1 CITY OF
2 LAND USE AND ZONING
6 Proceedings held on Tuesday, March 4, 2008,
7 commencing at 5:05 p.m., City Hall, Council Chambers,
8 1st Floor,
9 Tropia, a Notary Public in and for the State of
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.
JOHN CROFTS, Deputy Director, Planning Dept.
19 SEAN KELLY, Planning and Development Dept.
KEN AVERY, Planning and Development Dept.
20 FOLKS HUXFORD, Planning and Development Dept.
21 JESSICA STEPHENS, Legislative Assistant.
MERRIANE LAHMEUR, Legislative Assistant.
- - -
1 P R O C E E D I N G S
2 March 4, 2008 5:05 p.m.
3 - - -
4 THE CHAIRMAN: Good afternoon, ladies and
6 Welcome to the Tuesday, March 4th meeting
7 of the Land Use and Zoning Committee.
8 I'm your chairman, Michael Corrigan.
9 My vice chairman Clay Yarborough is here.
10 Councilmember Art Shad has joined us,
11 Councilmember Richard Clark, and Councilman Jack
13 We have a host of Planning Department
14 officials, Shannon from OGC, and several people
15 in the audience.
16 So good afternoon and welcome.
17 We'll go pretty much straight through our
18 agenda today. We do have two appeals, item
19 number 2 and item number 31. Those will be
20 heard at the end, as in standard practice with
21 this committee. We have a fairly light agenda
22 today, so we will go ahead and get started.
23 We will begin with item number 1,
24 2005-718. We'll open that public hearing.
25 Seeing no speakers, we will continue that
1 public hearing with no further action.
2 We'll come back to item 2.
3 Item 3, 2005-1228, is deferred.
4 Top of page 3. All the items on page 3 are
5 deferred: 2006-24, -220, -360, -520.
6 On page 4, top of the page, item 8,
7 2006-658, is deferred.
8 Item 9, 2007-144, and item 10, 2007-145 are
9 companion rezonings. We'll open the public
10 hearing on -144.
11 Seeing no speakers, we'll continue it to
12 May 6th.
13 We'll open -145.
14 Seeing no speakers, we'll continue that
15 public hearing until May 6th.
16 Item number 11, 2007-384, is deferred.
17 We are on page 5. Item 2007-581 is
19 Item 13, 2007-659. We'll open the public
21 Seeing no speakers, we'll continue that
22 public hearing.
23 Item 14 and 15 are deferred, 2007-803 and
25 We are on page 6, committee members, item
1 2007-1046. We'll open that public hearing.
2 This bill, we will have a public hearing
3 but will not take any action tonight. It was
4 also deferred at the Planning Commission
6 I do have three speaker cards: I have
7 Louise De
8 We're not taking action if -- all waived their
9 right to speak, so we will continue that public
10 hearing with no further action.
11 Item 17 and 18, 2007-1051 and -1061, are
12 both deferred.
13 Please turn to page 7. Item 19, 2007-1085,
14 we'll open that public hearing.
15 Seeing no speakers, we'll continue that
16 public hearing.
17 Item 20, 2007-1086. We'll open that public
19 Seeing no speakers, we'll continue it.
20 Item 21, we'll open the public hearing.
21 Seeing no speakers, we'll continue that
22 public hearing.
23 Item 22, 2007-1125. We'll open that public
25 Seeing no speakers, we'll continue that
1 public hearing with no further action.
2 Hard to believe, but we're already on
3 page 8 of our agenda. Item number 23,
4 2007-1194. We will open that public hearing.
5 Seeing no speakers, we will close that
6 public hearing and go to the Planning
8 Mr. Crofts or Mr. Kelly. Who wants to
9 handle this one?
10 MR. CROFTS: Mr. Chairman, I don't know if
11 any applicants are here for this particular
12 item. I do know that Ms. Lee had met with the
13 applicant and had indicated that -- before the
14 last council meeting, that she was in favor of
15 it or supported it, but I feel a little nervous
16 about doing it until she arrives. If it does
17 pass, if she confirms my -- and our
18 understanding, at this point, then we have some
19 conditions that we'd like to add to it.
20 So I think we may be better just to
21 postpone temporarily.
22 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. We will just -- I'll
23 tell you what, we'll continue that public
24 hearing and bring it up later on in the agenda
25 to see if we want to take action on it.
1 So thank you, Mr. Crofts. Just remind me
2 to go back to it.
3 Item 24, 2007-1215. We'll open that public
5 We have one speaker, Mr.
6 MR. HARDEN: Can we wait until Ms. Lee
7 comes back?
8 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. We'll wait on that
9 one as well.
10 Thank you.
11 (Mr. Duggan approaches the podium.)
12 MR. DUGGAN: Mr. Chairman, Mr. Hainline is
13 endeavoring to talk to Ms. Lee in the back about
14 the most recent discussions on this bill. If we
15 could lay that on the table.
16 THE CHAIRMAN: All right. We will wait a
17 little bit on that one. We'll come back to it
18 later on the agenda.
19 23 and 24 we'll come back to.
20 Item 25, 2005-1230, is deferred.
21 Item 2007-1308. We'll open that public
23 We have several speakers' cards. We have
24 Jeannie Cave, I believe it is, Lisa Pulley, and
25 Jeff Thompson. Any of those speakers here?
1 AUDIENCE MEMBER: Yeah.
2 THE CHAIRMAN: Come on up.
3 (Audience member approaches the podium.)
4 THE CHAIRMAN: Give your name and address
5 for the record, and you have three minutes.
6 AUDIENCE MEMBER: Hi.
7 I represent Cox Radio and Cox Enterprises.
8 We are asking in favor of the application for a
9 waiver of minimum required road frontage so that
10 we can secure our site.
11 We currently have four towers on the site,
12 and they have guy wires with radials underneath
13 the ground. Those radials are being dug up at
14 the moment by people coming to the site and
15 removing them for the copper.
16 We also have an existing building that sits
17 there today that we would -- that was on fire by
18 arson a few years back, and we want to refurbish
19 that building. And we'd like to sell it to
20 Mr. Thompson, who is here today, so that we will
21 have somebody on the site full time with a
22 physical presence.
23 That building is on the site, so it's a
24 really narrow ditch. So there's no way for us
25 to move it. So we're asking for this waiver so
1 that we can have somebody clean it up and occupy
3 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much. That's
4 fine. Thank you.
5 MS. CAVE: Thank you.
6 THE CHAIRMAN: Our next speaker is Lisa
7 Pulley, followed by Jeff Thompson -- or, Jeff,
8 you can go first, whichever way you want to go
10 (Audience member approaches the podium.)
11 THE CHAIRMAN: Good afternoon.
12 AUDIENCE MEMBER: Hi. My name is Lisa
13 Pulley. I own the property right in front of
14 this at 6861 --
15 THE CHAIRMAN: Pull that microphone a
16 little closer to you, please.
17 MS. PULLEY: Okay. I own the property at
18 6861, right in front of this property, and I am
19 in favor of having them -- have this rezoning.
20 It would help to clean up and to keep vagrants
21 out. My business was just broken into not even
22 three months ago, so this would really help us
24 Thank you.
25 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much.
1 Our final speaker is Jeff Thompson.
2 (Audience member approaches the podium.)
3 AUDIENCE MEMBER: My name is Jeff Thompson,
5 I am trying to buy this piece of property
6 to move my construction company over there.
7 It's zoned commercial, zoned for that. We have
8 a small construction company, mostly I would
9 consider a paper construction company.
10 We don't have equipment, we don't have any
11 of that, just have some people that drive
12 vehicles and come and go. And it's not going to
13 be a big construction site or we won't store
14 equipment or anything like that.
15 So I'd just like this to get approved so
16 that I can buy it.
17 Thank you.
18 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you.
19 I don't have any other speakers on
20 2007-1308, so we'll close that public hearing.
21 Planning Department, you want to give us
22 your input, please.
23 MR. KELLY: Thank you. To the Chair --
24 (Telephone interruption.)
25 THE CHAIRMAN: Time's up.
1 MR. KELLY: -- ordinance 2007-1308 seeks a
2 reduction in the waiver of road frontage
3 requirement from thirty-five feet to zero feet
4 to allow for the redevelopment of a
5 commercially-zoned parcel, CCG-1, that is being
6 subdivided out of the larger radio tower site.
7 The subject property was previously
8 operated as a radio station. It's currently
9 landlocked between some residential uses.
10 However, it does have a CCG-1 parcel immediately
11 south with
direct access to the
12 road right-of-way.
13 Staff reviewed it for consistency with the
14 criteria and found that the request did meet all
15 the criteria and is recommending grant of this
16 waiver with two conditions, and I'll read those
17 two conditions for the record.
18 Condition 1, "The subject property shall
19 not be further subdivided without bringing the
20 existing easement into compliance with City
21 standards and dedicating it as an approved
22 public right-of-way or an approved private
24 Condition 2, "The subject property shall be
25 limited to 12,000 square feet of professional
1 and business office uses, subject to the review
2 and approval of the Planning and Development
4 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. Thank you,
5 Mr. Kelly.
6 Do I have a motion on this bill?
7 MR. CLARK: Move to grant the waiver.
8 MR. SHAD: Second.
9 THE CHAIRMAN: I have a motion and second
10 on the amendment that we grant -- I guess it's
11 an amendment, correct? Is that what you're
13 MS. ELLER: Yes.
14 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. I have a motion and
15 second on the amendment to grant the waiver.
16 All in favor of the amendment signal by
17 saying aye.
18 COMMITTEE MEMBERS: Aye.
19 THE CHAIRMAN: All opposed.
20 COMMITTEE MEMBERS: (No response.)
21 THE CHAIRMAN: The amendment carries.
22 MR. CLARK: Move the bill as amended.
23 MR. SHAD: Second.
24 THE CHAIRMAN: I have a motion and second
25 on 2007-1308 as amended.
1 Seeing no speakers, open the ballot and
2 record the vote.
3 (Committee ballot opened.)
4 MR. CLARK: (Votes yea.)
5 MR. CORRIGAN: (Votes yea.)
6 MR. SHAD: (Votes yea.)
7 MR. WEBB: (Votes yea.)
8 MR. YARBOROUGH: (Votes yea.)
9 (Committee ballot closed.)
10 MS. LAHMEUR: Five yeas, zero nays.
11 THE CHAIRMAN: By your action, you've
12 approved 2007-1308.
13 Thank you very much for being here.
14 Committee members, top of page 9,
15 2007-1310. We'll open that public hearing.
16 Seeing no speakers, we'll continue it.
17 2007-1311. We'll open that public hearing.
18 Seeing no speakers, we'll continue that
19 public hearing.
20 2007-1312. We'll open that public
22 Seeing no speakers, we'll continue that
23 public hearing.
24 2007-1350. We'll open that public hearing.
25 Seeing no speakers, we'll continue that
1 public hearing.
2 We are on page 10. We'll take up item 31
3 in a few minutes.
4 Item 32, 2008-23. We'll open that public
6 Seeing no speakers, we'll continue that
7 public hearing.
8 Item 33, 2008-25. We'll open that public
9 hearing. We will --
10 Seeing no speakers, we'll continue that
11 public hearing.
12 And it may be marked closed, but we're
13 going to continue it at the applicant's request.
14 Item 34, 2008-27. We'll open that public
16 Seeing no speakers, we'll continue that
17 public hearing.
18 Committee members, we're on page 11,
19 item 35, 2008-40. We'll open that public
20 hearing and continue that public hearing until
21 April 1st. That's an appeal.
22 Item 36, 2008-41. We will open that public
24 We have one speaker, Wyman Duggan.
25 (Mr. Duggan approaches the podium.)
1 THE CHAIRMAN: Good afternoon, Mr. Duggan.
2 How are you?
3 MR. DUGGAN: I'm fine, Mr. Chairman. Thank
4 you. How are you?
5 THE CHAIRMAN: Good.
6 MR. DUGGAN: Wyman Duggan, 1301 Riverplace
8 This is a PUD that is a follow-on to a land
9 use amendment that was approved a couple of
10 years ago actually. We worked closely with
11 Councilwoman Jones on this matter. She had a
12 community meeting the week of -- I believe the
13 night of February 21st, and the community has
14 been in support, she has been in support. I
15 know she's not here tonight, but I have not
16 gotten any sense from her that she is anything
17 other than in support of this application.
18 I'm available for questions.
19 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. Thank you,
20 Mr. Duggan. Appreciate it.
21 Seeing no other speakers, we'll close that
22 public hearing and go to our Planning
24 MR. CROFTS: Mr. Chairman, members of the
25 committee, there is several conditions that are
1 part of the amendment to this bill.
2 Condition number 1, "The development shall
3 be subject to the original legal description
4 dated December 17, 2007."
5 Number 2, "The development shall be subject
6 to the original written description dated
7 December 17, 2007."
8 Number 3, "The development shall be subject
9 to the original site plan dated January 2nd,
11 Condition number 4, "The development site
12 plan shall be subject to the review and approval
13 of the Development Services Division pursuant to
14 their memorandum dated February 1st, 2008, or as
15 otherwise approved by the Planning and
16 Development Department."
17 Number 5, "The garage/car wash amenities
18 shall be set back a minimum of 60 feet from any
19 property line."
20 Number 6, "Light fixtures shall be recessed
21 and shielded to direct light downward and to
22 prevent glare and/or excessive light onto
23 surrounding property.
24 "Footcandles shall not exceed one
25 footcandle at the property line abutting any
Diane M. Tropia,
1 single-family-zoned property.
2 "All light fixtures in the parking area
3 shall be limited to 18 feet in height."
4 Condition number 7, "At the time of
5 verification of substantial compliance, a
6 landscape plan shall be submitted for review and
7 approval of the Planning and Development
9 "All existing trees greater than four
10 inches DBH within a 20-foot uncomplementary land
11 use buffer shall be preserved.
12 "Additional evergreen trees, live oak,
13 and/or southern magnolia shall be required to be
14 planted so that there is at least one four-inch
15 DBH tree for every 25 linear feet of
16 uncomplementary land use boundary."
17 Number 8, "An 8-foot-high, 95 percent fence
18 made of wood, PVC, or other composite fence
19 materials shall be provided along the north
20 property line. It shall be installed to avoid
21 preserved trees."
22 Number 9, "A 95 percent opaque visual
23 screen consisting of a brick, masonry or stucco
24 wall at least 6 feet in height and 20 feet
set back from the
1 rights-of-way shall be provided.
2 "In addition to interior perimeter
3 landscaping requirements of the parking lot, at
4 least one four-inch DBH tree shall be provided
5 on the roadway side of the wall for every
6 50 linear feet frontage."
7 Number 10, "Noise attenuation for
8 residential uses that abut limited access
9 right-of-way shall be provided to berms and
10 landscaping, or brick, masonry or stucco wall,
11 or any combination thereof, subject to the
12 review and approval of the Planning and
13 Development Department."
14 Number 11 and finally, "The monument signs
15 shall be externally illuminated and limited to a
16 maximum height of eight feet."
17 Thank you.
18 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. Thank you,
19 Mr. Crofts.
20 So that was all in the form of an
21 amendment. Do I have a motion on the
23 MR. WEBB: Move the amendment.
24 MR. CLARK: Second.
25 THE CHAIRMAN: A motion and second on the
1 amendment to 2008-41.
2 Seeing no discussion, all in favor of the
3 amendment signal by saying aye.
4 COMMITTEE MEMBERS: Aye.
5 THE CHAIRMAN: All opposed.
6 COMMITTEE MEMBERS: (No response.)
7 THE CHAIRMAN: The amendment carries.
8 MR. WEBB: Move the bill as amended.
9 MR. CLARK: Second.
10 THE CHAIRMAN: A motion and second on
11 2008-41 as amended.
12 Mr. Duggan, I should have asked you if you
13 agree with all those conditions.
14 MR. DUGGAN: Yes, Mr. Chairman.
15 THE CHAIRMAN: I had a feeling you did. I
16 appreciate that.
17 Seeing no discussion on the bill as moved,
18 open the ballot and record the vote.
19 (Committee ballot opened.)
20 MR. CLARK: (Votes yea.)
21 MR. CORRIGAN: (Votes yea.)
22 MR. SHAD: (Votes yea.)
23 MR. WEBB: (Votes yea.)
24 MR. YARBOROUGH: (Votes yea.)
25 (Committee ballot closed.)
1 MS. LAHMEUR: Five yeas, zero nays.
2 THE CHAIRMAN: By your action, you've
3 approved 2008-41.
4 MR. DUGGAN: Thank you.
5 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you.
6 Committee members, we're on item 37,
7 2008-42. We'll open that public hearing.
8 Seeing no speakers, we'll continue that
9 public hearing with no further action.
10 Item 38 and 39 are companion rezonings.
11 We'll go ahead and open both of them up at the
12 same time. 2008-43 and -44 are opened.
13 I have two speakers, Mr. Paul Harden --
14 actually one speaker on each bill.
15 (Mr. Harden approaches the podium.)
16 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Harden, good evening.
17 MR. HARDEN: These are in Ms. Jones'
18 district. Do you want to wait until she comes
19 down to -- she's in support of them; the
20 Planning Department is not; the Planning
21 Commission is.
22 THE CHAIRMAN: I'm fine waiting. We've got
23 several that are waiting. I'm happy to --
24 MR. HARDEN: Yeah, I'd rather wait.
25 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. I'll just keep it
Diane M. Tropia,
1 open for now and come back to it in a few
3 A whole bunch of going back to.
4 Okay. Committee, page 12, 2008-44. We'll
5 open that public hearing. It's also in
6 Councilwoman Jones' district.
7 I'm sorry. That's the one I have already
8 opened. Thank you. Sorry. I'll catch up here.
9 2008-45. We will open that public
10 hearing. We have one speaker, Rhonda Griffin.
11 Ms. Griffin, if you could please come
13 (Audience member approaches the podium.)
14 THE CHAIRMAN: Good afternoon.
15 AUDIENCE MEMBER: Good afternoon.
16 My name is Rhonda Griffin, and I reside at
18 I'm requesting a waiver of road frontage to
19 allow me to add a third dwelling on my
20 property. We have two acres of land there. My
21 daughter is currently separated, and I would
22 like to move her mobile home onto that
23 property. She has two small children and needs
24 our help.
25 There are other properties on
1 that do not meet the one acre per dwelling
2 requirement. Across the street from me there
3 are two dwellings on a half-acre lot, and in
4 2007 an administrative deviation was approved
5 for property that was located at 2677 Alta
6 Circle, allowing them to put a second dwelling
7 on that property.
8 What we would ultimately like to do is to
9 subdivide our property and give each one of our
10 children a half acre of land for them to build a
11 home on. And in order to do that, I have to go
12 through this, I guess, waiver of road frontage.
13 And then I'm looking for an administrative
14 deviation from what I understand.
15 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. Thank you.
16 Seeing no questions or no other speakers,
17 we'll close that public hearing and go to the
18 Planning Department for their input, please.
19 MR. KELLY: Thank you.
20 Through the Chair and committee members,
21 ordinance 2008-45 seeks a waiver of road
22 frontage from 240 feet to 0 feet to allow for
23 three residences on the subject property off of
24 Alta Circle East, which is an unimproved
25 right-of-way private road. It's a dirt road.
1 Staff has reviewed this. There previously
2 was an application back in '96 which reduced the
3 road frontage to allow relief for the two
4 existing residences. Now we're seeing another
5 application, which is further intensifying the
6 use of the property.
7 We feel it is conflicting, not only with
8 the health, safety, and welfare issues for
9 access and making sure that this property is
10 easily accessible, but it also conflicts with
11 the underlying zoning district. And that is one
12 acre per dwelling unit. There are three
13 proposed acres.
14 They do have a companion administrative
15 deviation which seeks to reduce the lot area for
16 that. However, in regards to the waiver
17 criteria, we do feel that this is, again, based
18 on a desire to reduce costs and improving the
19 road to City standards, also circumventing
20 subdivision regulations with the additional
21 third unit on the property.
22 Although the parcel itself isn't being
23 subdivided, there will be three dwelling units
24 on that individual parcel.
25 Again, we feel it would alter the character
1 of the area, again, and interfere with and
2 injure the rights of surrounding property
4 (Ms. Lee enters the proceedings.)
5 MR. KELLY:
6 unimproved private road, so they do have access
7 to that, which does provide access out to the
9 that this is contradictory to ensuring the
10 health, safety, and welfare and recommend denial
11 of the application.
12 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. Thank you,
13 Mr. Kelly.
14 Based on the Planning Department report, do
15 I have a motion on the amendment?
16 MR. WEBB: Move to grant.
17 MR. CLARK: Second.
18 THE CHAIRMAN: Motion to grant the waiver
19 of road frontage. I have a second.
20 Any discussion on the motion?
21 COMMITTEE MEMBERS: (No response.)
22 THE CHAIRMAN: Let the record reflect that
23 Councilwoman Lee is here.
24 Good afternoon.
25 Seeing no discussion on the amendment, all
1 in favor signal by saying aye.
2 COMMITTEE MEMBERS: Aye.
3 THE CHAIRMAN: All opposed.
4 COMMITTEE MEMBERS: (No response.)
5 THE CHAIRMAN: The amendment carries.
6 MS. ELLER: Mr. Chairman, I'm sorry.
7 THE CHAIRMAN: Ms. Eller.
8 MS. ELLER: If the committee would be
9 willing to just provide a little bit of an
10 explanation in granting the waiver in rebuttal
11 to the Planning Department report because the
12 only substantial competent evidence you have so
13 far is the testimony from the Planning
14 Department and some information provided by the
15 applicant, so that would be helpful to the
17 MR. WEBB: Thank you, Ms. Eller.
18 Number one, the road is unimproved. It
19 seems to me it's a rural residential area. The
20 reliance upon City services is a minimum, is at
21 the minimum at least.
22 I think, despite the recommendation of the
23 Planning Department -- I grant them great
24 deference. I think the equities, however, in
25 this particular matter outweigh the legal
2 Again, in great deference to the Planning
3 Department, I think the explanation she provided
4 for the need for the waiver, the equities
5 outweigh the Planning Department recommendation
6 of this matter.
7 MR. CLARK: Second.
8 THE CHAIRMAN: We may have already
9 indicated, but let's --
10 All in favor of the amendment to grant the
11 waiver signal by saying aye.
12 MR. CLARK: Aye.
13 MR. CORRIGAN: Aye.
14 MS. LEE: Aye.
15 MR. WEBB: Aye.
16 MR. YARBOROUGH: Aye.
17 THE CHAIRMAN: All opposed.
18 MR. SHAD: Aye.
19 THE CHAIRMAN: The amendment carries.
20 MR. WEBB: Move the bill as amended.
21 MR. CLARK: Second.
22 THE CHAIRMAN: A motion and second on
23 2008-45 as amended.
24 Seeing no discussion, open the ballot and
25 record the vote.
1 MR. SHAD: Question.
2 THE CHAIRMAN: I'm sorry. Councilmember
4 MR. SHAD: Thank you.
5 Through the Chairman to our staff, what was
6 the part about the lots not being subdivided?
7 It's going to be three units on one undivided
8 lot? How do you know where they're placed on
9 that? How does that -- driveways? What -- it's
10 just -- throwing a trailer on a piece of
11 property that already has two other homes on
12 it --
13 I know it feels good to help out a
14 constituent that has, you know, a family need,
15 but at the end of the day, we're allowing
16 someone to put a trailer on a piece of property
17 that's already got two homes on it, dwellings.
18 I just wanted -- you're going pretty quick on
20 I just thought -- I was concerned about,
21 how is it laid out site plan wise as far as
22 driveways and where the properties are? Are
23 they on septic tanks? Where are the -- is it on
24 City sewer? Where is the septic going to be?
25 How does all that get approved?
1 MR. KELLY: In our evaluation -- again,
2 this is -- let me clarify. It's not a
3 subdivision, so I don't believe there's intent
4 to circumvent the subdivision regulations, but
5 putting, you know, each individual dwelling unit
6 on the lot would otherwise have to comply with
7 the required setbacks of the RR zoning district.
8 They are proposing on the site plan that
9 was submitted as part of their application -- it
10 looks like they have about 360-odd feet of
11 frontage on
12 roadway, the dirt road. And so I guess the --
13 you've got kind of a single-family home on the
14 southern portion -- a mobile -- I'm sorry -- a
15 mobile home on the southern portion and a brick
16 house on the northern half of the property.
17 This is going to be at -- located -- the
18 house will be -- the new home will be located at
19 the southeast corner of the property, really
20 kind of not behind the mobile home but further
21 back and further south away from it.
22 I can --
23 MR. SHAD: Is it on a well or septic tank?
24 MR. KELLY: All of this, I believe, is on
25 well and septic out here.
1 MR. SHAD: Okay. And all that would be
2 approved by the State Health Department when
3 they go pull those and make sure they can --
4 MR. KELLY: Correct.
5 They would need to meet all the licensing
6 and permitting requirements of the Health
7 Department in order to meet septic tank
9 MR. SHAD: Well, one like this, it would be
10 nice to have the district councilperson here
11 that probably knows the area better, but I'll
12 probably -- he'll make his comment at the full
13 council, I guess.
14 Okay. That's all I have. Thanks.
15 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. I have a question of
17 Doesn't the applicant -- doesn't -- if
18 they're going to do it for the family members,
19 don't they have the right to do that anyway and
20 don't really need the waiver and potentially
21 address -- I mean, Councilmember Shad has got a
22 good point.
23 MR. KELLY: That requirement -- and that
24 was what we approved -- we haven't initiated
25 that in a land development regulation, per se,
1 to date. However, the comp plan was amended to
2 reflect the state statute change that allows for
3 the family homestead partitions in the
4 agricultural land use category, but this is RR
6 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. Thank you.
7 Okay. I don't see other speakers, so open
8 the ballot and record the vote.
9 (Committee ballot opened.)
10 MR. CLARK: (Votes yea.)
11 MR. CORRIGAN: (Votes yea.)
12 MS. LEE: (Votes yea.)
13 MR. WEBB: (Votes yea.)
14 MR. YARBOROUGH: (Votes yea.)
15 MR. SHAD: (Votes nay.)
16 (Committee ballot closed.)
17 MS. LAHMEUR: Five yeas, one nay.
18 THE CHAIRMAN: By your action, you've
19 approved 2008-45.
20 Thank you.
21 MR. GRIFFIN: Thank you.
22 THE CHAIRMAN: The following items will be
23 deferred: 2008-106, -107, and -108. -109 and
24 -110 are also deferred.
25 We are on item number 46 on page 13,
Diane M. Tropia,
1 2008- -- Councilmember Lee.
2 MS. LEE: Mr. Chairman, I apologize. I was
3 actually in my office and got caught up, so I
4 was late.
5 I had a bill. I just wanted to know, did
6 you defer it -- that I wanted to take up?
7 THE CHAIRMAN: We waited for you to arrive.
8 MS. LEE: Oh, okay. I just wanted to ask
9 if you would please take it up. I promised the
10 people that I would take it up today.
11 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. We'll get to you in
12 just one minute.
13 We're on item 46, 2008-128. We will open
14 that public hearing.
15 Seeing no speakers, we'll close that public
17 MR. SHAD: Move the bill.
18 THE CHAIRMAN: I have a motion. Do I have
19 a second?
20 MR. CLARK: Second.
21 THE CHAIRMAN: A motion and second on
23 MR. YARBOROUGH: (Inaudible.)
24 THE CHAIRMAN: Do we need an explanation?
25 Any questions?
1 Councilman Yarborough.
2 MR. YARBOROUGH: Thank you.
3 Just to clarify, Ms. Eller. Is this what
4 we discussed in the Shade meeting that we had a
5 few weeks ago?
6 MS. ELLER: I believe that's what Cindy
7 Laquidara discussed. I was not at the Shade
8 meeting. I apologize. This bill is an
9 amendment to chapter 656.
10 Currently, in our ordinance code, we have a
11 requirement that these adult entertainment
12 facilities move by 2010, and we're currently
13 involved in litigation.
14 And as a settlement of that litigation, if
15 the City Council approves extending that
16 amortization, meaning that they have to move to
17 2012, giving them two more years, it will
18 negate -- we won't have to go forward with the
19 trial and hire experts, and the predicted cost
20 for that would be about $200,000.
21 So that was the reason why OGC requested
22 this change as part of -- to settle that
24 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. Thank you.
25 Seeing no other speakers -- or no other
1 questions, open the ballot and record the vote.
2 (Committee ballot opened.)
3 MR. CLARK: (Votes yea.)
4 MR. CORRIGAN: (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: Six yeas, zero nays.
11 THE CHAIRMAN: By your action, you've
12 approved 2008-128.
13 The following items will be second and
14 rereferred, beginning with item 47, 2008-135,
15 -136, -137, -138, -139, -140, -141, -142, -143,
16 -144, -145, -146, -147, -149, -170, and -171.
17 Committee members, if you'll now go to
18 page 8 with me, top of the page, two bills that
19 we earlier delayed taking action on.
20 We'll begin with 2007-1194. We'll -- that
21 public hearing is open.
22 Seeing no speakers on that one, we'll close
23 that public hearing. Go to the Planning
25 MR. KELLY: Thank you.
1 Through the Chair to the committee,
2 ordinance 2007-1194 seeks a waiver of road
3 frontage from the required eighty feet to
4 zero feet.
5 The subject property is located at the --
6 essentially the terminus of the approved portion
8 Jacksonville/Baldwin Rails to Trails.
9 The subject property was originally
10 recorded back in May of '97, and then it was
11 subdivided and split back in 2001. The access
12 to the subject property is via, again, from the
13 north terminus of
14 approximately 2,100 feet further north.
15 And while part of this is paved, the
16 northern part that leads up to the subject
17 property is unimproved and is a grass accessway
18 or easement.
19 Staff reviewed this essentially on the
20 criteria. We found that this was circumventing
21 the requirements of the subdivision regulations
22 with the further subdivision of the property
23 over time.
24 Again, we felt that this would have a
25 detrimental effect on the public, health, safety
1 and welfare with regards to emergency vehicle
2 access and having no improved, paved surface in
3 order to access the property.
4 We recommended denial of the subject
6 Thank you.
7 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you.
8 Councilwoman Lee.
9 MS. LEE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Through
10 the Chair, if I might, to Mr. Kelly.
11 Mr. Kelly, I visited the area and there was
12 no opposition. And the person that's actually
13 building a home is a fireman. They intend to
14 make improvements to the -- exactly what you're
15 talking about. And I'm wondering if it would
16 be -- before Tuesday night, if you could contact
17 them and see what improvements they're going to
18 make to that road and to see if that would
20 But I went out there and, folks, it's --
21 it's a street with a lot of homes, and it's like
22 all family. A lot of the people grew up in the
23 area. And it's a young man who's actually a
24 developer. You know, that grew -- you know, his
25 parents. I mean, it's like a big -- and
1 everybody knows everybody. It's a nice area.
2 You know, they have nice property, and the
3 fireman who wants to build on the property, you
4 know, they're willing to do whatever needs to be
5 done to grant it.
6 But I felt -- after I went out there, you
7 know, and I looked, I felt pretty secure that
8 emergency vehicles could get through. And the
9 mere fact that the gentleman works with the fire
10 and rescue, certainly he knew the importance of
11 safety, you know, and being able to make sure
12 that vehicular traffic, you know, could move
13 where it would be safe.
14 And I just really felt pretty good about
15 it. You know, I looked and nobody is opposed to
16 it. They are all for it.
17 But I was wondering if Mr. Kelly could
18 contact -- Mr. Silcox would be the person. And
19 I think he told me they were going to make some
20 improvements, and I'm not sure what they were
21 doing as it related to the road. So maybe we
22 could come up with some language to put in there
23 to satisfy the Planning Department, but I would
24 ask that the committee consider --
25 Thank you, Mr. Kelly. Those are just some
1 comments I wanted to make to you, sir.
2 Mr. Chairman, if the committee would
3 consider granting this, allowing the people in
4 that area to --
5 MR. CLARK: Second.
6 MS. LEE: Thank you.
7 THE CHAIRMAN: I have a motion and second
8 to grant the waiver.
9 Did you need input from Mr. Kelly?
10 MR. KELLY: Yes. To the Chair, point well
11 taken. I appreciate the comments, Councilmember
13 We do have some suggested conditions which
14 I know the applicant is not here to respond to,
15 but we can contact him. And if we can
16 incorporate these conditions into the amendment
17 for the bill, then -- and we will contact him
18 and make sure that he is okay with it prior to
19 next Tuesday, then I think we could move forward
20 in a favorable fashion. So --
21 THE CHAIRMAN: You want to read the
22 conditions that you're interested in including?
23 MR. KELLY: Certainly.
24 Condition 1 would state, "The address shall
25 be clearly marked at the existing terminus of
1 the approved portion of the Cathy Tripp
3 Condition 2, "The applicant shall install a
4 20-foot-wide stabilized travel surface
5 consisting of either coquina or gravel material
6 at the terminus of the improved portion of the
7 Cathy Tripp right-of-way up to the new dwelling
8 with roadside swales that provide for positive
10 Condition 3, "The subject property shall
11 not be further subdivided unless the extension
13 with City standards."
14 Condition 4 is more or less not a condition
15 related to the road frontage but with the
16 building construction requirements. This is in
17 a noise zone, and so -- the subject property is
18 located in noise zone B, a 65 decibel
19 requirement, and the proposed residential
20 development must be designed and constructed
21 for an average noise level reduction of
22 30 decibels.
23 Based on those four conditions, the
24 department is in a posture to support it.
25 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. Councilmember Lee,
Diane M. Tropia,
1 did your move of approval include those four
3 MS. LEE: I would suggest that if we could
4 get in touch with him to make sure that's all
5 right and then have that prepared for Tuesday
7 I think they're reasonable, and it
8 certainly doesn't appear to be much of an
9 economic hardship, I don't think.
10 The last one, though, when he talks about
11 the decibels and the noise, you know, it's
12 almost a rural area, you know, and the only
13 thing behind it is -- you know, obviously it
14 used to be a lot of animals kind of, but you
15 have the -- what's that trail that
16 built when I was here?
17 THE CHAIRMAN: Rails to Trails?
18 MS. LEE: Yeah, where people -- it's right
19 behind there. And then you have, like, a farm
20 across the street and -- and you've got
21 Commonwealth. I mean, it's -- all of the
22 properties are large.
23 MR. KELLY: I mean, we would be willing to
24 delete that condition. It's really not relevant
25 to the request in the application. It's a
1 requirement under part 10 of the zoning code.
2 MS. LEE: What does it mean, though, when
3 you -- does it mean -- I mean, why did that area
4 become that? Because of a lot of noise? Was it
5 the train tracks?
6 MR. KELLY: It's related to the airports
7 and the military utilizing -- the Outlying Field
8 over at --
9 MS. LEE: Oh. Well, I certainly wouldn't
10 want to deter anything from that. I think you
11 should get with them. I wouldn't delete
12 anything right now. You know, I don't think
13 that's going to cause a problem.
14 (Cell phone interruption.)
15 MS. LEE: I don't know whose purse that is
16 right there.
17 MR. SHAD: It's not mine.
18 MS. LEE: It certainly isn't mine.
19 MR. SHAD: It's not mine.
20 THE CHAIRMAN: Well --
21 MS. LEE: Thank you.
22 THE CHAIRMAN: To Councilwoman Lee, you're
23 willing to include those conditions in your
25 And I will tell you and get Ms. Eller to
1 confirm, I think it's critical that we include
2 them at this level, and if we need to, pull it
4 MS. LEE: Go ahead.
5 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you.
6 MS. LEE: Okay.
7 THE CHAIRMAN: So her motion included the
8 four conditions as recited by the Planning
10 MS. LEE: I would say three for sure. He
11 was willing to delete it. And after he talks to
12 them and explain it to them, I could add it back
13 Tuesday night if that's okay.
14 THE CHAIRMAN: Ms. Eller, I think
15 procedurally, it's more difficult to add it than
16 it is to take it out Tuesday night, isn't it?
17 MS. ELLER: Actually, I believe it's a
18 requirement of the zoning code already.
19 MS. LEE: Go ahead.
20 MS. ELLER: So it's not necessary to keep
21 it in at all.
22 MS. LEE: Okay.
23 MS. ELLER: I mean, it's already in another
24 part of the zoning code, so I wouldn't worry
25 about it.
1 MS. LEE: Okay.
2 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay.
3 MS. ELLER: We probably just want to let
4 him know just so he's aware, so he doesn't start
5 building something and then come to find out
6 when he goes to get a permit that there's a
7 noise requirement.
8 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. Thank you.
9 We have a motion and a second.
10 All in favor of the amendment signal by
11 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. YARBOROUGH: Second.
18 THE CHAIRMAN: A motion and second on
19 2007-1194 as amended.
20 Seeing no discussion, open the ballot and
21 record the vote.
22 (Committee ballot opened.)
23 MR. CLARK: (Votes yea.)
24 MR. CORRIGAN: (Votes yea.)
25 MS. LEE: (Votes yea.)
1 MR. SHAD: (Votes yea.)
2 MR. WEBB: (Votes yea.)
3 MR. YARBOROUGH: (Votes yea.)
4 (Committee ballot closed.)
5 MS. LAHMEUR: Six yeas, zero nays.
6 THE CHAIRMAN: By your action, you've
7 approved 2007-1194.
8 2007-1215, that public hearing is open.
9 Mr. Hainline, I have a card from you.
11 (Mr. Hainline approaches the podium.)
12 MR. HAINLINE:
14 There's a resolution of this matter which
15 Mr. Harden and I have worked on, and -- but we
16 would like an opportunity to explain it to
17 Ms. Lee and make sure she's comfortable with it,
18 so we'll go ahead and ask for a deferral at this
20 THE CHAIRMAN: All right. I will grant
21 that. We'll continue that public hearing with
22 no further action.
23 Thank you, Mr. Hainline.
24 We are now going --
25 Mr. Harden has asked us on page 11, bottom
1 of the page -- in reference to Councilwoman
2 Jones not being here, I am happy to defer this a
4 Mr. Harden, if you --
5 MR. HARDEN: I don't want it deferred.
6 She's upstairs working. If, when she gets back,
7 she would like to rehear it, I'll be happy to do
9 THE CHAIRMAN: She has apparently submitted
10 an excusal.
11 MR. HARDEN: In the last 20 minutes?
12 MS. LAHMEUR: Yes.
13 MR. HARDEN: Huh. Never mind.
14 THE CHAIRMAN: Would you like --
15 MR. HARDEN: I saw her up there. Okay.
16 THE CHAIRMAN: Would you like to continue?
17 MR. HARDEN: No. I'm ready to go.
18 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. You have three
19 minutes. Actually, we're talking about two
20 different bills. You can take three minutes on
21 each, or are you going --
22 MR. HARDEN: Okay. I'll go quicker than
23 that, I think.
24 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay.
25 MR. HARDEN: These are parcels of land that
1 are located in Ms. Jones' district. My client
2 came to own them by happenstance. He loaned a
3 developer or builder $250,000 to renovate two
4 quadriplexes. The --
5 (Ms. Jones enters the proceedings.)
6 MR. HARDEN: Well, here's Ms. Jones now.
7 See, I told you she didn't submit an excusal.
8 THE CHAIRMAN: Go ahead. She's here.
9 MR. HARDEN: Me, I wanted to wait, but the
10 chairman wouldn't.
11 THE CHAIRMAN: Tempting, but I won't.
12 MR. HARDEN: That was just too easy, wasn't
14 THE CHAIRMAN: Yeah.
15 MR. HARDEN: I'll wait a second until she
17 MS. JONES: Go ahead.
18 MR. HARDEN: Okay. Thank you.
19 As I indicated, these are two parcels of
20 land located in Ms. Jones' district that are
21 currently built in quadriplexes. My client came
22 to own them by happenstance. He loaned a
23 builder $250,000 to renovate these two pieces of
24 property, took a mortgage on the property. The
25 money was not, in fact, put into the property.
1 Unfortunately, the builder died. And when they
2 started to settle his estate, the $250,000 was
3 gone. So he took a deed in lieu of
4 foreclosure -- that's funny. Not funny.
5 But he took a deed in lieu of foreclosure,
6 so he got them not wanting to be in the
7 development business.
8 He then said, "Look, well, I'm going to go
9 ahead and renovate the sites and bring them up
10 to code."
11 When he went in to pull the permits, he
12 found out that, although they are designed
13 medium density residential on the comp plan and,
14 indeed, surrounded by RMD-E zoned property, it
15 was zoned RLD-G. And so we had to file these
16 applications to change the zoning to RMD-B to
17 allow him to renovate the sites.
18 Lo and behold, the Planning Department
19 looked at it and said, "We have a neighborhood
20 plan that we did five years ago, and we want
21 this to be a 180-unit complex. We want all
22 40 of the owners in this area to get together
23 and hold hands and find one builder and one
25 Unfortunately, all 40 of the people don't
1 want to do that and, of course, my client
2 doesn't want -- he wants to go ahead and
3 renovate his.
4 The proposal of the Planning Department is
5 to change the property to a density twice what
6 we are proposing. And, in fact, the density
7 surrounding it is almost three times the RMD-E
8 to the RMD-B.
9 What we would like to do is renovate these
10 two quadriplexes, put them back on the rental
11 market. I had discussions with Ms. Jones and
12 she understands where we're headed with the
14 There are a number of units out there in
15 poor repair. There are a number of units that
16 have been repaired that are back in shape. We
17 would like to move forward and renovate them to
18 put them back on the market.
19 I understand the concept of the Planning
20 Department. Actually, the only way that could
21 be done would be the City to condemn the whole
22 piece, sell it to a developer, which is now
23 illegal according to state law, to buy blighted
24 land and put it in some other development
1 So I believe Ms. Jones will indicate that
2 she's in favor of letting us move forward. We
3 would request to allow us to develop it exactly
4 the way it is now but upgrade it so that it can
5 be rented.
6 And I'll be happy to answer any questions.
7 (Mr. Yarborough assumes the Chair.)
8 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Harden.
9 And seeing no other speakers, we will close
10 the public hearing.
12 Or we'll get the report from staff first,
14 MR. KELLY: Thank you.
15 Through the Chair to committee members,
16 application for rezoning R-2008-43 seeks a
17 rezoning from the RLD-G, residential low density
18 zoning district, to the RMD-B, residential
19 medium density zoning district.
20 The basis, fundamentally, for the denial of
21 this application is the result of the
22 neighborhood action plan which was -- is not
23 quite four years old. It was adopted --
24 ordinance 2004-707, in September of --
25 originally September of 2004.
1 So we're essentially looking at this in
2 terms of the criteria. We felt that the subject
3 property, again, led to the conditions of the
4 neighborhood and that it contributed to the
5 blight in the area. And the neighborhood action
6 plan, in essence, recommended removal of these
7 older quadriplexes.
8 This was, I guess, ongoing building code
9 violations that have continued to occur within
10 the neighborhood, and there's multiple similar
11 buildings that are currently vacant within the
13 So, in essence, the nonconforming uses are
14 going away within this development. And clearly
15 the intent of the zoning code is to have those
16 nonconforming uses go away over time and clearly
17 not to reestablish something that's
18 contributed -- a contributing blighting factor
19 on the neighborhood.
20 And so -- I mean, the redevelopment in some
21 sense is good, but it is the result of code
22 enforcement. The current quadriplexes in the
23 area are currently unoccupied. We found that,
24 based on the comments from the Community
25 Planning Division and the neighborhood action
1 plan, that the renovation of these multifamily
2 units is not consistent with the neighborhood
3 action plan and would further continue the
4 conditions in the area.
5 Staff has recommended approval based on
6 those criteria.
7 MR. HARDEN: Actually, you recommended
9 MR. KELLY: I'm sorry. Denial. Thank you.
10 THE CHAIRMAN: Yeah.
11 MR. HARDEN: And it's also 2004 on the
12 plan -- -03, not 2004. Sorry.
13 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Crofts.
14 MR. CROFTS: Just to add, I do have the
15 neighborhood action plan if anybody is
16 interested here with me.
17 The plan, obviously, took a very bold and
18 aggressive approach to try to improve this
19 particular area, and it has not quite -- the
20 recommendation has not been realized at this
21 particular point.
22 I went out there today just to visit the
23 site, and the property is irregularly zoned.
24 There are some of these fourplexes that are
25 properly zoned in the RMD-E, and then there are
1 some that are not in the RLD-G, so the property
2 is split zoned right now.
3 The one -- some of these that have been
4 actually in the correct zoning have been
5 renovated, so there is some action taking place
6 to improve the area.
7 If you look at the plan -- going back to
8 the plan, and you look at the statistics and you
9 look at the evaluation of the area, you will
10 find that it's been a harbored area -- an area
11 of harboring crime and other issues that have
12 been detrimental to the community.
13 And there was a strategic way to move
14 forward with first improving the
15 area and then making that as a replacement
16 housing for the
17 that's next door to it, and that that would be
18 an appropriate transition.
19 But we have not been able to get there
20 yet. The City has not been able to get there at
21 this particular point.
22 And I guess what is happening now, we've
23 got a problem. We're really in a dilemma, and
24 particularly with these particular properties,
25 and there's no other way to continue to improve,
1 at least through an interim process, without
2 this particular rezoning.
3 And I just thought I'd share that with
5 (Mr. Corrigan resumes the Chair.)
6 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much.
7 Councilwoman -- I'm sorry.
8 Ms. Eller.
9 MS. ELLER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
10 I believe on your agenda, at least on my
11 agenda on this bill, 2008-43, it says Planning
12 Commission and Planning Department denied, but I
13 believe the Planning Commission approved both
14 2008-43 and 2008-44 at the meeting last
15 Thursday. I just wanted to put that in the
17 MR. HARDEN: Eight to nothing they
18 recommended approval.
19 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. Thank you very much.
20 I appreciate it.
21 Councilwoman Jones, it's in your district.
22 Do you want to speak on it?
23 MS. JONES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
24 This is one area that I have been trying to
25 work in over my tenure on the council, and that
1 neighborhood action plan was actually one of
2 first pieces of legislation that came through
3 after I was elected. And the community has
4 expressed a dire -- they're in dire straits over
5 there where the crime is something that's
7 We have had a number of owners of those
8 properties over the years to come in and say
9 they're going to do something with it. They'll
10 do -- throw some paint on it and then turn
11 around and flip it and we end up in a -- the
12 same predicament that we were in before.
13 I have sat down with Mr. Harden -- and I do
14 recognize that the market has changed, and the
15 biggest drawback that we have is that the State
16 did change our ability to condemn properties and
17 for the City to step in and be able to work to
18 positively improve blighted areas in the manner
19 that the neighborhood action plan really saw us
20 being able to move forward in.
21 And so it is with a bit of frustration that
22 I will support this because I know that we have
23 been waiting a long time. We do have a number
24 of those properties over there that are in the
25 same situation, irregularly zoned, and they're
1 just sitting there.
2 But I did want to ask staff or to legal, is
3 there anything that we can do to ensure that --
4 I know they -- once they cut the lights off,
5 then it goes back to the previous -- it went
6 back to the previous zoning.
7 Would that be the same case here?
8 MR. KELLY: No. Again, if this zoning is
9 approved and the buildings are then left vacant
10 for a period of longer than a year or more, they
11 could be reoccupied at any time back at their
12 original density, the RMD-B zoning.
13 MS. JONES: Okay. Thank you.
14 THE CHAIRMAN: Councilwoman Lee.
15 MS. LEE: Thank you. Where is Lorenzo
17 MS. JONES: Moncrief.
18 This used -- this is the portion -- it was
19 originally in 8 before you left, I think.
20 MS. LEE: That's what I thought.
22 MS. JONES: Right at Moncrief and Cleveland
You have the quads next to
24 Heights, next to
25 the overpass going
1 MS. LEE: Wait a minute.
2 MS. JONES: Come down -- if you come from
3 Soutel, make a right turn on Moncrief --
4 MS. LEE: Yeah, but I'm going there. I'm
6 MS. JONES: Okay.
7 MS. LEE: Then I'm going towards Soutel.
8 MS. JONES: No, you want to go --
9 MS. LEE: Is it across the Rutledge Pearson
11 MS. JONES: No. You want to go the other
12 way. If you're at
13 MS. LEE: Yeah.
14 MS. JONES: -- it's right next to the
15 apartment complex.
16 MS. LEE: Is it before
17 MS. JONES: Before Winton.
18 MS. LEE: Those little things -- what you
19 call them used to own Mr. Alexander?
20 MS. JONES: Yes.
21 MS. LEE: So what is being proposed here,
23 MS. JONES: That the zoning be changed to
24 RMD-B and down from --
25 MS. LEE: Gee. Why?
1 MR. HARDEN: Because the way they're
2 built -- it's built into a quadriplex. We want
3 to renovate them, but the way they were built
4 those many years ago, it's inconsistent with the
5 RLD-G zoning. So we're trying to fix them to
6 leave them the way they are, quadriplexes. But
7 the RLD-G zoning doesn't allow that, and they
8 won't allow us to pull permits to renovate them.
9 MS. LEE: Okay. I'm hearing you, but I'm
10 trying to understand.
11 They face -- they're built -- Mr. Alexander
12 used to own those. So why can't a person go in
13 and renovate them like they are unless they're
14 trying to do something else.
15 MS. JONES: That's what he's asking to do.
16 They can't do it because there is an
17 irregularity -- there are irregularities in the
18 zoning and the land use.
19 MR. HARDEN: When they zoned it, they
20 didn't put it in the zoning category for what
21 was built there.
22 In other words, when it --
23 MS. LEE: That's because it wasn't there
24 initially, right?
25 MR. HARDEN: No, it was there. It was
1 built there as a quadriplex.
2 MS. LEE: Uh-huh.
3 MR. HARDEN: They did a comp plan
4 designation of medium density residential. The
5 comp plan designation is accurate, but the
6 zoning category -- in fact, the zoning category
7 is inconsistent with the use. The RLD-G is
8 inconsistent with the use. The RMD-B is what
9 they're built right now, and they were built
10 before they put that zoning on there.
11 MS. LEE: Okay. Through the Chair, tell me
12 again what is RMD-B. I forgot.
13 MR. HARDEN: Residential medium density B,
14 which is the lowest multifamily residential
16 MS. LEE: And what is G, RLD-G?
17 MR. HARDEN: RLD-G is residential low
18 density G, which is the highest single-family
19 designated category.
20 MS. LEE: Okay. Yeah, I know where -- I
21 thought that's where
22 And all you-all are going to do is renovate
24 MR. HARDEN: Leave them just -- leave them
25 quadriplexes and renovate.
1 MS. LEE: Let me ask you this --
2 MR. HARDEN: We tried to renovate them, and
3 we can't get permits because of the zoning
5 MS. LEE: Okay. The client that you're
6 representing, once they're renovated, do they
7 have a plan on tearing them down, trying to put
8 something else up? Does this open up for
9 something else to be built?
10 MR. HARDEN: If you look around them, they
11 are surrounded by RMD-E, which is three times
12 more density.
13 MS. LEE: Mr. Harden, I understand that,
14 but that's -- and it's no reflection on you
15 because I know you're representing a client.
16 MR. HARDEN: Right.
17 MS. LEE: But there is an amazing amount of
18 crime in that area.
19 MR. HARDEN: Well, we're trying to --
20 MS. LEE: I mean, out of control. And if
21 it were up to a lot of people, they would really
22 level what's already there.
23 My concern is -- because my district is
24 right next door -- is that, if these people --
25 your client is going to -- which I have no
1 problem with the renovation. My concern is does
2 your client plan on doing anything else with
3 this property?
4 MR. HARDEN: Ms. Lee, if you -- they're
5 both a third acre in size. We're going to ten
6 units per acre. So they can't -- they can't
7 zone it to more than four units per acre.
8 MS. LEE: That's not my question.
9 MR. HARDEN: Well, that's what's there
10 now. And so rather than rebuild it with the
11 four units, we're going to renovate the four
12 units and leave them the way they are.
13 MS. LEE: That's all I -- again -- and I
14 guess through the Chair to -- no reflection on
15 you, Mr. Harden, because I know you're doing
16 your job and you're recommending your client.
17 MR. HARDEN: I don't take it as a
18 reflection on me.
19 MS. LEE: And you have another client after
20 this one is gone because you're good at what you
21 do. So this is not in any way to deter what
22 you're trying to do. I'm just trying to make
23 sure that -- if this goes to this, does this
24 mean that -- you could drop dead, you know, and
25 your intentions could be well.
Diane M. Tropia,
1 MR. HARDEN: I understand.
2 MS. LEE: But if it opens up, can somebody
3 else come in and build another
4 Heights is what I'm trying to say.
5 MR. HARDEN: No.
6 MS. LEE: Does it open up -- through the
7 Chair to Planning, what does this -- what could
8 possibly happen?
9 MR. KELLY: Through the Chair to
10 Councilmember Lee, the RMD-B zoning does allow
11 for single-family zoning as well as
12 quadriplexes, up to four units, on a
13 7,000-square-foot lot.
14 The way the subject property, I guess, is
15 divided with the amount of frontage that it has
17 companion application next door, the -44 zoning,
18 they could be -- again, given the amount of lot
19 area, there could probably be eight units on
20 each lot of probably a maximum of 16.
21 If they ultimately decide to do something
22 more than renovate, then they could potentially
23 put two quadriplexes on each of these individual
25 MS. LEE: And under the current zoning,
1 they can't do that?
2 MR. KELLY: That's correct.
3 The current zoning only allows
4 single-family, which is a secondary zoning
5 district in the MDR land use category.
6 MS. LEE: Okay.
7 Mr. Harden, let me ask you a question,
8 please. A Mr. James Alexander used to own
9 these. Is this the same group? Did he sell
10 them? Do you know what I'm talking about?
11 MR. HARDEN: Ms. Lee, I remember
12 Mr. Alexander. I don't know if he owned this or
13 not. My client got it as -- you were on the
14 telephone when I was telling this.
15 My client loaned some money to a guy who
16 owned them, who was going to renovate them. The
17 guy died. He had a mortgage and he took it back
18 as a deed in lieu of foreclosure, and it was not
19 Mr. Alexander.
20 There are 30 people who own those units.
21 Mr. Alexander, at one time, owned all of them.
22 And they've been sold off to different people,
23 and these two are owned by Mr. Shuman now.
24 MS. LEE: Okay. Mr. Shuman does not intend
25 to put a -- as they describe, that much of
1 housing on that property, right?
2 MR. HARDEN: No.
3 The Planning Department recommends, though,
4 that they put 180 units here. That's what our
5 disagreement is. They want it more dense. We
6 want to leave it less dense.
7 MS. LEE: That's not my question. And
8 again --
9 MR. HARDEN: That was your question. You
10 asked did my client intend to build anything
11 else there, and I said no. He wants to leave it
12 at four units. We're trying to renovate it at
13 four units. But because of the RLD-G, we can't
14 pull permits. So that's why we filed the
16 MS. LEE: So when Mr. Alexander renovated
17 them before, how did he do it without having to
18 change the zoning? Because they have been
19 renovated numerous times.
20 MR. HARDEN: Well, Denise, if you'll look
21 at the map --
22 MS. LEE: Yeah.
23 MR. HARDEN: Ms. Lee. Sorry.
24 MS. LEE: That's okay. I've been called
1 MR. HARDEN: If you look around, most of
2 them are zoned RMD-E --
3 MS. LEE: Okay.
4 MR. HARDEN: -- all the way around. So
5 those were -- those can be legally renovated.
6 The few that are fronting on Moncrief are
7 RLD-G, probably haven't been renovated since the
8 comp plan went into effect in 1989.
9 MS. LEE: Okay.
10 MR. HARDEN: So some of them can be legal.
11 Some of them are already R- -- are RMD-E. And
12 those can be legally renovated; the other ones
14 MS. LEE: Okay. So your client has no
15 other motives than to just renovate them as they
17 MR. HARDEN: That's correct.
18 MS. LEE: Okay. And if your client decided
19 to do anything else other than what's there,
20 would you still represent them?
21 MR. HARDEN: Well, there's nothing else he
22 can do. That's why I was trying to do the
23 math. I don't agree with Sean's math.
24 I won't probably know him at that point,
25 but he's been very clear on explaining to me
1 what he wants to do. We spent a year going
2 through this process to pull these permits and
3 he's spent a lot of time, so I know that's his
5 But if you divide three into the RMD-E, we
6 can't physically get more than four on there,
7 and that's his intention.
8 MS. LEE: Okay. Well -- and, again,
9 Mr. Harden, this is certainly no reflection on
10 you, and I really should have -- and I did not
11 ask a lot of questions about this particular
12 zoning is because it wasn't in my district, you
13 know. And that doesn't mean you can't, but it
14 is -- when I saw
15 because I knew that I used to have a lot of
16 problems out there.
17 I guess my concern is that -- I just want
18 to say to Mr. Shuman that I hope that he will
19 keep his word and he won't, you know, do
20 anything, you know, because there are some --
21 there are some serious problems.
22 I wish they could level what's out there.
23 That used to be a very nice community at one
24 time, but they've had some major problems.
25 And believe it or not, the people that have
1 owned it back and forth, they don't care who
2 moves in. You know, they don't -- you know,
3 they don't even try to get people who
4 potentially work. Are you understanding what
5 I'm saying? That everybody is subsidized. And
6 don't get me wrong. I'm not -- you know, I'm
7 not against people who use subsidy. You know, I
8 mean, I qualify for subsidy myself. But I'm
9 just saying, you know, until something can be
10 done about what's really happening out there,
11 they don't need any more apartments, you know,
12 out there at all, and they certainly don't need
13 houses on top of each other.
14 So I would just hope that Mr. Shuman would
15 keep his word and just -- you know, and that's
16 the only way I would vote for it, and that's why
17 I asked you those questions, because I wanted to
18 be on record. And if Mr. Shuman --
19 And I hope you won't drop dead, and I
20 didn't say that meaning hopefully you would drop
21 dead. I was just saying that anything could
22 happen, you know. You may not represent him.
23 He might get somebody else. Your intentions are
24 well, but somebody else could -- because the
25 bottom line with development is to make money,
1 you know, get a profit.
2 But there's some serious problems in that
3 area, you know, and there still are. And I
4 mean, lots of them.
5 So, Mr. Harden, I hope that Mr. Shuman will
6 keep his word as you have articulated, that he
7 intends on just renovating, right?
8 MR. HARDEN: That's correct.
9 MS. LEE: Okay. Thank you.
10 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you.
11 Councilwoman Jones.
12 MS. JONES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
13 I just wanted to have everybody understand,
14 when Planning says that they were recommending
15 the 180 or 190 units, that was in conjunction
16 with a full plan that would have leveled not
20 multiunit development that would allow for -- I
21 think it was a senior citizen complex, it would
22 have allowed for diversification of some of
23 those subsidized housing units that are over
24 there, and would have allowed us to make sure
25 that we created a sustainable community versus
1 what's there now.
2 So it's not that the Planning Department
3 made a recommendation that didn't make any
4 sense. They made a recommendation that made a
5 lot of sense at the time, but with the
6 legislature changing the rule and not allowing
7 us to be able to condemn areas of blight, it
8 creates a situation that we're now in that the
9 properties are there.
10 We do have an owner that is ready to make
11 some rehabilitations to the property, and I've
12 shared with Mr. Harden -- and I do need to
13 declare ex-parte communication for today at
14 10:30 in my office. We did meet to discuss
16 But I think it's important that the
17 community understand that, you know, for right
18 now, this is the best thing that we can do until
19 we can find a way to get around not being able
20 to take control of the property and the City
21 maintain that ownership in order for us to be
22 able to move forward.
23 Thank you.
24 MS. LEE: Mr. Corrigan, May I just -- and I
25 know you're ready. I'm ready to go too, but I
Diane M. Tropia,
1 have one last question.
2 You said that we're not allowed to condemn
3 properties that are blighted? The City of
5 MS. JONES: And turn them over to a
6 developer for a profit. We can condemn
7 property, but it --
9 MS. ELLER: We still have the right to
10 condemn properties, but they've limited the
11 ability for us to condemn -- use our power to
12 condemn and then turn it over to someone to
13 develop that property for profit.
14 So the only way we could do it is if we
15 gave it to somebody, you know, a nonprofit
16 group. And developers that are going to do
17 housing, they're for profit companies.
18 MS. LEE: Okay.
19 Thank you, Mr. Corrigan.
20 THE CHAIRMAN: No problem.
21 I see no other speakers on this bill, so
22 we'll open the ballot and record the vote.
23 (Committee ballot opened.)
24 MR. CLARK: (Votes yea.)
25 MR. CORRIGAN: (Votes yea.)
1 MS. LEE: (Votes yea.)
2 MS. JONES: (Votes yea.)
3 MR. SHAD: (Votes yea.)
4 MR. WEBB: (Votes yea.)
5 MR. YARBOROUGH: (Votes yea.)
6 (Committee ballot closed.)
7 MS. LAHMEUR: Seven yeas, zero nays.
8 THE CHAIRMAN: By your action, you've
9 approved 2008-43.
10 Mr. Harden, I stepped out when you were
11 talking. Did you already speak on 2008-44?
12 MR. HARDEN: It's the exact same
13 situation. This is kind of across the street,
14 and I don't have anything to add as to 2008-44.
15 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. We'll close that
16 public hearing.
17 Have a motion on the bill?
18 MR. CLARK: Move the bill.
19 MS. JONES: Wait a minute. I need to
20 declare ex-parte communication on 2008-44 today,
21 March 4th, at 10:30, with Mr. Harden.
22 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. Thank you.
23 Planning Department, do you want to give
24 your input before we have our motion?
25 MR. CROFTS: No.
1 MS. JONES: They already did.
2 MR. KELLY: Again, this is a very similar
3 application. Again, we recommended denial based
4 on the comments received from the Community
5 Planning Division.
6 With regard to the neighborhood action
7 plan, we felt that the continuance of the
8 nonconforming use of this property is a
9 detriment to the neighborhood and contributed to
10 the blight. We felt that the rezoning would
11 allow that, in essence, to continue. Although
12 it does allow for the renovation and improvement
13 to the property, we felt that the RLD-G district
14 was better suited.
15 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. I have a motion on
16 the bill.
17 MR. YARBOROUGH: Yes.
18 THE CHAIRMAN: Motion to approve.
19 MS. JONES: Second.
20 THE CHAIRMAN: I have a motion and second
21 on 2008-44.
22 Councilmember Lee.
23 MS. LEE: Mia, where -- across the street
24 where? Where the church is?
25 MR. HARDEN: It's still in that Lorenzo
1 Court area. It's one of those other buildings.
2 MS. LEE: But this is facing Moncrief?
3 MR. HARDEN: No. I think the first one
4 faces --
5 MS. LEE: Because this says rezoning,
7 MR. HARDEN: Okay. Then this one fronts
8 Moncrief. The other one is back on Lorenzo.
9 MS. LEE: Oh, on the back.
10 But this isn't across the street where the
11 church is?
12 MR. HARDEN: No. Across
13 MS. LEE: Oh, okay. Just across. Right.
15 THE CHAIRMAN: All right. Seeing no other
16 speakers, we will open the ballot and record the
18 (Committee ballot opened.)
19 MR. CORRIGAN: (Votes yea.)
20 MS. LEE: (Votes yea.)
21 MS. JONES: (Votes yea.)
22 MR. SHAD: (Votes yea.)
23 MR. WEBB: (Votes yea.)
24 MR. YARBOROUGH: (Votes yea.)
25 (Committee ballot closed.)
1 MS. LAHMEUR: Six yeas, zero nays.
2 THE CHAIRMAN: By your action, you have
3 approved 2008-44.
4 Committee members, we now have the two --
5 we've finished everything except the two appeals
6 that are on our agenda. We'll take them in the
7 order in which they appear. And I appreciate
8 the public's patience as we worked through all
10 The first one -- the first appeal is on
11 page 2, item number 2, 2005-1161. We will open
12 that public hearing.
13 Mr. Harden.
14 MR. HARDEN: This is Councilman Clark's.
15 I'm going to wait until he gets here.
16 THE CHAIRMAN: We'll wait on that one,
18 MR. HARDEN: He's coming.
19 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. We're going to allow
20 ten minutes for each side on this, Mr. Harden,
21 on this appeal.
22 MR. HARDEN: Are there any other speakers?
23 THE CHAIRMAN: I just have one speaker
24 card, sir.
25 You're welcome not to use your entire ten
2 MR. HARDEN: I won't use the whole ten
3 minutes if that's okay.
4 AUDIENCE MEMBER: Thank you.
5 MR. HARDEN: I better remind you guys of
6 that when you get up here.
7 THE CHAIRMAN: Grateful members in the
8 audience today.
9 MR. HARDEN: This is an exception of a
10 distance waiver for retail sale of alcohol on
12 The existing facility sells beer and wine
13 and has been at this location for over 20
14 years. The applicant filed an application with
15 the Planning Commission a couple of years ago
16 not to do anything other than allow retail sale
17 of liquor, along with the retail sale of beer
18 and wine.
19 At the Planning Commission, no one spoke in
20 opposition. But apparently the representative,
21 who was not me, didn't do a very good job
22 explaining to the Planning Commission the
23 situation, and so an appeal was taken.
24 Councilman Clark has had this in the
25 committee for a couple of years and during that
1 time requested some substantial renovations to
2 the facilities, which have been -- have
3 occurred, and so we are now requesting that you
4 grant the waiver and the exception.
5 You have before you the record before the
6 Planning Commission, which I'm going to comment
7 on -- first on the waiver. They proposed --
8 excuse me. The liquor survey showed the
9 location of two churches within the 1,500 feet.
10 The fact of the matter is those are not
11 churches. They are church office buildings
12 where the churches don't actually meet. The
13 churches meet at other locations: the Lutheran
14 Church down towards UNF,
15 around on
16 So the distance really isn't from a church
17 by definition. And, in fact, I don't really
18 think a waiver is required, but because it
19 showed up on the liquor survey the waiver was
21 There are multiple reasons to grant a
22 waiver, five of them. We meet two of the five.
23 One of them is the alcoholic beverage site
24 directly visible along the measure of line
25 defined in 656 and physically separated from, in
1 this case, the church.
2 The Planning Department in the report says,
3 "Yes, it is directly on the line." And then
4 they go on to say -- and I'm going to read you
5 the language. "The use at the present time is
6 not" -- "is not directly visible along the
7 measurement lines defined in 656.806 and is
8 visually separated from the churches by
10 The proposed use is separated by
11 undeveloped commercial property. However, in
12 the opinion of the Planning Department,
13 anticipated future development would conceivably
14 open the direct line of sight. So by their
15 answer, they explain why we're entitled to the
16 waiver, that it does not, in fact, is not along
17 the direct line of sight.
18 There has -- there actually is other
19 development past the vegetation physically
20 separating what is the offices, which I, in all
21 due respect, think would not require a waiver.
22 We also comply with other -- the fifth
23 criteria, which is are there other existing
24 liquor locations in the area. I'm aware of
25 those because I've done two of those exceptions
1 in the same vicinity, which are as close or
2 closer to the church. Those are -- one of them
3 is just a package store. It's not a pub as I
4 would call this. And then one is a steakhouse
5 which sells alcohol with their facility.
6 So in all due respect to the Planning
7 Department, their report explains why we're
8 entitled to the waiver.
9 The second thing we're asking you to
10 consider is an exception for retail sale of
11 alcohol. And remember, we're not asking to add
12 a bar at this location. We're asking to add
13 liquor sales to the beer and wine which has been
14 there for over 20 years.
15 The first question is, "Will it be
16 consistent with the comp plan?" And they say,
17 "No. It's located in CGC." The fact of the
18 matter is CGC is the primary category for retail
19 sale of alcohol. It's not a change of the
20 retail sale; it just allows liquor to also be
22 The second criteria is whether or not it's
23 compatible with existing contiguous uses in the
24 area. Again, as I explained to you, there's
25 retail sale of alcohol in other places, but this
1 is an existing facility that's going to add
2 activity to the site.
3 The fourth one. This is -- just so
4 y'all -- I want to make sure you understand.
5 "Will the proposed use have a detrimental
6 effect on vehicular traffic?"
7 "Yes. The proposed 4-COP will
8 accelerate" -- "will generate additional traffic
9 to the site." That's just not true. The
10 facility has been there. It's been operating
11 for 20 years. It's not going to change the
12 customers. It's going to change the
13 opportunities, I guess, if you will, of the
15 The rest of them, they agree that we meet,
16 basically, the criteria.
17 So, again, we -- I think if you read the
18 Planning Department's report and you compare it
19 to the information that was presented to the
20 Planning Commission, there were issues related
21 to the quality of the construction that
22 Councilman Clark has had us address, and I think
23 that was what the issue was with the Planning
24 Commission at the time.
25 We renovated the site. It's continued to
1 operate at the facility. There's been no one
2 speaking at any public hearing in opposition,
3 and we respectfully request that you grant the
4 appeal for the waiver and the exception.
5 Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
6 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Harden.
7 I don't see any speakers from the
8 opposition to the appeal.
9 So seeing no further speakers, we'll close
10 the public hearing and go to the Planning
11 Department for their report first, please.
12 MR. KELLY: Thank you.
13 To the Chair, this application was
14 originally heard in front of the Planning
15 Commission on August 25, 2005. There are both
16 companion applications.
17 The Planning Commission gave deference
18 really to the staff report, specifically with
19 regards to the exception. The issue with the
20 waiver of the distance is debatable. I guess
21 the church property, given that it's not
22 regularly used for worship and is not basically
23 meeting the definition of a church -- it is
24 their offices.
25 The other issue was the proximity of the
1 school on
2 waiver of liquor distance issues, we found fault
3 with the compatibility with the zoning exception
4 for allowing full alcohol on this site.
5 It is a --
6 adjacent residential uses. And just from a
7 compatibility standpoint, we felt that the full
8 alcohol on this site was incompatible with the
9 existing residential uses and other surrounding
10 uses that are really more family oriented in the
12 So we felt that it was inconsistent with
13 the comprehensive plan and the policies that
14 allow for a gradual transition of densities and
15 intensities of uses and, therefore, we
16 recommended denial.
17 The Planning Commission also, at that
18 hearing on the 25th, essentially echoed the
19 concerns of the department with regards to
20 compatibility and proceeded to deny the
22 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Kelly.
23 MR. HARDEN: Mr. Chairman, can I respond to
25 THE CHAIRMAN: Quickly, yes.
1 MR. HARDEN: I will quickly.
2 If you will look at their report, they
3 describe everything that surrounds this. Every
4 single piece is zoned CCG-1. Mr. Kelly is just
5 not accurate in saying there are adjacent
6 residential uses. It's surrounded by strip
7 malls. In every one of the strip malls
8 surrounding it, there is an exception that
9 allows for the retail sale of alcohol.
10 There's a steakhouse. There's a package
11 store with a drive-through in it. So just to
12 say that it has adjacent residential uses, look
13 at their -- don't trust me if you don't want
14 to. Look at their report. They describe in the
15 report everything that surrounds it, and then
16 show on a map everything that surrounds it. So
17 it's all surrounded by CCG-1, residential uses,
18 not in any of those districts. And each of the
19 strip malls on either side of them have had an
20 exception granted at this location.
21 It's on
22 trips a day going in front of this site. And in
23 all due respect, I don't think to say it has
24 adjacent residential uses is accurate.
25 Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
1 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you.
2 MR. KELLY: To the Chair, just to address
3 that comment, last comment. Also, the one
4 alcohol license is a bona fide restaurant. It's
5 a Japanese restaurant/steakhouse, and the
6 alcohol is incidental to the service of food.
7 And the other, I believe as Mr. Harden
8 references, is a package sales. So it's not for
9 on-premise consumption. So they're separate
10 license types. I just wanted to clarify that.
11 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much.
12 We need a motion on the amendment to either
13 grant or deny.
14 Okay. Hang on a minute. Let me go to
15 Mr. Clark for --
16 MR. CLARK: I just need to declare
17 ex-parte. This has been around a while. I've
18 obviously had a lot of conversations with folks
19 through the time. I do not have specific dates
20 and times since it's been around for a while.
21 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you.
22 Do we have a motion to approve or deny
23 the --
24 MR. SHAD: Motion to approve -- grant the
1 MR. WEBB: Second.
2 THE CHAIRMAN: I have a motion and second
3 to approve the -- to grant the appeal. Motion
4 and second.
5 Seeing no discussion on the motion to grant
6 the appeal, all in favor signal by saying aye.
7 COMMITTEE MEMBERS: Aye.
8 THE CHAIRMAN: All opposed.
9 COMMITTEE MEMBERS: (No response.)
10 THE CHAIRMAN: The motion is approved. The
11 amendment is approved, excuse me.
12 MR. SHAD: Move the bill as amended.
13 MR. WEBB: Second.
14 THE CHAIRMAN: A motion and second on
15 2005-1161 as amended.
16 Seeing no discussion, open the ballot and
17 record the vote.
18 (Committee ballot opened.)
19 MR. CORRIGAN: (Votes yea.)
20 MR. CLARK: (Votes yea.)
21 MS. LEE: (Votes yea.)
22 MR. SHAD: (Votes yea.)
23 MR. WEBB: (Votes yea.)
24 MR. YARBOROUGH: (Votes nay.)
25 (Committee ballot closed.)
1 MS. LAHMEUR: Five yeas, one nay.
2 THE CHAIRMAN: By your action, you've
3 approved 2005-1161 as amended.
4 Thank you, Mr. Harden.
5 MR. HARDEN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
6 THE CHAIRMAN: Committee members, we have
7 one final item which is on page 11, top of the
8 page, 2008-11.
9 MR. YARBOROUGH: Page 10.
10 THE CHAIRMAN: I'm sorry. Top of page 10.
11 Excuse me.
12 Thank you, Councilmember Yarborough.
13 2008-11. Let me open that public hearing.
14 Let me declare a couple of conversations
15 I've had. One yesterday in -- actually one was
16 just a phone message today. Yesterday I had a
17 phone conversation with Terry Moore, the agent
18 for this appeal. We discussed the nature of the
19 appeal and whether it would actually be heard
20 tonight or not. And I also had a similar
21 conversation -- actually, a message from Holt
22 Graves today on my phone. It was a similar
23 request. So back to -- both of those
25 Councilmember Shad.
1 MR. SHAD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
2 Since the last time we disclosed
3 communications, I met Mr. Moore yesterday at
4 1:35 in my office to discuss the request in
5 front of us.
6 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Councilman Shad.
7 Councilwoman Lee.
8 MS. LEE: Mr. Moore stopped by my office
9 this evening to discuss this item.
10 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay.
11 MS. LEE: So I'd declare --
12 THE CHAIRMAN: You just did. Thank you.
13 Councilmember Clark.
14 MR. CLARK: I had a separate meeting with
15 Mr. Moore today at 4:30.
16 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Clark.
17 Councilmember Yarborough.
18 MR. YARBOROUGH: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
19 I spoke with Mr. Moore today at 4:45 p.m.
20 today, Tuesday, March 4th, to discuss this
22 Thank you.
23 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you.
24 Councilmember Webb.
25 MR. WEBB: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
1 I had a meeting with Mr. Moore, Terry Moore
2 this morning at 7:30 a.m. to discuss the merits
3 of this matter.
4 In addition, at 2:45 p.m. today, I had a
5 meeting with Erik Olsen and Braxton Gillam, as I
6 said, at 2:45 p.m. this afternoon as well to
7 discuss the merits of this matter.
8 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you all very much. I
9 appreciate that.
10 Before we call the speakers up, this is the
11 second time we've heard this appeal. Last time
12 there were some questions asked of me. I wanted
13 to enter into the record -- and give one to the
14 applicant -- some site plans to help answer the
15 questions that came up last time.
16 So if you'd give them to Mr. Moore and to
17 the committee members as well.
18 We have several speakers today.
19 This appeal was given extra time at the
20 same time last time to present the appeal.
21 Since it is a continuation of the previous
22 appeal of the same committee, we're going to
23 stand by our three-minute time rules for our
25 The applicant will have three minutes. I
1 believe, looking at these cards, there's more an
2 objection than the applicant. So obviously the
3 applicant will have time at the end for rebuttal
4 to any evidence presented by the opposition.
5 If you have new evidence, you need to
6 present it.
8 MR. CLARK: (Inaudible.)
9 THE CHAIRMAN: Right. And I would
10 encourage --
11 Thank you, Councilmember Clark. I forgot
12 about that.
13 I would encourage you tonight that -- we're
14 here to continue to hear evidence on this
15 particular matter, that we're not trying to do a
16 duplication of the evidence that's been
17 presented before. And also we don't want
18 duplicates. The committee does not like
19 duplicate evidence to be presented.
20 If your point that you've come here tonight
21 to make has been made, you may simply stand up
22 and say, "My point has been addressed already."
23 I think we're in proper posture.
24 Ms. Eller, are we in good shape?
25 MS. ELLER: Yes.
1 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. We are in good
3 We have, like I said, several speakers.
4 We'll begin with the agent for the applicant,
5 Terry Moore, who will be followed by Jack
6 Teeters, follow by Charles Trinder.
7 (Mr. Moore approaches the podium.)
8 MR. MOORE: Mr. Chairman, councilpersons,
9 thank you very much.
10 My name is Terry Moore. I'm here on behalf
11 of the applicant. My address is 50 North Laura
13 I have some handouts for those of you who
14 did not attend the first presentation that we
15 made about a month ago, and I'll go ahead and
16 hand those out now.
17 I'll take a minute while these are being
19 This, in essence -- to those who were in
20 attendance before, it's the same material that
21 we presented before. But out of deference to
22 Mr. Clark and Ms. Lee, I wanted to present it
24 What we have here, just in summary, is a
25 situation where there's a PUD. We have an
1 amendment requested to a piece of that PUD,
2 which is the condominium portion, which is the
3 most westerly portion.
4 The PUD -- and I think this -- and I would
5 ask everybody's attention on this. We had and
6 we have -- the PUD permits presently 55 feet of
7 construction, and it's a height measured from
8 the concave surface of the road in front of this
9 project, and it permits 75 units.
10 The developer, because of circumstances --
11 and we all know what the circumstances are in
12 the economy -- has scaled this project back to,
13 presently, 40 units. He negotiated with the
14 neighborhood and we scaled it back even further
15 to 38 units, and we dropped the top floor off of
16 the most easterly units. Even though we're
17 permitted 55 feet, we dropped it to 45 feet with
18 the reservation that we could come back and ask
19 for the additional 10 feet on the most westerly
20 building and go to 65 feet. So we're trying to
21 get back two units, to take it back to 40 units.
22 I would point out that the 75 units that we
23 were permitted, at 40 units, that's only
24 52 percent of what it was that we had. And
25 people have said, well, it doesn't, you know,
1 affect -- scaling it back doesn't really affect
2 densities and so on, which is not true. When
3 you cut it in half, you have half as many trips,
4 half as many people generally.
5 So that's what we're asking for.
6 Now, what I've given you -- just in the
7 belief that a picture is worth a thousand words,
8 I would ask you to look quickly under tab 2, and
9 that explains the green building there.
10 Building 1 is the building that we're
11 asking for the additional 10 feet on, and
12 building 2 is the building that we scaled down.
13 That's the building to the east. And we -- I
14 would say -- and Councilman Corrigan and the
15 Planning Department met with us and asked us to
16 scale that building down, and we did.
17 Under tab 4, we're showing some view
18 corridors, and then the other tabs will show you
19 what was there before.
20 And I would say to any of you, what we're
21 building, I think, is a certain improvement over
22 what was there before. It shorter, it's -- it's
23 less dense and, you know, by half of what it was
25 So I think my time is up, if I understood
1 the lights.
2 THE CHAIRMAN: And you'll have time for
3 rebuttal at the end, Mr. Moore.
4 MR. MOORE: Thank you.
5 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you.
6 Our next speaker is Jack Teeters, followed
7 by Charles Trinder.
8 Charles, I apologize. I'm butchering your
10 (Audience member approaches the podium.)
11 THE CHAIRMAN: Good evening.
12 AUDIENCE MEMBER: Good evening. Thank you,
13 Mr. Chairman.
14 Jack Teeters, and my address is 4401
16 Yacht Club Condominiums.
17 Now, this is the first meeting I've
18 attended that had anything to do with this
19 project, but we did keep track of it, and we
20 know that originally it was zoned and accepted
21 by the City that the tallest units would be five
22 stories high. Now they're asking for six.
23 Now, we weren't crazy about the five
24 stories because it has -- it will cut our view.
25 One of the significant things about our
1 property is being able to see downtown and the
2 river. Now, if you build a tall building in
3 front of us, obviously we can't. So we very
4 much do not want to see it extended.
5 The other part of it that I'm concerned
6 about is, after the number of stories that
7 residents are going to live in, what are they
8 going to put on top for a roof and how much
9 higher will that make the total building?
10 I can understand the developer would like
11 to enrich himself by adding some units, but it
12 would be to our detriment and it will definitely
13 reduce the value of our units.
14 Thank you very much.
15 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you.
16 Charles Trinder, followed by Betty Ann
18 (Audience member approaches the podium.)
19 THE CHAIRMAN: Charles.
20 AUDIENCE MEMBER: My name is Charles
21 Trinder. I live in the same condominium
22 building as Jack Teeters.
23 THE CHAIRMAN: Go ahead and give your
24 address, Charles.
25 MR. TRINDER:
1 Unit 1003.
2 I would just like to add to what Jack said,
3 that I checked the zoning on the building before
4 I purchased my condominium, and I was told it
5 was five stories.
6 It would significantly impact the view, as
7 Jack said, but also -- I think it would also
8 significantly have a detrimental effect on the
9 overall ambience of the neighborhood as it is
10 right now because the zoning originally was set
11 to have that building at the same roof level as
12 the adjacent commercial building alongside it.
13 And now, of course, it will not be that way.
14 Thank you very much.
15 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you.
16 Betty Ann Graves, followed by Holt Graves.
17 (Audience member approaches the podium.)
18 AUDIENCE MEMBER: I have a handout.
19 Betty Ann
20 I am the immediate neighbor to the
21 northeast of the planned development. And just
22 a little bit of history: Over five years ago,
23 the neighborhood, the boating community all met
24 with the first developer and with our City
25 Council people to negotiate the PUD that is
1 approved right now.
2 We all made some concessions. There were
3 things we weren't as happy about and other
4 things that were put in there that were -- that
5 we had argued for.
6 The drawing that you have in front of you,
7 the original part of the drawing, without those
8 overlay buildings, 1, 2, and 3, this is what was
9 approved in the PUD.
10 You can see the original U-shaped,
11 five-story building that was approved. There is
12 a building E that's about maybe halfway along
13 the riverfront that, in the original plans, was
14 to support the limited boatyard use on the
15 property, which this new developer has
16 eliminated from the plans.
17 We learned sometime last fall that they did
18 not want to go ahead with this U-shaped
19 development and had gotten apparently passed,
20 without any input from the neighborhood, a
21 change in their plans, the three buildings that
22 they currently want to put in. And those are
23 numbered 1, 2, and 3 on your drawing.
24 You can see that building 3 has moved
25 significantly closer to the residential part of
1 the neighborhood, which continues up to your
2 right as you're looking at the picture. That
3 building 3, which is to be a four-story
4 building, is now where there was a very small
5 two-story building that would have eased the
6 transition from five-story condominiums to one-
7 and two-story residential and some one-story
8 office buildings that are across the street.
9 We learned about this and started talking
10 to the Planning Commission actually -- I mean,
11 the Planning Department, and actually called it
12 to their attention that the footprint of these
13 new buildings was not identical to what had been
14 approved, and we didn't feel like it was a minor
16 So now, all of a sudden, we have a
17 four-story building where there was to be a
18 three-story building -- where there was a
19 two-story building, I'm sorry. And then you see
20 the other two.
21 It's building 1 in this picture is the one
22 they're trying to add the additional story to
23 and make it six stories.
24 In the original PUD, the height of the
25 buildings was really a big bargaining point. We
1 did not -- the neighborhood did not want this
2 new construction to go any higher than anything
3 else in the neighborhood.
4 So we respectfully ask you to deny this
5 appeal and restrict the height to what was
6 approved in the original PUD.
7 Thank you.
8 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you.
9 Our next speaker will be Holt Graves,
10 followed by Philip May.
11 (Audience member approaches the podium.)
12 AUDIENCE MEMBER: I'm Holt Graves. I live
14 In 2004, the community entered into a
15 contract with the owner of this property. And
16 the City of
17 making it a binding contract. The contract is
18 in the form of a PUD.
19 Since then, there's been many changes to
20 the property and to the developer's plans. The
21 developer, who told you that there's been many
22 improvements to the property from when it was a
23 boatyard and many improvements from their
24 original design plans -- and I don't disagree
25 with any of that.
1 But I do want to make one important point,
2 that these changes and improvements have been
3 made within the scope of the PUD. And if that's
4 all the improvements that there were, then we
5 wouldn't be here tonight.
6 The developer is now trying to one-sidedly
7 change our contract. They are asking to change
8 one of the condominium buildings to six floors
9 instead of the maximum five floors that was
10 agreed to in the PUD and blessed by the City.
11 The proposal tonight does not change
12 anything or have anything to do with the
13 improvements that have been made to date. Those
14 are done and they won't change.
15 The only question tonight is whether the
16 developer can one-sidedly change the contract
17 and increase the height of the condo building.
18 None of the other discussion really matters.
19 The developer purchased this property with
20 the PUD in place and was fully aware of the PUD
21 and the restrictions, after they bought the
22 property and they designed the condos as a
23 single building with 74 units and they tried to
24 sell them.
25 They built a sales office, hired a realty
1 firm. They advertised. They had open houses.
2 There was not enough demand for their product.
3 Be it the features of the building, the
4 location, the real estate market, or something
5 else, they couldn't make it work, so they
6 decided to redesign their building and change
7 their product and increase the size of each
8 single unit and thereby reducing the total
9 number of units.
10 They split one building into three,
11 allowing them to build the five different
12 phases. And, as was mentioned earlier, they
13 expanded the footprint at the time of their
14 building and approached upon what was a
15 two-story building. It was acting as a buffer
16 to the homes on the eastern side of the
18 When they purchased the property and
19 developed their original design plans, they made
20 a business decision to do so and they assumed
21 the risk. Now that their decision has failed
22 and they have had to redesign their product,
23 they're asking the community to assume that risk
24 and pay for their lack of sales and changing the
1 I don't know about your business, but I
2 know in mine, if I build a product that no one
3 buys, I can't come before you and ask somebody
4 else to pay for my decision.
5 We had a contract and the community has
6 lived up to our side, and I ask you tonight to
7 have the developer honor their side of the
9 Be glad to answer any questions.
10 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you.
11 MR. GRAVES: Thank you.
12 THE CHAIRMAN: I don't see any questions.
13 Our next speaker is Philip May, followed by
14 Melissa Berlin.
15 (Audience member approaches the podium.)
16 THE CHAIRMAN: Good evening.
17 AUDIENCE MEMBER: My name is Philip May. I
18 live at
19 Ortega Yacht Club Condominiums.
20 This whole process of the development of
21 this property has been confusing from the
22 beginning up until the present time. The
23 neighborhood has been asked to go along with
24 many changes, and it's gotten to the point where
25 we just don't believe that anything is being
1 done with the best interest of the neighborhood
2 in mind.
3 And this latest change that they're
4 requesting is just sort of an added slap in the
5 face. They knew what they had agreed to, and we
6 feel that it's a matter of integrity that they
7 be required to stick to what they first agreed
8 to do and that this request be denied.
9 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you.
10 Melissa Berlin, followed by Nick Berlin.
11 AUDIENCE MEMBER: I waive my right to speak
12 in opposition to this item.
13 Thank you.
14 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. Thank you very much.
15 Appreciate that.
16 Nick Berlin.
17 AUDIENCE MEMBER: I waive my right to speak
18 in opposition too.
19 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much.
20 Paul Crum, followed by Julie -- I can't
21 quite read your name -- Matt- -- I can't read
22 your last name.
23 AUDIENCE MEMBER: Matthews.
24 THE CHAIRMAN: Oh, Matthews. Thank you.
25 (Audience member approaches the podium.)
1 AUDIENCE MEMBER: I'm Dr. Paul Crum, Jr. I
2 live at
3 to resolution 2008-11.
4 This variance, as you know, asked
5 permission to increase the height to the
6 westward building at Ortega Landing development
7 from five to six stories. It's ironically
8 labeled as a minor modification.
9 On its Web site, Ortega Landing describes
10 Avondale as a traditional neighborhood with
11 small, boutique-type shopping, quaint streets,
12 and small town charm.
13 Ortega Landing, although they advertise
14 Avondale, they advertise Ortega, it's actually
15 in my community,
16 I drove past the construction site today by
17 car and recently I've gone past it by boat, and
18 I'm struck by the size of the site, and clearly
19 this will be one of the largest residential
20 complexes in
21 one building that's also large.
22 The boat slips numbering 192 already are
23 dominating part of the
24 far into the river itself. The Ortega Landing
25 clubhouse abuts the
1 eastward side and it's very, very close, I might
3 Now, the view from the street thus far is a
4 retention pond and a construction zone. This
5 project appears to creep up to all of its lot
6 borders into the river and now they want to
7 change their permit to rise even higher.
8 I'm struck that there appears to be no
9 advantage to our community by the project as out
10 of character as it is. Those who benefit are
11 not in our
12 For a large project like this, planned in
13 advance, it sets a very bad precedent for them
14 to come and ask for changes at this late hour.
15 Please help to maintain the charm of our
16 neighborhood and vote "no" on resolution
18 Thank you.
19 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you.
20 Julie Matthews, followed by Dennis
22 (Audience member approaches the podium.)
23 THE CHAIRMAN: Good evening.
24 AUDIENCE MEMBER: I'm Julie Matthews,
1 I oppose this proposal for one reason, and
2 that is that sometimes people, when you give
3 them an inch, they take a mile.
4 Thank you.
5 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you.
6 Dennis Matthews, followed by Erik Olsen,
7 who's the last speaker that I have.
8 AUDIENCE MEMBER: I relinquish my right to
9 speak, but I'm in opposition.
10 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. Thank you,
11 Mr. Matthews.
12 Erik Olsen.
13 (Audience member approaches the podium.)
14 AUDIENCE MEMBER: Erik Olsen, 4438 Herschel
15 Street, property owner.
16 I have a handout, if we could distribute
18 You've been told tonight that the project
19 has been modified since Julian LeCraw first put
20 forward his site plan as a better project; it's
21 a smaller project. Realistically, it is not.
22 It is -- it does represent fewer units.
23 However, I tell you -- I will tell you that many
24 of the units are more than three times the size
25 in square footage of the original building.
1 I'll also tell you that even though the
2 architecture of this particular complex is
3 better, it now goes from one building into three
4 buildings. If you look at all three of these
5 buildings from
6 blank out a hundred percent of the waterfront,
7 so the net effect of that is that there really
8 is no aesthetic difference between three
9 buildings and one large building.
10 You've been told that there was a PUD
11 requirement of 55 feet. That is true. It
12 derives from the two buildings that are abutting
13 this. One was the C.F. Knight building, which
14 was actually denied originally by the City of
16 three-story condominium. That three-story
17 condominium prevailed on the City Council and
18 the Planning Department and negotiated an
19 absolute height elevation for this portion of
21 55 feet that was codified in the PUD; it was
22 that 55 feet that, as Holt Graves indicated
23 fairly correctly, became part of the contract
24 between the owner, the City, and the
1 A fact which really is ignored here and
2 probably is best addressed in another forum is
3 the fact that the existing building that they
4 intend to build, which is five stories, is
5 20 feet greater than the 55 foot elevation.
6 Now, we're not asking you here tonight to
7 overturn that because there's a better forum to
8 do that, and that's code enforcement. As a
9 matter of fact, that code enforcement will also
10 apply to the 45-foot building.
11 But I'm here to tell you that if you allow
12 them another story, one story, which is a little
13 bit over 10 feet, you're just going to make a
14 bad situation worse.
15 There's a significant paper trail as to the
16 derivation of this 55 feet. The City knows it,
17 we know it, and it's well codified in two PUDs,
18 both the PUD for the C.F. Knight building and
19 the PUD for this particular project.
20 Thank you.
21 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Olsen.
22 Mr. Olsen, Councilwoman Lee has a question
23 for you.
24 MR. OLSEN: Yes, ma'am.
25 MS. LEE: I'm sorry. I heard you -- you
1 said that you were a business owner on Herschel
3 MR. OLSEN: Yes, ma'am. I am a
4 professional engineer.
5 MS. LEE: Are you here representing the
6 neighborhood or do you live in the
8 MR. OLSEN: I live across the river. I
9 will view this, but I'm representing the two
10 properties that I own, which are immediately
11 across the street from this parcel.
12 MS. LEE: From this parcel. Okay. And
13 that's not
14 MR. OLSEN: My address is Herschel, but
15 I -- it actually is on
16 MS. LEE: Okay. I just wanted to make sure
17 because I didn't think Herschel was in Ortega.
18 MR. OLSEN: Well, it turns out that my
19 address is
associated with the
20 the Herschel side of the building and not the
22 MS. LEE: Okay.
23 MR. OLSEN: I face both streets.
24 MS. LEE: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Olsen.
25 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Councilwoman Lee.
1 I will further clarify that this project
2 and Mr. Olsen are at the intersection of
3 Herschel and Lakeside Drive, is where this
4 project is.
5 MS. LEE: Thank you.
6 THE CHAIRMAN: Sure.
7 I don't have any other speakers.
8 I will clarify for the record that the
9 handouts that you received all came from the
10 Planning Department. The ones I handed out at
11 the beginning of this public hearing were
12 actually in my file that I received from the
13 Planning Department.
14 Seeing no further speakers, we will close
15 the public hearing.
16 MR. YARBOROUGH: (Inaudible.)
17 THE CHAIRMAN: Oh, I'm sorry. Thank you.
18 I got sidetracked.
19 Mr. Moore, you have ten seconds to -- no,
20 I'm just kidding. You have several minutes for
22 (Mr. Moore approaches the podium.)
23 THE CHAIRMAN: Sorry about that. I forgot.
24 The public hearing is still open.
25 MR. MOORE: Thank you.
1 I'm appreciative of the comments that these
2 folks have made because I -- apparently there's
3 some miscommunication, and this is a good venue
4 to vet that miscommunication as anywhere.
5 What I mean by that is, when this project
6 was first applied -- you have this PUD site plan
7 in the PUD. This project went through a
8 verified site plan process and the owners had a
9 verified site plan.
10 At the request of the City Councilman at
11 that point -- which I think was Mr. Corrigan; I
12 think he had shortly come in -- the developers
13 were requested to abandon that verified site
14 plan and start over, and they did. They
15 forfeited $120,000 of design fees that they paid
16 to Rink Reynolds to start over at the request of
17 the neighborhood.
18 At the request of the neighborhood, as
19 conveyed through Mr. Corrigan, they staged the
20 easterly side of this building to a step
21 fashion, so it was not monolithic, to
22 accommodate the concerns of the neighborhood.
23 So these developers are mindful of the
24 neighborhood and they have tried to accommodate
25 the neighborhood at significant cost. Probably
1 the biggest significant cost to accommodate the
2 neighborhood -- accommodating the neighborhood,
3 was the delay and missing the market, because
4 they did miss the market, and we all know the
5 history of the market. We know the price of
6 oil, we know what's happening in the market, we
7 know where we are.
8 Now, the developers came back with a site
9 plan very similar to what you see. At the
10 request of the Planning Department, we engaged
11 in discussions with the
12 here tonight. We changed the roof design, at
13 their request, to try to have it less
14 intrusive. And we submitted that verified site
15 plan, and it was held up in excess of four
17 At the request of the Planning Department,
18 at the request of Mr. Corrigan on behalf of the
19 neighborhood -- and he's a very good councilman
20 for you all; he represents you very well -- we
21 came back and met with Mr. Corrigan. And we did
22 not have to, under the contract that Mr. Graves
23 talks about, drop from 55 feet to 45 feet. We
24 were entitled at that point to get 55 feet, and
25 you can ask your counsel, ably, from the General
1 Counsel's Office, in terms of what a developer
2 is entitled to. If they're entitled to 55 feet,
3 they're entitled to 55 feet.
4 We dropped back to be good neighbors, but
5 we ask to recognize that we be permitted to come
6 back in this venue, with no assurances, but to
7 come back and say, what's fair for one side is
8 fair for the other side; and if we give this up,
9 can we come back and make an application to ask
10 for the additional 10 feet.
11 So that's what we asked for.
12 Now, what do we have presently? We can
13 pack this whole thing up and go back to the plan
14 that we had, which was the monolithic, U-shaped,
15 55-foot building, verified site plan with
16 75 units, or we can go back with some derivation
17 of that, up to 60 units, or we can go up
18 certainly to 55 feet. We're not asking to do
20 We're asking that the council recognize
21 that this developer has done everything that
22 they can reasonably do to accommodate the needs
23 of the neighborhood.
24 Much has been made about the 55 feet.
25 We're not asking that this project be measured
1 any differently than any other project in this
2 city. It's measured from a specific point,
3 which is the crown of
4 go to 55 feet. And how that 55 feet is applied
5 is just like the 35 feet would be applied to
6 Mr. Graves' building. He's got a 35 foot height
7 limitation. That doesn't include certain
8 things, like chimneys and so on.
9 So it's in that venue that we're coming and
10 asking for the additional ten feet.
11 The developer would be willing to concede
12 that it will not go back and we'll not ask for
13 55 feet on the easterly building that it's
14 entitled to. Keep in mind, we have a verified
15 site plan right now that says that that building
16 is okay there and we could go to 55 feet. We're
17 not asking for that. We're asking to go to
18 45 feet and we'll give up the ten if we can get
19 65 on the other one.
20 Going to the east -- excuse me -- going to
21 the west, the office building that folks have
22 talked about, it's not residential, it's an
23 office building. Mr. Graves' property is across
24 the street. CRO, they're used as office
25 buildings. There's a doctor's office across the
2 Under tab -- I think it's 1 or 2 of your
3 materials, I've got a map of the present uses of
4 the property. And the Planning Department, in
5 its able report, recommended this and it also
6 found that it was not a detriment to the
7 residential character of the neighborhood to the
8 extent there are residences north of Mr. Graves'
9 property on Herschel or westerly of the doctor's
10 office on
11 The owners who are complaining from the
12 condominiums, if you look in the materials that
13 I presented to you, under tab 1, you will see
14 the location of their building, which is the
15 first gray building that's shown there. And I
16 submit to you, if you also look at the scales
17 that we've got under the drawing here showing
18 views under tab 4, that building is probably --
19 well, I won't speculate how far away it is, but
20 it's -- there is an intervening property between
21 us, which is the office building, and those
23 And then on the other side of the
24 condominium, where a lot of the folks are
25 complain- -- you know, reside there are
1 complaining, is a 13-story building. And if you
2 go and look under tab 11, you will see pictures
3 of that building. I think it's actually the
4 last page in the handout. That's the building
5 that is located within their view to the west.
6 So we do not believe that we're doing
7 anything detrimental to this neighborhood. We
8 think there is competent substantial evidence
9 provided by the Planning Department to support
10 it. We think that we have honored our agreement
11 with the neighborhood. In fact, you know what?
12 We have done better than honor our agreement.
13 We have cut the project in half and we're taking
14 ten feet off the building to the east.
15 So if I can answer any questions, I would
16 be pleased to do so. I know it's late.
17 THE CHAIRMAN: Any questions?
18 COMMITTEE MEMBERS: (No response.)
19 THE CHAIRMAN: I don't see any questions
20 for you, Mr. Moore.
21 Thank you very much.
22 MR. MOORE: Thank you.
23 THE CHAIRMAN: Seeing no other speakers,
24 we'll close the public hearing and go to
25 Councilmember Clark.
1 AUDIENCE MEMBER: Could we have a response
2 to Mr. Moore?
3 THE CHAIRMAN: No. Mr. Moore, as the
4 appellant, has the final response.
5 Councilman Clark.
6 MS. CLARK: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
7 I just have a few questions. I don't know
8 who can -- it doesn't really matter who can
9 answer them.
10 How tall is the Ortega Yacht Club?
11 AUDIENCE MEMBER: Twelve stories.
12 MS. CLARK: Twelve stories. Okay.
13 Is there a structure taller than that in
14 Ortega? Is that the tallest structure in the
16 (Mr. Yarborough assumes the Chair.)
17 MR. CORRIGAN: Yeah, I believe -- I don't
18 know what you consider the area, but within
19 the -- within a quarter mile, it would be the
20 tallest structure.
21 MR. CLARK: Okay. Built many moons ago?
22 MR. CORRIGAN: (Nods head.)
23 MR. CLARK: And I actually asked the
24 question that I heard one of the folks in
25 opposition ask, and that was, you know, if we
1 didn't define the height of a building, if it's
2 not defined within a PUD -- I asked
3 she informed me that we -- our default has
4 traditionally been to say that the height is at
5 the top of the residence, the highest
6 residence. So everything on top of that,
7 architecturally, elevator shafts, everything,
8 that goes above that number. So that just
9 leaves me to believe that anytime we do anything
10 with heights, we better really seriously -- we
11 need to tighten that up, especially if we start
12 building in height.
13 You know, I -- I guess my personal opinion
14 is, you know, the developer had a deal -- I'm
15 not a real fan of these modifications after the
16 fact. I'm not real inclined to let him go
17 higher than the 55 max, unless I hear a real
18 serious compelling argument to the contrary.
19 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Clark.
20 Mr. Corrigan.
21 MR. CORRIGAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
22 To my colleague, Mr. Clark, I agree with
23 you, but I think we need to have a little more
24 proof than that in order to be able to deny
25 this. I think we have to use the criteria to --
1 to ask ourselves, does it serve a legitimate
2 public purpose to approve this. And I would
3 argue that it does not.
4 If you look on criteria 3, "The uses
5 permitted under the proposed rezoning will not
6 be consistent or compatible with existing
7 proposed land uses and zoning of adjacent and
8 nearby properties or the general area or will
9 deviate from established or developing logical
10 and orderly development patterns" --
11 This simply doesn't fit in. It's -- I
12 could give you a big, long speech and everything
13 else about why it doesn't fit in, but if you go
14 back and look at the Planning Commission's
15 transcript, which is what you're supposed to --
16 what the appeal is based on, two of the
17 commission members that I think have a pretty
18 good reputation on the commission -- one would
19 be Mr. Register -- said the same thing I said
20 previously. He thinks this is a nice project,
21 but he also says, "but I don't think increasing
22 the height in this is where we need to be in
23 this particular area given the surrounding
24 adjacent structures, given the original
25 discussions of the PUD."
1 Mr. Deno Hicks, who is also well-respected
2 and in the building industry, said, "I just want
3 to echo a couple of comments my previous two
4 commissioners made. I think this is a great
5 project. I do have some concerns in increasing
6 the height." And he went on to say, "As you
7 know, I'm -- in looking at these cross-sections
8 of the building elevations, it just doesn't seem
9 to be consistent with the surrounding area."
10 There's been evidence presented by
11 Mr. Moore, and Councilmember Clark referenced
12 it, the 12-story high-rise that's within a
13 mile -- or within a quarter mile of this
14 project. Yes, it is there and it is the highest
15 thing that is between there and the heavy retail
16 nature of the Publix shopping center. There's
17 also a six-lane highway that's adjacent to that
18 taller condominium and one of the busiest CSX
19 rail sites. That building actually serves as a
20 buffer for everything that goes to the east of
21 that particular project, and that particular
22 building faces away from all those
23 noise-generating entities that are there, so
24 it's really not fair to reference that as a
25 reference point.
Diane M. Tropia,
1 The reference point that was used in the
2 PUD application was a 55-foot-high commercial
3 building that's located two lots from where this
4 one is. All the discussions I had -- and it was
5 even more heated than you're seeing tonight on
6 the discussions before -- centered around the
7 fact that whatever was going to be built there
8 should not be taller than that commercial
9 building because that commercial building pretty
10 much matched the tree line of that area.
11 And you have to understand, in this
12 particular project -- and Councilman Clark has
13 got it and Councilman Shad and Councilman Webb
14 as well and I'm sure Councilman Yarborough --
15 there's two front yards in this particular
16 project. You've got
17 arguably, you get to a certain height and you
18 can't tell whether it's 50 or 60 feet, but
19 you've also got another front yard, a very
20 beautiful front yard, in the
21 hundreds of thousands of people, that's the
22 front yard they're going to see.
23 And as we designed this project with the
24 community's input several years ago, we kept
25 looking at, you know, what is best for the
1 community, not only the people adjacent to
3 which is the river, and what they're going to
4 see. And the project we came up with had
5 opposition, but we solved that opposition and
6 came to a consensus of what we should do.
7 I gave you the handouts earlier because the
8 last time we met Councilwoman Jones, I believe,
9 at the time, was asking a question, you know,
10 what's the big deal? What's changed? Well, if
11 you look at those pages in that, you will see
12 kind of a chronological order of what's
14 There originally was a U-shaped condominium
15 with a pool. And if you read the written
16 description, it says "the" condominium building
17 and "the" pool. Well, now if you go back
18 several pages and look, there's now three
19 condominium buildings, there's two pools,
20 there's a marina. There was never a marina
21 discussed in the PUD that was approved by this
22 LUZ Committee before.
23 It talked about a condominium building and
24 the boat uses, and that's what the neighbors
25 thought we were getting, that's what the
1 district councilperson thought we were getting,
2 and that's not happening.
3 And, really, it's that testimony that
4 Braxton Gillam gave at the Planning Commission I
5 think probably swayed them so much over there
6 was -- there's been so many changes and so many
7 broken promises throughout this, that -- you
8 know, the height was supposed to be the height
9 of that 55 foot.
10 And I agree with Councilmember Clark, that
11 the default language goes back to occupied
12 height, and that's supposed to be -- it's
13 55 feet, which this drawing is, but the reality
14 is that it's really -- I mean, if you look at
15 the drawing that was passed out to us today, it
16 really ends up being 97 feet high at one point,
17 which is just, you know, destroying the
18 community. So to come back and say, "Hey, give
19 us ten more feet," to me, is just not right for
20 the community, it's not right for the district
21 councilperson. That's not what I fought for
22 when I negotiated that previously.
23 And then the handout presented by Betty Ann
25 the only way I found out about what was
1 happening with this project because when the
2 plans went out -- and in the PUD approval
3 process that we have as a council, they came
4 back to me and I noticed that that building
5 looked like it had gotten a lot closer. And in
6 the final written description approved by this
7 Land Use and Zoning Committee, it said the
8 condominium building -- the single building --
9 will be located on the western part of the
10 property. So when it came back and building 3
11 had shifted over so far to the east, that's what
12 got my attention and that's when I said, wait a
13 minute. What's going on here? What happened?
14 And Mr. Moore, in his testimony today, said
15 that there's half as many units, half as many
16 trips. Well, I'll tell you, the big argument
17 back when we approved this previously was
18 that -- the number of parking spaces for the
19 size of the condominium they were building and
20 the 200 boat slips that are there.
21 Now, the boat slips didn't get reduced in
22 half. We reduced the parking in half when we
23 reduced the size of the condo- -- number of
24 condominium units in half. We reduced the
25 parking in half. We didn't reduce the marina
1 slips in half.
2 So all of a sudden, when all this is
3 finished and the marina is sold -- and it is a
4 beautiful marina. I'm not going to kid you, it
5 is a beautiful marina, but there's going to be
6 about 190 slips that need parking to come out
7 there and enjoy those great slips on the
9 And through this process, without any input
10 from the public, without any input from this
11 Land Use and Zoning Committee -- and the
12 Planning Department, under a previous director,
13 just said, yep, you reduced the units, you
14 reduced the parking, and that will be okay.
15 And it's not going to be okay when it's
16 finished. The overflow parking is going to
17 spill onto this community, but there's nothing
18 we can do about that. Mr. Moore is right; they
19 had the right to do that and there's nothing we
20 can do about that now.
21 So what we're being asked to do as a
22 council is to approve -- give them just a little
23 bit more. Well, to my fellow committee members,
24 we've given enough on this.
25 And I have great respect for the architect,
1 I have great respect for their agent, but I
2 don't have great respect for this project.
3 The people have made a deal. And a PUD
4 approval by this council is a deal that a
5 community and the council makes with a
6 developer. A different developer is here now,
7 but he should not be able to change the rules
8 just because we changed the developer, and
9 that's why I can't approve this project. That's
10 why I won't support this height deviation.
11 Based on the criteria that was given, based
12 on the law, based on the reason that we're
13 supposed to make our decisions up here, I urge
14 you not to support it and I move to deny the
16 THE CHAIRMAN: There's a motion to deny.
17 Is there a second?
18 MR. CLARK: Second.
19 THE CHAIRMAN: Motion and a second.
21 Mr. Webb, you were in the queue. Would you
22 still like to discuss --
23 MR. WEBB: We're on the amendment?
24 THE CHAIRMAN: This is on the amendment,
1 MR. WEBB: Okay. Fair enough.
2 I wanted to -- well, actually, I'd like to
3 speak to the bill, on the appeal, so I guess --
4 get an amendment -- explanation on the
5 amendment, and then we'll --
6 THE CHAIRMAN: Ms. Eller, can you explain
7 where we are on that?
8 MS. ELLER: Sure.
9 The resolution itself is neutral. So in
10 order to grant or deny the appeal, the committee
11 must move an amendment to insert language
12 granting or denying the appeal.
13 An amendment was offered by Councilmember
14 Corrigan to deny the appeal. It has been
15 seconded. So that's the motion before you.
16 If you'd like to discuss -- you can direct
17 your comments to the amendment to deny the
18 appeal, that would be proper, or you may
19 entertain the motion on this amendment and see
20 where it goes.
21 MR. WEBB: Fair enough.
22 I'd like to speak to the -- speak on the
23 amendment to deny.
24 I guess -- I hear the district councilman
25 loud and clear with regard to his concerns for
Diane M. Tropia,
1 his community, and I -- you know, I understand
2 completely as well his defense of his community
3 and protecting the interests of his
5 However, I'm concerned that we're -- and
6 this is the guy who overrode the recommendation
7 of the Planning Department earlier this evening,
8 so I understand it's --
9 But in any event, I am concerned that on --
10 in basing our decision on the criteria, on the
11 rationale of what I've heard this evening, we
12 may be setting ourselves up for potential legal
13 action in that -- a couple of points.
14 A lot of the evidence, a lot of the
15 rationale, at least what I've heard, for the
16 denial is a motion based on a large part of the
17 application process that has evolved, that's
18 occurred over the last few years.
19 And, Michael, I remember this project well
20 because Julian LeCraw tried to build a condo
21 project down in Mandarin, which I vehemently
22 opposed, if you recall, before I was on
23 council. So, again, I am sensitive to it.
24 However, the issue, though, is what's
25 before us this evening is simply a minor
1 modification to the existing PUD. That's all
2 that's before us. And I -- just to get
3 confirmation, a clarification of that from
4 general counsel.
5 AUDIENCE MEMBER: It's not minor.
6 THE CHAIRMAN: If we could refrain.
7 Thank you.
8 MS. ELLER: The application of --
9 MR. WEBB: It's an appeal of a denial of a
10 minor modification from the Planning
12 MS. ELLER: Correct.
13 MR. WEBB: Okay. Fair enough.
14 MS. ELLER: And there were changes that
15 were made previous, but the point is that the
16 PUD site plan was verified by the Planning
17 Department, so there was a site plan in place,
18 and then the applicant filed an application for
19 a minor modification to PC. PC denied it and
20 they appealed it here.
21 MR. WEBB: Okay. Fair enough.
22 Moreover -- okay. So that is what's before
23 us this evening.
24 And I look at the criteria for -- that we
25 are required by law to utilize. You know,
1 pursuant to Section 656.341(F)(2), the Zoning
2 Code, "City Council may approve changes in the
3 plan which comply with the following criteria,"
4 and the Planning Department has made a
5 determination that the application is, in fact,
6 consistent with the zoning code.
7 Now, moreover -- and
8 Dylan, if you can confirm this. I understand
9 the Planning Commission denied the application,
10 but, at the same time, our -- what's the
11 standard of review here? It's de novo, is it
13 MS. ELLER: Yes.
14 MR. WEBB: And if you can explain what
15 de novo review means.
16 MS. ELLER: Yes.
17 A de novo review means that this committee
18 weighs all of the evidence anew and makes a
19 decision based upon the evidence before you.
20 MR. WEBB: Now, I'm not saying I'm
21 supporting this appeal. What I am just saying
22 is let's be very cognizant of what it is we're
23 doing before we cast our votes.
24 And, moreover, I guess, the developer -- my
25 understanding of Mr. Moore's testimony is that
1 he cut -- he can go to 55 feet, and I guess
2 there's some question -- there's probably some
3 litigation as to whether the 55 feet includes --
4 goes up to the top of the residence or includes
5 other stuff as well, but ultimately the
6 developer has cut 10 feet off of one building
7 and tacked 10 feet on another building as an
8 accommodation. So I guess if they're denied
9 here, they'll simply tack the 10 feet back on
10 the 55, which will probably not be something
11 that the community would want either, I guess,
12 or would not be consistent with the agreement
13 that was worked out informally with the
15 I guess all I'm saying is that -- I'm
16 cognizant of where the council rep is coming
17 from on this, and just be careful, both to the
18 community and to the council. Community, be
19 careful of what you ask for. And to the
20 council, be very careful of how we weigh the
21 evidence in this matter.
22 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Webb.
23 Mr. Corrigan.
24 MR. CORRIGAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
25 Through the Chair to my colleague,
1 Mr. Webb. I appreciate your thoughts, and you
2 pretty much -- you're kind of selling it for
3 me. I mean, you're exactly right. Julian
4 LeCraw tried to do the same thing in Mandarin
5 and, fortunately -- and what stopped it was what
6 happened to these poor people. That's what the
7 impetus was that stopped it, because they said,
8 "Oh, my God. We don't want that to happen over
10 And so I guess there is some good out of
11 what's happened here, is that it has saved
12 another community from having to spend their
13 Tuesday night sitting here trying to protect
14 their investment.
15 And I agree with you that we need to
16 consider only the testimony that was heard at
17 Planning Commission, but every point I've made
18 out -- I've made today, was brought up at the
19 Planning Commission.
20 Braxton Gillam listed almost word for word
21 in his testimony on page 170 the various
22 different changes that we have, so the evidence
23 I'm giving you is in perfect order to be
24 considered here today because it was presented
25 at the Planning Commission and was part of their
1 decision-making process.
2 The disadvantage that this project has is
3 they don't have what many of us have, they don't
4 have an overlay like Mandarin has and like
5 San Marco has to help protect it. They rely on
6 their district councilperson, and they -- and we
7 worked long and hard. I mean, we went five or
8 six times on the original process to come into
9 this committee and frustrated the LUZ Committee
10 at that point on approval.
11 So I think they have done a good thing, and
12 I think your points are well taken. I think
13 that's further evidence of why this should not
14 be changed, and I think that -- I don't know --
15 well, let me say two things.
16 One is, I think this is going to end up in
17 court no matter what action is taken by this
18 council. I think that's why you should do the
19 right thing. You should deny this and not
20 consider whether it's going to go to court or
21 not because I think whatever side does not
22 prevail today is probably going to go to court
23 against the other side, so we need to make a
24 decision as a committee on what's right for this
25 community and what was the original intent of
Diane M. Tropia,
1 this council when we passed this out several
2 years ago.
3 And, secondly, I think that it's -- we can
4 send a message to the development community
5 tonight that when this council takes action on
6 PUDs that we're serious, and we take them
7 seriously, and we need to make sure that we
8 follow -- and if you don't want to -- I'm not
9 saying that you should never change a plan. I'm
10 just saying, if you're going to do it, let's
11 bring it back here to us as a PUD to PUD change,
12 when you do the number of changes that I
13 mentioned earlier, and let the public have input
14 and let us negotiate a better deal.
15 The project that MLG is building could be
16 even a better project if they had come back here
17 and got our input as they went through this
19 Thank you.
20 THE CHAIRMAN: Ms. Lee and then Mr. Shad.
21 MS. LEE: Thank you.
22 Through the Chair to Ms. Eller or a
23 planner. Share with me why -- what your
24 recommendation is and why, based on comments and
25 based on what's in front of us, excluding many,
1 you know, I guess, emotions of how people just
2 generally feel about their neighborhood.
3 Tell me why you would be for it and what
4 parts you are for and what are you really
6 Who can answer that, please?
7 MR. KELLY: Thank you.
8 Through the Chair to Councilmember Lee,
9 again, initially this site plan that was part of
10 this modification request was essentially held
11 up in the process given the location of the
12 buildings. And in meetings with the applicants
13 and the neighbors, it was based on the
14 proximity. Again, the building had moved
15 essentially further east.
16 The department had verified, however, the
17 verification wasn't completed at that time, and
18 so as a -- as a way to mediate or mitigate for
19 that, essentially the developer opined and said
20 that the height of the building could drop down
21 to 45 feet on the east side but would request
22 that, you know, the department basically allow
23 for an increase in the height on the westerly
24 side as an accommodation.
25 We reviewed that and we looked at that in
1 relationship to the surrounding uses and the
2 surrounding heights of some of the other
3 buildings in the area, and there are some rather
4 large towers in the area. You have the
5 Commander apartments, you do have the Ortega
6 Yacht Club condominiums, 13 stories. In
7 addition to that -- that's one of the older
8 PUDs -- in this area there's about 22 floors
9 that can be developed on that same piece of
10 property directly to the east.
11 So we looked at this and we looked at the
12 prior zoning, which was industrial waterfront
13 property, which really had no height
14 restrictions. And so we felt that the breakup
15 of the massing of these buildings on the
16 property, combined with the agreement to
17 basically lower the height in concession to the
18 adjoining property owners, we felt it actually
19 created more of a gradual transition than
20 keeping everything at 55.
21 So if you could step down from the higher
22 buildings at 13 and potentially 22 stories
24 six stories and then five and then the 45 feet
25 on the easterly building, we felt that that was
1 really appropriate, a transitioning, height and
2 intensity of the height as it relates to the
3 waterfront and the use of this property.
4 This was really an amendment to a written
5 description, and maybe -- I know height has been
6 a very sensitive issue and probably -- you know,
7 is very contentious, and so -- I mean,
8 increasing the height through an amendment to a
9 written description which goes to Planning
10 Commission -- I could understand that, you know,
11 from the neighborhood's perspective a deal is
12 a deal is a deal and then to come back and say,
13 "Well, we want to go 12 feet higher" -- but from
14 the planning perspective, we did feel that it
15 was appropriate and a gradual transition of
17 MS. LEE: And your recommendation is to
19 MR. KELLY: That's correct.
20 Our original recommendation on the minor
21 modification was an approval.
22 MS. LEE: Okay. Let me -- through the
23 Chair, may I ask one other question?
24 THE CHAIRMAN: Yes, ma'am.
25 MS. LEE: And I want to make sure I
1 understand something.
2 What we are basically discussing is a
3 request for modification to increase the height
4 on one side to 55?
5 MR. KELLY: Sixty-five.
6 MS. LEE: To 65.
7 And the other side to remain at 45?
8 MR. KELLY: The -- again, the easterly
9 building was allowed to be 55 feet high, but
10 they -- I guess the applicant had agreed to
11 go -- lower the height to 45 feet.
12 MS. LEE: And you made some comments about
13 there were meetings held between the applicant
14 and the neighbors, and they had solidified an
15 agreement initially, prior to this modification
16 request? Did I hear you say that, Mr. Kelly?
17 MR. KELLY: It wasn't an agreement, more or
18 less. It was a way to get the verification
19 process moving again and to get back into moving
20 the application through the process, and so it
21 was an agreement basically that the applicant
22 conceded to to allow him to apply for the minor
23 modification to request this increase in height.
24 MS. LEE: But the original application was
25 what? I want to make sure I'm understanding.
1 MR. KELLY: The original application,
2 again, was the difference between the Julian
3 LeCraw site plan where you had the -- with the
4 one mass of a building, and then in the site
5 plan that was submitted as part of the minor
6 modification, the buildings kind of separated
7 and split apart and one of the buildings moved
8 further east. And so, based on the location of
9 the building, it did get up hung up in the
10 verification process.
11 MS. LEE: So let me ask you this, then,
12 through the Chair: What did the applicant say
13 was the reason for the modification request?
14 Did it have anything to do with structure? Did
15 it have anything to do with -- in terms of
16 building it, that if it wasn't a certain
17 something that it would structurally not work
18 because of the way something was sitting or
19 something like that? Was that the reason or was
20 the modification request geared towards
22 MR. KELLY: The newer site plan, the
23 revised site plan -- again, the building being
24 shifted east created more view corridors for the
25 people that would be living in the multifamily
1 units. I think that was part of the reasoning
2 in the amendment to the site plan. That kind of
3 expanded the footprint of the building.
4 MS. LEE: I'm sorry, would you repeat
5 that? Is your response in sync with my
7 MR. KELLY: It is to the extent -- when
8 we're looking at it horizontally, not with the
9 height --
10 MS. LEE: So break that down to me again a
11 little slower.
12 MR. KELLY: Okay. The original site plan,
13 again, was the one large massing of a building
14 along the west property line and then kind of
16 Once they decided to change and downsize
17 the development from the 75-some-odd units to
18 the 40 units -- or 38 units, they wanted to
19 separate out the building and not keep the same
20 large five-story building. So the --
21 MS. LEE: Because of the downsizing of the
22 number of units, that they agreed -- that they
23 made concessions with the neighbors?
24 MR. KELLY: The downsizing, I don't really
25 know where that related to the verification
1 process. I mean, that was something they could
2 do as a matter of right if they decided to make
3 more upscale units, larger units in terms of
4 square footage, but --
5 MS. LEE: Keep going. You're helping me.
6 MR. KELLY: Again, when they did the
7 amended site plan, it kind of pushed apart and
8 separated the buildings basically to maintain
9 view corridors on these larger units so that
10 they'd have more, kind of, water access for the
11 units on the property.
12 And by doing that, they had to basically
13 spread the building further east-west. And so
14 by moving the building -- one of the buildings
15 further easterly, they were able to maintain the
16 view corridor even with a lesser number of
17 units, but it was different than the LeCraw site
18 plan because it had encroached further towards
20 property to the east, and so --
21 MS. LEE: So they wanted their potential
22 tenants to be able to have a view, like the
23 other side?
24 MR. KELLY: That's correct.
25 MS. LEE: Had it stayed just one building,
1 then no matter where you lived in that building,
2 everybody would have still had a good view? Am
3 I describing that?
4 MR. KELLY: It would be -- the original
5 building would probably -- you'd have more
6 obstructions and -- site obstructions, and views
7 of the water would be decreased or diminished.
8 MS. LEE: And so the applicant was trying
9 to make sure that his tenants had a view of the
10 river; am I correct?
11 MR. KELLY: That is part of it, yes.
12 MS. LEE: Now -- and I'm almost finished.
13 If that's the case, then tell me, then --
14 if that's the case, then where does the
15 obstruction of view -- if it is an obstruction
16 of view of any existing residents within the
17 required -- would 350 feet matter in this? Does
18 that take place?
19 MR. KELLY: In terms of the --
20 MS. LEE: Of who is affected.
21 MR. KELLY: Well, again -- I mean, it
22 probably goes beyond 350 feet, actually --
23 MS. LEE: Okay. Strike that.
24 So if what you just described to me,
25 basically this all about view, then with the
1 changes that the -- the request for the
2 modification, then where is the obstruction of
3 view? Where is that occurring, or if it is
4 occurring as it relates to the existing
5 homeowners, whether they are single-family
6 dwellings or --
7 MR. KELLY: Well, I mean, I would just
8 defer to the testimony from the neighborhood,
9 that they felt it was -- you know, even the new
10 site plan obstructed the view more than --
11 MS. LEE: Okay. But that's not my
13 I'm just asking, based on planning, based
14 on -- because I have to depend on you. Whether
15 I support it or not is -- your thing is to do
16 the research and to determine all things
17 involved, view, anything else.
18 So based on your research and what you-all