Good evening. It is 5 o'clock. September 1st, 5 o'clock. Welcome to the Land Use and Zoning Committee. We're going to go ahead and start with introductions to the left. Councilman Reginald Gaffin, Virginia, District 8. Testing, testing. There we go. Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. Rockman Johnson, District 14, the west side, the best side. Good evening. Rory Diamond, District 13. There you go. Okay. Joe Carlucci, District 5. Kevin Carrico, Councilmember, District 4. Randy White, District 12. Harris Harvey, Office of General Counsel. Susan Kelly, Planning Department. Aaron Abney, Planning Department. Casey Cox, Planning Department. All right. Thank you, everyone, for your introductions. With that, we're going to go ahead. Councilmember Johnson, you're in the queue. You're recognized. Thank you so much for recognizing me, Mr. Chair. And I just want to start the meeting off. I've gotten about 150 to 200 emails, so this is not for, obviously, this group, this body, but anybody who may be here in the audience or who may be watching. There has been some talk about Venetia Elementary School in the adjacent district. It's actually not in District 14. It's in District 7. However, it used to be in District 14 during the last council iteration. Nevertheless, that school, the decisions that are made, I have to say this again, the decisions that are made are made by the Duval County School Board. There's nothing that we can do. There's only one thing that the council can do, and that's a part of the Joint Planning Committee, and that's only for new schools going in new areas. That committee has not met and has nothing to do with this. So that Venetia Elementary School, while I sympathize with you and I've tried to return as many emails as possible, you must talk to the school board member and the school board if you have issues, and I just wanted to put that on the record. Thank you. Right, and I hope the school board also sends out a message of that because we just want people to make sure they're going to the right place for their concerns. Yes, sir. All right, so committee members, we're going to go to page 13, item number 25. We're going to take up first, item number 25, 2026, 590. Let's open the public hearing. Do we have a staff report on this or no? No staff report? Because it's no staff report. Okay. Are there any speaker cards? No speaker cards. So we're going to go ahead and close the public hearing and bring it back to committee for the amendment. Okay, we had a motion to second on the rules amendment. Council Member Diamond, you're recognized. I just want to be out as a co-sponsor. All right. Mr. Carrico would also like to be out as a co-sponsor, and we have no one else. Okay. All in favor of the rules amendment, signify by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed? The amendment carries. Motion is second on the bill as amended. No one in the queue. Open the ballot. Record your vote. Seven yays. Zero nays. By reaction, you've approved 2026, 590. Mr. Granite, thank you so much for being here. We really appreciate it. Next time, if you could get your request in before 5 o'clock on Tuesday, that would be great. Yeah, you're fine. I'm just joking. Poor guy. You got to do a little bit of hazy into WZ. Welcome to WZ. All right. Committee members, we're going to go to action item number one. I'm sorry. Item number one is not an action item. 2026, 124 is deferred. Item number two, 2026, 125 is deferred. Item number three, 2026, 126. Let's open the public hearing. We have two, well, we have one speaker card. Samantha Series is in opposition, and she does not wish to speak. So with that, we'll continue this public hearing until 9-15-26. Item number four, 2026, 127, open the public hearing. One speaker card. Samantha Series is in opposition and does not wish to speak. And we will continue this public hearing until 9-15-26. Item number five, 2026, 376. Let's open the public hearing. No speaker cards. Do we have a staff report on this? We do not. Okay. So we have no speaker cards. We'll close the public hearing and bring back committee for the substitute. All right. We have a motion and a second on the rule of substitute. All in favor of the substitute, signify by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed? The substitute passes. Motion and a second on the bill is substituted. Councilman Rear, is she recognized? Okay. We're not taking co-sponsors at this time, but we appreciate it. All right. We have a motion and a second. We have a motion and a second. We are taking co-sponsors. Rebecca, go ahead and add them. That's fine. All right. We have a motion and a second on the bill is substituted. Open the ballot. Record your vote. Seven yays. Zero nays. All right. By your action, you have approved, 2026-376. Past President Carrico, you're recognized, sir. I'm sorry. Okay. Go ahead. On the last bill. Okay. Thank you, sir. Item number six, 2026-436. Open the public hearing. We have one speaker card. It is Samantha Series in opposition. Does not wish to speak. Hello, Samantha. See you waving back there. All right. This public hearing is continuing until 9-15-26. Item number seven, 2026-523. Open the public hearing. One speaker card. Samantha Series is in opposition. Does not wish to speak. And we will continue this public hearing until 9-15-26. Item number eight, 2026-524. Open the public hearing. One speaker card. Samantha Series is in opposition. Does not wish to speak. We will continue this public hearing until 9-15-26. Item number nine, 2026-532. Open the public hearing. One, two, three speaker cards. First up, we have Eunice Barnum. Come on down. Followed by Vanessa Cullens Hopkins and Samantha Series. I'm sorry. Is it Eunice? I'm sorry. Ms. Barnum. Is she here? I think Ms. Barnum has stepped out. I don't know whether she's going to be. But she is in opposition. Ms. Cullens Hopkins, you are recognized. Name and address. Okay. My name is Vanessa Cullens Hopkins, 3283 Edgewood Avenue West. I oppose 2026-0532 because of the lack of environmental impact assessment studies for this concrete batch plant, which is going to be located on Old Kings Road, or is proposed to be located on Old Kings Road, starting at the address 7167, but the 16 acres extends to Mockingbird Lane. There are a number of residences surrounding this area. Those residences primarily are along Mockingbird. It is recommended that you have at least 7.5 kilometers between any type of cement or concrete batch plant to protect the people that live in the area from the small particulate matter, but also from the noise, the water runoff, which is contaminated and will lead to killing of plants that may be utilized for food. And definitely the water supply can be contaminated. So there's air pollution, soil pollution, and also health effects that can occur from what is being proposed. So I recommend that we slow this process, that we have the community more involved in making this decision. And most importantly, we need an environmental and health impact study before any decision is made on such a plant, concrete batch plant. Now, for workers, generally, the workers use protective equipment because of the problems with dust and also the problems with the alkaline runoff from cement and concrete. So taking all these things in consideration, we need to oppose this legislation, this ordinance now. Thank you. All right. Thank you, Ms. Collins-Hawkins. We appreciate those words. Next, we have Samantha Series, followed by Wells Todd, followed by James Matchett. Samantha Series, address on file. Of course, I agree with everything that was stated before me. This is a big environmental and residential issue. This is not just in the middle of nowhere. I know we like to redline everything and send things off to the north side. This is in the middle of a neighborhood on the west side in Pittman's district. I would like to say that Pittman is having a community meeting on September 10th at the Legends Center. It will be a Thursday at 6 p.m. I think it's important that the community knows that. And I have reached out to many people in this community. I do not live here, but I go to this area for other community meetings. So I know the people around there. And many of them do not know that this is coming up for vote. And they didn't even know about the community meeting. I've announced it on a couple of different platforms, trying to get people informed. And every time I get comments saying, you know, oh, I live down here and I had no idea. So I think it's important that we do take into account what is going on in that community and try to make sure that everyone's informed before we put some, you know, toxins into the air and into the water. Thank you. Ms. Sirius, when did you say the meeting was? September 10th at 6 p.m. at the Legends Center. Okay. Okay, great. Thank you for reannouncing that. Wells Todd. My name is Wells Todd. I just want to pick up where the last two speakers left off. This whole situation is a gift to us from the history of redlining. These plants, the liquor store that was fought against, the morgue and medical examiner's office, are all built in areas where land is cheap. And they're built in areas that have basically been destroyed in one way or another by redlining. I keep saying this, that 19 of you voted to approve a resolution that recognized the destructive nature of redlining. Mr. Todd, please speak to the bill. Mr. Todd, please speak to the bill. This is speaking to the bill. This plant, this plant is a result of redlining. And as the last speakers said, they stated about the health concerns. This concrete in it has a lot of chemicals, and those chemicals will get into the air, and those chemicals will get into people's lungs, and those chemicals will eventually kill people. So, what we're saying is, stop this process, have every single environmental study that can be done, must be done. And this plant should be able to find another location, since square footage or whatever you want to call it, Jacksonville is the largest landmass in the country. It seems like you want to cram everything into areas where the land is cheap. Okay, thank you, sir. Next, we have James Matchett. James Matchett, address is on file. Out of a sense of fairness, once I became aware that they were having a community meeting, I was going to defer all my comments. But I said, what I would like to do is give you an opportunity for something that you can look into before that, so my comments will be very brief. As you heard, this plant will be in close proximity to homes, residential yard, pedestrian activity, children's, churches, facility, and residential traffic. Re-zoning would introduce cement silos, aggregate handling, cement dust, sand aggregate dust, heavy trucks, concrete mixer, industrial equipment, diesel exhaust, chemical emitters, washout, industrial noise, and fugitive emissions. That's a fancy way of saying the chemicals used to stabilize, sterilize, and strengthen cement are cautionogenics to human beings, fly ash and silicon. I'm giving you this up front. I'm giving you this up front. You can look into it. I, again, out of fairness, I wanted to wait to this meeting that happened with Ms. Pittman, and I'm assuming the developer or one of their representatives could be there, because I have some questions to ask them about the SDSs, that's safety data sheets that's required of any industrial operations within our area, so we'll know exactly what chemicals we're talking about, and it's not a blanket statement of how harmful this is. So with that, I'll gladly take my seat and just ask, let's do our homeworks before we approve this. All right. Thank you, sir. Next, we have LaSondra Sawyer. Hello. My name is LaSondra Sawyer. My address is 11525 Carson Lake Drive, Jacksonville, Florida, 32221. First and foremost, I just want to state that I do not support this rezoning request, and I believe that it should not pass. And my reasons for that is there are about 700-plus homes that surround that area. Nearly 2,000 residents will be affected, and also that 17.1% of our senior population that lives in that facility. Also, with that said, that's 42% of those households who are in our Alice population, which is asset-limited, income-constrained, employed. And when families are already at a financial vulnerability state, they do not have the same ability to simply move if conditions around their homes depreciate or change. So just to say also, a community should not have to become unhealthy, undesirable, or unaffordable before we recognize that this can also affect displacement. Prevention is the responsibility of good planning. So we must plan ahead and plan accordingly. And also, I wanted to state that our seniors are our foundation, and our children are our future. And with that said, there is an elementary school. Pickettville – I'm sorry, Pickett Elementary is within one mile radius of this site. With that said, not only those neighborhood students are coming to this school when it's rebuilt, also, Essay Hall and Reynolds Lane Elementary will also be attending that school. So that also puts them at risk. And finally, I just wanted to say, also, in that area, there is a lot of homeowners that have wells. So they are subject to – they depend on that groundwater for drinking, which – so we cannot just simply afford to first ask and then do an environmental study. We have to do it now before that affects them as – when they're cooking their food, when they're bathing in it every day. So we just – we have to find out what is going on. And I just want to say, Northwest Jacksonville has carried the burden of disinvestment, environmental harm before. So history should make us more cautious today, not more comfortable with adding another potential burden. Thank you. All right. Thank you, ma'am. Next, we have Etta Etlinger, who is in opposition, and Mark does not wish to speak. All right. With that, we will continue this public hearing until 9-15-26. All right. Next action item is – oh, I'm sorry. Mr. Carrico, you are recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I know that this isn't up tonight, but there's been a lot of things that were said tonight, and I figured we could do some Q&A with the planning department and see what's fact, what's fiction, because I know there's a community meeting. And I would hate for more things to go to the community meeting that haven't had a chance to be discussed in this public forum. So let me first ask to the planning department, what is the closest resonance to this plant or proposed plant? Through the chair to Councilman Carrico. So the nearest home is to the north, and it's over 1,000 feet from the subject property. I'd have to do a little bit more digging as to where the actual concrete batch is taking place, which would only be in the existing heavy industrial land use category, which is on the furthest south side of the property. So it would probably be an extra, like, 200, 500 feet from the closest residential lot. And it's currently zoned IL? Correct, yes. So the property is zoned industrial light and has existing both light industrial land use and heavy industrial land use, with the concrete batch part staying strictly in the portion that is already heavy industrial. Okay. And then we're asking to be changed to a PUD. What would be the traditional category? Would it need to go to industrial heavy, if not for the PUD, to have this kind of use? For the concrete batch plant, it would have to be heavy industrial land use. So, again, they are only operating that part in the existing heavy industrial land use, and they're not adding all the other uses that would be usually found in heavy industrial. They're limiting it to just that use. So as an expert, if they were to just seek an industrial heavy land use, what would the minimum buffer for residences be? Would it be under 1,000, 1,000, more than 1,000? It would be under 1,000, yes. It would be under 1,000 if it had to go to industrial heavy. Correct, yes. Okay. Do we know if the concrete is going to be mixed indoors or outdoors? We don't know. Is there a representative here? It's under Ms. Kristen Reed. Is Ms. Reed here? I don't think so, but we can get that information for you. Mr. Huxford, you're not involved in this, are you? For some reason, I thought you might have been with Ms. Reed. Oh, someone's coming down. Can you tell us, please, and for all the people here, if the concrete is going to be mixed indoors or outdoors? Blair Knight and Kimley Horn. I am not familiar with the actual product and what's happening on the site, but we can get that answer, and we'll have that at the community meeting. Yes, the community meeting is coming up. I'm trying to help everybody here. That's the only reason for my line of questioning. I know when community meetings, I've had them in my district, there's usually a lot of people with a lot of questions and sometimes misnomers, so I was just trying to get some facts on the record. And let's see, wells for water, back to the planning department. Is that a consideration when you look at applications for industrial heavy, how many wells are in the area, and if contamination to wells is something that we see? So when this gets approved, it will have to go through our solid waste division to receive what we call a certificate of necessity, which means that the use gets reviewed according to all of their regulations and state regulations. So I am getting in contact with that representative to have all that information ready for the public hearing. I mean, sorry, the community meeting for September 10th. Okay, and I appreciate everybody being willing to answer the questions. I was just trying to get some things on the record. I know there's a community meeting. I trust that the district councilperson will make sure that the people's voices are heard and that the professionals are there to answer the questions. I'm just in a listening phase right now until this comes in front of us, so thank you for obliging me, Mr. Chair, with those questions. No problem. And welcome, Councilwoman Clark Murray, and you were in the queue, so you're recognized. Thank you, Chair. One of the applicant's representatives, if you would come forward again, just really a simple question. Do you know if Ms. Reed or another representative of the applicant plans to attend the community meeting? Through the chair, yes, ma'am. All right, thank you for that. Yes. Through the chair to Ms. Vanessa, thank you. Okay. To Ms. Vanessa Collins, do you know, do you know, is that the CPAC night that the meeting's going to be held? Is that the same night as the CPAC, as the Northwest CPAC? My understanding is that the community meeting that Councilwoman Pittman is going to have is the same day as CPAC, which is September the 10th. So there definitely is a conflict. But is it being held during that time or in the same building? Do you know? It's in the same building, not the same room, same time, 6 p.m. Thank you for that. Thank you, Chair. All right. We have no other speaker cards on 2026-532, and this public hearing is going to be continued until 9-15-26. Next item, number 10, 2026-553. Let's open the public hearing and get a staff report. Ordinance 2026-553 is for a small-scale land use amendment to change the land use designation of 2.53 acres at 1414 Cozy Lane from low-density residential to neighborhood commercial. The subject site is located between Monument Road and Cozy Lane. The subject parcel fronts Monument Road, which is classified as a minor arterial roadway. Even though the site is addressed from Cozy Lane, the access to the site would be from Monument Road. The subject site is currently undeveloped. North of the subject site across Monument Road is a single-family neighborhood. Immediately south and east of the site are single-family homes designated LDR and MDR. Approximately a quarter mile to the east of the site along Monument Road is the intersection of Monument and St. John's Bluff Road. This is a commercial node that consists of a variety of office and commercial uses. Neighborhood commercial is a category primarily intended to provide commercial retail and service establishments, which serve the daily needs of nearby residential neighborhoods. The proposed amendment to NC would offer an extension of the commercial node and allow neighborhood-scale low-intensity commercial uses as a transition from the commercial node to the residential uses. Plan amendment requests for new NC designations are preferred in locations which are supplied with full urban services, which abut a roadway classified as a collector or hire, and which are compatible with adjacent residential neighborhoods. The proposed amendment to NC allows for neighborhood-scale commercial development on a site with full urban services that fronts a minor arterial roadway. For these reasons and those in the staff report, the planning department recommends approval. Planning commission heard this item on August 20th, and they unanimously approved the item with minimal discussion. Thank you. All right. Thank you. We have one speaker card, John Herbert. Good evening. I'm just the applicant. If there's any questions from the chair up here, I will take them and try to answer them here. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Let's close the public hearing and bring it back to committee. All right. Motion in a second on the bill. No one in the queue. Let's open the ballot. Record the vote. Six yays. Zero nays. By direction you approved, 2026-553. Item number 11, 2026-554. Council members, please declare any ex parte communication you have at this time. Seeing none, let's open the public hearing to get a staff report. Thank you. This is the Companion Conventional Rezoning Ordinance 2025-554, seeking to rezone approximately 2.53 acres for a property located along Monument Road, rezoning from residential low-density 60 to commercial neighborhood in order to develop the site with commercial neighborhood uses. The subject property, again, is located on the south side of Monument Road, which is classified as a minor arterial roadway. The site lies as a transition point between single-family residential neighborhoods to the west, south, and north, and general commercial uses to the east on Monument Road and St. John's Bluff Boulevard. Access to the property will be strictly from Monument Road, and no access would be permitted through Causey Lane, even though it's addressed off of Causey Lane. Staff finds the requested rezoning to be consistent with the comp plan, with the proposed land use category of NC, and the rezoning supports the policies by encouraging infill underutilized parcels, compatible land use transitions between residential neighborhoods and commercial corridors. The surrounding development pattern shows a natural transition of these intensities, moving from single-family to neighborhood commercial closer to the intersection there at Monument and St. John's Bluff Road. We find the requested rezoning to be compatible with surrounding developments. So for these reasons and those in the staff report, we forward a recommendation of approval. This was heard by Planning Commission on August 20th. At that meeting, there were several speakers for the adjacent neighborhood nearby who just had concerns about the access to the property. Once staff clarified that no access would come from Causey Lane, they had no concerns, and there was little discussion amongst the commission, so they voted unanimously for approval. All right. Thank you so much for that report. We have one speaker card, John Herbert. I'm assuming questions only. Okay. Questions only is in support. With that, we'll close the public hearing and bring it back to committee, but we have Councilmember Carricko in the queue. Go ahead. You're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I did want to bring Mr. Herbert up to the podium. Just for the people at home that don't have all the information we do in front of us with all these notebooks and applications and pretty pictures, what exactly is happening here on Monument Road? A rezone for commercial development that provides a buffer between the higher intensity commercial to the east and the residential that is to the west. There's no proposed use at this time. It was just to spur economic growth and local job creation in the area. We have no proposed plans or end use decided on yet. No plans. Are you the owner? Are you representing a lobbying firm or a builder? Who are you representing? Representing the owner. You're not the owner. That's a civil engineer. Civil engineer. Okay. So we're just resounding something with no plan. Correct. Yeah, just to make it more marketable in a market. More marketable in a market. Got it. It just sometimes confuses us when you, especially when it's low density now and you want to move it to more of a commercial use. Like, you know, the people that live there have kind of a right to know what you plan to do with it. And I know legally you don't have to tell them, but you should have some kind of idea if you want to rezone this property, what you think might go there. That would be helpful, especially to the people who live next door, who some of them actually came out in opposition. I know it was more for the access, but I just think you owe the public a little better explanation of what you want to do with it. So I'll give you that, Grace, if you like. If not, then you can see where the votes go. Something from the approved neighborhood commercial allowed uses list, which I believe has 22 different uses, but we have no set plans for the property at this time. Just highest and best use for the uses that are approved in the neighborhood commercial category. All right. Council Member Diamond, you're recognized. Thank you, through the chair. I think, you know, I was looking through this on Sunday. I do my reads on Sunday, and I was just a little confused how this complies with the 2020 Salem Amendments. Oh, you already sat down. I'm sorry, Mr. Herbert, come on back down. Sorry about that. Through the chair. No problem, Mr. Herbert. So I was just trying to figure out how this qualified under the 2020 Salem Amendments and complied with it. I just didn't see any of that paperwork in the file. I would have to talk with the staff that helped with the file on that one. I don't know what the Salem thing is. Did you speak to the district council member? Council Member Gay. Did you speak to Council Member Gay? Yes. We tried to have a simpler rezone process, but he said we were trying to get something developed in the property, but we went through the channels here for straight rezone for neighborhood commercial. We previously had wanted higher density, or not density, higher commercial, like our neighbors to the east. But staff talked us down from Commercial General 2, down from Commercial General 1, down to neighborhood commercial, and that would be better than a single-family home along a high-density road next to commercial. Okay. We'll just, I had an interjection, but Council Member Diamond had the floor. Yeah, I just, we're co-mingling serious and not serious here. I just want to split these apart because, all right, so on the not, the Salem Amendments don't exist. You've just never been up there, and we harass people with the fake question about the Salem Amendments. That's why they're laughing. But while we did that, people had, like, serious issues and questions, so forgive me for that. Folks behind you is laughing. He was here when we invented them. So, I will let people ask their honest questions, and I appreciate your humor, and thanks. All right. Council Member Gaffney, you're recognized. Thank you, through the chair. Mr. Herbert, do you have a timeline on this when it has to be closed? Timeline for what? In terms, I'm assuming, I guess, you're representing, I guess, the owner, and it's under contract, I assume. I don't know if you already own it. It is under contract, and I know that the contract is dependent upon it being rezoned. Okay. Because what I'm thinking right now, I need to be deferred maybe for, like, one cycle and a couple of weeks until you speak to the council person over this district. I'm not sure if we need a neighborhood meeting, but at least until you speak to the council person over this district. But at the same time, I want to be respectful and be mindful, you know, of, I guess, the investment that you guys are making in a time that you do have. So, I mean, I want to at least, you know, be respectful to you as well. But at the same time, I do think, you know, Councilman Gay needs to be aware of this, and maybe he needs to inform his constituents. We did have a neighborhood meeting. That was a requirement of the planning, I believe. We only had one person come out in support. We had no opposition on the call. It was a pretty quick call. And we did talk, we kept going to the secretary for the council member because we were trying to, like I said prior, we were trying to get a higher intensity use, but it was talked. And after we sat on it for many months, we decided neighborhood commercial is the best fit for the region as a buffer step down between the higher intensity to the east and the wet pond to our west. So this is what I'm going to do. So I'm going to make a recommendation of refer. If I get a second, I get a second. If I don't, I don't, you know, so. So we hear the recommendation. We're going to, you're holding off on the motion because we do have someone else in the queue. Okay. Is that what I'm hearing? Yes, sir. Okay. Okay. Let me, let's hear from past president Carrico, and then we'll, we appreciate that recommendation. Past president Carrico, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just want to make sure that all the facts are verified here. So the applicant said that the commercial neighborhood zoning district had about 22 uses. Can the planning department recite those uses and let me know if there are 22 or if there are less or more? Through the chair to Councilman Carrico. So in the commercial neighborhood, there are 15 uses that are allowed by right. These are limited to doctor's offices, dental offices, professional and business offices. You can do multifamily residential when it's integrated with another permitted use. You have neighborhood retail sales and service uses. You can have beauty shops, restaurants without drive-in or drive-thru, banks, libraries, community centers. You can have retail sales of beer and wine for off-premises consumption. So a convenience store, veterinarian offices, employment offices, churches, art galleries, dance, fitness centers, and pharmacies that were already existing. So those are the uses that would be allowed by right. Okay. Thank you. I just want to make sure that anyone from District 2 listening at home was aware that those are the possible uses that can end up in your neighborhood. All right. Thank you for that. Mr. Herbert, just, I think we asked you this question. I just, I didn't get a clear answer. Did you speak to Councilmember Gay and was there any concerns? We did speak to him. I think it was about a year ago. There was no concerns at that time. We are looking to close this up sooner than later because we are nearing the end of our period on the contract for it. We were pushing, like I said, we pushed for harder and were talked down. And that process of deliberating between stepping down two steps from our initial desire took like eight months. And we're at the end of our due diligence period for the site. All right. Okay. Understood. Understood. We're just trying to get a handle on that. Councilmember Diamond, you're recognized. Just my two cents, Mr. Chair. It is really hard when you put a lot of time and energy into a property and a project and you've got a, you know, a close date on your LOI. They're running up against it. I'm personally fine with moving forward. This isn't, you know, he's already shifted into a more mellow use. It would be terrible to invest the tens of thousands of dollars in effort here and then lose it because we deferred. And Councilman Gay usually knows what's in his district and he's not here. And I'm not going to say there's an implication for that, but I just want to say I'm comfortable moving forward. Let him move on with the project. He's trying to invest in Jacksonville. Let's roll. Okay. Yeah. I'll kind of put my two cents in there. Obviously, Councilmember Gay, his district is very tight knit. There'd probably be 50 people here if there was an issue. But just, you know, for your own benefit, I guess, Mr. Herbert, I think a lot of us basically no one heard from you because no one declared ex parte. So when we don't hear from the applicant and there's a change going on and there's not really a plan, usually it doesn't go very well. So luckily, there's no one here in opposition. But with that, we won't defer this. If anything happens between now and Tuesday, then so be it. But for now, I think we have everything we need. Did we already close the public hearing? Okay. We closed the public hearing. You can have a seat. There's no other questions for you. We have a motion and a second on the bill. With that, no one in the queue. Let's open the ballot. Record the vote. Seven yays. Zero nays. By your action, you've approved. 2026-554. Item number 12, 2026-555. Council members, please declare your ex parte. Communication at this time. Council member White, you're recognized. I cleared my ex parte. Two days ago, I had a conversation with Ronnie Fussell. Said he wouldn't be here tonight, but Mr. Huxford would be here and that will be filed. All right. Thank you so much. With that, we have no one else in the queue for ex parte. Say, let's open the public hearing and get a staff report. Thank you. This is Conventional Rezoning Ordinance 2026-555, seeking to rezone 0.25 acres from CCG1 to CCG2 in order to unify zoning with the owner's adjacent parcel that's located at 22 Cahoon Road, which already operates under CCG2. The applicant intends to use the site as an overload storage and operations area for the Vickers car repair business that operates on that 22 Cahoon Road. The subject property fronts Cahoon Road South, which is a collector roadway and is situated within an established commercial and industrial corridor. The subject property, sorry, staff finds the requested rezoning to be consistent with the comp plan. CCG2 supports a broad range of commercial uses, which would include the auto repair and storage and aligns with the policies promoting compact commercial development and advancement of existing commercial corridors within the area. Surrounding land use and zoning patterns support the request. North of the site is CCG2 zoning with retail service garages and restaurant uses. To the east and west are industrial zone properties that allow for open storage, manufacturing, and warehousing operations. And then further, we have residential uses that lie further south of the site. But these properties are already zoned, CCG1 and CCG2. The request extends the existing commercial zoning pattern without introducing new impacts beyond what's already existing within the immediate area. So for these reasons and those in the staff report, we forward a recommendation of approval. This was heard by Planning Commission on August 20th. There were no speakers in opposition and little discussion amongst the commissioners, and they voted unanimously for approval. Thank you. All right. Thank you so much. We have one speaker card. Folks, Huxford is in support. Questions only. No other speakers. No other speaker cards. Let's close the public hearing and bring it back to committee. Motion and second on the bill. No one in the queue. Open the ballot. Record your vote. Seven yays. Zero yays. By your action you've approved, 2026-555. Item number 13, 2026-556. Council members, please declare your ex parte communication at this time. Council member Gaffney, you're recognized. Thank you, through the chair. I'm going to ask the committee to ask for a deferral on this legislation. I had a phone call with the applicant, but we still have some, I guess, items to be worked out. So I'm not ready to take up this action tonight. So I'm asking for a deferral. All right. No problem. Item number 2026-556 is deferred. But if Mr. Anthony is here, I'm sorry about this, through the chair. If Mr. Anthony is here, I'd like to speak with him. I'm not sure if he's here or not. Mr. Anthony I.K. Are you here? Yeah. I got it. Oh, don't see you here. Good thing you got a deferral. All right. So, do we need to do anything on that, Mr. Harvey? Just open the public hearing and delay it until 9-15? All right. We're going to open the public hearing. No speaker cards. This public hearing will be continued until 9-15-26. Thank you, Mr. Gaffney. Always looking out for your district. We appreciate that. Item number 14. 2026-557. Open the public hearing. We have one speaker card. Samantha Series is in opposition, and she does not wish to speak. Item number 15, 2026-558. Open the public hearing. We have two speaker cards. Samantha Series is in opposition, does not wish to speak. Next speaker card, Vanessa Cullens Hopkins. Come on down. Vanessa Cullens Hopkins, 3283 Edgewood Avenue West. I speak in opposition to 2026-0558 because we have not been shown a traffic study for the ingress and egress of the suburban area, the residential area, which is adjacent to the land that's being proposed to be turned into RLD 40 from the original zoning of RLD 60. To my knowledge, this issue also is going to be discussed on September the 10th during the community meeting, at which time, hopefully, we will have some concrete information as it relates to ingress and egress from the main road that will be leading into this property, which is proposed to be rezoned to RLD 40. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. We have no other speaker cards. So we will continue this public hearing until, is that 9-15-26? All right. Item number 16, 2026-559. Open the public hearing. No speaker cards. We'll continue this public hearing until 9-15-26. Item number 17, 2026-560. Council members, please declare your ex parte communication at this time. Seeing no one in the queue, let's open the public hearing and get a staff report. Thank you. 2026-560 seeks an exception to permit the retail sale and service of all alcoholic beverages for on-premise consumption, including liquor, beer, and wine, with permanent outside sales and service areas, and to allow a nightclub within an existing commercial building on Park Street. A portion of the tenant space will also operate as a restaurant. The two storefronts were formerly Neon Moon and Rain Dogs, and the new tenant will be Fat Tuesdays. There is a companion waiver of liquor distance, WLD 2605, requesting to reduce the required separation from a church from 1,500 feet to 410 feet. The site is located within the community general commercial, land use category, and the urban priority development area and lies within the Riverside zoning overlay in both the national and local historic districts. The request is consistent with the 2045 comprehensive plan, which supports compact commercial development, multimodal access, and revitalization of existing commercial corridors. Similar full-service alcohol establishments already operate along Park Street, confirming compatibility. Staff finds no adverse impacts to traffic, public services, environmental conditions, or future development. For these reasons and those in the staff report, the planning department forwards a recommendation of approval with the condition listed in the agenda. All right. Thank you. We have two speaker cards. First up, Amanda Hessin. Hessin? Hessin? Come on down. We can't really hear you. I'm sorry. Can you put the mic up or is it better? Pause the time. Is it on? Now it should be on now. There it is. All right. Now we can. I apologize. I apologize. So I am here representing Fat Tuesdays on this item. Fat Tuesday is combining both of the tenant spaces, 104.3 and 104.5, to constitute a kitchen and bar. Fat Tuesdays will be operating it congruent to all of the similarly surrounding operations. There's hoptingers. You've got hawkers and all of that good stuff on the same street. They want to be a great community partner, and they are very excited to be a part of the Five Points District. We've spoken with Councilman Paluzzo. We've had great feedback. We've spoken to the Business Improvement District, Five Points Association, and the Riverside Avalon Preservation, all with very positive feedback. If you have any questions, I'm here to answer them. Thank you so much. All right. Next we have Paul Namey. I'm here on behalf of the applicant as well. I can answer any operational questions that you may have. Okay. We have no one in the queue, so let's close the public hearing and bring it back to committee. All right. We have a motion and a second on the amendment. Are you on the amendment? All right. 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. Council Member Diamond, you recognize. Oh, I just wanted to ask, I'm going to vote yes on all this. This is a really critical spot at Five Points, so I hope you guys are successful. We absolutely need to see Five Points do better with all these bars and restaurants closing over there. Love to see the combination and people opening up and doing good stuff. So good luck. Did you want to be out of this co-sponsor? Look, I drink at Hoptinger, so I would like to have other options because the cheese curds are great, but they get old after a while. Yeah. Is Council Member Peluso a co-sponsor on this bill? I know he likes to co-sponsor his own emails. Anyways, all right. We have a motion and a second. We have one speaker. Council Past President Carrico, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I'll be brief. I think this fits very well in obviously an entertainment district where people go to have fun and have a good time. I do hate a little bit that it's a big national chain. I wish somebody local could have, you know, stepped up and had a double-decker frozen drink bar there, but we don't have that person, so I guess that Tuesdays it is. All right. Council Member Johnson, you're recognized. I'm just going to add in, usually, and former council president, to the chair, former council president, I do think that usually in Fat Tuesdays, around the country, wherever they are, they usually have a local-focused kind of push to where they are. And we've missed Fat Tuesdays since it was at the Jacksonville Landing. I may or may not have spent several days of my youth having, enjoying Fat Tuesdays at the Jacksonville Landing, but it's good to see them back in the area, and they usually try to make sure it's a local focus as to what they're doing. So I think this is a great project for this area, and I'm excited to see how it will improve Jacksonville. Thank you. House President Carrico, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. That being said, I think we should somehow get a Mayport shrimp-flavored daiquiri. Yeah, if we could do a Mayport shrimp-flavored, then I won't make the motion to make that a condition, but I think we should somehow incorporate, maybe it's another flavor, but let's get a local flavor, other than whatever they have, hurricanes and high-octanes and all that. Something with shrimp. Shrimp cocktail daiquiri, I'll drink it. Did you want to have the applicant agree to that? All right, we're good. Let's get this out. Let's get this out. We have a motion in a second. There's no one else in the queue. Let's open the ballot. Record your vote. Seven yays, zero nays. By our action, you've approved. 2026-560. Thank you for tolerating L-UZ. We appreciate it. Yeah. All right, item number 18, 2026-561. Council members, please declare your ex parte communication at this time. Seeing none, let's open the public hearing to get a staff report. Thank you. 2026-561 seeks an exception to permit the retail sale and service of beer and wine for off-premise consumption within the Chafee Square 3 PUD. The PUD already allows mixed-use development with commercial out parcels along Normandy Boulevard, and the proposed use would operate as part of a planned 5,340-square-foot Circle K fuel station and convenience store. There is a companion zoning variance, which will be heard next. Staff finds a request consistent with the 2045 comprehensive plan. The site lies within the CGC land use category along Normandy Boulevard and FDOT principal arterial roadway and supports commercial uses developed in nodal and corridor patterns. The proposal aligns with the policies encouraging infill and redevelopment of existing commercial areas and supports the viability of nearby residential neighborhoods. Surrounding uses include vacant commercial parcels, vacant residential PUD areas, and additional commercial zoning along Normandy Boulevard and Chafee Road. The proposed exception is compatible with this development pattern and will not create adverse impacts to environmental conditions, traffic circulation, public services, or future development. For these reasons and those in the staff report, the planning department forwards a recommendation of approval. All right, thank you so much. We have one speaker card, Blair Knighting. Blair Knighting, Kim Lee Horn, thank you. We appreciate the staff report. We agree, and I'm here for questions. Okay. We have no one in the queue, no questions. So with that, we'll close the public hearing and bring it back to committee. Motion and second on the bill. No one in the queue. Open the ballot. Record your vote. Seven yays, zero nays. Fire action you've approved, 2026-561. Item number 19, 2026-562. Council members, please declare your ex-parte communication at this time. Seeing none, let's open the public hearing and get a staff report. 2026-562 seeks relief from section 656-607 of the parking lot landscaping matrix and an increase in maximum driveway width from 24 feet to 40 feet. The property is located near the intersection of Normandy Boulevard and Chafee Road South and is proposed for development as a Circle K fuel station and convenience store. The applicant has demonstrated that the operational needs of the proposed filling station exceed typical parking demand and require a higher parking ratio to accommodate anticipated fuel delivery activity and customer volume. A parking demand analysis supports this request. The increased driveway width is needed to ensure safe maneuverability for fuel delivery trucks, which must execute a 180-degree right-turn-only ingress from Normandy Boulevard and 90-degree turning movements for both ingress and egress. Staff finds a request consistent with the definition of a variance and the proposed relief will not adversely affect surrounding properties, diminish property values, or create environmental or traffic impacts. For these reasons and those in the staff report, the planning department forwards a recommendation of approval. All right, thank you. We have on speaker card, Blair Neining. Thank you, staff. I appreciate it. And I'm here for questions. Thank you. All right, questions only. We have no one in the queue. Let's close the public hearing and bring it back to committee. Motion to second on the bill. No one in the queue. Open the ballot. Record your vote. Seven yays. Zero nays. By direction you've approved, 2026-562. Item number 20, 2026-563. Councilmembers, please declare your ex parte communication at this time. Seeing none, let's open the public hearing and get a staff report. 2026-563 seeks an exception to permit the retail sale and service of all alcoholic beverages, including liquor, beer, and wine for on-premise consumption at 5340 Normandy Boulevard. The request is made by Tobacco Galore, Inc., which currently operates a cigar bar within a 6,900-square-foot commercial building developed in 1946. The site is on CCG2, where full alcohol service is permitted only by a zoning exception. There is a companion waiver of liquor distance, WLD 2606, approved on August 6, which reduces the minimum required distance from a church or school from 1,500 feet to 800 feet. A nearby establishment, Charlie's Liquors, received similar approvals in 2020, demonstrating precedent for alcohol service in this corridor. Staff finds the proposed exception consistent with the 2045 comprehensive plan. The site lies within the CGC land use category, where compact commercial development along arterial corridors is encouraged. The proposed alcohol service is compatible with surrounding commercial uses, which include restaurants, retail stores, and service businesses along Normandy. The request will not create adverse environmental traffic or public service impacts and is unlikely to affect neighboring properties given the existing commercial pattern. For these reasons and those in the staff report, we forward a recommendation of approval. All right. Thank you so much. We have two speaker cards. All right. First speaker card, Andrew Messiana. Messiana? Come on down. I'm Andrew Messiana, and my address is on file. I'm the owner, and just here for any questions. All right. Thank you, sir. Next. Hey, sir. Go ahead. We have one question for you, Mr. Messiana. Council Member Diamond. I'll defer to the district councilwoman. I see her on the queue. Okay. Ms. Clark Murray, do you have a question for Mr. Messiana, or did you want to speak on the bill, or we have one other speaker card? Through the chair. I was waiting for the next speaker to speak, and then I'll talk about the bill. Okay. I was going to ask a quick question to the owner. So you own, through the chair, thank you, sir, you own Primo Cigaro? Yes. Okay. And then the idea is to serve liquor? Well, I was on Edgewood for 10 years at 1070 Edgewood Avenue. I had a cigar lounge there with barren wine. And right after COVID, the building sold prior to that to Prime Realty, which we realized we have to move out and find our own location. So we purchased that building back in September of 19 and then went ahead and refurbished it and went through it and moved from Edgewood Avenue over to Normandy. Now, we got into the building in 24, and we've been operating as a cigar retail since 24. We want to go back to being a cigar lounge. So you want to do beer and wine? And for alcohol. Yeah, and you want to do beer and wine? And for alcohol, yes. Oh, and liquor? Yeah. Okay, all right. Just tracking. All right, that makes sense now. Thanks. Yeah. All right, thank you, sir. Next speaker we have is Charles Knight. Oh, okay. 565. Oh, my bad. Sorry about that. All right, no problem. We have no other speaker cards. Ms. Clark-Murray, you are recognized. All right, thank you, Chair. So really, to the committee, did have an opportunity to speak with Mr. Messianna, and basically the concept is that he is going to, it's a cigar lounge, and he wants those who come to the cigar lounge to be able to drink beer, drink alcohol, and it's going to be consumed on site. I think I had a constituent maybe two weeks ago who had a concern as to whether or not the next person who, if he decides to sell the property, if that owner would be able to have the same exception, and I think that you all expressed at that time, and I know I confirmed with Mr. Harvey during our city council meeting that the exceptions are not, you can't pass them on, they're not grandfathered. The next person would have to apply for an exception as well. So, with that being said, you know, I'm going to let Mr. Messianna, I think it's a good idea, and that's all I can say at this point, because you know I don't vote tonight. All right. Thank you, Chair. All right. Yes, ma'am. Thank you. We have no other speakers in the queue, no other speaker cards, so we'll close the public hearing and bring it back to committee. Motion and a second on the bill. Council Member Diamond, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm a yes on this. I tend to think cigar lounges tend to be classier and less problematic in most neighborhoods, so good luck. Okay. Do you want to be out as co-sponsor? All right. Council Member Arias, you're recognized. Thank you, Chair. I just have a question. Do you guys sell food here at Primo's through the chair? Can you please come to the podium? No. We are going to have a food truck. We had a food truck at our old location that used to come a few days out of the week, pretty much Thursday through. Thank you, sir. That was my question. I only ask because Mr. Harvey, I mean, obviously, that's mandated by the state, but I don't think he's even allowed to sell liquor, right, or without having a food permit. Do you have a 5149 license, or where are we at with this? I'm sorry. I don't get where you're going. Okay. Through the chair. So in order to sell liquor, you need a 2 COP for beer and wine or a 4 COP for full alcohol. If you're trying to get a full alcohol license, which has to be through the state, not through us. Yeah. Right? I'm just going for an exception here. You would have to sell food until it was 5149. No, no, no. I'm not trying to do a restaurant. You asked me if I was going to have food. Okay. And I'll probably have a food truck. I had a food truck at my old last location. Not me personally, but... So just to make sure, I just want to make sure I understand this because this is like the first time he still has to go through the state. Okay. So we're granting the exception, and then from here he's going to take it to the state. Yes. Just wanted to make sure. Thank you. All right. Okay. Excellent. That's all, sir. We don't have anyone else in the queue, and I think we have a motion in a second, so let's open the ballot. Record your vote. Seven yays. Zero nays. By your action, you've approved 2026-563. Item number 21, 2026-564. Councilmembers, please declare your ex parte communication at this time. Council, past President Carrico, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I would like to declare ex parte as I got a phone call and a voicemail from Mr. Curtis Hart. I wasn't able to answer his phone. You know I always answer your call. But I was traveling at the time and my assistant, Ms. Lee, got me up to speed on your request and didn't have any further questions, but I did listen to the voicemail, so I have to claim that today as ex parte, and we'll get that filed with legislative services. Councilmember Diamond, you're recognized. Thank you. I rise to declare the worst ex parte I've experienced where I just got a terse text from Curtis Hart to which I responded with a meme with me pressing a red button. Councilmember Arias, you're recognized. All right. Thank you, Chair. I also received a text message from Mr. Curtis Hart. He didn't even call me. He just texted me, which is, you know, yelling at me. But anyways, just wanted to file that. It's currently being filed, and I'm not sure where I'm going to go with this, but I'll keep on thinking about this. Thank you. Councilmember Johnson, you're recognized. I rise to declare ex parte. I had a very meaningful, wonderful, heartfelt, flowering text from Mr. Hart, who it had, let's see, hearts and sunshine emojis on the text that I received. So I don't know about the terse texts. Seriously, I will declare this with legislative services. He was just asking me if I had any questions, and I did not after I reviewed the legislation. I figured I'd ask them here if need be. Thank you. All right. Councilmember White, you're recognized. I will declare ex parte. Curtis called me, and we had a 30-minute conversation, and that will be filed. All right. And I just wanted to declare ex parte. Yeah, I had a meeting at the Northeast Florida Builders Association, had a nice long tour with Mr. Curtis Hart, and he did not text me, and we'll get this paperwork filed with legislative services. So with that, we'll go ahead and open the public hearing and get a staff report. Thank you. This is Sign Waiver Ordinance 2026-0564, which is seeking to reduce the distance between a wall sign and residentially zoned property from 250 feet to 88 feet. The property is zoned commercial residential office, which has unique signage regulations, and that wall signage is very limited. Unless the property has 200 feet of street frontage and is at least three acres in size, then they would be allowed a wall sign up to 100 square feet. However, this wall sign is not located... However, the wall sign has to not be located within 200 feet of a residentially zoned property. The sign waiver is therefore seeking to reduce this setback requirement to allow for the property to have one wall sign. It's going to be approximately 16.4 square feet to be placed on the front facade of the building facing Sunbeam Road. Staff has reviewed the request, finds it meets the criteria for approval. The property faces Sunbeam Road, where nearby properties are zoned heavy commercial or industrial, which signage is allowed up to 10% of the building frontage, and they do not have setback regulations for nearby residential. The sign will only be visible from the right-of-way along Sunbeam Road and will not interfere with or injure the rights of surrounding property owners. So for these reasons and those in the staff report, we forward a recommendation of approval. All right. Thank you so much. One speaker card, Curtis Hart. Curtis Hart, 8051 Terralane. Any questions, be glad to answer. All right. Excellent. Thank you so much. We have no one in the queue, so let's close the public hearing and bring back to committee. We have a motion and a second on the bill. No one in the queue. Let's open the ballot, record your vote. Six yays, zero nays. Fire action you've approved, 2026-564. And tell the Northeast Florida Builders Association, good job. Thank you for being District 5 constituents. All right. Number 22, 2026-565. Council members, please declare your ex parte communication at this time. Seeing no one in the queue, let's open the public hearing and get a staff report. Thank you. This is sign waiver ordinance 2026-0565, which is seeking to reduce the required minimum setback for the replacement of an existing sign from 10 feet to 3 feet. The subject property is located at the intersection of Atlantic Boulevard and Monument Road, which was originally developed in 1999 as a gas station with full service car wash. The property owner is seeking to replace the existing sign, which has been in place since the original development, with a new sign in the same exact location. Although the requested setback is 3 feet from the property line, the sign is approximately 20 feet back from the edge of payment. So it is ensuring that the standard site triangle for signage will be maintained on the property. Staff has reviewed the request, finds it meets the criteria for approval. If the sign were to be required to meet the 10-foot setback, it would be placed within existing drive aisles on the development. The sign is in character with similar developments along Atlantic Boulevard. So 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, Mr. Charles Knight. And he checked questions only? Questions only. Okay. All right. Thank you, sir. Thank you. All right. We have no one in the queue, so let's close the public hearing and bring it back to committee. Motion to second on the bill. No one in the queue. Open the ballot. Court to vote. Five yays. Zero nays. By your action, you've approved 2026-565. Item number 23, 2026-566. Open the public hearing. No speaker cards. We'll continue this public hearing until 9-15-26. Item number 24, 2026-567. Council members, please declare your ex-parte communication at this time. Seeing none, let's open the public hearing and get a staff report. 2026-567 seeks a waiver of road frontage to reduce the required minimum road frontage from 80 feet to zero feet to allow for the development of a single-family home on a newly created one-and-a-half-acre lot currently zoned RLD 100A. The lot was recently split from the southern portion of the parent parcel and does not have direct frontage on a public or approved private road. Access to the site will be provided through a combination of a 10-foot-wide easement from Alvin Court and a 25-foot-wide easement connecting to Alvin Road. Staff finds the waiver appropriate. A strict enforcement of the frontage requirement would prevent development of the lot, creating a practical difficulty. The request is not intended to reduce development costs or circumvent subdivision regulations. Similar lots include, or surrounding lots include similarly configured parcels, accessed via easements, and similar waivers have been approved along Alvin Court, including WRF 2050. The proposal will not diminish property values, alter neighborhood character, or conflict with public health, safety, or welfare. Adequate access for emergency services is provided through existing easements, and the development will comply with all other zoning and subdivision requirements. For these reasons and those in the staff report, we forward a recommendation of approval. Thank you so much. We have two speaker cards. First up, Jason Mixon, and he checked, does not wish to speak, questions only. And Teresa Mixon is in support and checked, does not wish to speak, questions only. With that, we have no one in the queue, so let's close the public hearing and bring back the committee. Motion in a second on the bill. No one in the queue. Let's open the ballot. Record your vote. Five yays. Zero and a's. By our action, you've approved. 2026-567. We already took up action item number 25. So we're going to read some, well, we've got a couple deferrals, and then we've got maybe two more action items. So item number 26, 2026, 618, 619, 620, 621, 622 are all deferred with a public hearing next cycle on 9-15-26, which brings us to item number 31, 2026-623. Council members, please declare your ex parte communication at this time. Council member Arias, you're recognized. Thank you, Chair. Just wanted to declare ex parte, I spoke to the applicants on August 7th at 10.30 a.m. regarding this renovation for this fitness center, which is really a paddle club, and it's currently being filed. Thank you. All right. Thank you so much for that. Let's go ahead and open the public hearing and get a staff report. 2026-623 seeks an exception to permit the retail sale and service of all alcoholic beverages for on-premise consumption in conjunction with a paddle fitness facility. The subject site is a 13.38-acre parcel at 8313 Bay Center Road containing a 273,649-square-foot warehouse constructed in 1974. The applicant intends to lease a portion of this warehouse to establish an indoor sports facility with complimentary alcohol service. There is a companion waiver of liquor distance, WLD 2607, approved by Planning Commission on August 20th, which reduced the required separation from River City Science Academy from 1,500 feet to 420 feet conditioned on the approval of this exception. Staff finds a request consistent with the 2045 comprehensive plan. The property is located within the business park land use category, where compact employment, focused development, and limited commercial uses are encouraged. The proposal is compatible with the surrounding industrial and business park uses, which include warehousing, distribution, and flex-based facilities. The proposed paddle facility and alcohol service will occur entirely within the warehouse and is not anticipated to create adverse environmental traffic or public safety impacts. Existing access from Bay Center Road and on-site parking accommodate the use without modification. For these reasons and those in the staff report, we forward a recommendation of approval. All right, thank you. We have one speaker card, Blair and I. Thank you. I'm here for questions if you have any. Okay. 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. Council Member Diamond, you're recognized. Just a quick highlight. I assume this is going to be an indoor pickleball and booze-like facility, which that's not a question. I'm just guessing. Right, pickleball? Through the chair. Well, it's called paddle ball, so it's a mix between racquetball and pickleball together. Awesome. Well, I think we're going to see more unique uses like this for commercial spaces because commercial is cratering everywhere unless it's brand new commercial. It's going. So this is an old building. It's kind of a cool, interesting new use. So I just think, like, to the extent we can encourage this kind of stuff, like, it's good for us. Thank you. All right. Thank you. We have no one else in the queue. Let's open the – or, sorry, let's open the ballot. Record your vote. Ooh, double ding. Six yays, zero and a's. By your action, you've approved. 2026, 623. All right. All right, committee members, let's go ahead and get to the last page here. We have our last action item, and then I'll read off the second readings. Item number 49, 2026, 674. We need a motion on the emergency. Motion second on the emergency. All in favor of the emergency, signify by saying aye. Any opposed? The emergency carries. There we go. Non-zoning bill. We get a little thrown off here. Councilmember Diamond, you recognize. Can someone just tell me what the new condition is that we're jamming in here? Yep. So it's not a new condition. It's a condition that you guys previously voted on on this ordinance, 2025-61. During the rolling up process and the LUZ amendment that was filed, it omitted that last condition that was approved by the LUZ committee. And that condition was to read lots 3, 4, 5, and 6 depicted on the site plan shall be limited to one story in height. There is no additional additions or any other items that are allowed on the bill. But the applicant is aware? I'll just do the chair. The applicant is aware. Okay. And is aware. All right. Open the ballot. Record your vote. 6 yays. By your action, you have approved item number 2026-674. And the next two bills are deferred with a public hearing next cycle, 2026-631. And item number 33, 2026-632 is deferred with a public hearing next cycle. And then the following bills are on second reading. 2026-647, 648-649, 650-651, 652-653, 654-655, 656-657, 658-659, 660, and 661. Mr. Harvey, did we miss anything? That's it. This meeting is adjourned.