CITY OF JACKSONVILLE

LAND USE AND ZONING

COMMITTEE

Proceedings held on Tuesday, January 4, 2011,

commencing at 5:00 p.m., City Hall, Council

Chambers, 1st Floor, Jacksonville, Florida, before

Tina Hutcheson, a Notary Public in and for the State

of Florida at Large.

PRESENT:

JOHN CRESCIMBENI, Chair.

RAY HOLT, Vice Chair.

DON REDMAN, Committee Member.

DICK BROWN, Committee Member.

REGGIE BROWN, Committee Member.

STEPHEN JOOST, Committee Member.

ALSO PRESENT:

JOHN CROFTS, Deputy Director, Planning Dept.

SEAN KELLY, Chief, Current Planning.

FOLKS HUXFORD, Zoning Administrator.

DYLAN REINGOLD, Office of General Counsel.

MERRIANE LAHMEUR, Legislative Assistant.

SHARONDA DAVIS, Legislative Assistant.

- - -

2

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

2 January 4, 2011 5:00 p.m.

3 - - -

4 THE CHAIR: Good afternoon, everyone.

5 We're going to call the January 4th, 2011, LUZ

6 meeting to order. And we will begin by going

7 around the dais and have everyone introduce

8 themselves, starting with Mr. Crofts.

9 MR. CROFTS: Good evening. John Crofts

10 representing Planning and Development

11 Department.

12 MR. KELLY: Sean Kelly, Planning and

13 Development.

14 MR. HUXFORD: Folks Huxford, Planning and

15 Development.

16 MR. REINGOLD: Dylan Reingold with the

17 Office of General Counsel.

18 MR. D. BROWN: I'm Dick Brown, City

19 Council, District 13.

20 MR. JOOST: Stephen Joost, Group 3

21 at-large.

22 MR. CRESCIMBENI: I'm John Crescimbeni,

23 at-large council member Group 2 and Chairman of

24 the committee.

25 MR. HOLT: Ray Holt, District 11.

3

1 MR. REDMAN: Don Redman, District 4.

2 THE CHAIR: All right. Thank you,

3 everyone. We have an excused absence from

4 Councilman Bishop. He will not be here

5 tonight. Also have an excused absence from

6 Councilman Reggie Brown, but I understand he is

7 here, so he may be joining us momentarily.

8 So with that --

9 MR. D. BROWN: He's in the building.

10 THE CHAIR: He's in the building, that is

11 correct.

12 With that, Mr. Reingold, do you want to

13 read the LUZ preamble?

14 MR. REINGOLD: I would be delighted to.

15 THE CHAIR: I knew you would be. You

16 haven't been able to do that since last year.

17 MR. REINGOLD: I know. It's been very

18 disappointing, but it's great to be back.

19 Anywho, our general announcements for

20 tonight.

21 Anyone who would like to address this

22 committee tonight must fill out a yellow

23 speaker's card in its entirety. The yellow

24 speaker's cards are located on the desk up

25 front near the podium. Once completed, please

4

1 return the speaker's card to the basket on the

2 front desk.

3 Any person who lobbies the City for

4 compensation is considered a lobbyist and is

5 therefore required to register their lobbying

6 activity with the City Council secretary. If

7 you are a lobbyist and have not registered with

8 the City Council secretary, you will not be

9 permitted to address the committee tonight.

10 Because a verbatim transcript of this

11 meeting will be prepared by a court reporter,

12 it is important that you speak clearly into the

13 microphone when you address the committee.

14 It's also important that only one speaker speak

15 at a time.

16 Any tangible material submitted with a

17 speaker's presentation, such as documents,

18 photographs, plans and drawings, shall become a

19 permanent part of the public record and will be

20 retained by this committee.

21 As a courtesy, please switch any cell

22 phones, pagers or audible devices to a silent

23 mode. Additionally, there shall be no public

24 displays of support or opposition, so please

25 refrain from applause or speaking out of turn.

5

1 Items are generally addressed in the order

2 in which they are listed on the agenda. Copies

3 of the agenda are located on the front desk

4 near the podium. On occasion, items may be

5 heard out of order for the sake of efficiency

6 or to accommodate scheduling conflicts.

7 Unless there is a formal hearing on a

8 particular item, each member of the public is

9 limited to a three-minute presentation.

10 Presentations should be focused, concise and

11 address only the item pending before the

12 committee.

13 Prior to addressing the committee, please

14 state your name and address for the court

15 reporter.

16 Decisions on rezonings, including PUDs,

17 sign waivers and appeals are all considered

18 quasi-judicial in nature, and certain protocols

19 will be followed for these proceedings.

20 First, each council member must disclose

21 on the record any ex-parte communications they

22 have had with any members of the public prior

23 to the hearing on each applicable item. This

24 includes a brief statement of when the

25 communication took place, who the communication

6

1 was with, and what the subject matter of the

2 communication was about.

3 Second, the normal format is to allow the

4 applicant or agent thereof to make their

5 presentation first, followed by members of the

6 public who wish to speak in support of the

7 item, then members of the public who are in

8 opposition will be allowed to speak. After all

9 of the public comments have been received, the

10 applicant will have a brief opportunity to wrap

11 up or present a brief rebuttal. The wrap-up or

12 rebuttal shall be limited to the issues brought

13 up by the speakers.

14 In some instances, the Chair may permit a

15 concise surrebuttal or response to the

16 applicant's rebuttal, which would then be

17 followed by a final very brief response by the

18 applicant.

19 Finally, all quasi-judicial decisions must

20 be based on substantial competent evidence,

21 which means that the committee's decision must

22 be supported by fact-based testimony or expert

23 testimony and not generalized concerns or

24 opinions.

25 THE CHAIR: Thank you, Mr. Reingold.

7

1 You've been practicing over the holidays, I can

2 tell.

3 We are going to take a few things out of

4 order this evening to accommodate some

5 schedules. So if you would like to follow

6 along with the committee and you don't have one

7 of these agendas, there are some up on the

8 front table there. It makes it a little bit

9 easier to follow along with what we're doing.

10 But to begin with, we're going to go to

11 Page 3 and the item on the bottom of the page,

12 Item 7, 2010-842 will be the first item we take

13 up this evening.

14 And, Mr. Kelly, do you have your report?

15 MR. KELLY: Yes, sir. Thank you.

16 Rezoning 2010-842 seeks to rezone

17 approximately two and a half acres of property

18 located at 2395 St. Johns Bluff Road South.

19 This is the old emissions testing facility and

20 formally also used as the JEA fleet repair

21 facility. The property is being rezoned from a

22 PUD ordinance that was approved in 1990 to a

23 new PUD to allow for the Auto Masters Fleet

24 Services.

25 This PUD is consistent with the previous

8

1 uses of the property. In addition, it would

2 allow for some outside storage that would be

3 incidental to the repair services being

4 conducted on site.

5 The department finds that this rezoning is

6 consistent with the comprehensive plan as it

7 furthers the goals, objects and policies within

8 the plan, specifically future land use element

9 policy 1.1.8, 1.1.10 and future land use

10 objective 3.2.

11 The department finds that the PUD meets

12 both the internal compatibility and external

13 compatibility factors within the criteria for a

14 PUD. We find -- we are in support of this

15 application subject to -- there's nine

16 conditions in the memorandum dated

17 December 16th to Council President Webb.

18 There's some amendments to those, so I will

19 read them into the record.

20 Condition 1, "The development shall be

21 subject to the original legal description dated

22 October 12th, 2010."

23 Condition 2, "The development shall be

24 subject to the original written description

25 dated October 12th, 2010."

9

1 Condition 3, "The development shall be

2 subject to the original site plan dated October

3 12th, 2010."

4 Condition 4, "The required transportation

5 improvements shall be made in accordance with

6 the Development Services Division Memorandum

7 dated November 10th, 2010, or as otherwise

8 approved by the Planning and Development

9 Department."

10 Condition 5, "Illumination levels at all

11 property lines shall not exceed one foot candle

12 when abutting non-residential properties. All

13 lighting lamp sources within the parking and

14 pedestrian areas shall be metal halide or

15 compact fluorescent. The maximum light pole

16 height in all parking areas should not exceed

17 15 feet. An exterior lighting design plan,

18 including photometrics plan, pole and fixtures

19 schedules shall be submitted at the time of

20 verification of substantial compliance for a

21 review and approval of the Planning and

22 Development Department."

23 Condition 6 was modified at Planning

24 Commission as it relates to signage. The

25 condition reads, "The portion of the property

10

1 facing St. Johns Bluff Road South shall be

2 permitted either one sign that is 100 square

3 feet in area on each side or two signs that are

4 50 square feet in area on each side. The two

5 signs must be separated by a minimum of 150

6 feet from each other. The signs may be

7 internally or externally illuminated monument

8 style signs no greater than 15 feet in height.

9 The portion of the property facing 9A shall be

10 permitted one pylon sign with a 200 square foot

11 area on each side no more than 50 feet in

12 height."

13 Condition 7 has been amended at the advice

14 of the Office of General Counsel. Condition 7

15 now reads, "A landscape buffer meeting the

16 requirements of Part 12 of the zoning code

17 shall be installed and maintained along all

18 portions of the subject property fronting St.

19 Johns Bluff Road South."

20 Also, Condition 8 has been amended to

21 delete the first portion of that condition, the

22 first sentence. The condition now reads, "All

23 permitted uses or permissible uses by exception

24 in the IBP zoning district shall be considered

25 through the zoning exception process."

11

1 And Condition 9, on the advice again of

2 Office of General Counsel has been revised to

3 read the following, "Reclaimed water shall be

4 used as the primary water source for

5 underground or other automatic irrigation

6 systems. Storm water, surficial aquifer water

7 or harvest rainwater may be used as the primary

8 water source for irrigation only if reclaimed

9 water is unavailable. Floridan Aquifer and/or

10 potable water may be (sic) only be used for

11 irrigation if reclaimed water, storm water or

12 surficial aquifer water or harvest rainwater

13 from cisterns or other collection devices

14 becomes unavailable or demonstratively

15 unsuitable."

16 Pending the nine conditions, staff is

17 recommending approval.

18 THE CHAIR: Thank you, Mr. Kelly.

19 Any questions from the committee for

20 Mr. Kelly?

21 COMMITTEE MEMBERS: (No response)

22 THE CHAIR: All right. This is a

23 quasi-judicial matter.

24 Does anyone have any ex-parte

25 communication to disclose?

12

1 COMMITTEE MEMBERS: (No response)

2 THE CHAIR: All right. Seeing none, we

3 have a public hearing this evening scheduled.

4 Public hearing is open. I have one

5 speaker's card.

6 Charles Mann.

7 MR. MANN: Charles Mann, 165 Arlington

8 Road representing the landowner on this.

9 Mr. Chairman and members of the committee,

10 I see no major problems with any of the

11 conditions that the Planning Department has

12 placed on this, except this is an

13 already-existing site and we're limiting the

14 height of the poles for lighting under Number 5

15 to 15 feet, and I don't believe anybody's

16 measured any of those poles. Could we add "or

17 as currently exists" to that?

18 THE CHAIR: Well, Mr. Mann, do you accept

19 all the conditions that were read into the

20 record with the exception of that suggested

21 modification?

22 MR. MANN: That, and I'd like to go back

23 to Number 8. I wish Mr. Kelly would read that

24 one again, please.

25 THE CHAIR: Okay. All right. So you

13

1 accept everything, but we might want to look at

2 Number 8 and --

3 MR. MANN: Number 5.

4 THE CHAIR: -- Number 5. Okay.

5 Mr. Kelly.

6 MR. KELLY: On Number 8, the first

7 sentence which was a restriction that limited

8 that the business not be open to the public for

9 commercial services, that part has been struck.

10 So the condition reads really just the second

11 sentence. All permitted uses or permissible

12 uses by exception in the IBP zoning shall be

13 considered through the zoning exception

14 process.

15 MR. MANN: We can live with that, yes,

16 sir.

17 THE CHAIR: Okay. So the pole height,

18 that was a -- Planning Commission adopted that

19 condition. Was there any discussion about the

20 existing poles?

21 MR. KELLY: No, there was no discussion.

22 That's kind of our kind of standard canned

23 condition regarding the lighting. So I mean it

24 is an existing facility. Certainly, there's --

25 you know, we don't want them to have to replace

14

1 all the lights, you know, if they have lights

2 in the parking lot that are over 15 feet. We'd

3 be fine with adding that "or as currently

4 exists."

5 THE CHAIR: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Kelly.

6 Mr. Reingold.

7 MR. REINGOLD: To the Chair and to the

8 applicant and to the staff, I'm just trying to

9 word in, if everyone's acceptable or agreeable

10 to it, that sort of aspect of the new lights,

11 and I was just thinking in terms of in

12 Condition Number 5 in the second sentence "all

13 new lighting lamp sources within parking and

14 pedestrian areas shall be metal halide or

15 compact fluorescent. The maximum light pole

16 height for any new light poles in all parking

17 areas shall not exceed 15 feet."

18 Does that meet what the applicant and what

19 staff is agreeable to?

20 MR. MANN: To me, it doesn't clearly

21 grandfather in the existing poles. Keep saying

22 new, but if the committee's comfortable with

23 that, we certainly have good legal advice,

24 we'll go with it.

25 THE CHAIR: Mr. Kelly.

15

1 MR. KELLY: The department doesn't object

2 to what's proposed.

3 THE CHAIR: What's proposed by

4 Mr. Reingold?

5 Mr. Mann, can you live with that?

6 MR. MANN: We can live with that.

7 THE CHAIR: All right. Anything else you

8 want to add for the record?

9 MR. MANN: No, sir.

10 THE CHAIR: Any questions from the

11 committee for Mr. Mann?

12 Mr. Joost.

13 MR. JOOST: It's not really a question,

14 just my observation is I prefer his language

15 because when you don't talk about something in

16 a contract, it leaves a void. So all you're

17 talking about is new poles. What about the old

18 ones? And whenever we've done stuff, I mean

19 I'd rather be specific that the existing poles

20 are grandfathered in. That's just me.

21 MR. MANN: We'd certainly be more

22 comfortable with that language in there, but we

23 can live with the committee's decision.

24 THE CHAIR: Mr. Reingold, can you craft

25 something here and try to address Mr. Joost's

16

1 point of view?

2 MR. JOOST: I mean we know what we're

3 talking about right now. The problem is in a

4 couple of years or whatever and he wants to add

5 a new pole or do something to the old one and

6 they come back and read the ordinance and it

7 only talks about new lighting, and, well,

8 nobody said anything about the old poles. You

9 know, can I add new lights or modify it.

10 THE CHAIR: I understand.

11 MR. JOOST: We're not going to be here.

12 THE CHAIR: Mr. Reingold, can we maybe

13 just add one sentence? Instead of changing

14 everything in that paragraph, can you just add

15 one sentence that might say something that

16 notwithstanding the foregoing, the height of

17 the existing poles are hereby grandfathered or

18 something?

19 MR. REINGOLD: Well, I guess the question

20 I've got to the committee is if the property

21 owner five years from now came forward and

22 said, "I want to put up these new types of

23 poles," do you want the new poles to be subject

24 to the 15-foot requirement, or if they're

25 currently 18 feet right now, do you want them

17

1 to be able to put up 18-foot tall poles? I'm

2 just looking to clarify the issue from the

3 committee.

4 THE CHAIR: Well, if you're asking me, I

5 think that what we're trying to address is the

6 allowance of the existing poles if they happen

7 to be 15'1" or higher, but any replacement or

8 future addition would be subject to the

9 language as it was read into the record

10 originally by Mr. Kelly.

11 Does anybody object to that?

12 COMMITTEE MEMBERS: (No response)

13 THE CHAIR: So I think if we could just

14 add one sentence to the end that deals with,

15 you know, as I suggested, notwithstanding the

16 foregoing, perhaps the existing poles are

17 hereby grandfathered in the event that they

18 exceed 15 feet. So if you can come up with a

19 quick one sentence we can add instead of

20 modifying the existing paragraph, Mr. Reingold.

21 MR. REINGOLD: Okay. In replacement of

22 what I'd said earlier which was incorporating

23 the word "new" throughout the condition, maybe

24 just the last sentence that says "this

25 condition does not apply to any existing poles

18

1 on the subject property."

2 Does that --

3 THE CHAIR: Sounds terrific.

4 Mr. Mann, does that sound good?

5 MR. MANN: That makes us happy, yes, sir.

6 THE CHAIR: Mr. Joost, does that satisfy

7 your --

8 MR. JOOST: Absolutely.

9 THE CHAIR: Okay. Thank you for bringing

10 that up.

11 All right. Thank you, Mr. Mann. Take

12 care of yourself.

13 MR. MANN: Thank you very much.

14 THE CHAIR: Any other comments or speakers

15 from the public?

16 AUDIENCE MEMBERS: (No response)

17 THE CHAIR: All right. Seeing none, this

18 public hearing is closed and we're back in

19 committee.

20 MR. JOOST: Move the amendment.

21 MR. R. BROWN: Second.

22 THE CHAIR: Motion on the amendment by

23 Mr. Joost. Second by Councilman Reggie Brown.

24 Discussion on the amendment which are all

25 the conditions?

19

1 COMMITTEE MEMBERS: (No response)

2 THE CHAIR: If there's no discussion, all

3 those in favor say yes.

4 COMMITTEE MEMBERS: Yes.

5 THE CHAIR: Opposed say no.

6 COMMITTEE MEMBERS: (No response)

7 THE CHAIR: By our action, you've adopted

8 the amendment.

9 MR. JOOST: Move the bill as amended.

10 MR. HOLT: Move the bill.

11 THE CHAIR: Motion on the bill as amended

12 by Mr. Joost. Second by Mr. Holt.

13 Discussion?

14 COMMITTEE MEMBERS: (No response)

15 THE CHAIR: If not, open the ballot, vote.

16 (Committee ballot opened.)

17 MR. CRESCIMBENI: (Votes yea)

18 MR. JOOST: (Votes yea)

19 MR. REDMAN: (Votes yea)

20 MR. R. BROWN: (Votes yea)

21 MR. D. BROWN: (Votes yea)

22 MR. HOLT: (Votes yea)

23 (Committee ballot closed)

24 MS. LAHMEUR: Six yea, zero nay.

25 THE CHAIR: By our action, you've approved

20

1 Item 7, 2010-842 as amended.

2 MR. MANN: Thank you very much.

3 THE CHAIR: Thank you, Mr. Mann. Drive

4 carefully.

5 Now we're going to proceed to Item 15,

6 2010-879. This bill was the subject of a joint

7 meeting with the Transportation Committee

8 yesterday. A couple of members from LUZ were

9 unable to attend that meeting. We did have a

10 presentation made, probably a 15-minute

11 presentation. Mr. Killingsworth from the

12 Planning Department is here to make that

13 presentation again. I think I saw Mr. Hainline

14 here earlier, yes, in the back, who also

15 participated in that.

16 Does the committee or do those members

17 that weren't able to attend yesterday have a

18 desire to hear the presentation?

19 COMMITTEE MEMBERS: (No response)

20 THE CHAIR: Mr. Killingsworth, is it going

21 to rock your boat if you don't get to come to

22 the podium?

23 MR. KILLINGSWORTH: Either way you want

24 it, sir.

25 THE CHAIR: All right. Well, we have a

21

1 public hearing scheduled on this bill this

2 evening.

3 The public hearing is open. I do have a

4 speaker's card.

5 Mr. Ingram.

6 MR. INGRAM: Good evening. Tom Ingram,

7 207 North Laura Street, Suite 260,

8 Jacksonville.

9 I'm here really to talk about how the

10 mobility fee study is dealing with infill and

11 redevelopment. And right now as it is

12 currently set up, it is doing little to nothing

13 to encourage the increased density, the infill,

14 the redevelopment that the Florida legislature

15 cited as to their whole reason for doing away

16 with transportation concurrency in dense urban

17 land areas. That was the first thing that they

18 said as to why concurrency was not working.

19 Instead, the current study is focused on a

20 fairness issue about charging everybody the

21 same thing, and that's certainly a laudable

22 goal. But what I'd suggest is we need to look

23 more carefully at the assumptions that go in

24 and how this would affect the ability of folks

25 to do infill.

22

1 The current study assumes that everyone

2 would drive the same number of miles in the

3 same number of trips and generate the same

4 number of trips on average now and forever

5 more. And as a result of crunching the numbers

6 about how much road capacity we need, the sorts

7 of mobility fee improvements that we may need

8 that the infill areas are urban and suburban

9 areas would -- excuse me -- the urban area

10 would get roughly a 25 percent discount

11 compared to developing in a green field.

12 And I'll tell you from experience that a

13 25 percent discount is not enough to make the

14 difference in a developer's decision as to

15 whether to take the additional risks and invest

16 the additional money in an infill or tear-down

17 site, for example, as compared to going into a

18 green field site.

19 The current draft does contemplate some

20 credits that might be issued for infill, but

21 you have to basically do full design and go

22 through the final development approval process

23 to know how much credit you might receive.

24 What I would suggest is that we work

25 backwards. Instead of trying to decide how

23

1 much money we have to collect from the

2 developers of infill and redevelopment sites in

3 order to pay for what we think need, people --

4 you know, the City of Jacksonville should be

5 having a party and cutting a ribbon and

6 thanking anybody that does an infill or

7 densification site. Like, what is it, 1661

8 Riverside, like the Riverside Publix, like

9 Jackson Square. And let's not worry about how

10 much we could collect from those people.

11 And let's say I'm wrong, that we didn't

12 collect enough and we have this huge problem

13 with so many developers wanting to come in and

14 densify our city to make it more urban, more

15 walkable. Well, then hallelujah. I mean

16 wouldn't that be a great problem to have if we

17 erred on the side of being too aggressive in

18 attracting redevelopment into Jacksonville?

19 We can always look at this in five years'

20 time. And, you know, it's easy to kind of

21 glaze over some of the numbers and the detail

22 that goes into this study, but it really does

23 matter.

24 I'm not here advocating for any particular

25 client. I just think that the future of

24

1 Jacksonville depends very much on our being

2 more attractive for, you know, denser

3 multi-family projects, denser office, make it

4 cost effective to do structured parking, those

5 sorts of things.

6 And by the way, you know, that's a huge

7 issue for redevelopment. Structured parking is

8 about $20,000-25,000 a space.

9 THE CHAIR: Thank you.

10 MR. INGRAM: If you add to that the

11 mobility fee, then they'll just keep the

12 density low and we'll get more of the same.

13 THE CHAIR: All right. Thank you,

14 Mr. Ingram.

15 MR. INGRAM: Thank you.

16 THE CHAIR: A couple of questions. Hang

17 on. Don't go anywhere.

18 What do you think is a satisfactory

19 discount, as you described it, for encouraging

20 infill?

21 MR. INGRAM: I would ask of redevelopment

22 projects some minimum density so that you don't

23 have like a freight terminal or an open outside

24 storage site come into your inner city and say,

25 well, I'm redeveloping, therefore, I don't owe

25

1 you anything.

2 I mean there ought to be some kind of

3 minimum, a minimum floor area ratio, minimum

4 residential density, you know. No

5 two-units-an-acre residential and claim that

6 they're doing something great for the city.

7 The other thing I would say is the

8 development should not interfere with the

9 ability to connect one area to another. In

10 other words, if there are logical connections

11 to be made between properties and properties

12 and city streets, they need to provide them so

13 that people can walk or ride a bike or take a

14 short trip. If they can do those two things

15 and they're within an area of the city where

16 there's a consensus, yes, this area like

17 Arlington or San Jose or Mandarin, this area's

18 been built since the '60s, by and large, then I

19 would find a way to make that either zero or

20 offer credits to where if they make additional

21 investments in their site to create the density

22 that they can make it zero.

23 For example, give 100 percent credit for

24 the cost of building structured parking.

25 Wouldn't it be great if we had a Target, you

26

1 know, near Downtown with some structured

2 parking so that it wasn't a giant field? And,

3 you know, that is big money to build, so, you

4 know, give them some credit for building

5 structured parking. That would be my goal.

6 Now, we may disagree as to how big that really

7 attractive area is, and I understand, but

8 certainly --

9 THE CHAIR: Mr. Ingram, did you

10 participate in all the meetings?

11 MR. INGRAM: I did some, but they met a

12 lot. I couldn't make every meeting. I made

13 this speech about day one. It's very

14 attractive to -- you start going down the

15 rabbit hole of these assumptions and the

16 numbers and the math, and you forget that what

17 are we trying to accomplish here. Are we

18 trying to collect money or are we trying to

19 attract infill and redevelopment?

20 THE CHAIR: Do you think your concerns

21 could not be handled through the credit process

22 which really hasn't been --

23 MR. INGRAM: No, Mr. Chairman, I don't. I

24 think the assumptions starting out are way too

25 high for the urban areas, and in particular,

27

1 any area that was kind of part of the city

2 before consolidation. I don't want to wait

3 until Arlington is some, you know, super

4 special treatment area where we have to pay

5 people to redevelop, for example. I mean let's

6 make it attractive now. Let's keep our

7 neighborhoods. Things have to be renewed over

8 and over, so let's not wait until it's a

9 community redevelopment area, for example, or a

10 designated blight area.

11 THE CHAIR: All right. Thank you, sir.

12 Question from Mr. Joost.

13 Mr. Joost.

14 MR. JOOST: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You

15 covered some of my questions.

16 In the assumptions, for example, I think a

17 trip that originated within the urban area was

18 about nine miles and a trip that originated,

19 say, in the outer suburban area, if you will,

20 or rural was 12 miles. I mean are those the

21 assumptions you're saying you don't agree with?

22 Because I mean that was a 25, 30 percent --

23 MR. INGRAM: Yes, sir.

24 MR. JOOST: -- difference between the

25 trips and the mileage.

28

1 MR. INGRAM: Yes, sir. And, see, the

2 study as it's written is a descriptive study of

3 what is today. And they're using what is in

4 terms of how frequently people drive and how

5 far they drive to come up with a number. What

6 I'm saying is if our goal is mobility, we need

7 more density. In order to get more density, we

8 need to encourage redevelopment by charging

9 these fees --

10 MR. JOOST: At a 30 percent difference? I

11 mean sometimes these fees run in the millions

12 of dollars. A 30 percent credit isn't

13 enough --

14 MR. INGRAM: No.

15 MR. JOOST: -- to incentivize infill?

16 MR. INGRAM: No, sir. And I think if you

17 look around the city, it has proven that our

18 current system -- I mean there are

19 redevelopment sites where under concurrency

20 there would be no charge and yet it's still

21 extraordinarily challenging. There's more than

22 just the issue of the concurrency cost. The

23 land cost can be -- you know, fluctuate.

24 There's often a challenge with assembling sites

25 from multiple landowners, and everyone wants to

29

1 be the holdout. There tends to be the most

2 intense opposition from neighbors with infill

3 and redevelopment sites, much more so than

4 green fields. So there's market risk --

5 MR. JOOST: I mean the zoning still has to

6 come before the committees or whatever. I mean

7 we'd still hear the public opposition to the

8 projects.

9 MR. INGRAM: So what we're trying to do is

10 get them to even come to that, to even file a

11 rezoning application to pull the trigger. And

12 under the current proposed mobility fee,

13 there'd be the 25 to 30 percent, you hire a

14 traffic engineer to give you an estimate as to

15 what your cost would be under the mobility fee

16 because you can't just look at it. And then

17 you come up with a proposal for credits, and

18 that has yet to be fleshed out, but you won't

19 really know how many credits you'll get until

20 you've done substantial design work. So it's a

21 lot of upfront soft costs.

22 What I'm saying is for all the benefit we

23 get of the money, which I think is not all that

24 much benefit, the city would benefit greater if

25 we actually had people come and build things,

30

1 build projects. That would accomplish the

2 mobility goals that we're trying to achieve

3 through the fee.

4 And, hey, if I'm wrong, like I say, we can

5 revisit it in a few years, but let us have the

6 problem of having too much infill and

7 redevelopment. I mean, you know, I think it

8 would be the world's greatest problem.

9 MR. JOOST: To summarize what you're

10 saying is in certain cases, say, even where

11 there's urban blight, all the infrastructure's

12 still there. You know, there's streets,

13 there's fire stations, you're not going to have

14 to add anything else, so you're kind of

15 suggesting, what I'm hearing is on a

16 case-by-case basis, maybe in that case, there

17 should be no fee because the infrastructure's

18 in place.

19 MR. INGRAM: We're along very similar

20 lines. I would just say rather than a

21 case-by-case that we can -- there are broad

22 neighborhood areas of the city that have been

23 developed for many years that do not need major

24 improvements. I mean might the city build

25 sidewalk extension, you know, okay, but --

31

1 MR. JOOST: Let me ask you one broader

2 question, though, because I understand what

3 you're saying, and one of the things that I

4 guess has always bothered me as a retailer that

5 covers all the areas of the city, when we come

6 in -- I mean don't all the citizens somewhat

7 enjoy a standard of living for being in

8 Jacksonville?

9 Like one of the things I always hate about

10 fair share is, okay, well, I built a store over

11 here and I've got to pay all these fees, I come

12 over here and I pay nothing, yet at the end of

13 the day I have to charge the same price in all

14 areas to cover my average costs, you know, to

15 get my rate of return. So at the end of the

16 day everybody ends up paying for these fees

17 anyway. You understand what I'm saying?

18 Because I have to charge a certain price that

19 covers all my construction costs throughout the

20 community. Whether it's high here and low over

21 here, I have to charge an average price so I

22 get my rate of returns where I need them.

23 So in that sense, I've always looked at it

24 like even at the end of the day when we do all

25 these crazy fair share assessments, you know,

32

1 and everybody argues, well, my neighborhood, I

2 don't need more infrastructure, when they go

3 shop in a new store in another area, they end

4 up paying the fee anyway because we end up

5 passing it along. So in some sense I hear what

6 you're saying, but part of me also says that

7 all of us need to pay some fees to live in the

8 community for the standard of living that we

9 enjoy also.

10 MR. INGRAM: I understand exactly what

11 you're saying, I just suggest that it be much,

12 much lower than the cost of developing a green

13 field site far in a farm field somewhere in the

14 northside as compared to, say, putting in a

15 multi-family project in Arlington or my

16 neighborhood, San Jose. There is a cost to

17 society for building in areas that don't

18 already have the full complement of

19 infrastructure --

20 MR. JOOST: I guess my last question,

21 though, would go back to what Mr. Crescimbeni

22 was saying. If it's not 30 percent, what do

23 you have mind, say, for like an urban area?

24 MR. INGRAM: Ninety.

25 MR. JOOST: Okay.

33

1 MR. INGRAM: And, you know, it's all 90 of

2 what? Well, 90 of what's on the study today.

3 What I'd suggest is that the assumptions be a

4 bit more aspirational. Instead of -- like in

5 the numbers of --

6 MR. JOOST: In other words, it would be if

7 I was going to build a project, say, in a

8 suburban or maybe even the rural setting, my

9 fee in the urban setting would be 10 percent of

10 what it costs in the outlying area, and,

11 therefore, as a developer if I'm looking at

12 Project A versus Project B, that would be

13 enough incentive maybe to do some urban infill.

14 MR. INGRAM: Yeah. What I'm suggesting in

15 the ex-urban or suburban areas that the

16 analysis that's proposed by a mobility fee

17 looking at vehicle miles traveled, looking at

18 road improvement needs, that stuff -- I'm not

19 here really to challenge or question that.

20 That seems fairly conventional. In those areas

21 that have the infrastructure that present

22 opportunities to be built much more densely

23 than they are today, let's work on the

24 assumptions to take that into account that it

25 would be a good thing. For example, instead of

34

1 assuming that people still will drive, what is

2 it, nine miles per trip --

3 MR. JOOST: I think it's 9.3 or something.

4 MR. INGRAM: -- 20 years from now, you

5 know, that they'll drive five because we're

6 going to encourage infill and densification,

7 and that's going to be the city's policy. And,

8 you know, as things get denser, as things get

9 more congested people say, well, I don't need

10 to drive all the way across town to buy a shirt

11 or whatever. So they will tend to do their

12 shopping and living needs closer to home. I

13 mean, you know, any big city that's true. It

14 just takes a little urbanization to make that

15 happen, to allow things to become more dense.

16 THE CHAIR: Mr. Ingram, if we offered a

17 90 percent discount, didn't you just say that

18 in some of the same situations there's no fee

19 today at all in some of those instances and

20 that's still not triggering development or

21 infill?

22 MR. INGRAM: Yeah. I'll give you an

23 example. Let's take a car dealership that may

24 have, you know, five or six acres and 30,000

25 square feet of development on it. You could

35

1 build the equivalent in trips, you know, trips

2 thought to be generated by that car dealership

3 on that space under today's laws without paying

4 additional concurrency. What that wouldn't get

5 you is if, let's say, you wanted to build a

6 Target with parking on the roof, which do

7 exist, there's one on Dale Mabry Highway in

8 Tampa, you know, something that Jacksonville

9 hadn't seen. You couldn't come anywhere near

10 getting the equivalent number of trips. So

11 this type of proposal, the mobility fee as

12 written would encourage the same relatively low

13 density development that we have in the old

14 city today.

15 If you want to take the next step, for

16 example, and allow for 30 units an acre or, you

17 know, structured parking, then you have to do

18 more than just allow for replacement. You've

19 got to make it worth while and affordable to

20 build the more dense stuff.

21 THE CHAIR: Used to be a mall on Arlington

22 Expressway halfway between Arlington Road and

23 Regency. You remember that mall?

24 MR. INGRAM: No.

25 THE CHAIR: And it went vacant. I guess a

36

1 mall would probably generate a few more trips

2 than a car dealership, wouldn't it?

3 MR. INGRAM: There's certainly examples

4 like the K-Mart on San Jose Boulevard that --

5 THE CHAIR: The mall went vacant. It sat

6 there, it sat there, it sat there. They

7 finally razed the building and it's still

8 sitting there. I would imagine that you could

9 do a lot of things with that property that

10 wouldn't trigger any requirement for any kind

11 of fair share agreement or any kind of

12 concurrency payment with regard to

13 transportation. And that's 100 percent

14 discount.

15 So I mean I hear what you're saying, I

16 like what you're saying, I think it's something

17 worth exploring, I'm just not so sure we can't

18 do that through another vehicle that would be a

19 supplemental policy to what's before us this

20 evening.

21 Any other questions for Mr. Ingram?

22 COMMITTEE MEMBERS: (No response)

23 THE CHAIR: Mr. Killingsworth and

24 Mr. Hainline, would either of you all like to

25 respond or offer any comments short of a

37

1 presentation?

2 MR. KILLINGSWORTH: Short of a

3 presentation, yes, sir.

4 One, I'd like to comment on the fact of --

5 THE CHAIR: Mr. Killingsworth, I know who

6 you are --

7 MR. KILLINGSWORTH: I know, I'm sorry.

8 THE CHAIR: We all know who you are,

9 but --

10 MR. KILLINGSWORTH: I was here last

11 night --

12 THE CHAIR: -- the people that read the

13 transcript won't.

14 MR. KILLINGSWORTH: Bill Killingsworth,

15 Director of Planning and Development.

16 We already went over the part that where

17 Downtown is nine vehicle miles traveled and the

18 rural areas, 12 and a quarter, which is more

19 than a third difference. What's kind of being

20 alluded to is that the credit system isn't

21 really in place, but it actually is, and

22 there's a spread sheet. And in the

23 presentation last night I talked about how we

24 calculated areas in different parts of town and

25 came up what kind of the average was in

38

1 different areas for the credits.

2 And so what we saw was, you know, that out

3 in the rural and suburban you basically don't

4 get any credit, but as you got into the urban

5 area it went up to about 10 percent. The urban

6 priority got around 20 percent. And we didn't

7 do Downtown, but our suspicion is that's

8 somewhere 25 to 30 percent. So what we're

9 looking at is if you're looking at urban

10 priority, which was nine and a quarter and the

11 rural was 12 and a quarter, you know, that's a

12 30 percent difference. And that's not our

13 Downtown, that's kind of the first ring of

14 suburbanization of Downtown.

15 On top of that, based off the analysis

16 we've done, you would get additional 20 percent

17 credit off of that. So you're down even more

18 now.

19 On top of that, if it's a redevelopment,

20 you will get credit for whatever use was

21 previously there. So the reality is in terms

22 of infill and redevelopment, we feel as though

23 there will be substantial credit for all sites,

24 not just some sites that are within these

25 areas.

39

1 Again, I mean I think you're all well

2 aware this is not the only thing that drives

3 infill and redevelopment, and we don't believe

4 that it will be the only tool that we have.

5 But we have made modifications to our future

6 land use element to allow greater densities

7 within MDR and LDR and HDR within our urban

8 priority and urban areas to allow for greater

9 densification. And we've put the credit

10 systems in place along with the existing

11 credits that we have that we think will do

12 that. So I disagree with Mr. Ingram.

13 THE CHAIR: Thank you, sir.

14 Aren't you developing like another toolbox

15 of credits that aren't before us at the moment?

16 I thought you said something last night --

17 MR. KILLINGSWORTH: Well, the -- no. The

18 actual credits are in the policy as it stands

19 right now. What's not in the policy -- the

20 types of credits, excuse me, are in the policy

21 that's before you right now. What's not before

22 you is the actual equation that give us the

23 credit, and that will be in the local

24 ordinance. But we have those now and we can

25 calculate those now.

40

1 THE CHAIR: Mr. Ingram cited an example

2 where someone might build structured parking

3 and get credit for that. Is that in the --

4 MR. KILLINGSWORTH: That currently is not

5 a credible item.

6 THE CHAIR: Is that something that we can

7 add later?

8 MR. KILLINGSWORTH: Yeah. When we get to

9 the local ordinance, I mean the task force and

10 the department could certainly look at that.

11 THE CHAIR: Okay. All right. Thank you,

12 sir.

13 Any other speakers care to address the

14 committee?

15 Mr. Hainline?

16 AUDIENCE MEMBERS: (No response)

17 THE CHAIR: All right. No other questions

18 from the committee?

19 COMMITTEE MEMBERS: (No response)

20 THE CHAIR: Public hearing is closed.

21 We're back in committee.

22 MR. JOOST: Move the bill.

23 MR. HOLT: Move the bill.

24 THE CHAIR: Motion on the bill by

25 Mr. Joost. Second by Mr. Holt.

41

1 Any discussion?

2 COMMITTEE MEMBERS: (No response)

3 THE CHAIR: If not, open the ballot, vote.

4 (Committee ballot opened.)

5 MR. CRESCIMBENI: (Votes yea)

6 MR. JOOST: (Votes yea)

7 MR. REDMAN: (Votes yea)

8 MR. R. BROWN: (Votes yea)

9 MR. D. BROWN: (Votes yea)

10 MR. HOLT: (Votes yea)

11 (Committee ballot closed)

12 MS. LAHMEUR: Six yea, zero nay.

13 THE CHAIR: By our action, you have

14 approved Item 15, 2010-879.

15 Now, we're going to go to -- we're going

16 to go back a page to Page 4 and take up Item

17 11, 2010-867.

18 Mr. Conyers, I think you were here on this

19 item, if you want to come forward. I don't

20 know if you filled out a yellow speaker's card

21 or not, but if you want to give the committee

22 just a brief overview of this bill and then

23 fill out a speaker's card if you haven't

24 already and submit it.

25 Go ahead.

42

1 MR. CONYERS: Harrison Conyers, Division

2 Manager, Military Affairs Veteran's Disabled

3 Services.

4 This is the third grant that we've

5 received on this project that's allowing us to

6 go out and talk to willing sellers of

7 restricted easements on the lands that sit

8 within the AICUZ of outlying field whitehouse.

9 That is a landing strip that is one of the

10 supporting structures for our area bases. An

11 AICUZ, in case you don't know, is an air

12 installation compatibility use zone. It's used

13 to -- this base is used primarily for practice

14 for carrier landings. And we are working with

15 willing sellers in this area to maintain the

16 agricultural land holdings out there so that

17 they're not turned over and developed into

18 subdivisions which make the outlying field

19 incompatible for the training missions that is

20 needed.

21 THE CHAIR: All right. Thank you, sir.

22 Any questions from the committee?

23 COMMITTEE MEMBERS: (No response)

24 THE CHAIR: This has already been heard by

25 several other committees and approved. If

43

1 there's no other questions -- is there a

2 motion?

3 MR. JOOST: Move the bill.

4 THE CHAIR: Motion by Councilman Joost.

5 MR. D. BROWN: Second.

6 THE CHAIR: Second by Councilman Dick

7 Brown.

8 Any discussion?

9 COMMITTEE MEMBERS: (No response)

10 THE CHAIR: If not, open the ballot, vote.

11 (Committee ballot opened.)

12 MR. CRESCIMBENI: (Votes yea)

13 MR. JOOST: (Votes yea)

14 MR. REDMAN: (Votes yea)

15 MR. R. BROWN: (Votes yea)

16 MR. D. BROWN: (Votes yea)

17 MR. HOLT: (Votes yea)

18 (Committee ballot closed)

19 MS. LAHMEUR: Six yea, zero nay.

20 THE CHAIR: By our action, you've approved

21 Item 11, 2010-867.

22 All right. Notwithstanding any other

23 requests, we'll go back to Page 2 of the agenda

24 and start at the top and proceed accordingly.

25 Item 1, Mr. Crofts, you have a report?

44

1 MR. CROFTS: Item 1 on your agenda is

2 ordinance, again, 2010-389. Seeks to rezone

3 property located at 6720 Norwood Avenue and 938

4 Alderside Street consisting of 2.64 acres from

5 an existing zoning category of PBF-1 and RLD-60

6 to PUD. The applicant in this case is the

7 Grace and Truth Redevelopment (sic)

8 Corporation. The property is located in

9 council district 8, and primarily the proposal

10 is the redevelopment of the Norwood Elementary

11 School along with an adjacent piece of property

12 to the south.

13 This PUD is a companion rezoning to a

14 semi-annual land use amendment that was

15 approved approximately six months ago. The PUD

16 rezoning is being sought to permit the

17 redevelopment of the school parcel as a mixed

18 use development consisting of 70 independent

19 senior living apartments along with associated

20 supportive neighborhood retail sales and

21 services and office uses. A majority of the

22 existing school facilities will be

23 rehabilitated with some portion to be

24 demolished for the construction of two new

25 buildings.

45

1 There has been significant evaluation

2 review of this proposal concerning its density

3 and intensity with an attempt to reach an

4 optimum arrangement between the proposed

5 development and its relationship with the

6 surrounding single-family neighborhood. Also,

7 there's been a very positive community meeting

8 that was conducted on November 18th on

9 basically the character, the nature, the extent

10 and the features of the proposed development.

11 Based on the cooperation and

12 responsiveness of the developer, the support of

13 the community and the department's

14 determination that this rezoning is consistent

15 with numerous policies of the 2030

16 Comprehensive Plan, more specifically, Policies

17 1.1.12, 1.1.22, 1.24 and Policy 3.16 which all

18 relate to topics concerning promoting

19 innovative PUDs, maintaining compact land use

20 patterns, encouraging infill and a wide variety

21 of housing types and including higher densities

22 at appropriate locations, the department, based

23 on this, recommends approval subject to the

24 four conditions in our report, and I will read

25 those into the record.

46

1 Number 1, "The development shall be

2 subject to the original legal description dated

3 March 19th, 2010."

4 Number 2, "The development shall be

5 subject to the revised written description

6 dated December 13th, 2010."

7 Number 3, "The development shall be

8 subject to the revised site plan dated

9 October 8th, 2010."

10 And 4th and finally, "The development

11 shall proceed in accordance with the

12 Development Services Division memorandum dated

13 December 8th, 2010, or as otherwise approved by

14 the Planning and Development Department."

15 Thank you.

16 THE CHAIR: Thank you, Mr. Crofts.

17 Any questions from the committee?

18 COMMITTEE MEMBERS: (No response)

19 THE CHAIR: All right. This is a

20 quasi-judicial matter.

21 Does anyone have any ex-parte

22 communication to disclose?

23 COMMITTEE MEMBERS: (No response)

24 THE CHAIR: All right. Seeing none, we

25 have a public hearing scheduled this evening.

47

1 The public hearing is open. I have one

2 speaker's card. Nick Mousa.

3 Mr. Mousa.

4 MR. MOUSA: Yes, sir, Mr. Chairman. Thank

5 you.

6 Nick Mousa, 1301 Riverplace Boulevard,

7 agent for the owner.

8 First and foremost, as a housekeeping

9 matter to correct what appears to be just a

10 scrivener's error. The owner of the site is

11 Grace and Truth Community Development

12 Corporation and not Redevelopment Corporation.

13 Just wanted to make that one simple

14 clarification.

15 As Mr. Crofts stated, this is a companion

16 PUD to a land use amendment that was approved

17 in council some six months back in June of last

18 year. Since that time, we have had some

19 challenges with the PUD written description and

20 site plan, and over the past six months we have

21 worked very closely with the district

22 councilwoman and members of the community to

23 come to some consensus on a revised written

24 description and site plan. We have a

25 recommendation for approval with the four

48

1 conditions.

2 We are in agreement to the four conditions

3 as read by Mr. Crofts. And with that, I'm

4 available to answer any questions.

5 THE CHAIR: All right. Thank you, sir.

6 Any questions from the committee?

7 COMMITTEE MEMBERS: (No response)

8 THE CHAIR: Thank you, Mr. Mousa.

9 MR. MOUSA: Thank you.

10 THE CHAIR: Any other speakers care to

11 address the committee?

12 AUDIENCE MEMBERS: (No response)

13 THE CHAIR: All right. Seeing no one, the

14 public hearing is closed.

15 MR. HOLT: Move as amended.

16 MR. JOOST: Second.

17 THE CHAIR: Motion on the amendment by

18 Mr. Holt. Second by Mr. Joost.

19 Mr. Reingold, does that amendment include

20 the correction with regard to changing

21 redevelopment to development?

22 MR. REINGOLD: I don't believe it needs

23 to. Ordinance 2010-389 as it was filed

24 indicates that the developer and property owner

25 is Grace and Truth Community Development

49

1 Corporation. So no need to make any changes.

2 THE CHAIR: All right. So the amendment

3 is the conditions. Motion and a second.

4 Do we have any discussion?

5 COMMITTEE MEMBERS: (No response)

6 THE CHAIR: If not, all those in favor say

7 yes.

8 COMMITTEE MEMBERS: Yes.

9 THE CHAIR: Opposed say no.

10 COMMITTEE MEMBERS: (No response)

11 THE CHAIR: By our action, you've adopted

12 the amendment.

13 MR. JOOST: Move the bill as amended.

14 MR. HOLT: Second.

15 THE CHAIR: Motion on the bill as amended

16 by Mr. Joost. Second by Mr. Holt.

17 Any discussion on that?

18 COMMITTEE MEMBERS: (No response)

19 THE CHAIR: If not, open the ballot, vote.

20 (Committee ballot opened.)

21 MR. CRESCIMBENI: (Votes yea)

22 MR. JOOST: (Votes yea)

23 MR. REDMAN: (Votes yea)

24 MR. D. BROWN: (Votes yea)

25 MR. HOLT: (Votes yea)

50

1 (Committee ballot closed)

2 MS. LAHMEUR: Five yea, zero nay.

3 THE CHAIR: By our action, you've approved

4 Item 1, 2010-389 as amended.

5 Item 2, we will take no action on that

6 this evening. We do have a public hearing

7 scheduled.

8 The public hearing is open. I have no

9 speaker's cards.

10 Anyone care to address the committee?

11 AUDIENCE MEMBERS: (No response)

12 THE CHAIR: All right. Seeing no one, the

13 public hearing is continued until February 1st.

14 And there's no other action on that bill.

15 Item 3 and 4 are companion bills. Pending

16 the outcome of Item 4, we may withdraw Item 3

17 with the agent representing the applicant's

18 permission, so we're going to skip ahead to

19 Item 4, 2010-596 at the top of Page 3.

20 Mr. Kelly.

21 MR. KELLY: Thank you. To the Chairman,

22 committee members, application for rezoning

23 2010-596 seeks to rezone approximately 9.6

24 acres of land from rural residential acre to

25 PUD. The PUD is being rezoned to be developed

51

1 with commercial neighborhood and office uses on

2 the subject site.

3 The department has reviewed this in

4 conjunction with the criteria for rezoning. We

5 find it consistent with the comprehensive plan

6 as well as the goals, objectives and policies

7 contained within, specifically, Policy 1.1.7,

8 1.1.8.

9 The department has conditions for approval

10 as it relates to the future -- actually, it's

11 been incorporated, I'm sorry, into the written

12 description, but I will kind of explain the

13 intent of that.

14 The criteria to allow for this within a --

15 as a secondary zoning district within the LDR

16 land use category would require that this be at

17 a location that is nodal. Therefore, the

18 Chaffee Road will be a nodal location as soon

19 as the connection to the Cecil Field property

20 and the New World Avenue extension is built.

21 It will be at the intersection of two

22 collectors or higher. So there is verbiage in

23 the written description that specifically

24 addresses the schedule of development as it

25 relates to the -- coinciding with the

52

1 development of the roadway. That is why this

2 is an acceptable development within the LDR

3 land use and thus negating the need for the

4 land use amendment which will subsequently I

5 believe be withdrawn.

6 The department has four conditions for

7 approval.

8 Specifically, Condition 1, "The

9 development shall be subject to the original

10 legal description dated May 25th, 2010."

11 Condition 2, "The development shall be

12 subject to the revised written description

13 dated November 8th, 2010."

14 Condition 3, "The development shall be

15 subject to the revised site plan dated

16 November 8th, 2010."

17 And Condition 4, "The required

18 transportation improvements shall be made in

19 accordance with the Development Services

20 Division memorandum dated July 26, 2010, or as

21 otherwise approved by the Planning and

22 Development Department."

23 THE CHAIR: Thank you, Mr. Kelly.

24 And the extension or the connection that

25 you referred to on the roadway which would

53

1 create the commercial node, is that a -- is the

2 zoning contingent upon that occurring?

3 MR. KELLY: That's correct. No

4 development of the parcel essentially can occur

5 until it's essentially I think bonded for the

6 improvements to make that road improvement.

7 THE CHAIR: So once the project begins,

8 the development can occur?

9 MR. KELLY: Correct. We can issue permits

10 as it coincides with the development of the

11 road, however, there's no I believe certificate

12 of occupancy that will be issued until the road

13 is completed.

14 THE CHAIR: Well, what happens to the

15 property owner if, for some reason, the

16 connection, that project gets abandoned or

17 shelved for five years?

18 MR. KELLY: Well, I think the applicant

19 understands that and is moving at their own

20 risk really at this point. I mean they could

21 always come back and reapply for a PUD to PUD.

22 I'll defer to the applicant, though.

23 THE CHAIR: All right.

24 Mr. Reingold.

25 MR. REINGOLD: This just may be legal

54

1 jargon on my point, but Mr. Kelly stated that

2 the rezoning was contingent on the road. The

3 rezoning isn't contingent on anything. The

4 rezoning is the rezoning, and that runs with

5 the land, but the development permits and

6 rights that essentially would be handed out

7 would be sort of timed with roadway

8 improvements, but I'll certainly let Mr. T.R.

9 Hainline explain.

10 THE CHAIR: All right. Thank you, sir.

11 Any questions from the committee for

12 Mr. Kelly and his report?

13 Mr. Joost.

14 MR. JOOST: I guess my only question would

15 be should that be a condition that the permits

16 are only going to be handed out as the road

17 improvements occur?

18 MR. KELLY: It's been incorporated.

19 Initially, that was a condition that we had

20 included. We were agreeable to amending and

21 updating the written description to include

22 that language that thereby negating the need

23 for the condition because it is in the written

24 description.

25 THE CHAIR: All right. Yeah, that's the

55

1 5th condition that got struck from the original

2 list of five, correct?

3 MR. KELLY: Yes, that's correct.

4 THE CHAIR: All right. Any other

5 questions for Mr. Kelly?

6 COMMITTEE MEMBERS: (No response)

7 THE CHAIR: All right. Seeing none, this

8 is a quasi-judicial matter.

9 Does anyone have any ex-parte

10 communication to disclose?

11 COMMITTEE MEMBERS: (No response)

12 THE CHAIR: All right. Seeing no one, we

13 have a public hearing scheduled this evening.

14 The public hearing is open. I have one

15 speaker's card.

16 Mr. Hainline.

17 MR. HAINLINE: T.R. Hainline, 1301

18 Riverplace Boulevard.

19 We're in agreement with the four

20 conditions. I'm happy to answer any other

21 questions, but let me address the two points

22 that were --

23 THE CHAIR: You're agreeable with the four

24 conditions as read into the record?

25 MR. HAINLINE: Yes, sir.

56

1 THE CHAIR: Okay. Thank you. And the two

2 points?

3 MR. HAINLINE: The two points that were

4 raised, first of all, if New World Avenue is

5 never connected, improved and connected as has

6 been proposed here, then the property owner

7 will continue to have the current zoning there,

8 which is rural residential. So it's not like

9 it's going to be a blank spot on the map.

10 We'll have our current zoning, and if and when

11 New World Avenue connects, then and only then

12 will we be able to have the commercial uses.

13 The whole purpose behind this PUD is

14 basically to encourage the construction of that

15 part of New World Avenue by private developers,

16 by someone who may come in and do a commercial

17 development there, thereby not requiring that

18 to be funded by the city because New World is

19 not currently slated for funding, although for

20 a long time the city's been aggressively

21 seeking right of way, et cetera, et cetera,

22 it's not currently funded. A zoning like this

23 can help fund it privately by creating some

24 rights in commercial use that are contingent

25 upon that road coming in.

57

1 Again, Mr. Reingold's right, the zoning

2 isn't contingent, but those commercial uses are

3 contingent upon that road going in.

4 THE CHAIR: Okay. Thank you,

5 Mr. Hainline.

6 Any questions from the committee?

7 COMMITTEE MEMBERS: (No response)

8 THE CHAIR: All right. Thank you, sir.

9 MR. HAINLINE: Thank you.

10 THE CHAIR: Anyone else care to address

11 the committee on this matter?

12 AUDIENCE MEMBERS: (No response)

13 THE CHAIR: All right. Seeing no one, the

14 public hearing is closed.

15 MR. JOOST: Move the amendment.

16 MR. REDMAN: Second.

17 THE CHAIR: Motion on the amendment by

18 Mr. Joost. Second by Mr. Redman.

19 Discussion on the amendment?

20 COMMITTEE MEMBERS: (No response)

21 THE CHAIR: If not, all those in favor say

22 yes.

23 COMMITTEE MEMBERS: Yes.

24 THE CHAIR: Opposed say no.

25 COMMITTEE MEMBERS: (No response)

58

1 THE CHAIR: By your action, you've adopted

2 the amendment.

3 MR. JOOST: Move the bill as amended.

4 MR. HOLT: Second.

5 THE CHAIR: Motion on the bill as amended

6 by Councilman Joost. Second by Councilman

7 Holt.

8 Any discussion?

9 COMMITTEE MEMBERS: (No response)

10 THE CHAIR: If not, open the ballot, vote.

11 (Committee ballot opened.)

12 MR. CRESCIMBENI: (Votes yea)

13 MR. JOOST: (Votes yea)

14 MR. REDMAN: (Votes yea)

15 MR. R. BROWN: (Votes yea)

16 MR. D. BROWN: (Votes yea)

17 MR. HOLT: (Votes yea)

18 (Committee ballot closed)

19 MS. LAHMEUR: Six yea, zero nay.

20 THE CHAIR: By our action, you've approved

21 Item 4, 2010-596 as amended.

22 All right. Backing up to Item 3,

23 2010-595. Mr. Hainline.

24 We have a public hearing scheduled on this

25 this evening.

59

1 The public hearing is open.

2 Did you fill out a speaker's card on this

3 item?

4 MR. HAINLINE: I did not actually.

5 THE CHAIR: Okay. Well, I'm going to add

6 this number to this card. And are you -- if

7 you'll state your name and address.

8 MR. HAINLINE: T.R. Hainline, 1301

9 Riverplace Boulevard.

10 THE CHAIR: And you're requesting the

11 withdrawal then since the next item had already

12 been --

13 MR. HAINLINE: We're agreeable to

14 withdrawal, yes, sir.

15 THE CHAIR: Thank you, sir.

16 Any questions from the committee?

17 COMMITTEE MEMBERS: (No response)

18 THE CHAIR: All right. Anyone else care

19 to address the committee?

20 AUDIENCE MEMBERS: (No response)

21 THE CHAIR: Seeing on one, the public

22 hearing is closed.

23 MR. JOOST: Move to withdraw.

24 MR. HOLT: Second.

25 THE CHAIR: Motion on the withdrawal by

60

1 Mr. Joost. Second by Mr. Holt.

2 Discussion?

3 COMMITTEE MEMBERS: (No response)

4 THE CHAIR: If not, open the ballot, vote.

5 (Committee ballot opened.)

6 MR. CRESCIMBENI: (Votes yea)

7 MR. JOOST: (Votes yea)

8 MR. REDMAN: (Votes yea)

9 MR. R. BROWN: (Votes yea)

10 MR. D. BROWN: (Votes yea)

11 MR. HOLT: (Votes yea)

12 (Committee ballot closed)

13 MS. LAHMEUR: Six yeah, zero nay.

14 THE CHAIR: By our action, you have

15 withdrawn Item 3, 2010-595.

16 Back to Page 3. Sorry for all this back

17 and forth. Page 3, Item 5, 2010-618. There's

18 no action on this bill tonight, but we do have

19 a public hearing scheduled.

20 The public hearing is open. I have no

21 speaker cards. The public hearing is continued

22 until March 15th. And again, no further action

23 on that item.

24 Item 6, 2010-670 is deferred.

25 We already took up Item 7.

61

1 Turning to Page 4, Item 8.

2 Mr. Kelly.

3 MR. KELLY: Thank you. To the Chairman

4 and the committee.

5 Ordinance 2010-843 is a conventional

6 rezoning seeking to rezone approximately 1.37

7 acres from residential rural one-acre zoning to

8 RLD-60. This property is within the LDR land

9 use category and was previously a nursery

10 operation. As you can see, based on the zoning

11 map on Page 4 of the staff report, all of the

12 surrounding property is also RLD-60.

13 Therefore, the department finds that this is a

14 zoning which would be consistent with the

15 comprehensive plan as well as compatible with

16 all the existing zoning in the immediate

17 vicinity.

18 The department is recommending approval.

19 THE CHAIR: All right. Thank you,

20 Mr. Kelly.

21 Any questions from the committee?

22 COMMITTEE MEMBERS: (No response)

23 THE CHAIR: All right. This is a

24 quasi-judicial matter.

25 Does anyone have any ex-parte

62

1 communication to disclose?

2 COMMITTEE MEMBERS: (No response)

3 THE CHAIR: All right. Seeing none, we

4 have a public hearing scheduled this evening.

5 The public hearing is open. I have one

6 speaker's card. And it's Paul -- is it Witt?

7 MR. WITT: That is correct.

8 THE CHAIR: All right. Mr. Witt.

9 MR. WITT: Paul Witt, 1524 Smith Street,

10 representing the owner.

11 This project, the owner is vacating this

12 parcel. It has been a nursery operation for

13 like the past 40 years and he just wants to

14 bring his zoning current with the surrounding

15 area.

16 THE CHAIR: And, Mr. Witt, you're

17 representing the owner, but you are not being

18 compensated; is that correct?

19 MR. WITT: That is correct.

20 THE CHAIR: All right. Thank you.

21 Any questions from the committee?

22 COMMITTEE MEMBERS: (No response)

23 THE CHAIR: Thank you, Mr. Witt. You got

24 off easy tonight.

25 MR. WITT: Thank you.

63

1 THE CHAIR: Anyone else care to address

2 the committee?

3 AUDIENCE MEMBERS: (No response)

4 THE CHAIR: All right. Seeing no one, the

5 public hearing is closed.

6 MR. JOOST: Move the bill.

7 MR. D. BROWN: Second.

8 THE CHAIR: Motion on the bill by

9 Mr. Joost. Second by Councilman Dick Brown.

10 Discussion?

11 COMMITTEE MEMBERS: (No response)

12 THE CHAIR: If not, open the ballot, vote.

13 (Committee ballot opened.)

14 MR. CRESCIMBENI: (Votes yea)

15 MR. JOOST: (Votes yea)

16 MR. REDMAN: (Votes yea)

17 MR. R. BROWN: (Votes yea)

18 MR. D. BROWN: (Votes yea)

19 MR. HOLT: (Votes yea)

20 (Committee ballot closed)

21 MS. LAHMEUR: Six yea, zero nay.

22 THE CHAIR: By our action, you've approved

23 Item 8, 2010-843.

24 Item 9, we will take no action tonight.

25 We do have a public hearing scheduled.

64

1 The public hearing is open. I have no

2 speaker's cards so we will continue the public

3 hearing until January 19th. And again, no

4 further action on that bill.

5 Item 10, 2010-856 will be deferred

6 tonight, but I want to remind the committee we

7 have a joint meeting tomorrow at 11:00 here in

8 the chambers with Rules/RCD. I've seen a few

9 excuses, but just make sure if you can get

10 there we'll take that bill up tomorrow.

11 We've already taken up Item 11.

12 So turning to Page 5 at the top, Item 12,

13 2010-874, that will be deferred this evening.

14 And now we come to I think probably the

15 most popular item of the evening, Item 13,

16 2010-876.

17 Mr. Crofts.

18 MR. CROFTS: Ordinance 2010-876 is a

19 semi-annual land use amendment revision to the

20 future land use map series of the comprehensive

21 plan for property located at 3124 Belfort Road.

22 Property consists of 13.58 acres, and the

23 request is the change from LDR, low density

24 residential, to MDR, medium density

25 residential, for the expressed intent of

65

1 developing an assisting living facility,

2 including 70 villas for senior housing.

3 For the record, the property is located

4 just west of the intersection of Belfort Road

5 and Touchton Road and is located in Council

6 District 4.

7 One of the various very obvious

8 observations in this circumstance from looking

9 at the existing future land use map of the

10 surrounding area, you will find that it is

11 overwhelmingly if not totally LDR with the

12 exception of one non-conforming Panda Express

13 gas station convenience store located

14 immediately to the south along Belfort Road.

15 As stated in our completely thorough

16 report and proposed amendment, if the proposed

17 amendment is passed, it would allow for, in our

18 opinion, an isolated medium density residential

19 development that is out of context with the

20 existing and the proposed development trends of

21 the neighborhood.

22 The Planning Department recommends denial

23 of this application based on its inconsistency

24 with the comprehensive plan, the Southeast

25 Vision and Master Plan, the Strategic Regional

66

1 Policy Plan, and even the State Comprehensive

2 Plan. More specifically, I reiterate the

3 isolated nature of this requested multi-family

4 proposal in view of the surrounding LDR-type

5 densities wherein it does not allow an

6 appropriate combination of land uses or a

7 gradation of uses making it inconsistent with

8 future land use policies 1.1.2, 1.1.6 and

9 3.1.3.

10 Again, the property as previously alluded

11 is within the boundaries of the Southeast

12 Vision and Master Plan which seeks to preserve

13 the existing character and scale of its

14 neighborhoods. And in our opinion, this

15 proposal uproots that particular standard which

16 would make it inconsistent also with future

17 land use amendment policy 3.12.

18 Also, it is our concern if this particular

19 proposal is approved, it could provide

20 justification to increase the density to vacant

21 lands to the east.

22 For these reasons, it is our desire to

23 protect this particular neighborhood and avoid

24 the adverse land use and associated impacts

25 upon it that this particular proposal would

67

1 engender.

2 With that, our recommendation is to deny.

3 THE CHAIR: Thank you, Mr. Crofts.

4 Where was the gas station?

5 MR. CROFTS: It's immediately south at the

6 corner of Belfort Road. It's a non-conforming

7 land use and zoning with our -- with this

8 property -- with its property.

9 THE CHAIR: But it's on this map?

10 MR. CROFTS: Yes.

11 THE CHAIR: All I see is LDR.

12 MR. CROFTS: It's LDR, but there's a

13 non-conforming Panda convenience store located

14 right across the street just to the south

15 fronting on Belfort Road.

16 THE CHAIR: All right. Thank you, sir.

17 Any questions for Mr. Crofts from the

18 committee?

19 COMMITTEE MEMBERS: (No response)

20 THE CHAIR: All right. We have a public

21 hearing scheduled for this evening.

22 The public hearing is open.

23 One question. Jennifer Suber, are you

24 here? Are you in support or opposition?

25 MS. SUBER: Opposition.

68

1 THE CHAIR: Okay. All right. So our

2 first speaker will be David Portwood followed

3 by Mark Shelton followed by Jennifer Suber and

4 then John Norse.

5 Mr. Portwood.

6 MR. PORTWOOD: Yes, good evening.

7 David Portwood, 3703 South Atlantic

8 Avenue, Daytona Beach Shores, represent

9 Touchton Properties.

10 And to my great regret, I would like to

11 withdraw this application this evening. I feel

12 like this is a wonderful opportunity for a

13 senior living facility on this site. It would

14 have benefited the community by providing a $25

15 million project as well as between 60 and 70

16 employees. I think it's somewhat unfortunate.

17 I've listened to the speakers earlier

18 about infill pieces, and it's very difficult to

19 get projects developed today, but I do not want

20 to move forward with this project at this time

21 in this location and would like to ask for it

22 to be removed and also to refund the

23 application fee.

24 And I appreciate it very much.

25 THE CHAIR: Thank you, Mr. Portwood.

69

1 Any questions from the committee?

2 COMMITTEE MEMBERS: (No response)

3 THE CHAIR: Thank you, sir.

4 Mr. Shelton.

5 MR. SHELTON: Mark Shelton, 8234 Lakemont

6 Drive, Jacksonville, Florida, 32216.

7 And to be honest, I just understood that

8 the applicant wanted to withdraw this today, so

9 it was kind of a surprise. But I do want to

10 speak toward this because this is the third

11 time this community has come together to fight

12 the same request in the last five years.

13 In 2006 it came upon us where over 100

14 residents showed up and opposed this because

15 they're adamant that this stays a single-family

16 area. Then in 2008 it came up again. This is

17 the second time the Planning Department has

18 written a full report for a denial. And I

19 think what you'll hear tonight is that the

20 community wants to deny this so we don't have

21 to fight it six months from now and that we at

22 least have another year of kind of rest and

23 relaxation from the same request.

24 I do have a lot here to speak about, but

25 the Planning Department's report was very

70

1 thorough. I do concur with what Mr. Crofts

2 said and I just want to add a couple of other

3 things and then I'll digress and let the rest

4 of the community speak.

5 But our community came together after the

6 first request in 2007. And at the help of Jax

7 Pride we put together the Tiger Hole Vision

8 Plan. And that plan became part of the

9 Southeast Vision Plan and it specifically spoke

10 to this area. We said that it's one large

11 tract of land left in the Tiger Hole Community

12 that has the potential to be rezoned into

13 something that's not single-family. And sure

14 enough it's here today before us for that

15 proposal.

16 So without going further into what's

17 already been said, I do want to submit a letter

18 that was submitted to Councilman Redman back in

19 September for the record. I believe y'all may

20 have e-mails about this from the community as

21 well.

22 And I want to thank you for your time and

23 ask that you deny this request.

24 THE CHAIR: Thank you, Mr. Shelton.

25 Any questions from the committee?

71

1 COMMITTEE MEMBERS: (No response)

2 THE CHAIR: All right. Seeing none,

3 Ms. Suber followed by Mr. Norse. Mr. Norse, if

4 you could make your way down if you're still

5 here.

6 MS. SUBER: My name is Jennifer Suber and

7 I live at 3402 Secret Cove Place. I've been

8 there since 1986.

9 I really have nothing new to add. I think

10 the recommendation by the Planning Department

11 staff hit all the points, the factual points

12 that your committee wants when it comes to

13 dealing with these issues, and I think we all

14 agree we do not want this proposal to be

15 dropped. We want you to vote on it because we

16 feel very confident that based on

17 Jacksonville's comprehension (sic) plan,

18 there's no way you're going to put this

19 facility in the middle of our single-family

20 homes.

21 I appreciate your listening to us and I

22 hope you will support us in our opposition.

23 Thank you.

24 THE CHAIR: Thank you, Ms. Suber.

25 Any questions from the committee?

72

1 COMMITTEE MEMBERS: (No response)

2 THE CHAIR: All right.

3 Mr. Norse.

4 MR. NORSE: Good afternoon. John Norse.

5 I'm an engineer. I'm a 20-year resident of

6 3510 Bateau Road West.

7 I did hear the report that was just given

8 and I agree with everything that was just said.

9 The area that we live in is a

10 single-family neighborhood and we want to keep

11 it that way. And this development that we

12 talked about with this gentleman here is a bad

13 fit and we don't want ever anything like that

14 in our neighborhood. And I just want to

15 express that to Mr. Redman to make sure that

16 we're on the lookout for those kind of things

17 as they pop up to make sure that we watch out

18 for those and we nip those in the bud as soon

19 as they come in.

20 When you go to MDR versus LDR, there's

21 such a huge amount of traffic that can be added

22 to Belfort Road and Touchton. And we have

23 two-lane roads out there. One of the

24 descriptions to allow a living facility that

25 was proposed is that you have to be on an

73

1 arterial, and -- an arterial road. Neither

2 Belfort Road or Touchton Road are arterials.

3 And I could spout out all the numbers here

4 about the traffic that is produced when you go

5 from MDR -- would go to MDR from LDR, and it

6 just doesn't fit. Belfort Road right now or

7 Touchton Road has roundabouts being put in it

8 now for additional vehicular storage. It's

9 already overpopulated, and we're talking $7

10 million to redo Touchton Road again, another

11 $15 million to redo Belfort Road, and that's

12 just the segment from Touchton Road to JTB

13 which has already been rated as an F for

14 failure by the city traffic department.

15 There aren't any upgrades that a developer

16 could do in that position for the roadway in

17 order to accommodate that additional traffic.

18 It just won't work. And you can just see the

19 area out there, how it's single-family and it

20 goes more towards multi-family as you get down

21 towards Southside Boulevard. There's gobs of

22 land for anybody to buy all along Belfort -- AC

23 Skinner Parkway, Southside Boulevard and JTB

24 and there's no sense in somebody proposing

25 something like that in this area.

74

1 Thanks.

2 THE CHAIR: Thank you, Mr. Norse.

3 MR. NORSE: And I also want you to deny

4 the request also.

5 Thank you.

6 THE CHAIR: Thank you, Mr. Norse.

7 Any questions from the committee?

8 COMMITTEE MEMBERS: (No response)

9 THE CHAIR: All right. Anyone else care

10 to address the committee?

11 AUDIENCE MEMBERS: (No response)

12 THE CHAIR: All right. Seeing no one, the

13 public hearing is closed and we're back in

14 committee.

15 One question through the Chair -- I mean

16 from the Chair to Mr. Crofts.

17 Was this before the council in '08 or

18 whenever? What was the last time this was --

19 MR. CROFTS: Back to you, Mr. Chairman.

20 This is the third time that we've seen

21 this proposal. It was in 2006. It was

22 reflected in Ordinance 2006-1266. That was

23 withdrawn. It was also proposed and

24 recommended and entered a second time to MDR

25 with a denial recommendation from the

75

1 department, and that was early in 2008. I

2 don't have the ordinance number, but there are

3 two previous submissions of this for MDR.

4 That's an affirmative answer yes.

5 THE CHAIR: What happened in --

6 MR. CROFTS: Both of those -- excuse me.

7 Both of those items were withdrawn after the

8 recommendation started. We indicated two

9 denial recommendations, and when it got finally

10 through the Planning Commission to the council,

11 they were both withdrawn.

12 THE CHAIR: Was that with or without fees?

13 MR. CROFTS: Planning Commission, I can't

14 remember exactly, but I think it was a denial

15 from the Planning Commission as well.

16 THE CHAIR: With or without fees?

17 MR. CROFTS: Oh, are you asking me about

18 fees?

19 THE CHAIR: Right. The two previous

20 incidents that were withdrawn by the council,

21 were they with or without fees?

22 MR. CROFTS: I don't member exactly, but I

23 would be surprised if they were with fees. And

24 that -- well, that answers your question.

25 THE CHAIR: But you wrote a report. I

76

1 mean the department's incurred expense on this,

2 haven't they?

3 MR. CROFTS: Oh, yes. We've written

4 thorough reports on all of these, so, you know,

5 it would be our recommendation not to withdraw

6 fees.

7 THE CHAIR: Thank you.

8 Any motions or -- Mr. Redman, I'm sorry.

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

10 I plan to oppose the legislation for the

11 reasons that have been submitted by the

12 residents that live around this community. And

13 I also would not vote to withdraw this --

14 withdraw it, because, you know, if we withdraw

15 it, they come back in a few months and try it

16 again. So I suggest that we vote against

17 withdrawal.

18 THE CHAIR: Would you like to make a

19 motion, Mr. Redman?

20 MR. REDMAN: I make a motion that we vote

21 to deny the withdrawal.

22 THE CHAIR: Motion by -- Mr. Reingold.

23 MR. REINGOLD: I think just the proper

24 motion, just move to deny the bill instead of

25 deny the withdrawal. I think that would be the

77

1 sort of cleaner way --

2 THE CHAIR: I interpreted his motion to

3 deny.

4 So motion to deny by Councilman Redman.

5 Second by Councilman Joost.

6 Discussion on the motion?

7 COMMITTEE MEMBERS: (No response).

8 THE CHAIR: All right. If there's no

9 discussion, open the ballot, vote.

10 If you support the motion to deny, you'll

11 vote green.

12 (Committee ballot opened.)

13 MR. CRESCIMBENI: (Votes yea)

14 MR. JOOST: (Votes yea)

15 MR. REDMAN: (Votes yea)

16 MR. R. BROWN: (Votes yea)

17 MR. D. BROWN: (Votes yea)

18 MR. HOLT: (Votes yea)

19 (Committee ballot closed)

20 MS. LAHMEUR: Six yea, zero nay.

21 THE CHAIR: By your action, you've denied

22 Item 13, 2010-876.

23 Item 14, 2010-877.

24 Mr. Crofts.

25 MR. CROFTS: Ordinance 2010-877 is a

78

1 proposed land use amendment to the future land

2 use map series of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan

3 seeking to modify 54.52 acres of land located

4 at 8517 Cedar Point Road in the north number 6

5 planning district and Council District 11 from

6 AGR 4 to ROS, recreation and open space.

7 Planning and Development Department staff

8 has conducted a review of this item in terms of

9 its compatibility with the surrounding land

10 uses and the impacts on those uses and its

11 consistency with applicable plans, and in light

12 of this fact of the property being purchased

13 with funds from the Florida Community Trust

14 Grant Program which requires that these lands

15 be brought into a land use category that

16 reflects a recreation open space or a

17 conservation land use category, the staff feels

18 and this is appropriate and recommends

19 approval.

20 THE CHAIR: Thank you, Mr. Crofts.

21 Any questions from the committee for

22 Mr. Crofts?

23 COMMITTEE MEMBERS: (No response)

24 THE CHAIR: All right. Seeing none, we

25 have a public hearing scheduled this evening.

79

1 The public hearing is open. I have two

2 speaker's cards. Alexa Graf and Mike Getchell.

3 Ms. Graf.

4 MS. GRAF: Alexa Graf, 14775 Old St.

5 Augustine Road representing the City of

6 Jacksonville on this.

7 This land is adjacent to natural park

8 service land and City of Jacksonville park

9 land. It kind of completes the whole area, the

10 Cedar Point Preserve area. It's just going to

11 contain trails and maybe a horse shoe pit and

12 kind of complete this whole area. It's just

13 going to be used for a park and not developed

14 in any other way.

15 Are there any questions?

16 THE CHAIR: All right. Thank you, ma'am.

17 Any questions from the committee? That's

18 my line.

19 MS. GRAF: Okay. Sorry.

20 THE CHAIR: Any questions from the

21 committee?

22 COMMITTEE MEMBERS: (No response)

23 THE CHAIR: Seeing none, Mr. Getchell, do

24 you want to ...

25 MR. GETCHELL: Mike Getchell, 1185 Eagle

80

1 Bend Court, 32226.

2 I'm here representing the North District

3 CPAC. I'm not seeing any supporting

4 documentation from our organization here, I'm

5 just here to let you know that we're in full

6 support of this legislation.

7 THE CHAIR: What organization do you

8 represent?

9 MR. GETCHELL: North District CPAC.

10 THE CHAIR: CPAC. Okay. Have you taken

11 an official position on it?

12 MR. GETCHELL: Yes, we have.

13 THE CHAIR: Okay.

14 MR. GETCHELL: And I don't see the

15 documentation here noted in it.

16 THE CHAIR: Okay. Thank you.

17 MR. GETCHELL: Thank you.

18 THE CHAIR: Any questions for Mr. Getchell

19 from the committee?

20 COMMITTEE MEMBERS: (No response)

21 THE CHAIR: All right. Anyone else care

22 to address the committee?

23 AUDIENCE MEMBERS: (No response)

24 THE CHAIR: Seeing no one, the public

25 hearing is closed.

81

1 MR. HOLT: Move the bill.

2 MR. JOOST: Second.

3 THE CHAIR: Motion to approve by Mr. Holt.

4 Second by Mr. Joost.

5 Any discussion?

6 COMMITTEE MEMBERS: (No response)

7 THE CHAIR: If not, open the ballot, vote.

8 (Committee ballot opened.)

9 MR. CRESCIMBENI: (Votes yea)

10 MR. JOOST: (Votes yea)

11 MR. REDMAN: (Votes yea)

12 MR. D. BROWN: (Votes yea)

13 MR. HOLT: (Votes yea)

14 (Committee ballot closed)

15 MS. LAHMEUR: Five yea, zero nay.

16 THE CHAIR: By our action, you've approved

17 Item 14, 2010-877.

18 We've already taken up Item 15.

19 Items 16, 17, 18 and 19 are all going to

20 be text amendments.

21 Mr. Crofts is going to give us a brief,

22 with a capital B, summary of each one as we

23 take each one up.

24 Mr. Crofts, Item 16.

25 MR. CROFTS: 2010-888 is a text amendment,

82

1 as you've indicated, that basically clarifies

2 that the maximum density of the residential

3 uses in the various non-residential land use

4 categories, such as BP, CGC, NC and RPI will be

5 limited to ten units per acre.

6 Typically, the density in these land use

7 categories is 20 units per acre, but in order

8 to be consistent with state law, we're

9 clarifying in our comprehensive plan that when

10 the small scale amendment is applied for, that

11 the maximum density will be concurrent with

12 state law, which is ten units per acre.

13 THE CHAIR: Thank you, Mr. Crofts.

14 Any questions from the committee?

15 COMMITTEE MEMBERS: (No response)

16 THE CHAIR: All right. Seeing none, we

17 have a public hearing scheduled this evening.

18 The public hearing is open. I have no

19 speaker's cards.

20 Anyone care to address the committee?

21 AUDIENCE MEMBERS: (No response)

22 THE CHAIR: All right. Seeing no one, the

23 public hearing is closed.

24 MR. JOOST: Move the bill.

25 MR. R. BROWN: Second.

83

1 THE CHAIR: Motion on the bill by

2 Mr. Joost. Second by Councilman Reggie Brown.

3 Discussion?

4 COMMITTEE MEMBERS: (No response)

5 THE CHAIR: If not, open the ballot, vote.

6 (Committee ballot opened.)

7 MR. CRESCIMBENI: (Votes yea)

8 MR. JOOST: (Votes yea)

9 MR. REDMAN: (Votes yea)

10 MR. R. BROWN: (Votes yea)

11 MR. D. BROWN: (Votes yea)

12 MR. HOLT: (Votes yea)

13 (Committee ballot closed)

14 MS. LAHMEUR: Six yea, zero nay.

15 THE CHAIR: By your action, you've

16 approved Item 16, 2010-880.

17 Item 17, Mr. Crofts.

18 MR. CROFTS: Item 17, Ordinance 2010-881

19 proposes again a text amendment to the

20 neighborhood commercial category by deleting

21 the term node and substituting the terminology

22 preferred locations for this type of

23 neighborhood commercial use.

24 We feel this is a more accurate depiction

25 of where we would direct neighborhood

84

1 commercial, taking out the connotation of a

2 node which implies something greater, more

3 intense and not necessarily applicable in a

4 commercial neighborhood sense. So it's more

5 definitive, takes away the term node, and

6 expresses where we want and to what degree we

7 want to limit support -- and support commercial

8 neighborhood development. It also amends

9 Policy 3.26 of the future land use element.

10 Staff recommends approval.

11 THE CHAIR: Thank you, Mr. Crofts.

12 Any questions from the committee?

13 COMMITTEE MEMBERS: (No response)

14 THE CHAIR: All right. We have a public

15 hearing scheduled this evening.

16 The public hearing is open. I have no

17 speaker's cards.

18 Anyone care to address the committee?

19 AUDIENCE MEMBERS: (No response)

20 THE CHAIR: Seeing no one, the public

21 hearing is closed.

22 MR. JOOST: Move the bill.

23 MR. R. BROWN: Second.

24 THE CHAIR: Motion on the bill by

25 Mr. Joost. Second by Councilman Reggie Brown.

85

1 Discussion?

2 COMMITTEE MEMBERS: (No response)

3 THE CHAIR: If not, open the ballot, vote.

4 (Committee ballot opened.)

5 MR. CRESCIMBENI: (Votes yea)

6 MR. JOOST: (Votes yea)

7 MR. REDMAN: (Votes yea)

8 MR. R. BROWN: (Votes yea)

9 MR. D. BROWN: (Votes yea)

10 MR. HOLT: (Votes yea)

11 (Committee ballot closed)

12 MS. LAHMEUR: Six yea, zero nay.

13 THE CHAIR: By our action, you've approved

14 Item 17, 2010-881.

15 Item 18, Mr. Crofts.

16 MR. CROFTS: This ordinance, 2010-882

17 simply amends Policy 6.73 concerning the

18 development of a low-impact development manual.

19 Originally, we had scheduled to have this

20 completed by this year -- well, actually, the

21 past year, 2010. As you know, we've just

22 received funding. We're in the process of

23 originating and then getting assistance and

24 doing an RFP for this particular work, and

25 we're simply continuing that deadline or

86

1 extending that deadline for this particular

2 work to September of 2012.

3 We recommend approval.

4 THE CHAIR: Thank you, Mr. Crofts.

5 Any questions from the committee?

6 COMMITTEE MEMBERS: (No response)

7 THE CHAIR: All right. We have a public

8 hearing scheduled this evening.

9 The public hearing is open. I have no

10 speaker's cards.

11 Anyone care to address the committee?

12 AUDIENCE MEMBERS: (No response)

13 THE CHAIR: Seeing no one, the public

14 hearing is closed.

15 MR. JOOST: Move the bill.

16 MR. D. BROWN: Second.

17 THE CHAIR: Motion on the bill by

18 Mr. Joost. Second by Councilman Dick Brown.

19 Discussion?

20 COMMITTEE MEMBERS: (No response)

21 THE CHAIR: If not, open the ballot, vote.

22 (Committee ballot opened.)

23 MR. CRESCIMBENI: (Votes yea)

24 MR. JOOST: (Votes yea)

25 MR. REDMAN: (Votes yea)

87

1 MR. R. BROWN: (Votes yea)

2 MR. D. BROWN: (Votes yea)

3 MR. HOLT: (Votes yea)

4 (Committee ballot closed)

5 MS. LAHMEUR: Six yea, zero nay.

6 THE CHAIR: By our action, you've approved

7 Item 18, 2010-882.

8 Item 19, Mr. Crofts.

9 MR. CROFTS: Ordinance 2010-883 deals with

10 the topic of family homestead exemption

11 provisions within our comprehensive plan

12 agricultural land use category.

13 We're simply amending a policy of

14 reference from the land use category. There is

15 an amendment to this particular legislation.

16 We want to include through this amendment the

17 opportunity to allow family homestead

18 exemptions not only in agricultural 4, 3, 2 --

19 or 1, 2 and 3, but also in agricultural 4.

20 We feel this is appropriate and staff

21 recommends approval.

22 THE CHAIR: Thank you, Mr. Crofts.

23 Any questions from the committee?

24 COMMITTEE MEMBERS: (No response)

25 THE CHAIR: All right. Seeing none, we

88

1 have a public hearing scheduled this evening.

2 The public hearing is open. I have no

3 speaker's cards.

4 Anyone care to address the committee?

5 AUDIENCE MEMBERS: (No response)

6 THE CHAIR: All right. Seeing no one, the

7 public hearing is closed.

8 MR. JOOST: Move the amendment.

9 THE CHAIR: Motion on the amendment by

10 Mr. Joost.

11 MR. R. BROWN: Second.

12 THE CHAIR: Second by Councilman Reggie

13 Brown.

14 Discussion?

15 COMMITTEE MEMBERS: (No response)

16 THE CHAIR: If not, all those in favor say

17 yes.

18 COMMITTEE MEMBERS: Yes.

19 THE CHAIR: Opposed say no.

20 COMMITTEE MEMBERS: (No response)

21 THE CHAIR: By our action, you've adopted

22 the amendment.

23 MR. JOOST: Move the bill as amended.

24 MR. R. BROWN: Second.

25 THE CHAIR: A motion on the bill by

89

1 Mr. Joost. Second by Councilman Reggie Brown.

2 Discussion?

3 COMMITTEE MEMBERS: (No response)

4 THE CHAIR: If not, open the ballot, vote.

5 (Committee ballot opened.)

6 MR. CRESCIMBENI: (Votes yea)

7 MR. JOOST: (Votes yea)

8 MR. REDMAN: (Votes yea)

9 MR. R. BROWN: (Votes yea)

10 MR. D. BROWN: (Votes yea)

11 MR. HOLT: (Votes yea)

12 (Committee ballot closed)

13 MS. LAHMEUR: Six yea, zero nay.

14 THE CHAIR: By our action, you've approved

15 Item 19, 2010-883 as amended.

16 Top of Page 7, Item 20, 2010-886.

17 Mr. Reingold.

18 MR. REINGOLD: To the Chair, Item 2010-886

19 is an appeal of a final order of the planning

20 commission.

21 Tonight the public hearing was strictly on

22 the issue of standing. The Office of General

23 Counsel had generated a memorandum which was

24 e-mailed out to all the members yesterday

25 concerning this issue. However, I also want to

90

1 bring to the attention of the committee that I

2 received an e-mail from Mr. Paul Harden this

3 afternoon, and it states as follows:

4 Dylan, per phone message today, Teresa

5 Blaylock (phonetic) asked that I let you know

6 that she wishes to withdraw her appeal which is

7 the subject of the above-noted legislation.

8 Please make that announcement at LUZ tonight.

9 Thanks, Paul Harden.

10 So with that, you can certainly take the

11 item up on its merits or you could withdraw it

12 as expressed by Mr. Harden.

13 THE CHAIR: Mr. Reingold, Ms. -- was it

14 Blaylock? She was the appellant?

15 MR. REINGOLD: Ms. Blaylock was the

16 appellant.

17 THE CHAIR: And is Mr. Harden her agent?

18 MR. REINGOLD: Well, technically, there's

19 not an agent application filed by Mr. Harden,

20 but what I can tell you is that the check for

21 the application came from Mr. Paul Harden's

22 office, and I believe legislative services

23 staff can tell you that the application was

24 actually dropped off by someone from

25 Mr. Harden's office. So there was some

91

1 involvement between Mr. Harden and --

2 THE CHAIR: I just want to make sure

3 that --

4 MR. JOOST: He's the agent.

5 THE CHAIR: I mean he's sending the e-mail

6 requesting withdrawal. I just want to make

7 sure we're on solid legal ground that if we act

8 upon that recommendation to withdraw that we

9 won't hear from the appellant at some point

10 down the road, although the appellant I don't

11 believe is here this evening. But I mean I'm

12 leaving it up to my crack legal counsel over

13 there to give us advice. I just don't want to

14 get caught in a pinch somewhere down the road.

15 MR. REINGOLD: I absolutely understand,

16 Chair. I believe there's a sufficient amount

17 of evidence between the connection between the

18 two that would suffice as that being certainly

19 a statement made by an agent representing her.

20 THE CHAIR: All right. Thank you, sir.

21 We do have a public hearing scheduled this

22 evening.

23 I'm going to open the public hearing. Are

24 there any speaker's cards on file? No.

25 Does anyone care to address the committee?

92

1 Ms. Deal, I see you. Come forward. Run.

2 MS. DEAL: Good evening. Jessica Deal

3 with Advanced Disposal Services, 7580 Philips

4 Highway, Jacksonville, Florida, 32256.

5 We concur with the Office of General

6 Counsel's findings that the applicant did not

7 have sufficient standings to file an appeal.

8 However, because we understand that these types

9 of facilities create sensitivities within any

10 community, we did attempt to reach out to the

11 applicant for the appeal. We did get a hold of

12 her, we met with her. We feel like we have met

13 her concerns and are doing some things moving

14 forward to make sure that her cares and

15 concerns are taken care of.

16 So we would appreciate the committee's

17 withdrawal of this appeal.

18 Thank you.

19 THE CHAIR: Thank you, Ms. Deal.

20 Any questions from the committee?

21 COMMITTEE MEMBERS: (No response)

22 THE CHAIR: All right. Anyone else care

23 to address the committee?

24 AUDIENCE MEMBERS: (No response)

25 THE CHAIR: Seeing no one, the public

93

1 hearing is closed.

2 MR. JOOST: Withdraw the bill.

3 MR. REDMAN: Second.

4 THE CHAIR: Motion to withdraw by

5 Mr. Joost. Second by Mr. Redman.

6 Any discussion?

7 COMMITTEE MEMBERS: (No response)

8 THE CHAIR: If not, open the ballot, vote.

9 (Committee ballot opened.)

10 MR. CRESCIMBENI: (Votes yea)

11 MR. JOOST: (Votes yea)

12 MR. REDMAN: (Votes yea)

13 MR. R. BROWN: (Votes yea)

14 MR. D. BROWN: (Votes yea)

15 MR. HOLT: (Votes yea)

16 (Committee ballot closed)

17 MS. LAHMEUR: Six yea, zero nay.

18 THE CHAIR: By our action, you've

19 withdrawn Item 20, 2010-886.

20 The remaining items on the agenda, Items

21 21, 2010-893, 2010-899, 2010-900 and 2010-901

22 are all read and second and rerefer.

23 Sir in the back? You came in, filled out

24 a speaker's card. Did you want to address the

25 committee on any matter?

94

1 MALE AUDIENCE MEMBER: I was only here for

2 questions in case somebody else had some

3 questions.

4 THE CHAIR: Do you want us to ask you some

5 questions?

6 MALE AUDIENCE MEMBER: No.

7 THE CHAIR: Okay. What item were you here

8 on?

9 MALE AUDIENCE MEMBER: Number 21 just

10 being introduced.

11 THE CHAIR: Oh, okay. All right. Well,

12 we'll see you at a future meeting. We'll come

13 up with a list of questions by then.

14 All right. Anything else to come before

15 the committee?

16 AUDIENCE MEMBERS: (No response)

17 THE CHAIR: All right. Well, I appreciate

18 everybody being here. Happy new year to

19 everyone.

20 Mr. Reingold, thank you for keeping us on

21 track, legally speaking.

22 And don't forget now we won't meet in two

23 weeks, we will meet in two weeks and one day.

24 Because of the Martin Luther King holiday,

25 we're going to be bumped a day. So we'll meet

95

1 on Wednesday the 19th of January.

2 All right. Thank you all.

3 (The above proceedings were adjourned at

4 6:35 p.m.)

5 - - -

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

96

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

2 STATE OF FLORIDA)

3 COUNTY OF DUVAL )

4 I, Tina Hutcheson, Court Reporter, certify that

5 I was authorized to and did stenographically report

6 the foregoing proceedings and that the transcript is

7 a true and complete copy of my stenographic notes.

8

9 Dated this 9th day of January 2011.

10

11

12 _______________________________

Tina Hutcheson

13 Court Reporter

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25