Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

All right. It is now 6:02 p.m. on 8th December 2025 and I call this meeting of the planning commission to order. May I please have a roll call? David Doll here. Marggo Moring here. Nicholas Andrews here. Debbie Cole. Justin Henderson here. Dean Haddock here. Matthew Fer here. Are there any changes or corrections to the minutes dated 10 November 2025 by any noted by any member? If not, may I have a motion to approve the minutes? Motion to approve. Second. All those in favor signify by saying I.

I. I. All those opposed, please say nay. Motion to approve the minutes from 10 November 2025 is approved. uh to the staff. Is there any uh correspondence for any item on the agenda? Uh no correspondence. Okay. Do we have any old business? No old business.

Okay. Moving on to new business. Um so for the public, the planning commission meetings are generally quasi judicial in nature. All decisions of the commission will based on competent substantial evidence including testimony provided in this meeting. Any person who is not an applicant or agent that wishes to speak will need to fill out a speaker card which are located on the side table by the door and turn them into the uh city clerk. Each member of the public will [clears throat] be given three minutes to speak on each item. Please refrain from speaking from the audience and applause or cheering is not allowed and please silence your cell phones. Um can you please read the application by title? Uh to the staff, can we please have application for PC number 21-25?

Through the chair, this is PC 2125. It is a conditional use request for property located at 725 South 3rd Avenue. It is a conditional use application to allow for the construction of an accessory dwelling unit or an ADU located in the residential multif family RM1 zoning district produced pursuit to section 34614D18 of the Jacksonville Beach Land Development Code. Uh the subject property is located in the medium density residential um zoning district and or uh future land use district in the RM1 zoning district. Uh the property is currently occupied by a single family home which was built in 1953 per the property appraisers website. Uh the current single family home is roughly just over a thousand square feet of heated and cooled space and uh 1100 ft just about uh including an open porch. Uh the subject property is a legal lot of record created prior to the adoption of the comprehensive plan and existed at least since 1953 uh when the home was constructed. The lot is roughly 6,250 ft uh with a width of 50 feet and a depth of roughly 125 ft. During the passage of the new land development code in March of this year, the ability to add accessory dwelling units was added for properties located in the RM1 zoning district provided the property uh was currently a single family was currently a single family home and the ADU would be one additional unit on the property that can support at least two multif family units. As noted, the RM1 standards for multif family. A minimum of 5,000 square feet of lot area is required to have two units and the same conditions would apply for the construction of an ADU on a single family lot. Uh accessory dwelling unit means an attached accessory building or portion thereof that is used as an ancillary residence residential unit and is located on the same lot as the principal single family dwelling. It has a separate kitchen, bathroom, and sleeping area and is intended for use by

a separate family of occupants. Um, the addition of the ADU requires compliance with additional standards in the LDC for certain conditional uses. These are minimum conditions that are listed below. Uh, the applicant has confirmed has committed to meeting all these conditions and the proposed site plan demonstrates compliance with these requirements. Additionally, staff will ensure that these conditions along with any others applied by the planning commission are met during the time of permitting as part of the permit review process. Surrounding uses include uh to the east and adjacent a two-unit multif family structure. To the west and adjacent is a vacant lot, to the north across the existing alley is a single family home, and to the south across Third Avenue is a small church. uh staff has reviewed the criteria for uh the initial use for an ADU and finds that the following um it does meet and it's consistent with the visions and intent of the comprehensive plan uh specifically future land use 1.4 which basically identifies and incentivizes preserving residential neighborhood character uh as well as uh strategy 1.4.1 4.1 which states that on single family lots uh single family residential homes with a multif family zoning designation the city shall basically adopt provisions for ADUs because we had intended to do this when we did the land development code. Um we found that the subject property is located in the RM1 district uh and notes that ADUs as a conditional use are allowed. Uh additionally the area has a surrounding mix of single family, multif family and institutional uses. The applicant has agreed to all the additional conditions uh that are required. Um and again these conditions were intended to address things like massing scale and subordination to reduce impacts on other surrounding uses. The proposed ADU will not have any negative impact on surrounding uses. The new addition of units uh is substantially similar to the existing two family multif family structure.

two-unit multif family structure that is immediately to the east and uh will be designed in such a way as to be similar in size and height to any allowable accessory structure uh not used as a dwelling. So it should have no greater impact than the detached accessory structure and is likely to have less impact than a new multif family structure which are permitted to be built here. Um the proposed use is not likely to impact property values negatively though staff is not necessarily qualified to make formal appraisals. The proposed additional unit would be consistent with the surrounding area and uses and would not uh be more intense or generate more traffic than any other multif family use in the surrounding area. The property is fully served by city utilities and can handle the expansion of the unit. Um the applicant has an existing driveway uh and per the LDC residential properties can have stacked parking. So their intent is to add a third space off the existing driveway. Um the uh proposed site plan, the ADU will comply with all the dimensional standards uh and additional conditions for ADUs in the RM1 zoning district. Again, they've agreed to these uh additional conditions that are listed. Um and those conditions are listed below. Um, I'm not going to go through all of them, but in essence, it deals with, uh, location, overall size, um, and use of the existing property, the minimum and maximum sizes of the ADU, their ability to provide one extra parking space, um, compatibility in design, minimal or maximum height of 15 feet, um, it has to meet building code obviously. Um and the existing single family has to be owner authorized and they sign a affidavit to that effect. Uh and everything will be off of the single electrical uh meter and water meter for the property. So basically they'll be tied together through the utilities. So, uh, based on the information in the application, um, as outlined in the

staff memo, we're recommending approval of PC 2125 for one accessory dwelling unit with the required additional conditions specified for ADUs in the staff memo. Happy to take any questions. Thank you. I appreciate it. Um, as a reminder, each member of the public will be given three minutes to speak when we open the public hearing. Does any commission member have any exparte communication to disclose? All right, hearing none. Would the applicant please come forward to be sworn in and give any presentation and reminder to the commission members, please refrain from interrupting the presentation and hold questions to the end.

You're just going to tap the little red button on the microphone. Please raise your right hand and state your name and address. Jeremy Laferty, 5043 Monroe Forest Drive. Do you do you swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to give in this matter is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth to help you God? I do. Thank you. I uh you have time to tell us whatever you want to about the uh application here. Yeah. So, Christian uh covered it pretty well. The the actual build is going to go in behind the home. Uh an additional parking space will be added. Uh it'll be um an accessory dwelling unit, 500 square feet, one bed, one bath.

Okay. Do any commission members have any questions for the applicant? Thank you. Um yep. In that um image right there in the top right hand corner of the property, is that a a driveway? No, the driveway is actually, you see the vehicle on the bottom right? So, there's actually two spots currently behind the sidewalk. We're going to extend the driveway up 17 ft for an additional spot to make the third parking spot. What is that back there? The shed. Oh, okay.

Yep. Um the lot to the how looking to the west is it just empty lot. Mhm. Okay. Correct. Are there any further questions? Thank you. All right. Thank you.

I will now open the public hearing. Do we have any speaker cards? No speaker cards. There's anyone in the audience who has not filled out a speaker card that wishes to speak. And if so, please uh fill out a speaker card before you leave. Okay. I'll now close the public hearing and bring that back to the board for discussion. Motion to approve. Second. Is there any further discussion? May I have a roll call vote on the motion? David Dole, yes. Marggo Moring, yes. Justin Henderson, yes. Dean Haddock,

yes. Nicholas Andrews, yes. Motion carries. Congratulations. And we have the planning department report. Oh, we got one more. Did I miss one? Sorry. Can we please have the report for PC- or PC number 22-25

through the chair? Yes. So PC 20 uh 2225 is an amendment to the land development code. It's a text amendment. It will create chapter 34377 which is request for accommodation. Uh basically to summarize um there's been a push through the legislature starting in 2015. the state legislature. Um, and in 2025, uh, Senate Bill 954 was passed. It basically pertains to what are called certified recovery residences. These are sober living facilities. Um, they are not treatment facilities. They are residential living facilities for people that are recovering and transitioning um, from addiction treatment. Um, in essence, uh, this bill establishes a requirement that cities and counties pass legislation before January of, uh, 26. Um, basically ensuring that their land development code meets all the requirements that would not prohibit these to go in residential areas. It's, uh, part of the ADA accommodation. And basically people who suffer from addiction are considered uh during their recovery to be disabled and are entitled to living in residential areas much like any kind of group home that we have. They're treated as single or just residential structures. Um our code actually doesn't prohibit these. Uh it's pretty much in line with state law. However, there is a provision in the code to allow for uh if there does arise a situation where there's a conflict, a process for a separate hearing, which is reasonable accommodation. Um, housing and urban development has a similar requirement that Jacksonville had to implement a number of years ago, but basically it it establishes a process. If there is some kind of conflict that would say this can't go here for these reasons and there is a feeling that they need to be in that location, they can request this process. Uh, it's really uh

sort of an extra step to ensure that we're in compliance. But um as part of the implementation of the statute, we are required to do this. So uh we basically set it up as a new chapter in the LDC. But again, our code really doesn't cause a conflict as it is. So this is really a extra bit of insurance going forward. All right. Thank you. Obviously, we don't have anybody from the public here, so I'm not going to open a public hearing. Um, so, uh, do we, uh, I guess we'll just move. Is there a motion for the purposes of discussion?

Motion to approve. Second. And just as a reminder, this is a be a recommendation to council. Yeah. Right. And so clarify, this is a recommendation to city council from us. Correct. Yeah. So, can we theoretically can we say no to this? I mean, you can recommend no to it. recommend no to it. Yeah, it's within your power. Okay. Uh I don't know that um the city is obligated to do this under state statute. Why? Because the state passed a requirement that we have to. Why?

Because I assume that there were cities that were not meeting this requirement. And much like Jacksonville with their housing requirements, they ended up in a very expensive lawsuit with the housing and urban development on the federal level. And part of that settlement they reached compliance which included a similar provision for in their case it was uh transitional housing for homeless but um we haven't had a conflict but it's a statewide bill so we are complying with state statute.

Okay. So go ahead. Sorry. Yeah, because I mean it's you know from a local level it's an interesting thing because what happens ultimately what ends up happening is companies are running businesses out of houses in neighborhoods and they come in and now they're basically green lit from the state I guess or at the federal level they can just do that. I mean to be fair they have been right yeah doesn't mean it's not a problem.

Well it's not a problem that uh we can solve at this level unfortunately. Yeah, noted. I I want to clarify something here and again I apologize. I don't I read through this um quickly because I don't think I I figured it was part of this. That said, my understanding of the reasonable accommodation piece here is that this is a um Can we just go over what is allowed without a request for reasonable accommodation? So

what I just read was that you the city manager determines whether they're going to hear one of these requests for reasonable accommodation. Is that correct? Because reasonable accommodation in the world I come from, federal service, very very specific stuff. So I just I'm trying to get to what is a what would trigger a request for reasonable accommodation and what's allowed without it. So I'm trying to think of a good example. Under our code, you can have a recovery facility that meets the state requirements for a recovery facility. Uh they're licensed. They go through the whole process. Um let's say they wanted to locate somewhere and for whatever reason it's one of six houses that are on a septic tank or something along those lines. There's a non uh zoning related issue, but a land development code issue that may complicate that or prohibit that because of that. They could then request reasonable accommodation to reconsider that strict interpretation of the code to say if we connect to sewer, would that solve the problem? Or we don't think we're going to generate enough waste to cause a problem with the septic tank. Here's our data. It basically goes beyond the limited language in the code to consider extra things that may not be part of that conversation. typically.

So to be clear then they couldn't request to do this recovery facility in a place where it was not allowed by the LDC, right? But our LDC basically treats those residential structures. So anywhere where they can go in as a residence and they meet the state requirements, they are treated like a resident. So we don't prohibit them because in essence we can. But we took that into consideration when we reddrafted the code to make sure we weren't sideways of the requirement. out of out of curiosity, why don't we treat them as businesses? Because they're 100% a business. It's a business.

There are are categories and scales of things like group homes. Basically, if they're under a certain number of uh residents, they fall under basically a single family home that is got four or six unrelated people that live there. If it gets to a larger facility, then they can trigger some things. But this is again following what the state determines to be a residential treatment facility. So not a hospital, not a, you know, uh, place where they're receiving medical care. This is strictly a place where they live, right? But it's the business

and they would register the business. No different. It'd be no different than running, you know, Christian's recovery center out of a house and you have six people staying there and they're paying you $4,000 a month

and I know and going through there and I mean you're making a business out of it and you're running out of your house and they're not having to go through the same steps. They're allowing businesses to run out of any house at that level. I mean, to be blunt, it's really no different than a short-term vacation rental or even a home business now, which has got pretty large leeway under the state law, which is one of the things we had to change in our code as well. The state is pro small business in residential areas and has passed state legislation that requires us to comply with that. They've taken away the ability of the city to say no. So then in the staff's interpretation of this, it's allowed. There's no restrictions on it at all in the residential zoning district

in so much as if it meets the requirements of the state. No, we don't disallow them. We have always allowed them. Okay. Um then the reasonable accommodation, that's the point I'm struggling with. Like they're allowed. Why do we need a reasonable accommodation request?

Because the state statute says we need to have one, but also it provides a way to solve a problem that may arise that we can't anticipate. Although the zoning says you can do it, there may be other things in the code that say you have to have these things that they can't provide. And since we have to allow them, they have to have the opportunity to say we can address those other issues. Are we still allowed that? So, okay, understood. The state says that we have to have a to be cleansed that we have to have a vehicle in order to resolve these things. Are we still allowed to say no?

Yes. I mean, if there's a legitimate uh utility related issue or something along those lines, yes. I mean, there could be legitimate reasons why you don't want to put one of those there from a public safety standpoint, but they have to have the ability to ask for a second read of that at the city manager level. When when is council supposed to vote on this? Um, it is on December 15th. Okay. So, we're getting this on December 8th. They're voting in on the 15th and it has to be in by the first. Uh, yes. Does that seem a little tight? Yes.

Okay. Yeah. I seems a little tight, you know, like to the board. My my hesitation would be it's one more, you know, if this goes to council and we can put a uh recommendation into it. It's just one more looks like just one more thing in there that we're you know we're not really putting in there that somebody else is putting in there that's down the road is going to tie our hands into something we don't want to tie to one more state issue one more state issue that you know so I think I the I see what you're saying Justin so the question is is this do we have to have this to be in compliance with state law yes then why are we voting on it

because the way we bring it to compliance is we upend the land. What happens if we're not in compliance with state law? Uh I don't know, but I would imagine that there are some consequences. There usually are. Maybe we could find out.

Um separate line of question. When I was reading through the law versus what's in the um proposal to council in the ordinance, um our text seems to be, and if I misread this, you know, forgive me please, but our text seems to be mostly focused on ADA accommodations. Am I reading that correctly? Because the state law is broader about accommodations for recovery centers. This is very nuanced around ADA was my read for it, but correct me if I'm wrong on that, please. So, the um residents would be considered under ADA.

Oh, got it. For accommodation. Um that isn't to say that you have to be qualified through some ADA process to be in a recovery facility or that recovery facility meets certain ADA requirements above and beyond what they normally have to do. This is basically saying because they're a protected class, we're offering this process for accommodation, the reasonable accommodation is not the same as ADA accommodation. Yep. I think that's that's what I was trying to understand. Got it.

Difference. Yeah. ADA accommodation is really a set of strict federal rules that you have to follow for infrastructure and and you know, auditory assistance and things like that. This is a land development accommodation process. So, it's it's separate, but it's caused by compliance with these HUD requirements and uh ADA requirements. So, uh I could interpret this as the the law is let me let me actually rephrase that. The the class of residents would be a protected class. In this case, the accommodations are related to a protected class in general. Yes. Under the statute.

Got it. Thank you. That's what I was trying to understand because I was thinking ADA compliance in terms of like buildings. Yeah. There's no way to get around having the ramp, but if we say you can't put it here from a legislative standpoint, then this is a way to ask for more consideration. That was my read on it. [clears throat] Is okay. And and is that the nature of the code is primarily around issues like that or is it around the more general because I I know there are

statutes around uh our requirement to uh make space for these facilities in our community. And so is this uh ordinance around the the ramp type accommodations or is it around the accommodation of these um facilities in the community more broadly?

Right. So yeah, it's accommodating the facilities in as as an existing use or potential use. the accommodations for ADA rules as far as accessibility and things like that. Those there is a very strict policy as far as enforcement. There is a request for exemption that can happen under very certain circumstances, but typically that's either in the building code or through a state process. So the this is use based not physical accommodation. Got it. Thank you. All right. So, my my take on this is um we're basically told we have to add a section into our code for it. I mean, that's that's the case, right? We have to adopt something that allows for re a reasonable accommodation.

I know I understand that we're a recommendation to the council here. Correct. So, I guess let me let me just one minute here. Um, I'm I'm kind of a little bit with Justin on this, so why are we even make a recommendation? I understand there's the process and everything like that, but we've been told by statute that we have to add this vehicle into our land development code to allow for uh reasonable accommodation. I'm not a fan of the way that we're continually being told we have to add stuff. However, that said,

that said, if we have to add it, I'd rather add something that at least allows some level of um process driven look at something like this as opposed to doing nothing um or saying no, recommending no because then we're just kind of pushing the problem to the right.

Um maybe this will help. So, if our previous land development code had some hiccups, we would have to amend the actual code as far as allowing these uses. So some cities are going through that process. Um what we have to do is add a provision. What you have before you is a proposed designed by our you know attorneys and staff. So I would say we have to do something. If you guys feel that the process that's established in this isn't adequate or there's changes you'd like to make, you can make those recommendations that I think would be meaningful. Um, but it's really how much you guys want to discuss the process and if you think there are meaningful changes to be made and there probably are meaningful changes to be made, I would, you know, for basically recommend against approval on our level and on a timeline. Um, you know, hey, you got two weeks to figure this out. We've had this since what? Thursday and how this was going to affect our land development code and how it's going to affect down the road. I don't know we actually have reasonable time to figure that out before it's slammed down our throats on January 1. Um and then we got to go through council. So also and they're looking at it as well I'm assuming. So then that's I'd be there and then you know just on the pure nature of here's some things you have to add that you're getting forced to add. give give some push back where we can.

I can just add it does seem um a little like surprising to me that council is not um I'm sorry that that there isn't a legal representative of the city here. um you know un understood kind of I I think I understand the circumstances but the fact that they're not here is sort of saying to me like done deal nothing to discuss you know like and we don't have any time to you know get into it or even ask questions I'm looking at the empty seat

yeah I I would say that there is one city attorney and he is currently in the briefing with council so I don't know those priorities are set for him by council I'm sure if we had two, we would have one here. Uh, Miss Ireland was going to be here. She is unfortunately very ill and did not make it in. Actually, our CRA coordinator is sitting in for her at the briefing right now. So, um, but yeah, I don't um I don't know how to get David to be in two places at once. But [snorts] again, there is a period between now and council. So, the process is established there. You can certainly make recommendations in the form of, you know, we think these changes should be considered and the attorney will address them with council if he, you know, has something to look at. So, uh, if you want to put things in there as recommended changes that [snorts] even if you don't have an answer to the question you think might be important, they'll have to be addressed at the council level by the attorney if they're going to consider those. So if you say we think the application should be on green paper, that'll have to be discussed by council per your recommendation.

Well, is is there a way for us to move the item forward with with not with I'm not sure we have enough information or enough time to develop conditions or new language or any of those things. Um but can we um put in a like a a suggestion that in the future more time be given? Um yeah, I mean you guys are are issuing a recommendation.

I I think uh and I I was not privy to the before this getting here. Um but uh my understanding is there was some question as to whether we needed to do adopt anything at all because our code was currently compliant and it was sort of caught that we still needed to do this portion of it. So I don't know that anybody really had planned on doing this this quickly. Um because the question came up uh in early Jan or November as I recall. um from the city manager at a meeting with the state legislature, basically their our legislative representatives was like, "Hey, do we need to do something with this?" And then we all kind of like looked at went, "Oh, yeah, we do."

Um so so we took a comprehensive look at the land development rags and at the um the plans and we initially thought we didn't have to do anything specific. That's my understanding. Yeah.

Okay, I get it. So, I I I do want to uh agree with the chair and vice chair um that this does seem a little a little unfortunate that that we have to um sort of we're feeling a bit mandated in um passing this on short notice. I do want to call out I think it's important to be able to discuss the merits of the proposed um the proposed what is this called again sorry ordinance in front of me and like section F for example uh lists an appeal process and we don't have an appeal process uh in the planning commission and this appeal process seems to go straight to the special magistrate um which would undercut any kind of uh appeal power of this particular body and the appeal process is something that's come up before uh this year um in another application and I just want to call that out as some of the substance of this ordinance that might be worth a little bit more consideration and debate on this on this um this particular dis um I don't know I don't have much more to say than that other than dragging this out into like a 4hour meeting where we go through every line item in these eight pages without an attorney present. But it does seem like if we vote in favor of this at this moment that we're doing it without without the robust debate that it might require. Even though the spirit of of the ordinance seems seems, you know, necessary um and appropriate to me, there are some details in here that I wouldn't want us to um you know, sort of just gloss over uh and rush to approval. If we have to

approve it, we have to approve it. Um but there are some nuances in here that might be worth discussing. So um I think the whole commission is feeling a little bit um uncomfortable with the timeline right now. So uh but this has to be in place by one January, correct?

Uh per the statute. Yes. Okay. Is there a way we can um and this is to the commission. Well, one I have one condition I think we should put on it. I think that they need to remove the designate. I think it needs to be just the city manager that does this. Um, adding the design portion of it, um, I think puts it at a level that is too low. Um, it's overly broad, let me put it that way. I think if you just say the city manager, then it it's you pin the rose, if you will, on somebody who should do this. But the second part is is that um maybe we add a request for a revisit of this with a brief from the city attorney early next year so we could potentially amend this going forward because I just don't think look it's also the Christmas season right this has to be adopted by statute by one January we can recommend no but if we recommend no and the council passes it we're not actually sending a recommendation to the council I think the recommendation of the council should Um, okay. Approve this, but we need to go back and actually do a deeper dive into this to consider the nuances that are present in this.

In terms of process here, do we um need to introduce another motion on the floor? Well, I didn't I don't think there was the motion was uh to approve for purposes of discussion. Correct. Right. Which was seconded. So, you could either um take a vote on that motion and vote it down, make a motion to amend the motion and add whatever considerations you'd like um or vote it as proposed.

So, to the chair's uh point, there's an issue of design. To my point, there's an issue of appeal. Uh, did any of the other board members notice any nuances or have any questions with the document that may be useful to include in a motion to recommend with certain caveats?

I would make a motion to approve or to modify the motion to approve with additional conditions. My condition would be um or the recommendation would be to remove the design part and it has to be the city manager that does this and then um requesting I I don't know if this is a a condition you can put on it because it's a request requesting um in the first quarter of 2026 a briefing from the city attorney and a deeper dive in this to see if there's any additional recommendations we make for to change the LDC because this would have to be adopted by the That's a long-winded way of saying my recommendation or I would move to amend the motion to approve by removing the design uh designate portion from the city manager and then requesting um a revisit of this in the first quarter of 2026.

Would would the chair be open to including uh my appeal nuance in his motion? Uh we can explicitly call that out for a reason for uh review. I just don't think it's something we Thank you. Yep. Seconded.

Okay. May I have a roll call? Marggo Morin. Can we repeat what we're voting on? Sure. So I my motion was this that was seconded by Dean recommend approval with a condition that they remove the design part of the city manager. I don't believe it should be city manager or their designate

would would it not and Christian so recommend for approval because I know we want to do it in the positive right on the what we're voting so recommend for approval with a amendment or a change but we're doing a recommendation would we not want to do a but we're not really recommending it for approval we're recommending a a change an approval so I'm going with the same way we would put a condition on an application Right. I'm sure do we need to vote it down and then say something else or I I think we're allowed to put a recommendation forward to the city council. Correct.

Yes. So, in essence, your your document your your statements are going to be a recommendation to council that they will consider as part of the evidence for the actual ordinance. So, if you you currently have a an a motion for approval that's been seconded on the table, you have a motion to amend that has been seconded in but not voted on to add the two statements that you put in there which I I think the request for a briefing is certainly something that can be part of that recommendation. Uh and then you either vote on the amendment. Yeah, we have to vote on the amendment then on right and then if the amendment passes it would be part of that previous motion that has not been voted on

and you could vote that up or down and once that's done if that doesn't pass you could make a motion to deny because of these reasons if that's something that you wanted to do. I I'm confused as to how the um the point about appeals being an issue.

My my my uh and Dean, correct me if I'm wrong here, but um I think that issue the concern from the planning commission can be specifically called out as a request for um a revisit in the first quarter of next year because we have some concerns about the appeals process. Those are too broad right now to specifically say approve with these 12 caveats. Right. Specifically say appeals. It will specifically say appeals and the request which will be attacked attached to our motion. Okay. Is that correct me?

It's correct. And I I would even say it's it's broadly that that is one example of an item that ought to be um you know discussed in a little bit more detail and the implications of that discussed. That's my only point there. Not that we need to amend it specifically. Okay. So um right now I'm asking for a roll call on the motion to amend the original motion for approval. So this is do you accept the removal of designate for a city manager and a request for um a revisit in the first quarter of 2026 with the city attorney? Yep. May I have a roll call? Justin Henderson.

Yes. David Doll. Yes. Maring. Yes. Dean Haddock. No. Nicholas Andrews. Yes. So, you've passed the amendment and now

we've passed the amendment. Now, we have to vote on the original motion, which would now be to approve what we just said people want to add to um our approval, which would be the two things again. Removing the designate from city attorney and adding I'm sorry, city manager. removing design from city manager and then requesting to have a brief with the city attorney in the first quarter of 2026 with the intent of potentially uh uh changing the language in here. That's what we just covered.

No, this is now voting on the original amendment. We added the amendment to the original motion to approve. Now we're that amendment has been added. Now, we're actually voting on if we're going to approve the motion right now. If that was not approving anything except visit with the city attorney.

No, we're approving this with the caveat of a recommendation to what we This is what we're voting on right now. We are voting on approving this as written minus the recommendation to remove the designate from the city manager and then adding in that recommendation a request for a briefing in the first quarter of 2026 with the city attorney with a potential of adding more uh changes. We can change the land development code if we need to after correct. So theoretically we're voting not to approve it. You're voting to approve with recommendation. Right now, we're voting to approve with the accepted conditions

just like you would do a conditional use. You're recommending approval of the use, but they have to meet these conditions. That's what you're saying to council. We recommend approval of this item, but we want these things included in that final approval. Okay. All right. All right. Is everybody clear? Clear.

I I'm sorry. Sorry to bel labor this. Um the [clears throat] the removal or the change around the design is a specific requirement to remove the language around the design. So it would be the city manager and everywhere designate is in this document it would be struck. Correct. Okay. Thanks. I have a roll call. Marggo Moring, yes. Justin Henderson, no. David Doll, yes. Dean Haddock, no.

Nicholas Andrews, yes. All right. I don't know if I really want this. Can I have the planning department report? Uh, in essence, we have no more meetings this year. So, um, we will pick this back up.

Well, I would if before we we I look for a motion to adjurnn, I'd like to recognize Morgan. This is Morgan Moring's last uh meeting on the planning commission. I'm not I'm not sure if that's good that you're really excited. [laughter] Um, how many years have you been on the commission? 10 years. So, um, on behalf of somebody who hasn't even lived in Jacksonville Beach that long, I'm pushing it. Um, thank you really for that's this is not easy stuff to do and and we all do it on a voluntary basis. So, 10 years of doing this and actually putting up with me for at least the last fours is noteworthy. So, thank you. Really, I really appreciate it. and a great friend of the of the number one institution here in this city which is the Navy. A great friend of

my pleasure. [laughter] I mean to be fair you've handled some pretty tense issues in the last four years that I've been here. So earn your time off. Yeah. I'd like to say I remember them fondly, but not all. I mean, some of them I don't know that they could have gone any other way. So, you guys did the very best you could. And I think you were a good chair when you were chair. So, I will miss you. As will we all. And please help yourself to so we can get to the hummus and sensi comm. I have a motion to adjurnn.

Motion to adjurnn. Second. We are journ. out.