All right, good evening.

It is 501, and we are going to call this meeting to order.

Welcome to the land use and zoning committee.

It is June 2nd at 5 o'clock, like we just said.

We're going to start with introductions to the left.

And I do want to mention that Councilmember Johnson said he is running just a few minutes late because he's coming from an event.

But otherwise, we'll go ahead and start.

Councilman Reginald Gaffin and Jillian, District 8.

Good evening, Roy Diamond, District 13, and George, who now has a nameplate.

All right, George, congratulations.

Congratulations, buddy.

Joe Carlucci, District 5.

Raw Areas, District 11.

Terrence Freeman at large group one.

Randy White District 12.

Terrence Harvey, opposite general counsel.

Helena Parola Planning Department.

Aaron Abney Planning Department.

Casey Cox Planning Department.

All right.

And I was just informed that we do have a birthday today, Mr.

Terrence Harvey.

Happy 65th, man.

Congratulations.

All right.

So with that, we will go ahead and get started.

All right, item who's doing the cards tonight.

Do we have cards?

No pages.

All right.

Right?

No.

Yeah, the official.

The official vice chair, Councilman Arias.

We'll have George do it next time.

All right.

Item number one.

2026 122.

Open the public hearing.

No speaker cards.

We'll continue this public hearing till 616 26.

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

No speaker cards.

We'll continue this public hearing till 616-26.

Item number three, 2026-124.

That item is deferred.

And there will be a public hearing on 721-726.

Item number four, 2026-125 is also deferred with the public hearing on 721 26.

Item number five, 2026, 126.

Open the public hearing.

No speaker cards.

We'll continue this public hearing till 616 26.

Item number six, 2026 127 over the public hearing.

No speaker cards.

We'll continue this public hearing till 616 26.

Item number seven, 2026-274.

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

Seeing none, we will go ahead and open the public hearing and get a staff report.

Thank you.

Ordinance 2026-274 seeks to rezone 0.96 acres from CCG 1 to CCG2 to unify to unify the property under one zoning district and to permit a non-franchise auto dealership on site.

The subject property is located along Blanding Boulevard, which is classified as an F.

Principal Arterial Roadway, and is heavily commercialized with surrounding property zone between CCG1, C C G2, and PUDs that allow for similar uses.

Staff has reviewed the request and finds the proposed rezoning is consistent with the 2045 comprehensive plan with the existing land use category of CGC.

While there are single family residential to the west of the subject site, staff notes that there is an approximately 130 foot wide wetland buffer between the subject property and adjacent residential subdivisions, which will continue to act as a natural buffer between the two.

So for those reasons and those in the staff report, we find the proposed rezoning to be consistent and compatible and for a recommendation of approval.

The application was heard by planning commission on May 21st, where there were no speakers in opposition and little discussion among the commissioners, and they voted unanimously for approval.

All right, thank you for that.

Do we have any speaker cards?

No speaker cards.

So we'll close the public hearing, bring back committee for the amendment.

Alright, we have a motion second on the amendment.

All in favor of the amendment signified by saying aye.

Any opposed?

The amendment carries.

No one in the queue.

Open the vote.

According to vote.

Six years, zero nays.

By your action approved, 226, 274.

Item number eight, twenty twenty-six, two eighty-nine.

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

Um thank you.

Ordinance 2026 289 is for the adoption round of a large scale land use amendment, which includes the extension of the suburban area boundary over the subject site.

The transmittal round of legislation for this item was heard by the city council as ordinance 2025 307 and was approved for transmittal.

This application seeks to amend the land use from agriculture and rural residential and the rural area to low density residential in the suburban area to allow for low density residential housing development.

Next, you'll see the companion PUD rezoning pending concurrently with the application.

The site consists of 12 parcels totaling over 190 acres.

It's located along Yellow Water Road, which is a collector roadway, and is situated south of Wells Road and approximately one mile north of Normandy Boulevard and FDOT principal arterial roadway.

The site does include some wetlands, and it was heard by the Waterways Commission on June 12, 2025 with the transmittal round of the application.

The area around the site consists predominantly of residential and agricultural uses as well as parks and preserves.

Though through a series of land use amendments over the last 20 years, the properties east and south of the subject site have gradually transitioned from rural and agriculture to low density suburban area.

These recent amendments and developments are described within the staff report.

And also within the staff report, there's a larger area map that identifies all the different types of developments in the surrounding area, not only residential but commercial and Cecil Commerce and the runway and different parks in the area.

Um overall, the growth trends are tending are trending towards a suburban pattern of development in this area, and that is this proposal is consistent with the gross trends in the area to help accommodate future growth and housing needs.

The suburban area extension is congruent with the existing and proposed development typology of the area, and the larger area of Normandy Boulevard is trending toward suburban expansion, primarily with the residential area.

For those reasons, and as outlined in the staff report, the planning department forwards a recommendation of approval, and the planning commission heard the item on May 21st, 2026 and voted unanimously to approve with little discussion asking the applicant about public engagement efforts, and the applicant went into what they have been through with the community as far as this proposal.

Thank you.

We've had trouble with it today.

How about now?

That's better.

There you go.

All right.

If I could start over, Cindy Trimmer, one independent drive suite 1200 on the half the applicant looking at page one, orienting from the development Ms.

Perller reference.

We are approximately five miles from Cecil Commerce Center that you can see on that first map.

Why is that important?

If you move on to page two, you can see what is planned coming into Cecil, which is industrial distribution, mixed use, aviation, aerospace.

Moving on to page three, you can see there's more than 23 million square feet of industrial, more than 9.4 million mega site, more than 1.4 million mixed use, with a projected 25,000 jobs coming to this area.

If you move to page four, knowing that we have all of these jobs coming to the area, you see the industrial sanctuary boundary.

You cannot put residential in that area.

It's presumed inappropriate.

So there's very little areas starting with where we are that residential development rooftops to support these jobs would be appropriate.

Moving on to the next page of the map, we have worked with folks over five years trying to develop this corridor, and there's been two main hurdles.

The first is that there is not utility access up Yellowwater.

This developer understands that they would have to run water and sewer up Yellowwater to unlock the density.

The other issue that folks have faced if you look at the map on page five is that we are right up against the suburban character area.

Right in that blue to the right, you can get up to seven units an acre, but in the pink where this property is, you're limited to the two units an acre.

So part of the request in front of you that has gone to the state, been approved and sent back, is to extend the suburban character area up to the mitigation conservation bank.

If you look on page six, everything to the west or yet to the west of us cannot be developed.

It is preserved.

So this represents a logical extension of the character area while guarding against future urban sprawl.

And then if you look at the map on page seven, you can see how development is working its way down Normandy with the low density residential that has transitioned immediately to the east side of Yellowwater.

And then you see along Normandy starting to get some of that commercial development on those main nodes.

We've done a lot of work in this area over time, and we consistently hear that folks want more commercial opportunities along Normandy.

Getting more rooftops out here will support those efforts as well.

With that, I will pause on the land use and I'm available for questions.

All right, great.

We have no speakers in the queue, no other speaker cards.

So we're going to close this public hearing and bring it back to committee.

Motion to second on the bill.

No discussion.

Open the ballot, record your vote.

Six years, zero and a's by your action, you've approved 2026 289.

Item number nine, 2026 290.

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

Councilmember White, you're recognized.

Yes, sir.

Thank you.

Three or four days ago I talked to Mr.

Fairclaw who uh lives out here.

Uh, his property, I think the southern his northern line touches their southern line, and you want to talk about buffers, we discuss that and all that's been filed with legislative services.

Council Member is recognized.

Thank you.

Uh Chair on uh six one uh 333 uh p.m.

I had a phone call with Ms.

Trimmer discussing the density change in the formats of the PUD and it's uh currently being filed.

Thank you.

Uh Councilmember Gaffney, you're recognized.

Thank you through the chair.

She reached out to me to see if I had any questions about this legislation.

I should have thank the file.

All right, and I will declare expart a communication at this time.

I met with Cindy Tremmer in my office, and we discussed uh the legislation.

This paperwork's gonna be filed with legislative services, and that is all we have.

So we're gonna go ahead and open the public hearing and get a staff report.

Thank you.

This is the companion PUD rezoning ordinance 2026-0290, seeking to rezone approximately 112 acres from agriculture to a PUD.

The rezoning is being requested to permit single family developments on a large assembly of parcels located along Yellow Water Road.

The proposed subdivision is a mix of 40 and 50 foot wide lots with a maximum overall development of 550 units.

This is an overall density of five units per acre.

The PUD differs from the conventional code by again limiting the overall amount of single-family developments allowed within the PUD to the five units per acre.

It also provides increases in setbacks and required enhanced landscaping buffers, and then it further allows for the continuation of existing livestock agriculture or silviculture uses on the properties until they are developed pursuant to this PUD.

Staff has reviewed the request and finds that it is consistent with the comprehensive plan with the approved land use category of LDR and with the suburban development area expansion, which again would limit development to seven units per acre, but this PUD limits it to five.

We find it further the goals and objectives of the comp plan by providing opportunities for development of a wide variety of housing types by area consistent with the housing needs for the general area.

We find it also meets the internal and external compatibility factors.

Development will provide landscaping buffers along all boundaries of the project, ranging from 10 feet to 25 feet, even though under the code, no buffer requirements are required between two single family developments.

So this is an increase from what the code would require today between these two types of developments.

The property is located along Yellow Water Road, which is classified as a collector roadway and is currently operating at 6% capacity.

Development surrounding the project includes the Bridal Creek PUD, which permits up to 1,132 single family dwellings, town homes, and then commercial retail unit uh developments.

The single family lots also range in a multitude of sizes, with the smallest being 40 feet in width.

So the proposed 40 and 50 foot wide lots would be compatible with surrounding developments.

So because of these reasons, and because of the nearby developments and trends of developments along Normandy Boulevard, we forward a recommendation of approval with one condition in your agenda.

Application was heard by planning commission on May 21st.

There were no speakers in opposition.

Little discussion amongst the commissioners, and they ultimately voted approval with that same one condition in your agenda.

All right, thank you so much.

We have one speaker card, Cindy Shermer.

Thank you so much.

Cindy Trimmer, one Independent Drive Suite 1200 on behalf of the applicant, picking up on page eight of the handout.

You can see the pattern of development that Aaron referenced.

When you come just outside of that industrial sanctuary that we looked at on the map previously, you see you have multi-family townhome, and then when you transition into that bridal creek PUD, which takes up the majority of the eastern side of Yellowwater Road, that has a mix of commercial townhome, 40, 50, 60 foot lots, and then we transition on to the west side where we're proposing the mix of lots that you have in this PUD.

I've included the Bridal Creek site plan on the next page so you can see kind of what's there and how this fits in with it.

And then in the last page, we have the site plan for what is proposed here.

We have worked closely with residents with the councilman.

This layout was done so that you have side yards along yellow water, no lots that have direct access onto yellow water, and then we're also orienting all of our open space along yellow water, trying to preserve as much of that wooded experience coming along that corridor, recognizing this is an area that is transitioning.

There are still some of those rural and agricultural uses, so this will help preserve that experience until the rest of these properties come online.

I passed out two conditions.

We did still have some neighbors that had concerns.

You heard a reference to Mr.

Faircloth.

The first condition will address his property line.

Residential to residential would not require any buffer.

We are agreeing to maintain a minimum 25-foot buffer in a natural vegetated state that is a very heavily wooded property line.

And we have further agreed that if there were to be a fence erected along that property line, it would be along the development side so that what is along Mr.

Faircloth's property maintains that wooded status.

And then we had another owner that is part of the PUD that just had some concerns about how the phasing might take place and asked that if phasing goes with the property north of his before his is developed that a fence be put along his property line until that property were developed.

So that is the second condition.

With that, we are available for questions.

All right, thank you so much.

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

All right.

All right, we have a motion and second on the amendment with the new proposed conditions.

Mr.

Harvey, do we need to roll these up into one after we're done voting on these specific conditions?

Correct, and then the one from planning department.

Okay, okay, great.

So all in favor of the areas amendment with the proposed conditions uh handed out, signify by saying aye.

Any opposed?

The amendment carries.

So now move the other amendment.

Okay, we have a motion and second on the planning department, planning commission condition.

All in favor of that one signify by saying aye.

Any opposed?

The amendment carries.

Let's let's before we do that.

Let's roll those up into one LUZ amendment or however you want to do it.

So let's go ahead and move the bill as twice amended.

If we can get a motion on that.

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

No one in the queue.

Open the ballot, according to vote.

Six years, zero nays.

By your action, you approve 2026 290.

Item number 10, 2026 291.

Open the public hearing and get a staff report.

Um, thank you.

Ordinance 2026 291 is a request for a small scale land use change of 2.67 acres from light industrial to community general commercial.

This is in the urban priority area, and this is to allow a phase to mixed use development that includes both commercial and residential uses.

A rezoning application will come next for a PUD for this site.

The subject site consists of three parcels along Passetti Street and Eighth Street, located east of Florida Avenue and between 8th Street East and 7th Street East.

There's a railway between the south side of the site and 7th Street East.

The site's located within an urbanized part of the city.

Full urban services are available, including public transportation.

It's contiguous with the CGC land use category to the north and east, and that is what they're proposing for the site.

And this provides that natural extension.

The change to CGC is also consistent with the commercial development patterns in the area.

And it's located on a preferred roadway for this type of commercial, which is for collectors and higher 8th Street as a minor arterial roadway and Florida Avenue as a collector.

Reuse of the site would allow for infill development and redevelopment on this vacant underutilized land within the area that already has all the infrastructure utilities and public facilities.

For those reasons, as outlined in the staff report, planning department for recommendation of approval at the planning commission on May 21st, 2026.

They voted unanimously for approval with no discussion.

Alright, thank you so much.

We have one speaker card.

Cindy Shermer.

Thank you.

Cindy Trimmer, one independent drive, suite 1200 on behalf of the applicant.

This project has been a labor of love from Lucius and Jacqueline Lattimore for years, working on creating this assemblage.

The CGC land use category will facilitate development of a mixed-use project that would include ground floor retail.

Right now, the neighboring property has a dollar general.

This would intend it to be targeting uses that would be complementary to those.

And then it'll also allow for a mix of housing types.

They are working on securing a partner that would do affordable housing multifamily, and then future phases of the project would allow them to do additional housing types such as townhome and duplex as well that we'll address in the PED.

With that, I will stand by for questions.

Okay, thank you so much.

We do not have any speakers in the queue, so we'll close this public hearing and bring it back to committee.

Motion to second on the bill.

No one in the queue.

Open the ballot, according to vote.

Six years, zero nays.

By your action, you've approved 226, 291.

And I apologize.

Welcome Tyrona or Councilwoman Clark Murray.

A little late, but better late than ever, right?

All right.

We have item number 11, 2026 292.

Council members, please declare your exportate communication at this time.

Going once, going twice.

Oh, all right.

Councilmember is recognized.

All right, thank you, Chair.

I uh would like to declare Spartee on 6.1.

I had a phone call with Ms.

Triver to discuss the uh affordable housing component, mixed use and retail residential mix, and it's currently being filed.

Thank you.

Councilman McGaffney, you recognize.

Thank you, Lunatic.

I'll also let Nora also declare.

I also met with Ms.

Tremor, say it's why we just talked about the legislation, thought about the details, the jobs, the whole night.

So I'm actually thinking if I will legislative services.

All right, and I will declare uh my ex parte communication as well.

I met with Cindy Trimmer, Rick Rich Mulaney in my office on June 1st, and we discussed the legislation in depth, and this paperwork is being filed with legislative services.

So with that, we will open the public hearing and get a staff report.

Thank you.

This is the companion PUD rezoning ordinance 2026-0292 seeking to rezone approximately 3.37 acres from industrial light and CCG2 to a PUD.

It's being sought to allow for a mixed-use development of commercial and residential uses.

The project consists of 11 different parcels and will be developed over five different phases for a total of 77 dwelling units and 25,000 square feet of commercial floor area.

The applicant seeks to develop a mixed-use infill project consisting of multifamily dwellings in the form of apartments, a triplex, and a quadruplex, along with a variety of commercial uses primarily found within the CCG 1 zoning district.

Staff has reviewed the request and finds that it's consistent with the comp plan with the land use of CGC and furthers the goals and objectives and meets the internal and external compatibility factors.

The project is located along 8th Street, which is a minor arterial roadway and is currently operating at 8% capacity.

The surrounding area includes a variety of industrial, commercial, and residential uses, including warehousing and single family dwellings to the north, commercial retail to the west, and single-family dwellings to the east, and then you also buffered by the CSX or rail line to the south.

Although being developed for mixed use, the subject site will preserve the residential character of the area while also offering an assortment of commercial uses within the immediate area.

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

It was heard by planning commission on May 21st.

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

Okay, thank you.

We have one speaker card, Cindy Trimmer.

Cindy Trimmer, one independent drive suite 1200 on behalf of the applicant.

The site plan, you'll see the dollar general along the west that I referenced previously.

The first L-shaped building that you see on the site plan is where that mixed use component is intended for the ground floor retail, the residential above, and then transitioning into the less intense residential product and the smaller scale duplex triplex quad.

We have done extensive outreach.

The Latimers have been working with the historic East Side CDC and Lyftjacks for years as this project evolved, and they do have the support of their neighbors.

We hope we will have yours as well and are available for questions.

All right, we have no speakers in the queue, so we'll close this public hearing and bring it back to committee.

We have a motion second on the bill.

No speakers in the queue.

Let's open the public or sorry, let's open the ballot record your vote.

Six years, zero nays.

By direction, if approved 2026 292.

Item number 12, 2026-293.

Let's open the public hearing.

No speaker cars will continue this public hearing until 616 26.

Item number 13, 2026 294, open the public hearing.

No speaker cars will continue this public hearing till 616 26.

Item number 14, 2026 295.

Let's open the public hearing.

No speaker cars will continue this public hearing till 616 26.

Item number 15, 2026 296.

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

Um thank you.

Ordinance 2026-296 is a small scale land use amendment to exchange.12 of an acre from medium density residential to neighborhood commercial.

This is in the urban priority area and it's to allow a broader range of commercial uses on the site that has historically been used and developed for commercial uses.

On the property, it currently contains a vacant retail building constructed in 1959.

It's located at 1090 Huron Street on the west side of Huron Street between First Street and Sophia Street.

These are all local roadways.

The proposed amendment supports infill development and redevelopment of a vacant previously developed commercial site within an area already served by existing infrastructure utilities and public facilities.

The proposed amendment to neighborhood commercial furthers a balanced and organized mix of land uses within the surrounding area.

With one quarter mile of the site are single-family and multifamily residential uses.

Just north of the site is a convenience store and a light industrial bottling facility in the area and a city-owned multi-use facility.

The site's also located less than one quarter mile north of Commonwealth Avenue, a minor arterial, and one quarter mile south of Fifth Street West at Collector Roadway.

For those reasons, and as outlined in the staff report, the planning department forwards a recommendation of approval at the May 21st, 2026 Planning Commission meeting.

There were no speakers in opposition and no discussion by the planning commission, and they voted unanimously to approve.

Alright, we have one speaker card, Travis Moss in support questions only.

All right.

With that, we have no one in the queue, so let's close the public hearing and bring about committee.

Alright, we have a motion and second on the bill.

No one in the queue.

Open the ballot, record your vote.

Six years, zero nays.

By your action, you've approved 2026 296.

Item number 16, 2026 297.

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

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

This is the companion rezoning 2026-297, which seeks to change the zoning from residential medium density D to commercial neighborhood.

The 0.12 acre parcel was developed in 1959 with a commercial structure but has been vacant since around 2009.

Prior to the initial adoption of the comprehensive plan, the property was zoned as commercial neighborhood, but was designated as RMDD when it was adopted.

The applicant seeks to go back to the original zoning so that the site can be used as originally built.

Staff finds the proposed use to be consistent with the proposed uh neighborhood commercial land use category of the 2045 comprehensive plan.

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

This item was heard at the May 21st planning commission meeting.

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

All right, we have one speaker card, Travis Moss, here for questions only, which we have no one in the queue.

So we'll close the public hearing and bring back to committee.

Motion and second on the bill, no discussion.

Open the ballot course of vote.

Six years, zero nays.

Item number 17, 2026 298.

Councilmember, or actually let's open the public hearing and get a staff report.

Um thank you.

Ordinance 2026 298 is a small-scale land use amendment requesting a 0.9 of an acre be amended from medium density residential to business park.

This is in the urban priority area, and this is to allow low-intensity industrial and office uses and the reuse of an existing structure.

The site consists of six parcels, which are approximately 450 feet north of Beaver Street, which is a minor arterial roadway.

Barnett Street that is located on is a local roadway.

An industrial warehouse structure built in 1958 is located on the largest parcel at 820 Barnett Street.

The applicant seeks to reuse the existing structure and use the adjacent vacant lots to support the site's development.

Reuse of the site consistent with the historic use of the property would allow for infill development and redevelopment on a vacant bypass and underutilized land within an area that already has infrastructure and public facilities.

The site is located within an urbanized dense part of the city and is adjacent to a large industrial use right across the street.

The site is located.

The plan amendment requests for new BP designations are preferred in locations which are supplied by full urban services, and there are full urban services to that site, including access to public transit.

For those reasons, and as outlined the staff report, we forward a recommendation of approval.

On 521-26, the planning commission had little discussion on the application.

There was one person who spoke in opposition to the proposal stating that the large industrial warehouse across the street was not original to the site, and it was not a should not have been originally approved for that site, and was opposed to the expansion of the business park uses.

Richie Mulaney with driver McAfee, one independent drive suite 1200 on behalf of the applicant.

The applicant here is a locally owned small business named Chiller Medic, and they provide HVAC installation and service for both residential and commercial properties, and their technicians have been servicing Jacksonville and the Northeast Florida region for 30 years now, and they're seeking to occupy this existing warehouse facility for continued operation of their small business.

And this property, as outlined in the staff report, consists of six total parcels.

It's just shy of an acre, nine tenths of an acre.

The primary parcel at 820 Barnett Street houses that existing warehouse that Chiller Medic would like to occupy.

It was originally constructed nearly 70 years ago.

And then the other five parcels, there's uh four to the north and then one to the south, are vacant and undeveloped, and Chillermatic would like to use those for parking and outside storage.

This land use amendment is brought before you today because the current land use designation is MDR.

But this category doesn't quite make the best sense because this property is right between that residential area to the west, that's uh MDR land use and industrial area just to the east, right across the street.

It's about 18 acres of LI land use just to the east of this property.

So we've identified that what makes better sense is for a transitional land use, something between those um uses and intensities, and we've identified BP as the most appropriate land use for this particular property given its location in between the residential development and to the west and the uh industrial development to the east.

Um in the urban priority development area, this creates that smooth transition between uses and and intensities.

Chiller Medic is eager to be a good neighbor, and I can kind of get into that a little bit more in the companion uh PUD, uh, which I can discuss about how uh the ways that they'd like to address any um potential adverse impacts.

Um, but with that, um, I'll stand by for questions.

Thank you.

All right, we have uh council member dying to recognize.

Uh thank you, uh Mr.

Chair.

So was just reviewing this and wondering if you've got the uh masonry amendments uh covered on all this because I didn't see any of those filings.

I I've been looking in the background of these meetings quite a bit, and I don't think I'm gonna fall for that.

I even made up a new name for a man.

You did I actually my heart sank a little bit, I'll be honest.

Alright, we accomplished the goal.

We had to do something.

All right, we've got no other speakers in the queue.

So let's close this public hearing and bring it back to committee.

Alright, motion a second on the bill.

No one in the queue.

Open the ballot, record your vote.

Six years, zero nays.

By direction you've approved 2026 298.

Item number 18, 2026, 299.

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

Alright, I have ex parte communication.

I met with Cindy Trimmer and Richard Melanie in my office on June 1st, and we discussed the legislation and the zonings.

Uh this paperwork is being filed with legislative services.

Councilman McGaffney, you're recognized.

Thank you, through the chair.

I also also declared Sparte.

Also, maybe we're at Richie and Sandy Terminal in my office to discuss this piece of legislative services.

I'm actually discussed this legislation.

I'm actually everything that filed with legislative services.

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 the companion PUD rezoning ordinance 2026-0299, seeking to rezone approximately 0.9 acres from RMDA to PUD.

The central parcel was originally developed in 1958 with a 13,700 square foot warehouse with parcels with the four parcels to the north and the one to the south being requested to use for parking and outside storage.

Uh the rear the rezoning is being requested so that the applicant can move his um residential and commercial heating and air conditioning business into the building.

Applicant also plans to utilize the remaining parcels for again outside storage and parking with appropriate fencing and landscaping.

Staff has reviewed the request and finds that it is consistent with the comp plan with the approved land use category of BP and furthers the goals and objectives by creating a gradual transition of densities and intensities between land uses.

We find it also meets the internal and external compatibility factors.

While the properties that are adjacent are existing residential, there are landscaping and visual screening requirements that are within the PUD's written description in order to lessen the impact to surrounding properties.

Perimeter landscaping around the outside storage area shall be required to meet the Part 12 zoning code, and then also shall be screened with fencing that'll be at least six feet tall and 95% opaque.

Subject property is located on the west side of Barnett Street between residential zoning to the west and industrial zoning to the east.

Given the historic nature of the development with the site being developed as a warehouse use in the 1950s, the proposed PUD is intending to bring the site into compliance with current code requirements while also protecting surrounding residential areas.

So the proposed PUD and its limitations is appropriate between the transition between industrial and residential.

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

It was heard by planning commission on May 21st.

There was one speaker in opposition.

I just felt that the warehousing should have never been approved originally.

And the commission was supportive of the proposed rezoning, but did recommend that the applicant engage with the community and potentially increase fencing for that outsourced storage parcels.

But with that, they voted unanimously for approval.

Do we have a speaker code on this one?

The same speaker card.

All right, all right.

One speaker card, Richie Mullaney.

Richard Mulaney with Driver Maxby one independent drive suite 1200 on behalf of the applicant.

This is the companion rezoning for Chiller Medic seeking to rezone the property from RMDA to a PUD.

This PUD seeks to allow the operation of Chiller Medic's warehouse along with bringing the property into compliance with code and ensuring that the site is an appropriate transitional use again between the residential development to the west and the industrial development to the east.

Chiller Medic is very eager, like I said, to be a good neighbor, and there are certain provisions within the PUD to ensure that Chiller Medic is a good neighbor and part of this community.

To outline that a little bit, the vacant lots to the north and the south are proposed to be used for outdoor storage and some parking.

Historically, that's been used by semi-trailer flatbeds, just out on those lots.

Going to add uh screening, six-foot fencing, it's 95% opaque to make sure that there's a screen around those uses and maintain a 10-foot landscape buffer between the property and any residential uh development around there as well.

We've also restricted signage illumination to not disturb any residential properties or streets, and we did reach out to uh the community member who spoke at the planning commission.

He was mostly concerned again with that uh semi-trailer parking that uh Chiller Medic assured him would not be the case in those outdoor storage and parking facilities, those big semi-trailer flatbed uh parking will not be part of this.

Overall, uh they plan to make big investments uh at the property, breathe new life into this vacant site and and improve the overall appearance and quality of the building and be a good neighbor there uh to the neighbors in in Newtown and for the neighbors of Newtown.

So, with that, I'll stand by for questions.

Thank you.

All right, we have no questions, no speakers in the queue.

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

Motion and a second on the bill, no discussion.

Open the ballot, record your vote.

Six years, zero nays.

By your action, you've approved 22629.

Item number 19, 2026 300.

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

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

Thank you.

This is PUD rezoning ordinance 2026-300, seeking to rezone approximately 0.32 acres from commercial office to a PUD to allow for a food truck park to operate full time on the site.

The applicant proposes to develop the site with a parking uh facilities, a dumpster and outside storage seating to serve the food trucks.

Uh, subject property is located along the east side of University Boulevard North, and this is just right across the street from the JU campus.

The property is also located within the Arlington CRA and overlay, and was heard by the Renew Arlington CRA board on February 17th, where they voted to approve the request with one condition that the site plan in the PUD is consistent with the renew Arlington zoning overlay requirements.

Staff has reviewed the request and finds that it's consistent with the comp plan.

It has existing land use designation of CGC, and we find it further to goals and objectives, it meets internal and external criteria.

Surrounding developments include an apartment complex to the north, single family um dwelling to the east, and single family to the south, which the parcel that's on the south side is owned by the applicant and the same owner as the property that's under this PUD.

The PUD does request the waiver of part 12 landscaping requirements, but the CRA overlay requires that commercial properties abutting residential parcels have to provide a six-foot fence, 85% opaque.

Um, and then again, this is between commercial and residential properties.

Additionally, the minimum vehicle use landscape buffer shall be five feet within the overlay.

Uh, the proposed site plan does not show the fence um but does and doesn't specify the buffer area, um, but to make sure that the site plan and landscaping meet the requirements of the overlay.

The department is forwarding one recommend uh forwarding a recommendation of approval with one condition to address those concerns.

Uh application was heard by the planning commissioner on May 21st, where there were several speakers from the surrounding community who spoke in support of the rezoning request and and the business owner themselves, citing that the that the business has provided a positive impact to the community.

Uh there was little commit uh discussion amongst the commissioners.

They expressed no concerns regarding the rezoning and they voted unanimously for approval with that same uh one condition in your agenda.

Thank you.

All right, we have two speaker cards.

Javette Williams is in support for questions only, and then Melvin Williams is in support.

If you'd like to come down and speak, you can, or wave your hand for questions only.

All right, that was a questions only for Melvin Williams.

So with that, we have no speakers in the queue.

Let's go ahead and bring it back to or close the public hearing and bring it back to committee.

Motion is second on the bill, and we also want to welcome Councilmember Johnson.

Thank you for joining us tonight, sir.

Anybody else?

What do you have amendment?

Oh, you want to move the amendment?

Okay, we have a motion, a second on the amendment with conditions.

Uh can someone please explain the amendment.

Is the condition and the condition is the the development shall provide a five-foot uh landscape buffer between the vehicle use area and the parcel to the east, including the six-foot high, eighty-five percent opaque fence made uh for the wood vinyl.

Um that's it.

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

Any opposed?

The amendment carries, yeah.

Let's move the bill as amended and get all good.

Okay, okay, we motion a second on the bill as amended.

Councilmember Barry is recognized.

Okay, thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Just want to make sure that the applicant is aware of this amendment and that they're okay with uh the conditions.

Um, because you guys have to invest money into this.

Are you guys good with this?

They need to be on the record.

If you don't mind coming up and just state it for the record, please just want to make sure we're we're good on that part.

And then the other part for me is um uh definitely anything to support a small business, especially in the hospitality industry.

So I look forward to uh visiting you guys soon.

Um I see that you guys are open Thursday through Sunday, correct?

Um, yes, we're open Thursday through Sunday.

Right now, we uh don't have a problem with the amendments that was stated today.

Okay.

Um Mr.

Harvey, by when do they have to have this completed by?

Just for their knowledge.

You're asking when will they have to have the uh the fencing and the buffers that'll all go through when they go through for permitting and development services?

So all of that will uh it will be a requirement of the PUD that they'll have to satisfy.

Good.

Okay, cool.

Hi, Mr.

Chair.

That's all I have.

Just wanted to make sure that they understood all that.

Okay, and I didn't hear.

Can we get your name and address and then that you're good with the conditions?

Melvin Williams.

Excuse me.

I've been sick all week.

I'm sorry, yeah.

Melvin Williams, 3271 Rocket Court, Jacksonville, Florida.

And um, we are also still a part of the uh program, the grant program.

So this sent me some information to where all the dates and fencing can be done along with that program as well.

Okay, all right.

Well, thank you, sir.

Get better.

Thank you.

All right, and I think we did we already move the amendment and vote on it.

Okay.

Did we already get it?

Alright, so let's open the ballot or course vote.

Seven yes, zero nays.

By your action, you've approved 2026 300.

Item number 20, 2026 301.

Council members, please declare your expartate communication you have at this time.

Councilmember Barry is recognized.

Alright, thank you, Chair.

On six one, I also uh had a phone call with Ms.

Trimmer to discuss a change in zoning.

Lot use and sizes with various uh access and uh it's currently being filed as we speak.

Thank you.

Councilmember McGaffney recognized.

Thank you, Tudor Chair.

So I'll have to declare a spot to our also meet with Ms.

Tremor, all six ones just to discuss this legislative, thank you for legislative services.

All right.

We have no one else, uh, but I will declare ex parte communication as well.

And that was Cindy Trimmer, Rachel Melani in my office on June 1st.

We discussed the legislation, and this paperwork's being filed with legislative services.

So with that, we will go ahead and open the public hearing and get a staff report.

Thank you.

This is PUD rezoning ordinance 2026-0301 seeking to rezone approximately 3.14 acres from RLD 90 to a PUD in order to permit a single family subdivision with 80 foot wide minimum lot width, a shared uh access drive, and shared waterfront amenity area.

The PUD will allow for a maximum of 15 single family dwellings, which would include one property manager's residence.

The subject property is located along the west side of San Jose Boulevard, which is classified as a minor arterial minor arterial roadway and operating at 70% capacity.

Staff has reviewed the request and finds that it's consistent with the comprehensive plan with the existing land use of low density residential, and it furthers the goals and objectives, meets internal and external criteria.

Surrounding development is primarily residential in nature and consists of single-family subdivisions, residential condominiums, and apartment complexes.

The proposed development is similar in character to residential development located to the north.

That's the old San Jose on the river, which was zoned PUD from 2012.

Properties immediately to the north are zoned RLD 90 and developed with single family dwellings.

While properties to the south are developed with residential condominiums, also zoned PUD.

Application was reviewed by our transportation division who forwarded one condition related to bicycle parking, and it's just clarifying that if bike parking is required at some point on the property that it would be per uh the zoning code.

Uh we find that the requested rezoning will be consistent and compatible with surrounding uses.

So we forward a recommendation of approval with one condition in your agenda and a revised exhibit for your agenda has a revised site plan dated April 7th.

Um that was reviewed by planning commission.

The applicant does have an updated revised exhibit for that.

I believe you have a copy of.

So we are forwarding a recommendation of approval with the one condition in the site plan in front of you dated June 1st.

Uh application was heard by planning commission on May 21st.

There were no speakers in opposition and literal discussion, and they voted unanimously for approval with that same one condition.

Thank you.

All right, we have one speaker card, Cindy Tremor.

Cindy Trimber, one independent drive, suite 1200 on behalf of the applicant.

We are going to the opposite end of the spectrum from the residential that we heard earlier.

This is a custom home community off of San Jose.

They are larger single family homes that are meant to serve as an alternative to folks that don't really want to live in a condo or a town home, but want the opportunity to be able to lock the door and walk away, not have huge yard or exterior maintenance.

You'll see on the site print that the lots themselves, the buildings have a larger footprint.

The common area is where we have maintained that amenity space on the water rather than having the larger um individual yards.

We have worked with the single family residential to the north and also the condominiums to the south.

You'll note in the PUD that all of the uses that would otherwise be available in low density residential have been stripped out.

So this is really a single use PUD that also I believe allows for park development.

And then the June 1st site plan came from a gentleman that appeared at Planning commission, and originally we had the dumpster and parking on the northern side of that entrance area.

They asked if we would be willing to flip that.

So then rather being close to a house, it would be against the retention pond to the south.

And the developers were happy to do that and thought that that was a great suggestion.

So with the addition of the June 1st 2026 site plan, we ask for your approval and are available for questions.

All right, we have no speakers in the queue, so we'll bring it back to committee and look for a motion on the amendment.

All right, we have a motion and second on the amendment.

All in favor of the amendment signified by saying aye.

Any opposed?

The amendment carries.

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

Yeah, with the conditions.

Yep.

No one in the queue.

Open the ballot, course your vote.

Seven yes, zero nays.

By direction you've approved, 2026 301.

Item number 21, 2026, 302.

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

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

2026 302 seeks to rezone approximately 0.37 acres of land from RL D60 to CN.

The subject site was first developed in the 1950s and has historically operated as a gas station and convenience store under the RLD60 zoning district.

Prior to the original adoption of the comprehensive plan, the property was zoned uh commercial general, which today is equivalent to a commercial community general one zoning district.

The applicant is seeking this rezoning to redevelop the property for a convenience store similar to the original use of the site.

Staff finds the proposed zoning district to be consistent with the LDR uh land use category of the 2045 comprehensive plan as a secondary zoning district as the site is located at the intersection of two collector roadways and is less than 16 acres in size.

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

This item was heard at the May 21st planning commission meeting.

There was no speakers in opposition, and the commission voted unanimously for approval.

All right, we have no oh we have one speaker card, Travis Moss in support questions only.

No other speakers.

Uh no other speaker cards.

We have one speaker in the queue, Councilmember Johnson.

You want to go?

Oh, okay.

You want Mr.

Moss?

Okay, Mr.

Moss, if you're here, can you go on and come down to the podium, please?

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

And uh through the chair to Mr.

Moss.

Thank you for uh this work you're doing in other communities.

I had a chance to look at it, it looks good.

So I just have one single question.

Um, pretty simple, Mr.

Chair.

What'd you do for your birthday?

Happy birthday, sir.

I appreciate it.

I do most as well.

That's all gotcha.

Happy birthday, Travis.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

All right.

Um, okay.

So we have uh no one else in the queue, no other speaker cards.

So we'll close this public hearing and bring it back to committee.

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

Open the ballot, record your vote.

Seven yes, zero nays.

By your action of approved, 2026 302.

Item number 22, 2026 303.

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

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

Thank you.

2026 303 seeks to rezone 1.24 acres of land from RR acre to RLD90 to develop the site with three single family dwellings.

The subject site is in the mandarin area along Flynn Road and the surrounding area is largely residential in nature with many RLD 90 zoned lots, including uh directly to the east and south of the subject site.

Staff finds the proposed district to be compatible with the surrounding area and with the existing LDR land use category of the 2045 comprehensive plan.

For those reasons and those found in the staff report before recommendation of approval.

This item was heard at the May 21st Planning Commission meeting.

There were two speakers, adjacent property owners at 11671 Lady Claire Court, who raised questions about the proposed development and its potential impact on their property values.

The commission expressed no concerns given that the surrounding subdivisions are zoned RLD 90 and voted voted unanimously for approval.

All right, we have no speaker cards.

Let's close this public hand and bring it back to committee.

Uh I should be sorry.

All right, we have one speaker card.

Alright.

Good.

Miss Emily Pierce.

In support questions only.

Tell Mr.

Duggan.

He's lucky he didn't.

Just kidding.

We all know he's in Tallahassee.

Doing the good work right now.

So no other speaker cars, no one in the queue.

Let's close the public hearing.

Bring it back to committee.

Motion second on the bill.

No one in the queue.

Open the ballot course of vote.

Seven yes, zero nays.

By your action, you've approved 2026 303.

Item number 23, 2026 304.

Let's open the public hearing.

No speaker cars.

We'll continue this public hearing until 616 26.

Item number 24, 2026 305.

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

Seeing none, we'll go ahead and open the public hearing and get staff report.

Uh 2020.

Sorry, we'll go to Councilmember White real quick and then we'll get the staff report.

Go ahead, Councilmember White, you recognize it.

Sure, I apologize, Chair.

I spoke to Mr.

Hardin uh yesterday on this, and uh I was glad to hear that we went to 60s and everything's been filed.

Thank you.

All right, no other speakers.

So let's go ahead and get the staff report.

2026 305 seeks to rezone approximately 9.63 acres from residential rural acre and residential low density 120 to RLD 60 to permit single to permit a single family development.

Staff has reviewed the request and finds proposed rezoning to be consistent with the comprehensive plan with the existing land use of LDR and furthers the goals and objectives of the comprehensive of the comprehensive plan.

The subject site is located along the west side of Bulls Bay Highway and just north of Commonwealth Avenue.

While many of the properties located directly north and south of the subject site are zoned RR acre or RLD 120 properties uh directly to the west was approved for a rezoning in 2025 to allow for a single family subdivision and to permit up to 285 single-family dwellings, meeting the RLD 40, 50, and 60 zoning district standards.

The uh department finds that the requested rezoning to R D60 will be consistent and compatible with the surrounding uses, and for those reasons and those in the staff report before a recommendation of approval.

The item was heard at the May 21st planning commission meeting.

There were no speakers in opposition, and the commission voted unanimously for approval.

Alright, we oh yeah, sorry.

Okay, we have one speaker card, Mr.

Paul Harden.

Questions only.

No one in the queue.

Let's close the public hearing.

Bring back to committee.

Motion second on the bill.

No one in the queue.

Let's go ahead and open the uh open up the ballot.

Record your vote.

Seven yes, zero nays.

By your action, you've approved 2026 305.

Item number 25, 2026 306.

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

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

2026 306 seeks to rezone approximately one uh.18 acres from CN to CCG1.

The subject property is located along the west side of St.

John's Bluff and is currently developed with the 2300 square foot building.

And the applicant is intending to rezone to permit a kitchen and bath renovation company and utilize the existing building as an office and design studio along with assembly, building and storage of cabinetry.

The CCG 1 zoning district permits building trades contractors that do not require outside storage.

Staff has reviewed the request and finds the proposed rezoning to be consistent with the comprehensive plan with the existing uh land use of CGC.

St.

John's Bluff Road is classified as a collector roadway and development with frontage along this roadway are primarily zoned industrial business park, CRO, CN, and CCG1.

The CCG One uh district will still act as a transition between the industrial uses to the east and residential uses to the west.

We find that the uh requested rezoning will be consistent and compatible with the surrounding uses and forward recommendation of approval.

The item was heard at the May 21st Planning Commission, and the commission voted unanimously for approval.

Alright, we have uh a few speaker cards.

First, uh Mr.

Ian Brown, the applicant.

Come on down.

Ian Brown 245 Riverside Ave on behalf of the applicant.

We're here today with the CN application to CCG1 to allow Bolt City Kitchen and Bath to operate their kitchen and bath remodeling company.

We enjoy we had a staff approval as well as planning commission unanimous approval.

This is um a neglected building on a busy corner.

Um the neighborhood seems to be uh happy to see new life come into this corner.

We do have three written letters of support on file, and um and this small business will be able to operate out of this out of this busy corridor.

I'll stand by for any further questions.

Okay.

Next speaker card, McKenzie Powell in support, questions only, and other speaker card, John Powell in support, questions only.

All right.

With that, we have no one in the queue, so we'll close the public hearing.

Bring back the committee.

Motion a second on the bill.

No one in the queue.

Open the ballot, record your votes.

Seven yes, zero nays.

By your action, you've approved 226306.

Item number 26, 2026 309 is deferred, and there will be a public hearing next cycle on 616 26.

Item number 27, 226, 310.

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

Councilmember White, you're recognized.

Yes, well, thank you, Chair.

Last LUZ meeting, whatever date that was.

Uh there was some opposition here.

I took in the green room and we had a discussion.

Then after that, I'll took the applicants in the green room and had a discussion, and all that's been filed.

Thank you.

All right, we have no one else in the queue, so let's open the public hearing and get a staff report.

Thank you.

This is application for waiver of road frontage ordinance 2026-0310, seeking to reduce the required road frontage from 80 feet to zero feet in order to develop the property with one single family dwelling.

The subject property is one acre parcel located on the west side of uh Jones Road, which sorry, it's located on the north side of Boots Lane, which is just west of Jones Road and has 130 feet of frontage along Boots Lane.

However, Boots Lane is classified as an unapproved private road, which does connect to Jones Road, and that's classified as a public maintained right-of-way.

The code requires frontage uh parcels to have frontage for a residential uh use to be a minimum of 80% of the minimum lot width along either in a public maintained right-of-way or an approved private street.

Boots Lane is considered an unapproved private right-of-way as it never received final approval to be added to the city's approved private roads list, and therefore must seek approval for the waiver.

The property was originally subdivided from a larger parcel in 2006 and has remained vacant uh since that time.

Without the approval of the waiver of road frontage, the parcel will continue to remain vacant.

Boots Lane provides access to several lots, many of which are classified as lots of Rutherford.

However, property located at 9186 Boots Lane did receive approval for a road frontage reduction, similar to this one, so 80 feet to zero in 1995 in order to build the one single family home that is on that property today.

Staff has reviewed the request and finds that it meets their criteria in order to recommend approval.

Boots Lane was originally platted as a 15-foot ride of way in the Jacksonville Heights plat, which has been combined with a 15-foot easement running along the south side of the original right-of-way.

So combined Boots Lane is a 30-foot wide ride of way providing access for a number of lots.

This parcel has access to the original foot 15-foot wide right-of-way, while dwellings along the south side have access to that 15-foot easement.

Access along Boots Lane is adequate for emergency services and will not be detrimental to the public health safety and welfare.

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

All right, we have one speaker card, and I can't necessarily read the first name, but it is a Miss or Mr.

What's that?

Genora Giano.

Okay.

Do you wish to speak?

Oh, okay.

There, okay.

Questions only.

Okay.

All right.

Good deal.

She's in support.

Yeah.

She's in support.

Good deal.

All right.

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

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

No one in the queue.

Open the ballot record vote.

Seven yes, zero nays.

By your action you've approved 2026 310.

Item number 28, 2026 311.

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

Um, thank you.

Ordinance 2026 311 is for text amendments to the future land use element and definition section of the 2045 conference plan.

It also includes a new map to be adopted within the future land use map series.

If you look in front of where you're sitting, I've included two packets.

Both of them have maps at the front, and this identifies the target growth area boundary.

And the other packet has the target growth area boundary maps divided by council districts so you can get a closer view of how this affects different areas or how this incentive could affect different areas of the city.

The proposed amendments to find and identify a target growth area and establish a process to allow for increased residential densities and design flexibility for properties within that target growth area as identified on the map, subject to criteria provided in the land development regulations, which would be identified in the zoning code.

The intent of the amendments is to promote and incentivize, not require the construction of resilient and attainable housing.

First, just to go through how the map was identified.

The target growth area map is designated as those areas within the urban priority and urban development areas that are already within the conference of plan as areas that we want to see revitalized and infilled that have been determined to be of lower flood risk areas by the city's Office of Resilience.

Um so these are the low flood risk areas determined by the Office of Resilience using their compound flood model, and are within a half a mile buffer of either side of high frequency transit corridors in the Emerald Trail.

The target growth area does not include areas that are within a zoning overlay.

It does not include areas within an airport accident potential zone or areas that are in a low density residential land use category.

So areas that are not within the low density residential land use category is most of your single family residential areas are not included in that boundary map that you have in front of you.

Um this is a targeted approach to growth.

It's incentive-based, it's not required.

You can follow the existing regulations in the code.

What you have before you is the text amendment and the map.

The actual zoning code changes will come after these text amendments are transmitted to the state for comments.

When it comes back to you, the zoning code will outline exactly what incentives you can take advantage of.

One is a higher density if you're located in that area.

Um you also are provided design flexibility in the form of um parking requirements and the form of lot flexibility and so forth that will be outlined in the zoning code.

Um to take advantage of those incentives.

You what the city will want to see reciprocated is either an affordable housing component that will be identified specifically in the zoning code or resilient design factors.

And you can see with the white paper that's included in one of those packets exactly what those incentives are and what you will see with the upcoming zoning code as it moves forward for adoption round.

We have forwarded a recommendal recommendation of approval to ordinance 2026 311.

The planning commission reviewed the proposal on May 21st and forwards a unanimous recommendation of approval and there were no speakers in opposition.

I'm available for any questions, and I can go through the history of how we got there if the um if anybody wants that information.

Um you might already have that information or be aware of it.

Thank you.

All right, thank you.

And we have no speaker cards, so we'll go ahead and close the public game and bring it back to committee.

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

No, okay.

We have Councilmember Diamond recognized.

I think uh this is a you know relatively important bill.

I think it's actually worth having Terrence just do the one-on-one for anybody listening, like the 30-second version of what this bill does, please.

Well, I've um we'll defer to uh our director as she's the drafted this and uh adapted this bill, but 30 seconds.

If you have property located in this target boundary, what will happen after adoption round and the zoning code gets updated is you have the option to increase your density by about 50% of what's currently allowed, and also the option of design flexibility with lot coverage, parking requirements, height requirements.

It basically incentivize it incentivizes denser development in appropriate areas, so areas that are low flood risk and on transit lines and other things outlined and incentivizes that if you take advantage of that, what you will have to do as the property owner is either provide an affordable housing component, which is about 20% of your development will need to be dedicated for 30 years to an affordable housing component, um, or you would have to develop your property with resilient design factors, three of five, and both of the specifics of those requirements will be in the zoning code, but you can also see them in the white paper that you have in front of you, because the zoning code changes won't come, the actual code changes won't come until the adoption round of the amendment.

All right, we're hearing some rumblings up here of uh wanting some additional discussion.

We have one speaker in the queue, councilwoman Clark Murray, you're recognized.

Thank you, Chair.

Um, through the chair to Miss Perola, what are the parameters for identifying an area of target growth?

In other words, what are the characteristics?

How do we say that?

For example, one particular block is a target growth area.

What are the characteristics?

I mean, as through the chair to councilwoman Clark Murray, the target growth area is identified first as those areas that are low risk to flooding.

So basically, we looked at all of Duval County and through the resilient office.

They have a compound flood model which looks at all different types of flooding, it's very detailed.

Um we took the inverse of the areas that flood, so all the low flood risk areas, which is more appropriate for development and building.

So we start with low flood risk, then we look at the urban and urban priority boundaries of the conference of plan, which are already established, and those areas are identified in the comprehensive plan as areas that we want to see revitalization.

We want denser and more intense development, and we want infill.

So low flood risk on top of that, anything that's only in the urban or urban priority area on top of that, the high transit route routes.

So then it cuts it even further to just the high transit route routes, a half a mile from there.

We worked with JTA on those areas and also the Emerald Trail.

So it would have to be all three of those sections intersecting, and then we looked at it further and removed certain areas.

We removed anything that's in a zoning overlay because the zoning overlays have already been reviewed.

They've already um reviewed on how they want to grow, and there's different requirements in each of those zoning overlays.

We also removed the low density residential, which is most of your single family residential.

Thank you.

I want to interrupt for just one moment.

Go back to the zoning overlays.

So you're saying that through the chair, you're saying that if a particular area is in a zoning overlay, then it cannot be a target growth area.

If it's in it, if it's in a zoning overlay, it is not in this proposal for the target growth area.

Right, correct.

It is not within the boundaries that you see for the target growth.

Okay, go ahead.

Through the chair with your list.

Are you done with your your characteristics of the barrier?

Also, accident potential zones for airports are not included in the zoning overlay.

So those, I mean not zoning overlay, target growth area.

So those areas are removed.

All right.

Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you, Chair.

All right, Councilmember Arias for the first time, and then Councilmember Diamonds the second time.

Thank you, Chair.

Ms.

Parola, and through the chair.

I think this is a very important piece of legislation that we're about to vote on.

And right now I I feel like there's so many things moving right now, and I have no idea what the heck's going on.

Um when there's an important piece of legislation, at least on my end, I hold a public notice meeting, or I have a presentation.

I think this merits one, if not both of those.

Um, I would ask for a deferral.

I want to support this.

I just really want to understand what I'm voting on.

Um, I asked some great questions that even that your your statement to that.

I I still don't even comprehend it right away.

So if it's okay with you, I would like to defer it, but also um I would love for you to at least give us a one pager to address some of her questions or concerns and just more of an overview of what we're looking at here.

Um, because I I really want to understand that before I I vote yes on this if that's okay with you, uh, Mr.

Chair.

So I'm asking for a deferral at least a one cycle.

Okay.

Yeah, I mean, I think that's what most members are comfortable with right now.

I got another member here and one down here.

So we'll we'll we'll take a lap on this and um we'll go ahead and defer and hopefully uh the bill sponsors can kind of get everyone more comfortable with this.

I potentially wanted to look at the map a little closer.

We just got that map like yesterday.

Um I wanted to kind of zoom in for my district and just make sure that the core the you know all the quadrants that are in there um should be in there, so to speak.

So I would certainly appreciate a little bit more time.

Uh I don't want to, you know, run this around the track multiple, multiple times, but it is a significant piece of legislation.

So with that, we will go ahead and defer it and we'll we'll see where it goes from there.

All right.

Item number 29, 2026 345.

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

I think everybody should be in the queue right now.

All right, Councilmember Aries.

On the previous one, um, you deferred it, but we just need to make sure that we continue that public hearing to the next meeting.

All right, we'll go ahead and open that public hearing and continue the public hearing until 616 26.

All right, uh, thank you, Chair.

Uh, yeah, we're on 29, 2026, 345 with ex parte.

This is the appeal for the uh restaurant with outside sales, the administrative deviation, and the reduced uh number of parking spaces, so on and so forth.

So, Council Member is recognized for exparte.

Thank you, sir.

Um just to confirm, is this the uh the Duncan Donuts one that people are emailing?

Yeah, all right.

So I'm declaring ex parte.

I've received uh several emails regarding this uh potential Duncan donuts, even though it's not really deemed the Duncan Donuts yet or at all.

Um, and I also uh this was I had a conversation on 6-1 uh to discuss this, and um it's currently being filed as we speak.

Thank you.

All right, Councilmember White, you're recognized?

Yes, sir.

My emails have been filed, and I had a conversation with the applicant, and all of that's been filed.

Thank you.

All right, Councilmember Freeman, recognized.

Uh thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Um I rise to declare.

I received the same emails that my colleagues did, and I'll be sure to make sure that those are filed with legislative services.

Thank you.

All right, Councilmember Johnson, you're recognized.

Thanks, Mr.

Chair.

I rise to declare ex parte.

I received uh the requisite emails as has been stated before, and they've been filed with legislative services.

Thank you.

All right, and I'll also declare ex parte.

Our office has received uh numerous emails on this uh as well.

We had a meeting in my office.

I'll get the exact date and time uh with not the applicant, but I guess the a property owner, believe it was yesterday, to discuss uh all of the things that are being uh voted on today.

We'll get this paperwork filed with legislative services, and we also have Councilmember McGaffney recognized.

Thank you through the chair.

Also, Ross and the Claire Sparte also received numerous emails in regards to this legislation.

I also met with Miss Sandy Trummer and the owner of this parcel, who just ran down and gave me a description and the update on everything.

What's going on?

I asked me to have any questions.

Uh, make sure you think if I will legislative services, all right.

So with that, yeah, Mr.

Harvey, do you want to set the the floor or the kind of the I guess the ground rules for us here?

Um, go through the amendment.

Obviously, this bill is filed in a neutral status.

Um, so the amendment will be once we come to a consensus of grant the appeal, deny the appeal, and then you'll kind of give us the outline of who will speak and who will rebuttal, blah blah blah.

So please, Ms.

Harvey.

Thank you.

Resolution 2026 345 concerns an appeal by Joanne Purdy, a part owner of five points partners LLC of a final order of the Jacksonville Planning Commission approving application for zoning exception E 2607 and the administrative deviation 20 AD 2617.

Uh, the record that's been submitted before the commission for this appeal is part of the record.

However, you will be considering this request de novo, which means that a presentation of all the evidence starts over again, and the appellant and the present other presenters may provide you with additional evidence to assist your decision.

Um pursuant to counsel rule uh 6201 in section 656-140 through uh 146 of the ordinance code.

This is an informal quasi-judicial hearing.

No formal hearing was requested by the appellate.

The order of the presentation will be as follows.

There will be a disclosure of ex parte uh communication, which has already occurred.

Um, you will open the public hearing.

There will be swearing of witnesses if it is requested, and then we'll have a presentation by our chief of current planning, Aaron Abney, to state how the appeal came to LUZ committee.

The appellate uh will have a presentation for 10 minutes and will and must reserve any time for rebuttal.

There will be a presentation by the applicant owner of the original uh exception and AD that was approved at planning commission, and then there will be rebuttal if any time is re uh remaining by the appellant.

That club that public hearing will be closed at that time.

Um you guys will enter into your deliberations and vote.

Your decision must be based upon competent substantial evidence.

Um during the discussion and encrafting your motion, um please refer to the information that was presented today at today's hearing.

Um, and then at the time when you do your deliberation and offer a motion, the LUZ committee's recommendation will be either to affirm the commission's decision, um, reverse the commission's decision or modify the commission's decision or refer the matter back to the commission.

Um the criteria that you guys will be useful utilizing or under review for this exception and administrative deviation are attached to that memo that's provided to you and exhibit A uh for the exception and also for the administrative deviation, which uh is found in sections 656-131 C of the ordinance code and 656-109H.

At this time, I'll turn it over uh back to the chair to introduce uh Chief Abney for uh how the appeal got here.

Okay, so is this like kind of the version of a staff report, so to speak, or is this okay, and then we'll go to the applicant and then the rebuttal.

The okay, just keep me on track.

All right, Miss Abney, go ahead.

Tell us how we got here.

Thank you.

So, this is the appeal of uh zoning exception E2607 and the companion administrative deviation AD 2612 for a property that's located at 1604 Margaret Street.

Uh, these applications were submitted to the planning department for review and were heard by the planning commission on March 19th.

The first application, the zoning exception, um, was seeking to permit outside sales and service in connection with a drive-through restaurant for the property that is zoned uh CCG 1, and the companion administrative deviation is seeking to reduce the required parking for the restaurant and uh other potential tenant user from 13 spaces to five spaces.

Uh it's also bringing the existing driveway into compliance with today's code, and then reducing a landscaping buffer along the front edge of Margaret Street in order to accommodate an ADA parking spot on site.

Uh, the property was originally developed in 1927 and previously operated as a region's bank, but it's seeking to convert the structure to include a drive-thru restaurant as one of the tenants and a future retail or office space as the other tenant uh while bringing the site into compliance with today's standards, which just needs some landscaping and parking relief, given that the historic nature of the site and the year in which it was first developed.

Staff has reviewed the request and found that the proposed uses or the proposed use is consistent with the comprehensive plan.

It has existing land use category entitlements of CGC within the general area.

There are multiple restaurants which offer outdoor dining and will be consistent with developments along Margaret Street's commercial corridor.

There are practical difficulties associated with carrying out the strike uh letter of the regulation.

Given the existing existing historic conditions and land constraints, uh there's no practical way to provide enough on street parking for the size of the building that's there without demolishing the historic building or portions of it or encroaching within landscaping boundaries.

The request is not based exclusively upon a desire to reduce the cost of developing the site, rather it's to accommodate the unique size and configuration of the lot with the location of the existing building.

Um this property and the landscaping requests were reviewed by the city's landscape architect, um, and they recommended approval uh for the uh small landscape uh deviation that was needed.

Uh so because of these reasons and the reasons in the staff report, the planning department recommended approval of both the zoning exception and the companion administrative deviation.

The property is located within the riverside historic district in overlay, and the exterior work that's proposed for the site was reviewed by the historic preservation commission on April 22nd, where they voted to approve those proposed aesthetic improvements to the site.

A public hearing was heard by the planning commission again, it was back on March 19th.

There were several speakers in opposition citing majority of the concerns were related to traffic that would be generated by the drive-thru use, and the fact that there's not enough parking on the site.

Several commissioners noted that since the request was for outside seating, and given that there are several restaurants in the immediate area that provide outside seating, they did not have a concern for the zoning exception request, and the parking reduction is common for the area given that Riverside is a very walkable community where parking is provided along the right-of-way and not on individual parcels.

So overall, the commission voted unanimously for approval six to zero on both the zoning exception and the administrative deviation, and then both of those were appealed, and that's what you are hearing today.

Thank you.

Okay, thank you so much.

So, we are going to go.

This is going to be the order of events.

We're going to go to the appellant, which is Joanne Purdy, which my understanding is she has uh a legal representation, Mr.

Peter King.

Then we're going to go to the original applicant, which is Miss Cindy Trimmer, and then we're going to go to the remainder of our speaker cards.

So the appellate or the appellant will have five minutes.

The original applicant will have five minutes.

Go on and come on down.

And Peter King for West 70th Street representing the uh appellant.

Okay, go ahead and pause this time real quick.

Just um for the committee members, because I know this can kind of um get confusing when people say, you know, we support the appeal or we oppose the appeal.

Let's just be abundantly clear about what you actually, supporter or oppose when you come up.

Because if you say you support the appeal, that can kind of be confusing to us, and we can think, oh, you support the development, and we don't want to get wires crossed.

So just be abundantly clear when you come up and speak about what you actually want to support or oppose, and uh just further clarification, and we'll get the we'll get the actual um you know amendment to grant or deny from there.

So all right.

Thank you, Mr.

King.

Go ahead.

Again, Peter King, uh 404 West 70th Street, uh representing the appellant.

Um a little background myself, I'm a planner by training, got about 27 years of experience.

Used to work for the city, work for Nassau County, I'm out uh um consulting company now.

I also do commercial and residential leasing since I have my license.

Um I have a little bit of extra background on this since I helped develop the uh end lease, the uh uh the ice cream place in uh Springfield, which is the um uh right there at 4th and uh or 5th in Main Street.

Um so um uh the the issue primarily and I also want a little bit of background also is um I'm I've been brought into this kind of late, so I apologize in advance, but um I did go through the minutes of the planning or zoning board meeting, and um it's really not our intention to dispute the issue of whether a drive-thru is permitted or not.

Staff has already submitted a letter saying that that is uh a permitted use.

Um the appellant's main concern is that the specific use that the applicant is wanting to put in there was never mentioned, and uh the subsequent impacts of such were never addressed.

Um this is important because it asked for um some additional development rights uh variants on parking and the outdoor seating.

Um I have some I don't know if this uh I I submitted it to legislative services, but I and I do have copies that I can distribute.

Um I don't know if it came through electronically, but I do have my letter to Mr.

King, your time's running.

Oh, excuse me.

We're waiting on you.

Okay, I just want to make sure everybody had the time.

Yeah, no, we're good.

Your time's going, man.

Okay, I apologize.

Um you'll see in there there's an FDOT report.

Um it's a trip generation study.

It says observations have shown that certain land uses in Florida have experienced vehicle traffic queuing and spillover onto adjacent roadway system uh roadway systems.

Um and if you turn to page uh two of that packet, you'll see in my letter.

Um if you follow the the uh that graph, that arrow is essentially what a uh Dunkin' Donuts would be.

Uh, if you follow the that that uh lateral path all the way to the left, you end up with a Q line of 10.

Um the uh subject property has a Q line of less than five if you allow for 25 foot per car as per the DOT's uh uh regulations.

And as um the board has correctly stated, uh we really don't know if it's a Duncan Donuts.

There's a wide uh there's a huge breadth of impacts.

You know, on the on the minor side, you've got a pharmacy and a bank.

Of course, it used to be a bank, that's probably the lowest, and then the farthest to the right, you've got a Chick-fil-A, and if you look at your last page, you'll see what a Chick-fil-A is.

Uh that one has a Q for 28 cars.

The DOT showed studies show that that was the by far the highest impact uh use that you could have the drive-thru.

And since we don't know what that use is, it was never required as a condition of the approvals.

Um, that could very well be the case.

And in that case, we'll have uh street blocking, sidewalk blocking, public safety hazard, uh, et cetera.

Um, so the you know, the the issue of the the parking and the uh drive-thru are inextricably linked because if uh if a customer's comment comes and they see that the uh the drive-thru lane is packed, they're gonna go try to find a place to park.

Um, and uh that's gonna take up more parking.

Um, so essentially, on behalf of my client, um, we just respectfully request that AD 2612 and A2607 be remanded back to the planning board to place conditions on these appeals to determine the needed queue length for whatever specific use they've requested, or um, make an exception, basically require that it be a walk-up use only.

Uh, all right, sir.

That is your time, and you can just stand by for questions if anyone has any questions later.

Next, we will go to the original applicant, Cindy Shermer.

Before you start the clock, I think, are we at five minutes or are we at ten?

I get five.

Perfect, thank you so much.

Cindy Trimmer, one independent drive suite 1200 covering for Steve DeVenal this evening.

What you have before you is an administrative deviation that addresses dry aisle width, which is an existing condition of the bank, it addresses parking.

If you look in the surrounding area, this site actually has more parking than most businesses that exist in five points.

The properties that are commercial in nature, all up and down Margaret Street have zero parking and rely upon street parking, so the deviation that is in front of you is typical for this area, and the site has more parking than most other businesses.

And then for the landscape deviation, we have to bring this property up to code and include an ADA space that you see reflected on the site plan data January 23rd, 2026, and with the addition of that on-site ADA compliance, we are seeking the commiserate landscape reduction, but also looking at that site plan, you realize this is a very large right-of-way on Margaret Street that has ample landscape all surrounding this property to preserve the nature of the streetscape.

Moving on to the zoning exception, the only thing in front of you tonight is the small outdoor seating area that is tucked in behind the building, and the new enclosed space where the drive-thru was on your site plan that has two tables and a total of eight seats.

That is what the zoning exception seeks.

There are other issues that have been brought up by the appellant driveway queuing for a potential drive-thru restaurant, so that we are all clear this is CCG one, the drive-thru is permitted by right, and any issues with queuing and site planning will be addressed at the permitting phase.

That is not something that is before you this evening.

Your staff have outlined the competent and substantial evidence that support the administrative deviation and the zoning exception.

I don't want to belabor the point, but I do want to recognize, again, this is a CCG 1 property, it is in the Riverside Avondale overlay.

Recognizing this is in the residential character area, we have oriented this outdoor seating area on Margaret across from what is truly the dining district in five points, where historically we have had a whole corridor of restaurants that have outdoor seating that activate that streetscape.

We have intentionally not oriented it along her shell where you do have other residential uses so that that area and the residential character of it is preserved.

This is a very nominal request for a zoning exception for outdoor seating that is completely appropriate for this corridor, and it is absolutely buffered and protected from any surrounding residential uses, and all of the criteria that are outlined in your staff report for a zoning exception are met.

With that, I will stand by for questions.

And I do have the family members.

If possible, I would ask that Morgan Ashorian and her sister Tiffany both be permitted to speak first on public comment, and then we will stand by.

All right, we will go to the public comment cards now.

Um we're gonna go to Joanne Purdy, and then we will go to um both Miss Morgan and Tiffany Ashurian, and then we will go to the rest of the speaker cards.

So Ms.

Purdy, come on down.

You have three minutes.

Okay, just at your name and address.

Joanne Purdy, 2210 St.

John's Avenue 3204.

The handout she will see shows the location where the proposed drive-through will be the streetscapes of her shell, Margaret, and just the residential makeup of her shell.

I filed this appeal and ask you to support the appeal, deny planning departments.

I am a long-time resident of Riverside and have an understanding of zoning through past zoning issues and helping with the Riverside Avondale zoning overlay.

This appeal should be granted because one, the planning department failed to interpret the zoning code correctly for CCG 1 by allowing a fast food drive-thru only restaurant.

A drive-through restaurant in CCG 1 is not listed as a permitted use or a use by exception.

Therefore, by not being listed, it is not permitted use and should not be allowed.

The Jacksonville Zoning Code is an exclusive code where permitted uses are specifically listed and unlisted uses are not allowed.

The code calls out a bank with a drive-thru tellers in CCG 1 as allowable use, but it's silent on the drive-thru for fast food restaurants and CCG one.

There is a big difference between these two uses.

A bank has set hours and lower traffic counts.

So the code purposely called that out by just saying the bank could only have the drive-through, not restaurants.

Number two, the application is not consistent with the comprehensive plan.

There will be noise fumes from cars, the drive-thru, and on her shell street, it'll be hazardous for the pedestrians trying to maneuver the drive-thru.

Three, the planning department, the commission did not uphold the standards of the residential character area of the overlay.

1604 Margaret is included as part of her shell and is located in the residential character area of the overlay.

This requires uses to be compatible with residential use.

A fast food drive-thru only restaurant is not compatible.

The reduction of required parking from 13 to 5 and zero landscape by for market is not allowed or in keeping with the standards of the overlay for residential character area.

One of the goals of the overlay was to protect the residential character.

Because of all the bad zoning that had happened in the 70s, that's why the overlay.

This part of Margaret Street has really improved from empty boarded up structures to a beautiful residential street.

I own the apartment building next door, and you can see on the um that picture how close my building is to that drive-thru that will be listening to the orders being taken.

It'll have a negative impact on my building and my tenant.

If allowed, it cannot be undone.

His comments on this thing.

All right, thank you, ma'am.

And next we have Tiffany Ashurian.

Good evening.

I'm Tiffany Ashurian.

I do the leasing for Ashco Centers.

We've been family-owned and operated in Jacksonville for over 60 years, so we really understand.

Can you state your address?

Oh, sorry.

1434 Hendricks Avenue.

Okay, go ahead, continue.

We've been family owned and operated in Jacksonville for over 60 years, so I know this area.

I have been trying to lease this property for over four and a half years, and the structure is only built for a bank.

The only use as it is currently can be a bank.

So there have to be some changes allowed so that we can activate this space.

We've done something very similar, and we won the beautification of San Marco award for the Panera Bread Shopping Center we did that has a Mayday ice cream.

Thank you.

Alright, thank you.

Next we have Morgan Ashurian.

Hi, Morgan Ashurian.

Address is 1434 Hendricks Avenue.

I just wanted to echo what Tiffany's saying.

Tiffany has undertaken the leasing efforts for this property, and it's been we've made very minimal movement.

Nobody's interested in the building in the way it is.

And in order to make this marketable to the kind of tenant who would activate this space, it would need to have those minor changes requested, which again to the building.

Those changes are that small patio, rooftop deck, and enclosure of the first drive-through lane.

Nothing that we're asking for is really um an exceptional uh thing, and in fact, this is significantly pared down from what our original request was.

We originally wanted to have a restaurant for the entire building.

And when we weren't able to do that, we pared it down to just have a small segment that is going to have a restaurant use, and then hopefully we can find uh office or um some other use for the other side of the building.

But to start, we kind of need this to make it viable.

It's been vacant for four years, and at the present time, you know, we've chained off the entrances and exits just to avoid um vagrants inside the building.

The insurance costs are higher because it's a vacant building, it attracts um certain activity that is not very desirable in our neighborhoods.

So we'd really like to see that this turns into something that is vibrant and is community oriented and is similar to the other development projects we have around San Marco.

Um so we appreciate your consideration.

All right, thank you.

Next we have Timothy Hole.

Good evening.

Uh, my name is Timothy Hole.

I reside at 2064 Herschel Street.

It's a Chelsea of Riverside condominium building, which I'm the treasurer of the board.

We're also uh joined by the pres of the secretary of the board here as well, her husband.

Um, we are here to support the appeal.

Uh the basically just solely on traffic issues.

Um, traffic at the intersection of Margaret and her shell street and five points in general is over capacity.

With uh parking on both sides of her shell shershell street.

Only one car is able to actually travel down the road at one time.

And by 9 a.m., there's no parking on Herschel Street with the doctor's office on the corner of Goodwin and her shell street and five points dental and other small businesses already operate.

There's no parking by 11 a.m.

We have Bar Taco prospects and tons of other restaurants.

So again, there's it's almost impossible to drive down her this block or Herschel Street.

And adding a drive-thru is just gonna be detrimental to uh to all of Margaret Street, Oak Street, and Herschel.

Um, and then that's not including drivers coming from 95.

That'll be going through Five Points, which is going to add more traffic.

Um Five Points already has a Starbucks Einstein's bagels and a Wendy's whose drive-thru already backs up traffic into the intersection of five points every single day.

Uh we are uh with adding another chain, we're going to be watering down the uniqueness of Riverside and hurting local small businesses, including all the coffee shops we already have that we don't need any more of.

This is a suburban business format.

It's completely inappropriate for the site, and we are all here for adaptive reuse of the structure, which is celebrating its 100-year anniversary, uh, but not this project.

Thank you.

All right, next we have Nancy Powell.

Hi, uh Nancy Powell, 1848 Challen Avenue, Jacksonville, Florida.

I'm here before you to support the resolution, which is the appeal that seeks to overturn the decision of the Planning Commission allowing the drive-thru.

In other words, we don't want the drive through in the form of Regents Bank building.

As you know, I've spent many years advocating for walkability, quality of life measures to balance development and business growth with pedestrian experiences for residents and visitors.

I am the former executive director of Scenic Jacksonville, served six years on the Riverside Avondale Preservation Board, including terms as zoning chair and board chair.

What struck me about this application was that when it was presented, it was presented to the public with really just we're looking for outdoor sales and service and we're looking for parking relief.

It was not described as what it is.

This is a drive-through kiosk, drive through only, which is a new trend.

There's Dunkin' Go, there's Dutch Brothers.

Today in the paper, there was one for Boost, and most of these are on University Boulevard or Normally Boulevard.

They have double drive throughs, they are high capacity restaurants.

And so this is what this is.

And it was not represented properly, and it was not evaluated properly.

Because as Mr.

King said, the the stacking is is there was no traffic study required and maybe required later, but there's no public engagement in any of this to even conduct a different one.

And so it's very obvious that this will produce stacking onto Shur Shell Street.

And the pictures that you see are a car with the arrows, which would be driving left into the drive lane.

There's only one drive lane.

Once you're in the drive lane, you can't get to the parking, you can't get around.

If something happens, you're stuck.

And once this is stacked onto the street, it will block it in both directions.

Her Shell Street's going to come from Margaret, come from Goodwin.

People are going to be like this.

And then there's the quality of life issues for emissions, lighting, pollution, and noise from the ordering windows of somebody, you know, the speaker barking.

And so this is not compatible with the Riverside Avondale historic character of that street.

So the second page of your document here shows the yellow section, which is primarily residential.

That was done on the overlay on purpose so that it would things would be compatible.

A bank with a drive-thru is compatible.

There are thank you.

Thank you.

Next we have Susan Heitch.

I.

Which one do I talk to?

We can hear you just fine.

Okay, great.

Name and address.

Susan Height, 2064 Herschel Street, also Chelsea condominiums.

I'm secretary on the board there.

My primary concern is traffic, but I everybody has spoken to that so clearly, I won't mention that.

The two points I do have is all the other restaurants we talk about in that area front on Margaret or Park.

This building does front on Margaret.

The side of the building is on a corner, is on her shell, which is a residential street, and will bring all of the problems that have been presented.

My second concern is given that this is an attractive brick building.

What about all the exterior stuff?

There was talk about an elevator, an external elevator.

What about the signage?

Dunkin' Donuts is very orange.

What kind of signs will we have?

Those are my concerns.

Thank you.

Thank you, ma'am.

Nice.

We have Richard Wickiff.

Wickkoff.

Micah.

My name's Richard Wykoff.

I live at uh 2030 Herschel Street in a four-unit residential historic building that's three doors away from this uh former bank building that's in question.

Um in addition to the the my objection to this uh uh exception and my support of the appeal is based on the traffic problems as uh as has been stated.

This is a residential street with street parking on both sides, and usually it fills up or it's relatively uh full on both sides during the day, so that you can only have one lane of traffic.

It's a two-lane, a two-way street, but it's only one lane available.

So cars ordinarily have to sort of stop and let somebody buy, and then you have to weave your way through a driveway, uh a backup uh of uh of this uh drive-thru onto Herschel Street would absolutely block that street, and there would be no traffic moving.

Um I think it this drive-thru retail food service is incompatible with this historic residential district.

There's another historic building across the street, a residential building across Herschel Street from uh from this building in question.

Uh, I think this is totally out of character, and uh it's a shame to see a beautiful neighborhood being uh in encroached upon by this kind of an establishment.

A bank, professional offices, fine, but uh drive-through uh retail uh food service, I think is just doesn't fit the nature of the neighborhood, and I think it'll be a shame because this neighborhood is a beautiful neighborhood, and Jacksonville should be proud of it and preserve it.

Thank you.

All right, thank you, sir.

Up next is uh Angela Schiffanella.

Thank you, Angela Schiffinella.

I live at 1352 Avondale Avenue, and I also own property at 1661 Riverside, which is Caddy Corner across Margaret Street.

Um, I'm very concerned about this application, or about the um the original deviation that was granted, and so I'm in support of the appeal.

I want to speak.

I think the other people speaking tonight have spoken um very well about the traffic concerns.

These issues from a very high intensity drive-thru like this are predictable, they're not um something that are hard to imagine.

They're very predictable, they are a nuisance and they are a hazard.

Um, I think it's um inappropriate to look at the original bank building that's there and make the case that this is the same use or a similar use, it's a drive-thru.

It was the original drive-thru had two stations, it was for a very low intensity bank use that might get five or six cars an hour.

This fast food breakfast chain could get up to 30 cars an hour, and they've reduced the drive-through capacity to one window.

So I think that means that they have to totally really reevaluate that original application and look at that drive-thru on the face of it.

Um, the other thing in my packet that I submitted earlier, um, I looked at similar restaurants, and I looked at one in particular in Murray Hill.

It's tucked into the fringes of a historic neighborhood, but when you look at that site plan, there is a 30 or 40 foot buffer between the next door residence and the drive-thru lane.

So that menu board, which is lit and got a speaker, there's some adequate buffer to that residence.

Um, there is no buffer in this case.

That menu board fronts the driveway, which faces the apartment building next door.

I think I know that traffic will get involved and make decisions, but I it's so important for this committee to think about what the effect of these nuisances are, and that is it will reduce the property values of all of these beautiful condominium and apartment units in this block and the blocks nearby.

I don't think you can look at this project and assume anything else.

If you're looking at buying a condo and then these beautiful old buildings, do you want to have that use starting at five in the morning being a nuisance?

It will lower property values.

The great thing about what you guys do and what zoning does, when we invest our assets in these properties, we have an expectation that the zoning code protects our investment.

The zoning codes came into being in the 1920s and 30s just for this purpose.

People moved into the suburbs, they were investing their hard-earned dollars.

They wanted the expectation that that investment would be protected for their lifetimes.

And so zoning codes exist to do that.

And I think in this case, the zoning code must protect the value of our properties.

There are dozens of property owners affected by this.

It's unfortunate that it's taken a long time for the business owner, but I really encourage you to respect the rights of the many owners here and not just the single business owner whose inconvenience.

Thank you.

Thank you, ma'am.

All right, up next we have Sarah Provost.

My name is Sarah Provost, and I live at 2142 Herschel Street, two blocks from the proposed corporate drive-through business.

I was born in Riverside Hospital, have a long history in the Riverside 5.

This neighborhood has a unique character in Jacksonville in that it is walkable and people focused.

Residents of Jacksonville have almost limitless options if they would like to live in car-focused, asphalt paved, suburban sprawl neighborhoods, full of drive-thru fast food restaurants and seas of parking lots, but very few options if they prefer walkability, tree-lined streets, and small people focused businesses.

There has been a disturbing trend over the past few years of more cars, more traffic, more parking, and more huge corporate businesses creeping into our little haven of peace and trees and walkability.

To be clear, outdoor seating and new restaurants are great, but paving over more green space and landscaping and inviting more cars to the area are not.

I hope that we do not keep making allowances that are eroding the neighborhood characteristics that make Riverside special in the city.

Up next we have Walter Green.

Okay.

You support the appeal.

Thank you.

I uh we have Shannon Blackenship next.

Thank you.

Shannon Blankenship, my address is 2623 Herschel Street.

I'm the executive director of Riverside Avenue Preservation.

Thank you all for hearing this appeal tonight.

And to be clear, we support the appeal, and we do not want a drive-through restaurant here at 1604 Margaret Street.

But I want to speak specifically about why Riverside Avenue Preservation cares about this specific property so much.

This building, 1604 Margaret Street, has been commercial for the last few decades, but has retained its residential character and its distinct personality and style through all of that.

If you look at this property today, it still has unique architectural elements that would be fantastic in a retail capacity in an office capacity, and again has been commercial in its most recent past.

But the proposal for the drive-thru fast food restaurant not only diminishes that distinct characteristic by adding that front-facing glass elevator as well as a new rooftop balcony, it also makes sure that in that drive-thru, you're then blocking all of those parking spaces that the applicant has requested to be the only parking for the whole building.

So not only do you have the traffic impacts from the drive-thru, but the administrative deviation for parking that you're being asked to look at would be blocked by that drive-thru restaurant.

So all of these things are packaged together and really forming what is a bad proposal for a very unique property that we hope can be preserved and protected in its commercial capacity here along uh Margaret Street.

The residents of Herschel Street have been very clear, and as Angela stated, this is a very predictable outcome of having a Herschel Street drive-through access point in this really small um drive-through space uh here in Riverside.

Happy to um answer questions uh about any other impacts that we believe this property might have for all of Riverside.

Um, would love to see its uh commercial use um but not as a uh drive-thru restaurant.

Thank you so much.

All right, thank you, ma'am.

And the last speaker we have is Juliana Whitehoff.

All right, you do not wish to speak, and you oppose or okay, all right.

Thank you so much.

That is it for uh public speaking.

Uh, I do have Mr.

Gaffney on the queue.

Um, oh yeah, yeah, yeah.

Thank you through the chair.

Um, I just want to make a comment.

I got I guess I got a question.

I guess to the planning department.

What in the constituents just share that we shouldn't go against a zoning coal.

Is this a I guess an overlay?

I just want to make sure what is that zone and coal?

What does that look like?

Uh through the chair to Councilman Gaffney.

So the property is zoned CCG one.

Um the interpretation of the CCG1 zoning district is that restaurants can have drive-through in that zoning category.

If they want to argue that interpretation, there is a path to do that.

You can ask for an official zoning interpretation from the director on a certain request of the zoning code, but as it sits today, restaurants with drive-throughs are allowed in C C G1.

If you look on every commercial corridor, most of the fast food restaurants are in CCG1.

Um, the overlay additionally does not have any restrictions on drive-throughs within any of the character areas.

So it reverts back to the uses that are allowed by right in CCG one.

Okay, so the chair, I just want to make sure I got a great understanding of it.

Um, so the overlay does not it does permit trial-through restaurants, correct?

Yeah, through the chair, correct.

Yes, and just so it's very clear.

The request today on the zoning exception that's being appealed is just the outside seating, not the drive-thru.

So the only thing we vote on today is the outside sitting.

Correct.

The outside seats.

Well, we're not okay.

Cause I'm I okay.

You know, the trial-through restaurant and traffic and things, which matters as well.

Don't get me wrong, but the only thing we've voting on is the outside seating today.

Okay.

All right.

Yeah, the chair to Councilman Gaffney, yes.

So the zoning exception before you is for the outside sales and service.

Okay.

I just beat that clarity.

Okay.

All right, I'll stand by.

All right.

Um, just for clarification, uh, committee members, before we do anything, um, I I am gonna give two additional minutes to the appellant and to the original applicant just for um, you know, rebuttal or whatever, if they've heard any comments.

Uh, my understanding was uh we told you that you were gonna have more than five minutes, so I wasn't included on that.

My apologies, but you can have two minutes if you'd like to come back up, Mr.

King and Ms.

Tremor, you will have two minutes as well if you'd like to come back up, and then we will bring it back to committee and have our discussions and questions.

So the floor is yours.

Uh uh Peter King for Forest 70th Street uh rebuttal.

Um I think you all are also uh voting on the parking, the AD, I don't like the exception uh the outdoor seating, but um I don't dispute anything that the uh applicant said it everything she said was truthful and 100% true.

Um I would just uh say that this is uh I just don't think it's a good planning practice to uh grant this additional development rights without even knowing what the use is.

We're just gonna cross our fingers and hope that development services catches this problem with the queue.

Um maybe they will, maybe they won't.

Uh so that's the only thing I'm saying is I think they should be remanded back to the planning board until that issue is resolved in specific cases I don't know.

Okay, thank you.

Ms.

Tremor, do you want two minutes?

Nope.

All right, questions only.

So we will go ahead and close this public hearing and bring it back to committee.

We're not gonna move the amendment yet.

We're really just bringing it back to committee for discussion at this point.

If that's correct, Mr.

Harvey is shaking his head yes.

Uh the amendment, committee members, is to uh put the neutral bill into a grant or deny the appeal.

So um we'll just kind of have open dialogue about it at this point, and then if we grant the appeal, we'll we'll make that amendment and so on and so forth.

Uh Councilmember Johnson, you're recognized.

Mr.

Chair, I'm usually up and I I uh up on these issues, and I have gone through this because when I've gotten all those emails, I did a lot of research on this.

I'm thoroughly confused now.

Um I just want to make sure, because I keep hearing hearing everybody, especially like the gentleman that just spoke and others coming up to say uh things about drive-throughs and crossing their fingers and hoping that we do right.

We are bound by the law, right?

And the law tells us, and and I want to direct this to the general council to the council, our council.

The only thing that we can consider right now is nothing about a drive-thru.

It please, and I know Gaffney just spoke to that.

I just want to make sure we're on the same page.

The only thing that we're considering is this outdoor piece, correct?

Based on the law.

So it's not adding anything or taking anything away.

It's just one administrative deviation.

Please make sure that I'm in the right posture there.

Yes, so today for your consideration, you have to determine whether or not the zoning exception for outside sale for a restaurant with outside sales and services was appropriately granted by the planning commission and the companion administrative deviation, which reduced the required number of parking spaces, reduces the one-way driveway out width from 13 feet to 10 feet, not whether or not a driveway can be can be added with just the deviation is for the reduction in the width, and then also a reduction in the uh landscape buffer.

And you have to make that decision based on the competent substantial evidence that's been presented to you guys on the criteria for what a uh exception is granted under the code, which would be 656 131 C, and the the um subsection of that, and then also six fifty-six one zero nine for that administrative deviation.

Let me ask this, and I think this is gonna go to the planning department through the chair.

We're talking about this particular uh business that's there.

Does the code allow us to differentiate the type of business that it is?

Restaurant versus bank?

I think in that land use category from my understanding of the zoning category.

Um, like this is it allowed by right.

It could be a bank, it could be the restaurant, it could be whatever.

Through the chair to Councilman Johnson, so yeah, so a restaurant or a bank is allowed by right.

So the only reason that you have the exception before you today is because in CCG one, when you want outside sale and service, that's allowed by a zoning exception only.

So that's why they had to seek that.

If they weren't having the outside seating component to this, it wouldn't be you wouldn't even have a zoning exception before you.

Got it.

I got one, I got my answer.

Thanks, Mr.

Chair.

I may come back.

Okay.

Uh Councilman Gaffney, we don't have anyone on the queue after you, so go ahead, you're recognized.

Okay.

So Miss Shana.

Yep.

That's through the through the chair to Miss Shannon.

I guess what is it that you guys want to see?

I mean, like ideally, I know you want to keep it compatible, keep it, you know, consistent with the neighboring businesses.

I mean, what is it that you guys want to see?

Thank you for the question.

So the decision from the planning commission was not just for a zoning exception for outside sales and service.

Um, it was also for a parking deviation, which would allow for fewer parking spaces for this particular business to move forward.

And the reason we're opposed to that parking deviation in this location is because the drive-thru would actually block being able to use those parking spaces anyway, on top of the fact that additional uses in this building, which we do not know what they are right now outside of just the eight-seat restaurant, which is the proposed national fast food chain, those would require additional parking spaces as well.

So if they were just office as presented, maybe get by with fewer spaces, but it would be blocked by this drive-through restaurant.

So to answer your question specifically, Mr.

Gaffney, the um planning commission allowed outside sales and service as well as the reduction in parking, and we're opposed to the reduction in parking because it's connected to this use.

And I know that the decision about the use came directly from the planning department.

The appellant here specifically argued that the allowance of a drive-thru connected to a restaurant should not have been allowed by code.

So that was in the appeal that you all heard today.

Um, the ability for a um uh a drive-thru bank is explicit in our code, it is allowed to have a drive-thru connected with the bank, but for restaurants, it does not list that it's explicitly allowed to be a drive-thru.

And sorry, and then the last point to summarize um uh Mr.

King also said we're hoping to not just cross our fingers and hope that development services will end up saying the queuing for this drive-thru absolutely is way too much for Hershell Street to be able to handle, and we won't approve it because there's no public you know um input or process allowed at the time that those decisions are being made.

This is really the only time for the public input on the impact of this potential uh use at this building, it's connected to this parking deviation.

So that's why so many people are here for a minor parking deviation, because the drive-thru connected to it is what makes that parking deviation a bad fit for the neighborhood.

All right, Councilman Johnson for the second time, and then we'll go to Councilmember Aries just kind of popped in.

So, sorry, I wanted to ask why you were there.

If you could come back real quick, was I a couple questions that need some clarification through the chair?

You said this was the only public time that this happened.

Were you not able to have, was there not public comment provided uh in the planning commission process?

We spoke at the planning commission hearing.

So it wasn't the only, this is not the only time.

The planning commission hearing is what's being appealed today before you all.

Planning commission was the time for the public to be able to speak to these administrative deviations, the planning commission, there was an additional public.

Okay, so because I that's what you just said.

I wanted to make sure we were clear on that that you had the opportunity that the public had the opportunity.

The other one was I and this is and thank you for that.

The other question, I'm not sure who can answer it through the chair.

Um, it was spoken about the drive-thru blocking the parking spaces.

Uh I looked at it, and I'm thinking kind of like a like we've been to I don't want to use a name here, but other restaurants where there's a drive-thru and then parking on the side of the drive-thru.

Is it blocking it where you cannot use those parking spaces at all?

I'm looking at it here, but I want to know in your estimation, is this where you can't use those spaces at all?

Because that's not what it seems like to me.

Can you help me understand?

Um, through the chair to Councilman Johnson.

So, no, from the site plane that we see, um, right now on the site, you have two drive-through lanes for the bank, and then you have a drive-thru lane to get to the parking spaces and then the parking.

Uh, they are closing one of the drive-through lanes for the bank.

There will be one that will remain, and you still have the drive aisle to get by and the parking.

So the drive-thru lane will not be blocking.

So they're not blocked.

That's what I just want to get through because I keep hearing things that don't seem to coincide with reality of what we have been presented.

So that's what I want to make sure.

So the spaces are not blocked.

Gotcha.

Thank you.

Oh, well, please.

Hey.

If I may, Mr.

Mr.

Chair, I'll certainly want to hear him.

Can someone come and speak to that?

Just we don't want to, we can't just yell from the crowd, but I certainly will I I want to understand so that when I'm making a decision and we are we have all the pertinent information.

So and we're saying things that it please understand again through the chair.

The reason I'm asking these questions is because there are things that that I'm jotting down, and then when I look at the map and look at the plans, they don't seem to gel with what you're saying and what I'm seeing.

This is a um a historic building and a unique site.

The only way to access the parking is to go through the drive-thru.

So you would have to go through the drive-thru.

And so if there were cars in the drive-thru, you'd have to wait in the drive-thru in order to be able to get to the parking spaces.

The only way to go around would be you'd have to go through the drive-thru, and then if there's no one in the lane, you can access the parking spaces.

According to what I see, and again, through the chair, I want to make sure we're in the same space.

It looks like they're closing one of those lanes.

Uh, one of the drive-thru lanes.

So, in essence, it would not be two drive-thru lanes, it goes down to one drive-thru lane.

That additional lane is a space to maneuver through, which again allows access to those parking spaces.

I just want to make sure, and that's what I'm again.

When I'm hearing these things, they're not looking coinciding with what I see.

It then that's what's causing the confusion, at least for me.

Ms.

Tremor, did you have something to add to this?

Through the chair.

I I believe I understand what they're saying, and just for the sake of making the record clear, so that there's no suggestion that we're voting on bad information.

There is a shared access drive aisle from Herschel that is used to access both the drive-thru and the parking area.

And I believe that's the issue that they are citing is that shared access off of Herschel to both of those areas.

So I do want to acknowledge that there is that shared access from Herschel, so that there's no suggestion that that was not something that you understood.

And through the chair, just I want to add this, but it's not blocking those parking spaces.

Through the chair, correct.

All right, and last but not least, again, however, with all of that detail, we're still not voting on that.

We're voting on the outdoor dining.

So thank you.

All right.

Councilmember Aries, recognized.

Councilman Ray.

Thank you, Chair.

Uh, two things.

I'm not talking about drive-throughs here right now.

I'm talking about outside seating and parking reductions.

So outside seating, uh, my biggest thing would be um the landscaping uh requirement that you have to do an exception to remove some landscaping.

That's a part of having some some hard burn over.

Um, I do like the fact that the outside seating is actually facing Margaret Street and not Harshell, because ultimately you're you're facing bar taco right across the street, all the restaurants.

So it makes sense to have the outside seating there.

I have no issues with that at all.

Uh parking reduction is my only issue.

However, you know, we're looking at Riverside.

I I frequent Riverside often, and every time I have to go to Bar Taco or to let's say um uh any of those other restaurants there, I park and I walk a good two blocks to get to where I need to get to.

That's just how the the infrastructure is built at Riverside.

Um I have no issues with that at all.

Um the problem that we have here is the fact that we have a building here that's been vacant for four years, eventually is gonna create blight to your area.

That's my problem.

Times change.

We have to adapt.

The thing is, how do we adapt together as a community?

We need to have some sort of consensus.

So what I haven't seen today is heard from the applicant and the people uh appealing this is where could we find the happy medium at the end of the day?

I just want to see a happy medium.

I want both sides to prevail on this.

What I don't want is for that building to stay vacant for another four years, ultimately creating uh blight, having homeless uh frequent that area.

I've had a building that I've had but homeless issues um literally residing inside of it because it's been but dormant for about two years.

So we need to find the place to a happy meeting to make it uh safe for everybody.

I will tell you one thing though.

I'm looking at this map, and if you look at the Google map, looking at Herschel Street, I'm looking at two cars directly parked right in front of what would be the entry of um the drive-thru.

I know I said I wasn't gonna talk about the drive-thru, but should we decide to approve this?

I think we also need to look at Herschel Street and potentially make um an area where there is no parking allowed right at the beginning and the exit of the that drive-thru because otherwise it's gonna really create a block where it could actually create an accident.

So I'm just saying this I'm just speaking out loud right now I want this to pass but I also want the community to win so um let's just find the happy medium for everybody here.

That's all I want right now thank you.

Councilwoman Clark Murray you're recognized.

Thank you chair uh Ms.

Trimmer if you would come forward so I'm looking at the same Google map and I think it really gives a a a better helps with understanding what is the issue with this particular um application.

So Ms.

Tremor so outside sales are going to be that looks like a patio that is in the rear is that what that is a patio area that's in the rear like um close to the drive through lanes for the bank through the chair today there are two drive throughs that come through and exit onto Margaret right one of the I'm answering your question.

Okay one of those is going to be closed in and then in front of that is where this outdoor seating area would be it's actually at the front of the building on Margaret but it's kind of tucked in where that area is recessed from the primary facade of the existing structure okay thank you for that so that's going to be closed in and that area that I see from here is is not that outside sales area.

Okay.

So with the so the drive through the entrance that's not going to be blocked is the area that's in the rear where you're going to have the outside sales that's going to be enclosed through the chair that is correct.

Okay all right so then thank you for that so then um one of the persons thank you Miss Chairman one of the persons for um who are who's opposing this particular um application if you would come forward so there isn't a great deal of parking here.

No ma'am would it be would it be appeasing to you if it was possibly just maybe walk up use only the gentleman who spoke first he said maybe the the a good compromise like council member areas was asking what's a compromise so maybe it could be walk up only is that a possibility I see some people nodding their heads yes um uh to Mr Johnson's comment and yours there are a lot of great uses for this building um I'll a walk up um entrance would be fantastic you know retail office all of those things have retained the essence of the historic building as a commercial destination over the years there are many uses that could work none of them requiring a drive-thru restaurant all right thank you for that miss trimmer do you have any response to that for the for the um I guess the the applicant through through the chair the drive-thru is a use by right it's not appropriate to request that rights be given up okay I understand that all right thank you so much all right thank you thank you chair all right do you want to get on the queue go ahead councilman gaffe this will be brief through the chair I would just go echo the sentiments of my councilman uh councilman areas in terms of a win win I don't know what that looked like though but you know and I don't know if we could figure that out tonight you know it's a lot of moving parts and things and that nature but I hear what my other colleagues have to say and then we'll try to have to make a decision because you know this if I don't want to disappoint the community at the same time you know I got we got this young lady who owns this land who owned this property and she has rights as well so I mean I wish we had more time you know to try to figure this out but anyway we'll hear what my colleagues have to say we'll go to Councilmember Johnson and I'll take the next slot since no one else is in the queue so councilman johnson, you recognize it.

Real quick, Mr.

Chair, um, through the chair to the applicant or someone that could answer the question.

Do you have a tenant?

Through the chair, there is not a tenant that has been disclosed at this time.

I understand that there is a lot of belief of what the tenant would be, but the family has not disclosed a tenant at this time.

So, but they are in discussions with someone, we just don't know who it may be.

They're just in discussion with different entities, possibly.

Gotcha, because the way I'm I'm hearing it sounded like they knew that it was a specific.

I keep hearing national chain drive-thru.

So I'm just wondering.

Uh let me ask, because obviously, and it's been said several times, we can't touch the drive-thru because it's by right through the chair to the council's office.

If we do not go along with this, where will this put us legally?

Is there is there a space where they could end up going to court because we are not following the laws that are described in the code.

And if you're saying they um the like if we are owner applicant, if you are correct, if we don't hold the have they have a right to see you guys in circuit court um for not following our own rules, not following your rules or not establishing that there was actual competent substantial evidence to overturn the Planning Commission and planning department's um recommendation and ultimate decision, but you want to make sure um that you state what those are as a part of your deliberations when we get to the point of you guys making your motion and all that.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

All right.

So a few things here just to kind of add some clarification.

So I think this will help and certainly not muddy the waters.

Um so I had a little sidebar conversation with Miss Abney.

Just just so we're all clear.

I mean, I think we're already clear on what we're voting on as far as the zoning exception for outdoor seating and any admin uh deviation for the the parking and the driveway or the the drive aisle width and the um the landscape offer.

So, but what what I've heard a lot of is the community ultimately saying, you know, we we don't want this, we don't want a national chain and all that.

Um and I can kind of sympathize with that.

Um, but what I want to get on the record is Ms.

Abney.

So the question I asked Ms.

Abney is, okay, what happens if this fails, or what happens if it passes?

Either way.

Um can the owner just create or they can just sign a lease tomorrow with Dunkin' Donuts without outdoor seating and without any modifications at all.

Miss Abney, that question is for you.

Uh through the chair.

So for the zoning exception, the drive-thru is allowed by right.

Uh the outside seating component would uh would have to be removed.

Um if you deny the AD for the parking, they'll have to make sure that they provide parking on site to meet the the uses whatever they are in the future under the code as they're required.

So in theory, tomorrow or whatever, like if this fails at this, this goes away.

A drive-thru restaurant can still go in there without any type of exception.

If it doesn't have to no exception for the drive-thru, yes.

Okay, all right.

I just want to make sure everyone is hearing that correct.

So, so that is allowed by right.

Now, the the other thing that she said that I I would offer to the community is if if you believe that the zoning code is being misinterpreted because technically in CCG1, it doesn't specifically call out drive-thrus for restaurants.

You can ask for an official official interpretation of the zoning code, I believe, from this lady right here, Miss Parola.

However, every single drive-thru restaurant in Jacksonville is currently zoned CCG one.

So I think it'd be a waste of time.

Um that's it's kind of like case law, right?

It's like, yeah, state statutes might not say that, but case law proves it, so therefore it's not going to court.

It's it is what it is.

Um, so we're gonna set that aside.

I didn't hear any problem with outdoor seating today.

Um I heard really no issues with the drive aisle, mainly because there isn't any the landscape bus buffer, didn't hear any issues with that.

I heard sort of back and forth on the parking spaces from 13 to 3.

Uh the site plan that I saw, I didn't I I didn't personally see any issues with the parking.

Um I never thought that was really a point of contention.

I thought the whole point of contention was having a bigger national chain drive through pumping out cars into that area.

And unfortunately, we we can't vote on that because what will happen, and we're dealing with this right now on like two or three other zonings, we get sued, and then the judge says, why do they deny it?

And he says, Oh, well, because of that, and they're gonna say, Well, that's not that's not acceptable, and they will win, and then it's all costing the taxpayers money to defend something that we really should never have gotten ourselves into in the first place.

That is what I've learned on this committee for three years.

I know all these other members have been on council longer than three years.

Um we see it all the time.

Um, and that's why as Councilmember Johnson said, we're held but we're held to that standard of the law, and we have to use competent substantial evidence.

Otherwise, we will lose.

And it happens, it happens.

So for me, that's where I'm at.

Um, we don't have any other speakers in the queue.

Uh so Mr.

Harvey, explain what the amendment needs to be if it's a if we grant the appeal versus we deny the appeal.

So if you are going to grant the appeal, that means that you would be granting the appeal would we since it's in a neutral posture, you would affirm the uh commission's decision.

In that case, you would deny the appeal.

If you're gonna reverse the commission's decision, then you're going to grant the appeal.

So in the current posture, again, you're neutral, so again, just look at it in its inverse.

If you want to confirm or affirm, excuse me, the commission's decision, you want to deny the appeal, and then you'll do the inverse if you are going to uh reverse the commission's uh decision.

Excuse me.

Okay, is everybody ready to vote?

Do you want to do a motion?

Okay, so we need a motion and then we can discuss the motion on grant or denial, uh deny, and then we can go from there.

So I'm gonna uh Q get on the motion, get on the speaker Q.

Sorry, thank you.

All right, thank you, Chair.

Um, I'm gonna um motion to deny the appeal based on the competence of status evidence that we have here that was been presented today.

Um, based on all the landscape architect planning department, historic preservation and planning commission as well.

Um, and that's my uh motion.

Okay, to amend, could you have to amend the responsibility?

Right, correct.

Yep.

So we have a motion on the amendment to deny the appeal uh which would allow the zoning exception, the administrative deviation, everything we've discussed.

Um so and we had a second from council member Johnson.

So any discussion on that amendment.

All right, seeing none.

All in favor of the amendment signify by saying aye.

Aye, any opposed?

The amendment carries.

So now we just need to move the bill as amended.

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

Anyone else in the queue?

Any other final thoughts or comments?

Alright, Councilmember Johnson, you're recognized.

Regardless of what the vote's gonna be, I just want to say, Mr.

Chair, and I think it's important.

I want to share this.

My heart goes out to this community because uh I grew up in Mixon Town, so not far away, and Ortiga and all around Riverside.

I understand the historic nature of this.

I went to West Riverside Elementary.

I get it.

Um, however, this is just a bit of admonition to all of us in this room and who's who are listening.

Um, I think it's important, and we do know that that there are issues with the code, but I think it's important that we don't wait until there is an issue for us to then come and and try to change it.

Like if we saw these issues were there, maybe come beforehand and maybe try to put in a PUD or find some other way.

But if we look and see the issues exist, we can't change the rules in the middle of the game.

And in essence, that's what this would be doing to this landowner is coming in the middle of the game and changing the rules and expecting uh an outcome, and unfortunately the law prevents us from doing that.

So uh I'm not sure what the vote will be, but I just wanted us to say moving forward, if you see something, get with your council representative or attorneys or anybody, but that let's not wait until then action is is pending to then want to change the rules.

Thank you for letting me say that, Mr.

Chair.

Yeah, no problem.

Um, and I and I totally agree with your with your comments there.

And I did adjust I just did think of something.

Um was there any I know the app or the original owner or the owner um mentioned this to me.

Was there any like uh historic commission or historic um review of this?

Sorry if that was mentioned earlier while I was out.

Ms.

Tremmer, can you speak to that?

I think you you mentioned that in our meeting.

To the chair all of the architectural changes to the building you heard reference to an elevator and and a um rooftop terrace all of that went before Jacksonville Historic Preservation Commission under a certificate of appropriateness and was reviewed by them.

Okay.

Okay.

Um because obviously you know representing the San Marco Historic area that's always like the you know the number one thing is you know obviously the the zoning the use um our hands are tied there so obviously the next thing we always go after is the um character and the look and the aesthetics of the building so I'm I'm glad to hear that that passed so we have no one else in the queue so uh Mr.

Harvey please make sure you're you can explain to us what does the green button do what does the red button do.

Right now if you hit the green button to move the amendment um move the bill as a mandate you will be uh denying the appeal which will be approving or granting excuse me approving the planning commission's um order.

Is everybody clear?

Okay so the green button green is to deny the appeal red would be to overturn the planning commission's decision.

Okay so we just made the amendment to deny green button means that all right open the ballot recorder vote.

Six years zero knees by reaction you have denied 226 345 item number 30 2026 363 open the public hearing get a staff report are we good?

Um are we ordinance 2026 363 is a change to chapter 654 which is administered by the public works department so I'm not sure if the public works department wants to come up and give a um sure report of their review.

Sure that'd be great.

Sickler the floor is yours.

Thank you good evening Nina Sickler Public Works this um this bill actually addresses a an initiative that the mayor had uh announced in May of last year that uh allowing private providers to perform some of the functions that the city's development services division does in review of civil plans and um we we believe that this is uh an opportunity for partnership with the private sector um the introducer of the bill uh had um covered much of what was going to be handled but we had four items that we requested be included which would have been um those items that the mayor's office would have done um the four items are uh accommodate training because civil engineers even though the registered pees do not have all of the background through their schooling and and um and other uh experience to uh stand in for the city on all elements and so the training is important to make sure that they have the background needed to properly review plans um the the next item was to um account for the need to have city oversight for those elements that are being designed that will be uh taken under ownership um and accepted for city maintenance the third was to accommodate for FEMA reviews that we are required to be audited annually and can affect our ability um to be underwritten for insurance and the fourth was the funding for tree commission the um the part of what's reviewed during civil plans is to uh to account for that calculation in order to put the appropriate funding into the tree commission fund so um we have worked with council member diamond, and we believe we have um come to uh general agreement on three of those four items and um council member, would you like me to cover those or would you like to cover those okay so um we'll allow the council member to cover what what we've um discussed in terms of accommodating three of those four items.

All right uh so that was sort of the oh, wait, hold on.

All right, that was kind of the staff report, so to speak.

With uh with that, we'll go to our speaker cards.

First, we have Zach Miller.

Evening, Zach Miller, 3203 Old Barn Court.

Um, a little bit of background, my relationship with this and the state statute.

Uh for 18 years I've been practicing law.

When you guys see me, it's mostly on zoning matters.

For the first two-thirds of my career, once the uh the zoning uh was approved, my job was done.

And the zoning code is chapter 656.

I had an issue with that, I would usually bother these three people here, which I do quite frequently.

Um about seven years ago was the first time I got exposed to chapter 654, which is the uh civil plan review section subdivision.

Um, it was for a project for Baptists.

Um it was an experience.

Ironically, at the exact same time, they amended the state private provider bill, which has been around for ages and dealt with using private companies to review building plans, and they added the term site plan, engineering plans, or the functional equivalent, basically allowing private providers to also do civil plan review.

So instead of going to the city, you could hire a private provider to that same review.

Uh as my career went on, I've started to notice that I would get calls under 654 or the land development review manual or 518, or the technical review portions that frankly I don't think a lawyer should ever get involved in.

And in the last four years, it went from every couple months I'd get a call on it to about once a month.

Now I get a call about once a week.

What this bill allows for that is for the larger projects for the big projects for everything that the the city can have their technical no-how on, they can focus on that for the day-to-day building of single family homes, small subdivisions, small commercial projects.

Someone can have the ability to hire a private provider and do that.

What I've seen is that in the process of the last few years, the comments and and one particular in the same subdivision.

I've gone from four or five comments to 91 to build two single family homes.

That's aggravating for my clients, but that's a real world cost, the cost of housing.

So I look at this bill as not just something that is required by state law.

Uh, I think of this as an affordability issue.

I would here to answer your questions you might have, but I would strongly recommend you vote to approve this.

Thank you.

Alright, next we have Steve Stark.

Steven Stark, 9720, Cunningham Road, Texas Mobile, Florida.

Um I uh I am a developer and I've done uh built homes here in this town, and um I I have to re reiterate what Zach Miller said.

This this whole process going through the city is so slow, so ordained.

Um I mean, I understood during COVID, you know, it was it was slowed down, but it seemed like after COVID, it's the same slow process.

And uh, you know, time is money.

And I have sat and done some projects where I I try to get some kind of you know um comments back, um, and you know, I just get nowhere with the city.

I've uh I've actually we've submitted plans and answered the questions, the issues that they had for the reviews, and then I'll come up with all new issues.

So it's it's just an ongoing moving target is what I found.

Um I use private inspectors, I find them to be very respectful, very uh professional, and I think for them to review plans, whether homes or subdivisions, I think is is a great move for this city.

And I'm and it's all about money.

Everybody wants houses to be cheap, you know, lower the cost, lower the cost.

I can't lower the cost when I'm sitting for 18 months going through a process of permitting, and I'm making that making the payments, I'm making the property tax payments, and you know, those those costs have to be, you know, they have to be pushed, you know, down, you know, everybody has to pay.

So the city wants to lower the cost, they want to do stuff.

Let's streamline this process because it's not streamlined at all.

Thank you.

All right, next we have Chrissy Kinney, followed by Jean Yoder, and then Austin Nicholas.

All right, she is in opposition with uh no comment and Jean Yoder, followed by Austin Nicholas.

Good evening.

My name is Jean Goter.

Um, 11470 Cisco Gardens Road South.

Um, I'm here because this would benefit the in-field builder, um, residential builder tremendously.

I have been in the business for over 25 years doing residential building.

The last 11 of it has been in-field affordable housing.

I have had more of a struggle in the last 11 years with permitting and the in-field building industry struggle than I did the whole time I worked with the big box builders in communities.

Um, these um delays cost us three thousand dollars average because every day is a missed opportunity to close for an affordable house.

That's what we do as affordable housing where I work, and it's a delay when we can't close on these houses for these homeowners.

They miss opportunities, we miss opportunities.

And if we build 250 houses a year, which we build way over that, that's that alone is $750,000.

So at 10,000, if it costs me more than that because of all the delays the city has cost me, it costs me 2.5.

And again, with that being said, when we email the city, ask them for for clarification on things, it's an interpretation issue, and we don't get feedback.

We ask and we ask and we ask, we email, we email, we email, we don't get responses.

Then when we go above those people's heads, we get told that we're putting too many people on the emails.

Well, we have to have answers.

We can't have our jobs sitting where we can't submit and get permits in a timely manner because it costs the companies too much money, and these homeowners are not able to move into their houses in a timely time frame, and interest rate may go up, it may not go up, but if it does go up, now they're what they thought were they were gonna get for one price is gonna be different, and every day that we have to pay money and it cost us what we sell it to them for is gonna have to go up.

So it's just uh a spiraling effect and a rolling ball that just adds to the price of the house.

And if this would come into play, it would tremendously help the infilled um builder with the affordable housing industry.

Thank you.

All right, next we have Austin Nicholas.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

It's Austin Nicholas, 4932 Sunbeam Road, Jacksonville, Florida, 3257.

Um, on behalf of the Northeast Florida Builders Association.

On behalf of NEFA, though, we would like to express our support for this proposed ordinance.

It's our understanding, as was mentioned, that COJ staff has been working on this private provider program, and we believe it's time to implement it in the city of Jacksonville.

We're simply seeking parity and consistency with the private provider program that already exists and functions well in the building inspection department, building inspection division, excuse me.

We believe creating a private provider program for the city's development services division will have several benefits.

It will allow applicants, including Jacksonville citizens, the option to use a private provider for more of the project if they decide that's the best fit for them.

We also believe it could reduce permitting times as well as provide some relief for city staff when permit workloads increase.

It's also worth noting Florida House Bill 927 regarding local land planning and development, which was signed into law by the governor last month.

This new legislation provides guidance for these kinds of programs and requires cities like Jacksonville to allow qualified contractors to assist with permit reviews, qualified contractors are expressly outlined in the legislation to include licensed engineers, surveyors, landscape architects, and certified planners among others.

It is for these reasons that we support this proposed ordinance.

As always, thank you for your time for your service to Jacksonville.

All right, we have no other speaker cards.

So we have a bunch of speakers in the queue, though.

So we'll just go ahead and close the public hearing and bring back to committee.

Alright.

Alright, we have a motion and second on the rules, substitute.

Can someone please explain the rule substitute?

The rule substitute is to uh basically correct scriptures errors that uh was throughout the document and then include revisions to Section 654-106 and creation of a new section for 144 that was um discussed at the rules committee, um, and it amends chapter 654, as you'll see detailed on page 14 of your agenda to allow the use of private providers for the review of the uh plans that are listed below, and then also provide uh some clarification on the sections uh 553 791 of the Florida statutes regarding the language utilized within our ordinance as well.

All right.

Is anyone in the queue for the rules substitute?

That's uh we'll go with the no.

All in favor of the rule substitute, say or uh signify by saying aye.

Aye, uh any opposed, rules substitute passes.

Um so now we're gonna go ahead and kind of pause there because I believe there might be another amendment, and then we'll I'll just go ahead and kick it over to Councilmember Diamond to kind of set the groundwork for everything that's transpired with this bill.

Uh thank you, Mr.

Chair.

I appreciate the uh the leeway.

So let me just kind of walk through a few things.

I'll walk through what the bill does, uh, and we can walk through what uh Nean and I have been talking about, and then we'll I'll propose one amendment and talk about what I think happens over the next couple of days.

But first of all, I just want to say 2026 364, that's the next bill is going to be withdrawn.

Um, I have ears, I listen, what fights are worth it, and that one's gone.

The administrative deviation bill is gone, it's being withdrawn.

So it has nothing to do with this bill.

Sometimes you've got two babies born in two different hospitals in two different states, and the only thing they have in common is they're born at the exact same time.

I just happen to file them at the same time, and that was a mistake.

So, anyways, 364 is gone.

All right, now back to 363.

So, first of all, this is required by state law, right?

And so we're gonna be implementing state law.

Uh, we're literally just most of the bill itself is just taking all the requirements of state law and saying here's how you do it in Jacksonville.

That's one.

Uh second, the motivation behind the bill.

Um, you know, you heard from some of the builders and some of the folks working there.

Um, they're obviously frustrated, but that my motivation on this is not to have like a parade of horribles of things that are going on with the city.

That's not my focus.

Uh, we've been trying to be very forward and positive thinking, which is I want to make it cheaper and faster to get a new single-family home into the hearts and lives of a Jacksonville family to get someone out of renting into their first home to uh get someone out of their parents' basement, save their parents so they can get their own first home.

And so that's the goal.

And as you heard uh from Ms.

Yoder, is that there's actually a uh a cost to this that is increased with uh the current system.

And so our goal is to lower the cost of a single-family home for families in Jacksonville.

It's literally an affordability issue.

Okay.

Let me talk about what the bill does.

So if you're gonna build a let's just call it a brand new house in Jacksonville, the first thing you're gonna do is you're gonna do the horizontal work.

You're gonna have like drainage issues, and you're gonna worry about uh, you know, the sidewalks and all those types of things, just the horizontal stuff.

And then you're gonna have to go get a building permit to actually build the structure.

Right now in Jacksonville, you can already do the private permitting for building the house or building the building or whatever it is.

You can do that already.

What this bill does is say you can also get a private engineer or private provider to review the plans and certify that the horizontal stuff has been done correctly in accordance with the code.

So that's what this bill does.

It's the exact same as if the city was doing it, but instead you're paying someone to do it.

Um, same rules, same law.

Now, the person doing it, I think is something that people had a lot of questions about.

So, in order to be certified under the statute, the the state statute, and what we would pass here today, you have to have gone and got an engineering degree.

You had to have work under an engineer, and you'd have to take in the tests, and you'd have to have the experience to go and do this to certify by the state of Florida.

So this is not just someone off the street.

You actually have to have the background to go and do this to sign it off.

And here's how it works.

Somebody else is engineering the site, somebody totally different, can't be your company, can't be your people, right?

Somebody else is engineering the site, they come up with the plans, the tent set, and all that stuff.

They do that.

And then you do your horizontal stuff, and then they have to come back and say to the city, the person you hired, the private provider, under oath, under penalty of perjury, that they have followed the rules, that they followed all the laws, the local laws, the state laws, that they've done it right.

And then they write their name on it, and they say to the city, here we've done all the review.

This has been done correctly under the law.

And if they're wrong, if they lied, then they can go to jail.

It's a crime, right?

That's under penalty of perjury.

If they made a mistake, they can get sued because they have to have insurance.

So if you're a homeowner or builder or whatever, and you want to use a private provider, you actually have a little bit more protection than if the city were to do it.

Because you can't sue the city for getting the review wrong, but you can sue a private provider.

So it has that bit of a benefit.

Okay.

So that's what the bill does.

That's why I'm I propose this legislation, and state law requires it anyways.

Okay, so let me go through the hit list of what I've been working with Ms.

Sickler about.

And so everybody hears it from me.

It's been a very good professional uh discussion here.

And I think we're really have our hearts and brains focused on the right direction, which is to do right by the city of Jacksonville.

The first thing Ms.

Sickler and the administration asked for was essentially a required annual training and test was kind of where they started.

And I wanted nothing.

I would just be like, Look, if you're an engineer, the state says yes, that should be enough.

And we met in the middle, and Terrence drew up an amendment.

It basically says, look, you need to certify under penalty of perjury that you have reviewed the materials prepared by our our administration, the building department, and that you understand them.

You know what they are, you know what the local law is.

You gotta you gotta certify in writing that you know what that is and have done the work.

So with that, I'll I'll propose that first amendment.

If you're comfortable with that, Mr.

Chair, or I'll just run through everything and we'll do that one amendment.

Um, we can yeah, we can stop and do that for we can do that.

I think I think that would be helpful because there's easy common ground there.

So I would move the language of Terrence if you want to explain it through the chair.

Thank you.

Uh so the proposed amendment languages uh to be added, so it'd be an amendment to the rules substitute, um, which would read any private provider or private provider firm conducting reviews must certify by sworn affidavit under penalty of perjury.

Receipt and review of all applicable Florida statutes, city of Jacksonville ordinance codes, the city of Jacksonville land development procedures and uh manual and uh city standards.

So that's my motion.

I would love to have Miss Sickler like be interactive in this one if that's okay, Mr.

Chair, because I want to make sure we're all good.

That's yeah, no, that's fine.

Um, Councilmember White, you've been trying to get my attention.

I just want to make sure.

Yeah, so that's what I was gonna say.

You just did what I was gonna ask you as a courtesy if or Ms.

Cavan would like to heard something different than what you think they heard.

I would like to hear that.

Thank you.

Okay, so we do have a motion that was just uh offered by Councilmember Diamond, clarified by Mr.

Harvey.

Did we get a second?

All right, and we get a second.

Ms.

Sickler, are you good with that?

I actually do have a comment.

Okay, go ahead.

Um, I think that captures the heart of what we want them to um understand.

I I would add that um to that language and uh training materials provided by the Department of Public Works.

Okay.

So do we need to add that in there or do we need to amend the amendment?

I think it's pretty close already, but it's I'm fine with adding that.

I can refer I can repeat the amendment as we just trust you.

How about that?

Can we just uh so the any private provider or uh private provider firm conducting reviews must certify by sworn affidavit uh familiarity and review of the department training and all applicable for the statute city of Jacksonville ordinance codes, the city of Jacksonville, land and development, procedure managers, and city standards.

All right.

That is the new clarification of the amendment, which was moved by Councilmember Diamond, and we got a second by uh I think Councilman Gaffney actually on the original one.

So with that, all in favor of the amendment signified by saying aye.

Any opposed?

The amendment carries.

Now, do you have another amendment?

I'd like to discuss where we're at with these other pieces of the puzzle.

So the fine.

And so there will be no other amendments for me today.

And so this is the version of the bill I'd like to pass out today.

But I want to put on the record kind of what we've been discussing.

So the second thing, Ms.

Sickler discussed it was, you know, you'll have engineers are going to review plans, and sometimes, you know, you could have like a 500 house subdivision, and inside that there's going to be drainage and roads and sidewalks, which are going to be turned over to the city of Jacksonville for maintenance, right?

And so Ms.

Sickler's concern, and I'm just gonna phrase it for you.

If I get it wrong, please let me know, was that hey, we they wanted to review those because the city's gonna have to manage it.

And my my pushback on that was I don't I don't want to do that because so many of these things in include just turning these things over and you still have good engineers uh who are looking at it.

And so our discussion was to work with Terrence to come up with language that captures this idea, which is to say the 10 days to review a uh a plan that's been put forward by the staff is very tight window for a really big project.

It's just very tight.

And so the language we talked about is if it's going to be something that's got um uh a road or a street or a sidewalk or a draining plan or anything at a small park in a in a big uh community that's gonna be turned over to the city for maintenance, and it hits a certain threshold of size, and we're talking about maybe like feet of road, that the law require that the private provider send their unsigned affidavit and complete set to the building department at least 10 days beforehand, so that they have essentially 20 days to look at it and they'll know in their own systems, this is a big project that's coming along, right?

So this is a you know 400 house subdivision.

Um let's make sure that we get the drainage and all that stuff right, and we want to review this with an extra careful eye.

I think that makes a lot of sense because if the city's cost, I mean, you could sue the private provider, you could sue the engineer, you could do a lot of things.

You go get insurance money, but at the end of the day, like we want to avoid that.

We want to avoid problems.

And so the idea here would be that they would have a little bit extra time to go make sure it was done right.

And so we're gonna come up with that language, um, Terrence and I and administration, Ms.

Sickler, to make sure that we get that right.

So that's one thing we agreed on.

The second thing we agreed on is this FEMA issue.

So uh when uh you develop in certain areas in Jacksonville, you're gonna impact the rules when it comes to FEMA.

And FEMA has requirements that basically say you have to take photographs of these things, you have to fill out certain documents, you have to do A, B, C, and D.

And the administration can be audited for that stuff.

So they have to have it right.

And so what I agreed to do is to find language with uh Terrence and the administration is hey, if this is a FEMA-impacted thing where we could get audited, it's one of those things that the private provider has to do all that work and then submit it properly to the administration with the rest of uh of the engineering review.

So that's what that would that piece would look like.

So those are the two things where we have common ground.

I think we can get there before Friday is my hopes, that there's no people can have draft language or whatever before next Tuesday, so we can get this thing done.

The one place where we didn't agree, and this is just a respectful policy disagreement, and it's okay, is the administration wanted to have the right to send their own people for the review of tree mitigation and all that.

And I think that an engineer could figure that out and look at the rules and how big a tree is and get it right.

So we can have that.

That's the one thing where we don't we're not on the same page.

I don't think it's a deal breaker for me if it's not in there, like it's a big deal to me.

I think that's gonna be onerous, but I I don't know where the administration is on that.

It's just the one place where we didn't have common ground.

It's not in the bill now, so it's not in there.

Uh, it just allows the engineer to do it.

Okay.

So I'll stop there, Mr.

Chair.

But that's I'm happy to answer questions or uh I don't want to do a lot of sausage making tonight because I promise we will go work in good faith to try and get this done.

Yeah, so my understanding is you're uh so we you've got about you know 20, 30% done, and you're gonna bring the rest of the amendments uh at council on Tuesday, as like floor amendments.

You're gonna do that?

On Tuesday, you're gonna bring floor amendments for these.

Okay, so we we've just heard it here.

So there's there's gonna be a bit of you know slight committee work for everyone else that's not on LUZ on Tuesday night regarding this bill.

Um, but in the interim, you'll get with uh public works and the whole team over there that's sitting right there uh to figure all that out.

Um people were in the queue, the the bill's ready to move, but we can get questions answered on anything that Mr.

Diamond has said, so we can go to Councilmember Aries.

You're recognized.

Thank you, Chair.

Uh yeah, I I first of all I want to be out as a co-sponsor to this bill.

I think this is an important piece of legislation for our city and for our small business community.

Um, you know, since I've been on council, even before council, one of the biggest things I've been hearing is permitting building department, and I know while the administration has done uh tremendous steps uh to move forward, I think we still have a lot more work to do, and I think this actually helps in the in that effort.

Um, like I said, it's a combined effort between um everybody and and the onus is on all of us to to expedite this.

You know, it's not just cost savings in in the terms of dollars, but also time.

Um, by doing this, I would assume we're gonna save easily um six to seven weeks, if not more on on permitting processes for our our our developers and our small businesses.

So um anything that we can do here as a body of council members to to expedite this and to make sure that it's done in a correct fashion.

I'm I'm on board for that.

One of the things that I was actually when I was taking notes, I was just seeing it all out, I was like, you know, I would love to have these private inspectors vetted uh annually, and and you know, you guys talked about this.

So you we made that amendment and I had it on my notes prior to that.

So I'm glad that's all that's already in there too.

Um once again, I want to be out as a co-sponsor.

This is important, and I agree.

I think the um the tree and uh um the tree part is is actually another piece of information.

So uh Mr.

Diamond, very quick through the chair.

Um, we're gonna vote on this today.

The tree component that's also deal breaker for me.

It's not on this bill.

So what are we gonna do about that later on?

Are we gonna bring another bill later on for that or let me let me be clear?

Sorry, I think they're we're kind of mixing stuff up.

So uh right now, if you go and you want to do your horizontal work and all the rest, one of the things you have to do is get a tree study, and then you have to, you know, do the work on what the tree study tells you, and you have to pay in, and there's an equation to it.

Um the way it's currently written, the private provider could do that and certify to the city, whatever that is.

The the administration's uh point of view was hey, you could get a crappy dude who just does this for his buddy and the city's not gonna get as much money as they should.

That was their concern.

I I think these folks are professional.

Uh it's also I've heard from the constituents out there that that was when it was a deal breaker for them.

They were just like absolutely not.

Um, and so it's a it might seem like a quirky thing, but the city will still get its money.

If there turns out to be like a huge problem, like we can always come back and revisit that section.

Um, you know, that's my two cents.

That's my I agree.

And while I saw the floor, um we're kind of already solving that issue by vetting these private investig uh it's um inspectors anyway.

So um if the city approves of that entity, then then we shall have no issues with that part as well, too.

So I'm good with this as me a co-sponsor and I'm ready to take a vote.

Thank you.

All right, Councilmember White, you're recognized.

Yeah, sir.

Sounds like we're getting pretty close from where it was rules because we left it just agreed on one thing and not the other three.

Now we've just got one left.

And I've actually witnessed that crappy guy that somebody got it took some trees down that shouldn't.

So I'm sure there's some way we can get a little closer.

But uh we've got some time between now and Friday and next week.

So let's keep working on that piece.

Thank you.

All right.

Final speaker, Councilwoman Clark Murray.

Oh, and then we have Councilmember Gaff.

Go ahead, Miss Clark Murray.

Thank you, Chair.

So to the chair to Councilmember Diamond.

I know you stated that Florida statute guides a lot of the information and the work that you did with the uh public works department, Miss Sickler.

You also mentioned about whether or not there's a large project and to add 10 additional dates or additional time for submitting that information to the city.

So does the statute uh guide how much time or a minimum amount of time?

Through the chair, that's a great question.

So right now it says 10 days.

Maybe what I was trying to do is build without having to open the city up to potential litigation in a conflict with the statute.

I decided to say instead of saying they get an extra 10 days on the back end, I said they have to submit it for pre-approval sort of kind of like a first review, 10 days ahead of time, which is which would then give the uh the department 20 days to look at a big project where as opposed to just 10.

And they would also be kind of signposted that hey, a big one's coming through.

Let's make sure this is correct.

Uh so again, I mean, the 10 days seemed reasonable, but yeah, I was you know open-minded just like what does it take when there's a big one coming through to get it right.

Thank you.

Thank you, Chair.

All right.

Council Councilmember Gaffney, you're recognized.

Yeah, I'll be brief.

Thank you through the chair.

I also um I want to be added as a co-sponsor as well.

I think this is a great build as well.

You know, in distro eight, we have like a lot of build and a lot of infill builds.

And every day I get a call.

I ain't gonna say every day.

Once a week, I get a call from a developer, a builder, about just uh how slow the city is.

So not only I think this would expedite things, but I think this is disappeared the pressure, and you know, um, I guess free up time from development services, I'm assuming.

I don't know if we, you know, what we in the staff in, but I think this would free up staff now that we got um private providers doing this.

You know, I guess the only question I do have, just to make sure, and I'm just curious, um, the city won't be losing any money from this, and I guess uh oh uh, do have we okay.

So you want to address that right quick?

Uh through the chair, yeah.

The city would lose money.

I mean, if it's X dollars for the city to do it, and instead they're paying a private provider, instead of that money going to the city, it'll it'll go to the private provider.

So yeah, I mean, ideally that would free the city up to do other work, but there's no doubt there's a there's a f fiscal cost.

Yeah, I and I'll close it out because I know it's time to go.

Um I guess the trade off is it's affordable.

We could get more houses on the ground.

And you know, once we get more houses on the ground, yeah, we could stop hearing about I ain't gonna say stop hearing about it, but at least we'll cut the deficit, you know, in terms of paying more houses and more density and more um units on the ground on people to house on what estate because right now rent is high, and I know I understand we got to get some houses on the ground.

So my last question this would cut, I guess the build is right now it's taking anywhere from like six months to build a house.

This would cut it now, what uh two or three months, maybe uh four months.

Uh through the chair again, very hard to say, right?

Um, especially until you get the private providers rolling.

I mean, you know, ideally there would be a lot of them and you could do things very quickly.

So I don't I don't want to make a false promise, but talking to the builders, they're telling me that that there's an extra month to six weeks added minimum, and on some bigger project, it could be substantially longer.

All right, council member areas.

You're recognized.

All right, thank you, Chair.

Uh, just to clarify, uh, while if this goes through and we have the private providers um doing the inspections, um can any applicant say, you know what?

Um I'd rather use a city.

Is that still an option?

And if so, I would assume the city route is probably more affordable than the private provider route or do we know the numbers are the equivalent?

Uh through the chair.

So yeah, you go to the city route, which is a scale and it's published, and you can figure out exactly what that is.

Typically, and I was looking on the building, the permit side, they they tend to track pretty close, but um it's a free market out there, right?

So I can't say for sure what that would look like, but the city's prices are out there, you can compare that to a private provider.

And I'll tell you this, like for the most part, it's gonna be these big infill builders who are gonna use the same private provider over again.

I would assume that they'll get a good deal by doing 300 reviews a year or 50 reviews a year.

So that that would be my best guess.

Yeah, as long as we give people the option, uh, I'm okay with that too.

So that's all I was wanted to them.

Thank you.

All right, we have no other speakers in the queue, and we do want to roll uh those amendments together into I guess one L U Z substitute or however you want to word it.

So otherwise we we had a motion a second on this previously, right?

Before we had all this discussion.

Add eight.

Okay, we have a motion, as twice a second.

Got it, got it, got it.

All right, open the ballot report you vote.

Okay, seven years, zero nays.

By your action, you've approved 2026, 363.

Alright, we're almost there, guys and girls.

So 31, 2026, 364.

Open the public hearing.

No speaker cards.

Oh wait, sorry, one speaker card.

Tony Langles.

Yep, that would be correct.

Yeah, you read the room.

Mr.

Langles reading the room.

We like it.

We're gonna close the public hearing and bring it back to committee.

We have a motion and a second on the withdrawal.

No discussion.

Open the ballot, court to vote.

Seven yes, zero nays.

By your action, you have withdrawn twenty twenty-six three sixty-four.

Item number thirty-two, twenty twenty-six, three sixty-five is deferred with a public hearing next cycle on six sixteen twenty-six.

Item thirty-three, twenty twenty-six, three sixty six is deferred with the public hearing next cycle on six sixteen twenty-six.

And the following bills are deferred with public hearings next cycle on six sixteen-twenty-six.

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 375 seeks to reduce the required minimum road road frontage from 48 feet to 11 feet to allow for the development of a single family dwelling on a vacant lot that's currently zoned RLD 60.

The property is a flag-shaped lot with 11.76 feet of road frontage per part four four of the zoning code.

No dwelling uh may be constructed on a lot in residential zoning district unless the lot has frontage on a public or approved private street equal to not less than 80% of the minimum lot width.

The existing parcel is located within the Jacksonville Heights subdivision where many surrounding properties have similar flag shaped configurations.

The parcel was originally subdivided from a larger parcel around 1985 and has remained in its current configuration since before the adoption of the comprehensive plan in 1990.

Because the parcel is not considered a lot of record, a waiver of road frontage is required in order to construct one single family dwelling.

There's been one previously approved uh waiver of road frontage for X Line Road, and that was 2017 391 at 7227 X Line Road.

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

All right, we have one speaker card.

Rob or oh, just John.

Oh, okay.

Yeah.

Questions only.

Uh Mr.

Robert or Darnio was here for support and is questions only.

So let's close the public hearing and bring it back to committee.

Alright, we have a motion.

Do we get a second?

Second on the bill.

No one in the queue.

Open the ballot, court to vote.

No problem.

Seven yes, zero nays.

By your action, you've approved, twenty twenty-six, three seventy-five.

Item number forty-three, twenty twenty-six, three seventy-six is deferred.

There will be a public hearing on seven twenty-one twenty-six.

And then the following bills are on second reading.

2026 420, 421, 422, 423, 424, 425, 426, 427, 428, 429, 430, 431, 432, 433, 434, 435, 436, 437, 438, 439, 440, 441, 442, 443, and 472.

All right.

Ladies and gentlemen, that is it.

We are adjourned.

We have a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit more.