1 CITY OF JACKSONVILLE
2 LAND USE AND ZONING
3 COMMITTEE
4
5
6 Proceedings held on Tuesday, December 4,
7 2007, commencing at 5:05 p.m., City Hall, Council
8 Chambers, 1st Floor,
9 Diane M. Tropia, a Notary Public in and for the State
10 of
11
12 PRESENT:
13 MICHAEL CORRIGAN, Chair.
CLAY YARBOROUGH, Vice Chair.
14 RICHARD CLARK, Committee Member.
MIA JONES, Committee Member.
15 E. DENISE LEE, Committee Member.
ART SHAD, Committee Member.
16 JACK WEBB, Committee Member.
17
ALSO PRESENT:
18
RAY HOLT, City Council Member.
19 GLORIOUS JOHNSON, City Council Member.
JOHN CROFTS, Deputy Director, Planning Dept.
20 SEAN KELLY, Planning and Development Dept.
FOLKS HUXFORD, Planning and Development Dept.
21 DYLAN REINGOLD, Office of General Counsel.
22 JESSICA STEPHENS, Legislative Assistant.
MERRIANE LAHMEUR, Legislative Assistant.
23
- - -
24
25
Diane M.
Tropia,
2
1 P R O C E E D I N G S
2 December 4, 2007 5:05 p.m.
3 - - -
4 THE CHAIRMAN: The time is about five
5 minutes after 5:00. We'll go ahead and call the
6 December 4th, 2007, meeting of the Land Use and
7 Zoning Committee to order.
8 I am Councilman Clay Yarborough. I'm the
9 vice chair. Councilman Corrigan will be here
10 shortly. He's at another function he's on his
11 way from.
12 In attendance we have Councilman Ray Holt,
13 who's joined us this afternoon, and then
14 Councilman Shad, Councilwoman Jones, Councilman
15 Clark, and Councilman Webb who are part of the
16 LUZ Committee, and then also Councilwoman
17 Glorious Johnson is with us for a little while
18 tonight too.
19 It's usually customary for us to take
20 visiting council members' items up first.
21 First we have on page 15, item number 51,
22 Councilwoman Johnson.
23 If we will turn to page 15, members,
24 item 51, 2007-1214.
25 And I will just remind members of the
Diane M.
Tropia,
3
1 public, if you wish to speak on any item, please
2 be sure to fill out a blue card that you see up
3 there next to the podium and put that in, and
4 we'll call you up at the appropriate time for
5 the bill that you're here to speak on.
6 2007-1214, we will open the public
7 hearing.
8 Do I have any speaker cards?
9 Okay. Seeing none, is there anybody in the
10 audience who wishes to speak on this bill?
11 AUDIENCE MEMBERS: (No response.)
12 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. We'll close that
13 public hearing and I will entertain a motion.
14 MR. SHAD: Move the bill.
15 MR. CLARK: Second.
16 THE CHAIRMAN: There's a motion and a
17 second.
18 Discussion.
19 COMMITTEE MEMBERS: (No response.)
20 THE CHAIRMAN: Ms. Johnson.
21 MS. JOHNSON: Thank you, Mr. Vice-Chairman.
22 This church, which is near
23 and I'll make it very short -- is about two
24 blocks from my home. This church has been in
25 the community ever since I was born, so we won't
Diane M.
Tropia,
4
1 discuss my age. And now our pastor, Kim
2 Daniels, has taken over this church, refurbished
3 it, and she would like to keep it in that venue
4 for the neighborhood.
5 A lot of the members in our neighborhood
6 attend that church, and she wanted it to have
7 the significance that it should have, and that's
8 to be a landmark, and make sure that, you know,
9 she's following the procedures to keep it the
10 way it was in the early years. Let's say over
11 60-plus years ago. I'm just saying it because
12 now you can guess my age.
13 So I'd appreciate if you would support this
14 bill so that we can probably also get funds to
15 help renovate it and keep it in the beautiful --
16 I wish someone would go by it. It's in the
17 neighborhood, but then it's a beautiful church
18 and I want to keep it there and this will help.
19 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. All right. Any
20 further discussion on -1214?
21 COMMITTEE MEMBERS: (No response.)
22 THE CHAIRMAN: Open. Seeing none, open the
23 ballot.
24 (Committee ballot opened.)
25 MR. CLARK: (Votes yea.)
Diane M.
Tropia,
5
1 MS. JONES: (Votes yea.)
2 MR. SHAD: (Votes yea.)
3 MR. WEBB: (Votes yea.)
4 MR. YARBOROUGH: (Votes yea.)
5 (Committee ballot closed.)
6 MS. LAHMEUR: Five yeas, zero nays.
7 THE CHAIRMAN: By your action, you've
8 approved item 51, 2007-1214.
9 MS. JOHNSON: Thank you very much. And you
10 all have a good evening.
11 THE CHAIRMAN: Councilman Webb, did you --
12 MR. WEBB: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Vice
13 Chair, excuse me. Acting Chair.
14 Item number 31, we were going to open the
15 public hearing and continue it on 1/15/08. I
16 think there were some people here who were just
17 waiting for us to hear the magic words that we
18 were, in fact, continuing that to 1/15/08. So
19 I --
20 THE CHAIRMAN: Item 31 is that?
21 MR. WEBB: Item number 31.
22 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. We'll do that right
23 quick.
24 MR. WEBB: Thank you.
25 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. Item 31 is on
Diane M.
Tropia,
6
1 page 10.
2 Thank you, Councilman Webb.
3 2007-1083, we will open that public
4 hearing. And I will note that that public
5 hearing -- there are no speakers. That public
6 hearing will be continued until January 15th of
7 2008 if anyone is here or interested in that
8 bill.
9 Thank you, Mr. Webb.
10 Okay. We also have Councilman Holt. Am I
11 correct, we're here -- you'd like us to take up
12 2007-919, Mr. Holt?
13 MR. HOLT: (Inaudible.)
14 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. That's the one you're
15 here for, which is on page -- that is in the
16 middle of page 7, 2007-919, members. And we
17 will open that public hearing.
18 And first we have -- were we going to do --
19 if I can ask Ms. Eller, are we going to --
20 Ms. Eller, for -919, were we going to
21 procedurally do this a little bit different?
22 MS. ELLER: Yes, sir.
23 This is an informal quasi-judicial public
24 hearing on an appeal, and typically we grant
25 each side the same amount of time. In this
Diane M.
Tropia,
7
1 case, the sides, if you will, are the applicant
2 Mr. Mann, and then the Planning Department.
3 So we began last time with about 15 minutes
4 for each side with some time reserved for
5 rebuttal, and I believe that's what was
6 discussed at agenda.
7 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. And then for those
8 who are here to speak with the blue cards, how
9 will we go about that?
10 MS. ELLER: About three minutes each. And
11 if you could just keep tabs on how much time has
12 been spent on either support or opposition, and
13 that way each side gets generally an equal
14 amount of time as the minimum requirement.
15 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. So we'll ask
16 Legislative Services to keep an eye on the time
17 for us, and we'll start out with Mr. Mann for
18 about 15 minutes.
19 MS. ELLER: Correct. And he may want to
20 reserve a few minutes for rebuttal.
21 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. All right. Mr. Mann.
22 (Mr. Mann approaches the podium.)
23 MR. MANN: Mr. Chairman, I do appreciate
24 any leeway you can give me. I do need to build
25 a record for this tonight.
Diane M.
Tropia,
8
1 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay.
2 MR. MANN: I'm Charles Mann, 165
3 Road, representing the Heekin and the Sleiman
4 family joint venture.
5 This is a site that is located off on
6
7 river side of
8 previously been approved for five duplex
9 buildings that are designed to look like large
10 riverfront homes. I've got a handout that will
11 give you an architectural rendering of what the
12 building will look like.
13 When we came before the board previously,
14 the engineering had not been completed on this.
15 And to get the architectural effect that we
16 want, we are seeking -- we filed a minor
17 modification.
18 The original PUD limited us to 35 feet. We
19 filed a minor modification for an additional
20 10 feet of height on these. It is solely for
21 the pitch of the roof. It is not going to
22 increase the square footage, the heated area of
23 the units. It's just so we can have more volume
24 ceilings and more pitch of roof to give the
25 architectural requirements or effects that are
Diane M.
Tropia,
9
1 called for in your Northside Vision Plan, which
2 calls for a low country type architecture.
3 Now, this is a plan that was approved with
4 citizen input. It was approved by the council,
5 approved by the LUZ Committee, approved by the
6 Planning Commission, and approved by the
7 Planning Department, and so we're meeting the
8 Northside Vision Plan.
9 This area is also designated in the
10 Northside Vision Plan as a mixed-use area for
11 more dense residential properties, more dense in
12 commercial uses combined.
13 What we're seeking -- and the only thing
14 that is before you tonight is an appeal of the
15 minor modification that was denied by the
16 Planning Commission. We're not discussing
17 height, we're not discussing increase in
18 density, we're not discussing coastal high
19 hazard area, we're not discussing water and
20 sewer. These issues should not be part of your
21 consideration.
22 You're here as judges, and you need to
23 listen to the competent and substantial evidence
24 that is going to be presented by myself and by
25 the opposition and in the Planning Department
Diane M.
Tropia,
10
1 report and decide who is right. That's your
2 requirement tonight, that's your request.
3 But let's talk about a brief history.
4 R-2006-1288 approved five buildings on this
5 site, ten units. We've passed out a handout
6 that shows -- we went to great extent to make
7 these buildings look like one large riverfront
8 home of two units each. We tried to take some
9 of the architectural features from the Broward
10 home, which is a historical site that is just
11 north of this, and incorporate the pitched roofs
12 into our architectural rendering.
13 We met with the civic club that is on
15 them, they took a non-stance. They did not
16 support it; they did not deny it. They just
17 took a non-position on it.
18 At a later meeting that we were not invited
19 to, they revoted it and came out with a
20 recommendation of denial. We made no agreement
21 with them that if they would support this, that
22 we would not come back and change it as we need
23 to do. There has been no agreement to that, so
24 we're not violating any type of agreement there.
25 The Planning Commission subsequently
Diane M.
Tropia,
11
1 approved this, the LUZ Committee of the City
2 Council approved this, and it was approved by
3 the full City Council.
4 But let's stop for just a minute and talk
5 about the things we know that are not going to
6 change. R-2006-1288(E) approved this site as a
7 PUD. It set certain design criteria, certain
8 setbacks, certain footprints. These footprints
9 are not going to change.
10 I'd like to hand out a copy of the
11 footprints that were handed out in the original
12 application. The view corridors between the
13 properties are not going to change. An increase
14 in height does not change that.
15 We're not increasing the heating area in
16 these units; we're not increasing the floor
17 space; we're not increasing the heated and
18 cooled air; we're not adding additional land to
19 this site. That's not going to change. That's
20 going to be as it was originally approved.
21 We're not affecting concurrency. There was
22 a CCAS issued for this site, 38461. There's no
23 fair share agreement. So we met the criteria
24 for concurrency on this site for our ten units.
25 We're in compliance with the Northside Vision
Diane M.
Tropia,
12
1 Plan. We've been through that before you before
2 on these various meetings. Again, it calls for
3 low country architecture, which is dormers, very
4 pitched roofs, very steep roofs, and we're
5 trying to comply with that. We're not
6 increasing any land of the project.
7 The Planning Department tells you in the
8 report that we're in the coastal high hazard
9 area. At the original zoning hearing for the
10 approval of the PUD, we had an expert witness
11 there and a topographical map and submitted that
12 as competent evidence, and it was accepted by
13 the LUZ Committee and by council that this was
14 competent evidence that we were out of the
15 coastal high hazard area.
16 But when you go to the Planning Department
17 report, they base their denial on the fact that
18 it's increasing density in the coastal high
19 hazard area.
20 They tell you that we're not on water and
21 sewer. Now, they've got that correct. We're
22 not on water and sewer. There's no water and
23 sewer on
24 -1288, was originally approved contingent upon
25 a State permit for a FAST system. That is a new
Diane M.
Tropia,
13
1 system for sewage disposal and a State permit
2 for a well. But that's not an issue before you
3 tonight. That is, again, a regulation of
4 density, and that's not the question. It has no
5 effect on height. And that's the only issue
6 that's before you.
7 They go on and tell you that we're in a
8 residential area, and I'd like to have a --
9 Mike, that handout on the zoning, have you
10 got it?
11 Could you put this on the overhead?
12 The Planning Department, in their staff
13 report, tells you that we're in a residential
14 area. What they failed to tell you is
15 contiguous to us, to the south, is a piece of
16 CCG-2 property that runs almost all the way down
17 to the ferry. Beginning 150 feet north of us is
18 another piece of CCG-2 property that runs for
19 several hundred yards to the north of us. And
20 directly across the street from our site is a
21 piece of property that is zoned CCG-2.
22 In your CCG-2 zoning category, you can
23 build to 60 feet by right. The property
24 contiguous to the south, immediately across the
25 street, can both have 60-foot buildings put on
Diane M.
Tropia,
14
1 them. They didn't tell you that. They told you
2 we're in a residential neighborhood.
3 They didn't go on and tell you that to the
4 north of us is a shipyard. They didn't tell you
5 that to the north of that is a 60-foot-tall
6 condominium building, and they didn't tell you
7 that there's a 60-foot-tall dry stack, which is
8 a boat storage, that is being built north of
9 that.
10 They didn't tell you that there's a
11 restaurant to the south of us, that there's a
12 commercial fishing project to the south of us,
13 that there's a retail surf shop to the north of
14 us. They didn't tell you that there's a
15 campground to the north of us.
16 They told you that we're in a residential
17 area. Does this sound like a residential area?
18 Yes, there are residences in this area. They're
19 across the street. But part of that property is
20 also zoned CCG-2 and you can build to 60 feet.
21 They go on to tell you that we're setting a
22 precedent by approving this. Well, we've
23 already discussed that we've got a 60-foot-tall
24 condo building being built out there immediately
25 to the north of us, that we've got a
Diane M.
Tropia,
15
1 60-foot-tall dry stack to the north of us, that
2 we've got a shipyard out there that has a very
3 tall building to the north of us.
4 But they didn't tell you that there's been
5 five approvals of height variances out there
6 from 35 feet to anywhere between 42 and
7 46 feet. We're not setting a precedent. The
8 precedent has already been set. And here's a
9 list of them if you'd like to see them.
10 In our previous hearing, we handed out
11 pictures of some of these homes and also the
12 bill numbers for where they were approved.
13 So these are things that we're not
14 discussing tonight. The only thing -- and they
15 all relate to density. The only thing that
16 we're really discussing tonight is a height
17 variance, going from 35 feet to 45 feet.
18 Now, on your Planning Commission, you have
19 some very -- people are very passionate about
20 neighborhoods, which is a good thing. And I
21 have a very good friend that serves on that, and
22 he and I chose to disagree on this.
23 His words were, "With that, I will make a
24 motion to deny MM-2007-07 and support the report
25 made by the Planning Department to deny this."
Diane M.
Tropia,
16
1 And his basis for that, "adopt the reasons as
2 competent and substantial evidence as to why to
3 deny this." That was the only reason. The
4 Planning Department report was the only
5 substantial and competent evidence that was
6 noted in your Planning Commission report and the
7 grounds for denial of this.
8 So let's go to the Planning Department
9 staff's report for just a moment. There are
10 three criteria that the Planning Department
11 staff has used. It says, "Staff reviewed the
12 application for minor modification and for
13 compliance with the following criteria."
14 Item 2 we're in complete agreement with.
15 We agree with the planning staff. They say we
16 do not affect driveways, streets. That has not
17 changed from our original impact. Our original
18 application says no alteration or impact on
19 traffic. We're in total agreement with that.
20 So we agree with the Planning Department on
21 that.
22 Item 3, they say that we're doing a change
23 to a condition put on the application by the
24 council. That is incorrect. If it were an
25 application -- if it was a condition put on by
Diane M.
Tropia,
17
1 council, this would have to be a rezoning from
2 PUD to PUD or from a zoning category to a PUD,
3 whatever. It would not be handled as a minor
4 modification.
5 We met with the Planning Department. They
6 told us to do it as a minor modification. They
7 processed the application for a minor
8 modification, they took our check for a minor
9 modification, they put it before the Planning
10 Commission as a minor modification. It was not
11 until we got our Planning Department staff
12 report that they mentioned that this was a
13 condition put on by council.
14 If you go to your original council
15 ordinance, the only two things in that where
16 there were conditions was, one, similar
17 architectural style, and, two, the water and
18 sewer condition to be approved by the State.
19 There was nothing in there as far as a
20 stipulation or a limitation on height. That was
21 in the original application. That evidence has
22 been submitted to this committee previously.
23 That should not be a criteria for denial.
24 If you go, then, to the only thing that
25 they've based their report on that has
Diane M.
Tropia,
18
1 substantial and competent evidence, if it does,
2 is item 1. They tell you that the applicant
3 requests a -- request represents a change in the
4 characteristic of the previously-approved
5 zoning. That's not true.
6 (Ms. Lee enters the proceedings.)
7 MR. MANN: We have not increased the number
8 of units, we have not added land to this, we
9 have not increased the heated and cooled area of
10 this. The only thing we've asked for is an
11 increase in height.
12 They say the proposal is inconsistent with
13 the surrounding development, which is primarily
14 single-family residential. As we've discussed
15 previously, we've got a shipyard, we've got a
16 dry storage, we've got a 60-foot-tall
17 condominium building, we've got a restaurant,
18 we've got CCG-2 property up and down there.
19 That is not a primarily single-family
20 residential area.
21 The property immediately to the south of
22 us, contiguous to our southern property line,
23 can be used and built to 60 feet today. All
24 they need is a permit.
25 "The proposed increase to 45 feet would be
Diane M.
Tropia,
19
1 more in alignment with mid-rise development and
2 would alter the character of the area."
3 Folks, I think if the character is altered,
4 it's altered in a positive area. We're coming
5 back with five buildings that are going to look
6 like large riverfront homes. We're not coming
7 back with heavy commercial, we're not coming
8 back with industrial, we're not coming back with
9 really an intense use. We're talking about
10 residential uses on the river. We're not
11 changing the view corridors between these
12 properties.
13 It goes on and tells you that any
14 development in these areas must conform to all
15 applicable policies of the 2010 comprehensive
16 plan regarding development in the CHHA, coastal
17 high hazard area.
18 As I said, it's been accepted by the
19 council in previous meetings that we are not in
20 the coastal high hazard area based on the
21 substantial competent evidence that was
22 introduced by our expert witness and the
23 topographical map that was presented. So any
24 reference to the coastal high hazard area should
25 be disregarded. But, again, if you break this
Diane M.
Tropia,
20
1 down, this is an institut- -- this is a function
2 of density. It's not a function of height
3 increase. They don't address that issue.
4 It goes on and addresses the Emergency
5 Preparedness Division of the Fire and Rescue
6 Department of Jacksonville. And, again, they
7 talk about us being in the coastal high hazard
8 area. My client volunteered to pay into the
9 hurricane evacuation fund as part of the
10 approval agreement on the original PUD.
11 But, again, they reference that we're in
12 the coastal high hazard area. The year 2006
13 legislature changed the definition of the
14 coastal high hazard area. That was submitted to
15 you previously. We have submitted to you a
16 topographical map that showed you that we are
17 not in the coastal high hazard area. That
18 should be disregarded as competent evidence
19 tonight. Again, it does not address height. It
20 solely addresses density.
21 They go on and give you objectives under
22 the FLUM. It says, "maintain, enhance and
23 conserve natural environmental resources."
24 You're in a CCG-2 corridor. Our residential
25 project will conserve natural resources. They
Diane M.
Tropia,
21
1 will conserve a view for the public of the
2 river. We're not going to impact the river with
3 industry. This is a lessening. This is
4 actually a downzoning of other uses that are in
5 the immediate area, and it is preserving the
6 coastal high hazard area and the river.
7 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Mann, I'll just let you
8 know, you have about one minute left.
9 MR. MANN: I'll make it very quick, then,
10 sir.
11 Objective 7.4, it says, limit density in
12 the coastal high hazard area. Again, they're
13 talking about density. They're not talking
14 about a height minor modification. We're not in
15 the coastal high hazard. So that should be
16 disregarded.
17 Again, it's policy 4. -- 7.4.8, it
18 references clustering in the coastal high hazard
19 area. Again, density not height. We're not in
20 the coastal high hazard. So that should be
21 disregarded.
22 They go on to tell you that we're in an
23 area that's not served by water and sewer.
24 That's been addressed at the original Planning
25 Commission hearing, before the LUZ Committee,
Diane M.
Tropia,
22
1 and before the council that this whole zoning is
2 contingent upon a State permit for a FAST system
3 and a well.
4 Gentlemen, you've got a report before you
5 that I feel is not substantial and competent
6 evidence. It does not address the issue at hand
7 and should be disregarded.
8 I ask that you find in favor of my client
9 and overturn the Planning Commission's denial of
10 the minor modification.
11 With that, I'll yield to my expert
12 witness.
13 Thank you.
14 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Mann. And
15 that was exactly ten minutes.
16 Ms. Eller, I believe -- that was 15. I'm
17 sorry. It was 15 minutes. I apologize.
18 Mr. Herzberg, you're here to speak also in
19 favor.
20 MR. HERZBERG: Yes.
21 THE CHAIRMAN: Would that -- as far as
22 time, how do we allow for that, Ms. Eller?
23 MS. ELLER: That's fine. He's a separate
24 speaker and he'll speak for about three
25 minutes. And then as long as we give that same
Diane M.
Tropia,
23
1 amount of time to anyone who's in opposition,
2 we're not running afoul of the quasi-judicial,
3 the informal rule.
4 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. Thank you.
5 And I do want to mention Councilwoman
6 Denise Lee has joined us.
7 And, Mr. Herzberg, three minutes. Go
8 ahead.
9 MR. HERZBERG: Thank you, sir.
10 My name is Mike Herzberg. For the record,
11 my address is
12
13 I just want to briefly take a moment. I
14 think Mr. Mann has done an excellent job
15 explaining the criteria for review upon which
16 your role here is to determine whether or not it
17 is compliant with those criteria. And I think
18 it is abundantly clear that there was not
19 sufficient competent evidence for the Planning
20 Commission to make its determinations.
21 In fact, the departmental staff report
22 simply quoting the fact that it would alter the
23 character of the area is not in and of itself
24 substantially competent evidence. There would
25 need to be additional findings, additional
Diane M.
Tropia,
24
1 information to demonstrate that.
2 In fact, I think a simple look at the
3 zoning map of which you've been handed a copy
4 clearly depicts the entire eastern side of
5 Heckscher Drive, from the creek north, as being
6 the CGC land use category and the CCG-2 zoning
7 district. That is the most intensive zoning
8 district within the city of
9 The east side of
10 simply, is a separate and different animal from
11 the west side of
12 the increase in height -- again, the increase in
13 height here is not to increase floor area, it's
14 not to increase liveable space. It's, rather,
15 to provide the architecture that was in the
16 drawing, which I think you've been provided a
17 copy of.
18 It's a Victorian style architecture. It's
19 consistent and compatible with what's accepted
20 and what's generally found to be in the
22 building.
23 I have an elevation here that, if we could
24 put on the overhead just briefly, will kind of
25 give you at least some idea, some general idea
Diane M.
Tropia,
25
1 of really what we're talking about here.
2 Roof pitches, as they go up, it becomes
3 more expensive to do an increased roof pitch.
4 It doesn't necessarily and in most cases does
5 not give you any additional living space, but
6 rather it lends a more attractive design to the
7 building.
8 More traditional buildings were built with
9 higher roof pitches. You will typically find in
10 construction, especially in residential
11 construction, lower pitched roofs on lower
12 priced or moderately priced homes. A 4/12 pitch
13 is consistent with what we used to find with
14 manufactured housing. You get into site,
15 conventionally-built homes, you get into 6/12,
16 8/12.
17 And when you get into the higher-end
18 construction -- and really if you drive down
19 Heckscher Drive, I don't think you would be
20 hard pressed to find -- as a matter of fact,
21 you've been handed copies of the three variances
22 and six administrative deviations that have
23 increased heights in the immediate vicinity,
24 four of the five of those being within 2,500
25 feet of the subject site, three within 1,700
Diane M.
Tropia,
26
1 feet, and two within 1,000 feet.
2 I think you would find that there is a
3 substantial number of houses that exceed that
4 35 foot height limitation. But really, again,
5 the height increase here is to achieve that
6 higher roof line, which it is within the public
7 interest to promote roof lines and design which
8 is in keeping with the character of the area and
9 really has the effect of beautifying the area,
10 and that's really what this architectural design
11 does.
12 If there's any questions related to those
13 administrative deviations or the variances, I'd
14 be happy to go through those. I will assure you
15 that those deviations and the variances that I
16 speak of and that you've been given copies of
17 all pertain to the highest point of the ridge
18 line of the roof. The zoning code exempts those
19 extensions of the roof line for cupolas,
20 chimneys, and things of that nature. So I can
21 assure you that those were all heard to increase
22 the actual ridge line of those roofs.
23 With that, I'll close. Thank you. Stand
24 by for questions.
25 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you.
Diane M.
Tropia,
27
1 Okay. Our first other speaker is Bobby
2
3 (Audience member approaches the podium.)
4 THE CHAIRMAN: And, Mr. Cassada, if we
5 could set the light tree. If there's any way to
6 do that, that might help our speakers just a
7 little bit.
8 Go ahead. State your name and address.
9 AUDIENCE MEMBER: My name is Bobby Taylor.
10 I reside at
11 I was president of the
12 Community Club when this matter was brought
13 before the board. Also, the 60-foot condominium
14 was brought at the same time. The one we're
15 talking about now, -919, came to us with just a
16 bare site. They have no renderings of the
17 building.
18 Now, the other one, the 60-foot condo they
19 referred to, was also brought by this
20 gentleman. We were more concerned about the
21 60-foot because it was clearly outside what is
22 the norm for the neighborhood. And in this
23 matter here, he was staying within the 35 feet.
24 And we took no position at that time. We did
25 vehemently oppose the 60-foot, which was
Diane M.
Tropia,
28
1 overridden despite a letter from myself and the
2 members of the
3 opposition to it.
4 The dry stack that's referred to in this --
5 which is north of this property, is at 35 feet.
6 The
7 right next to the runway, which was approved at
8 50 feet, was subsequently denied by the Navy
9 because of possible encroachment with the flight
10 pattern.
11 Now, I'm sorry if they think it's not in a
12 coastal high hazard area. But if it looks like
13 a duck and it quacks like a duck, it's a duck.
14 And it's right next to the river. And the only
15 reason it might not be in the coastal high
16 hazard area is prior to them purchasing the
17 property, the land was built up and filled in to
18 reach a higher elevation. That's the only
19 reason I can believe it made the coastal high --
20 not in the coastal high hazard area.
21 It is not in the character of the rest of
22 the neighborhood. There are some exceptions,
23 but there are not a substantial number of
24 exceptions higher than 35 foot in that area. We
25 oppose this. There are residential immediately
Diane M.
Tropia,
29
1 south of this. This is also going to be
2 residential.
3 Again, the community did not oppose this
4 originally because it was at 35 feet. We feel
5 that it is appropriate that it be at 35 feet.
6 It fits the character of the neighborhood at
7 35 feet. If they're not going to add another
8 floor, there's no reason why they have to make
9 it 45 feet and further restrict the people's
10 view of the river who live directly across the
11 street in this -- from this property in
12 residential property.
13 There are substantial residential, there --
14 I can only think of one or two multiunit
15 dwellings within two miles of that on the
16 river.
17 We would like you to, again, deny this
18 deferment -- or this exception, and let the
19 builder build within the 35 feet.
20 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Taylor.
21 Cliff Payne, followed by Fran Zimnaruk.
22 (Audience member approaches the podium.)
23 THE CHAIRMAN: Good evening.
24 AUDIENCE MEMBER: My name is Cliff Payne.
25 I live at
Diane M.
Tropia,
30
1 I oppose the modification. I've heard one
2 time something about once the camel gets his
3 nose in the tent it's all over.
4 The pieces of property that he was --
5 Mr. Mann, that won't have to live out there, was
6 discussing can be counted on one hand. That dry
7 stack storage, the campground, yeah, they're
8 there. But when you walk across the street or
9 you walk further up the street or you walk
10 further south down the street, that's where the
11 residential comes in and that's where I live.
12 I live in the residential area of Heckscher
13 Drive. There's only a certain area there that
14 is commercial or high intensity, whatever, but
15 that's been there and zoned that way for a long
16 time and nothing was ever done with it and now
17 it's starting to happen, and so all we're trying
18 to do is keep it as unintrusive as we can.
19 I live in one of the types of houses that
20 Mr. Mann was discussing. My house was built in
21 '01 and it's a residential riverfront property,
22 and the height is 35 feet. Wish I had known, I
23 could have gone and gotten it 45 feet.
24 I oppose it.
25 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Payne.
Diane M.
Tropia,
31
1 Fran Zimnaruk -- and I apologize if I've
2 mispronounced your name -- to be followed by
3 Ms. Nancy Altman.
4 (Audience member approaches the podium.)
5 THE CHAIRMAN: Good evening.
6 AUDIENCE MEMBER: Hi. I'm Fran Zimnaruk,
8 This should be opposed. This Batten
9 Island -- there's four original houses on Batten
10
11 house. The Broward house had been there in the
12 1880s. Yes, that's high, but that was 1880s.
13 That's when
14 surrounded by water. The only way we got off
15 was by boat.
16 When they first came down with this
17 proposal, it was beautiful. For 35 feet, I
18 said, oh, that's nice. Very, very nice. We
19 agreed with it. But I think it should be
20 opposed because it does not conform with -- he
21 was talking about the shipyard there. That's
22 only 35 feet. Bronson Lamb owns that shipyard
23 now, and he does very good with everything
24 around. We have had it -- I have had trouble
25 with shipyards out there before. We have gone
Diane M.
Tropia,
32
1 down, got them working orders, and they all obey
2 with those working orders.
3 And I think this proposal should not go to
4 45 feet.
5 Thank you.
6 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Ms. Zimnaruk.
7 Ms. Altman, followed by Mr. Browne Altman.
8 (Audience member approaches the podium.)
9 THE CHAIRMAN: Good evening.
10 AUDIENCE MEMBER: Good evening and happy
11 holidays to all of you.
12 Thank you for listening to me the second
13 time urging you to oppose this resolution. Last
14 month I submitted for the record this booklet
15 containing pictures of the neighborhood, a
16 letter written by the president of the Heckscher
17 Drive Community Club, which consists of over 100
18 members, and copies of petitions with 70
19 additional signatures of neighbors and friends
20 on
21 And I would like to also say that Mr. Mann
22 was always welcome to come and visit and speak
23 at the
24 presented his plan, we did not oppose it. It
25 wasn't -- and he went through all the
Diane M.
Tropia,
33
1 permitting, got all the permitting. It wasn't
2 until they appealed for the 45 foot was when we
3 started to oppose it.
4 The reason that this booklet was assembled
5 was so that the community could demonstrate
6 solidarity in opposition of this resolution
7 because you see at this time, the first Tuesday
8 of every month, the
9 Club also meets. So
10 Club members are conflicted as to which meeting
11 to appear and thus sent a few to represent the
12 whole.
13 Five 45-foot-tall structures standing side
14 by side will not fit in with the existing
15 neighborhood. I measured the homes and the
16 businesses on the western end of
17 where these five structures will stand and
18 created a visual for you.
19 Is it on?
20 As you can see, the heights are low,
21 nine -- I don't have a copy of it here. Well,
22 you can see.
23 I went around and measured some of the
24 buildings on this side of the island, and you
25 can see on the map that all of them are low.
Diane M.
Tropia,
34
1 There's one that's 35 feet, and then there --
2 the other one that's 35 feet on the river side
3 is the boatyard. The eastern and middle part of
4 the island are very similar.
5 At the last LUZ meeting, Mike Herzberg, the
6 agent's expert witness, mentioned a 90-foot-tall
7 boat shed. And on this map, you'll see that the
8 only existing boatyard on our island is a
9 structure that is 35 feet. I examined the
10 architectural plans for the Yacht Clubs of
11
12 its tallest building will be 34.0 feet.
13 The 60-foot condo that he's continually
14 mentioned has not yet been fully permitted. And
15 to reiterate a point made last month, the local
16 businessman with plans to build a retail center
17 nearby lowered his plans from 42 feet to 35 feet
18 because he knew that heights was a concern in
19 our neighborhood.
20 THE CHAIRMAN: Ms. Altman, your time has
21 expired.
22 Thank you.
23 Mr. Altman. And Mr. Altman will be our
24 last speaker.
25 (Audience member approaches the podium.)
Diane M.
Tropia,
35
1 MS. ELLER: Mr. Chairman.
2 THE CHAIRMAN: Ms. Eller.
3 MS. ELLER: I'm sorry to interrupt.
4 The Planning Department will defend their
5 staff report and the position that has been
6 taken by the Planning Commission, and it would
7 be appropriate to have their testimony during
8 the public hearing since they are, in essence,
9 defending what the Planning Commission --
10 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. After Mr. Altman
11 speaks, we'll go to the Department.
12 MS. ELLER: Correct.
13 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. Very well.
14 Mr. Altman, good evening.
15 AUDIENCE MEMBER: I also have some visuals.
16 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. If you could state
17 your name and address for the record, please.
18 AUDIENCE MEMBER: First name Browne,
19 B-r-o-w-n-e, last name Altman, A-l-t-m-a-n. I
20 live at
21 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you.
22 MR. ALTMAN: All right. I'm very glad
23 Mr. Mann brought up what he thinks is the use of
24 the land.
25 Page 1 shows you what Mr. Mann would have
Diane M.
Tropia,
36
1 you believe, that he's completely surrounded
2 there by commercial property, northeast,
3 southwest -- well, except for east on the
4 river.
5 All right. If you go to page 2, this will
6 show you what, in fact, is there. Those are
7 residential lots between the piece of property
8 which I've colored red, which is there. The lot
9 on the end is the -- a restaurant. And all of
10 those lots between, which he says are
11 commercial, no, they're not commercial. They're
12 residents.
13 Also, on the other end of this property,
14 there is a vacant piece of property. That
15 property owner has told us he plans to build his
16 home there.
17 The piece of property across the street,
18 which is shown commercial -- notice that that is
19 actually two lots. That small lot was split off
20 and a country store was there. The people who
21 bought the property behind it, where they have a
22 summer home, bought that property for the
23 specific reason so that commercial would not
24 ever go in there. So much to the story about
25 being surrounded by commercial properties.
Diane M.
Tropia,
37
1 Page 3. This is an aerial view of the
2 immediate area. You'll notice it is reasonably
3 wooded. You will see that there are no large
4 buildings sticking up.
5 All right. And page 5, for the developer's
6 information, I'd like for him to be well aware
7 that he is in a military aircraft noise zone and
8 that he is required, when he tries to sell these
9 properties, to inform the people as such.
10 All that this guy has is a plan. Plans can
11 be changed. We have rules. When someone buys a
12 piece of property, they should have a reasonable
13 expectation of what the rules say can happen
14 around them is going to happen. When we keep
15 having more and more exceptions to the rules,
16 exceptions to the rule -- this has been
17 increasingly so recently. When the exception
18 becomes the rule, you have chaos.
19 My last two items basically are questions.
20 If we're not going to worry about the Planning
21 Commission, we're not going to worry about what
22 the Planning Department says, we're not going to
23 worry about what the local representative says
24 as far as whether this fits in, why bother?
25 We can save $3.6 million if we're not going
Diane M.
Tropia,
38
1 to do anything and follow the ruling of the
2 Planning Department by simply eliminating it.
3 And I'm sure we can find someplace else we can
4 use $6.3 million rather than wasting it on
5 people that we're not going to pay any attention
6 to.
7 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Altman.
8 At this time, Mr. Mann, a five-minute
9 rebuttal.
10 MR. MANN: (Inaudible.)
11 THE CHAIRMAN: Or the Planning Department
12 first. Okay. That's fine.
13 Mr. Kelly.
14 MR. KELLY: Thank you.
15 To the Chair, I'll break it down, I guess.
16 Initially, this was a rezoning in 2006
17 which was heard and approved by LUZ in January
18 this past year, January of '07.
19 Initially, the Department did have a
20 recommendation to deny the overall rezoning.
21 The rezoning itself was vigorously debated both
22 at Planning Commission and the LUZ level.
23 We had a recommendation of denial and the
24 rezoning was approved. The height was a large
25 component of the issues that surrounded the
Diane M.
Tropia,
39
1 rezoning. In addition to the other elements
2 that Mr. Mann relates to -- and that's not the
3 requirements of this minor modification.
4 Everything he said about coastal high
5 hazard, hurricane evacuation, septic tanks, all
6 that is already approved under the existing PUD,
7 so really what it boils down to is height.
8 The Planning Commission unanimously voted
9 to deny the requested modification to go from
10 the 35 foot in height to 45 feet in height, and
11 I'd like to clarify in terms of the criteria
12 what the Department's recommendation was: That
13 it is substantial competent evidence, that the
14 Department's position was that this was strongly
15 going to change the characteristic of the use
16 and the character of the surrounding area.
17 Again, the massing effects of this
18 structure, which is one contiguous structure
19 with multifamily units along
20 35 feet compared to 45 feet without providing
21 any additional setbacks to mitigate for the
22 additional height. We felt one was going to be
23 detrimental to the surrounding residential
24 uses.
25 Most -- all of the uses, other than the
Diane M.
Tropia,
40
1 immediate property to the south, surrounding
2 this property are single-family residential
3 uses.
4 The obstruction of the navigable waterway,
5 again, was an issue. And I'm going to go to the
6 minutes. And also specifically with regards to
7 whether or not there was a change to a condition
8 set forth by council. There certainly was a
9 change.
10 The City Council adopted this ordinance
11 with a specific condition related to an
12 architectural elevation that was dated
13 January 11th, and that architectural elevation
14 was for a 35-foot-high structure. So that was a
15 lot of what the argument was about in the
16 initial rezoning, as well as the minor
17 modification.
18 And I'll read from the minutes, and I think
19 the Planning Commission -- Commissioner Hardesty
20 kind of speaks for the members of the
21 Commission. There's two segments I want to talk
22 about.
23 From the minutes of the meeting, he goes
24 into -- he talks about -- he goes, "And this
25 project, as we'll remember, this was vigorously
Diane M.
Tropia,
41
1 debated and I warned the commission -- and I
2 hate to say I told you so, but I told you. And
3 this is clearly I told you so coming out at full
4 strength is a
very unique area of
5 "What is disturbing is that this is a PUD
6 that is being chipped away. This is part of
7 what we have complained about time and time
8 again on this commission. When you come in and
9 you put a project together and then you start
10 chipping away at the details of it, this is
11 certainly one of them. It's a case in point."
12 Additionally, he goes on that he found it
13 very disturbing that there is a comparison
14 similar to the historic Broward house, which is
15 a historic structure that's across the street.
16 And in relation to that structure, that that was
17 on a very large lot and had substantial setbacks
18 compared to this building.
19 Essentially, you talk about a view
20 corridor, that this is one massive structure
21 that is going to go along at 45 feet.
22 Again, Mr. Hardesty later on goes in and he
23 goes, "If you read the transcripts of the
24 summary, I mean, it's very clear that, as it was
25 represented to us on the commission, it would be
Diane M.
Tropia,
42
1 35 feet because that was a big deal as you
2 remember in the discussion is the height
3 situation. And now we're nibbling and nibbling
4 away at this thing.
5 "We need to put an end to it and we need to
6 send a message loud and clear that we're not
7 going to continue to allow this slippery slope
8 to be followed so that when we do reach a
9 bargain and we do reach an agreement, that is
10 one we live by and one we carry forward."
11 And then he went on to ask essentially when
12 had that been heard. And this was something
13 that was before them in June, which the original
14 rezoning was just recently approved in January,
15 so less than six months before that.
16 And so, again, the staff's initial reasons
17 for denying the rezoning are not really relevant
18 to the minor modification. I'd agree with the
19 applicant as to all the other issues in the
20 report, but the bottom line is that the
21 character of the area will be adversely impacted
22 and adversely affected by the increase in
23 height. We, therefore, recommended denial and
24 the Planning Commission unanimously also
25 recommended denial.
Diane M.
Tropia,
43
1 Thank you.
2 (Mr. Corrigan enters the proceedings.)
3 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Crofts.
4 MR. CROFTS: I'd just like to add that I
5 believe to say that -- for the record, that this
6 particular property is consistent with the
7
8 completely accurate in the sense that, you know,
9 this particular project attempts to align itself
10 with certain attributes of that particular --
11 those design criteria, such as high density and
12 massing and two to three stories and those types
13 of things.
14 This particular project is certainly within
15 the Heckscher
Drive --
16 Center's study area. Within that particular
17 area -- I think the point is within these
18 studies, there -- within that particular study
19 area, there would be one or two, perhaps,
20 isolated areas that may perhaps have the higher
21 intensity that would be a nucleus, that would be
22 a place with a sense of arrival, that would have
23 some interaction, that would be waterfront
24 development, that would have probably higher
25 density development as part of the development.
Diane M.
Tropia,
44
1 It would be sort of an activity center or a
2 nucleus within itself.
3 I don't see this particular project
4 necessarily being as part of that, so I don't
5 want the committee to necessarily believe that
6 this is automatically totally consistent with
7 that particular
8 This is a particular development within
9 that particular study area. But when we have
10 attribution to the density and the height, that
11 pertains to a particular higher intense area
12 within that study area, and I don't see this
13 development particularly as part of that.
14 So I just wanted to clarify that. So I
15 don't think you can say that this is completely
16 consistent with that particular project or work.
17 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Crofts.
18 Ms. Eller.
19 MS. ELLER: Yes. With that, I've
20 calculated -- and Legislative Services can
21 confirm -- approximately about 20 minutes
22 between the opposition and the Planning
23 Department. And I believe the applicant
24 initially used about 18. So about two minutes
25 for rebuttal would be appropriate.
Diane M.
Tropia,
45
1 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. Mr. Mann.
2 (Mr. Mann approaches the podium.)
3 THE CHAIRMAN: We'll set the clock for two
4 minutes.
5 MR. MANN: Mr. Chairman, members of the
6 committee, again, you've heard, "I don't want it
7 in my backyard. I don't like it." You've not
8 heard substantial and competent evidence either
9 from the opposition or from the Planning
10 Department as to why this minor modification
11 should be denied.
12 There is no place in the planning staff
13 report that they reference the height. They
14 don't address it at all. And that is the
15 substantial and competent evidence that was
16 submitted to the Planning Commission.
17 The question is, is the minor modification
18 a change in character? No. The number of units
19 did not change, the size of the units, the
20 footprint of the units have not changed.
21 They keep referencing that we're not part
22 of the Northside Vision Plan. If you look at
23 your Northside Vision Plan, if you're familiar
24 with it, here is your
25 know that you can see that. That's the
Diane M.
Tropia,
46
1 approximate area that our property is located
2 in.
3 It says that they'll be creating mixed-use
4 housing and retail development within the
5 village center. It goes on to say, no layering
6 of development, establish a high-density village
7 center. Density relates to number of units.
8 Intensity relates to use if you want to go back
9 to Webster. We did this in our earlier
10 presentation and furnished that to you out of
11 Webster's Collegiate.
12 The village center development defines a
13 sense of arrival. This is one step towards the
14 village center. You've got a bunch of smaller
15 properties out there and it's going to take a
16 while for it to develop. But the more
17 residential you get out there, the more quality
18 residential you get out there, the more the
19 development is going to take off and go. But,
20 again, your choice is the substantial and
21 competent evidence.
22 The Planning Department report does not
23 reference the height. They do not give you any
24 criteria for denial of this. They don't tell
25 you how we're going to impact schools, they
Diane M.
Tropia,
47
1 don't tell you how we're going to impact
2 transportation or concurrency, they don't tell
3 you how we're going to affect traffic, they
4 don't tell you how we're going to affect water
5 and sewer, how this height variance is going to
6 affect any of those things.
7 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Mann, your time --
8 MR. ALTMAN: Because it looks like shit.
9 THE CHAIRMAN: If we could refrain from the
10 comments from the --
11 MR. MANN: If Mr. Chairman would discuss
12 profanity. I don't know. You know --
13 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Altman, we can't have
14 that language -- Mr. Altman, if you could
15 refrain from your comments.
16 Mr. Mann, now your time has expired as
17 well.
18 MR. MANN: Mr. Chairman, with this
19 interruption of this gentleman --
20 THE CHAIRMAN: I'll give you 30 seconds to
21 finish.
22 MR. MANN: Okay. In rebuttal or into
23 this -- I'm sorry for the outburst of this
24 gentleman. I don't know what got into him.
25 But, again, your decision is based on
Diane M.
Tropia,
48
1 substantial and competent evidence that was
2 placed in your Planning Department report, and
3 that's what you need to make your decision on.
4 We took it apart, we showed you where they did
5 not address the issue.
6 We ask that you find in favor of my client
7 for the minor modification and approve the
8 height variance to 45 feet.
9 Thank you very much.
10 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you.
11 Okay. At this point, what I wanted to do
12 was, since this is in Mr. Holt's district,
13 Mr. Webb has set the queue --
14 MR. WEBB: I'll yield to Mr. Holt.
15 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. Councilman Holt, and
16 then we'll go to Mr. Webb for questions.
17 MR. HOLT: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
18 I first want to start off and ask
19 Mr. Crofts a question because I'm having a
20 little bit of trouble understanding why they're
21 coming back. After having been approved at
22 35 feet, Mr. Mann seemed to indicate that they
23 needed the additional height in order to comply
24 with the low country feel to get that higher
25 pitch.
Diane M.
Tropia,
49
1 Did they have a plan, a site plan that
2 included heights and such when they came in at
3 35 feet?
4 MR. CROFTS: I will tell you, through the
5 Chair, that there were architectural
6 renderings. I don't know if they were -- I
7 can't recall if they were drawn to scale in
8 terms of height, but it was clearly understood
9 that those particular drawings were brought
10 before the committee. And it was clearly
11 understood that the height limitation -- which
12 we thought was an issue and why we recommended
13 against it. And originally we recommended
14 against the previous rezoning as well, that that
15 was -- be the maximum.
16 And my whole point is as far as -- I never
17 said that this particular development was not in
18 the
19 is. But all I'm saying is that when we
20 reference the higher heights and the design
21 issue and the bulk and the intensity, that that
22 was part of an isolated pocket, if you will, but
23 interrelated, that functioned within that study
24 area, and I don't see this particular project as
25 part of that.
Diane M.
Tropia,
50
1 MR. HOLT: What I was trying to get at was
2 that Mr. Mann seemed to indicate that the higher
3 pitch roof was necessary in order to bring it
4 more in line with the low country feel. Did the
5 last architectural drawings have a similar
6 architecture at 35 feet?
7 MR. CROFTS: I'm going to defer to somebody
8 that's familiar with the application.
9 But, like I said, there were renderings,
10 there were architectural renderings, but I don't
11 know if they were drawn necessarily to height --
12 or to scale, that you could read that off in
13 terms of, you know, this is the maximum. I
14 don't think that was depicted on there now that
15 I see it. This was -- it was a portrayal, if
16 you will, a concept.
17 And so the height is not denoted on the
18 site plan, but all I'm telling you is that the
19 35 issue was the very first and foremost one in
20 that particular deliberation and ultimate
21 decision by this body.
22 MR. HOLT: Okay. This drawing is the same
23 one that I'm looking at here, so it seems to me
24 that at 35 feet they had the same architecture
25 as at 45 feet. So it doesn't seem to me that
Diane M.
Tropia,
51
1 the argument of complying with the low country
2 architecture and getting that higher peak in
3 order to comply with something in the North
4
5 accurate.
6 The last time this came before this
7 committee, I asked that you would support the
8 Planning Department, the Planning Commission. I
9 think Mr. Hardesty's comments were very
10 accurate, that they had an agreement at
11 35 feet. It was consistent with what's in the
12 area, and then they're coming back to chip
13 away. I would concur with that. And I would
14 ask that you would support the Planning
15 Commission, the Planning Department, and the
16 neighbors.
17 Thank you.
18 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Councilman Holt.
19 Councilman Webb.
20 MR. WEBB: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
21 Mr. Vice-Chair, excuse me.
22 A couple of questions for the Planning
23 Department, either to Mr. Kelly or Mr. Crofts.
24 Did you say that the Planning Department
25 recommended denial of the original PUD?
Diane M.
Tropia,
52
1 MR. KELLY: That's correct.
2 MR. WEBB: And it was passed by LUZ and the
3 full council back in early '07?
4 MR. KELLY: Correct. In January of '07.
5 MR. WEBB: I take it Mr. Mann's argument is
6 that the Planning Department denied the minor
7 modification in reliance on issues or criteria
8 that were considered and denied during the
9 matters before the council in hearing the
10 original PUD. Is that a fair assessment of what
11 he's stating?
12 MR. KELLY: I would say, when we review for
13 minor modifications, there's criteria that you
14 apply to determine whether an application is a
15 minor modification or whether it constitutes a
16 major modification, which would be a PUD to PUD
17 rezoning, and that is the criteria that you see,
18 primarily the first three criteria.
19 However, within the text of that criteria,
20 basically we had gone back to our initial
21 findings of the rezoning and elaborated on,
22 again, the coastal high hazard, the issues.
23 That was a component; however, there's not
24 specific criteria as to a minor modification as
25 to a request other than whether it qualifies as
Diane M.
Tropia,
53
1 a minor modification. So we're left in a kind
2 of default situation where we have to go back to
3 the reasoning behind the original rezoning. And
4 we looked at that original rezoning and a lot of
5 the reasoning for the original rezoning, again,
6 coastal high hazard issues, hurricane
7 evacuation.
8 Again, the larger thing was height and
9 massing of buildings, and so that component --
10 MR. WEBB: Okay. Thank you.
11 That -- I think that addresses what
12 Mr. Mann -- or I'm not sure if Mr. Herzberg
13 addressed that issue, when they filed the
14 application, the Planning Department advised or
15 whatever that -- treated it as a minor
16 modification.
17 I mean, how does the Planning Department
18 make that determination at the outset, whether
19 something is a minor -- should be treated
20 properly as a minor modification or a PUD to PUD
21 rezoning?
22 MR. KELLY: A change to a specific
23 ordinance that's adopted by council is a PUD to
24 PUD rezoning. And a change to some verbiage in
25 a written description -- if, for instance, the
Diane M.
Tropia,
54
1 written description specified the height at
2 35 feet. In this instance, they came back and
3 requested it to amend the written description to
4 change the height from 35 feet to 45 feet, and
5 that's the appropriate vehicle basically as a
6 minor mod.
7 MR. WEBB: As a modification. So it was
8 properly treated as a minor modification.
9 MR. KELLY: Right.
10 MR. WEBB: So that begs the question, then,
11 did the report -- what was the proper criteria
12 for the consideration of whether or not a minor
13 modification should or should not be granted?
14 What is that criteria? And did the report --
15 did the Planning Department's report contain
16 competent substantial evidence in support of the
17 Planning Department's decision to not grant that
18 minor modification?
19 MR. KELLY: Absolutely.
20 I'll go back to my other comments. And,
21 again, we defaulted back to -- a lot of the
22 reasoning behind the original denial, although
23 it wasn't specific to the height request, the
24 height issue does come into play when we're
25 talking about consistency with the comp plan,
Diane M.
Tropia,
55
1 the character of the area, external
2 compatibilities under a PUD rezoning.
3 You've got an area predominantly surrounded
4 by single-family residential uses, which was
5 clearly delineated in the report, and you've got
6 the character, again, of the development that is
7 now being altered and intensified, which has the
8 effect of a massing and obstructing views of the
9 navigable waterway.
10 MR. WEBB: Okay. I guess -- and through
11 the Chair, beg your indulgence in this.
12 I'll direct a question to General Counsel's
13 Office. It doesn't seem to make much legal
14 sense to me in the sense that a minor
15 modification clearly is different from a
16 rezoning. And to fall back upon the same
17 evidence that may be res judicata with regard to
18 what was decided at the earlier hearing seems to
19 me inappropriate. I mean, there should be a
20 different criteria for consideration of a minor
21 modification. And to go back and to revisit
22 facts that were already decided in the prior
23 matter, that doesn't seem correct to me.
24 MS. ELLER: Through the Chair to
25 Councilmember Webb, Dylan Reingold is here, who
Diane M.
Tropia,
56
1 is the attorney for the Planning Commission and
2 also assisted the Planning Department through
3 the process. I'm going to defer to him since he
4 did do the research on the specific criteria for
5 minor mods.
6 MR. WEBB: Okay.
7 MR. REINGOLD: To the Councilmember, I just
8 joined our group, so I'm just catching up to
9 speed.
10 The issue essentially was, what is the
11 Planning -- and I'm going to rephrase it as what
12 is the Planning Department reviewing when
13 they're reviewing the minor modification
14 requests.
15 And Mr. Kelly pointed out essentially what
16 makes a rezoning -- what makes an issue a PUD to
17 PUD rezoning, what makes something an
18 administratively modified, what makes something
19 a minor modification. I believe that was a
20 question you had asked of Mr. Kelly.
21 As Mr. Kelly stated, there are actually
22 three criteria in the code that determine
23 whether it becomes a minor modification or a PUD
24 to PUD rezoning, and those are essentially as
25 follows: Whether there's a change in the
Diane M.
Tropia,
57
1 approved land use, in the amount, general
2 location thereof, increase of the number of
3 dwelling units, and also if there's any increase
4 of nonresidential floor area.
5 If it has those characteristics, it needs
6 to come to the City Council as a PUD to PUD
7 rezoning. Also, if it's got driveways or other
8 streets that significantly alter the general
9 distribution of traffic, then that also has to
10 come to the City Council as a PUD to PUD
11 rezoning.
12 And, finally, if the City Council
13 specifically conditions the rezoning on a
14 specific request written in the ordinance, then
15 that's got to come back as a PUD to PUD
16 rezoning.
17 I start with that because if it meets those
18 criteria, then the applicant -- that's just sort
19 of the threshold question, where does it go.
20 Does it get dealt with at the Planning
21 Commission as a minor mod, does it come to the
22 City Council as a rezoning, does it just be
23 approved by the Department administratively.
24 The Department still, when it gets the
25 request to change the site, needs to still
Diane M.
Tropia,
58
1 evaluate all the original criteria and factors
2 that it would use to judge a rezoning. And the
3 example in this instance essentially is, if they
4 had gotten a request for a rezoning on day one
5 that said we want to do all of these uses on
6 this site and we're going to limit it to 35 feet
7 in height, the staff may have said at that time,
8 Oh, well, we agree with that. We think that's
9 consistent with the neighborhood, we think
10 that's consistent with maybe the master plan of
11 the area. And, therefore, we're going to
12 recommend approval.
13 At the time, they may have said -- if the
14 written description included a 40-foot height
15 limitation or a 45-foot height limitation, they
16 may have, at the time, said, you know what,
17 we're going to recommend denial on this because
18 we think that's inconsistent with the
19 neighborhood, we think that's too high, we don't
20 think it's consistent with the master plan.
21 So in the cases like this, when you've got
22 an original PUD rezoning, they agree with it,
23 they recommend approval, and it gets approved
24 at -- and, again, I just got here -- I believe
25 it was like 30 feet or 35 feet. And then the
Diane M.
Tropia,
59
1 applicant later comes in and says, "Well, I want
2 to go to 45 feet," they need to essentially view
3 it as they would have reviewed the original
4 application.
5 And so now they're going to -- they're
6 looking at it and they -- "Well, in our staff
7 report, we've addressed the criteria of the
8 original zoning. And if they'd come to us
9 originally with 45 feet, we would have been
10 opposed to it for the reasons stated in our
11 staff report."
12 I believe that's a very long-winded answer,
13 but I hope that addressed your issue. And if it
14 did not, please ask me another question to
15 follow up, sir.
16 MR. WEBB: No, that's fine. Thank you.
17 THE CHAIRMAN: Any further questions?
18 COMMITTEE MEMBERS: (No response.)
19 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. I don't see anybody
20 in the queue.
21 Ms. Eller.
22 MS. ELLER: You need to close the public
23 hearing.
24 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. We'll close the
25 public hearing. And now we'll entertain the
Diane M.
Tropia,
60
1 motion on the amendment to grant or to deny; is
2 that correct?
3 MS. ELLER: Correct.
4 A motion would be made either to grant the
5 appeal or to deny the appeal, and that would be
6 the subject of an amendment and a vote.
7 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. If I can ask you a
8 question, Ms. Eller, before we do that.
9 I know at the previous meeting when we
10 discussed this, I believe I moved an amendment
11 to decrease it from the 45 to 42 that I believe
12 Mr. Mann had agreed to.
13 Is that -- and did we -- I know that it did
14 not come out of committee that night. Does that
15 still apply now as we act or --
16 MS. ELLER: No. The committee would need
17 to consider any amendments, including any
18 conditions to an amendment anew.
19 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. If I could then,
20 before we -- before we take a vote, Mr. Mann, if
21 I could ask again the same question I posed to
22 you last time, would you be willing to
23 compromise and bring it down to 40 feet?
24 MR. MANN: Mr. Chairman, I thought that
25 I -- I would like to take a moment to discuss
Diane M.
Tropia,
61
1 this with my client. My understanding was that
2 we could only -- we couldn't do 40 feet, that we
3 would do 42 feet if that was agreeable to the
4 committee.
5 Again, we're trying to get the pitch of the
6 roof for an architectural feature. I think we
7 can lower it to 42 feet. But let me check with
8 my client, if you would.
9 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay.
10 Mr. Corrigan, while Mr. Mann is -- Chairman
11 Corrigan. I'm sorry. Let me recognize that
12 you're here too. I didn't do that. I
13 apologize.
14 MR. CORRIGAN: That's okay. I'm not
15 worried about it.
16 THE CHAIRMAN: Chairman Corrigan.
17 MR. CORRIGAN: While they're discussing it,
18 if I could, through the Chair, to Councilmember
19 Holt, the district council representative, get
20 his feedback on the 42 versus the 45.
21 MR. MANN: Mr. Chairman, in talking with my
22 client, we can go to 42 feet on this, if that
23 would please the committee.
24 The 40 feet would be flattening out the
25 roof, I'm afraid, and not getting the
Diane M.
Tropia,
62
1 architectural effect that we want. So if the
2 committee could live with 42 feet, we would
3 gladly accept it.
4 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. I'll go back to
5 Mr. Corrigan.
6 Thank you, Mr. Mann.
7 Chairman Corrigan to Mr. Holt.
8 MR. HOLT: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
9 Through the Chair to Mr. Corrigan, I think
10 that we need to remain consistent here. And I
11 think Mr. Mann has always said that he needed
12 42 feet. That's what their drawings said they
13 needed in the first place. They just called it
14 45 because that's the next round number.
15 But 42 feet is what they really needed.
16 And that's what the Planning Department and the
17 Planning Commission and the neighborhood is
18 opposed to, and I am as well. So I, again,
19 would emphasize that I would appreciate it if we
20 could support the Planning Commission, the
21 Planning Department, and the neighborhood.
22 Thank you.
23 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. Any further
24 questions?
25 COMMITTEE MEMBERS: (No response.)
Diane M.
Tropia,
63
1 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. At this time, I will
2 entertain the motion either way, to grant or
3 deny the appeal.
4 MS. JONES: I'll make a motion for the
5 amendment to 42 feet.
6 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. Ms. Jones has moved
7 to grant the amendment at 42 feet.
8 Is there is a second?
9 MS. LEE: Second.
10 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. And there's a second.
11 Discussion on granting the appeal at
12 42 feet?
13 MR. CORRIGAN: (Indicating.)
14 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Corrigan.
15 MR. CORRIGAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
16 Through the Chair to Ms. Eller, can we do
17 that?
18 MS. ELLER: Yes. You may grant an appeal
19 subject to any conditions. And you've received
20 indication from the applicant that they would
21 agree to that condition.
22 MR. CORRIGAN: Okay. Thank you.
23 THE CHAIRMAN: Further discussion?
24 COMMITTEE MEMBERS: (No response.)
25 THE CHAIRMAN: Now, is this what we put on
Diane M.
Tropia,
64
1 the ballot, Ms. Eller? A voice vote and then
2 it's --
3 MS. ELLER: (Inaudible.)
4 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. All in favor of the
5 amendment say aye.
6 UNIDENTIFIED COMMITTEE MEMBERS: Aye.
7 THE CHAIRMAN: All opposed.
8 UNIDENTIFIED COMMITTEE MEMBERS: Aye.
9 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. We'll have to do a
10 show of hands.
11 All in favor, please raise your hand -- on
12 the amendment.
13 (Indicating.)
14 MR. WEBB: (Indicating.)
15 MS. JONES: (Indicating.)
16 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Webb, myself, Ms. Jones.
17 And all opposed.
18 MR. SHAD: (Indicating.)
19 MR. CORRIGAN: (Indicating.)
20 MR. CLARK: (Indicating.)
21 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Shad, Mr. Corrigan,
22 Mr. Clark and --
23 MS. LEE: I'm sorry.
24 THE CHAIRMAN: Councilwoman Lee, Ms. Jones
25 moved to grant the appeal at 42 feet as opposed
Diane M. Tropia,
65
1 to 45, and then we took the vote. And it's
2 three-three, waiting on you to agree with the
3 amendment or be in opposition.
4 MS. LEE: I'll vote in favor.
5 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. So that would be four
6 in favor and three opposed. The amendment
7 carries.
8 And now we'll be back on the -- we'll move
9 the -- I'll entertain a motion on the bill as
10 amended.
11 MS. JONES: Move the bill as amended.
12 THE CHAIRMAN: There's a motion.
13 MS. LEE: Second.
14 THE CHAIRMAN: And there's a second.
15 Discussion?
16 MR. WEBB: (Indicating.)
17 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Webb.
18 MR. WEBB: Through to Chair to the
19 committee, I am not -- I'm going to support the
20 amendment, I'm going to support the 42, and I do
21 so with great reluctance. I do have some
22 problems with opposing the wishes of a district
23 rep, and so I don't do -- I don't make this
24 decision lightly, but I do support the 42 feet.
25 I would like some further discussion after
Diane M.
Tropia,
66
1 the fact with the Planning Department, perhaps
2 the General Counsel's Office on exactly what the
3 effect is of issues decided, you know, what is
4 the proper procedure for a minor modification
5 versus a PUD to PUD rezoning. And I think
6 substantial due process issues are at stake
7 here. So in that regard, that's my view of the
8 matter.
9 Thank you.
10 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you.
11 Mr. Corrigan.
12 MR. CORRIGAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
13 To the committee, I think I'm on the due
14 process side as well. I'm not as focused on
15 this particular development. I'm not -- it's
16 not that I oppose this development or anything
17 else. I do have a problem if they bring -- when
18 parties bring PUDs to this council and Planning
19 and Development, I've always understood it as
20 negotiated zoning where we give and take, we
21 give special permission to do that.
22 And my concern is that if we start allowing
23 an additional ten feet on bills as they come
24 back to us, we're going to see more and more of
25 these.
Diane M.
Tropia,
67
1 I commend the Planning Commission for
2 standing up for what they previously approved.
3 And it may not be that big of a problem in this
4 one. That will be yet to be seen. But I think
5 it's critical that we stand by this.
6 And if you're going to do a PUD, you need
7 to pretty much get everything detailed ahead of
8 time. I know I have -- I said this last time.
9 I have one in my district that was not going to
10 be any higher than 52 feet. I think it's
11 currently at 83 feet now. So we've got to quit
12 ignoring the height issues as we come forward
13 because many times we --
14 Councilmember Holt, if he had been on the
15 council, probably would have gone out and had
16 meetings and negotiated and finally convinced
17 the people that he represents that, okay, if you
18 let this come, we think this is a good project,
19 it's a little bit out of the ordinary, but we
20 think you ought to allow it to happen. And I
21 know he's in a tough predicament because he
22 wasn't here during the original bill and he is
23 here now. So I won't support the bill because I
24 don't support the amendment.
25 So thank you.
Diane M.
Tropia,
68
1 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you.
2 Ms. Jones.
3 MS. JONES: Thank you, Mr. Vice-Chairman.
4 I made the amendment because when we look
5 at it -- I did look at it as a downgrading from
6 the CCG and the fact that, when it was brought
7 to us, that that wasn't discussed in the report.
8 I think that when we look at making
9 compromises, that 42 is a reasonable
10 compromise. And hopefully we'll be able to
11 address the same issues that Mr. Corrigan just
12 talked about and that you've spoken about in
13 terms of making sure that we're clear.
14 I think it's -- when something is brought
15 to staff, if staff says this needs to be done as
16 a minor modification, I think the applicants
17 tend to do it based on what staff tells them
18 that they need to apply for. And I think that
19 if they had been told that they needed to do it
20 a PUD to PUD, that they would have done that and
21 presented it in that fashion.
22 And so that's why I support the amendment
23 and made the motion.
24 Thank you.
25 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. Thank you.
Diane M. Tropia,
69
1 Any other speakers?
2 COMMITTEE MEMBERS: (No response.)
3 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. At this time, we'll
4 open the ballot.
5 (Committee ballot opened.)
6 MS. JONES: (Votes yea.)
7 MS. LEE: (Votes yea.)
8 MR. WEBB: (Votes yea.)
9 MR. CLARK: (Votes nay.)
10 MR. CORRIGAN: (Votes nay.)
11 MR. SHAD: (Votes nay.)
12 MR. YARBOROUGH: (Votes yea.)
13 (Committee ballot closed.)
14 MS. LAHMEUR: Four yeas, three nays.
15 THE CHAIRMAN: By your action, you have
16 granted the appeal at 42 feet on 2007-919.
17 MR. MANN: Mr. Chairman, members of the
18 committee, thank you very much for your time
19 this evening.
20 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Mann.
21 Two very quick announcements.
22 And thank you, Mr. Holt, for being here.
23 One quick announcement and then we'll take
24 a three-minute break so that Mr. Corrigan and I
25 can switch and Legislative Services can
Diane M.
Tropia,
70
1 reconfigure the computer.
2 If anyone is here in the audience for item
3 number 23 on page 8, which is 2007-1046, that
4 item will be deferred tonight. Councilman
5 Gaffney is holding a community meeting on this
6 item next Wednesday, December 12th, in the
7 Renaissance Room, which is right across the
8 atrium from these chambers, at 6:00 p.m. to
9 discuss this. So it will not be heard this
10 evening. So we just wanted to make anyone aware
11 of that that may be here. So that item will be
12 deferred, 2007-1046.
13 At this time, we'll take a take
14 three-minute break and we'll be right back.
15 (Brief recess.)
16 (Mr. Corrigan assumes the Chair.)
17 THE CHAIRMAN: Ladies and gentlemen, we'll
18 go ahead and get started back on the agenda. I
19 apologize about my delay. I was actually at a
20 road naming ceremony, which is where the bow tie
21 came from.
22 MS. JONES: (Inaudible.)
23 THE CHAIRMAN: Yeah, it's a nice touch.
24 MS. JONES: (Inaudible.)
25 THE CHAIRMAN: I went to a road naming for
Diane M.
Tropia,
71
2 for
3 given a bow tie to wear, so I just kept mine
4 on. Thrilled to be here.
5 We will go back and begin at the beginning
6 of our agenda. We have a number of items that
7 are deferred and continued, so we'll run through
8 those until we get to something that needs a
9 vote.
10 Item number 1, 2005-718. We'll open that
11 public hearing.
12 Seeing no speaker cards, we'll continue
13 that public hearing.
14 Item 2, 2005-1161, is deferred; 2005-1228
15 is deferred.
16 Item 4, 2005-1399. We'll open that public
17 hearing.
18 Seeing no speakers, we'll continue that
19 public hearing.
20 Item 5, 2006-24, is deferred; item 6,
21 2006-220, is deferred.
22 Item 7, 2006-360. We'll open that public
23 hearing.
24 Seeing no speaker cards, we'll continue
25 that public hearing.
Diane M.
Tropia,
72
1 We are now on to page 4. Top of the page,
2 2006-520 is deferred.
3 Item 9, 2006-658. We'll open that public
4 hearing.
5 Seeing no speakers, we'll continue that
6 public hearing.
7 Item 10 and 11 are companion items.
8 2007-144. We'll open that public hearing.
9 Seeing no speakers, we'll continue that
10 public hearing.
11 MS. LEE: (Inaudible.)
12 THE CHAIRMAN: Councilwoman Lee.
13 MS. LEE: (Inaudible.)
14 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. Seeing no speakers,
15 we'll continue the public hearing on item 10.
16 Item 11, 2007-145. We'll open that public
17 hearing.
18 Seeing no speakers, we'll continue that
19 public hearing.
20 Top of page 5, 2007-384 we deferred.
21 Item 13 on the agenda, 2007-566. We'll
22 open that public hearing.
23 Seeing no speakers, we will close that
24 public hearing.
25 We have a substitute.
Diane M.
Tropia,
73
1 MS. JONES: Move the sub.
2 MR. SHAD: Second.
3 THE CHAIRMAN: We have a motion and second
4 on the substitute.
5 Seeing no discussion, all in favor of the
6 substitute signal by saying aye.
7 COMMITTEE MEMBERS: Aye.
8 THE CHAIRMAN: All opposed.
9 COMMITTEE MEMBERS: (No response.)
10 THE CHAIRMAN: The substitute carries.
11 Do we have a motion to rerefer to LUZ?
12 MS. JONES: Move to rerefer.
13 MR. SHAD: Second.
14 THE CHAIRMAN: A motion and second to
15 rerefer to LUZ.
16 Seeing no discussion on the rereferral,
17 open the ballot, record the vote.
18 (Committee ballot opened.)
19 MR. CORRIGAN: (Votes yea.)
20 MS. JONES: (Votes yea.)
21 MS. LEE: (Votes yea.)
22 MR. SHAD: (Votes yea.)
23 MR. WEBB: (Votes yea.)
24 (Committee ballot closed.)
25 MS. LAHMEUR: Five yeas, zero nays.
Diane M.
Tropia,
74
1 THE CHAIRMAN: By your action, you've
2 rereferred 2007-566.
3 Item 14, 2007-578. We'll open that public
4 hearing.
5 Seeing no speakers, we'll continue that
6 public hearing.
7 Page 6, 2007-581 is deferred.
8 Item 16, 2007-659. We'll open that public
9 hearing.
10 Seeing no speakers, we'll continue that
11 public hearing.
12 Item 17, 2007-803, is deferred.
13 Page 7, item 18, 2007-835, is deferred.
14 Item 19 has already been taken up.
15 Item 20, 2007-928. We'll open that public
16 hearing.
17 Seeing no speakers, we'll continue that
18 public hearing till January 15th, 2008.
19 Item number 21, 2007-984, is deferred.
20 We are on page 8, 2007-1011. We'll open
21 that public hearing.
22 Seeing no speakers, we'll continue that
23 public hearing till January 15th, 2008.
24 Item 23 and 24, 2007-1046 and -1047, are
25 both deferred.
Diane M.
Tropia,
75
1 Top of page 9, 2007-1048. We'll open that
2 public hearing.
3 Seeing no speakers, we will continue that
4 public hearing.
5 Item 26, 2007-1051, is deferred.
6 Item 27, 2007-1061. We'll open that public
7 hearing.
8 Seeing no speakers, we'll continue that
9 public hearing.
10 Item 28, 2007-1067. We will open that
11 public hearing.
12 We have a speaker, Ms. Paige Johnston.
13 (Ms. Johnston approaches the podium.)
14 THE CHAIRMAN: Good evening.
15 MS. JOHNSTON: Good evening.
16 Paige Johnston,
17 on behalf of the applicant.
18 This is a companion rezoning application
19 which went with a land use change that was
20 adopted two weeks ago at the last LUZ hearing.
21 We had to wait on the PUD to work through a
22 couple of the conditions with the Planning
23 Department and with the school board, and we've
24 all come to agreeable conditions.
25 And this has been before the Northside
Diane M.
Tropia,
76
1 CPAC, and we've also met with the councilmember
2 on this, and we're available for questions.
3 THE CHAIRMAN: Seeing no questions for
4 Ms. Johnston, we will close that public hearing.
5 MR. SHAD: Move the amendment.
6 MR. CLARK: Second.
7 THE CHAIRMAN: A motion and second,
8 amendment to -1067.
9 Seeing no discussion on the amendment, all
10 in favor signal by saying aye.
11 COMMITTEE MEMBERS: Aye.
12 THE CHAIRMAN: All opposed.
13 COMMITTEE MEMBERS: (No response.)
14 THE CHAIRMAN: The amendment carries.
15 MR. CLARK: Move the bill as amended.
16 MR. WEBB: Second.
17 THE CHAIRMAN: A motion and second on
18 2007-1067 as amended.
19 Seeing no discussion, open the ballot,
20 record the vote.
21 (Committee ballot opened.)
22 MR. CLARK: (Votes yea.)
23 MR. CORRIGAN: (Votes yea.)
24 MS. JONES: (Votes yea.)
25 MS. LEE: (Votes yea.)
Diane M.
Tropia,
77
1 MR. SHAD: (Votes yea.)
2 MR. WEBB: (Votes yea.)
3 (Committee ballot closed.)
4 MS. LAHMEUR: Six yeas, zero nays.
5 THE CHAIRMAN: By your action, you've
6 approved 2007-1067.
7 Top of page 10, 2007-1077 and -1078 are
8 companion bills. We'll open the public hearing
9 on -1077.
10 Seeing no speakers, we'll continue that
11 public hearing.
12 Item 30, 2007-1078. We'll open that public
13 hearing.
14 Seeing no speakers, we will continue that
15 public hearing.
16 Item 31, 2007-1083. We'll open the public
17 hearing.
18 And seeing no speakers, we'll continue that
19 public hearing to January 15th.
20 Bottom of page 10, 2007-1085. We will open
21 that public hearing. We have Richard -- is it
22 Krauss? I'm sorry, Richard. Oh, Kravitz. I'm
23 sorry.
24 Boy, you need to work on that spelling.
25 (Ms. Kravitz approaches the podium.)
Diane M.
Tropia,
78
1 MR. KRAVITZ: Just for questions. That's
2 all.
3 THE CHAIRMAN: Wow. That's good.
4 Seeing he's here for questions only, seeing
5 no questions, we will continue that public
6 hearing with no further action.
7 Thank you, Mr. Kravitz.
8 Top of page 11, 2007-1086. We'll open that
9 public hearing.
10 Seeing no speakers, we will continue that
11 public hearing.
12 Item 34, 2007-1087. We'll open that public
13 hearing.
14 We have Charles Mann.
15 (Mr. Mann approaches the podium.)
16 THE CHAIRMAN: Good evening, again.
17 MR. MANN: Good evening, sir.
18 Mr. Chairman, members of the committee,
19 Charles Mann, 165 Arlington Road, representing
20 the landowner.
21 This is a holdover item. There was an
22 error made. We worked this through Councilman
23 Bishop, who had no objection to it, just to find
24 out that it was actually in Councilman Redman's
25 district. We have since then met with
Diane M.
Tropia,
79
1 Councilman Redman. I would feel like, if he had
2 an opposition of this, he would be here.
3 This is actually a downzoning from a PUD
4 that would allow commercial uses on this site to
5 five residential lots.
6 We'd appreciate your support. Thank you.
7 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much.
8 Seeing no further speakers, we'll close
9 that public hearing.
10 MR. WEBB: Move the amendment.
11 MR. CLARK: Second.
12 THE CHAIRMAN: A motion and second on the
13 amendment to -1087.
14 All in favor of the amendment signal by
15 saying aye.
16 COMMITTEE MEMBERS: Aye.
17 THE CHAIRMAN: All opposed.
18 COMMITTEE MEMBERS: (No response.)
19 THE CHAIRMAN: The amendment carries.
20 MR. CLARK: Move the bill as amended.
21 MR. WEBB: Second.
22 THE CHAIRMAN: A motion and second on
23 2007-1087 as amended.
24 Seeing no discussion, open the ballot,
25 record the vote.
Diane M.
Tropia,
80
1 (Committee ballot opened.)
2 MR. CLARK: (Votes yea.)
3 MR. CORRIGAN: (Votes yea.)
4 MS. JONES: (Votes yea.)
5 MS. LEE: (Votes yea.)
6 MR. SHAD: (Votes yea.)
7 MR. WEBB: (Votes yea.)
8 MR. YARBOROUGH: (Votes yea.)
9 (Committee ballot closed.)
10 MS. LAHMEUR: Seven yeas, zero nays.
11 THE CHAIRMAN: By your action, you've just
12 approved -1087.
13 MR. MANN: Thank you very much.
14 THE CHAIRMAN: Item 35, 2007-1120. We'll
15 open that public hearing.
16 (Ms. Johnston approaches the podium.)
17 THE CHAIRMAN: Seeing Ms. Paige Johnston up
18 front, we will call on her.
19 Good evening, again.
20 MS. JOHNSTON: Good evening.
21 Paige Johnston,
22 on behalf of the applicant.
23 This is a PUD rezoning for property that's
24 adjacent to the St. Mark's Episcopal Church and
25 Episcopal School. The intent of the PUD is to
Diane M.
Tropia,
81
1 allow for uses that are consistent with the
2 school and the church uses such as for the
3 accompanying use center uses that are adjacent
4 to the property.
5 I'm available for questions.
6 THE CHAIRMAN: All right. Thank you.
7 Seeing no questions, we will close that
8 public hearing.
9 MS. LEE: Move the amendment.
10 MR. CLARK: Second.
11 THE CHAIRMAN: We have a motion and second
12 on the amendment to -1120.
13 Does the Planning Department want to
14 discuss the amendment?
15 MR. CROFTS: If it's your pleasure, yes,
16 sir.
17 There are four conditions, and they are as
18 follows:
19 "The developer shall be subject to the
20 original legal description dated October 5,
21 2007."
22 Number 2, "The developer shall be subject
23 to the original written description dated
24 October 5, 2007."
25 Number 3, "The developer shall be subject
Diane M.
Tropia,
82
1 to the original site plan dated August 17,
2 2007."
3 Fourth and finally, "The developer shall
4 make any transportation improvements in
5 accordance with the Development Services
6 Division of the Planning and Development
7 Department."
8 That's it, sir.
9 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you.
10 Ms. Johnston, will you nod that you approve
11 of those conditions?
12 MS. JOHNSTON: Yes, sir.
13 THE CHAIRMAN: She approves of those
14 conditions.
15 Seeing no discussion on the amendment, all
16 in favor signal by saying aye.
17 COMMITTEE MEMBERS: Aye.
18 THE CHAIRMAN: All opposed.
19 COMMITTEE MEMBERS: (No response.)
20 THE CHAIRMAN: The amendment carries.
21 MR. YARBOROUGH: Move the bill as amended.
22 MS. JONES: Second.
23 THE CHAIRMAN: A motion and second on
24 2007-1120 as amended.
25 Seeing no discussion, open the ballot and
Diane M.
Tropia,
83
1 record the vote.
2 (Committee ballot opened.)
3 MR. CLARK: (Votes yea.)
4 MR. CORRIGAN: (Votes yea.)
5 MS. JONES: (Votes yea.)
6 MS. LEE: (Votes yea.)
7 MR. SHAD: (Votes yea.)
8 MR. WEBB: (Votes yea.)
9 MR. YARBOROUGH: (Votes yea.)
10 (Committee ballot closed.)
11 MS. LAHMEUR: Seven yeas, zero nays.
12 THE CHAIRMAN: By your action, you have
13 approved 2007-1120.
14 Item 36 on your agenda, 2007-1121. We will
15 open that public hearing. We have a Richard
16 Kravitz. He's here for questions only.
17 Seeing no questions for the speaker, we
18 will continue that public hearing with no
19 further action.
20 Ladies and gentlemen, we're on top of
21 page 12, item 37, 2007-1122. We will open that
22 public hearing.
23 (Mr. Kravitz approaches the podium.)
24 THE CHAIRMAN: "The Honorable."
25 MR. KRAVITZ: Not tonight. Thank you.
Diane M.
Tropia,
84
1 THE CHAIRMAN: Every night. When you're
2 City Council past president, you're always "The
3 Honorable" and you'll always be welcome.
4 MR. KRAVITZ: Well, first of all, my
5 apologies for my handwriting. So I'll write a
6 little slower.
7 Richard Kravitz,
8 the applicant.
9 Item number 37 seeks to rezone commercial
10 office to PUD, a commercial center one block
11 east of I-295. It's about a half an acre, and
12 we've worked with Councilwoman Mia Jones and
13 some of the neighbors, and also extensively with
14 the Planning Department.
15 They've outlined nine amendments that we
16 agreed to totally that should make it a much
17 nicer center and give sufficient protection for
18 the neighbors.
19 THE CHAIRMAN: Perfect. Thank you,
20 Mr. Kravitz.
21 Seeing no other speakers, we'll close the
22 public hearing and we'll go to Councilwoman
23 Jones, or you want to go to the Planning
24 Department first? What's your preference?
25 MS. JONES: Go to the Planning Department
Diane M.
Tropia,
85
1 first.
2 THE CHAIRMAN: Go to the Planning
3 Department first to discuss the amendment,
4 please.
5 MR. CROFTS: Yes, sir. The amendment
6 consists of the following nine conditions.
7 "The development shall be subject to the
8 original legal description dated October 8,
9 2007."
10 Number 2, "The development shall be subject
11 to the revised written description dated
12 October 10, 2007."
13 Number 3, "The development shall be subject
14 to the original site plan dated October 10,
15 2007."
16 Number 4, "Transportation improvements
17 shall be made in accordance with the Traffic
18 memorandum dated October 15, 2007, or as
19 otherwise approved by the Planning and
20 Development Department."
21 The "Traffic" that I referred to in this
22 condition is the Traffic Engineering memorandum,
23 I'm sure.
24 Number 5, "The light poles shall not exceed
25 25 feet in height and fixtures shall be flush
Diane M.
Tropia,
86
1 mounted with full cutoff screens."
2 Number 6, "At the time of verification of
3 substantial compliance, the developer shall
4 submit a lighting site plan, including fixture
5 types and footcandle illumination for the review
6 and approval of the Planning and Development
7 Department. The lighting site plan shall show
8 footcandle illumination levels at regular
9 50-foot intervals placed on a grid.
10 Illumination levels at all property lines shall
11 not exceed .5 footcandles."
12 Number 7, "The fuel island canopy shall not
13 exceed 15 feet in maximum interior height.
14 Canopy signage shall not exceed 10 percent of
15 the canopy surface area."
16 Number 8, "The hours of operation shall be
17 limited to between the hours between 5:30 a.m.
18 and 12:00 a.m."
19 Ninth and finally, "There shall be no
20 outside storage or display of merchandise."
21 Thank you.
22 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you.
23 Help me get in proper posture, give me a
24 motion and a second, please.
25 MS. LEE: Move the amendment.
Diane M.
Tropia,
87
1 MS. JONES: Second.
2 THE CHAIRMAN: A motion and second on the
3 amendment.
4 Mr. Kravitz, does your client agree with
5 the amendment?
6 MR. KRAVITZ: Absolutely.
7 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. Thank you.
8 Councilwoman Mia Jones.
9 MS. JONES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
10 And I appreciate being able to work through
11 this with the applicant as well as the neighbors
12 in addressing those issues.
13 I did have one question. We had talked
14 about the aeration of the pond. Did they decide
15 to do that or not? Do you know?
16 MR. KRAVITZ: It wasn't in the conditions,
17 so I don't think that was one of the things we
18 did.
19 MS. JONES: All right. It was not
20 critical.
21 And the other thing is, I did want to
22 declare ex-parte communication on October 15th
23 in my office with the -- with
24 William Talley and Amy Austin to discuss the
25 site plan and other issues and concerns that I
Diane M.
Tropia,
88
1 had in terms of buffering and making sure that
2 the neighbors were satisfied with what was going
3 to be brought forth in this project.
4 In addition, on August 20th, I also met
5 with a representative of the applicant in my
6 office concerning the site plan as well.
7 Thank you.
8 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Councilwoman
9 Jones.
10 Seeing no other discussion on the
11 amendment, all in favor signal by saying aye.
12 COMMITTEE MEMBERS: Aye.
13 THE CHAIRMAN: All opposed.
14 COMMITTEE MEMBERS: (No response.)
15 THE CHAIRMAN: The amendment carries.
16 MR. CLARK: Move the bill as amended.
17 MR. WEBB: Second.
18 THE CHAIRMAN: I have a motion and second
19 on 2007-1122 as amended.
20 Seeing no discussion, open the ballot,
21 record the vote.
22 (Committee ballot opened.)
23 MR. CLARK: (Votes yea.)
24 MR. CORRIGAN: (Votes yea.)
25 MS. JONES: (Votes yea.)
Diane M.
Tropia,
89
1 MS. LEE: (Votes yea.)
2 MR. SHAD: (Votes yea.)
3 MR. WEBB: (Votes yea.)
4 MR. YARBOROUGH: (Votes yea.)
5 (Committee ballot closed.)
6 MS. LAHMEUR: Seven yeas, zero nays.
7 THE CHAIRMAN: By your action, you've
8 approved 2007-1122.
9 MR. KRAVITZ: Thank you, members. Thank
10 you.
11 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you.
12 Item 38 on your agenda, 2007-1123. We will
13 open that public hearing.
14 We have one speaker, Mr. L. Charles Mann.
15 (Mr. Mann approaches the podium.)
16 MR. MANN: Charles Mann, 165
17 representing the landowner.
18 Mr. Chairman, we've worked with the
19 neighborhood addressing some concerns with them
20 after the Planning Commission meeting. There is
21 one condition that we would like to add, but I'd
22 like to yield to the staff or just stand by for
23 questions.
24 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. Thank you very much.
25 Seeing no other speakers, this public
Diane M.
Tropia,
90
1 hearing is closed.
2 MS. JONES: Move the amendment.
3 MR. YARBOROUGH: Second.
4 THE CHAIRMAN: I have a motion and second
5 on the amendment.
6 Mr. Crofts, you want to explain the
7 amendment?
8 MR. CROFTS: Yes, sir. The amendment is as
9 follows:
10 Condition number 1, "The developer shall be
11 subject to the original legal description dated
12 October 4, 2007."
13 Number 2, "The developer shall be subject
14 to the revised written description dated
15 October 4, 2007."
16 Number 3, "The developer shall be subject
17 to the original site plan dated August 31,
18 2007."
19 The next condition, number 4, "The
20 development of the property shall proceed in
21 accordance with part 10 of the zoning code."
22 Number 5, "All buildings must have an
23 uncomplementary buffer/landscape area for
24 part 12 of the zoning code or as otherwise
25 approved by the Planning and Development
Diane M.
Tropia,
91
1 Department."
2 Number 6, "The lighting plan with full
3 cutoffs for fixtures shall be provided for
4 review and approval of the Planning and
5 Development Department at the time of
6 verification of substantial compliance. Light
7 levels shall not exceed .5 footcandles at the
8 property line."
9 Lastly, number 7, "The retention pond
10 located within this particular development shall
11 be aerated."
12 That's it.
13 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. Thank you very much.
14 Mr. Mann --
15 MR. MANN: Mr. Chairman, the seventh item
16 that Mr. Crofts added was the one that we wanted
17 to be sure was in there. It had been left out
18 previously. So I have no other additional
19 amendments to add.
20 Thank you.
21 THE CHAIRMAN: Perfect. Thank you.
22 Seeing no discussion on the amendment, all
23 in favor signal by saying aye.
24 COMMITTEE MEMBERS: Aye.
25 THE CHAIRMAN: All opposed.
Diane M.
Tropia,
92
1 COMMITTEE MEMBERS: (No response.)
2 THE CHAIRMAN: The amendment carries.
3 MR. YARBOROUGH: Move the bill as amended.
4 MR. CLARK: Second.
5 THE CHAIRMAN: A motion and second on -1123
6 as amended.
7 Seeing no discussion on the bill, open the
8 ballot, record the vote.
9 (Committee ballot opened.)
10 MR. CLARK: (Votes yea.)
11 MR. CORRIGAN: (Votes yea.)
12 MS. JONES: (Votes yea.)
13 MS. LEE: (Votes yea.)
14 MR. SHAD: (Votes yea.)
15 MR. WEBB: (Votes yea.)
16 MR. YARBOROUGH: (Votes yea.)
17 (Committee ballot closed.)
18 MS. LAHMEUR: Seven yeas, zero nays.
19 THE CHAIRMAN: By your action, you've
20 approved 2007-1123.
21 Thank you.
22 MR. MANN: Thank you, committee.
23 THE CHAIRMAN: Item 39, 2007-1124. We'll
24 open that public hearing.
25 We have one speaker, Mr. Wyman Duggan.
Diane M.
Tropia,
93
1 (Mr. Duggan approaches the podium.)
2 THE CHAIRMAN: Good evening.
3 MR. DUGGAN: Thank you.
4 THE CHAIRMAN: I'm sorry, Mr. Duggan. If
5 you could please hold. Mr. Reingold has an
6 issue to be raised.
7 MR. DUGGAN: I yield the floor.
8 MR. REINGOLD: Thank you very much.
9 I just want to let the LUZ Committee know
10 that on Thursday last week, Wyman Duggan agreed
11 to a condition that he wear a bow tie and a
12 jacket to this meeting. Seeing as that
13 condition has been met, I believe that this item
14 can move forward.
15 THE CHAIRMAN: Well, Mr. Duggan, I'm so
16 honored to be the only other person in the room
17 with a bow tie on this evening. So it is indeed
18 an honor.
19 MR. DUGGAN: The honor is all mine,
20 Mr. Chairman, to be looking like you.
21 THE CHAIRMAN: Until the votes happens,
22 then it changes.
23 Go ahead.
24 MR. DUGGAN: All right. Thank you.
25 This PUD amendment modifies the PUD that
Diane M.
Tropia,
94
1 was approved in 2005. It's a 52-acre retail
2 commercial site between
3
4 modifications to the development totals and
5 added a PUD conversion table.
6 I'm available for questions, although I
7 will discuss some -- I believe the Planning
8 Department and I are on the same page with
9 respect to the conditions, but I'll let them
10 read that.
11 Thank you.
12 THE CHAIRMAN: We'll come back to you after
13 we go through those.
14 Seeing no other speakers, we will let the
15 bow tie man be the only one to speak on this
16 public hearing. So it's closed.
17 MR. YARBOROUGH: Move the amendment.
18 MR. SHAD: Second.
19 THE CHAIRMAN: A motion and second on the
20 amendment to -1124.
21 Mr. Crofts, would you read the amendment,
22 please.
23 MR. CROFTS: Yes, sir. The amendment is as
24 follows:
25 "The development shall be subject to the
Diane M.
Tropia,
95
1 original legal description dated October 20,
2 2006."
3 "The development shall be subject to the
4 revised written description dated December 2,
5 2007."
6 Number 3, "The development shall be subject
7 to the original site plan dated October 5,
8 2007."
9 Number 4, "Transportation improvements
10 shall be made in accordance with the revised
11 Traffic memorandum dated October 18, 2007, and
12 the transportation section of the Planning and
13 Development Department's memorandum dated
14 November 30, 2007, or as otherwise approved by
15 the traffic engineer and the Planning and
16 Development Department."
17 There's also a fifth condition --
18 MR. DUGGAN: Mr. Crofts, before we go on
19 from that condition, number 4, it should be the
20 original Traffic memorandum dated October 18,
21 2007, not the revised.
22 MR. CROFTS: Okay.
23 MR. DUGGAN: And then the other memo was
24 revised. The revised --
25 MR. CROFTS: The first memo, the
Diane M.
Tropia,
96
1 October 18th was original, and the second one
2 dated November 30th was revised.
3 MR. DUGGAN: Correct.
4 MR. CROFTS: Number 5 and finally, "The
5 December 4, 2007, drawing titled Additional
6 Setback Plan is incorporated as Exhibit J.
7 Without waiving any right to just compensation,
8 the applicant will provide the setback shown on
9 Exhibit J for potential future
10 acquisition/acquisitions by the City of
11
12 Parkway and
13 "Any required minimum yard building
14 setback, parking, signing, sidewalks, greenspace
15 or landscaping nonconformity that would be
16 created by such future acquisition/acquisitions
17 shall be permitted."
18 That's the amendment.
19 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. Mr. Duggan, do you
20 agree with the amendment now that it's been
21 phrased that way?
22 MR. DUGGAN: Yes, Mr. Chairman.
23 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. Thank you.
24 Seeing no discussion on the amendment, all
25 in favor of the amendment signal by saying aye.
Diane M.
Tropia,
97
1 COMMITTEE MEMBERS: Aye.
2 THE CHAIRMAN: Well, the amendment has been
3 approved.
4 Apparently it's time to vote.
5 MR. DUGGAN: Merriane had 6:45 on the
6 over/under, so she's trying to hurry up
7 everyone.
8 THE CHAIRMAN: I can see that.
9 Let's go ahead and open that ballot.
10 (Committee ballot opened.)
11 MR. CLARK: (Votes yea.)
12 MR. CORRIGAN: (Votes yea.)
13 MS. JONES: (Votes yea.)
14 MS. LEE: (Votes yea.)
15 MR. SHAD: (Votes yea.)
16 MR. WEBB: (Votes yea.)
17 MR. YARBOROUGH: (Votes yea.)
18 (Committee ballot closed.)
19 MS. LAHMEUR: Seven yeas, zero nays.
20 THE CHAIRMAN: By your action, you have
21 approved 2007-1124 with a whole bunch of
22 ding-a-lings.
23 MR. DUGGAN: Thank you.
24 THE CHAIRMAN: Item 40, 2007-1125. We'll
25 open that public hearing.
Diane M.
Tropia,
98
1 Seeing no speakers, we'll continue that
2 public hearing.
3 Let's turn to page 13 of your agenda with
4 me, please.
5 Item 41, 2007-1126. We'll open that public
6 hearing.
7 Seeing no one who wishes to speak, we will
8 continue that public hearing.
9 MR. KELLY: To the Chair, -1126, there's an
10 amendment.
11 THE CHAIRMAN: I'm sorry. Thank you.
12 We have a motion and second on the
13 amendment for -1126. I was just testing the
14 committee.
15 All in favor of the amendment signal by
16 saying aye.
17 COMMITTEE MEMBERS: Aye.
18 THE CHAIRMAN: All opposed.
19 COMMITTEE MEMBERS: (No response.)
20 THE CHAIRMAN: The amendment carries.
21 MR. YARBOROUGH: Motion to rerefer.
22 MR. WEBB: Second.
23 THE CHAIRMAN: A motion and second to
24 rerefer 2007-1126 to LUZ.
25 Seeing no discussion, open the ballot and
Diane M.
Tropia,
99
1 record the vote.
2 (Committee ballot opened.)
3 MR. CLARK: (Votes yea.)
4 MR. CORRIGAN: (Votes yea.)
5 MS. JONES: (Votes yea.)
6 MS. LEE: (Votes yea.)
7 MR. SHAD: (Votes yea.)
8 MR. WEBB: (Votes yea.)
9 MR. YARBOROUGH: (Votes yea.)
10 (Committee ballot closed.)
11 MS. LAHMEUR: Seven yeas, zero nays.
12 THE CHAIRMAN: By your action, you've
13 rereferred 2007-1126.
14 Item 42, 2007-1140. We'll open that public
15 hearing.
16 Susan McDonald is here.
17 (Ms. McDonald approaches the podium.)
18 THE CHAIRMAN: Good evening.
19 MS. McDONALD: Good evening.
20 Susan McDonald,
21 representing the
developer,
22 We are here tonight to request your
23 approval of a notice of proposed change that
24 actually has three changes. We're modifying our
25 phasing and buildout dates to add an additional
Diane M.
Tropia,
100
1 seven years provided by statute, that it's not a
2 substantial deviation, and then the legislature
3 approved an automatic three-year extension.
4 Secondly, we are changing our development
5 rights such that we are increasing our office
6 square footage by 100,000 square feet, but at
7 the same time, we're decreasing our hotel by
8 200 rooms.
9 And our traffic analysis reflects that this
10 results in no additional impacts as a result of
11 this net increase and decrease at the same
12 time.
13 We're also getting just a 10-month
14 extension to
complete
15 It's almost complete at this time, but we had to
16 acquire additional right-of-way, and this is
17 just to allow it to
connect to
18 The Regional Planning Council has indicated
19 that they do not find it a substantial
20 deviation. The Planning Department has
21 recommended approval with no conditions. And
22 hopefully Councilman Webb will acknowledge that
23 he finds it acceptable as well.
24 Thank you. And I'll be happy to answer any
25 questions.
Diane M. Tropia,
101
1 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Ms. McDonald.
2 Seeing no questions, that public hearing is
3 closed.
4 MR. CLARK: Move the bill.
5 MR. WEBB: Second.
6 THE CHAIRMAN: A motion and second on
7 2007-1140.
8 Seeing no discussion, open the ballot,
9 record the vote.
10 (Committee ballot opened.)
11 MR. CLARK: (Votes yea.)
12 MR. CORRIGAN: (Votes yea.)
13 MS. JONES: (Votes yea.)
14 MS. LEE: (Votes yea.)
15 MR. SHAD: (Votes yea.)
16 MR. WEBB: (Votes yea.)
17 MR. YARBOROUGH: (Votes yea.)
18 (Committee ballot closed.)
19 MS. LAHMEUR: Seven yeas, zero nays.
20 THE CHAIRMAN: By your action, you've just
21 approved 2007-1140.
22 Item 43, 2007-1146. We will open that
23 public hearing.
24 Mr.
25 is coming to the podium.
Diane M.
Tropia,
102
1 (Mr. Hainline approaches the podium.)
2 THE CHAIRMAN: Good evening.
3 MR. HAINLINE:
5 This is the school concurrency bill, and I
6 just want to say on behalf of the Joint Planning
7 Committee that the staff, particularly Shannon
8 and Bill Killingsworth, have done a great job on
9 a very complex issue. And
10 very hard to put everything in that document,
11 and I thank her for that.
12 So thank you.
13 THE CHAIRMAN: Well, Mr. Hainline, before
14 you disappear, I want to say my appreciation for
15 you chairing the Joint Planning Committee. It
16 was something I appointed when -- during my term
17 as council president, and I think the committee
18 did a great job, and I appreciate all your
19 dedication and support.
20 Thank you.
21 MR. HAINLINE: Thank you.
22 THE CHAIRMAN: We will close that public
23 hearing.
24 We have a substitute.
25 MR. WEBB: Move the sub.
Diane M.
Tropia,
103
1 MR. SHAD: Second.
2 THE CHAIRMAN: A motion and second on the
3 substitute.
4 All in favor of the sub signal by saying
5 aye.
6 COMMITTEE MEMBERS: Aye.
7 THE CHAIRMAN: All opposed.
8 COMMITTEE MEMBERS: (No response.)
9 THE CHAIRMAN: The substitute carries.
10 MR. YARBOROUGH: Move the substitute.
11 MS. JONES: Second.
12 THE CHAIRMAN: A motion and second on -1146
13 as substituted.
14 Seeing no discussion, open the ballot,
15 record the vote.
16 (Committee ballot opened.)
17 MR. CLARK: (Votes yea.)
18 MR. CORRIGAN: (Votes yea.)
19 MS. JONES: (Votes yea.)
20 MS. LEE: (Votes yea.)
21 MR. SHAD: (Votes yea.)
22 MR. WEBB: (Votes yea.)
23 MR. YARBOROUGH: (Votes yea.)
24 (Committee ballot closed.)
25 MS. LAHMEUR: Seven yeas, zero nays.
Diane M.
Tropia,
104
1 THE CHAIRMAN: By your action, you've just
2 approved 2007-1146.
3 Job well done, T.R.
4 Item 44, 2007-1190, is deferred.
5 All the items on page 14 will be deferred.
6 That's 2007-1191, -1192, -1193, and -1194.
7 On page 15, the top two items will be
8 deferred: 2007-1195 and -1196.
9 We already did item 51.
10 Item 52, 2007-1215. We'll open the public
11 hearing.
12 Our first speaker will be Wyman Duggan.
13 (Mr. Duggan approaches the podium.)
14 MR. DUGGAN: Wyman Duggan, 1301 Riverplace
15 Boulevard, for the applicant.
16 Mr. Chairman, I apologize. After agenda,
17 an issue came up with this. We'd like to ask
18 for a deferral.
19 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. We can do that.
20 We'll -- I have a second speaker,
21 Mr. Harden.
22 Mr. Harden, would you like to speak?
23 MR. HARDEN: I would like to speak when you
24 consider the matter.
25 THE CHAIRMAN: Are you okay with the
Diane M.
Tropia,
105
1 deferral?
2 MR. HARDEN: I'm going to do graciously
3 what I have to do anyway, yes.
4 I just want to know when you're
5 deferring it till.
6 I'm opposed to this.
7 THE CHAIRMAN: We will defer it until
8 January 3rd, unless I hear information
9 differently.
10 MR. HARDEN: Okay.
11 THE CHAIRMAN: Do you want to talk about
12 that or no?
13 MR. HARDEN: No.
14 Is there any chance that the Gators are
15 going to be in the Sugar Bowl?
16 MR. CLARK: No.
17 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. Seeing that
18 Mr. Duggan and Mr. Harden have both finished
19 speaking, we will continue that public hearing
20 with no further action this evening.
21 MR. DUGGAN: Thank you.
22 THE CHAIRMAN: Gators in the Sugar Bowl.
23 Nice try.
24 We are now on to page 16 of our agenda,
25 2007-1216. We'll open that public hearing, and
Diane M.
Tropia,
106
1 we have Paige Johnston.
2 (Ms. Johnston approaches the podium.)
3 MS. JOHNSTON: Paige Johnston, 1301
4 Riverplace Boulevard, on behalf of the
5 applicant.
6 This is a development agreement that
7 reserves capacity along
8 project that was approved in 2006, and we're
9 asking for a ten-year development agreement, and
10 we request your support.
11 I'm available for questions.
12 THE CHAIRMAN: Seeing no questions for
13 Ms. Johnston, we will close that public hearing.
14 MR. YARBOROUGH: Move the bill.
15 MR. CLARK: Second.
16 THE CHAIRMAN: A motion and second on
17 2007-1216.
18 Seeing no discussion, open the ballot and
19 record the vote.
20 (Committee ballot opened.)
21 MR. CLARK: (Votes yea.)
22 MR. CORRIGAN: (Votes yea.)
23 MS. JONES: (Votes yea.)
24 MS. LEE: (Votes yea.)
25 MR. SHAD: (Votes yea.)
Diane M.
Tropia,
107
1 MR. WEBB: (Votes yea.)
2 MR. YARBOROUGH: (Votes yea.)
3 (Committee ballot closed.)
4 MS. LAHMEUR: Seven yeas, zero nays.
5 THE CHAIRMAN: By your action, you've just
6 approved 2007-1216.
7 Item 54, 2007-1217. We'll open that public
8 hearing and, lo and behold, Paige Johnston is
9 back again.
10 MS. JOHNSTON: Last time.
11 Paige Johnston, 1301 Riverplace, on behalf
12 of the applicant.
13 This is also a development agreement that
14 reserves capacity
along
15 It's for a project that was approved last -- or
16 actually earlier this year, and I'm available
17 for questions.
18 THE CHAIRMAN: All right. We have a list
19 of 18 questions. No, I'm just kidding.
20 Seeing no questions, we'll close that
21 public hearing.
22 MR. YARBOROUGH: So moved.
23 MR. WEBB: Second.
24 THE CHAIRMAN: We have a motion and second
25 on 2007-1217.
Diane M.
Tropia,
108
1 Seeing no discussion, open the ballot and
2 record the vote.
3 (Committee ballot opened.)
4 MR. CLARK: (Votes yea.)
5 MR. CORRIGAN: (Votes yea.)
6 MS. JONES: (Votes yea.)
7 MS. LEE: (Votes yea.)
8 MR. SHAD: (Votes yea.)
9 MR. WEBB: (Votes yea.)
10 MR. YARBOROUGH: (Votes yea.)
11 (Committee ballot closed.)
12 MS. LAHMEUR: Seven yeas, zero nays.
13 THE CHAIRMAN: By your action, you've just
14 approved 2007-1217.
15 MS. JOHNSTON: Thank you, and happy
16 holidays to you all.
17 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you.
18 Item 75, 2007-1223. We'll open that public
19 hearing.
20 Seeing no speakers, we will close that
21 public hearing.
22 Do I have a motion on the bill?
23 MR. WEBB: Move the bill.
24 MR. CLARK: Second.
25 THE CHAIRMAN: A motion and second on
Diane M.
Tropia,
109
1 2007-1223.
2 Councilman Yarborough.
3 MR. YARBOROUGH: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
4 Could someone just give us an
5 explanation -- I guess it would be staff. I
6 don't see anybody from Mayor Peyton's office.
7 But if we can just get a quick explanation,
8 Mr. Chairman.
9 MR. KELLY: Certainly.
10 Through the Chair to Councilman Yarborough,
11 this is requesting an extension of an interim
12 rezoning deferment bill that was passed
13 initially back in 2006 which granted it for a
14 year and it was set to expire December 31,
15 2007. This request is an extension basically
16 for another 90 days.
17 The Department has been working with the
18 consultant, the Glatting, Jackson, Kershire,
19
20 they are in the process right now of finalizing
21 the adopted or the -- finalizing the zoning
22 overlay for the
23 We hope to introduce the legislation in
24 January or February, but we just needed this
25 additional time basically to finalize and work
Diane M.
Tropia,
110
1 with the steering committee and the rest of the
2 neighborhood organizations as well.
3 So we're just looking at getting this
4 extended for another three months to finalize
5 the overlay.
6 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. Seeing no other
7 discussion, open the ballot and record the vote.
8 (Committee ballot opened.)
9 MR. CLARK: (Votes yea.)
10 MR. CORRIGAN: (Votes yea.)
11 MS. JONES: (Votes yea.)
12 MS. LEE: (Votes nay.)
13 MR. SHAD: (Votes yea.)
14 MR. WEBB: (Votes yea.)
15 MR. YARBOROUGH: (Votes yea.)
16 (Committee ballot closed.)
17 MS. LAHMEUR: Six yeas, one nay.
18 THE CHAIRMAN: By your action, you've
19 approved 2007-1223.
20 LUZ members and the public, beginning with
21 item 56, the following items will be second and
22 rereferred: 2007-1230, -1231, -1232, -1233,
23 -1234, -1235, -1236, -1237, -1238, -1239,
24 -1240, -1242, -1243, -1244, -1245, -1246,
25 -1247, -1248, -1249, -1250 and -1266.
Diane M.
Tropia,
111
1 That has come to the end of our agenda.
2 Are there any other items to be discussed by
3 this committee?
4 COMMITTEE MEMBERS: (No response.)
5 THE CHAIRMAN: I'm not seeing any hands
6 raised or buttons pushed.
7 And this is our last meeting of 2007. I
8 want to thank the committee for a great first
9 six months. Looking forward to taking a break
10 and coming back on January 3rd.
11 Please note that our next meeting is on
12 Thursday, January 3rd, a Thursday night.
13 Forgetting NFL football, we'll come in and do
14 LUZ. I hope everybody has a great holiday, and
15 I look forward to seeing you all next Tuesday.
16 We are adjourned.
17 (The above proceedings were adjourned at
18 6:50 p.m.)
19 - - -
20
21
22
23
24
25
Diane M.
Tropia,
112
1 C E R T I F I C A T E
2
3 STATE OF
4 COUNTY OF DUVAL :
5
6 I, Diane M. Tropia, certify that I was
7 authorized to and did stenographically report the
8 foregoing proceedings and that the transcript is a
9 true and complete record of my stenographic notes.
10 Dated this 9th day of December, 2007.
11
12
13
14 Diane M. Tropia
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Diane M.
Tropia,