LAND USE AND ZONING
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
JOHN CRESCIMBENI, Chair.
RAY HOLT, Vice Chair.
DON REDMAN, Committee Member.
DICK BROWN, Committee Member.
REGGIE BROWN, Committee Member.
STEPHEN JOOST, Committee Member.
KEVIN HYDE, City Council Member.
GLORIOUS JOHNSON, City Council Member.
JOHN CROFTS, Deputy Director, Planning Dept.
SEAN KELLY, Chief, Current Planning.
FOLKS HUXFORD, Zoning Administrator.
KEN AVERY, Planning and Development Dept.
JOEL MCEACHIN, Planning and Development Dept.
DYLAN REINGOLD, Office of General Counsel.
JASON GABRIEL, Office of General Counsel.
JASON TEAL, Office of General Counsel.
CHERRY SHAW, Office of General Counsel.
MERRIANE LAHMEUR, Legislative Assistant.
SHARONDA DAVIS, Legislative Assistant.
- - -
1 P R O C E E D I N G S
2 November 16, 2010 5:00 p.m.
3 - - -
4 THE CHAIRMAN: All right. Good evening,
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
16 MR. KELLY: Sean Kelly, Planning and
18 MR. HUXFORD: Folks Huxford, Planning and
20 MR. REINGOLD: Dylan Reingold with the
21 Office of General Counsel.
22 MR. HYDE: Kevin Hyde, City Council.
23 MR. R. BROWN: Dick Brown, City Council
24 District 13.
25 MR. JOOST: Steven Joost, City Council
1 Group 3 at-large.
2 THE CHAIRMAN: I'm John Crescimbeni,
3 Councilman at-large, Group 2 and chairman of
4 the committee.
5 MR. HOLT: Ray Holt, District 11.
6 MR. REDMAN: Don Redman, District 4.
7 MS. JOHNSON: Good afternoon.
8 Councilwoman Glorious Johnson.
9 How long y'all be in this place?
10 THE CHAIRMAN: I'm sorry?
11 MS. JOHNSON: Are y'all here very long?
12 THE CHAIRMAN: We're going to be quick
13 tonight, I hope.
14 Welcome, everyone. I do have an excused
15 absence from Mr. Bishop. He had a conflict
16 this evening.
17 And here comes Mr. Reggie Brown, who has
18 an early excusal at 6:15, and we've got that
19 noted on the record, Mr. Brown.
20 Mr. Reingold.
21 MR. REINGOLD: Yes, sir. Would you like
22 me to get us started?
23 THE CHAIRMAN: I would.
24 MR. REINGOLD: All right.
25 Anyone who would like to address the
1 committee tonight must fill out a yellow
2 speaker's card in its entirety. The yellow
3 speaker's cards are located on the desk up
4 front near the podium. Once completed, please
5 return the speaker's cards to the basket on the
6 front desk.
7 Any person who lobbies the City for
8 compensation is considered a lobbyist and is
9 therefore required to register their lobbying
10 activity with the City Council secretary. If
11 you are a lobbyist and have not registered with
12 the City Council secretary, you will not be
13 permitted to address the committee.
14 Because a verbatim transcript of this
15 meeting will be prepared by a court reporter,
16 it is important that you speak clearly into the
17 microphone when you address the committee.
18 It's also important that only one person speak
19 at a time.
20 Any tangible material submitted with a
21 speaker's presentation, such as documents,
22 photographs, plans, drawings, et cetera, shall
23 become a permanent part of the public record
24 and will be retained by this committee.
25 As a courtesy, please switch any cell
1 phones, pagers or audible devices to a silent
2 mode. Additionally, there shall be no public
3 displays of support or opposition, so please
4 refrain from applause or speaking out of turn.
5 Items are generally addressed in the order
6 in which they are listed on the agenda. Copies
7 of the agenda are located on the front desk
8 near the podium. On occasion, items may be
9 heard out of order for the sake of efficiency
10 or to accommodate scheduling conflicts.
11 Unless there is a formal hearing on a
12 particular item, each member of the public is
13 limited to a single three-minute presentation.
14 Presentations should be focused, concise and
15 address only the items pending before the
17 Prior to addressing the committee, please
18 state your name and your address for the court
20 Decisions on rezonings, including PUDs,
21 are all considered quasi-judicial in nature,
22 and certain protocols will be followed for
23 these proceedings.
24 First, council members or committee
25 members must disclose on the record any
1 ex-parte communications they have had with any
2 members of the public prior to the hearing on
3 each applicable item. This includes a brief
4 statement of when the communication took place,
5 who the communication was with, and what the
6 subject matter of the communication was about.
7 Second, the normal format is to allow the
8 applicant or agent thereof to make their
9 presentation first, followed by members of the
10 public who wish to speak in support of the
11 item, then members of the public who are in
12 opposition will be allowed to speak. After all
13 of the public comments have been received, the
14 applicant will have a brief opportunity to wrap
15 up or present a brief rebuttal. The wrap-up or
16 rebuttal shall be limited to the issues brought
17 up by the speakers.
18 In some instances, the Chair may permit a
19 concise surrebuttal or response to the
20 applicant's rebuttal, which will be followed by
21 a brief final response by the applicant.
22 Finally, all quasi-judicial decisions must
23 be based on substantial competent evidence,
24 which means the committee's decision must be
25 supported by fact-based testimony or expert
1 testimony and not generalized concerns or
3 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Reingold.
4 Ms. Johnson, are you here on any
5 particular item?
6 MS. JOHNSON: Yes. Thank you,
7 Mr. Chairman.
8 The item that I'm here on is on Page 4.
9 THE CHAIRMAN: The cemetery?
10 MS. JOHNSON: Number 8. Yes.
11 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. I have Mr. Hyde
12 here, and we're going to take up something that
13 we couldn't deal with last time. So we'll take
14 up Item 1, and then we'll take up your item --
15 MS. JOHNSON: Thank you.
16 THE CHAIRMAN: -- so you don't have to
17 stay unless, of course, you want to.
18 So with that said, Item 1, we normally
19 begin with a Planning Department report,
20 although when we took this up last week, I
21 think I mentioned that we would start with a
22 summary of how we got to where we are tonight.
23 And I understand, Mr. Hyde, you're going
24 to do that summary. So if you would like to
25 just kind of walk us through the introduction
1 of -326 and how it's morphed, where it is
2 today. And then we're going to hear from
3 Mr. Killingsworth from the Planning Department.
4 MR. HYDE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And
5 I'll be brief.
6 I know many of you have heard this
7 explanation. We had a -- really, I appreciate
8 the opportunity that all of you gave me
9 yesterday in our noticed meeting. A lot of
10 good questions were asked and we really hashed
11 it out a lot there.
12 My original concern about this topic came
13 about by looking at the proliferation of
14 internet cafes which run sweepstakes operations
15 throughout the county, as well as some of the
16 practices and activities that I saw in there,
17 and some constituent complaints that I had
19 As you know, when I introduced the bill, I
20 believe it was in April, it would have proposed
21 an outright ban on these machines in terms of
22 the type of display they could use, anything
23 that would have mimicked what we would
24 typically see as a slot machine or casino
25 gambling. The idea being that I thought it was
1 deceptive to the public as to what they were
2 receiving. And frankly, we don't have approved
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
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
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.
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
1 restrictions on the Internet cafe.
2 As many of you know, we have worked
3 extensively on various proposals that deal with
4 the regulation, the security, and, now before
5 this committee, some of the zoning issues, and
6 the idea here is to provide very tight
7 regulation while there's still time allowing
8 them to operate.
9 Since we last met two weeks ago, a couple
10 of things have occurred. One, Mr. Crescimbeni
11 both yesterday and previously had some
12 questions about the permits, how new permits
13 were going to be obtained when there was this
14 attrition. And I think, Mr. Crescimbeni,
15 correct me wrong (sic), you've seen language on
16 that and will entertain that in amendment. The
17 language I have seen, which was proposed to
18 you, I am perfectly acceptable with. And if
19 there's any further tweaks that you have, you
20 know, certainly look at those.
21 We also talked to the sheriff. He had
22 some concerns about his role and did not want
23 to take on the permitting role. And that's now
24 been placed under Environmental Compliance, and
25 Ebenezer that we've all worked with will be
1 handling that. The sheriff retains the
2 compliance activity and the enforcement
3 activity, which is certainly appropriate for
4 him, and he's willing to take that role on.
5 So I think what we have before us and
6 which was approved by PHS tonight, and today
7 will be the last committee it will go through,
8 it is the result of a lot of compromise. I
9 think it's fair compromise. It's fair to say
10 that any number of people who have been
11 affected by this, and you'll recall the evening
12 when we had the, frankly, hundreds of people
13 come down and talk about it, we have reached
14 out to them. I have met with them personally
15 on numerous occasions. I know some of you all
16 have met with them. So while no one agrees
17 that everything about this bill is perfect, I
18 do think that we have addressed all of the
19 industry concerns in meeting my goal, frankly,
20 of limiting this activity as much as we can be.
21 I maintain to this day I'm still not a fan
22 of this industry, but there are many lawful,
23 legal industries that might not be my personal
24 preference. But I think that we achieved some
25 goals here of the consumers of these activities
1 understanding exactly what they are getting,
2 that it is done in a safe environment, in one
3 which leads to a proper business activity in
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
10 And, Mr. Killingsworth, we will hear from
11 you, and then we'll open up for public hearing.
12 MR. KILLINGSWORTH: Thank you,
13 Mr. Chairman. Is this on?
14 Bill Killingsworth, director of Planning
15 and Development.
16 2010-326 seeks to establish a new chapter,
17 Chapter 155, to regulate the operation of adult
18 arcade/amusement centers, to establish Chapter
19 156 to regulate the operations of game
20 promotions utilizing electronic equipment, and
21 to amend Chapter 655 to allow for adult
22 arcade/amusement centers and for game
23 promotions utilizing electronic equipment in
24 CCG-1 and CCG-2 by right, and in IL by
25 exception as long as they conform to
1 performance standards and development criteria
2 as set forth in Part 4 of -656.
3 This bill furthers the purposes of the
4 comprehensive plan and the zoning code as it
5 promotes the public health and safety by
6 ensuring that these businesses are properly
7 regulated and that they are appropriately
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
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
24 Based upon an examination of the proposed
25 ordinance with respect to the goals, objectives
1 and policies of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan and
2 the intent of the zoning code, the Planning
3 Department finds that Ordinance 2010-326 is
4 consistent with the 2030 Comprehensive Plan and
5 the intent of the zoning code, and therefore
6 recommends approval of 2010-326, subject to the
7 following modifications.
8 I passed out -- or actually, I asked staff
9 to pass out changes to our report which change
10 the modifications that we're requesting.
11 On Page 38 of the ordinance as filed, Line
12 10, the department would request that the word
13 "any" be inserted between kk, close
14 parentheses, period, and game promotions
15 utilizing electronic equipment. And that
16 "operated by a licensed permit holder" be
18 We would also request that after "distance
19 limitations" that "for game promotions
20 utilizing electronic equipment operated by a
21 licensed permit holder or de minimis activity
22 facility" be inserted.
23 As well as on Line 23, the map shall show,
24 and insert "existing zoning and all locations
25 of schools, churches, military installations
1 within a radius of 750 feet of the proposed
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
10 All right. We have a public hearing on
11 this matter scheduled for this evening. The
12 public hearing is open.
13 Do we have any speaker cards?
14 No speaker cards.
15 No one wants to address the committee?
16 AUDIENCE MEMBERS: (No response.)
17 THE CHAIRMAN: All right. Seeing no one,
18 then the public hearing is closed and we are
19 back at committee.
20 Now, before us we have, Mr. Reingold, is
21 this document that Mr. Killingsworth
22 referenced, is it incorporated into this master
23 amendment that was adopted by Public Health and
24 Safety earlier?
25 MR. REINGOLD: To the Chair, partially.
1 And Mr. Killingsworth can get up and explain if
2 I'm wrong.
3 There are three aspects of their proposed
4 amendment, one of which is actually addressed
5 in the PHS amendment, and that is on
6 656.401(kk)(1) where it says "distance
7 limitations for game promotions utilizing
8 electronic equipment operated by a licensed
9 permit holder or a de minimis activity
10 facility." That issue has been resolved
11 through the PHS amendment. So that does not
12 need to be amended.
13 It is my understanding through my
14 discussions with Mr. Killingsworth he still
15 would like the word "any" to be included at the
16 beginning at 656.401 KK, and he would also like
17 that the provision that the map shall show
18 "existing zoning and all locations." Those
19 were the two points that I believe
20 Mr. Killingsworth wanted included if the PHS
21 amendment was adopted.
22 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. Thank you.
23 Mr. Gabriel, do you want to come and sit
24 up here so we can see you? Yeah, you can sit
25 right over next to your colleague there,
1 Mr. Reingold.
2 All right. So everyone should have a copy
3 of what Mr. Killingsworth was referencing, the
4 one-page document. And everyone should have a
5 copy of the -- I'll call it the master
6 amendment that Mr. Hyde has been working on for
7 a number of days. What is it, 14 pages, 15
9 So with that --
10 MR. REDMAN: I move the amendment.
11 THE CHAIRMAN: I have a motion on the --
12 MR. JOOST: Second.
13 THE CHAIRMAN: -- master 15-page amendment
14 with the Killingsworth or the Planning
15 Department's recommendations as well.
16 Second by Mr. Joost.
17 Any discussion on that amendment?
18 COMMITTEE MEMBERS: (No response.)
19 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. I have one question,
20 and through the Chair -- as the Chair,
21 Mr. Hyde, I had a conversation with Mr. Mathis
22 and Mr. Duggan and Mr. Mann earlier, and I had
23 two points that I wanted to clarify on the
24 latest -- I'll call it is Hyde amendment with
25 regard to the drawing of a new permit. I was
1 hopeful that that would be conducted in a
2 public forum, a public venue, something similar
3 to when we open RFPs or bids, et cetera.
4 And my other question I think was relating
5 to -- I got to look.
6 MR. HYDE: Mr. Gabriel told me there was
7 two issues, the public, I think that makes
8 sense, and I've asked him to incorporate
9 language to that effect.
10 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. And the other one
11 was with regard to the list of things to prove
12 that you were open before August 9th of 2010.
13 MR. HYDE: Right. It was to clarify
14 language that would show and strengthen that
15 they really were in existence and operating,
16 not some shell.
17 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay.
18 MR. HYDE: And I think that would be --
19 THE CHAIRMAN: So we can assume that's
20 part of this master -- okay.
21 And then the only other thing I had, and
22 I'll work on something maybe between now and
23 Tuesday, was helping to clarify that 14-day
24 cessation period, but I don't have as much
25 trouble with that. I know you've taken a stab
1 at that, so it's much more comfortable for me.
2 So with that said, any further discussion
3 on the amendment which incorporates those two
4 minor changes, Mr. Killingsworth's comments and
5 everything that Mr. Hyde has been working on
6 for the past couple of weeks?
7 COMMITTEE MEMBERS: (No response.)
8 THE CHAIRMAN: All right. All those in
9 favor say yes.
10 COMMITTEE MEMBERS: Yes.
11 THE CHAIRMAN: Opposed say no.
12 COMMITTEE MEMBERS: (No response.)
13 THE CHAIRMAN: By your action, you've
14 adopted the omnibus amendment.
15 MR. R. BROWN: Move the bill as amended.
16 MR. HOLT: Second.
17 THE CHAIRMAN: Motion on the bill by
18 Mr. Joost (sic). Second by Mr. Holt as
20 Any discussion?
21 COMMITTEE MEMBERS: (No response.)
22 THE CHAIRMAN: If not, open the ballot,
24 (Committee ballot opened.)
25 MR. CRESCIMBENI: (Votes yea)
1 MR. JOOST: (Votes yea)
2 MR. REDMAN: (Votes yea)
3 MR. R. BROWN: (Votes yea)
4 MR. D. BROWN: (Votes yea)
5 MR. HOLT: (Votes yea)
6 (Committee ballot closed)
7 MS. LAHMEUR: Six yea, zero nay.
8 THE CHAIRMAN: By your action, you've
9 approved Item 1, 2010-326.
10 Thank you, Mr. Hyde. You've certainly got
11 a ton of hours in this, as do a lot of the
12 folks in the audience, and we appreciate it. I
13 think we've come a very long way since April,
14 and I hope everybody's happy and has some skin
15 in the game at this point. So thank you.
16 MR. HYDE: Thank you.
17 THE CHAIRMAN: We'll see how it goes.
18 All right. Ms. Johnson, your item number
19 was item -- was it Number 4?
20 MS. JOHNSON: I'm sorry. On Page 4,
21 Number 8, 2010 --
22 THE CHAIRMAN: Right. Number 8. Let's
23 skip ahead to Page 4, Item 8, 2010-770. And we
24 have a report.
25 Ms. Shaw, are you going to give the report
1 or Mr. McEachin, are you going to give the
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
17 THE CHAIRMAN: All right. Thank you,
18 Ms. Shaw.
19 Mr. McEachin.
20 MR. MCEACHIN: Yes. Through the Chair to
21 the committee, this landmark application was
22 requested by Councilmember Glorious Johnson.
23 The Preservation Commission then charged the
24 Planning and Development Department to develop
25 the application and make a report back to the
1 Historic Preservation Commission. After a
2 public hearing and proper notification, that
3 was done. The commission accepted our report
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,
1 this is a quasi-judicial matter. Does anyone
2 have any ex-parte communication to disclose
3 prior to the public hearing?
4 COMMITTEE MEMBERS: (No response.)
5 THE CHAIRMAN: All right. Seeing none, we
6 do have a public hearing scheduled this
7 evening. The public hearing is open.
8 No speaker cards?
9 Anyone care to address the committee?
10 AUDIENCE MEMBERS: (No response.)
11 THE CHAIRMAN: Seeing no one, the public
12 hearing is closed.
13 Ms. Johnson -- Ms. Johnson, let me point
14 out for the record that this bill was deferred
15 at the last meeting because we didn't have any
16 paperwork in our books on it. There was no --
17 Ms. Shaw began her discussion and started
18 referencing some documents, and when we turned
19 to our book, there was no pages under the tab.
20 So that caused the two-week delay.
21 But, Ms. Johnson, you're on the queue, so
22 you may have the floor.
23 MS. JOHNSON: Thank you very much. And
24 I'll make this very short.
25 I would like -- Mr. McEachin, I'm sorry, I
1 was rushing to get over here, and thank you so
2 much for the compilation that you have done on
3 the booklet.
4 But many of you may have been over to the
5 cemetery. It was actually purchased by
6 Mr. Willey in 1852. He purchased four acres of
7 the property. Well, he purchased over 200-plus
8 acres, but four acres was given to the City in
9 order for us to bury those who were unable to
10 pay for burial. But it wind up being something
11 totally different because what happened was
12 when the actual burial started, we wind up with
13 a Confederate section, we wind up with an
14 African-American section, we wind up with a
15 Jewish section, there were many different
16 sections in that one little four-acre cemetery.
17 And being that many people, citizens in
18 the community have started putting their moneys
19 in to try to preserve it, for example, the
20 Confederate veterans, what they have done is
21 spent over $10,000, and they restored a
22 platform for people who have events or honor
23 people who have been buried there, they can
24 have ceremonies there and they have a place to
25 go, a shed where they can go.
1 There was a book written, and it's going
2 to be published very soon by Ms. Jameson who
3 lived in the area. At one time the area was
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
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,
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
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
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
said in 1865 the
23 confiscated -- Captain Willey's remaining land
1 my own curiosity, do you know why they did
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
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
7 COMMITTEE MEMBERS: (No response.)
8 THE CHAIRMAN: If not, open the ballot,
10 MR. CRESCIMBENI: (Votes yea)
11 MR. JOOST: (Votes yea)
12 MR. REDMAN: (Votes yea)
13 MR. R. BROWN: (Votes yea)
14 MR. D. BROWN: (Votes yea)
15 (Committee ballot closed)
16 MS. LAHMEUR: Five yea, zero nay.
17 THE CHAIRMAN: By your action, you've
18 approved Item 8, 2010-770.
19 MS. JOHNSON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and
20 thank you, colleagues. Mr. McEachin and
21 Cherry, thank you.
22 Thank you.
23 THE CHAIRMAN: Turning back to Page 2 at
24 the bottom, Item 2, 1020-389, we're not going
25 to take this bill up tonight. We do have a
1 public hearing scheduled. The public hearing
2 is open.
3 Any speaker cards?
5 Anyone care to address the committee?
6 AUDIENCE MEMBERS: (No response.)
7 THE CHAIRMAN: All right. Seeing no one,
8 the public hearing is continued until
9 January 4th of 2011.
10 Turning over to Page 3, Item 3, 2010-585.
11 There will be no action on this bill tonight,
12 but is it scheduled for a public hearing.
13 We have a public hearing that is now open.
14 Do we have any speaker cards?
15 Anyone care to address the committee?
16 AUDIENCE MEMBERS: (No response.)
17 THE CHAIRMAN: Seeing no one, the public
18 hearing is continued also until January 4th,
19 and no further action on that.
20 Items 4 and 5 on Page 3 are both deferred.
21 Turning to Page 4, Item 6, 2010-618 is
22 deferred, as is Item 7, 2010-670.
23 We just took up and approved Item 8.
24 That takes us to the bottom of the page.
25 Item 4 -- I mean on Page 4, Item 9, 2010-782.
1 Mr. Kelly for the staff report.
2 MR. KELLY: Thank you. To the Chair and
3 to the LUZ Committee, Ordinance 2010-782 seeks
4 to rezone approximately 115 acres from PUD to
5 PUD. The subject property is at the northwest
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
15 The property, my understanding is it has
16 changed hands. The new property owner is now
17 looking to get some relief from portions of the
18 settlement agreement.
19 The department is supportive of this PUD.
20 We find it again, as consistent with the
21 comprehensive plan, and actually takes into
22 account many of the pre-existing agreements
23 between the department and the developer from
24 the previous settlement agreement.
25 Additionally, the property immediately
1 west of this was recently rezoned to provide
2 for a commercial town center neighborhood
3 development, which was the intent of the
4 original PUD that was on this property.
5 However, this property's been developing out
6 more of a big box commercial development with
7 mixed use and residential to the north.
8 However, the adjacent PUD mitigates for the
9 fact that the loss of the overall town
10 center-type of development that was originally
11 proposed on this site.
12 However, the department again finds it
13 consistent with the goals, objectives and
14 policies of the comprehensive plan, finds it
15 consistent with numerous policies within that
16 future land use element. The department is
17 recommending approval subject to the conditions
18 in the letter dated November 10th, 2010, to
19 Council President Webb.
20 There are a couple of modifications. I
21 could go over the changes to the written
22 description, but we do have a revised site
23 plan, specifically, it's dated November 9th,
24 and a revised written description, also dated
25 November 9th, 2010.
1 The department is recommending approval
2 subject to the conditions of the memorandum.
3 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Kelly.
4 What's the date of the memorandum?
5 MR. KELLY: It's November 10th.
6 I'll read them into the record just --
7 THE CHAIRMAN: Yes. Let's --
8 MR. KELLY: -- clarify. Thank you.
9 "The development shall be subject to the
10 original legal description dated
11 September 23rd, 2010."
12 Condition 2, "The development shall be
13 subject to the revised written description
14 dated November 9th, 2010."
15 Condition 3, "The development shall be
16 subject to the revised site plan dated November
17 9th, 2010."
18 Condition 4, "The development shall
19 proceed in accordance with the Development
20 Services Division memorandum dated October 6th,
21 2010, or as otherwise reviewed and approved by
22 the Planning and Development Department."
23 Condition 5, "The development shall be
prohibited from using the
25 aquifer water for irrigation and shall be
1 required to connect to the JEA reuse water
3 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Kelly.
4 All right. This is a quasi-judicial
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
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
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
see at the
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
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
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
19 MR. HERZBERG: Academy opened up Friday,
20 yes, sir.
21 THE CHAIRMAN: Seen lots of television
22 commercials for that. So congratulations on
23 getting that off -- I think they wanted to be
24 open by Thanksgiving, and it sounds like they
25 met their target date.
1 MR. HERZBERG: Thank you very much, sir.
2 THE CHAIRMAN: Any other questions for
3 Mr. Herzberg from the committee?
4 COMMITTEE MEMBERS: (No response.)
5 THE CHAIRMAN: All right. Anyone else
6 care to address the committee?
7 AUDIENCE MEMBERS: (No response.)
8 THE CHAIRMAN: All right. Seeing none,
9 then the public hearing is closed.
10 MR. JOOST: Move the amendment.
11 MR. HOLT: Second.
12 THE CHAIRMAN: Motion on the amendment,
13 which are the conditions, by Mr. Joost.
14 Second by Mr. Holt.
15 Any discussion on the amendment?
16 COMMITTEE MEMBERS: (No response.)
17 THE CHAIRMAN: If not, all those in favor
18 say yes.
19 COMMITTEE MEMBERS: Yes.
20 THE CHAIRMAN: Opposed say no.
21 COMMITTEE MEMBERS: (No response.)
22 THE CHAIRMAN: By your action, you've
23 approved the amendment.
24 MR. JOOST: Move the bill as amended.
25 MR. HOLT: Second.
1 THE CHAIRMAN: Motion on the bill as
2 amended by Mr. Joost.
3 Second by Mr. Holt.
5 COMMITTEE MEMBERS: (No response.)
6 THE CHAIRMAN: If not, open the ballot,
8 MR. CRESCIMBENI: (Votes yea)
9 MR. JOOST: (Votes yea)
10 MR. REDMAN: (Votes yea)
11 MR. R. BROWN: (Votes yea)
12 MR. HOLT: (Votes yea)
13 MR. D. BROWN: (Votes yea)
14 (Committee ballot closed)
15 MS. LAHMEUR: Six yeas, zero nays.
16 THE CHAIRMAN: By your action, you've
17 approved Item 9, 2010-782 as amended.
18 MR. HERZBERG: Thank you all.
19 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Herzberg.
20 Good to see you.
21 Turning to Page 5, Item 10 at the top of
22 the page, 2010-783.
23 Mr. Kelly.
24 MR. KELLY: Thank you. To the Chair and
25 committee, Ordinance 2010-783 is an application
1 for rezoning. This request seeks to go from a
2 commercial office zoning designation to a CCG 1
3 zoning designation.
4 The property currently has a land use of
5 Community General Commercial. This is actually
6 across the street from the previous
7 application. This is the northeast quadrant of
8 Kernan and Atlantic Boulevards, approximately
9 9.8 acres. This is a parcel from the Titus
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
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
the actual frontage along
24 not part of this application. The CO is --
25 basically, it's 160 feet south of Abess
1 Boulevard. The CCG-1 will be within that area.
2 So just to clarify the correction to the
3 legal, it's actually proposed right in the
4 original documentation. It was just that the
5 zoning map was made incorrect.
6 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Kelly.
7 Will we have to have an amendment for
8 that, Mr. Reingold?
9 MR. REINGOLD: I don't think we need an
10 amendment. I mean the legal description is
11 correct unless I hear otherwise from staff.
12 And that's the only exhibit attached to the
13 contract -- I mean attached to the bill.
14 THE CHAIRMAN: Does staff concur that the
15 legal description is correct and just the map
16 is incorrect on the report?
17 MR. KELLY: Just so long that -- well, I
18 personally didn't review the legal description.
19 It's 9.81 acres. As long as it doesn't entail
20 going beyond that, we're in agreement.
21 THE CHAIRMAN: Can staff and legal get
22 together before Tuesday, Mr. Reingold?
23 MR. REINGOLD: I can clarify the issue
25 There is a legal description that is
1 Exhibit 1 that is in your book. It describes
2 9.81 acres. You have a sketch of the property
3 that also is 9.81 acres. If you look at that
4 sketch, that property does not go all the way
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
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
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
22 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, sir.
23 Any questions from the committee for
24 Mr. Kelly?
25 COMMITTEE MEMBERS: (No response.)
1 THE CHAIRMAN: All right. Anyone have any
2 ex-parte -- this is a quasi-judicial matter.
3 Does anyone have any ex-parte communication to
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,
20 MR. KELLY: Correct. This is a
21 conventional rezoning.
22 THE CHAIRMAN: All right. Thank you,
23 Mr. Lyons. If you'll just have a seat on the
24 front row there just in case anything pops up.
25 Anyone else care to address the committee?
1 AUDIENCE MEMBERS: (No response.)
2 THE CHAIRMAN: All right. Seeing no one,
3 the public hearing is closed.
4 MR. JOOST: Move the bill.
5 MR. HOLT: Second.
6 THE CHAIRMAN: Motion on the bill by
7 Mr. Joost.
8 Second by Mr. Holt.
10 COMMITTEE MEMBERS: (No response.)
11 THE CHAIRMAN: If not, open the ballot,
13 MR. CRESCIMBENI: (Votes yea)
14 MR. JOOST: (Votes yea)
15 MR. REDMAN: (Votes yea)
16 MR. D. BROWN: (Votes yea)
17 MR. HOLT: (Votes yea)
18 MR. R. BROWN: (Votes yea)
19 (Committee ballot closed)
20 MS. LAHMEUR: Six yea, zero nay.
21 THE CHAIRMAN: By your action, you've
22 approved Item 10, 2010-783.
23 Item 11, 2010 -- I tell you what. Before
24 we take that up, Item 12 is deferred; Item 13,
25 14 are both read second, as are the last two
1 items on Page 6, Items 15 and 16.
2 So that leaves one item left on our
3 agenda. It is the appeal. It is the appeal.
4 Item 11, 2010-784.
5 And, Mr. Teal, you are going to start off
6 by giving the staff report on this.
7 MR. TEAL: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
8 Mr. Chairman, this is an appeal from the
9 Historic Preservation Commission of an
10 application sought by a property owner in the
11 Riverside Avondale Historic District to enclose
12 an existing carport that was constructed around
13 1962. The actual structure itself was built in
14 the 1920's. So the carport was added onto the
15 structure in the mid '60s.
16 The applicant seeks to enclose this
17 carport in order to provide additional parking
18 on the property for her vehicle. The Historic
19 Preservation Commission denied the request to
20 enclose the carport for purposes of the fact
21 that it didn't comply with the Secretary of
22 Interior standards or the design regulations
24 namely because of the fact that the carport
25 itself was not original to the structure. And
1 the Historic Preservation Commission didn't
2 feel that it was appropriate to create a
3 more -- I guess to more formalize that addition
4 to the building.
5 Not only that, but the property itself
6 does have vehicular parking options on it, not
7 only the carport but also enclosed parking on
8 the alleyway, which also serves as the garages
9 for most of the other properties in the area.
10 So with that, Mr. Chairman, that concludes
11 the staff report.
12 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Teal.
13 This document that's passed out, is this
14 your -- is this something from the ...
15 MR. TEAL: It's going to be my handout as
16 far as referencing it during my portion of the,
17 I guess, appeal tonight.
18 THE CHAIRMAN: This is a handout from the
19 Historic Preservation Commission?
20 MR. TEAL: No. That's a handout that was
21 prepared for the purposes of this appeal. This
22 is a de novo appeal, so you're not bound by the
23 record of the Historic Preservation Commission,
24 so you can receive new evidence at the appeal
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
1 Well, I do. I received a document from, I
3 Association and an accompanying email. And
4 it's here somewhere, and I'll turn it in in
5 just a minute when I can put my hands on it.
6 And I also had a phone call from Kay Ehas,
7 who I think is a board member who represents
8 Riverside Avondale Preservation this afternoon
9 just asking if I had received this document.
10 But that's all I had.
11 Mr. Holt.
12 MR. HOLT: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
13 I also had a conversation today with Kay
14 Ehas about noon, and we discussed the home and
15 the garage facilities that currently exist and
16 what exactly was being applied for.
17 Thank you.
18 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Holt.
19 Councilman Reggie Brown.
20 MR. R. BROWN: Right. Yes, Mr. Chairman,
21 I'd like to declare ex-parte.
22 I did receive a phone call from Kay Ehas
23 earlier today to discuss this matter.
24 Thank you.
25 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Brown.
1 Anyone else?
2 COMMITTEE MEMBERS: (No response.)
3 THE CHAIRMAN: All right. We do have a
4 public hearing scheduled this evening. The
5 public hearing is open.
6 I have several speaker cards, and I am
7 going to begin with the appellant, Ms. Gasparo.
8 And is Mr. Johnson -- he's also -- is he part
9 of your group?
10 MS. GASPARO: He is.
11 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. Anyone else part of
12 your group?
13 MS. GASPARO: No.
14 THE CHAIRMAN: All right. So we'll hear
15 from you two, and then we'll hear from the
16 remaining speakers, and then I'll give you a
17 chance to come back and rebut.
18 So just begin by stating your name and
19 address for the record, and you have three
21 MS. GASPARO: Sharon Gasparo, 1618 Talbot
23 I'm the owner of the subject property, and
24 it seems like one of the issues seems to be
25 that I already have an existing garage. And I
1 don't really see how that's relevant to the
2 design guidelines or the Secretary of Interior
3 standards, but I'll just touch on that pretty
5 I do have an existing garage. I have an
6 alleyway. The alleyway is nine feet. I
7 measured it today. And I go down my alley, I
8 have a 45-degree turn to get into my garage.
9 I feel there are safety issues to using
10 that garage, and I don't use it. The times
11 when I have used it, I pull into the garage
12 with my doors locked, I close that garage
13 before I open my doors and get out of the car.
14 I mean it is down a dark alley.
15 I have used that alley and I have hit my
16 house pulling into the garage, pulling out of
17 the garage. It is just treacherous. My
18 neighbors park their cars, there's a fence.
19 It's just not -- you know, RAP in their
20 presentation said that I said it was easily
21 accessible. It's not, and I never said that.
22 So again, I just don't see how that is
23 relevant to whether enclosing this carport
24 meets the design guidelines.
25 RAP states that enclosing the carport is
1 not compliant with design regulations. The
2 design regulations state to avoid adding a
3 garage, particularly with the doors facing the
4 right-of-way in front or even with the front
5 plane of the principal structure as they were
6 not an integral part of the original design of
7 the buildings.
8 Well, if you look at the design
9 guidelines, I am not adding a garage, I'm
10 enclosing a carport. And the design guidelines
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
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
11 I'm not disrupting the character of the
12 neighborhood --
13 THE CHAIRMAN: Ms. Gasparo, I need you to
14 wrap up. Your time is up. I will give you a
15 chance to rebut.
16 MS. GASPARO: Okay.
17 THE CHAIRMAN: But if you have any closing
18 remarks that you can make --
19 MS. GASPARO: Just that there are three
20 other houses on my block with attached
21 forward-facing garages, so I'm not disrupting
22 the character of the neighborhood, nor
23 affecting the historical integrity of my
24 property that's already been modified by
25 enclosing a porch, adding a porch and enclosing
1 that and adding this carport.
2 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, ma'am.
3 Any questions from the committee?
4 Ms. Gasparo, I did have a question.
5 In the document that was passed out by the
6 Historic Preservation Commission's legal
7 counsel, there's a photograph in here appears
8 that your home is for sale. Is it for sale?
9 MS. GASPARO: It is not.
10 THE CHAIRMAN: Was it for sale?
11 MS. GASPARO: It was for sale, and that
12 was one of my issues is parking. There's two
13 churches on my block, and that affects parking
14 on Wednesday nights, on Sunday nights, on
15 Saturdays. I have one garage. I have a 1962
16 Corvette, and I'm a car collector by nature.
17 THE CHAIRMAN: And I assume the blue sign
18 in the front yard is the waiver for the
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
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,
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
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
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
20 Secondly, the design guidelines for
21 Riverside Avondale, Ms. Gasparo touched on,
22 they actually address porches, porte cocheres
23 and garages. One thing that they note that
24 they kind of give an idea that structures were
25 there less than 50 years old are insignificant
1 if they can be selectively removed if
2 necessary. During the historic planning
3 commission testimony there was comment made
4 regarding the construction of this particular
5 porte cochere.
6 It's 48 years old. The house has been --
7 had multiple renovations done to it, porches
8 enclosed, different things done to the property
9 that have taken away from the historical
10 significance of the structure. Being that this
11 particular addition is very close to the
12 threshold of being incorporated into the
13 historical significance of the structure, the
14 recommendations tell you to retain the garages
15 and porte cocheres, and if enclosures and
16 garages and porte cocheres are undertaken,
17 preserve significant features. The significant
18 features are going to be the exterior cladding
19 of the building to match the existing cedar
21 Materials similar in size, proportion and
22 detail to the original structure will be
23 utilized. Nowhere in the recommendations does
24 it say that it's not advisable to enclose an
25 existing porte cochere. It mentions in the
1 recommendations that properties routinely in
2 their age require different renovations to suit
3 personal needs of the owners. This particular
4 situation, this is a renovation or addition to
5 the structure that is suiting the personal
6 needs of the owner.
7 So with that being said, I disagree with
8 the denial by the historic planning commission,
9 and I can testify that the construction of the
10 materials that will be used on the property
11 will be in keeping with the existing building.
12 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. Thank you,
13 Mr. Robinson -- I mean Mr. Johnson.
14 Were there any questions from the
16 COMMITTEE MEMBERS: (No response.)
17 THE CHAIRMAN: All right. Next speaker is
18 Steve Congro.
19 MR. CONGRO: Steve Congro, 2623 Herschel
Street speaking on behalf of
22 Committee members ask that you uphold the
decision made by the
24 Preservation Commission, their unanimous
25 decision, and deny the Certificate of
1 Appropriateness be approved. The decision was
2 made because the alteration did not meet the
3 legal descriptions based on the current
4 ordinances, specifically, those set by the
5 Secretary of Interior designs standards as well
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
21 This house was built in 1927. It was not
22 built originally with a garage. The applicant
23 did state correctly that there are houses on
24 that street that do have garages, however,
25 those houses were built in a different
1 architectural time. They were built in the
2 '40s and '50s and they are ranch style homes.
3 The ranch style homes were built with garages
4 because it was after the prominence of the
5 automobile. In 1927, this had not occurred.
6 One of the examples of that is how Avondale is
7 referred to as a street car suburb, not an
8 automobile suburb because of the prevalence of
9 the street car during that time when the
10 neighborhood was developed.
11 The regulations specifically say also to
12 avoid adding a garage, particularly one that
13 faces the front street of the house.
14 Furthermore, the applicant also has a garage in
15 the back of the property which she does say is
16 easily accessible. That's taken from the
17 JHPC's minutes, Page 102, Lines 8 through 10,
18 statement by the applicant.
19 These guidelines were set into place --
20 when the neighborhood voted in 1998, these
21 guidelines passed with the over 80 percent
22 approval rate from the neighborhood. 1998 was
23 also seven years before Ms. Gasparo purchased
24 her home. So based on the fact that the law
25 was already set, as a homeowner, you know,
1 you're required to do due diligence. I did
2 when I purchased my home, as an example. You
3 know, the neighborhood voted for these
4 requirements in '98 well before she purchased
5 her home.
6 So we ask that you support the decision of
7 the JHPC made which we believe was made in
8 accordance of law, and we ask you to uphold
9 this decision.
10 Thank you.
11 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, sir.
12 Any questions from the committee?
13 Mr. Joost.
14 MR. JOOST: Thank you for coming down. I
15 got a question.
16 Now, the garage we're talking about is in
17 the alley?
18 MR. CONGRO: The current attached garage
19 is off the alley. There's about eight other
20 houses around that alley that also have garages
21 off the alley. It's pretty commonplace in
23 the alley.
24 MR. JOOST: So it's your contention from
25 what you just read to me that this is facing
1 the front of the house, then, even though it's
2 on the alley?
3 MR. CONGRO: No, sir. The carport -- if
4 the carport is enclosed, the applicant is
5 proposing to add a garage door, that garage
6 door would then be facing the streets.
7 MR. JOOST: So you're saying, just so I
8 understand, in this example it's more
9 appropriate to actually add the garage door to
10 the carport that's in the front part of the
11 house and not on the alleyway?
12 MR. CONGRO: No, sir. What I'm saying is
13 that the design regulations state that it's
14 inappropriate to add a forward-facing garage
15 door, basically, facing in the same direction
16 of the house. It's more appropriate to have
17 the alley garage that's in the back and cannot
18 be visible from the street.
19 MR. JOOST: So this is an alley garage and
20 she's adding a door to it, so that's more
22 MR. CONGRO: No, sir.
23 THE CHAIRMAN: There's a home that faces
24 whatever the street is and it has a garage in
25 the rear of the house on an alley that's got a
1 garage door on it that's permitted and used, I
2 guess, on occasion as a garage.
3 MR. JOOST: The alley's on the side,
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
9 MR. CONGRO: The current garage is on the
10 side of the house facing the alley, yes, sir.
11 The applicant is proposing to enclose the
12 carport, which is facing the streets.
13 MR. JOOST: This carport right here?
14 MR. CONGRO: Yes, sir.
15 MR. JOOST: Now I got you.
16 MR. CONGRO: I apologize if I was unclear.
17 MR. JOOST: No, I was confused as to
18 whether we were enclosing the garage in the
19 alley or in the front of the house.
20 MR. CONGRO: No, sir. The applicant is
21 proposing to enclose the carport facing the
22 front of the house, the one you have your
23 middle finger on.
24 MR. JOOST: That makes things clear for
25 me, because my next question was going to be, I
1 saw the pictures of all the garages in the
2 alley, but we're talking about this right here?
3 MR. CONGRO: Yes, sir.
4 MR. JOOST: Okay. Thanks so much.
5 MR. CONGRO: No problem, sir.
6 THE CHAIRMAN: Hang on, sir. One more
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,
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
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
8 I was just trying to get a handle on the
9 fact that the original integrity of the design
10 was somewhat violated with the addition of that
11 structure. So I keep thinking that a door
12 probably would help the look of it since we've
13 already lost what was the original historic
14 structure to a degree.
15 MR. CONGRO: I understand what you're
16 saying, councilman. One of the things that
17 I'll reference is in Subsection L of the
18 ordinance code talks about how additions to a
19 house -- and I hear what you're saying, sir --
20 but talks about how additions to a house should
21 be in keeping with the time of the house. The
22 carport was an addition. The house was built
23 in 1927, thus, the addition, any additions to
24 the house should be in keeping with the
25 original structure from 1927, not the addition
1 of the carport, sir.
2 MR. D. BROWN: Appreciate it.
3 THE CHAIRMAN: I have one question for you
4 as well.
5 Based on the photos which are straight on
6 of the carport, is the carport open on the side
7 or is it ...
8 MR. CONGRO: The carport is open on the
9 side. It's being held up -- it's open,
10 obviously, in the front, and then it's being
11 held up by, I believe, two or three columns.
12 THE CHAIRMAN: So there's a -- it's kind
13 of a dark photo. Is there a rear wall to the
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
23 MR. CONGRO: Yes, I have. I drove by it.
24 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. All right, sir.
25 I'll defer and ask Mr. Thomas.
1 Any other questions?
2 All right. Mr. Thomas -- oh, I'm sorry.
3 Mr. Redman has a question for you, sir.
4 MR. REDMAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
5 Now, in the contractor's statement he said
6 that the design that he would do or recommend
7 would be in conjunction with the siding that's
8 on the house now. Now, to me, I agree with
9 Mr. Brown that -- Councilman Brown that this
10 would look much better than -- looking at the
11 picture here with three columns on the side of
12 the carport and a big open space here in the
13 front would look better and look more in
14 pattern with the house if it was designed
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
22 keep the precendent that this is something that
23 should be discouraged in the district. So if
24 we set this precedent, then we can go down a
25 dangerous path of approving all carports.
1 MR. REDMAN: Yeah. I think the precedence
2 was set with the carport to start with.
3 Thank you.
4 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Redman.
5 Our next speaker is Gregory Thomas.
6 Mr. Thomas, if you'll begin with your name
7 and address for the record, please.
8 MR. THOMAS: My name is Gregory Thomas,
9 2623 Herschel. I'm here on behalf of RAP. I'm
10 a licensed architect and I'm the chairman of
11 the designer review committee for RAP.
12 Pretty much I think everything's been
13 said, if I could just re-enforce a couple of
14 points from an architectural standpoint.
15 To answer your question, the carport does
16 have what looks like a small storage shed in
17 the back of it with two columns on the side
18 that look fairly out of plumb. We only have an
19 obvious visual, you know, observations of that
20 carport, we can't say, but it really doesn't
21 look like from a practical standpoint it would
22 support the construction they're talking about.
23 Regardless, there's going to be major
24 modifications to what's there, which usually we
25 would view that as essentially new
2 And there's been a lot of talk about
3 design, what the design will be. It's going to
4 look good. And that sounds great. We
5 personally haven't had the benefit of seeing
6 anything. We've heard I think that maybe with
7 the original application there was a picture of
8 the garage door, but we haven't seen any
9 drawings, we haven't seen anything that would
10 delineate what that is actually going to be,
11 which is kind of a burden-of-proof issue. We
12 don't really know what it's going to look like
13 and how that's going to appear. And also, what
14 Mr. Johnson said, something about the new
15 design, the wall's going to be --
16 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. -- I need you to speak
17 towards us into the mike --
18 MR. THOMAS: I apologize.
19 THE CHAIRMAN: -- so that the court
20 reporter can capture your comments.
21 MR. THOMAS: Okay. I just -- I'm not
22 quire sure I understand what Mr. Johnson was
23 saying about the new design that's going to be
24 pushed back off the plane of the garage. The
25 carport now, which was built inappropriately,
1 is built in plane with the main house, which is
2 actually something that the design regulations
3 currently forbid.
4 And again, just to the point of the
5 precendent. This -- first of all, we're
6 talking about a house on one lot that would
7 have two garages and two separate access points
8 on the lot, which seems kind of excessive. And
9 just allowing an attached garage, this is a new
10 garage, for all intents and purposes, and it's
11 going to be attached on the front plane of the
12 house which is not in keeping with the
13 guidelines, which we think is inappropriate.
14 Thank you.
15 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you.
16 Any questions from the committee?
17 I have a couple of questions for you.
18 So you're saying that the side of the
19 carport has just got two columns or something
20 holding up the lineal beam and it's open to the
21 house nextdoor, but there is some sort of
22 storage thing in the --
23 MR. THOMAS: It appears in the back of it
24 there is an enclosed storage shed --
25 THE CHAIRMAN: So it's like a solid wall
1 across the front of the carport?
2 MR. THOMAS: Across the back. Facing the
3 backyard, if you will. Obviously, when you
4 drive in the carport --
5 THE CHAIRMAN: Where the hood of the car
6 or the front bumper would pull up to?
7 MR. THOMAS: Yes.
8 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. If this home or a
9 similar home had no attached garage in the
10 alley and no carport and they wanted to add a
11 carport, obviously, that wouldn't be consistent
12 with the standards for the historic district,
14 MR. THOMAS: What's there now, we believe
15 that it can be done and done appropriately, and
16 we would challenge the applicant that there are
17 better ways to do what she's asking than what's
18 being proposed. Granted, this is the very easy
19 solution to just, you know, put a door on it.
20 THE CHAIRMAN: Here's the question. Let's
21 try the question again.
22 If this home or a home similar to it had
23 no attached garage in the alley and had no
24 carport, it was just the original home, which I
25 assume when it was built did not have either of
1 the two things I just referenced, if the
2 homeowner wanted to build a carport, is that
3 something that's even possible under historic
4 district standards?
5 MR. THOMAS: Yes, it is.
6 THE CHAIRMAN: It is, okay. If they
7 wanted to build an attached or detached garage
8 in the alley, is that a possibility?
9 MR. THOMAS: Detached garage, absolutely.
10 Once you start attaching things, that's when
11 you get into kind of sensitive areas.
12 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. And would either one
13 of those two things require an application to
14 the Historic Preservation Commission?
15 MR. THOMAS: Yes, they would, to my
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
24 MR. THOMAS: Attached, no, I do not. I've
25 only been here for four years, so my --
1 MR. JOOST: Even though under the rules it
2 would be possible where an original house had
3 no garage?
4 MR. THOMAS: An attached garage?
5 MR. JOOST: I believe that's what
6 Mr. Crescimbeni just asked. If the house is in
7 its condition when built in 1927 where it had
8 no attachment, carport in the front or on the
9 side, would it be possible to build a garage?
10 And your answer was: Under the right
11 circumstances, yes.
12 MR. THOMAS: Well, the --
13 MR. JOOST: My question is in what
14 circumstances has the historic commission
15 approved a garage, or has there been any
16 requests for garages other than this one?
17 MR. THOMAS: To my knowledge, I don't know
18 of any attached garages that have been approved
19 to a house of this era.
20 MR. JOOST: Okay. Do you know of any
21 other applications? I think this is the first
22 one I can remember. I've been on LUZ for three
23 years now.
24 MR. THOMAS: Not that I'm aware of.
25 MR. JOOST: Okay. Thank you.
1 MR. THOMAS: Thank you.
2 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Redman.
3 MR. REDMAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
4 I'm looking at a picture here of the house
5 directly across the street which has an
6 attached garage, nice-looking garage door.
7 Now, how would this house be so different
8 directly across the street from the standards
9 of the historic society?
10 MR. THOMAS: That is a house that was
11 built in the late '30s or early '40s, and in
12 that 15-year time span between the time that
13 this house was built and the time that that
14 house was built our culture had basically
15 changed and become a car culture.
16 And one of the most significant
17 character-defining elements of historic
18 residences in our country is how they address a
19 street and how they address the automobile. So
20 what's significant about Ms. Gasparo's house is
21 its age and how it was originally built to
22 address the street and to address how people
23 got around.
24 MR. REDMAN: So it would fit the street,
25 but it would not fit the historic society's --
1 MR. THOMAS: It would not be appropriate
2 to the era of the house. And if you look,
3 actually, that house is not directly across the
4 street. I believe directly across the street
5 is another brick house with a detached garage
6 in the back of the lot.
7 MR. REDMAN: It says directly across the
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
23 THE CHAIRMAN: -- would that require an
24 application before the Historic Preservation
1 MR. THOMAS: I believe that would require
2 a COA, yes.
3 THE CHAIRMAN: But you'd be supportive of
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
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.
1 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, sir.
2 MR. THOMAS: Thank you.
3 THE CHAIRMAN: And our last speaker is Kay
5 MS. EHAS: Kay Ehas,
8 I'd like to clarify one thing. The
9 district regulations would not allow a carport
10 or a garage to be built level with the front of
11 the house today. It would not be allowed.
12 There have been requests to build garages that
13 are detached at the back of the property, and
14 those are granted. A lot of them are facing --
15 have garage doors that face the alley. Some
16 have garage doors with a driveway from the
17 front. But in this case, she's asking to do a
18 garage at the front of the house, which is
19 against the regulations or the law as it
20 currently exists.
21 Here's why it's setting a precedent.
22 There are -- I always get this word wrong --
23 porte cocheres, where they are kind of carports
24 but like historic carports. There are a bunch
25 of those. If all of a sudden we let everybody
1 enclose them to be garages, that changes the
2 whole character of the neighborhood. So the
3 whole point of the historic district being a
4 legal district is to uphold the laws that make
5 it so.
6 There is no design that has been
7 submitted. So if you approve her request, what
8 is it you're approving? We do not know. There
9 is no design that's been submitted. So I would
10 go back to what Greg said. It would be new
11 construction, and that requires a COA.
12 1932 was when the street cars were pulled
13 up. So it was a street car community when this
14 house was built.
15 Thank you.
16 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Ms. Ehas.
17 The question I asked of Mr. Thomas, so you
18 acknowledge that -- I'm assuming that the home
19 when it was originally built, you know it
20 didn't have a carport because that was built, I
21 guess, what --
22 MS. EHAS: Correct.
23 THE CHAIRMAN: -- early '60s, but it did
24 not have this detached -- I mean attached
25 garage in the rear when it was originally
2 MS. EHAS: I can't imagine that it had an
3 attached garage --
4 THE CHAIRMAN: That's what we have now,
6 MS. EHAS: -- in the rear.
8 THE CHAIRMAN: Yeah. Okay. Well, let's
9 assume that it didn't.
10 So you're saying that there is a mechanism
11 for a property owner to apply for an attached
12 garage --
13 MS. EHAS: A detached garage.
14 THE CHAIRMAN: A detached. Not even an
15 attached. So that's not even possible. And
16 the carport, no mechanism to even apply to do
17 that today?
18 MS. EHAS: Unless they wanted to do it,
19 you know, in the back. They could build a
20 carport that fit in with the structure of the
21 house if they didn't want to enclose it as a
22 garage, but it would be at the back of the
23 property, not at the front as she's proposing.
24 THE CHAIRMAN: And would that be
25 permissible on lots that didn't have alleys?
1 MS. EHAS: Yes.
2 THE CHAIRMAN: So if they put it towards
3 the rear -- now, would be it okay to be visible
4 from the street or would it have to be not
5 visible from the street?
6 MS. EHAS: They can be visible from the
7 street, but it's just at the back of the
9 THE CHAIRMAN: Set back on the rear
10 property line.
11 MS. EHAS: Um-hum.
12 THE CHAIRMAN: Gotcha.
13 Any other questions for Ms. Ehas?
14 COMMITTEE MEMBERS: (No response.)
15 All right. Seeing none, any other
16 speakers to address the committee?
17 AUDIENCE MEMBERS: (No response.)
18 THE CHAIRMAN: All right. Ms. Gasparo,
19 you have a couple of minutes to wrap up.
20 I'm sorry. Hang on one second. Mr. Teal
21 is going to weigh in for the commission.
22 MR. TEAL: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
23 I handed out to you a package of
24 materials, and I'd like to walk you through
25 what those are. I think that if you refer to
1 them --
2 THE CHAIRMAN: Does the appellant have a
3 copy of this?
4 MR. TEAL: Yes.
5 The first document is a survey of the
6 property. I think it will answer the question
7 that you had about the shed behind the carport
8 there. But what also it documents is it also
9 documents other options that are available to
10 her. You can see the areas that were marked in
11 yellow. And this is the document I'm referring
12 to. I'm holding it up. The areas that were
13 marked in yellow on that document are other
14 options that she can do.
15 She can, for example, extend the garage in
16 the alley closer towards the alley, towards the
17 alley, and make it into a larger structure that
18 way. She could also establish -- and that can
19 be done almost administratively, so I mean that
20 wouldn't even require commission action.
21 The other side of it is the yellow, she
22 could either deepen the existing garage or
23 propose a detached garage that would be
24 accessible through the driveway on the back of
25 the property.
1 The second page, which is this document --
2 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Teal, can I interrupt
3 you for a second?
4 MR. TEAL: Sure.
5 THE CHAIRMAN: On the first page that the
coloring, is I see
8 MR. TEAL: Talbot is to the top of the
10 THE CHAIRMAN: That's at the top. Okay.
11 MR. TEAL: Correct. And then the alley
12 runs on the left side of the page.
13 THE CHAIRMAN: Gotcha. Okay. Thank you.
14 MR. TEAL: The second page is what's
15 called the sanborn map. Now, this is old fire
16 maps that were produced that actually show
17 where each of the structures originally were
18 constructed on the property. And you can see
19 her property is at the bottom of the page.
20 It's in blue. It's on the bottom on the left,
21 it's on the left-hand side, the blue, 1652 --
22 or 1632 rather.
23 You can see that there originally was a
24 detached garage. So the garage on this
25 property was originally detached. At some
1 point in the past she actually attached it.
2 But what I want you to notice about this is
3 every structure that's in blue on this has
4 alley access for their garage structures. And
5 so all of the ones behind her farther up the
6 alley, you can see there's one, two, three,
7 four, five different structures that all access
8 the alley. But also the ones in purple, the
9 ones in purple have detached garages that
10 actually front the streets, not the alley. So
11 the back of those garages are on the alley
12 itself. Those are accessible by driveway.
13 They have driveways that go up to them that are
14 accessible, but the ones in blue you can see
15 don't have driveways that go out to the street.
16 Their only access is through the alley. So
17 that was -- the trend then was that -- the
18 reality of the historic districts are people
19 park on the streets. They park in the
20 driveways, they park in carports, because the
21 district was really designed and built, for the
22 most part, before the car was popular. And so
23 there was no reason to put a garage on
24 something if you didn't have a car. So she
25 does have other options available to her for
1 her parking.
2 She's got a garage door on the alley,
3 which if you'll turn two pages up and start
4 looking at the photographs, Photographs 1 and 2
5 show the properties that are immediately
6 adjacent to hers a little bit farther up the
7 alley. You can see that the garage doors are
8 there. Same thing with Photographs 3 and 4.
9 Photograph 6 is actually her property. Now,
10 that shows the garage door on her property
11 looking back towards
12 see where that detached garage is now attached
13 to her house. And it does run the entire depth
14 of the house itself. So it's as wide as the
15 house is -- or it's as deep as the house is
16 wide rather, given the orientation of it. So
17 she does have significant garage space on her
18 property which is accessible, as, Mr. Chairman,
19 you pointed out through a 90-degree turn from
20 the alley. There's no issues with regard to
21 getting in and out of this alley.
22 Now, when I referred you on the first page
23 to extending it out towards the alley, you can
24 see how she has room to do that. She has room
25 to come out towards the alley in Photograph 6
1 to even make it a deeper garage. Seven, Eight,
2 those are other properties that have structures
3 that back up to the alley.
4 But really, the one I really want to
5 direct your attention to is the last one,
6 Number 32 -- 31 and 32. They show you the
7 orientation of this property. And you can see
8 that the garage immediately farther up the
9 alley from her does extend farther towards the
10 alley than hers does. So she can come that
11 way, which again, could be something that could
12 be done -- could be approved administratively.
13 A lot of the questions that seemed to be
14 out there were the fact that really the bad
15 thing about this happened in 1962 when the
16 carport was added. Okay. I think the
17 commission would agree to you -- or agree with
18 you. But what the commission's position on
19 this was that we shouldn't try and memorialize
20 the mistakes of the past. And in enclosing
21 this carport, putting a garage door on the
22 front of it, to the historic buffs, that's the
23 proverbial pig in a punch bowl.
24 To the folks that are trying to maintain
25 the integrity of the historic district, which
1 basically is not to say that you can't have new
2 additions to historic structures, you just have
3 to make them look like they're different, which
4 is why a lot of speakers came and said it can't
5 be even with the front plane of the house. If
6 you want to set it back, that's appropriate.
7 You have to make sure that you can have
8 somebody driving by know this is the structure
9 that was built in 1927. That's the part that
10 the commission had trouble with was the fact
11 that this carport is even with the front plane
12 of the house, and now they're going to try to
13 make it blend in with the rest of the house.
14 That, in the historic preservation world, is a
15 no-no. You want to make sure that folks know
16 what was original to the district and what was
18 So that is really the premise behind a lot
19 of -- well, you can see it from the sanborn map
20 which shows you where all of the structures
21 are. They were all detached.
22 Now, they did draw your attention to, if
23 you go back to the second page, the ones that
24 have the --
25 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Teal, can I interrupt
1 you for a second?
2 MR. TEAL: Sure.
3 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Reingold, does he have
4 a time limit? Because he's pushing like five
5 minutes. I want to make sure I don't get
6 myself in any trouble with ...
7 MR. REINGOLD: The time limit is sort of
8 at the discretion of the Chair. What I would
9 suggest is that we give comparable time to the
10 applicant to, you know, rebut what Mr. Teal has
11 stated and what the addition of the audience
12 members have stated.
13 THE CHAIRMAN: All right. Thank you.
14 MR. TEAL: And just for the edification of
15 the committee, I'm almost done.
16 But attention was drawn by the applicant
17 and others that there are other structures on
18 the property that are around this property that
19 have garages. You can see from the second page
20 of my handout, the ones with the pink asterisks
21 on them are the ones that have the garages.
22 None of those have access to the alleys. So
23 that was their only option. Not only were they
24 built in the '40s and '50s, which was much
25 after the original construction of her
1 property, but they also don't have alley
2 access. So their only option is to access it
3 from the street itself. So that's why it made
4 more sense to add a garage on those which was
5 consistent with the structure itself in the
6 architectural style of the structure.
7 So again, in conclusion, the premise here
8 as far as historic preservation goes is to not
9 detract from the original construction, and
10 allowing for her enclosure of this carport
11 would do that. She does have other options for
12 parking. This is not her only parking option.
13 She can park under a carport. If she wants
14 enclosed parking, she has a garage to do that.
15 Not only that, but her garage is at such a
16 depth that she could probably fit more than one
17 car in if she desired.
18 And because of the fact that this
19 ill-advised, in the opinion of the Historic
20 Preservation Commission, addition in 1962 has
21 been around until today, the concern is that by
22 allowing them to enclose it and to fortify it,
23 it's going to be around for that much longer.
24 It's inappropriate for this style of
25 construction, and nothing should be done to
1 formalize that in the opinion of the
3 Thank you.
4 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Teal.
5 Any questions from the committee?
6 Are the homeowners allowed to make repairs
7 to like carports and things?
8 MR. TEAL: Absolutely.
9 THE CHAIRMAN: They can be maintained to
10 be around forever, then, right?
11 MR. TEAL: They could, yes. They're even
12 allowed to rebuild them if they are destroyed
13 in a fire, something like that. But the point
14 is -- well, no, I take it back. Only if it was
15 part of the original construction can they
16 rebuild it. But, yes, they certainly can
17 maintain it, and we obviously do encourage
18 folks to maintain their structures. But in
19 essence, it's treated almost like a legally
20 non-conforming use. It's legal because it
21 pre-dated the district, but you don't want to
22 do anything to encourage the survival of it.
23 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, sir.
24 Mr. Joost.
25 MR. JOOST: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. To
1 Mr. Teal, so in this photo in the black and
2 white which shows the side view of the garage,
3 they're talking about enclosing the side as
5 MR. TEAL: Correct. The application was
6 to enclose the side and to install, I guess, a
7 carriage-style garage door, so it would be
8 almost a one-car garage, I guess, garage door
9 on the front.
10 MR. JOOST: And one other question. I
11 guess this kind of touches on what
12 Mr. Crescimbeni was asking.
13 Say if this little cover, the carport area
14 is not up to say like today's wind codes or,
15 you know, building codes, et cetera, are they
16 allowed to fortify it, or you just can't touch
17 it and you got to wait for a storm to, you
18 know, blow it down, essentially?
19 MR. TEAL: No. You can do whatever
20 repairs you want to it, you just can't change
21 it from an architectural standpoint. In other
22 words, you can't add -- you know, if you wanted
23 to put bracing in there that wasn't visible,
24 for example, you could certainly do that. What
25 you can't do is you can't modify it
1 architecturally so that it's visually different
2 from --
3 MR. JOOST: So appearance-wise you can't
4 modify it. But if they wanted to add some --
5 or they even wanted to replace these beams,
6 essentially, they look the same but they were
7 stronger, they could do that?
8 MR. TEAL: They could do that, yes.
9 MR. JOOST: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Joost.
10 THE CHAIRMAN: Any other questions for
11 Mr. Teal?
12 COMMITTEE MEMBERS: (No response.)
13 THE CHAIRMAN: All right. Mr. Teal, I
14 think, went over by about four and a half
15 minutes. Is that right, Steve? And I think
16 Ms. Gasparo, I let you probably go over a
17 minute earlier, so you can have up to three and
18 a half minutes to wrap up, and hopefully, the
19 time will all have been about equal.
20 MS. GASPARO: Unfortunately, I have to
21 address some mistakes that have been made.
22 Originally, when I submitted my COA,
23 drawings were submitted. And it's my
24 understanding that you all have that
25 information in front of you, and I hope that
1 you do because originally, when I submitted my
2 COA, and it seems like all the members of RAP
3 and DRC are saying that was not submitted, but
4 my contractor submitted drawings. I only have
5 one with me that's in my packet because I
6 believe that was submitted to you. But
7 drawings of what we were doing to the carport
8 were submitted with my original COA, and this
9 is the drawing. So that was actually submitted
10 with my original COA. It went by email to
11 Samantha Paul -- right.
12 THE CHAIRMAN: Is that it?
13 MS. GASPARO: Correct.
14 THE CHAIRMAN: We have it.
15 MS. GASPARO: So DRC is saying they don't
16 know what I'm going to do and they never saw
17 the drawings is incorrect.
18 I also submitted a picture of the actual
19 garage door, and that was submitted with my
20 application. So that all went to them. If it
21 would help y'all, I have better pictures of the
22 carport. I can give those to you so you can
23 see, you know, the side of the carport.
24 There's one side of the carport. That's the
25 alley. There's one side of the carport that
1 needs to be enclosed and a garage door. The
2 back is a shed, and one side is attached to the
3 house. So all we're proposing doing is, you
4 know, putting the side and the garage door.
5 So this other issue of my other options of
6 extending my garage, I also have a picture of
7 my alley and my existing garage. And this
8 might make it clear to you how extending my
9 garage into the alley is just not feasible. I
10 mean there needs to be a setback, and with the
11 setback, extending this garage to make it -- I
12 guess what they're saying is then I can make a
13 double -- someway or another a double, two-car
14 garage. It's just not feasible. And that's
15 been suggested to me, and I just -- they don't
16 pull into this garage. They don't go down a
17 nine-foot alley and, thank you enough, make a
18 90-degree turn and pull into this garage. It's
19 just not feasible to do that.
20 Again, there's talk about how putting this
21 garage door and putting the siding on the side
22 would affect the historic integrity of this
23 property. Well, the historic integrity of this
24 property has been affected when the front porch
25 was enclosed, the side porch was enclosed, the
1 carport was added. And again, it is my hope by
2 enclosing this carport that I can help the look
3 of this house, to make it look better. That
4 has always been my goal. When I picked out
5 this garage door, my contractor said, "You're
6 going to die when you see the price of this
7 thing." And I said, "I don't care. I want a
8 nice garage door. I want this thing to look
9 better than it does now." Because right now my
10 neighbors are looking at my car in the carport.
11 And I do try to keep the thing clean. I don't,
12 you know -- I really don't junk it up. But,
13 you know, that's what they look at. My
14 neighbors look at my car, and I think they'd
15 rather look at some cedar shake and nice garage
16 door, to tell you the truth.
17 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, ma'am.
18 The neighbors to your left facing your
19 house, is that a owner-occupied home?
20 MS. GASPARO: It is. Deb and John
21 Hassenzahl, and they have an attached
22 front-entry garage just like two of my other
23 neighbors across the street have attached
24 front-entry garages.
25 THE CHAIRMAN: And this picture of your
1 carport, is part of it -- looks like it's got
2 some lattice or something on there, or is
3 that -- is that the storage area that I'm --
4 MS. GASPARO: No, it has some lattice.
5 And one of the other questions about -- the
6 garage was existing. It was built when the
7 house was built in 1927. I did not attach the
8 garage, the previous owners did. They extended
9 the kitchen and attached the garage when they
10 extended the kitchen.
11 THE CHAIRMAN: So it was originally a
12 detached garage?
13 MS. GASPARO: It was.
14 THE CHAIRMAN: Interesting. Okay. Thank
16 Any other questions from the committee?
17 COMMITTEE MEMBERS: (No response.)
18 THE CHAIRMAN: All right. Thank you,
20 MS. GASPARO: Um-hum.
21 THE CHAIRMAN: The public hearing is
22 closed. We are back in committee. We'll
23 need -- we're open for discussion, but if the
24 committee wants to take up the bill, we'll have
25 to amend the bill to either uphold the findings
1 of the Historic Planning Commission which would
2 deny the appeal, or you'd have to amend it to
3 approve the appeal which would, in essence,
4 grant the enclosure of the carport.
5 So back in committee.
6 I'm sorry, Mr. Joost. Go ahead.
7 MR. JOOST: Just speaking for myself, I
8 feel like the major damage, if you will, was
9 done when the attachment was built in 1962.
10 And just looking at the pictures, especially
11 the side pictures, I mean to me that's just
12 really ugly. With that being said, I mean
13 you're not going to change the carport. I mean
14 I think the only thing that could fix it would
15 be to tear it down to get the house back to the
16 original look which would make it look better.
17 Okay. So the situation is what it is. And to
18 me, leaving it as it is, I mean enclosing it
19 and looking at the drawings in the book would
20 be an improvement. Just speaking for myself.
21 So I'm going to step out on a limb and say move
22 to grant the waiver.
23 MR. D. BROWN: I'll second that.
24 THE CHAIRMAN: Motion to grant the appeal
25 by Mr. Joost.
1 Second by Councilman Dick Brown.
2 Discussion, Councilman Holt.
3 MR. HOLT: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
4 I typically give a lot of weight on these
5 discussions of historical record on whether the
6 person originally when they owned their home,
7 when they bought their home, if it was
8 already -- if it was prior to the district
9 being established or not. I may be going about
10 it wrong, but that's one of the things of
11 fairness in my own mind. And I just want to
12 acknowledge that the historic district was
13 established prior to this person purchasing
14 this home.
15 I agree with what you said, Mr. Joost,
16 that it may fit in and look more attractive
17 that way, but I just wanted to get that on the
19 THE CHAIRMAN: Any other discussion on the
21 Councilman Dick Brown for discussion.
22 MR. D. BROWN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
23 I just wanted to say I'm a big fan of what
24 Riverside Avondale has done. And in fact, the
25 recognition they've gotten recently as one of
1 the world class neighborhoods, and certainly
2 that effort and that mission deserves support.
3 I just don't agree that this sets a
4 precedent. Get back to the fact that some of
5 the design was sort of tampered with, of
6 course, with the addition of the carport. And
7 I don't think you would find this many examples
8 around the district that would even come up to
9 be -- as Mr. Joost said, you've got the open
10 sides there, and the potential of just cleaning
11 it up and following the design that has already
12 been carried through with at least the shingles
13 and that look, I just think would be an overall
14 improvement. And there are quite a number of
15 doors facing the area. So I don't think we're
16 stepping on the mission to approve this. I'm
17 going to support the appeal. I just think it's
18 an overall step forward without any damaging
20 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Brown.
21 Mr. Joost for the second time.
22 MR. JOOST: You know, I don't really have
23 strong feelings either way. You know, I'm just
24 looking at the situation as it is, and I think
25 leaving it would be worse.
1 Mr. Holt, you make an excellent point that
2 this homeowner bought this house knowing the
3 rules when they bought it. And great weight
4 does have to be given to that. So, you know,
5 either way how this goes down, I'll be fine,
6 but I think if I lived in the neighborhood and
7 I wanted the historic preservation, I would try
8 to make the carport look more historic than
9 what it does. I mean obviously, if you look at
10 the house as it stands now, I mean it sticks
11 out. You've got a couple of columns on the
12 side. And if you can make it look better than
13 what it is, then I think I'd have to go that
14 way. But, you know, what you said also carries
15 great weight. So I'm going to, I guess, err on
16 the side of the homeowner.
17 Thank you.
18 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Joost.
19 Mr. Redman.
20 MR. REDMAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
21 I'm going to have to err on the side of
22 the homeowner as well because, you know, I
23 think it would be a great improvement to do
24 what she's wanting to do to the house. I mean
25 Mr. Holt is right. I mean I'm sure she knew
1 what she was buying when she bought this home
2 and moved into it. But the carport itself does
3 not add anything to the house. If it was mine,
4 I would want to do that, put a garage door on
5 it and improve the looks of the community. The
6 houses on the -- beside it and across the
7 street have garage doors that fit in the
8 community, evidently, pretty well. So I'm
9 going to have to support her on this.
10 THE CHAIRMAN: One question. I assume
11 maybe somebody built the garage back in the
12 '20s. I mean there were certainly cars coming
13 into use. Was any garage -- I mean is there
14 any evidence of a garage in the district that
15 was built facing the street?
16 MR. MCEACHIN: Not in that time period.
17 Now, again, you get post World War II and you
18 start seeing houses come in, tract houses,
19 attached garage was not uncommon. And most of
20 what you saw in those photographs reflect that.
21 But before that time period, almost everything
22 was detached. Many times they were constructed
23 the same time as the house. Sometimes they
24 were a later addition. You do see what's
25 called a porte cochere which is part of the
1 design of the house itself. It was done at the
2 time of the house, but generally, that's a
3 little bit higher style when you get a porte
5 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. But were any of them
6 facing the street?
7 MR. MCEACHIN: Well, they all face the
8 street, but the point is they're deep.
9 THE CHAIRMAN: Back in --
10 MR. MCEACHIN: Deep on the lot.
11 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. Nothing was ever
12 built on the forward part of the lot?
13 MR. MCEACHIN: Not on -- I've not seen
14 one. Since they're on the corner lot, they
15 might be a little bit closer, but no, they're
16 deep on the lot.
17 THE CHAIRMAN: Even the ones without
18 alleys, they were just set back on the rear --
19 MR. MCEACHIN: That's correct.
20 THE CHAIRMAN: -- property line.
21 Thank you.
22 Mr. Joost.
23 MR. JOOST: I guess one last question for
24 the Chairman.
25 Have we heard from the district councilman
1 on this issue, by any chance?
2 THE CHAIRMAN: I have received no
3 correspondence from the district councilperson.
4 MR. JOOST: Okay. Thank you.
5 THE CHAIRMAN: All right.
6 Any further discussion?
7 COMMITTEE MEMBERS: (No response.)
8 THE CHAIRMAN: We have a motion and second
9 on an amendment to grant the appeal.
10 All those in favor say yes.
11 COMMITTEE MEMBERS: Yes.
12 THE CHAIRMAN: Opposed say no.
13 MR. HOLT: No.
14 THE CHAIRMAN: By your action, I'm going
15 to vote in favor of the amendment to get it out
16 of committee.
17 So is there a motion on the bill as
19 MR. JOOST: Move the bill as amended.
20 MR. HOLT: Second.
21 THE CHAIRMAN: Motion on the bill as
22 amended by Mr. Joost.
23 Second by Mr. Holt.
24 Any discussion?
25 COMMITTEE MEMBERS: (No response.)
1 If not, open the ballot, vote.
2 MR. CRESCIMBENI: (Votes yea)
3 MR. JOOST: (Votes yea)
4 MR. REDMAN: (Votes yea)
5 MR. D. BROWN: (Votes yea)
6 MR. HOLT: (Votes nay)
7 (Committee ballot closed)
8 MS. LAHMEUR: Four yea, one nay.
9 THE CHAIRMAN: By our action, you've
10 approved Item 11, 710-784 (sic).
11 Without four votes, for those that may not
12 be familiar with the process, the item stays in
13 committee. Four votes one way or the other and
14 we'd have to hear it again in two weeks. And
15 you all, both parties may want to reach out to
16 the district council member to have an opinion
17 Tuesday night.
18 All right. Anything else to come before
19 the committee. Anyone else have any comments?
20 Mr. Crofts.
21 MR. CROFTS: Just one brief comment that
22 I'd like to invite all the council members,
23 including LUZ, to attend a presentation
tomorrow in the
25 by the architectural students, graduate
architectural students from the
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
7 THE CHAIRMAN: And that is when to when
9 MR. CROFTS: That particular event will
take place starting about 2:30 in the
12 there and then will ultimately be residing in
13 the Ed Ball lobby. There will be probably
14 seven different boards and models for
15 redevelopment of portions of downtown. And it
16 will be in the Ed Ball building probably
17 through the holidays.
18 THE CHAIRMAN: At 2:30 tomorrow, that's
19 something that people can kind of come in
20 throughout the afternoon? It's not set at
21 2:30, right?
22 MR. CROFTS: That's correct.
23 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. It's too bad the
24 Savannah Culinary Institute wasn't going to be
25 there. That would be a much more -- anyway,
1 anything else to come before the committee?
2 All right. Mr. Teal.
3 MR. TEAL: I just wanted to thank you,
4 Mr. Chairman, for working with our schedule on
5 the hearing in this appeal tonight. I
6 appreciate that.
7 THE CHAIRMAN: It all worked out well. I
8 guess your meeting got over early, correct?
9 MR. TEAL: We got over at 4:30,
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.
18 (The above proceedings were adjourned at
19 6:50 p.m.)
20 - - -
1 C E R T I F I C A T E
3 COUNTY OF DUVAL )
4 I, Tina Hutcheson, Court Reporter, certify that
5 I was authorized to and did stenographically report
6 the foregoing proceedings and that the transcript is
7 a true and complete copy of my stenographic notes.
9 Dated this 21st day of November 2010.
13 Court Reporter