Jacksonville Historic Preservation Commission.

Transcription

1 City of Jacksonville November, 0 0 CITY OF JACKSONVILLE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION Proceedings held on Wednesday, November, 0, commencing at : p.m., Ed Ball Building, North Hogan Street, Conference Room 0, st Floor, Jacksonville, Florida, before Matthew S. McKinney, a Notary Public in and for the State of Florida at Large. PRESENT: JACK C. DEMETREE, III, Chairman RYAN P. DAVIS, Commission Member ERIK C. KASPER, Commission Member MAXIMILIAN GLOBER, Commission Member MAIJU STANSEL, Commission Member ALSO PRESENT: SHANNON ELLER, Office of General Counsel CANDACE LONG, Planning and Development Dept. LISA SHEPPARD, Planning and Development Dept. CHRISTIAN POPOLI, Planning and Development Dept Diane M. Tropia, Inc., P.O. Box, Jacksonville, FL 0 (0 ) -000 P R O C E E D I N G S November, 0 : p.m THE CHAIRMAN: We're going to go ahead and start the November th meeting of the Jacksonville. We're going to start with some introductions. Christian can start. MR. POPOLI: Christian Popoli, Planning and Development. MS. ELLER: Shannon Eller from Office of General Counsel. COMMISSIONER GLOBER: Max Glober, commissioner. COMMISSIONER DAVIS: Ryan Davis, commissioner. THE CHAIRMAN: J.C. Demetree, Chair. COMMISSIONER KASPER: Erik Kasper, commissioner. COMMISSIONER STANSEL: Maiju Stansel, commissioner. THE CHAIRMAN: If you haven't silenced your cell phones, please do so. And any conversations you may have, please have them in the hallway. And if you'd like to speak on any issues, please fill out a speaker card and bring it up to the front. We're going to be taking a break every two hours. And I will entertain a motion to approve the minutes from the October th meeting. COMMISSIONER DAVIS: Motion to approve the minutes from the October th meeting. COMMISSIONER STANSEL: Second. THE CHAIRMAN: All those in favor? COMMISSION MEMBERS: Aye. THE CHAIRMAN: Those opposed? COMMISSION MEMBERS: (No response.) THE CHAIRMAN: Hearing none, you have approved the minutes from the October th meeting. Let's see. We have no deferred items on our list today and no consent agenda. We're actually going to go straight into new business. First on our docket, 0 North Hogan Street. Do I have a staff report? MR. POPOLI: You do. I'd love to show you visuals. I apologize that I can't. So this is a request for demolition for a contributing structure to the Downtown National of 0 sheets Page to of //0 :0:0 AM 0 0 Register District. The property is located at 0 North Hogan Street. It's basically at the corner of North Hogan and Ashley. Currently, the property is owned by the First Baptist Church. They haven't used it in a number of years. The structure was built in. It falls under the Art Moderne or Art Deco style. I'm just going to go through the criteria. Staff generally found that it met five out of the seven criteria, first being its value as a significant reminder of cultural historic architectural or archaeological heritage of the city, state or nation. The property was originally built by the Gulf Life Insurance Company. It was built in what's called Jacksonville's decade of progress, which is basically the post-war expansion. This is not a very heavily represented period in Downtown. There's really not a large quantity of buildings, so this is one of roughly that fit into the Art Deco category from this period. So it's reflective of that time period and its importance to the city. We did not feel it met the site of

2 City of Jacksonville November, significance for local, state or national events, nor is it identified with a particular person of historic significance or development. We did feel that it represents a work of a master builder, designer or architect, specifically Eugene Cellars. He is a local architect from Jacksonville. He did a lot of post-war housing, churches, other institutional buildings. He was one of eleven contributors to the Jacksonville Architectural Booklet, which was published in, which highlighted modern design trends. Even though he was a registered architect, he probably did most of his work as a draftsman for architectural firms like Roy Benjamin and other smaller firms throughout Florida. We did feel that its value was recognized as a building for its quality of architecture and retains sufficient elements. The style, again, it's an Art Deco, probably more specifically an Art Moderne structure, which is typically noted for its curved corners and somewhat plain exterior. In this case it's a brick structure. Originally, it had block glass characteristics on the corners. But a very simple building. It has some detailing along the parapet. The original cornerstones that signify Gulf Life with the GL initials are still there. It has distinguishing characteristics of a particular architectural style, in this case, again, the Art Deco, Art Moderne. It's one of ten Art Deco style buildings that were listed in the application for the Downtown National Register District. Again, not a very well-represented style in the Downtown area, but significant in that this one's pretty much intact, which goes into criteria number, which is the suitability for preservation. We don't have a lot of information on the interior of the structure, but at least from the exterior, a lot of the original elements are still there. The most notable loss unfortunately is the blocked glass that was noted in the corners of the building in sort of a curved fashion. Those have been lost. But a lot of the minimal decorative elements, the long parapet, are still there, the original awnings in most cases, at least one of the original doors. But again, without an interior visit to the structure, it's difficult to say what condition it is on the inside. But that's our findings with regards to the seven criteria for your consideration. I'm happy to take any questions. THE CHAIRMAN: Does anybody have questions for staff? COMMISSION MEMBERS: (No response.) THE CHAIRMAN: Hearing none, we open the public hearing. Is the applicant here? AUDIENCE MEMBER: (Indicating.) THE CHAIRMAN: Come on up. (Audience member approaches the podium.) AUDIENCE MEMBER: Good afternoon. My name is Kurt Wilson. I'm the director fire chief for Jacksonville Fire Rescue. THE REPORTER: Do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony you are about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? MR. WILSON: I do. THE REPORTER: Thank you. MR. WILSON: I think Lincoln said it best that he who represents himself has a fool for a //0 :0:0 AM Page to of of 0 sheets 0 0 client, although I think he was talking about attorneys and courts. It was long before fire chiefs came before historic preservation commissions and asked for demolition permits. So I want to apologize in advance if I'm a fish out of water standing in front of you, because that's certainly how I feel. First, how we got there. We're looking at buying a large parking lot and a four-story building adjacent to our headquarters at North Julia. The problem is, First Baptist, it's a buy two, get the third one for free, and the third one we're talking about is the Gulf Life building in the sense that it's in extremely bad shape. And how we got there, you know, the Fire Department moved into our current headquarters in the late '0s. We renovated it, and it's a source of pride for us. We host a lot of, you know, politicians, senators, whoever comes in for our EOC activations. We recently had a tour from the Federal Reserve folks from Atlanta who wanted to come see the old building. So when fire departments or other people

3 City of Jacksonville November, come into the building, they are immediately amazed at the fact that the City has put this much money into a fire headquarters, because we have marble inlay that says "FR." And so I usually give them about or 0 minutes of walking around before I let them know, "Hey, this was the Federal Reserve. We simply took it over. We didn't spend taxpayer dollars for inlays to put 'Fire Rescue' in, but we're very proud of the building." Unfortunately, the building, although it's five stories with the sixth floor having a small penthouse to it, the reality is it's very limited on space. Only the first through third floors have offices. The entire fourth floor is our emergency operations center. In the event of emergencies, things like that, everybody comes there. The fifth floor is a cafeteria and a gym. Like I said, the sixth floor just has a very small office. Parking around that building is a challenge, as in most Downtown Jacksonville places, but in order to be a good steward and facilitate the sale of the Jones furniture store behind us, we had to give up parking spots that were fenced in behind our headquarters. And what that housed was the parking for our fire communications folks. In order to sell that building, they wanted parking as well, and so obviously my boss came to me and says, "I know I'm going to put you in a pinch, but do you mind?" "Absolutely, if that's what it takes, let's do that." Another thing that's got us into a bind right now is that the old JEA building at the corner of Church and Julia has now been sold again, it's my understanding. The previous owner kind of gave us an MOU saying, "Hey, the 0 parking spots off of Church Street, park here if you like. Just know that when this sells, you may lose your parking." Well, it sold again, and they've put us on notice in the sense of, "Hey, can't tell you when, but the time's coming, and we're going to ask you to vacate." So right now, currently, I've got parking spaces behind headquarters; I've got four underground, and I'm at the mercy of the meters, if you will, around the building, for about 0 people that work there full-time. So we started looking at parking, trying to find a place, and First Baptist has been very kind allowing us to park in between one building -- (Timer notification.) MR. WILSON: Am I limited to three minutes? I better speak faster. They very kindly gave us a small parking in between one of the buildings on Ashley we're trying to purchase from another building, but the reality is they have a large parking lot that goes down to Beaver Street. And so we started having that conversation after some hurricane activations, where we had about people working on the fourth floor and we simply had no parking whatsoever, especially with surrounding residential condos coming in, and after-hours, everybody's coming down looking to park down there as well. So we started these discussions with First Baptist. And what we're really interested in is the four-story building as an annex, as a headquarters annex building, and the parking. And unfortunately, as First Baptist put it, if of 0 sheets Page to of //0 :0:0 AM 0 0 you want those two, you're going to take the third, and the third is the Gulf Life building that we've discussed. And I will tell you that I have -- I've been within feet of the open door of that building. They will not let you in the front door because of the conditions, but I will tell you that when you open the side door, what you're looking at -- the first thing that's going to hit you is the odor of wetness. And when you look inside the building, there's not one square inch of white sheetrock in that building. Everything's collapsed down. All your steel girder supports are rusted. It's just in bad condition. We have -- I don't know that we are going to be the right ones to renovate that, so currently we have no interest in that two-story building. The four-story building, however, is in decent shape, good roof, interior's good, electrical's good. You can tell that the church has used it for a number of years for kids, maybe as like a Sunday school, if you will, because there's a lot of things having to do with that. We're looking at it as kind of a

4 City of Jacksonville November, way to expand headquarters, if you will, a mini HQ. So we're in front of you today to ask for permission for demolition of the two-story. I know that the report that was given to you -- you know, the criteria set forth as it relates -- I guess.0 lists seven different criteria, and I think we're conceding criteria and. The staff report states that criteria and are not met. However,, the only thing I wanted to bring up is that it says he was mostly known as a draftsman, and I'm not sure if a false equivalency exists as to equate him to a master or not. I can't stand in front of you to give you any kind of educated argument as to why that is. Like I said, a fish out of water standing in front of you; just if he's known as a draftsman here, I'm not quite sure he equates to a master over here. Again, the criteria, the exterior, when you look at the pictures from the outside, yes, you know, we've lost some things to stucco as it relates to some of the round windows. Yes, the signage. And I'm not saying that's anything that we couldn't overcome. The exterior's not the issue for us. It's not that it's -- you know, it's an ugly building; it's nothing like that. It's just simply the fact that the interior -- with the means that we have to do what we have, that building's going to be a challenge for us, and we need space for parking. That's the big thing. Again, we conceded. And the last one, criteria, I wish I had an engineering report in front of you that could tell you the true condition of the inside. I don't. You know, the reality is, under oath, like I said, you open the door and you can't get within feet for the odor. And I'm not suggesting somebody couldn't overcome that. It's just where we're at and what we're trying to do with this block, it's beyond us. Historically, the Fire Department has been a good steward with Downtown preservation. Fire Station No., the first all-african-american fire station in the city, has been our fire museum for a number of years and continues to be our fire museum, and we just sunk almost $ million into renovating the interior of that building. Certainly, with possibility of Downtown development, shipyard, Shad Khan and everything coming down there, the ideas of buildings moving, you know, we're not simply coughing it up. So we're maintaining ownership of that; it's just we're not sure where that's going to be. We've also been stewards as it relates to the Jones building behind us, you know. In order to get that going and to get that occupied -- I believe it's going to be apartments -- we had to cough up parking, and so we did that. In the end, I'll just close. I appreciate your time, and I appreciate your consideration. Thank you. THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Does anybody have any questions for the applicant? COMMISSIONER KASPER: We can bring him back up later. THE CHAIRMAN: Yeah. We'll bring him back up. Thank you. Anybody else here to speak on this COA, on //0 :0:0 AM Page to of of 0 sheets 0 0 this demo? AUDIENCE MEMBERS: (No response.) THE CHAIRMAN: Hearing none, we'll close the public hearing, and I'll entertain a motion. COMMISSIONER DAVIS: Motion to approve the demolition of 0 -- I'm sorry -- 0 North Hogan Street. COMMISSIONER GLOBER: Second. THE CHAIRMAN: All right. Christian, quick question for you. The other two buildings they're moving into, do we have any information on those? MR. POPOLI: Well, in what regard? THE CHAIRMAN: When were they built? I mean, are they resurrecting two more buildings? MR. POPOLI: The one on Ashley Street, which is the immediate neighbor to this one, I believe it was built in the '0s. It's definitely more the Art Deco versus the Art Moderne. According to them and from what we've seen, it's in pretty good shape. The other building, the Jones furniture building, is a local landmark as well. (Audience member approaches the podium.)

5 City of Jacksonville November, AUDIENCE MEMBER: If I may, Mr. Chairman? THE CHAIRMAN: Sure. MR. KILLINGSWORTH: Bill Killingsworth, Director of Planning and Development. THE REPORTER: Would you raise your right hand for me? MR. KILLINGSWORTH: (Complies.) THE REPORTER: Do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony you are about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? MR. KILLINGSWORTH: I do. So the Federal Reserve building that they're in is a contributing structure to the National Historic District. The Jones building that they gave up their parking lot for is both a contributing structure to the National and I believe it's a local landmark. And then the Ashley building is a contributing structure. So of the four buildings on that block, per se, they are either rehabbing themselves or causing the rehab of three of the four buildings. THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. Thank you. COMMISSIONER KASPER: Question for staff. What the Commission is asked to do is to weigh in on whether this building satisfies four of the seven criteria? MR. POPOLI: Yes. COMMISSIONER KASPER: Okay. And in the evaluation of the individual items, we are to review those on the merits of the item itself, meaning that item number, you know, does it have value reflecting of a certain time period, was the architect of significance, does the building have distinguishing style. And those are criteria that are evaluated based on that criteria and that building, whether it's architecture and architect and such. Is there any -- do we allow circumstances to adjust or affect our decision? Where I'm leading to is that if this was a house for the nuns of such and such that saved all the children of the world, and we were going to displace these poor kids out on the street, is that a criteria, or are we simply evaluating based on these seven criteria? MR. POPOLI: I was trying to pull up the code just to verify the language. THE CHAIRMAN: That's a good question. MR. POPOLI: Have you got any thoughts on this, Shannon? MS. ELLER: Through the Chair, yes, the standard that you have is whether or not you would approve or deny demolition, and the standard in 0 punts you over to an evaluation under 0.0 of whether or not you think the building could be eligible based upon the seven criteria. Now, what you have presented before you is a staff report that found -- what did you find, five -- seven. And then you have additional evidence that's been presented by the applicant, disputing the findings in the staff report as to, I think, two of the criteria, which drops you down below the requisite requirement to deny the demolition and move forward to seek the landmark status and recommend that to the city council. So it's up to you to weigh the evidence that's been presented and determine how you feel about criteria through. And you have a motion to approve the demolition, and I would suggest as part of your discussions here, you work through that in support of that motion to approve. of 0 sheets Page to 0 of //0 :0:0 AM COMMISSIONER KASPER: Okay. Excellent. Thank you. That clarifies it. So then I would like to begin a discussion on item, as the architect. I did read this sentence, and it does say "master builder" and then, comma, "architect." THE CHAIRMAN: "Or designer." COMMISSIONER KASPER: I really don't think you're adding "master" to "architect." I think "master builder" was a term or is a term, and then "architect" is a separate term, so we're not evaluating whether or not he was a master architect. We're evaluating whether he was an architect that, through his individual work, influenced the development of the city. So we would have to ask ourselves: Did Mr. Cellars' work that he did influence the development of the city? So his projects, which we've heard, are residential, some churches and other items, and then he was a contributor to a booklet on modern architecture, which I'm assuming meant that he wrote an article or some of his projects were in that book. So for me, that's probably a gray area,. I think he is an architect. He

6 City of Jacksonville November, did do things. Are those few buildings tremendously influencing the development of the city? So that one's a potential. And then if we skip down to number, which is the other one that was brought up as a point of contention by the applicant, the condition for rehabilitation, I guess maybe it's another question on this one. We really are not evaluating how much would it cost. We're evaluating could it be done. So it appears from the image -- from the photographs, that the exterior is in very good condition for the year. We're hearing that the interior -- I'm assuming the roof leaks because of the water that's in the building and some of the steel, I think I heard, rusted. I didn't hear "falling." So I would think that just by looking at the building, that things aren't falling down, that it would be suitable, that it could be preserved. And a lot of what we deal with on the historic commission is really the exterior look. We don't comment on how the interior's laid out or the interior condition. So on the exterior, I believe it would be suitable for preservation. COMMISSIONER DAVIS: Does "suitable" mean -- you know, anything could be done for some amount of money. Does "suitable" mean is it possible to restore this building, or does it mean that it would be considered suitable from an economic standpoint, you know, and is it likely to be restored before it just disintegrates? THE CHAIRMAN: That's exactly what I wrote down, going through. I mean, is it suitable? Is it a question of whether it can be or not? Those are two different answers. I also think number is somewhat questionable. The glass blocks missing, to me, that's one of the most distinguishing parts of this building, and they've obviously been missing for some time. And then number, I would tend to agree with you on number. I think we have enough there and enough information. But and, I'm not sold on. COMMISSIONER KASPER: When we evaluate other certificates of appropriateness, really as it relates to window restoration, we have applicants that come and make the claim that the windows are beyond repair and they won't open and such and such, and then we usually ask for like an expert opinion or evaluation. I think we had another one that maybe potentially had some structural stuff. And so if number is in question, maybe there needs to be or could be some additional information that would -- Through the Chair to maybe Counsel, is there other interpretation on the number? Is there more information or more qualifiers for the simple statement "suitability for preservation"? MR. POPOLI: Looking through 0, which is where that language is, there's not a defined "suitability" definition anywhere. It's not clearly stated what makes it suitable for restoration. COMMISSIONER KASPER: Okay. But does it define what -- well, I guess you just answered that. It doesn't say "suitable." So is it suitable? Am I -- MR. POPOLI: It says "suitability for preservation or restoration." THE CHAIRMAN: Well, yeah, I think that //0 :0:0 AM Page to of of 0 sheets 0 0 comes down to: Is anybody actually going to spend the money to do it, depending on the building's condition? It's not if it can be done, to me. COMMISSIONER DAVIS: Well, again, how far do you push the standard of can it be done? I mean, really, anything can be done. COMMISSIONER KASPER: Yes. So where would you draw that threshold? So if we go along that line of thinking that it's suitable, it has -- the walls are still standing; the roof is still there, and it has interior drywall damage. So somebody who wants to come in and convert it back to an office building would need to gut it, would need to take out all the walls and take out all the systems, the electrical, mechanical, maybe even plumbing, and then so what you're left with are walls and a floor and a roof. I would think that's not an unreasonable task. I mean, we renovate buildings. And I'm sure the applicant wasn't saying this, and he was just saying the way the negotiation was, but, "I take two; I get one for free." So if somebody offered the building for free,

7 City of Jacksonville November, somebody probably could convert it. So if that is the threshold of whether or not it would be... THE CHAIRMAN: Well, it sounds like you had to buy the others to get the third. Also, I'm a fan of what looks to be two more historic buildings renovated because of this, so that to me aids number also, that, yeah, is it suitable? Sure. But in the scenario they're put in and the scenario the owners are put in with the potential buyer, I don't know if it's suitable. COMMISSIONER STANSEL: So in the past, when we have had this type of building come in front of us for demolition, we have been given the opportunity to also request the staff do a much further and deeper investigation. In the past, we've not managed to make that happen because there was some division in the staff and the commissioners. But if there is question about the interior and its suitability, and if we wanted to take that off the table as an item that was available because maybe it's not suitable to rehab the inside of it, staff was not allowed to actually go inside the building and investigate that. So we're working off of an exterior picture and a -- and the applicant's quick visual of the inside and maybe little olfactory influences there. So in my mind, we don't have enough information to say that is or isn't on the table. I think that one is a pure question mark because I don't think anybody in this room has enough information for that. I think we can all agree that it complies with and, applicant included. We can all agree that and are off the table, applicant included. The only ones that are in question are, and. We need to either decide whether Eugene Cellars was a designer or architect of note, which would make valid or not, and then I think J.C., you had some issues with. COMMISSIONER KASPER: Because of the glass block. COMMISSIONER STANSEL: Because of the glass block. The key feature of the building is actually missing. And to me, that actually -- I mean, it's a square building with rounded corners and the -- I mean, it's got some great fluting on the sides, and it's got some other detail there. I'd be curious to find out from the applicant what they would plan to do after this was demolished. COMMISSIONER KASPER: Parking lot. COMMISSIONER DAVIS: On number, I would tend to agree on some of the key elements being missing. I mean, and you can say they could be replaced, but really what we're evaluating is how much of the actual original historic fabric is intact. COMMISSIONER KASPER: But which features are missing? If you look at the elevations, the brick's there; the windows are there; the concrete awnings, the precast insets up at the parapet that have the "" and the "GL," the -- yeah. But that one corner piece, which does have stucco, and maybe there's glass block behind it maybe. COMMISSIONER STANSEL: We have not been inside to find out. COMMISSIONER KASPER: So I think the question -- so of -- I'm trying to figure out: On the entire building of the original architectural features, the only ones that I of 0 sheets Page to of //0 :0:0 AM 0 0 see that are missing is that one corner glass block window. The corner fluting is still there. The cornerstones are still there. So I would -- I think the features are there. COMMISSIONER DAVIS: Number, so I know the applicant conceded that and we've seen this come up before for buildings, you know, being significant because of significant commerce in the city at that time. And I kind of had a problem with that before and still do. You know, I don't know that just because a building was built in an era of an economic boom necessarily counts as something that -- how's it read -- has a significant reminder of cultural, historical, architectural or archeological heritage of the city, state or nation. You know, to me, that would read like a building built during restoration after the Civil War or some truly significant time period, not so much, you know, economic prosperity for a particular time. COMMISSIONER KASPER: That's a good point. So they're making the case that because there was an economic boom during this time period,

8 City of Jacksonville November, that anything that was built during that time period is reflective of that economic boom, and therefore, we should preserve it. COMMISSIONER DAVIS: Right. COMMISSIONER KASPER: So that's a good question. COMMISSIONER DAVIS: So, you know, for me, really, I would argue that is -- does not meet the criteria. And then, you know, to go back to that we kind of said was a gray area, you know, it was kind of along the same lines as my argument on number. It was designed by an architect who was alive during that period, but, you know, I don't -- and the projects that he worked on were kind of a variety of residences and churches and a warehouse here and there, and he had a couple of big projects like this. But, you know, I don't know that -- and this sounds terrible to say, I guess, talking about somebody and their legacy, but it doesn't seem like he made a mark on the city that would, again, live up to the language of -- sorry. Let me go back to it. COMMISSIONER KASPER: Yeah. It says -- 0 THE CHAIRMAN: I think it's a fair point. COMMISSIONER DAVIS: "Whose individual work influenced the development of the city, state or nation." THE CHAIRMAN: I think it's a fair point. Just because he did a lot of work doesn't necessarily make him influential. COMMISSIONER STANSEL: Well, and it may not be reflective of the work that he was doing at the time that he was doing work. You know, as an architect, they do a lot of custom homes. Occasionally, I do a warehouse building. Is the warehouse building representative of what I do? No; the homes are. So his legacy is maybe not this. It's maybe in other structures. I think that's what you're saying. COMMISSIONER DAVIS: Yes. Yeah, you know, his resume reads more -- and this is a beautiful building. But if you look at the projects he's done, it looks like he was more developed -- or he was more influenced by the time he lived in, more than he influenced the time. COMMISSIONER STANSEL: I have a question for staff. In our packet, there is a series of pictures with addresses. So we have the Gulf Life building, Willow Branch Apartments, Brewster hospital, Allen High School, First Baptist Jacksonville Beach. The purpose of these images is to show us what? THE CHAIRMAN: I was thinking the same thing. And then in the staircase photo, we've got Gulf Life, question mark? It might be that building? COMMISSIONER KASPER: Is that Mr. Cellars' work? THE CHAIRMAN: I don't know. COMMISSIONER STANSEL: That's what I think I'm asking. MR. POPOLI: Yes. I believe those are examples of his work from the file that we have on him individually. COMMISSIONER STANSEL: Okay. MR. POPOLI: I had a thought that they were examples of the style from the period in the city, but I'm pretty sure they're not. So, yeah, I'm pretty confident these are examples of his work. COMMISSIONER GLOBER: I have a question for staff, if I may. What makes someone a //0 :0:0 AM Page to of of 0 sheets 0 0 master builder or architect? Is that pretty wide open, or is there a definition? MR. POPOLI: I don't think there's a hard fast definition. I mean, a lot of these are deliberately vague to be more all encompassing. I would probably defer to Erik or Maiju as architects, since they're kind of students in this field. But I think, you know, someone -- Jacksonville doesn't have a huge quantity of noteworthy architects, and I think the most obvious example would be, you know, Klutho, who did a very specific style that's not common to Florida and Springfield, the Prairie style, so he's someone that obviously stands out. But I don't know that there's a hard fast way to get that definition. COMMISSIONER STANSEL: In looking at his body of work that's included in this packet, that is located in Jacksonville, because some of it's not, there's a -- some of these other buildings are much more notable and much more desirable in speaking to the Moderne, the Art Deco/Modern style, that was claimed on this Gulf Life building. I'm inclined -- even though Cellars is of note, has done some stuff

9 City of Jacksonville November, in Jacksonville, I would say that the Gulf Life building is probably not as representative of his body of work. COMMISSIONER DAVIS: Well, and I would say that in looking at those other examples, in particular the ones that were exemplary, would -- those examples would more lend themselves to, if we were evaluating those, number, for being recognized for the quality of their architecture and the sufficient elements showing their architectural significance. Even if he had other projects that would qualify as number, not to say whether this one does or not right at this moment, I still don't -- I don't think that those are necessarily an argument for him, as an individual, influencing the development of the city. THE CHAIRMAN: I mean, it sounds to me like we've got enough here to take a vote, unless anybody has anything else to add. COMMISSIONER KASPER: I need a moment. THE CHAIRMAN: Sure. Take a moment. COMMISSIONER KASPER: So item number, was this work representative of a -- was a reminder of a certain heritage of the city; number, did his work influence the city; number, does this work have key features; number, is it representative of distinguishable style; and number, is it suitable for restoration. On number, I'm tending to lean more with Ryan now that only -- that the heritage of the boom and buildings that were built during the boom doesn't necessarily mean it reminds me of the boom. Number, I don't think it has to be master builder. I think the question is: He was an architect, yes. Did his work influence the city? I don't know. There's other buildings that were in the city. They were nice buildings. Did that influence? I don't know. Key features, yes. Distinguishable style, yes. Suitable, I believe yes. Anybody else want to comment? THE CHAIRMAN: I still have an issue with and, personally. COMMISSIONER KASPER: And, you say no? COMMISSIONER STANSEL: Do we want to request having staff dig further into this? COMMISSIONER KASPER: No, I think we're -- THE CHAIRMAN: I don't think it's necessary. COMMISSIONER STANSEL: I'm asking the question. THE CHAIRMAN: Yeah. I mean, if you're looking at it as,, and, then we just went through again, I mean, there's your four misses right there, so that -- I mean, if we're all in agreement there, then I don't think we need to dig any further. But that's just my thought. COMMISSIONER KASPER: Maybe we don't have to be unanimous. THE CHAIRMAN: Do we have five today? No, we don't. COMMISSIONER KASPER: Yeah, we do. THE CHAIRMAN: That's what I meant. I'm going to go ahead and call for a vote. All those in favor? COMMISSION MEMBERS: Aye. THE CHAIRMAN: Those opposed? COMMISSION MEMBERS: (No response.) COMMISSIONER KASPER: Sorry. The motion was to approve demolition -- of 0 sheets Page to of //0 :0:0 AM 0 0 THE CHAIRMAN: I can re-call. COMMISSIONER KASPER: Yeah. THE CHAIRMAN: All those in favor? COMMISSION MEMBERS: Aye. THE CHAIRMAN: Those opposed? COMMISSIONER KASPER: Nay. COMMISSIONER STANSEL: Nay. THE CHAIRMAN: I'm hearing three ayes and two nays. You've approved -- yeah? MS. ELLER: Correct. My reading is that a quorum consists of a majority of the Commission. So you have a quorum because you are fully staffed at seven and you have five, and favorable action by the Commission requires that a majority of the commissioners present and voting concur. So a majority is three. What you are recalling in some of your discussions is that if you were to actually designate a landmark, you do have the majority-plus-one requirement, but this is not the vote to actually designate the landmark. This was a vote on the demolition. So my reading of the bylaws is that the motion carried.

10 City of Jacksonville November, THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. MR. WILSON: Thank you. THE CHAIRMAN: Uh-huh. So we're going to move on to our previously deferred items. First on our list is COA--, Ernest Street. Do you have a staff report? MR. POPOLI: We do. It's the same staff report from the previous meeting. We can cover the highlights. COMMISSIONER STANSEL: Refresh our memories, please. THE CHAIRMAN: We've had a lot of deferreds lately. MR. POPOLI: Let me see if I can get the computer to work. Yeah, no. Sorry to get everyone's hopes up. MS. SHEPPARD: Through the Commission, this application is for window replacement. Staff recommendation was approve with conditions. These included limiting the window replacement and requiring, instead of replacement, the restoration of the historic windows that are on the structure, the -over- and the -over- that are currently there, and that allowing for the nonhistorical aluminum windows to be replaced and then providing more basic window replacement conditions related to the new windows fitting the opening, being properly recessed. We were also conditioning the materials, limiting it to wood, wood clad or a cellular PVC, that those would be the appropriate materials that would give the -- match to historic materials the best and meet our criteria that's in the design regulations; and requiring that the exterior trim work also be either retained or replicated. And I believe at the last meeting -- I was not in attendance at that meeting, but the discussion was around a count of the windows. I did have an opportunity to go by the site. We arranged a second site inspection with the applicant. Unfortunately, they were not able to get there, so I was limited to the outside. But I wanted to make sure that the commissioners understood that the windows that have been replaced are specific to the porch areas. The aluminum windows are enclosing a side porch and an upstairs corner porch area that probably had casement windows at some point, or at least there was evidence of casement window on the back of the wraparound porch -- or not wraparound, but the side porch. So that kind of skews your count a little bit just because there probably wasn't windows there to begin with, so it certainly has been enclosed for a while, and there was evidence of casements in the back, but I think that's an important distinguishing -- you know, it's not that when you're looking at the structure, the majority of the historic sash-style windows have been replaced, which is kind of what that -- the intent of that percentage was trying to get at, you know, that if you lost so much of the integrity of the historic windows, then it would probably be a basis for allowing for replacement in order to bring the whole structure back, and that's not really the case in this situation. THE CHAIRMAN: All right. Thank you. Does anybody have any questions for staff? COMMISSIONER KASPER: Yeah. Through the Chair, to that point, I think maybe one of the //0 :0:0 AM Page to 0 of of 0 sheets items when we left was relating to a percentage, and if you were to get to a percentage, then therefore it could be a wholesale. So as staff, are you making a declarative statement that the percentage should be based on the original windows of the original structure, or the percentage is based on every window that's on the property today? MS. SHEPPARD: I was speaking to how we've looked at that previously. I mean, it doesn't go into detail in the design regulations on how to break that down. But if you are taking things into consideration, like porch enclosures, that's a lot of windows. And suddenly, if you're using that as part of your basis, then it really skews the loss of fabric that might be in perfectly good shape on the main body of the house. COMMISSIONER KASPER: So the spirit of the percentage idea is to preserve as many original windows as possible, and the implication is that windows that were installed in an enclosed porch at a later date are not historic and therefore would be --

11 City of Jacksonville November, MS. SHEPPARD: It's something that I would recommend at least taking into consideration. And we're fine with replacing those. They've been previously replaced and certainly detract from the building, and so that -- just be conscious of it. COMMISSIONER DAVIS: I think that makes sense. I mean, you can take it, you know, a step in a different direction and say, if you put an addition on a home and add windows to it, as soon as those are installed, you don't go back and say, "Well, now the percentages are off." MS. SHEPPARD: Through the Chair, that's another example. We've dealt with this at the staff level. I don't know that anything got to the commission level. But when we've been talking to people in a situation where you've got a large addition and suddenly you're kind of using those as the basis, that's kind of missing the spirit, as Commissioner Kasper mentioned. THE CHAIRMAN: All right. Does anybody else have questions of staff? COMMISSION MEMBERS: (No response.) THE CHAIRMAN: I'm going to open the public hearing. Is the applicant here? AUDIENCE MEMBERS: (No response.) THE CHAIRMAN: Not seeing the applicant. So anybody else here to speak on this COA? AUDIENCE MEMBERS: (No response.) THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. I'm going to close the public hearing and ask you guys what we need to do here. MS. SHEPPARD: I'm sorry. Through the Chair, when I set up the meeting for going out in the field to meet with him, I mean, the premise of that was that we wanted to get it done before the meeting this week, so I can't -- they didn't say that they weren't going to be here. They didn't say that they were, but I did mention that to them on the phone in setting that appointment. COMMISSIONER STANSEL: Do we need to defer this because the applicant is not here? THE CHAIRMAN: I'm going to go ahead and defer, then, COA--, Ernest Street, and we're going to move right along. COA--, 0 Park Street. I believe you have to recuse yourself, yes? COMMISSIONER DAVIS: Yes, I do. And I'm listed as the applicant, but the owner is here to speak on it. THE CHAIRMAN: And I will take a staff report. MR. POPOLI: All right. This is COA--, for 0 Park Street. It's a vacant lot in the Riverside area in the historic district. The request is to construct a new two-story, single-family residence on the vacant lot. The proposed design is for a two-story structure that is -- excuse me -- here we are. It's a gabled front-pitched roof, has a protruding front porch. It's situated on a block that has a number of one-and-a-half-story structures. Sorry. More technical difficulties. There we go. So basically you have a side-facing gable, one-story porch. The structure's overall height on the plans was listed as just over feet -- -, so almost feet. Other than its height, we felt that the design and scale and massing, setbacks, of 0 sheets Page to of //0 :0:0 AM 0 0 were all -- at least with the typical conditions, in keeping with the surrounding structures and would generally be compatible with the structures in the district. The height was the only thing that we really had issue with. Generally, the one-and-a-half-story structures along the block wouldn't be 0 feet, so we had conditioned that the overall height of the structure be feet or less to be more compatible. But the issue with that is once you bring that height down, the roof pitch gets a little bit odd, so we'd also condition that the roof pitch be adjusted to better match the style of the house at that height. Because as it comes down, that pitch would be a little flatter. Other than that, we're conditioning all the typical conditions for recessed windows with trim, division of window pairs with a -inch mullion, wood spindle railings, wood or Hardie-style siding and soffit boards, front doors with clear glass and no etching; the setbacks, again, this condition to match the neighboring properties; the overall design and minor changes be reviewed by staff; the front

12 City of Jacksonville November, steps we're conditioning to be brick or concrete, and that the front door would be centered on the steps, which based on the designs, it would be. So that's generally the conditions we're recommending. I know the applicant generally was fine with most of them, other than the height and roof pitch. I think that's really the point of discussion, but I'll let them answer to that. So if you have any questions, I'll be happy to answer them. COMMISSIONER KASPER: Through the Chair, the -foot is a number that comes from where? And then, as I looked through images and as you walk down the street, you tend to -- especially houses in -- well, you tend to focus on the elevation and then kind of the eave or the eave line, where the roof begins, and that tends to kind of frame the house. And then the roof seems to normally kind of disappear. So do we really know, to the tippy top of each one of these roofs in the neighborhood, that they do not exceed feet? MR. POPOLI: We don't. It's an estimate. Generally, in Riverside, you tend to see structures that are smaller in height than, say, in Springfield, where, 0 feet is the standard generally for a two-story or a large one-and-a-half. They tend to be tall, narrow structures. Here, a lot of the one-and-a-halfs are smaller than that; the two-stories may be, but it's difficult to say. The thought process was stylistically the one-and-a-half story, and as we've seen with some of the new construction in the Green Street project and things like that,, feet seemed to be kind of the high end of a one-and-a-half story. 0, feet seemed to be the norm. COMMISSIONER KASPER: Okay. So you're making more of a distinction that because it's one-and-a-half, it should be lower, versus if it was a two-story... MR. POPOLI: Right. We were reflective of the style. COMMISSIONER KASPER: To stay on that point, it's not really that the massing is larger than the surrounding homes. It's just that the style of a one-and-a-half story should be of this particular massing? MR. POPOLI: Yes. I think that was the intent. The impact of the height would not be as noticeable at the forward slope on the side-facing gable. THE CHAIRMAN: Does anybody else have questions for staff? COMMISSION MEMBERS: (No response.) THE CHAIRMAN: Hearing none, we will open the public hearing for public comment. Is the applicant here? AUDIENCE MEMBER: (Indicating.) THE CHAIRMAN: You can come on up. (Audience member approaches the podium.) THE REPORTER: Would you raise your right hand for me, please? AUDIENCE MEMBER: (Complies.) THE REPORTER: Do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony you are about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? AUDIENCE MEMBER: I do. THE REPORTER: Thank you. THE CHAIRMAN: You can go ahead and state your name and address. MR. HENDERSON: Chris Henderson, San //0 :0:0 AM Page to of of 0 sheets 0 0 Jose Boulevard, 0. First, I want to thank the staff for all of their review of our project. I think, as staff eluded to, there were conditions they requested to be added to our proposed design. We're comfortable with of them. They're fine. I think they're nice additions, so I think it will produce a good house. Really the issue holding us up, and really kind of is an issue with our design, is height. So I think the issues are on the table there. Because my time's limited, I could tell you all about myself; I don't want to bore you with all that. I think probably we can get down to the crux of it. I'm grateful that I brought some hardcopies, based on technology challenges today. May I provide you with some information? THE CHAIRMAN: Sure. MR. HENDERSON: Okay. This is -- first, before I get into what this is attempting to demonstrate, two kind of caveats to it. First, I don't believe there's too many absolutes in life, so this gets to the question of feet, feet, how tall is everything. I don't have

13 City of Jacksonville November, the technology or even the capability -- people would think I'm pretty weird if I started knocking on doors and trying to measure the height of their homes. What this is trying to depict is homes that I believe to be either one-and-a-half or two-story homes. I didn't make a distinction between one or the other. I hadn't really considered that as an issue, but that's one caveat to this list. The other thing I want to point out, in showing you this list, is that it's not exhaustive. These are just a handful of examples that we were able to identify of one-and-a-half or two-story homes, and we focused -- we didn't go all up and down Riverside Avondale. We tried to focus within this exact neighborhood. Our house, I'll show you on the map. Our proposed site is right across from Boone Park tennis courts. It's a site for me that I've always enjoyed. I had some good tennis battles right across the street in high school, and so this is a site I never knew I'd come back and visit necessarily. 0 But as I mentioned, I will say -- and without trying to suck up too much -- I live in an older neighborhood. My background is as an appraiser -- and I hesitate to admit this -- also an attorney. I have a strong bias towards older neighborhoods. I'm also a real estate agent. I try to direct my clients to these older neighborhoods. I like living in them. And I always scratch my head when I see, in San Marco, for example, that it doesn't have the protection that you-all provide, where you see homes that don't really fit in go up, and they go in because they make sense financially. And they go in -- (Timer notification.) MR. HENDERSON: If you'll indulge me for a little longer. THE CHAIRMAN: A couple minutes, yeah. MR. HENDERSON: My team tried to design a house that was complementary with this neighborhood. I don't see it up there, but hopefully you at least have the design before you. THE CHAIRMAN: Uh-huh. MR. HENDERSON: Good. So with that said, we really did try to design a house that fit into the neighborhood. So back to my demonstrative. These are, I believe, homes that are one-and-a-half or two-story homes, and they are plotted on this map. We tried to -- there's clearly a lot of two-story homes, one-and-a-half to two-story homes that are on the east kind of corridor of Park Street, east of our property. I wanted to give a full sample. And I really believe there's a lot of two-story homes and one-and-a-half to the west of our site as well. There's also two-story properties just north and just south of us. A couple that, as you're going through my pictures, the homes that are highlighted, those are newer homes. Those are contemporary homes that have been built within the last five years. For example, on page, Ingleside is a new home. If you turn to page, page is meaningful to me. It has three contemporary homes on it. 0 Park Street is west of our site on Park Street. Valencia is just southeast of our site. I think that's a one-and-a-half-story home. And then Park of 0 sheets Page to of //0 :0:0 AM 0 0 Street, that is also west of our site. I'm trying to not bias the analysis too much by just looking east. There's clearly two-story homes to the east, but I believe there's also homes west, north and south. If you turn to page, there's a duplex you'll see on the top left-hand corner, Menna Street. That property is adjacent to ours. So that is really -- there's not much more science to my explanation of this particular height issue. It's important to our project to be able to build to the height we proposed, but we're comfortable with the rest of the conditions, so I'm happy to answer any questions or sit down and let you-all talk about it. THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Does anybody have any questions? COMMISSIONER STANSEL: No. THE CHAIRMAN: All right. We'll call you back. MR. HENDERSON: Thank you. THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Is there anyone else here to speak on this COA?