2026-10-12 - Planning Advisory Board

00:19I'd like to call the call to order the

00:21Jacksonville Planning Advisory Regular

00:23uh meeting October 12th, 2026.

00:27[snorts] Uh we we will have uh Mr. Jerry

00:30Marsh do the pledge of allegiance.

00:36I pledge algiance to the flag of the

00:38United States of America and to the

00:41republic for which it stands. One nation

00:44under God, indivisible, with liberty and

00:47justice for all.

00:50>> And Dr. Lassan will do our invocation

00:52today.

00:52>> Bow, please. Dear Lord, just uh thank

00:55you for the beautiful day you bless us

00:57with and uh the weather outside and

00:59everything and how you take care of us

01:01in this great town of Jacksonville. I

01:03pray for the city, you know, and also

01:05our planning board as we come together

01:06and make decisions for our citizens. And

01:09um we just ask you for to lead us in the

01:11right direction and we'll will benefit

01:13everywhere, everybody in this town. Also

01:15bring glory to your name. Be with our

01:17military and their families as they've

01:19been part of this community. they make

01:21up a lot of it, but also just even our

01:23public citizens, you know, that we're

01:25just one big family, one big community,

01:27and we're just so blessed to live in

01:29this town and just uh lead us always in

01:31the right ways and give us a light and

01:32just uh thank you so much for what

01:34you've done for us in Christ's name.

01:36Amen.

01:37>> Amen.

01:37>> Amen.

01:43>> All right. I'd like to ask for a motion

01:46for the adoption of today's agenda.

01:48>> So moved.

01:49>> Second.

01:50>> All right. We have

01:52Mr. uh Bob Dewee for the motion and

01:56Homer spring for the second. If we can

01:59signify by uh raising your right hand

02:02for approval

02:05and signify by raising your right hand

02:08if uh you disapprove.

02:12All right, the motion passes. Uh today

02:15we do not have any public comment signed

02:16up, so we will be skipping that. And uh

02:20we will move to reviewing and approval

02:22of the minutes from our last meeting

02:24September 14th. If I could have a motion

02:26for that.

02:27>> I make a motion.

02:29>> We've got Miss Grace uh making the

02:32motion and Mr. Jerry March uh for the

02:35second. If we could uh signify by

02:37raising our right hand for approval

02:41and any uh in and not in favor uh

02:45signify by raising your right hand.

02:47And the motion passes.

02:50Uh we will move to uh Mr. Anthony

02:54Prince, I guess. Or are you gonna be

02:56doing uh the city council update since

02:58we do not have Mr. Sosa?

03:00>> Yes, sir. I'll do my best Mr. Sosa

03:02impersonation. I need about 8 to 10

03:05inches of height. But uh in all

03:08seriousness, um just a quick update,

03:11[clears throat] excuse me, as to what

03:12the council did on September 22nd. Uh so

03:15first and foremost they appointed our

03:17ninth planning board member uh Mr.

03:20Andrew Frank

03:23and that is for an existing 2-year term

03:25which expires June 30 of 2027. So

03:29congratulations sir.

03:30>> Thank you.

03:31>> Uh they also approved six voluntary

03:33annexation requests along Richland's

03:35Highway. Uh this is heading out towards

03:38um the big intersection at 5324 258 and

03:44uh just some high quality commercial

03:46type stuff going out there uh in the

03:48coming months. Let's see. Approved the

03:51unified development ordinance

03:54uh modification for temporary use

03:57standards. As you recall, you heard this

03:59one. Was it two months ago where we ex

04:03we recommended approval of adjusting the

04:06length of time that that a individual

04:09business or property owner could have a

04:11special event. And then they approved

04:15the zoning map amendment for 51 Plaza

04:17Drive. And that's right off of Gum

04:20Branch Road. And last but not least,

04:23they approved a UD ordinance text

04:25amendment. And this has um this has to

04:29do with um single family and multifamily

04:33design standards. As you recall, I think

04:36we talked about this a couple of times

04:38actually. Um, and Ryan did some really

04:41great work in collaborating with local

04:43developers, builders, couple of

04:45architects to come up with what we felt

04:47was just a good middle-of the road

04:50approach to design standards for large

04:53uh multifamily projects as well as uh

04:56single family residential. So, Mr.

04:58Chairman, that's all I have.

04:59>> Thank you for your awesome Logan Sosa

05:01impersonation there.

05:03>> Thank you. All right, we do not have any

05:05old business, so we are going to be

05:06moving on to new business. And I will

05:09ask Mr. Ryan King to come to the podium.

05:20>> Good evening, Mr. Chairman, planning

05:22board members. Hope you're doing well.

05:24Um, similar to the report that Anthony,

05:27Mr. friends just gave the um we brought

05:31forth um some discussion items

05:36along with the multif family standards.

05:38We also brought forth the agenda item

05:40number one that deals with street trees.

05:42And after talking with the planning

05:44board and receiving input from the

05:46planning board, we also had a workshop

05:48session with city council where we

05:50received input from city council. And

05:52now we've pulled that all together and

05:54we are proposing an amendment

05:57that um like I said pulls all that

06:00information together.

06:05So just to kind of go over this for just

06:07a second um the city of Jacksonville's

06:09unified development ordinance has

06:10development standards in article 5

06:14and that is under 5.7. It's also which

06:18is a community uh the community forms

06:21section and also under 5.2

06:24and one of the things that we were

06:26looking at was what streets should

06:29street trees be required because there's

06:32really a lot of there's a lot of good

06:33benefits of trees but there's also some

06:36components that um upset infrastructure

06:38components. So right now the EDO

06:40basically says street trees are required

06:42on all roadways and a street tree is

06:44defined as within the rightway but it

06:46also could be those that are outside the

06:47rightway. Well we call those outside the

06:50rightway usually with commercial

06:51developments we call them street lawn

06:52trees. So there's a little bit of street

06:55trees but are also development trees

06:57street lawn. So, we're we're using this

07:00opportunity to kind of clean all these

07:02items up. And um we also have some

07:04street tree requirements in article 3 in

07:06the downtown residential downtown

07:08business section. And we were like,

07:10let's just move this to a central

07:12location. That way, if you go look and

07:15you don't find it here, you don't miss

07:16it by not looking elsewhere. Um so,

07:19there's reference, like I said, in 5.7

07:22community form standards and then

07:23article 6.1 subdivisions.

07:26after we received well let's go back

07:28talk about the benefits for a minute so

07:30a lot of benefits of trees so we don't

07:32want to eliminate the tree requirement

07:34altogether in fact we've included in

07:36your agenda packet one of the

07:37attachments is actually a a a tree

07:40assessment that the city staff um we

07:44received an opportunity to work with

07:46state agencies where we matched the

07:49grant with um inind but with staff time

07:53working on that tree assessment. So,

07:54we've actually had a tree a tree canopy

07:56cover assessment for Jacksonville. I'll

07:58talk a little bit more about that here

08:00in a minute. Um, but basically the

08:02benefits of the trees and and you'll

08:03find in that assessment you obviously

08:05beautifification, it helps with noise

08:07reduction. It helps reduce the oxygen

08:09that we breathe along with other items

08:13from [clears throat] a from a well,

08:15let's talk about the the tree canopy

08:17assessment for a minute. So, this was

08:19Jacksonville study, not the time this

08:21included the ETJ. that's no longer part

08:23of this, but you'll notice that there's

08:25a 4% increase per this study in the

08:28canopy coverage between 2014 and 2020.

08:32So, for those of you that have been on

08:34the board a little while, can you

08:36remember back a few years ago, 20101

08:40time frame, where we brought forth

08:42changes to our landscape standards and

08:44said, "Look, this is going to double the

08:46cost of the development cost for

08:48landscaping, but we feel like there's

08:50some benefits to that." Interestingly

08:52enough, between 2014 and 2020, even

08:54though we've had development continue

08:56on, our tree canopy increased based on

08:58the study by 4%. I think that's, you

09:01know, a correlation at least in part to,

09:04you know, those requirements that we put

09:06in place back in the 2011 time frame.

09:15So, as mentioned, the benefits, you

09:18know, the carbon reduction, air quality,

09:21storm water reduction, all those things.

09:23And you can put dollar values to what

09:25that's worth. And this is from that

09:28study. And it just kind of goes without

09:31saying, well, we don't want to eliminate

09:33the requirements of having landscaping.

09:37That being said, we also are trying to

09:39juggle, [clears throat]

09:40you know, the infrastructure component.

09:43We know that street trees can damage

09:45curbs and gutters, streets, sidewalks,

09:48which could cause to, you know, injury

09:50to people um if they're walking down a

09:52sidewalk, trip over, you know, a

09:54sidewalk to where it's it's bulged

09:56because of the route going underneath it

09:58or bicycle, whatever it may be.

10:00Um, you know, we are we are um our water

10:03and sewer lines are typically in kind of

10:05the similar area. So, you've got

10:07overhead power lines, you've got

10:09underground utilities, things that

10:11sometimes create problems with where we

10:13were requiring street trees.

10:18So the other thing is, you know, we're

10:19we're in a coastal community, so we do

10:21deal with hurricanes from time to time,

10:23and that basically causes problems,

10:25flooding, uh when thing debris falls

10:27down into the storm system and cause

10:30roadway flooding, but also

10:32[clears throat] power loss because it

10:34knocks out power. Um and then just the

10:36debris cleanup. So there's some

10:38components that are less than desirable.

10:41As I showed the board and city council a

10:43few weeks ago, um you know, Wilmington

10:46has dealt with this, you know, recently,

10:48they're spending thousands of dollars,

10:50if not hundreds of thousands of dollars

10:52to deal with some of these beautiful

10:54street trees that have created problems

10:56in the downtown area.

11:00So, to kind of remind the board, street

11:02trees, the top two slides, they're

11:04within the rightway. That's that's what

11:07we want to refer to when we say a street

11:09tree.

11:10On the underneath side, you got canopy

11:12trees. These are on private property.

11:14So, what we had mentioned was

11:16identifying what street types we want to

11:18have with the street trees at the top

11:21versus all other roads would just have

11:24lawn trees on private property. Get it

11:27away from the infrastructure. But when

11:28you look at it from an aesthetic

11:30standpoint and also from a benefit

11:32standpoint, it's kind of hard to tell

11:34the difference. They they look similar,

11:37just one's real close to the road and

11:39some are backed off a little bit further

11:40on private property.

11:43So, what we've done is we basically

11:45believe that this will help add some

11:47clarity to the standards, pull it all

11:49into one section. Um there's some

11:51contradictions with understory trees.

11:53One says it's got to be 40 ft, one says

11:5430. So, we're going to make them all 30

11:56so that way it's it's consistent across

11:58the board definition versus 5.2, which

12:01is landscaping standards. And with

12:04drafting this, we realized that having

12:06the standards for development in 5.2, we

12:09really didn't need to have the standards

12:10in 5.7. We really need to have it in

12:13article 6.1 subdivisions because that's

12:15really where we're talking about is when

12:17a developer is installing a brand new

12:18roadway. That that's where we want to

12:20see the street trees because we've got

12:22the commercial lots and the residential

12:24[clears throat] lots already taken care

12:25of with the article 5.2 landscaping.

12:29So we are basically getting rid of all

12:31of the street tree components in article

12:3357 moving it to 6.1 and then we're

12:37stating

12:38that these are the specific road types

12:42versus every road. So arterial collector

12:45feeder primary major and secondary. Now

12:47ask me what the definition of one of

12:49these roads are. Well they can be found

12:51defined in article 9.4 of the UDO. So

12:54versus saying well I'm not sure if

12:56that's an arterial or not. we actually

12:57can go to the definition and say, "Okay,

12:59that's the the standard. That road that

13:02you're proposing to build is going to

13:03meet that standard. Therefore, street

13:05trees are going to be required." So,

13:07that sums up the um the text amendment

13:10that we have prepared uh based on the

13:13input from the planning board, city

13:14council, and um from talking to several

13:17departments within the city about what

13:20to do with street trees. And I would

13:22remind the board that anytime we go to

13:24modify um the unified development

13:27ordinance that um or I'm sorry modify

13:30the UDO administrative manual to require

13:32street trees along strategic roadways

13:35and no changes to the front yard canopy

13:37tree requirement. And I would remind the

13:40board that when making a change, we we

13:42need to look at is it consistent with

13:44our camel land use plan and then that

13:46you in your recommendation that you

13:48address the plan consistency and any

13:51other matters is deemed appropriate. And

13:52I believe that you'll find that we've

13:55cited um I think it's goal 27 of the KMA

14:00plan that um

14:03let's see.

14:08Yeah, it's on the the top of page eight

14:10that basically the KMA plan goal 27

14:12which states to improve the visual image

14:14of Jackson to enhance the appearance of

14:16gateways and corridors through

14:17partnerships between the city, state and

14:18property owners. Uh further policy 27.7

14:21is to enhance landscaping buffering and

14:24street tree plantings and roadways for

14:25key gateways and corridors. So we

14:28believe that um 27 of the KMA plan

14:31supports the change and be happy to

14:33answer any questions that the board may

14:34have.

14:42>> [clears throat]

14:45>> Ryan, I guess uh I'll kick us off with a

14:47question. Um who bears the like the

14:50burden by this change like as far as

14:52like developers go or does the city have

14:55cost or uh is there any economic impact

14:59on this? So this cost here is already a

15:03requirement of the developers for all

15:05streets and all subdivisions.

15:07And we're proposing to move that to just

15:11subdivisions and it be on certain

15:14streets, not all streets. So if you look

15:17at it on the surface, I think that

15:19that's lessening because [snorts]

15:21instead of 100% of all roads, it's now

15:23say 60% of roads. So I would argue

15:26that's a reduction in terms of the cost.

15:28Now, if you're a commercial developer

15:30and you're building one of those um an

15:32arterial and that's the only road type

15:35that you're building through your

15:36property, well then you're going to have

15:37to put street trees along that arterial,

15:40but you'd have to do that today. So,

15:42there's no real change there.

15:44>> All right, great.

15:45>> Ryan, did you look at anybody else's as

15:48a benchmark and Wilmington, Newburn,

15:52whoever?

15:53Do other communities and municipalities

15:56have a similar approach or is this the

16:00way we wanted it?

16:01>> So with this this it was originally

16:03drafted by Clar and Associates. So I

16:05know that like Fateville and Kuruck

16:06County has the same language unless

16:09they've modified it since then. On this

16:11particular item I we use mainly the

16:13information that we got from planning

16:15board and city council in the workshop

16:16sessions and then [clears throat] from

16:18talking with other departments to come

16:20up with this proposal. Okay.

16:29Any other discussion?

16:34We have a motion for approval.

16:36>> I make a motion to recommend approval of

16:39the UDO tax amendment found in

16:42attachment A, finding the proposed

16:44amendment is consistent with the adopted

16:46camera land use.

16:50>> Excellent. Thank you, Miss Grace. I'll

16:52second that. Do we have any seconds? And

16:53we have a second from Mr. Bob DeWe.

16:58>> All right. Uh if we can make a or we can

17:02uh have a vote. Uh signify by raising

17:04your right hand if you approve of this

17:08and signify by raising your right hand

17:10if you are not in favor.

17:13The motion passes unanimously.

17:17>> Excellent. So, we will move to agenda

17:19item number two. Ryan,

17:24>> thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, with this

17:26next amendment, um, we look at this as

17:30it's really just a formality.

17:32Um, House Bill 116, which was a local,

17:36um, bill, removed the city of

17:38Jacksonville's extr territorial

17:40jurisdiction.

17:42And as a result on August the 6th that

17:45bill was ratified and it gave the county

17:49of 60 days to establish zoning and they

17:52did that last Monday on October I think

17:54that was the 5th. So at midnight when

17:57the when the the clock struck midnight

17:59on the 5th to the 6th of October the ETJ

18:03went to the county. So the city of

18:05Jacksonville's jurisdictional boundary

18:06reduced by it was 1151 parcels but we

18:10know that Mr. Prince reported we had

18:12some annexations. Well, those were ETJ

18:14parcels. So, if there were six or 10

18:16parcels in that annexation request, then

18:18that number went down by that many. Um,

18:21so,

18:23you know, this is really just an

18:25opportunity to kind of memorialize that

18:28we're bringing forth changes to the

18:30board and city council because in our

18:33unified development ordinance, we do

18:35have sections that reference ETJ.

18:38Our board of adjustment membership

18:40references ETJ whereas the planning

18:42board it's referenced in the city code.

18:43So we already did the city code

18:45amendment. This is now the opportunity

18:47to fix the board of adjustment uh

18:49standards for membership. It's also to

18:52eliminate just anywhere in the code that

18:56ETJ has referenced. For example, bicycle

18:59and pedestrian. There's where we require

19:02sidewalks. There's a a specific verbiage

19:04in there about ETJ. We're just going to

19:06strike the whole sentence. So, in this

19:08amendment, uh, you will see that, um,

19:13you know, it just we're getting rid of

19:14it. And, you know, even though the

19:16board's going to make a recommendation,

19:17we don't have all our our normal

19:19language in there and we really don't

19:21have a choice because the state

19:22legislature made that decision for us.

19:25But, we just wanted to have it where we

19:26went through the process so that if

19:27somebody says, "Hey, where did50 parcels

19:30go and why?" At least they can go back,

19:32look at the plan board, look at minutes.

19:34Same thing with council meeting to where

19:36we took action to eliminate the roughly

19:40uh there's a there's a list in your

19:43agenda item there in attachment A of all

19:45the different sections that we're

19:48removing uh the the references to EPG

19:52out of

19:54and so we are technically amending the

19:56unified development ordinance and

19:58because of that you know we felt it

20:00would be better to bring it forth

20:03for consideration versus just, you know,

20:06deleting it, even though technically the

20:07state legislature we believe did that

20:09for us. So, um, on the screen, just

20:12wanted to kind of point out the the city

20:15zoning and and city satellite

20:18annexations. So, all of the parcels that

20:20are identified in in a color, that's

20:23basically the planning and zoning

20:25jurisdiction of the city of Jacksonville

20:26as a result of [clears throat] House

20:28Bill 116.

20:31So, there was um [clears throat]

20:33you know, as the board may recall,

20:34actually, you can kind of see there's a

20:36little green line that that goes down.

20:39>> Let's see if I can draw here. That one,

20:41too.

20:44>> It used to go down here to the air

20:46station

20:48and then we went out here in this area.

20:53Ryan, is there a way to for us to

20:55identify the areas formerly ETJ

20:59>> in terms of on a map?

21:01>> Well, on on this

21:04>> Oh, I'm trying to annotate. Can you see

21:06the annotations?

21:08>> Oh,

21:10>> sorry.

21:10>> Oh, sorry. I missed.

21:11>> So, basically this area down here along

21:13um

21:14>> Okay.

21:14>> Wington Highway

21:16and then there were some areas right in

21:18here along Richlands Highway.

21:21>> Okay. And then we had the area just

21:23along Gum Branch Road.

21:26And look, this is on Western Boulevard.

21:27Those two white patches, those are ETJ

21:30property. So, they're no longer within

21:31the city's jurisdiction because they

21:33were not corporate limit parcels.

21:36>> Now, they could always come forth in

21:37request of voluntary annexation.

21:40>> Um, this area in here along Drummer

21:43Kellum.

21:45>> Yeah.

21:45>> North of the Commons.

21:47um some area right along here along Pine

21:50Green Road,

21:52a little bit area down here uh near

21:53Hunter Creek.

21:56But as the board may recall, you know,

21:58we had taken the steps. I think we've

22:00done six or seven ETJ reductions over

22:02the last decade or so. So, we had

22:05already kind of removed some parcels.

22:07And the last one we did, we basically

22:09said, "Look, let's do this one last

22:10time. Let's eliminate areas that we know

22:13are probably not going to be coming

22:15forth with the voluntary annexation. You

22:18know, the development is already very

22:19firm in place and we had already removed

22:22those. So, there has been has been many

22:26bills over the last couple years to

22:28eliminate ETJs altogether. Uh Boone, for

22:31example, doesn't have an ETJ. They

22:32haven't had it for some time. Asheville,

22:34I believe Wilmington doesn't have one.

22:36So, we're not the first. And you know, I

22:39think you'll see a push to kind of get

22:40rid of ETJs. It just it made it into

22:43this bill and and we've been impacted

22:46sooner than others, but we're not the

22:48first to deal with this issue.

22:50So, with this proposal, we're just

22:53wanting to get rid of any reference to

22:54ETJ in the ETJ and that's basically the

22:57proposal that we're putting forth to the

23:00board. Be happy to answer any questions

23:02that you may have as it relates to this

23:03matter.

23:06I mean, not like we can recommend not

23:08doing it.

23:12>> Ryan, if somebody is in the county and

23:14they want to voluntarily annex their

23:17property, do they contact your office

23:18for the viewers out there or

23:20>> Good question. They they reach out to

23:22the city clerk's office.

23:24>> City clerk's office and city manager's

23:25office handle the um the voluntary

23:27annexation requests.

23:29>> Excellent.

23:32>> Any other input from anyone? And I will

23:34say so there's some there's some caveats

23:36there. So you got to be within certain

23:38mileage. Um it's got to not violate that

23:42House Bill 116 that talks about south of

23:4524. And then with when a person wants to

23:48annex the property, you know, there's

23:50some capital outlay that usually goes

23:52with that extension of water and sewer

23:54out to their property. So it's not going

23:57to just be, you know, just anybody that

24:00has a house, you know, two miles out of

24:01town. It's probably not going to be

24:04feasible to do that. Um, but like you

24:07see on the map, if I can get rid of all

24:09the drawing here. Um, you know, there's

24:12some there's two apartment complexes

24:14right there on Blue Creek School Road,

24:15the Tras land property that annex uh the

24:18plan unit development that happened out

24:19of Blue Creek School Road. So, the sewer

24:22line is in this general area. So, it's

24:24one of those things to where they're

24:26able to tie on relatively easy easily.

24:29Now, if there's development that's

24:30within areas like that or up here at

24:34Musketine and and Harvest Meadows, you

24:37know, there's infrastructure they might

24:38be able to extend,

24:41then it may be more feasible than say

24:43one house that's two and a half miles

24:45down the road.

24:47>> Excellent. Thank you for theformational

24:49[snorts] input there for us.

24:51>> Would you [clears throat] like a motion?

24:52>> I would ask for a motion.

24:55Well, I would move that the planning

24:57advisory board recommend approval of the

24:59proposed ordinances amending the UDO and

25:02official zoning map as necessary

25:04pursuant to House Bill 116.

25:07>> Second.

25:07>> Awesome. We have a motion from Mr. Bob

25:09Dewi and a second by Mr. Homer spring.

25:12If we can raise our right hand for

25:14approval

25:16and anybody not in favor raise their

25:19right hand. The motion passes.

25:23>> Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

25:25Thank you, Ryan. We are going to move

25:28from new business to your report if you

25:30don't mind.

25:31>> I'll do that from here. So, the only

25:33thing that I have tonight is um

25:36obviously thank you all for the ser for

25:38your service. Um you know, it's nice to

25:40have a full board for the first time in

25:43in quite a while. So, thank you all for

25:46your willingness to to participate and

25:49help guide our our uh future. And then

25:52um one thing that came up last meeting

25:55was with um abstaining from a vote. If

25:58you're here and you you abstain, just so

26:01you know that that counts as a yes vote.

26:04So it's it's an affirmative vote. So

26:06just would remind the boards if you want

26:08to recommend or if you want to not

26:10support the motion, then make sure that

26:13you say that you oppose versus that

26:16you're silent because it goes down as as

26:18an affirmative vote. So just wanted to

26:20point that out. I think I said that

26:21correct.

26:23>> Interesting.

26:23>> Interesting. Very good.

26:24>> Now, tonight everybody raised their

26:25hands. It was very clear. So, um, but

26:28just kind of wanted to point that out.

26:30That's all that I have, Mr. Chair.

26:31>> Awesome. Thank you very much. I would

26:34ask for a motion for nojournment.

26:37>> So moved.

26:38>> Second.

26:40>> All right. We've got a [laughter]

26:42motion from Mr. Bob De. And I think Nick

26:44was the loudest, or at least he was the

26:45closest to, so [laughter] we'll go.

26:48>> We'll go with him.

26:49>> There you go. We'll call this meeting to

26:51an end.

26:52>> There you go.

```*