LAND USE AND ZONING








                Proceedings held on Tuesday, November 16, 2010,


           commencing at 5:00 p.m., City Hall, Council


           Chambers, 1st Floor, Jacksonville, Florida, before


           Tina Hutcheson, a Notary Public in and for the State


           of Florida at Large.






                JOHN CRESCIMBENI, Chair.

                RAY HOLT, Vice Chair.

                DON REDMAN, Committee Member.

                DICK BROWN, Committee Member.

                REGGIE BROWN, Committee Member.

                STEPHEN JOOST, Committee Member.


           ALSO PRESENT:


                KEVIN HYDE, City Council Member.

                GLORIOUS JOHNSON, City Council Member.

                JOHN CROFTS, Deputy Director, Planning Dept.

                SEAN KELLY, Chief, Current Planning.

                FOLKS HUXFORD, Zoning Administrator.

                KEN AVERY, Planning and Development Dept.

                JOEL MCEACHIN, Planning and Development Dept.

                DYLAN REINGOLD, Office of General Counsel.

                JASON GABRIEL, Office of General Counsel.

                JASON TEAL, Office of General Counsel.

                CHERRY SHAW, Office of General Counsel.

                MERRIANE LAHMEUR, Legislative Assistant.

                SHARONDA DAVIS, Legislative Assistant.



                                  - - -




       1                  P R O C E E D I N G S


       2   November 16, 2010                          5:00 p.m.


       3                          - - -


       4             THE CHAIRMAN:  All right.  Good evening,


       5        everyone.


       6             We're going to call the November 16th


       7        meeting of the Land Use and Zoning Committee to


       8        order.  It's about one minute after 5:00.  And


       9        we will begin by having everyone introduce


      10        themselves for the record, starting with


      11        Mr. Crofts on my far right.


      12             Mr. Crofts.


      13             MR. CROFTS:  Good evening.  My name is


      14        John Crofts and I'm representing Planning and


      15        Development.


      16             MR. KELLY:  Sean Kelly, Planning and


      17        Development.


      18             MR. HUXFORD:  Folks Huxford, Planning and


      19        Development.


      20             MR. REINGOLD:  Dylan Reingold with the


      21        Office of General Counsel.


      22             MR. HYDE:  Kevin Hyde, City Council.


      23             MR. R. BROWN:  Dick Brown, City Council


      24        District 13.


      25             MR. JOOST:  Steven Joost, City Council






       1        Group 3 at-large.


       2             THE CHAIRMAN:  I'm John Crescimbeni,


       3        Councilman at-large, Group 2 and chairman of


       4        the committee.


       5             MR. HOLT:  Ray Holt, District 11.


       6             MR. REDMAN:  Don Redman, District 4.


       7             MS. JOHNSON:  Good afternoon.


       8             Councilwoman Glorious Johnson.


       9             How long y'all be in this place?


      10             THE CHAIRMAN:  I'm sorry?


      11             MS. JOHNSON:  Are y'all here very long?


      12             THE CHAIRMAN:  We're going to be quick


      13        tonight, I hope.


      14             Welcome, everyone.  I do have an excused


      15        absence from Mr. Bishop.  He had a conflict


      16        this evening.


      17             And here comes Mr. Reggie Brown, who has


      18        an early excusal at 6:15, and we've got that


      19        noted on the record, Mr. Brown.


      20             Mr. Reingold.


      21             MR. REINGOLD:  Yes, sir.  Would you like


      22        me to get us started?


      23             THE CHAIRMAN:  I would.


      24             MR. REINGOLD:  All right.


      25             Anyone who would like to address the





       1        committee tonight must fill out a yellow


       2        speaker's card in its entirety.  The yellow


       3        speaker's cards are located on the desk up


       4        front near the podium.  Once completed, please


       5        return the speaker's cards to the basket on the


       6        front desk.


       7             Any person who lobbies the City for


       8        compensation is considered a lobbyist and is


       9        therefore required to register their lobbying


      10        activity with the City Council secretary.  If


      11        you are a lobbyist and have not registered with


      12        the City Council secretary, you will not be


      13        permitted to address the committee.


      14             Because a verbatim transcript of this


      15        meeting will be prepared by a court reporter,


      16        it is important that you speak clearly into the


      17        microphone when you address the committee.


      18        It's also important that only one person speak


      19        at a time.


      20             Any tangible material submitted with a


      21        speaker's presentation, such as documents,


      22        photographs, plans, drawings, et cetera, shall


      23        become a permanent part of the public record


      24        and will be retained by this committee.


      25             As a courtesy, please switch any cell



       1        phones, pagers or audible devices to a silent


       2        mode.  Additionally, there shall be no public


       3        displays of support or opposition, so please


       4        refrain from applause or speaking out of turn.


       5             Items are generally addressed in the order


       6        in which they are listed on the agenda.  Copies


       7        of the agenda are located on the front desk


       8        near the podium.  On occasion, items may be


       9        heard out of order for the sake of efficiency


      10        or to accommodate scheduling conflicts.


      11             Unless there is a formal hearing on a


      12        particular item, each member of the public is


      13        limited to a single three-minute presentation.


      14        Presentations should be focused, concise and


      15        address only the items pending before the


      16        committee.


      17             Prior to addressing the committee, please


      18        state your name and your address for the court


      19        reporter.


      20             Decisions on rezonings, including PUDs,


      21        are all considered quasi-judicial in nature,


      22        and certain protocols will be followed for


      23        these proceedings.


      24             First, council members or committee


      25        members must disclose on the record any




       1        ex-parte communications they have had with any


       2        members of the public prior to the hearing on


       3        each applicable item.  This includes a brief


       4        statement of when the communication took place,


       5        who the communication was with, and what the


       6        subject matter of the communication was about.


       7             Second, the normal format is to allow the


       8        applicant or agent thereof to make their


       9        presentation first, followed by members of the


      10        public who wish to speak in support of the


      11        item, then members of the public who are in


      12        opposition will be allowed to speak.  After all


      13        of the public comments have been received, the


      14        applicant will have a brief opportunity to wrap


      15        up or present a brief rebuttal.  The wrap-up or


      16        rebuttal shall be limited to the issues brought


      17        up by the speakers.


      18             In some instances, the Chair may permit a


      19        concise surrebuttal or response to the


      20        applicant's rebuttal, which will be followed by


      21        a brief final response by the applicant.


      22             Finally, all quasi-judicial decisions must


      23        be based on substantial competent evidence,


      24        which means the committee's decision must be


      25        supported by fact-based testimony or expert




       1        testimony and not generalized concerns or


       2        opinions.


       3             THE CHAIRMAN:  Thank you, Mr. Reingold.


       4             Ms. Johnson, are you here on any


       5        particular item?


       6             MS. JOHNSON:  Yes.  Thank you,


       7        Mr. Chairman.


       8             The item that I'm here on is on Page 4.


       9             THE CHAIRMAN:  The cemetery?


      10             MS. JOHNSON:  Number 8.  Yes.


      11             THE CHAIRMAN:  Okay.  I have Mr. Hyde


      12        here, and we're going to take up something that


      13        we couldn't deal with last time.  So we'll take


      14        up Item 1, and then we'll take up your item --


      15             MS. JOHNSON:  Thank you.


      16             THE CHAIRMAN:  -- so you don't have to


      17        stay unless, of course, you want to.


      18             So with that said, Item 1, we normally


      19        begin with a Planning Department report,


      20        although when we took this up last week, I


      21        think I mentioned that we would start with a


      22        summary of how we got to where we are tonight.


      23             And I understand, Mr. Hyde, you're going


      24        to do that summary.  So if you would like to


      25        just kind of walk us through the introduction




       1        of -326 and how it's morphed, where it is


       2        today.  And then we're going to hear from


       3        Mr. Killingsworth from the Planning Department.


       4             MR. HYDE:  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.  And


       5        I'll be brief.


       6             I know many of you have heard this


       7        explanation.  We had a -- really, I appreciate


       8        the opportunity that all of you gave me


       9        yesterday in our noticed meeting.  A lot of


      10        good questions were asked and we really hashed


      11        it out a lot there.


      12             My original concern about this topic came


      13        about by looking at the proliferation of


      14        internet cafes which run sweepstakes operations


      15        throughout the county, as well as some of the


      16        practices and activities that I saw in there,


      17        and some constituent complaints that I had


      18        received.


      19             As you know, when I introduced the bill, I


      20        believe it was in April, it would have proposed


      21        an outright ban on these machines in terms of


      22        the type of display they could use, anything


      23        that would have mimicked what we would


      24        typically see as a slot machine or casino


      25        gambling.  The idea being that I thought it was




       1        deceptive to the public as to what they were


       2        receiving.  And frankly, we don't have approved


       3        gambling in Duval County, nor do I want


       4        anything that simulated that.


       5             As we worked through this legislation, it


       6        became apparent to me that there were a number


       7        of groups involved in it, a number of people,


       8        and that frankly, this industry employs a lot


       9        of people in Duval County at a time that we


      10        know our joblessness is such a high rate that I


      11        was concerned about the impact of losing that


      12        number of jobs as well as the impact on the


      13        properties that are currently being leased for


      14        these establishments.


      15             So in conversations with representatives


      16        of the operators of the Internet cafes, one of


      17        the things that we talked about was because it


      18        is an otherwise lawful activity, how could we


      19        regulate it so that the consumers of this


      20        service and product would know exactly what


      21        they were going to receive, and also to address


      22        some of the concerns that had been raised


      23        regarding security for the employees who work


      24        there as well as the patrons.


      25             That then led to the conversation which we




       1        are now -- the bill we have before us, in one


       2        of the sections with a very tightly-regulated


       3        prescription for these activities.  It also led


       4        to the proposal of saying that let's limit the


       5        number of these establishments within Duval


       6        County and ultimately decrease them from the


       7        level that we are at, and through natural


       8        attrition get down to a level of 20.


       9             I will tell you there is no magic in the


      10        number 20, but it seemed to be a fair and


      11        workable number given the amount that we


      12        currently have in the county and where we think


      13        that we might go to.


      14             There was also issues brought up with


      15        regard to the part of the bill dealing with


      16        what are called adult arcades.  And, again, in


      17        an attempt to limit that type of activity, one


      18        of the proposals that you see in the overall


      19        bill is to allow those types of activities only


      20        on otherwise licensed pari-mutuel facilities.


      21        Currently, we have in Duval County two of those


      22        licensed pari-mutuel facilities.


      23             So it creates a division between where


      24        those adult arcade activities can be


      25        maintained, very limited there, as well as the




       1        restrictions on the Internet cafe.


       2             As many of you know, we have worked


       3        extensively on various proposals that deal with


       4        the regulation, the security, and, now before


       5        this committee, some of the zoning issues, and


       6        the idea here is to provide very tight


       7        regulation while there's still time allowing


       8        them to operate.


       9             Since we last met two weeks ago, a couple


      10        of things have occurred.  One, Mr. Crescimbeni


      11        both yesterday and previously had some


      12        questions about the permits, how new permits


      13        were going to be obtained when there was this


      14        attrition.  And I think, Mr. Crescimbeni,


      15        correct me wrong (sic), you've seen language on


      16        that and will entertain that in amendment.  The


      17        language I have seen, which was proposed to


      18        you, I am perfectly acceptable with.  And if


      19        there's any further tweaks that you have, you


      20        know, certainly look at those.


      21             We also talked to the sheriff.  He had


      22        some concerns about his role and did not want


      23        to take on the permitting role.  And that's now


      24        been placed under Environmental Compliance, and


      25        Ebenezer that we've all worked with will be




       1        handling that.  The sheriff retains the


       2        compliance activity and the enforcement


       3        activity, which is certainly appropriate for


       4        him, and he's willing to take that role on.


       5             So I think what we have before us and


       6        which was approved by PHS tonight, and today


       7        will be the last committee it will go through,


       8        it is the result of a lot of compromise.  I


       9        think it's fair compromise.  It's fair to say


      10        that any number of people who have been


      11        affected by this, and you'll recall the evening


      12        when we had the, frankly, hundreds of people


      13        come down and talk about it, we have reached


      14        out to them.  I have met with them personally


      15        on numerous occasions.  I know some of you all


      16        have met with them.  So while no one agrees


      17        that everything about this bill is perfect, I


      18        do think that we have addressed all of the


      19        industry concerns in meeting my goal, frankly,


      20        of limiting this activity as much as we can be.


      21             I maintain to this day I'm still not a fan


      22        of this industry, but there are many lawful,


      23        legal industries that might not be my personal


      24        preference.  But I think that we achieved some


      25        goals here of the consumers of these activities




       1        understanding exactly what they are getting,


       2        that it is done in a safe environment, in one


       3        which leads to a proper business activity in


       4        Jacksonville.


       5             Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for letting me


       6        walk you through that.


       7             THE CHAIRMAN:  Thank you, Mr. Hyde.  I


       8        appreciate that.  That was an excellent


       9        summary.


      10             And, Mr. Killingsworth, we will hear from


      11        you, and then we'll open up for public hearing.


      12             MR. KILLINGSWORTH:  Thank you,


      13        Mr. Chairman.  Is this on?


      14             Bill Killingsworth, director of Planning


      15        and Development.


      16             2010-326 seeks to establish a new chapter,


      17        Chapter 155, to regulate the operation of adult


      18        arcade/amusement centers, to establish Chapter


      19        156 to regulate the operations of game


      20        promotions utilizing electronic equipment, and


      21        to amend Chapter 655 to allow for adult


      22        arcade/amusement centers and for game


      23        promotions utilizing electronic equipment in


      24        CCG-1 and CCG-2 by right, and in IL by


      25        exception as long as they conform to




       1        performance standards and development criteria


       2        as set forth in Part 4 of -656.


       3             This bill furthers the purposes of the


       4        comprehensive plan and the zoning code as it


       5        promotes the public health and safety by


       6        ensuring that these businesses are properly


       7        regulated and that they are appropriately


       8        located.


       9             In particular, Goal 1 of the future land


      10        use element is to ensure that the character and


      11        location of land uses optimize the combined


      12        potentials for economic benefit, enjoyment and


      13        protection of natural resources while


      14        minimizing the threat to health, safety and


      15        welfare posed by hazards, nuisances,


      16        incompatible land uses and environmental


      17        degradation.


      18             Future land use element policy 1.1.7


      19        requires that gradual transition of densities


      20        and intensities between land uses in


      21        conformance with this element shall be achieved


      22        through zoning and development review


      23        processes.


      24             Based upon an examination of the proposed


      25        ordinance with respect to the goals, objectives




       1        and policies of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan and


       2        the intent of the zoning code, the Planning


       3        Department finds that Ordinance 2010-326 is


       4        consistent with the 2030 Comprehensive Plan and


       5        the intent of the zoning code, and therefore


       6        recommends approval of 2010-326, subject to the


       7        following modifications.


       8             I passed out -- or actually, I asked staff


       9        to pass out changes to our report which change


      10        the modifications that we're requesting.


      11             On Page 38 of the ordinance as filed, Line


      12        10, the department would request that the word


      13        "any" be inserted between kk, close


      14        parentheses, period, and game promotions


      15        utilizing electronic equipment.  And that


      16        "operated by a licensed permit holder" be


      17        stricken.


      18             We would also request that after "distance


      19        limitations" that "for game promotions


      20        utilizing electronic equipment operated by a


      21        licensed permit holder or de minimis activity


      22        facility" be inserted.


      23             As well as on Line 23, the map shall show,


      24        and insert "existing zoning and all locations


      25        of schools, churches, military installations




       1        within a radius of 750 feet of the proposed


       2        location."


       3             And with those modifications, the


       4        department can support this bill.


       5             THE CHAIRMAN:  Thank you,


       6        Mr. Killingsworth?


       7             Any questions for Mr. Killingsworth?


       8             All right.  Stand by.  May have some in a


       9        minute.


      10             All right.  We have a public hearing on


      11        this matter scheduled for this evening.  The


      12        public hearing is open.


      13             Do we have any speaker cards?


      14             No speaker cards.


      15             No one wants to address the committee?


      16             AUDIENCE MEMBERS:  (No response.)


      17             THE CHAIRMAN:  All right.  Seeing no one,


      18        then the public hearing is closed and we are


      19        back at committee.


      20             Now, before us we have, Mr. Reingold, is


      21        this document that Mr. Killingsworth


      22        referenced, is it incorporated into this master


      23        amendment that was adopted by Public Health and


      24        Safety earlier?


      25             MR. REINGOLD:  To the Chair, partially.




       1        And Mr. Killingsworth can get up and explain if


       2        I'm wrong.


       3             There are three aspects of their proposed


       4        amendment, one of which is actually addressed


       5        in the PHS amendment, and that is on


       6        656.401(kk)(1) where it says "distance


       7        limitations for game promotions utilizing


       8        electronic equipment operated by a licensed


       9        permit holder or a de minimis activity


      10        facility."  That issue has been resolved


      11        through the PHS amendment.  So that does not


      12        need to be amended.


      13             It is my understanding through my


      14        discussions with Mr. Killingsworth he still


      15        would like the word "any" to be included at the


      16        beginning at 656.401 KK, and he would also like


      17        that the provision that the map shall show


      18        "existing zoning and all locations."  Those


      19        were the two points that I believe


      20        Mr. Killingsworth wanted included if the PHS


      21        amendment was adopted.


      22             THE CHAIRMAN:  Okay.  Thank you.


      23             Mr. Gabriel, do you want to come and sit


      24        up here so we can see you?  Yeah, you can sit


      25        right over next to your colleague there,




       1        Mr. Reingold.


       2             All right.  So everyone should have a copy


       3        of what Mr. Killingsworth was referencing, the


       4        one-page document.  And everyone should have a


       5        copy of the -- I'll call it the master


       6        amendment that Mr. Hyde has been working on for


       7        a number of days.  What is it, 14 pages, 15


       8        pages.


       9             So with that --


      10             MR. REDMAN:  I move the amendment.


      11             THE CHAIRMAN:  I have a motion on the --


      12             MR. JOOST:  Second.


      13             THE CHAIRMAN:  -- master 15-page amendment


      14        with the Killingsworth or the Planning


      15        Department's recommendations as well.


      16             Second by Mr. Joost.


      17             Any discussion on that amendment?


      18             COMMITTEE MEMBERS:  (No response.)


      19             THE CHAIRMAN:  Okay.  I have one question,


      20        and through the Chair -- as the Chair,


      21        Mr. Hyde, I had a conversation with Mr. Mathis


      22        and Mr. Duggan and Mr. Mann earlier, and I had


      23        two points that I wanted to clarify on the


      24        latest -- I'll call it is Hyde amendment with


      25        regard to the drawing of a new permit.  I was




       1        hopeful that that would be conducted in a


       2        public forum, a public venue, something similar


       3        to when we open RFPs or bids, et cetera.


       4             And my other question I think was relating


       5        to -- I got to look.


       6             MR. HYDE:  Mr. Gabriel told me there was


       7        two issues, the public, I think that makes


       8        sense, and I've asked him to incorporate


       9        language to that effect.


      10             THE CHAIRMAN:  Okay.  And the other one


      11        was with regard to the list of things to prove


      12        that you were open before August 9th of 2010.


      13             MR. HYDE:  Right.  It was to clarify


      14        language that would show and strengthen that


      15        they really were in existence and operating,


      16        not some shell.


      17             THE CHAIRMAN:  Okay.


      18             MR. HYDE:  And I think that would be --


      19             THE CHAIRMAN:  So we can assume that's


      20        part of this master -- okay.


      21             And then the only other thing I had, and


      22        I'll work on something maybe between now and


      23        Tuesday, was helping to clarify that 14-day


      24        cessation period, but I don't have as much


      25        trouble with that.  I know you've taken a stab




       1        at that, so it's much more comfortable for me.


       2             So with that said, any further discussion


       3        on the amendment which incorporates those two


       4        minor changes, Mr. Killingsworth's comments and


       5        everything that Mr. Hyde has been working on


       6        for the past couple of weeks?


       7             COMMITTEE MEMBERS:  (No response.)


       8             THE CHAIRMAN:  All right.  All those in


       9        favor say yes.


      10             COMMITTEE MEMBERS:  Yes.


      11             THE CHAIRMAN:  Opposed say no.


      12             COMMITTEE MEMBERS:  (No response.)


      13             THE CHAIRMAN:  By your action, you've


      14        adopted the omnibus amendment.


      15             MR. R. BROWN:  Move the bill as amended.


      16             MR. HOLT:  Second.


      17             THE CHAIRMAN:  Motion on the bill by


      18        Mr. Joost (sic).  Second by Mr. Holt as


      19        amended.


      20             Any discussion?


      21             COMMITTEE MEMBERS:  (No response.)


      22             THE CHAIRMAN:  If not, open the ballot,


      23        vote.


      24             (Committee ballot opened.)


      25             MR. CRESCIMBENI:  (Votes yea)




       1             MR. JOOST:  (Votes yea)


       2             MR. REDMAN:  (Votes yea)


       3             MR. R. BROWN:  (Votes yea)


       4             MR. D. BROWN:  (Votes yea)


       5             MR. HOLT:  (Votes yea)


       6             (Committee ballot closed)


       7             MS. LAHMEUR:  Six yea, zero nay.


       8             THE CHAIRMAN:  By your action, you've


       9        approved Item 1, 2010-326.


      10             Thank you, Mr. Hyde.  You've certainly got


      11        a ton of hours in this, as do a lot of the


      12        folks in the audience, and we appreciate it.  I


      13        think we've come a very long way since April,


      14        and I hope everybody's happy and has some skin


      15        in the game at this point.  So thank you.


      16             MR. HYDE:  Thank you.


      17             THE CHAIRMAN:  We'll see how it goes.


      18             All right.  Ms. Johnson, your item number


      19        was item -- was it Number 4?


      20             MS. JOHNSON:  I'm sorry.  On Page 4,


      21        Number 8, 2010 --


      22             THE CHAIRMAN:  Right.  Number 8.  Let's


      23        skip ahead to Page 4, Item 8, 2010-770.  And we


      24        have a report.


      25             Ms. Shaw, are you going to give the report




       1        or Mr. McEachin, are you going to give the


       2        report?


       3             MS. JOHNSON:  I'm giving it.


       4             THE CHAIRMAN:  We have to get it from them


       5        first, then we'll come to you.


       6             MS. JOHNSON:  Oh.


       7             MS. SHAW:  Through the Chair, Cherry Shaw,


       8        Office of General Counsel.


       9             As you recall, two weeks ago this bill was


      10        continued in order to allow the committee


      11        members to review the application and


      12        supporting materials.  Mr. McEachin also had


      13        additional information that we can also provide


      14        to the committee.  And I am just going to let


      15        Mr. McEachin provide that additional


      16        information.


      17             THE CHAIRMAN:  All right.  Thank you,


      18        Ms. Shaw.


      19             Mr. McEachin.


      20             MR. MCEACHIN:  Yes.  Through the Chair to


      21        the committee, this landmark application was


      22        requested by Councilmember Glorious Johnson.


      23        The Preservation Commission then charged the


      24        Planning and Development Department to develop


      25        the application and make a report back to the




       1        Historic Preservation Commission.  After a


       2        public hearing and proper notification, that


       3        was done.  The commission accepted our report


       4        and recommendations.  The Old City Cemetery is


       5        qualified for local landmark site designation.


       6             Our recommendation was based upon finding


       7        that the cemetery meets four of seven


       8        standards, which is really quite high.  And the


       9        standards are outlined both in our report as


      10        well as within the application itself.


      11             And I'll be happy to answer any further


      12        questions on this if you have any or want to go


      13        in more detail about any aspect of the


      14        application or the report.


      15             Thank you.


      16             THE CHAIRMAN:  Mr. McEachin, how many


      17        cemeteries have a similar designation that


      18        the --


      19             MR. MCEACHIN:  About nine or ten


      20        cemeteries are so-designated.


      21             THE CHAIRMAN:  Thank you, sir.


      22             Any questions from the committee for


      23        Mr. McEachin?


      24             COMMITTEE MEMBERS:  (No response.)


      25             THE CHAIRMAN:  All right.  Seeing none,




       1        this is a quasi-judicial matter.  Does anyone


       2        have any ex-parte communication to disclose


       3        prior to the public hearing?


       4             COMMITTEE MEMBERS:  (No response.)


       5             THE CHAIRMAN:  All right.  Seeing none, we


       6        do have a public hearing scheduled this


       7        evening.  The public hearing is open.


       8             No speaker cards?


       9             Anyone care to address the committee?


      10             AUDIENCE MEMBERS:  (No response.)


      11             THE CHAIRMAN:  Seeing no one, the public


      12        hearing is closed.


      13             Ms. Johnson -- Ms. Johnson, let me point


      14        out for the record that this bill was deferred


      15        at the last meeting because we didn't have any


      16        paperwork in our books on it.  There was no --


      17        Ms. Shaw began her discussion and started


      18        referencing some documents, and when we turned


      19        to our book, there was no pages under the tab.


      20        So that caused the two-week delay.


      21             But, Ms. Johnson, you're on the queue, so


      22        you may have the floor.


      23             MS. JOHNSON:  Thank you very much.  And


      24        I'll make this very short.


      25             I would like -- Mr. McEachin, I'm sorry, I




       1        was rushing to get over here, and thank you so


       2        much for the compilation that you have done on


       3        the booklet.


       4             But many of you may have been over to the


       5        cemetery.  It was actually purchased by


       6        Mr. Willey in 1852.  He purchased four acres of


       7        the property.  Well, he purchased over 200-plus


       8        acres, but four acres was given to the City in


       9        order for us to bury those who were unable to


      10        pay for burial.  But it wind up being something


      11        totally different because what happened was


      12        when the actual burial started, we wind up with


      13        a Confederate section, we wind up with an


      14        African-American section, we wind up with a


      15        Jewish section, there were many different


      16        sections in that one little four-acre cemetery.


      17             And being that many people, citizens in


      18        the community have started putting their moneys


      19        in to try to preserve it, for example, the


      20        Confederate veterans, what they have done is


      21        spent over $10,000, and they restored a


      22        platform for people who have events or honor


      23        people who have been buried there, they can


      24        have ceremonies there and they have a place to


      25        go, a shed where they can go.




       1             There was a book written, and it's going


       2        to be published very soon by Ms. Jameson who


       3        lived in the area.  At one time the area was


       4        called Oakland, and it was where a majority of


       5        the black community lived which was called the


       6        Eastside also.  And in that area, Ms. Jameson


       7        and her family, the Mungens are very well-known


       8        in that community.  She wrote a book about the


       9        cemetery and the people who were buried in that


      10        cemetery.  In fact, one of the part-owners of


      11        that cemetery was James Weldon Johnson.  And it


      12        was Alva Knight.


      13             So I'm glad that we are finally giving it


      14        a landmark designation just like we did for


      15        Brewster Hospital because of the fact there are


      16        funds available at the federal level that will


      17        help to keep those type of, let's say,


      18        buildings, cemeteries and so forth, history,


      19        preserved.


      20             And this was really actually done by


      21        President Bush wife who set up a program where


      22        buildings and cemeteries and so forth can


      23        receive the funds to restore it throughout this


      24        country so that our young people will know that


      25        there were some really good history in this




       1        city.


       2             And I hope that you support this bill


       3        where it can become a landmark and it can


       4        receive the funds that will help to continue to


       5        keep it restored, because presently we have


       6        citizens who are actually using their moneys,


       7        and they have once-a-month cleanups to help


       8        keep the place clean.


       9             Thank you very much.


      10             THE CHAIRMAN:  Thank you, Ms. Johnson.


      11             And thank you for bringing this to the


      12        council for consideration.  I mean I've driven


      13        by that particular -- being a frequent user of


      14        the Mathews Bridge and expressway, I never


      15        would have dreamed that that didn't already


      16        have a designation.  So good work.


      17             Any questions from the committee?


      18             Mr. Joost.


      19             MR. JOOST:  Through the Chair to


      20        Ms. Johnson, I was actually reading this


      21        earlier today, and I was just wondering, it


      22        said in 1865 the United States Government


      23        confiscated -- Captain Willey's remaining land


      24        around the Old City Cemetery was confiscated by


      25        the U.S. District Court in 1865.  Just out of




       1        my own curiosity, do you know why they did


       2        that?


       3             MS. JOHNSON:  Mr. McEachin may have to


       4        answer that.  I don't know if it was for taxes


       5        or what it was for.  But even --


       6             MR. JOOST:  I was just curious.  I mean he


       7        gave all this land to the city, and then the


       8        government takes the rest of his land --


       9             MS. JOHNSON:  Well, that's the government.


      10             MR. JOOST:  I mean no good deed --


      11             THE CHAIRMAN:  Mr. McEachin, do you have


      12        an answer for that?  It sounds like something


      13        between the North and the South.


      14             MR. MCEACHIN:  I think that probably is


      15        the case.  I don't know for a fact, but my


      16        sense is that it resulted from not paying taxes


      17        and that it was acquired and sold --


      18             MS. JOHNSON:  It was taxes.


      19             MR. MCEACHIN:  -- sort of like a tax deed


      20        sale or something like that.


      21             MS. JOHNSON:  I was right.  It was taxes.


      22             THE CHAIRMAN:  Any other questions?


      23             COMMITTEE MEMBERS:  (No response.)


      24             THE CHAIRMAN:  Is there a motion on the


      25        bill?




       1             MR. JOOST:  Move the bill.


       2             THE CHAIRMAN:  Motion by Mr. Joost.


       3             MR. R. BROWN:  Second.


       4             THE CHAIRMAN:  Second by Councilman Reggie


       5        Brown.


       6             Discussion?


       7             COMMITTEE MEMBERS:  (No response.)


       8             THE CHAIRMAN:  If not, open the ballot,


       9        vote.


      10             MR. CRESCIMBENI:  (Votes yea)


      11             MR. JOOST:  (Votes yea)


      12             MR. REDMAN:  (Votes yea)


      13             MR. R. BROWN:  (Votes yea)


      14             MR. D. BROWN:  (Votes yea)


      15             (Committee ballot closed)


      16             MS. LAHMEUR:  Five yea, zero nay.


      17             THE CHAIRMAN:  By your action, you've


      18        approved Item 8, 2010-770.


      19             MS. JOHNSON:  Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and


      20        thank you, colleagues.  Mr. McEachin and


      21        Cherry, thank you.


      22             Thank you.


      23             THE CHAIRMAN:  Turning back to Page 2 at


      24        the bottom, Item 2, 1020-389, we're not going


      25        to take this bill up tonight.  We do have a




       1        public hearing scheduled.  The public hearing


       2        is open.


       3             Any speaker cards?


       4             None.


       5             Anyone care to address the committee?


       6             AUDIENCE MEMBERS:  (No response.)


       7             THE CHAIRMAN:  All right.  Seeing no one,


       8        the public hearing is continued until


       9        January 4th of 2011.


      10             Turning over to Page 3, Item 3, 2010-585.


      11        There will be no action on this bill tonight,


      12        but is it scheduled for a public hearing.


      13             We have a public hearing that is now open.


      14             Do we have any speaker cards?


      15             Anyone care to address the committee?


      16             AUDIENCE MEMBERS:  (No response.)


      17             THE CHAIRMAN:  Seeing no one, the public


      18        hearing is continued also until January 4th,


      19        and no further action on that.


      20             Items 4 and 5 on Page 3 are both deferred.


      21             Turning to Page 4, Item 6, 2010-618 is


      22        deferred, as is Item 7, 2010-670.


      23             We just took up and approved Item 8.


      24             That takes us to the bottom of the page.


      25        Item 4 -- I mean on Page 4, Item 9, 2010-782.




       1             Mr. Kelly for the staff report.


       2             MR. KELLY:  Thank you.  To the Chair and


       3        to the LUZ Committee, Ordinance 2010-782 seeks


       4        to rezone approximately 115 acres from PUD to


       5        PUD.  The subject property is at the northwest


       6        quadrant of the Kernan Boulevard and Atlantic


       7        Boulevard interchange.


       8             Previously, the PUD prior to 2005-643 was


       9        the subject of the settlement agreement between


      10        the developer and the Planning Department as it


      11        related to the verification compliance of that


      12        ordinance and that site plan, and there are


      13        many stipulations that were put into that


      14        document.


      15             The property, my understanding is it has


      16        changed hands.  The new property owner is now


      17        looking to get some relief from portions of the


      18        settlement agreement.


      19             The department is supportive of this PUD.


      20        We find it again, as consistent with the


      21        comprehensive plan, and actually takes into


      22        account many of the pre-existing agreements


      23        between the department and the developer from


      24        the previous settlement agreement.


      25             Additionally, the property immediately




       1        west of this was recently rezoned to provide


       2        for a commercial town center neighborhood


       3        development, which was the intent of the


       4        original PUD that was on this property.


       5        However, this property's been developing out


       6        more of a big box commercial development with


       7        mixed use and residential to the north.


       8        However, the adjacent PUD mitigates for the


       9        fact that the loss of the overall town


      10        center-type of development that was originally


      11        proposed on this site.


      12             However, the department again finds it


      13        consistent with the goals, objectives and


      14        policies of the comprehensive plan, finds it


      15        consistent with numerous policies within that


      16        future land use element.  The department is


      17        recommending approval subject to the conditions


      18        in the letter dated November 10th, 2010, to


      19        Council President Webb.


      20             There are a couple of modifications.  I


      21        could go over the changes to the written


      22        description, but we do have a revised site


      23        plan, specifically, it's dated November 9th,


      24        and a revised written description, also dated


      25        November 9th, 2010.




       1             The department is recommending approval


       2        subject to the conditions of the memorandum.


       3             THE CHAIRMAN:  Thank you, Mr. Kelly.


       4             What's the date of the memorandum?


       5             MR. KELLY:  It's November 10th.


       6             I'll read them into the record just --


       7             THE CHAIRMAN:  Yes.  Let's --


       8             MR. KELLY:  -- clarify.  Thank you.


       9             "The development shall be subject to the


      10        original legal description dated


      11        September 23rd, 2010."


      12             Condition 2, "The development shall be


      13        subject to the revised written description


      14        dated November 9th, 2010."


      15             Condition 3, "The development shall be


      16        subject to the revised site plan dated November


      17        9th, 2010."


      18             Condition 4, "The development shall


      19        proceed in accordance with the Development


      20        Services Division memorandum dated October 6th,


      21        2010, or as otherwise reviewed and approved by


      22        the Planning and Development Department."


      23             Condition 5, "The development shall be


      24        prohibited from using the Florida -- Floridian


      25        aquifer water for irrigation and shall be




       1        required to connect to the JEA reuse water


       2        level."


       3             THE CHAIRMAN:  Thank you, Mr. Kelly.


       4             All right.  This is a quasi-judicial


       5        matter.


       6             Does anyone have any ex-parte


       7        communication to disclose?


       8             COMMITTEE MEMBERS:  (No response.)


       9             THE CHAIRMAN:  All right.  Seeing none, we


      10        have a public hearing scheduled this evening.


      11        The public hearing is open.


      12             I have one speaker's card.


      13             Michael Herzberg.


      14             MR. HERZBERG:  Good evening, sir, members


      15        of the committee.


      16             My name is Michael Herzberg.  My address


      17        is 1 Sleiman Parkway, Jacksonville, Florida,


      18        32216.


      19             THE CHAIRMAN:  Mr. Herzberg, before you


      20        begin, did you hear the conditions that were


      21        read into the record?


      22             MR. HERZBERG:  Yes, sir.


      23             THE CHAIRMAN:  Do you accept --


      24             MR. HERZBERG:  Yes, sir, I do.


      25             THE CHAIRMAN:  Okay.  Thank you.  You may




       1        begin.


       2             MR. HERZBERG:  Thank you.


       3             Simply put, we agree with the conditions.


       4        We thank the department for its review.  As


       5        Mr. Kelly said, this is really now become the


       6        power center component to this development


       7        whereas previously, the previous owner had


       8        intended it to be a town center, which was the


       9        basis of the stipulated settlement agreement.


      10             The town center aspect of this development


      11        will be shifted to the west.  This will be the


      12        power center component just similar to what you


      13        see at the St. Johns Town Center.  Clearly, not


      14        all of the St. Johns Town Center in the


      15        Southside is a town center.  The vast majority


      16        of it is actually a power center in the area


      17        where the Target is, things of that nature.


      18        It's not as walkable.  This area will actually


      19        provide more walkable areas even in the power


      20        center than the St. Johns Town Center does.


      21             As Mr. Kelly said, a number of those


      22        matters have been retained and are included in


      23        the site, a written description, including


      24        pedestrian causeways, pedestrian areas of


      25        refuge, almost park-like setting in numerous




       1        areas of that.


       2             With that, I'll close so as not to take up


       3        any more of your time.


       4             Again, appreciate your support, and thank


       5        you very much.


       6             THE CHAIRMAN:  Mr. Herzberg, did I


       7        understand the staff to say that this has


       8        recently changed hands, ownership?


       9             MR. HERZBERG:  Mr. Chairman, it hasn't


      10        recently changed hands, but it has changed


      11        hands in approximately the last two years, and


      12        that change was --


      13             THE CHAIRMAN:  You were here on this


      14        property earlier in the year, right, for a


      15        store that opened I think --


      16             MR. HERZBERG:  Yes, sir.


      17             THE CHAIRMAN:  -- Saturday or maybe this


      18        Saturday?


      19             MR. HERZBERG:  Academy opened up Friday,


      20        yes, sir.


      21             THE CHAIRMAN:  Seen lots of television


      22        commercials for that.  So congratulations on


      23        getting that off -- I think they wanted to be


      24        open by Thanksgiving, and it sounds like they


      25        met their target date.




       1             MR. HERZBERG:  Thank you very much, sir.


       2             THE CHAIRMAN:  Any other questions for


       3        Mr. Herzberg from the committee?


       4             COMMITTEE MEMBERS:  (No response.)


       5             THE CHAIRMAN:  All right.  Anyone else


       6        care to address the committee?


       7             AUDIENCE MEMBERS:  (No response.)


       8             THE CHAIRMAN:  All right.  Seeing none,


       9        then the public hearing is closed.


      10             MR. JOOST:  Move the amendment.


      11             MR. HOLT:  Second.


      12             THE CHAIRMAN:  Motion on the amendment,


      13        which are the conditions, by Mr. Joost.


      14             Second by Mr. Holt.


      15             Any discussion on the amendment?


      16             COMMITTEE MEMBERS:  (No response.)


      17             THE CHAIRMAN:  If not, all those in favor


      18        say yes.


      19             COMMITTEE MEMBERS:  Yes.


      20             THE CHAIRMAN:  Opposed say no.


      21             COMMITTEE MEMBERS:  (No response.)


      22             THE CHAIRMAN:  By your action, you've


      23        approved the amendment.


      24             MR. JOOST:  Move the bill as amended.


      25             MR. HOLT:  Second.




       1             THE CHAIRMAN:  Motion on the bill as


       2        amended by Mr. Joost.


       3             Second by Mr. Holt.


       4             Discussion?


       5             COMMITTEE MEMBERS:  (No response.)


       6             THE CHAIRMAN:  If not, open the ballot,


       7        vote.


       8             MR. CRESCIMBENI:  (Votes yea)


       9             MR. JOOST:  (Votes yea)


      10             MR. REDMAN:  (Votes yea)


      11             MR. R. BROWN:  (Votes yea)


      12             MR. HOLT:  (Votes yea)


      13             MR. D. BROWN:  (Votes yea)


      14             (Committee ballot closed)


      15             MS. LAHMEUR:  Six yeas, zero nays.


      16             THE CHAIRMAN:  By your action, you've


      17        approved Item 9, 2010-782 as amended.


      18             MR. HERZBERG:  Thank you all.


      19             THE CHAIRMAN:  Thank you, Mr. Herzberg.


      20        Good to see you.


      21             Turning to Page 5, Item 10 at the top of


      22        the page, 2010-783.


      23             Mr. Kelly.


      24             MR. KELLY:  Thank you.  To the Chair and


      25        committee, Ordinance 2010-783 is an application




       1        for rezoning.  This request seeks to go from a


       2        commercial office zoning designation to a CCG 1


       3        zoning designation.


       4             The property currently has a land use of


       5        Community General Commercial.  This is actually


       6        across the street from the previous


       7        application.  This is the northeast quadrant of


       8        Kernan and Atlantic Boulevards, approximately


       9        9.8 acres.  This is a parcel from the Titus


      10        Harvest Dome Church property.


      11             The department has reviewed this and finds


      12        that this is consistent with the comprehensive


      13        plan, specifically, 3.2 and 3.22 of the future


      14        land use element.  Additionally, we find that


      15        this would further the goals, objectives and


      16        policies within the comprehensive plan, and


      17        there is no conflict with any land development


      18        regulations.


      19             I did want to clarify on Page 5 of the


      20        staff report that that map is actually


      21        incorrect, that the legal description actually


      22        less and excepts out the northern 160 feet.  So


      23        the actual frontage along Abess Boulevard is


      24        not part of this application.  The CO is --


      25        basically, it's 160 feet south of Abess




       1        Boulevard.  The CCG-1 will be within that area.


       2             So just to clarify the correction to the


       3        legal, it's actually proposed right in the


       4        original documentation.  It was just that the


       5        zoning map was made incorrect.


       6             THE CHAIRMAN:  Thank you, Mr. Kelly.


       7             Will we have to have an amendment for


       8        that, Mr. Reingold?


       9             MR. REINGOLD:  I don't think we need an


      10        amendment.  I mean the legal description is


      11        correct unless I hear otherwise from staff.


      12        And that's the only exhibit attached to the


      13        contract -- I mean attached to the bill.


      14             THE CHAIRMAN:  Does staff concur that the


      15        legal description is correct and just the map


      16        is incorrect on the report?


      17             MR. KELLY:  Just so long that -- well, I


      18        personally didn't review the legal description.


      19        It's 9.81 acres.  As long as it doesn't entail


      20        going beyond that, we're in agreement.


      21             THE CHAIRMAN:  Can staff and legal get


      22        together before Tuesday, Mr. Reingold?


      23             MR. REINGOLD:  I can clarify the issue


      24        now.


      25             There is a legal description that is




       1        Exhibit 1 that is in your book.  It describes


       2        9.81 acres.  You have a sketch of the property


       3        that also is 9.81 acres.  If you look at that


       4        sketch, that property does not go all the way


       5        up to Abess Boulevard.  So it appears that the


       6        legal description is correct as Mr. Kelly


       7        described it.


       8             THE CHAIRMAN:  Okay.  You're talking about


       9        part of Exhibit B or something there, last


      10        page?


      11             MR. REINGOLD:  It's right after Exhibit B,


      12        Agent Authorization, you will see a piece of


      13        property that is demonstrated to be -- does not


      14        connect up to Abess Boulevard, and you will see


      15        the legal description, although in very small


      16        words and letters, being 9.81 acres.  And that


      17        is the legal description, the 9.81 acres that


      18        was attached to the ordinance.


      19             THE CHAIRMAN:  So no amendment is needed?


      20             MR. REINGOLD:  Therefore, no amendment is


      21        needed.


      22             THE CHAIRMAN:  Thank you, sir.


      23             Any questions from the committee for


      24        Mr. Kelly?


      25             COMMITTEE MEMBERS:  (No response.)




       1             THE CHAIRMAN:  All right.  Anyone have any


       2        ex-parte -- this is a quasi-judicial matter.


       3        Does anyone have any ex-parte communication to


       4        disclose?


       5             COMMITTEE MEMBERS:  (No response.)


       6             THE CHAIRMAN:  All right.  Seeing none, we


       7        have a public hearing this evening.  The public


       8        hearing is open.


       9             I have one speaker card.  Scott Lyons.


      10             Mr. Lyons.


      11             MR. LYONS:  Scott Lyons, AVA Engineers,


      12        9283 San Jose Boulevard.  I'm here to answer


      13        any questions.


      14             THE CHAIRMAN:  Thank you, Mr. Lyons.


      15             Any questions from the committee?


      16             COMMITTEE MEMBERS:  (No response.)


      17             THE CHAIRMAN:  All right.  Thank you, sir.


      18             And, Mr. Kelly, there were no conditions,


      19        correct?


      20             MR. KELLY:  Correct.  This is a


      21        conventional rezoning.


      22             THE CHAIRMAN:  All right.  Thank you,


      23        Mr. Lyons.  If you'll just have a seat on the


      24        front row there just in case anything pops up.


      25             Anyone else care to address the committee?




       1             AUDIENCE MEMBERS:  (No response.)


       2             THE CHAIRMAN:  All right.  Seeing no one,


       3        the public hearing is closed.


       4             MR. JOOST:  Move the bill.


       5             MR. HOLT:  Second.


       6             THE CHAIRMAN:  Motion on the bill by


       7        Mr. Joost.


       8             Second by Mr. Holt.


       9             Discussion?


      10             COMMITTEE MEMBERS:  (No response.)


      11             THE CHAIRMAN:  If not, open the ballot,


      12        vote.


      13             MR. CRESCIMBENI:  (Votes yea)


      14             MR. JOOST:  (Votes yea)


      15             MR. REDMAN:  (Votes yea)


      16             MR. D. BROWN:  (Votes yea)


      17             MR. HOLT:  (Votes yea)


      18             MR. R. BROWN:  (Votes yea)


      19             (Committee ballot closed)


      20             MS. LAHMEUR:  Six yea, zero nay.


      21             THE CHAIRMAN:  By your action, you've


      22        approved Item 10, 2010-783.


      23             Item 11, 2010 -- I tell you what.  Before


      24        we take that up, Item 12 is deferred; Item 13,


      25        14 are both read second, as are the last two




       1        items on Page 6, Items 15 and 16.


       2             So that leaves one item left on our


       3        agenda.  It is the appeal.  It is the appeal.


       4        Item 11, 2010-784.


       5             And, Mr. Teal, you are going to start off


       6        by giving the staff report on this.


       7             MR. TEAL:  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.


       8             Mr. Chairman, this is an appeal from the


       9        Historic Preservation Commission of an


      10        application sought by a property owner in the


      11        Riverside Avondale Historic District to enclose


      12        an existing carport that was constructed around


      13        1962.  The actual structure itself was built in


      14        the 1920's.  So the carport was added onto the


      15        structure in the mid '60s.


      16             The applicant seeks to enclose this


      17        carport in order to provide additional parking


      18        on the property for her vehicle.  The Historic


      19        Preservation Commission denied the request to


      20        enclose the carport for purposes of the fact


      21        that it didn't comply with the Secretary of


      22        Interior standards or the design regulations


      23        for the Riverside Avondale Historic District,


      24        namely because of the fact that the carport


      25        itself was not original to the structure.  And




       1        the Historic Preservation Commission didn't


       2        feel that it was appropriate to create a


       3        more -- I guess to more formalize that addition


       4        to the building.


       5             Not only that, but the property itself


       6        does have vehicular parking options on it, not


       7        only the carport but also enclosed parking on


       8        the alleyway, which also serves as the garages


       9        for most of the other properties in the area.


      10             So with that, Mr. Chairman, that concludes


      11        the staff report.


      12             THE CHAIRMAN:  Thank you, Mr. Teal.


      13             This document that's passed out, is this


      14        your -- is this something from the ...


      15             MR. TEAL:  It's going to be my handout as


      16        far as referencing it during my portion of the,


      17        I guess, appeal tonight.


      18             THE CHAIRMAN:  This is a handout from the


      19        Historic Preservation Commission?


      20             MR. TEAL:  No.  That's a handout that was


      21        prepared for the purposes of this appeal.  This


      22        is a de novo appeal, so you're not bound by the


      23        record of the Historic Preservation Commission,


      24        so you can receive new evidence at the appeal


      25        today.





       1             THE CHAIRMAN:  Okay.  Thank you, sir.


       2             So is this part of your presentation,


       3        then?  But you're representing the Historic


       4        Preservation Commission?


       5             MR. TEAL:  I am.  I'm representing the


       6        Historic Preservation Commission.


       7             Typically, the procedural aspects of the


       8        appeal is that the appellant would go first and


       9        make their statements to the committee,


      10        followed by representatives of the


      11        neighborhood, if there are any.  I would follow


      12        up with the position of the commission, and


      13        then it would be wrapped up by the appellant


      14        again, just to be able to put the endcap on it.


      15             THE CHAIRMAN:  We're getting ready to hear


      16        from the appellant right now.


      17             MR. TEAL:  Correct.


      18             THE CHAIRMAN:  Thank you very much.


      19             Any questions for Mr. Teal?


      20             COMMITTEE MEMBERS:  (No response.)


      21             THE CHAIRMAN:  All right.  We have a


      22        public hearing scheduled this -- I'm sorry.


      23             This is a quasi-judicial matter.  Does


      24        anyone have any ex-parte communication to


      25        disclose?



       1             Well, I do.  I received a document from, I


       2        guess, the Riverside Avondale Preservation


       3        Association and an accompanying email.  And


       4        it's here somewhere, and I'll turn it in in


       5        just a minute when I can put my hands on it.


       6             And I also had a phone call from Kay Ehas,


       7        who I think is a board member who represents


       8        Riverside Avondale Preservation this afternoon


       9        just asking if I had received this document.


      10        But that's all I had.


      11             Mr. Holt.


      12             MR. HOLT:  Thank you, Mr. Chair.


      13             I also had a conversation today with Kay


      14        Ehas about noon, and we discussed the home and


      15        the garage facilities that currently exist and


      16        what exactly was being applied for.


      17             Thank you.


      18             THE CHAIRMAN:  Thank you, Mr. Holt.


      19             Councilman Reggie Brown.


      20             MR. R. BROWN:  Right.  Yes, Mr. Chairman,


      21        I'd like to declare ex-parte.


      22             I did receive a phone call from Kay Ehas


      23        earlier today to discuss this matter.


      24             Thank you.


      25             THE CHAIRMAN:  Thank you, Mr. Brown.




       1             Anyone else?


       2             COMMITTEE MEMBERS:  (No response.)


       3             THE CHAIRMAN:  All right.  We do have a


       4        public hearing scheduled this evening.  The


       5        public hearing is open.


       6             I have several speaker cards, and I am


       7        going to begin with the appellant, Ms. Gasparo.


       8        And is Mr. Johnson -- he's also -- is he part


       9        of your group?


      10             MS. GASPARO:  He is.


      11             THE CHAIRMAN:  Okay.  Anyone else part of


      12        your group?


      13             MS. GASPARO:  No.


      14             THE CHAIRMAN:  All right.  So we'll hear


      15        from you two, and then we'll hear from the


      16        remaining speakers, and then I'll give you a


      17        chance to come back and rebut.


      18             So just begin by stating your name and


      19        address for the record, and you have three


      20        minutes.


      21             MS. GASPARO:  Sharon Gasparo, 1618 Talbot


      22        Avenue, Jacksonville, Florida, 32205.


      23             I'm the owner of the subject property, and


      24        it seems like one of the issues seems to be


      25        that I already have an existing garage.  And I




       1        don't really see how that's relevant to the


       2        design guidelines or the Secretary of Interior


       3        standards, but I'll just touch on that pretty


       4        quickly.


       5             I do have an existing garage.  I have an


       6        alleyway.  The alleyway is nine feet.  I


       7        measured it today.  And I go down my alley, I


       8        have a 45-degree turn to get into my garage.


       9             I feel there are safety issues to using


      10        that garage, and I don't use it.  The times


      11        when I have used it, I pull into the garage


      12        with my doors locked, I close that garage


      13        before I open my doors and get out of the car.


      14        I mean it is down a dark alley.


      15             I have used that alley and I have hit my


      16        house pulling into the garage, pulling out of


      17        the garage.  It is just treacherous.  My


      18        neighbors park their cars, there's a fence.


      19        It's just not -- you know, RAP in their


      20        presentation said that I said it was easily


      21        accessible.  It's not, and I never said that.


      22             So again, I just don't see how that is


      23        relevant to whether enclosing this carport


      24        meets the design guidelines.


      25             RAP states that enclosing the carport is




       1        not compliant with design regulations.  The


       2        design regulations state to avoid adding a


       3        garage, particularly with the doors facing the


       4        right-of-way in front or even with the front


       5        plane of the principal structure as they were


       6        not an integral part of the original design of


       7        the buildings.


       8             Well, if you look at the design


       9        guidelines, I am not adding a garage, I'm


      10        enclosing a carport.  And the design guidelines


      11        talk about in much of Riverside developed prior


      12        to mass production of the automobile.  As a


      13        result, porte cocheres and garages are not an


      14        integral part of the original design of


      15        buildings located there.


      16             My house is in Avondale.  In Avondale, the


      17        automobile was a conspicuous part of the site


      18        and building design.  Curb cuts, driveways and


      19        garages of quality materials and integrated


      20        design are commonplace.  Such features are


      21        significant to the setting and overall feeling


      22        of buildings and should be respected during the


      23        course of rehabilitation.


      24             The recommendations talk about retaining


      25        garages and porte cocheres.  Enclosures of





       1        garages are undertaken to preserve significant


       2        features and use materials similar in size,


       3        proportion and detail to the original.


       4             And that's all that I talked about doing,


       5        using the same cedar shake siding that is on


       6        the rest of my house, using a garage door that


       7        is a carriage-style garage door.  So the design


       8        recommendations actually talk about enclosing


       9        garages, and that's what I'm doing.  Not adding


      10        one.


      11             I'm not disrupting the character of the


      12        neighborhood --


      13             THE CHAIRMAN:  Ms. Gasparo, I need you to


      14        wrap up.  Your time is up.  I will give you a


      15        chance to rebut.


      16             MS. GASPARO:  Okay.


      17             THE CHAIRMAN:  But if you have any closing


      18        remarks that you can make --


      19             MS. GASPARO:  Just that there are three


      20        other houses on my block with attached


      21        forward-facing garages, so I'm not disrupting


      22        the character of the neighborhood, nor


      23        affecting the historical integrity of my


      24        property that's already been modified by


      25        enclosing a porch, adding a porch and enclosing



       1        that and adding this carport.


       2             THE CHAIRMAN:  Thank you, ma'am.


       3             Any questions from the committee?


       4             Ms. Gasparo, I did have a question.


       5             In the document that was passed out by the


       6        Historic Preservation Commission's legal


       7        counsel, there's a photograph in here appears


       8        that your home is for sale.  Is it for sale?


       9             MS. GASPARO:  It is not.


      10             THE CHAIRMAN:  Was it for sale?


      11             MS. GASPARO:  It was for sale, and that


      12        was one of my issues is parking.  There's two


      13        churches on my block, and that affects parking


      14        on Wednesday nights, on Sunday nights, on


      15        Saturdays.  I have one garage.  I have a 1962


      16        Corvette, and I'm a car collector by nature.


      17             THE CHAIRMAN:  And I assume the blue sign


      18        in the front yard is the waiver for the


      19        enclosure?


      20             MR. TEAL:  (Nods head.)


      21             THE CHAIRMAN:  And then the alley down the


      22        side of your property, that's between -- that's


      23        on the other side of the oak tree, I'm


      24        guessing?  Is that correct?  Am I seeing that


      25        correctly?




       1             MS. GASPARO:  Correct.


       2             THE CHAIRMAN:  And you share that with,


       3        what, a neighbor?


       4             MS. GASPARO:  The alley is a right-of-way.


       5        It runs from Talbot to Ingleside.  So there are


       6        probably ten houses that share that alley, and


       7        garages that face the alley.


       8             THE CHAIRMAN:  I wasn't like a super-duper


       9        geometry student in 9th grade, but I think you


      10        have a 90-degree turn into your garage.


      11             MS. GASPARO:  I think I do also.


      12             THE CHAIRMAN:  No a 45, if that helps.


      13             Any other questions?


      14             COMMITTEE MEMBERS:  (No response.)


      15             THE CHAIRMAN:  All right.  Thank you,


      16        ma'am.


      17             Our next speaker is Eddie Johnson.


      18             Mr. Johnson, you'll be followed by Steve


      19        Congro, I believe, if I'm pronouncing that


      20        correctly, Gregory Thomas and Kay Ehas.


      21             Mr. Johnson, I just need you to state your


      22        name and address for the record.


      23             MR. JOHNSON:  Eddie Johnson, 4521-5 St.


      24        Augustine Road, Jacksonville, Florida, 32207.


      25             I want to address the report or the




       1        PowerPoint RAP did.


       2             Item Number 3 on Page 7.  They make a


       3        comment regarding unsuitable condition of


       4        carport.  Carport does not appear to be able to


       5        support the installation of a garage door,


       6        would therefore have to be rebuilt or razed.


       7             I'm a licensed general contractor in the


       8        State of Florida.  I went out and looked at


       9        this property.  The current construction of the


      10        carport will facilitate the installation of a


      11        garage door as well as facilitate the


      12        installation of a sidewall.


      13             The current plans for this project do


      14        incorporate the porte cochere being enclosed as


      15        well as having -- it's currently set back off


      16        the front plane of the home.  Materials being


      17        used to enclose -- to clad the walls are cedar


      18        shake, not Hardie siding or some other type of


      19        material.


      20             Secondly, the design guidelines for


      21        Riverside Avondale, Ms. Gasparo touched on,


      22        they actually address porches, porte cocheres


      23        and garages.  One thing that they note that


      24        they kind of give an idea that structures were


      25        there less than 50 years old are insignificant




       1        if they can be selectively removed if


       2        necessary.  During the historic planning


       3        commission testimony there was comment made


       4        regarding the construction of this particular


       5        porte cochere.


       6             It's 48 years old.  The house has been --


       7        had multiple renovations done to it, porches


       8        enclosed, different things done to the property


       9        that have taken away from the historical


      10        significance of the structure.  Being that this


      11        particular addition is very close to the


      12        threshold of being incorporated into the


      13        historical significance of the structure, the


      14        recommendations tell you to retain the garages


      15        and porte cocheres, and if enclosures and


      16        garages and porte cocheres are undertaken,


      17        preserve significant features.  The significant


      18        features are going to be the exterior cladding


      19        of the building to match the existing cedar


      20        shake.


      21             Materials similar in size, proportion and


      22        detail to the original structure will be


      23        utilized.  Nowhere in the recommendations does


      24        it say that it's not advisable to enclose an


      25        existing porte cochere.  It mentions in the




       1        recommendations that properties routinely in


       2        their age require different renovations to suit


       3        personal needs of the owners.  This particular


       4        situation, this is a renovation or addition to


       5        the structure that is suiting the personal


       6        needs of the owner.


       7             So with that being said, I disagree with


       8        the denial by the historic planning commission,


       9        and I can testify that the construction of the


      10        materials that will be used on the property


      11        will be in keeping with the existing building.


      12             THE CHAIRMAN:  Okay.  Thank you,


      13        Mr. Robinson -- I mean Mr. Johnson.


      14             Were there any questions from the


      15        committee?


      16             COMMITTEE MEMBERS:  (No response.)


      17             THE CHAIRMAN:  All right.  Next speaker is


      18        Steve Congro.


      19             MR. CONGRO:  Steve Congro, 2623 Herschel


      20        Street speaking on behalf of Riverside Avondale


      21        Preservation.


      22             Committee members ask that you uphold the


      23        decision made by the Jacksonville Historic


      24        Preservation Commission, their unanimous


      25        decision, and deny the Certificate of




       1        Appropriateness be approved.  The decision was


       2        made because the alteration did not meet the


       3        legal descriptions based on the current


       4        ordinances, specifically, those set by the


       5        Secretary of Interior designs standards as well


       6        as Jacksonville's guidelines on changes to


       7        properties in the historic district, which is


       8        Section 307.106 of the ordinance code.


       9             These sections determine how alterations


      10        can be done and should be done to a home.  For


      11        example, in this section they're required --


      12        the applicant is required to meet Section


      13        307.106.1 which talks about alterations to


      14        historic properties.  I'll guide you to


      15        Subpoint 3 on there which says each building


      16        structure and site shall be recognized as a


      17        product of its own time.  An alteration which


      18        has no historical basis and which seeks to


      19        create an earlier appearance shall be


      20        discouraged.


      21             This house was built in 1927.  It was not


      22        built originally with a garage.  The applicant


      23        did state correctly that there are houses on


      24        that street that do have garages, however,


      25        those houses were built in a different




       1        architectural time.  They were built in the


       2        '40s and '50s and they are ranch style homes.


       3        The ranch style homes were built with garages


       4        because it was after the prominence of the


       5        automobile.  In 1927, this had not occurred.


       6        One of the examples of that is how Avondale is


       7        referred to as a street car suburb, not an


       8        automobile suburb because of the prevalence of


       9        the street car during that time when the


      10        neighborhood was developed.


      11             The regulations specifically say also to


      12        avoid adding a garage, particularly one that


      13        faces the front street of the house.


      14        Furthermore, the applicant also has a garage in


      15        the back of the property which she does say is


      16        easily accessible.  That's taken from the


      17        JHPC's minutes, Page 102, Lines 8 through 10,


      18        statement by the applicant.


      19             These guidelines were set into place --


      20        when the neighborhood voted in 1998, these


      21        guidelines passed with the over 80 percent


      22        approval rate from the neighborhood.  1998 was


      23        also seven years before Ms. Gasparo purchased


      24        her home.  So based on the fact that the law


      25        was already set, as a homeowner, you know,





       1        you're required to do due diligence.  I did


       2        when I purchased my home, as an example.  You


       3        know, the neighborhood voted for these


       4        requirements in '98 well before she purchased


       5        her home.


       6             So we ask that you support the decision of


       7        the JHPC made which we believe was made in


       8        accordance of law, and we ask you to uphold


       9        this decision.


      10             Thank you.


      11             THE CHAIRMAN:  Thank you, sir.


      12             Any questions from the committee?


      13             Mr. Joost.


      14             MR. JOOST:  Thank you for coming down.  I


      15        got a question.


      16             Now, the garage we're talking about is in


      17        the alley?


      18             MR. CONGRO:  The current attached garage


      19        is off the alley.  There's about eight other


      20        houses around that alley that also have garages


      21        off the alley.  It's pretty commonplace in


      22        Riverside and Avondale to have your garage off


      23        the alley.


      24             MR. JOOST:  So it's your contention from


      25        what you just read to me that this is facing



       1        the front of the house, then, even though it's


       2        on the alley?


       3             MR. CONGRO:  No, sir.  The carport -- if


       4        the carport is enclosed, the applicant is


       5        proposing to add a garage door, that garage


       6        door would then be facing the streets.


       7             MR. JOOST:  So you're saying, just so I


       8        understand, in this example it's more


       9        appropriate to actually add the garage door to


      10        the carport that's in the front part of the


      11        house and not on the alleyway?


      12             MR. CONGRO:  No, sir.  What I'm saying is


      13        that the design regulations state that it's


      14        inappropriate to add a forward-facing garage


      15        door, basically, facing in the same direction


      16        of the house.  It's more appropriate to have


      17        the alley garage that's in the back and cannot


      18        be visible from the street.


      19             MR. JOOST:  So this is an alley garage and


      20        she's adding a door to it, so that's more


      21        appropriate?


      22             MR. CONGRO:  No, sir.


      23             THE CHAIRMAN:  There's a home that faces


      24        whatever the street is and it has a garage in


      25        the rear of the house on an alley that's got a





       1        garage door on it that's permitted and used, I


       2        guess, on occasion as a garage.


       3             MR. JOOST:  The alley's on the side,


       4        right?


       5             MR. CONGRO:  That's the street.


       6             MR. JOOST:  This is the street, but the


       7        alley and the garage are on the side of the


       8        house?


       9             MR. CONGRO:  The current garage is on the


      10        side of the house facing the alley, yes, sir.


      11        The applicant is proposing to enclose the


      12        carport, which is facing the streets.


      13             MR. JOOST:  This carport right here?


      14             MR. CONGRO:  Yes, sir.


      15             MR. JOOST:  Now I got you.


      16             MR. CONGRO:  I apologize if I was unclear.


      17             MR. JOOST:  No, I was confused as to


      18        whether we were enclosing the garage in the


      19        alley or in the front of the house.


      20             MR. CONGRO:  No, sir.  The applicant is


      21        proposing to enclose the carport facing the


      22        front of the house, the one you have your


      23        middle finger on.


      24             MR. JOOST:  That makes things clear for


      25        me, because my next question was going to be, I



       1        saw the pictures of all the garages in the


       2        alley, but we're talking about this right here?


       3             MR. CONGRO:  Yes, sir.


       4             MR. JOOST:  Okay.  Thanks so much.


       5             MR. CONGRO:  No problem, sir.


       6             THE CHAIRMAN:  Hang on, sir.  One more


       7        question.


       8             Councilman Dick Brown.


       9             MR. D. BROWN:  I'm -- I would be in total


      10        support of the historic commission if someone


      11        was asking to add a carport to the home now,


      12        but wouldn't you agree that the big problem was


      13        well before the historic designation of the


      14        community but in the '60s when the carport was


      15        added?  That really is the big problem,


      16        wouldn't you agree?


      17             MR. CONGRO:  That's, I guess, a problem,


      18        sir.  But the Jacksonville historic


      19        Preservation Commission in their statement


      20        talked about how one of the reasons they were


      21        denying this was because the fact that it was


      22        an addition on a non-contributing addition to


      23        the house.


      24             MR. D. BROWN:  Right.  My concern is it


      25        looks like with some skillful design and this




       1        sort of thing that a garage door would probably


       2        help the look, because a carport usually


       3        contains all the homeowner things, historic


       4        garbage cans and things like that.  But it


       5        would look like if it were carefully designed


       6        that it would actually be improving the look of


       7        it.


       8             I was just trying to get a handle on the


       9        fact that the original integrity of the design


      10        was somewhat violated with the addition of that


      11        structure.  So I keep thinking that a door


      12        probably would help the look of it since we've


      13        already lost what was the original historic


      14        structure to a degree.


      15             MR. CONGRO:  I understand what you're


      16        saying, councilman.  One of the things that


      17        I'll reference is in Subsection L of the


      18        ordinance code talks about how additions to a


      19        house -- and I hear what you're saying, sir --


      20        but talks about how additions to a house should


      21        be in keeping with the time of the house.  The


      22        carport was an addition.  The house was built


      23        in 1927, thus, the addition, any additions to


      24        the house should be in keeping with the


      25        original structure from 1927, not the addition




       1        of the carport, sir.


       2             MR. D. BROWN:  Appreciate it.


       3             THE CHAIRMAN:  I have one question for you


       4        as well.


       5             Based on the photos which are straight on


       6        of the carport, is the carport open on the side


       7        or is it ...


       8             MR. CONGRO:  The carport is open on the


       9        side.  It's being held up -- it's open,


      10        obviously, in the front, and then it's being


      11        held up by, I believe, two or three columns.


      12             THE CHAIRMAN:  So there's a -- it's kind


      13        of a dark photo.  Is there a rear wall to the


      14        carport?


      15             MR. CONGRO:  I'll defer to Mr. Thomas who


      16        will be speaking next as he was the one who


      17        actually took the photos of the house.  I


      18        believe that there's three columns and there's


      19        a wall in the back.  I believe that, but I'll


      20        let Mr. Thomas address that.


      21             THE CHAIRMAN:  Have you seen the carport


      22        yourself?


      23             MR. CONGRO:  Yes, I have.  I drove by it.


      24             THE CHAIRMAN:  Okay.  All right, sir.


      25        I'll defer and ask Mr. Thomas.




       1             Any other questions?


       2             All right.  Mr. Thomas -- oh, I'm sorry.


       3        Mr. Redman has a question for you, sir.


       4             MR. REDMAN:  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.


       5             Now, in the contractor's statement he said


       6        that the design that he would do or recommend


       7        would be in conjunction with the siding that's


       8        on the house now.  Now, to me, I agree with


       9        Mr. Brown that -- Councilman Brown that this


      10        would look much better than -- looking at the


      11        picture here with three columns on the side of


      12        the carport and a big open space here in the


      13        front would look better and look more in


      14        pattern with the house if it was designed


      15        properly.


      16             MR. CONGRO:  I understand your concern,


      17        councilman.  Our contention is that by


      18        approving this, it would set a precedent.  For


      19        example, you may feel this way, sir, now with


      20        this particular structure, however, one of the


      21        goals of Riverside Avondale Preservation is to


      22        keep the precendent that this is something that


      23        should be discouraged in the district.  So if


      24        we set this precedent, then we can go down a


      25        dangerous path of approving all carports.




       1             MR. REDMAN:  Yeah.  I think the precedence


       2        was set with the carport to start with.


       3             Thank you.


       4             THE CHAIRMAN:  Thank you, Mr. Redman.


       5             Our next speaker is Gregory Thomas.


       6             Mr. Thomas, if you'll begin with your name


       7        and address for the record, please.


       8             MR. THOMAS:  My name is Gregory Thomas,


       9        2623 Herschel.  I'm here on behalf of RAP.  I'm


      10        a licensed architect and I'm the chairman of


      11        the designer review committee for RAP.


      12             Pretty much I think everything's been


      13        said, if I could just re-enforce a couple of


      14        points from an architectural standpoint.


      15             To answer your question, the carport does


      16        have what looks like a small storage shed in


      17        the back of it with two columns on the side


      18        that look fairly out of plumb.  We only have an


      19        obvious visual, you know, observations of that


      20        carport, we can't say, but it really doesn't


      21        look like from a practical standpoint it would


      22        support the construction they're talking about.


      23        Regardless, there's going to be major


      24        modifications to what's there, which usually we


      25        would view that as essentially new




       1        construction.


       2             And there's been a lot of talk about


       3        design, what the design will be.  It's going to


       4        look good.  And that sounds great.  We


       5        personally haven't had the benefit of seeing


       6        anything.  We've heard I think that maybe with


       7        the original application there was a picture of


       8        the garage door, but we haven't seen any


       9        drawings, we haven't seen anything that would


      10        delineate what that is actually going to be,


      11        which is kind of a burden-of-proof issue.  We


      12        don't really know what it's going to look like


      13        and how that's going to appear.  And also, what


      14        Mr. Johnson said, something about the new


      15        design, the wall's going to be --


      16             THE CHAIRMAN:  Mr. -- I need you to speak


      17        towards us into the mike --


      18             MR. THOMAS:  I apologize.


      19             THE CHAIRMAN:  -- so that the court


      20        reporter can capture your comments.


      21             MR. THOMAS:  Okay.  I just -- I'm not


      22        quire sure I understand what Mr. Johnson was


      23        saying about the new design that's going to be


      24        pushed back off the plane of the garage.  The


      25        carport now, which was built inappropriately,




       1        is built in plane with the main house, which is


       2        actually something that the design regulations


       3        currently forbid.


       4             And again, just to the point of the


       5        precendent.  This -- first of all, we're


       6        talking about a house on one lot that would


       7        have two garages and two separate access points


       8        on the lot, which seems kind of excessive.  And


       9        just allowing an attached garage, this is a new


      10        garage, for all intents and purposes, and it's


      11        going to be attached on the front plane of the


      12        house which is not in keeping with the


      13        guidelines, which we think is inappropriate.


      14             Thank you.


      15             THE CHAIRMAN:  Thank you.


      16             Any questions from the committee?


      17             I have a couple of questions for you.


      18             So you're saying that the side of the


      19        carport has just got two columns or something


      20        holding up the lineal beam and it's open to the


      21        house nextdoor, but there is some sort of


      22        storage thing in the --


      23             MR. THOMAS:  It appears in the back of it


      24        there is an enclosed storage shed --


      25             THE CHAIRMAN:  So it's like a solid wall




       1        across the front of the carport?


       2             MR. THOMAS:  Across the back.  Facing the


       3        backyard, if you will.  Obviously, when you


       4        drive in the carport --


       5             THE CHAIRMAN:  Where the hood of the car


       6        or the front bumper would pull up to?


       7             MR. THOMAS:  Yes.


       8             THE CHAIRMAN:  Okay.  If this home or a


       9        similar home had no attached garage in the


      10        alley and no carport and they wanted to add a


      11        carport, obviously, that wouldn't be consistent


      12        with the standards for the historic district,


      13        correct?


      14             MR. THOMAS:  What's there now, we believe


      15        that it can be done and done appropriately, and


      16        we would challenge the applicant that there are


      17        better ways to do what she's asking than what's


      18        being proposed.  Granted, this is the very easy


      19        solution to just, you know, put a door on it.


      20             THE CHAIRMAN:  Here's the question.  Let's


      21        try the question again.


      22             If this home or a home similar to it had


      23        no attached garage in the alley and had no


      24        carport, it was just the original home, which I


      25        assume when it was built did not have either of




       1        the two things I just referenced, if the


       2        homeowner wanted to build a carport, is that


       3        something that's even possible under historic


       4        district standards?


       5             MR. THOMAS:  Yes, it is.


       6             THE CHAIRMAN:  It is, okay.  If they


       7        wanted to build an attached or detached garage


       8        in the alley, is that a possibility?


       9             MR. THOMAS:  Detached garage, absolutely.


      10        Once you start attaching things, that's when


      11        you get into kind of sensitive areas.


      12             THE CHAIRMAN:  Okay.  And would either one


      13        of those two things require an application to


      14        the Historic Preservation Commission?


      15             MR. THOMAS:  Yes, they would, to my


      16        knowledge.


      17             THE CHAIRMAN:  All right.  Thank you, sir.


      18             Any other questions?


      19             All right.  Thank you, sir.  Oh, Mr. Joost


      20        has a question for you, Mr. Thomas.


      21             MR. JOOST:  Do you know of any instances


      22        where the historic commission has approved


      23        garages?


      24             MR. THOMAS:  Attached, no, I do not.  I've


      25        only been here for four years, so my --




       1             MR. JOOST:  Even though under the rules it


       2        would be possible where an original house had


       3        no garage?


       4             MR. THOMAS:  An attached garage?


       5             MR. JOOST:  I believe that's what


       6        Mr. Crescimbeni just asked.  If the house is in


       7        its condition when built in 1927 where it had


       8        no attachment, carport in the front or on the


       9        side, would it be possible to build a garage?


      10        And your answer was:  Under the right


      11        circumstances, yes.


      12             MR. THOMAS:  Well, the --


      13             MR. JOOST:  My question is in what


      14        circumstances has the historic commission


      15        approved a garage, or has there been any


      16        requests for garages other than this one?


      17             MR. THOMAS:  To my knowledge, I don't know


      18        of any attached garages that have been approved


      19        to a house of this era.


      20             MR. JOOST:  Okay.  Do you know of any


      21        other applications?  I think this is the first


      22        one I can remember.  I've been on LUZ for three


      23        years now.


      24             MR. THOMAS:  Not that I'm aware of.


      25             MR. JOOST:  Okay.  Thank you.




       1             MR. THOMAS:  Thank you.


       2             THE CHAIRMAN:  Mr. Redman.


       3             MR. REDMAN:  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.


       4             I'm looking at a picture here of the house


       5        directly across the street which has an


       6        attached garage, nice-looking garage door.


       7        Now, how would this house be so different


       8        directly across the street from the standards


       9        of the historic society?


      10             MR. THOMAS:  That is a house that was


      11        built in the late '30s or early '40s, and in


      12        that 15-year time span between the time that


      13        this house was built and the time that that


      14        house was built our culture had basically


      15        changed and become a car culture.


      16             And one of the most significant


      17        character-defining elements of historic


      18        residences in our country is how they address a


      19        street and how they address the automobile.  So


      20        what's significant about Ms. Gasparo's house is


      21        its age and how it was originally built to


      22        address the street and to address how people


      23        got around.


      24             MR. REDMAN:  So it would fit the street,


      25        but it would not fit the historic society's --




       1             MR. THOMAS:  It would not be appropriate


       2        to the era of the house.  And if you look,


       3        actually, that house is not directly across the


       4        street.  I believe directly across the street


       5        is another brick house with a detached garage


       6        in the back of the lot.


       7             MR. REDMAN:  It says directly across the


       8        street.  1615 Talbot Avenue.


       9             MR. JOOST:  I think it's next door.


      10             MR. THOMAS:  Yeah, there are two that are


      11        right next door to each other.  I think one --


      12             MR. REDMAN:  Okay.


      13             MR. THOMAS:  -- closest across the street


      14        has a detached garage which actually sits in


      15        the back of the lot and works nicely.


      16             MR. REDMAN:  All right.  Thank you.


      17             MR. THOMAS:  Thank you.


      18             THE CHAIRMAN:  Mr. Gregory, if the -- I


      19        mean Mr. Thomas, if the applicant wanted to


      20        remove the carport --


      21             MR. THOMAS:  RAP would be in support of


      22        that.


      23             THE CHAIRMAN:  -- would that require an


      24        application before the Historic Preservation


      25        Commission?




       1             MR. THOMAS:  I believe that would require


       2        a COA, yes.


       3             THE CHAIRMAN:  But you'd be supportive of


       4        removal?


       5             MR. THOMAS:  Absolutely.


       6             THE CHAIRMAN:  How many carports -- just


       7        generally speaking, is that a pretty prevalent


       8        thing in the district?


       9             MR. THOMAS:  In my four years on the


      10        Design Review Committee, I think I've seen


      11        maybe two, and neither were attached.


      12             THE CHAIRMAN:  Does this homeowner's


      13        carport, is it kept in -- I mean most carports


      14        I see in Arlington and neighborhoods that were


      15        built in, you know, the late '50s, '60s, early


      16        '70s, carports generally have a tendency to


      17        want me to think that they'd be better looking


      18        if they had a garage door to cover up


      19        everything that's visible from the street.  Are


      20        they keeping theirs pretty clean?


      21             MR. THOMAS:  Well, to Ms. Gasparo's --


      22             THE CHAIRMAN:  Not the applicant's, but I


      23        mean the carports in the district, are they


      24        generally kept --


      25             MR. THOMAS:  Yes.




       1             THE CHAIRMAN:  Thank you, sir.


       2             MR. THOMAS:  Thank you.


       3             THE CHAIRMAN:  And our last speaker is Kay


       4        Ehas.


       5             MS. EHAS:  Kay Ehas, 2322 Dellwood Avenue,


       6        Chair of Riverside Avondale Preservation.  Good


       7        evening.


       8             I'd like to clarify one thing.  The


       9        district regulations would not allow a carport


      10        or a garage to be built level with the front of


      11        the house today.  It would not be allowed.


      12        There have been requests to build garages that


      13        are detached at the back of the property, and


      14        those are granted.  A lot of them are facing --


      15        have garage doors that face the alley.  Some


      16        have garage doors with a driveway from the


      17        front.  But in this case, she's asking to do a


      18        garage at the front of the house, which is


      19        against the regulations or the law as it


      20        currently exists.


      21             Here's why it's setting a precedent.


      22        There are -- I always get this word wrong --


      23        porte cocheres, where they are kind of carports


      24        but like historic carports.  There are a bunch


      25        of those.  If all of a sudden we let everybody




       1        enclose them to be garages, that changes the


       2        whole character of the neighborhood.  So the


       3        whole point of the historic district being a


       4        legal district is to uphold the laws that make


       5        it so.


       6             There is no design that has been


       7        submitted.  So if you approve her request, what


       8        is it you're approving?  We do not know.  There


       9        is no design that's been submitted.  So I would


      10        go back to what Greg said.  It would be new


      11        construction, and that requires a COA.


      12             1932 was when the street cars were pulled


      13        up.  So it was a street car community when this


      14        house was built.


      15             Thank you.


      16             THE CHAIRMAN:  Thank you, Ms. Ehas.


      17             The question I asked of Mr. Thomas, so you


      18        acknowledge that -- I'm assuming that the home


      19        when it was originally built, you know it


      20        didn't have a carport because that was built, I


      21        guess, what --


      22             MS. EHAS:  Correct.


      23             THE CHAIRMAN:  -- early '60s, but it did


      24        not have this detached -- I mean attached


      25        garage in the rear when it was originally




       1        built?


       2             MS. EHAS:  I can't imagine that it had an


       3        attached garage --


       4             THE CHAIRMAN:  That's what we have now,


       5        right?


       6             MS. EHAS:  -- in the rear.


       7             Yeah.


       8             THE CHAIRMAN:  Yeah.  Okay.  Well, let's


       9        assume that it didn't.


      10             So you're saying that there is a mechanism


      11        for a property owner to apply for an attached


      12        garage --


      13             MS. EHAS:  A detached garage.


      14             THE CHAIRMAN:  A detached.  Not even an


      15        attached.  So that's not even possible.  And


      16        the carport, no mechanism to even apply to do


      17        that today?


      18             MS. EHAS:  Unless they wanted to do it,


      19        you know, in the back.  They could build a


      20        carport that fit in with the structure of the


      21        house if they didn't want to enclose it as a


      22        garage, but it would be at the back of the


      23        property, not at the front as she's proposing.


      24             THE CHAIRMAN:  And would that be


      25        permissible on lots that didn't have alleys?




       1             MS. EHAS:  Yes.


       2             THE CHAIRMAN:  So if they put it towards


       3        the rear -- now, would be it okay to be visible


       4        from the street or would it have to be not


       5        visible from the street?


       6             MS. EHAS:  They can be visible from the


       7        street, but it's just at the back of the


       8        property.


       9             THE CHAIRMAN:  Set back on the rear


      10        property line.


      11             MS. EHAS:  Um-hum.


      12             THE CHAIRMAN:  Gotcha.


      13             Any other questions for Ms. Ehas?


      14             COMMITTEE MEMBERS:  (No response.)


      15             All right.  Seeing none, any other


      16        speakers to address the committee?


      17             AUDIENCE MEMBERS:  (No response.)


      18             THE CHAIRMAN:  All right.  Ms. Gasparo,


      19        you have a couple of minutes to wrap up.


      20             I'm sorry.  Hang on one second.  Mr. Teal


      21        is going to weigh in for the commission.


      22             MR. TEAL:  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.


      23             I handed out to you a package of


      24        materials, and I'd like to walk you through


      25        what those are.  I think that if you refer to




       1        them --


       2             THE CHAIRMAN:  Does the appellant have a


       3        copy of this?


       4             MR. TEAL:  Yes.


       5             The first document is a survey of the


       6        property.  I think it will answer the question


       7        that you had about the shed behind the carport


       8        there.  But what also it documents is it also


       9        documents other options that are available to


      10        her.  You can see the areas that were marked in


      11        yellow.  And this is the document I'm referring


      12        to.  I'm holding it up.  The areas that were


      13        marked in yellow on that document are other


      14        options that she can do.


      15             She can, for example, extend the garage in


      16        the alley closer towards the alley, towards the


      17        alley, and make it into a larger structure that


      18        way.  She could also establish -- and that can


      19        be done almost administratively, so I mean that


      20        wouldn't even require commission action.


      21             The other side of it is the yellow, she


      22        could either deepen the existing garage or


      23        propose a detached garage that would be


      24        accessible through the driveway on the back of


      25        the property.




       1             The second page, which is this document --


       2             THE CHAIRMAN:  Mr. Teal, can I interrupt


       3        you for a second?


       4             MR. TEAL:  Sure.


       5             THE CHAIRMAN:  On the first page that the


       6        coloring, is I see Boone Park Avenue, but where


       7        is Talbot Avenue?


       8             MR. TEAL:  Talbot is to the top of the


       9        page.


      10             THE CHAIRMAN:  That's at the top.  Okay.


      11             MR. TEAL:  Correct.  And then the alley


      12        runs on the left side of the page.


      13             THE CHAIRMAN:  Gotcha.  Okay.  Thank you.


      14             MR. TEAL:  The second page is what's


      15        called the sanborn map.  Now, this is old fire


      16        maps that were produced that actually show


      17        where each of the structures originally were


      18        constructed on the property.  And you can see


      19        her property is at the bottom of the page.


      20        It's in blue.  It's on the bottom on the left,


      21        it's on the left-hand side, the blue, 1652 --


      22        or 1632 rather.


      23             You can see that there originally was a


      24        detached garage.  So the garage on this


      25        property was originally detached.  At some




       1        point in the past she actually attached it.


       2        But what I want you to notice about this is


       3        every structure that's in blue on this has


       4        alley access for their garage structures.  And


       5        so all of the ones behind her farther up the


       6        alley, you can see there's one, two, three,


       7        four, five different structures that all access


       8        the alley.  But also the ones in purple, the


       9        ones in purple have detached garages that


      10        actually front the streets, not the alley.  So


      11        the back of those garages are on the alley


      12        itself.  Those are accessible by driveway.


      13        They have driveways that go up to them that are


      14        accessible, but the ones in blue you can see


      15        don't have driveways that go out to the street.


      16        Their only access is through the alley.  So


      17        that was -- the trend then was that -- the


      18        reality of the historic districts are people


      19        park on the streets.  They park in the


      20        driveways, they park in carports, because the


      21        district was really designed and built, for the


      22        most part, before the car was popular.  And so


      23        there was no reason to put a garage on


      24        something if you didn't have a car.  So she


      25        does have other options available to her for




       1        her parking.


       2             She's got a garage door on the alley,


       3        which if you'll turn two pages up and start


       4        looking at the photographs, Photographs 1 and 2


       5        show the properties that are immediately


       6        adjacent to hers a little bit farther up the


       7        alley.  You can see that the garage doors are


       8        there.  Same thing with Photographs 3 and 4.


       9        Photograph 6 is actually her property.  Now,


      10        that shows the garage door on her property


      11        looking back towards Talbot Street.  So you can


      12        see where that detached garage is now attached


      13        to her house.  And it does run the entire depth


      14        of the house itself.  So it's as wide as the


      15        house is -- or it's as deep as the house is


      16        wide rather, given the orientation of it.  So


      17        she does have significant garage space on her


      18        property which is accessible, as, Mr. Chairman,


      19        you pointed out through a 90-degree turn from


      20        the alley.  There's no issues with regard to


      21        getting in and out of this alley.


      22             Now, when I referred you on the first page


      23        to extending it out towards the alley, you can


      24        see how she has room to do that.  She has room


      25        to come out towards the alley in Photograph 6




       1        to even make it a deeper garage.  Seven, Eight,


       2        those are other properties that have structures


       3        that back up to the alley.


       4             But really, the one I really want to


       5        direct your attention to is the last one,


       6        Number 32 -- 31 and 32.  They show you the


       7        orientation of this property.  And you can see


       8        that the garage immediately farther up the


       9        alley from her does extend farther towards the


      10        alley than hers does.  So she can come that


      11        way, which again, could be something that could


      12        be done -- could be approved administratively.


      13             A lot of the questions that seemed to be


      14        out there were the fact that really the bad


      15        thing about this happened in 1962 when the


      16        carport was added.  Okay.  I think the


      17        commission would agree to you -- or agree with


      18        you.  But what the commission's position on


      19        this was that we shouldn't try and memorialize


      20        the mistakes of the past.  And in enclosing


      21        this carport, putting a garage door on the


      22        front of it, to the historic buffs, that's the


      23        proverbial pig in a punch bowl.


      24             To the folks that are trying to maintain


      25        the integrity of the historic district, which




       1        basically is not to say that you can't have new


       2        additions to historic structures, you just have


       3        to make them look like they're different, which


       4        is why a lot of speakers came and said it can't


       5        be even with the front plane of the house.  If


       6        you want to set it back, that's appropriate.


       7        You have to make sure that you can have


       8        somebody driving by know this is the structure


       9        that was built in 1927.  That's the part that


      10        the commission had trouble with was the fact


      11        that this carport is even with the front plane


      12        of the house, and now they're going to try to


      13        make it blend in with the rest of the house.


      14        That, in the historic preservation world, is a


      15        no-no.  You want to make sure that folks know


      16        what was original to the district and what was


      17        added.


      18             So that is really the premise behind a lot


      19        of -- well, you can see it from the sanborn map


      20        which shows you where all of the structures


      21        are.  They were all detached.


      22             Now, they did draw your attention to, if


      23        you go back to the second page, the ones that


      24        have the --


      25             THE CHAIRMAN:  Mr. Teal, can I interrupt




       1        you for a second?


       2             MR. TEAL:  Sure.


       3             THE CHAIRMAN:  Mr. Reingold, does he have


       4        a time limit?  Because he's pushing like five


       5        minutes.  I want to make sure I don't get


       6        myself in any trouble with ...


       7             MR. REINGOLD:  The time limit is sort of


       8        at the discretion of the Chair.  What I would


       9        suggest is that we give comparable time to the


      10        applicant to, you know, rebut what Mr. Teal has


      11        stated and what the addition of the audience


      12        members have stated.


      13             THE CHAIRMAN:  All right.  Thank you.


      14             MR. TEAL:  And just for the edification of


      15        the committee, I'm almost done.


      16             But attention was drawn by the applicant


      17        and others that there are other structures on


      18        the property that are around this property that


      19        have garages.  You can see from the second page


      20        of my handout, the ones with the pink asterisks


      21        on them are the ones that have the garages.


      22        None of those have access to the alleys.  So


      23        that was their only option.  Not only were they


      24        built in the '40s and '50s, which was much


      25        after the original construction of her





       1        property, but they also don't have alley


       2        access.  So their only option is to access it


       3        from the street itself.  So that's why it made


       4        more sense to add a garage on those which was


       5        consistent with the structure itself in the


       6        architectural style of the structure.


       7             So again, in conclusion, the premise here


       8        as far as historic preservation goes is to not


       9        detract from the original construction, and


      10        allowing for her enclosure of this carport


      11        would do that.  She does have other options for


      12        parking.  This is not her only parking option.


      13        She can park under a carport.  If she wants


      14        enclosed parking, she has a garage to do that.


      15        Not only that, but her garage is at such a


      16        depth that she could probably fit more than one


      17        car in if she desired.


      18             And because of the fact that this


      19        ill-advised, in the opinion of the Historic


      20        Preservation Commission, addition in 1962 has


      21        been around until today, the concern is that by


      22        allowing them to enclose it and to fortify it,


      23        it's going to be around for that much longer.


      24        It's inappropriate for this style of


      25        construction, and nothing should be done to



       1        formalize that in the opinion of the


       2        commission.


       3             Thank you.


       4             THE CHAIRMAN:  Thank you, Mr. Teal.


       5             Any questions from the committee?


       6             Are the homeowners allowed to make repairs


       7        to like carports and things?


       8             MR. TEAL:  Absolutely.


       9             THE CHAIRMAN:  They can be maintained to


      10        be around forever, then, right?


      11             MR. TEAL:  They could, yes.  They're even


      12        allowed to rebuild them if they are destroyed


      13        in a fire, something like that.  But the point


      14        is -- well, no, I take it back.  Only if it was


      15        part of the original construction can they


      16        rebuild it.  But, yes, they certainly can


      17        maintain it, and we obviously do encourage


      18        folks to maintain their structures.  But in


      19        essence, it's treated almost like a legally


      20        non-conforming use.  It's legal because it


      21        pre-dated the district, but you don't want to


      22        do anything to encourage the survival of it.


      23             THE CHAIRMAN:  Thank you, sir.


      24             Mr. Joost.


      25             MR. JOOST:  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.  To




       1        Mr. Teal, so in this photo in the black and


       2        white which shows the side view of the garage,


       3        they're talking about enclosing the side as


       4        well?


       5             MR. TEAL:  Correct.  The application was


       6        to enclose the side and to install, I guess, a


       7        carriage-style garage door, so it would be


       8        almost a one-car garage, I guess, garage door


       9        on the front.


      10             MR. JOOST:  And one other question.  I


      11        guess this kind of touches on what


      12        Mr. Crescimbeni was asking.


      13             Say if this little cover, the carport area


      14        is not up to say like today's wind codes or,


      15        you know, building codes, et cetera, are they


      16        allowed to fortify it, or you just can't touch


      17        it and you got to wait for a storm to, you


      18        know, blow it down, essentially?


      19             MR. TEAL:  No.  You can do whatever


      20        repairs you want to it, you just can't change


      21        it from an architectural standpoint.  In other


      22        words, you can't add -- you know, if you wanted


      23        to put bracing in there that wasn't visible,


      24        for example, you could certainly do that.  What


      25        you can't do is you can't modify it




       1        architecturally so that it's visually different


       2        from --


       3             MR. JOOST:  So appearance-wise you can't


       4        modify it.  But if they wanted to add some --


       5        or they even wanted to replace these beams,


       6        essentially, they look the same but they were


       7        stronger, they could do that?


       8             MR. TEAL:  They could do that, yes.


       9             MR. JOOST:  Okay.  Thank you, Mr. Joost.


      10             THE CHAIRMAN:  Any other questions for


      11        Mr. Teal?


      12             COMMITTEE MEMBERS:  (No response.)


      13             THE CHAIRMAN:  All right.  Mr. Teal, I


      14        think, went over by about four and a half


      15        minutes.  Is that right, Steve?  And I think


      16        Ms. Gasparo, I let you probably go over a


      17        minute earlier, so you can have up to three and


      18        a half minutes to wrap up, and hopefully, the


      19        time will all have been about equal.


      20             MS. GASPARO:  Unfortunately, I have to


      21        address some mistakes that have been made.


      22             Originally, when I submitted my COA,


      23        drawings were submitted.  And it's my


      24        understanding that you all have that


      25        information in front of you, and I hope that




       1        you do because originally, when I submitted my


       2        COA, and it seems like all the members of RAP


       3        and DRC are saying that was not submitted, but


       4        my contractor submitted drawings.  I only have


       5        one with me that's in my packet because I


       6        believe that was submitted to you.  But


       7        drawings of what we were doing to the carport


       8        were submitted with my original COA, and this


       9        is the drawing.  So that was actually submitted


      10        with my original COA.  It went by email to


      11        Samantha Paul -- right.


      12             THE CHAIRMAN:  Is that it?


      13             MS. GASPARO:  Correct.


      14             THE CHAIRMAN:  We have it.


      15             MS. GASPARO:  So DRC is saying they don't


      16        know what I'm going to do and they never saw


      17        the drawings is incorrect.


      18             I also submitted a picture of the actual


      19        garage door, and that was submitted with my


      20        application.  So that all went to them.  If it


      21        would help y'all, I have better pictures of the


      22        carport.  I can give those to you so you can


      23        see, you know, the side of the carport.


      24        There's one side of the carport.  That's the


      25        alley.  There's one side of the carport that




       1        needs to be enclosed and a garage door.  The


       2        back is a shed, and one side is attached to the


       3        house.  So all we're proposing doing is, you


       4        know, putting the side and the garage door.


       5             So this other issue of my other options of


       6        extending my garage, I also have a picture of


       7        my alley and my existing garage.  And this


       8        might make it clear to you how extending my


       9        garage into the alley is just not feasible.  I


      10        mean there needs to be a setback, and with the


      11        setback, extending this garage to make it -- I


      12        guess what they're saying is then I can make a


      13        double -- someway or another a double, two-car


      14        garage.  It's just not feasible.  And that's


      15        been suggested to me, and I just -- they don't


      16        pull into this garage.  They don't go down a


      17        nine-foot alley and, thank you enough, make a


      18        90-degree turn and pull into this garage.  It's


      19        just not feasible to do that.


      20             Again, there's talk about how putting this


      21        garage door and putting the siding on the side


      22        would affect the historic integrity of this


      23        property.  Well, the historic integrity of this


      24        property has been affected when the front porch


      25        was enclosed, the side porch was enclosed, the




       1        carport was added.  And again, it is my hope by


       2        enclosing this carport that I can help the look


       3        of this house, to make it look better.  That


       4        has always been my goal.  When I picked out


       5        this garage door, my contractor said, "You're


       6        going to die when you see the price of this


       7        thing."  And I said, "I don't care.  I want a


       8        nice garage door.  I want this thing to look


       9        better than it does now."  Because right now my


      10        neighbors are looking at my car in the carport.


      11        And I do try to keep the thing clean.  I don't,


      12        you know -- I really don't junk it up.  But,


      13        you know, that's what they look at.  My


      14        neighbors look at my car, and I think they'd


      15        rather look at some cedar shake and nice garage


      16        door, to tell you the truth.


      17             THE CHAIRMAN:  Thank you, ma'am.


      18             The neighbors to your left facing your


      19        house, is that a owner-occupied home?


      20             MS. GASPARO:  It is.  Deb and John


      21        Hassenzahl, and they have an attached


      22        front-entry garage just like two of my other


      23        neighbors across the street have attached


      24        front-entry garages.


      25             THE CHAIRMAN:  And this picture of your




       1        carport, is part of it -- looks like it's got


       2        some lattice or something on there, or is


       3        that -- is that the storage area that I'm --


       4             MS. GASPARO:  No, it has some lattice.


       5        And one of the other questions about -- the


       6        garage was existing.  It was built when the


       7        house was built in 1927.  I did not attach the


       8        garage, the previous owners did.  They extended


       9        the kitchen and attached the garage when they


      10        extended the kitchen.


      11             THE CHAIRMAN:  So it was originally a


      12        detached garage?


      13             MS. GASPARO:  It was.


      14             THE CHAIRMAN:  Interesting.  Okay.  Thank


      15        you.


      16             Any other questions from the committee?


      17             COMMITTEE MEMBERS:  (No response.)


      18             THE CHAIRMAN:  All right.  Thank you,


      19        ma'am.


      20             MS. GASPARO:  Um-hum.


      21             THE CHAIRMAN:  The public hearing is


      22        closed.  We are back in committee.  We'll


      23        need -- we're open for discussion, but if the


      24        committee wants to take up the bill, we'll have


      25        to amend the bill to either uphold the findings




       1        of the Historic Planning Commission which would


       2        deny the appeal, or you'd have to amend it to


       3        approve the appeal which would, in essence,


       4        grant the enclosure of the carport.


       5             So back in committee.


       6             I'm sorry, Mr. Joost.  Go ahead.


       7             MR. JOOST:  Just speaking for myself, I


       8        feel like the major damage, if you will, was


       9        done when the attachment was built in 1962.


      10        And just looking at the pictures, especially


      11        the side pictures, I mean to me that's just


      12        really ugly.  With that being said, I mean


      13        you're not going to change the carport.  I mean


      14        I think the only thing that could fix it would


      15        be to tear it down to get the house back to the


      16        original look which would make it look better.


      17        Okay.  So the situation is what it is.  And to


      18        me, leaving it as it is, I mean enclosing it


      19        and looking at the drawings in the book would


      20        be an improvement.  Just speaking for myself.


      21        So I'm going to step out on a limb and say move


      22        to grant the waiver.


      23             MR. D. BROWN:  I'll second that.


      24             THE CHAIRMAN:  Motion to grant the appeal


      25        by Mr. Joost.




       1             Second by Councilman Dick Brown.


       2             Discussion, Councilman Holt.


       3             MR. HOLT:  Thank you, Mr. Chair.


       4             I typically give a lot of weight on these


       5        discussions of historical record on whether the


       6        person originally when they owned their home,


       7        when they bought their home, if it was


       8        already -- if it was prior to the district


       9        being established or not.  I may be going about


      10        it wrong, but that's one of the things of


      11        fairness in my own mind.  And I just want to


      12        acknowledge that the historic district was


      13        established prior to this person purchasing


      14        this home.


      15             I agree with what you said, Mr. Joost,


      16        that it may fit in and look more attractive


      17        that way, but I just wanted to get that on the


      18        record.


      19             THE CHAIRMAN:  Any other discussion on the


      20        motion?


      21             Councilman Dick Brown for discussion.


      22             MR. D. BROWN:  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.


      23             I just wanted to say I'm a big fan of what


      24        Riverside Avondale has done.  And in fact, the


      25        recognition they've gotten recently as one of




       1        the world class neighborhoods, and certainly


       2        that effort and that mission deserves support.


       3             I just don't agree that this sets a


       4        precedent.  Get back to the fact that some of


       5        the design was sort of tampered with, of


       6        course, with the addition of the carport.  And


       7        I don't think you would find this many examples


       8        around the district that would even come up to


       9        be -- as Mr. Joost said, you've got the open


      10        sides there, and the potential of just cleaning


      11        it up and following the design that has already


      12        been carried through with at least the shingles


      13        and that look, I just think would be an overall


      14        improvement.  And there are quite a number of


      15        doors facing the area.  So I don't think we're


      16        stepping on the mission to approve this.  I'm


      17        going to support the appeal.  I just think it's


      18        an overall step forward without any damaging


      19        precedent.


      20             THE CHAIRMAN:  Thank you, Mr. Brown.


      21             Mr. Joost for the second time.


      22             MR. JOOST:  You know, I don't really have


      23        strong feelings either way.  You know, I'm just


      24        looking at the situation as it is, and I think


      25        leaving it would be worse.




       1             Mr. Holt, you make an excellent point that


       2        this homeowner bought this house knowing the


       3        rules when they bought it.  And great weight


       4        does have to be given to that.  So, you know,


       5        either way how this goes down, I'll be fine,


       6        but I think if I lived in the neighborhood and


       7        I wanted the historic preservation, I would try


       8        to make the carport look more historic than


       9        what it does.  I mean obviously, if you look at


      10        the house as it stands now, I mean it sticks


      11        out.  You've got a couple of columns on the


      12        side.  And if you can make it look better than


      13        what it is, then I think I'd have to go that


      14        way.  But, you know, what you said also carries


      15        great weight.  So I'm going to, I guess, err on


      16        the side of the homeowner.


      17             Thank you.


      18             THE CHAIRMAN:  Thank you, Mr. Joost.


      19             Mr. Redman.


      20             MR. REDMAN:  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.


      21             I'm going to have to err on the side of


      22        the homeowner as well because, you know, I


      23        think it would be a great improvement to do


      24        what she's wanting to do to the house.  I mean


      25        Mr. Holt is right.  I mean I'm sure she knew




       1        what she was buying when she bought this home


       2        and moved into it.  But the carport itself does


       3        not add anything to the house.  If it was mine,


       4        I would want to do that, put a garage door on


       5        it and improve the looks of the community.  The


       6        houses on the -- beside it and across the


       7        street have garage doors that fit in the


       8        community, evidently, pretty well.  So I'm


       9        going to have to support her on this.


      10             THE CHAIRMAN:  One question.  I assume


      11        maybe somebody built the garage back in the


      12        '20s.  I mean there were certainly cars coming


      13        into use.  Was any garage -- I mean is there


      14        any evidence of a garage in the district that


      15        was built facing the street?


      16             MR. MCEACHIN:  Not in that time period.


      17        Now, again, you get post World War II and you


      18        start seeing houses come in, tract houses,


      19        attached garage was not uncommon.  And most of


      20        what you saw in those photographs reflect that.


      21        But before that time period, almost everything


      22        was detached.  Many times they were constructed


      23        the same time as the house.  Sometimes they


      24        were a later addition.  You do see what's


      25        called a porte cochere which is part of the




       1        design of the house itself.  It was done at the


       2        time of the house, but generally, that's a


       3        little bit higher style when you get a porte


       4        cochere.


       5             THE CHAIRMAN:  Okay.  But were any of them


       6        facing the street?


       7             MR. MCEACHIN:  Well, they all face the


       8        street, but the point is they're deep.


       9             THE CHAIRMAN:  Back in --


      10             MR. MCEACHIN:  Deep on the lot.


      11             THE CHAIRMAN:  Okay.  Nothing was ever


      12        built on the forward part of the lot?


      13             MR. MCEACHIN:  Not on -- I've not seen


      14        one.  Since they're on the corner lot, they


      15        might be a little bit closer, but no, they're


      16        deep on the lot.


      17             THE CHAIRMAN:  Even the ones without


      18        alleys, they were just set back on the rear --


      19             MR. MCEACHIN:  That's correct.


      20             THE CHAIRMAN:  -- property line.


      21             Thank you.


      22             Mr. Joost.


      23             MR. JOOST:  I guess one last question for


      24        the Chairman.


      25             Have we heard from the district councilman




       1        on this issue, by any chance?


       2             THE CHAIRMAN:  I have received no


       3        correspondence from the district councilperson.


       4             MR. JOOST:  Okay.  Thank you.


       5             THE CHAIRMAN:  All right.


       6             Any further discussion?


       7             COMMITTEE MEMBERS:  (No response.)


       8             THE CHAIRMAN:  We have a motion and second


       9        on an amendment to grant the appeal.


      10             All those in favor say yes.


      11             COMMITTEE MEMBERS:  Yes.


      12             THE CHAIRMAN:  Opposed say no.


      13             MR. HOLT:  No.


      14             THE CHAIRMAN:  By your action, I'm going


      15        to vote in favor of the amendment to get it out


      16        of committee.


      17             So is there a motion on the bill as


      18        amended?


      19             MR. JOOST:  Move the bill as amended.


      20             MR. HOLT:  Second.


      21             THE CHAIRMAN:  Motion on the bill as


      22        amended by Mr. Joost.


      23             Second by Mr. Holt.


      24             Any discussion?


      25             COMMITTEE MEMBERS:  (No response.)





       1             If not, open the ballot, vote.


       2             MR. CRESCIMBENI:  (Votes yea)


       3             MR. JOOST:  (Votes yea)


       4             MR. REDMAN:  (Votes yea)


       5             MR. D. BROWN:  (Votes yea)


       6             MR. HOLT:  (Votes nay)


       7             (Committee ballot closed)


       8             MS. LAHMEUR:  Four yea, one nay.


       9             THE CHAIRMAN:  By our action, you've


      10        approved Item 11, 710-784 (sic).


      11             Without four votes, for those that may not


      12        be familiar with the process, the item stays in


      13        committee.  Four votes one way or the other and


      14        we'd have to hear it again in two weeks.  And


      15        you all, both parties may want to reach out to


      16        the district council member to have an opinion


      17        Tuesday night.


      18             All right.  Anything else to come before


      19        the committee.  Anyone else have any comments?


      20             Mr. Crofts.


      21             MR. CROFTS:  Just one brief comment that


      22        I'd like to invite all the council members,


      23        including LUZ, to attend a presentation


      24        tomorrow in the Lynwood Roberts Room being made


      25        by the architectural students, graduate



       1        architectural students from the Savannah


       2        College of Art and Design.  They are going to


       3        present models and boards and specific plans


       4        for the redevelopment of some property in the


       5        downtown area, and that would be the shipyards


       6        property.


       7             THE CHAIRMAN:  And that is when to when


       8        tomorrow?


       9             MR. CROFTS:  That particular event will


      10        take place starting about 2:30 in the Lynwood


      11        Roberts Room here.  And the exhibit will start


      12        there and then will ultimately be residing in


      13        the Ed Ball lobby.  There will be probably


      14        seven different boards and models for


      15        redevelopment of portions of downtown.  And it


      16        will be in the Ed Ball building probably


      17        through the holidays.


      18             THE CHAIRMAN:  At 2:30 tomorrow, that's


      19        something that people can kind of come in


      20        throughout the afternoon?  It's not set at


      21        2:30, right?


      22             MR. CROFTS:  That's correct.


      23             THE CHAIRMAN:  Okay.  It's too bad the


      24        Savannah Culinary Institute wasn't going to be


      25        there.  That would be a much more -- anyway,




       1        anything else to come before the committee?


       2             All right.  Mr. Teal.


       3             MR. TEAL:  I just wanted to thank you,


       4        Mr. Chairman, for working with our schedule on


       5        the hearing in this appeal tonight.  I


       6        appreciate that.


       7             THE CHAIRMAN:  It all worked out well.  I


       8        guess your meeting got over early, correct?


       9             MR. TEAL:  We got over at 4:30,


      10        surprisingly.


      11             THE CHAIRMAN:  Really?  You could have


      12        been here at 5:00, then.


      13             All right.  Seeing nothing else, this


      14        meeting is adjourned and we appreciate


      15        everybody being here, and we will see you in


      16        two weeks.


      17             Thanks.


      18             (The above proceedings were adjourned at


      19   6:50 p.m.)


      20                          - - -














       1                  C E R T I F I C A T E


       2   STATE OF FLORIDA)


       3   COUNTY OF DUVAL )


       4        I, Tina Hutcheson, Court Reporter, certify that


       5   I was authorized to and did stenographically report


       6   the foregoing proceedings and that the transcript is


       7   a true and complete copy of my stenographic notes.




       9        Dated this 21st day of November 2010.






      12                           _______________________________

                                   Tina Hutcheson

      13                           Court Reporter