CITY OF JACKSONVILLE
LAND USE AND ZONING
COMMITTEE
Proceedings held on Tuesday, May 17,
2011, commencing at 5:05 p.m., City Hall, Council
Chambers, 1st Floor, Jacksonville, Florida, before
Diane M. Tropia, a Notary Public in and for the
State of Florida at Large.
PRESENT:
JOHN CRESCIMBENI, Chair.
RAY HOLT, Vice Chair.
WILLIAM BISHOP, Committee Member.
DON REDMAN, Committee Member.
DICK BROWN, Committee Member.
ALSO PRESENT:
LORI BOYER, Council Member-Elect.
BILL KILLINGSWORTH, Director, Planning Dept.
JOHN CROFTS, Deputy Director, Planning Dept.
SEAN KELLY, Chief, Current Planning.
FOLKS HUXFORD, Zoning Administrator.
JOEL McEACHIN, Planning and Development Dept.
DYLAN REINGOLD, Office of General Counsel.
RICK CAMPBELL, Research Assistant.
MERRIANE LAHMEUR, Legislative Assistant.
SHARONDA DAVIS, Legislative Assistant.
- - -
2
1 P R O C E E D I N G S
May 17, 2011 5:05 p.m.
2 - - -
3 THE CHAIRMAN: Good afternoon, everyone.
4 I call the meeting of the Land Use and
5 Zoning Committee to order. It's Tuesday,
6 May 17th, 2011, Election Day.
7 And to begin with, we will go around and
8 have everybody introduce themselves for the
9 record, starting with our councilwoman-elect on
10 the far left here.
11 Tricked you, didn't I?
12 MS. BOYER: Lori Boyer,
13 Councilmember-Elect, District 5.
14 MR. REDMAN: Don Redman, District 4.
15 MR. HOLT: Ray Holt, District 11.
16 THE CHAIRMAN: I'm John Crescimbeni,
17 at-large, Group 2.
18 MR. BROWN: I'm Dick Brown,
19 District 13.
20 Lori, you'll want to get on this committee
21 too. You've got to ask for this. This is a --
22 it's a good committee.
23 MR. REINGOLD: Dylan Reingold.
24 And, Councilmember, we would be delighted
25 if you joined our committee.
3
1 MR. KRESEL: Gary Kresel, Planning and
2 Development Department.
3 MR. HUXFORD: Folks Huxford, Planning and
4 Development.
5 MR. KELLY: Sean Kelly, Planning and
6 Development.
7 MR. CROFTS: John Crofts, Planning and
8 Development Department.
9 THE CHAIRMAN: All right. Thank you all
10 for being here.
11 Mr. Huxford, is it -- have you got the day
12 off today and you're just coming in? You look
13 pretty causal there, no tie, no jacket.
14 MR. HUXFORD: I've got a jacket here.
15 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. Gotcha.
16 All right. Mr. Reingold, we're going to
17 try to have an expeditious meeting tonight
18 because we have some folks that need to be some
19 places because of Election Day, so if you'll
20 read our LUZ --
21 MR. REINGOLD: I'll skip it if you want.
22 THE CHAIRMAN: No, just read it as --
23 MR. BROWN: We look forward to it.
24 THE CHAIRMAN: Read it --
25 MR. REINGOLD: Through the Chair,
4
1 absolutely, sir.
2 Anyone who would like to address the
3 committee tonight must fill out a yellow
4 speaker's card in its entirety. The cards are
5 located up -- up at the desk up front, under
6 [sic] the podium. Once completed, please
7 return the speaker's card to the basket at the
8 front desk.
9 Any person who lobbies the City for
10 compensation is considered a lobbyist and is
11 therefore required to register their lobbying
12 activity with the City Council secretary. If
13 you are a lobbyist and you have not registered
14 with the City Council secretary, you will not
15 be permitted to address the committee tonight.
16 Because a verbatim transcript of this
17 meeting will be prepared by a court reporter,
18 it's important that you speak clearly into the
19 microphone when you address the committee. It
20 is also important that only one person speak at
21 a time.
22 Any tangible materials, such as documents
23 or photographs, shall become a permanent part
24 of the public record and will be retained by
25 the committee.
5
1 As a courtesy, please switch any cell
2 phones or pagers or other audible devices to a
3 silent mode.
4 Items are generally addressed in the order
5 in which they are listed on the agenda. Copies
6 of the agenda are located on the desk up front,
7 near the podium.
8 On occasion, items will be heard out of
9 order for the sake of efficiency or to
10 accommodate a scheduling conflict.
11 Unless there is a formal hearing on any
12 particular item, each member of the public is
13 permitted a single three-minute presentation.
14 These presentations should be focused, concise,
15 and address only the item pending before the
16 committee.
17 Prior to addressing the committee, please
18 state your name and address.
19 Decisions on rezonings and sign waivers
20 are all considered quasi-judicial in nature and
21 certain protocols will be followed for these
22 proceedings.
23 First, each committee member must disclose
24 on the record any ex-parte communications they
25 have had with any members of the public prior
6
1 to the hearing. This includes a brief
2 statement of when the communication took place,
3 who the communication was with, and what the
4 communication was about.
5 Second, the normal format is to allow an
6 applicant or their agent to make their
7 presentation first, which will be followed by
8 members of the public who wish to speak in
9 support, then members of the public who are in
10 opposition will be allowed to speak.
11 Once all the public comments have been
12 received, the applicant will have a brief
13 opportunity to wrap up or present a brief
14 rebuttal.
15 Finally, all quasi-judicial decisions must
16 be based on substantial competent evidence,
17 which means that the committee's decision must
18 be supported by fact-based testimony or expert
19 testimony and not generalized concerns or
20 opinions.
21 And let me state that Councilmember Bishop
22 has joined us.
23 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman,
24 for the second time this season.
25 Let the record reflect that Mr. Bishop has
7
1 joined us and that Mr. Joost has an excused
2 absence.
3 Mr. Reingold, do you want me to start
4 reading the LUZ thing from now on?
5 MR. REINGOLD: I'd be delighted, sir.
6 THE CHAIRMAN: All right. Let's turn to
7 page 1 of our agenda. Item 1, 2010-585, is
8 deferred, as is item 2, 2010-670.
9 I have a request to withdraw item 3,
10 2010-856, but I'm just going to defer that for
11 another cycle. I don't think the sponsor will
12 mind having that hang around. We have a
13 subcommittee in another committee and we've
14 started a process with the public, and I wanted
15 to make sure they were aware of the withdrawal.
16 So item 3, 2010-856, is deferred.
17 Item 4, 2011-158, is deferred.
18 Turning to page 3, at the top, item 5,
19 2011-159, is deferred.
20 Item 6, 2011-179, we're not going to have
21 any action on that tonight, but we do have a
22 public hearing scheduled.
23 The public hearing is open. We have no
24 public speaker cards. The public hearing is
25 continued until June 7th and, again, no further
8
1 action on that bill.
2 Item 7, 2011-180.
3 Mr. Huxford.
4 MR. HUXFORD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
5 Application for rezoning, ordinance
6 2011-180, is for property at 2944 Edgewood
7 Avenue West in the northwest part of town.
8 The application seeks to rezone property
9 from Commercial Office to
10 Commercial-Residential-Office. I understand
11 that it's to allow for the operation of a
12 clinic on the property.
13 Staff reviewed the application. We find
14 that it does further the goals, policies and
15 objectives of the comprehensive plan. Also,
16 the CRO zoning district is a primary zoning
17 district within the
18 Residential-Professional-Institutional
19 functional land use category.
20 The proposed rezoning allows uses that are
21 consistent with the character of the area along
22 Edgewood Avenue and, therefore, we recommend
23 approval.
24 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, sir, for your
25 brief report.
9
1 This is a quasi-judicial matter. Does
2 anyone have any ex-parte communication to
3 disclose?
4 COMMITTEE MEMBERS: (No response.)
5 THE CHAIRMAN: All right. Seeing no one,
6 we have a public hearing scheduled this
7 evening. The public hearing is open.
8 Do we have any speakers' cards?
9 MS. DAVIS: No.
10 THE CHAIRMAN: None.
11 Anyone care to address the committee?
12 AUDIENCE MEMBER: (Indicating.)
13 THE CHAIRMAN: Ma'am.
14 AUDIENCE MEMBER: For answers only.
15 THE CHAIRMAN: For answers only?
16 AUDIENCE MEMBER: Correct.
17 THE CHAIRMAN: I could use a lot of
18 answers.
19 AUDIENCE MEMBER: I so needed to qualify
20 that, didn't I?
21 THE CHAIRMAN: I have lots of questions
22 but no answers.
23 All right. Anyone else care to address
24 the committee?
25 AUDIENCE MEMBERS: (No response.)
10
1 THE CHAIRMAN: Seeing no one, the public
2 hearing is closed.
3 MR. HOLT: Move the bill.
4 MR. REDMAN: Second.
5 THE CHAIRMAN: Motion on the bill by
6 Mr. Holt, second by Mr. Redman.
7 Discussion?
8 COMMITTEE MEMBERS: (No response.)
9 THE CHAIRMAN: If not, open the ballot.
10 Sorry, Mr. Reingold.
11 MR. REINGOLD: It just might be helpful at
12 least if we get the lady's name and address so
13 the court reporter can include that as part of
14 the record. It will be on the yellow card.
15 (Audience member approaches the podium.)
16 AUDIENCE MEMBER: Certainly.
17 THE CHAIRMAN: Can you just state your
18 name and address for the record?
19 AUDIENCE MEMBER: My name is Jill Kestner.
20 My home address is 21 10th Avenue North,
21 Jacksonville Beach, 32250 --
22 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you.
23 AUDIENCE MEMBER: -- and I am the owner's
24 agent.
25 THE CHAIRMAN: And thank you for being
11
1 here.
2 We just need you to sign that card.
3 MS. KESTNER: No problem.
4 Thank you.
5 THE CHAIRMAN: All right. Motion and
6 second on the floor.
7 Any discussion?
8 COMMITTEE MEMBERS: (No response.)
9 THE CHAIRMAN: If not, open the ballot.
10 (Committee ballot opened.)
11 MR. CRESCIMBENI: (Votes yea.)
12 MR. HOLT: (Votes yea.)
13 MR. BISHOP: (Votes yea.)
14 MR. BROWN: (Votes yea.)
15 MR. REDMAN: (Votes yea.)
16 (Committee ballot closed.)
17 MS. LAHMEUR: Five yeas, zero nay.
18 THE CHAIRMAN: By your action, you have
19 approved item 7, 2011-180.
20 Item 8, 2011-205.
21 Mr. McEachin.
22 MR. McEACHIN: Mr. Chairman, members of
23 the committee, this is a landmark request that
24 was submitted to the commission by the Fire and
25 Rescue Department.
12
1 In preparing the application and reviewing
2 the -- the documentation, the commission found
3 that the designation of the -- of the Catherine
4 Street Fire Museum, now located at Kids Campus
5 at Metropolitan Park, met four of the seven
6 criteria, and so they're recommending to the
7 City Council that the building be so designated
8 a local landmark.
9 And I'll be happy to answer any additional
10 questions about -- about Fire Station No. 3.
11 THE CHAIRMAN: All right. Thank you,
12 Mr. McEachin.
13 Any questions from the committee?
14 COMMITTEE MEMBERS: (No response.)
15 THE CHAIRMAN: All right. This is a
16 quasi-judicial matter. Does anyone have any
17 ex-parte communication to disclose?
18 COMMITTEE MEMBERS: (No response.)
19 THE CHAIRMAN: No one?
20 COMMITTEE MEMBERS: (No response.)
21 THE CHAIRMAN: All right. We have a
22 public hearing scheduled this evening. The
23 public hearing is open.
24 Any speakers' cards?
25 MS. DAVIS: No.
13
1 THE CHAIRMAN: There are none.
2 Anyone care to address the committee?
3 AUDIENCE MEMBERS: (No response.)
4 THE CHAIRMAN: Seeing no one, the public
5 hearing is closed.
6 Mr. McEachin, what does the landmark
7 designation do for the Department -- or is
8 this -- this is City-owned property, correct?
9 MR. McEACHIN: That's correct.
10 THE CHAIRMAN: What does that accomplish?
11 MR. McEACHIN: Basically, it just -- it
12 just makes sure that in -- that now and in the
13 future that any exterior change to the building
14 are done properly. And if ever some day we get
15 State grant monies again, it will make it more
16 competitive for State preservation grants, and
17 also I think they really wanted to have it
18 recognized. It is the official Florida State
19 Fire Association museum. And if you haven't
20 been there, I really encourage you to go.
21 THE CHAIRMAN: Would the designation allow
22 it to be moved?
23 MR. McEACHIN: It's already been moved.
24 THE CHAIRMAN: Well, I know that, but just
25 in case it -- just in case they want to move it
14
1 again.
2 MR. McEACHIN: Yes, it can be moved.
3 Actually, it was sort of interesting.
4 They moved this building and still kept it on
5 the National Register, which is very, very
6 rare, to be able to move off the original site
7 to another site, but the National Register
8 agreed to keep it just because the building was
9 so significant architecturally and
10 historically.
11 THE CHAIRMAN: And is this a -- this is
12 sponsored by the Department, not -- we're in
13 the process of kind of revitalizing or
14 reactivating the Fire Museum Board. Were they
15 in a position to take a look at this?
16 MR. McEACHIN: They're more than welcome
17 to take a look at this. They have not as far
18 as I know, as far as if this is an active board
19 or not. I'm just not real sure.
20 THE CHAIRMAN: All right.
21 MR. McEACHIN: I've been working with
22 Hastings Williams on this process.
23 THE CHAIRMAN: All right. Any questions
24 from the committee?
25 MR. BISHOP: (Indicating.)
15
1 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Bishop.
2 MR. BISHOP: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
3 The agenda is marked that this is done at
4 the request of the Historic Preservation
5 Commission and sponsored by Councilmember
6 Johnson. Is that different, that --
7 MR. McEACHIN: She might have made that
8 request a while back because she -- when she
9 was in office, she did send a letter requesting
10 several properties to be designated. And, of
11 course, we bring them online as time allows us
12 to, but I did talk to Mr. Williams -- Hastings
13 Williams with the Fire and Rescue and just
14 made -- we discussed that he was very excited
15 about that happening, so we went ahead and
16 prepared it with the sponsorship of the
17 commission and moved it forward.
18 MR. BISHOP: Thanks.
19 THE CHAIRMAN: Any other questions?
20 COMMITTEE MEMBERS: (No response.)
21 THE CHAIRMAN: All right. Sure would
22 welcome a motion.
23 MR. HOLT: Move the bill.
24 MR. BISHOP: Second.
25 THE CHAIRMAN: Motion by Mr. Holt, second
16
1 by Mr. Bishop.
2 Discussion?
3 COMMITTEE MEMBERS: (No response.)
4 THE CHAIRMAN: If there's no discussion,
5 open the ballot, vote.
6 (Committee ballot opened.)
7 MR. CRESCIMBENI: (Votes yea.)
8 MR. HOLT: (Votes yea.)
9 MR. BISHOP: (Votes yea.)
10 MR. BROWN: (Votes yea.)
11 MR. REDMAN: (Votes yea.)
12 (Committee ballot closed.)
13 MS. LAHMEUR: Five yeas, zero nay.
14 THE CHAIRMAN: By our action, you've
15 approved item 8, 2011-205.
16 Turning to Page 4, at the top, item 9,
17 2011-219.
18 Mr. Kelly.
19 MR. KELLY: Thank you.
20 To the Chair and the committee, ordinance
21 2011-219 seeks to allow for approval of a sign
22 waiver to allow for the internal illumination
23 of a sign for a church. It's Hodges Boulevard
24 Presbyterian Church located at 4140 Hodges
25 Boulevard. The proposed sign is a
17
1 monument-style sign, approximately 6-and-a-half
2 feet tall and 32 square feet. There is a
3 reader board attached -- an electronic reader
4 board attached to that sign, so that will be
5 approved in conjunction with the request for
6 the internal illumination.
7 The Department reviewed this and finds it
8 meets the criteria and finds it to be
9 compatible with the existing and contiguous
10 signage and the general character of the area.
11 We also find that it will not negatively alter
12 the character -- or aesthetic character of the
13 surrounding area or interfere with the rights.
14 The new sign will actually be conforming
15 in terms of setbacks. The existing sign is a
16 nonconforming sign as it relates to setbacks,
17 so it's going to be bringing the signage into
18 compliance on the property.
19 Additionally, we find that there's no
20 detriment to any public health or safety
21 concern and find it to be in the public
22 interest and, therefore, we are recommending
23 approval of this waiver request.
24 THE CHAIRMAN: All right. Thank you, sir.
25 This is a quasi-judicial matter. Does
18
1 anyone have any ex-parte communication to
2 disclose?
3 COMMITTEE MEMBERS: (No response.)
4 THE CHAIRMAN: All right. I had a couple
5 of e-mail exchanges with Mr. Daniels, who's one
6 of our speakers tonight, but it was basically
7 him calling my attention to the fact that this
8 would be on our agenda tonight. We didn't
9 really discuss any of the merits of the -- of
10 the bill.
11 Anyone else?
12 MR. BISHOP: (Indicating.)
13 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Bishop.
14 MR. BISHOP: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
15 I had a similar e-mail from Mr. Daniels
16 also.
17 THE CHAIRMAN: All right. We have a
18 public hearing scheduled on this bill tonight.
19 The public hearing is open. I have two
20 speakers cards. The first is Wilson W. Sick.
21 AUDIENCE MEMBER: Just answer any
22 questions only, please.
23 THE CHAIRMAN: All right. And then we
24 have Lad Daniels, former Councilman Lad
25 Daniels.
19
1 MR. DANIELS: (Indicating.)
2 THE CHAIRMAN: Lad, you need to get up
3 here and say a few words.
4 (Mr. Daniels approaches the podium.)
5 MR. DANIELS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
6 THE CHAIRMAN: I've got -- my queue just
7 lit up with a bunch of questions for you, so --
8 MR. DANIELS: All right.
9 We appreciate your considering this --
10 THE CHAIRMAN: You know the drill. You've
11 got to start off with --
12 MR. DANIELS: Oh, I'm sorry.
13 Lad Daniels, 8510 Royal Lakes Drive,
14 32256.
15 And thank the committee for considering
16 our request.
17 This is the replacement of an existing
18 sign that's been on the church property for
19 20-something years, and we're just trying to
20 modernize. Adam Hollingsworth goes to the
21 church across the street, and we're trying to
22 compete favorably with him.
23 THE CHAIRMAN: Good luck on that one.
24 All right. Any questions from the
25 committee?
20
1 MR. BROWN: (Indicating.)
2 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Brown.
3 MR. BROWN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
4 Under quasi-judicial reporting that we
5 went through, I just wondered why I didn't get
6 a phone call.
7 Good to see you, Lad.
8 MR. DANIELS: Councilman Brown, we
9 communicate electronically now.
10 THE CHAIRMAN: Touche.
11 Any other questions for Mr. Daniels?
12 COMMITTEE MEMBERS: (No response.)
13 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Daniels, we appreciate
14 you being here tonight.
15 MR. DANIELS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman,
16 committee.
17 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you for all your past
18 service and your future service. I see your
19 name popping up on all kinds of volunteer
20 things, like the St. Johns Water River
21 Management District and the airport -- what is
22 it called?
23 COMMITTEE MEMBERS: (Inaudible response.)
24 THE CHAIRMAN: Yeah, that.
25 All right. Any other speakers to come
21
1 before the committee?
2 AUDIENCE MEMBERS: (No response.)
3 THE CHAIRMAN: Seeing no one, the public
4 hearing is closed and we are back in committee.
5 And we'll have to amend the bill to either
6 grant the waiver or deny the waiver.
7 MR. HOLT: Move to grant the waiver.
8 MR. BROWN: Second.
9 THE CHAIRMAN: Motion by Mr. Holt to grant
10 the waiver, second by Mr. Brown.
11 Discussion on the amendment?
12 COMMITTEE MEMBERS: (No response.)
13 THE CHAIRMAN: All those in favor, say
14 yes.
15 COMMITTEE MEMBERS: Yes.
16 THE CHAIRMAN: Opposed, say no.
17 COMMITTEE MEMBERS: (No response.)
18 THE CHAIRMAN: By your action, you have
19 adopted the amendment to grant the waiver.
20 MR. BISHOP: Move the bill as amended to
21 grant the waiver.
22 MR. HOLT: Second.
23 THE CHAIRMAN: Motion on the bill to grant
24 the waiver by Mr. Bishop, second by Mr. Holt.
25 Discussion?
22
1 COMMITTEE MEMBERS: (No response.)
2 THE CHAIRMAN: If no discussion, open the
3 ballot, please, vote.
4 (Committee ballot opened.)
5 MR. CRESCIMBENI: (Votes yea.)
6 MR. HOLT: (Votes yea.)
7 MR. BISHOP: (Votes yea.)
8 MR. BROWN: (Votes yea.)
9 MR. REDMAN: (Votes yea.)
10 (Committee ballot closed.)
11 MS. LAHMEUR: Five yeas, zero nay.
12 THE CHAIRMAN: By your action, you have
13 approved 2011-219.
14 All right. Item 10, 2011-241.
15 Mr. Killingsworth, is he here?
16 (Mr. Killingsworth approaches the podium.)
17 THE CHAIRMAN: There you are.
18 MR. KILLINGSWORTH: Bill Killingsworth,
19 Planning and Development.
20 2011-241, which we refer to as the 2030
21 Mobility Plan, was before you earlier for
22 transmittal. We have transmitted it, and it's
23 before you again for adoption.
24 If you will recall, the mobility plan
25 basically had four goals. The first goal was
23
1 to provide a tighter linkage between our land
2 use and transportation. We believe we achieved
3 that largely through the use of development
4 areas within the plan and relaxing some of our
5 land use standards as you become more
6 urbanized.
7 Additionally, one of the other goals was
8 to provide a true multimodal transportation
9 plan, a long-term transportation plan. The
10 plan achieves that by having a 20-year capital
11 improvement schedule with it.
12 The third goal we wanted to provide was a
13 funding mechanism for the plan. That funding
14 mechanism is implemented through a mobility
15 fee, which is a vehicle-miles-traveled-based
16 approach.
17 And then the last goal we wanted to
18 achieve is we wanted to incent quality design
19 and growth. We did that through a credit
20 system which takes into account design
21 objectives that we'd like to see.
22 When we received comments back from DCA,
23 we basically got five comments. The changes
24 that we made prior to submitting for adoption
25 reflect these comments. The most serious was
24
1 that our capital improvement schedule was not
2 in our Capital Improvements Element, so we --
3 it is now before you and it is in our Capital
4 Improvements Element.
5 Additionally, DCA wanted us to reference
6 the mobility plan within the comp plan. The
7 way we structured the mobility plan is that the
8 mobility plan makes recommendations of new
9 policies for the comprehensive plan, which is
10 what you're adopting tonight. DCA wanted to
11 also reference that document as a whole, so we
12 did that.
13 They wanted to clarify some language
14 regarding the three downtown DRIs. The three
15 downtown DRIs have some existing entitlements
16 on them which expire within a couple of years.
17 And when those entitlements expire, then
18 downtown will fall within the mobility plan.
19 They wanted us to clarify some language
20 about the ability to build a facility rather
21 than pay a mobility fee. They wanted to make
22 sure that if they built a facility that costs
23 less than what their mobility fee was, that
24 they had to pay the difference. That's now in
25 the plan.
25
1 And then, lastly, we had a policy which
2 required the City to update our Land
3 Development Regulations based off the new
4 mobility plan. It was open-ended. They wanted
5 a time certain, and so we put in within one
6 year of adoption.
7 Dylan Reingold is going to, later, speak
8 to a set of amendments which are largely
9 related to changes in Florida Statutes, and the
10 Department would recommend approval of
11 2011-241.
12 THE CHAIRMAN: All right. Thank you,
13 Mr. Killingsworth.
14 Any questions at this point from the
15 committee?
16 COMMITTEE MEMBERS: (No response.)
17 THE CHAIRMAN: All right. Mr. Reingold,
18 did you want to talk about the proposed
19 amendment?
20 MR. REINGOLD: I would be happy to.
21 To the Chair and to the full committee,
22 it's actually addressed in the agenda, but I
23 can just go through it really quickly.
24 The Planning and Development Department
25 was offering an amendment on behalf of the
26
1 Mobility Plan Task Force. It did four things.
2 It modifies the comp plan policies and the 2030
3 Mobility Plan to reflect the enacted House bill
4 7207 --
5 THE CHAIRMAN: What were those --
6 MR. REINGOLD: Essentially, what it --
7 what it talked about was -- initially, the
8 mobility plan was addressing Senate Bill 360.
9 A lot of the issues with Senate Bill 360 had
10 been wiped off the books -- or proposed to be
11 wiped off the books by House Bill 7207, and
12 that, instead, states that local governments,
13 you have the right to choose whether you want
14 to have concurrency or not on various different
15 types of issues, one of them being
16 transportation. And thus waiting for the
17 governor to sign the bill, we just put in
18 policies that addressed our mobility plan under
19 both contexts, one under Senate Bill 360, but
20 also under the context of the new House bill.
21 THE CHAIRMAN: Senate Bill 360 was only
22 afforded certain areas of the state to develop
23 a mobility plan, correct?
24 MR. REINGOLD: That is correct.
25 Under Senate Bill 360, the City of
27
1 Jacksonville was deemed a TCEA and we were
2 required to adopt a mobility plan and
3 strategies by July 8th, 2011.
4 THE CHAIRMAN: And what does 7207 do?
5 MR. REINGOLD: Under 7207, local
6 governments have the right to choose whether
7 they want to have transportation concurrency or
8 not.
9 THE CHAIRMAN: Any local government? It
10 doesn't have to be the TCEA or whatever it was?
11 MR. REINGOLD: That is correct.
12 THE CHAIRMAN: Gotcha.
13 All right. And the second --
14 MR. REINGOLD: The second point is that
15 the TMA, the Transportation Management Area,
16 will be out of the mobility fee system until
17 the developers abandon or terminate the local
18 agreements.
19 The third issue is that it will hold
20 concurrency and the fair share contract system
21 in place until the mobility plan implementation
22 ordinance is adopted.
23 And, four, it changes the project list to
24 remove the Skyway project that was initially in
25 the plan and replaces it with the streetcar
28
1 north, downtown to Shands.
2 Finally, a fifth aspect of the amendment
3 is that there will be an additional change to
4 the definition concerning di minimis uses to be
5 consistent with current practices under our
6 current concurrency management system.
7 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. Thank you,
8 Mr. Reingold.
9 Any questions from the committee?
10 COMMITTEE MEMBERS: (No response.)
11 THE CHAIRMAN: We do have a public hearing
12 scheduled on this tonight. The public hearing
13 is open.
14 We have no speakers' cards?
15 MS. DAVIS: No speaker cards.
16 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Hainline, you didn't
17 want to address the committee?
18 MR. HAINLINE: (Shakes head.)
19 THE CHAIRMAN: All right. Seeing no one,
20 the public hearing is closed and we're back in
21 committee.
22 MR. BISHOP: Move the Planning Department
23 amendment.
24 MR. REDMAN: Second.
25 THE CHAIRMAN: Motion on the Planning
29
1 Department amendment as it appears on the
2 agenda by Mr. Bishop, second by Mr. Redman.
3 Discussion on the amendment?
4 COMMITTEE MEMBERS: (No response.)
5 THE CHAIRMAN: If there's no discussion,
6 all those in favor, say yes.
7 COMMITTEE MEMBERS: Yes.
8 THE CHAIRMAN: Opposed, say no.
9 COMMITTEE MEMBERS: (No response.)
10 THE CHAIRMAN: By our action, you've
11 adopted the amendment.
12 MR. BISHOP: Move the bill as amended.
13 MR. REDMAN: Second.
14 THE CHAIRMAN: Motion on the bill as
15 amended by Mr. Bishop, second by Mr. Redman.
16 Any discussion?
17 COMMITTEE MEMBERS: (No response.)
18 THE CHAIRMAN: If not, open the ballot,
19 please, vote.
20 (Committee ballot opened.)
21 MR. CRESCIMBENI: (Votes yea.)
22 MR. HOLT: (Votes yea.)
23 MR. BISHOP: (Votes yea.)
24 MR. BROWN: (Votes yea.)
25 MR. REDMAN: (Votes yea.)
30
1 (Committee ballot closed.)
2 MS. LAHMEUR: Five yeas, zero nay.
3 THE CHAIRMAN: By our action, you've
4 approved item 10, 2011-241, as amended.
5 Now, the ordinance portion of this that
6 actually implements the structure,
7 Mr. Hainline, you said June maybe, early July,
8 anticipate the arrival of that?
9 (Mr. Hainline approaches the podium.)
10 MR. HAINLINE: Yes, sir.
11 T.R. Hainline, 1301 Riverplace Boulevard,
12 speaking as the Chair of the Mobility Task
13 Force.
14 The Planning Department and Dylan Reingold
15 are -- have -- are preparing drafts of that
16 implementing ordinance and our task force will
17 be reviewing it in the coming weeks and hope to
18 be reporting back to you on it, with luck,
19 before the end of June so that at least it can
20 start here and then maybe come out of the
21 council in July, if that's the will of the
22 council.
23 THE CHAIRMAN: How often is the task force
24 meeting right now on that issue?
25 MR. HAINLINE: We actually have been
31
1 meeting every week, but we're going to allow
2 Dylan a little time to make some revisions, and
3 I think we're going to have a two-week gap, but
4 then be meeting again a few times every week.
5 We're meeting Thursday, but then don't we
6 allow a gap of two weeks?
7 MR. REINGOLD: (Nods head.)
8 MR. HAINLINE: And then we meet again, I
9 think, on the 2nd or something.
10 THE CHAIRMAN: Well, some of the e-mails I
11 received about the ordinance implementing the
12 structure, I invited some of those folks to
13 reach out to you or Mr. Killingsworth and get
14 on the list of the meeting schedules, and they
15 may want to sit in on those. I'm assuming
16 you're noticing those and --
17 MR. HAINLINE: Yes, and I've spoken to all
18 those -- Mr. Joost and to Mr. --
19 THE CHAIRMAN: Eldel (phonetic)?
20 MR. HAINLINE: El Yeldel (phonetic), thank
21 you, and to Mr. Isaac. And those are the three
22 gentlemen I spoke to regarding that church
23 issue and so they will be notified of the
24 meetings as they come up.
25 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. And the only other
32
1 question I had, Mr. Hainline, is, what was that
2 song on your phone I heard earlier?
3 MR. HAINLINE: That's Billie Holiday
4 singing "No regrets," which is my phone ring --
5 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay.
6 MR. HAINLINE: -- since you asked.
7 THE CHAIRMAN: All right. Thank you very
8 much.
9 All right. Item 11, 2011-242.
10 Mr. Crofts.
11 MR. CROFTS: Mr. Chairman, by way of
12 introduction, items 11 through 15,
13 2011-242, -243, -244, -245, and -246, are all
14 proposed semiannual amendments or revisions to
15 the future land use map series of the
16 comprehensive plan and they involve
17 environmentally-unique lands in several
18 locations throughout the city. All of these
19 properties are, as we know, a welcome addition
20 to the City's Preservation Program and have
21 unique and environmental -- natural and
22 environmental resources.
23 And because they were purchased in part --
24 or because it's the appropriate thing to do,
25 the request for these particular land use
33
1 amendments is to change the current designation
2 to Conservation.
3 So beginning with ordinance 2011-242, the
4 request is from AGR-4 to CSV or Conservation.
5 The property is located on Heckscher Drive,
6 adjacent to Huguenot Park. The property
7 involves 12.96 acres, and staff recommends
8 approval.
9 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Crofts.
10 Any questions from the committee?
11 COMMITTEE MEMBERS: (No response.)
12 THE CHAIRMAN: All right. We have a
13 public hearing scheduled this evening. I have
14 one speaker's card. The public hearing is
15 open.
16 Brian Burket, is it?
17 AUDIENCE MEMBER: (Indicating.)
18 THE CHAIRMAN: Questions only or did you
19 want to address the committee?
20 AUDIENCE MEMBER: Just questions.
21 THE CHAIRMAN: All right. You're here on
22 the next -- on this bill and the subsequent
23 four bills, correct?
24 AUDIENCE MEMBER: (Nods head.)
25 THE CHAIRMAN: Questions only on all of
34
1 them?
2 AUDIENCE MEMBER: Yes, please.
3 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay.
4 All right. Anyone else care to address
5 the committee?
6 AUDIENCE MEMBERS: (No response.)
7 THE CHAIRMAN: Seeing no one, the public
8 hearing is closed.
9 MR. HOLT: Move the bill.
10 MR. BISHOP: Second.
11 THE CHAIRMAN: Motion on the bill by
12 Mr. Holt, second by Mr. Bishop.
13 Any discussion?
14 COMMITTEE MEMBERS: (No response.)
15 THE CHAIRMAN: If not, open the ballot,
16 please, vote.
17 (Committee ballot opened.)
18 MR. CRESCIMBENI: (Votes yea.)
19 MR. HOLT: (Votes yea.)
20 MR. BISHOP: (Votes yea.)
21 MR. BROWN: (Votes yea.)
22 MR. REDMAN: (Votes yea.)
23 (Committee ballot closed.)
24 MS. LAHMEUR: Five yeas, zero nay.
25 THE CHAIRMAN: By our action, you have
35
1 approved item 11, 2042 [sic].
2 Item 12, 2011-243.
3 Mr. Crofts.
4 MR. CROFTS: Yes, sir.
5 Members and chairman of the committee,
6 this request is from LDR to CSV, Conservation.
7 The property is located near Morse Avenue, just
8 south of Ringhaver Park, in the Southwest
9 Planning District, in Council District 14. It
10 involves 395 acres.
11 This particular land use amendment has
12 gone through a public workshop, a Planning
13 Commission public hearing and a recommendation
14 for approval, and your staff recommends
15 approval also.
16 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Crofts.
17 We have a public hearing scheduled for
18 this tonight. The public hearing is open.
19 Again, same speaker's card, Brian Burket,
20 questions only.
21 Any questions from the committee?
22 COMMITTEE MEMBERS: (No response.)
23 THE CHAIRMAN: All right. Seeing no one
24 else, the public hearing is closed.
25 MR. BISHOP: Move the bill.
36
1 MR. BROWN: Second.
2 THE CHAIRMAN: Motion on the bill by
3 Mr. Bishop, second by Mr. Brown.
4 Discussion?
5 COMMITTEE MEMBERS: (No response.)
6 THE CHAIRMAN: If not, please open the
7 ballot, vote.
8 (Committee ballot opened.)
9 MR. CRESCIMBENI: (Votes yea.)
10 MR. HOLT: (Votes yea.)
11 MR. BISHOP: (Votes yea.)
12 MR. BROWN: (Votes yea.)
13 MR. REDMAN: (Votes yea.)
14 (Committee ballot closed.)
15 MS. LAHMEUR: Five yeas, zero nay.
16 THE CHAIRMAN: By our action, you've
17 approved item 12, 2011-243.
18 Turning to page 5, item 13, at the top,
19 2011-244.
20 Mr. Crofts.
21 MR. CROFTS: Ordinance 2011-244 is a
22 request to change the land use on the future
23 land use map series from RR to CSV or
24 Conservation. The property is located on Cedar
25 Point Drive, in proximity to the Pumpkin Hill
37
1 Park preservation area. It involves 26 acres.
2 Once again, this has been subject to an
3 informational workshop conducted by the
4 Planning Department, it's been subject to a
5 public hearing before the Planning Commission
6 and recommended approval by that body, and your
7 staff recommends approval also.
8 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Crofts.
9 Any questions from the committee?
10 COMMITTEE MEMBERS: (No response.)
11 THE CHAIRMAN: All right. We have a
12 public hearing scheduled. The public hearing
13 is open. One speaker's card, Brian Burket,
14 questions only.
15 Any questions?
16 COMMITTEE MEMBERS: (No response.)
17 THE CHAIRMAN: All right. Seeing none and
18 no other speakers, the public hearing is
19 closed.
20 MR. HOLT: Move the bill.
21 MR. REDMAN: Second.
22 THE CHAIRMAN: Motion on the bill by
23 Mr. Holt, second by Mr. Redman.
24 Any discussion?
25 COMMITTEE MEMBERS: (No response.)
38
1 THE CHAIRMAN: If not, please open the
2 ballot, vote.
3 (Committee ballot opened.)
4 MR. CRESCIMBENI: (Votes yea.)
5 MR. HOLT: (Votes yea.)
6 MR. BISHOP: (Votes yea.)
7 MR. BROWN: (Votes yea.)
8 MR. REDMAN: (Votes yea.)
9 (Committee ballot closed.)
10 MS. LAHMEUR: Five yeas, zero nay.
11 THE CHAIRMAN: By our action, you have
12 approved item 13, 2011-244.
13 Item 14, 2011-245.
14 Mr. Crofts.
15 MR. CROFTS: Yes, sir.
16 Mr. Chairman and members, ordinance
17 2011-245 requests a modification on the future
18 land use map series from Agricultural 2 and
19 Agricultural 4. This property is located on
20 both sides of Main Street in Jacksonville's
21 Northside, fairly close to our county borders
22 with Nassau County to the north.
23 Once again, this project has been subject
24 to a public informational workshop conducted by
25 the Department, it has been subject to a public
39
1 hearing by the Planning Commission and their
2 recommendation of approval, it has been
3 evaluated favorably by your staff for
4 consistency and appropriateness and we
5 recommend approval.
6 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Crofts.
7 Any questions from the committee?
8 COMMITTEE MEMBERS: (No response.)
9 THE CHAIRMAN: All right. Seeing none, we
10 have a public hearing scheduled this evening.
11 The public hearing is open. One speaker's
12 card, Brian Burket, questions only.
13 Any questions from the committee?
14 COMMITTEE MEMBERS: (No response.)
15 THE CHAIRMAN: All right. Seeing none and
16 no other speakers, the public hearing is
17 closed.
18 MR. HOLT: Move the bill.
19 MR. BISHOP: Second.
20 THE CHAIRMAN: Motion on the bill by
21 Mr. Holt, second by Mr. Bishop.
22 Discussion?
23 COMMITTEE MEMBERS: (No response.)
24 THE CHAIRMAN: If not, please open the
25 ballot, vote.
40
1 (Committee ballot opened.)
2 MR. CRESCIMBENI: (Votes yea.)
3 MR. HOLT: (Votes yea.)
4 MR. BISHOP: (Votes yea.)
5 MR. BROWN: (Votes yea.)
6 MR. REDMAN: (Votes yea.)
7 (Committee ballot closed.)
8 MS. LAHMEUR: Five yeas, zero nay.
9 THE CHAIRMAN: By our action, you've
10 approved item 14, 2011-245.
11 Mr. Crofts, item 15, 2011-246.
12 MR. CROFTS: Mr. Chairman and members of
13 the committee, ordinance 2001-246 requests a
14 land use modification from LDR, MDR, and RPI to
15 Conservation. The property is located on the
16 east side of San Jose Boulevard in the
17 Southeast Planning District, in Council
18 District 5. It involves 34 acres.
19 This application has been subject, again,
20 to a public workshop conducted by the
21 Department, a public hearing before the
22 Planning Commission and their recommendation of
23 approval. Your staff has reviewed it for
24 consistency and appropriateness with the
25 comprehensive plan and recommends approval.
41
1 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Crofts.
2 Any questions from the committee?
3 COMMITTEE MEMBERS: (No response.)
4 THE CHAIRMAN: All right. Seeing none, we
5 have a public hearing scheduled this evening.
6 The public hearing is open. One speaker's
7 card, Brian Burket, questions only.
8 Any questions from the committee?
9 COMMITTEE MEMBERS: (No response.)
10 THE CHAIRMAN: All right. Seeing none and
11 no other speakers, the public hearing is
12 closed.
13 MR. BISHOP: Move the bill.
14 MR. REDMAN: Second.
15 THE CHAIRMAN: Motion on the bill by
16 Mr. Bishop, second by Mr. Redman.
17 Discussion?
18 COMMITTEE MEMBERS: (No response.)
19 THE CHAIRMAN: If none, please open the
20 ballot, vote.
21 (Committee ballot opened.)
22 MR. CRESCIMBENI: (Votes yea.)
23 MR. HOLT: (Votes yea.)
24 MR. BISHOP: (Votes yea.)
25 MR. BROWN: (Votes yea.)
42
1 MR. REDMAN: (Votes yea.)
2 (Committee ballot closed.)
3 MS. LAHMEUR: Five yeas, zero nay.
4 THE CHAIRMAN: By our action, you have
5 approved item 15, 2011-246.
6 Item 16, 2011-247.
7 Mr. Crofts.
8 MR. CROFTS: Ordinance 2011-247 is one of
9 several text changes to the comprehensive plan,
10 and specifically in this case, this is a text
11 change request to modify a definition in the
12 public schools element -- public schools and
13 facilities element of the comprehensive plan to
14 delete a reference to a Transportation
15 Concurrency Management System that basically
16 applies to streets and highways, which has now
17 become antiquated because now we're about to
18 embark on a new mobility fee system.
19 So, in essence and in summary, we're
20 deleting and taking out of this def- -- part of
21 this definition, in this particular element,
22 this particular reference to a Concurrency
23 Management System applying to streets and
24 highways to recommend where we are today in
25 terms of our concurrency system and our
43
1 about-to-be-enacted mobility fee system.
2 And staff has reviewed this and -- for
3 appropriateness and consistency and recommends
4 approval.
5 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Crofts.
6 Any questions from the committee?
7 COMMITTEE MEMBERS: (No response.)
8 THE CHAIRMAN: All right. We have a
9 public hearing scheduled this evening. The
10 public hearing is open. I have no speaker's
11 card, no one -- anyone care to address the
12 committee?
13 AUDIENCE MEMBERS: (No response.)
14 THE CHAIRMAN: Seeing no one, the public
15 hearing is closed.
16 MR. REDMAN: Move the bill.
17 MR. HOLT: Second.
18 THE CHAIRMAN: Motion on the bill by
19 Mr. Redman, second by Mr. Holt.
20 Any discussion?
21 COMMITTEE MEMBERS: (No response.)
22 THE CHAIRMAN: If not, please open the
23 ballot, vote.
24 (Committee ballot opened.)
25 MR. CRESCIMBENI: (Votes yea.)
44
1 MR. HOLT: (Votes yea.)
2 MR. BISHOP: (Votes yea.)
3 MR. BROWN: (Votes yea.)
4 MR. REDMAN: (Votes yea.)
5 (Committee ballot closed.)
6 MS. LAHMEUR: Five yeas, zero nay.
7 THE CHAIRMAN: By our action, you've
8 approved item 16, 2011-247.
9 Turning to page 6, at the top, item 17,
10 2011-248.
11 Mr. Crofts.
12 MR. CROFTS: Ordinance 2011-248, once
13 again, is a text amendment to our comprehensive
14 plan, and I would draw your attention to the
15 fact that we are suggesting -- there's an
16 amendment to this legislation, and that
17 amendment in your possession now, specifically
18 to the original exhibit, is the addition of a
19 map that is taken off the connotation --
20 designation of "draft" on it.
21 Specifically, this particular text
22 amendment, in an attempt to protect and promote
23 the safe and productive use of our civilian
24 airports, we are proposing land use density,
25 height limitations and disclosures and noise
45
1 attenuation requirements around our civilian
2 airports, very similar to what we already have
3 in terms of our military airports.
4 I would point out that we're not dealing
5 about any other capital management -- capital
6 improvement program or management plans within
7 the airports. We're talking specifically about
8 the regulation and use and -- around these
9 particular airports.
10 Staff, again, has looked at this. We're
11 trying to parallel what we've done with our
12 civilian -- or with military airports. This is
13 required by the state legislature and state act
14 in 2009. And we have reviewed this, we have
15 conducted public hearings before the Planning
16 Commission as well as a public workshop, and
17 staff recommends approval.
18 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Crofts.
19 Any questions from the committee?
20 MR. BISHOP: (Indicating.)
21 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Bishop.
22 MR. BISHOP: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
23 Through the Chair to Mr. Crofts, has this
24 map been corrected with respect to Craig Field
25 to show the -- the influence zones that -- as
46
1 they currently exist and not as JAA would like
2 them to be?
3 There is a map in the City's system that
4 shows it with the extension and not as it is
5 currently located. Has that been fixed?
6 MR. CROFTS: To my knowledge, the map that
7 you have does not reflect any change or an
8 extension of any runway. It's based on the
9 current facility out there.
10 So I don't know how to react to the
11 question about the map being fixed, but it has
12 no incorporation or relationship to the -- you
13 know, the extended runway and the map that you
14 refer to.
15 MR. BISHOP: All right. So if I were to
16 pull the maps up in larger format and it does
17 show it the way I remember seeing it from a
18 couple of years ago, it should be simply a
19 graphic correction in the published document?
20 MR. CROFTS: Yes.
21 MR. BISHOP: Thank you.
22 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Bishop.
23 Any other questions from the committee?
24 COMMITTEE MEMBERS: (No response.)
25 THE CHAIRMAN: All right. We have a
47
1 public hearing scheduled this evening. The
2 public hearing is open. I have no speakers'
3 cards.
4 Anyone in the audience care to address the
5 committee?
6 AUDIENCE MEMBERS: (No response.)
7 THE CHAIRMAN: Seeing no one, the public
8 hearing is closed.
9 MR. HOLT: Move the amendment.
10 MR. BISHOP: Second.
11 THE CHAIRMAN: Motion on the amendment by
12 Mr. Holt, second by Mr. Bishop.
13 Discussion on the amendment?
14 COMMITTEE MEMBERS: (No response.)
15 THE CHAIRMAN: If not, all those in favor,
16 say yes.
17 COMMITTEE MEMBERS: Yes.
18 THE CHAIRMAN: Opposed, say no.
19 COMMITTEE MEMBERS: (No response.)
20 THE CHAIRMAN: By our action, you have
21 adopted the amendment.
22 MR. HOLT: Move the bill as amended.
23 THE CHAIRMAN: Motion on bill as amended
24 by Mr. Holt, second by --
25 MR. REDMAN: Second.
48
1 THE CHAIRMAN: -- Mr. Redman.
2 Discussion on the motion to approve?
3 COMMITTEE MEMBERS: (No response.)
4 THE CHAIRMAN: Seeing no discussion, open
5 the ballot, please, vote.
6 (Committee ballot opened.)
7 MR. CRESCIMBENI: (Votes yea.)
8 MR. HOLT: (Votes yea.)
9 MR. BISHOP: (Votes yea.)
10 MR. BROWN: (Votes yea.)
11 MR. REDMAN: (Votes yea.)
12 (Committee ballot closed.)
13 MS. LAHMEUR: Five yeas, zero nay.
14 THE CHAIRMAN: By our action, you've
15 approved item 17, 2011-248.
16 Item 18, 2011-249.
17 Mr. Crofts.
18 MR. CROFTS: Ordinance 2011-249 is a text
19 amendment -- text change to add an additional
20 standard to be achieved in our land use mix of
21 our rural village designation in the AGR land
22 use classification.
23 This is basically adding another criteria
24 to assure the result of the development
25 achieves the appropriate mixed use that we're
49
1 seeking in these types of developments that are
2 allowed under certain circumstances. The
3 standard that we're suggesting is something
4 that is consistent with other mixed-use
5 developments in that they achieve a 15 percent
6 internal capture rate.
7 Staff has held public workshops on this
8 and a public hearing and a recommendation of
9 approval from the Planning Commission and
10 hereby recommends approval for your
11 consideration this evening.
12 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Crofts.
13 Any questions from the committee?
14 COMMITTEE MEMBERS: (No response.)
15 THE CHAIRMAN: All right. Seeing none, we
16 have a public hearing scheduled this evening.
17 The public hearing is open. I have no
18 speakers' cards.
19 Anyone care to address the committee?
20 AUDIENCE MEMBERS: (No response.)
21 THE CHAIRMAN: Seeing none, the public
22 hearing is closed.
23 MR. BISHOP: Move the bill.
24 MR. REDMAN: Second.
25 THE CHAIRMAN: Motion on the bill by
50
1 Mr. Bishop, second by Mr. Redman.
2 Discussion?
3 COMMITTEE MEMBERS: (No response.)
4 THE CHAIRMAN: If not, please open the
5 ballot, vote.
6 (Committee ballot opened.)
7 MR. CRESCIMBENI: (Votes yea.)
8 MR. BISHOP: (Votes yea.)
9 MR. BROWN: (Votes yea.)
10 MR. REDMAN: (Votes yea.)
11 (Committee ballot closed.)
12 MS. LAHMEUR: Four yeas, zero nay.
13 THE CHAIRMAN: By our action, you've
14 approved item 18, 2011-249.
15 Item 19, 2011-250.
16 Mr. Crofts.
17 MR. CROFTS: Ordinance 2010-250 [sic],
18 once again, is a text amendment to the
19 comprehensive plan's future land use element to
20 recognize and develop in our zoning code a new
21 zoning designation entitled PUD-MU or PUD,
22 Planned Unit Development-Multiuse.
23 The purpose of this particular zoning
24 designation is to address large developments
25 that we -- we ask that -- come in under the
51
1 multiuse land use category. This is a
2 designation that would have a preliminary and
3 development phase to address some of the
4 nuances that a multiuse project -- which is in
5 broad scale when it comes in and there's
6 certain practicalities and implementations. So
7 by having this two-phase PUD designation in a
8 multiuse category, it gives us the flexibility
9 but yet the control that we're seeking in terms
10 of the phasing and the relationships and the
11 internal mixed-use relationships that are in a
12 multiuse development.
13 Once again, we've looked at this. This is
14 in reference -- we're initiating this in our
15 comprehensive plan now with the intent of
16 actually developing the zoning designation at a
17 later date when this comes back from the State
18 for adoption.
19 Staff has reviewed it, evaluated it for
20 consistency, had public hearings both at the
21 Planning Commission and a public informational
22 workshop, and recommends approval.
23 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Crofts.
24 Questions from the committee?
25 Mr. Holt, followed by Mr. Bishop.
52
1 MR. HOLT: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
2 Through the Chair to Mr. Crofts, if this
3 new designation is going to be used for
4 multiuse PUDs, is "PUD normal" going to be
5 reserved for those that are focused on
6 residential?
7 MR. CROFTS: In response, through the
8 Chair, I probably didn't make this obviously
9 clear, but it's going to be used for
10 developments that are of the DRI --
11 Florida-quality development or the regional
12 activity centers. So only those that reach
13 that very high DRI threshold, not for all other
14 mixed uses or PUDs, so it will not substitute
15 for that, only in those large instances that
16 meet this particular hierarchy or definition.
17 MR. HOLT: So with DRIs kind of going by
18 the wayside, this will be our -- our new zoning
19 category for those larger developments?
20 MR. CROFTS: Only for the higher order
21 ones that are of this higher order DRI
22 threshold, yes, sir.
23 MR. HOLT: Thank you.
24 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Bishop.
25 MR. BISHOP: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
53
1 So to come at it from another direction, I
2 guess, if someone comes in and wants to do what
3 would be a -- would have been in the old days a
4 DRI and that gets approved, then the land use
5 change becomes MU?
6 MR. CROFTS: That's true.
7 MR. BISHOP: MU becomes the underlying
8 land use change for anything that ultimately
9 becomes a large-scale multiuse project?
10 MR. CROFTS: That's correct.
11 MR. BISHOP: All right.
12 MR. CROFTS: If it helps, again, when a
13 multiuse land use amendment comes in at the
14 broad scale of several thousands of units --
15 MR. BISHOP: So this isn't actually a land
16 use category like most of the other ones are
17 from a comprehensive planning standpoint where
18 you go in, plan the county, we want X here and
19 Y here and Z over here? This is an
20 administrative land use category to account for
21 something after the fact --
22 MR. CROFTS: This --
23 MR. BISHOP: -- in a sense?
24 I come to you -- I've got this 5,000 acres
25 somewhere out on the Westside somewhere, I want
54
1 to build this new town or whatever the heck it
2 is, and it goes through the process and gets
3 approved. Part of that becomes we're now going
4 to designate that land MU on the land use plan?
5 MR. CROFTS: We're doing that now, sir.
6 We're doing that now, but this is the zoning
7 category to implement that.
8 MR. BISHOP: To go with that?
9 MR. CROFTS: To go --
10 MR. BISHOP: So it is, in a sense, a
11 reactive land use in -- well, in a reactive
12 zoning?
13 MR. CROFTS: That --
14 MR. BISHOP: To account for a specific
15 activity that happens in a one-off fashion?
16 MR. CROFTS: Correct.
17 It's in order to piecemeal phase-out these
18 large multi-categories because all the detailed
19 planning -- the specific locations of some of
20 these uses for a large development that is
21 projected over a 20-year horizon, we don't
22 necessarily -- we can't envision, so what
23 happens --
24 (Simultaneous speaking.)
25 MR. BISHOP: That would tend to change --
55
1 MR. CROFTS: Exactly.
2 So what we're doing is we're providing the
3 flexibility up in this category by designating
4 it as a preliminary PUD and -- there's a
5 preliminary phase in that PUD zoning
6 designation, and then there is a development
7 phase which allows you to proceed in accordance
8 with that overall master plan.
9 MR. BISHOP: So once a project gets this
10 designation and it goes through preliminary PUD
11 approval and is now zoned PUD-MU and the land
12 use is now MU and all of that, it's five years
13 into the process and the developer wants to do
14 something different. In the -- under what
15 we're used to seeing, they would go in for a
16 PUD modification. What's the process now?
17 MR. CROFTS: Now it --
18 MR. BISHOP: What will the process be if
19 this goes into effect?
20 MR. CROFTS: Well, basically, it will
21 be -- you'll have the -- you'll have these two
22 phases. And we're still generating this
23 ordinance, you have to understand, on the
24 zoning, this specific PUD-MU zoning
25 designation. There's draft forms of that, but
56
1 it hasn't been completely put together yet, but
2 it will be -- you'll have the control of the
3 master plan, first and foremost, and then it
4 will come back and be implemented in stages
5 through the development phase of this PUD-MU
6 zoning designation.
7 MR. KILLINGSWORTH: If I may,
8 Mr. Chairman.
9 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Bishop, would you like
10 to hear from Mr. Killingsworth?
11 MR. BISHOP: Please.
12 THE CHAIRMAN: All right.
13 MR. KILLINGSWORTH: Previously, when we
14 had DRIs, there was a -- excuse me.
15 Bill Killingsworth, director of Planning
16 and Development.
17 Previously, when we had DRIs, there was an
18 underlying development order which set forth
19 the development plan for a DRI. Now that the
20 City of Jacksonville no longer has DRIs, we
21 don't have that development order mechanism.
22 So what we're looking at doing is creating a
23 zoning category called PUD-MU, which replaces
24 the development order.
25 And so under the old system there would be
57
1 a development order and then the master
2 developer would come in and do PUDs as he
3 phased out his project. What the PUD-MU does
4 is replace the development order and, in a
5 sense, substitutes for that and then their
6 master developer comes in and does PUDs
7 consistent with the PUD-MD -- -MU, much like
8 you would a -- previously with a development
9 order.
10 So the process is the same. We just need
11 another tool to substitute with a development
12 order because we no longer have DRIs.
13 MR. BISHOP: So all the subsequent phases
14 get, in a sense, conventional PUDs under this
15 master PUD-MU designation?
16 MR. KILLINGSWORTH: Right.
17 MR. BISHOP: Okay. Thank you.
18 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Bishop,
19 Mr. Killingsworth.
20 Any other questions?
21 COMMITTEE MEMBERS: (No response.)
22 THE CHAIRMAN: All right. We have a
23 public hearing scheduled this evening. I can't
24 remember if I opened the public hearing. I
25 don't think I did.
58
1 The public hearing is open. I have no
2 speakers' cards, I don't see anyone --
3 Sir, if you want to address the committee
4 at any point, just raise your hand back there.
5 (Inaudible discussion.)
6 THE CHAIRMAN: Oh, he's with Plann- -- oh,
7 he's with you?
8 MR. CROFTS: Yes.
9 THE CHAIRMAN: Oh, okay. All right.
10 The public hearing is closed. We're back
11 in committee.
12 MR. BISHOP: Move the bill.
13 MR. REDMAN: Second.
14 THE CHAIRMAN: Motion on the bill by
15 Mr. Bishop, second by Mr. Redman.
16 Discussion on the bill?
17 COMMITTEE MEMBERS: (No response.)
18 THE CHAIRMAN: If none, please open the
19 ballot.
20 (Committee ballot opened.)
21 MR. CRESCIMBENI: (Votes yea.)
22 MR. HOLT: (Votes yea.)
23 MR. BISHOP: (Votes yea.)
24 MR. BROWN: (Votes yea.)
25 MR. REDMAN: (Votes yea.)
59
1 (Committee ballot closed.)
2 MS. LAHMEUR: Five yeas, zero nay.
3 THE CHAIRMAN: By our action, you've
4 approved item 19, 2011-250.
5 Item 20, 2011-251.
6 Mr. Crofts.
7 MR. CROFTS: Ordinance 2011-251, once
8 again, is a text change that reaches out and
9 encourages, through the incorporation of two
10 new policies in the future land use element,
11 community gardens as a permissible use in
12 various land use designations. The gardens are
13 for personal or group use but not for retail
14 sale or for wholesale purposes. They are
15 considered unsuitable in the HI, LI, and the
16 Water-Dependent/Water-Related land use
17 categories.
18 Staff has, again, held a public workshop
19 on this amendment, conducted a public hearing
20 and -- before the Planning Commission,
21 whereupon it was recommended for approval. And
22 staff has reviewed this for appropriateness and
23 timeliness and recommends approval.
24 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Crofts.
25 What was the origin of this? I mean, did
60
1 something --
2 MR. CROFTS: I didn't bring along my
3 pictures. I did bring along one picture.
4 Actually, there are -- I don't know if you
5 know this or not, but there are 13 active
6 community gardens in the city of Jacksonville.
7 They are in Arlington, they are in the
8 southeast, they are in the southwest, and
9 they're in the north side of the city, and
10 they're in Springfield.
11 This is an active and vibrant land use
12 occurring in our community and we needed to get
13 our arms around it and endorse it and include
14 it for consideration and appropriateness in our
15 comprehensive plan.
16 THE CHAIRMAN: Were you -- I mean, were
17 you approached by someone to -- or you just
18 picked up on that?
19 MR. CROFTS: I believe that there was
20 interest expressed, the question was arisen,
21 and we needed to respond to it, and this is our
22 appropriate way of doing it. It's something
23 that's burgeoning in the community and we need
24 to be ready for it.
25 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. Very good.
61
1 Two of those gardens I'm familiar with.
2 Tree Hill -- did you know Tree Hill has one?
3 You're probably -- that's probably not on your
4 list, is it?
5 MR. CROFTS: It's one of my pictures, yes.
6 THE CHAIRMAN: And the Wachovia bank on
7 University Boulevard North, correct?
8 MR. CROFTS: Yes. You'd be surprised.
9 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Bishop.
10 MR. BISHOP: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
11 Yeah -- yes, community gardening is
12 becoming a real big deal all over the country
13 as urban farming becomes a big deal and the
14 whole movement of growing local, consuming
15 local becomes a bigger part of culture, but I
16 guess the question from a land use standpoint,
17 have there been people cited for having illegal
18 community gardens at this point that we need to
19 create a special designation for it? I mean,
20 how do you plan for commun- -- how do you plan
21 for this in a proactive way?
22 From what I'm used to understanding is
23 land planning -- I mean, you would think in a
24 residential area, it would be okay, it would
25 be -- pretty much anywhere, obviously, where --
62
1 you wouldn't want to necessarily have it in an
2 industrial area for a number of reasons, but
3 how do you -- how do you turn this into a land
4 use category that you plan for? That's where
5 I'm having a little difficulty.
6 MR. CROFTS: Our amendment to the
7 comprehensive plan essentially just
8 indicates -- have been included in this -- in
9 the comprehensive plan in two policies
10 basically and they're in your amendment and we
11 suggest that the language specifically deals
12 with the -- policies 2.85 and 2.86 are really
13 suggesting and encouraging community gardens as
14 an important open space resource and
15 strengthening the community's cohesiveness
16 and -- and to provide a local food source.
17 So to answer your question, we are
18 suggesting, we're incorporating, we're
19 endorsing -- we're not listing them; that's an
20 interpretive thing -- in terms of our plan.
21 MR. BISHOP: I got it.
22 MR. CROFTS: They're a -- kind of an
23 accessory use to some degree, but we want to
24 promote, we want to -- we want to make a
25 statement in our comprehensive plan about where
63
1 we feel they are suitable and endorse the whole
2 concept because it is a very vibrant one and
3 coming on stronger and stronger.
4 MR. BISHOP: Okay. That -- I understand.
5 That makes sense.
6 Now, it does say in here "not for" -- you
7 know, "not for wholesale or retail purposes."
8 Presumably, if a neighborhood got together and
9 had a -- and there was a lot and they bought it
10 and they just started doing a garden and they
11 started running an informal truck farm out of
12 there, is the idea that we might cite them for
13 illegal farming in a residential neighborhood
14 or something like that or what -- what's the
15 issue in --
16 MR. CROFTS: I think that's the intent,
17 that it would be for -- just primarily for the
18 public use and not for sale and for profit and
19 all those kinds of things.
20 MR. BISHOP: So farming for
21 wholesale/retail needs to be done in what would
22 be considered legitimate agricultural land use
23 designations --
24 MR. CROFTS: Agricultural or
25 commercial-type uses, yes, sir.
64
1 MR. BISHOP: All right. Thanks.
2 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Bishop.
3 Any other questions?
4 COMMITTEE MEMBERS: (No response.)
5 THE CHAIRMAN: All right. We have a
6 public hearing scheduled this evening. The
7 public hearing is open. I have no speakers'
8 cards, no one in the audience. The public
9 hearing is closed.
10 MR. HOLT: Move the bill.
11 MR. REDMAN: Second.
12 THE CHAIRMAN: Motion on the bill by
13 Mr. Holt, second by Mr. Redman.
14 Discussion?
15 COMMITTEE MEMBERS: (No response.)
16 THE CHAIRMAN: If there's no discussion,
17 please open the ballot, vote.
18 (Committee ballot opened.)
19 MR. CRESCIMBENI: (Votes yea.)
20 MR. HOLT: (Votes yea.)
21 MR. BISHOP: (Votes yea.)
22 MR. BROWN: (Votes yea.)
23 MR. REDMAN: (Votes yea.)
24 (Committee ballot closed.)
25 MS. LAHMEUR: Five yeas, zero nay.
65
1 THE CHAIRMAN: By our action, you've
2 approved item 20, 2011-251.
3 Turning to page 7, at the top, item 21,
4 2011-252.
5 Emery Nauden or Dylan? Who's handling
6 this, Emery?
7 (Mr. Nauden approaches the podium.)
8 MR. NAUDEN: Yes, sir.
9 Before I get started, I understand
10 there's, like, a three-second delay. So if I'm
11 going too fast on the slides, feel free to stop
12 me.
13 To the Land Use and Zoning Committee, my
14 name is Emery Nauden, and I'm here to present
15 2011-252 on behalf of the Planning and
16 Development Department.
17 2001-252 is for the screening of the
18 industrial uses. The genesis of this
19 legislation: The legislation originated in
20 ITAC, the Industrial Technical Advisory
21 Committee, specifically from Mr. Anderson of
22 the Pattillo Corporation, after he began to
23 notice more and more shipping containers from
24 Jaxport being placed in industrial properties
25 with what he felt was a lack of proper
66
1 screening.
2 From the committee -- from there, the
3 committee thoroughly researched and discussed
4 the topic in committee meetings with
5 Mr. Reingold, the General Counsel, and
6 Department staff, which resulted in 2011-252.
7 ITAC is a combination of industrial and
8 residential representatives that include Bill
9 Spinner, Robert Hays, Peter Anderson, Thomas
10 Grimes, Christopher Dostie, Justin Hart.
11 And, once again, the Planning Department
12 is sponsoring this legislation.
13 Our current regulated uses: Section
14 656.415 governs screening and fencing for
15 junkyards and automobile wrecking yards, scrap
16 processing yards, loading and unloading zones,
17 and automobile storage yards.
18 The new proposed regulated use is outside
19 storage and outside storage yards. The
20 legislation introduces additional screening
21 requirements that prohibit chain-link fences,
22 permit berms, increase height from -- of fences
23 from six feet to eight feet, and introduce
24 evergreen shade trees.
25 This is an example of why the committee
67
1 wants to move away from chain-link fences in
2 industrial areas (indicating). Here, you can
3 see a chain-link fence that uses the mesh
4 material that a lot of these industrial
5 properties are using to screen off their --
6 their internal uses. And, as you can see,
7 without proper maintenance, it either gets
8 tattered and torn or the wind comes through and
9 wraps it around the fence and it doesn't do a
10 proper job screening the interior uses.
11 Stacking of storage containers is also
12 addressed in this legislation. This is a
13 picture from 295 of the shipping containers
14 from Jaxport being stacked. The committee
15 feels -- they're really concerned about
16 tourists and visitors coming into Jacksonville
17 and seeing that as one of the first things that
18 they see when they enter the city and one of
19 the things they see when they leave the city.
20 These are the container truck chassis
21 (indicating). This picture was taken on Alta
22 Drive. These are the chassis, trailers that
23 are used to transport the containers, then
24 they're stacked. And, as you can see, there's
25 basically no screening going on there.
68
1 All these photos I'm showing you are taken
2 from the public right-of-way.
3 Here's another picture (indicating). This
4 is stacked four high. This is off of Main
5 Street, easily visible from the public
6 right-of-way.
7 This is also off of Main Street
8 (indicating). This is where someone has
9 decided that this is how they're going to
10 advertise the selling of these containers.
11 This is stacked three high. You can see the
12 signage here.
13 This is a shot of those containers two
14 slides before (indicating), where, from the
15 opposite side of this home, you can see the
16 containers stacked behind this person's
17 property. And so from their backyard, that's
18 what they're looking at.
19 Container storage height requirements
20 include a 27 foot height limit in the
21 Industrial Light district and a 45 foot height
22 limit in the Industrial Heavy district.
23 The container storage setback requirements
24 include a ten foot setback from property lines
25 and one foot per two feet in height.
69
1 This is an illustration of that, showing
2 the 27 foot maximum height in Industrial Light
3 and the 45 foot maximum height in Industrial
4 Heavy, and the setbacks.
5 This slide is an example of the evergreen
6 shade tree with a minimum 3-inch caliper,
7 spaced 25 feet on center, in combination with
8 an 8-foot-high minimum 95 percent opaque fence,
9 not to be chain link, that can be used with
10 walls, berms or evergreen hedges.
11 There are some incentives in the
12 legislation for natural buffers for automobile
13 and outside storage. The fence, wall, berm or
14 hedge will not be required if a 20-foot-wide,
15 undisturbed, natural buffer with 15-foot-tall
16 evergreen shade trees, spaced 15 feet apart,
17 are provided.
18 This is an example in this illustration of
19 the 20-foot-wide minimum undisturbed, natural
20 buffer consisting of evergreen shade trees,
21 with the minimum 15 foot height and spaced
22 15 feet apart.
23 There is an exemption from fencing and
24 screening for outside storage. If the outside
25 storage behind the building is not visible from
70
1 the right-of-way, where they have their
2 equipment or the containers stored and you
3 can't see it from the right-of-way, then they
4 wouldn't be required to provide the buffering
5 and the landscape screening.
6 Are there any questions?
7 THE CHAIRMAN: I have one question that
8 was -- well, actually two questions.
9 The trees, one you mentioned was the
10 15-foot-tall --
11 MR. NAUDEN: Evergreen.
12 THE CHAIRMAN: -- evergreen.
13 What about the -- I think you said the --
14 was it the 3-inch caliper? What was that tree?
15 MR. NAUDEN: That's the same, the
16 evergreen --
17 THE CHAIRMAN: So they're all evergreens?
18 Okay.
19 MR. NAUDEN: Yeah.
20 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. And the second
21 question is, during this whole process, were
22 any of these folks that store containers on a
23 large scale invited to participate in the
24 process? And how does this impact Jaxport in
25 some of their operations?
71
1 MR. NAUDEN: When I was originally
2 researching this for the committee, I called
3 Jaxport to ask them how they handled their
4 container storage, if there was, like, one
5 broad system that they use. It's left to each
6 individual lessee there, but they said that the
7 45 foot height was the maximum height they've
8 seen in a storm that was safe. They -- I guess
9 they go out -- they lash them down and they
10 don't stack them any higher than 45 feet if
11 there's a storm coming in, so that's where the
12 basis for that 45 foot maximum height came
13 from.
14 As far as the first question goes, all of
15 our public meetings in the Industrial Technical
16 Advisory Committee are publicly noticed and the
17 public can come through.
18 THE CHAIRMAN: Well, that really wasn't
19 the question. I'm pretty familiar with the
20 notice requirements. The question was, was
21 there any attempt to reach out to, like --
22 (Simultaneous speaking.)
23 MR. NAUDEN: (Inaudible.)
24 THE CHAIRMAN: -- respective parties,
25 yeah.
72
1 MR. NAUDEN: Not that I know of.
2 THE CHAIRMAN: Because they have a
3 tendency to get surprised by some of this
4 stuff, you know, when it's all done without
5 their knowledge and we vote on it. We've got
6 to -- we start getting the phone calls, so I
7 just wanted to see if anybody had tried to
8 include them in the process.
9 All right. I have some other questions
10 from members.
11 Mr. Brown, followed by Mr. Holt.
12 MR. BROWN: This would apply to existing
13 industrial areas and would be enforced upon
14 passage by the council? I mean, it would --
15 these folks would immediately be in violation
16 or would --
17 MR. NAUDEN: Mr. Reingold can answer.
18 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Reingold.
19 MR. REINGOLD: Through the Chair to the
20 council member, actually one of the Planning
21 Department amendments noted on the agenda is
22 that there would actually be about a six-month
23 grandfathering amortization period where those
24 existing -- or those businesses existing before
25 April 26th, 2011, would have until December to
73
1 get in line with -- or in compliance with these
2 code requirements.
3 MR. BROWN: If someone were mandating that
4 the City do this much buffering or screening of
5 a number of our facilities, we would -- we'd be
6 replying that -- that we really have a
7 shortfall of revenue and -- and it would be a
8 bit of a hardship, and yet with the port, we
9 just came from a -- kind of a report session
10 this afternoon with the ports looking to
11 increase the container, the shipping activity
12 as part of our -- growing our economy and
13 growing jobs, and this would -- this is
14 puzzling that we would see this as a need to
15 beautify industrial areas, which are -- by
16 nature, can be unsightly, and it looks like we
17 stand ready to impose pretty significant
18 expenses.
19 The port is looking to try to find money
20 to dredge the channel to bring in more
21 shipping. And if they bring in more shipping,
22 more containers, we are looking to impose
23 significant expenses on them, and I -- I think
24 this needs to get a lot more feedback from
25 those folks. I'd love to see somebody in the
74
1 audience from the port with an idea of what the
2 cost will be, and I think we don't have any
3 idea. We just are coming up with some -- some
4 thoughts that would shield things, that would
5 require -- I mean, we're talking huge amounts
6 of acreage and area that is now functioning as
7 industrial and needs to be -- I don't know why
8 it needs to be screened because the public
9 accepts and understands that that is the
10 industrial area, but --
11 So my concern -- I don't think I could
12 support something that -- right now without
13 seeing some folks from the port and the
14 industrial areas here that would be saying,
15 "Oh, yeah, we're looking forward to incurring
16 this expense in the middle of a recession," but
17 I'm anxious to hear from the other committee
18 members.
19 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Brown.
20 Mr. Holt, followed by Mr. Bishop.
21 MR. HOLT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
22 I'm along the same lines as Mr. Brown.
23 It concerns me because I'm thinking -- and
24 a lot of those pictures were in my district. I
25 cover all that -- Dames Point/Port area, and
75
1 so -- certainly I do get complaints from time
2 to time about properties and whether they're
3 complying with our code.
4 I'm glad that this came through ITAC
5 because I know some of those folks are in the
6 port business, in the warehousing business,
7 but -- do you have any idea how many properties
8 this might affect? Did this come from a series
9 of complaints? Do you have any idea how much
10 this is going to impact our businesses out
11 there?
12 It seems to me, like Mr. Brown was saying,
13 it -- I mean, it could be hundreds of
14 businesses that end up having to spend
15 thousands of dollars each --
16 MR. KELLY: Through the Chair --
17 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Kelly, did you want to
18 weigh --
19 MR. KELLY: Yeah, I'll just kind of
20 respond a little bit. I worked with staff and
21 OGC on this as well.
22 I mean, in terms of the numbers of
23 properties, a lot of this was actually
24 generated from Code Enforcement in trying to
25 protect the existing screening requirements for
76
1 the outdoor storage areas from the
2 right-of-way. And what was happening, the --
3 the opacity or the screening requirement, they
4 put essentially, like, the mesh across a 6-foot
5 fence, but then, in essence, right behind the
6 fence was, you know, 50 feet of storage
7 containers. So the screening on the fence had
8 no effect, and so it became an aesthetic issue.
9 And they, you know, went through this in
10 ITAC and debated this. There was a lot of
11 participation at that level from both
12 industrial developers, residential developers.
13 You know the makeup of that committee, and --
14 and the result was this bill to provide some
15 performance standards.
16 We review it basically as a transient type
17 of use. If it's storage containers, they can
18 stack them and move them around, and that is
19 something that can ultimately be brought into
20 compliance. You can set it ten feet back
21 further and then you can stack them in a way
22 that it progressively moves outside of the
23 sight lines from the right-of-way and -- and
24 the screening that's required, you know, we
25 feel is appropriate and otherwise would be
77
1 required for any time you had uncomplementary
2 land use buffers.
3 And the problem was more or less in a lot
4 of areas -- industrial areas around downtown
5 and the train yards and things like that where
6 a lot of these containers were being stacked
7 were really intrusive into the residential
8 areas, and so it was a Code-Enforcement-driven
9 response and a -- from a practical standpoint,
10 an aesthetic issue as they come in the gateway.
11 You know, most of the major port
12 properties, they won't really be affected by
13 this. They currently are in compliance. They
14 meet those setbacks. They're the industrial
15 waterfront properties. The bigger issue is the
16 way the containers are being sold, in essence,
17 and just stacked permanently and they're not
18 being utilized for true kind of shipping. It's
19 just container storage, in essence, that's not
20 visually screened.
21 MR. HOLT: Well, I'm with Mr. Brown on
22 this. I'm uncomfortable with it right now. I
23 think I -- if I could do a little research and
24 speak with somebody outside of the committee
25 and get a better understanding of it, maybe I
78
1 could become comfortable with it. I like the
2 general idea, but I'm just really scared of
3 doing something that could cost our local
4 businesses hundreds of thousands of dollars
5 throughout this city and just have -- our Code
6 Enforcement folks are burdened enough, but I
7 just would ask that maybe we consider a
8 deferral.
9 Thank you.
10 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Holt.
11 Mr. Kelly or Mr. Nauden, does this apply
12 to only outside storage in certain categories
13 or is it across the board -- I see Light
14 Industrial listed here, Heavy Industrial, Water
15 Dependent/Water Related. Mr. Reingold -- who
16 wants to take a stab at that?
17 MR. REINGOLD: I would be happy, Chair, to
18 take a stab at that.
19 Essentially -- generally, the outside
20 storage and outside storage yards would have to
21 meet the screening and buffering requirements
22 that are set forth in the bill, but on top of
23 that, outside storage would have to also have a
24 height limit in LI -- or IL and IH districts.
25 And, additionally, the 10-foot setback and then
79
1 the one foot increase in height for two feet
2 back or vice versa, actually, would be solely
3 addressed for outside storage uses.
4 THE CHAIRMAN: Well, what's Jaxport's
5 property -- like at the Dames Point terminal,
6 what's that -- that's -- so, I mean, they're
7 going to have to plant trees on the
8 perimeter --
9 MR. KELLY: No. The IW is -- as Dylan
10 said, was not subject to, I think, the same
11 container stacking height and screening
12 requirements in the IW. They're -- they're not
13 under that same regulation.
14 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. And that would apply
15 to, like, Talleyrand and Blount Island, I'm
16 assuming?
17 MR. KELLY: Yeah.
18 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. Mr. Bishop --
19 MR. BISHOP: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
20 THE CHAIRMAN: -- followed by Mr. Redman.
21 MR. BISHOP: Along those same lines -- and
22 maybe you've done this research and you
23 understand the impact of it, but some
24 industrial -- maybe if there's Heavy Industrial
25 areas that are quite large, that 45 foot height
80
1 limitation would apply to the entire property,
2 even the interior areas where it may not be
3 directly visible from a public right-of-way.
4 If you have scenarios like that -- and I guess
5 I would question, what difference does it make
6 how high they are if you can't see it from the
7 road, in a sense, if those kinds of things
8 existed -- and is there any thought about a
9 distance off of the right-of-way in which that
10 height limitation is affected? Because -- or
11 what about areas that are predominantly -- if
12 you have an area with multiple property owners
13 that have -- that are divided by streets where
14 it's all Heavy Industrial all around it, does
15 that same condition apply? Are you then
16 requiring all of these properties be buffered
17 with trees and height limitations when you're
18 essentially in an industrial district?
19 All of that goes to the question -- to the
20 issues of -- of, are these necessary expenses
21 and are we furthering the goals of
22 aestheticism, if you will? That's what we're
23 trying to do. Is it necessary in an industrial
24 district? These are just things that come to
25 my mind.
81
1 And then the question of, is six months an
2 appropriate time for an implementation phase?
3 If you've got large parcels that -- some of
4 that fencing could be quite significant, and is
5 that adequate time?
6 And, I don't know, maybe it is, maybe it
7 isn't. Those are just some questions that I
8 have that I think we ought to know some -- have
9 some understanding of before we just simply
10 pass it.
11 In general, I like the idea of trying to
12 screen some public rights-of-way. I think
13 that's a good idea. One of the things -- how
14 does this impact the one photograph where you
15 could see the four high stacking from the
16 backyard of a residence with the -- the bill
17 addresses the view from a public right-of-way.
18 How does it address it from an adjoining parcel
19 that is not a public right-of-way but is not
20 necessarily a complementary land use? Is that
21 addressed in here? Which is kind of going the
22 other way, but that's also an issue that I
23 think may be something that's worthwhile to be
24 taking a look at as well.
25 So I would support a deferral to
82
1 potentially address some of these things and
2 maybe give some thought of how some of those
3 circumstances might be addressed, but in
4 general I like the idea. I think it just needs
5 a little bit more work, that's all.
6 Thanks.
7 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Bishop.
8 Mr. Redman.
9 MR. REDMAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
10 I agree with Mr. Brown and the others,
11 that we probably need to defer this before we
12 vote on it to have some input from those that
13 would be affected by it. I mean, I -- we can't
14 hide these things from everybody. You cross
15 the Dames Point bridge out there, there's no
16 way you can -- you have all those containers
17 sitting out there. You -- you know, they're
18 part of the structure and the business that is
19 coming in and bringing jobs and money to our
20 city, so we need to -- definitely need to get
21 input from them.
22 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Redman.
23 The Chair is going to defer this bill.
24 Mr. Brown, do you want to continue with
25 comments or --
83
1 MR. BROWN: Just --
2 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Brown.
3 MR. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, just one.
4 Has a level of penalties been decided on
5 and attached to this if someone had not met
6 their deadline or --
7 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Reingold.
8 MR. REINGOLD: Through the Chair to the
9 council member, there was no set specific
10 penalties. It would just default to the
11 general zoning code violation provisions in our
12 zoning code.
13 MR. BROWN: It -- I agree totally that
14 more study would be useful, and I -- I can see
15 that even our port would probably end up in
16 violation with some of this. Is it -- it just
17 can't all be shielded. It just is not -- not
18 realistic or possible to think that we could do
19 that, so -- but I -- but more input certainly
20 is needed, Mr. Chairman, I agree with you.
21 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Brown.
22 We have a public hearing scheduled on this
23 this evening.
24 Mr. Nauden, while I appreciate all your
25 efforts on this, we're going to defer it
84
1 tonight. We're going to open the public
2 hearing and continue the public hearing until
3 June 7th, I believe it is.
4 MR. NAUDEN: (Indicating.)
5 THE CHAIRMAN: Yes, sir.
6 MR. NAUDEN: To the committee, through the
7 Chair, I'd just like to address one of the
8 things that Councilman Holt was mentioning.
9 The -- the genesis of this -- the
10 beginnings of it was the fact that the smaller
11 landowners that had just changed their property
12 to industrial were taking these containers
13 without having to improve the lot and storing
14 the containers there and then pressing them
15 against the property lines for advertisement,
16 and that's kind of where it all started. I
17 don't think Jaxport was targeted. It's more an
18 idea of kind of screening the public
19 right-of-ways and these individual property
20 owners that had just rezoned their properties
21 to industrial, but because of the market, this
22 allows them to do something and earn some
23 revenue without having to improve the lots, and
24 that's where it started from.
25 THE CHAIRMAN: All right. Thank you, sir.
85
1 Mr. Reingold.
2 MR. REINGOLD: To the Chair and the whole
3 committee, I just wanted to speak up for a
4 second because I know the item is going to be
5 deferred, but I kind of want to reach out.
6 I've heard a couple of different issues
7 tonight. Maybe we could do some research on
8 how many properties are involved, how many
9 properties we're looking at; maybe reach out to
10 Jaxport, talk to them about the influence on
11 them; and, furthermore, maybe they might be
12 able to get us in contact with some of the
13 people who would be affected. Additionally,
14 look at the height internally issue, is that
15 necessary, and would -- the six-month time
16 limit, is that feasible or are we looking at
17 needing something more than that.
18 Those were the issues I had written down,
19 based upon our conversation.
20 THE CHAIRMAN: Great.
21 All right. Mr. Nauden, we'll take this
22 matter up again on June 7th. I would request
23 that perhaps you invite someone that can speak
24 for Jaxport to our meeting on the 7th, as well
25 as some of the ITAC members that participated
86
1 in the panel that could shed some light on some
2 of the things that they studied.
3 Again, I want to thank you for your
4 efforts in getting this bill to where it is
5 today. We're just going to take a little bit
6 of extra time to deal with it, and I hope you
7 can understand that.
8 MR. NAUDEN: Thank you.
9 THE CHAIRMAN: All right. We have a
10 public hearing scheduled this evening. The
11 public hearing is open. I have no speakers'
12 cards. The public hearing is continued until
13 June 7th and the bill is deferred.
14 All right. Our next item, 22, 2011-253,
15 is deferred. Item 23, 2011-254, is deferred.
16 Item 24, 2011-316, is read second.
17 Turning to page 8, our final item, 25,
18 2011-317, is read second.
19 Committee members, you will notice from
20 the read seconds that we should have a pretty
21 short meeting on the 7th, so -- not much left
22 on the agenda. May have, like, a two-page
23 agenda next time around.
24 That concludes our meeting.
25 Any comments from the committee?
87
1
2 COMMITTEE MEMBERS: (No response.)
3 THE CHAIRMAN: Ms. Boyer, thank you for
4 sitting in.
5 Would you like to say anything?
6 MS. BOYER: No.
7 THE CHAIRMAN: Did you practice pressing,
8 like, green or red when you were -- not that it
9 counted, but --
10 All right. Mr. Campbell, you ever get any
11 recognition? Thank you for sitting back there
12 doing our minutes. And, of course, to our
13 Legislative Services and IT folks, Merriane,
14 Steve, and Sharonda. And, of course, our
15 lovely court reporter.
16 All right. That's it. We'll see you on
17 June 7th.
18 If you haven't voted, you have about
19 40 minutes to do so, so please get to the
20 polling place in your neighborhood and cast
21 your ballot, and we'll see you on June 7th.
22 Thank you, everyone.
23 Meeting is adjourned.
24 (The above proceedings were adjourned at
25 6:20 p.m.)
88
1 - - -
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
89
1 CERTIFICATE
2
3 STATE OF FLORIDA)
)
4 COUNTY OF DUVAL )
5
I, Diane M. Tropia, Court Reporter,
6 certify that I was authorized to and did
stenographically report the foregoing proceedings
7 and that the transcript is a true and complete
record of my stenographic notes.
8
9
DATED this 22nd day of May, 2011.
10
___________________________
11 Diane M. Tropia
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25