Ad hoc council committee hopes new legislation will clear up rezoning issues
When is a planned unit development, known as a PUD at City Hall, not a planned unit development? For many residents opposed to certain property changes, the term is synonymous with circumvention of existing zoning codes.
PUDs are often used by property owners to deviate from zoning criteria such as landscape buffers and parking requirements, instead of applying for administrative deviations, exceptions, minor modifications or waivers through the Planning Commission.
With 2,048 existing PUDs on record, it is the most applied-for zoning category out of 48. Since 2016, of 146 PUD applications submitted in Duval County, only nine were intended for mixed-used developments, according to Folks Huxford, chief of the Current Planning Division.
This was not the original intention of the legislation approved around the time of City-County consolidation 50 years ago to encourage mixed-use development. According to the Jacksonville Municipal Code, Sec. 656.340, “It is not the intent to utilize the Planned Unit Development district solely to diminish the usual application of the provisions of the Zoning Code.”
Sometimes properties are rezoned to PUDs to enhance their market value, lessening perceived restrictions under other zoning categories or providing as many permissible uses as possible for the property. Other times, City Councilmembers suggest rezoning to a PUD to enact greater restrictions to protect the quality of life for neighboring property owners.
While conditions set under standard zoning codes are relatively clear to enforce, each PUD is unique and comes with its own set of conditions, “essentially creating their own little zoning districts in which Municipal Code Compliance has difficulty with enforcement,” according to Bill Killingsworth, director of the City’s Planning and Develop-ment Department, who made that comment at a June 13 meeting on PUDs.
Following a variety of complaints received that conditions imposed through PUDs are not enforced, Jacksonville City Council-members John Crescimbeni (At-Large), Lori Boyer (District 5) and Bill Gulliford (District 13) convened the June meeting to discuss splitting PUDs into two categories.
It must seem like déjà vu for Boyer. Six years ago, she was on the same mission to streamline the process, making it more efficient for developers and more user-friendly for citizens. At the June 13 meeting, Boyer said the intention is to create a broader, more conceptual category for a PUD to focus on the interface with and transition between the boundaries of a property zoned PUD and the adjacent properties, as well as the locations of the access points. The second category would be more detailed and specific to the application.
According to meeting notes, the goal for revamping the PUD was to accelerate and streamline the application process, while also providing more details for the approving bodies, such as City Council, the Planning Commission, and the Land Use and Zoning Committee, to consider.
The special committee reconvened Oct. 3 to discuss possible solutions for nine issues, involving planned unit developments. One of those problems concerns entitlements granted under a PUD which then sits undeveloped for many years, such as the East San Marco PUD, which was approved in 2014 for a mix of residential and retail uses, including a Publix. The committee raised the question as to whether PUDs should have an expiration date versus a renewal opportunity to keep infrastructure plans viable.
One of the more exasperating issues is when the content of the PUD application doesn’t align with the required criteria, is inadequate or, in some cases, unreasonable.
The example was given whereby City Council was charged with evaluating streetscapes, landscaping, use of topography and natural features, building groupings, architectural styles, etc., but the information is not provided in the application or is not site-specific. While building design and/or placement is a concern, other issues which need to be addressed include external compatibility along property lines, impact on traffic, drainage/wetland/flood plain issues, and tree canopy preservation, among others.
Boyer’s solution, as proposed in an early draft distinguishing general vs. specific PUDs, is to require one application for the entitlement requests and another for evaluation of the site-specific project.
By the end of the second meeting, the committee agreed to tackle the issues and reconvene at an as-yet undetermined date to move forward with proposed legislation to update the Municipal Code.
One member of the public perhaps best summed up the charge when she said, “I hope you will build in a standard that will apply to anything and for which you will have to explain yourselves [City Council] if you want to deviate from it.”
PUDs in historic neighborhoods
A look at PUDs approved from 2014 to 2018 indicates there have been at least 30 enacted for Riverside/Avondale, Murray Hill and San Marco/San Jose for uses such as restaurants, parking lots, signage, a brewery, and single-use buildings – not for a mix of residential, retail and/or office use as PUDs were intended.
One such mixed-used development is The District—Life Well Lived on the Southbank, which was approved by City Council in June 2018.
Within the past four years, other developments approved on the Southbank and in the San Marco/San Jose area under a PUD – although not for mixed-use – include San Marco Crossing and San Marco Promenade, both of which are Chance Properties projects, and LaSalle Townhouses, all in 2018; proposed residential by Chadbourne II, LLC on Hendricks Avenue and The Shops of Granada in 2017; the Baptist MD Anderson Cancer Center and a Daily’s on Hendricks Avenue in 2016; the Broadstone River House and The Shops of Granada in 2015, and in 2014, along with the aforementioned and unbuilt East San Marco, a professional center and a medical center in San Jose.
In the Riverside/Avondale area and in Murray Hill, planned unit development applications also included a variety of uses. PUDs were approved in 2014 for expansion at a Daily’s on Roosevelt Boulevard, a new parking lot, signage and the ability to serve alcohol at the Cummer Museum, a luxury condominium on Bishopgate Lane which did not break ground, and an off-street parking lot in Murray Hill behind Maple Street Biscuit Company.
In 2015, City Council approved PUDs for off-street parking at the Pinegrove Deli, townhomes on Ernest Street, and a medical office at 2717 Riverside Avenue, then in 2016 approved applications for the Tribridge apartment complex at Bishopgate Lane, the Wendy’s in 5 Points, La Cena Restaurant on Edgewood Avenue, and the RiverVue apartment complex, another Chance Properties project, as well as The Roost restaurant and bar on Oak Street.
Last year, PUDs were granted to rezone for a residential community called Green Hills, signage for 121 Financial Credit Union, and the establishment of the River & Post restaurant in an office tower on Riverside Avenue. This year, the only PUD approved to date in a historic district was for the renovation of a former nightclub on Edgewood Avenue to be the new home for Fishweir Brewery.
If you have an opinion about the efficacy of the Planned Unit Development process, drop us a line. Send your thoughts to [email protected].
By Kate A. Hallock
Resident Community News
(No Ratings Yet)
Loading... 
