Repurposing The Elena Flats Building

sheclown · April 08, 2015, 08:43:38 AM

Evidence was presented and citizens spoke up for it at the Historic Preservation Commission meeting. The speakers were under the mistaken impression that the HPC commissioners were the experts in this matter (not the LUZ) and therefore the place to present their case.

How disrespectful of the city council to, once again, disregard the experts in this matter.

The fight for the Claude Nolan building took a year's worth of meetings. I know that I went to too many meetings to count to advocate for it. Others as well. Hours upon hours upon hours upon hours.

That being said, the Claude Nolan was shot down in LUZ as well. It took Robin Lumb and Dr. Gaffney to stand up for it in full council.

Maybe there is still a chance in full council.

JaxUnicorn · May 11, 2015, 02:07:45 PM

Elena Flats' fate will once again be up for Public Hearing:

Tuesday, May 12th (TOMORROW) at the City Council meeting.

Wednesday, May 20th at the LUZ committee meeting.

Please go and speak in favor of saving this structure if that is your position. Both meetings are held at 5:00 p.m.

City Hall
117 W. Duval St., 1st Floor
Council Chamber

fieldafm · May 11, 2015, 02:32:40 PM

Isn't the landmark designation currently in deferral at LUZ until DIA can find an alternative buyer?

JaxUnicorn · May 12, 2015, 10:25:27 AM

LUZ initially denied Landmark status and the bill went back to City Council for a full vote. At the agenda meeting, Council decided not to vote and to send it back to LUZ for additional discussion. As a result, the Landmark status will be back up for Public Hearing at tonight's City Council meeting and will go before LUZ again on May 20th.

fieldafm · May 12, 2015, 10:40:53 AM

Yes, but I was under the impression that the bill is presently being deferred by LUZ specifically so DIA can find alternatives (aka another buyer) for the building.

JaxUnicorn · May 12, 2015, 04:13:51 PM

LUZ voted unanimously to deny Landmark status, thereby paving the way for demolition. The bill was on the Consent Agenda to deny Landmark status.

At the Agenda meeting prior to the last City Council meeting, Councilmembers decided to send the bill back to LUZ for additional discussion after receiving numerous emails and phone calls, along with the DIA's involvement. The bill is once again on tonight's City Council agenda as a Public Hearing so that citizens can voice their support of Landmarking (or support for denial but we won't talk about that..). It will then go back in front of LUZ on May 20th.

sheclown · May 21, 2015, 05:37:40 AM

Good showing last night for preservation. Psos had butts in seats and spoke for the flats. Wayne Woods, Jack and Joanne were there to speak. Crissie Cudd charmed with a discussion about the politics of possibilities.

No action was taken.

Jack announced that he was very interested in purchasing the property at which point Don Redman totally flipped out and started ranting at him. He accused Jack of all sorts of crazy things. (And I thought he had been rude to Kim the time before!). Redman clearly has an agenda here and is not above intimidating citizens who wish to speak.

And we wonder why people don't get more involved!!!

The Catholic Church pubicly stated its plans to purchase this building and turn it into parking for its parishioners.

Favorite part of the evening was when Lori Boyer pointed out to the group that surface parking lots are not allowed by right in that zoning area where Elana Flats is located.

thelakelander · May 21, 2015, 06:56:27 AM

I'll admit, I'm glad to see all the new faces that will be replacing people like Redman on the council soon. Still can't believe that guy is the downtown council representative.

When someone who has the means and track record to purchase and restore, publicly states they're interested in it, it hurts the argument for demolition. What did he accuse Jack of?

sheclown · May 21, 2015, 07:09:29 AM

Quote from: thelakelander on May 21, 2015, 06:56:27 AM
I'll admit, I'm glad to see all the new faces that will be replacing people like Redman on the council soon. Still can't believe that guy is the downtown council representative.

When someone who has the means and track record to purchase and restore, publicly states they're interested in it, it hurts the argument for demolition. What did he accuse Jack of?

That he threatened to hurt the owner if he didn't sell to him. Redman also accused him of finding out this info through his role in the DIA (which Joanne firmly denied when she spoke -- she told Redman that she was the one who brought it to Jack's attention). Redman said that Jack was clearly committing an ethics violation.

Noone · May 21, 2015, 07:15:47 AM

Is there a DIA noticed somethin today?

thelakelander · May 21, 2015, 07:18:28 AM

Quote from: sheclown on May 21, 2015, 07:09:29 AM
Quote from: thelakelander on May 21, 2015, 06:56:27 AM
I'll admit, I'm glad to see all the new faces that will be replacing people like Redman on the council soon. Still can't believe that guy is the downtown council representative.

When someone who has the means and track record to purchase and restore, publicly states they're interested in it, it hurts the argument for demolition. What did he accuse Jack of?

That he threatened to hurt the owner if he didn't sell to him. Redman also accused him of finding out this info through his role in the DIA (which Joanne firmly denied when she spoke -- she told Redman that she was the one who brought it to Jack's attention). Redman said that Jack was clearly committing an ethics violation.

Wow, that's pretty crazy.

sheclown · May 21, 2015, 08:18:52 AM

Quote from: fieldafm on May 12, 2015, 10:40:53 AM
Yes, but I was under the impression that the bill is presently being deferred by LUZ specifically so DIA can find alternatives (aka another buyer) for the building.

LUZ isn't sold on the idea of "letting" Jack Meeks negotiate the purchase of this building with the owner. Redman clearly wants the building down. The catholic church clearly wants this for surface parking because as the father said "the elderly women who attend our church shouldn't have to walk that far to park" (He was referring to other places in the area to park).

sheclown · May 21, 2015, 08:22:53 AM

& btw, the owner is behind in his taxes and has nuisance liens.

Tacachale · May 21, 2015, 08:28:14 AM

The church already has a surface parking lot behind it. The block to the west is entirely a surface parking lot. This building doesn't need to be another one.

thelakelander · May 21, 2015, 08:49:31 AM

Quote from: sheclown on May 21, 2015, 08:18:52 AM
Quote from: fieldafm on May 12, 2015, 10:40:53 AM
Yes, but I was under the impression that the bill is presently being deferred by LUZ specifically so DIA can find alternatives (aka another buyer) for the building.

LUZ isn't sold on the idea of "letting" Jack Meeks negotiate the purchase of this building with the owner. Redman clearly wants the building down. The catholic church clearly wants this for surface parking because as the father said "the elderly women who attend our church shouldn't have to walk that far to park" (He was referring to other places in the area to park).

How many spaces can that little lot actually fit? It can't be more than 10. Perhaps someone can use a can of spray paint to designate the closest existing spots to the doors for women over a certain age? Seems in a city full of surface lots within immediate walking distance of the church, some alternative and more cost effective solutions should be considered as well.