Land Use & Zoning Committee - Jun 02, 2026

all right good evening it is 5 0 1 and we are going to call this meeting to order welcome to the land use and zoning committee it is june 2nd at five o'clock like we just said we're going to start with introductions to the left and i do want to mention that councilmember johnson said he is running just a few minutes late because he's coming from an event but otherwise we'll go ahead and start councilman reginald gaffin and julia district 8 good evening rory diamond district 13 and george who now is a nameplate all right george congratulations congratulations buddy joe carlucci district 5 raw areas district 11 terence freeman at large group 1 randy white district 12 terence harvey office of general council helena parola planning department aaron abney planning department casey cox planning department all right and i was just informed that we do have a birthday today mr terence harvey happy 65th man congratulations all right so with that we will go ahead and get started all right item who's doing the cards tonight do we have no pages all right the official vice chair councilman areas we'll have george do it next time all right item number one 2026 122 open the public hearing no speaker cards will continue this public hearing until 6 16 26 item number two 2026 123 open the public hearing no speaker cards will continue this public hearing until 6 16 26 item number three 2026 124 that item is deferred and there will be a public hearing on 7 21 7 26 item number four 2026 125 is also deferred with the public hearing on 7-21-26. Item number 5, 2026-126. Open the public hearing. No speaker cards. We'll continue this public hearing until 6-16-26. Item number 6, 2026- 127. Open the public hearing. No speaker cards. We'll continue this public hearing until 6-16-26. Item number 7, 2026-274. Council members, please declare your ex parte communication at this time. Seeing none, we will go ahead and open the public hearing and get a staff report. Thank you. Ornitz 2026-274 seeks to rezone 0.96 acres from CCG1 to CCG2 to unify the property under one zoning district and to permit a non-franchise auto dealership on site. The subject property is located along Blanding Boulevard, which is classified as an F-dot principal arterial roadway and is heavily commercialized with surrounding properties zoned between CCG1, CCG2, and PUDs that allow for similar uses. Staff has reviewed the request and finds the proposed rezoning is consistent with the 2045 Comprehensive Plan with the existing land use category of CGC. While there are single-family residential to the west of the subject site, staff notes that there is an approximately 130-foot wide wetland buffer between the subject property and adjacent residential subdivisions, which will continue to act as a natural buffer between the two. So for those reasons and those in the staff report, we find the proposed rezoning to be consistent and compatible and for a recommendation of approval. The application was heard by Planning Commission on May 21st, where there were no speakers in opposition and little discussion among the commissioners, and they voted unanimously for approval. All right. Thank you for that. Do we have any speaker cards? No speaker cards. So we'll close the public hearing and bring back the committee for the amendment. All right. We have a motion and second on the amendment. All in favor of the amendment, signify by saying aye. Any opposed? The amendment carries. We have a motion and second on the bill as amended. No one in the queue. Open the ballot. Accord your vote. Six yays. Zero nays. By interaction approved, 2026-274. Item number eight, 2026-289. Let's open the public hearing and get a staff report. Thank you. Ordinance 2026-289 is for the adoption round of a large scale land use amendment, which includes the extension of the suburban area boundary over the subject site. The transmittal round of legislation for this item was heard by the city council as ordinance 2025-307 and was approved for transmittal. This application seeks to amend the land use from agriculture and rural residential in the rural area to low-density residential in the suburban area to allow for low-density residential housing development. Next, you'll see the companion PUD rezoning pending concurrently with the application. The site consists of 12 parcels totaling over 190 acres. It's located along Yellow Water Road, which is a collector roadway, and is situated south of Wells Road and approximately one mile north of Normandy Boulevard and FDOT Principal Arterial Roadway. The site does include some wetlands, and it was heard by the Waterways Commission on June 12, 2025, with the transmittal round of the application. The area around the site consists predominantly of residential and agricultural uses, as well as parks and preserves. Though, through a series of land use amendments over the last 20 years, the properties east and south of the subject site have gradually transitioned from rural and agriculture to low-density suburban area. These recent amendments and developments are described within the staff report, and also within the staff report, there is a larger area map that identifies all the different types of developments in the surrounding area, not only residential, but commercial and Cecil Commerce and their runway and different parks in the area. And that gives you a better idea of how this section of Normandy Boulevard is developing. Overall, the growth trends are trending towards a suburban pattern of development in this area, and that is, this proposal is consistent with the growth trends in the area to help accommodate future growth and housing needs. The suburban area extension is congruent with the existing and proposed development typology of the area, and the larger area of Normandy Boulevard is trending towards suburban expansion, primarily with the residential area. For those reasons, and as outlined in the staff report, the Planning Department forged a recommendation of approval, and the Planning Commission heard the item on May 21, 2026, and voted unanimously to approve with little discussion, asking the applicant about public engagement efforts, and the applicant went into what they have been through with the community as far as this proposal. Thank you. All right. We have one speaker card, Cindy Trimmer. Is your mic on? We've had trouble with it today. How about now? That's better. There you go. All right. If I could start over. Cindy Trimmer, 1 Independent Drive, Suite 1200 on behalf of the applicant. Looking at page one, orienting from the development Ms. Perler reference, we are approximately five miles from Cecil Commerce Center that you can see on that first map. Why is that important? If you move on to page two, you can see what is planned coming into Cecil, which is industrial distribution, mixed use, aviation, aerospace. Moving on to page three, you can see there's more than 23 million square feet of industrial, more than 9.4 million mega site, more than 1.4 million mixed use, with a projected 25,000 jobs coming to this area. If you move to page four, knowing that we have all of these jobs coming to the area, you see the industrial sanctuary boundary. You cannot put residential in that area. It's presumed inappropriate. So there's very little area, starting with where we are, that residential development rooftops to support these jobs would be appropriate. Moving on to the next page of the map, we have worked with folks over five years trying to develop this corridor, and there's been two main hurdles. The first is that there is not utility access up yellow water. This developer understands that they would have to run water and sewer up yellow water to unlock the density. The other issue that folks have faced, if you look at the map on page five, is that we are right up against the suburban character area. Right in that blue, to the right, you can get up to seven units an acre. But in the pink where this property is, you're limited to two units an acre. So part of the request in front of you that has gone to the state, been approved and sent back, is to extend the suburban character area up to the Mitigation Conservation Bank. If you look on page six, everything to the west of us cannot be developed. It is preserved. So this represents a logical extension of the character area while guarding against future urban sprawl. And then if you look at the map on page seven, you can see how development is working its way down Normandy. With the low-density residential, it has transitioned immediately to the east side of yellow water. And then you see along Normandy starting to get some of that commercial development on those main nodes. We've done a lot of work in this area over time, and we consistently hear that folks want more commercial opportunities along Normandy. Getting more rooftops out here will support those efforts as well. With that, I will pause on the land use, and I'm available for questions. All right, great. We have no speakers in the queue, no other speaker cards, so we're going to close this public hearing and bring it back to committee. Motion to second on the bill. No discussion. Open the ballot. Record your vote. Six yays, zero nays. By your action, you've approved 2026-289. Item number nine, 2026-290. Council members, please declare your ex parte communication at this time. Council Member White, you're recognized. Yes, sir. Thank you. Three or four days ago, I talked to Mr. Faircloth, who lives out here. His property, I think the southern, his northern line touches their southern line, and he wanted to talk about buffers. We discussed that, and all that's been filed with legislative services. Council Member Arias, you're recognized. Thank you. Thank you, Chair, on 6-1 at 3.33 p.m. I had a phone call with Ms. Trimmer discussing the density change in the format to the PUD, and it's currently being filed. Thank you. Council Member Gaffney, you're recognized. Thank you. Through the Chair, I also met with Ms. Cindy Trimmer, 6-1 as well. She reached out to me to see if I had any questions about this legislation. I'm going to show everything you're filed. All right, and I will declare ex parte communication at this time. I met with Cindy Trimmer in my office, and we discussed the legislation. This paperwork is going to be filed with legislative services. And that is all we have, so we're going to go ahead and open the public hearing and get a staff report. Thank you. This is the Companion PUD Rezoning Ordinance 2026-0290, seeking to rezone approximately 112 acres from agriculture to a PUD. The rezoning is being requested to permit single-family developments on a large assembly of parcels located along Yellow Water Road. The proposed subdivision is a mix of 40 and 50-foot wide lots with a maximum overall development of 550 units. This is an overall density of five units per acre. The PUD differs from the conventional code by, again, limiting the overall amount of single-family developments allowed within the PUD to the five units per acre. It also provides increases in setbacks and required enhanced landscaping buffers. And then it further allows for the continuation of existing livestock, agriculture, or silviculture uses on the properties until they are developed pursuant to this PUD. Staff has reviewed the request and finds that it is consistent with the comprehensive plan, with the approved land use category of LDR, and with the suburban development area expansion, which, again, would limit development to seven units per acre, but this PUD limits it to five. We find it furtheres the goals and objectives of the comp plan by providing opportunities for development of a wide variety of housing types by area, consistent with the housing needs for the general area. We find it also meets the internal and external compatibility factors. Development will provide landscaping buffers along all boundaries of the project, ranging from 10 feet to 25 feet, even though under the code, no buffer requirements are required between two single-family developments. So this is an increase from what the code would require today between these two types of developments. The property is located along Yellow Water Road, which is classified as a collector roadway and is currently operating at 6% capacity. Development surrounding the project includes the Bridal Creek PUD, which permits up to 1,132 single-family dwellings, townhomes, and then commercial retail developments. The single-family lots also range in a multitude of sizes, with the smallest being 40 feet in width. So the proposed 40- and 50-foot-wide lots would be compatible with surrounding developments. So because of these reasons and because of the nearby developments and trends of developments along Normandy Boulevard, we board a recommendation of approval with one condition in your agenda. Application was heard by Planning Commissioner on May 21st. There were no speakers in opposition. A little discussion amongst the commissioners, and they ultimately voted approval with that same one condition in your agenda. All right. Thank you so much. We have one speaker card. Cindy Trimmer. Thank you so much. Cindy Trimmer, 1 Independent Drive, Suite 1200, on behalf of the applicant. Picking up on page 8 of the handout, you can see the pattern of development that Aaron referenced. When you come just outside of that industrial sanctuary that we looked at on the map previously, you see you have multifamily, townhome, and then when you transition into that Bridal Creek PUD, which takes up the majority of the eastern side of Yellow Water Road, that has a mix of commercial, townhome, 40, 50, 60-foot lots, and then we transition onto the west side where we're proposing the mix of lots that you have in this PUD. I've included the Bridal Creek site plan on the next page so you can see kind of what's there and how this fits in with it. And then in the last page, we have the site plan for what is proposed here. We have worked closely with residents, with the councilmen. This layout was done so that you have side yards along Yellow Water, no lots that have direct access onto Yellow Water, and then we're also orienting all of our open space along Yellow Water, trying to preserve as much of that wooded experience coming along that corridor, recognizing this is an area that is transitioning. There are still some of those rural and agricultural uses, so this will help preserve that experience until the rest of these properties come online. I passed out two conditions. We did still have some neighbors that had concerns. You heard a reference to Mr. Faircloth. The first condition will address his property line. Residential to residential would not require any buffer. We are agreeing to maintain a minimum 25-foot buffer in a natural vegetated state that is a very heavily wooded property line, and we have further agreed that if there were to be a fence erected along that property line, it would be along the development side so that what is along Mr. Faircloth's property maintains that wooded status. And then we had another owner that is part of the PUD that just had some concerns about how the phasing might take place and asked that if phasing goes with the property north of his before his is developed, that a fence be put along his property line until that property were developed, so that is the second condition. With that, we are available for questions. All right. Thank you so much. We have no other speaker cards, so we'll close the public hand and bring it back to committee. All right. All right. We have a motion and a second on the amendment with the new proposed conditions. Mr. Harvey, do we need to roll these up into one after we're done voting on these specific conditions? Correct, and then the one from the planning department. Okay. Okay, great. So all in favor of the area's amendment with the proposed conditions handed out, signify by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed? The amendment carries. So now move the other amendment. Okay. We have a motion and a second on the planning department, planning commission condition. All in favor of that one, signify by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed? The amendment carries. Let's, let's, before we do that, let's roll those up into one L-U-Z amendment or however you want to do it. So let's go ahead and move the bill as twice amended, if we can get a motion on that. All right. We have a motion and a second on the bill as twice amended. No one in the queue. Open the ballot. Court your vote. Six yays, zero nays. By your action, you've approved. 2026-290. Zero. Item number 10, 2026-291. Open the public hearing. Get a staff report. Thank you. Ordinance 2026-291 is a request for a small scale land use change of 2.67 acres from light industrial to community general commercial. This is in the urban priority area, and this is to allow a phased mixed-use development that includes both commercial and residential uses. A rezoning application will come next for a PUD for this site. The subject site consists of three parcels along Passetti Street and 8th Street, located east of Florida Avenue and between 8th Street East and 7th Street East. There is a railway between the south side of the site and 7th Street East. The site's located within an urbanized part of the city. Full urban services are available, including public transportation. It's contiguous with the CGC land use category to the north and east, and that is what they're proposing for the site. And this provides that natural extension. The change to CGC is also consistent with the commercial development patterns in the area, and it's located on a preferred roadway for this type of commercial, which is for collectors, and higher 8th Street is a minor arterial roadway, and Florida Avenue is a collector. Reuse of the site would allow for infill development and redevelopment on this vacant, underutilized land within the area that already has all the infrastructure, utilities, and public facilities. For those reasons, and as outlined in the staff report, Planning Department forged a recommendation of approval at the Planning Commission on May 21, 2026. They voted unanimously for approval with no discussion. All right. Thank you so much. We have one speaker card. Cindy Trimmer. Thank you. Cindy Trimmer, 1 Independent Drive, Suite 1200, on behalf of the applicant. This project has been a labor of love from Lucius and Jacqueline Lattimore for years, working on creating this assemblage. The CGC land use category will facilitate development of a mixed-use project that would include ground floor retail. Right now, the neighboring property has a dollar general. This would intend to be targeting uses that would be complementary to those, and then it will also allow for a mix of housing types. They are working on securing a partner that would do affordable housing multifamily, and then future phases of the project would allow them to do additional housing types, such as townhome and duplex, as well, that we'll address in the PUD. With that, I will stand by for questions. Okay. Thank you so much. We do not have any speakers in the queue, so we'll close this public hearing and bring it back to committee. Motion and a second on the bill. No one in the queue. Open the ballot. Court's your vote. Six yays. Zero nays. By your action, you've approved 2026-291. And I apologize. Welcome Councilwoman Clark Murray. A little late, but better late than never, right? All right. We have item number 11, 2026-292. Councilmembers, please declare your ex parte communication at this time. Once, going twice. Oh, all right. Councilmember Arias, you're recognized. All right. Thank you, Chair. I would like to declare ex parte. On 6-1, I had a phone call with Ms. Trevor to discuss the affordable housing component, mixed use, and retail residential mix, and it's currently being filed. Thank you. Councilmember Gaffney, you're recognized. Thank you. Through the chair, I'd also like to rise to declare ex parte. I also met with Ms. Tremor, Seth Swine, and we just talked about the legislation, talked about the details, the jobs, the whole nine yards. I make sure everything gets filed with legislative services. All right. And I will declare my ex parte communication as well. I met with Cindy Tremor, Rich Mullaney, in my office on June 1st, and we discussed the legislation in depth, and this paperwork is being filed with legislative services. So with that, we will open the public hearing and get a staff report. Thank you. This is the companion PUD rezoning ordinance 2026-0292, seeking to rezone approximately 3.37 acres from industrial light and CCG2 to a PUD. It's being sought to allow for a mixed-use development of commercial and residential uses. The project consists of 11 different parcels and will be developed over five different phases for a total of 77 dwelling units and 25,000 square feet of commercial floor area. The applicant seeks to develop a mixed-use infill project consisting of multifamily dwellings in the form of apartments, a triplex, and a quadruplex, along with a variety of commercial uses primarily found within the CCG1 zoning district. Staff has reviewed the request and finds that it's consistent with the comp plan, with the land use of CGC, and furtheres the goals and objectives and meets the internal and external compatibility factors. The project is located along 8th Street, which is a minor arterial roadway and is currently operating at 8% capacity. The surrounding area includes a variety of industrial, commercial, and residential uses, including warehousing and single-family dwellings to the north, commercial retail to the west, and single-family dwellings to the east, and then you're also buffered by the CSX rail line to the south. Although being developed for mixed-use, the subject site will preserve the residential character of the area while also offering an assortment of commercial uses within the immediate area. So for these reasons and those in the staff report, we are forwarding a recommendation of approval. It was heard by Planning Commission on May 21st. There were no speakers in opposition and little discussion, and they voted unanimously for approval. Okay, thank you. We have one speaker card, Cindy Trimmer. Cindy Trimmer, 1 Independent Drive, Suite 1200, on behalf of the applicant. The site plan, you'll see the Dollar General along the west that I referenced previously. The first L-shaped building that you see on the site plan is where that mixed-use component is intended for the ground floor retail, the residential above, and then transitioning into the less intense residential product and the smaller-scale duplex, triplex, quad. We have done extensive outreach. The Latimers have been working with the Historic Eastside CDC and Lift Jacks for years as this project evolved, and they do have the support of their neighbors. We hope we will have yours as well and are available for questions. All right. We have no speakers in the queue, so we'll close this public hearing and bring it back to committee. We have a motion and second on the bill. No speakers in the queue. Let's open the ballot and record your vote. Six yays, zero nays. By direction you've approved, 2026-292. Item number 12, 2026-293. Let's open the public hearing. No speaker cards. We'll continue this public hearing until 6-16-26. Item number 13, 2026-294. Open the public hearing. No speaker cards. We'll continue this public hearing until 6-16-26. Item number 14, 2026-295. Let's open the public hearing. No speaker cards. We'll continue this public hearing until 6-16-26. Item number 15, 2026-296. Let's open the public hearing and get your staff report. Thank you. Ordinance 2026-296 is a small-scale land use amendment to exchange 0.12 of an acre from medium-density residential to neighborhood commercial. This is in the urban priority area, and it's to allow a broader range of commercial uses on the site that has historically been used and developed for commercial uses. On the property, it currently contains a vacant retail building constructed in 1959. It's located at 1090 Huron Street. On the west side of Huron Street, between 1st Street and Sophia Street, these are all local roadways. The proposed amendment supports infill development and redevelopment of a vacant, previously-developed commercial site within an area already served by existing infrastructure, utilities, and public facilities. The proposed amendment to neighborhood commercial furthers a balanced and organized mix of land uses within the surrounding area. With one-quarter mile of the site are single-family and multifamily residential uses. Just north of the site is a convenience store and a light industrial bottling facility in the area and a city-owned multi-use facility. The site's also located less than one-quarter mile north of Commonwealth Avenue, a minor arterial, and one-quarter mile south of 5th Street West at Collector Roadway. For those reasons, and as outlined in the staff report, the Planning Department forwards a recommendation of approval. At the May 21st, 2026 Planning Commission meeting, there were no speakers in opposition and no discussion by the Planning Commission, and they voted unanimously to approve. All right, we have one speaker card, Travis Moss, in support, questions only. All right, with that, we have no one in the queue, so let's close the public hearing and bring 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 your action, you've approved 2026-296. Item number 16, 2026-297. Council members, please declare any ex parte communication you have at this time. Seeing none, let's open the public hearing and get a staff report. This is the companion rezoning 2026-297, which seeks to change the zoning from residential medium density D to commercial neighborhood. The 0.12 acre parcel was developed in 1959 with a commercial structure, but has been vacant since around 2009. Prior to the initial adoption of the comprehensive plan, the property was zoned as commercial neighborhood, but was designated as RMDD when it was adopted. The applicant seeks to go back to the original zoning so that the site can be used as originally built. Staff finds the proposed use to be consistent with the proposed neighborhood commercial land use category of the 2045 comprehensive plan. So for these reasons and those found in the staff report, we forward a recommendation of approval. This item was heard at the May 21st Planning Commission meeting. There were no speakers in opposition, little discussion, and the commission voted unanimously for approval. All right. We have one speaker card. Travis Moss here for questions only, which we have no one in the queue, so we'll close the public hearing and bring it back to committee. Motion and a second on the bill. No discussion. Open the ballot. Record your vote. Six yays, zero nays. By your action you've approved, 2026-297. Item number 17, 2026-298. Council Member, or actually let's open the public hearing and get a staff report. Thank you. Ordinance 2026-298 is a small-scale land use amendment requesting a .9 of an acre be amended from medium-density residential to business park. This is in the urban priority area, and this is to allow low-intensity industrial and office uses and the reuse of an existing structure. The site consists of six partials, which are approximately 450 feet north of Beaver Street, which is a minor arterial roadway. Barnett Street, that it is located on, is a local roadway. An industrial warehouse structure built in 1958 is located on the largest parcel at 820 Barnett Street. The applicant seeks to reuse the existing structure and use the adjacent vacant lots to support the site's development. Reuse of the site, consistent with the historic use of the property, would allow for infill development and redevelopment on a vacant bypass and underutilized land within an area that already has infrastructure and public facilities. The site is located within an urbanized, dense part of the city and is adjacent to a large industrial use right across the street. The site is located, the plan amendment requests for new BP designations are preferred in locations which are supplied by full urban services, and there are full urban services to that site, including access to public transit. For those reasons, and as outlined in the staff report, we forward a recommendation of approval. On 5-21-26, the planning commission had little discussion on the application. There was one person who spoke in opposition to the proposal, stating that the large industrial warehouse across the street was not original to the site, and it was not, should not have been originally approved for that site, and was opposed to the expansion of the business park uses. The planning commission continued and voted unanimously for approval. All right, we have one speaker card, Richie Mullaney. Richie Mullaney with Driver McAfee, 1 Independent Drive, Suite 1200, on behalf of the applicant. The applicant here is a locally owned small business named Chiller Medic, and they provide HVAC installation and service for both residential and commercial properties. And their technicians have been servicing Jacksonville in the northeast Florida region for 30 years now, and they're seeking to occupy this existing warehouse facility for continued operation of their small business. And this property, as outlined in the staff report, consists of six total parcels. It's just shy of an acre, nine-tenths of an acre. The primary parcel at 820 Barnett Street houses that existing warehouse that Chiller Medic would like to occupy. It was originally constructed nearly 70 years ago. And then the other five parcels, there's four to the north and then one to the south, are vacant and undeveloped, and Chiller Medic would like to use those for parking and outside storage. This land use amendment is brought before you today because the current land use designation is MDR. But this category doesn't quite make the best sense because this property is right between that residential area to the west, that's MDR land use, and industrial area just to the east, right across the street. It's about 18 acres of LI land use just to the east of this property. So we've identified that what makes better sense is for a transitional land use, something between those uses and intensities, and we've identified BP as the most appropriate land use for this particular property, given its location in between the residential development to the west and the industrial development to the east. In the urban priority development area, this creates that smooth transition between uses and intensities. Chiller Medic is eager to be a good neighbor, and I can kind of get into that a little bit more in the companion PUD, which I can discuss about how the ways that they'd like to address any potential adverse impacts. But with that, I'll stand by for questions. Thank you. All right. We have Council Member Diamond, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So I was just reviewing this and wondering if you've got the masonry amendments covered on all this because I didn't see any of those filings. I've been looking in the background of these meetings quite a bit, and I don't think I'm going to fall for that. I even made up a new name for him, man. You did. You did. Actually, my heart sank a little bit, I'll be honest. You accomplished the goal. Mission accomplished. I know we had to do something. All right. We've got no other speakers in the queue, so let's close this public hearing and bring it back to committee. All right. Motion in a second on the bill. No one in the queue. Open the ballot. Record your vote. Six yays, zero nays. By your action, you've approved 2026-298. Item number 18, 2026-299. Council Members, please declare your ex parte communication at this time. All right. I have ex parte communication. I met with Cindy Trimmer and Richie Mullaney in my office on June 1st, and we discussed the legislation and the zonings. This paperwork is being filed with legislative services. Council Member Gaffney, you're recognized. Thank you. Through the chair, I also rise to declare ex parte. I also met with Richie and Cindy Trimmer in my office and discussed this piece of legislative services. I made sure it discussed this legislation. I made sure everything is filed with legislative services. All right. We have no other speakers in the queue. Let's open the public hearing and get a staff report. Thank you. This is the companion PUD rezoning, Ordinance 2026-0299, seeking to rezone approximately 0.9 acres from RMDA to PUD. The central parcel was originally developed in 1958 with a 13,700-square-foot warehouse, with the four parcels to the north and the one to the south being requested to use for parking and outside storage. The rezoning is being requested so that the applicant can move his residential and commercial heating and air conditioning business into the building. Applicant also plans to utilize the remaining parcels for, again, outside storage and parking with appropriate fencing and landscaping. Staff has reviewed the request and finds that it is consistent with the comp plan with the approved land use category of BP and furthers the goals and objectives by creating a gradual transition of densities and intensities between land uses. We find it also meets the internal and external compatibility factors. While the properties that are adjacent are existing residential, there are landscaping and visual screening requirements that are within the PUD's written description in order to lessen the impact to surrounding properties. Perimeter landscaping around the outside storage area shall be required to meet the Part 12 zoning code and then also shall be screened with fencing that will be at least six feet tall and 95% opaque. Subject property is located on the west side of Barnett Street between residential zoning to the west and industrial zoning to the east. Given the historic nature of the development with the site being developed as a warehouse use in the 1950s, the proposed PUD is intending to bring the site into compliance with current code requirements while also protecting surrounding residential areas. So the proposed PUD and its limitations is appropriate between the transition between industrial and residential. So because of these reasons and those in the staff report, we forward a recommendation of approval. It was heard by a planning commissioner on May 21st. There was one speaker in opposition who just felt that the warehousing should have never been approved originally. And the commission was supportive of the proposed rezoning but did recommend that the applicant engage with the community and potentially increase fencing for that outsourced storage parcels. But with that, they voted unanimously for approval. Do we have a speaker card on this one? The same speaker card? All right. All right. One speaker card, Richie Mullaney. Richie Mullaney with Driver McAfee 1 Independent Drive Suite 1200 on behalf of the applicant. This is the companion rezoning for Chiller Medic seeking to rezone the property from RMDA to a PUD. This PUD seeks to allow the operation of Chiller Medic's warehouse, along with bringing the property into compliance with code and ensuring that the site is an appropriate transitional use, again, between the residential development to the west and the industrial development to the east. Chiller Medic is very eager, like I said, to be a good neighbor. And there are certain provisions within the PUD to ensure that Chiller Medic is a good neighbor and part of this community. To outline that a little bit, the vacant lots to the north and the south are proposed to be used for outdoor storage and some parking. Historically, that's been used by semi-trailer flatbeds just out on those lots. Chiller Medic wants to clean that up. Going to add screening, six-foot fencing, it's 95% opaque to make sure that there's a screen around those uses and maintain a 10-foot landscape buffer between the property and any residential development around there as well. We've also restricted signage illumination to not disturb any residential properties or streets. And we did reach out to a community member who spoke at the Planning Commission. He was mostly concerned, again, with that semi-trailer parking that Chiller Medic assured him would not be the case in those outdoor storage and parking facilities. Those big semi-trailer flatbed parking will not be part of this. Overall, they plan to make big investments at the property, breathe new life into this vacant site, and improve the overall appearance and quality of the building and be a good neighbor there to the neighbors in Newtown and for the neighbors of Newtown. So with that, I'll stand by for questions. Thank you. All right. We have no questions, no speakers in the queue, so we'll close the public hearing and bring it back to committee. Motion and a second on the bill. No discussion. Open the ballot. Record your vote. Six yays. Zero nays. By your action you have approved, 2026-299. Item number 19, 2026-300. Council members, please declare your ex parte communication at this time. Seeing none, let's open the public hearing and get a staff report. Thank you. This is PUD rezoning ordinance 2026-300, seeking to rezone approximately .32 acres from commercial office to a PUD to allow for a food truck park to operate full-time on the site. The applicant proposes to develop the site with a parking facilities, a dumpster, and outside storage seating to serve the food trucks. The subject property is located along the east side of University Boulevard North, and this is just right across the street from the JU campus. The property is also located within the Arlington CRA and overlay, and was heard by the Renew Arlington CRA board on February 17th, where they voted to approve the request with one condition, that the site plan and the PUD is consistent with the Renew Arlington zoning overlay requirements. Staff has reviewed the request and finds that it's consistent with the comp plan. It has existing land use designation of CGC, and we find it further is the goals and objectives. It meets internal and external criteria. Surrounding developments include an apartment complex to the north, single-family dwelling to the east, and single-family to the south, which the parcel that's on the south side is owned by the applicant and the same owner as the property that's under this PUD. The PUD does request the waiver of Part 12 landscaping requirements, but the CRA overlay requires that commercial properties abutting residential parcels have to provide a six-foot fence, 85% opaque, and again, this is between commercial and residential properties. Additionally, the minimum vehicle use landscape buffer shall be five feet within the overlay. The proposed site plan does not show the fence and doesn't specify the buffer area, but to make sure that the site plan and landscaping meet the requirements of the overlay, the department is forwarding a recommendation of approval with one condition to address those concerns. Application was heard by the planning commissioner on May 21st, where there were several speakers from the surrounding community who spoke in support of the rezoning request, and the business owner themselves citing that the business has provided a positive impact to the community. There was little discussion amongst the commissioners. They expressed no concerns regarding the rezoning, and they voted unanimously for approval with that same one condition in your agenda. Thank you. All right. We have two speaker cards. Javette Williams is in support for questions only, and then Melvin Williams is in support. If you'd like to come down and speak, you can, or wave your hand for questions only. All right. That was a questions only for Melvin Williams. So with that, we have no speakers in the queue. Let's go ahead and bring it back to, or close the public hearing and bring it back to committee. Motion to second on the bill, and we also want to welcome Council Member Johnson. Thank you for joining us tonight, sir. Anybody else? What, you have an amendment? Oh, you want to move the amendment. Okay. We have a motion to second on the amendment with conditions. Can someone please explain the amendment? It's the condition, and the condition is the development shall provide a five-foot landscape, both are between the vehicle use area and the parcel to the east, including the six-foot-high 85% opaque fence made for the wood vinyl. That's it. Okay. All in favor of the amendment, signify by saying aye. Any opposed? The amendment carries. Yeah. Let's move the bill as amended and get all good. Okay. Okay. We motion to second on the bill as amended. Council Member Arias, you're recognized. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just want to make sure that the applicant is aware of this amendment and that they're okay with the conditions because you guys have to invest money into this. Are you guys good with this? Do they need to be on the record? If you don't mind coming up and just state it for the record, please. I want to make sure we're good on that part. And then the other part for me is definitely anything to support a small business, especially in the hospitality industry. So I look forward to visiting you guys soon. I see that you guys are open Thursday through Sunday, correct? Great. Greetings. Yes, we're open Thursday through Sunday. Okay. And we don't have a problem with the amendments that was stated today. Okay. Mr. Harvey, by when do they have to have this completed by, just for their knowledge? You're asking when will they have to have the... The fencing and the buffers. That'll all go through when they go through for permitting and development services. So all of that will, it will be a requirement of the PUD that they'll have to satisfy. Good. Okay, cool. I'm Mr. Chair. That's all I have. I just wanted to make sure that they understood all that. Okay. And I didn't hear. Can we get your name and address and then that you're good with the conditions? Melvin Williams. Excuse me. I've been sick all week. I'm sorry. Melvin Williams, 3271, Rocket Court, Jacksonville, Florida. And we're also still a part of the program, the grant program. So they sent me some information to weigh all the gates and fencing going to be done along with that program as well. Okay. All right. Well, thank you, sir. Get better. Thank you. All right. And I think we, did we already move the amendment and vote on it? Okay. Did we already get it? All right. So let's open the ballot. Record your vote. Seven yays. Zero nays. By your action, you've approved 2026-300. Item number 20, 2026-301. Council members, please declare your ex parte communication you have at this time. Council member Barrios, recognized. All right. Thank you, Chair. On 6-1, I also had a phone call with Ms. Tremor to discuss a change in zoning, lot use and sizes with various access, and it's currently being filed for those who speak. Thank you. Council member Gaffney, recognized. Thank you. Through the chair, I also rise to declare ex parte. I also met with Ms. Tremor on 6-1 just to discuss this legislative, I make sure everything is filed with legislative services. All right. We have no one else, but I will declare ex parte communication as well. I met with Cindy Tremor, Richie Mulaney, in my office on June 1st. We discussed the legislation, and this paperwork is being filed with legislative services. So with that, we will go ahead and open the public hearing and get a staff report. Thank you. This is PUD rezoning ordinance 2026-0301, seeking to rezone approximately 3.14 acres from RLD 90 to a PUD in order to permit a single-family subdivision. With 80-foot-wide minimum lot widths, a shared access drive, and shared waterfront amenity area. The PUD will allow for a maximum of 15 single-family dwellings, which would include one property manager's residence. The subject property is located along the west side of San Jose Boulevard, which is classified as a minor arterial roadway and operating at 70% capacity. Staff has reviewed the request and finds that it's consistent with the comprehensive plan, with the existing land use of low-density residential, and it furthers the goals and objectives meets internal and external criteria. Surrounding development is primarily residential in nature and consists of single-family subdivisions, residential condominiums, and apartment complexes. The proposed development is similar in character to residential development located to the north. That's the old San Jose on the river, which was zoned PUD from 2012. Properties immediately to the north are zoned RLD 90 and developed with single-family dwellings, while properties to the south are developed with residential condominiums, also zoned PUD. The application was reviewed by our transportation division, who forwarded one condition related to bicycle parking, and it's just clarifying that if bike parking is required at some point on the property, that it would be per the zoning code. We find that the requested rezoning will be consistent and compatible with surrounding uses, so we forward a recommendation of approval with one condition in your agenda and a revised exhibit for your agenda. The application has a revised site plan dated April 7th. That was reviewed by Planning Commission. The applicant does have an updated revised exhibit for, that I believe you have a copy of. That is dated June 1st, so we are forwarding a recommendation of approval with the one condition in the site plan in front of you dated June 1st. Application was heard by Planning Commission on May 21st. There were no speakers in opposition and little discussion, and they voted unanimously for approval with that same one condition. Thank you. All right, we have one speaker card, Cindy Trimmer. Cindy Trimmer, 1 Independent Drive, Suite 1200, on behalf of the applicant. We are going to the opposite end of the spectrum from the residential that we heard earlier. This is a custom home community off of San Jose. They are larger, single-family homes that are meant to serve as an alternative to folks that don't really want to live in a condo or a townhome, but want the opportunity to be able to lock the door and walk away, not have huge yard or exterior maintenance. You'll see on the site plan, the lots themselves, the buildings have a larger footprint. The common area is where we have maintained that amenity space on the water rather than having the larger individual yards. We have worked with the single-family residential to the north and also the condominiums to the south. You'll note in the PUD that all of the uses that would otherwise be available in low-density residential have been stripped out, so this is really a single-use PUD that also, I believe, allows for park development. And then the June 1st site plan came from a gentleman that appeared at Planning Commission, and originally we had the dumpster and parking on the northern side of that entrance area. They asked if we would be willing to flip that, so then rather being close to a house, it would be against the retention pond to the south, and the developers were happy to do that and thought that that was a great suggestion. So with the addition of the June 1st, 2026 site plan, we ask for your approval and are available for questions. All right, we have no speakers in the queue, so we'll bring it back to committee and look for a motion on the amendment. All right, we have a motion and 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, yeah, with the conditions. Yep, no one in the queue. Open the ballot. Courage your vote. Seven yays, zero nays. By your action, you've approved 2026-301. Item number 21, 2026-302. Council members, please declare your ex parte communication at this time. Seeing none, let's open the public and get a staff report. 2026-302 seeks to rezone approximately .37 acres of land from RLD 60 to CN. The subject site was first developed in the 1950s and has historically operated as a gas station and convenience store under the RLD 60 zoning district. Prior to the original adoption of the comprehensive plan, the property was zoned a commercial general, which today is equivalent to a commercial community general one zoning district. The applicant is seeking this rezoning to redevelop the property for a convenience store similar to the original use of the site. Staff finds the proposed zoning district to be consistent with the LDR land use category of the 2045 comprehensive plan as a secondary zoning district as the site is located at the intersection of two collector roadways and is less than 16 acres in size. So for those reasons and those found in the staff report, we are forwarding a recommendation of approval. This item was heard at the May 21st Planning Commission meeting. There was no speakers in opposition, and the commission voted unanimously for approval. All right, we have no, oh, we have one speaker card, Travis Moss in support, questions only. No other speakers, no other speaker cards. We have one speaker in the queue, Council Member Johnson. You want to go? Oh, okay. You want Mr. Moss? Okay, Mr. Moss, if you're here, can you go ahead and come down to the podium, please? Thank you, Mr. Chair. And through the chair, to Mr. Moss, thank you for this work you're doing in other communities. I had a chance to look at it. It looks good. So I just have one single question. Pretty simple, Mr. Chair. What did you do for your birthday? Happy birthday, sir. I appreciate it. I didn't do much this year. That's all. Gotcha. I spent all my money on these applications. Happy birthday, Travis. Thank you, man. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Good. All right. Okay, so we have no one else in the queue, 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 bill. Open the ballot. Record your vote. Seven yays, zero nays. By your action, you've approved 2026-302. Item number 22, 2026-303. Council members, please declare your ex parte communication at this time. Seeing none, let's open the public hearing and get a staff report. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. For those reasons, and those found in the staff report before recommendation of approval, this item was heard at the May 21st Planning Commission meeting. There were two speakers, adjacent property owners at 11671 Lady Clare Court. Who raised questions about the proposed development and its potential impact on the project and its potential impact on the project. This item was heard at the May 21st Planning Commission meeting. There were two speakers, adjacent property owners at 11671 Lady Clare Court. Who raised questions about the proposed development and its potential impact on their property values and its potential impact on their property values. The commission expressed no concerns given that the surrounding subdivisions are subject to the subject site. All right, we have no speaker cards. All right, we have no speakers. In support, questions only. Tell Mr. Duggan, it's lucky he didn't. Just kidding. We all know he's in Tallahassee doing the good work right now. So, no other speaker cards, no one in the queue. Let's close the public hearing and bring it back to the committee. Motion to second on the bill. No one in the queue. Open the ballot. Quilt your vote. Seven yays, zero nays. By your action, you've approved 2026-303. Item number 23, 2026-304. Let's open the public hearing. No speaker cards. We'll continue this public hearing until 6-16-26. Item number 24, 2026-305. Council members, please declare any ex parte communication you have at this time. Seeing none, we'll go ahead and open the public hearing and get a staff report. 20-26. Sorry, we'll go to Council Member White real quick, and then we'll get the staff report. Go ahead, Council Member White, your record. Yes, sir. I apologize, Chair. I spoke to Mr. Harden yesterday on this, and I was glad to hear that we went to 60s, and everything's been filed. Thank you. All right. No other speakers? Let's go ahead and get the staff report. 20-26-305 seeks to rezone approximately 9.63 acres from residential rural acre and residential low density 120 to RLD 60 to permit a single-family development. Staff has reviewed the request and finds proposed rezoning to be consistent with the comprehensive plan with the existing land use of LDR and furthers the goals and objectives of the comprehensive plan. The subject site is located along the west side of Bowles Bay Highway and just north of Commonwealth Avenue. While many of the properties located directly north and south of the subject site are zoned RR Acre or RLD 120, properties directly to the west was approved for rezoning in 2025 to allow for a single-family subdivision and to permit up to 285 single-family dwellings, meaning the RLD 40, 50, and 60 zoning district standards. The department finds that the requested rezoning to RLD 60 will be consistent and compatible with the surrounding uses, and for those reasons and those in the staff report, we forward a recommendation of approval. The item was heard at the May 21st Planning Commission meeting. There were no speakers in opposition, and the commission voted unanimously for approval. All right, we, oh, yeah, sorry. Okay, we have one speaker card, Mr. Paul Harden. Questions only? No one in the queue? Let's close the public hearing and bring them back to committee. Motion and second on the bill? No one in the queue? Let's go ahead and open up the ballot and record your vote. Seven yays, zero nays. By reaction to approve 2026-305. Item number 25, 2026-306. Council members, please declare any ex parte communication you have at this time. Seeing none, let's open the public hearing and get a staff report. 2026-306 seeks to rezone approximately 0.18 acres from CN to CCG1. The subject property is located along the west side of St. John's Bluff and is currently developed with the 2,300-square-foot building, and the applicant is intending to rezone to permit a kitchen and bath renovation company and utilize the existing building as an office and design studio, along with assembly, building, and storage of cabinetry. The CCG1 zoning district permits building trades contractors that do not require outside storage. Staff has reviewed the request and finds the proposed rezoning to be consistent with the comprehensive plan with the existing land use of CGC. St. John's Bluff Road is classified as a collector roadway, and development with frontage along this roadway are primarily zoned Industrial Business Park, CRO, CN, and CCG1. The CCG1 district will still act as a transition between the industrial uses to the east and residential uses to the west. We find that the requested rezoning will be consistent and compatible with the surrounding uses and forward recommendation of approval. The item was heard at the May 21st Planning Commission, and the commission voted unanimously for approval. All right, we have a few speaker cards. First, Mr. Ian Brown, the applicant. Come on down. Ian Brown, 245 Riverside Ave, on behalf of the applicant. We're here today with the CN application to CCG1 to allow Bolt City Kitchen and Bath to operate their kitchen and bath remodeling company. We had a staff approval as well as Planning Commission unanimous approval. This is a neglected building on a busy corner. The neighborhood seems to be happy to see new life come into this corner. We do have three written letters of support on file, and this small business will be able to operate out of this busy corridor. I'll stand by for any further questions. Okay. Next speaker card, Mackenzie Powell in support, questions only. And other speaker card, John Powell in support, questions only. All right, with that, we have no one in the queue, so we'll close the public hearing and bring back the committee. Motion and second on the bill. No one in the queue. Open the ballot. Record your votes. Seven yays, zero nays. By your action, you've approved 2026-306. Thank you. Item number 26, 2026-309 is deferred, and there will be a public hearing next cycle on 6-16-26. Item number 27, 2026-310. Council members, please declare your ex parte communication at this time. Council member White, you're recognized. Yes, so thank you, Chair. Last LUZ meeting, whatever date that was, there was some opposition here I took in the green room when we had a discussion. Then after that, I took the applicants in the green room and had a discussion, and all that's been filed. Thank you. All right. We have no one else in the queue, so let's open the public hearing and get a staff report. Thank you. This is application for waiver of road frontage, ordinance 2026-0310, seeking to reduce the required road frontage from 80 feet to zero feet in order to develop the property with one single family dwelling. The subject property is one-acre parcel located on the west side of Jones Road, which, sorry, it's located on the north side of Boots Lane, which is just west of Jones Road, and has 130 feet of frontage along Boots Lane. However, Boots Lane is classified as an unapproved private road, which does connect to Jones Road, and that's classified as a public-maintained right-of-way. The code requires frontage, parcels to have frontage for a residential use to be at minimum of 80% of the minimum lot width, along either in a public-maintained right-of-way or an approved private street. Boots Lane is considered an unapproved private right-of-way as it never received final approval to be added to the city's approved private roads list, and therefore must seek approval for the waiver. The property was originally subdivided from a larger parcel in 2006 and has remained vacant since that time. Without the approval of the waiver of road frontage, the parcel will continue to remain vacant. Boots Lane provides access to several lots, many of which are classified as lots of record, however, property located at 9186 Boots Lane did receive approval for a road frontage reduction similar to this one, so 80 feet to zero in 1995, in order to build the one single-family home that is on that property today. Staff has reviewed the request and finds that it meets the criteria in order to recommend approval. Boots Lane was originally platted as a 15-foot right-of-way in the Jacksonville Heights Platt, which has been combined with a 15-foot easement running along the south side of the original right-of-way. So combined Boots Lane is a 30-foot-wide right-of-way providing access for a number of lots. This parcel has access to the original 15-foot-wide right-of-way, while dwellings along the south side have access to that 15-foot easement. Access along Boots Lane is adequate for emergency services and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare. So for these reasons and those in the staff report, we are forwarding a recommendation of approval. All right. We have one speaker card, and I can't necessarily read the first name, but it is a Miss or Mr. What's that? Genora Jono. Okay. Do you wish to speak? Oh, okay. Okay. Questions only? Okay. All right. Good deal. She's in support. Yeah. She's in support. Good deal. All right. We have no one else and no other speaker card, so we'll close the public hearing and bring 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. Seven yays. Zero nays. By reaction, you've approved 2026-310. Item number 28, 2026-311. Let's open the public hearing and get a staff report. Thank you. Ordinance 2026-311 is for text amendments to the future land use element and definition section of the 2045 conference plan. It also includes a new map to be adopted within the future land use map series. If you look in front of where you're sitting, I have included two packets. Both of them have maps at the front. And this identifies the target growth area boundary. And the other packet has the target growth area boundary maps divided by council districts so you can get a closer view of how this affects different areas or how this incentive could affect different areas of the city. The proposed amendments defined and identify a target growth area and establish a process to allow for increased residential densities and design flexibility for properties within that target growth area as identified on the map. Subject to criteria provided in the land development regulations, which would be identified in the zoning code. The intent of the amendment is to promote and incentivize, not require, the construction of resilient and attainable housing. First, just to go through how the map was identified. The target growth area map is designated as those areas within the urban priority and urban development areas that are already within the conference of plan as areas that we want to see revitalized and infilled that have been determined to be of lower flood risk areas by the city's office of resilience. So these are the low flood risk areas determined by the office of resilience using their compound flood model and are within a half a mile buffer of either side of high frequency transit corridors in the Emerald Trail. The target growth area does not include areas that are within a zoning overlay. It does not include areas within an airport accident potential zone or areas that are in a low density residential land use category. So areas that are not within the low density residential land use category is most of your single family residential areas are not included in that boundary map that you have in front of you. This is a targeted approach to growth. It's incentive based. It's not required. You can follow the existing regulations in the code. What you have before you is the text amendment and the map. The actual zoning code changes will come after these text amendments are transmitted to the state for comments. When it comes back to you, the zoning code will outline exactly what incentives you can take advantage of. One is a higher density if you're located in that area. You also are provided design flexibility in the form of parking requirements, in the form of lot flexibility, and so forth. That will be outlined in the zoning code to take advantage of those incentives. What the city will want to see reciprocated is either an affordable housing component that will be identified specifically in the zoning code or resilient design factors. And you can see with the white paper that's included in one of those packets exactly what those incentives are and what you will see with the upcoming zoning code as it moves forward for adoption round. We have forwarded a recommendation of approval to ordinance 2026-311. The planning commission reviewed the proposal on May 21st and forwarded a unanimous recommendation of approval, and there were no speakers in opposition. I'm available for any questions, and I can go through the history of how we got there if anybody wants that information. You might already have that information or be aware of it. Thank you. All right. Thank you. And we have no speaker cards, so we'll go ahead and close the public meeting and bring it back to committee. All right. We have a motion and a second on the bill. No. Okay. We have Council Member Diamond. You're recognized. I think this is a relatively important bill, and I think it's actually worth having Terrence just do the 101 for anybody listening, like the 30-second version of what this bill does. Please. Well, we'll defer to our director as she's drafted this bill, but 30 seconds. If you have property located in this target boundary, what will happen after adoption round and the zoning code gets updated is you have the option to increase your density by about 50% of what's currently allowed, and also the option of design flexibility with lot coverage, parking requirements, height requirements. It basically incentivizes denser development in appropriate areas, so areas that are low flood risk and on transit lines and other things outlined. It incentivizes that if you take advantage of that, what you will have to do as the property owner is either provide an affordable housing component, which is about 20% of your development will need to be dedicated for 30 years to an affordable housing component, or you would have to develop your property with resilient design factors, three of five. And both of the specifics of those requirements will be in the zoning code, but you can also see them in the white paper that you have in front of you, because the zoning code changes won't come, the actual code changes won't come until the adoption round of the amendment. All right, we're hearing some rumblings up here of wanting some additional discussion. We have one speaker in the queue, Councilwoman Clark Murray, you're recognized. Thank you, Chair. Through the chair to Ms. Parola, what are the parameters for identifying an area of target growth? In other words, what are the characteristics? How do we say that, for example, one particular block is a target growth area? What are the characteristics? Yes, through the chair to Councilwoman Clark Murray, the target growth area is identified first as those areas that are low risk to flooding. So basically, we looked at all of Duval County, and through the resilient office, they have a compound flood model, which looks at all different types of flooding. It's very detailed. We took the inverse of the areas that flood. So all the low flood risk areas, which is more appropriate for development and building. So we start with low flood risk. Then we look at the urban and urban priority boundaries of the comprehensive plan, which are already established. And those areas are identified in the comprehensive plan as areas that we want to see revitalization. We want denser and more intense development. And we want infill. So low flood risk on top of that, anything that's only in the urban or urban priority area, on top of that, the high transit route routes. So then it cuts it even further to just the high transit route routes, a half a mile from there. We worked with JTA on those areas, and also the Emerald Trail. So it would have to be all three of those sections intersecting. And then we looked at it further and removed certain areas. We removed anything that's in a zoning overlay, because the zoning overlays have already been reviewed. They've already reviewed on how they want to grow. And there's different requirements in each of those zoning overlays. We also removed the low density residential, which is most of your single family residential. Thank you. I want to interrupt for just one moment. Go back to the zoning overlays. So you're saying that, through the chair, you're saying that if a particular area is in a zoning overlay, then it cannot be a target growth area. If it's in a zoning overlay, it is not in this proposal for the target growth area. Right. Correct. It is not within the boundaries that you see for the target growth. Okay. Go ahead. Through the chair with your list. Are you done with your characteristics or the variables? Basically, it's also accident potential zones for airports are not included in the zoning overlay. So those, I mean, not zoning overlay, target growth area. So those areas are removed. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. All right. Council Member Arias for the first time and Council Member Diamond for the second time. Thank you, Chair. Ms. Parola and through the chair, I think this is a very important piece of legislation that we're about to vote on. And right now, I feel like there's so many things moving right now, and I have no idea what the heck's going on. When there's an important piece of legislation, at least on my end, I hold a public notice meeting or I have a presentation. I think this merits one, if not both of those. I would ask for a deferral. I want to support this. I just really want to understand what I'm voting on. Ms. Tarana Clark-Murray asked some great questions that even that, your statement to that, I still don't even comprehend it right away. So if it's okay with you, I would like to defer it, but also I would love for you to at least give us a one-pager to address some of her questions or concerns and just more of an overview of what we're looking at here. Because I really want to understand that before I vote yes on this, if that's okay with you, Mr. Chair. So I'm asking for a deferral, at least a one cycle. Okay. Yeah. I mean, I think that's what most members are comfortable with right now. I've got another member here and one down here, so we'll take a lap on this and we'll go ahead and defer and hopefully the bill's sponsors can kind of get everyone more comfortable with this. I potentially wanted to look at the map a little closer. We just got that map like yesterday. I wanted to kind of zoom in for my district and just make sure that the core, you know, all the quadrants that are in there should be in there, so to speak. So I would certainly appreciate a little bit more time. I don't want to, you know, run this around the track multiple, multiple times, but it is a significant piece of legislation. So with that, we will go ahead and defer it and we'll see where it goes from there. All right. Item number 29, 2026-345. Council members, please declare any ex parte communication you have at this time. I think everybody should be in the queue right now. All right. Council Member Arias. What's up? On the previous one, you deferred it, but we just need to make sure that we continue that public hearing to the next meeting. All right. We'll go ahead and open that public hearing and continue the public hearing until 616-26. All right. Thank you, Chair. Oh, yeah. We're on 29, 2026-345 with ex parte. This is the appeal for the restaurant with outside sales, the administrative deviation, and the reduced number of parking spaces, so on and so forth. So, Council Member Arias, you're recognized for ex parte. Thank you, sir. Just to confirm, is this the Dunkin' Donuts one that people are emailing? Yeah. All right. So I'm declare ex parte. I've received several emails regarding this potential Dunkin' Donuts, even though it's not really deemed a Dunkin' Donuts yet or at all. And I also had a conversation on 6-1 to discuss this, and it's currently being filed as we speak. Thank you. All right. Council Member White, you're recognized? Yes, sir. My email has been filed, and I had a conversation with the applicant, and all that's been filed. Thank you. All right. Council Member Freeman, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I rise to declare ex parte. I received the same emails that my colleagues did, and I'll be sure to make sure that those are filed with legislative services. Thank you. All right. Council Member Johnson, you're recognized. Thanks, Mr. Chair. I rise to declare ex parte. I received the requisite emails, as has been stated before, and they've been filed with legislative services. Thank you. All right. And I'll also declare ex parte. Our office has received numerous emails on this, as well. We had a meeting in my office. I'll get the exact date and time with not the applicant, but I guess the property owner, I believe it was yesterday, to discuss all of the things that are being voted on today. We'll get this paperwork filed with legislative services, and we also have Council Member Gaffney, you're recognized. Thank you. Through the chair, I also rise to declare ex parte. I also received numerous emails in regards to this legislation. I also met with Ms. Cindy Tremmer and the owner of this parcel, who just ran down and gave me a description and an update on everything, what's going on. They asked me, did I have any questions. I made sure everything got filed with legislative services. All right. So with that, yeah, Mr. Harvey, do you want to set the floor or the kind of the, I guess, the ground rules for us here? Go through the amendment. Obviously, this bill is filed in a neutral status, so the amendment will be once we come to a consensus of grant the appeal, deny the appeal. And then you'll kind of give us the outline of who will speak and who will rebuttal, blah, blah, blah. So please, Mr. Harvey. Thank you. Resolution 2026-345 concerns an appeal by Joanne Purdy, a partner of Five Points Partners, LLC, of a final order of the Jacksonville Planning Commission approving application for zoning exception E-2607 and the administrative deviation AD-2617. The record that's been submitted before the commission for this appeal is part of the record. However, you will be considering this request de novo, which means that a presentation of all the evidence starts over again, and the appellant and the other presenters may provide you with additional evidence to assist your decision. Pursuant to Council Rule 6201 in Section 656-140 through 146 of the Ordinance Code, this is an informal quasi-judicial hearing. No formal hearing was requested by the appellate. The order of the presentation will be as follows. There will be a disclosure of ex parte communication, which has already occurred. You will open the public hearing. There will be swearing of witnesses if it is requested. And then we'll have a presentation by our chief of current planning, Aaron Abney, to state how the appeal came to LUZ committee. The appellant will have a presentation for 10 minutes and must reserve any time for rebuttal. There will be a presentation by the applicant owner of the original exception in AD that was approved at Planning Commission. And then there will be rebuttal if any time is remaining by the appellant. That public hearing will be closed at that time. You guys will enter into your deliberations and vote. Your decision must be based upon competent, substantial evidence. During the discussion and in crafting your motion, please refer to the information that was presented today at today's hearing. And then at the time when you do your deliberation and offer a motion, the LUZ committee's recommendation will be either to affirm the commission's decision, reverse the commission's decision, or modify the commission's decision, or refer the matter back to the commission. The criteria that you guys will be utilizing or under review for this exception and administrative deviation are attached to that memo that's provided to you in exhibit A for the exception and also for the administrative deviation, which is found in section 656-131-C of the ordinance code and 656-109-H. At this time, I'll turn it over back to the chair to introduce Chief Abney for how the appeal got here. Okay. So is this like kind of the version of a staff report, so to speak? Or is this, okay, and then we'll go to the applicant and then the rebuttal? Okay, just keep me on track. All right, Ms. Abney, go ahead. Tell us how we got here. Thank you. So this is the appeal of zoning exception E-2607 and the companion administrative deviation AD-2612 for a property that's located at 1604 Margaret Street. These applications were submitted to the planning department for review and were heard by the planning commission on March 19th. The first application, the zoning exception, was seeking to permit outside sales and service in connection with a drive-through restaurant for the property that is zoned CCG1. And the companion administrative deviation is seeking to reduce the required parking for the restaurant and other potential tenant user from 13 spaces to 5 spaces. It's also bringing the existing driveway into compliance with today's code and then reducing a landscaping buffer along the frontage of Margaret Street in order to accommodate an ADA parking spot on site. The property was originally developed in 1927 and previously operated as a region's bank, but is seeking to convert the structure to include a drive-through restaurant as one of the tenants and a future retail or office space as the other tenant, while bringing the site into compliance with today's standards, which just needs some landscaping and parking relief, given that the historic nature of the site and the year in which it was first developed. Staff has reviewed the request and found that the proposed uses, or the proposed use is consistent with the comprehensive plan. It has existing land use category entitlements of CGC. Within the general area, there are multiple restaurants which offer outdoor dining and will be consistent with developments along Margaret Street's commercial corridor. There are practical difficulties associated with carrying out the letter of the regulation. Given the existing historic conditions and land constraints, there's no practical way to provide enough on-street parking for the size of the building that's there without demolishing the historic building or portions of it or encroaching within landscaping boundaries. The request is not based exclusively upon a desire to reduce the cost of developing the site. Rather, it's to accommodate the unique size and configuration of the lot with the location of the existing building. This property and the landscaping requests were reviewed by the city's landscape architect, and they recommended approval for the small landscape deviation that was needed. So because of these reasons and the reasons in the staff report, the planning department recommended approval of both the zoning exception and the companion administrative deviation. The property is located within the Riverside Historic District in Overlay, and the exterior work that's proposed for the site was reviewed by the Historic Preservation Commission on April 22nd, where they voted to approve those proposed aesthetic improvements to the site. A public hearing was heard by the Planning Commission. Again, it was back on March 19th. There were several speakers in opposition citing the majority of the concerns related to traffic that would be generated by the drive-through use and the fact that there's not enough parking on the site. Several commissioners noted that since the request was for outside seating and given that there are several restaurants in the immediate area that provide outside seating, they did not have a concern for the zoning exception request, and the parking reduction is common for the area given that Riverside is a very walkable community where parking is provided along the right-of-way and not on individual parcels. So overall, the commission voted unanimously for approval 6-0 on both the zoning exception and the administrative deviation, and then both of those were appealed, and that's what you are hearing today. Thank you. Okay, thank you so much. So we are going to go – this is going to be the order of events. We're going to go to the appellant, which is Joanne Purdy, which my understanding is she has a legal representation, Mr. Peter King. Then we're going to go to the original applicant, which is Ms. Cindy Tremor, and then we're going to go to the remainder of our speaker cards. So the appellant will have five minutes. The original applicant will have five minutes. Go on and come on down. Peter King, 404 West 70th Street, representing the appellant. Okay, go ahead and pause this time real quick. Just for the committee members, because I know this can kind of get confusing when people say, you know, we support the appeal or we oppose the appeal. Let's just be abundantly clear about what you actually support or oppose when you come up. Because if you say you support the appeal, that can kind of be confusing to us, and we can think, oh, you support the development, and we don't want to get wires crossed. So just be abundantly clear when you come up and speak about what you actually want to support or oppose, and just further clarification. And we'll get the actual, you know, amendment to grant or deny from there. So, all right, thank you, Mr. King, go ahead. Again, Peter King, 404 West 70th Street. I'm representing the appellant. A little background myself. I'm a planner by training. Got about 27 years of experience. Used to work for the city. Worked for Nassau County. I'm a consulting company now. I also do commercial and residential leasing, since I have my license. I have a little bit of extra background in this since I helped develop the M-Lease, the ice cream place in Springfield, which is right there at 4th or 5th and Main Street. So, the issue primarily, and also a little bit of background also, is I've been brought into this kind of late, so I apologize in advance, but I did go through the minutes of the planning and zoning board meeting, and it's really not our intention to dispute the issue of whether a drive-through is permitted or not. Staff has already submitted a letter saying that that is a permitted use. The appellant's main concern is that the specific use that the applicant is wanting to put in there was never mentioned, and the subsequent impacts of such were never addressed. This is important because it asked for some additional development rights, variance on parking and the outdoor seating. I have some, I don't know if this, I submitted it to legislative services, and I do have copies that I can distribute. I don't know if it came through electronically, but I do have my letter to you. Mr. Keane, your time's running. Oh, excuse me. We're waiting on you. Oh, okay. I just want to make sure everybody has the document. Your time's, yeah, no, we're good. Your time's going, man. Okay, I apologize. You'll see in there, there's an FDOT report. It's a trip generation study. It says observations have shown that certain land uses in Florida have experienced vehicular traffic queuing and spillover onto adjacent roadway systems. And if you turn to page two of that packet, you'll see in my letter, if you follow that graph, that arrow is essentially what a Dunkin' Donuts would be. If you follow that lateral path all the way to the left, you end up with a queue line of 10. The subject property has a queue line of less than five if you allow for 25 foot per car as per the DOT's regulations. And as the board has correctly stated, we really don't know if it's a Dunkin' Donuts. There's a wide, there's a huge breadth of impacts. You know, on the minor side, you've got a pharmacy and a bank. Of course, it used to be a bank. That's probably the lowest. And on the farthest to the right, you've got a Chick-fil-A. And if you look at your last page, you'll see what a Chick-fil-A is. That one has a queue for 28 cars. The DOT studies show that that was by far the highest impact use that you could have as a drive-through. And since we don't know what that use is, it was never required as a condition of the approvals. That could very well be the case. And in that case, we'll have street blocking, sidewalk blocking, public safety hazard, et cetera. So, you know, the issue of the parking and the drive-through are inextricably linked because if a customer comes and they see that the drive-through lane is packed, they're going to go try to find a place to park, and that's going to take up more parking. So, essentially, on behalf of my client, we just respectfully request that AD-2612 and AD-2607 be remanded back to the planning board to place conditions on these appeals to determine the needed queue length for whatever specific use they've requested or make an exception, basically require that it be a walk-up use only. All right. Thank you, sir. That is your time, and you can just stand by for questions if anyone has any questions later. Next, we will go to the original applicant, Cindy Trimmer. I get five. Perfect. Thank you so much. Cindy Trimmer, 1 Independent Drive, Suite 1200, covering for Steve D. Vinal this evening. What you have before you is an administrative deviation that addresses drive aisle width, which is an existing condition of the bank. It addresses parking. If you look in the surrounding area, this site actually has more parking than most businesses that exist in Five Points. The properties that are commercial in nature all up and down Margaret Street have zero parking and rely upon street parking, so the deviation that is in front of you is typical for this area, and the site has more parking than most other businesses. And then for the landscape deviation, we have to bring this property up to code and include an ADA space that you see reflected on the site plan dated January 23rd, 2026. And with the addition of that on-site ADA compliance, we are seeking the commiserate landscape reduction. But also, looking at that site plan, you realize this is a very large right-of-way on Margaret Street that has ample landscape all surrounding this property to preserve the nature of the streetscape. Moving on to the zoning exception, the only thing in front of you tonight is the small outdoor seating area that is tucked in behind the building and the new enclosed space where the drive-through was on your site plan that has two tables and a total of eight seats. That is what the zoning exception seeks. There are other issues that have been brought up by the appellant driveway queuing for a potential drive-through restaurant so that we are all clear. This is CCG1. The drive-through is permitted by right, and any issues with queuing and site planning will be addressed at the permitting phase. That is not something that is before you this evening. Your staff have outlined the competent and substantial evidence that support the administrative deviation and the zoning exception. I don't want to belabor the point, but I do want to recognize, again, this is a CCG1 property. It is in the Riverside-Avondale overlay. Recognizing this is in the residential character area, we have oriented this outdoor seating area on Margaret across from what is truly the dining district in Five Points, where historically we have had a whole corridor of restaurants that have outdoor seating that activate that streetscape. We have intentionally not oriented it along her shell, where you do have other residential uses so that that area and the residential character of it is preserved. This is a very nominal request for a zoning exception for outdoor seating that is completely appropriate for this corridor, and it is absolutely buffered and protected from any surrounding residential uses and all of the criteria that are outlined in your staff report for a zoning exception are met. With that, I will stand by for questions, and I do have the family members. If possible, I would ask that Morgan Ashorian and her sister Tiffany both be permitted to speak first on public comment, and then we will stand by. All right. We will go to the public comment cards now. We're going to go to Joanne Purdy, and then we will go to both Ms. Morgan and Tiffany Ashorian, and then we will go to the rest of the speaker cards. So, Ms. Purdy, come on down. You have three minutes. Name? Okay. Just state your name and address. Joanne Purdy, 2210 St. John's Avenue, 32204. The handout she will see shows the location where the proposed drive-thru will be, the streetscapes of her shell, Margaret, and just the residential makeup of her shell. I filed this appeal and asked you to support the appeal, deny planning departments. I am a long-time resident of Riverside and have an understanding of zoning through past zoning issues and helping with the Riverside-Avondale zoning overlay. This appeal should be granted because, one, the planning department failed to interpret the zoning code correctly for CCG1 by allowing a fast-food drive-thru-only restaurant. A drive-thru restaurant in CCG1 is not listed as a permitted use or a use by exception. Therefore, by not being listed, it is not permitted use and should not be allowed. The Jacksonville zoning code is an exclusive code where permitted uses are specifically listed and unlisted uses are not allowed. The code calls out a bank with a drive-thru tellers in CCG1 as allowable use, but it's silent on the drive-thru for fast-food restaurants in CCG1. There is a big difference between these two uses. A bank has set hours and lower traffic counts, so the code purposely called that out by just saying the bank could only have the drive-thru, not restaurants. Number two, the application is not consistent with the comprehensive plan. There will be noise, skews from cars to the drive-thru, and on a Hurst-Shell street, it will be hazardous for the pedestrians trying to maneuver the drive-thru. Three, the planning department and the commission did not uphold the standards of the residential character area of the overlay. 1604 Margaret is included as part of Hurst-Shell and is located in the residential character area of the overlay. This requires uses to be compatible with residential use. A fast-food drive-thru-only restaurant is not compatible. The reduction of required parking from 13 to 5 and 0 landscape buffer market is not allowed or in keeping with the standards of the overlay for residential character area. One of the goals of the overlay was to protect the residential character. Because of all the bad zoning that had happened in the 70s, that's why the overlay. This part of Margaret Street has really improved from empty boarded-up structures to a beautiful residential street. I own the apartment building next door, and you can see on that picture how close my building is to that drive-thru that will be listening to the orders being taken. It will have a negative impact on my building and my tenant. If allowed, it cannot be undone. I've also submitted Thad Crows, who is a certified planner, his comments on this thing. All right. Thank you, ma'am. Next, we have Tiffany Asherian. Good evening. I'm Tiffany Asherian. I do the leasing for Ashco Centers. We've been family-owned and operated in Jacksonville for over 60 years, so we really understand. Sorry. Can you state your address? Oh, sorry. 1434 Hendricks Avenue. Okay. Go ahead. Continue. We've been family-owned and operated in Jacksonville for over 60 years, so I know this area. I have been trying to lease this property for over four and a half years, and the structure is only built for a bank. The only use as it is currently can be a bank, so there have to be some changes allowed so that we can activate this space. We've done something very similar, and we won the Beautification of San Marco Award for the Panera Bread Shopping Center we did that has a May Day ice cream. Thank you. All right. Thank you. Next, we have Morgan Asherian. Hi. Morgan Asherian. Address is 1434 Hendricks Avenue. I just wanted to echo what Tiffany's saying. We're residents of Jacksonville, have been in Jacksonville for quite some time. Tiffany has undertaken the leasing efforts for this property, and it's been—we've made very minimal movement. Nobody's interested in the building in the way it is, and in order to make this marketable to the kind of tenant who would activate this space, it would need to have those minor changes requested, which, again, to the building, those changes are that small patio, rooftop deck, and enclosure of the first drive-thru lane. Nothing that we're asking for is really an exceptional thing, and in fact, this is significantly pared down from what our original request was. We originally wanted to have a restaurant for the entire building, and when we weren't able to do that, we pared it down to just have a small segment that is going to have a restaurant use, and then hopefully we can find office or some other use for the other side of the building. But to start, we kind of need this to make it viable. It's been vacant for four years, and at the present time, you know, we've chained off the entrances and exits just to avoid vagrants inside the building. The insurance costs are higher because it's a vacant building. It attracts certain activity that is not very desirable in our neighborhoods, so we'd really like to see that this turns into something that is vibrant and is community-oriented and is similar to the other development projects we have around San Marco, so we appreciate your consideration. All right. Thank you. Next, we have Timothy Hole. Good evening. My name is Timothy Hole. I reside at 2064 Herschel Street. It's a Chelsea Riverside condominium building, which I am the treasurer of the board. We are also joined by the secretary of the board here as well, and her husband. We are here to support the appeal, basically solely on traffic issues. Traffic at the intersection of Margaret and Herschel Street and Five Points in general is over capacity. With parking on both sides of Herschel Street, only one car is able to actually travel down the road at one time. By 9 a.m., there's no parking on Herschel Street, with the doctor's office on the corner of Goodwin and Herschel Street. And Five Points Dental and other small businesses that already operate, there's no parking. By 11 a.m., we have Bar Taco, Prospect, and tons of other restaurants. So, again, it's almost impossible to drive down this block of Herschel Street. And adding a drive-through is just going to be detrimental to all of Margaret Street, Oak Street, and Herschel. And then that's including drivers coming from 95. That'll be going through Five Points, which is going to add more traffic. Five Points already has a Starbucks, Einstein's Bagels, and a Wendy's, whose drive-through already backs up traffic into the intersection of Five Points every single day. We are, with adding another chain, we're going to be watering down the uniqueness of Riverside and hurting local small businesses, including all the coffee shops we already have that we don't need any more of. This is a suburban business format. It's completely inappropriate for the site. And we are all here for adaptive reuse of the structure, which is celebrating its 100-year anniversary, but not this project. Thank you. All right. Next, we have Nancy Powell. Hi. Nancy Powell, 1848 Challen Avenue, Jacksonville, Florida. I'm here before you to support the resolution, which is the appeal that seeks to overturn the decision of the Planning Commission allowing the drive-through. In other words, we don't want the drive-through in the former Regent's Bank building. As you know, I've spent many years advocating for walkability, quality of life measures to balance development and business growth with pedestrian experiences for residents and visitors. I am the former executive director of Scenic Jacksonville, served six years on the Riverside Avondale Preservation Board, including terms as zoning chair and board chair. However, what struck me about this application was that when it was presented, it was presented to the public with really just, we're looking for outdoor sales and service, and we're looking for parking relief. It was not described as what it is. This is a drive-through kiosk, drive-through only, which is a new trend. There's Dunkin' Go, there's Dutch Brothers. Today, in the paper, there was one for Boost, and most of these are on University Boulevard or Normandy Boulevard. They have double drive-throughs. They are high-capacity restaurants. And so this is what this is. And it was not represented properly, and it was not evaluated properly. Because as Mr. King said, the stacking is, there was no traffic study required, and maybe it would be required later, but there's no public engagement in any of this to even conduct a different one. And so it's very obvious that this will produce stacking onto Scherchel Street. And the pictures that you see are a car with the arrows, which would be driving left into the drive lane. There's only one drive lane. Once you're in the drive lane, you can't get to the parking. You can't get around. If something happens, you're stuck. And once this is stacked onto the street, it will block it in both directions. Scherchel Street's going to come from Margaret, come from Goodwin. People are going to be like this. And then there's the quality of life issues for emissions, lighting, pollution, and noise from the ordering windows of somebody, you know, the speaker barking. And so this is not compatible with the Riverside Avondale historic character of that street. So the second page of your document here shows the yellow section, which is primarily residential. That was done on the overlay on purpose so that it would, things would be compatible. A bank with a drive-through is compatible. There are, thank you. Thank you. Next, we have Susan Heitch. Heitchy, Heitchy. Which one do I talk to? We can hear you just fine. Okay, great. Name and address. Susan Heitch, 2064 Hershile Street, also Chelsea Condominiums. I'm secretary on the board there. My primary concern is the traffic, but everybody has spoken to that so clearly. I won't mention that. The two points I do have is all the other restaurants we talk about in that area front on Margaret or Park. This building does front on Margaret. The side of the building, it's on a corner, is on Hershile, which is a residential street and will bring all of the problems that have been presented. Okay, my second concern is, given that this is an attractive brick building, what about all the exterior stuff? There was talk about an elevator, an external elevator. What about the signage? Dunkin' Donuts is very orange. What kind of signs will we have? Those are my concerns. Thank you. Thank you, ma'am. Next, we have Richard Wyckoff. My name's Richard Wyckoff. I live at 2030 Herschel Street in a four-unit residential historic building that's three doors away from this former bank building that's in question. In addition to the—my objection to this exception and my support of the appeal is based on the traffic problems, as has been stated, this is a residential street with street parking on both sides, and usually it fills up or it's relatively full on both sides during the day so that you can only have one lane of traffic. It's a two-way street, but it's only one lane available. So cars ordinarily have to sort of stop and let somebody by, and then you have to weave your way through. A driveway, a backup of this drive-thru onto Herschel Street would absolutely block that street, and there would be no traffic moving. And I think this drive-thru retail food service is incompatible with this historic residential district. There's another historic building across the street, a residential building across Herschel Street from this building in question. I think this is totally out of character, and it's a shame to see a beautiful neighborhood being encroached upon by this kind of an establishment. A bank, professional offices, fine, but drive-thru retail food service, I think it just doesn't fit the nature of the neighborhood, and I think it would be a shame because this neighborhood is a beautiful neighborhood, and Jacksonville should be proud of it and preserve it. Thank you. All right. Thank you, sir. Up next is Angela Schipanella. Thank you. Angela Schipanella. I live at 1352 Avondale Avenue, and I also own property at 1661 Riverside, which is Caddy Corner across Margaret Street. I'm very concerned about this application or about the original deviation that was grounded, and so I'm in support of the appeal. I want to speak—I think the other people speaking tonight have spoke very well about the traffic concerns. These issues from a very high-intensity drive-thru like this are predictable. They're not something that are hard to imagine. They're very predictable. They are a nuisance, and they are a hazard. I think it's inappropriate to look at the original bank building that's there and make the case that this is the same use or a similar use. It's a drive-thru. It was. The original drive-thru had two stations. It was for a very low-intensity bank use. That might get five or six cars an hour. This fast-food breakfast chain could get up to 30 cars an hour, and they've reduced the drive-thru capacity to one window. So I think that means that they have to totally really reevaluate that original application and look at that drive-thru on the face of it. The other thing in my packet that I submitted earlier, I looked at similar restaurants, and I looked at one in particular in Murray Hill. It's tucked into the fringes of a historic neighborhood, but when you look at that site plan, there is a 30- or 40-foot buffer between the next-door residence and the drive-thru lane. So that menu board, which is lit and got a speaker, there's some adequate buffer to that residence. There is no buffer in this case. That menu board fronts the driveway, which faces the apartment building next door. I think, I know that traffic will get involved and make decisions, but it's so important for this committee to think about what the effect of these nuisances are, and that is it will reduce the property values of all of these beautiful condominium and apartment units in this block and the blocks nearby. I don't think you can look at this project and assume anything else. If you're looking at buying a condo and in these beautiful old buildings, do you want to have that use starting at 5 in the morning, being a nuisance? It will lower property values. The great thing about what you guys do and what zoning does, when we invest our assets in these properties, we have an expectation that the zoning code protects our investment. Zoning codes came into being in the 1920s and 30s just for this purpose. People moved into the suburbs. They were investing their hard-earned dollars. They wanted the expectation that that investment would be protected for their lifetimes. And so zoning codes exist to do that. And I think in this case, the zoning code must protect the value of our properties. There are dozens of property owners affected by this. It's unfortunate that it's taken a long time for the business owner, but I really encourage you to respect the rights of the many owners here and not just the single business owner who's inconvenienced. Thank you. Thank you, ma'am. All right, up next we have Sarah Provost. Thank you. Hi. My name is Sarah Provost, and I live at 2142 Herschel Street. Two blocks from the proposed corporate drive-thru business. I was born in Riverside Hospital, have a long history in the Riverside 5th. This neighborhood has a unique character in Jacksonville in that it is walkable and people-focused. Residents of Jacksonville have almost limitless options. If they would like to live in car-focused, asphalt-paved, suburban sprawl neighborhoods full of drive-thru fast-food restaurants and seas of parking lots, but very few options if they prefer walkability, tree-lined streets, and small, people-focused businesses. There has been a disturbing trend over the past few years of more cars, more traffic, more parking, and more huge corporate businesses creeping into our little haven of peace and trees and walkability. To be clear, outdoor seating and new restaurants are great, but paving over more green space and landscaping and inviting more cars to the area are not. I hope that we do not keep making allowances that are eroding the neighborhood characteristics that make Riverside special in this city. Thank you, ma'am. Up next, we have Walter Green. Okay. You support the appeal. Thank you. All right. We have Shannon Blankenship next. Thank you. Shannon Blankenship. My address is 2623 Herschel Street. I'm the executive director of Riverside Avondale Preservation. Thank you all for hearing this appeal tonight. And to be clear, we support the appeal, and we do not want to drive through a restaurant here at 1604 Margaret Street. But I want to speak specifically about why Riverside Avondale Preservation cares about this specific property so much. This building, 1604 Margaret Street, has been commercial for the last few decades, but has retained its residential character and its distinct personality and style through all of that. If you look at this property today, it still has unique architectural elements that would be fantastic in a retail capacity, in an office capacity, and again, has been commercial in its most recent past. But the proposal for the drive-thru fast food restaurant not only diminishes that distinct characteristic by adding that front-facing glass elevator, as well as a new rooftop balcony, it also makes sure that in that drive-thru, you're then blocking all of those parking spaces that the applicant has requested to be the only parking for the whole building. So not only do you have the traffic impacts from the drive-thru, but the administrative deviation for parking that you're being asked to look at would be blocked by that drive-thru restaurant. So all of these things are packaged together in really forming what is a bad proposal for a very unique property that we hope can be preserved and protected in its commercial capacity here along Margaret Street. The residents of Herschel Street have been very clear, and as Angela stated, this is a very predictable outcome of having a Herschel Street drive-thru access point in this really small drive-thru space here in Riverside. Happy to answer questions about any other impacts that we believe this property might have for all of Riverside. I would love to see its commercial use, but not as a drive-thru restaurant. Thank you so much. All right. Thank you, ma'am. And the last speaker we have is Juliana Wyckoff. You do not wish to speak, and you oppose or—okay. All right. Thank you so much. That is it for public speaking. I do have Mr. Gaffney on the queue. Go ahead. Oh, yeah, yeah, yeah. Thank you, through the chair. I just want to make a comment. I guess I got a question, I guess, to the planning department. One of the constituents just shared that we shouldn't go against a zoning code. Is this, I guess, an overlay? I just want to make sure. What is that zoning code? What does that look like? Through the chair to Councilman Gaffney, so the property is zoned CCG1. The interpretation of the CCG1 zoning district is that restaurants can have drive-thru in that zoning category. If they want to argue that interpretation, there is a path to do that. You can ask for an official zoning interpretation from the director on a certain request of the zoning code, but as it sits today, restaurants with drive-thrus are allowed in CCG1. If you look on every commercial corridor, most of the fast food restaurants are in CCG1. The overlay, additionally, does not have any restrictions on drive-thrus within any of the character areas, so it reverts back to the uses that are allowed by right in CCG1. Okay, so through the chair, I just want to make sure I got a great understanding of it. So the overlay does not, it does permit drive-thru restaurants, correct? Yeah, through the chair, correct. Yes, and just so, it's very clear. The request today on the zoning exception that's being appealed is just the outside seating, not the drive-thru. So the only thing we're voting on today is the outside seating? Correct. The outside seats. So we're not, okay, because I'm, okay, because I know we've spent a lot of time talking about, you know, the drive-thru restaurant and tracking and things, which matters as well, don't get me wrong. But the only thing we're voting on is the outside seating today. Okay. All right. Yeah, through the chair, to Councilman Gaffney, yes. So the zoning exception before use for the outside sale and service. Okay. I just needed that clarity. Okay. All right. I'll stand by. All right. Just for clarification, committee members, before we do anything, I am going to give two additional minutes to the appellant and to the original applicant just for, you know, rebuttal or whatever, if they've heard any comments, my understanding was we told you that you were going to have more than five minutes, so I wasn't clued in on that. My apologies, but you can have two minutes if you'd like to come back up, Mr. King, and Ms. Tremmer, you will have two minutes as well if you'd like to come back up, and then we will bring it back to committee and have our discussions and questions. So the floor is yours. Peter King, 440, 70th Street, rebuttal. I think you all are also voting on the parking, the AD, not only the exception for the outdoor seating, but I don't dispute anything that the applicant said. Everything she said was truthful and 100% true. I would just say that this is, I just don't think it's a good planning practice to grant these additional development rights without even knowing what the use is. We're just going to cross our fingers and hope that development services catches this problem with the queue. Maybe they will, maybe they won't. So that's the only thing I'm saying is I think they should be remanded back to the planning board until that issue is resolved and specific use is identified. Okay. Thank you. Ms. Tremmer, do you want two minutes? Nope. All right. Questions only. So we will go ahead and close this public hearing and bring it back to committee. We're not going to move the amendment yet. We're really just bringing it back to committee for discussion at this point, if that's correct. Mr. Harvey is shaking his head yes. The amendment, committee members, is to put the neutral bill into a grant or deny the appeal. So we'll just kind of have open dialogue about it at this point. And then if we grant the appeal, we'll make that amendment and so on and so forth. So Councilmember Johnson, you're recognized. Mr. Chair, I'm usually up and I'm up on these issues and I have gone through this because when I've gotten all those emails, I did a lot of research on this. I'm thoroughly confused now. I just want to make sure because I keep hearing everybody, especially like the gentleman that just spoke and others coming up to say things about drive-throughs and crossing their fingers and hoping that we do right. We are bound by the law, right? And the law tells us, and I want to direct this to the general counsel, to the council, our council. The only thing that we can consider right now is nothing about a drive-through. Please, and I know Gaffney just spoke to that. I just want to make sure we're on the same page. The only thing that we're considering is this outdoor piece, correct? Based on the law. So it's not adding anything or taking anything away. It's just one administrative deviation. Please make sure that I'm in the right posture there. Yes, so today for your consideration, you have to determine whether or not the zoning exception for a restaurant with outside sales and services was appropriately granted by the Planning Commission and the companion administrative deviation, which reduced the required number of parking spaces, reduces the runway driveway out width from 13 feet to 10 feet, not whether or not a driveway can be added, but just the deviation is for the reduction in the width and then also a reduction in the landscape buffer. And you have to make that decision based on the competent substantial evidence that's been presented to you guys on the criteria for what exception is granted under the code, which would be 656.131c and the subsection of that, and then also 656.109 for that administrative deviation. Let me ask this, and I think this is going to go to the Planning Department through the Chair. We're talking about this particular business that's there. Does the code allow us to differentiate the type of business that it is, restaurant versus bank? I think in that land use category, from my understanding, or the zoning category, this is allowed by right. It could be a bank, it could be the restaurant, it could be whatever. Through the Chair to Councilman Johnson. So yes, so a restaurant or a bank is allowed by right. So the only reason that you have the exception before you today is because in CCG1, when you want outside sale and service, that's allowed by a zoning exception only. So that's why they had to seek that. If they weren't having the outside seating component to this, you wouldn't even have a zoning exception before you. Got it. I got my answer. Thanks, Mr. Chair. I may come back. Okay. Councilman Gaffney, we don't have anyone on the queue after you, so go ahead. You're recognized. Yeah. To Ms. Shana. It's a blanket shirt. Yep. Through the Chair to Ms. Shana, I guess, what is it that you guys want to see? I mean, like, ideally, I know you want to keep it compatible, keep it, you know, consistent with the neighboring businesses. I mean, what is it that you guys want to see? Thank you for the question. So the decision from the Planning Commission was not just for a zoning exception for outside sales and service. It was also for a parking deviation, which would allow for fewer parking spaces for this particular business to move forward. And the reason we're opposed to that parking deviation, this location, is because the drive-through would actually block being able to use those parking spaces anyway. On top of the fact that additional uses in this building, which we do not know what they are right now outside of just the eight-seat restaurant, which is the proposed national fast food chain, those would require additional parking spaces as well. So if they were just office as presented, maybe they would get by with fewer spaces, but it would be blocked by this drive-through restaurant. So to answer your question specifically, Mr. Gaffney, the Planning Commission allowed outside sales and service as well as the reduction in parking, and we're opposed to the reduction in parking because it's connected to this use. And I know that the decision about the use came directly from the Planning Department. The appellant here specifically argued that the allowance of a drive-through connected to a restaurant should not have been allowed by code. So that was in the appeal that you all heard today. The ability for a drive-through bank is explicit in our code. It is allowed to have a drive-through connected with a bank. But for restaurants, it does not list that it's explicitly allowed to be a drive-through. And sorry. And then the last point to summarize, Mr. King also said we're hoping to not just cross our fingers and hope that development services will end up saying the queuing for this drive-through absolutely is way too much for Herschel Street to be able to handle, and we won't approve it because there's no public input or process allowed at the time that those decisions are being made. This is really the only time for the public input on the impact of this potential use at this building. It's connected to this parking deviation. So that's why so many people are here for a minor parking deviation because the drive-through connected to it is what makes that parking deviation a bad fit for the neighborhood. All right. Councilman Johnson for the second time, and then we'll go to Councilmember Arias. You just kind of popped in. Sorry, I wanted to ask while you were there, if you could come back real quick. A couple questions. I need some clarification through the chair. You said this was the only public time that this happened. Were you not able to have – was there not public comment provided in the Planning Commission process? We spoke at the Planning Commission hearing. So it wasn't the only – this is not the only time. The Planning Commission hearing is what's being appealed today before you all. Planning Commission was the time for the public to be able to speak to these administrative deviations. The Planning Commission – So there was an additional public – Yes, sir. That's what you just said. I wanted to make sure we were clear on that, that you had the opportunity, that the public had the opportunity. The other one was – and this is – and thank you for that. The other question, I'm not sure who can answer it through the chair. It was spoken about the drive-through blocking the parking spaces. I looked at it, and I'm thinking kind of like a – we've been to – I don't want to use a name here, but other restaurants where there's a drive-through and then parking on the side of the drive-through. Is it blocking it where you cannot use those parking spaces at all? I'm looking at it here, but I want to know in your estimation, is this – is it where you can't use those spaces at all? Because that's not what it seems like to me. Can you help me understand? To the chair to Councilman Johnson. So no, from the site plan that we see right now on the site, you have two drive-through lanes for the bank. And then you have a drive-through lane to get to the parking spaces and then the parking. They are closing one of the drive-through lanes for the bank. There will be one that will remain, and you still have the drive aisle to get by and the parking. So the drive-through lane will not be blocking – So they're not blocked. That's what I just want to get through. Because I keep hearing things that don't seem to coincide with reality of what we have been presented. So that's what I want to make sure – so the spaces are not blocked. Gotcha. Thank you. Oh, well, please – If I may, Mr. Chair, I'll certainly want to hear him. Can someone come and speak to that? We don't want to – we can't just yell from the crowd, but I certainly will. I want to understand so that when I'm making a decision and we are, we have all the pertinent information. So – and we're saying things that – please understand, again, through the chair, the reason I'm asking these questions is because there are things that I'm jotting down, and then when I look at the map and look at the plans, they don't seem to gel with what you're saying and what I'm seeing. This is a historic building and a unique site. The only way to access the parking is to go through the drive-thru. So you would have to go through the drive-thru, and so if there were cars in the drive-thru, you'd have to wait in the drive-thru in order to be able to get to the parking spaces. The only way to go around would be you'd have to go through the drive-thru, and then if there's no one in the lane, you can access the parking spaces. According to what I see, and again, through the chair, I want to make sure we're in the same space, it looks like they're closing one of those lanes, one of the drive-thru lanes. So in essence, it would not be two drive-thru lanes. It goes down to one drive-thru lane. That additional lane is a space to maneuver through, which, again, allows access to those parking spaces. I just want to make sure, and that's what I'm, again, when I'm hearing these things, that they're not coinciding with what I see, then that's what's causing the confusion, at least for me. Ms. Trimmer, did you have something to add to this? Through the chair, I believe I understand what they're saying, and just for the sake of making the record clear so that there's no suggestion that we're voting on bad information, there is a shared access drive aisle from her shell that is used to access both the drive-thru and the parking area, and I believe that's the issue that they are citing is that shared access off of her shell to both of those areas. So I do want to acknowledge that there is that shared access from her shell so that there's no suggestion that that was not something that you understood. And through the chair, just I want to add this, but it's not blocking those parking spaces. Through the chair, correct. All right, and last but not least, again, however, with all of that detail, we're still not voting on that. We're voting on the outdoor dining, so thank you. All right, Council Member Arias, you're recognized. Council Member Arias. Thank you, Chair. Two things. I'm not talking about drive-thrus here right now. I'm talking about outside seating and parking reductions. So outside seating, my biggest thing would be the landscaping requirement that you have to do an exception to remove some landscaping. That's the part I'm having some heartburn over. I do like the fact that the outside seating is actually facing Market Street in our hard shell, because ultimately you're facing bar taco right across the street, all the restaurants. So it makes sense to have the outside seating there. I have no issues with that at all. Parking reduction is my only issue. However, you know, we're looking at Riverside. I frequent Riverside often. And every time I have to go to bar taco or to, let's say, any of those other restaurants there, I park and I walk a good two blocks to get to where I need to get to. That's just how the infrastructure is built at Riverside. And I have no issues with that at all. The problem that we have here is the fact that we have a building here that's been vacant for four years. Eventually, it's going to create blight to your area. That's my problem. Times change. We have to adapt. The thing is, how do we adapt together as a community? We need to have some sort of consensus. So what I haven't seen today is heard from the applicant and the people appealing this is, where could we find a happy medium? At the end of the day, I just want to see a happy medium. I want both sides to prevail on this. What I don't want is for that building to stay vacant for another four years, ultimately creating blight, having homeless frequent that area. I've had a building that I've had homeless issues literally residing inside of it because it's been dormant for about two years. So we need to find a place to a happy medium to make it safe for everybody. I will tell you one thing, though. I'm looking at this map, and if you look at the Google map, looking at Herschel Street, I'm looking at two cars directly parked right in front of what would be the entry of the drive-thru. I know I said I wasn't going to talk about the drive-thru, but should we decide to approve this? I think we also need to look at Herschel Street and potentially make an area where there is no parking allowed right at the beginning and the exit of that drive-thru, because otherwise it's going to really create a block where it could actually create an accident. So I'm just saying this. I'm just speaking out loud right now. I want this to pass, but I also want the community to win. So let's just find a happy medium for everybody here. That's all I want right now. Thank you. Councilwoman Clark-Murray, you're recognized. Thank you, Chair. Ms. Trimmer, if you would come forward. So I'm looking at the same Google map, and I think it really gives a better, helps with understanding what is the issue with this particular application. So, Ms. Trimmer, so outside sales are going to be, that looks like a patio that is in the rear. Is that what that is, a patio area that's in the rear, like close to the drive-thru lanes for the bank? Through the chair. Today, there are two drive-thrus that come through and exit onto Margaret. Right. I'm going to add that. I'm answering your question. Okay. One of those is going to be closed in, and then in front of that is where this outdoor seating area would be. It's actually at the front of the building on Margaret, but it's kind of tucked in where that area is recessed from the primary facade of the existing structure. Okay. Thank you for that. So that's going to be closed in, and that area that I see from here is not that outside sales area. Okay. So with the, so the drive-thru, the entrance, that's not going to be blocked. It's the area that's in the rear where you're going to have the outside sales that's going to be enclosed. Through the chair, that is correct. Okay. All right. So then, thank you for that. So then, one of the persons, thank you, Ms. Trimmer, one of the persons for, who are, who's opposing this particular application, if you would come forward. So there isn't a great deal of parking here. Would it be, would it be appeasing to you if it was possibly just maybe walk-up use only? The gentleman who spoke first, he said maybe a good compromise, like Council Member Arias was asking, what's a compromise? So maybe it could be walk-up only. Is that a possibility? I see some people nodding their heads. Yes. To Mr. Johnson's comment and yours, there are a lot of great uses for this building. A walk-up entrance would be fantastic. You know, retail, office, all of those things have retained the essence of the historic building as a commercial destination over the years. There are many uses that could work, none of them requiring a drive-thru restaurant. All right. Thank you for that. Ms. Trimmer, do you have any response to that for the, I guess, the applicant? Through the chair. The drive-thru is a use by right. It's not appropriate to request that rights be given up. Okay. I understand that. All right. Thank you so much. All right. Thank you. Thank you, chair. Councilman Gaffney, do you want to go on the queue? Go ahead. Councilman Gaffney. To be brief through the chair, I would just go ahead and echo the sentiments of my Councilman, Councilman Arias in terms of a win-win. I don't know what that looked like, though, but, you know, and I don't know if we could figure that out tonight. You know, it's a lot of moving parts and things of that nature, but I hear what my other colleagues have to say, and then we'll try to have to make our decision because, you know, I don't want to disappoint the community at the same time. You know, we got this young lady who own this land, who own this property, and she have rights as well. So, I mean, I wish we had more time, you know, to try to figure this out. But, anyway, we'll hear what my colleagues have to say. All right, we'll go to Councilmember Johnson, and then I'll take the next slot since no one else is in the queue. So, Councilman Johnson, you recognize me. Real quick, Mr. Chair, through the chair, to the applicant or someone that can answer the question, do you have a tenant? Through the chair, there is not a tenant that has been disclosed at this time. I understand that there is a lot of belief of what the tenant would be, but the family has not disclosed a tenant at this time. But there are discussions with someone. We just don't know who it may be. They're just in discussion with different entities, possibly. Because the way I'm hearing it sounded like they knew that it was a specific, I keep hearing national chain drive-through, so I'm just wondering. Let me ask, because obviously, and it's been said several times, we can't touch the drive-through because it's by right, through the chair, to the council's office. If we do not go along with this, where will this put us legally? Is there a space where they could end up going to court because we are not following the laws that are described in the code? And if you're saying they— Like, if we are— Owner, applicant, if you are tempted to remove rights that they have, they have a right to see you guys in circuit court. For not following our own rules. For not following your rules or not establishing that there was actual confidential evidence to overturn the Planning Commission and Planning Department's recommendation and ultimate decision. But you want to make sure that you state what those are as a part of your deliberations when we get to the point of you guys making your motion and all for that. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. All right. So a few things here just to kind of add some clarification. So I think this will help and certainly not muddy the waters. So I had a little sidebar conversation with Ms. Abney, just so we're all clear. I mean, I think we're already clear on what we're voting on as far as the zoning exception for outdoor seating and any admin deviation for the parking and the driveway or the drive aisle width and the landscape up. So—but what I've heard a lot of is the community ultimately saying, you know, we don't want this. We don't want a national chain and all that. And I can kind of sympathize with that. But what I want to get on the record is Ms. Abney—so the question I ask Ms. Abney is, okay, what happens if this fails or what happens if it passes? Either way, can the owner just create—or they can just sign a lease tomorrow with Dunkin' Donuts without outdoor seating and without any modifications at all? Ms. Abney, that question's for you. Through the chair. So for the zoning exception, the drive-through is allowed by right. The outside seating component would have to be removed. If you deny the AD for the parking, they'll have to make sure that they provide parking on-site to meet the uses, whatever they are, in the future under the code as they're required. So in theory, tomorrow or whatever, like if this fails, if this goes away, a drive-through restaurant can still go in there without any type of exception if it doesn't have outdoor seating. Yes, no exception for the drive-through, yes. Okay. All right. I just want to make sure everyone is hearing that, correct? So that is allowed by right. Now, the other thing that she said that I would offer to the community is if you believe that the zoning code is being misinterpreted because technically in CCG1, it doesn't specifically call out drive-throughs for restaurants, you can ask for an official interpretation of the zoning code, I believe, from this lady right here, Ms. Parola. However, every single drive-through restaurant in Jacksonville is currently zoned in CCG1, so I think it would be a waste of time. It's kind of like case law, right? It's like, yeah, state statutes might not say that, but case law proves it, so therefore it's not going to court. It is what it is. So we're going to set that aside. I didn't hear any problem with outdoor seating today. I heard really no issues with the drive aisle, mainly because there isn't any. The landscape buffer didn't hear any issues with that. I heard sort of back and forth on the parking spaces from 13 to 3. The site plan that I saw, I didn't personally see any issues with the parking. I never thought that was really a point of contention. I thought the whole point of contention was having a bigger national chain drive-through pumping out cars into that area. And unfortunately, we can't vote on that because what will happen, and we're dealing with this right now on like two or three other zonings, we get sued, and then the judge says, why did they deny it? And then he said, oh, well, because of that. And they're going to say, well, that's not acceptable, and they will win, and then it's all costing the taxpayers money to defend something that we really should never have gotten ourselves into in the first place. That is what I've learned on this committee for three years. I know all these other members have been on council longer than three years. We see it all the time. And that's why, as Council Member Johnson said, we're held to that standard of the law, and we have to use competent substantial evidence. Otherwise, we will lose. And it happens. It happens. So, for me, that's where I'm at. We don't have any other speakers in the queue. So, Mr. Harvey, explain what the amendment needs to be if we grant the appeal versus we deny the appeal. So, if you are going to grant the appeal, that means that you would be granting the appeal, since it's in a neutral posture, you would affirm the commission's decision. In that case, you would deny the appeal. If you're going to reverse the commission's decision, then you're going to grant the appeal. So, in the current posture, again, you're neutral. So, again, just look at it in its inverse. If you want to confirm or affirm, excuse me, the commission's decision, you want to deny the appeal, and then you'll do the inverse if you are going to reverse the commission's decision. Excuse me. Okay. Is everybody ready to vote? Do you want to? Okay. So, we need a motion, and then we can discuss the motion on grant or deny, and then we can go from there. Q, get on the motion. Get on the speaker, Q. Sorry. Thank you. All right. Thank you, Chair. I'm going to motion to deny the appeal, based on the competent substantial evidence that we have here that has been presented today, based on all the landscape architect, planning department, historic preservation, and planning commission as well. And that's my motion. Okay. To amend. Could you have to amend the resolution? Amend. Correct. Correct. Yep. So, we have a motion on the amendment to deny the appeal, which would allow the zoning exception, the administrative deviation, and everything we've discussed. So, and we had a second from Council Member Johnson. So, any discussion on that amendment? All right. Seeing none, all in favor of the amendment, signify by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed? The amendment carries. So, now we just need to move the bill as amended. All right. We have a motion and a second on the bill as amended. Anyone else in the queue? Any other final thoughts or comments? All right. Council Member Johnson, you're recognized. Regardless of what the vote's going to be, I just want to say, Mr. Chair, and I think it's important, I want to share this. My heart goes out to this community because I grew up in Mixon Town, so not far away, and Ortega and all around Riverside. I understand the historic nature of this. I went to West Riverside Elementary. I get it. However, this is just a bit of admonition to all of us in this room who are listening. I think it's important, and we do know that there are issues with the code, but I think it's important that we don't wait until there is an issue for us to then come and try to change it. Like, if we saw these issues were there, maybe come beforehand and maybe try to put in a PUD or find some other way. But if we look and see the issues exist, we can't change the rules in the middle of the game. And in essence, that's what this would be doing to this landowner is coming in the middle of the game and changing the rules and then expecting an outcome. And unfortunately, the law prevents us from doing that. So I'm not sure what the vote will be, but I just wanted us to say moving forward, if you see something, get with your council representative or attorneys or anybody, but let's not wait until an action is pending to then want to change the rules. Thank you for letting me say that, Mr. Chair. Yeah, no problem. And I totally agree with your comments there. And I just did think of something. Was there any – I know the original owner or the owner mentioned this to me. Was there any, like, historic commission or historic review of this? Sorry if that was mentioned earlier while I was out. Ms. Stremmer, can you speak to that? I think you mentioned that in our meeting. To the chair, all of the architectural changes to the building, you heard reference to an elevator and a rooftop terrace. All of that went before Jacksonville Historic Preservation Commission under a Certificate of Appropriateness and was reviewed by them. Okay, okay. Because obviously, you know, representing the San Marco Historic Area, that's always like the – you know, the number one thing is, you know, obviously the zoning, the use. Our hands are tied there. So obviously the next thing we always go after is the character and the look and the aesthetics of the building. So I'm glad to hear that that passed. So we have no one else in the queue. So, Mr. Harvey, please make sure you can explain to us. What does the green button do? What does the red button do? Right now, if you hit the green button to move the amendment, move the bill as amended, you will be denying the appeal, which will be approving or granting – excuse me, approving the Planning Commission's order. Is everybody clear? Okay, so the green button – Green is to deny the appeal. Red would be to overturn the Planning Commission's decision. Okay, so we just made the amendment to deny. Green button means that. All right, open the ballot, record your vote. Six yays, zero nays. By your action, you have denied, 2026-345. Item number 30, 2026-363. Open the public hearing and get a staff report. Are we good? Are we – Coordinates 2026-363 is a change to Chapter 654, which is administered by the Public Works Department. So I'm not sure if the Public Works Department wants to come up and give a report of their review. Sure. That'd be great. Sickler, the floor is yours. Thank you. Good evening. Nina Sickler, Public Works. This bill actually addresses an initiative that the mayor had announced in May of last year that allowing private providers to perform some of the functions that the city's Development Services Division does in review of civil plans. And we believe that this is an opportunity for partnership with the private sector. The introducer of the bill had covered much of what was going to be handled, but we had four items that we requested be included, which would have been those items that the mayor's office would have done. The four items are accommodate training because civil engineers, even though they're registered PEs, do not have all of the background through their schooling and other experience to stand in for the city on all elements. And so the training is important to make sure that they have the background needed to properly review plans. The next item was to account for the need to have city oversight for those elements that are being designed that will be taken under ownership and accepted for city maintenance. The third was to accommodate for FEMA reviews that we are required to be audited annually and can affect our ability to be underwritten for insurance. And the fourth was the funding for tree commission, the, um, part of what's reviewed during civil plans is to, uh, to account for that calculation in order to put the appropriate funding into the tree commission fund. So, um, we have worked with council member diamond and we believe we have, um, come to, uh, general agreement on three of those four items and, um, council member, would you like me to cover those? Or would you like to cover those? Okay. So, um, we'll, we'll allow the council member to cover what, what we've, um, discussed in terms of accommodating three of those four items. All right. Uh, so that was sort of the, oh, wait, hold on. All right. That was kind of the staff report, so to speak with, uh, with that, we'll go to our speaker cards. First, we have Zach Miller. Evening Zach Miller, 3203 Old Barn Court. Um, a little bit of background, my relationship with this and the state statute. Uh, for 18 years, I've been practicing law. When you guys see me, it's mostly on zoning matters. For the first two thirds of my career, once the, uh, the zoning, uh, was approved, my job was done. And the zoning code is chapter 656. If I had an issue with that, I would usually bother these three people here, which I do quite frequently. Um, about seven years ago was the first time I got exposed to chapter 654, which is the, uh, civil plan review section subdivision. Um, it was for a project for Baptist. Um, it was an experience. Ironically, at the exact same time, they amended the state private provider bill, which has been around for ages and dealt with using private companies to review building plans. And they added the term site plan, engineering plans, or the functional equivalent. Basically allowing private providers to also do civil plan review. So instead of going to the city, you could hire a private provider to do that same review. Uh, as my career went on, I've started to notice that I would get calls under 654. Or the land development review manual. Or 518. Or the technical review portions that frankly, I don't think a lawyer should ever get involved in. And in the last four years, it went from every couple months I'd get a call on it to about once a month. Now I get a call about once a week. What this bill allows for that is, for the larger projects, for the big projects, for everything that the city can have their technical know-how on, they can focus on that. For the day-to-day building of single family homes, small subdivisions, small commercial projects, someone can have the ability to hire a private provider and do that. What I've seen is that in the process of the last few years, the comments, and one particular in the same subdivision, have gone from four or five comments to 91 to build two single family homes. That's aggravating for my clients, but that's a real-world cost, the cost of housing. So I look at this bill as not just something that is required by state law. I think of this as an affordability issue. I would, here to answer any questions you might have, but I would strongly recommend you vote to approve this. Thank you. All right, next we have Steve Stark. Steve Stark, 9720 Cunningham Road, Jacksonville, Florida. I am a developer, and I've built homes here in this town, and I have to reiterate what Zach Miller said. This whole process going through the city is so slow, so ordained. I mean, I understood during COVID, it was slowed down, but it seemed like after COVID, it's the same slow process. And, you know, time is money, and I have sat and done some projects where I try to get some kind of, you know, comments back, and, you know, I just get nowhere with the city. I've actually, we've submitted plans and answered the questions, the issues that they had for the reviews, and then they'll come up with all new issues. So, it's just an ongoing, moving target is what I've found. I use private inspectors. I find them to be very respectful, very professional, and I think for them to review plans, whether homes or subdivisions, I think is a great move for this city. And it's all about money. Everybody wants houses to be cheap, you know, lower the cost, lower the cost. I can't lower the cost when I'm sitting for 18 months going through a process of permitting, and I'm making the payments. I'm making the property tax payments, and, you know, those costs have to be, you know, they have to be pushed, you know, down, you know, everybody has to pay. So, if the city wants to lower the cost, they want to do stuff, let's streamline this process, because it's not streamlined at all. All right, next we have Chrissy Kinney, followed by Jean Yoder, and then Austin Nicholas. All right, she is in opposition with no comment, and Jean Yoder, followed by Austin Nicholas. My name is Jean Yoder, 11470 Cisco Gardens Road South. I'm here because this would benefit the infill builder, residential builder, tremendously. I have been in the business for over 25 years, doing residential building. The last 11 of it has been infilled affordable housing. I have had more of a struggle in the last 11 years with permitting and the infilled building industry struggle than I did the whole time I worked with the big box builders in communities. Minimal, these delays cost us $3,000 average, because every day is a missed opportunity to close for an affordable house. That's what we do as affordable housing where I work, and it's a delay when we can't close on these houses for these homeowners. They miss opportunities, we miss opportunities, and if we build 250 houses a year, which we build way over that, that alone is $750,000. So at $10,000, if it costs me more than that because of all the delays the city has cost me, it costs me $2.5,000. And again, with that being said, when we email the city, ask them for clarification on things, it's an interpretation issue, and we don't get feedback. We ask and we ask and we ask, we email, we email, we email, we email, we don't get responses. Then when we go above those people's heads, we get told that we're putting too many people on the emails. Well, we have to have answers. We can't have our jobs sitting where we can't submit and get permits in a timely manner, because it costs the companies too much money, and these homeowners are not able to move into their houses in a timely timeframe. And interest rate may go up, it may not go up, but if it does go up, now what they thought they were going to get for one price is going to be different. And every day that we have to pay money and it costs us, what we sell it to them for is going to have to go up. So it's just a spiraling effect and a rolling ball that just adds to the price of the house. And if this would come into play, it would tremendously help the infield builder with the affordable housing industry. Thank you. All right, next we have Austin Nicholas. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It's Austin Nicholas, 4932 Sunbeam Road, Jacksonville, Florida, 32257, on behalf of the Northeast Florida Builders Association. On behalf of NEFPA, though, we would like to express our support for this proposed ordinance. It's our understanding, as was mentioned, that COJ staff has been working on this private provider program, and we believe it's time to implement it in the city of Jacksonville. We're simply seeking parity and consistency with the private provider program that already exists and functions well in the building inspection department, building inspection division, excuse me. We believe creating a private provider program for the city's development services division will have several benefits. It will allow applicants, including Jacksonville citizens, the option to use a private provider for more of the project if they decide if that's the best fit for them. We also believe it could reduce permitting times as well as provide some relief for city staff when permit workloads increase. It's also worth noting Florida House Bill 927 regarding local land planning and development, which was signed into law by the governor last month. This new legislation provides guidance for these kinds of programs and requires cities like Jacksonville to allow qualified contractors to assist with permit reviews. Qualified contractors are expressly outlined in the legislation to include licensed engineers, surveyors, landscape architects, and certified planners, among others. It is for these reasons that we support this proposed ordinance. As always, thank you for your time and for your service to Jacksonville. All right, we have no other speaker cards, so we have a bunch of speakers in the queue, though. So we'll just go ahead and close the public hearing and bring it back to committee. All right. All right, we have a motion and a second on the rules substitute. Can someone please explain the rules substitute? The rules substitute is to basically correct the scrivener's errors that was throughout the document and then include revisions to section 654-106 and creation of a new section 64-144 that was discussed at the Rules Committee. And it amends chapter 654, as you'll see detailed on page 14 of your agenda, to allow the use of private providers for the review of the plans that are listed below. And then also provides some clarification on the section 553-791 of the Florida statutes regarding the language utilized within our ordinance as well. All right. Is anyone in the queue for the rules substitute? We'll go with a no. All in favor of the rules substitute, signify by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed? Rules substitute passes. So now we're going to go ahead and kind of pause there because I believe there might be another amendment. And then I'll just go ahead and kick it over to Councilmember Diamond to kind of set the groundwork for everything that's transpired with this bill. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate the leeway. So let me just kind of walk through a few things. I'll walk through what the bill does. And we can walk through what Nina and I have been talking about. And then I'll propose one amendment and talk about what I think happens over the next couple of days. First of all, I just want to say 2026-364, that's the next bill, is going to be withdrawn. I have ears, I listen, what fights are worth it, and that one's gone. The administrative deviation bill is gone. It's being withdrawn. So it has nothing to do with this bill. Sometimes you've got two babies born in two different hospitals in two different states, and the only thing they have in common is they're born at the exact same time. I just happened to file them at the same time, and that was a mistake. So anyways, 364 is gone. All right, now back to 363. So first of all, this is required by state law, right? And so we're going to be implementing state law. We're literally just, most of the bill itself is just taking all the requirements of state law and saying here's how you do it in Jacksonville. That's one. Second, the motivation behind the bill, you heard from some of the builders and some of the folks working there. They're obviously frustrated, but my motivation on this is not to have like a parade of horribles of things that are going on with the city. That's not my focus. We've been trying to be very forward and positive thinking, which is I want to make it cheaper and faster to get a new single-family home into the hearts and lives of a Jacksonville family, to get someone out of renting into their first home, to get someone out of their parents' basement, save their parents so they can get their own first home. And so that's the goal. And as you heard from Ms. Yoder is that there's actually a cost to this that is increased with the current system. And so our goal is to lower the cost of a single-family home for families in Jacksonville. It's literally an affordability issue. Okay, let me talk about what the bill does. So if you're going to build a, let's just call it a brand-new house in Jacksonville, the first thing you're going to do is you're going to do the horizontal work. You're going to have like drainage issues. You're going to worry about, you know, the sidewalks and all those types of things, just the horizontal stuff. And then you're going to have to go get a building permit to actually build the structure. Right now in Jacksonville, you can already do the private permitting for building the house, or building the building, or whatever it is. You can do that already. What this bill does is you can also get a private engineer, a private provider to review the plans and certify that the horizontal stuff has been done correctly in accordance with the code. So that's what this bill does. It's the exact same as if the city was doing it, but instead you're paying someone to do it. Same rules, same law. Now the person doing it, I think, is something that people had a lot of questions about. So in order to be certified under the statute, the state statute, and what we would pass here today, you have to have gone and got an engineering degree. You had to work under an engineer, and you would have to have taken the tests, and you would have to have the experience to go and do this certified by the state of Florida. So this is not just someone off the street. You actually have to have the background to go and do this to sign it off. And here's how it works. Somebody else is engineering the site. Somebody totally different, can't be your company, can't be your people. Somebody else is engineering the site. They come up with the plans, the 10 set, and all that stuff. They do that. And then you do your horizontal stuff, and then they have to come back and say to the city, the person you hide, the private provider, under oath, under penalty of perjury, that they have followed the rules, that they've followed all the laws, the local laws, the state laws, that they've done it right. And then they write their name on it, and they say to the city, here, we've done all the review. This has been done correctly under the law. And if they're wrong, if they lied, they can go to jail. It's a crime, right? It's under penalty of perjury. If they made a mistake, they can get sued, because they have to have insurance. So if you're a homeowner or a builder or whatever, and you want to use a private provider, you actually have a little bit more protection than if the city were to do it, because you can't sue the city for getting the review wrong. But you can sue a private provider, so it has that bit of a benefit. Okay. So that's what the bill does. That's why I propose this legislation, and state law requires it anyways. Okay. So let me go through the hit list of what I've been working with Ms. Sickler about. And so everybody hears it from me. It's been a very good professional discussion here. And I think we really have our hearts and brains focused on the right direction, which is to do right by the city of Jacksonville. The first thing Ms. Sickler and the administration asked for was essentially a required annual training and test. It was kind of where they started. And I wanted nothing. I would just be like, look, if you're an engineer, the state says yes, that should be enough. And we met in the middle, and Terrence drew up an amendment. It basically says, look, you need to certify under penalty of perjury that you have reviewed the materials prepared by our administration, the building department, and that you understand them. You know what they are. You know what the local law is. You've got to certify in writing that you know what that is and have done the work. So with that, I'll propose that first amendment if you're comfortable with that, Mr. Chair. Or I'll just run through everything and we'll do that one amendment. Yeah, we can stop and do that. We can do that. I think it would be helpful because there's easy common ground there. So I would move the language. Terrence, if you want to explain it through the chair. Thank you. So the proposed amendment language is to be added. So it would be an amendment to the rule substitute, which would read, any private provider or private provider firm conducting reviews must certify by sworn affidavit under penalty of perjury, receipt and review of all applicable Florida statutes, city of Jacksonville ordinance codes, the city of Jacksonville land development procedures manual, and city standards. So that's my motion. I would love to have Ms. Sickler, like, be interactive in this one, if that's okay, Mr. Chair, because I want to make sure we're all good. Yeah, no, that's fine. Councilmember White, you've been trying to get my attention. I just want to make sure. Yes, well, that's what I was going to say. You just did what I was going to ask you as a courtesy. If Ms. Cavan would like to heard something different than what you think they heard, I would like to hear that. Thank you. Okay, so we do have a motion that was just offered by Councilmember Diamond, clarified by Mr. Harvey. Did we get a second? Second. Can we get a second? Ms. Sickler, are you good with that? I actually do have a comment. Okay, go ahead. I think that captures the heart of what we want them to understand. I would add to that language and training materials provided by the Department of Public Works. Okay. So do we need to add that in there, or do we need to amend the amendment? I think it's pretty close already, but I'm fine with adding that. I can repeat the amendment as... We just trust you. How about that? Can we just... So any private provider or private provider firm conducting reviews must certify by sworn David, familiarity and review of the department training and all applicable for the statute, City of Jacksonville, Ordinance Codes, the City of Jacksonville, Land and Development, Procedure Matters, and City Standards. All right. That is the new clarification of the amendment, which was moved by Councilman Diamond, and we got a second by, I think, Councilman Gaffney, actually, on the original one. So with that, all in favor of the amendment, signify by saying aye. Any opposed? The amendment carries. Now, do you have another amendment? I'd like to discuss where we're at with these other pieces of the puzzle. That's fine. And so there will be no other amendments for me today. And so this is the version of the bill I'd like to pass out today, but I want to put on the record kind of what we've been discussing. And so the second thing Ms. Sickler discussed it was, you know, you'll have engineers are going to review plans and sometimes, you know, you could have like a 500 house subdivision and inside that there's going to be drainage and roads and sidewalks, which are going to be turned over to the City of Jacksonville for maintenance, right? And so Ms. Sickler's concern, and I'm just going to phrase it for you, if I get it wrong, please let me know, was that, hey, they wanted to review those because the city is going to have to manage it. And my pushback on that was I don't want to do that because so many of these things include just turning these things over and you still have good engineers who are looking at it. And so our discussion was to work with Terrence to come up with language that captures this idea, which is to say the 10 days to review a plan that's been put forward by the staff is very tight window for a really big project. It's just very tight. And so the language we talked about is if it's going to be something that's got a road or a street or a sidewalk or a draining plan or anything at a small park in a big community that's going to be turned over to the city for maintenance and it hits a certain threshold of size, and we're talking about maybe like feet of road, that the law require that the private provider send their unsigned affidavit and complete set to the building department at least 10 days beforehand so that they have essentially 20 days to look at it. And they'll know in their own systems, this is a big project that's coming along, right? So this is a, you know, 400 house subdivision. Let's make sure that we get the drainage and all that stuff right and we want to review this with an extra careful eye. And I think that makes a lot of sense because if the city's cost, I mean, you could sue the private provider, you could sue the engineer, you could do a lot of things, you could go get insurance money, but at the end of the day, like, we want to avoid that. We want to avoid problems. And so the idea here would be that they would have a little bit of extra time to go make sure it was done right. And so we're going to come up with that language, Terrence and I and the administration and Ms. Secler, to make sure that we get that right. So that's one thing we agreed on. The second thing we agreed on is this FEMA issue. So when you develop in certain areas in Jacksonville, you're going to impact the rules when it comes to FEMA. And FEMA has requirements that basically say you have to take photographs of these things, you have to fill out certain documents, you have to do A, B, C, and D. And the administration can be audited for that stuff. So they have to have it right. And so what I agreed to do is to find language with Terrence and the administration is, hey, if this is a FEMA impacted thing where we could get audited, it's one of those things that their private provider has to do all that work and then submit it properly to the administration with the rest of the engineering review. So that's what that piece would look like. So those are the two things where we have common ground. I think we can get there before Friday is my hope so that there's no people can have draft language or whatever before next Tuesday so we can get this thing done. The one place where we didn't agree, and this is just a respectful policy disagreement and it's okay, is the administration wanted to have the right to send their own people for the review of tree mitigation and all that. And I think that an engineer could figure that out and look at the rules and how big a tree is and get it right. So we can have that. That's the one thing where we're not on the same page. I don't think it's a deal breaker for me if it's not in there. Like, it's a big deal to me. I think that's going to be onerous. But I don't know where the administration is on that. It's just the one place where we didn't have common ground. It's not in the bill now. So it's not in there. It just allows the engineer to do it. Okay. So I'll stop there, Mr. Chair, but I'm happy to answer questions. I don't want to do a lot of sausage making tonight because I promise we will go work in good faith to try and get this done. Yeah, so my understanding is you've got about, you know, 20%, 30% done, and you're going to bring the rest of the amendments at council on Tuesday as, like, floor amendments? You're going to do that? On Tuesday you're going to bring floor amendments for these? Okay, so we've just heard it here. So there's going to be a bit of, you know, slight committee work for everyone else that's not on LUZ on Tuesday night regarding this bill. But in the interim, you'll get with Public Works and the whole team over there that's sitting right there to figure all that out. People are in the queue. The bill is ready to move, but we can get questions answered on anything that Mr. Diamond has said. So we can go to Councilmember Arias. You're recognized. Thank you, Chair. Yeah, first of all, I want to be out as a co-sponsor to this bill. I think this is an important piece of legislation for our city and for our small business community. You know, since I've been on Council, even before Council, one of the biggest things I've been hearing is permitting, building department, and I know while the administration has done tremendous steps to move forward, I think we still have a lot more work to do, and I think this actually helps in that effort. Like I said, it's a combined effort between everybody, and the onus is on all of us to expedite this. You know, it's not just cost savings in the terms of dollars but also time. By doing this, I would assume we're going to save easily six to seven weeks, if not more, on permitting processes for our developers and our small businesses. So anything that we can do here as a body of Council members to expedite this and to make sure that it's done in a correct fashion, I'm on board for that. One of the things that I was actually, when I was taking notes, I was just singing on out, I was like, you know, I would love to have these private inspectors vetted annually. And you guys talked about this, so we made that amendment, and I had it on my notes prior to that, so I'm glad that's already in there, too. Once again, I want to be out as a co-sponsor. This is important, and I agree. I think the tree part is actually another piece of information. So, Mr. Diamond, very quick through the chair. We're going to vote on this today. The tree component, that's also a deal breaker for me. It's not on this bill, so what are we going to do about that later on? Are we going to bring another bill later on for that, or? Let me be clear, sorry. I think we're kind of mixing stuff up. So, right now, if you go and you want to do your horizontal work and all the rest, one of the things you have to do is get a tree study, and then you have to, you know, do the work on what the tree study tells you, and you have to pay in, and there's an equation to it. The way it's currently written, the private provider could do that and certify to the city, whatever that is. The administration's point of view was, hey, you could get a crappy dude who just does this for his buddy, and the city's not going to get as much money as they should. That was their concern. I think these folks are professional. It's also, I've heard from the constituents out there that that was one that was a deal breaker for them. They were just like, absolutely not. And so, it might seem like a quirky thing, but the city will still get its money. If there turns out to be, like, a huge problem, like, we can always come back and revisit that section. You know, that's my two cents. I agree. And while I saw the floor, we're kind of already solving that issue by vetting these private inspectors anyway. So, if the city approves of that entity, then we shall have no issues with that part as well, too. So, I'm good with this. As me, I co-sponsor, and I'm ready to take a vote. Thank you. All right. Council Member White, you're recognized. Yes, sir. It sounds like we're getting pretty close from what it was in rules because we left it. Just agreed on one thing and not the other three, and now we've just got one left. And I've actually witnessed that crappy guy that somebody got that took some trees down that shouldn't. So, I'm sure there's some way we can get a little closer, but we've got some time between now and Friday and next week. So, let's keep working on that piece. Thank you. All right. Final speaker, Councilwoman Clark-Murray. Oh, and then we have Council Member Gaff. Go ahead, Ms. Clark-Murray. Thank you, Chair. To the Chair, to Council Member Diamond, I know you stated that Florida Statute guides a lot of the information and the work that you did with the Public Works Department, Ms. Sickler. You also mentioned about whether or not there's a large project and to add 10 additional days or additional time for submitting that information to the city. So, does the statute guide how much time or a minimum amount of time? Through the Chair, that's a great question. So, right now it says 10 days. Maybe, what I was trying to do is build, without having to open the city up to potential litigation in a conflict with the statute, I decided to say, instead of saying they get an extra 10 days on the back end, I said they have to submit it for pre-approval, sort of, kind of like a first review, 10 days ahead of time. Which would then give the department 20 days to look at a big project, as opposed to just 10. And they would also be kind of signposted that, hey, a big one's coming through. Let's make sure this is correct. So, again, I mean, the 10 days seemed reasonable, but I was, you know, open-minded. Just like, what does it take when there's a big one coming through to get it right? Thank you. Thank you, Chair. All right. So, Council Member Gaffney, your recommendation. Yeah, I'd be brief. Thank you to the Chair. I want to be added as a co-sponsor as well. I think this is a great bill as well. You know, in District 8, we have, like, a lot of building, a lot of infill builds. And every day I get a call. I ain't going to say every day. Once a week I get a call from a developer, a builder, about just how slow the city is. So, not only I think this will expedite things, but I think this will take the pressure and, you know, I guess free up time from development services, I'm assuming. I don't know if we, you know, what we're in the staffing, but I think this will free up staff now that we got private providers doing this. You know, I guess the only question I do have, just to make sure, and I'm just curious, the city won't be losing any money from this. And I guess, oh, oh, do we, have we, okay, so you want to address that right quick? Yeah, through the chair. Yeah, the city would lose money. I mean, if it's X dollars for the city to do it, and instead they're paying a private provider, instead of that money going to the city, it'll go to the private provider. So, yeah. I mean, ideally that would free the city up to do other work, but there's no doubt there's a fiscal cost. Yeah, and I'll close it out because I know it's time to go. I guess the trade off is it's affordable. We could get more houses on the ground. And, you know, once we get more houses on the ground, then we could stop hearing about, I ain't going to say stop hearing about it, but at least we'll cut the deficit. You know, in terms of paying more houses and more density and more units on the ground and people could house somewhere to stay because right now, rent is high. And I know, I understand we got to get some houses on the ground. So, my last question, this would cut, I guess the builders right now is taking anywhere from like six months to build a house. This would cut it now, what, two or three months maybe, or four months? Through the chair again, very hard to say, right? Especially until you get the private providers rolling. I mean, you know, ideally there would be a lot of them and you could do things very quickly. So, I don't want to make a false promise, but talking to the builders, they're telling me that there's an extra month to six weeks at a minimum. And on some bigger project, it could be substantially longer. All right. Council Member Arias, you're recognized. All right. Thank you, Chair. Just to clarify, while if this goes through and we have the private providers doing the inspections, can any applicant say, you know what, I'd rather use the city? Is that still an option? And if so, I would assume the city route is probably more affordable than the private provider route, or do we know the numbers? Are they equivalent? Through the chair. So, yeah, you go the city route, which is a scale, and it's published, and you can figure out exactly what that is. Typically, and I was looking on the building, the permit side, they tend to track pretty close, but it's a free market out there, right? So, I can't say for sure what that would look like, but the city's prices are out there. You can compare that to a private provider. And I'll tell you this. Like, for the most part, it's going to be these big infill builders who are going to use the same private provider over again. I would assume that they'll get a good deal by doing 300 reviews a year or 50 reviews a year. So, that would be my best guess. Yeah. As long as we give people the option, I'm okay with that, too. So, that's all I wanted to know. Thank you. All right. We have no other speakers in the queue, and we do want to roll those amendments together into, I guess, one L-U-Z substitute or however you want to word it. So, otherwise, we had a motion in a second on this previously, right, before we had all this discussion? I have eight. Okay. We have a motion. That's twice a minute of a second. Got it, got it, got it. All right. Open the ballot. Record your vote. Seven yays, zero nays. By your action, you've approved 2026-363. All right. We're almost there, guys. Guys and girls. So, 31, 2026-364. Open the public hearing. No speaker cards. Oh, wait. Sorry. One speaker card. Tony Langles. Yep. That would be correct. Yeah. You read the room. Mr. Langles reading the room. We like it. We're going to close the public hearing and bring it back to committee. We have a motion and a second on the withdrawal. No discussion. Open the ballot. Record your vote. Seven yays, zero nays. By your action, you have withdrawn 2026-364. Item number 32, 2026-365 is deferred with a public hearing next cycle on 6-16-26. Item 33, 2026-366 is deferred with a public hearing next cycle on 6-16-26. And the following bills are deferred with public hearings next cycle on 6-16-26. Bills 2026, 367, 368, 369, 370, 371, 372, 373, 374. And that takes us to item number 42, 2026-365. Council members, please declare your ex parte communication at this time. Seeing none, let's open the public hearing and get a staff report. 2026-375 seeks to reduce the required minimum road frontage from 48 feet to 11 feet to allow the development of a single-family dwelling on a vacant lot that's currently zoned RLD 60. The property is a flag-shaped lot with 11.76 feet of road frontage. Per Part 4 of the zoning code, no dwelling may be constructed on a lot in a residential zoning district unless the lot has frontage on a public or approved private street equal to not less than 80% of the minimum lot width. The existing parcel is located within the Jacksonville Heights subdivision where many surrounding properties have similar flag-shaped configurations. The parcel was originally subdivided from a larger parcel around 1985 and has remained in its current configuration since before the adoption of the comprehensive plan in 1990. Because the parcel is not considered a lot of record, a waiver of road frontage is required in order to construct one single-family dwelling. There has been one previously approved waiver of road frontage for X-Line Road, and that was 2017-391 at 7227 X-Line Road. For these reasons and those in the staff report, we forward a recommendation of approval. All right, we have one speaker card. Rob or, oh, John? Oh, okay, yeah, questions only. Mr. Robert or Darnio was here for support and is questions only. So let's close the public hearing and bring it back to committee. All right, we have a motion. Do we get a second? Second on the bill. No one in the queue. Open the ballot. Accord your vote. Seven yays, zero nays. By your action, you've approved 2026-375. Item number 43, 2026-376 is deferred. There will be a public hearing on 721-26. And then the following bills are on second reading. 2026-420, 421, 422, 423, 424, 425, 426, 427, 428, 429, 430, 431, 432, 433, 434, 435, 436, 437, 438, 439, 440, 441, 442, 443, and 472. All right, ladies and gentlemen, that is it. We are adjourned. Thank you very much. Thanks to everyone. Exactly. Upon the bill. Grab your巴, the厲害fan and glaube andran niceness. Get your巴, the합니다, the birth code is still at the bottom of the string. Yes, you're going to take your foot. All right, ma'am. You arejeric. I will get it. You have produced material�י. I made it. I have purchased this software.