CITY OF
LAND USE AND ZONING
COMMITTEE
Proceedings held on Tuesday,
November 16, 2010,
commencing at 5:00 p.m., City Hall, Council
Chambers, 1st Floor,
Tina Hutcheson, a Notary Public in
and for the State
of
PRESENT:
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.
- - -
2
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
3
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
4
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
5
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
6
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
7
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
8
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
9
1
deceptive to the public as to what they were
2
receiving. And frankly, we don't
have approved
3
gambling in
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
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
10
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
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
11
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
12
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
13
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
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
14
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
15
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
16
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.
17
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,
18
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
19
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
20
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)
21
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
22
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
23
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
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,
24
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
25
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.
26
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
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
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
27
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
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
23
confiscated -- Captain Willey's remaining land
24
around the
25 the
28
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?
29
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
30
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.
31
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
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
32
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.
33
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
25
aquifer water for irrigation and shall be
34
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
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
35
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
14
all of 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
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
36
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.
37
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.
38
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
39
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
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
24
not part of this application. The
CO is --
25
basically, it's 160 feet south of Abess
40
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
41
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
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
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.)
42
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,
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?
43
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
44
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
24
namely because of the fact that the carport
25
itself was not original to the structure. And
45
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.
46
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?
47
1 Well, I do. I received a document from, I
2
guess, the
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.
48
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,
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
49
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
50
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
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
51
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
52
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?
53
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.
25 I want to address the report or
the
54
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
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
55
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
56
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
21
Preservation.
22 Committee members ask that you
uphold the
23
decision made by the
24
Preservation Commission, their unanimous
25
decision, and deny the Certificate of
57
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
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
58
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,
59
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
23
the alley.
24 MR. JOOST: So it's your contention from
25
what you just read to me that this is facing
60
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
61
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
62
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
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
63
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
64
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.
65
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
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.
66
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
67
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,
68
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
69
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
70
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 --
71
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.
72
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 --
73
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.
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?
74
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
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.
75
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,
6
Chair of
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
76
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
77
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?
78
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
79
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.
80
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
7
is
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
81
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
82
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
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
83
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
84
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
85
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
86
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
87
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
88
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
89
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
90
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
91
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
92
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
93
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
94
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.
95
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
96
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.
97
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
98
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
99
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
100
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.)
101
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
25
by the architectural
students, graduate
102
1
architectural students from the
2
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
11
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,
103
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 - - -
21
22
23
24
25
104
1 C E R T I F I C A T E
2
STATE OF
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.
8
9 Dated this 21st day of
November 2010.
10
11
12
_______________________________
Tina
Hutcheson
13 Court Reporter
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25