All right, good evening.

It is Tuesday, April 21st, 502.

We're gonna go ahead and convene the land use and zoning committee with introductions to the left.

Good afternoon to everyone.

Tyrone Clark Murray City Council District 9 just visiting, but I am here for number one.

Here for 15 and 16.

No, actually number one, and it should be six, yes, 16 and 15 and number one.

Okay, can we move the you want to move those up?

Because we have the appeal coming first, and that might take some time.

Yes, absolutely.

Thank you.

Okay.

All right, good outsinoa, Reginald Gaffin and Jillian, district eight.

Evening, Roy Damon, District 13 of Beach.

Joe Carlucci, District 5.

Raw We Aries, District 11.

Terrence Freeman at large group one.

Randy White, District 12.

Terrence Hart, the opposite general counsel.

Susan Kelly, Planning Department.

Karen Abney, Planning Department.

Casey Cox, Planning Department.

All right.

Committee members, we do have our presentation by Miss Eichner that I think we have all seen.

So Miss Eichner, come on down.

And we also want to go ahead and acknowledge our pages tonight.

We have Madeline Knight, who's actually already standing up.

Wave to the audience out there, and we have Dylan Patel.

And just for the audience, if you have any students that want to be pages, they can sign up to do this basically every Tuesday, whether it's L U Z or City Council.

So thank you both for being here.

All right, Miss Eichner, the floor is yours.

Thank you, Teresa Eichner, Jacksonville City Council.

Through the chair to the committee.

Who is here tonight?

Since early February, we have been diligently trying to make our website ADA compliant.

The Department of Justice has some requirements under the ADA to require that by the by Friday of this week.

And so we've gone through a series of pulling documents down.

And one of the places that it will be most impacted is our legislative gateway.

And so we are the record keeper for the county.

And as part of that, the legislative gateway will be coming down for a period of four to six weeks.

During that time, we will be working with a vendor to provide those services to get that site back up.

And so during that time, there will be an email of that address available so that legislation and any exhibits attached will be available to uh members of the public will be emailing those.

Um and then internally we'll be providing a username and password so that any um access that staff uh needed to the to um that website will still be available internally.

Um so I'll accept I'll you know um I'll be available if anybody needs that, but I'll be circulating that information tomorrow.

Uh portions of that website are already down now.

Um but again we'll be circulating that information internally for staff and um that um email address will be available in the morning for the public okay thank you.

We have no questions, no speakers in the queue.

Thank you.

Thank you so much.

All right.

All right, committee members.

We're gonna uh go to item number one first, uh obviously, but then we are also going to uh skip over to page eight.

So with that, we will uh go to item number one, 2025 630.

Do we have any speaker cards?

Do we have any speaker cards on this one?

Nope.

Okay, so let's go ahead and open the public hearing.

We have no speaker cards.

We're gonna close public hearing, bring back to committee.

Okay, we have a motion and second to withdraw with the return of fees.

Councilmember Clark Murray, did you want to speak?

Yes, just very briefly.

Thank you, Chair.

Just that I do concur with um withdrawing this bill in addition to returning the fees.

I reached out to the applicant several times, and also I've been here to LUZ to speak in regards to this bill, and it's been on your agenda for months now.

So four months, FOR, not F O U R.

So I'm just pleased that it's going to be withdrawn, and I'm sure the applicant is thankful that you will uh refund the fees.

Thank you.

All right, yes, ma'am.

So we have a motion and second on the withdrawal.

No discussion.

Six Yay, zero and a's by your action.

You have withdrawn 2025 630.

All right.

We're gonna go now to page uh eight.

And we are looking for a motion on item number 15.

All right, we have a motion.

Do we have a second?

Chair.

All right, we're chair.

There's a staff report.

You uh and you need to open the oh sorry, I'm in uh different different mode of operation.

All right, 2026 168.

Open the public hearing and get the staff report.

Thank you.

Ordinance 2026 168 is for a small scale land use amendment, which would allow for residential redevelopment at the corner of Commonwealth Avenue and McDuff Avenue.

These are both collector roads.

The applicant is proposing changing the land use from low density residential to medium density residential, and the site is within the urban priority area.

The land use amendment site is a tenth of an acre.

The companion rezoning application includes the land use amendment site and the property that's to the west.

Uh, the land use on the property to the west is already uh CGC, which allows for the proposed use.

The proposed MDR land use provides an appropriate transition from the CGC uses at the corner of Commonwealth and McDuft uh to the LDR low density residential uses to the east.

MDR designations are appropriate in locations that are served by full urban services, and the property is served by centralized water and sewer and mass transit.

For these reasons and those in the staff report, the department recommends approval.

This item was heard at the April 9th planning commission meeting.

The commission unanimously recommended to approve the item with minimal discussion.

Thank you.

All right, thank you so much.

Ms.

Clark Murray, would you like to speak now?

Okay, go ahead.

Thank you, Chair.

Through the through the chair to the planning department representatives.

Was the applicant present at the planning commission meeting?

Uh through the chair to the councilwoman, yes.

And thank you.

Through the chair, did he speak in regards to the property?

Did he mention what he how he's going to plan what how he plans to use the property?

Yes, he he did.

He he was going, he's doing excuse me, he's doing residential.

Um, I believe it's a duplex or mixed, oh, that's right, mixed use uh duplex.

So residential on one component, and then I believe he wanted to do retail below at the corner.

So I see okay.

Thank you for that.

Thank you, Chair.

Okay.

We're gonna go through the the public comment or the public hearing cards, and then uh we'll also have discussion uh after that.

So the first speaker card is uh the applicant, Benjamin Nasbranda, and he is here for questions only.

Next is Joyce Davis.

Oh what's that?

Okay.

Uh next is Joyce David Davis, uh does not wish to speak, is in opposition.

And next speaker is Carolyn Griffin, followed by Sally Barnes.

Okay.

Good afternoon.

My name is Sally Barnes.

I'm a little confused in here because I asked her at the desk.

We was coming for the 1005 McDuff Avenue.

I'm sorry, uh Ms.

Barnes, can you state your name and address and then okay?

My name is Sally Barnes.

My address is on file.

Go ahead.

When I spoke with her, these I am opposed to these because it's it's not a room, enough room up there for these apartments, duplexes or what have you up there to come in there because they're gonna be writing somebody's yard.

And it's like we went through this before with several other people that was trying to put stuff in there.

Somebody ran into one of the houses last week.

There's a little gray house up there, and they just totally so it has to be torn down.

My thing is if you all would just revisit this, because it's really not enough room up there for apartments.

There wouldn't be any room for any kind of yard or anything else up there, it's not enough space.

I don't know why they said when I was here last time, they were talking about possibly making a MacDuff park up there, and which we are a favor in favor of because of the small spaces up there.

That was at the the last last meeting.

So I mean, what what changed since then?

Because when I went up there to fill out a comment, they sold me that had been sent to finance.

So, how is that from finance to on this agenda that I just looked at?

Somebody tell me something.

I think we need some clarity on this.

I would ask you if you would.

We got to speak to the bill, please.

Okay, to be on.

Okay, we went through this one here.

Do you support or oppose?

Yes, sir.

I oppose it.

Okay.

We just need to hear your reasons why.

Okay.

Well, I'm good then.

Well, you know how you pose it and you know what?

Okay.

Because I just stated it.

Okay.

Thank you.

Next, we have Carolyn Griffin.

I called your name.

Do you wish to speak?

Do not wish to speak is in opposition.

So with that, we'll close the public hearing and bring it back to committee.

No one motion a second on the bill.

Ms.

Clark Murray, you're recognized.

Thank you, Chair.

Um, for a few reasons.

I have reached out to the applicant um through my office on multiple occasions, and he did not um return my call so that I could get information in regards to exactly not just the reason for the zoning changes, but additionally, what it is that he's going to build.

And so tonight I'm surprised that he was did attend the planning commission meeting because once again I've been trying for months to speak with him.

So I'm going to ask that the committee would defer it one cycle so that I'll have an opportunity to speak with the applicant so he can give me full details on as to what he plans to to build on the property.

Okay.

So McGaffney, unless you're going to speak to it.

Okay, I got you.

Um so Mr.

Benjamin, sorry, I can't, I'm not good at pronouncing the last name.

So Ms.

Clark Murray is here, and um let's just if you can just get with her office.

Um, because a lot of times what'll happen is if the councilperson hasn't met and doesn't know what's going on.

This committee, you know, kind of relies on that for some of our you know, weight that we that we vote on.

So what I'm gonna do as chair is defer this bill and we're gonna defer the next bill.

So 2026 168 is being deferred, 2026 169 is being deferred.

One cycle that should give you plenty of time.

Uh we have we have a fifth week.

Correct.

We're gonna open continue.

Mr.

Harvey.

Thank you to my vice chair.

Um, Miss Clark Murray, is that does that sound appropriate?

Is there any yes?

Okay.

Mr.

Benjamin, do you do you have the contact information for no?

Okay, is Bree here?

Okay.

Well, Ms.

Clark Murray, let's make sure that he gets that and and we'll be all we'll be better squared away.

So we're gonna open the public hearing and then we're gonna continue the public hearing until 5-5.

Is that correct?

Okay, so we're on fifth week, which means you get an extra week for free.

So 5-5.

So item number 15, 2026, 168.

We're gonna continue that public hearing until 5-5, 2026.

Same with number 16, uh 2026 169.

We will open and continue that public hearing until 5526.

All right.

Everybody good.

All right.

So moving back now to uh let's see, we're gonna go to page 12, 2026 232.

That is our appeal.

Council members, please declare any ex parte communication you have at this time.

I know everybody's got it.

Councilmember White, you're recognized.

Yes, sir.

I'd like to clear ex parte.

I met with Ms.

Durden today in the uh two applicants in my office and looked at the uh the plan and uh they will be filed with legislative services.

All right, Councilmember Freeman, you're recognized.

Uh thank you, Mr.

Chair.

I too uh would like to declare ex parte.

I met with the applicant and Ms.

Durden in my office uh on 414 at 44 at 4 p.m.

Um they share the details of the appeal and this information will be filed with legislative services.

Thank you.

All right, and I also rise to clear ex parte.

I met with uh the applicant in my office.

I believe it was yesterday, maybe last week.

We'll get the dates.

Um we went over all the site plans, the revisions that were made, and this paperwork's gonna be filed with legislative services.

All right.

So with that, let's go ahead and open the public hearing and get a staff report.

Is there a staff report?

There is, but Chair, would you like me to go over the outline script of what is to occur for the public and then sure?

Let's do that.

Go ahead.

Give us a yeah.

Yep.

So pursuant to council rule 6.201 and section 30724 of the ordinance code before us today is a informal quasi judicial hearing um and appeal from the JHPC.

Uh the order of the presentation is just as any typical rezoning.

There'll be a disclosure of expart A communication, which is already occurred by the LUZ committee, the opening of the public hearing, um, the city presentation uh by uh Air Miss Wills and Attorney Carla Schell.

Um you will have your appellate uh Brenda Durden present up to 10 minutes.

The appellate presentation by Attorney Carlos Schill will be for 15 minutes.

Public hearing will be limited to three minutes each.

Rebu by the appellant of five minutes, the closing of the public hearing, and then a deliberation and vote on the matter.

Um because this is a quasi-judicial matter, uh, your decision must be based upon competent substantial evidence, and you will be considering this as a de novo review, which basically means any presentation of all the evidence starts over again, so you're able to listen to any new facts that were presented by either the applicant and the uh excuse me by the appellate and appellate today doing this uh presentation.

Um at the end, we will have for your consideration whether or not you guys affirm the JHPC decision, which would be to deny the appeal, reverse the JHPC decision and grant the appeal, modify the JHPC decision, or refer the matter back to JHPC.

With that, I will turn it back over to you, Chair, to get your staff report from uh Mr.

Wills.

Okay, Mr.

Wells.

Thank you.

So through the chair to the committee, I'm just gonna briefly explain how we got here.

Um so as you may be aware, the city's historic preservation ordinance requires that all properties that are located within a locally uh designated historic district or locally designated uh landmark require a certificate of appropriateness prior to commencement of the work.

Um so this particular property is located at 2230 St.

John's Avenue.

And so this property is located within the St.

John's Quarter Historic District.

And so they submitted an certificate of appropriateness application or COA for short on November 6th of 2025.

Uh that was reviewed and issued a denial by the Jacksonville Historic Preservation Commission on January 28th of 2026.

And so, since that a denial, the applicant has filed an appeal and hence the resolution that's in front of you.

All right, thank you so much.

Um just making sure if Councilmember Johnson's here, we're trying to make sure that he gets he gets here.

Uh so who do we go to the applicant first?

Okay, and then we'll go to Michelle.

All right.

Ms.

Durden.

Come on down.

And real quick, before before you get started, um how do these cards do we just go to the applicant and then the um OGC attorney and then we go to the cards?

Yes.

So public hearing will open up after both the applicant and OGC attorney.

Okay, so public hearing is not open yet.

It is open.

This is all right.

Okay, this is part of the okay, all right.

That's what I thought.

Good deal.

Go ahead, Ms.

Durden.

Uh thank you very can you hear me?

Yes, we can hear you.

No.

Yes.

We can hear you.

Go ahead.

Okay, thank you very much.

Um good evening, Mr.

Chairman and Council members.

Thank you very much uh for hearing this appeal tonight.

For the record, my name is Brennan Durden.

My address is 245 Riverside Avenue, suite 510.

I'm here on behalf of St.

John's Quarter LLC and Ron and Fran Root, who own the property at 2230 St.

John's Avenue.

This vacant lot is located within the St.

John's Quarter Historic District, which was in fact locally designated by the city of Jacksonville in 1996, before the larger uh Riverside Amendale district was approved.

The Root family and the Ferguson families were instrumental in the uh quarter's local designation.

Mr.

and Mrs.

Root wish to build a single family home uh that will serve as a carriage house to their primary residence at 2263 River uh Boulevard.

The proposed home was designed by architect Bill Luthold, uh, who is considered by many in Jacksonville to be the premier most con most respected architect in practicing in the historic architecture arena here in Jacksonville.

Mr.

Luthold has won many, many awards uh for his historic designs, and in fact served on the Historic Preservation Commission for over seven years.

You will hear from him shortly.

Mr.

Luthell designed the home in line and to be consistent with every guideline and every code provision applicable to new construction in this district.

Unfortunately, for all involved, the planning department staff recommended against the new construction for only one reason a street-facing garage.

In fact, the staff report and even the final order of the historic preservation commission, which didn't uh which denied the certificate of appropriateness, finds the home consistent with the applicable guidelines and the code regulations, but still recommended and ended up denying the home because of the street facing garage.

Finding that garage to be out of scale and not compatible with the other structures in the district, but the facts and the testimony you're going to hear tonight will show that that is wholly inaccurate.

There are hundreds of street-facing garages and even front-facing garages in the district, and even several in the same block as the vacant lot.

More so you will also hear that there is actually no prohibition against street-facing garages in any of the guidelines or the code provisions.

We have filed a written appeal detailing these issues, and we asked this committee to grant our appeal and approve the CR COA.

Mr.

Chairman, with an intent to stay within our very limited presentation time, I've previously provided a set of photographs and also Mr.

Luthold's curriculum vitae to uh Miss Bolton, who uh for distribution to each of you.

I I would like to now proffer Mr.

Luthold to the committee uh as an expert in historic architecture and and very importantly, Jacksonville's guidelines and code regulations for the historic district.

Following Mr.

Luthold's uh testimony, the owner Ron Root will refer to the set of photographs that you have and present factual testimony regarding the many street-facing garages in the district.

As previously agreed, I'm reserving five minutes for rebuttal.

Thank you very much.

Okay, thank you.

And now we hear we will hear from Miss Shell.

Is that in their 10 minute time, so they are presenting.

So she is allowed to her presentation consists of the uh applicant, the NATO expert week.

Okay, okay.

I just wanted to make sure we are in order there.

And also wanted to welcome Councilmember Johnson.

Okay, did you sneak in here?

All right, then good deal.

Go ahead, Mr.

Luthold.

Name and address.

My name is Bill Luthold.

My address is uh 2742 Herschel Street.

I'm the architect of the of the houses in under consideration.

Um it's a house that's a two-story house that was designed to fit in on St.

John's Avenue within a the historic district of uh St.

John's Quarter.

Um before starting, we we you know, I'm very familiar with the neighborhood.

I've done many projects in the neighborhood and looked around the immediate area to make certain that this house was designed to fit into that area properly.

Umong the the requirements in the guidelines are two things that come from the Secretary of the Interior standards for rehabilitation.

We've applied all of those.

I mean, um among those in particular, standard two says the historic character of a property shall be retained and preserved.

Uh this new house we designed is on a vacant lot, so there's nothing to preserve on that lot itself.

But the previous house on that lot was very similar in size and scale, porches on the front, porches on the rear, two-story house, hip roof.

So we've we've we followed that house uh uh quite closely.

The next one is the new construction shall be differentiated from old and shall be compatible with the massing size, scale, and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment.

Um we follow this very closely.

The we followed there were seven items in particular that they look for.

Height, this house is very similar in height to the uh surrounding structures.

Width, it's very typical of the area.

The setback, we've set the front of the porch and exactly in line with the front of the porch adjacent to the to the property, and it's very similar to other properties within that area.

Um the proportion of openings.

We have doors and windows on the house that are very similar to doors and windows of houses and other parts of the neighborhood.

We do have the two garage doors on the front, but we have set those back 12 feet from the front of the house.

They're not right at the front.

They um they're not gonna be a problem.

Um, horizontal rhythms, we have doors and windows that are spaced very similar to traditional houses in the neighborhood.

Roof form, we chose a hip roof, which is uh very common in the in the neighborhood, a very simple shape of a building, which is important.

It's not scattered around like a standard uh suburban house would be these days.

It's a very simple shape, uh, which is very typical of the neighborhood.

Um materials, the the base of this house is in brick.

It's a red brick that's gonna fit about half or more than half the houses on the street are red brick.

Um the upper section is of a smooth siding.

We have roof overhangs and roof structure and roof pitch that are all common to the neighborhood.

They the they're concerned in this area about the elevation of the first floor.

We've set that at a three feet above the grade, through 30 inches to three feet.

Uh, and that's we are in the flood zone.

We want to be up high enough that we don't flood this house.

Um, and and uh, but it's it's four steps up to the porch.

Very common in the area.

Um the staff report that came back to us after we presented and were denied, acknowledged that we were correct on all those things.

Um the one question that comes up is those garage doors, and the reasons we place the garage doors in the front were were these.

Um it's a really small lot, it's 50 feet wide, it's it's very shallow.

There's no room in the back to build a house in front of the uh of what was needed by the owners and get the garage in the back.

He wants a garage that's slightly larger than a typical garage, and the best way we felt to make that work was to incorporate it into the major massing of the house.

That way it does not appear to be a standard too large garage.

Um there's no alley in the back, so there's no access to the rear of the property where we could set a garage in the back or access a garage from the rear.

And the width of the property is so narrow that there's no way to get alongside the property and turn in.

You need at least 25 feet to turn in to a side-facing garage.

Um the other is the the owners own a large house behind, and this property is contiguous to that property.

And by far the best way to connect the two properties would be to uh to have a backyard of this property that joins the backyard of the large property.

And by doing that, we have uh uh we we've kept the property contiguous and and where they can easily pass through between the two the two houses.

That's all I have.

All right, we'll go ahead and pause the timer there.

We we uh we just made an observation.

I think this is Councilmember Peluso's district.

Correct.

On the on the um on the on the agenda it says district 14, Councilmember Johnson.

We just were making note we think this is Councilmember Palooza.

Not that it really necessarily matters, we are just you know, wanting to make sure we had that.

Are y'all gonna use the 146 for the owner?

Yes, sir.

Go ahead, come on down, state your name and address, and we'll start the clock.

My name's Ron Root.

I live at 2263 River Boulevard, Jacksonville, Florida, 3204.

Um, as Brennan said, my wife and I do own the uh lot at 2230, and um each of you I think should have this handout that was was given.

I'd ask you to bear with me.

The tendency when you get a handout like this is to page page through it if you'll bear with me and for at least the first few pages.

Um this first page is um is pictures of houses that are in the same block that have a front-facing garage.

Same thing that we were denied.

The the bottom picture on the first page is a carriage house on the left.

It's been filled in and no longer used as a carriage house, but that is the original garage for that house.

Page two and page three are three other structures within the dist within our St.

John's Quarter that have front-facing garages, and then on the bottom of page three, you'll see a map that details exactly where these locations are.

The big red circle on the bottom is our home, and then the arrow points to the lot that's contiguous, and then these other blue squares are the other street-facing garages in the St.

John's quarter.

The next page is over the last two to three weeks.

I've driven extensively throughout the Riverside Avondale Historic District, and these are all street-facing uh garages within the district.

There's over 200 here, and it's only a partial list.

And so what follows is a series of a few of these homes, pictures which show street-facing garages.

And by understanding, sir.

Sorry, your time is expired.

But we will have uh following uh public hearing, so we can ask questions.

Um, Miss Shell, 10 minutes.

I think I have 15 minutes.

I think I did give you 15 in the email.

Darn, I was trying to go ahead.

All right, Carla Shaw with Office of General Counsel here on behalf of planning department and the historic preservation commission.

So I'm gonna walk you through this.

Is about 2230 St.

John's Avenue, a vacant lot and a proposed new construction.

You can see the map there.

Um, this lot is in the St.

John's Quarter, which is a section of the Riverside Avondale district.

Um it was established about 18 months before the greater Riverside Avenue District for for the purposes today, they're one in the same.

It's the same design guidelines and the same ordinance code provisions apply.

Within that little section of Riverside Avondale, that star is 2230 St.

John's Avenue.

You see, it's an interior lot.

This is the street view today, that vacant lot on the left, you see two-story single-family residential.

On the right, you can see it a little bit.

It's a two-story multifamily.

The current owner is proposing this new single-family home.

So the issue is simple.

The design of the front of this home violates the design guidelines and the ordinance code provisions.

Well, I have respect for the architect, and I agree that he has designed a lot of great structures.

This one misses the mark.

Specifically, the planning department found that the double garage doors placed on the front of the home are not compatible, and the historic preservation commission agreed.

So when considering a design of new construction, the controlling regulations are ordinance code chapter 307 and the design guidelines.

So the historic district design guidelines, it's about 130 page document.

Did not give that all to you, just the relevant excerpts are here.

This is the new construction section, which specifically highlights that new construction shall be compatible with the rest of the street with the adjacent structures.

So the criteria you are to consider.

You see there it has height, width, setbacks, the relevant portions that you need to consider are the proportion of the window and door openings as well as the horizontal rhythms.

And that's where this design misses the mark.

Another section of it is in setting.

This is still in the district design guidelines.

Um, that parking shall be.

Okay, the proportion of window and door openings and the horizontal rhythms.

So this the setting recommendations are that parking should be restricted to the rear of the building.

Obviously, this design does not comply.

Parking and driveways.

Recommendations are to limit parking to the rear or side of the buildings and avoid parking on the front side.

So those are the design guidelines that it does not comply with.

Ordnance code criterion chapter 307.

I'm gonna focus on the two here.

Happy to talk about the last two, but the first two read that you need to consider the relationship between the new construction and other sites and properties in the historic district.

And the second provision, proportion of doors and windows.

This one is key.

The proportions and relationship between doors and windows shall be compatible with surrounding structures in the district.

So you need to look at what's immediately adjacent and on that street.

So this design, in a lot of ways, Mr.

Luthode is right, it does meet the criteria in many ways.

Height and width, great.

The roof, pitch and form, that looks good.

Setbacks, fine.

The materials proposed, good.

The windows that are on the front elevation, the design and placement look great.

Front door looks great.

Where this misses a mark are those garage doors as the dominant and prominent feature on the front elevation of the single-family home.

It's not compatible, the proportion of openings is not compatible with that street, and it does not comply with the horizontal rhythm requirements of the design guidelines.

So this is that section, the map section.

You can see the gray dots in this little corner of Riverside Avondale have no garage.

The red dots all have a detached garage behind the primary structure.

None of these are front-facing garages.

The yellow dots are attached garages.

They were historically detached, but there's been an addition since.

Either way, they're still behind the main structure.

You'll notice Mr.

Root referenced the five pictures of other structures in the neighborhood.

Every single one of those, if you look on the map, is a corner lot.

The house faces one direction.

The garage is behind, facing a side street.

There are no front-facing garages.

Not a single one in this in this section of Riverside Avondale.

And he provided over 40 addresses that I looked up.

At least 70% of those are corner lots.

But this proposed new construction is not on a corner lot.

So what do we have?

Here's some examples.

Two-car garage, forward facing on the back corner with the driveway running up the side.

Planning department said, Yeah, you can have that, that'd be great.

Owner said, No, I don't want that.

The bottom two examples are side facing garages on corner lots.

Those both those houses face to the left.

Those garages are in the back of the home facing the side street.

Every single one of these examples he provided, the garage is behind the main house.

These are his neighbors.

This is what is in this section of Riverside Avondale.

And the proposed new construction is not compatible.

These last two on the bottom appear to be what we would call a carriage house.

Two-car garage below with what looks to be some type of dwelling unit above behind a main house.

Now you heard the owner and Ms.

Durden state that this is a carriage house.

This design is meant to be a carriage house.

Now a carriage house is an ancillary structure to a main house.

You see this everywhere in the district.

I just showed you a couple examples.

The key is it's behind a main home on the same parcel.

See this picture here.

The dot is the cheat castle house, owned under a different LLC, but by the same owners.

And the red line is is the uh parcel at issue.

They argue that this new construction is a carriage house to this to this other house.

They sit on two separate parcels with several residential structures in between.

In fact, according to Google Maps, you'd have to walk out the front door of the Cheat Castle House, walk down River Road, turn right on Osceola, walk up a block, turn right on St.

John's Ave, walk down five parcels to get to this lot.

There's no significant relationship relationship between the two parcels, and the commission found this on this argument on persuasive, and you should too.

So to recap, the owner did not want a two-car garage at the back corner of his lot, like his neighbors, neighbors.

This is not a carriage house or an ADU of any sort.

All right, so the commission denied the this COA before you today.

Well, the planning department continued to work with the owner on another design.

They came up with this.

Windows appropriately spaced on the front of elevation, keeping with the neighborhood, and three garage bay doors that are side facing to provide the owner with a garage space he wanted.

This COA was approved by the commission last month.

So the owner was able to settle on a design that complies with the guidelines, complies with the ordinance code criteria.

Therefore, the right thing to do today is to uphold the decision of the historic preservation commission and deny this appeal.

You can do that knowing that you stayed true to the historic district requirements.

And in this case, the owner is already teed up with an approved design that complies with the design guidelines and fits the character of the district.

Denial of the COA was the correct decision then, and denial of this appeal is the correct decision tonight.

We ask that you deny this appeal.

And with that, I'll take any questions.

Or Mr.

Wells is here to answer questions on behalf of the planning department.

All right.

Thank you, Michelle.

We will now go to the remainder of our public hearing speaker cards.

Correct.

We could go forward.

Okay.

Um, and then we'll bring it back to uh the committee.

We'll actually keep the public hearing open during questions and then we'll uh go from there.

All right.

First up, we have Ethan Gregory, followed by Shannon Blankenship and then Catherine Duncan.

So Ethan Gregory, Shannon Blinkenship, Catherine Duncan.

Go ahead and make your way to the front.

Ethan Gregory, 931 Mapleton Terrace.

Again, my name's Ethan Gregory.

I'm the chair of the Jacksonville Historic Preservation Commission.

And I'm here to request that you deny the appeal for the approval of COA for the property at 2230 St.

John's Avenue.

At the meeting in January, we reviewed the COA.

We had the applicant speak.

His architect came and speaking and received public comment as well.

And during that time, we found no evidence or new information that would uh give the commission a reason to go against the staff's recommendations.

So at that time we decided to deny the appeal, or excuse me, deny that COA.

And the main reason for now has been discussed plenty of times here are the garage doors that you saw at the front facing along St.

John's Avenue.

There are no front facing garages.

It is not with the historic character of the neighborhood of the St.

John's Quarter, or really for the whole entire area of Riverside Avondale.

The Commission determined that this is a design, looks like a carriage house or a detached garage with a garage apartment, as Ms.

Durden said, this is a carriage house.

Typically, you see carriage houses at the rear of the property.

Typically, would there be a main house in the front and a garage, or excuse me, a driveway on either side, and you would go back to the carriage house in the rear, as you saw from plenty of the photos from Mrs.

Shell.

So for that reason, we denied that COA.

And then subsequently in March, there was an additional COA provided that you saw here from Michelle as well, which moved the garages to the side.

We thought this was a compromise with the homeowner to give him the parking space he needs for his wants and needs, and it also kept the historic character of the neighborhood.

So that was approved at that time in March, and we'd ask you to deny this appeal.

And if I may speak regarding uh the historic character of the neighborhood and why the design guidelines are important.

Um I'm realtor uh in my day job, and I can tell you that the values of the homes in historic areas are significantly more, largely because of the design guidelines.

If you look in the Riverside Avondale area, the price per square foot for homes there is about 285 dollars per square foot.

If you look in the zip codes at 325 and 3204, and you cut out the historic areas, price per square foot's around 179.

So there's value in the design guidelines and the characters in neighborhood, and that's why we do this work at the commission, and that's why the staff in the city works to maintain the characters in the neighborhoods.

So we ask that you deny the appeal.

Thank you.

All right.

Next we have Shannon Blankenship.

Thank you so much.

Um Shannon Blankinship.

I'm the executive director with Riverside Avondale Preservation.

Um, and I'm here today to speak solely on behalf of the precedent that this project would set for the entire neighborhood.

Um proposals were put forth to the Historic Preservation Commission, and the one that was approved is the one that's appropriate for the St.

John's Quarter and the Historic District.

Um, the reason that this project would be damaging for the entire neighborhood is because as you can tell from the applicant's proposal today, each project sets a precedent for what future applicants use to say what should be allowed in the neighborhood.

And so having a strong position about front-facing garages is extremely important to give clarity to everyone moving forward with projects so that you guys don't have to hear these kinds of proposals again, so that the rules are strong about front-facing garages.

Um, thank you so much for hearing my testimony today.

I appreciate your looking at this project.

All right, thank you.

Next we have Catherine Duncan.

Good evening.

Catherine Duncan, 1450 Flagler Avenue, suite 15, 3207.

I wanted to speak today in support of the application.

As an architect who has served 12 years on the City of St.

Augustine Architectural Review Board, and I've practiced architecture in the city of Jacksonville for almost 30 years.

I know the St.

John's Quarter District well.

I worked for six years across the street in the offices of Richard Skinner and Associates Architects.

There are single family residences that remain, but many of the homes have been converted into offices.

The office across the street where I used to work has a parking lot visible from the street with cars parked in that area.

Most of the remaining homes have street-facing garages.

The larger homes, like Mr.

Roots, has a carriage house with good garage doors that face an adjacent street, like this application.

There are no alleyways to keep garages from view.

Most of the lots are narrow.

His lot is 50 feet wide.

The cars are parked both in the driveways and along the streets.

The St.

John's Quarter is an eclectic mix of architectural styles and uses.

It is a mixture of single-family residences, commercial offices, and mid-rise apartments.

Luthell's design of the two-story carriage house maintains the character and scale of a typical carriage house for a large estate like Mr.

Roots.

The architects set the carriage doors back 12 feet from the front facade of the primary facade on the building.

I understand the importance of maintaining the rhythm and character of the St.

John's Quarter District.

In filling a vacant lot with a carriage house for the Cheek Mansion will provide that rhythm and character.

If the lot stays vacant, it may eventually be used as a parking lot, just like just across the street.

Mr.

Luthold is highly respected and has practiced architecture for many years.

His projects are in Jacksonville's historic neighborhoods.

His designs are always high quality and thoughtful.

He served on the Historic Preservation Commission for many years and is very familiar with the guidelines.

His knowledge and insight make him one of our city's leading architects whose authority we respect.

His design meets the intent of the guidelines by replicating a traditional carriage house.

Mr.

Root's family has lived in the Cheek Mansion since the 1960s.

He chose Mr.

Luthal because of his experience and ability to find the best solution for a compatible structure that adheres to the established character and scale and materials of the historic district.

The proposed design is in character with other carriage houses associated with a great house, where a carriage doors are facing an adjacent street.

Considering all the front-facing garages, a detached carriage houses, and the large parking lot across the street, I respectfully request that you reverse the decision to deny the COA.

Thank you.

All right.

With uh that we have no other speaker cards, so uh we are going to go ahead and uh we're not going to close the public hearing.

Uh we are going to what?

Oh, five minutes for Ms.

Durden, sorry.

I won't thank you very much, Mr.

Chairman.

I won't use the whole five minutes.

Just want to say that um several things.

First, um, I heard uh uh in Miss Shell's presentation a lot of convoluting between a street and the district.

The compatibility uh is is district-wide.

It's not necessarily just on the particular street.

Even given that we believe that the street-facing garages that are on the street in the block where uh this home is proposed, show that um that uh it is compatible with the street, it's compatible with the uh neighborhood, and it's also compatible with the district.

Um the numerous pictures that uh Mr.

Root presented to you.

Um it goes on page after page after page of front-facing street-facing garages.

Page five, page six, page seven, page eight.

These are all contributing structures to the district.

So it's part and parcel, it's the part of the fabric of the district that these front-facing uh garages, these structures with these front-facing garages include.

Um you've heard from uh two architects tonight, well known, well respected, and highly uh uh familiar with uh historic preservation.

Both of them spoke tonight and said this project is compatible with the neighborhood, compatible with the district, and meets the guidelines and code provisions.

I want to say one last uh two more things.

One, I heard somebody talk about how this is going to be a terrible precedent in the neighborhood.

There are so many distinctions that make this not a precedent.

First, there are no alleys in this area of uh the district.

Most of Riverside and Avondale have rear alleys that in fact would allow an entrance from the rear.

There's no alley here.

Second, um, the um there this is a special lot.

It's very narrow.

The lot the lot width is very narrow, really reducing the complete ability to have uh parking, excuse me, a garage in the back.

Really reducing the complete ability to have uh parking, excuse me, a garage in the back.

And then um, and then also it's the special nature of this lot where you do have a river view out the back, uh, if you will, uh, towards the river.

Um, those things um are very distinct, and therefore uh do not it would not this project would not create a precedent.

And the last thing is that I want to make it perfectly clear.

There is no prohibition against street facing or front facing garages anywhere in the guidelines, nowhere.

So it's a matter of is it compatible?

And our position is that it is.

Uh, we would uh ask that the uh committee uh take into account the two experts that you heard tonight, to take into account the countless pictures of existing contributing structures in this district that include the front facing and street facing garages, and ask you to grant the appeal and approve the COA.

Thank you very much again for your time tonight.

Okay, thank you, Ms.

Durden.

And with that, now we will go to uh discussion.

We'll keep the public hearing open.

First, we have council member Gaffney.

So off the U.

Okay.

All right, thank you through the chair.

I guess Michelle, you could come out right quick.

Um while you're on the way up for clarity, I just want to make sure I got a great understanding in terms of what we vote for.

I mean, I think I know what we're voting for, but it's two main distinctions why I guess the planning department and the city of Jets have denied this piece of legislation.

One is um the double doors in a garage in terms of facing the street.

And I think you eloquently said that corner lots can have double doors facing the street, but if it's not a corner lot, they cannot have double doors.

Can you explain that for me, please?

Sure.

Yeah, go on.

Through the chair, if it's so yeah, and let's um Rebecca, let's go ahead and just put uh four minutes on the clock just for all of us, just so we don't um get overboard.

Yep, go ahead.

Yeah, okay.

Do the chair to council member Kathney.

So you're correct.

We see that very frequently on corner lots, a house facing the main street, garage behind and facing a side street, set back a lot.

So that's that is ubiquitous, I would say, on the corner lots.

Um, what you have here is an interior lot.

There are very few examples in the district of front-facing garages on interior lots.

There are a handful.

He found some.

I can address any pictures you want me to address, or Mr.

Wells can talk about them.

Um, but it's it's very rare.

Okay.

I guess the other, okay.

Um, on top of that, the other issue, it's not an issue, but other thing uh I guess I'm questioning the slideshow I was looking at.

Um it showed like a house over here, and I guess like the carriage out of ADU home, like on the other side.

I don't know if I don't know if we could pull the slide up on the what slides.

Right, yeah, go back, go back, go back, go back.

Hold on.

Uh go back to the no.

I don't know if it's left or right.

Left, go this, we just passed it.

The three garages.

No, not this one.

Um it's in this packet.

Oh, it's in a packet.

No, it was on the slideshow, too.

This is the slide.

A three-car garage.

Oh, on the map.

On the map.

Right there, right there, right, right, all right, right on.

So okay, okay.

So I see two two six three river um boulevard, obviously, and then I see the you know, the rectangular.

Um, that's like two or three lots down.

I'm trying to understand that.

That's right, Roy.

So there are actually five lots facing St.

John's Avenue that back up to the Cheek mansion because that parcel is almost an acre.

There are five um residential structures facing St.

John's Avenue that back up to it.

The furthest one is the parcel at issue.

Okay.

All right.

Well, that's all I have for now.

I was just trying to make sure, in terms of you know what we had in terms of what we voted on and why you guys denied it.

So I also heard Ms.

Um, I mean her argument in terms of why we should have grant uphill, but I stand by and listen to the rest of my colleagues.

Thank you.

All right, Councilman Arias, you're recognized.

Okay.

Uh thank you, Chair.

I do have a question.

I heard earlier.

I heard earlier, uh actually I just heard from the from the applicant, I wouldn't need a question for you.

Um, was that there is no prohibition to front-facing garages.

I was gonna base my vote off of that.

Now, is that true?

Is there a prohibit prohibition or not?

So the design guidelines say it shall be compatible with the adjacent structures.

Let me find the exact verbiage.

Proportions and relationship between doors and windows, so that's openings and a garage door is a door.

Shall be compatible with with surrounding structures in the district.

So there's no prohibition on anything, it really it's you look at the street, the adjacent structures in the surrounding area to determine what fits in, what's compatible.

Nowhere in this section of Riverside Avondale has a uh a two-car garage on a front elevation.

Doesn't exist.

Okay.

Well, um so I'm looking at this map here, and it says here Avondale Riverside and then St.

John's quarter.

Is this um uh denial based off of guidelines specifically to St.

John's Quarter or to the entire district there?

Through the chair, the guidelines are the same.

Okay, all right.

So then you said that there's none.

Now there's a I've been going on Google Maps to all these different addresses.

I found one here called 1825 Elizabeth Place, right?

When you look at the Google maps for that one, um I want to pull it up now.

And if you guys want to put it up too, you guys can so you can see what I'm looking at, but um it shows that this house um on the maps is actually painted, it's not blue anymore, it's it's white, but um it has a similar feature as to what the applicant is doing here, and there's it's not a corner lot.

So when you said there are no houses, I'm just trying to fact check everything, and there I just saw one.

So sure, through the chair, if I may respond.

Sure.

So 1825, Elizabeth Place is in Avondale.

It was built in 1961.

So it is not a contributing structure in the district because there was no way it was 50 years old when the all right, I'm sorry.

I just asked the first question I asked earlier was this map, Avonville Riverside and St.

John's quarter.

You said they're all part of it.

Now you're saying that because it's in Avondale, it doesn't requ it doesn't apply.

No, I'm telling you, when the district was established in the late 90s, this was built in the 60s.

So the guidelines weren't in place.

Okay.

And this is not a historic structure that could be used as an example.

That was a non-contributing structure.

I get it, but that's why I had that question initially, because I found properties, and I want to make sure before I ask a question that they do or do not apply.

Clearly, it's based off of the year now.

It's not based off of so there is no prohibition technically, and that was based off of a specific year of 90s now that we're looking at.

So now, in order to meet for me to fact check all these properties, I have to now look at what year they were built to in order to support your your case or not.

So through the chair, yes, we could go on a scavenger hunt of all 5,000 structures in the Riverside Avondale district and look up everyone every year and see if it's contributing or not.

The fact is when you look at this street, this part, there is nothing like this.

It does not fit in, it's not compatible, and it doesn't work.

Okay.

I'm just gonna finish off your chair out 30 seconds.

Um I don't know where the committee's gonna land.

I'm gonna I'm looking forward to hearing more conversations.

I will tell you this.

It's not my district, but I like to keep the integrity of different communities.

This right here, if this was truly a guideline and there was a prohibition, I would have said deny this 100%.

Because but because it's very loose and there's no clear definition as to where we should go, I'm kind of torn in the middle.

So I really want to see that the conversation of you guys to see where I land because right now it's 5050, and if it was up to me, I was approved I would deny the denial and let them build what they gotta build.

However, uh once again, I I'm just kind of torn on this part.

Thank you.

Okay.

All right, Councilmember Johnson, you're recognized.

Thank you.

This is uh quite an interesting situation.

Um I took from kind of like uh what Michelle said, I took from this um that I'm still a little confused as section 307.106 about the proportions of windows and doors.

Uh and thank you, Councilman Aries, for bringing that up, looking at those other spaces.

Let me ask the historic team.

Uh Airmas, I heard you as I was coming in um with the details about the this area.

Um obviously it's a denial from the the commission and the department.

Could you give me is there something that would be acceptable in this space?

Obviously, I saw the elevation of the new plan that was put together, but is there something some kind of improvement?

Because I'm thinking I do have a question about this, but what is there something that would be acceptable besides that that allows them to keep the same plan that they've asked for?

Through the chair.

Uh through the chair to council member Johnson, yes.

Besides the plan that was approved on March 25th, that was something that we did find to be compatible with the design guidelines.

Um the main thing here, and then if you reference the gut design guidelines, and this is something that Carla mentioned in our slides, there's a provision in there that states that parking should be limited to the rear sides of a building.

So that's the kind of predominant focus, the the piece that we really lasered in on in our report.

And so that anything of that nature, if they were to provide a plan that showed a garage that was recessed behind the primary facade, not a symbol to the primary facade, that's something that staff would support.

Is this, although I do see it as a house, I do want to ask, is this clearly not a carriage house?

This seems to be a separate feature.

Is this going to be it's a it's a single family home that that um that Mr.

and Mrs.

Root want to build?

It will have the um the garage that will serve the the if you will, the big house, um, because the garage in in that home is not usable.

It's um very low ceilings and not wide, and it it's basically an unusable.

So this will serve as the if you will, the carriage house for the so this will be the garage.

This is not a unit that will be for rental or anything like that.

No, no, it won't be for rent.

It's it's gonna be their home.

Understood.

My my other question is what is the issue?

Is it cost uh through the chair?

The issue for the elevation that was or the uh design that was recommended by planning.

What was the problem with that that was unacceptable to you and your client?

Uh thank you very much.

Uh I should be saying through the chair, but forgive me.

Um councilman, the issue is that in order to do that, he had to it's using um uh I don't know, 20 or 30 20 foot or 25 foot wide strip of land that he doesn't own.

He had you that's when I said, you know, it um it it it's unreasonable to think that a landowner has to go and take 20 or 25 feet from an adjacent lot in order to meet the requirement this this side yard or side entrance garage.

That that's an unreasonable uh position uh that uh that uh the city should be taking.

Um the it the lot is 50 feet wide.

He does not own it.

He doesn't own it.

He um and and so from that perspective, it it makes no sense that uh we're gonna be in a position of we, when I say that's the royal we, the city, we're gonna be in a position of from now on saying, well, your lot's not wide enough, just go get 25 feet from your adjacent property, uh your adjacent landowner, and tell them that you need the 25 feet so you can build a side entrance garage.

You can continue if you have another question.

Thank you.

Uh I I noticed that Michelle uh may have a rebuttal because I'm I do wanted to to find out if I and I could Michelle when you speak.

Michelle, please don't leave.

When you speak, can you also speak to the fact that I think when you're saying too the the front-facing lots, the other others that they found when they're saying facing the street, it's not facing the same side of the street as the house, it's facing an adjacent street because that's on the side.

Can you clarify that as well?

Sure, you have a front elevation, sure, through the chair.

You have a front elevation, which is like the front of the house, the front door, primary entrance, front facade.

Those corner lots face the main street with the garage set behind the house facing a side street.

Totally different scenario.

And I would like to address the um COA that was approved last month.

They came up with that design.

Nobody's forcing that design.

They came up with that and said we could do this.

So we said, okay, planning looked at it, said we agree.

That's yeah, that adheres that we didn't come up with that or forced that on them.

So they couldn't do that for some reason.

If there's some fact that they know that they couldn't do that, they didn't disclose that to us.

Okay.

Is there a reason since they put that in through the chair since you came up with the design, what is the rationale now?

You've proposed the design, you say I want to do this or I can do this.

Was this property that 25 feet that's being requested that you spoke of earlier?

Is that owned by someone else?

And what was the reason that you recommended that recommended that design or put it up for approval and now saying, well, unfortunately, we don't want to do that now.

No, thank you very thank you very much through the chair.

The the does the design was you know, uh they were pushed against the wall.

They couldn't um the timing of the appeal, they had no they were uh uh they felt like they had to file the appeal uh and at the same time try to find uh some other solution.

But the idea that um that uh first off from a legal perspective, that COA is outside the scope of the change.

We're not we're not gonna be able to do that.

I right I just I need to know.

But number two, to answer your question, which is a fair question.

You know, the idea it is they were pushed against the wall, they didn't want to do this.

They showed it actually shows that it's impossible to do what uh the staff thinks is necessary for the property to be compatible to use it for a single family residence.

Last question I'm gonna end it here.

Do that property that 25 feet that's there, is the through the chair.

Is that owned by someone else?

Is it part of their other property?

It it's it's owned by a separate group of landowners.

It's not the same, it's a different group.

And I if if the chairman would allow me to see it.

The answer questions with an answer.

It's been answered, thank you.

Thank you.

All right.

Next we have Councilmember Diamond, you're recognized.

Oh man, I I hate that we've spent this much time on this already.

This is ridiculous.

What 25 feet are you talking about?

Who owns it?

Michelle, do you know who owns it?

Somebody tell me.

Mr.

Wells.

Uh Mr.

Councilmember Diamond, if I may, you so in order to submit that March 25th approval from the commission, we have to verify ownership.

And so 2230, that's owned by the LLC under Ron Root.

The a budding property owner at 2222, that's under owned by um Stringfellows Partners LLP.

That's also if you look at the Sun Biz recounts, they they have ownership under that as well.

So two different LLCs, but when you get to the jittus of it all, they own it.

Ms.

Durden, do they own it?

No, come on up.

I just I I get the distinction between LLC and and all this, but help us out.

Do they own the LLC?

Do they have this property?

It's a di thank you.

Through the chair.

It's a different group of family members.

Okay.

All right, that's enough.

Uh thank you.

Uh Michelle, how are they supposed to park?

Help me out.

This is 50 feet.

I got a 67 foot lot at the beach.

There's no way I could side park at my house.

How are they supposed to park in this or anything?

How are they supposed to sorry?

Where are they supposed to put their cars with such a narrow lot?

At the back in a separate structure, you want them to build a second structure?

You build a driveway up the side like all their neighbors have.

All right.

No, fair enough.

Okay.

Uh look, I'm gonna show them my cards.

I'm gonna vote so these folks can build this thing.

I think this is totally ridiculous.

There's a hundred people back there who's just spent an hour of their life wasted on this.

Like dogs and cats sleeping together.

Oh my god, mass hysteria.

Someone's gonna see a garage door.

This is ridiculous.

I can't believe we spent this much time on this.

So I'm done.

I'd like to vote for it.

I want us to get this over with as fast as possible.

And I want the historic review people to realize that at least this councilman thinks this is a huge waste of our time.

I mean, people have too much time if they're worried about a garage facing the street and a beautiful house in a beautiful neighborhood.

All right, with that, we're gonna go ahead and close the public hearing and bring it back to committee.

Now, does the now we do have to make a motion?

Uh we have to make a motion on the amendment because it's right now it's in a neutral okay.

Okay, so we have a motion and a second to amend to grant the appeal.

Um so do we take a verbal vote on the amendment first?

Okay, all in favor of the amendment signified by saying aye.

Aye, any opposed?

The amendment carries.

So now we move the bill as amended.

So okay, we have a motion and second on the bill as amended.

And no one in the queue, I'll just weigh in my two cents very briefly, only because I'm used to these uh with Sam Marco, and we I've actually seen the same exact argument in San Marco.

And generally where I kind of come down on this is and it's funny because there's there is an architect in San Marco, and his name is William Jacks, and he's been in San Marco forever.

His office is there, he does a ton of architecture design.

He is sort of the grand pumba or whatever of architecture and design.

Everyone just listens to him because he just knows, he knows the stuff.

And I feel like that is exactly Mr.

Luth in this position.

And that's the lens I'm viewing this through.

We can make the argument on paper, this doesn't make sense, the guidelines, yada yada.

But at the end of the day, I think it's a vacant lot, people are gonna have to park their cars.

It's it's a great design.

The only reason they designed a second one was to prove the point that yeah, we can we can make it look good on you know paper and fit in the box, but it's not gonna be practical, it's not gonna be actually it's not gonna be a functional.

It's not going to be actually it's not going to be a functional.

So for me, I'm I'm gonna support the uh appeal um and those are my reasons why.

So with that, we have a motion to second to grant the appeal.

Let's open the ballot, record your vote.

Yeah, green is yes, affirmative.

Five yes, two nays.

By your action, you have granted the appeal for 2026 232.

All right.

Moving on to page two of the agenda.

We already took up item number one, uh, which was wait.

Did we already take we already did that one, right?

All right, we already took up item number one.

That was a withdrawal.

And then item number two, 2025 724.

Council members, please declare your ex parte communication at this time.

Councilman Gaffney, you're recognized.

Thank you, through the chair.

Um, I held a community meeting last year.

I was asked to declare Sparte.

I held a community meeting last night.

Um, I say everything to file with legislative services.

All right, thank you, sir.

No other speakers.

Let's open the public hearing and get a staff report.

Thank you.

This is conventional rezoning ordinance 2025-0724, seeking to rezone approximately 1.04 acres from commercial residential office to commercial neighborhood in order to build a convenience store.

Uh the one-acre site is located um along Garden Street at the intersection of Garden and Old King's Road.

Garden Street is is classified as a collector roadway, and old King's Road is located um classified as a minor arterial roadway.

Staff has reviewed the request and finds that the proposed rezoning is consistent with the comp plan.

It has an existing land use category of RPI.

We find it for we find that it furthers the goals and objectives of the comp plan by promoting and sustaining the viability of existing and emerging commercial areas in order to provide um services to the surrounding residential areas.

The property is located at the southwest corner of that intersection where the remaining lots surrounding that particular intersection are all zoned commercial neighborhood.

So the proposed rezoning to CN will be consistent and compatible with the surrounding existing commercial properties.

So because of these reasons and those in the staff report, we forward a recommendation of approval.

This application was heard by planning commission back in October where there were no speakers in opposition, a little discussion amongst the commissioners, and they voted unanimously for approval.

Thank you.

All right.

Thank you.

And we have no speaker cards, so I guess we will close the public hearing, bring back committee.

We have motion and second on the bill.

Councilman Gaffney, do you have anything?

No.

Have you spoken to the applicant?

Yeah.

Okay, you spoke to the applicant.

Okay, great.

We have a motion to second.

Public hearings closed.

Let's open the ballot, record your vote.

Seven yay, zero nays.

By your ranking you've approved 225724.

Moving on to item number three, 2026 000 six.

Let's open the public hearing.

Get our staff report.

All right.

Ordinance 2026 006 is for a small scale land use amendment to change 9.7 acres from low density residential to medium density residential in the suburban development area to allow for an increase in the density allowed on the site.

This subject site consists of three contiguous parcels located on the north side of Morse Avenue and west side of Seaboard Avenue.

Both Morse and Coard are unclassified local roads.

The site is surrounded on all sides by land designated as low density residential and by a single family residential development pattern.

Currently, the maximum gross density in the LDR uh is seven units per acre.

The proposed MDR would permit residential densities up to 20 units per acre.

If granted, the proposed land use amendment would allow for an abrupt density increase in the middle of an existing low density neighborhood.

While the department does not object to the residential use, we find that this significant density increase would disrupt the existing land development pattern and detract from the character of the area.

For these reasons and others in the staff report, the planning department recommends denial.

Planning commission heard this item at their meeting on February 5th.

Several residents were in opposition to the increase in density, citing concerns about schools, traffic, and environmental impacts.

The proposed MDR land use garnered a lot of discussion amongst the commissioners because it does allow for 20 units per acre.

Ultimately, the planning commission recommended approving the item with a note that the planning commission encourages LUZ to consider adopting a site-specific uh flu policy limiting the density of the proposed MDR land use.

Thank you.

All right.

Thank you so much.

Now we'll go to our speaker cards.

First up, Hayden Phillips.

Thank you very much.

Hayden Phillips, 131 River Place Boulevard.

I think we're all pretty familiar with this at this point, so I'll try to avoid repeating anything that you've already heard multiple times.

But as a quick reminder, the CPAC approved where we were in attendance.

Planning commission unanimously approved, and we've held a total of three noticed community meetings where we've made several compromises.

We decreased the total unit count from 89 to 77 units.

We decreased the total density from 9.2 to 7.9 units per acre.

Um and we have increased the minimum lot width on almost 20% of the lots to 40 to 60 feet wide.

We even increased buffer sizes and included a large park in the corner of the property.

So I think a lot of the concerns we heard from the community at LUZ two weeks ago can sort of be put into a few different categories.

And traffic, which which I'll get to in a second.

Their main concern, as I understand it, is the land use category.

It's MDR, which would otherwise allow 20 units per acre.

However, as Planning Commission suggested, we are open to a site-specific policy.

Um, which is just over the seven units per acre already allowed under the existing land use LDR.

So this is not a spot land use amendment.

It is not spot zoning, it is the opposite of urban sprawl.

Plus, we need the housing.

So on to traffic.

Two weeks ago, as you may recall, um, the discussion centered around traffic and the available capacity on Morse Avenue.

Uh, Miss Larise Bannister was called to the podium and stated that Morse Avenue is currently operating at 100% capacity.

This number came as a surprise to I think everyone, definitely me.

Um, since then, Ms.

Bannister has confirmed via email to me that number was a mistake, and that as of 2025, Morris Avenue on the western side of Blanding Boulevard was operating at 16% of maximum service volume, not 100%, 16%.

Morse Avenue on the east side of Blanding Boulevard, where our proposed development is actually located.

Um, my clients traffic engineer John Moy, who is present and will speak after me, um, actually performed a traffic study on that section of Morse Avenue a few years ago.

And as of 2024, Morse Avenue on the eastern side of Landing Boulevard was operating at 9.36% of maximum service volume, and that includes the trips produced by Wells Landing, which is the new subdivision uh further down Morse to the east.

So it's not a busy road.

Um it is simply busier than what these neighbors are used to, which is something residents all over the city are having to deal with right now.

So I will leave um some time for rebuttal.

We have several people here on our team to speak in support.

The developer, the builder, our planning expert, and our traffic engineering expert.

If they could go next, that would be wonderful.

Thank you very much.

All right, we're just gonna kind of go whatever order these cards were handed to me.

So coincidentally, Ken Attlee is next.

And then we have Samantha Searies, Fox Huxford, John Moy Moy, sorry, Moy, uh Lawrence Cheney.

Yeah, Cheney.

All right, Mr.

Atley.

Name and address.

Ken Attlee, 5851 Timaquana Road, Jacksonville.

Um, as discussed uh two weeks ago, the the city advertises how great a city we are, that we all enjoy and attract businesses, which brings people, which needs housing.

As a developer, I'm merely here helping meet the need for housing that our bill is expressed to us, and as directed by the comp plans, section 1.1.1 and section 3.1.12, directing us to utilize infill sites such as the one before you tonight.

Please note that 16 foot townhomes have been approved all over the city of Jacksonville.

And these units generally are 16 feet wide in groups of four, six, or eight.

Our project will have homes that are 50% wider than those units.

They'll be detached, which means they have uh lights, windows on all four sides, and this creates a much much better environment for the occupants, a much more enjoyable uh place to live with windows.

We would be grateful for your support, and I would be happy to answer any questions you may have.

Thank you.

All right, thank you.

Next, we have Samantha Searies.

Samantha Ceres address on file.

I oppose this uh proposal from LDR to MDR.

As you know, many of the neighbors are concerned about this change.

After watching the last LUZ meeting that I was not able to attend, you guys are so close to getting it correct.

Um you say, but some of you sometimes say 7.9 is so close to the seven units, then fine, might as well agree to it.

But that should be the opposite of your thinking.

It should be 7.9 is so close to seven.

Why are we changing LDR to MDR?

That is a big change.

Even if they put a site specific amendment, that is a big change.

We are fighting over 0.9 units.

That should mean that it is more likely that you keep it as an LDR instead of pushing it to an MDR.

Mr.

Phillips mentions that the other properties that are currently being developed are more dense than this development.

Well, those developments are larger.

One is 17.08 acres, the other is 43.41 acres, and one that is closest in unit amount, so there's 85 units coming in this one.

It is going to be 22.91 acres.

That is more than 9.7.

If they were to use the LDR designation, they would be able to get about 67 units.

They're right now proposing 77 units.

So why can't they keep the LDR designation and just do the 67 units?

It's tight still, but you know, it's allowed.

We wouldn't be having these arguments, they wouldn't have to be fighting the neighborhood.

It's really like they're causing more problems for themselves.

After reviewing the proposed change, the planning department recommended the request to be denied.

And they gave many reasons.

One of them is that a suburban area is the third-tier development area and generally corresponds with the urbanizing portions of the city.

They development should be generally continue on low densities with medium density development at major corridor intersections and transit stations.

That is not this area.

This is not a major corridor intersection or a transit station.

Mr.

Phillips says, oh, it's 0.2 miles from blanding.

0.2 miles to what?

To an empty commercial lease area that is for lease right now and empty.

So going to where?

Where is the you know corridor intersection?

You and I know last time at the LUZ it was mentioned you guys would go maybe visit this area.

Were you able to?

Did you get off of 295, go on to blanding and go to Morris?

Because that is something you should consider.

It is not an urban area.

Mr.

Phillips mentioned that this is um an urban area.

According to the 2045 companies, there are actual urban development characteristics.

That includes blocks interconnected with surrounding development and existing and planned JTA rapid transit system to the greatest extent possible.

That is not what we have here, and you should vote no.

Thank you.

Okay, next we have Folks Huxford.

Hi there.

Uh folks Huxford, 10230 Manorville Drive, Jacksonville, Florida.

Um I want to point out uh some of you don't necessarily know my history, but I moved here in 1991, which was about the same year, uh the same year that uh the city adopted the zoning code and the comprehensive plan where this property was designated for RR acre zoning and LDR land use.

Uh 35 years later, uh things have changed, and the city has approved literally thousands of land use amendments and rezonings in the course of time.

Uh as situations evolve, and this is certainly a case of that, in the sense that now the there is water and sewer available, which was not available 35 years ago.

And this is certainly a case of that, in the sense that now the there's water and sewer available, which was not available 35 years ago.

Um, and it this is exactly the type of infield development in a suburban area that the comprehensive plan promotes.

Um, at the last meeting, I had submitted an affidavit where I analyzed the staff report as well as the criteria for land use and zoning.

Uh, and it was my conclusion even before it was now reduced to the uh level that it's at now that it was consistent with the comprehensive plan, uh, both the land use and the zoning.

So I think uh with the further reduction down to 7.9, um it definitely does so.

I would point out that the MDR land use category that we're requesting is the one step up, it's literally the next step up from the LDR land use category.

Uh, and with the site specific policy, I believe it is definitely compatible.

Uh so with that we uh ask for your support.

Thank you.

All right, thank you, sir.

Next we have John Moy.

John Moy with Waits and Moy, uh, 3738 South Side Boulevard.

Um, you know, last uh OEZ meeting, uh, the applicant, you know, was caught off guard uh and wasn't prepared to discuss traffic engineering, and he asked me to come and uh speak on the uh the uh traffic on Morse Avenue.

Uh we had done a traffic study two years ago for another development in the area, the Wells Landing, which was the biggest development in recently in this area, and uh our traffic study at the time showed that we were in the ballpark of 10% capacity on Morse Avenue east of Blandy Boulevard, so Morse Avenue to Seaboard.

Um we went back and did some generation of uh projected traffic from this development and another recent development, 117 unit development on Seaboard Avenue, and adding both of those developments into the traffic.

If we said 100% of that traffic went on C Board, which it won't, uh, it would only bring the capacity on uh Morse Avenue up to 17%.

So uh but that's really all I have to add.

Okay, thank you.

All right.

If the following speakers uh want to come down, I'll go ahead and read a couple more names.

Uh Lawrence Cheney, Shelly Cheney, uh Henry Baker, David McCure, McClure, maybe McCure, uh Bobby O'Connor.

So if you're here and wish to speak, you can come on down to the front if you're not already at the front.

So we'll go to Lawrence Cheney and then Shelley Cheney.

Thank you, Chair.

I'm Lawrence Cheney.

Address is on file.

I know y'all remember me from two weeks ago, very much opposed this in our neighborhood.

What I asked today is y'all not get fixated on the traffic or dismiss what the other woman said two weeks ago that it was at 100% or whatever.

We're I can't debate who's right or who's wrong, but I'm not here just because of the traffic.

I'm here because the presidents y'all are going to set throughout this state or through this city and the state of Florida, is zoning doesn't mean a thing.

When I go to build something, it sure means something when I go to try and build get a permit.

I have to adhere to the zoning.

You know, it seems like the developers get a get a hall pass, and there's a lot of loopholes in the system that they can skirt skirt around.

And I don't think it's fair to local builders that aren't developers that try to build on one lot specific lots, one one house at a time, or for a custom home on a custom uh customer's lot that they want to build a home on.

We have to go to zoning.

We have to abide by the zoning.

I I just think y'all are making a major mistake to start just changing the land use, and it very much is not an urban developed area, like Mr.

Phillips said.

It's very much rural, and that's why we chose to live here and build our lives here around the rural open openness.

And it's just a travesty that y'all can just seven of y'all, eighty y'all or ten of y'all can make the decisions that affect all of our lives.

You know, I'm gonna be affected.

My neighbors are gonna be affected.

It it's it's just a travesty that they can change the land use to something they won't.

Well, how about just adhere to what's there and build what you can on the zoning?

I'm not gonna argue the zoning in place.

I'm up here arguing the fact that they can just try to change it.

You know, I think y'all should do your jobs and vote no and make a statement as councilmen that y'all represent the people, not the developers.

It's not all about the developers.

Just because there's a piece of grass that they want to build on, it doesn't have to always be built on.

It's not fair to the community that's put their whole lives into our houses, and we've paid our bills.

We've raised our damn families here.

It's not fair, and it ain't right.

I'm getting emotional, and I didn't want to do that today.

But my God, it it's causing all the neighbors so much heartache that they can't even sleep at night.

You know, and we got all neighbors around us are getting in fear and wanting to leave.

Leave Jacksonville.

That's what y'all are y'all, Mr.

Cheney.

Is lifelong residents?

Mr.

Cheney, your time is up.

All right, next we have Shelley Cheney.

Hello, I have some paperwork I'd like to give out.

I'm sorry, I'm not very fancy with the you can just uh hand it right there.

I'm very visual, and hopefully y'all take a look at them.

Go ahead, ma'am.

Name and address your time is up to start.

Um, can I reset my time back to three minutes until you get your paperwork?

Your time starts as soon as you reach the podium.

Please haven't even said my name.

Please continue.

My name and address.

Charlie Cheney, my address is on file.

Um this, I don't know why this has got to be so angry.

Um, I feel like I'm up here defending things that I have lived for my whole life, a home on an acre of land.

Um, if you look at the first page, very visual.

We have 507 homes being built within a mile of my home.

Five hundred and seven, and we are rule, we're rule residential.

That's what's zoned.

I showed you pictures of our neighborhood.

Look at all the trees.

It's beautiful.

That's why we live there.

There's trees, there's plenty of room between each other's homes.

People have gardens, they do everything, you know, whatever.

But then you look at the almost the next to the last page, and it has homes on 40 foot lots because I am a nurse.

I don't know how to search all this stuff.

I reached out to my aunt who's a property appraiser.

We could not find any homes in Jacksonville on 30 foot lots, homes, single family homes, two-story, 24 feet wide, with six feet in between the two homes, and their roof overhangs almost touching.

Yes, he he came down some.

He did 160, 159, 157, 158.

It's still a majority of houses on 30 foot lots.

Just as my husband said, you're setting a precedence for the city of Jacksonville and approving something on 30 foot lots that's gonna be approved everywhere.

There's no parking.

You you're gonna be blocking the sidewalks, you can't walk on the sidewalks, the children can't ride their bikes.

Um it's just, I mean, I really wish that y'all would listen to the people that have put y'all in office here and our community.

And I personally emailed Miss Bannister, and I asked her for a current study, traffic study, and she told me the proposed development.

If it progresses, a methodology meeting with the city traffic engineer will be required to determine the need for traffic analysis.

We live there every day.

There's more traffic than what they're saying is there, and with 507 homes there, I can promise you it'll be at 100% or more.

Thank you.

I ask for you to please vote no, please.

All right, next we have Henry Baker, followed by David McCurr.

Henry left.

Oh, okay.

Does not wish to speak, uh, is in opposition.

David McCure.

McCurr.

All right, is here, does not wish to speak, is in opposition.

Bobby O'Connor.

Do you wish to speak?

This is 06.

Don't wish to speak.

Okay.

She opposes.

Uh Donna Tanner.

Are you here?

All right.

She is in opposition.

Elaine Wilson.

All right.

Followed by Laura Young.

And Tanya Wells.

Hi, my name is Elaine Wilson.

My address is 6314 Seaboard Avenue.

I am opposed to the rezoning of the parcels in question.

My first comments would be with regard to everybody always says it's just one more.

Oh, it's just.

Then we're well on our way.

We keep rezoning in our particular neighborhood all of these parcels.

We don't even need to have zoning because every time we have a zone that we think, okay, our neighbor can build two houses, now they can build 20 houses.

It is absolutely ridiculous.

In order for this parcel to be rezoned and for us to be able to make a real decision, or for you to be able to make a real decision, uh traffic, watershed, environmental concerns, school concurrency, and utility services all should be studied before we say, Oh, yeah, rezone it.

Because we're not even certain any of that is in place at to my knowledge as a citizen in the neighborhood.

Um, the rezoning expectation when you buy a parcel in residential rural, which I must say I've lived in the neighborhood since 1973.

I know I don't look that old.

I was a child when my mom moved in, she still lives on her parcel.

Um, residential rural, it was originally rural, open rural.

This was farmland.

It turned into residential rural.

Now we're leaning toward low density.

Now we're petitioning for medium density or high density, even at some point it's just gonna be Springfield from one end to the other.

Um, the traffic counts and traffic talk always amuses me.

I'm a Seaboard resident, so my concern for Seaboard Avenue is a little stronger than my concern for Morris.

I like the way we focus on Morris Avenue because that's where the corner of this parcel is at Morris and Seaboard.

Morris may have very little commuter traffic because Morris Avenue goes from a dead end at Ring Haver Park to uh Blanding Boulevard that uh could take you to 295 loop, but it avoids the major employers of the area, which are NAS, which puts all that traffic up Seaboard Avenue and not down Morris Avenue.

They're not gonna go to Blanding to get to NAS, they're gonna go down Seaboard.

There's nothing in your 30-year plan for Seaboard Avenue to have an expansion to catch any of the uh watershed off of the road, no improvements.

I currently have a pothole out in the front of my property as we speak, so I don't think we're in a good plan for Seaboard Avenue to have any increase in traffic, and uh until there's some really thorough address of the concerns for impact, changing zoning just because somebody petitions when we are so close, as your first speaker indicated, point nine, then use the zoning you have.

I yield thank you.

Thank you.

Next we have Laura Young.

Laura Young, address on file.

I'm opposed.

Um I've been looking at the plan that they proposed for these 77, 73.

I'm not even sure where that number's at today.

Uh new houses, and it gives me great concern that there's only one entrance to all of these new houses off of Morris Avenue.

What happens when there's one of the famous accidents that with only 19% of traffic we have all the time when cars flip, go into the ditch and block the driveway, and there's a medical emergency in that new little community that you're gonna rezone this to put in.

You can't get in, you can't get out, a fire, anything.

Not to mention you're doubling the amount of houses going into that 9.7 acres or whatever they're buying there.

That means we're gonna have a hundred and fifty cars coming and going out of one entrance and one exit onto Seaboard onto Morris Avenue.

Has anybody looked at this?

This isn't two years ago.

This is today.

This is what's happening today, not to mention the 300 houses that have already been approved to be built.

So we're talking about 470 something more vehicles on Seaboard and Morris Avenue because these are all right there.

Right there.

There's a major traffic issue coming.

Amenity uh services, there's no sewer.

City water might be in the street, but none of these houses are connected.

So this is not the perfect area to be building in because all this infrastructure's been put in place.

It's not there, it's still rural.

It's always been rural.

You guys are just keep killing it one inch at a time by rezoning unnecessarily.

It's low density residential, the people are happy there.

We don't need more houses.

Nobody's complaining about it.

Build to the low density residential, don't change the zoning.

I plead with you, please, for the sake of the community.

Do not approve this change.

Thank you.

Okay, thank you.

Next, we have Tanya Wells.

Okay, Tanya Wells, 5694 Morris Avenue.

Good evening.

I'm here to oppose the rezoning request because it is inconsistent with the existing land development pattern in the surrounding area, raising concerns about infrastructure, neighborhood stability, and long-term planning.

Current 30-foot lots are essentially non-existent for single family homes, which highlights how out of character the proposal would be compared to the surrounding homes.

The established development pattern consists of large lots, low order density, and residential character.

This rezoning does not align with that pattern.

Residents rely on existing zoning when making long-term investments in their home.

Zoning provides predictability and stability.

Homeowners reasonably expect established land patterns to be respected.

Allowing this rezoning change raises concerns about future destabilizing the neighborhood and creates uncertainty about our future.

This also is important to consider the professional judgment of the planning department.

Planning staff have experience in urban planning, and their role is to evaluate the neighborhoods and compatibility and impacts.

The planning department recommended approval for three other subdivisions right here in the same area, but denied Morris Avenue.

This distinction is meaningful and should be carrying weight.

According to the Planning Commission report dated November 11th, 24, Timaquan Elementary School is operating at 70% capacity.

Since that time, rezoning for three developments will add over you know, three, four hundred homes into this school.

I am sure I've missed a few places, and this does not include Wells Landing, which is unfinished homes.

It has 25 unfinished homes that are not even complete.

With addition to the 77 homes proposed, when considering the impact on the school capacity is significant.

Traffic is another major concern.

On February 12th, I asked for uh traffic studies during my own observation.

I witnessed with my ring camera, over 500 cars pass through the intersection of Morris and Seaboard Avenue and one and a half hour time frame.

One of the developments is 600 feet from this intersection and will add another 300 cars.

The proposed development will add another 150 cars.

Together, these issues demonstrate that this rezoning is incompatible with the surrounding land development pattern and that the combined impacts may not be adequately adequately addressed.

I say I asked the commission to uphold the existing zoning, given due consideration to the planning department's recommendation, and re deny the rezoning request.

We're not in town.

We're less than three miles from the Clay County line.

All right, thank you.

Next, we have Chris Ward.

All right.

After Mr.

After Mr.

Ward, we have Caleb Irwin, Laura.

Alam Aleem, and then Jamie Travis Leonard.

Go ahead, Mr.

Ward.

Uh good evening, uh Chris Ward with Meritage Homes.

Um here to uh support the project.

Uh just a few comments.

Um, you know, about a year ago, the city of Jacksonville approved some of the smaller lots uh as part of their zoning code for this very specific reason.

You know, we've we're about this project's located not even a half mile back to Blanding Boulevard that has over you know roughly 40,000 trips a day.

It's only about 0.7 miles to a JTA bus stop.

You know, this is exactly the type of area that the entire area needs to be looked at as whenever they do the the comp plan review.

Um, there's roughly about 25,000 military and civilian support staff at NAS Jacks.

We sell homes all over Jacksonville, and we have buyers that are buying from us in a lot of different locations, and they drive sometimes 45 to an hour to get to the military bases because there's not housing located in that proximity.

No, this project is a roughly five miles from NAS Jacks, which makes it a convenient location for them to go to work every day.

Um I think some of the other people have talked about some of the you know the fact that town homes, you know, we can go smaller to 16 feet wide.

You know, kind of the problem with some of the town homes with rates as they've gone up is you have the extra homeowners insurance that's that's you know, these master policies that the HOA has to put on the communities, which increase the fees, and so it's forcing people to buy these town homes that are not getting very much square footage.

You know, they're getting 1300, 1400 square foot, one car garage versus this project's gonna offer you know a good price point where they're gonna have a two-car garage, they're not gonna be attached, and they're gonna be able to have their own backyard and their own single family house.

So uh we have requests that uh you know you support this project and appreciate your time.

Thank you.

All right, thank you.

Next, we have Caleb Irwin.

Oh, my name is uh Caleb Rowan.

I'm at 5811 Herdia Road.

Um I'm here against the uh the proposal.

Uh 7.9 units per acre.

Uh you know, last time we were here, I heard the argument that uh this is just over the current limit, so uh why not let them do that?

Well, I think that argument kind of goes both ways.

Why push for a zoning change for 0.9 units per acre?

Uh why waste taxpayer money, city employees and council members, and the public's time uh for just 0.9 of an acre.

Um, you know, with that just that small of a change, one could argue that uh I don't know how they the rules work, but one could argue that the uh developer is just trying to set it at this level to get it changed, uh only to uh to change their unit density uh later uh once it's approved.

Um, my wife and I we moved to this area 13 years ago to be close to my job.

I work at NAS Jacks as an engineer, just like that.

That gentleman said there is housing.

I found it right here.

We love that this area was rural, had a rural feel to it.

There's a farm at the end of the street.

Um we have a very large lot.

You mentioned backyards.

I can't imagine what kind of backyard you're gonna have with 70 almost eight houses per acre.

My house is on half of an acre.

And uh I think my my backyard is adequate, uh, but I can't imagine how uh how small that backyard is gonna be.

Um but my wife and I decided that we wanted to be here.

We love the properties, we love the feel of the neighborhood.

We love seeing the farm and thought that it would be a great place to uh start our family.

Well, we now have five kids.

We love taking walks with them down the street, go to visit the farm, um, go to the park at the end of Morse.

Um there's a lot of traffic on these roads, and uh with with us walking, we're one of the things that we are always concerned about, uh, trying to make sure that our kids listen to us and pay attention and watch out.

And I just can't imagine how much that's gonna increase the danger to uh to uh us uh as we go and and visit uh these other areas um in the area.

Um we we love the rural feel of of this area.

Approving this would destroy uh the rural feel of the area, increase the traffic, and would open my community to further changes and and further encouraging others to do to do the same.

Um that case, you know, for those future places, what's gonna be their density?

It seems like that would be a high cost for just nine-tenths of an of a unit per acre this time.

Thank you.

All right, next we have Layla Alem.

Hello, my name is Layla Aleem, and um I'm at 5859 Morse Avenue.

I would like to oppose this uh plan.

I have a few questions that I would like to uh challenge the developer with.

One of that was uh you can pull the mic closer if it's easier.

One of his studies about the traffic study uh stated that it was uh I believe he said 19% um for the traffic in that area.

I want to know if this took into consideration that blanding Morse to blending were blocked off in this past week.

And um if is that calculated into his study to represent that number accurately, as well as um what a projected traffic study would look like for this area with this theoretically if this plan was approved in addition to those 300 houses that are already previously approved.

What would that look like in the future for the traffic in that area?

Um he mentioned the buffer requirement.

I would like him to elaborate on that as well because it seemed kind of vague.

He just said that it's still within requirement, but it doesn't seem fitting for other surrounding areas.

Also, I would just like to say to the councilmen and women here that we the people are trusting you to support and advocate for us, and um we just asked that you please do that, not do it for the bigger companies, do it do it for us little people who need you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next we have Jamie Travis Leonardo.

Good evening, maybe.

Good evening, City Council members.

My name is Jamie Travis Leonard.

My address is on file.

Uh, I'm here to oppose 2606, um, predominantly based on the planning department's recommendation to deny a couple quotes from that.

Um the site is surrounded on all sides by land designated as LDR.

So why are we making a special exception for this site to try and be MDR?

Hmm.

Interesting.

Seems to not fit with the community.

Um, some other things I found interesting was it would go from five dwelling units per acre to 15 dwelling units per acre.

Three times.

Interesting choice in an area that um likes their space.

I also wanted to um circle back to something one of the individuals said, which is there's a JTA bus stop 0.7 miles.

Which sure.

And how are we gonna get there, folks?

On what sidewalks are you walking to this bus stop in this area that is not designed for this level of residential zoning.

Um the next bus stop is 1.8 miles.

Uh and so, you know, if we're looking at how many people we're gonna put around here, you're gonna increase traffic.

You're going to upset the neighborhood, obviously, because they're all out here telling you to vote no on this rezoning.

Um, and then you're going to put people in a disadvantage when it comes to getting basic necessities.

That area is not developed for the zone they want to change it to.

You need to keep it LDR.

You need to listen to your constituents.

Thank you.

All right, thank you.

The next uh list of speakers selected that they do not wish to speak.

And I'll read them now.

Most most of them are in opposition.

And Staley is in opposition, Elizabeth Reyes opposes, Barbara Black opposes, Darlene Renfro opposes John Harward Junior opposes, Kinsey Quinonez opposes Steve Tomazowski opposes Raldelfodolfo Quinonez opposes Hunter Cheney opposes Steve Wilson opposes.

If you wish to speak, come on down.

I'll just continue reading the rest of the cars.

Christina Warren.

We'll see.

I'm not sure.

Christina Warren opposes, does not wish to speak.

Kyle Horton opposes, does not wish to speak.

And Blair Young opposes, does not wish to speak.

Lewis Luis Vesquez opposes, does not wish to speak.

And Corbin Blake opposes, does not wish to speak.

All right, sir.

Name and address, please.

Thank you.

Steve Wilson, 6314 Seaboard Avenue.

Go ahead.

I will touch upon some of those.

And also uh with reference to the to the uh uh legislation discussed earlier in the evening.

Uh there is uh I'm sure it's not lost on us, there's some irony that we uh spoke for an hour about a garage facing one street or the other, and now we're putting two-car garage on a 30-foot lot.

Uh at any rate, uh the um the traffic that was uh the traffic study that was mentioned about uh Morse uh is certainly one thing that's in and they're they're discussing that little section of road between the new uh the proposed development and blanding, as though it's kind of a standalone and just a little that there's uh the the bigger issue for traffic at that intersection is gonna be on seaboard.

Um and and as I think other people have said, uh it's often used as an alternative to blanding, and there's a lot of traffic that's uh each of the stop uh the four-way stops along that road are like a drag strip to a lot of people when they come further up to the end of seaboard that I live on.

Um the uh the uh increase of the zoning.

I I think it has been said also that you know if if if we're only at uh point point nine over that the same argument goes the other way, well, why not just stay at the seven?

It means uh about ten less houses they're gonna be able to put on there.

Uh but it's certainly uh if if LDL is as has been approved and appropriate, why will we not stay at that and uh uh concur with the planning department's decision on that?

Thank you.

All right, thank you.

And sir.

Did you wish?

Yeah.

Did we call your name?

Excuse me.

You mentioned my name a minute ago that I was opposed, but that I did not wish to speak.

Well, that's incorrect.

My name is Steve Tomashewski.

That's that's an error.

Okay.

Do you wish to speak?

Pardon me.

Do you wish to speak?

Do you want to have your three minutes?

Yes, I do wish to speak.

Okay, yeah, I do have your card right here, and it says you oppose, and then you check the box that you do not wish to speak.

Okay, well.

So if it's it's it's okay.

I'll just if you want to speak go ahead.

My name is Steve Tomaszewski.

Right now, I'm having a problem by hearing.

My hearing aids were lost.

I'm in between getting them, so my hearing is really poor right now.

So I'm doing the best I can here, relying on your closed captioning.

Um, I live at 5922 Ovella Road, which is a block southwest of this development.

Um we moved to this neighborhood in 1962 because my father was tired of living in subdivisions, and he wanted to live in an environment on the rural environment.

So we moved out there, uh a property with a house on it, on adjacent vacant lot.

Um, I'm opposed to both of these uh these bills here, 2026, 3006, and 0607.

Um here basically to speak on uh 007 about changing the uh the code from RR to PUD.

Um to me, after the town hall meeting where we were given photos of what this development would look like, the development proposed is diametrically opposed.

Um if any of the existing homes in the area, they're it's it's completely incompatible with what's existing in the neighborhood.

Um I don't think the need for more portable housing or the people at NAS Jacks that are close by.

I don't think that it is I think all that's irrelevant to what we're talking about here.

Completely irrelevant.

It's got to do with the people living there.

Um the homeowners in this area, if not most of them, are second and third generation.

And I guess I suspect maybe Todd Wells is fourth generation.

So we're really deeply rooted in this neighborhood.

Um the if this commission uh approves the zoning change, it will set a negative precedent for the area that will impact the residents here henceforth in the future.

Um there's a lot of undeveloped property on Morse Avenue on the on the north side of Morse Avenue going east.

That are large tracts of land that undoubtedly will be developed someday.

Um this zoning is improved, this zoning change is improved, then it'll set a tremendously terrible precedent for the neighborhood because the next time it comes up that another developer wants all right.

Thank you, sir.

That's it.

Yes, sir.

That's it.

No, sir.

Three minutes.

Is there anyone else uh wish to speak that their name was called?

All right.

Thank you, sir.

Mr.

Phillips.

I'm gone.

Yes, sir.

Yes, sir.

On 0006, that was your time.

And this is going to be Mr.

Phillips' uh rebuttal time.

Three minutes.

Go ahead.

Thank you.

Hayden Phillips 1301 River Place Boulevard.

Um it was suggested that we should decrease the unit count even more.

I promise you we have looked at this over and over again, and and we've done what you can what we can.

Um hopefully the site-specific policy with the land use amendment will resolve some of those concerns.

Um it was um mentioned that developments like this need to be located at major intersections.

I would like to cite um policy 3.1.12 of the future land use element, which states the city shall require higher density residential development to locate on or near arterial or collector roads in order to ensure the efficient use of land public facilities and services and transportation corridors.

This is 0.2 miles from Blanding Boulevard, which is an intersection of a principal arterial, and Morse is a collector road west of Blanding.

Um to the sentiment that we should develop under the current land use and zoning.

I mean, imagine what the zoning map looks like 63 years ago when one gentleman said he moved to this area.

Avondale was probably RR acre at that point.

This is how this is the natural progression of how a city grows.

Um I believe it was referenced that 507 homes are being built nearby.

That's not a sign that things are changing.

I'm not sure what is.

Um point two miles from here, you have CCG2 zoning and the urban development area.

Some of the things that you could build by right today, less than a thousand feet from this property are distribution and manufacturing uses, amphitheaters, stadiums, arenas, convention centers, any type of commercial or office use, schools, hospitals, hotels, all with a height of 60 feet.

Or those sites could be downzoned for multifamily at 40 units per acre, um, also 60 feet.

I believe it was stated that there are no 30-foot single-family homes in Jacksonville.

This body approves some just last meeting.

Um, it was suggested that schools, utilities, and infrastructure should be studied first.

They all have, it's in the staff report, and we're okay on all fronts.

Um, traffic, I understand the concerns.

We have to utilize the numbers given, and we we've already addressed that.

We will not be able to come in with a new rezoning later because that's what the site specific policy does.

It caps the density under the land use.

Um said that they meant they cited the stuff the staff report, which which pointed out that there is LDR on all sides.

Um I have looked all over the city, and there are there is MDR with LDR abutting on all sides all over the city.

This is not unprecedented.

I'll stand by for questions.

Thank you.

All right, thank you, sir.

All right.

We have no other speaker cards, so we're gonna go ahead and close the public hearing, bring it back to committee.

All right, we have a motion.

Do we have a second?

All right, motion and second on the bill.

Let's open it up for discussion and questions.

And we will go to council member Diamond first.

And just to confirm, Councilmember Johnson, this is actually in your district.

Okay.

You want to go at the end?

Uh I was gonna defer to you, are you sure?

Okay.

Um, all right, I hate going first, and I don't see anybody else in the queue.

Correct.

I'll just give my thoughts.

Um, I I mean, I told everybody I thought last time, but I always feel like it's important to explain so that uh folks who came and gave their evening and care about their neighborhood, at least understand why uh I voted the way I did.

So I I this is about as close as I've ever seen one of these, and I don't know if it's gonna pass tonight.

I have to be candid with you.

Um I wouldn't call it a coin flip, but it would for me it was very close.

And so whenever I'm looking at these things, there's two things I look at, listen to what the neighborhood says says, and then look to see what's in the neighborhood right now.

Um the question on this neighborhood is really how far away are you willing to look?

Because there's over 200 houses that were just plopped in down over on San Perch Street, and south of that, there's another uh 250 houses.

And then if you go north, there's a trailer park and some other folks uh in kind of more densely packed there, and then there's landing.

And uh, so I know you all don't spend your time doing this, but we spend a lot of our time doing this.

I always spend my Sundays looking at each zoning.

And this one, I went to go see Solzbacher and gave a speech on Friday, so I did drive the neighborhood, didn't get a chance to talk to anybody.

I was hoping somebody would be out there that I could chat with, but um on this one.

Well, the reason why I'm going to vote yes today is because of what's nearby that's already coming into the neighborhood.

That's one.

And two, the other issue is um there's gonna be like a hundred people who live there eventually.

And I said this last time, but there's this natural tension between existing neighborhoods and families that need a place to live that's affordable.

And in Jacksonville, the cost of housing just keeps going up.

And so, in order to make sure that new families and other families can actually buy a house, which is good for our community, we've got to allow more housing in certain places.

And this is close for me, but I'll vote yes because I because I'm worried about people being able to afford a house and it's so close to landing, and because of what you can get right down the street.

I get you don't want to hear that from me.

I just want to be candid and direct why I'm gonna vote yes.

Again, I don't know if that's gonna pass tonight, though.

All right.

We have no other speakers in the queue, but I do think we need to hear some additional dialogue.

But I guess Councilmember Johnson, if you want to kind of go ahead and kick it off, maybe we can kind of be back on what your thoughts are.

Yes, sir.

I do have some things here, Mr.

Chair.

Thank you for allowing me to speak.

Let me I want to do a little decorum first, if that's okay.

Sure.

I know I don't have a lot of time.

I I just gotta underscore this with my community.

This is I represent the people that are here.

I represent you.

So through the chair, I want to say this.

This process that we're in, it is so important that we do it with decorum.

I understand that this is hard because we're neighbors.

This is our community.

We don't want people moving things around, but that's why we have this system of government.

There's no need to come in with vitrio.

Let's try to work together with data and documentation because that will win.

We cannot come and attack the council, the developers.

Let's just try to we can find a way to do it because I do believe that the information is there.

We just must do it with some decorum.

Uh I have to say uh what I'm I'm gonna say a few things.

First, the traffic argument that I heard, um, the number is 422 before this development would come.

The number of units seems to be 422.

That'd be the number of houses that are already approved and that would be slated to be in this area.

Even with that, um, I don't think that's the argument that we need to be looking at.

Because with that, from my understanding and talking to the traffic team and doing my own independent conversation, riding by the area many times, walking the area, knowing the area, that capacity, whether it is believed or not, talking to several traffic traffic experts, the capacity would only put that road at about 35%.

Um so I think that is not the argument where we need to look.

The other thing is I heard someone say as well, uh, this has nothing to do with affordable houses and nobody's asking for housing.

That's just not true.

Uh the comprehensive plan says, and we that's why we got to come with real data, real research and real numbers.

The comprehensive plan says that we need 92,000 homes by 2045.

We are black behind where we need to be on putting houses in this city.

Maybe not in this specific area, but we are.

Whether you want to believe it or not, it's in black and white.

So I urge you to read the comprehensive plan before just making up these things.

Um last but not least, uh, the problem here is not the density, it's not the school districts, it's not the traffic.

The problem is the land use.

That is where the issue lies.

The reason that I'm gonna be voting no tonight, based on what I see here, um, I do not think I'm going to go with the uh the recommendation of the planning department and others is because uh for us to go for that 0.9 acres, it shows excuse me, 0.9 units, it shows again the the brokenness of the code.

With using this, we end up finding ways that are going to tip scales in ways that I think will be um will cause us consternation in the future.

I believe right now, as as I have stated before, um, there should be a middle category.

Whether instead of having LDR and then MDR with this huge jump to the next category, there should be an LMDR.

Now that's coming up.

I look forward to working with the community and the developer as we create a new land use category for the comprehensive plan.

Uh I hope they can bring it back, but I don't see this as being something that I can support right now in its current effort because I believe the land use is where the issue is.

I think if we look at the data, pull it all down, go back through each of those points that we put in, and there were some very good points argued, but we must look at the fact that the city has to move forward.

The city must have housing for people.

There are people who are clamoring and need it.

Um someone said earlier about NAS Jacks, I've met with the the leadership at NAS Jacks, um, which is in my district.

I've talked to people there.

They're people who live as far away as St.

Mary's and other places in Georgia because they feel they can't find housing here.

People who are serving in our military who feel they must live outside of the area to work at NAS Jackson.

I think that's unacceptable.

However, this in this case, this is not right because of the land use.

And I do believe once we fix that, the possibilities, as was said earlier by Councilman Diamond, um, the possibilities are endless.

We gotta have places for people to live.

You might not want to hear, but it's not the same Jacksonville it was when the city was consolidated in 1968.

We have to move forward, but we must do it logically and tell and intelligently.

And this with this point nine use of uh for for land use is just not logical in my opinion.

I'll be voting though tonight.

Thank you.

All right, thank you, Councilmember Johnson.

Um Mr.

Harvey, wasn't there was the site specific um recommendation or I guess it's not technically a recommendation from Planning Commission?

Would can you talk us talk through that with us?

Sure.

So the uh planning department has stated if you guys were to accept this uh amendment from LDR to MDR, that they would be requesting a site-specific policy that would cap the applicant to the number of units that's that was um proposed.

And so that specific language would go in as an exhibit three to this, and you would have to vote to make that um amendment just for to have it as a site-specific policy and cap him at that at that number.

Okay, does someone need to make that amendment right now?

If you're moving to uh correct, if you're gonna move to uh accept or approve this um amendment if the body should so wishes or desires to do that.

But we have council member Diamond making that amendment.

And do we have a second?

All right, we have a second.

So is there any do we need to have any exhibit you said on that, or do we already have that?

There is some specific language.

Um the applicant can come up um and uh provide that specific language.

I have a draft version of that, but I'm sure he would like you guys to hear what uh what the staff and him agree to.

Yeah, yes, if I may.

Um I believe I have the same draft that that Mr.

Harvey has in front of him.

Um it would be policy 4.4.46, pursuant to the authority granted by section 163.3187 subsection one, subsection B, Florida statutes, um ordinance 2026 006 for a small scale amendment as approved, subject to the following site specific condition, residential development permitted pursuant to ordinance 2026 000 six shall be limited to a maximum density of 7.9 dwelling units per acre or a total of 77 dwelling units.

Um Chair, if I may, yep.

Um, so seven we round down because you can't take like point whatever of a unit.

So that 7.9 is not gonna get you the 77 units you would need to put it at eight, just so you know.

That is fine with the applicant.

Okay.

So that is basically the written description for the amendment that was just moved and seconded.

Is that correct, Mr.

Harvey?

The language that would be used for the makeup, correct.

Got it.

Okay.

All in favor of the amendment signified by saying aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

All right, the amendment carries.

All right, we have a motion and a second on the bill as amended.

All right.

So we have no speakers in the queue, but before we vote, I will um I will just kind of concur with council member uh Johnson and and say we've been talking about this, you know, LMDR.

I like I like the acronym there.

Uh it kind of sticks.

Uh I do agree with um with your diagnosis or whatever of that gap in the code.

And it's it's a huge gap.

It's a huge gap.

Um so for me, the only the only stop gap, so to speak, is to do this type of amendment to to prevent it.

Um I don't know if it's gonna pass here tonight.

I don't know if it's gonna pass a council, but if it does, at least now we have this stop gap on here for the extra one unit per acre uh on top of the LDR.

So um that gets me as comfortable as possible with this.

The traffic, I agree that was sort of a uh sticker shock to everybody last week.

That kind of got sorted out.

That's I guess you know, not really an issue anymore.

Um so for the land use category, we have an amendment that now limits it to eight units per acre.

It's been moved and segmented.

So if there's any other discussion, get in the queue.

If not, we will open the ballot.

Record your vote.

Four yes, three nays.

All right, by your action, you have approved 2026 006 as amended.

Next item, we have 2026 000 seven.

Council members, please declare any ex parte communication you have at this time.

Councilmember Johnson.

I have additional ex parte.

Uh I went to the audience to speak with Samantha Ceres and about this uh a few moments ago, about 30 minutes ago, it's been uh filed with legislative services.

Thank you.

All right, Councilmember Dynamic, you're recognized.

Uh, thank you, Mr.

Chair rise to declare ex parte.

I spoke with the applicant last week, and I will file that with legislative services.

I also drove the neighborhood on Friday, and um I didn't uh get to speak to anybody, but I always file that.

All right.

Councilmember Aries recognized.

I think Mr.

Chair, I also like to declare ex parte.

I spoke to the applicant about a week or two ago, and it's currently being filed.

Thank you.

All right, we have no other ex parte to declare, so let's open the public hearing and get our staff report.

Thank you.

This is the companion PUD rezoning ordinance 2026-00 uh 07 seeking to rezone approximately 9.7 acres from RR acre to a PUD in order to develop the property with a single family residential subdivision.

Um at the last LUZ public hearing, the applicant did did submit a revised written description dated April 1st and a revised site plan dated April 3rd, um, which reduced the uh unit count down to 77 lots.

Uh these minimum lot sizes for the parcels will be 30 feet in width, um, with lot areas uh increasing or decreasing depending upon the interior lots or the exterior lots.

The subject property is located at the corner of Morris Avenue and Seaboard and is approximately a quarter mile east of Blanding Boulevard.

As mentioned with the land use amendment, staff has reviewed the request and does not find it to be consistent with the comprehensive plan.

While the requested rezoning to PUD with the proposed use in density count would be uh permitted within the land use category medium density residential, when we evaluated it against the criteria um using the combined goals, objectives, and policies, we did not find that the requested rezoning to be overall consistent with the plan.

We find the proposed PUD and PUD rezoning deviates from the established development pattern of the area.

When looking at the surrounding neighborhood development is primarily lots ranging from 10,000 square feet to over two and a half acres in size.

Majority of those parcels being zoned RR acre.

While there have been several rezonings to either RLD 40 and RLD 50 nearby, these developments were still within the low density residential category and did not exceed the maximum seven units per acre.

These developments, when calculating the number of units proposed, were actually closer to a five unit per acre density.

The proposed PUD is seeking a companion land use amendment, which with the site specific policy would limit it to eight units per acre.

Um and with the proposed uh 77 units again, that that is closer to 7.9 to 8 units per acre.

So because of these reasons and those listed in the staff report, we are forwarding a recommendation of denial.

The application was heard by planning commission on February 5th, where there were several residents that spoke in opposition citing concerns for school capacity traffic and environmental impacts.

Again, the commission um thought the proposed development was acceptable, but wanted to limit that density range.

So they proposed the site specific policy be um considered by the LUZ committee, and they ultimately voted unanimously for approval, forwarding that recommendation to the LUZ committee.

Thank you.

Got him.

Thank you, Ms.

Abney.

Our first speaker is the super dynamic Hayden Phillips.

Uh Hayden Phillips 1301 River Place Boulevard.

Um in the staff report um uh it stated that this would detract from the lifestyle choices of nearby residents and and the character of the area.

We are proposing single family within a single family neighborhood, and the nearby residents live in an urbanizing area of the largest city in the current country.

Changes occurring as we speak.

Now that the land use amendment has been approved, this is in fact consistent with the comp.

I touched on the changes we've made to the PUD earlier.

I would be very happy to expand on that.

I would also be happy to expand on all of the similar density or higher density developments within close proximity to this location.

But all in all, you know, this this use, this development would allow the operation of real estate markets as they exist today.

Um to to be successful and provide a diverse array of housing types and choices to our residents.

So we've already taken up enough of your time tonight.

I will stand by for any questions that you may have.

Thank you.

Um I don't have anything else to add other than uh please look at the site plan.

Note that we met with the community many, many times, and we agreed to reduce density from 89 units to 77.

I'd also ask you to please look at the site plan and note the green area along Morris Avenue.

It's a very large uh park open space, treat area to buffer uh as was requested by uh the community, and we buffered the west side as well.

The north side buffers up against uh church, and they we met with the church uh pastor and his son who is co-pastor and they have no opposition.

Be happy to answer any questions.

Thank you.

Thank you, sir.

Next is Elizabeth Reyes.

Ms.

Reyes, are you still here?

Okay.

Uh folks Oxford.

Familiar face.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Uh, folks Huxford address on file.

I just want to add to the record that uh the affidavit I rec uh that I referenced in my last presentation also included an analysis of the zoning uh where I did find it consistent.

Uh that's been furthered now with the approval of the land use amendment.

And so I stand by for questions.

Thank you.

Next is Samantha Searies.

Samantha series address on file.

I oppose this PUD.

Um there are three separate properties that are adding many, many units.

And you know, one is 119 units, that's at 17.08 acres.

That's 5.3 units per acre, and that's 500 feet from this place.

Um there's one that's 85 units at 22.91 acres, and that's 2,400 feet from this development.

And then there's one at 218 units, which is five units per acre, which is on 43.41 acres, and that is a thousand two hundred and fifty feet from this location.

So just so you know, like that's pretty close.

There's a lot coming on, and those are all LD40, R L D40 and R L D 50.

I don't think a PUD is appropriate, but if you guys do plan on doing a PUD, you know, I will hope that there's contingencies that make the neighborhood more comfortable with this PUD because it is kind of in the middle of all of this.

Um, the developers did come down from 89 units to 77.

We wish they would come down a little further, but you know, it is what it is.

Um at this point, they said that they've been increasing the lot sizes.

18% of those lots that are in that area are increased from 40 to 60 foot lots, and 82% are still those 30-foot lots.

So, yes, they did increase, but not by much.

Um, according to the planning department, the analysis in the area around them is you know, ranges from 10,000 square feet to over two acres in size.

I think that's important to note.

I do know that there are those other developments that are coming in at RLD40, RLD50.

Neither of those are RLD 30.

Um, and I understand that's why they want this PUD is so they can squeeze in those 30s.

Um, I just think that if you are gonna approve the PUD, please make sure there's contingencies to make sure that this area is okay, at least accepting this PUD.

Um unfortunately, it does appear that we're gonna probably get this approved, but again, I want you to think about the neighborhood.

It's not a PUD area, it's not an urban area, it's uh what we would consider residential rural, which is I believe what it's actually zoned as right now.

So a PUD is not appropriate, but if you are gonna put it in, might as well do the neighbors at least some help with that.

Um, I think it's important to note that the bus stop.

I thought that was really funny.

0.7 miles from this development.

Have any of you walked 0.7 miles in the Florida heat to a bus stop?

I don't think so.

And there's also no sidewalks to get there from this development.

So and oh, about the affordable housing, these are gonna be 300 to 350,000.

I don't know what affordable housing they're talking about, but it's not that.

Thank you.

Lars Cheney.

Address is on file.

Well, y'all disappointed me on the last uh vote.

You rarely let us down, but can't go back, you know.

Like we said in the first uh we're fourth generation, third generation families over here, you know.

We've spent our whole life here.

I grew up there, learned how to ride a bike in that neighborhood.

56 years old, you know.

We're there for life, you know.

I've for the first time in my life, I've heard residents saying they want to leave Jacksonville.

You know, you care more about newbies.

I call them newbies, I mean, or new people coming to Jacksonville.

You need them.

We gotta have them.

The comprehension plan says that.

But at the risk of losing your lifetime residence, I'm as Florida and Jacksonville as you can get.

I was born here.

I was born and raised in Jacksonville, ain't never left.

You know, to replace me for somebody that might stay for two years and then up and sell the house and move somewhere else.

We're here for life.

You know, we were born and raised in Jacksonville.

We love Jacksonville, but we don't like what y'all are doing to Jacksonville.

It's just not fair to let these developers bully y'all into just making decisions.

You know, he's saying it's such a major need for this area in the last year on the corner of Morrison Blanding, 500 feet from his proposed, a family dollar closed.

How does a family dollar close?

It's it's not as great an area as he's saying, the need of all this extra housing and transit and moving to walk into the bus stop and a bank on the opposite corner of the family dollar in the last year.

Open, build a bank closed.

You know, a car lot across the street on the opposite side of Morris Avenue.

Use car lots are closing.

You know, I just wrote by blanding in 103rd, our wendy's just closed.

It's not such a booming area that he's trying to make y'all think that needs all these houses because it's such a boom or urban, it ain't urban.

We're on the outskirts of Jacksonville, and we're on the outskirts for a reason because of the residential rule that the current zoning is to give them 30 foot lots is a travesty.

That's all I got to say.

Thank you, sir.

Shelley Cheney.

Shelley Cheney addresses on file.

I'm pretty devastated by your vote previously.

Um I just want to reiterate that the 30-foot lots are quite ridiculous.

They do not conform to our neighborhood at all.

Again, 24 feet wide, six feet between each house.

Um, the roofs overhangs are almost touching.

Um that's fine.

People can buy that and live there all they want.

I don't want to live there.

I don't want to look at it.

I think it's, you know, everybody's talking about change.

There's nothing wrong with change.

Have no problem with that.

There's change all over Jacksonville.

That's fine.

There's plenty of other lots that are even bigger than this that are available even on Timoquana.

There's there's so much other land that they could go to.

We had no say in the 119 houses that are going on seaboard.

My husband tried to come and we know.

I tried to, I talked to so many people, my family, everybody, they told me I'm wasting my time.

Um, and I did.

I've wasted my time.

I've spent, I didn't even, I was supposed to work today, and I spent my time putting all of this together.

I'm not getting paid to come down here every time.

All of my family and my friends told me I'm wasting my time.

And it's sad.

I've I've been here 56 years myself, well, 55.

And I've never come to a city council meeting.

Now I know why.

Because my word doesn't matter.

My voice doesn't matter.

We have ridden around on the golf cart all through our neighborhood the last three or four weeks, handing out flyers that we all paid for to put out.

We don't have the money, Mr.

Attlee has.

I'm sorry.

If I did, I would buy all the property and leave it just like it is.

We have deer in our neighborhood, they're gone.

This 119 houses that Meritage is also building.

It's called greed.

And Mr.

Johnson can get upset.

I'm not mad.

I'm just speaking the truth.

I'm facts.

But I'm not supposed to come here and be emotional.

I don't I don't understand it.

Everybody was right, and I was wrong, and it's sad.

It's really sad that the money won tonight.

Thank you.

Thank you, ma'am.

David McClure.

David McClure, 5750 Morris Avenue, right across from this wonderful development.

Uh I don't understand what the big deal is about keeping it low density.

Seven houses on one acre is a huge amount of houses on one acre.

Nine tenths of a house, one more house, make it eight houses is ridiculous.

We don't have any kind of guarantees that after all this goes through that they won't refile this six months or a year from now and go back to their original 20 units per acre.

This is like they're saying this is our lives.

This is the rest of our lives.

We all plan on staying here no matter what, at least I do.

And this is ridiculous.

What is the difference between nine-tenths of a house and seven acres, seven houses on one acre?

I just don't understand why how how important that is.

I get it for the developer because it's more cash in his pocket.

But keeping it low density is what you guys are all about.

Following the rules, not changing the rules, following the rules.

That's why we all move there.

It's a beautiful area.

This is our lives.

We all live there, we love it.

We want it want it to stay as it is, but we're all willing to understand that seven houses per acre is a possible, you know, is growth.

But it's ridiculous to change it to medium density, and I vote or oppose it, and all our there's not one neighbor in our neighborhood that is for it.

So please vote no.

Thank you.

Thank you, sir.

Bobby O'Connor.

My name is Bobby O'Connor.

My address is on file.

Thank you for allowing me to speak tonight.

I come with an interest in this ordinance and ask that you continue to give this development application your best attention.

The planning department has told you that this request is inconsistent with the goals and objectives of the comprehensive plan, specifically goal three, and a number of its objectives.

But at the expense of the lifestyle choice created by the existing seamly single family neighborhood, and it detracts from the character of the neighborhood.

That's all in their report.

Please listen with your good minds to what these good people in the planning department are telling you.

Their degrees include masters and urban planning, masters in public education, environmental, historic, and transportation degrees, to name a few.

Listen to them and look at the number of years of experience in planning that these people have.

They know what they are doing.

And listen with your hearts to these good people who have come from this neighborhood week after week after week and spoken to you with their hearts about what impact this is going to have on them and the neighborhood they love and the homes they love.

Please listen.

And I don't I've tried really hard to understand.

The learning curve is pretty steep for understanding some of the differences that comes up here.

But I tell you, I don't understand how y'all could accept that there was a traffic study.

The man came and spoke for just a few moments, and I'm not really sure what he said, but it didn't seem very extensive to me.

What is a traffic study?

Please have a comprehensive traffic study before you consider making changes that will affect not just this neighborhood but all neighborhoods.

Thank you, and please listen with your minds and your hearts and vote no on this proposal.

Thank you.

All right, nice.

We have John Moy.

With uh Boitzamoy, 3738 Southside Boulevard.

I spoke earlier about traffic and um don't really have anything further to add.

Okay.

Uh next we have Donna Tanner.

Are you here?

All right.

Uh she is in opposition.

Steve Tomazowski.

Can someone let Steve know?

There we go.

All right.

You know, this there's a lot of passion of people here tonight.

State your name and address, sir.

Pardon me?

Name and address.

My name is Steve Tomashewski.

I live at uh Ovella Road, which is one block southwest of this proposed development.

Thank you.

There's a lot of passion of people here tonight that love their neighborhood, moved into it because it was rural.

There's a there is a lot of undeveloped land in our area, and we all knew at some point development was going to start occurring.

That that sensible development is what's needed here.

Not cramming a whole bunch of narrow homes that look like shotgun houses, if anybody here knows what those are in our neighborhood.

I this approving this will set a dangerous and a bad precedent for our neighborhood that every developer from now on that is going to build houses or anything on any of that undeveloped land, they're gonna go back to this president and say, well, they got they got 30-foot lot lines.

We want it too.

And most likely you guys will just rubber stamp it because it's already been done, and it will drastically increase the tax base.

Right now it's a big issue.

The next time it comes up, you guys, I believe we'll just rubber stamp it and go with the developers.

And I I just, you know, my family has lived in that neighborhood for for over almost 60 years.

And like I said, we always knew this was gonna happen, but we don't all thought it would be sensible development instead of something ridiculous like this.

Um not for anybody else here.

I wouldn't have a problem with normal looking homes going in on that nine acres, like the homes that are built at Wells Landing, not far from us, instead of instead of these structures that are building, they're they're hideous.

And they'll do nothing.

There'll there'll be no landscaping, there'll be nothing nice about it that'll make the enhance the neighborhood.

But you know, you know, uh 60 foot lot lines with normal types of houses in there would in some ways enhance our neighborhood.

And I believe most of us would would agree with that.

But what you guys are are are approving here is ridiculous.

Okay, thank you.

It's absurd.

All right, next we have Elaine Wilson.

Elaine Wilson, 6314 Seaboard Avenue.

Trying to recap a little bit of the frustration of my neighbors.

This properties, there's three involved.

5807 Morris Avenue is 1.15 acres.

It's zoned residential rural, according to the property appraisers at this moment.

That should be two houses on it.

As a neighbor, that's what we expected.

Two houses.

At 5735 Morris Avenue, 5.85 would have been 11 houses.

And lastly, at 6750 Seaboard Avenue, 2.77 acres would have been allowed five houses for a total of 18 houses.

As a neighborhood, we expected 18 houses to go on these three parcels.

Somehow we've all mashed them into one big parcel and decided 77, that's a good number.

Let's do that.

It seems like a really strange negotiation in my mind, and I think our neighborhood is really suffering by the impact of taking a big broad picture.

Yes, Jacksonville's growing.

It's inevitable.

Can we replace some blighted areas?

Can we take some land that's already been abandoned?

Do we have to take regional farmlands or rural areas, areas that you've already looked at and zoned for residential rural.

Why are we changing everything?

Now we're going to PUD with it.

It is so frustrating as a resident of the area.

I grew up in the neighborhood.

I bought two parcels down from my parents where they currently reside, thinking I was gonna build a home so I could take care of my parents as they aged.

We've waited and waited because the neighborhood is turning to a neighborhood I'm not sure we would want to build in.

So instead of having residents loyal to the area, willing to invest, really making it the neighborhood that it's continued to be.

We all know growth's gonna happen, but when I move in, I know my neighbor next door can build two houses, not 77.

Thank you for your time.

All right, thank you.

Steve Wilson.

And then after Mr.

Wilson, it will be Laura Young, Christina Warren, and Tanya Wells.

If you'd like, you can come down to the front.

My name is Steve Wilson, 6314 Seaboard Avenue.

Uh I'm gonna echo, I think what probably most everybody in here is feeling.

Why have we bothered?

Uh you have a planning committee that has said no.

I mean, this is this is part of your organization that says this is not appropriate.

Uh and and frankly, all we're talking about now is about 10 houses, whether it's in low density or this in-between with a with a with a stop gap.

They can't go any higher.

Uh, we're talking 10 houses.

I've only just now uh shame on me for not looking at the map sooner.

85 houses have been now uh approved up on 118th Street.

In between, which is what I think somebody had he's given the distance how far away it is, but uh it the practically adjacent.

In between that 85 and this development, you've now approved 119.

When you look at it on an 11 by 17 map, and it's colored in, it's virtually the whole middle of the th of the thing.

Now we're uh apparently uh seven units per acre is already allowed for this 9.7 acre parcel.

Can we just draw it there?

We're talking 10 houses now.

We get 85, 119, and somehow NAS Jacks and other uh parts of uh other businesses and uses in the area need these extra 10 houses over the 85, 119, and the 68 that would be on there at seven per acre.

Your planning department said this does not agree the uh the PUD and the plan they don't go together.

Um please consider that.

Uh we're talking 10 houses now.

Thank you.

Okay, next we have Laura Young.

Does not wish to speak, is in opposition.

Christina Warren.

Does all right, Christina Warren is in opposition, does not wish to speak.

Tanya Wells.

Tanya Wells, 5694 Morse Avenue.

So when you Google how to stop a development, it says neighborhood character and density and consistency with existing land development patterns surrounding.

We prove that.

We have to come in here and prove facts.

The developer has to prove nothing other than yes, there are homes needed.

I agree.

18 homes, let's do it.

No arguments.

Let's get it done.

As far as being able to put distribution centers and all of that in our neighborhood, yeah, we're right off Laning Boulevard.

You can't put it in our neighborhood.

So we I think we're getting lost in Jacksonville.

We're getting lost.

We I agree.

Navy Navy personnel need houses.

I agree, they should be closer.

But if you Google Zillow, all of the other avenues for homes, there's multiple homes listed for sale in Jacksonville.

In our area, at least two hundred and fifty homes listed for sale in the 32244 area code.

So we can't use that as an excuse to allow 77 homes on 30 foot lots in our neighborhood.

All right, next we have excuse me, uh Jamie Travis Leonard.

Followed by Chris Ward, Caleb Irwin, and Layla Aleem.

Good evening, City Council members.

My name is Jamie Travis Leonard.

My address is on file.

I oppose 2607.

Uh once again, your planning department has recommended to deny this rezoning.

Uh some quotes from the information provided by them.

Staff is recommending denial for the rezoning.

Do the proposed development can constituting a spot zoning and deviating from the established development pattern of the area.

Is the proposed zoning district consistent with the 2045 comprehensive plan?

No.

Does the proposed rezoning further the goals, objectives, and policies of the 2045 comprehensive plan?

No.

The proposed rezoning from R R acre to PUD would disrupt the land use fabric created by the established single family neighborhood and attract from the character of the area.

I agree with that vivarium mock-up they provided.

So y'all wanted some numbers and data.

I heard that repeated a few times.

Average house price that has been, you know, put around for this would be 300K to 350K.

I'll go on the low end.

I'll give them some grace, maybe.

And I find it laughable that you all consider that affordable.

I've been up here before talking about affordability in this city.

I've done my research.

So average median, excuse me, median income.

You all seem to forget how scales work.

67K.

So it's 550 roughly a month.

The uh average house payment right now for a 300k home, 200 200.

40%.

40% people are paying for these homes of their income.

Who's buying these houses?

Who has that money?

Please.

Please tell me how this is affordable.

And you're over here having a developer complain that they can't make their money back.

Girl, we can't afford homes.

You have residents out here telling you that not only does this disrupt the fabric of their lives, it doesn't match what they want their neighborhood to be.

They're not opposed to new people coming in.

That was also suggested, but they want people to come in and match the vibe of the neighborhood, as any of us do.

Now I know you're like, hey, you're usually here talking about the north side, and I am, because I live on the north side, but I also lived off Collins Road for three years.

I'm very familiar with the area.

Okay.

They are a very close-knit community.

They're not opposed to new people coming as long as it matches the fabric of the existing community, which you all seem to not care about.

I find that disappointing.

Thank you.

All right, next speaker, Chris Ward.

All right.

Chris Ward is in support, does not wish to speak.

Caleb Irwin.

Caleb Berwin.

Uh 5811 Hurdy Road.

I have to say I'm pretty disappointed in the uh decision earlier.

Um I asked that you guys, you know, reconsider.

Uh you know, we've heard from the community tonight.

Um 10 homes, 10 extra homes.

I I just can't even imagine trying to fit.

You know, I said earlier that my house is on half of an acre.

I can't imagine trying to fit four homes in the area that my home takes up.

Uh can't imagine how that's good for uh raising a family, raising kids, uh the kind of folks that we want to bring in.

Uh property size is just way too small, way too dense and compact for the area.

It doesn't match.

Um, and I ask that you guys reconsider.

Thanks.

Next speaker, Layla Alem.

Layla Aleem addresses on vial.

I'm hungry and tired, so we're gonna go fast.

I make some points.

Um, with research, the median income of Duclay area is around 55 to 60k household.

This is a lower and middle income household, and the property tax is increasing from a PUD for things like HOA does not fit the the demographics of this area.

These people can't afford this.

These people don't want this way of living.

If they did, they'd live in Pontavadio with you guys.

It's not realistic.

Not everybody wants their neighborhoods to look like Disneyland.

It's upsetting, and I don't know if you guys have been listening to these people talk like I have, but I've heard nothing but devastation and just complete defeat from them.

It's sad.

It's sad that you guys make a decision to further divide the community in the problems that we already have.

And you don't care.

You don't care that people don't trust or respect you.

You don't care because at the end of the day, you can't see it from your front door, right?

This does nothing but displace existing homeowners with an unaffordable and unethical housing developments.

The rezoning from agriculture, low density to high density, raises market value.

Again, it's not realistic.

All it does is benefit the city, and the residents pay the price.

How many times does someone get to rezone until it no longer is the people's?

It's your guys's.

Changing the housing development to fit like New York City or something else, creates a culture that this community is not wanting.

They don't have that culture.

Why are you going to implement something that just doesn't fit at all?

You wouldn't like it if somebody came to your place and did that.

So why would you do it to them?

You're making decisions based off an area that you don't even reside in.

You don't live in these people's shoes, and I feel like you aren't taking a compassionate approach to put yourself in that position through your decision making.

It's very obvious.

So I ask you to take a step back and put yourself in their viewpoint and walk in their shoes and what their life may be like.

You may not be from the same area or the same upbringing.

So have a compassionate approach to these people.

They're spending their hard-earned time exhausting all resources.

All right, thank you, ma'am.

Thank you.

I oppose.

All right.

The following speakers do not wish to speak.

And if you change your mind and you do wish to speak, please just come down to the podium.

Anne Staley is in opposition.

Mario Reynolds.

Mary Joe Reynolds, I'm sorry.

Mary Joe Reynolds is in opposition, does not wish to speak.

Barbara Black opposes Darlene Renfro opposes John Harward Jr.

opposes Kinsey Quinones.

Opposes Rodolfo Quinonez opposes.

Rodolfo Quinone's opposes.

Hunter Cheney opposes Corbin Blake opposes.

Kyle.

Horton opposes.

Blair Young opposes.

And Luis Vesquez opposes.

All right.

Mr.

Phillips, you can come on down for rebuttal.

Hayden Phillips, 1301, River Place Boulevard.

Thank you.

Um to avoid sounding like a broken record.

I'll I'll try and make this concise.

Of course, the city needs the housing.

And we've put others on the record.

It was suggested that a PUD is not appropriate.

It's actually necessary.

It's the only way to get 30-foot wide lots.

Believe that was an issue pointed out.

And of course, we had to prove more than simply the need for housing.

And a lot of that evidence was put on the record two weeks ago.

But for purposes of compatibility, there are a ton of higher density developments in close proximity.

40-foot lots, 500 feet to the north.

Town homes, 0.2 miles away, condos, apartments, point two miles away, 50s, and a mobile home community that's an MDR.

We'll have higher density than this.

But just backing up for a second briefly, we held a community meeting at the very beginning of this process, and and no one showed up.

And so we heard all of these concerns after we were far into this process.

And we honestly did um everything we could to help these people out.

So if we want to keep actual rural areas intact on the edges of town, then we must take advantage of opportunities like this that are in unfilled sites in the city.

I'm happy to answer any questions you may have.

Thank you.

All right.

We have no other speaker cards, so we are gonna go ahead and close the public hearing and bring it back to committee.

All right, we have a motion and second on the bill.

Is there an amendment?

Go ahead, Mr.

Harvey.

Can you please explain the amendment that needs to be offered?

Yes, there's two uh amendments, one to the revised written description, uh dated April 1st that will accommodate the site specific um policy uh that incorporates eight units per acre.

Um, and then uh the second one is a revised site plan.

All right.

So does someone need to offer okay.

So we have Councilmember Diamond offering that amendment.

Do we have a second?

All right, we have a motion and second on the amendment explained by Mr.

Harvey.

All in favor of the amendment signified by saying aye.

Aye, any opposed?

The amendment carries.

Now we need to move the bill as amended.

All right, we have a motion and a second on the bill as amended.

Any discussion?

Councilmember Johnson, do you want to speak?

Or do you already give we have no one in the queue?

So if you'd like to share, go ahead.

I kind of just want to reiterate the uh comments I made earlier as well.

Um, and something else I want to say again.

While I certainly respect the community, I want to put this on record, Mr.

Chair.

This procedure when we are dealing with zoning specifically.

This is a quasi-judicial method.

We got to deal with competent substantial evidence and not just feelings of the neighborhood that is so important.

However, the evidence has not been presented in this case from what I see to warrant uh us moving forward with this, and it goes back to the land use thing.

So I wanted to put that on the record.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

All right, thank you, Councilmember Johnson.

All right, with that, we have no other speakers in the queue.

Let's open the ballot, record your vote.

Four years, three nays.

By direction you've approved 2026 000 seven.

Oh, what's the all right officers?

Let's make sure that this gentleman makes it out safely.

Sir, you're out of order.

I am not ordered.

All right, officer, let's go ahead and remove this gentleman.

That'd be great.

Thank you.

We're just gonna wait until everyone's cleared the chamber.

That is upset.

All right.

Item number five, 2026, 122.

Open the public hearing.

No speaker cards.

We'll continue this public hearing till 5526.

We do have one?

On 122.

No.

Does not wish to speak.

I apologize.

Open the public hearing.

We have one speaker card.

Some of the series is in opposition.

Does not wish to speak.

And we have Jamie Travis Leonard.

Opposition does not wish to speak.

We're gonna continue this public hearing until 5526.

Item number six, 2026-123, open the public hearing.

Two speaker cards, first speaker cards, cement the series.

Opposition does not wish to speak.

Next speaker card, Jamie's Travis Leonard, opposition, come on.

Good evening, City Council.

My name is Jamie Travis Leonard.

My address is on file.

I realize this is continued, so I will be brief.

I have concerns about this.

So if there's something in the works to get us to uh 60 foot lots, I would be much more open to the development of this.

But until that time, I'm gonna remain opposed.

So the reasons for the opposal is the location, predominantly.

This is a rural area.

Okay.

Um so please stop trying to cram people into our rural area.

All right.

I believe this plan does align with some affordability in that area, and I appreciate that.

I do want to say I'm not opposed to developing this mobile home park.

I am opposed to the size of the lots.

Give people respectable spacious homes.

Okay.

Right, because the more people you add, how are they getting do you know the closest grocery store to this location?

3.5 miles.

Okay.

Do you know where the closest gas station is?

Where the closest school?

This is a very rural area.

Give people their space.

So I hope to see some new information coming out where the lot sizes are being reevaluated and increased to match a better environment for the community.

Thank you.

All right, this public hearing will be continued continued until 5526.

Item number seven, 2026, 124, open the public hearing.

No speaker cards, we'll continue this public hearing until 51926.

Item number eight, 2026, 125, open the public hearing.

No speaker cards, we'll continue this public hearing until 51926.

Item number nine, 2026-126.

Let's open the public hearing.

One speaker, two speaker cards, semant the series opposes, does not wish to speak.

Jamie Travis Leonard opposes, does not wish to speak.

Item number 10, 2026, 127, open the public hearing.

Two speaker cards, Symantha Series, oppos uh opposes, and Jamie Travis Leonard opposes.

Go ahead and three minutes.

Thank you.

Sorry, I don't want to step up till my name is Jamie Travis Leonard.

My address is on file.

I know my rep is tired of seeing my face up here tonight, but um, I oppose this.

Um the North District CPAC also put in an objection to this uh because it is not conducive to the residential neighborhood and is not compatible with surrounding neighborhood.

I don't know why we're trying to add another auto sales facility in this area.

There's already three within a one-mile radius, two of which neighbor this lot.

Okay, there's also three mechanics, two U-Haul dealerships.

Uh and the proposal for this auto sale is for auto sales occurring online, primarily to overseas buyers, including insurance claimed vehicles, which may be in disrepair or deemed total.

So a junkyard.

You're talking about an auto junkyard is what you're trying to put around here.

Okay, I've come up here, I've talked about affordability, I've talked about accessibility in my area.

This is not affordable, it's also put a grocery store there.

We I just mentioned the distance.

People have to drive to a grocery store.

Put a pharmacy.

Gosh, put something the community can use.

There's already this service is already being provided.

Also, this isn't even a service that would provide anything to the community.

Their entire proposal is to deal with buyers outside our community.

So what is this doing for my neighborhood, for my neighbors, for my community?

Nothing.

It's doing nothing.

Okay.

I oppose this.

Please reconsider.

Thank you.

All right.

Uh, Ms.

Travis Leonard, I think Councilmember Gaffney would like to see you in the green room.

One, two, three, four.

And we are now at a deadlock with four members on the dais.

We have four, right?

One, two, three.

Yeah, yeah, we got a quorum.

That's what I'm saying.

No one can leave.

We're deadlocked.

All right.

We're going to continue this public hearing until 5526.

Item number 11, 2026, 164.

Open the public hearing and get a staff report.

Thank you.

Ordinance 2026-164.

Excuse me, is a land use change from low density residential to business park at 3010 Leon Road, which is an unclassified road.

The request is for a 2.3 acre portion of that parcel.

The northern portion of the parcel is not subject to the land use amendment and will remain LDR, low density residential.

The site is about a quarter mile north of Beach Boulevard, and it has access to centralized water, sewer, and mass transit.

BP in the suburban development area is intended to provide compact low to medium intensity office development and development, which includes low to medium density residential uses, is encouraged.

The proposed BP category provides a transition between the light industrial and commercial uses to the south and east of the site and the low density residential to the west and north of the site.

For these reasons and those in the staff report, the planning department recommends approval.

The planning commission heard this item at their meeting on April 9th, and they voted unanimously to approve the item with minimal discussion.

Thank you.

All right.

Thank you.

We have one speaker card.

Cindy Tremor.

Thank you so much.

Cindy Trimmer, one independent drive suite 1200 on behalf of the applicant.

I represent the family that owns the 3.76 acre parcel.

They actually live on the northern portion of the parcel.

As you heard from staff right now, to the south of them is a large, pretty industrial property with a lot of outdoor storage.

So we're looking to establish a transitional use between that industrial to the residential by having this developed as BP.

I'll stand by for questions.

All right.

Thanks so much.

We have no other speaker cards.

No one in the queue for questions.

Let's close the public hearing and bring it back to committee.

Motion and second on the bill.

No one in the queue, open the ballot, record your vote.

Four years, zero and A's.

By interaction you've approved 2026 164.

Item number 12, 2026 165.

Council members, please declare your ex parte communication at this time.

Seeing none.

Let's open the public hearing and get a staff report.

Thank you.

This is the companion conventional rezoning ordinance 2026-165 seeking to rezone 2.3 acres from RLD60 to IBP to develop the property consistent with the surrounding area.

Again, the property is located along Leon Road, which does extend north from Beach Boulevard.

We find it to be consistent and compatible.

Um, consistent with the comprehensive plan with the land use change to BP.

The proposed rezoning will allow for a transitional expansion of industrial uses that are located south of the subject property while also protecting the abutting residential to the north.

There was a similar rezoning that was approved on the east side of Leon Road back in 2024.

So because of these reasons and those in the staff report, we forward a recommendation of approval.

Was heard by planning commission on April 9th.

There were no speakers in opposition and little discussion, and they voted unanimously for approval.

All right, thank you.

We have one speaker card, Cindy Tremmer.

Cindy Trimmer, one independent drive suite 1200 on behalf of the applicant.

I'll stand by the staff report and I'm available for questions.

All right.

We have no other speaker cards.

Let's close the public hearing.

Bring it back to committee.

Motion and second on the bill.

No discussion.

Open the ballot, record your votes.

Five years, zero and a's by erection, you've approved.

2026 165.

Item number 13, 2026, 166.

Let's open the public hearing and get a staff report.

Ordinance 2026 166 is for a land use amendment, which would allow for a broader range of commercial uses along Edgewood Avenue.

The subject site consists of two contiguous parcels that are very close to the intersection of Edgewood and Moncrief.

The first parcel is approximately 3.72 acres.

It fronts Edgewood Avenue and is currently designated as RPI, which is residential professional institutional.

The applicant is requesting CGC Community General Commercial for this parcel.

The second parcel, which is 2.12 acres, essentially sits behind the first.

It has no road frontage and is currently MDR with a request for RPI.

CGC is the primary land use designation along the Edgewood Avenue corridor and is found on each side of the site and across the street.

The amendment from MDR to RPI on the southern parcel of the amendment site provides a transition from the proposed CGC land use fronting on Edgewood and the MDR land use south of the site.

For these reasons uh and those in the staff report, the plan department recommends approval.

The planning commission heard this item on April 9th and unanimously recommended approval with minimal discussion.

Thank you.

All right.

One speaker card, Josh Cockerel in support.

Questions only.

Yep.

Josh Cockrel, 117 West Duval Street.

So I feel like I've been here all night.

Your card says 200 North Laura Street.

I know.

I feel like I've been living here all night.

It's been hours.

But 200 North Law Street.

Got it.

Okay.

Questions only.

We're gonna go ahead and close public hearing.

Bring back to committee.

We got an amendment.

All right, we have a motion and second on the amendment.

All in favor of the amendment signified by saying aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

The amendment carries.

Move the bill and motion and second on the bill as amended.

Open the ballot, record your vote.

Six Yay, zero and nays.

By direction you've approved 2026 166.

Item number 14, 2026 167.

Council members, please declare your ex parte communication you have at this time.

Councilmember Arius recognized.

Thank you, Chair.

I'd like to declare ex parte.

I spoke to the applicant last week regarding this, and it's currently being filed.

Thank you.

All right.

No one else in the queue.

Let's open the public hearing.

Get a staff report.

Thank you.

This is the companion conventional rezoning ordinance 2026-167, seeking to rezone a total of 5.84 acres.

This is two parcels.

So the first parcel is going from commercial neighborhood to CCG1.

Um and the second parcel is going from RLD 60 to CN.

The applicant is seeking the rezoning to allow for additional commercial uses along Edgewood while also expanding residential development options for the area.

Staff has reviewed the request, finds it to be consistent with the comp plan.

The property is located southwest of the intersection of Edgewood Avenue, which is a minor arterial roadway, and Moncrief, which is a collector roadway.

The proposed split zoning from C C G1 to C N creates a natural transition of densities and intensities, which will also help protect the existing residential properties from the more intense uh intense commercial uses that would be closer to Edgewood.

So because of these reasons and those in the staff report, we forward a recommendation of approval.

Application was heard by planning commission on April 9th.

There were no speakers in opposition, little discussion, and they voted unanimously for approval.

All right.

Thank you.

We have one speaker card.

Josh Cockrel in support.

He marked questions only.

All right.

Seeing none.

We have no other speaker cards.

Let's close the public hearing and bring it back to committee for the amendment.

Motion and a second on the amendment.

All in favor of the amendment signified by saying aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

The amendment carries.

Alright, we have motion and second on the bill as amended.

Councilmember Freeman, did you have something?

Uh thank you, Mr.

Chair.

I thought I had ex parte and then I realized that the uh applicant hadn't called me.

So I I will not be declaring it.

But he did call it one time and I did not uh answer.

And I'm not sure if I reach back out.

Maybe it was for this.

But um well, I do know this area is very important to you.

If you want, we can defer this.

And um I was gonna ask uh to staff through the chair.

Uh C this in Councilman Pittman's district.

Um was there any type of comments that she made or anything along those lines?

Uh through the chair to the council member.

No, we have not received any comments from uh the councilwoman for the district.

All right, thank you.

All right, we have no other speakers in the queue.

The bill has been moved and got a second.

So move the amendment.

Yeah, we already did the amendment.

So open the we did all that.

Let's open the ballot, record your vote.

680 nays.

By reaction you've approved 2026 167 as amended.

Item number 15, we already took up 16.

We already took up item number 17, 2026 170.

Council members, please declare your ex parte communication you have at this time.

Seeing none, let's open the public hearing to get a staff report.

Thank you.

This is PUD rezoning ordinance 2026-0170, seeking to rezone approximately 18 acres from a PUD that was approved in 2021 to a new PUD.

The proposed PUD follows the existing college park zoning, but clarifies the parameters of newly created out parcels within the PUD, as well as increasing the total number of multifamily units and or hotel rooms from 90 units to 110.

Um additionally, the PUD proposes new entrance sign structures.

The property is located within the renew Arlington CRA and the overlay, which this application was reviewed by their advisory board on their March 11th meeting, and they voted unanimously to approve the PUD rezoning request.

Staff reviewed the request, finds that the rezoning is consistent with the comp plan.

It has an existing land use category of CGC.

We find it further as the goals and objectives of the comp plan and meets internal and external criteria.

Again, the PUD is only for minor changes within the existing PUD.

So because of those reasons and those in the staff report, we forward a recommendation of approval with three conditions in your agenda.

Again, two of those are from the current PUD that we're forwarding on to the new one, and one of them is from our traffic uh team.

Application was heard by planning commission on April 9th, where there were no speakers in opposition and little discussion amongst the commissioners, and they also voted unanimously for approval with the same three conditions in your agenda.

Thank you.

All right.

We have one speaker card, Zach Miller.

It says you support there's a small mark next to you.

Do not wish to speak for questions only.

Is that correct?

That is correct.

All right, great.

We're gonna go ahead and close public hearing.

Bring back to committee.

Yes.

Motion and second on the amendment with conditions.

Can someone please explain the amendment with the conditions or the conditions for the amendment?

Yep.

So the conditions uh referenced in the planning department report and approved by planning commission include the developer shall install a minimum six foot high, 100% opaque visual screen, foundation landscaping as well as signage through that restricts off-premise alcohol consumption between the outdoor food core area and the adjacent off-site out parcels.

The college park PUD shall be limited to a single liquor store within the PUD boundary, which must be developed in conjunction with the grocery store occupying 20,000 square feet or more of space.

And the third one at the sidewalk of Harris Avenue shall be extended so that it connects with the sidewalk on University Boulevard.

All right.

All in favor of the amendment signified by saying aye.

Any opposed?

The amendment carries.

All right, we have a all right.

We have like a second.

Yeah.

We motion a second and a third on the bill as amended with the conditions.

No one in the queue.

Let's open the bat accord your vote.

600 nays.

By your action, you have approved 2026 170.

Item number 18, 2026-174.

Council members please declare your ex parte communication at this time.

Seeing none, let's open the public hearing and get a staff report.

Thank you.

2026 174 is a waiver of road frontage that seeks to reduce the required minimum road frontage from 80 feet to zero feet to allow for the development of a single family dwelling in the RR acre zoning district.

The subject property is a 0.64 acre lot located approximately uh one 0.2 miles west of New Berlin Road.

The property does not have any direct road frontage, however, it has been granted a 12-foot easement through RE number 106-987-0850 to access uh Durbin's Point Place, a new public right-of-way for the subdivision being built directly south of the subject site.

There's a command uh companion administrative deviation that will be heard next.

Staff finds the request consistent with the comprehensive plan and compatible with the surrounding area of single family dwellings and forwards recommendation of approval.

All right, we have one speaker card.

Austin Robashka is in support.

Questions only.

All right, no other speaker cards.

Let's close the public hearing and bring it back to committee.

Motion and second on the bill, no discussion.

Open the bot, according to vote.

Solid work, Austin.

Six Yay, zero and A's.

By direction you've approved 2026 174.

Item number 19, 2026 175.

Council members, please declare your ex parte communication at this time.

Seeing none, let's open the public hearing and get a staff report.

2026 175 seeks an administrative deviation to reduce the minimum required lot area from 43,560 square feet to 27,007 square feet.

As previously stated, the property is zoned RR acre, which requires one acre per dwelling.

While the subject property does not meet the minimum lot size requirements for the RR acre zoning district, the proposed lot size and configuration will be compatible with the new subdivision being built directly south that the property will be utilizing for access.

The subject or this subdivision is zoned as RLD60, which requires 6,000 square feet and 60 feet of width.

The proposed lot reduction is uh from one acre to over half an acre, which is significantly larger than what the RLD 60 zoning district requires.

For these reasons and those in the staff report, we forward a recommendation of approval.

All right, thank you.

We have three speaker cards.

First speaker, Austin Rubashka in support.

Questions only.

Uh next speaker is Joel.

Joel Aguin Aguilar is in support.

I'm sorry.

My guy over here is le I'm sorry, man.

Uh is in support, does not wish to speak.

And then the next speaker or the next speaker card is Nervo Ergarin.

Okay, air going in support, does not does not wish to speak.

Sorry, man.

Uh all right.

We have no other speaker cards, thankfully, and uh we will close the public hearing, bring back to committee.

All right, we have a motion second on the bill.

No discussion.

Let's open the ballot, record your vote.

Another history.

Six Yay, zero and nays.

By your action, you've approved 226175.

Item number 20, 2026 177.

Open the public hearing.