1 CITY OF
2 LAND USE AND ZONING
6 Proceedings held on Tuesday, May 4, 2010,
7 commencing at 5:05 p.m., City Hall, Council Chambers,
8 1st Floor,
9 Tropia, a Notary Public in and for the State of
13 RAY HOLT, Chair.
WARREN JONES, Vice Chair.
14 REGINALD BROWN, Committee Member.
DANIEL DAVIS, Committee Member.
15 JOHNNY GAFFNEY, Committee Member.
STEPHEN JOOST, Committee Member.
16 DON REDMAN, Committee Member.
BILL BISHOP, City Council Member.
19 JOHN CRESCIMBENI, City Council Member.
JOHN CROFTS, Deputy Director, Planning Dept.
20 SEAN KELLY, Chief, Current Planning.
FOLKS HUXFORD, Zoning Administrator.
21 JASON GABRIEL Office of General Counsel.
DYLAN REINGOLD, Office of General Counsel.
22 RICK CAMPBELL, Research Assistant.
MERRIANE LAHMEUR, Legislative Assistant.
23 JESSICA STEPHENS, Legislative Assistant.
24 - - -
1 P R O C E E D I N G S
2 May 4, 2010 5:05 p.m.
3 - - -
4 THE CHAIRMAN: Good evening, everybody.
5 We've got enough here to hold the LUZ
6 meeting now.
7 Well, folks, we've got a short agenda
8 tonight. We've got one issue that I think is
9 going to take up quite a bit of time. So what
10 I'd like to do is quickly go through the others,
11 I think, three items that I imagine are not
12 going to take any time at all and get those off
13 of our agenda and anybody that's here for those
14 on their way, and then we'll go back to -212.
15 It should only take us about five minutes to go
16 through those other items, though.
17 Council members, starting on page 2, items
18 1 and 2 are deferred.
19 Item 3, I believe we're on for a
20 withdrawal; is that right?
21 MR. JOOST: Move to withdraw.
22 MR. DAVIS: Second.
23 THE CHAIRMAN: A motion and second to
24 withdraw for 2010-202.
25 Mr. Jones.
1 MR. JONES: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
2 This is the third withdrawal.
3 THE CHAIRMAN: Yes.
4 MR. HARDEN: I surrender.
5 MR. JONES: What's the status, Mr. Harden?
6 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Harden, come on up and
7 explain to us.
8 MR. HARDEN: Yes.
9 (Mr. Harden approaches the podium.)
10 MR. JONES: We've withdrawn it twice.
11 MR. HARDEN: No. What happened was there
12 was another issue that came -- the issue that
13 was pending on this appeal was resolved between
14 the staff of the Planning Department and the
15 developer. There was another issue that came up
16 that was the subject of a separate Historic
17 Preservation meeting last Wednesday. It was
18 resolved. We were holding the appeal in LUZ to
19 determine whether or not the committee should
20 hear that issue. It was resolved last week at
21 the Historic Preservation Commission.
22 MR. JONES: So all the issues pertaining to
23 the John Gorrie --
24 MR. HARDEN: I think that may be an
25 overstatement, but all the ones that we know
1 about right now.
2 MR. JONES: Are we going to have a request
3 to send it back to committee next Tuesday?
4 MR. HARDEN: No. All the issues that are
5 raised in that appeal are resolved. I'll say it
6 that way.
7 MR. JONES: All right. Thank you, sir.
8 MR. HARDEN: If you'll tell the nice people
9 at the Planning Department to cooperate, we
10 won't have any more problems.
11 MR. JONES: All right. Thank you.
12 THE CHAIRMAN: So they'd have to refile.
13 MR. JONES: Okay.
14 THE CHAIRMAN: All right.
15 We have a motion and a second on a
17 Please open the ballot.
18 (Committee ballot opened.)
19 MR. HOLT: (Votes yea.)
20 MR. JONES: (Votes yea.)
21 MR. DAVIS: (Votes yea.)
22 DR. GAFFNEY: (Votes yea.)
23 MR. JOOST: (Votes yea.)
24 MR. REDMAN: (Votes yea.)
25 THE CHAIRMAN: Close the ballot, record the
2 (Committee ballot closed.)
3 MS. LAHMEUR: Six yeas, zero nays.
4 THE CHAIRMAN: By your action, you have
5 withdrawn 2010-202.
6 Let's skip over -212 for a moment and get
7 rid of these other items.
8 2010-213, we will open the public hearing.
9 Seeing no speakers, we will close the
10 public hearing.
11 Anybody need to declare an ex-parte on this
13 MR. JOOST: Move the bill.
14 MR. JONES: Second.
15 THE CHAIRMAN: A motion and second on the
17 Please open the ballot.
18 (Committee ballot opened.)
19 MR. HOLT: (Votes yea.)
20 MR. JONES: (Votes yea.)
21 MR. DAVIS: (Votes yea.)
22 DR. GAFFNEY: (Votes yea.)
23 MR. JOOST: (Votes yea.)
24 MR. REDMAN: (Votes yea.)
25 THE CHAIRMAN: Close the ballot, record the
2 (Committee ballot closed.)
3 MS. LAHMEUR: Six yeas, zero nays.
4 THE CHAIRMAN: By your action, you have
5 approved 2010-213.
6 2010-253. Mr. Davis.
7 MR. DAVIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
8 This is the weekend small directional
9 signage for business. I had a very productive
10 meeting today with a couple of community
12 (Mr. Brown enters the proceedings.)
13 MR. DAVIS: What I would like to do is, in
14 a substitute, incorporate every one of the
15 Planning Department's recommendations,
16 incorporate some other language that would help
17 fight against snipe signs and help define what
18 snipe signs are, and also have this legislation
19 that's currently on the books in place.
20 If you want to, Mr. Chairman, since your
21 name is on this bill as well, maybe I could have
22 a noticed meeting with you just so you can see
23 what we're doing. I think you'd be pleased with
24 it and I think it will bring not just -- I think
25 you could bring more people into the camp of
1 wanting to see this bill passed and be very
3 It could be a very good deal, more
4 encompassing, and I think that it's worth
5 stepping back and adding those things to this
6 bill --
7 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay.
8 MR. DAVIS: -- to get a much better bill.
9 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. I've gotten the
10 information from the Department and they had
11 some very good recommendations. But for now,
12 we'll defer this bill and then we'll probably
13 come back with a substitute.
14 MR. DAVIS: Yeah. And if you want me to,
15 next week, you and I can have a noticed meeting,
16 and whoever wants to be there can. Just explain
17 all the things that the bill is going to
18 encompass because it will -- it will be a lot
19 broader than just this.
20 But I think all of the things that were
21 brought to me today by basically some
22 constitutional sign experts to make it stronger,
23 give it a better opportunity to hold up if
24 anybody challenges it and incorporates the
25 issues we have here. I think it's going to be a
1 really good bill.
2 THE CHAIRMAN: Excellent. I think so too.
3 All right. So we will defer -253.
4 MR. REINGOLD: Mr. Chair.
5 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Reingold.
6 MR. REINGOLD: Did you want to keep the
7 public hearing open so that we could have a
8 public hearing on it next time?
9 THE CHAIRMAN: Continue it. Okay. So we
10 will open the public hearing.
11 Do we need to hear from our one speaker or
12 just continue it? We have one speaker.
13 (Audience member approaches the podium.)
14 THE CHAIRMAN: Ms. Donna Troup.
15 AUDIENCE MEMBER: I'm with One Stop Thrift
16 Shop at
17 Now, answer my question, what is wrong with
18 this sign (indicating)?
19 THE CHAIRMAN: Ma'am, this is a public
20 hearing. This is your opportunity to speak.
21 We're not answering questions.
22 AUDIENCE MEMBER: I've given you my
23 recommendations and I've asked several different
24 times per e-mails to City Council members as
25 well as the mayor, what is wrong with my sign?
1 Why can I not put it out on city right-of-way
2 which does not have a sidewalk by there?
3 Construction on
4 section now. I've lost one entrance to my
5 business. I have construction signs out there,
6 but I don't have one on
7 THE CHAIRMAN: Do we have somebody from
8 Planning that could maybe step aside with this
9 woman and talk to her about the issue? Because
10 I think her issue is probably not really germane
11 to this bill, but I would like to see if we can
12 get some good answers for her.
13 AUDIENCE MEMBER: No, it does pertain to
14 this bill because weekend directional signage
15 will not work from 3:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m., those
16 48 hours for small business owners like myself,
17 which is not open on Sundays.
18 Also, why is there so many businesses
19 closing? Because they can't put their signs
20 like this out. You're charging too much for the
21 permit fees for these, for one.
22 I've made my recommendations. Give us a
23 chance to prove it to you on those
24 recommendations that we can do it.
25 But you see these, all these row of signs
1 it says For Rent out, the signs that says
3 signs, those are all signs like that, they need
4 to be fined, not us business owners.
5 We're trying to keep people employed. I'm
6 trying to train the probation department kids.
7 I trade during the community hours. But if I
8 have to close my store, which I may be doing in
9 the next two weeks because of this, I will be
10 making sure that City Council and the mayor, I
11 see them in court because I'm losing right now
12 95 percent of my business, my revenue coming
13 in. I get $50 a day, if that anymore, since
14 March 18th. It's got to stop. I can't afford a
15 $2,600 mortgage payment on this building.
16 So I'm -- this sign is two feet by
17 18 inches by 40 inches high and it's not
18 blocking the view of the traffic like this six
19 square feet would do that. That's not going to
20 happen because I got businesses that's putting
21 signs out and I'm doing it too. I'm going to
22 continue doing it by my construction signs to
23 let them know, hey, you need to come down this
24 way because
25 entrance. And they're directing it down into
2 People cannot see the construction sign, so
3 I had to put the sign out here by my -- that
4 construction sign to direct them down there, to
5 let them know we are there still. I'm losing
6 customers. I had six customers today compared
7 to 300, 400 a day.
8 So what does that tell you? We're
9 losing -- we're losing money.
10 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, ma'am.
11 If you would like to speak with somebody
12 from Planning over there, Mr. Huxford or
13 Mr. Crofts is going to go over there and maybe
14 they can address your issues.
15 All right. And we will leave that public
16 hearing open.
17 Okay. Ms. Troup.
18 AUDIENCE MEMBER: Yes.
19 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Jones had a question for
21 AUDIENCE MEMBER: Yes, sir.
22 THE CHAIRMAN: Before you go to talk to
24 MR. JONES: Through the Chair to Ms. Troup,
25 is the construction that's going on on Post
1 Street blocking access to your business?
2 AUDIENCE MEMBER: One entrance, yes.
3 MR. JONES: Okay.
4 AUDIENCE MEMBER: I had to close down the
5 entrance on
6 100 cars a day going up and down that road. The
7 construction is -- they're putting drainage
8 fields in, then they're going to turn around and
9 put sidewalks in, then they're going to repave
10 the road for the next five months.
11 MR. JONES: Okay. I just wanted to --
12 thank you.
13 Just one other question. Have they put
14 directional signs on how to get to your
16 AUDIENCE MEMBER: I've got two construction
17 signs, one facing towards Edgewood at
18 Street and Post, which is not facing Melba
19 Street, which is the way we have the --
20 directing the traffic in and out through that
21 construction to
22 facing -- showing my sign right there by the
23 construction sign by the bus stop right there,
24 say, hey, One Stop Thrift Shop is this way,
25 because the blue sign is facing
2 I want it to be.
3 MR. JONES: So I guess you have two
4 problems, one, you have an access problem
5 because the construction folks have not put a
6 sign to show how to get to your business, and
7 then the other problem is having just a
8 directional sign in general that you can use
9 every weekend.
10 AUDIENCE MEMBER: No. It needs to be used
11 six days a week for my business. I'm there
12 Monday through Saturday.
13 MR. JONES: Okay. Thank you.
14 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, ma'am.
15 All right. And we will continue that
16 public hearing for two weeks.
17 All right. Item number 7, -254, is
18 deferred, as well as all of page 4 and 5,
19 items 16 and 17 are also deferred.
20 On page 6, item 18, 2010-268.
21 MR. JOOST: Move the bill.
22 MR. BROWN: Second.
23 THE CHAIRMAN: A motion and second on the
25 Seeing no speakers, please open the ballot.
1 (Committee ballot opened.)
2 MR. HOLT: (Votes yea.)
3 MR. JONES: (Votes yea.)
4 MR. DAVIS: (Votes yea.)
5 MR. BROWN: (Votes yea.)
6 DR. GAFFNEY: (Votes yea.)
7 MR. JOOST: (Votes yea.)
8 MR. REDMAN: (Votes yea.)
9 THE CHAIRMAN: Close the ballot, record the
11 (Committee ballot closed.)
12 MS. LAHMEUR: Seven yeas, zero nays.
13 THE CHAIRMAN: By your action, you've
14 approved 2010-268.
15 Let's see. Items 19, 20 and -- 19 and 20
16 are deferred. And the remaining items 21, all
17 of page 8, 9, and 10 are read second.
18 Now, council members, let's go back to item
19 number 4, 2010-212, and let me set this up a
20 little bit.
21 Mr. Kelly, does Mr. Crofts need to start us
22 off or can you start us off?
23 MR. KELLY: I can.
24 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. What I'd like to do
25 on this, folks -- because I know we've got a lot
1 of speakers on this -- I'll have the Planning
2 Department explain all the amendments and
3 conditions that they have so everybody can
4 understand fully what the conditions are, then
5 we will declare our ex-partes, folks. We need
6 to do that. And then open the public hearing.
7 We'll have the applicant and those in
8 support of the bill speak first, then we'll have
9 all the folks that are in opposition speak, and
10 then I'll give three additional minutes for
11 rebuttal to the applicant himself, Mr. Hainline,
12 and then we'll close the public hearing and
13 we'll go about our debate.
14 Okay. Mr. Kelly, why don't you kick us off
15 and tell us all about the amendments and
16 conditions on this bill.
17 MR. KELLY: Certainly. Thank you.
18 To the Chair, application for rezoning
19 2010-212 seeks to allow for a convenience store,
20 gas station with 16 fueling stations. The
21 Planning Commission and the Planning Department
22 have recommended approval. The Planning
23 Commission added some conditions that are in the
24 memorandum dated April 29th directed to Council
25 President Clark.
1 The conditions are as follows:
2 Condition 1, "The development shall be
3 subject to the original legal description dated
4 February 22, 2010."
5 Condition 2, "The development shall be
6 subject to the original written description
7 dated February 22nd, 2010."
8 Condition 3, "The development shall be
9 subject to the original site plan dated
10 February 22nd, 2010."
11 Condition 4, "The development shall be
12 subject to the review and approval of the
13 Development Services Division memorandum dated
14 March 18th, 2010."
15 Condition 5, "A 4-foot-high masonry wall
16 shall be provided to the west of the five
17 westerly parking spaces, subject to review and
18 approval of the Planning and Development
20 Condition 6, "Outdoor speakers shall be
21 prohibited except as otherwise required by fire
23 Condition 7, "The hours of operation shall
24 be limited from 6:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m."
25 And the final condition, "There shall be no
1 deliveries before 7:00 a.m. or after 7:00 p.m."
2 THE CHAIRMAN: All right. Now, does that
3 include all the conditions, including the
4 Planning Commission and including from --
5 MR. KELLY: Correct. That's -- the
6 original five conditions were from staff, and
7 the Planning Commission modified condition 5 and
8 then added conditions 6, 7, and 8.
9 THE CHAIRMAN: All righty. Before we open
10 the public hearing, I'd like for any council
11 members who have ex-parte to go ahead and
12 declare those, just get up on the queue here.
13 I'll go ahead and declare mine. On
14 March 16th at 3 o'clock, I met with Ken Wilson
15 and T.R. Hainline about this proposal and we
16 discussed the conditions.
17 And since then, I've also spoken, traded
18 e-mails with Mr. Hawkins, Lad Hawkins, regarding
19 the Wonderwood vision plan and some of the
20 reasons that the CPAC has recommended denial.
21 Mr. Joost.
22 MR. JOOST: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
23 On March 17th, I had a meeting with
24 Ken Wilson and T.R. Hainline. And then on
25 May 3rd, I had a phone conversation with Mr. Ken
2 Thank you.
3 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Redman.
4 MR. REDMAN: Thank you.
5 On -- back in February, I had a
6 conversation with Sam Mousa where he explained
7 this to me.
8 Thank you.
9 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Davis.
10 MR. DAVIS: I've had a couple of
11 conversations with the applicant and the
12 representative of the applicant in the last
13 couple of days.
14 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. Mr. Brown.
15 MR. BROWN: Yes. On May 3rd, approximately
16 3:00 p.m., I had telephone conversations with
17 Sam Mousa regarding this project and basically
18 was asked to consider all of the information
19 that we had in the conversation in terms of
20 making a decision to vote it up or down.
21 Thank you.
22 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Brown.
23 Mr. Jones.
24 MR. JONES: Thank you.
25 I was trying to check the date. I think it
Diane M. Tropia,
1 was March I met with Mr. Wilson and Mr. Hainline
2 to review the proposed rezoning impact on the
3 neighborhood and the recommendation from the
4 Planning Department.
5 Thank you.
6 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Jones.
7 Dr. Gaffney.
8 DR. GAFFNEY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
9 Yes, in March I've had a conversation with
10 Ken Wilson and T.R. Hainline in reference to the
11 planning and impact on the neighborhood.
12 Thank you.
13 THE CHAIRMAN: All right. Now that we've
14 got all those out of the way, we will open the
15 public hearing and we will start with
16 Mr. Hainline, T.R. Hainline.
17 (Mr. Hainline approaches the podium.)
18 MR. HAINLINE: If I can just wait until
19 that stuff gets passed out, that would be
21 My name is T.R. Hainline. I'm here
22 representing the
23 Authority and Gate Petroleum.
24 You have before you two recommendations.
25 The first is from the Planning Department for
Diane M. Tropia,
1 approval with some conditions, and the second is
2 from your Planning Commission, which spent four
3 hours last Thursday hearing about this, debating
4 it, and then added three conditions and then
5 unanimously recommended approval.
6 Let me start with some facts that are not
7 in dispute that are facts.
8 One, there's been a Gate station at the
9 intersection of McCormick and
10 many years.
11 Two, the Wonderwood Expressway improvements
12 over the past few years have dramatically
13 changed this intersection and essentially it has
14 moved the intersection a thousand feet to the
15 east to where it is today.
16 And, three, the other thing that was part
17 of those Wonderwood improvements is the JTA
18 condemned a 7.8-acre site on the south side of
19 that new intersection and built a stormwater
20 pond on that site.
21 This PUD site is on that piece of property
22 between the stormwater pond. If you look at
23 some of the aerials, you can see at the recent
24 one, between the stormwater pond and the
25 intersection, this PUD site is right at the
2 Now, let me just give you a preview of what
3 you're going to be hearing from the other two
4 witnesses. Jim Robinson, who is a traffic
5 engineer with King Engineering, he is going to
6 talk to you about that intersection and he's
7 going to tell you that it is operating fine now
8 at an acceptable level of service. And he did a
9 traffic study that analyzed the traffic that
10 would come from this proposed Gate Station, and
11 it would not adversely impact that
12 intersection. It remains at an acceptable level
13 of service. He'll tell you about that.
14 He's also going to tell you about safety,
15 and the new station improves safety over the
16 previously existing site both for travel -- cars
17 accessing the station site and pedestrians
18 walking in front of the station site.
19 Then Ken Wilson is going to speak, again,
20 with Gate Petroleum. And he's going to focus
21 primarily on the visual impacts, and he's going
22 to focus on the buffers that have been provided
23 at -- within this PUD. He's going to show you
24 some pictures of the extensive buffering that is
25 provided here.
1 I'll just throw out a couple of the
2 conditions that have been put on us. There are
3 the buffers and the landscape screens he'll go
4 into. There's security fencing, there's
5 limitations on lighting, limitations on hours.
6 You've already heard about that. Limitations on
7 delivery hours. There is no car wash at this
8 gas station. The dumpster and the vacuums and
9 such have been located remotely away from the
10 residential and will be fully screened.
11 And, with that, I ask that you follow the
12 recommendations of your Planning Department and
13 your Planning Commission and approve this PUD.
14 And we're, obviously, happy to answer any
16 Thank you.
17 THE CHAIRMAN: Anybody have any questions
18 for Mr. Hainline at this time?
19 COMMITTEE MEMBERS: (No response.)
20 THE CHAIRMAN: None.
21 Mr. Wilson.
22 (Audience member approaches the podium.)
23 THE CHAIRMAN: I'm sorry. You want --
24 AUDIENCE MEMBER: Jim Robinson with King
1 In your notebook at tab 2, there's an
2 indication of the traffic volumes of this
3 location. There's -- one of the sketches that
4 has a hand-drawn schematic at the bottom of the
5 sheet just to make the interpretation easier.
6 And you can see from that that these are
7 daily traffic numbers. So there are 20,000
8 vehicles per day that traverse this
10 The Gate station that's proposed in the new
11 location is certainly causing a net increase of
12 trips to the area, but it is a very small
13 percentage of the overall traffic that traverses
14 the intersection, only about 3 percent at the
15 worst or most severe peak hour.
16 And, as Mr. Hainline indicated, from a
17 capacity standpoint, with that moderate increase
18 of traffic, there's another chart there that
19 shows that the before and after conditions
20 remain the same. The level of service in the
21 a.m. peak hour is a level B on an A through F
22 scale, which is a good level, very good level.
23 And also in the p.m., both before and after or
24 existing and proposed, are at a level of
25 service C.
1 The issue of safety does have two aspects.
2 In your still tab 2 there, there's a schematic
3 that indicates treatment -- this is design
4 treatment -- proposed for the pedestrian
5 crossing. This will be going across the Gate
6 station driveway.
7 And so there's a plan view on the left and
8 a pedestrianized view on the right-hand side.
9 In fact, this photograph is of a location on
11 that's used in
12 to be effective for safety.
13 The other safety issue has to do with the
14 illumination of many circuitous movements that
15 were previously required to get into and out of
16 the old location. Those have been converted
17 into very simple right-in or right-out-type
18 movements at this four-way signalized
20 So on both pedestrian and traffic --
21 vehicular traffic safety standpoint, this does
22 represent a superior alternative.
23 I'd be happy to answer any questions.
24 THE CHAIRMAN: I don't see any questions at
25 this time.
1 Mr. Wilson.
2 (Mr. Crescimbeni enters the proceedings.)
3 (Audience member approaches the podium.)
4 AUDIENCE MEMBER: My name is Ken Wilson,
5 representing Gate Petroleum Company, 9540
7 This community is one that I grew up in. I
8 moved into this community at the Holly Oaks
9 subdivision of this community in 1960 and lived
10 there all through my youth, my elementary
11 school, junior high, and high school. Went to
12 church with some of these people that we've been
13 discussing this project with, and I know them.
14 The fact that we would go there and I would
15 embarrass myself and Gate Petroleum was
16 something we constructed on this site just would
17 not happen. I mean, you know who we are, we've
18 been in this community for a long time, and you
19 know where we are, and we pride ourselves on
20 building things that are of quality.
21 I'd like to take you quickly to tabs 3 and
22 4. We'll start with 3, of course. I'm going to
23 go quickly because we've got a lot to cover, but
24 obviously stop me if I'm confusing you or if I
25 miss something.
1 Under tab 3, the first exhibit is the micro
2 site exhibit. If you'll look closely at that,
3 if you'll look to the left-hand side of that
4 micro exhibit, you'll see a white line labeled
5 "landscape buffer, 50 feet." The line is
6 actually the security fence I'm going to show
7 you in a few minutes. It will be screened
8 within that 50-foot buffer to the west, adjacent
9 to those property lines.
10 Along the south end, the bottom of the
11 sheet and up along the eastern side to the right
12 of the sheet, is a 25-foot landscape buffer.
13 Don't be confused. Even though the property
14 line as laid out by the survey crew falls in the
15 water, we have 25 feet of plantable land area to
16 construct a buffer around those areas.
17 And it also shows the relocation of the
18 dumpster site to the east side of the building,
19 away from the residential.
20 The next exhibit shows its orientation to
21 the area. The only thing here I'd like to point
22 out is that triangular-shaped green piece in the
23 middle is the site that would be conveyed to the
24 City for greenspace and park space upon the
25 approval of this PUD.
1 The next page is the front elevation of our
2 facility which is unique, a unique piece of
3 architecture for Gate. What you will not see
4 there -- this is a canopy. It's a hip canopy
5 standing-seam metal roof. You will not see the
6 red Gate band. You see the signage there is
8 I'm going to move now -- I apologize. I'm
9 going to move to 4 because I'm running out of
10 time. You see distances there from the facility
11 to the property lines. The closest point is
12 91 feet. Our farthest point is about 350 feet
13 to the rear, to the south.
14 As you flip past that, you will see some
15 buffer exhibits. Two pages past that, you will
16 see the 25-foot application screening. That
17 screening screens a Kmart building of
18 approximately 55,000 square feet adjacent to the
19 Gate corporate headquarters. It does it within
20 25 feet.
21 We planted that buffer, and that lake in
22 front of it is about 100 feet wide. So in the
23 application, we have about 300 feet of distance
24 to accomplish what we accomplished in 100 feet
25 here. And, again, that is a 25-foot planted
1 landscape buffer that conceals that Kmart
2 commercial facility.
3 The next couple of pictures are the rear of
4 the building, and there are other exhibits there
5 that explain how we can provide a 100 percent
6 opaque buffer. We've been doing it for
7 30 years.
8 Be glad to answer any questions you might
10 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Wilson.
11 Mr. Davis.
12 MR. DAVIS: In order for me to understand
13 and be able to approve this or disapprove it,
14 the landscape buffer is very important to me
15 regarding this issue. If we could, I'd like to
16 ask Mr. Wilson to continue. I need more
17 information on this landscape buffer, if that's
19 MR. WILSON: I'd be happy to.
20 THE CHAIRMAN: Go ahead, Mr. Wilson.
21 MR. WILSON: Okay. With that in mind, I'm
22 going to slow down and take you back to tab 4 to
23 the beginning. The first exhibit is very
24 important because of the distances you see
25 there. I'm going to show you, again, that
1 picture of the buffer across the lake of the
2 existing buffer that we have close to our
3 corporate office.
4 The lake you're looking at in that picture
5 is about 100 feet across, and then we've planted
6 a 25-foot buffer of trees, shrubs, and
7 understory to completely block the Kmart store
8 that you see in the inset photograph, which
9 is -- that's two pages over from this distance
11 That's the -- actually taking the shadow
12 you see there on the parking lot of the inset
13 photo of the Kmart is actually the shadow coming
14 from the trees and the buffer. It's screening
15 it from our office site.
16 It's very difficult. I mean, if you look
17 really, really hard, you can see the edge of the
18 top of the building there in the center, but
19 even that is manageable to the point of a
20 100 percent opaque buffer. And we did not plant
21 this as densely as the buffer would be planted
22 on this Gate station.
23 To take you on further -- and I'll answer
24 questions about these, but I want to make sure I
25 get through them.
1 The next exhibit is the
2 station at the intersection of
3 9A. This station -- this is the rear of the
4 station. It fronts
5 public right-of-way, public road. I'm standing
6 approximately on the hotel site. I'm kind of
7 catty-corner to it. And I just put this in here
8 to show you just typically what we do in all of
9 our new stations is an outstanding job of
10 landscaping, whether we're intentionally trying
11 to buffer or not.
12 This is in a commercial area. We are not
13 trying to buffer our station. We want people to
14 see our station, but you see the density of
16 The next page is the
17 station. This is at our corporate
18 headquarters. Funny, but we enjoy looking at
19 our stations. It's our business. This is just
20 the quality of landscaping, again, across a
21 retention pond that we do and will do on this
22 facility, only this PUD application anticipates
23 a much denser buffer than what you see here.
24 That's the back of a 20 MPD, a larger
25 station than what we're proposing in this PUD.
1 If you flip to the next page, that is not
2 important. This is just the concept. That's a
3 typical tennis court with a confederate jasmine
4 planted on a chain-link fence.
5 The next picture, though, the application
6 picture is important. Behind this fence, this
7 wall -- and it's not a wall. That's an 8-foot,
8 black, vinyl clad, chain-link fence planted with
9 confederate jasmine irrigated 100 percent to
10 maintain the growth rate. It becomes completely
11 opaque. This one did in approximately 14
12 months. And behind there is the Mandarin
13 library, which I think is about a
14 38,000-square-foot, two-story facility.
15 If you flip the page, you'll see a picture
16 of the parking lot and the building directly
17 behind this buffer. And if you look really,
18 really hard, again, in the middle, you can see
19 just the tip of a little bit of brick as that's
20 been screened.
21 This picture is probably taken no more than
22 30 feet from the fence line. We've got much
23 more distance than that on the property that's
24 proposed in this PUD to deal with distance and
25 additional plantings.
1 Then the final picture here is the
2 screening dumpster, screening of a dumpster. It
3 just shows you how typically we built the
4 dumpsters out of compatible architectural
5 materials and provide landscape screening.
6 Now, the last thing I'll do, and this is
7 the end of it, I'd like to flip back over to
8 tab 3, the very first exhibit where you see the
9 station and the surrounding buffers, and I want
10 to focus on the 50-foot buffer to the left. The
11 fence you just saw with the confederate jasmine
12 on it would be constructed in the middle of that
13 50 feet, approximately 25 feet from the
14 residential property line. Part of the reason
15 for that is there are existing hardwoods in that
16 50 feet. Some were cleared by JTA, but there's
17 a good number still remaining. We will
18 construct that fence behind those hardwoods,
19 leaving those hardwoods to the residential side
20 of the buffer, giving a full 25 feet of
21 additional planting and landscape on both sides
22 of that opaque, confederate jasmine, 8-foot
23 chain-link fence you saw on the previous
25 MR. DAVIS: I'm satisfied with the
1 explanation, Mr. Chairman.
2 MR. WILSON: Thank you.
3 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Wilson.
4 Tony Robbins, please.
5 (Audience member approaches the podium.)
6 AUDIENCE MEMBER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman,
7 members of the --
8 THE CHAIRMAN: If you could give your name
9 and address for the record, please.
10 AUDIENCE MEMBER: Tony Robbins, 11361 Sweet
12 Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, I
13 thank you for this opportunity to speak to you.
14 I've provided correspondence in support of the
15 application before you. I sat through the
16 testimony and listened to the -- all points of
17 view expressed by the Planning Commission and
18 remain unchanged in my opinion that this is a
19 positive proposal for rezoning in this area of
21 I repeatedly looked and objectively
22 analyzed trying to find ways in which this
23 application is inconsistent with the supreme
24 growth management laws of our city, the
25 comprehensive plan. I find no disagreement with
1 anything in your professional staff report. I
2 see where the comprehensive plan supports the
3 PUD. This committee knows full good and well
4 the development controls and the benefits that
5 can be offered through the PUD process.
6 And Mr. Wilson and the team from -- the
7 applicant's team have more than exemplified
8 listening to the community and a sensitivity to
9 the area, not coming in and trying to cram in a
10 cookie-cutter, standard model Gate station that
11 would be there.
12 The -- I'm grateful for Gate for not giving
13 up on
14 aware of -- I have no knowledge of how the
15 businesses are doing, but they could very well
16 have given up on the station, but they choose
17 not to. They're abiding by the comprehensive
18 plan and the separations of this new
19 intersection alluded to earlier, now 1,000 feet
20 further to the east.
21 It's a safer intersection, a signalized
22 intersection, one that does not promote strip
23 commercial development. I say that as a
24 professional certified planner as well as a
25 parent, a member of the Holly Oaks Swim Club
1 neighboring the property, as well as a deacon of
2 the nearby
3 This is my community. I would have nothing
4 but my reputation and name to stand behind, and
5 I would not be here on my own time supporting
6 this if I was not aware, again, the positive
7 aspects of this application and, again, the
8 level of commitment expressed by the applicant
9 and their team into reducing the incompatibility
10 that could be possible. This is not true of the
11 current location where they are with
12 conventional zoning.
13 If Gate was to go away or not redo that
14 site, any use permissible in the neighborhood
15 commercial could be possible. Closer to my
16 residence at McCormick -- I'm sorry -- on
18 commercial. There's a Chevron station, a bar, a
19 nail place, the Hidden Hills Animal Clinic, as
20 well as a day care along that area, and they
21 have nothing like the controls that are
22 contained in this PUD up against Old Hidden
24 So, again, in closing, Mr. Chairman, this
25 opportunity offers support for the comprehensive
1 plan's efforts that you're doing with mobility
2 because I would have fewer -- this community
3 would have fewer vehicle miles traveled to take
4 advantage of the fine products and the -- those
5 items offered at this PUD from this Gate station
6 being in its general location where it has been
7 historically versus having to go to 9A or not
8 use their services at all.
9 I appreciate the opportunity. And if there
10 are any questions, I'm more than happy to answer
12 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Robbins.
13 All right. The first speaker in opposition
14 is -- sorry if I mess up your name here, but
15 Barbara Leis.
16 AUDIENCE MEMBER: Leis (pronouncing).
17 THE CHAIRMAN: Leis. Sorry about that.
18 (Audience member approaches the podium.)
19 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you for coming down.
20 Please give us your name and address.
21 AUDIENCE MEMBER: Good evening.
22 I'm Barbara Leis. I live at 10640
24 And I'm in the Holly Oaks area, which is
25 very close to where this proposed PUD change is
1 to take place.
2 Naturally, I am against it and for many
3 reasons. The first reason is we don't need a
4 larger Gate gas station in the community. They
5 currently have four. They want to expand it
6 400 times to a 16-pump station. We just don't
7 need anything that big in this neighborhood. In
8 a 2.2-mile radius, there are already 74 pumps.
9 I mean, we have plenty of gas stations in the
10 area. And Gate itself already has a 20-gas-pump
11 station within that 2.2 miles, so we are overly
12 saturated. We have plenty of gas stations in
13 our neighborhood.
14 Where they are located now and where they
15 have been for 40 years is just fine. We've not
16 had any problems with them being there. What
17 they want to do is to move across the street,
18 right smack dab in the middle of the Laudonniere
19 neighborhood where they are going to be backed
20 up literally in the backyards of these homes.
21 How many of you would like to have a
22 20-pump gas station put in your backyard? And
23 that is what Gate is trying to do. There is
24 absolutely no reason for them to move from their
25 current location. When they do that, they are
1 going against the Wonderwood study. We're all
2 very aware of that study. And in the study, it
3 says that the study consistently discourages any
4 zoning or changes in land use that would -- and
5 listen to this -- increase the density and the
6 intensity of development as it would negatively
7 impact the residential character found along
8 this corridor. We're talking about the
9 Wonderwood corridor.
10 So going from a 400 percent increase is
11 definitely going to increase the density and the
12 intensity of the development in that area. It
13 also is not consistent with the comp plan, the
14 2010 comp plan or the 2030 comp plan.
15 Well, that's basically it.
16 Oh, the plans have -- I'm sorry, I'm a
17 little nervous here, very upset about what's
18 happening to my community.
19 THE CHAIRMAN: All right.
20 MS. LEIS: In the Wonderwood plan itself,
21 in the study, it actually warned against
22 overservicing by the commercial acreage, so it
23 already predicted that when the Wonderwood went
24 through the neighborhoods, that it was going to
25 be a tendency to overdevelop it, you know, for
Diane M. Tropia,
1 commercial uses. And they warned against that
2 and they said, please follow the vision -- the
3 community's vision.
4 Thank you.
5 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, ma'am.
6 Dave Evans, followed by Lad Hawkins.
7 (Audience member approaches the podium.)
8 AUDIENCE MEMBER: Good evening.
9 My name is Dave Evans and I live at 2007
11 I am shocked that this issue has been
12 reintroduced to this council after it was
13 previously soundly defeated. It goes to show
14 that the big money people just pay their lawyers
15 to keep reintroducing a change until they wear
16 the people out.
17 The last time it came up I said that B.B.
18 McCormick was rolling over in his grave. I'm
19 sure the thunder I heard in the middle of the
20 night last week was him. This cemetery that
21 adjoins this property is an old family cemetery
22 and is pristine.
23 The audacity of the Transportation
24 Authority and Gate Petroleum to desecrate this
25 cemetery with the likes of a gas station as well
1 as a small but special community -- what
2 business is this of mine you might ask. I've
3 lived in Holly Oaks for over 25 years and raised
4 my children there. Holly Oaks and Laudonniere
5 were literally considered one and the same. In
6 fact, years ago, Holly Oaks had a Santa Claus
7 and sleigh and that visited both communities at
9 At present, Gate has closed the station
10 across the street from where this would be
11 located. One might think that there would be a
12 little difference esthetically. Wrong. You
13 will be replacing a 4-pump station with a
14 16-pump station and increasing the size from
15 2,640 square feet to 5,000 square feet that will
16 adversely affect the safety of children going to
17 the Holly Oaks pool and will adversely affect
18 the residents of Laudonniere with unwanted noise
19 and bright lighting.
20 Understand that neighborhood commercial
21 does not restrict the number of gas pumps to
22 fewer than 16, but common sense does. Let them
23 rebuild on the old site. One might think there
24 would be some advantages for the residents in
25 this immediate area. Wrong. It will imperil
1 the children and create blight in the
3 I mentioned Mr. McCormick's family
4 cemetery, which would be adjacent to the
5 property, and must ask you, what happens when
6 you have a fuel spill and some of it seeps into
7 that cemetery?
8 We have all seen gas stations that had to
9 replace their tanks because of leaks and are
10 aware of many sites that must be cleaned up
11 before they can be sold.
12 The water table there is about 68 feet. I
13 know this because years ago we had a problem
14 with the pool and did repairs and almost floated
15 the pool next door. So the water table is right
17 I might add, the pool club serves a much
18 larger area than Holly Oaks and Laudonniere.
19 Thank you.
20 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, sir.
21 Mr. Hawkins.
22 (Audience member approaches the podium.)
23 AUDIENCE MEMBER: My name is Lad Hawkins.
24 I live at
25 I'm here speaking in opposition to
2 I've worked as a planner in
3 and lived in the Greater
4 last 40 years. I was on the Wonderwood citizens
5 advisory committee when they planned
6 Wonderwood. At one time, you may know, this was
7 an expressway. We got it changed from an
8 expressway to -- they call it a connector.
9 When Lynette Self was councilman for this
10 area, the community worked very hard with
11 Lynette to come up with the Wonderwood Corridor
13 If you -- you noticed the expert who spoke
14 on the planning, who thinks this is a good idea,
15 Tony Robbins, didn't even mention this document
16 which was prepared by the Planning Department in
17 2004. I urge all of you to read this whole
18 document. It says very clearly that up and down
19 all of Wonderwood there is not supposed to be
20 strip commercial. It warns that this is a
21 problem. And once you do this here, there's
22 nothing to stop you from having another one
23 happen right down the street.
24 Anytime you get to a node -- right at
1 the southwest quadrant, there's a big house
2 there on the corner, the old buck house. If
3 that's the guy that decides he wants to have a
4 Walgreens there and he puts up a nice buffer, as
5 they're telling you they're going to do, then
6 you guys are probably going to think that's a
7 great idea too. And the next thing you know,
8 further down the road we're going to have the
9 same thing and we're going to end up with
11 This is not good planning. That's why this
12 study was done, why the Planning Department did
13 this study, and how the Planning Department can
14 look you in the eye and tell you that this is
15 not what -- is what they recommended is really a
17 There is really a lack of trust in
18 government right now, and this is really a great
19 opportunity for you to gain the trust of the
20 community. I serve on the CPAC. I'm the
21 president of the Greater
22 and I serve on the visioning steering committee
23 for the Arlington/Beaches. All three of these
24 groups have unanimously asked you to vote no on
25 this. This is inappropriate for our community.
1 I urge you, support the community and turn
2 this down. This is not what is needed.
3 Thank you.
4 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Hawkins.
5 Our next speaker is John Roberts, followed
6 by Karen Finnell.
7 (Audience member approaches the podium.)
8 AUDIENCE MEMBER: My name is John Roberts.
9 I live at
10 here speaking on behalf of the Valley Homeowners
11 Association. That's a group of 410 residences.
12 I noticed something interesting of the
13 proponents. The proponents basically present
14 this as a relocation, a relocation of a small
15 convenience store with, as I recall, two pumps.
16 There are two pump stations -- to an area where
17 there will be what seems rather close to a
18 supermarket with 16 pumps.
19 Well, that's like saying that that's the
20 equivalent -- that's like saying a
21 a St. Bernard are equivalent because they're
22 both dogs.
23 Well, let's take a look at what the area
24 is. The area is a well-settled community, old
25 houses, churches, and we're going to plop down a
1 large filling station and a semi supermarket in
2 its midst. I don't think it should be done.
3 Now, people have given reasons why it
4 shouldn't be done. I can't elaborate upon
5 those, but I'll say the area is adequately
6 served by existing filling stations.
7 I ran around and did some looking within --
8 just down
9 Monument. And within about two-and-a-half
10 miles, I found nine stations. Each of them had
11 a convenience store. There were 53 pump
12 stations there, which could serve at the same
13 time, I figure, 106 cars, and three of the
14 stations had car washes.
15 At one location there, within seven-tenths
16 of a mile, at the corner of
17 Monument, there's a filling station that's
18 abandoned. It's closed. And we want to stick
19 16 more pumps in? It's ridiculous.
20 I ask the council to vote against this
22 Thank you.
23 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, sir.
24 Karen Finnell, followed by Oz Baker.
25 (Audience member approaches the podium.)
1 AUDIENCE MEMBER: Hello again.
2 Karen Finnell,
3 The relocation of the Gate gas station and
4 store is not compatible and is in violation of
5 the 2030 comprehensive plan as follows: 2.2.4,
6 it does not support nearby residential areas but
7 intrudes upon them. 3.1.19, The City shall
8 recognize and maintain neighborhoods and protect
9 them in light of developmental pressures
10 surrounding them.
11 The 2030 report discusses low density
12 residential. I don't understand the logic on
13 how a 16-vehicle Gate gas station and Food Post
14 is low intensity retail, nor is it consistent
15 with the character of land use already in
16 existence. A 16-pump station is high intensity
17 and does not fit under the secondary uses
18 definition of filling stations and other
19 low-intensity retail as defined by the 2030.
20 It will have an estimated 2,600 trips
21 daily. I can't imagine what would be a higher
22 intense use of this except something like a
24 FLUE 3.1.2, the application should not set
25 a precedent for the domino effect of commercial
1 development and blight along Wonderwood.
2 Violation of FLUE 1.1.7 by being spot zoning.
3 FLUE 3.2.2 states, Instead of land use
4 zoning changes, redevelop the existing
5 commercial sites in the area.
6 Gate doesn't want a 4-, 6-, or 8-pump gas
7 station and store which could be built in the
8 triangle. They want more. They want a
9 400 percent increase, from 4 to 16 pumps, and
10 almost a 5,000-foot store, more money.
11 The Planning Commission stated Gate could
12 be grandfathered into the triangle, possibly
14 cul-de-sac, and some property given to Gate for
15 rebuilding there. Don't let them kid you, it's
16 nowhere near as dangerous as the proposed site
17 will be.
18 Gate talks about how pretty the new gas
19 station store design is, low lights, minimal
20 signs. Well, you can pretty up a pig, you can
21 still call it a pig, though, because that's what
22 it is with pig characteristics, it's still a
24 But a gas station. Well, a gas station has
25 brightness, noise, toxic smells and danger
1 because it is what it is, it's a gas station.
2 Visual is not the problem here. If a boat, an
3 RV, a construction trailer or modular problems
4 were put on this property, they may not be
5 pretty, but they wouldn't have the noise, the
6 smell, the danger, the lights of a gas station.
7 Gate says the new station store will be
8 smaller than the shops in the triangle area.
9 Well, we don't care how much square footage the
10 shops in the triangle have because they're not
11 next to us. They're over there.
12 And, once again, the picture that I passed
13 out, that was taken from one of our property
14 lines toward the proposed Gate gas station. And
15 that's one of the last geese that are in the
16 area floating through the property, happened to
17 be there while I was there. But there were no
18 trees or bushes on this property because when
19 JTA came in, they wiped them all out. What you
20 see there is what they replanted with. And if
21 Gate plans to replace similar buffer zones, God
22 help us all.
23 Thank you.
24 Oh, I would be glad to answer any
1 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, ma'am.
2 Mr. Baker, Oz Baker, followed by Robena
4 (Audience member approaches the podium.)
5 AUDIENCE MEMBER: My name is Oz Baker, 2066
7 Thank you.
8 You know, Melanie [sic] Hines at City
9 Planning asked a very great question the other
10 day. Just because they had a store in the area,
11 does that give them the right to have another
12 one? Just a thought.
13 Gate was recently asked the question, the
14 number of car trips, as we've already found out,
15 but they didn't want to answer that question
16 because the number is staggering as calculated
17 by the
18 There's where that figure comes from, 2,600
19 trips per day at the proposed high-intensity
21 But what's appalling is Gate uses this
22 phrase "serious safety concerns" at the old
23 current location knowing full well that those
24 serious safety concerns would be far and away
25 much greater at the new proposed site.
1 The intent of Wonderwood was a
2 transportation corridor for Mayport, the
3 beaches, and neighborhoods in the area to the
4 bridges over the
5 situations for evacuation. The flow would be
6 westbound and any gas stations along the
7 corridor would be prudently positioned on the
8 north edge of the corridor to maintain an
9 expedient and efficient flow away from the
11 Furthermore, this proposed high intensity
12 usage is inconsistent with the Wonderwood
13 corridor land use and study.
14 CPAC, all the wisdom, they unanimously
15 voted it down. You-all did too in December of
16 2008, overwhelmingly.
17 Gate's proposal is a plainly obviously
18 intrusion into adjacent single-family homes,
19 children, parks, swim clubs. They don't care
20 about the kids. They just care about the
21 dollars. The way that they so elegantly said
22 they don't count cars, they just count dollars,
24 This will impose an unreasonable downward
25 pressure on surrounding property values due to
Diane M. Tropia,
1 the tremendous increase in the noise, toxins,
2 drunk drivers, drugs, armed robbers, and the
3 massive traffic. This intrusion will affect the
4 quality of life negatively for the area and
5 would most certainly extinguish many remaining
6 wildlife species to include foxes, turtles,
7 owls, eagles, red hawks, many others that I
8 watch every day.
9 In December 2008, Officer Crow testified to
10 his experience of increased criminal activities
11 in and around gas stations. Could not be here
12 tonight because he's doing his job. There are
13 already ten stations with over 90 pumps.
14 There's actually 91 within 2.2 miles. I
15 double-checked it again this weekend, and
16 they're all outparcels in front of large
17 shopping centers, all of which are adjacent
18 to -- that are not adjacent to single-family
19 neighborhoods. The photos you have attest to
21 There's many other levels of lighter
22 usages, more appropriate and consistent with the
23 surrounding area. For instance, you could
24 expand Buck Park, low-density, single-family
25 homes, et cetera.
1 Thank you.
2 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, sir.
3 Robena Crook, followed by Brenda Fox.
4 (Audience member approaches the podium.)
5 THE CHAIRMAN: Good evening.
6 AUDIENCE MEMBER: Hello.
7 My name is Robena Crook. I live at 10961
9 My property backs up to this intersection
10 that we're talking about, so probably I am the
11 most impacted by this of anybody else that's
12 going to speak.
13 I'm sure you know my name by now because
14 I've written all of you letters, I've appeared
15 at all the meetings, I've given talks, and it's
16 not often you really deal with an admitted
18 Tonight, I don't want to go into all the
19 plans and the restrictions and everything. I
20 just want to talk to you on a personal level.
21 I have worked hard all my life to obtain
22 and pay for this property. I have lived in this
23 house 37 years and have never failed to pay my
24 taxes, everything has been on time. I've worked
25 hard so that I could be safe and comfortable in
1 my old age, and now I'm faced with having a Gate
2 station in my backyard.
3 After my husband died, my son and his
4 family moved around the corner to Raley Creek to
5 be near me. If this station goes in, now my own
6 grandsons, who made this move to be near to me,
7 would not be safe walking or riding their bike
8 around to my house because they would have to go
9 by this Gate station.
10 When they cut down all the trees behind my
11 house to make the retention pond, it exposed my
12 house and property. I can stand at my kitchen
13 window and look straight over across into the
14 post office. And when cars are stopped at the
15 red light at the intersection, they can see over
16 into my house. My bedrooms are upstairs, so
17 I've had to put shutters on all my windows to
18 keep people from peeping into my house. And I
19 can only imagine what it would be like for the
20 station to be there. It would all be
22 I understand Gate's position. My family
23 has owned and operated a business for 45 years.
24 The warehouse that we were renting was taken by
25 eminent domain. And at that point in time, we
1 had to build a new warehouse. And we had no
2 space where we were located, but we opted not to
3 move, try to move into the neighborhood, so we
4 located it at a different location that would
5 not impact the neighborhood.
6 Why should all the little businesses have
7 to operate by a different standard than the big
8 ones? We do not object to the station being
9 where it is, but we object to them moving it
10 into our neighborhood. We've supported them all
11 these years.
12 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, ma'am.
13 MS. CROOK: Thank you.
14 THE CHAIRMAN: Brenda Fox, followed by John
16 (Audience member approaches the podium.)
17 THE CHAIRMAN: Good evening, ma'am.
18 AUDIENCE MEMBER: My name is Brenda Fox,
19 and I live at 2046 Challeux Drive, adjoining
20 this property.
21 It's a very important issue for me. I was
22 raised next to a gas station.
23 The last meeting we were at, Gate made this
24 sound like such a terrible thing, that there was
25 a red light there and then their driveway. I
1 just wondered why that didn't ring true. It was
2 because when I went down
3 was able to take pictures, which you-all should
4 have copies of, and it seems to be the rule that
5 you have a red light and then you have the
6 driveway into a Gate gas station rather than the
8 By the pictures, I have the amount of
9 acreage and their exact address. You can check
10 that out easy enough. One of them, there was so
11 little space between the light and the gas
12 station that I asked my husband to stop and I
13 measured it. It was about 18 to 21 feet,
14 depending on exactly where you measured on the
16 There's a picture on one page that says
17 1.3 acres. It's referring to the old seafood
18 market building, the triangle property, which is
19 bigger than all the gas stations that I looked
20 at. And then the picture right underneath it is
21 the street directly behind it. There's no rush
22 there. Nobody ever makes a right turn there in
23 that lane. It's wasted because the merge goes
24 down, it has its own lane for quite a while. It
25 does not stop at the end of the triangle. It's
1 a very nice, smooth merge. Even I do it, and I
2 drive like an old lady.
3 The one other fact I want to make is that
4 Gate has built a 12-fueling-position station at
6 triangle contains much more than that, so I
7 think somehow they could put a beautiful,
8 little, 12-fueling-station gas station there.
9 They are making their actual gas station
10 bigger and adding pumps. Forget about the
11 seafood's acreage, whether -- I mean, building.
12 They shouldn't be able to count that in their
14 Second -- I know you're going to beep me,
15 so I just want to tell you, this is not a safety
16 issue. I truly believe it's about greed. I
17 believe this is about love of money, not about
18 people. We're begging for our neighborhood to
19 stay nice and our families to be safe. No tree
20 is going to keep the bad guy, no bush, from
21 running into my yard with his gun after he
22 robbed that station, and it happens all the
24 Please save our families from that. I've
25 been there. I know what I'm talking about
1 firsthand as a child. Please save my child from
3 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, ma'am.
4 John Fox, followed by Melanie McCoy.
5 (Audience member approaches the podium.)
6 AUDIENCE MEMBER: Hello.
7 My name is John Fox. I reside at 2046
9 I'll be talking -- you can -- from this
10 document (indicating), the third page.
11 What I'd like to talk about is the approval
12 of this rezoning application will set the
13 precedent for similar rezoning of an additional
14 30 residential-zoned properties at eight nodal
15 intersections along the Wonderwood
16 transportation corridor, which is going to have
17 a negative impact on the entire community and
18 also is totally against the whole purpose of the
19 transportation corridor concept and also against
20 the Wonderwood study.
21 Let's take a look at page 3 of the
22 handout. This is the intersection of
23 Bluff and
24 known as Wonderwood. And you are looking at the
25 very similar type of intersection as what we are
1 discussing today, except with a lot less
2 intrusion into a neighborhood. The road
3 T-bones --
4 Wonderwood at the traffic light.
5 Now, on the other side of that traffic
6 light is 4.8 acres of residential low density
7 property, which happens to be owned by a real
8 estate investor and developer. Also -- so --
9 and adjacent to that property is also land
10 that's owned by JEA.
11 Now, why shouldn't we think that once this
12 precedent is set for -- this investor/developer
13 will not be back here in a couple of months with
14 an application to develop this land?
15 The bottom picture is across the street
16 with the view looking south at 1.3 acres of
17 residential low density land, another prime
18 candidate for commercial development once this
19 precedent is set.
20 Obviously, this site is 1.3 acres and would
21 be a prime candidate as Gate gas -- Gate just
22 built a gas station on Baymeadows. They just
23 completed it within the last six months on 6. --
24 or .65 acres of land. So this is going to open
25 up the whole corridor to this development, which
1 is against the Wonderwood study.
2 Also, I would like to talk about nodes for
3 a minute. That seems to be a hot topic with
4 regard to this.
5 The subject site does not meet the criteria
6 for designation as a node as the subject site is
7 not suitable for medium to high int- --
8 densities and intensities of development as set
9 forth in the definition of a node.
10 The proposed site has a low-density
11 residential FLUE and is inappropriate for such
12 designation as the site is surrounded by eight
13 residential, low-density, single-family homes.
14 I ask you to please deny this application.
15 Thank you.
16 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, sir.
17 Melanie McCoy, followed by Stephanie
19 (Audience member approaches the podium.)
20 AUDIENCE MEMBER: Good evening.
21 My name is Melanie McCoy. I live at 10908
23 I'm going to be talking to you tonight
24 about the Wonderwood study and some points
25 specifically in it related to -- to this and my
1 recommendation to deny the application.
2 When you read through the Wonderwood study,
3 the main theme and intent is that this is a
4 transportation corridor and not a commercial
5 corridor. The study consistently discourages
6 any upzoning or secondary land use development
7 that has an increase in densities and
8 intensities as this would negatively impact the
9 residential character of the corridor.
10 The study states that the overall purpose
11 is to develop sound growth management strategies
12 to preserve the quality of life of the many
13 people who now and may some day live along this
14 corridor and makes the following
16 On page 9 of the Wonderwood study, it
17 specifically notes that it is recognized that
18 there will be pressure to change land use and
19 zoning designations once additional traffic
20 begins to travel over the connector -- over a
21 completed connector. However, as long as the
22 connector fulfills its transportation function
23 of expeditiously and safely [sic] for those
24 passing through the area. It does not need to
25 be a part of their discretionary shopping needs.
1 On page 10, the study also warns that the
2 Wonderwood Connector corridor would ideally be
3 served by about 600 acres of commercial use
4 given that almost 700 acres of built and unbuilt
5 commercial land exists. This area has a
6 potential to become overserved by commercial
7 acreage without experiencing any changes to
8 existing land use designations.
9 On page 15, under Buck Park, the study
10 discusses the proposed JTA pond site, Buck Park,
11 and the
12 notes that the plans to renovate and upgrade
13 Buck Park will make this an area with a unique
14 mix of compatible land uses and a tranquil
16 If you refer to page 15, map 9, related to
17 their current Gate station site, the
18 intersection of
19 Roads, the site remaining after realignment is
20 now zoned neighborhood commercial and in a
21 commercial and neighborhood land use category
22 and should be redeveloped consistent with those
24 On the top of page 15 of the Wonderwood
25 study, it specifically notes, no modification in
1 zoning district is recommended along McCormick
2 Road, between Moment and
3 which is where application 2010-212 property is
5 On page 16, the conclusion notes, to ensure
6 that this significant improvement to the
7 transportation system of
8 negatively impact on the residential
9 neighborhoods it passes through, this may be
10 accomplished by approaching road construction
11 with a vision for the community so that the
12 community vision dictates the future of the
13 surrounding neighborhoods rather than the road.
14 I recommend denial of this application.
15 Thank you for your time this evening.
16 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, ma'am.
17 Stephanie Danley, followed by Dianne Wiles.
18 (Audience member approaches the podium.)
19 AUDIENCE MEMBER: Good evening.
20 My name is Stephanie Danley. I live at
22 this property.
23 I have lived in this neighborhood since my
24 parents moved there back in the '70s, so I'm
25 probably one of the older residents, believe it
1 or not, in this neighborhood.
2 I've watched the area grow. I've watched
3 the intersection that exists, that was the old
5 where every day there was an accident. It may
6 have been a little one, it may have been a
7 fender-bender, but there was an accident every
8 day at the preexisting, preWonderwood corridor
10 Now -- and I -- and I'll tell you, we
11 fought at the Wonderwood studies, at the
12 phase III meetings where we met with JTA. We
13 did not like the whole idea of them cutting off
14 our access. We can no longer turn west out of
15 our neighborhood. In fact, most of the people
16 that live along the roadway are forced to make
17 U-turns to get around through the roadway. It's
18 part of life, of living on this section of
20 Everybody U-turns. We've gotten used to
21 it, we look for it, we watch out for it. Making
22 a U-turn at this intersection is not unusual; it
23 happens every day, it happens hundreds of times
24 every day. It's a very safe intersection now.
25 Access into the Gate station in the
1 existing triangle land is no different than it
2 was before, except now it's a protected turn
3 in. In the old intersection, cars had to cross
4 over two lanes of traffic, and there were
5 accidents that happened all the time going into
6 the Gate station because traffic would back up
7 and there would be fender-benders. It's safer
8 now. Cars are protected turning in. They don't
9 have to cross traffic. They -- everybody makes
10 U-turns through there.
11 When we went through the JTA studies and
12 the Wonderwood, we asked them about this
13 intersection; is this intersection going to be
14 safe? And the JTA assured us, yes, this is
15 going to be a safe intersection, even with Gate
16 in this location. And I find it very, very hard
17 to believe that Gate would knowingly build,
18 design, and create an intersection that would
19 open themselves up to a class-action lawsuit if
20 it's proved after the fact that it's an unsafe
21 intersection, especially since they told all of
22 us it was safe at all the meetings.
23 It simply is not a danger issue. It simply
24 is them wanting to move into our backyards. And
25 it is my backyard. And I'll be honest with you,
1 I live in the woods and I want to stay living in
2 the woods. That's why I've lived there for
3 40 years. And I really ask you, please do
4 not -- do not vote for this, please oppose this,
5 for our safety, for our neighborhood, for our
7 We appreciate it. Thank you.
8 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, ma'am.
9 Dianne Wiles, followed by Richard Pierce.
10 And I believe he's our last speaker unless
11 I have some more cards waiting on me.
12 (Audience member approaches the podium.)
13 AUDIENCE MEMBER: Good afternoon.
14 Dianne Wiles, 10663 Hemming Road,
16 Civic Council vice president, and I also
17 represent the Holly Oaks Swim Club on that
19 I'm really shocked that I'm here again. I
20 think all of you, except for maybe one of you,
21 were on this council when 2008-857 came before
22 you. It came through as a text amendment
23 change, a land use change. I can't understand
24 why we're here as a PUD, basically CGC zoning
25 going into low-density residential, but here we
2 I'm opposed to this property.
3 I do use the Holly Oaks Swim Club. My
4 family is a member of that. It is very close to
5 this adjacent property.
6 JTA constructs ponds and then, what I
7 thought, turned them over to FDOT to maintain.
8 I'm not sure why JTA is here today to rezone
9 property, why they reconstructed this pond just
10 for Gate. I didn't know they were in the
11 business of owning land.
12 I passed out -- and I do not have any time
13 to go over it. I passed this around
14 (indicating). This is the actual right-of-way
15 acquisition settlement. I implore you to please
16 read this. This states why JTA and Gate is
17 doing this and the little bit of the history of
18 why they are doing it.
19 If you read the -- if nothing else, the
20 fiscal impact of why both sides win on this and
21 then the neighborhood loses out. We're talking
22 to the tune of -- what it said back in 2007,
23 $1.7 million in mitigation money, but it's laid
24 out there.
25 I wasn't really prepared to speak today, so
1 I'm a little -- jumping all over the place, but
2 this is not a good idea.
3 Since you all -- most of you claimed
4 ex-parte and opened your doors to the applicant,
5 I would ask you to open your doors to the
6 neighborhood as well before City Council and get
7 the true story behind this. And it's very hard
8 to talk about all this in three minutes and get
9 your point across, especially with the nerves
10 and everything. So if somebody calls you and
11 asks you to speak to them or 15 minutes of your
12 time, I'd ask you to open your doors to them as
13 you did with the applicants.
14 Again, just read over this (indicating). I
15 really don't have much more to say -- oh, and
16 with the trip generations -- they were talking
17 about the safety and the traffic, back then we
18 did a study. It's going to increase the traffic
19 by 300 percent at that intersection, so I don't
20 really think that's a great idea, but -- thank
21 you for your time.
22 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you.
23 Ma'am, if you could hold on just a second,
24 Mr. Davis has a question for you.
25 MS. WILES: Yes, sir.
1 MR. DAVIS: Yes. I just wanted to let you
2 know that I'm more than welcome to have anybody
3 from the community come by and see me at my
5 MS. WILES: I appreciate that.
6 MR. DAVIS: You can get that number on the
7 COJ website.
8 MS. WILES: We know how to find you.
9 MR. DAVIS: You can find it and just come
10 by and see me. I'm more than happy to have
11 people come by --
12 MS. WILES: Thank you. I do appreciate
14 I won't point out names, but there was a
15 councilman that said this was a quasi-judicial
16 and that they couldn't speak to anybody about
17 it. And my understanding -- if somebody can
18 answer the question -- if it's quasi-judicial,
19 can you talk to us? You just have to claim
21 MR. DAVIS: Mr. Reingold.
22 MR. REINGOLD: You can meet with an
23 applicant or an agent or a neighborhood person
24 as long as you declare the ex-parte
25 communication, when it happened, what did you
1 guys talk about, and who you met with --
2 MR. DAVIS: So, yeah, there's no problem
3 with her coming by or somebody coming by and --
4 MR. REINGOLD: As long as it was disclosed
5 at the City Council meeting who you met with,
6 what you spoke about, and when you met.
7 MR. DAVIS: Okay.
8 MS. WILES: Thank you.
9 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, ma'am.
10 The final speaker is Richard Pierce. I'm
11 sorry, the final speaker in opposition, and then
12 we're going to give three minutes to the
13 applicant to rebut.
14 (Audience member approaches the podium.)
15 THE CHAIRMAN: Go ahead, sir.
16 AUDIENCE MEMBER: All right. My name is
17 Richard Pierce. I reside at 2752 Safe Shelter
18 Drive West,
19 I'm also here to speak for
20 William Lane, who also live at 10975 Challeux
21 Drive South. They regret that they are unable
22 to attend the meeting tonight; however, they
23 request that you do not construe their absence
24 as a lack of opposition to the proposed
1 We are from
3 stationed at naval -- at the naval station
4 Mayport as a JAG officer. After leaving active
5 duty, we decided to lay roots and make
7 one of the predominant reasons for doing so was
8 because we loved our home and neighborhood.
9 We were looking for a place to buy. We
10 fell in love with our neighborhood because it
11 was so different from the cookie-cutter
12 developments we had seen. Our neighborhood was
13 tranquil and beautiful, filled with trees,
14 almost like a park. However, after we moved in
15 many things changed. Most of the trees right
16 behind our backyard that hid the view of the
17 noises and the street were pulled by the JTA.
18 We were also told that JTA had mistakenly pulled
19 too many trees and we heard for months the
20 constant banging and digging a hole for their
21 retention pond as well as huge fires burning the
22 pulled trees significantly affecting the quality
23 of life.
24 We absolute [sic] oppose the requested
25 rezoning of a -- placing a 16-fueling-position
1 gas station. This gas station will be in direct
2 view of our home and our backyard. It would
3 completely change and would be inconsistent with
4 the character of this beautiful neighborhood.
5 We also have purchased -- we also purchased
6 our home -- if we could see a gas station
7 directly from the -- from the house and
9 The gas station will also increase traffic
10 coming in and out of the station on the street,
11 which is where I often walk with my son from my
12 house to go to the new, beautiful Buck Park. It
13 is our understanding that this gas station will
14 be open until late in the evening and will serve
15 alcohol. If this is the case, there is an
16 additional safety concerns [sic] relating to the
17 people loitering in the retention pond area,
18 which is literally about ten steps from our
19 backyard with no fence.
20 Furthermore, this subject of rezoning
21 change will set a precedence and will set for
22 commercial development of 30 residential
23 properties and eight nodes on Wonderwood
24 corridor. We are not objecting to the station
25 being rebuilt into the triangle.
1 I also have a personal incident from a
2 classmate of mine back when I -- I attended
3 Duncan U. Fletcher High School. He was stabbed
4 multiple times at the gas station before it had
5 closed for the evening. He had walked up there
6 with his girlfriend at the time and some
7 loitering, men had actually started to shout
8 vulgar things to his girlfriend, and he
9 actually -- he began to argue with them and it
10 turned physical and he was actually stabbed
11 multiple times there.
12 That's all I have.
13 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you.
14 MR. PIERCE: Thank you.
15 THE CHAIRMAN: All right. Mr. Hainline.
16 MR. REINGOLD: Mr. Chair.
17 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Reingold.
18 MR. REINGOLD: Just before we get to the
19 rebuttal, I just wanted to -- I think -- make it
20 known, I believe I handed out -- or at least
21 provided copies of -- to Mr. Hainline, or
22 Merriane did, of all the documents that were
23 submitted into the record, and it's my
24 understanding that Mr. Hainline had also
25 submitted a copy of your packet to, I believe,
1 one of the -- or one of the proponents.
2 I just wanted to make sure all the
3 different sides had copies of all the different
5 (Mr. Hainline approaches the podium.)
6 THE CHAIRMAN: Excellent.
7 Go ahead, sir.
8 MR. HAINLINE: Mr. Chairman, the opponents
9 in total had a much longer time. I'm going to
10 try and make it in three, but it may be more
11 like four or five, but I'll do my best in
13 When people are sincerely concerned about
14 something and they speak very sincerely, it is
15 moving, and we -- these folks have been
16 courteous to us. We hope we've been courteous
17 to them. And I know that it is -- that they
18 very strongly and sincerely feel the things that
19 they are saying.
20 I must point out, though, that this is a
21 quasi-judicial proceeding and that your job is
22 to base your decision on the evidence which is
23 before you, competent and substantial evidence.
24 There were some things that were said very
25 sincerely and strongly, but which were simply
1 not at all true. One statement that was made
2 was that this station would result in a
3 300 percent increase in traffic at the
4 intersection. That is absolutely not true.
5 As the evidence -- the traffic study that
6 we presented to you, and the Planning Department
7 has reviewed, shows about a two percent increase
8 in traffic at the -- or, rather, that this
9 station will contribute about two percent of the
10 traffic at this intersection.
11 Twenty thousand cars go through there a
12 day. Our contribution to that or -- of the new
13 station would be 616 cars once you net out the
14 existing station and the other things that are
15 allowed in any competent traffic study.
16 So folks say things sincerely, but that
17 doesn't mean that they are fact, and I ask that
18 you understand that.
19 Several said that this will back up against
20 their house. I understand that when people
21 perceive a large JTA pond, a seven-acre site,
22 they view that entire seven-acre site as backing
23 up against their house. But if look at tab 4 in
24 your book, you will see that the distances we
25 are talking about in the context of other PUDs
1 and commercial PUDs that you've seen, the
2 distances we're talking about in most of those
3 instances across the pond, there's about 310 to
4 350 feet of distance between the back of the
5 station and those homes.
6 So please listen to the evidence that is
7 presented in your Planning Department report and
8 what you have heard.
9 I want to talk for a moment about the
10 comprehensive plan and the Wonderwood Corridor
11 Study. This council relies on two entities to
12 provide it with professional advice as to the
13 comprehensive plan, and here, as -- also as to
14 the Wonderwood Corridor Study. Those two bodies
15 are the Planning Department and the Planning
17 The Planning Department tells you in its
18 report that we are consistent with the
19 comprehensive plan and that we are consistent
20 with the concepts in the Wonderwood Corridor
21 Study. There was much discussion of that at the
22 Planning Commission meeting and there is much
23 discussion of that in your Planning Department
25 There actually is only one entity that,
1 under law, has the authority to make opinions on
2 what is consistent with the comprehensive plan
3 and what is consistent with the Wonderwood
4 Corridor Study, and that is the Planning
5 Department and the planning director. They have
6 all told you, after careful study, that we are
7 consistent with the comprehensive plan and we
8 are consistent with the Wonderwood Corridor
10 Be happy to answer any specific questions
11 on those issues.
12 Two more brief points, Mr. Chairman.
13 I do want to point out that the new site,
14 that -- the proposed retail square footage at
15 the new site is 4,900 square feet. At the old
16 site the total is 6,800 square feet. So there
17 is a decrease in the total retail square footage
18 moving from the old site, which will be
19 demolished and donated to the City, to the new
20 site. As the Planning staff testified at the
21 Planning Commission, that the decrease in the
22 retail serves as an offset to the increase in
23 the number of pumps. So that's the offset,
24 decrease in retail square footage -- yes, there
25 is an increase in the pumps, but, again, it
1 presents no traffic capacity issues for that
3 The final thing that I will say is there's
4 been a lot of talk about the safety -- traffic
5 safety and pedestrian safety, old site versus
6 new site. I want to start with the new site.
7 The new site, when it comes to vehicles, is
8 right at the intersection. It will be a
9 fully-signalized intersection with the access
10 point -- the entrance right into the
11 intersection. When the light turns green, the
12 cars will go. When the light turns red, they'll
14 The difference between that and the
15 existing site is that the existing site, the
16 accesses are not far enough from the
17 intersection, but they're not at the
18 intersection. And what your Planning Department
19 has said -- and I want to read from your staff's
20 planning report, "The accesses at the existing
21 site result in the creation of driveway
22 conflicts and poses serious safety concerns for
23 access." Serious safety concerns at the
24 existing site solved by the direct access at the
25 new site.
1 Pedestrian is the last thing -- pedestrian
2 safety. At the new site, there's the full
3 pedestrian crosswalk with the little signals,
4 with the countdowns that say, now you can walk.
5 When somebody is walking down that sidewalk,
6 they'll be right at the signal, they'll see the
7 little pedestrian countdown crosswalk signal
8 that tells them when they can walk and not walk,
9 and they will be at a signal. The cars coming
10 and going will look up at a green and red light
11 and decide they'll go at the green and stop at
12 the red.
13 At the old station, the existing station
14 site, no pedestrian crosswalk signals, no
15 signalization, and the accesses are too close to
16 the intersection, so there's all these traffic
17 conflicts that create the safety problems the
18 Planning Department was talking about.
19 We ask that you please look at the
20 evidence, the report of your Planning
21 Department, the report of the Planning
22 Commission after they spent four hours listening
23 to it, and approved this PUD.
24 Thank you very much.
25 THE CHAIRMAN: Anybody have any questions?
1 COMMITTEE MEMBERS: (No response.)
2 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Hainline, I have a
3 question for you.
4 MR. HAINLINE: Yes, sir.
5 THE CHAIRMAN: I'm looking at one of these
6 traffic scale images. To the -- I don't know
7 what direction that is, but to the left of the
8 driveway entering into the proposed site,
9 there's a double line that goes around, close to
10 the homes at Challeux, what is that double
12 MR. HAINLINE: Thank you for asking that
14 That -- in order to show these dimensions,
15 Mr. Wilson used a previous drawing. That double
16 line was something that was proposed in a
17 previous iteration of this. Some folks had
18 asked that there be a sidewalk that runs around
19 the back of the station. Since then --
20 THE CHAIRMAN: It's been eliminated?
21 MR. HAINLINE: -- the consensus was, please
22 eliminate that sidewalk. It could be a haven
23 for --
24 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay.
25 MR. HAINLINE: -- things, so it's been
Diane M. Tropia,
2 Thank you.
3 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you.
4 Hold on just a second. I believe we have
5 council members that have questions.
6 Mr. Crescimbeni first and then we'll go to
7 Mr. Bishop and --
8 MR. CRESCIMBENI: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
9 Just a quick question for Mr. Hainline.
10 Mr. Hainline, backing up to your square
11 footage comments --
12 MR. HAINLINE: Yes, sir.
13 MR. CRESCIMBENI: -- what's the total
14 square footage of the new facility?
15 MR. HAINLINE: It's about 4,900 square
17 (Simultaneous speaking.)
18 MR. CRESCIMBENI: (Inaudible.)
19 MR. HAINLINE: Say again?
20 MR. CRESCIMBENI: The proposed facility is
21 what, about 4,900 --
22 (Simultaneous speaking.)
23 MR. HAINLINE: About 4,900 square feet.
24 MR. CRESCIMBENI: And that just includes --
25 is that just the footprint of the convenience
1 store or do you measure any of the --
2 MR. HAINLINE: It's enclosed -- both
3 measurements are enclosed -- we're apples to
4 apples. Both measurements are enclosed square
5 footage. So the new station, enclosed square
6 footage, about 4,900. At the existing site, the
7 station plus the small strip center there, which
8 both would be closed, is a total of, enclosed,
9 6,800 square feet, 6,795.
10 MR. CRESCIMBENI: Well, you're getting to
11 my next questions, then, because I wanted to
12 make sure that we weren't talking about station
13 to station, so -- actually, the 6,800 square
14 feet is the total shopping center, correct?
15 MR. HAINLINE: Which will be closed, yes,
17 MR. CRESCIMBENI: And what's the footprint
18 of the -- or what's the square footage of the
19 station portion at the current --
20 MR. HAINLINE: The station portion of that
21 is about -- is about -- is 2,640.
22 MR. CRESCIMBENI: So the station is
23 increasing from -- the station itself would be
24 increasing from 2,640 to 4,900; is that a fact?
25 I mean --
1 MR. HAINLINE: That is -- of the
2 convenience store itself, yes, sir. The total
3 retail square footage from the old site to the
4 new is reduced by the amount that I said.
5 MR. CRESCIMBENI: But the old location has
6 2,640, new location is 4,900?
7 MR. HAINLINE: Of the gas
8 station/convenience store, yes. But the old
9 retail space at the old center is also being
10 closed and torn down when -- if and when the new
11 station opens.
12 MR. CRESCIMBENI: Okay. Thank you, sir.
13 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Bishop.
14 MR. BISHOP: Okay, Mr. Chairman.
15 Mr. Hainline, just a quick question. You
16 made a very definitive statement earlier about
17 the Planning Department being the only legal
18 authority to interpret the comprehensive plan
19 and, therefore, their recommendations as such
20 should carry tremendous weight. Could you
21 elaborate on that a little bit? I guess from
22 that, I would infer that you're saying that we
23 have to follow their direction and we don't have
24 any choice; is that --
25 MR. HAINLINE: No, sir.
1 MR. BISHOP: -- a fair statement?
2 MR. HAINLINE: No, sir. I am absolutely
3 not saying that --
4 MR. BISHOP: Thank you.
5 MR. HAINLINE: -- but I am saying that the
6 law, your comprehensive plan, says there's one
7 entity that can interpret the comprehensive
8 plan, which is the Planning Department and the
9 planning director. And if you look at the
10 Wonderwood Corridor Study ordinance, it says
11 there's one entity that can interpret that,
12 which is the Planning Department, planning
14 MR. BISHOP: Have you ever opposed a
15 Planning Department decision?
16 MR. HAINLINE: Have I ever what?
17 MR. BISHOP: Opposed a Planning Department
19 MR. HAINLINE: Yes, absolutely.
20 MR. BISHOP: So that would lead me to think
21 that maybe they don't necessarily have the last
22 word on the thing.
23 MR. HAINLINE: I don't think that I've
24 ever -- your question to me was if I ever
25 opposed one of their positions. Yes. Have I
1 ever opposed one of their interpretations of the
2 comprehensive plan or the Wonderwood Corridor
3 Study? I can't think --
4 MR. BISHOP: I didn't ask that question. I
5 asked if you had ever opposed their decision in
6 a sense -- I'm assuming, then, that you would
7 think they would be incorrect?
8 MR. HAINLINE: On a matter where their view
9 is at the same level as everybody else's, sure.
10 On matters where they have the authority to
11 interpret something, I can't think of a time
12 when I have disagreed with that.
13 When they are given the authority by the
14 code to interpret something and be the
15 interpreter, I usually try and make sure I'm in
16 agreement with them.
17 MR. BISHOP: So you've never been on the
18 losing side of the Planning Department's
19 decision or contrary to their opinion on any of
20 the people that you've represented?
21 MR. HAINLINE: I'm not quite -- I mean, I
22 wish I could understand what you're trying to
23 get me to say.
24 I mean, certainly I have disagreed with the
25 Planning Department's views from time to time.
1 I can't cite to you an instance where I have
2 disagreed with their authorized interpretation
3 of the comprehensive plan or a study such as the
4 Wonderwood Corridor Study --
5 MR. BISHOP: Let me -- let me simplify.
6 Have you ever advocated that a decision of
7 the Planning Department not be followed by LUZ?
8 MR. HAINLINE: It's been at least 15 years
9 since I've done that, but I'm sure somebody
10 could find one somewhere back 15 years ago,
11 but --
12 MR. BISHOP: Thank you very much.
13 MR. HAINLINE: -- since the Planning
14 Department has started doing the kind of
15 analyses they've been doing for some years, no.
16 I make it -- I make it a point to try and be on
17 the same side.
18 THE CHAIRMAN: Is that it, Mr. Bishop?
19 MR. BISHOP: Yes.
20 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Brown.
21 MR. BROWN: Yes. Through the Chair to
22 Mr. Hainline, if you could briefly elaborate on
23 the rezoning efforts that would take place with
24 the current properties if we move forward in
25 approving this particular location. I know that
1 you mentioned that it would be some form of
3 MR. HAINLINE: Yes.
4 MR. BROWN: So are we looking at, of
5 course, tearing the building down and then
6 placing trees out there?
7 If you could just -- because I do know that
8 oftentimes if we don't follow through, we leave
9 these blighted buildings there. You know, I
10 know we can't afford to have two service
11 stations in the area, so I do have a concern.
12 That's just one of my concerns and then
13 I'll ask you a few other questions.
14 MR. HAINLINE: Yes, sir.
15 If you look at our application -- and I
16 could go back and get a copy and cite the
17 specific paragraph, but we wrote into our
18 application that when -- I think it says when a
19 certificate of occupancy is issued for the
20 station at its new site that the owners of the
21 existing site will demolish all the structures
22 on there, will provide the necessary assurances
23 to the City that the site is clean
24 environmentally, and will prepare the site as a
25 greenspace site.
1 And following those things, demolition,
2 ensuring to the City that it's environmentally
3 clean, making it a greenscape site, they will --
4 the owners of that existing site will donate it
5 to the City and will consent to that property
6 being placed in the conservation, CSV, land use
7 category. So it will be donated to the City as
8 greenspace, park, open space, whatever you call
9 it. That was something that had been worked out
10 a year or two ago, and we're sticking with that
11 commitment. We view that as being binding on
13 MR. BROWN: Okay. Great.
14 My second question is that if we're not --
15 if you're not successful today, what will happen
16 with the current property? Will you continue to
17 keep it open and operate it at its present
18 condition? Would there be future plans to close
19 that particular location?
20 MR. HAINLINE: The station is closed now.
21 MR. BROWN: Okay. I got you.
22 MR. HAINLINE: If -- Ken and I have talked
23 about this. If you look around the city as to
24 what has happened to older gas
25 station/convenience store sites when the gas
1 station company goes away, they usually become
2 like convenience stores with an emphasis on --
3 Gate would almost certainly sell the property.
4 They usually become convenience stores with an
5 emphasis on beer and cigarettes and lottery
6 tickets and that --
7 MR. BROWN: And, colleagues, I can share
8 with you what happens when companies like Gate,
9 BP leave the community. And it's not a
10 beautiful site, what happens with those
11 locations, I could tell you that. The dollars
12 are not spent well and folks come in and buy
13 those places and revolve back in the community.
14 I think that would definitely create a sore spot
15 in the community, if you sell that and a local
16 person come in and turn it to a convenience
17 store. It's just not a beautiful site, and so I
18 will definitely caution this community about
19 allowing that to take place.
20 My last concern is regarding the safety of
21 the children. And you gave a very clear picture
22 that there will be a crosswalk directly in front
23 of the store, and I just want to make sure that
24 we're on point.
25 And I also wanted to ask, currently have
1 there been any accidents with children there to
2 make this a real concern? Because I -- even
3 with the old location, do we have any
4 information regarding accidents with pedestrians
5 in that area currently that you know of?
6 MR. HAINLINE: Well, I think there were two
7 questions there. Let me try and answer them
9 The last piece of paper, under tab 2, it
10 says Gate Gas Station, and it's this colored
11 rendering of what the pedestrian crosswalk will
12 look like. That's the closed pedestrian
13 crosswalk at the new station, and the important
14 thing to see there is not only the crosswalk
15 stamping on the street, but the signals --
16 you'll see there, there's a point to a
17 pedestrian signal head, and that -- that's,
18 again, where the pedestrians, as they walk up to
19 the entrance, there will be one of those little
20 countdown things with the little person walking
21 on it and you can see when you're supposed to
22 walk and when you're not supposed to walk.
23 That's at the new station. There's nothing like
24 that at the existing site.
25 I can't cite -- I cannot cite to you any
1 accident information either before or after the
2 Gate station at the existing site closed down.
3 Maybe Mr. Wilson -- I don't know, Ken, do you
4 have anything like that?
5 MR. WILSON: I'm not aware of any.
6 MR. HAINLINE: Okay. The only thing we
7 have is the opinions of your planning staff and
8 of our traffic engineer as to the -- as to the
9 safety conditions there.
10 MR. BROWN: No further questions.
11 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. Anyone else have any
12 questions for Mr. Hainline in the public
14 Mr. Crescimbeni.
15 MR. CRESCIMBENI: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
16 One other question about the shopping
17 center, through the Chair to Mr. Hainline.
18 Mr. Hainline, who owns the currently-closed
20 MR. HAINLINE: Gate owns the
21 currently-closed station.
22 MR. CRESCIMBENI: Who owns the
23 currently-closed contiguous properties next door
24 to the station --
25 MR. HAINLINE:
2 MR. CRESCIMBENI: Okay. And can you just
3 explain a little bit to me about how you're
4 getting credit for a reduction of somebody
5 else's property? Explain that a little bit more
6 for me.
7 MR. HAINLINE: I will attempt to.
8 I am here as the agent -- authorized agent
9 for the
10 One of the application documents is an
11 authorization letter there. I'm also here,
12 obviously, as the representative of Gate
13 Petroleum. So I'm representing both entities.
14 Both entities have agreed with each other
15 and in discussions I've had with them -- and in
16 this zoning application -- I mean, it's in the
17 zoning application that if this is approved and
18 the Gate station relocates, that every enclosed
19 square footage on Gate and JTA will be
20 demolished. So both Gate and JTA are bound by
21 that demolition condition, and so it's not so
22 much -- I mean, I guess I don't look at it as
23 Gate getting credit for something. What I look
24 at is a before and after situation, and the
25 before is the -- whatever the numbers were I
1 gave to you, the 60-some-odd-hundred versus
2 after the 4,900.
3 So that -- that's how I would explain it to
5 MR. CRESCIMBENI: And, I guess, just
6 through the Chair to legal, Mr. Reingold, that's
7 permissible, that -- as long as he's
8 representing both landowners, that in one
9 location they can use the credit towards a
10 second location providing he represents the new
11 landowner as well, which in this case happens to
12 be the same --
13 MR. REINGOLD: Well, they have put in their
14 application that they -- that that other piece
15 of property would be -- within 60 days of a
16 certificate of occupancy, they would seek to
17 move it to CSV. If that did not happen, then
18 they would be in violation of their PUD, and
19 thus it would be an enforcement matter of their
21 MR. CRESCIMBENI: Well, I guess the
22 question was -- I just want you to verify -- not
23 that I distrust Mr. Hainline, but -- he has the
24 ability to garner credits from the Planning
25 Department because he represents both property
1 owners, right? I think that's what I heard him
3 MR. HAINLINE: No.
4 MR. REINGOLD: I guess I -- what do you
5 mean by the word "credits," sir? I guess that's
6 where I'm getting stuck.
7 MR. CRESCIMBENI: Well, he talked about
8 earlier that he was reducing the footprint from
9 6,800 to 4,900 and there was some consideration
10 or some benefit achieved by that reduction. I
11 just want to legally clarify that he has the
12 ability to do that because he represents both
13 property owners? I mean, I'm just -- I just
14 want to make sure that's --
15 MR. HAINLINE: May I attempt to clarify?
16 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Crescimbeni, would you
17 like to --
18 MR. CRESCIMBENI: It's up to the Chair.
19 THE CHAIRMAN: Go ahead, sir.
20 MR. HAINLINE: Gate doesn't need any,
21 quote, credits. It hasn't asked for any, quote,
22 credits. It isn't getting any credits.
23 The comparison that I was making was a
24 before and after picture of the rezoning.
25 MR. CRESCIMBENI: Okay. Maybe I
1 misunderstood. I thought I heard you say that
2 there was some benefit you achieved from the
3 Planning Department towards an approval because
4 of the reduction in square footage. Did I
6 MR. HAINLINE: What I said was -- is that
7 at the Planning Commission meeting, when the
8 question was raised about an increase in the
9 number of pumps and the traffic caused by that
10 or the -- whatever, and the decrease in the
11 retail, is that -- how does that relate to each
12 other and -- how do those relate to each other,
13 and the planning staff's comment was that at
14 least in part it is an offset.
15 Now, there was nothing mathematical about
16 it. There -- we, again -- we don't --
17 MR. CRESCIMBENI: Okay. And that's what I
18 understood you to say. I guess my question --
19 and maybe I'm not asking it correctly, but I
20 just -- my question was -- I just want to make
21 sure that -- in order to get that offset, that
22 you have the legal ability to do so --
23 (Simultaneous speaking.)
24 MR. CRESCIMBENI: -- and I'm asking --
25 trying to ask Mr. Reingold -- I'm guessing you
Diane M. Tropia,
1 have that legal ability because you represent
2 both --
3 MR. HAINLINE: I'm --
4 (Simultaneous speaking.)
5 MR. HAINLINE: There's an agent
6 authorization. I'm here to -- with the ability
7 to bind the JTA, and I certainly have the
8 ability to bind Gate Petroleum, and those are
9 the applicants here in this rezoning --
10 MR. CRESCIMBENI: Well --
11 MR. HAINLINE: -- and the owners of that
13 MR. CRESCIMBENI: If he can't answer it
14 tonight, I'll get with him and maybe he can
15 answer it down the road.
16 Thank you.
17 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Crescimbeni, if I could
18 take a stab at this.
19 I'm guessing that what you're asking is, if
20 the square footage amounts somehow fed into the
21 traffic counts, because they're saying that --
22 Mr. Hainline was giving traffic numbers saying
23 that the number of trips on the new would only
24 be two percent more than the last; is that -- is
25 that what you're getting at? Did the Planning
1 Department take into consideration square
2 footages and traffic counts; is that where
3 you're going?
4 MR. CRESCIMBENI: Well, somebody must have
5 taken that into consideration because of the
6 word "offset" and -- I mean, it sounded like
7 somebody along the line --
8 THE CHAIRMAN: Because I'd be --
9 MR. CRESCIMBENI: -- agreed to the fact
10 that the increase -- or the decrease in the
11 retail square footage kind of offset the
12 increase in the number of pumps, and that's
13 fine. I just want to make sure that, when
14 you're considering that, that it's all legal
15 because we have different property owners.
16 I mean, I think Mr. Hainline said that he
17 had 2,640 square feet that he was tearing down,
18 but somebody else had the difference of 6,800
19 and 2,640, so that would be 4,160 square feet,
20 and I just want to make sure that it's -- that
21 his representation of both owners makes that
22 possible just for the record.
23 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. Thank you, sir.
24 Mr. Reingold.
25 MR. REINGOLD: I've got in the file an
1 agent authorization letter signed by Michael
2 Blalock, the executive director of JTA,
3 authorizing Mr. Hainline to represent JTA in
4 this matter. And, obviously, we've got Ken
6 think all the entities have authorized
7 Mr. Hainline to sort of represent them in this
8 application. I just want to make that clear.
9 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. Well, if there's no
10 further questions of any speakers, I will close
11 the public hearing and we can go on about
13 I'll close the public hearing.
14 Mr. Brown.
15 MR. BROWN: Yes. Through the Chair to
16 Planning, what I would like to have happen, if
17 you could, just cite some of the examples of the
18 current zoning possibilities in the event the
19 building is sold. What are some of the
20 possibilities that could be used at this
21 particular site as it stands right now?
22 Just a few of the sites because I -- I
23 really think that we do not look at things like
24 this when we are making decisions of moving
25 locations and leaving buildings in its current
1 posture, and so I -- I would like just a few
2 examples, and then I'll finish with my -- I'll
3 follow up with my concerns with this.
4 Go ahead.
5 MR. KELLY: Certainly.
6 Through the Chair to Councilman Brown, the
7 triangle site, as it is zoned right now, is
8 zoned commercial neighborhood. It allows for
9 medical offices, clinics, dental offices,
10 professional business offices. It also allows
11 for multifamily development which would be
12 integrated with a commercial neighborhood use on
13 the ground floor. It allows for retail sales
14 and service establishments in one structure up
15 to 40,000 square feet, service establishments,
16 restaurants, banks, libraries, museums, retail
17 sale of beer and wine in sealed containers for
18 off-premises consumption by right, employment
19 offices, essential services, churches.
20 Some of the uses by exception, you're
21 looking at, again, the retail sale of beer and
22 wine, retail sale and service of all alcoholic
23 beverages, you have outside sale and service in
24 conjunction with a restaurant. Drive-through
25 facilities would be permitted through the
1 exception process. In addition, car washes and
2 animal boarding areas as well and day care
4 MR. BROWN: Thank you, sir.
5 And if and when it's zoned CSV, that would
6 be its only use at that time, correct?
7 MR. KELLY: That's correct. Conservation
8 is very restricted.
9 MR. BROWN: Okay. My point that I'm trying
10 to make, and I really need my colleagues and
11 even the neighbors -- I can tell you what
12 happened with buildings like this. You know,
13 and I admire folks coming, and -- but I
14 really -- and I was going to ask the question
15 earlier about the number of meetings that y'all
16 have had with the petitioner here tonight.
17 I fight constantly with buildings like the
18 one that you have in your community right now,
19 and so I would definitely ask that you be very
20 cognizant of the fact that you may get worse.
21 And when I look at this design and just think
22 about what could be, you know, I -- I just send
23 out warnings to everyone because something zoned
24 CSV is definitely better than leaving it out
25 there in commercial neighborhood. You may not
1 want a car wash at that area, but I can tell you
2 that there's a possibility that one day a car
3 wash will come.
4 Thank you.
5 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Bishop.
6 MR. BISHOP: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
7 We've heard a lot of stuff here tonight
8 from both sides, a lot of good information. At
9 the end of it, although, what I -- what comes
10 back to my mind is a paraphrase of something
11 that Yogi Berra said, something about deja vu
12 all over again.
13 I don't know that even -- after hearing all
14 of this again, I don't know that I've heard
15 anything different than we heard a year ago.
16 And it's -- and by looking at all the
17 information that's been submitted by the
18 applicant and the neighbors, it's the same thing
19 that this council defeated resoundingly a year
20 ago, and I haven't seen anything new here. To
21 me, it's all the same.
22 Several things have been discussed about
23 safety of pedestrians and traffic movements and
24 why this site is better than the other one. I
25 can tell you, though, from what I see by driving
1 that road, right now there's nothing there.
2 It's a continuous sidewalk and there's no safety
3 concern of people walking from the neighborhood
4 to the Holly Oaks Swim Club or Buck Park. If
5 you put a Gate station in there, now pedestrians
6 will have to cross, according to what it looks
7 like on the site plan, the equivalent of a
8 three-lane road to get from one side to the
9 other. That's how wide that is if you look at
10 the graphic. To me, that's not safer than a
11 contiguous sidewalk at all.
12 We talk about -- we hear from the Planning
13 Department that this site meets the requirement
14 of a node and it is not considered strip
15 commercial for a variety of reasons, and they've
16 elaborated on that and they've written all this
17 stuff out.
18 My 30 years in the business -- I'm an
19 architect and this is what I do for a living.
20 If it walks like a duck and it quacks like a
21 duck, it's a duck, guys. This is spot zoning.
22 It's got it written all over it. You do not
23 have any commercial in that area from the
25 way down to the other side of District 2 park,
1 Ed Austin Park. There's nothing there. You put
2 one in there, that's spot zoning. You can call
3 it whatever you want, but that's what it is.
4 Calling this a node -- the traditional
5 definition of a node is an intersection. This
6 is not an intersection by any classic
7 definition. You can call it that if you want to
8 because it's two arterials coming together, but
9 it's not an intersection. It's a T-bone.
10 We have also heard that Wonderwood is
11 defined as a transportation corridor. That
12 implies that it's continuous. And if you drive
13 that area and you look at how that intersection
14 goes together, it's a very small stub of
18 there because it was defined that way when they
19 redid the intersection. The traffic volumes
20 coming in on that are a fraction of what goes on
21 Wonderwood. So what we have, in effect, is a
22 node by creative definition in my book. That's
23 what I'm seeing when I hear everything that's
24 talked about.
25 So you can define it that way if you choose
1 to, but, in fact, it isn't. And, therefore, I
2 believe it defeats the spirit of what the
3 Wonderwood Corridor Study says, which is no
4 strip commercial and no commercial intrusion on
5 that section of the area. And, therefore, to
6 me, the -- I understand what Mr. Hainline said
7 about the Planning Department being the defining
8 logical authority with respect to
9 interpretation, but I respectfully say in my
10 experience they're wrong.
11 And for those basic reasons, this is --
12 this is just not the right thing to do.
13 And the commercial section in the middle of
14 the park -- or -- well, what's been defined as
15 either a park if it goes through, but the
16 triangle site, there's plenty of land to put a
17 viable commercial site on there. There's a
18 viable commercial business on that site right
19 now, a perfectly good local seafood place that
20 has a lot of business. It's not going anywhere
21 unless they're forced out. So one of the
22 consequences of this particular proposal would
23 be to kick those people out. I would suggest to
24 you that that's not a good idea because that is
25 a perfectly good, viable local business that is
1 supported by the community. So we're going to
2 tell them that they have to go away. I don't
3 think that's the right thing to do either.
4 Basically, I think that pretty much
5 summarizes it. We've heard all of the arguments
6 back and forth, but at the end of the day I
7 haven't heard anything that tells me this is a
8 good idea, and it tells me there's lots of
9 reasons why it's a bad idea.
10 And I guess I'll just close with one last
11 comment. Mr. Robinson made the comment about
12 the aesthetic value of the fake bricks that
13 would go across that driveway. Drive down
15 long, they're already coming out.
16 Thank you.
17 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Bishop.
18 Mr. Jones.
19 MR. JONES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
20 I just had a question for somebody in
21 Planning. If this zoning is approved, would
22 that necessarily mean that at another node down
23 the road, that they could get a commercial
24 zoning? I've heard that, and that -- I would
25 certainly not want to set a precedence whereby
1 we open up that door for additional commercial
2 development on that side of Wonderwood.
3 MR. KELLY: Thank you.
4 Through the Chair to Councilman Jones, the
5 study is very specific in terms of the locations
6 that it calls for areas of commercial
7 concentration. There are three designated
8 intersections along the corridor that are
9 referenced in the study. So anything that's
10 proposed outside of those nodal intersections,
11 those designated -- what they call the "areas of
12 critical concern" in the study would be a spot
13 zoning and would be a strip development, but the
14 study specifically calls, again, for the -- to
15 reevaluate and update the zoning specifically
16 within this segment, this area of commercial
17 concentration, that is
18 McCormick. I'd reference page 15 of that
20 So I guess the idea that, you know, this is
21 going to set a precedent and lead to strip
22 development -- two real reasons why that won't
23 happen. The study itself identifies the three
24 areas of critical concern that are designated
25 commercial areas of concentration. And from a
1 practical standpoint, you've got, for the most
2 part, developed-out residential development
3 along the rest of the corridor. So the fact
4 that -- in order to do something, one, it -- you
5 would be looking at land use changes in
6 combination with rezonings on parcels that
7 aren't suitable in size to support that kind of
8 development in the other areas, outside of these
9 commercial node areas.
10 MR. JONES: Was this location identified as
11 one of those commercial nodes?
12 MR. KELLY: Yes, it was.
13 MR. JONES: The Planning Commission
14 approved the rezoning with certain conditions?
15 MR. KELLY: Yes, that's correct. They've
16 effectively added on the hours of operation --
17 we'll go back over to the memo.
18 MR. JONES: Let me ask this too while
19 you're looking at it. Was there any agreement
20 or understanding that they would be allowed
21 to -- I know that some of this is coming in
22 after the fact because I think this was
23 initiated under the previous council. Was there
24 any type of agreement that they would move
25 across the street once Wonderwood was
2 MR. KELLY: The study was originally done
3 in 2002. And, at that point, it was not known
4 to the extent that the realignment -- and the
5 impacts of that realignment that it would have
6 on that intersection.
7 There was no agreement for it to relocate
8 across the street. The net effect, from our
9 perspective, is that we're not, you know,
10 increasing to the extent -- we're keeping it at
11 the node. We're not expanding it beyond -- it's
12 the realignment that was done basically after
13 the fact, after the study was written in 2002.
14 It didn't foresee the effects of the realignment
15 on the triangular parcel with that in terms of
16 access and future access and means to that
17 triangular piece from an access management
18 standpoint, a safety standpoint.
19 Again, this is a signalized intersection.
20 This is exactly where you want to have your
21 access point.
22 MR. JONES: Could you finish with the
23 other -- the conditions that we talked about on
24 the -- by the Planning Department --
25 MR. KELLY: Certainly.
1 MR. JONES: -- Planning Commission?
2 MR. KELLY: The Planning Commission added
3 no outdoor speakers shall -- basically shall be
4 prohibited, except otherwise required by the
5 fire code. The hours of operation shall be
6 limited from 6 a.m. to 11 p.m., and then no
7 deliveries shall occur before 7 a.m. or after
8 7 p.m. And they modified some of the language
9 that the Department initially had added in terms
10 of the condition for additional screening and
11 buffering which required a masonry wall to the
12 west of the five westerly parking spaces. That
13 was for headlight, potential trespass, but I
14 think -- you know, we're more than satisfied
15 with ultimately the buildout of that security
16 fence with that vegetated screen kind of grown
17 in there and the 50-foot buffer and the
18 preservation of the trees within that buffer, so
19 it -- it just further enhances that.
20 MR. JONES: One last question,
21 Mr. Chairman, and that is, at the current
22 site -- could they build the type of station
23 they're proposing on the current site?
24 MR. KELLY: The -- well, one, it would be
25 conventional zoning, so what they're proposing
1 now with all the buffers and with the lighting
2 and the best practices that are incorporated
3 into this plan would not be required as a matter
4 of right on that site.
5 Could they be able to do it? I'm sure you
6 could engineer -- it's a
7 one-point-something-acre -- 1.3-acre site, I
8 believe. There was some right-of-way takings
9 which, you know, severely had an effect on the
10 potential for redevelopment because it narrowed
11 the width of the lot, which eliminated any kind
12 of access whatsoever to the portion of the
14 if there was access there, you'd end up with,
15 you know, stacking and turn lane queuing
16 basically that would end up out into the middle
17 of the intersections, and so what --
18 Mr. Robinson kind of explained this whole
19 circuitous movements in trying to access the
20 parcel with everything being really a one-way
21 street through here. You have -- you know,
23 westbound, and then the McCormick extension is
24 divided, so you've got a one-way westbound
1 So the amount of traffic movements and
2 crossing and U-turns across three lanes of
3 traffic to get into an entrance to a gas
4 station, I mean, in our view, that's -- that's,
5 you know, creating an unsafe situation.
6 MR. JONES: Thank you. I appreciate it.
7 Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
8 THE CHAIRMAN: Council members, I failed to
9 get us in a proper posture to vote on this
10 bill. We still have an amendment. Can I have
11 somebody make a motion on the amendment?
12 MR. DAVIS: Move the amendment.
13 MR. JOOST: Second.
14 THE CHAIRMAN: I have a motion and a second
15 on the amendment. All in favor of the
16 amendment --
17 MR. DAVIS: (Inaudible.)
18 THE CHAIRMAN: Sure. You want to go over
20 MR. DAVIS: (Inaudible.)
21 THE CHAIRMAN: There's nothing that we
22 haven't heard yet --
23 MR. KELLY: That's correct. It was the
24 conditions initially read into the record
1 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. Everybody okay with
3 COMMITTEE MEMBERS: (Nod heads.)
4 THE CHAIRMAN: All right. All in favor of
5 the amendment signify by saying aye.
6 COMMITTEE MEMBERS: Aye.
7 THE CHAIRMAN: The amendment passes.
8 Need a motion.
9 MR. JOOST: Move the bill as amended.
10 MR. JONES: Second.
11 THE CHAIRMAN: A motion and second on the
12 bill as amended.
13 Anyone else need to speak?
14 COMMITTEE MEMBERS: (No response.)
15 THE CHAIRMAN: All right. I need to ask
16 one question.
17 Mr. Kelly or Mr. Crofts, when were the road
18 changes planned, all the Wonderwood changes?
19 MR. KELLY: Wonderwood probably goes back
20 to the '70s, I think. Ultimately, the -- I can
21 defer to John on that.
22 MR. CROFTS: The corridor itself was
23 planned -- it goes back to the 1990 plan
24 actually. It goes all the way from Fort
25 Caroline all the way in, but this was on the
1 eastern leg of it, but it -- it goes back as
2 part of the planning process back into the --
3 probably to the late '70s.
4 THE CHAIRMAN: The most recent road
5 changes, when were --
6 MR. CROFTS: Well, these road changes -- as
7 we've said, this plan was done -- it was adopted
8 in 2002. The planning took place before then.
9 When this plan actually was taking place, they
10 were actually constructing the eastern part of
11 this thing over the
12 it was going forward, as this road was
13 progressing -- the construction of this road was
14 progressing westward to 9A. That's what was the
15 impetus and the request for this particular work
16 to be done. So it was planned sufficiently
17 before then, probably five years at least before
19 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. But suffice it to say
20 that at the time of planning for that, these
21 plans weren't in anybody's mind. The -- I
22 assume the plans that were made somewhat
23 accommodated or took in consideration that the
24 Gate station and the properties -- was that part
25 of the planning process, to help make traffic
1 flow well for the -- that triangle property?
2 MR. KELLY: The -- what I can say is the
3 exact engineered plans, you know, where
5 exact location of that was not known in 2002. A
6 logical location was between, clearly, the post
7 office and the Gate site. There was woods and
8 some upland areas between them, but the exact
9 design and engineering and the extent of those
10 engineering, those civil plans was not known at
11 the time that the study was done in 2002.
12 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. Thank you.
13 Mr. Bishop.
14 MR. BISHOP: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
15 I'll be brief.
16 Through the Chair to Mr. Kelly, in respect
17 to your discussion about this particular
18 application not setting a precedent and how the
19 Wonderwood study identifies three areas of
20 commercial concern and that the Planning
21 Department would look highly unfavorably on
22 commercial applications in other than those
23 areas, I want to draw your attention to the area
24 near McCormick and
25 recall recently there was an application for a
1 commercial project in that area that did receive
2 a favorable recommendation from the Planning
3 Department, and that, I believe, is not one of
4 those areas of commercial concern.
5 Can you explain to me how -- can you
6 rectify the two issues for me? I'm having
7 trouble with that one.
8 MR. KELLY: Well, Mt. Pleasant and
9 McCormick is one of the -- also one of the three
10 areas. Let me -- this is the -- you've got
11 basically three areas. What the study says on
12 page 4, the bottom of page 4, there are three
13 existing concentrations of commercial
14 development along the route of the connector.
15 One along the north side of
16 one at McCormick and Monument Roads, and one at
17 McCormick and
18 the three areas within the corridor that are
19 those critical concern and areas of commercial
21 MR. BISHOP: You said that quickly and
22 before I could flip the page. You did say
23 McCormick and Mt. Pleasant?
24 MR. KELLY: What the study says -- on
25 page 4, it talks about an area on the north side
3 McCormick and Monument Roads and one at
5 So the intersection with
6 Wonderwood, I would assume McCormick, the north
7 side of that, as identified in the study, would
8 be, again, one of those areas of commercial
10 MR. BISHOP: So anywhere on the north side
11 of McCormick?
12 MR. KELLY: Again, it would have to meet --
13 again, as the zoning and the criteria, we would
14 evaluate any rezoning of land for consistency
15 with the locational criteria and future land use
17 MR. BISHOP: If I lived in that area, I'd
18 be real concerned with that interpretation.
19 That was it, members of the committee.
20 I think we have also heard from the
21 residents here, those that participated in the
22 production of this study, and they said that's
23 not the intention of this, and I would give that
24 some pretty serious weight.
25 Thank you.
1 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Crescimbeni.
2 MR. CRESCIMBENI: One more question. I
3 can't remember who asked this. I think it might
4 have been Mr. Jones, but -- Mr. Kelly, you were
5 talking about whether the same establishment --
6 proposed establishment can operate on its
7 current -- on the current parcel, right? I
8 forgot who asked that question, but -- I think
9 it was Mr. Jones. And I'm not sure I understood
10 your answer. Did you say yes or no?
11 MR. KELLY: I think the question was
12 whether or not the proposed site would be able
13 to relocate, the current site plan of the
14 proposed site, if that could be fitted onto the
15 triangular parcel.
16 MR. CRESCIMBENI: That was the question.
17 MR. KELLY: Correct.
18 MR. CRESCIMBENI: What was your answer, yes
19 or no?
20 MR. KELLY: From a practical standpoint,
21 you know, you would have a lot of issues, I
22 think, again, going back to the access. I
23 default back to the safety concerns with the
24 access. From a physical -- could you fit
25 16 pumps with 4,900 square feet on a
1 one-and-a-half-acre parcel? Yes.
2 MR. CRESCIMBENI: And when you say "the
3 access," are you talking about -- because of the
4 traffic configurations that resulted with the
5 construction of Wonderwood and the new
7 MR. KELLY: From -- correct. You would
8 basically have queuing lanes that would exceed,
9 you would have driveways that potentially --
10 MR. CRESCIMBENI: And did you mention
11 eminent domain, there were some takings in
12 there? I think I heard you use that word --
13 MR. KELLY: That's correct. There was land
14 taken along the
15 right-of-way --
16 MR. CRESCIMBENI: Right.
17 MR. KELLY: -- that narrowed --
18 (Simultaneous speaking.)
19 MR. CRESCIMBENI: -- (inaudible) the
20 existing site? From the existing site?
21 MR. KELLY: Correct.
22 MR. CRESCIMBENI: Okay. And when there's
23 an eminent domain proceeding, the landowner is
24 compensated, correct, for the loss of whatever
25 damages they --
1 MR. KELLY: Yes. This was a JTA -- so --
2 MR. CRESCIMBENI: Okay. One question,
3 then, for Mr. Hainline or a Gate
5 (Mr. Hainline approaches the podium.)
6 MR. CRESCIMBENI: What -- were there
7 eminent domain proceedings against --
8 MR. HAINLINE: Gate hasn't been compensated
9 for that land that was taken.
10 MR. CRESCIMBENI: So you just gave it
12 MR. HAINLINE: Huh?
13 MR. CRESCIMBENI: I thought you --
14 MR. HAINLINE: Gate has not been
16 MR. CRESCIMBENI: Did Gate own the shopping
18 THE CHAIRMAN: JTA.
19 MR. CRESCIMBENI: Huh?
20 THE CHAIRMAN: I think he said JTA.
21 MR. CRESCIMBENI: Who owned the --
22 MR. HAINLINE: He did say --
23 MR. CRESCIMBENI: Who owned the --
24 MR. HAINLINE: You were saying "Gate."
25 I --
1 (Simultaneous speaking.)
2 MR. CRESCIMBENI: Who owned the 6,800
3 square feet?
4 MR. HAINLINE: It's split owned. Gate
5 owned its part and the JTA owned its part, but
6 I'm --
7 MR. CRESCIMBENI: Wait, wait --
8 MR. HAINLINE: I'm sorry. I thought
9 Mr. Kelly was referring to the land --
10 (Simultaneous speaking.)
11 MR. CRESCIMBENI: JTA operates -- JTA built
12 a shopping center and operated a seafood store?
13 MR. HAINLINE: No.
14 JTA does currently own that strip center
15 and they do own --
16 MR. CRESCIMBENI: I know --
17 (Simultaneous speaking.)
18 MR. HAINLINE: -- and they do lease --
19 MR. CRESCIMBENI: Who used to own it?
20 MR. HAINLINE: Who used to own it?
21 MR. CRESCIMBENI: Yeah. I mean, how did
22 JTA come to own --
23 MR. HAINLINE: We don't know. We don't
24 know who used to own it.
25 I can only answer one question at a time.
1 MR. CRESCIMBENI: I'm sorry. So -- so
2 you're saying Gate never owned the whole parcel
3 there, then?
4 MR. HAINLINE: Let's get --
5 MR. CRESCIMBENI: I thought you guys sold
6 the -- the seafood --
7 (Mr. Wilson approaches the podium.)
8 MR. WILSON: Let me answer you, if I can.
9 MR. CRESCIMBENI: -- the seafood store and
10 the other --
11 MR. WILSON: No, we didn't.
12 Let me correct all this. There was a
13 taking at the time of the Wonderwood
14 right-of-away taking, which also included the
15 pond. When it came to the triangle, there was
16 an owner of the strip center. I don't know who
17 it was. It wasn't Gate.
18 In the taking, the damages were such that
19 the compensation was basically they bought the
20 whole shopping center. That's how JTA ended up
21 in ownership of it, because the damages were
22 severe enough that they just ended up owning the
23 shopping center and let -- making the owner
24 whole and he went away. That's how they became
25 ownership. They don't want to be landlords, so
1 they joined with us, as Mr. Hainline said,
2 and --
3 MR. CRESCIMBENI: So does JTA currently own
4 the --
5 (Simultaneous speaking.)
6 MR. WILSON: They currently own --
7 MR. CRESCIMBENI: -- the former Gate
8 station --
9 MR. WILSON: -- the shopping center, which
10 is 4,155 square feet, which abuts the -- and in
11 your booklet -- I forget which page -- you see
12 in the existing conditions a photograph that
13 shows the old -- actually it's an old 7-Eleven,
14 Southland company store from the '60s, next to a
15 strip shopping center. JTA owns the strip
16 shopping center because the reasons I just
17 stated. Gate had just the 7-Eleven store. The
18 7-Eleven store was 2,640 square feet. If you
19 add that to the shopping center which Gate
20 now -- the JTA now owns, that's how you get to
21 the 6,795 square feet Mr. Hainline was talking
23 MR. CRESCIMBENI: And you-all still own the
24 old Southland --
25 MR. WILSON: The old Gate store -- yeah,
1 the old Southland store.
2 MR. CRESCIMBENI: So Gate owns that.
3 Somebody else owned the other parcel?
4 MR. WILSON: Right.
5 MR. CRESCIMBENI: And JTA bought that from
6 another owner other than Gate?
7 MR. WILSON: Right. I don't know if that
8 was a court action or what, but the net result
9 was JTA ended up fee title ownership of that
10 shopping center because of the taking.
11 MR. CRESCIMBENI: Thank you.
12 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. All right. Seeing no
13 further speakers, please open the ballot.
14 We're on the bill.
15 (Committee ballot opened.)
16 MR. HOLT: (Votes nay.)
17 MR. JONES: (Votes yea.)
18 MR. BROWN: (Votes yea.)
19 MR. DAVIS: (Votes yea.)
20 DR. GAFFNEY: (Votes nay.)
21 MR. JOOST: (Votes yea.)
22 MR. REDMAN: (Votes yea.)
23 (Committee ballot closed.)
24 THE CHAIRMAN: Close the ballot, record
1 MS. LAHMEUR: Five yea, two nay.
2 THE CHAIRMAN: By your action, you have
3 approved 2010-212.
4 And, folks, I believe that is our last item
5 unless somebody can point to one that I missed
6 because I did jump around quite a bit.
7 I'm getting a very strong head shake from
8 Mr. Reingold.
9 Thank you all. Good night.
10 (The above proceedings were adjourned at
11 7:18 p.m.)
12 - - -
1 C E R T I F I C A T E
3 STATE OF
4 COUNTY OF DUVAL :
6 I, Diane M. Tropia, certify that I was
7 authorized to and did stenographically report the
8 foregoing proceedings and that the transcript is a
9 true and complete record of my stenographic notes.
10 Dated this 9th day of May, 2010.
14 Diane M. Tropia