All right. Everyone get in your seats. Let's go. I'm sure it was all procedural. Okay. No problem. All right. Good evening, everybody. It's 5 o'clock on October 20th. We are going to go ahead and call the land use and zoning meeting to order. Welcome, welcome. And we'll start with introductions to the left. Mr. Amaro, way down there. They really shoved you all the way down there. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm humbled to be in your company tonight. I do not miss LUZ at all. But anyway, I can borrow city council district one. And we'll get you back on here next year, sir. No problem. No problem. Reginald Gaffney, Jr., district eight. Good afternoon, Mr. Chair. Brockman Johnson, district 14. I thought I recognized the gentleman at the end. Yeah. But if we have to give up our Tuesday, so does he. So I look forward to him joining. Thank you for being here, Mr. Amaro. We'll make sure we take that up very last. Second. Yeah. Because we care. Rory Diamond and George, district 13, the beaches. Joe Carlucci, district five. Kevin Carrico, district four, the south side. Raw areas, district 11, the other south side. Randy White, district 12. Terrence Harvey, office of general counsel. I'm in Salem, transportation planning. Susan Kelly, planning department. Aaron Abney, planning department. Casey Cox, planning department. All right. Thank you all for the introductions. With that, we will go through a few items that are deferred and also open continued. And then I am going to item number 2026, 747 first. Ms. Tremor, that is your item. We're taking your item up first. 747. Yeah. Well, she probably will anyways. All right. Item number one, 2026, 124 is deferred with a public hearing next cycle on 11, 17, 26. Item number two, 2026, 125 is deferred with a public hearing next cycle on 11, 17, 26. Item number three, 2026, 126. Next, we have two speaker cards. Jamie Travis Leonard is in opposition, does not wish to speak. And Samantha Series is in opposition, does not wish to speak. And we'll put these right here. Next, we have 2026, 127, open the public hearing. No, we have two speaker cards. Jamie Travis Leonard, opposition, does wish to speak. And Samantha Series, after her, does not wish to speak. It was not on. Now, there you are. Good evening, City Council. There we go. Good evening, City Council. My name is Jamie Travis Leonard. My address is on file. I'll be quick. I continue to oppose this basically since it was introduced in February. I was wondering at what time do we move this along. I understand the developer took our feedback and was reworking on a new proposal. But it's been eight months now. And I would just like us to make some movement on this, as well as the companion bill, which was 126. That's really all I came up to say. So, I appreciate your time. Thank you. All right. Thank you. So, was that 125 or 126? That was 126, right? All right. I am way behind. So, we got number five, 2026, 436 is we're going to open the public hearing. We have no speaker cards. So, we'll continue just keeping you on your toes out there. We're on our toes over here. We're good. We have two speaker cards. Jamie Travis Leonard is in opposition. And Samantha Series in opposition does not want to speak. Ms. Travis Leonard, you are recognized. Thank you. Jamie Travis Leonard, my address is on file. So, I come up in opposition of this. I did go up to legislative services and get the North CPAC report and they concur with my findings, which is that the increase in industrial activities is not really concurrent with that environment. I'm also kind of tired of us going from a PUD to a PUD when really this should be a PUD to an industrial light situation. It even says industrial light uses. And I fear that we are using PUDs as a way to not have full transparency in our zoning. So, if they want to go from a PUD to an industrial light, I probably would still oppose, but at least then I feel like it would be more transparent. But as this is currently written, I stand in opposition for those reasons. Thank you. All right. Thank you, and this public hearing is going to be continued until 11-17-26. Item number 6, 2026-523, one speaker card, Samantha Series is in opposition, does not wish to speak, and we will close this public hearing, and there will be an additional public hearing on 11-17-26. Item number 7, 2026-524, open the public hearing, one speaker card, Samantha Series is in opposition, does not wish to speak, and we'll close the public hearing with an additional public hearing on 11-17-26. And now, we are going to go to item 2026-747, which I believe is on page 13. Item 28, 2026-747. Council members, please declare your ex parte communication at this time. All right, seeing none, let's open the public hearing and get a staff report. Thank you. 2026-747 seeks to reduce the required setback for a new monument sign for St. Peter's Catholic Church from 20 feet to 12 feet within the RLD 80 zoning district. The church, which is considered assembly use under Section 656-1303, proposes to replace its existing 24-square-foot monument sign with a new sign of similar size and placement along Gervin Road. Staff finds a request consistent with the standards for a sign waiver. The proposed sign will be compatible with other signage along Gervin Road, meeting all size, height, and illumination requirements while maintaining adequate distance from nearby residential structures. The reduced setback does not promote non-conforming signage and will not alter the aesthetic character of the area or negatively affect surrounding property owners. The waiver does not create traffic hazards, glare, or other adverse impacts, as the sign remains modest in scale and non-illuminated. Unique site conditions, including existing mature trees that provide buffering and limit alternative sign locations, make strict application of the 20-foot setback unduly burdensome. Placing the sign at 12 feet preserves the tree canopy and ensures reasonable visibility from the roadway without diminishing neighborhood character. For these reasons and those in the staff report, we forward recommendation of approval. All right. Thank you so much. We have one speaker card. Cindy Trimmer. Cindy Trimmer, 1 Independent Drive, Suite 1200, on behalf of the applicant. I'm not sure what good behavior I did to get pulled up forward, but thank you. At the risk of overkill, I did a quick and dirty handout because a picture's worth a thousand words. The church recently expanded to include Our Lady of Hope Cemetery, and they want to update their signage to include the reference to the cemetery. If you look at page two, you can see the location of the existing sign on the right side of the entrance, and then page three really shows why they're asking for the change to be able to move it to the other side of the entrance. When you're coming to the church from Girvin, you just really can't see the signage. There's not visibility, and it causes people to turn kind of last minute. So to improve visibility and safety, they're asking for the opportunity to move the sign to the south side of that entrance. And with that, I will stand by for questions. All right. Thank you. We don't have anyone in the queue, so we'll close the public area and bring it back to committee. Motion and second on the bill? No one in the queue. Open the ballot. Record your vote. Six yays. Zero nays. Fire Act, you have approved 2026-747. Thank you. All right. Now we're going to go back to number eight. Is that where we left off? Yep. Okay. 2026-556. Council members, please declare your ex parte communication at this time. Yep. And this is going to be continued until 1117, so we're not going to be taking a vote on this tonight, just so everyone knows. All right. We have no ex parte. Let's open the public hearing. Do we need to get a staff report if we're continuing this? Nope. Okay, great. We have one speaker card. Anthony IK is in support and marked questions only. Yep. Questions only? Got it. All right. We'll continue. That's the applicant. Yeah. Mr. Gaffney, do you need to say anything? Oh, okay. Mr. IK, Mr. Councilman Gaffney would like to speak with you in the green room if someone from the, yeah. All right. So this public hearing is going to be continued until 1117-26. Are we good on, okay, we're good on quorum. All right. Item number nine, 2026-558. Open the public hearing. No way we don't have any speaker cards. All right. We have a few speaker cards here, and it is, yeah, not up for action until 1117. So with that, we have Speaker Christopher Robin is in opposition and does not wish to speak. And then, oh, I'm sorry. We have, I think this is the applicant. Furr. No. Okay. Next, we have Jeff Rude. Come on down. Oh, weird. Okay. Yeah. I'm, uh-oh. Hold on. Okay. Okay. Next, Jamie Travis Leonard is in opposition. Yeah. We should have a council member doing this, not the one who's doing eight other things. Jamie Travis Leonard, opposition, does not wish to speak. Samantha Ceres, opposition, does not wish to speak. And again, we are on 2026-558. So with that, we will continue this public hearing until 1117-26. Now, we are on 2026-653. Open the public hearing. And, Ms. Rebecca, do we have cards for this one? Because I have, we have no cards for this one. Okay. We have no speaker cards. Do we, we can just, okay. Let's close the public hearing and bring it back to committee. We need a motion to withdraw. Do we have a second? We have a motion and a second for the withdrawal. No one in the queue. Open the ballot. Record your vote. Five yays, zero nays. By your action, you have withdrawn 2026-653. Item number 11, 2026-654. Council members, please declare your ex parte communication at this time. Anybody? No. Okay. Okay. Okay. Mr. Carrico, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I do have ex parte on this issue. I got an email from Mr. Rood sent about the project condition, specifically condition number three. And he also called to see if I had any questions. So, that's my ex parte. We'll get it filed. All right. Councilman Johnson, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Out of an abundance of caution, I'm going to go ahead and declare ex parte. I saw Mr. Rood here. And he just informed me that he, during our last meeting, that this was coming up. But we didn't have any discussion. But I will declare it with the legislative services. Thank you. All right. We have no one else. We do want to welcome Councilwoman Clark Murray. Thank you for joining us. With that, let's open the public hearing and get a staff report. Thank you. This is PUD rezoning ordinance 2026-0654, which is requesting to rezone approximately 2.31 acres for a property located at 1905 Walnut Street. They are seeking to rezone the property from industrial light to a PUD in order to redevelop the former Duval Laundry Facility into a mixed-use commercial and light industrial development. The PUD will allow for a broad mix of uses, including office, retail, restaurants, food hall, event space that will allow for live music. It will also maintain some light manufacturing and warehousing uses. And all of this will be within the restored historic structure in the Springfield Historic District. As mentioned, the project is within the historic Springfield District and overlay, meaning that all exterior changes will be needed to be reviewed through the COA process. The proposed PUD continues to allow uses consistent with the underlying light industrial land use category that adds site-specific development standards, including enhanced landscaping buffers, coordinated signage, tailored parking arrangements, and a shared courtyard for outdoor events. The PUD creates flexible multi-tenant space within the historic main building and adjacent outbuildings. Staff finds the request is consistent with the comp plan. The site lies within the urban priority area where infill redevelopment, adaptive reuse of historic buildings, and mixed-use reinvestments are strongly supported. The PUD advances goals and objectives by promoting compact urban development. Biability of emerging mixed-use and industrial-commercial corridors. The revised written description that's listed in the agenda ensures consistency with the existing light industrial land use category after withdrawing the applicant's prior CGC land use amendment. The PUD meets the internal and external compatibility criteria. Internally, the project's revised landscape plan addresses staff's concern by adding enhanced landscaping buffers, screening, and improved circulation, and externally the site bridges, industrial uses to the east, and the established single-family neighborhood to the west. The added visual buffering and limits on hours of operation for outdoor amplified sound, including a coordinated site design, strengthens the compatibility, and mitigates impacts associated with the event space activity that would occur on site. Multiple adjacent properties, included re-threaded, operate under similar PUD frameworks, creating a cohesive mixed-use area. Traffic impacts were reviewed by Traffic Engineering. We are forwarding a condition for a requirement of a traffic study at PUD verification. And event parking will also be managed through off-street arrangements through a shared parking agreement with re-threaded that will provide an additional 70 spaces for special events. So for these reasons and those outlined in the staff report, we are forwarding a recommendation of approval with three conditions in your agenda and a revised written description that's dated September 15th. The application was heard by Planning Commission on October 8th, where there were no speakers in opposition, and discussion focused on condition three within the agenda that focused on the time limits to amplify music and sound. The commission agreed with the condition, given the close proximity to residential uses, so they voted unanimously for approval with the same three conditions. Thank you. All right. Thank you. We'll go to our speakers now. First speaker, Jeff Rood. Good afternoon. Jeff Rood. Address on file. It's R-O-O-D. Everything Ms. Abney said sounded exactly correct to me. On the concept of the condition three regarding hours, at the Planning Commission, we did not request any change to that, so they, of course, agreed to the 10 p.m. cutoff, but we here and through the email that Council Member Carrico mentions are asking for an 11 p.m. cutoff for outdoor sound. There's similar PUDs. I saw one from 2023 that had until midnight for outdoor amplified sound. We're only asking for 11 p.m. Possible uses could include outdoor movie screenings or when we're having events for rethreaded. 10 p.m. is just a little bit early of a cutoff, so that's why we're asking for 11 p.m. The applicant owner is here and can take questions as well, so with that, I'll answer any questions. Okay. All righty. Okay. We have one second. Let's wait until we're done. We've got one more. Mr. Charles Price. Do you wish to speak? Charles is the applicant. Okay. Charles Price, 2532 University Boulevard West. I'm the applicant that I think my thoughts are consistent with what was expressed by Jeff, so if you have any questions, I'd be happy to fill them. All right. Thank you, sir. That is all the speaker cards that we have. We have Council Member Diamond in the queue. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just have a question for Mr. Rood. So I think I understand your PUD. I understand what you're asking for. What I don't see in my packet is the kind of certification form that all this complies with the Salem amendments. Does it? Can you say those amendments again? Yeah. I mean, did you not do the research and see the form for confirmation that it complies with the Salem amendments? Yeah, the 2020 ones. Yeah. In all honesty, this is the first I've heard of a Salem amendment. Rude. You win a prize. They don't exist. But this is your first time at that podium, and we gave you a hard time. You passed. Congratulations. Thank you. You did better than the last guy that was up there who just said it did. But we also have another council member in the queue, so we'll go to Council Member Arias. You're recognized. I actually have some serious questions for you. All right. Through the chair, I've seen this concept worked in other parts of the country, other countries as well, too. It's a new trend that's happening now, and I'm glad to see it come to Jacksonville. Are you guys going to be operating, and I don't really know much about this business, which is why I want to talk to you guys offline after this, but are you guys going to be doing some sort of coffee shop in the daytime to have traffic, or is it only going to be for events and in the evenings? It will be daytime included. A similar example would be Union Terminal, just to give your mindset. But, yes, primarily daytime. Well, not primarily, but the point is this is not – the project is not for an event venue. That's one aspect of the project. But it will be open daytime. Okay. And then my next question regarding – obviously, we're looking at pending a traffic count or traffic study is what I heard. But do you guys have adequate parking for an event? Because I'm assuming a space of this size you're going to have easily at any given point maybe a couple hundred, 300 people there. I don't see parking on this site anywhere that will meet that. So what are you going to be doing about off-flow parking, especially surrounding all these houses right next door to you? Yes. So we have some on-site parking. Then we have the shared use agreement with re-threaded. Then, of course, there's off-street – or on-street parking. And we are in discussions to buy certain off-site lands as well, as you can imagine. This question came up with the planning and development department, and they were satisfied. Okay. Yeah, because I'm looking around. Like I said, I'm just looking at a Google map, and there's obviously residences here. There's a lot of good businesses nearby. So I just want to make sure that they're not impacted by what you guys are going to propose. I look at the Glass Factory. They have several hundred people go there to those events, and they have the parking under control because they have Valley Parking. They have the on-site parking next door that they bought, similar to what you guys are going to do. So I want to make sure that you guys protect the neighborhoods as well, too, in that area. But we'll talk more offline, if anything. Good question. Thank you. And one more caveat is we do have the support of SPAR in general, so including for this parking issue. And they represent the neighborhood who, of course, thinks about parking. All right. Thank you, sir. Thank you. Council Member Johnson, you're recognized. This is for the Planning Department. Is there any – I looked at their request to do something different as it related to the timing, that hours that go from 10 to 11. Is that something that you – I know the Planning Department would seem to be okay with it, but what are your thoughts on that? Through the chair to Council Member Johnson. So the limitation of the hours between 10 p.m. and 9 p.m. is generally when we look at other PUDs that we've done, that's a time limit that we've usually put on it. And it kind of lines up with the city's noise ordinance with certain decimal levels in near residential areas between the times of 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. This does go a little bit further to the 9 a.m. area. And then also with discussions with SPAR, they also wanted a time restriction on amplified sound within the area just given the surrounding residential area. So that's how we came up with the 10 p.m. to 9 a.m. time limitation. Gotcha. Okay. I'll see what everyone else says. But I – if they're going to have an event facility, I'm just curious as to how they're going to lock in on that time. That was something that was like a big one for me. I like the idea, as was said earlier by Councilman Arias, about this kind of use. But I'm just a little concerned that that kind of prohibits them to do the business that they want to do. Thank you. All right. Next, we have Councilmember Arias, you're recognized. Thank you, Chair. I think Councilmember Carricko, it's going to be the first time he's on the queue. I'll let him speak first, if anything. Yeah, let's do that. Councilmember Carricko, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. No problem with trying to have an events venue and extend the hours a little bit. My only concern is you're catty-cornered to the Boys and Girls Club Teen Center on Tent and Liberty. And that's a facility that hosts young people after school and sometimes on the weekends. It closes at, I believe, 6.30 or 7 o'clock. Have you had any conversations with them? Do you have any concerns with having loud music and alcohol served by a youth-serving organization? Are you aware that that's your neighbor? I mean, have you done any research on that? Yes, I'm well aware that that's one of the neighbors that's two blocks away. That being said, we've gone to lengths, as Jeff alluded to, in regards to parking, that we think we've secured two other sites for an additional hundred cars for parking. And so far as the accommodations, we're not looking to allow alcohol or anything off-premise. For that matter, we aren't—it's just if somebody leases the space, then they would have to get all permits necessary, hire licensed people, hire licensed valet parkers, and everything is in a coordinated structure. So it's not something that's just on the fly. And what's the maximum amount of people that you can hold in the venue? The venue should be able to hold five, six hundred people approximately, but it's—a lot of it's driven, like, what's the name of that venue at first in Liberty, roughly, where they currently have events? So we probably have the hardest—highest degree of parking in accommodations for any kind of event space. Yeah, parking will be tough over there. The Boys and Girls Clubs has an event venue, too, holds about 300 people. They've had some parties there, and parking in Springfield is tough. And if you're going to have 500 people, that's 300 cars. That was the—if I may—the answer of the 500 is just because it's a huge building. I don't know that—I don't know how many people will have it at events. You'd be surprised. There's a void in the market. The glass factory just went over to a church, so they're not holding events anymore. People want to have big events. They want to have things. And I don't want to discourage you or anything or say that we don't want these kind of venues. Our city needs them. But when you plop that down in a neighborhood and you do have interest and people want to come and there's five or 400 people, it's a burden on the neighborhood when you have all those cars. So I really want to explore that kind of parking plan that you're putting together. And I don't know if the planning department has any comments on that or you reviewed it and what parking might look like with a venue that has a maximum capacity of 500 people. I'd love to hear your thoughts. And I'll take it off the record and let the rest of the committee ask questions if you have any. So you don't want to hear the—okay, planning department, do you want to answer Mr. Carricko's question? So through the chair to Councilman Carricko, so initially the applicant did not have a parking plan, and the only parking that was going to be provided was on-site. And so our initial review was to recommend denial. Following that, the applicant did work to obtain parking plans on off-site, so between the rethreaded and the parking that they'll be able to provide on-site and working with the traffic engineer with the city to provide some on-street parking there. Between all of that, we found that it would satisfy the need for the parking. Again, the property is within the Springfield overlay, which does not have parking requirements for any of the uses within there except for churches. So they are providing far and above than what the code, even in Springfield, requires of property owners. And no one is here from Springfield in opposition. If they were, I'd probably have more questions about the parking just because of the effect on the neighbors. I mean, it's in a residential area. I know there's mixed uses and things like that, but that's a lot of cars. So if you would just answer for me what your parking plan is. If you were to book an event that had, you know, four or five hundred people, what do you plan to do with all the cars? Valet, shuttles, just... It's everything's going to be valet parking and shuttles. And I've done events before when I held an event for my dad in Fernandina Beach. We had core parking areas and we just had shuttles set up to bring people in for events because the city in Fernandina was very limited on parking. To that extent, as I alluded to earlier, we do have arrangements that are falling into place to acquire more land and additional access to parking like our relationship with Reef Credit. Yeah, I just want you to be real cognizant of that because that is one thing that adversely affects neighbors. When you have people from, you know, 5 o'clock till 10 o'clock on a Friday evening all through the neighborhood walking down, it makes it tough on the neighbors. So just plan for it if it passes. I mean, you're going to be the owners. You're going to know that that's something you've got to deal with. But from a community standpoint, I'd really like you to really hone in on that and make a good plan that works for the community. We did give a presentation to SPAR and they had, I'd say, 50, 60 people from the community there that we gave a presentation to and they were very much in favor of it. That's how come we got... That's how we were able to get SPAR support behind the project. So it wasn't... And the SPAR even came to a planning meeting at the city and represented that they were comfortable with what we were doing in parking arrangements. So it wasn't without their support that we just took a shot in the dark. We got their support for the parking. Yeah, I got it. And had you not done that, there would probably be like 30 SPAR people here yelling at you. So I think you did a good job at least of communicating your intent. So we'll see how the rest of the community goes. All right, thank you. We appreciate the comments because you guys... Well, let's stop there because this is not the forum for that. So you can reply to questions, but then we're going to keep it up here and we're going to get more back into a flow here. So we have three other members in the queue. So Council Member Aries should recognize. And make sure we just go through the chair so we get this button back up. That's chair. All right. Guys, so this is where I'm at right now. And my biggest issue is I've seen what venues of this size, what kind of impact they have. And most of the venues that I go to are the size. They're contained. The parking is contained within the venue itself. I'm looking at Exhibit 3 from the PUD from August 6, 2026. And I'm looking at Section E. And through the chair, somebody from planning can actually just guide me in this part, Terrence. But it would be off-street vehicular parking and loading and bicycle parking. And it's talking about a subsection A, a conceptual site plan contemplates approximately 46 total parking spots within the space, also 288. And based on the square footage, blah, blah, blah, blah, saying that if they can't find the parking, that they're going to be able to do right away off-street parking, meaning like going into the neighborhoods. That's my issue here. So what I don't understand, and I've been doing this for a while, but I've always thought this is kind of backwards. But we're going to approve something, and I have – I don't know them, but I have confidence that they're going to do what they say they're going to do. But at the end of the day, once we approve this, if they don't get that agreement with rethreaded and anybody else, that neighborhood is pretty much screwed. Like they're going to have parking all over the place. So how do we know – how do we put measures in place to make sure that we protect the neighborhoods in case they don't get the agreements done with rethreaded or with anybody else? Through the Chair to Councilman Aria, so I believe the written description that you're looking at is the old one. There is a revised written description dated September 15th, which does lay out the changes to include the rethreaded parking agreement, and we have documentation of that agreement and the 70 spaces that would be provided off-site through that property. All right. Thank you. So through the Chair, so just to make me feel better, how many total parking spots do they have now counting the rethreaded agreement if it goes through? And we just heard right now that they can have a maximum of 500 to 600 people. So what's the parking – like how many parking spots are there required based off of that head count? Okay, so through the Chair to Councilman Arias, in the written description, they have 46 total parking spaces on site, two ADA and then eight motorcycle parking, and then we'll include the 70 parking spaces with rethreaded and the potential of additional parking agreements on other parcels, including on-street parking that will be done with works of traffic engineering to create some more on-street parking spaces. Again, this is a unique situation in that the parking or the property is within the Springfield overlay, which specifically deviates from the parking requirements of code to where there is no parking requirement for a number of uses within that area. So they do fall within the zoning category and alleviation from the parking requirements through the overlay. So what they are providing is above what even today they would be required by code. Thank you for that, Ms. Abney. That actually makes me feel a lot better knowing that they're looking at 116 now plus on-street if it gets to that point. So I feel better about that. And then my second point, Chair, would be I don't know where we're at with the time frame of 10 o'clock shutoff, but for any kind of event venue, hall, like 10 o'clock is way – it doesn't make sense. For that, don't even open up. So I would like to see a conversation here be held about to see if we could actually make this a regular time frame, whether it's 12 o'clock, through the Chair, Mr. Root, what time frame are you guys asking for right now? What's the time cutoff time that you guys want? What I submitted by email was 11 p.m. We think and would love it to be later, but we were concerned and wanted to come out with an immediate compromise, but we would like it to be later. All right. I would propose, you know, if they came up with 11, that's fine. I would propose 12. However, if you look at midnight, honestly, I would propose 3 o'clock in the morning if it was up to me. But I think, I mean, it's critical because, you know, you're going to be holding, hopefully, things that benefit our community. Breast cancer awareness, you know, fundraisers, whatever the case is, and we don't want to cut that off at 10 o'clock when they're in the middle of doing things. However, I will say that there's a lot of bars and clubs here in downtown that have these sound doors. They have double doors, so if we get to the point where noise is an issue, we may have to see some sort of noise reduction to make sure noise doesn't go into the neighborhood because, really, the only issue that you have is really the houses to the west, I guess it is. Aside from that, the ones in the east, I think those are all industrial anyway, so I'm not worried about those. But that's my proposal. I will say leave it to whatever the cutoff time is for that area and move forward. You guys have parking situated taken care of, so I'm good with that. So that's my proposal. Thank you, Tim. Yeah, and just for clarification, Mr. Arias, is the proposal for the event to be allowed to go to midnight, or are you talking about the one, number three, the live music or amplified sound between the hours of 10 p.m. and 9 a.m.? I want everything to go to midnight at the very least, amplified sound, everything, right? I want them to operate as a regular business would operate. That's it. So I don't know what technicality, Mr. Harvey, that would be, but I just want them to operate. Through the chair to Council Member Arias. So the condition is for live music or amplified sound. That's all that the department regulates. So if they're having an event inside that lasts to 2 a.m., as long as it's not amplified music or they're going to get called on, they're okay with the terms of this condition. But if it is your proposed amendment to present, there shall be no live music or amplified sound between the hours of 12 a.m. to 9 a.m., then that would be the language of the amendment, in addition to the other two conditions that were offered as well. Through the chair, I'm actually on board with that, so based off of what the committee wants. Okay, so we have a motion and a second. Yeah, we actually haven't even closed the public hearing. So let's do this. We're going to go ahead and close the public hearing, and then we'll bring it back to committee. Council Member Arias, go ahead and make your motion again. All right, thank you, Chair. Mr. Harvey, please state my motion. Correct. So before you right now, there are three conditions. The first one is unless waived by the chief of traffic engineering or their designated traffic study shall be undertaken by the developer upon PUD verification and provided during the 10-step review. The second condition is that the design and location of all vehicular access points are subject to review and approval of the traffic engineering and development services. And the third condition would be that there shall be no live music or amplified sound between the hours of 12 a.m. and 9 a.m. Yes, sir. That's my motion. All right, we have a motion and a second on the Arias Amendment. Council Member White, are you on the Arias Amendment? No? Okay. So we'll go to Council Member Carrico. No, they got a saying, you don't surprise your friends. I'm going to vote no on the amendment just because I know the neighborhood. I set up that Boys and Girls Club, you know, many years ago, and I know a lot of the neighbors in there, they're not part of SPAR. They don't show up to those meetings, but they're good folks that are in the community, and I don't think they want noise until midnight or whatever you said. So I'm just going to be a no on the amendment. That's fine. No hard feelings. All right. Council Member Diamond, on the amendment. Thanks. I'm just going to speak on the amendment of the bill super fast. So I support the bill. I love the spirit of this amendment. If you look on a map, there's barely a house within, like, 50 feet of this lake. So to me, I'm fully on board with this, and we'll support the bill as a whole. We're spending $500 million on downtown incentives to get businesses going around downtown. To me, this guy has not asked for a dime, and he's putting his own money into this thing. I hope it's amazing. Council Member White, are you on the amendment? No? Okay. You can stay in the queue. So for me, I think we can accomplish sort of the amendment, but for there to be music outside at midnight, there are houses that would absolutely just get decimated by that. So I'm okay with amplified sound and music or whatever inside the building. So I would just say, you know, I'm going to vote no on the Aries Amendment, but I would just change Amendment 3 to say there shall be no live music or amplified sound between the hours of 10 p.m. to 9 a.m. outside. So therefore, inside the building. It doesn't apply. Is that correct, Mr. Harvey? Whoever. Through the chair, and I would defer to the planning department as to the intent of that condition. To the chair. That was the intent. The concern that we had was that the PUD allows for outside live entertainment, and so we wanted restrictions on the outside amplified sound and live music. Okay. Then that's what I was trying to clarify. But if you're saying that number three is already specifically for outside, then, because it doesn't really say that. And then Mr. Aries said he wants to be inside to be, you know, having amplified music from whatever times. That is fair. So to clarify, you would probably want to add that specific language to specify that it is for outside during that time frame from 12 a.m. to 9 a.m. Okay. And one second, Mr. Aries, because I do want to get your thoughts on this. To the applicant, you know, are y'all's plans to have a lot of outdoor amplified music, or is it mainly going to be contained inside? It's primarily inside, but let's say we have a movie night in the community, you know, and it's summer, and it doesn't get dark until 8, 8.30, or whatever. It kind of pushes everything around with the time changes. So we're not setting up a concert venue. This is not something to compete with St. Augustine. It's not something to compete with any of these outdoor events. It's merely a community-oriented, primarily, or a wedding venue, or something of that order of magnitude. Okay. So it's not, we don't have a list of Grateful Dead concerts lined up for outside. That's not what I do. I lease boxes. Yeah, yeah, no, I get it. And look, you know, the harmless thing. I don't want to destroy my reputation. I've been doing this 40-something years. We've been associated since the 1920s in developing projects in Jacksonville. Yeah, so with that, I'll just clarify, you know, this is going to outlive, the zoning is going to be past your tenure here. You know, you could sell this next year, and then someone would come in with not a good reputation. So we don't look at it through the lens of anyone's reputation or not reputation, but we look at it through the lens of, we get noise complaints up here as elected officials from people who don't want to listen to weddings go until 12 a.m. And I'm very sensitive to that because we hear it all the time in my district. So I won't be supportive of anything past 10 p.m. I mean, just, you know, reminiscing, you know, what if a young family's got a kid that they're trying to put down? I'm just telling you, like, that's the type of stuff that, you know, is not good for the community. So we want to work with you. But for me, I'm a hard stop at 10 p.m. outside amplified music, outside live music. That's just where I'm at. So, you know, for me, I want to hear from Councilmember Arias while I still have the floor. And then we can talk about changing number three to just be for outside. Councilmember Arias, do you have anything? All right. Thank you, Chair. So I totally get where you're coming from. Everybody has different perspective. Obviously, you're coming from a family background. For me, I'm coming from a hospitality background. You obviously also own a small business, so you understand the struggle that we as a small business go through on a daily basis to have government get in the way constantly. That's one of the things that kind of upset me about Jacksonville because we tout the word we're pro-business, you know, come here and open up your business. But here we are at the very forefront putting limitations on these small businesses. That's where I'm kind of drawing the line. I do get the part about the residences, but at the end of the day, this is literally a budding residential and it looks like industrial, but this is so isolated from the residents that it's in its own land. I'm looking at the glass factory. I've done a lot of events at different venues, especially like this, and there's never been any kind of negative impact to communities. On the contrary, they bring value to communities because now they can even hold community events if we needed to there to have town halls, whatever the case is. Because I'm encouraging you all to support this because at the end of the day, aside from everything, small businesses are struggling on a given day. And if we have the opportunity, the little bit of opportunity to give them an extra two hours, like that's where I'm like, you know what, it's not costing us anything. And as Mr. Diamond alluded to, they're not asking for a single diamond incentives. They're just wanting to open up for business and try to generate some money and be able to spread the wealth and the love here in our community. So I don't know them. I just met them. I have no connection to them. But I do understand where they're coming from. So I just encourage you guys to support it. However, it is your, you had the mic, but you did ask them if it was going to be outdoors and indoors. And yes, the whole time I was also focusing on the indoor component of it. If they could somehow limit maybe the outdoor decibels, because we've been talking about the decibels in Jacksonville for a while. I know that's very minute, like detailed oriented, but I think we should still give them an opportunity. And at the end of the day, Mr. Harvey, if we could come back and tell them they need to shut it down and change it to back to 10 p.m. Can we always do that through the chair? Can we like reverse it or no? No, no. This is a rezoning application. So in order for it to come back before this body, there would need to be some type of application or a bill to come before you all. Yeah. So it's one of those things where we have to take a chance on them. And it's up to you guys to decide. But I know where I'm going to vote based on the amendment that I proposed. And I encourage you all to do this. Thank you. Okay. Yep. No, I appreciate that. And always good to have as many kind of wide perspectives as possible. Council Member White, I'm assuming you're still not on the amendment. Okay, good. Anyone else on the amendment? So for this, we'll go ahead and take a hand vote. All in favor of the Arius Amendment, signify by raising your hand. Any opposed? So it passes. The Arius Amendment passes. Okay. So with that, we need a motion and a second on the bill as the first, well, we have other amendments too, right? But there's an additional amendment as well. And that's to attach the revised Exhibit 3, dated September 15th. We'll need a motion on that and then pass. All right. We have a motion and a second on the revised Exhibit 3 amendment. All in favor of that amendment, signify by saying aye. Any opposed? That amendment carries. Now we'll roll those up into one amendment. And we will get a motion and a second on the bill as amended. Motion and a second on the bill as amended. Now, Council Member White, you recognize? Yes, sir. Through the chair. Thank you. This is just to put on your radar, totally different from what they've been talking about. But is that building sprinkled by chance? Actually, yes. That's good. Because when you said 500 people. No, no. We fully upgraded the whole building. Well, I was going to tell you. Yeah, I'm upgrading everything. If you get over 250 people, you just don't have to be sprinkled. So that's good. Thank you. All right. And we have no one else in the queue. So let's open the ballot. Record your vote. Seven yays. Zero nays. By your action, you've approved 2026-654 as amended. All right. Our next item. Mr. Chair, can you ask these gentlemen to go to the green room? I just want to chat real quick. Oh, yeah. Mr. Rood and Mr. Price, I think it was. Mr. Kerica, I would like to see you in the green room. All right. Next item up, 2026-657. We will open the public hearing, and we will not get a planning department report, but we will go to our speaker cards as this was recently extended until 11-4. So with that, let's see. I don't think the applicant. Is the applicant here? Okay. Got it. So first up, we have Ted Emerson is in opposition, does not wish to speak. We have Brenda McLaughlin, in opposition, does not wish to speak. And then we have Samantha Series, is in opposition, does not wish to speak. And now we will go to Edward Radloff. Edward Radloff, 3739, Buckskin Trail West. I would first like to state it was refreshing to hear some of the council members up here speaking about concerns about parking, about the whole venue. This venue is particularly alarming in that it is a one-acre lot that has exactly eight parking spaces on there. But yet they want seating for 173 people on the outside of the building, and it's a batting cage with also a miniature golf course, and they want to hold corporate parties and other events. The problem is, the building, they say, is a restaurant, they have six seats inside that building. There's 167 seats around the building. This is nothing more than looking to be an outside beer garden in a residential area that's within 1,500 feet of a school that is right at a roundabout area, which is notoriously having issues with people running straight through it at the middle of the night and knocking down palm trees. You hear council members concerned about on-site parking, loud music. This is in a residential area. You'll hear other speakers here today talking about the initial PUD, which was done in 1996, and there were covenants in place. The person that came into this property now wants to convert it over into an outdoor party space in a residential area, which makes no sense. I'm happy to see my council member here, to hear the citizens come up today and to voice their concerns. But as members of the council, I'm also intrigued and encouraged to hear some of the feedback that you're giving the previous speaker up here, concerning about what's it going to do to the neighborhood and impact the neighbors and also, you know, about parking. There is no parking for 173 people. You've got eight spots, and this is a one-lane, two-lane road, one each direction with a roundabout. You'll be parking on the side of the road. It makes really no sense. I'm all for improvement. You know, it just has to make sense. And I appreciate you hearing me tonight. I will state that we went to the planning commission meeting, planning committee meeting. They didn't show up. It got deferred. After four hours, we came back. Tonight we show up, and they're not here again. It just gets frustrating to come down, take hours out of our days to come down and fight for our community. Thank you. All right. Thank you, sir. Next we have Jamie Travis Leonard. Good evening, City Council. My name is Jamie Travis Leonard. My address is on file. Plot twist. I'm in support of this. I know. I'm shocked, y'all. I do value the community's input. Now, I want to be transparent. I live in District 8. This is not my district. I think that my opinion should be weighed less than the community members when it comes to this. But we, when I read the PUD, it seems like it's a batting cage, and they want to serve beer and wine. We have Topgolf, and they serve beer, wine, and liquor. So, to me, it just seems like a fun venue where you can go and maybe have some drinks if you want, or otherwise just, you know, build up some arm muscles. I do understand the community's concern about parking. I hope that the developer addresses that. I also understand that they seem to be concerned about noise. We've talked now at length about that in this meeting, and so hopefully the developer can work with the community to address those concerns and find a reasonable compromise. But as far as allowing the consumption of beer and wine on property, I don't see where that is out of touch with other event or entertainment venues we have in town already. So, thank you. All right. Thank you. Next, we have Steve Matchett. Steve Matchett, address is on file. I was almost not going to speak until I heard that. That was the first person in six hearings that has come up here to say they support this item. I find it interesting that, well, I know that the person doesn't live in the neighborhood because they would be more of an anomaly. Committee members, Mr. Radloff just talked about this a minute ago. This is the, well, we've had six hearings on this item, two in front of Planning Commission. We had one at Great Arlington Beach's CPAC. We had one in front of the full council. We had one here two weeks ago, and we have one here tonight. The applicant has shown up one time. At all six of these hearings. Okay. The reason for the deferral is, I guess, they finally figured out that it needs some representation after having been so opposed in so many of these. We got a unanimous denial from the Planning Commission. This was against a planning staff report of approval. I don't think you've seen that situation happen too many times in this body. Another situation this body has never seen is the introduction and the sponsorship of a recreation open space land use category dropped into the middle of a residential neighborhood. If you look at your zoning land use map that's given to you in your packet here, you'd have to zoom out to Merrill Road. That's almost a mile away to pick up the first non-residential piece. This property is not just surrounded. It goes on for a radius of almost a mile of it being all residential or a school or a church. This land use was intentional. It was intentional in 96 when I did it with Mr. McLaughlin. And the idea was that it would covenant the property to never be expanded on a commercial basis. And it would never have alcoholic beverages. Those were two of the conditions that were part of that original PUD that was between the city, the councilman at the time, the neighborhood, and Mr. McLaughlin. And it allowed his batting cage to exist there for the last 30 years without this new proposal threatening to wreck all of that. We sent a lot of people home when we heard it was deferred. Actually, I was a little disappointed in that. I was hoping that a few of these men may be able to get to testify. A couple of them have health issues. But they've made it to Planning Commission, and they were on their way here before the cancellation or the deferral tonight. You'll see them in two weeks. We're going to be looking for your denial at that time again. Thank you. All right. Thank you, sir. We have Burt McLaughlin next. I guess he's not here, and he is in opposition. Lisa Ransom, followed by Ramsey Salem. Good afternoon. My name is Lisa Ransom. I live in Ashley Green, representing 119 homes. My address is 7755 Lynchburg Court East. I do have a letter that I sent out to the members of the committee. I won't read the entire letter. I'll wait until the public hearing, but I did want to register my opposition to the intensification of this commercial use that is surrounded by single-family homes and medium-density homes. I was the planner that wrote the original land-use amendment report 30 years ago. I was five. It was a denial by the Planning and Development Department because, if you look at your land-use map, it is a spot land-use and spot zoning. And as you know, PUDs cannot be inherited. They cannot be put in your last will and testament. So once you have something that's written in stone, it will pass on in perpetuity, and that's the problem. This is a commercial use. It is adjacent. There are single-family homes adjacent to it, and this is not the location for intensification. The site plan shows that there's limited, if any, on-site parking, which is really dangerous because there's a really small ingress and egress onto Hartsfield Road. And as others have stated, it is adjacent to the roundabout. And so it's a busy thoroughfare. It's a busy collector road. It ends into a collector road, and so there's a lot of traffic on. And I've lived in this area for 31 years, and it's always been a very quiet residential neighborhood. In addition, my 27 years as an urban planner, totally, 21 with the city of Jacksonville, this is the first time I've seen approval to intensify a commercial use that is surrounded by single-family homes. There's no way that this can make any sense in anyone's mind. I don't understand this approval. The site plan is hideous. And in addition to the chain-lit fence, the outdoor parties, the amplified music, and entertainment on-site, this would create an atmosphere similar to general commercial uses found in the downtown and surrounded areas in the urban core, definitely not in the greater Arlington area. If approved, this development would also set a precedence for added intensive and intrusive commercial uses in this quiet residential neighborhood that would destroy the quality of life of myself and my neighbors. Respectfully, I urge a denial of this application. Thank you. All right. Thank you, ma'am. Next, we have Ramsey Salem. My name is Ramsey Salem. My address is on file. I'm coming to you because I was president of Colony Cove Civic Association. I was president of the Greater Arlington Civic Council. I was chairman of the CPAC for Arlington Beaches. And I've seen this spot zoning in all these years and said that this is the worst case that I've ever seen of spot zoning in the middle of a residential area. This batting cage, it's been there, and I've seen it for the last 30 years, and it's not never busy. It's always very little activity. And I know for a fact that there's been code enforcement people coming out there where they did things they weren't supposed to do. And both at CPAC and at GACC, we discussed it and had code enforcement go back out there, and they've not always gone as planned. Everything that everybody else said is, you know, but the main thing is there's no parking. There's a school right across the street, and you're not supposed to put liquor right across the street from a school. And the reason being is obvious. And last thing is that the noise from that, there's all residential around there. The Raymoor Villa, the neighborhood, is right there, like 50 feet from the property line. And there's homes right there against the fence there of it. So I don't understand how this could ever happen. Thank you. All right. Thank you, sir. Next we have, I think the first name is Nolan Brenner. Hello, ladies and gentlemen. Thank you for letting me speak. Name and address. Nolan Brenner, I live on 5308 Matanzas Way, which is right off the University Boulevard. And I'm opposed to this because, for one, I moved to the Arlington area to try to get out of some of the really bad areas off of Main Street that were loaded with liquor and vape stores and all this kind of stuff. I moved to get away from that. Now, I come back over to Arlington, and now it's getting loaded with places to buy liquor, beer, so forth and so on. You know, vape and this and that. You know, you put enough housing over there to kill somebody. I mean, some of it, I know low-income housing is needed. But when you have established residents that have been there, and all of a sudden their neighborhoods are just going down. Because, you know, the people that are in this area that we're talking about, they've been there a long time. And they need peace and quiet, too. They don't need their streets littered with trash, dumpsters everywhere. It creates a mess. So I'm opposed to this. So please, if you would, don't put any more places to buy beer and liquor and so forth. On University Boulevard, I can count six of them in a short distance. And it just creates a lot of crime and unwanted litter. I appreciate your time. All right. Thank you, sir. We have no other speakers. We will go to Council Member Amaro. But I do want to let everyone know this public hearing is continued until 11-4-26. Council Member Amaro, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And thank you for, in the sense of fairness, have it discontinued until 11-4, which I presume at that time more members of our community will be here. I urge you tonight to listen to the community intentionally in your deliberation as to what to do. Look at the history of the existing putt, as pointed out tonight. And as you deliberate, looking for that competent, substantial evidence to reach to your decision, please do not minimize the voice of the community as to reaching that threshold. I know it's a challenge at times trying to make a decision between the rights of a property owner versus the voices of a community. But the reason that we have existing codes and these are rails, these are guidelines to make sure that community standards are maintained and that whatever is put into a community fits that community. I think you can tell from the voice of the residents of District 1, it doesn't quite reach that threshold. So I encourage you to pay attention to what my community is saying and also look at the history as stated with the original putt in reference to that. Someone mentioned earlier about other venues. Well, other venues don't have a school within 1,500 feet. Other venues don't have a church. Other venues are not surrounded. So just my appeal to you to pay attention. Thank you. All right. Thank you, Council Member Amaro. We have no other speakers in the queue. So now we're going on to item number 13, 2026-660. Council Members, please declare your ex parte communication at this time. Seeing none, let's open the public hearing and get a staff report. Thank you. This is Conventional Rezoning Ordinance 2026-660, seeking to rezone 1.24 acres of a property that's located at 11713 Alt Drive. They are seeking to rezone from RR Acre to RLD 100A in order to subdivide the property into two single-family residential lots, each meeting the required frontage, width, and lot area with access from Alta Circle North. The request is consistent with the underlying land use category of LDR, which supports single-family detached housing as a predominant development type and allows up to seven units per acre when connected to both city water and city sewer. However, the RLD 100A will require the lots to be a half acre in size. Staff finds the rezoning consistent with the comp plan, which does encourage adequate land for residential growth, accommodating compatibility with single-family neighborhoods, and provisions for a variety of housing opportunities. The surrounding land use and zoning supports the request. The area is predominantly residential with parcels that are zoned RR Acre and nearby zoned PUD subdivisions that allow for lots to go down to 70 feet in width. So it's demonstrated compatibility with the established pattern of development. So for these reasons and those outlined in the staff report, the Planning Department forwards a recommendation of approval. Application was heard by Planning Commission on October 8th. There were no speakers in opposition and little discussion, and they voted unanimously for approval. Thank you. All right. Thank you so much. We have one speaker card, Stephen Smith. Okay. Questions only. And we have no one in the queue, so let's close the public hearing and bring it back to committee. We have a motion and a second on the bill. No one in the queue. Open the ballot. Record your vote. Six yays. Zero nays. By your action, you've approved 2026-660. Item number 14, 2026-689. We'll open the public hearing, and we have two speaker cards. Samantha Series is in opposition, does not wish to speak. And Jamie Travis Leonard in support. Good evening, C-Counsel. My name is Jamie Travis Leonard. My address is on file, so I got some more information on this. So for 2026-689, I am in, I'm going to say tentative support. My understanding is they're trying to put a gas station in this space. As looking at the map, there's no other gas stations in that area. Only enough, my youngest goes to, has piano lessons up by the neighborhoods up there. And as far as like a corner store situation, the closest one that I can remember is the one that's at Pecan Park and Main Street. So I think this could be a good opportunity to provide some relief. I'm not a huge fan of gas stations, just because if it then wants to transition to something else, there's remediation that has to be involved. This is happening where I live over on Dunn Avenue right now. I would prefer like a grocery store or something else for the community, but I'll take what we can get. My hope is that the applicant, I know this is being continued, so to the applicant, if you're listening, I would like to see this gas station be something the community could also use, more similar to like a Wawa than like a basic BP. It doesn't have to be a Wawa, although I wouldn't be opposed, because then I could get dinner on the way home. But that's really my request, is that when this is being planned out for, my understanding is, again, the gas station is what the end goal is, that it be something the community can use more than just for gas. So thank you. All right. Thank you. We have no other speaker cards, and this public hearing is continued until 11-4-26. Item number 15, 2026-690, open the public hearing. No speaker cards will continue this public hearing until 11-4-26. Item number 16, 2026-691, we will open the public hearing. No speaker cards will continue this public hearing until 11-4-26. Item number 17, 2026-692. Let's open the public hearing and get a staff report. Thank you. Ordinance 2026-692 is for a small-scale land use amendment located at 3747 and 3757 Hendricks Avenue and 3710 Grandy Avenue near the intersection of Hendricks Avenue and Emerson Street. The request is to change approximately 0.32 of an acre of land from Community General Commercial, the CGC, and Low Density Residential, LDR, to Residential Professional Institutional to allow for office and residential uses. The subject site was recently cleared and is currently vacant. According to the City's Functional Highway Classification Map, Emerson Street and Hendricks Avenue are minor arterial roadways, while Grandy Avenue and Greenridge Road are local roadways. These subject parcels are not contiguous. However, the parcels that are in between are under common ownership with the subject parcels, and they are already designated as RPI. As such, the proposed amendment would allow all parcels under common ownership to be unified under the same land use designation. The intersection of Hendricks and Emerson serves as a low-intensity office and commercial node. The area north of the site, along each side of Emerson Street, is designated RPI and consists of a variety of office buildings and a few single-family homes. This RPI designation continues north along the eastern side of Hendricks Avenue and consists of office uses. The proposed amendment to RPI allows residential, office, and or limited neighborhood commercial uses on an underutilized parcel supplied with full urban services within an urbanized area at the intersection of two minor arterial roadways. For these reasons and those in the staff report, the planning department recommends approval. This item was heard at Planning Commission on October 8th and was unanimously approved with minimal discussion. All right. Thank you so much. We have one speaker card, Shannon Acevedo. Come on down. I know you mark questions only, but I've got questions. So just state your name and address for me. Hello. I'm Shannon Acevedo, and I'm with 912 Saltwater Circle. Okay, great. And I know you reached out to me last week. We just didn't have a chance to connect. So is – and there's no one else in the queue, so it's just going to be kind of me asking questions. Has this property owner been the same property owner for the whole time, when they first bought the property and it got rezoned the first time? Oh, I'm not sure. How long has Raj Properties owned it? Yeah, I'm not sure how long they've owned the property. I do – I should have a copy of the deed here. Was there a concern about the timing? I just want to know, like, what happened, because I think it was supposed to be something, and now that didn't happen. So what is it supposed to be now? Is this, like, a start-stop type of thing, or is this a real, like, deal project? I don't know if I have the deed with me here. To the chair? Yep. If I may, the property appraiser's card looks like it changed hands in around 2023. Okay. And did it ever get rezoned from that time until now? No, sir. No? Okay. Got it. So Raj Properties bought it in 2023, right? That looks to be the case. Okay. Awesome. So what is the plan for the site? The plan is for a medical office. What kind of medical office? How big? I do have a, it's just conceptual, but I do have a site plan if you're interested to see. But essentially, it's looking like, to optimize the site, a two-story medical office up to 9,000 square feet, and then parking kind of moving around that perimeter. They own, the contiguous parcels are five, three of them are to be rezoned with a small-scale land use amendment, so that all five of them could be RPI and CO zoning to allow for medical office. But there's a parcel that's kind of in the middle towards the south that's not part of the property. Okay. Understood. So that's all the questions I have for the land use, so I appreciate that. Sure. And no one else is in the queue, so we'll close the public hearing and bring it back to committee. All right. We have a motion and a second on the bill. We have no one in the queue. Open the ballot. Record your vote. Six yays. Zero nays. By your action, you've approved 2026-692. Item number 18, 2026-693. Council members, please declare your ex parte communication at this time. I don't see anyone else in the queue, but I did receive an email from Ms. Shannon Acevedo on October 14th at 9.32 a.m., and we will get that filed with legislative services. We'll make sure George does it. So with that, if we have no one else in the queue, let's open the public hearing and get a staff report. Thank you. This is the Companion Conventional Rezoning Ordinance 2026-0693, requesting to rezone approximately 0.32 acres of properties located along Hendricks Avenue and Grady Avenue. They're taking it from CCG1 and RLD 60 to commercial office in order to unify the zoning across all the parcels to support redevelopment for professional office uses. Staff finds the rezoning consistent with the comp plan with the approved land use change to RPI. This category supports compact infill development along Emerson Street and Hendricks Avenue, both of which are identified as minor arterial roadways. The rezoning furthers goals and objectives by promoting efficient land use patterns and reinforcing the viability of this established commercial corridor. CO zoning is a logical transition district between the commercial uses to the south and west and single-family residential to the east. Surround zoning and land use patterns support the requested rezoning. Properties to the north are zone CRO and used as offices. Properties to the south are zone CCG1 and support retail and auto service uses. And then you have residential to the east. So the CO district will create a consistent commercial edge along Hendricks Avenue while maintaining appropriate transitions to the interior residential neighborhood. So for these reasons and those in the staff report, we forward a recommendation of approval. Application was heard by Planning Commission on October 8th. There were no speakers in opposition and little discussion, and they voted unanimously for approval. All right. Thank you so much. With that, we have one speaker card, Shannon Acevedo. Questions only? Yes, it's the same three parcels. So in this case, we just figured that CO is probably the most logical for a medical office use. And there were three different zonings, three different land use categories for the property in totality. So this seemed like the most direct one to carry the project forward. Is the property for sale right now? I don't believe so. Okay. I just want to make sure. I drive by this every day. I don't think so, but I'm not for sure on that. Okay. We'll go to one other council member in the queue, and then we'll go to the rest. So Council Member Arias, you're recognized. All right. Thank you, Chair. And ma'am, I'm curious because I was just doing some research, but the, I guess, owner of the property, they're going to put a medical use there. Doing my research, is it Florida Eye? Is that the business that they're going to put in there, or what kind of business? I don't think they've settled on an exact business. I know that they have that history of that type of medical use. Okay. They are looking at a few different options, but probably something of similar intensity to that. I was going to say, if it is the Florida Eye, I mean, they do top-notch work in the community. They're a well-respected business, so it's not my district, but to alleviate some concern, Mr. Carlucci, you would have a great neighbor if that's the case, if it is them indeed. So just doing some research here, but thank you so much. Sure. Yeah, Council Member Gaffney, you're recognized. Thank you to the Chair. I guess this question is to the Planning Department. Under what, I guess, under the CO district, they're changing it to, what other, I guess, businesses could be, I guess, zoned on the CO? Through the Chair to Councilman Gaffney, this is probably one of our most restrictive commercial categories. So the only uses that are allowed within this category are medical and dental offices, professional offices, and cosmetology-type uses. And then you can do daycares that are in connection with a professional office, and that's it. It's very, very limited. All right. Thank you. All right. Let's see who else. Anybody? We have no one else in the queue. So with that, I'll go ahead and support it tonight. Well, we'll close the public hearing and bring it back to committee. All right. We have a motion and a second on the bill. I'll go ahead and support it tonight under the, you know, kind of the concern or the point that Councilman Gaffney brought up that it's very limited in what it can be. It's just, you know, I want to know who my neighbors are because I have my office three blocks from here, and I don't like to find out about zonings via a, you know, planning department mailer. So that's just a piece of advice for, I guess, yourself and Raj Properties. You know, I think we all want to be good neighbors, but that's been sitting vacant for a long, long, long time. And so, you know, I would just encourage them to reach out to me and, you know, kind of talk to me a little bit more between now and next Tuesday if that's possible. And I promise we'll get back to you. We'll make sure something actually gets set up. But with that, that's kind of my only recommendation. And I do want to kind of go over there now that I've seen the site plan and just sort of get a feel for what exactly it would kind of entail. So with that, there's no other speakers in the queue. We have a motion in a second. So let's open the ballot and record the vote. Thank you. Five yays, zero nays. By reaction, you've approved 2026-693. Item number 19, 2026-694. Open the public hearing. No speaker cards. We'll continue this public hearing until 11-4-26. Wait, do we? All right, the public hearing is still open. Erica Allen, are you here? Come on down. Okay. Hello. Good evening. I'm Erica Allen. And I live in St. James Place where they're going to actually be building, I think, some homes or townhomes. I'm not opposed to them building in my backyard. But I do want to know about what type of buffering would be there to separate the existing homes from the homes that they're going to currently build. Because it's a railroad track in my backyard as well. So I already have the noise from that that surrounds us. And so I just kind of want to know what they're going to have in place for that. So it's not that I'm against them building. It's fine. Just what would protect the current homeowners. Okay. All right. Thank you so much. Council Member McGaffney would like to speak with you in the green room. Um, so, and, oh, right here, over here. Um, oh, okay. Sure, sure. Um, all right. With that, we'll go to the, uh, next item. But that public hearing is continuing until 11-4-26. Item number 20, 2026-695. Council Members, please declare your ex parte communication at this time. Councilman Johnson, do you have anything for this one? Nope. Okay. We will open the public hearing and get a staff report. Thank you. This is Conventional Rezoning Ordinance 2026-0695. Requesting to rezone 1.2 acres of property located at 9520 Sandler Road. They are rezoning from RR Acre to RLD 70. The applicant intends to subdivide the property into two equal residential lots for development of a single-family home on each parcel. So this would be two single-family, two new single-family homes. Staff finds the rezoning consistent with the comp plan. The property is designated LDR within the suburban development area where single-family residential is encouraged. RLD 70 is a primary zoning district within this category, and it supports infill residential development. Surrounding development patterns strongly supports the rezoning. The area consists primarily of single-family homes within the zoning categories of RLD 60, 70, and RR Acre. Properties to the north and south are zoned RLD 70, and you have RLD 60 is located to the east, demonstrating that the proposed zoning is consistent and compatible and appropriate for the site's established residential area. Based on these findings and those within the staff report, the planning department forwards a recommendation of approval. Application was heard by the Planning Commission on October 8th, where there were no speakers in opposition and little discussion, and they voted unanimously for approval. Thank you. All right. Thank you. We have one speaker card, Stephen Smith. All right. Okay. Here for questions only. No one is in the queue on this, so let's close the public hearing and bring it back to committee. All right. We have a motion. Do we get a second? Second on the bill. No one in the queue. Open the ballot. Record your vote. Six yays. Zero nays. By direction, you've approved 2026-695. Item number 21, 2026-696. 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. 2026-696 seeks to rezone approximately 0.23 acres located at 0103rd Street, from Commercial Office to Commercial Community General 2. The applicant seeks this rezoning to expand the potential commercial use options for the property, and the parcel is currently undeveloped. The property is designated CGC in the 2045 Comprehensive Plan. CGC is intended to support a variety of retail and service uses that serve broad areas of the city, often located at major roadway intersections. The site fronts 103rd Street, which is classified as a minor arterial roadway, and lies within an established commercial corridor where CCG1 and CCG2 zoning already exist to the east and south. CCG2 is a primary zoning district within the CGC land use category, making the rezoning consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The rezoning encourages commercial activity in nodes and corridors and promotes redevelopment and infill over expansion into new areas. Approval will effectively extend the existing CCG2 commercial corridor westward along 103rd Street. For these reasons and those outlined in the staff report, we forward a recommendation of approval. This item was heard at the October 8th Planning Commission hearing. There were no speakers in opposition, and the commission voted unanimously for approval. All right. Thank you. We have one speaker card, Ricky Rand, and is in support with questions only. We have no. We have one speaker. Do you want to speak on the public hearing or after? Okay. Go ahead. Ms. Clark-Murray, you're recognized. All right. Thank you, Chair. So, I did have an opportunity to speak with Mr. Rand earlier today, and, of course, I will file my ex parte and announce in council next week. Just as the staff report said, it's a CCG2, and the subject property has CCG2 to the southeast and to the west of it. When I spoke with the applicant, he didn't really have a particular use or improvement that he wanted to make in mind at this time, but he was considering a garage. I think it was an automotive that he mentioned. And one of the concerns, of course, with the community is always whether or not a liquor store is going in. And so, with the CCG2, he would still, the applicant would need to file for an exception if he was going to do alcohol sales and a myriad of other uses that are not, that are allowed, that won't be allowed except by exception. And the other thing is that the applicant is aware that the subject property's proximity to wetlands, so it may impact his ability to make improvements on the land. And with that, I don't, I would not be opposed to this particular legislation. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. All right. Thank you. And with that, we'll close the public hearing and bring it back to the committee. All right. We have a motion and a second on the bill. No one in the queue. Let's open the ballot. Record your vote. Seven yays. Zero nays. By your action, you've approved 2026-696. Items number 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, and 27 are, I'll read the bill's numbers as well. 2026, 741, 742, 743, 744, 745, 746 are all deferred with the public hearing next cycle on 11-4-26. Item 28. We already took up. Item number 29, 2026-779 is deferred because Planning Commission hasn't taken it up yet. And the following bills are on second reading, 2026, 781, 782, 783, 784, 785, 786, 787, 788, 789, 790, 791, 792, 793, 794, 795, 796, 797, 798, and 807. With that, we have no other business. This meeting is adjourned.