1 CITY OF
2 LAND USE AND ZONING
6 Proceedings held on Tuesday, November 2,
7 2010, commencing at 5:00 p.m., City Hall, Council
8 Chambers, 1st Floor,
9 Diane M. Tropia, a Notary Public in and for the State
13 JOHN CRESCIMBENI, Chair.
RAY HOLT, Vice Chair.
14 WILLIAM BISHOP, Committee Member.
DON REDMAN, Committee Member.
15 DICK BROWN, Committee Member.
REGGIE BROWN, Committee Member.
17 ALSO PRESENT:
18 KEVIN HYDE, City Council Member.
JOHN CROFTS, Deputy Director, Planning Dept.
19 SEAN KELLY, Chief, Current Planning.
FOLKS HUXFORD, Zoning Administrator.
20 KEN AVERY, Planning and Development Dept.
DYLAN REINGOLD, Office of General Counsel.
21 JASON GABRIEL, Office of General Counsel.
CHERRY SHAW, Office of General Counsel.
22 MERRIANE LAHMEUR, Legislative Assistant.
SHARONDA DAVIS, Legislative Assistant.
- - -
1 P R O C E E D I N G S
2 November 2, 2010 5:00 p.m.
3 - - -
4 THE CHAIRMAN: Good evening, everyone.
5 We're going to call the Tuesday,
6 November 2, 2010, meeting of the Land Use and
7 Zoning Committee to order, and we will begin by
8 having everyone introduce themselves on the
9 record, starting with Mr. Crofts.
10 And again, Mr. Crofts, we -- the committee
11 and myself extend our sympathies to you with
12 regard to the loss of your sister, and please
13 know that you're in our hearts and prayers in
14 these tough times. We appreciate you being here
16 MR. CROFTS: Thank you. I appreciate
18 With that, my name is John Crofts, and I'm
19 deputy director of Planning and represent the
20 Planning Department this evening.
21 MR. KELLY: Sean Kelly, Planning and
23 MR. HUXFORD: Folks Huxford, Planning and
25 MR. AVERY: Ken Avery, Planning and
2 MR. REINGOLD: Dylan Reingold, Office of
3 General Counsel.
4 MR. D. BROWN: Dick Brown, Council
5 District 13.
6 MR. R. BROWN: Reginald Brown, Council
7 District 10.
8 THE CHAIRMAN: And I'm John Crescimbeni,
9 at-large, Group 2.
10 MR. HOLT: Ray Holt, District 11.
11 MR. BISHOP: Bill Bishop, District 2.
12 MR. REDMAN: Don Redman, District 4.
13 THE CHAIRMAN: All right. Thank you,
15 And we do have an excused absence from
16 Councilmember Joost tonight, so he will not be
18 Mr. Reingold, before we begin with the
19 opening statement, we have a bill on tonight's
20 agenda, it's on page 2, item 1, it's the
21 Internet cafe bill, 2010-326. This was deferred
22 in Public Health and Safety. There's nothing
23 preventing us from taking it up tonight. We
24 have kind of a short agenda, but I'm going to
25 leave it up to the committee. If you want to
1 take this up, we can do so. If we're going to
2 do that, I'm going to have Mr. Reingold make a
3 phone call and get Jason Teal down here and
4 whoever else had something to do with this bill,
5 but --
6 By a show of hands, does anybody have an
7 objection to not taking this bill up tonight?
8 An objection to taking the bill up, I'm
9 sorry, objection to.
10 COMMITTEE MEMBERS: (No response.)
11 THE CHAIRMAN: Everybody okay with taking
12 the bill up tonight?
13 MR. BISHOP: (Indicating.)
14 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Bishop.
15 MR. BISHOP: My suggestion, Mr. Chairman,
16 is if it was deferred in PHS, if there was an
17 expectation that it may be deferred tonight
18 here, then I would suggest we do that because
19 there may be some people that would like to see
20 what's going on that aren't here. That's my
21 only thought on that.
22 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. Thank you,
23 Mr. Bishop.
24 Mr. Brown.
25 MR. R. BROWN: Yes. To the body, I was
1 there today at PHS, and it was a recommendation
2 of the sheriff that we defer discussion on this
3 until he has his opportunity to express himself
4 with Councilman Hyde.
5 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. Anybody else?
6 COMMITTEE MEMBERS: (No response.)
7 THE CHAIRMAN: Well, it sounds like we're
8 going to defer it. We do have a public hearing
9 on it this evening. We will open the public
10 hearing and continue it at the appropriate time.
11 Mr. Reingold, we won't need anybody else to
12 come down, so if you'll begin by reading the
13 opening statement, please.
14 MR. REINGOLD: Absolutely. Thank you,
15 everybody, and happy Election Day.
16 Anybody who would like to address the
17 committee must fill out a yellow speaker's card
18 in its entirety. The yellow speakers' cards are
19 located on the desk up front, near the podium.
20 Once completed, please return the speaker's card
21 to the basket on the front desk.
22 Any person who lobbies the City for
23 compensation is considered a lobbyist and is
24 therefore required to register their lobbying
25 activity with the City Council secretary. If
1 you are a lobbyist and have not registered with
2 the City Council secretary, you will not be
3 permitted to address the committee tonight.
4 Because a verbatim transcript of this
5 meeting will be prepared by a court reporter, it
6 is important that you speak clearly into the
7 microphone when you address the committee. It's
8 also important that only one person speak at a
10 Any tangible material submitted with a
11 speaker's presentation, such as documents,
12 photographs, plans, drawings, et cetera, shall
13 become a permanent part of the public record and
14 will be retained by this committee.
15 As a courtesy, please switch any cell
16 phones, pagers, or audible devices to a silent
18 Additionally, there shall be no public
19 display of support or opposition, so please
20 refrain from applause or speaking out of turn.
21 Items are generally addressed in the order
22 in which they are listed on the agenda. Copies
23 of the agenda are also located on the desk up
24 front, near the podium.
25 On occasion, items may be heard out of
1 order for the sake of efficiency or to
2 accommodate scheduling conflicts.
3 Unless there is a formal hearing on a
4 particular item, each member of the public is
5 limited to a three-minute presentation.
6 Presentations should be focused, concise, and
7 address only the item pending before the
9 Prior to addressing the committee, please
10 state your name and your address for the court
12 Decisions on rezonings, including PUDs,
13 waivers of road frontage, sign waivers, and
14 appeals, are all considered quasi-judicial in
15 nature and certain protocals will be followed
16 for those matters.
17 First, each council member must disclose on
18 the record any ex-parte communications they have
19 had with any members of the public prior to the
20 hearing on each applicable item. This includes
21 a brief statement of when the communication took
22 place, who the communication was with, and what
23 the subject matter of the communication was
25 Second, the normal format is to allow the
1 applicant or agent thereof to make their
2 presentation first, followed by members of the
3 public who wish to speak in support of the item,
4 then members of the public who are in opposition
5 will be allowed to speak.
6 After all of the public comments have been
7 received, the applicant will have a brief
8 opportunity to wrap up or present a brief
9 rebuttal. The wrap-up or rebuttal shall be
10 limited to the issues brought up by the
12 In some instances, the Chair may permit a
13 concise surrebuttal or response to the
14 applicant's rebuttal, which will be followed by
15 a brief final response by the applicant.
16 Finally, all quasi-judicial decisions must
17 be based on substantial competent evidence,
18 which means that the committee's decision must
19 be supported by fact-based testimony or expert
20 testimony and not generalized concerns or
22 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Reingold.
23 I also want to thank Mr. Redman for
24 chairing the agenda meeting earlier this
25 afternoon. I was tied up and he stepped up to
1 the plate and took care of that business for me,
2 so I appreciate it, Mr. Redman.
3 All right. Page 2, item 1, 2010-326, we do
4 have a public hearing scheduled this evening.
5 There will be no other action on the bill.
6 The public hearing is open. I have no
7 speakers' cards.
8 Does anyone care to address the committee?
9 If so, please come forward.
10 (Mr. Mann approaches the podium.)
11 MR. MANN: Mr. Chairman, I understand that
12 you've discussed -- we've heard you discuss it
13 before the committee, but I would like to ask
14 you to reconsider your decision not to hear this
16 The land use issue is really not a
17 proponent [sic] of the -- of the bill. It is
18 still going to be held in another committee, and
19 would y'all please consider reconsidering so
20 that we could get this discharged from this
21 committee. It will still be held in
22 Mr. Fussell's committee for a future hearing
23 date and won't before the council until next
24 week, so we've got plenty of time to meet the
25 concerns of the sheriff and discuss those with
2 Thank you very much for your consideration.
3 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Mann.
4 Any questions for Mr. Mann?
5 COMMITTEE MEMBERS: (No response.)
6 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Mann, did you give your
7 name and address for the record?
8 (Mr. Mann approaches the podium.)
9 MR. MANN: I'm sorry, Mr. Councilman.
10 It's my first time here.
11 Charles Mann,
12 representing the Allied Veterans.
13 Thank you.
14 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, sir.
15 Any questions for Mr. Mann?
16 MR. R. BROWN: (Indicating.)
17 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Brown.
18 MR. R. BROWN: Not necessarily for
19 Mr. Mann, but just a clarification that I did
20 not oppose having discussion tonight. I was
21 just informing the body of why the decision was
22 made by Councilman Fussell, Chairman Fussell,
23 during that committee meeting.
24 Thank you.
25 MR. MANN: And, Mr. Chairman, I'll assure
1 you that if you do hear it tonight, we'll make
2 every effort to meet with the sheriff in the
3 upcoming week before the City Council meeting
4 and address any, you know, views or any concerns
5 he may have.
6 Thank you.
7 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Mann.
8 Mr. Holt.
9 MR. HOLT: Not a question for Mr. Mann, but
10 for anybody who was at PHS earlier.
11 Did Mr. Fussell indicate what he planned on
12 doing or did -- was there any discussion of the
13 president taking it up and pulling it out of
14 that committee?
15 MR. R. BROWN: No. I'll answer that
16 question. In fact, it was a surprise,
17 last-minute decision. We were actually prepared
18 to take it on.
19 MR. HOLT: I won't mind taking it on
20 tonight, but if the president is not planning on
21 taking it out of the committee, then there's
22 really no point.
23 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Holt.
24 I guess through the Chair to Mr. Brown or
25 Mr. Reingold, were there any people in the
Diane M. Tropia, Inc.,
1 audience to address the bill that you don't see
2 here tonight or was there anybody at the agenda
3 meeting that had an interest in this?
4 Mr. Brown, do you have any recollection of
6 MR. R. BROWN: No, the same people are
7 here --
8 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay.
9 MR. R. BROWN: -- other than -- the sheriff
10 was not present. It was by way of a phone call.
11 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Reingold, was there
12 anybody at the LUZ agenda meeting with regard to
13 opposing that may have left because of the
15 MR. REINGOLD: Through the Chair, I don't
16 believe so.
17 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. Thank you, sir.
18 Mr. Bishop.
19 MR. BISHOP: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
20 If light of the fact this is an official
21 public hearing -- the other committees don't
22 have official public hearings but this one does,
23 in the abundance of caution, considering the
24 volatile nature of this particular bill and the
25 opinions on both sides of this issue, I would
Diane M. Tropia, Inc.,
1 just suggest that we defer it in the interest
2 that we don't leave someone out that might come
3 back later and say they didn't get an
4 opportunity to speak. That may be overly
5 cautious, but that would just be my suggestion.
6 Thank you.
7 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Bishop.
8 Anyone else?
9 COMMITTEE MEMBERS: (No response.)
10 THE CHAIRMAN: All right. We do have
11 another speaker, Kelly Mathis.
12 (Audience member approaches the podium.)
13 AUDIENCE MEMBER: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
14 Kelly Mathis,
15 Suite 902, representing Allied Veterans.
16 I want to inform the members of the
17 council, I did speak personally with the sheriff
18 this afternoon regarding his concerns. They
19 relate primarily to whether he -- JSO is going
20 to be the responsible agency for permitting or
21 whether it should be with another City
22 department. They do not relate to any land use
23 issues, any zoning issues, or things of that
25 I also traded voice mails with Mr. Kevin
1 Hyde, who informed me in his last voice mail
2 that he had no objection to it being taken up
3 and considered by this -- this panel and this
4 committee tonight. We would request that you
6 Whether it gets pulled from the other
7 committee or discharged, I -- I don't know, but
8 this would certainly give it the opportunity to
9 do so.
10 The issues involving other players, other
11 participants in the industry, none of those
12 issues have circulated or are related to the
13 zoning issues. They have all related to permits
14 and fees and the amounts of the permits and
15 fees. I don't think that there's any -- any
16 issues regarding any of the zoning issues, and
17 it just may be more expedient to do those.
18 And I'm available for questions, but we'd
19 like it addressed.
20 THE CHAIRMAN: Well, Mr. Mathis, we're
21 taking up the whole bill, correct? I mean, the
22 whole -- the entire bill is before this
23 committee. It's more than just the zoning, it's
24 the entire structure of the bill, which includes
25 the zoning provisions, correct?
1 MR. MATHIS: That's correct.
2 THE CHAIRMAN: Right.
3 MR. MATHIS: That's correct.
4 THE CHAIRMAN: And were you aware of
5 anybody in the audience today at Public Health
6 and Safety that had a -- that you don't see here
7 tonight that was here to speak on this bill?
8 MR. MATHIS: No, sir.
9 Mr. Sean Arnold was here at that meeting,
10 but I addressed it with him. He did not have
11 any specific concerns for this committee and was
12 not going to appear because of that.
13 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay.
14 All right. Well, I'd say let's take it up,
16 Do we -- does anybody else want to address
17 the committee in light of the fact that we'll
18 consider the bill and not continue the public
20 AUDIENCE MEMBERS: (No response.)
21 THE CHAIRMAN: Nobody?
22 AUDIENCE MEMBERS: (No response.)
23 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. Seeing none, then the
24 public hearing is closed and we are back in
1 MR. HOLT: Move the amendment.
2 MR. R. BROWN: Second.
3 THE CHAIRMAN: Motion and second on the
5 Mr. Reingold, can you discuss the
6 amendment? Oh, you've got to --
7 MR. REINGOLD: I apologize. I'll be
8 honest, I'm caught off guard that we're taking
9 it up tonight. And that doesn't stop us from
10 doing so, I just know there's an amendment
11 that's been floated around and being discussed.
12 I know the Planning Department has got a
13 report and they've got some recommended changes
14 to the bill, so we might want to run through it
15 as we would with any other normal bill.
16 THE CHAIRMAN: You know what? Are you
17 going to get Mr. Teal -- okay. Let's -- we're
18 going to just temporarily pass over this and
19 we're going to come back to it when we get one
20 of the other attorneys back, and we'll go --
21 we'll cycle back through this when those folks
22 get here.
23 All right. So let's temporarily skip over
24 item 1.
25 Item 2, 2010-389, that's scheduled for a
1 public hearing this evening. The public hearing
2 is open. I have no speakers' cards.
3 Anyone care to address the committee?
4 AUDIENCE MEMBERS: (No response.)
5 THE CHAIRMAN: All right. Seeing no one,
6 the public hearing is continued until
7 November 16th and there's no other action on
8 that bill.
9 Turning to page 3, item 3, 2010-585, is
10 deferred. Item 4, 2010-595, is deferred. And
11 item 5, 2010-596, is deferred.
12 Turning to page 4, item 6 is scheduled for
13 a public hearing this evening. There will be no
14 other action on that bill. The public hearing
15 is open. I have no speakers' cards.
16 Anyone care to address the committee on
17 item 6?
18 AUDIENCE MEMBERS: (No response.)
19 THE CHAIRMAN: Seeing none, the public
20 hearing is continued until January 4th of 2011.
21 Item 7, 2010-624.
22 Mr. Crofts.
23 MR. CROFTS: Mr. Chairman, it's my
24 understanding that this legislation was referred
25 back to the LUZ Committee by the district
1 councilman to incorporate some additional
2 information, specifically items pertaining to a
3 community meeting on this item that was
4 conducted on August 31st, 2010, and it was felt
5 to be incorporated -- or appropriate to be
6 incorporated as part of the record and file for
7 this particular item.
8 More specifically, as indicated in the
9 October 19th, 2010, meeting of this body, this
10 legislation seeks to rezone 26.7 acres from IBP,
12 to PUD, for the development of activities such
13 as a family life center, day care center, and
14 related uses associated with the mission of the
16 living facility for up to 80 beds or 80 dwelling
18 The department has determined that this
19 proposal is consistent with the 2030
20 Comprehensive Plan and currently will ultimately
21 be required to meet further requirements of the
22 City's land development regulations, including
23 the ten-set approval process and thereby we
24 recommend approval with the previously-recorded
25 six conditions.
1 And, for the record, in order to clarify
2 that, I think it's appropriate, unless you stop
3 me, to go ahead and read those conditions into
4 the record again.
5 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Reingold, do you have a
7 MR. REINGOLD: John -- and I apologize, I'm
8 getting input from a lot of different
10 Are you on 2010-624?
11 MR. CROFTS: Yes, sir.
12 MR. REINGOLD: All right. The LUZ
13 committee has already adopted the conditions,
14 it's already in the bill itself. I just wasn't
15 sure if you were aware of that. Essentially
16 we're in the posture of just moving the bill as
17 is, with the conditions --
18 THE CHAIRMAN: Well, this -- Mr. Reingold,
19 this came back to the council because the
20 district councilperson wanted something added to
21 the record, so has that something been added to
22 the record?
23 MR. REINGOLD: Yes, it has, to the Chair.
24 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. So what do we need to
25 do? Just move the bill or --
1 MR. REINGOLD: Essentially you're in the
2 posture of just moving the bill as it's been
4 MR. HOLT: Move the bill.
5 MR. BISHOP: Second.
6 THE CHAIRMAN: All right. Motion by
7 Mr. Holt, second by Mr. Bishop.
8 Is there discussion on the bill?
9 COMMITTEE MEMBERS: (No response.)
10 THE CHAIRMAN: If not, open the ballot,
12 (Committee ballot opened.)
13 MR. CRESCIMBENI: (Votes yea.)
14 MR. HOLT: (Votes yea.)
15 MR. BISHOP: (Votes yea.)
16 MR. D. BROWN: (Votes yea.)
17 MR. R. BROWN: (Votes yea.)
18 MR. REDMAN: (Votes yea.)
19 (Committee ballot closed.)
20 MS. LAHMEUR: Six yea, zero nay.
21 THE CHAIRMAN: By your action, you've, for
22 the second time, approved item 7, 2010-624.
23 Bottom of page 4, item 8, 2010-670. That
24 bill is deferred.
25 Turning to page 5, at the top, item 9,
2 Mr. Kelly.
3 MR. KELLY: Thank you.
4 To the Chair and to the committee,
5 ordinance 2010-751 seeks to rezone property
6 located at
9 The current zoning is RMD-D. The proposed
10 zoning is Planned Unit Development to allow for
11 the rehabilitation of an existing apartment
12 complex that was built in 1973. There's
13 approximately 60 units on just over two acres,
14 which had some issue with the underlying density
15 permitted in the land use category; however,
16 there's a policy in terms of defining
17 consistency with the comprehensive plan as it
18 relates to existing and preexisting
19 residentially [sic] uses being restored to their
20 historically-significant density regardless of
21 the land use category, and that's the case in
22 this instance. Again, it's an existing
23 apartment complex that's being rehabilitated.
24 The department finds that approval of this
25 PUD would further the goals and objectives and
1 policies of the comprehensive plan, including
2 future land use objective 1.1, future land use
3 element policy 1.1.10, and future land use
4 element policy 1.1.20.
5 We find the development and the site plan
6 are both internally and externally compatible
7 and are recommending approval subject to the
8 conditions in the memorandum dated October 28th
9 to Council President Webb and the City Council.
10 I'll read those conditions into the record.
11 Condition 1, "The developer shall be
12 subject to the original legal description,
13 August 13th 2010."
14 Condition 2, "The development shall be
15 subject to the original written description
16 dated August 13th, 2010."
17 Condition 3, "The development shall be
18 subject to the original site plan dated
19 August 13th, 2010."
20 And condition 4, "The required
21 transportation improvements shall be made in
22 accordance with the Development Services
23 Division memorandum dated September 22nd, 2010,
24 or as otherwise approved by the Planning and
25 Development Department."
1 Pending those four conditions, the
2 department supports this application.
3 THE CHAIRMAN: All right. Thank you,
4 Mr. Kelly.
5 This is a quasi-judicial matter. Does
6 anyone have any ex-parte communication to
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. I have one
12 speaker's card, Jenna Emmons.
13 AUDIENCE MEMBER: I can just be available
14 for questions.
15 (Audience member approaches the podium.)
16 THE CHAIRMAN: Ms. Emmons, if you'll state
17 your name and address for the record.
18 AUDIENCE MEMBER: Jenna Emmons, 126 West
20 THE CHAIRMAN: And you're the owner of the
22 MS. EMMONS: I'm the agent of the owner.
23 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. And you heard the
24 conditions that were read into the record.
25 Do you accept those?
1 MS. EMMONS: Yes.
2 THE CHAIRMAN: Agree to those?
3 MS. EMMONS: (Nods head.)
4 THE CHAIRMAN: You do?
5 MS. EMMONS: Uh-huh.
6 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. Mr. Reingold.
7 MR. REINGOLD: I just want to confirm with
8 staff -- I'm sorry, someone had pulled me aside
9 during the discussion -- that the fourth
10 condition was that, "The required transportation
11 improvements shall be made in accordance with
12 the Development Services Division memorandum
13 dated September 22nd, 2010, or as otherwise
14 approved by the Planning and Development
16 MR. KELLY: (Nods head.)
17 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Reingold --
18 MR. REINGOLD: Sean is telling me he -- he
19 confirms that that's how he read it into the
21 THE CHAIRMAN: All four of the conditions
22 were read pursuant to the way they appear in the
23 October 28 memo.
24 MR. KELLY: No, I made a minor correction.
25 There was an error in -- kind of verbiage,
1 I guess, when -- about the "pursuant to the
2 memorandum." We just made it "in accordance" --
3 because we're already saying "in accordance
4 with," and so it's redundant to say "pursuant
5 to" -- it was "in accordance with the
6 memorandum," so I struck the "pursuant to"
8 THE CHAIRMAN: Ms. Emmons, do you agree to
9 that --
10 MS. EMMONS: Yes.
11 THE CHAIRMAN: -- condition as it was
13 MS. EMMONS: Uh-huh.
14 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. Thank you.
15 Did you want to address the committee?
16 MS. EMMONS: No.
17 THE CHAIRMAN: All right. Anybody have any
18 questions for Ms. Emmons?
19 COMMITTEE MEMBERS: (No response.)
20 THE CHAIRMAN: All right. Seeing none,
21 thank you, Ms. Emmons.
22 Anyone else care to address the committee?
23 AUDIENCE MEMBERS: (No response.)
24 THE CHAIRMAN: All right. Seeing no one,
25 then, the public hearing is closed.
1 MR. HOLT: Move the bill.
2 THE CHAIRMAN: We need a --
3 MR. HOLT: Move the amendment.
4 MR. BISHOP: Second.
5 THE CHAIRMAN: Motion on the amendment by
6 Mr. Holt, second by Mr. Bishop.
7 Discussion on the amendment?
8 COMMITTEE MEMBERS: (No response.)
9 THE CHAIRMAN: If not, all those in favor
10 say yes.
11 COMMITTEE MEMBERS: Yes.
12 THE CHAIRMAN: Opposed say no.
13 COMMITTEE MEMBERS: (No response.)
14 THE CHAIRMAN: By your action, you've
15 approved the amendment.
16 MR. HOLT: Move the bill.
17 MR. BISHOP: Second.
18 THE CHAIRMAN: Motion on the bill as
19 amended by Mr. Holt, second by Mr. Bishop.
20 Discussion on the bill?
21 COMMITTEE MEMBERS: (No response.)
22 THE CHAIRMAN: If not, open the ballot,
24 (Committee ballot opened.)
25 MR. CRESCIMBENI: (Votes yea.)
1 MR. HOLT: (Votes yea.)
2 MR. BISHOP: (Votes yea.)
3 MR. D. BROWN: (Votes yea.)
4 MR. R. BROWN: (Votes yea.)
5 MR. REDMAN: (Votes yea.)
6 (Committee ballot closed.)
7 MS. LAHMEUR: Six yeas, zero nay.
8 THE CHAIRMAN: By our action, you have
9 approved item 9, 2010-751.
10 Item 10, 2010-770.
11 Is Mr. McEachin here?
12 MR. CROFTS: Mr. Chairman, I've asked
13 Ms. Cherry Shaw of the Office of General Counsel
14 to give a brief report on this in lieu of
15 Mr. McEachin's absence.
16 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Crofts.
17 MS. SHAW: Thank you.
18 Cherry Shaw, Office of General Counsel.
19 Through the Chair, what you have before you
20 is a bill which seeks the committee's approval
21 to designate this particular property as a
22 landmark designation. And under Section
23 307.104, there are specifically seven criteria
24 that must be met. However, if the property
25 owner does not object to the designation, then
1 only two of the criteria should be met in order
2 for the property to be designated as a landmark
4 In this instance, we have four of the
5 criteria that have been met for designation, and
6 specifically the property is the
7 Cemetery. It is located northeast of downtown
8 and -- 1852 -- starting in year 1852 to 1881, it
9 served as the burial grounds for prominent
10 members of the
11 specifically in the 19th -- in the early
12 20th century.
13 I cannot comment on exactly who is actually
14 buried there. Mr. McEachin from the Planning
15 Department has more specific information, but I
16 know that there is separate divisions of the
17 cemetery. There's a Hebrew section for a Jewish
18 community. Historically -- African-American
19 community, Confederate veterans community, all
20 of those sections were divided for burial sites
21 for prominent members, and we would just ask the
22 committee to move the approval so that the
23 cemetery may be designated as a landmark.
24 And what the landmark will do is that, in
25 the future, if there are any future burials or
1 any type of alterations to this particular
2 cemetery, it would require an application for a
3 Certificate of Appropriateness before the
4 Historic Preservation Commission.
5 Thank you.
6 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you.
7 And your name was Shaw, Ms. Shaw?
8 MS. SHAW: Cherry Shaw.
9 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. Thank you, Ms. Shaw.
10 And how did the property owner convey the
11 fact that they didn't have an objection?
12 MS. SHAW: Actually, the property owner had
13 submitted the application to the staff and the
14 Planning Department, and that should be attached
15 to the -- in your book as exhibit -- it's a part
16 of the exhibit. The application is exhibit --
17 THE CHAIRMAN: Actually, I don't have
18 anything in my book on that item.
19 MS. SHAW: Bear with me a moment here while
20 I search for that application.
21 I don't have it either, but it is my
22 understanding that the applicant -- or the
23 property owner does not object to the
24 designation of this property, the cemetery as a
25 landmark designation. I can get that
1 application for you.
2 THE CHAIRMAN: Is there any time
3 sensitivity on this? Because apparently
4 Legislative Services says that no paperwork came
5 over for anybody's book with regard to this
6 item, and I'm kind of surprised that you don't
7 have it with you as the representative of the
9 Any time sensitivity? Can we take it up in
10 two weeks?
11 MS. SHAW: Sure.
12 THE CHAIRMAN: All right.
13 MS. SHAW: Absolutely.
14 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Ms. Shaw.
15 We have a public hearing scheduled on this
16 item this evening. We're going to open the
17 public hearing. I have no speakers' cards.
18 Does anyone care to address the committee?
19 AUDIENCE MEMBERS: (No response.)
20 THE CHAIRMAN: All right. Seeing none,
21 then, the public hearing will be continued
22 until -- what is that -- the 16th of November
23 and the bill is -- there's no further action on
24 the bill.
25 Item 11, 2010-781.
1 Ms. Parola.
2 MS. PAROLA: Yes. Thank you.
3 Through the Chair, text amendment 2010-781
4 includes the annual service level update of the
5 Capital Improvements Element schedule of capital
6 projects. The projects are all
7 financially-feasible capital projects that are
8 directly level of service related. They affect
9 capacity under the level of service standards.
10 Within the schedule you'll see projects for
11 roads, for mass transit, projects from the
13 water, and sanitary sewer. All of these
14 projects were previously approved as part of
15 either the fiscal year 2011 through 2015 Capital
16 Improvement Program, which was adopted under
17 ordinance 2010-558, or they're a part of the
18 transportation improvement program from the TPO,
19 or they're a part of the most recent FDOT work
20 program schedule. That's all the road projects
21 that you find in the document.
22 The Planning and Development Department
23 recommends approval of the CIE, the fiscal year
24 2011 through 2015 CIE schedule of projects, as
1 If you have any questions, I'm available.
2 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you.
3 Any questions from the committee?
4 COMMITTEE MEMBERS: (No response.)
5 THE CHAIRMAN: All right. Seeing none, we
6 have a public hearing scheduled on this bill
7 tonight. The public hearing is open. I have no
8 speakers' cards.
9 Anyone care to address the committee?
10 AUDIENCE MEMBERS: (No response.)
11 THE CHAIRMAN: All right. Seeing no one,
12 the public hearing is closed and we are in
14 MR. HOLT: Move the bill.
15 THE CHAIRMAN: Motion on the bill by
16 Mr. Holt --
17 MR. REDMAN: Second.
18 THE CHAIRMAN: -- second by Mr. Redman.
19 Any discussion?
20 COMMITTEE MEMBERS: (No response.)
21 THE CHAIRMAN: If not, open the ballot,
23 (Committee ballot opened.)
24 MR. CRESCIMBENI: (Votes yea.)
25 MR. HOLT: (Votes yea.)
1 MR. BISHOP: (Votes yea.)
2 MR. D. BROWN: (Votes yea.)
3 MR. R. BROWN: (Votes yea.)
4 MR. REDMAN: (Votes yea.)
5 (Committee ballot closed.)
6 MS. LAHMEUR: Six yeas, zero nay.
7 THE CHAIRMAN: By our action, you have
8 approved item 11, 2010-781.
9 Item 12, 2010-782, is deferred.
10 Turning to page 6, at the top, item 13,
11 2010-783, is deferred.
12 Item 14, 2010-784, we'll take no action,
13 but we do have a public hearing scheduled this
14 evening. The public hearing is open. I have no
15 speaker cards.
16 Anyone care to address the committee?
17 AUDIENCE MEMBERS: (No response.)
18 THE CHAIRMAN: Seeing no one, the public
19 hearing is continued until November 16th, no
20 further action on that bill.
21 Last item on page 6, item 15, 2010-817, is
22 read and rerefer -- second rerefer.
23 So that takes us back to page 1.
24 And, Mr. Reingold, are all your
25 counterparts present?
1 MR. REINGOLD: Yes, sir.
2 Mr. Gabriel is here to discuss both the
3 bill and the amendment. Also, as what is
4 traditionally done with these types of bills,
5 first, if would you like, the Planning
6 Department will give their staff analysis and
7 then Mr. Gabriel can --
8 THE CHAIRMAN: Yes. We're going to start
9 from the top and take this like we normally
10 would, so who's doing the staff analysis?
11 Mr. Kelly.
12 MR. KELLY: Thank you.
13 To the Chair and to committee members,
14 ordinance 2010-326, as you know, this
15 legislation proposes to allow for two new
16 sections of the Municipal Code, Chapter 155 and
17 156, as it relates to adult arcade/amusement
18 centers that are operated by a licensed
19 pari-mutuel permit holder and also the adult
20 arcade/amusement centers' game promotions and
21 sweepstakes businesses.
22 The department has reviewed this in the
23 context, more or less, as it relates to
24 Chapter 656. What's proposed -- these uses
25 would be permitted by right -- as a matter of
1 right within the CCG-1 and the CCG-2 zoning
2 districts. We basically equate the uses as
3 being consistent with what is traditionally
4 indoor entertainment, which would be permissible
5 in CCG-2.
6 The department does have concerns, however,
7 in our review of this application -- or this
8 change to the code and the implications on
9 compatibility as it relates to the CCG-1 zoning
11 There is a distance limitation proposed for
12 basically both CCG-1 and CCG-2 that prohibits
13 the facilities within 750 feet from a church, a
14 school, or a military installation.
15 The department has similar concerns as it
16 relates to residential uses and the fact that
17 there's a lack of any kind of distance
18 limitation proposed at this time.
19 The department, again, finds that there's,
20 you know, well-documented secondary effects of
21 these uses as it relates to an increase in
22 nuisance-related crime and activity and
23 increased loitering, littering, those sorts of
24 things, and we want to ensure that these uses
25 are located in an area that's appropriate for
2 There are some very strict licensing
3 standards, we understand, but they don't address
4 the locational aspects. And the department, I
5 guess, does have some concerns with, I guess --
6 that was -- issues that were brought to light
7 through the sheriff as it relates to the
8 permitting aspects which may substantially alter
9 the bill if it's basically given to another
10 department to do the permitting for these -- the
11 survey requirements for a 750 foot survey and
12 the enforcement of that as it relates to these
13 proposed uses. The department would like to
14 have some input as to how that gets
16 However, again, the big issue for us as it
17 relates to allowing this use in CCG-1 is the
18 impact that it potentially has on immediate
19 neighborhood residential areas that potentially
20 could be adversely impacted. These are 24-hour
21 facilities that are run. They are heavily
22 security oriented. They have a security guard
23 manned there at all times and heavily regulated
24 both under 155 and 156. So as an adult-oriented
25 use, we find that it would be appropriate to
1 have a distance limitation or at least an
2 opportunity to evaluate individual instances
3 through the zoning exception process where it
4 may be appropriate within the CCG-1 category.
5 There are numerous older neighborhoods and
6 neighborhood action plans and corridor studies
7 that we have done throughout the city and the
8 vision plans, and we look to implement those
9 plans and find appropriate places for the uses,
10 and I think just blanket allowing it in CCG-1
11 would be a mistake, and I think the bill is
12 lacking -- or the department feels that the bill
13 is lacking in that respect.
14 Other than that, the department is
15 supporting an amendment that would basically
16 propose a 500-foot distance limitation from
17 residential zoning districts within the CCG-1
18 category and, additionally, would contemplate
19 allowing it either through a zoning exception in
20 lieu of that distance requirement in CCG-1 where
21 we can review it on a case-by-case basis and
22 site specific in relation to the neighborhood.
23 We think that's the more appropriate way to go.
24 With that amendment, the department is
25 supportive of this bill and finds
1 that it would be consistent with future land use
2 element goal 1, as well as future land use
3 element policy 3.2.3 and 1.1.7. Pending that,
4 support of the amendment.
5 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Kelly.
6 Mr. Kelly, the distance limitation in CCG-1
7 to a church, school, or -- what did you say the
8 other thing was, a military --
9 MR. KELLY: The distance limitations right
10 now, regardless of zoning --
11 THE CHAIRMAN: Can you just run through
12 that one more time, please?
13 MR. KELLY: Certainly.
14 The distance limitations as proposed are
15 750 feet, and this would be an amendment to the
16 zoning code under Part 4, creating a new
17 criteria which would require 750 feet from a
18 church, a school, or a military installation.
19 That's as it is proposed right now, whether it
20 be in CCG-1 or CCG-2.
21 THE CHAIRMAN: That's in the bill?
22 MR. KELLY: Correct, the uses by right.
23 THE CHAIRMAN: And that distance from a
24 church, school, or military installation, is
25 that from the property that contains the arcade
1 to, what, the property boundary of the church,
2 school, or military installation?
3 MR. KELLY: I can read the language.
4 It's in the -- towards the back of the bill
5 as it relates to Part 4. It's KK; I'll find the
6 page number briefly. It's page 38 of the bill.
7 It describes the measurement. They're basically
8 measured from following a straight line from the
9 nearest point of the building or portion of the
10 building used as part of the proposed location
11 to the nearest point of the grounds used as part
12 of the church, school, or military installation.
13 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. Thank you, sir.
14 Mr. Holt, did you have a question?
15 MR. HOLT: (Inaudible.)
16 THE CHAIRMAN: They answered it.
17 Okay. Mr. Bishop, question for Mr. Kelly?
18 MR. BISHOP: Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
19 Regarding the CCG-1/CCG-2 issue, am I
20 correct in understanding, the bill, in it's
21 current form, allows these in CCG-1 by right
22 provided they meet the distance requirement and
23 that the Planning Department would support an
24 amendment that would require them to be done by
25 exception in CCG-1 while still meeting the
1 distance requirements?
2 MR. KELLY: That is -- that's correct.
3 In fact, we would even potentially waive
4 the distance in CCG-1 in -- if there's an
5 exception process, a way to look at these
6 individually, but, I mean, that was kind of
7 discussed -- originally, we drafted the report
8 based on the distance limitation itself. I'll
9 defer -- I think Bill is here, but there was
10 some discussion after we had issued the report
11 about having an alternative as opposed to just a
12 strict 500-foot rule.
13 I'm sorry, the 750 foot, yes. I'm thinking
14 500 feet. Excuse me. The 750 feet applies no
15 matter what, but the 500 foot from a residential
16 or an exception was kind of the way we were
17 looking at it.
18 MR. BISHOP: Okay. Thank you.
19 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Bishop, does that answer
20 your question?
21 MR. BISHOP: More or less.
22 THE CHAIRMAN: It does? Good. Good for
23 you because I didn't get that.
24 MR. BISHOP: (Inaudible.)
25 THE CHAIRMAN: All right. So, Mr. Kelly,
1 are you saying that you're supportive of the
2 bill's language, which allows the arcades by
3 right in CCG-2, with the distance limitation?
4 MR. KELLY: Correct.
5 THE CHAIRMAN: But you would prefer to have
6 some sort of residential component?
7 MR. KELLY: We support it in CCG-2 with the
8 distance limitation of 750 feet from a church,
9 school, or military installation.
10 THE CHAIRMAN: Is that in the bill now, the
11 750 feet?
12 MR. KELLY: Correct.
13 THE CHAIRMAN: Right. Okay.
14 But what about from residential, do you
15 have a problem with that not being in there for
17 MR. KELLY: Well, the distance limitation
18 from a church, school, or military facility
19 would still be 750 feet in CCG-1; however, we
20 would like an additional limitation placed on
21 the CCG-1; that is, either a 500-foot limitation
22 from residential zoning or to allow the use
23 through -- only through a zoning exception,
24 which would provide some input to the
25 surrounding community, to have a public hearing
1 to see if it's an appropriate use at that
3 THE CHAIRMAN: So what about a residential
4 property that was within 750 feet of the arcade
5 in CCG-2, you're okay with that?
6 MR. KELLY: Residential within 750 feet
7 would qualify. It's only a church, school, or
8 military installation.
9 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. But residential
10 within 500 feet in CCG-1 you have a problem
12 MR. KELLY: That's correct.
13 THE CHAIRMAN: I'm not sure I follow that
14 logic. What's the difference?
15 MR. KELLY: Well, the residential uses --
16 CCG-1, again, from a zoning perspective, is not
17 the same level intensity as CCG-2. So to equate
18 and have the same exact requirements for both
19 uses in each category, we find that it's -- it's
20 just inconsistent with, you know, normal
21 progression or intensification of uses.
22 You have a lot more instances where you
23 have residential zoning immediately adjacent to
24 CCG-1 zoning, whereas it's less the case where
25 there's residential immediately to CCG-2.
Diane M. Tropia,
1 There's more of a transition and a buffer, so
2 the -- the distance limitation of 500 feet, I
3 mean, we would apply --
4 I understand your meaning now. CCG-1, I
5 mean, if that's the case --
6 THE CHAIRMAN: So the residential property
7 owner, if they have the bad luck of living next
8 door to CCG-2, they don't have a voice. But if
9 they're in CCG-1, they get a voice, according to
10 the desires of the department.
11 MR. KELLY: Again, my understanding of the
12 bill from the get-go was to restrict the
13 proliferation of the number of facilities that
14 could operate. And, in our view, you're going
15 to have more instances -- it does make perfect,
16 rational sense, and we would support that
17 amendment as well, to have a 500-foot buffer
18 from these uses from residential in both CCG-1
19 and CCG-2.
20 THE CHAIRMAN: All right, sir. Thank you.
21 Mr. Brown. Dick brown.
22 MR. D. BROWN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
23 I was just -- feel the need to try to catch
24 up a little bit. I haven't been on any of these
25 committees until we saw this, but most of these
1 will be located in a shopping center, won't
2 they? I mean, one of the units -- or is that
3 the way they are now or -- people aren't
4 building freestanding buildings for -- for these
5 arcades, are they?
6 MR. KELLY: There's no requirement to
7 locate in a shopping center. The facility that
8 I visited was down on
9 old restaurant that had been converted,
10 Barnhill's buffet restaurant, which is the
11 Allied Veterans' facility.
12 MR. D. BROWN: The distance issues, are
13 they known to be noisy or -- what are we dealing
14 with there?
15 MR. KELLY: Well, I've -- in the research
16 that I've done, you know, while most communities
17 at this point are actually making the facilities
18 and the Internet sweepstakes illegal in their
19 community, we're -- I mean, we're looking at it,
20 but -- they find -- I mean, there's a lot of
21 secondary effects that they find that are
22 nuisance related.
23 Again, these are operated 24 hours, the
24 potential for increased crime and domestic
25 disturbances, your spouse or whatever is out at
1 the -- you know, the sweepstakes entry promotion
2 hall till 2 or 3 a.m., so -- I mean, they
3 have -- the number of calls and the studies and
4 the things that have occurred have demonstrated
5 that there's an increase as it relates to that.
6 MR. D. BROWN: I think we -- there's so
7 many details being dealt with this, but the
8 morality part of it is -- I thought it had
9 already been decided we're going to permit them
10 or -- you know, to now try to tidy them up that
11 way seems a little awkward, but -- but I'll
12 listen to the rest of the debate.
13 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Brown.
14 Folks, we're going to have another public
15 hearing, so sit tight. I'm going to call y'all
16 back up. We're still in the prepublic hearing
17 portion of the debate.
18 Mr. Bishop.
19 MR. BISHOP: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
20 Mr. Kelly, I guess this is a little more
21 complicated than I thought on the distance
23 I want to summarize and tell me if I've got
24 this right. The bill as it's currently written
25 has a 750-foot distance restriction between
1 churches, schools, and military facilities in
2 both CCG-1 and CCG-2; is that correct?
3 MR. KELLY: Yes, that's correct.
4 MR. BISHOP: Okay. And the department is
5 advocating for either a 500-foot separation
6 between the use and residential or by exception
7 within -- prefer to have it by exception in
8 CCG-1 or a 500-foot distance requirement if it's
9 done by right; is that correct?
10 MR. KELLY: Yes, that's correct.
11 MR. BISHOP: Okay. I'm going to go back
12 to, I think, what Mr. Crescimbeni was talking
13 about. What about areas where you have CCG-2
14 adjacent to residential districts, which we have
15 in many places, why would it not be appropriate,
16 the distance separation, in those areas?
17 MR. KELLY: Well, I would probably defer to
18 legal in the same respects whereas -- you know,
19 we're typically required to have a use that is a
20 permissible use by right -- I mean, similar to
21 the way the adult entertainment is by right in
22 CCG-2, just allowing a use only through a zoning
23 exception. I don't know if that presents a
24 legal issue, but our recommendation, again --
25 because of the intensification and the uses that
1 could normally go in CCG-2 by right, which are
2 outdoor uses and such and more intense uses, it
3 seemed more poignant, I guess, to have it in
4 CCG-1, to have that concern. CCG-2 is
5 understood to be a much more intense zoning.
6 MR. BISHOP: Other provisions in the zoning
7 code which regulate distance, such as
8 establishments that serve alcohol, there are
9 distance requirements between schools and
10 churches, whether it's CCG-1 or CCG-2.
11 Now, I don't know whether they apply to
12 residential or not, but considering that we have
13 distance requirements for other things, why
14 would this not be -- why would this not be the
16 Maybe, Mr. Reingold, you could answer that
18 I mean, what's the difference between a
19 residential neighborhood next to CCG-1 as
20 opposed to CCG-2? What we're saying by that, by
21 default, is that a residential neighborhood
22 adjacent to CCG-2 is not as high quality as one
23 that's adjacent to CCG-1 and, therefore, we're
24 allowing more intrusive uses in a closer
25 environment. I mean, is that, in a sense, what
1 we're saying?
2 Because if these were uses that we would
3 universally adopt, why would we have distance
4 requirements at all? And so -- we do because of
5 incompatibility. And so my question is, why is
6 CCG-2 -- why isn't a residential neighborhood
7 adjacent to CCG-2 -- should it be afforded any
8 less protection than one adjacent to a CCG-1?
9 That's, I guess, the question for whoever
10 wants to take it.
11 MR. KELLY: I mean, obviously -- I mean,
12 goal 1 of the comp plan and the comp plan itself
13 is protection of residential neighborhoods and
14 character, so -- I mean, we don't disagree on
15 that point. I just wanted to point out -- and
16 Dylan brought to my attention the difference.
17 Even with the alcohol, we do allow alcohol in
18 conjunction with a restaurant in CCG-1 by
19 exception. In CCG-2, it's by right. So I just
20 wanted to point that out.
21 But there is a gradation or intensification
22 between the two districts and the discrepancy --
23 and typically when you're CCG-2, you would have
24 more of a -- there are instances, obviously,
25 where single-family immediately butts up to it,
1 but in most cases where there's CCG-2 there's a
2 transitional zoning district or land use that
3 buffers that CCG-2 from the residential.
4 MR. BISHOP: Would you agree that while it
5 is most, it is not all?
6 MR. KELLY: It certainly isn't all.
7 MR. BISHOP: And that some of those
8 conditions where it happens would -- are
9 conditions that have happened due to past
10 decisions and not those that would be allowed
11 today, usually?
12 MR. KELLY: Correct.
13 The department does not support,
14 historically, going to CCG-2 immediately
15 adjacent to residential. That would not be
16 something the department would look to
18 MR. BISHOP: Okay. Thank you very much.
19 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Bishop.
20 Mr. Holt.
21 MR. HOLT: (Inaudible.)
22 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay.
23 All right. Any other questions for
24 Mr. Kelly?
25 COMMITTEE MEMBERS: (No response.)
1 THE CHAIRMAN: All right. Then we are
2 going to -- is this quasi-judicial,
3 Mr. Reingold?
4 MR. REINGOLD: (Shakes head.)
5 THE CHAIRMAN: No. Okay.
6 All right. So we're going to go to the
7 public hearing. We'll start the public hearing
8 process over again.
9 We have a public hearing scheduled this
10 evening. The public hearing is open. I have
11 two speakers' cards. Again, Mr. Mann, followed
12 by Mr. Mathis.
13 (Mr. Mann approaches the podium.)
14 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Mann, are you lobbying
15 council members on this issue?
16 MR. MANN: I think I've talked to everybody
17 up here at least once, probably five times.
18 THE CHAIRMAN: Are you being compensated
19 for that?
20 MR. MANN: I'm sorry, sir?
21 THE CHAIRMAN: Are you being compensated
22 for that?
23 MR. MANN: Yes, sir, I am.
24 THE CHAIRMAN: I'm going to give this card
25 back to you and you can -- I assume you're
1 registered on that?
2 MR. MANN: Yes, sir, I am.
3 THE CHAIRMAN: You need to mark that card
4 accordingly, that you're a registered lobbyist,
5 so --
6 All right. Go ahead. If you'll begin with
7 your name and address again, please, and then
8 you can --
9 MR. MANN: Mr. Chairman, members of the
10 commission [sic], Charles Mann, 165
11 Road, representing the Allied Veterans.
12 I appreciate your indulgence in this
13 tonight. As you may know, this was before
14 Planning Commission last Thursday.
15 At that time, the planning staff read a
16 report. And in no time in my recollection of
17 it -- and maybe I missed something -- there was
18 any mention of an exception in CCG-1 for this
20 It was pointed out that this is probably
21 one of the most highly regulated bills that's
22 been before this council in some time. We deal
23 with background checks, we deal with location
24 criteria, we deal with who can work in these
25 places, we deal in restrictions of the sale of
1 alcohol in these locations, we deal with the age
2 of people who can come and go from these, and a
3 sundry of other things.
4 The Planning Department came out with a
5 recommendation of 500 feet from residential
6 properties. The only other activity that falls
7 under adult entertainment that has a distance
8 limitation from residential properties is an
9 establishment that offers complete nudity. You
10 can have a bikini club serve alcohol and there's
11 not a restriction against residential. You can
12 have a bar, it has no restriction against
13 residential. You can have a dog track, it has
14 no restriction against residential. You can
15 have an all-night restaurant, it has no
16 restriction against residential.
17 This is a very highly regulated industry.
18 Our facilities do not serve alcohol. We cater
19 basically to an elder clientele. These are more
20 social centers, like a Lions Club would be,
21 without alcohol, or an Elks club without alcohol
22 or a Woman's Club without alcohol. To put this
23 distance limitation on it is unreasonable,
25 We have -- we're willing to live with the
1 distance limitation of 700 feet from churches,
2 from schools, from military facilities, and we'd
3 respect that you would respect the wishes of
4 the -- or the view of the Planning Commission in
5 that they took out the requirement for the
6 500 feet from residential properties.
7 With that being said, I will stand by for
8 any questions that you may have.
9 Thank you.
10 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Mann.
11 Mr. Mann, I have a question for you. Are
12 the -- do the distance limitations apply to five
13 or less?
14 MR. MANN: I need to refer to legal counsel
15 on that. I would say yes.
16 THE CHAIRMAN: Anybody on our staff care to
17 answer that question? Five or less, do they --
18 MR. MANN: Mr. Crescimbeni, I'm getting a
19 heads up. Yes, it does.
20 MR. KELLY: Just to clarify, those are
21 termed the "de minimis" facilities.
22 THE CHAIRMAN: Do you concur that
23 there's -- the distance limitation applies to
24 the de minimis facilities?
25 MR. GABRIEL: Through the --
1 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Gabriel.
2 MR. GABRIEL: To the Chair, the answer is
3 yes, although it's related to a revision we're
4 going to be proposing, I believe, in a moment,
5 which I've distributed to the committee here.
6 It's labeled the "PHS Amendment."
7 Of course, earlier at PHS this was
8 deferred, so they're essentially -- and we can
9 get into it now or later, if you would like,
10 but --
11 THE CHAIRMAN: I just want an answer to the
12 question, if I could.
13 So the answer is yes, they are subject to
14 the distance limitation?
15 MR. GABRIEL: The answer is yes, that is
16 the intent, and with a clarification in this
17 proposed amendment.
18 The solid answer is yes.
19 THE CHAIRMAN: Do the de minimis locations,
20 are they operating -- or could they operate
21 24 hours and/or serve alcohol and are they
22 subject to background checks?
23 MR. GABRIEL: On page 30 in
24 Section 156.109(a), it deals with alcoholic
25 beverages, and what it states is that
1 establishments with ten or more pieces shall not
2 sell or permit. So the answer to your question
3 is establishments that have, I guess, nine or
4 less could sell alcohol.
5 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. And could they be
6 open for 24 hours?
7 MR. GABRIEL: Yes.
8 THE CHAIRMAN: And are they being subjected
9 to the background checks?
10 MR. GABRIEL: The background checks --
11 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Mann mentioned
12 backgrounds checks.
13 MR. GABRIEL: If you give me one moment
14 here, I can get the answer to that question.
15 THE CHAIRMAN: All right. We'll move on to
16 Councilman Dick Brown.
17 Question for Mr. Mann?
18 MR. D. BROWN: No.
19 THE CHAIRMAN: I'm sorry, Reggie Brown.
20 My cursor key was over the "R." I thought
21 it was a "D."
22 MR. R. BROWN: Yes. Through the Chair, and
23 I'm hoping Mr. Mann can answer this question or
25 How many sites currently will be impacted
1 if this recommendation of 500 feet is enforced?
2 MR. MANN: Mr. Brown, I'd have to say none
3 because they're all going to be grandfathered
5 MR. R. BROWN: Okay. So no one; is that
6 the answer?
7 MR. MANN: That's -- I'll stand to be
8 corrected, but that's my opinion as I understand
9 the bill before you.
10 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Reingold, would you
11 concur with that? That was one of the questions
12 on my list.
13 MR. REINGOLD: Yeah, and I will certainly
14 defer to Jason Gabriel on this issue, but it's
15 my understanding that under the bill you've got,
16 the establishments that are operating now, if
17 they are lawfully existing, then they are
18 grandfathered in, whether they meet the distance
19 requirements or not.
20 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Gabriel.
21 MR. GABRIEL: To answer your question, yes,
22 they would be grandfathered in for purposes of
23 zoning, including other zoning districts, and
24 for purposes of distance, yes.
25 And I do have an answer to your question
1 regarding the background checks.
2 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. Go ahead.
3 MR. GABRIEL: For the de minimis activity
4 facilities, the answer is no, they would not.
5 They would be exempt from this regulatory
6 framework. But just to remind the committee
7 what a de minimis activity facility is, it's a
8 501(c)(3) -- you know, exempt from federal
9 taxation -- establishment which has ten or fewer
10 of these machines which were in operation before
11 January 1st, 2010.
12 I know it's a little convoluted, but those
13 particular sorts of establishments would be
14 exempt from the background check. Anything
15 other than that --
16 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. Maybe, then, we're --
17 I'm not asking about the de minimis. I was
18 asking about the five or less, the series of
19 folks that we heard from at -- the past couple
20 of meetings that were concerned about these
21 things being in truck stops, bars, et cetera.
22 Are they -- obviously, you know, a bar --
23 if it's in a bar, five or less, they're going to
24 be serving alcohol, I would hope, are they
25 subject to the background checks and can't they
1 stay open for 24 hours?
2 MR. GABRIEL: Right now they are, but
3 the -- one of the proposed amendments would
4 carve them out of -- not the background checks
5 but a couple of other items, including a drop
6 safe and an armed security guard during
7 nighttime hours, but -- but the answer is yes.
8 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. Thank you, sir.
9 And, Mr. Mann, inasmuch as everyone is
10 going to be grandfathered in, please explain
11 your objection -- the foundation for your
12 objection on the distance limitation to
13 residential since it won't apply until the
14 number drops down below -- what is it, 20?
15 MR. MANN: Mr. Chairman, our objection
16 comes in the event that we're forced to move,
17 one location to another.
18 If a landlord feels like we're
19 grandfathered -- you know, that this is the only
20 location that we can be in, they have the
21 ability to hold us hostage as far as rents,
22 services, et cetera, et cetera, and we're trying
23 to deal in a fair enterprise system where we've
24 got the ability to move the location if we're
25 not happy, if it's not successful, or the rents
1 get to high to make it unprofitable.
2 THE CHAIRMAN: When you say move the
3 location, are you talking about maybe, like,
4 moving from --
5 MR. MANN: One side of the street to the
6 other or --
7 THE CHAIRMAN: What about one side of town
8 to the other?
9 MR. MANN: Conceivably you could move from
10 one side of town to the other, but basically,
11 you know, you want to stay in a neighborhood.
12 These are somewhat neighborhood oriented. You
13 have -- you really don't have people driving
14 across town to come to them. They're more of a
15 neighborhood orientation, like -- almost like a
16 Lions Club or a Woman's Club or something of
17 that nature.
18 THE CHAIRMAN: Do you think the average
19 citizen that lives in Mandarin is going to
20 comprehend the fact that there's a cap on these
21 and -- one moves one day from the Westside over
22 to Mandarin or vice versa, do you think that's
23 going to --
24 MR. MANN: I don't think that's going to
25 have --
1 THE CHAIRMAN: -- resonate --
2 MR. MANN: -- any effect. I think it's
3 going to be more like a social club where they
4 reach a comfort level of where they're going.
5 They have their friends that they're going to
6 see on a regular basis and they're going to be
7 more at home in a place that they're comfortable
8 in, and that's the one they're going to go back
9 to, not to say a new one might not catch on
10 because they have better hors d'oeuvres or
11 something like that, but --
12 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Mann.
13 Mr. Holt has a question.
14 MR. HOLT: Thank you.
15 Through the chair to, I guess, Mr. Reingold
16 or Mr. Gabriel. I'm sorry, but I was not aware
17 of these changes having to do with the smaller
18 providers of five or fewer. Is this something
19 that just happened in the last week, that this
20 was added?
21 MR. REINGOLD: (Nods head.)
22 MR. GABRIEL: Through the Chair to --
23 MR. HOLT: What's the purpose in allowing
24 alcohol with the gaming in the -- five or
1 MR. GABRIEL: Actually, the way that the
2 ordinance has been subbed and rereferred a few
3 weeks ago has always contained this provision
4 that alcoholic beverages may not be sold in
5 premises with ten -- on any premises with ten or
6 more pieces, I'm sorry. So premises that have
7 nine or less may be able to sell it. Those have
8 been -- that provision has been in the ordinance
9 all along.
10 This provision regarding the five or less
11 operators, those -- there are specific
12 provisions that those sorts of establishments
13 would be exempt from, and I can go through those
14 if you'd like, but -- but the provision for
15 alcoholic beverages has been there all along.
16 MR. HOLT: Okay. The change with the five
17 or fewer is -- just exempt them from some of the
19 MR. GABRIEL: Yes.
20 MR. HOLT: Okay.
21 All right. Thank you.
22 THE CHAIRMAN: Councilman Reggie Brown.
23 MR. R. BROWN: Yes. Through the Chair, and
24 this question is probably more directed to
1 Understanding that this 500 feet, everyone
2 is basically going to be grandfathered in, does
3 Planning still have the position of implementing
4 the 500 feet for future usage?
5 MR. KELLY: Well, as it -- I guess as it
6 relates to the grandfathering -- I'm sorry,
7 could you repeat --
8 MR. R. BROWN: Basically, in short is that
9 we're going to grandfather everyone in. And I
10 know that your position -- and we try to support
11 the Planning Department because you guys,
12 basically you're the eyes of the city to make
13 sure that we maintain a beautiful city and
14 everybody is on the same level, so basically --
15 My question is, you know, since everyone is
16 going to be grandfathered in as it stands right
17 now, Planning position, is it still the same, to
18 pursue a recommendation of 500 feet, limitation
19 for residents?
20 MR. KELLY: Given that, I mean, the
21 facilities are there and existing -- I did have
22 a question for Dylan as it relates to the
23 facilities to determine -- is the City's view of
24 the grandfathered facilities, are those --
25 obviously, it said those that were operating as
1 of April, I believe, when the bill -- prior to
2 the bill being introduced. Were those
3 facilities issued certificates of use? Is that
4 a binding component as -- in terms of going back
5 to a date specific as when they commenced the
6 use or is it -- do we take it on their word that
7 they existed prior to that or how would we
8 demonstrate the actual grandfather? I just have
9 a question about that.
10 But to get more specific to your point, the
11 department, given the existing facility's
12 location, the 500 foot rule and grandfathering,
13 that provision, obviously we can't come back and
14 make them apply for something that they're
15 already grandfathered and vested for.
16 The issue, you know, primarily deals with
17 the ability to transfer at some point in the
18 future, but the department, you know, we would
19 be okay if that 750 foot rule applied basically
20 to both types of facilities, the de minimis
21 activity facilities, to keep that 750 feet from
22 churches and schools and military installations,
23 and that would -- that would -- we've done some
24 minimal type of analysis, and that would -- that
25 would solve a lot of our issues as well.
1 MR. R. BROWN: Okay. My second question --
2 I did hear about costs and one of the reasons to
3 not implement the 500 foot rule is that it will
4 basically handcuff, Mr. Chairman, folk from
5 renting or leasing. And I guess I have a
6 concern about that because we all know that in
7 some areas the cost of real estate is a little
8 higher than others, and I'm wondering now
9 whether or not we're going to limit the number
10 of sites to an area of town, you know, because
11 if the real estate becomes so enormous on the
12 Northside that folk just can't afford to have a
13 site there, although they have a license, so do
14 everybody now run to the
15 it's more cost effective? Have we considered --
16 when we start talking about transferring?
17 Because we hate to saturate just one area of
18 town with those machines.
19 Go ahead.
20 MR. KELLY: Thank you.
21 Through the Chair, we have CCG-1 and -2 all
22 over town. We did some preliminary analyses and
23 views of this in terms of number of parcels and
25 Given the limitation of 20, I believe when
1 the initial analysis came out, it was over 1,800
2 parcels in the city that qualified and met those
3 requirements. So we think, you know, there's a
4 fair number of available parcels for them to go
5 to within, you know, all of the city, and
6 they're not specifically located in any one
7 area. You do have your major corridors,
8 obviously, within the older, urbanized area. As
9 you get out a little further, you know, you have
10 the ring of PUDs around the city and -- but
11 within primarily your older urbanized area --
12 Southside, Regency,
15 corridors where, you know -- but it's
16 distributed evenly throughout the city.
17 MR. R. BROWN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
18 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Brown.
19 Mr. Gabriel, did you have a comment to --
20 or did you want to respond to the question that
21 was asked by Mr. Kelly earlier?
22 MR. GABRIEL: Sure.
23 I think there was a question regarding the
24 grandfathering date. And, again, this is
25 another item I guess when we get to this point
1 to clean up throughout the ordinance through --
2 hopefully, through an amendment.
3 The way that the ordinance reads now
4 regarding the grandfathering of these permits is
5 that within 60 days of enactment of this
6 ordinance all operators operating and who have
7 been operating for the previous 90 days prior to
8 enactment of this ordinance, which would be
9 sometime -- beginning of August, will have the
10 right to obtain a valid permit pursuant to this,
11 so essentially they'd be grandfathered in.
12 One of the things that the proposed
13 amendment will do is make consistent that
14 grandfathering date throughout the ordinance
15 because we also have a date for when you're
16 grandfathered in for purposes of a zoning
17 district, and right now the date being proposed
18 is August 9th, which is approximately 90 days
19 prior to the potential approval of this
20 ordinance, but I guess I can clarify and go
21 through all this once we get to that amendment.
22 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Gabriel, were any
23 facilities allowed to open between the
24 introduction of this bill on August 9th?
25 MR. GABRIEL: I guess the answer would be
1 yes because my understanding is the bill was
2 introduced, I believe, in April, around that
3 time. I know it was subbed and rereferred
4 several weeks ago. And if we're going to use
5 the August 9th date, then probably the answer to
6 that question is yes.
7 THE CHAIRMAN: But you're not sure?
8 MR. GABRIEL: I'm not sure.
9 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. And what constitutes
10 validity for being in businesses prior to
11 August 9th when they come in to get their
13 MR. GABRIEL: That's a fact-based question,
14 which would be, I guess, contingent on many
15 pieces of evidence that they could provide.
16 Perhaps I -- I believe a lot of these
17 establishments -- because we don't currently
18 have the regulatory framework citywide, they --
19 I'm willing to assume that a lot of them haven't
20 issued certificates of use or certain other, you
21 know, permits or approvals or other possible
22 ways of proving that.
23 It's a good question --
24 THE CHAIRMAN: Well, I'd rather it be one
25 that was addressed objectively than
1 subjectively, so perhaps you can be thinking
2 about how -- you know, what we can include in an
3 amendment to list what would qualify as -- I
4 mean, if someone just walks in and says, "Yeah,"
5 I mean, how are we to -- I mean, how are we
6 going to verify that? So be thinking about
8 MR. GABRIEL: Sure.
9 THE CHAIRMAN: All right. Mr. Bishop.
10 MR. BISHOP: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
11 The question -- I think this may be a
12 question for Dylan with respect to the comments
13 that Mr. Mann made.
14 What exactly are we grandfathering, the
15 existing site or the existing business owner's
16 use? Meaning if a site is grandfathered, what
17 happens -- well, I guess that's my question.
18 Does the owner of a particular number of
19 these facilities have the ability to move them
20 around the city at will and still be
21 grandfathered in because they owned a business
22 that operated such prior to the specific date?
23 MR. GABRIEL: Okay. The -- Jason Gabriel,
24 through the Chair to Councilman Bishop, there is
25 a provision in the ordinance as it stands now.
1 It's under section -- just give me a moment
2 here -- 156.106(K)(2). I believe it's on
3 page 28 or so -- which states that permits may
4 be transferred to another premise, but that
5 premise would have to be -- it would have to be
6 an approved zoning district, and so -- let's put
7 it this way: If it's a use that's grandfathered
8 in in a particular premise as it stands today,
9 in order to be transferred to another premise,
10 that other premise would have to meet all of the
11 current zoning requirements, you know, whether
12 it's the 750 feet, whether it's the 500 feet
13 rule with respect to residential zoning
14 districts, comes into effect.
15 So I guess to -- sort of a long-winded way
16 to answer the question is they would be
17 grandfathered where they are today. They would
18 not be grandfathered in if they were to transfer
19 to another premise. Those premises would have
20 to meet the standards that are set forth in this
21 ordinance that we're approving.
22 MR. BISHOP: Okay. With respect -- okay.
23 I understand that part, but with respect to the
24 numbers, the bill says that those that exist
25 today are grandfathered in, but at some point
1 there's a cap of 20 so that if some of these go
2 away, they're not allowed to replicate, but if
3 you have -- but that tells me, then, that if you
4 have an existing license to operate one, you can
5 move that around to suit yourself, which would
6 mean -- which would mean the total number would
7 not fall below 20 until such time as some of the
8 existing operators decided to permanently close
9 a site; is that correct?
10 MR. GABRIEL: That is correct, yes.
11 And actually the provision right before
12 this one, Provision (K)(1), in the ordinance, it
13 reads, "transfer to another entity." That may
14 be what -- I believe what you're referring to.
15 Right now there's a prohibition on
16 transferring permits, period. One of the items
17 contemplated in this proposed amendment is to
18 allow a onetime transfer because we get into --
19 and we could get into this if you'd like, but
20 some issues pertaining to the pecuniary value of
21 the permit. One way to handle that is to just
22 allow transferability.
23 I understand that a big function of this
24 ordinance is to stop the proliferation and, if
25 anything, reduce the permits eventually to 20,
Diane M. Tropia,
1 so a way to, I guess, attack that would be to
2 perhaps allow for a onetime transfer, but,
3 again, eventually, you know, with a goal that it
4 would go away at some point.
5 MR. BISHOP: Thank you.
6 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Gabriel, you're saying
7 the transfer of the ownership is prohibited by
8 (K)(1) on page 27; is that what you're saying?
9 MR. GABRIEL: Right now the way that the
10 ordinance reads, yes, correct.
11 THE CHAIRMAN: But is there a limitation to
12 the transfer of the -- to a different site? I
13 don't see that limitation. Where is that
15 MR. GABRIEL: Right now there is no
16 limitation on being -- and that's the next
17 section, Section 2. There is no prohibition on
18 transferring to another site. The only --
19 THE CHAIRMAN: So as long as the ownership
20 stayed the same, they could continually move?
21 MR. GABRIEL: Exactly.
22 THE CHAIRMAN: Well, what constitutes
23 closure? What constitutes the number today,
24 whatever it is, 53 -- what's the number, 56,
1 MR. MANN: I'm not sure anybody knows the
2 exact number, but that should be an approximate
4 THE CHAIRMAN: Let's say it's 56. What
5 constitutes going from 56 to 55? What does that
6 56th unit have to do to be no longer on the
7 radar screen as a viable operating location?
8 Would it have to be closed for a certain amount
9 of time? Do they have to be --
10 MR. KELLY: I mean, I would say if they
11 become in violation of their permitting
12 requirements, 155 and 156, through the eyes of
13 JSO, as the enforcing agency, for that, that --
14 THE CHAIRMAN: You would say that or you
15 know for a fact that's the case?
16 MR. KELLY: I don't know if that's the
17 case, but --
18 THE CHAIRMAN: Well, I'm -- with all due
19 respect, I'm trying to avoid speculation here,
20 so if we could get a specific answer on that --
21 I mean, if they close for a week and go on
22 vacation, does that -- do they go away? If they
23 close for a month --
24 MR. KELLY: Just from the zoning
25 standpoint, if the use ceases for a period of
1 more than six months and we date that based upon
2 electrical usage as it relates -- we pull
3 electric meter billage [sic] through JEA. So if
4 it ceases for more than six months, then the use
5 is lost.
6 THE CHAIRMAN: And what's your definition
7 of "electric ceasage [sic]"? Is that just a
8 lower monthly bill or no electric consumption?
9 I mean --
10 MR. KELLY: No. It's based on actual
11 usage. So if you see an established pattern of
12 usage for the last year and then it drops at a
13 certain month to -- you know, a significant
14 amount, then -- then that's what we have
15 historically used as a --
16 THE CHAIRMAN: That sounds very subjective.
17 Mr. Gabriel, do you have anything else to
18 add to that?
19 MR. GABRIEL: I mean, it's certainly a good
20 point from a zoning perspective, what Mr. Kelly
21 is bringing up. I mean, there's a provision in
22 there right now in reference to zoning and the
23 use, that after six months -- and that's in
24 there now, but right now the way the ordinance
25 reads, no, there is no provision for how we
1 would objectively determine the termination or
2 expiration of a permit. So if that's something
3 that this committee would like to add, we can
4 certainly entertain that and --
5 THE CHAIRMAN: All right. Thank you.
6 Only speaking as one member of the
7 committee, I am a lot further away from voting
8 for this than I was when I sat down tonight, but
9 you wanted to bring this up and we're going to
10 plow through it unless there's objections, but I
11 am -- I am more uncomfortable now about what I'm
12 hearing than I was when I came in here this
13 morning -- or this afternoon, and I really am
14 concerned about this bill at the moment, so --
15 Mr. Redman, you're next on the queue.
16 MR. REDMAN: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
17 Whoever can answer this. The mom and pop
18 places that came before us that wanted -- had
19 the use of these things in their, you know,
20 small establishments -- and I understand that
21 they, you know, would allow children to come
22 into these establishments, children -- grown
23 children to work in their establishments. Was
24 this something that was amended into this? And,
25 if so, how was it amended in? Or is it just
1 part of the bill now that we have to consider as
2 a whole?
3 Mr. Gabriel, I guess --
4 MR. GABRIEL: Sure.
5 Through the Chair to Councilman Redman, one
6 of the -- this has not been amended yet. One of
7 the things in the proposed amendment before you
8 and in that summary is to allow for operators
9 of -- or establishments that have five or less
10 machines to only allow the employment of minors
11 in such facilities because I guess there could
12 be establishments such as restaurants and
13 whatnot that employ minors, so the proposed
14 amendment would allow minors only in those
15 establishments that have five or less operators
16 and the minors would only be allowed in there
17 for purposes of employment.
18 MR. REDMAN: Okay. These would be
19 establishments that might be serving alcohol as
21 MR. GABRIEL: Well, yes, because the
22 alcoholic establishment prohibition is for ten
23 or more, establishments that have ten or more
24 machines, so it's conceivable that you'd have an
25 establishment that had, you know, five or less
1 machines and that sold alcohol. It's possible.
2 MR. REDMAN: Okay. Thank you.
3 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Redman, as I understand
4 it -- and Mr. Mann can correct me if I'm
5 wrong -- the original draft, I guess, that's
6 actually before us, notwithstanding the
7 amendment that's also on the desk, the original
8 draft called for all kinds of things that these
9 operators had to do, on-site security, a drop
10 safe, a huge licensing fee of like -- what was
11 it, $40 a day or something?
12 MR. MANN: Not $40 a day. I believe it's
13 $50 a machine, $2,000 for a premise, and $500
14 for a permit.
15 THE CHAIRMAN: And some of the smaller
16 users objected, and I guess there's an amendment
17 now to kind of reduce some of those because it
18 was going to pretty much put them out of
19 business, so they've objected. And there's an
20 amendment to kind of do away with some of those
21 requirements and lower those amounts of payments
22 so that they can stay in, but that's not in the
23 bill presently. That's in the amendment form.
24 Councilman Reggie Brown.
25 MR. R. BROWN: Yes. Through the Chair,
1 this question comes up dealing with the -- the
2 current number of applications filed in order to
3 open up one of these facilities right now. I
4 think that, from what I'm hearing, it's -- it's
6 Yes, sir.
7 MR. KELLY: I can respond to that.
8 I believe -- given the number of facilities
9 that currently exist, essentially we would not
10 allow a new place to open without having the
11 license and the permit issued through the
12 sheriff's office, which met the distance
14 Basically, the -- we wouldn't have any new
15 ones open up until the number gets below 20.
16 MR. R. BROWN: Right. I understand.
17 MR. KELLY: Okay.
18 MR. R. BROWN: But today do we have any
19 applications out there right now that's seeking
20 to open up one of these facilities?
21 MR. KELLY: I have instructed the zoning
22 counter basically to cease any kind of issuance
23 of any certificate of uses for new facilities
24 that would attempt to come in.
25 Now, whether or not businesses have opened
1 in the meantime, that may be the case. It's not
2 until typically after somebody pays for an
3 occupational license to the tax collector that
4 the zoning counter becomes informed of new
5 occupational licenses and businesses, and so
6 there's a -- there's a little delay in that
7 information coming from the tax collector's
8 office to the zoning counter, at which point the
9 zoning counter then initiates a letter to all
10 these businesses for them to obtain a
11 certificate of use and be evaluated as to
12 consistency for zoning. So there's probably
13 about a six- to eight-month delay, so I don't
14 know how many -- probably the tax collector
15 would be the best person.
16 And the names -- unfortunately, the names
17 of the different facilities vary significantly,
18 so there's not, like, a -- it's not a square peg
19 you can put in -- put them all in.
20 MR. R. BROWN: I understand.
21 And the second question -- because I
22 understand that -- in terms of determining the
23 date, we looked at August 9th, 2010,
24 Mr. Chairman -- you know, I think I heard fact
25 finding as -- so -- which, to me -- I guess it
1 goes in a direction of a legal concern. If
2 challenged -- if an applicant wanted to
3 challenge the fact -- because I know if they're
4 a 501(c)(3), if they have a recorded meeting,
5 just say today's date, that they had a recorded
6 meeting, it was a discussion about implementing
7 a plan, does that constitute, you know, being
8 eligible or would that kind of take us down the
9 direction -- or -- of being challenged in
10 court? And then would that put our counsel in
11 the posture of defending the proposed date of
12 implementation looking at August 9th, 2010? How
13 would that -- that work?
14 MR. REINGOLD: Well, I think -- as
15 Mr. Gabriel stated, I mean, it would be a
16 fact-based question, and obviously Mr. Gabriel
17 stated, you know, if you guys wanted to give
18 some guidance to the Planning and Development
19 Department as to what facts you want them to
20 consider or look at, I mean, some of the things
21 could be as if they have receipts, if they have
22 a COU, and any other documented evidence that
23 they have been operating these machines on their
24 premise since August 9th, 2010.
25 Essentially, it would fall -- and
1 Mr. Gabriel can correct me if I'm wrong. He's
2 worked this bill much more than I have -- is --
3 under the zoning code, the Planning and
4 Development Department would sort of be the sort
5 of enforcer and administrator of the code in
6 determination of whether it met, you know,
7 the -- had the evidence or it was open by a
8 certain date.
9 MR. R. BROWN: Okay. Mr. Chairman, would
10 it be better -- to the best interest of the
11 city, then, to move the date forward to give
12 folks -- applicants the opportunity to apply?
13 That way we can say that we did due
14 diligence versus backdating this to August 9th,
15 moving it forward and everyone that's interested
16 in applying would have that opportunity,
17 because, like we stated, we -- we really don't
18 know the number of folks that have an
19 application on file or have initiated any
21 MR. REINGOLD: To the council member, I
22 don't think there's an application process that
23 exists today, so there's no way for someone to
24 apply for this type of establishment.
25 MR. KELLY: I think the issue is -- the
1 department, whether it's JSO or another
2 department of the City, as Dylan said, is going
3 to evaluate whether or not they existed and were
4 operating legitimately prior to the August
6 Now, whether or not 30 or 40 or 50 of those
7 come forward and demonstrate that, effectively
8 all of those are grandfathered. However, I
9 believe -- my understanding is we're only
10 issuing 20 permits, so they may get a permit for
11 that location, while, in effect, if we've got
12 more than 20 that are out there, the other ones
13 that are out there are not necessarily going to
14 get a permit. They're just going to be
16 MR. R. BROWN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
17 THE CHAIRMAN: Now, that -- I'm not sure I
18 understand that, based on my reading of the
20 You're telling me that the first 20 that
21 come in will get a permit and the other 33 or 36
22 don't get anything?
23 MR. REINGOLD: That's not true.
24 THE CHAIRMAN: All right. You know --
25 all right. We're still in public hearing,
1 believe it or not.
2 Any other questions for Mr. Mann?
3 COMMITTEE MEMBERS: (No response.)
4 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Mann, you've done a
5 great job answering all these questions,
6 outstanding job.
7 MR. MANN: Thank you very much. I've had
8 more than capable legal counsel.
9 THE CHAIRMAN: Any other questions for
10 Mr. Mann in the public hearing?
11 COMMITTEE MEMBERS: (No response.)
12 THE CHAIRMAN: All right. Thank you,
13 Mr. Mann.
14 MR. MANN: Thank you.
15 THE CHAIRMAN: Did you check your card and
16 turn it back in?
17 MR. MANN: Yes, sir.
18 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. Thank you.
19 Our next speaker's card is Kelly Mathis.
20 (Mr. Mathis approaches the podium.)
21 MR. MATHIS: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
22 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Mathis, are you a
23 registered lobbyist on this issue?
24 MR. MATHIS: Yes. Yes, sir.
25 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. You need to check
1 your card as well.
2 MR. MATHIS: I apologize for not filling
3 that in completely.
4 THE CHAIRMAN: Go ahead.
5 MR. MATHIS: Okay. Kelly Mathis, 1200
6 Riverplace Boulevard, representing Allied
8 Let me address, first, the -- this 500 feet
9 issue, and I want to make sure that it's
10 absolutely clear.
11 That 500 feet restriction was floated and
12 voted down by the Planning Commission, and
13 there's several reasons why.
14 Yes, I recognize that every location
15 existing now is grandfathered in, but, by our
16 analysis, if any of those locations try to move,
17 for instance, on
18 one of the locations -- several locations exist,
19 there is only one section of University
20 Boulevard that would meet the criteria of that
21 restriction. That is the section between
23 and I-95, a place where there is rundown motels,
24 where there are strip clubs.
25 You are basically going to be subjecting an
1 Internet center -- Internet centers that are
2 usually in a strip center to a restriction that
3 no other business that operates 24 hours has,
4 that no other business that sells alcohol --
5 and -- and the ones over ten don't have alcohol
6 at all -- that no other business in the city is
7 going to be restricted.
8 You're going to be putting them in the same
9 class as full-frontal nudity, which is just
10 absolutely restricting them to a very narrow
11 section of town and creating the very situation
12 that I don't even think that the Planning
13 Department wants to have, and so you need to
14 recognize that a lot of these locations are in
15 strip centers. The strip centers are facing
16 commercial thoroughfares. They may back up
17 very, very closely to residential neighborhoods,
18 but those are in the back of the strip center.
19 The activity that these centers have, it's
20 in the front of the center, it's not in the
21 back. So by restricting them in this way is
22 going to be very, very burdensome and prevent
23 their ability to move virtually at all within
24 the city.
25 Now, the number of permits will reduce by
1 attrition. First they have to meet the initial
2 criteria of the application and the regulation.
3 There's quite a few of them that we think won't
4 be able to meet that criteria. That's going to
5 result in that initial reduction of permits and
6 locations that has been the concern of the
7 council, the concern of Councilman Hyde from the
8 get-go, then you're going to have reduction by
9 attrition. When businesses close, when people
10 retire and close their businesses, that's going
11 to give the reduction over time.
12 So we think there are mechanisms in place,
13 there are heavy regulations in place, there are
14 provisions for smaller operations. If you
15 impose the first -- for instance -- I'm sorry,
16 my time is up. I'm open for questions.
17 THE CHAIRMAN: You can finish your
19 MR. MATHIS: Okay. If you impose those
20 distance restrictions, you're going to have more
21 restrictive requirements than even convenience
22 stores, gas stations. These places are
23 community services where people sometimes go at
24 3 o'clock in the morning to get on the Internet
25 because they can't sleep. It's simply an
1 unworkable proposal.
2 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Mathis.
3 The original bill didn't allow them to move
4 at all, correct?
5 MR. MATHIS: The original bill, I think,
6 did allow them -- well, the original bill
7 allowed them not to exist at all.
8 THE CHAIRMAN: Right. So they couldn't
9 move, then.
10 MR. MATHIS: They couldn't move, they
11 couldn't exist at all.
12 THE CHAIRMAN: And if we ever fall below
13 20, what's the mechanism in the bill to issue
14 whatever is below 20 in new permits? Is there a
16 MR. MATHIS: Yeah. There is a mechanism
17 that permits -- new permits cannot be issued
18 until the number drops below 20.
19 THE CHAIRMAN: I understand that.
20 The question is, what's the mechanism to
21 issue the new permit -- it drops from 20 to 19,
22 who gets the 20th permit?
23 MR. MATHIS: There's an application
24 process, and that application, the first person
25 that files the application when it drops to 19
1 is the next in line for the permit, and the
2 applications have to be renewed annually.
3 THE CHAIRMAN: Well, that's a process that
4 I personally wouldn't trust, then, because
5 there's going to be inside knowledge.
6 Somebody's going to get to the door first or
7 somebody's going to know somebody and their
8 application is going to get dated or put to the
9 top of the stack, and I think that's grossly
11 What about a lottery procedure, would you
12 be amenable to that?
13 MR. MATHIS: No objection to that at all.
14 THE CHAIRMAN: How about an auction?
15 MR. MATHIS: The goal -- if it benefits the
16 City and the City wants to raise money, I guess,
17 by doing it and they have that kind of perceived
18 value --
19 THE CHAIRMAN: Do you ever perceive
20 shenanigans in the City government?
21 MR. MATHIS: I hope not, but --
22 THE CHAIRMAN: I didn't ask you that.
23 I said, do you perceive any? That's a
24 yes-or-no question.
25 MR. MATHIS: I -- it's possible.
1 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay.
2 MR. MATHIS: It's possible.
3 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. I think it would be
4 really possible with something like this at
5 stake, so --
6 All right. Any questions for Mr. Mathis?
7 COMMITTEE MEMBERS: (No response.)
8 THE CHAIRMAN: All right. Thank you,
9 Mr. Mathis. Don't go far.
10 Was there another speaker card that had
11 come in?
12 MS. DAVIS: Yes.
13 THE CHAIRMAN: And, Mr. Mathis, if you'll
14 check your card --
15 MR. MATHIS: Oh, I'm sorry.
16 THE CHAIRMAN: -- and return it, please.
17 Laurie Lee.
18 (Audience member approaches the podium.)
19 AUDIENCE MEMBER: Hi, Mr. Chairman.
20 Laurie Lee,
21 Suite 902.
22 I too represent Allied Veterans.
23 I wanted to speak because I personally
24 appeared before the Planning Commission, and
25 they had virtually the exact same discussion
1 we're having tonight, with one major difference,
2 and that was the presence of Councilmember Hyde,
3 who addressed many of the concerns that -- these
4 concerns he addressed in the Planning Commission
5 and specifically addressed many of the Planning
6 Department's concerns in this manner: He said
7 many of those concerns are policy issues.
8 (Mr. Hyde enters the proceedings.)
9 MS. LEE: Perfect timing. I couldn't have
10 asked for better, so I will defer to
11 Councilmember Hyde.
12 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Hyde, welcome.
13 What excellent timing.
14 (Mr. Hyde approaches the podium.)
15 MR. HYDE: Can I go home now,
16 Mr. Crescimbeni?
17 THE CHAIRMAN: I was hoping you were going
18 to let us go home. I thought you were going
19 to --
20 MR. HYDE: Well, we can do that with a
21 quick, affirmative vote.
22 I apologize for being late. I was in
23 another meeting.
24 THE CHAIRMAN: And you're welcome to come
25 and sit up here if you'd like.
1 MR. HYDE: That's fine, whatever.
2 What questions specifically do you want me
3 to address or -- that have been raised? I don't
4 want to repeat.
5 THE CHAIRMAN: Well, this bill was
6 originally deferred this evening. Some of the
7 folks in the audience wanted us to take it up.
8 We kind of have bobbled it a little bit as we've
9 walked through this process.
10 We're in the public hearing right now, and
11 I guess we've gotten off on a discussion about
12 perhaps -- at the Planning Department's
13 recommendation, some distance limitations with
14 regard to CCG-2 and CCG-1 zoning where it
15 relates to nearby residential properties.
16 MR. HYDE: Let me --
17 THE CHAIRMAN: Ms. Lee was just stating, as
18 you probably were coming down the hall, that the
19 Planning Commission dealt with this issue as
20 well and rejected it based on your attendance
21 at --
22 MR. HYDE: Yeah. Let me go ahead and just
23 give you real briefly kind of the -- the
24 rationale behind that.
25 And, as all of you know, because you --
1 you're on various other committees, this bill
2 has had kind of a tortured history from its
3 original intent, which is mine, and some of your
4 cosponsors, to -- to ban, if possible, the
5 complete use of these machines throughout Duval
7 For various reasons, I think we have now
8 reached a point of compromise that's acceptable
9 to my stated goal, which was, if not eliminate,
10 certainly greatly proscribe and limit the number
11 of these machines.
12 One of the things that we have to consider
13 that this bill does and in which I told the
14 Planning Commission, at least in my
15 seven-and-a-half years, I think it's somewhat --
16 it's probably the only time we've gone to this
17 level of regulation on a particular industry
18 without outright banning it, and that -- that is
19 one of the reasons that I feel more comfortable
20 not imposing some of the distance limitations
21 that the Planning Commission -- or the -- some
22 of the planning staff had recommended, in which
23 the Planning Commission had rejected as a
25 For instance, in the larger facilities you
1 have armed security requirements; you have drop
2 safe requirements; you have signage, both
3 interior and exterior, which I think deals with
4 the issue of precisely the type of activity
5 which is going on there that regulates it. It
6 is not gambling, but on the same token it does
7 not allow a person to believe that they are
8 going to be engaged in a gambling-type
10 Many of these facilities, as you know,
11 particularly, again, the larger ones, have moved
12 into what have been previously abandoned
13 buildings. The larger ones require very large
14 spaces, like a Barnhill's Country Cafe, I forget
15 some of the other ones. And to some degree,
16 they have fulfilled a useful purpose, which is
17 going into a place -- instead of having an
18 abandoned building, you have some activity.
19 You note that this substitute that we are
20 currently considering has a place for bars and
21 pool halls already which are existing, and one
22 of the reasons for them being in there and why
23 we crafted that very narrow exception as to the
24 number of machines is because, frankly, it
25 provides revenue that allows these places to
1 keep open. It was never my intent to put people
2 out of a job or to shut our businesses because
3 that has a -- as we all know, another very
4 adverse effect.
5 So that was some of the reasons that I
6 argued against some of the limitations and
7 restrictions that were suggested by the Planning
9 One of the things, I think, that the
10 Planning Commission -- not to speak for them,
11 but at least as I heard their comments -- that
12 motivated them to reject those was the fact that
13 because of the very intense regulation, the
14 requirements -- the distance requirements,
15 et cetera, aren't necessary. Because we're so
16 tightly prescribing what they are otherwise
17 allowed to do and where that activity goes on,
18 it is in a very secure environment; no alcohol,
19 no minors on premises except in the case of very
20 small establishments where only an employee who
21 is a minor could be present.
22 So that was, I think, some of the -- the
23 nature of the discussion that went on at the
24 Planning Commission, which ultimately, I think,
25 led to their decision.
1 Any questions in particular?
2 THE CHAIRMAN: Any questions for Mr. Hyde?
3 Mr. Brown.
4 MR. R. BROWN: No, not for Mr. Hyde.
5 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Hyde.
6 We appreciate you coming in.
7 MR. HYDE: Thank you.
8 Sorry about being late, guys.
9 THE CHAIRMAN: And if you want to take a
10 seat up here, there may be some questions --
11 MR. HYDE: Okay.
12 THE CHAIRMAN: -- unless you're --
13 MR. HYDE: Sure.
14 THE CHAIRMAN: All right. Anyone else care
15 to address the committee?
16 AUDIENCE MEMBERS: (No response.)
17 THE CHAIRMAN: Ms. Lee, were you finished?
18 MS. LEE: Yes, Mr. Chair.
19 THE CHAIRMAN: All right. Anyone else care
20 to address the committee?
21 AUDIENCE MEMBERS: (No response.)
22 THE CHAIRMAN: All right. Seeing no one,
23 then, the public hearing is closed and we're
24 back in committee.
25 Mr. Holt.
1 MR. HOLT: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
2 Hearing all this tonight, I'm catching a
3 lot of it for the first time. And, at this
4 point, I'm not comfortable with this amendment,
5 but I would like to offer an opportunity for us
6 to defer this. If the majority of the committee
7 would like to defer it, I would like to take
8 this back and talk to some folks about the
9 particulars of this amendment because at this
10 point I'm not comfortable with it.
11 THE CHAIRMAN: Are you offering a motion to
12 defer it?
13 MR. HOLT: Yes. I'm offering a motion to
15 THE CHAIRMAN: Is there a second to the
17 MR. R. BROWN: Second.
18 THE CHAIRMAN: Second by Mr. Brown.
19 Any discussion on the motion?
20 I'm sorry, Reggie Brown. This other one --
21 see, his wife calls him Richard, and I see
22 the "R," and I'm thinking, which Brown is that,
23 so --
24 All right. Motion by Mr. Holt, second by
25 Councilman Reggie Brown.
1 Discussion on the motion?
2 COMMITTEE MEMBERS: (No response.)
3 THE CHAIRMAN: If not, all those in -- do
4 we have to put this on the board or just voice?
5 MS. LAHMEUR: Voice.
6 THE CHAIRMAN: All those in favor say yes.
7 COMMITTEE MEMBERS: Yes.
8 THE CHAIRMAN: Opposed say no.
9 COMMITTEE MEMBERS: (No response.)
10 THE CHAIRMAN: By our action, we have
11 deferred this bill.
12 Now, let me say this: I'm going to reopen
13 the public hearing and we will continue it until
14 November 16th, and we'll take this item up first
15 at our November 16th meeting.
16 What I would like is for someone from the
17 group that's out there in the audience today to
18 come up to the podium and give us a -- you know,
19 whatever time you need, ten, fifteen minutes --
20 a history on where we are today and where you
21 want us to go with regard to this amendment. I
22 think that would be very helpful, to kind of
23 talk about the bill that was introduced, how it
24 got morphed to what's before us in these --
25 because I've got two -- it looks like three
1 pieces of paper on my desk here with regard
2 to -- is this all the same amendment? I don't
3 know, but --
4 And if you have any questions about that,
5 give me a call and we'll get that all ironed
6 out, but I think that would be very helpful to
7 start off even prior to hearing from the
8 Planning Department again, just to -- kind of a
9 little history lesson.
10 And I would encourage you to get with the
11 Planning Department between now and two weeks
12 from now and try to get some of these issues
13 ironed out because there seems to be a lot of
14 confusion about a lot of components of the bill,
15 and I don't think it's fair for the committee to
16 vote on something that even the staff may not be
17 up to speed on.
18 Councilman Dick Brown.
19 MR. D. BROWN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
20 You made a good point about sorting out
21 some of the issues. One of the things I'd love
22 to see us come back with is -- there's a lot of
23 work that's been done, two very distinct
24 positions. If -- try to come up with some
25 compromises, it appears, but there seems to be a
1 tone of, do we want to work at putting them out
2 of business or are we working toward compromises
3 that make these work and suit most everybody?
4 And I would hope that when we crank up
5 again, we're -- because some of the amendments
6 appear to be, make it as difficult as we can and
7 perhaps they won't be able to move if they're
8 trying to move to a new location or whatever.
9 I thought we were marching toward a lot of
10 hard-working compromises that have been hammered
11 out and this was the final touch, so I -- I'm
12 just tossing that out, that maybe we could kind
13 of mentally adjust a little and see what makes
14 it work for the neighborhoods, but the distance
15 things actually seem artificial because
16 they're -- they're going to be in little
17 shopping centers and they're not noisy, they're
18 not -- they don't have live bands and all this
19 sort of thing that we quite often deal with,
20 and -- and yet we use the term "nuisances" over
21 and over, and it doesn't seem to fit what the
22 real world is bringing in terms of these
24 So that's got me kind of looking at both
25 sides. Which -- which are we trying to do, make
1 it as difficult as possible or just come up with
2 reasonable regulations on top of more
4 MR. HYDE: Mr. Chairman, can I --
5 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Brown.
6 That's a good point.
7 Mr. Hyde.
8 MR. HYDE: Yeah, I want to be real clear.
9 And, Mr. Brown, you raise a really good
10 point. This amendment and this bill is the
11 product of compromise of any number of groups,
12 any number of council members with whom I've had
13 noticed meetings. With all due respect, the
14 only people who aren't buying into the
15 compromise is the Planning Department, and the
16 Planning Commission has already rejected that.
17 I would argue that this has been the
18 product of hours and hours and hours of
19 compromise, not only among council members but
20 among the groups that are most affected on
21 that. We really are down to the final piece. I
22 had hoped today, not only through your committee
23 but through PHS, that we could pass a final bill
24 to have ready on November 9th, and there's no
25 great magic to that other than every baby needs
1 to be birthed at some point.
2 The sheriff raised a point with me this
3 morning around 11 o'clock which is a very valid
4 point and certainly, I think, all of us give
5 great deference to the sheriff when he raises a
6 point. We are working through that. In fact,
7 even this afternoon, I think, have found a -- an
8 acceptable place.
9 So I don't want any of you to think that
10 we're -- that any group is not on board with
11 this. The compromises have been incorporated
12 into what I understand is a very large bill.
13 I'm very comfortable with it as the bill
14 sponsor. I'm ready to move it.
15 And, Mr. Chairman, if you will permit, on
16 the 16th I'll try to be here to give you that
17 full history, but I just don't want to leave the
18 impression that we're not there. In my mind,
19 we're there.
20 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Hyde.
21 It's a big bill, but it's not as big as the
22 animal welfare bill, so --
23 All right. Any other comments or
25 COMMITTEE MEMBERS: (No response.)
1 THE CHAIRMAN: All right. Mr. Redman,
2 again, thank you for the -- taking care of the
3 agenda meeting. I appreciate that.
4 And, with that, we will -- we stand
5 adjourned until the 16th.
6 Thank you all.
7 (The above proceedings were adjourned at
8 6:42 p.m.)
9 - - -
Diane M. Tropia, Inc.,
1 C E R T I F I C A T E
3 STATE OF
4 COUNTY OF DUVAL :
6 I, Diane M. Tropia, certify that I was
7 authorized to and did stenographically report the
8 foregoing proceedings and that the transcript is a
9 true and complete record of my stenographic notes.
10 Dated this 7th day of November, 2010.
14 Diane M. Tropia