Gainesville City Commission moves toward removing historic buffers near University & 13th, schedules discussion on ALPRs

BY JENNIFER CABRERA

GAINESVILLE, Fla. – At the August 27 General Policy Committee (GPC) meeting, the Gainesville City Commission moved forward with eliminating historic buffers in an area east of the intersection of University Avenue and 13th Street; they also scheduled a discussion on Automated License Plate Readers (Flock cameras), proposed another subcommittee, and scheduled a discussion on changing the City’s seal and flag.

ConnectFree funding and Local Government Area of Opportunity contributions

Commissioners first heard an affordable housing update and voted to prioritize the remaining $390,000 in ConnectFree funding for projects that construct new low-income affordable housing units; Commissioner Bryan Eastman’s motion also authorized staff to take various steps to identify funding sources for future Local Government Area of Opportunity contributions.

Historic buffer step-down requirements

The second agenda item was a review of historic buffer step-down requirements that permit eight-story building heights within the 100-foot historic buffer zone for some properties in the University Heights Historic District. The staff recommendation was for the GPC to authorize the City Manager to seek feedback from the City Plan Board and Historic Preservation Board about allowing eight-story building heights within the historic buffer zone for properties with U9 or DT zoning, subject to Historic Preservation Board design review for compatibility with the character and materials of adjacent historic properties.

The affected districts are shown in the two slides below:

Commissioner Casey Willits: “Why is the best use McDonald’s? Why is the only thing that can make enough money off this land a McDonald’s? Surely there’s some housing that can be built there.”

Commissioner Casey Willits said, “I feel, and others feel, like there’s a stagnation of development on that section, on the University Avenue side, and… why is the best use McDonald’s? Why is the only thing that can make enough money off this land a McDonald’s? Surely there’s some housing that can be built there.”

During public comment, Adrian Hayes-Santos said, “We’ve seen what the buffer zones have done, and I think the clearest example is on University Avenue, where the south side has some housing built. The north side has no housing and has two liquor stores, vape stores, a cannabis store, abandoned buildings, McDonald’s, and we also have a Holiday Inn that could not be… built under the buffer zones.” He said the City wants to get more housing built, and “by removing the buffer zones around University Heights – North and South, you will get housing built, and you also will bring in significant amounts of tax revenue.”

Eastman: 100-foot buffer is “arbitrary”

Eastman said the “whole city revolves around [the area near the university]. It’s referred to as ‘beachfront property’ for the city of Gainesville. It’s where people want to be… It’s where we want people to be living,… as opposed to moving west. And then you balance that out with the need of preservation. We have some incredible bungalows in that area. There’s some really cute little duplexes, quadruplexes, little apartments in there that are historic.” He called the 100-foot buffer “arbitrary” and said he wanted to hear from the Historic Preservation Board and the City Plan Board; he also said that University Heights – North and South have “a lot of multi-family in there,” and he was “less sure” of the usefulness of a buffer zone in a multi-family historic district.

Willits said a four-story building in University Heights – North is “not crazy to me… I lean towards… something that is somehow intermediate.”

Commissioner James Ingle said he supported the staff recommendation because the area “is really ripe for higher density.”

Mayor Ward: Historic buffer “has caused an inability to thrive on the north side of University Avenue, between 6th and 13th.”

Mayor Harvey Ward said he wanted to adopt a policy that would allow “someone to build housing… and some mixed use” on the north side of University Avenue; he added that it would be difficult to build an apartment complex like those on the south side of the street “in the character and materials of that historic district. So I think we may need to make some hard decisions here.” He said he would prefer to “snap back to the existing zoning categories… Please don’t misunderstand: I think the historic district deserves to be the historic district. I just have issues with the buffer.” He emphasized that he had no interest in changing historic buffers in other historic districts, but “this has caused an inability to thrive on the north side of University Avenue, between 6th and 13th.”

Eastman said the historic buffers have led to “losing hundreds of [residential] units, and with our Inclusionary Zoning, that is hundreds of affordable units… that will never get built.” 

Interim City Manager Andrew Persons suggested that it would be faster if Commissioners would direct staff to write a text amendment to begin the process of changing the historic buffer, and he would then take that to the advisory boards instead of talking to the boards and then coming back to the Commission for direction to write the text amendment.

First motion

Commissioner Ed Book made a motion to authorize staff to create a Land Development Code amendment that would permit eight-story building heights within the historic buffer zone for properties with U9 or DT zoning, subject to Historic Preservation Board design review for compatibility with the character and materials of adjacent historic properties, and then submit the amendment to the City Plan Board and Historic Preservation Board before bringing it back to the City Commission for approval. Commissioner Cynthia Chestnut seconded the motion.

Eastman: City should be utilizing the underlying zoning for each parcel

Eastman said he didn’t support the motion: “I think this puts us backwards, as to where we want to go” because developers would be reluctant to go through a subjective historic review of their proposed architecture. He added, “It’s the review for compatibility of character, materials, and adjacent historic properties that really gives me heartburn, more than anything.” He said he’d rather stick with the underlying zoning for each parcel, “but I don’t know if we have four votes to go above eight stories on some of these.”

Willits agreed that requiring compatibility with surrounding uses was just “setting people up for failure.”

Persons said the City already has standards for exterior materials in historic districts, but “I would be concerned that the [Historic Review] Board would not have a basis for making a review in this interstitial area, where we have no standards by which to judge… We already have material standards for development, and then we have historic district guidelines that the board applies, but in this new thing, we don’t have any standards by which to judge compatibility.”

Ingle said he was becoming convinced to just stick with the underlying zoning “because… almost everything here is eight stories.” He said one “sliver” of a lot was zoned DT, but it seemed “silly” to him to make a special rule “for that little tiny sliver of DR zoning.”

DT zoning allows 12 stories by right and 14 stories with the Inclusionary Zoning bonus; U9 allows six stories by right and eight stories with the bonus; and U8 allows five stories by right and six stories with the bonus. Almost all of the properties along the north side of University Avenue are zoned U9.

Commissioner Eastman: “I’m tired of analyzing this stuff all the time… Let’s just eliminate the historic buffers in University Heights – North and South.”

Eastman said, “Frankly, I’ve been throwing out text amendment changes to our Land Development Code since I got here three years ago, and we’re just getting the first one back now… I’m ready to start moving on text amendments that I think are important to make us a better city, that will bring people in there, that will help our economy… I’m tired of analyzing this stuff all the time… Let’s just eliminate the historic buffers in University Heights – North and South.”

Ward said, “Analysis is part of the gig. It’s frustrating, but it’s part of the gig.”

Amended first motion and vote

Book amended his motion to remove “subject to Historic Preservation Board design review for compatibility with the character and materials of adjacent historic properties,” and Chestnut agreed. 

Eastman said he was “almost there” on the motion, but if it failed, he would make a “very similar” motion that would allow the underlying zoning on each parcel.

The motion failed, 3-3, with Eastman, Willits, and Ward in opposition and Commissioner Desmon Duncan-Walker absent. 

Second motion and vote

Eastman made a motion to initiate a Land Development Code text amendment to remove University Heights – North and University Heights – South from the historic district buffer requirements of Section 30-4.8, with review by the Historic Preservation Board and City Plan Board, and return a draft ordinance to the City Commission by January 2027. Ingle seconded the motion. 

Eastman’s motion passed 5-1, with Book in dissent and Duncan-Walker absent.

Consideration of a “really funny provision” for buildings abutting a historic district

Eastman said, “Not to add any new wrinkles to this, but Section 30-4.8(D) also has this really funny provision… that says you can’t have more than six dwelling units per building if you are abutting single-family zoning, a U1 district, or a designated historic district.” He asked how that has been interpreted.

Persons said it’s “intended for… compatibility.” He said it applies to a portion of a larger building that’s within a historic buffer area; that building is limited to six units and a height limit, but it can be attached to a larger building. He said it doesn’t come up very often.

Third motion and vote

Eastman made a motion to ask staff to look into Section 30-4.8(d) to remove the historic districts from the requirements in that section and send that for review to the Historic Preservation Board and the City Plan Board. Ingle seconded the motion. 

Book asked what the motion would do, and Eastman said, “It’s just a weird rule on our books that I would rather just get rid of, basically.” Book said he could support it since the motion just asked staff to do some research and bring it back to the Commission.

The motion passed 6-0, with Duncan-Walker absent.

Deferring two agenda items to September 24

Noting that the meeting had already lasted almost four hours, Ward said there were still two remaining items on the agenda: distance separation requirements between bars and churches or schools, and fence height standards. Ward said, “Commissioner Eastman, I know you really want to get to these, but I don’t have a lot of brain power left.” He asked if he could move those items to the September 24 GPC meeting. Eastman agreed, saying that the fence ordinance can’t take effect until October 2027 because of SB 180 and the alcohol item will probably take several discussions, “so I don’t think there’s any rush on these particular things.”

Commission Comment: “Something spicy”

Willits said he had “something spicy” for Commission Comment — Automated License Plate Readers (ALPR), often referred to by one of the more common brand names, Flock cameras. He said, “I think there’s a building consensus that… perhaps public ALPRs are not a good use of our time, staff, money, and how… government interacts with the public. I think it’s time to have this conversation.” He said he has “a lot of trust” in Gainesville Police Department, but “I lean towards the fact that this is perhaps not the way we need to go forward… There’s talk, suddenly, that some state officials will suddenly get behind some sort of a change.” Four days later, Governor Ron DeSantis ordered ALPRs removed from state right-of-ways within 30 days. 

Ward asked if October 8 worked for that discussion, and Willits agreed.

Community Development Subcommittee

Eastman proposed a Community Development Subcommittee, adding to the recently-approved Environmental Resiliency and Solid Waste Subcommittees. He said it would be “something where we can actually really chew on some of these things that are coming forward,” like the Land Development Code amendments he has proposed. He continued, “I want it to be very ad hoc — really, just focused on the things that the City Commission has put forward,” similar to the items discussed during the GPC meeting that day. He said he’d like to talk about the proposed subcommittee at an upcoming City Commission meeting.

Changing the City’s seal and flag

Ward said he also wanted to propose an item for a future GPC meeting: “I’m not a fan of our City seal… I would like us to consider how we might put forth some ideas to the community about different ways to represent the City of Gainesville, other than one thing about our history.” He asked if there were any objections to placing the item on an October GPC meeting.

Willits asked if they could also discuss changing the flag, and Ward said, “Absolutely. I mean, if you change the seal, you change it all.”

The City’s seal shows a train: