Land Use & Zoning Committee - Apr 21, 2026

all right good evening it is tuesday april 21st 502 we are going to go ahead and convene the land use and zoning committee with introductions to the left good afternoon to everyone tyrone clark murray city council district nine just visiting but i am here for number one here for 15 and 16 no actually number one and it should be six yes 16 and 15 and number one okay can we move the you want to move those up because we have the appeal coming first and that might take some time yes absolutely thank you okay all right good afternoon reginald gaffin and julia district eight evening rory diamond district 13 of beaches carlucci district five raw areas district 11 terrence friedman at large group one randy white district 12 terrence hard the office of general council aramis wells planning department susan kelly planning department heron abney planning department casey cox planning department all right uh committee members we do have our presentation by miss eichner that i think we have all seen um so miss eichner come on down and we also want to go ahead and acknowledge our pages tonight we have madeline knight who's actually already standing up wave to the audience out there and we have dylan patel and just for the audience if you have any students that want to be pages they can sign up to do this uh basically every tuesday whether it's luz or city council so thank you both for being here all right miss eichner the floor is yours thank you teresa eichner jacksonville city council uh through the chair to the committee um many of you have probably already heard this presentation this week but for the purposes of um the public who is here tonight um since early february we have been um diligently trying to make our website ada compliant um the department of justice has um some requirements under the ada to um require that by the by friday of this week um we have all of the attachments and documents that are saved on our website to be ada compliant um with screen reader capabilities for those hearing impaired and blind and so um we've gone through a series of pulling documents down um and one of the places that it will be most impacted is um our legislative gateway and so um we are the record keeper for the county and as part of that the legislative gateway will be coming down for a period of four to six weeks um during that time we will be working with a vendor to provide those services to get that site back up and so during that time there will be um an email of the address available so that legislation and any exhibits attached will be available to members of the public will be emailing those um and then internally we'll be providing a username and password so that any um access that staff uh needed to the to um that website will still be available internally um so i'll accept i'll you know i'll be available if anybody needs that but i'll be circulating that information tomorrow uh portions of that website are already down now um but again we'll be circulating that information internally for staff and um that email address will be available in the morning for the public okay thank you we have no questions no speakers in the queue thank you so much all right all right committee members we're going to uh go to item number one first uh obviously but then we're also going to uh skip over to page eight so with that we will go to item number one 2025 630 do we have any speaker cards do we have any speaker cards on this one nope okay so let's go ahead and open the public hearing we have no speaker cards we're going to close public hearing bring back to committee okay we have a motion and second to withdraw with the return of fees councilman clark murray did you want to speak yes just very briefly thank you chair just that i do concur with um withdrawing this bill in addition to returning the fees i reached out to the applicant several times and also i've been here to luz to speak in regards to this bill and it's been on your agenda for months now so four months f-o-r not f-o-u-r so i'm just pleased that it's going to be withdrawn and i'm sure the applicant is thankful that you will refund the fees thank you all right yes ma'am so we have a motion and second on the withdrawal no discussion we're going to open the ballot record your vote six yays zero nays by your action you have withdrawn 2025 630 all right we're gonna go now to page eight and we are looking for a motion on item number 15 all right we have a motion do we have a second chair all right chair there's a staff report uh and you need to open oh sorry i'm in a different different mode of operation all right 2026 168 open the public hearing and get the staff report thank you ordinance 2026 168 is for a small-scale land use amendment which would allow for residential redevelopment at the corner of commonwealth avenue and mcduff avenue these are both collector roads the applicant is proposing changing the land use from low density residential to medium density residential and the site is within the urban priority area the land use amendment site is a tenth of an acre the companion rezoning application includes the land use amendment site and the property that's to the west the land use on the property to the west is already cgc which allows for the proposed use the proposed mdr land use provides an appropriate transition from the cgc uses at the corner of commonwealth and mcduff to the ldr low density residential uses to the east mdr designations are appropriate in locations that are served by full urban services and the property is served by centralized water and sewer and mass transit for these reasons and those in the staff report the department recommends approval this item was heard at the april 9th planning commission meeting the commission unanimously recommended to approve the item with minimal discussion thank you all right thank you so much miss clark murray would you like to speak now okay go ahead thank you chair through the through the chair to the planning department representatives was the applicant present at the planning commission meeting uh through the chair to the councilwoman yes and thank you through the chair did he speak in regards to the property did he mention what he how he's going to plan how he plans to use the property yes he he did he he's going he's doing excuse me he's doing residential um i believe it's a duplex or mixed oh that's right mixed use uh duplex so residential on one component and then i believe he wanted to do retail below at the corner so thank you for that thank you chair okay we're going to go through the the public comment or the public hearing cards and then uh we'll also have discussion after that so the first speaker card is uh the applicant benjamin nazbran rinda and he is here for questions only next is joyce davis oh what's that okay uh next is joyce davis davis uh does not wish to speak is in opposition and next speaker is carolyn griffin followed by sally barnes good afternoon my name is sally barnes i'm a little confused in here because i asked her at the desk we was coming for the one zero zero five mike duff avenue i'm sorry miss barnes can you state your name and address and then my name is sally barnes my address is on file go ahead when i spoke with her these i am opposed to these because it's it's not a room enough room up there for these apartment duplexes or what have you up there to come in there because they're going to be right in somebody's yard and it's like we went through this before with several other people that was trying to put stuff in there somebody ran into one of the houses last week those little gray houses up there and they just totally so it has to be torn down my thing is if you all would just revisit this because it's really not enough room up there for apartments there wouldn't be any room for any kind of yard or anything else up there it's not enough space i don't know why they said when i was here last time they was talking about possibly making a mcduff park up there in which we are a faith in favor of because of the small spaces up there that was at the last loves meeting so i mean what what changed since then because when i went up there to fill out a comment card they told me that had been sent to finance so how is that from finance to on this agenda that i just looked at somebody tell me something i think we need some clarity on this i would ask you if you would we got to speak to the bill please okay the bill is okay we went through this one here do you support or oppose i oppose it okay we just need to hear your reasons why okay well i'm good then you know i oppose it and you know okay because i just stated it okay thank you next we have carolyn griffin i called your name do you wish to speak do not wish to speak is in opposition so with that we'll close the public hearing and bring back committee and we motion a second on the bill miss clark murray you're recognized thank you chair for a few reasons i have reached out to the applicant through my office on multiple occasions and he did not return my call so that i could get information in regards to exactly not just the reason for the zoning changes but additionally what it is that he's going to build and so tonight i'm surprised that he was did attend the planning commission meeting because once again i've been trying for months to speak with him so i'm going to ask that the committee would defer one cycle so that i'll have an opportunity to speak with the applicant so he can give me full details on as to what he plans to build on the property okay so councilman gaffney unless you're going to speak to it okay i got you um so mr benjamin sorry i can't i'm not going to pronounce in the last name so miss clark murray is here and um let's just if you can just get with her office um because a lot of times what will happen is if the council person hasn't met and doesn't know what's going on this committee you know kind of relies on that for some of our you know weight that we that we vote on so what i'm going to do as chair is defer this bill and we're going to defer the next bill so 2026 168 is being deferred 2026 169 is being deferred one cycle that should give you plenty of time uh we have we have a fifth week correct we're going to open continue mr harvey thank you for my vice chair um miss clark murray is that does that sound appropriate is there any yes okay mr benjamin do you do you have the contact information for no okay is brie here okay well miss clark murray let's make sure that he gets that and and we'll be we'll be better squared away so we're going to open the public hearing and then we're going to continue the public hearing until five five is that correct okay so we're on fifth week which means you get an extra week for free so five five so item number 15 2026 168 we're going to continue that public hearing until five five 2026 same with number 16 uh 2026 169 we will open and continue that public hearing until five five 26 all right everybody good all right so moving back now to uh let's see we're going to go to page 12 2026 232 that is our appeal council members please declare any ex parte communication you have at this time i know everybody's got it uh council member white you're recognized yes sir i'd like to clear ex parte i met with mr durden today in the two applicants in my office all right and i also rise to declare ex parte i met with uh the applicant in my office i believe it was yesterday maybe last week we'll get the dates um we went over all the site plans the revisions that were made and this paperwork's going to be filed with legislative services all right so with that let's go ahead and open the public hearing and get a staff report is there a staff report there is but chair would you like me to go over the outline the script of what is to occur for the public sure let's do that go ahead give us a yeah yep so pursuant to council rule 6.201 in section 30724 of the ordinance code before us today is a informal cause of judicial hearing um and appeal from the jhpc their order of the presentation is just as any typical rezoning there will be a disclosure of ex parte communication which has already occurred by the luz committee the opening of the public hearing the city presentation by air miss wells and attorney carlos shell you will have your appellant brenda durden present up to 10 minutes the appellate presentation by attorney carlos shell will be for 15 minutes public hearing will be limited to three minutes each rebuttal by the appellant of five minutes the closing of the public hearing and then a deliberation and vote on the matter because this is a quasi-judicial matter your decision must be based upon competent substantial evidence and you will be considering this as a de novo review which basically means any presentation of all the evidence starts over again so you're able to listen to any new facts that were presented by either the applicant and excuse me by the appellant today during this presentation at the end we will have for your consideration whether or not you guys affirm the jhpc decision which would be to deny the appeal reverse the jhpc decision and grant the appeal modify the jhpc decision or refer the matter back to jhpc with that i will turn it back over to you chair to get your staff report from mr wells okay mr wells please great thank you so through the chair to the committee i'm just going to briefly explain how we got here um so as you may be aware the city's historic preservation ordinance requires that all properties that are located within a locally uh designated historic district or a locally designated landmark require a certificate of appropriateness prior to commencement of the work um so this particular property is located at 2230 st john's avenue and so this property is located within the st john's quarter historic district and so they submitted a certificate of appropriateness application or coa for short on november 6th of 2025 that was reviewed and issued a denial by the jacksonville historic preservation commission on january 28th of 2026 and so since that a denial the applicant has filed an appeal and hence the resolution that's in front of you all right thank you so much um sorry we're just making sure if council member johnson's here we're trying to make sure that he gets he gets here uh so who do we go to the applicant first okay and then we'll go to michelle all right miss durden come on down and real quick before before you get started um how do these cards do we just go to the applicant and then the um ogc attorney and then we go to the cards yes so public hearing will open up after both the applicant and ogc okay so public hearing's not open yet it is open to this is okay this is part of the okay all right that's what i thought good deal go ahead miss durden thank you can you hear me yes we can hear you no yeah we can hear you go ahead okay thank you very much uh good evening mr chairman and council members thank you very much uh for hearing this appeal tonight for the record my name is brenna durden my address is 245 riverside avenue suite 510 i'm here on behalf of st john's quarter llc and ron and fran root who own the property at 2230 st john's avenue this vacant lot is located within the st john's quarter historic district which was in fact locally designated by the city of jacksonville in 1996 before the larger riverside avondale district was approved the root family and the ferguson families were instrumental in the quarter's local designation mr and mrs root wish to build a single family home that will serve as a carriage house to their primary residence at 2263 river boulevard the proposed home was designed by architect bill luthold who is considered by many in jacksonville to be the premier most most most respected architect in practicing in the historic architecture arena here in jacksonville mr luthold has won many many awards for his historic designs and in fact served on the historic preservation commission for over seven years you will hear from him shortly mr luthold designed the home in line and to be consistent with every guideline and every code provision applicable to new construction in this district unfortunately for all involved the planning department staff recommended against the new construction for only one reason a street facing garage in fact the staff report and even the final order of the historic preservation commission which didn't uh which denied the certificate of appropriateness finds the home consistent with the applicable guidelines and the code regulations but still recommended and ended up denying the home because of the street facing garage finding that garage to be out of scale and not compatible with the other structures in the district but the facts and the testimony you're going to hear tonight will show that that is wholly inaccurate there are hundreds of street facing garages and even front facing garages in the district and even several in the same block as the vacant lot more so you will also hear that there is actually no prohibition against street facing garages in any of the guidelines or the code provisions we have filed a written appeal detailing these issues and we ask this committee to grant our appeal and approve the coa mr chairman with an intent to stay within our very limited presentation time i've previously provided a set of photographs and also mr luthold's curriculum vitae to uh miss bolton who uh for distribution to each of you i i would like to now proffer mr luthold to the committee uh as an expert in historic architecture and and very importantly jacksonville's guidelines and code regulations for the historic district following mr luthold's uh testimony the owner ron rude will refer to the set of photographs that you have and present factual testimony regarding the many street facing garages in the district as previously agreed i'm reserving five minutes for rebuttal thank you very much okay thank you and now we hear we will hear from ms shell is that in their 10 minute time so they are so she is allowed to okay her presentation consists of the uh applicant and the two expert okay okay i just wanted to make sure we were in order there and also wanted to welcome council member johnson okay did you sneak in here all right thank you good deal go ahead mr luthold name and address my name is bill luthold my address is a 2742 her shell street i'm the architect of the of the house that's in under consideration um it's a house it's a two-story house it was designed to fit in on saint john's avenue within a the historic district of saint john's quarter um before starting we we you know i'm very familiar with the neighborhood i've done many projects in the neighborhood and looked around the immediate area to make certain that this house was designed to fit into that area properly among the the requirements in the guidelines are two things that come from the secretary of the interior standards for rehabilitation we've applied all of those i mean among those in particular standard two says the historic character of a property shall be retained and preserved this new house we designed is on a vacant lot so there's nothing to preserve on that lot itself but the previous house on that lot was very similar in size and scale porches on the front porches on the rear two-story house hip roof so we've we've followed that house quite closely the next one is the new construction shall be differentiated from old and shall be compatible with the massing size scale and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment um we follow this very closely that we followed there were seven items in particular that they look for height this house is very similar in height to the surrounding structures with it's very typical of the area the setback we've set the front of the porch and exactly in line with the front of the porch adjacent to the to the property and it's very similar to other properties within that area um the proportion of openings we have doors and windows on the house that are very similar to doors and windows the houses and other parts of the neighborhood we do have the two garage doors on the front but we have set those back 12 feet from the front of the house they're not right at the front they they're not going to be a problem um horizontal rhythms we have doors and windows that are spaced very similar to traditional houses in the neighborhood roof form we chose a hip roof which is very common in in the neighborhood a very simple shape of a building which is important it's not scattered around like a standard suburban house would be these days it's a very simple shape which is very typical of the neighborhood um materials that the base of this house is in brick it's a red brick that's going to fit about half or more than half the houses on the street are red brick um the upper section is of a smooth siding we have roof overhangs and roof structure and roof pitch that are all common to the neighborhood they're concerned in this area about the elevation of the first floor we've set that at a three feet above the grade 30 inches to three feet and that's we are in a flood zone we want to be up high enough that we don't flood this house um and and uh but it's it's four steps up to the porch very common in the area um the staff report that came back to us after we presented and were denied acknowledged that we were correct on all those things um the one question that comes up is those garage doors and the reasons we placed the garage doors in the front were these um it's a really small lot it's 50 feet wide it's it's very shallow there's no room in the back to build a house in front of the of what was needed by the owners and get the garage in the back he wants a garage that's slightly larger than a typical garage and the best way we felt to make that work was to incorporate it into the major massing of the house that way it does not appear to be a standard too large garage um there's no alley in the back so there's no access to the rear of the property where we could set a garage in the back or access a garage from the rear and the width of the property so narrow that there's no way to get alongside the property and turn in you need at least 25 feet to turn in to a side facing garage the other is the the owners own a large house is behind and this property is contiguous to that property and by far the best way to connect the two properties would be to uh to have a backyard of this property that joins the backyard of the large property and by doing that we have uh uh we've kept the property contiguous and and where they can easily pass through between the two the two houses that's all i have all right we'll go ahead and pause the timer there we uh we just made an observation i think this is council member peluso's district correct on the on the um on the yeah on the agenda it says district 14 council member johnson we just were making note that we think this is council member peluso not that it really necessarily matters we were just you know wanting to make sure we had that are you all going to use the 146 for the owner yes sir go ahead come on down state your name and address and we'll start the clock my name is ron rude i live at 2263 river boulevard jacksonville florida 32204 as brenna said my wife and i do own the uh a lot at 2230 and each of you i think should have this handout that was was given i'd ask you to bear with me the tendency when you get a handout like this is to paste paste through it if you'll bear with me and for at least the first few pages um these first this first page is um is pictures of houses that are in the same block that have a front facing garage same thing that we were denied the the bottom picture on the first page is a carriage house on the left it's been filled in no longer used as a carriage house but that is the original garage for that house page two and page three are three other structures within the just within our st john's quarter that have front facing garages and then on the bottom of page three you'll see a map that details exactly where these locations are the big red circle on the bottom is our home and then the arrow points to the lot that's contiguous and then these other blue squares are the other street-facing garages in the st john's quarter the next page is over the last two to three weeks i've driven extensively throughout the riverside avondale historic district and these are all street-facing garages within the district there's over 200 here and it's only a partial list and so what follows is a series of a few of these homes pictures which show street-facing garages and by all right thank you sir sorry your time is okay expired but we will have uh following uh public hearing so we can ask questions um miss shell 10 minutes i think i have 15 minutes i think i did give you 15 in the email darn i was trying to go ahead all right carla shell with office of general counsel here on behalf of planning department and the historic preservation commission so i'm going to walk you through this this is about 2230 st john's avenue a vacant lot and a proposed new construction you can see the map there this law is in the st john's quarter which is a section of the riverside avondale district it was established about 18 months before the greater riverside avondale district for the purposes today they're one in the same it's the same design guidelines and the same ordinance code provisions apply within that little section of riverside avondale that star is 2230 st john's avenue you see it's an interior lot this is the street view of today that vacant lot on the left you see two-story single-family residential on the right you can see it a little bit it's a two-story multi-family the current owner is proposing this new single-family home so the issue is simple the design of the front of this home violates the design guidelines and the ordinance code provisions while i have respect for the architect and i agree that he has designed a lot of great structures this one misses the mark specifically the planning department found that the double garage doors placed on the front of the home are not compatible and the historic preservation commission agreed so when considering a design of new construction the controlling regulations are ordinance code chapter 307 and the design guidelines so the historic district design guidelines it's about 130 page document did not give that all to you just the relevant excerpts are here this is the new construction section which specifically highlights that new construction shall be compatible with the rest of the street with the adjacent structures so the criteria you are to consider you see there it has height width setbacks the relevant um portions that you need to consider are the proportion of the window and door openings as well as the horizontal rhythms and that's where this design misses the mark another section of it is in setting this is still in the district design guidelines um that parking shall be i'm sorry i'm having trouble seeking it for here um do you have the full you can pause the time there we go okay the proportion of window and door openings and the horizontal rhythms so the set the setting recommendations are that parking should be restricted to the rear of the building obviously this design does not comply parking and driveways recommendations are to limit parking to the rear or side of the buildings and avoid parking on the front side so those are the design guidelines that it does not comply with ordinance code criteria in chapter 307 i'm going to focus on the two here happy to talk about the last two but the first two read that you need to consider the relationship between the new construction and other sites and properties in the historic district and the the second provision proportion of doors and windows this one is key the proportions and relationship between doors and windows shall be compatible with surrounding structures in the district so you need to look at what's immediately adjacent and on that street so this design in a lot of ways mr luthard is right it does meet the criteria in many ways height and width great the roof pitch and form that looks good setbacks fine the materials proposed good the windows that are on the front elevation the design and placement look great front door looks great where this misses mark are those garage doors as the dominant and prominent feature on the front elevation of the single-family home it's not compatible the proportion of openings is not compatible with that street and it does not comply with the horizontal rhythm requirements of the design guidelines so this is that section the map section you can see the gray dots in this little corner of riverside avondale have no garage the red dots all have a detached garage behind the primary structure none of these are front-facing garages the yellow dots are attached garages they were historically detached but there's been an addition since either way they're still behind the main structure you'll notice mr root referenced the five pictures of other structures in the neighborhood every single one of those if you look on the map is a corner locked the house faces one direction the garage is behind facing a side street there are no front-facing garages not a single one in in this um in this section of riverside avondale and he provided over 40 addresses that i looked up at least 70 of those are corner lots but this proposed new construction is not on a corner lot so what do we have here's some examples he provided to the commission that they had a chance to review the top two two car garage forward-facing on the back corner with the driveway running up the side planning department said yeah you can have that that that'd be great owner said no i don't want that the bottom two examples are side facing garages on corner lots those both those houses face to the left those garages are in the back of the home facing the side street every single one of these examples he provided the garage is behind the main house these are his neighbors this is what is in this section of riverside avondale and the proposed new construction is not compatible these last two on the bottom appear to be what we would call a carriage house two-car garage below with what looks to be some type of dwelling unit above behind a main house now now you heard the owner and miss durden state that this is a carriage house this design is meant to be a carriage house now carriage house is an ancillary structure to a main house you see this everywhere in the district i just showed you a couple examples the key is it's behind a main home on the same parcel see this picture here the dot is the cheek castle house owned under different llc but by the same owners and the red line is is the parcel at issue they argue that this new construction is a carriage house to this to this other house they sit on two separate parcels with several residential structures in between in fact according to google maps you'd have to walk out the front door of the cheat castle house walk down river road turn right on osceola walk up a block turn right on saint john's ave walk down five parcels to get to this lot there's no significant relation spatial relationship between the two parcels and the commission found this on this argument unpersuasive and you should too so to recap the owner did not want a two-car garage at the back corner of his lot like his neighbors neighbors this is not a carriage house or an adu of any sort all right so the commission denied the this coa before you today well the planning department continued to work with the owner on another design they came up with this windows appropriately spaced on the front of elevation keeping with the neighborhood and three garage bay doors that are side facing to provide the owner with the garage space he wanted this coa was approved by the commission last month so the owner was able to settle on a design that complies with the guidelines complies with the ordinance code criteria therefore the right thing to do today is to uphold the decision of the historic preservation commission and deny this appeal you can do that knowing that you stayed true the to the historic district requirements and in this case the owner is already teed up with an approved design that complies with the design guidelines and fits the character of the district denial of the coa was the correct decision then and denial of this appeal is the correct decision tonight we ask that you deny this appeal and with that i'll take any questions or mr wells is here to answer questions on behalf of the planning department all right thank you michelle we will now go to the remainder of our public hearing speaker cards correct we go go forward okay um and then we'll bring it back to uh the committee we'll actually keep the public hearing open during questions and then we'll go from there all right first up we have ethan gregory followed by shannon blankenship and then katherine duncan so ethan gregory shannon blankenship katherine duncan go ahead and make your way to the front ethan gregory 931 mapleton terrace again my name is ethan gregory i'm the chair of the jackson historic preservation commission and we're here to request that you deny the appeal for the approval of coa for the property at 2230 st john's avenue um at the meeting in january we reviewed the coa we had the applicant speak his architect came speaking we received public comment as well and during that time we found no evidence or new information that would give the commission a reason to go against the staff's recommendations so at that time we decided to deny the appeal or excuse me deny that coa and the main reason for now it's been discussed plenty of times here are the garage doors that you saw they're front facing along st john's avenue there are no front facing garages it is not with the historic character of the neighborhood of the st john's quarter or really for the whole entire area of riverside avondale the commission determined that this is a design looks like a carriage house or a detached garage with a garage apartment as miss durden said this is a carriage house typically seat carriage houses at the rear of the property typically would there be a main house in the front and a garage or excuse me a driveway on either side and you would go back to the carriage house in the rear as you saw from plenty of the photos from mrs shell so for that reason we denied that coa and then subsequently in march there was an additional coa provided that you saw here from michelle as well which moved the garages to the side we thought this was a compromise with the homeowner to give him the parking space he needs for his wants and needs and it also kept the historic character of the neighborhood so that was approved at that time in march and we'd ask you to deny this appeal and if i may speak regarding the historic character the neighborhood and why the design guidelines are important um i'm realtor uh in my day job and i can tell you that the values of the homes in historic areas are significantly more largely because of the design guidelines if you look in the riverside avondale area the price per square foot for homes there is about 285 dollars per square foot if you look in the zip codes of 3225 and 32204 and you cut out the historic areas price per square foot is around 179. so there's value in the design guidelines and the character of the neighborhood and that's why we do this work the commission and that's why the staff in the city works to maintain the character of these neighborhoods so we ask that you deny the appeal thank you all right next we have shannon blankenship thank you so much um my name is shannon blankenship i'm the executive director with riverside avondale preservation um and i'm here today to speak solely on behalf of the precedent that this project would set for the entire neighborhood um two proposals were put forth to the historic preservation commission and the one that was approved is the one that's appropriate for the saint john's quarter and the historic district um the reason that this project would be damaging for the entire neighborhood is because um as you can sell from the applicants proposal today each project sets a precedent for what future applicants use to say what should be allowed in the neighborhood and so having a strong position about front-facing garages is extremely important to give clarity to everyone moving forward with projects so that you guys don't have to hear these kinds of proposals again so that the rules are strong about front-facing garages um thank you so much for hearing my testimony today i appreciate your looking at this project all right thank you next we have katherine duncan good evening katherine duncan 1450 flagler avenue suite 15 32207 i wanted to speak today in support of the application as an architect who has served 12 years on the city of saint augustine architectural review board and i've practiced architecture in the city of jacksonville for almost 30 years i know the saint john's quarter district well i worked for six years across the street in the offices of richard skinner and associates architects there are single-family residences that remain but many of the homes have been converted into offices the office across the street where i used to work has a parking lot visible from the street with cars parked in that area most of the remaining homes have street-facing garages the larger homes like mr roots has a carriage house with good garage doors that face an adjacent street like this application there are no alleyways to keep garages from view most of the lots are narrow his lot is 50 feet wide the cars are parked both in the driveways and along the streets the saint john's quarter is an eclectic mix of architectural styles and uses it is a mixture of single-family residences commercial offices and mid-rise apartments luthold's design of the two-story carriage house maintains the character and scale of a typical carriage house for a large estate like mr roots the architects set the carriage doors back 12 feet from the front facade of the primary facade on the building i understand the importance of maintaining the rhythm and character of the saint john's quarter district in filling a vacant lot with a carriage house for the cheek mansion will provide that rhythm and character if the lot stays vacant it may eventually be used as a parking lot like just across the street mr luthold is highly respected and has practiced architecture for many years his projects are in jacksonville's historic neighborhoods his designs are always high quality and thoughtful he served on the historic preservation commission for many years and is very familiar with the guidelines his knowledge and insight make him one of our city's leading architects whose authority we respect his design meets the intent of the guidelines by replicating a traditional carriage house mr roots family has lived in the cheek mansion since the 1960s he chose mr luthold because of his experience and ability to find the best solution for a compatible structure that adheres to the established character and scale and materials of the historic district the proposed design is in character with other carriage houses associated with the great house where a carriage doors are facing an adjacent street considering all the front facing garages a detached carriage houses and the large parking lot across the street i respectfully request that you reverse the decision i'm sorry to deny the coa thank you all right with uh that we have no other speaker cards so uh we are going to go ahead and uh we're not going to close the public hearing uh we are going to what oh five minutes for mr urden sorry thank you very much mr chairman i won't use the whole five minutes just want to say that um several things first um i heard uh uh in michelle's presentation a lot of convoluting between a street and the district the compatibility uh is is district wide it's not necessarily just on the particular street even given that we believe that the street facing garages that are on the street in the block where uh this home is proposed show that um that uh it is compatible with the street it's compatible with the uh neighborhood and it's also compatible with the district um the um the um the the numerous pictures that uh mr root presented to you um it goes on page after page after page of front facing street facing garages page five page six page seven page eight these are all contributing structures to the district so it's part and parcel it's the part of the fabric of the district um that these front facing uh that these front facing uh garages uh these structures with these front facing garages uh include um uh you've heard from uh two architects tonight well known well respected and highly uh familiar with uh historic preservation both of them spoke tonight and said this project is compatible with the neighborhood compatible with the district and meets the guidelines and code provisions i want to say one last uh uh two more things one i heard somebody talk about how this is going to be a terrible precedent in the neighborhood there are so many distinctions that make this not a precedent first there are no alleys in in this area of of of of uh the district most of riverside and avondale have rear alleys that in fact would allow an entrance from the rear there's no alley here second um the um there this is a special lot it's very narrow the lot the lot width is very narrow really reducing the complete ability to have uh parking excuse me a garage in the back and then um and then also it's the special nature of this lot where you do have a river view out the back uh if you will towards the river um those things um are very distinct and therefore uh do not would not this project would not create a precedent and the last thing is that i want to make it perfectly clear there is no prohibition against street facing or front facing garages anywhere in the guidelines nowhere so it's a matter of is it compatible and our position is that it is uh we would ask that the uh committee uh take into account the two experts that you heard tonight to take into account the countless pictures of existing contributing structures in this district that include the front facing and street facing garages and ask you to grant the appeal and approve the coa thank you very much again for your time tonight okay thank you mr urden and with that now we will go to uh discussion we'll keep the public hearing open first we have council member gaffney over you okay all right thank you through the chair i guess michelle you could come out right quick um so while you're on the way up for clarity i just want to make sure i got a great understanding in terms of what we vote for i mean i think i know what we're voting for but it's two main distinctions why i guess the planning department the city of jacks have denied this piece of legislation one is um the double doors in the garage in terms of facing the street and i think you eloquently said that corner lots can have double doors facing the street but if it's not a corner lot they cannot have double doors can you explain that for me please sure go yeah through the chair if it's so yeah and let's um rebecca let's go ahead and just put four minutes on the clock just for all of us just so we don't um get overboard yep go ahead yeah okay through the chair to council member gaffney so you're correct we see that very frequently on corner lots a house facing the main street garage behind and facing a side street set back a lot so that's that is ubiquitous i would say on the corner lots um what you have here is an interior lot there there are very few examples in the district of front facing garages on interior lots there are a handful he found some i can address any pictures you want me to address or mr wells can talk about them um but it's very rare okay i guess the other okay um on top of that the other issue it's not an issue but other thing i i guess i'm questioning the slide show i was looking at um it showed like a house over here and i guess like the carriage or the adu home like on the other side i don't know if i don't know if we could pull the slide up i don't know what slides right there go back go back go back go back hold on uh go back to the no i don't know if it's left or right left go it's we just passed it no not this one um it's in this packet oh it's in a packet no it was on the slideshow too this is a three-car garage on the map right there right there right there right there right there so okay okay so i see 2263 river um boulevard obviously and then i see the you know the rectangular um that's like two or three lots down i'm trying to understand that right here so there are actually five lots facing saint john's avenue that back up to the cheek mansion because that parcel is almost an acre there are five um residential structures facing saint john's avenue that back up to it the furthest one is the parcel at issue okay all right that's all i have for now i was just trying to make sure in terms of you know what we had in terms of what we voted on and why you guys denied it so i also heard miss um dirty and i mean her argument in terms of why we should grant the appeal but i stand by and listen to the rest of my colleagues thank you all right councilman areas you recognized okay uh thank you chair i do have a question i heard earlier actually i just heard from the from the applicant i will need a question for you um was that there is no prohibition to from facing garages i was going to base my vote off of that now is that true is there a prohibition or not so the design guidelines say it shall be compatible with the adjacent structures let me find the exact verbiage proportions and relationship between doors and windows so that's openings and a garage door is a door shall be compatible with with surrounding structures in the district so there's no prohibition on anything really it's you look at the street the adjacent structures and the surrounding area to determine what fits in what's compatible nowhere in this section of riverside avondale has a two-car garage on a front elevation doesn't exist okay well um so i'm looking at this map here here and it says here avondale riverside and then st john's quarter is this um uh denial based off of guidelines specifically to st john's quarter or to the entire district there through the chair the guidelines are the same okay all right so then you said that there's none now there's i've been going on google maps to all these different addresses i found one here called 1825 elizabeth place all right when you look at the google maps for that one um i'm going to pull it up now and if you guys want to pull it up too you guys can so you can see what i'm looking at but um it shows that this house on the maps is actually painted it's not blue anymore it's white but um it has a similar feature as to what the applicant is doing here and there's not a corner lot so when you said there are no houses i'm just trying to fact check everything and there i just saw one so sure through the chair if i may respond sure so 1825 elizabeth place is in avondale it was built in 1961 so it is not a contributing structure in the district because there was no way it was 50 years old when i'm all right i'm sorry i just asked the first question i asked earlier was this map avondale riverside and st john's quarter you said they're all part of it now you're saying that because it's in avondale doesn't it doesn't apply no i'm telling you when the district was established in the late 90s this was built in the 60s so the guidelines weren't in place okay and this is not a historic structure that could be used as an example that was a non-contributing i get it but that's why i had that question initially because i found properties and i want to make sure before i ask a question that they do or do not apply clearly it's based off of the year now it's not based off of so there is no prohibition technically and now it's based off a specific year of 90s now that we're looking at so now in order to me for me to fact check all these properties i have to now look at what year they were built to in order to to support your your case or not so through the chair yes we could go on a scavenger hunt of all 5 000 structures in the riverside avondale district and look up everyone every year and see if it's contributing or not the fact is when you look at this street this part there is nothing like this it does not fit in it's not compatible and it doesn't work okay i'm just going to finish off your chair out 30 seconds um i don't know where the committee's going to land i'm gonna i'm looking forward to hearing more conversations i will tell you this it's not my district but i like to keep the integrity of different communities this right here if this was truly a guideline and there was a prohibition i would have said deny this 100 but because it's very loose and there's no clear definition as to where we should go i'm kind of torn in the middle so i really want to see the conversation of you guys to see where i land because right now it's 50 50 and if it was up to me i was approved i would deny the denial and let them build what they got to build however i once again i'm just kind of torn on this part thank you okay all right council member johnson you recognized thank you this is a quite an interesting situation um i took from kind of like what michelle said i took from this um that i'm still a little confused as section 307.106 about the proportions of windows and doors uh and thank you councilman areas for bringing that up looking at those other spaces let me ask the historic team airmas i heard you as i was coming in um with the details about the this area um obviously it's a denial from the the commission and the department could you give me is there something that would be acceptable in this space obviously i saw the elevation of the new plan that was put together but is there something some kind of improvement because i'm thinking i do have a question about this but what is there something that would be acceptable besides that that allows them to keep the same plan that they've asked for through the chair through the chair to council member johnson yes besides the plan that was approved on march 25th that was something that we did find to be compatible with the design guidelines um the main thing here and if you reference the design guidelines this is something that carla mentioned in our slides there's a provision in there that states that parking should be limited to the rear sides of a building so that's the kind of predominant focus the the piece that we really lasered in on in our report and so that anything of that nature if they were to provide a plan that showed a garage that was recessed behind the primary facade not assembled to the primary facade that's something that staff would support through the developer or the applicant could you come to the podium i do have a question for the applicant um is this although i do see it as a house i do want to ask is this clearly not a carriage house this seems to be a separate feature is this going to be it's a it's a single family home that that um that mr and mrs root want to build it will have the um the garage that will serve the the if you will the big house um because the garage in in that home is not usable it's um very low ceilings and not wide and it it's basically an unusable so this will serve as the if you will the carriage house for the so this will be the garage this is not a unit that will be for rental or anything like that no no it won't be for rent it's going to be their home understood my my other question is what is the issue is it cost uh through the chair the issue for the elevation that was or the design that was recommended by planning what was the problem with that that was unacceptable to you and your client uh thank you very much i should be saying through the chair but forgive me um uh councilman the issue is that in order to do that he had to it's using um uh i don't know 20 or 30 20 foot or 25 foot wide strip of land that he doesn't own he had that's when i said you know it um it it's unreasonable to think that a landowner has to go and take 20 or 25 feet from an adjacent lot in order to meet the requirement this this side yard or side entrance garage that that's an unreasonable uh position uh that uh that uh the city should be taking um the it the lot is 50 feet wide he does not own it he doesn't own it he um and and so from that perspective it it makes no sense that uh we're going to be in a position of we when i say that's the royal we the city we're going to be in a position of from now on saying well your lot's not wide enough just go get 25 feet from your adjacent property uh your adjacent landowner and tell them that you need the 25 feet so you can build a side entrance garage you can continue you can continue if you have another question thank you i i noticed yet michelle uh may have a rebuttal because i do wanted to to find out if i could michelle when you speak michelle please don't leave when you speak can you also speak to the fact that i think when you're saying to the the front facing lots the other others that they found when they're say facing the street it's not facing the same side of the street as the house it's facing an adjacent street because that's on the side can you clarify that as well sure you have a front elevation sure through the chair you have a front elevation which is like the front of the house the front door primary entrance front facade those corner lots face the main street with the garage set behind the house facing a side street totally different scenario and i would like to address the coa that was approved last month they came up with that design nobody's forcing that design they came up with that and said we could do this so we said okay planning looked at it said we agree that's yeah that adheres we didn't come up with that or force that on them so they couldn't do that for some reason if there's some fact that they know that they couldn't do that they didn't disclose that to us okay is is there a reason since they put that in through the chair since you came up with the design what is the rationale now you propose the design you say i want to do this or i can do this was this property that 25 feet that's being requested that you spoke of earlier is that owned by someone else and what was the reason that you recommended that that recommended that design or put it up for approval and now saying well unfortunately we don't want to do that now thank you thank you very much through the chair the the design was you know they were pushed against the wall they couldn't um the timing of the appeal they had no they were uh they felt like they had to file the appeal uh and at the same time try to find a some other solution but the idea that um that uh first off from a legal perspective that coa is outside the scope of we're not we're not right i just okay but number two to answer your question which is a fair question you know the idea is they were pushed against the wall they didn't want to do this they showed it actually shows that it's impossible to do what uh the staff thinks is necessary for the property to be compatible to use it for a single family resident last question i'm going to end it here do that property that 25 feet that's there is that through the chair is that owned by someone else is it part of their other property it's it's owned by a separate group of landowners it's not the same it's a different group and i if if the chairman would allow me to see the answer the question's been answered it's been answered thank you thank you all right next we have council member diamond you're recognized oh man i i hate that we've spent this much time on this already this is ridiculous what 25 feet are you talking about who owns it michelle do you know who owns it somebody tell me mr wells mr council member diamond if i may so in order to submit that march 25th approval from the commission we have to verify ownership and so 2230 that's owned by the llc under ron root the budding property owner at 2222 that's owned by um string fellows partners llp that's also if you look at the sun biz accounts they they have ownership under that as well so two different llcs but when you get to the genus of it all they own it miss durden do they own it no come on up i just i get the distinction between llc and and all this but help us out do they own the llc do they have this property it's a it's a thank you through the chair it's a different group of family members okay all right that's enough uh thank you uh michelle how are they supposed to park help me out this is 50 feet i got a 67 foot lot at the beach there's no way i could side park at my house how are they supposed to park in this or anything how are they supposed to where are they supposed to put their cars with such a narrow lot at the back in a separate structure you want them to build a second structure you build a driveway up the side like all their neighbors have all right no fair enough okay look i'm going to show my cards i'm going to vote so these folks can build this thing i think this is totally ridiculous there's a hundred people back there who's just spent an hour of their life wasted on this like dogs and cats sleeping together oh my god mass hysteria someone's going to see a garage door this is ridiculous i can't believe we spent this much time on this so i'm done i'd like to vote for it i want us to get this over with as fast as possible and i want the historic review people to realize that at least this councilman thinks this is a huge waste of our time i mean people have too much time if they're worried about a garage facing the street and a beautiful house in a beautiful neighborhood all right with that we're going to go ahead and close the public hearing and bring it back to committee now guys the now we do have to make a motion uh we have to make a a motion on the amendment because right now it's in a neutral okay okay so we have a motion and a second to amend to grant the appeal um so do we take a verbal vote on the amendment first okay all in favor of the amendment signify by saying aye aye any opposed the amendment carries so now we move the bill as amended okay we have a motion second on the bill as amended and no one in the queue i'll just weigh in my two cents very briefly only because um i'm used to these uh with san marco and we i've actually seen the same exact argument in san marco and generally where i kind of come down on this is and it's funny because there's there is a architect in san marco and his name is william j cox and he's been in san marco forever his office is there he does a ton of architecture design he is sort of the grand pumbaa or whatever of architecture and design everyone just listens to him because he just knows he knows his stuff and i feel like that is exactly mr luthold in this position and that's the lens i'm viewing this through we can make the argument on paper this doesn't make sense the guidelines yada yada but at the end of the day i think it's a vacant lot people have to park their cars it's it's a great design the only reason they designed a second one was to prove the point that yeah we can we can make it look good on you know paper and fit in the box but it's not going to be practical it's not going to be actually it's not going to be a functional so um for me i'm i'm going to support the appeal um and those are my reasons why so with that we have a motion a second to grant the appeal let's open the ballot record your vote yeah green is yes affirmative five yays two nays by your action you have granted the appeal for 2026 232 all right moving on to uh page two of the agenda we already took up item number one uh which was wait did we already take we already did that one right all right we already took up item number one that was a withdrawal and then item number two 2025 724 council members please declare your ex parte communication at this time councilman gaffney you're recognized thank you through the chair um i held the community meeting last i rise to declare ex parte i held the community meeting last night i make sure everything gets filed with legislative services all right thank you sir no other speakers let's open the public karen and get a staff report thank you this is conventional rezoning ordinance 2025-0724 seeking to rezone approximately 1.04 acres from commercial residential office to commercial neighborhood in order to build a convenience store the one acre site is located along garden street at the intersection of garden in old king's road garden street is is classified as a collector roadway in old king's road is located classified as a minor arterial roadway staff has reviewed the request and finds that the proposed rezoning is consistent with the comp plan it has an existing land use category of rpi we find it for we find that it furthers the goals and objectives of the comp plan by promoting and sustaining the viability of existing and emerging commercial areas in order to provide services to the surrounding residential areas the property is located at the southwest corner of that intersection where the remaining lots surrounding that particular intersection are all zoned commercial neighborhood so the proposed rezoning to cn will be consistent and compatible with the surrounding existing commercial properties so because of these reasons and those in the staff report we forward a recommendation of approval this application was heard by planning commission back in october where there were no speakers in opposition a little discussion amongst the commissioners and they voted unanimously for approval thank you all right thank you and we have no speaker cards so i guess we will close the public hearing bring back committee as we have motion and second on the bill councilman gaffney do you have anything have you spoken to the applicant yeah okay you spoke to the applicant okay great we have a motion in a second public hearing is closed let's open the ballot record seven yes zero nays by your action you've approved 2025 724 moving on to item number three 2026 0006 let's open the public hearing get our staff report all right ordinance 2026 006 is for a small scale land use amendment to change 9.7 acres from low density residential to medium density residential in the suburban development area to allow for an increase in the density allowed on the site 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 roads the site is surrounded on all sides by land designated as low density residential and by a single family residential development pattern currently the maximum gross density in the ldr is seven units per acre the proposed mdr would permit residential densities up to 20 units per acre if granted the proposed land use amendment would allow for an abrupt density increase in the middle of an existing low density neighborhood while the department does not object to the residential use we find that this significant density increase would disrupt the existing land development pattern and detract from the character of the area for these reasons and others in the staff report the planning department recommends denial planning commission heard this item at their meeting on february 5th several residents were in opposition to the increase in density citing concerns about schools traffic and environmental impacts the proposed mdr land use garnered a lot of discussion amongst the commissioners because it does allow for 20 units per acre ultimately the planning commission recommended approving the item with a note that the planning commission encourages luz to consider adopting a site-specific flu policy limiting the density of the proposed mdr land use thank you all right thanks so much now we'll go to our speaker cards first up hayden phillips thank you very much hayden phillips 1301 river place boulevard i think we're all pretty familiar with this at this point so i'll try to avoid repeating anything that you've already heard multiple times but as a quick reminder the cpac approved where we were in attendance planning commission unanimously approved and we've held a total of three noticed community meetings where we've made several compromises we decreased the total unit count from 89 to 77 units we decreased the total density from 9.2 to 7.9 units per acre and we have increased the minimum lot width on almost 20 percent of the lots to 40 to 60 feet wide we even increased buffer sizes and included a large park in the corner of the property so i think a lot of the concerns we heard from the community at luz two weeks ago can sort of be put into a few different categories there were general issues with it being unnecessary characterized as over development i promise you we would not be here if the market were not there there's a view that this part of town is a rural area and development does not belong this property is in the city's suburban development area it's almost in the urban development area and it's very far from any existing rural development area um and traffic which which i'll get to in a second but the planning department as stated just now is not opposed to the actual use their main concern as i understand it is the land use category it's mdr which would otherwise allow 20 units per acre however as planning commission suggested we are open to a site-specific policy as an amendment with this comp plan amendment which would cap the density at 7.9 units per acre which is just over the seven units per acre already allowed under the existing land use ldr so this is not a spot land use amendment it is not spot zoning it is the opposite of urban sprawl plus we need the housing so on to traffic two weeks ago as you may recall um the discussion centered around traffic and the available capacity on morse avenue miss larise banister was called to the podium and stated that morse avenue is currently operating at 100 capacity capacity capacity this number came as a surprise to i think everyone definitely me since then miss banister has confirmed via email to me that number was a mistake and that as of 2025 morse avenue on the western side of blanding boulevard was operating at 16 percent of maximum service volume not 100 percent 16 percent 16 percent morse avenue on the east side of blanding boulevard where our proposed development is actually located my client's traffic engineer john moy who is present and will speak after me actually performed a traffic study on that section of morse avenue a few years ago and as of 2024 morse avenue on the eastern side of landing boulevard was operating at 9.36 percent of maximum service volume and that includes the trips produced by wells landing which is the new subdivision uh further down morse to the east so it's not a busy road um it is simply busier than than what these neighbors are used to which is something residents all over the city are having to deal with right now so i will leave some time for rebuttal we have several people people here on our team to speak and support the developer builder our planning expert and our traffic engineering expert if they could go next that would be wonderful thank you very much all right we're just going to kind of go whatever order these cards were handed to me so um coincidentally ken atley is next and then we have samantha series folks huxford john moya moya moya sorry moya lawrence cheney chair yeah cheney all right mr alley name and address ken atley 5851 timaquana road jacksonville um as discussed uh two weeks ago the the city advertises how great a city we are that we all enjoy and attract businesses which brings people which needs housing as a developer i'm merely here helping meet the need for housing that our bill has expressed to us and as directed by the comp plan section 1.1.1 and section 3.1.12 directing us to utilize infill sites such as the one before you tonight please note that 16-foot townhomes have been approved all over the city of jacksonville and these units generally are 16 feet wide in groups of four six or eight our project will have homes that are 50 percent wider than those units they'll be detached which means they have lights windows on all four sides and this creates a much much better environment for the occupants a much more enjoyable uh place to live with windows we would be grateful for your support and i would be happy to answer any questions you may have thank you all right thank you next we have samantha series samantha series address on file i oppose this proposal from ldr to mdr as you know many of the neighbors are concerned about this change after watching the last luz meeting that i was not able to attend you guys are so close to getting it correct um you say but some of you sometimes say 7.9 is so close to the seven units then fine might as well agree to it but that should be the opposite of your thinking it should be 7.9 is so close to seven why are we changing ldr to mdr that is a big change even if they put a site-specific amendment that is a big change we are fighting over 0.9 units that should mean that it is more likely that you keep it as an ldr instead of pushing it to an mdr mr phillips mentions that the other properties that are currently being developed are more dense than this development well those developments are larger one is 17.08 acres the other is 43.41 acres and one that is closest in unit amount so there's 85 units coming in this one it is going to be 22.91 acres that is more than 9.7 if they were to use the ldr designation they would be able to get about 67 units they're right now proposing 77 units so why can't they keep the ldr designation and just do the 67 units it's tight still but you know it's allowed we wouldn't be having these arguments they wouldn't have to be fighting the neighborhood it's really like they're causing more problems for themselves after reviewing the proposed change the planning department recommended the request to be denied and they gave many reasons one of them is that a suburban area is the third tier development area and generally corresponds with the urbanizing portions of the city they development should be generally continue on low densities with medium density development at major corridor intersections and transit stations that is not this area this is not a major corridor intersection or a transit station mr phillips says oh it's 0.2 miles from blanding 0.2 miles to what to an an empty commercial lease area that is for lease right now and empty so going to where where's the you know corridor intersection you and i know last time at the luz it was mentioned you guys would go maybe visit this area were you able to did you get off of 295 go on to blanding go to morse because that is something you should consider it is not an urban area mr phillips mentioned that this is um an urban area according to the 2045 account plan there are actual urban development characteristics that includes blocks interconnected with surrounding development and existing and planned jta rapid transit system to the greatest extent possible that is not what we have here and you should vote no thank you okay next we have folks huxford hi there uh folks huxford 10230 manorville drive jacksonville florida um so i want to point out uh some of you don't necessarily know my history but i moved here in 1991 which was about the same year uh the same year that the city adopted the zoning code and the comprehensive plan where this property was designated for our acre zoning and lvr land use uh 35 years later uh things have changed and the city has approved literally thousands of land use amendments and rezonings in the course of time uh as situations evolve and this is certainly a case of that in the sense that now there there is water and sewer available which was not available 35 years ago um and it this is exactly the type of infill development in a suburban area that the comprehensive plan promotes um at the last meeting i had submitted an affidavit where i analyzed the staff report as well as the criteria for land use and zoning and it was my conclusion even before it was now reduced to the level that it's at now that it was consistent with the comprehensive plan uh both the land use and the zoning so i think with the further reduction down to 7.9 um it definitely does so i would point out that the mdr land use category that we're requesting is the one step up it's literally the next step up from the ldr land use category uh and with the site-specific policy i believe it is definitely compatible uh so with that we uh ask for your support thank you all right thank you sir next we have john moy yes i'm john moy with wait samoy uh 37 38 south side boulevard um you know last uh oz meeting uh the applicant you know was caught off guard uh and wasn't prepared to discuss traffic engineering and he asked me to come and uh speak on the uh the traffic on morris avenue uh we had done a traffic study two years ago for another development in the area the wells landing which was the biggest development recently in this area and our traffic study at the time showed that we were in the ballpark of 10 percent capacity on morris avenue east of landing boulevard so morris avenue to seaboard um we went back and did some generation of uh projected traffic from this development and another recent development 117 unit development on seaboard avenue and adding both of those developments into the traffic if we said 100 of that traffic went on seaboard which it won't uh it would only bring the capacity on morris avenue up to 17 percent but that's really all i have to add okay thank you all right if the following speakers uh want to come down i'll go ahead and read a couple more names uh lawrence cheney shelley cheney uh henry baker david mccure mcclure maybe mccure bobby o'connor so if you're here and wish to speak you can come on down to the front if you're not already at the front so we'll go to lawrence cheney and then shelley cheney thank you chair i'm lawrence cheney address is on file i know y'all remember me from two weeks ago very much oppose this in our neighborhood what i asked today is y'all not get fixated on the traffic or dismiss what the other woman said two weeks ago that it was at 100 percent or whatever where i can't debate who's right or who's wrong but i'm not here just because of the traffic i'm here because the presidents y'all are going to set throughout this state or through this city and the state of florida is zoning doesn't mean a thing when i go to build something it sure means something when i go to try and build get a permit i have to adhere to the zoning you know it seems like the developers get a get a hall pass and there's a lot of loopholes in the system that they can skirt skirt around and i don't think it's fair to local builders that aren't developers that try to build on one lot specific lots one one house at a time or for a custom home on a customer's lot that they want to build a home on we have to go to zoning we have to abide by the zoning i i just think you're making a major mistake to start just changing the land use and it very much is not urban developed area like mr phillips said it's very much rural and that's why we chose to live here and build our lives here around the rural open openness and it's just a travesty that y'all can just 70 y'all 80 y'all or 10 y'all can make the decisions that affect all of our lives you know i'm going to be affected my neighbors are going to be affected it's it's just a travesty that they can change the land use to something they want well how about just adhere to what's there and build what you can on the zoning i'm not going to argue the zoning in place i'm up here arguing the the fact that they they can just try to change it you know i think y'all should do your jobs and vote no and make make a statement as councilmen that y'all represent the people not the developers it's not all about the developers just because there's a piece of grass that they want to build on it doesn't have to always be built on it's not fair to the community that's put their whole lives into our houses and we've paid our bills we've raised our damn families here it's not fair and it ain't right i'm getting emotional i didn't want to do that tonight but my god it it's causing all the neighbors so much heartache that they can't even sleep at night you know and we got all neighbors around us are getting in fear and wanting to leave leave leave jacksonville that's what y'all are creating is lifelong residents mr chaney your time is up all right next we have shelly chaney for work i'd like to give out i'm sorry i'm not very fancy with the you can just uh hand it right there i'm very visual and hopefully y'all take a look at them go ahead ma'am name and address your time is starting can i reset my time back to three minutes till you get your paperwork your time starts as soon as you reach the podium please i haven't even said my name please continue okay name and address shelly chaney my address is on file um this i don't know why this has got to be so angry um i feel like i'm up here defending things that i have lived for my whole life a home on an acre of land um if you look at the first page very visual we have 507 homes being built within a mile of my home 507 and we are rural we're rural residential that's what's zoned i showed you pictures of our neighborhood look at all the trees it's beautiful that's why we live there there's trees there's plenty of room between each other's homes people have gardens they do everything you know whatever but and then you look at the almost the next to the last page and it has homes on 40 foot lots because i am a nurse i don't know how to search all this stuff i reached out to my aunt who's a property appraiser we could not find any homes in jacksonville on 30 foot lots homes single family homes two-story 24 feet wide with six feet in between the two homes and their roof overhangs is almost touching yes he he came down some he did 160 159 157 158 it's still a majority of houses on 30 foot lots just as my husband said you're setting a precedence for the city of jacksonville and approving something on 30 foot lots that's going to be approved everywhere there's no parking you you're going to be blocking the sidewalks you can't walk on the sidewalks the children can't ride their bikes um it's just i mean i really wish that y'all would listen to the people that have put y'all in office here and our community and i personally emailed miss banister and i asked her for a current study traffic study and she told me the proposed development if it progresses a methodology meeting with the city traffic engineer will be required to determine the need for traffic analysis we live there every day there's more traffic than what they're saying is there and with 507 homes there i can promise you it'll be at 100 or more thank you i ask for you to please vote no please all right next we have henry baker followed by david mccure henry left oh okay does not wish to speak uh is in opposition david mccure mccure all right is here does not wish to speak is in opposition bobby o'connor do you wish to speak this is oh six don't don't wish to speak okay she opposes uh donna tanner are you here she is in opposition uh elaine wilson all right followed by laura young and tanya wells hi my name is elaine wilson my address is 6314 seaboard avenue i am opposed to the rezoning of the parcels in question um my first comments would be with regard to everybody always says it's just one more oh it's just point nine more houses it's just one more acre it's just one more lot it's just it's always one more so eventually there is no one more if the desire of jackson bowl is to have springfield in every corner from edge to edge then we're well on our way we keep rezoning in our particular neighborhood all of these parcels we don't even need to have zoning because every time we have a zone that we think okay our neighbor can build two houses now they can build 20 houses it is absolutely ridiculous um in order for this parcel to be rezoned and for us to be able to make a real decision or for you to be able to make a real decision uh traffic watershed environmental concerns school concurrency and utility services all should be studied before we say oh yeah rezone it because we're not even certain any of that is in place it to my knowledge as a citizen in the neighborhood um the rezoning expectation when you buy a parcel in residential rural which i must say i've lived in the neighborhood since 1973 i know i don't look that old i was a child when my mom moved in she still lives on her parcel um residential rural it was originally rural open rural this was farmland it turned into residential rural now we're leaning toward low density now we're petitioning for for medium density or high density even um at at some point it's just going to be springfield from one end to the other um the traffic counts and traffic talk always amuses me i'm a seaboard resident so my concern for seaboard avenue is a little stronger than my concern for morris i like the way we focus on morris avenue because that's where the corner of this parcel is at morris and seaboard morris may have very little commuter traffic because morris avenue goes from a dead end at ringhaver park to uh blanding boulevard that could take you to 295 loop but it avoids the major employers of the area which are nas which puts all that traffic up seaboard avenue and not down morris avenue they're not going to go to blanding to get to nas they're going to go down seaboard there's nothing in your 30-year plan for seaboard avenue to have an expansion to catch any of the uh watershed off of the road no improvements i currently have a pothole out the front of my property as we speak so i don't think we're in a good plan for seaboard avenue to have any increase in traffic and uh until there's some really thorough address of the concerns for impact changing zoning just because somebody petitions when we are so close as your first speaker indicated point nine then use the zoning you have all right thank you thank you next we have laura young laura young address on file i'm opposed um i've been looking at the plan that they proposed for these 77 73 i'm not even sure where that number's at today new houses and it gives me great concern that there's only one entrance to all of these new houses off of morris avenue what happens when there's one of the famous accidents that with only 19 of traffic we have all the time when cars flip go into the ditch and block the driveway and there's a medical emergency in that new little community that you're going to rezone this to put in you can't get in you can't get out a fire anything not to mention you're doubling the amount of houses going into that 9.7 acres or whatever they're buying there that means we're going to have 150 cars coming and going out of one entrance and one exit onto seaboard onto morris avenue has anybody looked at this this isn't two years ago this is today this is what's happening today not to mention the 300 houses that have already been approved to be built so we're talking about 470 something more vehicles on seaboard and morris avenue because these are all right there right there there's a major traffic issue coming amenity services there's no sewer city water might be in the street but none of these houses are connected so this is not the perfect area to be building in because all this infrastructure has been put in place it's not there it's still rule it's always been rule you guys are just keep killing it one inch at a time by rezoning unnecessarily it's low density residential the people are happy there we don't need more houses nobody's complaining about it build to the low density residential don't change the zoning i plead with you please for the sake of the community do not approve this change thank you okay thank you next we have tanya wells hey tanya wells 5694 morris avenue good evening i'm here to oppose the rezoning request because it is inconsistent with the existing land development pattern in the surrounding area raising concerns about infrastructure neighborhood stability and long-term planning current 30-foot lots are essentially non-existent for single-family homes which highlights how out of character the proposal would be compared to the surrounding homes the established development pattern consists of large lots lower density and residential character this rezoning does not align with that pattern residents rely on existing zoning when making long-term investments in their home zoning provides predictability and stability homeowners reasonably expect established land patterns to be respected allowing this rezoning change raises concerns about future destabilizing the neighborhood and creates uncertainty about our future this also is important to consider the professional judgment of the planning department planning staff have experience in urban planning and their role is to evaluate the neighborhoods and compatibility and impacts the planning department recommended approval for three other subdivisions right here in the same area but denied morris avenue this distinction is meaningful and should be carrying weight or according to the planning commission report dated november 11 24 to maquan elementary school is operating at 70 capacity since that time rezoning for three developments will add over you know three 400 homes into this school i am sure i've missed a few places and this does not include wells landing which is unfinished homes it has 25 unfinished homes that are not even complete with addition to the 77 homes proposed when considering the impact on the the school capacity is significant traffic is another major concern on february 12th i asked for a traffic study during my own observation i witnessed with my ring camera over 500 cars passed through the intersection of morrison seaboard avenue and one and a half hour time frame one of the developments is 600 feet from this intersection and we'll add another 300 cars the proposed development will add another 150 cars together these issues demonstrate that this rezoning is incompatible with the surrounding land development pattern and the the combined impacts may not be adequately adequately addressed i say i ask the commission to uphold the existing zoning given due consideration to the planning department's recommendation and we deny the rezoning request and we're only three miles from the clay county line we're not in town we're less than three miles from the clay county line all right thank you next we have chris ward after mr after mr ward we have caleb erwin laura alim alim and then jamie travis leonard and go ahead mr ward uh good evening uh chris ward with meritage homes here to support the project uh just a few comments um you know about a year ago the city of jacksonville approved some of the smaller lots uh as part of their zoning code for this very specific reason you know we've we're about this project's located not even a half mile back to blanding boulevard that has over you know roughly 40 000 trips a day it's only about 0.7 miles to a jta bus stop you know this is exactly the type of area that the entire area needs to be looked at as whenever they do the the comp plan review um you know there's roughly about 25 000 military and civilian support staff at nas jacks we sell homes all over jacksonville and we have buyers that are buying from us in a lot of different locations and they drive sometimes 45 to an hour to get to the military bases because there's not housing located in that proximity you know this project is roughly five miles from nas jacks which makes it a convenient location for them to go to work every day um i think some of the other people have talked about some of the you know the fact that townhomes you know we can go smaller to 16 feet wide you know kind of the problem with some of the townhomes with rates as they've gone up is you have the extra homeowners insurance that's that's you know these master policies that the hoa has to put on the communities which increase the fees and so it's forcing people to buy these townhomes that are not getting very much square footage you know they're getting 1300 1400 square foot one car garage versus this project's going to offer you know a good price point where they're going to have a two-car garage they're not going to be attached and they're going to be able to have their own backyard and their own single-family house so uh we have a request that uh you know you support this project and appreciate your time thank you all right thank you next we have caleb erwin oh my name is uh caleb erwin i'm at 5811 herdia road um i'm here against the uh the proposal uh 7.9 units per acre uh you know last time we were here i heard the argument that uh this is just over the current limit so uh why not let him do that well i think that argument kind of goes both ways why push for a zoning change for 0.9 units per acre why waste taxpayer money city employees and council members and the public's time for just 0.9 of an acre um you know with that just that small of a change one could argue that uh i don't know how the the rules work but one could argue that the developer is just trying to set it at this level to get it changed uh only to uh to to change their unit density uh later uh once it's approved um you know my wife and i we moved to this area 13 years ago to be close to my job i work at nas jacks as an engineer just like that that gentleman said there is housing i found it right here we love that this area was rural had a rural feel to it there's a farm at the end of the street um we have a very large lot you mentioned backyards i can't imagine what kind of backyard you're going to have with 70 almost eight houses per acre my house is on half of an acre and uh i think my my backyard is adequate uh but i can't imagine how uh how small that backyard is going to be um but my wife and i decided that we wanted to be here we love the properties we love the feel of the neighborhood we love seeing the farm and thought that it would be a great place to start our family well we now have five kids we love taking walks with them down the street go to visit the farm um go to the park at the end of morse um there's a lot of traffic on these roads and uh with us walking we're one of the things that we are always concerned about uh trying to make sure that our kids listen to us and and pay attention um and watch out and i just can't imagine how much that's going to increase the danger to uh to uh us uh as we go and and visit uh these other areas um in the area um we we love the rural feel of of this area approving this would destroy uh the rural feel of the area increase the traffic it and would open my community to further changes um and and further encouraging others to do to do the same um in that case you know for those future places what's going to be their density it seems like that would be a high cost for just nine tenths of an of a unit per acre this time thank you all right next we have leila aleem my name is leila aleem and i'm 58 59 morse avenue i would like to oppose this uh plan i have a few questions that i would like to uh challenge the developer with one of that was uh you can pull the mic closer if it's easier one of his studies about the traffic study uh stated that it was i believe he said 19 percent um for the traffic in that area i want to know if this took into consideration that blanding morse to blanding were blocked off um in this past week and um is that calculated into a study to represent that number accurately as well as um what a projected traffic study would look like for this area with this theoretically if this plan was approved in addition to those 300 houses that are already previously approved what would that look like in the future for the traffic in that area um he mentioned the buffer requirement i would like him to elaborate on that as well because it seemed kind of vague he just said that it's still within requirement but it doesn't seem fitting for other surrounding areas also i would just like to say to the councilmen and women here that we the people who are trusting you to support and advocate for us and um we just ask that you please do that not do it for the bigger companies do it do it for us little people who need you thank you thank you next we have jamie travis leonard good evening maybe good evening city council members my name is jamie travis leonard my address is on file i'm here to oppose 2606 um predominantly based on the planning department's recommendation to deny a couple quotes from that um the site is surrounded on all sides by land designated as ldr so why are we making a special exception for this site to try and be mdr interesting seems to not fit with the community um some other things i found interesting was it would go from five dwelling units per acre to 15 dwelling units per acre three times interesting choice in an area that um likes their space i also wanted to um circle back to something one of the individuals said which is there's a jta bus stop 0.7 miles at which sure and how are we going to get there folks on what sidewalks are you walking to this bus stop in this area that is not designed for this level of residential zoning um the next bus stop is 1.8 miles uh and so you know we're looking at how many people we're going to put around here you're going to increase traffic you're going to upset the neighborhood obviously because they're all out here telling you to vote no on this rezoning um and then you're going to put people at a disadvantage when it comes to getting basic necessities that area is not developed for the zone they want to change it to you need to keep it ldr you need to listen to your constituents thank you all right thank you the next uh list of speakers selected that they do not wish to speak and i'll read them now most most of them are in opposition and staley is in opposition elizabeth reyes opposes barbara black opposes darlene renfro opposes john harward jr opposes kenzie quinones opposes steve tomaszewski opposes rodelfo quinones opposes hunter cheney opposes steve wilson opposes if you wish to speak come on down i'll just continue reading the rest of the cards christina warren we'll see i'm not sure christina warren opposes does not wish to speak kyle horton opposes does not wish to speak and blair young opposes does not wish to speak luis luis vasquez opposes does not wish to speak and corbin blake opposes does not wish to speak all right sir name and address please thank you steve wilson 63 14 seaboard avenue go ahead uh i think that most of the uh comments i would make about this uh this evening have been addressed by other people i will touch upon some of those at the um and also uh with reference to the to the uh legislation discussed earlier in the evening uh there is uh i'm sure it's not lost on us there's some irony that we uh spoke for an hour about a garage facing one street or the other and now we're putting two car garage on a 30-foot lot uh at any rate uh the um the traffic that was uh the traffic study that was mentioned about uh morse uh is certainly one thing that's and and they're they're discussing that little section of road between the new uh the proposed development and blanding as though it's kind of a standalone and just a little there's uh the bigger issue for traffic at that intersection is going to be on seaboard um and and as i think other people have said uh it's often used as an alternative to blanding and there's a lot of traffic that's each of the stop uh the four-way stops along that road are like a drag strip to a lot of people when they come further up to the end of seaboard that i live on um the uh increase of the zoning i think it has been said also that you know if if if we're only at uh point point nine over that the same argument goes the other way well why not just stay at the seven it means uh about 10 less houses they're going to be able to put on there uh but it's certainly uh if if ldl has has been approved and appropriate why would we not stay at that and and uh concur with the planning department's decision on that thank you all right thank you and sir did you wish did we call your name excuse me you mentioned my name okay a minute ago that i was opposed but that i did not wish to speak well that's incorrect my name is steve tavaszewski that's that's an error okay do you wish to speak pardon me do you wish to speak do you want to have your three minutes yes i do wish to speak okay yeah i do have your card right here and it says you oppose and then you check the box that you do not wish to speak okay well so if it's it's okay i'll just if you want to speak go ahead my name is steve tavaszewski right now i'm having a problem my hearing my hearing aids were lost i'm in between getting them so my hearing is really poor right now so i'm doing the best i can here relying on your closed captioning um i live at 59 22 ovella road which is a block southwest of this development um we moved to this neighborhood in 1962 because my father was tired of living in subdivisions and he wanted to live in an environment or rural environment so we moved out there a property with a house on it on adjacent vacant lot um i'm opposed to both of these these uh these bills here 2026 0006 and 0007 um i'm here basically to speak on uh 0007 about changing the uh the code from rr to pud um to to me after the town hall meeting where we were given photos of what this development would look like the development proposed is diametrically opposed um of any of the existing homes in the area there it's it's completely incompatible with what's existing in the neighborhood um i don't think the need for more portable housing or the people at nas jacks that are close by i don't think that is i think all that's irrelevant to what we're talking about here completely irrelevant it's got to do with the people living there um many of the homeowners in this area if not most of them are second and third generation and i just i suspect maybe john wells is fourth generation so we're really deeply rooted in this neighborhood um the if this commission uh approves the zoning change it will set a negative precedent for the area that will impact the residents here henceforth in in the future um there's a lot of undeveloped property on morris avenue on the on the north side of morris avenue going east that are large tracts of land that undoubtedly will be developed someday uh if this zoning is improved this zoning change improved then it'll set a a tremendously terrible precedent for the neighborhood because the next time it comes up that another developer wants all right thank you sir that's it yes sir that's it finish no sir three minutes is there anyone else uh wish to speak that their name was called all right thank you sir mr phillips i'm done yes sir yes sir on zero zero zero six that was your time and this is going to be mr phillips uh rebuttal time three minutes go ahead thank you hayden phillips 1301 river place boulevard um it was suggested that we should decrease the unit count even more i promise you we have looked at this over and over again and and we've done what you can what we can um hopefully the site specific policy with the land use amendment will resolve some of those concerns um it was mentioned that developments like this need to be located at major intersections i would like to cite um policy 3.1.12 of the future land use element which states the city shall require higher density residential development to locate on or near arterial or collector roads in order to ensure the efficient use of land public facilities and services and transportation corridors this is 0.2 miles from blanding boulevard which is an intersection of a principal arterial and morse is a collector road west of blanding um to the sentiment that we should develop under the current land use and zoning i mean imagine what the zoning map looks like 63 years ago when one gentleman said he moved to this area avondale was probably rr acre at that point this is how this is the natural progression of how a city grows um i believe it was referenced that 507 homes are being built nearby that's not a sign that things are changing i'm not sure what is um 0.2 miles from here you have ccg2 zoning and the urban development area some of the things that you could build by right today less than a thousand feet from this property are distribution and manufacturing uses amphitheaters stadiums arenas convention centers any type of commercial or office use schools hospitals hotels all with a height of 60 feet or those sites could be down zoned for multi-family at 40 units per acre also 60 feet i believe it was stated that there are no 30 foot single-family homes in jacksonville this body approved some just last meeting it was suggested that schools utilities and infrastructure should be studied first they all have it's in the staff report and we're okay on all fronts traffic i understand the concerns we have to utilize the numbers given and we've already addressed that we will not be able to come in with a new rezoning later because that's what the site-specific policy does it caps the density under the land use um someone said that they they cited the staff report which which pointed out that there is ldr on all sides um i have looked all over the city and there are there is mdr with ldr abutting on all sides all over the city this is not unprecedented i'll stand by for questions thank you all right thank you sir all right we have no other speaker cards so we're going to go ahead and close the public hearing bring it back to committee all right we have a motion do we have a second my motion and second on the bill let's open it up for discussion and questions and we'll go to council member diamond first and just to confirm council member johnson this is actually in your district okay what's that you want to go at the end i was going to defer to you are you sure okay um all right i hate going first and i don't see anybody else in the queue correct i'll just give my thoughts um i i mean i told everybody i thought last time but i always feel like it's important to explain so that uh folks who came gave their evening and care about their neighborhood at least understand why i voted the way i did so i i this is about as close as i've ever seen one of these and i don't know if it's going to pass tonight i have to be candid with you um i wouldn't call it a coin flip but it for me it was very close and so whenever i'm looking at these things there's two things i look at listen to what the neighborhood say says and then look to see what's in the neighborhood right now um and the question on this neighborhood is really how far away are you willing to look because there's over 200 houses that were just plopped in down over on sand perch street and south of that there's another uh 250 houses and then if you go north there's a trailer park and some other folks uh in kind of more densely packed there and then there's landing and uh so i know you all don't spend your time doing this but we spend a lot of our time doing this i always spend my sundays looking at each zoning and this one one i went to go see solsbacher and gave a speech on friday so i did drive the neighborhood didn't get a chance to talk to anybody i was hoping somebody would be out there that i could chat with but um on this one the reason why i'm going to vote yes today is because of what's nearby that's already coming into the neighborhood that's one and two the other issue is um there's going to be like a hundred people who live there eventually and i said this last time but there's this natural tension between existing neighborhoods and families that need a place to live that's affordable and in jacksonville the cost of housing just keeps going up and so in order to make sure that new families and other families can actually buy a house which is good for our community we've got to allow more housing in certain places and this is close for me but i'll vote yes because i because i'm worried about people being able to afford a house and it's so close to landing and because of what you can get right down the street i get you don't want to hear that for me i just want to be candid and direct why i'm going to vote yes again i don't know if that's going to pass tonight though all right we have no other speakers in the queue but i do think we need to hear some additional dialogue but i guess councilmember johnson if you want to kind of go ahead and kick it off maybe we can kind of piggyback on what your thoughts are yes sir i do have some things here mr chair thank you for allowing me to speak let me i want to do a little decorum first if that's okay sure i know i don't have a lot of time i just got to underscore this with my community this is i represent the people that are here i represent you so through the chair i want to say this this process that we're in it is so important that we do it with decorum i understand that this is hard because we're neighbors this is our community we don't want people moving things around but that's why we have this system of government there's no need to to come in with vitriol let's try to work together with data and documentation because that will win we cannot come and attack the council the developers let's just try to we can find a way to do it because i do believe that the information is there we just must do it with some decorum i have to say what i'm i'm going to say a few things first the traffic argument that i heard um the number is 422 before this development would come the number of units seems to be 422 that would be the number of houses that are already approved and that would be slated to be in this area even with that um i don't think that's the argument that we need to be looking at because with that from my understanding and talking to the traffic team and doing my own independent conversation riding by the area many times walking the area knowing the area that capacity whether it's believed or not talking to several traffic traffic experts the capacity would only put that road at about 35 percent um so i think that is not the argument where we need to look the other thing is i heard someone say as well uh this has nothing to do with affordable houses and nobody's asking for housing that's just not true uh the comprehensive plan says and we that's why we got to come with real data real research and real numbers the comprehensive plan says that we need 92 000 homes by 2045. we are behind where we need to be on putting houses in this city maybe not in this specific area but we are whether you want to believe it or not it's in black and white so i urge you to read the comprehensive plan before just making up these things last but not least the problem here is not the density it's not the school districts it's not the traffic the problem is the land use that is where the issue lies the reason that i'm going to be voting no tonight based on what i see here um i do not think i'm going to to go with the uh the recommendation of the planning department and others is because uh for us to go for that 0.9 acres it shows excuse me 0.9 units it shows again the the brokenness of the code with using this we end up finding ways that are going to tip scales in ways that i think will be will cause us consternation in the future i believe right now as as i have stated before there should be a middle category whether instead of having ldr and then mdr with this huge jump to the next category there should be an lmdr now that's coming up i look forward to working with the community and the developer as we create a new land use category for the comprehensive plan i hope they can bring it back but i don't see this as being something that i can support right now in its current effort because i believe the land use is where the issue is i think if we look at the data pull it all down go back through each of those points that we put in and there were some very good points argued but we must look at the fact that the city has to move forward the city must have housing for people there are people who are clamoring and need it um someone said earlier about nas jacks i've met with the the leadership at nas jacks um which is in my district i've talked to people there there are people who live as far away as saint mary's and other places in georgia because they feel they can't find housing here people who are serving in our military who feel they must live outside of the area to work at nas jacks and i think that's unacceptable however this in this case this is not right because of the land use and i do believe once we fix that the possibilities as was said earlier by councilman diamond um the possibilities are endless we've got to have places for people to live you might not want to hear but it's not the same jacksonville it was when the city was consolidated in 1968 we have to move forward but we must do it logically and intelligently and this with this 0.9 use of for land use is just not logical in my opinion i'll be voting no tonight thank you all right thank you councilmember johnson um mr harvey wasn't there was the site specific um recommendation or i guess it's not technically a recommendation from planning commission can you talk us talk through that with us sure so the uh planning department has stated if you guys were to accept this uh amendment from ldr to mdr that they would be requesting a site specific policy that would cap the applicant to the number of units that's that was um proposed and so that specific language would go in as an exhibit three to this and you would have to vote to make that um amendment just for to have it as a site specific policy and cap them at that at that number okay does someone need to make that amendment right now if you're moving to a corrective you're going to move to accept or approve this um amendment if the body so wishes or desires to do that we have councilmember diamond making that amendment and do we have a second all right we have a second so is there any do we need to have any exhibit you said on that or do we already have that there is some specific language um the applicant can come up um and provide that specific language i have a draft version of that but i'm sure he would like you guys to hear what uh what the staff and him agreed to yeah yes if i may um i believe i have the same draft that that mr harvey has in front of him um it would be policy 4.4.46 pursuant to the authority granted by section 163.3187 subsection 1 subsection b florida statutes ordinance 2026-006 for a small-scale amendment is approved subject to the following site specific condition residential development permitted pursuant to ordinance 2026-0006 shall be limited to a maximum density of 7.9 dwelling units per acre or a total of 77 dwelling units chair if i may yep um so seven we round down because you can't take like point whatever of a unit so that 7.9 is not going to get you the 77 units you would need to put it at eight just so you know that is fine with the applicant okay so that is basically the written description for the amendment that was just moved and seconded is that correct mr harvey the language that would be used for them it correct got it okay all in favor of the amendment signify by saying aye aye any opposed all right the amendment carries all right we have motion and a second on the bill as amended all right so we have no speakers in the queue but before we vote i will um i will just kind of concur with council member uh johnson and and say we've been talking about this you know lmdr i like i like the acronym there uh it kind of sticks i do agree with um with your diagnosis or whatever of of that gap in the code and it's it's a huge gap it's a huge gap um so for me the only the only stop gap so to speak is to do this type of amendment to to prevent it um i don't know if it's going to pass here tonight i don't know if it's going to pass at council but if it does at least now we have this stop gap on here for the extra one unit per acre on top of the ldr so that gets me as comfortable as possible with this the traffic i agree that was sort of a uh sticker shock to everybody last week that kind of got sorted out that's i guess you know not really an issue anymore um so for the land use category we have an amendment that now limits it to eight units per acre it's been moved and seconded so if there's any other discussion get in the queue if not we will open the ballot record your vote four yeas three nays all right by your action you have approved twenty twenty six zero zero six as amended next item we have twenty twenty six zero zero zero seven council members please declare any ex parte communication you have at this time council member johnson i have additional ex parte uh i went to the audience to speak with samantha series and about this uh a few moments ago about 30 minutes ago it's been uh filed with legislative services thank you all right council member diamond you're recognized i think mr chair rise to declare ex parte i spoke with the applicant last week and i will file that with legislative services i also drove the neighborhood on friday and um i didn't uh get to speak to anybody but i always follow that all right council member areas you're recognized i think mr chair i also like to declare ex parte i spoke to the applicant about a week or two ago and it's currently being filed thank you all right we have no other ex parte to declare so let's open the public hearing and get our staff report thank you this is the companion pud rezoning ordinance 2026 dash zero zero zero seven seeking to rezone approximately 9.7 acres from rr acre to a pud in order to develop the property with a single family residential subdivision at the last luz public hearing the applicant did did submit a revised written description dated april 1st and a revised site plan dated april 3rd which reduced the uh unit count down to 77 lots these minimum lot sizes for the parcels will be 30 feet in width with lot areas uh increasing or decreasing depending upon the interior lots or the exterior lots the subject property is located at the corner of morris avenue and seaboard and is approximately a quarter mile east of blanding boulevard as mentioned with the land use amendment staff has reviewed the request and does not find it to be consistent with the comprehensive plan while the requested rezoning to pud with the proposed use in density count would be permitted within the land use category medium density residential when we evaluated it against the criteria using the combined goals objectives and policies we did not find that the requested rezoning to be overall consistent with the plan we find the proposed pud and pud rezoning deviates from the established development pattern of the area when looking at the surrounding neighborhood development is primarily lots ranging from 10 000 square feet to over two and a half acres in size majority of those parcels being zoned are our acre while there have been several rezonings to either rld 40 and rld 50 nearby these developments were still within the low density residential category and did not exceed the maximum seven units per acre these developments when calculating the number of units proposed were actually closer to a five unit per acre density the proposed pud is seeking a companion land use amendment which with the site specific policy would limit it to eight units per acre um and with the proposed uh 77 units again that that is closer to 7.9 to 8 units per acre so because of these reasons and those listed in the staff report we are forwarding a recommendation of denial the application was heard by planning commission on february 5th where there were several residents that spoke in opposition citing concerns for school capacity traffic and environmental impacts again the commission um thought the proposed development was acceptable but wanted to limit that density range so they proposed the site specific policy be um considered by the luz committee and they ultimately voted unanimously for approval forwarding that recommendation to the luz committee thank you got it thank you ms abney our first speaker is the super dynamic hayden phillips uh hayden phillips 1301 river place boulevard um in in the staff report um it stated that this would detract from the lifestyle choices of nearby residents and the character of the area um we are proposing single family within a single family neighborhood and and the nearby residents live in an urbanizing area of the largest city in the current country change is occurring as we speak um now that the land use amendment has been approved this is in fact consistent with the comp plan um i touched on on the the changes we've made to the pud earlier i would be very happy to expand on that i would also be happy to expand on all of the similar density or higher density developments within close proximity to this location um but all in all you know this this use this development would allow the operation of real estate markets as they exist today um to to to to be successful and provide a diverse array of of housing types and choices to our residents so we've already taken up enough of your time tonight i will stand by for any questions that you may have thank you ken atley ken atley 58 51 timacuana road unit 301 i don't have anything else to add other than please look at the site plan note that we met with the community many many times and we agreed to reduce density from 89 units to 77 i'd also ask you to please look at the site plan and note the green area along moores avenue it's a very large park open space treed area to buffer as was requested by the community and we buffered the west side as well the north side buffers up against a church and they we met with the church uh pastor and his son who is co-pastor and they have no opposition i'd be happy to answer any questions thank you thank you sir next is elizabeth reyes is reyes are you still here okay uh folks huxford familiar face thank you mr chairman uh folks huxford address on file i just want to add to the record that the affidavit i read that i referenced in my last presentation also included an analysis of the zoning where i did find it consistent uh that's been furthered now with the approval of the land use amendment and so i stand by for questions thank you next is samantha series the series address on file i oppose this pud um there are three separate properties that are adding many many units and you know one is 119 units that's at 17.08 acres that's 5.3 units per acre and that's 500 feet from this place um there's one that's 85 units at 22.91 acres and that's 2 400 feet from this development and then there's one at 218 units which is five units per acre which is on 43.41 acres and that is a thousand 250 feet from this location so just so you know like that's pretty close there's a lot coming on and those are all ld 40 r rld 40 and rld 50. i don't think a pud is appropriate but if you guys do plan on doing a pud you know i will hope that there's contingencies that make the neighborhood more comfortable with this pud because it is kind of in the middle of all of this um and you know the developers did come down from 89 units to 77 we wish they would come down a little further but you know it is what it is um at this point they said that they've been increasing the lot sizes 18 percent of those lots that are in that area are increased from 40 to 60 foot lots and 82 percent are still those 30 foot lots so yes they did increase but not by much um according to the planning department the analysis and the area around them is you know ranges from 10 000 square feet to over two acres in size i think that's important to note i do know that there are those other developments that are coming in at rld 40 rld 50 neither of those are all rld 30 um and i understand that's why they want this pud is so they can squeeze in those 30s um i just think that if you are going to approve the pud please make sure there's contingencies to make sure that this area is okay at least accepting this pud um unfortunately it does appear that we're going to probably get this approved but again i want you to think about the neighborhood it's not a pud area it's not an urban area it's a what we would consider residential rural which is i believe what it's actually zoned as right now so a pud is not appropriate but if you are going to put it in might as well do the neighbors at least some help with that i think it's important to note that the bus stop i thought that was really funny 0.7 miles from this development have any of you walked 0.7 miles in the florida heat to a bus stop i don't think so and there's also no sidewalks together from this development so and oh about the affordable housing these are going to be 300 to 350 000 i don't know what affordable housing they're talking about but it's not that thank you lawrence cheney lawrence cheney address is on file well y'all disappointed me on the last uh vote you really let us down but can't can't go back you know like we said in the first uh we're fourth generation third generation families over here you know we've spent our whole life here i grew up there learned how to ride a bike in that neighborhood 56 years old you know we're there for life you know i've for the first time in my life i've heard residents saying they want to leave jacksonville you know you care more about newbies i call them newbies i mean or new people coming to jacksonville you need them we got to have them the comprehension plan says that but at the risk of losing your lifetime residence i'm as florida and jacksonville as you can get i was born here i was born and raised in jacksonville ain't never left you know to replace me for somebody that might stay for two years and then up and sell the house and move somewhere else we're here for life you know we were born and raised in jacksonville we love jacksonville but we don't like what y'all are doing to jacksonville it's just not fair to to let these developers bully y'all into just making decisions you know he's saying it's such a major need for this area in the last year on the corner of morris and blanding 500 feet from his proposed a family dollar closed how does a family dollar close it's it's not as great an area as he's saying the need all this extra housing and transit moving to walk into the bus stop and a bank on the opposite corner of the family dollar in the last year open build a bank closed you know a car lot across the street on the opposite side of morris avenue used car lots are closing you know i just rode by blandon and 103rd our wendy's just closed it's not such a booming area that he's trying to make y'all think that needs all these houses because it's such a urban urban it ain't urban we're on the outskirts of jacksonville and we're on the outskirts for a reason because of the residential rule that their current zoning is to give them 30-foot lots is a travesty that's all i got to say thank you sir shelley cheney shelley cheney address is on file i'm pretty devastated by your vote previously um i just want to reiterate that the 30-foot lots are quite ridiculous they do not conform to our neighborhood at all again 24 feet wide six feet between each house um the roofs overhangs are almost touching um that's fine people can buy that and live there all they want i don't want to live there i don't want to look at it i think it's you know everybody's talking about change there's nothing wrong with change have no problem with that there's change all over jacksonville that's fine there's plenty of other lots that are even bigger than this that are available even on timquana there's there's so much other land that they could go to we had no say in the 119 houses that are going on seaboard my husband tried to come and we know i tried to i talked to so many people my family everybody they told me i'm wasting my time um and i did i've wasted my time i've spent i didn't even i was supposed to work today and i spent my time putting all of this together i'm not getting paid to come down here every time all of my family and my friends told me i'm wasting my time and it's sad i've i've been here 56 years myself well 55 and i've never come to a city council meeting now i know why because my word doesn't matter my voice doesn't matter we have ridden around on the golf cart all through our neighborhood the last three or four weeks handing out flyers that we all paid for to put out we don't have the money mr atley has i'm sorry if i did i would buy all the property and leave it just like it is we have deer in our neighborhood they're gone this 119 houses that meritage is also building it's called greed and mr johnson can get upset i'm not mad i'm just speaking the truth i'm facts but i'm not supposed to come here and be emotional i don't understand it everybody was right and i was wrong and it's sad it's really sad that the money won tonight thank you thank you ma'am david mcclure david mcclure 57 50 morse avenue right across from this wonderful development uh i don't understand what the big deal is about keeping it low density seven houses on one acre is a huge amount of houses on one acre nine-tenths of a house one more house make it eight houses is ridiculous we don't have any kind of guarantees that after all this goes through that they won't refile this six months or a year from now and go back to their original 20 units per acre this is like they're saying this is our lives this is the rest of our lives we all plan on staying here no matter what at least i do and this is ridiculous what is the difference between nine tenths of a house and seven eight seven houses on one acre i just don't understand why how how important that is i get it for the developer because it's more cash in his pocket but keeping it low density is what you guys are all about following the rules not changing the rules following the rules that's why we all move there it's a beautiful area everybody doesn't seem to understand that this is our lives we all live there we love it we want to want it to stay as it is but we're all willing to understand that seven houses per acre is is a possible you know it's growth but it's ridiculous to change it to medium density and i vote or oppose it and all i mean all there's not one neighbor in our neighborhood that is for it so please vote no thank you thank you sir bobby o'connor my name is bobby o'connor my address is on file thank you for allowing me to speak tonight i come with an interest in this ordinance and ask that you continue to give this development application your best attention the planning department has told you that this request is inconsistent with the goals and objectives of the comprehensive plan specifically goal three and a number of its objectives it's inconsistent with the vision plan for the few of the flu policy as it would significantly increase the maximum allowable density it's inconsistent with the strategic regional policy plan it would provide more housing units but at the expense of the lifestyle choice created by the existing seemingly single family neighborhood and it detracts from the character of the neighborhood that's all in their report please listen with your good minds to what these good people in the planning department are telling you their degrees include masters and urban planning masters in public education environmental historic and transportation degrees to name a few listen to them and look at the number of years of experience in planning that these people have urban planning development a lot of planning experience they know what they are doing and listen with your hearts to these good people who have come from this neighborhood week after week after week and spoken to you with their hearts about what impact this is going to have on them and the neighborhood they love and the homes they love please listen and i don't i've tried really hard to understand the learning curve is pretty steep for understanding some of the the differences that comes up here but i tell you i don't understand how y'all could accept that there was a traffic study the man came and spoke for just a few moments and i'm not really sure what he said but it didn't seem very extensive to me what is a traffic study please have a comprehensive traffic study before you consider making changes that will affect not just this neighborhood but all neighborhoods thank you and please listen with your minds and your hearts and vote no on this proposal thank you all all right nice we have john moy john moy with uh points and moy 37 38 south side boulevard i spoke earlier about traffic and um don't really have anything further to add okay uh next we have donna tanner are you here all right uh she is in opposition steve tomaszewski can someone let steve know there we go all right you know there's there's a lot of passionate people here tonight state your name and address sir pardon me name and address my name is steve tomaszewski i live at uh ovella road which is one block southwest of this proposed development thank you there's a lot of passionate people here tonight that i'd love their neighborhood moved into it because it was rural there there's there is a lot of undeveloped land in our area and we all knew at some point development was going to start occurring that that but sensible development is what's needed here not not cramming a whole bunch of narrow homes that look like shotgun houses if anybody here knows what those are in in our neighborhood i this this approving this will set a dangerous and a a bad precedent for our neighborhood that every developer from now on that is going to build houses or anything on any of that undeveloped land they're going to go back to this president and say well they got they got 30-foot lot lines we want it too and most likely you guys will just rubber stamp it because it's already been done and it will drastically increase the tax base right now it's a big issue the next time it comes up you guys i believe will just rubber stamp it and go with the developers and i i i just you know my family has lived in that neighborhood for for over almost 60 years and like i said we always knew this was going to happen but we don't all thought it would be sensible development instead of something ridiculous like this um speaking only for myself not for anybody else here i wouldn't have a problem with normal looking homes going in on that nine acres like the homes that are built at wells landing not far from us instead of instead of these structures that are building they're they're hideous and they'll do nothing there'll be no landscaping there'll be nothing nice about it that'll make the enhance the neighborhood but you know you know well 60-foot lot lines with normal types of houses in there would in some ways enhance our neighborhood and i believe most of us would would agree with that but what you guys are approving here all right is ridiculous okay thank you sir all right next we have elaine wilson elaine wilson 6314 seaboard avenue trying to recap a little bit of the frustration of my neighbors this properties there's three involved 5807 morris avenue is 1.15 acres it's zoned residential rural according to the property appraisers at this moment that should be two houses on it as a neighbor that's what we expected two houses at 5735 morris avenue 5.85 would have been 11 houses and lastly at 67 750 seaboard avenue 2.77 acres would have been allowed five houses for a total of 18 houses as a neighborhood we expected 18 houses to go on these three parcels somehow we've all mashed them into one big parcel and decided 77 that's a good number let's do that it seems like a really strange negotiation in my mind and i think our neighborhood is really suffering by the impact of taking a big broad picture yes jacksonville is growing it's inevitable can we replace some blighted areas can we take some land that's already been abandoned do we have to take regional farmlands or rural areas areas that you've already looked at and zoned for residential rural why are we changing everything now we're going to pud with it it it is so frustrating as a resident of the area i grew up in the neighborhood i bought two parcels down from my parents where they currently reside thinking i was going to build a home so i could take care of my parents as they aged we've waited and waited because the neighborhood is turning to a neighborhood i'm not sure we would want to build in so instead of having residents loyal to the area willing to invest really making it the neighborhood that it's continued to be we all know growth is going to happen but when i move in i know my neighbor next door can build two houses not 77. thank you for your time all right thank you steve wilson and then after mr wilson it will be laura young christina warren and tanya wells if you'd like you can come down to the front my name is steve wilson 63 14 seaboard avenue uh i'm going to echo i think what probably most everybody in here is feeling why have we bothered uh you have a planning committee that has said no i mean this is this is part of your organization that says this is not appropriate uh and and frankly all we're talking about now is about 10 houses whether it's in low density or this in between with a with a with a stop gap they can't go any higher uh we're talking 10 houses i've only just now uh shame on me for not looking at the map sooner 85 houses have been now uh approved up on 118th street in between which is what i think somebody had he's given the distances how far away it is but uh they're practically adjacent in between that 85 and this development you've now approved 119 when you look at it on an 11 by 17 map and it's colored in it's virtually the whole middle of the of the thing now where uh apparently uh seven units per acre is already allowed for this 9.7 acre parcel can we just draw it there we're talking 10 houses now we get 85 119 and somehow nas jacks and other parts of uh other businesses and uses in the area need these extra 10 houses over the 85 119 and the 68 that would be on there at seven per acre your planning department said this does not agree the the pud and the plan they don't go together um please consider that uh we're talking 10 houses now thank you okay next we have laura young does not wish to speak is in opposition christina warren does all right christina warren is in opposition does not wish to speak tanya wells tanya wells 56 94 morse avenue so when you google how to stop a development it says neighborhood character and density and consistency with existing land development patterns surrounding we prove that we have to come in here and prove facts the developer has to prove nothing other than yes there are homes needed i agree 18 homes let's do it no arguments let's get it done as far as being able to put distribution centers and all of that in our neighborhood yeah we're right off landing boulevard you can't put it in our neighborhood so we i think we're getting lost in jacksonville we're getting lost we i i agree navy navy personnel need houses i agree they should be closer but if you google zillow all of the other avenues for homes there's multiple homes listed for sale in jacksonville in our area at least two 250 homes listed for sale in the three two two four four area code so we can't use that as an excuse to allow 77 homes on 30 foot lots in our neighborhood all right next we have excuse me uh jamie travis leonard followed by chris ward caleb irwin and layla alim good evening city council members my name is jamie travis leonard my address is on file i oppose 2607 uh once again your planning department has recommended to deny this rezoning uh some quotes from the information provided by them staff is recommending denial for the rezoning do the proposed development can constituting a spot zoning and deviating from the established development pattern of the area is the proposed zoning district consistent with the 2045 comprehensive plan no does the proposed rezoning further the goals objectives and policies of the 2045 comprehensive plan no the proposed rezoning from rr acre to pud would disrupt the land use fabric created by the established single family neighborhood and detract from the character of the area i agree with that vivarium mock-up they provided so y'all wanted some numbers and data i heard that repeated a few times average house price that has been you know put around for this would be 300k to 350k i'll go on the low end i'll give them some grace maybe and i find it laughable that you all consider that affordable i've been up here before talking about affordability in this city i've done my research so average median excuse me median income you all seem to forget how scales work 67k so it's 550 roughly a month the uh average house payment right now for 300k home 200 200 200 40 40 people are paying for these homes of their income who's buying these houses who has that money please please tell me how this is affordable and you're over here having a developer complain that they can't make their money back girl we can't afford homes you have residents out here telling you that not only does this disrupt the fabric of their lives it doesn't match what they want their neighborhood to be they're not opposed to new people coming in that was also suggested but they want people to come in and match the vibe of the neighborhood as any of us do now i know you're like hey you're usually here talking about the north side and i am because i live on the north side but i also lived off collins road for three years i'm very familiar with the area okay they are a very close-knit community they're not opposed to new people coming as long as it matches the fabric of the existing community which you all seem to not care about i find that disappointing thank you all right next speaker chris ward all right chris ward is in support does not wish to speak caleb erwin caleb erwin uh 5811 hurdy road um i have to say i'm pretty disappointed in the decision earlier um i asked you guys you know reconsider uh you know we've heard from the community tonight um 10 homes 10 extra homes i i just can't even imagine trying to fit you know i said earlier that my my house is on half of an acre i can't imagine trying to fit four homes in the area that my home takes up i can't imagine how that's good for uh raising a family raising kids uh kind of folks that we want to bring in uh property size is just way too small way too dense and compact for the area it doesn't match i'm gonna ask that you guys reconsider next speaker leila aleem leila aleem address is on file i'm hungry and tired so we're going to go fast i want to make some points um with research the median income of duclay area is around 55 to 60k household this is a lower and middle income household and the property tax is increasing from a pud for things like hoa does not fit the the demographics of this area these people can't afford this these people don't want this way of living if they did they'd live in ponte vedro with you guys it's not realistic not everybody wants their neighborhoods to look like disneyland it's upsetting and i don't know if you guys have been listening to these people talk like i have but i've heard nothing but devastation and just complete defeat from them it's sad it's sad that you guys make a decision to further divide the community and the problems that we already have and you don't care you don't care that people don't trust or respect you you don't care because at the end of the day you can't see it from your front door right this does nothing but displace existing homeowners with an unaffordable and unethical housing developments the rezoning from agriculture low density to high density density raises market value again it's not realistic all it does is benefit the city and the residents pay their price how many times does someone get to rezone until it no longer is the people's it's your guys's we're not opposed to growth for growth must be responsible compatible and equitable from a planning standpoint zoning decisions should ensure compatibility and protect the integrity of established communities this proposal does neither of those things i don't know if you guys are familiar with gentrification but that's exactly what this is and that doesn't have a great positive connotation with that word this is happening all over jacksonville i'm here to represent this community because this is a community that i grew up in i've lived in apartments living that close to somebody i don't know about you guys but i don't like talking to my neighbors when i live right on top of them this community has such a whole holistic approach because they have the space to live their lifestyle freely and appreciate one another and have respectful respectful boundaries to do so changing the housing development to fit like new york city or something else creates a culture that this community is not wanting they don't have that culture why are you going to implement something that just doesn't fit at all you wouldn't like it if somebody came to your place into that so why would you do it to them you're making decisions based off an area that you don't even reside in you don't live in these people's shoes and i feel like you aren't taking a compassionate approach to put yourself in that position through your decision making it's very obvious so i ask you to take a step back and put yourself in their viewpoint and walk in their shoes and what their life may be like you may not be from the same area or the same upbringing so have a compassionate approach to these people they're spending their hard-earned time exhausting all resources all right thank you ma'am i oppose all right the following speakers do not wish to speak and if you change your mind and you do wish to speak please just come down to the podium and staley is in opposition mar mario reynolds mary joe reynolds i'm sorry mary joe reynolds is in opposition does not wish to speak barbara black opposes darlene renfro opposes john harward jr opposes kenzie quinones opposes podolfo quinones opposes hunter cheney opposes corbin blake opposes kyle horton opposes blair young oppose and luis vesquez opposes all right mr phillips you can come on down for a rebuttal hayden phillips 1301 river place boulevard thank you um to avoid sounding like a broken record i'll try and make this concise um of course the city needs the housing comp plan gives you reasons and we've put others on the record um it was suggested that a pud is not appropriate it's actually necessary it's the only way to get 30 foot wide lots um we will comply with all sidewalk requirements i believe that was an issue pointed out and of course we had to prove more than simply the need for housing um and a lot of that evidence was put on the record two weeks ago but for purposes of compatibility there are a ton of higher density developments in close proximity 40 foot lots 500 feet to the north townhomes 0.2 miles away condos apartments 0.2 miles away 50s and a mobile home community that's an mdr will have higher density than this but just backing up for a second briefly we held a community meeting at the very beginning of this process and and no one showed up and so we heard all of these concerns after we were far into this process and we honestly did everything we could to help these people out so um if we want to keep actual rural areas um intact on the edges of town then then we must take advantages of opportunities like this that are in infill sites in the city i'm happy to answer any questions you may have thank you all right we have no other speaker cards so we are going to go ahead and close the public hearing and bring it back to committee all right we have a motion and second on the bill is there an amendment go ahead mr harvey can you please explain the amendment that needs to be offered yes there's two uh amendments one to the revised written description uh dated april 1st that will accommodate the site specific um policy uh that incorporates eight units per acre um and then uh the second one is a revised site plan all right so does someone need to offer okay so we have council member diamond offering that amendment do we have a second all right we have a motion and second on the amendment explained by mr harvey all in favor of the amendment signify by saying aye aye any opposed the amendment carries now we need to move the bill as amended all right we have a motion and a second on the bill as amended any discussion councilman johnson do you want to speak or did you already give we have no one in the queue so if you'd like to share go ahead i kind of just want to reiterate the comments i made earlier as well um and something else i want to say again while i certainly respect the community i want to put this on record mr chair this procedure when we are dealing with zoning specifically this is a quasi-judicial method we got to deal with competent substantial evidence and not just feelings of the neighborhood that is so important however the evidence has not been presented um in this case from what i see to warrant us moving forward with this and it goes back to the land use thing so i wanted to put that on the record thank you mr chair all right thank you council member johnson all right with that we have no other speakers in the queue let's open the ballot record your vote four yeas three nays by your action you've approved 2026 0007 all right officers let's make sure that this gentleman makes it out safely sir you're out of order all right officer let's go ahead and remove this gentleman that'd be great thank you we're just going to wait until everyone's cleared the chamber that is upset all right item number five 2026 122 open the public hearing no speaker cars will continue this public hearing until five five 26 we do have one on 122 no does not wish to speak i apologize open the public hearing we have one speaker card samantha series is in opposition does not wish to speak and we have jamie travis leonard opposition does not wish to speak we're going to continue this public hearing until five five 26 item number six 2026 123 open the public hearing two speaker cards first speaker card samantha series opposition does not wish to speak next speaker card jamie travis leonard opposition come on down good evening city council my name is jamie travis leonard my address is on file i realize this is continued so i will be brief i have concerns um about this i agree with the north district cpac assessment to uh oppose the rezoning um i talked about this at city council last time and i haven't seen any updates so if there's something in the works to get us to uh 60 foot lots i would be much more open to the development of this but until that time i'm going to remain opposed so um the reasons for the proposal is the location predominantly this is a rural area okay um so please stop trying to cram people into our rural area all right i believe this plan does align with some affordability in that area and i appreciate that i do want to say i'm not opposed to developing this mobile home park i'm opposed to the size of the lots because just because we're trying to get affordable housing doesn't mean we need to cram a whole bunch of people in there like sardines give people respectable spacious homes okay right because the more people you add how are they getting do you know the closest grocery store to this location 3.5 miles okay do you know where the closest gas station is where the closest school this is a very rural area give people their space so i hope to see some new information coming out where the lot sizes are being reevaluated and increased to match a better environment for the community thank you all right this public hearing will continue continued until 5 5 26 item number seven 20 26 124 open the public hearing no speaker cards will continue this public hearing until 5 19 26 item number eight 20 26 125 open the public hearing no speaker cards will continue this public hearing until 5 19 26 item number nine 20 26 126 let's open the public hearing one speaker two speaker cards samantha series opposes does not wish to speak jamie travis leonard opposes does not wish to speak we're going to go ahead and continue this public hearing until 5 5 26 item number 10 20 26 127 open the public hearing two speaker cards samantha series opposite opposes and jamie travis leonard opposes go ahead three minutes thank you sorry i don't want to step up till my name is jamie travis leonard my address is on file i know my rep is tired of seeing my face up here tonight but um i oppose this um the north district cpac also put in an objection to this uh because it is not conducive to the residential neighborhood it is not compatible with surrounding neighborhood i don't know why we're trying to add another auto sales facility in this area there's already three within a one mile radius two of which neighbor this lot okay there's also three mechanics two u-haul dealerships uh and the proposal for this auto sale is for auto sales occurring online primarily to overseas buyers including insurance claim vehicles which may be in disrepair or deemed total so a junkyard you're talking about an auto junkyard is what you're trying to put around here okay i've come up here i've talked about affordability i've talked about accessibility in my area this is not affordable what a grocery store there we i just mentioned the distance people have to drive to a grocery store what a pharmacy gosh put something the community can use there's already this service is already being provided also this isn't even a service that would provide anything to the community their entire proposal is to deal with buyers outside our community so what is this doing for my neighborhood for my neighbors for my community nothing it's doing nothing okay i i oppose this please reconsider thank you all right uh miss travis slender i think council member gaffney would like to see you in the green room one two three four and we are now at a deadlock with four members on the dais we have four right one two three yeah yeah we got quorum that's what i'm saying no one can leave we're deadlocked all right we're going to continue this public hearing until 5526 item number 11 2026 164 open the public hearing get a staff report thank you ordinance 2026 164 excuse me is a land use change from low density residential to business park at 3010 leon road which is an unclassified road the request is for a 2.3 acre portion of that parcel the northern portion of the parcel is not subject to the land use amendment and will remain ldr low density residential the site is about a quarter mile north of beach boulevard and it has access to centralized water sewer and mass transit bp in the suburban development area is intended to provide compact low to medium intensity office development and development which includes low to medium density residential uses is encouraged the proposed bp category provides a transition between the light industrial and commercial uses to the south and east of the site and the low density residential to the west and north of the site for these reasons and those in the staff report planning department recommends approval the planning commission heard this item at their meeting on april 9th and they voted unanimously to approve the item with minimal discussion thank you all right thank you we have one speaker card cindy trimmer thank you so much cindy trimmer one independent drive suite 1200 on behalf of the applicant i represent the family that owns the 3.76 acre parcel they actually live on the northern portion of the parcel as you heard from staff right now to the south of them is a large pretty industrial property with a lot of outdoor storage so we're looking to establish a transitional use between that industrial to the residential by having this developed as bp i'll stand by for questions all right thanks so much we have no other speaker cards no one in the queue for questions let's close the public hearing and bring it back to committee motion a second on the bill no one in the queue open the ballot record your vote four a's zero days by interaction you've approved 2026 164 item number 12 2026 165 council members please declare your ex parte communication at this time seeing none let's open the public hearing and get a staff report thank you this is the companion conventional rezoning ordinance 2026 165 seeking to rezone 2.3 acres from rld 60 to ibp to develop the property consistent with the surrounding area again the property is located along leon road which does extend north from beach boulevard we find it to be consistent and compatible consistent with the comprehensive plan with the land use changed to bp the proposed rezoning will allow for a transitional expansion of industrial uses that are located south of the subject property while also protecting the abutting residential to the north there was a similar rezoning that was approved on the east side of leon road back in 2024 so because of these reasons and those in the staff report we forward a recommendation of approval was heard by planning commission on april 9th there were no speakers in opposition and little discussion and they voted unanimously for approval all right thank you we have one speaker card cindy trimmer cindy trimmer one independent drive suite 1200 on behalf of the applicant i'll stand by the staff report and i'm available for questions all right we have no other speaker cards let's close the public hearing and bring it back to committee motion a second on the bill no discussion open the ballot record your votes five yes zero nays by your action you've approved 2026 165 item number 13 2026 166 let's open the public hearing you get a staff report ordinance 2026 166 is for a land use amendment which would allow for a broader range of commercial uses along edgewood avenue the subject site consists of two contiguous parcels that are very close to the intersection of edgewood and moncrief the first parcel is approximately 3.72 acres it fronts edgewood avenue and is currently designated as rpi which is residential professional professional institutional the applicant is requesting cgc community general commercial for this parcel the second parcel which is 2.12 acres essentially sits behind the first it has no road frontage and is currently mdr with a request for rpi cgc is the primary land use designation along the edgewood avenue corridor and is found on each side of the site and across the street the amendment from mdr to rpi on the southern parcel of the amendment site provides a transition from the proposed cgc land use fronting on edgewood and the mdr land use south of the site for these reasons and those in the staff report the plan department recommends approval the planning commission heard this item on april 9th and unanimously recommended approval with minimal discussion thank you all right one speaker card josh josh cockerel in support questions only josh cockerel 117 west duval street so i feel like i've been here all night your card says 200 north laura street i feel like i've been living here all night it's been hours but 200 north laura street got it okay questions only we're going to go ahead and close public hearing and bring back to committee we got an amendment all right we have a motion to second on the amendment all in favor of the amendment signify by saying aye aye any opposed the amendment carries motion and second on the bill as amended open the ballot record your vote six yays zero nays by reaction you've approved 2026 166 item number 14 2026 167 council members please declare your ex parte communication you have at this time council member areas recognized thank you chair i'd like to declare export i spoke to the applicant last week regarding this and it's currently being filed thank you all right no one else in the queue let's open the public hearing get a staff report thank you this is the companion conventional rezoning ordinance 2026 167 seeking to rezone a total of 5.84 acres this is two parcels so the first parcel is going from commercial neighborhood to ccg1 and the second parcel is going from rld 60 to cn the applicant is seeking the rezoning to allow for additional commercial uses along edgewood while also expanding residential development options for the area staff has reviewed the request finds it to be consistent with the comp plan the property is located southwest of the intersection of edgewood avenue which is a minor arterial roadway and moncrief which is a collector roadway the proposed split zoning from ccg1 to cn creates a natural transition of densities and intensities which will also help protect the existing residential properties from the more intense uh intense commercial uses that would be closer to edgewood so because of these reasons and those in the staff report we forward a recommendation of approval application was heard by planning commission on april 9th there were no speakers in opposition little discussion and they voted unanimously for approval all right thank you we have one speaker card josh cockrell in support he marked questions only all right seeing none we have no other speaker cards let's close the public hearing and bring it back to committee for the amendment motion and a second on the amendment all in favor of the amendment signify by saying aye any opposed the amendment carries all right we have motion second on the bill as amended council member freeman did you have something uh thank you mr chair i thought i had ex parte and then i realized that the applicant hadn't called me so i i will not be declaring it but he did call it one time and i did not answer and i'm not sure if i reach back out maybe it was for this but um well i do know this area is very important to you if you want we can defer this and um i was just going to ask uh to staff through the chair uh it's a citizen councilman pitman's district um was there any type of comments that she made or anything along those lines uh through the chair to the council member no we have not received any comments from uh the councilwoman for the district all right thank you all right we have no other speakers in the queue the bill has been moved and got a second so yeah we already did the amendment so open them we did all that let's open the ballot record your vote six yay zero nays by your action you've approved 2026 167 as amended item number 15 we already took up 16 we already took up item number 17 2026 170 council members please declare your ex parte communication you have at this time seeing none let's open the public union staff report thank you this is pud rezoning ordinance 2026-0170 seeking to rezone approximately 18 acres from a pud that was approved in 2021 to a new pud the proposed pud follows the existing college park zoning but clarifies the parameters of newly created out parcels within the pud as well as increasing the total number of multi-family units and or hotel rooms from 90 units to 110. additionally the pud proposes new entrance sign structures the property is located within the renew arlington cra and the overlay which this application was reviewed by their advisory board on their march 11th meeting and they voted unanimously to approve the pud rezoning request the current pud was approved by city council with two conditions which we are forwarding those conditions onto the new pud staff reviewed the request finds that the rezoning is consistent with the comp plan it has an existing land use category of cgc we find it for those the goals and objectives of the comp plan and meets internal and external criteria again the pud is only for minor changes within the existing pud so because of those reasons and those in the staff report we forward a recommendation of approval with three conditions in your agenda again two of those are from the current pud that we're forwarding onto the new one and one of them's from our traffic team application was heard by planning commission on april 9th where there were no speakers in opposition and little discussion amongst the commissioners and they also voted unanimously for approval with those same three conditions in your agenda thank you all right we have one speaker card zach miller it says you support there's a small mark next to you do not wish to speak for questions only is that correct that is correct all right great we're going to go ahead and close public hearing bring back to committee motion a second on the amendment with conditions can someone please explain the amendment with the conditions or the conditions for the amendment yep so the conditions uh uh referenced in the planning department report and approved by planning commission include the developer shall install in a minimum six foot high 100 opaque visual screen foundation landscaping as well as signage that restricts off-premise alcohol consumption between the outdoor food core area and the adjacent off-site out parcels the college park pud shall be limited to a single liquor store within the pud boundary which must be developed in conjunction with the grocery store occupying 20 000 square feet or more of space and the third one the sidewalk of harris avenue shall be extended so that it connects with the sidewalk on university boulevard all right all in favor of the amendment signified by saying aye any opposed the amendment carries all right we have a all right we have like a second in a second and a third on the bill as amended with the conditions no one in the queue let's open the ballot record your vote six yay zero nays by your action you have approved 2026 one seven zero item number 18 2026 174 accounts members please declare your ex parte communication at this time seeing none let's open the public hearing and get a staff report thank you 2026 174 is a waiver of road frontage that seeks to reduce the required minimum road frontage from 80 feet to zero feet to allow for the development of a single family dwelling in the rr acre zoning district the subject property is a 0.64 acre lot located approximately 0.2 miles west of new berlin road the property does not have any direct road frontage however it has been granted a 12 foot easement through re number 1069870850 to access durbin's point place a new public right-of-way for the subdivision being built directly south of the subject site there's a companion administrative deviation that will be heard next staff finds a request consistent with the comprehensive plan and compatible with the surrounding area of single-family dwellings and forwards recommendation of approval all right we have one speaker card austin rubashka is in support questions only all right no other speaker cards let's close the public hearing and bring it back to committee motion and second on the bill no discussion open the ballot record your vote six yay zero nays by reaction you've approved 2026 174 item number 19 2026 175 council members please declare your ex parte communication at this time seeing none let's open the public hearing and get a staff report 2026 175 seeks an administrative deviation to reduce the minimum required lot area from 43 560 square feet to 2700 7 square feet as previously stated the property zoned rr acre which requires one acre per dwelling while the subject property does not meet the minimum lot size requirements for the rr acre zoning district the proposed lot size and configuration will be compatible with the new subdivision being built directly south that the property will be utilizing for access the subject or this subdivision is zoned as rld60 which requires 6 000 square feet and 60 feet of width the proposed lot reduction is from one acre to over half an acre which is significantly larger than what the rld60 zoning district requires for these reasons and those in the staff report we forward a recommendation of approval all right thank you we have three speaker cards first speaker austin rubashka in support questions only uh next speaker is joel joel joel aguin aguilar is in support i'm sorry my guy over here is left i'm sorry man uh is in support does not wish to speak and then the next speaker or the next speaker card is nervo air green okay air green in support does not does not wish to speak i'm sorry man uh all right we have no other speaker cards thankfully and uh we will close the public hearing bring back to committee all right we have motion second on the bill no discussion let's open the ballot of course vote six yay zero nays by your action you've approved 2026 175 item number 20 20 26 177 open the public hearing no staff report because it's getting withdrawn we have do we have any speakers we don't speak because okay no speaker cards close the public hearing and we are looking for a motion on the withdrawal all right we have a motion second to withdraw no discussion open about record your vote everybody vote six a zero nays by your action you have withdrawn 2026 177 item number 21 2026 208 is deferred with public hearing next cycle item number 22 2026 209 is deferred public hearing will be next cycle on 5526 item number 23 2026 210 is deferred and there will be a public hearing on 5526 item number 24 2026 211 council members please declare any ex parte communication you have at this time all right seeing none let's open the public hearing and get a staff report thank you uh 2026 211 seeks a zoning exception to permit the retail sale and service of all alcoholic beverages including liquor beer or wine for on-premise consumption or off-premise consumption in conjunction with the restaurant if approved the exception would be granted to cappuccinos breakfast and sports bar the subject property is a shopping center located at the northeast intersection of alta drive and faye road and is zoned as a pud that primarily follows the ccg1 zoning district requirements the shopping center was constructed in 2022 and currently has a variety of commercial uses including a dental office nail salon vape shop and daycare center a similar request for all alcohol for on-premise consumption was approved across the street at 2467 faye road under ordinance 2026 173 staff finds the request consistent with the comprehensive plan and compatible with the surrounding area and therefore recommends uh forwards the recommendation of approval all right thank you we have one speaker card josh cockerel in support questions only all right we'll go ahead and close the public hearing and bring back to many motion and a second on the bill we have no one in the queue let's open the ballot record your vote six a zero nays by your action you've approved 2026 211 item number 25 2026 212 council members please declare any ex parte communication you have at this time all right i have ex parte to declare i don't have the form in front of me but i spoke with josh cockerel on the phone i believe it was last thursday to discuss the waiver of road frontage and this paperwork is going to be filed with the legislative services and with that we will open the public hearing and get a staff report uh 2026 212 seeks to reduce the required minimum road frontage from 144 feet to zero feet to allow for the development of two single-family dwellings in the rld 90 zoning district the subject property is a 1.29 acre lot located along valencia drive and is currently developed with one single family dwelling the applicant seeks to subdivide the property into three separate parcels and develop the two new parcels with a single family dwelling each while the property does have additional frontage along rank and drive and approved private road the applicant does not have permission to utilize rank and drive for access the proposed new lots will be utilizing a 15-foot access easement through the current lot to valencia drive for ingress and egress and will not use rank and drive given the existing lot pattern surrounding development including parcels located to the north of the the subject site strict application of the road frontage requirement would create practical difficulty by limiting reasonable development of the property consistent with the surrounding area for these reasons and those in the staff report we forward a recommendation of approval all right thank you we have one speaker card josh cock roll questions only no other speaker cards let's close the public hearing bring back to committee motion and second on the bill no discussion open the ballot record vote of all members voted six yay zero nays by reaction you've approved 2026 212 all right item 26 we already have taken up the following bills are on second reading 2026 273 274 275 and 276 committee members that will conclude our meeting this meeting is adjourned