Link

Social

Embed

Download

Download
Download Transcript

[Item 1]

[00:00:12]

>>> OCTOBER 17TH, 2019, HISTORIC DISTRICT COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING.

PLEASE CALL THE ROLL.

>> AND I WOULD ASK WE'RE GOING TO RECOGNIZE MR. COOLS.

>> GOOD EVENING.

>> AND LET'S SEE.

WE NEED TO SEAT SE MS. KOZAK.

>> PLEASE DISCLOSE ANY EX PARTE COMMUNICATIONS REGARDING ANY OF THE CASES THIS MORNING.

HE'S GOING TO STEP OFF THE DICE BECAUSE HE HAS TWO CASES UP TONIGHT.

ONE OF WHICH HE'LL REPRESENT AND THE OTHER OF WHICH IS HIS FIRM.

>>> I HAVE WORKED WITH HER PRO BONO ON BRINGING HER LANDSCAPE AND YARD UP TO CODE ENFORCEMENT AND WE DID AND WE ALSO TALKED ABOUT BUILDINGS ON THE AGENDA TONIGHT.

I DID NOT REPRESENT AS A MEMBER OF HDC.

THIS WAS JUST DONE AS A PERSONAL PRO BONO SITUATION.

>> THANK YOU.

ALWAYS SMART TO DISCLOSE IF YOU'RE NOT CERTAIN.

>> THE FIRM THAT I WORK FOR IS DESIGNED THE STRUCTURES FOR CASES 2019-01 AND 07.

SO I WON'T BE REPRESENTING THE CLIENTS FOR HCC 201901 BUTLY BE FOR 07 AND I'LL GO AHEAD AND STEP DOWN AND RECUSE MYSELF FROM BOTH JUST TO BE SAFE.

>> THANK YOU.

APPRECIATE THAT.

I'VE HAD NO EX PARTE COMMUNICATIONS BUT HAVE VISITED THESE SITES IN RECENT DAYS SO THAT I'D HAVE AN IDEA OF WHAT'S THERE.

COUNCILLOR, POOL, PLEASE PRESENT THE QUASI JUDICIAL PROCEDURES.

>> SURE.

FOR ALL THE CASES THIS EVENING ON THE AGENDA FIRST THE PETITIONER AND THE APPLICANT WILL BE BROUGHT FORWARD TO PRESENT THEIR EVIDENCE.

ALL PARTIES PRESENTING TESTIMONY OR EVIDENCE WILL BE SWORN IN.

THAT EVIDENCE CAN BE PRESENTED AS TESTIMONY.

IT COULD BE DOCUMENTS OR THINGS IN THE PACKET.

STAFF WILL HAVE AN TABT TO PRESENT ITS EVIDENCE INCLUDING TESTIMONY AND ANY DOCUMENTS, PHOTOGRAPHS, THINGS OF THAT NATURE.

AND THERE WILL BE AN OPPORTUNITY TO QUESTION ANY OF THOSE PROVIDING EVIDENCE.

APPEAL TO THIS WITHIN 30 DAYS TO THE CITY COMMISSION.

FWHOIN WISHES TO TESTIFY TONIGHT SHOULD STAND NOW AND BE SWORN IN.

RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND.

DO YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM THAT THE TESTIMONY YOU'RE ABOUT TO GIVE WILL BE THE TRUTH, WHOLE TRUTH,

[Item 2]

AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH? THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

>> MINUTES.

THANK YOU.

OF THE PRIOR MEETING.

HAS EVERYONE HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW THE MINUTES AND HAVE CHANGES, QUESTIONS, MODIFICATIONS? THESE ARE THE SEPTEMBER MINUTES RIGHT?

>> SEPTEMBER WASN'T READY YET.

THERE'S NO MINUTES.

>> OH.

>> IT WAS AN ITEM BUT WE DID NOT ACTUALLY ATTACH MINUTES.

>> I WAS GOING TO SAY BECAUSE

[Item 3.1]

YOU WOULD HAVE HAD TO REVIEW THEM.

OKAY. MOTION WITHDRAWN.

>> YES, SIR.

>> MOVING ON.

OLD BUSINESS.

THIS IS HDC 2019-01.

123 SOUTH 7TH STREET.

WHICH WE -- WHEN DID WE APPROVE

[00:05:04]

THIS?

>> THE STAFF REPORT DIDN'T GET ATTACHED TO THE ASTAIN.

SOMEHOW THAT WAS LEFT OUT BUT THE FEBRUARY AGENDA FOR THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION WAS INCLUDED BUT HERE IT IS, THE STAFF REPORT.

FOR -- AN AMENDMENT TO A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED COA TO OFFER THE ADDITION OF A WINDOW.

ZONED R 2.

AT A FEBRUARY 21ST, 2019, MEETING OF THE HDC THE BOARD GRANTED A CERTIFICATE OF APPROVAL TO EXPAND A REAR ADDITION AND CONSTRUCT A NEW ACCESSORY STRUCTURE.

THE APPLICANT NOW SEEKS AN AMENDMENT TO ALLOW FOR THE ADDITION OF A WINDOW ON THE SECOND FLOOR.

>>> THE PROPOSED WINDOW WAS SELECTED FROM THE PREAPPROVED WINDOWS LIST.

ITS PROPOSED LOCATION IS APPROPRIATE ON THIS NEW CONSTRUCTION ACCESSORY STRUCTURE AND WILL FURTHER ENHANCE THE WEST ELEVATION.

STAFF FINDS THE ACTION IS CONSISTENT WITH THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AND THE DOWNTOWN HISTORIC GUIDELINES AND RECOMMENDS APPROVAL.

ANY QUESTIONS.

>> I HAVE A QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT.

>> OKAY. WE'LL GET STEVE UP HERE IN A MINUTE.

>> IF I RECALL CORRECTLY, THIS IS THE OUT BUILDING THAT YOU SAID IN FEBRUARY WOULD DO GOOD IF WE HAD SOMETHING TO BREAK UP THE EXTERIOR STRUCTURE.

I GUESS THEY'RE COMING BACK NOW TO DO THAT.

>> I THINK, YEAH.

I THINK -- YOU GET THE -- THAT WAS APPROVED.

>> YES.

>> OKAY. NO QUESTIONS FOR SAMANTHA.

WE'LL CALL -- STEVE, ARE YOU REPRESENTING THE CLIENT?

>> YES.

>> COME ON UP.

>> AND PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD AT THE PODIUM, PLEASE.

>> HE'S A ROOKIE.

>> THAT'S RIGHT.

HELLO.

4063 SOUTH FLETCHER AVENUE.

YOU GOT A QUESTION?

>> YEAH.

I NOTICED ON THE DRAWING THAT THE WINDOW HAS A SINGLE -- CREATING TWO LIGHTS BUT THEN I NOTICED IN THE SUPPORTING CUT SHEET DOCUMENTATION, IT HAD TWO CREATING THREE LIGHTS.

I THINK WHAT'S SHOWN ON THE DRAWING IS THE MOST APPROPRIATE APE JUST WANT TO VERIFY WITH YOU.

>> THAT'S THE ONE THAT WE'RE LOOKING FOR, YES.

>> I THINK THAT'S THE RIGHT ROUTE TO GO.

>> QUESTIONS?

>> THANK YOU, STEVE.

IS THERE ANYBODY -- WE'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC MEETING.

ANYONE WHO WOULD LIKE TO TESTIFY WITH REGARDS TO CASE 2019-01? 123 SOUTH SEVENTH STREET? COME ON UP.

>> STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD.

>> GOOD EVENING.

JAMES SCOTT.

JUST WANT TO SAY THE ONLY THING THAT IS DRIVING THIS PETITION REQUEST IS MY WIFE AND I FAILED TO REALIZE THAT INSIDE THAT BATHROOM IN THAT LITTLE STUDIO UP THERE, IT'S THE ONLY PLACE WITHOUT ANY NATURAL LIGHT AND IT'S EXTREMELY DARK SO WE'RE PETITIONING TO PUT IN THAT WINDOW.

>> GREAT.

>> HOW DID THE BRIDGING OVER THE SIS TERN GO?

>> IT WORKED GREAT.

THE CISTERN IS THERE.

AT FIRST EVERYBODY WAS WE'RE NOT EVEN SUPPOSED TO WALK THROUGH.

A LITTLE BIT EDGY ABOUT IT BUT IT'S FINE

>> IT'S BEEN HERE A LITTLE WHILE.

I THINK IT WILL BE OKAY. ANY QUESTIONS BEFORE HE GOES?

>> OKAY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH, SIR.

ANYBODY ELSE? HEARING NONE I'M CLOSING THE PUBLIC MEETING.

AND WE'RE GOING TO MOVE ON TO BOARD DISCUSSION.

>> I THINK IT'S PRETTY ED.

>> STRAIGHTFORWARD.

>> ANSWERED MY QUESTION TOO WITH THE CONFLICTING DESIGN SO THAGS GOOD.

AND IT MATCHES WHAT'S OVER THE BACK PORK DOOR.

>> YEAH -- BACK PORCH DOOR.

>> MAYBE WE CAN GET A MOTION.

>> I'LL MAKE A MOTION.

I MOVE TO APPROVE HDC CASE NUMBER 2019-01 WITHOUT CONDITIONS AND I MOVE THAT HDC MAKE THE FOLLOWING IDENTIFIEDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW PART OF THE RECORD.

THAT HDC CASE 2019-01 AS PRESENTED IS SUBSTANTIALLY COMPLIANT WITH THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE.

THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR STANDARDS.

AND THE DOWNTOWN HISTORIC DISTRICT GUIDELINES TO WARRANT APPROVAL AT THIS TIME.

>> I'LL SECOND THE MOTION.

[00:10:03]

>> MOTION SECONDED.

ANY DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE, PLEASE CALL THE ROLL.

SOME OF US MIGHT LIKE TO SEE THAT BRINELLING SOMETIME.

IF YOU DON'T MIND WE'LL COME KNOCK ON THE DOOR AND CHECK IT OUT.

IT'S JUST COOL THE WAY YOU PRESERVED THAT ARTIFACT.

IT'S REALLY NEAT.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

[Item 3.2]

MOVING ON.

CASE 2017-03 -- 2017-03.

ART SON HOMES, 247 BEECH STREET THIS THE HAS BEEN AROUND A WHILE.

COME ON UP.

I'M OUT OF ORDER.

PLEASE TELL US ABOUT THE CASE.

>> THIS IS AN AMENDMENT TO HDC 2017-03 AT 247 BEECH STREET.

HDC 201703 RECEIVED FINAL APPROVAL AND WAS ISSUED A COA ON APRIL 20G9, 2017.

THE APPLICANT NOW SEEKS AN AMENDMENT TO ALLOW FOR AN AFTER THE FACT ALTERATION TO THE BRICK DETAILING ON UNIT 14.

THIS WAS CONTINUED FROM THE SEPTEMBER 19TH REGULAR MEETING OF THE HDC.

THE REQUESTED ACTION IS CONSISTENT WITH THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AND THE DOWNTOWN HISTORIC DISTRICT GUIDELINES AND RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF AMENDMENT 2017-03.

>> THIS IS THE BRICK FACE ON THE BEECH AND THIRD STREET CORNER.

>> BRICK DETAILING ARTICULATION.

QUESTIONS FOR MS. SAMANTHA?

>> I HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT THE PROCESS.

I WAS REFERRED TO -- WE PUT EVERYTHING TOGETHER.

SAT DOWN AND WENT THROUGH ALL THE DETAILS OF WHAT WAS REQUIRED.

DID THE APPLICATION.

DID THE ENTIRE DESIGN BEFORE THE SHOVEL HIT THE DIRT AND GOT APPROVAL FOR THAT AND THEN WENT AND SAT WITH DON AT PLANNING AND TONY AND SAT DOWN WITH HIM TO GET THE BUILDING PERMITS AND GAVE HIM A SET OF STAMPED DRAWINGS AND THAT'S THE PROCESS THAT WE'VE BEEN FOLLOWING.

THAT'S WHAT I WAS TOLD ALL ALONG THAT IS THE ORDER OF EVERYTHING THAT IT NEEDS TO GO IN AND THEN I BUILD OR HAVE MY PEOPLE BUILD TO THE APPROVED H PLAN.

AND THEN I GET AN INSPECTION FROM THE HDC WHEN THAT'S DONE AND ONCE THAT'S APPROVED, I GO TO BUILDINGS TO GET MY FINAL CO SO THAT'S WHAT I'M OPERATING UNDER AND THAT'S WHAT I'VE BEEN WORKING WITH.

SO MY QUESTION IS IN A CASE LIKE THIS, IT WAS NOT THAT THE INSPECTION FROM HDC WAS MISSED.

THAT INSPECTION WAS ACTUALLY FAILED.

SO HOW DID THIS PROPERTY GET A CO? I DON'T KNOW.

THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT ISSUED THE CO.

THEY MISSED THE -- THEY JUST MISSED THE BRICK DETAIL OR IF THEY WERE NOT CHECKING FOR THE BRICK DETAIL.

BUT IF THEY MISS IT, HOW ARE THEY EVEN OUT THERE PUTTING A CO OUT IF WE HAVEN'T APPROVED THE FINAL INSPECTION FROM THE HDC? AND MAYBE THIS IS A PLANNING QUESTION.

I DON'T KNOW IF IT GOES TO THE CHAIRMAN OR IF THIS GOES FURTHER UP.

YOU KNOW, WHAT ARE WE MISSING BECAUSE IF THEY ARE ISSUING PERMITS, BEFORE WE HAVE A FINAL END IN A CASE LIKE THIS WHERE SOMETHING WAS NOT DONE WE MIGHT AS WELL NOT SIT UP HERE.

SO WHERE DO WE GO FOR THIS? I WENT THROUGH THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODES AND THE COMP PLANS AND THERE ARE SPECIFIC AREAS THAT SAY THERE NEEDS TO BE INTERDEPARTMENTAL COOPERATION AND WE HAVE A SET OF PROCESSES IN PLACE THAT HAVE BEEN 234 BLASE.

HOW DO WE ENSURE THAT'S WHAT'S BEING DONE?

>> MORE COMMUNICATION NEEDS TO HAPPEN BETWEEN BUILDING AND PLANNING.

>> DID SAL SIGN OFF ON THIS CORNER?

>> HE FAILED IT.

>> HE FAILED IT.

AND THEN THE CO STILL GOT ISSUED IN.

>> UH-HUH.

[00:15:01]

>> I BELIEVE SO.

>> SO WE NEED TO TALK TO THE CITY MANAGER AND MAKE SURE THAT THOSE TWO DEPARTMENTS ARE TALKING TO EACH OTHER.

>> DIDN'T SAL SEND AN EMAIL OUT ADDRESSING THIS ISSUE AND SAYING THAT BASICALLY THE BUILDING -- HUH?

>> OUR WITNESS MIGHT BE HELPFUL.

GO AHEAD.

>> I DON'T HAVE -- HOLD ON A SECOND.

>> SARAH.

ARTISAN HOMES.

I DON'T HAVE THE FLORIDA BUILDING CODE WITH ME BUT THERE IS AN ARTICLE IN THERE THAT ONCE THE BUILDING IS DEEMED SAFE, HDC CAN'T WITHHOLD THE CO.

LOCAL CITY ORDINANCES DON'T TRUMP FLORIDA BUILDING CODE.

I THINK IT'S SECTION 103, 101.

BUT FLORIDA BUILDING CODE --

>> OKAY. WE'LL CONSIDER THAT ARGUABLE.

APPRECIATE YOUR POSITION.

I WAS JUST REMINDED THAT THE DIRECTION FROM THE BUILDING OFFICIAL WAS THAT THEY WILL NOT HOLD THE CO BECAUSE OF HDC.

A FAILED HDC INSPECTION.

>> THAT'S WHAT I THOUGHT HE SAID.

>> THAT'S RIGHT.

THAT'S THE --

>> THAT WAS AT THAT TIME?

>> YEAH.

>> SO AS FAR AS COOPERATION BETWEEN THE TWO DEPARTMENTS IT DOESN'T SOUND LIKE THEY'RE BOTH WILLING PARTICIPANTS IN THAT PROCESS.

>> DO WE HAVE A NEW BUILDING --

>> AS A RESULT OF --

>> ABOUT A MONTH AGO I THINK WE GOT A NEW

>> WHEN DID THE EMAIL COME OUT?

>> THIS WAS RECENT.

WITHIN A COUPLE OF WEEKS.

WEEK OR TWO.

>> OKAY. SO WE'VE GOT A PROBLEM -- INTERDEPARTMENTAL PROBLEM THAT WE NEED TO WORK ON.

>> THEN WHAT'S OUR RESOURCE? SO NOW THEY'VE EMAILED IT'S FAILED THEN WHAT HAPPENS?

>> GOOD QUESTION.

>> WHERE DO WE GO FROM THERE? AND IS THIS SOMETHING THAT WE NEED TO PUT INTO OUR LDCS OR SOMETHING AND DOES IT NEED TO BE DEFINED? ARE THERE -- WHAT MAKES THIS PEOPLE ADHERE TO THIS BECAUSE RIGHT NOW, IT SEEMS LIKE IT COULD BE OPTIONAL OR A BUILDER COULD SAY THAT'S TOO HARD.

LET'S NOT DO THAT.

WE'LL STILL HIT BUILDING CODE BUT LET'S NOT PUT THAT DETAIL IN.

>> YOUR NAME AGAIN?

>> SARAH JOHANS.

>> WHAT CAN YOU TELL US ABILITY BEECH STREET?

>> BACK IN 2017 THAT WAS A CONCEPT DRAWING AND OF COURSE A LOT CHANGED.

WE ORIGINALLY WERE FRAMING IT.

HOWEVER, THEN THE IT WENT TO BLOCK AND WE SWITCHED FROM.

>> IN 2017 THE CONCEPT WAS APPROVED AND WHEN WE ACTUALLY WENT TO ENGINEERING IT WASN'T FEASIBLE.

>> QUESTIONS FOR OUR WITNESS?

>> FEASIBLE AS FAR AS MONEY? WHAT WAS NOT FEASIBLE ON IT?

>> SINCE IT'S A -- THE WALL GOES UP THREE FLOORS, IT HAD TO BE BLOCK WALL.

YOU WOULDN'T PROBABLY COULD HAVE BEEN WOOD BUT HE WANTED TO BE EXTRA SAFE.

>> AND YOU DISCOVERED THIS WHEN THEY WERE REVIEWING THE PLANS?

>> RIGHT.

BEFORE I WENT TO PERMITTING.

WAY AFTER WE GOT OUR HDC APPROVAL IN 2017.

>> YOU DISCOVERED THAT IT WAS NOT FEASIBLE -- WHEN -- I'M TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHEN THEY FIGURED THAT DETAIL WAS NOT WHAT THEY WERE BUILDING TO OR COULD BUILD TO.

WHEN WE FAILED THE INSPECTION AND WENT BACK AND LOOKED AT THE ARCHITECT'S DRAWING AND THE ENGINEERING.

THEY DIDN'T MESH.

>> I GUESS MY QUESTION THEN WOULD BE WHAT OTHER THINGS HAVE YOU DISCOVERED SINCE GETTING HDC APPROVALS THAT ARE NOT GOING TO BE FEASIBLE GOING FORWARD THAT WE'RE UNAWARE OF AND HAS NOT BEEN BROUGHT BEFORE THE BOARD? BECAUSE TECHNICALLY IF YOU CHANGE ANYTHING OR DEVIATE FROM THE PLAN THAT WAS APPROVED BY THE BOARD, YOU SHOULD COME BACK TO THE BOARD AND SAY AS WE'VE DEVELOPED THESE DRAWINGS AND THIS BUILDING, WE'VE COME ACROSS THESE PROBLEMS AND WE NEED TO EDIT SOME OF THESE DETAILS, HERE'S WHAT THE NEW LOOK IS.

WITH WE GET APPROVAL FOR THIS.

>> IF THERE'S A RATIONAL REASON WHY THAT'S THE CASE I THINK IT'S A LOT MORE SYMPATHETIC RESPONSE.

>> NOT LET'S CHANGE IT TO SEE IF WE GET CAUGHT.

>> IN ADVANCE OR WHEN IT'S DISCOVERED RATHER THAN AFTER THE FACT BECAUSE I THINK THE AFTER THE FACT WE DON'T HAVE ENOUGH SANCTIONS AND PENALTIES IN PLACE.

>> APPARENTLY THERE'S NONE.

>> RIGHT.

>> EXCEPT SHE HAS TO PAY A FEE TO COME BACK IN FRONT OF US AND ASK FOR AN AFTER THE FACT

[00:20:01]

VARIANCE TO THE PLANS.

>> LET'S BACK THIS UP A LITTLE BIT.

SO YOU HAD AN APPROVAL FROM THE HDC AND THEN YOU HAD AN APPROVAL FROM THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT FOR BUILDING PLANS?

>> YES, SIR.

>> A BUILDING PERMIT?

>> YES, SIR.

>> AND THEN -- SO THAT CHANGED AT SOME POINT DURING THE CONSTRUCTION PROCESS.

DID YOU GO BACK AND SUBMIT NEW PLANS?

>> THE ENGINEERING WAS DONE PER THE ACTUAL AND IT WAS NOT CAUGHT UNTIL SAL FAILED US.

>> SO YOU CHANGED THE STRUCTURE OF THE BUILDING BASED UPON THE BUILDING PERMIT AND THEN -- AND NO ONE -- THE BUILDING OFFICIAL DIDN'T CATCH IT ALONG THE WAY THAT YOU CHANGED? YOU WERE BUILDING --

>> NO.

WE DIDN'T KNOW UNTIL WE WENT FOR FINAL INSPECTION.

AND WE ENDED UP ADDING SOME BRICK DETAIL TO THE TOP TO TRY TO MAKE IT MORE ARCHITECTURAL.

THAT WAS ADDED AFTER THE FACT TRYING TO GIVE IT A LITTLE MORE DETAIL.

>> BUT EVEN THERE THERE'S ANOTHER THING.

IF PEOPLE EMBELLISH, THAT'S JUST AS EGREGIOUS AS TAKING AWAY BECAUSE IT'S NOT BEEN APPROVED.

>> I WAS IN THE PROCESS OF DISCUSSING IT WITH AL I UNDERSTAND.

>> I WAS IN THE PROCESS OF SPEAKING TO SAL ABOUT IT AND BF I KNEW IT THEY WERE CUTTING BRICK OUT OF THE WALL.

BEFORE I EVEN GOT OFF THE PHONE THEY WERE ALREADY CUTTING BRICK OUT.

>> WE NEED TO HAVE A DISCUSSION WITH SAL WHEN HE GETS BACK HERE ABOUT PROCESS AND TALK ABOUT GET A BETTER UNDERSTANDING OF HOW THIS SITUATION HAPPENED AND SEE WHAT WE CAN DO TO BE ABLE TO TRY AND PREVENT SITUATIONS LIKE THIS FROM HAPPENING IN THE FUTURE.

>> HOW DO WE DO THAT? IS THAT --

>> WE JUST NEED TO PUT IT ON THE AGENDA FOR A BOARD DISCUSSION ITEM AT THE END OF THE MEETING I THINK.

SO MAYBE FOR THE NOVEMBER MEETING WE CAN ASK SAL TO GIVE US AN ANALYSIS OF WHAT WENT WRONG IN THE PROCESS AND RECOMMENDATION AND QUITE FRANKLY I THINK THAT I KNOW WE'VE ASKED THIS BEFORE AND YOU DID IF I REMEMBER CORRECTLY AND IT WAS DENIGHTED BUT I THINK WE SHOULD ASK AGAIN NOW THAT WE HAVE A NEW BUILDING OFFICIAL.

IT'S PROBABLY HELPFUL IF THE OFFICIAL WAS PRESENT FOR THAT DISCUSSION.

HE'S GOING TO BE A PARTICIPANT IN THIS PROCESS.

YOU KNOW.

I WOULD IMAGINE THAT ASKING HIM TO BE HERE FOR THAT WOULD BE GOOD TOO.

>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS?

>> YES.

>> GO AHEAD.

>> MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THERE'S STILL A COUPLE MORE UNITS THAT ARE SUPPOSED TO HAVE THAT SAME ARTICULATED DETAIL AND WHAT WE HEARD WAS THAT THEY WILL GET THE APPROVED DETAILING ON THIS.

IS THAT ACT SFLAT.

>> I CAN GET WITH WITH AND MAKE SURE THAT'S FEASIBLE.

THEY'RE NOT EVEN STARTED YET OR IN THE PROCESS OF BEING STARTED.

>> RIGHT.

>> SO IF IT IS DETERMINED BY AN ENGINEER THAT AN ARCHITECTURAL ELEMENT IS NOT FEASIBLE, WILL YOU BE COMING BACK?

>> OF COURSE.

>> TO SAY HERE'S AN ALTERNATIVE FOR PUTTING IT THERE.

THE REASON I'M ASKING IS I REMEMBER WHEN THIS WAS GRANTED FINAL APPROVAL, YOU GUYS WERE ALLOWED SOME LEEWAY ON THE FINISH MATERIAL ON THE BACK SIDE AND THE SIDES TO BE SIDING INSTEAD OF BRICK TO OBVIOUSLY SAVE YOU GUYS A BUNCH OF MONEY.

WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT WE'RE GOING TO GET FULL ON BRICK DETAILING ON THE EXPOSED ELEMENTS.

>> THAT WAS ON THE INTERIOR UNITS.

THE EXTERIOR UNITS ARE FULLY BRICKED ON THE SIDES.

>> LIKE THIS WALL HERE.

>> YES, SIR.

THERE WILL BE ONE MORE BUILDING.

SO THE OTHER BUILD WILLING BE --

>> MY UNDERSTANDING OF THAT WAS THE TRADE OFF THOUGH.

>> I WASN'T INVOLVED IN THE ORIGINAL AND WHEN I DID GET THE CO ISSUED FOR THAT BUILDING I SPOKE WITH THE CITY MANAGER.

HE WAS THE ONE THAT SAID WE CAN'T TRUMP FLORIDA BUILDING CODE.

>> OKAY. THANK YOU.

>> I JUST HAVE ONE OTHER QUESTION FOR YOU.

I KNOW ONE OF THE OTHER ITEMS DOESN'T PERTAIN PARTICULARLY TO THIS BUILDING BUT TWO OTHER THINGS THAT WERE ON THE FAILING LIST WERE SOME SHUTTERS AND THEY HAVE BEEN BROUGHT INTO COMPLIANCE AND SOME COLORS THAT WERE -- THAT ARE IN COMPLIANCE ALSO AND IT WAS ALSO THE OBJECTION ABOUT THE WHITE CUPPERS AND DOWN SPOUTS.

I KNOW ON SEVERAL OF THE BUILDINGS GOING FORWARD THEY HAVE BEEN PAINTED TO MATCH WHATEVER SURFACE THEY'RE ON BUT THEY'RE STILL AT MY LAST COUNT 19 WHITE GUTTERS AND CUPPERS.

WILL THEY BE PAINTED IN.

>> I CAN MAKE SURE THEY GET PAINTED.

I WAS NOT AWARE.

>> IT'S AN EYE SORE.

THAT'S SOMETHING WE CAN ADD TO THIS MOTION.

>> I'LL WORK WITH SAL ON THE GUTTERS OUT THERE IN THE FEAR FUTURE.

-- NEAR FUTURE

>> OKAY. AND THEN FINALLY JUST TEASING OUT WHAT JIM WAS SAYING HERE.

IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE THAT'S GOING TO CHANGE THAT WE NEED TO

[00:25:02]

KNOW ABOUT?

>> NO.

WE CHANGED FENCE MATERIAL IN THE BACK OF SECOND STREET BUT THAT WAS STAFF APPROVAL.

NOTHING SUBSTANTIVE BECAUSE THEY WERE APPROVED IN 2017.

>> I THINK AS OF THIS POINT ONE OF EVERY UNIT HAS BEEN BUILT.

SFWH OKAY.

>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

>> OPEN PUBLIC HEARING.

ANYONE WHO WISHES TO TESTIFY WITH REGARD TO CASE 2017-03 247 BEECH STREET? OKAY. WE'RE GOING TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC MEETING AND MOVE TO BOARD DISCUSSION.

BOARD MEMBERS.

WHAT IS YOUR PLEASURE?

>> I WILL REMIND YOU THAT THIS IS IN THE CRA.

IT'S A DIFFERENT SET OF GUIDELINES THAN THE HDC.

WE TEND TO THINK OF THAT SPACE AS BEING IN THE HDC BECAUSE OF ITS PROXIMITY TO DOWNTOWN BUT IN FACT IT IS --

>> I THINK -- I DON'T KNOW IF YOU WOULD AGREE WITH THIS OR NOT BUT I THINK THAT GENERALLY SPEAKING, THE BIGGER ISSUE HERE IS THE PROCESS FAILURE AND THE SITUATION THAT HAPPENED THAT LED UP TO US HAVING TO BE HEARING THIS CASE THAN IT IS HOW BIG OF AN ISSUE THE ACTUAL DETAILING IS ON THE BUILDING THAT WAS EXECUTED.

>> FULL AND ABIDING CONVICTION GO BACK TO THE PRESS FOR A SECOND.

THERE'S NO -- THERE'S NOTHING TO TRIGGER AN INSPECTION BEFORE THE FINAL INSPECTION.

>> YEAH.

>> AS FAR AS PLANNING.

>> YEAH.

>> BUT I MEAN IT'S CONCERNING.

I MEAN, I WOULD HOPE THAT WE WOULD SEE MORE COORDINATION BETWEEN THE PLANNING AND THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT OR SAY WILLING PARTICIPATION.

COORDINATION.

HOPEFULLY WE CAN HAVE THAT DISCUSSION NEXT MONTH AND AT LEAST SEE IF WE CAN GET SOME OF THAT STUFF RESOLVED SO THAT NOT JUST FOR THE SAKE OF THIS PARTICULAR APPLICANT BUT FOR OTHER APPLICANTS IN THE FUTURE SO THAT THEY DON'T GET IN THE SAME SITUATION AS WELL.

YOU KNOW.

>> WOULD IT BE APPROPRIATE TO ADD TO A MOTION TO APPROVE GOING FORWARD WITH THIS THAT IF THERE ARE ANY CHANGES THAT THEY BE PRESENTED TO THE BOARD FOR CONSIDERATION PRIOR TO MAKING THEM.

>> YOU SHOULD NOT HAVE TO MAKE THEM.

BUT YEAH.

>> GO FOR IT.

>> ANY OTHER? ANY ADDITIONAL COMMENTS?

>> ISN'T THERE AN AFTER THE FACT FINE?

>> YEAH.

WELL, THE VARIANCE AFTER THE FACT IS CONSIDERABLY MORE EXPENSIVE THAN A VARIANCE BEFORE THE FACT.

RIGHT.

>> USED TO BE.

>> IS THAT NOT TRUE ANYMORE?

>> I'M NOT SURE.

>> I DON'T THINK IT'S VERY MUCH.

IT'S, LIKE, $750 OR SOMETHING.

>> I'M NOT SURE.

I'VE NOT DEALT WITH THAT.

I'LL HAVE TO LOOK INTO THAT.

>> I KNOW IT'S MORE EXPENSIVE TO ASK AFTER.

I DON'T KNOW.

>> WE PROBABLY WOULD HAVE APPROVED IT.

>> RIGHT.

>> I THINK IT'S A FUNDAMENTAL ISSUE.

>> WE GOT A PROCESS PROBLEM.

>> YES.

WE GOT A PROCESS PROBLEM AND THIS HAPPENS UNFORTUNATELY TIME AND AGAIN.

SOMEBODY PUTS WINDOWS IN, THE WRONG WINDOWS.

WELL, YOU KNOW --

>> I WOULDN'T SAY TIME AND AGAIN.

>> OKAY. SORRY.

>> IT DOES HAPPEN.

IT HAPPENS.

>> I AGREE WITH YOUR POINT.

JUST FREQUENCY.

SINCE I'VE BEEN ON THIS BOARD WHICH IS, I DON'T KNOW, COUPLE OF YEARS NOW, I GOT TO SAY THIS IS ONE OF THE FEW TIMES I REMEMBER THE BUILDING NOT LINING UP WITH APPROVAL.

[Item 3.3]

[00:31:11]

>> THE CENTRAL BUSINESS STRICT C3 ZONED PROPERTY IS LOCATED WITHIN THE EAST OF FRENCH STREET DESIGN AREA OF THE WATERFRONT COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AREA. AS SUCH, ALL NEW CONSTRUCTION IS REQUIRED TO BE REVIEWED BY THE HISTORIC COUNCIL.

APPROVAL WAS RECEIVED APRIL 18TH, 2019.

ATHE CAN'T IS NOW SEEK FINAL APPROVAL.

CHEESE THE REQUESTED ACTION IS CONSISTENT WITH THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE.

>>> THIS IS THE -- WE CAN -- WE APPROVE THIRD DEGREE TWO MONTHS AGO RIGHT?

>> I THINK IT'S GOTTEN TWO CONCEPTUAL APPROVALS.

>> IS THAT RIGHT?

>> YEAH.

AND I UNDERSTAND THIS PROJECT HAS BEEN THROUGH TRC.

>> IT HAS BEEN RECEIVED THEIR FIRST COMMENTS BACK.

>> AND THERE WERE NO -- NO STOPS, PROBLEMS, SERIOUS CONCERNS WITH THE TRC.

>> CORRECT.

>> OKAY.

QUESTIONS FOR MS. SAMANTHA? COULD YOU THROW DRAWINGS UP THERE FOR US?

>> YEAH.

I'M TRYING TO FIND THEM RIGHT NOW.

YEAH.

>>> IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE TO ADD?

>> I DIDN'T HAVE ANYTHING ELSE.

>> ALL RIGHT.

QUESTIONS.

HEARING NONE --

>> I HAVE ONE QUESTION.

I WAS A LITTLE BIT CONFUSED WITH SAL'S DISCUSSION ABOUT THE SET BACK.

>> THE SET BACK.

>> RIGHT.

>> YEAH.

>> AND I KNOW THAT SOME OF THE VERBIAGE IS CONFUSING BUT TO MY MIND IT EITHER SAYS TEN FEET IS REQUIRED OR NO MORE THAN TEN FEET.

WHERE DOES THAT FIT IN?

>> HIS NOTE I THOUGHT AT THE END OF THE DISCUSSION, I THOUGHT HE CLARIFIED THAT.

I COULD BE MISTAKEN.

I SEEM TO RECALL HIM --

>> HE TALKED ABOUT THE DIFFERENT

[00:35:03]

PLACES WHERE IT'S MENTIONED BUT I COULD NOT FIND WHERE SEVEN WOULD THEN BE WHICH ONE THAT WOULD FALL UNDER.

>> OKAY.

>> HE EXPLAINED IT THAT IT SHOULD BE NO FURTHER THAN TEN FEET.

SO THERE'S APARTMENTS IN THE WAREHOUSE BUILDING BECAUSE LOOKING AT THE PROPERTY RECORD IT SAYS --

>> IT SAYS WAREHOUSES.

>> IS THAT SOMETHING WE NEED TO RESOLVE?

>> YEAH.

WE NEED TO GET THAT RESOLVED.

OKAY. CAN ANYBODY CONFIRM WHAT THE ZONING FOR THE ADJACENT --

>> I'M PULLING THAT UP RIGHT NOW.

THAT --

>> RESIDENTIAL.

OWING.

THANK YOU.

IT IS BELIEVED THAT THE SHOULD WE MOVE ON TO MR. MORRISON THEN? I'M LOOKING.

HOLD ON A SECOND.

IT MIGHT BE JUST LIKE IF YOU GO TO THE EXTERIOR ELEVATION, IF YOU LOOK AT THE WEST ELEVATION OR FIELD GOAL LIKE THAT -- OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT, IT MIGHT BE IN MY DRAWINGS.

>> STREET VIEW.

WHAT ARE WE LOOKING AT.

>> THE COMPARATIVE ELEVATIONS.

HE THINKS THEY SUBMITTED THAT SO YOU COULD SEE IT RELATIVE TO THE WAREHOUSE PERMIT AND THE --

[00:40:13]

>> I'LL KEEP LOOKING.

>> OKAY. LET'S GO AHEAD AND ASK BENJAMIN TO STEP UP AND STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD.

>> BENJAMIN MORRISON.

I THINK THIS -- YOU GUYS HAVE SEEN THIS IS THE FOURTH TIME THAT I THINK -- IT'S THE THIRD TIME I THINK WE'VE PRESENTED THESE DRAWINGS HERE AND THEY'VE NOT SUBSTANTIALLY CHANGED SINCE THE FIRST TIME THAT I CAME IN FOR THE CONCEPTUAL BECAUSE WE HAVEN'T HAD ANY -- THE DRAWINGS HAVE JUST DEVELOPED FURTHER AS FAR AS THE LEVEL OF DETAIL.

BUT I THINK IT'S A GOOD EXAMPLE OF GUIDELINE -- DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR THE CRA AND WE THINK THAT IT'S A PAS AT THIS PROJECT FOR THE COMMUNITY.

THERE IS A DIMENSION PROVIDED THAT YOU CAN'T REALLY SEE.

IT'S A MAXIMUM OF 35 FEET FROM THE AVERAGE GRADE TO AT THAT TOP SO WE'RE COMPLIANT WITH THE REQUIREMENTS.

THEY DO IT A LITTLE DIFFERENT IN THE CRA IF YOU REMEMBER INSTEAD OF MEASURING TO THE TOP OF THE ROOF.

>> HOW MANY UNITS?

>> NINE RESIDENTIAL UNITS AND THREE COMMERCIAL UNITS.

>> I WOULD LIKE TO APPLAUD YOUR ACCURACY OR WHO EVER'S ACCURACY IT IS WHEN WE SEE HEIGHT, HOW OFTEN DO WE GET A 32 FEET EIGHT AND A QUARTER INCHES ON A HEIGHT.

AS OPPOSED TO THE ROUNDED.

>> HOPEFULLY IF THEY COME AND MEASURE THEY GIVE US A QUARTER ARCHLY OF FLEXIBILITY THERE.

>> WE'RE GOING TO HOLD YOU TO THAT QUARTER INCH.

>> YOU DO THAT BECAUSE THEY LET YOU THINK THAT --

>> YEAH.

>> AND DON'T YOU KNOW I'LL BE OUT THERE WITH MY LASER.

>> I WOULD NOT BE SURPRISED.

>> I THINK -- I JUST WANT TO POINT OUT THAT, FOR EXAMPLE, THE DETAILING ON THE FRONT ENTRY IS VERY STAIR.

I KNOW I'VE COMMENTED ON THE USE OF JUST A SIMPLE CONCRETE STAIR.

I WANTED TO POINT THAT OUT BECAUSE I FEEL IT'S APPROPRIATE FOR THE DETAILING FOR MATERIALS USED ON THIS BUILDING AND THE WAY THAT THEY'VE BEEN PRESENTED, THAT TYPE OF STAIRS IS APPROPRIATE.

WE'VE HAD SOME OTHER APPLICANTS THAT HAVE USED THE SAME KIND WHERE IT'S BEEN INAPPROPRIATE FOR THE BUILDING.

I THOUGHT I WOULD POINT THAT OUT THERE.

IT MATTERS WHAT YOU'RE DETAILING.

YOU NEED TO BE CONSISTENT ON YOUR DETAILING ON YOUR BUILDINGS.

SO I WANTED TO POINT THAT OUT.

>> YOU'RE SAYING WE DID A GOOD JOB.

>> I THINK IT'S APPROPRIATE.

>> YEAH.

>> FOR THE DETAILING.

>> OKAY.

I THINK SO TOO.

>> QUESTIONS.

>> THIS IS A GOOD PROJECT AND A GOOD IDEA ALL ALONG.

>> AND LIKE SAMANTHA SAID I'LL MENTION WE DID JUST YESTERDAY I THINK GET THE COMMENTS BACK FROM TRC FOR THE FIRST TIME AND YOU KNOW THERE'S THREE PAGES OF COMMENTS HERE FROM ALL THE DIFFERENT DEPARTMENTS AND WE'VE BEEN THROUGH ALL OF THEM AND NONE OF THEM HAVE ANYTHING THAT AFFECTS WHAT YOU GUYS ARE BEING ASKED TO LOOK AT TONIGHT.

NOTHING THAT AFFECTS THE AESTHETICS OF THE BUILDING.

THE SITE PLAN.

WE'RE REALLY CONCERNED ABOUT THE TRC.

WHERE TO CHANGE THE MATERIAL AND THE SITE.

>> THAT'S IMPORTANT.

>> WE'RE OKAY.

>> THAT'S IMPORTANT TO US TOO.

BECAUSE WE DON'T WANT TO COME HERE AND GET A FINAL APPROVAL AND HAVE TO COME BACK AND SAY WE FOUND OUT LATER ON WE HAVE TO FIND TWO MORE PARKING SPOTS OR

[00:45:02]

WHEREVER THAT IS.

>> I HAVE ONE OTHER QUESTION.

WITH THAT STORM WATER REPORT AND I SAW THE WORK UP ON HERE AND IT LOOKS GOOD.

ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE'VE BEEN FOCUSING ON WITH THESE THINGS IS GUTTERS AND DOWN SPOUTS.

SO DO WE HAVE AN IDEA WHERE THEY'LL BE? WE'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC MEETING IF ANYONE WISHES TO TESTIFY WITH REGARDS TO HDC 2019-07.

224 NORTH SECOND STREET.

THIS IS YOUR OPPORTUNITY.

ALL RIGHT.

CLOSE PUBLIC MEETING.

MOVE TO BOARD DISCUSSION.

>> I'M IN FAVOR OF THIS ONE.

I FEEL LIKE IT PRESENTED A SET OF DRAWINGS THAT SHOWS US THE DETAILS ON ALL SIDES OF THE BUILDING.

PRESENTS THE STANDARD THINGS WE'RE LOOKING FOR.

HAVE THE AC UNITS PROPERLY SCREENED AND IS THE DETAILING CONSISTENT ON ALL SIDES OF THE BUILDING, ET CETERA.

I'M IN FAVOR OF THIS.

>> YES.

AND I DO REMEMBER THE WATER RETENTION SYSTEM.

WE GAVE YOU AN OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK IN THE PUBLIC SECTION AND YOU CHOSE NOT TO SO HAVE YOU TO WAIT A SECOND.

ARE YOU WILLING TO REOPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING? ALL RIGHT.

WE'LL REOPEN IT.

IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO TESTIFY, PLEASE COME FORWARD.

>> I WASN'T SWORN IN BUT I'M LOOKING AT THIS AND I HAVE A QUESTION.

>> YOU CERTAINLY CAN BE SWORN IN.

AND YOU CAN COME UP AND STATE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD.

BUT WHEN I SAY IT'S OPEN I WOULD HOPE YOU'D STEP UP.

>> ONE QUESTION.

>> YEAH, PLEASE GET SWORN IN.

>> NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD, PLEASE.

>> MARILYN LIDEMAN.

213 NORTH 13TH STREET.

>> OKAY. HOW CAN WE HELP YOU?

>> I JUST HAVE A QUESTION.

IT MUST ADMIT TRYING TO HEAR WHAT'S GOING ON AND I MISSED SOME OF IT BUT WHAT I HEARD WAS SETBACKS.

WHAT ABOUT THE SETBACKS? ON THE SIDE SETBACKS.

I OWN THE PROPERTY NEXT DOOR.

>> SO THE SOUTH?

>> TO IF SOUTH.

AND I'M LOOKING AT THIS AND WONDERING ABOUT THE SET BACKS WITH ALL THOSE WINDOWS I THINK THAT WOULD BE THE SOUTH SIDE.

>> THAT'S CORRECT.

>> IF THAT'S THE CASE AND WE'RE TALKING ABOUT SET BACKS OR LITTLE SET BACKS OR WHATEVER, I HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO BUILD NEXT TO DR. PAGE, HOW IS THIS GOING TO WORK OUT WITH ALL THOSE WINDOWS? IT SOUNDED LIKE WE'RE GOING TO BE PUSHED TOGETHER LIKE THIS.

>> FIVE FOOT SET BACKS.

>> WE'RE CHOOSING A FIVE FOOT SET BACKS BUT NO SET BACKS ARE REQUIRED IS THE ANSWER TO THE QUESTION.

>> IF THEY'RE NOT REQUIRED THEN DOESN'T HAVE TO BE DONE BUT I'M JUST LOOKING -- EXCUSE ME.

I'M JUST LOOKING AT THIS AND WONDERING FIVE FEET.

THAT'S A LOT OF WINDOWS.

>> I THINK THE ANSWER IS THAT THAT'S THE RISK THAT THEY TAKE AND THAT YOU TAKE WHEN YOU HAVE PROPERTY IN THE CRM.

>> THAT'S THE RISK THAT THEY TAKE AND THE RISK THAT YOU TAKE WHEN YOU BUILD IN THE CRA.

THEY CAN BUILD HARD -- YOU CAN BUILD HARD UP TO THE LINE IF I UNDERSTAND IT CORRECTLY.

YOU COULD BUILD LITERALLY HELP ME OUT HERE LOT LINE TO LOT LINE?

>> YEAH.

THESE PEOPLE TWO YEARS FROM NOW BE LOOKING AT A HUGE BRICK WALL.

>> HERE'S THE DEAL.

IF SHE WAS THE BUILD RIGHT UP TO THE PROPERTY LINE SHE COULD NOT HAVE WINDOWS THERE BECAUSE OF FIRE CODES.

>> THAT'S WHAT I'M HEARING.

YOU COULD NOT BUILD UP TO -- YOU COULD BUILD OP THE PROPERTY LINE.

>> THAT'S CORRECT.

>> RIGHT.

>> OKAY. I UNDERSTAND IT.

IT'S A LITTLE STRANGE TO ME BUT I UNDERSTAND IT.

>> WELL, I GUESS THE POINT WOULD

[00:50:01]

BE THAT EACH PERSON IN THE CITY IS IN A PARTICULAR ZONING AREA AND PARTICULAR UNDER A PARTICULAR SET OF LINES AND THAT ONE CRA NORTH SECOND STREET IS ZERO LOT LINE.

>> I KNOW.

I WAS JUST -- BECAUSE OF THE WINDOWS IS WHAT GOT ME.

OKAY.

>> WHILE THE PUBLIC MEETING IS OPEN, IS THERE ANYONE ELSE WHO WISHES TO ASK A QUESTION AT THIS TIME? IF NOT WE'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AGAIN.

AND MOVE ON TO I BELIEVE WE WERE GOING TO ENTERTAIN A MOTOR VEHICLES?

>> I'LL MAKE A MOTION.

>> THANK YOU.

CHEESE .

>> I MOVE TO APPROVE HDC CASE NUMBER 2019-07 WITHOUT CONDITIONS.

AND I MOVE THAT THE HDC MAKE THE FINAL FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW PART OF THE RECORD.

>> I'LL SECOND.

>> ANY DISCUSSION?

>> HEARING NONE, PLEASE CALL THE ROLL.

>>

[Item 3.5]

>>> MOVING ON.

THIS IS THAT UNFORTUNATE DEMO PROBLEM.

IS THERE SOMEBODY HERE REPRESENTING THIS TONIGHT OR IS IT JUST YOU?

>> I DON'T SEE MS. DAVIS HERE.

I WENT BY THERE YESTERDAY.

IT HAS NOT IMPROVED OVER THE LAST TWO YEARS SINCE WE FIRST TOOK THIS UP.

GO AHEAD.

>> REQUESTED ACTION IS A CERTIFICATE OF APPROVAL TO DEMOLISH AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE.

A LETTER WAS SENT NOTIFYING THE OWNER OF THE VIOLATION.

>>> GIGSS FOR SAMANTHA?

>> I GUESS I HAVE A COUPLE.

I SEE STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS TO SALVAGE MATERIALS TO BE RECYCLED OR REUSED.

TO THE EXTENT FEASIBLE.

I SEEM TO RECALL SAL ORIGINALLY TALKING ABOUT THE FACT THAT WE ARE PRETTY CONSISTENTLY LOSING THIS TYPE OF STRUCTURE IN THE HISTORIC DISTRICT.

WHAT IS STAFF'S KIND OF STANDING ON AS FAR AS DOCUMENTING.

>> WITH OTHER DEMOLITIONS, WE DO KEEP A FILE OF PHOTOS AND PICTURES AND CERTAINLY WE SHOULD DO THE SAME OF COURSE WITH THIS STRUCTURE.

I'VE NOT DISCUSSED THAT WITH SAL BUT I THINK IT'S A GOOD IDEA.

>> YEAH.

IT'S REALLY SIMPLE ESPECIALLY WITH CELLPHONE YOU CAN GO SNAP A BUNCH OF PICTURES REALLY QUICK AS PART OF YOUR FINAL SUBMITTAL TURN IN SOME DOCUMENTATION OF THE BUILDING.

>> I THINK THAT'S A GOOD IDEA VERSUS JUST MAYBE SOME RANDOM PHOTOS THAT WE MIGHT DIG UP.

I THINK THAT CAN BE WRITTEN INTO SOMETHING SOMEWHERE THAT JUST SAYS IF A DEMO IS GRANTED, JUST ELEVATIONS ALL FOUR SIDES.

MAYBE SOME -- A PLAN WITH DIMENSIONS ON IT.

>> I WANT TO SAY MAYBE FOR SOME REASON I THINK THAT THAT'S IN OUR GUIDELINES SOMEWHERE.

I DON'T KNOW THEM AS WELL AS STAFF.

I JUST SEEM TO RECALL THIS CONVERSATION.

THIS IS IN --

>> SO WE'LL ASK STAFF TO BE SURE THAT THAT DOCUMENTATION GETS DONE.

>> DOES THAT SITE STRETCH FROM 9

[00:55:03]

TO TENTH STREET?

>> YES.

>> AND THAT'S ONE LOT.

>> FASCINATING.

YOU ACTUALLY SEE THIS SHED FROM THE TENTH STREET SIDE.

>>

>>> ALL RIGHT.

I'LL MOVE TO APPROVE HDC CASE NUMBER 2019-26 WITH THE CONDITION THAT ALL MATERIALS BE SALVAGED, RECYCLED TO THE EXTENT FEASIBLE.

I'LL MOVE THAT -- HDC CASE 2019-26 AS PRESENTED IS SUBSTANTIALLY COMPLIANT WITH THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR STANDARDS AND THE DOWNTOWN HISTORIC DISTRICT GUIDELINES.

TO OUR APPROVAL AT THIS TIME.

>> I SECOND.

>> ANY DISCUSSION?

>> HEARING NONE, PLEASE CALL THE ROLL.

[Item 4.1]

>>> NEW BUSINESS.

2019-34.

1122 SAN FERNANDO STREET.

WE'RE GOING TO LET SAMANTHA MAKE THE PRESENTATION FIRST THEN WE'LL GET YOU UP HERE.

THIS IS -- WE APPROVED THE HOUSE --

>> I'LL GET TO THAT.

I THINK IT'S DONE A LITTLE FURTHER TO WHEN THE HOUSE WAS FIRST APPROVED.

>> THANK YOU.

TELL US WHAT YOU'RE GOING TO TELL US.

>> REQUESTING A CERTIFICATE OF APPROVAL TO CONSTRUCT A TWO STORY ACCESSORY STRUCTURE IN OLD TOWN.

THE APPLICANT SEEKS A CERTIFICATE OF APPROVAL TO -- IT'S LISTED AT 266 AND THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT IS 24.

BUT THE APPLICANT IS HERE AND I THINK HE'S BROUGHT SOME CORRECTIONS WITH HIM BUT STAFF FINDS IT'S CONSISTENT WITH THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE.

THE SECRETARY OF INTERIOR STANDARDS AND THE OLD TOWN PRESERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT GUIDELINES RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS THAT THE HEIGHT OF 24 FEET AS SHOWN ON THE ELEVATION IS CORRECT AND THE TOTAL SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THE FOOTPRINT IS 500 SQUARE FEET AND WHETHER THE WINDOWS ARE TO HAVE A 22 CONFIGURATION OR A 11.

>> QUESTIONS FOR MS. ROGERS?

>>

>>> SO FOR AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE, IN OLD TOWN.

[01:00:03]

>> 500 SQUARE FEET AND 24 FOOT TALL AND WE DECIDED THAT THAT 500 SQUARE FEET IS ONLY FOR ENCLOSED SPACE NOT FOR COVERED PORCHES.

>> RIGHT.

THOSE ARE LANDSCAPE FEATURES.

>> BECAUSE THERE'S A SUBSTANTIAL --

>> FOOTPRINT.

>> SUBSTANTIAL PORCH BUT I THINK --

>> CONDITION ISN'T IT JUST CONDITION SNIDE.

>> WE'VE HAD THIS DISCUSSION BEFORE.

>> ENCLOSED FOOTPRINT I THINK MIGHT BE A BETTER WAY TO PUT IT.

>> YEAH.

RIGHT.

UTILITY ROOM.

>> YOU HAVE GARAGE AND GARAGE WOULD BE CONDITIONED.

>> YEAH.

THIS IS MORE EXTENSIVE THAN WHAT WE HAVE NORMALLY SEEN.

WE'VE SEEN LIKE SHED ROOFS IN ADDITION TO THAT FOOTPRINT AND STUFF LIKE THAT BEFORE.

>>> I DON'T KNOW THAT I TOTALLY UNDERSTOOD YOUR ANSWER ABOUT THE SITUATION WITH THE WINDOWS.

>> OH.

HE GENERICALLY IN THE DRAWINGS PUT SOME THERE.

WELL MY HOUSE WHICH IS APPROVED IS CLEAR WINDOWS.

>> OKAY.

>> SO WE'RE NOT GOING TO SEE ANY.

>> NO, YOU'RE NOT GOING TO SEE ANY OF THOSE.

THEY'RE NOT IN MY HOUSE.

I DON'T WANT THEM IN THE CARRIAGE HOUSE.

>> OKAY. SHOULD WE MOVE ON TO PUBLIC HEARING?

>> I THINK SO.

>> THANK YOU.

>> WE'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR 2019-34 1122 SAN FERNANDO STREET.

ANYONE HERE WISH TO TESTIFY? CHEESE OKAY. CLOSING PUBLIC HEARING.

GOING ONCE.

GOING TWICE.

YOU ALWAYS WANT TO LISTEN TO THE PUBLIC.

YOU JUST WISH THE PUBLIC WOULD GET UP WHEN THEY'RE SUPPOSED TO.

ALL RIGHTED THE BOARD DISCUSSION.

>> MY MAIN QUESTION WOULD BE GOING FORWARD IS THERE ANY LIMIT TO THE SIZE OF THE PORCH OR COVERED PORCH OR COULD SOMEONE DO A THREE CAR PARK WITH A COVERED PORCH ABOVE.

>> I DON'T KNOW THAT'S A CARPORT.

I THINK THAT'S A STRETCH TO CALL THIS A CARPORT.

>> WHAT DO YOU MEAN? IT'S MORE SUBSTANTIAL DEPEND.

>> IT'S A TWO STORY CARPORT.

THAT'S MY MAIN QUESTION.

IS THERE A LIMIT TO HOW BIG SOMETHING -- AT WHAT POINT ARE YOU DO WE NEED TO START SEEING THIS IN THE CONTEXT WITH THE PRIMARY STRUCTURE.

>> TOUT SIT IN APPROXIMATE? SURE.

WE HAVEN'T ASKED H"HIM" ONE QUESTION.

AND YOU'RE GOING TO PAY HIM? HE DID AN EXCELLENT JOB.

>> YOU'RE RIGHT.

DOUBLE TIME.

THANK YOU.

WE APPRECIATE IT.

AUDIO]

>> ALL RIGHT.

LET'S GET BACK TO THIS QUESTION.

WE'RE SO GLAD TAMMY IS HERE BECAUSE WE CAN ASK HER.

I HAVE BEEN STUDYING THESE OLD TOWN GUIDELINES A LOT SINCE OUR

[01:05:03]

MARCH WORKSHOP.

I GOT TO SAY THAT I DON'T THINK IT ADDRESSES SORT OF ANCILLARY ROOF, PORCH STRUCTURES.

>> I THINK WE'VE TALKED ABOUT IT SEVERAL TIMES.

I THINK I'VE BEEN MORE VOCAL THAN ANYBODY ELSE ABOUT MY OPINION THAT I THINK THAT THIS SORT OF STUFF STRETCHES WITH THE LIMITATIONS OF THE SQUARE FOOTAGE TO BEGIN WITH.

BUT IN ALL FAIRNESS, WE'VE APPROVED OTHER GARAGES IN THE RECENT PATH PAST THAT HAVE BEEN 500 SQUARE FEET ENCLOSED WITH ADDITIONAL BAYS FOR CARPORT.

I JUST DON'T KNOW THAT WE'VE EVER APPROVED ONE THAT HAD A TWO STORY PORCH ABOVE IT.

>> RIGHT.

AND.

>> AND I THINK THAT IT'S NOT REGARDLESS OF THIS PARTICULAR CASE AND WHETHER OR NOT IT'S ACCEPTABLE OR NOT, IT SEEMS LIKE IF THERE'S IF THERE'S NO LIMITATION IT PUTS US IN A PRECARRIOUS SPOT OF HAVING TO INTERPRET SOMETHING AND HAVING A CHANCE OF SOMEONE SAYING WE'RE NOT BEING CONSIST BITTY.

>> I TALKED TO BILL YESTERDAY ABOUT GUIDELINES AND HE REMINDED ME THAT WE'LL BE IN A PROCESS HOPEFULLY IN A PROCESS NEXT YEAR OF REVIEWING THE OLD TOWN GUIDELINES WENT WE REALLY NEED TO PUT THAT ON THE LIST OF THINGS TO LOOK AT.

BUT I DON'T THINK WE HAVE ANY -- ANYTHING IN OUR GUIDELINES ADDRESSING THE SCALE OF THE CARPORT OR COVERED STRUCTURES AS LONG AS THE SET BACKS ARE MET AND AS LONG AS --

>> AND EVEN THOUGH THIS SHOULD NOT MATTER IT MATTERS A LITTLE BUT THAT THERE'S NOBODY OUT HERE IN THE DMUNT THAT CAME OUT TO SAY TO US THIS IS FREAKING US OUT WE'RE WORRIED ABOUT THIS SETTING A DANGEROUS PRECEDENT.

>> NO ONE SEEMS THAT CONCERNED.

>> NO.

EXCEPT FOR MAYBE US.

I DID PUT IN THE SURVEY FOR LOT FIVE.

>> DO WE HAVE THAT?

>> I'M LOOKING FOR IT.

>> I BELIEVE THAT MIGHT WITH HERE.

YEAH, IT IS.

IT JUST DOESN'T SHOW.

>> THERE IS -- YEAH.

SO BUT ARE YOU REMOVING TREES TO BUILD THE GARAGE?

>> ONE.

THESE ARE JUST THINGS THAT IN ALL HONESTY WE'VE MADE OTHER PEOPLE COME BACK FOR SO I'M NOT SUGGESTING THAT IS WHAT WE'RE GOING TO DO FOR YOU.

BUT I'M LETTING YOU KNOW THAT'S WHY WE'RE HAVING THIS DISCUSSION IN THE PAST WE'VE HELD OTHER PEOPLE ACCOUNTABLE FOR THIS STUFF BECAUSE IT'S PART OF THE IF YOU LOOK AT THE APPLICATION FOR HDC, THERE'S A WHICH CAN LIST THAT HAS EVERYTHING ON THERE THAT IS REQUIRED INCLUDING A SITE PLAN WITH THE TREE SHOWN AND INCLUDES ANY HARD SCAPING DRIVEWAY SIDEWALKS AND STUFF LIKE THAT.

[01:11:00]

I JUST WANTED A 12-FOOT DRIVEWAY COMING UP TO IT.

>> SIT GOING TO GO OUT AS IT APPROACHES THE BUILDING?

>> A LITTLE BIT.

NOT TOTALLY.

>> CAN WE GIVE HIM A FINAL APPROVAL ON THE BUILDING WITH THE CONDITION THAT HE COMES BACK TO GIVE US A SITE PLAN SHOWING THE DRIVEWAY BEFORE IT'S CONSTRUCTED?

>> I WOULD HAVE TO MAKE SURE THAT HE -- AS A CONDITION.

>> I DON'T THINK HE HAS TO COME BACK BEFORE US.

>> LOOKING HERE AND IT'S PRETTY STRAIGHTFORWARD.

MIGHT BE OKAY. THANK YOU.

WE APPRECIATE YOU.

I'LL MAKE A MOTION.

>> PLEASE DO IT WITH THE CONDITIONS WE TALKED ABOUT.

THANK YOU.

>> WHICH IS THE DRIVEWAY.

>> SITE PLAN WITH TREES AND DRIVEWAY.

I MOVE TO APPROVE 2019-34 WITH THE CONDITION THAT PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION, THE APPLICANT SUBMIT A SITE PLAN WITH THE LOCATIONS AND EXISTING TREES AS WELL AS ANY TREES THAT ARE GOING TO BE REMOVED AS WELL AS LOCATIONS IN ANY HARD SCAPING INCLUDING DRIVEWAYS AND SIDEWALKS BE SUBMITTED FOR STAFF APPROVAL.

>> SECOND.

>> MOVED.

SECONDED.

BOARD DISCUSSION IN .

>> LET'S JUST MAKE SURE WE TALK ABOUT THIS AT OUR OLD TOWN WORKSHOP.

>> YOU TAKING NOTES THERE? WE'RE GOING TO RECOMMEND TO THE NEXT BODY UP THAT THOSE BE APPROVED.

THAT WOULD BE CONSISTENT WITH WHAT'S GOING ON.

>> YES.

OTHER DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE.

GO AHEAD.

PLEASE CALL THE ROLL.

[Item 4.2]

201935.

WHAT CAN YOU TELL US?

>> REQUESTED ACTION IS A CERTIFICATE OF APPROVAL TO CONSTRUCT A THREE STORY MIXED USE PRIMARY STRUCTURE ZONED C3 IN THE CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT.

[01:15:53]

SO THE SCALE HEIGHT AND BIDTH OF THE PROPOSED STRUCTURE IS 36 FEET TWO AND A QUARTER INCHES WHICH IS BELOW THE MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE HEIGHT OF 35 FEET.

THERE'S AN ADDITIONAL SIX FEET BUT IT'S NOT INCLUDED IN THE TOTAL HEIGHT CALCULATIONS.

THAT'S FOR GUIDELINE NUMBER ONE.

THE BLOCK FACE CONSISTS OF FIVE EXISTING BUILDINGS.

THE APPLICANT HAS PROVIDED A NONSCALED STREET SCAPE ELEVATION INDICATING BUILDING HEIGHTS AS BEING AND HERE THEY ARE.

ON SHEET TWO THE APPLICANT HAS PROVIDED A CALCULATION OF BUILDING HEIGHTS WITH NUMBERS THAT DO NOT MATCH THE STREET SCAPE ELEVATION HEIGHTS ON SHEET A1.

THE BOARD WILL NEED TO FURTHER -- FURTHER CLARIFICATION TO CONSIDER THIS AS EVIDENCE.

STAFF CANNOT MAKE A RECOMMENDATION OF FINAL APPROVAL UNTIL IT IS CLEAR THAT THE PROPOSED STRUCK DURR IS WITHIN THE GUIDELINES FOR COMPATIBLE HEIGHT AND STAFF RECOMMENDS REQUIRING A SCALED STREET SCAPE ELEVATION VERIFIED AND STUMBLEED BY ARCHITECT BEFORE FINAL APPROVAL.

AND GUIDELINE ONE RELATED TO NEW BUILDINGS SHOULD HAVE THE SAME NUMBER OF STORIES HEIGHTS OF THE ADJACENT FIVE BUILDINGS BE PROVIDED ON A SCALED STREET ELEVATION STAMPED BY THE ARCHITECT OR ENGINEER DEMONSTRATING CATBILITY WITH THE HEIGHT GUIDELINES AND CORRECTIONS SHOWN ON FINAL PLAN FOR THE TWO DOORS NOTED IN THE STAFF REPORT.

[01:20:14]

>>> I GUESS THAT'S OUR DECISION AS A BOARD TO MAKE IS WE CERTAINLY HAVE THE ABILITY TO DO IT AS A FINAL COA WITH THAT AS A CONDITION THAT IT BE SUBJECT TO STAFF APPROVAL CORRECT?

>> I BELIEVE SO, YES.

>> OKAY.

>> UNLESS THE STRUCTURE ITSELF IS FUNDAMENTALLY FLAWED BECAUSE IT'S WAY UP SCALE TO THE CALCULATIONS IN OUR GUIDELINES.

>> YEAH.

EITHER IT WORKS OR DOESN'T WORK.

>> LET ME -- OTHER QUESTIONS.

ARE THESE HEIGHTS THIRD PARTY VERIFIED OR WHATEVER IS SUBMITTED TO STAFF IS WHAT IS ACCEPT.

>> WHAT IS SUBMIT SECOND DEGREE WHAT WE WORK WITH.

>> I THINK THE POINT IS THAT THAT IS WHY HE'S -- HE MAKES -- I THINK THAT'S WHY HE TAKES THE STEP OF SAYING THAT IT'S SIGNED BY AN ARCHITECT OR ENGINEER SO THAT THERE'S SOME SORT OF LIABILITY ASSOCIATED WITH IT.

>> I MIGHT BE ABLE TO ANSWER SOME OF THESE.

>> WE'LL GET THERE.

MY EYEBALL TEST ON SECOND STREET WAS THAT NUMBERS PROVIDED ARE CLOSE.

IT'S DIFFICULT TO SAY THAT THEY'RE -- THE GUIDELINE IS --

>> YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THIS ONE?

>> LOOKING AT THIS CHART ON PAGE SIX.

THIS IS GUIDELINES FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION AND THE HISTORIC DISTRICT DESIGN GUIDELINES PAGE 57.

CONSTRUCT NEW BUILDINGS TO A HEIGHT COMPATIBLE WITH EXISTING ADJACENT BUILDINGS.

NEW BUILDINGS SHOULD HAVE THE SAME NUMBER OF STORIES AND BE WITHIN 10% OF THE AVERAGE HEIGHT OF EXISTING BUILDINGS SEEN FROM THE STREET.

ALL RIGHT.

WAYNE CHISOLM.

TO START, THE STREET SCAPE IS THE SCALE.

THAT ONE IS THIS.

>> IT'S ACTUALLY TWO SCALE.

-- TO SCALE.

THAT'S CORRECT.

THIS MORNING I WAS HIT WITH THE BUILDING WE'RE PROPOSING TO ENTER INTO THE CALCULATIONS.

NOW I WAS REALLY THROWN FOR A LOOP BECAUSE IF THE BUILDING IS GOING TO BE THERE, IT'S ACTUALLY PART OF THE STREET SCAPE AND THEREFORE I THOUGHT IT SHOULD BE PART OF THE CALCULATION HENCE OUR NUMBERS ACTUALLY WORK IN TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THAT OUR BUILDING WILL BECOME PART OF THE STREET SCAPE.

AND WOULD, THEREFORE, BE WITHIN THE 10%.

AND THEN THE OTHER THING WAS THAT WHEN YOU READ THE -- WHEN YOU JUST READ THE PAGE 57, I THINK IT SAID SHOULD BE.

I DON'T THINK IT SAID MUST OR SHALL BE.

I THINK IT SAID SHOULD BE SO I THINK THERE'S A LITTLE ROOM FOR SOME ADJUSTMENTS ESPECIALLY SINCE THE HEIGHT OF THE BUILDING ON THE END THERE AND THE MASS OF THAT I DON'T THINK IS WE'RE TOO FARFETCHED WITH WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO ACCOMPLISH IN THE STREET SCAPE.

[01:25:11]

I'VE DUB THE MATH.

>> I GUESS NOW WE KNOW WHY.

>> AT LEAST IN PART.

>> WE TOOK OUR BUILDING INTO CONSIDERATION.

>> IS THAT WHAT YOU'VE DONE IN THE OTHER ONES TOO LEADING UP TO TODAY?

>> YES.

IT SAYS CLEARLY EXISTING BUILDINGS.

>> IT'S IN SAL'S REPORT AND IT'S IN THE PAGE 57.

>> I GUESS IT'S MY MISINTERPRETATION.

I ASSUMED THAT SINCE THE BUILDING WILL BE BUILT IT WOULD BE PART OF IT BUT THAT'S AN ASSUMPTION.

UNDERSTOOD.

UNDERSTOOD.

QUESTIONS.

FRETS CHEESE .

>> I KNOW STAFF HAVE BROUGHT UP SOME POINTS ABOUT DOORWAYS AND --

>> THERE'S NO DOOR ON THE NORTH SIDE.

IT DOES SHOW IN ONE OF THE SITE PLANS BUT IT WAS A PREVIOUS SITE PLAN.

THE SECOND AND THIRD FLOORS.

THAT'S CORRECT.

SO THE ELEVATION AS DRAWN IS CORRECT.

THE SITE PLAN WILL REFLECT THE FLOOR PLAN WILL REFLECT THE CHANGES.

>> OKAY.

>> BECAUSE WE WERE NOT -- WE WERE MORE CONCERNED ABOUT OUR ELEVATIONS THAN WE WERE IN YOUR APPROVALS FOR THAT AND WHERE WE ENTER AND EXIT.

>> OKAY.

>> JUST FOR CLARITY, SO WE DON'T ACTUALLY HAVE A GROUND FLOOR PLAN THAT IS CORRECT.

>> ONLY THE ELEVATIONS.

>> YEAH.

>> ACTUALLY, YOU MIGHT --

>> SO BOTH OF THE DOORS ON THE GROUND FLOOR PLAN ARE INCORRECT.

THE DOOR ON THE --

>> WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE FRONT ELEVATION IF YOU PULL UP THE FRONT ELEVATION -- I'M SORRY.

THIS IS THE CENTER OPERATING DOOR WINDOW.

>> AND THEN ON THE RIGHT SIDE OF THE BUILDING SO THAT DOOR IS INCORRECT TOO.

>> THE ELEVATION IS ACTUALLY CORRECT BECAUSE IT DOES NOT SHOW A DOOR BUT THE FLOOR PLAN IS NOT.

>> SO THERE'S NOT AN EMERGENCY DOOR ON THE SIDE.

>> IT'S NOT NEEDED.

>> ALL RIGHT.

OKAY.

>> ALL ENTRANCES THROUGH THE FRONT DOOR.

>> OR THE BACK.

>> OR THE BACK.

THAT'S CORRECT.

YES, SIR.

CHEESE OTHER QUESTIONS?

>> YES.

I SAW AS PART OF THE SUBMITTAL PACKET, THE BRICK IS ACTUALLY A VENEER BRICK AND NOT A TRUE BRICK.

>> IT'S ONLY BASED ON COLOR AS TRUE BRICK.

IT'S TRUE BRICK.

>> SO MY QUESTION IS JUST LIKE THE VERY FIRST THICK WE LOOKED AT TODAY IF YOU GO -- THING WE LOOKED AT TODAY.

>> IT IS NOT AND NOR CAN YOU.

IT IS REAL BRICK.

>> OKAY.

>> COULD YOU GO TO THE SITE ELEVATION REAL QUICK?

[01:30:59]

THE BRICK HELPS CREATE VISUAL SCALE FOR THE BUILDING THAT ALL THE STUCK ECHO WE LOOKED AT BEFORE NEVER COULD DO.

SO I REALLY LIKE THE TRANSFORMATION OF THIS.

FOR ME THE HEIGHT -- THE HEIGHT ISSUE IS NOT AS STRONG BECAUSE THAT THIRD FLOOR STEPPED BACK SO SIGNIFICANTLY FROM THE FRONT.

I THINK WHAT YOU'RE REALLY GOING TO FEEL LOOKING AT H DOWN THE STREET IS A TWO STORY AT THE STREET.

AT THIS POINT IT HAS NOT BEEN DETERMINED BUT CAN BE.

IT CAN BE A SYNTHETIC COMPOSITE MATERIAL OR AN STUCCO MATERIAL OR A WOOD MATERIAL.

>> SO DECORATIVE TWO DIMENSIONAL.

>> YES.

>> I WOULD SAY THAT THE RIGHT ANSWER TO THAT QUESTION WOULD BE EITHER THE TWO BESIDES THE STUCCO.

>> IT WILL BE A COMPOSITE OR SYNTHETIC.

>> GOOD ANSWER.

>> THANKS.

>> YEAH.

CHEESE .

>> I WOULD BE IN FAVOR OF THAT AND NOT OF ANY KIND OF STUCCO.

>> OKAY. WE WILL GO TO WITHOUT OBJECTION ANYBODY FROM THE PUBLIC HERE TO SPEAK COME ON UP.

ANYBODY ELSE HERE TO SPEAK ON THIS PROJECT, CASE 2019-35, PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD.

>> I'M HERE REPRESENTING THE ISLAND ART ASSOCIATION THIS WHICH IS ADJACENT TO THIS LOT.

WE HAVE SIGNIFICANT CONCERNS ABOUT THE HEIGHT.

BY ALL THE DIFFERENT MATH THAT I DID BECAUSE THERE'S DIFFERENT NUMBERS ON ALMOST EVERY SUBMITTAL.

NEW AND OLD.

I UNDERSTAND HIS EXPLANATION.

NONE COMES UP TO ANYWHERE NEAR WITHIN TEN% OF THE EXISTING BILLINGS ON THE STREET AND AS YOU MENTIONED IT'S -- WHICHEVER SET OF NUMBERS YOU USE IF YOU ONLY USE THE EXISTING BUILDINGS, YOU END UP ANYWHERE FROM FOUR TO SEVEN OR EIGHT FEET DIFFERENCE PLUS YOU'VE GIVEN AWAY THE FACT THAT YOU'RE SAYING IT'S OKAY AND YOU'VE EVER GIVEN THEM ANOTHER SIX FEET.

IT'S A BIG BUILDING THAT'S LOOMING OVER US.

WE STILL BELIEVE IT'S INCONSISTENT WITH THE STREET SCAPE.

I UNDERSTAND THEY THOUGHT TO PUT THAT BUILDING IN JUST LIKE I THOUGHT IT SHOULD BE FAIR THAT THE PARKING LOT SHOULD BE COUNTED WHEN WE DO THE BUILDING AVERAGES BECAUSE WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE STREET SCAPE, YOU SEE FLAT WE STEP RAD CAD CLAY DOWN AND THEN -- RADICALLY DOWN.

THEN THE CHANDLER BUILDING FACES CENTER STREET.

I THINK WE JUST HAVE A VERY INCONSISTENT LOOK DOWN THE STREET FROM BEING SURFACE LEVEL TO SHOOTING UP TO WHAT IS 42 FEET TO THE TOP OF THE C --

>> AM I ALLOWED TO ASK A QUESTION?

>> SURE.

>> WE DON'T PROMISE A GOOD ANSWER.

>> OKAY. THIS IS A PROCESS

[01:36:52]

QUESTION.

ONCE YOU ALL DO APPROVE WHATEVER IT IS, SOCIAL SECURITY GOING TO BE THE ACTUAL WE'RE CONCERNED ABOUT FAILURE OF OUR FOUNDATION WHEN IT'S BUILT ON THE LOT LINE ON US AND THINGS LIKE THAT.

>> GOT YOU.

>> SO WE JUST WANT TO BE SURE WE'RE IN THAT DIALOGUE BUT FROM THE DESIGN WE THINK THE SIDE WALL LOOKS BETTER BUT WE FEEL THAT IT'S NOT IN COMPLIANCE WITH YOUR RULES THAT ARE WRITTEN.

AND THAT IT SHOULD BE PROBABLY A GOOD SIX TO TEN FEET SHORTER THAN IS BEING SHOWN AS PROPOSED.

>> THANK YOU, MA'AM.

>> ANYBODY ELSE? DHEAS .

>> ALL RIGHT.

MOVING INTO BOARD DISCUSSION.

I'M CLOSING THE PUBLIC MEETING.

YOUR THOUGHTS?

>> I THOUGHT WE DID REQUIRE TRC FIRST.

>> IT'S NOT REQUIRED.

IT'S RECOMMENDED.

>> RECOMMENDED.

>> WE DID DO PRELIMINARY.

WE USUALLY SAY AT YOUR OWN RISK.

>> AND IT'S NOT TECHNICALLY PART OF OUR REQUIREMENTS I THINK.

>> NOT YET.

>> YOU PUT IT IN A MOTION.

>> SO HERE'S MY GENERAL THOUGHTS ON THIS AND THIS IS JUST MY OPINION AND I'M SURE YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE OTHER OPINIONS ON IT OR WHATEVER.

THE FACT THAT THE MATH DOESN'T WORK OUT IS A PROBLEM.

SORT OF UNFORTUNATE BUT IT IS WHAT IT IS.

BUT REGARDLESS OF HOW THE MATH WORKS OUT OR NOT WE ALL SORT OF KNOW WHERE THE BUILDING FALLS TO SOME EXTENT HEIGHT WISE ON THE BLOCK AND WE THAT IT'S NOT GOING TO BE VERY CLOSE TO THAT 10% BASED ON THE CALCULATIONS.

SO ULTIMATELY, I THINK IT DEPENDS ON HOW STRICTLY WE DECIDE THAT WE WANT TO FOLLOW THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE DESIGN GUIDELINES AND I THINK THAT IT'S IMPORTANT IN SOME CASES TO NOTE THAT THE DESIGN GUIDELINES ARE NOT PART OF THE -- THEY'RE DIFFERENT THAN THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE TOO AND THAT IT'S NOT REQUIREMENTS, IT'S RECOMMENDATIONS AND GUIDELINES AND THINGS LIKE THAT AS FAR AS I CAN UNDERSTAND THAT IT'S GIVING US ADVICE AS TO WHAT SHOULD BE APPLIED IN THESE CONDITIONS.

BUT WE ALSO HAVE JURISDICTION AS A BOARD TO MAKE DECISIONS ON CASE BY CASE SITUATIONS WHERE WE MAY CHOOSE NOT TO FOLLOW THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE DESIGN GUIDELINES BECAUSE OF THE SITUATIONS SURROUNDING A PARTICULAR STRUCTURE AND I THINK THAT IN MY PERSONAL OPINION THAT FOR SOME OF THE REASONS THAT JIM STATED EARLIER, I FEEL LIKE I DON'T HAVE GREAT CONCERN ABOUT THE OVERALL BUILDING FEELING OUT OF CONTEXT WITH THE STREET.

I FEEL LIKE THE STEP BACK FROM THE FRONT FACADE THAT ACURS ON THE THIRD -- OCCURS ON THE THIRD FLOOR IS GOING TO VISUALLY MAKE IT MUCH LESS PRESENT ON THE

[01:40:02]

STREET TO THE AVERAGE PERSON WALKING BY AND QUITE FRANKLY AS FAR AS THE CALCULATIONS OF THE BUILDING HEIGHT ARE CONCERNED, I THINK WE HAVE TO SORT OF THINK LONG TERM HERE NOT JUST WHAT EXISTS ON THE STREET NOW BUT WHAT REALISTICALLY MIGHT EXIST ON THE STREET IN THE FUTURE AND WHETHER OR NOT THAT ISLAND ART ASSOCIATION BUILDING IS GOING TO BE THERE FOR 50 YEARS FROM NOW.

YOU KNOW.

AND I KNOW IT MIGHT BE AND IT MIGHT NOT BE.

SO IT'S A JUDGMENT CALL KIND OF THING BUT I FEEL LIKE TO -- IF THERE'S ANY -- THE ISLAND ART ASSOCIATION BUILDING IS OUT OF CONTEXT WITH THE AVERAGE OF THE STREET TOO SO IT'S HURTING THAT COCUE CONGRATULATIONS PERCENTAGE. I FEEL LIKE THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT AVAILABLE IS 45 FEET AND WE'RE WAY UNDERNEATH THAT.

IT'S REASONABLE THAT A THREE STORY BUILDING SHOULD BE ABLE TO BE BUILT ON THIS PROPERTY AND I DON'T THINK THAT THE FLOOR TO FLOOR HEIGHTS BEING PRESENTED HERE ARE EXAGGERATED BEYOND WHAT WOULD BE SORT OF A REASONABLE MINIMUM TO ACHIEVE A THREE-STORY BUILDING.

AND IN MY PERSONAL OPINION, I THINK THAT I WOULDN'T -- I'M WILLING TO BE FLEXIBLE ON THE HEIGHT RESTRICTION AS DEFINED IN THE GUIDELINES NOR THIS PARTICULAR CASE.

I THINK IT'S UNFORTUNATE THAT THE DRAWINGS DON'T ACCURATE -- THAT WE DON'T HAVE FLOOR PLANS THAT ACCURATELY REFLECT THE ELEVATIONS.

I FEEL LIKE IF IT WOULD BE REALLY -- EVEN THOUGH I FEEL COMFORTABLE FROM MY OWN PERSPECTIVE I WOULD SUPPORT APPROVAL OF THE BUILDING BASED OWN THE HEIGHT AND THE AESTHETICS AND THINGS LIKE THAT, IT'S VERY DIFFICULT FOR ME WITHOUT FEELING LIKE WE'RE BEING INCONSISTENT WITH WHAT WE'VE HELD OTHER PEOPLE TO, TO RECOMMEND APPROVING FOR FINAL APPROVAL -- IT'S TOO MANY LITTLE THINGS.

IF THE REST OF THE BOARD, IF THEY CAN GET IN SUPPORT OF THE OVERALL DESIGN OF THE BUILDING AND THE HEIGHT AND WHAT NOT, MAYBE WE CAN WORK WITH THE APPLICANT TO SEE IF WE CAN MAYBE EXPEDITE GETTING THEM ON THE AGENDA IF THEY CAN GET THOSE THINGS CHANGED QUICKLY SO THAT IT DOESN'T -- SO MAYBE YOU DON'T LOSE TWO MONTHS IN THE PROCESS HERE OR MORE.

BUT THAT'S KIND OF WHERE I STAND.

>> THANK YOU.

>> ANYBODY ELSE?

>> I'M GOING TO AGREE WITH SOME OF THAT AND I RESPECTFULLY DISAGREE WITH SOME OF IT.

I THINK THE CHANGE IN MATERIAL AS IN THE OVERALL LOOK IN THIS BUILDING IS GREAT.

ON OUR SCREENS IF WE SCROLL OVER AND GET RID OF ISLAND ART, THAT'S A GREAT STREET SCAPE.

I AGREE WITH THAT.

IT LOOKS GOOD.

IT'S FITTING.

[01:45:39]

WE KNOW WHAT WE'RE GETTING WHEN WE SAY YES AND I TOTALLY AGREE WITH LET'S GET THE HEIGHT DIMENSIONS LOCKED IN AND CALLED OUT ON THE DRAWINGS WHEN AN ARCHITECT SIGNS AND SEALS THE DRAWINGS, HE'S SAYING I'M PUTTING MY LICENSE ON THE LINE HERE SAYING THAT THIS IS ACCURATE.

I'M GOING TO BELIEVE SOMEBODY WHEN THEY DO THAT.

CAN WE ALSO RECOMMEND THEY COME BACK AFTER TRC?

>> WE'VE ALREADY HAD PRELIMINARY APPROVAL BY TRC.

>> WITH THIS NEW DESIGN?

>> THAT'S CORRECT.

HAS NOT CHANGED MUCH FROM THEIR COMMENTS.

>> I WANT TO HEAR --

>> I THINK WE CAN GIVE CONDITIONAL APPROVAL TONIGHT CONCEPTUAL.

>> AND ARE YOU OKAY WITH THE HEIGHT ISSUE? I'M TORN ABOUT THE HEIGHT ISSUE AND WOULD LIKE TO SEE WHAT IT IS ON THE CORRECT SCALE.

WE WOULD BE 14 ABOVE WHAT WOULD BE ALLOWED UNDER THE GUIDELINES.

DOES THIS BECOME PRECEDENT? DOES SOMEBODY WALK IN NEXT WEEK FROM ANOTHER BUILDING ON ANOTHER STREET WHERE THERE'S A 30 FOOT AVERAGE AND SAID YOU DITTY ON NORTH SECOND STREET SO IS EACH CASE INDIVIDUAL? FE UNDER THE LAW IT'S GOT TO BE SUBSTANTIAL AND MATERIAL THAT'S SIMILAR TO IT.

IT'S THE SAME SITUATION.

AND HERE YOU HAVE ARTICULATED IN MY OPINION THAT WITH THE ISLAND ART ASSOCIATION EACH BLOCK FACE IS VERY UNIQUE.

I WANT TO CLARIFY THAT THEY'VE ONLY HAD A PREAPPLICATION DISCUSSION NOT A FORMAL APPLICATION.

>> COULD YOU BRING UP THE STREET SCAPE FOR ME, PLEASE? WE DON'T REALLY HAVE TO MEASURE BUILDING HEIGHTS HERE IN ORDER TO UNDERSTAND THE SCALE ISSUE THAT BEER TALKING ABOUT.

IT'S PRETTY STRAIGHTFORWARD.

YOU GOT A ONE STORY BUILDING, TWO STORY, ONE STORY, THREE STORY.

LET'S ADD UP THE STORIES OF THESE FIVE BUILDINGS.

THEY'RE NINE STORIES.

DIVIDE IT BY FIVE.

IT'S LESS THAN TWO.

THIS THING IS GOING TO BE HUGE AND TOWER OVER THIS BLOCK.

NOW IF YOU WANT TO GO ON -- I GOT TO TELL YOU, SOMEBODY DOWN THE STREET RIGHT NOW IS GOING LOOK AT THIS AND BE IN HERE NEXT MONTH OR YEAR AND SAY WELL YOU KNOW WE DEBT YOU PUT THREE STORIES ON THAT BUILDING AND

[01:50:02]

IT'S TOWERING OVER SECOND STREET.

YOU NEED TO LET ME DO THIS ON FILL IN THE BLANK AND I'M NOT THERE.

IT'S TOO BIG.

WITH YOUR PERMISSION I'M GOING TO ASK IF WE COULD REOPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING.

THE BUILDING IS ACTUALLY LORE BECAUSE IT'S A FLAT ROOF SO YOU'RE GOING TO BE LOOKING AT 25 OR MORE FEET FROM WHERE WE ARE AND IT'S I THINK YOU HAVE TWO STREET VIEWS AND YOU'RE ONLY REALLY THINKING ABOUT ONE STREET VIEW AND I JUST WOULD ENCOURAGE YOU TO LOOK AT BOTH STREET VIEWS.

THAT'S ALL I'VE GOT.

>> THANK YOU.

>> I'M JUST TRYING TO THINK OF HOW THESE FOLKS RIGHT HERE MUST HAVE FELT WHEN A HAH FOOT BUILDING IS ON ONE SIDE AND A 37 ON --

>> VIRILE THE ELECTRIC ME MAID TATTOO PARLOR DOESN'T REALLY HAVE WALLS.

THIS BUILD WAS WAS CONSTRUCTED PHENE THE TWO EXISTING.

>> CORRECT BUT IT HAS THE SAME --

>> SO IT WAS UP WHEN SOMEBODY PUT THAT IN.

THEY KNEW WHAT THEY WERE GETTING INTO.

>> I WOULD PUT THE COMMENT OUT --

>> WE'RE GOING TO CLOSE PUBLIC MEETING AGAIN.

>> YOU CAN SEE WHAT THE BOARD IS STRUGGLING WITH HERE AND THE COMMUNITY AT LARGE.

IT WOULD PROBABLY BEHOOVE YOU TO GENERATE SOME OTHER DRAWING TO SHOW CASE HOW IN THING IS GOING TO LOOK THREE DIMENSIONALLY AS YOU GO THROUGH.

I'M SEEING IT AS UPPER FLOOR STEP BACK.

THIS DRAWING DOESN'T DEMONSTRATE THAT AT ALL.

AND IT MIGHT HELP ILLUMINATE TO EVERYONE ELSE WITH JUST A COUPLE OF CARCINOMA DRAWINGS WHAT IT WILL REALLY LOOK LIKE IN CONTEXT.

>> I THINK WHAT HE MEANS BY THAT IS A THREE DIMENSIONAL DRAWING.

>> I UNDERSTAND.

>> WE'RE IN BOARD DISCUSSION.

AND I THINK WE'VE HAD QUITE A BIT OF THAT.

IS IT APPROPRIATE TO CONSIDER A MOTION AND I'M GIVING YOU YOUR OPTIONS.

WE CAN CONTINUE.

APPROVE CONCEPTUALLY.

DOESN'T SOUND LIKE WE'RE GOING FOR APPROVAL.

YOU COULD ALSO VOTE NO.

WE'LL CALL THAT WHEN WE TURNED THIS DOWN LAST TIME IT WAS BECAUSE OF HEIGHT ISSUES.

>> VERY CONCERNED ABOUT THE SCALE OF THE BUILDING.

CHEESE .

>> WELL, I THINK IT WAS A HEIGHT ISSUE AND ALSO TO SOME EXTENT AN -- THREE OR FOUR TIMES COMING BACK AND NEVER GETTING ARCHITECTURALLY ON THE FACADE WHERE WE WANTED TO GET.

DOES SOMEBODY HAVE A MOTION? I'M GOING TO MAKE A MOTION.

>> GO AHEAD.

KEYS .

>> I MOVE TO DENY.

BLOOD PRESSURE HDC CASE NUMBER 2019-35.

WITHOUT CONDITIONS AND I MOVE THAT THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT ARE PART OF THE RECORD.

AS PRESENTED IT IS NOT SUBSTANTIALLY COMPLIANT WITH THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AT THIS TIME.

>> IS THERE A SECOND?

>> MOTION FAILS FOR LACK OF A SECOND.

>> UNLESS I PASS THE GAVEL.

I'M PASSING THE GAVEL.

JIM, YOU'RE UP.

>> I'LL SECOND THAT MOTION.

ANY -- SO NOW YOU HAVE TO ASK --

[01:55:01]

>> BOARD DISCUSSION? AND THE MOTION ON THE FLOOR IS TO DENY THE APPLICATION.

AND THEN YOU CALL QUESTIONS.

PLEASE CALL THE QUESTION.

I HOPE VOTING NO MEANS I'M AGAINST THEM DENYING THIS.

>> THAT IS THE EFFECT.

>> THAT MOTION FAILS.

>> THAT MOTION FAILED.

WILL WE CONSIDER A FURTHER MOTION?

>> I'LL MAKE A MOTION.

HOW DO I MAKE -- IS THIS FOR A -- I WANT TO MAKE A MOTION FOR A CONCEPTUAL APPROVAL.

>> YOU WANT A CONCEPTUAL APPROVAL?

>> YOU DO WANT TO SAY APPROVED CONCEPTUAL? THE APPLICATION IS FOR CONCEPTUAL.

>> RECOMMENDING --

>> NO, YOU'RE RIGHT.

I MOVE TO CONCEPTUALLY APPROVE.

YOU SAID IS NOT.

YOU MEAN IS.

>> IS SUBSTANTIALLY COMPLIANT WITH LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE.

>> BEFORE WE GO ON, I THINK WE'RE GOING TO HAVE SOME AMENDMENTS TO THIS MOTION.

SO --

>> HAVE TO HAVE THE SECOND FIRST.

>> IS SOMEONE WILLING TO SECOND THIS MOTION?

>> I'LL SECOND IT.

>> IN ARE SOME AMENDMENTS TO THE MOTION.

THAT THEY SPECIFICALLY CALL OUT THE MATERIALS AND CONSTRUCTION ON THE LINEAR ELEMENTS THAT THEY PROVIDE DETAILING OF THE TRUE BRICK DETAILING THAT THEY INTEND TO USE ON THE BUILDING.

AND THEN ALL EXTERIOR MATERIALS ARE CLEARLY SPECIFIED.

>> DEFINITELY.

>> THOSE ARE GOING TO BE --

>> THAT'S PROVIDING THE APPROVAL.

>> IS THERE A SECOND TO THE AMENDMENT?

>> SECOND.

>> WAIT.

>> I CAN'T SECOND MY OWN.

>> NO.

YOU ACCEPT THE AMENDMENTS.

>> ACCEPT THE AMENDMENTS.

>> I DO.

>> OKAY. SO IS THAT CLEAR TO YOU? YOU HAVE THE AUDIO AND VIDEO BUT BENJAMIN IS ACCEPTING ALL OF THE AMENDMENTS AS ARTICULATED.

>> CAN I ASK A QUESTION? I BELIEVE MS. CONWAY IS SECONDING THE AMENDED MOTION.

>> THAT'S CORRECT.

>> YES.

OKAY. SO WHAT THIS ENDS UP JUST FOR CLARITY ENDS UP IN THE MINUTES AS AN AMENDED MOTION.

AND A SECOND TO THAT.

IF WE WERE FOLLOWING ROBERT'S RULES TO THE T, YOU WOULD HAVE TO VOTE DOWN THE ORIGINAL MOTION AND THEN MAKE A NEW MOTION.

WE DON'T FOLLOW THOSE RULES EXACTLY.

SO JUST SO WE CAN KNOW WHAT HAPPENED

>> EVERYBODY ON THE SAME PAGE HERE.

SAMANTHA KNOWS --

>> I JUST HAVE ONE QUESTION.

>> I KNOW.

WE'RE COMING TO YOU.

>> SAMANTHA, IF THIS PASSES, SAMANTHA WILL KNOW EXACTLY WHAT TO COMMUNICATE.

>> SO IF WE APPROVE THESE AMENDMENTS AND IF HE COMES BACK

[02:00:02]

WITH CORRECT HEIGHTS, AND IT'S SUBSTANTIALLY CHANGES HIS BUILDING WE HAVE A WHOLE NEW SET OF DRAWINGS TO LOOK AT.

THE NEXT STEP COULD BE THAT MR. CHISOLM BRINGS IT BACK AS CONCEPTUAL OR HE CAN APPLY FOR FINAL APPROVAL AND AT THE MEETING YOU CAN SAY NO WE'RE JUST GOING TO CONTINUE THIS WE'VE GIVEN CONCEPTUAL APPROVAL WE NEED MORE.

>> FOR THE PAGES PROPERTY THAT I -- WE WENT THROUGH TWO ON THAT ONE JUST TO SORT OF MARK PROGRESS ALONG TO MAKE SURE WE DIDN'T GET TOO FAR AHEAD OF OURSELVES.

>> SOUGHT DOESN'T MEAN WE'RE HAM STRUNG INTO THIS.

WE'RE JUST APPROVALING THIS STAGE OF IT BUT HE HAS TO COME BACK AND MEET ALL THE GUIDELINES AND THEN WE CAN HAVE ANOTHER CHANCE.

>> HE CAN MEET EVERYTHING THAT WE ASK FOR AND STILL DENY IT.

>> IT'S TRUE BUT I WANT YOU TO BE CAREFUL BECAUSE OF RELIANCE AND THINGS LIKE THAT.

IF YOU ALL OF A SUDDEN CHANGE YOUR MINDS AND YOU COME BACK AND SAY THIS THING CANNOT BE MORE -- I'M JUST PICKING THE NUMBER.

29 FEET.

I THINK THAT YOU'VE BEEN UNFAIR TO THE APPLICANT.

I'M JUST GOING TO PUT THAT OUT THERE LEGALLY.

>> YOU CAN'T APPROVE IT AND THEN SAY YOU KNOW WHAT NO.

TOO TALL.

TOO BIG.

BECAUSE YOU ALL HAVE THOSE CONCERNS.

WE HAVE A SECOND RIGHT?

>> YEAH.

>> LET ME THROW ONE LITTLE THING CAN TAMMY ADD AN AMENDMENT ADDED THAT THEY WORK TO REDUCE THE -- TO BRING IT CLOSER TO AN OVERALL HEIGHT NUMBER? SO THAT WE'RE FAIR TO THEM LETTING THEM KNOW THAT THIS IS A BONE OF CONTENTION FOR A LOT OF MEMBERS ON THE BOARD AND IF THEY CAN MITIGATE THAT HEIGHT IT MIGHT BRING SOME MEMBERS INTO WHERE THEY MIGHT APPROVE IT IF THEY COME DOWN A LITTLE MORE.

>> CAN YOU TAKE TEN FEET OFF OF IT?

>> CAN'T EVEN TAKE SIX FEET OFF.

>> PROBABLY CAN'T EVEN TAKE FOUR FEET OFF.

>> BECAUSE COMMERCIAL KITCHEN DEPARTMENT.

>> AND QUITE FRANKLY WE'RE ASKING THEM TO MEET THE -- WE'RE ASKING THEM TO MATCH WHAT'S HAPPENING IN THE STREET SCAPE SO THE HEIGHT OF THE FIRST FLOOR WHICH IS CLEARLY GOING TO BE THE TALLEST OF THE FLOORS NEEDS TO BE PROPORTIONATE TO WHAT'S HAPPENING NEXT TO IT SO THAT SORT OF -- LET'S MOVE ON IF THAT'S OKAY WITH EVERYONE.

WE'VE HAD A MOTION AND AN AMERICAN MEDICALED TO THE MOTION.

>> -- AMENDMENT TO THE MOTION.

SO THIS IS APPROVED FOR THREE LEVELS OF STUFF.

>> OKAY. MOVE ON TO ROLL CALL.

[02:05:31]

>> SO THEY'RE GOING TO BUILD OUT NEXT TO THAT.

WOW.

[Item 4.4]

SO WE'VE LOOKED AT THESE CHANGES BEFORE AND DISCUSSED THEM.

THIS IS NOT NEW.

AND IS IT MY UNDERSTANDING THAT WE WANT TO IF POSSIBLE VOTE THEM OUT TONIGHT?

>> YES.

>> SO THAT THEY CAN GO TO WHERE?

>> TO THE PLANNING AND ADVISORY BOARD.

>> MY NEIGHBOR?

>> YES BECAUSE IT IS A LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT.

>> VERY GOOD.

THANK YOU.

ARE YOU WALKING US THROUGH THIS?

>> I CAN.

PLEASE DO.

PROPOSED LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE CHANGES CHAPTER 5 IS SPECIFIC TO ALL OF THE CITY -- THIS DOESN'T JUST APPLY TO THE HISTORIC DISTRICTS.

THIS IS FOR ALL ZONING DISTRICTS.

AND THE PROPOSED CHANGE IS JUST TO ADD THIS LINE D TO HORIZONTAL AND VERTICAL SUPPORT POSTS SHALL BE PLACED FACING THE INSIDE OF THE FENCED AREA EXCEPT WHERE THE FENCE IS DESIGNED SUCH THAT BOTH SIDES ARE FINISHED WITH ALTERNATING VERTICAL FENCE SUPPORTS.

THIS SECTION ADDRESSES ALL BUILDINGS WITHOUT DELINEATION.

>> WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IS 60400 IS BEING REMRALSED WITH 60500.

>> YES.

[02:10:05]

>> LET'S DOIT.

DON'TING ON WITH CHAPTER 8.

PROPOSED IS TO STRIKE THIS SECTION ABOUT TOWERS THAT WAS NEVER REALLY RELEVANT.

WE CONTINUE TO PROHIBIT THE RENTAL OF ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS AND AS YOU'VE PROBABLY TALKED TO MRS. HARRISON, SHE IS STRONG IN HER BELIEF THAT WE SHOULD ALLOW THAT.

WHY NOT CHANGING IT HERE WE'RE AFFIRMING TO PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD AND TO OTHERS THAT WE CONTINUE TO BELIEVE THAT THE RENTAL OF ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS IS NOT APPROPRIATE.

HE SAID WHY ARE YOU GOING TO VOTE ON THAT ISSUE AT THE HDC AND I SAID WE'RE GOING TO VOTE ON THAT ISSUE BY CHANGING THE SECTION AND NOT CHANGING THAT.

AND HE SAID HE WAS GOING TO GO BACK AND WATCH THE TAPE WHICH I THOUGHT WAS VERY SMART.

ALSO TO STRIKE THIS TO CLARIFY -- THIS IS STILL IN CHAPTER 8.

NUMBER TWO.

IN ALLOWANCE FOR CROSSING OF THE SIDE YARD QUARTS IS WORDED POORLY SO THIS WOULD CLARIFY THAT PRIMARY AND ACCESSORY STRUCTURES ARE NOT ALLOWED TO CROSS LOT LINES.

CONNECTING ELEMENTS CAN ENCROACH AS OUTLINED IN SECTION FOUR.

YOU'VE HEARD I CAN HEAR SAL GOING THIS LOT CONSISTS OF -- IN OTHER WORDS HE'S TREATING THAT AS ONE LINE.

>> OKAY. QUESTIONS?

>> SO HE ALMOST LEADS A POSSIBILITY HERE SAYING IF THE INTENTION IS TO ALLOW ENCROACHMENT.

A SENTENCE CAN BE ADDED SO WE HAVE TO FIGURE OUT THE INTENT TO RECOMMEND IF THAT SENTENCE IS ADDED?

[02:15:10]

I THOUGHT WE WERE ON A TIMELINE WITH THE PAB AND THE CITY COMMISSION.

ARE WE NOT?

>> NO.

>> THEN WE'RE COMING BACK TO THAT ONE.

>> RIGHT?

>> YES.

>> LET'S MOVE ON.

CHAPTER EIGHT NUMBER TWO WE'RE FINE WITH CHANGING -- TAKING THE WORDING OUT BUT SAL HAS LEFT THE DOOR OPEN HERE IF THE INTENTION IS TO ALLOW ENCROACHMENTS IN THE FULL TEN FEET OF THE VIEW CORRIDORS, A SENSE TENSE CAN BE ADDED TO ALLOW FOR THAT DIFFERENCE IN THE DEGREE OF ENCROACHMENT.

WE BELIEVE SAL NEEDS TO TALK TO US ABOUT THAT SOME MORE BEFORE DECIDING ON THAT.

OKAY.

REGARDING SIDE STREET BUSINESS SIGNAGE.

THIS PROGRAM WAS REPLACED WITH DOWNTOWN WAY FINDING PROGRAM IN LATE FALL OF 2019 SO THIS IS REPLACING THIS UP OUTDATED PROGRAM.

IT'S HAPPENING.

PEOPLE ARE GETTING OUT OF THEIR CARS AND GOING OVER TO READ THE SIGHS.

>> THEY WERE DOING THAT BEFORE.

THAT'S NOTHING NEW.

>> IT LOOKS GOOD.

THAT'S THE POINT.

AFTER THE FACT APPLICATION FEES SHALL BE REQUIRED.

>> I HAVE A QUESTION.

WHAT'S THE MASTER FEE SCHEDULE? WHERE DO WE FIND IT? IS IT POSTED? IT'S ON THE WEBSITE.

IS IT NOT IN OUR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN OR LDC? SOME PLACE THAT CAP CAN'TS SEE IT? IT'S A SEPARATE IT'S IT'S ITS OWN SEPARATE ORDINANCE.

>> THANK YOU.

CHEESE IS THIS THE PLACE WHERE WE WOULD ADD SOMETHING ABOUT PENALTIES OAR SANCTIONS OF AFTER THE FACT?

>> THAT'S WHAT AFTER THE FACT IS.

>> BUT CAN -- YOU CAN MAKE IT --

>> VERY SPECIFIC?

>> THE WAY THAT WE DO IT UNDER THE BUILDING CODE WITH THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT RIGHT NOW IS IF YOU DON'T PULL THE BUILDING PERMIT WHEN YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO AGAIN YOU GET CAUGHT AND YOU ASK FOR FORGIVENESS AND NOW YOU NEED THE PERMIT, YOU PAY AN AFTER THE FACT FEE WHICH IS FOUR TIMES THE REGULAR PERMIT FEE.

[02:20:28]

THEN WOULD HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO OPEN A CASE AIM THEY COULD FACE THE PROPERTY OWNER COULD FACE FINES OF $250 A DAY.

AND JUST KEEP RUNG UNTIL THEY COME INTO COMPLIANCE MEANING APPLYING FOR A PERMIT AND DOING WHAT YOU ASK THEM TO DO.

>> GOT YOU.

OKAY.

OKAY.

THIS IS THE 50 YEAR PROVISIONS.

OKAY.

SAL IS WRITING THE LAW HERE.

THIS IS A VERY SUBSTANTIAL CHANGE TO THE WAY WE'VE DONE BUSINESS IN THE CITY.

WE'VE -- WE'RE SAYING THAT IF YOU WANT TO DEMO SOMETHING MORE THAN 50 YEARS OLD OR OLDER YOU NEED TO GO THROUGH THE PRESERVATION PLANNER.

THEY WOULD BE SUBJECT TO THE SAME PROCESS THAT WE ENDWAJ IN RIGHT NOW WHEN ONE OF THOSE STRUCTURES IN THOSE NETWORKS COMES TO US.

AM I SAYING THAT RIGHT?

>> I THINK SO.

>> WE JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE EVERYONE UNDERSTANDS.

THIS IS SUBSTANCIVE.

>> WE CAN'T STOP SOMEONE FROM EVENTUALLY CAMELISHING A BUILDING.

WE CAN JUST REQUIRE THEM GOING THROUGH THE PROCESS THAT THEY DOCUMENT.

>> I THINK THAT IT SLOWS IT DOWN.

>> IT GIVES US TIME.

>> I FEEL LIKE IT IS A VERY SUBSTANTIVE SECTION TO ADD AND IT'S AN IMPORTANT THING THAT WE HAVE TO TAKE SERIOUSLY BUT I THINK IN A CITY LIKE THIS WHERE WE'RE HAVING AN AGING POPULATION OF STRUCTURES THAT ARE MID CENTURY TRUCK WHICH YOU ARES, THERE'S SIGNIFICANT PERIODS OF ARCHITECTURE THAT ARE REPRESENTED THAT ARE POTENTIALLY AT RISK AND DELAYS IMPORTANT TO THE COMMUNITY SO I THINK THE POTENTIAL NEGATIVES ARE OUTWEIGHED BY THE POSITIVES.

>> AND COUSIN ANYBODY HAVE ANY SUBSTANTIAL CONCERNS WITH THOSE OR OPPOSITION? WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO DEFEND IT.

I'M WARNING YOU.

>> IT'S GOING TO BE CONTROVERSIAL.

>> A LITTLE BIT.

IT SOUNDS MAYBE EVEN MORE EVASIVE THAN --

>> I GET SIX FLOORS.

[02:25:09]

FOUR ONE I DOS.

THE MANTLE.

AND I CAME BACK TO GET THE FLOORS AND PEOPLES AND IT WAS GONE AND SCRAPED.

>> DOES IT -- ARE THERE ANY FINANCIAL BURDENS TO A HOMEOWNER LOOKS LIKE THERE'S GOING TO BE AN APPLICATION FEE.

>> 90 DAYS WE'RE NOT TELLING THEM THEY HAVE TO WAIT SIX MONTHS WHILE WE INVESTIGATE THIS BUILDING.

I DON'T THINK THAT'S --

>> AND THEN I BELIEVE SAL HAS THE POTENTIAL TO SHORTEN THAT TIMEFRAME SHOULD HE CHOOSE.

IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE THE MAXIMUM OF 90 DAYS.

I WANT TO DEMO THIS HOUSE BUILT IN 1950 AND THE DEMO PERMIT DROPS AND SAL SAYS YEAH NO WE'RE NOT GOING TO MESS WITH THAT.

I THINK IT PROTECTS ANYTHING POTENTIALLY CONTRIBUTORY EVEN IF IT'S NOT CLASSIFIED AS CONTRIBUTORY.

>> I AGREE.

OKAY. SO THERE'S CONSENSUS FOR THIS.

>> THIS DOESN'T --

>> AT LEAST TO PASS IT ON TO THE NEXT LEVEL AND GET OTHER OPINIONS ON IT.

IT'S SOMETHING THAT'S GOING TO BE DISCUSSED WITH MORE FEEDBACK.

I THINK IT'S APPROPRIATE IN THE FIRST STEP OF THE PROCESS.

>> THIS IS INSTRUCTIVE TO THE BUILDING OFFICIAL TOO TO NOT ISSUE A DEMO PERMIT OBVIOUSLY AND TO THE BUILDING OFFICIAL WHEN THEY LOOK AT THIS THEY CAN'T DO ANYTHING FOR 90 DAYS AND I DON'T SEE ANYTHING IN HERE THAT GIVES SAL THE ABILITY TO SHORT THAN TIME PERIOD TO 30.

>> YOU DON'T? OKAY.

>> NO.

>> IF HE DETERMINES, IF HE TRIPS THE TRIGGER IT'S GOING TO BE 90 DAYS.

>> OKAY. AND HE MAY NOT AND AND THAT THAT'S WHAT WORKS.

>> MAYBE WE LET THIS GO AND THEN SEE THAT COULD BE -- THERE'S GOT TO BE ONE THAT SAL IS GOING TO TRIP THE TRIGGER ON.

>> YEAH

>> I THINK TEA 90 DAYS MY PERSONAL OPINION ISES THE FINE.

>> IT'S GOING TAKE THEM THAT LONG TO GET ALL THEIR DUCKS IN A ROW ANYWAY AND CONTRACT WITH SOMEBODY.

DOWN TO PAGE 18.

IN IS THE BUILDING OFFICIAL CONCEPTUAL APPROVAL FOR A -- THIS IS IN THE EVENT EMERGENCY REPAIR DEMO IS REQUIRED.

IT WILL BE STAFFED BY THE HDC CHAIR WITHOUT THE FULL APPROVAL OF THE HDC.

I'LL GIVE YOU AN EXAMPLE ONE THAT HAPPENS SO THE THAT YOU UNDERSTAND WHAT THAT LOOKS LIKE.

>> THE BRICK THING BEHIND --

>> THE WALL BEHIND THE CLOTHING STORE THAT'S -- THERE'S THE COFFEE SHOP VACANT LOT AND SAL SAID THIS SEEMS DANGEROUS AND SHRIMP FEST IS COMING UP.

WE NEED TO DEMO THIS BUT HE REQUIRED THEY PALLET THE BRICK, SAVE IT, REFUSE IT.

THAT WAS STRAIGHTFORWARD -- REUSE IT.

>> THAT WAS THE SUCCESS STORY T SUPPOSED TO WORK

>> THAT'S RIGHT.

SO I THINK THAT'S ALL WE HAVE.

I GUESS THE QUESTION IS I WOULD

[02:30:20]

LIKE MY COMPUTER IS NOT WORKING NOW.

DO YOU HAVE THE CHANGES TO SECTION I MOVE THAT THE HDC ACCEPT THE PROPOSED CHANGES AS PRESENTED WITH THE EXCEPTION OF ITEM S C3 IN CHAPTER 8 WHICH THE HDC WOULD LIKE TO HAVE FURTHER CLARIFICATION IN STAFF ON THAT ONE.

>> THAT'S FINE.

PERFECT.

>> SECOND.

ANY DISCUSSION IN HEARING NONE, DO YOU WANT TO ROLL CALL?

>> ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE.

>> ANY OPPOSED? HEARING NONE.

MOVING FORWARD.

[Items 7 & 9]

OKAY.

STAFF REPORT.

THE ANNUAL MEETING IS COMING UP NOVEMBER 2ND, '10:00 A.M. TO 11:30 A.M. AT THE AMELIA ISLAND MUSEUM OF HISTORY AND THE CEMETERY RESOURCE PROTECTION TRAINING PROGRAM.

>> THAT'S IT.

FOR THE 9:00 TO 12:00 IS CLASSROOM WHERE HAVE YOU TO DO THAT PART TO DO THE HANDS ON PART AT THE CEMETERY.

>> OKAY.

>> DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANY BOARD BUSINESS THEY WANT TO BRING TO THE TABLE?

>> I HAD JUST AN FYI THAT I WOULD LIKE TO BRING TO EVERYBODY'S ATTENTION.

I HAVE THE ANDERSON A SERIES DOUBLE HUNGS IN MY HOUSE AND THERE'S BEEN A MANUFACTURERS DEFECT IN THOSE SO CHASTE MAPPING AND IT DEPENDS ON THE WIDTH.

I'M NOT SURE IF IT'S A 28 OR 30 INCH AND ABOVE BUT THE BOTTOM SILL IS BOEING SO IT'S CAUSING -- BOWING.

POTENTIALLY DEALING WITH IT BUT RIGHT NOW TO REMEDY IT, THEY'LL SEND SOMEBODY OUT TO RIP OFF YOUR FRAME, SILL, TRIM, TAKE IT APART.

NOT REHANG IT.

THEY'RE ACTUALLY -- NO.

THEY'RE REVERSE CLAMPING IT SO THEY'RE SPREADING IT.

>> I MIGHT CALL AND TALK TO YOU ABOUT THAT.

THIS IS THE A SERIES DOUBLE HUNG.

THIS IS TOP OF THE LINE.

YOU CAN'T GO FURTHER.

DEVELOPING SOME KIND OF LANGUAGE THAT WE HAND OUT TO PEOPLE WHEN WE ASK THEM TO SALVAGE MATERIALS BECAUSE I THINK YOU CAN'T SALVAGE ANYTHING BY USING A BULLDOZER OR BACK HO.

AND WE DON'T HAVE ANYTHING IN PLACE TO KIND OF GUIDE PEOPLE ON THE PROPER METHODOLOGY ON HOW TO DO THAT.

[02:35:12]

ABOUT THE ISSUE OF THE SORT OF STREET SCAPES, THANK YOU.

I THOUGHT YOU WERE LEAVING AND WE WERE GOING TO SAY THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU.

>> IT HELPS TREMENDOUSLY.

YOU NEVER SEE A BUILDING IN FLAT.

>> RIGHT.

>> I'M WILLING TO SAY THAT IF I SAW THE THREE QUARTER I'M OPEN TO SAYING OKAY NOW I CHANGED MY MIND.

>> RIGHT.

>> NOW THAT I CAN REALLY SEE IT IN CONTEXT.

I KNOW SAL AND I TALKED ABOUT CALLING HIM OUT ON IT BUT IT NEVER HAPPENED.

HE WAS USING HIS BUILDING HEIGHT AS PART OF THE SIX BUILDING CALCULATION.

>> EVEN WITH THAT, THE HEIGHTS LISTED FOR THE OTHER BUILDINGS WERE IN DISCREPANCY ON TWO DIFFERENT PAGES.

>> IF YOU HAVE OTHER SUGGESTIONS WE'RE LOOKING AT REALLY REDOING THE APPLICATION SO IF THERE'S ANY OTHER SUGGESTIONS ON THE APPLICATION THAT WOULD HELP.

GUTTERS.

>> CAN WE PUT GUTTERS ON THERE?

>> HOW CAN WE NOT REQUIRE GUTTERS? IT'S SUCH AN INTEGRAL PART OF THE BUILDING.

WE SHOULD SEE THAT

>> OR DESIGN THEM SO YOU DON'T NEED THEM.

>> OR THAT.

YEAH.

>> OKAY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

WE'RE ADJOURNED.

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.