Land Use & Zoning Committee - Aug 04, 2026

All right. Sorry for my tardiness. We're going to go ahead and get the meeting started. Welcome to LUZ, Land Use and Zoning. It is August 4th at 5 o'clock, and we're going to go ahead and get started with introductions to the left. Will Landon, District 3, visiting. Good afternoon, Tyrona Clark-Murray, District 9, and I'm here for bill number 14 in the agenda. Thank you. Good afternoon, Reginald Gaffney, Jr., District 8. Testing, testing. There we go. Good afternoon, Rachman Johnson, District 14, the west side. Hey, good evening. Rory Diamond, District 13, the beaches. Joe Carlucci, District 5. Good afternoon, Rollers, District 11. Randy White, District 12. Terrence Harvey, Office of General Counsel. Aramis Wells, Planning Department. Susan Kelly, Planning Department. Casey Cox, Planning Department. Connor Corgan, Planning Department. All right. Welcome, everybody. Thank you so much. We're going to go ahead and we're not going in order on the agenda, so first action item is going to be on page nine, if everyone wants to turn there, and these are items that got tabled last week and now should be fully ready to go for action. So, item number 16 is going to be our first action item, committee members. So, with that, we are going to go ahead and ask for ex parte communication at this time. Does anyone have ex parte communication on this bill? Councilman Johnson, you're recognized. Thanks, Mr. Chair. I rise to declare ex parte. I reached out to the applicant today. I had some questions about it since there were glass issues. I have not had a chance to file it, but this will be filed with legislative services. We've just talked specifically about this particular project and what the next steps were. Thank you. Wait, one second. I've got a lot of ex parte. I'm trying to find it. 437. Okay, here we go. Since no one else is in the queue, yeah, I want to declare ex parte on 2026-437. I met in my office on July 21st with Andre Green, Louis Joseph, Michael Milton, Steve Matchett, and we discussed all of the items that needed to be addressed, removing certain zoning categories and traffic, and this paperwork is being filed with legislative services. And there's another one. And also, today, August 4th, I had a phone call with Michael Milton regarding one last item on the written description, and these are going to be filed with legislative services. So with that, we will go ahead. Do we need to go? Do we already get the staff report for this, or do we need to get a new one? We already did it? Okay. So we'll go ahead and open the public hearing and get the staff report for the second time. Thank you. This is PUD rezoning 2026-437, which seeks to rezone approximately 7.14 acres from PUD to PUD. The request is to amend the existing PUD to add commercial uses, including a hotel, and out parcels for retail and restaurant uses and related site improvements. The proposal retains the previously approved entitlement for up to 270 multifamily residential units. Staff evaluated the request for consistency with the 2045 comprehensive plan and found the proposal to be consistent with the community general commercial land use designation and the site's existing future land use element site-specific policy 4.4.36. The mixed-use development promotes infill redevelopment within the urban development area by utilizing existing infrastructure while providing a complementary mix of residential and commercial uses. We find the PUD meets the internal and external criteria and find the proposal to be compatible with the surrounding development, which includes multifamily residential communities, commercial shopping centers, offices, churches, and single-family homes. This is also commercial infill development appropriate for the commercial corridor along Atlantic Boulevard. So for these reasons and those in the staff report, we forward a recommendation of approval with two conditions listed in your agenda, which are related to traffic. And this application was heard by the Planning Commission on June 18th, where there were no speakers in opposition and little discussion among the commissioners, and they voted unanimously for approval with the same two conditions. All right. Thank you so much for that. Did we get... We didn't get any... Did y'all fill out any speaker cards in the audience? No. No? Okay. I just want to make sure. I didn't see any cards here. That's why I was like, oh, I could have sworn. Okay. So with that, Mr. Green, are you here? Okay. Did you fill out a card? Okay. Well, if you don't mind, just come on up and give a summary of what we've talked about, please, with the community. Yes. And we'll get you a card later. Name and address. Yep. Andre Green, 1000 Riverside Avenue, Suite 1600. I represent Corner Lot Development, St. Nicholas Multifamily Partners. Thank you to staff for the work that you've done. Thank you to Vice President Carlucci for setting up the meeting with the residents, for us to kind of discuss what was in the PUD and what uses we could agree to remove. That was a couple Mondays ago, and we put conditions and approval to remove that. And then I want to say Monday, we updated the written description to delete, what was it, truck rental, cap at a limited to 125 rooms for a hotel, and amongst other things in the written description. And then also outside, I had spoken with the residents and agreed to remove major automotive and truck rental. It was truck stop is what I meant. Truck stop. Right. We talked about that earlier. We'll remove truck rental. Just want to, you know, be good neighbors in the area. I mean, all the developments that we do are, you know, top notch. So we just want to work with the residents and, you know, make a good project. Okay. Great. Thank you. Thank you for that summary. With that, we have no speaker cards on it, so we will close the public hearing. All right. Motion and a second on the amendment. Can Planning Department explain the amendment or just give us a brief overview? Was it the written description and the conditions? Thank you. Thank you. So the planning department had two conditions that we forwarded. Alleyways shall only be allowed pursuant to the review and approval of the planning department and the development services division, meeting the requirements of the applicable city ordinances. And the second condition was unless waived by the chief of traffic engineering or their designee, a traffic study shall be undertaken by the developer upon PED verification and provided during the 10-set review. The methodology of the study shall be determined by the developer's traffic engineer, the chief of the transportation planning or their designee, and the chief of traffic engineering or their designee. And then we have two amendments. One is to attach or revise Exhibit 3. That will actually be dated August 4th. And then the second amendment is to update a scrivener's error for the site plan date. Okay. Excellent. And those incorporate all the changes that were just stated at the podium, correct? Correct. Yes. I know that the applicant had forwarded some conditions of approval of things that they were going to remove, but we didn't have those included. Those were added after the fact. So I don't know if that's something that you all wanted to include, but I don't think that they would be necessary given that none of those items or uses were listed in the written description that was received today. Okay. So those conditions got corrected in the new written description in August 4th? Correct. Okay. Okay. All right. We are good. And if there's any questions, go ahead and get in the queue, but we're seeing none. So all in favor of the amendment, signify by saying aye. Oh, we got. I have to remove. The residents would like me to remove major automotive repair. That was literally just discussed a couple minutes ago, which is not in the written description. It is in the written description. It is in the written description. They asked for me to remove it. Understood. Yeah. Okay. And I'm saying I can agree to it, so I'll have to. Got it. Revive it. Stand by then. Okay. So we just passed that amendment. And Ms. Cox, can that be a condition now since it can't be in the written description? Yes. We can have that added as a condition. Okay. So we have a motion to second on the removal of major automotive repair. And truck rental. And truck rental. Okay. All right. Truck rental is already removed. Okay. We're good. We got a handshake and a nod out there from the community. So we have a motion to second. Any discussion? Seeing none. All in favor of the amendment, signify by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed? The amendment carries. All right. Let's go ahead and roll up both of those amendments into one OUZ amendment. And we just had a motion to second on the bill as twice amended. No one in the queue. So let's go ahead and open the ballot and record your vote. Six yays. Zero nays. By your action, you've approved 2026-437 as amended. All right. Thank you, guys. Appreciate you, Mr. Green, and all the community members. Thank you so much for working with me and our office coming out. Got a much better product there. All right. Item number two for action is going to be on page 11. Committee members, turn to page 11. Item 19, 2026-477. We will open the public hearing and get a staff report. Ordinance 2026-477 is for a small-scale land use amendment to change 12.41 acres at 7401 Old Kings Road from public buildings and facilities, PBF, to medium-density residential, MDR, to allow for residential development. This is the site of the former Kings Trail Elementary School. Abutting the site to the southeast and northeast are apartment complexes, which are designated as MDR. To the northwest is a former YMCA swim facility. This parcel is also designated as MDR, and it was rezoned in 2024 to develop residential uses. Residential uses are the predominant use in the area. Wolfson High School, which is in the PBF land use category, is approximately 560 feet to the north of the subject site. And Baker Skinner Park, which is designated Recreation and Open Space, ROS, is approximately 1,000 feet to the southeast of the site. The subject site is located on the Collector Road, which is Old Kings Road, with access to full urban services. The proposed amendment to MDR ensures that the residential character of the area will be maintained and provides a logical expansion of the existing MDR land use category surrounding the site. MDR provides adequate land to accommodate population growth and offers the opportunity for development of a wide variety of housing types. For these reasons and those in the staff report, the planning department recommends approval. The planning commission heard this item on July 23rd, and there were some neighbors in opposition. They listed out several concerns that are really likely to be discussed during the rezoning. And the planning commission ultimately recommended approval unanimously with a vote of 8 to 0. And I'm happy to take any questions. All right. Thank you. With that, we'll go ahead and go to the speaker cards. First up, we have Paul Harden. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Paul Harden, 1431 River Place Boulevard. This site is currently public buildings and facilities, PBF1, one of the more dense commercial or institutional uses in the zoning code. The proposed land use on the site is to MDR. This is by far a down zoning from what you have on the site. The site currently allows, for instance, 70 feet of height that you can raise three feet for every one foot that you come in off of your side yard measurements. It has access to a collector road, as was indicated by the planning department. The road has 86% of the capacity that it was built for left. There's 14% that's being used at this point. The proposed zoning will go through many of the issues that were raised as part of the land use. But other than that, I'll wait until we have questions on the land use. All right. Next, we have Chrissy Kinney. Good evening. Chrissy Kinney, address on file. By opposing 0477, it likely seems we're just an angry neighborhood trying to block progress or ruin a developer's bottom line and waste this committee's valuable time. It looks like we're completely inflexible. The truth is we've spent months offering reasonable compromise, conditions to protect public safety, and neighborhood compatibility. The applicant's agent has flatly refused every single effort to collaborate. Because the rules state the companion PUD cannot be conditioned without the applicant's consent, and because the applicant refuses to grant it, there's no room left for negotiation or further discussion on the land use and how this application fails the legitimate public purpose requirement per their request. They've simply not shown how the PUD will govern that requirement for this property. Everything needed for a sound denial is already formally substantiated in the public record. We've chosen not to delay your hearing with repetitive speeches. We stand entirely on the recorded evidence. Because the applicant refuses to comply fully with the comprehensive plan and leaves our neighborhood vulnerable to many public purpose failures as a result of poorly planned and redeveloped public land, we respectfully ask this committee to protect the rule of law and deny this land use change from PBF 1 to MDR. Thank you. Okay. The following speakers checked that they do not wish to speak and are in opposition. Amy Calfie, Grady Pope, Terry Pope, A.J. Govicar? Govicar? Okay. Do you mark? Okay. Yeah, maybe he wishes, he doesn't wish to speak on this one, maybe the next one. And then we have Samantha Ceres in opposition, does not wish to speak. And Elise Broch is in opposition, does not wish to speak. So with that, we will go ahead and close the public hearing and bring back the opinion. All right. Okay. So we have a motion and a second on the bill. Yeah, I'll just go ahead and say for the land use, I don't have any issues there. I think a lot of the conditions are going to come in on the next bill, the PUD. So with that, we've got no one in the queue, and we have a motion and a second. So let's open the ballot. Record your vote. Five yays, zero nays. By your action, you approve 2026-477. Item number 26, or sorry, item number 20, 2026-478. Councilmembers, please declare any ex parte communication you have at this time. I think there should be some. Councilmember Diamond, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I rise to declare ex parte communication. Yesterday, I spoke with the applicant's attorney, Paul Harden, very briefly. He really just told me that this was coming up, and I went and took a look at it. Thank you. All right. Councilmember White, you're recognized. Declare ex parte. I had the same conversation with Mr. Harden yesterday. He had a few questions. He answered them, and that will be filed. Councilmember Johnson, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I rise to declare ex parte. I called Mr. Harden. I had some questions about what I saw on Friday the 31st. That's being filed with legislative services. Thank you. All right. Councilmember McGaffney, you're recognized. Thank you. I also like to declare ex parte. I also spoke with Mr. Harden yesterday by phone. He asked me, did I have any questions? I made sure everything gets filed with legislative services. All right. No one else in the queue, so I'll go ahead and declare mine. I had a meeting on July 28th with the community and Paul Harden, and that paperwork will be filed with legislative services. And then on 8-4, just today at 4 p.m., I had another meeting with Elise Broch and Chrissy Kinney in the green room, and we discussed further conditions of the site plan. And then another one that I don't have the paperwork for, because I just had that as well, on 8-4 at 4-45 with Paul Harden in the green room to discuss the conditions on the remaining items of the site plan and the parking and other items. And that paperwork will be filed with legislative services. Councilmember Johnson, you're recognized. Mr. Chair, I missed one. It's being filed with legislative services. I also had an e-mail and phone message from Ms. Kinney as well. Again, filed with legislative services. Thank you. All right. Thank you, sir. Let's go ahead and open the public hearing and get a staff report. Thank you. This is the companion PUD 2026-478, which seeks to rezone approximately 12.41 acres at 7401 Old Kings Road South from Public Buildings and Facilities 1 to a PUD to allow redevelopment of the former King's Trail Elementary School site into a 110-unit residential community consisting of townhomes or cottages. Staff finds proposed rezoning to be consistent with the 2045 Comprehensive Plan with the proposed land use change to MDR. The proposed MDR designation allows medium-density residential development and supports infill housing in established neighborhoods. The project meets 2045 Comprehensive Plan policies encouraging compact growth, diverse housing options, and redevelopment of former public facility sites. The proposal meets requirements for internal and external compatibility. Old Kings Road South is a collector roadway currently operating at 14% capacity. The proposed development is estimated to generate 1,000 daily trips, and the corridor can accommodate this volume. Staff is forwarding a condition that a traffic study will be required at civil site plan review. Surrounding uses include multifamily, zoned RMDD, single-family, zoned RLD-70, and a recently approved residential development to the west under RMDA. The proposed housing type matches the established development pattern along Old Kings Road South. For these reasons and those in the staff report, we forward a recommendation of approval with the two conditions in your agenda. This application was heard at the July 23rd Planning Commission hearing. There were several speakers in opposition who cited concerns about traffic, environmental impacts to existing wetlands, and the lack of need for additional density in the area. Overall, the commissioners agreed that the proposed development was consistent with the surrounding existing developments and voted unanimously for approval with the same two conditions. All right. Thank you so much. We will go ahead to the speaker card. Oh, Mr. Gaffney, you recognize Exparte? Yeah, thank you. I'd like to file an additional Exparte. I also met with Ms. Chrissy in my office, I think, like, two weeks ago. I made sure I get the date. We just discussed the project itself, ingress, egress, the issues that she had. I made sure everything gets filed with legislative services. All right. Thank you so much. All right. First speaker card, Paul Harden. Paul Harden, 1431 River Place Boulevard. I take great umbrage at Ms. Kinney's description of our activity in this zoning. Within a week of her asking for a meeting, I met with her and went through all of the issues that they had, and really, we've addressed every one of them. The site is PBF1 now, as I said, one of the most intense institutional, or not one of the most, the most intense institutional zoning in the zoning code. And, you know, we had a meeting during the council meeting the other night with the neighborhood. They already have a cap, had a cap on the number of units based on negotiations they had had with the owners of an adjoining property that was zoned less than two years ago. The request was to cap the number of units at 110 units, and since that time, we have filed an amended written description putting on the cap that they requested. They wanted us to build a road at a cost of close to $2 million through somebody else's land that we don't own, that we can't take, that we can't force them to sell to us. We have immediate access onto a road that has 86% capacity over what it was built to do. There were five items on their list they wanted us to address. The second one was capacity of the Jacksonville Electric Authority. We had filed with the Planning Department at the time of filing on the Land Use Map Amendment a request to, or excuse me, a letter from the JEA saying that there was available capacity, so we complied with that one. There was a request that if we build housing for older adults, that we comply with the federal law. And I told them, well, if the zoning code doesn't require that and actually doesn't allow for it or doesn't have language in it, if we built those, we would, in fact, comply with those. Everything they asked for, we complied with except the road. We can't build a $2 million road across somebody else's land when we have capacity on the road immediately fronting the site. But with regard to the conditions, the first condition, if the Planning, if the Public Works Department wants us to have a traffic study, we'll do the traffic study, the transportation study, using the methodology that we agree with them. With regard to the second condition, however, that language isn't exactly what the Planning Commission came up with, but we are opposed to that second condition. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Chair. I had the Canary Exparte I met with, I actually spoke on the phone with the applicant, Mr. Paul Harden, a couple days ago, and it's currently being filed with Legislative Services. Thank you. All right. And I do have questions, but once we get to that part. Okay. Yep, we'll go ahead and go through the rest of the speaker cards, and then we'll keep the public hearing open for questions. All right. Next speaker, Chrissy Kinney, followed by A.J. Govkar, Laura Backus, and Elise Brush. Good evening. Chrissy Kinney, address on file. And I oppose Ordinance 478 as written. Myself, along with the San Jose Neighborhood Association, are not asking you to change Jacksonville laws, neither asking you to impose new requirements or unreasonable burdens on this applicant. We're asking for one thing. Apply the law exactly as it already exists. Florida law does not require an application to be merely acceptable. It requires that this council change the law governing this property. The applicant demonstrate, through competent, substantial evidence, that this PUD is fully consistent with our comprehensive plan. That burden belongs to the applicant. It does not belong to this neighborhood. Over the last several months, we've carefully reviewed this application. We've identified numerous areas where the application fails to demonstrate consistency with the comp plan. We documented those deficiencies, cited the applicable policies, and submitted everything into the public record. We're not asking you to resolve every disagreement, but rather enforce five things. Deficiencies that should have been addressed before this application was ever recommended for approval. Information that would transform assumptions into evidence and enforceable commitments. These items presented in the binders on record address the very issues the comp plan exists to protect. Transportation impacts, environmental stewardship, neighborhood compatibility, infrastructure planning, and enforceable development standards. None optional. None enforced with good intentions. The planning department's responsibility is to determine whether the applicant has demonstrated consistency with every applicable comp plan policy before recommending approval. The recommendation of an approval on fine. Fine is not the legal standard for a PUD. Fine is not a finding of consistency. Fine is not competent substantial evidence. And fine does not create enforceable protections for neighborhoods. When we identified these deficiencies, we were told, had the applicant included the information we suggested to remedy these deficiencies, their application would have been excellent, superior, if you will. Yet, not being the applicant, omission simply did not matter. The response should concern every citizen. Because the comp plan is not designed to reward minimal administrative review, it exists to ensure that legislative decisions are made only after necessary facts are fully known. The question before this committee is not whether this development might be compromised into compliance. It's much simpler. How can this committee make the required finding of full consistency when the applicant has not supplied the information necessary to demonstrate it? That is the very question Florida's growth management framework expects elected officials to ask before changing the law governing a piece of property. This neighborhood is not asking for protection, perfection, not additional conditions, not additional promises, evidence, transparency, accountability. We're asking for compliance. Five reasonable remedies that the applicant should have satisfied from the very beginning. Because once this ordinance is adopted, it becomes law, and the law requires more than fine. It requires proof. All right. Thank you. Next, we have A.J. Govkar. Hi. Good evening. My name is A.J. Govkar, and I stay within 350 feet of this property which is going to be developed. And I respectfully request you to defer the question to the planning group. I stand on record. I rest on the evidence provided in addition to whatever I'm going to say just now. My main concern is that we are blocking up all this drainage, natural drainage, lakes all around this area. There are a lot of properties being developed. So the runoff underground will go to the lake, I think, in more increased quantity than before, which will probably cause sinkholes. That study needs to be made because I have noticed in the last six years I'm staying on this property, the last couple of years, I have to buy a lot of material put in my backyard, you know, because I can see that ground sinking. I think there's increased flow because of the water collection, lakes, and, you know, the natural drainage. They are being restricted all over the surrounding areas, you know. So that's my only concern. Apart from that, I can see a lot of wildlife and all that. It has drastically reduced, birds and all that. So I don't want to get into that. My concern is about my property and how the sinkhole will affect. That's all I have to say. Thank you. All right. Thank you, sir. I want to go ahead and welcome Council Member Kevin Carrico. Thank you for joining us tonight. And next we have Laura Backus. Hi. I'm Laura Backus. My address is on file, and I oppose 478 as written. The section of Old Kings Road South between St. Augustine Road and Powers Avenue, where the Kings Trail School property is located, does not meet current design standards for a suburban collector roadway. It has two 10-foot lanes, no shoulder, no parking or turn lanes, no bike lane, no JTA bus route or stops. The space was planned without regard for road expansion. Drainage ditches line about half of this section on both sides. Old Kings Road South has 57 single-family homes that face the property in this section. The application states that access to the property will be by way of Old Kings Road South. According to an independent assessment by traffic engineer Austin Chapman, the road currently has actual about 3,600 daily trips in 2025. But the count station is north of Toledo Road, not close to this property. The development of 110 single-family homes is expected to generate between 1,100 and 1,200 daily trips, including peak hour trips. This would increase traffic in this section by over 30%. The connection at Old Kings Road may need left and right turn lanes as a result. Consideration should be given to upgrading Old Kings Road to collector standards, including 11-foot lanes and 4-foot paved shoulders. Old Kings Road is a constrained right-of-way, which would make it challenging to widen. Required roadway improvements to meet current design and safety standards would have significant impact to neighboring homeowners, and the cost to a developer to make these changes would be substantial. According to the City Land Development Procedures Manual, PUD code requires a local residential street to have a minimum pavement width of 24 feet. This suggests the internal roadway in this development will be wider than Old Kings Road South, the collector. The planning department has made a request to add a guest parking spot for every three units within the development. The representative for the school board and developers has stated that this is not needed or desirable. If the planning department has asked for a fix to the design because it makes it safer and more functional, then the idea of a self-sustaining, not burdensome design for this PUD has already failed. City standards ensure that roadways are safe, durable, and consistent with the City of Jacksonville's requirements. Please listen. Thank you. Thank you. Next we have Elyse Broch. Good evening. Elyse Broch, address on record. Our goal was never to oppose this project as a whole. Our goal was to minimize the impact the significant infill project has on our community. Our conditions aren't just nuisances or hurdles we want the developer to jump through. They're well thought out and consistent with the comprehensive plan. We've worked tirelessly to ensure our requested conditions are supported by competent, substantial evidence, which we presented to you at last week's council meeting. We simply ask that those conditions be considered tonight. I had the pleasure of speaking with Mr. Hardin a couple of times this week, and I'd just like to give a summary of our conversation and his position on our requested conditions. The applicant isn't as interested in entertaining ingress-egress from Powers Avenue via shared access easement along the rear of the YMCA property. Mr. Hardin took the time to explain the right-of-way buffer and 20-foot landscape buffer to me, which I greatly appreciate, but his client is not willing to provide single-story structures along Old Kings Road South. Up until Thursday of last week, Mr. Hardin was under the impression that the cottage product his client wishes to build would be one-story, but he found out that they are, in fact, two-story structures and provided elevations for those products. Yes, he did say that he could lower the height limits to 30 feet, but that's not reflected on the revised written description. The applicant is not interested in preserving the wetlands or the tree canopy, nor are they willing to develop a project that is strictly providing housing for the elderly. That's where everything stands this evening, so I appreciate all of your time and consideration. Thank you. All right, thank you. Next, the following speakers are in opposition but do not wish to speak. Amy Calfee in opposition, Grady Pope is in opposition, Terry Pope is in opposition, and Samantha Series is in opposition. And with that, let me get back to my queue here. All right, we'll go ahead and we can close the public hearing and bring it back to the committee for questions and start looking through some of these conditions. So, first off, I'll kind of kick it off to the, I guess, planning department. Can someone explain what conditions we have in this amendment that we're about to move? And that would be good. Through the chair, so we have two conditions. We have the first one, which is, unless waived by the chief of traffic engineering or their designee, a traffic study shall be undertaken by the developer upon PD verification and provided during the 10-set review. The methodology of the study shall be determined by the developer's traffic engineer, the chief of the transportation planning division or their designee, and the chief of traffic engineering or their designee. And the second condition is, parking shall be provided in accordance with part 6 of the zoning code for all uses. If developed with cottages or townhomes, guest parking shall be provided at a minimum ratio of one parking space for every three residential units. All right, and we're going to go to Council Member Carrico for ex parte communication, briefly. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Sorry for being tardy, but I do have to claim ex parte on this. I did have a phone call with Paul Harden. He called me Monday, and we discussed his side of the story on the rezoning, and we will put more details into our correspondence to legislative services and get that filed. Thank you. Okay, great. With that, the public hearing is closed, and now we're in kind of open debate. So with that, we'll go to Council Member Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I have questions about the second condition, about parking. And while I do appreciate it being read to me, I want to understand it, and I can see what's on the paper, so I don't need it read. But through the Chair, I need some understanding of Part 6 of the zoning code for all uses. That sticks out to me. So does that mean the parking needs to be put in a certain place or location? I'm assuming that we'll go to you, Ms. Cox. So through the Chair, does that mean, help me understand that. Through the Chair to Councilman Johnson. So basically, the way that our Part 6 zoning code is written is that there are different standards depending on the use. So, like, a commercial restaurant is going to require, say, like, one space for every 3,000 to 6,000 square feet of gross floor area. And so in the zoning code, we have different parking standards for, like, single-family homes. They only require two spots. And then for townhomes and cottages, we treat that as a multifamily-type product. And we require one space for every three units. And the reason that we explicitly called this out here is because the applicant sought to waive that parking standard in the PD written description. And we have just gotten concerns during the later in the development process where a lot of these townhome products, they come back because they don't have any guest parking. And, you know, neighbors are complaining that people are parking on the street and that the streets in those neighborhoods are not – they're built to about the 24 feet. So they have to come back in later trying to find a space to put the guest parking. Would the guest parking be in a certain location or – Through the Chair, yes. So it would be off of the street. So it's considered off-street parking. So they would have designated spaces off of – that are not on the actual individual lots and not on the street. So the guest parking would be away from the unit itself. That's what was a little confusing to me. It would be, like, up, I guess, at the front of the development and you'd have to walk to the unit. Is that what I'm – Correct, yes. Or if it's a private road, they can kind of do, like, parallel parking off to the side of the street. But it just – it's not on the physical lot in the driveway and it's not on the actual street. Mr. Chair, through the Chair to Mr. Harden, does that work for – it's a little confusing for me because when I looked at the site, it looked like the guest parking would be more efficient if it were in between. I mean, to have another space somewhere else away. I don't know. Can you help me understand? Is this something that's agreeable to you and your client? No, and that was the issue we raised at the Planning Commission meeting and in front of the council the other night. No one wants to come visit someone and go park five houses down the road. And if you listen to what she said, she said we consider this a multifamily use. It's not. It's a single-family use. This is – each person will own their own lot and will own their own house. We've offered to have one parking space in front of each of the houses, which we have room for. They're 31-foot-wide lots at that location. So each of the houses that are on the street, as you can see on the site plan, which is part of the written description, will have space in front of it for a parking space. And that's where we would prefer the guest parking to occur. When you build these guest parking lots at different places along the road, they end up being storage locations. People park boats there. They park RVs there. It ends up being a storage lot and doesn't serve the purpose of guest parking. And because these are not, in fact, multifamily-use homes, they each have a space. If you look at the site plan, you'll see that they really do have room for two spaces on the driveway in front of the house. We've included those as part of the written description that I think Terrence has a copy of that we ask be put into evidence and be used. Thank you. Before you take your seat, Mr. Harden, to Ms. Cox through the chair, is – does guest parking – because I think there's a little bit of confusion. While you may consider these multifamily, based on what I saw in this site – or see in the site plan, as well as what has been explained, it seems as though these are single-family residences. Can the guest parking be contained within the parking that is there so it's contiguous? Or – I think – and with all due respect, I do think there is a miscalculation on qualifying this as multifamily, while they may be not the usual, I do think they're single-family, so I don't know that we can qualify that as such. But in looking at this specifically, my question is, if they have a number of parking spaces that are above and beyond the number that it would take to satisfy parking in that unit, would that satisfy the need for guest parking without having a separate guest parking area? Through the chair to Councilman Johnson, I mean, if the council sees fit for that. So the way that the code is written and when the cottages were passed, it was treated as a – basically like a standalone townhome was the product. And so, again, we treat townhomes as a multifamily product, which is why we have the requirement for the guest parking spaces, in addition to the parking on site for the residents. Let me clarify, guest parking, not spaces, area. It's guest parking spaces. But that's an area away from the actual unit itself. I mean, again, so it can be in front of the house itself. It just has to be a designated off-street parking spot. Whether or not they decide to cluster it as like a parking lot, like a designated area at the front of the residence, or they want to have them kind of throughout the – So you're saying the unit, the spaces – and I apologize. I want to understand it because it's not kind of gelling here. The unit, the spaces throughout the development must be labeled guest space. You can do it that way. So whenever we do our parking calculations, yes, they have to be able to show that they're providing the one space for every three units. Does that work for you through the chair? Does that work for you, Mr. Harden? No, it doesn't. And I understand what Casey's saying, but that's not the situation. These are not multifamily sites. It's described in the use as a single-family site, and it was described in the one adjoining us, for instance. And they don't have to have separate parking at other locations. We're going to have parking on the sidewalk – I mean, on the driveway for one space. There's parking inside the garage for another space. And then there's room, because the streets are wide, for another space in front of each house. And there's room, as you go around, if you look at the site plan, you'll see that's the case. I understand the issue that maybe we have a communication issue, but the fact that there's single-family units and there's a parking space in front of them, I think, solves that problem. Thank you, and thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. All right. Council Member Diamond, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I actually wrote this bill on the Cottages Bill, and I'm glad to see that developers are doing it. First of all, I understand where the neighbors are at. This is a classic case of transition, where all on one side of the street, you've got medium-density residential, all on the other side of the street, single-family homes, and really nice ones. Totally got where the neighbors are at. I'm tracking. If this were on the other side of the street, on the west side, I wouldn't be comfortable with this, given that it's on the side with all the medium-density residential, and that's all that's around it, plus the Y. I'm comfortable with it. On the parking thing, I would remove the condition, and here's why. This is literally why we – it's just a mistake in how we wrote the bill. So what we envisioned with the Cottages is that it's a horizontal application of medium-density and higher-density residential. So you're going to get fewer units, but much nicer, almost single-family homes. That was the goal, so you get essentially what are small houses and townhomes that are detached. And then when we wrote the bill and when we sat up here and debated it, the idea was that you would have a garage with one car in it and a small driveway with one car in it, and there was never – the only thing people ask is that we not do side-by-side parking between the units, which they're not doing here. So personally, I'm comfortable with finding language to alleviate the need for just another parking lot, because that's not how we envisioned this application of essentially what's smaller single-family homes that were carved out of our code. So that's where I'm at. I don't know what that language would be. I'd probably have to ask Terrence what that language will look like because that condition doesn't make sense to me given what we were trying to do with this bill. Have to doubt that. We can just remove that condition. Well, I'd make the motion to accept these conditions if Mr. Harden wants to, and I'm not going to stomp on the chair because it's this district, but just without that condition. Let's let it play out if we can because I think I have a solution for the parking. Perfect. I'll get it. All right. Okay. And Council Member Arias, did you want to speak? If you're going to speak on the parking, I can go ahead and address some of it. But if you have other – okay, go ahead. I mean, we're all speaking on the parking in some way or another, but through the chair. Essentially, I wanted to kind of go over what we heard today, and the fact of the matter is that these are single-family homes at the end of the day. They're not townhomes. They're not multifamily homes. When you look at historically a cottage, they are single-family homes. You have cottages in resorts like Margaritaville or historic areas of town where they could be considered multifamilies, but that's not what's happening here. And like my colleague just mentioned, you know, one side of the road you have multifamily. The other side is single-family. We had a similar case to this in Arlington maybe about a year ago, and the same exact scenario happened, and we had to go with the comprehensive substantial evidence and know exactly what it is. In this case, like I said, it's single-family. So I feel comfortable voting the way I got to vote tonight just because of the fact of what we're looking at right now. But like I said, we're going to continue the conversation on that part. Thank you. Okay. All right. So, yeah, I'll go ahead and kind of take the rest of the lead here. Mr. Harden, you can stay up there because this is going to be a couple of questions to you. So I met with the community multiple times. We just met in the green room. I met with you in the green room. Regarding the parking, we all see the dilemma here, which is obviously we're larger multifamily developments. The guest parking is a separate parking lot, basically, where you can go and park and then, like, walk to your friend's house or whatever. This just kind of got wrapped into that, so whatever. And these are 35-foot-wide lots, correct? 31 feet. 31? Yes, sir. Okay. And is it a single-car garage? Some of them are single-car, but most of them are larger than single-car garage. I don't want to say they're double garages, but I have intentionally put the design in the written description that we would like to use for the committee, and it shows that there's room for two cars in the driveway. Side-by-side or behind each other? Yes, side-by-side. Okay. So for all intents and purposes and clarification, the driveway is double-wide for cars. Yeah, not quite double-wide. But two cars can park in the driveway side-by-side? Yeah. Not just behind each other? Right. Okay. But there's also room in front of the house, which is where people end up parking. Right. And that was to my point of what I asked you while we were in the green room, which is, and is there a way to line guest parking along the street? Because getting the guest parking, you know, removing units, you said you weren't, you know, able to accommodate that. But you were able to accommodate marking and lining guest spots along the street itself to make sure that there is adequate space along the road. Um, like in front of people's houses or on the other side or whatever. So can we get that commitment? I've got, if you look at the site plan I have, I think it does that. It shows there's room for a parking space there. But I want them marked. You said you would paint them and line them. I'm not personally going to paint them, no. No, no, no. But y'all will have it marked on the street? Is that what? I'll figure out what we can do to mark maybe every other one, something like that. Yeah, it doesn't have to be every single house. I understand what you're saying. Yeah. But there will be, what's the parking requirement, Ms. Cox? Like 30? Through the chair? It is one space for every three residential units. So how many is that? It's about 36, I think is what I calculated. Okay. That's for multifamily. This is not multifamily. Okay. It's a single family lot that people own. But I understand her, she's just trying to get a count. That's what we're trying. I will give you that count before Tuesday night. Okay. Did you want to, I can withhold my parking on that if you want to go ahead and speak on this. Go ahead. Right. Thank you, Chair. I just want to, for the record, I live in E-Town and I have a neighbor, one of the neighbors called, it's called Kettering, or sorry, Granville, and they have a similar situation where they have guest parking labeled on the street, similar to what you're talking about, every other, on the road. It's terrible. It looks hideous. The neighbors don't want it, right? But it's already there. So before you go down this route, just know about aesthetics. It's going to make the neighborhood look terrible. So I personally, if I lived in the neighborhood, I wouldn't want that. I wouldn't mind having some assigned guest parking, maybe a little marker or something, but to actually have it written on the road, it's an ugly look. Okay. Okay. Look at Granville in E-Town. You'll see what I'm talking about. Okay. Got it. Okay. Just trying to make something work for the neighborhood folks over there. So, Ms. Elise, are you here? Come on down. Let's do the fun work while we can get this done here. Only if I get to win a prize. All right. Yep. You'll get a golden star at the end of the assignment. Eight for effort. So when we met in the green room, y'all wanted to remove six units and accommodate the three additional parking spaces that can kind of fit inside each unit. Mr. Harden said that that's not feasible. They're not willing to do that. We just asked if they would mark and line the streets to identify guest parking that is sort of already there. That would be sort of like asking, hey, across the street, down Hernando or whatever, we're going to put on public parking where you can already park on the street if you're going to come visit your house. So where do you stand or where does your group stand on, I guess, the parking requirement issue that y'all had, that y'all raised at this point? I think that we would agree with Councilman Arias that it would be unbecoming to paint the street with guest parking. My concern really is in the staff report that city staff has already received complaints that parking is inadequate in high-density neighborhoods. And I do understand that you all are saying this is a single-family neighborhood, but it's dense. 110 units on 30-foot lots is dense. If there can be some accommodation, and I frankly don't know what that could be for some guest parking somewhere. I'm not an engineer. I don't know where that could be placed. I think it's appropriate. Okay. Ms. Cox, what is, if this was not cottages, if these were just RLD 50, what would the parking, guest parking requirement be? Through the chair, there is no guest parking requirement for single-family dwellings. It is two parking spaces per dwelling. So, as y'all kind of see, the dilemma here, it's in this weird in-between. We can't necessarily stipulate and require that cottages, which are single-family, have the same parking requirement as an actual multifamily, which is high-density. This is medium-density. So, personally, I don't think that parking is going to be an issue at all. I think they're going to be able to park on the street. You're going to visit your friends. And if there's a large party, who's to say they won't, they're going to fill up the entire neighborhood, or their entire neighborhood. They're not going to park across Old Kings into y'all's neighborhood, so to speak, and walk into their, I just don't see that, personally, as an issue. Can I ask a question? Yeah, sure. Go ahead. Is there a parking requirement for RMDA? Through the chair. So, it depends on whether it's a single-family dwelling or a multifamily dwelling or a townhome or cottage. So, they all have different criteria. So, multifamily for apartments is based on the amount of bedroom spaces. Townhomes and cottages have the one guest space per three units. Single-family dwellings is just two spaces for the home. Got it. So, it depends. Right. As it's written right now, that's the way it's written right now. However, the bill sponsor has kind of said maybe that was a mishap. But let's park this conversation for a second. And then we'll hear from a few other committee members before we move on to the next item that I have. Go ahead. Council Member Diamond. I just wanted to clarify because I was talking with Mr. Harvey, and I just wanted to make sure everybody here understands and so that people understand. So, the applicant's not traveling under the cottage bill and taking medium-density residential and saying, I'm going to do that application. That's not what's happening here. They're running under 31-foot lot single-family homes, just so it's clear. So, then they have the two requirement. What staff was doing is simply taking medium-density residential or multifamily and saying, hey, this is kind of like that, and some of that's in the description, and therefore, they lumped it on. So, there's no reason to change the cottage bill as it stands today, as I understand it. Okay. I just wanted to make that clarification because we're going to see this again. And then, if you want me to make a motion, I'm happy to. No, no, I hear you. And I think we're kind of mixing words or dicing words because the product that they're building is called cottages. But now, we also have an actual policy and program for cottages or whatever. But you're good for right now, Ms. Lease and Mr. Hardin, one kind of final question to you regarding the buffer along Old Kings. We talked about this and what I would like to see. I'm sorry, along the buffer along? Old Kings. Okay, gotcha. Yeah, yeah. There's like 15 or so on that front strip there. You have a site plan that's part of a written description that Terrence has that needs to be incorporated so we can use it. But it has 10 feet in the backyard, then there's a 20-foot road buffer, then there's additional 10 feet, and then there's the area between the road and that 10 feet. So, yes, it adds up at different places. And talk to me about the fence. Is there any fence line or anything along the back of those homes right now along Old Kings? There is not one shown in there, but we'll be happy to put one in there. Okay. It was our intention to do one, yes. Okay, so we're going to make that a condition of the PUD, make sure there is a fence along all of the backs of those facing Old Kings. Yes. And there's like a side. South facing unit. Yeah, all along Old Kings. I'll put that on that map, I mean that site plan that Terrence has. Okay. Okay, we'll do that. And then as far as planting live oak trees to give a little bit of a cleaner, or not a cleaner look, just more of a continuous look along Old Kings so it's not just clear cut white vinyl fence or wood vinyl fence or whatever. Can we agree on planting some live oak trees like every 15, 20 feet or whatever? Yeah, I don't know what kind of trees they'd be, but before Tuesday night we'll have a planting schedule for that area. You'll have? Okay. And I'll have to get with you on that before, I guess, Tuesday and with the community because we don't just want three trees. We want it to obviously look like it's, you know, done well. Yeah, you want trees that are going to live, so. Yeah, yeah, yeah. We want it to be, you know, what the arborist and everyone says is good. But okay. All right. So we got the fence, the trees, and is that, Mr. Harvey, is that going to get updated tonight or is that going to have to get updated kind of on the back end and we bring it up as a floor amendment? Yep, so if you want to add those as conditions tonight, you can, and it'll be in the posture for you all to vote on it on next Tuesday. If you wait, then you'll have to either workshop it between them. Actually, because it's a land use map amendment, there's a public hearing. There is a public hearing, correct. But whether or not you guys want to wait to add that condition on the rezoning, which is what we're having anyway, you can add that condition tonight and not have to do that on Tuesday. Yeah, we want to do it tonight. Okay, we'll get in. I don't have any objection to that. So there would be, may I just put them in for the state or for the record? Yeah, yeah, go ahead and state. So there'll be three conditions. One will be the first one that you have in there that based on the methodology between the city and the developer, they'll come up with a traffic study. Two, that there will be a fence placed along the southern line of the 20-foot road buffer, which is shown on that site plan that Terrence has. And then three, that just inside or outside the fence, whichever the neighbors want, there'll be landscaping. Yes. I'll come up with a landscaping plan. Okay. Yeah, we want landscaping that, again, someone signs off on that says, you know, this is actually going to work there and we'll pull the utility lines and everything. But yeah, those are the three conditions. Mr. Harvey, I guess you got those. Okay. Okay. Awesome. And you need to use that site plan. Correct. That site plan is not part of the record right now. Okay. So that's another condition that we have listed on here. Another amendment. Yep. And you'll roll them all up. The amendment before you would be to attach Revised Exhibit 3 dated August 3rd, 2026, and the Revised Exhibit 4, which is the revised site plan dated August 3rd, 2026 as well. Okay. All right. And you had the revised written description? Yes. That was the Exhibit 3. Okay. Thank you. Oh. And was there a 30-foot height restriction in the new one? Because we – can you go to the mic? Can you get to the mic? There is a 35-foot height limit, which is what RMDA is. When I proposed the 30-foot, I got a letter back from them saying they didn't want the 30-feet. They wanted the 35-foot, but I'm happy to change that to 30 feet. Okay. Ms. Elyse, can you come down and confirm if you want the 30 feet or not, and then we can hopefully wrap this up. For clarification, I said that – Give her some space, Paul. Give her some space. He likes me. Yeah, I think there's a little crush there. Not that we didn't want the 30-foot height restriction. It just didn't solve our request for these single-story structures along Old Kings Road South. That was my comment. Not that we don't want the 30-foot height restriction. Understood. So would you like us to include that in there, or is it – Yes, please. All right. We'll go ahead and add it in there. Mr. Harden did agree to that back when he was already on the – Ha! Yeah, we agreed to a 15 – no. 30-foot height restriction as well. Yep. Okay. He'll change it to 30. All right. So with that, do we need to take those up individually, Mr. Harvey, or can we just vote on all of those as one big amendment? Yes, we can roll them all up. I will repeat them to you to let you know what I have. Go ahead, sir. All right. So we have the amendment, which will attach a revised Exhibit 3, which is the PUD written description dated August 3rd. There's an attached revised Exhibit 4, which is a revised site plan dated August 3rd, 2026. You guys will also be voting on the conditions, which will be, unless weighed by the traffic chief of traffic engineering or their designee, a traffic study shall be undertaken by the developer upon PUD verification, that the fence along the southern line of the 20-foot road – excuse me, that there will be a fence along the southern line of the 20-foot part of the road – of Old Kings Road, excuse me – and then landscaping along the fence line as well. Can you come to the mic? Sorry, we can't let you do it. You good? Okay. All right. All in – any questions on the amendment? All right. Nope. All right. All in favor of the amendment? That was just read. Signified by saying aye. Any opposed? The amendment carries. All right. We have a motion and second on the bill to be amended with the conditions. And with that, we will open the ballot. Record of votes. Seven yays. Zero nays. By reaction, you approve 2026-478 with the conditions. All right. I will get with Mr. Harden to recap the rest of any loose ends that come up. Neighborhood, we will get with you as well to make sure we go into next Tuesday fully on the same page. All right. Good deal. Thank you all. All right. That brings us now to page 15. Council members, please turn to page 15. We're going to go to item number 29, 2026-487. Council members, please declare your ex parte communication at this time. Council member Landon, you're recognized. Thank you, Chair. Mayor, I declare ex parte on July 29th at 1.30. I met with Mr. Milton, Mr. Kaplan, the property owner, and Bobby Erzinger on site to discuss this bill, including the road frontage variance, site plans, and future plans. And this has been part of legislative services. All right. Thank you so much for that. We're going to go ahead and open the public hearing and get a staff report. Thank you. Ordinance 2026-487, which is also known as waiver of road frontage 26-10, is a waiver of road frontage that seeks to reduce the required minimum road frontage from 240 feet to, should say 94 feet, to allow for the redevelopment of a third single-family dwelling in the R.R. Acre Zoning District. The subject property is a 3.42-acre lot located along Gervin Road, currently developed with two legally non-conforming single-family dwellings, as well as several accessory structures. The 780-square-foot home, which is the furthest west on the property, was built in 1970, and the 2,280-square-foot home on the eastern portion was a replacement of an existing mobile home in 2013. The applicant seeks to add a third home to the property and bring existing non-conforming structures into compliance through a companion administrative deviation, which is 2026-488, which we'll hear next. Staff finds there are no practical difficulties in meeting the strict letter of the code, as the property already exceeds allowed density with the two non-conforming homes. Approval would expand a non-conforming use and alter the character of the surrounding area, so staff finds the request inconsistent with the zoning code standards and forwards a recommendation of denial. All right. Thank you so much for that. First speaker card, Justin Milton, followed by Michelle Asaro, and then we have John Kaplan. So if Michelle and John will come on down to the front so we can have you come speak next. Mr. Milton, the floor is yours. Justin Milton. My address is on file. I just wanted to take a moment to thank you guys that were here at the last hearing for deferring and allowing us the opportunity to be here and speak. The idea here is so that me and my wife, which is Mr. Kaplan's granddaughter, with our six-year-old son, would be able to build a house on this property, and it would allow us to live on this property with the rest of our family. And we wouldn't like to move. His school's very close. It's a great school. Abbott's Park Elementary. We love the area. We want to stay in the area. And that's really all I've got. I'll leave the rest up to them. Thank you. All right. Thank you, Mr. Milton. Next, we have Michelle Asaro. Hi. Michelle Asaro, 1520 Gervin Road, 32225. I'm here to support this. I'm second generation of, like he said, six-year-old is the fourth generation. So we're just trying to keep all of us together and close and hopefully, you know, keep that going because it's a great place to be able to stay with the family and have us all together. It's been there my whole life, so it's great. Thank you. All right. Thank you. Next, we have John Kaplan. Yeah. My name is John Kaplan. I would greatly appreciate being able to have my family stay together. This means so much to me. Thank you for your time. All right. Thank you, sir. We have no other speaker cards, and we have no one in the queue. So let's close the public hearing and bring it back to committee. All right. We have a motion and a second on the amendment. All in favor of the amendment, signify by saying aye. Any opposed? The amendment carries. All right. We have a motion and a second on the bill as amended. Councilman Landon, do you want to speak now or after the bill? I was just going to speak. As a district council person, I have no concerns over this bill. If you look at the actual property map, it's 3.4 acres, so it's a pretty large lot. It's just very narrow but very long. And the goal here is they want four generations of their family to be on the same lot. Red signs were posted a while. While I got no e-mails or phone calls and opposition, you actually can't see unless you go down the driveway. You can't see the first house anyway. So, again, just as the district council person, I do not have any concerns about this one. All right. Councilmember Diamond, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm just 100% supporting this, voting yes. I love to see families do this, and good luck with the bill. Yep. All right. Yep. And totally agree. I'll be supporting this as well. It is one of those things where there's the size and the shape of the lot just kind of dictates, you know, the waiver of road frontage as needed, so on and so forth. But, yeah, no problems with this. We have no other speakers in the queue, so let's open the ballot. Court of vote. Seven yays. Zero nays. By our action, you have approved 2026-487. Item number 30, 2026-488. Councilmembers, please declare your ex-parte communication at this time. Councilmember Landon, you're recognized. Thank you, Chair. Same ex-parte. July 29th, 1.30. We met with Mr. Milton, Mr. Kaplan, and Ms. Rissinger at the address listed to review the variances, site plan, and future plans. This has been filed. All right. Let's go ahead and open the public hearing and get a staff report. Thank you. 2026-488 seeks to reduce the required minimum lot width from 300 feet to 94 feet for three single-family dwellings and to reduce the required minimum side yard setback from five feet to 1.8 feet for existing accessory structures in the R.R. Acre Zoning District. This is the same subject property as the previous application, which is 3.42 acres and is developed with two legally non-conforming single-family dwellings and several unpermitted accessory structures. The application serves as a companion to the previous waiver, which we just heard, and would allow for the construction of a third single-family dwelling and bring those unpermitted structures into compliance. Staff notes that while the parcel's development history is unique, the surrounding neighborhood is primarily developed with one single-family dwelling per parcel in alignment with the R.R. Acre standards, and there are no site limitations preventing the owner from relocating the accessory structures to meet the required five-foot setback. Staff finds no practical or economic difficulty in carrying out the strict letter of the code as the property already exceeds allowed non-conformities. Had the applicant gone through the required permitting process, the structures would have been set back appropriately. So granting this deviation would set a negative precedent and run contrary to the spirit and intent of the zoning code. So for these reasons and those in the staff report, we forward a recommendation of denial. All right. Do we have any cards on this? Nope. All right. No speaker cards. Let's close the public hearing and bring it back to committee. Motion to second on the bill. No in the queue. Open the ballot. Record your vote. Seven yays. Zero nays. Fire action approved. 2026-488. All right. Congratulations, Milton. Mr. Milton. Mr. Kaplan. All right. Yep. Thank you, Councilman Landon. And next, we have page two. We're going back to item number one, 2026-122. Let's open the public hearing and get a staff report. Ordinance 2026-122 is for a small-scale land use amendment to change 5.7 acres on the east side of Old Kings Road between Acre Road and Plummer Road, from agriculture to low-density residential to allow for the development of single-family homes. Old Kings Road, Acre Road, and Plummer Road are all classified as collector roadways. Because the site is not connected to centralized water and wastewater, the maximum density allowed on the site will be two units per acre, with a minimum lot size of half an acre. The proposed LDR land use category provides for residential uses that are compatible with adjacent single-family residential. The application has been filed with a companion PUD, which will limit the allowed residential density and provides for site criteria, ensuring the scale and use of the property will complement the surrounding area. For these reasons and those in the staff report, the department recommends approval. The planning commission heard this item at their meeting on July 23rd, and they approved it with a vote of 8-0 with no discussion. Thank you. All right. Thank you. First up, we have Hunter Faulkner. Good afternoon. Hunter Faulkner, 10151 Deerwood Park Boulevard, Jacksonville, Florida, 32256. On behalf of the applicant, I appreciate the time tonight from the committee members. This is a small-scale land use amendment from AGR to LDR as described, just limiting to two units per acre. So we have to accommodate half-acre lots for only the 10 lots that are being developed. I will stand by the site report and stand by for any questions that you may have. Thanks. All right. Thank you so much. Next, we have Samantha Series, in opposition, does not wish to speak. And with that, we will close the public hearing and bring it back to committee. All right. We had a motion and second on the bill. No one in the queue. Go ahead. Council Member Johnson, you're recognized. Because I'd rather say this now for this one as opposed to the other one coming up, Mr. Chair. I want to say, I hope, while I do understand where this is, and I do plan to support this legislation because I've looked deep into it, I hope the developers will understand that I have a major problem, while I know how far this is, with septic tanks going in. I've had to stop several developments in my district that I'm okay with the well water. But, I mean, we do know that septic tanks are designed to fail. I don't know. While I do understand that this project is a lot further away from where the lines are, I hope that we can find ways, whether it be pumping stations or whatever, to kind of move away from that, because I just do not think it is the best thing. So I hope this is nothing in this project. I think this project is great. I think the lot sizes are great on this and that this is going to give some people affordable places to live in that area. And I have relatives that live near this space. But I just want us to do as much as we can to keep from putting septic tanks in spaces where, in 30 years, when we won't be here, somebody's got to either try to take them out of the ground if they're not maintained properly. Thank you, Mr. Chair. All right. Thank you. Did we, I'm sorry, did we close the public hearing? We have the motion in a second? Okay, cool. Good deal. All right, let's open the ballot. Record your votes. Six yays, zero nays. By reaction, you've approved 2026-122. All right, item, companion item number two, 2026-123. Councilmembers, please declare your ex parte at this time. Councilman Gaffney, you're recognized. Thank you, through the chair. I want to declare ex parte. I met Mr. Hunter, I think like a month ago. I made sure I get that date. This project originally was 23 mobile homes. And then the planning department recommended denial. So Mr. Hunter came back and recommended 10 single-family homes. So I do want to commend you on, you know, working with the community on that. But I'm going to share everything else gets filed with legislative services. Thank you. All right. Councilman Johnson, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I rise to declare ex parte. I had a video conference today with Mr. Faulkner at 3.30. I had some questions about the lot sizes as well as the type of home they were. They were answered, and that's being filed with legislative services. Thank you. All right. And I also wanted to declare ex parte. I had a Zoom call with Mr. Faulkner on July 28th at 1.45, and we discussed the zoning that we're on right now, and this paperwork is being filed with legislative services. With that, we will open the public hearing and get a staff report. Thank you. This is the companion PUD 2026-123, which seeks to rezone approximately 5.7 acres for a parcel located along Old Kings Road from Agriculture to a PUD. The intent of the PUD is to allow for a maximum of 10 single-family homes on half-acre-sized lots. While the land use is being amended to LDR, the density is limited to two units per acre due to the absence of central water and sewer. The proposed development complies with this standard by providing approximately 1.8 dwelling units per acre and requiring minimum one-half-acre lots. Staff finds proposed rezoning to be consistent with the 2045 Comprehensive Plan, including goals to support well-balanced residential development while protecting natural resources. The project complies with the LDR density requirements for sites without city utilities and fits the surrounding development pattern, where nearby properties contain single-family homes and larger undeveloped tracks. The PUD has been designed to preserve approximately 2.21 acres of existing wetlands by clustering the homes around the perimeter of the site and maintaining wetland buffers. For these reasons and those in the staff report, we forward a recommendation of approval with the revised written description and site plan. This item was heard at the July 23rd Planning Commission hearing, and the commission voted unanimously for approval. All right. Mr. Gaffney, do you have... Yeah, this will be quick. This is an additional esparte. I'm not sure if I was clear or not, but I also spoke with Mr. Hunter today as well, maybe like 4 o'clock, just to talk about the LUZ process tonight. All right. Thank you. Okay. Great. Yep. All right. With that, we have two speaker cards. First up, Hunter Faulkner. Hunter Faulkner, 10151 Deerwood Park Boulevard. Again, on behalf of the applicant, stand by the site report and for any questions that the committee may have. All right. Thank you. Next, we have Samantha Series is in opposition and does not wish to speak. So that is all the speaker cards we have. With that, we'll close the public hearing and bring back the committee. We need a motion on the amendment. We need an amendment. All right. Okay, so we have two revised exhibits in the amendment. Revised Exhibit 3, which is a written description dated July 11th, and then we have a revised Exhibit 4 with a revised site plan dated May 6th. All in favor of the amendment, signify by saying aye. Any opposed? The amendment carries. All right. We have a motion and a second on the bill as amended. No one in the queue. Open the ballot. Record your vote. Six yays. Zero nays. All right. Thank you. Yeah. Yeah, we have by your action, you approve 2026-123. All right. Item number three, 2026-124 is deferred with a public hearing next cycle on 11-17-26. Excuse me. Item number four, 2026-125 is deferred with a public hearing on 11-17-26. Item number five, 2026-126. Open the public hearing, and we have one speaker card. Samantha Series is in opposition, does not wish to speak, and we will continue this public hearing until 8-19-26. Item number six, 2026-127. Open the public hearing, one speaker card. Samantha Series is in opposition and does not wish to speak, and we will continue this public hearing until 8-19-26. Item number seven, 2026-372. Council members, please declare your ex parte communication at this time. Seeing none, let's open the public hearing and get a staff report. 2026-372 seeks to rezone approximately 1.92 acres, located at 12020 Dunn Creek Road, from residential rural acre to residential low-density 50. The property is designated a low-density residential under the 2045 comprehensive plan, and development of the lots will be a minimum of 50 feet in width. Staff evaluated the request for consistency with the 2045 comprehensive plan, and found that the proposed RLD-50 zoning is a primary zoning district within the existing LDR land use category. The request supports comprehensive plan policies that encourage a variety of housing opportunities while maintaining compatible residential neighborhoods. Staff finds the requested rezoning is compatible with the surrounding area. Residential development already exists along Dunn Creek Road, including nearby RLD-50 subdivisions such as Carter's Paddock and Cherry Lake, as well as the Caney Branch Plantation townhome community. The proposed rezoning continues the established residential development pattern along this corridor. For these reasons and those in the staff report, before a recommendation of approval, and this item was heard at the July 23rd Planning Commission hearing, there were no speakers in opposition, and the commission voted unanimously for approval. All right, thank you. We have one speaker card, Mike Herzberg, in support. Questions only. No other speaker cards. No one in the queue. Let's close the public hearing and bring it back to committee. Motion and second on the bill. No one in the queue. Open the ballot. I'll record your vote. Five yays, zero nays. By reaction, you've approved 2026-372. Item number 8, 2026-376. Open the public hearing. We have one speaker card. Carnell Oliver. How you doing? My name is Carnell Oliver. I'm not going to say I'm against the bill, but I believe in the 14th Amendment. And what I've been doing is sent back there looking at the bill. And right across the street, right across 8th Street, 8th Street connects. Springfield is isolated by two historic black neighborhoods. Davis Street, which old the villa used to sit at, Sugar Hill, and then the east side is on the other side. With this bill, I want to incorporate and create a provision in this legislation where the east side gets the same standards. Because you don't know what kind of economic opportunities that may come in place because people want to work from home. So, whatever traffic that is created will end up on that main road corridor. So, in my interest, whatever you do for Springfield, you give them the same standards. And what I am calling for right now is a community capacity standard. It's built around the idea of the Neighborhood Bill of Rights. And I'm really hoping that the audience is really understanding the Neighborhood Bill of Rights is not just a broad piece of bill. You can apply it to any kind of bill you want in this community. The community just got to be willing to enforce the laws we have on the books. So, I'm enforcing the Neighborhood Bill of Rights to create a neighborhood capacity standards for this work from home bill. And I yield my time. All right. We have no other speaker cards. And the public hearing is going to be continued until 9-1-26. Item number 9, 2026-420. Council members, please declare your ex parte communication at this time. Seeing none, I'll go ahead and declare mine. I had a meeting with Cindy Tremor on August 3rd, 2026 at 1230 on the phone. And this paperwork is going to get filed with legislative services. We've got no one else in the queue. So, let's open the public hearing and get a staff report. Thank you. Ordinance 2026-420 is for a proposed change to the boundary of the Belfort Station Development of Regional Impact. That's a DRI. The Belfort Station DRI is located on Phillips Highway, southeast of the intersection of JTB and Phillips Highway. Currently, the Belfort Station DRI is approximately 101 acres. And the applicant seeks to remove approximately 7.64 acres of land from the DRI. This land is located along the southern boundary of the DRI. No changes to the language of the development order are proposed. And no changes to the development rights of the DRI are proposed. The master plan map H, as it's called, to the DRI would be modified to reflect the boundary change with the removal of the 7.64 acre site. A planned unit development rezoning is being processed concurrent with the proposed change to the DRI. The 7.64 acre site is proposed to be used, excuse me, for the development of multifamily residential. The removal of the 7.64 acre site from the DRI will not negatively affect the surrounding area. The intended use of the site for multifamily development continues the mix of uses encouraged by the DRI and is compatible with the mix of uses in the surrounding area. The planning department recommends approval. And this item does not get heard by the Planning Commission. Thank you. All right. Thank you so much. Council Member Kerricka, do you have ex parte? Yes, I do. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I do, excuse me, Mr. Vice President, I do have ex parte. I spoke to Cindy Tremor yesterday at noon via phone call. And really, she just explained to me what the DRI was and got a little in-depth knowledge on that so I could better understand this request. And we'll get that filed with legislative services. Thank you. All right. Thank you. Council Member Arias, did you have ex parte? I saw you. Okay. Mike. There you are. Sorry about that. Thank you, Chair. Yes, I'd like to declare ex parte. I spoke to the applicant on 7.29 to discuss the DRI and how this bill has actually been postponed. It's been postponed for a couple of years now, and we're actually now seeing it back in action to bring this home. So, all that's being filed as we speak. Thank you. All right. There we go. We already got our staff report. So, first speaker card, only speaker card, Cindy Tremor. Thank you so much. Cindy Tremor, 1 Independent Drive, Suite 1200 on behalf of the applicant. This is a unicorn DRI that exists in the state of Florida that was adopted before I was born that somehow didn't get an expiration date built into it. It is towards the end of its life cycle. There is limited land left in this DRI. There are a couple developers that hold rights that do still intend to do something with their rights, but they are no longer available for sale in the market to allow somebody else to come in and develop within the project. So, in essence, the other properties that don't already have an allocation of development rights are held hostage and aren't able to move forward until those development rights are used up and expire. Used up, don't expire. Our property is the southernmost property in the DRI. So, what we are trying to do here is just take it out, have it revert back to the regular mobility system. They'll be able to pay into that, move forward with their permitting, and move forward with development of the site. So, with that, I will stand by for questions. Okay. We have no other speaker cards. So, let's go ahead and close the public hearing and bring it back to committee. Motion and second on the bill. No discussion. Open the ballot. Record your vote. Five yays. Zero nays. By your action, you've approved 2026-420. And, Councilmembers, just as a reminder, on action items, our quorum is five members up on the dais. So, just keep that in mind. If it's an action item, the quorum is five. So, with that, we have item number 10, 2026-421. Councilmembers, please declare your ex parte at this time. Probably all the same. All right. Councilmember Carricko, you're recognized. Pastor President Carricko. Thank you, Mr. Vice President and Chair. I have ex parte. The same phone call that I had with Cindy Tremor yesterday at noon and still just really just dove into the DRI. That was really the extent of our conversation. Thank you. All right. Councilmember Arias, you're recognized. Come on, man. Get it together. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Chair. The same ex parte. I spoke to the applicant on 729 at 2.30 p.m. regarding the DRI, and it's currently being filed. Thank you. All right. You coming back in just for the ex parte? I'll go ahead. All right. I have ex parte communication with Cindy Tremor v. Phone on August 3rd at 12.30, and we discussed all of the items previously stated. This paperwork is going to get filed with legislative services. With that, we will open the public hearing and get a staff report. Thank you. This is the companion PUD rezoning 2026-421, which seeks to rezone approximately 7.64 acres from an existing PUD, which was ordinance 1974-577, to a new planned unit development to allow the redevelopment into a multifamily residential community. The proposed PUD allows a maximum of 305 units, although the current plan reflects 236 units. The request is consistent with the 2045 comprehensive plan and supports redevelopment within the urban priority area, where compact, higher-intensity residential development is preferred. Surrounding uses have recently transitioned towards multifamily development, including an adjacent apartment complex to the north and an approved high-density residential PUD to the west. The proposal meets the requirements for internal and external compatibility. The site is surrounded by a mix of complementary uses, including that apartment complex to the north, the approved high-density to the west, an office complex to the south, and it's bordered by Interstate 95 to the east. The Belford Station area is transitioning from a business park use to residential and mixed-use development, and the proposed PUD continues this transition by integrating additional multifamily residential and access to the development is through Bay Meadows Way West, in close proximity to Phillips Highway, and I-95 ensure adequate external mobility. So for these reasons and those in the staff report, we forward a recommendation of approval with the one condition in your agenda, and this application was heard by the Planning Commission on July 23rd, where there were no speakers in opposition and little discussion among the commissioners, and they voted unanimously for approval with the same condition. All right. Thank you. 421. Okay. One speaker card. Cindy Trimmer. Cindy Trimmer, 1 Independent Drive, Suite 1200, on behalf of the applicant. This is a large surface parking lot that historically served the office complex to the south, which used to include the Florida Coastal School of Law. They no longer have the tremendous parking demand in that complex that they previously did and started looking at options for how to redevelop the site. The original business park didn't contemplate multifamily use in the PUD, but as Connor referenced, there have been two amendments in the recent past, 2022, and subsequently to add multifamily to this business park. The Rise Bay Meadows complex has been very successful. That's about 331 units entitled immediately to the north of this site. In reviewing with the councilman, he did ask us to double-check and look into that traffic circulation, as you heard Connor reference, there are at least three direct lines, one going immediately to JTB, one going immediately to Phillips, and one coming direct south to Bay Meadows. So there is adequate circulation to support additional development within the business park, and it is actually preferred that we incorporate a mix of uses for internal capture according to how they originally calculate the demands of the park. So with that, oh, I do also want to add, this is part of a property owner's association, and that property owner's association actually has to look at each parcel that integrates multifamily into the site, and they have historically supported those amendments to their covenants to allow it. So I will stand by for questions. All right, no other speaker cards, no one in the queue, so let's close the public hearing and bring it back to committee. All right, we have a motion and a second on the amendment with conditions. Can someone please explain the amendment with the condition? Yes, it's the planning department and planning commission condition, which is the traffic study. All right, all in favor of the amendment, signify by saying aye. Any opposed? The amendment carries. Do we have a second? Do we have a second? Second. All right, there it is. Yeah, motion and a second on the bill with the amendment and the conditions. No one in the queue. Open the ballot. Record your vote. Six yays. Zero nays. By your action, you've approved 2026-421. Item number 11, 2026-430. Open the public hearing and get a staff report. Ordinance 2026-430 is for a small-scale land use amendment to change approximately 1.82 acres from low-density residential to residential professional institutional to allow for low-intensity commercial uses. The site is located at 505 Starrett Road between Purdue Road and Futch Road. Starrett Road is classified as a collector roadway, and the site has access to centralized water and sewer. The proposed amendment to RPI would allow for residential office and or limited neighborhood commercial uses on an underutilized parcel fronting a collector roadway. The site's primary frontage is along Starrett Road, and to the southwest, the site abuts an entrance drive to a mobile home community. Residential uses abut the site to the north and west, and there are CGC uses to the south across Starrett Road. The subject site is adjacent to both residential uses and a commercial node. As such, the proposed RPI land use category provides for compatible uses, as well as a gradual transition of densities and intensities with urban service delivery infrastructure. So for these reasons and those in the staff report, the Planning Department recommends approval. And the item was heard at the July 23rd Planning Commission, where the Planning Commission unanimously approved the item with minimal discussion. Thank you. All right. With that, we have one speaker card. Brian Small is in support for questions only. No other speaker cards. Let's close the public hearing and bring it back to committee. Motion and second on the bill. No one in the queue. Open the ballot. Record your vote. Five yays. By your action, you've approved 2026-430. Item number 12, 2026-431. Council members, please declare your ex parte communication at this time. Mr. Gaffney, you're recognized. Thank you, through the chair. I'd like to declare ex parte. I met with Mr. Small last week in my office to discuss the future land use of this legislation. Mr. Small shared that the applicant or the individual that he representing is thinking about paying an ice cream parlor at this location. So, we talked about the ingress, egress, you know, all the initiatives behind this legislation. But I make sure everything gets filed with legislative services. All right. With that, we'll go ahead and open the public hearing and get a staff report. Thank you. This is the companion rezoning 2026-431, which seeks to rezone approximately 1.82 acres at 505 Starrett Road from RLD 60 to Commercial Neighborhood. The subject property is located along Starrett Road, which is classified as a collector roadway and has a mix of residential and low-intensity commercial uses. The applicant intends to develop a small neighborhood serving commercial use and will be replacing two existing mobile homes on the site. Staff finds the proposed rezoning to be consistent with the 2045 comprehensive plan with the proposed land use change to RPI. The surrounding area contains a mix of residential uses, a mobile home park, and nearby commercial sites such as a shopping center, church, and restaurant. The CN zoning provides an appropriate transitional intensity and is compatible with the existing development patterns. For these reasons and those in the staff report, we forward a recommendation of approval. This item was heard at the July 23rd Planning Commission hearing. There were no speakers in opposition, little discussion, and they voted unanimously for approval. All right. We have one speaker card. Mr. Bryan Small in support. Questions only. And with that, we'll go ahead and close the public hearing and bring it back to committee. All right. We have a motion and a second on the bill. No one in the queue. Open the ballot. Record your vote. Six yays. Zero nays. By reaction approved, 2026-431. Item number 13, 2026-434. 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 PUD ordinance 2026-434, which seeks to rezone approximately 0.46 acres, located at 0 Laura Street and 101 1st Street West from CRO Springfield to a new planned unit development. The PUD rezoning is to allow the historic Carpelles Manuscript Library Museum building in the Springfield Historic District to be used as an event space or banquet hall within the existing RPI land use category. The proposed PUD retains CROS standards while adding one new use and adjusting parking and landscaping requirements to accommodate the historic site. Staffs reviewed the request and finds the proposed rezoning to be consistent with the 2045 comprehensive plan. The site lies within the urban core, urban priority area, and the Springfield Historic District. RPI supports transitional uses such as office, residential, and limited neighborhood commercial activities. The proposed PUD maintains strong internal compatibility by preserving the historic Carpelles Manuscript Library Museum structure, which is a contributing building within the historic district. Any future alterations, expansions, or site changes must undergo Certificate of Appropriateness review, ensuring architectural integrity and compliance with the historic design standards. Externally, the site fits in well to the surroundings at the southern edge of Springfield. It is bordered by Henry J. Clutho Park to the west and south, office uses to the north, and a church and additional office uses to the east. Given the surrounding development is low, intense commercial uses, the proposal to add an event space to the allowed uses creates compatibility and consistency with the surrounding developments. The property is served by multiple collector roadways with ample available capacity. So for these reasons and those found in the staff report, we forward a recommendation of approval with a revised written description, which is dated June 23, 2026. With that revised written description, the planning department is no longer forwarding the proposed condition in the staff report, as this has since been incorporated into the new written description. And this application was heard by the Planning Commission on July 23, where there were no speakers in opposition and little discussion, and the commissioners voted unanimously for approval. All right. Thank you so much. We have one speaker card. Ms. Pass, City Council President, Alberta Hips. Hi. Alberta Hips, 1650 Margaret Street, 323 Jacksonville, Florida, 32204. You've heard the report from the planning department, and we've worked closely with the developer in SPAR, and we have a letter of support from SPAR, and we'd appreciate your pre-approval vote tonight. All right. Thank you so much. We have no other speaker card, so we'll close this public hearing and bring it back to committee. All right. We have a motion and a second on the amendment. No one in the queue. All in favor of the amendment, signify by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed? The amendment carries. Motion and second on the bill as amended. No one in the queue. Open the ballot. Record your vote. Seven yays. Zero nays. By your action, you've approved 2026-434. Thank you. Yes, ma'am. Thank you. Always good to see you. Number 14, 2026-435. Council members, please declare your ex parte communication at this time. Seeing none, let's go ahead and open the public hearing and get a staff report. Thank you. 2026-435 seeks to rezone approximately 9.38 acres from residential medium density A to a planned unit development. The proposal would allow for the development of up to 320 residential units consisting of multifamily apartments on the southern portion of the site and a mix of single-family homes, cottages, or townhomes on the northeastern portion. Staff evaluated the request for consistency with the 2045 comprehensive plan and found the proposal to be consistent with the medium-density residential land use designation. The development promotes compact infill development, housing diversity, and efficient use of existing urban infrastructure. We find the PUD meets the internal and external criteria and the proposal to be compatible with the surrounding development. Similar residential rezonings have been improved in the vicinity, and the mix of housing types reflects the established development pattern along Old Middleburg Road. The PUD also includes a minimum three-acre private preserve, trails, active recreation amenities, pedestrian connections, and a natural buffer adjacent to Edward White High School. Transportation analysis indicates Old Middleburg Road has sufficient available capacity to accommodate the anticipated traffic. For these reasons and those in the staff report, we forward a recommendation of approval with the revised Exhibit 4 site plan listed in the agenda. The application was heard by Planning Commission on June 18th, where there were no speakers in opposition and little discussion amongst the commissioners, and they voted unanimously for approval. All right, thank you so much. Before we go to our speaker cards, we are going to go to Council Member Arias for Exparte. All right, thank you, Chair. I'd like to declare Exparte. Yesterday, I had a conversation, not with the applicant, but with somebody working with the applicant regarding this ordinance here, discussing the community meeting that they had, and if I had any questions, and it's currently being filed as we speak. Thank you. Okay, thank you. Ms. Clark-Murray, do you have Exparte as well? Okay. All right, so we'll go to the first speaker card. Mr. Peter King is here. He is in support, and he marked questions only. Next, we have Kevin Hyde. We have another past Council President. Mr. Kevin Hyde, come on down. Thank you. Kevin Hyde, 3545 Pine Street, 32205. I'm here in capacity as a member of the Lakeshore Church of Christ, which we will be the neighbor if this is approved. We're not necessarily in opposition to it, but we haven't had any contact with the developer, and we just would ask, to the extent that you are imposing conditions on the property next to Ed White High School, which will be one neighbor on one side, we will be in the other. We would like to see whatever buffers can be developed there to make sure, not only for the quietness as we're worshiping, but also for the safety of our children who worship there at the same time. Any questions that you have, I'd be happy to answer. All right. We will go through the rest of the speaker cards, and if there's any questions from the committee members, they can call you up. Last speaker card, Carnell Oliver. Yes, my name is Carnell Oliver. Address is on file. I'm not against the project at all, but what I am really focused on is the Neighborhood Bill of Rights. What I'm looking at is two items that I want to see taken up and attached to the bill. Number one is the 1866 Civil Rights Act, and number two, a 360 housing impact study analysis being done, because every time something that deals with economic growth happens in this community, it impacts somebody. Somebody's furniture is always getting broken. And why I'm putting a very strong emphasis on the 1866 Civil Rights Act is because black is a race, and we're colorblind. But what can be replaced is heritage. And Jacksonville needs an office that's going to cater to the heritage of a lot of Americans. So what I'm imposing on this project is a guarantee of economic opportunity for subcontractors or black Americans who have heritage here in America. But it has to be verified and proven. This is all constitutionally based. The attorneys in the general counsel's office, they know where I'm going, and I'm not lying. Mr. Oliver, make sure you stay on the bill. Okay, well, my situation is this. With the neighborhood bill of rights, my question is this. Could we put an impact fee on it? Because it's going to hurt somebody's pocket. Somebody's going to pay for these damages. This isn't on the bill, Mr. Oliver, unfortunately. I apologize. But my thing about it is economic development. Anything that starts from the ground up is money. And when I talk about money, I'm talking specifically about cutting checks with black Americans who have heritage in this country. And you know I'm not backing down. So my expectation is like the three emails I just sent you in a row, I expect you to follow the law. And you will enforce the law. And I yield my time. All right. We have no other speaker cards. So with that, we will close the public hearing and bring back to committee. Yep. Oh, Council Member White, did you have ex parte or do you want to say? No, I have a question when we get to the bill. Okay. So let's move the amendment and then we can get back to the bill. All right. So we have a motion and a second on the amendment. Is anyone on the amendment? Nope. Okay. All in favor of the amendment, signify by saying aye. Any opposed? The amendment carries. On the amendment? Okay. Can someone please explain the amendment? Yes. It's a revised site plan. So the original site plan that was filed with the legislation has been updated and amended for the June 4th. 2026 site plan. Okay. So the new site plan that is on the amendment was updated June 4th. Is that correct? Okay. Thank you. I do have a question about it. So through the chair to Mr. Harvey. So how many, does it reflect the number of multifamily units? It should be a change. That's what I'm waiting to hear. Through the chair to Councilwoman Clark Murray. So it just basically updates where on the site, the multifamily and the single family and cottages are going to be located. So it does not, the number hasn't changed. You don't know anything about the number. Okay. So I do want, for the record, if I could call, chair, if I could call Mr. King up. So just him, so that he will mention the change in the number of units. Mr. King. Hi, Peter King, 404 West 70th Street, representing North Florida Land Trust. The text remains unchanged. The text of the bill is the only thing that has the units. The units are not on the previous site plan or the current one. We have up to 300 units dialed in there, which is about half of what's permitted by the flu. The flu rounds 30 an acre. We're doing less than 15. Realistically, once we start doing the parking and figuring out the exact architecture of the building, the total units is probably going to be 266 to 280 total, including the single family. Thank you for that. Thank you. Correct. Thank you. All right. Council Member White, you recognize. Yes, sir. Mr. King, Mike, can answer this. What Mr. Hyde spoke about, whatever the buffer is on one side to Ed White High School, is it the same buffer on the other side that's next to his property? It's basically a code-required buffer. Okay. We really like being there. People will be able to walk to the church and walk to the school. Thank you. Pastor Rosen Carrico, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Yes, Mr. King, maybe can you elaborate a little bit on that buffer and Mr. Hyde's concern? How many feet is the current buffer? You said per code, but what is that exactly? I think the code requires five foot and uncomplimentary trees and shrubs on the edge. Okay, five feet. Thank you. I believe that's what it is. Mr. Hyde, can you come up? Mr. Hyde, while you come up through the chair to the past president, the five feet that is currently in the site plan, is that enough, do you think, for your church, or would you look for more buffer? We would prefer more. I mean, it's hard to say what's enough. Basically, what it is now, it's a complete wooded area. So when I say we're used to that, we're not requiring that. But five feet, the parking lot goes literally to the edge of the property. The building is not very far from the parking. It's only two parking spaces or two sides of parking. So five feet is going to be close. You know, we'll be looking, I suspect, directly at the facilities. And I do worry about children wandering off in there. I don't know if it's contemplated for fencing or what type of buffering or tree requirements would be there. But I would worry about that at five feet. Okay. Through the chair to the planning department, whoever wants to answer the question, is there a requirement of some sort of offense in between that five-foot buffer to add a little more protection and security per the concern of the church? Through the chair to Councilman Carrico. So yes, technically the code has buffer requirements for uncomplimentary uses. However, traditionally that would be on the commercial or institutional use to provide that versus on the multifamily. But typically, yes, it would be a 10-foot wide buffer. And that includes both the buffer width, shrubs, trees, and a fencing or screening of some sort. Okay. So with shrubs, trees, and a fencing of some sort, Mr. Hyde, do you think that would satisfy the concerns of the church? Okay. Just wanted to make sure we're all clear and on the same page. Thank you. All right. And we have Ms. Clark Murray for the second time. We're already past the amendment. Do you want to speak to the – we need a motion and a second on the bill as amended? Okay. We have a motion and a second on the bill as amended. And now we have Ms. Clark Murray. Thank you for that. So I would like to place a condition in regards to this particular application in this bill. So if you looked in GIS, this is one of two projects, developments, that are basically on both sides of Ed White Middle School. I'm sorry, Ed White High School. And so Ed White High School, of course, you know, it has peak hours in the morning, maybe about 7.30 to about 7.10. And then it has peak hours, maybe about 2, maybe about 1.30 to maybe about 2.15, maybe 2.30 in regards to traffic. So I've spoken with Mr. King, and he is not in opposition to what we call an operational analysis on this. And that means basically so that there's a type of traffic study that's going to occur so that they go in and look at how this development, which according to the bill is going to generate close to 2,000 trips. But this is not about capacity on the road. This is about – because the road is at 35% capacity. An operational analysis will allow the traffic engineering to go in and look at the traffic during those particular times. This road, once again, is right in front of Ed White High School, and you have a great deal of traffic at that time. Additionally, it is a high crash area. I've spoken with traffic engineering. It is a high crash area. Also, if you look at it in GIS, we have – you don't have the ability to make a right turn at any point. And the entrance for this particular development will actually come out where there is a concrete island. So looking at the operational analysis and the traffic will be – first of all, it's going to satisfy what the community wanted, because they asked for – they weren't in opposition to the development, but what they wanted was a better look at the traffic. And so that's what I'm requesting. If you need a little more information on what an operational analysis is, Ms. Bannister is here to give you more information. So that's my request. Okay. Mr. Harvey, just – I'm getting some – I want to make sure. Did we pass the amendment? I had – that we did move it and pass it, and then we kind of went back to discussion on it. Well, I had that you guys did take a vote on the amendment, and then you had a question that was from Ms. Clark Murray who wanted to know. Okay. But the amendment had already passed. Okay. Okay, cool. Just making sure we have that on the record. All right. So – and then we had a motion and a second on the bill as amended, right? Okay. Got it. Anyways, just wanted to make sure we're on the proper footing here. Councilman Gaffney, you recognize? Well, thank you through the chair. I want to, I guess, respond back to Councilwoman Clark Murray. She said, I guess she's proposing an amendment potentially on this operational – what is it called? I'm sorry. A condition on this legislation. I would like to hear, I guess, Mr. King's thoughts first and hear from Ms. Bannister as well in terms. I could get more information. I never heard of this, so it's kind of new to me. So, Mr. King, you want to – through the chair, you want to come up and speak to, I guess, the proposed condition that she just recommended? Well, we don't – we don't object to this condition. I mean, development services is going to make us address the operational characteristics of that in this driveway. Councilwoman was correct in saying it's going to be about 2,000 trips. That's about 5% of the capacity of the road. But we sought to deal with, you know, the left out and the right in and how the island basically is going to function. The island's probably going to have to be modified. All that's going to be handled by operation. We don't have any problem with a condition since we're going to be doing that anyway. I would also like to point out, just to address the church issue, that our single-family portion is what's against the church. The multifamily portion is in the back-back where it's adjacent to the vacant land that the church has. So, just to ameliorate any fears they might have about noise, we'll just have our single-family portion next to the church. Okay, Ms., whoever, over the, what's that, Bannister? Yeah. Did you get your answer, Mr. Gaffney? Yeah. If you can, can you explain more about this, what is it called again? I'm sorry. Is it, Ms. Bannister, operational analysis? I mean, before I propose the amendment, and just for conversation purposes, entertainment purposes, you could speak to it. Yeah, so the question is, what would the operational analysis do pre the TINCET review, basically? Through the chair, to Councilman Gaffney, the operational study is pretty much a traffic impact study. Looking more than just capacity, trip generation, it's looking more on how the roadway will function with the vehicles. So, we're looking at safety, turning lanes, traffic signals, sidewalks. All of that will be inclusive in the operation. How would this new development function with everything else that's on our right-of-way? So, that's pretty much what the operational part of it is. And that's more geared to what the traffic engineers will look at versus the planners looking at the numbers for capacity. Through the chair, is this needed with an amendment or this could be done without an amendment? Do we have to pass an amendment, I guess? Whether, through the chair? That's a condition. It could be a condition here, or we'll stop it at development services when it comes in with their TINCET, that these things will be done. And that from there, we'll create a methodology meeting, and that's when we can get the applicant at that time. Okay. All right. We've got a couple other people in the queue. Okay. So, yeah, we'll pause on that. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, Councilwoman Clark-Murray, for bringing this up. When we're talking about kids, we're talking about a school. We're talking about Ed White. So, you know, when I was council president, we had several meetings with, joint meetings with the school board, and one of our hot topics, if you will, that we discussed was children's safety while coming to and from school, not just on buses, but when they walk. And Ed White has had several kids hit by cars right in front of the high school. They actually lost a student who lost their life. It wasn't in front of the school. It was on another, you know, major road. Yeah. So, we're talking about children's safety. We have to vet this. We have to think it through. So, I'm in favor, if Councilman Gaffney wants to put an amendment forward to make sure that we do dive deep into the safety and make sure that we're looking out for our children that are walking to and from school and Ed White and adding 300 units and 2,000 trips a day, it's our job as electeds to make sure that we, you know, look at public safety, number one. And if we can do anything to add to that, to make sure that our professionals that, you know, do the traffic engineering and review, do that up front, I think that that's something that I would support. So, I'll throw it back to Councilmember Gaffney if he wants to formalize that amendment, but I will support it. Councilman Gaffney, Mike. Yeah, through the chat, I want to offer an operational analysis amendment. All right, we have a motion and a second on the amendment to have an operational analysis done at what point in time? I guess that's to Ms. Clark-Murray. Thank you, Chair, through the Chair and to the Chair. So, it's done at the same time that they do the, it should be the, is it called the Tencent? The Tencent. Tencent. Tencent. The Tencent. So, it's during that time. But once again, it's a deeper dive. And I'll say again that this particular road, once again, the high school, the high school aspect of it, because you have parents who are dropping kids off, not just where the high school is, but they're crossing the road as well. And so, we have all kinds of safety concerns. And so, this particular analysis will do a deeper dive and help with determining what the developer needs to do in order to make sure that the road is safe. Additionally, there is a development occurring now to the north of the high school. So, it is that particular area from Herlong to, I forget the name of it, maybe Lennox. It is a hot, yeah, I got it. Yeah, Lennox. You know, I know my area. It is a hotbed for development. So, we want to make sure that we, that the kids remain safe and the people who live in the community remain safe as well. Thank you. All right. So, we have a motion in a second on the floor to add the operational analysis done at the Tencent review. Mr. Harvey, did you need to weigh in on this before we go? Yes. I just want to verify the language that's going to go in the bill. After hearing from Chief Bannister, it sounds like this is still the same language we'll use in our traffic study analysis, but we will add the additional step of an operational analysis to be completed within that traffic study. So, I want to make sure that we'll just use that language that we always use, which is a traffic study shall be undertaken by the developer upon PUD verification during the Tencent review, and we'll include that additional operational analysis language to it. Right. Yep, because that just gives the deeper dive that we are all wanting. So, there we go. There's no one in the queue. All in favor of that amendment, signify by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed? The amendment carries. All right. And we're going to roll those amendments up into one, right? Because we had another amendment that we already passed. So, we're going to roll those both up into one amendment, and we have a motion and second on the bill as twice amended, rolled up into one. No one in the queue. Open the ballot. Record your vote. Seven yays. Zero nays. Fire action approved. 2026-435. Item number 15. 2026-436. Oh. Oh, go ahead. I'm sorry. Ms. Clark-Murray. For the record, thank you. And the community of High Grove, thank you as well, because they're directly across the street from the high school. All right. Yes, ma'am. And next up is number 15. 2026-436. That is deferred with a public hearing next cycle on 8-19-26. Item number 16 has already been taken up. Item number 17. 2026-475. Let's open the public hearing and get a staff report. Thank you. The ordinance 2026-475 is for a small-scale land use amendment to change approximately 1.91 acres on the east side of Granite Place between New Berlin Road and I-295 from water-dependent, water-related, which is WDWR, to light industrial, to allow for truck parking. So truck parking is allowed in the existing WDWR if it's associated with the Port of Jacksonville or recreational and commercial working waterfronts. However, the proposed use is not associated with any water-dependent or water-related uses, which is why they're seeking the light industrial. On June 10th, the item was heard by the Water Waste Commission due to the presence of Category 1 wetlands on the site. The Water Waste Commission voted to recommend denial given the presence of flood zones and other related environmental conditions on the site. Granite Place is a local roadway and New Berlin is a collector. The proposed amendment to light industrial allows for compatible industrial uses on a parcel adjacent to a collector road with convenient access to an FDOT interstate, and this is preferred for light industrial designations. The subject site is also adjacent to industrial uses as well as a commercial node. The proposed land use category of light industrial is consistent with the site's location within the industrial sanctuary, which is an area that has been deemed appropriate for industrial uses. So for these reasons and those in the staff report, the Planning Department recommends approval. The item was heard at the July 23rd Planning Commission, and the commission voted unanimously to approve the item with minimal discussion. Thank you. All right, thanks so much. We have one speaker card, Brian Small in support, questions only. Samantha Series is in opposition, wishes to speak. Come on down. Samantha Series, address on file. Not really that I'm opposed. I just have questions because on Legislature, we don't see the reports anymore, and I appreciate that the JWC denial was explained because you guys don't usually always explain those, so I appreciate that. And I just wanted to, you know, let you know that I've reached out to the Legislative Services, and I have not been able to receive any of the PD or PC reports on any of these, so just giving you a heads up that the public's not getting all the information. Thank you. All right. We have no other speaker cards. We have no other speaker cards, so let's close the public hearing and bring it back to committee. Motion and a second on the bill, and where are we at? Okay, no, we have no one in the queue, so let's open the ballot, record your vote. Six yays, zero nays. By direction, you have approved 2026-475. In this series, I think we did write down what you just said and your concerns, and we'll try to have someone with staff kind of figure that out for you. All right? All right. And that brings us to item 2026-476. Hold on one second, sorry. Ladies and gentlemen, let's open the public hearing and get a staff report. Are we good? Thank you. This is the companion rezoning 2026-476, which seeks to rezone approximately 1.91 acres at zero granite place from industrial water to industrial light. The applicant seeks this rezoning to allow the property to be used for truck parking. Both IW and IL permit industrial uses. However, IW requires uses to be water-dependent or related to port activity. The applicant is seeking to remove the water-related activity requirement and allow for industrial uses within the IL zoning district. Staff has reviewed the request and found the proposed zoning district is consistent with the 2045 comprehensive plan and compatible with the surrounding development pattern. Surrounding uses include open storage, a convenient store and gas station, vacant water-zoned land, and heavy industrial uses, and confirming external compatibility with the IL zoning district. For these reasons and those in the staff report, before a recommendation of approval, this application was heard at the July 23rd Planning Commission hearing, and the commission voted unanimously for approval. Okay, thank you. We have two speaker cards. First is Brian Small is in support, questions only. Next is Samantha Series is in opposition, and Mark does not wish to speak. So, with that, we have no other speaker cards, no one in the queue. Let's close the public hearing and bring it back to committee. Motion and second on the bill, and we are at quorum, just as a reminder for everyone on action item bills. So, with that, we will go ahead and open the ballot and record your vote. Five yays, zero nays. Fire action you've approved, 2026-476. Item number 19 and 20 have already been taken up. Item number 21, 2026-479. Let's open the public hearing and get a staff report. Ordinance 2026-479 is for a small-scale land use amendment to change 1.69 acres from medium-density residential to high-density residential to allow for affordable senior housing. The site is located at 888 Franklin Street and is home to the downtown East Apartments. This four-story building was constructed in 1971, which is before the comprehensive plan, and it contains 98 units. So, this is more dense than what is currently allowed under the existing MDR category because the building came first. The proposed HDR land use category would align with the unit count that has been on the site for over 50 years and allow for additional units as HDR at this location offers a density of 80 dwelling units per acre. So, this would allow for a maximum of 135 units on the site. The site has frontage on four streets. Franklin Street, Van Buren Street, Odessa Street, and Odessa Street are all local roads. And Jesse Street is a collector roadway. The adjacent blocks in all directions are designated as MDR with a combination of single-family, multi-family, small-neighborhood commercial uses, and churches. One block to the west is a fill of Brandoff Boulevard, which serves as a commercial corridor for the neighborhood. The proposed amendment allows for a dense, affordable housing development along a collector roadway and on a site with access to full urban services. The companion PUD rezoning will allow for site-specific flexibility since the property is located on an infill lot within the urban priority area. For these reasons and those in the staff report, the Planning Department recommends approval. This item was heard on July 23rd by the Planning Commission, and they voted to approve unanimously with a vote of 6-0. Thank you. All right. Thank you. We have two speaker cards. First one, Solomon Raz in support, questions only. And next speaker is Trevor Peters is in support and questions only. Oh, yep, Councilman Gaffney, you're recognized. Thank you to the chair. I guess it's Mr. Solomon on the Planning Department. Right now, how many units does Franklin Arms currently have right now? Through the chair to Councilman Gaffney, it's got 98 units now. And it's been proposed to go to what? To high-dent city residential where they can do a maximum of 135 units. Okay. All right. All right. Thank you. That's all I have. All right. Pastor President Kerrick, are you recognized? Thank you, Brett. Thank you very much, Mr. Vice President. I guess to Mr. Ross, can you just kind of give us a rundown of what you're doing here? I mean, back when Councilman Gaffney's father represented District 7, they had some major issues over there at this neighborhood. People that, you know, their air conditioners weren't working. They had window units, kind of substandard living conditions. Are you guys taking over the existing units? Are you making improvements to that? Are you just building more? Can you just make me comfortable with what you're doing with the current units, what status they're in, and what you plan to build, just so I have some peace of mind that we're not leaving people behind by just building more substandard housing? Good evening. Solomon Ross. Address on file. Yep. So we're, we are, so I'm representing the developer, Soho Housing, and the landowner currently is Jacksonville Housing Authority. So the intent is, they're demoing the existing building and replacing it with a modern senior housing. So the old one is in poor condition, so the intent is to provide new one for the senior housing out there. So full renovation to the current 90 units and then additional units on site? Yeah. The, the building will be demolished. I think it's in progress currently. And so, yes, correct. All right. Thank you for the clarification. One, one question. Yeah. Okay. Councilman Gaffney, you're right now. Thank you. This will be, this will be quick. I'm not sure if this is related to the rezoning or not. You say you guys go demo this unit? Yes. I just want to, I guess the patient, not the patients, but the individuals in the community that stand at this current unit, as far as this placement, they, I guess we found some way for them to stay, correct? Correct. Yes. Okay. So that's already been taken care of. Yes. So that's already in progress with the, with the demolitions. I think they're soon to be completed with that. Okay. All right. Thank you. All right. We got, Pastor President Kirker, are you still in the queue? Okay. Councilman Johnson, you're recognized. If I may, Mr. Chair, to, through the Chair of Councilman Gaffney, I wanted to let you know, Sharon Corbett, the CEO, that was one of the questions I had when I saw in the paper a long time ago, where are the people going to go? And I even reached out to see if there was some support that they needed. Sharon has done this for years. She was with the Chicago Housing Authority, so she had a lot of experience in this, because that was one of the main concerns I had. They had a plan for it and got everybody in places. So I'm really appreciative of the work. I got to say, I'm very complimentary of the work they're doing to the Housing Authority. Thank you. All right. Good deal. So with that, I think, did we close the public hearing? Okay. We need to move the bill? All right. Let's move the bill. We got a motion. Second from Councilman Johnson. Anyone in the queue? Seeing none. Let's open the ballot. Record your vote. Six yays. Zero nays. By your action, you've approved 2026-479. Item 22, 2026-480. Councilmembers, 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 PUD 2026-480, which seeks to rezone approximately 1.69 acres at 888 Franklin Street. From residential medium density D to a PUD to permit construction of a six-story, 130-unit senior living facility. The existing 98-unit multi-story apartment building that has historically been on site will be demolished and replaced with a new senior living facility. The PUD differs from the standard zoning code by allowing for site-specific parking and landscaping standards and an increased maximum height to 70 feet for the structure. Staff reviewed the request and finds proposed rezoning to be consistent with the 2045 comprehensive plan with the proposed land use change to HDR. The site is within the urban priority area and located less than 800 feet from MLK Junior Parkway. HDR is intended for compact, high-density residential areas close to transit and arterial roadways with full urban services. The proposal meets requirements for internal and external compatibility. Jesse Street, a nearby collector, operates at 5% of capacity. The proposed 130 senior units are estimated to generate 43 daily trips well within available roadway capacity. The PUD allows customized parking standards for elderly housing. Reduced landscape buffers will be reduced, and the building will be placed internal to the site similar to the existing structure. And landscaping will comply with Part 12 requirements. Surrounding properties include single-family homes, multifamily dwellings, and a church, all within the MDR's zoning district. The proposed senior housing fits the urban residential character of the surrounding neighborhood. For these reasons and those in the staff report, we forward a recommendation of approval with the two conditions in your agenda. The application was heard by Planning Commissioner on July 23rd. There was no speakers in opposition, and they voted unanimously for approval with the two conditions. All right. Thank you so much. Past President Kerrick, ex parte? Or? No, just an observation, if I might. Sure. Yeah. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just note that no ex parte was mentioned here. That means that nobody from the Housing Authority or Mr. Ross, the applicant, reached out to anyone on the council. The district council person is not here. I believe his social media post said he was at Riverside Liquor Store or something tonight. So if you guys want to go see him, he's over there. Not here. And communicate with us. We're the Land Use and Zoning Board. We need to know these things. We wouldn't have all these questions or concerns. We wouldn't have to ask about old things and conditions if you just do your homework and maybe come see the Land Use and Zoning Committee and the full council. That's all I have. All right. Yep. Well said. Well received. I saw a head nod out there. And with that, we have two speaker cards. Solomon Ross is in support, questions only. And Trevor Peters is in support for questions only. So with that, we will close the public hearing and bring it back to the committee. Do we have a motion on the amendment? All right. Motion and second on the amendment. All in favor of the amendment, signify by saying aye. Any opposed? The amendment carries. Motion and second on the bill as amended. With the conditions, no one in the queue. Open the ballot. Record your vote. Six yays. Zero nays. By your action, you've approved 2026-480. Item number 23, 2026-481. Open the public hearing and get a staff report. Open the public hearing and get a staff report. Apologies. Okay. Ordinance 2026-481 is for a small-scale land use amendment of 0.78 of an acre at 1442 Bivens Road. This is to change the site from Community General Commercial, CGC, to Low Density Residential, LDR, to bring the land use into alignment with the historic use of the site. The site consists of five single-family homes constructed between 1955 and 1958. There was a previous land use amendment for the site from 1991 in which the city amended the land use of the site from LDR to CGC. However, commercial development was never pursued and the residential use never ceased. The subject property was originally designated residential and the number of dwelling units has remained the same. The proposed amendment would allow for alignment of the site's use with the appropriate land use category. The proposed LDR category is compatible with the surrounding residential uses to the north and east of the site. The proposed amendment from commercial to residential maintains land for residential use, allowing for increased and diverse housing opportunities to accommodate population growth. For these reasons and those in the staff report, the planning department recommends approval. This item was heard at the July 23rd Planning Commission where they voted unanimously to recommend approval with no discussion. Thank you for the report. We have one speaker card, Mark Predo, in support, questions only. No other speakers, so we'll close the public hearing and bring it back to committee. I've got a motion second on the amendment. Anyone care to hear an explanation? Say no. All in favor of the amendment, sing it by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed, say nay. The amendment carries. I have a motion second on the bill as amended. No. Speakers in the queue, please open the ballot and record your vote. Five yays, zero nays. By your action, you've approved 2026-0481, and I voted on the correct machine. Moving on, item 24, 2026-0482. Any ex parte from the body? Seeing none, let's open the public hearing and get a staff report. Thank you. This is the companion rezoning 2026-482, which seeks to rezone approximately .78 acres from commercial community general one to residential low density 60. The purpose of the request is to formally align zoning with the long-standing residential use of the property, which contains five single-family homes constructed between 1955 and 1958. The planning department finds the proposal consistent with the 2045 comprehensive plan with the proposed amendment to LDR. Under LDR, single-family residences are the principal intended use. Because centralized water and sewer are not available, the site defaults to the low-density standards of two units per acre, but the existing five homes are permitted to remain. The applicant has provided a binding agreement acknowledging future connection requirements should density be increased. Surrounding land uses include multifamily to the north, commercial retail sales and service uses to the south and east, and single-family homes to the west. The proposed RLD-60 zoning is compatible with the residential development of the site and provides a transition from commercial to residential adjacent to Normandy Boulevard. For these reasons and those in the staff report, we forward a recommendation of approval. This application was heard by Planning Commission on July 23rd, and they voted unanimously for approval. Thank you for that report. I do want to, just for the public record, there is a mistake that has been corrected in our agenda. I'm not sure if it's out there, so this is District 12 Councilman White, not District 12 Councilman Gay, and we have Councilmember Johnson on the queue. This is just a point of information. Thanks for recognizing me, Mr. Chair. It feels good to be back there again, right? Mr. Former President, Chair, all the things. This is just, seriously, if there's anyone in the audience or here that is parked in the library garage, I've just been informed that the bottom level of the library garage is flooded and flooding. So, if your car is there, it probably is a wise decision to move your car from the library garage now and move closer. I was just informed that any of the ECAs or our team members or anybody in the audience. Thank you. Thank you. I wonder if you got that from X. Normally, Councilman Diamond has all the information flowing on social media, but you beat him to it. We have two speaker cards. Thank you for that, Dr. Johnson. We have Mark Pridot, who is in support. Questions only. We have John McGuire in support. Questions only. Those are our only speaker cards, so let's close this public hearing and bring it back to committee. We have a motion and second by Councilmember Gaffney on the bill. There's no one in the queue. Please open the ballot and record your vote. Six yays, zero nays. By your action, you've approved 2026-0482. Sorry, I was worried about our staff members' cars. I voted on the wrong machine, but we undid it and fixed it. Item number 25, 2026-0483. Councilmembers, this would be a good time to declare any ex parte. Seeing none, we'll open the public hearing and get a staff report. Thank you. 2026-483 seeks to rezone approximately 0.71 acres at 6411 Arlington Road. From existing PUD 2006-773 to a new PUD. The purpose of the rezoning is to allow the nonprofit Foster Closet to operate a charitable thrift and community retail store. The site is currently developed with a 3,600-square-foot, three-tenant commercial building constructed in 2006. The new PUD retains the same development pattern while adding the permitted use of a thrift store. The department finds the request consistent with the 2045 comprehensive plan as the site lies within the RPI land use category and the urban priority area. The development also complies with the Arlington Zoning Overlay, the Arlington CRA, and the Old Arlington Neighborhood Action Plan, which encourages revitalization of commercial corridors. This item was heard by the Renew Arlington Advisory Board on June 10th, where the board voted unanimously to approve the proposed PUD rezoning. The proposal meets requirements for both internal and external compatibility. The PUD maintains existing building setbacks, access points, and parking patterns. Both landscaping and signage is consistent with the requirements of the Renew Arlington Overlay. Surrounding properties are zoned CRO and developed with office, church, and retail uses, making the proposed PUD compatible with the established development pattern. For these reasons and those in the staff report, we forward a recommendation of approval. This item was heard by Planning Commission on July 23rd, where they voted unanimously for approval. All right. Thank you very much. We have one speaker card, Mr. John McGuire, in support. Questions only. Before we close the public hearing, the district councilman's ECA is here. No issues with the district. He gave us a thumbs up. So, with that, we'll close the public hearing and bring it back to committee. Got a motion and a second on the amendment from former LUZ Chair, Council Member Diamond, seconded by the Godfather. So, with that being said, all in favor of the amendment, signify by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed? Say nay. The amendment carries. Move the bill as amended. Thank you, Mr. Past LUZ Chair, Council Member Diamond, and thank you for your military service. Thank you for the second, Dr. Johnson. You're Johnny on the spot. No one's in the queue, so let's open the ballot and record your vote. I did it again. Six yays, zero nays. And by your action, you've approved 2026-0483. I don't know who brought this fan here, but I never got a fan when I was the chairman of this committee. Did you ever get a fan? I was always your fan. Thank you. Thank you. All right. Councilman Arias, you're recognized. All right. So, we are on item 26, 2026-0484, Exparte, Councilman Arias. Thank you, past president and current chair. I'd like to clear, Exparte, Exparte, Exparte applicant this morning regarding the rezoning, and it's currently being filed as we speak. Thank you. Thank you for that. Councilmember White, past president and godfather. Thank you, sir. I spoke to Mr. Hart a couple times on this project. Glad for this project is getting rid of some old stuff that's there, and he'll be coming back with you, and it will be filed. All right. Thank you for that. I do not have any Exparte, probably because I was out of town, because Curtis Hart, District Forest Finest, always calls me. So, no other Exparte. Let's open the public hearing and get us to that report. Thank you. 2026-0484 seeks to rezone approximately 1.41 acres at 10571 Normandy Boulevard from commercial office to commercial community general 1. The purpose of the rezoning is to allow additional commercial uses consistent with the established commercial corridor along Normandy Boulevard, which is an FDOT-designated principal arterial roadway, where expanded commercial activity is appropriate and compatible. Staff finds the proposed rezoning to be consistent with the comprehensive plan. The site lies within the CGC land use category and the suburban development area. The CGC land use category supports a wide range of retail and service uses that serve large areas of the city. The property is surrounded by a mix of residential and commercial uses, typical of Normandy Boulevard. Adjacent land uses include single-family homes to the north, a mobile home park to the east, single-family dwellings to the south, and residential uses to the west with commercial uses nearby. The proposed CGC1 zoning is compatible with the existing development pattern and continues the commercial corridor character along Normandy Boulevard. For these reasons and those in the staff report, we forward a recommendation of approval. Item was heard by a planning commission on July 23rd, where they voted unanimously for approval. All right. Thank you very much. One speaker card, Mr. Curtis Hart. Curtis Hart, 8051. There's only one card. I'm here for questions, but I did call Jackie. All right. Thank you, sir. Any questions for Mr. Hart? No other speaker cards? Let's close the public hearing and bring it back to committee. I have a motion and second on the bill. No one in the queue. Please open the ballot and record your vote. Six yays, zero nays. All your action, you have approved 2026-0484. Moving on to item 27, 2026-0485. Council members, ex parte, I don't see any. Let's open the public hearing and get a staff report. Thank you. 2026-0485 seeks to rezone approximately 0.45 acres at 1265 Kings Road. From CCG2 to a PUD, the requested rezoning supports redevelopment of the property as the Jacksonville Urban League Community and Veteran Empowerment Center, offering mental health services, job readiness programs, small business support, and technology training. The PUD allows tailored site design, removal of non-compatible CCG2 uses, and specific deviations to accommodate unique site constraints. These deviations, including cross-access exemption, parking within city right-of-way, and impervious surface ratio adjustments, were approved through the civil design deviation process with development services. Staff finds the proposed rezoning to be consistent with the comprehensive plan. The site is located along Kings Road, which is an FDOT principal arterial roadway within the urban priority area and the CGC land use category, which supports compact infill development and revitalization of commercial districts. Surrounding uses include single-family residential to the north, multi-family apartments to the east, and commercial retail to the south and west. Kings Road operates at 51% capacity, and the proposed 20,000-square-foot center is estimated to generate 576 daily trips, which the roadway system can accommodate. Parking deviations are justified due to high walkability, transit access, and adjacency to the Emerald Trail. Staff finds the proposed developments to be consistent and compatible with the surrounding uses and forwards a recommendation of approval. The item was heard by the Planning Commission on July 23rd. No speakers in opposition, and the commission voted unanimously for approval. Thank you very much. We do have one speaker card, and a reminder, we're at five. Our quorum, thanks to the Boylan legislation. Kristen Reed, you're the only speaker. You're recognized. Good evening. Thank you. Kristen Reed, 12740 Grand Bay Parkway West, Suite 2350, Jacksonville, Florida, 32258. As staff mentioned, this is a request to rezone the property located at the intersection of Kings Road and Myrtle Avenue from CCG2 to a PUD. This is to allow the Jacksonville Urban League to redevelop the site with the Community and Veterans Empowerment Center. It also allows for revitalization of this vacant site and to provide community-serving uses at this location. The Jacksonville Urban League was established in 1947 with a mission of providing for education, workforce development, and economic empowerment for Jacksonville citizens. And this PUD allows the Jacksonville Urban League to carry that on with development of this center at this location. As staff mentioned, they recommended approval, Planning Commission recommended approval, and we hope you find the same. Thank you, Ms. Reed. Council Member Diamond, you're recognized. Through the chair, Ms. Reed, no ex parte declaration. Do you just hate us now? You didn't want to talk to any of us? Of course you're going to get this thing through, but it made me laugh. Yeah, but we did meet with Council Member Peluso, yes, yes. So he's just not on the committee, but yes. But I miss you all, so. All right. I'll just ask a quick question. Many of us were on the Finance Committee last year. We met with members of the Urban League. They were, you know, asking for support. I don't actually remember how that went. Did the Urban League get the support they needed from the city or elsewhere to build this veteran empowerment center? Through the chair, that's not something that I've been brought on to handle. I know that they're working through that. There are some members from the Urban League here, but it is separate from the entitlement of the property. Yeah, and this is just on the entitlement. So I won't bring them up and ask them. It would be nice to hear from the district council person who's not here tonight. So we'll just go ahead and call for the vote, unless Dr. Johnson has something to add. Thank you so much, Mr. Chair. I do see the Urban League team in the back there, but I will say just I've been working with them on that project exclusive of this. We can talk about that. I know they do have that appropriation coming up for this year. We just didn't have the money last year, and it's going to be coming up in finance this year. Just a point of information. But I think this is a worthwhile project. Thank you for that. Councilman Arias. Thank you, Chair. It was actually to echo the same thing that Councilman Johnson said. They're actually working on that in the current budget to see about getting the million dollar for this center. But I still want to do a tour of the facility, so I'll hold you up for that. But I think we should just take this to a vote already. Thank you. Sounds good. All right. So we'll go ahead and close the public hearing then and bring it to committee. We'll entertain a motion. We've got a motion and a second on the bill. No one's in the queue. Please open the ballot. I'll record your vote. Bye. By your action, you've approved 2026-0485. Thank you. Moving on. You're welcome. Item 28, 2026-0486. Councilmembers, any ex parte? This would be the time. I will add additional, or actually not additional, ex parte. As I did visit the site last week, I got a chance to meet with the owner, tour the location, get an idea for the need for this legislation to include sale of liquor. And we'll get that filed with legislative services. There's no other ex parte. Let's open the public hearing and get a staff report. Thank you. Thank you, 2026-0486 seeks a zoning exception to permit the on-premise consumption of all alcoholic beverages. In the CCG1 zoning district, the alcohol use will be granted to Barron Cafe, a restaurant and hookah lounge operating out of units 102 and 103. The subject property is a 3.78-acre lot developed in 2006 as the shops at East Point Landing Shopping Center, located on St. John's Bluff Road South, approximately .25 miles south of Beach Boulevard. A previous tenant of these units, C. Senor Freshmex, was granted a zoning exception for alcohol sales in 2017 under E-1743. The alcohol use will occur entirely indoors with no outside sales or service. Staff finds their request consistent with the comprehensive plan, compatible with the surrounding commercial corridor, and forwards a recommendation of approval. Thank you for that. We do have one speaker card, Samantha Siris, and support. Questions only. So now we know if we want Ms. Siris support, just add liquor. We do have Councilman Harris in the queue, but as the district council person, I will just state that I visited the location just to get a feel for the operation, make sure that there wouldn't be anything detrimental to the surrounding community. I find it to be a well-run establishment and no adverse effects to any neighborhoods or anything, no opposition. So I'm in full support of granting this zoning exception. Councilman Harris, you're recognized. All right. Thank you, Chair. You know, I actually visited the restaurant as well, too, over the weekend, about a week ago. I stumbled upon it. I looked at it, and it actually looks like a really good restaurant. Food was great. The atmosphere was great. It was very safe. So I definitely encourage all of my colleagues to support this legislation and take it to a vote. Thank you. All right. And I'm going to trust that in your visit, you did not discuss the parameters of this resounding, or else you might have to have some ex parte. I'll declare ex parte, but I did not discuss it. I went there with my friends. They were like, hey, let's go to this restaurant. I was like, yeah, yeah, let's do it. But, you know, with just abundant and cautious, I'll declare ex parte. I visited the restaurant. I don't know what day, but I'll figure it out. And I'll file it with legislative services. Thank you. Thank you. Just want to make sure everyone is on the up and up. So we have already closed public hearing. I believe we moved the bill. Did we? We'll do it again. We got a motion second on the bill. There's no one in the queue. Please open the ballot and record your vote. Six yays, zero nays. By your action, you have approved 2026-0486. It looks from the chairman's notes that we have already taken up item 29. Is that correct? Yes. It looks like we've already taken up item 30. All right, item 31, 2026, 0523 is deferred, as well as item 32, 33, and 34, 0524, 0525, 0526 are all deferred. The next page, 35, 36, and 37, 0527, 0528, 0529, deferred. Next three, 0530, 0531, and 0532, deferred. Next page, 0533, any ex parte? Seeing none, let's open the public hearing and get us to that report. Thank you. 2026-533 seeks a zoning exception to permit the retail sale and service of all alcoholic beverages for on-premise consumption in the IL zoning district. The subject property is a .10 acre lot developed with a single-family dwelling built in 1909 and is in both the Springfield Historic District and Springfield zoning overlay. The applicant is the district, an existing restaurant and bar that is operating on the abutting parcel directly south of the subject site. The district is seeking to expand their operations onto 2030 Walnut Street and will be utilizing the existing structure as a speakeasy bar and restaurant. There is a companion waiver that was heard at Planning Commission on June 18th and a companion administrative deviation that will be heard as the next item. Staff notes that the district has previously obtained a zoning exception and a waiver of liquor distance for the existing business under E-1571 and WLD-1414. Staff finds a request compatible with the comprehensive plan and surrounding area and forwards a recommendation of approval. Thank you very much. We have two speaker cards. We've got, looks like, either Jorge or Jorsey. We're going to go with Jorge Gonzalez in support. Does not wish to speak. And that's the only card. So let's close the public hearing and bring this to committee. We have a motion and second on the bill. We have no one in the queue. District council person is not here to weigh in, but I think this looks like pretty standard. So we'll go ahead. I'll support it. So let's open the ballot and record your vote. Six yays, zero nays. By your action, you've approved 2026-0533, bringing us to item 42, 2026-0534. Council members, any ex parte? Seeing none, let's open the public hearing and get a staff report. 2026-534 seeks an administrative deviation to reduce the number of off-street parking spaces from 63 to 0 and to reduce landscaping along the north property boundary, including buffer width, trees, and screening. As previously mentioned, the applicant seeks to convert the existing single-family dwelling into a speakeasy bar and restaurant. Due to the lot size and the existing historic development pattern of the area, the applicant will not be able to provide the required parking on-site or the required landscaping buffer. The applicant does have a parking agreement to use 2081 Walnut Street for parking. Additionally, the city's landscape section has reviewed the landscaping request and recommends approval. The reduction of the fencing height and opacity will ensure that the property is compatible with the historic nature of the area and aligns with the historic preservation's fencing and wall guidelines. For these reasons and those in the staff report, we forward a recommendation of approval. All right. We have one speaker card. Jorge Gonzalez in support. Questions only. No one else in the queue. Let's go with, is it Colonel? Major? Captain Diamond. You're recognized, sir. I'll be a major soon enough. Let's go. Can we get the speakeasy password? Like, what's the deal? Like, I just want to make sure we don't get... Yeah. I just want it in the club. Yeah. Same. Oh, you see. There it is. All right. So, going from 63 spaces to zero. Hope that doesn't hurt the district too bad in the neighborhood. I'm not sure if the council member from the District 7 is here. So, I guess we'll have to make this up on our own. So, we'll go ahead and open the ballot. Let's vote. So, we've got a motion and second on the bill. Council Member Gaffney, did you wish to weigh in on this? Concerned about the parking in Springfield? Yeah. Yeah. Go ahead, Mr. Gaffney. Thank you. Through the Chair, Mr. Jorge. I think Jorge, if you could come up right quick. One question. And it's a bit while you're coming up, Mr. Jorge, through the Chair. This will be brief. I think all the council members have been to the District between sometime in the last five years. I just want you to explain the parking situation. Every time I have been to the District, I typically park on the street. I see you guys reducing the parking. Maybe this is at the new location. I might be a little bit confused, right? Because y'all got a new location. Y'all are sending this to, I guess, 2030, which is next door. Come out. Right. So there's never been any parking that we've provided. So there's really the street that's completely empty by the time that we close. So it's really not affecting anybody else's parking spots. We do have a lease with JWB that has an empty lot, and we've put some lights out there, and then people are able to use that as parking. Okay. Yeah, that explains it. I was just curious, because every time I came, I typically park on the street. So you just got to, you know, I know you say you're reducing it from six to three to zero spaces. I was like, you know, but okay. All right. It's kind of what happens in the historic area, you know, driveways and parking are just off the street. Hardly anybody has a driveway there. I get it. Okay. All right. Thank you. All right. That's it. All right. House President Carrico, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. One just observation. This is on the corner of, what, Walnut and Liberty? Is that approximately it? Yes. Through the chair to Councilman Carrico. Or Walnut and 10th? Let me pull it up really quick. Through the chair to Councilman Carrico. Yes. So it's on Walnut Street between East 10th Street and Carmen Street. So the next street over from Walnut, if you're going west, is Liberty, right? That is correct. On the corner of 10th and Liberty, there's a Boys and Girls Club there that services educational purposes. It's a teen center. Do we not have anything in the code that would need a liquor distance or a waiver or anything like that from an educational facility such as the Boys and Girls Club? Through the chair. So it has to be either from a school. However, they did have a waiver of liquor distance that went to the Planning Commission. So that item does not get heard by LUZ. It's heard by Planning Commission separately. Sorry to go back in the archives, but I thought we passed a bill under President Freeman's tenure that the liquor waivers did come to LUZ. Did that change or is that a different category of liquor waivers? Through the chair to Councilman Carrico. So the way that the code reads, so it was updated for zoning exceptions and their companion applications to be heard in front of LUZ. However, because waiver of liquor distance has their own separate section in the code that explicitly states that it goes to Planning Commission, that portion of the code was never updated to reflect it coming to LUZ. All right. Well, I'm a little late on looking at the address there. I saw Walnut Street, but it didn't register me right away that that was on the same block essentially as the Boys and Girls Club, which services teenagers after school. And I don't think that we should have a bar on the same block. So I'm going to be a no for this. And if you would so help me open up the last one so I can change my vote on item 41, I'm not here to try to convince anyone of anything. But in my heart, I don't think we should have bars next to after school programs. So I'm going to change my vote, or I'm going to vote no on 42. And if someone, I guess I could on the presiding side, ask to reopen 41 just because I don't think that's going to be consistent with my values and my morals. All right. We'll finish this one, I guess. We'll reconsider 41 after we take a vote on this. But we do have Council Member Johnson in the queue. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And this brings up something, Ms. Cox, through the chair. Could you say again, you said that there was, help me understand what you said, that the code does not reflect? Because that needs to be fixed. And I would think that someone from the planning department would have at least kind of gotten with one of us so we could make that change. Through the chair to Councilman Johnson. So the way that the code is written is that it was updated that alcohol exceptions and their companion applications, administrative deviations, and variances are heard by the LUZ committee and City Council. However, waivers of liquor distances have their own separate section in the code along with the guidelines of how they're heard. That was never updated to reflect being heard by LUZ. So when we, when the update was done, it did not, it wasn't updated. We only updated one section of the code and not the other. And I just want to put it on there because when I heard that, it made, it just stuck out in my mind. I'm putting this on the record. Could someone from the planning department reach out to one of us, no matter who, so that we can, we don't end up in a position where the code says to, and we see a lot of that, but there should be some failsafe where the code is not saying two different things at one time. So we'll look forward to getting that from you. So one of us can put that legislation forward. And through the chair to Councilman Johnson, we have in the past, we've, we've, um, added conditions to the exception and waivers to make sure that like, even if the exception is proved here, if the waiver is not approved, it's, it's contingent on both being approved in order for that to move forward. However, we have been working on trying to get the legislation updated for the waiver. So we will reach out to a council member. I would look forward to co-sponsoring that or being a part of it, but I just think that language is important because I think it would confuse people if they saw those two things. Thank you. All right. Councilman Gaffney, you're recognized. One last question. Two, Mr. Jorge. What are you guys' hours? Um, you can come up right quick. The hours, um, and I guess the days of the week that you guys open. Okay. We open, uh, Monday through Thursday at three o'clock. Um, and then we're done at about 10, 1030. And then on Friday, Saturday, Sunday, we have a brunch that starts at 11. So y'all pretty much done around 1030 every day. Yeah. Okay. You know, for around three. Okay. I was just trying to figure out, I know, um, past president Carricko mentioned the school. I was trying to figure out the correlation between students and things in that nature. So I was just trying to figure it out in my head. And your, your role is what? I'm one of the owners. Oh, so you own it. Okay. Yeah. All right. Just curious. Okay. All right. Thank you. All right. One second here because we've got two members in the queue for the second time. Councilmember Arias, have you spoken on this yet? Okay, Councilmember Arias for the first time. Then we're going to do Councilmember Johnson for the second time. And then Councilmember Carricko for the second time. Councilmember Arias. All right. Thank you, Chair. Ms. Cox. So just explain to me one thing. They're not seeking to get a liquor license exception to serve alcohol. They're looking to do something else on top of their already current operations of food and beverage because they already have a license and they sell already alcohol. Right? Through the Chair to Councilmember Arias. So they have an existing parcel at 2026 Walnut Street where the district currently operates. So there is a zoning exception that was approved for that back in, I believe, 2015 or 2017. However, because they are expanding onto a new parcel, they have to get a new zoning exception to have the liquor license on that parcel as well. Correct. Thank you. And through the Chair, just the new parcel that they're getting, is it adjacent? Is it like right next to it? It is right next to it. Yes. It's directly north to it. Okay. Just my two cents. I understand where Council, past President Carrico, is coming from, but because this restaurant has been in operation, they have over 1,600 reviews. They're rated over 4.5 stars. I understand the concern, obviously, where you're coming from, but they're already serving alcohol. I see that this is a good fit because the owners obviously have a great reputation in town. I don't foresee them doing anything crazy out of the norm that they were already doing. So I will be in support of this. I think, however, in the future, we need to be more clear about where people are applying and having exceptions for these waivers, because especially if they're around schools or after school programs. But I feel confident in the ownership here, and I'll be supporting this as we speak. Thank you. All right. We also have another member in the queue, Council Member Diamond, for the first time. Go ahead. Yeah. Just super fast. Like, I echo my colleagues' comments. The district is the best thing going on on that street, and we're always talking about revitalizing neighborhoods, and in particular, that one. I'm all about it. Like, I love the speakeasy. Best of luck. Sell a lot of liquor, and hopefully we can find a nice balance of what's going on with the Boys and Girls Club, which I assume they won't be open at the same time. All right. Councilman Johnson, for the second time. You're recognized. And I want to kind of echo my colleagues' sentiments. I also want to say, you know, Mr. Chair, I believe that this group, because they now have Dorothy's downtown, which is right there, by the same ownership group, right there in front of the DuPont Center, which deals a lot of stuff with kids. But I kind of also echo these sentiments. We need to kind of know about this thing before. I wouldn't necessarily, while it is a speakeasy, say it's a bar. It's more of an experience, and, you know, because they have charcuterie and other things like that. But I just hope that in the future, especially once we fix the thing that's messed up in the code, that we are taking a deeper look. So while I certainly echo Councilman Carrico's sentiments, I think that we are dealing with a group of owners that know exactly what to do and how to do it. Thank you. All right. Past President Carrico, for the same time. Thank you, Mr. Vice President. Just to let the record reflect, the Boys and Girls Club opens at 2.30 and closes at 7. So it's basically the same hours as the other group. And often they have weekend events and things like that, STEM programs and basketball tournaments. We're open on the weekends. I say we. Full transparency. I work for the Boys and Girls Club. So again, I'm going to vote no, just because that's where my conscience is pointing me in this direction. And again, we'll ask for the reopening of 41 after we close this out. Thank you. All right. We have no other speakers in the queue. So for now, let's go ahead and open. Did we get a motion second on this? Okay. Let's open the ballot. Record your votes. Six yays. One nay. By reaction, you've approved 2026-534. Now we're going to go back and open the public hearing on item 2026-533. All right. We have a motion and a second to reconsider 2026-533. Yeah. Do we have to reopen that? The public hearing on it? Okay. We can just. Okay. Well, okay. All right. We have a motion and a second on the bill 2026-533. Yep. It passed. Yep. All right. Now we have a motion and a second on the bill. We can just open the ballot. Record your votes. Six yays. One nay. By your action, we have approved 2026-533. All right. Moving on now to our last action item on the, I think it is, last action item on the agenda, 2026-544. Yeah, we wish. All right. Council members, please declare your ex parte communication at this time. All right. Q lighten up. Council member Arias, you recognize. All right. Thank you, Chair. I spoke to the applicant on 8-3, 2026 at 744 p.m. regarding this and currently be filed with legislative services. Thank you. Vice President Kerica, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I have ex parte to claim. I have one email from Richard Mullaney and I received a phone call today from Steve Dibanaugh in which he explained the difference between the historic window replacements and the ones that could and couldn't be replaced and made their case on the phone for this issue. And we'll get that filed with legislative services, of course. All right. Council member Diamond, you're recognized. Declare ex parte. I also spoke with Steve Dibanaugh yesterday. And in full transparency, we discussed windows. All right. Thank you for full transparency. Next, we have Council member Gaffney. You're recognized. Yes. I also want to declare ex parte. I met with, through Zoom today, with Richard Mullaney, just discussing the legislation windows, the process, I guess, the historic perspective in terms of, they voted no, I guess, opposition. We wouldn't be here, obviously. But I'll make sure everything gets filed with legislative services. Council member Johnson, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I spoke with, earlier today, Steve Dibanaugh. I had some questions. And I also spoke briefly via phone, both with Mr. Dibanaugh and Mr. Mullaney, and asked them some questions about it. All is being filed with legislative services. Thank you. Council member White, you're recognized. Yes, sir. Declare ex parte. I'll spoke with applicant, and it will be filed. Thank you. Oh, man. All right. I have ex parte. I received an email from Richie Mullaney on August 3rd, 2026. And this paperwork's getting filed with legislative services. With that, let's go ahead and get a staff report. So, Ordinance 2026-544 is an appeal of a Jacksonville Historic Preservation Commission decision. The applicant submitted a COA, a Certificate of Appropriateness, in February 2026 for the replacement of 20 historic wood windows at 3855 St. John's Avenue. This is a contributing structure in the Riverside Avondale Historic District. Staff did not have sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the subject windows were beyond repair and found that the proposed replacement of the windows would be inconsistent with Chapter 307, which is the Historic Preservation Ordinance. So, staff recommended denial. The JHPC considered the applicable design guidelines, ordinance code criteria, staff's analysis, and the applicant's testimony during their review in April 2026 at that JHPC meeting. And they voted to deny the applicant's request for partial window replacement, citing that the windows should be repaired rather than replaced. The applicant is appealing this decision, which is what you have in front of you today. And I will leave it there, but I'm available for questions. Yep. Sorry. Yeah, and now we're going to open the public hearing, and we will hear from the appellant. Becky, you can start this time. Oh, wait. Just one. Sorry, I know. You're multitasking. Yeah, yeah. Hand those to Councilman Johnson. There we go. All right, go ahead, Mr. Mullaney. We can multitask up here. Sure. Richard Mullaney, one independent drive suite 1200 on behalf of the appellants. That's Gina Teresi and John Geiger, who are the homeowners at 3855 St. John's Avenue in Avondale. After years of sitting vacant, this home was in need of rehab, including rehab of its windows. This home has a total of 73 windows, 53 of which have been previously approved for replacement, either because of deterioration or being non-historic windows. So that leaves 20 windows that the appellants are now asking to replace on their home. That went to JHPC. That was ultimately denied there, but what we're here today about is appealing that denial because, as you'll see, the evidence shows that this COA application does meet the criteria in Chapter 307 under our code and in the Historic Preservation Guidelines. And so first I'd like to talk about the severity of the deterioration on the windows. Our code, of course, prefers repairing windows over replacing windows, but recognizes that replacement is merited if windows are beyond repair. And so we've submitted to you, as you've seen, evidence of rot, moisture, failed sealing, and termite damage, which altogether, as we know, can cause interior humidity and mold leading to health risks. And the homeowners had Keith Timmons, a certified building contractor, inspect the entire property and all of the windows, and he came to the conclusion that these windows are beyond repair. He's here today to speak with you and can submit, has an affidavit to submit to you with his findings. In his inspection, he also found poorly cut jams, missing sash weights, replaced tracks, that all rendered these windows beyond repair, considering the extent of rot and termite damage and other deterioration. I'd also like to talk about the significance and location of these particular windows. The guidelines recommend that we can consider the significance of the windows to the overall structure, their proximity to the ground level and key entrances, as well as their visibility on key elevations. The remaining 20 windows on the home that have not yet been approved for replacement are not significant to this home. Architecturally or historically, only four of these windows, as you'll see, are actually on the front elevation. The remaining windows are actually on the back, the rear of this house. And so our request is consistent with code because replacement is necessary, and not only that, it will not destroy the distinguishing character of the home or the distinctive style of these windows. And lastly, I'd like to touch on something that we've kind of been referring to as the 50% rule. It's more of a guiding principle in historic preservation in our guidelines, where the guidelines state if 50% or more of these windows are deteriorated or missing, then wholesale replacement of windows is allowable. Now, this is a guiding principle, like I said, not a requirement, but the 50% principle exists for a reason. It exists for the exact reason that we're here today. When 70% of windows have already been approved for replacement, it just makes sense to be able to replace the remaining windows, especially when the windows that have already been replaced are the significant ones and the contributing ones to the overall structure. And so I'd just like to close by saying Gina and John, the homeowners, they care about upholding the historic character of the neighborhood. They're adhering to the code and the guidelines, including in their replacement windows, which are proposed as matches and appearance and configuration, material and architecture, to the point where nobody driving by on St. John's Avenue would know the difference. They're responsible homeowners. They love their house. They love Avondale. And they respectfully ask for your approval in allowing them to finish the job they started in replacing the windows on their home. I'm here available for questions, as is Keith Timmons, our building contractor. The homeowners are also here as well. Thank you very much. All right. Thank you. Next, we're going to go to the appellee, Ms. Carla Schell, with OGC. And then we will go to our public hearing comment cards. And then we will go to the rebuttal from the appellant. And then we will bring it back to committee after we close the public hearing. Ms. Schell, you're up. Go ahead. Thank you. Carla Schell with the Office of General Counsel on behalf of the city. Look, I know that the Riverside-Avondale design guidelines don't affect any of your neighborhoods or the districts that you represent. But these regulations are in our ordinance code, and they are important to the Riverside-Avondale neighborhood. We are just trying to enforce the code and the laws we have on the books. In the same way that San Marco has a certain feel to it, Mandarin has a feel to it, Arlington has a specific feel to it, we are trying to preserve the look and feel of this historic district. That's what the design regulations do. This case is about original historic windows that can be repaired. That's it. In a historic home, historic windows are considered to be one of the most important features. I've said this before, but windows are the eyes into the soul of an old home. There are many people that move into a historic home just to sit in their house and look out that wavy glass. Removing original windows inevitably destroys the character of a historic home. That's why the code is so strict on the requirements for window replacement. Preserving historic windows helps maintain the character of the district and, in turn, keeps property values high. Character and authenticity matter. Windows are a big part of that. The design regulations are clear. Window removal shall be avoided. That's standard number two. Deteriorated features shall be repaired rather than replaced. That's number six. This property is a large home on a corner lot in a prominent location in the district. The owner is asking to replace the last remaining 20 historic windows of the home, and there's been no attempt to repair. Staff visited the home and saw this in person and found three things. One, these historic windows contribute to the character and historic fabric of the structure. Two, there was insufficient evidence to demonstrate that the windows are beyond repair. They need repair, but not beyond repair. And three, the windows should be repaired rather than replaced. The commission reviewed it, discussed it, agreed. The owner argues that the guidelines entitles them to replace those windows, referring to the original windows. The sentence states that 50% or more are deteriorated or missing than wholesale window replacement is allowable. It is the position of the planning department and the Jacksonville Historic Preservation Commission that this sentence does articulate the only instance when wholesale window replacement could be approved, but it's not compulsory, and the owner certainly isn't entitled to it. The staff report is the competent, substantial evidence upon which you can base your decision to deny this appeal. Now, if you carefully consider the windows and their condition, as the commission did, you'll come to the same conclusion. I just received this packet of information while counsel for the appellant was speaking, and I see these pictures are the same ones the commission reviewed as well and found that they were repairable, as did your staff. We ask that you affirm the commission's decision and deny the appeal. I can take any questions. All right. Thank you. Next, we will go to our public comment cards. First, we have John Allman. Come on down. John Allman, 3750 Oak Street, Jacksonville, Florida, 32205. On behalf of the applicant, as a neighbor and architect in the Riverside Avondale Historic District, and as a former member and chair of the Historic Preservation Commission, I urge you to grant the applicant the ability to replace the remaining windows and have them complete the beautiful renovations they have begun. I'm available for any questions you might have. All right. Thank you. Next, we have Keith Timmons. Good evening. My name is Keith Timmons. I am the founder of KBT Contracting Corp. I've been in the construction business for over 35 years. KBT was formed 30 years ago. I have an affidavit here today to what I've stated if someone wants to take it. I brought a—I started, to give you a little background, I started my career in the window business, so I had—when I went into the contracting side, windows has always been part of KBT's business. Just this past Friday, we finished a project with Jacksonville Housing Authority for 240-something windows, 246, I believe it was, with—at the Baldwin Center, which is one of Jacksonville Housings units, I was asked to look at this project when I viewed it, the windowsills and everything had been tore apart, some casings were off and everything. The main point that I would like to make is when you see water damage at the level that I viewed, if you're looking at percentages and everything, it's not going to give you the picture that you're actually going to get when you take that window out. So that's how I was determined to say that it was at a loss, a total loss. That's just through experience. If you see 15, 20 percent damage, water damage, it's coming through the wall system and everything. So this window that is being said to be—can be repaired, you can't really 100 percent evaluate that until you take that window completely out. The other thing that I viewed was there was window jams that had already been cut at some time in the life of this. So these windows, when you're looking at it from a historical standpoint, they've already—maybe not the proper word, they'd already lost their historic value. It might have been 30 or 40 years ago. So you're talking about bringing back an historic window to its original. Well, the original is already lost. Now, that wasn't necessarily on all 20 of them, but with the window that was being selected, architecturally, like Mr. Delaney said, you would not notice the difference. We've restored windows. I'm not against—I'm all about—throughout the 80s, I put hundreds of windows through Avondale. All right. Thank you, sir. Okay. All right. I appreciate your time. Yes, sir. Thank you. Thank you. And next speaker card is Gina Teresi, and she is in support, and Shaq does not wish to speak. It just says in support of 544. So I'm guessing she's with the appellant. Oh, did you want to speak? Oh, well, I just want to thank everybody for hearing us. Name and address, if you can. Pardon me? Name and address. Oh, Gina Teresi, 3855 St. John's Avenue. I wanted to thank you for hearing us today and the friends and experts that we've brought to speak about our house. John and I are so excited to have found this home, having moved here from Rochester and restoring a 100-year-old house there and being the stewards of that house. We restored it over 20 years, and when we decided to move to Jacksonville to find a house like this and to recreate that restoration feel that we had, and Rochester was a dream of ours. But it's extremely important to take care of the house from the outside in. It's not just about preserving wavy glass. We want to make sure that the house is going to stand the test of time. And as we restore every stone, every piece of wood that we're milling on the outside, we want to make sure that we give it the best protection to stay airtight and to keep it historically looking but also safe for us inside without mold, without water damage, which is what we experienced the day we moved in. So, I appreciate the council hearing us, and if you have questions, thank you. All right. Thank you. And with that, we will go to the rebuttal by Mr. Mullaney. Richie Mullaney, 1 Independent Drive, Suite 1200, on behalf of the appellants. I'll keep this brief. I'll just say that we have criteria, of course, for historic preservation, and we respect that criteria. We understand the importance of it. I think you can see that Gina and John understand and respect the importance of it, but this application meets that criteria, and you have that basis to go off of the applicable standards and guidance in our historic preservation guidelines of number six, talking about the severity of deterioration, where it might require a replacement of a distinctive feature, and going on to say later in the guidelines that if repair is not technically or economically feasible, new windows are allowable that match the old windows, and then even later in the guidelines saying that if following careful evaluation, window frames, the window frames are deteriorated, then they can be replaced. We have shown you our expert today, Keith Timmons, to show you that that was his conclusion, that these windows are beyond repair, and that upon taking apart these windows and actually seeing the damage in them, that it's pretty clear that replacement is warranted here. But we're not trying to get around any criteria or guidelines. This meets the criteria and guidelines, and that's why we're here appealing to you today. I'm available for any questions. Thank you very much. All right. Thank you. And just to make sure we're in proper order here and everything, Mr. Harvey, we've already heard from, we've already gone through the whole process here. Do we need to close the public hearing and then have discussion? Yes. Okay. And then you guys will deliberate and vote. If you want, I can go over what that looks, the rest of the procedure. Sure. Well, let's go ahead and close the public hearing, and we'll bring it back to the committee now. And it looks like we just deliberate, vote, and we can ask questions if we need to. And upon your deliberation, you should be basing your decision on competent, substantial evidence, which is expert testimony, the staff reports, and any of the information that you heard tonight. Because this is a review of de novo, which means that you are allowed to consider all new evidence that was presented tonight in conjunction to the evidence that was presented in the transcript and the staff report that was presented at the JHPC hearing as well. All right. And we also need to make the amendment to grant or deny, right? And kind of just give everyone a clear understanding of that. After your deliberation, the body will be required to make a decision as to whether or not they will affirm JHP's decision, which in this case would mean to deny the appeal, reverse the JHPC decision, in which case that would mean to grant the appeal, modify their decision, or refer the matter back to JHPC for further action by adopting a written order. Okay. Great. So with that, we will go to all of our speakers in the queue. First up, we have Council Member Gaffney. You're recognized. Thank you to the chair. I guess, Mr. Mulaney, if you could come up. Ms. Carla, either one. Either one of you guys, I'm trying to, maybe I missed this, but so it's 70 windows in the house. 50 was approved, 50 or whatever it was, 51, 52 was approved, and 20 wasn't approved. I'm trying to figure out why the other 20 wasn't, and I guess I do know the answer to this question, why the other 20 wasn't approved. I'm pretty sure the other 20, you would think, had to be in the same condition as the 50 that got approved. Or maybe not. I don't know. But I'm just trying to figure out the difference between the 50 that got approved and the 20 was denied. And it might have been worse than condition. I don't know. But you would think, you know, that all of them was consistently in the same condition from the house sitting over a period of time. So through the chair to Council Member Gaffney. So they weren't all approved at one time. There were two prior COAs in years past, and I would defer to Planning Department on, if they want to go over the history of that, where a different, some of them were irreparable. And so they were permitted to, they were approved to get replacements for those. It was these 20 that were deemed to be able to be repaired and retained. And one last question. I know the queue probably lit up. I know through the chair, one of the questions that you shared was that the applicant did not have evidence to prove that these windows was irreparable. The window expert came up. I've forgotten the gentleman's name. He came up. Kenneth. Okay, I'm sorry. He, who? Oh, Timmons. I'm sorry. Okay. And Timmons, he testified that he reviewed the windows and it was irreparable. Was that evidence presented to you at the time? So through the chair to Council Member Gaffney, that person's opinion was in the record, yes. Staff did personally do a site visit and viewed the windows in person and opined differently. The commission, which currently has two architects, an interior designer, and a couple others, also reviewed that same evidence and disagreed. Okay, so I disapproved. I kind of suggest different, I guess, in a sense. I mean, you guys' opinion versus their opinion. Okay. So through the chair, so if you read through the transcript, the commissioners talk about how there's a lot of deterioration to, like, the outside of the window that would need to be repaired either way. Whether you're going to put a new window in or whether you're going to repair the historic original window. They addressed that, and they saw that damage, but their opinion was that's going to need repair either way. So they should retain the original windows. All right. Thank you, Mr. Gaffney. Past President Carrico, you're recognized. All right. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Some thoughts and some observations. One is just on the actual procedure here. So Michelle happens to be a wonderful attorney that works with the city council. I'm not asking you a question, unfortunately. I'm just complaining. So you work with us. So when we need bills filed, we talk to you. When I was the president, you sat in my office for agenda review every other Tuesday. I find it a little troublesome that you would be the lawyer who has these relationships to represent the city in this manner where we have to make a decision that's supposed to be in a quasi-judicial with a lawyer that we have a relationship with. I think that's oversight of the Office of General Counsel, and I don't really agree with you in this particular case representing the city against an appeal. That's one point. Sorry. It's not about you. Second, again, it's District 7. One, the council member, Mr. Peluso, is not here. This is an important rezoning. This is a landmark property. This used to be, I believe it was Andrew Crenshaw's house, right? The guy was in Congress for 17 years. Like, this is a landmark in Jacksonville. This is very important, and I'm surprised that the district councilman has bailed on his constituents and not here to represent you and support you. Third, I don't think the owners came down from up north and said, hey, we want to mess this historical house up, and we want to change it and turn it into some cookie-cutter, you know, development, you know, that we're famous for down in Nocatee and other counties around here. They want to preserve that, and they want the best of it. And I don't think I have to ask them up here to ask them that, but it seems to be common sense. But I will ask the contractor, just very bluntly. I think you hit on it, but if you could come up, the window contractor, you were, I think your time got cut off. And I'll ask the question, if you drive by this house with these windows replaced, is anyone going to notice the difference? And are they going to scream from the curb, oh, they messed up that historical house? No. No. So they're doing their due diligence to preserve this house. They want it to be beautiful, and we've heard from an expert subject matter. That these windows won't change any of the substance of the historical nature by view. So I'm going to support the appeal. It's common sense to me, but that's all I have to say. Sorry for the rant, guys. That's okay. Councilmember Diamond, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. First of all, Michelle, your pitch was so much better. I love this one. This is targeted at your audience. It's awesome, and you know I'm absolutely going to totally disagree with you. But that was my favorite one yet, one lawyer to other. I know it's a hard thing to do. I hate these laws, just to be clear. The fact that we do this is just nuts to me. And the fact that the Historic Commission keeps on, like, sending these things to us just drives me nuts. It's, like, tone deaf that these things are going to get overturned up here. Like, maybe we need to change the law. In any event, I'm going to move to grant the appeal. That would be my amendment. And then I'd like to put some stuff on the record here. First of all, what was on the record in our packets, I think, has competent substantial evidence that the 20 windows were irreparable and to support the appeal. In addition to that, the affidavit of Mr. Timmons, I think, is very helpful and interesting. Independent and aside from everything else on the record, I find that that would be competent substantial evidence. Of an expert who found that the windows were irreparable. In addition to that, I do think that the code and the law supports our decision that once over 50% of these are irreparable, that the rest ought to be fixed. So those are all independent reasons in my book, and that's why I'm making the amendment. Thanks. All right. So we do have a motion and a second on the table right now, which is to grant the appeal, which would allow for new windows. And would be denying the JHP stance. So with that, we will go to Council Member Johnson. You recognize? I know. He's always speaking on the motion. Yeah. Speak. Yeah. Go ahead, Council Member Johnson. Thank you. A question is, first of all, kind of, not kind of, I certainly agree with Council Member Diamond and Council Member Carrico. We see Michelle, Miss Shell, I have to say that right, because someone asked me why am I calling her Michelle. We see Miss Shell on a regular basis and we work with you. And that's, it's just a unique conundrum that we're in. But thank you for, and it was a, you know, a brilliant way to describe it. I don't particularly agree with it. And I must say this, I remember, you know, living in Artigo when I was a kid and going past this Tudor-style house that it was just iconic to the neighborhood. And then having gone to gatherings there, it's a beautiful home. So thank you to these, the people that have restored this home because it makes our city have this wonderful character. I love this house. My question, though, is there evidence of the findings of the people that were from our team? You said the staff went out. Where is that evidence that says that we, that these windows can't be repaired properly? So through the chair to Councilman Johnson, the staff uses what they submitted. They submitted a really thorough window inventory and a window survey. They documented the condition. It's just as, as Councilman Gaffney said, it comes down almost to a matter of opinion. They reviewed that and they, staff said, we think these can be repaired, which is ultimately, I mean, it's the job, it's their job with the historic preservation ordinance for them to look at, in any case, if the evidence does not really show 100% that it can, that it cannot be repaired, they say that right, cannot be repaired, then it could be replaced. And so that's where the staff came up with their recommendation of denial and then the, you know, the commission did, did their thing too. But it, but they used the, the window survey that was provided and then they did their site visit and it just, yeah. Did they have, did those people through the chair have the same credentials as the contractor that spoke to us? Are there contractors, excuse me, are there credentials equivalent or greater? Um, so to Councilman Johnson, our staff has, they have bachelor's and master's degrees in historic preservation. Um, they're not contractors. So I guess, I mean, the reason I asked the question because I, because this contractor that we've heard from does this kind of work. So not only does this person have the credentials, they have the experience. And if someone is going to say that that word is invalid and these windows are irreparable, then I want to also know what their credentials and or experiences. And it doesn't seem like we have it that is commensurate, but I'll move on. Uh, my next question, we're talking about the windows themselves and forgive my ignorance, not being a contractor. We're talking about the window, not the pane, not the actual glass, but the structure of the window that is into the wall of the home. Correct? Yes, sir. It's not just the pane of glass. It's the. The surrounding structure. So, and it kind of goes back as Councilman Diamond said, if there are 50% that are already done, then why are we having these issues? And maybe this is, is someone here from the planning, excuse me, of the Historic Preservation Commission? Would that be a no? Oh, is there anyone here from the Historic Preservation Commission? Going once, going twice. Okay, thank you. My question then becomes, when you look at the, the actual structure, because you, you then, you then get into efficiency and are, you know, does this protect the home? A vermin coming in the home? Because some of these, to me, if there's termite damage and it's wood, you can't really repair it. You have to replace it because the structural integrity of said wood is no longer integrous because the termites have drilled into it. So, I'm, I'm a little confused as to how they could do that. That's why I wanted to get some kind of feedback that doesn't look like it's possible. My next question, where in this home are the windows that we're speaking of? I was a little confused as I looked, know the home well, where specifically are the windows that are being appealed located? Whomever, through the chair. I, I see it and I, I know, I just want it on the record. I'm, I'm going somewhere. Richie, is it this? Would this be, he has this? Yes, I'm sorry. It's in the slide. I thought the, it's in the slide show. Can you show, I got it. Where, tell me just if you could specify. It's the red. No, I see the color. Where in the house is that? Is that the front of the home or the back of the home? Sorry, there's two photos. One photo is the front of the home. So, in the. With a bunch of them, that's the back of them. This is the back of the home, where the majority of these windows are located. That is correct. The reason I ask the question, because it is, and this is, I'm going to use conventional wisdom and just assume that not many people would be roaming around the backyard of the home. So, would people see the windows? How then can someone explain to me, is that going to not go with the integrity of the neighborhood? Can someone explain that to me, that windows on the back of the home, that will keep the home energy efficient, keep the people who live in the home safe, how do windows at the back of this home go into changing the historic characteristic of the district? And we're going to have to go to other. Gotcha. Yeah, thank you. Through the chair to Councilmember Johnson. The thing I will say is this is on a corner lot, and it also has a road on the back. So, there's a lot of road frontage that you don't normally see. Okay. I'll end here, but in. Oh, go ahead. I'm sorry. I'm sorry, Councilman. Through the chair. I'll just add briefly that from the road in the back, the house isn't really plainly visible if you drive back there on Riverside Avenue. I've been there many times. Yeah, and if I may, just add one piece of the missing timeline that might help is that after that staff site visit, that's when the contractor actually took apart windows to see damage more in the structure. And that's kind of maybe where that disconnect is. I'll leave it there. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Unless these windows are leading me to Narnia, I don't know why we need to, I don't know why we're spending time doing this. Thank you. All right. Thank you. And next we have Councilmember Arias. All right. Well, thank you, Chair. Very quick. A, I don't see anybody opposing this, number one. Number two, these windows, I've had a building where it had termite and mold, and like Councilmember Johnson just said, I mean, that's irreplaceable. You cannot, to fix it, it just takes too much. So I think that, you know, looking at the slides, showing termite rot, water damage, potentially mold as well, to me, it needs to be replaced. Lastly, you know, seeing that we have an expert contractor, builder here working on windows, I'm pretty sure that they're going to do a custom order to provide the exact replica frames to match the integrity of what there already is there. Whether it's replaced or repaired, it's going to look the same. So the integrity of the historic nature of this property will look identical to what it is. So that's why I will not be opposed to, I'm going to be in favor of granting the appellant their request because, like I said, it's going to look the same. Now, they were going to change the character of the building and change the placement of the windows, different story, but that's not the case. And like I said, the most important part is that there's nobody here opposing this, so I think we just need to close the book and get to voting on this. Thank you. All right. Thank you, Mr. Arias. We have no other speakers in the queue. I'll go ahead and add my two cents, and then we will take a vote on this. Yeah, so, I mean, really the crux of the whole problem here is JHP votes on what the written rules are, and the written rules are sort of impossible because it's like if the window is replaceable, and it's like, well, sure, it's technically replaceable, but it's going to cost, you know, $5,000 per window, and you're going to have to redo the wood in between the panes. And so that's a crazy threshold to where you could just buy a new window for $800 or whatever it is that looks exactly the same, and that's going to seal the house up airtight. I mean, this is a very nice home, so the aesthetics will be the same. So I understand JHP had to kind of rule the way they did because what's said in black and white, they had to operate within that box. So luckily, it can come to us, and we can use common sense that we are all talking about up here and grant this appeal because obviously it's a nice home. We have experts here that say the windows aren't replaceable, even though you can claim that it is. So for me, yeah, I'll be supporting this. I have no heartburn about it whatsoever, and let's go ahead and get this done. So we have a motion in a second to grant the appeal. We have no one else in the queue. Open the ballot. Record your vote. We did. You made the motion. We need to vote on the amendment. The bill. I thought Mr. Diamond made the motion to grant the appeal. Okay. So all in favor of the Diamond Amendment signified by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed? The amendment carries. Move the bill as amended. We have a motion in a second on the bill as amended. Open the ballot. Record your vote. Courts can't get us now. Seven yays. Zero nays. All right. By your action, you have approved or granted the appeal for 2026-544. Thank you all for being patient out there. The rest of the bills are going to be on second reading. Item 44, 2026, 553, 554, 555, 556, 557, 558, 559, 560, 561, 562, 563, 564, 564, 565, 565, 566, 567, 569, and 590 are all in second read. With that, this meeting is adjourned.