>> CALL TO ORDER HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION MEETING, FERNANDINA BEACH.
[1. CALL TO ORDER / ROLL CALL / DETERMINATION OF QUORUM]
[00:00:06]
WELCOME TO ALL OF YOU.COULD YOU CALL THE ROLL, PLEASE?
>> HERE. GOOD JOB ON THAT NAME.
>> I WILL KNOW YOU AS HEATHER. [LAUGHTER]
>> WE HAVE A NEW MEMBER WITH US TODAY.
COULD YOU PLEASE STAND FOR THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE?
>> WE'RE ALL HERE. WE HAVE A FULL HOUSE FOR THE FIRST TIME IN A VERY LONG TIME. THIS IS WONDERFUL.
DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANY EX PARTE COMMUNICATIONS TO DIVULGE? HEATHER, I DOUBT YOU DO.
>> I HAD JUST TALKED WITH STAFF ABOUT ONE OF THE PROJECTS AND AN EMAIL ABOUT THE SAME PROJECT.
>> VERY GOOD. WELL, MR. POOLE, COULD YOU HELP US WITH THE QUASI JUDICIAL PROCEDURES, PLEASE FOR THIS?
>> YES. THANK YOU, CHAIR FILKOFF.
FOR THOSE CASES THAT ARE GOING TO BE GOVERNED BY OUR QUASI JUDICIAL PROCEDURES.
IT'S GOING TO BE A LITTLE BIT MORE RELAXED THAN A COURT ROOM.
THE DECISION OF THIS COMMITTEE COUNCIL MUST BE SUPPORTED BY COMPETENT SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE AND SO EACH PERSON THAT IS PRESENTING A STAFF AND THE APPLICANT, WILL BE PLACED UNDER OATH, AND ANY EVIDENCE CAN BE ADMITTED AT THAT TIME, THAT EVIDENCE CAN BE IN THE FORM OF TESTIMONY OR THROUGH DOCUMENTS AND PHOTOGRAPHS.
ANY PERSON THAT DISAGREES WITH THE DECISION OF THE COUNCIL WILL HAVE THE RIGHT TO APPEAL IT, AND THAT APPEAL MUST BE FILED WITH THE NASSAU COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT WITHIN 30 DAYS OF THE CHAIR SIGNING THE ORDER OR THE RENDITION OF THE DECISION OF THE COUNCIL.
DOES ANYONE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THE QUASI JUDICIAL PROCEDURES IN EFFECT THIS EVENING? THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU. COULD YOU PLEASE ADMINISTER THE OATH? IF YOU EXPECT TO SPEAK TODAY, TESTIFY TODAY, COULD YOU PLEASE STAND AND TAKE THE OATH?
>> RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND. DO YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM THAT THE ORAL AND/OR WRITTEN TESTIMONY YOU'RE ABOUT TO GIVE WILL BE THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH?
>> IF YOU DO EXPECT TO SPEAK, THERE ARE FORMS OVER HERE BY THE DOOR THAT YOU WANT TO FILL OUT SO THAT THEY CAN KEEP A RECORD OF WHO HAS BEEN HERE TO TALK ABOUT EACH CASE.
BEFORE YOU LEAVE, IF YOU HAVEN'T DONE IT YET, PLEASE MAKE SURE YOU FILL THOSE OUT.
OUR FIRST ORDER IS MINUTES FROM THE PRIOR MEETING.
[3. APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES]
WE HAVE TWO SETS OF MEETING MINUTES.THE FIRST IS FROM OUR WORKSHOP ON THE 26TH.
ARE THERE ANY COMMENTS ABOUT THOSE MINUTES?
>> DO I HAVE A MOTION TO ACCRUE?
>> WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.
COULD YOU CALL THE ROLL PLEASE?
>> YES. NOW, THE MINUTES FOR THE REGULAR MEETING FROM FEBRUARY 20, ARE THERE ANY COMMENTS ON THOSE?
IT'S UNDER ITEM 4 OLD BUSINESS ON THE SECOND PAGE WHERE IT TALKS ABOUT THINGS THAT I HAD MENTIONED WHERE IT SUGGESTED WHAT'S WRITTEN IS INTUNED, WHAT IT SHOULD SAY IS ENTUNED.
[LAUGHTER] I'M LIKE, YEAH, THAT'S AN EASY ONE TO MIX UP.
>> THEN TWO PARAGRAPHS DOWN WHERE IT SAYS I COMPLIMENTED MR. AIKENS ON THE DESIGN.
SPECIFICALLY, I WAS COMPLIMENTING THE DESIGN FOR MAINTAINING THE SCALE AND PROPORTION OF THE ORIGINAL CARRIAGE BUILDING.
I FELT LIKE THAT MIGHT BE IMPORTANT TO HAVE THAT LITTLE ADDITION ADDENDUM.
[00:05:02]
>> SECTION 5.6, THE UPDATE ON THE PORT ACTIVITIES.
THE THIRD SENTENCE, IT SAYS SHE ALSO NOTED THAT ALTHOUGH IT WAS APPROVED BY OPA, I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO PUT THAT THE ORIGINAL LOCATION WAS APPROVED BY OPA, NOT WHERE THEY DEVIATED TO.
>> THERE'S JUST A TYPO WITH HDC 2024-0026, THE FIFTH PARAGRAPH DOWN.
IT SAYS, BRINK WALLS, AND I THINK IT SHOULD SAY BRICK.
>> MAN, I'M REALLY MISSING MY READING. [LAUGHTER]
>> YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO GO HOME UP MY READING SKILLS.
>> CAN WE MAKE THOSE AMENDMENTS AND APPROVE THEM WITH AMENDMENTS? ANY MOTION TO DO SO?
>> I MOVE TO APPROVE THE AMENDED MINUTES FOR THE 202502-20 HDC.
>> THANK YOU. PSULKOWSKI AND POZZETTA. PLEASE CALL THE ROLL.
>> YES. CASE IS OVERVIEWED BY STAFF.
NO. THAT'S THE WRONG SENTENCE, ARLENE.
BEAR WITH ME I'M STILL LEARNING.
STAFF REPORT ON HDC 2025-0001, PLEASE.
[4.1 HDC 2025-0001 - LAUREN KELLY, AGENT FOR OLD TOWN PROPERTIES, LOT 7 BLOCK 5 SAN FERNANDO STREET (Part 1 of 2)]
>> I HAVE ON THE SCREEN OVER THERE AN OVERVIEW OF THE FIVE CASES THAT WE'RE GOING TO BE REVIEWING TONIGHT UNDER NEW BUSINESS.
THE FIRST ONE IS ON LOT 7 BLOCK 5 ON SAN FERNANDO STREET.
THE APPLICANT IS SEEKING FINAL APPROVAL TO CONSTRUCT AN ADDITION TO A COTTAGE IN OLD TOWN.
THE ORIGINAL STRUCTURE WILL BE THE FOCAL POINT WITH THE ADDITION DESIGNED TO FALL BEHIND IN THE COTTAGE.
YOU CAN SEE A PICTURE OF THE COTTAGE HERE AS IT STANDS TODAY AS WELL AS AN ARCHITECTURAL DRAWING OF THE COTTAGE THAT WILL BE UNCHANGED BY THE ADDITION.
I HAVE SOME ELEVATIONS HERE THAT SHOW THAT THE DESIGN IS SYMPATHETIC TO THE ORIGINAL HISTORIC STRUCTURE, MAINTAINING ORIGINAL MATERIALS, ROOF PITCHES, AND DESIGN ELEMENTS.
A TRIM BOARD IS USED ON THE RIGHT ELEVATION TO DELINEATE BETWEEN THE EXISTING STRUCTURE AND THE NEW ADDITION.
THE ROOF FORMS DO THIS AS WELL.
THE ROOF OVERHANG TRIM AND OTHER EXTERIOR DETAILS ARE IN KEEPING WITH THE ORIGINAL HISTORIC STRUCTURE AND THUS BLEND IN SEAMLESSLY TO THE SURROUNDING CONTEXT AND STAFF RECOMMENDS FINAL APPROVAL IN THIS CASE.
>> IS THE APPLICANT HERE? NOBODY'S HERE FROM THE APPLICANT.
WHAT DO WE DO IN THAT CASE? WE JUST MOVE ON. WE'RE ON TO THE NEXT CASE.
>> YOU CAN PROCEED ON THE INFORMATION, JUST TAKE ACTION BASED ON THE STAFF REPORT.
>> THAT'S INTERESTING. ANY COMMENTS, ANY QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD?
>> I WAS GOING TO ASK THE APPLICANT WHERE THE NEW ADDITION ATTACHES TO THE EXISTING STRUCTURE, AND WE'LL GET BACK TO THAT WORD ENTUNED.
[LAUGHTER] HOW ARE WE GOING TO TREAT THE ORIGINAL SIDING THAT WE COVER OVER? I THINK OBVIOUSLY IF WE CHOOSE TO APPROVE IT, WE COULD ADD IT AS A CONDITION THAT THE ORIGINAL SIDING THAT GETS COVERED OVER NEEDS TO BE ENTUNED, NOT REMOVED.
I ALSO WANT TO ASK THEM, HOW HAVE THEY DISTINGUISHED BETWEEN THE EXISTING SIDING ENTRIM AND THE NEW SIDING ENTRIM.
>> IT SEEMED LIKE IT WAS JUST THAT TRIM BOARD BECAUSE EVERYTHING ELSE THAT MATCH EXISTING.
>> YEAH. I THINK THAT MIGHT BE ANOTHER CONDITION AND IT NEEDS TO BE ALTERED SOMEHOW TO BE SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT.
>> I THINK THERE SHOULD BE SOME DELINEATION BETWEEN THE NEW AND THE EXISTING WHERE MAYBE THERE'S A STEP IN OR A JOG OR SOMETHING WHERE YOU JUST READ IT AS TWO SEPARATE ENTITIES.
>> BECAUSE IT'S WITHIN THE FLAT SIDE.
>> ACCORDING TO THE PLAN, IT LOOKS LIKE IT'S JUST A FLAT PLATE.
[00:10:02]
ANY PICTURES OF THE BACK OF THE HOUSE WHERE THE ACTUAL ADDITION IS ATTACHING TO.I JUST DON'T KNOW WHAT'S BACK THERE.
>> WELL, THERE'S A BEAUTIFUL TOMBSTONE DOOR THAT'S NOW EXPOSED WITH THE DEVIL.
>> YOU SEE THOSE ALL OVER TOWN STORE HOUSING.
>> JUST WOULD LIKE TO KNOW WHAT IT'S ATTACHING TO, SEE WHAT COULD BE SAVED.
>> WHAT'S OUR PLEASURE HERE WITH THIS ONE? IS IT TO MAKE A MOTION WITH AMENDMENTS? IT JUST FEELS FUNKY TO ME THAT THEY'RE NOT HERE.
>> I THINK WITHOUT KNOWING THE ANSWERS.
>> IS THAT THE PLEASURE OF THE BOARD? WE WOULD LIKE TO CONTINUE THIS CASE, PLEASE.
>> SHOULD WE ARTICULATE THE THINGS THAT WE'RE HAVING QUESTIONS SO THEY KNOW?
>> WELL, SURE. WE HAVE AT LEAST THOSE QUESTIONS.
>> YEAH, THERE MIGHT BE MORE TWO ONCE THEY'RE HERE DISCUSSING THINGS.
>> I HAVE A QUESTION. THE WINDOWS, DO THEY NEED TO ALL BE THE SAME? IN THE FRONT, WE'VE GOT 1/2, THEN WE HAVE 4/4.
>> I WAS JUST HEARING THE DISCUSSION AMONGST THE BOARD.
I WOULD MAKE A SUGGESTION THAT YOU CALL FOR A MOTION TO CONTINUE IT AND ASK IN THE MOTION REQUEST AT THE CONTINUED HEARING THAT THE APPLICANT EITHER BE AVAILABLE TO ANSWER THESE QUESTIONS OR SUPPLEMENT THEIR APPLICATION TO RESPOND TO THOSE PARTICULAR ITEMS.
>> COULD WE MAKE IT SINCE WE HAVE FIVE TO HERE? IF THEY SHOULD MAKE IT IN HERE BEFORE WE LEAVE TODAY, WE COULD [INAUDIBLE]
>> WELL, CERTAINLY TO MAKE IT BACK IN HERE, I GUESS.
>> YOU COULD HAVE THAT MOTION AND CONTINUE IT AND THEN I THINK IF IT DO SHOW UP BEFORE THE HEARING CLOSES BY SEPARATE MOTION, REVISIT.
>> A PARLIAMENTARY STANDPOINT, THAT WOULD BE THE PROCESS.
>> GOT IT. DO WE HAVE A MOTION, MR. POZZETTA, WITH THOSE COMMENTS? THANKS.
>> JUST DO YOU WANT BEFORE SHOULD ONLY BE DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION, AND YOU COULD ALWAYS HAVE A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT, BUT AT LEAST IDENTIFY THOSE ITEMS PRIOR TO MAKING THE MOTION MIGHT MAKE IT A LITTLE BIT EASIER.
>> MAYBE YOU HAVE A QUESTION FOR STAFF FIRST REGARDING IF WE CONTINUE TO NEXT MONTH'S HDC, HOW MUCH TIME DO THEY HAVE TO GET ANY ANSWERS LIKE, CHANGES MADE, SAY THEY WATCHED THIS AND THEY ADDRESS ALL THE CONCERNS WE'VE VOICED HERE.
WHAT'S THE DEADLINE FOR THEM TO TURN IN FOR TO BE ON NEXT MONTH'S AGENDA? IT'S USUALLY REALLY CLOSE TO THE TODAY'S MEETING.
>> THEY WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO GET ON THE MEETING AGAIN UNTIL MAY.
>> I THINK THEY WOULD PREFER YOU CONTINUE WITH THEN DENY IT. [LAUGHTER]
>> THE APPLICATION DEADLINE IS 45 DAYS PRIOR TO THE SCHEDULED BEATING DATE.
HOWEVER, WE WILL OFTEN HAVE PEOPLE PROVIDE SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIALS OR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION UP TO AND NO LATER THAN THE AGENDA HAS BEEN PUBLISHED, AND SO THAT WOULD BE THE ABSOLUTE LAST TIME.
WE COULD ACCOMMODATE THEM AND GET THEM ON THE NEXT AVAILABLE AGENDA SO LONG AS WE DON'T HAVE GREATER THAN EIGHT TOTAL CASES ALREADY ON THAT AGENDA, WHICH IT LOOKS LIKE WE DON'T.
THEN WE WOULD BE ABLE TO DO THAT AND THEN REQUEST THAT THAT INFORMATION BE PROVIDED BEFOREHAND.
>> WHAT I'M GOING TO DO THEN IS I'M GOING TO ASK JIM AND VERONICA AND TAMMI.
I THINK YOU WERE THE THREE WHO HAD COMMENTS AND PACK YOUR COMMENTS.
COULD YOU JUST RESTATE THEM SO THAT WE MAKE SURE WE HAVE THEM MEMORIALIZED?
>> MY QUESTION IS THE WINDOWS, IF THEY NEED TO BE 4/4 THROUGHOUT OR 1/2, WHICH IS WHAT WAS ON THE ORIGINAL HOUSE OR COTTAGE?
>> VERONICA, WHAT ELEVATION IS THAT? I DON'T SEE IT.
>> IT LOOKS LIKE IT'S THE LEFT ELEVATION.
>> I KNOW. THEY DON'T HAVE A NORTH SOUTHEAST?
>> I THINK HAVE SOME ARTICULATION BETWEEN EXISTING AND NEW ADDITION ON THE LEFT ELEVATION.
>> THE ONE THAT DOESN'T HAVE THE STEP BACK.
>> ARE YOU GETTING ALL THIS MORE?
[00:15:02]
>> VERONICA YOURS WAS [OVERLAPPING]
>> IT WAS THE ARTICULATION ON THAT ELEVATION THAT THE EXISTING WALL AND THE NEW ADDITION APPEAR TO BE IN ALIGNMENT WITH EACH OTHER AND THERE SHOULD BE SOME DIFFERENTIATION BETWEEN THE TWO.
>> JUST SOME DOCUMENTATION ON THE BACK OF THAT EXISTING BUILDING AS TO WHAT'S THERE.
I DON'T THINK WE HAVE A PICTURE OF IT.
>> YES. SHOULD WE GET A PICTURE, PLEASE? ESPECIALLY THIS DOOR.
>> YOU'RE GOING TO ADD DIFFERENTIATION OF MATERIALS.
>> JIM IS OVER HERE [INAUDIBLE]
>> I MOVE TO CONTINUE THIS CASE, WHICH I BELIEVE IS HDC 2025-0001 TO THE APRIL MEETING OF THE HDC WITH THE FOLLOWING ITEMS TO BE CONSIDERED BY THE APPLICANT.
TO ANSWER QUESTIONS REGARDING THE COORDINATION OF WINDOW TYPES, INCLUDE ARTICULATION BETWEEN THE NEW AND OLD PORTIONS OF THE HOUSE TO CREATE A STEP BETWEEN THE PLANES WHERE THEY JOIN, TO INCLUDE PHOTO DOCUMENTATION OF THE EXISTING REAR OF THE EXISTING STRUCTURE, TO PROVIDE A DIFFERENTIATION BETWEEN THE NEW MATERIAL FROM THE EXISTING HISTORIC MATERIAL, AND TO PROVIDE DETAILS SHOWING US HOW THEY MEAN TO TREAT THE EXISTING HISTORIC SITING WHERE THE NEW ADDITION WILL JOIN WITH THE EXISTING HOUSE.
>> WE HAVE A MOTION. DO WE HAVE A SECOND?
>> WE HAVE POZZETTA AND KOSACK.
COULD YOU CALL THE ROLL, PLEASE?
>> YES. THAT MOVES US TO CASE 2025-0002.
[4.2 HDC 2025-0002 - MICHAEL STAUFFER ARCHITECT, AGENT FOR TODD AND SOODI BROWN, 30 S. 3RD STREET]
>> CASE 2025-0002 AND 0003 ARE FOR THE SAME PROPERTY, 30 SOUTH 3RD STREET, AND THEY DIVIDED IT INTO TWO DIFFERENT APPLICATIONS.
THIS ONE IS FOR CONCEPTUAL APPROVAL.
APPLICANT SEEKS CONCEPTUAL APPROVAL TO DEMOLISH THE EXISTING GARAGE.
CONSTRUCT A NEW GARAGE AND ADU AND INSTALL A NEW PAVER DRIVEWAY AND WALKWAYS.
AS YOU CAN SEE IN THESE PHOTOS, THE EXISTING GARAGE HAS FALLEN INTO DISREPAIR.
BASED ON THE DEMOLITION MATRIX WORKSHEET AND THE PROPOSED HISTORIC DISTRICT DESIGN GUIDELINES, THE PLANNING DIRECTOR AND MYSELF HAVE COME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE BUILDING CAN BE DEMOLISHED WITHOUT DETRACTING FROM THE CHARACTER OR INTEGRITY OF THE HISTORIC DISTRICT.
THEN HERE IS THE SITE PLAN, DENOTING WHERE THE DEMOLITION WOULD TAKE PLACE AND WHERE THE GARAGE/ADU WOULD BE BUILT AND WHERE THE FENCE WOULD BE EXPANDED.
THEN I HAVE PULLED THE SOUTH ELEVATION FROM THE ARCHITECTURAL PLANS AND, AGAIN, THEY'RE SEEKING FINAL APPROVAL FOR CONCEPTUAL APPROVAL.
THE DESIGN CONFORMS TO THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AND THE DOWNTOWN DISTRICT DESIGN GUIDELINES.
>> VERY GOOD. IS THE APPLICANT HERE? HELLO, SIR.
>> GOOD EVENING. MICHAEL STAUFFER, ARCHITECT, 1417 SADLER ROAD, THE ARCHITECT AND THE AGENT FOR THE OWNER.
VERY NICE SUCCINCT SHOW FOR WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO HERE, BUT I DO THINK, IF WE GO BACK TO THE SITE PLAN, JUST TO MAKE SURE YOU'RE AWARE BECAUSE WE MIGHT AS WELL TALK ABOUT ALL OF IT AT ONE TIME SO YOU CAN UNDERSTAND THE REASON WE BROKE THIS IN HALF.
THE NEXT ONE YOU'RE GOING TO HEAR IS REALLY BUILDING A SWIMMING POOL AND PUTTING A FENCE IN AND PUTTING PAVERS IN.
THE ENTIRE PROJECT WILL BE DEMOLITION OF THE EXISTING GARAGE, BUILDING THE NEW GARAGE, ADU, AND DOING THE POOL.
THE REASON WE BROKE IT INTO TWO COMPONENTS WAS ONE, WE AREN'T DONE WITH THE CONSTRUCTION DRAWINGS ON THE ADU YET, AND WE THOUGHT THAT IF WE GOT APPROVAL TO DEMO THE EXISTING GARAGE AND A FINAL APPROVAL ON THE POOL, WHICH IS YOUR NEXT CASE, THEN THE GARAGE COULD BE DEMOLISHED.
WE'RE GOING TO BE IN IN MAY FOR THE FINAL APPROVAL OF THE ADU.
THE GARAGE COULD BE DEMOLISHED, THE POOL COULD SHELL COULD BE INSTALLED, THEN WE CAN START CONSTRUCTION.
IT'S A PHASING THING, IS THE REASON WE BROKE IT INTO TWO COMPONENTS.
THIS APPLICATION IN FRONT OF YOU, AGAIN, IS THE DEMOLITION OF THE EXISTING, AND THANK YOU, STAFF, FOR THAT.
ALSO, YOU DID RECEIVE AN EMAIL, AND I AM ENTERING INTO THE RECORD.
[00:20:02]
IT'S THE NADER'S PEST RAIDERS.THEY DID DO AN INSPECTION, AND SINCE THAT CAME IN AFTER THE APPLICATION WAS IN, WE NEEDED TO ENTER THAT INTO THE RECORD.
THEY BASICALLY CONCURRED FOR TWO REASONS.
ONE, THERE'S AN AWFUL LOT OF THAT BUILDING THAT IS NOT ORIGINAL.
ENTIRE ONE WING, ALL THE ROOF RAFTERS ARE COMPLETELY NEW.
THE BIGGEST PROBLEM IS THIS THING IS UNDERGROUND AND IT'S ALMOST IMPOSSIBLE TO DIG ENTRENCH AROUND IT TO TRY TO PRESERVE IT WHEN IT'S BELOW GRADE.
THAT'S PART OF THE REASON WHY IT'S ALL ROTTED AROUND THE BOTTOM.
WE'VE ASKED FOR DEMOLITION OF THAT AND THEN IN REPLACING IT, I DON'T KNOW IF YOU HAVE THE SIDE ELEVATION YOU CAN SEE [OVERLAPPING].
>> WHAT WE TRIED TO DO WITH THE ARCHITECTURE WAS THIS HOUSE FROM THE FRONT, YOU PROBABLY SAW IN THE PICTURES, IT'S A LONG GABLE RUNNING PARALLEL TO THE STREET WITH A CENTER GABLE COMING OUT.
YOU CAN SEE THIS IN THE THIRD PICTURE.
WITH THE ARCHITECTURE, WE TRIED TO MIMIC THAT A LITTLE BIT FACING THE STREET, HAVING THE CENTER GABLE RUNNING EAST TO WEST AND THEN HAVING A PROJECTING GABLE COMING OUT.
THE FIRST FLOOR IS SIMPLY A TWO-CAR GARAGE.
I DON'T KNOW IF YOU HAVE THE FLOOR PLANS, YOU'VE GOT THEM IN YOUR PACKAGE.
THEN IN ADDITION TO THAT, WE ARE GOING TO PUT IN THE PAVER DRIVEWAY.
THE CURB CUT THAT'S THERE IS GOING TO STAY.
WE ARE PROPOSING TO REPLACE THE CONCRETE IS BUSTED UP A LITTLE BIT, BUT IN ITS EXACT LOCATION.
THEN THE FENCE IS GOING TO BE PART OF THE FINAL PROJECT, WHICH IS ALSO FENCING IN.
IT'S GOING TO BE A CEDAR FENCE.
IT'LL BE A NATURAL WOOD, AND YOU'VE SEEN THE DETAIL EITHER IN THIS APPLICATION OR IN THE NEXT APPLICATION.
OTHERWISE, HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
>> MIKE, I SAW SOME PLACE ON HERE THAT IT SAID NEW FRONT STEPS.
SORRY, IT SHOULD NOT SAY NEW FRONT STEPS.
ON THE POOL ONE, ON THE NEXT ONE, THERE'S NEW STEPS COMING OFF OF THE REAR PORCH.
>> THE PORCH, SO THE FIRST STEPS ARE STAYING.
>> ON THE BACK. NOT ON THE FRONT. NO.
>> I THOUGHT THAT WAS THE CASE, BUT I THINK MAYBE THAT WAS JUST A [OVERLAPPING]
>> SORRY. [INAUDIBLE] THAT TYPO ON MY PART.
THE EXISTING GARAGE THAT FACES THE STREET, IT IS SO CLOSE TO THE STREET, BUT IT LOOKS LIKE YOU YOU'RE STEPPING IT BACK.
>> EVEN THOUGH WE'RE C3, WE'RE ESSENTIALLY FOLLOWING STANDARD SETBACKS.
WE'RE DOING THE 12 FOOT SECONDARY STREET, SETBACK 12 FEET.
PARTLY BECAUSE WE DID LIKE THE IDEA AND YOU SAW ON THE SITE PLAN, WE DO HAVE A PULL OFF PARKING SPOT, WHICH DOES EXIST NOW SORT OF, AND THAT WAY, THERE'S A PLACE TO PULL A CAR OFF AND GET THEM COMPLETELY OFF OF THE STREET WITHOUT HAVING TO PUSH THE GARAGE FULLY 20 FEET BACK FROM THE SIDEWALK, AND THIS WAY WE CAN GET THE 12 FEET.
THEN WE'RE FOLLOWING THE STANDARD ADU SETBACKS OF THREE.
WE SET OFF 3.5 FEET ON THIS ONE OFF THE EAST PROPERTY.
>> I APPRECIATE ALL THE DOCUMENTATION OF THE EXISTING GARAGE ESPECIALLY THE PHOTOS UP IN THE ROOF RAFTERS REALLY TELL THE TALE THAT THERE'S NOT MUCH ORIGINAL WOOD LEFT UP IN THERE.
THEN CERTAINLY DOWN BELOW WHERE YOU'RE TOUCHING THE DIRT WITH ALL THAT, THERE'S NO WAY TO REALLY PROTECT ANY OF THAT FROM FUTURE ISSUES.
>> THE ENTIRE INSIDE IS PLYWOOD SHEATHING, AND YOU PROBABLY EVEN SAW THERE'S A WET LINE, SO EVERY TIME IT RAINS THERE, IT WICKS UP IN THAT PLYWOOD, WHICH MEANS EVERY STUD BEHIND THERE IS WEAKENING IT UP AS WELL.
>> WELL, THE ORIGINAL GARAGE, IT JUST SAT THERE WHEN ANDY OWNED THE BUILDING BEFORE HE DID ANYTHING.
I JUST SAT THERE. THEN WHEN BOB BOUGHT IT, I THINK HE DID ALL THE WORK ON THAT GARAGE, IS THAT [OVERLAPPING]
>> THERE'S A LOT OF NEW MISMATCHED PARTS.
>> WE PULLED OFF THE FIRST PIECE OF PLYWOOD INSIDE, AND THE STUFF JUST STARTED FALLING OUT AND WE'RE LIKE, ALL RIGHT, LET'S STOP HERE.
>> ALL THAT BEING SAID, I THINK WE LIKE TO ASK PEOPLE INSTEAD OF DOING YOUR DEMO WITH A BULLDOZER, DO IT WITH A LITTLE CARE, AND IF YOU RUN ACROSS QUALITY PIECES OF HISTORIC WOOD, LET'S PRESERVE THEM AND SAVE THEM.
EVEN IF YOU DON'T USE THEM, SOMEONE ELSE IN TOWN MIGHT FIND USE FOR THEM.
>> THE GARAGE DOORS. THOSE ARE NICE DOORS.
>> THEY ARE NICE DOOR AND IT IS NEW.
>> THAT WOULD PROBABLY BE ONE OF MY CONDITIONS THAT YOU TAKE CARE TO PRESERVE THE HISTORIC FITS THAT ARE WORTH KEEPING.
>> WE'RE REALLY SAFE. I WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT ONE I TOOK A PICTURE OF THE RAT TRAP IN CASE YOU WERE WONDERING ABOUT THAT. [LAUGHTER]
>> THAT'S WHAT THAT WAS, IS THAT RIGHT?
[00:25:02]
I TOTALLY CAN SEE YOUR CONCEPT HAPPENING THERE, AND I REALLY THINK IT'S EFFECTIVE AT BREAKING DOWN THE SCALE AND SIZE OF THIS TWO STORY GARAGE EDITION WHERE WE USED TO HAVE A ONE STORY, BUT YOU HAVE PLENTY OF PLANE BRAKES, AND ROOF FORMS, AND DESIGN ELEMENTS TO BRING THAT SCALE DOWN.IT'S NOT GOING TO READ AS A HUGE MASSIVE BLOCK PUT ON THE CORNER THERE.
IT'S GOING TO HAVE A MUCH MORE SMALLER HUMAN SCALE TO IT, AND I THINK VERY APPROPRIATE FOR THE COMMUNITY AND THAT LOT.
>> ANY OTHER COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS? NO. WHAT WE WOULD BE VOTING ON HERE IS THE DEMOLITION OF THE GARAGE.
ARE WE ALSO VOTING ON THE DESIGN OF THE REPLACEMENT STRUCTURE?
>> WE'LL BE BACK FOR FINAL IN MAY.
>> WELL, I THINK WE NEED TO ALLOW FOR PUBLIC.
WOULD ANYBODY IN THE PUBLIC LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS TOPIC? I ALREADY KNEW THAT. THAT'S RIGHT.
THE PUBLIC HEARING IS NOW CLOSED.
VERY GOOD. ANY OTHER COMMENTS THAT ANYBODY NEEDS TO MAKE?
>> I JUST REALIZED I DID HAVE ONE OTHER QUESTION.
THIS MIGHT BE FOR YOU, MIKE, THAT THE FENCE THAT'S BEING REMOVED, THAT'S NOT ONE OF THE HISTORIC FENCES.
>> BECAUSE THE ONE AROUND THE FRONT, NOW, THAT'S THE OLD.
>> IT'S LIKE A STOCKADES [OVERLAPPING] LIKE A KIND OF.
>> IT'S NICE TOO BECAUSE THIS CLEARLY SHOWS THAT THIS IS A NEWER, MORE MODERN CONTEMPORARY ADDITION TO IT.
I ALSO WANT TO TALK ABOUT THE STEP DOWN.
FOR ME, I'M ALWAYS THE ONE THAT SAYS, SAVE THE BUILDING NO MATTER WHAT YOU NEED TO DO TO IT, BUT WHAT YOU'VE BUILT HERE IS JUST SO BEAUTIFULLY ARTICULATED WITH THE STEP DOWN TO THE STAIRS AND THEN DOWN TO THE GATE AND THE FENCE, AND EVEN THE ASYMMETRICAL CROSS GABLE, WHICH MIMICS THE HOUSE, YOU'VE GOT A LITTLE MINI MIRROR THAT'S HAPPENING ON THERE, AND IT'S GOING TO LOOK REALLY NICE THERE.
>> I AM. THANK YOU. [LAUGHTER].
>> I MOVE TO APPROVE CASE NUMBER HDC 2025-0002 WITH THE CONDITION THAT CARE BE TAKEN WITH THE DEMOLISHED BUILDING TO PRESERVE ANY HISTORIC ELEMENTS THAT ARE WORTHY OF BEING MAINTAINED.
I MOVE THAT THE HDC MADE THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW PART OF THE RECORD AT HDC, CASE HDC 2025-0002, AS PRESENTED, IS SUBSTANTIALLY COMPLIANT WITH THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, THE SECRETARY OF INTERIOR STANDARDS, AND THE HISTORIC DISTRICT GUIDELINES TO WARRANT CONCEPTUAL APPROVAL AT THIS TIME.
>> WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND, POZZETTA AND KOSACK.
COULD YOU CALL THE ROLL, PLEASE?
>> NOW, I'M VERY HAPPY. [LAUGHTER]
>> NOW YOU'RE THERE. WE'RE FROM HAPPY TO VERY HAPPY. READY?
>> MOVING ON TO HDC 2025-0003.
[4.3 HDC 2025-0003 - MICHAEL STAUFFER ARCHITECT, AGENT FOR TODD AND SOODI BROWN, 30 S. 3RD STREET]
THIS IS THE SECOND APPLICATION FOR 30 SOUTH 3RD STREET.IT IS FOR THE FINAL APPROVAL OF THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW IN GROUND POOL, A NEW PAVER DECK, AND PATIO, DEMOLISHING AND CONSTRUCTING A NEW FENCE, AND INSTALLING STEPS OFF THE PORCH TO ALLOW ACCESS TO THE BACK YARD AREA.
THE PHOTOS ON THIS SLIDE DEPICT WHAT IS PRESENTLY THERE IN THE FRONT AND BACK YARD, AND THEN HERE YOU CAN SEE THE SITE PLAN WITH THE PROPOSED POOL AND DECK IN RELATION TO THE MAIN HOUSE AND ADU.
>> MICHAEL STAUFFER, ARCHITECT, 1417 SADLER ROAD.
YES, THE SECOND COMPONENT OF THIS.
BASICALLY, IT IS EXACTLY WHAT WAS JUST DESCRIBED.
IT'S A SWIMMING POOL, AND THEN THE PATIO DECK, YOU SAW THE PAVER COLOR, THAT WAS A CORRECTION.
I THINK YOU GOT THE CORRECT ONE. IT'S A GLACIER.
IT'S THE GRAY ONE THAT WE'RE GOING TO USE FOR THE PAVERS, AND YOU'VE GOT THE PICTURES OF THE FENCE.
WE'RE ASKING THAT WE GO FINAL APPROVAL ON THIS SO WE CAN GO AHEAD AND WORK ON THE POOL SHOP.
[00:30:02]
>> IS THAT A HICKORY OR A PECAN?
>> WE HAVE AN INQUIRY NOTED ON THE PAGE.
[LAUGHTER] MY OTHER BIG PET PEEVE IS WHEN WE JUST TEAR DOWN TREES WHENEVER WE WANT TO BUILD.
I CAN'T BUILD A POOL AROUND THAT HICKORY TREE OR THAT PECAN.
>> THAT'S RIGHT IN THE MIDDLE.
>> THERE'S ONE OF THE NASTIEST, DIRTY TREES WHEN IT DROPS EVERYTHING.
THE OWNER IS HERE, AND THEY WILL PLAN ON DOING A REALLY NICE LANDSCAPE PACKAGE IN THE BACK THERE, SO I'M SURE A NEW BETTER TREE WILL BE PROPOSED.
>> SOME OTHER NATIVE HARD WOODS MAYBE.
>> THE FENCE ON THE BACK, THE ONE THAT'S BETWEEN THAT PROPERTY AND THE FLOOR HOUSE IN, SO THAT'S GOING TO BE AN EIGHT FOOT [OVERLAPPING] I THINK THAT MAKES SENSE.
>> AND ON THE EAST SIDE FACING THE EMPTY LOT.
>> THAT MAKES SENSE. I GUESS LOTS OF LANDSCAPING TO BUFFER THE NOISE.
>> I HAD GOTTEN WORRIED ABOUT IMPERVIOUS THEN I REMEMBER, C3.
YOU DON'T REALLY HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT THAT.
>> WE'LL STILL HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE CITY PROCESS WITH THE DRAINAGE AND THAT KIND OF THING BECAUSE WE'RE EXCEEDING 620 [INAUDIBLE]
>> THAT'S TRUE. THAT'LL BE FINE.
MIO, WHEN THESE FOLKS CAME TO THE TABLE AND TALKED ABOUT HAVING TO TAKE DOWN A TREE, WAS THERE A DISCUSSION ABOUT REMEDIATION AND WHAT THE REQUIREMENTS ARE SO THE APPLICANT IS AWARE OF WHAT IS REQUIRED TO REPLACE THAT? YES?
>> I BELIEVE THAT DAVE NEVILLE, OUR CITY ARBORIST, HAS MET WITH THE APPLICANT ON SITE TO TALK ABOUT THE TREE ITSELF, AS WELL AS ANY MITIGATION THAT WILL BE REQUIRED AS PART OF ITS REMOVAL.
>> THANK YOU. ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? ANY COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC? OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING? SEEING NONE, CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
WOULD THE BOARD LIKE TO DISCUSS THIS ANYMORE, OR ARE YOU READY TO MAKE A MOTION?
>> I MOVE TO APPROVE CASE NUMBER HDC 2025-0003 WITHOUT CONDITIONS.
I MOVE THAT THE HDC MAKE THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW PART OF THE RHETORIC.
THE HDC CASE HDC 2025-0003, AS PRESENTED, IS SUBSTANTIALLY COMPLIANT WITH THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR STANDARDS, AND THE HISTORIC DISTRICT DESIGN GUIDELINES TO WARRANT FINAL APPROVAL AT THIS TIME.
>> I HAVE A MOTION BY GASS AND A SECOND BY KOSACK. CALL THE ROLL, PLEASE.
>> THANK YOU FOR DOING SUCH COMPLETE WORK, TOO. MAKES THIS EASY.
[4.4 HDC 2025-0004 - STEPHANIE SPATOLA, AGENT FOR BROWN FAMILY REVOCABLE LIVING TRUST, 913 WHITE STREET]
>> THOSE WILL BE ACC 2025-0004.
>> THIS IS AT 913 WHITE STREET IN OLD TOWN.
THE APPLICANT IS SEEKING CONCEPTUAL APPROVAL TO EXPAND THEIR SECOND FLOOR TO INCLUDE ANOTHER BEDROOM AND BATHROOM.
THEY ALSO ARE REQUESTING TO EXPAND THEIR PORCH AND HAVE A SCREEN IN.
THESE ELEVATIONS SHOW THE PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE EXTERIOR.
ALL OF THE PROPOSED MATERIALS ARE APPROVED AND ARE MEANT TO MASK THE EXISTING MATERIALS.
I HAVE THAT ADDITION HIGHLIGHTED.
ON THE TOP IS THE EXISTING NORTH ELEVATION, AND ON THE BOTTOM IS THE NEW NORTH ELEVATION.
THEN I PULLED THE NEW NORTHEAST PERSPECTIVE, WHICH SHOWS BOTH OF THE ADDITIONS.
THEN HERE ARE SOME PHOTOS OF THE EXISTING STRUCTURE.
DURING THE REVIEW PROCESS, I NOTICED THAT THE PROPOSED CORRIDOR EXTENDS FURTHER INTO THE MID LOT VISIBILITY CORRIDOR.
HOWEVER, THIS IS A PERMISSIBLE USE PER THE OLD TOWN DESIGN GUIDELINES, AS IT COULD ACT AS A CONNECTING ELEMENT BETWEEN THEIR HOUSE AND A FUTURE ADU OR GARAGE.
THE MAP ON THE RIGHT HIGHLIGHTS THIS.
>> WE DIDN'T HAVE THOSE LAST TWO DOCUMENTS IN OUR PACKET.
>> YOU HAD THE SNAPSHOTS OF THESE. [OVERLAPPING].
>> YOU DON'T HAVE THE ARCHITECTURAL PLANS?
>> I DON'T HAVE THAT ONE. [INAUDIBLE] ON THAT ONE.
>> THAT ONE. THAT'S A GOOD ONE.
[00:35:01]
>> I THINK SHE'S JUST TALKING ABOUT THAT GROUND.
YOU OBVIOUSLY TOOK SOME OF THOSE ELEMENTS FROM EACH OF THE PACKETS AND GAVE A PRESENTATION SLIDE FOR THEIR [INAUDIBLE]
>> THAT YELLOW LOT LINE AND THE PORCH ADDITION, THAT WAS JUST ME AND POWERPOINT CALLING IT.
>> BUT YOU SHOULD HAVE THAT ORIGINAL SITE PLAN.
>> WERE YOU DONE, MISS? DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR MAYOR?
>> IS THIS A CONTRIBUTING STRUCTURE? [OVERLAPPING]
>> IT'S COMPLICATED WITH OLD TOWN, AND WE HAVEN'T HAD A SURVEY TO SHOW WHICH STRUCTURES ARE CONTRIBUTING OR NOT CONTRIBUTING.
THE MAIN DESIGN GUIDELINES OF OLD TOWN SAY THAT WE'RE MOSTLY CONCERNED WITH PRESERVING THE PLAT, LIKE THE PLAN, RATHER THAN ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES OR CONTRIBUTING STRUCTURES. IS THAT CLEAR?
>> YES. THE ONLY ADDITION I WOULD SAY TO THAT IS THAT IT WAS A 1985 SURVEY WHICH DID IDENTIFY THIS, AND THERE IS A MASTER SITE FILE ASSOCIATED WITH THE PROPERTY ITSELF.
BUT IT DOES NOT LIST IT AS A CONTRIBUTING STRUCTURE TO THE DISTRICT.
>> CORRECT. IS THERE A PLAN TO DO THAT COMING SOON?
>> I DON'T HAVE ANYTHING ON BOOKS FOR THAT RIGHT NOW.
>> IT'S SIGNIFICANTLY DIFFERENT UP THERE THAN IT WAS IN 1985.
>> CAN WE TALK ABOUT THAT LATER?
>> I CAN TELL YOU THAT 50 YEARS AGO, IT DIDN'T LOOK ANYTHING LIKE THAT.
I CAN REMEMBER THE PEOPLE THAT LIVED IN IT.
>> IT LOOKS 100% IF NOT 200% BETTER.
>> WHETHER IT'S CONTRIBUTING OR NOT, I DON'T KNOW, BUT IT LOOKS WONDERFUL.
>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS WITH THAT?
I'M PRESUMING THAT SECOND FLOOR EXISTING ADDITION, THE PUMP OUT, I'M PRESUMING IT WAS AN ADDITION THAT WAS ADDED AT SOME POINT.
ARCHITECTURALLY MAKING THAT BIGGER, IT'S DISTURBING.
I MIGHT GET IT, BUT THEY WANT THE FUNCTION OF THE HOUSE TO WORK HOWEVER THEY WANT TO WORK.
BUT IT REALLY CHANGES THE PROPORTIONS OF THAT ELEVATION ON THAT SIDE, AND IT JUST DOESN'T WORK WELL DESIGN-WISE.
THAT'S A REAL CHALLENGE FOR ME.
>> IS THE APPLICANT HERE, PLEASE?
>> CAN YOU COME UP? STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS, PLEASE.
>> HELLO. I'M STEPHANIE SPATOLA, WITH SPITOLA CONTRACTING GROUP, LOCATED AT 512 SOUTHEAST STREET, REPRESENTING THE HOMEOWNER, DAN BROWN.
BEFORE WE CONTINUE ON DOWN THE ROAD, WE WANTED TO HAVE THIS DISCUSSION BECAUSE WE WEREN'T QUITE SURE HOW THIS WOULD PLAY MOVING FORWARD.
WE WANTED TO STOP MOVING FORWARD WITH ANY DRAWINGS BEFORE WE HAD THIS DISCUSSION.
>> I GUESS. MISS. BRYNES, COULD YOU JUST ELABORATE A LITTLE BIT?
>> SURE. THAT SECOND-FLOOR ADDITION, IT FEELS OUT OF PROPORTION; IT FEELS TOO BIG FOR THE OVERALL HOUSE.
WITHOUT BEING THE DESIGNER, I WOULD LOOK TO SOMEHOW TRY AND INCORPORATE WHATEVER THAT FUNCTION IN THAT SPACE THAT YOU'RE ADDING ON SOMEHOW INTO THE EXISTING BUILDING, BECAUSE TO ADD ONTO IT UP THERE, IT SEEMS OUT OF PROPORTION AND SEEMS TOO LARGE FOR THAT SIDE.
>> IT'S LIKE HIGHLIGHTING A PIMPLE.
>> YEAH, THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT IT IS.
>> THE IDEA INITIALLY WAS TO NOT EXCEED THE CURRENT FOOTPRINT, SO TO NOT GO TOO MUCH FURTHER, SO TRY AND STAY WITHIN THE EXISTING.
I THINK THAT WAS INITIALLY THE THOUGHT ON THAT ADDITIONAL DORMER, IF YOU WILL, EXTENSION.
>> I THINK THE OTHER THING THAT EXACERBATES THE FEELING OF NOT RIGHTNESS IS THAT WE'VE GOT THIS MASSIVE DORMER, NOW, A DOUBLE-WIDE DORMER ON STILTS.
THERE'S NOTHING GROUNDING IT BENEATH THEM.
I REALIZE THAT'S A PORCH, BUT I THINK THE [INAUDIBLE] [OVERLAPPING].
>> IF IT WAS MORE SOLID, IT WOULD DEFINITELY SEEM LIKE IT'D BE MORE APPROPRIATE THERE.
THE FIRST FLOOR NEEDS TO HAVE MORE OF A SIGNIFICANCE TO IT IN ORDER TO MAKE THAT APPROPRIATE.
[00:40:01]
I GET IT IT'S AN EXISTING ROOF ANGLE, BUT IT'S REALLY SHALLOW AND THERE'S JUST NO DEFINITION TO THAT SIDE.>> I BELIEVE I HEAR WHAT YOU'RE SAYING, SO A LITTLE BIT MORE ON THE GROUND LEVEL TO JUST TO SUBSTANTIATE.
>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS?
>> I THINK, VERONICA, I WAS IN THE SAME QUANDARY AS YOU, AND I'LL ASK MINA IF YOU COULD FIND THE NEW WEST ELEVATION UPGRADE.
>> I THINK OUR NEW SYSTEM, I CAN'T MOVE AWAY FROM THIS PRESENTATION OR ELSE IT WILL GO AWAY.
>> I THINK I CAN WORK WITH WHAT WE GOT THERE.
>> I COULD GET RID OF THE PRESENTATION AND TRY TO PULL UP THE PLANS.
>> LASER POINTING WON'T SHOW THEM.
ON THE EAST SIDE, WHICH YOU CAN SEE IN THE LOWER LEFT THERE, THERE'S A DEFINITION BETWEEN THE MAIN HOUSE ROOF FORM AND THEN THE DORMER ROOF.
WHEN YOU COME AROUND TO THE OTHER SIDE, NOW THE PLANES ARE JUST IN LINE WITH EACH OTHER AND THERE'S NO DEFINITION TO BREAK THOSE APART.
VERONICA, YOU TOUCHED ON THIS ON THAT PREVIOUS APPLICATION, THAT IF YOU JUST BROKE THAT PLANE AND RECESS THAT DORMER A LITTLE BIT TO CREATE SOME JOINT OR SEPARATION THERE, SO THAT THE WEST ELEVATION LOOKED MORE LIKE THE EAST ELEVATION, WHERE THE MAIN HOUSE ROOF HAS DEFINITION, THE DORMER HAS DEFINITION.
THAT WOULD HELP A LITTLE BIT AT THE SECOND FLOOR.
>> YOU'RE ASKING FOR THE WEST ELEVATION?
>> DO YOU HAVE PERSPECTIVES? I THINK IT'S EASY TO SEE ON THE PERSPECTIVES.
>> SHE'S GOT THERE. I DON'T THINK THE EXISTING WEST ELEVATION IS ACTUALLY RENDERED CORRECTLY; I THINK IT'S EXACTLY THE SAME AS THE NEW ONE.
I THINK IT NEEDS A LITTLE WORK TO MAKE IT DIFFERENTIATE.
I THINK YOU'D BE VERY CLEAR WHAT'S GOING ON IF THAT EXISTING WAS RENDERED CORRECTLY.
I TOTALLY AGREE WITH MY COLLEAGUES THAT SOMEHOW IT NEEDS TO ADDRESS THE GROUND.
I DON'T KNOW WHETHER THAT'S THAT YOU HAVE TO BUILD SOMETHING DOWN THERE OR IF THE ROOF FORM MAYBE WRAPS IT TO GIVE IT A LITTLE MORE SUBTLE INHABITATION OF THAT SPACE.
I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE ANSWER IS THERE, BUT I THINK IT NEEDS SOME INVESTIGATION AND DESIGN WORK TO REALLY SOFTEN THE WAY THAT THAT SECOND FLOOR SITS ABOVE THE FIRST, BECAUSE IT FEELS INCONGRUOUS.
>> IT NEEDS A LITTLE HELP. FOR ME, THOSE TWO THINGS: SOFTEN THAT EDGE BETWEEN SECOND FLOOR AND GROUND FLOOR, AND THEN CREATE AN EDGE ON THAT NEW WEST ELEVATION, THAT'LL HELP IT LOOK MORE LIKE THE EAST ELEVATION.
>> THAT COULD EVEN BE LIKE AN EYEBROW RAKE THAT COMES DOWN AND FOLLOWS THE GABLE ON THE RIGHT SIDE.
THAT COULD BE COMING DOWN, WHICH WOULD GIVE THE APPEARANCE OF PUSHING THAT DORMER BACK, TOO.
>> WE WERE NOT IN THE BUSINESS TO DESIGN, BUT WE ARE IN THE BUSINESS TO OFFER IDEAS.
>> ANY COMMENTS ON THE PORCH EXTENSION?
>> TO THE RIGHT THERE. ANY ISSUES OR COMMENTS ON THOSE?
>> [OVERLAPPING]. WHAT WERE YOU SAYING ABOUT THAT YOU FOUND OR THE EXISTING PORCH IS ENCROACHING INTO?
>> THE EXISTING PORCH THERE GOES ABOUT TWO FEET INTO THE MID LOT LINE.
IT'S NOT TECHNICALLY AN ENCROACHMENT, BUT IT EXPANDS THAT PORCH BY ABOUT SIX FEET INTO THE OTHER LOT.
BUT IN OLD TOWN, THE DESIGN GUIDELINES SAY THAT STRUCTURES CAN BE CONNECTED THROUGH LEEWAY.
THAT EXTENSION OF THE PORCH FUNCTIONS AS THAT CONNECTING ELEMENT.
>> SO WE DON'T HAVE ANY ISSUES THAT WERE VIOLATED BY HAVING THAT?
>> AT FIRST, KELLY THOUGHT IT WOULD BE A VIOLATION, BUT AS LOOKING AT THE OLD TOWN DESIGN GUIDELINES AND THE MID LOT VISIBILITY STANDARDS, THIS IS COMPLIANT.
>> WHEN YOU SAY THAT IT'S EXTENDING,
[00:45:01]
IT'S NOT ACTUALLY ONTO SOMEBODY ELSE'S PROPERTY OR IS IT?>> NO. IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THEY OWN BOTH OF THOSE LOTS; IT'S JUST LIKE THE HISTORICAL PONIUS.
>> VERY GOOD. THERE IS SOME LEEWAY THERE TO EXTEND EITHER THE ROOF OR SOME SOLID BASE TO THE ADDITION.
IS THERE ANY OTHER COMMENT THAT ANYBODY HAS?
>> ACTUALLY I'M SORRY, IN ADDITION ON THE PORCH, IT DOES THROW THE PROPORTIONS OF THAT HOUSE.
FROM THESE DRAWINGS, LOOK LIKE IT'S PERFECTLY SYMMETRICAL UNLESS I'M MISSING SOMETHING.
THAT ADDITION ON THE RIGHT DOES THROW OFF THE PROPORTIONS OF THIS HOUSE. I DON'T KNOW HOW YOU SOLVE THAT.
>> YOU'RE LOOKING AT THE BOTTOM RIGHT.
>> THE BOTTOM RIGHT IMAGE, YEAH.
THAT ADDITION IS STEPPED BACK; IT'S NOT IN PLAIN WITH THE FRONT PORCH, RIGHT?
>> CORRECT. I THINK IT'S IT'S PARTIALLY THESE IMAGES. [OVERLAPPING]
>> THEY'RE DECEIVING, YEAH. I RETRACT THAT COMMENT.
I THINK IT'S GOING TO BE OKAY BECAUSE IT'S STEPPED BACK.
>> THE FIRST ONE, IT LOOKS LIKE A BASTARD HIP ROOF.
>> ALSO, I'M NOT SURE THE PHOTOS ARE ACCESSIBLE, BUT THAT'S LOOKING FROM THE STREET.
THIS WHOLE SIDE OVER HERE IT'S JUST LIKE A SHRUB, LIKE A HEDGE, SO IT HIDES THIS WHOLE LOT.
IT'S NOT VIEWABLE FROM JUST THE WAY THE FOLIAGE IS LIKE THAT.
TO THE RIGHT THERE THAT BIG PALM ON THE TOP FILE.
YOU CAN SEE ALL THE SHRUBS AND STUFF.
>> [INAUDIBLE] TREES, AND JUST PUT IT IN THE CORNER.
>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS?
>> HOW WOULD WE LIKE TO PROCEED WITH THIS? THIS IS FOR CONCEPTUAL, IS THAT RIGHT?
>> DO WE WANT TO MAKE A MOTION WITH AMENDMENTS TO IT, OR DO YOU WANT TO SEE WHAT THOSE AMENDMENTS LOOK LIKE BEFORE YOU MAKE THE CALL ON IT?
>> I WOULD THINK WE NEED TO SEE THE AMENDMENTS.
>> WELL, WE'RE GOING TO NEED TO SEE FINAL PLAN, SO CAN WE JUST MAKE A MOTION BASED UPON OUR COMMENTS SO WE DON'T HAVE TO ENUMERATE, AND WE'RE NOT DESIGNING, JUST BASED UPON OUR DISCUSSION AND WHAT WE HAD TONIGHT, COME BACK WITH A FINAL.
>> THOSE IN THE FINAL PLAN, THESE COMMENTS WOULD BE ADDRESSED, RIGHT?
>> WE'RE EXPECTING [OVERLAPPING] THE FINAL PLAN THAT ADDRESSES THE ADDITION ON THE FIRST FLOOR, THE BASE OF IT, A SOFTENED PLANE.
>> WITH EITHER THE FIRST FLOOR OF THE ADDITION HAVING SOMETHING MORE SOLID UNDER IT, OR A ROOF LINE EXTENSION, OR SOMETHING THAT WILL NOT MAKE IT STAND OUT LIKE IT DOES AT THIS POINT.
>> CAN I ASK SOMEBODY ON THE BOARD TO MAKE A MOTION?
>> SIGN IN. TAMMI, ARE YOU DOING ANY?
>> YEAH, I GOT ONE. IS IT FOUR?
>> I MOVE TO APPROVE HDC CASE NUMBER 2025-0004 WITH CONDITIONS THAT ITEMS THAT WE DISCUSSED TONIGHT REGARDING
[00:50:03]
THE ARTICULATION OF THE BUMP OUT AND THE MASSING OF THE BUMP OUT ARE ADDRESSED IN THE FINAL PLAN.A MOVE THAT THE HDC MAKE THE PHONE FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW PART OF THE RECORD.
THAT HDC CASE 2025-0004, AS PRESENTED, IS SUBSTANTIALLY COMPLIANT WITH THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, SECRETARY OF INTERIOR STANDARDS, AND THE OLD TOWN PRESERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT GUIDELINES TO WARRANT APPROVAL AT THIS TIME.
CONCEPTUAL, DID I NOT SAY CONCEPTUAL?
>> WE HAVE A MOTION BY KOSACK, SECOND BY PSULKOWSKI.
COULD YOU CALL THE ROLE PLEASE?
>> WE'RE ON NOW TO THANK YOU ALL FOR BEING HERE.
[4.5 HDC 2025-0005 - MARVIN AND AGNES SWAILS, 502 BROOME STREET]
>> SO THIS IS OUR LAST CASE OF THE EVENING, HDC 2025-0005 AT 5:02 BROOM STREET.
THE APPLICANT IS SEEKING FINAL APPROVAL FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 169 SQUARE FOOT PERGOLA AS A LANDSCAPE FEATURE IN THEIR BACKYARD.
HERE YOU CAN SEE THE SITE PLAN AND THE LOCATION OF THE PERGOLA.
THEY HAVE PROVIDED MATERIALS TO ME OVER THE PHONE, WHICH INCLUDED TREATED LUMBER AND GRAY GLACIER PAVERS.
I'VE SPOKEN TO THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT, AND IF THIS APPLICATION IS APPROVED TONIGHT, THEY WILL STILL HAVE TO GET THE STRUCTURE PERMITTED THROUGH THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT AS THE PERGOLA IS GREATER THAN 150 SQUARE FEET.
AT THAT POINT, THEY MIGHT BE ASKED TO PROVIDE MORE DETAILED DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS OF MATERIALS.
AS A LANDSCAPE FEATURE THAT COULD BE REMOVED ONE DAY, I DON'T THINK IT DETRACTS FROM THE CONTRIBUTING STRUCTURE ON 502 BROOME STREET, AND WOULD ALLOW THE PROPERTY OWNERS TO GET A BETTER USE OF THEIR OUTDOOR AND GARDEN YARD.
>> MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT I HAVE A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS.
AND I DON'T TAKE EXCEPTION TO THE IDEA OF A PERGOLA.
I JUST DO REALLY TAKE EXCEPTION TO THESE DOCUMENTS THAT WERE SUBMITTED.
FIRST OF ALL, ISN'T A SURVEY SUPPOSED TO BE PROVIDED AS PART OF THE AND A SURVEY IS NOT PROVIDED.
THERE'S A PARTIAL SURVEY, BUT THAT'S NOT A SURVEY.
I DON'T KNOW THAT YOU CAN MODIFY A SURVEY LIKE THAT.
I THINK WE NEED TO BE STRICTER IN THE DOCUMENTS THAT WE RECEIVE AND REVIEW.
I THINK THIS IS A SLIPPERY SLOPE WHERE WE ACCEPT SOMETHING LIKE THIS.
ALTHOUGH I REALIZE IT'S ONLY A PERGOLA.
BECAUSE IT OPENS UP A BIGGER ISSUE FOR NOT VERY COMPLETE DOCUMENTS TO BE REVIEWED AND POTENTIALLY REVIEWED IN THE FUTURE.
I'M FUMBLING THROUGH THIS, BUT JUST THIS IS ANOTHER ONE OF DISTURBING SUBMISSIONS FOR ME THAT IT'S HARD FOR ME TO APPROVE IT.
NOW, I AM HAPPY TO HEAR THAT THERE WOULD BE THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT IS GOING TO REQUIRE I'M PRESUMING AN ACTUAL DRAWING WITH FRAMING AND ATTACHMENT AND NOT THAT WE REVIEW THAT OR NOT THAT WE REVIEW FOUNDATION PLANS, BUT THERE'S JUST NOT MUCH HERE TO APPROVE, OTHER THAN THE PICTURE OF WHAT THEY ENVISION.
>> I ALSO HAVE ONE MORE SLIDE THAT I ROB THE SHOW.
ON THE LEFT IS THE INSPIRATION PHOTO FROM THE APPLICATION.
THEN ON THE RIGHT IS A PICTURE OF AN EXISTING PERGOLA ON 8TH STREET.
>> NEITHER ONE OF THOSE LOOK ANYTHING CLOSE TO THEIR SKETCH?
>> IT'S TOTALLY DIFFERENT. I DON'T THINK YOU FUMBLE THROUGH IT.
I THINK WE SHOULD PROBABLY JUST NIP THIS IN THE BUD BECAUSE ONE, IF THEY REQUIRE A BUILDING PERMIT BECAUSE THEY'RE OVER A CERTAIN SQUARE FOOTAGE, WHAT THEY HAND DREW WOULD NEVER BE APPROVED.
YOU CAN'T SPAN A 2*4 OR 2*6 13 FEET AND HAVE A LOAD BEARING WITH THE GABLE.
THEY WOULD HAVE TO DO SO MANY CHANGES.
IN ESSENCE, WHATEVER WE APPROVED WOULDN'T BE WHAT IS THEN GOING TO BE BUILT.
EVEN THOUGH IT'S JUST A PERGOLA, THAT PUTS US IN A POSITION THAT WE'RE APPROVING SOMETHING THAT WE DON'T KNOW WHAT WE'RE APPROVING.
WE CAN'T APPROVE AN INCORRECT DRAWING LIKE THAT.
EVEN IF IT WAS BELOW THE BUILDING THRESHOLD FOR A PERMIT, I WOULD SAY NO, BECAUSE THERE'S NOT ENOUGH DETAIL ON THAT.
[00:55:03]
WE NEED TO KNOW AFTER ATTACHMENTS, RAKES.WE NEED TO KNOW THERE'S JUST SO MUCH THAT'S WRONG WITH THAT SKETCH.
I APPRECIATE WHAT THEY WANT TO DO.
BUT FOR THEIR OWN SAFETY, ONE WIND COMES THROUGH ANOTHER THING JUST BECOMES A MISSILE.
I THINK WE REALLY NEED TO MAKE SURE WE GET GOOD DRAWINGS IN EVEN FOR JUST SMALL FEATURES LIKE THIS.
>> I THINK THEY NEED TO HIRE DESIGN PROFESSION.
>> I WOULD SAY THEY DENIED OR CONTINUED HOWEVER THAT GOES FOR MORE INFORMATION.
BUT THEY'RE NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO DO A THING WITHOUT GOING THROUGH THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT.
THEIR JOB IS TO MAKE SURE IT DOESN'T BECOME A MISSILE.
>> [OVERLAPPING] ANYTHING TO APPROVE.
>> CAN I COMMENT ON THAT. SO WHEN THEIR PERMIT COMES BACK THROUGH THROUGH ENERGOV SYSTEM, I HAVE TO APPROVE IT AS A PLANNING IN THE HISTORIC DISTRICT, AND I MAKE SURE WHAT IS APPROVED AND IS ON THE COA HERE TONIGHT MATCHES WHAT THEIR PLAN IS.
>> WELL, WE SURE DON'T WANT THAT.
>> THESE ARE NOT DOCUMENTS THAT WE SHOULD BE REVIEWING.
I WOULD SUGGEST THAT THEY HIRE A DESIGN PROFESSIONAL TO CREATE ACTUAL DESIGN DRAWINGS.
EVEN AN ENGINEER, YOU NEED SPANS, WHAT CAN YOUR WOOD SPAN IF IT'S DEADWEIGHT OR THEN YOU THROW A VINE ON IT, YOU PUT A WISTERIA OR SOMETHING ON IT, AND THAT THING COMES DOWN IN TWO DAYS.
>> IS THERE A REPRESENTATIVE OF THE PROJECT?
>> I THINK SO. ARE YOU ALL NOTED TO THAT?
>> I JUST LIKE A PICTURE OF THE YARD. THE DRAWING IS NICE.
>> IS THE APPLICANT HERE? COULD YOU COME FORWARD, PLEASE JUST YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS?
>> MARTY SWALES, 502 BROOME STREET.
>> I THINK WHAT WE'RE REALLY LOOKING FOR IS A A DRAWING THAT ACTUALLY SHOWS HOW THIS THING REALLY IS GOING TO BE PUT TOGETHER.
WE'RE NOT INTERESTED IN KNOWING WHAT THE CONNECTORS ARE AND THAT WHERE WE ARE INTERESTED IN KNOWING WHAT ARE THEY GOING TO LOOK LIKE? I THINK YOU'RE GOING TO FIND, FOR EXAMPLE, THAT A 2*8 IS NOT GOING TO SPAN 13 FEET.
RIGHT OFF THE BAT, I CAN TELL, WE'RE NOT GOING TO GET WHAT'S SHOWN HERE.
IT'S GOING TO BE SOMETHING DIFFERENT.
I DON'T FEEL COMFORTABLE APPROVING SOMETHING WHEN I KNOW WHEN I LOOK AT IT THAT'S NOT WHAT WE'RE GOING TO GET.
I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT THAT YOU REALLY HAVE A PROFESSIONAL OF SOME SORT HELP YOU PUT THESE DRAWINGS TOGETHER.
BECAUSE IT'S GOING TO REALLY HELP US UNDERSTAND WHAT ARE WE SAYING YES TO? THE CONCEPT OF A TRELLIS, A PERGOLA IN THE BACK YARD, I THINK IS WONDERFUL.
YOU GUYS ARE GOING TO LOVE SITTING IN THAT AND ENJOYING IT.
WE NEED SOMETHING A LITTLE MORE FINISHED AND A LITTLE MORE PRECISE.
WE UNDERSTAND WHAT ARE YOU ASKING TO PUT IN YOUR BACKYARD? I THINK THE CONCEPT OF A PERGOLA IS PERFECTLY FINE.
>> YOU GUYS DO A BEAUTIFUL JOB.
YOUR HOME IS BEAUTIFUL, YOUR YARD IS BEAUTIFUL.
THIS IS REALLY A LITTLE BIT FOR YOUR PROTECTION, TOO, IF YOU HAND THAT DRAWING TO SOMEBODY AND THEY BUILD IT.
>> WELL, THAT WASN'T OUR INTENT, TOO.
>> I THOUGHT YOUR INSPIRATION IS GREAT.
SO THE UNFORTUNATE THING IS IN THE APPLICATION PROCESS, YOU DON'T GET A LOT OF GUIDANCE ABOUT WHAT YOU NEED.
IS IT JUST CONCEPTUAL OR IS IT DESIGN? AS YOU CAN TELL, I'M NO ARCHITECT NOR ARTIST.
SO WE ASSUMED IT WAS A SIMPLE PERGOLA, AND THERE WOULD BE SOME DESIGNS THAT WE'D GO WITH.
BUT IF WE NEED TO HAVE A LOT MORE DETAIL, THEN THAT'S WHAT WE NEED TO PROVIDE, I GUESS.
>> I GUESS I DON'T UNDERSTAND, THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE BUILDING PERMIT AND YOUR PURPOSE OR YOUR APPROVAL OF IT FROM A CONTRIBUTING STRUCTURE.
>> WE APPROVE WHAT'S BROUGHT TO US.
THEN ONCE THAT IS APPROVED, IT GOES TO THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT WITH OUR BLESSING ON IT, AND THEN THEY APPROVED THE BUILDING PLANS ITSELF.
YOU'LL HAVE SPECIES, JOY SPACING, CONNECTIONS EVERY LITTLE DETAIL. ON THAT PLAN.
>> THE PROBLEM COMES IN, SIR, WHEN WHAT MR. POZZETTA DESCRIBED TO YOU AS AS AN ARCHITECT, HIS KNOWLEDGE THAT THE WAY IT'S DRAWN IS NOT GOING TO WORK.
FOR THIS BOARD TO THEN SAY, YES, WE APPROVE IT.
[01:00:02]
KNOWING IT WON'T WORK, AND THEN GOING TO THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT, YOU COULD BE ASKED TO DO THINGS THAT ARE SO DIFFERENT.IT WON'T LOOK ANYTHING LIKE WHAT WE THOUGHT IT WAS GOING TO LOOK LIKE.
THAT'S WHERE THE PROBLEM COMES IN.
I DO BELIEVE THAT WE HAVE HAD DISCUSSION ON THIS BOARD ABOUT THE KIND OF DOCUMENTS THAT ARE REQUIRED IN THE FUTURE SINCE WE HAD THAT FAMOUS HAPPY FACE INCIDENT THAT WE REALLY HAVE TALKED INTERNALLY.
>> THAT'S NOT CLEAR IN THE APPLICATION PROCESS.
>> WE NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT IT IS.
WE'RE WORKING RIGHT NOW ON THE GUIDELINES, AND WE DID ALREADY HAVE A DISCUSSION ABOUT WHAT IS REQUIRED IN TERMS OF DRAWINGS, BUT THAT WILL BE MADE MORE CLEAR IF IT'S NOT CLEAR NOW.
>> CAN YOU TELL ME WHEN YOU'LL HAVE THAT DONE YOU THINK?
>> WELL, WE DON'T HAVE TO HAVE IT DONE FOR STAFF TO KNOW THAT THAT'S WHAT WE'RE LOOKING FOR NOW.
>> YOU KNOW LOOKING AT THE APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS, AND I'M GOING TO SKIP THE ACTUAL FORMS AND THINGS LIKE THAT, BUT A CURRENT SURVEY OF THE PROPERTY.
I KNOW YOU HAVE A LITTLE PIECE OF IT, BUT A SURVEY AND A SITE PLAN ARE TWO DIFFERENT THINGS.
ONE IS THE LEGAL DESCRIPTION THE SITE PLAN IS DESCRIBING, LIKE PART OF THE NEW WORK.
THEN SCALED ELEVATIONS AND PLANS.
THOSE ARE NOT ELEVATIONS AND PLANS.
YOU'VE SEEN SOME OF THE OTHER THINGS THAT HAVE BEEN I DON'T KNOW IF MAYBE YOU WERE HERE AND SAW SOME OF THE OTHER THINGS THAT WERE SUBMITTED TONIGHT.
>> IT'S A DIFFERENT STYLE OF DRAWING.
>> ABSOLUTELY. WE HAD A RENOVATION SIX YEARS AGO.
I JUST WRONG ASSUMPTION ON MY PART, THAT A PERGOLA IS A PRETTY SIMPLE STRUCTURE, AND IT WOULDN'T NEED THAT LEVEL OF DETAIL.
BUT IF I NEED TO GET AN ARCHITECT AND, DOUBLE THE COST OF THE PROJECT, I GUESS THAT'S WHAT WE HAVE TO DO.
>> WELL, LET ME ASK THE REST OF THE BOARD A QUESTION.
IF A CLIENT DECIDED TO GO OUT AND BUY A PERGOLA, THAT STILL HAVE TO COME HERE BECAUSE OF THE DESIGN.
>> IT DEPENDS. I CAN ANSWER THAT.
>> JUST TO BACKTRACK A LITTLE BIT IN TERMS OF PROCESS.
THIS APPLICATION DID PROCEED THROUGH A BUILDING PERMIT.
IT WAS ACTUALLY ACCEPTED AS A FORMAL APPLICATION, CONSIDERED REVIEWED TO PROCESS.
IT WAS AT THE TIME THAT IT WAS ROUTED FOR REVIEW, THAT IT WAS NOTED THIS IS WITHIN THE HISTORIC DISTRICT.
WHEN IT CAME IN, HE DETERMINED THAT IT IS PART OF A PROPERTY.
IT IS A CONTRIBUTING STRUCTURE AND IT IS VISIBLE FROM THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY, WHICH IS WHY IT'S HERE TONIGHT.
IF THIS STRUCTURE, ALTHOUGH WITHIN THE HISTORIC DISTRICT WAS NOT A CONTRIBUTING STRUCTURE AND NOT VISIBLE FROM THE RIGHT OF WAY, IT WOULD GO THROUGH A STAFF APPROVAL AND CONTINUE FORWARD WITH THE BUILDING PERMIT PROCESS.
IT WOULD ALSO CONTINUE FORWARD THROUGH THE BUILDING PERMIT PROCESS AND ACTUALLY MAY NOT REQUIRE A PERMIT AT ALL OUTSIDE OF A CERTIFICATE OF APPROVAL WITHIN THE DISTRICT IF IT WAS UNDER 150 SQUARE FEET.
A PERGOLA OR TRELLIS IS CONSIDERED A LANDSCAPE FEATURE.
THE CITY HAS NO GUIDANCE FOR PLACEMENT OF A LANDSCAPE FEATURE SUCH AS THIS WITHIN OUR LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE.
THE ONLY PROVISIONS WE HAVE IS TO MOVE IT FORWARD FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION AS PART OF A DESIGN ON THE OVERALL SITE.
BUT THIS AND THE DOCUMENTATION THAT YOU DO HAVE IN FRONT OF YOU WAS ACCEPTED BY THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT SUFFICIENT TO ROUTE FOR REVIEW PURPOSES.
>> TO ROUTE FOR REVIEW, BUT IT WASN'T ACCEPTED TO [OVERLAPPING].
>> CORRECT. STOPPED. BECAUSE IT NEEDS TO COME HERE FIRST.
>> ANYTHING CAN BE VOTED FOR REVIEW, AND THEN STOPPED.
>> TO GO BACK TO THE QUESTION, IF SOMEBODY WENT OUT AND BOUGHT A PERGOLA FROM LOWE'S? WHAT'S THE PROCESS FOR THAT?
>> IT WOULD COME HERE IF IT'S ASSOCIATED WITH THE CONTRIBUTING STRUCTURE PROPERTY AND VISIBLE FROM THE PUBLIC RIGHT AWAY.
>> A PURCHASED BUILDING, PERGOLA, WOULD HAVE ALL OF THE DRAWINGS TO GO WITH IT THAT ARE PRECISE.
WHEN IT CAME HERE, AND WE WOULD KNOW THAT IT IS GOING TO LOOK LIKE THE PICTURES THAT THEY SHOW ON WHAT THEY'RE SELLING.
I LOVE THE IDEA OF A PERGOLA, AND I LOVE THIS HOUSE BECAUSE I HAPPEN TO HAVE LOVE MARY AGNES.
I APPRECIATE THAT YOU'VE LOVED HER HOUSE TOO BECAUSE SHE CERTAINLY DID.
[01:05:04]
I ASKED THE BOARD, WHAT DO WE DO WITH THIS? WHAT IS YOUR PREFERENCE?>> IT'S NOT JUST THE SIZE, IT'S ALSO BECAUSE IT'S VISIBLE FROM STREET?
>> I WAS GOING TO SAY, YOU CAN JUST MAKE IT SMALLER.
>> I THINK THAT THE GUIDANCE THAT WE'VE ALREADY PROVIDED IS WHAT WE SHOULD BE STICKING WITH.
IT DOES SEEM LIKE PERHAPS THERE WAS AN ERROR ON THE PART OF THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT IN ACCEPTING THE DOCUMENTS AS THEY ARE SUBMITTED.
>> [OVERLAPPING] IT DIDN'T GET THROUGH THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT.
IT JUST CAME HERE FIRST AND THEN GOES TO BUILDING.
>> BUT YEAH, I GUESS THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT.
>> WELL, I THINK BUILDING UPLOADS IT INTO THE SYSTEM AND THERE'S A CHECKLIST THAT GOES TO PLANNING AND ZONING AND THEN IT GOES TO BUILDING.
WE BOTH HAVE IN OUR PORTAL [OVERLAPPING].
>> WE'RE GOING TO NEED TO TALK ABOUT WHAT NEEDS TO BE FIXED IF ANYTHING IN THAT WORLD AS WE MOVE FORWARD.
IT SOUNDS AS THOUGH WE'RE ASKING YOU, SIR TO COME BACK.
>> THAT'S WHAT WE'LL DO. THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU SO MUCH. I DON'T AGREE WITH THAT.
>> THEY WANT TO PERGOLA, AND WE'RE MAKING THEM JUMP THROUGH HOOPS LIKE THEY'RE BUILDING THE TAJ MAHAL.
>> THANK YOU, PAT. I AGREE WITH YOU 100%.
IT'S NOT A SATELLITE DISH THAT WE'RE INSTALLING.
>> THE PERGOLA. IT'S A LAWN FEATURE FOR THE BACKYARD.
IT'S JUST SOMETHING SIMPLE THAT.
>> I THINK IT'S BECAUSE IT'S IN THE HISTORIC DISTRICT, WE JUST HAVE TO MAKE SURE WE'RE GETTING WHAT WE APPROVE.
I THINK IT'S AS SIMPLE AS THAT.
>> ALL WE'RE ASKING FOR IS TO ACTUALLY SEE WHAT ARE YOU INTENDING ON BUILDING?
>> BUT YOU KNOW IT'S A BIG ENOUGH PAIN IN THE REAR TO EVEN LIVE IN THE HISTORIC DISTRICT.
IT'S NOT OUR JOB TO MAKE IT EVEN MORE DIFFICULT TO LIVE IN THE HISTORIC DISTRICT.
>> IT IS. WHEN YOU THINK ABOUT THE FACT THAT WE'RE SERVING AS AN ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD, THE SAME THAT YOU WOULD HAVE IF YOU LIVED IN A COMMUNITY LIKE EMILIA PARK AND NOBODY CAN BUILD ANYTHING THERE WITHOUT A REVIEW.
WHAT WE'RE MOST CONCERNED ABOUT, IS THAT WE DON'T SCREW UP ANYTHING ABOUT THE HISTORY OF OUR DISTRICT.
BUT WHAT IS HAPPENING HERE IS THAT THIS BOARD AND WHAT WE'VE BEEN WORKING ON FOR THE PAST SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF TIME IS TO ENSURE THAT THE PEOPLE THAT WE HAVE UP HERE HAVE THE SKILLS TO TELL YOU THINGS LIKE MR. POZZETTA AND MS. BRYNES AND MS. KOSACK JUST TOLD YOU SO THAT WE'RE NOT JUST OPINING ABOUT WHAT WE THINK ABOUT THE THING.
IF THEY HAVE THOSE SKILLS, THEN WE OUGHT TO BE LISTENING TO THEM.
THE CONCERN THAT THEY'RE EXPRESSING IS I THINK VALID FOR THEIR INTEGRITY.
THEY'RE NOT INTERESTED IN HAVING SOMEBODY NOW BUILD SOMETHING THEY KNEW WOULDN'T WORK, AND NOW IT DOESN'T WORK.
>> I AGREE. THE MISTAKE HERE IS NEVER OUR INTENTION TO BUILD SOMETHING THAT WASN'T GOING TO WORK.
I'M AN ENGINEER. I WANT THE THING BOLTED TO THE CENTER OF THE EARTH.
THAT WAS NEVER OUR INTENTION TO HAVE SOMETHING FLIMSY.
MY INITIAL SKETCHES ARE THE HUGE MISTAKE HERE, EVIDENTLY.
>> I FULLY UNDERSTAND, AND I APPRECIATE WHAT YOU'RE TRYING TO DO BECAUSE I THINK IT WILL BE BEAUTIFUL.
BUT I HOPE THAT YOU UNDERSTAND WE'RE NOT UP HERE TO BE A PAIN IN YOUR NECK.
WE ARE HERE TO ENSURE THAT THE INTEGRITY OF OUR HISTORIC DISTRICT STAYS THERE THAT THE SAFETY STAYS THERE TOO.
>> HOW DO I GET GUIDANCE ON BUILDING THIS PERGOLA?
>> I THINK THAT'S THE QUESTION HERE, BECAUSE FROM THE VERY BEGINNING, WE THOUGHT, WE WERE EXCITED.
WE'RE GOING TO MARY AGNES WHITE LOVED WHITE ROSES.
WE'RE GOING TO PUT CLIMBING WHITE ROSES ALL OVER IT.
THEY'RE NOT GOING TO BE ANY SPEAKERS OR DISCO BALLS.
IT'S GOING TO BE A BEAUTIFUL PART OF OUR GARDEN AND SO I NEED GUIDANCE.
>> WHILE YOU'RE HERE THE BOARD IS THAT,
[01:10:02]
ALTHOUGH YOU'RE INTENDING TO DO THIS AS AN OWNER BUILDER, ALTHOUGH IT IS A LANDSCAPE FEATURE, THEY'RE GOING TO REQUIRE THAT A DESIGN PROFESSIONAL DESIGN THESE DOCUMENTS FOR THEIR REVIEW.YOU NEED TO CONSULT WITH A DESIGN PROFESSIONAL.
>> ALL I'M ASKING FOR IS A SET OF IMAGES THAT SHOWS ME WHAT ARE YOU ACTUALLY GOING TO BUILD? THAT IS NOT WHAT YOU'RE ACTUALLY GOING TO BUILD.
>> AS AN ENGINEER, MIGHT YOU BE ABLE TO DO THAT YOURSELF WITHOUT HAVING TO HIRE SOMEBODY?
>> THAT'S WHAT THE IMAGE PICTURES WERE.
>> BUT IT'S NOT STRUCTURAL [OVERLAPPING]
>> THAT'S THE ISSUE IT'S NOT STRUCTURAL.
THAT'S MORE BETTER INSPIRATION RIGHT THERE, ULTIMATELY.
BUT I GET IT WE GOT TO HAVE SOME BETTER GOING.
>> SCULLY, I HAVE A PROCESS QUESTION FOR YOU.
LET'S PRETEND THAT THIS GO IT WAS PASSED TONIGHT.
THEN THEY ROUTE IT THROUGH BUILDING AND BUILDING FAILS IT.
THEY NEED, DIFFERENT MEMBERS, WHATEVER.
IT CHANGES SO DRASTICALLY THAT IT LOOKS LIKE NOTHING THAT WE APPROVED, WOULD THEY THEN HAVE TO COME BACK TO HDC WITH THE NEW PLAN?
>> I THINK THAT'S WHAT MIA WAS SAYING.
>> I THINK IT WAS A DRAMATIC CHANGE [OVERLAPPING] WHICH ALL THE SAME, IT IS NOT THE SAME MATERIAL. WHAT'S DESCRIBED.
IT'S NOT THE SAME TYPE OF LUMBER.
IT'S NOT AT ALL THE SAME, THEN YES, IT WOULD HAVE.
>> IT'S ALMOST IF YOU COULD VIEW IT THROUGH THE LENS THAT WE'RE ACTUALLY SAVING YOU TIME TONIGHT BY THIS BECAUSE YOU'RE NOT HAVING TO GO THROUGH ALL OF THAT AND THEN HAVE TO COME BACK TO US IN ANOTHER THREE MONTHS WHEN IT IT IS BECAUSE IT WILL CHANGE DRASTICALLY.
PICTURES HAVE FLAT NUMBERS ON IT.
WE JUST HAVE TO KNOW WHAT WE'RE APPROVING.
IT WOULD BE LIKE YOU GETTING A CHEMICAL FORMULA FROM SOMEBODY, AND THEY HAVE A COUPLE OF THE TUBES AND THE HS IN THE WRONG PLACE, BUT THEY'LL FIGURE IT OUT WHEN THEY PUT THE CHEMICALS TOGETHER.
>> TRY WHITE BEAR. I BET YOU CAN GET A PERGOLA FROM WHITE BEAR.
>> ARE WE SAYING WE'RE CONTINUING THIS?
>> I THINK THAT WOULD HELP THEM THE MOST AS IF WE CONTINUED IT, AND THAT GIVES THEM A CHANCE TO GATHER THEIR.
>> DOES THAT MEAN THEY DON'T HAVE TO PAY MONEY AGAIN TO COME HERE?
I MOVE THAT WE CONTINUE CASE NUMBER HDC 2025-0005 WITHOUT CONDITIONS.
I MOVE THAT HDC MAKE THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACTS AND CONCLUSION A PART OF THE RECORD.
IS THAT CORRECT? [OVERLAPPING] WITH CONDITIONS?
>> CHANGE IT. THAT HDC CASE HDC 2025-005 AS PRESENTED.
IF NOT SUBSTANTIALLY COMPLIED?
>> CONTINUING IT YOU HAVE TO MAKE THOSE FINDINGS.
BECAUSE IT'LL BE ABLE TO COME BACK.
>> THEN I JUST MAKE A MOTION THAT WE CONTINUE CASE NUMBER HDC 2025-005. THANK YOU.
>> TILL THE NEXT MEETING? IS THAT GOING TO BE ENOUGH TIME, GUYS? IN A MONTH. TILL NEXT MONTH.
>> AGGIE SWALES 502 BROOME STREET.
IF WE MADE IT 12 BY 12, WOULD THAT FALL INTO THE DON'T NEED THEIR CATEGORY? DON'T NEED THEIR PERMISSION?
>> I THINK IT'S BECAUSE IT'S FROM THE STREET. I WAS TRYING.
>> I THINK IT'S BECAUSE YOU CAN SEE IT FROM THE STREET THAT IT'S STILL GOING TO HAVE TO COME BACK.
>> I THINK THEY WOULD NOT NEED A BUILDING PERMIT.
>> THEY WOULD NOT NEED A BUILDING.
MAYBE WANT US TO COME BACK WITH A DRAWING WITH EVERYTHING, FLOORING, SCREWS, BOLTS.
>> I THINK KELLY'S GOING TO BE ABLE TO HELP YOU AND THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT.
>> NO, KELLY'S NOT GOING TO BE A TO HELP YOU.
>> WE JUST NEED TO KNOW WHAT ARE YOU ASKING US TO APPROVE? BECAUSE THIS DRAWING THAT YOU'VE PRESENTED LOOKS NOTHING LIKE THE INSPIRATION PHOTOS.
[01:15:01]
FUNDAMENTAL IS NOT BUILDABLE THE WAY IT IS, FOR EXAMPLE. IN WORK.>> YEAH, THAT WAS A MISTAKE. [INAUDIBLE] THAT
>> ANY OTHER COMMENTS? WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.
COULD YOU CALL THE ROLL PLEASE?
>> I BELIEVE THAT THE APPLICANT FOR ONE THAT WE POSTPONED IS HERE,
[4.1 HDC 2025-0001 - LAUREN KELLY, AGENT FOR OLD TOWN PROPERTIES, LOT 7 BLOCK 5 SAN FERNANDO STREET (Part 2 of 2)]
IS THAT CORRECT, MR. KAVANAGH?>> [LAUGHTER] WELL, CONGRATULATIONS.
>> WE DID SOME DISCUSSION, AND WE DO WANT TO ASK YOU SOME QUESTIONS.
IF YOU COULD COME UP, THAT WOULD BE FABULOUS.
>> WELL SEE, WE SURPRISE YOU QUICKER THAN YOU THINK.
>> I'M PROUD OF YOU. KEEPING THINGS MOVING.
>> WE'RE GOING BACK GUYS TO WHAT'S THE NUMBER, MAYOR, 2025-0001?
>> TRY TO DO A LITTLE INSTRUCTION AGAIN.
>> I THINK EVERYBODY REMEMBERS IT.
>> MR. POZZETTA, IF YOU WANT TO START WITH YOUR QUESTIONS, THAT WOULD BE GREAT.
>> I THINK PAT'S FIRST QUESTION WAS REGARDING THE COORDINATING THE-
>> I ASSUME THEY'RE THE SAME EXACTLY LIKE THE ONES THAT ARE ON THE HOUSE.
>> WELL, THEY'RE NOT. IF YOU LOOK AT THE PICTURE, THE ORIGINAL HOUSE, IT APPEARS THERE ARE 1/2.
THEN IN THE NEW PART OF THE HOUSE, IT LOOKS LIKE THEY'RE 4/4.
>> IT LOOKS LIKE IT'S RENDERED WRONG.
>> I THINK THEY'RE RENDERED WRONG.
>> I AGREE. BECAUSE ON YOUR HOUSE, THEY'RE 2/2 IN THE ORIGINAL AND THROUGHOUT EVERYTHING.
>> THEY'RE ALL GOING TO BE THE SAME?
>> THEY'RE ALL WILL BE THE SAME.
>> I DIDN'T CATCH IT WHEN I LOOKED [OVERLAPPING]
>> THE CASE CURED MY QUESTION.
>> NO OTHER QUESTIONS, TAMMI, DID YOU HAVE SOME?
>> WE TALKED ABOUT HOW THE ADDITION IS ATTACHED TO THE ORIGINAL STRUCTURE.
ARE THERE ANY ORIGINAL EXTERIOR WALLS OR HISTORIC ELEMENTS THAT CAN BE ENTOMBED?
>> IT WAS SURPRISED TO US WHEN WE TOOK THE PORCH OFF, THE ORIGINAL SIDING WAS THERE.
WE'LL BE ABLE TO HAVE THAT FOR THAT PART OF THE HOUSE.
>> THEY'LL STAY ON IT AND I NOTICED WENT THERE'S A TOMBSTONE DOOR ON THE BACK.
>> WE'RE KEEPING THE HARD FLOORS THAT ARE THERE, THE PARK PINE FLOORS THAT INSIDE KEEPING THE MANTLE, TRYING TO KEEP AS MUCH AS WE CAN.
>> THAT'S GOOD. WHAT ELSE DO WE HAVE, JIM?
>> I KNOW DYLAN HAD AND REALLY, I FIND THIS USEFUL FOR FUTURE GENERATIONS, IF YOU CAN PHOTO DOCUMENT, ESPECIALLY THE BACK WHERE WE'RE ATTACHING ON.
SEE THE EXISTING. WE HAVE A GOOD RECORD OF WHAT WAS THERE ORIGINALLY.
WHO KNOWS WHO'S GOING TO REFERENCE BACK ON AND LOOK AT THAT.
>> THEN WE WERE LOOKING AT GETTING SOME DIFFERENTIATION BETWEEN THE NEW SIDING AND TRIM VERSUS THE OLD.
EVEN IF IT'S A SUBTLE THING, CHANGING THE REVEAL WE HAVE REVEAL.
>> WHEN THEY STOPPED MAKING ARTISAN, WE BOUGHT A BUNCH OF ARTISAN.
WE HAVE ENOUGH ARTISAN TO DO THE ADDITION, WHICH IS, THICKER THAN THE OLD AND MORE EXPOSURE.
THEY'LL BE A DIFFERENT SIDING OF WE KEEP IN THE REST OF THE SIDING.
[01:20:02]
>> WHICH DIRECTION IS JUST THE FRONT OF THE HOUSE BASED?
>> NORTH. THE WEST ELEVATION, THE ONE WHERE IT APPEARS THAT THE EXISTING WALL AND THE NEW ADDITION, THEY ARE IN ALIGNMENT? WHAT I WOULD PREFER TO SEE IS THAT THERE BE SOME A STEP BACK OR A LITTLE BIT OF A JOG AND IT CAN BE VERY SUBTLE, BUT JUST ENOUGH TO DIFFERENTIATE BETWEEN THE NEW ADDITION AND THE EXISTING BUILDING AS OPPOSED TO JUST THAT TRIM BOARD.
>> WE COULD PUT A VERTICAL PIECE AND THEN THE WIDER SIDING.
>> CAN YOU STEP IT IN LIKE A COUPLE OF INCHES?
>> I THINK TO STEP IT IN AND LOSE ON THOSE LOTS.
THERE MIGHT BE SOME ROOM TO STEP IT OUT A COUPLE OF INCHES.
WE WERE TRYING TO MAKE THE EAST SIDE HAVE THE MOST OPEN CLOSURE THAT WE PUT IN.
IT'S GOT A TRELLIS ON IT. I ENVISION THE FINES AND VEGETATION.
IT'S A GREEN PART OF THAT SIDE.
TRYING TO KEEP THAT AS BIG AS POSSIBLE.
>> I DON'T WANT TO SPEAK FOR YOU, VERONICA.
BUT I THINK YOU'D PROBABLY BE HAPPY WITH TWO INCHES.
[OVERLAPPING] JUST ENOUGH JUST A LITTLE STEP.
>> MAYOR, IF IT'S GOING TO THROW OFF THE DIMENSIONS OF THE PLANE, YOU COULD JUST BEEF UP THAT ONE EXTERIOR WALL.
JUST THE WALL SECTION ITSELF, JUST BEEF IT.
>> AS FAR AS THE KEEPING OF THE THE LOTS, BUT BEYOND THERE'S REALLY NO.
IT'LL DO A LITTLE PLUCKINESS WITH THE ROOF AND ALL THAT, YES.
BUT YEAH, I WAS ENVISIONING A VERTICAL TURBINE AND THEN THE DIFFERENT SIDING, WHICH WOULD DIFFERENTIATE IT.
>> I THINK THE ARTISAN SIDING IS GOING TO LOOK GREAT, BUT I THINK MAYBE JUST TO HELP IT DISTINGUISH.
IF THE EXISTING HOUSE IS A SIX INCH REVEAL, MAYBE DO THE ARTISAN EITHER FIVE OR SEVEN, SOMETHING JUST TO MAKE IT A LITTLE.
>> THE ORIGINAL SIGHTING HAS LIKE FOUR AND A HALF OR FIVE.
>> WITH THE ARTISAN WILL BE MORE THAN THAT?
>> I THINK THEY'RE REALLY AWESOME.
>> IT'S THICKER TOO. [OVERLAPPING]
THAT'S WHAT WE USED ON ALL THE HOUSES WE'VE DONE.
>> IS THAT ADDRESSED EVERYBODY'S CONCERN?
>> IT'S THE WEST SIDE OF THE HOUSE.
THE EAST SIDE OF THE HOUSE IS THAT WOULD TO BE WHERE THE DRIVEWAY IS?
>> THE DRIVEWAY AND THE [INAUDIBLE].
SINGLE CAR GARAGE, NO TWO STORY GUEST/RENTAL PROPERTY.
>> WHAT? THAT'S NOT KEEPING WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD. WOW.
>> ANY OTHER COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS FOR MR. KAVANAGH?
>> WHERE IT SAYS, ABSENTEE OWNER SUITE. [LAUGHTER]
>> THANK YOU SIR. BOARD DISCUSSION.
>> I THINK REALLY, IS THIS FILE? I WANT TO CHAT ABOUT WHAT VERONICA'S IDEA IS AND HOW IT APPLIES.
I THINK RIGHT NOW THEIR INTENT, ESPECIALLY LOOKING AT THAT RIGHT SIDE ELEVATION BECAUSE THAT'S THE ONE IN QUESTION.
THE INTENT IS TO PUT A BV_2 BY VERTICAL PIECE OF TRIM TO CREATE THAT STEP BETWEEN OLD AND NEW.
>> IS THAT GOING TO FLY OR WE'RE SAYING TO DO MORE THAN THAT.
>> IT'D BE THE FIRST I'M SEEING.
[01:25:03]
I'M SORRY. [OVERLAPPING]>> IF THE NEW THING WAS STEPPED BACK, IT WOULD ALMOST APPEAR LIKE A HYPHENATED BUILDING, WHERE YOU'VE GOT YOUR TWO MASSES AND WE HAVE YOUR INSTEAD OF THIS FLAT THING WE HAVE TWO BITES STUCK ON IT.
>> I THINK IT'S GOING TO LOOK ODD, EVEN WITH THE CHANGE IN SIDING TO HAVE IT ALL ON THE SAME PLANE AND THEN JUST HAVE THAT VERTICAL PIECE THAT DIFFERENTIATES IT.
AGAIN, THE CHANGE IN PLANE VERTICALLY COULD BE AN INCH OR TWO, JUST ENOUGH THAT IT READS, IT READS AS DIFFERENT.
>> YOU HAVE THE DIFFERENCE IN THE ROOF LINE.
>> ARE YOU AMENABLE TO HAVING A PLANE CHANGE THERE?
>> I THINK THAT WOULD BE IN KEEPING WITH YOUR STANDARDS.
EVERYTHING IT'S REALLY WELL DESIGNED SO I THINK IT WILL MAKE IT BETTER.
>> IT'S GREAT THAT YOU'RE SAYING THAT, OF COURSE.
>> ANY OTHER COMMENTS HERE? OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING.
DOES ANYONE HAVE ANY COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC? SEEING NONE, CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
>> I MOVE TO APPROVE CASE NUMBER HDC 2025-0001 WITHOUT CONDITIONS.
I MOVE THAT HDC WITH CONDITIONS, WE WANT THE ONE TO TWO INCH SETBACK ON THE MIDDLE SECTION OF THE HOUSE AND I MOVE THAT THE HDC MAKE THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AS A PARTING [INAUDIBLE].
THAT HDC CASE HDC 2025-0001 AS PRESENTED, IS SUBSTANTIALLY COMPLIANT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, SECRETARY OF INTERIOR STANDARD AND THE OLD TOWN FERNANDINA PRESERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT GUIDELINES TO WARRANT FINAL APPROVAL AT THIS TIME.
>> CAN I ASK A QUESTION TO PAT? WOULD YOU CONSIDER ADDING ON THE CONDITIONS, THE OTHER THINGS WE DISCUSSED? LIKE, GET US THE PHOTO DOCUMENTATION WE REQUESTED.
I THINK IT MAY ALREADY BE DONE, BUT IF WE CAN JUST GET IT IN THERE.
>> TO DIFFERENTIATE THE OLD LAP CITING FROM THE NEW LAP CITING BY CHANGING THE SPACING, EITHER A LITTLE BIT MORE OR A LITTLE BIT LESS, THEY CAN DECIDE.
I HEARD TAMMI BRING UP THAT TOMBSTONE DOOR.
I WOULD JUST ASK THAT THEY REUSE IT IN THE HOUSE SOMEWHERE.
IT COULD BE INTERIOR OR WHATEVER, BUT AS LONG AS THAT HISTORIC PIECE OF MATERIAL IS STILL PART OF THE HOUSE, THAT'D BE WONDERFUL.
>> MORGAN, DID YOU GET ALL THAT?
>> IT'S RECORDED. I HAVE THAT ADDED AS PART OF THE CONDITIONS.
>> NO WAY I CAN REMEMBER ALL THAT. [LAUGHTER]
>> I'LL SECOND THAT. [OVERLAPPING] TAKE THAT AS A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT.
>> FRIENDLY AMENDMENT. WE HAVE A MOTION BY GASS AND THE SECOND BY POZZETTA.
COULD YOU CALL THE ROLL. CALL THE ROLL, PLEASE.
>> MR. KAVANAGH, THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE.
NOW, NEXT ON OUR AGENDA IS BOARD BUSINESS,
[5. BOARD BUSINESS]
CORRECT? AM I ON THE RECORD?>> WE HAVE FOLLOW UP DISCUSSION ON REVIEWING WINDOWS AND APPROVED LIST.
>> WHERE IS THAT RECONSIDERATION LDC, THERE'S NO FILE.
>> THERE'S NOTHING ATTACHED TO IT.
>> THAT'S FOR THE SEVEN MEMBER BOARD.
>> YOU'RE LOOKING AT THE WRONG THING THERE, [INAUDIBLE].
>> SORRY. THE FIRST ITEM WE HAVE IS ASKING US TO DISCUSS ONE MORE TIME, THE POSSIBILITY OF MOVING FROM
[01:30:05]
A FIVE MEMBER BOARD WITH TWO ALTERNATES TO A SEVEN MEMBER BOARD.I DON'T KNOW IF ANY OF YOU SAW THE COMMISSIONER MAKING OR TALKING ABOUT, AT LEAST, MAKING CHANGES TO MANY OF THE ADVISORY BOARDS IN THE CITY.
I DID TALK TO A COUPLE OF COMMISSIONERS WHO ARE VERY MUCH FEELING THAT WE NEED TO FIGURE THIS OUT SO THAT'S WHY I BROUGHT IT BACK.
THE ONLY ISSUE THAT I THINK THAT WE HAVE; HEATHER, FOR YOUR INFO.
THE ONLY ISSUE THAT WE HAVE IS WHEN IT COMES TO A SUPER MAJORITY REQUIRED FOR A VARIANCE.
KELLY HAD DONE SOME RESEARCH FOR US AND FOUND THAT WE HARDLY HAD ANY VARIANCES IN THE PAST TWO YEARS.
IF WE GO TO A FIVE MEMBER BOARD, WE NEED FIVE PEOPLE HERE TO VOTE ON A VARIANCE.
THE CONCERN IS THAT IF WE DON'T HAVE FIVE MEMBERS IN ATTENDANCE, THEN THAT CASE WOULD HAVE TO WAIT.
OUR RESEARCH SHOWS THAT WE DON'T HAVE A WHOLE LOT OF THOSE, NONE IN THE PAST COUPLE OF YEARS AND THE QUESTION GOES TO US.
CAN WE MANAGE THIS? CAN WE MANAGE HAVING FIVE PEOPLE HERE WHENEVER WE HAVE A VARIANCE? HOW MUCH NOTICE WOULD WE GET THAT THERE WOULD BE A VARIANCE ON THE AGENDA, TYPICALLY?
>> WE CAN TELL YOU THE MEETING PRIOR [INAUDIBLE] THERE IS VARIANCE ON THAT AGENDA.
>> THERE IS. YOU'RE TELLING US NOW.
[BACKGROUND] THE WAY THINGS ARE RIGHT NOW, WE WOULD NEED A MINIMUM OF FOUR PEOPLE HERE IN ORDER TO ADDRESS A VARIANCE.
>> ALL FOUR WOULD HAVE TO APPROVE THE VARIANCE FOR IT TO PASS.
>> IN THE FUTURE, IF WE WERE TO CHANGE THIS, WE NEED A MINIMUM OF FIVE PEOPLE HERE AND ALL FIVE WOULD NEED TO APPROVE IT.
NOW, THE RESEARCH THAT KELLY DID SHOWED THAT, ALL THOSE VARIANCE APPROVALS IN THE PAST, WHICH WERE A COUPLE OF YEARS AGO AND BACK WERE ALL UNANIMOUS VOTE.
MY FEELING IS THAT THIS IS NOT A BIG ENOUGH WIGGLE TO STOP US FROM BEING ABLE TO GO WITH SEVEN REGULAR MEMBERS, BUT THAT'S MY FEELING AND I WOULD LIKE FOR US TO HAVE A DECISION MADE TODAY BECAUSE WHATEVER DECISION GETS MADE TODAY, IF IT'S TO GO WITH SEVEN, WE'D HAVE TO SEND IT TO THE PAB AND THEN THE PAB HAS TO DISCUSS IT AND APPROVE IT OR NOT.
IF THEY APPROVE IT, THEN IT HAS TO GO TO THE COMMISSION.
BY THE TIME WE'RE DONE WITH THIS, MY CHILDREN WILL BE BACK FOR CHRISTMAS.
I UNDERSTAND THAT THERE ARE CONCERNS AND I'M NOT TRYING TO BELITTLE THEM.
>> I WOULD SAY THAT ONE CONCERN TO ADDRESS, IF IT WAS NOT HAVING ENOUGH PEOPLE HERE FOR A VARIANCE, WE'RE INCREASING OUR BOARD SIZE BY 20% SO ALREADY WE'RE STARTING WITH A BIGGER POOL SO IF WE HAVE ONE ABSENT OR TWO ABSENT, WE'RE STILL WE'LL HAVE FIVE PEOPLE HERE SO WE COULD PASS.
>> MY SUGGESTION WOULD BE IF YOU'RE GOING TO EXPAND IT TO SEVEN VOTING MEMBERS THAT IN ORDER TO PASS A VARIANCE, YOU COULD WRITE THE CODE THAT 80% OF THE VOTING MEMBERS AT THAT MEETING THAT CONSTITUTE A QUORUM WOULD BE REQUIRED TO PASS THE VARIANCE.
BECAUSE I GET 80%, THAT'S FOUR OUT OF FIVE.
BUT IF YOU DO THE MATH, YOU NEED AT LEAST 80%, THAT MEANS THAT WOULD BE FIVE OUT OF SIX OR SIX OUT OF SEVEN DEPENDING ON HOW MANY PEOPLE YOU HAVE THERE, JUST BECAUSE YOU DON'T HAVE A PARTIAL PERSON FOR THE VOTE THE WAY THAT 80% WORKS.
THAT JUST MAKES IT A LOT MORE FLEXIBLE TO ACCOUNT FOR IF YOU ONLY HAVE FIVE OR IF YOU HAVE SIX, OR IF YOU HAVE SEVEN, THERE'S SOME CERTAINTY IN THE NUMBER OF VOTES YOU MAY NEED.
NOW FROM THE APPLICANT STANDPOINT, THEY MAY SAY, WELL, IT'S EASIER TO CONVINCE FOUR OUT OF FIVE THAN IT IS SIX OUT OF SEVEN.
[01:35:02]
BUT IF THAT'S THE WAY THAT YOU'RE GOING TO ADDRESS IT AND KNOWING THAT YOUR QUORUM IS GOING TO BE OF A CERTAIN NUMBER, THAT YOU UTILIZE THAT AS A BASELINE OR A REQUIREMENT.>> EIGHTY PERCENT OF THE QUORUM. THAT'S GOOD.
BY DOING THAT, WE'RE NOT PUTTING A HARD NUMBER ON IT LIKE FIVE BECAUSE IT COULD VARY BASED ON HOW MANY PEOPLE ARE IN IT.
>> THAT WOULD BE A WAY TO ADDRESS IT BECAUSE I MEAN, AS IT'S WRITTEN RIGHT NOW, THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE CONTEMPLATES THERE BEING FIVE MEMBERS AND YOU NEED FOUR MEMBERS TO APPROVE A VARIANCE SO YOU WOULD BE ADAPTING IT FOR THOSE PURPOSES WITH THE HDC TO HOW MANY VOTES DO YOU NEED? IT'S RIGHT THERE, YOU NEED 80%.
>> CAN YOU SET IT UP SO THAT ANYTIME WE HAVE A VARIANCE COME BEFORE THE BOARD THAT ALTERNATES, GET FULL VOTING RIGHTS? WILL IT BE CHANGED?
>> THE PLAN WITH THIS IS TO ABOLISH THE ALTERNATES.
>> I KNOW. BUT IF WE DON'T ABOLISH IT, AND WE KEPT FIVE MEMBERS WITH TWO ALTERNATES.
>> THE QUESTION, IF I UNDERSTAND, IS THAT COULD YOU GRANT VOTING RIGHTS TO ALTERNATES ONLY IN THE CASE OF A VARIANCE?
THAT WOULD BE A LITTLE BIT MORE COMPLICATED TO WRITE THAN GOING THE OTHER WAY.
>> WHAT IS THE CONCERN OF THE COMMISSIONERS AND HOW MANY BOARDS ARE WE TALKING ABOUT HERE? WELL, THE QUASI JUDICIAL BOARDS HAVE NOT BEEN DISCUSSED FOR CHANGING.
THE CONCERN THAT I'VE HEARD IS, WHY DO YOU NEED ALTERNATES?
>> WELL, THE PROPOSAL THAT WAS DISCUSSED BY COMMISSIONER MANJU DID SPECIFICALLY ADDRESS OR HAD THE IDEA OF COMBINING THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT WITH THE PAB SO THEN YOU WOULD BE MESSING WITH ONE OF YOUR QUASI JUDICIAL BOARDS AND ALSO ABOLISHING THE CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD IN FAVOR OF A SPECIAL MAGISTRATE.
THE QUASI JUDICIAL ONES WOULD BE IMPACTED UNDER THAT CONCEPT WITH HER, BUT THE OTHERS ARE COMBINING SOME OF THE ADVISORY BOARDS LIKE HAVING A WATERFRONT ADVISORY BOARD RATHER THAN A MARINA AND A CRA ADVISORY BOARD, FOLDING AND SUN SETTING THE GOLF COURSE ADVISORY BOARD AND PUTTING IT BASICALLY TO PARKS AND RANK ADVISORY BOARD.
THOSE WERE THE BASIS OF HER CONCEPT THAT WAS DISCUSSED TUESDAY NIGHT.
>> THE ISSUES THAT WERE BROUGHT UP TUESDAY NIGHT AND I ONLY MENTION THEM BECAUSE THERE ARE DISCUSSIONS GOING ON ABOUT THE BOARDS BECAUSE THE HDC WAS NOT DISCUSSED ON TUESDAY NIGHT.
>> THERE WEREN'T ANY CHANGES CONTEMPLATED TO THE HDC NOW.
>> WHAT I'M TRYING TO DO IS TO ENSURE THAT, WE HAVE SO FEW, THE POOL OF PEOPLE THAT WE CAN PICK FROM WHO HAVE REAL EXPERIENCE AND BACKGROUND IN PRESERVATION AND THEN ARCHITECTURE IS SMALL.
I DON'T WANT US TO ELIMINATE THE ABILITY TO HEAR WHAT THOSE FOLKS HAVE TO SAY OR VOTE ON BECAUSE THEY'RE SITTING IN AN ALTERNATE POSITION FOR A YEAR. THAT'S MY DEAL.
>> I THINK ALSO IT SOMEWHAT STIFLES APPLICANTS.
BECAUSE I REMEMBER WHEN I WAS THINKING ABOUT GETTING ON THE BOARD, IT WAS A LONG.
THE FOLKS THAT WERE ON IT, WERE ON IT LIKE IN PERPETUITY.
I WAS LIKE, I'M NEVER GOING TO GET ON THAT BOARD.
MAYBE WE'LL ACTUALLY BE EXPANDING OUR GENE POOL.
>> THAT'S POSSIBLE. I JUST FEEL LIKE THERE'S MORE PLUSES TO IT THAN THERE ARE, ESPECIALLY IF WE CAN USE THIS 80% RULE ON THE VARIANCE.
>> I THINK THAT ADDRESSED THIS.
MY ONLY CONCERN WAS I JUST WANTED TO UNDERSTAND HOW WILL IT OPERATE, ESPECIALLY WITH THE VARIANCE ISSUE, BECAUSE THEY'RE FREQUENTLY VERY CONTENTIOUS WHEN THEY COME UP HERE AND THERE'S A WHOLE LOT OF TALKING BACK AND FORTH TO REALLY UNDERSTAND WHAT ARE THEY ASKING FOR, AND WHAT ARE WE GIVING THEM.
[OVERLAPPING] I THINK THAT THE HARRISON POOLE 80% VERSION MAKES A WHOLE LOT OF SENSE TO ME, AND CERTAINLY SEEMS VIABLE WITH SEVEN MEMBERS WORKING AT IT.
THERE'S GOING TO BE MONTHS WHERE ONE OR TWO OF US AREN'T HERE, JUST LIFE HAPPENS.
WITH THE 80% METHOD, IT'S NOT GOING TO PREVENT US FROM BEING ABLE TO ADDRESS A VARIANCE WHEN IT POPS UP.
[01:40:07]
THE ONLY THING THAT I THINK OF IS I REMEMBER THE FIRST DAY I SAT DOWN AT THAT END THERE, AND IF A VARIANCE HAD COME UP AND I WAS GOING TO BE TOLD I HAVE TO VOTE ON IT, THAT'D BE A LITTLE BIT FRAUGHT [OVERLAPPING] AND SCARY, BUT THAT'S NEITHER HERE NOR THERE.>> BUT WE'RE A NICER, KINDER, GENTLER BOARD NOW.
>> WE ALL HELP EACH OTHER OUT.
>> THEY HAVE QUESTIONS. [LAUGHTER]
>> THEY DISAGREE. IN FACT, I WAS GOING TO JUST THROW OUT THERE, YOU DON'T HAVE TO HAVE A SUPER MAJORITY REQUIREMENT.
YOU CAN JUST DECIDE THAT A SIMPLE MAJORITY IS ALL THAT IT TAKES TO APPROVE A VARIANCE.
THAT CAN JUST AS WELL BE WRITTEN INTO THIS REVISED SECTION OF CODE THAT APPLIES TO THE HISTORIC DISTRICT OR TO APPLY TO THE NEW PAB BOARD.
THAT'S A DECISION OF THE COMMUNITY TO MAKE.
YOU COULD RECOMMEND A SIMPLE MAJORITY IS ALL IT TAKES TO APPROVE A VARIANCE.
>> THAT'S A LITTLE SCARY THOUGH.
>> I THINK A VARIANCE IS [OVERLAPPING]
>> IT IS A BIG DEAL. I WAS JUST TRYING TO DO IN MY HEAD.
IF THERE'S SEVEN OF US UP HERE, FIVE OF US HAVE TO APPROVE, IS THAT 80%?
>> THEN IF THERE'S SIX OF US UP HERE?
>> FIVE HAVE TO APPROVE IF THERE'S SIX?
>> BECAUSE 6*80% WOULD BE 4.8.
>> THEN FIVE IS FOUR, AND THEN IF THERE'S A QUORUM OF JUST FOUR, ALL FOUR WOULD HAVE TO.
>> WHICH IS NO DIFFERENT FROM [INAUDIBLE].
>> RIGHT NOW, IT REQUIRES A DIFFERENT [NOISE] VOTE OF FOUR.
>> [OVERLAPPING] IT ALWAYS REQUIRES AN AFFIRMATIVE VOTE OF FOUR.
>> NO MATTER HOW MANY MEMBERS YOU HAVE, IT TAKES FOUR.
IF YOU HAVE 4, 5, 6, OR 7 THERE AT THE MEETING, IT COULD BE FOUR.
>> I THINK KELLY POINTED OUT WHEN WE HAD OUR WORKSHOP THAT THERE'S BEEN VERY FEW VARIANCES.
I THINK, ALMOST ALL OR IF NOT ALL, WERE ALL UNANIMOUS OVER THE LAST, AT LEAST I THINK WE LOOKED BACK FROM 2020 UNTIL NOW.
>> KELLY, WHAT VARIANCES COME BEFORE THE HDC?
>> THEY REALLY DO HAVE TO HAVE A HARDSHIP ASSOCIATED WITH THEM.
THERE'S SOMETHING PECULIAR TO THAT PROPERTY THAT MAKES THEM UNABLE TO COMPLY.
THEY CAN'T JUST DESIGN THEIR WAY OUT OF.
YOU'VE SEEN THINGS LIKE LEGACY SIGNS BEING RESTORED.
I THINK THAT WAS ONE THAT YOU SAW ON STANDARD MARINE THAT THERE WAS A VARIANCE ASSOCIATED WITH THAT.
>> I KNOW THERE WAS A SETBACK TO ACCOMMODATE A HERITAGE TREE, OR AT LEAST A VERY OLD TREE WAS ONE THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN, I THINK THAT WAS HDC.
IT WAS TO ALLOW THE DESIGN TO REALLY BUILD AROUND THIS BEAUTIFUL OAK TREE.
BUT IN DOING SO, IT WAS VIOLATING THE SETBACKS.
>> KEEP IN MIND, THIS COURT HAS THE SIX CRITERIA FOR HARDSHIP AND ADDITIONAL DESIGN CONSIDERATION STIPULATED.
YOU HAVE A LITTLE BIT MORE LATITUDE AND HOW YOU CONSIDER THEM AS IT RELATES TO DESIGN IN SERVICE OF THE HISTORIC DISTRICT.
>> I'M SAY I WAS ON THE BOA FOR 19 YEARS, AND WE USED TO TELL APPLICANTS WHEN THEY CAME BEFORE THE BOA.
IF THERE WERE ONLY FOUR OF US PRESENT ON A FIVE MEMBER BOARD, I WOULD TELL THEM RIGHT UP FRONT, BECAUSE THERE'S ONLY FOUR OF US HERE TONIGHT, WE ALL HAVE TO AGREE.
IF YOU'D LIKE TO WAIT TILL NEXT MONTH, WE WILL CERTAINLY LET YOU WAIT TILL NEXT MONTH, IT'S UP TO YOU.
SOME WOULD, AND SOME WOULDN'T.
NEVER NOT LIKE THEY HAD TO PAY AGAIN, WE WOULD JUST PUT THEM ON NEXT MONTH IF THEY DIDN'T WANT TO GAMBLE.
>> THAT DOES HAPPEN EVEN TODAY EVEN WITH A FULL BOARD ON THE BOA.
COULD BE THAT YOU HAVE MEMBERS WHO ARE SICK OR SOMEBODY CONFLICTED OUT.
THERE'S ONLY FOUR BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT, AND WE DON'T KNOW THAT UNTIL THE DAY OF THE HEARING.
AT THAT POINT, WE DO GIVE THE APPLICANT THE OPPORTUNITY TO REQUEST A CONTINUANCE.
>> OF COURSE, THEY ARE CHOOSY THEY WANT TO BUILD A CADILLAC ON BOTH SIDE OF LINE.
>> WELL, I THINK STAFF HAS BEEN VERY GOOD AT DRIVING HOME TO APPLICANTS THAT THERE ARE SIX CRITERIA THAT TECHNICALLY, YOU HAVE TO MEET ALL SIX OF THEM TO GET A YES VOTE.
WHEN PEOPLE COME, AND WE HAVE A LOT OF REALLY GOOD, HIGH QUALITY PROFESSIONALS THAT HELP THESE APPLICANTS
[01:45:03]
PUT TOGETHER A PRESENTATION BEFORE THEY EVER GET TO THAT PODIUM AND PRESENT TO US.WE'VE BEEN FORTUNATE THAT QUITE A FEW OF THESE VARIANCE REQUESTS HAVE COME OR THEY'VE MET FIVE OUT OF THE SIX OR FOUR OUT OF THE SIX, AND WE'VE BEEN ABLE TO DELIBERATE AND FIGURE OUT A WAY TO GET TO THE FINISH LINE.
THAT DOESN'T MEAN THAT THE NEXT ONE WE SEE WON'T HAVE THAT, BUT FORTUNATELY, KELLY'S BEEN THERE MAKING SURE THAT PEOPLE UNDERSTAND IT.
IT'S NOT AN EASY PROCESS AND YOU HAVE TO PUT THE WORK IN.
>> WELL, I THINK THAT ESPECIALLY AFTER TODAY, WE'RE BUILDING A REPUTATION FOR US.
>> WHAT KIND OF REPUTATION ARE WE BUILDING.
>> DON'T GO IN THERE WITHOUT DRAWINGS.
DO WE HAVE CONSENSUS THAT WE CAN ASK STAFF TO PUT THIS ON THE PAB AGENDA TO REMOVE ALTERNATES FROM THIS BOARD AND MAKE IT SEVEN REGULAR MEMBERS, IS THAT SOMETHING WE'RE ALL OKAY WITH OR NO?
>> WELL, YOU DON'T HAVE MY CONSENSUS.
>> WELL, THEN WE NEED TO DO IT AS A VOTE.
>> DO I HAVE A MOTION TO MOVE OUR MEMBERSHIP FROM FIVE REGULAR MEMBERS AND TWO ALTERNATES TO SEVEN REGULAR MEMBERS.
>> I'LL MAKE A MOTION. I MOVED THAT WE ADVANCE THIS ON TO HAVE SEVEN REGULAR MEMBERS.
ADVANCE WHATEVER THE CHANNELS ARE PAB NEXT OR WHATEVER.
I'LL BE INTERESTED TO HEAR THEIR FEEDBACK. YES, VOTE.
>> PETE'S GOING TO WANT TO WORKSHOP.
>> WELL, THEY DID THIS A COUPLE OF YEARS A GO.
>> WE HAVE A MOTION FROM KOSACK AND SECOND FROM POZZETTA, COULD YOU CALL A ROW PLEASE.
>> DO I NEED TO ASK THE ALTERNATES TO VOTE ON THIS ONE OR NO. MEMBER KOSACK?
>> THE NEXT STEP. ALL WE'RE GOING TO DO IS WE'LL DRAFT THE LANGUAGE AND BRING IT BACK AT YOUR MEETING SO THAT YOU CAN REVIEW IT BEFORE WE BRING IT TO THE PLANNING BOARD FOR THEIR CONSIDERATION.
THAT WOULD BE KNOW EXACTLY WHAT PRESENTED AT THAT NEXT APPOINTING PROCESS.
TO BE CLEAR THAT ITEM WILL NOT GO TO THEM FORMALLY FOR CONSIDERATION UNTIL JUNE.
THEN I THINK THAT'S ONE OF THE TYPICAL LDC AMENDMENTS, MID IS A PROCESS TWICE A YEAR, JUNE AND IN DECEMBER.
THAT WON'T BE FINALIZED UNTIL AUGUST.
>> THANK YOU. MR. POOLE, THANK YOU.
>> YES. I WAS JUST LOOKING AT THE REST OF THE AGENDA AND IF I'M NOT [OVERLAPPING]
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. HAVE A WONDERFUL EVENING.
>> ALRIGHTY. HCC WINDOW SURVEY AND APPROVED WINDOW LIST.
WHAT WOULD YOU LIKE TO TELL US?
>> THIS IS ON THE AGENDA CLASS TO REALLY LOOK AT WHAT OUR EXISTING SURVEY REQUIREMENTS SAY AND DISCUSS THE FORM ITSELF AND WHAT OUR CURRENT PROCESS.
>> I DID A LITTLE BIT OF RESEARCH BECAUSE IMITATION IS THE FINEST FORM OF FLATTERY.
I WENT TO DUVAL COUNTY HISTORICAL SOCIETY AND SAW WHAT THEIR WINDOW SURVEY LOOKS LIKE, PRETTY SIMILAR TO WHAT OURS, ALTHOUGH THEY DON'T ACTUALLY LIST THE CRITERIA FOR DEGRADATION, WHICH I THOUGHT WAS INTERESTING.
THE ONLY TAKEAWAY I GOT FROM THEIR LIST AND I'LL FIND THEY ACTUALLY HAD, DIFFERENT THINGS THAT THEY SUGGEST TO HOMEOWNERS TRY FIRST BEFORE THEY GO ELSEWHERE AND ACTUALLY SHOW, HEY, PAINT YOUR WINDOWS, PUTT OFF YOUR WINDOWS, SO ACTUALLY GIVES THEM THE OPTION TO DO IT THEMSELVES.
I THOUGHT WHAT WAS INTERESTING IS THAT BEFORE REPLACING A WINDOW, THEY WANTED AN ATTEMPT TO REPAIR IT FIRST, WHICH I THOUGHT WAS IN LINE WITH OUR THINKING ABOUT COMPOSITE DECKING VERSUS WOOD DECKING IS THAT, WE'D LIKE TO SEE SOME ATTEMPTS AT PRESERVING THOSE SAME MATERIALS BEFORE MOVING TO MODERN DAY SOLUTION.
[01:50:05]
THEN CHARLESTON WAS PRETTY EXTREME.THEY WERE SAYING TO USE THE SAME MATERIAL AND THAT WAS ABOUT IT.
THERE WASN'T A WINDOW SURVEY. THERE WASN'T A CHECKLIST.
MAYBE THAT'S PART OF THEIR APPLICATION PROCESS.
>> I HAD REACHED OUT TO THEM ABOUT, AND I WAS WAITING TO HEAR BACK.
BUT OUTSIDE OF THAT, THAT WAS THE RESEARCH I DID.
I'M PROBABLY GOING TO NEED TO CONTINUE THIS BECAUSE I DIDN'T HAVE A TON OF TIME TO ACTUALLY PUT TOGETHER A FORMAL CHECKLIST.
IT WAS DEFINITELY THE INFORMATION GATHERING PHASE.
IT DEPENDS ON HOW SPECIFIC WE WANT TO GET.
ARE WE GOING TO DEMAND THAT I LIKE THE ATTEMPT OF REPAIR FIRST BEFORE MOVING TO A REPLACEMENT? I THINK WE COULD AND THEY DID HAVE A CAVEAT THAT UNLESS THE WINDOW IS DEEMED BEYOND REPAIR BY STAFF.
WHETHER THAT'S STAFF APPROVAL OR US, I THINK IS GOOD DISCUSSION, BUT HOW FAR ARE WE GOING TO GO WITH THE REQUIREMENTS? ARE WE USING TRADITIONAL MATERIALS, SAME WOOD? ARE WE ALLOWING, THEY HAVE I KNOW AUSTIN HISTORICAL, I'VE TALKED TO THEM ABOUT, ACETYLATED WOOD PRODUCTS THAT HAVE, 50 YEAR LIFETIME GUARANTEES, AND THAT'S WHAT THEY USE TO REPAIR SASHES AND MOUNTAINS.
I DON'T KNOW THE COST OF THAT, BUT THAT'S WHAT THEY DO, SO OR THEY'LL USE PERIOD CORRECT WOOD.
JUST DEPENDS ON, THE INTERIOR STANDARDS TEND TO LEND TOWARDS THE SAME MATERIAL, SAME REPLACE WHAT YOU FOUND THING.
>> ARE WE GOING TO PROVIDE A LIST OF CONTRACTORS OR PEOPLE THAT REPAIR WINDOWS? I DON'T THINK WE CAN.
>> YOU CAN NOT RECOMMEND PROFESSIONALS.
>> WELL, I'M NOT NECESSARILY RECOMMENDING JUST WHO KNOWS HOW TO DO IT.
NOT EVERYBODY CAN REPAIR AN OLD SASH WINDOW WITH WEIGHTS AND ALL THAT.
>> I HAD ASKED THEM THAT. THEY SAID NO.
>> NO. I HAD ASKED STAFF THAT QUESTION THEY SAID [OVERLAPPING].
>> I RECENTLY RECOMMENDED SOMEONE TALK TO A FRIEND OF ATE OF BEACH MAIN STREET, WHICH IS A NONPROFIT DOWNTOWN, AND THEY CAN RECOMMEND PROFESSIONALS.
>> YOU HAD A LINK TO THE WINDOW PRESERVATION ALLIANCE, WHICH AUSTIN HISTORICAL, WHICH IS WHERE I WOULD SEND ME.
I DON'T KNOW IF YOU CAN RECOMMEND THAT JUST A SITE.
>> THE WINDOW PRESERVATION ALLIANCE.
>> I WOULD THINK WE'D ALSO WOULD WANT FOR THE WINDOW SURVEY REQUIREMENTS TO INCLUDE THAT THEY WERE REQUIRED TO SUBMIT A SITE PLAN AND/OR PROBABLY IF IT'S MULTIPLE BUILDINGS, AND I'M THINKING BACK TO THAT CHURCH PROJECT, A SITE PLAN WOULD HAVE BEEN VERY HELPFUL TO SEE THAT NOTING WHAT WINDOWS WERE BEING PLACED AS OPPOSED TO THE WAY IT WAS PRESENTED.
THEN, AND/OR FLOOR PLANS, IF IT'S ONE BUILDING AND ELEVATIONS THAT JUST DEPICT WHAT IS HAPPENING.
THAT PROJECT WAS A VERY DIFFICULT ONE FOR ME TO REVIEW WITH THE WAY IT WAS PRESENTED.
I THINK IN THIS PHYSICAL EVALUATION LIST OF SOME OF THE STUFF THAT STAFF WOULD BE LOOKING FOR, ONE WOULD BE A PHOTO AT THE MINIMUM.
OBVIOUSLY, RENDERED DRAWINGS WOULD BE NICE, BUT PHOTOS THAT SHOW THE WHOLE FACADE.
THEN YOU CAN PLUG IN WHAT NUMBER OF COORDINATES FOR OKAY THIS IS WINDOW NUMBER 2, THIS IS WINDOW NUMBER 3.
THEN YOU CAN GO INTO THESE OTHER ELEMENTS THAT THEY'RE ASKING FOR ON THE SURVEY AND COORDINATE.
WINDOW 1 IS IN GOOD CONDITION.
WINDOW 2 IS SPEAKING TO SOMETHING THAT YOU BROUGHT UP, DYLAN, I JUST RECENTLY HAD A PROJECT WHERE THEY TRIED TO RENOVATE ONE OF THE WINDOWS, AND THE HOMEOWNERS WERE ADAMANT.
THEY WANTED TO DO IT OUT OF WOOD.
BUT THIS SIDE OF THE HOUSE HAD ABOUT A FOUR INCH OVERHANG.
THAT WINDOW WAS ALWAYS GETTING WATER ON IT.
IN THE WINDOW REPAIR COMPANY IN THAT PARTICULAR WINDOW'S CASE, RECOMMENDED THEY USE A SYNTHETIC MATERIAL INSTEAD OF WOOD THAT WOULD ULTIMATELY LOOK LIKE WOOD, BUT COULD WITHSTAND ALL THAT WATER BEING DUMPED ON IT ALL THE TIME EVERY TIME IT RAINED.
[01:55:06]
THERE MAY BE MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES WHERE IT MAKES SENSE TO MAKE AN ALLOWANCE FOR MORE APPROPRIATE MATERIAL FOR A GIVEN SITUATION.>> THAT MIGHT BE ON A CASE BY CASE.
WE JUST DON'T HAVE ON THE MASTER LIST.
HERE'S THESE VINYL THIS IS APPROVED.
BECAUSE THEN SOMEBODY CAN WHOLESALE, DO IT.
IF IT'S A CASE BY CASE WE COULD ADDRESS THAT.
I THINK TOO, WE TALKED ABOUT IN THE MATRIX DISCUSSING OR POSSIBLY ALTERING WHAT STAFF IS APPROVING.
BECAUSE RIGHT NOW WE HAVE STAFF CAN APPROVE CHANGE OF MATERIALS OR STYLE OF WINDOWS.
THAT SEEMS TO BE PUTTING A LOT OF ON US ON STAFF TO MAKE ARCHITECTURAL/DESIGN DECISIONS.
THEY CAN APPROVE IT'S THE SAME MATERIAL STYLE OR SIZE THAT'S FINE.
THEY CAN ALSO APPROVE FENESTRATION ON THE SECONDARY FACADE.
I THOUGHT ANY CHANGE OF FENESTRATION OR OPENINGS WAS A BOARD APPROVAL.
MAYBE IF WE HAVE THIS AS THE BELT AND SUSPENDERS APPROACH TO THE MORE DETAILED SURVEY AND REQUIREMENTS.
>> DYLAN, YOU'RE SAYING YOU WANT TO CONTINUE THIS DISCUSSION UNTIL LATER IN THE MEETING.
>> I'LL PUT TOGETHER A LITTLE BIT MORE OF A COHESIVE PACKET.
I'VE YET TO WORK WITH MIA YET ON I'M JUST ASSEMBLING INFORMATION, SO I DON'T WASTE HER TIME.
>> JIM SENT ME SOME PROVISIONS AS WELL JUST BEFORE THIS MEETING.
>> I WENT IN, I REDLINED SOME OF THE LANGUAGE IN THERE, BUT I HAVEN'T HAD A CHANCE TO MEET WITH MIA TO GO OVER HOW MUCH OF THAT IS USABLE.
>> WELL, THEN WE CAN BRING ALL OF THAT BACK.
CAN WE PUT IT ON THE NEXT AGENDA?
>> CAN I JUST MAKE A REQUEST IN THINKING ABOUT THIS? ONE OF THE AREAS, PRESERVATION IS NEW TO ME.
LET'S BE HONEST. I HAVE NOT BEEN DOING THIS FOR VERY LONG.
BUT I HAVE WORKED WITH MR. POZZETTA AT LENGTH ON THIS WHEN I'VE HAD QUESTIONS OF SPECIFICALLY WINDOWS COME UP DURING THIS TIME FRAME.
IT'S REALLY HARD FOR US TO DETERMINE IS WHAT THEY'RE REPORTING ACCURATE AND IS IT TO SUCH THE DEGREE THAT THEY'RE REPORTING IT TO BE WITHOUT HAVING SOMEBODY WHO HAS EXPERIENCE IN LOOKING AT THIS AND REALLY GETTING IN THERE AND EVALUATING IT.
WOULD THERE BE BENEFIT IN MODIFYING THE PROCESS TO REQUIRE THAT THERE BE A SECOND BOARD MEMBER WHO LOOKS AT IT ALONG WITH STAFF? JUST SO THAT IT DOES ALLOW FOR STAFF-LEVEL PROCESSES TO MOVE FORWARD, ESPECIALLY WHERE SOMEBODY HAS A NEED BUT WITHOUT REQUIRING ME TO COME TO THE FULL BOARD.
I KNOW I GREATLY APPRECIATED THE TIME THAT MR. POZZETTA HAS GIVEN ME IN EVALUATING THIS.
I KNOW I'VE TALKED WITH TAMMI AS WELL, ON A COUPLE OF CASES OVER THE PAST YEAR AND A HALF, BUT IT'S A TOUGH CALL TO MAKE.
ESPECIALLY WHEN YOU HAVE WHETHER IT'S A PROPERTY OWNER OR NON-PROFIT COMING IN AND SAYING, WELL, I CAN ONLY DO SO MUCH.
THIS IS AS FAR AS I CAN TAKE IT.
WHAT RESOURCES CAN YOU GIVE ME? WE'RE LIMITED IN WHAT WE CAN DO.
HOW DO WE BALANCE THAT WHEN WE'RE NOT THE ONES THAT ARE HOLDING THE PURSE STRINGS OF THAT ORGANIZATION?
>> ARE ANY OF THOSE QUESTIONABLE ONES? THEN I GUESS YOU HAVE TO DEFINE WHAT IS AND ISN'T QUESTIONABLE.
BUT WOULD IT BE APPROPRIATE TO REQUIRE STAFF AND, OR A BOARD MEMBER TO DO A SITE VISIT?
>> THAT'S ACTUALLY SOMETHING WE'VE TALKED ABOUT.
[OVERLAPPING] YOU HAVE REACHED OUT. [OVERLAPPING]
>> THERE'S TWO KINDS OF PRESERVATIONISTS.
THERE'S THE ONES THAT JUST WANT TO DO THE BEST JOB EVER.
THERE'S THE ONES WHO ARE LIKE, OKAY, WHERE ARE THESE GUIDELINES? HOW CAN I GET THROUGH THIS? HOW CAN I GET AROUND ANYTHING I DON'T WANT TO DO? I THINK THAT CAN COME UP WITH DEMOS AND WINDOWS.
>> ON THE WHOLE, THE PEOPLE THAT YOU HAVE WITHIN YOUR COMMUNITY WHO OWN HISTORIC STRUCTURES, THEY DO WANT TO THE VERY BEST FOR THAT STRUCTURE AND KEEP THAT LONG TERM.
I HAVEN'T MET A SINGLE PERSON THAT'S OUT HERE TO JUST DESTROY A PARTICULAR PROPERTY, ONLY GET ONE LAST YEAR.[LAUGHTER] [OVERLAPPING] THERE WAS LONE HOUSE FLIPPER HOWEVER.
BUT GENERALLY, PEOPLE REALLY DO WANT TO AND THEY NEED THE RESOURCE. THEY DON'T KNOW WHAT TO DO.
WE ARE AT A DEFICIT OF HAVING RESOURCES
[02:00:02]
AVAILABLE EVEN WITHIN OUR REGION TO POINT THEM TOWARDS.JUST TO SPEAK TO THE MAIN STREET ADVOCACY ROLE THAT IS THERE.
BECAUSE THERE'S A LOT OF TIMES WE CAN'T RECOMMEND SOMEONE, WHETHER THAT'S A DESIGN PROFESSIONAL FOR ANY RANGE OF THINGS OR SOME LEVEL OF EXPERTISE.
WE DO SAY, WE CAN'T RECOMMEND THAT, BUT THIS MIGHT BE AN ORGANIZATION THAT CAN PROVIDE YOU WITH RESOURCES AND IDEAS OF WHO TO CONNECT THEM WITH.
>> I KNOW AS FAR AS GOING TO LOOK AT POTENTIAL WINDOW ISSUE THINGS, I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM ACCOMPANYING A STAFF MEMBER, BUT I WOULD FEEL I WOULDN'T WANT TO GO BY MYSELF.
I'D WANT TO HAVE A STAFF MEMBER SO THAT IT WOULD BE I DON'T KNOW I'D FEEL LIKE.
>> LET'S JUST NOT HAVE A BACKUP VIEWER.
>> IF WE DON'T EVER GO ANYWHERE.
>> IN CASE THEY PUT YOU THROUGH THE WINDOW.
>> MAKE THAT CHANGE, AND THERE ARE PEOPLE UP HERE WHO HAVE THE QUALIFICATIONS NECESSARY TO DO THAT.
ARE WE ALL SAYING WE'RE WILLING TO DO THAT?
>> YOU PROBABLY DON'T WANT TO TAKE ME, BUT YEAH, I'LL GO. [LAUGHTER]
>> VERY GOOD. WE'LL MAKE THAT CHANGE HAPPEN AND WE'LL HAVE THE REST OF THIS DISCUSSION ON THE NEXT AGENDA.
NOW WE HAVE DEPARTMENT OF HISTORIC RESOURCES PSIQ,
[6. STAFF REPORT]
WHAT AN INTERESTING ACRONYM.>> YES. THIS IS THE STAFF REPORT.
WE HAD FOUR TOTAL CERTIFICATES OF APPROVAL ON A SOFT LEVEL IN FEBRUARY.
WE HAD A PAINT COLOR CHANGE IN DOWNTOWN, PAVER DRIVEWAY IN OLD TOWN, A SHED WAS APPROVED IN OLD TOWN, AND A ROOF REPAIR WAS APPROVED IN DOWNTOWN.
THEN FOR THE EXCITING THING, IN MY OPINION.
>> CAN WE JUST HANG ON TO THE ITEM 2, THE PAVER DRIVEWAY IN OLD TOWN, IS PUTTING THOSE PAVERS IN, IS THAT GOING TO CREATE POTENTIALLY A DRAINAGE ISSUE BECAUSE THERE'S GOING TO BE MORE RUNOFF INTO THE STREET?
>> WHENEVER YOU HAVE A PAVER CHANGE OUT AND THIS WAS MOVING FROM A DIFFERENT MATERIAL TO PAVERS WE DO HAVE THAT CIRCULATED THROUGH BOTH PLANNING AS WELL AS STORMWATER FOR THEIR REVIEW TO DETERMINE IF THERE WOULD BE ANY IMPACT THE WAY THAT THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT VIEWS PAVERS IS DIFFERENT THAN STORMWATER DOES.
THEY DO REQUIRE SOME LEVEL OF CALCULATION TO MAKE SURE IF THERE ARE ANY OFF SITE THAT ON ADJOINING PROPERTIES.
>> PERFECT. OKAY GOOD. THANK YOU.
>> THOSE PAVERS ARE REMOVABLE PAVERS. THEY'LL BE SET IN SAND.
>> YES. LAST MEETING, I MENTIONED WALKING PECK HIGH SCHOOL BACK THROUGH THE PROCESS TO GET ON NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES.
SINCE THEN, I'VE BEEN IN CONTACT WITH THE DIVISION OF HISTORIC RESOURCES AT THE STATE LEVEL, AND THEY SAID THERE'S NO ACTIVE NOMINATIONS FOR PECK.
I STARTED THE WHOLE PROCESS OVER AGAIN FRESH WITH ALL THE INFORMATION THAT WE HAD THROUGHOUT THE CITY.
I SUBMITTED THAT PRELIMINARY SITE INFORMATION QUESTIONNAIRE.
THEY CAME BACK WITH THAT LETTER, THAT'S IN YOUR AGENDA PACKET THAT SAID IT IS POTENTIALLY ELIGIBLE UNDER ALL THREE CRITERIAS.
CRITERIA A IS CONCERNING WITH ARCHITECTURE.
CRITERIA C IS ABOUT CULTURAL SIGNIFICANCE.
CRITERIA B WHICH HAS NOT BEEN EXPLORED YET IN ANY OF OUR DOCUMENTATION AT THE CITY FOR A SIGNIFICANT PERSON IN HISTORY.
THEY'RE NOW CONSIDERING WILLIAM H. PECK AS A SIGNIFICANT HISTORICAL PERSON IN CONCERN OF FLORIDA EDUCATION, ESPECIALLY AFRICAN AMERICAN EDUCATION.
[OVERLAPPING] [INAUDIBLE] GREATEST FLORIDIAN
>> IN THOSE PAST APPLICATIONS, THEY HAVEN'T CONSIDERED PECK HIGH SCHOOL IN RELATION TO WILLIAM PECK AS PART OF THE NATIONAL REGISTER NOMINATION.
>> JUST BECAUSE IT'S NAMED AFTER HIM I GUESS.
>> WELL, IN MY OPINION, IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN ON THE REGISTER DECADES AGO.
A LOT OF THIS IS BACKTRACKING AND DOING WHAT'S RIGHT FOR THE ALUMNI AND FOR THE BUILDING.
BUT ANYWAY, THEY RESPONDED TO ME.
NOW I'M IN THAT PROCESS OF PREPARING THE NATIONAL REGISTER NOMINATION.
YESTERDAY, I WENT TO THE ALUMNI ASSOCIATION MEETING AT PECK CENTER AND JUST HAD ALL MY DOCUMENTS WITH ME AND INTRODUCED MYSELF.
THEY'RE VERY HAPPY THAT I WAS THERE.
I GOT EIGHT DIFFERENT CONTACT INFORMATION AND NAMES FOR PEOPLE WHO ARE WILLING TO HELP ME COMPILE THIS NATIONAL REGISTER NOMINATION.
I'D LIKE TO INCLUDE TESTIMONIES AND FIRSTHAND ACCOUNTS FROM ANYONE WHO'S WILLING TO SPEAK TO ME.
[02:05:04]
I'M VERY EXCITED TO PUT TOGETHER A QUALITY NOMINATION FOR THE NATIONAL REGISTER.
THEN UP HERE, YOU CAN'T SEE THAT AT ALL.
SINCE IT'S A REALLY BIG UNDERTAKING TO PREPARE A NATIONAL REGISTER NOMINATION.
I HAVE BY MONTHS WHAT I PLAN TO DO, AND I'VE SHARED THIS WITH PECK ALUMNI SO THAT THEY'RE GOING TO HELP ME PULL ALL THAT TOGETHER.
>> I ALSO WANTED TO MENTION TO YOU ADRIAN BURKE, WHO HAD DONE SOME OF THE WORK ON THAT THAT YOU WERE ABLE TO USE AND USE SAL'S WORK AS WELL.
I'M SEEING ADRIAN TOMORROW, AND SHE HAS REACHED OUT TO SOME OF THE FOLKS THAT ARE COMING TO THE MAIN STREET CONFERENCE.
>> TO ASSIST IF YOU NEED ANY WITH THIS PARTICULAR EFFORT.
>> YEAH. I DO WANT TO CHAT WITH HER.
>> I WILL LET HER KNOW THEN TO CONTACT YOU.
>> THEN THIS IS ALL VOLUNTEER WORK THAT THEY WOULD BE WILLING TO DO ALL OF THESE FOLKS.
>> IT WAS A VERY SPECIAL PROJECT.
>> THEN FOLLOW UP ON THE WILLIAM PECK HOUSE.
THAT WE ALSO KNOW IS SIGNIFICANT.
I'M DOING SOME RESEARCH ON A FLORIDA HISTORICAL MARKER, SEE WHAT'S SIMILAR AROUND TOWN TO HAVE THAT IN FRONT OF THEIR HOUSE AND WHAT IT TAKES TO FILE THE APPLICATION AGAIN.
>> SOME OF THE PECK ALUMNI ARE ALSO GOING TO HELP ME WITH THAT COMPLETION.
I SENT HIM AN EMAIL A COUPLE OF WEEKS AGO, BUT THEY ARE NOT THE EMAIL TYPE, SO I DECIDED TO SHOW UP.
>> WAS WANDA BLUE THERE? IS SHE STILL SICK?
>> I MET ANNETTE MYERS, AND I CHECKED OUT HER BOOK IN THE LIBRARY.
>> VERY GOOD. COOL. ALL RIGHT, THEN.
THANK YOU SO MUCH. THAT'S GREAT.
>> JUST ONE MORE THING THAT'S ON THE AGENDA.
THE FLORIDA TRUST FOR HISTORIC PRESERVATION IS HAVING THEIR ADVOCACY DAY AT THE CAPITOL ON APRIL 1ST, AND I WAS APPROVED BY KELLY AND SARAH CAMPBELL TO GO IN THE CITY CAR AND CITY CREDIT CARD TO TALLAHASSEE.
>> OH, MY GOD. YOU'RE LETTING HER LOOSE.
>> APPARENTLY, SOMEONE'S GOING TO GIVE ME A CREDIT CARD.
THERE'S A TREMENDOUSLY LARGE NUMBER OF PEOPLE GOING TO THAT.
IT'S GOING TO BENEFIT YOU TO MEET THEM.
VERY COOL. THE MAIN STREET PEOPLE SHOULD PROBABLY BE THERE AS WELL.
>> I REACHED TO THEM RECENTLY ABOUT THE [INAUDIBLE] CONFERENCE AGAIN AS IT'S COMING ALONG.
DOES ANYBODY ELSE HAVE ANY OTHER COMMENTS, BUSINESS TO BRING ON, OR ISSUES OR CONCERNS ABOUT ANYTHING? I JUST WANT TO FILL YOU IN ON SOME INFO THAT I HAVE. YOU'RE ALL GOOD? I GOT ONE OF THE THINGS THAT HAPPENED THE OTHER NIGHT IN THE COMMISSION MEETING WITH THIS DISCUSSION ABOUT CHANGING BOARDS.
THE LAST TIME I TALKED TO ALL OF YOU ABOUT THE PLAN, IT WAS TO TAKE PEOPLE FROM CRAAB, MARINA ADVISORY, AND HDC TO FORM A COMMITTEE TO LOOK AT THE WATERFRONT.
THAT SEEMS TO BE CHANGING NOW BECAUSE THE PROPOSAL THAT WAS PUT FORWARD WAS TO REALLY BASICALLY ELIMINATE CRAAB AS A SEPARATE ENTITY AS WELL AS MARINA ADVISORY.
I DON'T KNOW HOW LONG THAT'S GOING TO TAKE TO HAPPEN.
BUT IF ANYBODY HERE WOULD LIKE TO HAVE YOUR NAME CONSIDERED TO BE PART OF THAT WATERFRONT COMMITTEE, MAYBE YOU CAN LET KELLY KNOW THAT OR MIA KNOW THAT AND TAKE IT FORWARD OR NO.
>> THE ONLY ISSUE WOULD BE IS RELINQUISHING YOUR POSITION HERE BY DOING THAT.
THOSE WOULD BE TWO STANDING BOARDS.
>> I DIDN'T REALIZE THE WATERFRONT.
>> IT DEPENDS ON HOW THEY MAKE UP THAT GROUP.
>> I THOUGHT IT WAS GOING TO BE A TEMPORARY GROUP.
BUT IF IT'S NOT, YOU'RE RIGHT.
>> YEAH, IT JUST DEPENDS ON HOW THEY DECIDE TO STAND THAT BOARD.
[02:10:02]
IF IT BECOMES A STANDING COMMITTEE, THEN YOU WOULD HAVE TO MAKE A CHOICE.IT COULD BE A SUBCOMMITTEE OF THAT BOARD THAT THEN HAS TO TACKLE THE [INAUDIBLE] ISSUE.
>> OR IT COULD BE THAT THERE WOULD BE UNIFIED WORKSHOPS ON IT.
>> FYI, THAT'S THE DISCUSSION AT THIS POINT.
NOTHING'S BEEN FINALLY DECIDED.
THE OTHER THING THAT I WAS INFORMED OF TODAY IS THE FENCE IS THE FENCE.
WE HAD A CONVERSATION ABOUT THE FENCE THAT WAS PUT IN BY THE RAILROAD TRACKS.
BUT THAT IS MOVING FORWARD, THE WAY IT IS NOW.
I HAVE RIDDEN MY BROOM AROUND THREE OR FOUR CITY OFFICES ABOUT HOW THE CITY HAS TO FOLLOW THE SAME RULES WE ASK PEOPLE IN THE CITY RESIDENTIAL AREAS TO FOLLOW AND COMMERCIAL.
THAT SHOULD NOT EVER HAPPEN AGAIN AND IF IT WERE TO, I MEAN, NASTY STUFF.
>> IT'S LIKE YOU GOT IN THE TIME MACHINE TO BACK WHEN IT WAS AT THREE OR FOUR YEARS AGO.
>> I DID. THE OTHER THING THAT I FOUND OUT TODAY WAS THAT WHERE THE PAVILION IS GOING IN THE PARK WAS THE ACTUAL ORIGINAL TERMINUS ON THE RAILROAD WAY BACK.
>> I'M GOING TO BE TALKING TO PEOPLE ABOUT WHETHER THAT WE CAN HAVE SOME SORT OF A PLAQUE.
I MEAN, IDEALLY, THE FLOOR HAVING THE LOCOMOTIVE ON IT WOULD HAVE BEEN GREAT, BUT IT'S PROBABLY TOO LATE FOR THAT.
BUT THE CONCEPT OF A PLAQUE IDENTIFYING IT THAT BECAUSE I WAS CONCERNED THAT OUR WATERFRONT PARK WASN'T SHOWING ANYTHING ABOUT OUR HISTORY.
REALLY, THE TOWN WOULD NOT BE WHERE IT IS TODAY IF NOT FOR THE RAILROAD.
I THINK THAT SPIKING THAT HISTORY OUT IS SOMETHING THAT WE WANT TO DO.
I'M GOING TO BE TALKING TO LISA ABOUT IT AND SEE WHAT OUR CHANCES ARE.
>> TERMINUS PARK. OH, MY GOD, THAT SOUNDS TERRIBLE.
>> ARE WE ALL SET? IS IT OKAY WITH YOU IF WE ADJOURN? MEETING ADJOURNED.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.