AMENDED & Adopted 4/26/16
1
Introduced and amended by the Land Use and Zoning Committee:
2
3
4
RESOLUTION 2016-216-A
5
A RESOLUTION CONCERNING THE APPEAL OF A FINAL
6
DECISION
7
PRESERVATION
8
APPLICATION FOR CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS
9
(COA-15-1020) AS REQUESTED BY FRED BARTON, ON
10
BEHALF OF TAKE 2, LLC, TO APPROVE AFTER-THE-
11
FACT
12
SASHES
13
PRODUCT,
14
STYLE DOOR AND
15
PROPERTY LOCATED AT 348 EAST 3RD STREET IN THE
16
SPRINGFIELD
HISTORIC
17
DISTRICT
PURSUANT
18
PROCEDURE), CHAPTER 307 (HISTORIC PRESERVATION
19
AND
20
RECOMMENDED
21
LAND USE AND ZONING COMMITTEE TO AFFIRM THE
22
DECISION
23
PRESERVATION COMMISSION AND DENY THE APPEAL;
24
PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
OF
THE
COMMISSION
WHOLESALE
ON
JACKSONVILLE
THE
AND
TO
7),
OF
STORY
INSTALL
A
THE
THE
WINDOW
USING
15
A
LIGHT
VINYL
FRENCH
A 9 LIGHT COTTAGE DOOR FOR THE
PROTECTION),
DISTRICT
TO
PART
ORDINANCE
FINDINGS
OF
DENYING
REPLACEMENT
SECOND
HISTORIC
THE
AND
(COUNCIL
2
(APPELLATE
CODE;
CONCLUSIONS
JACKSONVILLE
ADOPTING
OF
THE
HISTORIC
25
26
WHEREAS, on or about July 2, 2014, Fred Barton, on behalf of
27
Take 2, LLC, (hereinafter referred to as the “Appellant”) submitted
28
an Application for a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA-14-448)
29
for the property located at 348 East 3rd Street in the Springfield
30
Historic District (“the Property”) (Council District 7) for the
31
approval
to
repair
windows.
COA-14-448
was
administratively
AMENDED 4/26/16
1
approved with conditions, which specified as follows: the approval
2
was for “window repair ONLY,” the window “repairs shall match the
3
existing
4
replacement shall be addressed under an amendment or separate COA
5
application.” A copy of COA-14-448 is attached as an exhibit to the
6
Order on COA-15-1020, which is attached hereto as Exhibit 1.
7
and
historic
WHEREAS,
on
materials
May
18,
and
2015,
designs,”
the
and
Appellant
“any
window
submitted
an
8
Application for a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA-15-422) for
9
the approval to replace two doors on the Property. COA-15-422 was
10
administratively approved with conditions, which required the use
11
of
12
replacements. A copy of COA-15-422 is attached as an exhibit to
13
Exhibit 1; and
14
the
half-light
or
two-quarter
light
doors
for
the
door
WHEREAS, after the receipt of the administrative approvals
15
with
16
performed work outside of the scope of administrative approvals
17
with conditions. Specifically, the Appellant performed a wholesale
18
window
19
doors not in conformity with the specified conditions of COA-15-
20
422; and
21
conditions
for
replacement
COA-14-448
in
and
violation
of
COA-15-422,
COA-14-448
the
and
Appellant
replaced
two
WHEREAS, the Appellant filed Certificate of Appropriateness
22
Application
23
after-the
24
replacement of window sashes on the second story using a vinyl
25
product; 2) the installation of
26
3) a 9 light cottage door; and
27
(COA
fact
WHEREAS,
15-1020)
approval
after
on
December
of
public
the
21,
2015,
following:
1)
requesting
the
the
wholesale
a 15 light French style door; and
hearing
on
January
27,
2016,
the
28
Jacksonville Historic Preservation Commission (JHPC) denied COA-15-
29
1020 in its entirety as set forth in the Final Order on COA-15-1020
30
dated February 9, 2016 (Final Order)and attached hereto as Exhibit
2
AMENDED 4/26/16
1
1; and
2
WHEREAS,
pursuant
to
Section
307.201,
Ordinance
Code,
the
3
Appellant filed a notice of appeal within 21 calendar days of the
4
Final Order; and
5
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 307.202(a), Ordinance Code, the
6
person who filed the application for certificate of appropriateness
7
has standing to appeal; and
8
9
WHEREAS, the appeal was timely filed and the Appellant, as the
applicant has standing to appeal; now therefore
10
BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Jacksonville:
11
Section 1.
Adoption
of
findings
and
conclusions.
12
Pursuant to Chapter 307 (Historic Preservation and Protection),
13
Part
14
reviewed
15
Jacksonville Historic Preservation Commission (“JHPC”) on COA 15-
16
1020, concerning the after-the-fact request for: (1) replacement of
17
window sashes using a vinyl product instead of the required wood,
18
and (2) replacement of two doors using one fifteen-light French
19
style, and one nine-light cottage style door. The Land use and
20
Zoning Committee of the City Council (“LUZ”) also conducted a de
21
novo hearing regarding the matter on April 19, 2016.
22
record of proceedings is located in the City Council Legislative
23
Services Division.
24
at 4PM on April 19, 2016 is contained in the on line archives of
25
the City Council.
26
2
(Appellate
the
Procedure),
record
of
Ordinance
proceedings
Code,
regarding
the
an
Council
appeal
of
has
the
The entire
A video of the Special Meeting proceeding held
The Council has considered the recommended decision of LUZ and
27
based
28
contained in the record, the Council hereby makes the following
29
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law:
30
upon
the
competent,
substantial
evidence
presented
and
The Subject Property is a two story commercial building in the
3
AMENDED 4/26/16
1
Springfield
Historic
District.
2
administratively
3
Appropriateness (“COA”) COA-14-488, for “repair ONLY,” and with the
4
condition that the “repairs shall match the existing or historic
5
materials and design.” In June of 2015, an additional application,
6
COA-15-422, was administratively approved for the installation of
7
two new doors on the second story with the condition that the doors
8
be a one-half, two-thirds, or three-quarter light with clear glass.
approved,
The
second
pursuant
to
story
windows
were
Certificate
of
9
In December of 2015, the appellant filed for COA-15-1020 in
10
response to a citation for after-the-fact (1) wholesale replacement
11
of window sashes on the second story using a vinyl product and (2)
12
the installation of a 15-light French style door and a 9-light
13
cottage style door.
14
time, the two doors have been changed to comport with COA-14-422,
15
so the real issue at hand are the windows.
COA-15-1020 was denied by JHPC.
Since that
16
The appellant argued that the wholesale replacement of the
17
window sashes was merely a “repair” and not a “replacement” of the
18
windows.
19
required that the repair of the windows match the existing or
20
historic materials, which in this case was wood.
21
used a vinyl product which clearly violates the requirement that
22
the existing or historic material be used. Vinyl is not wood, and
23
vinyl is not historic, thus from that point, we find that the
24
“repair” authorized pursuant to COA-14-488 became an unauthorized
25
“replacement.”
26
sash component of the window, in comparison to the window as a
27
whole, we find that the replacement of window sashes rises to the
28
level of window replacement rather than merely window repair.
However,
the
administratively
approved
COA-14-488
The appellant
Additionally, because of the visual effect of the
29
The appellant also argued that even if this was categorized as
30
a replacement that the use of vinyl sashes was permissible because
4
AMENDED 4/26/16
1
vinyl
2
Preservation
3
replacement project at 1411 Liberty Street.
4
of
5
Guidelines if, as a first step to the consideration, it has been
6
substantiated
7
showing that at least 50% of the windows are so deteriorated that
8
they need to be replaced rather than repaired.
9
hand, there is no documentary, physical or pictorial evidence in
10
the record below, and the appellant offered no evidence to LUZ,
11
regarding the state of the existing windows prior to their removal
12
and
13
below, and LUZ as part of this proceeding, were both denied the
14
ability to discern the state of deterioration of the windows, we
15
find that the required first step to approval of wholesale window
16
replacement was not taken by appellant and thus the replacement
17
with the vinyl product cannot now be approved.
18
sashes
windows
had
previously
Commission
is
allowed
by
on
by
been
another
the
documentary,
replacement.
Because
the
approved
by
party’s
Historic
Historic
wholesale
window
Wholesale replacement
Springfield
physical
the
or
Historic
District
pictorial
evidence
In the case at
Preservation
Commission
Appellant’s reliance on another party’s request for wholesale
19
replacement of windows is misplaced.
20
provided
21
Street and obtained approval for their replacement prior to the
22
removal.
23
without
24
first, and replaced them with a non-historic material.
evidence
of
the
window
In that case, the applicant
deterioration
at
1411
Liberty
In the case at hand, the appellant removed the windows
documenting
their
condition,
without
obtaining
approval
25
The Historic Preservation Division staff report, which is also
26
recognized as competent, substantial evidence, recommended denial
27
of the request to replace the window sashes with a vinyl product,
28
and recommended denial of the request to use a fifteen light French
29
style door and a nine light cottage style door to replace two
30
existing doors.
5
AMENDED 4/26/16
1
The Council finds that the appellant did not present competent
2
substantial evidence to refute the finding that the fifteen-light
3
French Style, and the nine-light cottage style, violated COA-15-
4
422.
5
The Council also finds that the appellant did not present
6
competent substantial evidence to refute the finding that the use
7
of a vinyl product for window sash replacement violated COA-14-488.
8
9
10
The
decision
of
the
Jacksonville
Commission on COA-15-1202 is affirmed.
Historic
Preservation
The appeal of the decision
is denied.
11
The appellant has ninety (90) days within which to file for a
12
COA for replacement of the vinyl sash windows with windows that
13
will meet the criteria of COA-14-488.
14
This
15
immediately and is the final action of the City Council.
decision
16
of
Section 2.
the
City
Legislative
Council
Services
shall
is
become
directed
effective
to
mail
a
17
copy of this Resolution to the Appellant and any other parties who
18
testified before the Land Use and Zoning Committee, or otherwise
19
filed
20
307.202(c), Ordinance Code.
21
a
qualifying
Section 3.
written
Effective
statement
Date.
as
The
defined
adoption
in
Section
of
this
22
resolution shall be deemed to constitute a quasi-judicial action of
23
the City Council and shall become effective upon the signature by
24
the Council President and Council Secretary.
25
26
Form Approved:
27
28
/S/ Susan C. Grandin_____
29
Office of General Counsel
30
Legislation Prepared by Susan C. Grandin
31
G:\SHARED\LEGIS.CC\2016\Reso\Land Use General\2016-216-A.doc
6