CITY OF
LAND USE AND ZONING
COMMITTEE
Proceedings held on Tuesday, May 3rd,
2011, commencing at 5:05 p.m., City Hall, Council
Chambers, 1st Floor,
Diane M. Tropia, a Notary Public in and for the
State of
PRESENT:
JOHN CRESCIMBENI, Chair.
RAY HOLT, Vice Chair.
WILLIAM BISHOP, Committee Member.
DON REDMAN, Committee Member.
STEPHEN JOOST, Committee Member.
REGINALD BROWN, Committee Member.
DICK BROWN, Committee Member.
ALSO PRESENT:
BILL KILLINGSWORTH, Director, Planning Dept.
JOHN CROFTS, Deputy Director, Planning Dept.
SEAN KELLY, Chief, Current Planning.
FOLKS HUXFORD, Zoning Administrator.
DYLAN REINGOLD, Office of General Counsel.
MERRIANE LAHMEUR, Legislative Assistant.
SHARONDA DAVIS, Legislative Assistant.
- - -
2
1 P R O C E E D I N G S
May 3rd, 2011 5:05 p.m.
2 - - -
3 THE CHAIRMAN: All right. Good afternoon,
4 everyone.
5 We're going to call the May 3rd, 2011,
6 Land Use and Zoning Committee meeting to order.
7 To begin with, we're going to have
8 everybody introduce themselves for the record,
9 starting with Mr. Crofts down at the end, but
10 before we do that, I'd like to introduce one of
11 our council members elect, Lori Boyer, who will
12 be the new district councilperson from
13 District 5.
14 And, Ms. Boyer, why don't you grab your
15 stuff and come and sit up here with us. A lot
16 of committee members said they had some
17 questions for you that they wanted to ask
18 tonight, so come on up. And to activate the
19 mic, you just use the white button when that
20 time comes.
21 It's going to be a long meeting, folks.
22 All right. Fire away, Mr. Crofts.
23 MR. CROFTS: My name is John Crofts,
24 deputy director of Planning.
25 Good evening.
3
1 MR. KELLY: Sean Kelly, Planning and
2 Development.
3 MR. HUXFORD: Folks Huxford, Planning and
4 Development.
5 MR. REINGOLD: Good evening, everyone.
6 Dylan Reingold with the Office of General
7 Counsel.
8 MR. YARBOROUGH: Clay Yarborough,
9 District 1, visiting.
10 MR. D. BROWN: Dick Brown, Council,
11 District 13.
12 MR. JOOST: Stephen Joost, Group 3,
13 at-large.
14 MR. R. BROWN: Reginald Brown,
15 District 10.
16 THE CHAIRMAN: John Crescimbeni, the
17 chairman, at-large, Group 2.
18 MR. HOLT: Ray Holt, District 11.
19 MR. BISHOP: Bill Bishop, District 2.
20 MR. REDMAN: Don Redman, District 4.
21 MS. BOYER: Lori Boyer, council member
22 elect for District 5.
23 THE CHAIRMAN: Excellent, Ms. Boyer.
24 You're going to fall right into this.
25 All right. Turning -- I'm sorry,
4
1 Mr. Reingold, you need to read the LUZ Code of
2 Conduct.
3 MR. REINGOLD: Would you like it today?
4 There appear to be about six people in the
5 audience, but I'd be happy to do it if you
6 would like.
7 THE CHAIRMAN: Does anybody -- do we have
8 any public hearing -- any public speaker cards
9 that have been completed?
10 MS. DAVIS: Yes, one.
11 THE CHAIRMAN: Just one?
12 Mr. Reingold, for the -- better err on the
13 side caution here, so go ahead and --
14 MR. REINGOLD: I would be delighted,
15 Chair.
16 Anyone who would like to address the
17 committee tonight must fill out a yellow
18 speaker's card in its entirety. The yellow
19 speakers' cards are located on the desk up
20 front, near the podium. Once completed, please
21 return the speaker's card to the basket on the
22 front desk.
23 Any person who lobbies the City for
24 compensation is considered a lobbyist and is
25 therefore required to register their lobbying
5
1 activity with the City Council secretary. If
2 you are a lobbyist and have not registered with
3 the City Council secretary, you will not be
4 permitted to address the committee tonight.
5 Because a verbatim transcript of this
6 meeting will be prepared by a court reporter,
7 it is important that you speak clearly into the
8 microphone when you address the committee.
9 It's also important that only one person speak
10 at a time.
11 Any tangible materials submitted with a
12 speaker's presentation, such as documents,
13 photographs, plans, drawings, et cetera, shall
14 become a permanent part of the public record
15 and will be retained by the committee.
16 As a courtesy, please switch any cell
17 phones, pagers, or audible devices to a silent
18 mode.
19 Items are generally addressed in the order
20 in which they are listed on the agenda. Copies
21 of the agenda are located on the desk up front,
22 near the podium.
23 On occasion, items may be heard out of
24 order for the sake of efficiency or to
25 accommodate scheduling conflicts.
6
1 Unless there is a formal hearing on a
2 particular item, each member of the public is
3 limited to a three-minute presentation.
4 Presentations should be focused, concise, and
5 address only the item pending before the
6 committee.
7 Prior to addressing the committee, please
8 state your name and your address.
9 Decisions on rezonings, including PUDs and
10 waivers, are all considered quasi-judicial in
11 nature and certain protocols will be followed
12 for these proceedings.
13 First, each council -- committee member
14 must disclose on the record any ex-parte
15 communications they have had with any members
16 of the public prior to the hearing on each
17 applicable item. This includes a brief
18 statement of when the communication took place,
19 who the communication was with, and what the
20 subject of the communication was about.
21 Second, the normal format is to allow an
22 applicant or agent thereof to make their
23 presentation first, followed by members of the
24 public who wish to speak in support of the
25 item, then members of the public who are in
7
1 opposition will be allowed to speak.
2 After all the public comments have been
3 received, the applicant will have a brief
4 opportunity to wrap up or present a rebuttal.
5 The wrap-up or rebuttal shall be limited to the
6 issues brought up by the speakers.
7 Finally, all quasi-judicial decisions must
8 be based upon substantial competent evidence,
9 which means the committee's decision must be
10 supported by fact-based testimony or expert
11 testimony and not generalized concerns or
12 opinions.
13 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Reingold.
14 Turning to page 2 of the agenda, item 1,
15 2010-585, is deferred. Item 2, 2010-670, is
16 deferred. Item 3, 2010-856, is deferred.
17 Item 4, 2011-38, we have a public hearing
18 scheduled this evening. This is a
19 quasi-judicial matter. Does anyone have any
20 ex-parte communication to disclose?
21 COMMITTEE MEMBERS: (No response.)
22 THE CHAIRMAN: Nobody? All right.
23 Well, I do, and I have a piece of paper
24 here that I've -- some e-mail correspondence
25 that I'm going to go ahead and submit for the
8
1 record between -- I'm sorry, Ms. Hemphill
2 (phonetic), Linda Hemphill and myself over the
3 past couple of days.
4 All right. If there's no other ex-parte,
5 we have a public hearing scheduled this
6 evening. The public hearing is open. I have
7 one speaker's card, Walter Holton.
8 (Audience member approaches the podium.)
9 AUDIENCE MEMBER: Thank you, sir.
10 My name is Walter Holton. I live at 4304
11
12 community.
13 I'm the president of Charter Point
14 Community Association. And a couple of months
15 ago, upon receiving the notice of request of a
16 request for waiver, minimum footage, we
17 expressed opposition with a written statement
18 and provided it to the Planning Department as
19 well as other agencies.
20 We are still in opposition, and we
21 understand that the vendor has requested that
22 this ordinance be withdrawn. Since we don't
23 have a say in whether or not it's withdrawn,
24 what I would like to point out to this
25 committee is that the issues we raised in our
9
1 initial document still exists and the mere fact
2 that he's asking that it be withdrawn -- we
3 have been told -- I was told, personally, by
4 the person who submitted the waiver -- the
5 request for waiver, that he was going to sell
6 the property to the original owner and the
7 original owner was going to build a larger
8 house on the property.
9 The fact that he's requesting that this
10 waiver be withdrawn tells me that the owner --
11 the new owner, projected new owner may or may
12 not be required to submit a request for waiver
13 on the property before building.
14 It's not my concern that he's building on
15 the property. The real concern is that the
16 original request for waiver included the
17 installation of a septic system on the
18 property, the installation of a well for use in
19 drinking water, and the fact that we have a
20 drainage problem along
21 Charter Point Community Association.
22 It is the opinion of Charter Point that
23 unless that -- the drainage problem or drainage
24 issue is addressed, we're going to continue to
25 have that problem. And we believe that
10
1 constructing any -- any house or structure on
2 that property is going to continue to
3 exacerbate the problem with drainage within
4 Charter Point unless addressed, and we ask that
5 the drainage issue be addressed.
6 So if the waiver is withdrawn, I fear that
7 the prospective owner or the new owner or
8 whomever the person that will end up with the
9 property may go ahead and build a house and our
10 concerns will not be adjudicated.
11 So I just want to present that to the
12 committee to let you know that we still have
13 that problem, we're still concerned with it,
14 and we're asking that you strongly consider
15 denying withdrawal of this waiver and deny it,
16 deny the waiver versus withdrawing it. That's
17 our request.
18 Thank you.
19 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Holton.
20 Any questions from the committee?
21 COMMITTEE MEMBERS: (No response.)
22 THE CHAIRMAN: All right. Anyone else
23 care to address the committee?
24 AUDIENCE MEMBERS: (No response.)
25 THE CHAIRMAN: Seeing no one, the public
11
1 hearing is closed.
2 Either Mr. Reingold -- perhaps you may
3 just advise the committee of the differences
4 between a denial and a withdrawal. And also in
5 the case of this withdrawal that was requested
6 by the applicant, I'm assuming it does not
7 include any refund of any fees paid; is that
8 correct?
9 MR. KELLY: The Department does not
10 support the refund of fees in instances where
11 we've issued a staff report.
12 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you for the
13 clarification.
14 Mr. Reingold, the options before the
15 committee are several. We could defer, we
16 could approve, deny, withdraw. Can you explain
17 the differences or any differences between the
18 withdrawal and the denial?
19 MR. REINGOLD: To the Chair and to the
20 committee as a whole, essentially what the
21 withdrawal is -- is as if nothing happened. We
22 would be back to square zero -- or square one,
23 and anyone could then come forward and request
24 another withdrawal, and they would have --
25 THE CHAIRMAN: Waiver.
12
1 MR. REINGOLD: -- another waiver.
2 If this committee were to decide to deny
3 this application, then, at a minimum, any
4 future owner would have to wait one year before
5 applying for another waiver. And then on top
6 of that, any application that they would submit
7 would be barred by the principles of
8 res judicata and would have to wait until
9 substantial circumstances have changed in that
10 area before their application could be
11 considered.
12 So there's that time bar that exists if
13 you were to deny the application versus whether
14 you were to just withdraw the application.
15 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Reingold.
16 Any questions from the committee or --
17 MR. BISHOP: Yes.
18 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Bishop.
19 MR. BISHOP: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
20 Through the Chair to Mr. Reingold,
21 understanding if it were denied the one year
22 requirement before we -- reapplying, does that
23 not mean the same waiver -- I mean, if a new --
24 if the property were sold and a new owner were
25 to submit -- to apply for a waiver, instead of
13
1 forty-eight to zero, it was forty-eight to
2 twenty-four, that would be a perfectly
3 acceptable application, would it not?
4 MR. REINGOLD: Such an application --
5 actually, it would be up for the committee to
6 decide because the issue would be whether that
7 was a substantially similar application as the
8 first one. And the committee may view it and
9 say, "Wow, forty-eight to twenty-four, that
10 seems like a lot different. We think this is a
11 new application. It's not barred by
12 res judicata."
13 However, for some reason the committee may
14 say, "Wow, forty-eight to twenty-four, it's
15 pretty much the same thing. They're doing one
16 house. Therefore, we think it's really the
17 same. We're going to deny that application on
18 the principles of res judicata."
19 So you've got --
20 MR. BISHOP: So from the standpoint of
21 procedural, in other words, whether we take it
22 up or whether we determine that it is -- that
23 it's substantially the same, as far as an
24 applicant is concerned, they go through the
25 process, any -- the same process anyway, and so
14
1 it may be just something different we decide,
2 but we decide it in committee and it goes
3 through the entire process to begin with. So
4 from the standpoint of what the -- the
5 neighbors' concern is, whether we approve it or
6 deny it, a new property owner has the ability
7 to go through essentially the same process
8 provided it's a -- it's a different application
9 in their mind, so --
10 MR. REINGOLD: (Nods head.)
11 MR. BISHOP: -- so the -- but the process
12 essentially plays out the same?
13 MR. REINGOLD: The process plays out
14 similarly; however, again, the key -- whole
15 issue for the determination is whether it's the
16 same application.
17 MR. BISHOP: Okay. Thank you.
18 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Bishop.
19 Mr. Joost.
20 MR. JOOST: Thank you.
21 But if the -- through the Chair to
22 Mr. Reingold, wouldn't the Planning
23 Department -- I mean, it's going to go to the
24 Planning Department and they would say, we
25 recommend -- we would recommend it being denied
15
1 because the application is basically the same?
2 MR. REINGOLD: (Nods head.)
3 MR. JOOST: So, I mean, in a sense, you
4 are still making the hurdle, I think, a little
5 bit higher if -- if we deny it versus just
6 withdrawing it, so --
7 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Joost.
8 Mr. Yarborough, the district
9 councilperson.
10 MR. YARBOROUGH: Thank you, Mr. Chairman,
11 committee. I appreciate the time to discuss
12 this.
13 I would encourage the committee to deny
14 the waiver. I think Mr. Holton aptly stated
15 the concerns of the neighborhood and also
16 explained the importance of a denial instead of
17 just a withdrawal, and you see --
18 You have the Planning Department's report
19 in front of you, and if you'll note under the
20 standards and criteria and findings, a
21 particular note where it asks if the request is
22 based exclusively upon the desire to reduce the
23 cost of developing the site. It answers, yes;
24 the request is applied specifically to the
25 subject property, does appear to be based
16
1 exclusively upon the desire to reduce costs.
2 Also, question 3, will the proposed waiver
3 substantially diminish property values and/or
4 alter the essential character of the area, and
5 that answer is also, yes; a reduction in the
6 road frontage will set a precedence for similar
7 requests for the creation of additional lots
8 not meeting minimum road frontage requirements.
9 And, of course, it goes on and you've seen
10 that.
11 This is a concern not only for this area,
12 but it can -- it can have that effect in other
13 parts of the city too, so I appreciate your
14 consideration of it. And for protection
15 certainly for Charter Point residents and
16 others in that area but also for other parts of
17 the city, I would encourage you not only to
18 withdraw but to make the step to deny as the
19 Planning Department has recommended.
20 MR. HOLT: Move denial.
21 MR. YARBOROUGH: Thank you.
22 MR. BISHOP: Second.
23 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Yarborough.
24 Motion to deny by Mr. Holt, second by
25 Mr. Bishop, I believe.
17
1 MR. BISHOP: Yes.
2 THE CHAIRMAN: Any discussion on that
3 motion?
4 COMMITTEE MEMBERS: (No response.)
5 THE CHAIRMAN: If not, open the ballot,
6 please, vote.
7 I'm sorry. Mr. Reingold.
8 MR. REINGOLD: I would just be curious to
9 know from staff if they had any communications
10 with the applicant regarding the request for
11 withdrawal, if there was any -- any statements
12 to them about the fact that there is a public
13 hearing tonight, they should attend, just want
14 to know if there was any communication between
15 staff and the applicant.
16 MR. HUXFORD: I met with the applicant, I
17 believe it was late last week, and he simply
18 asked for my business card so he could have my
19 e-mail address. And he wanted to send in a
20 request for withdrawal, but he did not discuss
21 attending today, but he should know that the
22 committee could decide however they wish to go
23 on this.
24 MR. KELLY: For the record, the Department
25 would like to add, as it relates to the -- the
18
1 lot in question, this lot was subdivided off of
2 an existing lot of record back in 2010, and
3 under no circumstances -- if the lot is
4 reconfigured back to its original
5 configuration, I just want to make sure that
6 everybody is aware of -- that it's no longer a
7 lot of record and the waiver is still required.
8 The owner of the property might have some
9 misconception that they can reconfigure the lot
10 back to its original configuration, granting
11 them a lot of record status, which would exempt
12 them from lot area and road frontage and that
13 requirement, but that's not the case, so I just
14 want to make that clear.
15 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Kelly.
16 All right. The ballot is still open?
17 MS. LAHMEUR: Yes.
18 THE CHAIRMAN: Please vote on the denial.
19 (Committee ballot opened.)
20 MR. CRESCIMBENI: (Votes yea.)
21 MR. HOLT: (Votes yea.)
22 MR. BISHOP: (Votes yea.)
23 MR. D. BROWN: (Votes yea.)
24 MR. R. BROWN: (Votes yea.)
25 MR. JOOST: (Votes yea.)
19
1 MR. REDMAN: (Votes yea.)
2 (Committee ballot closed.)
3 MS. LAHMEUR: Seven yeas, zero nays.
4 THE CHAIRMAN: By our action, you have
5 denied item 4, 2011-38.
6 MR. YARBOROUGH: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
7 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Yarborough,
8 any time.
9 MR. YARBOROUGH: Have a good evening.
10 THE CHAIRMAN: You were much quicker than
11 the last visiting council member.
12 (Inaudible discussion.)
13 THE CHAIRMAN: I wasn't going to mention
14 any names.
15 All right. Turning to page 3, at the top,
16 item 5, 2011-158, is deferred. Item 6,
17 2011-159, is deferred.
18 Item 7, 2011-179, we're not taking any
19 action on this tonight. We do have a public
20 hearing scheduled. The public hearing is open.
21 We have no public -- we have no speakers' cards
22 completed, so the public hearing is continued
23 until May 17th of this year.
24 Item 8, 2011-180, is deferred.
25 Turning over to page 4, at the top,
20
1 item 9, 2011-205, is deferred.
2 Item 10, 2011-206, we are taking up.
3 Mr. Crofts. And, Mr. Crofts, do you want
4 to discuss both of these simultaneously or
5 individually?
6 MR. CROFTS: Simultaneously, if you will.
7 THE CHAIRMAN: All right. So you're going
8 to address item 10 and 11, 2011-206 and -207.
9 Mr. Crofts.
10 MR. CROFTS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman and
11 members of the committee.
12 These two pieces of legislation involve a
13 Notice of Proposed Change or Notice of Proposed
14 Changes, NOPCs, for two developments of
15 regional impact on properties located on
16 opposite quadrants, along the east side of
18 interchanges
with
19 In summary, we are moving or subtracting
20 development rights in the form of available
21 trips from the southeast quadrant, or Deerwood
22 Park, which is owned by G.L. National, by
23 64,000 square feet, and converting 10,000
24 square feet of commercial development to
25 general office type development in the
21
1 northeast quadrant to allow a grand total of
2 four million square feet of general office
3 space from the southeast quadrant to the
4 northeast quadrant, DRI.
5 In addition, we're shifting the
6 development capacity, which I believe
7 translates into 500,000 square feet of general
8 office space, and the transfer of 405 peak-hour
9 trips to the northeast quadrant.
10 Also, it pushes back the buildout and
11 termination dates for both of the northeast and
12 the southeast quadrant DRIs to December 31st,
13 2021.
14 The outcome of this legislation and its
15 inherent adjustments from the southeast
16 quadrant to the northeast quadrant is to
17 provide opportunities and capacity for future
18 growth in the form of general office
19 development, up to four million square feet,
20 for the northeast quadrant, development of
21 regional impact.
22 In
summary, the State and DOT,
23 Department of Community -- of Transportation
24 had comments concerning the methodology
25 utilized by the consultant that were, I think,
22
1 and staff believes, were adequately addressed.
2 There was a recommendation of approval
3 from the
4 Council -- actually, the
5 Regional Council, and also the recommendation
6 is for approval from your Planning and
7 Development Department.
8 So, again, it's a transfer of development
9 opportunity from one DRI to another and it --
10 it is the recommendation of the Regional
11 Planning Council as well as the Planning and
12 Development Department, and we support that.
13 Thank you.
14 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Crofts.
15 Mr. Reingold.
16 MR. REINGOLD: To the Chair, I know you
17 opened up 2011-206. Seeing as Mr. Crofts dealt
18 with both of the bills at the same time, do you
19 also want to open up 2011-207 at the same time?
20 THE CHAIRMAN: We could do that.
21 All right. We have a public hearing
22 scheduled this evening on both of these bills,
23 -206 and -207. We'll conduct that
24 simultaneously; however, both of them are
25 quasi-judicial. Does anyone have any ex-parte
23
1 communication to disclose?
2 MR. REDMAN: (Indicating.)
3 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Redman.
4 MR. REDMAN: Yes. I had communication
5 with T.R. Ha inline a couple of weeks ago on
6 this.
7 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. Thank you,
8 Mr. Redman.
9 Anybody else?
10 COMMITTEE MEMBERS: (No response.)
11 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. I also had a
12 telephone conversation with Mr. Ha inline
13 yesterday regarding this matter and have
14 received an e-mail from him on April 27th,
15 which a copy is here that can be added to the
16 file as well, just detailing what was
17 happening, and it -- presented a copy of the
18 report from the Planning Council, was it?
19 MR. HA INLINE: (Nods head.)
20 THE CHAIRMAN: All right. So the public
21 hearing is open. I have one -- on both bills,
22 2011-206 and -207. I have one card, T.R. Ha
23 inline.
24 Mr. Ha inline.
25 (Mr. Ha inline approaches the podium.)
24
1 MR. HA INLINE: Yes, sir.
2 T.R. Ha inline,
3 I'm here representing G.L. National, which
4 is a Gate subsidiary, which is the master
5 developer for both of these DRIs.
6 Let me just step back and briefly kind of
7 give you a context because Mr. Crofts threw
8 some square footage numbers out there and --
9 and let me step back and try and give a little
10 broader overview.
11 These are two Notices of Proposed Change
12 for two DRIs. One we refer to as the northeast
13 quadrant, which is the northeast quadrant of
14 Southside and J. Turner
15 is an area known by everybody as Tinseltown.
16 And this also relates to the DRI immediately to
17 the south of that, which we call the southeast
18 quadrant but most of the world knows as
19
20 Both were approved in 1986. So in terms
21 of DRI status, these are like dinosaurs. These
22 are old DRIs.
23 When somebody does a DRI -- and it's been
24 a while, thanks to the recession, but if we all
25 remember, when somebody does a DRI, what
25
1 happens is the developer projects and
2 anticipates certain traffic impacts and then
3 the City and the Regional Council and the
4 Department of Community Affairs all set what is
5 a traffic exaction or a payment that that
6 developer makes towards traffic improvements
7 intended to offset traffic impacts.
8 And back in 1986, that's exactly what
9 happened with these two DRIs. And, at that
10 time, Gate paid in excess of $6.2 million in
11 1986 dollars for a series of traffic
12 improvements in that area. I can go into
13 detail about those if you wish in questions,
14 but that -- a large amount of money in 1986
15 dollars was spent on traffic improvements in
16 that area to deal with traffic impacts caused
17 by -- that would be caused by these DRIs.
18 The two changes -- the changes -- we are
19 proposing changes to these DRIs, and state law
20 says that you can propose a series of changes.
21 Some of them are substantial, if you meet
22 certain criteria, and some of them are
23 insubstantial, if you meet certain criteria.
24 We're are proposing the following changes,
25 and Mr. Crofts went through them to some
26
1 extent:
2 In the northeast quadrant -- that includes
3 Tinseltown -- we are proposing simultaneous
4 decreases in commercial square footage that has
5 been approved and simultaneous increase in
6 office square footage in the northeast
7 quadrant. We're also extending that DRI, the
8 buildout date, out to 2021.
9 In the southeast quadrant, in part -- as
10 Mr. Crofts alluded to, in part, to offset any
11 impacts that there might be in the northeast
12 quadrant with these changes, in the southeast
13 quadrant we are decreasing office square
14 footage. There are no increases in the
15 southeast quadrant. We're decreasing office
16 square footage, and we're also extending the
17 buildout date to 2021 down there.
18 THE CHAIRMAN: T.R., hang on one second.
19 Mr. Cassada, you can put another three
20 minutes on there since we've got two bills
21 before us. Okay?
22 MR. CASSADA: (Complies.)
23 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you.
24 All right. Sorry about that, T.R.
25 Go ahead.
27
1 MR. HA INLINE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
2 Under state law, the burden is on us to
3 show that these changes will not generate new
4 traffic impacts which were not mitigated for by
5 Gate in its original $6.2 million that paid for
6 a whole series of improvements out there. If
7 we show that there are no new impacts by our
8 changes that weren't mitigated for before, then
9 we are in an insubstantial change to the DRI.
10 If we hadn't been able to show that and if the
11 agencies had concluded that indeed there are
12 new impacts, then we would have been what's
13 called a substantial deviation.
14 We've worked closely with the Regional
15 Council staff and with your City staff and as
16 well as with the FDOT over many months to
17 establish that indeed we meet the statutory
18 criteria for an insubstantial deviation, that
19 we are not generating with these changes any
20 new traffic impacts which were not mitigated
21 for by Gate's expenditures and improvements
22 back in 1986.
23 And if you looked -- or as part of your
24 package there are reports from your Planning
25 Department and from the Regional Planning --
28
1 what we all refer to as the Regional Planning
2 Council, but is now the Regional Council, that
3 established that indeed we have shown that it's
4 insubstantial, that we're not generating any
5 new traffic impacts that weren't mitigated
6 before, back -- by Gate's original expenditures
7 out there.
8 I could go into a lot more detail, but I
9 guess I'd rather be here to answer your
10 questions, in the event that you have any,
11 regarding this.
12 We do have our traffic engineer here,
13 Bernie O'Connor, as well as Drew Frick with
14 Gate, so -- happy to any answer any questions.
15 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Ha inline.
16 Any questions from the committee?
17 COMMITTEE MEMBERS: (No response.)
18 THE CHAIRMAN: All right. Thank you, sir.
19 MR. HA INLINE: Thank you.
20 THE CHAIRMAN: Anyone else care to address
21 the committee?
22 AUDIENCE MEMBERS: (No response.)
23 THE CHAIRMAN: All right. Seeing no one,
24 then, the public hearing is closed on 2011-206
25 and 2011-207.
29
1 MR. JOOST: Move -206.
2 MR. BISHOP: Second.
3 THE CHAIRMAN: Motion to approve 2011-206
4 by Mr. Joost, second by Mr. Bishop.
5 Any discussion?
6 COMMITTEE MEMBERS: (No response.)
7 THE CHAIRMAN: If not, open the ballot,
8 please, vote.
9 (Committee ballot opened.)
10 MR. CRESCIMBENI: (Votes yea.)
11 MR. HOLT: (Votes yea.)
12 MR. BISHOP: (Votes yea.)
13 MR. D. BROWN: (Votes yea.)
14 MR. R. BROWN: (Votes yea.)
15 MR. JOOST: (Votes yea.)
16 MR. REDMAN: (Votes yea.)
17 (Committee ballot closed.)
18 MS. LAHMEUR: Seven yeas, zero nays.
19 THE CHAIRMAN: By our action, you have
20 approved item 10, 2011-206.
21 Item 11, 2011-207. We have an amendment
22 on that.
23 MR. JOOST: Move the amendment.
24 MR. D. BROWN: Second.
25 THE CHAIRMAN: Motion on the amendment by
30
1 Mr. Joost, second by Councilman Dick Brown.
2 Discussion?
3 COMMITTEE MEMBERS: (No response.)
4 THE CHAIRMAN: If not, all those in favor,
5 say yes.
6 COMMITTEE MEMBERS: Yes.
7 THE CHAIRMAN: Opposed, say no.
8 COMMITTEE MEMBERS: (No response.)
9 THE CHAIRMAN: By our action, you've
10 adopted the amendment.
11 MR. JOOST: Move the bill as amended.
12 MR. BISHOP: Second.
13 THE CHAIRMAN: Motion on the bill as
14 amended by Mr. Joost, second by Mr. Bishop.
15 Discussion?
16 MR. REDMAN: (Indicating.)
17 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Redman.
18 MR. REDMAN: I'm sorry, but I need to
19 declare ex-parte communication with Mr. Frick
20 also. I forgot that -- at the same time I
21 talked with Mr. Ha inline.
22 Thank you.
23 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Redman.
24 Any further discussion?
25 COMMITTEE MEMBERS: (No response.)
31
1 THE CHAIRMAN: We have a motion and
2 second.
3 If not, please open the ballot, vote.
4 (Committee ballot opened.)
5 MR. CRESCIMBENI: (Votes yea.)
6 MR. HOLT: (Votes yea.)
7 MR. BISHOP: (Votes yea.)
8 MR. D. BROWN: (Votes yea.)
9 MR. R. BROWN: (Votes yea.)
10 MR. JOOST: (Votes yea.)
11 MR. REDMAN: (Votes yea.)
12 (Committee ballot closed.)
13 MS. LAHMEUR: Seven yeas, zero nays.
14 THE CHAIRMAN: By our action, you have
15 approved item 11, 2011-207, as amended.
16 Item 12, 2011-209. Mr. Reingold gets to
17 give the report on this one tonight.
18 Mr. Reingold.
19 MR. REINGOLD: Good evening, everybody.
20 It's not much of a report. It's --
21 essentially the resolution expresses the City's
22 support for a -- Community Rehabilitation
23 Center's desire to participate in the
24 Community Contribution Tax Credit Program.
25 Essentially what
32
1 Section 212.08, requires is that -- a proposal
2 for such a tax credit requires that this entity
3 obtain a resolution from the local government
4 in which the property is located certifying
5 that the project is consistent with local plans
6 and regulations.
7 As you have in your packet, Mr. Crofts --
8 or with the bill is Mr. Crofts' memo describing
9 how it's consistent with various different
10 neighborhood action plans and the comprehensive
11 plan, and there's an amendment on the bill.
12 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Reingold.
13 MR. JOOST: Move the amendment.
14 MR. R. BROWN: Second.
15 THE CHAIRMAN: Motion on the amendment by
16 Mr. Joost, second by Councilman Reggie Brown.
17 Discussion on the amendment?
18 COMMITTEE MEMBERS: (No response.)
19 THE CHAIRMAN: If not, all those in favor,
20 say yes.
21 COMMITTEE MEMBERS: Yes.
22 THE CHAIRMAN: Opposed, say no.
23 COMMITTEE MEMBERS: (No response.)
24 THE CHAIRMAN: By our action, you've
25 adopted the amendment.
33
1 MR. JOOST: Move the bill as amended.
2 MR. REDMAN: Second.
3 THE CHAIRMAN: Motion on the bill as
4 amended by Mr. Joost, second by Mr. Redman.
5 Discussion?
6 COMMITTEE MEMBERS: (No response.)
7 THE CHAIRMAN: If not, open the ballot,
8 please, vote.
9 (Committee ballot opened.)
10 MR. CRESCIMBENI: (Votes yea.)
11 MR. HOLT: (Votes yea.)
12 MR. BISHOP: (Votes yea.)
13 MR. D. BROWN: (Votes yea.)
14 MR. R. BROWN: (Votes yea.)
15 MR. JOOST: (Votes yea.)
16 MR. REDMAN: (Votes yea.)
17 (Committee ballot closed.)
18 MS. LAHMEUR: Seven yeas, zero nays.
19 THE CHAIRMAN: By our action, you have
20 approved item 12, 2011-209, as amended.
21 Turning to the top of page 5, item 13,
22 2011-219, is deferred.
23 Item 14, 2011-230. Mr. Kelly.
24 MR. KELLY: Thank you.
25 To the Chair and to the council members,
34
1 ordinance 2011-230, this is the result of the
2 settlement agreement between the City and the
3 Environmental Protection Agency. As a result
4 of that agreement, the City was tasked with
5 codifying in multiple sections of the municipal
6 code the Ash Management Plan. This bill
7 provides for that in terms of guidance and
8 consistency in land development with the Ash
9 Management Plan. Specifically, the sections
10 being amended are the subdivision regulations
11 and the building construction regulations under
12 Chapter 320.
13 The Department supports this. We find it
14 consistent with policies in the comprehensive
15 plan, specifically Objective 12.4 as it relates
16 to the Conservation Coastal Management Element
17 that requires coordinating land use development
18 with contamination and cleanup and
19 investigation.
20 The Department supports this and here for
21 questions.
22 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Kelly.
23 Any questions from the committee?
24 COMMITTEE MEMBERS: (No response.)
25 THE CHAIRMAN: Ms. Nelson, did you have
35
1 anything you wanted to add?
2 AUDIENCE MEMBER: No.
3 THE CHAIRMAN: No?
4 AUDIENCE MEMBER: (Shakes head.)
5 THE CHAIRMAN: She's shaking her head in
6 the negative.
7 All right. We have a public hearing
8 scheduled this evening. The public hearing is
9 open.
10 Any speakers' cards?
11 MS. DAVIS: No.
12 THE CHAIRMAN: All right. Having no
13 speakers' cards, the public hearing is closed.
14 We have a substitute on this bill.
15 MR. JOOST: Move the substitute.
16 MR. BISHOP: Second.
17 THE CHAIRMAN: Motion on the substitute by
18 Mr. Joost, second by Mr. Bishop.
19 Discussion on the sub?
20 COMMITTEE MEMBERS: (No response.)
21 THE CHAIRMAN: If not, all those in favor,
22 say yes.
23 COMMITTEE MEMBERS: Yes.
24 THE CHAIRMAN: Opposed, say no.
25 COMMITTEE MEMBERS: (No response.)
36
1 THE CHAIRMAN: By your action, you've
2 adopted the substitute.
3 MR. BISHOP: Move the bill as substituted.
4 MR. JOOST: Second.
5 THE CHAIRMAN: Motion on the bill as
6 substituted by Mr. Bishop, second by Mr. Joost.
7 Discussion?
8 COMMITTEE MEMBERS: (No response.)
9 THE CHAIRMAN: If not, open the ballot,
10 please, vote.
11 (Committee ballot opened.)
12 MR. CRESCIMBENI: (Votes yea.)
13 MR. HOLT: (Votes yea.)
14 MR. BISHOP: (Votes yea.)
15 MR. D. BROWN: (Votes yea.)
16 MR. R. BROWN: (Votes yea.)
17 MR. JOOST: (Votes yea.)
18 MR. REDMAN: (Votes yea.)
19 (Committee ballot closed.)
20 MS. LAHMEUR: Seven yeas, zero nays.
21 THE CHAIRMAN: By our action, you have
22 approved item -- you've approved the substitute
23 to item 14, 2011-230.
24 Everything else on page 5 -- 2011-241,
25 -242, and -243 -- are read second, as is our --
37
1 as is all the items on page 6, items 18, 19,
2 20, 21, 22, and 23, and everything else on page
3 7.
4 And I believe that concludes our agenda.
5 Wait. Mr. Reingold, did I miss something?
6 MR. REINGOLD: No, sir. Actually, I
7 missed something, but I'll be honest.
8 2011-38, in all the excitement of the
9 discussion of the withdrawal versus the
10 denial --
11 THE CHAIRMAN: That was exciting, wasn't
12 it?
13 MR. REINGOLD: -- I sort of lost track of
14 the fact that -- since it is a request for a
15 waiver of road frontage, we probably should
16 have moved an amendment, which would have been
17 to deny the waiver, and then move the bill as
18 amended. And so I know it's kind of semantics
19 probably, but I would just recommend maybe that
20 we reconsider that --
21 MR. JOOST: Move to reconsider.
22 MR. REINGOLD: -- and then --
23 MR. HOLT: Second.
24 THE CHAIRMAN: Motion to reconsider by
25 Mr. Joost, second by Mr. Holt.
38
1 Discussion?
2 COMMITTEE MEMBERS: (No response.)
3 THE CHAIRMAN: If not, all those in favor,
4 say yes.
5 COMMITTEE MEMBERS: Yes.
6 THE CHAIRMAN: Opposed, say no.
7 COMMITTEE MEMBERS: (No response.)
8 THE CHAIRMAN: By our action, you've moved
9 to reconsider item 4, 2011-38.
10 MR. JOOST: Move the amendment to deny.
11 MR. REDMAN: Second.
12 THE CHAIRMAN: Motion on the amendment to
13 deny by Mr. Joost, second by Mr. Redman.
14 Discussion on the amendment?
15 COMMITTEE MEMBERS: (No response.)
16 THE CHAIRMAN: All those in favor, say
17 yes.
18 COMMITTEE MEMBERS: Yes.
19 THE CHAIRMAN: Opposed, say no.
20 COMMITTEE MEMBERS: (No response.)
21 THE CHAIRMAN: By our action, you have
22 approved the amendment.
23 MR. JOOST: Move the bill as amended.
24 MR. HOLT: Second.
25 THE CHAIRMAN: Motion on the bill as
39
1 amended by Mr. Joost, second by Mr. Holt.
2 Discussion?
3 COMMITTEE MEMBERS: (No response.)
4 THE CHAIRMAN: If not, open the ballot,
5 please, vote.
6 (Committee ballot opened.)
7 MR. CRESCIMBENI: (Votes yea.)
8 MR. HOLT: (Votes yea.)
9 MR. BISHOP: (Votes yea.)
10 MR. D. BROWN: (Votes yea.)
11 MR. R. BROWN: (Votes yea.)
12 MR. JOOST: (Votes yea.)
13 MR. REDMAN: (Votes yea.)
14 (Committee ballot closed.)
15 MS. LAHMEUR: Seven yeas, zero nays.
16 THE CHAIRMAN: By our action, you have
17 approved item 4, 2011-38, as amended to deny.
18 That just made it that much more exciting,
19 Mr. Reingold.
20 All right. We have some folks in the
21 audience. Anybody here have any comments for
22 the committee?
23 AUDIENCE MEMBERS: (No response.)
24 THE CHAIRMAN: You want to come down and
25 ask us some questions or tell us a story or --
40
1 AUDIENCE MEMBERS: (No response.)
2 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay.
3 All right. If that's --
4 (Inaudible discussion.)
5 THE CHAIRMAN: I don't know if they can
6 see us. I can barely see them.
7 All right. With that said, our next
8 meeting will be Tuesday, May 17th.
9 Thanks to all for being here tonight, and
10 hopefully in two weeks we're going to have as
11 short a meeting as possible because --
12 MR. REDMAN: It's Election Day.
13 THE CHAIRMAN: -- it's Election Day, that
14 is correct, and some of us may have -- not all
15 of us, but some of us may have some
16 destinations to visit that night, and we'll
17 have the makeup of our
18 to bed by -- probably by this time. Well, no,
19 not quite by this time, but soon after this
20 time in two weeks.
21 All right. Thank you all for being here.
22 This meeting is adjourned.
23 (The above proceedings were adjourned at
24 5:41 p.m.)
25
41
1 CERTIFICATE
2
3 STATE OF
)
4 COUNTY OF DUVAL )
5
I, Diane M. Tropia, Court Reporter,
6 certify that I was authorized to and did
stenographically report the foregoing proceedings
7 and that the transcript is a true and complete
record of my stenographic notes.
8
9
DATED this 8th day of May, 2011.
10
___________________________
11 Diane M. Tropia
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25