OFFICE OF THE CITY COUNCIL

CHERYL L. BROWN 117 WEST DUVAL STREET, SUITE 425

DIRECTOR 4^TH FLOOR, CITY HALL

OFFICE (904) 630-1452 JACKSONVILLE, FLORIDA 32202

FAX (904) 630-2906

E-MAIL: CLBROWN@coj.net

LUZ COMMITTEE SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES -AMENDED

April 19, 2016

4:00 p.m.

City Council Chamber

1^st Floor, City Hall

117 West Duval Street

Attendance: Council Members Scott Wilson (Chair), Lori Boyer, Katrina Brown, Danny Becton, Aaron Bowman, and Joyce Morgan

Also: Joel McEachin – Planning and Development Department; Susan Grandin and Jason Teal – Office of General Counsel; Philip Zamarron – Legislative Services Division; Yvonne P. Mitchell – City Council Research

Chairman Wilson called the meeting to order at 4:14 p.m. He stated the outline of the hearing procedures were available.

2016-216 (Appeal of Final Decision on COA-15-1020)

Mr. Jason Teal of the Office of General Counsel provided a brief summary of the facts regarding the appeals process for a Certificate of Appropriateness Final Order from Jacksonville Historic Preservation Commission (HPC). The subject of the application was to seek after the fact approval for window work done on the property located at 348 E. 3^rd Street in Springfield Historic District. HPC denied the application on January 27, 2016. Thus, the appellate submitted an appeal to the City Council.

Ms. Kim Pryor, representative of Glory Homes, Inc., and Take 2 LLC, owner of the property on E. 3^rd Street. Ms. Pryor was provided 15 minutes to present her case. She contested the findings 5-12 of the HPC. The property was cited for three violations included installation of French doors, top window sashes were vinyl, and bottom window sashes were vinyl. The doors have been corrected. Ms. Pryor maintains that the replacement of the window sashes was a repair. She stated the original frame, seals and weights were still in place. Additionally, she provided information per the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation in distinguishing between a window replacement and window repair. In conclusion, Ms. Pryor expressed concern that final orders of HPC are not being accurately transcribed.

Public hearing opened for public comments.

• Kimberly Patrie, a representative of Springfield Preservation & Revitalization Council (SPAR), read a letter of opposition of the appellate. SPAR is concerned about the deliberate actions that undetermined the rules and regulations which maintain the historic element of the district.

Public hearing closed.

Mr. Teal was provided 15 minutes to present his case. He reviewed the components of the original application submitted. It should be noted that staff can only approve minor window repairs with like materials. The applicant violated the Certificate of Appropriateness in utilizing vinyl material rather than comparable historic material. Mr. Teal stated that evidence was not submitted to HPC regarding non-repairable windows. According HPC guidelines if more than 50% of windows are non-repairable, documentation, which can include pictures, must be submitted with an application to use wholesale windows. Mr. Teal commented that only the windows on both road frontages were replaced. He requested the committee uphold the decision of the HPC and deny the appeal.

In response to an inquiry, Mr. Teal stated there was no specific reference that switching an original sash with new one is considered a replacement within Springfield Historic Preservation. In the event the appeal is upheld, the applicant would be expected to correct the violation with replacing the original windows or use appropriate wood materials. If replacement isn’t completed, the City can file an injunction to require compliance from the applicant.

Ms. Pryor was provided three minutes to rebut information presented. She stated the window work was inspected by Martin Kennelly of the Planning and Development Department. She requested the committee review the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation which specifically distinguishes the repair from replacement regarding sashes.

Ms. Grandin clarified the context of the appeal and the process on voting to approve, deny or modify the appeal.

Motion/2^nd move to uphold decision of HPC and deny original COA in regards to doors – Boyer/K. Brown (6-0)

Motion/2^nd move to uphold decision of HPC, deny original COA in regards to windows and submit an application for new COA within 90 days - Morgan/Bowman (6-0)

Motion/2^nd move as amended - Boyer/Bowman (6-0)

There being no further business, the workshop was adjourned at 6:01 p.m.

Yvonne P. Mitchell, Council Research Division (904) 630-1679

Posted 04.26.16 1:00 p.m.