
20 MS. LEE: Through the Chair, do you have a
21 problem with the 50 feet?
22 MR. HOLT: With the 50 feet of width?
23 MS. LEE: Of width.
24 MR. HOLT: No, I have no problem with that.
25 MS. LEE: That the Planning Department
Diane M. Tropia, P.O. Box 2375, Jacksonville, Fl 32203
116
1 talked about with some -- some things. They
2 either go 50 or 75.
3 MR. HOLT: I have no problem with any
4 expansion of the buffer.
5 MS. LEE: Okay. But I guess I'm
6 somewhat -- I know that you had discussed this
7 with the developer, obviously.
8 MR. HOLT: Right.
9 MS. LEE: You had discussed the 45?
10 MR. HOLT: We had discussed the proposal as
11 it was.
12 MS. LEE: But you did not know that your
13 constituency wanted 50 or 75?
14 MR. HOLT: There were probably 25 different
15 people in that constituency and probably a dozen
16 or more different opinions of what it should
17 look like, so I did not address each one of
18 those. I've been working with the Planning
19 Department on the buffering issues.
20 MS. LEE: Okay.
21 (Mr. Ingram approaches the podium.)
22 MS. LEE: Mr. Ingram.
23 MR. INGRAM: Okay. We would like to make
24 an offer on the buffers --
25 MS. LEE: Okay.
Diane M. Tropia, P.O. Box 2375, Jacksonville, Fl 32203
117
1 MR. INGRAM: -- to go with the Planning
2 Department's section J buffer, which is 50 feet
3 wide, but without the masonry wall that's
4 required to be finished on all sides, and six
5 feet tall. It's just a very -- that is a very
6 significant cost. And we believe we can
7 vegetate it densely. It's very similar to what
8 we have proposed, but we would increase the
9 width.
10 On Alta Drive, we would -- we would do the
11 same as section J, same buffer, but 75 feet wide
12 total so as to provide some additional space in
13 the event, hopefully, that Alta Drive is
14 widened.
15 And we are certainly fine with having the
16 buffer on the easterly side, which would be
17 farthest away from the road.
18 MS. LEE: Okay. So, through the Chair,
19 what you just said, tell me how much of a
20 compromise you just did from 10 percent to
21 100 percent.
22 MR. INGRAM: Ten percent to 100 percent?
23 MS. LEE: Uh-huh.
24 MR. INGRAM: Ms. Lee, we have changed and
25 increased our buffer proposals all along.
Diane M. Tropia, P.O. Box 2375, Jacksonville, Fl 32203
118
1 Okay?
2 MS. LEE: Okay.
3 MR. INGRAM: So this is just another step.
4 It's not like we started at zero today and
5 refused to compromise all the way, so --
6 MS. LEE: Okay.
7 THE CHAIRMAN: Tom, let me clarify.
8 You're saying that you're agreeing to a
9 condition of building a masonry wall as shown in
10 section J?
11 MR. INGRAM: No. What we're suggesting is
12 the buffer per section J but without the
13 six-foot masonry wall finished on all sides and
14 capped.
15 MS. LEE: How expensive is the wall?
16 MR. INGRAM: Ma'am, I don't know exactly,
17 but that is -- that is an absolute Cadillac of
18 all walls. That is a -- if it were a short
19 distance, I don't think I'd be here fussing
20 about it, but it's a lot of -- a lot of
21 linear --
22 MS. LEE: A lot?
23 MR. INGRAM: Yes, ma'am.
24 MS. LEE: About approximately what?
25 MR. INGRAM: I don't --
Diane M. Tropia, P.O. Box 2375, Jacksonville, Fl 32203
119
1 MS. LEE: Well, the Planning Department
2 will be able to answer that.
3 What is the --
4 MR. KELLY: On the width?
5 (Inaudible discussion among committee
6 members.)
7 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Kelly, my question --
8 the question I'd like to have answered is the
9 Planning Department input on the compromises
10 listed by Mr. Ingram is what I want to know.
11 Are you in support of that concept?
12 MR. KELLY: Through the Chair, we would
13 be -- the wall is -- probably it's just over
14 1,100 feet, the amount of frontage that the
15 applicant has along Alta Drive. So having over
16 a thousand foot quarter-mile masonry wall may
17 appear onerous when landscaping could serve the
18 same purpose.
19 I think our concern -- and we'd be willing
20 to do Exhibit J with the buffer plan, detail A
21 and B attached. However, we feel that the Alta
22 Road right-of-way right now is a collector road
23 right-of-way. It appears to be about 60 feet.
24 It's level of service F, so it's a failing
25 road. And we feel that the need to four-lane
Diane M. Tropia, P.O. Box 2375, Jacksonville, Fl 32203
120
1 would bring it into a minor arterial road
2 roadway with a right-of-way demand of about
3 110 feet or 120 feet, which is the typical City
4 standard based on the cross-section for your
5 lanes, your curb and gutter, your sidewalks and
6 your clear zone and your bike lanes.
7 So we would -- the 75 feet along Alta,
8 while on the face appears more, it may, net
9 result, be less than the 45-foot buffer. And so
10 if we could have that buffer be met exclusive of
11 any future right-of-way takings and just stick
12 with the J and not even -- or, you know, at
13 50 feet or put 75 feet. But there's certainly
14 going to be more than 25 feet of right-of-way
15 for a four-lane section built to City
16 standards.
17 MS. LEE: Mr. Chairman, you --
18 THE CHAIRMAN: You still have the floor.
19 MS. LEE: Mr. Chairman, I'm a little upset,
20 and I feel somewhat resentful that my colleagues
21 would feel that I'm dominating the meeting
22 because I'm asking questions.
23 Now, that's my right.
24 MR. CLARK: (Inaudible.)
25 MS. LEE: Yeah, but --
Diane M. Tropia, P.O. Box 2375, Jacksonville, Fl 32203
121
1 MR. CLARK: (Inaudible.)
2 THE CHAIRMAN: Let's get back on the bill.
3 MS. LEE: I have the floor. Let me say
4 what I want to say.
5 Now, I -- and I will say this, is that as a
6 councilmember, I have the right to ask
7 questions.
8 Mr. Corrigan?
9 THE CHAIRMAN: I'm not telling you to quit
10 asking questions.
11 MS. LEE: And it's suggested that I'm
12 dominating the meeting because I'm asking
13 questions. It really makes -- it doesn't make
14 me feel well because I didn't know I was
15 dominating the meeting. I'm a member of this
16 committee and I have to vote on this.
17 THE CHAIRMAN: But, Ms. Lee --
18 MS. LEE: Well, Mr. Corrigan, I am really
19 upset. And I'm going to be honest with you.
20 You know, I came here with the intention of
21 coming to the meeting and being fair. It's not
22 in my district. I don't have a dog in this
23 hunt. Nobody out there votes for me, and they
24 won't vote for me, even with redistricting. And
25 that will never be in the area I run in. I
Diane M. Tropia, P.O. Box 2375, Jacksonville, Fl 32203
122
1 haven't talked to one person out there.
2 But this is -- and then, you know, it makes
3 me feel as though that -- if Mr. Holt isn't
4 satisfied, that I shouldn't be asking questions
5 to Mr. Holt because he can handle it and he has
6 to say, you know, it's okay. That makes me feel
7 bad because it makes as though I've done
8 something wrong and all I did was just ask some
9 questions.
10 I intend -- I've said to Mr. Holt, I
11 support, I came here to support this because a
12 compromise was made. But after the people said
13 that they had not talked to Mr. Holt, and our
14 attorney explained, Mr. Corrigan, that Mr. Holt,
15 because of the quasi-judicial thing -- and
16 that's when I got involved, and that's the
17 truth.
18 I am not here trying to dominate anything,
19 and I get a little sick and tired of always
20 being the one accused of dominating or asking
21 too many questions, and I've got a right to do
22 that.
23 And I'm -- you know, I don't deserve that,
24 and I'm very upset about it because I am fair.
25 If Denise Lee asks too many questions, then I'm
Diane M. Tropia, P.O. Box 2375, Jacksonville, Fl 32203
123
1 either dominating the meeting, or you talk too
2 much, or we're going to put her in her place.
3 THE CHAIRMAN: Ms. Lee, with all due
4 respect, I haven't said any of those things.
5 MS. LEE: Well, I know.
6 THE CHAIRMAN: I'm here --
7 MS. LEE: I just feel bad because I --
8 THE CHAIRMAN: But I'm the chairman of this
9 committee --
10 MS. LEE: Yes. You know --
11 THE CHAIRMAN: -- and I'm telling you I'm
12 here to discuss item number 2008-243.
13 MS. LEE: It might -- I know.
14 Okay. I'll comment --
15 THE CHAIRMAN: That's all I care about.
16 MS. LEE: Okay. But I'm just saying, I
17 just -- I feel bad about that.
18 Now I'm getting very frustrated with that.
19 I think that I'm a team player, whatever that is
20 supposed to mean.
21 I'm not here against Mr. Ingram. I have
22 been a friend to the builders and the developers
23 and everybody else in this city.
24 I wouldn't have asked one question had
25 Mr. Holt said he had met and talked to the
Diane M. Tropia, P.O. Box 2375, Jacksonville, Fl 32203
124
1 people, but to tell me when I can talk and I
2 need to move on and the people this, and the
3 people -- I will talk as long as I want to.
4 THE CHAIRMAN: But -- Ms. Lee, you can talk
5 as long as you want to, but I'm going to make
6 sure that we stay --
7 MS. LEE: Okay. I'm through, Mr. Corrigan.
8 I am very upset.
9 THE CHAIRMAN: But that's fine.
10 MS. LEE: And I'm very -- because I really
11 feel as though this is not -- to say I'm
12 dominating a meeting because I'm asking
13 questions bothers me. And that's not
14 leadership. And I'm through.
15 Mr. Ingram, I have one last question.
16 Mr. Ingram, I think that your compromise in
17 an effort to at least -- I'm only one vote, and
18 I feel very strong that something could be
19 worked out at least -- you don't live out there
20 and I don't either. But if you're willing to
21 compromise, you know, I can't -- you know, it's
22 up to you. Mr. Holt is a district
23 councilperson. You know, I've said what I had
24 to say, and I feel very strong about it.
25 THE CHAIRMAN: Councilmember Holt, did you
Diane M. Tropia, P.O. Box 2375, Jacksonville, Fl 32203
125
1 have a response or not? I saw you waving your
2 microphone. Are you done?
3 MR. HOLT: That's all right.
4 THE CHAIRMAN: I don't have anybody else on
5 the queue.
6 Seeing no further speakers, open the ballot
7 and record the vote.
8 MS. LEE: Is that compromise in? Was it
9 part of --
10 THE CHAIRMAN: Well, we need to -- we're on
11 the amendment. That's right. I'm sorry.
12 Nobody has even moved the amendment yet.
13 We need to get in proper posture.
14 Do I have a motion on the amendment?
15 MR. SHAD: Move the amendment.
16 MR. YARBOROUGH: Second.
17 THE CHAIRMAN: I have a motion and a
18 second.
19 Mr. Crofts, could you please explain the
20 amendment for the record.
21 MR. CROFTS: I will, Mr. Chairman.
22 The amendment consists of the following
23 conditions:
24 Beginning with number 1, "The development
25 shall be subject to the original legal
Diane M. Tropia, P.O. Box 2375, Jacksonville, Fl 32203
126
1 description dated January 25, 2008."
2 "The development shall be subject to the
3 revised written description dated April 23rd,
4 2008."
5 Number 3, "The development shall be subject
6 to the revised site plan dated April 21, 2008."
7 Number 4, "The development shall be subject
8 to the review and approval of the Development
9 Services memorandum dated March 12th, 2007, or
10 as otherwise approved by the Planning and
11 Development Department."
12 Number 5, "Prior to the verification of
13 substantial compliance approval, a traffic study
14 shall be performed and provided to the City of
15 Jacksonville's Planning and Development
16 Department, subject to the department's approval
17 to determine the traffic signal, deceleration
18 lane, length of median turn lanes, parking
19 spaces for trucks, and safety impact on
20 New Berlin Road at the project's entrance."
21 Condition number 6, "All off-site roadway
22 improvements required as a result of the traffic
23 study required under condition 5 above, other
24 than those that are considered as part of a fair
25 share development agreement, must be completed
Diane M. Tropia, P.O. Box 2375, Jacksonville, Fl 32203
127
1 prior to the issuance of a certificate of
2 occupancy."
3 Number 7, "All vehicle bays and truck
4 courts shall be oriented to the internal portion
5 of the site and not visible from a public
6 right-of-way or residentially-zoned property."
7 Number 8, "To provide interconnectivity,
8 the Alta Lakes PUD may add additional access
9 points to the south and east boundaries of the
10 property through adjacent properties."
11 Number 9, "Where adjacent to Alta Road and
12 RLD or RR-zoned lands, there shall be a
13 buffer."
14 And the buffer as we recommended would
15 comply with I or J and buffer plan A or B that
16 we provided as attachments hereto. And I know
17 that we discussed some other alternatives to
18 that, and I'm going to let Sean discuss those,
19 that minor -- or that revision.
20 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you.
21 Sean.
22 MR. KELLY: Thank you.
23 Through the Chair to the committee, I would
24 just amend condition 12 to read, "Where adjacent
25 to Alta Road and RLD or RR-zoned lands, there
Diane M. Tropia, P.O. Box 2375, Jacksonville, Fl 32203
128
1 shall be a buffer which complies with Exhibit J
2 and buffer plan A or B with the exception of the
3 requirement for a six-foot masonry wall. In
4 addition, the buffer shall be met exclusive of
5 the future right-of-way needs for the
6 four-laneing of Alta Drive."
7 MR. CROFTS: Mr. Chairman, as the -- as I
8 read those into the record, I would just say
9 that that would be the change or modification
10 actually to condition 9 as they were proposed.
11 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Ingram, do you agree
12 with those conditions?
13 MR. INGRAM: Well, no.
14 With regards to condition 7, we are
15 proposing an extensive buffer. We would not --
16 we're asking to not be required to orient truck
17 courts towards the internal portion of the
18 property, given that such truck courts must be
19 at least 150 feet from any residential property
20 line or Alta Drive already. So with that kind
21 of buffer, we'd ask that that be deleted.
22 Also, on condition 9 regarding the
23 additional buffer width for Alta, it is unclear
24 how much width might be needed for Alta. We had
25 proposed 75-foot landscape. If some of that is
Diane M. Tropia, P.O. Box 2375, Jacksonville, Fl 32203
129
1 needed to be taken for right-of-way, then that's
2 the City's prerogative. But it's just -- to
3 have uncertainly and build a project and not
4 know how much additional space must be needed,
5 you could cause a nonconforming use by virtue of
6 a subsequent action of the City.
7 So we propose to use --
8 THE CHAIRMAN: I don't know if I agree --
9 understand or agree with you.
10 MR. INGRAM: Okay. If Alta is widened, and
11 today it's 120 feet, and tomorrow it's -- or
12 five years from now the City determines they
13 need 150 feet and we're supposed to have a
14 50-foot buffer and we've already built a
15 building there, we can't move the building, you
16 know, to meet -- because you have a floating
17 buffer zone under their proposal given --
18 depending on how wide the right-of-way needs to
19 be and how much of our property is -- is taken.
20 THE CHAIRMAN: But, in my opinion, if the
21 language said that the buffer -- the section J
22 buffer will be located on the easterlymost
23 portion of the land --
24 MR. INGRAM: Yes, sir.
25 THE CHAIRMAN: -- then you've accomplished
Diane M. Tropia, P.O. Box 2375, Jacksonville, Fl 32203
130
1 that.
2 You're talking -- you have -- you're going
3 to have at least a minimum of 25 feet of flat
4 land available for developing -- or widening of
5 Alta Road if you do that.
6 And, I mean, to me -- my problem is -- and
7 I think one of the residents said if you locate
8 that berm on the western point, then you're
9 going to, for sure, lose the berm as soon as we
10 widen that road, I guarantee you.
11 MR. INGRAM: We will certainly put it on
12 the easterly portion.
13 THE CHAIRMAN: My personal opinion is, if
14 there was a 100-foot-wide landscaping buffer
15 area and the first 50 feet was on the
16 easternmost portion, all these problems are
17 going to go away and you're never going to have
18 to deal with it again is the way I look at it.
19 MR. INGRAM: Well, can we just understand
20 how wide Alta -- how much of a vegetative area
21 do we need to have, and can we just nail that
22 down?
23 THE CHAIRMAN: Well, the only way to nail
24 that down is to -- we shouldn't move on the bill
25 if we're going to try to nail that down. I'm
Diane M. Tropia, P.O. Box 2375, Jacksonville, Fl 32203
131
1 trying to get as close as we can get to having a
2 solution that gets us out of here today with a
3 compromise is what I'm looking for.
4 MR. INGRAM: So it's a floating buffer? Is
5 that --
6 THE CHAIRMAN: No.
7 MR. KELLY: No. It's specifically for the
8 four-laneing only. And if they went and they
9 six-laned it at some point in the future, then
10 that would be, you know, something else.
11 But specifically for the four-laneing,
12 because of the right-of-way needs, I believe are
13 at least about 110 feet for a four-lane section
14 that meets City standards within that --
15 potentially because there's only a 60-foot
16 right-of-way now, 50 feet could come off your
17 property, which would essentially remove or
18 eliminate the 50-foot buffer in Exhibit J. So
19 that's why we're saying keep the buffer and then
20 account for the future right-of-way needs.
21 THE CHAIRMAN: Tom, where I'm coming from
22 is in the 100 feet, you would have 50 feet
23 available and then 50 feet of the berm would
24 always be there.
25 MR. SHAD: (Inaudible.)
Diane M. Tropia, P.O. Box 2375, Jacksonville, Fl 32203
132
1 THE CHAIRMAN: He has to agree to it, and
2 then he has to be compensated if the City takes
3 it.
4 MR. SHAD: (Inaudible.)
5 THE CHAIRMAN: Well, I understand.
6 MR. INGRAM: Mr. Kelly's proposal is fine.
7 THE CHAIRMAN: Ms. Eller.
8 MS. ELLER: Thank you.
9 Since I'm going to reduce this to writing,
10 based upon what's been read into the transcript,
11 I understand that the Planning Department has
12 read in all those conditions, and Mr. Ingram has
13 requested that one of the conditions regarding
14 orienting the truck -- some internal orientation
15 condition that he's asked to remove, that the
16 Planning Department has requested. So after we
17 resolve this buffer issue, the committee will
18 have to make a determination on that particular
19 condition.
20 But with regard to the buffer condition, if
21 we could just have the Planning Department read
22 it into the record again. And as I understand
23 it, it's going to be a straight-up 100 feet, and
24 that 100 feet is calculated based upon 50 feet
25 reserved and 50 feet to meet the -- J.
Diane M. Tropia, P.O. Box 2375, Jacksonville, Fl 32203
133
1 Go ahead. Read it again.
2 MR. KELLY: Well, it might not need to be
3 100 feet, depending on what the widening needs
4 are, but there is that potential. But the way
5 it reads, it's flexible to provide the buffer if
6 there's minimum right-of-way taking.
7 So the condition would read, "Where
8 adjacent to Alta Road in RLD or RR-zoned lands,
9 there shall be a buffer which complies with
10 Exhibit J and buffer plan A or B with the
11 exception of the requirement for the six-foot
12 masonry wall."
13 In addition, "The buffering shall be met
14 exclusive of the right-of-way needs for the
15 four-laneing of Alta Drive."
16 MS. ELLER: Thank you.
17 And, Mr. Ingram, can you confirm that that
18 language, as Sean just read, is acceptable?
19 MR. INGRAM: Yes, ma'am, it is.
20 MS. ELLER: All right.
21 And then -- thank you, Mr. Chairman.
22 And the last remaining issue for me with
23 regard to drafting the amendment as read into
24 the record would be the committee's decision on
25 the condition that Mr. Ingram requested to be
Diane M. Tropia, P.O. Box 2375, Jacksonville, Fl 32203
134
1 removed regarding the internal orientation of
2 the truck turnarounds, I believe, that the
3 Planning Department mentioned.
4 THE CHAIRMAN: Was that previously
5 discussed with the Planning Department prior to
6 today?
7 MR. CROFTS: We can live with the
8 abolishing of that particular condition.
9 THE CHAIRMAN: I personally -- I heard
10 testimony from Mr. Ingram saying that it was
11 parking for employees.
12 MR. INGRAM: That's still true.
13 It has to do with the ability to have a
14 cross dock warehouse where you have -- if you
15 can only put the truck courts on the inside of a
16 building, then you're dramatically limiting the
17 ability to put buildings on the site.
18 We have proposed there be at least 150 feet
19 between the edge of any property line with the
20 residential or Alta, between that and any truck
21 courts. So there's this 150 foot space. Within
22 some of that, there could be employee parking
23 but not truck parking or truck courts.
24 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you.
25 Councilmember Shad.
Diane M. Tropia, P.O. Box 2375, Jacksonville, Fl 32203
135
1 MR. SHAD: Thank you.
2 Through the Chair to the Planning
3 Department, this whole discussion on the
4 widening of Alta, is today the first time you're
5 having it with the developer? You had
6 previously?
7 MR. KELLY: Well, through the Chair to
8 Councilman Shad, previously it wasn't an issue
9 because there was a 200-foot landscape buffer.
10 So between the Planning Commission meeting and
11 the changes to the written description, we
12 subsequently came to the revised conditions.
13 MR. SHAD: Then you had always the buffer
14 on the eastern portion of it, then, previously?
15 MR. KELLY: Again, our recommendation
16 was -- and to be consistent with the industrial
17 buffer standards that we've kind of adopted as
18 policy by the Miller Sellen study.
19 MR. SHAD: Got it.
20 And, of course, there will be -- this will
21 be -- they'll be compensated for taking that
22 land, obviously.
23 Okay. Thank you.
24 THE CHAIRMAN: Councilmember Lee.
25 MS. LEE: Yes. Through the Chair to
Diane M. Tropia, P.O. Box 2375, Jacksonville, Fl 32203
136
1 Mr. Kelly or Mr. Crofts, the part that
2 Mr. Ingram wanted deleted out, could you just,
3 in laymen terms, explain to me what --
4 MR. KELLY: The condition -- they have a
5 150-foot setback requirement for any truck
6 courts from the residential zoned property.
7 MS. ELLER: (Inaudible.)
8 MR. KELLY: Correct.
9 And that's where the loading -- the loading
10 docks. You know, there will be 20 docks in a
11 row on one side and 20 docks on the other side
12 if it's a true truck court.
13 I think our orientation is that they be
14 internally oriented towards each other instead
15 of having a whole open 22 row or section of bays
16 that directly faces a residential lot where all
17 those trucks are then coming in and
18 maneuvering.
19 We're fine with the employee parking and
20 the vehicle use area, but then opening up that
21 expanse, the noise attenuation that's needed
22 basically.
23 And so if it's internally oriented, the
24 buildings will suppress that noise as opposed to
25 having them directly -- externally.
Diane M. Tropia, P.O. Box 2375, Jacksonville, Fl 32203
137
1 So maybe there's -- if they are truck
2 courts as opposed to a -- and that implies that
3 there's -- on both sides of that truck vehicle
4 use area, that they're oriented towards each
5 other. I think that's something that we could
6 probably be agreeable upon, that no truck court
7 face directly into a residentially-zoned
8 property.
9 MS. LEE: Okay. So -- through the Chair,
10 so, in other words, that language that you just
11 stated will be incorporated into this
12 condition?
13 MR. KELLY: If it was acceptable to the
14 applicant.
15 I think the fear is that it's directly --
16 not so much the visibility, but it's really the
17 noise issue. And so if it directly faces it,
18 that's an issue we might have. But if it's --
19 if the two buildings are kind of oriented
20 together in a way where the truck courts are,
21 you know, perpendicular to the property line
22 essentially and 150 feet away, we'd be fine with
23 that.
24 MS. LEE: Okay. Mr. Chairman, that, to me,
25 seems reasonable, and I guess it would be up to
Diane M. Tropia, P.O. Box 2375, Jacksonville, Fl 32203
138
1 the applicant. To me, that seems like a pretty
2 decent compromise.
3 Kind of like Mr. Shad, you know, this is a
4 lot of conversation that you would think would
5 have occurred prior to this. But,
6 unfortunately, the people did not have an
7 opportunity to even get to that point. And I'm
8 not saying that's the district councilman's
9 fault because the attorney said --
10 THE CHAIRMAN: I got the point. Through
11 e-mails, I got the point. So they got the point
12 through.
13 MS. LEE: Huh?
14 THE CHAIRMAN: They got their point
15 through. It got through to the chairman. I can
16 tell you that.
17 MS. LEE: No, wait a minute. I missed
18 something. Did I miss something?
19 THE CHAIRMAN: They have sent their input
20 to us through e-mail, and I've gotten their
21 input. And that's many of the discussions I'm
22 having tonight. It's not that they have not
23 talked or gotten their input to the
24 councilmembers. It's been received.
25 MS. LEE: No, I agree. But, no --
Diane M. Tropia, P.O. Box 2375, Jacksonville, Fl 32203
139
1 Based on earlier testimony, after this was
2 worked out, Mr. Holt said that he -- the reason
3 he didn't call back -- you know, the young lady
4 came up and said that she couldn't get a return
5 call. He said because of the quasi-judicial.
6 That's what I was talking about.
7 And I guess that's why this conversation is
8 happening, at least on my part, is because of
9 the quasi-judicial restraint that we are under.
10 And so I feel better knowing that at least
11 we did have a discussion. I don't fault the
12 district councilperson. It's just that I think
13 that this is healthy.
14 And regardless of how you vote it, at least
15 the things that they were not able to
16 articulate, at least they would have this
17 opportunity.
18 And along with the -- in all due respect to
19 Mr. Ingram as well. You know, he has made some
20 considerations. And I think that's good that he
21 was willing to make some kind of compromise.
22 And probably had this discussion not happened,
23 you know, maybe the people may not get
24 100 percent. And I think everybody has to give
25 some. And I think this has allowed that to
Diane M. Tropia, P.O. Box 2375, Jacksonville, Fl 32203
140
1 happened, if Mr. Ingram --
2 THE CHAIRMAN: Ms. Eller.
3 MS. ELLER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
4 The condition 7 had been requested to be
5 removed by the applicant, and Mr. Crofts said
6 the Planning Department was okay with removing
7 that condition, and then Mr. Kelly mentioned an
8 alternative. So I just want Mr. Ingram to speak
9 to what the applicant is or is not willing to
10 accept regarding the location of truck courts.
11 THE CHAIRMAN: That was going to be my next
12 question.
13 MR. CROFTS: I just want to go ahead on the
14 record and say that actually I wanted to amend
15 it and draw it out, and we have modified that
16 situation and discussed it with the applicant.
17 Basically any truck courts that would be
18 facing to the west towards Alta would not be
19 allowed, but that they could go to the north and
20 the south.
21 MR. INGRAM: Well, if I could, it's --
22 actually what we're proposing is they couldn't
23 face directly towards Aldersgate or Alta Circle.
24 MR. CROFTS: Right.
25 MR. INGRAM: But it would be okay to have
Diane M. Tropia, P.O. Box 2375, Jacksonville, Fl 32203
141
1 truck courts that faced directly towards Alta
2 Drive, given the other buffers.
3 MS. LEE: Well, but --
4 MR. INGRAM: I'm sorry. Go ahead.
5 MS. LEE: Through the Chair, I had a
6 question.
7 THE CHAIRMAN: Ms. Lee.
8 MS. LEE: I apologize.
9 THE CHAIRMAN: Right now I'm trying to
10 clarify a condition. So wait until we clarify
11 it.
12 MR. INGRAM: So basically you wouldn't have
13 truck courts facing directly towards the
14 residences that are closest to this project.
15 That's what we're acceptable to.
16 THE CHAIRMAN: And the Planning
17 Department's input on that, please.
18 MR. KELLY: Just -- to the Chair, just the
19 department -- again, the first priority would be
20 to protect the residentially-zoned properties
21 immediately adjacent and -- so that there's no
22 direct line of sight from a truck court directly
23 facing a residentially-zoned property.
24 Esthetically, again -- I mean, Alta Road,
25 it's a busy road. When it's four-laned, it's
Diane M. Tropia, P.O. Box 2375, Jacksonville, Fl 32203
142
1 going to be busy and there's going to be a
2 50-foot buffer exclusive of that and potentially
3 or likely retention areas within that.
4 But I would be -- and speaking, I guess,
5 with John on behalf of the department, we would
6 be supportive, although it would -- of removing
7 the orientation away from Alta Road.
8 THE CHAIRMAN: You guys are clearing this
9 up like mud. I mean, it's just --
10 MR. KELLY: I'll simply say --
11 THE CHAIRMAN: Let me let Ms. Eller take
12 another stab at it.
13 MS. ELLER: Thank you.
14 It would be helpful if the sentence that
15 I'm about to say could be finished, which would
16 be: Truck courts may face blank and may not
17 face blank.
18 And I think what Mr. Ingram said is that
19 truck courts may not face the
20 residentially-zoned properties that are on the
21 western side of the development, which is the
22 residential properties that are on this western
23 side, and that the truck courts would not face
24 them.
25 Which, because there's residential
Diane M. Tropia, P.O. Box 2375, Jacksonville, Fl 32203
143
1 properties that are to the north and to the
2 south, it may be that the truck courts can't
3 face to the north for this neighborhood and to
4 the west for this neighborhood; they can't face
5 to the south of this neighborhood and to the
6 west for that neighborhood.
7 So if we could just be real clear about
8 which direction truck courts may face, I think
9 that would be helpful for drafting.
10 THE CHAIRMAN: Well -- but I can tell you
11 that. You all said three different things in
12 that.
13 What I heard Mr. Ingram saying -- and
14 somebody tell me if I'm wrong. Mr. Ingram said
15 that truck courts cannot face existing
16 residential properties adjacent to this project
17 on Alta Circle and on Alderson Road.
18 MR. INGRAM: Aldersgate.
19 THE CHAIRMAN: They can face Alta Road
20 because it is not adjacent to single-family
21 residences is what I heard Mr. Ingram say.
22 And what I would like is the Planning
23 Department's input on that condition.
24 MR. KELLY: Our recommendation would be
25 this: Truck courts in parcel A and parcel C
Diane M. Tropia, P.O. Box 2375, Jacksonville, Fl 32203
144
1 would not directly face either a residentially
2 zoned piece of property or Alta Drive.
3 THE CHAIRMAN: So, in that case, it can't
4 face any one of the three.
5