[Item 1]
          [00:00:20]
          >> CHAIRMAN: NO SUBSTITUTES REQUIRED TONIGHT SO WE'LL MOVE ON TO ASKING BOARD MEMBERS TO DISCLOSE THEIR EX-PARTE COMMUNICATIONS.  WE START WITH YOU MS. TAMMI 
          >> NONE >> NONE >> I HAVE A COUPLE.  LET'S SEE. 
          COMMISSIONER ROSS ABOUT THE FENCE ISSUE DOWNTOWN.  I TALKED TO THE NEIGHBORS OF 105 AND KELLY MASS ABOUT WHAT WILL BE THEIR NEW NEIGHBOR.  I THINK THAT'S ALL I HAVE. 
          >> I HAVE NONE. >> NONE. >> I DID ALSO TALK TO 
          COMMISSIONER ROSS ABOUT THAT FENCE. >> CHAIRMAN: OKEY-DOKE.  JUST SO EVERYBODY KNOWS WHO WE'RE TALKING TO.  ALL RIGHT. COUNSEL, IF YOU CAN EXPLAIN THE 
          QUASI JUDICIAL PROCEDURES >> YES.  TONIGHT WE HAVE FOUR CASES UNDER OLD BUSINESS AND SIX CASES UNDER NEW BUSINESS.  ALL OF OF THESE WILL BE CONDUCTED AS QUASI JUDICIAL HEARINGS.  WHAT THAT MEANS IS THAT FIRST MR. CO MELLOW WITH CITY STAFF WILL HAVE A FEW THAT THEY ARE -- THE CITY'S CONSIDERED A PARTY.  SO THEY WILL PRESENT EVIDENCE AND TESTIMONY INTO THE RECORD.  THEY MAY CALL WITNESSES.  BUT I DON'T THINK WE HAVE ANY FOR NIGH OF THE CASES FOR THE CITY.  THE RESPONDENT OR -- I'M SORRY PROPERTY OWNER OR THEIR AGENT CAN COME TO THE PODIUM AND YOU WILL BE TAKING AN OATH AND YOU WILL BE TESTIFYING AND PRESENTING EVIDENCE AND TESTIMONY INTO THE RECORD.  IF THERE IS AN APPEAL TO BE TAKEN OF ANY OF THE DECISIONS OF THE HISTORIC DISTRICT COUNCIL, THE PROPERTY OWNER IS ENTIGHT TO APPEAL TO THE CITY COMMISSION WITHIN 30 DAYS.  WE DO HAVE ONE VARIANCE.  WHAT THAT MEANS IS THAT REQUIRES FOR AN APPROVAL, A VOTE OF FOUR OUT OF THE FIVE VOTING COUNCIL MEMBERS TONIGHT. SO, IT IS A SUPER MAJORITY VOTE TO APPROVE A VARIANCE.  IT IS A SIMPLE MAJORITY THREE OUT OF FIVE TO DENY A VARIANCE.  SO, PAY ATTENTION TO THE MOTION BUT THEY'LL PROBABLY EXPLAIN WHAT THEY'RE DOING WHEN THEY MAKE THEIR MOTION.  THE PARTIES, THE CITY, RESPONDENT, PROPERTY OWNER/AGENT ARE ENTITLED TO CROSS-EXAMINATION EACH OTHER AND ANY WITNESSES THEY CALL.  THAT'S ALL I HAVE. 
          >> CHAIRMAN: IS THAT IN ALL CASES ON JUST ON THE VARIANCE? >> ALL QUASI JUDICIAL HEARINGS 
          CROSS-EXAMINATION IS ALLOWED >> CHAIRMAN: THANK YOU.  ANYONE WHO WISHES TO TESTIFY THIS EVENING, IT WOULD BE A GOOD TIME TO STAND AND BE SWORN IN BY MS. SAMANTHA .  MEMBERS, HAVE YOU HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW THE MINUTES OF THE PREVIOUS MEETING? 
          [Item 2]
          DO YOU HAVE ANY CHANGES? >> BOARD MEMBER: I HAVE ONE ADDITION THAT I'D JUST LIKE TO BE REFLECTED IN THE MINUTES. WITH WHEN WE WRY GOING OVER ITEM 3.2, 2017-03, THERE WAS DISCUSSION ABOUT THE DOWN SPOUTS.  AND SARAH WAS -- SHE SAID SHE WOULD HAVE THEM TAKEN CARE OF.  THAT THE DOWNSPOUTS AND THE SCUFFERS WOULD BE PAINTED.  I THINK WE SHOULD HAVE 
          A NOTATION OF THAT. >> CHAIRMAN: ARE MEMBERS IN AGREEMENT WITH THAT CHANGE? 
          >> BOARD MEMBER: YES. >> CHAIRMAN: CAN YOU REPEAT THAT A LITTLE MORE SLOWLY SO MS. 
          SAMANTHA CAN GET IT DOWN >> I GOT IT. >> CHAIRMAN: OKAY.  WITH THAT 
          AMENDMENT CAN I GET A MOTION ON THE MINUTES? >> BOARD MEMBER: I MOVE TO 
          APPROVE THE MINUTES FROM 2019 OCTOBER. >> BOARD MEMBER: SECOND. 
          >> CHAIRMAN: ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.  ANY OPPOSED? HEARING NONE, MINUTES ARE APPROVED. 
          MOVING ON.  2019-09, WE'RE GOING TO HEAR THAT IN DECEMBER.  THAT TAKES US TO 2017-03. 
          [Item 3.2]
          MR. CAMELLO. >> SPEAKER: I'M SAM CAMELLO WITH THE PLANNING AND CONSERVATION DEPARTMENT.  THIS IS 2017-03. IT'S FOR PROPERTIES LOCATED AT 126, 132 SOUTH SECOND STREET, 205 AND 211 BEACH STREET, 111, 117, 135, 141, 147, 153 SOUTH THIRD STREET.  THE PROPERTIES 
          [00:05:08]
KNOWNED MIXED USE.  THIS IS AN AMENDMENT TO A PREVIOUS APPROVED COA TO ALTER A FLAT ROOF FORM. 
          FROM FLAT ROOF TO A GABLED ROOF AND TO ALTER BRICK DETAILING ON THE BUILDING.  ILLUSTRATED HERE ON THE SCREEN ARE THE PROPERTIES THAT ARE SEEKING THIS CHANGE. FINAL APPROVAL WAS GIVEN FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THESE 22 TOWNHOMES ON APRIL 20, 2017. AFTER THE FACT APPROVAL TO AMEND THE POWER PIT BRICK DETAILING ON 247 BEACH STREET WAS GRANTED LAST MONTH AT THE OCTOBER MEETING.  AS I SAID, THE APPLICANT IS NOW SEEKING TO ALLOW FOR A CHANGE TO THE ROOF FORMS FROM FLAT ROOF TO GABLED ON THE 10 TOWN HOMES STILL TO BE BUILT AND AN AMENDMENT TO THE BRICK DETAILING ON BUILDINGS 3 AND 18 WHICH ARE 126 SOUTH SECOND STREET AND 135 SOUTH THIRD STREET.  ANALYZING THIS, STAFF HAS FOUND FROM WHAT WE WAS PRESENTED THAT THE GABLED ROOF FORMS WERE INCONSISTENT WITH WHAT HAS BEEN BUILT AND THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. 
          THE DEVELOPMENT, AS YOU REMEMBER, CAME THROUGH THE HDC A NUMBER OF TIMES FOR ITS DESIGN AND THOSE DESIGNS WERE VERY WELL THOUGHT OUT AND TOOK A LOT OF THEIR CUES FROM WHAT ALREADY EXISTS DOWNTOWN BASED ON SOME OF OUR COMMERCIAL ARCHITECTURE THAT WAS ADAPTED FOR THIS RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY.  THE BRICK DETAILING WAS A MAJOR CONSIDERATION AT THAT POINT ON THIS PROPERTY. 
          AND IT CAN BE FOUND -- IT IS ACTUALLY SEEN THROUGHOUT THE MORE HISTORIC BUILDINGS, THAT LEVEL OF DETAIL IN THE BRICK WORK IS SEEN ON SOME OF THOSE HISTORIC BUILDINGS.  SO, WITH WHAT WAS PRESENTED IN THIS APPROVAL, STAFF CANNOT RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THIS AMENDMENT WHICH IS NOT COMPATIBLE WITH THE PREVIOUSLY CONSTRUCTED TOWNHOMES OR THE NEIGHBORHOOD. STAFF FINDS THE REQUESTED ACTION AS PRESENTED IS NOT CONSISTENT WITH THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, AND THE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AREA GUIDELINES SO STAFF DOES RECOMMEND DENIAL OF HDC2017-03. 
          BUT WE HAVE TALKED WITH THE APPLICANT ABOUT THIS.  WE DID MAKE SOME SUGGESTIONS ABOUT HOW THIS COULD BETTER FIT IN AND ASTILL ACHIEVE THE GABLED ROOF FORM WHICH IS BY PUTTING A PAIR AFEAT AROUND THE TOP SO IT WOULD STILL HAVE THE SAME LOOK FROM THE GROUNDINGS AS THE BUILDINGS ALREADY BUILT.  I BELIEVE THE APPLICANT IS GOING TO MRE SOME OPTIONS TONIGHT THAT DO ADDRESS 
          SOME OF THOSE CHANGES THAT WE HAD DISCUSSED.  THANK YOU. >> CHAIRMAN: QUESTIONS? HEARING NONE -- WHO IS REPRESENTING ARTISAN TONIGHT? SARAH, THANK YOU.  PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME, 
          AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD. >> SPEAKER: SARAH [INAUDIBLE] 247 BEACH STREET.  WE ACTUALLY 
          ARE DROPPING THE GABLED ROOFS. WE'RE DROPPING THAT. >> YOU ARE NO LONGER PROPOSING 
          IT? >> SPEAKER: JUST DETAIL ON BUILDINGS 3 AND 18 FROM LAST 
          MONTH'S. >> THAT'S PROBABLY A GOOD IDEA GM 
          >> THAT'S A REALLY GOOD IDEA. THAT WILL SAVE US A LOT OF TIME. >> CHAIRMAN: QUESTIONS? 
          >> BOARD MEMBER: WHAT WAS THE -- WHAT WAS THE BRICK DETAILING THING? WAS THAT THE ONE WE 
          TALKED ABOUT LAST TIME OR A DIFFERENT ONE? >> SPEAKER: RIGHT.  I DID GET BACK WITH OUR TEAM AND WITH THE THIN BRICK, IT'S JUST NOT AN OPTION TO DO THAT DETAIL IF WE 
          USED THE STANDARD FULL BRICK, GO WITH THE THIN BRICK. >> BOARD MEMBER: AND THIS IS ON 
          THE REMAINING TWO BUILDINGS YET TO BE BUILT? >> SPEAKER: YES, MA'AM. 
          >> BOARD MEMBER: SO IT'S DETAIL HERE AT THE TOP OF THE POWER PI 
          PIT.  SO, WE'RE USE LOSING THAT >> SPEAKER: YES.  AND NOW THERE'S JUST A BRICK BAND. 
          >> CHAIRMAN: QUESTIONS? YES PLEASE. >> BOARD MEMBER: IT MIGHT BE WATCHING TOO MANY IMPEACHMENT HEARINGS BUT I'D LIKE TO OBJECT TO THE PROCESS HERE.  I THINK THE COUNCIL NEEDS TO KEEP DRAWINGS ABOUT WHAT THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING RATHER THAN TO BE PRESENTED WITH DRAWINGS AND TOLD SOME PARTS OF IT ARE NO LONGER GOING TO BE 
          TH THERE. >> I THOUGHT THAT IS WHAT YOU WERE LOOKING FOR IS THERE IS NOT ANY DOCUMENTATION OF WHAT THE SUGGESTED ALTERCATION IS. 
          >> SPEAKER: I THOUGHT IT WAS INCLUDED IN THE ORIGINAL-- >> IT'S NOT PART OF WHAT WAS 
          [00:10:03]
INCLUDED IN THE APPLICATION.  WE DID SEE SOME -- WE GOT EMAILS AFTERWARDS WHICH HAD IDEAS.  I CAN TRY TO PULL THOSE UP IF YOU'D LIKE.  BUT THEY WEREN'T INCLUDED AS PART OF THIS 
          APPROVAL. >> SPEAKER: IT'S ON THE VERY LAST PAGE.  AFTER THE ROOF 
          SHINGLE COLOR.  THERE WE GO. >> THAT'S THE DETAIL. >> BOARD MEMBER: TELL US AGAIN WHAT THE AREA IS YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT MAKING THE MODIFICATION. IS IT JUST TO THE TOP OF THE 
          PAIR APIT? >> SPEAKER: YES, SIR, >> HOW ABOUT THE WINDOWS? 
          >> SPEAKER: THAT IS STAYING.  IF YOU NOTICE THE ACTUAL PHOTO ON THE ONE SIGNED OFF ON LAST MONTH IS SECOND TO THE LAST.  THE ONE ON THE FAR LEFT IS WHAT IT WOULD LOOK LIKE IN THE FINAL TWO 
          BUILDINGS. >> I THOUGHT THE WAY WE LEFT IT LAST TIME WAS THAT WE APPROVED THE ONES THAT HAD ALREADY BEEN DONE RELUCTANTLY UNDER THE UNDERSTANDING WE WOULD NOT BE APPROVING CHANGES TO THE ADDITIONAL ONES.  THE ONES YET TO BE BUILT 
          >> I THINK THE WAY IT WAS WORDED, UNFORTUNATELY, WAS, IF THERE WERE TO BE CHANGES, THEY 
          HAD TO COME BACK AND PRESENT AGAIN FOR DISCUSSION. >> IS THIS BRICK DETAILING SUFFICIENT -- I THINK WE CAN GET BACK TO THE QUESTION HERE.  HAVE WE HONORED OUR PROCESS AS WE'RE GOING FORWARD? WE WERE PRESENTED WITH GABLES AND THEN WE TALKED ABOUT PAIR APITS AND NOW WE'RE BACK TO FLAT ROOFS WITH SIMPLE BRICK DETAILING.  AM I GETTING THAT RIGHT? 
          >> SPEAKER: YES, SIR. >> BOARD MEMBER: I THINK THE IMAGE ON THE SCREEN NOW IS WHAT 
          THEY'RE ASKING FOR.  FAR LEFT. >> SPEAKER: YES, SIR. >> BOARD MEMBER: OKAY.  LET'S HAVE THE BOARD JUST -- MS. TAMMI, HAVE WE WANDERED TOO FAR FROM THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION TO 
          HAVE INTEGRITY WITH THAT PROCESS? >> I AM NOT LOOKING AT THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION.  ARE THE ORIGINAL APPROVED DRAWINGS IN THE -- I MEAN, DO I NEED TO GO 
          THROUGH THEM. >> BOARD MEMBER: YES.  THE WAY I SUMMARIZES IT IS PROBABLY NOT 
          TOO FAR FROM THE TRUTH >> IT IS IN YOUR DISCRETION. SO, IF YOU ARE FEELING THAT 
          WAY -- >> BOARD MEMBER: WE'RE GOING TO FINISH THIS PORTION OAF DISCUSSION.  WHEN WE GET INTO BOARD DISCUSSION WE'LL DECIDE WHETHER OR NOT THE PROCESS RIGOROUS, APPROPRIATE ENOUGH? OTHER QUESTIONS FOR MS. SARAH JOHANAS?  SO, FAR LEFT, THIN BRICK BAND DETAILING.  AND EVERYTHING ELSE IS GOING TO GET BUILT? 
          >> SPEAKER: YES, SIR.  THERE'S ONLY TWO BUILDINGS LEFT WITH THAT DETAIL. 
          >> BOARD MEMBER: AND THE DIFFICULT ACROSS THE TOP OF THE PAIR APET IS IN BRICK 
          >> THE VERY TOP IS THE STUCCO BAND.  IT'S THE BRICK DETAIL BETWEEN THE WINDOW AND THE 
          STUCCO BAND AT THE TOP. >> CHAIRMAN: HOW IS THAT COMPARED TO THE OTHER BUILDING? 
          >> BOARD MEMBER: THERE'S LIKE A LITTLE ACCENT BAND OF BRICK. >> SPEAKER: YEAH A BRICK ACCENT BAND IN BETWEEN.  THIS IS THE SAME DRAWING FROM LAST MONTH'S MEETING. 
          >> CHAIRMAN: THANK YOU.  OKAY. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? WE MAY CALL YOU BACK. 
          >> SPEAKER: YES, SIR. >> CHAIRMAN: WITH THAT I'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING.  ANYBODY WISHES TO SPEAK WITH REGARDS TO CASE 2017-03.  THIS WOULD BE THE TIME TO DO IT.  OKAY.  WE'RE GOING TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC MEE MEETING 02017.  THIS ONE HAS BEEN ON THE PLATE A LITTLE WHILE.  BOOARD MEMBERS WOULD YO LIKE TO DISCUSS THE PROCESS FIRST? I THINK MR. HARRISON MAKES A LEGITIMATE ARGUMENT. THE QUESTION IS CAN WE OVERCOME 
          THE CONFUSION TO GET TO A RATIONAL DECISION. >> BOARD MEMBER: THEY PROVIDED FOUR -- I MEAN, THE VARIATIONS SHOW PRETTY CLEARLY WHAT THE ORANGE ONE WAS, WHAT THE APPROVED ONE WAS AND WHAT THEY'RE PROPOSING NOW.  I DON'T REALLY KNOW WHAT ELSE WE WOULD 
          BE ASKING THEM TO PROVIDE. >> BOARD MEMBER: MY UNDERSTANDING OF THE WAY THIS CAME UP WAS THAT THE APPLICANT CHANGING THE REQUEST CAME TONIGHT AND THAT YOU HAD NO 
          [00:15:01]
          PRIOR [INAUDIBLE] OF THAT >> THAT'S CORRECT.  WE HAD HAD DISCUSSIONS ABOUT THE PROPOSAL AS IT WAS FOR HAVING THE GABLED ROOFS BEING INCONSISTENT AND HAD TALKED ABOUT DOING A PAIR APIT BEING MORE APPROPRIATE AND PRESENT PHOT THE BOARD.  I DID NOT KNOW THEY WERE GOING TO WITHDRAW THAT PART OF IT. THEY'RE JUST REMOVING PART OF IT.  THEY'RE NOT ADDING SOMETHING WE HAVEN'T SEEN.  SO I WOULD SAY IF YOU DO APPROVE THIS, I WOULD PUT IT AS PART OF 
          THE MOTION THAT WE ARE NOT APPROVING THE ROOF CHANGE. >> CHAIRMAN: OTHER THOUGHTS, 
          BOARD MEMBERS?  MR. POZZETTA? >> BOARD MEMBER: I THINK IF WE LOOK AT THE FAR RIGHT IMAGE WHICH WAS THE ORIGINAL DRAWINGS SUBMITTED, THEY INCLUDED A LITTLE MORE INFORMATION IN DETAIL ABOUT HOW THE BRICK AND WHAT KIND OF BRICK WAS TO BE USED.  WE NOW HAVE THIN BRICK WHICH IS DIFFERENT AND WE HAVE NO DETAILING TO BACK UP HOW IT'S GOING TO BE APPLIED OTHER THAN I GUESS THE PHOTOGRAPHS THAT SAYS WE'RE GOING TO MARCH.  THAT GIVES -- MATCH.  I'D RATHER SEE A FULL DOCUMENTATION OF WHAT EXACTLY ARE WE LOOKING AT AND APPROVING. 
          >> BOARD MEMBER: SO LIKE A DETAIL SHOWING WHAT IT IS THEY'RE PROPOSING TO DO? 
          >> BOARD MEMBER: WELL THEY'VE SWITCHED FROM REAL BRICK TO SIN BRICK.  WHAT HAPPENS NEXT? IF IT'S ON THE DRAWING IN A DETAIL AND IT'S CALLED OUT, THEN IT'S CRYSTAL CLEAR WHAT WE SAID YES TO.  AND SAL CAN USE THAT TO BACK UP ANY REVIEWS OF THINGS IN THE FIELD.  THAT WOULD BE THE REASON THAT I WOULD SAY THAT WOULD BE IMPORTANT FOR US TO HAVE.  SO, THAT GOING FORWARD WHEN IT'S REVIEWED IN THE FIELD THERE'S SOMETHING TO POINT YOUR FINGER TO AND SAY THIS IS WHAT 
          WE AGREED TO HAVE INSTALLED. >> BOARD MEMBER: THAT'S A CURRENT MOTION TOO 
          >> FROM AN AESTHETICS STANDPOINT WHAT'S YOUR FEELING ON IT? >> BOARD MEMBER: I DON'T KNOW 
          YET. >> BOARD MEMBER: I SORT OF FEEL THE SAME WAY. 
          >> BOARD MEMBER: I HAVE NO PROBLEMS WITH THE AESTHETICS OF IT.  IT'S SIMPLY THE PROCESS WHERE THE DESIGN IS BEING CHANGED ON THE FLY IN THIS MEETING. 
          >> BOARD MEMBER: WELL THAT'S WHAT WE WENT OVER LAST MONTH AND I THINK THAT WAS THE STICKY WICKET.  SINCE WE APPROVED THIS LAST BUILDING THAT WAS ALREADY UP AFTER THE FACT, THEN IF WE GET BACK IN TO WE DON'T KNOW ABOUT THE AESTHETICS AND EAU WANT THEM TO STICK TO THE ORIGINAL PLAN THEN WE HAVE TWO MORE BUILDINGS WITH ANOTHER DESIGN UP THERE.  SO, ARE -- IDEALLY ALL THREE OF THEM SHOULD HAVE THE ARTICULATION. NOW WE HAVE ONE WITHOUT IT AND THERE IS TWO MORE GOING UP.  DO WE STICK WITH WHAT WE APPROVED WITH THAT FIRST ONE? 
          >> CHAIRMAN: MR. POZZETTA COULD YOU GIVE US AN EXAMPLE OF ONE OF THE DETAILS THAT WOULD BE CALLED OUT AND HOW IT WOULD BE CALLED OUT SO THOSE OF US WHO ARE NOT IN OUR TRADE COULD UNDERSTAND 
          WHAT IT IS SPECIFICALLY. >> BOARD MEMBER: SO LET'S LOOK AT THE FAR LEFT IMAGE.  IF YOU START AT THE VERY TOP, WE CAN EXPLAIN THAT'S A STUCCO BAND. SO A CALL OUT, WHATEVER THAT IS, 12 INCH WIDE STUCCO, BAND CALL OUT HOW DEEP IT IS WOULD BE SUFFICIENT TO DESCRIBE THAT PIECE OF DETAILING.  THEN IF YOU MOVE DOWN TO THAT BANDING ELEMENT THAT APPEARS TO BE BRICK OF SOME SORT, A DESCRIPTION OF HOW THAT BANDING ELEMENT IS GOING TO BE CRAFTED AND APPLIES TO THE BUILDING.  WHAT'S SHOWN ON THE IMAGE ALMOST LOOKS LIKE IT'S TURNED AT A 45 DEGREE ANGLE TO CREATE A NICE SAW TOOTH EDGE BUT I DON'T THINK THAT'S WHAT'S INSTALLED ON THE BUILDING.  SO THE IMAGE OF THE ACTUAL BUILDING ISN'T REALLY JIVING WITH THE DETAIL THAT'S DRAWN.  IT'S MORE JUST A FLAT PROJECTION OF A PIECE OF IT.  SO, DESCRIBING THE ACTUAL ELEMENTS IS IMPORTANT. 
          >> BOARD MEMBER: I AGREE.  WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE APPLICATION THE WAY IT'S WORDED IS IT SAYS NEW BRICK DETAIL ON SECOND FLOOR BUILDINGS 3 AND 18.  NOWHERE REFERENCES A STUCCO BAND BEING USED.  AND NOR IN THE DRAWINGS IS THERE ANY NOTES THAT SAY IT'S GOING BE A STUCCO BAND.  SO THE ONLY WAY WE KNOW IT IS A STUCCO BAND IS BECAUSE THE APPLICANT HAS TOLD US IT'S GOING BE A STUCCO BAND.  I MEAN, IT'S JUST A MATTER OF A COUPLE OF NOTES JUST SO THAT THEY HAVE SOME 
          ACCOUNTABILITY I THINK IS ALL THAT WE'RE ASKING FOR. >> BOARD MEMBER: I THINK THAT'S OUR CONSENSUS THEN.  THAT IS WHAT I AM HEARING.  THAT WE WOULD LIKE THE FAR LEFT DRAWING WITH EVERYTHING CALLED OUT ON IT.  SO I GUESS WE'RE GOING TO CONTINUE AND ASK FOR THAT TO BE DELIVERED FOR NEXT MONTH.  CAN WE GET THAT ON THE SCHEDULE FOR NEXT MONTH? 
          >> I HAVE TO HAVE IT BY WEDNESDAY.  I CAN GIVE THEM UNTIL WEDNESDAY. 
          [00:20:05]
          >> CHAIRMAN: ANYTHING YOU WANT TO ADD TO THAT? >> SPEAKER: WELL THE STUCCO BAND IS NOT CHANGING.  IT'S ON THE PREVIOUSLY --.  I MEAN, IT DIDN'T CHANGE.  THE ONLY THING 
          THAT CHANGED IS THE BRICK DETAIL >> CHAIRMAN: BUT THE DRAWING YOU ARE ASKING US TO APPROVE DOESN'T 
          HAVE ANY DETAILS CALLED OUT. >> SPEAKER: THE BAND DIDN'T CHANGE. 
          >> CHAIRMAN: BUT ALL THE DETAILS NEED TO BE CALLED OUT.  THAT IS WHAT I AM HEARING.  IS THAT 
          FAIR, BOARD MEMBERS? >> BOARD MEMBER: YEAH. >> CHAIRMAN: SO PERHAPS WE SHOULD CONTINUE THIS AND I THINK WE'VE GIVEN GOOD ENOUGH GUIDANCE.  AND SAL CAN ENHANCE 
          THAT GUIDANCE IF IT'S NEEDED. THANK YOU. >> BOARD MEMBER: IT APPEARS TO ME, MR. CHAIRMAN, THAT WE COULD MAKE THIS A STAFF APPROVAL SUBJECT TO THE APPLICANT 
          PROVIDING THAT DETAIL. >> CHAIRMAN: I DON'T THINK -- >> BOARD MEMBER: THE DETAIL THAT CONFIRMS WHAT YOU ARE PROPOSING IS ALREADY IN THE OTHER BUILDING. 
          >> CHAIRMAN: I AM A LITTLE UNCOMFORTABLE WITH THAT.  I THINK YOU'RE MAKING A VERY REASONABLE SUGGESTION THERE.  I JUST FEEL LIKE I'M HEARING ENOUGH -- PEOPLE WANT TO SEE WHAT'S GOING IN THERE.  I THINK THAT'S THE BOTTOM LINE.  WOULD SOMEONE LIKE TO CONTINUE IT? 
          >> BOARD MEMBER: MAKE THE MOTION TO CONTINUE CASE 2017-03. >> BOARD MEMBER: YOU CAN GO, 
          JIM. >> BOARD MEMBER: I MAKE A MOTION TO CONTINUE HDC CASE 2017-03 TO THE NOVEMBER MEETING OF THE HDC. DECEMBER SORRY, DECEMBER MEETING OF THE HDC.  THANK YOU. 
          >> BOARD MEMBER: I'LL SECOND. >> CHAIRMAN: ANY DISCUSSION? HEARING NO DISCUSSION, PLEASE 
          CALL THE ROLL. >> YES. >> YES. 
          >> YES. >> YES. >> MOVING ON.  2019-15. 
          >> SPEAKER: GUTTERS WHILE I'M HERE? >> BOARD MEMBER: THE PAINTING 
          THAT YOU REQUESTED LAST TIME. >> SPEAKER: WHILE I'M HERE. >> CHAIRMAN: COULD YOU PLEASE 
          COME UP AND GIVE US AN UPDATE ON THAT.  THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >> SPEAKER: SORRY. 
          >> CHAIRMAN: THAT'S OKAY. THAT'S HELPFUL ACTUALLY. >> SPEAKER: IT WAS A LARGELY ISSUE WE'RE DEALING WITH IS THE DRAINAGE.  CURRENTLY THE GUTTERS ARE DRAINING REAR TO FRONT. 
          HOWEVER WE ARE RE-DESIGNING THEM TO DRAIN FRONT TO BACK.  SO, THESE GUTTERS ARE PROBABLY GOING TO CHANGE.  SO THAT IS WHY NOTHING HAS BEEN DONE YET BECAUSE WE ARE WORKING ON 
          DRAINAGE ISSUE ON SITE WHICH INCLUDES THE GUTTERS. >> CHAIRMAN: THANK YOU FOR THE 
          UPDATE.  QUESTIONS?  HEARING NONE. >> SPEAKER: THANK YOU. 
          >> BOARD MEMBER: THE DRAIN ROOF LEVEL FRONT TO BACK OR GROUND LEVEL? I DON'T UNDERSTAND. 
          >> SPEAKER: THE GUTTERS WILL HAVE TO BE PITCHED AND WE'LL HAVE TO HAVE A SYSTEM THAT TIES IN.  WE HAVE AN UNDERGROUND DRAINAGE SYSTEM UNDER THE DRIVEWAYS THAT WILL TIE INTO 
          THAT. >> BOARD MEMBER: SO YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT THE ANGLING OF THE 
          GUTTERS AT THE EASE. >> SPEAKER: OH NO, NO, NO.  AT DOWNSPOUTS.  I'M SORRY. 
          DOWNSPOUTS.  I'M NOT INVOLVED IN THAT PROJECT.  I KNOW ENOUGH TO GET -- 
          [LAUGHTER] >> CHAIRMAN: THANK YOU.  WE HOPE YOU GOT GOOD ENOUGH GUIDANCE TO 
          BRING US BACK WHAT WE NEED FOR APPROVAL IN DECEMBER. >> SPEAKER: YES, SIR. 
          >> CHAIRMAN: THANK YOU. >> SPEAKER: THANK YOU. >> CHAIRMAN: MOVING ON TO 
          [Item 3.3]
HDC2019-15.  CITY OF FERNANDINA BEACH 102 CENTER STREET.  MR. CO MELLOW 
          >> SPEAKER: THIS IS AN AMENDMENT TO A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED CERTIFICATE OF APPROVAL FOR DESIGN CHANGES RELATED TO THE CONSTRUCTION OF FOUR FOOT FENCE WITH BLOCK COLUMNS. IF YOU WILL REMEMBER THE BOARD HAS PREVIOUSLY APPROVED THIS FOUR FOOT FENCE.  IT IS AN ALUMINUM FENCE WITH BLOCK.  OVER AT THE TRAIN DEPOT AS A BARE KERR TEN THE TRACKS AND THE NEW SIDEWALK THAT'S GOING ON.  AND WE APPROVED IT AND THEN BROUGHT ON BOARD OUR LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT WHO'S WERE WORKING ON THE DESIGN OF THE WATERFRONT.  AND THEY WERE ASKED TO TAKE A LOOK AT IT AND GIVE SOME FEEDBACK NEIGHBORHOOD HAD COMMENTS WHICH WE THOUGHT WERE GOOD COMMENTS TO BE INCORPORATED AND WANT TO BRING THEM BACK TO YOU FOR APPROVAL.  AND SO IF YOU REMEMBER IT WAS RUST AKATED BLACK COLUMNS WITH BLACK ALUMINUM FENCE.  FOUR FEET HIGH. 
          THOSE RENDERINGS WHAT IT WOULD LOOK LIKE.  THEIR PROPOSED CHANGES AREN'T ANYTHING MAJOR 
          [00:25:07]
BUT DO INCLUDE BLOCKING IN THE BOTTOM OF THE FIRST SECTION SO THAT IT HAS MORE OF A GATEWAY FEEL TO IT RATHER THAN JUST FENCING ALL THE WAY TO THE END. ALSO, RAISING THE HEIGHT OF THOSE COLUMNS THAT ARE ON THE ENDS AT THE STREETS TO HAVE THE STREET NAMES ON THEM AND FEEL MORE LIKE A GATEWAY BETWEEN THE BLOCKS BETWEEN THE DOWNTOWN DISTRICT AND THE WATERFRONT.  SO THAT CAN BE SHOWN HERE.  THIS IS WHAT IT WOULD LOOK LIKE.  SO IT'S JUST FILLING IN THAT SECTION BETWEEN THE FIRST TWO PIERS AND THEN RAISING THE END PIERS.  THIS IS PROPOSED RIGHT NOW FOR JUST THAT SECTION.  BUT THIS COULD BE CONTINUED ON ALONG THE WATERFRONT.  THIS IS THE TWO LOCATIONS WHERE YOU CAN SEE THAT CHANGE HAPPEN AT BOTH ENDS.  THE ASH AND THE CENTER STREET INTERSECTIONS.  WITH THAT, STAFF DOES RECOMMEND APPROVAL.  THANK YOU. 
          >> CHAIRMAN: MOTIONS? >> BOARD MEMBER: IT IS CONTINUED ALONG THE WATERFRONT, IS THAT 
          DESIGN STILL APPROPRIATE? >> SPEAKER: YES.  SO WHAT WE LOOKED AT WHEN WE APPROVED THIS AND THE STUDY I DID AND I'VE GOT SOME THE PHOTOS.  WE CAN GO THROUGH THAT AGAIN IF YOU WANT. 
          WE LOOKED AT DIFFERENT TYPES OF FENCING THROUGHOUT THE CITY THAT WERE COMMONLY SEEN.  AND THIS IS REALLY JUST A MODERN VERSION OF WHAT WE SEE A LOT THROUGHOUT DOWNTOWN.  THIS RUSTICAED BLOCK IS WHAT WE HAVE.  THE ALUMINUM FENCE IS MODERN BUT MEANT TO REPLICATE THE WROUGHT IRON WE WOULD HAVE SEEN AROUND SOME OF THE PROPERTIES.  THIS WAS CHOSEN BECAUSE IT WILL HOLD UP BETTER. 
          WE SEE A LOT OF WOOD FENCES. WE DON'T WANT SOMETHING WE'RE CONSTANTLY MAIN TANG AND 
          PAINTING. >> BOARD MEMBER: BUT AS WE MOVE NORTH OF CENTER STREET WE RUN 
          TIGHTER AND TIGHTER WITH CONSTRAINTS DO WE NOT? >> SPEAKER: YES. 
          >> BOARD MEMBER: I'M WONDERING WHAT THOSE COLUMNS DO FOR US. THEY WILL HAVE TO BE ENGINEERED. 
          KEEP IN MIND THE WHOLE WATERFRONT SIDE IS BEING ENGINEERED.  SO THEY WILL, YOU KNOW, THEY WILL BE DESIGNED EACH SECTION THAT GETS PUT IN.  THEY MAY END UP BEING SPACED FURTHER APART.  WHAT WE APPROVED WAS JUST BASICALLY THE DESIGN NOT THE ENGINEERING OF HOW THEY'RE BEING INSTALLED.  SO, ONE OF THE THINGS WE TALKED ABOUT WHEN WE APPROVED THE DESIGN WAS THE COLUMNS CAN MOVE FURTHER APART IF THEY NEED TO.  THE FENCING PANELS FURTHER APART.  THERE COULD BE LESS COLUMNS.  THAT IS UP TO THE ENGINEERS WHO DESIGN IT TO GO INTO THE SITE.  WE WERE 
          JUST LOOKING AT THE DESIGN OF THE FENCE. >> CHAIRMAN: QUESTIONS FOR 
          MR. COMELLA? >> BOARD MEMBER: WERE THERE OTHER MATERIALS DISCUSSED FOR 
          THIS? >> SPEAKER: I DON'T THINK THERE WAS A WHOLE ON THE OF DISCUSSION.  WE HAD THIS PRESENTATION THAT I MADE.  I'M HAD ANY OTHER DISCUSSIONS. 
          >> BOARD MEMBER: I ASK BECAUSE WHEN I WENT THERE TODAY, I RODE THAT ON MY BIKE AND I'M ON THAT ALMOST TWICE A DAY EVERY DAY. AND IN THIS PARTICULAR AREA WE'RE PUTTING UP THIS FIRST SECTION BETWEEN ASH AND CENTER. IT'S ALL BRICK.  WE'VE GOT THE BRICK DETAIL.  WE'VE GOT BEDS, RAISED BEDS.  WE'VE GOT BRICK BANDING IN THE SIDEWALKS WITH EXPOSED AGGREGATE.  THERE IS NOT ANYTHING THAT REPLICATES THOSE OLD CITY WALLS THAT WERE PUT IN THAT WERE BASICALLY STUCCO BLOCK WITH, YOU KNOW, THE HIP TOP ON IT.  SO I QUESTION THAT.  THEN FURTHER, IF THIS IS SUPPOSED TO BE THE BEGINNING OF MAYBE A LONGER TERM, I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE NOT PIECEMEALING THIS.  AS YOU DO GO NORTH, IT GETS SO TIGHT THERE AND THE MARINA ALREADY HAS A TUBULAR STEEL, VERY MODERN RAILING UP. THERE'S NO ROOM FOR A COLUMN. AND THEN EVEN THIS FENCE.  THEN WE GO TO THE PELICAN AND THEY'VE GOT THEIR TRIPLE PIERS IN THERE. THEN DICK'S PROPERTY -- NO DICK HAS THE CHANNELING FENCE. GRAYFIELD HAS THE OPEN SPOT. AND IT GETS TIGHTER AND TIGHTER BECAUSE THE TRACKS DO A HARD BEND RIGHT THERE.  I DON'T KNOW IF THIS IS GOING TO LOOK LIKE AN ANOMALY THAT DOESN'T MATCH ANYTHING THAT'S THERE.  WE REALLY CAN'T CONTINUE IT NORTH FROM THERE.  SO I WOULD STRONGLY WANT TO RECONSIDER WHAT THE MATERIAL IS.  IT'S NOT BUILT YET.  IT'S NOT THERE.  AND IT JUST REALLY DOESN'T MATCH ANYTHING. 
          >> SPEAKER: I WILL SAY ABOUT THE BRICK.  WE DID THE FIRST THING WE LOOKED AT WAS BRICK.  THE BRICK OF COURSE IS FROM THE 1970S PROJECT.  WE PURPOSELY DIDN'T WANT IT TO LOOK LIKE WE WERE TRYING TO REPLICATE THAT. THAT'S ITS OWN THING AND WE WANTED TO HONOR THAT AS ITS OWN THING AND DO SOMETHING THAT IS MORE HISTORIC THROUGHOUT THE CITY.  WE DO HAVE A COUPLE OF 
          [00:30:01]
HISTORIC BRICK WALLS AND THINGS THROUGHOUT THE CITY BUT WE DEFINITELY HAVE I THINK A LOT MORE OF THIS RUSTI KATED BLOCK WHICH WHAT'S WE WOULD SEE ON THE HISTORIC PROPERTIES. 
          >> BOARD MEMBER: IF IT'S JUST ONE PIECE THAT CAN FIT THERE WE'LL JUST HAVE ONE LENGTH OF 
          NEW FENCING. >> BOARD MEMBER: I'D LIKE TO INTERRUPT TO POINT OUT THAT, YES, AND IT COULD BE A DESIGN CUE THAT GETS TAKEN THROUGHOUT THE REST OF THE WATERFRONT 
          PROJECT. >> BOARD MEMBER: WOULD WE MAKE THE MARINA TAKE DOWN THE RAILING 
          AND PUT THIS UP >> THE REST OF THE WATERFRONT PROJECT.  MY CONCERN IS THAT YOU DON'T LIKE IT HERE YOU ARE NOT GOING TO LIKE IT THROUGHOUT THE REST OF THE WATERFRONT.  AND SO WE NEED TO ASK OURSELVES ARE WE PROVIDING DESIGN GUIDANCE FOR A MUCH BIGGER PROJECT OR JUST A 
          CITY BLOCK BETWEEN ASH AND CENTER STREETS? >> BOARD MEMBER: AS A BOARD WE'VE ALREADY APPROVED THE DESIGN.  I MEAN, WE'RE NOT BEING ASKED TONIGHT TO ANALYZE WHETHER THE MATERIAL FOR THE COLUMNS ARE APPROPRIATE OR NOT.  WE'RE BEING ASKED WHETHER OR NOT IT'S APPROPRIATE FOR THEM TO BE TALLER.  RESPECTFULLY, THAT IS WHAT WE'RE -- THAT'S WHAT THIS ITEM IS.  AND I KNOW IT'S FOR THE CITY SO IT IS A LITTLE DIFFERENT.  BUT IF YOU LOOKS AT IT AS IF IT WAS A PRIVATE CITIZEN THAT CAME IN HERE, WE WOULDN'T HAVE ANY RIGHT TO BE ABLE TO MAKE A DISCUSSION OR A CHANGE TO WHAT THAT MATERIAL IS WHEN WE HAD ALREADY APPROVED IT. 
          SO I THINK WE SHOULD TREAT THIS THE SAME WAY THAT WE WOULD TREAT SOMEBODY ELSE. 
          >> BOARD MEMBER: I WOULD LIKE TO POINT OUT SO THE BOARD DID APPROVE THIS AND WE MOVED IT FORWARD.  THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS WORKING ON THE WATERFRONT DESIGN WERE GIVEN THE 
          PLANS.  AND THESE ARE THEIR COMMENTS.  SO THEY DIDN'T -- >> BOARD MEMBER: AND THEY AGREE IT FITS INTO THE AESTHETIC OR WHATEVER OF THE ULTIMATE VISION THEY HAVE 
          >> YES.  WITH THE MINOR CHANGES THEY SUGGESTED. >> BOARD MEMBER: DID THEY PROVIDE A COST ESTIMATE.  DO WE EVEN HAVE ANY COSTS? THEY'RE ADDING TO THE COSTS BY 
          INCREASING THE AMOUNT. >> CHAIRMAN: MR. MORRISON I THINK I AM GOING TO HAVE TO DISAGREE WITH YOU.  I THINK WHEN THE ISSUE COMES BACK TO US IT COMES BACK TO US.  JUST BECAUSE WE MADE A DECISION AT ONE POINT AND IT PASSES MEAN THAT WE'RE LOCKED INTO THAT DECISION.  BUT WE CAN RESPECTFULLY DISAGREE ON THAT ONE.  I THINK IF WE WERE TO GO FORWARD WITH THIS, THAT -- I'M SORRY, WAS THERE ANYBODY ELSE? IF WE WERE TO GO FORWARD WITH THIS, I WOULD JUST WANT TO MAKE THE NOTE THAT WE WEREN'T PROVIDING DESIGN GUIDANCE FOR THE WHOLE WATERFRONT.  I THINK THAT WOULD BE PRESUMPTION ON OUR PART PRECEDING ANY PUBLIC HEARING HAD ON THE WATERFRONT, ANY PUBLIC DISCUSSION ON THE WATERFRONT.  THAT THIS IS ABOUT THIS FENCE.  THIS ONE BLOCK. 
          AND I THINK I COULD SLEEP BETTER AT NIGHT KNOWING IT WAS JUST THIS ONE BLOCK.  HAVING SAID THAT, THEY NEED TO GET THIS SQUAWK IN BEFORE SOMEBODY STEPS IN FRONT OF A TRAIN.  SO, CAN WE 
          KEEP THIS THING MOVING? >> BOARD MEMBER: WELL I RESPOND TO THAT.  IF WE'RE SAYING THIS IS JUST THIS ONE FENCE, THEN WE'RE KIND OF CIRCUMVENTING THE WHOLE PROCESS AGAIN BY SAYING, LET THEM DO WHATEVER THEY WANT ON THE WATERFRONT.  YOU KNOW, IF THE ARGUMENT IS THAT THE WATERFRONT COULD MATCH THIS WHOLE THING.  SO, WE'D HAVE THIS IN THE WHOLE AREA. NOW WE'RE SAYING THE WATERFRONT WON'T MATCH.  IT JUST SEEMS CHOPPY.  I HVE ONE OTHER QUESTION ABOUT IT.  LOOKING AT THE LOCATION THERE'S A VERY LARGE SWITCHING STATION.  I THINK IT'S THIS ONE. 
          THAT HAS NOT COME INTO PLAY.  I HAVEN'T SEEN A FULL SITE MAN WHERE THE FENCE GOES.  DOES IT GO ON THE EAST SIDE OF THAT, THE WEST SIDE OF THAT? WE'RE GETTING INTO RIGHT-OF-WAY. 
          >> LOOKS TO ME LIKE THE SIDEWALK GOES THE EAST OF THE TRANSFER STATION. 
          >> BOARD MEMBER: THIS IS FURTHER THAT WAY. >> BOARD MEMBER: I THINK WE GOT 
          CLEARANCE ON THAT LAST TIME WE TALKED ABOUT IT. >> BOARD MEMBER: SO IF THE INTENT IS TO RUN IT FURTHER NORTH WE'RE GOING TO HAVE A LARGER OFF-SET.  THE SWITCHING STATION OVERLAPS THE MARINA. I'M NOT VOTING TONIGHT I'M JUST PUTTING MY COMMENTS OUT THERE 
          AND I JUST THINK IT'S PIECEMEAL. >> BOARD MEMBER: IN AN IDEAL WORLD WE'D BE ABLE TO SEE A PLAN 
          FOR THE ENTIRE LENGTH OF WHAT'S PROPOSED. >> THAT'S THE ENTIRE LENGTH 
          RIGHT THERE. >> CHAIRMAN: IT'S ONE BLOCK. LET'S NOT GET CARRIED AWAY. 
          IT'S ONE BLOCK [LAUGHTER] >> BOARD MEMBER: I JUST HAVE ONE MORE THING.  IF THIS IS GETTING APPROVED AND THEY HAVE THE IDEAS FOR THE COLUMNS AND THE STREETS IN THERE, IS THAT SOMETHING THAT'S WORKED OUT WITH ARLENE AND THE STREET WAY FINDING.  IS THAT INSET DETAIL.  OR ARE THEY PROPOSING SOMETHING MOUNTED ON THE COLUMN. 
          [00:35:02]
          >> CHAIRMAN: IT WILL BE WOSHLGD OUT WITH THE TEAM WORKING ON THE WATERFRONT AND MAIN STREETS. 
          THAT'S THERE'S BEEN SO MUCH EFFORT INTO THE SIGNAN.  I DON'T KNOW WHETHER IT WILL BE THE SAME OR WHETHER THE DECISION WILL BE TO GO A DIFFERENT WAY WITH IT TO DIFFERENTIATE THE WATERFRONT. 
          >> BOARD MEMBER: I'M NOT SURE WHAT WE'RE ASKED TO DO, SORRY. >> I THINK WE'RE BEING ASKED TO APPROVE TWO CHANGES SHOWN IN THIS DROWNING RIGHT HERE.  THE COLUMNS BEING HIGHER.  THE COLUMN ON EACH OTHER IS GOING TO BE HIGHER THEN A LOW WALL FOR THE FIRST SECTION THAT CONNECTS TO THE NEXT COLUMN.  I PERSONALLY THINK THAT -- ARE WE GOING TO DO PUBLIC COMMENT? 
          >> CHAIRMAN: IT'S COMING UP. LET'S OPEN IT UP FOR ANYBODY FROM THE PUBLIC WHO WISHES TO SPEAK TO THIS.  I MEAN, FOR THE RECORD, 2019-15 CITY OF FERNANDINA BEACH.  CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.  MOVING TO BOARD DISCUSSION.  I'M GOING START WITH MR. MORRISON. 
          >> BOARD MEMBER: I THINK PREVIOUSLY SAL SHOWED US THE WORK THAT HE HAD DONE TO LOOK AT THE DIFFERENT OPTIONS AND HE PRESENTED A GOOD ARGUMENT FOR WHY THIS MATERIAL WAS THE MOST APPROPRIATE ONE TO USE.  SO I PERSONALLY FEEL LIKE THERE'S NOT A REASON TO REEVALUATE THAT. 
          AND I THINK THAT THE TWO CHANGES BEING PROPOSED TONIGHT ARE POSITIVE CHANGES. 
          >> CHAIRMAN: THANK YOU.  OTHER COMMENTS? >> BOARD MEMBER: I CONCUR WITH 
          BENJAMIN ON THAT. >> CHAIRMAN: ANYBODY ELSE? >> BOARD MEMBER: I'D LIKE TO DO AWAY WITH THE COLUMNS ALONG WITH HER.  I GUESS I CAN LIVE WITH ONE AT EACH END. 
          >> CHAIRMAN: MS. CONWAY. >> BOARD MEMBER: I THINK IT'S GOING TO BE GOOD LOOKING.  I 
          LIKE THE PROPOSAL. >> CHAIRMAN: OKAY.  ANYBODY ELSE MS. TAMMI? 
          >> I THINK I SAID ENOUGH. >> CHAIRMAN: YOU WERE VERY ARTICULATE. 
          >> BOARD MEMBER: LISTEN, IF THIS WAS A SOLE PROJECT, I LIKE THE DESIGN.  I THINK IT IS A GOOD LOOKING DESIGN.  I THINK IT IS THE RIGHT DESIGN IN THE WRONG PLACE. 
          >> BOARD MEMBER: I WOULD -- >> CHAIRMAN: I WOULD ASK THAT WE SOMEHOW, WHATEVER MOTION WE MAKE, THAT WE MAKE IT CLEAR THAT THIS IS LIMITED TO THIS ONE BLOCK.  THAT WE'RE NOT LAYING OUT DESIGN GUIDANCE FOR THE WHOLE WATERFRONT PROJECT. THAT'S MY ONE THOUGHT. 
          >> THERE IS A PLAN THAT SHOWS EXACTLY WHERE THIS IS SUPPOSED TO GO THOUGH RIGHT? 
          >> CHAIRMAN: YES. >> BOARD MEMBER: SO WHAT WILL WE ARTICULATE? 
          >> CHAIRMAN: PERHAPS THERE'S NOT ANYTHING TO ARTICULATE.  I THINK THE MEDIA WAS REPORTING THIS THEY WOULD NOTE WE WERE CLEAR IN DELINEATING WHAT WE THOUGHT THIS WAS FOR. 
          >> BOARD MEMBER: CAN I MAKE A MOTION? I MOVE TO APPROVE HDC 20 2019-19 CONDITION AND I MOVE THE HDC MAKES THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT.  THIS AMENDMENT AS PRESENTED IS SUBSTANTIALLY COMPLIANT WITH THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AND THE 
          DOWNTOWN HISTORIC GUIDELINES TO WARRANT APPROVAL AT THIS TIME. >> BOARD MEMBER: DO YOU WANT TO 
          ADD A RIDER TO THAT DESCRIBING WHAT YOU MENTIONED? >> BOARD MEMBER: NOPE. 
          >> BOARD MEMBER: THEN I'LL SECOND. >> CHAIRMAN: MOVED BY MORRISON. 
          SECOND BY POZZETTA.  HAVE TO RECOGNIZE -- MR. -- >> CAN I JUST ASK ONE QUESTION. 
          CHIP ROSS 210 THIRD STREET. WHAT HAPPENS IF THE RAILROAD DOESN'T APPROVE THOSE COLUMNS BECAUSE THEY CAN'T GET THEIR TRAINS THROUGH THAT?  I THINK YOU SHOULD HAVE A RIDER IN 
          THERE. >> BOARD MEMBER: IT HASN'T BEEN VETTED BY THEM 
          >> NOT IN WRITING. >> I BELIEVE THEY'VE SEEN IT BUT I DON'T KNOW IF THEY'VE PROVIDED 
          COMMENT. >> CHAIRMAN: THE RAILROAD? I THINK ALL WORK WE DO IS SUBJECT 
          TO THOSE-- >> BECAUSE THE RAILROAD DID NOT WANT -- THEY AGREED TO A FENCE 
          BUT THEY MAY NOT WANT COLUMNS. >> CHAIRMAN: THANK YOU. >> BOARD MEMBER: WHY DOES THE 
          RAILROAD HAVE JURISDICTION >> BECAUSE THEY OWN THE LAND. >> BOARD MEMBER: I FEEL LIKE IF THE RAILROAD DOESN'T APPROVE THE COLUMNS THE RIGHT THING TO DO IS COME BACK TO THE BOARD AND WE 
          [00:40:01]
RECONSIDER IT.  BECAUSE IT WOULD BE A DIFFERENT DESIGN.  THAT COULD BE A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT 
          SOLUTION. >> CHAIRMAN: HEY, SAL, WHAT WOULD YOU DO IF THE RAILROAD 
          DOESN'T LIKE THIS DESIGN? >> WE'D COME BACK WITH ANOTHER DESIGN. 
          >> CHAIRMAN: OKAY THEN.  A MOTION.  A SECOND.  ADDITIONAL DISCUSSIONS? HEARING NONE PLEASE 
          CALL ROLL. >> MEMBER HARRISON? >> NO 
          >> YES >> YES >> YES 
          >> YES. >> CHAIRMAN: 2019-20.  SASSER FOR CMR.  22 SOUTH 8TH STREET. 
          [Item 3.4]
          >> SPEAKER: 2019 HIVE 20 FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 22 SOUTH 8TH STREET KNOWN AS GRANDO PLAYSA. 
          THIS IS APPROVE CERTIFICATE OF APPROVAL TO ADD MECHANICAL SCREENING AT THE NORTH AND EAST ELEVATIONS.  WE'VE SEEN THIS BUILDING COME THROUGH FOR A NUMBER OF OTHER IMPROVEMENTS. 
          THE LAST ONE THAT THIS IS AN AMENDMENT TO IS BECAUSE THE PROPERTY IS BEING DIVIDED INTO MULTIPLE TENANT SPACES.  THE SPACE BEING WORKED ON RIGHT NOW IS A TENANT BUILD OUT FOR A BREWERY UNDERWAY IN THE EASTERN PART OF THE BUILDING.  AT THE JUNE HDC MEETING YOU GUYS APPROVED MODIFICATION TO THE STORE FROBT INCLUDING NEW DOORS, WINDOWS AND AWNINGS TO MATCH THE TO CARRY THAT FACADE DOWN TO THE OTHER END WHEN THEIR PROJECT IS HAPPENING.  WE'VE LEARNED THERE'S GOING TO BE A LOT OF MECHANICAL ON THE ROOF.  NOT JUST A.C. BUT RESTAURANT EQUIPMENT, HOODS, THAT KIND OF STUFF F. AND WE DID REQUIRE THEY COME BACK TO US IF THEY WERE GOING TO HAVE TO MECHANICAL UP THERE AND IT BE APPROPRIATELY SCREENED.  WHEN LOOKING AT THIS WE DO HAVE GUIDELINES THAT SAY THAT MECHANICAL HAS TO BE SCREENED BUT WE DON'T HAVE ANY SPECIFICS ON IT.  AS YOU KNOW WE'VE WORKED AT DRAFTING LANGUAGE AND WE APPROVED THAT AT OUR LAST MEETING.  IT WILL BE GOING FORWARD TO THE PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD AND THE COMMISSION TO BETTER EXPLAIN WHAT WE'RE LOOKING FOR AND HOW WE'RE LOOKING FOR IT TO BE SCREENED.  SO THE APPLICANT HAS PROVIDED SOME SCREENING.  THERE IS SCREENING THERE NOW TOWARDS REAR OF THE BUILDING ON ONE OF THE OTHER TENANT SPACES. THEY'RE PROPOSING TO CONTINUE THAT SCREENING AROUND THE REST OF THE BUILDING.  AND PAINT IT TO MATCH THE BASE OF THE BUILDING.  SO IT BLENDS IN WITH THE BUILDING A LITTLE BETTER. ALTHOUGH THAT WOULD SCREENING IS PROPOSED TO BE PAINTED THE SAME CLOY AS THE BUILDING, STAFF DOES HAVE THE COMMENTS THAT IT MAY STILL ATTRACT FROM THE OVERALL ASTATIC OF THE BUILDING.  AND THAT STAFF IS RECOMMENDING APPROVAL BECAUSE THE PROPOSED SCREENING WILL SERVE TO MEET THE CURRENT SCREENING REQUIREMENTS BUT DOES RECOMMEND WE CONSIDER ALTERNATE DESIGNS OF MATERIALS THAT MAY BETTER COMPLIMENT THE ARCHITECTURE.  STAFF FINDS THE REQUESTED ACTION IS CONSISTENT WITH THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, AND THE DOWNTOWN HISTORIC GUIDELINES AND RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE AMENDMENT HDC 
          2019-20.  THANK YOU. >> BOARD MEMBER: THERE IS CURRENTLY SOME WOOD STRUCTURE ON 
          THE ROOF.  THE NORTH END. >> WE CAN SHOW YOU.  THAT IS THE SCREENING. 
          >> IN THIS PARTICULAR DETAIL WAS THE REASON THAT INSPIRED US TO WANT TO MAKE THAT CHANGE TO THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AND DESIGN OUTLINES BECAUSE WE DISLIKED IT SO MUCH. 
          >> BOARD MEMBER: I HAVE A QUESTION FOR SAL.  HAS THE APPLICANT PROVIDED ANY DRAWINGS THAT DEMONSTRATE THE SIZE AND SCALE OF THE MECHANICALS TO BE ON THE ROOF AND SHOWN ANY DRAWINGS OF HOW THE SCREEN WILL AFFECT THE SCALE AND PROPORTION OF THE BUILDING? 
          >> SPEAKER: NO.  WE HAVE DRAWINGS THEY PROVIDED OF HOW IT'S CONSTRUCTED.  BUT NOT HOW 
          IT ACTUALLY WILL LOOK ON THE STRUCTURE. >> BOARD MEMBER: I MEAN, THAT'S WHAT I NEED TO SEE TO BE ABLE TO SAY YES.  I NEED TO SEE WHAT IT'S GOING TO LOOK LIKE AND I NEED TO UNDERSTAND THE MECHANICALS THAT IT'S DESIGNED THE SCREEN HAVE BEEN STUDIED AND SHOWN.  FURTHER TO SHOW, IN A PLAN VIEW WHERE IN THE BUILDING WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IT GOING.  I MEAN, THAT'S -- I CAN LOOK AT THE DETAIL AND UNDERSTAND, YOU KNOW, TO SOME EXTENT YOU KNOW WHAT THE AESTHETIC IS GOING TO LOOK LIKE, BUT MORE IMPORTANTLY TO ME AT LEAST IS WHERE IT'S 
          GOING. >> BOARD MEMBER: FOR EXAMPLE, IN THAT PHOTO THAT'S SHOWN RIGHT THERE, THE SCREENING DOESN'T MATCH THE DETAILING AND THE STYLE OF THE BUILDING THAT IT'S ON TOP OF.  IT LOOKS LIKE A FOREIGN ELEMENT FLOWN UP THERE THAT -- THROWN UP THERE THAT HAS 
          [00:45:01]
          NOTHING TO DO -- >> BOARD MEMBER: WHICH IS WHY WE CHANGED THE LANGUAGE TO MAKE 
          THAT NO LONGER THE CASE. >> BOARD MEMBER: IT IS A WALL. >> BOARD MEMBER: IN ADDITION, THIS DOESN'T MATCH WHAT THE DETAIL IS HERE.  THEY HAD THIS TIED DOWN.  THEY'VE GOT IT ANCHORED INTO THE MASONRY.  THIS IS A STOCK AIDE FENCE WITH SOME BYES ON THE BACK PUSHING IT AND ON THE LEFT SIDE IT'S ONE BY SIX MATERIAL THAT IS ALREADY CUPPING AND CHECKING AND WARPING. 
          >> BOARD MEMBER: DETAIL CALLS FOR VERTICAL SLATS.  SO, NOTHING IS JIVING HERE. 
          >> CHAIRMAN: ALMOST AFRAID TO ASK MR. SASSER TO COME UP.  ARE WE READY TO MOVE ON? NO WONDER 
          SASSER DIDN'T COME UP TODAY [LAUGHTER] >> SPEAKER: ONE OF THE PARTNERS IN CMR ISLAND PROPERTIES.  SO, IF YOU HAVE A SUGGESTION I'D BE HAPPY TO LISTEN TO THAT AND SEE 
          IF WE CAN'T MAKE IT WORK FOR EVERYBODY. >> CHAIRMAN: THANK YOU.  WE APPRECIATE YOUR WILLINGNESS TO BRING THIS TO US AND COME BACK WITH PERHAPS SOME ALTERNATE 
          SUGGESTIONS. >> BOARD MEMBER: WITHOUT DESIGNING IT FOR YOU, I THINK WHAT I WOULD BE LOOKING AT AND IF YOU GO TO RICHARD AND TALK TO HIM ABOUT IT I WOULD SAY WHAT IS THE PRIMARY MATERIALS THAT ARE USED IN THE BUILDING AND HOW CAN THIS SCREENING WALL RELATE TO THE EXISTING ARCHITECTURE INSTEAD OF DISTRACTING FROM IT. AND THAT HE PROVIDE PLAN AND ELEVATION VIEWS THAT SHOW WHERE THE SCREENING WALL IS PROPOSED TO GO. 
          >> BOARD MEMBER: THOSE MECHANICALS SHOULD BE DRAWN SOON. 
          >> SPEAKER: YEAH THEY'VE GOT THEM FROM THE TENANT.  I DON'T KNOW IF RICHARD HAD THEM TO START WITH BUT THEY'RE SUPPOSED TO BE PROVIDING THEM TO US VERY SHORTLY AS FAR AS THAT GOES. 
          >> BOARD MEMBER: AND THAT'S NOT GOING TO HOLD UP THAT CONSTRUCTION PROCESS. 
          >> SPEAKER: IT WON'T HOLD UP THE INSIDE PART.  IF YOU HAVE IDEAS THAT YOU WOULD PREFER, I MEAN, WE WERE A LOT HIGHER THAN THE BUILDING NEXT DOOR.  SO, I DON'T THINK PUTTING UP BLOCK GOING HIGHER MAKES A LOT OF SENSE.  WE COULD PAINT THAT.  IF YOU HAVE OTHER IDEAS. 
          >> BOARD MEMBER: SO WE DO HAVE ON THE ROOF PLAN OF SOME OF THE MECHANICAL.  WE DON'T KNOW HOW TALL EACH OF THOSE MECHANICAL UNITS ARE.  THE NORTHEAST CORNER.  THE FRONT THERE'S AN 
          A.C. TOWARDS THE-- >> JUST TO MAKE SURE WE'RE NOT ASKING THEM TO DO SOMETHING WE HAVEN'T ASKED OTHERS TO DO. WHAT DID THEY DO OVER HERE? THAT'S ACROSS THE STREET. 
          >> BOARD MEMBER: DO WE WANT TO PUT A LIMITATION ON THE HEIGHT OF THE MECHANICALS? 
          >> BOARD MEMBER: I DON'T THINK WE CAN.  THEY NEED TO FUNCTION PROPERLY FOR WHATEVER THEY'RE 
          SERVING.  THAT'S WAY BEYOND WHAT WE NEED TO BE REVIEWING. >> BOARD MEMBER: WELL I WOULD IMAGINE THAT WHAT IS REQUIRED IS A VOLUME TO DISPLAY. NECESSARILY BTUS PER HOUR.  YOU CAN GET TALL THIN ONES OR YOU CAN GET SHORT SQUARE ONES.  I THINK THE NET RESULT IS WE'VE GOT A BUILDING HERE WHICH IS GOING TO BE MADE TALLER BY THE SCREENING MATERIAL.  SO, DO WE 
          WANT TO SET A LIMIT ON HOW MUCH TALLER THE BUILDING CAN BE MADE? >> WE DON'T EVEN KNOW WHERE IN THE BUILDING IT'S GETTING TALLER.  SO THAT'S HARD TO ANSWER.  BECAUSE THE ANSWER MIGHT BE DIFFERENT IF IT'S ON THE EIGHTH STREET FACADE THAN IF IT WAS ON THE ALLEY IN THE BACK. 
          >> BOARD MEMBER: IF I BING LOOKING AT THIS RIGHT IT IS THE NORTHEAST CORNER. 
          >> THE PROPOSAL IS THE NORTH AND EAST SIDE >> I THINK AN ELEVATION IS IMPORTANT.  RATHER THAN JUST GUESSING WHAT IT WILL LOOK LIKE. AND, FURTHER, IF THERE'S A CONSTRUCTION DRAWING THAT'S PROVIDED, THAT SHOULD BE FOLLOWED.  BECAUSE ANOTHER CONCERN I HAVE IS THE ONES ALREADY BUILT, THEY BECOME HURRICANE PROJECTILES.  EVEN THIS SPEC SAYS AN INCH OF AIRSPACE IN BETWEEN.  THEY'RE PRETTY BUTTED UP TIGHT SO THEY'RE UP THERE WITH A COUPLE OF TWO BY FOURS AND WE HAVE A CO 
          COUPLE OF WINDS AND THOSE FLY INTO THE HOUSE. >> BOARD MEMBER: I THINK THEY'RE ACTUALLY ANCHORED PRETTY WELL. I DON'T THINK THERE'S AN ISSUE FROM THAT STANDPOINT.  IT'S JUST A MATTER OF WHAT YOU WANT.  WE HAVE A RIGHT TO BE UP 45 FEET. SO, WE'RE WELL UNDER THE 
          ELEVATION HEIGHTS ON THIS. >> BOARD MEMBER: DO YOU FEEL LIKE WE GAVE YOU SOME GOAD TO BE 
          [00:50:02]
          ABLE TO COME BACK OR NOT NO? >> SPEAKER: I WOULD SUGGEST-- >> WE'RE LOOKING FOR MATERIALS CONSISTENT AND COMPATIBLE WITH THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE BUILDING.  OR AT LEAST LOOK CONSISTENT AND COMPATIBLE WITH THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE BUILDING. 
          >> BOARD MEMBER: AND THEY WERE PART OF THE BUILDING TO BEGIN WITH.  NOT ADDED ON. 
          >> BOARD MEMBER: THAT'S A CHALLENGE. >> BOARD MEMBER: IT IS. 
          >> BOARD MEMBER: YOU JUST HAVE TO GET CREATIVE.  IT'S NOT APPROPRIATE FOR US TO 
          NECESSARILY SOLVE THE PROBLEM. >> CHAIRMAN: OKAY.  THANK YOU. APPRECIATE YOUR PATIENCE.  SO, WE'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. IS THERE ANYONE WHO WISHES TO TESTIFY ON CASE 2019-20? 
          >> PUBLIC SPEAKER: WHAT ABOUT ASKING A QUESTION? >> CHAIRMAN: CERTAINLY.  YOU 
          HAVE TO COME YOU AND IDENTIFY YOURSELF. >> PUBLIC SPEAKER: DAVID COLSON 111 SOUTH FOURTH STREET.  WHY DO MECHANICALS HAVE TO BE AT THE END OF THE ROOF? CAN THEY BE MOVED BACK? AND THE DESIGN THEY HAVE UP THERE, I'D RATHER SEE THE MECHANICS THAN THAT WALL. 
          THAT'S THE UGLIEST WALL I'VE EVER SEEN.  I REALIZE IT'S ON THE BACK BUT FACING SOONER STREET.  NO THAT'S FACING RESIDENTIAL.  GORGEOUS.  THE QUESTIONI WAS WONDERING IS WHY DO THEY HAVE TO BE RIGHT UP IN THE FRONT NEAR THE SIDE.  CAN'T THE MECHANICS BE MOVED BACK? AND IF THEY'RE MOVED BACK A CERTAIN DISTANCE YOU MIGHT NOT EVEN NEED SCREENING.  BECAUSE YOU WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO SEE THEM ANYWAY.  IF YOU WERE, IT CERTAINLY WOULDN'T HAVE TO BE AS HIGH AND 
          DISGUSTING LOOKING. >> BOARD MEMBER: THEIR ASSOCIATED WITH A PIECE OF 
          EQUIPMENT THEY SERVE DIRECTLY BELOW THEM MOST LIKELY. >> BOARD MEMBER: WE'RE 
          SPECULATING. >> SPEAKER: MY BATHROOM IS ON THE OPPOSITE SIDE OF THE HOUSE CLOSER TO THE FRONT.  I MEAN, THEY CAN GET TO -- IF IT IS AN AIR CONDITIONER ALL IT BASICALLY IS A CONDENSER LINE.  SO, I MEAN, THAT'S JUST THE QUESTION THAT I WOULD HAVE. 
          >> CHAIRMAN: THANK YOU.  MOST HELPFUL.  TRY NOT TO DESIGN APPLICANT'S BUILDINGS FOR THEM. 
          ANYBODY ELSE? OKAY THEN.  MOVING ON TO BOARD DISCUSSION.  I HEARD CONSENSUS ON CONTINUATION IS 
          THAT WHAT I HEARD? >> BOARD MEMBER: YEAH. >> CHAIRMAN: MAYBE MS. CONWAY OR 
          MR. HARRISON TO MOVE TO CONTINUE 2019 TO THE DECEMBER MEETING. >> BOARD MEMBER: I MOVE TO CONTINUE HDC CASE NUMBER 2019-20 WITHOUT CONDITIONS.  TO THE DECEMBER MEETING. 
          >> BOARD MEMBER: SHOULD WE ASK THE APPLICANT.  DO YOU WANT DECEMBER. 
          >> SPEAKER: I THINK SO.  I'LL GET WITH RICHARD TO MAKE SURE. AND I'LL MAKE SURE HE HAS IT ON 
          HIS SCHEDULE TO BE HERE. >> CHAIRMAN: OKAY.  WAS THERE A SECOND? 
          >> BOARD MEMBER: SECOND. >> CHAIRMAN: ANY DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE, PLEASE CALL ROLL 
          [Item 3.5]
PACKET I JUST WANTED TO CONGRATULATE YOU ON GIVING US THE LONGEST PACKET EVER SEEN FOR A SINGLE ITEM.  I'M LOOKING FOR THE NUMBER OF PAGES HERE.  IS IT 600? IT'S 614 PAGES LONG.  I'M 
          GOING ON THE RECORD.  I DID NOT READ ALL 314 PAGES. >> SPEAKER: IT IS VERY GOOD READ.  THE NATIONAL REGISTER NOMINATION FOR THE MUSEUM AND THERE'S A LOT OF REALLY INTERESTING INFORMATION IN THERE ABOUT ITS ITS HISTORY.  I THOUGHT WE DID THIS? 
          >> WE DID. >> BOARD MEMBER: WHY ARE WE DOING IT AGAIN. 
          >> SPEAKER: WE DID HEAR THIS CASE IN I DON'T HAVE THE DATE. BUT WE HAVE HEARD THIS CASE. 
          WHEN WE WENT TO MOVE IT ON TO THE PAV WE REALIZED THIS CASE UNLIKE OUR OTHER CASES REQUIRES PUBLICATION NOTICE.  SO IT NEEDS TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE NEWSPAPER WHICH WE DIDN'T DPOM SO OUT OF 
          [00:55:02]
CAUTION WE WANT TO MAKE SURE WE'RE DOING THIS RIGHT.  WE'RE BRINGING IT BEFORE YOU AGAIN. 
          WE HAVE NOTICED IT IN THE NEWSPAPER.  IT HAS BEEN NOTICED THE SAME WAY WITH THE SIGNS AND MAILINGS AND ALL THAT AS WE NORMALLY DO.  BUT THIS ADDITIONAL LAYER HAD TO BE ON THERE TO GET THIS DONE PROPERLY BECAUSE THIS IS AN ADDITION TO THE HISTORIC DISTRICT. 
          TYPICALLY IT WOULD BE BOUNDARY EXPANSIONS, BRINGING IN MULTIPLE PROPERTIES, MULTIPLE OWNERS. 
          THIS IS JUST ONE OWNER.  SO WE HAVE THEIR CONSENT.  THEY DID TAKE A VOTE AND WE DO HAVE THEIR VOTE TO BE INCLUDED.  THIS WAS SPURRED ON BY THEM.  BUT IT IS DSE APPLYING. 
          >> BOARD MEMBER: I MOVE TO APPROVE [LAUGHTER] 
          >> SPEAKER: I'M NOT GOING TO DO THE HISTORY AGAIN UNLESS YOU WANT ME TOO. 
          >> CHAIRMAN: NO.  THIS HAS BEEN WELL HEARD.  ANY QUESTIONS? >> BOARD MEMBER: IF THIS IS APPROVED DOES ANYTHING HAVE TO BE DONE RETROACTIVELY? BECAUSE WE'VE NEVER REALLY JUST PULLED A NEW BUILDING INTO THE HDC.  SO, FOR INSTANCE IF THEY HAVE MECH MECHANICALS ON THE ROOF DO THEY HAVE TO BE SCREENED? DO THEY HAVE TO DO RETROACTIVE THINGS? 
          >> SPEAKER: NO IT WOULD JUST BE GOING FORWARD THEY WOULD BE EXPECTED TO COME IN FOR A COA ON OUR GUIDELINES.  THEY'D BE FOLLOWING OUR GUIDELINES FROM HERE ON OUT. 
          >> BOARD MEMBER: WE'RE BRINGING THIS BUILDING IN AS IS >> SPEAKER: CORRECT.  FUTURE IMPROVEMENTS HAVE TO MEET THE GUIDELINES.  KEEP IN MIND THIS IS INDIVIDUALLY LISTED ON THE NATIONAL REGISTER BUT THAT DOESN'T BRING WITH IT ANY REGULATIONS OR REVIEW ON DEMOLITION OR ANYTHING.  PUTTING IT IN THE LOCAL HISTORIC DISTRICT, THEN HAS THAT 
          REQUIREMENT FOR COA THROUGH THE BOARD. >> CHAIRMAN: OKAY.  THEN WE WILL GO TO THE PUBLIC HEARING.  IS THAT ANYBODY WHO WISHES TO TESTIFY IN SUPPORT OF HDC2019-32? THAT WOULD BE A GOOD TIME.  OKAY.  THEN WE'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING MOVE INTO 
          MORE DISCUSSION AND MAYBE LOOK FOR A MOTION. >> BOARD MEMBER: I MOVE TO 
          APPROVE. >> BOARD MEMBER: SECOND. >> CHAIRMAN: IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE, PLEASE CALL ROLL 
          >> YES >> YES >> YES 
          >> YES >> YES. >> CHAIRMAN: MS. TAMMI, DID 
          WE-- >> YOU SHOULD ARTICULATE THE COMPLIANCE IF YOU FIND THAT. 
          >> CHAIRMAN: SO MR. HARRISON IS GOING TO TELL US THAT THE REST OF HIS MOTION INCLUDED THE 
          COMPLIANCE REQUIREMENT. >> BOARD MEMBER: YES. > CHAIRMAN: WITH THE 
          COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE. >> BOARD MEMBER: WOULD YOU LIKE 
          ME TO ARTICULATE IT? >> PLEASE. >> I THINK WE ALSO NEED TO ADD THE REASON WHY IT RISES TO THE LEVEL OF BEING INCLUDED IN THE HISTORIC DISTRICT IN THE MOTION. 
          SO I WOULD SAY THAT IS WHERE WE RELY ON THE NATIONAL REGISTER NOMINATION.  BUT I BELIEVE THAT 
          NEEDS TO BE WORDED INTO THE PROMOTION. >> CHAIRMAN: GIVE US A SECOND. 
          >> SO JUST WHY DON'T YOU DO THIS THEN.  AND THIS IS ASSUMING THAT -- AND YOU ALL DON'T HAVE TO.  AMEND YOUR MOTION -- YOU ARE MAKING A SECOND MOTION BUT IT IS ESSENTIALLY AMENDING THE 
          FIRST ONE. >> BOARD MEMBER: I'D LIKE TO WITHDRAW THE FIRST MOTION. 
          >> CHAIRMAN: YOU CAN'T >>  IT'S ALREADY BEEN VOTED ON. >> BOARD MEMBER: WHAT DID YOU 
          DO, MIKE? >> BOARD MEMBER: DON'T PUT IT ALL ON ME 
          >> IT'S OKAY.  I CONSIDER THE PARTIES TO THE APPLICATION AND IT'S OKAY. SO MAKE THE MOTION OFFICIALLY INSTEAD OF SAYING I WANT TO ADD THAT TO THE MOTION THAT'S BEEN VOTED ON. 
          >> BOARD MEMBER: I MOVE TO APPROVE HDC 2019-32 WHICH HAS ALREADY BEEN HEARD AND AGREED BY AND WHICH COVERED A BUILDING WHICH IS ALREADY ON THE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES AND WHICH WILL FORM A VALUABLE ADDITION TO THE HISTORIC DISTRICT OF THE CITY OF FERNANDINA BEACH WITHOUT CONDITIONS.  AND I MOVE THAT THE AGENCY MAKE THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS AND FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF MORE PART OF THE RECORD.  THAT HED CASE 2019-32 
          [01:00:04]
AS PRESENTED IS SUBSTANTIALLY COMPLIANT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND THE LAND DEVELOPMENT 
          CODE TO WARRANT APPROVAL AT THIS TIME. >> CHAIRMAN: VERY NICE. 
          >> BOARD MEMBER: SECOND. >> DID YOU SECOND THE FIRST MOTION ALSO? THE SAME PEOPLE 
          NEED TO DO IT.  IF THAT IS POSSIBLE. >> BOARD MEMBER: I'LL SECOND. 
          >> CHAIRMAN: MOVED HARRISON. SECONDED CONWAY.  THERE'S NO DISCUSSION.  PLEASE CALL THE 
          ROLL.  PROOF PREEN ROLL BEING CALLED]. >> CHAIRMAN: MOVING ON.  105. 
          [Items 4.1 & 4.2]
2019-03.  RIVERSIDE HOMES BLACK MORE 105 SOUTH 5TH STREET.  CAN WE HAVE THE VARIANCE AND THE HOUSE AT THE SAME TIME? AND THEN VOTE ON THEM SEPARATELY.  THEN 2019-36 RIVERSIDE HOMES BLACK MORE 105.  THE FIRST IS A VARIANCE AS A RESULT OF A BUFFER ISSUE.  THE SECOND IS A CERTIFICATE OF APPROVAL TO CONSTRUCT THE ONE STORY SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE. 
          >> SPEAKER: SO THIS IS HDCV 2019-03.  A PROPERTY LOCATEMENT AT 105 SOUTH 5TH STREET.  A VARIANCE FROM LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE SECTION 4.05.12B FOR THE TYPES AND PLANT OF REQUIREMENTS FOR BUFFERS.  THIS PROPERTY IS ZONED C3 IN THE CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT.  THE PARCEL CON CYSTS OF THE SOUTH HALF OF LOTS 14 AND 15 ON BLOCK 25 AND IS CURRENTLY A VACANT PARCEL.  SO, TO EXPLAIN KIND OF WHAT THAT IS.  IF YOU TAKE A LOOK AT THIS AERIAL HERE, YOU WILL NOTICE THAT ALL THE OTHER UNDERLYING LOTS OF RECORD ON ASH STREET ARE NORTH TO SOUTH ON ASH STREET.  THIS PLAT -- WHEN ORIGINALLY PLATTED THESE WERE ORIGINALLY TWO LOTS.  LOT 14 AND 15 WERE TWO 50X100 FOOT LOTS PLATTED ON ASH STREET.  AT SOME POINT THE BUILDING THAT IS NOW THE PATIO PLACE WAS BUILT UNDER THE FRONT HALF OF THOSE TWO UNDERLYING LOTS. THE REAR HALF HAVING ENOUGH FRONTAGE TO BECOME ANOTHER 50 FOOT LOT WAS SPLIT OFF.  AND THAT'S TOTALLY ALLOWABLE.  IT MET ITS REQUIREMENT FOR HOW MUCH FRONTAGE IT HAD.  BUT IT REORIENTED THAT LOT SO IT GOES ACROSS THE BACK HALF OF TWO OF THOSE -- THOSE TWO UNDERLYING LOTS.  SO THAT'S A UNIQUE SITUATION THEY HAVE THERE.  AS I SAID, THE PROPERTY IS ZONED C3. CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT BUT ABUTS AN R2 MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL ZONED PROPERTY. AGAIN, THESE PROPERTIES THAT DIRECTLY ABUT ASH STREET ARE C3 PROPERTIES.  THERE'S A BOUNDARY LINE HERE WHICH CONTAINS R2. 
          THIS PROPERTY IS C3 ON ALL SIDES EXCEPT THIS SIDE HERE WHICH ABUTS AN R2 SINGLE-FAMILY HOME. 
          THE BUFFER REQUIREMENTS ARE IN PLACE TO BUFFER OUR DIFFERENT ZONES, RESIDENTIAL FROM COMMERCIAL, AND PROVIDE BUFFERS. THIS PARTICULAR BUFFER WHERE YOU HAVE A C3 UP AGAINST AN R2 IS WHAT WE CALL TYPE C BUFFER.  AND THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE REQUIRES THIS BUFFER WHICH IS A 15 FOOT WIDE BUFFER TO CONTAIN FOR EVERY 100 LINEAR FEET TWO SHADE TREES, FOUR UNDER STORY TREES AND A CONTINUOUS UNBROKEN HEDGE.  WE GIVE THE REASONING FOR WHY WE DO THESE BUFFERS WHICH ARE FOR AESTHETIC REASONS SO WE DON'T HAVE CONFLICTING ZONING DISTRICTS.  WE DO SAY THE BUFFER SHALL NOT BE USED FOR BUILDING, PARKING, STORAGE OR LOADING AREAS.  AND THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A REDUCTION IN THE REQUIRED BUFFER TO ALLOW FOR PARKING ON THIS SITE.  AGAIN, I'LL SHOW YOU THAT WHEN WE TALK ABOUT THE BUILDING THAT IS PROPOSED TO GO IN AND WHERE THAT PARKING IS GOING. WHEN WE ANALYZE VARIANCES WE HAVE SIX CRITERIA THAT THE APPLICANT HAS TO MEET ALL SIX OF THOSE FOR US TO BE ABLE TO APPROVE OF A VARIANCE.  THOSE CRITERIA ARE THAT IT'S A SPECIAL CONDITION.  THAT SPECIAL CONDITIONS AND CIRCUMSTANCES EXIST WHICH ARE PECULIAR TO THE LAND, STRUCTURE OR BUILDING INVOLVED, AND WHICH ARE NOT APPLICABLE TO OTHER LAND, STRUCTURES OR BUILDINGS IN THE SAME ZONING DISTRICT.  SPECIAL CONDITIONS OR CIRCUMSTANCES DO NOT RESULT FROM ACTIONS OF THE APPLICANT AND NOT BASED ON A DESIRE TO REDUCE DEVELOPMENT COSTS.  STAFF FINDS AND AGREES WITH THE APPLICANT'S RESPONSE THERE ARE SPECIAL CONDITIONS THAT EXIST ON THIS PROPERTY ASIDE FROM THE ZONING AND THE WAY THIS LOT WAS DIVIDED.  A CURB CUT AND DRIVEWAY APRON EXISTS IN THE RIGHT-OF-WAY.  THE 
          [01:05:01]
REMAINDER OF THE RIGHT-OF-WAY IS OCCUPIED BY A LARGE TREE AND UTILITY POLE MAKING RELOCATING THAT EXISTING CURB CUT IMPOSSIBLE WITHOUT REMOVAL OF THAT TREE.  AND THAT IS A LONG EXISTING CURB CUT THAT'S BEEN THERE.  THE SECOND CRITERIA IS SPECIAL PRIVILEGE.  GRANTING THE VARIANCE DOES NOT CONFER A SPECIAL PRIVILEGE DENIED BY THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE TO OTHER LANDS, STRUCTURES OR BUILDINGS IN THE SAME ZONING DISTRICTS. THIS IS A HARD ONE TO OVERCOME BECAUSE BY ITS DEFINITION VARIANCES ARE GRAFRNTING A SPECIAL PRIVILEGE.  SO, STAFF FINDING THAT GRANTING THIS VARIANCE DOES CONFER A SPECIAL PRIVILEGE IF THAT IT WOULD ALLOW FOR THE LESSER BUFFER REQUIRED OF OTHER PROPERTIES IN THE SAME ZONING DISTRICT.  SO, STAFF FINDS THIS DOES NOT MEET THE CRITERIA.  CRITERIA 3 IS LITERAL INTERPRETATION OF PROVISIONS OF THE LDC WOULD DEPRIVE THE APPLICANT OF RIGHTS COMMONLY ENJOYED BY OTHERS.  STAFF FINDS THE LITERAL INTERPRETATION WOULD DEPRIVE THE APPLICANT OF THE RIGHTS ENJOYED BY OTHER PROPERTIES IN THE ZONING DISTRICT.  INSTALLATION OF THE BUFFER WOULD ELIMINATE THE POSSIBILITY OF USING THAT DRIVEWAY APRON TO CREATE THE DRIVEWAY FOR ON-SITE PARKING. 
          RELOCATING THE CUT ELSEWHERE WOULD REQUIRE APPROVE FROM THE CITY TO REMOVE THE TREE IN THE RIGHT WAY.  CRITERIA 4 IS THAT THIS IS A MINIMUM VARIANCE THAT THIS IS THE MIN YUM VARIANCE REQUESTED THAT WILL MAKE POSSIBLE THE REASONABLE USE OF THE LAND, STRUCTURE OR BUILDING. 
          STAFF FINDS THE REDUCTION OF THE BUFFER IS THE MINIMUM REQUIRED TO MAKE CONSTRUCTION OF THE SINGLE-FAMILY HOME POSSIBLE ON THIS PARCEL.  FIVE.  GRANTING THIS VARIANCE IS IN HARMONY WITH THE GENERAL INTENT AND PURPOSE OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AND THE COMP PLAN.  STAFF FINDS THAT ALLOWING THIS REDUCTION IN THE BUFFER TO ACHIEVE PARKING ACCESS FROM THE EXISTING CURB CUT WOULD BE IN HARMING WITH THE PURPOSE OF THE COMP PLAN.  THE BUFFER REQUIREMENT IS IN PLACE TO MINIMIZE POTENTIAL NUISANCES BETWEEN DIFFERENTLY ZONED ADJACENT PROPERTIES AND ENHANCE BEAUTIFICATION.  ALTHOUGH THIS PROPERTY IS A C3 ZONED PARCEL THE USE PROPOSED IS A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL.  THE ADJACENT PARCEL TO THE SOUTH IS ALSO SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL IN USE.  ALTHOUGH IT IS ZONED R2.  ANY FUTURE CHANGE OF THIS PROPERTY PROPOSED TO CHANGE TO COMMERCIAL WOULD TRIGGER A REVIEW BY THE TECHNICAL REVIEW COMMITTEE AND AT THAT TIME THAT LANDSCAPE BUFFER WOULD BE REQUIRED TO BE INSTALLED. SIX. PUBLIC INTEREST.  GRANTING THE VARIANCE IS COMPATIBLE WITH THE SURROUNDING PROPERTIES, ISN'T GOING TO CAUSE INJURY TO THE AREA INVOLVED OR BE DETRIMENTAL TO THE PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY, WELFARE OR ENENVIRONMENT.  STAFF FINDS GRANTING THIS VARIANCE WOULD BE COMPATIBLE WITH THE SURROUNDING RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES AND NOT DETRIMENTAL TO THE REGISTER OR HISTORIC DISTRICT.  STAFF FINDS THEY DO MEET THIS CRITERIA.  AGAIN I WANT TO POINT OUT THIS PARCEL DOES HAVE SOME UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES IN THAT THE PARCEL CONSIST OF TWO HALVES OF TWO SEPARATE UNDERLYING LOTS OF RECORD ORIGINALLY PLATTED TO FRONT ASH STREET.  AS SUCH THAT BUFFER BETWEEN THE ZONING DISTRICTS WAS DESIGNED TO OCCUR AT WHAT WAS THE REAR OF THE PROPERTY NOT WHAT IS CURRENTLY THE REAR OF THE PROPERTY.  IT'S NOW THE SIDE OF THE PROPERTY. THAT THE RIGHT-OF-WAY CONTAINS AN EXISTING CURB CUT AT THE SOUTHERN SIDE OF THE PARCEL. THE THIRD ONE BEING THAT THE RIGHT-OF-WAY CONTAINS MATURE TREES AS WELL AS UTILITY POLE. AND THE FOURTH UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCE IS THAT THE 15 FOOT WIDE AREA WHERE THE LANDSCAPE BUFFER IS REREQUIRED HAS HISTORICALLY BEEN UTILIZED AS A DRIVEWAY.  ADDITIONALLY THE PROPOSED USE OF THIS PROPERTY IS THE SAME USE AS THE ADJOINING PROPERTY.  SINGLE FAMILY EVEN THOUGH THEY'RE DIFFERENT ZONING DISTRICTS.  AS I SAID BEFORE, IF THIS PROPERTY WERE TO BE CONVERTED TO COMMERCIAL USE, WHICH IT CAN, THAT CHANGE OF USE WOULD TRIGGER REVIEW BY THE TRC AND AT THAT TIME THE BUFFER WOULD BE REQUIRED.  ALTHOUGH STAFF MUST RECOMMEND DENIAL BECAUSE THE VARIANCE APPLICATION DOES NOT MEET ALL THE CRITERIA IT SHOULD BE NOTED ALL CRITERIA EXCEPT THAT SPECIAL PRIVILEGE CRITERIA HAVE BEEN MET.  ALL VARIANCES REPRESENT SPECIAL PRIVILEGE BEING GRANTED BEYOND WHAT IS ALLOWABLE IN THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE.  THE APPLICANT HAS DEMONSTRATED THERE ARE A NUMBER OF UNIQUE FACTORS ON THIS PROPERTY AND THIS REQUEST IS THE MINIMUM VARIANCE REQUIRED TO BE ABLE TO PROVIDE PARKING SPACE ON SITE AND THAT GRANTING THIS VARIANCE WOULD NOT HARM THE CHARACTER.  SO, STAFF FINDS THAT THE REQUESTED ACTION AS PRESENTED IS NOT CONSISTENT WITH THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR STANDARDS AND DOWNTOWN HISTORIC DISTRICT GUIDELINES AND HAS TO RECOMMEND DENIAL OF HDCV 2019-03 BUT ASK THE BOARD TO CONSIDER 
          THOSE CRITERIA.  THANK YOU. >> BOARD MEMBER: IS THE AFFECT OF THIS VARIANCE REQUEST TO 
          CONVERT THE ZONING FROM C3 TO R2? >> NO.  THE VARIANCE IS ONLY TO 
          [01:10:03]
AFFECT THE REQUIRED BUFFER.  TO REDUCE WHAT'S REQUIRED IN THAT BUFFER TO BE ABLE TO UTILIZE PART OF IT FOR A DRIVEWAY. WHICH IS THE CURB CUT IS ALREADY EXISTING.  HERE ARE PHOTOS. 
          >> BOARD MEMBER: THE LDC TALKS OF A BUFFER CONTINUING PER 100 LINEAR FEET OF PROPERTY LINE. 
          CAN YOU DEFINE THE PROPERTY LINE, IN THIS CASE, IS THAT THE PERIMETER OF THE LOT 
          >> IT IS 50 BY 100.  THE PROPERTY LINE BETWEEN THE TWO DIFFERENT ZONING CATEGORIES IS A 
          50 FOOT SPAN.  BETWEEN THOSE TWO CATEGORIES. >> BOARD MEMBER: SO IT NEEDS ONE 
          SHADE TREE, TWO UNDER STORY TREES >> CORRECT BUT IN THE ENTIRE 15 FOOT WIDE BUFFER ALONG THAT EDGE OF THE PROPERTY.  WHICH IS WHERE YOU ARE SEEING THE CURB CUT 
          EXISTING NOW. >> BOARD MEMBER: SO ONLY THE DRIVEWAY IS CREATING THE 
          INCONSISTENTSY? >> CORRECT >> BOARD MEMBER: WHAT IS THE 
          RECTANGLE THAT IT SHOWS ON THE AERIAL VIEW? >> I BELIEVE IT IS THE CURB CUT 
          THAT YOU ARE SEEING. >> BOARD MEMBER: IT MIGHT BE A BOAT 
          >> THERE WAS A BOAT WHEN THE PHOTO WAS TAKEN. >> BOARD MEMBER: THANK YOU. 
          >> BOARD MEMBER: ALSO A SHED >> YOU CAN SEE THE BOAT AND THE SHED. 
          >> CHAIRMAN: OTHER QUESTIONS? >> BOARD MEMBER: SAL, YOU HAVE TO RECOMMEND DENIAL BECAUSE OF THE SPECIAL -- VERY NATURE OF A VARIANCE YOU ARE GRANTING SPECIAL PRIVILEGE.  SO, YOU HAVE 
          TO RECOMMEND DENIAL? >> CORRECT.  AS WE'VE SEEN WITH VARIANCES, IT IS HARD TO GET A NUMBER OF YESES ON A VARIANCE. BUT ON THIS CASE THERE ARE A NUMBER OF SPECIAL CONDITIONS I BELIEVE THAT ARE ON THIS PARCEL THAT DID MAKE THEM GET YESES ON EVERYTHING EXCEPT THAT SPECIAL 
          CONDITION. >> BOARD MEMBER: IN THE FUTURE, IF THIS DOES REVERT BACK TO COMMERCIAL AND SOMEBODY WANTS TO USE THIS AND SAY WE GRANT THIS, DO THEY HAVE A DRIVEWAY ON THE SOUTH SIDE.  AND THEN IT GOES THROUGH TRC AND TRC SAYS YES WE'RE REQUIRING 15 FOOT BUFFER, DOES THAT SUPERCEDE THE FACT THAT NOW HISTORICALLY WE'VE HAD A DRIVEWAY HERE FOR FIVE, EIGHT, 50 YEARS.  THEN DO WE HAVE A BUSINESS -- THE HOUSE CONVERTED TO A BUSINESS AND THE DRIVEWAY TAKES PRECEDENCE? OR DOES THE RECOMMENDATION OF A NEW BUFFER TAKE PRECEDENCE 
          >> THE SAME WAY BEING BUILT AS A SINGLE-FAMILY HOME IT WOULD HAVE DIFFERENT REQUIREMENTS EVEN THROUGH BUILDING CODE THAN IT WOULD AS IF IT WERE BUILT AS A COMMERCIAL STRUCTURE.  ONCE THAT CHANGE OF USE TRIGGERED THAT, EVERYTHING WOULD GET LOOKED AT AND TO MAKE IT COMMERCIAL ALL OF THOSE THINGS WOULD HAVE TO BE BROUGHT UP TO MEET THOSE REQUIREMENTS INCLUDING THE 
          BUFFER. >> CHAIRMAN: OTHER QUESTIONS FOR MR. CA MELLOW. 
          >> BOARD MEMBER: ARE WE GOING TO LOOK AT THE OTHER ONE BEFORE WE VOTE ON THIS? 
          >> IF IT'S OKAY WITH YOU, YES. THE PLAN WAS TO LOOK AT BOTH. THAT'S WHAT THE WHOLE PACKAGE 
          IS.  THEN VOTE ON THE VARIANCE AND VOTE ON THE HOUSE. >> NOW WHEN THERE'S A VOTE ON THE VARIANCE I DON'T HAVE ANY PROBLEM WITH THAT.  AS YOU SAID, THERE WILL BE TWO SEPARATE MOTIONS.  A LITTLE MORE ARTICULATION WITH YOUR MOTION UNLESS YOU ARE GOING TO AGREE WITH STAFF ON ALL OF THE POINTS YOU CAN THEN SAY THAT YOU ARE ACCEPTING STAFF'S RECOMMENDATIONS.  BUT IF YOU ARE GOING TO, FOR EXAMPLE, APPROVE THE VARIANCE OR CHOOSE TO DENY IT BASED ON SOME OTHER REASON, THEN WHAT STAFF GAVE, YOU NEED TO ARTICULATE YOUR REASON IN 
          ADDITION TO OR THAT IT IS DIFFERENT THAN STAFF. >> BOARD MEMBER: IT'S EFFECTIVELY IMPOSSIBLE FOR SAL TO FIND -- THAT SPECIAL PRIVILEGE HAS NOT BEEN PROVIDED 
          BECAUSE OF THE WAY THE STATUTE IS WRITTEN IT IS IMPOSSIBLE >> IT'S NOT IMPOSSIBLE.  IT'S NOT IMPOSSIBLE.  I'M NOT -- WE MIGHT HAVE DONE IT ONCE.  IT'S VERY DIFFICULT.  IN THIS CASE, REMEMBER STAFF IS A PARTY. HE'S MAKING HIS ARGUMENTS THE BEST HE CAN AND WHAT HE BELIEVES BUT THERE COULD BE ANOTHER ONE OF YOU THAT SAYS I DON'T THINK IT IS A SPECIAL PRIVILEGE. 
          >> CHAIRMAN: SO I HEAR YOU SAYING THAT WE NEED TO ARTICULATE A RATION ALE FOR DISAGREEING WITH THE STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE IT. WE NEED TO HAVE SOME KIND OF 
          BASIS FOR THAT. >> YES. >> CHAIRMAN: SINCE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE VARIANCE WHO HAS STANDING TO APPEAL THE BOARD'S DECISION ON THE VARIANCE? 
          >> ON A VARIANCE IT'S ANY DECISION OF -- >> CHAIRMAN: THE APPLICANT ONLY. 
          [01:15:03]
IF THE NEIGHBOR DOESN'T LIKE THE DECISION THEY WOULD HAVE TO GO TO CIVIL COURT 
          >> RIGHT IF IT'S SOMEBODY OTHER THAN THE APPLICANT YES. >> CHAIRMAN: I GOT TOO LEGAL ON 
          YOU >> YOU CAN GET LEGAL ON ME. THAT'S WHY I AM HERE. 
          >> CHAIRMAN: YOU I AM NOT WORRIED ABOUT. >> BOARD MEMBER: SAL SAID THERE ARE A NUMBER OF UNIQUE FACTORS OF THE VARIANCE REQUIRED BE ABLE TO PROVIDE PARKING SPACE AND CREATING THE VARIANCE WOULD NOT HARM THE CHARACTER OF THE HISTORIC DISTRICT.  SO, HE'S 
          GIVEN HIS RATIONALE. >> CHAIRMAN: OKAY.  LET'S MOVE ON TO THE HOUSE.  SAL, PLEASE. 
          >> SPEAKER: I'LL SHOW YOU SOME OF THE PICTURES TO GET A BETTER IDEA OF THE LOT AND WHAT'S GOING 
          ON. >> CHAIRMAN: I HAD ONE QUESTION. THOSE TWO TREES.  THIS DRIVEWAY. 
          ARE THEY GOING TO STAY? >> SPEAKER: CORRECT. >> CHAIRMAN: THAT'S IMPORTANT. 
          THANK YOU. >> SPEAKER: THIS IS A VACANT LOT.  THIS CURB CUT IS EXISTING THERE.  IT'S EXISTED FOR A LONG TIME.  THERE IS A TREE IN THE RIGHT-OF-WAY.  A FAIRLY LARGE TREE.  THEN THERE'S A TELEPHONE POLE OR ELECTRIC POLE RIGHT UP AGAINST THE EM OF THE PROPERTY THERE.  SO, SHIFTING IT REALLY ISN'T POSSIBLE WITHOUT DAMAGING THE ROOTS OF THAT TREE OR REMOVING THE TREE ALL TOGETHER. THEY'VE PROVIDED SOME PHOTOS. THE SAME ISSUE HAPPENS ACROSS THE STREET WHERE THEY'RE ON TWO HALVES OF TWO UNDERLYING LOTS THAT HAVE BEEN REORIENTED.  AND THEY HAVE A DRIVEWAY IN THERE TOO.  AND THEY DON'T HAVE THE BUFFER BETWEEN THE TWO USES. 
          BUT, OBVIOUSLY, THIS IS A HISTORIC PROPERTY.  THIS IS THE ADJOINING PROPERTY.  SO THOSE TREES EXIST THERE AND THE JOINING HISTORIC PROPERTY WITH ITS DRIVEWAY.  THERE'S MORE EXAMPLES OF HOW THESE DRIVEWAYS APPEAR THROUGHOUT THE NEIGHBORHOOD.  SO, STAFF DID AGREE WITH THE APPLICANT'S INTERPRETATION THAT THIS WON'T CHANGE THE CHARACTER OF THE HISTORIC DISTRICT.  YOU ARE GOING TO SEE A LOT OF WHAT WE'VE SEEN BEFORE IN THE HISTORIC DISTRICT.  I BELIEVE THEY'RE SHOWING SOME BRICKS.  THIS HAS BEEN USED FOR PARKING FOR A VERY LONG TIME.  THERE IS SOME BRICKS SCATTERED THROUGHOUT THE SITE THAT SHOW THIS WAS USED AS PARKING IN THIS AREA.  I WILL MOVE ON TO THE SINGLE-FAMILY HOME.  SO, THIS IS CASE HDC2019-36.  THIS IS THAT PROPERTY 105 SOUTH 5TH STREET ZONED C3.  THIS REQUESTED ACTION IS TO CONSTRUCT A ONE STORY SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE.  WHEN LOOKING AT THIS, STAFF HAS ANALYZED THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE HOME AND FINDS THAT THE REQUESTED ACTION AS PRESENTED IS CONSISTENT WITH THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AND SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR STANDARDS AND THE DOWNTOWN HISTORIC DISTRICT GUIDELINES AND IS RECOMMENDING APPROVAL ON THIS APPLICATION OF HDC-2019-36 WITH THE CONDITION THE VARIANCE BE GRANTED CONCURRENTLY.  THIS APPLICATION CAN'T BE GRANTED WITHOUT THE VARIANCE BEING GRANTED.  WITH THAT, I WILL SHOW YOU SOME OF THE ELEVATIONS OF THE PROPERTY. THERE'S SOME SURROUNDING PROPERTIES.  THE HOME WILL BE CONSTRUCTED OF MODERN MATERIALS THAT REPLICATE OUR HISTORIC MATERIALS LIKE THE SMOOTH HORDY BOARD.  WINDOW DESIGN WILL MATCH WHAT WE TYPICALLY SEE AS FAR AS PROPORTIONS AND DESIGN IN THE HISTORIC DISTRICT.  PARDON ME WHILE I SCROLL.  SO, THIS IS THE SITE PLAN FOR THE HOME.  AS YOU CAN SEE HERE IT IS A SINGLE-FAMILY HOME.  YOU WILL SEE THIS LINE -- I DON'T KNOW IF YOU CAN SEE ON THE SCREEN WHERE THE ARROW IS MOVING.  THAT'S THE EDGE OF THE 15 FOOT SUFFER.  SO THAT WOULD ALL BE PLANTED IF THEY HAVE TO PUT THE BUFFER IN. SINCE THE CURB CUT IS HERE AND WE HAVE THAT TREE IN FRONT OF THE HOUSE THEY WOULD LIKE TO UTILIZE THAT CURB CUT AND PUT A SINGLE CAR DRIVEWAY OF I BELIEVE IT'S 10X20 IN THAT BUFFER.  THE REST OF IT THEY SAID WILL STILL BE LANDSCAPED ALL AROUND THAT SITE.  SO THEY ARE STILL RETAINING THE BUFFER.  JUST NOT WHERE THEY'RE PROPOSING THE PARKING SO THEY CAN GET A CAR OFF THE STREET AND PARKED ON SITE.  ALL OTHER SETBACKS WERE MET.  MECHANICAL WAS APPROPRIATELY LOCATED.  HERE ARE SOME ELEVATIONS.  AS YOU CAN SEE IT SHARES A LOT OF CHARACTERS WITH A LOT OF OUR HISTORIC PROPERTIES IN THE CITY.  A LOT OF THE DETAILING ON IT ALSO IN LINE WITH A MODERN STRUCTURE IN 
          [01:20:07]
OUR HISTORIC DISTRICT TO NOT REPLICATE OUR HISTORIC STRUCTURES BUT TO COMPLIMENT OUR 
          HISTORIC STRUCTURES.  HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? >> BOARD MEMBER: THE 15 FOOT 
          BUFFER REQUIRED FOR THE COMMERCIAL, THAT'S-- >> THIS AREA RIGHT HERE. 
          >> BOARD MEMBER: IT'S NOT REALLY A SETBACK. >> IT'S NOT A SETBACK.  IT IS A REQUIRED BUFFER.  IF YOU REMEMBER THIS HOME IS BUILT ON THE REAR HALF OF THE TWO UNDERLYING LOTS.  SO, THIS IN THE ORIGINAL INTENT WAS ZONED C3 SO THIS WOULD ALL BE COMMERCIAL. 
          THESE TWO LOTS WOULD BE BUILT COMMERCIALLY AND THEY ABUT THIS LOT, LOT 13, WHICH IS RESIDENTIAL.  IN REALITY WHAT WE HAVE IS A LOT THAT WAS CUT OFF OF THE OTHER TWO LOTS AND REORIENTED.  SO NOW WHAT WAS THE REAR OF THAT PROPERTY AND WOULD HAVE REQUIRED A SETBACK BETWEEN THOSE TWO DIFFERENT WHAT THEY ASSUMED WOULD HAVE BEEN TWO DIFFERENT USES IS NOW THE SIDE OF THE BUILDING AND YOU HAVE TWO OF THE SAME USES, SINGLE-FAMILY HOME, SINGLE-FAMILY HOME.  SO, 
          THERE'S NOT REALLY AS MUCH NEED FOR A BUFFER THERE. >> BOARD MEMBER: I UNDERSTAND. 
          AND I THINK THE SOLUTION IS AND SENSIBLE I DON'T HAVE ANY PROBLEMS WITH IT BUT IT SEEMS TO ME THE LDC DOES HAVE A PROBLEM WITH IT.  BUT IF YOU ARE GOING TO HAVE A BUFFER I'M NOT SURE 
          YOU CAN PUT A GARAGE IN THERE. >> YOU COULDN'T PUT A GARAGE ON THE BUFFER NO.  BUT, AGAIN, THIS IS A UNIQUE LOT THAT HAS SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES ON IT.  YOU DON'T SEE THIS TOO OFTEN THROUGHOUT 
          THE HISTORIC DISTRICT. >> BOARD MEMBER: BUT SHOULDN'T A NEW GARAGE IN THE BUFFERING PART 
          OF THE VARIANCE >> THE SHED IS EXISTING >> BOARD MEMBER: THEY'RE NOT PUTTING A BUFFER IN.  THEY'RE BUILDING A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE. 
          >> >> BOARD MEMBER: THERE'S NO BUFFER. 
          >> BOARD MEMBER: UNDERSTOOD. OKAY. >> BOARD MEMBER: I HAVE A FEW. 
          THE FIRST THING THAT I HAVE IS, YOU KNOW, I THINK IN THE HISTORIC DISTRICT IT'S IMPORTANT THAT WHEN YOU ARE LOOKING AT INFILL DEVELOPMENT THAT YOU SEE THE RHYTHM OF HOW THE HOUSE RELATES TO THE HOUSES ON EITHER SIDE OF IT.  BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, THERE TENDS TO BE A CONSISTENCY THERE AND THIS HOUSE HAS A TEN FOOT SETBACK FROM THE PROPERTY LINE.  DO WE HAVE ANY IDEA HOW 
          THAT RELATES TO THE BUILDINGS ON EITHER SIDE? >> I DON'T.  WE CAN PULL UP GOOGLE EARTH AND TAKE A LOOK BUT I DON'T HAVE THOSE MEASUREMENTS. . 
          >> BOARD MEMBER: I CAN TELL YOU. THIS IS ON MY STREET.  SO, IF YOU WOULD TAKE MY OPINION.  IT'S REAL TIGHT. VERY CLOSE TO WHAT'S GOING ON ON THE REST OF THE STREET. 
          >> BOARD MEMBER: THAT'S MY GUT INSTINCT TOO. >> IF YOU WANT AN EXACT MEASURE 
          IT'S PRETTY DARN CLOSE.  IS THAT A PORCH ON THE FRONT? >> SPEAKER: YES. 
          >> BOARD MEMBER: SO YOU GOT CHRIS AND KELLY NEXT DOOR.  WE HAVE THAT'S BOBBY'S OLD HOUSE. 
          AND THAT'S A WIDE-OPEN PORCH THERE RIGHT NOW.  IT IS A TWO STORY PORCH. 
          >> BOARD MEMBER: I DON'T KNOW THIS MIGHT NOT BE THE RIGHT TIME TO BRING IT UP.  SO, THIS APPLICANT HAS JELLED WIN WINDOW -- JELLED WYNN WINDOWS. AND I DID RESEARCH AND THEY HAVE SIX DIFFERENT KIND OF VINYL WINDOWS THEY MAKE.  AND WE DON'T HAVE ANY IDEA WHICH -- WELL ACTUALLY I THINK WE DO.  THEY SAY THEY'RE GOING TO USE THE BUILD ERR'S CHOICE MAYBE WHICH IS MY GUESS THE LOWEST LINE OF WINDOWS THEY MAKE.  AND WE DON'T REALLY HAVE ANYTHING TO BASE WHETHER OR NOT THAT'S AN APPROVED WINDOW OR NOT BECAUSE THE ONLY THING THAT SHOWS UP IN THE PRE-APPROVED LIST IS JELDWYN.  IT DOESN'T ADDRESS THE FACT THERE ARE SIX MODELS 
          AVAILABLE >> I THINK SHEET 30 OF THIS APPLICATION SHOWS US WHY THIS PARTICULAR WINDOW SHOULD NOT BE USED IN THE HISTORIC DISTRICT. IF SAL CAN TURN TO THAT. 
          >> SPEAKER: SORRY WHAT AM I LOOKING FOR? >> BOARD MEMBER: SHEET 30 OF THE 
          APPLICATION. >> SPEAKER: SURE.  ONE SEC. >> BOARD MEMBER: I THINK THAT SHOWS A SECTION CUT THROUGH THE WINDOW.  WHICH SHOWS THE GLASS IS LIKE FLUSH WITH THE SASH. 
          >> BOARD MEMBER: IT IS A SIMULATED DIVIDED LIGHT.  THE SASH.  THERE'S NO DEPTH TO IT. 
          >> BOARD MEMBER: TO BE CLEAR WE'RE NOT PICKING ON THIS PARTICULAR APPLICANT.  THIS HAS COME UP BEFORE WE JUST HAVEN'T ADDRESSED IT.  SO THAT'S WHY I'M BRINGING IT UP TONIGHT. 
          >> CHAIRMAN: OKAY.  WE'RE GOING TO ASK THE APPLICANT TO DEAL WITH THAT ISSUE.  THIS IS WINDOW 
          [01:25:07]
SASH.  THE GLASS IS ALMOST FLUSH WITH THE SASH.  WHERE AS A HISTORIC WINDOW IT WOULD BE 
          INSET. >> CHAIRMAN: I'M SURE WE CAN GET TO A PLACE WHERE EVERYBODY IS 
          HAPPY. >> BOARD MEMBER: AND THAT CAN BE A CONDITION. 
          >> BOARD MEMBER: I THINK THAT WE SHOULD TAKE -- I THINK ANY WINDOW WE DON'T HAVE MORE INFORMATION ON IT SHOULD BE REMOVED FROM THE PRE-APPROVED LIST UNTIL WE HAVE A CHANCE TO 
          VET IT AND SELECT EXACTLY WHICH ONE DOES GO ON THE PRE-APPROVED. >> CHAIRMAN: WE'LL HAVE TO TALK 
          ABOUT THE PROCESS OF DOING IT. >> BOARD MEMBER: THAT IS JUST MY SUGGESTION.  AND THAT'S NOT 
          NECESSARILY THIS APPLICANT ONLY. >> CHAIRMAN: NO.  I GET THAT. JUST THINKING THROUGH HOW TO DO 
          THAT APPROPRIATELY SO COUNCIL -- >> BOARD MEMBER: BUT, OTHER THAN THAT, I THINK IT IS A GOOD 
          LOOKING HOUSE. >> BOARD MEMBER: DO WE KNOW WHAT THE MATERIAL IS FOR THE PROPOSED 
          DRIVEWAY? >> SPEAKER: GIVE ME ONE SEC.  I BELIEVE IT'S ON THE SITE PLAN. 
          WE CAN ASK THE APPLICANT. >> CHAIRMAN: IT DOESN'T CALL IT OUT.  OR IN THE CHART.  ON THE APPLICATION.  WE'LL GET THE APPLICANT TO CALL IT OUT.  THAT WAY IT WILL BE ON THE RECORD. 
          ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? JIM? >> BOARD MEMBER: IS THERE ANY KIND OF LANDSCAPE PLAN INCLUDED WITH THE APPLICATION SO WE DON'T ACTUALLY KNOW WHAT THEY PROPOSE TO INSTALL.  THEY JUST SAID 
          THEY'RE GOING PUT SOMETHING IN THERE. >> SPEAKER: AND THEY WOULD BE REQUIRED TO MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THAT BUFFER EXCEPT FOR THE DRIVEWAY IF THAT WERE SOMETHING YOU GRANTED.  WE DON'T NECESSARILY NEED TO KNOW WHAT PLANTS GO IN THERE JUST 
          THEY ARE THE APPROPRIATE PLANTS FOR THAT BUFFER. >> BOARD MEMBER: SO THE WAY THE VARIANCE IS DRAFTED IT'S JUST FOR THE DRIVEWAY.  THEY'RE NOT BEING RELIEVED OF THE OTHER 
          REQUIREMENTS IN THE BUFFER. >> SPEAKER: NO. >> BOARD MEMBER: I MISSED THAT. 
          >> BOARD MEMBER: BY THE WAY IT DOES SAY THE DRIVEWAY IS POURED CONCRETE. 
          >> SPEAKER: IT'S ON THE APPLICATION. >> BOARD MEMBER: THE ONLY VARIANCE YOU ARE PROVIDING IS THAT.  AND NO GARAGE BECAUSE YOU ARE NOT LOOK ASKING FOR IT. 
          OTHER QUESTIONS? >> BOARD MEMBER: ONE LAST.  I CAN SEE ON THE PHOTOS THERE'S AN EXISTING SHED AND IT LOOKS LIKE FROM THE DRAWINGS IT'S GOING BE MOVED TO THE BACK CORNER.  THE ZONING HERE IS C3.  THAT IS A 0 LOT LINE?  SO, THEY COULD PUT IT THERE AND THEY WOULD HAVE TO DEAL WITH FIRE CODE ISSUES IF THEY PUT IT RIGHT ON THE PROPERTY LINE.  I JUST WANTED TO 
          CHECK THAT. >> SPEAKER: SO IT LOOKS LIKE THAT WILL GO INTO THE BUFFER 
          ALSO FROM THE SITE PLAN. >> BOARD MEMBER: THAT IS ALLOWED? 
          >> SPEAKER: IF THE VARIANCE IS GRANTED. >> CHAIRMAN: OTHER QUESTIONS? ALL RIGHT.  I THINK WE HAVE A PRETTY GOOD UNDERSTANDING OF THE STAFF REPORT.  LET ME THINK FOR A SECOND ABOUT THIS PROCESS. MS. TAMMI, I THINK I NEED TO OPEN UP TO PUBLIC HEARING FOR 
          EACH ITEM NOT JUST -- I CAN'T OPEN THEM UP TWO TOGETHER >> THAT'S RIGHT. 
          >> CAIRMAN: THANK YOU.  SO I AM GOING TO GO AHEAD -- NO I NEED THE APPLICANT TO COME UP.  I'M SKIPPING A STEP.  THE APPLICANT FOR 2019-03 AND 2019-06.  WE'RE GOING TO ASK MS. BLACK MORE AND 
          MS. BLACK MORE. >> SPEAKER: I REPRESENT MY HUSBAND ALSO HAL. HE IS NOW OF 
          TOWN.  105 SOUTH FIFTH STREET FERNANDINA BEACH. >> CHAIRMAN: ACTUALLY YOUR 
          RESIDENCE. >> SPEAKER: WHERE I LIVE NOW? I DON'T REMEMBER MY ADDRESS 
          BECAUSE WE JUST MOVED [LAUGHTER] >> CHAIRMAN: YOU ARE AT DEBBIE'S 
          HOUSE RIGHT? >> SPEAKER: YES.  WE HAVE JUST RECENTLY -- 
          >> CHAIRMAN: WOULD IT BE SUFFICIENT TO SAY SHE IS AT THE CORNER OF DATE AND FIFTH. 
          >> SPEAKER: CEDAR AND FIFTH. >> CHAIRMAN: SMALL TOWN. >> SPEAKER: FROM MY UNDERSTANDING YOU GUYS ARE COOL WITH EVERYTHING BUT THE SPECIAL PRIVILEGE SECTION OF THE --? OKAY.  HISTORICALLY THE DRIVEWAY HAS BEEN THERE FOR A VERY LONG TIME.  IT HAS BEEN USED HISTORICALLY AS A DRIVEWAY AS YOU CAN SEE AND HAS BEEN USED FOR PARKING FOR OVER 40 YEARS. 
          I'VE BEEN TALKING TO NEIGHBORS. I DON'T HAVE ANYTHING TO SUBSTANTIATE THAT BUT 
          [01:30:04]
MR. PRESCOTT TOLD MOR 40 YEARS THIS HAS BEEN USED AS A DRIVEWAY WHERE PEOPLE HAVE PARKED NEXT DOOR TO BOB'S OLD HOUSE.  SO, WE'RE NOT ASKING -- WE'RE NOT SAYING LET'S CHANGE THIS.  WE'RE SAYING LET'S LEAVE IT LIKE IT IS IF IT'S BEEN PARKED ON ALL THESE YEARS WHY NOT LEAVE IT. 
          SECONDLY, SAL, CAN YOU GO TO THE PICTURE OF THE YELLOW HOUSE ACROSS THE STREET.  THE COMMERCIAL PROPERTY PLEASE. THIS IS A C3 PROPERTY AS WELL. AND AS YOU CAN SEE IT ALSO HAS A DRIVEWAY IN THE BUFFER AREA. YOU ARE GOING TO SAY WELL HISTORICALLY THE HOUSE HAS BEEN THERE RIGHT.  SO THAT'S WHY THEY CAN DO THAT.  YES OUR DRIVEWAY HAS BEEN THERE HISTORICALLY FOR 40 YEARS.  SO, WHY NOT LEAVE IT LIKE IT IS? SECONDLY, IT'S GOING BE IN HARMONY WITH THE STREET. 
          HISTORICALLY WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HISTORIC DOWNTOWN FERNANDINA. WE WANT TO KEEP THAT IT WAY.  I UNDERSTAND.  THAT'S WHY THIS COMMITTEE IS HERE.  THIS IS WHY WE MEET, GO THROUGH THESE THINGS.  WE WANT TO KEEP THINGS HISTORICALLY CORRECT. HISTORICALLY THIS WOULD HAVE BEEN A RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY.  IF YOU GO BACK IN TIME IT WOULD HAVE BEEN A RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY.  PROBABLY AT SOME POINT HAD A HOUSE ON IT.  FROM WHAT I FOUND OUT TODAY THERE WAS A HOUSE WHERE AMY'S PATIO PLACE IS NOW.  USED TO BE A HOUSE THERE.  SHE IS A NURSE THAT HELPED WITH THE HEALTH DEPARTMENT.  GAVE KIDS SHOTS AND THINGS OF THAT NATURE.  THIS PROPERTY HERE, WHICH IS MY PROPERTY, WAS THEIR BACKYARD. THIS WAS A DRIVEWAY.  SO, HISTORICALLY IT HAS ALWAYS BEEN A DRIVEWAY.  SO, THERE AGAIN SPECIAL PRIVILEGE, WE'RE NOT ASKING FOR SPECIAL PRIVILEGE. WE'RE SAYING THE HISTORIC PROPERTY ACROSS THE STREET WHICH IS C3 HAS A DRIVEWAY IN THE BUFFER THAT HIS HISTORICALLY BEEN THERE -- 
          >> CHAIRMAN: MA'AM, WE DON'T WANT TO INTERRUPT YOU, BUT THERE'S AN OLD SAYING TAKE YES FOR AN ANSWER.  YOU DON'T HAVE TO WORK THAT HARD [LAUGHTER] 
          >> SPEAKER: OKAY. >> CHAIRMAN: YOU ARE GOOD.  HOLD ON A SECOND.  DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THE HOME? AND YOU UNDERSTAND WE'RE PROBABLY GOING TO PUT A 
          CONDITION ON THE WINDOWS. >> SPEAKER: I'M PERFECTLY FINE WITH THAT.  I DON'T WANT A CHEAP 
          WINDOW.  I WANT A QUALITY WINDOW IN MY HOME. >> BOARD MEMBER: DO WE HAVE 
          COLORS FOR THE HOME? >> SPEAKER: I HAVEN'T SELECTED THAT YET.  I TRAVEL A LOT TO NORTH CAROLINA AND I'VE HAD HEALTH ISSUES SO MY FOCUS HAS NOT BEEN NECESSARILY ON MY HOME. 
          >> BOARD MEMBER: I HAVE ONE L. - QUESTION AND THAT WOULD BE REGARDING YOUR INTENT ON THE LANDSCAPE PLAN.  THERE'S THE REQUIREMENTS OF WHAT KIND OF VEGETATION NEEDS TO BE INSTALLED IN THAT 15 FOOT.  MY ONLY CONCERN IS WE DON'T WANT THE INTENT TO BE TO JUST LEAVE THAT 
          ENTIRE STRIP EMPTY SO THAT YOU HAVE EASY ACCESS TO THE SHED. >> SPEAKER: I CAN EASE YOUR CONCERN THERE.  MY HUSBAND HAS A DEGREE IN HURT ACULTURE AND HE IS A PROTECTION SALESPERSON. 
          SEW SO HE'S BEEN DEALING IN PLANTS FOR OVER 40 YEARS.  I THINK WE'RE IN GOOD HANDS WITH 
          THAT. >> BOARD MEMBER: I WOULD PROPOSE THE VARIANCE BE THAT VEGETATION REQUIRED IS INSTALLED SINCE IT SEEMS LIKE WE'D ONLY BE GRANTING A VARIANCE FOR JUST A 20 FOOT LENGTH OF DRIVE AND THEN RELOCATING THAT SHED IN THE BACK CORNER THAT THERE'S PLENTY AREA TO INSTALL THE REQUIRED VEGETATION IN THE REMAINING PART OF THAT STRIP. 
          >> BOARD MEMBER: IT JUST SAYS REDUCTION OF THE BUFFER.  IT DOESN'T SPECIFY REDUCE BY WHAT 
          OR WHERE. >> BOARD MEMBER: I HATE TO BE NITPICKY BUT I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT THAT WE TALK ABOUT IT. THE AIR CONDITIONING UNIT IN THE REAR STAIRCASE ENCROACHES INTO THE BUFFER.  WHICH ARE RELATIVELY MINOR THINGS.  BUT IF WE'RE GOING TO MAKE A MOTION WE 
          SHOULD MAKE SURE THAT'S PART OF IT. >> BOARD MEMBER: IF WE'RE 
          COMFORTABLE WITH IT. >> BOARD MEMBER: I'M SURE THERE'S ANOTHER PLACE THE AIR 
          CONDITIONING UNIT CAN GO. >> SPEAKER: MAY I SAY SOMETHING REGARDING THE BUFFER.  LET'S NOT LOSE SIGHT THAT WE'RE BUILDING A HOUSE.  I THINK THE BUFFER IS IF THERE IS A COMMERCIAL PROPERTY NEXT DOOR THAT BUFFER IS THERE TO HELP WITH NOISE, MAKE IT AESTHETICALLY PRETTY.  WE'RE BUILDING A HOUSE.  WE'RE GOING LOOK JUST LIKE THE OTHER HOUSES ON THE STREET.  SO, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT BUFFERS THERE AREN'T NECESSARY AT THIS POINT. IF WE SELL OUR HOME AND SOMEONE WANTS TO PUT A COMMERCIAL PROPERTY THERE, I'M SURE WHEN THEY COME BEFORE YOU LIKE I'M 
          [01:35:06]
STANDING TONIGHT, YOU ARE GOING TO SAY, SINCE YOU ARE GOING TO PUT A COMMERCIAL BUSINESS HERE I KNOW THAT THE PRIOR OWNERS USED IT RESIDENTIALLY, BUT YOU HAVE TO PUT A 15 FOOT BUFFER THERE AND PLANT ALL THESE TREES.  I DO UNDERSTAND WHY THAT RULE IS IN PLACE.  WE'RE GOING KEEP A BUFFER BETWEEN US AND THE PATIO PLACE.  WE'RE GOING TO LEAVE ALL OF THE BAMBOO.  WE'LL PLANT SHRUBS.  I DO UNDERSTAND THAT. WHOLE HEARTILY.  BUT DON'T LOSE SIGHT THAT WE'RE BUILDING A SITE.  THERE IS NO NEED TO HAVE THAT NOISE BUFFER THAT YOU ARE SO CONCERNED ABOUT. WE'RE NOT NOISY PEOPLE.  WE'RE IN BED BY 10:00 [LAUGHTER] 
          AND SO JUST KEEP THAT IN MIND. >> CHAIRMAN: THANK YOU.  WE APPRECIATE THAT VERY MUCH. 
          >> SPEAKER: THANK YOU. >> CHAIRMAN: MEMBERS, IF YOU DON'T HAVE FURTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF OR MS. BLACK MORE I'M GOING OPEN THE PUBLIC MEETING. I'M GOING TO OPEN THE PUBLIC MEETING FIRST ON THE VARIANCE. IF THERE'S ANYBODY THAT WISHES TO SPEAK WITH REGARDS TO VARIANCE 2019-03 THIS WOULD BE THE TIME TO COME UP. M MR. GOLDMAN, GOOD TO SEE YOU. 
          COME ON UP. >> SPEAKER: GOOD EVENING.  LOU GOLDMAN.  23 SOUTH 6TH STREET WHICH IS JUST AROUND THE CORNER FROM THIS PROPERTY.  I'M OPPOSED TO THE VARIANCE.  I AM OPPOSED BECAUSE THIS HOUSE COULD BE BUILT -- I HAVEN'T SEEN THE FLOOR PLAN -- IT COULD BE BUILT AND MAYBE IN A YEAR OR TWO YEARS IF SOMEBODY WANTS TO PUT A REAL ESTATE OFFICE, INSURANCE, AND THE PEOPLE HAVE CHANGED IN DIFFERENT REALTORS AND DIFFERENT PEOPLE ARE HERE AND THEY'RE GOING TO ASK FOR VARIANCE BECAUSE THEY HAVE A HARDSHIP. NOW THERE'S EASY SOLUTION, I THINK, TO RESOLVING THIS ISSUE. SAL, WHAT'S THE ZONING OF THE PROPERTY TO THE SOUTH? 
          >> RESIDENTIAL R2. >> SPEAKER: THIS PROPERTY COULD BE REZONED R2 THEN YOU DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM.  THAT'S THE EASIEST WAY OUT.  MIGHT TAKE A WHILE BUT THAT'S WHAT SHOULD BE 
          DONE.  THANK YOU. >> CHAIRMAN: THANK YOU.  I APPRECIATE THAT.  YOU HAVE BEEN AROUND LONG ENOUGH TO KNOW THAT'S BEYOND OUR CAPACITY.  BUT THANK YOU FOR THAT THOUGHT.  HOW WOULD YOU -- NO, NEVER MIND. ANYBODY ELSE WISHING TO SPEAK WITH REGARDS TO THE VARIANCE OF 2019-03 105? WE'RE GOING TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. ANYBODY THAT WISHES TO SPEAK THE CERTIFICATE OF APPROVAL FOR 2019-06? ALL RIGHT.  WE'RE GOING TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. 
          BOARD MEMBERS I WILL REMIND YOU WHATEVER WE DO HERE APPROVE OR DENY THAT WE WE'LL NEED SEPARATE MOTION OATS THE VARIANCE AND THE HOUSE.  YOU WON'T GO TO THE HOUSE IF YOU ARE DENIED THE VARIANCE.  IF YOU PROVIDE -- IF YOU SEEK TO APPROVE THE VARIANCE, MS. CONWAY HAS POINTED OUT THE APPROPRIATE LANGUAGE TO USE TO MAKE SURE THAT WE HAVE ARTICULATED OUR ARGUMENT.  BOARD 
          MEMBERS WHAT'S YOUR PLEASURE? >> BOARD MEMBER: I THINK LOU MAKES AN EXCELLENT POINT THAT DRIVES TO THE HEART OF THE ISSUE HERE.  WE'RE IN FACT BEING ASKED TO BE CONSIDERED A BUILDING 
          HOUSE AND IT SHOULD BE R2 NOT COMMERCIAL. >> CHAIRMAN: SAL, COULD YOU TELL 
          US HOW THAT WOULD HAPPEN? >> SPEAKER: SO IT WOULD NEED TO GO TO THE PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD FOR A REZONING.  I WILL PULL UP THE MAP TO SHOW YOU WHY IT'S NOT ZONED R2 AND WHY THAT 
          WOULD BE INAPPROPRIATE IF YOU WOULD GIVE ME ONE SECOND. >> CHAIRMAN: SURE. 
          >> BOARD MEMBER: YOU ARE SAYING IT WOULD BE INAPPROPRIATE? >> SPEAKER: YES. 
          >> CHAIRMAN: ARE WE IN A MORATORIUM ON ZONING CHANGES AT THIS TIME? AM I READING THAT 
          RIGHT? >> FUTURE LAND USE CHANGES. >> CHAIRMAN: FLUM CHANGES BUT 
          NOT ZONING >> IT WOULD REQUIRE A FLUM CHANGE. 
          >> CHAIRMAN: WE'D BE FREEZING THE PROJECT.  WE DON'T WANT TO DO THAT. 
          >> IT WOULD CHANGE THEIR SETBACKS AS WELL WHICH WOULD MEAN THE WAY THEY HAVE IT SITED 
          THEY WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO DO THAT ANYMORE. >> CHAIRMAN: JUST REMIND EVERYONE WHERE THIS PROPOSED HOME IS.  IT BACKS UP TO THE ALWAYS BUSY PATIO PLACE.  SO IT 
          [01:40:03]
PROVIDES A BUFFER.  AND WHAT I'VE HEARD FROM THE NEIGHBORS IS IT PROVIDES A BUFFER BETWEEN 
          THEM AND THE BUSINESS AT THE PATIO PLACE. >> BOARD MEMBER: BUT THE BUFFER 
          IS REQUIRED TO THE SOUTH OF THE PROPERTY. >> CHAIRMAN: I'M SORRY.  THE NEIGHBORS WOULD BE VERY HAPPY TO SEE A HOUSE HERE BECAUSE IT WOULD CREATE SOMETHING BETWEEN THEM AND THE VERY BUSY RESTAURANT AT THE CORNER.  WHICH SOME OF US HAVE HEARD FROM OUR 
          HOMES IN THE SUMMERTIME. >> BOARD MEMBER: PITY THE POOR PEOPLE LIVING IN THE HOUSE THAT 
          IS THE BUFFER [LAUGHTER] >> CHAIRMAN: THEY'RE HERE ASKING US TO DO THAT.  SO, I'M NOT GOING TO SECOND GUESS THEM ON THAT DECISION. 
          >> HERE'S THE ZONING.  THE C3 ZONING.  SO, BOTH SIDES OF ASH STREET, KEEPING IN MIND THE UNDERLYING LOTS ARE ORIENTED ON ASH STREET.  BOTH SIDES OF ASH STREET ARE INTENTIONALLY PART OF C3.  THE RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT STARTS BEHIND THEM TO TAKE THAT ONE PROPERTY OUT WOULD BE 
          INAPPROPRIATE AND BREAK UP WHAT IS INTENDED TO BE C3 PROPERTIES. >> BOARD MEMBER: SO WHY ARE WE 
          PUTTING RESIDENTIAL ON A HOUSE ON C3 PROPERTY? >> AND IF IT WENT THROUGH A CHANGE OF USE TO A BUSINESS OCCUPANCY IT WOULD STILL BE IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE ZONING. 
          >> CHAIRMAN: AND THE SETBACKS. >> CORRECT. >> BOARD MEMBER: I'M IN SUPPORT OF THE VARIANCE.  AND I AM IN SUPPORT OF THE RESIDENTIAL WITH THOSE THREE CONDITIONS THAT I BROUGHT UP EARLIER.  BUT I DON'T LIKE MAKING MOTIONS FOR VARIANCES BECAUSE THEY'RE HARD. 
          >> BOARD MEMBER: THIS BUFFER THOUGH, IT SEEMS LIKE WE HAVE CONFUSION.  ARE WE REQUIRING THEM TO PUT IN PLAINOUS THE 20 -- MINUS THE 20 FEET THE REST OF THE BUFFER. 
          >> CHAIRMAN: YES.  THE ADVANTAGE TO THAT IS, IF SOMEBODY DID COME DOWN THE ROAD AND SAY I WANT COMMERCIAL, AND NO I'M NOT PUTTING IN A BUFFER BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T PUT IN THE BUFFER, WE 
          COULD SAY THE BUFFER IS THERE. >> BOARD MEMBER: I AM IN FAVOR OF THE VARIANCE FOR THE VERY REASON OF THERE'S NO OTHER CHOICE.  IF WE REQUIRE THEM TO PUT IT ON THE OTHER SIDE WE'RE DIGGING INTO THE ROOTS OF THAT TREE AND THE GRADE CHANGES AND THERE'S NO SPACE FOR IT.  THIS 
          MAKES PERFECT SENSE. >> CHAIRMAN: IF YOU LOOK AT THE STREET, VISUALLY WHAT THEY'RE ASKING MAKES SENSE.  AND THE NEIGHBOR I THINK IF YOU LOOK AT THE PICTURE, THE NEIGHBOR IS A PARKING AREA ON THE OTHER SIDE. SO IT'S NOT LIKE THERE'S A OUT ABUTTING UP TO WHERE THE DRIVEWAY IS GOING BE.  WHICH I THINK WOULD MAYBE CHANGE MY OPINION. 
          >> CHAIRMAN: BOBBY'S DRIVEWAY WAS THIS.  SOMEBODY LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION? 
          >> BOARD MEMBER: I'LL MAKE THE MOTION. >> CHAIRMAN: MISS CONWAY IS 
          GOING TO MAKE THE MOTION. >> BOARD MEMBER: I'LL MOVE TO APPROVE HDC 2019-03 BASED ON THE APPLICANT'S DEMONSTRATION THERE ARE A NUMBER OF UNIQUE FACTORS THAT EXIST ON THE PROPERTY THAT THIS REQUEST IS THE MINIMUM VARIANCE REQUIRED TO BE ABLE TO PROVIDE A PARKING SPACE ON SITE. 
          THAT GRANTING THE VARIANCE WOULD NOT HARM THE CHARACTER OF THIS DISTRICT. 
          >> BOARD MEMBER: I'LL SECOND THAT. >> CH 
          >> BOARD MEMBER: AND I'LL MOVE THE HCC MAKE THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSION PART OF THE BREAK THAT CASE 2019-03 AS PRESENTED IS SUBSTANTIALLY COMPLIANT WITH THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, THE SECRETARY OF INTERIOR STANDARDS AND THE DOWNTOWN HISTORIC 
          DISTRICT GUIDELINES TO WARRANT APPROVAL AT THIS TIME. >> CHAIRMAN: WE HAVE A MOE 
          MOTION.  IS THERE A SECOND? >> BOARD MEMBER: SECOND. >> CHAIRMAN: BOARD DISCUSSION. 
          DO WE NEED TO CALL OUT THE SHED AND THE MECHANICALS IN THE VARIANCE, SAL, OR ARE THERE IN 
          YOUR PROPOSED ACTION? >> I WOULD CALL THEM OUT AS CONDITIONS.  I WOULD BE SPECIFIC 
          ABOUT THE DRIVEWAY, THE SHED AND ENCROACHMENTS LIKE THE HVAC >> I'M NOT SUGGESTING THAT THE AIR CONDITIONING CONDENSER SHOULD BE ALLOWED INTO ENCROACHMENTS OF THAT BUFFER. 
          I'M SAYING THE AIR CONDITIONING UNIT NEEDS TO BE MOVED SO IT DOESN'T ENCROACH INTO IT.  THAT WAS MY POINT.  SO I THINK THAT WOULD COME UP IN THE NEXT MOTION. 
          >> CHAIRMAN: OKAY.  GOOD JOB. THANKS.  APPRECIATE THAT. >> BOARD MEMBER: JUST A POINT OF CLARITY.  DID WE WANT TO ITERATE THAT WE'RE NOT -- BY GRANTING THE VARIANCE WE'RE NOT RELIEVING 
          [01:45:03]
THEM OF THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE VEGETATION THAT'S REQUIRED TO BE IN THAT BUFFER? WE'RE JUST ALLOWING THEM TO HAVE THAT TEN FOOT BY 20 FOOT PARKING THERE. THEY STILL NEED TO INSTALL THE 
          PLANT MATERIAL. >> CHAIRMAN: WHEN DRAFTED IF I RELIEVE YOU FROM ONE THING I DON'T RELIEVE YOU FROM ANYTHING ELSE. SO THE SHED IS NOT INCLUDE 234D THE ORIGINAL VARIANCE APPLICATION.  AND IF I UNDERSTOOD, YOU WANT THE SHED IN THAT SOUTH CORNER, RIGHT. 
          >> SPEAKER: IT WOULD BE NICE. >> CH >> CHAIRMAN: SO I WOULD ASK MS. 
          CONWAY IF SHE WOULD EXCEPT AN AMENDMENT.  HELP ME, COUNSEL. >> YES. 
          >> CHAIRMAN: HOW DO WE DO THAT? >> THE MOTION HASN'T BEEN VOTED ON SO SHE CAN JUST -- SHE CAN PROPOSE HER AMENDED MOTION IS REALLY HOW WE DO IT.  THEN THE PERSON THAT SECONDED -- 
          >> CHAIRMAN: ACCEPTS THE AMENDED MOTION THEN WE GO TO BOARD DISCUSSION AND VOTE ON IT. 
          THANK YOU.  I DON'T WANT TO PUT THESE FOLKS IN A PLACE WHERE THEY GOT THROUGH ALL OF THIS AND 
          THEN WE DIDN'T GIVE THEM THE SHED WHERE THEY WANTED THE SHED. >> BOARD MEMBER: LET ME AMEND THE MOTION TO TALK ABOUT THE EXISTING SHED AND THAT THE PEOPLE THAT ARE PROPOSING THIS CHANGE ALSO PROPOSE MOVING THE SHED.  SO WE WANT TO MAKE THAT PART OF THIS VARIANCE. 
          >> CHAIRMAN: THANK YOU. ACCEPTABLE TO THE SECOND? >> BOARD MEMBER: YES. 
          >> CHAIRMAN: ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? >> BOARD MEMBER: DOES THIS MOTION THEN SAY THAT THE VARIANCE WILL PERMIT CONTRARY TO LDC40512-01 THAT PART OF THE BUFFER SHALL BE USED FOR PARKING AND THAT ANOTHER PART SHALL BE USED FOR -- MAY BE USED FOR 
          STORING.  IS THAT WHAT WE'RE SAYING? >> CHAIRMAN: YES.  I THINK SO. 
          >> BOARD MEMBER: AND NO REDUCTION IN THE REQUIRED BUFFER IS ALLOWED. 
          >> CHAIRMAN: BY MY UNDERSTANDING HOW THE LAW WORKS THAT WOULD BE TRUE YES.  COUNSEL CAN CORRECT 
          ME.  I'M FREQUENTLY WRONG. >> NO CORRECTIONS. >> BOARD MEMBER: BUT THE APPLICATION CALLS FOR A REDUCTION IN THE REQUIRED BUFFER. 
          >> WHAT DOES? >> BOARD MEMBER: THE APPLICATION.  WHAT I AM READING. 
          >> WELL NOT MUCH. >> BOARD MEMBER: BY GRANTING THE DRIVEWAY AND THE SHED IN THE 
          BUFFER THAT IS GIVING THEM THE REDUCTION IN THE BUFFER. >> BOARD MEMBER: ACCEPTED. 
          >> CHAIRMAN: OTHER QUESTIONS? OTHER DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE, MS. SAMANTHA PLEASE CALL THE ROLE.  THIS IS THE VARPS.  THIS IS HDC VARIANCE 2019-03 105 SOUTH FIFTH STREET HAD OPPORTUNITY FOR PUBLIC DISCUSSION.  WE ARE IN BOARD DISCUSSION.  WHAT IS YOUR 
          PLEASURE >> BOARD MEMBER: I THINK I CAN MAKE A MOTION BUT I NEED GUIDANCE OR DISCUSSION AS FAR AS HOW WE WANT TO DEAL WITH THE WINDOW ISSUE.  I GUESS I COULD MAKE IT CONDITIONAL UPON THEM USING -- CAN'T SAY A WINDOW THAT'S ON THE PRE-APPROVED LIST 
          BECAUSE I'M NOT SURE. >> BOARD MEMBER: CAN WE HAVE SAL THEN GO TO SAL TO SEEK THE APPROVAL FOR THE WINDOW. BECAUSE SAL KNOWS WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT. 
          >> BASED ON STAFF APPROVAL. WHAT I WOULD BE LOOKING FOR IS THE SPECIFICS, CALL OUT WHAT SPECIFICS WE'RE LOOKING FOR THAT IN WINDFO.  NOT A SPECIFIC BRAND. 
          >> BOARD MEMBER: CAN I SAY THAT THEY WORK WITH STAFF TO APPROVE A WINDOW THAT IS COMPLIANT WITH 
          THE DOWNTOWN HISTORIC DISTRICT GUIDELINES? >> THAT WOULD WORK. 
          >> BOARD MEMBER: OKAY.  SO I MOVE TO APPROVE HDC 2019-36 WITH THE BOL FOLLOWING CONDITIONS. 
          THAT THE OWNER WORK WITH CITY STAFF TO HAVE A WINDOW APPROVED THAT MEETS THE DOWNTOWN HISTORIC 
          [01:50:01]
DISTRICT GUIDELINES AND THAT THE AIR CONDITIONING UNIT ON THE EXTERIOR BUILDING OF THE BUILDING BE RELOCATED OUTSIDE OF THE 15 FOOT REQUIRED BUFFER AND THAT'S THE GEOMETRY OF THE REAR STAIRCASE BE RECONFIGURED SO IT IS ALSO OUTSIDE OF THE 15 FEET LAND SKWAIP BUFFER.  AND I MOVE 
          THAT HDC -- THE COLORS CAN BE STAFF APPROVED ANYWAY >> PUT IT IN THE MOTION. 
          >> BOARD MEMBER: I'LL GO BACK AND SAY ANOTHER CONDITION THAT THE COLORS BE APPROVED BY CITY STAFF.  I MOVE THAT THE HDC MAKE THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW PART OF THE RECORD.  THAT CASE 2019-36 IS SUBSTANTIALLY COMPLIANT WITH THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, THE SECRETARY OF THE STANDARDS AND DOWNTOWN HISTORIC GUIDELINES TO WARRANT CONCEPTUAL APPROVAL AT 
          THIS TIME.  SCRATCH CONCEPTUAL. >> CHAIRMAN: WE HAVE A MOTION MORRISTON.  A SECOND BY HARRISON.  ANY DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE, PLEASE CALL ROLL MOVING ON.  2019-37.  FIRST 
          [Item 4.3]
PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH FERNANDINA BEACH 515 CENTER STREET.  ADD A ROOFTOP TERRACE WITH CANOPY. 
          >> SPEAKER: THIS IS 2019-37 AT 515 CENTER STREET.  THE PROPERTY IS ZONED C3 IN THE CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT.  THIS IS FOR CERTIFICATE OF APPROVAL TO RENOVATE THE SOUTH AND EAST ELEVATIONS AND ADD A ROOFTOP TERRACE WITH CANOPY.  THIS IS A NON-CONTRIBUTING STRUCTURE TO THE HISTORIC DISTRICT BUILT IN 1957.  I HAVE SOME PHOTOS OF IT. THERE'S THE AERIAL.  IT SITS ON THE CORNER OF CENTER AND NORTH SIXTH STREET.  THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO ENVAT THE SOUTH AND EAST ELEVATIONS, AT A TERRACE WITH CANOPY, PROPOSED ALTERCATIONS INCLUDE PAINTING THE STRUCTURE, INCLUDING BRICK WORK, INSTALLATION OF RAILING, CONVERSION OF LANDSCAPE BEDS TO REFLECTING PONDS, INSTALLATION OF A BOAT SHAPED WINDOW, REPLACEMENT OF STORE FRONT WINDOWS, EXPANSION OF EXISTING DOORWAY AT EAST ELWAGS AND THE ADDITION OF A ROOF TOP CANOPY WITH CABLE RAILING.  AS I SAID THIS BUILDING WAS CONSTRUCTED IN 1957.  IT'S ONE OF OUR MID-CENTURY MODERN COMMERCIAL STRUCTURES WHICH DO REPRESENT A SHIFT IN OUR ARCHITECTURAL STYLES DOWNTOWN.  IT'S INDICATIVE OF THE ARCHITECTURAL TRENDS IN THE POST WORLD WAR II PERIOD.  SO WE TRANSITIONED FROM A LOT OF OUR VICTORIAN TO AN AGE OF MODERNISM.  SO, WE'VE SEEN A LOT OF THE INFILL BUILDINGS DOWNTOWN WERE MID-CENTURY MODERN.  A NUMBER OF THE HISTORIC BUILDINGS UNFORTUNATELY WERE MODERNIZED AND HAD A LOT OF THE DETAILING STRIPPED OFF THEM. 
          ITS THE FLORIDA MASTER SITE FILE.  THIS STANDS WITHIN THE HISTORIC DISTRICT.  IT APPEARS TO BE POTENTIALLY ELIGIBLE TO THE DISTRICT.  SO, ALTHOUGH THE BUILDING CANNOT CURRENTLY BE INCLUDED IN THE DISTRICT BECAUSE IT FALLS OUTSIDE OF OUR CURRENT PERIOD OF SIGNIFICANCE FOR THE DISTRICT THERE IS AN OPPORTUNITY AND WE'VE DISCUSSED IT BEFORE THAT OPPORTUNITY EXISTS TO EXPLORE A SECOND PERIOD OF SIGNIFICANCE FOR DOWNTOWN WHICH WOULD TAKE INTO ACCOUNT ALL OF ITS MID-CENTURY RESOURCES THAT INDICATIVE OF THIS PERIOD DEVELOPMENT.  IT COULD INCLUDE THINGS LIKE THE MUSEUM WHICH IS AN ART DECO BUILDING WHICH DOES FALL OUTSIDE OF OUR PERIOD OF SIGNIFICANCE.  THINGS LIKE THAT. AND SO WHEN ASSESSING STRUCTURES, INTEGRITY IS A KEY FACTOR IN WHETHER OR NOT THAT STRUCTURE CONTRIBUTES.  SO THE EVALUATION IN OUR SURVEY SAID IT DOES RETAIN A LOT OF ITS INTEGRITY AND WOULD CONTRIBUTE IF WE HAD A SECOND PERIOD OF SIGNIFICANT.  STAFF HAS EVALUATEDED AND IS CONCERNED THAT THE LEVELS OF ALTERCATIONS BEING PROPOSED UNDERMINE THAT HISTORIC INTEGRITY OF THE STRUCTURE.  MANY ELEMENTS ARE BEING ADDED TO THE STRUCTURE WHICH DON'T SEEM TO HAVE BASIS IN ITS ORIGINAL DESIGN.  KEEPING IN MIND THAT THESE MID-CENTURY BUILDINGS FEATURED SIMPLE LINES AND EMPHASIS ON THE HORIZONTALTY OF THE STRUCTURES.  UTILIZING THE ROOF IS ALLOWABLE BUT THE PROPOSED CANOPY DOES NOT RELATE TO THE ARC TEACHING TOUR OF THE BUILDING AND IT WILL BE HIGHLY VISIBLE FROM MULTIPLE SIDES OF 
          [01:55:02]
THE BUILDING.  AND STAFF FEELS THAT AS DESIGNED THIS ROOFTOP CANOPY WILL BE A VISUAL DISTRACTION TO THE BUILDING AND THE DISTRICT.  THE APPLICANT HAS APPLIED FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF THIS PROJECT BUT STAFF IS RECOMMENDING THAT THE BOARD TAKE THIS OPPORTUNITY TO DISCUSS THIS PROJECT AND OUR MID CENTURY MODERN RESOURCES IN GENERAL ALLOWING THE APPLICANT TIME TO ADDRESS CONCERNS AND RESUBMIT FOR FINAL APPROVAL AT A FUTURE DATE.  AS OUR FERNANDINA BEACH COMPREHENSIVE PLAN STATES THE CITY SHALL ENCOURAGE PROTECTION, PRESERVATION AND REVITALIZATION OF HISTORIC NON-DESIGNATED STRUCTURES IN NEIGHBORHOODS. SO, THIS BUILDING IS DEFINITELY ONE OF THOSE THAT WE WOULD LOOK TO PRESERVE.  WITH THAT, STAFF FINDS THE REQUESTED ACTION AS PRESENTED IS NOT CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AND THE SECRETARY OF INTERIOR STANDARDS AND OUR DOWNTOWN HISTORIC DISTRICT GUIDELINES AND RECOMMENDS DENIAL OF 2019-37 OR CONTINUATION TO DATE CERTAIN WITH A DISCUSSION WITH THE APPLICANT TONIGHT ABOUT WHAT CHANGES WE WOULD LIKE TO SEE. THANK YOU. 
          >> CHAIRMAN: QUESTIONS? >> PUBLIC SPEAKER: I HAVE A CONCERN. 
          >> CHAIRMAN: WE'RE STILL IN BOARD DISCUSSION.  WE WILL GET TO THE PUBLIC. 
          >> SPEAKER: I DIDN'T KNOW THAT. >> CHAIRMAN: THAT'S OKAY. QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD? 
          >> BOARD MEMBER: SAL, SO I THINK I UNDERSTAND THE GIST OF YOUR ANALYSIS.  IF SOME OF THE ELEMENTS WERE RE-DESIGNED IT WOULD BE MORE SIM THATIC TO THE CHARACTER THAT PERHAPS STAFF 
          WOULD BE ABLE TO APPROVE >> I'M MORE IN LINE WITH THE ORANGE DESIGN INTENT.  KEEPING THE IDEA THESE BUILDINGS WERE DESIGNED TO BE SIMPLE IN MATERIALS AND SIMPLE IN DESIGN. 
          >> BOARD MEMBER: I PICKED UP ON SOME OF THE WORDS LIKE THE HOAR DONE TAALTY AND THE SIM MATERIALS AND THINGS OF THAT NATURE.  I THINK THAT'S SOMETHING THAT COULD BE 
          INCORPORATED FAIRLY EASILY. >> CHAIRMAN: OTHER QUESTIONS? >> BOARD MEMBER: WHAT WAS THE 
          ORIGINAL USE OF THIS BUILDING? >> SPEAKER: NOT POSITIVE.  I DIDN'T SEE THAT IN THE 
          LITERATURE.  PERHAPS THE APPLICANT CAN TELL US. >> CHAIRMAN: QUESTIONS -- 
          >> BOARD MEMBER: I DID HAVE ONE QUESTION ON THAT.  WHERE THEY'RE PROPOSING HERE'S THE BRICK AND PUT THAT BOAT FEATURE IN THERE. THAT'S A PERMANENT CHANGE TO THE STRUCTURE.  WOULD THAT REQUIRE ANYBODY ELSE THAN US? I MEAN, IT'S ALMOST LIKE AN ADVERTISING SIGN.  DOES THAT REQUIRE ADD ADDI ADDITIONAL-- 
          >> WE'VE NEVER HAD A BUILDING FEATURE LIKE THAT PROPOSED BEFORE.  I DON'T THINK WE WHOA QUALIFY IT IT AS A SIGN.  IT WOULD STILL QUALIFY AS WINDOW AND BUILDING FEATURE.  ONE OF THE ISSUES IS THE RED DECORATIVE BRICK ON THIS BUILDING IS ONE OF THOSE INDICATIVE CHARACTERS FOR DEFINING FEATURES OF THE MID-CENTURY MODERN BUILDINGS. AND THAT PAINTING THAT BRICK AND PUTTING THE WINDOW IN WOULD DETRACT FROM THAT ORIGINAL FEATURE.  AND 
          >> BOARD MEMBER: AND YOU CAN'T EVER GO BACK >> THIS IS THE OTHER THING.  THE 
          GUIDELINES SAYS THE CHANGES SHOULD BE REVERSIBLE. >> BOARD MEMBER: AS FAR AS THE PROPOSED, I DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU WANT TO CALL IT, PENTHOUSE, ROOF TOP, CABANA OR WHATEVER, YOU KNOW, I KNOW THAT WE APPROVED SOMETHING SIMILAR TO THAT WHEN WE DID LIKE THE LOFTS ON FIFTH STREET.  OTHER THAN THAT, IS THERE ANY OTHER PRECEDENT DOWNTOWN FOR THIS SORT OF A 
          THING? I CAN'T THINK OF ANY >> NOT OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD I CAN'T THINK OF ANY.  BUT IN THAT CASE, IF YOU WILL REMEMBER, IT WAS THE BUILDING WAS SO TALL YOU CAN'T SEE IT.  THIS NO MATTER WHAT THEY DO YOU ARE STILL GOING TO SEE IT FROM TWO SIDES OF THE STREET.  IT'S NOT A MATTER OF THE HEIGHT OR USE WHICH ARE BOTH ALLOWED IT'S REALLY THE DESIGN OF THAT STRUCTURE WHICH I THINK COULD BE CHANGED TO MORE COMPLIMENT THE ARCHITECTURE AND ACHIEVE WHAT THEY'RE LOOKING TO 
          ACHIEVE WITH IT. >> BOARD MEMBER: WHY DOES IT CALL FOR A BOAT SHAPED WINDOW. 
          I'M WONDERING WHERE THAT TERMINOLOGY COMES FROM.  BECAUSE IT INDEED LOOKS TO ME MORE LIKE 
          AN ANCHOR.  I AM LOOKING AT B60. >> BOARD MEMBER: I SEE A BOAT. >> THAT'S MY TERM.  IT MAY VERY 
          WELL BE A ARRANGEO. >> BOARD MEMBER: I CAN SEE THE SYMBOLISM WITH THE INVERTED 
          [02:00:02]
CRUCIFIX THERE.  AND IF THE PLACE IS CALLED THE ANCHOR YOUTH CENTER 
          >> I DIDN'T THINK ABOUT IT THAT WAY.  I GOT TO GIVE YOU CREDIT FOR THAT ONE. 
          >> BOARD MEMBER: PRETTY INTERPRETIVE. >> BOARD MEMBER: IS THAT A BOAT 
          OR ANCHOR? >> I THINK THE -- >> CHAIRMAN: PERHAPS WE SHOULD ASK THE APPLICANTS.  MARK, IS THIS ON YOU? COME ON UP.  PLEASE IDENTIFY YOURSELF AND YOUR 
          ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD. >> PUBLIC SPEAKER: GOOD EVENING. MARK AIKEN'S WITH ICE RICE ARCHITECT.  961687 GATEWAY BOUL BOULEVARD.  THERE'S A LOT OF SYMBOLISM HERE.  THE ANCHOR WASN'T LOST ON US AS WE PUT THAT DESIGN TOGETHER.  BUT INITIALLY THAT REALLY STARTED OUT AS A BOAT.  A SAILBOAT.  BUT THROUGH REALLY STRUCTURALLY AS WE STARTED STUDYING THE DESIGN THERE IT MADE MORE SENSE TO NOT HAVE -- TO DO IT IN THIS WAY RATHER THAN TRYING TO SORT OF COMPLETE THE HOLE AS IT WERE IF THAT MAKES ANY SENSE.  I'LL 
          ANSWER ANY OTHER QUESTIONS YOU GUYS MIGHT HAVE. >> CHAIRMAN: QUESTIONS? 
          >> BOARD MEMBER: MY MAIN QUESTION IS DO YOU THINK YOU CAN ADDRESS THE STAFF COMMENTS. 
          BECAUSE I KIND OF AGREE WITH MOST OF THEM THAT THAT WOULD REALLY HELP FIND A WAY FOR ME TO 
          SAY YES ON THIS PROJECT. >> SPEAKER: SURE.  SAL, DO YOU HAVE -- WE HAVE ANOTHER SIDE VIEW OF THIS.  I THOUGHT WE HAD A MORE DRAWN BACK SIDE VIEW OF THIS.  WE'RE ANTICIPATING A LITTLE OF THIS IN RECEIVING SAL'S STAFF REPORT.  WE PUT TOGETHER SOME IMAGERY THAT AT LEAST WOULD GIVE YOU GUYS A HEAD'S UP ON WHAT WE THINK MIGHT BEGIN TO ADDRESS THAT.  MAY I ENTER THIS FOR YOU GUYS? OBVIOUSLY, JUST FOR CONSIDERATION, AND IN SUPPORT OF OUR FUTURE WORK.  I'VE ONLY GOT TWO COPIES HERE SO I'LL PUT ONE-ON-ONE END AND ONE ON THE OTHER END.  SO, WHAT YOU ARE SEEING THERE IS THAT WE ARE THEN NOW DRAWING ON THE FLAT HORIZONTAL LINES.  I THINK EXACTLY WHAT YOU GUYS WERE DISCUSSING HERE.  WE'RE BRINGING THE -- THIS IS SORT OF A CAN'TED SOFFIT ON THE FRONT OF THE BUILDING.  YOU CAN SEE REALLY WELL ON THE CORNER HERE.  SO WE PICKED UP THAT LINE AND THEN ESSENTIALLY I THINK WE'VE REDUCED THE MASS OF THAT BY ABOUT A THIRD SO THAT IT'S NOT AS MASSIVE AS IT IS ON STREET LEVEL.  BUT REALLY USING THAT SAME MOTIF TO CREATE -- THAT'S THE DIRECTION WE'D LIKE TO GO 
          BASED ON THE COMMENTS WE'VE HEARD FROM SAL AND HERE TONIGHT. >> BOARD MEMBER: WHAT ABOUT HIS 
          COMMENTS REGARDING THE COLOR OF THE BRICK? IS THAT AN ISSUE? >> SPEAKER: NOW, THE FIRST PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH OWNS THE PROPERTY.  IT IS A YOUTH CENTER. THE ENTIRE CAMPUS WHICH IS IMMEDIATELY BEHIND THIS, IT'S ALL WHITE.  THE INTENT HERE IS NOT TO PAINT THE BRICK.  I THINK WE NOTED ON THERE THAT WE INTENDED TO USE A LIME WASH. AND WE CAN CERTAINLY PROVIDE SOME EXAMPLES OF THAT AT THE NEXT MEETING THAT CAN HELP YOU GET A GOOD HOLD ON THAT.  AND I THINK ACTUALLY YOU WILL SEE IN THOSE IMAGES THERE WE'VE ACTUALLY DECIDED -- I THINK WE'RE GOING SIMPLIFY THE SYSTEM A LITTLE BIT.  NEVER QUITE SUITED OUR TASTE.  WE'LL ADDRESS 
          THAT ON THE BACK END. >> BOARD MEMBER: ARE WE LOOKING AT DIFFERENT ROOF LINE FOR THE 
          CANOPY? >> SPEAKER: WE ARE YES, SIR.  IF YOU SEE UP ON THIS, THIS IS A METAL ROOF PANELS.  WHEN WE DID THIS THE WHOLE IDEA WAS REALLY TO TRY TO JUST MAKE THE THING 
          [02:05:07]
DISAPPEAR AND BE FAIRLY VANILLA. INOFFENSIVE I THINK IT IS.  THE NEW ONE IS A FLAT ROOF.  WE'RE GOING HAVE GUYS UP THERE DOING FLAT ROOF WORK SO WE'VE GOT THE TRADE THERE.  I DID WANT TO ADDRESS ANY CONCERNS ABOUT NEIGHBORING.  COULD YOU GO TO THE ROOF PLAN FOR ME? THERE WE GO.  THE NEIGHBORING BUILDINGS. WHAT YOU SEE HERE, IF I CAN TRY TO -- YOU CAN SEE THE RAILING DOES NOT EXTEND TO THE FIREWALL OF THE ADJACENT BUILDING.  WE'RE ABOUT 20 FEET OFF.  WHATEVER THAT DEPTH WAS.  MAYBE IT'S NOT THAT FAR BUT TEN FEET OR MORE FROM THAT SIDE.  A LOT OF THIS WAS DRIVEN BY OCCUPANT LOADS THAT WERE REQUIRED IN ORDER TO KEEP -- IN ORDER FOR THE STAIRWAY TO EVACUATE PEOPLE UP AND DOWN.  SO THE ROOFTOP DECK IS GOING TO BE FEVLY CONTAINED. 
          AND REALLY ONLY INTO THAT CORNER.  SO THAT ANYONE WHO IS UP ON THAT BUILDING, THEY'LL BE BEHIND GUARDRAILS, BEHIND HANDRAILS.  WE'LL MAKE SURE THERE'S SIGNAGE POSTED THAT NO ONE IS TO PROCEED PAST THAT. THERE WILL BE A PAVER SYSTEM UP AND SEPARATE FROM THE ROOF SURFACE WHICH FURTHER CLARIFIES THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN ONE AND THE OTHER.  SO, WE'RE NOT HAVING PEOPLE UP THERE JUMPING OVER AND GETTING INTO THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES OR MESSING WITH IT. 
          I WILL NOTE THAT WE'VE RELOCATED -- AND YOU CAN SEE IF YOU GO BACK TO THE COLOR VIEW. 
          WE'RE EXTENDING THE BRICK ON THIS END TO SCREEN THE MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT. 
          >> BOARD MEMBER: WHAT'S THE INTENDED USE OF THIS? >> IT IS A YOUTH CENTER FOR THE 
          PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH. >> CHAIRMAN: OTHER QUESTIONS? >> SPEAKER: AND YOU ARE THINKING ABOUT ON TOP.  WELL THE ENTIRE BUILDING IS A YOUTH CENTER FOR THE PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH.  THEY DO OWN THE WHOLE CAMPUS SORT OF FUNCTIONS AS ONE ORGANISM.  AND THEY WANT THE ABILITY TO -- AND, JOHN, YOU MIGHT WANT TO SPEAK TO THIS.  BUT THEY WANT THE ABILITY TO HAVE EVENTS UP THERE.  TO ENJOY A MORE -- I'M SURE THEY WOULD LIKE TO ENJOY SHRIMP FEST AND PARADE AND THINGS OF THIS NATURE UP THERE.  BUT I THINK IT'S MORE EVENT DRIVEN THAN ANYTHING.  AND GIVES THEM MORE FLEXIBILITY AND MORE OPTIONS FOR THEIR MEMBERS AND FOR THE COMMUNITY. 
          >> BOARD MEMBER: ONE OTHER QUESTION.  I KNOW WHEN YOU WORK WITH CLIENTS YOU WANT TO MAKE THE PROJECT SUITABLE FOR THEIR GOALS AND THEIR DESIRES AND WHAT THEIR INTENTIONS ARE AND ALIGN WITH THEM RATIONALE.  WHEN YOU HAVE A BUILDING LIKE THIS MORE HISTORIC THAT WE'RE TRYING TO MARRY THOSE TWO THINGS CAN YOU DESCRIBE WHY YOU CHOSE TO GO WITH THE PORTHOLE WINDOWS AND 
          THE GLAZING ON THE FRONT WITH THE PORTHOLE? >> SPEAKER: THEY WERE REALLY BORN OUT OF DESIGN DISCUSSIONS BETWEEN OURSELVES AND OUR CLIENTS.  I CAN'T SAY THAT THIS WAS BORN OUT OF ANY PARTICULAR HISTORIC SIGNIFICANCE.  THE BUILDING ITSELF, ALTHOUGH MID-CENTURY MODERN AND REALLY BORROWING A LOT FROM THAT, HAVING BEEN AROUND HERE SINCE I WAS A WEE LAD, THE BUILDING JUST SORT OF DISAPPEARS INTO THE STREETSCAPE.  AND PART OF THIS WAS AN -- IS AN EFFORT TO -- WELL TO BRING LIGHT INSIDE OF COURSE.  TO BRING LIGHT INSIDE IN AN ELEGANT MANNER.  THERE'S A THEMISH -- WE DON'T WANT TO GET KIMMY WITH WHAT WE'RE -- KIMMY WHEN WE'RE DOING BUT THERE'S AN ANCHOR IN THE DESIGN.  I HOPE THAT HELPS. 
          >> BOARD MEMBER: IT DOES.  I THINK IT JUST RAISES THE QUESTION.  WE'RE GOING FROM A MID-MOD BUILDING TO MORE OF AN ART DECO BUILDING THAT WASN'T THERE.  I GET THE DESIGN THINGS YOU ARE FOLLOWING BUT IT DIDN'T INCUBATE FROM THE BUILDING ITSELF. 
          >> SPEAKER: I THINK MORE -- >> BOARD MEMBER: I AGREE THE WINDOWS AREN'T CONSISTENT WITH 
          [02:10:05]
          THE PERIOD FOR THIS BUILDING. >> BOARD MEMBER: WHEN YOU SAY WILL BRING YOU MORE LIGHT INSIDE.  DO I HEAR YOU ARE BUILDING AN ATRIUM? OR ARE YOU LEAVING THE EXISTING GROUND 
          FLOOR AS IT IS? >> SPEAKER: THE GROUND FLOOR, THERE'S MODIFICATIONS TO THE INTERIOR OF THE BUILDING BUT AS YOU SEE IT SITS UNDER A FAIRLY LARGE CANOPY.  SO THE PORTHOLES ARE AROUND THAT SIDE OF THE BUILDING AND BRINGING MORE LIGHT TO THE BACK OF THAT.  THAT'S A SINGLE ROOM.  THE FIRST HALF OF THAT BUILDING IS ESSENTIALLY A SINGLE ROOM THAT SERVES AS A YOUTH CENTER.  SO PART OF THAT IS BEGIN TO BRING LIGHT INTO THAT.  AND, FRANKLY, OUR CLIENTS REQUESTED US TO BRING LIGHT IN BACK THERE.  THE IDEA OF THE PORTHOLES WAS SOMETHING THEY ENJOYED.  I THINK THERE'S SEVERAL OTHER EXAMPLES OF THAT IN DOWNTOWN.  SUMMERHOUSE I THINK IS THE MOST RECENT ONE. AS I UNDERSTAND THE HDC IS NOT REALLY -- I MEAN, THIS IS NOT ACTUALLY RECOGNIZED AS PART OF YOUR -- THAT DOESN'T DISREGARD THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE PERIOD. 
          MY FEEDBACK ON THIS I HEAR WE NEED TO CHANGE THE PORTHOLE WINDOWS. 
          >> BOARD MEMBER: DO YOU HAVE A FLOOR PLAN OF THE ROOF DECK? >> SPEAKER: YES. 
          >> BOARD MEMBER: 477 IF YOU ARE ON THE BIG PACKET. >> BOARD MEMBER: SO IT'S 
          ENTIRELY OPEN UP THERE APART FROM THE CANOPY IS THAT RIGHT? >> SPEAKER: YES.  WHAT YOU ARE SEEING IS A GUARDRAIL. ESSENTIALLY A GUARDRAIL THAT CREATES A BORDER OR ENCLOSED SPACE.  THE CANOPY ITSELF IS MUCH SMALLER THAN THE TOTAL PATIO AREA.  IN FACT, WHAT WE'RE SHOWING IS 20 BY 40 AN 800 SQUARE FOOT CANOPY.  BUT THE ACTUAL PATIO IS MUCH LARGER. 
          >> BOARD MEMBER: GOING BACK TO THE WINDOWS.  HAD YOU GUYS DISCUSSED THE COLOR OF THE WINDOWS? THE BRONZE STANDS OUT TO ME AS REALLY NOT PERIOD FOR THAT BUILDING.  THEY WOULD HAVE BEEN ALUMINUM.  I THINK IT IS A SMALL CHANGE BUT I THINK IT'S SIGNIFICANT TO THE PERIOD OF THE 
          BUILDING. >> SPEAKER: ALL RIGHT. >> BOARD MEMBER: I THINK THE LOOK -- WHAT I GOT, ESPECIALLY WHEN YOU HAD THE FIRST HIP ROOF. I THINK THAT MAKES A BIG DIFFERENCE.  I GOT A VERY SUBTLE ASIAN FEEL TO IT WITH THE COPPER.  THE SCREEN, THE COPPER DETAILING.  THE HIP ROOF THAT YOU HAD.  AND EVEN THE RAILING THAT YOU HAD OUT FRONT.  ONE OF MY CONCERNS ABOUT THAT IS A PERMANENT FEATURE OF THIS STYLE OF BUILDING WAS THE DECONSTRUCTIVE FRONT WHERE YOU HAVE NOT NECESSARILY CANTILEVER BUT THE DEEP COUGHET WITH THE -- SOFFIT WITH THE CAN'TED FETCHA ON IT.  AND WE LOSE THAT WITH REREFLECTING PONDS AND RAILINGS. 
          SO, IT ALMOST BRINGS THE ATTENTION BACK UP FRONT.  IT IS A NEAT LOOKING BUILDING WHEN I LOOK AT IT IN RELATION TO EVERYTHING IS ELSE I THINK WHEN YOU START CONSTRUCTION WE'RE GOING HAVE RESIDENTS BANGING ON THE DOOR.  NOT LIKING ANYTHING THAT THEY SEE ON THIS.  I THINK THERE'S DRASTIC CHANGES.  AND IT MANY REFERENCES TO A BOAT.  AND NAUTICAL. 
          >> CHAIRMAN: OTHER COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS? >> BOARD MEMBER: WELL I GUESS BEFORE I GIVE MY COMMENTS I'LL ASK THE QUESTION OF THE BOARD SO THAT WE CAN GIVE HIM SOME FEEDBACK.  BECAUSE I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT.  IS THERE A GENERAL CONSENSUS THAT THE ROOFTOP PENTHOUSE STRUCTURE IS ACCEPTABLE? OR DOES ANYBODY HAVE PRETTY STRONG FEELINGS ABOUT 
          THAT? >> BOARD MEMBER: I THINK THIS REVISED ONE IS GOING IN THE 
          RIGHT DIRECTION FOR ME TO BE OKAY WITH IT. >> BOARD MEMBER: I AGREE. 
          >> BOARD MEMBER: SO SUMMARIZE MY THOUGHTS ON THE BUILDING.  I WOULD ENCOURAGE YOU TO REVISIT CERTAINLY THE BOAT WINDOW, THE CIRCULAR ELEMENTS THAT ARE ON THE CENTER STREET FACING EAVE AFOSSE AND ALSO THE PORTHOLE WINDOWS ON THE SIDE AND MAYBE TRY TO KEEP YOURSELF WITHIN THE 
          [02:15:03]
WHEELHOUSE OF THE ORIGINAL STYLE OF THE BUILDING ITSELF. I THINK. AND THEN ALSO THE BRICK, I'D LOVE TO SEE YOUR SOLUTION ON THERE.  IF IT'S SOMETHING THAT'S REVERSIBLE, I THINK IT'S FINE. 
          >> BOARD MEMBER: I THINK THAT WOULD BE A CONDITION I WOULD SAY TOO. 
          >> CHAIRMAN: MR. RICE, DO YOU HAVE A COMMENT THAT YOU WANT TO PROVIDE? 
          >> SPEAKER: ABSOLUTELY. >> CHAIRMAN: PLEASE COME UP. >> SPEAKER: RICE ARCHITECT. 
          YOUR COMMENT TO US IS ABOUT THE BUILDING BEING SOMETHING THAT WE DON'T WANT TO LOSE AS PART OF THE COMMUNITY.  THERE'S DEFINITELY SOME BUILDINGS THAT WE KNOW FOR SURE ALONG CENTER STREET THAT WE DON'T WANT TO LOSE.  THERE'S BEEN SEVERAL EXAMPLES OF BUILDINGS RECENTLY THAT HAVE BASICALLY BE OBLITERATED.  YOU KNOW, THAT THE TAVERN ACROSS THE STREET, FOR INSTANCE, GOSH I'M THINKING PEPPERS MAYBE.  SOME OF THESE BUILDINGS THAT -- THAT WAS A MID-CENTURY MODERN, IF YOU WILL. SOME OF THESE BUILDINGS HAVE NOT BEEN LOOKED AT, I GUESS IT'S SOMETHING THAT WHY WE'RE HISTORIC DISTRICT.  I WOULD ASK YOU IF WE HAD A WHOLE CITY STREET OF MID-CENTURY MODERN BUILDINGS WOULD WE EVEN BE A HISTORIC BUILDING I WOULD ARGUE 
          NO WE WOULDN'T. >> BOARD MEMBER: I WOULD DISAGREE WITH THAT.  DO YOU WANT 
          TO GO TO PUBLIC DISCUSSION THEN BOARD DISCUSSION? >> CHAIRMAN: THAT'S FINE.  THANK YOU.  WE WILL GO TO THE PUBLIC HEARING.  IS THERE ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE THAT WISHES TO SPEAK TO 
          2019-37 515 CENTER STREET? >> PUBLIC SPEAKER: I DO.  MY NAME IS DA RINDA VIJUK.  I OWN THE BUILDING NEXT DOOR, 503 CENTER STREET.  29 SALT MARSH DRIVE.  I JUST HAVE SOME CONCERNS ABOUT THE PATIO ROOF SINCE MY BUILDING IS NEXT DOOR. AND MR. AIKEN DID ADDRESS THAT. 
          BUT I DON'T WANT TEENAGE BOYS CLIMBING ON MY ROOF AND MAYBE DAMAGING OUR EQUIPMENT OR FALLING OFF AND GETTING HURT THEN I WOULD BE LIABLE.  THAT'S MY CONCERN. 
          >> CHAIRMAN: UNDERSTOOD.  THANK YOU.  ANYBODY ELSE WHO WISHES TO SPEAK? 
          BUT THERE WAS A ROOF TOP DINING THING THERE IN THE PAST. >> BOARD MEMBER: HAVE ANY ISSUE WITH THE ROOF TOP TERRACE UP THERE.  THE ONLY THING THAT I -- I WOULDN'T SAY I EVEN HAVE AN ISSUE WITH IT.  I'M JUST SAYING I'M RAISING THE CONCERN OR THE THOUGHT THAT MAYBE THE RAILING 
          ISN'T THE RIGHT SOLUTION THERE. >> BOARD MEMBER: BECAUSE THE RAILINGS HOAR DOESN'T AIL, IT 
          [02:20:07]
          KIND OF BLENDS IN. >> BOARD MEMBER: IT DOES ADD ARCHITECTURAL DETAIL. 
          >> BOARD MEMBER: IT'S ALMOST LIKE WE'RE DOING CREATIONIST HISTORICAL.  WE'RE CREATING A 
          NEW HISTORICAL LOOK. >> BOARD MEMBER: WELL I THINK IT NEEDS TO BE SYMPATHETIC TO THE DETAILING.  I DON'T THINK WE CAN TELL PEOPLE YOU CAN'T DO ANYTHING TO YOUR BUILDING. 
          UNLESS IT'S THE COURTHOUSE [LAUGHTER] I MEAN, PEOPLE NEED TO BE ALLOWED TO EXPAND AND GROW AND DO NEW THINGS.  I MEAN, IT'S WITHIN OUR PURVIEW TO SAY IT HAS TO RELATE BACK TO THE ORIGINAL STRUCTURE AND HAVE SOME KIND OF DETAILING THAT IS COHESIVENESS 
          OR SYMPATHETIC TO THE MAIN DESIGN. >> BOARD MEMBER: ARE WE LOSING 
          THE ORIGINAL BUILDING IN THIS DESIGN? >> BOARD MEMBER: YES. 
          >> BOARD MEMBER: IT'S GONE.  AND I GUESS I WOULD -- MS. TAMMI, I WOULDN'T CALL IT ART DECO.  I'D CALL IT POST MODERN.  AND I AM REALLY DISAPPOINTED TO SEE US WALKING AWAY FROM AN IMPORTANT MID-CENTURY MODERN STRUCTURE.  I AM NOT SYMPATHETIC TO THE DESIGN.  I THINK IT'S KICCY AND INCONSISTENT WITH THE DESIGN AESTHETIC OF THE ORIGINAL BUILDING.  I WOULDN'T CONTINUE IT.  I WOULDN'T PROVIDE GUIDANCE.  IF IT WAS UP TO ME I WOULD DENY IT AND ASK THEM TO START OVER.  OFTEN WHAT WE DO HERE IS TRY TO INCREMENTALLY GET BAD PROJECTS TO MOVE FORWARD INTO A DIRECTION THAT WE ULTIMATELY FIND ACCEPTABLE.  I THINK SOMETIMES YOU JUST NEED TO CUT THOSE OFF AND ASK THE CLIENTS TO -- ASK THE APPLICANTS TO START OVER.  WE WALK AWAY COMPLETELY MID-CENTURY OF THIS BUILDING.  I WOULDN'T SUPPORT ANYTHING I'VE SEEN IN THESE DRAWINGS.  I WAITED UNTIL THE END TO MAKE THESE COMMENTS.  I WILL BOW TO THE MAJORITY AS TO 
          WHAT YOU WANT TO DO GOING FORWARD. >> BOARD MEMBER: I DETECT THAT A RELIGIOUS THEME IS BEING CONVERTED INTO A NAUTICAL THEME. AND I'M NOT SURE IF THAT IS DELIBERATE OR ACCIDENTAL.  I PERSONALLY DON'T HAVE A LOT OF FONDNESS FOR THIS STYLE OF ARCHITECTURE.  BUT I AM A LIBERAL AND I AN CAN ALLOW OTHER PEOPLE MAY HAVE THAT.  AND I PUT IN MIND OF AN US A TEARIAN MEMBER OF THIS BOARD WHEN BRUCE MALCOLM USED TO SIT HERE AND HE CRITICIZED ONE DESIGN THAT WAS NOT AS CRACKER, I THINK, AS HE THOUGHT IT SHOULD BE.  AND HE SAID, RIGHT NOW THIS HDC LOOKS AT CRACKER BUILDINGS, AND IF TIMES CHANGE AND UGLY BUILDINGS COME IN TO FASHION THEN NO DOUBT THERE WILL BE A CODE FOR UGLY BUILDINGS. 
          >> BOARD MEMBER: SO THE CURRENT BUILDING WOULD BE LEVELLED? ARE THEY STARTING FROM SCRATCH? 
          >> BOARD MEMBER: NO BUT YOU ARE GOING TO LOSE ALL THE ELEMENTS FROM THE MID-CENTURY MODERN. 
          >> BOARD MEMBER: SO I GUESS I'M SAYING IF THERE IS A -- >> CHAIRMAN: WHAT DO YOU MEAN WHEN YOU SAY IT'S GOING TO LOSE ALL THE ELEMENTS OF THE MID-CENTURY MODERN.  THIS LAST RAILING IN THE PORT, PORTHOLE WINDOWS, THE CHANGE OF THE WINDOWS IN THE FRONT, THE LATTICE RAILING UP.  THESE ARE NOT ELEMENTS OF THE ORIGINAL STRUCTURE OR CONSISTENT WITH 
          MID-CENTURY. >> BOARD MEMBER: I AGREE ON ALL THE THINGS LISTED BUT I STILL THINK THERE'S A LOT OF THINGS THEY'RE PRESERVING THAT ARE PRETTY IMPORTANT ELEMENTS TO THAT STYLE.  LIKE THE COLUMNS AT THE FRONT OF THE BUILDING AND THE WAY THAT THE STOREFRONT IS RCESSED BEYOND THAT.  THE PARTICULAR STYLE OF THE FRAME OF THE STOREFRONT.  I'M NOT SUPER FOND OF.  BUT, I MEAN, THE EXISTENCE OF THE STORE FRONT IS CONSISTENT WITH WHERE THE STORE 
          FRONT IS NOW YOU KNOW. >> CHAIRMAN: I'D GIVE YOU THAT. I AGREE WITH YOU. 
          >> BOARD MEMBER: I MEAN, THE RAIL ON THE FRONT I AGREE WITH YOU.  WE HAVE MENTIONED THAT BEFORE.  BUT, YOU KNOW, IT'S NOT A NECESSARY THING TO HAVE I DON'T THINK IS IT.  IT'S KIND OF 
          JUST AN AESTHETIC THING. >> SPEAKER: IF THE REFLECTING POND IS PERMITTED THEN IT'S 
          [02:25:07]
          PROBABLY ADVISED. >> BOARD MEMBER: IS THAT WHAT'S ON THE OTHER SIDE OF IT IS THE 
          POND? >> SPEAKER: OR A REFLECTIVE POOL. 
          >> BOARD MEMBER: I WOULD SUGGEST TO BOARD MEMBERS WHAT'S YOUR PLEASURE? 
          >> BOARD MEMBER: I THINK WE SHOULD CONTINUE IT. >> BOARD MEMBER: MAY I ASK WHERE 
          THIS REFLECTING POOL IS? >> SPEAKER: RIGHT NOW IT'S FLOWER BEDS AT THE FRONT AND IT 
          WRAPS AROUND THE SIDE OF THE STOREFRONT. >> BOARD MEMBER: THERE'S A REFLECTING POOL ON THE OTHER SIDE.  HERE'S ORIGINAL THAT LITTLE SETBACK THAT YOU HAVE. 
          >> BOARD MEMBER: KEEPING WITH THE NAUTICAL THEME I GUESS. >> I'M GOING TO SAY THAT'S PROBABLY OUTSIDE OF THE PURVIEW OF THIS BOARD [LAUGHTER] WHETHER THERE'S FISH IN THE POND OR NOT [LAUGHTER] 
          >> BOARD MEMBER: IF WE CONTINUE THIS DO YOU GUYS WANT TO GO FOR THE JANUARY MEETING? IT'S NOT REALISTIC THAT YOU ARE GOING TO GET THESE THINGS DONE BEFORE WEDNESDAY. 
          >> SPEAKER: WEDNESDAY IS THE DEADLINE? >> BOARD MEMBER: YEAH. 
          >> SPEAKER: RESPECTFULLY, YES. >> BOARD MEMBER: IF I WERE YOU GUYS I WOULD ASK FOR A CONCEPTUAL APPROVAL NEXT TIME NOT A FINAL ONE.  I MEAN, THAT'S WHAT I WOULD DO IF I WERE YOU GUYS.  I MOVE TO CONTINUE HDC2019-37 WITHOUT CONDITIONS TO THE JANUARY 2020HDC MEETING.  DO 
          I HAVE TO CONTINUE OR IS THAT ENOUGH? >> CHAIRMAN: THAT'S SUFFICIENT. 
          CAN I GET A SECOND? >> BOARD MEMBER: I WILL SECOND. >> CHAIRMAN: PLEASE CALL ROLL YES.  YES.  YES.  YES.  YES. MOVING ON 2019-38.  MIRANDA FOR ST. MICHAELS 201 NORTH 4TH 
          [Item 4.4]
          STREET.  I DON'T SEE MIRANDA. MAYBE SOMEBODY ELSE IS HERE. >> BOARD MEMBER: IS THERE 
          SOMEBODY ELSE HERE? >> SPEAKER: YES.  JOSE COULDN'T BE HERE. 
          >> 2019-38 PROPERTY ADDRESS IS 201 NORTH FOURTH STREET.  IT IS A PROPERTY ZONED R2 MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL.  THE REQUESTED ACTION IS A CERTIFICATE OF APPROVAL TO ADDED A ADA RAMP AND EXISTING REAR PORCH.  CONSTRUCTED IN 1909 THIS RESIDENCE IS NOTE WORTHY FOR ITS PORCH, GABLE AND BAY WINDOW.  IT WAS THE RESIDENCE OF THE ASCENTENT OF DOMINGO FERNANDEZ. 
          THE USE OF THIS BUILDING WILL BE CHANGING TO SERVE AS OFFICE SPACE FOR ST. MICHAEL CATHOLIC CHURCH.  THE OWNERS WISH TO MAKE ALTERCATIONS TO MAKE IT MORE ADA COMPLIANT.  THESE INCLUDE THE ADDITION OF THE ADA PARKING SPACE, THE ADDITION OF THE ADA COMPLIANT HANDICAP RAMP WHICH WILL BE WOOD DECKING, PAINTED AND BALLISTERS TO MARCH WHAT'S THERE NOW.  RELOCATION OF EXISTING REAR PORCH STEPS. REPLACEMENT OF THE REAR DOOR TO BE AN ADA COMPLIANT DOOR.  STAFF FINDS THAT THE PROPOSED CHANGES OCCUR AT THE NORTH AND EAST ELEVATION.  THIS AREA IS A LATER ADDITION TO TO THE HISTORIC HOME.  YOU WILL SEE IT'S BEEN EXPANDED.  THIS AREA IS A LATER ADDITION TO THE HOME.  SO THE CHANGES TAKE PLACE IN THAT LATER ADDITION.  ALTERCATIONS AND REPLACEMENT OF THE NORTHEAST PORCH WILL UTILIZE MATERIALS FOUND ON THE HISTORIC PORTION OF THE PROPERTY AND CREATION OF THE ADA DRIVEWAY AND PARKING SPACE WILL REQUIRE APPROVAL OF A RIGHT OF WAY USE PERMIT.  STAFF FINDS THE REQUESTED ACTION AS PRESENTED IS CONSISTENT WITH THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE.  THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR STANDARDS AND THE DOWNTOWN HISTORIC DISTRICT GUIDELINES AND RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF 2019-38. THANK YOU. 
          >> CHAIRMAN: QUESTIONS? THAT'S A FIRST. >> BOARD MEMBER: I GUESS JOSE 
          WAS RIGHT. >> CHAIRMAN: DO WE HAVE ANY NEED TO ASK THIS GENTLEMAN TO CAKE 
          [02:30:06]
          QUESTIONS? IF NOT WE CAN MOVE RIGHT INTO PUBLIC HEARING. >> BOARD MEMBER: I THINK I HAVE 
          A QUESTION. >> CHAIRMAN: SIR COULD YOU COME UP AND IDENTIFY YOURSELF. 
          >> SPEAKER: MIKE MAYER.  4670 CARLTON DUNES DRIVE IN FERNANDINA. 
          >> BOARD MEMBER: DO WE HAVE A LANDSCAPE PLAN OR ANYTHING THAT SHOWS WHAT MIGHT SHIELD THIS 
          RAMP FROM THE FOURTH STREET VIEW? >> SPEAKER: IT IS OUR INTENTION TO LANDSCAPE SO THE RAMP IS NOT OBVIOUS FROM THE STREET.  THERE WILL BE SHRUBS IN FRONT OF IT. 
          >> BOARD MEMBER: A BUFFER OF SOME SORT. >> SPEAKER: YES. 
          >> BOARD MEMBER: ONE OTHER CLARIF CLARIFICATION.  THE EXISTING STOOP ON THE SOUTH SIDE, THE MASONRY STOOP, YOU ARE KEEPING THAT.  YOU ARE NOT TAKING THAT AWAY.  THERE'S STEPS THAT GO UP ON THE FENCE SIDE OF THE PROPERTY ON BROOM. 
          >> SPEAKER: RIGHT THOSE WILL MOVE AROUND. >> BOARD MEMBER: THE MASONRY 
          STEP.  IT'S LIKE THE ORIGINAL ENTRANCE ON THAT SIDE. >> SPEAKER: NOTHING CHANGES 
          THERE. >> CHAIRMAN: OTHER QUESTIONS FOR MR. MAYER? THANK YOU, SIR.  WE WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. ANYBODY HERE TO SPEAK ON 201 NORTH 4TH STREET HDC2019-38? THANK YOU VERY MUCH.  CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.  BOARD? WHAT'S YOUR PLEASURE. 
          >> BOARD MEMBER: I WOULD JUST LIKE TO HAVE THAT SOMETHING ABOUT THE SCREENING IS IN THERE BECAUSE OUR CODE DOES SPECIFICALLY SAY THAT IF THERE'S A RAMP THAT WE HAVE TO EITHER LOCATE IT OUT OF PUBLIC VIEW OR SCREEN IT WITH LANDSCAPING.  AND THIS IS A PRETTY PROMINENT VIEW 
          ON FOURTH STREET. >> CHAIRMAN: WOULD YOU BE SATISFIED WITH THE CONDITION OF 
          THE MOTION TO APPROVE IT BE PROVIDED TO STAFF. >> BOARD MEMBER: OH YEAH. 
          >> BOARD MEMBER: MOVE TO APPROVE. >> CHAIRMAN: THANK YOU, 
          MR. HARRISON.  ANYBODY GOT THE WORDING? >> CHAIRMAN: I CAN GET IT FAIRLY 
          QUICKLY.  PAGE 2.  THAT'S EASY. >> BOARD MEMBER: I MOVE TO APPROVE HDC 2019-38 WITH THE CONDITION THAT THE APPLICANT PROVIDE A PLANT -- PLAN TO LANDSCAPE THE RAMP AND ACHIEVE HISTORICAL APPROVAL FOR IT.  THE MOVE THE HDC MAKE THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR THE RECORD.  THAT HDC 2019-38 HAS 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. >> BOARD MEMBER: SECOND. 
          >> CHAIRMAN: HARRISON AND MORRISON.  ANY DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE, SAMANTHA, PLEASE 
          CALL THE ROLL YES.  YES.  YES.  YES.  YES. >> CHAIRMAN: MOVING ON.  2019-39 
          [Item 4.5]
REITZER1132 WHITE STREET A CERTIFICATE OF APPROVAL FOR A ONE STORY SINGLE FAMILY 
          RESIDENCE. >> SPEAKER: THE APPLICANT IS SPEAKING TO CONSTRUCT A ONE STORY SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE WITH ACCESSORY STRUCTRE AND PICKET FENCING.  STAFF FINDS THE OVERALL DESIGN OF THE HOME IS COMPATIBLE WITH THE OLD TOWN HISTORIC DISTRICT, WITH FEW NOTED ISSUES.  THE FENCING IS INDICATED TO BE WHITE ALUMINUM AND WHITE ALUM FLUM IS AN APPROPRIATE MATERIAL.  STAFF RECOMMENDS BLACK.  THE PORCH OFF THE UTILITY ROOM ON THE WEST SIDE OF THE STRUCTURE ENCROACHES INTO THE REQUIRED FIVE FOOT SIDE YARD VISIBILITY CORRIDOR PER LDC010102 K2.  THE ACCENT TRIM DOES NOT ACHIEVE THE DESIRED APPEARANCE.  OLD TOWN REPRESENTS AN AREA OF HIGH ARCHAEOLOGICAL POTENTIAL AND THE APPLICANT SHOULD REMAIN MINDFUL OF THAT. 
          STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF HDC 2019-39. >> BOARD MEMBER: HOW FAR -- I'M 
          [02:35:01]
          SORRY MEMBERS ANY QUESTIONS? >> BOARD MEMBER: I WAS GOING TO ASK HOW THE ELEVATION OF THIS 
          HOUSE IS ACHIEVED.  I DON'T THINK IT'S BUILT ON SLAB IS IT? >> SPEAKER: IT'S STEM WALL 
          FOUNDATION. >> BOARD MEMBER: IT IT A PEERS TO BE SLAB. 
          >> BOARD MEMBER: I WAS JUST LOOKING AT THE SITE PLAN AND I CAN'T TELL, MAYBE I'M MISSING IT HERE, BUT I DON'T SEE WHERE IT GIVES ANY DIMENSIONS THAT TELLS YOU WHAT THE SETBACKS ARE FOR 
          THE BUILDING AS IT RELATES TO THE PROPERTY LINE. >> SPEAKER: THEY SHOULD BE 
          THERE. >> BOARD MEMBER: WHERE IS THAT AT, SAMANTHA? 
          >> CHAIRMAN: PAGE 16 PERHAPS? PAGE 16.  WHAT'S THE PROBLEM WITH THE FIVE FOOT SETBACK? IS 
          THAT THE -- WHAT SIDE IS THAT? SHOULD BE THE NORTH SIDE >> CHAIRMAN: THIS IS SUPPOSED TO BE A FIVE FOOT SETBACK.  HOW FAR INTO IT IS IT? ALL THE WAY INTO IT IT APPEARS. 
          >> CHAIRMAN: SO WE'RE OKAY ON THE SOUTH SIDE. >> IT'S THIS UTILITY ROOM.  THE 
          STAIRS LEADING OUT. >> BOARD MEMBER: WHERE ARE YOU SEEING THIS? 
          >> CHAIRMAN: ON PAGE 16 OF 28. YOU WILL SEE THE STAIRS HERE ARE BASICALLY -- THEY'RE UP TO THE PROPERTY LINE.  THEY'RE EATING THE FULL FIVE FOOT REQUIRED SETBACK.  WHICH I THINK WE'RE GOING TO TALK ABOUT LATER IN THE OLD TOWN DISCUSSION, IF I RECALL CORRECTLY.  AND CROSSING IT. 
          ALL RIGHT.  MEMBERS, QUESTIONS FOR SAMANTHA? >> BOARD MEMBER: I'VE GOT A GENERAL COMMENT HERE.  AND THAT RELATES TO THE AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH THAT IS ON WHATEVER PAGE. 
          INDICATES THERE IS VACANT PROPERTY CERTAINLY TO THE WEST. I UNDERSTAND THAT THE AERIAL IS SOMETHING THAT WE GET FROM THE NASSAU COUNTY PROPERTY APPRAISER.  AND THEY ONLY DO IT ONCE EVERY FEW YEARS.  AND SINCE THERE ARE PHOTOGRAPHS ELSEWHERE IN THE APPLICATION WHICH SHOWS THE NEIGHBORING CONSTRUCTION I THINK IT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE TO EITHER PUT THE DATE OF THE AERIAL ON THIS PRESENTATION AND INDICATE THAT SUBSEQUENT CONSTRUCTION MAY NOT BE LISTED OR TO MODIFY -- BETTER YET, MODIFY THE AERIAL TO INDICATE WHAT IS ALREADY ON THE GROUND AT 
          THE MOMENT. >> CHAIRMAN: CAN WE GET A GOOGLE PICTURE OF THIS OR WOULD THAT BE 
          TOO MUCH TO ASK? >> IT WILL BE THE SAME.  THE PROPERTY APPRAISER USES GOOGLE 
          AERIALS. >> BOARD MEMBER: THAT WON'T HELP. 
          >> CHAIRMAN: OTHER QUESTIONS FOR SAMANTHA? >> 
          >> BOARD MEMBER: I WOULD LIKE TO POINT OUT AS WE LOOK AT THE PHOTOGRAPHS OF ADJACENT PROPERTIES AND THINGS YOU CAN CLEARLY SEE WHERE STAFF HAS COMMENT OOTID THE ARTICULATION OF THE FOUNDATION THAT THOSE COMMENTS ARE REPRESENTED ALMOST EVERY SINGLE HOUSE YOU SEE IN 
          THESE PHOTOS. >> CHAIRMAN: IT LOOKS TO ME IF YOU RELOCATED THE DOOR TO THE 
          [02:40:13]
UTILITY ROOM YOU COULD STAY WITHIN THE FOOTPRINT -- YOU COULD CLEAR THE FIVE FOOT 
          SETBACK.  IS THAT HOW YOU SAW IT? >> I THINK THE STAIRS ARE 
          ENCROACHING ALSO. >> CHAIRMAN: THE STAIRS GOING INTO THE L OUTSIDE THE MASTER BATH.  IN OTHER WORDS I THINK WHEN WE LOOKED AT THIS LAST WEEK WE THOUGHT THIS IS SO FAR OUT OF SCALE HOW CAN WE CONSIDER IT. BUT IT'S NOT THAT FAR OFF.  IS THAT FAIR? OKAY. 
          >> BOARD MEMBER: WHAT IS OUR HEIGHT LIMITATION IN OLD TOWN? >> CHAIRMAN: SAL, TOP OF YOUR 
          HEAD. >> I HAVE TO LOOK IT UP.  35. >> CHAIRMAN: FOR THE PRIMARY AND 
          24 FOR THE ACCESSORY CORRECT >> RIGHT. >> BOARD MEMBER: IT LOOKED LIKE IT WAS OVER 35.  I COULDN'T SEE THE [INAUDIBLE] WHEN I PULLED IT UP. 
          >> CHAIRMAN: DO YOU HAVE AN ELEVATION. 35.37 HERE. >> BOARD MEMBER: THAT IS A 
          ELEVATION MEASUREMENT NOT A HEIGHT MEASUREMENT. >> CHAIRMAN: I UNDERSTAND.  PAGE 
          27. >> BOARD MEMBER: YEAH. >> BOARD MEMBER: YOUR POINT 
          BEING? >> BOARD MEMBER: ELEVATION WOULD BE LIKE ABOVE SEA LEVEL OR SUCH NOT NECESSARILY A MEASUREMENT FROM GRADE TO PEAK OF ROOF.  I'M SURE WE CAN ASK THE APPLICANT IF 
          HE CAN GET US THAT MEASUREMENT. IT'S TWO DIFFERENT THINGS. >> BOARD MEMBER: THEY STARTED AT   
          STORY. >> BOARD MEMBER: I JUST HAVE ONE QUESTION FOR SAMANTHA OR SAL. 
          IS THERE A PRECEDENT FOR USING CASEMENT WINDOWS IN OLD TOWN? IT DOESN'T SEEM LIKE SOMETHING THAT 
          WEE APPROVED BEFORE. >> CHAIRMAN: BUT IF YOU REMEMBER THE GUIDELINES WE DON'T SPECIFY A TYPE OF WINDOW WE SPECIFY IT HAS TO BE CONSISTENT WITH OTHER CONSTRUCTION IN OLD TOWN. 
          >> BOARD MEMBER: A CONSISTENCY OF ARCHITECTURE.  ON THIS STYLE OF BUILDING I THINK THE CASEMENT WOULD WORK.  EVEN THOUGH WE HAVEN'T SEEN THEM BEFORE IT'S NOT -- 
          >> CHAIRMAN: DIFFERENT BUT NOT CONS -- 
          >> BOARD MEMBER: DIFFERENT BUT NOT CONSISTENT. >> CHAIRMAN: ARE WE READY FOR 
          THE APPLICANT? >> SPEAKER: JOEL REITZER. >> CHAIRMAN: ANYTHING TO OFFER. 
          >> SPEAKER: WELL A COUPLE OF THINGS.  IF YOU LOOK AT THE PICTURES OF THE SURROUNDING HOUSES THERE, WE DESIGNED THIS TO BE IN KEEPING WITH THE SURROUNDING STRUCTURES TO MAKE SURE THAT THE FRONT PORCH WAS IN LINE WITH THE OTHER FRONT PORCHES.  TO MAKE SURE WE DIDN'T GO UP FROM THE FRONT OF THE HOUSE ON TO THE PORCH BUT FROM THE SIDE WHERE WE WOULD DRIVE UP.  AND LOOKING THROUGHOUT OLD TOWN THIS IS A GABLE FRONT FAMILY HOME WHICH IS HISTORICAL THROUGHOUT THE SOUTH.  IT ORIGINALLY DESIGNED AS A SHOTGUN HOUSE BUT FOR PRACTICAL REASONS WE DECIDED TO MAKE IT A SINGLE STORY HOUSE.  AND THE BEDROOMS, IF YOU WILL NOTICE ARE ON THE SIDE.  INSTEAD OF JUST MAKING AN L SHAPE CONFIGURATION WE DECIDED THIS WOULD BE A DOUBLE BARREL SHOTGUN IN APPEARANCE.  SO IT WOULD LOOK LIKE IT WAS AN ADDITION.  SO IT WOULD LOOK LIKE IT IS A CONNECTING ELEMENT TO THE TWO BEDROOMS. AS FAR AS THE FOUNDATION IS CONCERNED.  A REINFORCED CONCRETE FOUNDATION. AND I'D LIKE TO TAKE THIS OPPORTUNITY TO PASS OUT A LITTLE BIT OF A REVISION THAT SHOWS YOU A COUPLE OF OPTIONS.  IF YOU'D PLEASE TAKE ONE AND PASS THEM. 
          ALSO LOOKING AT THE SITE, THIS IS A SMALL LOT IN BETWEEN TWO LARGER LOTS.  THERE'S A LARGER LOT TO THE EAST AND TO THE WEST. BOTH OF THOSE LOTS HAVE HOUSES THAT ARE LARGER AND THAT ARE WIDER THAN THEIR GARAGES.  THIS PARTICULAR LOT WOULD NOT ALLOW FOR A GARAGE.  SO IT WOULD 
          [02:45:01]
SIMPLY BE A GRAVELLED DRIVEWAY. AND BECAUSE THERE ISN'T A LOT OF SPACE AT THE REAR OF THE STRUCTURE WE HAVE A FUTURE FLORIDA ROOM SHOWN THAT WOULD BE A FEATURE ADDITION.  THEN WE HAVE A FEATURE PERGOLA SHOWN ON THE GRAVEL DRIVEWAY.  THOSE ARE NOT IN THE CURRENT PLAN FOR APPROVAL, BUT WE WANTED TO SHOW YOU THOSE IMPROVEMENTS FOR FUTURE REFERENCE.  WE'D LIKE TO DOWNSIZE THE GARDEN TOOL ROOM JUST A LITTLE BIT AND REORIENT IT.  I'M SHOWING A COUPLE OF ELEVATIONS THERE WHICH GIVE YOU THE INDICATION OF WHAT IT WOULD LOOK LIKE.  THIS MAKES A LITTLE BIT GREATER LANDSCAPING AND HARDSCAPE AREA AT THE BACK OF THE HOUSE.  SO, WE'D LIKE FOR YOU TO CONSIDER THAT CHANGE. ALSO, ON THE ELEVATIONS, THERE ARE A COUPLE OF OPTIONS.  IF YOU LOOK AT A2 IS THE FIRST GROUP OF OPTIONS IS THE LATTICING SHOWN WITH THE FOUNDATION ON THE SIDES OF IT.  THAT'S ONE OPTION.  THEN IF YOU LOOK A COUPLE OF PAGES PAST THAT, THERE'S AN A2 OPTION, AN A3 OPTION WHICH SHOWS KIND OF A HORIZONTALIY WHICH THE SIMULATION OF A OFF GRADE FOUNDATION WOULD BE PROVIDED THERE.  THIS IS VERY SIMILAR TO THE HOUSE BOB AND LISA ON THE CORNER HAVE THAT SIMILAR ARTIC ARTICULATION.  WHEREAS ON THE OTHER SIDE, BOB AND DEB WESTGATE, HAVE THE GAT LATTICING ON THEIRS WITH A BRICK INDICATION.  WE BELIEVE WE PREFER THE HORIZONTALITY ON THE CORNER HOUSE.  SO THAT WOULD BE 
          THE A2 AND A3 SECOND DRAWINGS THERE. >> CHAIRMAN: IS THIS HERE FOR 
          CONCEPTUAL OR FINAL? >> SPEAKER: THESE ARE DESIGN DEVELOPMENT DRAWINGS THEY'RE NOT CONSTRUCTION DRAWINGS. THE ROOF LINE IS SHOWING OFF THE PORCH. THE PORCH COMES UP NEXT TO THE PROPERTY LINE AND THEN THAT OVERHANG ON THE PORCH AS MY UNDERSTANDING IS THE MAXIMUM ROOF OVERHANG IS 24 INCHES.  SO, THIS WOULD NOT BE ALLOWED.  SO, WE'D GO AHEAD AND IN YOUR MOTION IF YOU APPROVE WE WOULD BE WILLING TO GO AHEAD AND GO BACK TO THE ROOF LINE IN LINE WITH THE MAXIMUM OVERHANG OF 24 INCHES.  IF THE CODE CHANGES IN THE FUTURE, THEN WE MAY WANT TO COME BACK AND CONSIDER GETTING A BIGGER OVERHANG ON TO THE PORCH. WE DON'T BELIEVE THAT THE EXTRA OVERHANG WOULD IMPAIR THE SIGHT LINES.  BUT I UNDERSTAND WHAT THE RULE IS AT CURRENT TIME. 
          >> BOARD MEMBER: WHY DO YOU WANT IT? >> SPEAKER: JUST TO HAVE PROTECTION FROM THE WEATHER ON THE DOOR. NOW THAT PARTICULAR PORCH GOING OFF THE UTILITY ROOM IS EXACTLY LIKE THE HOUSE NEXT DOOR ON THE CORNER.  THEY HAVE THE EXACT FEATURE EXCEPT THEY DON'T HAVE A LARGER ROOF OVERHANG.  THEY HAVE THE PORCH COMING OFF THEIR UTILITY ROOM IN 
          THE SAME PLACE. >> BOARD MEMBER: I THOUGHT YOU WERE ALLOWED TO ENCROACH INTO THE SIDE YARD AS LONG AS IT'S LESS THAN LIKE 30 INCHES ABOVE GRADE OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT? 
          >> SPEAKER: WE'RE 21 INCHES >> 24 INCHES IS THE MAXIMUM. >> BOARD MEMBER: YOU GUYS ARE 
          WITHIN THAT THRESHOLD? >> SPEAKER: WE'RE 21 INCHES ABOVE GRADE. 
          >> BOARD MEMBER: 24 INCHES IS NOT A HEIGHT IT'S AN ENCROACHMENT 
          >> THAT'S THE WIDTH INTO THAT FIVE FEET. HE IS ASKING A HEIGHT LIMITATION. 
          >> YOU CAN'T ENCROACH INTO THE SETBACK.  IT'S GOT TO BE CLEAR FROM THE GROUND TO THE SKY IS 
          THE WAY THE LDC READS. >> SPEAKER: I MEAN, THAT'S EXACTLY LIKE THE HOUSE NEXT DOOR 
          ON THE CORNER.  THEY HAVE THE PORCH IN THE EXACT AREA. >> CHAIRMAN: DO YOU HAVE 
          PHOTOGRAPH EVIDENCE? >> BOARD MEMBER: IT DOESN'T MATTER 
          >> IT'S DIFFERENT IF THEY OWN THE ADJOINING LOTS. >> SPEAKER: IT'S RIGHT UP 
          AGAINST THE PROPERTY LINE.  I'D SAY WITHIN SIX INCHES OF IT. >> BOARD MEMBER: WHAT I AM HEARING ON THIS END IS THE UTILITY YARD LANDING COULD POTENTIALLY BE A BONE OF CONTENTION.  CERTAINLY WOULD BE FAR EASIER FOR US TO SAY YES IF YOU DID NOT EXIT THE UTILITY ROOM OUT INTO THE SIDE YARD.  IF PERHAPS IT WENT INTO THE REAR OF IT.  THAT WOULD REMOVE THAT 
          [02:50:01]
LANDING FROM THE SIDE YARD AND WOULD ALSO REMOVE THAT OVERHANGING ROOF FEATURE FROM THE SIDE YARD.  I THINK IT WOULD PAVE THE WAY TOWARDS A YES FROM THE BOARD MUCH EASIER.  I THINK YOUR ALTERNATE ELEVATION SHOWING ARTICULATION OF FOUNDATION ARE -- I PERSONALLY WOULD BE WITH EITHER ONE HORIZONTAL OR THE GRIDDED LATTICE, I THINK THAT'S A GOOD UPGRADE TO THE LOOK OF IT FOR SURE.  AND IT'S IN KEEPING WITH THE NEIGHBORING HOUSES AS FAR AS THAT GOES.  THE ONLY OTHER THING THAT I WOULD THROW OUT THERE IS I DON'T KNOW IF YOU HAVE DONE AN IMPERVIOUS 
          CALCULATION TO JUST CHECK -- >> SPEAKER: YES WE DID.  IT'S SHOWN ON THE FIRST PAGE OF THE REVISION.  IT DID SHOW THAT IT'S 39.76%.  IT'S UNDER THE 45.  IT IS A SMALL LOT. 
          >> BOARD MEMBER: BUT IF YOU ADDED A QUARTER YOU WOULD EXCEED IT RIGHT? 
          >> SPEAKER: NO.  NOT ACTUALLY. THE FLORIDA ROOM CONCRETE IS SHOWN AT CURRENT CALCULATION. 
          THE INFILL IN THERE WOULD BE EITHER GRAVEL OR SAND. >> BOARD MEMBER: IT DOESN'T 
          MATTER BECAUSE YOU ARE NOT ASKING FOR THAT TONIGHT. >> SPEAKER: WELL I'M GOING -- I'VE GOT THAT IN THE CALCULATIONS TO ADD TO THE FLAT WORK. 
          >> BOARD MEMBER: IS YOUR INTENT WHERE YOU HAVE THE PERGOLA SHOWN, THAT TO BECOME A CARPORT 
          WHERE YOU EXTEND THE DRIVEWAY AND WOULD PARK UNDERNEATH THAT? >> SPEAKER: WE WOULD PARK THE CARS IN THAT AREA JUST FOR THE SHADE STRUCTURE VERSUS A ROOF. PERGOLA WOULD NOT HAVE A ROOF ON IT.  I COULD CHANGE THE CALCULATIONS IF I DID COME BACK WITH THAT AND WANTED TO COVER IT 
          THEN I WOULD HAVE TO RESUBMIT CALCULATIONS TO IT. >> BOARD MEMBER: LET ME UNDERSTAND THE QUESTION OF THE LOT COVERAGE.  ARE YOU SAYING, FOR EXAMPLE, THAT THE FLORIDA ROOM IS INCLUDED IN THE 1647 SQUARE FEET? ON THE TABLE ON PAGE A1.  YOU'VE GOT A NUMBER -- 
          >> SPEAKER: THE FLORIDA ROOM INCLUDES THE CALCULATION FOR THE CONCRETE IN THAT AREA.  THE BOX IN THE MIDDLE WHERE IT SHOWS THE LETTER IN FLORIDA ROOM, THAT BOX ENCLOSURE IS NOT CONCRETE.  IF I CONCRETE IT I WOULD HAVE TO INCLUDE THAT IN THE CALCULATION 
          >> BOARD MEMBER: I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU ARE SAYING.  THOSE ROOMS ARE GOING -- 
          >> BOARD MEMBER: THAT IS DIFFERENT FROM MINE.  IS THAT A1 >> THIS IS A1 THAT WAS INCLUDED 
          IN THE ORIGINAL PACKAGE. >> BOARD MEMBER: OKAY. >> NOT WHAT YOU HAVE IN YOUR 
          HAND. >> BOARD MEMBER: CAN YOU SCROLL DOWN PLEASE SO WE CAN PULL UP THE TABLE.  THANK YOU.  SO YOU ARE UP THERE AT 45%.  RIGHT ON THE LINE. 
          >> SPEAKER: THAT'S NOT THE REVISION. THE REVISION IS THE HANDOUT. 
          >> WHAT DID YOU REDUCE IN THE HANDOUT TO GET FROM 45 TO 39? WHAT DID YOU TAKE OUT? 
          >> SPEAKER: DID NOT INCLUDE THE FLORIDA ROOM.  DID NOT INCLUDE THE PERGOLA CONCRETE AREA.  DID NOT INCLUDE THE GARDEN ROOM ON P POSTS. 
          >> I WANT TO REMIND THE BOARD THAT LANDSCAPE ELEMENTS, THIS IS DIFFERENT THAN THE REST OF THE CITY.  LANDSCAPE ELEMENTS AREN'T INCLUDED IN THE TOTAL LOT COVERAGE.  PAVERS, THE FLORIDA 
          ROOM.  AS LONG AS IT'S NOT A CLOSED IN ROOM.  THE PORCHES. >> BOARD MEMBER: IF IT HAS A 
          SOLID ROOF ESSENTIALLY? >> THE PORCHES DON'T GET INCLUDED INTO -- IT'S NOT AN IMPERVIOUS COOL LACING IT IS A LOT COVERAGE CALCULATION.  AND IT CALLS OUT CONNECTING ELEMENTS 
          AS NOT INCLUDED IN THAT. >> SPEAKER: I DID THE FIRST CALCULATION BEFORE I SUBMITTED TO CITY STAFF I DID NOT REVIEW THAT CONNECTING ELEMENT PARAGRAPH AS WELL AS I DID WHEN I SUBMITTED THE REVISION HERE THAT I'VE HANDED OUT TO YOU TONIGHT. 
          >> BOARD MEMBER: AND THE 84 SQUARE FOOT POOL, DOES THAT APPLY -- IS THAT A PLANTER SLASH 
          [02:55:06]
          WATER FOUNTAIN. >> SPEAKER: THAT'S JUST AN UNDECIDED LANDSCAPE ELEMENT AT THIS TIME.  NOT SURE WHAT IT WOULD BE.  WHETHER A REFLECTING POOL.  A GARDEN OR WHATEVER. 
          IT'S JUST A GARDEN-TYPE LANDSCAPE ELEMENT. >> BOARD MEMBER: OKAY. THANK 
          YOU. >> CHAIRMAN: OTHER QUESTIONS? >> BOARD MEMBER: ARE YOUR REVISIONS OF THE STEM WALL WITH THE DIFFERENT ACCENT OPTIONS, WHAT IS YOUR INTENT FOR EXECUTION OF THOSE PANELS? ARE THEY SURFACE MOUNTED? ARE YOU INDENTING THEN IT APPEARS AS IF 
          THERE IS PEERS IN PANELS? >> SPEAKER: I WOULD INTENT THEN APPLY THE MATERIAL WITHIN THAT INDENTION AREA.  SO IT WOULD BE, FOR EXAMPLE, PERHAPS ONE BY SIX INCH BOARDS IN THAT SPACE THAT WOULD BE PAINT PUD -- PAINTED A DIFFERENT COLOR THAN THE FOUNDATION PLASTER.  SIMILAR TO THE HOUSE NEXT DOOR ON THE COR CORNER. 
          >> CHAIRMAN: ALL RIGHT.  ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? >> BOARD MEMBER: I THINK IT MIGHT BE GOOD TO POSE TO THE APPLICANT WOULD YOU BE WILLING TO MOVE THAT UTILITY YARD DOOR SO ACCESS IS INTO THE BACKYARD INSTEAD OF THE SIDE YARD? BECAUSE I THINK THAT MIGHT MAKE 
          IT EASIER FOR US TO SAY YES IF YOU WOULD AGREE TO THAT. >> BOARD MEMBER: WE COULD NOT SAY YES TONIGHT AS CONFIGURED BECAUSE YOU WOULD REQUIRE A VARIANCE.  YOU'VE NOT APPLIED FOR A VARIANCE.  WE CAN'T MAKE ONE ON.  THAT WOULD REQUIRE YOU TO COME BACK TO US WITH A VARIANCE.  SO, TO MAKE MR. PA SETA'S POINT WE CONTINUE THIS OR YOU ACCEPT THE CHANGE. 
          >> SPEAKER: WHAT IF WE ACCEPT NO PORCH. >> CHAIRMAN: TECHNICALLY -- 
          >> BOARD MEMBER: TECHNICALLY IT'S NOT ABOUT THE DOOR IT'S ABOUT THE PORCH.  WE'RE NOT ASKING HIM IF HE IS WILLING TO MOVE THE DOOR.  IT'S MOVING THE PORCH. 
          >> IS IT BUILDABLE LIKE THAT? >> NO IT WOULDN'T MEET CODE >> IF YOU HAVE A DOOR TO THE EXTERIOR YOU ARE REQUIRED TO HAVE A LANDING THAT MATCHES THE WIDTH OF THE DOOR.  SO, YOU WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO HAVE A DOOR WITH NO LANDING.  AND A 21 INCH STEP TO THE GRADE IS NOT ACCEPTABLE.  SO, YOU'D HAVE TO HAVE SOME KIND OF LANDING OUTSIDE OF THE DOOR. 
          >> CHAIRMAN: UNLESS YOU'VE GOT ANOTHER SOLUTION. >> SPEAKER: ONE IS A CLEAR LINE OF SIGHT WITHIN THE FIVE FOOT SETBACK?  SO, WE'RE CORRECT IN THE CLEAR LINE OF SIGHT OF THE ROOF.  BECAUSE WE ARE ALLOWED TO HAVE A 24 INCH OVERHANG WHICH WILL ACCEPT THAT IN THE MOTION. 
          >> BOARD MEMBER: YES.  THAT IS DOABLE. >> SPEAKER: SO IF WE DON'T HAVE THE PORCH, IT DOESN'T REALLY -- IT'S JUST CLEAR LINE OF SIGHT FROM THE GROUND BUT THEN AGAIN THE HOUSE NEXT DOOR HAS THE VERY SAME FEATURE WHICH REALLY SET AS PRECEDENT FOR US. 
          >> BOARD MEMBER: ARE WE TALKING ABOUT THE SAME PORCH? >> SPEAKER: THE SIDE PORCH.  SO, IF WE NEED A PORCH IT'S JUST A UTILITY THING.  IF I WANT A COUPLE OF STEPPING STONES THERE THEN I'M NOT VIOLATING YOUR ORDINANCE IF I WANT TO HAVE A COUPLE OF STEPPING STONES TO GET 
          DOWN TO GRADE WHENEVER I WANT TO LET THE DOG OUT. >> IT CAN'T BE A VERTICAL 
          IMPROVEMENT. >> SPEAKER: WELL IF IT'S A COUPLE OF STONES THAT I PUT DOWN THERE FOR THE DOG TO GET UP AND DOWN TO THE UTILITY WHICH IS THE ONLY ACCESS 
          >> IF THEY'LL LET YOU BUILD THAT. >> BOARD MEMBER: I KIND OF FEEL LIKE IT'S OUR ROLE TO MAKE SURE THAT IT ME MEETS THE REQUIREMENTS THAT ARE UNDER OUR JURISDICTION OR WHATEVER AND IF THE ISSUE IS THE PORCH, IF WE MAKE THE CONDITIONAL NOT HAVING A PORCH, YOU KNOW, AND HE UNDERSTANDS WHAT THE IMPLICATIONS OF THAT ARE, IT'S UP TO HIM TO FIGURE OUT A SOLUTION TO IT WITH THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT AND DURING CONSTRUCTION AND WHATEVER.  I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE ANSWER IS. BUT, YOU KNOW, DOES THAT MAKE 
          SENSE? >> SPEAKER: I THINK IF I WANT TO CHANGE MY CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS 
          AND ORIENT THE DOOR THE OTHER WAY THAT SHOULD BE MY CHOICE. >> CHAIRMAN: YES AND NO. 
          BECAUSE YOU ARE REQUIRED TO COME TO THIS BODY WITH YOUR DESIGN. AND YOU WOULD BE CHANGING THE 
          DESIGN. >> SPEAKER: IF I CHANGE THE DESIGN I'LL COME BACK. 
          [03:00:03]
          >> CHAIRMAN: WE SHOULD GET INTO BOARD DISCUSSION AFTER WE'VE HAD -- LET'S DO THAT.  THANK 
          YOU. >> BOARD MEMBER: AMENABLE TO STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION OF 
          CHANGING THE COLOR OF THE ALUMINUM FENCE? >> SPEAKER: LET'S REMOVE THE FENCE FROM THE APPLICATION WHY DON'T WE.  BECAUSE THE NEXT DOOR NEIGHBOR IS GETTING A FENCE AND THEY'RE IN THE PROCESS GETTING THAT APPROVED, I BELIEVE.  AND WE WANT TO COOPERATE WITH THE NEIGHBORS IN TERMS OF LIKE, STYLE, TYPE, COLOR AND EVERYTHING.  SO, LET'S JUST REMOVE THE FENCE AND WE'LL COME BACK WITH THAT LATER BECAUSE WE WANT TO COOPERATE WITH OUR NEIGHBORS.  YOU HAVE TO HAVE APPROVAL OF THE NEIGHBORS TO DO A FENCE ANYWAY.  SO, I DON'T 
          THINK WE'D HAVE THAT AS PART OF THE MOTION. >> CHAIRMAN: THANK YOU. 
          >> BOARD MEMBER: YOU NEED THE NEIGHBOR'S APPROVAL IF THE FENCE IS ON THE PROPERTY LINE.  WITHIN 
          YOUR PROPERTY YOU DON'T. >> CHAIRMAN: THANK YOU.  LET'S MOVE ON TO PUBLIC HEARING.  IS THERE ANYBODY HERE WISHING TO SPEAK? SEEING NO ONE, WE'LL CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING AND MOVE 
          INTO BOARD DISCUSSION.  WHAT'S YOUR PLEASURE? >> BOARD MEMBER: WHY DON'T WE 
          CONTINUE FROM EARLIER. >> CHAIRMAN: IF YOU KNOW YOU ARE APPROVING SOMETHING THAT'S NOT BUILDABLE UNDER BUILDING CODE I FEEL LIKE EVEN THOUGH IT'S NOT UNDER YOUR PURVIEW IT'S 
          MALPRACTICE? I'M NOT SURE WHAT IT IS. >> BOARD MEMBER: IS IT 
          RESPONSIBLE? >> CHAIRMAN: THANK YOU IT'S NOT RESPONSIBLE.  BECAUSE YOU CAN'T GO OUT THE DOOR OF THE UTILITY ROOM AND GET TO THE GROUND WITHOUT HAVING STEPS THERE.  AND THAT WOULD BE IN THE FIVE FOOT VISIBILITY CORRIDOR.  SO, I'M RELUCTANT TO SAY LET THE 
          BUILDING DEPARTMENT SORT IT OUT. TELL ME IF I'M WRONG. >> BOARD MEMBER: I CAN SEE AND, YOU KNOW, IF YOU MOVE THE DOOR YOU PROBABLY MIGHT MOVE THAT COVERED ROOF THING TOO WHICH MIGHT CHANGE THE WAY IT LOOKS. I DON'T THINK THAT, YOU KNOW, IF THE ANSWER IS THAT WE SAY WE NEED TO COME BACK NEXT MONTH WITH THIS PROBLEM SOLVED, THEN THAT'S WHAT WE SHOULD DO. 
          >> CHAIRMAN: WHAT YOU ARE SUGGESTING IS CONCEPTUAL APPROVAL. 
          >> BOARD MEMBER: HE IS ASKING FOR FINAL >> CHAIRMAN: CAN WE GIVE HIM CON 
          SEPT YOU'LL.  WE SCAN DOWN GRADE BUT CAN'T UPGRADE >> NO, WE'VE UPGRADED ALSO. 
          MEANING THEY'VE COME IN CON CONCEPTUAL AND YOU'VE GIVEN FINAL. 
          >> BOARD MEMBER: I THOUGHT YOU CAN'T DO THAT. >> OKAY. 
          >> WE TOLD THE NEIGHBORS ONE THING. >> GOTCHA. 
          >> BOARD MEMBER: CAN WE CONTINUE IT? WHOEVER MAKES THE MOTION'S CALL. 
          >> CHAIRMAN: IT IS A LOVELY HOME.  IT'S GOING TO WORK GREAT. YOU JUST HAVE THIS ONE SERIOUS PROBLEM THAT HAS TO BE RESOLVED. AND I'M VERY RELUCTANT TO PASS IT ON TO BUILDING DEPARTMENT TO 
          RESOLVE.  HOW IS OUR CREDIBILITY WHEN WE DO THAT? >> BOARD MEMBER: LET'S DO THIS. 
          I MOVE TO APPROVE HDC CASE NUMBER 2019-39 WITHOUT CONDITIONS AND I MOVE THAT HDC MAKE THE FINDINGS OF FACT FOR THE RECORD.  ACTUALLY LET ME BACK UP.  I WANT TO DO THAT WITH THE CONDITION THAT THE SIDE PORCH BE RELOCATED TO MEET THE STANDARDS OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE.  AND I MOVE THAT THE HDC MAKE THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW PART OF THE PROBLEM AND THAT CASE 2019-39 AS PRESENTED IS SUBSTANTIALLY COMPLIANT WITH LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE.  THE SECRETARY OF INTERIOR STANDARD AND THE OLD TOWN PRESERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT GUIDES TO WARRANT CONCEPTUAL APPROVAL AT THIS TIME. 
          >> BOARD MEMBER: YOU WANT TO ADD IN THE COMMENT ABOUT THE FENCE? >> BOARD MEMBER: WHEN HE COMES 
          BACK FOR THE FINAL HE CAN REVISE HIS APPLICATION AND TAKE IT OFF. >> BOARD MEMBER: YOU DIDN'T SAY 
          CONC CONCEPTUAL. >> BOARD MEMBER: YEAH I DID. 
          >> BOARD MEMBER: HE DID. >> CHAIRMAN: VERY GOOD.  A MOTION ON THE FLOOR.  IS THERE A 
          SECOND? >> BOARD MEMBER: I'LL SECOND. >> CHAIRMAN: BOARD DISCUSSION? DID WE GET THE ARTICULATED FOUNDATION IN THERE THAT WE WANT? 
          >> BOARD MEMBER: WELL, I MEAN, I THINK -- I MEAN, HE GAVE US THREE OPTIONS.  I DON'T KNOW IF 
          WE'RE SUPPOSED TO PICK ONE OR WHAT. >> CHAIRMAN: WE DIDN'T PUT A 
          CONDITION THAT HE DO ONE. >> BOARD MEMBER: NO BUT HE HAS TO COME BACK FOR FINAL APPROVAL. 
          [03:05:01]
          >> CHAIRMAN: YOU'RE RIGHT. SORRY.  ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE, PLEASE CALL ROLL 
          YES.  YES.  YES.  YES.  YES. >> CHAIRMAN: MOVING ON. 2019-40-- 
          >> JUST TO MAKE SURE EVERYBODY UNDERSTANDS THAT THEY GAVE COB SENT YOU'LL APPROVAL SO YOU HAVE 
          TO COME BACK AGAIN.  OKAY. >> SPEAKER: YES. >> SPEAKER: AND IT IS THE FINAL APPROVAL THEN WITH DELETE THE FENCING, DELETE THE ROOF OVERHANG, BEYOND 24 INCHES, AND RESOLVE THE PORCH ISSUE, EVEN IF WE WERE TO DESIRE TO HAVE STONE, WE DESIGNED A HISTORIC HOME AND RENOVATE ONE THAT WAS BUILT IN 1850 IN TEXAS.  WE HAD STONE STEPS THAT WERE BROUGHT ON TO THE SITE.  REAL LARGE STONE STEPS THAT WERE TEN INCHES SQUARE AND STACKED UP NEXT TO AN 
          OUTSIDE DOOR LIKE THAT.  SO, THIS IS DONE. >> YOU CAN SEEK A VARIANCE IS 
          THE OTHER OPTION. >> SPEAKER: BUT STILL THROUGH THE SAME BOARD 
          >> CORRECT. >> CHAIRMAN: THANK YOU.  MOVING ON. 
          >> SPEAKER: THOSE ARE THE THREE ITEMS >> AND PICK A FOUNDATION STYLE. 
          EITHER ONE.  THEY'RE BOTH GOOD SO YOU ARE FINE.  JUST PICK WHICHEVER YOU LIKE BETTER. 
          [Item 4.6]
          >> CHAIRMAN: 2019-40.  JOHNSON AGENT FOR 418 SOUTH 6TH STREET LLC.  THIS IS THE 818 SAN FERNANDO STREET.  THIS IS THE CONSTRUCT PORCHES.  REMIND ME THIS HOUSE IS THE [INAUDIBLE] 
          HOUSE? >> I BELIEVE SO.  OLD TOWN. >> SO THIS IS 2019-40.  A PROPERTY LOCATED AT 818 SAN FERNANDO.  IT IS THE CAPITAL LA SERE HOUSE.  A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE BUILT IN 1868 ACCORDING TO THE FLORIDA MASTER SITE FILE.  I THINK YOU ARE ALL FAMILIAR WITH THIS HOUSE.  WE'VE SEEN IT FOR A NUMBER OF OTHER THINGS.  HELPS IF I CAN SHOW YOU IT.  THERE YOU GO.  HAS UNDERGONE A NUMBER OF REHABILITATION ITEMS.  IT HAS RECEIVED NEW WINDOWS AND NEW PAINT ON THE EXTERIOR AND A NEW FRONT ENTRY DOOR.  THE CURRENT PROPOSAL IS TO CONSTRUCT PORCHES AT THE NORTH AND EAST ELEV ELEVATIONS.  I DID SOME RESEARCH WITH THE TWO OWNERS AGO WITH THIS HOUSE.  I WAS TALKING ABOUT SOME OF ITS QUIRKY FEATURES ON THE EXTERIOR.  DID SOME RESEARCH AND FIGURE OUT WHY IT LOOKS THE WAY IT DOES.  ONE OF THE THINGS WE DISCOVERED AT THAT POINT WAS THIS 1949 SAM BORN FIRE INSURANCE MAP.  WHICH SHOWS THE HOME ORIGINALLY HAD TWO STORY PORCHES AT THE FRONT AND SIDE ELEVATION.  I BELIEVE THE DOORS ARE CURRENTLY STILL THERE TO THAT SIDE PORCH. THEY JUST GO TO NOWHERE.  THE APPLICANT IS SEEKING TO PUT PORCHES BACK. ONE STORY WITH MATERIALS TO MATCH THE STRUCTURE EXISTING. 
          WITH THAT STAFF FINDS HE REQUESTED ACTION IS CONSISTENT WITH THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, THE SECRETARY OF INTERIOR STANDARDS AND OLD TOWN PRESERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT GUIDELINES.  AND I WILL SHOW YOU QUICKLY THE NEW FOOTPRINT.  ONE OF THE PORCHES IS SLIGHTLY OFF FROM THE ORIGINAL BUT STILL THE SAME DESIGN INTENT AS THE ORIGINAL PORCH.  SO, YOU WILL SEE THIS ELEVATION.  THE PORCH EXTENDS ALL THE WAY TO THE REAR WALL OF THE PROPERTY OR THE SIDE WALL OF THE PROPERTY TO BE ABLE TO ACCESS THAT PORCH AND THAT DOOR.  OTHER THAN THAT, I WILL HAVE MUCH OF THE APPEARANCE -- SAME APPEARANCE AS THE HISTORIC PORCHES.  WE DON'T HAVE PHOTO EVIDENCE OF WHAT THE RAILINGS ARE ANYTHING LOOKED LIKE ON THAT PORCH.  BUT I THINK IT IS A GOOD ADDITION BACK TO THAT PROPERTY TO GET THOSE PORCHES BACK ON THERE. 
          >> BOARD MEMBER: TALKING OF QUIRKY.  THIS HOUSE IS UNIQUE IN OLD TOWN IN THAT IT HAS A FLAT SECTION TO THE ROOF ON THE MAIN BUILDING.  AND I UNDERSTAND IT SUF 
          [03:10:04]
          SUFFERED FIRE ONCE.  AND I THINK WAS BURNED OUT >> I DON'T KNOW IF IT SRIS THAT WHAPS OF THE THINGS WE TRIED TO PROVE OR DISPROVE.  AND FROM THE PICTURES I RECEIVED FROM THE ATTIC AND THE FIRE DAMAGE WE DON'T KNOW IF IT ACTUALLY WAS DESIGNED WITH THIS ROOF OR IF IT 
          WAS SOMETHING THAT HAPPENED IN THE FIRE WHERE THEY CHANGED IT. >> BOARD MEMBER: NOW WOULD THE 
          PORCH BE ACCESSIBLE FROM THE UPPER FLOORS? >> NO THIS IS A ONE STORY PORCH THEY'RE CREATING.  SO, THEY'RE NOT PUTTING THE ORIGINAL TWO STORY BACK.  BUT IN THE SAME 
          LOCATION WHERE THE ORIGINAL PORCH WAS. >> BOARD MEMBER: OKAY. 
          >> BOARD MEMBER: SAL, FOR SOME REASON MY COMPUTER IS BOGGED DOWN.  I JUST HAD A QUESTION ABOUT THE RAILING.  ARE THE MATERIALS OF IT OR IS THERE A DETAIL PROVIDED TO SHOW US HOW 
          THAT -- WHAT'S IT MADE OF AND WHAT IS IT GOING TO BE >> I BELIEVE IT IS WOOD.  I DON'T THINK WE HAVE A DETAIL OF WHAT THAT LOOKS LIKE OTHER THAN THE ELEVATION DRAWING SHOWING 
          WHAT THEIR INTENT IS. >> BOARD MEMBER: AS LONG AS IT'S WOOD AND LOOKS LIKE WHAT'S ON 
          THE DRAWING THAT'S FINE. >> CHAIRMAN: OTHER QUESTIONS FOR SAL BEFORE WE GO TO -- MR. JOHNSON, APOLOGIZE FOR THE LONG WAIT.  COME ON UP.  IT'S TOUGH WHEN YOU ARE THE LAST GUY, 
          THE NEXT TO LAST GUY ON THE AGENDA. >> BOARD MEMBER: AND YOU BRING 
          THIS HIGHLY CONTROVERSIAL PORCH TO US. >> CHAIRMAN: I WISH WE HAD A 
          CONSENT AGENDA.  QUESTIONS FOR MR. JOHNSON. >> SPEAKER: I'M STEVE JOHNSON. 
          JOHNSON HOME BUILDERS.  96091 STATE DRIVE YOU'LLEE, FLORIDA. >> CHAIRMAN: JIM ASKED ABOUT THE 
          MATERIALS ON THE PORCH. >> SPEAKER: SOMEONE BOUGHT THIS HOUSE, RIPPED OFF THE PORCHES APPARENTLY, DID A LOT OF STUFF WITH THE BUILDING CODES AND EVERYTHING.  BUILDING OFFICIAL CAME TO SAL.  ME AND A PARTNER BOUGHT IT AND SAID WE'RE GOING RESTORE IT AND CHECK ALL THE ELECTRICAL AND EVERYTHING WAS DONE.  WE GOT ELECTRICAL CONTRACTORS WENT IN AND FIXED UP AND SIGNED OFF ON ANYTHING.  WE HAD THE TREE PERMIT.  THERE WAS AN OLD TREE ABOUT TO FALL.  SO WHAT WE'RE DOING IS FIXING IT UP LIKE IT WAS.  I THINK SOME OF THESE LADIES IN HERE LIVED OVER THERE AND SAID IT USED TO HAVE PORCHES ON IT.  RIGHT NOW -- DO YOU HAVE OLD PICTURES OR ARE THE PICTURES OF THE STEPS? I GOT SOME PICTURES.  I GOT PLANS. RIGHT NOW IT HAS A CIRCULAR BRICK.  I THINK WE'RE GOING TO DO PILLARS TO MATCH THE EXISTING BRICK THERE.  WE'RE GOING DO WOOD MATERIAL.  PRESSURE TREATED WOOD.  2 BY 2 PICKETS.  WE CAN PAINT THEM TO MATCH THE WHITE RAILINGS.  BUT THE PORCH IS GOING TO BE PRESSURE TREATED AS WELL.  SO THE FRONT PORCH, IF YOU CAN SEE HERE, I THINK THAT'S WHERE THE PORCH WAS.  THERE'S A FLAW IN THE SIDING THERE.  SO, WE'RE GOING PUT THAT BACK AS IT IS ON THE PLANS.  AND LIKE SAL SAID OFF THE MASTER BEDROOM IN THE BACK THERE'S A DOOR.  YOU OPEN IT AND SEE THE BACK OF THE SIDING.  SO THEY SIDED OVER IT. 
          SO, WE'RE GOING DO THE SAME THING AND HAVE A NICE PORCH YOU CAN GO OUTSIDE AND SIT. 
          >> BOARD MEMBER: WERE YOU ASKING ABOUT THE RAILING MATERIALS? >> BOARD MEMBER: HE ANSWERED IT. 
          >> SPEAKER: EVERYTHING SAYS MATCH EXISTING. >> BOARD MEMBER: IS THERE A 
          HANDRAIL SOME PLACE ELSE ON THE PROPERTY? >> SPEAKER: NOT NOW.  WHOEVER 
          HAD IT RIPPED IT OFF.  SO THAT'S NOT MATCHING. >> SPEAKER: ON THE BRICK DETAIL WE'RE GOING TO MATCH THE BRICK DETAIL WITH THE COLUMNS.  AND SIDING AND STUFF LIKE THAT.  THE HANDRAIL, I MEAN, IT HAS THE DETAIL WE'RE GOING TO DO PRESSURE TREATED WOOD PAINTED. 
          >> CHAIRMAN: OKAY.  OTHER QUESTIONS FOR MR. JOHNSON? OKAY. ANYBODY FROM THE PUBLIC THIS EVENING? THEN WE'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.  AND MOVE ON TO BOARD DISCUSSION. I DIDN'T SEE 
          ANYTHING HERE THAT GAVE ME A CONCERN.  ANYBODY ELSE? >> BOARD MEMBER: ONE THING. 
          THIS MIGHT BE FOR YOU.  IT LOOKS LIKE ON YOUR DRAWINGS YOU'VE GOT A SHED ROOF COMING OUT FROM UNDERNEATH THE SMALLER WINDOWS. THE WINDOW THAT'S SHOWN THERE IS REALLY LONG AND SEE THE BOTTOM OF THE OPENING DROPS BELOW IT. ON THESE DRAWINGS IT DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE DEPICTED LIKE THAT. 
          IS YOUR SHED ROOF GOING TO CLIP THE BOTTOM OF THAT? >> SPEAKER: SO WE'LL HAVE TO PUT 
          [03:15:06]
          FLASHING THERE. >> BOARD MEMBER: SO YOU WILL JUST BE REAL CLOSE TO THAT. 
          >> SPEAKER: WITHIN FIVE OR SIX INCHES.  BR >> BOARD MEMBER: I'LL MAKE A MOTION.  I MOVE TO APPROVE ACC CASE 2019-40 WITHOUT CONDITIONS. I MOVE HHDC1940 AS PRESENTED IS SUBSTANTIALLY COMPLIANT WITH THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR STANDARDS, AND THE OLD TOWN PRESERVATION AND GOVERNMENT GUIDELINES TO WARRANT APPROVAL 
          AT THIS TIME. >> BOARD MEMBER: I'LL SECOND. >> CHAIRMAN: MORRISON AND 
          HARRISON.  ANY DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE, PLEASE CALL ROLL. >> YES 
          >> YES >> YES. >> YES. 
          >> YES. >> CHAIRMAN: THANK YOU. >> SPEAKER: I DO HAVE ONE MORE LITTLE THING.  THERE IS A SHED IN THE BACK RIGHT CORNER.  I HAVE PICTURES.  A BUILDING OFFICIAL SAW IT AND IT IS A VERY, VERY DANGEROUS.  IT'S MADE OUT OF FOUR INCH WIDE BLOCK. 
          THERE'S A STRUCTURE ON IT.  A TREE HAS HIT IT AND IT IS ABOUT TO FALL DOWN. 
          >> CHAIRMAN: SO IT'S DEMO ON NOT HISTORIC. >> SPEAKER: NO IT'S JUST -- IT 
          LOOKS LIKE SOME KIDS MADE A BLOCK WALL AND IT'S NOT EVEN -- >> CHAIRMAN: IF YOU GO TO SAL STAFF APPROVAL.  THANKS FOR BRINGING IT UP.  SAL SAYS HE CAN HANDLE IT SO WE'RE GOOD TO GO. 
          GOOD LUCK.  THANK YOU VERY MUCH. DOING IMPORTANT WORK OUT THERE. >> SPEAKER: THANK YOU. 
          [Item 4.7]
          >> CHAIRMAN: SO WE MOVE ON TO MARVIN WINDOWS. >> SPEAKER: ARE WE HAVING FUN 
          YET? >> CHAIRMAN: I HAVE 45 MINUTES AND I'LL HAVE FUN.  DO YOU WANT 
          TO GO >> I DO.  BUT I HAVE A GOOD EXCUSE.  I WORKED REALLY LATE TUESDAY NIGHT [LAUGHTER] AND I WANT YOU ALL TO KNOW THAT I DID LATER ON THE AGENDA THERE'S PROPOSED LANGUAGE CHANGE FOR THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE. 
          I'VE REVIEWED THAT. >> CHAIRMAN: YOU ARE OKAY WITH THAT 
          >> I AM >> CHAIRMAN: WHAT DID WE DECIDE ON THREE MEETINGS? 
          >> I REQUESTED THE ORDINANCE.  I WANT TO GET YOU EXACT LANGUAGE. IT IS THREE MEETINGS. 
          >> CHAIRMAN: I JUST WANT TO KNOW HOW I CAN [INAUDIBLE]. >> I UNDERSTAND.  I'LL BRING IT 
          BACK.  THANK YOU ALL SO MUCH. >> BOARD MEMBER: THANK YOU, TAMMI. 
          WHAT'S MARVIN'S LAST NAME? >> BOARD MEMBER: MARVIN [LAUGHTER] 
          MARVIN MARVIN. >> BOARD MEMBER: THANK YOU FOR LETTING ME COME TONIGHT.  MY COMING HERE WAS PROMPTED BY SOME PLANS WE GOT FOR WINDOWS IN THE HISTORIC DISTRICT AND THEY WERE NOMENCLATURE DIFFERENT THAN WHAT IS NOW NOMENCLATURE FOR MARVIN. EARLIER THIS YEAR MARVIN DECIDED TO RE-BRAND THEMSELVES.  AND AS ONE THING THAT BENJAMIN SAID, JELDWYN HAS SIX DIFFERENT SPECIES OF WINDOWS TO USE PERIOD.  MARVIN DECIDED TO RE-BRAND THEMSELVES.  SO, UNDER THE HEADING OF MARVIN, YOU'VE GOT THE SIGNATURE COLLECTION WHICH HAS TWO CATEGORIES.  THE ULTIMATE AND THE [INAUDIBLE]. THE ULTIMATE WILL PERTAIN TO YOUR SCENARIO HERE IN THE HISTORIC DISTRICT.  THEN THEY HAVE ANOTHER STEP DOWN WHICH USED TO BE CALLED INTEGRITY. 
          WHICH IS A FIBERGLASS WINDOW WITH A WOOD INTERIOR.  THAT HAS BEEN RE-BRANDED TO THE ELEVATE DESIGNATION.  SO, YOU ARE GOING TO BE LOOKING AT THE ULTIMATE AND THE ELEVATE, IF YOU WILL. 
          AND YOU DO HAVE THE BROCHURE FOR THE ELEVATE.  THE OTHER BROCHURE YOU HAVE, THAT IS THE OLD ULTIMATE AND THEY HAVEN'T PRODUCED THE NEW ULTIMATE BROCHURE YET FOR DISTRIBUTION. 
          THEN THERE IS ANOTHER PRODUCT CALLED ESSENTIAL BUT THAT IS BASICALLY THE CLASSIFIED AS THE STARTER HOUSE AND YOU'VE GOT JUST A BASIC WINDOW AS BENJAMIN WAS POINTING OUT IN THAT JELDYWN DESCRIPTION.  YOU'VE GOT TWO RANGES.  FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION YOU ONLY HAVE TWO.  IT'S THE 
          ELEVATE AND THE ULTIMATE.  THE ELEVATE AND THE ULTIMATE. >> BOARD MEMBER: THE ELEVATE IS 
          [03:20:05]
          ESSENTIALLY THE INTEGRITY WINDOWS WITH A NEW NAME. >> SPEAKER: CORRECT.  SO, WHEN YOU REDO YOUR APPROVE YOU ARE JUST GOING TO CHANGE THE NAME. CROSS ONE OUT AND WRAP IT, DO THE EDITING.  THE SAME WITH THE MARVIN IT WILL BE ULTIMATE FROM MARVIN OR THE ELEVATE FROM 
          MARVIN WILL BE YOUR DESIGNATIONS FOR YOUR APPROVED WINDOWS. >> BOARD MEMBER: RIGHT NOW WE DON'T HAVE -- WE HAVE MARVIN INTEGRITY.  BUT WE ONLY HAVE MARVIN LISTED FOR ALUMINUM 
          CLASS. >> SPEAKER: RIGHT.  AND YOU SHOULD ALSO HAVE MARVIN FOR THE 
          WOOD WINDOWS. NOW LET ME JUST CLARIFY THERE. >> BOARD MEMBER: WE DO.  YOU ARE 
          RIGHT. >> SPEAKER: SO THIS IS THE MARVIN WOOD WINDOW.  100% WOOD. 
          AND THIS IS YOUR MARVIN EXTRUDED ALUMINUM WOOD WINDOW.  JUST DOES NOT WANT TO SIT HERE NICELY SO I'LL HOLD IT BEFORE IT FALLS AND CRASHES.  SO, THESE ARE YOUR TWO THAT WOULD BE USED FOR YOUR HISTORIC DISTRICT.  WHETHER THEY'RE GOING IN WITH ALL WOOD TO REPLICATE SOMETHING FROM THE EXTRUDED ALUMINUM FOR ENERGY  T- EFFICIENCY, FOR LONGEVITY, AND ALL THAT. 
          >> BOARD MEMBER: ARE THOSE BOTH ULTIMATE? >> SPEAKER: THESE ARE BOTH ULTIMATE, YES.  SO, YOU'VE GOT THE CLAD OLEATE AMAT AND THE OLD WOOD ULTIMATE. 
          >> BOARD MEMBER: IF YOU DON'T MIND ME INTERRUPTING FOR A SECOND I JUST WANT TO POINT OUT TO OTHER PEOPLE ON THE BOARD SOME OF WHAT I MENTIONED EARLIER.  WHERE THE GLASS OF THE WINDOW ENGAGES THE SASH.  NEIL IF YOU WANT TO POINT TO LIKE THE SASH.  YOU SEE HOW THERE'S A 
          DEPTH THERE OF LIKE BETWEEN HALF-INCH OR MORE. >> SPEAKER: HERE'S YOUR SASH. 
          AND HERE'S YOUR FRAME. >> BOARD MEMBER: SO WE HAVE DEPTH.  WE'VE GOT SHADOW LINES. 
          AS THE SUN TRAVERSES EVEN AT THE DEPTH BETWEEN THE FACE OF THE SASH AND THE FACE OF THE GLASS THIS IS THE BIG DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A LOT OF WHAT WE'VE BEEN SEEING WHERE THE GLASS IS -- 
          THERE IS LIKE LESS THAN EIGHTH OF AN INCH. >> BOARD MEMBER: SEEMS LIKE A 
          MINOR DETAIL BUT IT MAKES A DIFFERENCE. >> BOARD MEMBER: DO WE NEED TO 
          REMOVE SOME OF THOSE FROM OUR WINDOW LIST? >> BOARD MEMBER: DEFINITELY. 
          >> SPEAKER: THEN YOUR DIVIDED LIGHTS.  THIS ONE HAS IT SIMULATED BUT YOU CAN STILL GET YOU A TENTIC -- AUTHENTIC DIVIDED LIGHT WHICH MEANS EACH LITTLE PANE OF GLASS IS ITS OWN THING.  THEY'VE KIND OF GOTTEN AWAY FROM THAT AND GONE TO SIMULATED DIVIDED LIGHT WHERE YOU'VE GOT THE BAR OUTSIDE AND INSIDE AND THEY'LL PUT A SPACER BAR IN BETWEEN THE GLASS.  SO IT LOOKS LIKE YOU'VE GOT TRUE DIVIDED LIGHT.  BUT IT'S CALLED SIMULATED DIVIDED LIGHT.  AND HERE YOU SEE THE DIFFERENT DIMENSIONS OF THE DIVIDED LIGHT BARS THAT WE OFFER.  STARTING WITH THE 5-8THS GOING UP TO 2-13.  WE DID THE RESTORATION OF THE CHAMBER BUILDING.  ON THAT ONE TO REPLICATE WHAT WAS THERE WE DID THE INCH AND 15TH X16TH BAR ON SOME OF THE WINDOWS TO BRING IT AS CLOSE AS WE COULD TO WHAT IT ORIGINALLY LOOKED LIKE. WE WERE KIND OF GIVEN SOME FREEWAY ON THAT BECAUSE THE WINDOWS HAD BEEN MODIFIED OVER THE YEARS.  SO WE TRIED TO COME AS CLOSE AS POSSIBLE TO WHAT WAS THERE WHEN WE REDID THAT PROJECT.  SO, THIS WOULD BE THE WINDOWS. NOW, THIS IS AN EXAMPLE -- MAYBE IF I SET IT UP HERE YOU CAN GET A BETTER VIEW. 
          THIS WOULD BE THE LOOKS OF THE ULTIMATE CLAD DOUBLE PANEL. ALUMINUM EXTERIOR.  SO, YOU SEE THE BOTTOM RAIL, YOUR CHECK RAIL OR MID-RAIL, AND YOUR TOP RAIL. AND THIS IS LOOKING MORE LIKE THE ORIGINAL WOOD WINDOWS THAT A LOT OF THE HOMES WERE BUILT WITH DOWN HERE.  GOING BACK TO THE OLDER DAYS.  AND THEY COME LIKE THIS.  THEY CAN COME WITH TRIM CASING APPLIED FROM THE FACTORY. 
          BUT ALSO, IF YOU'VE GOT SOME PEOPLE ARE REPLACING THE WINDOWS.  YOU CAN SEE THERE'S A 
          [03:25:05]
GROOVE ON THE EDGE.  AND SO TO DEFUSE THAT WE DO HAVE AN EXTRUSION THAT SLIPS IN THERE SO THEY CAN RUN THEIR TRIM CASING BE IT FLAT, PROFILE CASING, WHATEVER, RIGHT UP TO THE WINDOW AND SO YOU WILL NOT SEE THAT GROOVE, THAT ACCESSORY GROOVE THERE.  THE OTHER WINDOW THAT WE HAVE IS THE ELEVATE.  AND THIS IS WHAT THAT ONE LOOKS LIKE.  I CAN TAKE THE SCREEN OUT IF YOU 
          PREFER. >> BOARD MEMBER: CAN YOU POP THE SCREEN OUT, PLEASE. 
          >> SPEAKER: YES. >> BOARD MEMBER: THAT'S BETTER. >> SPEAKER: DISREGARD WHAT YOU ARE SEEING HERE ON THE EDGE WITH THE BLACK LINER.  THAT'S BECAUSE THIS ONE HAS A BLACK INTERIOR AND BLACK RIGHT NOW IS A HOT BUTTON.  BUT IF IT'S GOING BE A WHITE INTERIOR, WHITE WINDOW, ALL OF WHAT YOU ARE SEEING IN BLACK WILL BE IN WHITE.  SO, PLEASE DON'T HOLD THAT AGAINST THIS WINDOW.  BUT THIS IS WHAT THE ELEVATE WINDOW WOULD LOOK LIKE. 
          >> BOARD MEMBER: I THINK THAT'S RIGHT ON THE EDGE OF WHAT WE WANT TO ALLOW.  ONCE GEN FOR ME ANYWAY IT'S DEPTH.  THE FACE OF THE GLASS AND THE SASH IT'S SET ON. 
          >> SPEAKER: AND THERE IS THAT DEPTH.  THIS IS ALSO A PLAIN PROFILE ON BOTH WINDOWS.  AND THE BARS HAVE THE PUTTY PROFILE. GOING BACK TO LOOKING AT THIS. YOU SEE THAT PUTTY EDGE.  SO IT LOOKS LIKE THE OLD WINDOWS WHEN IT WAS SINGLE PANE GLASS [INAUDIBLE] CAME ALONG WITH HIS BUCKET OF PUTTY AND PUTTY KNIFE AND GET IT WARM AND THEN SMOOTH IT OUT.  WHICH IS ANOTHER ADVANTAGE OF THE LOOK OF THIS WINDOW AS WELL.  SO THE PROFILES FOR THE BARS ON THE ELEVATE WOULD BE THE SAME AS THEY ARE ON THE ULTIMATE.  DO YOU ALLOW REPLACEMENT WINDOWS INSIDE OF 
          EXISTING FRAMES, SAL? >> YES. >> SPEAKER: OKAY.  SO, LET'S TAKE A LOOK AT THE ELEVATE FIRST OF ALL.  THIS IS WHERE YOU'VE GOT AN EXISTING FRAME.  AND THE FRAMES ARE STILL IN GOOD SHAPE BUT THE WINDOWS THEMSELVES, THE SASHES HAVE ROTTED OUT FOR SOME REASON.  SO, IN THIS CASE WHAT WE'RE DOING IS PUTTING A COMPLETE WINDOW IN A FRAME INSIDE OF AN EXISTING FRAME. DOES EVERYONE FOLLOW THAT? OKAY. SO, IN THIS CASE, THIS IS THE ELEVATE WINDOW GOING INSIDE OF THE EXISTING FRAME.  AND, IN THIS CASE -- LET ME GET THIS OUT OF THE LINE OF SIGHT -- THERE WOULD BE TRIM PIECES THAT WOULD CLIP INTO THE ACCESSORY CURVE. 
          BOTH ON THE SIDE AND AT THE SILL, THAT WOULD GET RID OF THESE GAPS AND MAKE IT LOOK LIKE A SEAMLESS TRANSITION.  SO, YOU WOULD NOT REALLY KNOW THAT YOU'VE PUT A REPLACEMENT WINDOW IN AN EXISTING FRAME.  AND IF WE HAVE DONE THIS SUCCESSFULLY ON A NUMBER OF HISTORIC BUILDINGS THAT WE DID THE INSERT WINDOW. YOU WALK BACK AFTER THEY'RE INSTALLED AND YOU GO DID THEY PUT NEW WINDOWS IN? YOU DON'T EVEN KNOW THAT IT'S THERE. THAT'S HOW, YOU KNOW, SEAMLESS 
          THE TRANSITION IS. >> BOARD MEMBER: CAN YOU TURN THAT AROUND SO WE CAN SEE THE 
          INTERIOR OF IT. >> BOARD MEMBER: HOW DOES THAT WORK AS FAR AS MOST OF THE HISTORIC WINDOW FRAMES ARE NOT FLUSH.  THEY'RE NOT PLUM.  HOW DO YOU GET THAT UNIT IN THERE. 
          >> WE TAKE A BIG SHOEHORN.  NO, WHEN WE MEASURE THEM, WE TECHNICALLY MEASURE THREE PLACES, VERTICAL AND HORIZONTAL. BOTTOM, MIDDLE, TOP.  LEFT, MIDDLE, RIGHT.  WE TAKE THE SHORTEST DIMENSION.  THEN THEY MAKE THE WINDOWS NARROWER AND SHORTER.  THEN THEY GIVES US 
          [03:30:05]
ENOUGH WIGGLE ROOM THEY CAN GO INTO THOSE.  WE'LL CHECK THEM TO SEE IF THEY ARE STILL SQUARE OR IF THEY'RE NOT SQUARE.  AND SOMETIMES THEY HAVE TO BE MODIFIED EVEN MORE TO GET THEM TO FIT INTO THOSE OPENINGS.  SO, THERE ARE WAYS AROUND IT.  AND I MENTIONED THERE WAS A SMALL TRIM PIECE THAT WOULD GO INTO THAT ACCESSORY CURVE.  WELL IF WE NEED TO GO UP TO SIX INCHES TO CORRECT SOMETHING THAT'S OUT OF SQUARE.  SO, YOU KNOW, IT WILL LOOK KIND OF FUNKY IF IT'S THAT BAD.  BUT IF IT'S WITHIN LET'S SAY AN INCH, WE'VE GOT MATERIAL THAT CAN COVER THAT UP AND MAKE IT LOOK, YOU KNOW, FROM -- WHAT YOU ARE LOOKING AT IS THAT GLASS OPENING.  THAT'S WHERE YOUR EYE IS DRAWN.  IT'S NOT DRAWN TO THE TRIM AROUND THE WINDOW.  SO, ONCE YOU GET YOUR EYE ON THAT 
          GLASS, EVERYTHING ELSE DISAPPEARS. >> BOARD MEMBER: IS THAT 
          MATERIAL PAINTABLE? >> SPEAKER: IT'S ALUMINUM AND IT COMES IN THE CASE OF THE 
          ULTIMATE 19 DIFFERENT COLORS. SO, YOU SHOULD HAVE -- >> BOARD MEMBER: IF A RESIDENT WANTED TO DO INSERTS AND THEY HAD CERTAIN COLORS INTERIOR AND EXTERIOR THAN OBJECTION COULD BE 
          THEIR COLORS DON'T MATCH MINE UNLESS IT IS PAINTABLE. >> SPEAKER: WE CAN TRY TO GET THE COLOR AS CLOSE AS POSSIBLE. THEY MAY HAVE TO REPAINT THE TRIM ON THE OUTSIDE.  THAT IS GOING TO BE THE EASIEST WAY TO HANDLE THAT.  BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, WOOD IS WOOD IS WOOD IS WOOD. 
          YOU CAN ALWAYS PAINT THAT. BECAUSE OF THE FINISH WHICH IS IN COMMERCIAL GRADE FINISH, IT'S NOT GOING TO DETERIORATE FOR AT LEAST 50 YEARS.  SO IT'S ALSO HARD TO PAINT.  BECAUSE THE TESTING THAT GOES ON, YOU REALLY HAVE TO WORK TO SCRATCH IT. AND, YOU KNOW, TO GET THAT SCRATCHED SURFACE THAT YOU PUT A COAT OF PAINT ON IT.  SO IT'S EASIER TO JUST PAINT THE WOOD. 
          BUT WE'D STILL BE WITHIN YOUR GUIDELINES FOR HISTORICAL APPLICATION.  SO THAT'S THE ULTIMATE.  AND THEN OR THAT WAS THE ELEVATE.  THIS WOULD BE THE ALUMINUM ULTIMATE GOING INTO THE SAME SCENARIO.  AGAIN, WE HAVE THE TRIM PIECES TO, YOU KNOW, FILL OUT THE OPENING.  THEN FINALLY WE HAVE THE WOOD ULTIMATE GOING IN TO AN INSERT WINDOW.  THERE WOULD BE TRIM PIECES APPLIED TO FILL OUT TO THE EXISTING OPENING.  SO, EVERYTHING WOULD BE COPACETIC. 
          WHEN YOU ARE DOING AN INSERT WINDOW, YOU ARE GOING TO LOSE ABOUT TWO INCHES OF DAYLIGHT OPENING ON THE HORIZONTAL. ABOUT AN INCH FROM EACH SIDE. SO, IT IS NARROWING DOWN THE DAYLIGHT A BIT.  BUT IT'S NOT AN APPRECIABLE GENERALLY OBJECTIONABLE.  AND MOST HISTORIC DISTRICTS THAT I'VE WORKED WITH OVER THE COURSE OF TIME HAVE SAID THAT'S FINE.  WE 
          DON'T HAVE AN ISSUE WITH IT. >> BOARD MEMBER: OUR MAIN CONCERN IS WHAT THE ACTUAL LOOK OF THE WINDOW IS.  BUT, I MEAN, IF THEY LOSE TWO INCHES OF VISIBLE LIGHT THAT'S THEIR DEAL. 
          >> BOARD MEMBER: MIGHT CHANGE THE PROPORTIONS A LITTLE BIT DEPENDING ON THE WINDOW OPENING. 
          >> SPEAKER: IT CAN. >> BOARD MEMBER: DO YOU HAVE A SENSE OF WHAT THE COST DIFFERENTIAL IS BETWEEN AN INSERT AND A WHOLE NEW WINDOW ADDING IN THE LABOR COSTS FOR 
          BOTH? >> SPEAKER: I CAN'T TALK TO THE LABOR COSTS.  I CAN ONLY TALK TO THE MATERIAL COSTS.  THEY'RE GOING TO BE COMPARABLE.  THEY'RE GOING TO BE COMPARABLE.  BECAUSE OF THE FACT THAT THE INSERT WINDOWS, THERE ARE NO STANDARD SIZES.  SO, THEY'RE CONSIDERED CUSTOM SIZES.  BUT AGAIN, JUST DEPENDING HOW THE SIZING IS GOING, THEY CAN BE COMPARABLE TO A STANDARD SIZED WINDOW, YOU KNOW, FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION IF IT'S WITHIN CLOSE PARAMETERS, CLOSE PROXIMITY TO THAT.  AS MENTIONED, 19 COLORS FOR THE ULTIMATE.  THERE'S SIX COLORS FOR THE ELEVATE.  THE NICE PART ABOUT THE ELEVATE, YOU CAN PAINT IT.  BECAUSE IT'S A PAINTABLE SURFACE.  FIBERGLASS.  THINK ABOUT THIS.  WHAT AMERICAN MADE CAR ISN'T MADE OUT OF 
          FIBERGLASS? COME ON. >> BOARD MEMBER: CORVETTE. >> SPEAKER: THERE YOU GO.  IF THEY CAN FIX AND PAINT A CORVETTE ANY COLOR, THIS IS FIBERGLASS.  JUST REMEMBER, YOU 
          [03:35:01]
CAN SEE ALL THE CHAMBERS, THAT'S CALLED [INAUDIBLE] FIBERGLASS. AND PAL FRUITA FIBERGLASS IS DIFFERENT THAN FRUIT OF THE ALUMINUM.  THEY TAKE THE ROPES AND MAPS AND PUT THEM TOGETHER, BRING THEM THROUGH A RESIN BATH AND THEN PULL THEM THROUGH THE DYE WHERE THEY GET HEATED TO 450 DEGREES AND CURED AND ON YOU GO. SO IT'S CALLED THIN WALL PAL TROCHIN.  YOU DON'T SEED ANY INSULATION IN BETWEEN.  BECAUSE THOSE AIR CHAMBERS ACT AS THE INSULATION.  SO, YOU DON'T HAVE THE HEAT AND COLD TRANSFER THAT YOU NORMALLY WOULD IN A VINYL WINDOW OR ALUMINUM WINDOW.  IF YOU TAKE THE SIX FOOT PIECE OF THIS FIBERGLASS AND SIX FOOT PIECE OF VINYL DO A 0-100 DEGREE TEMPERATURE SWING, WHICH WOULDN'T BE UNCOMMON FOR HERE, HOW MUCH DO YOU THINK THAT VINYL 
          IS GOING TO GROW? >> BOARD MEMBER: 30 PERCENT. >> SPEAKER: A QUARTER OF AN 
          INCH.  WHAT'S THE FIBERGLASS GOING TO GROW >> BOARD MEMBER: NOTHING. 
          >> SPEAKER: LESS THAN 30. BECAUSE THAT AND THE GLASS IN THE WINDOW ORIGINAL FROM CELICA 
          SAND.  SO, YOU'VE GOT COMPATIBLE COMPONENTS. >> BOARD MEMBER: I THINK ALL THE PRODUCTS YOU SHOWED US TONIGHT WOULD BE WONDERFUL ADDITIONS TO OUR WINDOW LIST. 
          >> CHAIRMAN: DO YOU HAVE A QUESTION? >> BOARD MEMBER: YES.  THESE KIND PEOPLE HAVE APPROVED A PLAN FOR A NEW HOUSE THAT WE'RE GOING TO BE BUILDING IN OLD TOWN HISTORIC DISTRICT.  AND I THINK IF I AM RIGHT FOUR OF THEM ARE THEN [INAUDIBLE] IT WAS CALLED INTEGRITY.  THAT IS NOW ELEVATED.  CAN YOU HAVE SIMULATED [INAUDIBLE]. 
          >> SPEAKER: YES. >> BOARD MEMBER: OTHER QUESTION WENT RIGHT OUT OF MY HEAD. 
          >> BOARD MEMBER: COLOR? WHAT IS THE COLOR OF THE DIVIDED LINE. IS THAT VARIABLE? 
          >> SPEAKER: WELL THE BARS WOULD BE THE SAME COLOR AS THE EXTERIOR OF THE WINDOW. 
          >> BOARD MEMBER: OKAY. >> CHAIRMAN: WE'LL COME BACK TO YOU. 
          >> BOARD MEMBER: NEIL CAN GIVE YOU HIS CARD AND YOU CAN ASK HIM ALL THE QUESTIONS YOU WANT I THINK WE'VE ACCOMPLISHED WHAT WE NEEDED TO.  THANK YOU THANK YOU FOR COMING IN.  APPRECIATE THAT.  WE DON'T NEED BOARD ACTION UNTIL WE CHANGE THE LIST. WE'LL TALK ABOUT THAT.  ITEM 7.1. HE HAS BEEN LET GO PREACHILY THESE ARE APPROVED THEY'RE JUST APPROVED UNDER DIFFERENT NAMES MOVING ON TO ANYBODY HAVE QUESTIONS ABOUT THE STAFF APPROVED CERTIFICATES OF 
          APPROVAL? >> BOARD MEMBER: NO. >> CHAIRMAN: HEARING NONE MOVING 
          [Item 6.1]
ON.  DO US ALL A FAVOR.  LET ME GO [LAUGHTER] 
          >> BOARD MEMBER: I MOVE THAT WE RTAIN MR. SPINO FOR ANOTHER TERM. 
          >> BOARD MEMBER: I SECOND THAT. >> BOARD MEMBER: TOO LATE. >> CHAIRMAN: I'M STUCK.  ALL I CAN DO IS LOBBY THREE COMMISSIONERS TO TURN ME DOWN. I'M STARVING 
          [Item 6.2]
[LAUGHTER] AMELIA WATERFRONT PARK.  SO I GOT CALLED TO MEET WITH THE WATERFRONT PARK CONSULTANTS AS THE CHAIR OF THE HDC.  THIS HAPPENED SINCE OUR LAST MEETING SO I WAS UNABLE TO CONSULT WITH YOU ABOUT THAT.  BECAUSE WE'VE NOT TALKED ABOUT WHAT WE WANT AT THE WATERFRONT IN ANY SUBSTANTIAL WAY I DID NOT FEEL COMFORTABLE OFFERING THEM ANYTHING MORE THAN WHAT WE AGREED TO.  WHAT WE AGREED TO HERE IN THE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT DISTRICT -- DEVELOPMENT AREA GUIDELINES IN YOUR MANUAL IN SECTION 8 ON PAGE 1 OF SECTION 4.  I AM GOING TO READ YOU THREE SHORT THINGS SO THAT YOU KNOW WHAT I EXACTLY TOLD THE CONSULTANTS.  THE THREE MOST IMPORTANT PRINCIPALS TO EMERGE ARE... MAINTAIN VIEWS AND PUBLIC ACCESS TO THE WATER. ESTABLISH A SENSE OF PLACE ALONG THE WATER'S EDGE.  AND MAINTAIN THE CHARACTER OF FERNANDINA BEACH AS REFLECTED IN IT'S WORKING WATERFRONT HISTORIC DISTRICT.  I ADDED OUR PRIMARY GOAL IS TO PROTECT THE PUBLIC'S ABILITY TO SEE AND ACCESS THE 
          [03:40:02]
WATERFRONT BY INTEGRATING THE WATERFRONT INTO HISTORIC DISTRICT STREETSCAPE.  WE NEED CROSSINGS AT ASH, CENTER AND ALACHUA TO BE CLEAR, SAFE EASY ACCESS TO THE WATERFRONT.  I DON'T FEEL LIKE WE AS A GROUP HAVE AGREED ON ANYTHING MORE THAN WHAT'S IN WRITING.  I ALSO 
          GAVE THEM CHAPTERS 5 AND 6 OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE. >> BOARD MEMBER: WHAT IS OUR ROLE IN THE PROCESS OF THE WATERFRONT? ARE YOU ABOUT TO TELL US THAT, SAL? 
          >> SO THIS BOARD HAS THE FINAL DESIGN APPROVAL FOR SEA AREA PROPERTIES.  INCLUDING THE 
          WATERFRONT. >> BOARD MEMBER: SO IT'S NOT JUST ANY COMMISSION.  IT'S US 
          THAT ARE GOING TO BE RESPONSIBLE. >> IT WILL NEED A COA. 
          >> BOARD MEMBER: IT COMES TO US FIRST. >> CORRECT. 
          >> CHAIRMAN: DID YOU HEAR ANYTHING YOU DIDN'T LIKE? IF NOT IS THERE ANY OTHER DIRECTION YOU WOULD LIKE TO GO? WE WOULD HAVE TO WORKSHOP IT IF WE REALLY WANTED TO HAVE INPUT.  THEY'RE GOING BE DOING A LOT OF WORKSHOPS.  MY SUGGESTION WOULD BE GO TO THE WORKSHOP, HAVE PERSONAL INPUT, THEN YOU ARE NOT BOUND BY THE LIMITATIONS OF REPRESENTING THE HDC.  YOU CAN 
          GO IN AND SAY THAT'S A BAD IDEA. >> BOARD MEMBER: THE BUZZ I HEARD IS CONCERN ABOUT LOSING 
          PARKING SPACES. >> CHAIRMAN: YES IT'S INTERESTING.  ANGELA, ITS I SAID AT THE END OF OUR MEETING WHAT'S THE THING YOU HEARD THAT IS MOST SURPRISING.  THEY SAID HALF OF THE PEOPLE SAID THEY'RE CONCERNED ABOUT NOT LOSING PARKING AND HALF SAY PARKING IS OVERRATED AND IT'S NOT OUR PROBLEM.  I SAID HALF AND HALF? THEY SAID EXACTLY.  IT'S LIKE EVERY OTHER PERSON.  I WAS STUNNED BECAUSE IT JUST SEEMS LIKE ALL I HEAR IS PARKING. 
          ALTHOUGH LIVED HERE HOW MANY YEARS HOW. >> BOARD MEMBER: I'VE NEVER NOT 
          GONE TO DINNER BECAUSE I COULDN'T FIND A PARKING SPACE. >> CHAIRMAN: AND IF YOU ARE YOU ARE WELCOME TO PARK IN OUR YARD. THESE GUYS I DON'T HAVE A WHOLE LOT TO REPORT BECAUSE THEY WERE ON A LISTING MISSION.  THAT WAS REALLY IT.  IF YOU ARE INTERESTED IN SEEING -- I SHOULD PROBABLY SEND THIS GROUP, YOU SHOULD SEND THIS GROUP WHAT THEY SENT ME WHICH IS KIND OF LIKE 
          THEIR VIEW TAKE SOME OF THE OTHER PROJECTS THEY'VE DONE. >> BOARD MEMBER: WHAT IS THE 
          NAME OF THE GROUP >> CHAIRMAN: THEY WERE YOUNG GUYS, VERY THOUGHTFUL, VERY RESPONSIVE.  THEY WERE GOOD LISTENERS WHICH I THINK YOU GUYS GENERALLY ARE. 
          >> BOARD MEMBER: THEY'RE GOOD. >> CHAIRMAN: IT'S ST. AUGUSTINE. SO, I'LL MAKE SURE YOU GET THE DOCS I SAW.  GOAT TO THEIR WORKSHOPS AND HAVE INPUT.  I TALK TOO MUCH. 
          >> BOARD MEMBER: HE IS SENDING OUT THE SEARCH PARTY. >> CHAIRMAN: APPROVE WINDOWS. 
          [Item 7.1]
          >> BOARD MEMBER: WHAT I WANTED TO ASSAY ABOUT THE APPROVED WINDOW LIST IS WHAT WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT.  I KNOW THERE'S A DESIRE TO LOOK AT IT AND FIND OUT WHAT WE NEED TO PUT ON IT AND WHAT WE NEED TO TAKE OFF OF IT.  WE HAD A GREAT PRESENTATION TONIGHT ABOUT THESE WINDOWS.  DO YOU GUYS WANT TO HEAR FROM THE OTHER MANUFACTURES? IF SO, CAB YOU HELP ME GET CONTACTS TO GET 
          THEM HERE AND TALK TO US. >> BOARD MEMBER: YEAH. >> BOARD MEMBER: I KIND OF -- WELL I DON'T KNOW HOW I FEEL FEM WAS GOING TO SAY I FEEL LIKE WE NEED TO HAVE MANUFACTURES COME IN AND DO A PRESENTATION SO WE UNDERSTAND WHAT PRODUCT LINES THEY HAVE.  BUT I DON'T KNOW HOW TO DO THAT AND BE FAIR.  I DON'T THINK WE REALLY NEED THAT FROM ANDERSON BECAUSE WE ALREADY KNOW 
          THEIR LINES I THINK -- >> BOARD MEMBER: THEY DO HAVE SOME LINES THAT ARE LOW.  SO WE 
          PROBABLY DO NEED -- >> BOARD MEMBER: JUST KIND OF START OVER? 
          >> BOARD MEMBER: HOW MANY MANUFACTURERS ARE ON THE LIST NOW? 
          >> HERE'S THE LIST. >> BOARD MEMBER: YOU CAN WORKSHOP IT. 
          >> BOARD MEMBER: WE DON'T NEED EVERYBODY TO GIVE US A 30 MINUTE PRESENTATION.  WE CAN HAVE THEM 
          COME IN WITH A SAMPLE AND BE ABLE TO EVALUATE IT. >> CHAIRMAN: THE ADVANTAGE OF THE WORKSHOP IS ALL YOU'RE DOING.  YOU DON'T HAVE TO GO TO ALL THE STUFF WE WENT THROUGH 
          TONIGHT TO GET TO THAT CONVERSATION >> BOARD MEMBER: I THINK IT 
          WOULD BE MORE EASIER IF WE HAD SPECIFICITY ON HERE. >> BOARD MEMBER: ON SOME OF THEM 
          WE DO.  OTHERS ON THE LIST I'M NOT SURE. >> CHAIRMAN: I REMEMBER WHEN JOHN BROUGHT US WINDOWS FOR OUR RE RE 
          RESTO RESTORATION. >> CHAIRMAN: WHAT DO YOU WANT TO 
          DO? >> BOARD MEMBER: LET'S WORKSHOP IT. 
          >> CHAIRMAN: THAT IS NOT MANDATORY ATTENDANCE.  IF YOU ARE INTO IT, COME TO IT.  IF NOT, YOU KNOW, I PROBABLY WOULDN'T.  BECAUSE I WOULD TRUST THE JUDGMENT OF THE OTHERS. 
          [03:45:02]
          >> BOARD MEMBER: ULTIMATELY I WOULD TRUST SAL.  BUT I DON'T KNOW IF HE WANTS TO BE TRUSTED. 
          >> BOARD MEMBER: YOU CAN'T DO THAT TO A PUBLIC EMPLOYEE. >> BOARD MEMBER: YOU NEED A BODY 
          THAT HELPS.  TRY TO DO THAT MAYBE IN JANUARY. >> BOARD MEMBER: THAT'S A LITTLE 
          SOON I THINK. >> BOARD MEMBER: WHEN YOU START CALLING PEOPLE AND IF WE'RE GOING TO GET PEOPLE TO DO PRESENTATIONS AND DO A SPECIAL WORKSHOP WE NEED TO MAKE SURE WE HAVE THE ROOM AVAILABLE.  AND YOU'VE GOT TO NOTICE IT.  IN THE MEANTIME WE'LL JUST DO WHAT WE DID TONIGHT WHICH IS BASICALLY GIVE SAL THE AUTHORITY TO MAKE SURE WHATEVER THEY USE IS 
          CONSISTENT WITH THE DESIGN OUTLINES. >> BOARD MEMBER: IF YOU WANT TO GIVE ME NOTES ABOUT WHAT YOU THINK ABOUT EACH OF THOSE WINDOWS THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL SO 
          WE KNOW EVERYBODY HAS LOOKED AT IT. >> BOARD MEMBER: OKAY. 
          >> CHAIRMAN: ALL RIGHT.  MASTER FEE SCHEDULE.  WHY IS THIS IN FRONT OF US? 
          [Item 7.2]
          >> BOARD MEMBER: IT WAS A QUESTION.  TAMMI ASKED ABOUT MASTER FEE SCHEDULE.  THERE WAS A CHANGE IN LDC LANGUAGE THAT I PROPOSED LAST MONTH AND THE QUESTIONS WERE WHAT IS THE MASTER FEE SCHEDULE AND WHAT ARE WE DOING WITH IT.  SO THE ANSWER IS THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, THE WAY IT'S WRITTEN SAYS AFTER THE FACT FEES ARE TWICE WHAT THE REGULAR FEE IS.  AND WE HAVE BEEN FOR A NUMBER OF YEARS AMENDING OUR MASTER FEE SCHEDULE WHICH WE DO ONCE A YEAR AND IT IS A BIT HIGHER.  SO IT HASN'T MATCHED OUR LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE LANGUAGE WHICH HOLDS US AT DOUBLING IT.  IF YOU LOOKED AT THE CHART AND THOSE NUMBERS WE'VE ACTUALLY PUT THEM THIS YEAR AT QUADRUPLING THE AFTER THE FACT FEES.  IF THIS BOARD WANTS MORE INPUT WE CAN TALK ABOUT THAT EACH YEAR BEFORE THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT MAKES THE DECISION. 
          >> BOARD MEMBER: WHAT'S THE FEE? >> THE COA APPLICATION FEE. >> BOARD MEMBER: FOR US? 
          >> FOR US. >> BOARD MEMBER: WHICH IS WHAT, $200? 
          >> YEAH. >> BOARD MEMBER: SO IT WOULD BE AN $800 FINE? 
          >> CORRECT.  FOR THEM TO COME BACK BEFORE YOU AND GET AFTER THE FACT APPROVAL. 
          >> BOARD MEMBER: I THINK THAT IS NOT BIG ENOUGH. >> THAT'S A DISCUSSION -- 
          >> BOARD MEMBER: DEPENDS. >> CHAIRMAN: COUNCIL WILL TELL YOU BE CAREFUL HOW FAR YOU GO. 
          BECAUSE IF YOUR PENALTIES ARE UNREASONABLE THEY GET STRUCK DOWN IN COURT. 
          >> BUT THAT'S HOW THE PROCESS WORKS.  EVERY YEAR EVERY DEPARTMENT GIVES FEES FOR EVERYTHING FROM COPIES TO WHATEVER AND THE CITY COMMISSION APPROVES IT.  SO WE WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT THE LDC GAVE US THE FREEDOM TO SET THAT NUMBER RATHER THAN TELL US QUADRUPLE OR 
          DOUBLE OR WHATEVER. >> BOARD MEMBER: $800 IS WAY BETTER THAN $200. 
          >> BOARD MEMBER: YES. >> CHAIRMAN: IT SHOULD BE A STING.  OKAY.  WHAT'S NEXT. 
          [Item 7.3]
          SIDE YARD VIEW CORRIDORS. >> BOARD MEMBER: LET'S KEEP THEM.  NEXT [LAUGHTER] I'LL RUN THROUGH IT REALLY QUICKLY. 
          >> CHAIRMAN: THIS IS ONE PIECE OF THE LDC LANGUAGE WE DIDN'T FEEL COMFORTABLE APPROVING LAST MONTH.  WE WANTED SAL'S FULL EXPLANATION OF THIS CHANGE.  AND I SEE HERE WE WOULD STRIKE THE 
          POTENTIAL FOR THE CONNECTING ELEMENT >> CORRECT.  THAT'S MY RECOMMENDATION IS TO STRIKE THAT LANGUAGE THAT I FEEL CONFLICTS WITH LANGUAGE IN THE LDC.  I AM 
          GOING TO SKIP OVER THIS. >> CHAIRMAN: ARE YOU SAYING IF WE DIDN'T WANT TO DO WE WOULD 
          HAVE TO CHANGE THE LDC >> CORRECT.  YOU WOULD HAVE TO PUT SPECIFIC LANGUAGE IN THAT SAYS WHAT CAN ENCROACH INTO THE SIDE CORRIDOR.  SO I HOPE THESE VISUALS MIGHT HELP.  THESE ARE THE SIDE YARD CORRIDORS. IF YOU HAVE A LOT TWO MEDIUM PAY OWN YEAH YOU CANNOT ENCROACH INTO THE FIVE FOOT SETBACK.  THIS IS THE ISSUE WE SAW TONIGHT.  THERE IS THAT LANGUAGE IN THERE THAT WE'RE PROPOSING A CHANGE WHERE IT SAYS, IF YOU OWN AN AG REGAT OF LOTS, YOU CAN CROSS IT WITH A CONNECTING ELEMENT ITS ENTIRE LENGTH.  AND FURTHER DOWN IT SAYS, ALL VIEW CORRIDORS MUST BE MAINTAINED CLEAR FROM THE GROUND TO THE SKY WITH THE EXCEPTION OF AND IT HAS A LIST AND SAYS THEY CAN ENCROACH 24 INCHES AND IT GIVES US SPECIFIC MEASUREMENTS. SO I THINK THAT'S PRETTY CLEAR ABOUT WHAT CAN ENCROACH AND HOW MUCH IT CAN ENCROACH.  SO, THESE ARE THE FRONTAGE CORRIDORS. 
          THOSE ARE SELF-EXPLANATORY.  THE MID-LAW CORRIDORS IS THAT AREA WHERE WE'VE ALLOWED PEOPLE TO BUILD BETWEEN THE TWO MEDIAS BUT WE'VE ASKED FOR ARCHITECTURAL DETAILING THAT HONORS THAT 10 
          FEET TO 5 ON EACH SIDE OF THE LINE. >> CHAIRMAN: HOLD ON LET'S LET 
          US DEAL WITH THESE ONE AT A TIME. >> BOARD MEMBER: WHY ARE THERE 
          NOT MIDDLE CORRIDORS BETWEEN THE INTERIOR NORTH/SOUTH. >> CHAIRMAN: BECAUSE THAT'S HOW 
          THE OLDTOWN GUIDELINES ARE DRAFTED >> THERE ARE NO REQUIREMENTS TO 
          [03:50:02]
HAVE THAT MID LOT CORRIDOR ON THE INTERIOR LOT.  IT'S ONLY ON THE -- 
          >> BOARD MEMBER: NO.  I'M TALKING ABOUT THE CENTRAL RUNNING ALL THE WAY THROUGH. 
          WHY DON'T THEY GO ALL THE WAY THROUGH >> BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT MEDIUM. 
          THEY'RE WHOLE. >> I'LL HAVE TO DOUBLE CHECK.  I DON'T THINK WE HAVE ANY 
          REQUIREMENT FOR MID-LOT CORRIDORS ON INTERIOR LOTS. >> GENERALLY SPEAKING THE MEDIUM 
          [INAUDIBLE] ON ONLY ON ON THE OUTSIDE.  CORRECT >> BOARD MEMBER: THERE'S A NEW UNDERSTANDING FOR ME I HAD SEEN MEDIUM ONLY AS APPEARING IN PAIRS AS THE SAME LOCATION OF 
          THE PAY OWNI IS.  BUT IT COULD BE A COMBINATION >> YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT THE LINE BETWEEN THE BLOCKS ON THE INTERIOR LOTS?  I'LL DOUBLE CHECK THAT.  WE'VE NEVER REALLY DEALT WHERE SOMEBODY WANTS TO BUILD OVER THAT BUT I'LL DOUBLE CHECK AND SEE IF THERE IS A VIEW 
          CORRIDOR THERE. >> CHAIRMAN: CAN WE -- >> BOARD MEMBER: I'M SORRY.  IF THERE IS NO REQUIREMENT FOR THAT, THEN IF YOU'VE GOT TWO SEPARATE GROUPS OF MEDIAS, I DON'T 30 IT'S A REQUIREMENT FOR A VIEW CORRIDOR WHERE IT'S NOT A MID MEDIA LOT CORRIDOR.  AM I 
          MAKING MYSELF CLEAR? >> I'M NOT UNDERSTANDING. >> BOARD MEMBER: LET'S JUST SUPPOSE THAT ALL OF THE DEVELOPMENT CONSISTS OF JOINING THESE TWO MEDIAS HERE.  THOSE TWO OR THOSE TWO.  I DON'T THINK THERE IS A REQUIREMENT FOR A MID-MEDIA LOT CORRIDOR.  IN OTHER WORDS, GOING BETWEEN THESE TWO MEDIAS.  I AGREE THERE IS BETWEEN THOSE TWO.  AND THOSE TWO.  BUT YOU'RE RAISING THE POINT WHAT IF SOMEBODY OWNS A PAY ANIA THAT SITS THOSE TWO MEDIAS.  AND I'M NOT SURE THERE'S A REQUIREMENT FOR THIS TO BE A MID LOT. 
          >> IT'S ALWAYS BEEN MY UNDERSTANDING THAT IT IS -- IT WOULD BE A MID-LOT CORRIDOR. 
          THAT WE WOULDN'T ALLOW THEM TO BUILD OVER.  IT WOULD BE A TRUE VISIBILITY CORRIDOR.  IT WOULDN'T HAVE THE SAME REQUIREMENT WHERE YOU CAN BUILD OVER THAT CORRIDOR THE WAY YOU 
          CAN WITH THE TWO MEDIAS. >> BOARD MEMBER: I THINK WE'RE RAISING AN AREA THAT WE NEED TO 
          DEFINE BETTER. >> CHAIRMAN: I HOPE THIS MIGHT BE HELPFUL.  HERE IS FROM THE GUIDELINES.  INTERIOR PEE OWN YEAH LOTS THIS -- THIS CORRIDOR APPEARS AT MID-BLOCK.  AGGREGATE PEONIES EXTENT STREET TO STREET THE DESIGN OF THE BUILDINGS INDICATING THE MID-BLOCK DIMENSION.  FROM STREET TO STREET YOU ARE GOING TO HAVE THAT MID-BLOCK -- 
          >> BOARD MEMBER: NO THAT'S CONFUSING.  READ THAT AGAIN, MATE. 
          >> CHAIRMAN: INTERIOR PEE OWN YEAH LOT THIS CORRIDOR APPEARS AT MID-BLOCK.  IF A AGGREGATE EXTENDS FROM STREET TO STREET THE VISIBILITY SHOULD BE PRESENT IN THE DESIGN OF BUILDING INDICATING THE MID-BLOCK DIMENSION.  OTHERWISE I DON'T THINK THIS IS REALLY -- IT DOESN'T REALLY APPLY BECAUSE MOST PEOPLE HAVE PEE OWN YEAH -- THEY DON'T HAVE.  I MIGHT CARRY THIS AROUND [LAUGHTER] WE HAVE TWO DECISIONS -- THREE DECISIONS.  THE FIRST IS THE FIRST POINT YOU BROUGHT UP WHICH IS THE MID-BETWEEN PEONIA TO THE SKY QUESTION.  AND THEN THE QUESTION IS ARE WE GOING TO BRING THE DESIGN GUIDELINES IN CONSISTENCY WITH THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE.  HOW DO PEOPLE FEEL.  CAN YOU GO BACK TO THE 
          PICTURE OF THE GARAGE. >> SO THE ANSWER TO PART OF IS THAT WE'RE DISCUSSING THESE TO 
          [03:55:04]
FIX THEM FOR NOW.  OUR FIXES, ANYTHING WE DO WILL BE IN THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE.  WE HAVE RECEIVED THE GRANT TO PARTNER WITH THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA AND THE MUSEUM AND THEY WILL BE DOING ANALYSIS OF THIS USING 3D MODELLING AND ACTUALLY DOING THAT FULL ANALYSIS TO TELL US HOW WE'VE DONE SO FAR AND KIND OF SIMPLIFY THESE TO MAKE THEM UNDERSTANDABLE. 
          >> CHAIRMAN: I SAW BILL TODAY HE DIDN'T KNOW THAT HAD BEEN AWARDED 
          >> WE WERE RANKED VERY HIGH. THE GOVERNOR HASN'T FUNDED IT YET.  BUT BECAUSE WE'RE RANKED 
          SO HIGH WE FEEL PRETTY CONFIDENT WE'LL GET FUNDED. >> BOARD MEMBER: TO GET BACK TO MID-LOT CORRIDORS.  IF YOU FOLLOW THE SAME METHODOLOGY AS ON PAGE 62 OF THE GUIDELINES, 
          THEN THE ENTIRE CENTER SHOULD BE RED. >> CHAIRMAN: THE PICTURE IS 
          DIFFERENT THAN WHAT YOU ARE SHOWING US >> FROM THAT PHOTOGRAPH YOU R 
          RED -- READ I AGREE. >> CHAIRMAN: THERE'S THREE ISSUES HERE. 
          >> WE JUST KEEP GETTING MORE QUESTIONS. >> CHAIRMAN: WHAT YOU SUGGESTING WE DON'T DO ANYTHING BECAUSE WE'RE GOING TO HAVE THIS REVIEWED NEXT YEAR? 
          >> SO THE ONLY THING WE'VE HAD COME UP AS AN ISSUE IS THAT SIDE YARD CORRIDOR. 
          >> BOARD MEMBER: WITH OVERHANGS ENCROACHMENT >> YEP.  THAT ISSUE. 
          >> BOARD MEMBER: MY INCLINATION WOULD BE TO MAKE OUR DESIGN GUIDELINES CONSISTENT WITH THE LDC AND LET BILL COME BACK NEXT YEAR AND TELL US IF THERE'S ANOTHER CHANGE. 
          >> BOARD MEMBER: WHAT WAS THE LDC CODE? >> CHAIRMAN: IT SAYS NO ENCROACHMENT.  GROUND TO SKY PERIOD.  THAT WE HAVE NO ENCROACHMENTS FROM GROUND TO SKY 
          PERIOD.  BECAUSE IT'S IN THE LDC. >> ISN'T IT HARDER TO CHANGE THE DESIGN? IT'S HARDER TO CHANGE THE DESIGN GUIDELINES THAN IT IS TO CHANGE THE LDC RIGHT 
          >> YEP. >> CHAIRMAN: REALLY? >> ANY CHANGE WE MAKE THE WHOLE 
          DOCUMENT HAS TO BE CHANGED AND REAPPROVED BY RESOLUTION. >> CHAIRMAN: SO WHAT ARE DO YOU 
          RECOMMEND.  CHILL UNTIL NEXT SUMMER >> I'M RECOMMENDING ONE CHANGE TO THE LDC.  THAT'S GOING TO GET GROUPED TOGETHER WITH THE OTHERS ONES.  TO GO BEFORE THE PAB. 
          YEP. >> BOARD MEMBER: THIS IS JUST FOR OLD TOWN. 
          >> YES.  STRIKING THAT ONE LINE. >> CHAIRMAN: NO OTHER PART OF TOWN WOULD BE THAT CRAZY.  DO WE 
          NEED A MOTION AND AN ACTION? >> YES. >> BOARD MEMBER: I'LL MAKE A 
          MOTION TO STRIKE THE ONE LINE IN THE LDC AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF. >> BOARD MEMBER: I SECOND THAT. 
          >> CHAIRMAN: ANY DISCUSSION? >> BOARD MEMBER: YEAH.  I AM NOT CLEAR WHY THAT WORDING IN RED 
          APPEARS. >> CHAIRMAN: IS THIS THE LDC HERE? YES 
          >> BOARD MEMBER: UNLESS WE ARE CONVINCED THAT IS AN OUT AND OUT TYPO 
          >> IT'S NOT A TYPO BUT IT IS IN CONFLICT WITH THE REST OF THE LDC ABOUT OLD TOWN. 
          >> BOARD MEMBER: BUT, GIVEN THAT, I WOULD PREFER TO WAIT UNTIL SOME RECOMMENDATION BEFORE 
          WE DO THIS. >> THAT'S AN OPTION. >> BOARD MEMBER: I DO NOT BELIEVE IN TAKING OUT WORDS JUST BECAUSE IN THIS PARTICULAR INTERPRETATION, THIS PARTICULAR LIGHT THAT WE'RE SHEDDING ON IT, IT DOESN'T APPEAR TO MAKE SENSE. IF WE KNOW IT'S A TYPO, TAKE IT OUT.  OTHER THAN THAT, LET'S WAIT UNTIL WE GET EXPERT OPINION. 
          >> CHAIRMAN: YEAH.  I THINK I AM INCLINED -- I THINK I AGREE WITH YOU, MIKE.  WE DON'T HAVE TO DO 
          ANYTHING RIGHT NOW. >> BOARD MEMBER: OKAY. >> BOARD MEMBER: OKAY. 
          >> BUT THERE IS A MOTION ON THE FLOOR. >> CHAIRMAN: OKAY.  PLEASE CALL 
          ROLL ON SUGGESTING THE VOTE TO VOTE NO SO WE CAN REVISIT THIS. >> MEMBER CONWAY? 
          >> NO >> MEMBER POZZETTA? NO.  MEMBER HARRISON NO.  CHAIR SPINO.  NO. 
          >> CHAIRMAN: MOVING ON. APPRECIATE YOU TAKING ONE FOR THE TEAM 
          [04:00:09]
TIME TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHAT THE MEANING OF IS IS.  THANK YOU MS. CONWAY.  SHE DID GOOD. 
          OKAY.  WHAT DO YOU GOT, SAL? >>  MATERIAL SALVAGE.  WE HAD TALKED ABOUT THAT AND HOW OUR 
          [Item 7.4]
STANDARD LANGUAGE THAT WE PUT INTO DEMOS IS TO RECYCLE AND SALVAGE TO THE EXTENT FEASIBLE BUT WE DON'T HAVE ANY GUIDELINES ON THAT.  I HAVE NOT REALLY FOUND ANY GUIDELINES ON BEST PRACTICES FOR THAT.  I WAS WONDERING IF YOU GUYS WOULD HELP SEARCH FOR THAT AND BRING 
          SOMETHING BACK IN THE FUTURE. >> BOARD MEMBER: AS FAR AS MATERIAL SALVAGE IS CONCERNED? 
          >> BOARD MEMBER: EXAMPLES OF PLACES THAT REQUIRE IT? >> YEAH.  IF WE WOULD TO HAVE 
          GUIDELINES FOR WHAT THAT WOULD LOOK LIKE. >> BOARD MEMBER: I THINK IT'S 
          DIFFICULT THING TO CREATE A GUIDELINE FOR. >> BOARD MEMBER: IT'S THE 
          ENFORCEMENT THAT IS DIFFICULT >> IT WOULD HAVE SO MANY STIPULATIONS AND IT'S KIND OF LIKE WHAT'S THE POINT OF HAVING IT.  DO THIS UNLESS THIS HAPPENS OR THIS HAPPENS BECAUSE THESE ARE ALL THINGS THAT COME UP IN THE PROCESS OF CONSTRUCTION. WHICH IS WHY THEY'RE SO GENERAL RIGHT NOW.  ULTIMATELY, UNFORTUNATELY, WHAT IT COMES DOWN TO IS WHETHER OR NOT THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY CARES. YOU KNOW, I MEAN, EITHER THEY DO OR THEY DON'T. 
          >> WE JUST WANT TO AVOID THE TRADITIONAL SALVAGE BY BULLDOZER THAT HAS BEEN GOING ON. 
          >> BOARD MEMBER: BY CONVENIENCE. >> BOARD MEMBER: WE'VE SEEN IT OVER AND OVER AGAIN. 
          >> BOARD MEMBER: YOU KNOW, THERE'S A LOT OF ECONOMICS I THINK THAT SAYS THAT IF THE MATERIAL THAT IS BEING RELEASED BY THE DEMO HAS VALUE SOMEONE WHO IS GOING TO CLAIM IT, I'M WONDERING IF THERE'S ROOM HERE FOR SOME THIRD PARTY TO INTERVENE SO THAT IF THERE IS, YOU KNOW, MATERIAL THAT -- AS MATERIAL IS RELEASED FROM THE DEMO, IT GOES THROUGH SOME SORT OF INSPECTION POINT, A STORAGE POINT, WHERE MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC OR AUTHORIZED RECYCLERS CAN HAVE AT IT AND SEE IF THEY WANT IT.  IT'S ALMOST LIKE THE DUMP.  YOU KNOW, WHEN YOU GO THERE, IF YOU THINK WHAT YOU ARE TAKING MIGHT BE USEFUL TO SOMEBODY, PERHAPS YOU PUT IT ON THE SIDE THERE AND IT SITS THERE FOR A WEEK AND THEY TAKE WHAT THEY WANT 
          >> THAT'S A GOOD POINT.  ONE THING WE TALKED ABOUT WITH SOME GROUPS IS DOING AN ARCHITECTURAL SALVAGE WAREHOUSE OR SOMETHING. WHO WHEN SOMEBODY DOES REPLACE WINDOWS THEY CAN TAKE THEM AND 
          PUT THEM THERE AND SOMEBODY ELSE CAN COME AND GET THEM. >> BOARD MEMBER: BUT IT DOES 
          REQUIRE A SENSITIVE DECONSTRUCTION >> YOU CAN'T COME IN WITH A 
          BULLDOZER AND EXPECT ANYTHING SALVAGEABLE. >> BOARD MEMBER: THEN YOU CAN ALSO BECOME THE HOUSING WAREHOUSE FOR JUNK.  AND EVERYTHING THAT NOBODY WANTS TO 
          PAY THE DUMP FEE FOR. >> YEAH. >> BOARD MEMBER: BUT NORMALLY USEFUL THINGS LIKE WINDOW WEIGHTS.  WHEN YOU NEED A WINDOW WEIGHT BY GOLLY YOU NEED A 
          WINDOW WEIGHT. >> BOARD MEMBER: SOUNDS LIKE A GOOD BUSINESS. 
          >> CHAIRMAN: HE USES THEM FOR BODIES. [LAUGHTER] 
          OH I'M SORRY. >> CHAIRMAN: THANK YOU. >> BOARD MEMBER: [INAUDIBLE] WITH HDC APPROVAL AND 902 [INAUDIBLE] STREET.  AND I AGREED TO SALVAGE WHATEVER MATERIAL WAS GOOD AND USEFUL FROM OUT OF THAT. AND THERE WAS SOME PINE FLOORING THAT A GUY FROM GEORGIA CAME AND COLLECTED. BUT APART FROM THAT IT WAS GENERALLY [INAUDIBLE]. 
          >> DID YOU GO BACK TO THE BOARD AND PRESENT ANYTHING? JUST TO SAY WHAT YOU FOUND. 
          >> BOARD MEMBER: THERE WAS NO REQUIREMENT TO DO THAT. >> I'M JUST CURIOUS, MAYBE THAT IT WOULD MITE BE A WAY TO GET PEOPLE TO COME BACK AND, YOU KNOW, AT LEAST GIVE IT THOUGHT AND DO THE RIGHT THING BECAUSE THEY KNOW THEY'LL BE COMING BACK TO REPORT BACK AND TELL US IF 
          ANYTHING WAS SALVAGEABLE OF OR INTEREST. >> BOARD MEMBER: YEAH. 
          [Item 7.5]
          >> CHAIRMAN: OKAY.  THE STREETSCAPE CON-- >> THE STREETSCAPE CONTACT 
          [04:05:02]
REQUIREMENT.  IT WAS ASKED IF WE REQUIRE THAT.  IT IS ON THE CHECKLIST FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION. 
          WE DON'T REQUIRE IT FOR ADDITIONS AND THINGS LIKE THAT. BE ENCOURAGE IT. 
          >> BOARD MEMBER: WE HAD DISCUSSION OF REQUIRING ISOMETRIC OR SOMETHING THAT 
          SHOWED MORE OF A RELATIONAL VIEW. >> THAT'S BASICALLY IT. 
          >> BOARD MEMBER: I MEAN, JUST AN ELEVATION OF THE STREETSCAPE BUT-- 
          >> I THINK THAT'S THE INTENT OF THIS.  IS THAT WE'RE SEEING HOW THIS BUILDING WORKS IN ALL WAYS. 
          >> BOARD MEMBER: ALL ANGLES >> YEAH >> BOARD MEMBER: IT'S APPLICANT'S RESPONSIBILITY TO PROVIDE SOMETHING THAT SELLS THAT.  IT'S A UP TO THEM THEY 
          HAVE THE RESPONSIBILITY FIGURING THAT OUT. >> BOARD MEMBER: I'D LIKE TO RE REITERATE WHAT I SAID IN CONNECTION WITH THE WINE STREET CASE.  THAT THE AERIAL FROM THE PROPERTY APPRAISER'S OFFICE IS AS CLOSE TO CONTEXT AS WE GET. 
          AND YET IT'S OUT OF DATE.  HOW DO WE OVERLAY THE PROPERTY APPRAISER'S MAP WITH WHAT HAS 
          ALREADY BEEN APPROVED BY HDC? THAT'S PROBABLY -- >> PEWE DON'T HAVE THE CAPABILI TO DO THAT.  WE DON'T HAVE THE CAPABILITY TO DO THAT ON THE STAFF REPORTS. I MEAN, WE CAN, BUT IT'S INFEASIBLE TO DO IT. AND I'LL TALK ABOUT THAT IN A LITTLE BIT. 
          >> BOARD MEMBER: I THINK US AS A BOARD CAN HELP SAL BY IF SOMEONE COMES IN AND THEY LACK THAT EXISTING STREETSCAPE, AT SOME POINT WE AS A BOARD NEED TO SAY OKAY YOU HAVE FAILED TO TURN IN ALL THE MATERIALS WE REQUIRE TO EVALUATE YOUR DESIGN.  SEE YOU NEXT MONTH. 
          >> WHICH I THINK IS PERFECTLY FINE.  YOU JUST HAVE TO BE CONSISTENT. 
          >> CHAIRMAN: THAT WILL GIVE SAL SOME TEETH WHEN HE TELLS PEOPLE THEY'RE JUST GOING TO KICK IT 
          OUT. >> BOARD MEMBER: IF THEY DON'T TURN IN EVERYTHING THEY ARE 
          REQUIRED TO THEY'RE NOT GOING TO SAY YES TO IT. >> THE CHECKLIST IS SPECIFIC. 
          IF SOMEBODY COME IN HERE AND THEY DON'T HAVE IT ON THE CHECKLIST IT'S THEIR OWN FAULT. 
          >> CHAIRMAN: THAT IS FAIR, SAL? AGREED. >> CHAIRMAN: DO WE NED ANY 
          ACTION TO ENFORCE THAT? >> NO. >> BOARD MEMBER: ASK THEM THAT THE AERIAL IN THE STAFF REPORT SHOWS THE DATE OF THE AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH. 
          >> THE MORE THINGS WE ADD TO IT THE MORE TIME THE REPORTS ARE TAKING.  I'VE ACTUALLY BEEN INSTRUCTED AND I'LL GET INTO THAT, TO CUT THE STAFF REPORTS. SO, WE'RE PULLING STUFF OUT OF 
          THE STAFF REPORTS. >> CHAIRMAN: LET'S MOVE ON. >> THE BUILDING OFFICIAL 
          [Items 7.6 & 9]
BULLETINS.  IF I CAN GET THIS TO OPEN UP HERE.  I HAD SDUTHSS WITH THE BUILDING OFFICIAL.  WE INVITED HIM TO THIS MEETING BUT BECAUSE OF THE NUMBER OF CASES WE HAD I TOLD HIM I DIDN'T WANT HIM TO SIT FOR A COUPLE OF HOURS.  SO, HE HAS AGREED TO COME TO OUR DECEMBER MEETING. HE DOES WANT TO INTRODUCE HIMSELF AND TALK TO YOU GUYS.  THE MAIN ITEM WAS OF COURSE THE HOLDING THE COS AND RELEASING BEFORE THE HDC APPROVALS.  YOU REMEMBER THAT WAS AN ISSUE WITH HARBOR VIEW.  SO, THIS, AND I CAN'T GET THE LINK TO WORK.  BUT HE HAS CREATED A SITE ON THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT'S WEBSITE WHERE HE IS UPDATING ALL OF HIS OFFICIAL BULL CONTINU BUL BULLETINS.  THERE'S A NUMBER OF TOPICS WHERE HE IS CLARIFYING POLICY.  SPECIFICALLY THE ONE WE HAD AN ISSUE WITH WAS THE ISSUANCE OF COS AND CCS.  SO, HE CLARIFIED THE POLICY THAT WE ACKNOWLEDGE HE CAN'T HOLD A CO ONCE HE'S RECEIVED IT FOR HDC BUT HE CAN PUT A POLICY IN PLACE TO NOT ACCEPT CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY APPLICATIONS UNTIL THEY'VE RECEIVED THE FINAL BUILDING INSPECTIONS AND THEY WON'T EXPECT THE FINAL INSPECTIONS UNTIL THEY'VE RECEIVED THE FINAL HVC AND DRIVEWAY PERMITS AND REVIEWS AND ALL THOSE ARE DONE.  THEN THEY WILL SCHEDULE THOSE.  THAT WILL HELP ELIMINATE THAT PROBLEM.  IF YOU ARE INTERESTED IN ANY OF THOSE BULL CONTINUES THEY'RE ALL THERE. HE IS GOING TO COME MEET WITH US ON OUR DECEMBER MEETING. SO, WE CAN TALK TO HIM AND ASK HIM QUESTIONS WE'VE GOT. 
          >> CHAIRMAN: CAN WE PUT HIM UP FIRST? >> IF YOU WISH.  NORMALLY PRESENTATIONS GO AFTER BUSINESS. BUT IF THE BOARD WANTS THAT, WE CAN DO THAT. 
          >> CHAIRMAN: WELL SOME OF THE BUSINESS HAS BEEN AROUND HERE SINCE MOSES WAS A PUP.  AND I AM 
          [04:10:03]
A LITTLE BIT CONCERNED ABOUT -- I WISH WE COULD REORDER THE AGENDA. 
          >> SIMPLE THINGS VERSUS -- THE CHAIR CAN DO THAT AT THE BEGINNING OF EVERY MEETING.  WE ORDER IT IN THE ORDER IT COMES IN IN.  SO, IF THERE IS AN ISSUE WHERE WE NEED TO REORDER 
          SOMETHING WE CAN. >> BOARD MEMBER: WITH THAT NEW PROPOSAL THAT HE IS PUTTING THROUGH, THAT DEBTGETS AROUND THE WORK AROUND THAT ARTISAN PUT FORTH THAT SAID FLORIDA BUILDING 
          CODE TRUMPS-- >> YES.  BECAUSE THEY WERE CORRECT ONCE THEY'VE MET ALL THE REQUIREMENT TOWARDS THE CO HE HAS TO ISSUE THE CO.  THE PROBLEM WAS WE WERE TAKING IN ALL THOSE APPLICATIONS FOR THE FINAL INSPECTIONS AND THE CO ALL AT ONCE.  TIMELINES WEREN'T WORKING OUT. NOW THERE'S A SPECIFIC ORDER THEY HAVE TO BE DONE IN. 
          >> CHAIRMAN: THAT'S EXCELLENT. >> HE'LL BE HERE IN DECEMBER. ONE OF THE OTHER THINGS I WANTED TO CAULK ABOUT GOING BACK TO THE STAFF REPORTS.  SO A NUMBER OF YEARS AGO THE DEPARTMENT DRASTICALLY CUT BACK WHAT'S IN OUR STAFF REPORTS.  WHEN I STARTED I BEEFED IT UP A BIT BECAUSE I FELT I REALLY WANTED TO GIVE THE BOARD MORE BACKGROUND INFORMATION AND HAVE MORE OF THAT.  IT'S BECOME OVERWHELMING AND NOT SUSTAINABLE TO BE ABLE TO DO THAT ANYMORE. 
          SO, I'VE BEEN DROENTHD CUT BACK THE STAFF REPORTS.  THAT'S WHY YOU ARE SEEING IN THE GUIDELINES YOU ARE GETTING THE LINKS TO WHERE TO FIND THOSE THINGS BUT NOT SPECIFICALLY CUT AND PASTE AND CITATIONS AND ALL THAT. THAT STILL CONCERNS ME WE DON'T HAVE THOSE REFERENCES FOR YOU TO LOOK AT.  SO WHAT I THINK WE WANT TO DO IS YOU WILL SEE A SAMPLE PAGE THAT YOU WERE GIVEN. 
          THAT'S KIND OF A SHEET WE USE INTERNALLY WHEN LOOKING AT NEW CONSTRUCTION.  I'M IN THE PROCESS OF TRYING TO KEY ATE ONE FOR THE HDC.  SO THAT WILL BECOME THE WORKSHEET AS I AM REVIEWING A CASE YOU CAN SEE MY THOUGHT PROCESS AND MY NOTES AND WHERE I AM REVIEWING IT.  THAT WOULD BE INCLUDED WITH THE STAFF REPORT.  SO, IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS YOU WILL HAVE THAT AS 
          BACK-UP ALSO.  THAT'S ALREADY BEING DONE. >> CHAIRMAN: THAT'S A FAIR 
          COMPROMISE. >> BOARD MEMBER: IT'S NICE TO HAVE IT ALL IN LITTLE WINDSHIELD 
          LIKE THAT. >> BOARD MEMBER: SO IS THIS COMPLIANT OR NOT? AND YOU GO 
          DOWN THE LIST YOU ARE LOOKING AT >> AND THERE ARE HINTS AS TO WHERE THOSE THINGS ARE FOUND IN 
          THE LDC SO YOU KNOW WHERE TO GO TO. >> BOARD MEMBER: LOOK AT THAT A 
          CITY BEING EFFICIENT. >> WE'RE TRYING.  WE'RE HOPING THIS WILL CUT DOWN THE TIME IT TAKES TO CREATE THE STAFF REPORTS TO GIVE US MORE TIME TO DO THE REVIEWING.  HOPEFULLY HELPS YOU GUYS MORE TOO.  THEN THE ONLY OTHER THING I HAD WAS JUST A CHECK-IN TO SEE IF ANYBODY WOULD BE HERE FOR DECEMBER.  I KNOW DECEMBER IS A HARD MONTH.  THE 17TH. 
          >> BOARD MEMBER: 19TH IT SAYS. >> BOARD MEMBER: I WILL NOT BE HERE. 
          >> BOARD MEMBER: NO. >> BOARD MEMBER: YES.  YES. >> JUST TO MAKE SURE. 
          >> BOARD MEMBER: THIS IS MY FOURTH ONE. >> CHAIRMAN: AND YOU ARE OUT 
          >> HE IS KEEPING TRACK [LAUGHTER] I KNOW MIKE WAS OUT OF TOWN LAST 
          TIME. >> BOARD MEMBER: I WAS HERE DON'T YOU REMEMBER 
          [LAUGHTER] >> CHAIRMAN: YEAH THAT'S IT. THE MINUTES ARE WRONG. 
          >> YOU UNDER HIGH DEFINITION NOW SO IT'S RECORDED FOR POSTERITY. >> BOARD MEMBER: I'LL SEND IN MY 
          QUESTIONS IN ADVANCE >> WE MAY DO A CALL-IN. >> CHAIRMAN: WE MAY GET TAMMI TO 
          ANSWER THE QUESTION. >> BOARD MEMBER: IT'S ME HERE. >> CHAIRMAN: THREE IN ONE CAM 
          ENDAR YEAR. >> BOARD MEMBER: MY FIRST IN FOUR MONTHS. 
          >> BOARD MEMBER: YOUR CLOCK IS GOING TO START OVER AGAIN IN A MONTH SO IT DOESN'T REALLY COUNT 
          [LAUGHTER] >> BOARD MEMBER: IT IS A ROLLING YEAR.  I THOUGHT IT WAS AN 
          APPOINTMENT YEAR. >> CHAIRMAN: APPOINTMENT YEAR, ROLLING YEAR, CALENDAR YEAR, 
          FISCAL YEAR -- [LAUGHTER] >> BOARD MEMBER: DEPENDS WHAT 
          THE DEFINITION OF "YEAR" IS. >> BOARD MEMBER: I AM THINKING IF YOU ARE AN ALTERNATE YOU CAN 
          DO WHAT THE HELL YOU WANT. >> BOARD MEMBER: I'LL SEND IN MY QUESTIONS 
          [LAUGHTER] >> CHAIRMAN: YOU CAN'T CONSULT WITH ANOTHER BOARD MEMBER.  YOU JUST VOLUNTEERED TO BREAK THE SUNSHINE ON TV.  WAVE TO THE AUDIENCE 
          [LAUGHTER] THAT ONE IS TAMMI. >> BOAR 
          >> CHAIRMAN: THAT IS IT? >> THAT IS ALL I'VE GOT. >> BOARD MEMBER: YOU SEND ME A 
          DRAWING THAT I COULDN'T-- >> I'M SORRY, YES. >> BOARD MEMBER: GIVE ME A BIG 
          COPY OF IT. >> I'M SORRY.  SO THAT IS -- I DON'T KNOW IF YOU REMEMBER ABOUT A YEAR AGO THE WALL AT THE POCKET PARK ON THE STORE THAT IS NOW LORI LULU.  ORIGINALLY IT 
          [04:15:10]
WAS THE FULL 50 BY 100 LOT.  AT SOME POINT THE ROOF CAVED IN AND WHEN THEY REBUILT THE STORE THEY ONLY BUILT HALF OF IT BUT LEFT THE EXTERIOR WALL UP SO IT WAS A COURT YARD.  BUT THE WALL WAS NEVER INTENDED TO BE A FREE STANDING WALL.  SO THE WALL WAS A DANGER.  THE APPLICANT ASKED FOR EMERGENCY DEMOLITION.  WE GRANTED IT WITH THE STIPULATION WE HAVE A MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING THEY WERE TO SALVAGE ALL OF THE BRICK.  PAL ATIES THE BRICK.  STORE IT ON SITE.  AND RECONSTRUCT THE WALL. THEY HAD ORIGINALLY TALKED ABOUT PUTTING THE BUILDING BACK AND THEY WANT TO GET PLANS TO PUT THE BUILDING BACK.  NOW THEY'VE SAID WE'RE NOT FROM YET WE WANT TO JUST PUT THE WALL BACK.  SO, THEY'VE SUBMITTED THIS WHICH IS THE DESIGN FOR A 6 FOOT WALL CMU BLOCK WALL FACING WIT THE ORIGINAL BRICK SALVAGED AND A GATE IN THE BACK WHICH SATISFIES THEIR AGREEMENTS THAT WE HAVE WITH THEM.  SO I JUST WANTED YOUR FEEDBACK.  WHEN IT WAS COMING BACK AS A BUILDING IT WOULD HAVE NEEDED TO COME BACK TO THE BOARD. NOW IT'S JUST STAFF APPROVAL BUT I WANTED TO SHOW YOU SO YOU KNEW WHAT WAS GOING ON AND IF THERE WERE ANY 
          COMMENTS. >> BOARD MEMBER: I AM ASSUMING THEY'RE GOING TO MATCH THE SOLDIER COARSE OR THERE'S A LITTLE BIT OF CHANGE IN THE BRICK STYLE AND IT LOOKS LIKE HE'S DRAWN THAT HERE.  THEY'RE GOING TO MATCH WHAT WAS THERE ORIGINALLY 
          >> IT WAS JUST -- BECAUSE IT WAS AN EXTERIOR WALL THERE WAS NO DESIGN TO IT.  IT WAS JUST CUT OFF AT THE TOP AND LOOSE BRICKS. HE IS I THINK TRYING TO COPY THE DESIGN THAT'S ON THE WALLS ON 
          CENTER STREET.  THE WAY THE BRICK IS DESIGNED. >> BOARD MEMBER: SO MY NEXT QUESTION IS:  ORIGINALLY IT HAD LIKE A STEP DESIGN AND IT WAS A VERY EVEN STEP.  WASN'T THE OLD WALL 15 FEET TALL.  SO, IF WE'RE DROPPING THIS IN HALF WERE THEY NOT REQUIRED TO PUT IT BACK UP 
          TO THE FULL 12 FOOT HEIGHT >> NO.  THE ONLY REASON IT WAS A 12 FOOT BRICK WALL BECAUSE IT WAS THE ORIGINAL EXTERIOR WALL. SO, STRUCTURALLY WE DON'T WANT THEM TO PUT BACK A 12 FOOT WALL. 
          WE JUST WANT THEM TO HONOR THE ORIGINAL FOOTPRINT OF THE THREE STAR SALOON AND GET THAT 
          ORIGINAL BRICK UTILIZED. >> BOARD MEMBER: IT IS A REASONABLE CROW COMPROMISE. 
          >> BOARD MEMBER: [INAUDIBLE]. >> CHAIRMAN: CAN WE FINISH THIS DISCUSSION -- WE'RE GOOD? WE'RE GOOD.  WE'RE GOOD. WHAT'S GOING ON -- 
          >> THERE IS A LARGE HOLE IN THE ROOF.  IF YOU GO ON THE STREETS YOU WILL SEE WHERE THE ROOF IS PEELED BACK.  I BROUGHT IT TO THIS BOARD FOR DEMOLITION BY NEGLECT. 
          >> BOARD MEMBER: THE STANDARD MARINE >> YEAH AND IT WENT TO THE COAST 
          GUARD AND WAS FOUND TO BE IN COMPLIANCE. >> BOARD MEMBER: I MISSED THE 
          FIRST PART >> I WAS ASKED ABOUT THE STANDING MARINE BUILD.  THE ROOF 
          IS PEELED BACK.  THE BUILDING IS OPEN. >> BOARD MEMBER: CAN WE ASK THE 
          QUESTION AGAIN? >> DEFINITELY. >> GIVEN THERE ARE FACTS THAT 
          INDICATE IT IS NOT IN COMPLIANCE. >> YEAH.  THIS BOARD CAN MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD TO OPEN A CASE. 
          >> BOARD MEMBER: WHY DO WE WANT TO DEMO THIS? >> WE DON'T.  THE MISCONCEPTION WITH DEMO BY NEGLECT.  IT'S TO PREVENT THE BUILDING FROM BEING DEMOLISHED. 
          >> BOARD MEMBER: FORCE THEM TO PUT IT INTO COMPLIANCE >> YES.  SAYING YOU ARE GUILTY OF NEGLECTING THIS BUILDING UNTIL IT WILL NEED BE TO DEMOED. WHICH WE DON'T WANT. 
          >> BOARD MEMBER: RIGHT. >> BOARD MEMBER: SO DO YOU NEED A MOTION? 
          >> WE'LL NEED TO DISCUSS IT AND HAVE IT AS AN ITEM.  WHICH WE CAN DO AT THE NEXT MEETING. 
          >> CHAIRMAN: THE BUILDING OFFICIAL THERE WOULD BE AN INTERESTING OPPORTUNITY TO 
          DISCUSS THAT. >> IT HAS TO BE A REAL CASE.  TO BE VOTED ON. 
          >> BOARD MEMBER: I THINK IT WOULD BE GOOD IF SAL AND THE BUILDING OFFICIAL COULD WALK 
          THROUGH IT IF THE OFFICIAL HASN'T DONE THAT YET >> BOARD MEMBER: DON'T WE HAVE 
          TO NOTIFY DICK TOO? >> YES. >> CHAIRMAN: SO WE'RE ASKING YOU TO TALK TO THE BUILDING OFFICIAL AND SEE WHAT YOU CAN SEE ABOUT THAT BUILDING AND COME BACK TO US NEXT MONTH SO WE CAN GET IT ON THE RECORD.  AND LET'S HAVE THE BUILDING INITIAL HERE FIRST 
          [04:20:06]
FOR A FRIENDLY, A VERY FRIENDLY DISCUSSION ABOUT HOW WE CAN WORK TOGETHER TO MAKE SURE THAT ALL OF OUR GOALS ARE MET.  AND WE WILL TAKE HIM FIRST.  BECAUSE I KNOW NONE OF YOU ARE GETTING PAID FOR THIS SO LET'S GET HIM IN AND OUT.  PEOPLE APPLYING FOR STUFF, THEY KNOW THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE TO WAIT.  I KIND OF WISH WE COULD HAVE GOT JOHNSON DONE YOU KNOW. 
          >> BOARD MEMBER: SO ARE WE GOING TO HAVE PUNCH AND COOKIES? >> OUR END OF YEAR SPECTACULAR 
          [LAUGHTER] >> CHAIRMAN: IS THAT IT? THANK YOU.  SAMANTHA, I REALLY APPRECIATE YOU HANGING SO LATE.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.