All right.

It is five o'clock.

Sorry, we didn't have the one minute warning.

Kind of snuck up on us.

I appreciate that.

Thank you, Vice Chair.

Let's get all the cards tonight to Councilmember Diamond.

I'll do my all of them.

No, it's only fair I do.

Oh, yeah.

Yeah, it's a total of uh three cards.

All right, good evening, everybody.

It is May 5th, 5 o'clock.

Welcome to the land use and zoning committee.

We are going to get started with introductions to the left.

And yep.

Testing.

Tested the button.

Testing.

Testing.

Okay.

Rockman Johnson, District 14.

Good afternoon.

Reginald Gaffin and Julian, District 8.

Good evening, Roy Diamond, District 13 in Beaches.

And George.

Joe Carlucci, District 5.

Good evening, Raw Aries, District 11.

Randy White, District 12.

Terrence Harvey, opposite general counsel.

Susan Kelly, Planning Department.

Karen Abney, Planning Department.

All right.

And we also want to introduce our pages tonight.

We have Miss Kelly Mendez from Bold City High School.

Give her a round of applause.

And Miss Kennedy Brunin over here from Hendrix Avenue Elementary in District 5.

All right.

Thank you both so much for being here.

So with that, we are going to go ahead and jump right into the agenda.

Item number one, 2026, 122, open the public hearing.

No speaker cards.

We'll continue this public hearing until 6226.

Item number two, 2026, 123, open the public hearing.

No speaker cards.

We'll continue this public hearing till 6226.

Item number three, 2026-124 is deferred with a public hearing will be next cycle on 519-26.

Item number four, 2026-125 is deferred with a public hearing.

Next cycle on 519 26.

Item number 5, 2026-126.

Open the public hearing.

No speaker cars.

We'll continue this public hearing until 6226.

Item number six, 2026-127.

Open the public hearing.

No speaker cars.

We'll continue this public hearing until 6226.

All right.

Action items are finally here.

Um was Ms.

Clark Murray gonna attend this.

Someone said yes out there.

All right.

We're gonna skip over these just in case she's running a little behind.

So we're gonna do I need to table these, Mr.

Harvey, or can I just skip them?

Okay, we're gonna skip seven, eight, and nine.

We're gonna go on to item number ten.

2026 209.

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

She wants that one too.

All right, we have no ex parte, so let's open the public hearing and get a staff report.

Thank you.

This is conventional rezoning, ordinance 2026-0209, seeking to rezone one acre of land from RLD 60 to RLD 50 in order to develop the properties with single family dwellings meeting the lot requirements of the RLD 50 standards, which would include 50 foot wide lots and 5,000 square feet in area.

The request includes four parcels, which are all original lots of record.

So they're platted in the Almeda Garden subdivision as lots 14 through 17.

Um currently only 50 feet in width, with the surrounding platted subdivision also being 50 feet, um 50 foot wide lots.

The applicant is looking to reconfigure the lots to have parcels with frontage along both Almeda Street and the 23rd Street West.

Staff has reviewed the request and finds it to be consistent with the comprehensive plan with the existing land use category of low density residential.

The requested rezoning would not be creating lots out of character for the neighborhood as majority of the lots within the area while our zoned RLD 50 do not meet the minimum requirements for this district, but rather meet the regulations of the RLD 50 zoning district.

So for these reasons and those in the staff report, we are forwarding a recommendation of approval.

Application was heard by planning commission on April 23rd.

There were no speakers in opposition and little discussion amongst the commissioners, and they voted unanimously for approval.

All right, thank you so much for that report.

Uh we don't have any speaker cards.

Is Ms.

Grant here?

Yeah.

No.

Okay.

All right.

Well, this is going to we're not going to defer this because we have a heavy agenda next meeting.

But we have seen that the planning department and planning commission have approved this, and we will let her know that going forward.

Please come on down so we can ask you questions if there are any.

With that, we'll close the public hearing.

Bring it back to committee.

All right, motion, and we had like two motions in two seconds.

So everyone's ready to get this moved.

Open the ballot court to vote.

Six A C R and A's.

By your action you've approved 2026 209.

Item number 11, 2026 210.

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

Anybody?

All right, Councilman Gaffney, you're recognized.

Yeah.

Yeah, thank you, um, Chairman.

Um, I'm Ralph Center Claire Sparte.

Um, Mr.

Josh Cocker um reached out to me this morning, asked me if I have any questions and relative to this bill.

I'm sure everything if I'll legislative services.

Thank you.

All right.

We have no other speakers in the queue.

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

Thank you.

This is PUD rezoning, ordinance 2026-0210, seeking to rezone a property from a PUD originally approved in 2024 to a new PUD to add housing for the elderly nursing homes and and adult congregate living facilities as permitted uses.

The current PUD allows for a mixed use development, including residential uses up to 121 units and low-intense commercial uses.

Property is located on Owens Road, which is classified as a collector roadway.

Um surrounding entitlements include industrial uses, but also several PUDs that are allowed for town home developments.

Again, this PUD rezoning is just to add in the option for age-restricted communities or for the potential for nursing homes, including hospice facilities or again adult congregate living facilities, which were not included uses in the current PUD.

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 medium density residential.

We find it further as the goals and objectives of the comp plan.

Um it meets the internal and external criteria.

So for these reasons and those in the staff report, we are forwarding a recommendation of approval with two traffic conditions that are listed in your agenda.

Application was heard by planning commission on April 23rd, where there were two speakers.

Um it was neighboring property owners at 1339 Owens Road.

They just expressed some concerns about existing flooding within the area due to surrounding developments, um, and also had some concerns about impacts to wildlife.

Uh the commission had minimal discussion and expressed no concerns regarding the rezoning, and they voted unanimously for approval with the same two conditions in your agenda.

All right.

Thank you so much.

All right, I'll thank you so much for that report.

Uh we have no speaker cards.

Is Mr.

Cockrell here?

Is Mr.

Cockrell here?

Okay, that's strike two from Mr.

Cockrell.

He's not here either.

What you want to say something?

I can't.

Okay, we're gonna close the public hearing, bring back committee.

We have council member areas, and then we have council member McGaffney.

I motion a second on the bill, thank you, Vice Chair.

Uh yes, Chair.

Um, is Mr.

Cockroach here have a question as well, too.

So it's not here.

Oh, sorry, right.

We have a motion second on the amendment.

But yeah, no, he I don't see him out here.

Okay.

Well, I was already mean enough to win Dixie today.

I'm not gonna be mean to Mr.

Cockro.

However, next time I would like for uh for him to call me because I do have a question regarding this.

It talks about restaurants.

He knows you know, I'm into the hospitality industry, but um it he's not here, so I guess we'll just I was gonna defer it, but like I said, I want to be mean today, so we'll continue if that's the case.

Okay, all right, that's fair.

Yeah, thank you through the chair.

So um it's a cocker, he did reach out, he did inform me that he won't be here this afternoon.

So um and he did ask me that I have any other questions, but this is simple cut dry.

Um use we just add in there some homes, um, group calls, assisted living facilities and daycare to this use.

So it's pretty much cut and dry.

So it was already approved a couple of years ago.

So all right, we'll let him off the hook tonight.

Yeah, we'll let him off the hook.

All right, thank you.

All right, all right.

No other speakers in the queue.

All in favor of the amendment signified by saying aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

The amendment carries.

Motion second on the bill as amended.

No one in the queue.

Open the ballot, record your vote.

Six years, you're an A's.

By direction, you've approved 2026 210.

All right, now we're gonna move back to page five, because these are the last three items.

2026, 168.

Open the public hearing, get a staff report.

Thank you.

Ordinance 2026 168 is for a small-scale land use amendment at the corner of Commonwealth Avenue and McDuff Avenue.

Uh both of these roads are collector roads.

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

This is a residential parcel.

It's currently vacant, and the applicant has stated that they wish to add either a single family or multifamily dwelling onto the lot.

Um, this property is a tenth of an acre, and it is being developed with the property abutting it to the west.

That's directly on the corner of Commonwealth and McDuff.

Um, but that abutting property is already CGC, and so it's not subject to the land use amendment because the land use wouldn't need to be changed to do what they want to do.

Um the companion rezoning, however, includes both parcels.

The proposed medium density residential land use provides an appropriate transition from the CGC uses at the corner of Commonwealth and McDuff to the um 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.

So 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.

Mr.

Harvey, that is that is second time.

Mr.

Harvey, if you could put your phone on silence, that would be great.

Sorry, Mr.

White, is yours on silent.

It is.

Okay.

No, that wasn't his.

It was somebody else over there.

Okay.

Anyways, we have one speaker card.

Thank you so much for that report.

We have one speaker, or we have two speaker cards.

First, Carolyn Griffin in opposition.

She marked that she is questions only and does not wish to speak.

The next speaker card is Sally Barnes as in opposition.

Come on down.

State your name and address.

You have three minutes.

Good afternoon.

My name is Sally Barnes.

My address is on file.

I'm opposing this because it's not as stated.

There's a huge septic tank on this property.

I went out and looked at it.

And it's like when I measured it, it's like 120 by 120 feet.

And it's not enough space to put everything they were saying in the original statement that they wanted to do over there.

It's not enough space for that.

And that septic tank is huge.

So my thing is if they're going to redevelop this, don't they have to clean up the septic tank in that area before they do anything over there?

And I mean, it's just it doesn't make any sense to me to crowd that place with whatever they were talking about.

He said first time he said a duplex and then a multi-complex.

If I remember correctly, there's not enough space over there for that because that septic tank is taking up a large portion of it.

I wouldn't ask any of you to go by there, come by my house and I'll show you where it is.

That thing's huge, and it takes up a large portion of that property.

So I'm against it.

All right, thank you, ma'am.

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

We have a motion a second on the bill.

No discussion.

Open the ballot, record your votes.

Five years, one nay.

By your action you've approved 2026 168.

Item number eight, 2026 169.

Council members, please declare your ex parte communication you have 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 2026-0169, seeking to rezone two parcels.

So the first parcel is rezoning from RLD 60 to CRO, and the second parcel is rezone being rezoned from CCG2 to CRO.

The residential parcel is currently vacant, and the commercial parcel is developed with a converted residential structure that was originally developed in 1940.

The applicant has indicated that they intend to rehab the existing structure into a mixed use facility, which will include residential and uh light commercial uses, while also adding either a single family or multifamily dwelling part um development to the vacant parcel.

Staff has reviewed the request and finds it to be consistent with the comprehensive plan with the proposed land use change to MDR and then it includes the existing land use of CGC.

Subject parcels are located at the northeast corner of McDuff Avenue North and Commonwealth Avenue.

Um east and south of the subject site, uh parcels are zoned and developed for residential uses, and north and west of the site.

It's developed as a major commercial uh uses and government uses.

The proposed zoning category and land use category will act as a natural buffer between these two areas.

We find the proposed rezoning to be consistent and compatible, so therefore we forward a recommendation of approval.

Application was heard by planning commission on April 9th, where there were no speakers in opposition, little discussion, and the commission voted unanimously for approval.

All right, thank you so much.

We have two speaker cards.

Ms.

Carolyn Griffin is in opposition and checked that she does not wish to speak.

And then we have Miss Sally Barnes, who's also in opposition.

Come on down.

That first picture is a picture of the house.

Name and address, ma'am.

Sorry.

Sally Barnes, my address is on file.

That first picture is a picture of the distance between if you're gonna change the zoning, it has to be from RLD 60 to a commercial, it has to be from 20 to 35 feet off.

That fence is what they're there, and this is what's going on in there now.

The pictures I took, those pictures I took myself.

And my concern is that you say one thing, you do something different.

There's already a railroad boxcar in there that for whatever reason I have no idea.

But that is right.

This this is the private owner's fence right there, abut right to their property.

So that's not close enough to rezone that to red to commercial anything.

That's like the morgue out there.

It's going against what the law the what the rules say.

RLD 60 to commercial, it's not enough enough footage to put it in there.

And this is what's going on now.

If you go by there now, you'll see what's going on when I went by and took pictures.

This has been going on for a long time.

It's not, it didn't just start.

And I had code compliance go up there, and they said that the house is zoned commercial, but the property behind it is zoned residential.

So, and if they're seeking to change that, I'm opposed to that because it's too close.

It's too close to the person's house right there.

I live on that street, not too far from there.

And this is what's going on.

And I couldn't get a whole lot of pictures because I didn't want them to know I was taking pictures of what they were doing.

But they've been doing this ever since they've been out there.

If you and they they had to shut this down once before when they was rebuilding, there was remodeling that building that was up there without a permit.

And someone turned them in.

I didn't do it.

If I did it, I would say I would do it.

But I didn't turn them in.

So they had to stop that.

So if you're gonna start rezoning something without a permit, I don't trust you to do the right thing.

And I don't think they're gonna do what they say they're gonna do with that because they got a car lot full of cars front and back there now.

I live there, I live on that street, I go by there every day.

I go by there.

I see all these cars.

They say they're not detailing cars, but they have stuff up there cleaning out these cards up there.

And uh they had one up there for sale.

So, what is actually gonna happen up there?

I don't want that on my street.

I don't want it's enough now.

We got problems with trucks coming through there speeding.

It's a short street.

We don't need anything like that up there.

I'm opposed to it.

And I hope you all will be too, because it's not right.

You can see what's going on there in spite of what they say they're gonna do.

And that's what they've been doing for months.

Why should they change?

I think they're trying to get it changed so they can do what they want to do, and once they get it changed, they can do whatever they want, and we can't say anything about it.

It's not fair, us at residents.

So I'm asking you to oppose this with us.

Thank you.

All right, thank you, ma'am.

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

All right, we have a motion a second on the bill.

Councilmember Gaffney recognized.

Thank you to the chair.

So, Ms.

Barnes, I just want to put this on record.

I don't, you know, I don't want you to think we'll ignore you.

Um, it's just that for me, at least the planning commission, they supported this, the planning department, they supported this, and then the evidence that you just presented.

You know, it just wasn't enough.

But I did, you know, hear you out.

Um, I would have loved for the council person, uh, Ms.

Clotmere, Councilwoman Clockmare to come tonight and speak opposed and being opposed to this too.

So, but we still have to vote on it Tuesday.

So, what I would like you to do between now and tools, if you could uh reach out to Councilwoman Claude Murray, and maybe she could speak up to and then we could maybe have a change of mind.

But right now, from the evidence that we have, it's just kind of hard to justify knowing this decision.

So I just don't want you to think, you know, me, us, we just vote in no just to vote no.

It's just with the evidence that we provide right now, just kind of difficult.

But we still um have to vote tools to so you know we still we still have an open mind.

So all right, I just want to put that on record.

All right, thank you, Councilmember Gaffney.

We have no other speakers in the queue.

The bill has been moved and seconded, so let's open the ballot.

Accord your votes.

Five years, one name.

By erection, you've approved 2026, 169.

Item number nine, 2026 208.

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

Any ex parte.

Seeing none, let's open the public hearing and get a staff report.

Thank you.

This is PUD rezoning ordinance 2026-0208, seeking to rezone a property from a PUD originally approved in 2024 to a new PUD to allow for a self-storage facility.

The previous PUD permitted a maximum of approximately 34,000 square feet of commercial retail and service establishments, warehousing storage, and light manufacturing type uses.

This new PUD will increase the square footage to approximately 41,000 square feet while also reducing the amount of permitted uses that were previously approved.

The property is located on the south side of Wilson Boulevard, which is a collector roadway, and just west of Old Middleburg Road.

The surrounding area is developed with a mix of warehousing, outside storage, residential, and church uses.

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

It has existing land use category of light industrial and business park.

We find it furthers the goals and objectives of the comp plan and meets the internal and external criteria.

The PUD is appropriate at this location because it will permit a transitional, low intense industrial use between the residential and institutional uses to the west and the industrial and outside storage uses to the east.

For these reasons and those in the staff report, we are forwarding a recommendation of approval with three conditions.

These are transportation or traffic related conditions, and those are listed in your agenda.

Application was heard by planning commission on April 23rd, where there were no speakers in an opposition and little discussion.

And they voted unanimously for approval with those same three conditions.

Thank you.

All right, thank you so much.

We have one speaker card, Mr.

Mike Hurzberg, in support.

Questions only.

No other speakers.

Let's close the public hearing and bring it back to committee for the amendment.

Motion and second on the amendment with the conditions.

All in favor of the amendment, signified by saying aye.

Any opposed?

The amendment carries.

The bill is amended.

All right, we have a motion and second on the bill as amended.

No one in the queue.

Open the ballot, record your vote.

Six Yay, zero and nays.

By your action, you've approved 226-208.

All right.

The following bills are deferred.

2026, 273, 274, 275, 276.

And then the rest of the bills are on second reading.

2026, 289, 290, 291, 292, 293, 294, 295, 296, 297, 298, 299, 300, 301, 302, 303, 304, 305, 306, 307, 308, 309, 310, 311, 345, 363, and 364.

With that, this meeting is adjourned.