1 CITY OF
2 LAND USE AND ZONING
6 Proceedings held on Tuesday, September 21,
7 2010, commencing at 5:05 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 STEPHEN JOOST, Committee Member.
REGGIE BROWN, Committee Member.
16 DICK BROWN, Committee Member
MICHAEL CORRIGAN, City Council Member.
19 WARREN JONES, City Council Member.
JOHN CROFTS, Deputy Director, Planning Dept.
20 SEAN KELLY, Chief, Current Planning.
FOLKS HUXFORD, Zoning Administrator.
21 KEN AVERY, Planning and Development Dept.
STEPHEN SMITH, Planning and Development Dept.
22 DYLAN REINGOLD, Office of General Counsel.
MERRIANE LAHMEUR, Legislative Assistant.
23 SHARONDA DAVIS, Legislative Assistant.
24 - - -
1 P R O C E E D I N G S
2 September 21, 2010 5:05 p.m.
3 - - -
4 THE CHAIRMAN: All right. Good evening,
6 This is the September 21st version -- or
7 edition of the Land Use and zoning Committee.
8 Sorry for the delay. We have to have a
9 quorum of four council members that are on the
10 committee. We have an extra council member
11 that's sitting in tonight. He's not on the
12 committee, so our fourth one has arrived. So
13 we'll go ahead and begin our meeting by just
14 going around the dais and having everyone
15 introduce themselves.
16 I'm the chairperson, Councilman John
18 And, Mr. Crofts, if you'll take it from
20 MR. CROFTS: Hi.
21 My name is John Crofts, representing the
22 Planning and Development Department.
23 MR. KELLY: Sean Kelly, Planning and
25 MR. HUXFORD: Folks Huxford, Planning and
2 MR. AVERY: Ken Avery, Planning and
4 MR. REINGOLD: Dylan Reingold with the
5 Office of General Counsel.
6 MR. JOOST: Stephen Joost, Group 3,
8 MR. BISHOP: Bill Bishop, District 2.
9 MR. REDMAN: Don Redman.
10 MR. CORRIGAN: Michael Corrigan,
11 District 14.
12 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, everyone, for
13 being here tonight.
14 If anybody needs a copy of the agenda,
15 they're available on the front desk. And if you
16 look through the agenda, you'll see some notes
17 on there with regard to what action we're going
18 to take tonight. Some of the bills that are
19 marked for "no other action" will have public
20 hearings this evening, but the public hearing
21 will be opened and it will be continued until a
22 future date.
23 If you're interested in speaking during the
24 public hearing, you're certainly more than
25 welcome to do so, although we won't be taking
1 any action. You may want to reserve your
2 comments for a future meeting, at which point we
3 do take action, but that's entirely up to you.
4 Mr. Reingold.
5 MR. REINGOLD: Good evening, Chair.
6 To the audience, anyone who would like to
7 address the committee today must fill out a
8 yellow speaker card in its entirety. The yellow
9 speaker cards are located on the desk up front,
10 near the podium. Once completed, please return
11 the speaker's card to the basket on the front
13 Any person who lobbies the City for
14 compensation is considered a lobbyist and is
15 therefore required to register their lobbying
16 activity with the City Council secretary. If
17 you are a lobbyist and have not registered with
18 the City Council secretary, you will not be
19 permitted to address the committee tonight.
20 Because a verbatim transcript of this
21 meeting will be prepared by a court reporter, it
22 is important that you speak clearly into the
23 microphone when you address the committee. It's
24 also important that only one speaker speak at a
1 Any tangible material submitted with a
2 speaker's presentation, such as documents,
3 photographs, plans, drawings, et cetera, shall
4 become a permanent part of the public record and
5 will be retained by this committee.
6 As a courtesy, please switch any cell
7 phones, pagers, or audible devices to a silent
9 Additionally, there will be no public
10 display of support or opposition, so please
11 refrain from applause or speaking out of turn.
12 Items are generally addressed in the order
13 in which they are listed on the agenda. Copies
14 of the agenda are located on the desk up front,
15 near the podium.
16 On occasion, items will be heard out of
17 order for the sake of efficiency or to
18 accommodate scheduling conflicts.
19 (Mr. D. Brown enters the proceedings.)
20 Unless there is a formal hearing on a
21 particular item, each member of the public is
22 limited to a single three-minute presentation.
23 Therefore, presentations should be focused,
24 concise, and address only the item pending
25 before the committee.
1 Prior to addressing the committee, please
2 state your name and address for the court
4 Decisions on rezonings, including PUDs,
5 waivers of road frontage, sign waivers, and
6 appeals, are all considered quasi-judicial in
7 nature and certain protocols will be followed
8 for these proceedings.
9 First, each council member must disclose on
10 the record any ex-parte communications they have
11 had with any members of the public prior to the
12 hearing on each applicable item. This includes
13 a brief statement of when the communication took
14 place, who the communication was with, and also
15 what the subject matter of the communication was
17 Second, the normal format is to allow the
18 applicant or agent thereof to make their
19 presentation first, followed by members of the
20 public who wish to speak in support of the item,
21 then members of the public who are in opposition
22 will be allowed to speak.
23 After all the public comments have been
24 received, the applicant will have a brief
25 opportunity to wrap up or present a brief
1 rebuttal. The wrap-up or rebuttal shall be
2 limited to the issues brought up by the
4 In some instances, the Chair may permit a
5 concise surrebuttal or response to the
6 applicant's rebuttal, which will be followed by
7 a brief final response by the applicant.
8 Finally, all quasi-judicial decisions must
9 be based on substantial competent evidence,
10 which means that the committee's decision must
11 be supported by fact-based testimony or expert
12 testimony and not generalized concerns or
14 And, finally, I'd like to welcome
15 Council Member Brown, who has joined us.
16 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Chairman
17 Reingold. I was prepared to welcome Mr. Brown,
18 but you've taken care of that for us.
19 All right. Mr. Corrigan, did you want to
20 take up -- are you here for item 18? Do you
21 want to go ahead and take that up now or do you
22 want to wait?
23 MR. CORRIGAN: Mr. Chairman, I would
24 appreciate that. I am here for item number 18
25 on your agenda.
1 (Mr. R. Brown enters the proceedings.)
2 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. Item 18 is a
3 quasi-judicial matter, so I'm going to ask any
4 council members to disclose any ex-parte
6 I will start by stating for the record that
7 I had a meeting on the 14th of September with
8 Wyman Duggan,
9 Mike Kleinschmidt (phonetic), and I apologize
10 for mispronunciations there. And then also a
11 meeting yesterday, September 20th, with
12 Kay Ehas.
13 Both meetings were just about the project,
14 and I have reached no conclusions from either of
15 the meetings.
16 And I also have a stack of e-mail
17 correspondence that I've received on this that I
18 will give to the clerk for the record.
19 Anyone else have any ex-parte?
20 MR. JOOST: Yes.
21 THE CHAIRMAN: Councilman Joost.
22 MR. JOOST: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
23 On -- let's see. On August 24th, I had a
24 meeting with Allan DeVault, Jonathan Insetta.
25 We discussed the merits of the project.
1 Yesterday I had a meeting with Kay Ehas and
2 Jack Shad, again, discussing their concerns
3 about the project.
4 And, also, on -- yesterday I had a meeting
5 again with Allan DeVault, Jonathan Insetta, and
6 Wyman Duggan, again, concerning various aspects
7 of the project.
8 Thank you.
9 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Joost.
10 Let the record reflect that Councilman
11 Reggie Brown has joined us.
12 Councilman Bishop, ex-parte.
13 MR. BISHOP: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
14 I want to declare ex-parte with the same
15 folks as you, Mr. Chairman, with the addition of
16 Carmen Godwin yesterday to discuss the various
17 merits or issues of the project.
18 Thank you.
19 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Bishop.
20 Councilman Dick Brown.
21 MR. D. BROWN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
22 I wanted to record myself as having
23 ex-parte communications with Mr. Duggan and the
24 representatives of the project that -- that he
25 is supporting, and it was a briefing on scale
1 and the scope and details of the project.
2 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Brown.
3 Councilman Reggie Brown.
4 MR. R. BROWN: Yes, Mr. Chairman.
5 I'd also like to declare ex-parte. On
6 9/16, I had a brief meeting with Mr. Duggan
7 regarding the project.
8 Thank you.
9 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Brown.
10 Councilman Redman.
11 MR. REDMAN: I also need to declare
12 ex-parte with Mr. Duggan several days ago.
13 Thank you.
14 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Redman.
15 Anyone else?
16 MR. CORRIGAN: (Indicating.)
17 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Corrigan.
18 MR. CORRIGAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
19 I'd like to declare ex-parte communications
20 on September 15th with Allan DeVault, Jonathan
21 Insetta, Logan Rink, Wyman Duggan to review a
22 model of the project.
23 I'd also like to declare ex-parte on the
24 next day, 9/16, with Wyman Duggan with -- a
25 phone call giving me the results of the
1 Planning Commission meeting.
2 And then on 9/17, I had a conversation with
3 Ms. Carmen Godwin from
4 Preservation regarding this project.
5 And that concludes my ex-parte.
6 Thank you.
7 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. Thank you,
8 Mr. Corrigan.
9 We're going to get a report from the
10 Planning Department before we begin -- before we
11 open the public hearing, but let me just say, so
12 everyone knows how we're going to proceed
13 through the public hearing, we're going to keep
14 track of all the time from both sides.
15 Mr. Dylan Reingold is going to serve as the
16 official timekeeper. And if one side has more
17 time at the end of the public hearing than the
18 other, then we're going to provide that
19 additional time, if needed, to whichever side
20 came up short.
21 We will allow the applicant -- we're going
22 to try to take the applicant in support first
23 and then the opposition second. We will allow
24 the applicant to rebut at the end, and then
25 we'll also allow for a surrebuttal by the
1 designated person that the opposition wants to
2 collaborate and choose, and then a very, very
3 brief rebuttal to the surrebuttal by the
5 So that's how it's going to play out, so
6 let's begin by going to Mr. Kelly.
7 Mr. Kelly, the Planning Department report.
8 MR. KELLY: Thank you.
9 To the Chair and to the committee members,
10 ordinance 2010-656 seeks to rezone approximately
11 .12 acres of land from a planned unit
12 development, ordinance 2005-695, to a planned
13 unit development that will consist of new
14 construction to allow a mixed-use, three-story
15 building of approximately 19,600 square feet of
16 enclosed and unenclosed space.
17 The uses proposed for the site include a
18 restaurant with an outdoor cafe on the ground
19 floor as well as commercial, retail, office,
20 and/or residential uses on the second and third
21 floors. In addition, a rooftop lounge is
22 proposed to be in conjunction with the
23 restaurant on the ground floor.
24 (Mr. W. Jones enters the proceedings.)
25 MR. KELLY: The site previously was a
1 multifamily residential building that has been
2 demolished. The proposed location is -- again,
3 this is at the corner of
5 area of the
6 however, this property is not located within the
7 historic district itself.
8 The department reviewed this rezoning. In
9 fact, this is probably the first rezoning
10 that's -- well, that's come before you in the
11 context of the adoption of the overlay since the
12 criteria -- the additional zoning criteria has
13 been incorporated into the code, and so there's
14 a higher scrutiny and level of review that's
15 required for any rezoning within the overall
16 Riverside Avondale Zoning Overlay.
17 With that said, the department finds that
18 grant of this rezoning, as conditioned, is going
19 to be consistent with the
20 Zoning Overlay and the historic district
22 Additionally, the department finds that the
23 conditions related to the architecture of the
24 building will be enforced at the time of
25 verification of substantial compliance with the
1 PUD for consistency with the overlay.
2 The department is looking for the
3 architecture to provide a visual relationship to
4 the building features and fenestration,
5 storefront character, the orientation, and the
6 architectural compatibility with the surrounding
7 structures and neighborhood.
8 Additionally, the criteria within the
9 overlay zone also goes to -- as to whether or
10 not the rezoning will negatively alter the -- or
11 affect the character of the character area or
12 the corridor.
13 The department finds that this is
14 supportive of the character area, represents
15 infill development on vacant land within the
16 urban transition area. And, again, as
17 conditioned, it will be designed to be
18 sympathetic to the historic architecture and the
20 Additionally, we feel that this is in
21 keeping with the overall development pattern on
22 the block and compatible with existing uses on
23 the block and within the neighborhood.
24 The rezoning will not result in any
25 destruction of any natural resources. Again, we
1 find that the rezoning would not have any
2 negative effect on any contributing structures
3 within the Avondale historic district --
4 Riverside Avondale historic district.
5 The department, in terms of the review for
6 consistency with the comprehensive plan, again,
7 we find this to be supportive of commercial
8 infill on a commercially-designated site that
9 will support the commercial integrity of a
10 historic district. We also find it to be
11 innovative site planning and a smart growth
12 technique consistent with policy -- future land
13 use policy 1.1.10.
14 Additionally, we find that this PUD, as a
15 mixed-use project, will enhance rather than
16 detract from the character of the established
17 area. We find it to be consistent with the
18 comprehensive plan in terms of policy 1.1.23,
19 which encourages mixed-use development and
20 revitalization of older areas.
21 The department also finds that the proposed
22 PUD is internally compatible. The proposed
23 development would allow for a 1,000-square-foot
24 area for outdoor seating on the ground floor
25 with a 4,000-square-foot open rooftop restaurant
1 seating area, combined with the other commercial
2 uses and -- or office uses, which would
3 alternate various hours of activity.
4 The department does recommend, for
5 consistency with the overlay -- I will go
6 through the conditions. There are numerous
7 conditions in this, but we do -- we do feel that
8 this rezoning, with approval of it as
9 conditioned, will be consistent with the
10 Riverside Avondale overlay and the intent of the
11 overlay and all of the criteria associated with
12 the building design and the urban transition
14 The conditions are indicated in the
15 memorandum dated September 16th, 2010. The
16 conditions are as follows:
17 "The development shall be subject to the
18 revised site plan dated September 6th, 2010."
19 Condition 2, "The development shall be
20 subject to the revised written description dated
21 September 16, 2010."
22 Condition 3, "The development shall be
23 subject to the original legal description dated
24 July 12th, 2010."
25 Condition 4, "Prior to verification of
Diane M. Tropia, Inc.,
1 substantial compliance of the PUD, all
2 architectural renderings and building designs
3 shall be submitted to the Planning and
4 Development Department for review and approval
5 by the planning director to ensure consistency
6 with Section 656.399.34 of the zoning code."
7 Condition 5, "The maximum allowable wall
8 sign areas, including under-canopy and awning
9 signs, shall be limited to 40 square feet in
10 area per street frontage.
11 "Additionally, a maximum of 20 square feet
12 in area of projecting signage shall be permitted
13 at the southern point of the building provided
14 it is placed at least 8 feet above the
16 "Support structures for the signage shall
17 be located such that they do not affect the
18 clear sight triangle for travel lanes or
19 on-street parking.
20 "Additionally, all new sidewalks shall be
21 consistent with Chapter 656" -- "Section
22 656.399.29 of the zoning code and shall be
23 constructed with traditional pavers."
24 Condition 7, "The transportation
25 improvements shall be made in accordance with
1 the Development Services Division memorandum
2 dated September 9th, 2010, or otherwise approved
3 by the Planning and Development Department."
4 The last condition in the memorandum
5 regarding the urban buffer was incorporated into
6 the revised written description and is thus no
7 longer necessary.
8 The department, again, finds it consistent
9 with the internal and external requirements for
10 compatibility with the PUD and are recommending
11 approval subject to those eight -- seven
13 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Kelly.
14 Mr. Reingold.
15 MR. REINGOLD: Just a quick clarification
16 question for Mr. Kelly.
17 In condition number -- I guess it's 6, you
18 said it was -- needs to be consistent with
19 Section 656.399.29. In the conditions, in the
20 memorandum, it's subsection 3. Was there a
21 reason to leave out subsection 3 or should that
22 stay in there?
23 MR. KELLY: That should stay in there.
24 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Reingold.
25 Any questions for Mr. Kelly from the
1 committee, before we get into the public
2 hearing, on the report?
3 COMMITTEE MEMBERS: (No response.)
4 THE CHAIRMAN: Seeing none, we're going to
5 open the public hearing. The first speaker will
6 be Wyman Duggan.
7 (Mr. Duggan approaches the podium.)
8 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Duggan, before you
9 begin -- I need you to state your name and
10 address for the record. But before we start the
11 clock, I have a question for you.
12 So go ahead and just state your name and
13 address for the record.
14 MR. DUGGAN: Wyman Duggan, 1301 Riverplace
15 Boulevard, Suit 1500.
16 THE CHAIRMAN: You heard the conditions
17 that were read into the record by Mr. Kelly. Do
18 you agree with the conditions?
19 MR. DUGGAN: Yes, Mr. Chairman, we do.
20 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, sir.
21 You can begin your comments.
22 MR. DUGGAN: Thank you.
23 As Mr. Kelly pointed out, this is not in
24 the historic district. It's in the urban
25 transition area of the
1 Overlay, which is in the blue here on this map
3 This area is intentionally designed, as you
4 might guess from its name, as an urban
5 transition area for greater intensity and
6 density and mixed use. The PUD on the site --
7 currently on the site was controversial and
8 contentious. It was essentially developed and
9 approved without meaningful community input.
10 The site is currently vacant. The previous
11 multifamily apartment building was torn down.
12 We're proposing a three-story building,
13 less than 45 feet tall, with a ground floor
14 restaurant with outdoor seating and a rooftop
15 open-air lounge and seating. Those two will be
16 connected, those two spaces, so there will not
17 be an independent bar or club. The rooftop area
18 and the lounge up there will be tied to the
19 hours of operation of the kitchen, so we think
20 that will be consistent with the area. It will
21 not become out of character for the area.
22 Unlike the existing PUD, we worked closely
23 with the Planning Department, with RAP, with the
24 surrounding businesses and property owners to
25 fashion this PUD and its proposed uses.
1 I forgot to mention the second and third
2 floors are proposed for office or residential
4 The Planning Department has determined that
5 we need to provide 21 spaces to meet the parking
6 demand that our uses -- those uses will
7 generate. We will provide those 21 spaces
8 immediately contiguous to the site on Margaret
9 Street and
10 all of the required tree canopies, landscaping
11 trees that go with that parking demand.
12 In addition, we're going to create, at a
13 minimum, 11 additional spaces on
14 the east side of the right-of-way, to help meet
15 the demand that does exist in the area and that
16 our use could contribute to.
17 My clients are local businessmen with
18 extensive experience in the restaurant
19 industry. They operate Chew and Orsay
20 currently. They've been good neighbors in those
21 neighborhoods. They intend to develop and hold
22 the property. They do not intend to entitle it
23 and flip it. This project will enhance the
24 property tax base. As I mentioned, the property
25 is currently vacant. It will lead to net job
1 creation. They're going to employ, the
2 restaurant alone, more employees than they do
3 currently at Chew downtown, which is slotted to
4 move over there. So it will be net job growth
5 with the additional construction jobs and wage
6 and tax benefits that will come with the
8 Finally, we had unanimous approval at the
9 Planning Commission. And we, as you heard, have
10 the support of the Planning Department. And I
11 will look forward to addressing the community's
12 concerns on rebuttal.
13 Thank you.
14 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Duggan.
15 Questions from the committee?
16 COMMITTEE MEMBERS: (No response.)
17 THE CHAIRMAN: All right. Seeing none,
18 I've got a couple of questions for you.
19 MR. DUGGAN: Yes, sir.
20 THE CHAIRMAN: You mentioned the hours of
21 operation are going to be -- or the hours of the
22 kitchen are going to be tied to the use of the
24 MR. DUGGAN: That's correct.
25 The hours of operation on the rooftop,
1 open-air lounge -- in other words, the outdoor
2 sales and service of food in the lounge will be
3 tied to the operation of the kitchen. That's a
4 State ABT requirement for a 4-COP/SRX
5 restaurant. So when the kitchen closes, the
6 rooftop activities must close as well, no more
7 food sales, no more alcohol sales.
8 THE CHAIRMAN: What about occupancy?
9 MR. DUGGAN: Well, I don't -- they're not
10 going to tell people to get up and leave. As
11 any restaurant would, they're going to allow
12 existing clients to finish their meals.
13 THE CHAIRMAN: And what are the hours of
14 the -- the hours for the kitchen are not in the
15 written description, correct? You're relying on
16 the State?
17 MR. DUGGAN: Correct.
18 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. And what are those
20 MR. DUGGAN: I would defer to Mr. DeVault,
21 who is going to speak next. He would be better
22 positioned to answer that question.
23 THE CHAIRMAN: Would you have any objection
24 to including those into the written
1 MR. DUGGAN: That's not a call I have to --
2 that I can make. I would have to talk about
3 that with my clients.
4 THE CHAIRMAN: And with regard to the
5 parking, you talked about -- there's going to be
6 21 spaces available?
7 MR. DUGGAN: Immediately contiguous to the
8 site. That's -- we're -- that's our parking
9 number. We will provide it immediately
10 contiguous to the site, plus create new parking.
11 THE CHAIRMAN: And so there's going to be
12 21 contiguous to the site and then the other 11
13 you said were on
14 MR. DUGGAN: Well, we have frontage on Oak
15 and Margaret.
16 This shows it better (indicating), to
17 answer your question.
18 THE CHAIRMAN: Well, are you providing 21
19 spaces total?
20 MR. DUGGAN: We're providing, at a minimum,
21 21 here (indicating) on our
22 frontage, and here on our
23 That's where the 21 -- this is our property
24 right here (indicating).
25 THE CHAIRMAN: What was the 11 you were
1 talking about?
2 MR. DUGGAN: Eleven is going to be across
3 the street in the
5 So we have
6 providing parking spaces immediately adjacent to
7 our property to meet our number and then
8 additional, over and above that, on the east
9 side of
10 THE CHAIRMAN: Is that in the written
12 MR. DUGGAN: Yes.
13 THE CHAIRMAN: What section is that?
14 MR. DUGGAN: Give me a minute.
15 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. Any other questions
16 from the committee?
17 MR. BISHOP: (Indicating.)
18 THE CHAIRMAN: All right. Mr. Bishop, you
19 are up as soon as Mr. Duggan answers my last
21 MR. KELLY: Section J on page 5 of 10.
22 MR. DUGGAN: That's correct.
23 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. I see the 21 spaces.
24 Is there a reference to the 11 spaces?
25 MR. DUGGAN: Yes. It's in the middle of
1 the paragraph. "Through separate legislation,
2 the applicants propose to fund the creation of a
3 minimum of 11 new, unrestricted, noncontiguous,
4 off-street, 90-degree parking spaces within the
5 same block in the
6 THE CHAIRMAN: And the parking that's there
7 now, is that parallel or perpendicular?
8 MR. DUGGAN: It's all parallel on Oak and
9 next to our property. Further up, this is
10 angled (indicating) -- perpendicular, angled,
11 but down in here it's all parallel, as you could
12 see here on the --
13 THE CHAIRMAN: Are you converting some
14 parallel to perpendicular?
15 MR. DUGGAN: That's correct.
16 We've worked with the owners of 1661, the
17 owners of this property, which is the surface
18 parking lot, and the owners of the McIver
19 Urological Clinic. All of them have given
20 written consent to the creation of 90-degree
21 parking in front of their property.
22 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Duggan.
23 Mr. Bishop.
24 MR. BISHOP: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
25 Along those lines, what is the net parking
1 gain after you discount the existing parallel
2 parking spaces?
3 MR. DUGGAN: I don't have that number right
4 now, but I can figure that out with our
5 engineers and provide it in rebuttal.
6 MR. BISHOP: That would be great.
8 MR. DUGGAN: Okay.
9 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Bishop.
10 Any other questions?
11 COMMITTEE MEMBERS: (No response.)
12 THE CHAIRMAN: All right. Seeing none, my
13 next speaker is Allan DeVault.
14 (Audience member approaches the podium.)
15 AUDIENCE MEMBER: Thank you.
16 My name is Allan DeVault. I live at 1266
18 As Wyman mentioned, we've had countless
19 meetings with area neighbors, landowners,
20 business owners, but today I want to talk about
21 all the meetings we've had with RAP, all the
22 requests we've listened to, and how we've
23 addressed them, and as resulted in the PUD you
24 see today.
25 On May 5th, our first meeting of six with
1 RAP representatives, we talked with them to
2 discuss the project initially. They mentioned
3 no more -- no less than three times that they'd
4 like to see the building under 45 feet in
5 height. We are 42-and-a-half feet, but we could
6 build to 60.
7 We spent the next month designing this
8 project within the overlay as it's written and
9 in constant contact with RAP representatives as
10 well as the City.
11 On June 17th, three months ago, we met at
12 the RAP house and they suggested that off-site
13 parking for employees be provided and time
14 limits on new parking to keep it rotating.
15 We've been champions of those two causes ever
17 On June 23rd, we had a meeting on site with
18 the landscape architect, Fred Pope. We talked
19 about what trees could be kept and what could be
20 taken away, and we agreed.
21 On June 30th, our architect sent a revised
22 site plan based on requests from the earlier
23 meeting. Immediately we got a request back to
24 see what angled parking looked like. Luckily,
25 we -- the Planning Department decided that
1 perpendicular was the way to go because it
2 provided more parking.
3 On July 8th, via e-mail, a RAP
4 representative requested that we do, on
5 Margaret Street, a tree, six spaces, a tree,
6 six spaces, and a tree. We did it. It's on the
8 On July 26th, after receiving, via e-mail,
9 the initial design comments of the evening
10 prior, we were ready for the meeting but was
12 Later that day they requested a Word
13 version of our PUD written description so they
14 could red line it to their liking, and we sent
16 On August 13th, after receiving RAP's
17 summary of concerns and their rewrite of our
18 zoning application, we came, answers in hand,
19 for our meeting. Among the things they asked
20 for: more trees, done; set up a dialogue with
21 the RAP architect, done; further restrictions on
22 signage, done; and bike racks, also done.
23 On September 2nd, we met with those
24 officials again to discuss their final concerns,
25 design and setbacks. I would say two of the
1 most significant conditions added by the
2 Planning Department as conditions to this
3 written description address both of those
5 What's next?
6 On September 10th in an e-mail to the
7 Planning Department they questioned the Planning
8 Department and our definition of "height." At
9 the council member's request, we added the
10 last-minute description to the written
11 description to address those concerns.
12 Last Thursday, September 16th, at Planning
13 Commission, they requested four more
14 conditions. The Planning Commission voted
15 unanimously to support the Planning Department's
16 report and the condition they added, not any
17 more, and we agree with that position.
18 On Friday, the next day, September 17th,
19 after six meetings and over four-and-a-half
20 months, countless phone calls and e-mails, RAP
21 now has a new position on the parking
22 requirements, requirements that we have agreed
23 upon for four-and-a-half months with the
24 Planning Department and those representatives,
25 but that's now changed.
1 I ask you, what's next?
2 I hope that this committee will approve the
3 Planning Department's application -- or the
4 Planning Department's conditions, their very
5 thorough report, the Planning Commission's
6 unanimous recommendation, and I hope they will
7 approve this zoning application, but City
8 Council is still seven days away and I'll still
9 ask myself, what's next?
10 Thank you.
11 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. DeVault.
12 The question I asked Mr. Duggan earlier,
13 about the State hours with regard to the --
14 MR. DeVAULT: The ABT requires, as you
15 correctly pointed out, that the kitchen stay
16 open as long as you serve food and any
17 beverages. They do not specifically state what
18 time the restaurant should open or close because
19 that's open -- you know, left up to the
20 businesses itself.
21 As we currently plan to see it -- our
22 current restaurants, Orsay and Chew, close
23 between 9:30 and 11 o'clock during the week and
24 then midnight on the weekends, and we would
25 suggest and suppose that this business will
1 follow those similar hours.
2 THE CHAIRMAN: So the -- let me get this
3 straight. If I understand you correctly, the
4 State doesn't mandate any specific hours?
5 MR. DeVAULT: No.
6 THE CHAIRMAN: You could stay open till
7 3 o'clock in the morning? If the kitchen was
8 open, you could --
9 MR. DeVAULT: You cannot stay open past
10 2:00, as area businesses do, like O'Brothers and
11 some of the others in the Five Points area. You
12 could if you would like to, but that's not
13 currently our plan. Based on the current
14 businesses that we run, it doesn't really fit
15 into that format.
16 THE CHAIRMAN: I'm really just more
17 concerned about what the State -- it sounds like
18 you're relying on the State to control your
19 kitchen hours, which will, in turn, control your
20 rooftop activity. So --
21 MR. DeVAULT: I think the --
22 THE CHAIRMAN: Does the State allow you
23 to -- in any way, does the State allow you to
24 open -- to keep the kitchen open past 2:00 in
25 the morning?
1 MR. DeVAULT: No. You cannot serve
2 beverages past -- full bar, wine or beer or
3 liquor past 2 o'clock, so -- we would not keep
4 the kitchen open past that anyway.
5 THE CHAIRMAN: Does the State allow you to
6 keep the kitchen open longer than 2 two a.m.,
7 yes or no?
8 MR. DeVAULT: The kitchen and food, yes.
9 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. If the State allows
10 you to keep the kitchen open past 2 a.m., I
11 assume, based on what we heard earlier, you
12 would still allow people to occupy the roof
13 deck; is that correct? Because you're linking
14 that to the kitchen hours, correct?
15 MR. DeVAULT: Yes.
16 THE CHAIRMAN: And my question to
17 Mr. Duggan, which he couldn't answer -- I'll ask
18 you, then -- is, would you be willing to put
19 into the written description some regulation on
20 the hours?
21 I hear you saying one thing, but I hear
22 Mr. Duggan saying he wants to rely on the State,
23 and the State doesn't care how late you keep the
24 kitchen open, which, in turn, allows people to
25 go to the roof. So are you willing to address
1 that matter in the written description, hours of
3 MR. DeVAULT: It would certainly be
4 something we'd be happy to talk to the committee
5 about. I don't know any other businesses that
6 is -- that are regulated by similar regulations,
7 but we would be happy to certainly guarantee we
8 would close at 2:00 at the latest. But, beyond
9 that, it is more based on the neighborhood and
10 the needs of the customers.
11 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, sir.
12 Any other questions from the committee?
13 COMMITTEE MEMBERS: (No response.)
14 THE CHAIRMAN: All right. Thank you,
15 Mr. DeVault.
16 Is there anyone else from the audience that
17 would care to address the committee in support
18 of the application?
19 AUDIENCE MEMBERS: (No response.)
20 THE CHAIRMAN: All right. Seeing no one,
21 the remaining cards are marked in opposition,
22 and we will start with Sally -- is it Robson?
23 AUDIENCE MEMBER: (Inaudible.)
24 THE CHAIRMAN: I'm sorry. You did check
25 that box.
1 Brooks Andrews, followed by Cindy Congelio,
2 followed by Terry Hallihan.
3 (Audience member approaches the podium.)
4 AUDIENCE MEMBER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman,
5 City Council, planning board.
6 My name is Brooks Andrews. I live at 2005
7 Herschel, so I'm really right catercorner from
8 the property in -- in question here.
9 First of all, I -- I applaud the developers
10 and the -- and the owners of the prospective
11 restaurant, Orsay and Chew. This is going to be
12 a great project in a lot of ways. I think it's
13 going to add to the -- the vibrancy of the
14 neighborhood. And living just catercorner
15 there, I'll look out my front porch and see
16 this -- this new development.
17 My hope is that it is, in fact, going to
18 meet all the guidelines and restrictions and
19 design characteristics that Mr. Kelly spoke
20 about. I think that that's really critical to
21 the -- to the neighborhood.
22 My hope is that all of you have kind of
23 visited Five Points and driven around the area
24 or walked around the area, and you will see that
25 while there is a mixture of architecture, there
1 is some fantastic old architecture, one of which
2 I live in, that was built in 1915, restored
3 extremely well, and I would ask that this
4 council consider very, very carefully the design
5 characteristics of the building in -- in
6 question here because I think we have one
7 opportunity to do it right.
8 If you drive around
9 drive out
10 you can see that this city, unfortunately,
11 didn't pay very close attention to zoning
12 over -- over the last several decades, so this
13 is a great opportunity for you to fix something
14 and make sure that it's done right from the
16 The other comment I'd like to make is
17 about -- is about parking. Parking in the
18 neighborhood is already stressed right now.
19 This is an opportunity for you to really
20 question hard whether there's going to be
21 sufficient parking because I can tell you right
22 now that parking on, particularly weekends and
23 nights, when all the restaurants are full that
24 are there right now -- I'm getting close I can
25 see -- parking is very, very dense, and so the
1 additional parking required for this restaurant
2 and the residents in this new building need to
3 be taken into consideration.
4 So thank you very much.
5 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Andrews.
6 Any questions from the committee?
7 COMMITTEE MEMBERS: (No response.)
8 THE CHAIRMAN: All right. Our next speaker
9 is Cindy Congelio.
10 (Audience member approaches the podium.)
11 AUDIENCE MEMBER: I'm Cindy Congelio. I
12 live at
13 building that Brooks lives in, across the
14 street, catercorner from this new development.
15 And I want to say, we're not opposed to
16 this development at all. Orsay and Chew have a
17 great reputation for running good
18 establishments, but we do have some concerns
19 with this new development.
20 The mixed-use neighborhood of Five Points,
21 the diversity of people and opportunities are
22 not found in other types of communities. A
23 compromise has to occur so we can all live and
24 work together productively.
25 The concerns with the parking Brooks
1 brought up and the design he brought up and I
2 think will also be brought up again with RAP.
3 One concern I want to bring up is noise
4 because I've had experience with noise in that
5 area with my tenants having difficulty even
6 getting a good night's sleep because of what has
7 already been approved without conditions in the
8 neighborhood. And I know we can't go back, but
9 going forward, I would like to ask that there
10 are some time constraints put on the outdoor
11 music and bringing up the -- the fact that
12 people might be sitting out till 2 o'clock in
13 the morning enjoying themselves, which I don't
14 have anything against, but having it be across
15 from people that are trying to get a good
16 night's rest, we'd like to consider that -- if
17 you -- we could have some time guidelines for
18 that, especially with the music, which I -- that
19 particularly has been an issue difficult for
20 code enforcement because the City does not have
21 people that can go out at night and tell -- to
22 read the decibels and say that's exceeding code,
23 and the police are doing other things that are
24 more pressing.
25 One thing we've considered, if -- if you
1 might consider, at least for the music at this
2 point, and -- and address the -- the food and
3 beverage sales among the other committee
4 members, 10 o'clock to cut off the music during
5 the week, 12 a.m. on the weekends, and that
6 way -- that seems a little bit reasonable to --
7 you know, at least the amplified noise or the
8 music, that the decibels can really go up or
9 down -- or up more so than the -- than a voice,
10 you might consider that. So 10 o'clock during
11 the week and 12:00 on the weekends, to include
12 that in the PUD towards the outdoor
14 Thank you.
15 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Ms. Congelio.
16 Any questions from the committee?
17 COMMITTEE MEMBERS: (No response.)
18 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Reingold, are you
19 keeping track of the time?
20 MR. REINGOLD: Absolutely, sir.
21 THE CHAIRMAN: Great. Just making sure. I
22 don't want you to tell me when it's all over
23 that you forgot.
24 All right. Mr. Hallihan, and that -- will
25 be followed by Carmen Godwin, followed by Steve
1 Congro, followed by Kay Ehas.
2 (Audience member approaches the podium.)
3 AUDIENCE MEMBER: My name is --
4 THE CHAIRMAN: I'm sorry. Ms. Hallihan. I
6 AUDIENCE MEMBER: That's okay.
7 My name is Frances Theresa -- I go by
8 Terry -- Hallihan, and I live at 2358
10 I'm here to address specifically three
11 issues. The first issue you've now heard, and
12 that is with regard to the music.
13 If that music is on the third floor of this
14 building during outdoor dining, that is going to
15 reverberate throughout the entire neighborhood,
16 so I implore you to consider adding restrictions
17 so that any music on the third floor would be
18 limited to 10 o'clock, Monday through Thursday,
19 and no later than midnight on Saturday and
20 Sunday -- I mean, excuse me, Friday and
21 Saturday. So it would be 10 o'clock on Sunday
22 through Thursday for the hours, and then on
23 Saturday -- Friday night and Saturday night it
24 would be midnight. So that's the first point.
25 The second point I'd like to make is that
1 the additional parking -- if you look at the
2 design of the street where this building is
3 going to be located and you look at the parking,
4 that's on the east side of
5 west -- east side of
6 is on the west side of
7 been parallel parking. And, as you discussed,
8 it's been switched. The proposal includes
9 perpendicular parking.
10 We currently have several elderly high-rise
11 apartments that are down -- yes, that are going
12 in this direction (indicating) --
13 Back off?
14 THE CHAIRMAN: You need to go back to the
16 MS. HALLIHAN: Go back to the microphone.
18 There are several elderly residents,
19 high-rise apartments that are in that area, and
20 those residents use
21 bypass the blinking light at Five Points.
22 It's already difficult at the intersection
23 of Margaret and Oak when you're coming down
24 south on
25 coming east and west or north and south --
1 excuse me -- north and south on Margaret.
2 I'm just saying, when you're adding
3 perpendicular parking on both of those sides and
4 then those people traversing that, you need to
5 drive this area and look at what impact it's
6 going to have on that corner when you add
7 perpendicular spaces on both sides of
9 And the last thing is we already have
10 enough -- the business here will be great. I
11 implore them to open Chew there, but the issue
12 is the existing parking nightmare that already
13 exists on Margaret and Oak in the Five Points
14 area as a result of the other restaurants that
15 are there, and we ought to have some provision
16 that requires them to have off-site parking in
17 another location for both their staff and their
19 Thank you very much.
20 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Ms. Hallihan.
21 Any questions from the committee?
22 COMMITTEE MEMBERS: (No response.)
23 THE CHAIRMAN: All right. Seeing none,
24 Carmen Godwin.
25 (Audience member approaches the podium.)
1 AUDIENCE MEMBER: Hi.
2 Carmen Godwin,
3 I'm here on behalf of
4 Preservation. We dropped off a packet and a
5 letter from -- on behalf of our board. Did
6 everybody get a copy of that today? Does
7 anybody need a copy? I have, like, one or two
9 COMMITTEE MEMBERS: (No response.)
10 MS. GODWIN: Does that mean yes or no?
11 THE CHAIRMAN: (Shakes head.)
12 MS. GODWIN: Essentially, RAP has been
13 negotiating development in our neighborhood for
14 a very long time. We are opposed to this PUD
15 unless certain other conditions are approved.
16 We'll get to those conditions, but first I
17 wanted to ensure you that our community is
18 demanding that RAP guide smart development.
19 Page 2 of our packet includes actual
20 feedback from months of intensive community
21 workshops during the
22 Overlay. You can see that our community values
23 its small, pedestrian scale and that two areas
24 of major concern were related to development.
25 "Height and scale of new development is too
1 large and adequate amounts of parking are not
2 being provided."
3 Page 3 includes an actual map created
4 during the overlay workshop. The larger purple
5 circles were areas of concern, and this PUD is
6 within one of those areas, directly across the
7 street from the residential character area.
8 The overlay's guiding principle was to
9 encourage responsible growth, meaning that new
10 development should maintain appropriate scale,
11 height, and density.
12 Keep in mind that this particular lot had a
13 two-story home on it, which was less than 4,000
14 square feet, and that's on page 7.
15 The existing PUD provides eight on-site
16 parking spaces for eight residential units and
17 it had 1,100 square feet of retail space, and
18 one argument for approving that PUD was that it
19 was not a restaurant, which is a high parking
20 intensive use.
21 The proposed PUD is 20,000 square feet,
22 almost 20,000, and includes restaurant, office,
23 and residential.
24 We had an attachment stapled that -- the
25 communication of our concerns were sent to the
1 developers on August 12th with a red-line
2 version of our PUD, which was not offered to us
3 in advance; however, slide 9 includes a summary
4 of those concerns. They include scale and mass,
5 that other buildings on this block face are one
6 and two stories.
7 Height. The written description defines
8 "height" differently than the overlay and the
9 regular zoning code.
10 Parking. The overlay requirement for
11 on-site parking is not being met, so we asked
12 for dedicated off-site parking for residential
13 and to exclude medical.
14 Setbacks. Zero setbacks are proposed.
15 Other buildings in the area are set back from
16 the right-of-way and offer greenspace, and those
17 built to the lot line are only one-story
19 This communication was one of many that was
20 shared with the developers and had a consistent
21 message through that process in hopes that we
22 could spark the spirit of negotiation that was
23 part of the previous developments such as Publix
24 and 1661.
25 Thank you.
1 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Ms. Godwin.
2 Any questions from the committee?
3 MR. BISHOP: Yes.
4 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Bishop.
5 MR. BISHOP: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
6 Ms. Godwin, you mentioned something that
7 has been mentioned a couple of times here, about
8 height. I guess in my simple way height is
9 height. It's either X height or it's Y height,
10 and you measure it from the ground to the top.
11 What can you tell me about how -- you said
12 this -- this written description defines
13 "height" differently than the overlay zoning
14 does. It's my understanding that there's a
15 45-foot height limitation. So how are they
17 MS. GODWIN: Originally, the -- in the PUD,
18 you had described "height" as including -- it's
19 45 feet, but being allowed to go over 45 feet
20 for the rooftop -- extra structures on the
22 Now, in the overlay, it does not include --
23 it only includes the spires, belfries, or
24 cupolas and chimneys, but they included the
25 rooftop terrace area and the external stairwell
1 as being included, as being able to go over
2 45 feet. And there's no limit to how high that
3 goes. I mean, it could go up 60 feet.
4 And the other thing is that -- is the
5 overlay specifically says that it can't be
6 visible from the right-of-way, and they took
7 that out of the PUD.
8 So the legislation that's being submitted
9 is redefining what can go over 45 feet on the
10 rooftop and be visible from the street.
11 MR. BISHOP: Okay. Follow-up question,
12 Mr. Kelly. What's the proposed height that's
13 included in the PUD for this structure?
14 MR. KELLY: The PUD requests 45 feet in the
15 written description, I believe. They've
16 actually indicated it's 42-and-a-half feet or so
17 to the top of the parapet.
18 MR. BISHOP: What's the top -- what's the
19 height to the top of the stairwell?
20 MR. KELLY: The urban transition area
21 allows for 60 feet; however, the stairwell and
22 those other rooftop appurtenances would not be
23 included in the definition of "height."
24 MR. BISHOP: Okay. So Ms. Godwin is
25 correct that they could be unlimited in height?
1 MR. KELLY: They could be up to 60 feet in
2 height; however, that basically resets a parking
4 MR. BISHOP: So in order to not reset a
5 parking requirement, what is the upset limit
6 that they could build to with these other
8 MR. KELLY: It's 45 feet as measured to the
9 top of the parapet.
10 MR. BISHOP: Okay. So the stairwell and
11 the elevator tower and those sorts of things
12 just simply don't come into the equation at
14 MR. KELLY: That's correct.
15 MR. BISHOP: Okay. Thank you.
16 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Bishop.
17 Any other questions for Ms. Godwin?
18 COMMITTEE MEMBERS: (No response.)
19 THE CHAIRMAN: Ms. Godwin, I had a
21 MS. GODWIN: Yes, sir.
22 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. DeVault kind of went
23 through a time line of events --
24 MS. GODWIN: Yes.
25 THE CHAIRMAN: -- meeting with, I guess,
1 RAP. What is your position with RAP?
2 MS. GODWIN: We met for the first time with
3 them in June, and they came to us saying they
4 were thinking about buying the property. We sat
5 at a table with the developers and they shared
6 what they called some conceptual drawings.
7 THE CHAIRMAN: I don't really want to
8 rehash --
9 MS. GODWIN: Okay.
10 THE CHAIRMAN: -- the time line, but what
11 was your position with RAP? You work for RAP?
12 MS. GODWIN: I'm executive director.
13 THE CHAIRMAN: Executive director?
14 MS. GODWIN: Yes. And so I was in three of
15 the meetings that they discussed, and we were
16 consistent in our message during that whole
18 THE CHAIRMAN: Well, it sounded like there
19 were a lot more than three meetings.
20 MS. GODWIN: There was a meeting --
21 actually, I was in four.
22 There was one meeting that I didn't attend,
23 which was the landscape architect meeting them
24 on site about the trees.
25 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay.
1 MS. GODWIN: There's much more to the story
2 than Mr. DeVault actually told you today,
3 so . . .
4 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. Thank you very much.
5 We may get into that, then, in a minute.
6 MS. GODWIN: All right. Thank you.
7 THE CHAIRMAN: Our next speaker is Steve --
8 is it Congro, with an "r" in it?
9 AUDIENCE MEMBER: Congro.
10 THE CHAIRMAN: I'm sorry. Steve Congro,
11 and then our final speaker will be Kay Ehas.
12 (Audience member approaches the podium.)
13 AUDIENCE MEMBER: Thank you, Chair.
14 Steve Congro,
15 Going off that same handout, one of the
16 things that we were very consistent about as
17 well had to do with the setback, like Carmen
18 mentioned. The setback of this building is --
19 the sidewalk of this building is eight feet with
20 a zero setback after that, which is
21 uncharacteristic with any of the other buildings
22 in the area. All of the other buildings that
23 come up to the sidewalk are one-story
24 buildings. Everything over one story, including
25 1661 next door, sits back quite a bit more from
1 that. 1661 has 23 feet of greenspace from the
2 sidewalk to the building.
3 With regard to parking, the overlay is
4 clear on 75 percent reduction of parking for the
5 building under 45 feet of height, which would
6 allow 19 spaces. However, one of the things to
7 point out is that the building has four floors
8 of uses, not three. So the building -- with the
9 building having four floors of uses, in the end,
10 all the spaces that are going to be added is
11 one. There are currently 20 on-street parking
12 spaces abutting the site. They propose 21. So
13 we have a net gain of one.
14 They also propose adding 11 more spaces
16 the PUD was "proposed." I don't read that as
17 being required. So, in the end, we're only
18 adding one space.
19 Furthermore, there are no spaces being
20 added for any of the residential or office uses
21 on the second or third floors.
22 At this point, I think RAP would be
23 interested in seeing at least a written
24 agreement with somebody else for those spaces,
25 such as 1661 or, you know, right across the
1 street that appears to have quite a bit of extra
2 parking. However, at this point, none of that
3 has been met.
4 Finally, if you -- the overlay requires
5 75 -- either 75 percent reduction in the parking
6 requirements. However, it also states that
7 those parking requirements need to be met on
8 site, which they're not. They're -- at this
9 point, they're not being met. They're being met
10 with existing spaces by, again, adding one space
11 and, quote, proposing adding 11 more spaces
12 across the street.
13 Anybody that takes a drive through that
14 area at any point of the day, day or night, can
15 tell that is a very high-demand area for
16 parking. By adding one space for a -- for four
17 floors of use, I don't believe that we're going
18 to have sufficient parking in the area.
19 Thank you for your time.
20 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, sir.
21 Any questions for Mr. Congro?
22 COMMITTEE MEMBERS: (No response.)
23 THE CHAIRMAN: Our last speaker is
24 Kay Ehas.
25 (Audience member approaches the podium.)
1 AUDIENCE MEMBER: Kay Ehas, 2322 Dellwood
I'm chair of
4 Carmen and Steve talked about kind of the
5 background of the project so that you understand
6 our concerns because I'm going to talk about the
7 additional things we'd like to see, and I do
8 want to reiterate that we have consistently,
9 with every meeting, explained to the developers
10 all the things we wanted to see changed,
11 including what I'm about to tell you. So we
12 have been very consistent. We did not change
13 our message in any one of those meetings. We've
14 actually backed off on what we've requested.
15 Because this project is going to be such a
16 high-intensive parking use and it's not really
17 providing the required parking -- because
18 remember, that 75 percent reduction, you get
19 that if you -- if you provide the parking on
20 site. They are not doing that, which means they
21 should be providing 74 spaces. That's how you
22 get that credit for the on-street parking around
23 the parcel.
24 So we would like to prohibit medical uses,
25 because they are also very parking intensive.
1 And adding both restaurant and medical is just
2 going to exacerbate it even more than it already
3 will be, so we just would like that eliminated.
4 Again, we would like to limit the hours of
5 live music so the residents can enjoy the
6 quality of life.
7 And then the mass and scale of this
8 building has always been very important to us.
9 We think it's just too big. However, we're not
10 arguing that it can't be 45 feet. That is --
11 that's what the overlay says, it's what they're
12 allowed. What we're asking for is that the
13 building -- the third of the building, right
14 next to Mossfire, be set back four feet to line
15 up with Mossfire so that it doesn't look like
16 this huge mass kind of over that building.
17 I mean, sitting -- sitting right on your
18 site makes a big difference in terms of making
19 it a pedestrian-friendly environment, so we
20 would like to see that part of the building set
21 back four feet, in line with Mossfire; and we'd
22 like the rest of the building to meet the
23 eight-foot sidewalk requirement; set the
24 building back two feet instead of moving the
25 sidewalk out into the street. Those are the
1 things we're asking for. We believe at the end
2 of the day they are so incredibly reasonable.
3 Thank you very much.
4 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Ms. Ehas.
5 Any questions from the committee?
6 COMMITTEE MEMBERS: (No response.)
7 THE CHAIRMAN: Ms. Ehas, the -- you
8 mentioned Mossfire. That's where on the site
9 plan? I'm sorry, I didn't bring my handout that
10 you delivered to me.
11 MS. EHAS: This building is on the corner
12 of Margaret and
13 it would sit right next to Mossfire on Margaret
15 THE CHAIRMAN: And how far off the street
16 is Mossfire?
17 MS. EHAS: It's four feet -- it sets [sic]
18 back four feet from the sidewalk.
19 THE CHAIRMAN: And how do the other
20 buildings, I guess --
21 MS. EHAS: The buildings on that --
22 THE CHAIRMAN: This direction
24 MS. EHAS: Yeah.
25 The buildings on that block that are taller
1 than one story sit back from the sidewalk. The
2 ones further up to Lomax are one story and they
3 sit right up to the sidewalk. And a one-story
4 building is still pedestrian friendly, which is
5 why that works. Once you get taller and you've
6 got a mass going up, it just makes it not so
8 THE CHAIRMAN: All right. Thank you very
10 Anyone else care to address the committee
11 in opposition?
12 AUDIENCE MEMBERS: (No response.)
13 THE CHAIRMAN: All right. Seeing no one,
14 Mr. Reingold, the official timekeeper, what did
15 you come up with as time -- total time used by
16 the opposition?
17 MR. REINGOLD: The opposition used
18 roughly -- and I'm serious about this. I
19 literally came up with 15 minutes. Wyman Duggan
20 and the applicant used six minutes and
21 17 seconds; therefore, if I can do my math
22 correctly, they would have eight minutes and
23 43 seconds for rebuttal.
24 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. Is that -- did you do
25 your math correctly? You went too quick for me.
1 MR. REINGOLD: I'm sorry, I tried to keep
3 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Joost.
4 MR. JOOST: That's correct.
5 THE CHAIRMAN: He's got his calculator
6 usually with him all the time, so he confirms
7 that the math is correct.
8 (Mr. Duggan approaches the podium.)
9 THE CHAIRMAN: All right. Mr. Duggan, how
10 do you want to handle that? Do you want to take
11 the whole time? Do you want to yield some of
12 that time to the other speaker?
13 MR. DUGGAN: It's all on me.
14 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. We're going to set
15 the clock for eight minutes and 43 seconds.
16 You may begin.
17 MR. DUGGAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
18 I want to begin by submitting into the
19 record two e-mails. You've already gotten
20 these, but -- at least you were copied on them.
21 I want to put them in the record. They're from
22 the owner of
23 you will, and then an employee -- excuse me --
24 an individual who works in the area. They're in
25 support of our project. I just want to put
1 those in the record.
2 Just as kind of background, I want to point
3 out that in 2006, in connection with the
4 existing PUD on the property, the Planning
5 Department did a parking study of the area and
6 showed that there are 850 spaces available in
7 the parking area, 385 of those are
9 And, at that time, the Planning Department
10 determined there was adequate -- sufficient
11 parking to meet the demand created by the
12 existing PUD on the site.
13 Going through these comments,
14 Mr. Andrews -- Brooks Andrews, again, he resides
15 inside the historical district, we do not.
16 Presumably, as a resident there, he got notice
17 of all the hearings. To my knowledge, at least
18 as far as the Planning Department has told me,
19 they have not received any contact from any
20 residents in the area, inside or outside the
21 historic district, so this is the first time --
22 I pointed that fact out at Planning Commission,
23 that no residents have contacted Mr. Corrigan's
24 office, according to his council aide and my
25 public records request. Nobody contacted the
1 Planning Department. I will leave it up to you
2 to speculate as to whether his attendance here
3 tonight was engendered by a contact from RAP or
5 As to the mass and scale and design of the
6 project, there's a condition in the staff report
7 that will address that. There are design
8 guidelines in the overlay that must be complied
9 with, in addition, and over and above that. The
10 Planning Department has conditioned our approval
11 on complying with those guidelines. We're not
12 seeking to deviate from that. So that
13 protection is in place.
14 In terms of the parking -- this really
15 applies to several of the comments. The parking
16 problems that exist here today we did not
17 create, and you cannot condition our approval on
18 fixing them, just as you cannot, in the larger
19 concurrency context, hold somebody up because
20 there's a backlogged facility.
21 I will tell you that the Mossfire and
22 O'Brothers restaurants in the same block, up the
23 street from us, benefit from administrative
24 deviations that have been granted in the past
25 that reduce their required parking demand from
1 seventy-one spaces to zero. If there's a
2 parking problem in the area, we did not create
4 We have been told by the Planning
5 Department that our parking demand, under the
6 terms of the overlay, is 21 spaces that we have
7 to provide. We're providing parking to meet the
8 effects of our development.
9 I would say in terms of Ms. Congelio's
10 comments about a compromise, we have
11 compromised. There are already several facets
12 of the PUD that reflect compromise with the
13 concerns expressed by RAP. You will see in the
14 list of uses, there's a whole list of prohibited
15 uses, that was at RAP's request, and we put that
16 in there at that request.
17 So there -- there has been compromise all
18 along. You haven't heard about it necessarily,
19 but I don't want you to get the false impression
20 that it hasn't happened.
21 Outdoor activity, sales and service can
22 occur until 2 a.m. right now at O'Brothers and
23 Mossfire. Those establishments are subject to
24 the ordinance, as we will be.
25 In terms of Terry's comments -- I'm sorry,
Diane M. Tropia, Inc.,
1 I didn't write her last name down -- and her
2 concerns about the elderly, we're going to be
3 actually improving this intersection here at Oak
4 and Margaret to create a crosswalk that does not
5 now exist to assist people in safely crossing
6 the street there.
7 In terms of Ms. Godwin's comments, we did
8 not receive a copy of their board packet, so I'm
9 not prepared to respond point by point to what
10 they say.
11 Again, the comments as to mass and scale,
12 the Planning Department ensured that we comply
13 with those issues.
14 As to the parking, though, I will point out
15 that when -- on August 12th, when RAP provided
16 us with their summary of primary points of
17 concern, under parking, they say that, "We
18 recognize that the size and shape of the lot is
19 unique, so we're willing to support a deviation
20 from the on site-parking requirements."
21 I'd like to submit this into the record as
23 (Tenders document.)
24 Setbacks to zero feet are allowed under the
25 urban transition area of the zoning overlay. We
1 can build right up to the right-of-way line.
2 That is allowed.
3 We are providing an eight-foot setback.
4 We're providing it in the right-of-way. That is
6 The medical office use issue, which
7 Ms. Ehas also raised, in addition to Ms. Godwin,
8 I would remind everybody that this entire area
9 used to consist, to a great degree, of medical
10 office uses when
11 on the site of what is now the
12 Publix. 1661 was developed on the site of a
13 medical office building.
14 This is a medical office building
15 (indicating). This whole building is medical
16 office uses. This is a medical office use. We
17 are not introducing a use to the neighborhood
18 that does not already exist. It has
19 historically existed.
20 Medical office uses are a hot-button issue
21 for RAP and within the historic district. I
22 might concede that that's a legitimate concern.
23 This is the urban transition area. It is, by
24 definition, designed for greater intensity and
25 density. Medical office uses are not going to
1 create some new problem that can't be adequately
2 handled. Those types of uses happen throughout
3 the day. They're not peak-hour uses.
4 In terms of the setback issue of Mossfire,
5 Mossfire may be set back four feet at some
6 point, but I will remind you, for those of you
7 who don't know or may have forgotten, the front
8 step -- the front stoop of Mossfire, if you
9 will, actually completely crosses and blocks the
10 existing sidewalk and goes out in -- reaches
11 right out into the existing perpendicular
12 parking. So I think it's misleading to say
13 Mossfire is set back four feet. By the way,
14 Mossfire is a two-story building, not a
15 one-story building.
16 In terms of the parking on
17 exists there now, we are not adding just one
18 space. City code says that parallel parking
19 spaces are 22 feet long.
20 In terms of getting back to Mr. Bishop's
21 question, we would estimate that approximately
22 six parallel parking spaces exist now on our
23 frontage on the
24 the case, as Mr. Congro said, that we're only
25 adding one new space on that frontage because
1 there -- by code, approximately six there --
2 there are only six there now.
3 In terms of providing off-street, dedicated
4 parking for our office users or our resident
5 users, that's a risk that we -- that my clients
6 will have to take. The market may tell them,
7 well, your tenants and your residents demand
8 dedicated off-street parking, but they're
9 willing to assume the risk that it doesn't.
10 They're willing to assume the risk that
11 they can find tenants and residents who are
12 willing to reside or have their office in that
13 building without a dedicated off-street parking
14 space. That risk is properly placed upon them.
15 Ms. Ehas talked about mass and scale.
16 Again, that's not really an issue properly, in
17 my opinion, for this committee to consider.
18 They're already -- the guidelines are already in
19 the overlay. The Planning Department has been
20 charged with enforcing them. They've put a
21 condition on us. We're going to comply with
22 it. It's not really this committee's purview to
23 go back and rewrite those conditions or analyze
24 those conditions. I submit to you that that's
25 not appropriately an issue for us to spend time
Diane M. Tropia,
1 on tonight when the Planning Department has
2 already ensured that we're going to have to
3 comply with those conditions.
4 Other PUDs in the area allow zero-foot
5 setbacks with a buffer in the right-of-way.
6 And, finally, again, just to reiterate, in
7 closing, this project does not -- is not within
8 the historic district. Most of the folks here
9 tonight are associated with RAP. I understand
10 that they care about the neighborhood. That's
11 why we worked with them for a minimum of five
12 meetings that Ms. Godwin agreed to or
13 acknowledged, but at the end of the day it's not
14 in the historic district.
15 The comprehensive plan incentivizes and
16 demands urban infill. If we're serious about
17 urban infill, it's going to mean a little more
18 intensity and density than we're used to. This
19 is not a suburban setting. You're not going to
20 be able to pull right up in front and get out of
21 your car.
22 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Duggan.
23 Question. You've cited two locations or
24 two establishments that have administrative
25 deviations for zero parking. You said Mossfire,
1 and who was the other one?
2 MR. DUGGAN: It's now known as O'Brothers.
3 It's up here (indicating).
4 This is Mossfire (indicating). This is a
5 dentist office. This is O'Brothers. We're
6 right here.
7 THE CHAIRMAN: Did you ever figure out how
8 many parking spaces were on the street?
9 MR. DUGGAN: Yes. At a 22-foot-wide
10 parallel parking space, we are creating a net
11 gain of four spaces on -- immediately adjacent
12 to our property on the
13 then, of course, we're creating the new --
14 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. Let me try to ask
15 that in a different way.
16 How many available on-street parking spaces
17 are there that are contiguous to the property in
18 question? You know, if we went over there right
19 now and counted them, how many would there be?
20 MR. DUGGAN: Well, on the
21 frontage there's no striping. The code is
22 22 spaces [sic] for a parallel parking space.
23 So given the frontage of our property, at most
24 there would be six parallel spaces.
25 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. There could be, but
1 they're not.
2 MR. DUGGAN: Well, they're not striped,
4 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay.
5 MR. DUGGAN: Okay. So then you've got
6 the -- you've got to maintain the sight triangle
7 down here (indicating), so you can't park
8 right -- you know.
9 This is currently paved (indicating) but
10 unstriped. Code requires nine-foot-wide parking
11 stalls for a perpendicular parking space, but
12 I -- I don't know what that number is today --
13 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay.
14 MR. DUGGAN: -- if it were striped.
15 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. And I asked you
16 earlier about the 11 -- you said the 11
17 additional parking spaces -- I found the section
18 in the -- that you pointed out in the written
19 description, or somebody pointed out, but it
20 says -- and I think one speaker alluded to
21 this. It says, "The applicants propose to fund
22 the creation of a minimum of 11 new,
23 unrestricted, noncontiguous, off-street" -- I'm
24 sorry. Let me back up a little bit. "Through
25 separate legislation, the applicants propose to
1 fund the creation of a minimum 11 new,
2 unrestricted, noncontiguous, off-street,
3 90-degree parking spaces," et cetera,
4 et cetera. What legislation is that?
5 MR. DUGGAN: It will be -- it's to be
6 introduced. In order to create perpendicular
7 parking in City right-of-way, the City must
8 approve that through legislation.
9 THE CHAIRMAN: What happens if we approve
10 the PUD and the legislation doesn't get
11 introduced, or worse, it doesn't get approved,
12 where does that leave you?
13 MR. DUGGAN: Well, it leaves us in a
14 position where we provide the 21 spaces that the
15 Planning Department said we had to provide
16 immediately contiguous to the site.
17 MR. KELLY: If I may, that legislation has
18 already been approved, I believe. I was trying
19 to find the bill back in 2001, but perpendicular
20 parking was permitted in the Five Points area,
21 the Shoppes at Avondale, San Marco Square.
22 There were probably four or five locations
23 that were all approved under one ordinance and
24 there was an amendment to that that actually
25 included the Shoppes of Avondale later, but all
1 of that perpendicular on-street parking is
2 already allowed, based on the -- the boundaries
3 described in the legislation. I believe it's
4 2003 or '05 that dealt with that, but that is
5 already codified.
6 (Mr. Holt enters the proceedings.)
7 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. Well, Mr. Kelly, that
8 begs the question, then, in the written
9 description, which you reviewed, why would the
10 word "proposed" be in there? I'm a little
11 confused about this.
12 MR. KELLY: I believe it was probably a
13 misunderstanding at the time. The applicant may
14 not have been aware that this other legislation
15 existed already, but for any new parking --
16 on-street parking that is proposed that's not
17 inclusive of these areas, it would be required
18 to go through new legislation.
19 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. Mr. Reingold.
20 MR. REINGOLD: Through the Chair to
21 Mr. Kelly. Mr. Kelly, I have ordinance
22 2006-1213 in front of me. It's permitting
23 angled parking on
24 Street to
25 you're referring to or is there another
1 ordinance out there that you're referring to?
2 MR. KELLY: I believe there was one before
3 that, and that included the Five Points
4 boundary, which included all of the right-of-way
5 from Oak, Margaret, Park.
6 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Reingold, angled parking
7 is not 90-degree parking, is it?
8 MR. REINGOLD: Actually, under the
9 Statutes, angled parking includes perpendicular
11 THE CHAIRMAN: So angled parking could be
12 90-degree parking?
13 MR. REINGOLD: That is correct, sir.
14 THE CHAIRMAN: Let the record reflect that
15 Councilman Holt has joined us.
16 Questions for Mr. Duggan, I have several
17 people on the queue. Mr. Corrigan, Mr. Redman,
18 Mr. Bishop, and Councilman Dick -- I'm sorry,
19 Reggie Brown.
20 You're "D," right, on the queue?
21 MR. D. BROWN: Yes.
22 THE CHAIRMAN: Because you're really
23 an "R."
24 Mr. Corrigan, I'll let you go, but these
25 are questions for Mr. Duggan.
1 MR. CORRIGAN: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate
2 it. I was going to clarify a little bit more,
3 the previous question about the proposed bill
4 and the parking.
5 I, as the district councilperson
6 representing the area previously, introduced a
7 bill to allow perpendicular parking about a
8 block and a half down from this. The council
9 approved it unanimously because that fed into
10 the nature of the parking.
11 I've committed to the applicant that I
12 would introduce that legislation going forward.
13 I wanted to wait until this PUD was decided
14 prior to introducing that legislation.
15 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Corrigan.
16 Mr. Redman, questions?
17 MR. REDMAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
18 Mr. Duggan, the sound level that I've heard
19 several questions about, I haven't heard you say
20 anything to this matter. It sounds like, you
21 know, a -- 10 o'clock on a weekday and
22 12 o'clock on the weekend would be a --
23 something that would be advisable for the
25 MR. DUGGAN: Thank you, Councilman Redman,
1 for reminding me of that. I apologize.
2 My clients' position on that, I believe,
3 would be -- the two bars just up the street,
4 restaurants -- excuse me, the two restaurants
5 just up the street do not have a limitation on
6 them. They are subject to the noise ordinance,
7 and we would propose to be consistent with the
8 other restaurants within the same block. I
9 don't know that my clients want to agree to some
10 new condition that they're not subject to.
11 MR. REDMAN: Now, do these others have
12 outdoor dining and outdoor music?
13 MR. DUGGAN: Yes.
14 MR. REDMAN: Okay. So you wouldn't be
15 doing anything different at the roof level of
16 your building if you had music on it?
17 MR. DUGGAN: We would be higher, I will
18 grant you that. But as you heard Mr. DeVault
19 say, this is not a bar, this is not a club.
20 It's a restaurant.
21 So I understand Mr. Crescimbeni's
22 cross-examination on the hours of their
23 operation, but I don't envision that they're
24 going to be carrying on up there late into the
1 MR. REDMAN: Soft dining music, right?
2 MR. DUGGAN: Yes.
3 MR. REDMAN: All right.
4 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Duggan, was there any
5 consideration to just putting the music on the
6 ground floor?
7 MR. DUGGAN: No. They would like to be
8 able to have music on the rooftop.
9 THE CHAIRMAN: Why not the ground floor?
10 Was there a reason that they didn't want to do
12 MR. DUGGAN: Well, they'd like to do both.
13 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. Because I think
14 45 feet in the air is -- where is -- where are
15 the other two restaurants that you're
16 referencing? Their music is on the ground?
17 MR. DUGGAN: Actually, I'll defer to
18 Mr. DeVault. He probably knows better.
19 (Mr. DeVault approaches the podium.)
20 MR. DeVAULT: Currently, to my knowledge,
21 O'Brothers, which is just up the street, does
22 have live music on their bottom level and their
23 outdoor dining facility, not -- Mossfire does
24 not, to my knowledge, but they, I assume, could
25 have it on the roof -- they have an outdoor
1 dining facility on the second floor, which is on
2 the other side of where our property is, so I
3 assume they would be able to do the same there.
4 THE CHAIRMAN: But they currently don't
5 have any music, is that what you're saying?
6 MR. DeVAULT: I don't operate those
7 businesses, so I can't say for sure, but never
8 when I visited, which is often.
9 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. Thank you.
10 Mr. Bishop.
11 MR. BISHOP: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
12 It's a joint question, part for Mr. Kelly
13 and part for Mr. Duggan.
14 With respect to going back to parking and
15 the ordinances that we have just been made aware
16 of, or at least I've just been made aware of,
17 that allows perpendicular or angled parking in
18 certain areas, in light of those ordinances, is
19 a separate ordinance needed to create the
20 parking on the opposite side of
21 Or maybe that's for Mr. Reingold. Is it
22 necessary to have a separate ordinance to do
24 MR. REINGOLD: Through the Chair to
25 Councilman Bishop, we've actually -- that's been
1 our common practice, to have a separate
2 ordinance that strictly deals with the parking
3 issue, pursuant to
4 MR. BISHOP: So the ordinance that's on the
5 books basically gives us the authority to have
6 another ordinance to actually allow the parking;
7 is that what we did?
8 MR. REINGOLD: Well, what -- and certainly
9 could be a condition of this PUD, if that's
10 where the committee was going, was to say you
11 need to provide additional spaces or X amount of
12 spaces on the street, and that would be the way
13 they would have to go.
14 MR. BISHOP: Well, that part -- we're
15 getting to that in a moment, but my question has
16 to do with the legalities of off-street
17 parking. What we heard from Mr. Duggan was it
18 was his understanding that that parking, in
19 order to do it, there had to be a separate
20 ordinance allowing it, but we're now hearing
21 that there already is an ordinance on the books
22 that allows 90-degree parking or angled parking
23 in certain areas, of which this is one.
24 So my question, then, going in its simplest
25 form that I know how to ask it is, why is
1 another ordinance necessary to allow it if there
2 already is an ordinance on the books that allows
4 MR. REINGOLD: Through the Chair, I'll be
5 honest, Councilmember Bishop. I was only aware
6 of ordinance 2006-1213-E, which did not cover
7 this area Mr. Kelly has identified, another
8 ordinance I have not seen yet, which he says
9 purports to allow the angled parking in this
10 area. If that is true, then they wouldn't need
11 the separate legislation, but I'm just not aware
12 yet of the ordinance that was referred to by
13 Mr. Kelly.
14 MR. BISHOP: Well, with that in mind,
15 question to Mr. Duggan. Since it is your
16 intention to build this parking anyway and if
17 the legal opinion does come down that there is
18 no need for another ordinance, would you have a
19 problem putting that additional parking in the
20 PUD as a condition?
21 MR. DUGGAN: That's a good question.
22 I think that my clients' position would
23 be -- we're willing to provide what the code
24 requires us to do. We're willing to spend our
25 own money to do off-site, but we are -- as their
1 attorney, I would say you never know what's
2 going to come up. What if there's some other
3 unforeseen eventuality -- this is a condition of
4 your PUD and the unforeseen occurs?
5 So, again, this is not a case where we're
6 not meeting what the Planning Department tells
7 us we need to provide. We're providing the
8 number that the Planning Department says we need
9 to provide. So over and above that, we're going
10 to do that if we can and we're going to pay for
11 that. That's our intention. It's great if we
12 don't need a separate ordinance to do that.
13 I would tell them -- I don't --
14 MR. BISHOP: You're hedging.
15 MR. DUGGAN: Yeah. I don't know that I
16 would tell them to agree to that as a condition
17 of the PUD. I mean, it's already -- it's in the
18 written description, but -- the PUD approval is
19 conditioned on that written description, but --
20 you know, I -- something could happen. I don't
21 know what that could be.
22 MR. BISHOP: Well, let me help out here,
23 then, a second. Maybe it's not quite exactly
24 right, but if -- if it is not required and if it
25 is not -- then what -- what's the real benefit
1 of even -- or what's the value of showing it in
2 here at all if it's not intended to be done?
3 And if it is intended to be done anyway, then
4 why would it be a problem to put it in as part
5 of the PUD? Since you're going to do it anyway,
6 what difference does it make?
7 MR. DUGGAN: Well, I guess, again, it makes
8 a difference from the standpoint of -- they're
9 willing to assume the risk of developing this
10 project in this economy. They're meeting the
11 number of required parking spaces the Planning
12 Department has said that they need to provide.
13 My concern is that imposing this extra
14 burden on them as a condition of the PUD is just
15 not something that I, personally, would
16 recommend to them as their counsel that they
17 agree to, but, again, it's in the PUD and it's
18 our intention to do it. We've committed to the
19 councilman that we're going to do it and spend
20 our own money to do it.
21 MR. BISHOP: Which is essentially saying
23 MR. DUGGAN: I don't see it as maybe.
24 My job -- I'm not a -- as somebody else
25 once said, I'm not a potted plant. I'm here to
1 advise them on their legal rights and risks.
2 All of the surrounding businesses on this -- in
3 the area sought and obtained waivers from
4 meeting their required parking.
5 So we're going to provide what we are told
6 we have to provide. We want to provide extra
7 and we want to do it at our -- at our financial
9 MR. BISHOP: So are you saying you want --
10 would like the option of doing it, not
11 necessarily at the same time you did the
13 MR. DUGGAN: I'm sorry, I don't follow you.
14 MR. BISHOP: Meaning you're going to do it,
15 but want to have the flexibility of when to do
16 it or when not to do it or part of it or all of
17 it, basically not make it a -- a legal
18 requirement of the PUD, but you intend to do
20 MR. DUGGAN: Correct.
21 MR. BISHOP: So, I guess, what that starts
22 to tell me is that maybe -- that, obviously, all
23 of this comes down to money. Obviously, they're
24 developing this project in an uncertain time and
25 there's -- it's expensive to do this, and so is
1 it a matter of simply having flexibility as to
2 when you do this? Meaning, maybe it doesn't get
3 done exactly when the building is built. Maybe
4 it gets done at some point -- down the road at
5 some point.
6 I guess I'm trying to understand where it
7 is basically for all -- for -- basically, just
8 to cut to the chase -- again, don't get me
9 wrong. I'm not trying to give you a hard time
10 over this, but I'm trying to understand
11 specifically where this is going.
12 It sounds all grand and wonderful to show
13 the parking and to say you're going to do it,
14 but if there's no requirement that you do it,
15 that's the same as saying you don't have to do
16 it. And so if you don't have to do it, why put
17 it in there in the first place? Because all it
18 does is confuse things.
19 MR. DUGGAN: I think as evidence of our
20 good faith and our commitment to the success of
21 the larger neighborhood and retail activity,
22 that's why, as a sign of good faith.
23 THE CHAIRMAN: Anything else, Mr. Bishop?
24 MR. BISHOP: Okay. No. I'm fine.
25 Thank you.
1 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Bishop.
2 On the queue I have Councilman Reggie
3 Brown, followed by Councilmember Holt, and then
4 Councilman Corrigan.
5 Mr. Brown.
6 MR. R. BROWN: Yes. Through the Chair, I
7 think this is page 9, dealing with the setbacks.
8 I just want to be clear, are we going to
9 take the recommendation to implement a setback
10 or we're not going to? Because I'm not really
12 As I look down the street -- I'm very
13 familiar with the area, and you can see the
14 greenery in front of most buildings. By not
15 committing to a setback, I think you will really
16 change the -- that whole street appearance, and
17 so I just wanted to make sure that I was clear
18 as to what position the client was taking
19 regarding the setback.
20 MR. DUGGAN: The overlay allows you to
21 build right up to the property line. But if you
22 do that, it requires that you provide what's
23 called an urban buffer, an 8-foot urban buffer.
24 We're going to do that.
25 We have some conceptual elevations that I
1 can pass out to you that show how that might
2 look in terms of some landscaping. So if that's
3 your issue, I'm happy to pass that out to all of
5 We're going to also provide the required
6 number of canopy trees that 21 parking spaces
8 So there will a setback. It's going to be
9 an 8-foot setback. It's going to be provided
10 from the property line into the right-of-way,
11 which is allowed and which is -- in which other
12 PUDs in this neighborhood have also utilized.
13 So we're going to meet the canopy tree
14 requirement. We're going to meet the urban
15 setback requirement. This is an issue that the
16 Planning Department and I -- and us worked on
17 extensively. So I don't want to -- I want to
18 make it clear that there will be the required
19 urban setback that the overlay requires if you
20 build right up to the property line.
21 MR. R. BROWN: Okay. Thank you.
22 And my -- through the Chair, my second
23 question, it deals with the noise level, because
24 there is a difference between music coming from
25 a system -- a stereo system versus a band. And
1 we deal with this challenge all the time with
2 neighbors playing music, so I guess my concern
3 or question is, what measures, in terms of the
4 noise level, to ensure that the clients -- not
5 the clients, but the neighbors, they're not
6 being overwhelmed with loud music?
7 Because as I heard one of the speakers say
8 tonight, you know, there's no one that's going
9 to come out and measure, you know, the decibel,
10 if you will. And I can tell that JSO is very
11 busy. And I don't think you want to have that
12 type of relationship, and so I -- I think that's
13 something that really need to be worked out.
14 And when I think about it -- and I heard
15 that there's no -- there are no neighbors here
16 from that immediate area.
17 And I also am familiar with other
18 restaurants that have entertainment. I don't
19 know how they're doing it, but do we have any
20 concerns right now from other neighbors with
21 outdoor entertainment that -- to your
23 MR. DUGGAN: Not to my knowledge.
24 Again, I'm not aware that the Planning
25 Department was contacted by any residents. I'm
1 not aware that Councilman Corrigan's office was
2 contacted by any residents. I was not
3 contacted. You know, the mailed notices go out
4 to everybody with my name and phone number as
5 the agent for the applicant. Nobody showed up
6 at Planning Commission to -- who's a resident of
7 the area showed up to address that issue.
8 I can tell you that we will be subject to
9 the law, just as the two restaurants down the
10 street will be. And, furthermore, my clients
11 operate a business now within the historic
12 district, Orsay. They've had one noise
13 complaint in the entire several years that
14 they've been open. It had to do with a garbage
15 truck picking up early, and they straightened
16 that out.
17 I mean, they're good neighbors. It's their
18 intention to be good neighbors. This is going
19 to be a nice restaurant that doesn't really
20 cater noi- -- you know, loud music.
21 MR. R. BROWN: Right. And I guess my
22 biggest position with this is that a lot of the
23 clients that will frequent this restaurant, we
24 hope, will come from the community. And we have
25 to be sensitive to their lifestyles in terms of,
1 like, when you go out Saturday night and getting
2 up for worship on Sunday mornings, just
3 different things like that, and so that -- that
4 would be my only concern -- or one of my
5 greatest concerns is that -- if we can work that
6 out to make sure, because the last thing I would
7 want to see happen in any community is that the
8 business owners, they're not sensitive to the
9 living conditions, if you will, of the -- of
10 their neighbors, and so that -- that would be my
11 only concern.
12 And I saw a few hands, and so at some point
13 I'm sure we'll reach out to ask other questions.
14 Thank you.
15 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Brown.
16 Councilman Holt and then -- followed by
17 Councilman Corrigan and Councilman Dick Brown.
18 MR. HOLT: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
19 Mr. Duggan, sorry to be coming in late on
20 this and maybe rehash some of the things that
21 have already been talked about, but I'll try to
22 be fast about my questions.
23 First of all, to kind of come off of
24 something that Councilmember Brown was saying
25 about noise, what are the -- what are the
1 requirements for the hours of operation? Do you
2 have a --
3 MR. DUGGAN: The PUD currently does not
4 have a condition about the hours of operation,
5 but it's a restaurant, so -- Mr. Crescimbeni did
6 ask some questions about that. It's going to be
7 typical restaurant hours. You know, probably
8 midnight during the week -- I mean, midnight on
9 the weekends, a little bit earlier during the
11 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Holt, I think we
12 established earlier that the alcohol was
13 regulated by the State up until 2 a.m., but the
14 restaurant could be open as long as they wanted
15 to, correct? Did I understand that correctly?
16 MR. DUGGAN: Yes.
17 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. DeVault is acknowledging
19 MR. HOLT: So the -- oh, goodness. I guess
20 that's the southeast, there's an apartment or
21 condo building. What is the height on that?
22 MR. DUGGAN: That is 1661
23 believe the height on that is close to 55 feet.
24 I'm looking to the Planning Department,
25 but --
1 MR. KELLY: It's a -- four stories in
2 total, so you have three floors of residential
3 above retail.
4 MR. HOLT: Okay. I drove by there about
5 two hours ago and kind of looked the area over.
6 The proposed additional parking that you
7 were talking about, I guess, would be to the
8 west of your property?
9 MR. DUGGAN: To the east.
10 MR. HOLT: To the east.
11 MR. DUGGAN: It will be -- here's an
13 This is the property right here
14 (indicating). We're creating on-street parking
15 here and here, and then we're going to add on
16 the east side of
17 MR. HOLT: Okay. I see.
18 And that's how may additional --
19 MR. DUGGAN: A minimum of 11. We've gotten
20 written consent from those property owners.
21 MR. HOLT: Okay. Mr. Bishop makes a very
22 good point, though, that if it's not in the
23 ordinance, then we really don't have anything to
24 hang our hat on. Would your client be open to
25 conditioning it that within two years that that
1 parking is built?
2 MR. DUGGAN: We'll discuss that with them,
3 while I anticipate you're going to hear from the
4 other folks again, and hopefully we'll have an
5 answer for you.
6 MR. HOLT: All right. Thank you, sir.
7 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Corrigan, followed by
8 Councilmember Brown.
9 MR. CORRIGAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
10 Before I get started, if I could get
11 clarification from you. We'll have an
12 opportunity to come back and address the
13 committee --
14 THE CHAIRMAN: Absolutely. We're still in
15 public hearing. Do you have a comment --
16 questions for Mr. Duggan?
17 MR. CORRIGAN: No. I'll wait until the --
18 till later on.
19 Thank you.
20 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you.
21 Mr. Brown, Mr. Dick brown.
22 MR. D. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, I could bring
23 this back up in committee. I just wanted to
24 weigh in on the sound ordinance and sort of
25 thing. Why don't I wait --
1 THE CHAIRMAN: Unless you have a question
2 for Mr. --
3 MR. D. BROWN: No, I don't have a question.
4 THE CHAIRMAN: All right. We'll take that
6 Any other questions for Mr. Duggan?
7 COMMITTEE MEMBERS: (No response.)
8 THE CHAIRMAN: All right. Seeing none --
9 thank you, Mr. Duggan.
10 Will you agree that that included your
12 MR. DUGGAN: Yes, Mr. Chairman.
13 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. Thank you.
14 MR. DUGGAN: Although, as Mr. Reingold
15 referred, I would like a limited surrebuttal.
16 THE CHAIRMAN: How limited?
17 MR. DUGGAN: It depends on what they say.
18 THE CHAIRMAN: All right. Would anyone
19 from the opposition care to provide a
20 surrebuttal to the committee?
21 (Ms. Ehas approaches the podium.)
22 MS. EHAS: Perhaps it should be a misbuttal
23 [sic] instead of a surbuttal [sic].
24 THE CHAIRMAN: We can certainly ask about
1 Mr. Reingold, how much time do we provide
2 for the surrebuttal? Do we need to put
3 something on the clock?
4 MR. REINGOLD: It would probably be a good
5 idea just to establish an amount. There is no
6 written amount.
7 THE CHAIRMAN: Do you have a
8 recommendation, Mr. Timekeeper?
9 MR. REINGOLD: Keep it to a minute or less.
10 THE CHAIRMAN: How about a minute and a
11 half and then we'll provide two minutes -- I'm
12 going to give the same thing to Mr. Duggan.
13 So, go ahead, Ms. Ehas.
14 MS. EHAS: Okay. Kay Ehas again.
15 I just want to be clear that, when you ask
16 for a PUD, it means you cannot comply with the
17 existing code. Okay? It's not complying with
18 the overlay in terms of height definitions,
19 parking and signage.
20 The overlay was put in place to eliminate
21 deviations. So when they talk about the parking
22 deviations of existing businesses, that's in the
23 past. We can't change that. The overlay is to
24 prevent future deviations. And we fought long
25 and hard about parking, as Mr. Corrigan will
1 probably tell you.
2 This requires, if they're going to ask for
3 a 75 percent reduction, 19 spaces on the
4 street. I mean, I'm sorry, on site, which
5 they're not providing. So they're not meeting
6 it. I just want to be clear about that.
7 We only asked for one prohibition on the
8 uses, and that was the medical use. Anything
9 else in their PUD they provided themselves.
10 Yes, we understand that the site
11 constraints hamper them from providing parking
12 on the site. We get that, which is why we asked
13 them to provide dedicated off-site parking,
14 through a parking agreement, for the residential
15 uses, and eliminate the medical use because it's
16 so parking intensive.
17 The handout on page 11 of our packet, which
18 is a site comparison chart, I just want to point
19 that out because it will show you all the
20 previous developments that RAP negotiated. They
21 all provide on-site parking.
22 The parking on the street that was
23 developed on Oak and Margaret were four of those
24 developments, and they're all currently full.
25 So that 2006 parking study the Planning
1 Department did is no longer relevant.
2 All of those developments have setbacks.
3 An urban buffer -- an 8-foot sidewalk
4 requirement is not a setback. A setback is when
5 you're actually moving the building back from
6 the sidewalk. They are not doing that. We
7 would like them to do that. Four feet for a
8 third of the building we don't think is a lot to
10 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Ms. Ehas.
11 Any questions from committee?
12 COMMITTEE MEMBERS: (No response.)
13 THE CHAIRMAN: All right. Thank you.
14 Mr. Duggan, a few minutes.
15 (Mr. Duggan approaches the podium.)
16 MR. DUGGAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
17 The overlay must be consistent with the
18 comprehensive plan. The comprehensive plan
19 requires infill redevelopment instead of
20 allowing new areas to commercialize. A PUD is a
21 perfect vehicle for allowing that comprehensive
22 plan requirement to be met when there's these
23 overlay requirements. So that's not at all
24 inconsistent. In fact, the overlay must be
25 consistent with the comprehensive plan, which
1 all of you have recently adopted amendments to
2 that, incentivize and encourage infill
3 redevelopment, especially in areas just like
4 this. This is exactly what smart planning is
5 looking for, infill redevelopment in the urban
7 Not providing residential off-street
8 parking if we have a residential use, that's our
9 risk. If the market says, I'm not going to rent
10 there because you don't have dedicated
11 off-street parking, that risk falls on them.
12 I'm touched by Ms. Ehas' concern about my
13 client's proforma, but it's really not within
14 her bailiwick.
15 As to the 2006 Planning Department studies
16 of continued viability and relevance, that's for
17 your experts, planners, to determine, not
18 Ms. Ehas, who's not AICP certified, I would
19 imagine, or she would have told you.
20 Finally, in terms of giving up the floor
21 plate, setting the building back, that gives up
22 rentable square footage for my clients' project,
23 that directly impacts the financial viability of
24 this project. It's very easy for RAP to spend
25 their money and modify their floor plate, but
1 I -- again, I will tell you, the building that
2 they are tying that 4-foot setback to, they have
3 an appurtenance to their building that
4 completely blocks the sidewalk right there. It
5 is not set back for the limit of the frontage of
6 the building. It completely blocks pedestrian
7 access down that sidewalk.
8 That's all I have.
9 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Duggan.
10 Any questions from the committee?
11 Councilmember Bishop, followed by
12 Councilmember Holt.
13 MR. BISHOP: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
14 With respect to the floor plate issue, I
15 completely understand the issue of rentable
16 floor space. It makes good sense.
17 However, in light of the fact that most of
18 your ground floor plate, at least with respect
19 to the proposed site plan, that setback, if you
20 will -- as I understand it from our discussion,
21 it's not really a setback, it's usable space
22 because it's intended to be outdoor dining, if I
23 understand that correctly. Most of that far
24 exceeds four feet.
25 Now, the four feet, as I understand it, is
1 a magic number because that happens to be what
2 Mossfire's building is set back from the
3 sidewalk, is four feet. And I don't know that
4 it has anything to do necessarily with
5 obstructions of the sidewalk. It has more to do
6 with, from what I understand, a visual corridor
7 on the street.
8 If your drawing is reasonably to scale, it
9 looks like the only area of concern here -- this
10 is very small -- it's occupied currently by part
11 of the stairwell and a bathroom, not recognizing
12 if that space wasn't used, there would have to
13 be -- internal of the building. It adds up to
14 about 45 square feet. That's the amount, based
15 on what I'm getting here.
16 And considering that this is a site plan
17 concept drawing -- because if -- if I'm right,
18 this is not actually a condition of the PUD, and
19 that the building actually hasn't totally been
20 designed. That's to come later.
21 Wouldn't it appear that that little,
22 small -- it shouldn't be that big of a deal in
23 the grand scheme of things if it allows that
24 corridor -- that view corridor to work. In
25 other words --
1 MR. DUGGAN: Well --
2 MR. BISHOP: -- would that be such a big
4 MR. DUGGAN: Well, I would submit that it
5 is and I'll tell you why. All of this area in
6 here (indicating), on the ground floor, is set
7 back already. We've got this arcade effect for
8 the vast majority of the frontage of the
10 And because we are able to create this area
11 right here (indicating) to create an added
12 setback, pedestrian-friendly, arcade, open-air
13 out- -- open-air feel, that makes this space
14 right here that much more important because all
15 the rest of the frontage has already been set
17 So, you know, I would submit it's actually
18 not -- it would be very inconvenient to now have
19 to find a new spot for the ground floor
20 bathrooms for the restaurant.
21 In terms of the view corridor, again, we're
22 going to have an 8-foot-wide view corridor that
23 just past our property line is going to be
24 blocked by the Mossfire steps, the stoop.
25 So we're going to be creating a view
1 corridor that doesn't exist now, that's going to
2 look nice. And then just when you get past our
3 view corridor, you're going to see this big,
4 concrete, six-step behemoth that entirely
5 crosses the sidewalk. So -- and, again, it's
6 45 feet here (indicating), but you've got to
7 find somewhere else to put it.
8 MR. BISHOP: I don't argue that it's a
9 behemoth of a stairway, but it doesn't really
10 block any view corridors. But anyway, that's
12 Thank you.
13 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Bishop.
14 Mr. Holt.
15 MR. HOLT: Thank you.
16 Through the Chair to Mr. Duggan, did you
17 get an answer for me on the parking within two
19 MR. DUGGAN: My clients would prefer not to
20 agree to that as a condition.
21 MR. HOLT: Okay. Very good.
22 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Holt.
23 Mr. Duggan, how many seats -- is the
24 restaurant designed or not?
25 Now, when we met and had our meeting on the
1 16th or whenever it was -- 14th -- you brought a
2 model. Is that model not -- or -- what do you
3 call those things, a model?
4 MR. DUGGAN: It's a study model.
5 THE CHAIRMAN: Study model.
6 Does that mean that the building is
7 designed or not designed?
8 MR. DUGGAN: No. It means it's not
9 designed. We haven't done final approval of
10 colors or finish or any of those issues.
11 THE CHAIRMAN: Well, how much do you think
12 it will look like the model you brought and
13 showed me? Is there a possibility it might not
14 look like that?
15 MR. DUGGAN: Well, it certainly won't be
16 made of balsa wood, I will grant you that.
17 Beyond that, I'm not the architect and I'm
18 not the owner, so I -- I don't want to make a
19 commitment to that.
20 We have a site plan that shows us building
21 to the property line and it's a triangle-shaped
22 piece, so I'm sure it will be a triangle-shaped
24 In terms of the seats of the restaurant, we
25 are meeting the ABT requirement of 150 feet --
1 excuse me -- 150 seats.
2 THE CHAIRMAN: And that's for the ground
3 floor and the roof or just the ground floor?
4 MR. DUGGAN: Both, combined, 150 over both.
5 THE CHAIRMAN: All right. Any other -- I'm
6 sorry, we have one further question from
7 Councilmember Dick Brown.
8 MR. D. BROWN: I'll just wait to get back
10 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. I've got Mr. Corrigan
11 and you preceding him on the regular discussion,
12 so -- any other questions for Mr. Duggan?
13 COMMITTEE MEMBERS: (No response.)
14 THE CHAIRMAN: All right. The court
15 reporter, where do you -- are you okay to
16 continue for a little while or --
17 THE REPORTER: Yes.
18 THE CHAIRMAN: All right. Before I close
19 the public hearing, the Chair kind of senses
20 perhaps maybe we're not quite ready for prime
21 time here. I've heard several concerns raised
22 by the committee members, and the Chair would be
23 willing to defer this, but I want to -- would
24 anybody object to a deferral and get these folks
25 back to the bargaining table? Anybody have a
1 problem with that?
2 MR. D. BROWN: It seems it's a little
4 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Brown.
5 MR. R. BROWN: Yes. Through the Chair, I
6 would like to hear from the district
7 councilperson and how it's going to impact him.
8 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Bishop -- on the
9 deferral, Mr. Bishop.
10 MR. BISHOP: Well, this one -- this is a
11 painful process here for a project that's a
12 wonderful project. And it just seems to me,
13 sitting up here listening to both sides, we're
14 all arguing about very small things, that -- it
15 would strike me that if the two sides could
16 simply get together and -- I mean, we're talking
17 about a very -- some very small things to a
18 building mass of a building that hasn't been
19 designed yet other than in a study phase, that
20 at this stage of the game --
21 I mean, unless there's a whole lot more
22 work that's been done that we don't know about,
23 it strikes me that being able to work out that
24 view corridor should be a very small thing to do
25 because it's a very small piece of one floor of
1 a three-story building.
2 The issue of parking, I think, is -- you
3 know, from my own perspective, I don't think
4 we're all that far off, other than it does
5 concern me a little bit that they say they're
6 going to do something, but they're not willing
7 to commit to it. That just causes an
8 uncertainly factor that bothers me a little bit,
9 but -- but be that as it may, with respect to
10 the building and the massing and all of that, I
11 think we're -- they're not all that far apart.
12 And if they could just simply solve those
13 things, we might be able to make this thing
14 slide through.
15 So it would be my recommendation that you
16 do defer it one cycle just to -- maybe they work
17 this stuff out, come back, and everybody will be
18 happy with it, with what can be a wonderful
20 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Bishop.
21 Mr. Corrigan, did you have a comment?
22 Would you like to make a comment on the proposed
24 MR. CORRIGAN: Mr. Chairman, I'll support
25 whatever the chair and the committee wants to
1 do. I'll tell you that we wouldn't be here
2 tonight if I didn't think we've gone as far as
3 we could in this project. I would have asked
4 for a deferral from the applicant prior to
5 coming here if I thought there was more work
6 that could be done.
7 If you want to take a break and give your
8 court reporter a few minutes, I'll be happy to
9 sit down with the applicant for a few minutes
10 and see -- I've heard all the discussions -- see
11 what I can accomplish in a few minutes and come
12 back or I'll come back the next meeting to --
13 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Corrigan.
14 Councilman Dick Brown, on the deferral, did
15 you want to comment?
16 MR. D. BROWN: Yes. I was impressed with
17 how much work has been done with the community
18 already and the fact that this is outside of the
19 historic district. I think a pretty nice level
20 of cooperation has taken place already, and I --
21 I'm impressed with what this can mean to the
22 neighborhood in terms of creating some new
23 energy in an area that has a need for it, and
24 we've got planning approval and the board
25 approval, so it looked like a pretty impressive
2 I, earlier, was going to talk about the
3 sound ordinance because nobody wants to be a
4 nuisance and -- and it certainly can be enforced
5 after hours, so -- but this is a different ball
6 game now.
7 I think it's ready for action because
8 you're throwing folks back together who have
9 already given it their best effort. If
10 Mr. Corrigan wants to have a huddle or something
11 like that -- but I just think all you're doing
12 is really creating more ill will in the
13 community by forcing some input that has gone
14 well past its real jurisdiction anyhow. I think
15 it's ready for action.
16 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Brown.
17 Mr. Redman.
18 MR. REDMAN: Thank you Mr. Chairman.
19 I agree. It appears to me, from what I've
20 heard, that there has been plenty of discussion
21 and -- and they've pretty well -- they're close
22 to agreement, you're right, but I don't think
23 that -- you know, whatever they do, if we defer
24 this, is just going to create more problems. I
25 think the wise thing to do at this point is go
Diane M. Tropia, Inc.,
1 ahead and pass this thing out.
2 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Reingold, if we take a
3 recess and allow Mr. Corrigan to huddle, how
4 does that impact the ex-parte disclosure when we
6 MR. REINGOLD: The one thing I would say is
7 that Mr. Corrigan would probably need to get
8 back up and say, here are the additional
9 conversations I've had and here's what we
10 discussed, and I bet we could probably figure
11 out when and what time that happened.
12 THE CHAIRMAN: Should I leave the public
13 hearing open, then?
14 MR. REINGOLD: I think that would be a good
16 THE CHAIRMAN: All right. What we'll do is
17 we're going take a brief recess to allow our
18 court reporter time to recover. I would
19 encourage the other committee members to avoid
20 any ex-parte communication.
21 Mr. Corrigan, ten minutes?
22 MR. CORRIGAN: Sure.
23 THE CHAIRMAN: And if you'll report back to
24 us, that would be appreciated.
25 So we'll stand in recess for ten minutes.
1 (Brief recess.)
2 THE CHAIRMAN: We're going to reconvene.
3 Mr. Corrigan, if you need more time, feel
4 free. We're going to take up a couple more
6 MR. CORRIGAN: (Inaudible.)
7 THE CHAIRMAN: If you're ready to go. If
8 not, if you need some more time, we'll just take
9 up some items and you can check back in with
11 And let the record reflect that
12 Councilman Jones joined us a while back. I
13 failed to acknowledge that he had joined us in
14 progress, but he is here as well.
15 Mr. Corrigan.
16 MR. CORRIGAN: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate
17 your patience in this matter.
18 First let me declare that I did have a
19 conversation with both the applicant and the
20 majority of the opposition that spoke earlier
21 this evening, so let that be on the record.
22 I would like to comment to the committee
23 that I have consensus right now. I don't have
24 consensus. I'm happy to continue to work on it,
25 but I don't want to hold up this committee's
2 THE CHAIRMAN: Do you think there's
3 anything -- any fruitful progress could be made
4 if you continue?
5 MR. CORRIGAN: I think we've made a little
6 bit of progress on one of the issues that was
7 raised, but we do, by no means, have consensus
8 on the rest of them.
9 THE CHAIRMAN: All right. I'll tell you
10 what, Mr. Corrigan, if you don't mind and you're
11 willing to do that, what we'll do is we'll
12 continue the public hearing for later on,
13 sometime this evening, and I'll let you meet
14 with the parties.
15 Mr. Reingold, did you have any questions?
16 MR. REINGOLD: (Shakes head.)
17 THE CHAIRMAN: And we'll get back to our
18 agenda. And when you return back up here today,
19 I'll acknowledge your presence and let you give
20 us a progress report.
21 Is that fair?
22 MR. CORRIGAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I
23 appreciate it.
24 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. Thank you for being
25 willing to do that.
1 Shuttle diplomacy. I haven't heard that
2 word in a couple of decades.
3 (Inaudible discussion.)
4 THE CHAIRMAN: Yes, that's right. Some of
5 these young guys up here might not know that.
6 All right. Mr. Jones, did you have a
7 couple of items?
8 I'm afraid to go to a noncommittee member
9 after this first two-hour session, but do you
10 have a couple of items that you'd like us to
11 take up while you're here?
12 MR. JONES: Yes, sir. I appreciate it.
13 And I think these will be a lot easier.
14 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. I'm going to hold you
15 to that.
16 I think you had one on page --
17 MR. JONES: It's on page 4, item 10,
18 2010-594. That's a rezoning. We had a
19 community meeting last week, and Mr. Boswell was
20 there, along with several of the residents, and
21 there's no opposition. And that one is --
22 THE CHAIRMAN: Item 10, on page 4,
24 MR. JONES: Yes, sir.
25 THE CHAIRMAN: All right. Item 10,
2 Mr. Crofts.
3 MR. CROFTS: Item 10, ordinance 2010-594,
4 seeks to rezone .65 acres of property from
5 RLD-60 and CCG-1 to PUD to permit a parking lot
6 facility for a glass service company located at
7 the corner of
9 This request for a rezoning is a companion
10 to a small scale land use amendment that was
11 heard at our last LUZ meeting reflected in
12 ordinance 2010-593.
13 I will point out that staff's original
14 recommendation for these requests was to deny;
15 however, we have met with the applicant and he
16 has agreed to amend his application and the PUD
17 in this particular rezoning by leaving the rear
18 60 feet essentially undisturbed, in a natural
19 state, or unimpacted to protect the
20 single-family properties to the rear and allow
21 only access to the parking from the property
22 fronting on
23 Along with other progressive considerations
24 regarding landscaping and setbacks and fencing,
25 staff recommends approval with the following
1 11 conditions:
2 Beginning on number 1, "The development
3 shall be subject to the original legal
4 description dated May 12, 2010."
5 Number 2, "The development shall be subject
6 to the original written description dated
7 May 12, 2010."
8 Number 3, "The development shall be subject
9 to the revised site plan dated August 24,
11 Number 4, "The required transportation
12 improvements shall be made in accordance with
13 the Development Services memorandum dated
14 July 26, 2010, or as otherwise approved by the
15 Planning and Development Department."
16 Number 5, "A 6-foot-high, 95 percent opaque
17 vinyl fence shall be constructed along the north
18 and east sides of the rear parking area. A
19 6-foot-high fence" -- "a 6-foot-high, 95 percent
20 opaque vinyl fence shall be required along the
21 south property line if the adjacent property
22 owner removes the existing fence."
23 Number 6, "The 20-foot setback shall be" --
24 okay. "The 20-foot setback for parking shall be
25 required on both the north and south sides of
1 the property."
2 Number 7, "The 60-foot setback shall be
3 required from the
4 Number 8, "One shade tree, a minimum of
5 2.5-inch caliper, spaced 20 [sic] feet apart,
6 shall be placed and maintained between the
7 6-foot-high fence and the north property line."
8 Number 9, "There shall be no exterior
9 lighting in the rear parking area."
10 Number 10, "The rear parking area shall be
11 for employee and customer parking only. Parking
12 shall be permitted between the hours of 7:00
13 a.m. and 6:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, and
14 8:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. on Saturday."
15 Number 11 and finally, "Access to the rear
16 parking area shall be from the existing paved
17 parking area. No access from
19 Thank you.
20 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Crofts.
21 Mr. Crofts, on item -- on condition
22 number 6, you added a couple of words that
23 aren't on the page. You said something about
24 setback for parking.
25 MR. CROFTS: Yes.
1 THE CHAIRMAN: Should those be in there?
2 MR. CROFTS: Yes. This is a last-minute
3 revision that was just handed to me that was
4 under some final discussion, and we -- I will
5 read that again for the record if you'd like me
6 to. It's, "A 20-foot setback for parking shall
7 be required on both the north and south sides of
8 the property."
9 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you.
10 Does that complete your report?
11 MR. CROFTS: That's it.
12 THE CHAIRMAN: And with your -- with these
13 conditions, the department changes their
14 original denial to an approval?
15 MR. CROFTS: Yes. And I would, again,
16 point out that that is subject to a revised site
17 plan that was submitted and -- not in the
18 original report, but as revised and dated
20 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Crofts.
21 Mr. Reingold.
22 MR. REINGOLD: If I may, through the Chair
23 to Mr. Crofts, on condition number 8, I may have
24 heard this wrong, but I heard you say that one
25 shade tree, a minimum 2.5-inch caliper, spaced
1 20 feet apart. Was it 20 or 25?
2 MR. CROFTS: Twenty-five feet, sir.
3 MR. REINGOLD: Thank you.
4 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you.
5 Any question for Mr. Crofts?
6 COMMITTEE MEMBERS: (No response.)
7 THE CHAIRMAN: All right. Seeing no
8 questions, this is a quasi-judicial matter.
9 Does anyone have any ex-parte communication to
11 MR. JONES: (Indicating.)
12 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Jones.
13 MR. JONES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
14 I have had two discussions with Mr. Boswell
15 and one with the community and Mr. Boswell last
16 Thursday. I discussed the conditions, the
17 setbacks, and to make sure that there was no
18 encroachment in the residential community.
19 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Jones.
20 Any other disclosures?
21 COMMITTEE MEMBERS: (No response.)
22 THE CHAIRMAN: All right. Seeing none, we
23 have a public hearing scheduled this evening.
24 The public hearing is open. I have one speaker
25 card, Dan Boswell.
1 (Mr. Boswell approaches the podium.)
2 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Boswell, if you'll state
3 your name and address for the record, then I'm
4 going to ask you a question.
5 MR. BOSWELL: Yes, sir.
6 Dan Boswell,
8 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Boswell.
9 Did you hear the conditions and do you
10 agree with the conditions that were read into
11 the record?
12 MR. BOSWELL: I did hear all the conditions
13 and I do agree to them.
14 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. Would you care to
15 address the committee? If so, you have three
17 MR. BOSWELL: No, sir. I'm fine with it.
18 THE CHAIRMAN: All right. Any questions
19 for Mr. Boswell?
20 COMMITTEE MEMBERS: (No response.)
21 THE CHAIRMAN: All right. Thank you, sir.
22 Any other person in the audience want to
23 address the committee?
24 AUDIENCE MEMBERS: (No response.)
25 THE CHAIRMAN: Seeing no one, the public
1 hearing is closed.
2 MR. JOOST: Move the amendment.
3 MR. BISHOP: Second.
4 THE CHAIRMAN: Motion on the amendment by
5 Mr. Joost, second by Mr. Bishop.
6 Discussion on the amendment?
7 COMMITTEE MEMBERS: (No response.)
8 THE CHAIRMAN: If not, all those in favor,
9 say yes.
10 COMMITTEE MEMBERS: Yes.
11 THE CHAIRMAN: Opposed, say no.
12 COMMITTEE MEMBERS: (No response.)
13 THE CHAIRMAN: By our action, you've
14 adopted the amendment.
15 MR. JOOST: Move the bill as amended.
16 MR. HOLT: Second.
17 THE CHAIRMAN: Motion by Mr. Joost on the
18 bill as amended, second by Mr. Holt.
20 COMMITTEE MEMBERS: (No response.)
21 THE CHAIRMAN: Seeing none, open the
22 ballot, vote.
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. JOOST: (Votes yea.)
4 MR. R. BROWN: (Votes yea.)
5 MR. REDMAN: (Votes yea.)
6 (Committee ballot closed.).
7 MS. LAHMEUR: Seven yeas, zero nay.
8 THE CHAIRMAN: By your action, you've
9 approved item 10, 2010-594.
10 MR. JONES: Thank you.
11 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Jones, I think your
12 other item was item 20?
13 MR. JONES: No. Item 17 on page 6.
14 THE CHAIRMAN: Item 17 on page 6, 2010-655.
15 Mr. Crofts.
16 MR. CROFTS: Item 17. Again, ordinance
17 2010-655 seeks to rezone 6.7 acres of property
18 located at
19 Street, and
20 District 9, just west of the
21 corridor. The request is a rezoning from IL to
23 By way of background, the current land use
24 designation on the property is HI, heavy
25 industrial. The rezoning is being sought for
1 the purpose of permitting an existing scrap
2 metal processing facility. It will allow the
3 existing use of this facility to remain, in
4 addition to allowing other heavy industrial
6 Permitted uses within the PUD will include,
7 but are not limited to, recycling facilities,
8 commercial and industrial service
9 establishments, retail sales of heavy machinery,
10 outdoor scrap processing, and outdoor storage of
11 scrap and processed scrap.
12 Outdoor activities in connection with the
13 scrap processing are to include the use of
14 metal-cutting torches, blade-cutting equipment,
15 and forklifts and cranes for the moving of such
17 Staff has reviewed this application from
18 the standpoint of its consistency with the
19 2030 Comprehensive Plan, impacts on the
20 infrastructure and the environment, internal and
21 external compatibility, and the treatment of
22 certain factors such as landscaping, for
23 example, the use of hedges and trees and visual
24 barriers and buffering and height limitations,
25 and recommends approval with the following
Diane M. Tropia, Inc.,
2 Condition number 1, "The development shall
3 be subject to the original legal description
4 dated July 26, 2010."
5 Number 2, "The development shall be subject
6 to the revised written description dated
7 September 8th, 2010."
8 And number 3 and finally, "The development
9 shall be subject to the original site plan dated
10 July 26th, 2010."
11 That's your report.
12 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Crofts.
13 And your department recommends approval; is
14 that correct?
15 MR. CROFTS: That is affirmative.
16 THE CHAIRMAN: Any questions for
17 Mr. Crofts?
18 COMMITTEE MEMBERS: (No response.)
19 THE CHAIRMAN: All right. Seeing none,
20 this is a quasi-judicial matter. Does anyone
21 have any ex-parte communication to disclose?
22 Mr. Jones.
23 MR. JONES: Sure.
24 I had a discussion with Mr. McCuller a week
25 and a half ago, two weeks ago, regarding the
1 landscape buffer and the amendments that reflect
2 those conditions.
3 Thank you.
4 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Jones.
5 Anyone else?
6 COMMITTEE MEMBERS: (No response.)
7 THE CHAIRMAN: All right. Seeing no one,
8 we have a public hearing scheduled this evening.
9 The public hearing is open. I have one
10 speaker's card, Mack McCuller.
11 (Audience member approaches the podium.)
12 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. McCuller, if you'll
13 state your name and address for the record, and
14 then I have a question for you.
15 AUDIENCE MEMBER: Yes, Mr. Chairman.
16 Mack McCuller,
17 representing Main Recycling, the applicant.
18 THE CHAIRMAN: Did you hear the conditions
19 read into the record and do you agree to the
21 MR. McCULLER: I do, sir.
22 And I would like to make an amendment here
23 on the floor to our written description to add a
24 use. So if I could, with my time, I'd like to
25 go into that one minor issue.
1 THE CHAIRMAN: Sure. You can certainly
2 present the concept, but, unfortunately, you
3 won't be able to make an amendment from the
4 podium there, but let's hear what you have and
5 maybe you'll find a --
6 MR. McCULLER: I'd like to suggest an
7 amendment. I'm sorry.
8 On -- originally, when the application was
9 prepared, there was omission of item 15 in the
10 IL zoning -- the list of IL zoning permitted
11 uses. The reason it was omitted is because it
12 excluded scrap processing yards, which is one of
13 the primary uses we're intending to accomplish
14 in our PUD, so we took it out.
15 And it's also considered to be a lesser
16 included use to the bulk storage yard as well as
17 to the scrap processing yard; however, in an
18 abundance of caution on my way over here
19 tonight, I felt the need to add this provision
20 back in to the list of IL uses. I've talked
21 with staff. I believe they will tell you it's a
22 lesser included use in any event. My client is
23 entitled to conduct this use currently.
24 But I would like to make an amendment to
25 the language in the code, and I'll read it.
1 I've given it to Mr. Reingold. And if I could
2 read it for your consideration.
3 THE CHAIRMAN: Sure. Go ahead.
4 MR. McCULLER: Again, this would be an
5 added permitted use in the written description,
6 and it would read as follows: "Outdoor storage
7 yards and lots, including auto storage yards
8 within the storage areas identified on the site
10 And that's critical language in that
11 Councilman Jones has -- and we have met and we
12 did define an area -- a specific area with a
13 150-foot buffer from
14 vegetative buffers as well as our storage area.
15 So any other miscellaneous storage activities
16 that are in this use would go in that existing
17 defined area in our site plan.
18 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. McCuller.
19 Any questions from the committee?
20 COMMITTEE MEMBERS: (No response.)
21 THE CHAIRMAN: All right. Seeing none,
22 anyone else care to address the committee?
23 AUDIENCE MEMBERS: (No response.)
24 THE CHAIRMAN: Seeing no one, then, the
25 public hearing is closed.
1 Mr. McCuller, just don't go anywhere. Hang
2 on one second.
3 Anybody want to address Mr. McCuller's --
4 Apparently some discussion on staff.
5 MR. KELLY: We concur with the caveat of --
6 that it be contained within the area identified
7 on the site plan allowing the outdoor storage.
8 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. Thank you.
9 Mr. Reingold, do we need to move a separate
10 amendment or can we just include it with the
11 existing pending amendment?
12 MR. REINGOLD: If it would be okay, I would
13 actually recommend that the amendment to the
14 legislation be that it would be that the
15 development shall be subject to the revised
16 written description dated September 21, 2010.
17 And what I've done is I've handwritten in item
18 number 27, "Outdoor storage yards and lots,
19 including auto storage yards within the storage
20 areas identified on the site plan," and that
21 would turn into the actual written description
22 that would be attached to the ordinance.
23 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. Thank you,
24 Mr. Reingold.
25 Mr. McCuller, is that acceptable?
1 MR. McCULLER: That's perfectly
3 Thank you.
4 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay.
5 All right. We are back in committee.
6 Is there a motion?
7 MR. BISHOP: Move the amendment.
8 MR. REDMAN: Second.
9 THE CHAIRMAN: Motion on the amendment by
10 Mr. Bishop, second by Mr. Redman.
11 Discussion on the amendment?
12 COMMITTEE MEMBERS: (No response.)
13 THE CHAIRMAN: Seeing none, all those in
14 favor, say yes.
15 COMMITTEE MEMBERS: Yes.
16 THE CHAIRMAN: Opposed, say no.
17 COMMITTEE MEMBERS: (No response.)
18 THE CHAIRMAN: By your action, you've
19 approved the amendment.
20 MR. BISHOP: Move the bill as amended.
21 MR. REDMAN: Second.
22 THE CHAIRMAN: Motion on the bill as
23 amended by Mr. Bishop, second by Mr. Redman.
25 COMMITTEE MEMBERS: (No response.)
1 THE CHAIRMAN: If not, open the ballot,
3 (Committee ballot opened.)
4 MR. CRESCIMBENI: (Votes yea.)
5 MR. HOLT: (Votes yea.)
6 MR. BISHOP: (Votes yea.)
7 MR. D. BROWN: (Votes yea.)
8 MR. JOOST: (Votes yea.)
9 MR. R. BROWN: (Votes yea.)
10 MR. REDMAN: (Votes yea.)
11 (Committee ballot closed.)
12 MS. LAHMEUR: Seven yeas, zero nay.
13 THE CHAIRMAN: By your action, you've
14 approved item 18, 2010-656.
15 Mr. Jones.
16 MR. JONES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
17 And if you would defer to item 20, I would
18 appreciate it.
19 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. Turning to page 7 --
20 MR. JONES: Appreciate the cooperation.
21 THE CHAIRMAN: -- item 20, 2010-670. It is
22 deferred at the request of the sponsor of the
24 Thank you, Mr. Jones. You're welcome any
1 MR. JONES: Thank you.
2 THE CHAIRMAN: All right. Let's go back to
3 page 1 of the agenda, item 1, 2010-373. We are
4 not taking any action on that tonight, but we do
5 have a scheduled public hearing.
6 The public hearing is open, and we have one
7 speaker's card, David Abraham.
8 Mr. Abraham, are you still here?
9 AUDIENCE MEMBERS: (No response.)
10 THE CHAIRMAN: All right. I guess not.
11 Anyone else care to address the committee?
12 AUDIENCE MEMBERS: (No response.)
13 THE CHAIRMAN: All right. The public
14 hearing is continued until October 5th, and
15 there will be no further action on that bill.
16 Item 2, 2010-389, is deferred, as is
17 item 3, 2010-447.
18 Turning to the top of page 3, item 4,
20 Mr. Kelly.
21 MR. KELLY: Thank you.
22 To the Chair, application for rezoning
23 2010-487 seeks to rezone approximately
24 6.18 acres from RLD-120 and RLD-100A to PUD.
25 The PUD seeks to allow for office/business park
1 uses of 77,000 square feet within four buildings
2 as described on the site plan.
3 The subject property is located at Perdue
4 Road. This is just the newly widened Airport
7 department had concerns with -- with both the
8 land use and the zoning on this. I believe it
9 was deferred.
10 The last time we had conditions for
11 approval based on the approval of the land use
12 amendment, so the PUD is now before you. We
13 have seven conditions of approval, and I believe
14 there's going to be an eighth condition that
15 would be added in for this development.
16 The conditions are:
17 "The development shall be subject to the
18 original legal description dated October 26,
20 "The development shall be subject to the
21 original written description dated October 6" --
22 "26, 2009."
23 Condition 3, "The development shall be
24 subject to the original site plan dated
25 October 26, 2009."
1 Condition 4, "The development shall be
2 subject to the Development Services Division
3 memorandum dated June 15, 2010, or as otherwise
4 approved by the Planning and Development
6 Condition 5, "The development shall be
7 subject to the Florida Department of
8 Transportation memorandum dated July 15, 2010."
9 Condition 6, "At the time of verification
10 of substantial compliance, architectural
11 elevations shall be submitted for review and
12 approval of the Planning and Development
14 Condition 7, "Building elevations shall be
15 residential in character with a pitched, hip, or
16 gable roof, incorporating architectural
17 shingles, window treatments, and brick or stucco
19 Condition 8 is a condition restricting the
20 use of the property from multifamily, and I'll
21 defer to Dylan on that.
22 MR. REINGOLD: Condition number 8, through
23 the Chair to the whole committee and to the
24 applicant, would be that, "There shall be no
25 multifamily dwellings" -- "there shall be no
1 multifamily residential dwellings on the subject
3 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Reingold.
4 Mr. Kelly, does that complete your report?
5 MR. KELLY: Yes, sir.
6 THE CHAIRMAN: And that changes -- the
7 conditions change the Planning Department's
9 MR. KELLY: The Planning Department, again,
10 did not support the land use request; however,
11 in light of the approval of the land use,
12 that -- the department found it, at that
13 point -- instead of pursuing a denial of the
14 existing PUD, if the land use was in place at
15 this place, we would support the PUD under the
16 land use category.
17 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Kelly.
18 Any questions for Mr. Kelly and
19 Mr. Reingold?
20 COMMITTEE MEMBERS: (No response.)
21 THE CHAIRMAN: All right. This is a
22 quasi-judicial matter. Anyone have any ex-parte
23 communications to disclose?
24 Mr. Holt.
25 MR. HOLT: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
1 I spoke with Mr. Boswell earlier today and
2 yesterday about the condition that Mr. Reingold
3 just read in to make sure that we don't have any
4 multifamily in there because it is RPI and could
5 be used for that later.
6 Thank you.
7 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Holt.
8 Any other disclosures?
9 COMMITTEE MEMBERS: (No response.)
10 THE CHAIRMAN: All right. We have a public
11 hearing scheduled this evening. The public
12 hearing is open. I have two speaker cards.
13 Dan Boswell, followed by Robert Riley.
14 Mr. Boswell.
15 (Dan Boswell approaches the podium.)
16 MR. BOSWELL: Yes. Dan Boswell, 4014 Ranie
18 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Boswell, you heard the
19 conditions read into the record?
20 MR. BOSWELL: Yes, I did, and I agree with
22 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, sir.
23 You may begin.
24 MR. BOSWELL: I'd just defer to -- to them,
25 to their conditions, and I'm fine with that.
1 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, sir.
2 Any questions for Mr. Boswell?
3 COMMITTEE MEMBERS: (No response.)
4 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, sir.
5 Don't go far.
6 Our next speaker is Bob Riley.
7 Mr. Riley.
8 MR. RILEY: (Indicating.)
9 THE CHAIRMAN: We can see you waving.
10 Oh, I see. I get it.
11 All right. Mr. Riley waives.
12 Any other speakers to come before the
14 AUDIENCE MEMBERS: (No response.)
15 THE CHAIRMAN: All right. The public
16 hearing is closed and we're back in committee.
17 MR. HOLT: Move the amendment.
18 MR. BISHOP: Second.
19 THE CHAIRMAN: A motion on the amendment by
20 Mr. Holt, second by Mr. Bishop.
21 Discussion on the amendment?
22 COMMITTEE MEMBERS: (No response.)
23 THE CHAIRMAN: If none, all those in favor,
24 say yes.
25 COMMITTEE MEMBERS: Yes.
1 THE CHAIRMAN: Opposed, say no.
2 COMMITTEE MEMBERS: (No response.)
3 THE CHAIRMAN: By your action, you've
4 adopted the amendment.
5 MR. BOSWELL: Thank you.
6 MR. HOLT: Move the bill as amended.
7 MR. REDMAN: Second.
8 THE CHAIRMAN: Motion on the bill as
9 amended by Mr. Holt, second by Mr. Redman.
10 Discussion on the bill?
11 COMMITTEE MEMBERS: (No response.)
12 THE CHAIRMAN: If not, open the ballot,
14 (Committee ballot opened.)
15 MR. CRESCIMBENI: (Votes yea.)
16 MR. HOLT: (Votes yea.)
17 MR. BISHOP: (Votes yea.)
18 MR. D. BROWN: (Votes yea.)
19 MR. JOOST: (Votes yea.)
20 MR. R. BROWN: (Votes yea.)
21 MR. REDMAN: (Votes yea.)
22 (Committee ballot closed.)
23 MS. LAHMEUR: Seven yeas, zero nay.
24 THE CHAIRMAN: By your action, you've
25 approved item 4, 2010-487.
1 MR. BOSWELL: Thank you.
2 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, sir.
3 Item 5, 2010-499.
4 Mr. Kelly.
5 MR. KELLY: Thank you.
6 To the Chair and committee members,
7 ordinance 2010-499 is a request for a sign
8 waiver to allow for internal illumination of a
9 wall sign.
10 The subject property is currently zoned
11 PUD, which was approved back in 2006. There is
12 some history. The department is recommending a
13 denial of this application.
14 The original rezoning of this property from
15 2006 was rezoned from CO, commercial office, to
16 planned unit development. The planned unit
17 development that got adopted incorporated the
18 CRO zoning sign rights, which, at that time,
19 limited the subject development basically to one
20 monument sign and one wall sign, the monument
21 sign being a 24-square-foot sign.
22 Additionally, they had an option to go with
23 wall signage in lieu of monument signage for the
24 office building structures that were proposed on
25 the site. However, in light of the PUD, it was
1 probably shortsighted at that time to restrict
2 themselves to CRO signage in the fact that the
3 PUD approved commercial uses on the site, and
4 specifically in parcel A, which was designed as
5 approved on the PUD site plan as a little
6 neighborhood village shopping center.
7 The remaining parcels, B, C and D, were
8 large, two-story office buildings that fronted
10 In 2008, a sign waiver request came in.
11 It's ordinance 2008-854. That request, at the
12 time, was a sign waiver within the underlying
13 PUD district to increase the amount of wall
14 signage that would be permitted for both
15 building A and buildings B, C and D. The
16 limitations on wall signage, again, deferring
17 back to CRO at the time, limited it to one wall
18 sign -- two wall signs per building,
19 collectively, not exceeding 100 square feet for
20 the larger office buildings and the one wall
21 signage for building A.
22 The request, then, basically came in to
23 increase the amount of wall signage from one to
24 nine signs for building A for the commercial
25 parcel. Then, additionally, a secondary
1 increase in the number of signs for the office
2 parcels B, C and D. That request was from two
3 to seven. That request was actually approved to
4 allow for up to ten wall signs back in 2008,
5 and, additionally, the nine wall signs for the
6 commercial parcel were approved and increased as
7 well at that time.
8 The area of each of the wall signs
9 basically was also increased, consistent with
10 commercial wall signage standards, so it
11 basically went from five square feet to
12 10 percent of each occupancy frontage, which is
13 substantially larger.
14 Building A and the outcome of that sign was
15 that the signage on building A would allow for
16 external illumination; however, the office
17 buildings, B, C and D, were not to be
18 illuminated, not to have any illuminated
19 signage. And, additionally, they had a similar
20 font size and letter type. So it was consistent
21 within the overall development scheme of that
22 office -- those three office buildings.
23 Additionally, building A was approved for
24 two additional 30-square-foot monument signs
25 that were 12 feet high. So when we see the
1 amount of signage that -- at this point, that's
2 been doubled and tripled and even in some cases
3 more than that.
4 The department, again, does not support the
5 intensification and increase in sign rights to
6 this extent, specifically for these buildings,
7 B, C and D, that we originally requested the
8 nonillumination and that the developer was
9 agreeable to not having those signs illuminated
10 on those office buildings.
11 The department feels it's unnecessary and
12 that it is not in keeping with the intent of the
13 underlying PUD and zoning district as this is
14 further away from the commercial areas down
16 In 2009, there was a similar PUD ordinance
17 that was done to the property that was
18 immediately north of this. This is the Watson
19 real estate office. And that subject property
20 was rezoned from CO to PUD.
21 The department, at the time, recommended
22 restrictions on signage, essentially limiting
23 the existing 32-square-foot monument sign so
24 that it would not be enlarged or intensified,
25 and also restricting the wall signage to
1 40 square feet. That was the department's
3 The City Council and the ultimate bill was
4 approved to double, again, the monument signage
5 from 32 square feet to 64 square feet within the
6 existing frame of the sign, and, additionally,
7 the wall signage was increased from 40 square
8 feet to 140 square feet.
9 So, over time, we're seeing the
10 commercialization and the deterioration of this
11 corridor for primarily office uses which detract
12 from the residential aesthetics and the
13 character of the area.
14 The department finds that this request,
15 again, is not consistent with contiguous signage
16 and zoning and the general character of the
17 area. We do find that it would have a negative
18 aesthetic effect on the surrounding properties.
19 Again, we find that it would be detrimental
20 to the public welfare, clearly not have this
21 hierarchy of signage, and that the request is --
22 there's really no compelling public interest at
23 this time to support this request and,
24 therefore, the department is recommending
1 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Kelly.
2 Any questions from the committee?
3 COMMITTEE MEMBERS: (No response.)
4 THE CHAIRMAN: All right. Seeing none,
5 this is a quasi-judicial matter, and I'm going
6 to declare ex-parte communication. I had a
7 meeting yesterday with Bert Watson and Michelle
8 Horning to talk about this matter, and also
9 received a memo from Councilman Clark today.
10 Mr. Reingold, is this ex-parte on this
11 subject (indicating)? It's -- I'm going to
12 submit it just for the record to play it safe.
13 MR. REINGOLD: Yeah, please do.
14 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr.
15 to all committee members. I'll submit it for
16 all of us.
17 Anyone else have any ex-parte disclosures?
18 Mr. Bishop.
19 MR. BISHOP: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
20 I also had ex-parte communications with
21 Mr. Watson and the applicant. It was one day
22 last week.
23 Thank you.
24 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Bishop.
25 Anyone else?
1 COMMITTEE MEMBERS: (No response.)
2 THE CHAIRMAN: All right. Seeing no one
3 the --
4 Mr. Redman. Sorry.
5 MR. REDMAN: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
6 I had ex-parte communication with
7 Mr. Watson and the applicant last week as well.
8 THE CHAIRMAN: All right. Thank you, sir.
9 If that concludes the discloses, we have a
10 public hearing scheduled this evening.
11 The public hearing is open. I have two
12 speaker cards, Michelle Horning and Stuart
13 Winfree it looks like.
14 Ms. Horning.
15 (Audience member approaches the podium.)
16 THE CHAIRMAN: You want to go the other
18 AUDIENCE MEMBER: No.
19 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. You want to start?
21 AUDIENCE MEMBER: Michelle Horning, 9930
24 First of all, I'm going to show you two
25 pictures of the current building. We're at the
1 corner of JTB and
2 two buildings (indicating).
3 To the south side of us is the Publix and
4 then the Walgreens, and to the north side is the
5 Watson building. This view here that you're
6 seeing is the view from our building looking
7 across the street into the neighborhood. And
8 since some of those initial requests were made,
9 the trees have really matured. And this is an
10 evening shot and the trees have really closed
11 that apartment complex across the street.
12 There's a real discrepancy on illumination
13 because, when you think of illumination, we're
14 not asking for that bright Dick's sign, and
15 we're not asking for the external illumination.
16 What we're actually asking for is that subtle
17 lighting behind the Banana Republic sign to the
18 left if you're looking at that picture.
19 These are examples of what the building
20 would look like. We're asking for that signage
21 on the marquis sign only. I'm sorry. We're
22 asking for an illuminated sign on the marquis
23 sign only. We're not asking for a monumental
24 sign, and we just want an opportunity to be seen
25 on that road because it does increase our
1 business to be seen by people driving by at
2 night, on their way home from work, and saying,
3 yes, A1A Family Eye Care is now at this
5 And as a side note, if this lot right next
6 to us -- that is -- shares the same parking lot,
7 is fully commercial and will -- there's a
8 proposed possible Dunkin Donuts there and will
9 have full signage.
10 Thank you.
11 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Ms. Horning.
12 Does anyone have any questions of the
14 COMMITTEE MEMBERS: (No response.)
15 THE CHAIRMAN: All right. Seeing no one,
16 Mr. Winfree.
17 (Audience member approaches the podium.)
18 AUDIENCE MEMBER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
19 My name is Stuart Winfree, 3146
20 Lane, 32216.
21 We are the owners of the biggest units in
22 each one of these buildings. And, as such,
23 we're talking about the signature signage on the
24 top of the building.
25 I'd like to take just a moment to talk a
1 little bit more about it because the ordinance
2 contemplates front lighting, which are the
3 spotlight on the Banana Republic in the middle,
4 but rear lighting being, like she mentioned, a
5 show-through lighting, like on the Dick's sign
6 and also the Watson building that is right next
7 to ours.
8 What we are looking for is -- is, like we
9 said earlier, a very subtle type of
10 backlighting, which you can see on the
11 Banana Republic there.
12 We were originally told that the building
13 was zoned for the signage and the lighting by
14 the developer, which is not the council's
15 issue. But they misfiled the PUD, as Mr. Kelly
16 said, and did not have nearly the signage that
17 they thought they did in the PUD. That's why
18 they amended the PUD and they did it very
19 rapidly and didn't address the lighting on the
20 monument signing -- not the monument, excuse me,
21 the signature signage.
22 So all we're looking for is -- not for the
23 entire building, but just this very top
24 curvature on top of the building with some
25 pretty low-level lighting, as we saw, as I
1 showed you, on that.
2 So that's what we're looking for.
3 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Winfree.
4 Any questions from the committee?
5 COMMITTEE MEMBERS: (No response.)
6 THE CHAIRMAN: All right. Seeing none,
7 anyone else care to address the committee?
8 AUDIENCE MEMBERS: (No response.)
9 THE CHAIRMAN: Seeing no one, the public
10 hearing is closed, and you-all just stand by in
11 case there's a question. Don't go too far away.
12 All right. We're back in committee. I had
13 a question through the Chair to Mr. Kelly.
14 Mr. Kelly, this just grants the waiver for
15 what, those -- the two signs on the -- on the
16 arches of the two buildings; is that -- am I
17 following along correctly?
18 MR. KELLY: That is what, I guess, they
19 referred to as the signature signs, which would
20 be the two -- correct, the two signs at the tops
21 of both buildings B and C.
22 THE CHAIRMAN: Well, is that -- I mean,
23 when you say "signature signs," I mean, is that
24 going to be -- is that defined well enough to
25 prevent any confusion in the future?
1 I guess my concern comes from the adjacent
2 tenants to the signature sign. I mean, would
3 that -- would this include their ability to
4 backlight or how do you describe it? It's
5 allowing for internal lighting of a wall sign?
6 MR. KELLY: Well, the way, I guess, the
7 application -- it was specific to one sign, the
8 way I read it. I mean, if not, then it's
9 applicable to all the wall signage on the
11 THE CHAIRMAN: So if we approve this, all
12 the wall signs can -- I'm sorry.
13 MR. KELLY: All of the wall signage could
14 be internally illuminated.
15 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. And is there a
16 difference between internal -- internally
17 illuminated and what was being described as
19 MR. KELLY: The department's position on
20 the backlighting, while it's a lesser intensity,
21 in some respects, it is still projecting the
22 light through a -- I guess a -- the letter