Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Okay, it is now 7 p.m. and I call this meeting of the planning commission to order. May I please have a roll call? David D, Marggo Moring here, Nicholas Andrews here, Debbie Cole, Justin Henderson here, Dean Haddock, Matthew Fer here. Okay. My understanding is we have no minutes. Correct. That is correct. Is there any correspondence for any item on the agenda? Uh, Mr. Chair, I believe that you guys were provided um copies of correspondence we got via email regarding item 7-25. Have all the commissioners um reviewed that? It's in the packet. Do we have any old business? No old business. Okay. On to new business for the public. Planning commission meetings are generally quasi judicial in nature. All decisions of the commission will be based on confident substantial evidence including testimony provided in this meeting. Any person who is not an applicant or agent that wishes to speak will need to file a speaker card which is located on the side table by the entrance door and please turn them into 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 and applause or cheering will not be allowed. And please silence your cell phones. Mr. Vice Chair, can you please read the application by title? Yeah. Can we have the report for PC925? Yes. And I apologize. I don't know why these numbers don't go in order. Um I'll blame it on the agenda software. How about that? Okay. So PC9-25 is a request for conditional use approval. The owner and applicant is Bethlehem Lutheran Church. Agent is Gordon Grunt and the physical address is 1337 8th Avenue North. The request is

for conditional use approval to revert a a vacant building back to a child daycare center uh pursuant to section 34612D of the Jacksonville Beach Land Development Code subject to the conditions outlined in 3458N1. Uh, as I mentioned, the property is located on 8th Avenue North and is bound by two other on two other sides by Palm Circle and Holly Drive with access on 8th Avenue North, which is across the street from the sanctuary that is owned by the church. Uh, part of it is part of a larger group of properties that include a second building and already improved off- streetet parking. The property was constructed in 1960 as a single family home as well as a second building owned by the church directly to the east. The site was granted conditional use approval in 1986 to operate as a child care facility. The church choose chose to use the property for other uses and it has not been used as a child care facility for more than a year uh which necessitates them to come back for conditional use approval since they lost their grandfathering. Uh there are specific conditions and standards that apply to childcare properties that are listed on page two of the staff report. Um these are new conditions as you recall when we updated the land development code we added these for certain types of uses and although they are new the existing facility does meet these requirements. The lot well exceeds 7500 square ft with a total area of 2100 square ft. The capacity of the children and required employees will be dictated by the state of Florida based on a number of factors that are considered as part of their licensing through the state to operate. Uh the specific number has not been provided but based on the size of the structure staff is cons confident that existing parking and the play area are properly sized to handle the capacity. Additionally, there's a pullthrough drive aisle in the parking area that will provide drop off and pickup stacking lanes contained within

the existing parking area and these will serve as additional staging for cars awaiting children. Um staff could find no records of complaints or code enforcement cases for this use at this location previously. Adjacent uses include the church property to the east. Um the parking to the west north across 8th Avenue North is the church sanctuary and to the west is a large amount of rideaway that makes up the intersection at 8th and Holly. Across Holly Drive are single family homes and to the south across Palm Circle are additional single family homes. It is the opinion of staff that the proposed use is consistent with the 2050 comprehensive plan and the land development code as well as the noted required conditions based on the application and information included from the applicant and outlined in the staff memo. The planning and development department recommends approval of PC9-25 for childcare use in a residential zoning district. Thank you. Um is the applicant here? Okay. Thank you. So as a reminder, each member of the public will be given three minutes to speak when we open the public hearing. Uh does any commission member have any exparte communication to disclose? Right. Will the applicant please come forward to be sworn in and give any presentation? Please raise your right hand and state your Oh, actually, can you turn your mic on, please? You're just going to tap the little red button. Beautiful. Please raise your right hand and state your name and address. Um, my name is Gordon Grant, 500 Ranch Road, Pontedra. Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you are about to give in this matter is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth to help you God? Yes, ma'am. Thank you. Thank you. Um, as a reminder to commission members, please refrain from interrupting the presentation and hold questions to the end. Sir, um, basically this building was a single

family home. We had a daycare in it for many, many years. 20 steers. Um we started a vicarage program which allows the fourth third year pastor third year seminary students third year seminary students to come um see if they really want to be a pastor um and and work for a year at the church. And so we decided to use this building for the vicorage so that the pastor in training could come stay there. And um we have since bought another piece of property on 14th Street which is on the other side of our property that is now the vicorage. So we just going to revert back to the use that we've been using it for the last 20ome years as a as a day as a daycare facility. Thank you. Do any commission members have any questions for the applicant? All right. Hearing none, I will now open the public hearing. Do we have any speaker cards? No, no speaker cards. Is there anyone in the audience who has not filled out a speaker card but wishes to speak? And if so, could you fill out a speaker card and uh return it to the city clerk before you leave? I will now close the public hearing and bring that back to the board for discussion. Is there a motion? Motion to approve. Is there a second? Second. Is there any further discussion? May I have a roll call vote in the motion? David Doll, yes. Marggo Moring, yes. Justin Henderson, yes. Matthew Filer, yes. Nicholas Andrews, yes.

Thank you. Uh, Mr. Vice Chair, can you please read the second application by title? Planning staff, can we please have the report for PCO7-25? You may. Thank you. PC7-25 is a smallcale land use amendment. Owner is owner and applicant are Southside Boulevard Land Company, Inc. Agent is Zach Miller and the property location does not have an address. It's Zero Pont Deleon Boulevard. And we do have a slide we'll put up on the screen. The request is for approval of a smallcale future land use map change to the future land use map of the 2050 comprehensive plan uh changing the designation from recreation open space to lowdensity residential. Uh the subject property is the northernmost portion of the Pontabra Inn and Club golf course with access from Pon Deleon Boulevard. Subject property is roughly.91 acres of undeveloped land north of the last hole surrounding the green of the golf course. At the time of creation of the portion of the course, this entirety of the parcel was given a recreation open space land use designation as it was associated with the golf course. The area that is the subject of this application lies north of the developed portions of the golf course and in the initial design was listed as future development. Under both the previous and current land development code, the property is located in residential single family RS1 zoning. Uh and the Jacksonville Beach uh city of Jacksonville Beach has maintained the existing zoning district since the adoption of the previous land development code and comprehensive plan going back to at least 1992. RS1 is the lowest intensity zoning category and it is applied to all types of future land use map designations including recreation open space conservation and open community spaces located within subdivisions that are not

already designated as PUD. Uh nothing in the city's LDC or comprehensive plan enshrines the right to develop RS1 property with a non- lowdensity residential land use. The applicant has requested the city change the designation of this property from wreck open space to lowdensity residential. Uh in the previous and recently adopted comprehensive plan. Uh there has been a requirement that the change of any flume designation from wreck open space to anything else requires a like forlike use of another property as wreck open space to ensure that the city has adequate uh recreation and open space. and the proposed plume change will be mitigated with the new passive park that is being designed right now to um exist along South Beach Parkway at the intersection of uh Jacksonville Drive. The size of the proposed passive park is larger than the applicant's property and thus will account for no net loss of land utilized for recreation open space if if anything will be an increase. The subject property is undeveloped but is not undisturbed. parcel is in essence underutilized land within an area of existing single family development and is not currently used for recreation of any kind but is simply in a wild unkempt state. The proposed flutin change would make the property more compatible with surrounding homes and will not adversely impact the golf course or the surrounding single family lowdensity residential designated properties. Um staff has reviewed their request and finds it consistent with both the 2050 comprehensive plan as an as is outlined in the staff report and consistent with the new land development code in addition to applicable Florida statutes. Um we staff finds that there is no conflict with the new LDC as it contemplates construction of new single family where appropriate and the construction of new public parks where and as needed. The proposed change to lowdensity residential is more consistent with the surrounding land uses than wreck open space as a new park in the middle of an existing neighborhood would be less compatible

and likely disruptive to residents. The construction of single family homes is more consistent and more compatible with the existing residents. The proposed change will not negatively impact environment environmentally sensitive lands. As previously noted, the property is not virgin land, but has had trees removed, has been used for access during construction of the golf course, and was not is not located in uh near any conservation or protected uplands, although there might be wildlife living on the property. Um, excuse me. staff finds that the amendment is in compliance with and consistent with the requirements set forth in Florida statutes and based on the information provided by the applicant and review of the request. Staff recommends the planning commission recommend approval to city council for the smallcale land use amendment. Um with that I know that Mr. Miller does have a a presentation so through the chair when you're ready for that. Okay. Thank you. Um I have to read this again. Sorry. So, 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 expert communication to disclose concerns with the applicant has already come forward? So, thank you. Um, would you please be sworn in? Please raise your right hand and state your name and address. Zach Miller, 3203 Old Bar court, Florida. 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. So, help you God. Yes, ma'am. Thank you. Good evening, everybody. I'm Zach Miller. I represent uh the the owner uh Southside Boulevard Land Development Company, which is a subsidiary of Gate, which is the same owner as the EN club. It's my pleasure to be here tonight. Um just want to give a little bit of history of the pro property and then some slides. As you've already seen, this is the aerial of the property. Um, actually, this aerial is from about a year ago, but the area has been pretty built out.

You can see the homes to the west, which are approximately 60 foot lots, and then the homes to the east, which are approximately 100 foot lots. Ours is, uh, in between. Um, this is a zoom in of the future development track. Uh, the area that's subject to our application is the area labeled future development track. We're leaving the property on both sides near the existing residences uh as undisturbed recreation open space, meaning they won't be developed. On the western side, that is consistently 20 feet north to south in width. And then on the east side, which is near Dr. Cornick's property, it's 29 feet wide at Pon Leon and then it goes down to 20 feet at the southern border. We did that to try to create sort of a buffer between the existing residences. Um, so why are we here? Um, as mentioned by staff, the property is zoned RS1. That's the lowest density, lowest intensity zoning category that you have. Everything around us is RS1. Everything up several blocks in Jacksonville Beach is RS1. Everything down to the county border, which is not far from this, is zoned RS1. So, what is RS1? This is your updated land development code. Apologize if if you need me to zoom in. Um the intent of RS1 to implement lowdensity residential land use district in the comprehensive plan is intended to classify areas suitable for low density single family residential belt. So that's what the current zoning is and what the intent of the zone. So what uses can you have in RS1 pretty much single family that's it? Um you can have some uses by conditional use like golf course but the only intended use is single family. Um there's accessory uses like utility sheds and things like that. That would be pretty much what we'd be limited in doing if we don't get this comprehensive plan amendment. Uh the minimum area was decreased in your latest update to the

land development code from 10,000 square feet to 9,000 square feet, but it's still 90 foot lots with a 25 foot front yard setback, a 30- foot rear yard setback, and 10 foot uh sideyard setback as a reference point. We'll get to this in in a little bit. Uh the maximum we could do on the site would be three homes and if you divided them equally they'd be approximately 13,000 square feet which is pretty large lots for the beach um as mentioned. So why are we here? So this is uh your comprehensive plan that designates this property as recreation open space. Um I did a pretty deep big deep dive into your zoning code and to your comprehensive plan. This was pretty much the only privately owned land that I could find that was designated uh a recreation open space in all of the city of Jacksonville Beach. There was a little bit of area around Adventure Landing, but I couldn't tell how big it was, and I couldn't tell what the zoning was. And there was a little bit of area near um Second Street North near the marina, but I also couldn't tell what the zoning is. I also couldn't tell if that was publicly owned land or not. So this is the every other piece of property that's ROS are things like Jacksonville Beach Municipal Golf Course, Gonzalez Park, Laam Plaza, things like that. Uh a little bit of history of this property because I grew up here. I droop by it every day. Uh this is a satellite picture of the property in 1994. If you notice, the area that is to our west that's currently developed was undeveloped. That area was actually part of a plat that was approved a 100 years ago. That's why it's zoned RS1, which requires 90 foot wide lots, but all the homes that are developed there are 60 feet in width and 6,000 square feet to 7,000 square feet. Uh, this is a picture from approximately 2008. You can start noticing that some of the houses are being developed. Um, you can see Dr.

Cornick's residence immediately to our east and Mr. Lennington's house just immediately to the south of him. Uh this is when the development started. This was about in 2010. This is when Pon DeLeon Boulevard was actually built. And you can see the development under the plats to our west. I bring this up because at six uh 13,000 square foot lots, we believe this is a good transition from the six and 7,000 foot lots to our west to the larger uh 20 to 25,000t lots to the east. Um this is the property uh showing this is approximately 2017 or 2018. You can see all the homes that were developed to our west. Um but you can see this property was um not part of the golf course. Uh and the golf course was further away. Um in 2019, uh Ponte Training Club did a redesign of the ocean course and uh they got rid of hole number 10. So hole number 11 became hole number 10. Hole number 12 became hole number 11 and hole number 13 became number 12. So they needed a new hole 13. So they uh built this par three that is entirely located within the city of Jacksonville Beach. I think it's the only hole on the ocean course that's entirely located city of Jacksonville Beach. It went on not relevant and not comp substantial evidence. I did get a hole in one of them. Um it was actually during the uh the 2022 Pontra member guest and my partner who was a member was very excited until he realized he had to pick up the bart. Um this looks like what was in our application but I brought this up because we've had several meetings with neighbors on this. This is actually slightly different. I don't know if you can see my cursor. Um but originally we were going to include this area right here as part of our application. we were going to change it. Uh, in early March,

uh, we met with the Kelly's who live right here. We met with the Saharaas who live right here. Met with Dr. Cornick who lives right here. I apologize. I think there's a little delay. And then I think it's uh, Mr. Luke who lives right here. And u, the Kelly's were fine with it. Dr. Hornick was fine with it. Um, everybody we met with was fine with it. But the Zaheras had a problem. They were concerned of a new fence that would come down here for the new residences. So, um this is just the image of the area. We took out that point and decreased the will basically be the lot that ended up being about 2,000 square feet of space that we decided to forgo on the change to accommodate them. Um I know that's a lot of information I've given you. I'm happy to answer any questions about it. Thank you. Do any commission members have any questions for the applicant? Yes, sir. Um I'm looking at the at the chart you were talking about on the corner. And is it the the north south strip that gives them the extra 2,000 square feet? No. Um that was that's on top of that. It's on top. And I'm pulling up the original plan we we were going to do. I wish I should should have done these side by side. Here was the the corner we're originally going to propose about here. You can see where the trees are and then what is actually before you as part of the application. We took that out. So you can see that tree is no longer within that area. So that was on top of the strips that we took out and the measurement is about 0.05 acres there and 008 acres. that comes out to about 6,500 square feet total space that we're we're not including in this application. That's a gracious gracious move.

The it it possibly could have cost us extra lot uh at the the width that we're at. Um if we were not include those strips, we might have been able to do four homes. We think that having the uh the buffer there was an accommodation to the neighbors but also uh allowed for larger lot sizes that would be more consistent in the transition from the smaller lots to the west to the larger lots to the east. More Mr. Chair having lived on Duvall Drive for about 35 years you know that every truck in the world is authorized to park wherever they want on Duval Drive at any time day or night. They just park everywhere. Are you going to do anything with parking with your contractor or had you thought about that? Because that'll that's going to clog up poson pretty bad if they're all parked halfway on the on the grass and halfway on the on the road. If they could park behind until they get to where they can't drive through, it would make a big difference, I think. And through the chair. I just want to make sure I understand. You're talking about after the homes are developed or during construction? During construction? During the construction. It's it's hard to get a scale of this, but these lots are pretty deep. Um there's a minimum 25 foot setback where there's going to be plenty of room that be able to park on the grass and not on pon steel. That's what I was looking for. Thanks. Are there any further questions for the applicant? Thank you. I will now open the public hearing. Do we have any speaker cards? Is there anyone in the audience who has not filled out a speaker card that wishes to speak? And if so, can you please fill out the speaker card before you leave and turn the clerk city clerk? Okay. Hearing none, I will now close the public

hearing and bring that back to the board for discussion. Is there a motion? Um, do a motion to discuss, restart. Just a motion to approve and then go from there. Let's go. Motion to approve. Second. Is there any further discussion? Yes. Um, I have a question. It might be for staff probably. Um, gets into with the taking it from the recreational open space into RS1. We're trying to change the zoning of it and it's within a year I guess they have to replace the recreation open space somewhere else and the looks like the workaround here is we're trying to use the passive park on South Beach Parkway um which happened first this development happening or that passive park they really are happening kind of at the same time but separately so passive park would happen regardless of this possibly possibly would the just curiosity would the the code wouldn't it be asking for when they take a space out of recreational space that they need to come up with their own new thing versus just jumping in on something that's going to happen whether they do anything at all. No. So, the way that the comp plan really reads is that um staff is supposed to basically make that adjustment um with the applicant try to come come, you know, come to a solution in some way. Considering that we are 98% built out in this city, there are very few opportunities to find any kind of recreation open space anywhere. This isn't being utilized in any way, shape, or form as recreation or open space. So, you know, as far as from staff's perspective, it's it's a win-win. Whether we're doing the park already or not, what this property right now is used for is not the highest and best use of it. And it's it the zoning is RS1. That's not changing. It's just changing

the land use to what's more compatible with the actual zoning of the property. Right. And I and I don't have a big heartache heartburn about that. It's more for me it's down the road somebody used this as the example now they they turning using a recreational open space that's going on regardless and they're using that as their right of emphasis to get something changed. The option or opportunity for this to happen again is is probably zero. Again, uh to Mr. Miller's point, there is no other with the exception of maybe a small portion of Adventure Landing, and that was done for very specific purposes when it was originally done as an adventure landing. There is no privatelyowned recreation open space. It's all public. So, this kind of makes everything now consistent across the city that wreck open space is publicly owned and and not privately owned. Um which again, like he mentioned, this is the only property that we could really find. Okay, for the staff, I have uh one question and just a kind of a comment or concern. I'd like to make sure it's on the record. So, question, how do we know that it is not being used? So, understood it's not developed. It's there's no planned if you will use like park or anything for it. Is it regularly used for people to walk their dogs? Anything like that? I mean there's a a fence across Ponellon. So it's to my knowledge is not even accessible. I'll let Mr. Miller elaborate. Um to to the chair, there is a fence all along Pon. There's actually a gate that's locked so you can access it, but you have to have the key to it. Having been out to the site over a half dozen times, you don't get a sense of it from here. It's not flat. There's a lot of hills. It's not a good place to walk around. there's a lot of scrub on the property. Um, every time I've gone it, I've worn long pants out

of concern for rattlesnakes. So, um, it's not usable. Uh, and then the just kind of the concern although well, I will say that I think this is very well thought out. I'm actually impressed that the accommodations you've made and the fact that you've talked with the people who are would be adjacent to the plan development. Um, it it kind of echoes what vice chair's concern was, right? this is we're this is just a lucky happen stance right that we're developing something um I am a little concerned about setting a precedent for that where um if there happens to be some new recreational open space then we find something um else although my understanding is this is almost impossible to happen again because there's no other private use I just don't want this there's a yeah I I think it is I just want to make sure that that's that concern is noted right that this is I understand this is a good habit stance I think this is well thought out I think the accommodations made for the neighbors are good um we just need to recognize that this is unique right I don't want this to be a precedent setting thing all right is there any further discussion Margot Moring Have a roll call on the motion to approve. Approve. Uh Justin Henderson, no. David D, yes. Matthew Filer, yes. Nicholas Andrews, yes. Sure. May we have the planning

department's report? Uh, so last meeting we had a quorum. We only had three. So we deferred the discussion on moving the date and time of the meeting till we had more folks. I know we're still missing two. Uh, but Mr. Chair, would you like to have that discussion now as far as um, and I apologize I didn't bring the scoring sheet with me like I did last time. The consensus of the group was um to move the meetings to Tuesdays at 6:00 pm. That was the majority of the votes that we got. So, I purposely did not fill that out because I want I feel like I need to abide by what folks here want. I will tell you that for me, Tuesdays make it a little harder because I try and do my business travel during the week. Mondays make it a little easier for me. Um but I think we have enough people here to cover that concern um on times that I might potentially miss. I have no problem going back to Monday either. That's what we've been doing. I'm in that groove. An hour earlier is better. Monday, Monday's good, too. Yeah, I'm in the Monday at seven's good. Monday and six could be good. We get into Tuesday. I'm Tuesday at 7. I six or seven. I pretty much could never make it. Gotcha. As is. Yeah. Any of that is good with me. I think earlier would be better. Yeah. Preferred, but I can make whatever work. Um well through through the chair the only conflict really then is with staff. Uh for example I'm supposed to be in that meeting over there but I'm I'm here instead. So there's just staff conflict sometimes. So not just planning staff but you know if there's other staff that need to be here for some other re reason which I know is unusual. Um but if if the consensus is to keep it regardless of the of the results we got in the vote keep it Monday at 7 then we'll we'll keep it like that for now. We can always circle back. Is there is there any possibility of moving a Monday at 6? Um, yes. Earlier. Yes. We just have to Yeah. We would just have to keep in mind the potential conflict with the briefing, but as from what I understand, the AV equipment is working as intended and

they can't hear us and we can't hear them. So, from that standpoint, that issue has been resolved. It's just I can only be one place at a time. All right. Copy. So, um, let's I would I would like to see it at Monday at 6. I think that's the consensus. That's correct. Um, but we need to know if that is uh doable for the staff. So, if you can make that determination now, fine. If not, we can address it at the next meeting. I mean, since we're we're already here, yes, that that is fine. Um, again, there might just be conflicts, but again, we have three planners now, so we can kind of shuffle our time around and be at two places at once. It just happens that Christian is out of the office today, so y'all are stuck with me. That's what I was going to ask. Chris can get the doge. No, no, he did not. He did not get doed. Commissioner D. He's just having some fun somewhere that's not city hall. I'm sorry. All right. Uh, thank you. Is there anything further? I have a motion to adjurnn. Do we need to take it? I would I would recommend let's put it on the amendment if you want to vote on it now for the next meeting. When is our next meeting? Do you know? The 23rd. We may have already sent out uh public notices for that. So, I wouldn't want to change it for the very next meeting, but for future, maybe we can even set a date that that would start if we wanted to say July or August. That way, we have time to let the public know that our meetings are going to come an hour earlier and make sure that all of our public notices reflect the new time as well. I'll defer I'll defer to what is in the best interest of for public notices and for the my fall commissioners. We can do that now or we can wait. If you if you guys want to make a vote on it now and and say that

we will um not implement that until July, that gives us time. All right. So, let's uh do a vote now. All in favor of moving our meetings to six o'clock on uh m the current Monday structure of the second and fourth Monday correct of the month but not implementing that change until uh you would say July second meeting of July. Is that enough time? That should be sufficient. But not imple implementing that change until the second meeting of July. Um say I I I there passes. Is there anything further? A motion to adjurnn. Motion to adjurnn. Second. We are