All right, it is now 6 pm on May the 26 and I call this meeting of the planning commission to order. To the city, may I please have a roll call? >> David D >> here. >> Dean Haddock. Nicholas Andrews.
Matthew Filer >> here. >> Justin Henderson >> here. >> John Lionus, >> Lindsay Hagga >> here. >> All right. To previous uh old business, are there any changes or corrections to the minutes dated
was that dated? March 23 uh 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? >> I
>> I hearing none opposed. The motion to approve those minutes is approved. Uh staff, is there any correspondence for any item on the agenda? Uh >> 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. Um, 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 and applause. No applause or cheering will be allowed. Uh please silence your
cell phones if we haven't already. Thank you. And then we'll start getting our application titles in here. Um to the planning department, can we please have their Where we at? PC04-26. Uh 0426 is the second item. Do you want
to start with that one? That would be the conditional use request. The other one is the land development code. That's 03. >> I don't disagree. I want that one, but I want that land development code, but just has an ordinance. It just has an A. It doesn't have a PC number on here. Oh,
>> okay. Sorry. Yeah, it's an internal number. Anyway, uh so this is ordinance 26 uh 8237, which is the proposed uh corrections and updates bill for the land development code. So, I decided I'll just go through this memo relatively quickly, but it's been
roughly a year uh since we passed the land development code. Actually, was in March of uh 25. And through that year, the planning department has been keeping track of any uh missing references, bad references, you know, incorrect definitions, language that was
inconsistent. Basically trying to find and correct any scribers error or misconnections, those kind of things throughout the code. Um 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 um 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. Um otherwise uh as I said earlier it's just a function of uh catching mistakes and fixing them to the best of our abilities. Um as was discussed when we pass the land development code as our intent to go through this um semi-regularly uh the first couple years it'll probably be
annually. So uh as we move forward we may find things that need to be corrected or changes that 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 years or just as needed. Nonetheless, uh
this was the first uh attempt and I think we ended up with uh about eight pages of changes. But um I am happy to answer any questions unless you guys want to go through anything specifically. >> And this is us. We're on this one. We're just making a recommendation for
approval. >> That is correct. Yeah, you're making a recommendation to city council. So you can propose changes, conditions. >> And going through going through the changes, I had a question. Was there anything that fundamentally kind of changed the way something was or just kind of a more typo clarifying?
>> Um the I would say the two major things that um would probably be worth note um you may recall with the um case that came back to you for the dispensary a couple months ago. Um we didn't really have a process in the code to handle that type of situation. So, we've added
under subsitive applications a third category, which basically gives the city attorney this tool as a a way to um address concerns rather than having to go through the court system. It's sort of a preemptive attempt um to reach uh
that is on right. So that's under um it's page five in the ordinance. It's uh section three article 5 and it's specifically uh section 34506
successive applications and then it is uh letter B basically the applicant may submit a new application within one year by mutual agreement with the city administration and the applicant is a method of resolution of a legal filing including
but not limited to litigation or proceedings under uh state statute 7051. A reharing will not constitute a tenovial hearing and does not limit the applicant's further rights under the state law. So basically 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 it would make a difference. And then um as I mentioned in the definitions, there are a few more specific categories for restaurants. Um those directly correlate to um
on page 12. Um the these categories for the most part, the general restaurant, drive-through restaurant, and fast casual were in the code already. Um but we never differentiated the parking standards for
them. And some of them are are kind of common sense. So for drive-throughs, 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 going to be going inside. Um and then uh fast
casual restaurants uh usually have a higher turnover rate. Those are kind of your you know uh Panera Bright style, you know, people come in and order. There's no table service. Um and then uh coffee shops, which uh snacks, cafes all have a
specific category. Um again, it's a slightly lower standard based on their typical parking requirement. Um, 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 the Starbucks that's over in um by the hotel downtown, obviously, they don't have to mean any parking, but that's kind of the thing.
It's just just coffee predominantly. Um, and since they if those have a drive-thru, then they would, you know, also count that stacking towards the, um, the parking standard. But, um, those are the only two like major changes that we've done. There's, like I said, some
clarifications. Um, I'm trying to think what uh, we had basically he accidentally limited uh, where you could park 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 just a typo. Um, trying to think there's anything else really. Oh, there was a a issue with um 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 ft 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. Um those are the bulk of the the real
changes. I mean we've like I said a lot of these are corrections. We had to take two uh recommended tree species out of our um list of recommended trees because they were recently determined to be considered invasive by which is the
University of Florida's agricultural division. Um, so we've removed those, but otherwise that's the only real change there. Um, uh, we removed bottle brush and nor pine. So those are now classified as
invasive by the state. So we don't want people finding those. >> Um, so everything else is really just clarifications. Um, >> Mr. Chairman, could we could I ask a quick question on it? Looks like you're wrapping up Christian on it. Could you give me some background about the town
home provision on page two and the dwelling I'm attached it 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 culde-sacs for town homes, but can you give me a little background?
>> Um, yes. In essence, the um the new standard for town homes requires a certain lot width and then a certain width of the structure, minimums and maximums. Um an applicant came forward and was trying to do some creative
design with the front of the lot sizes that would have um 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. Yeah.
>> You know, rectangular lot. >> Um this was just we hadn't really anticipated it. Wasn't really clear in the code. We just wanted to make sure that you know going forward whoever whoever is reading the code knows what the consistency was supposed to be. >> Yeah. And do you have one more followup question, Mr.
Do you have any concern about placing a town home in a culde-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 >> um >> any of that I don't think >> the lot 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 culde-ac they could all be 30 ft. >> So it doesn't have to stay static than that. You just can't go below the minimum, >> right? Because that's how we measure it a lot with >> Okay. I appreciate it. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman. >> Anyone other questions? >> Um, I have a question. Are we Do we open this one up to the public? >> Uh, it's a recommendation. Yeah, it's a hearing. It's just a public hearing. Okay. >> All right. 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 expparte communication to disclose hearing? None. We don't have an applicant because it's the city. Um commission members, please refrain from interrupting the presentation. Hold questions to the end. All right. We have already asked the
applicant questions. Uh I will now open the public hearing. There we go. Speaker cards. We got all speaker cards. Um, John Atkins. >> Mr. Atkins, you're going to tap on the microphone, the little red light at the
bottom. Um, and then you're going to raise your right hand and state your name and address. >> Uh, John Atkins, 1888 False Lane, Jacksonville Beach. >> Perfect. Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to prov provide in this matter is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth to help
you God? >> I do. >> Thank you. >> Hello. Um here to speak on the uh the new land development code and first amazing difference that is now compared
to what it was. Um just saw a couple little changes. I'm a builder here. Jack Beach have done over 100 houses here in Jacksonville Beach. Um, a new category was developed, urban
single family. Um, it was to, I guess, do away with the breezeways that you've seen between the town homes. Look, it's me. Sorry. Um, want to get rid of the breezeways, too. Uh, but
there was a I think there was a mathematical error done when the minimum lot size was put in for this. U the typical lot in Jacksonville Beach is 50 by 125 or 62
and a half by 100. 6,250 square feet. Um the minimum put in for urban single family is 3500 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 town home with an attached wall and sell it fe simple just like when you split them apart. Um,
I I think a really easy fix for this. And by the way, I don't own any property right now at 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 uh I've got a little there's a 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, but it got run over on the way here. Um I can't build three separate, but I can do three together. So, um the the reason I know people want the
ones separated is because they pay more for those. Um 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. Um I think it's a very small fix to the land development code.
Um, and I think it would really benefit um the look and the and the the way it plays out, whatever. So, just something to think about. It could if even in the
RS3 zoning district, a minimum lot size is uh 3,000 square feet, but in RM, which is supposed to be more tense, it's 3500. So just I just think that was maybe overlooked by the
um the company that did that. Thank you. >> Thank you. Um to the city is in the changes we're making to the LDC is that something that's currently on the table for these changes or is just that's just more of a
general statement towards the entire LDC for that? >> Um it is not a recommended change and the size and dimensions was a deliberate choice when we wrote the code. Um, basically when you have two town homes 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 push back on. With a town home, you get two 25 foot wide town homes on the 30
foot lot. So in essence they are um a more preferred product as far as what the discussions we had with the uh 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 uh 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
subdivide it, put two single family homes on it, you get two buildings, two setbacks, smaller footprint, more likely to go up. Um, but it it was a deliberate choice that was done through discussions during the drafting process.
Um, and I guess my question kind of goes 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 >> it is >> 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 um your vote as part of your motion. Um it would go as a recommendation to council. Um, >> it would be a recommendation above and beyond what what we're looking at tonight. >> Correct. Yeah. The staff memo is our and
the draft is our recommendation. You guys would be adding on staff if you chose to. >> Okay. Would there from the city standpoint, from the presenter, would there be a better time for them to present that? >> Um, I mean, they I would assume also present that to council during their two
readings of the ordinance. Um, but now is as good a time as any if you guys are immunable to adding it as a recommendation or not. 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. Chair, Mr. 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 we could propose a recommendation to >> Yeah. If the board takes a vote, they want to put forth a change to the code, they could do that. Um and then it would go through the the process of um whether
council wanted to entertain a mo an ordinance, which would then come back to you guys as a full drafted ordinance. So, I'm not sure the exact process. uh just because I've talked to the city manager as how you would want to wrap that up through the um 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 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
the LBC on our residential dimensions based on that. Mer, >> what would the what would the motion be? I don't understand I don't think I fully understand the the issue. I I understand
what Christian said. >> Right. So, we have in front of in front of us tonight on on what we're reading, we have a recommendation to council based off the changes that we're recommendation to council to either approve or not approve the changes that are already presented. This is a kind of a separate issue that doesn't really go
in with this. Um, and if we my thought is if we even if we were to say, hey, vote on that and we by the time we put it in this, it's all going to get voted together. It's probably not going to work out anyway. by the time it gets to council, it's going to be a different different
animal. >> Um um to the chair of I think that I would Mr. Jo's asking in essence uh what Mr. Atkins is saying the minimum lot size for urban single family is 3500 ft. The
minimum lot size for town homes 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 3500 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 town home. 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. >> Actual >> the lot size for that particular type of unit. Yeah. >> Okay.
and through the chair are urban single family. It would permit single family detached as a product type. >> They're already allowed. They just have a different standard that >> I think I would agree with a fellow board member that I'm not 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 and I can make a motion reduce lot. 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. >> Motion recommend to approve approve with conditions or deny. >> Motion that'd be great. >> Motion to approve the changes to
the LDC 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. Um, so I would from where I'm sitting here, I would say I
don't mind the comment. I don't know we have enough information sitting in front of us right now to really make a informed decision on that. Um, as far as going in with 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 to the chair. So, you have a motion on the table. Um, unless you want to add that to it, I would say, uh, >> can we have a roll call on the motion?
>> David Doll. No >> Matthew Fer. >> Yes. >> Lindsay Haga. >> Yes. >> Justin Henderson. >> Yes. >> Motion passes.
Next item on the agenda uh to the city. Can we have the planning department's report for PC04-26, >> chair? Yes, this is uh PC0426. It is a conditional use application. The applicant is Southern Grounds Coffee, uh J Beach LLC. The owner and agent is Mark
Angelo. The location is 2405 Third Street North. Um 2415 Third Street South. I think that's I don't know why that's in there. Disregard. Um, it's an issue application for outdoor seating um
for well an existing tenant uh in the commercial C1 zoning district uh pursuit of section 34 342. That's not correct either. Hang on a second. Got some typos apparently. Um that is
18. Uh that's going to be pursuing to section 34617 D18 for outdoor seating. Um 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 that the by the commission that the conditional used for outdoor seating would be approved for one year only and the date for um that one year to begin would be the uh issuance of the certificate of occupancy. Um the issue
the certificate was issued on May 30th, 2025. So it has been roughly a year um since that was approved. Um the um staff reach out to the applicant um basically have them come back for your uh re-review and vote on the
outdoor seating going forward. Um we reviewed any existing code enforcement cases on the site and there were not any. Um we have not received any outside complaints at the planning department related to the outside seating. Um the conditional used in
question only applies to this tenant and the spaces and seats noted on the site plan that was provided in the application. Um the other outside seating is related to other um existing uses that have
approval for outside seating. Um the existing request is identical to the request that they had before. Um the property is located on 3 Street South. Uh it's north of the intersection of 24th Avenue South. Um it is the Costa
Verda Shops um owned by Mr. Angelo. Again, they're seeking approval for outside seating for the existing restaurant of Southern Grounds. Um the use uh request is intended to continue the current configuration and not expand it or change it. Um,
adjacent uses to the shopping center include a multif family complex to the north and one to the east, commercial fuel sales and convenience store to the south, and a similar mixeduse commercial shopping center to the west across Third Street. The proposed outdoor seating um
is expected to be or continue compatible with the surrounding commercial and multif family uses. Uh and um the layout of the seating has been previously reviewed and approved by the fire marshall and there are no changes going forward. Um the use of outdoor seating
uh adheres to the C1 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 intended to is part of shopping center um which has an established overall um parking standard. Also, uh
just to note, the structure was built in 1973. Um obviously that was before several different versions of the current code. Um addressed all that. Um I know there had been some uh questions particularly
raised by the email um regarding parking issues. Um we don't have any hard evidence one way or the other as far as like a parking study or any kind of survey that was done as far as the 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, oh, I did go on Google and just pulled up some pictures of the the outdoor seating just so you can kind of get a feel for it. It's basically in this corridor and then the little alope that you see, they have a couple of uh 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, um I went through and basically just pulled as many aerials as I could find. Um, this is from Google Maps. Um, it
does not have a date on it. Um, but, uh, it's relatively recent because you'll notice that this striped fire lane doesn't show up on earlier maps. So, somewhere between I think 22 24 and 25 that was added, but I'm not positive.
Um, there is the on street parking that's located here and then, um, the strike parking that surrounds the building and along the rear This is from our Duo County Property Appraisers map. Again, um same picture.
I know it's from 2025. I couldn't tell you the date. Um so I'm not sure, you know, what time of day or uh what time of year this is, but you can see that the parking is less full in this picture. Um this is from 2024. There's virtually nobody parked there. Again, I
don't know if this is Christmas Eve. Um, we go back to 2023 and we can see, you know, uh, kind of the standard that you see if you go there at lunch now. It's just a everyone's parked everywhere. Um, all the spaces are full. People are kind of parking along the sidewalk and things
that they probably shouldn't be doing. Um, and then 2022, similar situation. Uh, 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 is a shopping
center. So their parking standards based on the total square footage of the building uh like any other shopping center and um it was built at a time where they probably weren't required to provide as much parking as they are now. Um 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 uh reconfiguration of their parking. So um 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 anecdotal um but I'm happy to answer any questions that you guys may have. Again, this is the same thing you approved last time. You 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. Um, 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 exparte 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 Boulevard, Pontra Beach, Florida 32082. 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. >> I do. >> 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-y year anniversary. um as was stated and um we've learned a
lot since then. Um 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. Uh more people are riding bikes to the center which is great. Um people are bringing
their dogs to sit outside during breakfast, lunch and dinner which we encourage. Um, activating the outdoor seating has given the neighborhood a lifestyle center and environment which has really been positive. Um, 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.
um following the findings were immediately act um identified and acted upon. Core Motion is our Pilates tenant and we they they have large classes
between 10:30 and two and it's suffocating the parking lot and um that's the that's really the prime problem of the of that we're having. um 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. Um if any employees are parking on site that are not supposed to, we notify them and let them know. Um, any new leases, if if we
renew them, uh, will require off-site parking for employees since there's plenty of spaces offsite. Um, I placed a 10-minute to-go order, parking only um, 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. Um, so some
observations when the outdoor seating is busy that 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 Bull, you know, I'll hear somebody walk by a table, take the table and say, "I'm going to go to Florida Juice and get my lunch." And they're and 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. Um, do any commission members
have any questions for the applicant? Thank you. Okay. Yeah. Hearing none, I will now open the public hearing. And we have some speaker cards. All right. First up's going to be Is this Andy Blue It?
Did I read that right? >> Hello, I'm Andy. >> Uh, yes, Andy Blue. Um, I am I have an office at 2435, the same building as where this conditional use permit is.
>> Is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth to help you God? >> Yes. >> Thank you. Um, 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 outdoor seating 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. Um, the other thing is this was a 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 I don't know what they're permanent 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 parked on the sidewalk. You can't
walk on it. 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. Um, I don't think we need 20 more bodies at that location. Everybody can do enough business without two outdoor seating areas. Um, 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 speeding 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. >> Um we also have a card from Daniel does not wish to speak but he is in opposition of then we have Beth Angelou. So, um, please raise your right hand and
state your name and address. >> Beth Angelo, 1283 Ponovich 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 um in 2017 17. Um, 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 um over where Bonefish is. We still are retain ownership in that. We built the Jacks Beach Town Center over there. Um 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 um really gets heard. We did try call Florida Juice and Bolt 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 it you just can't have it during peak time. When we saw we did our parking study,
it's from 10:30 to two is really the peak time. Other times it's there's lots of spaces available. So she now is going to be restricted. um her lease is up in October, but she's we're working with her now. Um to have six people per class
instead of the maximum is 50 on her her sheets, but 30 because that really was the main culprit of this. And so 100% as of October definitely won't happen, but um 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 is 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. It's it's 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 Bluetss at Florida Juice really wanted to originally wanted some outside seating
and asked for it, but there was no place to put it. I'm not we're not opposed to them using that same space. Their their 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 um the community. Thanks.
>> Thank you. And we have David Angelo. >> Please raise your right hand and state your name and address. >> David Angelo, 299 First Street South. 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, 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 um I've found that when this outdoor dining experience uh came into play um 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 out brings more people together in inside there and I find that to be uh amazing and
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. Um but I have found that um 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 uh
amazing thing to have for the center and I think it truly just makes the center a better place. It it it's used for meeting spaces. I always see it always makes it very lively. And um 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. All right. 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
to clerk and she'll swear you in. >> Please raise your right hand and state your name and address. >> David Paige, 222th Avenue South, Jack Speech, Florida. >> Do you swear? 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 out. >> 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 that was my concern. I said, "Where are they going to put more parking? If they're having more outdoor
seating again, the the courtyard is open. I don't know who owns those tables. Is that the Mexican restaurant or is that yours?" >> It's a Mexican restaurant. Can you put more tables in here that are yours? >> 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 jam up until 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 third
there, there'll be cars lined up on the sidewalk because it's only the one side of parking over there. So that that was my concern. If they were looking for additional 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 going to have seating on one of the roofs, which I thought that would be kind of cool, you know, rooftop seating. But if they're going to limit if they think the problem with the proceeding 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 jamm up in jelly tight too with parking and so out of parking that's 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 Jackson Beach. I lived in Jackson 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. Um this building, yes, Mark has done a lot for it. I'm not saying that he hasn't. He's
repainted. We got um we the fire system was updated. So they were 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 that 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 Kasmaria and say hey we're going to let people sit there. Um I think there's options and those should be explored. >> Okay thank you. Um we're 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. It just a question on that and then affirming that the use is permitted by right. We're talking about outdoor seating. So, >> uh second question first. Yes, the restaurant itself is a use by right in
C1. Um 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 buildout the internal footprint changed but that's not related to the outside seating.
>> Right. Go back to 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 make a motion for further discussion? >> Give me a second on that.
>> Yeah. >> What was the motion? I'm sorry. >> Discussion >> like >> could we just further discuss the issues discuss? You need a motion for the make a motion to approve and then we can discuss.
>> We can deny it. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Okay. 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 3455 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 is meets
code correct Christian. >> Yes. >> So there's not much we can do about the parking. >> Well the parking meets whatever standard was right in place. >> We can't change we can't change the parking stipulation in this. >> Correct. Correct. >> Yeah. Um, 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. >> The I mean the total capacity for seating is higher, but uh whether that relates to usage, I couldn't tell. >> Right. And then in the past year that this has been going on and there have
there been any safety issues with the outdoor seating in the in the breezeway? >> Not that I've been made aware. Uh I spoke to the fire marshall and I spoke to our codes enforcement. Um, but those are the only two avenues that we would really have. So, okay, >> 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 viewed reviewed by the fire marshall 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. Um so as a non-conforming use well as a non-conforming structure um 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 uh uses for all commercial properties. So, at no point have they basically triggered that to require them to come up to code. Um, in a building
this size, I imagine that would be a fairly substantial investment based on its value. Um, the question about the alcohol license, um, I don't know how many of you are familiar, but, um, when you get a permit for sale and service of alcohol on premise, um, 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. So when they say they have to use that for the Mexican restaurant,
that's because their liquor license covers that seating. So they're liable for any use of alcohol or consequences that go along with voting 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 going to remove some tables that was previously Southern Grounds.
I 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 Filer. Oh, the motion on the table is a motion to approve. Uh, Matthew Filer, >> yes. >> David Doll, >> yes. Lindseay Hagen, >> yes. >> Justin Henderson,
>> yes. >> Motion passes. >> Moving on. May we have the planning department report? >> All right. I don't know uh how and who and what knows what, but um our uh beloved planning director Heather uh
resigned back in April um predominantly due to some uh 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. Um but uh in the meantime, the city manager is
handling most of the um discretionary authority that goes along with the planning director's job. So, uh, things like administrative variances and that sort of thing are being handled through him. He's signing off on alcohol licenses and events permits. Um, otherwise the rest we're handling internally. So, uh, if you see me
looking a little frazzled, that is why. Um, they are in the process for uh, selecting new candidate. Interviews have been ongoing. So, uh, next week I believe they'll be handling a lot of the inperson interviews. So, we will see what happens with that. But the position
is open until filled. So there's no set deadline when that will happen. Um because of that and because of uh scheduling with the city attorney, uh commission training is probably going to be in July at this point because he's taking the second half of June off and
uh we did not have time through March or April to really find a time to get training done. Um I am working on a memo for you guys uh for basically interim training that um hopefully since a most you have been through the training a
number of times this is a little bit more in depth on some of the legal aspects. Um providing some case references and summaries on the sort of pivotal landmark cases that define how land use works in the state. Um a lot of the questions I get from you guys I think it this will help have that that
kind of background. Um it's not it's like two pages. It's not bad. Um the references are there if you want to look at them, but basically they establish how and why things can and can't happen um with state law. Um but it really relates to how you guys conduct meetings and and how conditions get put on and
stuff like that stuff. Um 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.
Um, 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 the night. >> Yeah, we have meetings, but we'll Yeah, we can handle that. >> Sure. >> Cool. Um, motion to adjurnn.
>> Second. >> Do we need a roll call on that? We are.