Okay, it is now 6:01 p.m. on the 23rd of March uh 2026 and I call this meeting of the planning commission to order. May I please have a roll call? >> David D >> here. >> Dean Haddock >> here. >> Nicholas Andrews
>> here. >> Matthew Fer >> here. >> Justin Henderson >> here. >> John Lionus >> here. Lindsay Haga >> here. Okay, thank you. Are there any changes or corrections to the minutes dated 9
February 2026 noted by any member? All right. Are there any changes to the minutes dated uh sorry 23 February 2026 noted by any member? All right. If not, may I have a motion to approve the minutes? >> Motion to approve.
>> Second. All those in favor signify by saying I. >> I. I. I I.................... All. Those opposed signify by saying nay. >> All right. The motion to approve the minutes from 9 February 2026 and 23
February 2026 are approved. Is there any correspondence for any item on the agenda? >> No correspondence. Is there any old business? >> No old business. Okay. Moving on to new business. for the public. The planning commission
meetings are generally quasi judicial in nature. All decisions of the commission will be based on competent and 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 return them to the
city clerk. Each member of the public will be given three minutes to speak on each item. And please refrain from speaking from the audience or applause or cheering will not be uh tolerated. Uh, also please silence your cell phones and um, vice chair, can you please read the application by title?
>> Staff, can we please have the staff presentation for PC2-26 through the chair? Uh, this is application PC 0226. It is a conditional use application for a property located at 504 Second Street South.
The conditional use is for the conversion of a non-conforming single family structure into a multif family dwelling to allow for expansion and additions for property located in the commercial limited C1 zoning district pursuit to section 34617D14
which follows the RM1 standards for multif family and commercial one. Uh the subject property is a single family structure built in 1934 per the Duval County property appraisers information but may be older. The property is located in the commercial feature land use category and in the commercial
limited C1 zoning district. The property is classified as an existing historic single family under the land development code list of uses for C1 zoning district. This is a new designation added to the revised 25 2025 LDC. The new designation allows single family uses in C1 in the C1 district to be
renovated and remain a single family uses under the previous LDC. There were no options for existing single family at all in C1. Uh the new designation allows for the cap on renovation costs to be lifted for these uses as the use is no longer a non-conforming use. The structure is
considered a non-conforming structure and therefore cannot be expanded in square footage beyond its existing footprint. The single family and commercial single family and commercial are inherently incompatible uses and therefore the LBC does not encourage the enlargement of these uses as they uh
could then potentially create additional conflicts with surrounding commercial uses as the applicant is requesting to add onto the property and replace uh the existing detached garage with a new attached garage. Um expand the structure to include the replacement of an older addition which was deteriorated and
unsafe uh and additional square footage added. They will be expanding the non-conforming structure and are going beyond the historic single family use. Um to address these issues, the applicant is proposing to convert the single family home into a multif family structure which would be a conforming
use and conforming structure under the code. Uh as new single family is not allowed in C1, the lowest intensity use allowed in uh is uh is new or converted multif family. Therefore, the applicant has decided to seek approval for the
conversion to a two-unit multif family, which is the lowest number of units allowed and is the only reasonable use of the property under these circumstances. There is also a companion variance scheduled for hearing with the board of adjustment. I'm not sure if that has or has not been heard yet um as it wasn't here. Uh
but this will address any nonconformities with the requirements of the dimensional standards due to the historic nature of the home and its construction prior to the current LDC. Surrounding uses include commercial office and residential mixed use to the north across Fifth Avenue South, multif
family to the east across Second Street South, townhouse dwellings to the south and adjoining the property, and multif family to the west and adjoining. The proposed use will not create any anticipated nuisances as it will be more compatible with the surrounding mix of
uses, a majority of which are either are other multif family uses. staff does not find that the proposed multif family used to be contrary to the intent of the LBC and further finds it meets the criteria outlined below. Uh generally finding that conversion to
multif family will further the 2050 comprehensive plan encouraging compatible uses in commercial land use. Um the multif family use is both compatible with the surrounding uses uh and the proposed uh design additions will reflect the existing structure which
predates the surrounding buildings. The proposed use will match the surrounding land uses and therefore buffering is not required. Uh the continued use of the existing historic structure will be the least impactful in the surrounding area and keeping the additions to less than three stories will also be helpful to ensure
compatibility. The proposed use will be more compatible with the surrounding uses and will not have a negative impact on the permitted use of in surrounding C1 properties. Though staff cannot determine the impact on the property values as reinvestment in existing properties can only benefit the surrounding properties. Uh the property
is currently served by city services and the addition of a single extra dwelling unit will not have a substantial impact. There is a current driveway which will continue to be used as the primary access. Uh the proposed conditional use will be consistent with the LDC. Um and with the approval of the variances all
further nonconformities will be addressed. The proposed condition use is consistent with the uh 2050 comprehensive plan and furthers uh the intents related to neighborhood preservation and focused on additional housing units. So with that, we are recommending approval of PCO226.
Thank you. 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? All right, seeing none, would the applicant please come forward, be sworn
in, and give any presentation. And a reminder to the commission prior to swearing in, please refrain from interrupting the presentation and hold questions to the end. >> And you're just going to tap on the microphone, that little red light. >> Perfect. Do you swear? Oh, please raise your right hand and state your name and
address. >> Grace Maxwell, 504 Second Street South, Jackson Beach, Florida 3250. >> Perfect. and Jeffrey Maxwell 504 Street South Maxwell Beach. >> Do you swear affirming 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. >> I do. Thank you. >> Please. >> Well, uh it was uh pretty much summed up there. We'd like to have our multif or excuse me, our single family historic home uh changed into multif family for
conditional use. two units. And here's the proposed site plan. Got an attached garage. And the units are one up top and one below across the horizontal there.
And our variance was approved last week. >> Okay. Did you have anything additional? >> No. >> Okay. Do any commission members have any questions for the applicant? >> I do, Mr. Chair, can you explain the variance that y'all received >> for the setbacks um for the existing
property lines >> uh through the chair under C1 there are certain uh required setbacks along the street frontages. >> So along uh Fifth Avenue here uh if I can find it um that setback was I think four feet it should be 10 and then
on the front I think it's like 8 foot or less. Um, so those two setbacks were addressed with the variance. >> Gotcha. >> And those are historic to the property, >> right? So that's not including the addition that you are. >> The addition will expand this. That is
the worst pointer. I'm sorry. Um, the addition will expand. Come on. Uh, basically this area here, which um would continue that non-conforming setback along the Fifth Avenue. Um, but it would
be parallel with what's there. So >> cool. That's all I got. Thank you. >> All right. So, yeah, you I think you've answered my question. These are prevailing like these are currently non-performing setbacks. Correct. >> Correct. Yeah. And again, they go back to at least the 30s. >> And then there's no way to the I saw lot
coverage. This is a board adjustment thing, not a >> Right. And since it'll be multif family, uh I I don't recall if they're they're over it would be by a small amount, but I don't recall if they are or not. >> And then, um I just had a question for you. So, um you actually this is your home. you live there currently. Okay.
And you've been there since 2012 >> if I read it correctly. Okay. >> Um I don't think I have any further questions >> through the chair. Christian, I I I think this is the the best summary of a a fairly complex complex issue that I've
seen and I just wanted to say Robulu, you did a nice job. Oh >> well, thank you. >> Yeah, I would add that this is a really really well um put together synopsis from the staff. So, thank you very much. Um and I forgot one last question. This is going to remain single story. >> Yes. >> Okay. All right.
Are there any further questions? Sorry, I have to do this. I'll now open the public hearing and you can have a seat. >> Thanks. Do we have any speaker cards? >> Uh no speaker cards. Is there anyone in the audience who has not filled out a speaker card that
wishes to speak? And if so, could you please fill out a speaker card before you leave? I'm gonna guess that's a no. Okay. I'll now close the public hearing and bring that back to the board for discussion. Is there a motion? >> Motion to approve.
>> Second. >> You didn't give me a chance to ask. Okay. Um, is there any further discussion? >> All right. May I have a roll call vote on the motion? >> David D. >> Yes. >> Dean Haddock. >> Yes. Matthew Filer,
>> yes. >> Justin Henderson, >> yes. >> Nicholas Anders, >> yes. >> All right. Um, it's passed. And I'd like to just say from me, um, I really appreciate that you guys are taking advantage of the new LDC and and
maintaining a a kind of historic That's that's really cool to see. Thank you. All right. I believe we have another item of new business. Is that correct? >> Uh yes. Your next item is the uh requested uh discussion and training on
uh tobacco regulations by the city attorney. Good evening everyone. Good to see you all again. David Mig, city attorney, city of Jacksonville Beach. when I was here in January on another excuse me another matter you all asked me to come back to speak about tobacco and and
that's what I'm here for tonight. Um so let me first talk about what you all can't do and then I'll morph into the longer part of my presentation uh potential uh zoning related regulation of tobacco
sales. So in Florida, uh, the state legislature has generally pre preempted local governments from regulating tobacco, meaning the state has set uniform regulations limiting cities and counties from passing stricter rules. Um, what I
learned researching this is the age to purchase tobacco is now 21. It used to be 18. Around 20 around 2019, the federal government upped it to 21. Um and then um Florida decided that even though that provision already applied,
Florida by state law uh amended it state law in 2021 to raise the age minimum age to purchase tobacco to 21. Now, while smoking regulations are generally preempted to the state, municipalities and counties can restrict
smoking in certain circumstances, specifically on public beaches and in public parks they own and also within 25 ft of a business entrance. So, as you may or may not be aware, about 10 to 12 months ago, if I had to guess, uh our
city council passed an ordinance prohibiting smoking on the public beaches and the public parks. Um there is I did not reress reress research this aspect but from memory there is a kind of what I would call a carveout for
certain types of cigars. Uh we cannot prohibit certain s sorts of cigars. Um, I know this is a public meeting, but I'll say that the anecdote was that there was a, um, legislator from the Miami date area that was adamant that that carbo needed
to be in there to for the bill to pass a few years back. So, um, we can't completely prohibit cigars. Yep. They could have been a Tampa person as well, but but in this case, I think it was Miami date. Uh and additionally um school districts
in Florida retain the right to further restrict smoking on their own property. So in a general regulation sense that's it. However, uh you all do have some ability to control zoning related to not
sale of tobacco overall because tobacco is sold, you know, gas stations, supermarkets,armacies, but what I what I found in my research is kind of specialty tobacco retailers like what what I would call smoke shops. So, in Florida, local municipalities and
counties are increasingly using zoning regulations and um to restrict tobacco retail locations, specifically by prohibiting new smoke shops from operating generally within designated distances from
schools, churches, other existing um smoke shops, and then I've also seen it um prohibited or only allowed in certain zoning districts. So, I'm going to give you three recent examples I found in my in my research that I thought would be of interest to
you all. Um, North Miami Beach, uh, just this past October, um, they created what they call retail smoke shop as a distinctive use in their land development code and they updated
uh, their land development code by ordinance. And retail smoke shops are permitted as a conditional use. I know you all know what conditional uses are. Sometimes I stop here with other boards and explain what that process is, but you guys know that better than I do, I think. Um, so
you'd have to get a conditional use permit uh in order to open a retail smoke shop in the city of North Miami Beach. And it's restricted to or only allowed in seven different zoning districts, which are mainly business, industrial, mixeduse categories.
Uh and furthermore, that ordinance prohibits a retail smoke shop within a thousand feet of an existing one, also within 1,000 feet of any school or hospital, within 500 ft of any government facility or park, and within 250 ft of
residential zoning districts. Um much smaller city uh in the panhandle, Port St. Joe last summer uh passed an ordinance that prohibits smoke shops, smoking lounges, vape shops, CBD
shops, and hemp food establishments in all zoning districts except industrial. It also prohibits them within 1500 ft of a church or school. And as always, for constitutional reasons, existing businesses are grandfathered in. Uh and
then I saw something just in the last month or two uh Orange County, so not just a municipality, but in this case a county government, uh they are currently considering distance restrictions uh with regards to smoke type shops. Um what they're
looking at initially it looks like is distance from schools after a smoke shop recently opened near I believe it's called Olympia High School in the Windmir area. Uh so there is this aspect of zoning regulation that's permissible as I
already mentioned you know it would only affect new businesses if the city of Jacksonville Beach were ever to go down such a path and then you can't be and this is a general constitutional provision as well you can't be so selective or so
restrictive that you essentially zones uh potential use out of complian anywhere in the city or you know if if the restrict restrictions are so burdensome that it leaves basically little or no areas actually available for such a business to open up, then we have constitutional issues. But that uh
is what my research has yielded. Hopefully I didn't misconrue or misunderstand what you all uh were asking. I know it was at the end of a meeting last time, so I think I just hightailed it out of here and and didn't really clarify, but um I'd gladly answer any questions you have. Uh if there's
any additional issues relate to this I haven't addressed yet, I could look into that, but let me turn it back over to you all. >> Thank you. I really appreciate it. Um and bring it back to the commission for discussion. Anybody have any um points they'd like to make or questions for the
city attorney? >> I don't have any questions. Uh just thank you for that. That was exactly what I was hoping to learn both um precedent uh in the state what other cities are doing and what our authority is. So just really appreciate the
wholesome answers there. Um I do want to call out to the to the committee that um we do have several smoke shops that have opened recently um which prompted the discussion uh on the board here and the
invitation uh to the city attorney to help educate on this. Um some of those smoke shops are in very close proximity to the institutions that um that the city attorney mentioned. So, for example, one
that just opened up on um uh third that is about 400 ft from a church for example. And um I would like to propose I don't know if we need a motion for it um that we consider a special
designation if we don't already have it. I don't think we do in the LDC and potentially exploring at least some contours around this particular type of business and not for any any moral reason uh or any uh you know sort of uh
ownorous regulatory reason or anything like that but strictly because the or simply because the um the density of this particular type of business I feel like is starting to overwhelm and I don't think that the per capita uh um
location of these businesses reflects uh so much the um the the population in J Beach as it does sort of the uh folks coming in and out um for vacation. And I my sense is that we're maybe close to capacity on how many of these shops
could serve um could serve uh citizens and visitors to the beach. Um, but I want to leave it open for discussion because I'm also very pro business and I don't want to slow any kind of business or entrepreneurial opportunities down either.
>> Thanks team. Yeah. Um I think you guys are all aware of my well new members may may not be my concerns about this play have played out in previous meetings concerning me the medical marijuana establishments just the density of a particular type of establishment
period whether it's a burger joint smoke shops or whatever I just don't want uninterrupted strings of the same thing. Um, however, uh, it was a question for the commit, the planning staff. Uh, it, if it's in there, I haven't found it. We don't have a special designation for
smoke shop. Correct. >> No, it's just considered retail sale. >> Is a retail sale. Okay. Uh, and the my understanding is that we uh, the revision cycle for LDC is yearly or we're supposed to take a look at it, but we just went through that. Correct. Um actually we have uh I want to say in
April um we're working on right now basically a cleanup bill for uh you know misdefs or disconnected definitions things like that. Um basically catching any scribers errors that kind of thing. So um that'll be coming to you in April
I think um but if not uh soon thereafter. So, um it is something that we are doing annually and particularly with the new code there was a you know as we've gone through we've just kind of been keeping a running list of things that um we just you know didn't connect the dots or mistyped or that kind of
thing. So, so that would be an opportunity if we uh decided to to try and uh add some additional language to the LDC for this. I mean it's it's a relatively >> large change compared to the other stuff >> potentially. I would say that like the goal of this bill isn't to do any
substantive changes to the code, but just to correct things that you know uh we've missed. So we're not making any um changes to the overall concept of the code. We're correcting mistakes or you know expanding as an example uh we found that you know
traditionally we call the shopping center three or more uses and they get a special parking standard somehow that the definition said four. We don't know how I made that mistake so we're fixing that. Um, I don't know if this would be the right opportunity or not. Um, but it's certainly something that you guys can recommend a change to the LBC at any
point in time. So, it doesn't have to be through any special uh, annual review or anything like that. Um, I think just kind of listening to the discussion um, and the last couple meetings, what you guys are talking about is substantial and would require um, some
thought on the best way to accomplish that. Um, and I assume I haven't been through a revision like this where you guys kind of started it, but my assumption would be you, you know, ask us to prepare something and then that would go through, uh, to council as a recommendation. So, um, we
can certainly look into that process, but, uh, the glitch bill probably isn't the venue for that because it it's not a policy bill necessarily, but uh, I'll talk to the director about it. >> Commission, something. Can I interject for a second? Just one point of
clarification. Um, what I've been speaking about tonight is separate and distinct from the medical marijuana treatment centers. Those are under a separate law where the zoning can't be any more restrictive than the zoning we apply to pharmacies. >> Thank you for that clarification. Yeah, I'm I'm tracking that. At least I hope everybody else here is is that but the
concerns about density of use of things came up during that. So, I was just trying to point that out. Um, and thanks for getting to the um before getting there before I had asked about it, Christian. But basically, that's my my point, right? This is I think worthwhile of consideration, but I also don't want
to get into what I would call a tail chase on just recommending what I would consider a relatively substantive change to the LDC um without consideration. So, um I guess the real question then for the um
commission is whether you think this is something we should ask the staff to dig into and see if there's something we could do to maybe add this language probably at an annual review. I would just I would say it that's a tough nut to
crack because when you get down to the specifics of it and try and put it into language that's going to be constitutional nationally and it's going to be acceptable among our council. I think it's going to
be tough that not that we shouldn't try it, but I think it would take a lot of time and a lot of a lot of sweat over. I think it would be a good start just to figure out what it would look like and
you got to look at two options. I think one is what it would look like to make its own use retail smoke shop and then are you looking at restricting do you want it away from schools residential zones or do you want it to be a use that
has to get conditional use approval in more zoning districts through the chair one of the one of the examples that Dave brought us was industrial limited to the industrial right industrial only >> that was uh
>> yes that was in Port St. Joe. The other two were were um different from that. >> No industrial was Port St. Joe, a small town in the panhandle. Uh North Miami Beach was conditional use and restricted
to about seven different zoning categories. I did not check how many zoning categories in total they have. >> And do you know has there been any litigation on port on the port side? >> Uh all all three of these have been within the last 8 to 10 months. So okay I didn't do an ex exhaustive search for
litigation. Nothing came up but ex you know it's in that time frame where stuff could potentially be followed in the near future if there are challenges. Dave, quick question because just curious on my end, but um based on Senate Bill 180, like how are they able
to make a substantive restrictive change like that with the disaster recovery stuff that's in the state statutes now? >> You want to talk about the Yeah. >> Right. I Well, that's I would have to look into that. >> Yeah.
>> You know, the don't have I'm very familiar with that bill, but I don't have that bill memorized, so I don't want to miss misspeak up here. Yeah, something concern that >> what I'm referring to is there was a bill that was passed last year uh that basically restricted local governments
from making um restrictive changes in their land development code anytime after a certain period based on declarations of emergency from hurricanes. And so it opens the city up to basically challenges by anybody when
we make those. and then we have either a hearing to repeal that bill or go to court over it. So, um I haven't seen it play out here. I know Dand went through a bit of that and it was pretty ugly, but um we'll have to look into how that would work under the current >> copy and I think that the intent of that
rule is to um not allow people to take advantage of a disaster to re >> the intent versus what actually got written are substantially different and there was a bill to try and correct it, but it does not appear that it made it out of committee this year. So, >> okay. Um, look, I I think this is
something worth looking into. Um, I share Commissioner Haddock's concerns about density of use, not just specifically for smoke shops, but in general, right, the but empirically, smoke shops are popping up everywhere right now. A
medical device store was turned into a smoke shop, right? Um, so I I I don't know what your capacity is as the staff to to look into what you think we could potentially do, but I'd be interested in seeing some
some more information on it. >> Yeah, I mean I I would say right now just because we're scrambling to get the corrections bill done. Um, uh, it would take some time to look into, but yeah, I mean certainly something we can do some research on. That's what we're here for. So,
all right. So, um, I'd like to request I don't know that we need a motion. We just request that from the staff. Correct. >> Uh, let me check the bylaws. >> Mr. here. Um, if I may uh propose, um, I
think a good next step would be, uh, for David to circulate, uh, to us, uh, the bills that were referenced or the code that, uh, he referenced in his presentation for us to evaluate that and look at the language that exists and
perhaps uh, generate a conversation uh, on this commission at a at a future date. >> Yeah. Sorry, I basically that's what I'm asking. >> Okay, great. Yeah. Uh I I also want to just kind of, you know, if for nothing else, just kind of put it on the record
that this this is purely to me a density item. And I don't feel very dissimilar from doughnut shops and ice cream shops because my sense is that if we had no zoning at all, we would just have ice cream shops and donut shops and smoke
shops up and down A1A. And while that's great for tourists and we definitely want everybody to have a great time and live their best life here, I think also we need to make sure that we're making this um this city a great place to live for the for the people who call it home.
>> Um just to answer that question. So the the basically by consensus of the commission, you can request staff to look into something. Um, obviously the city manager makes final determination on how we spend our time, but if you guys make a request, you don't need to vote on it formally. Okay. And just quick comment to your comment.
Technically, retail sales allowed all the way up and down A1A. So, you could have ice cream stores and tobacco shops right now. There's nothing that prevents that existing in our current zoning. >> Right. But I just think the market addresses that, you know,
>> I tend to agree. I tend to agree as I'll go back to what I said. So, empirically over the last se couple of years these are these are the density of smoke shops popping up is really high um myself and Dean had a a conversation about this
prior to the um commission man just on what what could possibly be the fortune function around it the but the bottom line here is unless anybody objects to this I would like to request further information from the staff as you alluded to something we could potentially look at the land development
code is meant to be a document here. Um, not static. Um, it's actually meant to be able to respond to something that we as a commission see happening that we think maybe we can um if we um operate
on data that we could uh potentially make the land development code better to make the really the support the comprehensive plan make Jacksonville piece beach I said Jacksonville Beach a great place to live and visit. So that's what I'm I'm asking for.
>> Can I interject one more time, >> please? >> Now that it is apparent that this issue may come back before you all at some point, do not have any more conversations with another board member about this matter outside of public meeting for Sunshine Law purposes. >> Yeah, thank you. Sorry, we were actually
sitting here when we had the conversation. >> Still, it has to be at the open meeting. >> Got it. >> But it wasn't. Now it's >> Yeah, >> I think it's kind of sunshine law attaches at this point, not half an hour. >> Just a word of caution. >> Thank you.
>> Uh I think a a request for more information is appropriate and I don't think there's any rush or uh any reason for us to be rash on on drawing a conclusion here or sub submitting anything to um the city. Market forces
are definitely out there doing their thing. Uh but I do think it's a great u opportunity for us to learn a little bit more about what we might be able to do uh for the city. >> All right. Thank you. Uh does anybody oppose this request or
All right. Thank you. Pardon me. So I would formally make a request to the staff then. >> All right. Um and I don't believe we have any more new business. Is that correct? >> That's correct. May we have the planning department? >> One one more thing. Uh maybe we could
also uh to be generous to our colleagues uh prioritize this after the glitch bill. >> Yes. >> Yes. I'm actually I would leave that over to >> Does that help you out Christian? I mean honestly I'm not sure what's going to be involved in doing some of this research.
So I can't really give you a deadline anyway. um because it we'd certainly want to look at you know what the densities are for some of these uses that we have currently and you know possibly historically if we can get that information out of our antiquated system. Um so yeah it might take us a
little bit to dig that out but I think it's relevant to have all the information in front of you guys for that discussion. So it'll probably be something that we'll uh again probably once we get past the glitch bill be able to give you a better idea of like when we can put that on an agenda for discussion. That's okay with me. Is that okay with
you? >> Yep. All right. Thank you. >> Hi, Christian. I had one question before we get rocking here on the Do we need to do anything formal to talk about the script or can we just talk about that offline? >> That that literally is something that is up to you guys. Yeah. I mean, it's
roughly based on what the council does, but as long as we cover, you know, the right information, you can >> do it however you want. >> All right. We can take that offline. All right. All right. May we have the planning department report? >> At this point, the only thing I have to tell you is that uh April 13th is your
next meeting. I do not know at this point what's on it because I have been here exactly eight hours, so in the state. Um but as soon as I get caught up, I'll obviously let you guys know um what's on that agenda. Um like I said, I
think the glitch goal will probably be towards the end of April, but we'll see how it goes in the next few weeks. >> All right. Thank you. Is there anything else from any commission member? All right. If not, may I have a motion to adjurnn? >> Motion to adjurnn.
>> Second. >> We are adjourned.