Land Use & Zoning Committee - Oct 06, 2026

all right good evening everyone it is five o'clock october 6th welcome to the land use and zoning committee we are going to go ahead and get this meeting started with introductions to the left all the way around the horn and then we're going to introduce our pages and get this meeting started rockman johnson district 14 the west side good evening rory diamond district 13 the beaches joe carlucci district 5 kevin carrico district 4 south side hello raw areas district 11 randy white district 12 terence harvey office of general counsel susan kelly planning department erin abney planning department casey cox planning department all right thank you for those introductions and we also have miss kelly mendez and sarah agul with our pages tonight thank you ladies for joining us and now this isn't their first time they've done this like four or five times that i just learned so i was like man okay they are they're professionals we we're taking applications in the legislative services department too so but no they have much more higher ambitions so with that we will go to the agenda we have item number one 2026 124 is deferred with the public hearing next cycle on 11 17 26 item number two 2026 125 is deferred with the public hearing next cycle on 11 17 26 item number three 2026 126 is deferred with the public hearing next cycle on 10 20 26 item number four 20 26 127 is deferred with the public hearing next cycle on 10 20 26 item number five 20 26 436 is deferred with the public hearing next cycle on 10 20 26 item number six and seven we are going to need those items have been marked as deferred but we are going to need an amendment to re-refer those as a new notice needs to be sent out so mr harvey can you kind of tee us up for how we need to approach that take an item number six first 20 26 523 the amendment will be to exhibit one um which changes the uh the legal description of the bill um and then we will need to have you guys um adopt the amendment and then uh move to re-refer so it can leave committee go to uh city council and then be referred back uh so it can go to planning commission and then back to you all all right we have a motion on that from council member diamond and a second from council member carico all in favor of the amendment signify by saying aye any opposed the amendment carries so now we need a motion to re-refer all right we have a motion to re-refer as amended correct okay is that a ballot vote let's open the ballot record your votes seven yays zero nays by reaction you've re-referred item number six 20 26 523 same thing for item number seven correct mr harvey okay item number seven 20 26 524 can you please cue up what the amendment needs to be yep so the amendment will be to again exhibit one it changes the legal description so you guys will need to move the amendment and then also uh move to re-refer we have a motion a second on the amendment all in favor of the amendment signify by saying aye any opposed the amendment carries motion a second to re-refer as amended no one in the queue open the ballot record your vote six yays zero nays by reaction you have approved the re-referral of 2026 524 are you up i have i have councilman gaffney on the queue are you up councilman johnson do you want you can go ahead yes sir yes sir go ahead thank you mr chair i think both councilman gaffney i were trying to do the same thing uh my thing was i know that there were some people here from st paul church and they were both here for both of those bills that were re-referred and if i may mr chair just explaining so they know um they were here to speak to those bills and the bills that you are coming for the concrete batch plant bill as well as the bill on richardson road both of them have been have been re-referred to committee and through the chair again what that means is specifically while they were going to be voted on tonight the initial bill for um richardson road has been re-referred to the 20th uh mr harvey correct me if i'm so yeah so the items that were just up for uh uh amend and re-refer were not related to those items this was for items uh 523 and 524 which were uh 532 you mean nope 523 523 and 524 okay and these were related to uh properties located on yellow water road so we're not are we gonna do through the chair are we doing 532 definitely yes it's just the only one we're not is the richardson road number that is this is 558 that is correct correct okay just one just for those that that may want to speak to it i wanted them to understand i appreciate uh st paul ame churches here i know there are a lot of them here just wanted them to know just in case 558 will not be heard tonight however the concrete batch plant will okay want to put that out there thank you mr chair for indulging me all right yeah no problem and just to re uh clarify your point uh item number 11 is what you were speaking to 2026 558 um the public hearing will be continued until 10 20 26 so not this committee the following committee after this is when we'll take action on that so with uh all right all of that on the record we are on number eight 20 26 532 council members please declare your ex parte communication at this time council member areas you're recognized i thank you chair i'd like declare x parte i've received numerous emails in opposition of this and uh it's currently me and file those who speak thank you councilman johnson you're recognized are you here where'd you go councilman okay councilman why you're recognized yes sir thank you uh declare x parte the emails i have received will be filed thank you good deal and i'll go ahead and declare on my ex parte my office has received 35 letters in opposition 59 signatures on october 5th and we will have this paperwork filed with legislative services um okay oh councilman carrico you're recognized uh thank you mr chair i do also have x parte as i received the emails that everyone has talked about as well i've received the same ones and they're mostly all in opposition um don't have the exact number here but uh my assistant will make sure to report that to legislative services thank you mr chair okay no problem did you want to speak oh you are there there we go wait oh okay all right councilman gaffney captain councilman gaffney you recognize is that the right mike yeah thank you to the chair i also want to declare as partay i received numerous email i think anywhere up from 20 phone calls i received 25 letters and over 100 emails um opposing this legislation i make sure everything gets filed legislative services thank you all right thank you do you need to go okay councilman johnson you recognize testing there we go thank you mr chair and thank you first of all to katie for catching the fact that uh i thought i was sitting where i was supposed to be and i was not that's why you were seeing my name in queue because reggie was in my seat and i was in his i digress um really that's what we're gonna do mr former president um this is what we do though luz is fun we're a family here everyone i'd like to rise to declare ex parte for this particular piece of legislation i have had conversation i just had a quick although i wasn't talking about it to the the um pastor pastor barnes i will declare that but we were not talking about this legislation i've had more than 100 emails i also have returned many of those emails all of those things will be i have been filed with legislative services and um there have been i think there were some phone messages that came in today so there will be additional ex parte coming filing those with legislative services opposing this legislation uh i have not gotten any calls or emails messages uh promoting the legislation thank you mr chair all right thank you with that do we need to get a staff report on this or do we are we need to get a new staff report on this correct because we have a change okay cool so let's open the public hearing and get a staff report thank you this is pud rezoning ordinance 2026 532 which is requesting to rezone 16.73 acres from an industrial light to a pud since the last meeting the applicant has submitted a revised written description and a revised site plan both dated september 21st which has removed all references to concrete batch plant the pud will still allow industrial light uses which they are currently entitled to today under the existing zoning of industrial light what this pud now does it allows for deviations from certain landscaping requirements and increase in some parking above what code regulates and then also allows for a waiver of road frontage to be included access to the property will be through a shared easement to the sister company that's located to the south of the property which is 5995 sutel drive the site is designated with light industrial and heavy industrial land use designation including 3.11 acres of property which is within the heavy industrial land use category where all the industrial uses that are within this pud are consistent staff finds a request consistent with the comp plan by supporting infill development on long established industrial lands it promotes redevelopment and supports existing industrial areas of the city rather than expanding these uses to other parts of the city the operation is appropriately located along an active railway surrounded by existing industrial uses to the south and east which do include manufacturing storage and several other properties that have the industrial heavy zoning designation the pud meets internal external compatibility the site is buffered from a resident from surrounding residential areas by natural wetlands you have a railway to railway right of way adjacent to the property and again surrounding entitlements for industrial uses so for these reasons and those outlined in the staff report we are affording a recommendation of approval with the conditions in your agenda and the revised exhibit three and four application was heard by planning commission on august 6 where there were no speakers in opposition and discussion revolved around the need for the condition two for landscaping on the site landscaping on the site for employees only and not viewable from the public right of way they ultimately decided to remove that second condition based on that discussion so they voted unanimously for approval with the one condition in your agenda thank you all right thank you so much for that before we go to the public hearing miss reed i know you're up first i just want to make a quick announcement obviously um miss pitman is not here she let me know that she wasn't going to be here tonight she had a little bit of a family emergency with her mom um taking her to and from the hospital so i told her take care of your family first um but obviously she was here last meeting i believe there was a community meeting that she facilitated with miss reed um so anyways just wanted to make sure that that was on the record that she was out due to kind of a family situation uh with that i'll go to past president carico and then we'll go to miss reed and the rest of the uh public hearing cards uh thank you mr chairman just a quick question to the uh planning department has the concrete use been taken out of the concrete mixing use that that's totally out right i just want to make sure before we start hearing from the public to make sure that everyone understands that that has already been removed yeah through the chair so the written description has reviewed every reference to concrete batch plant and the site plan also has removed that reference as well so this pud if approved will not allow for that use okay um thank you so much for clarifying all right first up kristin reed i don't know thank you kristin reed my address is 12740 grand bay parkway west suite 2350 jacksonville florida 32257 aaron did a great job with the introduction to the item and i think that the biggest point here is we've had several community meetings and the pud has been revised to specifically remove the concrete batch plant which everyone has had opposition to and it has removed it from both the text of the written description as well as the site plan and in addition to that i did hear some comment about the flammable and combustible material so i went ahead and removed that as well because that would be normally permitted on the property currently so again the pud has been revised to remove the issue that everyone is is brought up so now the proposed zoning allows pretty much the uses that are allowed in the industrial light zoning um it's going to be a concrete aggregate storage and distribution facility um the pud does allow for as aaron mentioned an increase in parking to accommodate the employees on site allowing moving of the landscape the interior landscape to the perimeter of the site um which it would better serve any development around it although it is all industrial around it the site um to allow for a waiver of road frontage for access to sutel drive so again access is going to be through an existing truck route the community benefit of this pud is that it eliminates the storage of flammable products it doesn't include the concrete batch plant and it locks in a site plan for the use so the community knows what's going there and if we were to change the use it would require a hearing a noticed hearing and a revised site plan so since the last meeting on october 1st council member pitman held another meeting with about five residents of the area and we reviewed the revised pud text and site plan um and i offered some conditions to address concerns regarding potential dust these conditions um aaron has a copy if they haven't been passed out but there are five conditions um they are water non-paved roads three times per day during operations water the face of the pile area prior to the loading of material have tripod portable sprinkler sprinklers available for windy days that could potentially create dust and also available during piling and loading of materials a four install sprinkler at the stacking conveyor discharge point where the material comes off the conveyor from the rail car to create the pile and five and finally is contract with a sweeping company company to sweep interior ingress and egress points one time per week within the pud site so although there is no processing of the concrete aggregate material which is where you end up with with the dust particulate we will still offer these conditions in here to ensure that there is no dust and that we're doing as much as we can to control any potential dust of moving the material around so based on our application stiff staff's written and oral presentations community feedback on september 10th and october 1st as well as my walking mockingbird road and stopping by 32 residents along that we finally propose pd is appropriate and request your approval all right thank you miss reed and next we have peggy wiggins come on down state your name and address are you here do you wish to speak or no all right she is in opposition and then next we have lavon mitchell don't want to speak you're in opposition next nancy murray settle is in opposition come on down we have brenda smith after her and then dr kashawn chambliss after miss smith go ahead ma'am okay thank you um nancy murray settle my address is on file and i'm here today to speak about the um ordinance 0532 the the concrete aggregate storage and distribution that is being proposed for northwest jacksonville um i'm glad the concrete plant i think batch plant was removed but there are still health concerns about silica dust and it's not just for the mile that is near there and the schools that are near there some of this dust can go for five miles away it's called fugitive dust some of you send your kids to stanton which is within that five mile zone and they would be impacted possibly negatively if the water that the sprinkles that's the first i heard about that keeping that silica dust down i guess hopefully we trust these companies that they would do that all the time without oversight i imagine the people working there are going to be wearing hazardous protection masks but um that worries me too because it's like it's near a wetland and it's like these do have chemicals involved in them and where are they going to go in our water this negatively affects not just that community but all of jacksonville we don't want to increase the industrial uses of our city especially we've put in over 12 million dollars recently for the upgrade of king sutel also i just don't understand the um waiver like why is there a traffic study after the pud is verified like what in that that needs to come first to see what that traffic study is how it may negatively impact our roadways cost taxpayers even more money and then there's the noise level i didn't hear anything about addressing the noise level those plants run 24 7 and those trucks not only do they tear up our roadways but they're noisy and they'll be affecting bringing property values down of the communities that are very nearby there so i think and why is there a waiver why can't they cover this area like and keep it from being seen there's supposed to be fences and landscaping to cover it why are these things being waived um aaron abbey good i would like to see the summary of that report online i look for that online i didn't see a summary if summary needs to be made available to the public um so i'm looking forward to seeing more of those things i appreciate the conversation and i appreciate the the community that has finally been notified there was a mention that something was on a august 6th no public because nobody knew there was no notification thank you all right next we have brenda smith does not wish to speak is in opposition dr kishan chambliss oh it's dr kishan chambliss i'm definitely in opposition and i'm state your address please oh it's on file thank you thank you you're welcome i'm in opposition up to this ordinance because of truck truck traffic and road safety concrete a batch plants generate frequent truck traffic including cement delivery trucks aggregate haulers and concrete mixture trucks increased truck truck traffic can create safety and concerns for pedestrians by bicyclists school children and local motorists additional heavy vehicles accelerate roadway deterioration increase maintenance costs residents deserve peaceful enjoyment of their homes without industrial noise operating throughout the day i'm in opposition to this ordinance because of noise impacts the plant operation often involves loaders conveyors backup lawns aggregates handling equipment and truck activity industrial noise can affect nearby homes churches schools and outdoors recreation areas environmental reviews of cement related facilities have identified measurable noise impacts on nearby residential areas i'm glad to know that she wants she's willing to try to work with us but again i'm definitely in opposition because of the health and safety and the noise thank you all right thank you so much uh as we continue through this i just need a quick announcement is francisco olivera out in the audience you can just raise your hand don't worry i'm not going to call you down francisco olivera are you here all righty all right no problem we will make another curtain call in a couple minutes so next we have tamla simmons come on down and then we have melvin williams and then pastor timothy johnson senior good evening my name is tamla simmons um you have my address on file thank you i grew up in this neighborhood um from the age of two and i just bought a home in this neighborhood last year my parents lived there my family is there that's where we gather for all of our celebrations or just to hang out whatever the case may be we should not have to worry about breathing industrial dust while just being a family we are tax-paying hard-working citizens who serve our community there is no way to prevent particulate dust from moving if it is stored near our homes it will move into our spaces as a biologist it is clear to me and anyone who is clear on the science that particulate matter in the form of cement sand and dust are not meant to be ingested there is no way to prevent this if a plant is this close to our homes exposure means that our health is at risk this means any number of upper respiratory conditions will now be available to prevent us from breathing properly everybody pause for just a second and take think about the thing that we're taking for granted right now breathing that's going to be at risk for us breathing is how we fuel our bodies it's literally how we move our bodies since you cannot put a price on life you cannot justify allowing a business to operate that will put our lives at risk no one would rightly sign up for such a risk you're also hoping that watering the area will be enough to prevent dust from spreading if it is this innocuous then by all means put it in the developers neighborhood not to mention the extra traffic and destruction to our roadways it's already difficult at times to move traffic in the area your job as our representatives is to ensure our safety and well-being is not at risk i implore you to vote no all right thank you so much next we have melvin williams how you doing melvin williams uh address on the file um i'm a father husband and a farmer and i live in this community in home gardens neighborhood i also work in the transportation industry on sootail i've been one of the voices that have consistently showed up and spoken against this ordinance and participated in round tables as well as community outreach meetings as community we've shown up multiple times and have asked for a list of materials that we stored on this holding yard as the word agar is just a general term referring to mixed materials but have we received an answer the answer is no previously we were just notified that the application had a change and had a revision as far as the flammable flammable materials would be removed but that was not stated on our meeting october 1st crystalline silica is the main component of concrete mix this chemical is very hazardous as it can cause permanent scar tissue in the lungs and chemical burns on your skin if touched for employees that work around this there's measures and safety measures in place as well n95 mask or eye protection but as a community where's our safety measures and where's the concern we haven't been given one and we've asked repeatedly my child will attend the brand new picketville elementary next year along with many others and it doesn't seem like there's any health concern for the children in this area there's brand new brand new housing developments along sootail and as we can see there's probably going to be the value what's going to happen to the value of the properties in this area i'm a farmer and the home gardener's neighborhood is zoned for rural residential as most of us grow our own food or raise some type of animal that feed and substantial food source for our families and friends is there a possibility that with these health issues down the line the clj could run into issues similar to fairware oaks or lonnie c miller park or the other settlements that the city has had along the along the years what i've noticed in every single city council meeting or community meeting there has not been one single person that's spoken for this ordinance every person has been against our voice is not heard our voices less or smaller than the voice of the applicant the sole beneficiary if this ordinance will pass will only benefit one which is the applicant this we as a community has spoken multiple times we don't want this in our area thank you thank you sir next we have pastor timothy johnson senior come on down pastor timothy johnson senior address is on file council president and all council present recognized i just want to echo everything that's been said in opposition already but one point in particular interest to uh councilman bridget gaffney jr retention pods respiratory issues disabled veterans with ptsd and dementia that wander into these unprotected unbarriered retention pods my children and my grandchildren live in these areas retention pods sir i'm sorry but if you're not speaking to the bill we that's not i'm speaking i'm speaking it's an it's an offset sir are we having every health issue every issue all the time is there retention pods on this you got runoff it's going to go somewhere and it's definitely going to go to a retention pod okay your time is renewed go ahead yeah it needs to be dealt with everyone's in opposition all right thank you sir next we have wells todd my name is wells todd my address is on file and i'm a member of take them down jacks i just want to repeat some of the things that have already been said about this concrete facility because it takes many voices to get across to this committee the necessity to vote no regarding this plant it is a health hazard that has been pointed out there is no way you can confine dust it is raining outside right now that plant was there there would be runoff there is no way that this plant is being built outside of the need for profit and if you build a plant for profit you're going to cut corners and you can't say that they won't why is this plant being built in this area it doesn't benefit the community it's not a grocery store it's not a hospital it's not a child care center it's not a youth center what good does this do for the community not at all put it somewhere else the community is saying no and what's really interesting is that you all come before the people to get their vote and you say you're working for us but when it comes right down to it you're working for the developers and the other rich folks in this town and my last question here is why isn't the council person who's over this district not sitting and demanding that this plant not be built thank you so yeah real quick i'll just take a personal okay council member white you're recognized yes sir mr todd i don't know if he was here earlier when the chair announced she had a family emergency is why she's not here and if you didn't hear that i thought it would be good for you to hear that thank you i understand the family emergency sir but she has not supported the community sir your time is up thank you um india butler you're next come on down hello my name is india butler my address is on file i am another community activist epidemiologist my family is out in a neighborhood my church family is out in a neighborhood i have been also consistently showing up here day after day rain sleep or snow i am here and it's all because we received this application the new one um on october the 1st and it continuously is continuously shows inconsistencies and contradicts what she is verbally saying now we met originally on september the 10th the meeting community meeting that uh jacoby hosted and she said that she was in contact with james ridgerson at the jacksonville environmental board when i reached out to him he documented that he had no knowledge of it that was the first lie she told now we met up on october the 1st and she's asking for waivers but then if she verbally communicate that these waivers doesn't apply to uh preventative measures of the runoff but it's not documented in the contract or the application i'm just a little confused here and trying to gain an understanding of what is actually true and what's actually not do i supposed to go verbally what she's telling us or am i supposed to go by this application now she just sat up here and said something else verbally but where's the new application has it been revised has it been posted on the website for community transparency and that's what we have been lacking lately it's community transparency continuously making changes contingent continuously verbally communicating things that does not align with what the application says now who are we supposed to go to after she verbally on record recorded all this information about what she's going to provide or not and we don't have it written down we need it written what's going to happen on that on that that that resident near those residential areas as of right now we have nothing to go off of right i have something here saying there's going to be a bulk storage of up to 250 000 gallons of wet from day one we have been asking for safety data sheets i even went to prefer posterior's uh website for because she did verbally communicate that she will be providing ready mixed concrete on those railways uh but i think i just heard another contradiction that it's not going to be ready mixed concrete today i'm just confused about what's true and what's not um so if it's not in the application right now i'm for the record opposing this ordinance all right thank you ma'am and just to add a point of clarification the last speaker that once wishes to speak is mark shelton um my understanding is that the the change request has been submitted but it hasn't been adopted by this committee correct so the application is going to be as it was originally filed so the application is going to be how it is originally filed until this committee makes a change to it which is what we plan to do here tonight so the way what you saw online is correct it is the original application until we adopt and vote on the amendment to remove the concrete batch use that correct so just wanted to just speak to that part there was other parts that i can't speak to right at this moment but um the last speaker we have is mark shelton and uh state your name and address and then we'll go to the rest of the speakers thank you chairman my name is mark shelton with kimley horn associates i'm at 12 740 grand bay parkway west suite 2350 jacksonville florida 32258 and i'd like to say a couple things on the record i know uh miss kristin was was speaking to her to her points i do want to say that after meeting and negotiating with the community we have removed the use of concern that was the big item two weeks ago that is removed and we revised the pud as such and talking to the planning department reviews it um revised it to their suitability we've also removed an il use that is allowed by right but we've removed it in this pud that's the storage of bulk storage of flammable and combustible products we're locking in a site plan with this pud that shows a better buffer than what's required we're offering up five conditions all these conditions were those that have been discussed and been requested and uh entered into negotiation there's no rock crushing on this site whatsoever none it comes processed and it's put in a pile and it's watered and we've added five more conditions to make sure that that sand stays there um it's equivalent to to what you see on the beach right now uh sutel is operating at 37 capacity that means there's 63 capacity left on this road thankfully half of the trucks that leave this site just go to the parcel immediately to the south doesn't get don't get on the road so half our trips are already taken before they get on the road we must meet the noise ordinance we also offered up to meet a heightened noise noise ordinance in the ih district even though we're il um sutel is a designated truck route by the city of jacksonville this is something that the planning department holds us to uh this is also in the industrial sanctuary and um now that the concrete batch site is gone uh this is just storage osha doesn't require face masks or respiratory equipment whatsoever because that use that crushes the rocks is now gone so with that i will stand by see if you have any questions all right thank you sir and i do have one other speaker i'm sorry that uh i just got notified about that does wish to speak uh mr willie barnes jr come on all right front row and then we will read the rest of the cards into the record and then miss reed can have her time for rebuttal so go ahead mr barnes name and address good evening dr willie uh barnes pastor of st paul ame church 6910 new kings road jacksonville florida 32219 the area surrounding sutel drive and northwest jacksonville in general has long been a dumping ground for contaminants that have literally destroyed the health and lives of the residents parks and schools were literally built on incinerator ash dumps here we are in 2026 and once again this community is asked to bear the brunt of health and air quality issues that will be in close proximity to an elementary school and the new king's landing subdivision we understand that after the last luz meeting there was an attempt at compromise however we feel the health dangers are still relevant given the storage of materials and airborne particles that can be released we're not willing to risk the health of our children northwest jacksonville's residents have more than their fair share of chronic diseases that have resulted from decisions to allow the placement of hazardous materials in neighborhoods before i end let me also say that we understand i understand that there was a conversation between these individuals who were proposing to put the uh storage facility in place and residents of the community however that was only to my knowledge five people and perhaps we are here tonight i understand the measures that the developers have gone through in order to mitigate some of the risk but perhaps we are here tonight because the residents of this community in totality were not brought to the table with these individuals to talk about the factors that have been put in place to mitigate some of the risks that we are talking about and so since that did not take place i am still urging i am still urging this commission to vote no on this ordinance thank you all right thank you so much sir next we have uh the following speakers that are in opposition i'm going to go ahead and read these cards into the record um if you wish to speak come on up but we typically give the applicant the last three minutes for rebuttal so we have yvette sanchez is in opposition avis sweet opposition brenda simmons uh hutchins there we go opposition leroy hutchins opposition jamie travis leonard is in opposition rosalyn snow smith is in opposition loretta kopek opposition will simmons opposition wiley thomas opposition brenda forehand opposition christopher robinson opposition jacqueline harris opposition beatrice matthews opposition samantha series opposition paul forehand senior opposition gwendell thomas opposition lynette white opposition dr andre washington opposition kimberly morrison opposition alfreda denson butler opposition avery cohen opposition jamal jamalta simmons opposition gloria gardner opposition so with that miss reed we will go ahead and give you three minutes for rebuttal and then we will bring it back to committee thank you um just a couple of things that i heard the community meeting on 10-1 after we revised the written description and the site plan was hosted by council member pitman she invited community members as a representative to talk through this so we had that individualized meeting um there still i know concerns about the fugitive dust um this the material brought to site is processed somewhere else the crushing and processing of the material is where the particle dust comes from they are going to be bringing these material in already processed already rinsed onto the site and just storing it and then moving it off site now they've also offered up those five conditions to control anything else that might come out of there over and above um traffic um mark shelton talked about 50 of this traffic is going to the south so it's going to reduce the traffic that's coming to the site already to bring the material to the old castle property that's already there um retention ponds we're going to permit them in accordance with water management district city of jacksonville that's going to be water quality and stormwater runoff and anything with fdep concerns about talking about additional runoff preventative measures those are related to the concrete batch plant and those are fdep standards they don't apply anymore because we don't have that use um sutel um sutel drive between new kings road and old kings road per the staff report is only operating at 39 of capacity and it is a designated truck route by the city of jacksonville the site's located in an industrial area with industrial land use heavy and light industrial zoning heavy and light it's an industrial overlay and adjacent to a railroad it's exactly where the city says by policy we want these things which is why this area was chosen it wasn't picked because we thought there were residential homes there and we didn't care it's because the city by policy says this is industrial this is where it belongs we've peeled back the uses we've removed the concrete batch plant per the community concern we also took out the combustible materials as an extra benefit to the community so that use will not go there we've offered up additional conditions to go on the site they're bound by a site plan so we feel that you know it's we've worked with the community to try to come to a compromise to allow the use to happen and essentially the uses we're looking at are now less than what would already be permitted in the industrial light zoning and they also have conditions if you accept those that are also over and above that would be permitted by right in the industrial zoning so i appreciate your time all right thank you miss reed we have no other speaker cards so with that we're going to close the public hearing and bring it back to committee so with the so we have some amendments okay so we have an amendment with the conditions so let's get a motion in a second on that with an explanation and we can discuss do we have a motion in a second all right motion in a second on the amendment with conditions can mr harvey or someone from plane explain the amendment yep so the amendment attaches a revised exhibit three written description dated september 21 2026 which describes and removes all the concrete batch language that was initially spoken to by the applicant attaches a revised exhibit four with the revised site plan dated september 21st 2026 and the proposed conditions that are currently before you are the two from the planning department which would be the traffic study and then the second one is the interior vehicular use area landscaping for employee parking area shall be provided in accordance with part 12 the planning commission did not adopt that second condition so that is up for you all to either accept or or not and then the applicant has also presented you guys with five additional proposed conditions to mitigate those impacts which include one water the non-paved roads three times per day during the operations two uh to water the face of the pile area prior to the loading of the material let's hold on one second let's let's stop right there because we're going to take these up one by one i want to that's how i want to do it um so the motion with the the amend to move to amend with the conditions which conditions because we've got like three sets of conditions listed on here so first you can what's on the table yep so first your uh motion to amend would be to um to accept the and we can do a roll-up of all of these conditions for the ones that you guys decide but the first amendment is uh to attach the revised exhibit three and exhibit four okay so committee members as you can see on the agenda the amendments one and two the revised exhibit three removes the concrete batching from the pud correct right and then obviously the exhibit four is just the site plan and then the condition would be whether or not you accept the planning department's conditions or the or the planning commission's condition which is the removal of that landscaping um requirement okay so do we need to get that on the record i guess from the committee correct okay all right awesome so with that we will and just to again remind the committee where we're at we've got a motion on these two amendments the planning department has made two conditions the planning commission adopted the condition number one left out planning department's condition number two we need to decide if we want to do planning department's conditions or planning commission conditions correct okay councilmember johnson you're recognized go ahead councilmember gaffney you're right you're recognized thank you through the chair i need some clarity between the planning department and the planning commission i'm kind of confused in terms of what the planning department is recommending and what the planning commission is recommending and what's the difference between the um conditions yep i'll let aaron speak to it but the difference between the planning department and planning Commission's condition is... I'm sorry, sorry to interrupt. If you could keep it in layman terms, I know you might... So both, yep. So the Planning Department conditions is a traffic study and then also landscaping requirement. The Planning Commission only decided to adopt the traffic study. They removed the request for a landscape. Oh, the only difference from what I heard is the landscaping requirement. Correct. Okay. Okay. All right. Thank you. All right. Councilman Johnson, you're recognized. And through the chair, right now, this... What we're going to make the decision on is if we're going to adopt the Planning Department conditions. Mr. Chair, is that correct? So the conditions... Yeah, we need to... The amendment was moved. So we need to decide which condition... Are we going to adopt both the conditions or just one? So as Mr. Gaffney just stated, the Planning Commission adopted the traffic study, but they didn't adopt the landscaping for the employee parking. So if we come to a consensus that we're going to adopt the Planning Commission condition, we will vote on that with the amendment. Let me ask, Mr. Chair, while I have the mic, to Ms. Reid or whomever from the developer, is the condition number two, which is the landscaping part of the condition, where do you stand on that? Through the chair to Councilman Johnson, we prefer not to have to do the interior vehicular use area because it's a private employee parking space. No one from the public is going to see it. It's not going to add any benefit. At the Planning Commission hearing, the commission agreed with that. The Planning Department didn't have an objection. But if it's your preference to retain that condition, we're open either way. Okay. And this does not... Mr. Chair, we would then go into the... The amendment is different. Okay. So the amendment that we see, that's different from the condition, correct? That's not going to be included in either the... We need to decide now whether we're going to include the landscaping or not. Yep. Doesn't include the amendments or the other proposed conditions that Ms. Abney... Correct. The amendment is the main star of the show. Got it. Ms. Abney, you're in the queue. Did you want to clarify anything? Thanks. Yes. Following the Planning Commission's meeting and the discussion that was had there, since the property is not going to be open to the public and all landscaping is going to be moved to the perimeter, we are fine not having the second condition. So if you want to just move the Planning Commission condition, the one with the traffic study, then we're fine with that. Okay. Awesome. So, Council Member Arias, I think, are you in the queue on the... I was going to move exactly that. Move the Planning Commission condition. Okay. Awesome. Does that need to be a motion, Mr. Harvey? Okay. All right. We'll take a motion on it. All in favor of the Planning Commission condition, signify by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed? That condition carries. So now we are back on the amendment with the Planning Commission condition. Do we have anyone in the queue on that? Seeing none, all in favor of the amendment with the Planning Commission condition, signify by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed? The amendment carries. Now we need a motion on the bill as amended with the conditions. All right. We have a motion and a second on the bill as amended with the conditions. Before you guys move that one, are you going to take up for consideration the proposed conditions? Yeah. We were waiting on you, man. Yeah. All right. What other conditions? Oh, yeah. There was a... There's five, and I can read them out into you in the record or if you want to take them one by one. Council Member Johnson, you recognize. Mr. Chair, when you said we were going to do the conditions one by one, I was thinking you meant these conditions, not those other conditions. So not the proposed. Are you going to do the proposed one by one, or are you going to roll these up and do these all as one? We're going to do all these as one. I meant the other conditions. The other ones. Okay. I'm better. Yeah. All right. So Mr. Harvey, go ahead and read these conditions. We'll vote on these, roll them up, and then we'll, yeah, go from there. Great. So the five conditions are, one, water an unpaved road three times per day during operations, water the face of the pile area prior to the loading of material, have a tripod portable sprinkler available for windy days that would potentially create dust, and also available during piling and loading of those materials. Install a sprinkler at the stacking conveyor discharge point where the material comes off the conveyor from the rail car to create the pile, and then finally contact, excuse me, contract with a sweeping company to sweep interior and ingress, egress points one time per week within the PUD site. All right. All in favor of the proposed conditions as stated, signified by saying aye. Any opposed? Those conditions carry. And do we need to attach those conditions to the amendment with the other conditions? Okay. All right. Let's do that and go ahead and roll them up into one amendment. And now are we in a posture where we can get a motion and a second on the bill as amended? That is correct. Okay. Let's do that. And then Councilman Johnson will come to you. So do we have a motion on the bill now from somebody? Yep. Second. Do we have a second? There we go. All right. All right. All right. So now we are on the bill as amended with all of the conditions as stated. Councilmember Johnson, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So let me say one of the reasons that I'm having a little trepidation. Obviously, I know this community very well. I'm a relative in this community, spent time there. And the biggest opposition that I heard, I went and rode by it, looked at it, and the biggest opposition I heard was that the concrete batch plant would cause irreparable harm environmentally to the community. But I went out there and I looked at it. I also asked some experts, one of which, when the concrete batch processing was removed, I wanted to know, is there an issue with air quality when it relates to the storage of these items? And while I certainly appreciate the anecdotal data that's been provided by the people that are here, I wanted to talk to an expert, and one of which is the chief health officer of the city, Dr. Sunil Joshi. One of the things, and that was one of the reasons I went in the back, because I wanted to find out more, because there were some missing pieces here for me. According to Dr. Joshi, which can be found out publicly at the gispub.epa.gov, we are in concert with the federal government. There's an air quality monitor that monitors air quality consistently. And this air quality monitor happens to be located on the north side, just north of 295. But it is in the area that is in, according to epidemiologists and according to other experts, that is within the radius to be able to pick up the air quality that comes from what would happen here in this processing facility. According to it right now, and I'm looking at this, and it's live data, and you can again find it at AirNow, and it's an EPA website. But it says that the quality around that area where it's located is above 20, which is optimal conditions. And they've also said that according to this, it does not pose a problem. Based on what is there and what can be there, it doesn't pose a problem. However, when I looked at it, I wanted to know more. And then I was not aware of the proposed conditions, because they had not been shared until I had come here to the meeting this evening before I made the decision. The proposed conditions of watering roads, making sure that it was mitigated, ingress, egress points, all of the conditions that have been proposed seem to overly mitigate issues that could come about. I shared these with Dr. Joshi, and he tended to agree with me that it does not seem like these are, that it's not going to be as much of a problem with storage as it is with processing. Additionally, one of the things that came back to me is, you know, I'm really big on land use law and knowing where the law is, I wanted to look through it. Well, the law says if they wanted to go store on this site right now, the developer can do that by right. And so even in the face of that, this group has decided to downgrade the use of this facility. And then they came about and then came up with five additional conditions that do not have to be met, and they did it. And they did that based on what the community is recommended. So based on the data from Dr. Joshi, based on this air quality data that I'm seeing, I don't see, and I want to see some evidence. I mean, while anecdotal data is important, I want to see some evidence that says this is something that's detrimental to the community. And as a black person, you know, I keep hearing it, oh, well, why are we dumping stuff in the black community? Well, I may not live in this community, but I'm of this community. And I don't see that happening here. And so I think we've had to be very forthright before making these kinds of accusations and coming to the table with our data and our facts in a row. I just want to put that on the record that I did the research and it does not look like it is as detrimental as some are saying that it is. Thank you, Mr. Chair. All right. Thank you. Next, we have Council Member Arias. You're recognized. All right. Thank you, Chair. I actually had a question for the district council member, and it was, and obviously she's not here today, but I wanted to know from, from, I guess, Kimberly Horn, whoever wants to speak on this matter, but through the chair, if that's okay with you. Yep. Go ahead. You guys had a community meeting. I heard from the audience right now that there was about five people in attendance from the community. And I also want to, you know, my question was, you know, who convened this meeting? I'm assuming it will be district council member, but there was a lot of people here last time that we were at land use and zoning that knew about this meeting coming up. So I wonder, like, who dropped the ball here? Was it somebody from our side? Was the word not spread out? Like, why was there only five people in opposition? And I'm not saying this to put anybody in the spot, but I think that something of this magnitude should have been really addressed in a larger group setting. My second question to this would be, we talked a little bit about environmental quality concerns. And so at this meeting that you all had, did you guys invite environmental quality division from the city of Jacksonville to attend? Or was there any conversations with them at all? Because that's the department in our city that actually manages this. And I know Councilmember Johnson was talking about another environmental, I guess, organization outside of the city of Jacksonville. But I want to know, like, did anybody from the city of Jacksonville actually address this? Because that's really who I want to hear from right now. Thank you. Through the chair, I did not set up the meeting on October 1st. I was notified the day before that it was going to happen and asked to participate. So I did not set it up or choose who attended. But it was a nice opportunity to have a good conversation with some people that actually lived right there in that neighborhood. The environmental quality division, I did reach out to environmental quality. I couldn't get a hold of James Richardson. But I did talk to Charles Hupps a little bit. But that was about the concrete batch plan at the time that that was going in, because that was the concern. And I was trying to understand EQD's perspective. I defer to planning department, maybe Aaron has had some conversations additionally with EQD, because I know that there were some questions to the planning department about that. But they were not in attendance at any of the meetings. Thanks. All right. Through the chair to Ms. Abney. So can we talk about EQD exactly to see have they been really conversating with you guys or with anybody? Because like I said, we need to hear from them. And I don't feel comfortable voting in any direction until I hear from the organization in our city that actually manages this. Through the chair to Councilmember Arias. So EQD is a reviewer on all our PUD applications. In this case, they did review on the concrete batch plant, which they initially did not have major concern saying like, we should deny this. They said that obviously permitting goes through multiple different organizations or departments. So stormwater maintenance is through St. John's River Water Management. They do some permitting. And then for the concrete batch plan itself, that was going to be through the Florida Department of Environmental Protection. And they would have to meet all of those regulations. Since the concrete batch plant has been taken out, we we did not get new comments back from them. But in this case, it is just storage on the property, which they are entitled to today under the current zoning. Okay. Thank you, Chair. I'll hold off the questions until further later. All right. Thank you. And then we have Councilmember Johnson for the second time. Go ahead, sir. Thank you. Sorry to prolong this issue because I wanted, now that we presented these new conditions, if I may, can I ask a question through the chair to Mr. Chair. Pastor Barnes, I'm just, I'm assuming that you're pretty much a representative for the community. I know we talked in the back. My question for you, and if you could elaborate where you are, do these proposed conditions and this additional, these additional insights that have been brought on, at least for me with the EPA, with, and while I do understand to Councilman Arias, it sounds like it's an outside entity being the EPA, but it's in conjunction with us. So it's a collective that we use so that we're not just doing it ourselves, but if the federal government's doing it, we're using it together. So it's not technically outside, but to you, Pastor Barnes, does this assuage your concerns or does it amplify them? Absolutely not. And let me share, Councilman Raul asked the question, who dropped the ball? It wasn't our end. The Councilwoman, Jacoby Pittman, held a community meeting. At that time, during that community meeting, this was a concrete batch plant for manufacturing. Things changed. The developer, the representative for the developer, has mentioned that meetings were held. It was with five people. Those five people do not represent this community. No more than me standing up here by myself. There should have been a community conversation to apprise the community of the amendments that have been proposed here. I am not, I don't have the authority or the expertise to say whether or not what has been proposed and agreed on by you by way of amendments is reasonable. We need an expert to do that. We have not had an expert to share with the community whether these amendments are acceptable. Last thing I'm going to say, I know this commission works on facts, but you have a bunch of people sitting in this room who have historically felt as if decisions about the community and the land around where they live, those decisions have been taken away from them. There has to be conversation. There has to be collaboration in order for us to understand the facts so that we can respond appropriately. So with that, I still recommend that you vote no on the ordinance. Councilman Johnson, you still have the floor unless you're ready to yield your time. I think I've heard all that we do. Are there any experts environmentally? Do we have any audience, any environmental? So before we go down, and I'll entertain that, but before we go down this rabbit hole, I really just want to get us on the right track here because what my understanding is, and this is me just not knowing anything about concrete batching, right? The air quality control is a problem if there's concrete batching, not storage, correct? Can someone answer that from planning department? To the chair, that is our understanding. Okay, so with the storage, what are they storing? Because they're allowed to do that today. So what's, what are they storing? Concrete? Pounds of concrete? I believe this is the material that they would use to make concrete. So the items would be brought to the site, and instead of mixing it, it's just going to be stored on site and then taken off site to be mixed somewhere else. Okay. And, and would EQD evaluate this the same whether they were having a concrete batch plant or not? EQD would still be a reviewer. So when they go through civil plan review, EQD is a reviewer on that, and they will have to meet all the regulations of the environmental quality division depending upon the type of use that they're doing, whether it's just storage, concrete batching, or, or vice versa. Okay. And as it stands today, let's just say this PUD fails and goes away. They can still do everything they're asking to do. Can we get that on the record? Through the chair, yes. Use-wise, yes. They are within this PUD still asking for a parking increase and some landscaping deviations, but they theoretically could come back later with an administrative deviation to handle those items. Okay. So that, so I think this is where it's at. They originally came in, this is to the community. I believe the applicant came in originally asking for a concrete batch processing plant. That got taken out. That was basically the only thing in the PUD that was causing it to be a PUD, which is a plan unit development, which is a type of zoning, because they are not allowed to do that by right. So now that is not a part of the PUD. So theoretically, what we just heard is they don't even need a PUD. So whether we vote this up or down, it's sort of a moot point, so to speak, because they could go do what they're asking for technically by right, aside from a parking increase and whatever else. So for the sake of the argument committee, we need to stay on that, not all of these other little side trails that are going all over the place because they have made a major amendment and we need to focus on that. That is what we were voting on. That's the motion on the table. So this is me putting us right on the, on the right track. So that, that is where we're at. Councilmember Diamond, you're recognized. Nope. That's fine. I was just going to call the question. I'm ready to vote. Councilmember White, you're recognized. Yes. We're through the chair. I don't want to ask exactly the same thing you asked, I think, but in a different way. If this failed, they could still go back to Marr and build the concrete batch. I mean, they could build what they wanted to build with no conditions at all, these extra conditions. Is that what I'm hearing? Through the chair to Councilmember White, yes. And the PUD also removed some uses that they're allowed by right today, like the bulk storage yard. So we're really voting more in the PUD about the landscape and then we are, we're just getting some extra conditions. Correct. By grace that they're giving us of something they can do already. Correct. Thank you. Councilmember Arias, you're recognized. Thank you, chair. To my, to Councilmember White's point, the way I see it is exactly what you just elaborated on. And Councilmember White is the fact that we're voting on the parking and the landscaping. This is actually a benefit to the community to have this added into it. this, this language right here. So if we don't vote it up today, what's going to happen is they're going to come back for a deviation for parking later on, but they're not going to have these provisions in there included as well. So I think the win-win for the community would be voted up today. Add all this in there. That way you guys are protected from any other adverse, you know, issues with, with dust and all that, if any. And then have them, let them get their parking. Otherwise, they're going to come back for the parking without this. So the way I see it is, it would be a win for the community to vote it up today and to protect you guys with, with this language here. Thank you. All right. Thank you, Councilmember Arias. And just to echo some of the sentiments there, because an administrative deviation, that doesn't come to this committee, right? That is, where does that, does that go to staff or does it just go to planning commission? It would be the zoning administrator. Okay. So staff. So, so not to get too far in the weeds, but just again, community, I know this is a lot of terminology and it's probably maybe going over your heads, but this is, this is what I want to communicate. If this PUD fails, they will go and do exactly what they're asking to do today without any of these five things. Now, what is on this list of five things are actually, are sprinklers for dust that's being created and sprinklers over their stacking conveyor belt, discharge point, yada, yada. That will not be on an administrative deviation because the administrative deviation will just be for the parking. So when you have a PUD, you can create additional conditions that contain things like dust that doesn't exist today. If they were to go and just do their storage, um, as it stands right now. So to council member Arias, his point, that is a good thing. That is an additional protection, whether y'all see that or not, it is that protection would not even be available. If let's just say they would true this and went just for an administrative deviation. So just getting that kind of all on the record, but councilman Gaffney, you're recognized. Thank you through the chair for clarity. So if they wanted to do a concrete batch plan, it wouldn't come before city council, right? It would go before the zoning administrator to the planning department through the chair, through the chair to councilman Gaffney knows. So they would have to rezone in order to have that use. So if that is what they want to do on the property in the future, we would have to go back through this entire process. But still we'll come before council. Okay. All right. Um, colleagues, I'm gonna put it on the record. Um, I'm still a no, I'm opposed. If it was up to me, if it was my district, we'll be having another meeting next week. I understand I'm only one colleague up here. I'd be deferring it, but I know I don't want to waste you guys' time. I don't want to waste the community time. But if it's up to me, you know, the community still have questions, but I'm gonna be a no. But like I said, I know I'm only one vote. So that's why I'm at the night. Okay. Um, you want to speak? Okay, go ahead. Thank you, chair. Um, community. I don't have to explain my vote, but I'm gonna explain it very quick. And I already did. But if it was my district, I would vote yes right now. Cause it literally protects you guys. That's the, at the end of the day, it protects you guys. This language does. Um, if it wasn't for anything else, if it was a concrete, um, batch, whatever they were going to do, I would have voted that down in a heartbeat, 100%. But the fact that they could come back at any time without our approval and they go straight to a different department, they'll get it done. They'll get it passed. So if it was my district, I will protect you guys and say yes, 100%. Even if it's an ugly yes. At the end of the day, not everything that's yes is pretty or not, but at the end of the day, this does protect you guys. So just want to explain why I will be voting yes on this because I really want to protect you guys. If it wasn't, if they didn't withdraw their concrete patch, a batch thing, it would have been shut down in a heartbeat. Thank you. All right. And, and just misread this, you gave this to us. Do you have any more copies of this? Your, your five proposed conditions? The chair, I have a couple more. Okay. Community. I'm assuming you guys haven't seen this. Okay. Can you hand that out to some of the community? Because I think that's causing some of this frustration and that's, we're sitting here looking at it and the, just to state it again, because we stated it very quickly and as she's handing this out, they're going to, what's that? They'll be fine. They'll be fine. If we could put it on the screens, that'd be great. But, um, so I'll just read it and they have a couple copies going around, but the applicant has agreed to water the non-paved roads three times a day during operation. So obviously there's going to be trucks driving on non-paved roads, which kicks up dust. They're agreeing to water those roads. Uh, so the dust on those roads is minimal. They're going to water the piles of concrete or stone or whatever before loading the material. If it's just sitting there, less dust is going to be kicked up as if you're loading it. So if they're scooping it up, they're going to, uh, drench it with water before they load it up, causing obviously less dust. They're going to have sprinklers available on windy days that could potentially create dust, install a sprinkler system on the stacking, uh, conveyor discharge point where the material comes off the conveyor belt. And then they're going to contract with a sweeping company to sweep the interior, uh, ingress and egress points one time a week. So what we're saying is these, these five conditions are going to minimize a lot. If not, I won't say all, cause I know that's a absolute, but a lot of the dust. And what we're trying to communicate is the only way for the applicant, the only way you get these five things is through a PUD, not an administrative deviation. That is technically all they need right now, but we are where we are. And that is why we're going to, you know, that's why we already, I think we already adopted these five conditions. Correct. Okay. All right. So with that, we have no one else in the queue, right? Okay. Anyone else want to speak? We're on the bill, right? As amended. We're on the bill as amended with the conditions. Okay. All right. We will open the ballot. Record your votes. Five yays, two nays. By your action, you have approved 2026-532 as amended with the conditions. Item number nine, 2026-556 is deferred with a public hearing next cycle on 10-20-26. Item number 10, 2026-557. Council members, please declare your ex parte communication at this time. Seeing none, I have ex parte to, uh, declare. I met with Cindy Truman in my office on August 26th at 10-30 and we discussed the legislation and the site plan and this, uh, paperwork is being filed with legislative services. Council member Arias, you're recognized. Thank you, chair. I'd also like to declare ex parte. I met with the applicants in the trimmer, uh, via phone call on September 24th and it is currently being filed. Thank you. All right. We have no other speakers in the queue for ex parte. Let's open the, oh, let's get a, let's open the public hearing and get a staff report. This is PUD rezoning application ordinance 2026-557 requesting to rezone approximately 15.41 acres for a property that's located along A.C. Skinner Parkway. They are rezoning from industrial business park to a PUD to allow to, in order to allow for a mixed use dining entertainment and retail establishment, which would include a full service restaurant bar, billiards hall, and sales of related merchandise within an existing business park. The proposed PUD would continue to permit the full range of IBP uses, but would allow additional commercial retail and service uses that support the requested restaurant and entertainment venue. No new construction is proposed. The PUD is designed to provide site-specific standards for shared parking, property-wide landscaping, signage, and setbacks within the integrated business park. We find the request to be consistent with the comp plan. The PUD meets the internal and external compatibility criteria. The proposal is located within an existing park surrounded on all sides by business park designation and IBP zoning with wetlands that buffer residential uses to the east. The mixed use dining and entertainment establishment is complementary to surrounding office medical and business park developments. Traffic impacts are expected to be manageable. A.C. Skinner Parkway is operating at 19 percent capacity. So for these reasons and those in the staff report, we forward a recommendation of approval with two conditions and a revised exhibit three and four in your agenda. Thank you. All right. Thank you. One speaker card, Richie Mullaney. Richie Mullaney with Driver McAfee, one independent drive suite 1200 on behalf of the applicant. I'm here today representing OnCue. They're excited to open for business here in Jacksonville. As Aaron mentioned, they'd like to open a mixed-use entertainment venue in a portion of an existing building and an office park. This will feature a full-service restaurant and bar as well as a billiards lounge. And this is a PUD before you today for several reasons to add the specific mix of uses, including the pool hall, as well as establish property-wide design guidelines given the shared parking and shared amenities of the office park. And it's also a PUD to include the use of the sale of alcohol, and built into it is a waiver of liquor distance for the church that is also a part of this business park, but in a separate building, separate standalone building. With that, I will stand by for questions. Thank you. All right. Thank you, sir. We have no other speaker cards, so we will close the public hearing and bring it back to committee. All right. We have a motion and a second on the amendment with conditions. All in favor of the amendment. Signify by saying aye. Any opposed? The amendment carries. We have a motion and a second on the bill as amended. And we have no one in the queue. I just want to make sure this is District 11, which is Council Member Arias's. Mr. Mulaney, have you reached out to the District Council? Did you speak to him? Whether you reached out or not as kind of irrelevant? I personally did not. I personally did not. Ooh. I'm a little behind the eight ball on this, I guess. I don't know. I'm sorry. Thank you, Chair, for that. That was a cool point. Yeah. Unfortunately, he did not. He didn't do his due diligence or homework, whatever you want to call it. But thankfully for him, he does have Cindy Trimmer as his teammate. And she did reach out to me and spoke to me about it and all the great things that they're going to bring. So thank you, Cindy. You're the best. All right. Do we need to, do we need to defer this, Council Member Arias? For Cindy, I wouldn't defer it. But for him, I probably would have. Yeah, absolutely. Okay. All right. So we got a motion in a second on the amendment with conditions, right? Okay. All right. We are good to go. Let's open the ballot. Record your vote. Six yays. Zero nays. By reaction, you've approved 2026-557. All right. Next up, we have 2026-558. We will open the public hearing. And we don't have a staff report because it's not up for action until 1020. But we have a couple speaker cards. I think most of them might have left. Lynette White is in opposition. Willie Barnes is in opposition. Peggy Wiggins is in opposition. Nancy Murray Settle is in opposition. Brenda Smith, opposition. Tamla Simmons is in opposition. Wells Todd is in opposition. Gwendolyn Thomas, opposition. Andre Washington, opposition. Leroy Hutchins, opposition. Brenda Simmons-Hutchins, Avis Sweet, Yvette Sanchez. All these are in opposition. Paul Forhan, Christopher Robinson, Christopher Robinson, Jacqueline Harris, LaVon Mitchell, Beatrice Matthews, Samantha Ceres, Latrice Smith, Harold Pierce, Brenda Forhan, Wiley Thomas, Dr. Keyshawn Chambliss, Will Simmons, Loretta Chopik, and Rosalind Snow-Smith, Jamie Travis Leonard, Gloria Gardner, Juanita Simmons, Kimberly Morrison, Alfreda Denson-Butler, Avery Cohen, and India Butler. Mr. Harvey, it says on here that we are opening and continuing this public hearing at the request of the applicant. Is that correct? If we wanted to move this tonight, could we? He's not here and you didn't get a staff report. Is the staff report ready? And because you also continued the public hearing with the public noticing being done at that time, it would be best practice not to move or act on that bill tonight. Okay. So we will need to continue. We have to stay on the continuance until 10-20-26? That is correct. Okay. All right. Hopefully, Mr. Hart heard that loud and clear. With that, we'll go on to item number 12, 20-26-647. Let's open the public hearing and get a staff report. Ordinance 20-26-647 is a large-scale land use amendment to change approximately 89.17 acres from light industrial in the industrial situational compatibility area to heavy industrial in the industrial sanctuary area. The site is located on the northwest corner of Pickettville Road and Commonwealth Avenue, approximately a quarter mile west of I-295. Pickettville is a collector road and Commonwealth is a minor arterial road. There are rail lines that run along the north and west property lines. There's industrial land located to the northwest, east, and south of the subject site. The entire site is located within an industrial situational compatibility area. So in addition to the land use amendment, the applicant has requested to change the industrial preservation map to place the site within the industrial sanctuary area. Both designations are identified on the industrial preservation map as being strategically located for industrial uses. Industrial situational compatibility, those are areas that may be suitable for industrial uses under certain conditions. Industrial sanctuaries are existing industrial areas that are strategically located for future industrial expansion and economic development. The land use amendment to heavy industrial is in keeping with the industrial land uses found in the immediate area and is compatible with the abutting rail lines. The property has convenient access to Commonwealth Avenue, a minor arterial road, and is located less than a quarter of a mile from I-295, which is also a preferred truck route. This is the transmittal round of legislation for this large-scale land use amendment. So it will go to the state agencies for review, and then when it comes back for adoption, there will also be a planned unit development rezoning along with it to travel with it for the adoption round. For these reasons and those in the staff report, the planning department recommends approval. Planning Commission heard this item on September 17th, and they unanimously voted to approve the item with no discussion. Thank you. All right. Thank you so much for that. First speaker, Cindy Trimmer. Good evening. Cindy Trimmer, One Independent Drive, Suite 1200 on behalf of the applicants. Susan did a wonderful job of highlighting all of the reasons this site is particularly attractive to a large-scale manufacturing facility that is evaluating opening shop in Jacksonville. As Susan mentioned, we're in the industrial situational compatibility zone. The request for industrial sanctuary is because of the scale of this project and the investment that this manufacturer would be making in Jacksonville. They're seeking that heightened protection where there is a presumption that industrial is appropriate and also the protections against future encroachment from residential or other uses that might not be compatible with industrial uses. With that, I will stand by for questions. All right. Thank you. Next, we have Samantha Series is in opposition, does not wish to speak. Jamie Travis Leonard, opposition, does not wish to speak. With that, we'll close the public hearing and bring back to committee. All right. We have an amendment. Mr. Harvey, can you explain the amendment? Mr. Harvey, can you explain the amendment? Yes. The amendment is to adopt the revised exhibit two, which is the map. All right. We have a motion and a second on the amendment, which is a revised exhibit two. All in favor of the amendment, signify by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed? The amendment carries. Motion and a second on the bill is amended. No one in the queue. Open the ballot. Record your vote. Let's get a vote. Five yays. Zero nays. By reaction, you've approved 2026-647. Item number 13, 2026-648. Let's open the public hearing and get a staff report. Ordinance 2026-648 is for a large-scale land use amendment to change approximately 300.87 acres from agriculture to rural residential to develop single-family residential uses. The subject site is comprised of portions of six parcels and the site lies within both the suburban area and the rural area. The area stretches from north to south between Plummer Road and Garden Street, approximately four miles west of the I-295 New Kings Road interchange and approximately three miles east of the Duval-Nassau County line. Plummer Road and Garden Street are both collector roadways. The site is primarily undeveloped and the trout creek and trout river flow through the middle of the site. This is the transmittal round of legislation for this large-scale amendment. So again, when this after it goes to state review, it'll come back through for the adoption round and a PUD rezoning will be filed with it at that time. The PUD will cover a larger area, including land to the north of the subject site that fronts along Plummer Road. The area is primarily residential and agricultural with undeveloped land around the trout river and the associated wetlands. The proposed amendment to rural residential provides a logical extension of the existing RR designation to the north while remaining consistent with the density and intensity of uses allowed in the corresponding suburban and rural areas. The maximum density for these for this land use category is two dwelling units per acre. RR is a land use category that primarily allows for single-family residential and the proposed land use amendment would allow for an increase in the amount of residential land available to accommodate anticipated growth and provide lifestyle choice for residents. For these reasons and those in the staff report, the plan department recommends approval. The item was heard at the September 17th Planning Commission and the item was unanimously approved with a minimal discussion. Thank you. All right. Thank you, Sharon. Next we have Hayden Phillips. Thank you. Hayden Phillips, 1301 River Place Boulevard. This is only the transmittal round for a large-scale land use amendment. It will come back to you for the adoption round with the companion PUD. AGR to RR. It's just one step up in intensity. Maximum two units per acre. Actually abuts LDR, which we are notably not asking for. The site is currently a few large borrow pits. This will, of course, enable the PUD, which would be for single-family uses along with a substantial amount of open space. It will fit in with the mix of uses in the area and, as Ms. Kelly just stated, it will be a logical extension of the RR that abuts the site to the east and the north. We actually did host a community meeting. We did coordinate with the district council person and only a couple people showed up to the citizens information meeting with general questions. I gave them my information and I have not heard from anyone, so I'll stand by for questions. Thank you. All right. Thank you, Mr. Phillips. We have no other speakers in the queue. Let's close the public hearing and bring it back to the committee. Motion and a second on the bill. No one in the queue. Open the ballot. Court's your vote. Five yays, zero nays. By reaction, you approve 2026-648. Item number 14, 2026-649. Let's open the public hearing and get a staff report. Ordinance 2026-649 is for a small-scale land use amendment at 5529 Floral Bluff Road. The request is to change approximately 0.46 of an acre from low-density residential to medium-density residential to allow for two duplexes. The subject site was previously occupied by a single-family dwelling, but it is now vacant. The subject site is located on Floral Bluff Road between University Boulevard North and Harvey Street. Floral Bluff and Harvey Street are local roads and University Boulevard is a minor arterial road. The site is within the Renew Arlington CRA and was reviewed by their advisory board on August 12th. The board unanimously voted to recommend approval of the request. LDR designations are to the north, west, and south of the subject site, and CGC, Community General Commercial, abuts the subject site to the east along University Boulevard. Given this location between a commercial corridor and a residential neighborhood, the vacant lot provides an appropriate location for the proposed MDR category, establishing a gradual transition of density from the CGC to the LDR. The site has access to water and sewer connections, and the proposed MDR designation would support the balanced combination of uses in the area while providing additional housing opportunities on a currently vacant property. So for these reasons and those in the staff report, the planning department recommends approval. The planning commission heard this item on September 17th, and they voted unanimously to approve the item with minimal discussion. Thank you. All right. Thank you, Shannon. Is Jack Morgan here? Okay. Did you fill out a speaker card? We don't have a speaker card for you, but in order to speak, we need you to fill one of those out. So if you want, you can go ahead and speak and we'll get you a card to fill out. Oh, yes, sir. Just name and address for starters. Yeah. My name is Jack Morgan. My address is 5467 West Beaver Street, and I just want to say that we plan to build two apartment buildings, four-unit, three-bedroom units on the property. We wanted to be consistent with the improvements that's been made along the University Boulevard and to kind of match the, excuse me, the improvements that was done on the Southside Connector Department complexes that are over there. We wanted to kind of favor that style so that it will look, have an aesthetic appearance for the community. Okay, great. Thank you so much. And Mr. Rebecca, if you can get him a card or something, and we'll go ahead and close the public. Well, Council Member Carrico, do you want to speak? Okay, go ahead. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The District Council's not here. The District Councilman, I just want to assume that you met with Council Member Amaro. For you, Mr. Morgan, did you meet with Council Member Amaro? Mr. Morgan, the question was for you, sir. Did you meet with the District Councilman, Council Member Ken Amaro? Uh, I did not meet with him, no, sir. Okay. But the, uh, the owner did. I'm pretty sure. Okay, somebody did. Yes. Okay. Um, we have a member from his staff, um, here, if you wouldn't mind, sir. You can have a seat. Mr. Um, Joe? Joe? Mr. Johnson. Forgive me, Mr. Johnson, uh, the representative from, uh, District One. Could you confirm that, uh, your council member is aware of this and doesn't have any issues? It sounds like a quadplex. I just want to make sure. Sometimes people stick these things places they don't belong. It's your district. Uh, I just wanted to know if you, uh, if your boss had any heartburn over this or you good? Absolutely. Uh, Joe Johnson, Executive Council Assistant for Council Member Can Amaro. Uh, we did previously meet with the owner prior to this getting, uh, filed. So, we are aware of the, of the proposal, the project, and everything. So, we've had a very thorough discussion with them. We were also aware of the discussion that happened at the Renew Arlington CRA. And, um, that's it. Okay. Well, thank you, sir. That's, just want to make sure we check that box. All right. Stay put. Mr. Johnson, we have Council Member Diamond is on the, on the queue. Go ahead. Through the chair to Mr. Johnson. Did you, did you walk the site? I did not personally, uh, but the council member did. So, you don't know. I, I have full confidence in, in, uh, Councilman Amaro, uh, going to the site and touring it. Does this comply with the 2020 Salem Amendments? I'm sorry. Say again. Does this comply with the 2020 Salem Amendments? Uh, through the chair to, uh, Councilman, uh, Rory Diamond, I believe so. I mean, do you, do you have the 2020 Salem Amendment supplement to show that? Through the chair to, uh, they don't exist. Don't, don't, don't dig any deeper. They don't exist. I'm just giving you a hard time. I know. You're not going to let me off easy. All right. Our, uh, monthly, uh, Salem Amendment joke has, uh, has landed perfectly on a staff member, which is always the best. So, with that, we have no other speakers in the queue. Uh, let's open the ballot and record the vote. I'm surprised you fell for that, man. Five yays, zero nays. By your action, you have approved 2026-649. Item number 15, 2026-650. 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. 2026-650 seeks to rezone approximately 0.46 acres at 5529 Flora Bluff Road from RLD 60 to RMDB to allow for the development of a four-unit multifamily residential project. The site is located just west of University Boulevard North within the Renew Arlington CRA and zoning overlay. Staff finds proposed rezoning consistent with the 2045 comprehensive plan as RMDB is a primary zoning district within the MDR land use category. The Renew Arlington Advisory Board reviewed the application on August 12th and unanimously recommended approval finding the proposal in compliance with the CRA plan and overlay standards. The rezoning furthers the comprehensive plan goals to maintain adequate land for residential uses, expand housing options, and provide appropriate transition between commercial and residential areas. The Old Arlington Neighborhood Action Plan emphasizes gradual transitions in density, which this application supports by stepping down from commercial uses along University Boulevard to single-family neighborhoods to the west. The request does not conflict with the city's land use regulations and is compatible with the surrounding development, including adjacent multifamily to the west and commercial uses to the east. For these reasons and those in the staff report, we forward recommendation of approval. The item was heard at the September 17th Planning Commission meeting where there were no speakers in opposition and the commission voted unanimously for approval. All right. Thank you, Katie. We have no speakers in the queue. We have no speaker cards. So let's close the public hearing and bring back the committee. Motion and second on the bill. Seeing no discussion, we will open the ballot, record the vote. Five yays, zero nays. Choir actually approved 2026-650. Item number 16, 2026-651. Let's open the public hearing and get a staff report. Thank you. Ordinance 2026-651 is for a small-scale land use amendment at 2116 Riverside Avenue. The site is located southwest of the intersection of Riverside Avenue and Goodwin Street. It is diagonal from the Riverside Publix Shopping Center. The site is currently being used as a parking lot. The request is to change approximately 0.9 of an acre from PBF, public buildings and facilities, to residential, professional, institutional, RPI, to allow for residential and office uses. The site has frontage along Riverside Avenue, St. John's Avenue, and Goodwin Street. Riverside is a minor arterial road and St. John's and Goodwin are local roads. The site occupies the eastern half of the block bounded to the east and west by Goodwin Street and Copeland Street, respectively. The western half of the block contains single-family homes, apartments, and professional offices. The subject site is within the Riverside Avondale zoning overlay and the local historic district and the National Register historic district. So vertical construction and any changes to existing structures on the site must be reviewed by the planning department and then potentially the Jacksonville Historic Preservation Commission. The proposed RPI use is a logical extension of the RPI land use to the north, west, and south, and the subject site is adjacent to residential, commercial, and professional uses. As such, the proposed RPI land use category provides for compatible uses and intensities with access to urban service delivery infrastructure. For these reasons and those in the staff report, the planning department recommends approval. The item was heard at Planning Commission on September 17th, and they unanimously voted to approve the item with minimal discussion. Thank you. All right. Thank you, Ms. Shelley. Next, we have Cindy Trimmer. Cindy Trimmer, one of Defendant Drive, Suite 1200 on behalf of the applicant. This is the former satellite parking lot for St. Vincent Ascension. A third-party developer has now purchased it, so it does need to be changed from that public building facility category. We are just seeking to modify it to match the categories that are in the surrounding area and I'll address the rest of the proposal with the zoning. All right. Thank you. We have no other speaker cards. We'll close the public hearing and bring it back to committee. Thank you, Chair. Before we move the bill- Motion in a second. Council Member Arias, go ahead. You're recognized. Before we move the bill, I'd like to declare ex parte. I totally missed that part. I spoke to the applicants. This isn't the wrong bill. Next bill. You're right about that. Thank you. All right. We have a motion in a second on the bill. Let's open the ballot and record your vote. Six yays, zero nays. By your action, you've approved 2026-651. Item number 17, 2026-652. Council members, please declare your ex parte communication at this time. Council Member Arias, you're recognized. Thank you, Chair. I'd like to declare ex parte. I spoke to the applicant, Ms. Trimmer on September 24th at 1015, and it's currently being filed. Thank you. All right. And I have ex parte to declare. I also spoke with Cindy Trimmer on September 14th at 1130, and this paperwork is being filed with legislative services. With that, let's open the public hearing and get a staff report. Thank you. 2026-652 seeks to rezone approximately 0.9 acres at the southwest corner of Riverside Avenue and Goodwin Street from public buildings and facilities to residential office. The intent is to align the zoning with the adjacent RO-zoned properties and to allow residential and office uses on a site formerly associated with the historic Riverside Hospital campus. The property lies within the Riverside Avondale zoning overlay and local historic district, and any new development will require a certificate of appropriateness. Staff finds proposed rezoning consistent with the 2045 comprehensive plan. RPI supports compact medium density residential and professional office uses with densities up to 20 units per acre in the coastal high hazard area. It also furthers the comprehensive plan by promoting infill development, compatible land use patterns, and reinvestment within established urban neighborhoods. The site is surrounded by a mix of single-family homes, multi-family dwellings, offices, and commercial uses, and RO-zoning is compatible with the area's existing development pattern. For these reasons and those in the staff report, we forward recommendation of approval. The item was heard at the September 17th Planning Commission meeting, and there was one speaker in support representing the Riverside Avondale Preservation Organization. The organization supports changing the existing zoning to remove the surface parking lot and allow residential uses, which they believe would add value to the St. John's Quarter neighborhood. All right. Thank you so much, Ms. Sox. And now we have Cindy Trimmer. Cindy Trimmer, 1 Independent Drive, Suite 1200 on behalf of the applicant. As mentioned, this is to match the existing zoning in the area. This parcel is part of the St. John's Quarter, which is a very active historic district. The applicant understands that they need to get a certificate of appropriateness for the new construction, and have already begun having meetings to look at that architecture with the neighbors. And as Casey mentioned, the Executive Director of Riverside Avondale Preservation appeared at Planning Commission and spoke in favor of the change. I'll stand by for questions. All right. We have no other speaker cards. So with that, we'll close the public hearing and bring it back to committee. Motion and a second on the bill. No one in the queue for discussion. Open the ballot. Record your vote. Six yays, zero nays. By your action, you've approved 2026-652. Item number 18, 2026-653. We will open the public hearing. No speaker cards. We'll continue this public hearing until 10-20-26. Item number 19, 2026-654. Open the public hearing. No speaker cards. We'll continue this public hearing until 10-20-26. Item number 20, 2026-655. We will open the public hearing and get a staff report. Ordinance 2026-655 is for a small-scale land use amendment to change approximately 22.16 acres from agriculture to community general commercial to allow for a commercial shopping center. The site is located on the north side of Pritchard Road, between Jones Road and McGill Road, and it has frontage on all three of those roads. Pritchard Road is a minor arterial. Jones is a collector roadway, and McGill is a local road. There is a Dollar General that abuts the subject site to the southwest, and agriculture uses AGR abut the site to the north and across McGill Road on the east. The LDR designation can be found to the west across Jones Road, and then medium density residential, low density residential, and neighborhood commercial uses are located across from the site along Pritchard Road. The subject site is also within about a thousand feet of two developments of regional impact. The west side industrial park DRI is to the east, and the west lake industrial DRI is to the west. So the proposed amendment to CGC would allow for commercial uses that are compatible with the surrounding area and are located on an underutilized parcel fronting a minor arterial road and a collector road. Additionally, the proposed CGC designation would allow for commercial uses to serve the nearby residential uses as well as to serve adjacent employment centers. For these reasons and those in the staff report, the planning department recommends approval. The item was heard at the September 17th planning commission where they voted unanimously to approve with minimal discussion. Thank you. All right. Thank you. One speaker cards, or two speaker cards, Cindy Trimmer, followed by Denise Cook. Cindy Trimmer, One Independent Drive, Suite 1200 on behalf of the applicant. I am working with a developer of grocery anchored shopping centers that is seeking to bring such a shopping center to this intersection. He was actually recruited when his daughter moved into the district and called him and said there's nowhere to get groceries anywhere close by. Could you please do what you do here in my neighborhood? We did work closely with the councilman in bringing this application and he was supportive of the change. I'll address the site planning considerations in the PUD rezoning in the next application. All right. Thank you. Did you want to ask it now or after the public hearing? We have one more speaker. Okay. Ms. Cook, you are recognized. Hi. Denise Cook, address on file. Yes, it is. So this is, you know, so this zoning change from agricultural to mixed use, small scale, this isn't a small scale change. This is going to impact the agricultural land that is adjacent to it in a number of different ways. We'll go into that on our next bill, the 2026-0656. There's no reason to change this at this point without addressing the substantial competent evidence that'll come in the next bill. Thank you. All right. 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. Council Member Diamond, you're recognized. Through the chair, just a quick question for Cindy. Just, Ms. Tremor, there's no grocery store there now? Through the chair, there is not. And when we do development on the west side, we've done a tremendous amount of residential over the last several years. And the one thing that we consistently hear when we do community meetings is why do you keep bringing us all of these houses without bringing us the commercial uses with them? Yeah, I'm tracking. And you're not asking for 50 million dollars from the city for this? Through the chair, we are not. Oh, that's lovely. All right. Here we go. We have no other speakers in the queue, so let's open the ballot. Record your votes. Six yays, zero nays. By reaction, you've approved 2026-655. Item number 21, 2026-656. Council Members, please declare your ex parte communication at this time. Past President Carrico, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. VP and Mr. Chair. I do have ex parte. I had a meeting with Cindy Trumor in my office. All the details have been recorded by my executive council assistant and documented and it will be turned into legislative services. The nature of the meeting was to tell me about the project. Thanks. All right. I also have ex parte to declare I met with Cindy Trumor on September 14th at 1130. We discussed the site plan, the community engagement that has been done. And this paperwork is being filed with legislative services. With that, let's open the public hearing and get a staff report. Thank you. This is the companion PUD rezoning ordinance 2026-0656 requesting to rezone the same 22.16 acres from agriculture to a PUD to allow for the development of a mixed-use product which would include a grocery anchored commercial shopping center and also a personal property storage facility and multiple out parcels for other commercial uses. The proposed PUD would generally adopt the CCG1 standards but adds additional commercial retail and service uses needed to support the grocery store. There's also includes restaurants with retail sales and service of alcoholic beverages and also grocery affiliated off-premises alcohol sales business. The PUD will also allows for a self-storage facility with enhanced setbacks and height limitations given that it's near residential areas. Landscaping signage and parking are to be provided on a property-wide basis and shared parking is permitted within the development. Staff finds the request is consistent with the comprehensive plan with the proposed land use category change to CGC. The category intends for compact connected commercial nodal nodes along arterial or collector roadways. The proposed development supports key policies related to nodal suburban commercial growth, multimodal access, and infill redevelopment along Pritchard Road. This PUD meets internal and external compatibility criteria. Internally, the site depicts a central located grocery store without parcels arranged along Pritchard Road and Jones Road. Provided coordinated access and shared circulation and consistent landscaping across the project. Externally, the PUD is compatible with the corridor and the PUD places height limitations on the storage use that's located on the northern edge closest to existing single-family homes. This property will provide a minimum of 121 feet setback from that closest residential property. There's a maximum storage height of three stories for the personal storage facility and those measures ensure compatibility with the adjacent residential properties while complementing the surrounding commercial and industrial development patterns. Traffic impacts are expected to be manageable. This corridor is designated a commercial growth area and positioned between two industrial parks. A traffic study will be required as conditioned by staff. Vehicular access will be provided from Pritchard Road, Jones Road, and Miguel Road and shared parking again across the site. So for these reasons and those in the staff report, we forward a recommendation of approval with two conditions. There is a revision to the condition two that's listed in the agenda. This came out of the the Planning Commission where we slightly changed the verbiage of that and the applicant was agreeable. And so that condition will read sidewalks shall be constructed to current city standards along Jones Road and Miguel Road along the entire PUD area road frontage. The owner shall dedicate to the city any land necessary to increase the right of way for such sidewall construction. So with that, the application was heard by Planning Commission on September 17th where there were no speakers in opposition and little discussion and they voted unanimously for approval with the two conditions and the revised second condition that I just mentioned. Thank you. All right. Thank you so much for that report. We have two speaker cards. First is Cindy Trimmer. Cindy Trimmer, 1 Independent Drive, Suite 1200 on behalf of the applicant. You can see in the site plan that was filed with the PUD a very traditional shopping center. The only thing about this that is unique is the location of the self storage facility behind that shopping center. That was included intentionally in that area so that it buffers the back of house on the grocery store use from the residential to the north. Erin detailed that we've agreed to limit the height of that facility and a more than 100 foot setback from the property line. And I committed to the councilman that we would state on the record that there would be a fence and landscape buffer included along the residential property lines surrounding the site. With that, I will stand by for questions. All right. Thank you very much. Next, we have Denise Cook. Come on down. Denise Cook, address on file. So in regards to substantial competent evidence, I just have some questions more than statements pertaining to the agricultural land that's in place and that we're trying to build on. And it's a significant build. This has been pasture land for the last 80 years. And has the correct testing been done to support the stability of this land with the manure, the gases and the wetlands that are adjacent to it? The dollar general that was mentioned is built up on a higher level than the land. So is there going to be more runoff from this build into the properties that are adjacent to it? Is the fence that is going to be put in going to be substantial for the keeping of livestock, which is required for the agricultural land? I've been told the wetlands will be protected. And how are we protecting them? And maybe that's with the easement and the amount of, but we need to make sure of that. The other thing is the lighting from the shopping centers. The lighting, the bright lighting, we all know what Publix looks like at night. It's a safe space. There's substantial lighting in these shopping centers. That impacts both the animals and the plants that are in the agricultural areas. It impacts their hormones. So they have fertility issues. So they have weight, less weight. And we're talking about a food source. We're talking about cattle. We're talking about milk producing cows. And the plants have a different dormant and growth period because of the light confusion. So those are some of the concerns that I have with us just going straight forward with this. And I believe there's enough concern that we should look a little deeper before we just say, let's go ahead. Thank you. All right. Thank you. That was our last speaker card. So we'll go ahead and close this public hearing and bring it back to committee. We've got a motion and second on the amendment. I believe I heard from Council Member Diamond with the conditions. Is that right, sir? We've got a motion and second on the amendment with the conditions. Would you like to go ahead and put the amendment on the record for us, Mr. Harvey? So the amendment will be the traffic study unless waived by the chief of traffic engineering or their designee. A traffic study shall be undertaken by the developer upon PUD verification and provided during the 10-cent review. The methodology of the study shall be determined by the developer's traffic engineer, the chief of transportation planning, and the chief of traffic engineering or their designees. And the second revised condition is sidewalks shall be constructed to current city standards along Jones Road and McGill Road along the entire PUD area frontage. The owner shall dedicate to the city any land necessary to increase the height, excuse me, increase the right of way for such sidewalk construction. Thank you very much. And, you know, back in my day when I had to chair this committee barefoot in the snow walking to school uphill both ways, we had to ask the applicant if they agreed to those conditions. Do we still have to do that? You can. Do you agree with those conditions, Ms. Tremor? We agree with the conditions as amended, yes. Okay, thank you very much. So all in favor of those of the amendment with the conditions signify by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed say nay. Looks like the amendment carries with the condition. We have a motion second on the bill as amended with the conditions. I have no one in the queue, so we will put this on the ballot and record your vote. Thank you. Five yays. Zero nays. By your action, you've approved 2026-0659. Where are we at? 5-8? Which one was that? I already turned the page. That's why. All right. You have approved 2026-0658. It's not like riding a bike. By your action, you've approved item number 21, 2026-0656. Moving on to item 22, 2026-0657. Let's open the public hearing and get us, no, let's open the public hearing and go to the speaker cards. We have Steve Matchett, Hayden Phillips, and Lee Varnador. Mr. Matchett. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee. Steve Matchett, my address is on file. I appeared before the full council at its last meeting to bring this issue up and before you. And before you here tonight is not going to be for a vote for you tonight because it didn't make it out of planning commission because of the applicant's absence. You may recall that we had a couple people that were upset about that. But this is a PUD to PUD rezoning request to expand an existing batting cage. Zoning code doesn't really address batting cages and it didn't 30 years ago when I wrote this PUD, the original one, back in 1996. That's 30 years ago. 30 years ago, Mr. McLaughlin wanted to do a batting cage for Arlington's youth on an acre that he carved out from property he owned at the corner of Fort Caroline and Hartsfield. He did that with my assistance and advocacy before this body and the council. And you might have heard me invoke the word covenant. And we did it with a covenant. That PUD was a covenant. And it was a covenant to bind that property to a recreational use, a primary recreational use. And it was underscored with a land use change to recreation and open space. It was originally MDR. And that was so that you couldn't expand its commercial use and intensification. We also put a strict prohibition in the PUD's written description against any alcohol sales. Well, this PUD that's coming before you changes all that or wants to change all that. It wants to add 192 seats. Okay, this is on a small one one acre lot where a batting cage occupies about half the space already. 192 seats, with 99 of them clustered around an outdoor bar. All these seats are outdoor, by the way, undercover, around an outdoor bar that's in this extreme corner of the property that abuts the roundabout. It's literally a few feet from the pavement. It's also directly across the street from Harvest Community School, which is why this PUD has to request for a liquor distance waiver as well. The written description has no hours of operation, even though there's a header for it. And the site plan has no parking accommodation for all those cars. In two weeks, we'll have a lot of people up here. Some of them are the property owner, the original property owner. One of them is the original planner that wrote a denial against my PUD 30 years ago. She lives in the neighborhood and has for 30 years. And she'll be up here and we will all be united in requesting your denial. Thank you very much. All right, sir. Thank you. Next, we have Hayden Phillips. Questions only? You wish to speak? No, he's here for questions only in support. And our last speaker on this bill is Lee H. Varnador, Jr. Lee Varnador, 2843 Brackridge Boulevard East, Jacksonville, Florida, 32216. I'm actually here, I'm not sure about this bar, but I'm in concern about the Westgate apartments that are being developed. And it says on my ordinance as it's 2026-0659. Is that what we're talking? Yeah, we're not there yet, but we can call you back up for that one. We're on 657. So that's what I'm here for. No, it's because they're giving me all the cards early. Yeah. Back in my day, again, when I was old and used to chair this committee, the vice chair would give the cards and one at a time, but that doesn't work anymore. So you guys are on the correct bill, but they were in my pile. Okay. So what we're going to do is continue the public hearing on 0657 till 102026. And Mr. Matchett? Yeah. Councilman Aris would like to speak to you, Mr. Matchett. Steve? Councilman Aris would like to talk to you in the green room, but you can't because we need five for a quorum because the mayor hasn't signed off on what we just voted on already. Is that right? It's going to change, but right now we don't have a quorum. So just, if you don't mind, Mr. Matchett, wait until Mr. Carlucci comes back and then Mr. Arias would like to speak to you. And we're going to move on to item 232026-0658. That's going to be deferred, but we do have a speaker. Do we need to entertain the speakers with the deferral? 5-8? I just continued 5-7. Now we're on 5-8. It's marked for deferral on my notes. Okay. Okay. All right. We're going to need legal counsel because I wasn't prepped for this. So somebody tell me what our options are and I will decide. It's written on the chairman's notes to defer this. Okay. So it's on the agenda as open closed move, but I believe the issue is payment not being received at the time of the start of the meeting. Got it. You don't pay, you don't pay. You don't pay. So we're going to go ahead and defer since the start of the meeting. You guys need to do this on the record. So can you talk to me and tell me what's going on? Through the chair. So the applicant is here and has made the payment. So it is paid. Okay. Yeah. I think, I think it was marked for deferred because of non-payment, but the payment has now been made. So if the committee is okay, we'll go ahead and take it up. All right. 2026-0658. We're going to declare any exparte you have, committee members. Seeing none, let's open the public hearing and get a staff report. Thank you. This is PUD rezoning application ordinance 2026-0658, which is requesting to rezone 0.22 acres of a property that is located at 4215 Irving Avenue. They are seeking to rezone from CCG one to a PUD in order to allow for a flexible mixed use development consisting of a primary residence and accessory dwelling unit, and then also to allow for low intense commercial and professional office use. The PUD is intended to formally legalize the property's long established live work pattern that has operated for decades as a grandfathered non-conforming mixed use. The proposed PUD continues to allow for the full range of residential and low scale commercial uses already present on the site, but provides a site specific standard for a continued mixed use operation. No new construction is proposed. There's an existing structures that were originally built in 1929 that will remain on the property and the PUD establishes flexibility for the residential occupancy and small scale office and business activity while maintaining adherence to the zoning code for parking and landscaping. SAMFI's request is consistent with the comp plan with the existing land use category of CGC. It's located in the urban development area where mixed use arrangements including residential are encouraged to support and complement commercial corridors. The PUD is consistent with the objectives and policies that promote compact development, recognizing legally established uses, and reinforcing small-scale commercial activity that are serviced by existing public facilities. These are along Irving Avenue and Herschel Street. We find it meets the internal and external compatibility. Internally, both buildings remain as is with existing setbacks and previously established access patterns. It was reviewed by our landscape architect who had no concerns or objections. Externally, the site is positioned between CCG1, with commercial uses to the north and east and south, and RLD-60 single-family residents to the west. So this is creating a natural transition between the two and again is a formalizing that long historic pattern on the property. So for these reasons and those in the staff report, we forward a recommendation of approval. Application was heard by a planning commission on September 17th. There were no speakers in opposition and little discussion and they voted unanimously for approval. Okay, thank you for that report. We have one speaker card. It's Brianna Meehan, 10 questions only in support. So are there any questions? Councilmember Gaffney. Thank you. Through the chair. Just to put it on record, can we clarify this whole paid thing? I just want to make sure the community was made aware. It was notice put out. I'm not sure if we have anybody in opposition, but I want to make sure before we vote that everything is on the up and up. Gotcha. There are no other speaker cards, but we can turn it back over to planning department so they can confirm payment that's been made. Through the chair to Councilman Gaffney. This is just a daily record advertisement fee. So it's invoiced separately. And there were some concerns about potentially spam. So we've worked with the applicant. It has been paid. And so they are all good. All payments have been made. And noticing has been done. All fees have been paid. That was my concern. The constituents is made aware because, you know, a lot of constituents say, well, you know, we didn't get the actual advertisement. So I'd hate for that to happen and come back. All right. I would think if there was any concern, the district councilman would be here. But of course, Mr. Peluso is not here. So, yeah. Mr. Dr. Johnson. Right. And it had nothing to do with the application, Mr. Chair. It just because I asked Mr. Harvey that it was the advertisement, not the application, because that was my question. How do we get this far? And the application fee ain't got, you know, paid. So it's clarified. Thank you, Mr. Chair. All right. Thank you. Mr. Former chair, former council president, acting chair, all the things. The Swiss Army knife. We got it. We got it covered. Okay. Looks like there's no one else in the queue. So let's, let's move. Let's close the public hearing and bring it back to the committee. Yeah. We'll move the bill. Anyone got a second? Second. We have a motion and a second. We have no one in the queue. Let's open the ballot and record your votes. Four yeas, one nay. By your action and by a landslide, Mr. Diamond, we have approved 2026-0658. Moving on to number 24, 2026-0659. We do have those speaker cards for the correct bill after the ex parte. Of course, anyone have ex parte? I do. So I'll go ahead and put on the record that I have ex parte communication from the applicant, Mr. Hayden Phillips, who came to see me in my office today as this is in my district. This is something that was approved many years ago and I guess they want to change it. So he, he told me all about that today and we'll see what the community has to say and we'll get that followed with legislative services. So with that being said, we'll open the public hearing and get a staff report. Thank you. This is PUD rezoning ordinance 2026-0659 requesting to rezone approximately 19.35 acres for a property that's located along Newton Road from PUD that was originally approved back in 2021 to a new PUD in order to restore previously granted development rights for multifamily residential. The new PUD would allow for up to 330 apartment units. This is at a density of 17.05 dwelling units per acre, replacing the existing PUD entitlements for 172 townhomes. Prior to the 2021 PUD, the previous one before that did allow for apartments, but they switched to townhomes. So they're just wanting to go back to the original apartment use on the site. Proposed PUD would continue the MDR land use category consistent with the residential development pattern that provides a site-specific flexibility, including customized access provisions, lot and yard reductions, pedestrian connectivity, and revised parking requirements for the site. Staff finds the request is consistent with the comp plan. Again, it's in the MDR land use category, which allows for multifamily housing in the form of apartments, condos, and townhomes. The PUD meets internal and external kind of compatibility. Internally, the site shows 11 multifamily buildings that would be up to 30 units each, internal roadways, networks, and pedestrian connectivity. Externally, the site is surrounded by a mix of single-family homes. There's a city park and other MDR multifamily communities, making the proposed apartments a compatible land use transition. So for these reasons and those in the staff report, we forward a recommendation of approval with one traffic-related condition in your agenda. Application was heard by Planning Commission on September 17th. There were no speakers in opposition, and they voted unanimously for approval with that same one condition. Thank you. All right. Thank you. We will now go to the speaker card, starting with Mr. Hayden Phillips. There's one on the speaker card. Hayden Phillips, 1301 River Place Boulevard. Thank you. So I'll just say at the bat, we agree to the condition. Happy to do a traffic study. It's 20 acres. This property has been MDR land use and in the urban development area all along. Prior to 2021, it was zoned to a BUD for apartments. Our firm actually rezoned it in 2021 for townhomes due to some market changes. Same owner. We're now going back to apartments. We did coordinate with the district councilman, and I have not heard personally from any neighbors, but I would be glad to answer any questions you may have. Thank you. Thank you. And since I am the district councilman, just for the record, coordinate, I think you meant met with. Okay. Thank you. I don't remember coordinating anything with you, sir. So we have one more speaker card. That would be Lee H. Varnador, Jr. Varnador, 2843 Brackridge Boulevard, East Jacksonville, Florida, 32216. I've lived at this property for over 23 years. They tried to develop it because it's right next to my back lot. It's basically right there over the fence. They tried to develop it a few years ago. I was told by the EPA that it was protected wetlands and they would never be able to develop it because of all the wildlife that lives in the woods back there. So, I mean, I don't have anything to let you guys say yay or nay, but there's all kinds of stuff living in the woods back there. I mean, you guys have never even seen fireflies probably since you were a kid. They're there. There's thousands of them every April, the second week of April. And there's plenty of them, hawks, owls, turtles, all that stuff back there. My concern really is that that property is elevated and all of that wetlands kind of goes into two main ditches in our neighborhood and our properties are sloped down for a reason so that that water all goes into the ditches, goes into the, I guess it would be like a tributary to the St. John's. Those ditches are never dry and they've got retention ponds like all right behind all of our properties on Brackridge Boulevard and we all have septic tank systems. And with that water coming down, those huge retention ponds, there's no way they're going to drain in like 72 hours, I think it's supposed to be. And they're supposed to be like 75 feet away from our drain fields. So what's going to happen when all my septic tank system won't drain properly because there's a huge retention pond within 75 feet of it. And there's also properties that have been completely fenced in. The one right next to me has been fenced in for, I think, over 50 years now. And that property looks like they own the second lot and they actually don't, but that land's been fenced in this entire time. And they were supposed to be grandfathered in to that piece of property. And this new drawing has that retention pond coming into that property, which is actually going to be like coming into their septic tank system. And it's going to be really close to my drain pill. So other than the traffic and all the animals that are going to go away from this, it's my big concern is all of our neighbors. We don't have any city sewage. We just have city water. We all have septic tank systems. And I think this is going to kill our septic tank systems. I've had no issues with my septic tank in over 23 years. So it just brings a big concern. That and all the traffic. There's only Hogan Road and Belford. And basically Newton runs right down the middle of those two. And if you guys ever go through there in the afternoon, you'll see that it's backed up for like a half a mile just because of that one road going to Southside, Hogan Road going to Southside Boulevard. And not to mention the fire stations right there too. They're going to have a hard time getting on the Southside Boulevard with 300 more cars in the way. And it only looks like there's one entrance to the subdivision too. They've got like a second proposed for it. But man, it's right off of Newton Road. It's going to be such a headache. Thanks for your time. All right. Thank you. No other speaker cards. Not seeing anyone in the queue. I would like Mr. Phillips to address some of my constituents' questions as far as the environmental, the setbacks, the drain fields, some of those issues with the endangered animals. And if you could just get on the record what you think about those issues. Of course. Thank you. Yes, I heard concerns off the bat related to the existing trees and wetlands and wildlife. I believe the staff report lays that out. There are almost five acres of wetlands on the site. They're category three, which did not require us to go to waterways. But regardless, as the site plan shows, those wetlands will largely remain the same. The only way that they will be impacted is through a road. So you can access the north part of the property to the south part of the property. So those will remain there. And hopefully the wildlife will not be impacted. Regarding the pond locations along the western side, the current PUD on the property now, which permits townhomes, has the ponds in the exact same locations. But regards to drainage, you know, it's a rigorous, there's a lot of regulations that we have to go through. This is just sort of the first step. And so on the local, state, and federal level, we will be required to capture and contain stormwater on site and treat that in a legal way. And we, of course, will. This site plan actually provides a larger buffer along the western border where the single family residences are than the PUD that is entitled on the property now. And regarding traffic, Hogan Road, which is about 200 feet away from this property, it's a collector road. It is currently operating at 61% capacity. So while I can appreciate the concerns of the gentleman that just spoke, you know, these are the numbers that we have and the ones that we have to go by, I would be happy to provide any other information or answer any other questions. And I will give my business card to him right now. And hopefully we can coordinate and address any of his concerns further. Thank you. All right. I appreciate you speaking and addressing those concerns. Council Member Arias. All right. Thank you, Chair. Hayden, do you, I'm looking at here, exhibit four on the attachments. It's kind of hard to see here, but it shows Westgate Apartments. That is the new version of what you're doing, proposing, right? Not the previous townhome versions, right? I just want to make sure that what I'm looking at is a current new. That's correct. Westgate Apartments. Yeah. May 5th is the date of the site plan. Okay. And then in that drawing or rendering, I see like a cluster of trees and there's a road. Is that, are those trees, the wetlands that you were talking about that will not be impacted? Those are the wetlands and they will be impacted minimally by the road going through them. Yes. Correct. Okay. All right. Yeah. I just, yeah, I just wanted to make sure I was looking at the correct thing here. All right. Thank you. All right. Thank you for that. If there are no more questions, we will close public hearing and bring this back to committee. We have a motion on the bill and a second on the amendment. I'm so sorry. That was the amendment. Yeah, you did. Yeah. He's, uh, he made a motion on the amendment. We have a second. So if you could explain the amendment. Yes. So the amendment is for, uh, unless weighed by the chief of traffic engineering or their designated traffic study shall be undertaken by the developer upon PUD verification and doing the 10 set review. All right. You've heard the amendment all in favor of the amendment signify by saying aye, aye. And you both say nay. I think we had the eyes. Let's try it again. All in favor of the amendment signify by aye. Aye. Aye. Thank you. Any opposed say nay. The amendment carries. We got a motion second on the bill as amended. No one's in the queue. Please open the ballot. Record your vote. Four yeas. One nay. Fine. Your action. You've approved 2026-0659. We're on item number 25, 2026-0667. Open the public hearing. No speaker cards. We'll continue that public hearing till council member Carlucci comes back. 10-20-26. All right. Item number 26, 2026-689. This item is deferred until 10-20-26. Item number 27, 2026-690. This item is deferred until 10-20-26. Items, the following items are deferred until 10-20-26. Item 28, 2026-691-692-693-694-695-696. Which brings us to the last action item. Item number 34, 2026-697. 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. 2026-697 seeks to reduce the required minimum road frontage from 240 feet to zero feet to allow for the placement of two additional mobile homes on a 3.11 acre property in the RR Acre Zoning District. The property is accessed from 103rd Street via a 30-foot shared easement serving several lots along an unmaintained roadway. The lot meets all of the RR Acre Zoning requirements except for the frontage. Strict enforcement of Section 656-407 would prevent placement of the additional units, creating a practical difficulty as the neighborhood is characterized by similarly configured parcels that rely on easements rather than direct frontage. The request is not intended to reduce development costs or circumvent subdivision regulations. The addition of two mobile homes is not expected to diminish surrounding property values or alter the area's character, which includes a range of lot sizes and an existing mobile home park. A valid 30-foot easement provides adequate vehicle access to 103rd Street, and the waiver will not negatively impact public health, safety, or welfare. All other zoning requirements will continue to apply. For these reasons and those in the staff report, we forward a recommendation of approval. All right. Thank you so much. We have one speaker card. Lindsay Cook is in support. Does not wish to speak. Yep. Okay. You sure? All right. Anybody have questions? No. All right. We have no one in the queue, so we'll close the public in and bring it back to committee. All right. We have motion and second on the bill. No one in the queue. Let's open the ballot. I'll record your vote. Six yays. Zero nays. By your action, you approve. 2026-697. Long wait, but worth it. Following bills are on second reading. 2026-741, 742-743, 744-745-746-747-779. And that is it. This meeting is adjourned.