Jacksonville Planning Commission

[jaxlongtimer]

Nothing personal with Mr. Repass and appreciate his volunteer role on the Planning Commission.  However, his business background demonstrates the issue I have with the PC.  Most of its members make a living off of the petitioners that come before it.  It's why, I believe, the PC almost always approves/rubber stamps everything it reviews.

And, while well intended, with the City Council vote last night approving that at least 3 members, effectively, come from the typical petitioner community, I see this conflict of interest continuing.  I think that professionals should maybe have a nonvoting advisory role to avoid the obvious conflicts.

Consider, too, that some City Council members count on a PC approval to tacitly support their all-along intended approval of zoning/land use petitions.  The PC, to me, is rigged to make it appear that zoning/land use issues are getting real scrutiny, when, effectively, the scrutiny is almost non-existent.   The system is set up to ensure developers, etc. get what they want.  It's all smoke and mirrors.

Jacksonville City Council filled a seat on the city Planning Commission, confirming local attorney D.R. Repass as an at-large representative on Aug. 26.

With an 18-0 vote, Repass became the second confirmation in recent weeks, as Council confirmed Mone Holder on Aug. 12 to move from an at-large position to the District 5 representative. Holder fills a seat vacated when Tina Meskel resigned from the commission in May.

Council member Jimmy Peluso was absent from the Aug. 26 meeting.

Since 2004, Repass has practiced at Repass Law, specializing in commercial and residential real estate transactions. He has represented developers, general contractors and businesses, according to his resume...

https://www.jaxdailyrecord.com/news/2025/aug/27/dr-repass-to-join-jacksonville-planning-commission/

City Council passes professional requirements for Planning Commission
Three members now must have a background in planning, design, development or related disciplines.

...The ordinance should have no effect on the current commission, which counts seven of its nine-member body as qualified members under the legislation. Four members work in real estate acquisition, and three work as engineers....

https://www.jaxdailyrecord.com/news/2025/aug/26/city-council-passes-professional-requirements-for-planning-commission/

[fsu813]

I don't view the new ordinance as notable.

Other city commissions already have such criteria, which seems reasonable.

[jaxlongtimer]

I don't view the new ordinance as notable.

Other city commissions already have such criteria, which seems reasonable.

My qualm is with the conflicts of interests created by the criteria.  The criteria are fine for nonvoting advisors.

Here is another example of the PC's conflict of interests as it approves a developer-friendly action:

Jacksonville Planning Commission endorses revisions to parking, landscaping regulations
Ordinance 2025-0448 applies to improvements of industrial and commercial properties built before 2011.

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 Fu 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.

https://www.jaxdailyrecord.com/news/2025/sep/04/jacksonville-planning-commission-endorses-revisions-to-parking-landscaping-regulations/

[Charles Hunter]

I agree that keeping the three-year period is essential. A developer could double their investment in a facility and avoid the landscaping requirement by spending 50% this year, and another 50% next year.

[jaxlongtimer]

Once again, nothing against this appointee, but as a builder/land developer, you can imagine how he will likely lean on requests by his fellow industry friends.  Love to be wrong, but if past history of the Planning Commission is any indication, its developer friendly decisions are likely to continue.  Clearly, conflicts of interests asking developers to scratch each others backs.

Jacksonville Mayor Donna Deegan nominated former Planning Commissioner Joshua Garrison to return to the commission.

Land development manager Joshua Garrison nominated to Jacksonville Planning Commission

Garrison, a land development manager for David Weekley Homes, will fill the District 4 seat on the nine-member commission pending confirmation by the Jacksonville City Council.

Legislation for the confirmation, Resolution 2025-0793, is scheduled for introduction at the Oct. 14 Council meeting.

Garrison served on the commission from 2017 to 2023, including as chair.

Before joining David Weekley Homes in March 2025, Garrison spent 22 years as co-owner and president of Miranda Contracting LLC, according to his resume. He served as president and executive committee member of the Northeast Florida Builders Association from 2019 to 2022. He also is a former Downtown Investment Authority board member....

https://www.jaxdailyrecord.com/news/2025/oct/13/land-development-manager-joshua-garrison-nominated-to-jacksonville-planning-commission/