Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

All right, it is now 6 p.m. on May the 26th, and I call this meeting of the Planning Commission to order. To the city, may I please have a roll call?

David Dahl.

Here.

Dean Haddock. Nicholas Andrews. Matthew Feiler.

Here.

Justin Henderson.

Here.

John Linus. Lindsey Haga.

All right, to previous, or business, are there any changes or corrections to the minutes dated, what was that dated, March 23, a couple months ago, noted by anybody? Hearing none, may I have a motion to approve the minutes? Motion to approve. Second. All in favor?

Aye.

Aye. Hearing none opposed, the motion to approve those minutes is approved. Staff, is there any correspondence for any item on the agenda?

You had one email with attached pictures that I gave out to you guys that is for the second item on the agenda.

Cool. Awesome. And I guess moving on to new business. The planning commissions are generally quasi-judicial in nature. All decisions of the commission will be based on competent substantial evidence, including testimony provided in this meeting. Any person who is not an applicant or agent that wishes to speak will need to fill out a speaker card located on the side table by the door and turn them in to the city clerk. Each member of the public will be given three minutes to speak on each item. Please refrain from speaking from the audience in applause or cheering. We'll be allowed. Please silence your cell phones if we haven't already.

Thank you.

And then we'll start getting our application titles in here. To the planning department, can we please have their, where we got? PC 04-26.

04-26 is the second item. Do you want to start with that one? No. The conditional use request. The other one is the land development codes. That's

I don't disagree. I want that one. I want the land development code, but it just has an ordinance. It just has an A. It doesn't have a PC number on there.

Oh, okay. Sorry. Yeah, it's an internal number anyway. So this is ordinance 26-8237, which is the proposed corrections and updates bill for the land development code. So that is item A. I'll just go through this memo relatively quickly, but... It's been roughly a year since we passed the Land Development Code. Actually, it was in March of 25. And through that year, the Planning Department has been keeping track of any missing references, bad references, you know, incorrect definitions, language that was inconsistent. Basically trying to find and correct any Scribner's error or misconnections, those kind of things throughout the code. It is not intended to be any sort of substantive update to the code other than adding definitions where they're supposed to be. And there were some provisions on parking where we had intended to sort of stratify restaurant parking, but did not actually provide a different standard in the code and missed some of the definitions. So that is all things that were intended to be in there in the first place. Otherwise, as I said earlier, it's just the function of catching mistakes and fixing them to the best of our abilities. As was discussed, we passed the land development code as our intent to go through this semi-regularly for the first couple of years. It'll probably be annually. As we move forward, we may find things that need to be corrected or changes that the council wants or you guys may suggest. So we kind of anticipate doing this once a year for a little while, and then maybe we can get to the point where it's every couple of years or just as needed. But nonetheless, this was the first attempt, and I think we ended up with about eight pages of changes. But I am happy to answer any questions unless you guys want to go through anything specifically.

And this is, we're on this one, we're just making a recommendation for approval. That is correct. Yeah, we're making a recommendation to city council. So you can propose changes, conditions. And going through the changes, I just had a question. Was there anything that fundamentally kind of changed the way something was or just kind of a more typo clarifying?

I would say the two major things that would probably be worth note. You may recall with the case that came back to you for the dispensary a couple months ago, We didn't really have a process in the code to handle that type of situation, so we've added under substantive applications a third category, which basically gives the city attorney this tool as a way to address concerns rather than having to go through the court system, sort of a preemptive attempt to reach. That is all. Sorry. Right, so that's under, it's page 5 in the ordinance. It's section 3, article 5, and it's specifically section 34, 506, successive applications. And then it is letter B. Basically, the applicant may submit a new application within one year by mutual agreement with the city administration, and the applicant has a method of resolution of a legal filing, including but not limited to litigation or proceedings under State Statute 7051. A rehearing will not constitute a tenable hearing and does not limit the applicant's further rights under the state law. They wouldn't present anything new. The staff department wouldn't present anything new. It would just be an opportunity for you guys to, you know, kind of like that last situation where you had very limited membership at the time, so the decision was very close, and they wanted to bring it back before you for basically a rehearing. So we've just added that in. It doesn't guarantee anything, and it would be at the discretion of the administration whether they thought it was warranted or would make a difference. And then... As I mentioned in the definitions, there are a few more specific categories for restaurants. Those directly correlate to on page 12. These categories for the most part, the general restaurant, drive-thru restaurant, and fast casual were in the code already, but we never differentiated the parking standards for them. And some of them are kind of common sense. So for drive-thrus, the cars that are in queue to go to the window and order are counted towards a parking standard basically, because those are trips to the store that aren't gonna be going inside. And then fast casual restaurants, Usually have a higher turnover rate. Those are kind of your, you know, Panera Bread style, you know, people come in and order. There's no table service. And then coffee shops, which snacks, cafes all have a specific category. Again, that's it. slightly lower standard based on their typical parking requirement. This would not be something like, you know, kind of as an example, Panera does serve food and baked goods and coffee, so they wouldn't qualify as coffee shop. This would be very limited food offerings, typically like very light baked goods, that kind of thing. Predominantly coffee is their main product. So there's a Differentiation there, you know the Starbucks that's over in by the hotel downtown Obviously, they don't have to meet any parking but that's kind of thing. It's just just coffee predominantly and since they if those have a drive-through then they would you know, also count that stacking towards the the parking standard but Those are the only two like major changes that we've done. There's like I said some clarifications and I'm trying to think. We had basically, we accidentally limited where you could park boats and how many in the driveway. That was different than what we had proposed and different than what we had in the code before. Again, it was just a typo. I'm trying to think if there's anything else really. Oh, it was an issue with... Screening closures for pools on houses. Those have always been exempt from the accessory structure height limit because they're allowed to go to 35 feet to match the house as opposed to just being 15 feet. Again, was in the previous code, didn't carry forward. We just put it back the way it was in essence. Those are the bulk of the real changes. I mean, like I said, a lot of these are corrections. We had to take two... recommended tree species out of our list of recommended trees because they were recently determined to be considered invasive by IFAS, which is the University of Florida's agricultural division. So we've removed those, but otherwise that's the only real change there. We removed Bottle Brush and Norfolk Pine. So those are now classified as invasive by the state. So we don't want people finding those. Because everything else is really just clarifications.

Mr. Chairman, could I ask a quick question? It looks like you're wrapping up. Could you give me some background about the townhome provision on page two in the dwelling I'm attached? It was specific to say that the lot width needs to run from the same dimension from the front to the rear. And I'm curious to know, I think I know the answer. We're usually on blocks, not a lot of cul-de-sacs for townhomes. But can you give me a little background?

Yes. In essence, the new standard for townhomes requires a certain lot width and then a certain width of the structure, minimums and maximums. An applicant came forward and was trying to do some creative design with the front of the lot sizes that would have... basically made the middle lot kind of shaped like a hammer, in essence, and it created issues with the required parking and setbacks and things like that. Really, the intent was always a standard, you know, rectangular lot. This was just, we hadn't really anticipated it. It wasn't really clear in the code. We just wanted to make sure that, you know, going forward, whoever's reading the code knows what the consistency was supposed to be.

Yeah. Do you have one more follow up question, Mr. Chairman? Do you have any concern about placing a townhome in a cul-de-sac formation where you'd have a pie shaped lot and so on your side, it could be larger or at the end of a block where your side would be?

The lock width is measured as the minimum width at the front of the structure, so it could get wider in the back, but the 30 feet at the front would be the minimum. So if they were on a cul-de-sac, they could all be 30 feet.

So it doesn't have to stay static, then they just can't go below the minimum.

Right, because that's how we measure the lock width.

Okay, I appreciate it. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Any other questions?

I have a question.

Do we open this one up to the public? It's a recommendation, yeah. It's here.

As a reminder, each member of the public will be given three minutes to speak when we open the public hearing. Do any commission members have any ex parte communication to disclose? Hearing none, we don't have an applicant because it's the city. Commission members, please refrain from interrupting the presentation. Hold questions to the end. We have already asked the applicant questions. I will now open the public hearing. There we go. Speaker cards. John Atkins.

Mr. Atkins, you're going to tap on the microphone, the little red light at the bottom, and then you're going to raise your right hand and state your name and address.

John Atkins, 1888 Foss Lane, Jacksonville Beach.

Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to provide in this matter is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth to help you God?

I do.

Thank you.

Hello. Here to speak on the new land development code and first amazing difference that is now compared to what it was. Just saw a couple little changes. I'm a builder here at Jack's Beach. I've done over 100 houses here in Jacksonville Beach. A new category was developed, urban single family. It was to, I guess, do away with the breezeways that you've seen between the townhomes. That's me, sorry. Want to get rid of the breezeways too. But there was a, I think there was a mathematical error done when the minimum lot size was put in for this. The typical lot in Jacksonville Beach is 50 by 125 or 62.5 by 100, 6,250 square feet. The minimum put in for urban single family is 3,500 square feet. So what happens is you can't take a regular lot in Jacksonville Beach and split it in two and put two single family homes on it. You still can build a townhome with an attached wall and sell it fee simple, just like when you split them apart. I think a really easy fix for us and By the way, I don't own any property right now in Jacksonville Beach except for my own house and some commercial property. This doesn't affect me directly except for I live here and I would rather see that than a bunch of town homes crammed together. And I've got a little, there's a lot on First Street I was looking at and I could build a three unit town home on it, but I couldn't. I don't know if y'all can see that from here, It got run over on the way here. I can't build three separate, but I can do three together. So the reason I know people want the ones separated is because they pay more for those and they pay more for them because that's what people want. You don't want a neighbor attached if you don't have to. I think it's a fairly small fix. to the land development code and I think it would really benefit the look and the way it plays out whatever so just something to think about even in the RS3 zoning district a minimum lot size is 3,000 square feet but an RM which is supposed to be more tense it's 3,500 so I just think that was maybe overlooked by the company that did that. Thank you.

Thank you. To the city, in the changes we're making to the LDC, is that something that's currently on the table for these changes, or is that just more of a?

general statement towards the entire LDC for that? It is not a recommended change, and the size and dimensions was a deliberate choice when we wrote the code. Basically, when you have two townhomes together, They touch, so you only have external setbacks. When you have two single-family homes on two lots of the same size, there are internal and external setbacks, and you end up with, in essence, a 20-foot-wide single-family home, which obviously we've had a lot of pushback on. With a townhome, you get two 25-foot-wide townhomes on a 30-foot lot. So, in essence, they are... a more preferred product as far as what the discussions we had with the public and council. The goal was not to encourage multiple subdivisions for small single family homes, but allow a single family home that fits in the urban setting while also allowing town homes that basically would keep the same external dimensions. In essence, if you subdivide a standard city lot and put two town homes on them, you in essence get one building. If you subdivided, put two single-family homes on it, you get two buildings, two setbacks, smaller footprint, more likely to go up. But it was a deliberate choice that was done through discussions during the drafting process.

And I guess my question kind of goes a little more like where does, just overall in the scheme of like this meeting and this, where does that comment go into our, how should we digest that?

It's part of the testimony you guys take in. If it rises to the level of something that you want to put down as a recommendation for council to consider, you can do that in your vote as part of your motion. It would go as a recommendation to council.

It would be a recommendation above and beyond what we're looking at tonight.

Correct, yeah. The staff memo and the draft is our recommendation. You guys would be adding on to that if you chose to.

Okay. From the city standpoint, from the presenter, would there be a better time for them to present that?

I mean, they, I would assume, also present that to council during their two readings of the ordinance. But now is as good a time as any if you guys are amenable to adding it as a recommendation or not. Okay, thank you.

Is there anyone in the audience who has not filled out a speaker card that would care to speak? Going once, going twice. I will now close the public hearing and bring the item back to the board for discussion. Is there a motion?

Mr. Chairman, Speaker, I have a question for the City on that. We can propose a change to the LDC at any time. It doesn't necessarily have to be every year. Is that correct? Or would you propose a recommendation?

Yeah, if the board takes a vote and they want to put forth a change to the code, they could do that. And then it would go through the process of whether council wanted to entertain an ordinance, which would then come back to you guys as a full drafted ordinance. I'm not sure the exact process, just because I've talked to the city managers, how you would want to wrap that through the review process. But in essence, yes, you guys are part of the group that can make recommendations to the land development code because you work with it all the time.

Right. So not something we have to add to this batch of changes and not something we have to wait for a year to address and consider more. I don't know that I'd be ready to propose a change to LDC on our residential dimensions based on that.

Yes, Chair. What would the motion be?

I don't understand. I don't think I fully understand the issue. I understand what Christian said. Right.

So we have in front of us tonight on what we're reading, we have a recommendation to council based off the changes that were given, a recommendation to council to either approve or not approve the changes that are already presented. This is kind of a separate issue. That doesn't really go in with this. And if we – my thought is if we – even if we were to say, hey, vote on that, by the time we put it in this, it's all going to get convoted together. It's probably not going to work out anyway. By the time it gets to council, it's going to be a different animal.

To the chair, I think that I would – Mr. John is asking. In essence, what Mr. Atkins is saying, the minimum lot size for urban single family is 3,500 square feet. The minimum lot size for townhomes is 3,000 per unit. If you have a lot that is 6,250 square feet, you can't divide that into two and have them be 3,500 square feet. So he is basically asking if you could reduce the minimum lot size for urban single family to 3,000 square feet like a townhome. So if you wanted to make that motion, that's in essence what you're doing.

And that's the building you're speaking of?

Yeah, the lot size for that particular type of unit, yes. Okay.

And through the chair, our urban single family, it would permit single family detached as a product type.

They're already allowed. They just have a different standard.

I think I would agree with my fellow board member that I'm not, I have all the facts yet to take up to make it a recommendation for the city council to consider, but certainly want to explore that. I don't know how many lots there are to be included and what that would be. And I respect the prior work that was done for the land development code with regard to the small footprint, but I don't discourage this comment. So just to share those thoughts. I know I can make a motion. Second.

So let's bring this back around. So we need a motion on the table to vote on whether to approve or not approve the, or not approve, but to recommend or not recommend the changes to the LDC to council. Correct.

You can recommend to approve the conditions or not.

What is that motion? That'd be great.

Motion to approve the changes to the LEC and recommend approval to City Council.

Second.

Okay. So we have a motion on the table. Does anyone have any further discussion on that motion? Not hearing much. So from where I'm sitting here, I would say I don't mind that comment. I don't know if we have enough information sitting in front of us right now to really make an informed decision on that. As far as going into this, if it's something that, you know, we want to make a second motion to, to maybe add it to a further agenda item down the list and something we can revisit, we could do that, or we can just keep going forward. That'd be how I would handle that.

So you have a motion on the table, unless you want to add that to it, I would say, Can we have a roll call on the motion?

David Dahl.

No.

Matthew Feiler.

Yes.

Lindsay Haga.

Yes.

Justin Henderson.

Yes.

Motion passes.

Next item on the agenda. To the city, can we have the planning department's report for PC 04-26?

Chair, yes. This is PC 04-26. It is a conditional use application. The applicant is Southern Grounds Coffee, Jacks Beach LLC. The owner and agent is Mark Angelo. The location is 2405 3rd Street North, 2415 3rd Street South, I think. I don't know why that's in there. Just regret. It's a continuous use application for outdoor seating for, well, an existing tenant in the commercial C1 zoning district pursued in Section 34342. That's not correct either. Hang on a second. Got some typos, apparently. That is... 18. That's going to be pursued into section 34, 617D18 for outdoor seating. The subject site was granted conditional use by the Planning Commission on September 9th of 2024. At the time of the approval, it was conditioned by the commission that the conditional use for outdoor seating would be approved for one year only, and the date for that one year to begin would be the issuance of the certificate of occupancy. The certificate was issued on May 30th, 2025, so it has been roughly a year since that was approved. Staff rejects the applicant. Basically have them come back for your re-review and vote on the outdoor seating going forward. We reviewed any existing code enforcement cases on the site and there were not any. We have not received any outside complaints at the planning department related to the outside seating. The conditional use in question only applies to this tenant and the spaces and seats noted on the site plan that was provided in the application. The other outside seating is related to other existing uses that have approval for outside seating. The existing request is identical to the request that they had before. The property is located up 3rd Street South. It's north of the intersection of 24th Avenue South. It is the Costa Verde Shops owned by Mr. Angelo. Again, they're seeking approval for outside seating for the existing restaurant of Southern Grounds. The use request is intended to continue the current configuration and not expand it or change it. ADJACENT USES TO THE SHOPPING CENTER INCLUDE A MULTI-FAMILY COMPLEX TO THE NORTH AND ONE TO THE EAST, COMMERCIAL FUEL SALES AND CONVENIENCE STORE TO THE SOUTH AND A SIMILAR MIXED USE COMMERCIAL SHOPPING CENTER TO THE WEST ACROSS THIRD STREET. THE PROPOSED OUTDOOR SEATING IS EXPECTED TO BE OR CONTINUE COMPATIBLE WITH THE SURROUNDING COMMERCIAL AND MULTI-FAMILY USES AND THE LAYOUT OF THE SEATING HAS BEEN PREVIOUSLY REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY THE FIRE MARSHAL AND THERE ARE NO CHANGES GOING FORWARD. The use of adverse seating adheres to the C-1 zoning standards and aligns with the similar internal uses in the shopping center and surrounding commercial uses. No additional parking is required as the use is part of the shopping center, which has an established overall parking standard. Also, just to note, the structure was built in 1973. Obviously, that was before several different versions of the current code. I know there have been some questions particularly raised by the email regarding parking issues. We don't have any hard evidence one way or the other as far as a parking study or any kind of survey that was done as far as impacts of this restaurant versus another um but what i did do and again i'm not sure if it's terribly helpful or not um i did go on google and just pulled up some pictures of the the outdoor seating just so you can get a feel for it it's basically in this corridor and then the little alcove that you see they have a couple of seats and i think like i said it was about 24 seats total um in the outside area and it's directly adjacent to the um existing restaurant So I went through and basically just pulled as many aerials as I could find. This is from Google Maps. It does not have a date on it, but... It's relatively recent because you'll notice that the striped fire lane doesn't show up on earlier maps, so somewhere between, I think, 24 and 25 that was added, but I'm not positive. There is the on-street parking that's located here, and then the striped parking that surrounds the building and along the rear. This is from our Dulau County property appraiser's map. Again, same picture. I know it's from 2025. I couldn't tell you the date, so I'm not sure what time of day or what time of year this is, but you can see that the parking is less full in this picture. This is from 2024. There's virtually nobody parked there. Again, I don't know if this is Christmas Eve. We go back to 2023 and we can see, you know, kind of the standard that you see if you go there at lunch now, just everyone's parked everywhere. All the spaces are full. People are kind of parking along the sidewalk and things that they probably shouldn't be doing. And then 2022, similar situation. It just, there isn't really anything that I can point to that would say that this use does or does not have an impact on the parking, again, as a shopping center. So their parking standard is based on the total square footage of the building, like any other shopping center. And it was built at a time where they probably weren't required to provide as much parking as they are now. So it's an existing condition. It's been an existing condition. The intent is that the uses can go in and out of the shopping center without them having to go through a constant recycling and reconfiguration of their parking. So it... I can't really speak confidently one way or the other on if there's a major parking impact because there's really no data available. So other than that, but I'm happy to answer any questions that you guys may have. Again, this is the same thing you approved last time. We just put in a one-year condition. Our recommendation is basically that you approve it without any time limits, like most outdoor seating is approved.

Thank you. As a reminder, each member of the public will be given three minutes to speak when we open the public hearing. Does any commission member have any ex parte communication to disclose? Hearing none, would the applicant please come forward to be sworn in and give any presentation?

Excuse me.

Please raise your right hand and state your name and address.

My name is Mark Angelo, 1283 Ponte Vedra Boulevard, Ponte Vedra Beach, Florida, 32082.

Do you swear and affirm that the testimony you're about to give in this matter is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. So help you God.

Am I timed on this? Yep. Okay. So on the agenda, it said that we were requesting additional outdoor seating and that's not the case at all. We are, um, not going after any more than we got last year. Um, this is our one year anniversary. Um, as was stated, and we've learned a lot since then. The public benefit has the outdoor dining has had a positive effect to our center, making it very pedestrian friendly, benefiting many businesses and the neighborhood. More people are riding bikes to the center, which is great. People are bringing their dogs to sit outside during breakfast, lunch, and dinner, which we encourage. Activating the outdoor seating has given the neighborhood a lifestyle center and environment, which has really been positive. And also, the positive activity has kept the homeless from loitering around the center, which we had a problem for a while, but it's really mitigated that. We recently hired a security company to monitor the parking lot during peak hours. Following findings were immediately identified and acted upon. Core motion is our Pilates tenant. And we, they, they have large classes between 1030 and two and it's suffocating the parking lot. And that's the, that's really the prime problem of the, of, that we're having. All their employees park off-site. We encourage all the employees to park off-site on the street. There's 33 parking spaces in front all the way to the light near the water tower. If any employees are parking on-site that aren't not supposed to, we notify them and let them know. Any new leases, if we renew them, will require off-site parking for employees since there's plenty of spaces offsite. I placed a 10 minute to go order parking only sign in front of the Florida juice and bowl because they were having a hard time with people, you know, ordering and then not picking it up. So we've done that. It seems to be very positive. I'm sure we'll hear from them about that. So some observations when the outdoor seating is busy, for Florida, for Southern grounds, the indoor is not so busy. So it's not, it's not both indoor and outdoor are so packed that it's, it's creating an issue. Um, I do also notice that Florida juice and bowl, you know, I'll hear somebody walk by the table, take the table and say, I'm going to go to Florida juice and get my lunch. And there is other people are going to Southern grounds to pick up theirs. And so it is like a community, um, And I've just gotten a lot of emails from tenants saying how it has been a positive impact to the center and to their business, up to 30% increase in business for a lot of the tenants.

Thank you. Do any commission members have any questions for the applicant? Thank you. Okay. Hearing none, I will now open the public hearing. And we have some speaker cards. All right, first up is going to be Andy Blewett. Did I read that right?

Hello. I'm Andy. Yes, Andy Blewett. I have an office at 2435, the same building as where this conditional use permit is.

The truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. So I hope you got it.

Yes. Thank you. So the reason I'm talking today is there's a reason that you guys gave them a year to see what happens, because you had eight taxpaying residents last year write in saying that this was not an okay thing to do. This building already has an outdoor eating space. You could throw a pin and hit another table for Southern Grounds. Several patrons from Southern Grounds eat in this already established outdoor eating zone. So to say this one new outdoors eating zone has created more of a biking environment and a walking environment is simply not true. There are people that sit outside all the time. And then in the last year, everybody has used it. In the last two weeks, once the sign went up for the conditional use permit, a sign was put up that patrons could not sit in that area if they were dining at Southern Grounds, which I find it funny that we've gone a year and now suddenly we're changing that. The other thing is, this was the permit two years ago. So you'll see that this right here did not have seating for Southern Grounds when they did this original permit. Right after they got the approval, kind of like a bait and switch, the building owner made the jewelry store behind it move to another location to expand Southern ground seating. So it went from a 25 seat coffee shop to now a, I don't know what they're permitted for, but I would guess 50 and then additional 25 seats outside. This building is already exasperated with tenants. The parking was exasperated two years ago, four years ago, five years ago. I've been in the building for 10 years. I've seen it. People park on the sidewalk. You can't walk on it. It is a safety issue. I'm constantly trying to get my car in and out, almost hitting cars. So my thing is, why does it need two outdoor seating spaces? If the landlord could move somebody, he can make that courtyard a multi-use for the entire building. Plain and simple. I don't think we need 20 more bodies at that location. Everybody can do enough business without two outdoor seating areas. This building does have a loophole because of its age and its multi-use. So it doesn't have to constrain to the parking restrictions that you talked about earlier. So now they are exploiting that loophole by adding three restaurants to an already exasperated business. That should never happen in the first place, but that's greed. So my point is, why does a building need two outdoor seating spaces right next to each other? It has one. The landlord should just change it so everybody can use it if he really wants Southern Grounds to have an outdoor eating space. It's exasperated. The parking is awful. You say you haven't done a parking study. Maybe you should. Check the parking tickets that people are writing. The community officers, they're out there every day writing people tickets. So I think as a planning department, you're supposed to help with overcrowding instead of adding to it.

Thank you. We also have a card from Daniel Blewett. Does not wish to speak, but he is in opposition of. Then we have Beth Angelou.

So please raise your right hand and say your name and address. Beth Angelo, 1283 Ponte Feature Boulevard.

Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to give in this matter is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth to help you God? Yes, I do. Thank you.

So we bought the center in 2017. And it was really a kind of dying center. It didn't need parking because that nobody parked there because it just wasn't a very viable center. We've been in the Jacksonville Beach area a long time. We started, my husband built, over where Bonefish is. We still retain ownership in that. We built the Jacks Beach Town Center over there. We care a lot about the community. We put a lot of effort in to make sure that every one of our tenants that we try really gets heard. we did try and call Florida juice and bowl three times to try to meet with them so we could work on how we could improve. So we didn't, they didn't, um, come back with us. So we couldn't get an answer, but I will say that when we found out core motion was doing big classes at that time, we told her that you just, it's hurting the tenants because, um, You just can't have it during peak time. When we saw, we did our parking study, it's from 10.30 to 2 is really the peak time. Other times, there's lots of spaces available. So she now is going to be restricted. Her lease is up in October, but we're working with her now to have six people per class instead of the maximum is 50 on her sheets, but 30 because that really was the main culprit. And so 100% as of October definitely won't happen, but we are easing that in because, and she never has 50. She says the most she has is 25, but 25 unactive spots for an hour during peak time was just not going to work for the rest of our tenants. So once we found that out, of course, we're going to take action on that. But it's not the outdoor seating. That's something that the community loves and cares about. And that's why it's being utilized. The reason why we can't do it in the other space, it's shaded in the space that it is. It's very limited capacity. It's not like overwhelmed. You could see it in the pictures. And people just enjoy using it. Usually if it's a pretty day, they're either in or out, not usually on both. So honestly, I think it's, people love it in the community. And I know that the Bluets at Florida Juice really wanted to, originally wanted some outside seating and asked for it, but there was no place to put it. We're not opposed to them using that same space. Their customers go there anyway. So as an owner, I will tell you, They can use that space too. They already do. Their customers come over and eat juice bowls over there all the time. So it really does make the center a better place in Jack's Beach. And that's what we care about as developers. We really are concerned. That's why we paid for the study, did it ourselves, wanted to see. And unfortunately they wouldn't meet individually with us. I wish they would have, because we really do love our tenants. We're very happy with our tenants. Our tenants usually like us. So, um, um, We have one of our tenants here today too. So, I mean, we really do care about the community. Thanks.

Thank you. And we have David Angelo.

Please raise your right hand and state your name and address.

David Angelo, 2999 First Street South.

Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to give them this matter is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth to help you God?

Yes, I do.

Thank you.

So I am always over there. I live right near the center and I love it. And I've been there for many years, always checking it out, seeing it before it was renovated and everything. And, um, It's an awesome place, and I go there all the time today, and I go to both Southern Grounds and Florida Juice and Bowl. Both are fantastic, and I've found that when this outdoor dining experience came into play, Whenever I go with my friends, we are always eating outside over there. It is such an improvement to the center, and it brings more people in, which I find to be, like, brings more people together inside there. And I find that to be amazing. And also, I find that to be almost more of a benefit to the center, because... Everyone goes to, it's such a wellness center where people go to Pilates and they go get their nails done. They eat. It's like a great, great place. But I have found that what I tend to do typically is I'll order at both places when I'm getting lunch and I'll go order at Florida Juice and Bowl. I'll get a regular uh acai bowl and then i'll go to southern grounds and i'll get a couple things over there and then i'll wait in southern grounds i'll get my food and then i'll go over once i get it i'll go back to florida juice and bowl and pick up my i'll wait a few more minutes it takes a little bit longer um but i'll get my food and um eat outside on the patio um but I just think it's such an amazing thing to have for the center, and I think it truly just makes the center a better place. It's used for meeting spaces. It always makes it very lively, and I do think the biggest problem right now is the the core motion peak times and with that being cut out i truly don't think that the parking is going to be any any different it'll be better if anything but um thank you thank you is there anyone in the audience who has not filled out a speaker card that wishes to speak if so step on up and if you can before you leave fill out a speaker card

If you can, before you leave, once we're done, fill out a speaker card and hand it in to the clerk. And she'll swear you in.

Please raise your right hand and state your name and address.

David Page, 222 25th Avenue South, Jack's Beach, Florida.

Do you swear and affirm that the testimony you're about to give in this matter is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth to help you grab?

I do.

Thank you.

I came because parking is the mess. I live right across the street. I see it. I don't... I'm mostly retired, so I see it all day long. Um... Now is my concern. I said, where are they going to put more parking if they're having more outdoor seating? Again, the courtyard is open. I don't know who owns those tables. Is that the Mexican restaurant or is that yours? It's the Mexican restaurant. Can you put more tables in here that are yours? No. No? That's it? It's limited there, so you only have the hallway. Okay, okay. So it doesn't really affect me, except I see it's always jammed up and jelly tight. And, again, they park on the sidewalk, so anybody in a wheelchair would have a problem getting around some of those. And I think it's the juice bowl people, you know. But if you look along 3rd there, there will be cars lined up on the sidewalk because it's only the one side of parking over there. So that was my concern, if they were looking for additional parking. I don't know, I didn't know what was going on. The thing I got in the mail didn't discuss anything at all, except they're looking for more outside. I saw them renovate. I thought maybe they're gonna have seating on one of the roofs, which I thought that would be kind of cool, rooftop seating. But if they're gonna limit, if they think the problem with the seating is the Pilates people, well, then I don't know that for sure. I'm not out there seeing who comes and wins, but that was my issue. Parking is a problem now. Would it be worse with more? But like he said, he already had it for a year. So I guess that the parking is not going to be any different if he has it another year. That's all I wanted to hear what was going on. I didn't know who was relationships. I thought I better show up because you know, next they're going to be parking everywhere in the little side streets where we live. You know, there's no parking on my side, thankfully, but the other part of St. Augustine Boulevard, that's jammed up and jelly tight too with parking. And so out of parking, that's basically it. Thank you.

Thank you. Cool. I will now close the public hearing and bring the item back to the board for discussion.

Ma'am, if you can come to the microphone so we can catch it on the recording. Thank you.

I just don't want to make this a business against business thing. I own commercial property in Jack's Beach. I lived in Jack's Beach for the last 30 years. I grew up here in Jacksonville. This is more a, there should be a trigger. Like there are loopholes and then there are things that should trigger making sure that we're not overdeveloped, that we're not clogging up our sidewalks like he said. This building, yes, Mark has done a lot for it. I'm not saying that he hasn't. He's repainted. The fire system was updated, so the building was forced to update their fire system. So everybody got sprinklers. He updated the electric in the building. None of that triggers the building to have to go to code for parking. I mean, it's wild that you have these old buildings. They just free range. And now you have overcrowding people parking on sidewalks, people parking down 25th where there's houses. I mean, I see kids out there and there are people that are parking to go to a coffee shop and sit for eight hours. So. This isn't I'm all for business. Everybody should get a piece of the pie. But my thing is there should be checks and balances and it shouldn't just be you have a loophole. Now we're going to give you additional seating and saying that you can't change the existing courtyard because it's in their lease is such crazy because I think you could go to the customary and say, hey, we're going to let people sit there. I think there's options and those should be explored.

Thank you. I'm going to wrap this up on that part. I will now close the public hearing and bring the item back to the board for discussion. Is there a motion?

Mr. Chairman, I have two quick questions that I heard in public comment, if you mind, to city staff. We heard perhaps the site plan was different on the original order than what we have now. Just a question on that. And then affirming that the use is permitted by right. We're talking about outdoor seating.

Second question first. Yes, the restaurant itself is a use by right. In C1, the site plan that relates to the outdoor seating is the same. The restaurant between September of 24, when they initially came before you guys and final build out, the internal footprint changed, but that's not related to the outside seating.

Right. Go back to it. Okay. So that use is allowed by right. If they chose to remove their outdoor seating, we'd still have our visitors to the restaurant.

Correct.

Thank you.

Mr. Chair, can I take a motion for further discussion? Do we need a second on that? Yeah. What was the motion? I'm sorry. For further discussion. Can we just further discuss the issue? We need a motion for the request on the table to have a motion to approve, and then we can discuss.

We can deny it. I'll make a motion to approve the conditional use permit as presented in the staff package without time limit or sunset subject to the requirements of Section 34.555 for transferability.

Second. So we had the same thing we had a year ago, and I remember when we did this, or two years ago when we did this. The issue at hand for us is the outside seating. The parking is, unfortunately, for everybody involved, the parking means code. Correct, Christian? Yes. So there's not much we can do about the parking. Well, the parking meets whatever standard was in place. We can't change the parking stipulation in this. Correct. Correct. And then the outside seating doesn't necessarily preclude or make any more or less visitors to the restaurant, to the establishment, because they have outdoor seating. I mean, the total capacity for seating is higher, but whether that relates to usage, I couldn't tell you. Right. And then in the past year that this has been going on, have there been any safety issues with the outdoor seating in the breezeway? Not that I've been made aware.

I spoke to the fire marshal and I spoke to our codes enforcement, but those are the only two avenues that we really have. So I couldn't say beyond that.

Because I believe when we discussed this two years ago, that safety was one of the bigger implements if it was blocking the breezeway from... rescue traffic or anything of the sort.

Correct. Like I said, the site plan was originally reviewed by the fire marshal and approved, and this is, in essence, the exact same thing. So they're not infringing on that requirement for egress. If I can just clarify a couple points from what I heard just to help you guys. So as a non-conforming use, well, as a non-conforming structure, the only time they are required to bring it up to code and meet any new requirements is if they substantially renovate the building based on the building's value as determined by an equation the building official uses for all commercial properties. So at no point have they basically triggered that to require them to come up to code. In a building this size, I imagine that would be a fairly substantial investment based on its value. The question about the alcohol license, I don't know how many of you are familiar, but When you get a permit for sale and service of alcohol on premise, you can have the premise be the inside of the building, and then you can have that also include any outside seating. But if you're the license holder, that outside seating is for your license, and it is part of what is considered your restaurant under the ABT license. when they say they have to use that for the Mexican restaurant, it's because their liquor license covers that seating, so they're liable for any use of alcohol or consequences that go along with owning that license for that area. That was it.

Thank you. Is there any further discussion?

I'm just trying to think if we were to not approve the conditional use of outdoor seating. They're gonna remove some tables that was previously southern grounds. I don't see how where that solves any of the parking issues or any of the other issues that were brought up.

Unfortunately, they might be, could be the same issue, but they're probably separate issues. May we have a roll call?

Matthew Feiler. The motion on the table is a motion to approve. Matthew Feiler?

Yes.

David Dahl? Yes. Lindsay Haga? Yes. Justin Henderson?

Yes. Motion passes. Moving on. May we have the planning department report?

All right, I don't know how and who and what knows what, but our beloved planning director, Heather, resigned back in April, predominantly due to some health conditions that she's been dealing with for a long time that have just unfortunately reached a point where she needed to take some time away to hopefully heal up. But in the meantime, the city manager is handling most of the discretionary authority that goes along with the planning director's job, so things like administrative variances and that sort of thing are being handled through him. He's signing off on alcohol licenses and events permits. Otherwise, the rest we're handling internally, so if you see me looking a little frazzled, that is why. They are in the process for selecting a candidate. Interviews have been ongoing, so next week I believe they'll be handling a lot of the in-person interviews, so We will see what happens with that, but the position is open until filled, so there's no set deadline. That will happen. Because of that and because of scheduling with the city attorney, commission training is probably going to be in July at this point because he's taking the second half of June off, and we did not have time through March or April to really find a time to schedule. get training done. I am working on a memo for you guys for basically interim training that hopefully since most of you have been through the training a number of times, this is a little bit more in depth on some of the legal aspects, providing some case references and summaries on the sort of pivotal landmark cases that define how land use works in the state. A lot of the questions I get from you guys, I think this will help have that kind of background. It's like two pages, it's not bad. The references are there if you want to look at them, but basically they establish how and why things can and can't happen with state law. But it really relates to how you guys conduct meetings and how conditions get put on and stuff like that stuff. And then we do have a meeting scheduled for June 8th, but we don't have any action items. So unless there's something the board needs to meet to discuss, we were probably going to cancel that because we don't have any business to conduct.

Cool. I'll probably send you an email. I personally will be out of town from about June 14th through July 14th. Okay. So whenever we have, whatever pops up during that. Yeah, we have team meetings, but we'll, yeah, we can handle that. Sure. Cool. Motion to adjourn.

Second.

Do we need a roll call on that? We are adjourned.