Land Use & Zoning Committee - Jun 16, 2026

Okay. Do we have a quorum? Forest quorum. Okay. Five o'clock, June 16th. We're going to go ahead and call this meeting to order. Land Use and Zoning Committee will now convene. We'll go ahead and start with the introduction on the left. Does the mic work? There we go. For the final time this year, this council year, good afternoon. Thank you for the privilege of serving with you, Mr. Chair. Rockman Johnson, District 14. Thank you. Good evening. Good evening, Reginald Gaffney, Jr., District 8. Joe Carlucci, District 5. Randy White, District 12. So, Terrence Harvey, Office of General Counsel. Helena Perala, Planning Department. Susan Kelly, Planning Department. Erin Abney, Planning Department. Casey Cox, Planning Department. All right. Welcome, everybody. Thank you, everyone, for joining us out there. So, we're going to go through. What we got? Oh. Oh, wow. Okay. All right. So, we're going to go through the agenda real quick, just so everyone's kind of on the same page. We've got a few. We've got one item that's going to be taken up first. A lot of deferrals. So, just to get everyone on the same page. Actually, we're not going to go through the whole agenda, just because that would take too long. But, what we will do is let everyone know. We're bringing up item number 48, 2026-472. That is going to be our first action item tonight. That is the appeal by Mr. Herzberg. And, before we go there, we're going to go ahead and get these items out of the way that are just open, continue, and deferral. So, all right. We want to welcome Council Member Freeman. Thank you for joining us, sir. All right. Item number one, 2026-122. Open the public hearing. We have no speaker cards. We'll continue this public hearing until 7-21-26. Item number two, 2026-123. Open the public hearing. No speaker cards. We'll continue this public hearing until 7-21-26. Item number three, 2026-124, is deferred. And, there will be a public hearing on 7-21-26. Item number four, 2026-125, is deferred with a public hearing on 7-21-26. Item number five, 2026-126. Open the public hearing. No speaker cards. We'll continue this public hearing until 7-21-26. Item number six, 2026-127. Thank you, Mr. Johnson. We'll open the public hearing. No speaker cards. We'll continue this public hearing until 7-21-26. Now, that takes us to the first item on the agenda, which is item number 48, 2026-472. Mr. Harvey, as always, give us a little lay of the land on how these appeals work. I know we just did one last week, but go ahead and give us a little rundown on what we're doing here. Of course, tonight before you is resolution 2026-472, which concerns an appeal of a final order of the Jacksonville Planning Commission. Denying application for zoning exception E-2620 and administrative deviation AD-2621. This appeal was filed by Michael Hertzberg on behalf of the owner, Hey Ave LLC, the appellant for the property located at 10344 Atlantic Circle between Atlantic Boulevard and Lawson Road. The appellant has sought the zoning exception E-2620, seeking to allow a building trades contractor with outside storage, including overnight parking and administrative deviation 2621, seeking to do several things. to reduce the minimum width of the driveway from 12 feet to 10 feet, reduce the uncomplimentary land use buffer from 10 feet wide along the east property boundary to 5 feet wide, wide and reduce the uncomplimentary land use buffer from 10 feet wide along the west property boundary to 0 and also to reduce the uncomplimentary land use buffer trees along the east property boundary from 6 required to 4 and on the west boundary line from 9 to 7 on the subject property. The record has been submitted to the commission from the commission for this appeal as a part of the record. You will have before you for review, you will be considering this request de novo, which means that the request and the presentation of all the evidence starts over and that the appellant and the presenters may provide you with additional evidence to assist your decision. I'm going to go over the outline of how this appeal will go today. This is an informal quasi judicial hearing, so no formal hearing was requested by the appellant. The order of the presentation will be as follow. You will have a disclosure of ex parte from the LUZ committee members. We will open the public hearing and then there will be the presentation by the appellate for up to five minutes. The appellee, which will be the city, will be presented by Erin Abney. She will also have five minutes. Then you will open up the public hearing and then rebuttal by the appellant, if any. The public hearing will then be closed in deliberation by the committee and a vote will follow. During this hearing, you will base your decision based on competent substantial evidence, which may consist of expert testimony and the staff and expert reports that you receive and arguments that you hear from the public in general. At the end, we will deliver, you will deliberate and come to a conclusion of whether or not to affirm the commission's decision, reverse the commission's decision, modify or remand the matter back to the commission for further action. Other than that, I'll turn it back to you, Chair. All right, thank you. First, we will ask for any ex parte communication at this time. Council members, go ahead and declare that. Okay, Council Member Johnson, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I rise to declare ex parte. I received an email from Mr. Herzberg explaining the details and that's being filed with administrative services. Thank you. All right, thank you. And I received, I will declare ex parte communication, I received the same email from Mr. Herzberg. That paperwork will get filed with legislative services and there are no other speakers in the queue. So let's open the public hearing and get a staff report. Do we need to do that? Or do we just go straight to Mr. Herzberg? Because the staff report will kind of be the repeal. Okay, Mr. Herzberg, only speaker card that we have here. You have five minutes and then we'll hear from Ms. Abney for her five minutes on the rebuttal. The floor is yours. Mr. Chairman, thank you so much. Members of the committee, good evening. I've handed out a document which I hope you've got in front of you at this point. And I think what the first thing that is highlighted here or should be highlighted here is that this property is commercially designated. It is in the urbanized area of the city, the urban area for the planning districts or the planning practices. And this is between I-295 along Atlantic Boulevard and Cortez Road. So this is a very busy commercial corridor. Three of the four sides of this property are, in fact, designated CGC land use and CCG2. The parcels were, this parcel was actually zoned commercial intensive even prior to the city's effort to do comprehensive planning in 1990. A zoning map down below depicts that old zoning, the CI, which you see the property would fall within. It's highlighted in orange. So even before 1990, the city recognized that this was a commercial area and wanted this to be a commercial area. The CI was changed to CCG2 with the advent of the comprehensive plan. And this was, again, promoted as future commercial lands. But not only commercial, intensive commercial. The city has signed that CCG2, which, as you all know, is the most intensive commercial in our zoning code. And while the staff report is correct in that there are some remaining residential uses along the roadway here, Atlantic Court, or Atlantic Circle, excuse me, those are, in fact, lawfully nonconforming residential uses. And lawfully nonconforming residential uses, according to our comprehensive plan and our local zoning code, are permitted to be continued, but they are allowed to stay until they're removed, but they're not to be encouraged in their survival. In other words, the plan is saying move forward with commercial. You can continue to use it for residential if you wish. So again, looking back at that, you'll see that the depth of the commercial, as you flip to page two, the kind of purplish color there, the CGC, CCG2, goes all the way down and is somewhat uniform along this, with the exception of some parcels to the east. So the plan even recognized that back in the old zoning maps, before we had comprehensive plan, when we just had zoning and not zoning and land use. And that's important because CCG2 allows a multitude, by right, of very intensive uses, and a list of those is there. Gasoline filling stations could be developed on this property today, with no zoning exception, no need for anything. Go forward and develop. They usually have propane exchanges. So not only do you have gasoline filling stations, you have propane exchanges at most of those. You can have crematoriums, you can have service garages for major repairs, recycling collection points, indoor gun ranges. All of these uses are permitted by right in the existing zoning. But yet, this individual is here with an intent to have a propane distribution via his personal trucks or his company trucks, delivering that propane from the storage on the facility to various users, which could be, in fact, the residential users immediately behind this property further to the south in the residential area. More generally, and what the planning department told them to file was a request for a building trades contractor with outdoor storage. So that's what we're here for tonight. This industry is regulated by the U.S. DOT, OSHA, the U.S. Department of Energy as it relates to the Fuel Code, and the National Fire Protection Association under NAFPA 58. There's a whole multitude of regulations assuring safety with the storage of this material on the property. And again, right now, without any further consideration, a gasoline filling station could be there. Obviously, that's as concerning as anything else, at least as relates to the storage of this propane tank. Propane, again, is a very common gas. We all use it. We have it underneath our Weber grills or our grills at our homes. As a matter of fact, oftentimes these residential properties have propane tanks stored in their yard, above ground, below ground. The industry allows up to 1,000 gallons to be stored on a residential lot in your own backyard, if you so choose. So again, this is not an intensive use in that nature. This is really something that is far less than what would normally be allowed on this property. The staff report found favorably upon two of the nine criteria. And I would just ask that we kind of go through those very, very briefly. The staff uses various statements about anticipation or reasonable to expect. So I guess if I'm running out low on time, it looks like here. So if you'd look at the provisions I've offered here in response to those criteria, I think you'll find that this is substantial competent evidence relating to the criteria. And on the last page, I provided the comprehensive plan consistency, which I think is very important because one of the most important policies in our code is that the city shall encourage infill and redevelopment of existing commercial areas in lieu of permitting new areas to commercialize. This is and has been an existing commercial area. It should be allowed to be utilized. It should not require any further consideration. Based on that, I'll ask for your consideration of this request and be happy to answer any questions. Thank you. All right. Thank you so much. Now we'll hear from Ms. Abney with the Planning Department for five minutes. Thank you. So this is the appeal of E2620 and AD2621 for property at 10344 Atlantic Circle, which is again just south of Atlantic Boulevard. These applications were submitted to the Planning Department and reviewed and heard by the Planning Commission on May 7th. Terrence gave a great explanation of the application. So the zoning exception is again for outside storage in a building trades contractor business. And the AD is for some landscaping reductions, mainly around buffer requirements, seeing as the property is adjacent to residential parcels. The subject property was originally developed as a duplex and the applicant is seeking to convert the structure and the use of the property as an operation center and storage lot for their propane business, which according to the proposed site plan also would include a 18,000 gallon propane tank on site behind the existing structure. While this property and the neighboring parcels along Atlantic Circle are zoned CCG2, the established development is more residential with the two adjacent properties developed with multifamily dwellings and properties to the south being zoned RLD60 and developed with single family dwellings. Staff reviewed these applications and found that the requested uses and companion deviation from the landscaping code would not be compatible with existing contiguous uses or the general area, given that the established development pattern is residential. Additionally, there are concerns that the proposed outside storage of trucks and heavy equipment associated with the business, including the propane storage tank being in close proximity to residential properties. Given the size of the proposed size of the tank, it was reviewed by the fire marshal's office and they explained that they would be required to have a setback of 50 feet from any adjacent property lines to the tank. The deviation application was also reviewed by our city's landscape architect, which recommended denial as the only reason to reduce the uncomplimentary buffer to the west to zero feet is due to a design decision for the new storage building, which is not an existing limitation on the site. This is self-imposed hardship. There is also no reason given to reduce the number of the required trees in the uncomplimentary buffer along either the east or west boundary. As the site plan shows, no obvious limitations as to why they cannot meet these requirements. We understand that the property is zoned CCG2 and they're entitled to a number of uses by right and they can develop it today as long as they meet the required landscape buffers. The planning department is just not supportive of the expansion of uses above what they're entitled to today, especially if they're reducing the required landscape buffers and trees along those property boundaries, given that the surrounding area does have still existing residential. The application was heard by planning commission on May 7th. There was one speaker in opposition. It was adjacent property owner directly to the south that has a property along Lawson Road, who again expressed concerns about the proposed outside storage uses, especially the storage tank in the close proximity to the residential neighborhood. They did not have a concern about the redevelopment of the site, just main concern with the outside storage that would be occurring on the property in the close proximity to the neighborhood. Overall discussion amongst the commission revolved around the property is entitled to CCG2 uses by right and with outside storage being by exception and the surrounding properties being developed with residential dwellings. The expansion of uses was not appropriate for the area. Ultimately, the commission voted unanimously for a denial of both E2620 and AD2621. Thank you. All right. Thank you so much. We have no other speaker cards. So, with that, we'll close public hearing. Oh, do we want to, we can offer a rebuttal for three minutes if you'd like, Mr. Herzberg. So, does he get three minutes and then planning? Just, okay. Mr. Chairman, I'll be very brief. I won't need three minutes. And I appreciate the comments of staff. I guess my concern is this. We're technically not following the plan. The plan says this is supposed to be CGC. The plan says this is supposed to be CCG2. But we're denying people the uses and the accessory or subordinate things that might occur along with it via the exceptions for specific use of that same zoning district in favor of the existence of dwellings that are lawfully nonconforming, which our code says are not to be continued. We are not to support or promote them. By definition, by saying that we don't want this commercial intrusion into a commercial area, we are, in fact, denying the intent of our own plan for this to commercialize. And it's causing people to go find other commercial properties to seek land use and zoning changes, which that policy that I provided you, which is the last policy in the handout, says that we should utilize the commercially designated parcels. We shall use the commercially designated parcels in lieu of permitting other areas to commercialize. This is an appropriate location for this. I know there were some concerns about the safety of the storage. I think those are even the fire marshals indicated with the 50-foot setback, which the applicant is more than happy to do. You know, they would not be necessary. As to the landscape provisions, I don't think we would need the relief. The owner has acquired an additional residential unit duplex to his immediate east. So that land use buffer is no longer required. He's already purchased that property. The exception would not apply to that, although he could still use that for any CCG2 use by right. But I think that would take care of most of the administrative deviation requests that were being sought. With that, I'll close and stand by for any questions. Thank you. All right. Thank you so much. We have no other speaker cards, so now we can close the public hearing. We'll bring it back to committee before we make a motion to amend. All right. We want to welcome Council Member Arias. Thank you, sir. Thank you for joining us. Before we make any motion to amend committee, as we've seen these appeals go in the past, the amendment is simply to grant or deny. So we kind of need to have some discussion, and then we need to open it up for the amendment to grant or deny. So we'll go ahead and go through the queue. We have one speaker. Councilman Gaffney, Jr., you are recognized. Thank you to the chair, to the planning department. So are we voting for the administration deviation or the zoning exception, or both? Through the chair to Councilman Gaffney, so the appeal is for both applications. So the zoning exception for the building trades contractor to include the outside storage use, and then also the administrative deviation that is asking for the reduction in the driveway width and the reduction in the landscape buffers along the west and east property boundary, and then some reduction in trees within those buffer requirements. All right. Thank you to it. Let me add for clarity and through the chair. I guess Mr. Herzberg brought up a great point. So he said at this point we could have this designation for a gas station, but we can't allow it for, I guess, outside storage for protein tanks, correct? Through the chair to Councilman Gaffney. So yes. So property is zoned CCG2, so they have a number of uses that they're allowed by right. Outside storage, along with building trades contractor, is a use that's allowed by zoning exception. And so we reviewed it based off of that and the criteria and found that it was not consistent, and we recommended denial. Yeah. I was just trying to understand the difference. I mean, it seems to me that a gas station is not that much difference from, I guess, a propane tank. I mean, in my eyes. I don't know. But, you know, I understand where you guys come from. So I'll stand by and see if we can hear from the rest of my colleagues. All right. And we'll go to Councilmember White and then we'll go to Councilmember Ayers for ex parte. Councilmember White, you're recognized. Yeah. Question for Mr. Hirschberg. I know what you said. I just want to hear it one more time. When you got with the fire marshal's office, you are going to be able to meet the 50-foot buffer or more with a gas, with a propane tank, correct? Through the chair, sir. Yes, that's correct. He would meet or exceed that buffer. Thank you. Thank you, sir. All right. We'll go to Councilmember Ayers for ex parte. All right. Thank you, Chair. I'd like to declare ex parte. I spoke to the applicant. I also received an email regarding the case and it's currently being filed as it is. Thank you. Okay. Great. All right. We have no other speakers in the queue. I'll just add my two cents in. You know, again, I think it's definitely kind of a quirky area being CCG2 in sort of a, you know, little pocket right there off Atlantic Boulevard. I just can't come to deny something that is already zoned for basically a gas station where a small business owner wants to put a much smaller scale propane tank. So I'm going to be supportive of, or I don't know, would that be a denial of the, or in what position would that be on the appeal, Mr. Harvey? Can you, can you set me straight there? Yep. So if you're going to reverse the commission's decision, you're going to grant the appeal. So granting the appeal, the applicant, the small business owner could keep his outdoor storage there. He would be able to start the outdoor storage. He doesn't, he can't do it now because he needs the. Okay. So granting the appeal would give him that permission. Correct. Okay. Great. That would be my recommendation as the chair. I can't really make that motion. So if someone wants to, okay, we have a motion and second to grant the appeal and we have no one in the queue, all in favor of the amendment signify by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed? The amendment carries. Now we've seen a motion on the bill as amended. All right. We have a motion and second on the bill as amended and we have no one in the queue. Open the ballot. Record your vote. Five yays, zero nays. By reaction, you have granted the appeal for 2026-472. Thank you all. All right. Thank you, Mr. Herzberg. All right. We're going to go back to, let's see, we did, we already read through items one, two, three, four, five, and six. Correct? Ms. Herzberg? Okay. All right. Got my new vice chair here to my left, sort of. We've cycled through a couple of vice chairs here. I mean, Rory was the vice chair and then he gave it to Raul and now we got Rockman over here. So, who's the vice chair here? Anyways, last meeting of the year, so we can do, we can do whatever we want. All right. 2026-293. Open the public hearing. Let's get a staff report. Ordinance 2026-293 is a small scale land use amendment to change 0.7 of an acre at 9801 Heckscher Drive from community general commercial CGC to low density residential LDR to allow for single family residential development within the suburban development area. The application has been submitted with a companion rezoning proposing to change the site from CCG-2 to RLD-100A. The site consists of two parcels and is located on the west side of Heckscher Drive, which is classified as a minor arterial roadway. This is between the Mayport Ferry Terminal and Huguenot Memorial Park. The parcels on either side, both north and south of the subject site, are designated as rural residential. This parcels current CGC land use designation is an outlier in this stretch of residential uses. The proposed LDR land use category will allow for low density single family residential development, which is compatible with the surrounding residential uses along this segment of Heckscher. The maximum gross density for this site would be two units per acre with a minimum lot size of half an acre. For these reasons and those in the staff report, the planning department recommends approval. The planning commission heard this item at their meeting on June 4th, and they voted unanimously to recommend approval. All right. Thank you so much. First speaker card, Ian Brown. Good evening. Ian Brown, 245 Riverside Ave here on behalf of the applicant. Are we going to hear them in conjunction? Okay. No, one at a time. Okay. I have a exhibit to circulate. It does have facets of each of the different applications, but I'll pass them out. All right. While those are circulated, I'll get started. So this is a down zoning request. As the packet is circulated, you'll see on the first page there, the Blue Star is a subject property. We're an outlier on this side of Heckscher. This property is very close to where the ferry connects on the Heckscher side, and it's a CCG2 zoning. We were told years ago there may have been like a mini-mart or a convenience operation there in the past. The owner of this property is a builder, a residential builder. He does own the contiguous property to the east. We have support from the contiguous property to the west, and we also have support from the Heckscher Drive Community Club. Their support letter is on the last page as a freestanding exhibit, along with the neighbor's handwritten letter. So by right, this property, CCG2, you just heard some of this with Mr. Herzberg, but you can do gas stations, adult entertainment, nightclubs, hotels, motels, truck parking, alcohol sales, light manufacturing, and it enjoys a 60-foot height limit. That's currently by right. What the owner is seeking to do is a down-zoning, down-zone to single-family residential with the corresponding land use change. I know we're on the land use right now. I'm just kind of running through it. The owner would like to retain not all of the height that he currently could enjoy, which is 60, but come down to 50, as well as keep an existing eight-foot fence, which is approximately 80 feet from the pavement, and also the same height as the contiguous residential fence to the east. The staff found the request is compatible with the surrounding area. Nearby structures already exceed the requested height. On that note, in your exhibit package on page one, you can see how far back the existing fence is, approximately 80 feet. On page two, again, I know we're on land use, but here's to get the exhibits. This three-over-one rendering is more of like an inspirational image. They're not anywhere near permitting, but it's an example of a resilient structure that's a flood-prone area. It can handle rising waters and build over the garage and open space. The warehouse on the right of page two, that is an existing 60-foot warehouse. Can I wrap up quickly? No. Sorry. We've got a good three minutes. If people have questions, they can call you up. That's fine. That was pretty much it. No worries. All right. Next, we have Paul Zabuni in support, questions only. We have no other speaker cards, so we'll close the public hearing and bring it back to committee. Motion and second on the bill. Do we have any discussion? Let's see. No discussion. Oh, we have Councilman Gaffney, Jr. You're recognized. I asked Mr. Brown through the chair. Yeah. I know you said you had a few more minutes, so I want to make sure I got all the information we need to vote, but you good? I'll stand by for questions. I think I got most of it out. All right. We have no speakers in the queue, so that means we can go ahead and open the ballot, record your votes. Six yays, zero nays. By your action you've approved, 2026-293. Item number 8, 2026-294. Council members, please declare your ex parte communication at this time. Seeing none, let's open the public hearing and get a staff report. Thank you. This is the Companion Conventional Rezoning Ordinance 2026-0294, seeking to rezone approximately .7 acres from CCG 2 to RLD 108 in order to develop the property with one single family dwelling. So again, this is a down zoning. Subject property is located along Hexture Drive, where surrounding properties are developed with residential lots and zoned RR Acre. This particular property is the only parcel on the north side of Hexture Drive within this immediate area that is zoned CCG 2. So rezoning to RLD 100A will be more in character with that established development pattern. Staff has reviewed the request, fines with the approved land use change to LDR. The rezoning will be consistent with the comp plan and further the goals and objectives. So for these reasons and those in the staff report, we forward a recommendation of approval. Application was heard by Planning Commission on June 4th. There were no speakers in opposition and little discussion and they voted unanimously for approval. All right. We have two speaker cards. First speaker, Ian Brown. Thank you. With this, just to finish my notes here, we did have unanimous approval at Planning and we worked with the community. And so I feel good about the application. I think it makes the corridor more consistent, as you can see from the exhibit. So I'll stand by for questions. All right. Next, we have Paul Zabuni, who is in support and does not wish to speak. So we have no other speaker cards. We'll close the public hearing and bring it back to committee. All right. We have a motion and a second on the bill. No discussion. Open the ballot. Record your vote. 6, yays, 0, nays. By your action, you've approved 2026-294. Item number 9, 2026-295. Council members, please declare your ex parte communication at this time. Seeing none, let's open the public hearing and get a staff report. Thank you. This is the companion administrative deviation, Ordinance 2026-0295, seeking to increase the height of the fence within the required front yard from 4 feet to 8 feet and to increase the height of the primary structure from 35 feet to 50 feet. The property being zoned commercial did not have zoning regulations on fence height and location, and the applicant is requesting to keep the existing 8-foot fence in its current location, which happens to be within the required front yard. Zoning regulations regulates fence height within the required front yard to 4 feet. RLD 100A's front yard setback is 25 feet. The property is unique in that this portion of Heckscher Drive right of way is very large, leaving the fence approximately 80 feet back from the right of way. The distance usually required in RLD 100A, so it's a lot larger than the required front setback under the RLD 100A requirement. Additionally, the applicant is asking to increase the height, building height, given the property is located within the flood zones and is required to elevate the structure to comply with base flood elevations. There are other structures along Heckscher Drive which exceed the requested height, including a 60-foot structure, so the proposed height would not be out of character for the immediate area. The property is located within the 50-foot height restriction zone for the Mayport Airport, but even with the height increase, it'll still be below the maximum height restriction zone, and will be in compliance with Part 10. So, for these reasons and those in the staff report, we are forwarding a recommendation of approval. The application was heard at Planning Commission where there was one speaker. It was a representative from the Navy discussing basically how we would measure the height in order to be below the 50-foot height restriction zone. Planning Commission ultimately voted to approve with a condition on how to measure that height. Following the hearing, the Navy representative did look further into the height measurement issue, and due to the elevation of the runway at the Mayport Airport being higher than the current elevation of the property, the height measurement is no longer an issue. And so, the condition is no longer required. But, ultimately, the Planning Commission did a vote to approve with that one condition, but with the clarification, the condition is no longer needed. Thank you. All right. We don't have any speaker cards on this one. So, I guess, Mr. Brown, did you not fill out a speaker card? That's okay. There's a chance I did not. Okay. Well... I'm happy to fill one out. If you wish to speak, you can fill one out. Okay. We'll just move on, since we have no speaker cards, and we'll close the public hearing and bring it back to committee. The amendment. The amendment, as discussed by staff, is no longer needed. So... Got it. All right. We have a motion second on the bill. The amendment is no longer needed. No one in the queue. Let's open the ballot. Record your vote. Six yays, zero nays. By your action, you've approved 2026-295. Mr. Brown, Mr. Councilman Arias would like to see you in the green room, if you have a second. All right. Item number 10, 2026-304. Council members, please declare your ex parte communication at this time. Seeing none, we will open the public hearing and get a staff report. Thank you. Thank you. This is the Conventional Rezoning Ordinance 2026-0304, seeking to rezone approximately .37 acres from CCG1 to CCG2. The rezoning is being sought to allow for a service contractor use with fleet dispatch and outdoor storage activity. Staff has reviewed the request and finds that while the requested rezoning, along with the uses permitted within this district, would be permitted under the existing CGC land use. When we evaluate the criteria for consistency with the comp plan, which would include the goals, objectives, and policies, we find that the requested rezoning to be overall inconsistent with the plan. The subject property is located at the southwest intersection of Cleveland Road and 45th Street West, which are both classified as collector roadways. Surrounding uses include low-intense neighborhood commercial retail. You have a school, and you have existing single-family residential neighborhoods. Given the existing pattern of development and uses within the immediate area, we find that uses that would be allowed by right in CCG2 would not be appropriate or compatible with surrounding development patterns. The current zoning district, CCG1, offers commercial uses that are appropriate for the area and serves as a transitional zoning district from the surrounding residential uses. CCG2 is a district that permits the highest intense commercial uses, which will not protect or preserve the character of the surrounding neighborhood. So, for these reasons and those in the staff report, we forward a recommendation of denial. Application was heard by Planning Commission on June 4th, where there was one speaker in the opposition who supported the department's recommendation of denial, citing concerns that the expansion of commercial uses permitted in the CCG2 would be incompatible, given that there is a school and single-family uses in the immediate area. The commission expressed similar concerns and suggested that the applicant consider maybe a PUD to limit the uses. But the commission ultimately voted unanimously for denial of the conventional rezoning. So, thank you. All right. We have one speaker card. Samantha Series is in opposition and does not wish to speak. So, with that, we will go ahead and close the public hearing and bring it back to committee. So, for this one, currently, if we are going to approve it, it's in the posture to approve right now. But if we vote on this and wanted to follow suit with Planning Department and Planning Commission, do we need to amend it to deny, or do we need to just vote it down? Just vote it down, and we don't need to make an amendment. So, right now, the current posture is for the ordinance for a, excuse me, a ordinance to rezone it. And so, if you were to vote it down, it would leave the committee as a denial. Understood. Okay. All right. I'm just throwing it out. I'm just making sure, since we're five votes in, and we've got to have four to get it out. So, we have no speakers in the queue. Oh, okay. I'll speak after you then. Go ahead. Councilman Gaffney, you're recognized. Thank you, through the chair. As of right now, I'm a denial. I mean, the Planning Commission voted denied. The Planning Department voted denied. The Councilwoman is not here. So, it made me, I don't know from the community, have they had a community meeting? Right now, I'm a no. There's no way I could justify voting yes without Ms. Pittman being here and the Planning Commission and the Planning Department both being no. So, that's where I'm at right now. Okay. Yep. I tend to agree with you, but we'll go ahead. Councilmember Johnson, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I tend to agree with the Councilman and you as well. I'm also seeing nobody from the community or anybody say anything about it. So, I did look into it. I did not see where this, to me, it's a denial as well. Thank you. All right. We have no one else in the queue. I'm going to go ahead and vote for, I'm going to be a down. I'm going to vote no on this as well. You know, it's already CCG1 to go to CCG2 right here in the middle of that. For all the reasons in the staff report, Planning Commission unanimously voted to deny. So, I'm going to be voting no as well. So, with that, we have no other speakers in the queue, but we will go ahead and open the ballot and everyone can record their votes. The recording to vote on the motion to deny. Wait. Wait. Zero yays, five nays. Right. All right. By your action, you have denied 226-304. All right. Item number 11, 226-309. Council members, please declare your ex parte communication at this time. Seeing none, let's open the public hearing and get a staff report. Oh, oh, oh, oh. Council Member Gaffney. 2026-309. You got one? Yep. Okay. Go ahead. Council Member Gaffney, you're recognized. Yeah. Thank you, through the chair. I'd like to file ex parte. I held the community meeting. I'm not sure of the date. I made sure the date get filed and everything get filed with legislative services. All right. We have no other speakers that need ex parte, so let's go ahead and open the public hearing and get a staff report. Thank you. Item number 126-309 seeks to reduce the required minimum road frontage from 80 feet to zero feet to allow for the development of a single family dwelling in the RR Acres zoning district. The subject property is a 2.27 acre lot located approximately 371 feet south of Davidson Farm Road, which is an approved private road. The property was originally part of a larger 10.45 acre lot that has since been subdivided into two lots. The proposed subject parcel has been deeded to a family member of the original parcel, which is 15364 Yellow Bluff Road. A 30 foot access easement has been granted to the subject property through that parent parcel that connects directly to Davidson Farm Road. It is not anticipated that the construction of the new dwelling will reduce the property values of the neighboring lots, nor will interfere with the rights of other homeowners as a 30 foot wide easement is through the parent property. Additionally, the site is 2.27 acres in size, which is double the minimum one acre required for the RR Acres zoning district. The applicant will be required to meet all other zoning requirements. For these reasons and those in the staff report, we forward a recommendation of approval. All right. We have one speaker card. Amir Rubashka. Sorry if I butchered that last name. Come on down. Three minutes. State your name and address. Thank you, guys. My name is Amir Rubashka. I'm here. My father is the applicant. I'm going to be the homeowner or the owner of the subdivided land. Me and my wife are requesting an approval of waiver of road frontage so we can build our family home on parcel two. This is not a subdivision or commercial development or just simply requesting approval to build one single family home on a property that was divided from my father's land to provide access to parcel two. We created and recorded a legal 30 foot wide easement and the easement was established specifically to serve the property and provide legal access for our home emergency vehicles and utilities. We have worked with surveyors, attorneys and county staff throughout the process and have taken all necessary steps to ensure the proper legal access. We believe we believe the recorded 30 foot easement fulfills the purpose and provide safe and legal access to the property and we are committed to meeting all county requirements permit requirements and building regulations. We also want to be good neighbors. We are willing to help out with the maintenance and upkeep of Davidson Farm Road and to contribute financially towards the future. improvements and ongoing maintenance of that road. We respect our neighbors and we understand that there may be questions or concerns, but this is the quest to simply allow our family to build a home on our property. Okay, thank you. We have no other speaker cards, so we'll close the public hearing and bring it back to committee. Motion and second on the bill. No one in the queue. Open the ballot. Record your vote. Five yays, zero nades. By your action, you've approved 2026-309. Item number 12, 2026-311. Let's open the public hearing. Get a staff report. Thank you. Ordinance 2026-311 is the comprehensive plan changes that includes text amendments and a map amendment for the target growth area. If you look in front of where you are right now, I put in front of you a packet of information. The first page is just kind of a real brief way to explain what the target growth area is, and the second page is basically a one-page summary to go through the entire project of what we are proposing for the target growth area that will require comprehensive plan changes and zoning code changes. So basically, I just want to start off with what is the target growth area, and this is a targeted boundary approach, not citywide. And this is an area that we find appropriate to allow for an increase in density based on low flood risk and proximity to transit lines. And if I could back up just a little bit to explain how we got there. In 2023, there was a committee formed, and that is the Land Development Regulation Committee. And the chair of that committee, Emily Pierce, is in the audience today if you'd like to hear from her later. But they met for about a year and a half, and that committee included developers and engineers and CPAC planners, affordable housing experts, and all types of city staff to answer any kind of questions that the committee had. And they were tasked with looking at three different concerns that the city has. One is resilience to flood-prone areas. Two is the increased population coming into Jacksonville. And housing for that increased population and the unaffordability of the current housing that we see. So what the committee did is they looked at those issues. They first identified locations with a lower risk of flooding. So those areas by the Resilience Office with their compound flood model, these have the least concern for development and flooding. So that's part of the boundary. The urban and urban priority is part of that target growth boundary where we want to see an increase in density. The urban and urban priority areas are already outlined in the comprehensive plan as areas that we want to see revitalized and infilled. And they go out from there in the comp plan. It starts with urban priority, like near the urban core. It goes out to urban, suburban, and so forth, and rural. So we looked at low flood risk, the urban-urban priority area, and then also the half-mile radius around the high ridership transit routes and the Emerald Trail. And we worked with JTA to identify those routes. And that would create basically a walk shed for people in the increased housing and affordable housing to get to some type of transit option to get to their next stop. So that's what the boundary is made of. The comprehensive plan that you have in front of you today sets the map for that boundary and also sets the reasons why we came up with that boundary and definitions of what the target growth boundary is. And that's basically what I explained to you right now. That's what you're voting on today. And it's an area where we would allow an increase in density. There is no change to land use, no change to zoning categories, no change to land use districts. But if you have property in that area, you would be able to increase your density by about 50% of what is already allowed. So let's say you're in a CGC, a commercial district. It allows 20 units per acre. You would be allowed 30 units per acre. But what you would have to give in return, there's also some flexibility in the zoning code that you'll see. But what we would want to see in return is a public benefit. And you can see that on both the one-pager and the flyer. The public benefit would be a portion of that development. 20% would have to be affordable housing dedicated for 30 years. Or you would have to do resilient design factors in your development, just one or the other. You're going to see those public benefit and those details in the zoning code portion when that comes to you. But the comprehensive plan has to come first because it has to be reviewed by the state departments. And when after it's reviewed from the state departments, if it's forwarded from this body, then you'll see everything again with the highly detailed zoning code that is the implementation portion. This was reviewed by the planning commission, received unanimous approval on May 21st, and we also had a public meeting last week to go through this as well, where a couple members of council were there. And I think that information was also sent out to all the other council members. But I am happy to answer any questions and give you further information if needed. All right. We will go ahead to, we have two speaker cards. First, Ms. Emily Pierce. Good evening. Maybe it's this one. Yeah. Good evening. Emily Pierce, 1301 River Place Boulevard. Thank you for taking this up. I knew you had some questions last time. Director Perola told you that this started in November of 2023. What I wanted to let you know is this actually started in 2016. I have been on six different committees to get to where we are today. And this last committee, we had planners, engineers, developers, housing advocates, CPAC members, affordable housing experts, and city staff. We worked with JTA. We worked with the housing department. We worked with public works. And we also worked, obviously, with the planning department. As she said, we had three main goals. And that was to try and figure out a way to increase resilience to floods, increase housing opportunities for everybody in the city, and to protect neighborhood character. So we did a process where we started with the city maps, and we reduced down, and we reduced down, and we reduced down. And as you heard her say, we took 13 transit routes. We went a half mile wide on each side. We got rid of anything that floods. We got rid of any overlays. We kept it to the urban area and the urban priority area, which already designated in your comprehensive plan for higher growth. And that is what we are presenting to you today. We went to all the CPACs. We talked with most of you. It was earlier this year. But we took this to the CPACs. They actually got a standing ovation at one of the CPACs, which is pretty amazing. We took this to the Chamber of Commerce and got a unanimous approval from their Government Affairs Committee. And they are taking it to the full chamber tomorrow, I believe. So we have worked this through the public. We have made sure that we are trying not to impact any existing neighborhoods. One of the things that Director Parola stated is this is an incentive. This is not something that anybody is going to be required to do. You can do whatever your land use and zoning allows you to do on your property today. Nobody is going to make anybody do this. But the main thing that we did was we took it to the builders and the developers, and we said, what can we do that is something that will be meaningful, a meaningful change to the comprehensive plan and to the zoning code that will actually result in additional housing? And they took this information. They took the numbers. They took the higher density. They took the higher height. They balanced it with the 20% of affordable or the three out of five resilience and said, the numbers pencil. They can make this work. There is a strong belief with NEFPA, the Chamber of Commerce, the people that were on this committee, that if this is adopted, that in fact we will get additional housing of a variety of different kinds in the city. So I ask you to support this. All right. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Pierce. Next we have Jamie Travis Leonard. Good evening, committee members. My name is Jamie Travis Leonard. My address is on file. So I tentatively support this measure. I do have some concerns about the urban priority areas. What you're receiving is a food desert analysis that was done in 2019. There has not been a lot of movement to address some of those disparities. And my concern with increasing the density specifically in the areas that were outlined in this map is that a lot of it overlaps with existing food deserts. So I appreciate that we do want to put more development in this area. I think that overall as a city, we're trying to grow in development and development is necessary. But as we're doing this, I want to see what incentives are being placed on developers to benefit the community, not just through transit and housing, but also through food, through education as well. We had a lot of closures in District 4 for schooling. So how are we going to support those families that are coming in with children? How are we going to support them again with food, groceries? The Northwest side is one of the largest receivers from Feeding Northeast Florida. You guys help them with that. So while I do tentatively support this, as this plan goes through, I would like to see priority initiatives around things the community actually can grow from. And as I've said repeatedly, groceries, access to nutritious, fresh food is a huge problem in my area. I live on the north side. This is my area. So I and I want people to live on the north side. I love it up there. I will admit I'm a transplant. I moved in in 2020. I got it right before the pandemic. I got lucky. And I want more people to come there. It's a beautiful area. But we need to develop conscientiously and we need to develop in a way that we're not straining existing systems. I live by Dunn Avenue. The Publix in my area, which is the only grocery store within a three mile radius of my home is consistently out of stock of things because they are the only grocery store. So as we go through these comprehensive plans and we hear from all these things, I would like you to think of people like me, like my neighbors who don't have access to things in other areas and how increase in density might impact that. And as we develop these plans, continue to develop ways to address those issues along with trying to continue to develop and bring in affordable housing into the city. Thank you. All right. Thank you. We have no other speaker cards. So we will close the public hearing and bring it back to the committee. I believe there was an amendment for a revised exhibit three. They changed a slight map change. And then there was two colors on the map, a little yellow and pink. They basically combined it into one color. So I need a motion on the amendment. Second. All right. We have a motion to second on the amendment. All in favor of the amendment, signify by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed? The amendment carries. Motion to second on the bill as amended. Councilmember Arias, you're recognized. I'll make this quick, Chair. So I definitely agree with Miss Jamie. Similar to like the mobility fee that we have where developers develop and they put money into the mobility fee. Is there a fee that we could create or that exists where there's like a food desert fee where if you're developing in that district that is clearly prone to food desert issues that we could put money into that? That way we have incentives for grocers to want to go there and open up and we have a pocket of money that they can use. Or if we don't have it, can we create something like that? Through the Chair to Councilmember Arias, I don't, right now we do not have anything like that. I'm sure it could be created almost like an affordable housing fee. However, I just want to make you aware that the planning department is working on what's called the food plan that should be in its final stages in the next several months. And that will outline a number of different recommendations and how to move forward with those recommendations. And one of those will be the food desert concerns and issues with people getting fresh food and making that more available throughout the county. All right. Thank you, Chair. One more thing. I'll look forward to that in a couple months. And if it doesn't really satisfy the need of the community, I'd like for us, potentially whoever's on OUZ or whenever next year at some point after the summer break, for us to look and see what we can do to address that need if we need to do something else aside from whatever you guys are working on. Because as you see on the map, I mean, it's definitely prevalent. And it's been like this for years. And so I think it's time for us to have the conversation if that's the case. So thank you, Chair. All right. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just want to prove that I was listening while I was in the back. But no, I just want to follow up on that point and the information that you're saying that you all can provide to us. Will there be a funding source with that when you're bringing those ideas forward through the Chair? Like he used the word a fee or a tax, right? I like to use the word trust funds. Like I think of the homeless, what we're doing for homelessness, what we're doing for JUMP. We use economic, we use the incentive plan to fund and it continuously backfields. Through the Chair to Council Member Freeman, the food plan will have a series of recommendations. And what will happen with those recommendations is we will have to flesh them out and see what the best method is to move forward at that point. So if it includes anything like a trust fund or whatever the Planning Department would want to recommend, that would also include Council approval as well. No, thank you so much for that. And we obviously don't have auditors here, but I just heard you talk about a pot of money going. To me, the trust fund would be a good way. And then if the Council can maybe put some dollars in there to start it and now we have a source going with it, that's something, that's a way of going auditors. So thank you. I just want to know about the funding. All right. We have no other speakers in the queue. And I'll just give a quick little shout out to Ms. Pierce. It sounds like you've been working on this for quite some time. So congratulations in advance. It seems like you've done a lot of work on this and it's finally here. So with that, we have a motion and a second on the bill. Council Member Johnson, you're recognized. Mr. Chair, I just want to say very briefly, I want to also thank the council members who introduced this with me. Council Member Carlucci, Amaro, Peluso, and Miller. And we did have a notice meeting on it. And those that couldn't come out did. Some of them viewed the notice meeting. So thank you for that. There were a lot of questions that got answered. We worked really hard on this. And Emily, thank you again for your diligent work through the chair. Of course, from your diligent work. It's been a long time coming. So I'm glad we can get it to this part of the finish line. Thank you. All right. We have no one else in the queue. So let's open the ballot. Record your vote. Six yays, zero nays. By your action, you've approved 2026-311. Item number 13, 2026-365. Open the public here and you can get a staff report. Ordinance 2026-365 is for the adoption round of a large scale land use amendment of 337.29 acres that is seeking to go from rural residential, RR, in the rural area to low density residential LDR in the suburban area. The LUZ committee heard this item during the transmittal round of that legislation. That was at the January 21st meeting and the committee voted unanimously to approve. Concurrent with this request for a land use amendment, the applicant seeks to extend the suburban development area boundary to include this site. The site is located at the southeast intersection of Wells Road and Yellow Water Road north of Normandy Boulevard. The current zoning for the site is PUD. This was adopted in 2022. The PUD allows for 1,132 single family residences. The applicant has plans to remove some of the acreage from the adopted PUD. And as a result, the number of units would no longer be consistent with the density that's allowed in the RR land use category. So as such, the applicant is seeking a land use change to LDR to allow for single family residential just to move forward as it's already adopted in the existing PUD zoning. So a new companion rezoning is not proposed as a companion to this land use amendment. The area around the subject site consists predominantly of residential and agricultural uses as well as parks and preserves. And through a series of land use amendments over the last 20 years, the properties east and south of the site have gradually transitioned from a rural agricultural character to more low density suburban character. The extension of the suburban area would be congruent with the emerging development typology of the area. And it would also allow for development that supports the growth of jobs at Cecil Commerce Center. So staff finds that the request to extend the suburban development area to include the entire site is appropriate given the development trends surrounding the site. For these reasons and others in the staff report, the planning department recommends approval. Planning Commission heard this item on June 4th and they voted unanimously to recommend approval. Thank you. All right. We have three speaker cards, Paul Hardin, Jamie Travis Leonard, Samantha Series. We'll start with Mr. Paul Hardin. All right. We have questions only from Mr. Hardin. Next, Miss Jamie Travis Leonard is in opposition and Mark does not wish to speak. Samantha Series. Come on down. Samantha Series address on file. I know this is going to get approved and that's, you know, I just wanted to state on the record that I, as a person that's concerned about the environment and the disappearing of our natural land, I do oppose this ordinance. I attend the St. John's Riverkeeper events and they do continuously tell us that we need natural land so our water can filter into the aquifer and provide for the residents of Florida. I understand you see these ordinances as separate pieces, but they all relate to one another and they affect the residents of Florida. We are allowing, you know, development constantly, which I understand we need more housing. We need diverse housing and landowners have rights. It's just that, you know, Jacksonville actually uses their water from the aquifer. The Florida aquifer gives to 90% of Jacksonville residents. And if we continue to cut down the land that filters into our aquifer, we're not going to have it any longer. We're just not going to have water. And again, I understand that this is going to get approved. I completely understand that. I just want to say that, you know, I think it should be considered our natural land as an important topic that needs to be reserved, that needs to be preserved, that actually needs to be considered when we're doing these different land developments. And I just, you know, in the future, hopefully you guys can think about that. Thank you. All right. Did you want to? Yeah, I'll be very quickly. All right. That's all right. That's the 1431 River Place Boulevard. This project is under construction. There's about 300 houses built on the site already, on the way to about 1200 houses. We've got about a fifth of the site, which is wetlands that are not being impacted, not being touched by the development. This lowers the density, still, to just over two units per acre, to the 7.7 units an acre, which is allowed in LDR. So this is a very environmentally conscious development on the site. I'll be happy to answer any questions. All right. We have no one in the queue, so we will close the public hearing and bring it back to committee. All right. We have a motion and a second on the bill. No discussion, no speakers. So let's go ahead and open the ballot. Quirged your vote. Six yays, zero nays. By reaction, you've approved 2026-365. Item number 14, 2026-366. Let's open the public hearing and get a staff report. Ordinance 2026-366 is for a small-scale land use change at 4906-4800-4788 and 4782 Yellow Water Road. So we're staying in the same area as the last amendment. The subject site is located on the west side of Yellow Water Road between Yellow Water Road and Yellow Water Lane. Yellow Water Road is a collector roadway and Yellow Water Lane is a local road. The four parcels total approximately 14.36 acres. And the applicant seeks a land use change from agriculture, a GR, to LDR to allow for single-family residential development. The area around the subject site consists predominantly of residential and agricultural uses, as well as parks and preserves. East of the subject site across Yellow Water Road, a large single-family project is in development. That's the one that Mr. Harden just spoke about. And north of the subject site, a proposed single-family development was recently approved for a land use change to LDR at the June 9th City Council. The proposed amendment to LDR would allow for the development of an underutilized property for additional housing opportunities and adds density needed to accommodate future growth. It also aligns with current growth trends, creating a more suburban development pattern around this area. For these reasons and those in the staff report, the department recommends approval. Planning Commission heard this item on June 4th, and they voted unanimously to recommend approval. Thank you. All right, thank you. We have one speaker card. Cindy Trimmer. Good evening. Cindy Trimmer, 1 Independent Drive, Suite 1200, on behalf of the applicant. It's fitting that this lined up with Mr. Harden's application this evening. We've both been working on this corridor for several years. This is the last of the projects that I had in queue for this collection that are activating yellow water once utilities are run up and unlock the density. Two weeks ago, you approved the amendment that allowed for the extension of the suburban character area into this area, which is what allows unlocking the low-density residential. So, we are reconciling this last parcel to what has been approved to come online. I will stand by for questions. All right. We have no other speaker card, so we'll close the public hearing and bring it back to committee. Motion and second on the bill. No one in the queue. Open the ballot. Record your vote. Six yays, zero nays. By reaction, you've approved, 2026-366. Item number 15, 2026-367. Council members, declare your ex parte communication at this time. All right. Council Member Arias, you're recognized. All right. Thank you, Chair. On 615, I spoke to the applicant discussing the rezoning, and it's currently being filed with legislative services. Thank you. All right. Council Member White, you're recognized. I will declare it ex parte. I've had numerous conversations with this trimmer. I want to publicly thank her for working with me on this, and everything's been filed. Thank you. Council Member Freeman, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I rise to declare ex parte as well. I met with Ms. Trimmer on June the 9th at 415 in my office, and she described the details of this project. Thank you so much. All right. We have no one else, so I'll declare my ex parte on June 8th at 1030 a.m. I met with Cindy Trimmer in my office, and we discussed the legislation, and the paperwork's going to be filed with legislative services. With that, we will open the public hearing and get a staff report. Thank you. This is the Companion Conventional Rezoning Ordinance 2026-0367, seeking to rezone approximately 14.36 acres from AGR to RLD 60. The original request was to RLD 50, and I believe this is what's reflected in your agenda, but the applicant is seeking to amend the application from the RLD 50 to RLD 60. The applicant is wanting to develop the property with single-family residential, meeting the minimum lot requirements of RLD 60, which is 60-foot wide lots. Staff has reviewed the request and finds it to be consistent with the comprehensive plan with the recently approved land use category of LDR, and it is in the suburban development area. 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, inconsistent with the housing needs. The property is located along Yellow Water Road, which is classified as a collector roadway and is currently operating at 6% capacity. We find the proposed rezoning and lot sizes to be compatible with surrounding developments in the growth trends along Normandy Boulevard. Just to the north is recently approved PUD 2026-290, which was approved by City Council and allowed for 40- and 50-foot wide lots. You also have Bridal Creek PUD just to the east that allows for single-family lots ranging in sizes, with the smallest being 40 feet in width. So the RLD 60 lot sizes is compatible with what's existing out there today. So for these reasons and those in the staff report, we forward a recommendation of approval. The application was heard by Planned Commission on June 4th, where there were no speakers in opposition and little discussion, and the commissioners voted unanimously for approval to the RLD 60 zoning category. Thank you. All right. We have one speaker card. Cindy Trimmer. Cindy Trimmer, 1 Independent Drive, Suite 1200 on behalf of the applicant. As Councilman White alluded, we had come in with a smaller lot size that we were kind of trying to match up in the middle of what was approved for Bridal Creek over to the east, and then the larger of the lots that were approved to the north. Recognizing that this one is at the bottom of the development and there are some larger lots in the area, we agreed to increase the lot size for this ask. So we do request support for the amended application at RLD 60, and I am available for questions. All right. We have no other speaker cards. No one in the queue. We'll close the public hearing and bring it back to committee. The amendment. You guys have to approve the amendment. The amendment would be to change the RLD 60. All right. We have a motion on the amendment and a second, and the amendment would be to change it from RLD 50 to RLD 60. Is that correct? All right. All in favor of the amendment, signify by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed? The amendment carries. Motion to second the bill as amended. No one in the queue. Open the ballot. Record your vote. Six yays, zero nays. By your action, you've approved 2026-367. Item number 16, 2026-368. Open the public hearing and get a staff report. Ordinance 2026-368 is for a small-scale land use change at 508 East 63rd Street, which is classified as a local road. The subject site is approximately .11 of an acre and seeks to change the land use of the site from commercials, community general commercial, CGC, to medium-density residential, MDR, in the urban area to permit construction of a single-family residence. The single-family residence on the site was demolished in 2025, and the site is currently vacant. Abutting the subject site to the east is a property designated MDR. MDR is also found across the street, mid-block, and a block to the east. Most of the properties to the north and to the south of the site are designated low-density residential, LDR. The proposed MDR land use category allows for infill residential development on a site with existing infrastructure and utilities and is compatible with the surrounding residential uses along this segment of 63rd Street. The Planning Department recommends approval for those reasons and those in the staff report. The Planning Commission heard this item on June 4th and voted unanimously to recommend approval. Thank you. All right, we have one speaker card, Chris Paul, a marked in support and questions only. So, we have no other speaker cards. We'll close the public hearing and bring it back to committee. Motion and a second on the bill. So, no one in the queue. Open the ballot. Court your vote. Five yays, zero nays. By your action, you've approved 2026-368. Item number 17, 2026-369. Council members, please declare any ex parte communication you have at this time. Seeing none, let's open the public hearing. You can get a staff report. Thank you. This is the Companion Conventionary Zoning Ordinance 2026-0369 seeking to rezone the property from CCG1 to RMDA to develop the parcel with one single family dwelling. The property was originally developed with a dwelling but was designated commercial zoning. The previous home was burned down and demolished in 2025, so the applicant is just wishing to redevelop the property with a new dwelling. While the south side of 63rd Street is primarily designated commercial zoning, this particular block is only developed with residential dwellings. A similar rezoning occurred on the adjacent property at 514 63rd Street, which is zoned RMDA and developed with a single family dwelling. That rezoning was approved back in 2019. Staff has reviewed the request, finds it consistent with the comp plan, with the approved land use category of MDR, found it compatible with surrounding development, so we forward a recommendation of approval. Approval was heard by Planning Commission on June 4th. There were no speakers in opposition, and they voted unanimously for approval. All right. Thank you. We have one speaker card. Chris Paul in support. Questions only. No other speaker card, so we'll close the public hearing and bring it back to committee. Motion and a second on the bill. No one in the queue. Let's open the ballot. Record your vote. Six yays, zero nays. By direction you've approved, 2026-369. Item number 18, 2026-367, or wait, 2026-370. I don't know where that came from. 370. Open the public hearing and get a staff report. Ordinance 2026-370 is for a small-scale land use amendment at 0 Dundas Drive on the north side of Dundas Drive. The subject site is located just east of I-95 and south of Bush Drive. The applicant seeks to change the land use designation of the property from Business Park, BP, to Light Industrial, LI, in the urban area to broaden the permitted industrial uses. Dundas Drive is a local roadway, and Bush Drive is a minor arterial roadway. Directly north of the subject site is land that's designated as CGC, which runs east along Bush Drive and consists of commercial retail and service establishments. Across Bush Drive is a large tract of land, designated heavy industrial, occupied by the Anheuser-Busch Ruin Facility. Approximately 500 feet north of the site, one parcel was recently designated LI subject to Ordinance 2026-0058. The site is within an industrial situational compatibility area. These areas are strategically located to provide access to rail facilities or trucking routes, serve ports, or serve airport multimodal requirements. These areas are presumed to be appropriate for land use map amendments to industrial categories. For these reasons and those in the staff report, the Planning Department recommends approval. Planning Commission heard the item on June 4th and voted unanimously to approve. Thank you. All right. We have one speaker card. Folks, Huxford. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Did you say I'm the only speaker? Yes. Okay. With that, we'll just ask for your support and stand by for questions. All right. Thank you so much. Since we have no other speaker cards, we'll close the public hearing and bring it back to committee. Motion and second on the bill. No one in the queue. Open the ballot. Record your vote. Six yays. Zero nays. By your action, you've approved 2026-370. Item number 19, 2026-371. Councilmembers, please declare your ex parte communication at this time. Councilman Gaffney, you got it. Yes, sir. Go ahead. Thank you to the chair. I rise to declare ex parte. I met with Mr. Holtzfer in my office yesterday. He asked me, did I have any questions? I make sure everything gets filed with legislative services. 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 the companion conventionary zoning ordinance 2026-371, seeking to rezone the property from IBP to IL. The applicant is seeking to rezone to allow for a broader range of industrial development opportunities, such as flex warehousing or other similar uses. The subject property is located along Dundas Drive, just south of Bush Drive and east of I-95. The property is also located within the industrial situational compatibility zone, which are areas of the city deemed appropriate for industrial designation due to their access to rail facilities or trucking routes. Staff has reviewed the request, finds it consistent with the comp plan, with the approved land use category of LI, and compatible with surrounding developments, which include warehousing and outside storage. So for these reasons and those in the staff report, we forward a recommendation of approval. Application was heard by the Planning Commission June 4th. There were no speakers in opposition, and they voted unanimously for approval. Okay. We have one speaker card. Folks, Hugsford. Thank you, sir. Questions only. All right. In support, questions only. No other speakers. So let's close the public hearing and bring it back to the committee. Motion and second on the bill. No discussion. Open the ballot. Record your vote. Six yays, zero nays. By your action, you've approved 2026-371. Thank you very much. Did we – why is it showing different on my screen? Is that just my screen, Vanessa? Okay. All right. It's all good. On mine, it's like 293, so you got the vote. It's all right. It's recorded. I just want to make sure. It kind of took me off guard there. All right. Number 20, 2026-372. Let's open the public hearing. One speaker card. Jamie Travis Leonard. Good evening, City Council. My name is Jamie Travis Leonard. My address is on file. I am up here to support, 0372. I looked at the location, and it is all developments. I understand that North CPAC recommended denying because of the lot size. They requested 60-foot, and I believe the developer is looking for 50-foot lots. I do agree I would prefer 60-foot lots. However, my understanding is the surrounding neighborhoods are all 50-foot lots. So, it's not necessarily against the existing development in the area. I believe this parcel is going to be developed one way or the other, and the site plan that this person has, excuse me, this entity has presented, I don't see any opposition. I personally don't have any opposition to it. So, I come up here. I don't get to do it very often, but I come up here in support of development. See? I do support it. But thank you all. All right. Thank you. And we have no other speaker cards, so we'll continue this public hearing until 7-21-26. Item number 21, 2026-373. Council members, please declare your ex parte communication at this time. Council member Arias, you're recognized. All right. Chair, on 6-15, I had a phone call with Mr. Devenout to discuss the seating capacity and the service for alcohol, and it's currently being filed. Thank you. Council member Freeman, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I met with Ms. Cindy Trimmer on June the 9th in my office, and she described the details of this legislation, and it says it's been filed with legislative services. Thank you. All right. We have no one else, so I'll go ahead and clear my ex parte. This is 373. Obviously, I've gotten quite a few emails on this from the neighborhood. We had a meeting in the back here. I think it was during council last Tuesday. And then I had a meeting on June 8th in my office with Cindy Trimmer and Richie Mullaney, as he's right there. And this paperwork's going to be filed with legislative services. So with that, we have no other ex parte, so let's open the public hearing and get a staff report. Thank you. So this is PUD rezoning ordinance 2026-0373, seeking to rezone approximately 0.37 acres. From a PUD that was originally approved in 2017 to a new PUD, the applicant is seeking to rezone to increase the seating count for the existing restaurant, the local, to 120 seats and to allow for alcohol sales. So this would be all alcohol sales. So this would be a four COP license. The owner also intends to increase the square footage of an existing structure to construct an addition in the rear of the building to accommodate space for a walk-in storage closet, refrigerator, and freezer. Nothing else is changing with the site, only expanding the seats, adding full alcohol sales and a minor square footage increase. The previous PUD was approved with several conditions, which have been addressed with this new PUD, which is why we're not forwarding them on to this new PUD. Staff has reviewed the request, finds it's consistent with the comp plan. It has existing land use of LDR, which does allow for neighborhood commercial retail sales and service establishments, including the restaurant. We find it furthers the goals and objectives and meets the internal and external criteria. Surrounding residential uses are buffered by 7 to 10 foot walls and hedges and setbacks will remain the same as is existing under the current PUD. The slight increase in seating and therefore parking has been addressed by the 26 on-site parking spaces provided. There's a parking agreement with the neighboring parcel for employee parking, and there's 37 parking spaces within the right of way along San Jose Boulevard, which are available to surrounding commercial businesses to use. We find the proposed minimal changes to the existing PUD to continue to be consistent and compatible with surrounding development, so therefore we forward a recommendation of approval. Application was heard at Planning Commissioner on June 4th, where there were three speakers in opposition. These were neighboring property owners who expressed concerns regarding noise from after-hours maintenance activities and potential parking impacts resulting from the requested increase in seating capacity. The commissioners were generally supportive of the proposed PUD amendment, but encouraged the applicant to work with the community to address the concerns related to after-hours operations, but they ultimately voted unanimously for approval of the application as well. Thank you. All right. We have a number of speaker cards on this. We'll start with the applicant, Mr. Diebenau. Thank you, Chairman. Steve Diebenau wanted to drive Suite 1200 here on behalf of the applicant. As Aaron said, there's really three big changes. One is the inside hours moving until 12 a.m., the number of seats going from 70 to 120, and then the ability to serve alcohol. The increase, even with the increase in the number of seats, we are by code only eight parking spaces short of what's required by code, and there are 37 parking spaces within less than a half a block of this location that are in the public right-of-way. We went through a lot of discussion at Planning Commission. The neighbors had very detailed concerns regarding noise, and so what we tried to do is we came up with some conditions that we shared with the neighbors. We also shared with you, Chairman, as well as the Office of General Counsel to try and address those, and I'm happy to go through them very quickly. Basically, we say that there was a wall, there was a concrete wall between the parcel to the west and the restaurant that fell down. And so what has been replaced, the wall is what has replaced the wall are two fences. And what we are proposing to do is to put sound panels on the fences, as well as plywood to hold the sound panels in. They wouldn't be in the view of either the house to the west or the restaurant. They'd be kind of on the backs of the fences that face each other. And we think that that will do as good a job, if not better, than the wall. This is a form of construction that they've used at the beach, which has been very successful. And so we're proposing that we use the sound panels on the back of the fences that are located along the western property line and above the residence at 1299 Norwich Road. The second one is that we heard concerns about cleaning the hood. When you have a restaurant, you have to clean the hood quarterly, and that requires outdoor maintenance in order to basically pressure wash the outside of the hood. What we're proposing is that the restaurant would close early, both the inside and the outside of the restaurant would close early, once a quarter, in order to permit the hood cleaning to occur. And then finally, we heard complaints regarding a door that closes very loudly. And so we are adding a condition that says we'll install slow close hinges on the doors that are located on the north side of the property. With that, we've tried to address the concerns regarding noise and look forward to answering any other questions you may have. JC Dimitri and Ted Stein are both with me here this evening to answer questions and look forward to the conversation. Thank you, Chairman. All right. Next, we have Michael O'Neill. If all the speakers want to come down to the front row, we have these seats reserved so everyone can kind of make their way to the podium a little easier. You can set those right there. She'll get them for you. Go ahead, Mr. O'Neill. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is Michael O'Neill, and I live at 1299 Norwich Road, which is the property directly behind the local. The property was originally developed in 1957 as a convenience store. Over the years, it's been a karate academy. It's been a dog grooming place. It's been a beauty parlor. We've never had any issues with the facility up until 2017 when the local moved in. The big issue we see with the local is the fact that they have outdoor dining, which is literally just 10 feet from our backyard. The outdoor dining pursuant to the 2017 PUD was to terminate service to the backyard at 7 p.m. with the backyard closed down at 8.30 p.m. Unfortunately, that hasn't always been the case. We've had instances with people talking and laughing outside until the restaurant closed at 10 o'clock. Now they want to increase the capacity by 71%, and they want to stay open two hours longer. So that gives us real concerns about, are they going to increase the outside participation by 71%? Are we going to have like a tailgate party every night in the backyard? This whole project is a bad idea. It's a bad idea because it's basically in a residential neighborhood, and that's not the proper location for a business like this, especially with outdoor dining. And we've talked with them about our concerns. They're working with us. But we believe the more appropriate finding would be to not allow the amendment to keep the seating at 70 and keep the restrictions on the outdoor dining that we currently have. Thank you. Okay, thank you. Next, we have Helen O'Neill. Good evening. My name is Helen O'Neill, and I've lived at 1299 Norwich Road for over 41 years, where my husband and I have raised our four children. The Archley neighborhood was built in the late 40s and early 50s, and is a low-density residential neighborhood. It's a friendly, quiet neighborhood with many young families with children and many families with grandchildren. In your packet, there's some pictures that have a paper clip. And so as I'm describing this, you might be able to look at the fence and see the wall that fell down and other things, okay? So in the city council meeting last week on June the 9th, I addressed the noise coming from the local restaurant. Mr. Dimitri wasn't here, but he was so kind to join us on speakerphone. He listened to our noise concern and has come back with a proposal to install a noise buffer on their existing old six-foot wood fence that abuts the 10-foot concrete block wall that they built on their property line. Okay, this is the concrete wall that they built on the property line. It is 10 feet tall. And this six-year-old picture is a picture of the wood fence that they want to—so that's our big green wall that fell on Christmas Eve. I would ask—oh, they've used it in the restaurant at the beach, and he says it works. Okay, I would ask that the old six-foot wall that you see a picture of that was taken six years ago, be replaced with a new eight or preferably 10-foot concrete—with a 10-foot wall that matches the end of the concrete wall, the 10-foot concrete wall that they had constructed. You see the age of the fence, and also there are spaces between the slats on that old fence, and the restaurant patrons are right up against that. I mean, I can walk through there, and I, you know, hear the conversations, and I see them talking and enjoying themselves. I also addressed the restaurant hours of operation. It was stated that there will be no serving after 7 o'clock p.m., and our dining area will be closed by 8.30. I really feel that this is very important because by increasing the patronage by 50 people, it will be harder to enforce that time schedule, that time rule of 8.30. I would also ask that there be no plans to enlarge the outdoor seating area because of the noise issue. Thank you very much for listening to our concerns and offering solutions. Thank you very much. All right, next we have Art Schultz. Art Schultz, I live at 1307 Norwich. I live on the left side of the local. I agree 100% with the comments and requests that my neighbors are discussing. My requests are simple. Do not allow the outside patio area to increase in size. Continue to close the outside patio at its current time of 8.30, and create noise barriers on all three neighbors' sides to reduce the noise from the patio leaving the locals' property. Thank you. All right, thank you. Next we have Jerry Mahaney. My name is Jerry Mahaney. I live at 4562 San Jose Boulevard. My wife and I bought our home 40 years ago as newlyweds. The inside joke was our neighborhood is made up of newlyweds and newly deads, and now I'm on the other end of it. Love my home. Love the neighborhood. Had no issues until 2017 when the local opened up. And now, since then, I'm a disabled Vietnam veteran. I've had four surgeries. I sleep in a recliner in my living room. So here are everything that goes on at the restaurant. They power wash, blow leaves off at any time of the day or night. Their customers park in my yard. They park across the street at the Winn-Dixie care spot and walk across the street, walk through my yard to the restaurant. If I'm outside, I say something to them. They ignore me or give me an obscene gesture. I see no reason for them to be able to add 50 more seats and to have a liquor license. I don't see how that is beneficial to our neighborhood. Thank you very much. All right. Thank you. Next, we have Debra Mahaney. Yes, I'm Debra Mahaney, and I live at 4562 San Jose Boulevard. We've lived in our house for 40 years, and we're a next-door neighbor to the local. I want to be clear that I'm not opposed to this business conceding. I support local businesses, and I appreciate having restaurants in our community. My concern is whether this particular property is appropriate for the level of expansion being requested. The applicant is asking for three significant changes all at once, increased parking, a full liquor license, and extended operating hours until midnight. Each of these changes increases the intensity of the business. Together, they have the potential to dramatically change the impact on the surrounding neighborhood and is a substantial change from the scale of the restaurant originally approved in 2017. The property is very unique because it is not surrounded by commercial development. Single-family homes boarded the property on three sides. Families live immediately adjacent to the local. We experience the effects of the restaurant's operations every day in a way that most customers and visitors do not realize. The restaurant sits on a very small parcel of land. The site already has limited parking and limited space to accommodate additional customers. Adding approximately 50 more seats means more vehicles, more traffic, entering and exiting the property, more noise, and greater pressure on an area that was not designed for this level of activity. Extending hours until midnight also means if packs continue later until the evening, when nearby residents reasonably expect a quieter environment in their houses and yards. A full liquor license can further increase late-night activity and the potential for disturbances. Even with a business that is well-managed, liquor adds to it. As neighbors, we are concerned about increased traffic, increased parking demand, and the effect of late-night activity on nearby homes. These are not theoretical concerns. These are the kind of impacts that adjacent homeowners experience directly. I would also ask for the council to consider whether or not a 120-seat restaurant with a full liquor license and midnight operations is truly compatible with a property that is surrounded on three sides by homes, family, single-family residences. Compatibility with existing neighborhoods is an important planning principle, and I believe this proposal pushes the site beyond what is appropriate for this location. We invested in our homes with the expectation of nearby commercial uses would remain reasonably compatible with the residential character of the area. Personally, my husband and I experience hearing slamming doors, loud employee conversations during business hours, and noise of pressure washing, leaf blowing all hours of night. We have experienced the loss of personal enjoyment of our property. Thank you, ma'am. Next, we have Philip Parsons. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your time. I'm a real estate broker, a commercial. I've been doing it 40 years. I've known Neil's for probably all my life, actually. The thing that irritates me about this thing that doesn't make any sense is the parking. I understand from Davao said you have parking across the street, not designated parking, but right-of-way parking. I'm not sure if that's legal or not. According to my notes, it's not legal. They built this thing in 1957. They built it as a convenience store. Now, a convenience store is not a destination. This restaurant is a destination now. It changed the whole complexion of the zoning. PUD wasn't approved for that. So I think that's a very concern. And the employee parking, I mean, how many employees are they going to have? They have 120 seats now. You're going to have to have, you know, 16 customers per employee. That's a lot of employees. I don't know where they're going to park either. They come in and park first, and the Cajuns don't have a parking place, and they have to walk across the street, especially after drinking. That happened over here at the other restaurant over here in Bay Meadows where the guy was crossing the street with this little girl and he got hit. I don't think it's a bad deal. Another thing they have is noise and the smell of the food. I think this is not good at all. So I wish you guys would deny it. I thank you for your time, guys. Appreciate it. Okay, next we have Nancy Parks. Hello. I want to speak more to the safety of... Can you state your name and address? Can you state your name and address? Oh, Dr. Ralph Parks. Thank you. Norwich. Speak more to the safety of the clientele and the employees of the restaurant. Having passed the restaurant hundreds of times during lunch and dinner hours, the parking lot is full in its smaller size. So you're going to be seeing people who have been possibly inebriating up to midnight, crossing San Jose Boulevard, old San Jose Boulevard. Do we have to think back to the Patch family and the tragedy a year ago, going to Wicked Barley, crossing Bay Meadows, father and son were slaughtered by a racing car. The restaurant and the parking lot is just not adequate for what they want to do. And I totally empathize with the... Though I'm not a close resident to the restaurant, I totally empathize with the earlier speakers. Thank you. All right. Next speaker card is Nancy Parks. He wishes to speak. Okay. She is in opposition, does not wish to speak. Next, we have Mark Rizk. Okay. He is in opposition, does not wish to speak. Next, we have Adam Colmia. Good evening, council members. My name is Dr. Adam Colmia, and I live at 711 Alhambra Drive in the neighborhood behind the local. I'm here today to speak in support of the seating expansion request for the local. As a neighbor living nearby, I can attest that this restaurant is a responsible and respectful business, and they have proven to be excellent neighbors. Expanding their seating supports a local business, enhancing the pedestrian-friendly walkability and character of our neighborhood. So, I urge the council to approve this application. Thank you all for your time. All right. Thank you. Next, we have JC Dimitri, who is in support. Mark does not wish to speak. Robert Nexel, Jr., is in support, does not wish to speak. And then Nicholas Dimitri is in support and does not wish to speak. So, that is all of our speaker cards. You can have two minutes for rebuttal if you need it. Thank you, Chair. Just a couple of points. I think the main one is that your staff has recommended approval. This is a permitted use in this area. The space has been commercial since the 50s. Convenience stores historically generate way more traffic than restaurants. The outside hours are going to remain the same. There is no increase, no request to increase any of the outside hours of operation. Concerns about parking and noise and incidents with patrons. We had some conversation about that at Planning Commission. And what we recommended then and would recommend now is that folks talk with JSO, with code enforcement. The management of this restaurant, the ownership of this restaurant is committed to keeping the area safe, and they educate their employees and talk with their patrons all the time about being good neighbors. And if there are exceptions to what happens periodically, then the neighbors should definitely call JSO and code enforcement. Finally, I would say that the parking is very convenient across the street. The changes that are requested are very minimal and fit nicely into this particular area. Staff recommends approval. We would ask you to do the same. Thank you. All right. Let's see what we got here. Okay. We got some speakers in the queue. We'll go ahead and keep the public hearing open so committee members keep that in mind as we're getting our questions answered. So first off, we'll go to Council Member Arias. You're recognized. All right. Thank you, Chair. Mr. Diemenov, if you don't mind, please, coming up very quick. All right. So obviously, you guys saw me reaching out over there just to get some clarity on some of these PUDs, and there's been multiple PUDs in this case. The latest one was 2017, prior to that was 2015, and then 2000. Here's my biggest concern and the questions I'm curious about, and I had them here there. So we're only changing the inside hours, not the outside. So the outside hours are going to stay still until 8.30, I believe is what it was. 8.30, yes, sir. Right. And just through the chair. So we're looking at, well, you guys are looking at changing it to midnight inside, correct? Correct. So if that's the case, one of my questions is, why are we even talking about sound panels if nothing's going to be changing on the outside? That's question number one. And I understand this is concerns from the neighbors, so I just want to see, is there any issues happening right now? The second part is, and I've been to that restaurant once, actually, like four or five months ago, but what's the deal with this door? I have a restaurant. I mean, how bad can a door be that it makes such loud noise that it affects neighbors? My restaurant is literally right behind hundreds of townhouses, right behind it. So I'm trying to understand, like, how bad is that? And then the third part is, when you're talking about the hood cleaning, once every three months is what we normally do quarterly. Like you said, you said that the restaurant would have to close earlier, but have you guys spoken to the community to see if there's any other hours without having the restaurant having to close? Closing means less revenue, less time to pay employees. Because I'm looking out for the restaurant in this part. If I had to close early to clean the hood, that would be a detriment to my business, right? So have you guys talked about maybe doing hood cleaning during the morning hours rather than closing early? And that's one of the things. And then when it comes to the capacity, we're looking at, you're looking at 150 seats? Is that what you're trying to get to, or 120? 120. 120, right. So the biggest issue that I have here is the parking situation. I see the plan that you sent here. What I don't want to hear is, and I'm deeply disturbed right now because I feel like we're using what happened off of Bay Metals as a reason to oppose this. And we can't be using that as an example. What happened there was terrible for our community. But every time if we have something coming up, we can't just use something as severe as that. I'm looking right here on Google Maps, right across the street, on the same side of the street, actually. Players' Locker Room, Restaurant and Bar, they're open till midnight. Have there been any noise complaints from them? I'm looking at Players' Locker Room. Have there been any noise complaints from Players' Locker Room or the local at all? Because if there have, then we have an issue. But if there hasn't been any noise complaints from Players' Locker Room, which stays open till midnight right now as it is, then I don't see why there will be even an issue with the local. Especially if they're going to be conducting business indoor, not outdoor. So I know I sent you a whole bunch of questions. You can elaborate as you please. Thank you. So the last, I'll go in reverse order. The last one that you asked about regarding noise, we have not been able to find any noise complaints that have been recorded against the local. There is one incident that was talked about at Planning Commission, which Mr. Dimitri remembered that he talked with his manager about. Those types of complaints, at least as far as we can tell, are not routine. And they're not, they don't happen often. But we're sensitive to it. I'll talk about the noise from the door that was closing. One of the neighbors said that there was a door on the northern side of the building that's the employee's entrance, where they go out when they take a break that closes and slams. It's something that Mr. Dimitri was fine to change. We can change it just by installing slow closing hinges on the door to keep it from closing and slamming behind the employees when they go in and out of the door. So he's just trying to be sensitive to the request or the complaint that he heard at the Hearing at Planning Commission, just trying to be proactive. Regarding the wall, originally there was a wall in the back between the property at 1299 Norwich and the restaurant. And the condition in the 2017 PUD said that if the wall was removed, it would be replaced with similar buffers. Well, the wall fell down. It wasn't removed. But again, in the spirit of cooperation, a second fence went up. There's still concern from the neighbors. And so Mr. Dimitri offered to add additional sound barriers to the existing fences. Again, to address the concerns and to make, improve the buffer to be the same as or equal to, consistent with the 2017 PUD. Again, it's not a concrete wall, but it is two fences with sound dampening materials on either side. So again, he's just trying to be proactive and respond to the comments that we heard at Planning Commission. And then finally on the hood, he spoke with his vendor, and it took us a little while to get back to the neighbors, and this is the reason why. It took us a little bit to get in touch with the vendor who does the hood cleaning, and we talked about it going earlier in the day. We talked about it going later in the day. Eventually, the best thing for the vendor and the restaurateur in this case is to pick a day when they would do work after hours. The complaint that we heard at Planning Commission was that people were up on the roof at 2 a.m. If we close earlier, it prevents that late-night activity on the roof because, unfortunately, they have to get on the roof to clean the hood. And so balancing the concerns from the neighbor, the restaurateur, and the vendor who performs the hood cleaning, closing one night every quarter is better than the alternative, which would be something else maybe in the morning or some other time. So very long answer to your questions. Yeah, that's great. Thank you. Just to wrap this up, Chair. So I do appreciate the fact that every time we were up here, we talked about meeting with the community, meeting in the middle. So it looks like you guys met in the middle when it comes to the hood cleaning component of it. So I'm looking at your hours of operations right now, 9 to 9. Are all the days going to be till midnight now? Or are you looking at maybe only weekends? Well, we asked to go until midnight during all days, and then 8.30 remains the same at night. Sure. On the outside, I'm sorry. Yeah. All right. One of the things, though, that I did see at the players' locker room that I definitely appreciated was that they do events. They have an events page. And most of their events conclude at 9.30, with the exception of live music. And that concludes at 11.30. Obviously, you need time for people to pay their tab and walk out. In my restaurant, if we close at 8.30, we're still obviously attending to customers. So if this hat passes and it goes to midnight, my question to you is, does that mean everybody has to be out the door by midnight? Or are you guys taking the last order by midnight, and people are still there maybe to 12.30? Well, I'll let JC come up and answer the question about midnight. But the noise question or the music question is, our music stops at 7. So in outside, there's no amplified music. So that's part of it. Outside. But what about, are you guys going to do music indoors? And indoors, well, I think the condition applies to inside and outside that the music stops at 7. But it's just outside? Okay. So it's just outside. Yeah. Yes. So in that case, music stops at 7. Outside closes at 8.30. So that allows the time to wind down. And then on the, your other question. Yeah, we get clarification on the final orders taken and everything. If you don't mind just stating your name and address. And my question was, you're going to have music. Obviously, on the outside, it ends at 7 p.m. And the inside, now that you have this open to midnight, are you going to still conduct music inside? And if so, to what time? And then my other question was, the midnight. Is that you shut down the restaurant, lights are off? Or the last cause at midnight, people are still in until 12.30, closing up their tabs, whatever the case is. They can't have a drink on their hands past midnight. You know that, right? So I wanted to know your thought process on this. My name is Ted Stein, 5100 Deerwood Park. All tabs will be closed by midnight. So that's the one thing that we've agreed to at the beach as well, is how we're held accountable by that, is you can look at our POS and make sure that all tabs are closed out by midnight. We haven't thought about live music deadlines on the inside. We don't do it that often. So it's not something that's really come up. And usually when we do, it's smaller events. So that's never been an issue with noise or anything of the part. But all tabs will be closed by midnight. So I mean, again, it might take a second, but we'll have everyone closed out. No more orders, nothing after midnight. Right. And so just to clarify, music ends, you don't really do live music at all until about 7 p.m. is when it concludes, inside and outside, just to clarify. Outside, inside, that's not when it concludes. I mean, we don't do it often enough to have that stipulation because we've had no issues. We've done it past 7 in the past, inside, nothing outside. So we always try to be really respectful with doors, especially when we have music inside to not with that back door. Okay. No questions for an answer. Thank you. All right. We have no other speakers in the queue. Excuse me. Okay. Yeah. Go ahead. Councilman Gaffney, you're recognized. Thank you through the chair. Was it a liquor component to this bill as well? It wasn't no liquor component. Okay. So for COP meaning, help me out. I mean, I guess. Yeah, Steve, can you explain that on the record? And through the chair, what that means is it's a license that you're allowed to serve alcohol in association with a restaurant. Okay. And right now, they're serving, through the chair, they're serving, what, beer and wine? Beer and wine, yes. Okay. So they want to get us out to the liquor. Correct. All right. Thank you. And in order to do that, they have to have 120 seats in order to get that license, which is why the request to go from 70 to 120 seats. Gotcha. I didn't know that. Learning something. Okay. All right. Thank you. Mr. Arias, did you want to say something? Yeah. You're recognized. Yeah. Here's my thought on this, colleagues, and to the neighbors. I understand where you guys are coming from, but I'm looking at this as a, not even a small business owner, but as a restaurateur, we're hit left and right with so many high fees, labor and everything. And sometimes, you know, that one little extra boost helps out keeping the lights on, keeping your employees, and just maintaining a great business. In this case, they have three locations, what I'm looking at here, all above a 4.3, 4.5 stars and above, I recently just applied for a 4 COP as well, about a month ago, and luckily, I had the seating capacity, but it makes a difference for your operation. And in this case, the real reason why I'm not even having any kind of heartburn over this is because they have the place called the Player's Locker Room, not even a stone throw away. They're already operating to midnight with a 4.4 COP. So that's why I'm not having an issue. Had this been the only one in that neighborhood, I'd be like, all right, well, we're having an issue here. But because of that, I'll be willing to support this. Are we in there yet? Yeah. I'll be willing to support this, and primarily because of who they are. They're already, they've been in the community for many years. They have multiple locations all over Jacksonville, and they are good neighbors. And they always have a good, friendly atmosphere for families to enjoy, because I've taken my family there in the past, too. So I'll be supporting this one. I just ask that if it does pass, that you guys are truly good neighbors. Doors, fix the doors, the walls in the back, whatever you guys have to do, because at the end of the day, you guys are together. So make them happy, and they'll make you happy. Thank you. All right. We have no other speakers in the queue, so we'll close the public hearing and bring it back to committee. Before we get a motion, I just have a couple of questions. Obviously, this is in District 5, right outside of my neighborhood, and my neighbors have come down here and shared their concerns. So I just want to make sure the sound panels versus the wall, where are we at on that? Like, I didn't hear any amendment. I didn't hear any condition for that. So can you, what are we doing on that? Well, Mr. Chairman, we offered three written conditions to Mr. Harvey, and then we passed them out to staff. So what we passed out, we would be agreeable to, but yes, you'd have to incorporate those into a motion or an amendment to the legislation. Okay. Hold on a second. Okay. Ms. O'Neill, will you please come up? Or Mr. O'Neill, whoever. To the podium. Okay. Because this is going to impact your residence. So state your name and address for me, please. My name's Helen J. O'Neill. I live at 1299 Norwich Road. Okay. So the proposed condition that I'm holding right here from Mr. Devenau says the restaurant shall install sound panels on the fence that is located along the westerly backyard rear property line and abuts the residence at 1299 Norwich Road, which is your residence? That's my residence. Okay. Is that what you have agreed to as far as sound panels, or did you? That's fine. You know, because they said it does just as good, you know, and so I'm fine with that. My issue is the fence that they're going to be putting it on. You see the pictures of it. And I just think for cosmetic reasons, if they could make it so it's the same level as the concrete block, 10-foot concrete block wall. It doesn't have to be a concrete wall, a fence, a wood fence that looks like, if they're going to invest some money to do all this for the sound, I would think that they would want a fence that was a little more stable than that. Okay. So the fence right now, you're saying, is like eight feet and the concrete on your side is 10 feet? Well, they built the fence. This is the 10-foot concrete fence that they built. And I started this vine over it because it was an eyesore. And so on the other side of this wall is this picture that you see because the wall just stopped. And then they built this wood fence that you can see clearly with the, you know, in this picture with our 10-foot concrete wall that fell. Does that make sense? I'm having a hard time understanding it on these pictures, to be perfectly honest. Mr. Diebenauer, JC, or do you all understand the request? Like, I see the fallen green concrete. Yeah. And I see the wooden fence that was behind that. And that's their fence. That's on their property line. Mm-hmm. So what we would agree to do for our fence is we would agree to take it down and replace it with a 10-foot tall fence with sound materials on the back of our fence. The locals' fence would come down. So we're just talking about one fence. Right. One fence. 10 feet. 10 feet tall. Sound panels. Sound panels. Cool. Plywood on the back on the local side. Correct. Okay. So item number one on the conditions, I'm going to make a slight change that says the restaurant shall install sound panels on the new 10-foot fence. All right. Okay. All right. That's number one. Okay. We have – you're good, Ms. O'Neill. If I need you, I'll call you back up. And then condition number three, the restaurant shall install slow-close hinges on the door located on the north side of the existing structure. Is that the only door, I'm assuming? I'm seeing a bunch of head nods. Yes. Okay. So we have the door hinge closing, the hood cleaning. The restaurant shall close both its indoor and outdoor dining area no later than 8.30 p.m., one day per quarter, to allow for hood cleaning. Okay. And what time will that conclude, Rob, about? Well, we had a conversation about it in the green room, and I think that the total operation takes five hours with the first hour doing prep, two hours outside, and then two hours inside to clean up. So there are two hours that are outside on the roof part of that time. So if you close at 8.30, our thinking was, if you close at 8.30, let's say the vendor's there a little bit late, maybe he gets there at, you know, at 9.00, you got an hour of prep inside, that's 10.00, a couple hours outside, we're trying to make it so it's not. But we don't want to be so prescriptive that if the vendor gets there late, because we're relying on a third-party vendor, we don't want to make it so prescriptive that we get ourselves in trouble. What is it right now? What is it? What? What is it? When do they start right now? Oh, right now they start after it closes, so they start at probably 9 or 10 o'clock at night, which is an hour of prep, and then they get on the roof closer to midnight. Okay, so this condition's buying two and a half hours or so? It's buying two and a half hours, yes, and also specifying that it can only happen once a quarter. There were concerns that it was happening more often than that, but it's happening once a quarter. Okay, okay. And then we don't need to do anything for no outside seating being expanded, that's locked in, and the current PUD outdoor closes at 8.30, that's locked in. Music stops at 7 p.m., that's locked in to the current PUD, right? Yes, sir. Okay. Okay. Okay. Then, as far as the parking goes, I know that's a sore subject, so to speak, but I think we're kind of boxed in on that as far as any competent essential evidence to overturn that, so to speak. And that's what I was asking Mr. Harvey, and I don't know if Mr. Harvey wants to speak to that or if Ms. Abney can speak to that. Did you hear any competent substantial evidence that we could use or regarding the parking, you know, trying to, quote, unquote, you know, massage that a little bit? Yeah, there wasn't anything presented that would reverse or allow you guys to go contrary to what the staff report has already identified. Erin can go in and tell you what the requirements are according to our code regarding the parking and lay down the foundation as to how this applicant has already met that requirement. Okay, go ahead. Through the chair. So the difference between the 70 seats and the 120 is only going to generate the need for 12 additional parking spaces because employees are going to be, they have a parking agreement with a neighboring parcel, so those are all covered. So they just needed to find parking for 12 spaces and then counting the 37 spots along the right-of-way. We found that they were meeting the sufficiency of providing enough parking, and that's why we didn't have any concern with the parking or the increase in seats. Okay. Okay. Understood. Okay, so I have all those kind of things checked off the list and questions. I'm going to go to some of my colleagues here, and if I think of anything else, I thought there was like one more thing I had, but if I think of it, I'll bring it back up. I'll go to Council Member Freeman for the first time, and then I'll go back to Council Member Arias. Yeah. Council Member Freeman, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and really wanted to hear you speak as well, being that that was in your district, and so I'm in a much better place with your line of questioning. To the community one, thank you all for coming out. I really appreciate when citizens come out and they share their concerns, but also I want to thank the vendors, because to me, sitting in this seat of judgment, which is a very hot seat and almost at times a very difficult one, I see that there have been concessions made on both sides, and so I think this is where it becomes a win-win between the two groups, but more importantly, a win for the community, because I do drive by there frequently, and I see individuals and families particularly that are really making some great memories. Some of the issues that you brought up, I was unaware of. I heard something about a door, wrote that down. It was resolved. They're going to put a hinge on it. That was great. Heard something about a wall, not once but twice, and now it seems like the sound being put on it, another wall being raised 10 feet with the space seems to be a concession. And the walking through the yard, and I really hate that that happens. I heard the same thing happen when we had Mellow Mushroom built eight years ago through the community. I've heard of it happening out on the beach when it was a salty dog. I mean, this is not a very, this is not a new issue that arises in zoning, but the response that was given was the one that I was going to give, which is enforcement. And as much as I hate ever seeing people get in trouble with the law, unfortunately, good people make bad decisions at times, and we should not be hesitant to call them in. Now, is that a fair burden to be placed on you? I'm not here to, I can't answer that. But I know for me, if it's in my yard, and I had that happen with JU students when I lived in Arlington, I called the president of the university first, and then I called the police. And those issues stopped happening in my neighborhood. And then I just wrote down Metro Diner, because I love Metro Diner. But it seems like every time I park in Metro Diner, I'm parking down a road. So I was curious to see how you were going to respond to that, because I don't even try to park in their parking lot, and they have seating outside. So to me, the only other question I had was the hood, and I just kept thinking of neighborhoods more so when I heard hood, but you're referring to a fryer or something like that, or an exhaust fan that goes up. My alternative probably wouldn't have been better. I'm an early bird. I have a four-year-old that wakes up at about five in the morning, so I'm sure that I may be one of the odd ones. But I was going to ask, is there an option that they open up in the morning early, do it, and do it earlier? But I'm not sure how vendors, those guys work in that. But it seemed like there was something that you all were amenable to. So those were, that's just my observation as one that sits in this seat of judgment. Appreciate my colleagues and their questions. I'm going to be fine moving forward with it, because I do see some give and take on both sides. If you have other issues that you, I mean, at least close the public hearing, but there are other issues that come up when he gets the mic at the end. Don't hesitate to bring them back up. I'm still listening. But I'm in a good place, I think, for moving forward and continuing that quality of life in the community. Councilman Brayer, yes, you're recognized. Thank you, Chair. So I had an issue in my district with the block when they first opened up regarding parking. Parking was a nightmare. A lot of people were parking in neighbors' lawns, business owners, other properties. And so one of the things that the block did great immediately was they took action. They enforced it themselves amongst their patrons. So Mr. Freeman talked about, you know, enforcement. I think this goes back to the local. I talked about being a good neighbor. You guys have to do your part as well to educate your clients to tell them, hey, don't park here. Don't walk in people's, you know, lawns. Be kind to our neighbors. Those kind of things. So the messaging needs to be conveyed not only on your social media, but also indoors. Have your servers, you know, talk to people. Because ultimately, you guys have the keys to really educating your people. They don't. And what's going to happen is when they educate them, it's going to be confrontational. And we don't want that. So once again, just be good neighbors. Let your clients know about this. The hood cleaning part is still kind of an issue for me. Because I do know that for me, it takes three to five hours depending on the time of night. And even if you guys close early, they're still going to be up there until one in the morning. And that's still going to be affecting one of their backyards. I think it was right there. So that's why I talked about it. Mr. Prima brought it up again. I talked about potentially having your hood company come early in the morning. You guys don't open up to 9 a.m. If they work early in the mornings, they could come at 6 o'clock, prep, do whatever the case is. And you guys open up at 11 o'clock in the morning versus shutting down earlier. I don't know. That's just my idea. That way you don't really hinder their sleep because if you mess with my sleep, I'll be pissed off. And that's really the biggest thing is I don't want you guys to really mess with their sleep. So if that's something that you guys could really talk about, I would really appreciate that. And if not, if you guys are going to close early in one of the evenings, what I would recommend is because I know that you guys, they do this quarterly. I do this quarterly, and it's like clockwork. I don't even have to call them. They come automatically because they know. They have a little sticker, and they have to be by the code. But what I will say is maybe pick a day of the week, whether it's Mondays, and now you know every quarter on that Monday, they're going to be doing the hood cleaning. That way they're not surprised, and they know that on Mondays they're going to have their hood cleaning. So that was my biggest thing on that part. Just be consistent with the hood cleaning and don't just have it randomly done because otherwise they're going to have an issue with it. So I see you guys chatting back there, so you may be considering the morning hood cleaning services, so I'll wait on that. And once again, you know, the reason why I know this is because I own a restaurant, but keep in mind, you guys pay the hood cleaning company. They're on your clock. You're not on their clock. All right. Again, Steve Divenow through the chair. We spent a lot of time talking to the vendor. Vendor won't get there in the mornings. Not really a good explanation for you tonight, but they just refused to come in the mornings. But we can maybe knock it back to 8 p.m. closing early, which then gives you four hours, and that gives you a good window to have the outdoor stuff done before midnight. So that's pretty much the best we could do. We tried hard to push the vendor, but anyway. So I think we had said 8.30 before, so I think 8 o'clock is the best we can do. If we go any earlier than that, that really takes out all of the dinner hour for that day. And again, we're trying to look for, you know, whatever the days, you know, Tuesdays or Wednesdays or days that aren't real busy, but the vendors just aren't going to bend to us. We're just one small restaurant. So anyway, so going to 8 o'clock would be the most that we could do, which I think we put 8.30 in the condition. Okay. And then so to the restaurant group over here, just once again, you guys could talk to your vendor and just make sure that they know that when they're up in the roof or when they're in the back to keep, you know, their voices down, to try to shut off the equipment whenever they're not using it, although it's being used constantly, I know that, but just being good neighbors is all. There you go. Mr. Carlucci. Okay. All right. Thank you. I wrote that down here as well, going from 8.30 to 8.00. So with that, I mean, I feel like we've gotten this to pretty much the best spot it can get to, and that was the other thing I was going to say. Council Member Freeman teed off on it, and Council Member Arias as well, and I've been very upfront and open with the business owner as well and told him, look, man, if there's issues, if there's code compliance needs to be called or called JSO, like that's the enforcement. That's the enforcement mechanism, and that's just the system. That's the process in which we have. That's the lever that we have to pull as far as enforcement goes. So with that, I need to get a motion on the amendments, and if Mr. Harvey, can you read the new amendment with a little, with the tweaks? Sure. So the proposed amendments are as follows. First, the restaurant shall install sound panels on the new 10-foot fence that is located along the westerly backyard rear property line and abuts the residents at 1299 Norwich Road, Jacksonville, Florida. The second condition, the restaurant shall close both its indoors and outdoor dining area no later than 8 p.m. one day per quarter of a year to allow for hood cleaning. And third, the restaurant shall install slow-close hinges on the door located on the north side of the existing structure. You'll want to amend that, and then we'll just finish. Okay. We need a motion on the amendment. All right. We have a motion and a second on the amendment. No one in the queue. All in favor of the amendment. Signify by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed? The amendment carries. All right. We have a motion and a second on the bill as amended. No one in the queue. Open the ballot. Record your votes. Six yays, zero nays. By direction, you've approved 2026-373 as amended. Item number 22, 2026-374. Council members, please declare your ex parte communication at this time. Anybody? All right. Okay. Here we go. Here we go. Everybody's on the board. Council Member Freeman, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I would like to declare ex parte. I spoke with Mr. Josh Cockrell on June the 15th at 1230, and he discussed the details of the legislation, and this has been filed with legislative services. Thank you. All right. Council Member White, you're recognized. Yes, sir. Also spoke to Mr. Cockrell yesterday, and it has been filed. Council Member Aries, you're recognized. All right. Thank you, Chair. I spoke to Mr. Cockrell today regarding this application. It's currently being filed. Thank you. Council Member Gaffney, you're recognized. Yeah, thank you to the Chair. I also spoke with Mr. Cockrell about this legislation. I made sure everything gets filed with legislative services. All right. Thank you. No one else. Let's go ahead and open the public hearing and get a staff report. Thank you. This is PUD rezoning ordinance 2026-374, seeking to rezone approximately 2.07 acres from CCG1 to a PUD. The rezoning is being sought to develop the existing nursery to allow for storage of buses, RVs, boats, semi-tractors, or truck parking, but not trailers. The subject property is located at the corner of Miller Circle North, which is a local roadway, and Pulaski Road, a collector roadway, and it's approximately 900 feet north of I-295 Expressway. While the east side of Pulaski Road is developed with parcel zone CCG2, the west side is primarily zoned RLD60 and developed with single-family dwellings. The subject site was rezoned back in 2019 from RLD60 to CCG1 in order to bring the historic plant nursery into compliance with the current zoning code as CCG1 permits retail plant nurseries by right. The department finds that the rezoning from CCG1 to a PUD to allow for more intense commercial uses permitted within the CCG2 zoning district would not be appropriate or compatible with the surrounding development pattern, which is characterized primarily by residential uses. The property is currently entitled to a variety of commercial uses, and maintaining the existing zoning classification serves a legitimate public purpose by protecting surrounding residential parcels from potentially adverse impacts. The department is not supportive of continuing to expand commercial uses along the west side of Pulaski Road, again, in order to protect that existing residential. While the proposed uses would be allowed under the existing land use designation of CGC, we find that it does not further the goals and objectives, creating a balanced combination of residential and non-residential uses, protecting city neighborhoods. With this, we do not find it consistent with the comp plan, and for other reasons mentioned in the staff report, we forward a recommendation of denial. Application was heard by Planning Commission on June 4th, where there were no speakers in opposition, and discussion amongst the commissioners was limited. The commissioners found that the proposed rezoning for outside storage would be appropriate, given the commercial and industrial zoning of the surrounding properties, so they voted unanimously for approval of the PUD. Thank you. All right. We have two speaker cards. First up, Josh Cockrell. Good evening, commissioners. Josh Cockrell, 200 North Laura Street. Thank you so much for the time this evening. This parcel here is stated by staff. It's approximately five acres located in Fulaski Road, F295, out there at the interchange. It has been a plant nursery for more than 60 years occupying this site. It is in the northwest quadrant of the interchange itself. I do have the owner of the parcel here with me today, who I believe has filled out another speaker card. It is currently CCG1 operating as a plant nursery. It was retail for a number of years before they changed over to do commercial only, due to the changes in the economy. In addition, they provide irrigation services as well. And looking ahead into the future, the owners of the plant nursery are looking to see, as the economy changes, as new homeowners are moving into the area, we have a lot of growth, as you've seen here in this committee. In the north side, I know on the west side as well, but particularly on the north side, we've had a lot of growth, both new homeowner, new subdivisions being developed. There's a tremendous need to have a place to park your RVs and your boats and to store those. I know I've seen them in my HOA personally as well off Cedar Bay Road. Homeowners come in, buy a new home, and need a place to park it. However, HOAs do not allow for such. So they need a place to place these. There's limited options on the north side. This here is an appropriate place considering the fact that it is commercial. It is right off the interstate, logistically speaking. It's proper. Across the street from this nursery itself, the CCG1, CGC zone, land use, is CCG2, has CGC as well. It has a gas station there as well as a liquor store and lounge, a smoke shop. So it's heavy and dense commercial. To the southwest and southeast quadrants are industrial as well as commercial. Pretty much when you travel around our entire city of Jacksonville, when you look at the quadrants at our interchanges, you're going to find these exact uses, your commercial. You're going to find your higher intense industrial and so forth uses off the interchanges. This is not uncommon to see such. What I've done with this PUD and including this use is I've taken out a few of the CCG1 uses that are already allowed by right in this PUD, and I've included the CCG2 use of the RV and boat storage into this. I've also taken and made sure that we encoded into this a 6-foot, 95-percent opacity fence. What you have before you are several examples. I've given you a layout of the area at the interchange so you can see the zonings, but I'll also give you an example of Main Street, a BUMU store that is also a PUD that backs up to RLD60 similarly, in which they actually store boat, RV, and semi-tractors and trailers. So very similar in that regard. Thank you. And next we have Taylor Bratcher. Hello, I'm Taylor Bratcher, address 11938 Velaski Road. My parents and I purchased this property in 2019, which was formerly a retail garden center. From March of 2020 through summer of 2025, we also operated the retail garden center. Once inflation and other environmental factors came into play, we decided that it was time to change our business model. Since closing the garden center last year, we have been trying to find ways to utilize our property and maximize its potential without disrupting our neighbors or our community. Our intention is to keep this property and our family for many generations, and by rezoning it to a virtually quiet business, we could continue to operate our irrigation and landscaping company and also offer storage for residents around us. Recently, there's been three apartment complexes, and new developments have been built within five miles of us. These new homes bring residents with campers, boats, jet skis, and other toys. The community comes with little to no storage options. Understandably, as lifelong residents of the north side, we knew changes were coming to our area. Under our current zoning, we could open up the property to things like apartments, strip malls, or other allowances. Instead of being a problem for the area, we would like to be a solution for the rapid growth in our development. Our family's goal is to not burden our community with these development, being developed into these things. We know our neighbors don't wish to see more of these items. After talking to a couple of our neighbors, RV and boat storage was the best direction to move into without disruption to their daily lives. Pulaski Road is changing very quickly, and over time, we want to continue running our family business while securing our family's future. Thank you. All right. We have 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 amendment. Can someone please explain the amendment? Looks like it's just revised as a good of it three. That is correct. All right. All in favor of the amendment, signify by saying aye. Any opposed? The amendment carries. Motion and a second on the bill as amended. You want to speak? Okay. All right. You're recognized. All right. Thank you, Chair. Yeah, I just heard the speaker, and I agree with her on that part. Mr. Cockrell, just to confirm, the BUMU storage across the street or wherever it's at, the fencing you guys are going to put is going to be better than this one, right? Yes, sir. Through the chair to Council Member Arias, the example I provided, the BUMU storage goes against what the staff stated in their report. What we have is a similar property, if you will, in which you have a CGC, CCG1, or a PUD that was written using commercial uses on Main Street up near the airport, closer to Airport Road. BUMU storage is there. It has a chain link fence, and I showed you an image of it so you can see it. They have RV self-storage with a chain link fence. Yes, sir. My question is. Yes, sir. What we're going to do is a 95% opacity six-foot fence. Six-foot. Yes, sir. Much better, much more attractive. Yeah, good. Than that, yeah. All right, cool. Thank you so much. All right, we have no other speakers in the queue. We have a motion and a second, so let's open the ballot. Record your vote. Four yeas, one nay. By our action, you've approved 2026-374. Item number 23, 2026-376. Let's open the public hearing. No speaker cards. We'll continue this public hearing until 7-21-26. Item number 24, and the rest of the bills I'm going to read off sequentially. 2026-420, 421-422, 423, 424, 425, 426, 427, 428, 429, 430, 431, 432, 433, 434, 435, 436, 437, 438, and 439 are all deferred with a public hearing next cycle on 7-21-26. Which brings us to action item number 44, 2026-440. 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. 2026-440 seeks to permit permanent outside sale and service of food and alcohol in conjunction with an existing restaurant and billiards parlor. This is for perfect rack billiards. The subject property is approximately 0.19 acres, zoned CCG1, and the current use is a bar and billiards parlor, which were granted through E0624 and E0850. The applicant seeks to expand the use of the property to provide outside seating and services to customers. The proposed use matches the established character of the area. The surrounding Murray Hill-Edgewood Avenue corridor already features several businesses with outside seating and service, including Fishware Brewing, Bookner's Beer Hall, and Bold Birds. It features ample existing parking, excellent vehicle and pedestrian access from Edgewood Avenue South. It will not generate excessive or objectionable noise, lights, fumes, or vibrations out of character for the commercial area, nor will it hinder future development. For these reasons and those in the staff report, we forward a recommendation of approval. All right, we have three speaker cards. Corey Goff in support, questions only. Gary Goff in support, questions only. And Ryan Goff in support, questions only. Hmm, no, seems suspicious. Just kidding. All right, so with that, we have no other speaker cards, no one in the queue. Let's close the public hearing and bring it back to committee. Yep, do we have a second? All right, we've got a motion and a second on the bill. No discussion. Let's open the ballot and record your votes. Four yeas, zero nays. By direction you've approved, 2026-440. All right, next item. All right, congratulations, Goff family. So, item number 45, 2026-441. Council members, please declare your ex parte communication at this time. Going once, going twice. Council member Arias, you're recognized. All right, thank you, Chair. I had a long conversation with Ms. Tremor yesterday, and this currently is being filed with legislative services. Thank you. All right, I also wanted to declare ex parte. I had a meeting with Cindy Tremor on June 8th at 1030, and we discussed the application and the paperwork's being filed with legislative services. No one else? Let's open the public hearing and get a staff report. 2026-441 seeks an exception to allow for an establishment which includes the retail sale and service of beer and wine for on-premise consumption, not in conjunction with the restaurant. The proposed use is a cat cafe, known as 904 Purr and Purr Lounge. This increasingly popular business concept allows patrons to dine and drink in the presence of adoptable cats and kittens that are housed on-site. The cafe will operate in two parts. There's a Purr Lounge and a Purr Lounge. So, for the Purr Lounge, groups of customers may reserve time in a private room with the cats before and after cat visits. Customers are invited to socialize in the Purr Lounge, where beer and wine will be served. The .17 of an acre subject site is located at 1200 Kings Avenue. The subject site has a Florida Master site file under the site name 1200 Kings Avenue. However, no historic significance was noted. The property is also located in the North San Marco Neighborhood Action Plan within the boundaries of the Kings Avenue District. There are two companion applications, WLD 2603, to reduce the minimum distance between the liquor license location from a church, called out believers in Christ Fellowship, from 1,500 feet to 770 feet, and a companion administrative deviation, which will be heard next. The waiver of liquor distance was heard at the Planning Commission on May 21, 2026, and was approved on the condition that its companions will also be approved. Staff finds proposed use is compatible with the surrounding area and forwards a recommendation of approval. All right, we have, was there any, is there just one speaker card, Mr. Acting Vice Chair? Okay, one speaker card, Cindy Tremor. There we go. You good? Okay. Okay, go ahead, Ms. Tremor. Thank you so much. Cindy Tremor, 1 Independent Drive, Suite 1200, on behalf of the applicant, who I do have with me today. Amanda Crawford in the back of the room will be the operator of this establishment. Casey did an incredible job, so as to not repeat her. This is the first parcel south of downtown on King's. We are between the downtown overlay, where this would be allowed by right, and Locals Tavern, which I'm sure many of us affectionately appreciate. It'll be a less intense use than what is in the immediately surrounding area, and a great way to reuse this building that has been sitting vacant for some time. With that, I will stand by for questions. Okay, great. We'll go to Councilmember Arias. You're recognized. Mm-hmm. Sorry, through the chair. So, Ms. Tremor, this is all new to me, right? This is the first of its kind here in Jacksonville. Cats drink? All right, just kidding. Two COP, is that what I'm understanding? Two COP. Beer and wine? All right, sounds good. Yeah, this will be interesting. I was looking at to see if they've fallen in the overlay that we created for the entertainment district, but they don't. Are they allowed to have outdoor patio drinking, though? Through the chair, this property is built exactly to the property line, and the sidewalks are pretty narrow right here, so there just isn't any opportunity for it. Okay, sounds good. No further questions. All right. Did we close the public hearing? We did not? Okay. Let's close the public hearing and bring it back to committee. All right. We have a motion in the second. We have no one in the queue. Gosh, it's really hard for me not to make a perfect joke. I was going to say, this is going to make a perfect addition to District 5. Yeah, I have no questions, but in full support. So, with that, we will open the ballot and record your votes. Pretty sure it's going to pass. Four yays, zero nays. All right. By your action, you've approved 2026-444. All right. Item number 46, 2026-442. Council members, please declare ex parte communication you have at this time. Council member Arias, you're recognized. All right, Chair. I also declare ex parte. I spoke to Ms. Trimmer yesterday regarding this, and it's currently being filed. Thank you. All right. I also have ex parte to declare on June 8th. Cindy Trimmer was in my office yet again. She brought, like, four or five things, and we discussed the application, and the paperwork's being filed with legislative services. Council member White, you're recognized. She was in my office right after yours to declare ex parte. It's been filed. All right. We have no one else in the queue. You have another one? Okay. Thank you, Chair. I see how the trend is you always meet with them, but you only call me. It's okay. I'm taking notes. I'll take it up with Evan. Oh, you didn't get a call? I'll take that up with Chase. All right. Thank you. Well, never mind. I'm not going to make the... Just drop it. I'll just drop it. I was going to throw them back under the bus, but I'll just... Yeah. Anyways. Okay. Let's open the public hearing and get staff report. Thank you. 2026-442 is a companion administrative deviation for the proposed 904-purr and poor lounge at 1200 Kings Avenue. The applicant seeks to remodel a vacant 5,236-square-foot building built in 1950 into a cat cafe. Because the renovation triggers a 60% valuation threshold, the historic property must legally be brought into zoning compliance. Strict compliance with current code creates severe practical and economic hardships. Under current regulations, the site requires 16 parking spaces, a loading zone, and extensive perimeter landscaping buffers. Because the building occupies nearly the entire lot and was built up to the property line, meeting these standards is physically impossible without demolishing the structure. The deviation serves the public interest by activating a vacant storefront within the urban priority development area. It preserves San Marco and the South Bank's historic walkable urban character while utilizing ample surrounding public transit and JTA-owned parking facilities. The application was reviewed by the Development Services Division Landscaping Section on May 18th, and they recommend approval. For these reasons and those in the staff report, we forward a recommendation of approval. All right. One speaker card. Cindy Charmer. Cindy Charmer, 1 Independent Drive, Suite 1200, on behalf of the applicant, who is here with me. Again, this is a historic building built to the property line. I will just address the parking. We are right on that King's Corridor where we have the large JTA lot across the street. And then we are also immediately south of the overpass where we added the parking underneath the I-95 exchange. So should not be a burden on the neighborhood and would appreciate your support. All right. We have no other speaker card, so we'll close the public hearing and bring it back to committee. Motion and second on the bill. No one in the queue. Open the ballot. Record your vote. Four yeas, zero nays. Fire action you've approved. 2026, 442. Thank you all. All right. Congratulations. Thank you. And next up, we have number 47, 2026, 443. 3, 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, 443 seeks to permit a reduction in the required minimum setback from the property line for a monument sign from 10 feet to 5 feet. The site is in the RMDS zoning district, the Springfield zoning overlay, and the Springfield historic district. The .48 acre parcel is located at the northeast corner of North Laura Street and Cottage Avenue, and it's developed with the church originally built in 1923. The church seeks to install a new monument sign at the intersection of North Laura Street and Cottage Avenue. The need for the sign waiver arises due to the required 10-foot setback obstructing the entry patio to the church. The waiver aligns with the general character and established development patterns of Springfield, where many historic structures are built closer to the property line than modern code permits. Comparable monument signs exist nearby at 2034 Hubbard Street and 128 West 12th Street. The sign will meet all other zoning criteria and must obtain a certificate of appropriateness with the historic preservation section, ensuring the aesthetics are compatible with the Springfield historic district. Located in a landscaped area, the sign remains appropriately set back from the roadway and angled to preserve visibility within the intersection site triangle. It poses no detriment to vehicle, traffic, parking, or public welfare. For these reasons and those in the staff report, we forward a recommendation of approval. Okay, we have two speaker cards. Nicholas Hogan is in support. Questions only. Next speaker, Alex Allaire in support. Questions only. With that, we will close the public hearing, bring it back to committee. Motion and a second on the bill. No one in the queue. Open the ballot. Record your vote. Four yeas, zero nays. By reactionary approved, 2026-443. Item number 48, 2026-472 has already been taken up. And then the following bills are on second reading, 2026-475-476-477-478-479-480-481-482-483-484-485-486-487-488. And, ladies and gentlemen, that concludes our final LUZ of the, sort of, of the year. So, hey, hey, hey, hey, hey, hold on. We got some nice things to say about staff. Sit down. Just kidding, but seriously. Yeah. Yeah, we were. Now we're just going to skip Susan. Yeah. No, look, hey, I wish the rest of my soldiers were here. Looks like we got the real crew, skeleton crew in. We couldn't have passed anything tonight without the four of us. And Councilman Gaffney, if you're in the green room, thank you, I guess, for dipping out on us. But, look, I love this committee. This has been fun. This crew has been pretty much together, and we had a new addition, Councilmember White. A lot of value added. A lot of good words of wisdom in this committee, sir. A lot of good words of wisdom. That was a joke. Yeah, yep, exactly. But, no, seriously, I've enjoyed being the chair. And I did get everyone a gift on. It should have been on the dais, a little something. So open it now or later, whatever you want to do. And, yeah, that's pretty much it. We'll adjourn after we hear from Councilmember Johnson. I know you don't like to, Mr. Chair, to take a lot of accolades, but good job this year. And I mean that. You have kept us rolling. I want to say a couple thank yous, first of all, to Mr. Chair. We got Terrence in the middle of the year. And you came in, and I must give you kudos for that. Like, you just came in and jumped right in like a part of it, even with the Salem Amendment that kept coming. You just continued to go, and I want to thank you for that. And I'm glad you're still here. To all of my committee members, this has been fun. I hope I come back. This is my favorite committee. And just because you are ascending to the vice president, so congratulations again. Thank you. Mr. Chair slash vice president-elect, that does not mean that you are still not a part of this. Once L-U-Z, always L-U-Z. That's right. Congratulations on your ascendance, but thank you for being such a great leader, and I mean that, and a brother. Thank you. Appreciate you, man. Thank you, Council Member Johnson. I appreciate that. All right. Council Member. Oh, no. No, no, no, no, no, no. You don't just get to come back and say niceties. Unless it's about me, then you can do it. All right. We're going to go to Council Member Arias. You got to go? Oh, okay. All right. We'll go to Council Member Arias, and then we'll go to Council Member Gaffney. Yeah. Nice things about you. I don't know what to say. You're not late, so you're here. Okay. All right. To the team behind all of us, obviously, you guys are instrumental to all this. You guys have a world of knowledge. Even when we just come up sporadically like I did tonight, you were just typing away, looking it up, and you find it right on the spot. So thank you all. And also, I want to give a shout-out to Dylan. He's not here right now, obviously, but he was a big part of this as well, too. So I just want to, you know, wish him the best of luck wherever he's at. I know he's in. I know he's watching. Where's he at right now again? I don't know. I don't know where he's at. But anyways. St. John's. Best of luck, Dylan. Yeah. And to the chair, obviously, you set the shift straight. But honestly, you were doing like three committees at one point. So kudos to you, man, for really just doing a great job. So thank you for that. And to my colleagues, you are awesome. Even when my colleague to my right, his phone goes off from time to time, it's all right. Pretty loudly, too. But that's all right. I wouldn't have it any other way. So thank you, guys. Yeah, he does. I love it. All right, we'll go to Council Member White, and then we'll go to Council Member Gaffney. Yeah, thank you. Technology has outgrown me. It just does that. But anyway, I wanted to congratulate you. I've been on LUZ since 2018. And you probably run this as smooth as anybody ever has. So I appreciate that. And I'm glad you're sending it up to the vice president. You'll do a good job there. And thank you for the gift. Oh, yeah. Yes, sir. All right, Council Member Gaffney. Yeah, so, you know, Councilman Carlucci, it's been a pleasure. It's been a great year. Like Councilman Aaron said, you pretty much controlled the ship. You know, I don't think we really had that much controversy this year in, like, Biscayne and some other legislation items. But you pretty much stayed calm. You stayed patient. You was collected. You pretty much created an atmosphere of collaboration where everybody felt welcome, where everybody could speak, where we felt as a team, feeling continuity. Continuity, I'm sorry. Just feeling welcome. And I think that's what I mostly appreciate, you know, about you and this past year. So, of course, you'll be missed. You know, I was just thinking to myself, you know, what this committee is going to look like next year, whether it's us or somebody else, you know, different. Every year you get a different leader. And leaders set the tone. And you set it in a good way to want to work beside you because you have leaders that you do not want to work beside. So, I appreciate it for everything you do. And everyone else, I appreciate you guys as well, as well as the teammates. You know, I think even though we got a chairperson, you got to have a great team to, like, bounce off each other and complement one another. You know, we on this committee, I think everybody shared differences, you know, and different opinions and came from a different background. So, it made it a lot better, you know, in terms of the diversity, in terms of what we brought to the table. So, but I guess we'll be looking forward to next year. Yeah. Man, I hope many of us return. You know, LEZ is a special committee because we know how each other thinks and we know what other questions that each one of us are going to ask that have been on this committee, at least for the last three years, I guess. So, I love that. It's definitely a special committee. And I didn't get my thanks in to the staff. But yeah, you guys are always just Johnny on the spot, always. Vanessa, you two down there. All right. Kudos. People are handing you papers. You got to start the clock. You got to do all that. Yep. So, it doesn't go overlooked. I don't want any of the staff to ever think they go overlooked because it is, you guys make our job easy and I truly mean that and I truly appreciate that. Terrence, you're still getting there and we'll, you're still getting there, you know, you're still getting there. But you look sharp. So, that's adding some points. Oh, Rebecca's out there too. Okay, good. Yep. She's out there. Man, you guys are strong. When we get those 100 speaker cards, I know. I know. We get handed that stack and I'm like, man, I'm so glad that these are in order because otherwise it would be a disaster. Anyways, I'll stop talking. Okay, we got some more things going on here. Oh, okay. Well, yeah, go ahead. Councilman Reyes. All right. A little curveball here, but talking about 100 speaker cards, I have two ladies back here, Samantha and Jamie. So, I also want to give you guys kudos as well too. You know, you mentioned something how like things are not overlooked and all that and by you guys being here all the time, it really shows us that you really do care. So, just wanted to give you guys kudos for that. Definitely, we see you and we hear you. Thank you. All right. Councilman Johnson. Last one. Last thank you. We did not say thanks to our amazing officers and sergeants at arms. Thank you for keeping us safe. Sometimes I know it seems a little crazy. Guys, thank you. You don't say much, but you pack a powerful punch. And I thank you for just being there for us. It feels good when we can look and see you standing there. All of you. And I know sometimes it's different ones. So, to all of you, especially those watching as well. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. And ladies, as they gave thanks, as Raul did, I appreciate – we had some tough words, but as you can see, things change when you're kind of focused. So, congratulations to you. All right. I'm done. Thank you. Yeah. Yeah. JSO, obviously, thank you. And it's interesting. Whenever you become chair, they always ask, do you want JSO at your meetings? And obviously, the answer is yes. But for LUZ specifically, it gets dicey in LUZ way, way more than it does in TEU. No offense. But seriously, you guys, just having you here, like, it makes everyone feel safe, not just us and staff or whatever. It makes everyone feel like, okay, if things do go sideways, we have a way to control, get things under control. So, with that, what? Randy wants to go home. Oh, okay. So, that was my introduction. So, now I'm going to go ahead and give – all right. With that, this meeting is adjourned.