All right.

Good evening, everybody.

It is five o'clock.

Welcome to the land use and zoning committee.

It is July 21st at 5 o'clock.

So we are going to go ahead with introductions to the left.

We're going to let our council president give us some encouraging onsetting words, and then we will hear a presentation from Mr.

Hart and then we'll get going.

So with that, we'll do introductions on the left.

All right.

Nick Howland at large group three just visiting.

Councilman Reginald Gaffney Junior.

I also want to introduce my two antagons at Nabana John and Liz who um who joining us tonight.

All right.

Thank you so much for joining us.

Joe Carlucci, District 5.

The prodigal son.

Kevin Carico, District Floor has returned.

The universe can exist again.

Randy White, District 12.

Terrence Harvey, Office of General Counsel.

Susan Kelly Planning Department.

Aaron Abney Planning Department.

Casey Cox Planning Department.

All right.

Thank you, everybody.

Mr.

President, please.

Thank you, Mr.

Vice President and Mr.

Chair.

And uh question for the immediate past, Council President.

Was it a successful international mission?

Absolutely.

All right, good to hear.

More to come.

More to come.

Love hearing it.

Thank you.

Uh well, welcome back everybody from Council Break.

I hope everyone had a um great opportunity to relax and refresh, maybe go to Hawaii.

Um at least get some time off and time with the family because we're getting going on another council year, and it'll be a big one.

Um, in fact, uh, we all know that the one big issue that probably the finance committee themselves will have to tackle early on is uh relates to the referendum in November on property tax relief.

It's looming large on every single county, all 67 right now in the state of Florida as they start their new um years and start looking at their budget approvals uh which cross the whole state, all every county and has to have it done by um October 1st to implement September 30th, actually, so they can implement by October 1st.

Um that's not your concern on land use and zoning, it's your broader concern on council.

But um, we have formed what I think is one of the strongest land use and zoning committees um there ever has been.

You guys know your stuff, all of you, and uh look forward to having a smooth um and productive uh year and uh particularly with uh a steady uh hand at the helm and and vice president Carlucci.

So thank you all for being here and look forward to uh serving with you in this next year.

All right, thank you, Council President Howland.

Uh and I concur this is a strong land use and zoning group.

We're down two members tonight, but um uh I do appreciate kind of keeping this this core group intact.

Um we work really well together.

Uh we we do a good job on compromising on a lot of these zonings and just appreciate you keeping us together.

So we'll we'll make you proud.

We'll make you proud down here.

We'll try to keep council nights uh easy and not not too crazy.

So with that, uh, want to welcome Councilwoman Clark Murray, Councilmember Johnson.

Thank you for for being here.

We will before we go to well, go ahead, Mr.

Hardin.

You can go ahead and give your presentation on the bill, and then we have housekeeping a little bit, and then we'll go into our action items.

I'll go quickly, Mr.

Chairman, because I think everybody's heard this except Councilman Arias, who isn't here.

Um is your mic on?

I yeah, okay, I can hear you.

You're good, you're good.

Okay, there you go.

Can you hear me?

Yep.

Um Paul Hardin thirteen 1431 River Place Sublevard.

Um I have pending before the council Tuesday night, a week from today, a bill that we're gonna request uh an in and out on that it be introduced next Tuesday night and be voted out that night for that reason.

I've been to every committee this week uh or the yes the last two days to tell them about the bill in case there are questions that people might have that come up in the next week.

It deals with the submerged land lease on the marina, which is in front of the four seasons and the um and the office building that are under construction on the on the North Bank River Walk.

We're entering into a new submerged land lease because it's expanding about 20,000 square feet.

Um the state is allowing us some additional activities on the site.

We have a uh 78 boat slips.

There's there's some small changes, but as a result of it, we're doing an amended uh land use sub submerged land lease there at the location.

We would like to have it in place uh in time for the first football game to use it for that for some some income for the city.

Uh as a result, we're asking for the uh submerged land lease uh to to be uh approved next Tuesday night.

That basically is it.

I'm here to answer any questions.

Mr.

site we have a uh 78 boat slips there's there's some small changes but as a result of it we're doing an amended uh land use sub submerged land lease there at the location we would like to have it in place uh in time for the first football game to use it for that for some some income for the city uh as a result we're asking for the uh submerged land lease uh to to be uh approved next tuesday night that basically is it i'm here to answer any questions mr mikaelus and i are available for the next week or so if you have uh uh any questions before the council meeting uh next tuesday night otherwise we were hopeful it'll be it'll be passed out that time by the way I think um Heather Reberett was was here at finance with the uh council auditor's office she has subsequently looked at the legislation she had one change there was some math that was incorrect on there um and and we've amended that actually they pulled the the the bill was filed and corrected and then filed a new bill uh on the the so that changes with made I don't think there's any questions from any of the other staff members uh with the city and the uh council auditors looked at it and they they've solved their or we've we've solved the issue they had uh again with that I'll be happy to answer any questions all right we do have one uh council member in the queue councilwoman clerk murray you're recognized thank you good afternoon um mr harden i just have a quick question because i'm trying to i i did see the email and but i didn't open the bill so what type of bill is is it zoning is it just i i know you mentioned lease it's submerged land lease the lands that are under the the rivers of the the the navigation right i'm sorry to interrupt i i do understand because i've i've heard the this the spill a couple of times but so what type of bill do is it zoning because i want to know if i need to do my ex parte that's what i'm concerned about what type of bill is not a zoning bill it's just an approval of the lease okay all right thank you for that thank you chair all right yep we have no one else in the queue so thank you so much mr harden we will be on lookout for that appreciate all right uh as the first committee of the new year we're gonna go ahead and go through a few housekeeping items and then we will uh run through the agenda we're moving a few things around um but otherwise should just be a pretty normal evening so uh with the new uh Michael Boylan bill as far as excusals go just want to set the kind of new ground rules so to speak and the parameters for that if you have an excusal please email it to me the chair and C C George Foote my ECA no later than 5 p.m on the prior business day and these will be granted on first come first served basis and George if we can just email this out to everyone in the committee and their ECAs just so they like have it in writing and see everything.

Again this is in reference to Michael Boylan's bill uh we are not supposed to have uh any more than one allowable excusal per meeting um and if you send it in and it's uh late or a non-allowable reason then it will be counted as an unexcused um absence and then after three unexcused absences you're automatically dismissed from the committee and keep in mind quorum is now five instead of four unless we have excused absences so with that I think every committee has pretty much gone over that for the most part um and yeah so basically just get your excusals in uh on time and everything should be fine uh council past president charico you're recognized uh thank you through the chair I guess to OGC so if someone asks to leave for an emergency tonight we can't leave because we already have five is that the new legal requirement for a quorum is and I have not it goes down it goes down to four if it's an allowable um excusal meaning like sickness family emergency so on and so forth okay is uh are the two people that are absent on allowable uh mr diamond is an allowable excusal because he's on military leave uh is my understanding and Mr.

Arius uh has not sent in his excusal so that is a one strike for Mr.

Arias okay I'll tell him you asked so I I plan to leave at 7 30 so I'll give you my excusal if uh if that's all right we'll get it typed up thank you okay all right so with that um one other housekeeping thing Mr.

Harvey if you want to go ahead and read just kind of the LUZ slash council rules on disturbances we can get started here you good any questions over here we'll we'll just any questions send send it to Mary Mary Stefopoulos because she's kind of the one who prepped me on it otherwise let's hear the disturbance uh policy sorry he's still new you're not on the mic still is it is it dead hello there you go pursuant to council rule 4.505 disruption of the meeting any person who disrupts a regular meeting of the city council standing committee special or select committee subcommittees or any other public meeting presided over by a city council member may be for with barred removed or otherwise ejected in the discretion of the presiding officer from further attendance at that meeting if the next if necessary due to the nature of the disruption the audience may be cleared from the council chambers or meeting location in the direct in the discretion of that presiding officer any person who refuses to leave the city council chamber may be subject to arrest disruption of a meeting includes the following

Any person who disrupts a regular meeting of the city council, standing committee, special or select committee subcommittees, or any other public meeting presided over by a city council member may be for with barred, removed, or otherwise ejected in the discretion of the presiding officer from further attendance at that meeting.

If the niss, if necessary due to the nature of the disruption, the audience may be cleared from the council chambers or meeting location in the direct in the discretion of that presiding officer.

Any person who refuses to leave the city council chamber may be subject to arrests.

Disruption of a meeting includes the following types: any form of political campaigning or electiering regarding a specific candidate or group of candidates in the city elections, impeding the orderly progress of the meeting by shouting, yelling, whistling, chanting, singing, dancing, clapping, footstupping, snapping fingers, cheering, jeering, using artificial noisemakers or musical instruments, waving any signs of any size, or engaging in any other display of excessive noise, sounds or movement.

Displaying or waving signs of any sort, except where used to support the speaker's presentation at the podium, and only where the sign is 21 inches by 21 inches or smaller in size and cannot be displayed in a manner which unreasonably obstructs the view of the dais for any member of the audience, regardless of the message.

Audible noises from cell phones or other electronic devices, consumption of alcohol or controlled substances, making vulgar vulgar or offensive remarks or gestures, or using threatening language or gestures, refusing to stop to speak when his or her time has expired or is otherwise directed by the presiding officer to do so due to the disruptive behavior as described here in and finally returning to the meeting after being having been removed or ejected or attempting to do so.

All right, thank you, Mr.

Harvey.

Um and obviously we don't get a lot of disturbances, uh, but every now and then we do.

So we just kind of like to preface the audience with that.

Uh we do take them seriously, um, but otherwise pretty much gonna be a normal meeting tonight, so there shouldn't be any issues.

Uh with that, we are gonna go ahead and get started.

We do have visiting councilwoman Clark Murray here, so we are gonna uh go to her items first in her district.

So if everyone will go to page nine, we are gonna go to item 17, 2026 428.

We'll go ahead and open the public hearing and get a staff report.

Thank you.

Ordinance 2026 428 is for a small scale land use amendment to change approximately 3.61 acres from residential professional institutional, which is RPI, uh, and low density residential, which is LDR, to CGC Community General Commercial.

This change is being requested to allow for the continued use and services associated with the city rescue mission.

The main site is located at 426 McDuff Avenue South between Nolan Street and Hunt Street.

Um McDuff Avenue South is a minor arterial roadway.

The site is in the Lackawanna neighborhood on the west side uh west side of McDuff Avenue, um, which is a commercial corridor designated as CGC land use.

Um, LDR land use is the primary designation in the area around the commercial corridor.

The site is located within an urbanized, dense part of the city with urban service delivery infrastructure, and it is contiguous with the CGC land use category to the north, east, and south along the McDuff uh Avenue corridor.

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

The planning commission heard this item at their June 18th meeting and unanimously recommended approval with minimal discussion.

All right, thank you so much.

First up, we have Richie Mullaney.

Richie Mullaney with Driver McAfee 1 Independent Drive Suite 1200 on behalf of the applicant.

It's my honor today to represent the city rescue mission, and just to add on to the staff report, I wanted to take just a second to give a little bit of an overview of the City Rescue Mission for those who might uh not be aware and to understand what exactly they're trying to do.

And so for 80 years, the City Rescue Mission has been transforming lives in Jacksonville, serving the hungry, the homeless, and the addicted through its faith-based programs.

This started in 1946 when some businessmen were just handing out cups of soup um on the streets of Jacksonville.

Today, the City Rescue Mission provides hot meals, transitional housing, emergency shelter care to keep homeless individuals safe and get them back on their feet.

They also offer a structured addiction recovery program with an 18-month substance-free living uh arrangement, and they provide job training, medical care, and spiritual development on top of that.

And so, given this expansion of services over the years, and also unfortunately the persistent need for those services in our community, the City Rescue Mission put together what they call Vision 2046, looking to their 100-year anniversary.

And they built a long-term plan that includes new facilities and increased capacity on their McDuff campus.

And so today that's what we're before you to talk about and to seek the entitlements to make that vision 2046 a reality.

Both the land use and zoning are a little bit of a mix right now, as referenced in the staff report.

Um property owned by the city rescue mission is currently CGC, RPI, and LDR.

This application seeks to unify those parcels within the CGC land use category to continue the uses that City Rescue Mission is already accomplishing to seek that homeless shelter, residential treatment facility, emergency center care.

Paul Stasi is also here, the executive director of the City Rescue Mission.

We'll get more into the details of the PUD, of course, with the next application.

But with that, I'll stand by for any questions that you might have.

Thank you.

All right.

And next we have Paul Stasi is in support and asked for questions only.

So with that, we have no other speaker cards.

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

All right, there it is.

We have a motion and second on the bill.

Councilwoman Clark Murray, you're recognized.

Thank you, Chair, and good evening to everyone.

So just basically some information for the uh committee.

The um representatives, Mr.

Umaney, and Mr.

Assey met with the neighborhood association for the Lackawanna community last Thursday, and that would be the North Riverside CDC.

And they discussed what they did here, which is basically what they want to do and why the zoning changes are necessary.

We the majority of the people didn't have a question.

We had one uh resident who is not necessarily in opposition, but he just had some concerns, and this concerns had to do with um perhaps homeless populations just kind of hanging out on the sidewalk, um, trash, some other concerns.

But the um CRM has been an excellent neighbor in this community for, as you said, as they stated, um, 80 years, and they've bought a program that is not just overnight housing, but they are seeking to I'll use the term reform individuals and provide them with not just a place to stay and a hot meal, but trying to get them to refocus their lives and repurpose their lives, and that's what they do.

So I just want you to know that they did meet with the community, and they've been a good neighbor for the time I've been in that community for 29 years myself, and I have not heard of any ill or um just negative reports regarding their program and what they want to do uh with all of their properties is appropriate.

Thank you.

Okay, good, thank you.

Always good to hear from the district council person.

Uh with that, we have no one else in the queue, so we can go ahead and open the ballot, record your vote.

Five years, zero nails.

By your action, you've approved 2026 428.

Autumn 18, 2026, 429.

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

Past President Kerrick are you recognized?

Uh thank you for recognizing the past president in front of the president.

You have to get used to that.

Oh sorry.

In the queue to declare my ex parte, I had an in-person meeting yesterday with Mr.

Molini and Ms.

Trimmer to discuss all of the details of this rezoning.

So we will get that filed and uh turned into legislative services ASAP.

All right, Councilmember White, recognized.

Thank you.

I'm gonna declare my exporte.

I had a conversation this afternoon with Miss Trimmer.

She gave me all the details, and it will be filed.

Thank you.

All right, we have no other ex parte, so I will go ahead and clear mine.

I met with Cindy Trimmer and Richie Millennium in my office on July 20th at 10 a.m.

And this paperwork is getting filed with legislative services.

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

Thank you.

This is the companion PUD rezoning ordinance 2026-0429, which is seeking to rezone approximately 6.4 acres.

Um, it's multiple different parcels and a combination of zoning districts.

So they are RLD60, CRO, CO, and CCG2.

So they're taking all of these parcels and all of these zoning districts and putting it under one PUD.

The purpose of the PUD is to allow for the expansion of the city rescue missions campus.

The proposal includes construction of a new dormitory, dining hall.

It'll include transitional housing units, a future clinic, and additional facilities in order to support the mission for providing shelter, transitional housing, addiction recovery services, job training, and other programs for individuals and families.

The PUD establishes site-specific development standards and permits a mix of uses, which would include the risk, the rescue mission, again, residential treatment uses, emergency services, housing, and then other supportive commercial uses.

Staff finds that the request is consistent with the comp plan by encouraging in vill development and redevelopment of underutilized urban land and innovative site planning through the PUD process.

We find the PUD meets the internal and external criteria.

Overall, the development is appropriate and compatible with the surrounding uses because it's located along a commercial corridor and it does transition to existing single-family dwellings to the south and west of the project.

However, the department has concerns regarding the proposed transitional housing units, which are on the south side of Hunt Street, and the proposed building height of four stories, which would be approximately 50 feet in height, to protect the adjacent single family residences that are located just west and south of that site from potential impacts related to the building height and scale.

The department is forwarding a condition limiting the height of this structure to 35 feet.

This parcel existing zoning district is commercial office, which uh these parcels are limited to 35 feet when adjacent to single family uses.

So therefore, the proposed height limitation would be consistent with development standards that are currently applied to the property today.

So for these reasons and those in the staff report, we forward a recommendation of approval with one condition.

Again, that condition is related to limiting the height to 35 feet for the transitional housing units that are located just on the south side of Hunt Street.

Application was heard by planning commission on June 18th, where there were no speakers in opposition.

There was little discussion amongst the commissioners.

So they voted unanimously for approval with no conditions.

Thank you.

All right.

First speaker, Richie Mullaney.

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

As Aaron mentioned in the staff report, this PUD allows for a mix of uses.

It includes rescue mission and homeless shelter use, residential treatment facilities, emergency uh centers, and multifamily residences.

But I want to point out that the main intended use here is rescue mission and homeless shelter, which is distinct in our code from multifamily housing and comes with different occupancy density requirements and the like.

When uh looking at the site plan and the actual proposal for the long-term expansion of the mission, there's a few different things going on on the city rescue mission's campus.

They have, of course, their chapel, a vocational tech center, a clinic, their office building, but then there's the three transitional housing uh actual developments the three transitional housing buildings, and they come in three different types.

There's the group units, that's kind of like the dorm style uh traditional shelter.

Um, there's the family unit, they'll appear like townhouses.

These are for people going through the program with young children who'd like to live in a more family-oriented environment.

And then finally, there's the individual units.

These are kind of like studio apartments if they were multifamily housing.

Um these are the units that the planning department pointed out is on the south part of the property, and it's proposed to be a four-story building at 50 feet high.

And because of that, the planning department, of course, as they mentioned, has forwarded a recommendation to limit that height to 35 feet.

And while the city rescue mission understands and respects that recommendation, they wanted to bring it here for your consideration because they really feel that having every floor of this building is important to serve the needs of the community, and they believe that uh we can fit into the character of the neighborhood without sacrificing beds in this building.

It's the properties in the urban priority uh development area and within the CGC land use categories surrounding it, and it would have a rear uh setback of 20 feet uh and rear landscaping as well to help with buffering.

And so, again, while we understand that recommendation to limit that height, the city rescue mission does ask for your consideration of keeping that 50 feet height to maintain that four stories to be able to house as many people possible while still keeping with the character of the neighborhood.

Um, like I said, this is a long-term plan.

This is looking 20 years from now for uh the long term to serve the uh community and the in the area and the Lackawanna neighborhood and Jacksonville at large, and so um as I mentioned before as well, Paul Stasi is here to answer any questions that you might have to.

With that, I'll stand by for questions.

Thank you.

All right, thank you.

Next we have Paul Stasi uh in support of questions only.

So with that, we will close the public hearing and bring back to committee.

Mr.

Carico, you recognize thank you.

I just want to do this on the record.

I'd like to move the bill, but not the amendment with the conditions.

Um I'm familiar with the uh city rescue mission.

I know the neighborhood, uh, the way it's laid out, and I don't think the height would um change the structure or character of the neighborhood at all.

I think we try to do everything we can to support the homeless and and low income in our city, and this is a group that's been doing it for 80 years, so I don't think we should tell them how to serve their community.

So I'm moving the bill without any of the amendments or conditions and look for a second.

Okay, we have a motion, a second on the bill, and Miss Clark Murray.

Okay, there you are.

Do you want to speak?

Go ahead, you're recognized.

Thank you for that.

Um Mr.

Stasi or Mr.

Mullaney, either one of you can come forward, please, so I can ask a question through the chair.

Um go ahead.

Does he need to give his information again?

Just yeah, sure, go ahead.

Uh Richie Mulaney, one independent drive suite 1200 on behalf of the application.

All right, thank you.

So through the chair, the current, I know that there's a dormitory style building there now.

What is the current, what is the height of that current the current building?

Uh through the chair, the current building is actually on is in a different location on the campus.

That appears to be 56 feet high.

It's not in the same location as the proposed um individual units.

Yes, I'm familiar with the area, so I I just want to know the actual height of the building.

Okay.

Yes, the building there now is um it appears according to the site plan 56 feet.

Okay.

And so the the proximity of the proposed new building, the proposed building will be how much closer to the residence on Hunt Street.

Through the chair, the the proposed building is on the south side of Hunt Street, it's outside that current gated area of their campus.

Right.

And so what will be what will be the closest residence?

Like what's what's the distance?

Sure.

Well, do you have that or do you know that?

I know we're talking about something that doesn't exist and you haven't done any type of um planning for that part of it, but just in reference to like the height, so that we don't impede on someone else's property because I I mean privacy, because I think that's part of the concern in regards to the planning department, while the recommendation for 35 feet, because there's a huge difference between 35 feet and 50 feet.

The existing building is 56 feet.

So once again, I think that's part of the concern that Miss Abney expressed.

But have there been any complaints?

That's probably a question from Mr.

Um Stacy.

Sure.

Well, if the chair just brings you can bring them forward.

Sure.

Hey, this is the part where we work things out.

So it's a land use and zoning night.

So if that's a concern, I just want to make sure that we don't have residents.

My thought is I'm considering the proposal made by past President Carico in regards to removing the condition.

But we also want to make sure that because we don't have any residents here to basically talk about their position and and whether or not that would be um the existing height would impede upon their privacy or whatever concerns the planning department has.

So that is my concern because my goal is to once again I've stated that you've been a CRM has been a good neighbor, but I also have to consider those who live in that community as well.

Sure.

Go ahead.

Okay, Paul Stasi, executive director, city rescue mission address on file.

Um so immediately behind this location is a JEA lot and an empty lot, and then a house that's been boarded up.

I'm not sure why.

Um and then there's a couple other houses down the street.

There are there's a lot of trees, tall trees in the back.

So I don't believe uh it's gonna really impede their view of anything because of the trees.

Um, and then down the street, we because we have uh almost the entire block, but down this down on Hunt Street, there are an additional uh three houses too.

But that that'll be further down the street on on the same side.

Okay, through the chair.

So basically what you've explained to me is that the building, if we uh forego the condition and allow the 50 foot 50 foot height, that it is not necessarily in the direct light of line of sight of any of the residents, existing residents or ri existing properties through the chair.

I I just to uh point out there's there would be the 20 foot setback at the south end from the end of that building to the single family property line, and then if you have a satellite image, I I have one if you'd like one.

There are the um the rear backyards as well.

I don't not sure you can um see that from where you are, but I I don't want to commit to out of out of sight.

I don't I'm not sure exactly how it would look, but it's not right up against each other, even though the properties abut there's that 20 foot setback, there'll be landscaping as well to give a bit of a buffer between the actual rescue mission building and the residents on the abutting property.

Okay, all right, thank you.

Okay, thank you, Chair.

Yes, ma'am, no problem.

Let's see if we have anyone else in the queue.

All right, there is no one in the queue, but there's a motion and a second on the floor uh to move the bill without the condition.

Uh there's no other discussion, so let's open the ballot record your vote.

Five years, your nays.

By your action, you've approved 2026, 429.

All right.

Next item we are gonna go to is on page 12, item number 24, 2026 435.

This is also from Ms.

Clark Murray.

So council members, please declare your ex parte communication you have at this time.

Going once, going twice.

Seeing no one, so let's go ahead and open the public hearing and get a staff report.

Thank you.

This is PUD rezoning ordinance 2026-0435, seeking to rezone approximately uh 19 acres from residential medium density A to a PUD.

The proposed proposal would allow for the development of up to 320 residential units, consisting of a mix of multi-family apartments on the southern portion of the site, and a mix of single family homes, cottages, or town homes on the northeastern portion.

The PUD provides flexibility through site-specific development standards, including including varying lot sizes, setbacks, landscaping, parking, signage, um, and then providing a mix of recreational amenities.

Staff evaluated the request for consistency with the comp plan and found that the proposal to be consistent with the medium density residential land use designation.

The development promotes compact in vill development, um, diversity in housing, uh, innovative site planning and efficient use of existing urban infrastructure.

We find the PUD meets the internal and external criteria and finds the proposal to be compatible with surrounding developments.

Similar residential rezonings have been approved in the vicinity, and the mix of housing types reflects the established development pattern along this major roadway.

The PUD also includes a minimum three acre acre private preserve, which will include trails and active recreation amenities and pedestrian connections, and this will also act as a natural buffer adjacent to the Edward White High School, which is on the north side of the property.

Transportation analysis indicates that old Middleburg Road has sufficient available capacity to encomp to accommodate the anticipated traffic.

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

You also have a revised exhibit for site plan that's listed in your agenda.

Uh application was heard by planning commission on June 18th, but there were no speakers in opposition, little discussion, and the commission voted unanimously for approval.

All right, thank you so much.

We have one speaker card, Peter King, questions only.

We have Ms.

Clark Murray.

Do you want to speak during the public hearing for questions or after?

Okay, so we'll go ahead and close the public hearing and bring it back to committee.

We need to well, we need a motion on let's pass the amendment or let's move the amendment and then okay.

We'll go ahead and open the public hearing and we'll recognize councilwoman Clark Murray.

Thank you.

Thank you, Chair.

So one thing I will say, uh, Mr.

King, is he here?

Okay.

Well, he's here.

Come forward, please.

So with this particular bill, um I know that.

Well, let me just ask him first.

Good afternoon to you.

Go ahead and give your name information.

Uh hi, good evening.

Um Peter King for our forest 70th Street representing North Florida Land Trust.

Okay.

So once again, good evening to you.

Did through the chair, do you have an opportunity to go before the Southwest CPAC?

Uh I did not, no.

I did not.

All right.

Thank you so much for that.

And that's my primary question to do to you.

Um to the body.

The uh CPACs, they do not meet in July, which is a total of like four weeks.

So that cuts down his opportunity to have met with them to present this information.

So I'm gonna ask for a one-cycle deferral, and that will give Mr.

King an opportunity to go before the Southwest CPAC because in August they meet on the 10th, and then that'll allow him to come on the 11th.

Uh for um, oh, you am I mixed up?

Do I have my dates wrong?

Meets on the fourth council.

Okay.

So I'm gonna ask for two cycles because that way he's has an opportunity to meet with the community because they have not given me, and they being the Southwest CPAC, once again, they don't meet in August, and so they have not had an opportunity to hear his um proposal in regards to this change in what he planned the development.

And it's always fair to the community for them to hear what is going to happen in their community.

And we know that our current president has an emphasis on making sure that CPACs have a voice.

All right.

Well, before we before we make a decision on that, um, Councilmember Gaffney Jr.

is in the queue, and also um we want to hear from the applicant as well.

And then um, you know, he can still meet with the community outside of just the CPAC formal thing if a two-cycle deferral is too long because that's like a month.

But go ahead, Councilmember Gaffney, you're recognized.

Thank you through the chair.

Um Chair President, you took the words right out of my mouth.

I wanted to hear from Mr.

King.

I want to ask for a defer as well because I want you to speak with the community.

But what I wanted to find out, do you have any restrictions, deadlines coming up as well?

So um, you know, we want to make sure we be respectful of your time, and I know you've you know been in this a long time, so um we'll hear from you, Mr.

King.

Well, I mean uh time is money in development business.

So um we will that'll add uh two cycles that'll add um how long do we are we talking about a month?

A month um I think um you know if if the council person wants that would be happy glad to speak to the uh CPAC.

Um I think they would uh like to see what we're gonna do.

It's uh we're very proud of this project.

It's got preservation, affordable housing, uh, and ownership.

Um so uh I think they would like to see it.

All right, well, in that case, I will uh request a deferral for I guess a month.

If I could get a second, second sorry, we'll have a motion and a second on that.

Um Ms.

Abney, you're in the queue.

Would you like to add anything to this?

Uh to the chair.

I just want to clarify that the planning department did bring this application to the Southwest CPAC at their June 8th um meeting.

We do try to bring these items as soon as they're paid for and prior to filing, so that the CPACs do have more than just one month to be able to see an application.

Thank you.

So they did go to CPAC.

Is that correct, Mr.

King?

Uh if staff or the application went to CPAC, rather.

Okay, so the CPAC had this application on June 8th, is what you said.

Correct.

Staff attends all the CPACs, and we bring these items and present them.

And are there for any questions that the CPAC has?

But this item was presented at the CPAC at their June 8th uh meeting.

Okay, understood.

So we we do have Councilmember Carico in the queue.

However, we have a motion second on the floor.

I think we need to with you're on the you're on the amendment or are you on the motion to defer?

Okay, okay, Councilmember Kerrico, you're recognized.

Uh thank you for recognizing me on the motion to defer.

I'm not gonna support that.

That's just government getting in the way of what we're trying to accomplish, which is uh providing better housing and better opportunities for people.

Uh you just heard from the the department there that this was on the record at the CPAC, so I see no need for a deferral.

I think we should move forward.

So I'm gonna be a no on that, and I request that the introducer um withdraw that request.

Do you care respond?

Councilmember Gaffney.

Thank you through the chair to the councilwoman.

Um, so let me make sure I got a great understanding of this.

So I mean, I guess the applicant appli applied maybe like a month ago and went to CPAC.

Um, I'm assuming he reached out to your office, or y'all talk, have they been in the community meetings?

I just want to make sure that and y'all say the CPAC is aware of this.

Um and when would it made aware of this application?

In June?

June 8th.

Do the chair, yes.

So staff sends the um agenda usually a week prior to the scheduled CPAC meeting.

Um and so this item was presented to the CPAC on their June 8th meeting.

And through the chair was no objection, so I'm assuming that the CPAC meeting, correct?

Um I don't believe our department has received any letter of opposition or support, but I mean that's you know, not all CPACs will write a letter for every item that comes before them.

All right.

Um before uh before I make a decision, I want to hear from the councilwoman one one time and then we'll is there a question?

Yeah, so I I guess the question is I I guess a compromise uh past President Kerrick or a compromise, maybe one cycle instead of two cycles.

I mean, councilwoman, are you open to that?

Um through the chair to council member Gaffney.

So first of all, um just as a former CPAC member um and chair, when Ms.

Abney says that it was um presented to him, all the CPACs get the zoning, land use and zoning changes bills for their particular um the the areas that they cover, multiple districts.

So when she said that they presented, um I'm not sure how she's defining that.

If she's saying that someone actually spoke, because I know there is a gentleman who attends the Southwest CPAC regularly and who does talk about the LUZ.

So she's nodding her head, so I'm saying that she's saying that the the gentleman who works for the city did speak.

However, there is like a um a kind of a difference in regards to when you have the actual applicant representative coming or the applicant coming and talking to the CPAC about what it is they're actually going to do.

And he has not made any contact with me, my office.

I have not, this is my first time recognizing Mr.

King or seeing him.

And I know you asked for a one-cycle deferral, which I'm not sure that's gonna give the CPAC the opportunity because of the calendar to actually uh for him to code before the CPAC.

Because based on Mr.

Harvey's what he said in regards to the timing, the next time we have city council or discounts before LUZ will be the fourth.

They don't meet until the 10th.

All right.

You can close with you still have the floor, Councilmember Gaffney, and then we're gonna go to uh Councilmember Johnson.

Yeah, before I make a decision through the chair, I'll let's see if I'm gonna arrest my colleagues and then uh I circle back to myself.

Okay, Councilmember Johnson, you recognize.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

So I uh through the chair, uh Councilmember Clark Murray, I was there.

I was at the meeting.

Uh I was through the whole meeting, it never came up, they never said anything.

I went back through the look at the notes and they there was not an approval, it wasn't something that pushed back.

There was another issue that they deferred, but this one did not come up at that meeting.

Just want to put that on the record.

Thank you for that, Councilmember Johnson.

Because I once again, I'm sorry, through the chair to the body.

I know CPACs, and I know how even if it did go before them in June, doesn't necessarily mean that that's what they discussed.

Okay.

Because just think about the timing.

You said June 8th.

So June 8th for them to have received it.

If I don't know if that's if June 8th was the first Monday or if it was the second Monday of the month.

If it was not, then they they always meet the second Monday of the month.

So and they didn't meet in July.

So I once again I'm gonna take council members Johnson's word just thinking about their schedule that they did not have an opportunity to discuss it.

And that's unfair to the community.

Remember, it's the community who has to live with the project, not us.

Thank you.

All right.

Uh we'll go to council president Howland, and then we will make a decision on everything.

Good.

Thanks.

Healthy discussion.

I appreciate it.

And yes, I did say we need to hear more from the CPACs and the communities in particular.

And um, and we have the council district woman um expressing her concern that maybe the community hasn't.

Um however, we also heard Mr.

King say uh uh two cycle deferral um is does time is money, right?

Um and I heard uh Mr.

Gaffney suggest a one-cycle deferral.

So two things could happen, one for sure, one possible between now and if this got deferred to uh I want to say August 4th would be the next RUZ meeting.

Um either the community can come out and speak during public comment during council meeting next Tuesday night, or you could have a special community meeting to discuss it if you wanted to.

Um maybe even a third possibility CPAC could convene a special meeting if they wanted to talk about it.

Or maybe you could gauge if there's enough uh public comment um ahead of Tuesday Tuesday's meeting um to have a special meeting later in the week next Tuesday.

So I would suggest Mr.

Gaffney had a good suggestion for the one one cycle deferral.

And then we're not putting out Mr.

King too much, and we're giving the people um the community the opportunity to speak up if they have concerns.

That's my suggestion.

Okay.

No, thank you for that, Council President.

And Mr.

Gaffney, if you wanted to make a new motion, you can, but I'll make a motion.

Uh I guess I'll take back my original motion.

Through the chair, I guess I'll take back my original motion and now make a motion to move one cycle.

Yeah.

So if I could get a second.

And there's not a second on that, but so my my concern is this question.

I mean, we just had the discussion, but we we can have a second on it.

But my concern is this, you know.

Um having deferrals for CPAC reasons is gonna get into a slippery slope because a lot of these bills on here, they don't have anything with CPACs.

So I'm not gonna support a deferral just because of a CPAC.

We we can't run our meetings on their whim and their schedule, because sometimes they meet, sometimes they don't meet, sometimes they take it up, sometimes they don't take it up.

We're running a tight ship here.

This has been introduced in May.

Um I'm assuming y'all reached out to Miss Clark Murray's office.

I'm getting text messages that her office was contacted.

So in my opinion, if the community wants to be involved, that's between the council person and the applicant, not just CPAC alone.

We're not gonna run this agenda on the whims of a CPAC, whether they take it up or don't take it up.

So did y'all reach out to Ms.

Clark Murray's office?

We had our lobbyist, Mr.

Dino Hicks uh reach out to um the council person.

Um we we didn't get a response.

And I apologize.

I used to work for the city about 20 years ago.

I should have remembered that all the app that and I represented the north side, and I remember us taking the applications to the um uh to the CPACs, and uh and I and uh and and I understand and I agree with you it's it's a it's difficult uh situation uh uh to have the the CPACs.

Um this has been approved by a planning board, it's been advertised.

I haven't been contacted by anybody uh uh other than an adjacent property owner who wanted to sell me her property.

That was the only uh response I've gotten from anybody in or outside of the city government.

Okay, understood.

So um again, my stance is we're not def I'm not gonna approve a deferral, I'm not gonna vote for a deferral.

Um it has a motion and second on the table.

Um it's got planning department approval, planning commission approval.

It's gone through a lot of steps.

Um, and here we are with no community members here whatsoever.

Um I don't think this is even gonna be a controversial item whatsoever.

So I don't see the need to hold this up um for any amount of time.

And right now we stand, it was sent to the CPAC, they took no action.

The applicant reached out to Ms.

Clark Murray's office, there was no action.

So every other bill that falls into that category doesn't get a deferral.

So that's where I'm at.

But council president Hallen, I'm I'm happy to hear from you.

Yeah, no, I see all points of this, but uh Mr.

Gaffney's uh suggested compromise is neat in that it's not comp it's not delaying the vote for the CPAC meeting because the CPAC meeting doesn't happen unless it's delayed for two cycles.

So this is delaying the vote because a district council member came and said there might be some concerns.

Um I'd like to get more community feedback before we vote on it.

And uh a one cycle allows that through public comment or a special public meeting.

So I think uh Mr.

King, as much as he probably doesn't want to move it and you don't, and I understand that, sir.

At least we're not moving it too like we thought we would, removing it one.

It's not special accommodation for a CPAC, it's just special accommodation for the council district member who might be expressing some community concerns.

So I'll I'll vote uh and I'll vote in favor of the deferral.

So just in response to that, um is Ms.

Clark Murray, if if that's your commitment, because initially you said you wanted it to go to CPAC, and that was reason for the deferral, and that's why I'm not gonna support it.

If you're telling me that you're gonna have a community meeting and that's the reason for the deferral, then then my that that totally puts in a different bucket for me.

But I didn't hear you say that.

So that's question to you, Ms.

Clark Murray.

Thank you for that, Chair.

Um, through the chair and to the chair, I will organize a community meeting so that Mr.

King will have an opportunity to discuss the um application and the proposed development with the community.

Okay, excellent.

This bill is gonna be deferred until 8-4.

Right?

Is that one cycle?

Motion, so that either needs to be dispelled.

Um, so you guys he needs to withdraw, you vote on it.

I just matter.

Okay, go ahead.

Oh, I'll withdraw my motion.

There we go.

This bill's for deferred until eight four twenty-six.

All right, all good, Mr.

King.

Yeah.

All right.

Thank you.

Do you have Ms.

Clark Murray's contact information?

Uh yes.

Okay, good.

All right.

So committee members, let's go back to the first page.

We have a lot of open continues here.

So buckle up.

So item number one, 2026-122.

Let's open the public hearing.

There's no staff report yet.

We have two speaker cards.

Samantha Searies is in opposition, does not wish to speak, and Jamie Travis Leonard is in opposition, does not wish to speak.

So with that, we'll continue this public hearing until 8426.

Item number two, 2026-123.

Let's open the public hearing to speaker cards.

Ms.

Samantha Searies is in opposition and check does not wish to speak.

And then Jamie Travis Leonard is in opposition, does not wish to speak.

And this public hearing will continue until 8426.

Item number three, 2026-124, open the public hearing.

Two speaker cards, Samantha Searies in opposition, does not wish to speak.

Jamie Travis Leonard in opposition does not wish to speak.

And this public hearing will be continued until 1117-26.

Item number four, 2026-125, open the public hearing to speaker cards, Samantha Searies and Opposition does not wish to speak.

Jamie Travis Leonard, opposition does not wish to speak.

This public hearing is continued until 1117-26.

Item number five, 2026-126, open the public hearing.

Two speaker cards, Samantha Sears is in opposition, does not wish to speak.

Jamie Travis Leonard, opposition does not wish to speak.

This public hearing is continued until 8426.

Item number six, 2026-127, open the public hearing, two speaker cards.

Samantha Searies is in opposition, does not wish to speak.

Jamie Travis Leonard is in opposition, does not wish to speak.

This can uh public hearings continued until 8426.

Item number seven, 2026-372, open the public hearing.

No speaker cars will continue this public hearing until 8426.

Item number eight, 2026-376, open the public hearing, no speaker cars will continue this public hearing until 8426.

Item number nine, 2026 420, open the public hearing, no speaker cars will continue this public hearing until 8426.

Item number 10, 2026, 421, open the public hearing, no speaker cars will continue this public hearing until 8426.

Item number 11, 2026 422, open the public hearing, and let's get our staff report.

Ordinance 2026 422 is for a small-scale land use amendment to change approximately 9.31 acres from light industrial to heavy industrial on the west side of Old King's Road, east of 295 and north of Moncrief Road.

Old Kings Road is classified as a minor arterial roadway and a preferred truck route.

The property is under common ownership with the parcel abutting the site to the north, which is uh designated as heavy industrial, and also to the south, which is designated as light industrial.

The applicant is seeking to change the land use of the uh subject site from LI to HI to expand the business from the parcel that's to the north onto the subject parcel.

The proposed amendment from LI to HI is a logical extension of the HI land use uh north of the site, and it would maintain the industrial character of the area.

The site is also located within the industrial situational compatibility area.

Uh these areas are presumed to be appropriate for land use map amendments to industrial categories for these reasons and those in the staff report.

The planning department recommends approval.

The planning commission heard this item at its meeting on June 18th.

Um there was one person that spoke in opposition.

They expressed some current concerns related to truck traffic, lighting, and noise.

Uh the planning commission ultimately recommended approval uh with minimal discussion.

All right, thank you.

We have three speaker cards.

Samantha Searies, opposition does not wish to speak.

Jamie Travis Leonard, opposition does not wish to speak.

And Randy Baker is in support and does not wish to speak.

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

So let's go ahead and close the public hearing and bring back to committee.

We have a motion and a second on the bill.

No one in the queue.

So let's open the ballot.

Record your vote.

Five yes, zero and a's by direction you've approved 2026 422.

Item number 12, 2026, 423.

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

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

Thank you.

This is the companion conventional rezoning, ordinance 2026-0423, which is seeking to rezone approximately 9.31 acres for a property located along Old King's Road from Industrial Light to Industrial Heavy.

The property is currently vacant.

Um industrial land and is located west of Old King's Road and east of I 295.

The applicant owns and operates an industrial business on the property immediately to the north and seeks to expand the operation onto this parcel.

Staff reviewed the request, finds it's consistent with the comp plan.

The site is located within industrial situational compatibility zone, which is an area specifically identified for industrial preservation and expansion.

Do it's due to its access to major transportation facilities and truck routes.

The proposed industrial heavy designation supports existing industrial activities in the area and then furthers the comp plan policies by promoting the viability of industrial areas of the city.

We find the requested rezoning to be compatible with surrounding development patterns.

And again, adjacent properties to the north and west are already designated heavy industrial and utilized for open storage and industrial activity.

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

Application was heard by planning commission on June 18th, where there were no speakers in opposition and little discussion, and they voted unanimously for approval.

All right.

Same three speaker cards.

Samantha Searies is in opposition, does not wish to speak.

Jamie Travis Leonard, opposition does not wish to speak.

Randy Baker supports and questions only.

With that, we have no speakers in the queue.

Uh so or where are we at?

On 12.

Okay, let's go ahead and close that public hearing and we'll bring it back to committee.

Motion and a second on the bill.

No one in the queue.

Open the ballot, record your vote.

Five years, zero and a's.

By direction, you've approved 2026 423.

Item number 13, 2026, 424.

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

Ordinance 2026 424 is for a small-scale land use amendment to change approximately 4.42 acres at 5710 Pickettville Road from low density residential LDR to light industrial LIM to develop light industrial uses.

The subject site is located south of the intersection of Pickettville Road and Old Kings Road.

Pickettville is classified as a collector roadway, and Old Kings Road is classified as a minor arterial.

The area is a mix of residential, industrial, and commercial uses.

There's a large industrial node located approximately half a mile north of the subject site at the intersection of Pritchard and Old Kings Road.

Less than one mile west of the uh property is I-295, and there's an active railway located approximately half a mile to the east of the site.

The proposed land use amendment to LI would activate the intersection of Pickettville and Old Kings Road with an industrial designation, uh improving the potential for economic benefit and enhancing the existing mix of uses in the area.

Also, the proposed amendment would accommodate future growth through infield development of a lot within an area already served by uh existing infrastructure, utilities, and public facilities.

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

The planning commission heard this item on June 18th.

No residents spoke on this item.

Um planning commission voted to approve unanimously with no discussion.

All right, thank you so much.

We have one, we have three speaker cards.

First up, Mr.

Curtis Hart.

Curtis Hart, 8051, Terra Lane.

Uh Mr.

Chairman, members of the committee.

This is a small 4.42 acre parcel.

It's a former fire station, probably from looking at the building.

It's probably pre-consolidation uh fire station.

And it's cleared, it's a cleared site with minimal trees.

Uh we are asking to change it to I.

Let's across the street from uh minute more caddy cornered to an industrial uh light parcel.

I appreciate your support.

Have any questions be glad to answer?

All right, thank you so much.

We'll go through the rest of these cards and stand by for questions.

We have Samantha Searies is in opposition, does not wish to speak, and Jamie Travis Leonard is in opposition, does not wish to speak.

And we have no one in the queue, so let's close the public hearing and bring it back to committee.

Motion and second on the bill.

No discussion.

Open the ballot, record your vote.

Five years, zero nays.

By direction, you've approved 2026 424.

Item number 14, 2026, 425.

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

Going once, going twice, seeing none.

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

Thank you.

This is the companion PUD rezoning application 20 ordinance 2026-0425 seeking to rezone approximately 4.42 acres for property along Piccadill Road from RLD60 to a PUD.

The proposed PUD would allow for the development of outdoor storage yard for automobiles, buses, trucks, and boats, along with other limited industrial uses.

The PUD is designed to provide a site-specific development standards and restrict certain uses otherwise permitted in the industrial light zoning district.

Staff finds that the request to be consistent with the comp plan by supporting goals related to infill development, redevelopment underutilized property, and then continued viability of industrial areas.

The site is located within an established industrial corridor near the intersection of Pickaville Road and Old Kings Road, where industrial and outdoor storage uses already exist, including an adjacent PUD to the south with similar operations, and then also outside storage on the north uh side of uh Old Kings Road.

We find the PUD meets the internal and external criteria in order to mitigate potential impacts to nearby residential properties.

The PUD does include landscape buffers along the south and west property lines.

Staff is recommending additional visual screening through compliance with outdoor storage screening requirements of uh the zoning code.

Traffic impacts are expected to be minimal.

Picketville Road is currently only operating at 7% capacity.

So for these reasons and those in the staff report, we forward a recommendation of approval with two conditions.

Uh first condition is the visual screening requirements, and then the second condition is just related to a traffic study.

Um application was heard at Planning Commission on June 18th, where there were no speakers in opposition and little discussion.

Um, and the commission voted unanimously for those same two conditions.

Thank you.

All right, thank you.

First up, we have Curtis Hart.

Curtis Hart 8051 Terra Lane.

Um Mr.

Chairman, we we have um finished the PUD, which we required.

We we were required to do some buffers, it's less than the impact to the neighborhood.

There are some single family houses still left in the neighborhood, so we're doing a nice buffer.

We've already screened it uh fence-wise, and we eliminated some of the offensive uses, such as aggregate storage uh concrete plant.

There's several uses in IELT that we eliminated, so uh we would not put it on this site.

Any questions, be glad to answer.

All right.

Next up, Samantha Searies is in opposition and does not wish to speak.

Jamie Travis Leonard is in opposition and check does not wish to speak.

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

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

Can someone please explain the conditions?

Yes, so the conditions are uh one visual screening of the outside storage shall be developed following the requirements of section 656.415 of the zoning code, and number two, unless waived by the chief of traffic engineering or their designee, a traffic study shall be undertaken by the developer upon PUD verification and provided during the 10 set review.

The methodology of the study shall be determined by the developer's traffic engineer, the chief of the transportation uh planning, and the chief of traffic engineering.

All right.

No one in the queue for questions.

So all in favor of the amendment signified by saying aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

The amendment carries.

We have a motion and a second on the bill as amended with the conditions.

No one in the queue.

Let's open the ballot, record your vote.

Five years, zero nays.

By direction, you've approved 2026, 425.

All right, item number 15, 2026, 426.

Open the public hearing, get staff report.

Ordinance 2026, 426 is for a small-scale land use amendment to change approximately 4.57 acres at 2505 IMSON Road from residential professional institutional RPI to light industrial LI.

The subject site is a portion of a 44-acre parcel that is located within the southeast quadrant of Pritchard Road and Imerson Road.

Uh Pritchard is classified as a minor arterial and IMASIN is classified as a collector roadway.

Uh, this request to I to LI would unify the parcel uh under a common land use designation.

The subject site is located across Pritchard Road from approximately 1200 acres, designated as heavy industrial.

Much of this property is owned by CSX.

Northwest of the site, across the intersection of Pritchard and Imison is another large tract of land, approximately 875 acres, that is designated LI and is part of the West Side Industrial Park DRI.

LI also abuts the parcel to the south and the west.

The site has access to roadways classified as collectors or higher.

It abuts an active railway and is approximately half a mile west of I295.

The surrounding development pattern is predominantly industrial, including warehouse distribution and transportation related uses.

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

Planning commission heard this item at its meeting on June 18th.

They unanimously recommended approval with no discussion.

Thank you.

All right, thank you so much.

We have one speaker card.

Brenda Azelle, and she is in support and marked does not wish to speak.

So with that, we have no other speaker cards, so we'll close the public hearing and bring back committee.

We have a motion and second on the bill.

Just want to make sure is the applicant here or was Ms.

Brenda the applicant.

She was the applicant.

Okay, all right, just making sure it's listed as Timothy Atkinson on here.

So with that, oh yes, ma'am.

Would you are you Ms.

Brenda?

Yes, I'm Brenda Ezel, and I'm here on behalf of the applicant.

Uh my address is 12276 San Jose Boulevard Suite 126.

Okay.

Here for questions.

Okay, great.

Just wanted to make sure the name didn't match on my book.

So would appreciate you being here.

All right, we have no one in the queue, and we got a motion in a second.

All right, so let's uh go ahead and open the ballot, record your vote.

Five A 0 nays.

By your action, you've approved 2026 426.

Item number 16, 2026, 427.

Council members please declare ex parte communication at this time.

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

Thank you.

2026 427 is the companion rezoning, which seeks to rezone approximately 7.49 acres from two existing PUDs, uh 2005-541 and 2009-135 to industrial light.

The property is located at 2505 IMASON Road at the southeast corner of Pritchard Road and Imuson Road, and is part of a larger tract that was rezoned through a series of PUDs beginning in 2005 to allow for uh mixed-use commercial, residential, recreational, and industrial development.

Despite these approvals, this portion has remained vacant.

The applicant seeks to return the property to its historical IL zoning designation to facilitate future industrial development consistent with the surrounding properties.

Staff evaluated the request for consistency with the 2045 comprehensive plan and found the rezoning supports goals promoting in fill development, redevelopment of underutilized land, and economic growth of industrial land.

We find the requested uh rezoning to be compatible with the surrounding developments, which include industrial uses such as rail facilities, outdoor storage, warehousing, and distribution uh operations.

The property is located within the King Soutel Crossing Community Redevelopment Area, and the CRA advisory board uh board voted unanimously uh to recommend approval, citing the potential to attract investment, create jobs, and support redevelopment efforts in the area.

For these reasons and those in the staff report, we forward recommendation of approval.

This item was heard at the June 26th planning commission meeting.

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

All right, thank you so much.

We have Brenda Isell and she's in support for questions only.

So with that, we have no other speaker cards and no one in the queue, so let's close the public hearing and bring back committee.

Motion is second on the bill, no discussion.

Open the ballot, record your votes.

By your action, you've approved 2026 427.

Item number 17, we have already taken up 2026 428 and item 18, 2026 429 has already been taken up.

So that goes to item number 19, 2026 430, open the public hearing, no speaker cars will continue this public hearing until 8426.

Item number 20, 2026, 431, no speaker cars will continue this public hearing until 8426.

Item number 26, or sorry, item number 21, 2026, 432.

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

Thank you.

Ordinance 2026 432 is for a small scale land use amendment to change 2.28 acres from low density residential LDR to BP and LI, business park and light industrial.

The site is located at 6670 Barth Road between Moncrief Dinsmore Road to the west and New Kings Road to the east.

New Kings Road is an FDOT principal arterial roadway.

Moncrief Dinsmore and Barth are local roadways.

The applicant is proposing to change the land use on the north side of the property, which fronts Barth Road to business park.

This is about 0.63 of an acre, and they would be putting a um an office on that portion.

And they are looking to change the land use on the south side of the property to light industrial.

That's about 1.65 acres.

Um the changes being sought to expand the abutting business.

So the abutting business sells commercial trucks and trailers, so that would be on the LI portion, and again, that BP portion would be an office.

The proposed land use amendment would offer a logical expansion of the existing LI uses east of the property and is compatible with the industrial uses along New Kings Road.

The BP designation, which fronts Barth Road offers a transition between the commercial and industrial uses along New Kings and the residential uses to the west of the property.

So for these reasons and those in the staff report, the planning department recommends approval.

Planning commission heard this item at their June 18th meeting and unanimously recommended approval with minimal discussion.

Thank you.

All right.

We have two speaker cards.

First up, Ms.

Kristen Reed.

Good evening.

Thank you.

Kristen Reid.

My address is 12740, Grand Bay, Grand Bay Parkway West, suite 2350, Jacksonville, Florida, 32258.

And thank you.

And staff did an excellent job presenting this.

The land use amendment is designed to allow for expansion of the abutting business to the east.

We did coordinate with staff prior to filing the application, and that is the reason we did the business park on the northern portion of the site and light industrial on the southern portion.

The BP business park uh designation is uh covers approximately the first 120 feet of the property.

It creates that uh transition of intensities along Barth Road so that we can maintain more of the residential character and create that transition that doesn't currently exist.

When we get to the companion rezoning, there are a series of site design standards and mitigation measures that also further that transition and create a compatible land use pattern.

Thank you.

All right, next speaker card, Jamie Travis Leonard is in support and marked uh does not wish to speak.

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

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

Motion and second on the bill, no discussion.

Let's open the ballot record your vote.

Five A zero and A's.

By direction approved, 2026, 432.

Item number 22, 2026, 433.

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

Councilmember McGaffney recognized.

Yeah, thank you through the chair.

I will ask the declare ask while I tell you I'm in with Miss Krishna Ree and the owner of this parcel in my office a month ago.

We just went over to site um plan.

We went over to I guess the height, the ingress, the egress, the whole entire area.

If I have any um I miss everything if I will legislative services.

All right, thank you.

All right, we have no other uh ex parte in the queue.

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

Thank you.

This is the companion PUD 2026 433, which seeks to rezone approximately 2.28 acres from RR acre to a planned unit development.

The applicant operates a commercial truck and trailer sales business on the adjacent property at 6650, Barth Road, and is seeking to expand operations onto the subject site.

The proposal would convert the existing single family residence into an office while utilizing the rear portion of the property for storage of commercial trucks and tractor trailers.

The PUD includes site-specific development standards intended to minimize impacts on neighboring residential properties.

Staff finds the request to be the request to be consistent with the comp plan by encouraging economic development, the viability of existing industrial and commercial areas, and the gradual transition of land use intensities.

The proposed BP designation on the front portion of the site and LI designation on the rear portion, create a transition between surrounding residential uses and the existing industrial operations to the east.

We find the PUD meets the internal and external criteria by incorporating several measures to enhance compatibility, including a 20-foot buffer along the western property line, additional landscaping, a six-foot um opaque fence around parking and storage areas, and limiting access to the site through the existing business rather than directly from Barth Road.

For these reasons and those in the staff report, we forward a recommendation of approval with one condition in the agenda.

This item was heard at the June 18th planning commission meeting.

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

All right.

Thank you so much.

We have two speaker cards.

First up, Kristen Reed.

Yes.

Kristen Reid, 12740, Grand Bay Parkway West, suite 2350, Jacksonville, Florida, 32258.

Again, staff did a great job.

The PUD along with the companion land use amendment.

Create that transition of intensities from the commercial industrial uses on the east side of the site that front on New Kings Road to the residential along Barth Road.

The PUD requires that access to the site be limited to cross access through the abutting business, so there'll be no additional uh or furtherance of commercial traffic down Barth Road.

Um the existing home is going to be converted to the office.

There will be a fence between the uh existing single family and the side property lines, and all parking will have to be behind that, as well as the additional buffers and limitations on uses.

Um with that, I appreciate your uh review and consideration.

All right, thank you.

Next we have Jamie Travis Leonard is in support.

Does wish to speak?

Good evening, City Council.

Uh my name is Jamie Travis Leonard.

My address is on file.

As you've heard, I don't support a whole lot today, but I do support this.

And part of the reason I do support 2643 is because it seems to be not only comprehensive, but really takes the community into account.

So I looked at the mapping they did, and it seemed that the applicant as well as the owner really went out of their way to ensure as little disruption as possible to the surrounding community, not just today, but in the future as well.

So I I'm going to assume you're gonna pass it.

It's been 5.0 most of the night, but I really just wanted to speak to put out there that when we come up and oppose, it's because we don't think you're serving the community.

So when you do serve the community, we are happy to come up and support.

Thank you.

Okay, thank you.

And next, we don't have any other speaker cards, so we can close the public hearing and bring it back to committee.

We're looking uh for a motion on the first amendment for the revised exhibit four.

Thank you.

Can you explain the amendment?

A revised exhibit four.

The revised exhibit four.

Did everyone get that?

Uh through the chair, Kristen Reed again.

Um I don't have a revised exhibit.

The um planning department and planning commission voted on one condition about a traffic study, and we're in agreement um with that if if that's the will of the committee.

You didn't get the revised site plan on exhibit four.

I did not get the revised.

Okay, she's good.

She's an ace.

I've been here for she's an ace.

I've seen you haze all kinds of people.

I know.

We had to try.

We had to try a new one on you.

All right, there's no motion on that.

There is a motion in a second on the condition, which is item number one.

Mr.

Harvey, can you please explain the condition?

Sure.

So the condition is unless weighed by the traffic by the chief of traffic engineering go their designee a traffic study shall be undertaken by the developer upon PUD verification and provided during the 10 cent review.

All right, any discussion?

Seeing none, all in favor of the amendment, signify by saying aye.

Any opposed?

The amendment carries.

No, I'm not a bill as a boom boom.

There we go.

Motion to second on the bill as amended.

No one in the queue.

Open the ballot, record your vote.

ByeBA, CRNAs.

By direction, you've approved 2026 433.

All right.

Takes us to item 23, 2026 434.

Open the public hearing.

No speaker cards.

We'll continue this public hearing until 8426.

Item number 24 has already been taken up.

Item 25, 2026, 436.

Open the public hearing.

We have two speaker cards.

Samantha Searies is in opposition, does not wish to speak.

Jamie Travis Leonard is in opposition and does not wish to speak.

And this public hearing is going to continue until 81826.

Item number 26, 2026, 437.

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

Anybody uh Past President Kerrica, you're recognized.

Uh thank you.

I have ex parte on this bill.

I received a phone call from the applicant Andre Green on Friday, in which he uh asked if I had any advice for him moving this forward.

I said I did not.

He asked if I needed any information, and I said I could see it all in the packet.

And that was my conversation with Mr.

Green.

Uh Councilman Johnson, you're recognized.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

I rise to declare ex parte.

I reached out to Mr.

Green earlier today.

I had some questions uh which were answered.

It's been filed with legislative services.

Thank you.

Councilman Gaffney, you're recognized.

Thank you through the chair.

Thank you to the chair.

I also made with Mr.

Green.

I think last week in my office, he also asked me that I have any questions in regards to this application.

I'll make sure everything got filed with legislative services.

All right.

Thank you so much.

We have no other ex parte in the queue, so let's go ahead and open the public hearing and get a staff report.

Thank you.

Thank you.

This is PUD rezoning ordinance 2026-0437 seeking to rezone approximately 7.14 acres from a PUD to a new PUD.

The request is to amend an existing PUD to add commercial uses, um, which would include a hotel um out parcels for retail uh sales uses and restaurant uses and then other related site improvements.

The proposal does retain the previously improved entitlements for multifamily residential units.

It's just adding commercial uses to the already approved PUD.

Um staff evaluated the request for consistency with the comp plan and found the proposal to be consistent with the existing CGC land use designation and also the site's existing future land use site specific policy 4.4.36.

Uh the mix use development promotes infill uh redevelopment within the urban development area by utilizing existing infrastructure while providing complementary mix of residential and commercial uses.

We find the PUD MIT's internal and external criteria and find the proposal to be compatible with surrounding developments, which include multifamily residential communities, commercial shopping centers, offices, um, couple churches in a single family and single family dwellings.

The commercial infill development is appropriate for the commercial for this commercial corridor.

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

Um application was heard by the planning commission on June 18th, where there were no speakers in opposition and little discussion, and they voted unanimously for approval.

All right, thank you so much.

We have four speaker cards.

First up, Andre Green.

Through the chair.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair, and thank you to staff for your professionalism and responsiveness to uh this PUD application.

Uh this PUD allows commercial uses in an active commercial corridor.

It um a compliments are already allowed.

Multifamily uses that are there.

Um we're just meeting the growing demand for commercial in this area, and again, we appreciate staff.

Thank you.

All right, thank you.

Next we have Lewis Joseph.

Good evening, Lewis Joseph, 1421 Gay Avenue, Jacksonville, Florida, 32207.

Uh, good evening to all.

First off, thank you for everything that y'all do uh for the city and making our city a wonderful place.

We appreciate it.

Uh the problems that uh or the issues that I have with this is is solely the ingress and the egress on uh Atlantic Boulevard.

So I've lived and worked in this area for 30 years.

Just in the past couple of years, I've seen a uh a strong um traffic growth on that corridor there.

It's uh it's our we're we're in between two um great high schools right there.

Um just the traffic has really uh picked up here just in the past couple of years.

Um just the traffic has really uh picked up here just in the past couple of years, and um I I see that the that the ingress and the egress is limited to uh Atlantic Boulevard only, and that just seems like uh a lot uh with with what's with what's going on there for uh hotel and some and some out parcels.

Then uh I look at the the turns, you know, that the um that the patrons would have to do if they were going towards uh San Marco.

Um they would have to uh uh go maybe all the way up uh to somewhere near Empire Point to turn around to come back, or they would have to cross over three lanes of traffic to make a U-turn at the at the light at Art Museum to turn around to go back towards San Marco, and then if they were coming back into their hotel room, they would have to pass uh uh the the hotel and then make a U-turn, and it just seems seems off to me.

So for that reason, I uh I I don't approve.

Thank thank you for your time.

All right, yes, sir, thank you.

Next we have Michael Milton.

Good evening.

Again, um Michael Milton.

I live at 4833 River Basin Drive South, 3207 in the Empire Point neighborhood, and I work at 3127 Atlantic Boulevard, right across the street from Mr.

Joseph's establishment.

Um I'm here opposing this uh amendment, these changes, primarily because there are no changes, it's just a blank check is what they are looking for.

Uh originally a couple years ago it was gonna be a five, six-story apartment building, they were gonna have 1900 cars come in and out.

Now they want to go full commercial with literally everything under the sun under the ordinances as they're asking for.

They've proposed some drawings with a 280 room hotel and bank and some other out parcels.

Um I spoke to Mr.

Green, very gracious man of uh gave me this time the other day, and he candidly admits they're not sure what they want to do with this property.

And I don't think it's an appropriate um role for this commission, this committee, this council, to give a blank check to undecided plans.

When you are abdicating any control over what can or can't go in a parcel, I don't think that is an appropriate uh response from this council.

I've lived in Jacksonville my entire life.

I've talked to my neighbors in Empire Point.

Umbody is happy about the idea of how this traff is gonna work.

I realize that's not this council's job, uh, but it is a concern.

Um there are a lot of concerns about you know allowing alcohol to be sold, purchased, consumed, dance clubs, all allowed under the ordinances that the applicant has requested.

Uh so I think the best course of action is to send this back, have them work out what they actually want to do, let the community have a voice into what they plan so we're not just grasping at straws trying to grab smoke.

Um I'm happy to answer any questions, but those are my views.

Appreciate your time.

All right, thank you so much.

Next we have Steve Matchett.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Steve Matchett, addresses on file.

The existing PUD was approved by this LUZ committee back in 2022.

Most of you have seen this item before because you served on there, and you may remember it best as the old chick beachroad chicken dinner's site.

It was a PUD request with a companion land use amendment.

The PUD was for a 286-unit apartment complex, but the land use was for community general commercial.

And the reason for that was to get extended building heights, and also with two specific amendments allow residential on the ground floor.

That maximized the lot the unit build out.

The land use and the PUD rezoning applications were very specific in their intent.

It allowed four acres for for the units, three acres for active recreation, open space, and ponds.

Three-quarters of this site is heavily treed with massive oaks.

Nine parcels were assembled to put this property together.

None of them have access to Art Museum Drive.

That means that all the ingress egress from this property is directly into the three eastbound lanes of Alana Boulevard.

FDOT later issued a driveway permit that required right in, right out, and center median realignments to accommodate the U-turns.

1900 trips were proposed at that time.

The first paragraph of this new PUD's written description states this PUD is being sought to provide a redevelopment of the property with multifamily uses.

It's every use under CCG 1, every permissible use by exception, certain uses under CCG2, and the waiver of all alcohol distance requirements.

Put all those together with no further review.

The traffic has been mentioned before.

This new plan generates 10,459 trips.

That's five times the apartment situation that was of great concern four years ago.

This PU application is vague and it's sloppy, and it reflects nothing more than a request to let them build what they want any time they want and however they want.

It should be deferred and reworked through conversations with the applicant, the planning department, and the CPAC.

And I can give you details on how that was discussed.

Developing specificity to proposed uses and mitigation for the impacts.

Let's put plan back in planning unit development.

Thank you, Mr.

Matchett.

I got two seconds with the buzzer went off on you.

So we typically allow the applicant to have a rebuttal.

So what is the normal time for the rebuttal on that?

Two or three minutes.

Oh, from the initial.

Oh, for the applicant?

Okay.

Um would you like to have any rebuttal?

Mr.

Green.

Um I do appreciate the speakers' um concerns.

Uh but any submittal that we have is subject to a traffic study, and we have engaged FDOT, so in regards to traffic, it will be thoroughly vetted by FDOT when is determined what use is going to be there.

We've had commercial uh interest in this area.

We've had a gas station interested, we've had a couple medical users interested.

But the main reason for this is to a main the flexibility to have commercial uses and a CGC land use already.

Thank you.

Gotcha.

Um, what what I'd like to do is um I'm gonna table this for now, real quick, and I'm gonna go to the green room with the applicant and the three gentlemen that are here.

Uh, being this is my district, and I want to get a little bit better handle on this.

Uh traffic isn't necessarily a concern for me.

I do hear and appreciate the the thoughts, um, but I need to dive into that a little deeper.

Is are we good on quorum since there's an ex uh one approved excusable that goes down to four?

Okay, all right, cool.

So I'll ask the past president Keriko to take over for the rest of the uh bills, and we'll table this one and hopefully we can get something worked out in the green room.

What's up?

Yeah, yeah, sure.

Yeah, if anyone has any questions before we go, that's that's totally permissible.

As before you go, I just if we could, and I think this goes to uh sure Mr.

Harvey.

What is permissible right now?

I looked at the PUD.

Could you just state on the record what's permissible by right now?

Or or Ms.

Abney?

Thanks.

Uh, through the chair to the councilmember Johnson.

So right now, under the existing PUD, what is allowed is apartment so multifamily residential.

So they are seeking the rezoning to add the commercial uses because you can't do that unless you go through a completely new rezoning.

Okay.

Yeah, no, that was a great question.

I guess I wouldn't have Ms.

Abney back there with me to ask.

So uh council uh past president Kerako, you're recognized.

Uh thank you, Mr.

Chair, and thank you for taking the time to go back and kind of work this out in the green room with everyone that's concerned.

So I'll I'll give you the respect to do that instead of just having this whole conversation here.

So you you can work with the applicant and your constituents.

Uh but I was just just gonna ask Mr.

Green to just kind of lay out really what they wanted to do, but yeah, you know that those were the concerns, but I think you guys can take care of that.

I was also confused as to why you you didn't have ex parte with Mr.

Green.

Um, that he didn't reach out personally to the district councilman.

I think he probably would have been in better shape if he did.

So, Mr.

Green, think about that next time you come down here.

Um so I'll I'll let you do your thing back there and happy to take over and lead us through the meeting.

Okay, yep.

So we're gonna go ahead and table 2026 437 until later in the agenda, and that will take us to item 27.

Ride a bike.

Right, right.

All right.

He's back.

We are on item 27 2026-0438.

If you have any ex parte, now would be the time to get it on the record.

Councilmember Gaffney.

You recognize.

Yes, thank you through the chair.

I met with Miss Cindy Terman in my office.

I think a couple of weeks ago, I may show you the dates.

We just talked about the whole entire project.

I miss everything if I were legislative services.

All right.

I also have ex parte.

I met with Miss Tremor in my office uh yesterday, and uh she just uh described what was happening up here on Main Street and wondered if I had any further questions.

I did not, but I was able to review the application and get educated on what we are voting on here today.

I'll uh also call on Dr.

Johnson for his ex parte and we'll get that filed with legislative services, of course.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Uh and I also want to rise to declare ex parte.

Uh I was supposed to meet with Miss Trimmer today, but first day in finance got a little busy, but uh her office sent over everything via email.

I reviewed it, and that is being filed currently with legislative services.

Thank you for making sure I had all the details.

I did read through it.

Appreciate it.

All right, past President White.

Yes, sir.

I'd like to declare my ex parte.

I spoke with Ms.

Tremor today.

It will be filed.

All right, all that's on the record.

So we'll open the public hearing and get a staff report.

Thank you.

This is the PUD rezoning ordinance 2026-0438, seeking to rezone approximately 23 acres, located on the south side of Kirk Road, and is just east of Main Street North.

Um, they are rezoning from RLD 120 to a PUD.

Uh, this proposed PUD rezoning would allow for the development of a single family residential subdivision containing up to 150 homes.

It will be a mix of 40 and 50 foot wide lots.

The PUD provides site-specific development standards while maintaining a low density residential character consistent with the surrounding area.

Staff evaluated the correct the request for consistency with the comp plan and found the proposal to be consistent with the existing low density residential land use designation and consistent with the um objectives and policies of the comp plan.

We find the PUD meets the internal and external external criteria and find the proposal to be compatible with surrounding developments.

The subdivision directly north on Kirk Road was approved in 2021 and has similar lot sizes of 40 and 50 foot wide lots.

So this is just an expansion of that development pattern on the south side of Kirk Road.

Uh so for these reasons and those listed in the staff report, we forward a recommendation of approval.

This application was heard by planning commission on June 18th, where there were no speakers in opposition and little discussion, and they voted unanimously for approval.

All right, thank you for that report.

Let's go through our speaker cards.

First, we have Cindy Trimmer.

You're recognized, Miss Tremmer.

Thank you so much.

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

Welcome home, Councilman Carico.

Good to have you back on LUZ.

Uh this is a subdivision.

We are north of River City Marketplace on Main Street.

The main corridor of Main Street that we are just off of has intense CCG2 commercial uses, and immediately abutting this assemblage, there are two PUDs, one allowing for a gas station, one allowing for used auto sales.

Immediately north of this is a multifamily complex.

I entitled a handful of years ago with a group out of um Canada that is doing a multifamily project.

So the subdivision that you have proposed here will be a perfect transition between that more intense commercial on Main Street, the multifamily in the area, and as you heard from Aaron, we've just matched the plan of development for the subdivision north of us with the 40s and 50 foot lots.

I am available for questions and will stand by.

All righty.

Our next speaker will be looks like Earl Allen.

Mr.

Allen.

And then after Mr.

Allen, uh Jamie Travis Leonard is opposing the legislation.

Oh, sorry, you do wish to speak, don't you?

Okay, we'll wait for you.

I'm new at this.

My name is Earl Allen.

I reside at 107 Second Dena Road, 32218.

I own the property at 222 Kirk Road.

Uh I was born at uh 280 Kurt Road.

I've lived in that neighborhood my whole life.

My wife lived at 222 Kurt Road, her most her life.

Uh and reason I'm here, Kurt Road has really went down.

Uh that neighborhood was called Pleasant Park.

And we were raised up around there.

We never locked our doors.

We had a farm and it was a real present neighborhood.

But for some reason, this in the last 20 years, this neighborhood has really went down.

The older people has died off and gone that you should keep the yards up, keep your homes up.

Everything was a really nice neighborhood, but for some reason it has really went down, and it needs some improvements and bring back present park again and make it a present place to live.

And that's all I got to say.

All right, sir.

Well, thank you so much.

Thank you.

Thank you for coming down.

Our next speaker is going to be Jamie Travis Leonard, followed by Samantha Sears, who does not wish to speak, who opposes good evening, City Council.

My name is Jamie Travis Leonard.

My address is on file.

I want to say I partially oppose.

I wish there was a maybe option on the card.

Um I don't oppose the sale and development.

I mainly oppose the density.

Umcreasing to uh potentially 150 units uh seems really intense for that area.

It is less than a mile from the intersection of Main Street and PCAM Park Road, which currently has issues with their roadway infrastructure.

Uh sorry.

Uh and there are also drainage issues in that area as well right now.

So my concern is by increasing the density this much in one go.

You're adding uh additional uh delays into the roadway specifically at that intersection.

And I will say that I'm at that intersection at least once a month.

My husband is there three times a month because he has to take our daughter to piano lessons, which is right around in that area.

And sometimes, especially right there at Main Street and PCAM Park Road, you're sitting in traffic for 10-15 minutes just to make a turn.

And there's a railway right there, and it's the infrastructure is not great.

Now, there is there was an amendment passed by city council to refurbish that area and I believe extend the roadway.

It hasn't gone underway yet, but I'm also concerned about that impacting new residents' ability to traverse their home.

There's not really another way for them to leave that area if they're going north.

Uh so again, I'm not opposed to the development.

I think it's a great use for um it sounds like a neighborhood that maybe needs some revitalization.

I just oppose the density at its current rate.

I think 120 adding 122 lots and up to 150 units is a little much at this present time.

I would I would like to see less homes.

Thank you.

Thank you so much for that.

Those are all of the speaker cards we have.

So we're gonna close this public hearing and bring the bill back to our committee.

Got a motion and a second on the bill.

No one in the queue.

Let's open the ballot, record your vote.

Oh, I've hold on, let me just take it off.

I voted on the wrong machine.

Okay.

That should fix it.

Four yes, zero and A's.

But your action you've approved 2026-0438.

Wouldn't want to record that I missed a vote.

I might go to the principal's office for my attendance.

Um, so we'll move on to item number 28, 26-0439.

Council members, any ex parte that you'd like to claim.

I'll open up.

I had uh Cindy Tremor in my office yesterday.

Obviously, we talked about about four or five of these zonings from driver McAfee.

Um, we talked about this one.

This is the uh Chets Creek, the church changes over there.

So we uh we went over the site plan and what was going on and some of the community um rumors that have been addressed and corrected.

So that is my expartate.

We'll get it filed with legislative services, and we'll turn it over to the Godfather, Mr.

White.

You're recognized.

Thank you.

Uh I'll declare ex parte also.

I had the conversation with Ms.

Tremor on one of the one of the this was one of the five we talked about.

Thank you.

No one else in the queue, so we'll go ahead and open the public hearing.

I get a staff report.

Thank you.

This is PUD rezoning ordinance 2026-0439, seeking to rezone 10.5 acres located along Hodges Boulevard.

They are rezoning from RMDA to a PUD.

The property is developed with the church of Chet's Creek, and the applicant is seeking the PUD to increase the size of the permitted monument sign and wall signage to better reflect the scale of the existing church campus and improve visibility from Hodges Boulevard.

And the applicant is seeking the PUD to increase the size of the permitted monument sign and wall signage to better reflect the scale of the existing church campus and improve visibility from Hodges Boulevard.

The PUD generally retains the existing RMDA development standards while incorporating site-specific signage, landscaping, and then also some permitted uses that are in connection with the church.

Staff evaluated the request for consistency with the comp plan and found the proposal to be consistent with the MDR land use designation.

SAS also determined that the proposal is compatible with surrounding development patterns.

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

Item was heard by planning commission June 18th.

No speakers in opposition, little discussion, and they voted um unanimously for approval.

All right.

Thank you for that report.

Let's go to our speaker cards.

We have one, Miss Cindy Trimmer.

You're recognized.

Thank you.

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

This is the Hodges campus of the church at Cat at Chets Creek.

The PUD is to grandfather certain site conditions, primarily landscaping that we see all the time with existing as built.

To ensure that they can do the uses that are ancillary that serve the community, like daycare, schools, community centers, and then also to allow for branding on the facade that faces Hodges.

If you've ever gone by, there's a large blank wall, and this will allow for a signage on that that is appropriate for the scale of the building.

That is the only overtly different thing for anybody driving by any day.

You'll see a sign on the building.

So with that, I will stand by for questions.

All right.

No one in the queue.

That is our last speaker.

We'll go ahead and close this public hearing and bring it back to committee.

Got a motion and second on the bill.

No one's in the queue.

Please open the ballot and record your vote.

Oh, this one.

Four years, zero and ace.

By your action, you've approved 2026-0439.

All right, item 29, 2026-0475 is deferred till 8426.

The following items are all deferred until 8426.

2026 0476.

Please declare any ex parte communication you might have.

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

Thank you.

2026 486 seeks a zoning exception to permit the on-premise consumption of all alcoholic beverages in the CCG 1 zoning district.

The alcohol use will be granted to Barron Cafe, a restaurant and hookah lounge operating out of units 102 and 103.

The subject property is a 3.78 acre lot developed in 2006 as the shops at East Point Landing Shopping Center, located on St.

John's Bluff Road, south approximately a quarter mile south of Beach Boulevard.

A previous tenant of these units, uh C.

Senior Fresh Mex, was granted a zoning exception for alcohol sales in 2017 under E1743.

The alcohol use will occur entirely indoors with no outside sales or service.

Staff finds the request consistent with the comprehensive plan, compatible with the surrounding commercial corridor and forwards a recommendation of approval.

Thank you for that.

We have one speaker card, Mr.

Steven Richardson.

Good evening.

Stephen Richardson, uh law offices of Michael R.

Yokan, L L and E represent Mr.

Ahmad with the Baron Cafe.

Um here to answer any questions or concerns that you guys might have.

Uh Mr.

Ahmad opened his restaurant uh in April.

Um as you see by the pictures he's put in.

Quite the uh expense.

And uh so we are here to ask for the consumption of liquor on premises so that way he can compete with other establishments that are on very near his establishment.

I put in there's you have the photos, the menu.

I put in there's you have the photos, the menu, and some details about Mr.

Ahmad.

He served uh with our service members in Afghan as an interpreter and as a soldier and he's been in the States for how long you've been in the States?

Twelve twelve years.

So that's uh just if you guys have any questions or we appreciate your consideration.

All right, thank you.

We have a member in the queue for a question.

Councilmember Gaffney recognized.

I didn't get your name.

Um Steven Richardson.

Steven, I'm sorry about that.

Did you get a chance to reach out to the council person over this district?

Did we no?

Did you get a chance to reach out to the council person over this district in reference to this district four?

Yes, sir.

Uh I did not.

Uh we did our office did try calling uh multiple times.

We we had different meetings with the planning.

Yeah, no, okay, and I and I understand and I appreciate you for reaching out.

I just think it would be wise anytime you're trying to get aception for um alcohol, and you do got a great establishment, you know.

Um I'm just not aware of any schools around this district.

We're we're the survey, we're we blow the distance away.

We're we're not anywhere near a church or a or a school.

Yeah, I I just want to make sure that I'm what I'm voting on is no schools, is is no, you know.

I would have brought the surveys, but they I mean normally because we do quite a few of these, normally the packet you guys already have the survey and everything that we turn in to the planning department.

Okay, but yeah, like so what I said, I mean, so pretty much I'm just you know, next time when you guys come before um council just made sure and and I know you say you reached out, but make sure you be consistent and persistent in terms of reaching the council person for that district.

So we we normally do if it's a package store or if it's a nightclub, if it's a restaurant that already had already had the exception for liquor.

The only reason why uh well you know why it didn't get transferred because you know obviously you can't transfer an exception from from one party to another.

But for a restaurant, we normally don't bother the council, you know, for the district.

I I'm not sure if I want to move forward, you know, um after hearing those answers.

So I'll wait until I hear the rest of my colleagues and see what they have to say.

Um I want to be respectful for the person over this district to the council person over this district before we move forward.

All right, thank you.

All right, thank you, Councilmember Gaffney.

And we have past President Keriko, you're recognized.

We're all waiting to hear from you.

Uh thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

I am the past president, yes, but I'm also the council member for district four.

Yes.

So can you clear for the record?

Did you call my office or did you not call my office?

My office manager called uh back in I think uh early May.

Okay.

Did they leave a message?

Because my my assistant is right here and she she doesn't miss it.

She said she said she left a message, but uh after meeting with the planning department, they've uh they said that they were recommended moving forward, so we we didn't bother uh reaching out to you.

It's not a bother.

It's it's uh it's a sign of protocol and sign of respect.

I represent the district.

I have meetings with neighborhoods all up and down south Southside Boulevard.

They have concerns about all kind of things.

And it's not just a simple transfer, you're you're you're doing a whole nother concept.

Whatever I'm doing the transfer, I'm saying you can't transfer an exception.

Right, right, right.

So you're just assuming that because it was a restaurant and another restaurant is coming, that's gonna be fine.

Like you should make those assumptions because every restaurant is different.

So the council person you keep talking over me, I would I would appreciate if you let me speak.

Oh I wasn't saying anything, sir.

Okay, so protocol, reach out to the district council person.

I like to visit the site, I like to meet the owner, I like to see what's going on, what my community is is going to have in there so I can answer them because that's that's my role as the elected.

I answer the community.

So through the fact that you did not reach out, this is just coming to my desk.

Um I would request for a deferral, and I'd love my assistant could come down and and speak with you guys and the owner.

We'll get a uh we'll get a tour set up.

I'll come out there, we'll check it out.

And um, so just uh one cycle deferral is is my request, Mr.

Chairman.

All right, your request is granted.

We're gonna go ahead and defer this for one cycle until eight four.

Do we need to uh open the public hearing and continue it?

Okay, so we're gonna open the public hearing and we're gonna continue this public hearing until eight four twenty-six.

Wow.

All right.

I heard that you want to know the green room.

All right.

Would you like to speak now?

Or do you want to wait till I come out to the rest?

What do you what do you say?

Go ahead and get it.

We'll wait.

Yeah, we'll wait.

I didn't I didn't hear what I didn't hear what you're doing.

I think he was just a little shocked by your response of wow.

And that we just, you know, it it just seemed disrespectful.

Oh that's what he was commenting to.

I have no problem about the August 4th.

That's has nothing to do with you.

So I don't understand.

Okay, good.

We'll we'll continue the public hearing until 8426.

And then we will go ahead to item number 41, 2026, 487.

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

See none.

So let's uh open public hearing, get a staff report.

Thank you.

Ordinance 2026, 487 is a waiver of road frontage that seeks to reduce the required minimum road frontage from uh 240 feet to zero feet.

Hold on.

Sorry, this is uh yeah, from 240 feet to zero feet.

Um to allow for the development of a third single family dwelling in the RR acre zoning district.

The subject property is a 3.42 acre lot located along Gervin Road, currently developed with two legally non-conforming single family dwellings as well as several accessory structures.

The 780 square foot home, which is the furthest west on the property, was built in 1970, and the 2,280 square foot home on the eastern portion of the site was a replacement of an existing mobile home in 2013.

The applicant seeks to add a third home to the property and bring existing non-conforming structures into compliance through a companion administrative deviation 2026 488, which will be heard next.

Staff finds that there are no practical difficulties in meeting the strict letter of the code as the property already exceeds allowed density with two non-conforming homes.

Approval would expand a non-conforming use and alter the character of the surrounding area.

Staff finds a request inconsistent with the zoning code standards and forwards a recommendation of denial.

All right, thank you so much.

We Ms.

Kirka, are you on this or are you on the okay?

Well, we're in the public hearing.

Did you want to make a comment now?

Or okay, we'll uh close the public hearing and bring it back to committee.

Motion and a second, but we don't right.

We have a motion and second, we have a staff uh recommendation of denial and Mr.

Kaplan.

The applicant is not here, so we don't have a card.

I just wanted to the applicant is not here.

Mr.

Kaplan.

Okay.

Oh, oh okay.

Are you we don't have a card?

Are you miss Kaplan?

Or the Oh, okay.

The app the representative for the applicant is here.

Okay.

Would you have like her to come down and speak to it?

Yes, yes.

We do have a recommendation of denial here.

And um, so I I figure they should come down and speak to that.

Yeah.

So, ma'am, if you can, we'll we'll go ahead and let you speak and then Miss Rebecca here will get you a card to fill out.

But ultimately, we just would like to hear you know your case for why we should approve this when the planning department has given a denial.

Uh my name is Barbara Erzinger.

Um I believe my address is on file.

Um I just one would be denied.

The road frontage or the deviation?

The waiver uh we're on the waiver of minimum road frontage right now, which has a planning department recommendation of denial.

May I ask why?

Uh we already they already stated, I think the reasons why in the initial opening statement.

Would would you like to re-hear them or I mean really well honestly?

Uh I think we just need to know why you need it.

That that's what we're trying to base our decision on.

The customer has uh allotted the the one acre little labor, I think uh acre parcel for his granddaughter for his their um is really clogged for uh to so they can move on the parcel with the the um father, grandfather.

And that's why we are applying for the right frontage deviation or the rate frontage waiver to put another home out there.

Yeah, is it isn't another is it a small accessory dwelling unit?

No, sorry, it's a mobile home.

Mobile home.

Okay, okay.

Uh right.

Let's see.

Who do we have?

All right, is there any other questions?

Okay, Mr.

Uh, Councilman Gaffney, you're recognized.

Thank you through the chair.

To the planning department, uh it went over my head.

Why why did you guys not again?

So I just for clarity.

I apologize.

Um through the chair to councilman Gaffney.

So the property already has two existing single family homes, uh, legally non-conforming because the homes that are currently there, the lot doesn't meet the requirements for the two single family homes that are on there, but they're there so they can continue.

Um the request is to add now a third single family home on the property, which kind of gets into subdivision um regulations.

Um and they are asking to deviate from the requirements of the code in order to expand a legally non-conforming use of the property to add additional homes onto the site.

Um so because of those reasons, we're not supportive of expanding to add additional homes on the site.

That doesn't meet code today.

Yeah, yeah.

Thank you.

I either move to defer until we hear from the council person come to LUZ and speak on this.

I don't I would hate to make a I I'm not in a position to approve this tonight, you know, with the planning department saying no, and I haven't heard from a council person over this district.

So I will either move to deny or wait to uh move to defer.

I mean, but I I'll listen to the rest of you guys and see what you guys suggest and recommend.

Okay.

Um yeah, I had a question for uh uh you man.

What was your first name?

Barbara.

Barbara, okay.

I was gonna say Barbara, but um did you did you reach out to Councilmember Lennon?

I did not.

I didn't realize I needed to.

Okay, okay, no problem.

Um council member Johnson, you're recognized.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

My question is more for the planning department.

Uh Ms.

Abney, you said kind of, and I this is kind this is a science when you said it kind of leads toward a subdivision.

Can you unpack that for me?

Well, through the chair to Councilman Johnson.

So when you subdivide a parcel more than one time, so two or more lots at your creating, you trip subdivision.

So you are creating a subdivision.

In this case, they're not subdividing the lot, but they are putting three homes on the property.

So it is in a sense a subdivision because you are three homes on on a on a piece of parcel.

But in this case, they're not subdividing it and they're not meeting the required road frontage, they're not meeting the required lot width.

Um, and then under the AD, they do have oh, and this will be covered under the the companion AD, but they do have several accessory structures with no permits and they don't meet setback regulations.

Um so when we're looking at the site, it's already not compliant with code and they're wanting to continue to expand upon that non-conformity.

I I get that, but if it's there already, while I do appreciate that through the chair, I don't think that's fair if if it was already grandfathered in for us to bring it up in this context.

So the question is to the chair to councilman Johnson.

We have we have no concerns about the two homes that are there.

Right, but uh but you mentioned it, that's why I had to say that.

So let's go back though.

Um, through the chair, you also said, and I don't have my book with me, so forgive me.

This is not one of the ones I dug into pretty deep.

What's the actual acreage of that parcel?

The property through the chair to Councilman Johnson.

So the property is 3.4 acres in size.

And with the current zoning.

Current zoning is RR acre, which does require one acre per dwelling.

In this case, they they don't meet the required road frontage and lot with.

So those are what's being added.

We don't meet the road frontage, but if it's RR acre and it's one unit per acre, and then there would be three units.

Wouldn't that be wouldn't the road frontage be the only because I think we're kind of conflating the issue, bringing up the other units if they're already there.

So yeah, you still have to get approval for the road frontage that they don't meet, and then the lot with.

Right.

No, I get that.

I just think because that when we brought it up when you said it during that, it kind of made it seem like it was a larger issue, and actually the issue is just a road frontage.

But okay, I got it.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Yeah, yeah, good, good questions there.

Um, and Councilman Carico, do you want to speak?

All right, you're recognized.

Sure.

Yeah, I uh I I would probably give a chance for the district councilman to weigh in on on paper.

It you know, there's always an exception, right?

I I had something in my district come along where on paper it looked bad and it was it was denied by the planning department.

But when I went out to the property, when I met the people, we were able to basically unite two brothers that have uh been apart due to military service and they got two houses built on a lot, and yeah, the planning department didn't like it.

But um and it ended up being good.

And I don't know that that's the case here or not, but I think it's the district council person who needs to go check it out.

So I I hate to deny this because without any input from him, I would definitely probably vote for denial, but I don't think that's fair, being that he hasn't had the way in.

And uh, we're just trying to unite some families.

It's three acres.

If it was an acre lot, you know, I would be like, I don't I don't think so.

So I I I'd ask maybe for a deferral on this one.

And I hate deferrals.

I know.

Um I mean, for for me, looking at the lot, it is a the reason there's a problem with the road front is just because the lot is like super skinny and rectangular, and we just had one in in my neighborhood where it was one acre and they were putting three, they wanted to put three homes on there and they had the same issue with the waiver of road frontage.

Um so honestly, they could probably put this mobile home there, no one would even know because it's such a long piece of property.

Um so my my guts telling me that like you said, uh Past President Carico on paper, yeah, it's it's you kind of got to go by the you know you don't really get to look at the the shape of the lot, so to speak.

You gotta just go by what the the lengths are and the widths are.

Um but honestly, I I don't have any heartburn over it, just knowing what I'm looking at right here.

I I do think it's it's fair to let council member Lennon uh weigh in on it.

And since you didn't reach out to his office yet, I do think we owe it to him, you owe it to him.

Sure.

Um, so we'll make sure that you get his contact information.

Can someone make sure Miss Barbara?

All right, my ECA George Foote will make sure you have Councilmember Lane's um contact information.

If you'll just reach out to his office and let them know what we're what we're looking at and talking about here, and um and we'll go from there.

Okay, thank you very much.

All right, yes, ma'am.

So we're gonna go ahead and uh uh this one open the public hearing and continue the public hearing until 8426.

And then on item 42, 2026, 488.

We will open the public hearing.

We will not have any speaker cards uh because there are none.

And we will continue this public hearing as well until 8426.

All righty.

So the rest of the bills are on second reading.

2026, 523, 524, 525, 526, 527, 528, 529, 530, 531, 532, 533, 534, and 544.

Mr.

Harvey, what did I miss?

Yes, you tabled um the uh item when you went to the green room.

So that was item number 26.

Yep.

Um so item number 26, that's 26.

Yes, uh 2026 437.

Okay, item number 26, 2026, 437.

We're gonna open the public hearing and continue the public hearing until 8426.

So thank you for reminding me and bringing me back to that.

With that, we have no other items on the agenda, no other items of business.

Welcome back, LUZ committee.

We're down to folks tonight, but hopefully they uh they get back in here.

We've got some fun stuff coming on 8-4.

With that, this meeting's adjourned.