Land Use & Zoning Committee - Apr 07, 2026

All right. Good evening. It is 5 o'clock, April 7th. We are going to go ahead and convene our Land Use and Zoning Committee, and we will start with introductions to the left.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Rockman Johnson, District 14.

Good afternoon. Councilman, Representative McAfee, District 8.

Good evening. Roy Diamond, District 13, The Beaches. I almost forgot. I almost forgot. Joe Carlucci, District 5. Raul Oires, District 11. Terrence Freeman, at large, Group 1.

Randy White, District 12. Terrence Harvey, opposite general counsel.

Susan Kelly, Planning Department. Erin Abney, Planning Department.

Casey Cox, Planning Department.

All right. And we want to go ahead and make our introductions of our pages this evening. We have Ms. Sarah Agle over here from River City Science Academy. Thank you so much for being here. And we have Advik Gupta over here. He is at Julia Landon College Prep, District 5. Thank you for being here. All right. So, committee members, we are going to have a few, like, two changes on the agenda today. So, if everyone will turn to page 14, item 29. Oh, I'm sorry. Yeah, we're going to go to item 29, 2026, 172. But before we declare ex parte on that, I do want to recognize Council Member Johnson.

Thank you so much, Mr. Chair. And I appreciate you giving me just a few moments. I wanted to recognize the members of the team, Ms. Lea Trispel and those other wonderful people who are come representing the George Crady Bridge. They came tonight and they were planning to speak, but they are still very just passionate about getting the George Crady Bridge open. And I just wanted to recognize them for coming. They're not going to speak tonight, but they are supportive of trying to make sure that that amenity is available for everybody. So, thank you all for your tenacity and continuing to move things forward. Thank you, Mr. Chair. All right.

Thank you all for being here, taking the time out of your day to come down. We appreciate that. All right. So, item number 29, 2026, 172. Council Members, please declare any ex parte communication you have at this time. I believe, where is mine? Well, let me get my, okay, well, I declare ex parte. I had a meeting, or I had a conversation with Mr. Paul Harden today. And we'll get that paperwork filed with legislative services. And if there's anyone else, no one else, let's go ahead and open the public hearing and get a staff report.

Thank you. 2026, 172 seeks a zoning exception to permit an establishment or facility, which includes the retail sale and service of all alcoholic beverages, not in conjunction with the restaurant, for on-premise consumption in the CCG2 zoning district. The property is being redeveloped as a package store, which will allow for the off-premise consumption and on-premise consumption for a tasting room. The off-premise consumption is allowed by right, while the on-premise requires this zoning exception. There is a companion waiver of liquor distance application, WLD 2602, requesting to reduce the minimum distance between the liquor store license location and a church from 1,500 feet to 232 feet. This item was heard by the Planning Commission on March 19th, where the application was approved. The subject property is a standalone building that is approximately 0.57 acres in size. And within the general area, there are multiple establishments which provide the full sale of alcohol for off-premise consumption, including the Daly's Convenience Store, located at 3244 University Boulevard South, Moonshine Liquor No. 2 at 3768 Beach Boulevard, Blue Line Liquors at 5850 Atlantic Boulevard, and On the Rocks and More at 5741 University Boulevard West. Staff finds the request consistent with the comprehensive plan and compatible with the surrounding area and forwards a recommendation of approval.

All right. Thank you so much for that. Do we have any speaker cards? All right. Mr. Harden, did you want to speak? We don't have a card for you. Not unless anyone has any questions. Paul Harden, 1431 River Place Boulevard. Okay. We don't have any questions for you. Just make sure you get us a card on that. So let's go ahead and close the public hearing and bring it back to committee. We have a motion and a second on the bill. No one in the queue. Go ahead and open the ballot. Record your vote.

Seven yays. Zero nays.

By your action, you've approved 2026-172.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Yes, sir. All right. Item. Now, committee members, we're going to go ahead and skip to page 16, item 35, 2026-178. If everyone can get there at that time. Is the applicant here? Do we know? Mr. Aziz? What? Someone said yes? Okay. Cool. All right. Council members, declare any ex parte communication you have at this time. Seeing none, let's go ahead and open the public hearing and get a staff report.

Thank you. 2026-178 seeks a sign waiver to reduce the minimum setback for a sign from 10 feet to zero feet for an existing pole sign. The .19-acre site was developed in 1969 and contains a vacant building, which is undergoing renovations. The site is located along 103rd Street between West Connect Boulevard and Blanding Boulevard. The property is owned CCG2. The owner intends to keep the use as a shopping plaza and keep the existing sign where it is. This waiver is to bring the sign into conformance as they have undergone renovations to the exterior of the property. The zoning code requires properties to be connected through an internal driveway access and maintaining the existing location the sign will allow for that access to be retained. The effect of the sign waiver will be compatible with the existing contiguous zoning and general character of the area if approved. For these reasons and those in the staff report, we forward a recommendation of approval.

All right. Thank you so much. We're going to go ahead and go to the speaker cards. No cards. Oh, right here. All right. We have Mr. Aziz. Questions only? Or did you want to speak? If you guys have any questions, no questions for me. Okay. Got it. All right. Well, we don't have any speakers in the queue, so we'll go ahead and close the public hearing and bring back to committee. We have a motion second on the bill. No one in the queue. Open the ballot. Record your vote.

Seven yays. Zero nays.

By your action, you've approved 2026-178. All right. Council members, let's go back to page two. Item one, 2026 or 2025-630. Let's go ahead and open the public hearing, see if we have any speaker cards. No speaker cards. We'll continue this public hearing until 4-21-26. Item number two, 2025-724. Council members, please declare any ex parte communication you have at this time. All right. We're going to continue. We're going to open and continue. All right. We have no ex parte. We're going to open the public hearing. Do we have any speaker cards? We're going to continue this public hearing until 4-21-26. All right. Item number three, 2026-0006. Let's open the public hearing and get a staff report.

Thank you. Thank you. Ordinance 2026-006 is for a small-scale land use amendment to change 9.7 acres from low-density residential to medium-density residential in the suburban development area to allow for an increase in the density that's allowed on the site. The application has been submitted with a companion PUD rezoning. The subject site consists of three contiguous parcels located on the north side of Morse Avenue and west side of Seaboard Avenue. Both Morse and Seaboard are unclassified local roadways. The site is surrounded on all sides by land designated as LDR, low-density residential, and by a single-family residential development pattern. Currently, the maximum gross density allowed is seven units per acre. The proposed MDR would permit residential densities up to 20 units per acre. However, if granted, the proposed land use amendment would allow for an abrupt density increase in the middle of an existing low-density neighborhood. While the department does not object to the residential use, we find that this significant density increase would disrupt the existing land development pattern and detract from the character of the area. For these reasons and those in the staff report, the planning department recommends denial. A planning commission heard this item at their meeting on February 5th. Several residents were in opposition to the increase in density, citing concerns about schools, traffic, and environmental impacts. The proposed MDR land use garnered a lot of discussion, again, because it allows for the 20 units per acre. Ultimately, the planning commission recommended approving the item with a note that the commission encourages LUZ to consider adopting a site-specific policy for the future land use element, which would limit the density of the proposed MDR land use.

All right. Thank you. So with that, we'll go to our speaker cards. First, we have the applicant, Mr. Hayden Phillips. Thank you.

Hayden Phillips, 1301 River Police Boulevard. And thank you to the district councilman for working hard on this one. He's been very hands-on and assisting with our communications with the community. We hosted a community meeting at an early stage in this process, and not one person showed up. So we took that as a good sign. We attended the CPAC meeting, where it was approved. We went to a planning commission, where both applications were unanimously approved. Despite that momentum, we decided to do the right thing and defer before LUZ to meet with the concerned citizens that showed up. So we deferred three or four times. We've had a total of three community meetings, but this is the first time we've been before this body. So the revised site plan that you have before you includes every compromise that we can make. We've decreased the unit count from 89 to 77, both in the PUD and in a site-specific policy that we will be proposing. It caps the density consistent with the PUD, OGC can touch on that. We decreased the density from 9.2 to 7.9 units per acre, which is just over the seven units per acre allowed under the existing LDR land use. Originally, the minimum lot width throughout was 30 feet wide. However, now almost 20% of the lots will range from 40 feet wide to 60 feet wide, and we have included increased buffer sizes and added a large park in the southeast corner, as shown in the site plan. So they asked for active recreation. We provided it. They asked that we maintain as many trees as possible. This area has several mature trees, which we will maintain. And there were a lot of general concerns expressed over the rural feel of the neighborhood changing. So the park and the buffers around the boundary will help with that significantly, as many of the only abutting neighbors will now see trees across the street from them. Now there will only be four lots along Morse Avenue. But this is an infill site. It is a perfect opportunity to provide needed housing and a variety of housing types to accommodate population growth in an urbanizing area of our city. It's an underutilized property, and it has infrastructure and utilities available, as of recently, making the continuation of growth in this area inevitable. This is basically the opposite of urban sprawl. It is located 0.2 miles from the urban development area in the CCG2 zoning district, 0.2 miles from Blanding Boulevard, an FDOT principal arterial roadway, and it is well within the I-295 loop. Residential density located near commercial corridors is consistent with good planning. Immediately abutting this site, on the south, we have a road and Morse Avenue. On the east, we have a road and seaboard Avenue. On the west, there are a few single-family lots, but we have included a very large buffer on our site plan there, and to my knowledge, I have not heard from any of the residents that are located there. And on the north, there's a church who we have spoken with and who has no concerns. If you'll look at the colorful zoning map that I provided, it shows higher density developments in close proximity in every direction. A few examples would be the brand-new RLD 40, located 500 feet from this property to the north, townhomes 0.2 miles to the northwest, apartments 0.2 miles to the south, and east of this property, on Morse, further into this neighborhood, is the Wells Landing subdivision, which has 50-foot lots. So, the area already has a diversity of lot sizes and housing types. I truly feel like this is a leftover area of RR Acre that just incidentally has not been changed over time. It's no doubt an outdated development pattern in an urbanizing area. This is not a rural area. The existing larger lots and agricultural-type uses in this part of town predate the availability of utilities and urban services, which are now available, and change is inevitable. The reality is, this is within the suburban development area of the 10th largest city by population in the United States. Our own comprehensive plan requires that we provide 92,000 units by 2045, and I understand that number is going to be increased to 106,000. So, we need 100,000 units plus in the next two decades. This is not an ask to keep pushing out on the north or west side.

All right. Thank you, Mr. Hayden. Okay. Next, you'll have time for rebuttal. Thank you. All right. Next, we have Folks Huxford, followed by Lawrence Chaney, followed by Tanya Wells.

Good evening. Folks Huxford, 10230 Manorville Drive, Jacksonville. I just want to speak on the comprehensive plan amendment right now. The staff did write an objection, and if it was viewed in the context of an increase up to 20 units an acre, conceivably, I could see where that could cause some conflict by jacking up the density relative to what's in the area. But when I first analyzed this, and you do have an affidavit from me that's in your documents there, I analyzed it based on the original request of 9.2 units an acre, and I found that it was consistent with multiple comprehensive plan policies, as outlined in my affidavit. And through further revision since I've done that, it's gone down now to 7.9 units an acre with a site-specific policy being proposed that is just barely above the LDR land use category. So this is a minimal ask, in my view, as a professional planner. I would point out flu objective 1.6, which calls for infill, which is exactly what this is at appropriate locations. There's also flu policy 3.1.5, which calls for a variety of housing types, and this will help to further that objective or that goal. And then under the housing element, a lot of folks think about the future land use element, they don't look over in the housing element. But objective 1.1 and policy 1.1.1 continue to talk about adding a variety of housing stock. We do believe that granting this land use amendment, as with the site-specific policy, would further the goals, policies, and objectives of the comprehensive plan, and we ask for your support. Thank you.

All right. Thank you. Next, we have Lawrence Cheney. Come on down.

Hello. I'm Lawrence Cheney. Address is on file. I'm here to represent our community in this matter. I just want to remind you that the planning department that is well-versed in the type of scenarios that we have here, on February 5, 2026, a staff recommendation for this current LDR property zone, RR Acre, was to deny the application for land use change to MDR. The staff has recommended denial for the rezoning due to the proposed development constituting a spot zoning and deviating from the established development pattern of the area. Analysis show that the surrounding area is primarily developed with lot sizes ranging from 10,000 square feet to over two acres in size. While there have been several rezonings to RLD 40 and RLD 50 nearby, the developments were still within the low-density residential category and did not exceed the maximum seven units per acre. The proposed PUD seeks companion land use amendment to medium-density residential, which permits up to 20 units per acre. According to the site plan, the applicant originally seeks a total of 89 dwelling units, which has since changed, which is within the 9.2 acres per acre. There is a concurrent small-scale land use amendment that seeks to amend the subject site from LDR to MDR. Staff also recommended denial. The proposed MDR would allow an additional 126 units over the current LDR. Should this change be approved to MDR, there is an avenue left open for the property to be rezoned again at a later date with a different council to allow additional units without requiring the land use change again? Is the proposed zoning district consistent with the 2045 Comprehensive Plan? The staff said no. Does the rezoning further the goals, objections, and policies of the 2045 Comprehensive Plan? Staff said no. Staff finds a proposed PUD to not be appropriate at this location. Based on the foregoing, it is the recommendation of the planning department that the application for rezoning be denied, not compatible with existing surrounding properties. I ask that you please stand firm and not let this recommendation of paid professionals at the building department not be heard. And I also have been in construction my whole life. I understand I'm a builder as well. But what I will never understand is the land grab from these developers in our already established neighborhoods. We chose to live here. We built here. This is part of Jacksonville. It is the part of Jacksonville because its zoning was rural residential and its open properties to one to two acre lots.

Thank you, sir.

We closed to come to this part of Jacksonville. Sir.

Thank you. Your time is up. All right. And this is just a reminder. We're on the land use bill right now, 2026-0006. So, all your comments have to be pertaining to the land use, not the zoning. So, next we have Tanya Wells.

Hi, Tanya Wells, 5694 Morris Avenue. I'm directly on the corner across from them. They say this is not rural. I own 43 acres across the street. I have 50 cows, cows, chickens, everything. We do not have 30-foot lots anywhere in our neighborhood. Nowhere. We cannot support it. You guys just approved two other housing developments, like you said, 500 feet from this development. You're filling in too much. But I'm so upset. We did not attend any meetings. We didn't know about meetings. We never got any notices. I've asked for a traffic survey or traffic study. I asked on February 2nd. Still haven't got it. So, I can tell you that at that corner, in an hour, we had 400 cars in an hour. Three different days, two different times. I don't know what else to say. I mean, we don't have 30-foot lots in our neighborhood. I live on 43 acres across the street. I have chickens, cows, pigs. I got it all. Don't tell me it's not rural. You're not in the city. Help us keep our neighborhood the way it is. Please.

Thank you, ma'am. No, there's not. You're not. No. Sorry. The quorum and rules of the council say there's no applause. You can't do that. Thank you. Next, we have Shelly Chaney, followed by Laura Ingalls.

Good evening. I'm Shelly Chaney. My address is on file. I live about a half a mile down the street from this proposed rezoning development on the corner of Seaboard and Morris. This request is not a minor adjustment. It's a drastic change from residential rural zoning to medium density development of 77, 89 houses on 9.7 acres with lots 30 feet wide. A majority of them, 30 feet wide. Let's be clear. 30 feet lots are not suburban. That level of density is characteristic of much more urban style development, and it does not belong in this area. Rural residential zoning is intended to preserve space, privacy, and lower density way of life. It reflects the very reason all of us in that area chose to live there. And to truly understand this area, you don't have to look very far. Like Tanya said, directly across the street from the proposed development is a working farm with cows, horses, donkeys, pigs, goats, chickens, bunnies, even a tortoise, and peacocks. That is the characteristic of our community. At a prior meeting, the developer's attorney stated that this is not the country. Respectfully, we disagree. This area may not be classified as rule on paper everywhere, but it absolutely lives and functions that way in reality. And that's exactly what residents have invested in, we've paid our taxes on, we've protected, and we've built our lives around our area and our community. Moving from RR acre to 30-foot lot acres, or a few 60 and a few 40, is not consistent with the established character of our community. It completely transforms it. However many houses they've site planned changed for the 9.7 acres means homes packed tightly together, far beyond what this area was designed to support. The level of density brings real consequences, more traffic on already impacted roads, increased strain on the infrastructure, added pressure on drainage systems, and continued loss of green space and wildlife. This isn't compatible with growth. It's overdevelopment, period. Our area is already experiencing rapid expansion with multiple developments within a mile radius of impacting the same infrastructure. At some point, we have to ask, how much is too much? Zoning exists to protect communities and ensure development fits the area. Approving this request would set a dangerous precedent in rural residential land.

Thank you, ma'am. Can be converted into medium. Thank, ma'am. Thank you. All right. Next, we have Laura Ingalls, and then next we'll have David McClure.

Hi. Yes, my name is Laura Ingalls, and I do live in a little house on the west side, right around the corner from this. It feels like the country. My grandparents moved there before the city swallowed up the area. It is the country. As I understand it, they can build up to seven houses per acre right now, as it is. I think that's more than plenty. Let's keep the character of the area the same. Thank you. And also, the number of people who didn't show up because they didn't know about meetings. Me. And then the people who didn't show up tonight because they said, my voice has no power. Prove them wrong that speaking up now can make a change. You are representing us, not one particular developer. Building two houses per acre, that would make plenty of money. That's all for now.

Okay. Thank you. Next, we have David McClure.

I bought my property 10 years ago. I searched Jacksonville for almost two years to find my property.

Name and address, sir.

Excuse me? You have to state your name and address. Oh, I'm sorry.

David McClure, 5750. You know, I'm straight across from the development proposed. I brought my property 10 years ago. I looked for two years to find something I could afford and had a country atmosphere. This is, it's getting so hard to find anything that's not overdeveloped. And today, everything is overdeveloped. We don't have a chance to go back and redo it. Once it's developed, it's gone. We all live there for a reason. This is not just a simple, it doesn't qualify or it's not the right zoning or this or that. This is our lives. This is our future. This is where we all decided to live. And it doesn't seem to make any sense to so many developers. All they want to do is look at the land grab. The proposed 7.9 is nine-tenths of a house bigger than what low density. If you keep it low density, it's seven houses per acre. And we don't have to worry about them coming back in future time and redevelop and reproposing it for 89 units over there. Right now, it's locked in at seven houses per acre. We're asking you to keep it low density so we know what our future is and future proposals are. Right now, it's just a gamble. We don't all live in limbo because we don't know what our future is all up to you guys.

We appreciate you.

Thank you.

All right. Thank you, sir. Next, we have Steve Tomaszewski. Tomaszewski? Are you here? Do you wish to speak? All right. Is in opposition. Does not wish to speak. Bernie Tomaszewski? Do you wish to speak? All right. Don't wish to speak. Is in opposition. Steve Wilson? Do you come on down if you want to speak? All right. And we have Elaine Wilson after that.

Good evening. My name is Steve Wilson. I have property at 6314 Seaboard. It's a quarter mile up the road from the proposed development. I think there has not been enough mentioned in the previous speakers about the impact on the roads, the traffic in this area.

It's already pretty bad to the point that they've put in special stop signs and warning signs at the intersections all around this area to slow people down. And the extra traffic that this kind of density is going to put into the area is just going to be ridiculous. I don't know if you have plans to widen the roads to account for this kind of thing. There's an impact on this area that does not appear to be being tended to with this kind of development. And as other people have pointed out, it is very much a country in a rural area, and to go to this greater density just doesn't do justice to the area, and it's not supported by the infrastructure that's there. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you, sir. Next, we have Elaine Wilson.

My name is Elaine Wilson. My address is 6314 Seaboard Avenue. The name of this neighborhood is Ortega Farms. I think we've lost that somewhere in translation. The development that has occurred over the past 10 years, I've actually been in this area since 1973. I moved into it when I was a child, played through those woods, watched them turn into a subdivision, watched the incredible growth that has staggered our neighborhood with no infrastructure being improved, no stormwater catch. And guess who lives at the bottom of the hill? This girl. So when you put in these additional subdivisions with impervious surfaces, don't have stormwater retention in place in an area that already has an elevation of like 11 feet, you're flooding out neighbors, you're causing extreme duress to the whole ecological system, and nobody is even batting an eye. I had blue pond stormwater come through my creek bed, had to have the EPA come out to make sure it wasn't poisonous. I have horses on my property, and yet the city just turns a blind eye and says, well, we didn't even know you had a creek bed. But when I said, well, what do you want to do about it? You have a catch basin off wetlands that comes and catches the water, diverts it directly to the mouth of the creek bed, and then you call it natural flow. This is a problem throughout the whole neighborhood, and you keep allowing development and development. We're supposed to be, originally we were rural, then we've yielded to residential rural, now we're down to low density rural, and you guys just keep pushing and pushing a neighborhood that's called Ortega Farms. I understand development, I've watched it happen, but can we at least yield to some of the community to not keep changing every year what the zoning is going to be? What's the point of having zoning if we're not going to follow it? We all moved to a community that we thought was rural, we had some space and some distance from our neighbors. Now you're jam-packing our roads, you're not providing the proper infrastructure, you're allowing the developers to raise property levels so that they can build without having the same drainage issues the rest of us are having. And yet we sit here going, sure, maybe you can do one more subdivision, you've approved three recently, our community cannot handle it. So I yield my time, thank you.

All right, thank you. The following speakers filled out cards, but marked that they did not wish to speak, and I'll read their names into the record now. If you do wish to speak, just come up to the podium and we'll allow you three minutes. Donna Tanner is in opposition, Kaleeb Irwin opposes, Caleb. All right, come on down.

Hi there, my name is Caleb Irwin. I live at 5811 Herdia Road, just a couple blocks around the corner from the proposed change. You know, my wife and I bought our house there about 11, 12 years ago because we loved the area, the country feel, the larger lots. You know, we're raising our five kids there. We enjoy being able to go down at the end of the road and see the farm, see the animals. My wife and kids take walks down Morse every single day, and there's already been an increase in traffic with the new neighborhood there compared to what it was. And I just can't imagine the safety impact that it would be to building so many new houses in the area with the roads and everything. That's one of my family's favorite things to do. So we walked down to the park at the end of Morse, enjoying those facilities that the city provides. And we just love the area the way that it is being rural and with these increase in property. And, you know, the first that I heard about this was a flyer that got dropped by my house yesterday afternoon. So I had absolutely no inclination that there was any changes being proposed to the area. Otherwise, my wife and whole family would have been there to oppose. Thank you.

All right. Thank you, sir. All right. We have Jeremy Pulaski, which does not wish to speak, but is in opposition. We have Hunter Chaney, does not wish to speak, is in opposition. Kenzie Quinonos, in opposition, does not wish to speak. Blair Young opposes, does not wish to speak. Oh, okay. Is it Ms. Blair? Okay. Come on down.

So I'm Blair Young. I live on 58, at 58, 59 Morris Avenue. So I'm down the street from where this is proposed. I'm born and raised in the area, grew up there my whole time, my whole life. I even saw the development down the street, a seaboard go in that's relatively new. But I do want to say something. I'm here to oppose the 2026-006. I understand Jacksonville is growing and the housing is needed, but I feel the growth should be placed in the area that makes sense. We may not be country, but I don't feel like everything needs to be urbanized to have value to the city. Jacksonville is underutilized with properties and existing infrastructures and appropriate for this type of development. Growth should be within the area that should be what we already have before taking what we can't replace. Down the road is Chile, is Ringhaver National Park, or Ringhaver Park, which runs into the Ortega River. So I am concerned about some of the construction and everything affecting that. The ditches and stuff, when it gets high with water, we get crawfish and natural wildlife, which plays into the rural aspect of our area, as well as the farmland and everything that's still there existing from before today. Sorry. I'm nervous. The proposal will change our area from rural to residential, rural residential, which is not compatible with our existing community character. One of the few remaining rural areas in Jacksonville, with close proximity to these natural parks and waterways. We are experiencing the impact of rapid growth already with the development and the construction on Blanding Boulevard. It's already limited the roadway to one lane, which is flooding into our street and affecting the traffic flow. I have a real hard time with it myself, going to work early in the morning and in the afternoon. I've lived there at my house for about six years, and I've seen almost one car per year flip into the ditches in the area. So it's a bad area for traffic. I've also helped many of the people get out of their vehicles when they're stuck in these situations. And it's up and down Morris Avenue. So that is a concern of mine as well, because they are narrow, and I've seen those myself. We do have – we don't typically flood, but there are broken pipes under the road that get repaired once in a while. So with the heavy construction, it might affect that. Approving this amendment without a clear understanding of what's going in. Thank you, though.

Thank you. All right. Next, we have Rodolfo Quinonez, and opposes, does not – come on down. Does wish to speak.

Hello. My name is Rodolfo Quinonez. I live at 5729 Ovella Road, which is about a block south of the proposed development. I've lived there since 2015 when I purchased my house. I really enjoy that area, and we chose it because of the size of the properties and the charm that the area offers. As a Navy brat, I moved my entire life and lived in high-density areas. My father's a retired chief, like many other fathers in the area, and just families. We're all sort of Navy because it's right there. But it just kind of offers something that Jacksonville still has a bit of. Like the previous speaker said, I didn't have the notice or anything. Some neighbor luckily left something in our mailbox that kind of gave us a heads-up that this was happening and that I had the opportunity to speak. But, yeah, we've seen lots of changes. And with the amount of traffic, the amount of accidents, you know, simply getting speed bumps in our street was like an act of Congress, I feel like. It took eight years of signing petitions and getting all the neighbors involved. I raised my three children there. The identity of it being rural is important to us. We love the aspect of going to the farm, seeing things. We also have chickens and, you know, dog and blah, blah, blah. But, you know, just simply maintaining our own properties, I feel like everybody's extremely responsible in the area doing that. We all have wells, we all have septic, and, you know, not having to really rely on these big changes to sort of flood the area with a bunch of unnecessary nonsense seems to be pretty important to everyone. So, yeah, please, let's keep it, let's keep it farmy. Thank you.

Okay, thank you, sir. Next we have Laura Young. Do you wish to speak? The 80 going once, going twice. Here she comes. Okay. Layla Alem, do you wish to speak? Okay, come on down, Laura. Name and address for us, please.

Laura Young, 5859 Morris Avenue. This is one of the few rural areas that are left here on the west side of Jacksonville. Rural doesn't necessarily mean that, you know, we're going to go visit farms and all of that, but it gives us the opportunity to be able to raise chickens, to raise cows, to still have some of that rural life. We're not downtown. We don't want to be a concrete jungle. There are tons of developments that have already went in in this area over the last 10 years, let's say. 86 homes on, what is it, nine acres? That's crazy. They've changed the roads. The roads are in horrible condition with potholes. They put stop signs at four-way corners up and down this area. I've been here for over 40 years, and what has taken place just in the last three years is phenomenal, and not in a good way. What's going to happen to the natural well that feeds most of the homes in this area with all this infrastructure coming in? Is the water going to be contaminated? Are all those homes going to lose their water? Because the city water is not hooked up to most of the houses in the area that they're proposing to do this to. We need to keep some of our rural area. We cannot keep taking and taking and taking from the city. We need more homes, then maybe people need to move someplace else instead of destroying what's natural here. Florida is a beautiful state, and to destroy everything and make it urbanized to just, what, bring more people for, who does that serve? That's not serving the people of the city. That's serving the city. Taxes, money. That's where that's, you know, that's all about something else. It has nothing to do with the neighborhoods, nothing to do with the families, or the quieter, the more space. You know, we're right on top of each other. Reach out your window and shake your neighbor's hand. We don't want that. We want our land. We want to continue this life, to continue to have, I mean, it's a small little section that's left, and it's been voted against changing it from rural over and over. And over again, they've tried everything to do that. And instead, they just changed the sub-base. You know, it's rural, it's residential rural, it's this rural, it's that. Now you're trying to just take rural away. I'm opposed. And that's all I have to say.

Thank you, ma'am. Next, we have Layla Aleem. Okay. I think she's coming on down.

Hello. Hi. My name is Layla Aleem. I reside at 5859 Morse Avenue as well. I'm here to oppose this amendment. I don't believe in over-infrastructuring our entire city. I think there's parts that should be a city. I believe in wildlife, agricultural, rural areas. I think this serves a different population demographics of people. Not everybody wants to live, as someone else said, in a concrete jungle. I know Jacksonville is a quick-growing, vast city. We're the biggest one, land size and mass. But that does not mean we need to accommodate everybody in the same manner. One size does not fit all. We don't want to build upwards, either. We like our space in between. I think adding these multi-living spaces, apartments, duplexes, whatever you call them, I don't think that fixes our housing problem we have in Jacksonville, either. We have plenty of homes that we could renovate, dilapidated, abandoned infrastructures everywhere that we don't seem to be putting any kind of financial support into. There is a lot more devastated neighborhoods in Jacksonville that could use that funding and attention to create homes for the people already here, not to welcome others. And that's no offense to other newcomers from other cities and states and whatnot. But we need to support our people and worry about the people here because we're at risk for poverty, people just of, you know, a lesser, say, privileged background, for lack of a better term. And, again, I don't think this serves those people to help them grow. We have different generations, younger generations like myself, who would like to buy a house, who would like to have a home, to have a family, children that have a sidewalk to walk on, neighbors to wave to. There's people here that have resided there much longer than I've even been alive, and I feel they deserve the respect to keep their land, their farmland, their animals, and the land that they paid for rightfully and have owned and upkept all these years. There's something admirable about that. Again, as someone else mentioned, I don't think that this neighborhood can really support such a high build and development, such as townhomes and condos. They're on Willowater. So what does that change? What does that look like for city water to be placed? Can the roads even support that since they have had issues with that as well? The four-way stops, just the congestion this will bring to the area, I just think will bring such demise to the beauty and the wildlife in that area. So if you guys would just please take that in consideration. Thank you.

All right. Thank you, ma'am. Next, we have Corbin Blake. Mark, you do not wish to speak. Okay. You're waving it off. Is in opposition. And then Tracy Thompson is in opposition, does not wish to speak. And that concludes all of our speaker cards. And we will give three minutes to the applicant for rebuttal, unless you want to waive that.

I would like rebuttal time. Thank you, Mr. Chair. But before I begin, may my client, the developer, speak. He accidentally submitted a card for the rezoning. He can fill out a card afterwards. We just need to get him a card. Come on down. Thank you.

Can you reset my time?

Yep. We'll reset your time. Name and address, please.

Ken Atley, 5852, 51 Timuquana Road, Jacksonville. I've been developing for 45 years. And I know change evokes fear and concern, but it doesn't make it necessarily bad. The Chamber of Commerce, in its website, states, our pro-business mindset, innovative spirit, and enviable quality of life make it an ideal region to relocate, expand, and grow. If that's the kind of environment you're looking for, you've found the perfect place. Then there's a beautiful video that sells our city to attract businesses, which brings people, which requires housing. We are listed as a supernova city by Urban Land Institute for its sustained population growth, economic diversity, and employment, and on and on it goes. So the city is promoting growth, which brings people who need housing. As a developer, I look at the comp plan, and this is what it tells me to do in policy 3.1.12. The city shall, through land development regulations and land use category descriptions, require higher density residential development, and supporting commercial uses to locate on or near arterial or collector roads used for mass transit routes and proximity to major employment areas in order to ensure efficient use of land, public facilities, and services. It was on in policy 1.1.1. The city and its land development regulations shall continue to provide incentives such as higher densities or special design considerations to encourage the building of a wide variety of housing types, designs, and price ranges, and promote an equitable distribution of housing choices throughout the city. Now, there have been 16-foot-wide townhome projects approved all over the city of Jacksonville in blocks of four, six, and eight units. Typically, the interior units have a window in the front or a window in the back, but they have no side windows. This project will have buildings that are 50% wider and will have windows on all four sides. So the quality of the lives of the tenants and the occupants of these structures will be superior to what the city has been approving all over the city of Jacksonville. And I submit to you, therefore, that we are doing exactly what the comp plan instructs us as developers to do and would greatly appreciate your support of this project.

Thank you. All right. Thank you, sir. Next, we have Hayden Phillips for a three-minute rebuttal.

Yeah.

All right. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I will just like to clarify that this is a single-family detached product. It's not multifamily. It's not duplexes, not townhomes, not condos. I believe I heard someone speak to the reason for the recommendation of denial from the planning department, which is MDR, but otherwise allow 20 units per acre. But I think I also heard staff say that they are not opposed to the use itself. So I cannot emphasize enough that we are capping the density at 7.9 units per acre, both in the companion rezoning and in the site-specific policy that will become part of our comprehensive plan. Spot zoning, spot land use amendment was cited. So the definition in the code for spot zoning is a proposal that is unrelated to adjacent and nearby districts. The map I provided to you shows that there are numerous nearby districts with higher density projects than this one. Someone shared that if you approve this land use amendment, someone could just come in down the road and get a new rezoning for more units. That is not true if the site-specific policy capping the density is approved for the comprehensive plan. Ms. Wells shared that she lives on a 43-acre farm, which is catty-corner to this property. That 43 acres is what's left over of her farm. The rest of it was sold already for over 500 homes. And now she's here trying to stop other people from monetizing their assets. Traffic study. I heard some concerns related to traffic and the desire for us to do a traffic study. The rezoning staff report requires us to do a traffic study at the pew verification stage. So we will absolutely do that and comply with any requirements that result from it. General concerns, sentiments over this being rural, unnecessary, overdevelopment. I looked up the definition of rural when I was sitting there. It's areas located outside of the city. So this is not a rural area. As I was, before I was cut off earlier, before my time ran out earlier, our comprehensive plan states that we need over 100,000 units before 2045. That's 20 years. This is not an ask to keep pushing out further and further on the north side or the west side and bringing utilities with it. We're asking to make one more small change to an interior part of town that is and will continue to keep changing. I'd be glad to answer any questions. Thank you.

All right. With that, we have no other speaker cards. We'll go to questions from the committee. Council Member Diamond, you're recognized.

Mr. Phillips, again, let me ask you some questions. I'm trying to understand your, let me just ask you a couple of basic questions here. I looked at this on Sunday. I'm revisiting here tonight. How many units are you trying to get on these nine acres?

I'm sorry. Could you repeat that? How many, through the chair, how many units are you trying to get on the nine acres? 7.9 units per acre.

I'm trying to understand through staff, why can't we just do, why did it, why LDR gives us that, we're pretty close to that. So why are we going to MDR if you could get it in LDR?

Through the chair to Councilman Diamond. So LDR caps you at seven units per acre.

It's the 0.7?

It's 0.9 over. 0.9. And that's, that would, the next highest one would be MDR. So that's what they're requesting.

Okay. So you're trying to do this change for 0.9? Yes. Okay. All right. All right. I'm tracking. All right. Now, let me understand, and I understand that you, it's capped at that you're not trying to get to 20. I'm tracking your argument there. Let me understand your argument on why it's appropriate in this area. I just want to make sure I get the argument right. If I'm guessing, you're saying that if you go down Morse to the east, there's a very dense new development that's there. And if you go south, I don't know, an eighth of a mile, you're going to get to another dense neighborhood. Is that the argument or do you have a different one?

We believe this property is very closely located to a thriving commercial corridor, Blanding Boulevard, which is an FDOT principal arterial. South, there are actually condos and apartments 0.2 miles away. That's 1,000 feet. Um, this is a, this is a part of town that is tucked between the Ortega River and Blanding Boulevard that hasn't changed much over the years, but utilities and urban services have been brought into this area recently and change is already occurring and it's inevitable that it will continue.

Okay. And as soon as I have this right, I think I read this correctly. Sometimes I'm a smart lawyer, sometimes really stupid. This is a site specific amendment, right? To 7.9 units per acre.

Um, so to Councilman Diamond, they, that is being proposed as of this meeting. We did not have that in the past. So they're proposing that now a site specific policy. It would go into the future land use element as a comprehensive plan policy and it would cap it at 7.9. So it would cap the MDR essentially for that property at 7.9 or 77 units, I think is the way that the applicant is drafting it.

Does that change through the chair? Does that change your recommendation? I mean, I mean, 0.9 is, I mean, that's not the biggest leap I've ever seen up here.

Yeah.

I see the, the community's argument. I get that too. So where are you guys at then?

Uh, no, sir.

We are still opposed to the, we're still recommending denial even with the site specific policy.

And your recommendation of denial is based on, and this is through the chair, just that the rest of the neighborhood has much lower density than, than that. I just want to make sure that's the answer.

Correct. When we evaluate the comp plan, the proposed category, it's, we look at the impacts of the maximum allowed and that is medium density residential. And if we are now looking at a site specific policy, um, we just would prefer a transition, a land use transition. So to keep the LDR and then they could just amp up the zoning. So we get closer because the rural residential acre is less than, I mean, they could do like

an RLD district. It would give them more.

So that's kind of where we're at. Keep your land use. But if you need to increase your zoning, then that's something else.

And you want to keep the land use just so I understand so that it doesn't impact the rest of the area. Is that the idea? Correct. To be consistent with our future land use?

Correct. Yeah. That maintains consistency of the area. It maintains the character of the area. And, uh, yeah.

Okay. Uh, one last question. I'm not going to try and do real nitty gritty work here tonight, but is there any other way to get there to the applicant to, to land the plane where you can get your density that you don't have to change the future land use?

We have tried at length. Thank you for asking. Um, as I stated earlier, this started out at 9.2 units per acre and we've gone further and further down and this is the best we can do. So it sounds like staff would have, would be supportive of seven units per acre. We're asking for 7.9 tracking. Okay. All right. No more questions. I appreciate it.

All right. And just a reminder to the committee members, we are still in the public hearing. Uh, so this is just questions and no declarations of, uh, support or opposition. Council Member Arias, you're recognized.

All right. Thank you, Chair. Um, so I, you know, you guys have already met with the neighborhood already multiple times is what I've heard. Uh, you went from 40 to 60, from 30. Now you're to 40 to 60 foot wide lots is what you're looking at doing, right? And a total of 77 lots or houses is what I gathered.

Uh, that's not completely accurate. A total of 77 lots. Yes. Um, most of them will remain at 30 feet wide as in the original proposal, but now 18% of them will range from 40 feet wide to 60 feet wide.

Do you, do you have an exact number of each? How many, 30, how many, 40, how many, 60?

I do. Would you like me to recite them?

Please. I can't. Yeah. 18%. I just, just give it to me.

There will be six 40 foot lots, two 47 foot lots, 149, 151, 152, 153, 158, and 160.

How many, 30?

Um, that would leave a total of 63, 30 feet wide.

Okay. All right. Um, this is one of the conversations that we've had multiple times on this body, um, in the last three years that I've been up here. And, um, I, I think it's time for us to have this conversation in a further capacity. You know, there's, there's no happy medium between LDR and MDR. There just isn't. How do you go from seven to 20? Um, you know, I, I proposed at one time, I was talking about like L MDR, which is like a, a eight to 12. And so that's something that needs to happen because this is ridiculous. Uh, as Mr. Damian just stated, um, one of the things that I'm just curious about, you said this, and this is an infill site completely all the entire 9.7 acres is all infilled or is it some of it infilled?

I believe by, by the pure nature of where it is located within the city, it is an infill site. I mean, if you look at this property on an aerial and you zoom out, there are, the development goes and goes and goes to the outskirts of town. This is not the outskirts of town. It's an interior location.

Okay. And then the last point would be, um, I know that the neighborhood, uh, all you guys here tonight, we're talking about the roads. I'm looking at this on Google maps and it's a, it looks like it's a one way, each way, all four ways. If I see that correctly. Um, there's, there's a mobility fee that the developers have to pay in. Um, and that's why I was over there asking her the question. Um, this is kind of the, where developers have to put money into it. They're, they're developing something in your property or in your area. They had to put in money into our, like a zone, this zone. I'm not sure what zone it is, but this is council member Johnson's zone. Um, and I know that, um, it's for, for projects like widening road and whatever the case is. So, um, I'm not sure what's going to happen tonight or at a later point. But my point is that, um, there's, there's a ways to, to help create wider roads. And I know Johnson is going to work on this diligently because, um, this, this doesn't look good in my opinion, these roads. But, um, like I said, I, I do understand that 7.9 is a, it's a small ask, but, um, I'm kind of torn right now because I hear the neighborhoods, but I also see it's only a 7.9. And so, um, I'll continue here in the conversation and to see how this goes. Thank you. All right. Council member Johnson.

Thank you. Uh, my question is about, and I'm not sure if traffic is here, obviously the traffic study is not going to be, or the, the traffic information is not done until after, uh, is there any traffic data that you could give from our traffic team, anything that you could give that, that speaks to this, whether this is something that, um, you are okay with? Could I get some details from you? And while you're coming, uh, and I, I gotta say while, while you're coming, uh, through the chair to Councilman Arias, that's one of the, I've been having several meetings about it. Um, I'm trying to get an LMDR, like you said, that would hit somewhere between 12 to 15 because we wouldn't be having this conversation, but it shows what I've said over and over and over again, that the code is broken. We've got to stop putting bandages on amputations and expecting them to heal. We've got to fix the code. So thank you for bringing that up, Council member. Please.

For the chair, the Reese Bannister transportation planning at this time, the current capacity on our road is at a hundred percent. It's a two lane. It's, it's at capacity of what it's built for currently today. So yes, a traffic study would be required, but not at this stage.

If the traffic study happens through the chair, if the traffic study happens and it's at a hundred percent, and then we find out that obviously what you just said, it's at a hundred percent, that it is above capacity. Then what happens? Because if the zoning is already passed, then the development's already there. And now we're at gridlock. What happens?

Through the chair, whatever, when they come in for their 10 set, whatever improvements or operational improvements that will be required at that time, we would dictate what comes from the study, what needs to be shown on the plan.

If the traffic is at a hundred percent now, is there a possibility for anything to be done to be able to make it, to get it to a place where it's manageable when the 10 set comes in? Is there something that could be done in your opinion? I know we're kind of forecasting here, but in your opinion, we would have traffic engineer,

we'd have to have traffic engineer look at the, the enhancements that's needed right now today. Right.

But I, and I'm just thinking in theory again, I'm not going to hold you to this. I just need to theoretically think, because I know you have the expertise, if indeed we get to this point and let's say this is approved, theoretically, let's say it's in another area or region, but if we get to a point where we have someone that's all somewhere that's already at a hundred percent and it's a two lane road without widening that road, is there a way for us to have some kind of capacity increase that is nominal? Does that even exist? That's, I guess that's my question. Is that possible?

No, but if the right of way is not available to do any kind of improvements, then no, it's, it's, it's good luck. Gotcha.

And so which kind of weighs into the decision and then thank you so much through the chair, looking at that. And we've talked about this with planning, the 7.9, which is something that just came about. I think it was Monday. I think Monday is when they sent it out, the 7.9, or it might've been Friday, forgive me, but with that, asking the planning department, I understand it doesn't change how you have made the determination for your recommendation. Looking at it though, because of that 7.9 units per acre, does that, is that in any way that does the traffic situation that you just heard, does that make any changes or does it make you again, double down on where you are as far as a recommendation of denial?

Through the chair, Councilman Johnson, it doesn't, it doesn't change our position at all. We're still, would recommend denial.

Gotcha.

All right. I may have more questions. Thank you for that, Mr. Chair. And I do want to come back when it's time to make her opinion. Thank you.

All right. Thank you, sir. Council Member Arias, you're recognized.

Thank you, Chair. Ms. Manister, quick, quick question. It's the first time I've ever heard anything be at a hundred percent. Not sure if anybody here has, but this is the first time I hear it. So, have you ever encountered a situation where you've, you've seen a developer or applicant come and try to get something done with it a hundred percent or more than a hundred percent? Has this ever happened?

Not since we, we changed from concurrency to mobility because the mobility system doesn't look at capacity alone. So, because we switched the system, whatever dollars is paid into the funds that we allocate if it's needed, but it's, if the improvement requires any kind of operational changes, that is traffic signals, widening, or a turning lane, that is on the developer or the owner of the lane to put that improvement in. Sure. Not necessarily the mobility funds to go towards that.

Right. Do you currently have, is a hundred percent the max? I mean, I know that's an obvious number. Yes, but is there like a hundred and twenty percent, like meaning like it's way over capacity or is a hundred percent your, your, your max?

It's the, the way the road is designed, what capacity the road is designed for. So, we can keep it going until that funding or the right of way or whatever enhancements that we need for that roadway. At that time, that's when we look at it. Okay.

And how many more, and this is a very tough question for you to answer now, but how many of these roads do you have that are a hundred percent in Jacksonville? Are there many, or is this like an anomaly? I guess I've never heard of this before. We'd have to go back to them. There's about 10% of our roadway system that's over capacity.

Okay.

All right. Well, thank you. Yes.

All right. We have no other speakers in the queue, so we're going to close the public hearing and bring it back to committee. So, this is where we're at, committee members. If we wanted to, if we wanted to offer the amendment to lock in the 7.9 for the MDR and the site-specific requirement, we can do that by amendment. I'm not sure that it's necessary at this point, because I think a lot of us are taken back by the 100% capacity. You know, me personally, going from 7 to 7.9 isn't really that big of a stretch, because what I know is, from looking at all the surrounding neighborhoods in here, the lot size, whether it's an RLD 40, 50, or RLD 30, the square footage of these homes is actually almost bigger than the ones that are on the RLD 40. In fact, they are. There's 50 or 60 homes, not even half a mile away from here, that are all much smaller, and basically, they just have bigger side yards. So, I can get there on the 7.9. I can get there on the lot size, knowing that the square footage and the coverage of the lot is, you know, within reason. Where I can't get there on is just hearing that this road is at 100% capacity. That's not going to work. So, we have a tough decision to make here, and I think, you know, committee members, you got to, we got to let the applicant know what the options are. And if it sounds like that's your best and final offer of there's nothing better than you can do, then I'm not sure it's going to be a great outcome tonight. So, with that, I will hear from the rest of our committee members, and then if we want to table this, we certainly can to give the applicant some time to think about what was just said, but we'll go to the rest of the committee members in the queue. Council Member Arias.

Okay. Yeah. So, what you said, I'm 100% on board with that. The only problem I have with that is that we're talking about this right now because they're trying to go from LDR to MDR. If they said LDR, they could still do this, and they're still at 100% capacity, so it doesn't change anything, in my opinion. They could still do something. The problem is that we've either overdeveloped in that area or not really improved the roads, so we are at a conundrum regardless, but LDR will still fly if this is the case. Got it. That's all I got to say.

Okay. All right. Well, go ahead. Council Member Diamond.

My lawyer brain is waking up this evening. Through the chair to Dylan, I don't think we can reject a...

Let's go to Mr. Harvey.

Oh, I'm sorry. Just force a habit, Mr. Harvey. I don't think we can reject this based on capacity on a road.

I think there's a statute on that. Because this isn't a quasi-judicial. This is the land use. It's a fairly debatable standard. So you can do anything that's reasonable and debatable based off the information that you receive. So it's not a statute on whether or not traffic, you know, that would be more along the lines of your quasi-judicial matters and where you have to have confidence, substantial evidence and traffic is not one of those.

All right. I'll Google that one before we're done today. I'm almost positive there's a statute, but I'll find it before. I think you're right, but in any event. Okay. All right. So are we pausing this right now or what are we doing?

Mr. Phillips, what would you like to do? Because I think a lot of us, you know, up here are pretty shocked by the 100% capacity road. And at the end of the day, I'm sure you guys could do it by right with seven units, but that doesn't come to our desk and we're not voting on that right now.

I guess the 100% capacity number wasn't super clear to me. The only road capacity included in the staff report was Blanding Boulevard, which shows at 82% capacity as a maximum daily capacity of 36,000 vehicles per day, average daily traffic of 30,000 vehicles per day. So there are 6,000 daily trips available. Can we get some clarity on the 100% which roads you're talking about, please? Thank you.

Can you clarify which roads you're talking about with the 100%? Thank you.

Through the chair. So Morris Road from Rampart to Blanding is at 100% capacity. I understand that the project is on the other side of Blanding, so that portion of Morris is a local road. However, though we may not apply the capacity to it, the traffic study will still need to be done for that portion of the roadway. And if it governs a local count that we can add as a collector road in the future, then that count is going to apply in that traffic count. And it is going to be at a capacity.

Okay, so hold on. And you said it's at 100% capacity from Rampart Road? To Blanding. To Blanding. So why was that even referenced? I mean, I'm sorry, but that has nothing to do with this development.

So I'm correcting it. I thought the project was on the other side of Blanding. So that's why I'm saying.

Okay.

The segment that the project is on is a local road. However, we will still require a traffic study for that project to go in place.

What's the traffic capacity on the other side?

We don't count that side, so they would be required to count that.

Interesting.

Yes.

All right. Council Member Johnson, you recognize.

Does that, through the chair, is the reason that you said 100%, does that pour into the fact that it's on the other side of Blanding, does that go into the ward, the traffic count of that side where the development is going?

So when we're going to do a traffic count, we take into account an entire corridor. So if there was no development on that side of Morris Road, it would not warrant us to do a count at that time. So we do our counts annually. So in the next round, based on the developments, and we look at the pattern of what's happening, we will count that. We will send it to the state to be considered as a local facility, as a collector road, based on the number of counts. So when they do the traffic study, we will take those numbers into account, apply it, and send it off to the state to determine whether or not we want to make that a collector facility. But today, it is a local road.

Okay. Thank you. Understood. Well, Council Member Diamond, you recognize.

Okay. Since it sounds like we're bopping around here, it's pretty rare. For anybody listening, it's rare for us to have a really fulsome debate up here about an LEZ matter that we've seen for a really long time, and this one's been around for a long time. The issue that I'm struggling with right now is that this is a lot of density for a small area. But it's easy for me to get there, easier for me to get there, given what they can do right now as a matter of right is so close to what they're asking to do with the spot. And so it's so close. And given that Blanding is so close, that this would be a place where you would have a natural infill. So that's kind of where I am. But I have to tell you, in seven years on this committee, I've never been this close on a vote, because I totally understand what the neighbors are saying, that this is a rural kind of neighborhood with bigger pieces of land. But then I look to the south, and I see a lot of density. I look to the east, and I see a lot of density. And in the other direction is Blanding Boulevard. And so here we run up against the natural tension that the city is having right now. And I've said this speech so many times, but it's true every single time. And we have a natural tension between the houses that exist, and the people who live there, and the people who will then move in. And whether they're from Connecticut moving down here, or if they grew up at the beaches and they want to move out west, I don't care. They could be from across the other side of Blanding. I don't care. They're in Jacksonville. They're paying taxes here. They're a citizen. They get to own a home somewhere if they can afford it. So we're trying to create stronger families in our communities. The best way to do that is to help people own homes. And in order to make homes affordable, we have to have more of them. And so where I'm at is to vote yes today on the land use piece and the zoning. Probably once I listen to it, I can't decide yet because it's quasi-traditional. I'm going to listen. But I'll be a yes today. But man, this one was as close as I've ever seen in my experience up here. So I understand that's disappointing to you, but I think I at least owed you the respect of my thought process and how I got there.

All right. So my question is to the applicant. Do you have any numbers or any type of indication for Morse Avenue on your side of Blanding?

No, we do not. No, ma'am. But as stated before.

This is a time for us to ask questions to the applicant. If we have questions of the community, we can certainly do that. Okay, ma'am.

Okay. Continue, Mr. Phillips. No, we do not have numbers on the east side of Blanding, but I suspect it is much lower than 100%. As stated before, the staff report already requires us to do a traffic study, so we will find out what those numbers are at PUD verification. Before then, at the civil plan review stage, the city traffic engineer and transportation engineer will review these applications. And if they ask us to do a traffic study then, we'll do it then. That's at an earlier stage. They might require us to do turn lanes, speed bumps, four-way stops, traffic lights, any number of things. Whatever they ask, we're happy to do. And as Councilman Arias stated earlier, we will, of course, be paying our mobility fee. It is based on trips produced and goes toward needed traffic improvements in the area. So more units built in the area, more improvements.

Is anyone here from traffic engineering that reviews the 10 set? Anyone? Seeing none? Got it. Okay. So while I would agree that it's definitely going to be less than 100 because there's just no density over here, I would not be shocked to see that. However, it's sort of putting me on my heels a little bit because I don't like just approving that and saying, well, we'll look at it in 10 set. So where I'm at right now is I'm going to vote it down. And if I can get that information before Council, I'll be happy to change my vote. But as it stands right now, you know, I'd rather sit down with, like, someone from traffic engineering to say, hey, what happens when and if this goes through and there is a, you know, 99% capacity issue? I want to know the answer to that. So we can either open continue this right now until we get those answers to get myself more comfortable, perhaps other committee members comfortable. Yeah. I'm seeing a lot of head shakes. So let's do that. We're going to go ahead and open continue this and we'll get those answers regarding the traffic because I think we all got a little sticker shock on the 100% and now we're nervous that across the street, it could be upwards of that. Hopefully it's a pleasant surprise and it's, you know, 12, but we won't know. Yes, sir. Mr. Gaffney, you're recognized.

I'm ready to vote.

Oh, you want to vote?

I'm not sure what my other colleagues, you know, will do.

We're going to open continue it because I don't want to vote it down and then get more information and, you know what I mean? I'd rather get it in the posture when it goes to council. It's not in limbo. Yeah. So, Mr. Phillips, if you're good with that, yeah, we'll go ahead and open continue this. And yeah, do we want to offer that amendment for the 7.9?

Since you're opening continue, we can do it at that time, but are you continuing to a date specific or... 4-21. 4-21.

Yeah. And if there's anything that y'all can do in the meantime of like, you know, look, I'm not asking for a full-blown traffic study, but if there's anything y'all can do regarding putting some type of monitoring system or whatever, that would be great. I'm going to go out there and visit it just to get a sense of that side of Morse Avenue. But for now, we're going to open continue until 4-21-26, and I don't see any opposition to that. And we're going to do the same thing for item number 4-26-007. We're going to open continue that until 4-21-26. All right. Does that make sense to everyone out there in the community? Does that make sense what just happened? No. So, we're not voting on it tonight because there's not enough information for us. So, basically what that means is we're going to come back here on 4-21, and hopefully we'll have more information regarding the traffic on that side of Morse Avenue, and at that point we will take a vote. That's not on this one. No, ma'am. So, how it works is when the committee is done with public hearing, we close the public hearing, so that means there's no more public comment. It's time for us to discuss and debate. And if we have questions of the applicant, we can ask questions of the applicant. If we have questions of staff, we ask them. We can ask questions to anyone we wish. If we don't have any questions regarding the land use, because keep in mind, this is for the land use, which is why it's kind of centering around that 7.9-acre density level, then we will ask questions of whoever it is. So, unfortunately, if there's no questions of the community, then they don't come up. But it sounds like Council Member Johnson is going to be in communication with everyone there and can kind of further that dialogue. Okay, go ahead. Council Member Johnson, you're recognized.

I'll be very brief, Mr. Chair. I'm in queue. As I have done since the beginning of this, I'll get with the community. You, your voices, through the chair, your voices will be heard. I just want to make sure that you understand that right now. We're just not voting on it because we need to make sure that legally all of the information related to this is here so we don't end up as a city in court. So, Mr. Chair, I thank you for giving the opportunity for the community to be heard, but also for the landowner's rights to be heard. I know I wanted to say as well, and so they will get the opportunity while I am because I don't want to wait and forget, I would like to declare ex parte, if I may, on 007, which is there was a community meeting that was held on the 9th of March with many members of the community, Mr. Phillips, Mr. Attlee, other members. And so all of that has been declared. Also, when the proposal for the 7.9 units per acre and the other things came up, I did speak with Mr. Phillips earlier today. Again, all of those things have been placed with legislative services. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

All right. Thank you, Council Member Johnson. And, okay, Council Member Freeman, you're recognized.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

And one, thank you for how you're leading us through this process.

I would like to declare ex parte. I met with the applicant, Mr. Hayden Phillips, in my office prior to today's meeting. He shared some of the same details that he shared with us tonight, and this has been already forwarded to legislative services. Thank you.

All right. And just for clarification, we are done with 2026-0006, and we are on number 4, 2026-007, declaring ex parte. Council Member Arias, you're recognized.

Mr. Chair, I'd also like to declare ex parte. I spoke to the applicant, Hayden Phillips, on 4-3 at 10.30 a.m. to discuss the details and the progress with the communications of the community, and it's all being filed. Thank you.

Council Member Diamond, you're recognized.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Also declaring ex parte. I spoke with the applicant on the phone. We didn't actually discuss the substance of this much, but I will follow with legislative services. Thanks.

Council Member White, you're recognized.

Yes, sir. I'll declare ex parte. I did have a conversation with Mr. Hayden. I also have received several, several emails, and all has been found.

Council Member Gaffney, you're recognized.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I also spoke with Mr. Phillips. I met with him. I not met with him, but I spoke with him today, discussing the details of this project. I made sure everything got filed through legislative services.

All right. And I also want to declare ex parte, I had a meeting with Hayden Phillips in my office, and we will get that paperwork filed with legislative services. So with that, we're going to go ahead and open the public hearing. Do we need to get a staff report since we're going to continue this public hearing? No, we're not going to do the staff report because we're going to continue the public hearing until 4-21-26. Is there any, we do have speaker cards. Do you all wish to, do you want to go through all the speaker cards again, or do we want to wait? Do you have the cards? Okay. All right. Mr. Phillips, do you want to start or wave your time? He's waving. All right. Mr. Huxford, wave. Tanya Wells.

Hey, my name's Tanya Wells. 5694 Morris Avenue.

First off, I'd like to address the fact, when I was at this first meeting, I told everyone here, I sold 43 acres to Attlee, okay? And I stated, it was the worst decision of my life.

All right, ma'am, we're going to, you're out of order. No, ma'am, you're out of order. This is pertaining to the zoning. We're not going to get into personalities and personal issues. Thank you.

Well, on 226th, I counted 381 cars at the intersection in an hour. On the 9th, I counted 508 cars in an hour and a half. That is Morris and Seaboard, the intersection. On the 10th, I counted 508. These are in the afternoon. In the morning, I counted 365 in an hour, okay? You guys just rezoned 6625 Seaboard Avenue, 119 units, 500 yards from this proposed development. That's going to add, with that development and the development at Seaboard and 118th Street, 85 units that you guys just rezoned. That's, and plus the subdivision Wells Landing that I sold to Attlee, there's still 25 to 30 homes that are not finished. That's another added cars. So we're looking at probably 450 cars added once these developments are done, and we're debating at capacity. I did a Google traffic volume on Blanding Boulevard shows 35,000 to 83,500, significantly above design capacity for the original road configurations, which is Wells to Ortega. Adding this other development is only going to add to that. I counted 33 accidents at Blanding and Morse Avenue. There was an accident two days ago on Seaboard and Morse. The car went into the ditch. If it wasn't for the ditch, it would have went into the said subdivision. I can state for facts that I've had someone die in my front yard from a crash at Seaboard and Morse Avenue. This Seaboard and Morse is a connector road from Blanding to Timuquana. It's at capacity. We know that as residents, as neighbors. So I don't understand. We're going to do a study, but we still have these two subdivisions that are not built. Are they going to be on that study? They're already approved. I just don't get it. I don't get it.

Next we have Lawrence Chaney.

Lawrence Chaney, 6515 Seaboard Avenue. I just want you to know I've been in construction my whole life. I understand I'm a builder as well, but what I will never understand is the land grab from the developers in our already established neighborhoods. We chose to live here and build here in the part of Jacksonville because of zoning, residential rule. It had open properties to one to two acre lots. We chose to come to this part of Jacksonville because of the greenscape, the trees, the wildlife that are being chased out by all this overdevelopment. I humbly ask for your vote to turn down and deny this land use change from LDR to MDR. If the developer and builder choose to build on this property, I would like for them to have to adhere to the current zoning of our acre that is zoned at currently. We as a community, we would also accept RLD 60, which would keep the lot size in the current surrounding areas the same to where it doesn't change our neighborhood drastically. I would hope that when the day comes that a developer wants to put 30-foot lots in your neighborhood that you vote no.

Okay, thank you, sir. Next we have Shelly Chaney.

Hello again, I'm Shelly Chaney. My address is on file and on Seaboard Avenue. I'm a little perturbed here tonight because I don't understand why the builder just gets the opportunity to rebuttal. But I'm going to go, I'm a nurse, so my nursing brain cannot wrap around the PUDs and the residential and all, so I feel like all of it is intertwined all at once. I'm going to finish reading what I didn't get to finish also. Zoning exists to protect communities and ensure development fits the area. Approving this request would set a dangerous precedent for the rural residential land that can be converted into medium-density housing regardless of the impact on existing residents. We are not against growth, but it must be responsible, appropriate, and respectful of the community that's placed in. This proposal does not meet that standard. I just ask that you please will look at all of what's going on in this area. I know that probably what's going to happen with the roads because they are, I don't let my seven-year-old or eight-year-old now go play past our driveway because Seaboard is so bad. They, you know, we got four-way stops put in just recently. We have, we have speed bumps that were put in just recently and they do not slow down still from that. I mean, they don't live, I mean, you know, they may live in the area. I don't know where they live, but regardless, Jacksonville has 918 square miles. Find somewhere else to put this that can, can accommodate it. There are several lots on Tim Aquana near Mr. Atley's office where he could look at and buy that can accommodate this and it would fit better there, but he hasn't looked there because it probably costs more money. So, you know, they don't live there every day. We do. We should have an opportunity to rebuttal and explain all that we see. We were slightly not prepared for this meeting because they waited until the last minute to turn in the site plan from the March the 9th meeting. He said he would have it by the 11th. We didn't get it till last Friday. I mean, that's not fair. And he gets an opportunity to keep rebuttaling and we don't. Come to the area. Please come to the area. Sit and look at the traffic. What's going to happen is you're going to say, yes, let's approve it. And then you're going to take my land by eminent domain to widen the road. That's not fair. I paid just as much taxes on my property as everybody else. Maybe not because I don't have that much property. But still, please come look. Thank you.

Thank you, ma'am. All right. And just as a soft reminder, we are on the rezoning. So this is the time that we're really only supposed to be hearing competent and substantial evidence based on the rezoning. We're going to have to start cutting people off that are not speaking to that. And I hate to do that. But we have other items on the agenda. So we have to keep a meeting running fairly. So with that, we have other speakers on this bill. And again, we're going to have another public hearing on 421. So I'll read the names. If you wish to speak, let me know. If you do not wish to speak, just wave your hand. Laura Ingalls.

Yes, I'm Laura Ingalls again. I live on A-Line. I had to take off work to come here. I do after school kind of work. I can't be coming back canceling work. I just can't do that. Too close to the poverty line. But anyway, I'm a little unclear as to what constitutes referring to the zoning. It's a little creepy to me that I never saw a for sale sign, whatever. As I understand it, as the zoning is, they can have up to seven units per acre. That sounds like more than plenty to me. 30 foot wide lots, that's going to look like a trailer park. You know, your driveway is, what, 12 feet wide? If you want two cars, it's maybe 15 feet wide. It just seems like it's cramming people in. I don't know. Also, have you looked at what kind of delicate flora and fauna are in the area? I have found some beautiful wildflowers in my own yard that are rare. Ma'am, that's not perfect. Okay, all right. So I wasn't sure what was part of zoning. No problem. I'm a violin teacher, not a land person. So I think that as it is the permitted number of houses, that seven per acre, I think that seems more than plenty. Going over that, I oppose.

All right. Next we have David McClure. He's in opposition, waiving time. Fred Gronert is in opposition. Ken Atley, waiving time, is in support. Kelvin Lewis, all right. Opposition. Steve Wilson is in opposition. Elaine Wilson, oppose. She's coming down. Is that you, Ms. Elaine? Okay.

Elaine Wilson, 6314 Seaboard Avenue. And my opposition is, first I want a little note, side note. Notifications, I understand they go out for 500 feet. When your property alone is 350, it kind of makes it hard. You're just really next door. Neighbors are the only people who hear about this. So maybe a little better method on rural properties for notifying us of these meetings. Two, for the PUD, if we're doing low density, which I understand is where we were at on our last discussion, we were discussing low density versus residential. So why are we going to a PUD? Can't they already put seven homes on an acre at low density? Is there a reason that we're changing to a PUD?

Unfortunately, ma'am, we cannot answer those questions right now because this is the time for you to declare why you're in opposition to this.

I think we've cleared it up with the trying to change it to medium density, even though they already have the low density. The rezoning to a PUD in a neighborhood area seems unnecessary since this is a rural residential neighborhood that's already been established in our last discussions. To set it up for a PUD that potentially could have commercial infrastructure in it as well seems out of line for the neighborhood. I yield my time.

Okay. Thank you. Next, we have Bernie Tomaszewski, all right, is in opposition. Blair Young is in opposition. Steve Tomaszewski opposes. Darlene Renfro does not wish to speak, is in opposition. The following speakers, okay, marked that they don't wish to speak. So Barbara Black, opposition. Christina Warren opposes. Janice Black opposes. Hunter Cheney opposes. Jeremy Pulaski opposes. Donna Tanner opposes. Kayla Berwin opposes. Kinsey Quinos opposes. Rodolfo Quinonez opposes. Laura Young opposes. Layla Aleem opposes. You want to speak? Okay, come on down. Corbin Blake opposes. Corbin Blake opposes. And Tracy Thompson opposes.

I'm here to represent 5859 Morse Avenue.

Name and address, please.

Layla Aleem, 5859 Morse Avenue. Based on my research, Jacksonville is a up-and-coming city growing at about a rate of between July 2023 to 2024, 14,000 to 16,000 people that came. The metro growth was around 31,700 in 2024, and it's only projected upwards from there. The reason I'm stating this information is because how do we expect to accommodate these people coming here? And if we think a small change to this builder, he might say, to a big change to a community like this, it's not going to compensate the growth that we're rapidly expanding at. With that point being made, the rezoning is not going to help with the wildlife habitat, agricultural use, as well as like we talked earlier about the roads and infrastructures as well. It's going to affect the community morale that we have here. It's going to affect, let me gather myself, I'm a nurse as well. I've worked at almost every hospital in Jacksonville. I've seen a lot of cases. This is going to affect everything on a much grander scheme than just a neighborhood. How is this going to affect the roads? How is this going to affect traffic, the jobs that are here, the homing crisis that we're in, the financial crisis that majority of people are in? Rezoning and taking from the people already here only causes problems that are domino effect to all the other corporations here in Jacksonville, as well as health care. Not only does it add congestion to that area, but like they stated, there seems to be a lot of emergency crises that happen in that area. How are hospitals going to accommodate that? This is just, to paint the big picture, a domino effect that's going to affect this community a lot deeper than I think people are taking into consideration. So I would like to oppose.

All right. Thank you. We have no other speaker cards. And what I will do before I recognize Councilmember Johnson, because I know he's probably going to share some additional thoughts, but before the community leaves, I do want to ask Mr. Harvey, just for when the community does come back and we hear additional public hearings, can you give them, and I don't know if you or Mr. Reingold have already done this, but can you give them just a quick overview of competent and substantial evidence so they know what to bring to the podium? Thank you.

Yes, so when you come back in a couple of weeks to discuss your competent and substantial evidence, you are permitted to speak about the observations that you have as a member of the community. You are not permitted to speak to such things that require expertise. You would need to have your credentials or someone to speak on that. So if that's related to traffic, light, and noise pollution, you must be an expert in that field to opine on those subject matters. As far as other competent and substantial evidence that may be in your favor, you can always refer to the staff reports that are provided and glean from there the criteria that you need to discuss in order to prove that competent and substantial evidence as it relates to the criteria before you. If I've missed anything, I'll let General Counsel Dylan Reingold opine, but that's the essence of it.

Okay, thank you. Council Member Johnson?

Yeah, you're welcome.

Or, sorry. Go ahead.

I'm a little confused. May I please? I'm sorry. I don't mean to prolong this, Mr. Chair. To Mr. Harvey, I'm not understanding this. Based on the statute and what I read, for competent and substantial evidence, I think I just heard you say that you have to be an expert to opine on that. I believe that's what you said, and that's not the way the statute reads.

Not on all competent and substantial evidence. I said on certain things that require expertise.

So if they're going to – go ahead. You did say traffic. That's the one that I zoned in on. If an individual wishes to do a count themselves, they do not have to be certified for that information to go in on the record. That's the way I understood. That's the way I've shared with attorneys. And that's the way the statute reads. Please. Correct, Council Member.

It can be presented to you all, but whether or not you guys give it the weight that it requires, because according to the case law that's presented, the traffic counts as they're presented are to be done by an expert in that field. So it would not be the same as if someone went out there and tallied the traffic counts versus someone who has the actual calculations and measures to actually opine on the traffic conditions as it's presented.

Mr. Harvey, thank you for that. I want to say an admonition to the community. While I do understand that – and this is through the chair – you did hear what Mr. Harvey said. That does not preclude you from going and getting evidence yourself. I want you to understand you do have the opportunity to go out, get as much information, and bring it to us so that we have that competent, substantial evidence with which to decide. Because it may be a little confusing. I'm not saying – I certainly understand, and I appreciate Mr. Harvey giving that information. I really do. But I want you to understand it may sound like – because I hear this all the time – well, I don't have the money to go out and hire these kind of experts. You don't have to. I want you to know that you can bring that to us, and we will listen to you. What I also wanted to say very quickly, while I do have the mic, I'm going to be looking into this. It will be coming back again, and I certainly understand those who have to take off from work or school or child care, and my heart goes out to you. And I apologize that you have to go through this, but it is so that everyone gets their voices heard. But I also want to say for those people that have said – and I'll be more than willing to talk to you after the meeting or over to the side or whenever – But when people are saying they didn't inform us – I constantly share this with everyone – we also have a right to be informed, but we have a responsibility to inform ourselves. Every bit of information that we discuss on this dais and that's discussed here in the city is available at jacksonville.gov. So I urge you to find those places and spaces. Call my office. Call me directly. I'll make sure I help you find it, but it can't be just one person or one group. We are responsible for getting the information so that we can move forward in our communities. So I'll help you with that if needed. Thank you for that, Mr. Chair.

Okay. Yeah, no problem. And one last thing on that item. I just had a question for Mr. Harvey. When the Planning Department issues a denial, who carries the burden of proof?

So the initial applicant is required to establish the burden of proof. The Planning Department is just giving you guys their opinion and the burden if they met according to the code. So it would shift to you all to – I shouldn't say it would shift to you all. It would shift on the public to kind of either agree or deny – I shouldn't say.

Let me rephrase the question. It's a Planning Department denial. So does that put us in a position to carry the burden of proof of this traffic congestion thing, or does that fall on the applicant?

That would – that is so correct. So at this point, if that is one of the criteria, that would fall on the applicant. Right now you have your confidence, substantial evidence based off of the staff report.

Okay. So, Mr. Phillips, the burden of proof is on you. It's not the community's problem. It's your problem. With all due respect. So can't wait to see that. And that's honestly what I was looking for anyways. I think, you know, to have the neighbors go out there and pretend like they're traffic experts is a tall order. Generally, the applicant carries that water anyways. So I think those are the marching orders from here. So with that, this public hearing is going to be continued until 4-21-26. And we're going to move on to item number 5, 2026-0015. Council members, please declare any ex parte communication you have at this time. Going once, going twice, seeing none. Let's open – all right. We do have some. Council Member Gaffney, you're recognized.

Thank you, Chair. I rise to declare es parte. I met with Mr. Brian Smalls at the location last week. I'll make sure everything gets filed with legislative services. Thank you.

All right. No other speakers in the queue. Let's open the public hearing and get a staff report.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. This is PUD rezoning ordinance 2026-0015 seeking to rezone approximately 14.17 acres from residential medium density A to a PUD in order to permit the development of up to 130 residential units. This could be comprised of either single-family dwellings, townhomes, or duplexes. The site was previously rezoned from R-acre to RMDA. That was back in 2024, which would allow for single-family dwellings on lot sizes that are 40 feet wide and 4,000 square feet. The proposed PUD is requesting the minimum lot requirement for single-family dwellings to go down to 30 feet in width and 2,700 square feet in area, which is less than the standard single-family residential code allows currently. Staff has reviewed the request and finds that the proposed rezoning is consistent with the comp plan with the existing land use designation of medium density residential, which would allow for a density of 30 units per acre within this given area. Given the size of the development and the proposed unit counts, this is closer to a density of 9.2 units per acre. We find it furthers the goals and objectives of the comp plan and meets the internal and external criteria. The subject site is located between Hemlock Street and Newcomb Road, which are both local streets, but is west of Lim Turner Road, which is a minor arterial roadway. Lim Turner Road within this area is currently operating at 17% capacity. The surrounding area is made up of a mix of residential-sized lots with a trend recently to 40-foot-wide lots, with many of the properties within the given area being rezoned to both RMDA and RLD 40. Additionally, north of the subject site is a townhome development that was approved through a PUD in 2022, which allows for up to 150 townhomes. And then east of the subject site, there's a PUD, again, back from 2022, which permits up to 3,300 multifamily units. So the trend within the area is a mix of different residential housing types between smaller single-family lots, townhomes, and multifamily. Application was reviewed by development services traffic technician and the transportation division, who forwarded a couple of conditions that are listed in your agenda. So the planning department finds that the requested rezoning is consistent and compatible with the surrounding uses, so therefore we forward a recommendation of approval with the five conditions listed in your agenda. Application was heard by planning commission on February 5th, where there were no speakers in opposition and little discussion, and those commissioners voted unanimously for approval in those same five conditions in your agenda.

All right. Thank you so much for that. We have one speaker card. Brian Smalls is the applicant in questions only, and we have no speakers in the queue, so we're going to close the publication and bring back to committee on the amendment. All right. We have a motion and a second on the amendment. Mr. Harvey, can you explain the amendment?

The amendment adopts the five planning commission conditions and planning department conditions. The first one, the proposed development shall meet the minimum recreation and open space requirements of the 2045 comprehensive plan, that a traffic study shall be undertaken by the developer upon PUD verification. The methodology of the study shall be determined by the developer's traffic engineer, the chief of transportation planning, and the chief of traffic engineering. All roadways shall be privately maintained by property owners in accordance with section 654.111 of the ordinance code. Access point location shall be determined by development services and traffic engineering divisions. If the development proceeds as multifamily, guest parking shall be provided even if the required number is reduced.

All right. Thank you for that. We have no discussion. All in favor of the amendment, signify by saying aye. Any opposed? The amendment carries. We have a second. All right. Motion on the bill as amended with conditions, and we have one speaker, Council Member Gaffney.

Thank you. Through the chair. I'll be brief. I'll be voting on this legislation. It's 30-foot lots. I just don't think it's appropriate for this neighborhood. I understand that there's not a large turnout from the community, and the planning department approved it. So I'm not going to hold you guys to it. But I understand it. But I'll be voting no tonight. I just want to put it on record.

Okay. All right. Thank you for that. We have no speakers in the queue. Let's open the ballot, record your vote, and then call the vote.

Four yeas, one nay.

All right. By your action, you've approved 2026-0015. Item number six, 2026-022. Zero, zero, two, two. Let's open the public area and get a staff report.

Thank you. Ordinance 2026-022 is for a small-scale land use amendment to change 1.98 acres from LDR to BP in the suburban development area. This is to allow for the development of an office warehouse building. The applicant is also seeking a companion rezoning to Industrial Business Park, IVP. The site is located at 9702 Historic Kings Road South on the west side of Historic Kings Road South, which is a local roadway. The area surrounding the subject site is residential, and across the street from the subject site on the east side of the road is a railroad. The railroad and the Historic Kings Road itself act as buffers between the residential uses along the west side of Historic Kings Road and the commercial and industrial uses that are actually along the Phillips Highway. A new subdivision developed in the last six years abuts the subject site to the north, which reinforces the existing LDR land use of the area and the development typology. Per the operational provisions of the future land use element, one of the primary objectives of the future land use element is to ensure protection of existing and emerging residential areas

from encroachment by intrusive commercial and industrial uses. The proposed land use amendment from LDR to BP would disrupt the existing land use fabric of the single-family neighborhood and detract from the residential character of the area. For these reasons and those in the staff report, Planning Department recommends denial. Planning Commission heard this item on February 5th, and they voted to recommend approval after some discussion. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you so much. We have one speaker card, Mr. Mike Herzberg.

Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, good evening. Mike Herzberg. My address is 12483 Aladdin Road. It should be a handout coming around to you. I'd appreciate it if you'd just kind of take a quick peek at it. Particularly page 7 has the land use map on it that I'll be referring to. Again, the staff recommendation identifies the area on the west side of Historic Kings Road as being predominantly residential. However, they do acknowledge in that instance that the east side of that roadway is all light industrial, and the buffer, which is the railroad tracks, that's a freight railroad track, so it's not really a buffer that typically we would want or allow, so I'm not sure buffer would be the appropriate term. A separation is about all I think we could count it as. The report also references Sunbeam Road as being approximately 2,000 feet north of this parcel. Well, this entire length of Historic Kings Road south extends from Sunbeam to Lorsi. It's only 2,700 feet, and of that distance, 743 of that frontage is actually light industrial. You see that on the map on page 7, and 522 feet of that is already business park. So really 1,265 feet or almost one-half of this roadway is either industrial in nature already. At the parcel level, there's 14 parcels on the west side of this roadway from Sunbeam to Lorsi. Only five of those are residentially utilized with dwellings. In fact, the property immediately south of the subject property is designated residential, but operates as a paver business with outdoor storage. There's a photo in your report on page 2 that actually shows the dumpster units that they use and the pavers that are being stacked there. Yet staff acknowledges having recommended approval of a 3.4-acre parcel at the south end of this residential street, only 400 feet away, just over a year and a half ago. As a matter of fact, you can see that on the map on page 7, it's the BP in the lower right corner of that. So obviously, in one instance, staff had said, oh, it's appropriate, and now they're saying it's inappropriate. A copy of that staff report is provided at the back of your handout. I've highlighted in orange all of the policies that they looked at in that instance. As a matter of fact, in that staff report, the department states, while the site abuts residential to the north and south, there is also a large area of LI designated land across the historic Hings Road to the east. The report viewed that amendment as providing a transition of uses between the low-density residential on the north and south and the LI to the east, promoting, and this is their statement, a well-balanced and organized combination of uses in the area. Continuing that staff report, found that the amendment in that instance would be complementary to the existing industrial uses, allowing redevelopment on an underutilized parcel consistent with various goals and provisions that are outlined in this handout. In reviewing that proposal, the staff found that the amendment would increase the amount of industrial-designated land available to further meet the goal of meeting or exceeding the land required to accommodate anticipated growth, calling it underutilized and considering it infill development in that instance. Again, the relevant sections of that report are highlighted in orange at the back of the handout. Even the written description for the zoning that was approved with that one state that the CSX Railway and Light Industrial on the opposite side of Historic Kings Road were the basis for the BP land use. The written narrative for that PUD actually states that the use was encouraged to have traffic travel north and south from Sunbeam right in front of this subject parcel, avoiding the residential off Lorsi and Hood Roads further to the west. Price Park Subdivision, you can see on page 7 of the handout, is actually all oriented back to the west, goes out to Hood Road, doesn't come out this direction at all. There's no vehicular traffic that moves this direction. So again, the Department opined in that instance that this was not a residential quarter. They were encouraging those business park uses to carry their traffic to the north past this site. Therefore, I think the Department has looked at this inappropriately, incorrectly. Again, BP is a land use that is a transitional item between light industrial and residential, the light industrial being on the east side. I'd simply ask you to look at the goals and policies that I've included in this. They are the same goals and policies that were cited by the staff in the recommendation for approval of the other amendment just to the south of us, only 400 feet to the south of us. And I've included a definition of transition at the bottom of that page. I thank you for your time.

Okay. Thank you, sir. We have no other speaker card, so we're going to close the public hearing and bring it back to committee for the amendment. All right. We have a motion and a second on the amendment. Any discussion? All in favor of the amendment. Signify by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed? The amendment carries. Second. Do we have a second? All right. We have a motion and a second on the bill as amended. No one in the queue. No discussion. Open the ballot. Record your vote.

Six yays, zero nays.

By your action, you've approved 2026-0022. Moving on to item number seven, 2026-0023. Council members, please declare any ex parte communication you have at this time. Council member Freeman, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm a roger to declare ex parte. I had a telephone conversation at 10 a.m. this morning with the applicant, Mr. Herzberg, and we discussed the rezoning and the details of the rezoning. All of this has already been sent to legislative services. Thank you. All right. And I also want to declare ex parte. I met with Mike Herzberg and Steve Slotkin, Arthur Wells, and Lane Fowler of the community on March 2nd at 1 o'clock at City Hall. We discussed the site plan and the deed restrictions that were being discussed. And this paperwork is going to be filed with legislative services. Council member Gaffney, you're recognized. Yes, thank you to the chair. I also received a call from Mike Herzberg asking me did I have any questions. And regardless of legislation, we pretty much just went over the legislation. I make sure everything gets filed with legislative services. Okay. Thank you so much. We're going to go ahead now and open the public hearing and get a staff report.

Thank you. This is the Companion Conventional Rezoning Ordinance 2026-0023, seeking to rezone that same 1.98 acres from RLD 70 and RR Acre to Industrial Business Park in order to allow for those industrial and business park type uses, thereby expanding the type of development further south from Sunbeam Road. The subject property is located along historic Kings Road South, where in the immediate area, the development pattern consists of single-family residential uses. To the east across the railway or across the roadway is the CSX rail line, which functions as a buffer separating the residential uses in the immediate area and the industrial developments at front Phillips Highway. To the rear of the subject site is the Price Park Single-Family Subdivision, which is zoned PUD but allows for residential lots close to the RLD 70 zoning district. While the requested rezoning to Industrial Business Park and the proposed uses within the district are consistent with the BP land use category, when we evaluated against the criteria for consistency with the comp plan, which included the goals, objectives, and policies, we found that it does not support the requested rezoning as being consistent with the comp plan. The department does recognize that the property located at 9790 Historic Kings Road South was rezoned to a PUD back in 2024 in order to allow warehousing, office uses, building trades, contractor, and indoor recreational uses. Prior to the 2024 rezoning, the property historically operated as a plant nursery with outside storage and was rezoned to a PUD in 2006, which at that time permitted office type uses and building trades, contractor, businesses. So the 2024 PUD was just for minor changes to uses that have existed there since 2006 and prior to that with that plant nursery that existed there. However, this property does not accurately depict the development pattern for the immediate area and so should not be used as justification for expansion of similar uses. Approval of the current zoning request to IBP would set a precedent for the future expansion of industrial uses extending south from Sunbeam Road to Lorsi Road, where the historic Kings Road South property is located, while also encroaching into residential. So for good of these reasons, the department is not supportive of the requested rezoning and therefore forwards a recommendation of denial. The application was heard by Planning Commission on February 5th, where there were no speakers in opposition, and the discussion did center on the area's transition towards more industrial and commercial uses. Commission felt that the proposed rezoning would be appropriate for the area, but asked the applicant to be mindful of the neighboring single-family subdivision. So the commission voted unanimously for approval. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you so much for that. We have one speaker card, Mr. Mike Herzberg. And if you will, just kind of focus on the changes that we made with the community, with the deed restrictions and whatnot.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'll be very brief. Again, my burden here is to demonstrate that we, first of all, are compliant with the 2045 comprehensive plan. I believe I've done that in the report that's been handed out to you. Using the policies, both as determined by the Planning Department on the other application, and again, applying them here. Furthermore, my previous report also demonstrates that the rezoning would actually further the GOPs of the plan, as outlined in that land use report. The staff report did make note of the warehouses to the south. There's a picture of the warehouses to the south. That was actually what's developed on the BP property. So you can see what that looks like. I did research that. There were actual uses of the property for warehousing. Again, I don't know what the ultimate use will be here. We have worked with the neighborhood, the community, and are doing a separate deed agreement to the community, to that residential community price park, to protect their interest and to provide buffering, which they've been a part of, which the councilman spoke of earlier. And we will be executing that upon approval of the zoning, so they will have their protections, which is, I believe, why no one's here tonight to speak. So thank you very much for the opportunity.

All right. Thank you, Mr. Herzberg. We appreciate that. And thank you for all the work you did with the community to kind of get their questions and concerns addressed via sort of an unconventional way, but sort of the only way. So I appreciate that. All right. We have no other speakers in the queue, so let's close the public hearing and bring it back to committee. Yep. No amendment. All right. So we have a motion in a second on the bill. We've got no discussion. So let's open the ballot and record your vote.

Five yays, zero nays.

By direction, you have approved 2026-0023. All right. Item number 8, 2026-0087. Council members, please declare any ex parte communication you have at this time. Seeing none, let's go ahead and open the public hearing and get a staff report.

Thank you. This is Conventional Rezoning Ordinance 2026-0087, seeking to rezone 0.64 acres from RR Acre to RLD 60 for the construction of up to four single-family dwellings. The subject property fronts McCargo Street North in Nevada and is currently undeveloped. Staff reviewed the request and found that the proposed rezoning is consistent with the land use category of LDR, which would, again, allow for a maximum density of seven units per acre and would be limited to the development standards of RLD 60. Surrounding neighborhood is primarily low density in nature with parcels that are zoned RLD 60, so this would be matching that development pattern. And then further east, you have a subdivision that was zoned PUD back in 2005 that allows for lots that are closer to the RLD 50 standard. So we find that the proposed rezoning is consistent and compatible with surrounding development, so therefore we forward a recommendation of approval. It was heard by Planning Commission on March 5th, where there were no speakers in opposition and little discussion, and they voted unanimously for approval.

All right, thank you. We have one speaker card, Ms. Janice Fleet, for questions only. We have, yep, good to see you. We have no questions, so let's close the public hearing and bring it back to committee. We have a motion and a second on the bill. Seeing no discussion, open the ballot, of course your vote.

Six yays, zero nays.

By your action, you've approved 2026-0087. Item number nine, 2026-0122. Let's open the public hearing. No speaker cards. We'll continue this public hearing until 4-21-26. Item number 10, 2026-123. Let's open the public hearing. No speaker cards. We'll continue this public hearing until 4-21-26. Item number 11, 2026-124. We'll open the public hearing. And we have no staff report on this yet, or we do? We do? Is this number 124? Okay. So we won't go to the staff report, but we have one speaker card. So, Mr. Bill Lewis, are you here? All right.

This thing I want? This one. Which one? This one? This one works. That one's great. Just name and address. That'll work. Good. Okay. My name is Bill Lewis. I live at 8852 Ivy Mill Place South. I'm the president of the Argyll Area Civic Council. I've been studying this stuff since 1975. I've been attending these meetings for 25 years, and the Argyll Area Civic Council is 25 years old this year. So, on February 8, 2022, 2021-735 and 736, the Ferber Apartments were approved by the Planning Department, Planning Commission, LUZ, and the City Council, which was supposed to be turned into apartments, but they ended up being turned into a homeless encampment. And then it is now an abandoned homeless encampment. So, the reason I mention that is because we're talking about the same property four years later. And Wyman Dugan with Rogers Towers presented on November 4, 2021, estimated peak hour traffic estimates. I guess he got his information from the Planning Department. And when I'm reading, okay, we're on 2024, or 124, the transportation stuff, and this is a lot better project than four years ago. I've talked with the applicant. They want to do, basically, business warehouses. Of course, this is going to be next to the same single-family homes that y'all approved to do 400 apartments next to single-family homes four years ago, and another 100 townhomes. So, and I'm actually using the City of Jacksonville 2023 traffic counts. So, on Collins Road, where this business park is going to be, it has 2023 average daily traffic counts, 39,857. The daily capacity available is negative 3,257. It's 109%, and that's in 2023. My problem is this. Y'all, the maps, or the, anyway, the site plan shows 395 parking spaces, and you're going to add that coming on to Collins Road, which is at 109% at capacity. We had a serious issue starting in 2019 when there was a Popeyes built on Argyle Forest Boulevard. We begged the traffic engineer, Chris Ledoux, to do something about that place, or people were going to die. Guess what? In 2022, there are three fatal traffic accidents on Argyle Forest Boulevard in front of the Bojangles, and finally, Chris Ledoux said, we'll put a traffic thing there. Please do something about this property. All right. Thank you, sir.

And just for the record, your card says that you're in support of the bill?

I'm just looking forward to this bill because something needs to go in there before they build something else there.

Okay. Got it. Thank you. All right. So this public hearing is going to be continued until 4-21-26. Moving on to item number 12, 2026-125.

We'll open the public hearing, and we have one speaker card, Mr. Bill Lewis.

That's why I didn't go.

Name and address. Oh, sure. Start over again.

Bill Lewis, 8-8-5-2, Ivy Mill Place South, Jacksonville, Florida, 3-2-2-4-4. I'm still the president of the Argyle Area Civic Council.

I don't know what's going on with these traffic counts because the 2023 numbers for Argyle Forest Boulevard were zero. On the section between Rampart – let me see. That's not that in here. Yeah. Argyle Forest Boulevard, between Cheswick Oak Drive and Rampart, the 2023 average daily traffic counts was zero. Previous 2021 was 37,300, so I don't know what's going on with these traffic counts. So I'm really disappointed there's nobody from traffic engineering. I hope they do something. My proposal is to put a traffic signalization where this project's going to come out on Collins Road. And the reason why is because you've got big trucks coming out of there into a business park. And if somebody's not paying attention and there's no traffic light to stop them, then they'll run themselves right up underneath the truck as they're trying to exit. The peak numbers on, according to this, is 1,818 vehicles peak hour traffic at this intersection. And anyway, I don't even understand this stuff. It's just crazy. I've been looking at this stuff for a long time. So why is nobody from traffic engineering here?

Sir, this is the time for you to explain why you support the project.

Okay, I'll explain why he's not here, okay, because he knows he needs some type of traffic. No, no, no, you asked my testimony.

No, no, no, no, no, you're out of order. I didn't ask you why any of your opinion on Mr. Ledoux. You can give your opinion on why you support this project.

Okay, I support the project because otherwise it'll get built into something else that's less favorable to the residents that live next door to it. The other side of it's a Walmart. Okay, the Walmart has a, you've got a Walmart and a Costco there. Now you're going to add another 395 parking spaces in three different warehouse buildings. And something needs to happen to build the traffic lights there so those trucks can get out and people don't wreck. It's a, it's a, it is a serious safety issue. Um, it's the same type of safety issue that the traffic engineer ignored, um, in 2019 to 2022. Thank you.

All right. Thank you, sir. All right. We're on to, uh, well, and this, uh, public hearings continue to afford 2126. Item number 13, 226, 126. Let's open the public hearing. No speaker cars. We're going to continue this public hearing until 421, 26. Item number 14, 226, 127. Open the public hearing. No speaker cars. We'll continue this public hearing until 421, 26. Item number 15, 226, 128. Let's open the public hearing and get a staff report.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Ordinance 2026, 128 is for a small scale land use amendment to change 4.43 acres from low density residential to business park, uh, in urban development area. The subject site consists of four parcels, uh, that front the South side service road, uh, which is the service road that runs along South side Boulevard. The site is centrally located along the South side Boulevard corridor between Atlantic and beach boulevards, low density residential is the primary land use designation along this segment of the corridor with more intense uses located at the nodes of Atlantic Boulevard and beach boulevard. In contrast, the proposed business park designation is intended to provide, um, compact medium to high intensity office development that would allow for uses such as warehouses and industrial offices. Per the operative provisions of the future land use element, one of the primary objectives of the element is to ensure protection of existing and emerging residential areas from encroachment by intrusive commercial and industrial uses. The proposed land use amendment from LDR to BP would introduce a more intense land use within an established residential area. This abrupt change in use along the stretch of roadway would detract from the residential, uh, character of the existing neighborhood and would be inconsistent with the prevailing, uh, residential pattern. For these reasons and those in the staff report, the planning department recommends denial. PC heard the item at their March 19th meeting, no members of the public spoke in opposition and discussion among the commissioners was mixed. After discussion, the planning commission recommended approval of the item with a vote of five to one. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you so much. We, uh, we'll go ahead and go to the applicant first, Mr. Mike Kersberg.

Good evening, sir. Thank you very much. Mike Kersberg, one, two, four, eight, three, Aladdin road. Uh, yes, the, the request here is from LDR to BP. Uh, these parcels were originally developed in 1947. That's obviously post war and long before state route fit a one 15 or South side Boulevard was completed by at that time, the Jacksonville expressway authority in 1963, this roadway runs more than 10 miles in length from the Ollington expressway to us one at the avenues. All of this being FDOT expressways, uh, construction of this roadway began in the 1950s. And the original intent of this was to be a bypass around the, at that time, non consolidated city of Jacksonville, uh, so that traffic could move quicker through there. It was built as an eight lane super road intended to bypass that city center. And it spurred development in what was then a rural area. A lot has changed on South side Boulevard since that time. And as the 1960s map on the front depicts, South side estates was primarily located east of South side with the area to the west being deemed holiday hill. The adoption of the 2045 comprehensive plan put these properties that is every property on the west side of South side Boulevard in the urban area. The east side is suburban area. And you'll note the amount of residential on that side of this roadway. Remember to South side Boulevard is a 200 foot wide right of way and an FDOT expressway, obviously being more intense than even an arterial roadway, which is really not the place to have single family homes, uh, uh, facing. Uh, and, and, and to comp, uh, to, to compromise that and make that even more difficult, uh, the business park, which developed to the west of this corporate square, uh, primarily developed in the mid 1990s, significant expansion occurring immediately adjacent to these parcels in 1996. The traffic volumes along South side Boulevard are now around 42,500 vehicles each day up from around 30,000 in 2010. That's a 42% increase in that timeframe in those last 15, 16 years. The city's roadway design context classification does not consider service roads along this roadway as residential streets. It's very clear. Even the city recognizes those as service roads. Traffic on those service roads has nearly doubled grow, actually more than double growing 33% over the past five years alone. There are now over 2,500 vehicles per day, uh, according to the city's comprehensive plan, a local road is about 1,400 vehicles a day at the maximum. South side Boulevard is a preferred truck route by both the FDOT and the city of Jacksonville. So they're encouraging truck traffic through this corridor. Simply put, uh, the, the Jacksonville South side sub market is one of the best operating markets in the city of Jacksonville, having about a 1.2 occupancy rate, uh, a vacancy rate during the fourth quarter of 2025. Residential use is just not in the best interest of the property owners on the west side of South side Boulevard, especially where the area is between corporate square place and white sands, as is shown on the map, uh, that's included in your handout. And if you look at those, I think you can see, uh, these yards back directly up to those business park uses already. Uh, this is a residential Island. It's both inappropriate and not marketable. It sells at a discounted rate upon evaluation of, uh, real estate trade in the area compared to other residential parcels, which do not front South side Boulevard. It's about a 20% loss in those that do face South side Boulevard in value. Uh, these homes are typically left with untenable conditions. Uh, they deter buyers and, and ultimately they become outdated relics, which is really the case on these four properties. All of these houses are, you know, left in a state of which the landowner simply cannot invest the amount of money or develop the property with a new home, uh, and come out in a, on a positive side from a, uh, uh, a recovery standpoint. Residential persistence here risks underutilization. And this change creates a harmony is harmonizing of the use of the parcels while offering an economic benefit to our city, like job creation, increased tax revenue, and having almost no impact on other residential landowners in the area. I won't go through all of the, uh, comprehensive plan policies that are included there for your review. And I will stand by for any questions. I would also offer that, uh, in a review of permitting along these, uh, houses on the west side of South side Boulevard, uh, there were no building permits, uh, in the last 20 years for anything in the way of expansion, a new home or new cubic content for the houses. Uh, so there's really no investment or reinvestment going on on that side of the road. I'll stand by for any questions or comments. Thank you, sir.

Okay. Thank you so much. Next speaker we have is Melvin Peepers. Are you here? All right. Does not wish to speak. Is in opposition. Uh, we have Candelia Peepers is in opposition. Does not wish to speak. Um, and we have Keith Langenberg. Come on down.

Keith Langenberg, address on file. My family has lived in that area for over 65 years. South side Boulevard is South side Boulevard. All of you know that when you come across Beach Boulevard, Beach Boulevard going north, you're kind of vacating all the businesses. And from there, it's residential all the way down South side Boulevard. What a beautiful site.

I was, I was involved when they put in crepe myrtles with the FDOT. I was involved when they built the, um, when they abandoned, FDOP abandoned the overpass on South side across. I was there when they put in corporate square, corporate square. We fought, we fought, we fought, we fought that all the businesses should be on corporate square and not South side Boulevard on the west side, the urban area. Okay. I walked to that area several years ago, talked to every homeowner on there. Yes, most of them are rentals, but the owners of the rental properties are making money on those pieces of property. Okay. It, it, it conflicts with the 2045 Jacksonville Comprehensive Plan. Okay. It just conflicts big time. There's residential all along there. Yeah, there are a few businesses, air conditioning, Hannah, eye care, um, you know, some churches and stuff like that. But for the most part, our South side Civics Association has been fighting for 20 years to keep businesses off of that area. Okay. And now we want to take away four residential houses. I thought we were in a housing shortage. So now we want to put in a strip mall there. Of course, I called the number today. No one really knew what was going to go on there. Warehouses, strip mall, businesses, this, that. Okay. That's, that's crazy. Okay. We want to keep that area residential. Okay. And I'll submit back to my time. I'll be talking on the 129. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you, sir. We have no other speaker cards. So we're going to go ahead and close the public hearing and bring it back to committee. What's up? Oh, Mr. Herzberg, would you like rebuttal time? No, he's waving. Okay. So public hearing is closed. And did we get a motion in a second? Okay. We have a motion and a second. Is there any discussion? All right. Seeing none. Let's open the ballot and court your vote.

Six yays, zero nays.

By reaction, you've approved 2026-128. All right. We're going to jump to, no, we're going to jump real quick. Sorry. We have committee members that are leaving briefly, and we're going to jump over to item number 28, 2026-171. Council members, please declare any ex parte communication you have at this time. Seeing none. Wait. You need some ex parte?

I haven't submitted it yet. I was in the green room earlier today. Go ahead, sir. I spoke with the applicant as well as some members of the community who have an establishment next to that business. All that will be communicated, and that was earlier today, that's being filed with legislative services as we speak. Thank you. All right. Thank you. Council Member Arias.

All right. Thank you, Chair. I'd also like to declare ex parte. I spoke to the applicant on 4-5 via telephone, being how I'm a restaurateur. He wanted to explain to me the nature of this ordinance, and it's currently being filed. Thank you.

All right. So, with that, we'll go ahead and open the public hearing and get a staff report.

Thank you. This is Zoning Exception Ordinance Number 2026-0171, seeking to allow an establishment or facility, which includes the retail sales of beer or wine for on-premises consumption in conjunction with the service of food, which is ordered from a menu prepared for or served for pay for consumption on-premises. Property is zoned commercial neighborhood Springfield, so CN-S. The subject property is approximately .09 acres in size and located at the corner of Market Street North and 4th Street East and has historically been developed as a neighborhood shopping center since 1926. The site is located within Springfield Historic District and Overlay and is also within the boundaries of the Springfield Neighborhood Action Plan. The site is identified as being one of many small pockets of commercially zoned properties designated CN that are located interior of the residential areas and south of 8th Street. One goal identified in the plan is to have commercial uses that are serving the nearby residential uses. This is very prominent in the Springfield District where you have either convenience stores located on corner lots. The closest one is the Stop and Save Market Street, which is south of the subject property. And you also have restaurants. An example is Othelio that's located, again, at another corner lot located at 1555 Pearl Street North that received a zoning exception for the retail sales of alcohol with the restaurant. The shopping center was recently renovated and is now seeking to allow for the restaurant, which will be known as The Grove, to operate with one of the tenant spaces. And if it were approved, would only allow for the retail sales of beer and wine only. There was a companion waiver liquor distance that was reviewed by the Planning Commission on their March 19th public hearing, and they voted to approve that request. Staff has reviewed the request and finds that the proposed use is consistent with the neighborhood commercial comprehensive plan land use category. We find it to be compatible with existing continuous uses and zoning. We do not find that the proposed use will have a detrimental effect on future development of surrounding properties or the general area. And again, there are several similar restaurants that serve full alcohol in the media area. So because of these reasons and those in the staff report, we forward a recommendation of approval.

Okay, great. Thank you so much for that. Mr. Lawrence Yancey, one speaker card. Come on down.

Good afternoon. Lawrence Yancey, 1309 St. John's Bluff Road, North Jacksonville, Florida, 32225. Just thanks to the staff for the support. I also have some documents here, if I can pass them out to the councilman. I may have some additional documents I may have to pass out later. These are some supporting letters from the neighborhood organizations there that's approving the use for them to have the beer and wine and they're established.

You can continue.

I'll give you a few minutes to read those letters.

Continue, Mr. Yancey.

And also some other thing that came up about the additional waiver from the church that's there. I also have discovered that the church itself is not active as a 503C. I have documents stating that. I also have documents stating that the church itself do not have a...

Mr. Yancey, let's stick to the bill. Is this... Excuse me, sir? Does this have anything to do with the beer or wine exception?

No, because the church is challenging it. That's the only reason why I'm saying that.

Well, that's what I'm saying. We don't... You don't... We're not... We're not here to hear that. We're here to hear your case for why we should approve that. Yes, I understand. Continue.

No, that's all I have. I have those documents supporting it right there.

Okay. Got it. Thank you so much. All right. We have no other speaker cards and these letters of support have been put into the record. So with that, we are going to close the public hearing and bring it back to committee. Motion and a second on the bill. Councilman Ray, are you sure recognized?

Thank you, Chair. Mr. Yancey, what kind of liquor are we looking for here? Is this a 2-COP or 4-COP?

2-COP, sir.

So beer and wine. Beer and wine only. Okay, cool. All right. And aside from the church, I heard you mention they're opposing it. Has anybody else came forward with any opposition? Mr. Johnson, have you heard of any opposition aside from the church?

Thank you for bringing that up, Councilmember. And I would like to speak just to put it on the record. But no, no one else. That's the only group that reached out to me.

Okay, awesome. All right. Well, I know where I'm going to vote. So the floor is yours. All right. Councilmember Johnson, you're recognized.

Just quickly, Mr. Chair, which I did declare an ex parte, but I did speak to Reverend Calvin Lewis, several members earlier tonight from a church in the area. There seemed to be some opposition. I want to say that Mr. Yancey and his client were very amenable to changes that were asked to be made. But at this point, there was just not a synergy and it did not work. But we at least tried and I wanted to put that on there. They did not like the fact that it was a restaurant next to them. And one of the things that I did since he reached out to me is to went to speak to them and to explain it was a very high-end restaurant. They had given testimony before saying they were derelicts and would cause kids issues. This is not that kind of, it's not a liquor store. This is a high-end restaurant. So, I appreciate you letting me put that on the record. I do understand their objection, but I also see what the community says. And I think this is something that would be beneficial to the community as a whole. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

All right. Thank you. We have no other speakers in the queue. The bill has been moved and seconded. So, with that, we will open the ballot. Record your vote.

Six yays, zero nays.

Fire action, you have approved 2026-171. Thank you, Mr. Yancey. Thank you. All right. We're going to go ahead and head on back to where we left off. Was that, where was that? Where did we leave off? Sixteen. All right. Item number 16, 2026-129. Councilmembers, please declare any ex parte communication you have at this time. Councilmember Freeman, you're recognized.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I would like to declare ex parte. I spoke with the applicant, Mr. Herzberg, on a telephone conversation today, and we discussed the details of the rezoning, and this has been submitted to Legislative Services. Thank you.

Okay. No one else in the queue for ex parte? Oh, Mr. Gaffey, you're recognized.

Yes. Thank you to the chair. I also spoke with Mr. Herzberg. He reached out and asked me if I have any questions. I'll make sure everything gets filed with Legislative Services.

Okay. Thanks so much. Councilmember Johnson, you're recognized. I asked to declare ex parte. Ex parte, I got a message from Mr. Herzberg asking if I had any questions. I did not, but I do want to declare it as ex parte. It's being filed with Legislative Services. Thank you. Okay.

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

Thank you. This is the Companion Conventional Rezoning Ordinance 2026-0129, seeking to rezone approximately 4.43 acres from RLD 60 to IBP in order to permit business park-type uses. The subject properties, which include four parcels, are located on the west side of Southside Boulevard, which is classified as an F-Dot Expressway. However, this development will be accessed strictly from the Southside Service Road. This section of Southside Boulevard on both the west and east side is primarily developed with single-family residential, and then to the south is a church. As you move north towards Atlantic Boulevard, parcels along the west side do transition to commercial office zoning, which includes primarily professional offices and medical offices. This development pattern reflects a transition from residential uses to low-intense commercial activity along this major corridor to the higher-intense commercial uses that are along Atlantic Boulevard. While the subject property does abut Industrial Business Park along Corporate Square Boulevard to the west, those developments do not have direct access to the Southside Service Road and are oriented internally towards the existing industrial park. Approval of the proposed rezoning would effectively create an isolated industrial zoning district along Southside Service Road and is unrelated to the surrounding residential zoning districts. The zoning district of IBP would allow for more intense uses than those currently permitted in the residential zoning and would introduce trucks, service vehicles, and other heavy vehicles within the residential area. While the requested rezoning to IBP and the proposed uses within the district are consistent with the BP land use category, when evaluated against the criteria for consistency with the comp plan, we find that it's not consistent and therefore are forwarding a recommendation of denial. The application was heard by Planning Commission on March 19th, where there were no speakers in opposition. And discussion amongst the commissioners was mixed. One commissioner expressed concerns that the proposed rezoning would introduce industrial uses into an area that's developed with a diverse mix of housing. They noted some apartment complexes and single-family subdivisions. The remaining commissioners found that the existing residential entitlement was not the best use of the surrounding land and that the proposed rezoning would help activate the surrounding commercial area along this major roadway. Along the west side of Southside Boulevard, the commission determined that the isolation of the single-family dwellings was not sufficient justification to deny the rezoning request, so therefore they voted 5-1 to approve the rezoning. Thank you.

All right, we're going to go ahead and go to our speaker cars. Mr. Mike Herzberg, is he here? Where did he go? Is he in the green room? Nope. Checking the green room. Nope, nope, nope. Okay, well, we're going to move on. Mr. Keith Langenberg.

Keith Langenberg, information on file. Good evening, LUZ Councilmembers. We just heard from the Planning Committee Department that they did recommend a denial for this application. In their own words, they said, quote, would introduce a higher intensity land use within an established low-density residential neighborhood. There are residential residents along that neighborhood. This is not a close call. This is not a great area. This is a direct conflict. Okay. Another quote. This abrupt change would detract from the character of the existing neighborhood. Okay. For years and years, we've had residential along that south side boulevard. It's not a transition. It's an intrusion. Another quote. This site is not connected to or associated with the corporate square office park because that's a block behind it and not even connected to it. Okay. So any argument that this fits into an existing business area is simply not true. It's still a residential area. The proposed change would cause encroachment by commercial and industrial uses into the residential area. This is exactly what this proposal does. It really enforces that commercial encroachment and the stable residential. And it is stable. Okay. There's a lot of people that say it's not stable, but it is stable. So why are we changing a well-established, carefully designed, comprehensive plan? Of course, we already voted on that already. Okay. And that 128 and 129 should have been together. Okay. They shouldn't have been split up. To accommodate for a single developer's request that our own planning department has already determined is not, they did not want to approve. If we ignore these findings, we are setting a dangerous precedent. This is not just about the four parcels. This is about whether we follow the rules we created. Residents of Southside Estates, we're going to stand together and fight this. We want to preserve Southside Boulevard from beach to Atlantic as a residential area. I urge you to stand by your planning department and go with their recommendation. Thank you.

All right. Next. Mr. Chair. Yeah. Mr. Hirsberg asked me to state that he got confused by taking the other item out of order and he left the building.

But if you need him to come back, he's happy to.

Otherwise, he would be willing to adopt his comments from the earlier application.

Okay. Good to know. All right. Ms. Kanda Ladia-Peepers, do you wish to speak? You are in opposition. And then Melvin Peepers does not wish to speak, is also in opposition. All right. And then, obviously, Mike Hirsberg in support left because he got confused. So, with that, we have no other speakers in the queue. We'll go ahead and close the public hearing and bring it back to committee. All right. We have a motion and a second on the bill. We have no discussion. So, let's open the ballot. Record your vote.

Five yays. Zero nays.

By reaction, you approve 2026-129. Item number 17, 2026-130. Council members, please declare any ex parte communication you have at this time. Council member Diamond, you're recognized.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I rise to declare ex parte. Unfortunately, I have to talk with Josh Cockrell today. He gave me the basics on the application, and we filed it. Thank you.

All right. I also declare ex parte. I spoke with Josh Cockrell today on the phone, and this paperwork is being filed with legislative services. Any others? Council member Johnson?

I need to declare ex parte. I got a message, or Josh Cockrell, and I spoke via text message. He asked if I had any questions. I had reviewed the legislation and did not. That is being filed with legislative services. Thank you.

All right. We have no other speakers in the queue. Let's open the public hearing and get a staff report.

Thank you. This is PUD rezoning, ordinance 2026-0130, seeking to rezone approximately 1.32 acres of land from a PUD that was approved back in 2001 to a new PUD. The rezoning is being sought to modify the existing PUD to allow for an establishment or facility, which includes the retail sales of all alcoholic beverages, not in conjunction with a restaurant, including liquor, beer, and wine for on-premises consumption, off-premises consumption, or both. In order to operate a package store within the existing multi-tenant shopping plaza, the shopping center was previously approved for on-premises consumption of alcohol with a restaurant. That zoning exception was approved back in 2019 for the Spot Hookah Lounge, which still operates there today. So there is existing alcohol uses within the existing shopping center for on-premises consumption. The PUD is not seeking to develop the property any differently than what exists there today. The only request is to add the use, which is only allowed by a new rezoning. Building size, parking, and landscaping all will remain there as it exists today. The PUD does include a waiver from the Part 8 requirements for a distance between a liquor license location and a church. Staff conducted an analysis and found that the request method criteria used to determine the approval of a waiver of liquor distance. The alcoholic beverage use is designed to be an integral part of a PUD. Alcohol beverage use is not directly visible along the line of measurement. And then there are other existing liquor license locations of a similar nature in the immediate vicinity and within the immediate shopping center. Staff has reviewed the request and finds that the proposed rezoning is consistent with the comp plan. It has an existing land use category of CGC. The subject property is located along Beach Boulevard, which is classified as an FDOT principal arterial roadway and is developed as a major commercial corridor surrounding parcels at Front Beach Boulevard are zoned either PUD to allow for CCG1 or CCG type uses. And then other parcels are zoned CCG1 and CCG2. Extending south from Beach Boulevard, you do transition to more residential character. We find the proposed PUD and uses to be consistent and compatible with development along Beach Boulevard. Therefore, we forward a recommendation of approval. You do have a revised Exhibit 3 written description, also dated March 12, 2026. That's listed in the agenda. There is one speaker. The application was heard at the Planning Commission on March 19th. There was one speaker that represented the church that's to the south of the property. They did express some concerns related to a lift station on their property and the sharing between the two developments. And then they also asked for some clarification on the proposed use. The applicant did explain that the proposed PUD does not expand the building footprint, so there's no issues in relations to the existing lift station. And the commission expressed no concerns with the proposed rezoning, so they ultimately voted unanimously for approval of the request. Thank you.

All right, we have one speaker card, Mr. Josh Cockrell.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman. Good timing you. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, fellow council members. Josh Cockrell, which we're under North Lars Street. We stand behind the staff report and appreciate staff's time on this one. As stated, the plaza has been around for quite a while. Actually, the property has been owned by the same family since 1999. The original PUD was written in 2001 to include all the uses in CN, neighborhood commercial, which does allow for the retail sale of beer and wine for all-premise consumption. Back in 2019, there was an exception that was approved to allow for on-premise consumption of all alcohol. We are admitting the PUD and resubmitting it, with the minor change being that they include all sales of alcohols for both on-premise and off-site consumption. So we're just including that addition for off-site consumption for the package store that's next door. It's owned by the Spot Hookah Lounge. He's opening up a package store next door. As stated in the planning report, Beach Boulevard is the principal arterial roadway. It's an appropriate location for these type of commercial uses. As well, the alcoholic beverage use is designed to be an integral part of the mixed-use development, such as this. It's not directly visible along the line of sight to the church that's to the southwest of us, or it's to the east of us, or south of us. But outside of that, there are other liquor-licensed locations or locations similar to this in the near vicinity as well. The Planning Commission did recommend approval, and I'm here for any questions that you may have.

All right. We have no other speaker cards, so we will close public hearing and bring it back to committee. Are we looking for a motion on the amendment? All right. We have a motion and a second on the amendment for the revised PUD written description dated March 12, 2026. All in favor of the amendment, signify by saying aye. Any opposed? The amendment carries. All right. We have a motion and a second on the bill as amended. No one in the queue. Open the ballot. Record your vote.

Thank you.

Five yays, zero nays.

By reaction, you have approved 2026-130. Item number 18, 2026-131. Council members, please declare your ex parte communication at this time. What do we got? All right. I'll go ahead first. I met with the applicant in my office on March 24th at 1230. We discussed the site plan, and this paperwork is going to be filed with legislative services. And with that, we will open the public hearing and get a staff report.

Thank you. So, 2026-131 seeks to rezone approximately 7.05 acres of land from CCG1 and CCG2 to a PUD. The rezoning to PUD is being sought to permit for a convenience store with both car and truck fueling stations, along with warehousing uses. The site will be developed as two parcels. Parcel one will be the southern and eastern portion of the site and developed as a convenient store and gas station. Parcel two will be in the northwest portion of the site, and the existing warehouse uses on-site will be maintained. Staff has reviewed the request and finds proposed rezoning consistent with the 2045 comprehensive plan with the existing land use category of CGC. We find it furthers the goals and objectives of the comp plan and meets the internal and external criteria. The subject property is currently surrounded by vacant property to the north and west and is located at the intersection of U.S. 301 South and U.S. 301 Bypass. The subject site directly abuts the town of Baldwin to the north. And a similar use, Love's Travel Stop, was approved southwest of the site under PUD Ordinance 2019-166. We find the proposed PUD and uses will be consistent and compatible with the development at this major intersection and for recommendation of approval with the two conditions listed in the agenda.

One speaker card, Ms. Cindy Trimmer.

Thank you so much. Cindy Trimmer, 1 Independent Drive, Suite 1200, on behalf of the applicant. So as to not duplicate everything you just heard, the PUD in this instance accomplishes a few different things. It allows for an increased parking ratio to account for the demand that's anticipated at the site. We heard about the warehouse that's already on the site. It's a plastics manufacturer. When this parcel is subdivided, their signage along the road frontage would be cut off. So the PUD unifies the sign plan for the parcels and allows that sign to remain. It allows for a 32-square-foot truck entrance sign, which is a little larger than code would otherwise allow. But that's to provide sufficient visibility for trucks so they have time to slow down to turn into the site. We are the first parcel south of Baldwin. We are just outside of what JEA is able to service, so we have an agreement with the town of Baldwin to provide the water and sewer capacity for the site. With that, I will stand by for questions.

All right. We have no questions and no one else in the queue. And we have no other speaker card, so we'll close the public hearing and get a motion on the amendment. All right. We have a motion and a second on the amendment. Can someone please explain the amendment?

The amendment adopts the planning department and planning commission conditions unless waived by chief of traffic engineering or their designee. A traffic study shall be undertaken by the developer upon PUD verification. The methodology of the study shall be determined by the developer's traffic engineer, the chief of the transportation planning, or, excuse me, and the chief of traffic engineering. The second condition, the design and location of access drives is subject to review and approval by FDOT.

All right.

All right.

Any questions? Seeing none. All in favor of the amendment, signify by saying aye. Any opposed? The amendment carries. We have a motion and a second on the bill as amended. No one in the queue. Open the ballot. Record your vote.

Five yays. Zero nays.

By your action, you've approved 2026-131. Item number 19, 2026-133. 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 conventional rezoning ordinance 2026-0133 seeking to rezone 0.11 acres from RLD 60 to RMDA in order to construct a duplex on the property. The subject site has frontage off of Sherrington Street, which is just south of Kings Road and is currently a vacant parcel.

Subject property is considered a lot of record, which was originally recorded as lot 8 of the Grand Park subdivision, platted in 1906.

While the RMDA category would not usually allow for a duplex, under Part 7 of the zoning code, a lot of record in the RMD category that meets the minimum 50-foot lot width and 5,000 square feet can be developed with a two-family dwelling. While the neighboring parcels are developed with single-family dwellings, the parcel abuts CCG2 zoning along a commercial corridor, which is a more desirable location for a higher density. Additionally, a couple parcels to the east is vacant lot zone CRO, which would allow for multifamily by right. Staff has reviewed the request and finds that the proposed rezoning is consistent with the existing land use category of LDR, and we find it furthers the goals and objectives of the comp plan by providing opportunities for development of a wide variety of housing types by area. We find it meets the character of the surrounding site. So because of these reasons and those in the staff report, we forward a recommendation of approval. It was heard by Planning Commission on March 19th. There were no speakers in opposition and little discussion, and they voted unanimously for approval.

All right. Thank you for that. We have no 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 bill. No discussion. Let's open the ballot. Record your vote.

Five yays. Zero nays.

By your action, you've approved 2026-133. Item number 20, 2026-134. Council members, please declare your ex parte communication you have at this time. Seeing none, let's open the public hearing and get a staff report.

Thank you. This is the companion administrative deviation that's just asking to reduce the required side yard setback from 10 feet to 5 feet in order to be consistent with the established pattern of development for existing dwellings within the RLD zoning, which do require a minimum of 5-foot side yard setback. Again, there's requests to develop the property with a duplex, which is two units on one parcel, not subdivided. The property, if the property was to be developed with two units that are subdivided, so like townhomes, the code only requires a 5-foot setback. So, therefore, the request to reduce the setback from 10 to 5 would not be out of character with the existing allowances of the code for surrounding developments. The request is not based on a desire to reduce the cost of developing the site, but, again, rather to build a house which would fit with the neighborhood. So, because of these reasons and those in the staff report, we forward a recommendation of approval for the companion AD. Again, it was heard by Planning Commission March 19th. There were no speakers in opposition, and they voted unanimously for approval.

All right. Thank you so much. We don't have any speaker cards, so we'll close the public hearing and bring it back to committee. We have a motion and a second on the bill. No discussion. Open the ballot. Accord your vote.

5-ay, 0-ay.

By your action, you've approved 2026-134. All right. The following bills are deferred with a public hearing next cycle on 4-21-26. Bills 2026-164, 165-166, 167-168, 169-170. We already took up item number 28, 2026-171. We took up item 29, 2026-172. And now we are going to be on item 30 on page 14, item 2026-173. Council members declare ex parte communication you have at this time. Anybody? See none. Let's open the public hearing and get a staff report.

Thank you. 2026-173 seeks zoning exception to allow for an establishment, which includes the retail sale and service of beer and wine, for on-premise consumption in conjunction with the restaurant. The 1.45-acre subject site is located at the northwest corner of Fay Road and Alta Drive. The proposed restaurant is operating in a commercial strip mall. It has two other restaurants, a gym, and a chiropractic office. There have been multiple exception applications approved to allow for the sale and service of alcohol in conjunction with the restaurant and this shopping center, including E0714, E0715, E1834, E1963, E1977, and E2434. Staff finds the proposed use is compatible with the adjacent commercial uses and consistent with the general character of the area and forwards the recommendation of approval.

All right. Thank you so much. With that, we, Mr. Yancey, come on down. It's on 173. I don't know if we have a card for you on this one or not, but did you fill out a card for this one? Yes, I did, sir. Okay. I'm sure we'll find it here. There's just a lot of cards tonight. So go ahead. Name and address. Lawrence Johnson, 1-3-0-9, St. John's Bluff Road, North Jacksonville, Florida, 3-2-2-2-5.

I thank the staff for their report, and I'm just here for questions.

Okay. With that, we will close the public hearing and bring back the committee. All right. We have a motion and a second on the bill. No discussion. Open the ballot. Record your vote.

By the A's, 0 N's.

By your action, you've approved 2026-173. Item number 31, 2026-174. Council members, declare any ex parte communication you have at this time. Seeing none, we'll open the public hearing and get a staff report. Or no staff report because we're amending to re-refer. Okay. So we just take that motion up right now? Okay. So we have a motion and a second on amendment to re-refer, and do we need to explain the re-referral?

The amendment will be to correct the reduction of road frontage from 80 feet to zero feet and also to provide revised exhibits to reflect that change.

All right. All in favor of the amendment, signify by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed? What? What? Yeah, we had a motion and a second, and then we got an explanation for it. It was motioned by Council Member Diamond, seconded by Council Member Gaffney. Did you have a question, Mr. Gaffney? I did. Okay, go ahead.

Yeah, thank you through the chair. Is the applicant here? Because I haven't met with him. I mean, I know we got an amendment on the bill tonight, and he's not here. So I'm going to ask that we defer this into two weeks, at least April 21. Can they give me time to meet with him? It's being re-referred. It's being re-referred. So, yeah, the planning department will let them know.

That he needs to reach out to you. We'll get it going from there. So are we good? Are we done on that one? Do we need an actual ballot vote on it, or are we done?

Oh, okay. All right. So we need a motion on the re-refer. Motion and a second on the re-refer. Open the ballot. Record your vote.

Five yays. Zero nays.

By your action, you have re-referred. 2026-174. All right. Item number 32. Same thing. Councilman is clear. Any ex parte? Seeing none. Looking for a motion on the amendment. We have a motion and a second on the amendment. All in favor of the amendment, signify by saying aye. Any opposed? The amendment carries. Now we need to move the bill, amend as re-referred. All right. We have a motion and a second to amend the bill and re-refer. Any discussion? Seeing none. Open the ballot. Record your vote.

Five yays. Zero nays.

By your action, you have amended and re-referred 2026-175. Item number 33. 2026-176. Council members, please declare your ex parte communication you have at this time. Seeing none. Let's open the public hearing and get a staff report.

Thank you. 2026-176 seeks to reduce the required minimum road frontage from 48 feet to 30 feet to allow for the development of a single-family dwelling in the RLD 60 zoning district. Per Part 4 of the zoning code, no dwelling or dwellings may be constructed on a lot in a residential zoning district unless the lot has frontage on a public or approved private street equal to not less than 80% of the minimum lot width. The subject property is a 1.89-acre lot located on Anniston Road. The applicant is seeking to subdivide the parcel into two lots with one lot right along Anniston Road and a second flag-shaped lot behind the front lot. The proposed lots meet all criteria of the RLD 60 zoning district except for the road frontage. While the proposed flag-shaped lot does not meet the 48 feet required, the property will have 30 feet of frontage along Anniston Road. Staff notes that similar requests to reduce lot requirements such as road frontage have been approved along Anniston Road. V-8645 was approved in 1986 to reduce road frontage from 48 feet to 20 feet for 2425 Anniston Road. V-88202 and 2002-1034A were both approved to reduce the required road frontage from 108 feet to 100.38 feet for 2543 Anniston Road. For these reasons and those in the staff report, we forward a recommendation of approval.

All right. Thank you so much. And for this one, we don't have any speaker cards. Is the applicant here? Did we miss your speaker card? Okay. We're not seeing any speaker cards on this, so we're going to close the public hearing and bring it back to committee. All right. We have a motion second on the bill. No discussion. Open the ballot. Record your vote.

5-8-0-nays.

By your action, you've approved 2026-177. Sorry, 176. All right. Item number 34, 2026-177. We are going to open and continue this. Committee members that weren't here for the agenda meeting, so we're not going to be having to vote on this tonight, so it'll be open and continue to 4-21. But with that, we will go ahead and get ex parte communication at this time if you so wish, or you can wait until the next public hearing, which might be just as appropriate because there might be more communication that comes in. So, there's no communication. Do we want to do a staff report now, or do you want to do it at the next one? The next one, since it will be. Okay. Since it'll be up for action then. Okay. So, we will skip the staff report, and we'll go straight to the public comment. Ms. Cindy Trimmer, are you here? Do you wish to speak? Nope. Wave. Okay. First up, we have Jannie Smaley. Jada Leaf. Okay. She is in opposition. Next is L.E. Spradlin. Don't wish to speak. Is in opposition. Oh, actually, he didn't mark anything, so we can't say anything with that. Patrick Race. Okay. He is in opposition. Maggie Race. Got it. She's in opposition. Helen O'Neill. Not going to speak. Okay. Is in opposition. Joseph Carter. Don't want to speak. Okay. Is in opposition. Kristen Lucart. Come on down.

Kristen Lucart. My address is on file, and I guess I have a question because this is my first time at this meeting. Did I just give you a statement?

Yeah. Just name and address so you got that right, and now it's just your statements on the criteria of why you oppose this waiver of road frontage.

Okay. Okay. My understanding from researching the judicial intent of the ordinance and reading this on appeal, for those of you that don't know, I'm a lawyer. I practice primarily in circuit court and federal court. It was my understanding that there's supposed to be substantive, competent evidence in this report. And the way I read it, and I feel a little like Ricky Bobby, but with all due respect, I don't see any substantive, competent evidence in this report, and I'll go one by one. For the first criteria, are there practical or economic difficulties in carrying out the strict letter of the regulation? Based on my reading of the ordinance and the record on appeal when these go up to circuit court, it's not the determinative factor on that isn't if they desire to do it, would the waiver allow them to do it, it's can you comply with the zoning ordinance? And when this was asked at our town hall, point blank, do you concede that you're able to comply with the zoning ordinance as is, the answer was yes. So there are no practical or economic difficulties complying with this ordinance as is. There's nothing unique to this property that would necessitate a waiver. The justification that was given to us as a community at the town hall was simply that it was more profitable to the person who's the conditional purchaser of the property if he divides this into three lots and sells the one on the river for more money to offset the cost of him purchasing the middle house. And so that's why he wanted to do it. So much so that if it didn't go through, he informed us that he wouldn't be purchasing this parcel of land. He doesn't own it currently. It's a conditional contract so that if this waiver doesn't go through, he's not even buying it. This piece of land isn't languishing. We're aware of current bona fide purchasers who are ready, willing, and able to purchase the lot without the need for a zoning waiver. So I guess that takes care of the first two criteria. For the third, will the proposed waiver substantially diminish property values in or alter the essential character of the area surrounding the site? I think the answer to that is yes. Again, I think this report by the city is kind of a self-serving, self-affirming statement with no analysis. It doesn't really take into consideration the property that if you're looking at this lot to the left is Dr. Patel's. If you add three homes by necessity, that's going to affect his view of the river. Air rights are hotly litigated in Florida. There's lots of cases down in Miami Beach. These are things that people contract for. They're valuable.

All right. Thank you. Next, we have Tori Race. Following her will be Allison Reed, Maten Patel, and Richard Reed. Allison Reed, do you wish to speak?

What?

Oh, Tori. Sorry. Couldn't see you.

You're behind the thing, but I will pass them around if they're in the name. Tori Race, my address is on file. I brought these posters so you could see the safety issues that have been brought up by the neighborhood and were not referenced.

Can you pause the time for a second?

So you're not permitted, we're not permitted to have any signs or displays during your presentation. You're able to provide them with handouts, 8 1⁄2 by 11, but no demonstrative aids as a part of your presentation.

But can I pass them around? I mean, I paid the money to print them, and I cut them down to size based on the security advisement at the door. I could have literally gone and printed them in the two and a half hours I've been sitting here. Let's pass them around.

But you could pass them around there.

They're just visual aids for me to demonstrate the safety concerns that I have. I tried to mark them as best as possible with a star asterisk and a circle. One is the proposed plot line of which this development and builder and developer seek to change from a two-home zone to three. They want to add the third home in our very suburban residential neighborhood. And in doing so, they want to add a driveway that would share an easement with all the properties. That will abut not only my direct driveway, but my neighbor's driveway, and will also serve next to another private driveway. After speaking with the city planner and trying to go through the city of Jacksonville to find any driveway ordinances, you can see that the measurements of that road are less than 20 feet, and which would serve four driveways. Those four driveways would serve seven homes. Three of those homes are going to be over 4,000 square feet, meaning multiple bedrooms, mine included. So that is up to 10 to 12 to 14 cars, depending on how many children live in these areas. I have spoken with council about changing the plan, removing the driveway, shifting the driveway, again, because I am very sure that the city of Jacksonville does not want to assume any risk involved in this current plan proposed by the builder and developer. Again, given to the specific idea that all of these driveways empty in to one specific spot, it would be different if it was a cul-de-sac. I'm 100% sure there are city ordinances around cul-de-sacs, how they're formed, how those driveways leave together, the spacing between them. This somehow does not fall under those rules, and I am just beseeching the city to not allow this waiver based on the current plan, because it creates an inherent safety risk, not only to the other residents, but directly to the children that live in this area, mine included, who are all here but had to go to bed. Our neighborhood prides itself on its dedication to its family and its children. Many of the people here raise their grandchildren in our neighborhood. We have many families who have lived in this neighborhood for multiple generations. You can only assume how rare that is this day and age that people choose to leave and come back and actually live down the street from their parents. Our neighborhood has over 37 children under the age of 16 biking scooters. We also have multiple members of our community who are over the age of 85 and actually do use walkers and scooters, including two handicapped residents who also, we do not have sidewalks. We are all relegated to the street. So I'm specifically speaking to the safety concerns of this current plan presented for the frontage waiver. And I ask you to please deny this petition as it stands. Thank you.

All right. Thank you. Next we have Allison Reed.

Allison Reed, 1211 Monday Drive. Thank you for the opportunity to speak. I wanted to speak on the first criteria waiver. Are there practical or economic difficulties in carrying out the strict letter of the regulation? Our response is no. There is no true practical and economic hardship associated with this property. The report confirms that the parcel consists of two legal lots of record, each already entitled to one single family dwelling by right. This means the property can already be reasonably developed under the existing zoning without any waiver. The claim difficulty arises only because the applicant is attempting to increase the number of homes from two to three. This is a self-created condition, not a practical and economic hardship, and does not mean that the the intent of the waiver criteria. The applicant's reliance is on an existing lot to the north, which you will see on page five. That was constructed prior to the adoption of the current zoning and subdivision standards and is therefore a legal non-conforming situation. It does not reflect the current regulatory intent and should not be used to justify new development that fails to meet today's requirements. Allowing a new project to rely on a decades-old pre-co condition as a precedent would effectively undermine the purpose of the current zoning code and set inappropriate precedent for future developments in an established neighborhood. Our question to the planning department and to the committee, if this property already consists of two legal lots, each entitled to one home by right, what is the actual hardship that justifies this waiver? I appreciate your time.

Thank you. Next we have Matin Patel. Oh, you're next. Well, it doesn't matter. Come on down.

Thank you. My name is Richard Reed. I live at 1336 Argyle Road in opposition of this and addressing criteria number four in the application, which states, is there a valid and effective easement for adequate vehicular access connected to public street maintained by the city or an approved private street? Our response is no. The proposal creates two lots with zero road frontage, both dependent on a 15-foot-wide shared easement for access, reducing required frontage from 144 feet to zero, is not a minor adjustment. It is a complete removal of a core zoning requirement. A narrow, shared access easement serving multiple homes raises concerns regarding emergency and vehicle access, vehicle maneuverability, visibility, and safety. The reliance on a single narrow easement for multiple residents does not provide the same level of access and safety or functionality as direct road frontage. So the question really is, how can two residential lots with zero road frontage relying entirely on a 15-foot-wide shared easement be considered to have safe, adequate, and functional access equivalent to direct street frontage? As to criteria number five, which states, will the proposed waiver be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare result in additional expense? The creation of nuisances or conflict with any other applicable law response is yes. The application does not adequately demonstrate that the proposed development will avoid detriment to public health, safety, and welfare. While wastewater considerations remain relevant, the more immediate concern is the cumulative impact on surrounding residents. Increasing the number of homes on a single parcel introduces higher intensity of use, including increased nuisances of noise, traffic, lighting, and reduced privacy. The reliance on a narrow, shared access point raises safety and congestion concerns, while additional development and impervious surface may contribute to drainage and runoff issues that can impose real financial burdens on neighboring homeowners. Taken together, these are theoretical concerns, but predictable impacts that directly affect the livability, safety, and financial well-being of the surrounding neighborhood. Thank you for giving me the time.

All right. Thank you. Next, we have Matin Patel.

Matin Patel, my address is on record. My lot is directly adjacent to this lot, just south of the property. There are four estate-sized lots to the south of me, and this is an estate-sized lot to the north of me. When I purchased my property, we were surrounded by two estate-sized lots. If I had known that somebody was going to build three two-story homes next to my lot, I would not have purchased it. There is a real impact on the property value, of my property value, significant impact, and allowing three two-story homes to be put next to an estate-sized lot with three other lots that have only one home to the south would significantly change the neighborhood. In addition, this would also likely cause a reduction in the property. There would be a substantial loss of privacy. There's right now 300 feet in front of my house. There's no immediate neighbors. My kids can play. If you were to put three two-story homes next to it, obviously, there's going to be a direct view into my yard, and there would be likely a significant reduction in property value. You know, I think it would be, if we allow this, it would be irreparable loss of property value. So it would be a significant harm from that standpoint. In addition, I do have significant grading and drainage concerns. The current grading is going from the south to the north. The water drains that way. If you put three houses on the lot next door, there's going to be a significant loss of green space. If they are planning to put an easement, there will be elevation, which will cause water to drain into my yard and likely pool there. The current drainage is the opposite way. So there would be a significant issue with drainage and stormwater runoff. In addition, there's a significant loss of neighborhood character. The proposal appears to prioritize maximizing land value rather than preserving the estate lot nature of the neighborhood, where each estate lot currently only has one home on it, and the only other estate lot that's empty on the south side of the property, on the south side of Ardsley, has ordinances that they can only build one house. And then, in addition, the other issue is going to be precedent for future development. Approving this project could encourage a significant similar subdivision of other estate homes, increasing the density, causing further erosion of the neighborhood's character, and also attract developers focused on maximizing profit without adequate consideration of the environmental impact, as well as drainage, traffic, and other long-term community integrity. Thank you.

All right, thank you. Next, we have Jenny Reed, and followed by Ms. Reed, we have Chuck Koch and Ann Koch. If you all want to come on down to the front row, you are welcome to do so.

Hello. My name is Jenny Reed, and I live at 1336 Ardsley Road. I'd like to respond to number two and three of the criteria for the waiver. My neighbors are addressing one, four, and five. I'd like to respectfully share some thoughts that the five criteria of the application have actually not been met by the applicant with substantial and competent evidence. Criteria two is the request based exclusively upon the desire to reduce the cost of developing or to circumvent code. Our response is absolutely yes.

This request is solely and exclusively based on the desire to reduce cost. While the applicant states that the request is not based on cost, the practical effect

of the waiver is to increase the development yield beyond what is allowed by right, which inherently increases the economic return of the property. The question is, if the third home is not exclusively to reduce cost for the developer, then what is it for? Criteria three, will the proposed waiver substantially diminish property values in or alter the essential character of the surrounding, the area surrounding the site? And will the waiver substantially interfere with or injure the rights of others? Our response is yes. The essential character will be altered.

Tripling the number of homes on a single parcel is by definition a significant increase in development intensity and represents a clear departure from the established pattern of the neighborhood. The Ardsley-Mundee area is an established neighborhood characterized by consistent lot spacing and lower density. Introducing multiple homes on a partial historically occupied by a single residence alters density, scale, and massing, and development pattern. In addition, increased impervious surface, traffic, and activity associated with multiple homes can reasonably be expected to impact neighboring properties. The assertion that this will not affect neighborhood character is not supported when considering the cumulative impact of tripling density on a single lot. Our question is, if the established pattern on Mundy Drive is one home per lot, how can introducing three homes on a single parcel be considered consistent with that pattern, or not alter the character of the area? And if the only example being relied on predates current zoning standards of RLD 90, how can that be considered a valid precedent under today's standards? Thank you for your time.

All right. Thank you. Next, we have Chuck Koch, or Ann Koch. Go ahead.

Well, good evening. I know everyone is tired. My name is Ann Koch. I live in the Ardsley neighborhood at 4548 Mundy Drive South. I'm two lots south of the subject property at 4526. I am opposed to granting this waiver from 144 feet to 0 feet of road frontage, which paves the way for the construction of three homes on the west side of Mundy Drive South, one of which will have only the minimum setback on a little stretch of road, which is characterized on that west side by lots of the same size, but with one home each, each of these homes having 350 feet or more of setback. This application cites a precedent of three adjacent homes to the north of the subject property on Norwich Road, two of which predate Jacksonville zoning, and I present are an anomaly. It also cites precedent at Sedgwick Place, which is 3.7 miles away from Mundy Drive and which does not resemble in any way the Ardsley neighborhood. I posit that these precedent examples are irrelevant and should be disqualified from this application. What is relevant is that if the waiver is granted, it will set a precedent for the adjacent four lots of equal size, each with 100 feet of frontage and 350 feet of setback, and pave the way for as many as eight additional homes in addition to these three proposed, and how many cars. All of this on little 20-foot-wide Mundy Drive South, and it will change the character of the neighborhood irrevocably. I hope and pray that this committee will realize that declining this waiver application would not prohibit the developer from building two homes as allowed under historic zoning. It would prohibit building three homes, would be in the best interest of the residents of the surrounding neighborhood, and will go a long way toward maintaining the historical integrity of our unique street and preservation of this neighborhood. Thank you for listening.

All right. We have Chuck Koch next. Come on down.

Which microphones? Neither one. Okay. My name is Charles Koch. I live at 4548 Mundy Drive, which is two doors down from the proposed property. I just wanted to say I oppose this change. It will drastically reduce the value of our properties. It will increase the traffic. It will cause us safety problems. Right now in Deval County last year, there were 29 fatalities. On public roads and our streets are used constantly by our people walking with their children in the evening, their families, bicycles, and so on and so forth, which makes our neighborhood what it is. People gather together. They talk on the street. This would cause us a big problem, and I want to say that I oppose the changing of this ordinance to accommodate these three buildings. Thank you.

All right. Thank you. Next, we have Christine Sasser, followed by Alex Tsar and Ann Tamor.

Good evening. My name is Christine Sasser, 951 Saratoga Drive, Jacksonville, 32207. I'm actually here on behalf of my aunt, who lives at 1173 Norwich Road. She is in one of those properties just to the north of this Mundy Drive property. She's lived there since the 60s. She's in her 90s. Her property is just north, and she, in the past, the plans for this development or this proposed waiver, some of the rendering circling around showed a shared easement with that Norwich Road neighbors to the north, which my aunt was not supportive of. I clarified with the planning department that the current plan before you does have a private 15-foot easement on the north side of the Mundy Road property for use by the three proposed houses with no shared plan for Norwich Road. So, Mrs. Ellian's son, David Ellian, did speak with Ryan Davis, the builder, to make it clear that she does not want any proposed plan to allow a shared easement access road with her property. Mr. Davis understood that, and she, you know, that she just wants to keep her private lane the way it is. She would like to remain neutral. She's older. She doesn't want to get involved in the chaos of it, but, you know, she also just wants to make sure that you all hear both sides and, you know, make a wise decision. Anyone speaking tonight using, I haven't heard anyone doing this, but there is another, there may be another time. You know, anyone using Mrs. Ellian, her name, for or against this project may not be representing her opinions. Thank you for allowing me to just put on record her opinion and then her conversation with the builder. Thank you.

All right. Thank you. Next wave, Alex R.

Yes. Thank you for your time. My name is Alex R. I live at 1234 Norwich Road, and I'm opposed to this. So I have concerns around related to parking, that there's going to be increased parking along the roadway, and there's limited as is already. Emergency services. We've already witnessed it with emergency services coming down to that area and having trouble getting access to it. Have a lot of concerns around that. And just the overall more traffic that's going to be coming from this proposal. More delivery vehicles. I've got a couple houses up, and they're constantly speeding up and down the road. I've got kids that are, three kids under the age of 10 have large concerns around that with the additional delivery vehicles that be going to service these proposed additional houses. I also share concerns relating to the property value, the degradation of property values related to this building. I do believe it does go against the character of the overall neighborhood, and I agree that the state lots are within the character of the neighborhood, not this three-dividing subdivision. And then lastly, and then it's setting a precedent. I have concerns with that. If you do it here, then it would set a precedent going forward and other lots in the future. And then lastly, drainage concerns. Artsily already has a lot of drainage issues. Impervious, you're going to add a pervious surface, so I have concerns relating to that, adding additional drainage issues. Thank you for your time.

All right. Thank you. Next, Anne to Moore. She does not wish to speak, and she's in opposition. Charlie Kaufman. Don't wish to speak, or you want to come down and speak?

Good evening. Charlie Kaufman. My address should be on file. I live on Artsily Road. I've been living in the neighborhood for over 30 years now. Raised three children there. I have multiple grandchildren that come visit us on a frequent basis. One of the things that stood out to me at the recent town hall meeting was sort of reliance on the precedent of the development, the street, just to the north of what we're talking about here, the three homes that are there today. That was done. Again, I can't emphasize this enough. It's been mentioned already two or three times prior to the city of Jacksonville being in this area, okay? So it was an unincorporated Duval County at the time, and so it's really not a good precedent. It doesn't look good. I think we all agree that a city is very often defined by the character of its neighborhood, and this is a very special neighborhood. It's different. It's a neighborhood of 60-plus homes where kids love to play and move around, and I think just further encouragement of development there is going to take one of the jewels away of what we have in our city, and I really don't want to see that character taken down, and I completely disagree with the precedent of that property, the north, because it just doesn't look good. It looks like a lot of other neighborhoods where we've got one street coming in, and you're just cramming as many houses as you can. So that's all I have to say. Thank you.

Okay, thank you. Next, we have Ryan Hotchkiss, does not wish to speak, is in opposition, and last, we have Wade Lindsey, opposes, doesn't wish to speak. So that's all the speaker cards I have. If there's anyone else that wishes to speak, let me know. Neighbors, just sit tight for me. We're pretty much done with the agenda. I'm going to have you all go ahead and make your way into the green room just so we can have a little kind of recap of everything with our OGC attorneys and everybody and just kind of talk about everything that was just said. So with that, we're going to continue this public hearing until 4-21-26. We already took up item number 35, 2026-178, we already took up. The following bills are on second reading, 2026-208, 209-210, 211-212, and 232. Did we miss anything, Mr. Ungold or Mr. Harvey? We did not. This meeting is adjourned.