The Jacksonville Planning Commission voted Sept. 4 to recommend approval of legislation relaxing landscaping and parking regulations for industrial and commercial property improvements.
In a 6-1 vote, the commission advanced Ordinance 2025-0448, which in part would reduce requirements for parking to one space per 5,000 square feet of gross floor area from one per 2,000 square feet. Commissioner Amy Chu cast the no vote.
The ordinance also would change a formula for determining how much of an improvement project’s cost must be devoted to landscaping and trees. The formula, which applies to structures built before the current code was adopted in 2011, is the same for residential, industrial and commercial properties.
The proposed change would only apply to projects whose landscaping is not in compliance with 2011 code.
The law now
The city now requires property owners not in compliance who are spending 50% or more of assessed property value on renovations over the course of three years to provide at least 20% of those renovation funds for landscaping.
For example, if the owner of a property valued at $100,000 made improvements that amounted to $50,000 over three years (50% of the assessed property value), they would be required to devote $10,000 (20% of the improvements) to landscaping to help bring it up to the 2011 requirements.
The changes
The ordinance changing those requirements, introduced by Council member Randy White, originally set the threshold for industrial properties at 70% of assessed value on improvements made over one year and required that 5% of the costs go toward landscaping. Council committees amended White’s ordinance to include commercial properties and reduced the threshold to 60% of assessed value but retained the one-year period and 5% requirement.
Property owners don’t have to spend the full 5% if they can bring their properties up to code for less.
That is the version commissioners approved. It will now return to Council.
Manipulation warnings
Fu said she voted against the ordinance based on a concern that applicants would abuse the process by making renovations just underneath 60% of assessed value to avoid paying for landscaping.
“You can keep on manipulating it, and I don’t think that’s good for the city,” she said.
Ellyn Cavin, the city’s chief of the development services division of the Public Works Department, said property owners rarely need to spend more than 5% of the cost of a renovation to bring their property up to standard.
Chrissy Kinne, a community advocate from San Jose, said the code revisions would deter improvements that would benefit the public.
“Old, undervalued commercial sites that are often most blighted would be excused from landscaping upgrades,” she said. “This is backwards. The very corridors most in need of shade buffers and reinvestment will be left to deteriorate further.”
Also on a 6-1 vote, the Planning Commission turned down an amendment based on a recommendation by the Planning and Development Department to restore the three-year period for industrial and commercial properties. Fu voted in favor of the amendment.
The department said that the one-year stipulation would make it easy for property owners to avoid regulation, spend less on landscaping and “undermine the City’s ability to maintain consistent standards across redevelopment projects.”
Opponents of the amendment said it would discourage growth and investments in renovation.
“What you’ll start looking for is the lowest common denominator that doesn’t require changes to infrastructure,” said Michael Herzberg, a planning, zoning and development attorney who spoke on the ordinance at the request of the Commission.
After Council committees amended White’s bill, it was rereferred to the Planning Commission.
Parking change
The ordinance also eliminated requirements to have one space for every employee on peak shift.
According to a memo attached to the Planning and Development Department’s recommendation, the department has seen significantly lower demand for parking spaces than outlined in the current requirements. Because of the drop in the demand, the department said it’s seen a bump in administrative deviation applications requesting reduced parking requirements.
Reducing parking requirements would bring the city closer to sustainability standards and to the standards of the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), which lays out ideal parking requirements for city planners. The ITE recommends 0.18 spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area in a city, according to the staff report attached to the legislation.