|
|
OFFICE OF
CITY COUNCIL
RES EARCH DIVISION
LAND USE AND ZONING SUBCOMMITTEE ON 2011-252
MINUTES
August 2, 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, Ray Holt, and Robin Lumb; Dylan Reingold, Office of General Counsel; John Crofts, Sean Kelly, and Emery Nauden, Department of Planning and Development; Merriane Lahmeur and Rick Campbell, Office of City Council; David Stubbs, JaxPort; Wyman Duggan
The Subcommittee Chair, Lori Boyer, called the meeting to order at 4:05 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 |
After opening comments, the Chair advised the members that she had two handouts – the Research Division legislative summary and a portion of the transcript from a previous LUZ meeting where this item was discussed.
Mr. Emery Nauden was then asked to give his PowerPoint presentation, during which it was noted that the bill was drafted in response to screening concerns. The presentation addressed legislation genesis, current regulated uses, proposed regulation of outside storage/outside storage yards, additional screening requirements, stacking of storage containers, container storage height and setback requirements, incentives for natural buffers for automobile/outside storage, and exemption from fence and screening for outside storage. Afterward, questions were entertained and discussion was held.
In response to questions, further clarification of existing and proposed screening and setback provisions was given. The current standards of Section 656.415 were cited and compliance issues were noted. Mr. Kelly explained that feedback and responses included complaints, enforcement, and blight, with the promotion of industrial uses in the right places being important. He addressed the issue of containers and bringing this into compliance over time. It was anticipated that a required tree would cost $180 to $200 (installed $400 to $700) and that the cost of fencing would depend upon the type. It was mentioned that representatives from affected industry would be invited to the next subcommittee meeting.
The issues of grandfathering, transitioning, expected gains, materials used, and road frontage visibility were noted, as well as compatibility with neighboring uses. Right-of-way esthetics and situations where both sides of a street might have screening concerns were discussed, and the idea of differentiating between corridors was expressed. Mr. Crofts offered to provide information and maps concerning the functional highway classification system.
The Chair asked if the changes would be worth the cost, stating that containers could still be visible even with an eight-foot fence. Stacking height limitations and potential problems for industry, such as JaxPort, were questioned. Issues and impacts involving industrial sanctuaries and situational compatibility were explained. Comment was made relative to property values and being fair to those who already do what is right as opposed to those who do not, even though violation may not be involved. Mr. Kelly expressed the intent to preserve uses, with compatibility as a factor, and the cost of transitioning for an existing business was recognized. In response to a question concerning the possibility of exempting sanctuary properties, boundary considerations and the fact that most industrial zoning is located in a sanctuary were mentioned.
The members determined that there was merit in continuing to meet, with benefits in relation to expenses, material and maps on major arterials, limits on esthetic considerations, setbacks for stacking containers not necessarily accomplishing the desired effect, information and maps concerning situational compatibility and sanctuaries, a draft of grandfathering provisions, cost estimates for fencing and trees, and undisturbed buffers and natural vegetation being topics for further discussion. The Chair stated that the next meeting would be in two weeks, and encouraged members to make those involved in affected industry aware of this meeting.
There being no further discussion, the meeting was adjourned at 4:45 p.m.
Rick Campbell, Research Assistant
(904) 630-1679
Posted 08.03.11
4:00 p.m.