|
|
OFFICE OF
CITY COUNCIL
RES EARCH DIVISION
LAND USE AND ZONING SUBCOMMITTEE ON 2011-252
MINUTES
August 16, 2011
4:00 p.m.
Conference Room A
Fourth Floor, City Hall
117 West Duval Street
Attendance: Subcommittee Chair Lori Boyer; Subcommittee Members Doyle Carter (arrived 4:09 p.m.), Ray Holt, and Robin Lumb; Council Member Don Redman; Dylan Reingold, Office of General Counsel; Sean Kelly and Emery Nauden, Department of Planning and Development; Merriane Lahmeur and Rick Campbell, Office of City Council
The Subcommittee Chair, Lori Boyer, called the meeting to order at 4:02 p.m. with the purpose of discussing the following pending ordinance:
|
ORD-MC
Amend Chapt 656 (Zoning Code), Ord Code, Secs 656.322 (Light Industrial
Category), 656.323 (Heavy Industrial Category) & 656.324 (Water
Dependent-Water Related Category) of Subpart D (Industrial Use Categories
& Zoning Dists), 656.368 (Springfield Historic Zoning Dists) &
656.369 (Springfield Performance Standards & Dev Criteria) of Subpart I
(Springfield Zoning Overlay & Historic Dist Regs), 656.399.29 (Gen
Standards) of Subpt O (Riverside/Avondale Zoning Overlay) & 656.399.44
(Industrial Sanctuary Overlay Zone Permitted Uses & Permissible Uses by
Exception) of Subpart P (Industrial Sanctuary & Areas of Situational
Compatibility Overlay) within Part 3 (Schedule of Dist Regs) to Rename Ref to
Outdoor Storage to Outside Storage for Consistency & allow for Outdoor
Display of Certain Heavy Equipmt in the IH Zoning Dist & Retail Sales of
Storage & Shipping Containers in the IL & IH Zoning Dists; Amend Sec
656.415 (Fencing or Screening of Certain Uses) of Part 4 (Supplementary Regs)
to Modify Screening Requiremts for Certain Uses & Estab Screening Regs
for Automobile Storage Yards & Outside Storage or Outside Storage Yards.
(Reingold) (Req of Mayor) (PC & PD Apv) LUZ
PH per Sec 656.123, Ord Code - 5/17/11, 6/7/11, 7/19/11,10/4/11 Public
Hearing Pursuant to Sec 166.041(3)(c)(2), F.S. - 5/10/11 & 5/24/11 |
|
|
|
1.
4/26/2011 CO Introduced: LUZ |
|
|
5/3/2011 LUZ Read 2nd & Rerefer |
|
|
2.
5/10/2011 CO PH Addnl 5/24/11/ Read 2nd & Rerefer; LUZ |
|
|
3.
5/24/2011 CO PH Only |
The Chair called for those present to introduce themselves, and then gave a brief overview of the legislation and the previous subcommittee meeting. She noted that the requested maps were on display and that requested cost information from the Research Division relative to trees and fencing had been distributed. She then asked for comments from those present.
Mr. Peter Anderson presented the views of ITAC (Industrial Technical Advisory Committee), stating the intent to be proactive in protecting property owners. He explained that, while there are no major problems yet, the motivation in having this legislation drafted was to address visual concerns with fencing, as cloth mesh screening does not last, and to buffer a height of eight feet, since the first container is often this height. C/M Holt expressed his thoughts that chain link fencing could be appropriate, that many violations are on major corridors, and that the proposed provisions would not shield much.
Mr. Daniel Blanchard, property owner, felt that the issue was one of enforcement and that making major roads look better was commendable. He provided a handout example and questioned the value in relation to cost in screening a dead-end road. C/M Lumb inquired as to grandfathering, and Mr. Reingold mentioned the possibility of an amortization period.
Mr. Wyman Duggan stated that NAIOP had not yet taken a formal position. He gave the informal opinion that the legislation needs more work, such as an amortization provision, and that some roads do not need screening. He further advised that one size does not fit all.
Mr. Curtis Hart, property owner and NEFBA (Northeast Florida Builders Association), expressed that he would not want to see any limitations in IH (Industrial Heavy) districts, particularly height restrictions.
Ms. Staci Rewis, attorney, mentioned issues of compatibility with industrial preservation areas and intent, such as setbacks from only the road or from all four sides of a property.
Mr. Chris Hagan, NEFBA, echoed the comments of Mr. Hart, further stating non-support at this time.
Mr. Tom Ingram, attorney, addressed several concerns and gave his opinions, including the chain link fence prohibition (a security issue, not just aesthetics), size of required trees (trees will grow), stacking (setback more than adequate), and maximum height restrictions (too constraining). He felt that additional restrictions would limit capitalism, and visually demonstrated how the Zoning Code had increased in size and number of pages over the past several years. He concluded by stating that more flexibility is needed.
Ms. Tammy Wainwright, Main Metal Recycling, questioned how this legislation was drafted without the business community being aware and noted business difficulties.
Mr. Jeff Evans, FCMA (First Coast Manufacturers Association), stated that this would be excess regulation, although the intent is noble. He reflected that he was trying to understand the process.
Mr. Dave Kaufman, Jacksonville Port Authority, advised that, while JaxPort would not be impacted, its tenants would be – especially those involved with auto storage. He expressed concern, and relayed that Florida Statutes provide for chain link fencing with barbed wire for security.
Mr. Mack McCuller, attorney, indicated agreement with previous speakers. He stated his perception that the genesis of this legislation is a container problem, and opined that the legislation goes beyond performance standards. He added that the chain link fence prohibition would be significant, as this material is used a lot.
Mr. Duggan addressed the burden the proposed changes would have on efforts establishing JaxPort trade zones throughout the county.
Mr. Lad Daniels, FCMA, informed the group that FCMA had not taken an official position. He felt that the legislation needs a long gestation period, and that there is not enough IH zoning locally. He referenced international and expansion opportunities, and recommended that the City not create a long-term solution for a short-term problem. He further indicated that the proposed provisions would be overkill, especially in tight economic times.
At the conclusion of the public comment period, the Chair advised that it had been informed that the Office of the Mayor would be inclined to support withdrawal of the item at this time. The Chair then asked the subcommittee members whether the subcommittee should proceed or report a recommendation for withdrawal to the full Land Use and Zoning Committee (LUZ).
C/M Lumb stated that he would support withdrawal, but that ITAC should continue work on the issue. C/M Holt also stated support for withdrawal, and reiterated his earlier position that not much would be effectively shielded with the proposed provisions. C/M Carter added that those who do not comply with current provisions make it difficult for those who do.
The Chair indicated a preference that, if the issue is referred back to ITAC, LUZ be consulted before new legislation is drafted. She expressed having problems with the chain link prohibition and with increasing the fence height for existing uses. She further noted enforcement as an issue, and questioned the cost of implementing the proposed requirements. Also, she commented that Mr. Ingram’s point relative to security issues and the need for chain link fencing behind other types of fencing was the same as expressed in the information given to the Research Division and provided to the subcommittee.
A motion was made that the subcommittee report to LUZ a recommendation for withdrawal of the legislation. This motion was approved on a vote of 4-0.
There being no further discussion, the meeting was adjourned at 4:49 p.m.
Rick Campbell, Research Assistant
(904) 630-1679
Posted 08.18.11
1:30 p.m.