Link

Social

Embed

Download

Download
Download Transcript

[Item 1]

[00:00:10]

>> PLEASE CALL THE ROLL.

[Item 4.1]

THIS IS -- THIS IS NEW BUSINESS.

UPDATE THREE OF ONE. >> THANK YOU.

>> THIS PROPERTY. I GOT IT FROM THE BUILDING OFFICIAL. VERY BRIEFLY ON WHAT IS GOING ON ON THIS PROPERTY.

IT IS -- IT IS A HISTORIC DISTRICT.

IT IS A BUILDING THAT WAS DECLARED TO BE -- TO BE A DANGEROUS BUILDING.

IT HAD ISSUES. I'LL LET THE BUILDING OFFICIAL ADDRESS WHAT THOSE ARE.

>> PLEASE IDENTIFY YOURSELF.

WE APPRECIATE IT. >> BUILDING OFFICIAL FOR THE CITY. SO THIS PROPERTY, WE HAVE PICTURES, PHOTOS SHOW BASICALLY WALK THE PROPERTY WITH THE OWNER AND -- AND IDENTIFY, WHEN I WALK OUT, I SAW A NUMBER OF THE FIRST AND FOREMOST WAS THE BUILDING WAS NOT DESIGNED TO BE MULTI-FAMILY.

AS THEY CONSTRUCTED THIS -- THIS -- THIS -- THIS -- IT KWAN DONE TO MEET REQUIREMENTS FOR FIRE SEPARATION BETWEEN UNITS. MULTI-FAMILY WILL HAVE A MINIMUM ONE-HOUR SEPARATION.

THIS HAS NONE. REALLY THAT'S -- THAT'S A REAL IMPORTANT FEATURE FOR PEOPLE TO GET OUT IN CASE OF FIRE.

THAT WAS ONE THAT WAS PRESENT WITH ALL OF THE UNITS. THROUGHOUT THE BUILDING THERE WAS A LOT OF UNSAFE WIDENING AND A -- IN A MANNER THAT WAS NOT COMPLIANT. NO ACCESS.

UNPROTECTED CIRCUITS. INCORRECTS TYPES OF WIRING. THIS SERVICE -- THIS SERVICE, THIS SERVICE FOR THE -- FOR THE -- FOR THE BACK APARTMENT AND MAIN HOUSE AND WAS OVERLOADED AND HAD A LOT MORE APPLIANCES AND ITEMS ON THAT THAT WAS REALLY OVER THE LIMIT FOR -- FOR -- FOR SERVICE.

JUST OVERALL SHAPE OF THE SYSTEM WAS BAD.

THEY BRING THE POWER INTO THE HOUSE.

IT IS DETACHED. IF IT IS RUSTED A LOT, IT IS STARTED IT FALL OFF.

INSIDE THERE WAS A NEST AND MAKING A NEST INSIDE WHERE THE POWER COMES IN.

IN A LITTLE CRITTER WALKS IN, IT WOULD BE A MATCH TO LIGHT THE PLACE UP.

PRETTY UNSAFE CONDITION.

IN THE BACK APARTMENT THERE WAS A -- THERE WAS A -- A GAS APPLIANCE, THE WATER HEATER THAT HAD NO ACCESS AND WAS BASICALLY IN THE SAME ROOM.

THAT'S -- IT WASN'T VENTED PROPERLY ON TOP OF THAT. IT IS A TICKING TIME BOMB. SURPRISED NOTHING HAPPENED AT THIS POINT.

AFTER SEEING THAT WE IMMEDIATELY DECIDED IT WAS UNSAFE AND LET THE OWNERSHIP KNOW THERE WAS -- THERE WAS -- TO IMMEDIATELY. ABOUT 2 1/2 WEEKS LATER, WE CUT THE POWER.

THEY STILL HAVE? -- SOME STUFF THEY'RE GETTING IN AND OUT BUT THEY'RE NOT THE OWNER HAS COMMUNICATED THAT HE'S GOING TO CONVERT BACK TO A SINGLE FAMILY.

WE'RE STILL WAITING FOR -- FOR THE APPLICATION FOR PERMITS.

THAT'S WHERE IT IS AT THIS POINT.

>> QUESTIONS? >> HOW MANY SERVICE DROPS? IS THERE ONE SERVICE DROP AND ONE ELECTRICAL METER?

ONE OR SEVERAL. >> ONE THAT GOES TO THREE METERS. THERE'S -- LIKE I SAID, THERE'S THREE METERS AND FOUR APARTMENTS. TWO APARTMENTS SHARE ONE SERVICE. AND ONE -- ONE

WATER-SEWER? >> AS FAR AS I KNOW, YES. GOES BACK TO ONE?

>> CORRECT. >> IS THAT FOR THE CITY IF IT -- IF IT PROVIDES MORE THAN ONE

SERVICE FOR A COMPANY? >> ACTUALLY THE WAY

[00:05:03]

IT WORKS IS THE OTHER WAY AROUND, WHEN A SERVICE CHANGES OR NEW SERVICE IS PROVIDED THEY HAVE TO HAVE THE CITY APPROVAL BEFORE

THEY LOOK AT IT. >> DID THEY HAVE IT?

>> AT SOME POINT IN THE PAST, IT APPEARED THERE WAS A -- THERE WAS A PERMIT PULLED FOR A SEARCH CHANGE. I DON'T KNOW IF AT THAT POINT THEY PUT THREE METERS ON THERE AND SOMEONE APPROVED IT.

I -- I THINK SOMEONE APPROVED WHAT WORK WAS DONE IN THE PAST FOR THE ELECTRICAL PART OR ELSE -- ELSE WOULDN'T HOOK UP.

>> OTHER QUESTIONS? WE WANT TO THANK YOU FOR WHAT NEEDED TO BE DONE.

WHILE THESE STRUCTURES ARE BEING GIVEN TO US TAKING YOUR JOB SERIOUSLY.

AS I SAID, THERE'S ANYTHING WE CAN DO TO HELP YOU WITH REGARD TO THE STRUCTURE.

WE WANT TO SEE IT PRESERVED AND INHABITED. I WANT TO SAY A PLEASED TO SEE THAT MR. HICKS HAS RESPONDED QUITE FAVORABLY AND -- AND HASN'T THOUGHT ANYTHING THAT IS WORKING TO

>> TIME FOR THAT? >> NOTICE WAS 30 DAYS THAT THEY HAD TO, HAD PERMITS ISSUED.

60 FOR COLLECTIONS. WE'RE AT ABOUT THE 30-DAY POINT THAT I HOPE TO SEE APPLICATION IN FOR PERMANENT AND THEN CONVERT TO SINGLE FAMILY AND THERE'S ELECTRICAL WORK TO BE DONE.

THAT CHANGES TO MAKE IT UNINVITED.

IT WOULD BE MINIMAL AS FAR AS REMODELING

WORK. >> 30 TO 60-DAY TIME FRAME. IT IS HARD RIGHT NOW.

>> THAT'S THE STANDARD TIME FRAME THAT IS ORDINANCE FOR CERTAIN STATS.

THEY MAKE PROGRESS AND SUBMIT PERMITS AND FOR SURE WE COULD WORK WITH THEM.

>> NOTHING HE HAS TO DO TO COME BEFORE US?

>> NO. SO I HAVE SPOKEN WITH MR. BICKS. HE HAD PUT IN A COA APPLICATION FOR THE PAINTING AND SIDING REPAIR. HE'S GOING TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THAT IN CONJUNCTION WITH THESE OTHER PROJECTS. HE SAID HE MAY BE ABLE TO ATTEND OUR THURSDAY MEETING TO KIND OF UPDATE THE BOARD ON WHERE HE'S AT WITH

THOSE CHANGES. >> HE'S BEEN WORKING

[Item 4.2]

ON IT. >> THANK YOU.

WE'LL LET HIM GO. WE'RE ON 2020, PROPERTIES OF CONCERN. SELL.

>> I CAN EVALUATE PROPERTIES AROUND THE CITY THAT ARE AN OPPORTUNITY TO THE CITY. THIS YEAR FOUR OF THE PROPERTIES ARE THE SAME AS LAST YEAR WITH TWO ADDITIONS, THOMPSON HOUSE AND CITY BALL. IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS I'M HERE TO ANSWER THEM OR ALSO MICHELLE IS HERE TO ANSWER QUESTIONS.

SOME OF THESE ARE CONCERNED WITH READING. SOME ARE CONCERNS BECAUSE THEY'RE CODE ENFORCEMENT CONCERNS.

SOME BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT IN THE HISTORIC DISTRICT. THEY'RE IN THE ON -- ON THE LIST FOR THE SAME REASON.

WE CAN DISCUSS ANY, IF YOU WANT TO DISCUSS

ANY OF THEM. >> LET'S TAKE THEM IN

ORDER. >> SURE.

I WALK BY THE PROPERTY ALL THE TIME.

DOES IT SEEM WEATHER-TIGHT?

>> NOT AT THE CURRENT TIME.

>> YOU'RE CONCERNED IT IS -- THERE'S

WATER? >> YES.

>> DIDN'T YOU DO A PRESENTATION ON THAT LIKE SEVERAL MONTHS AGO.

>> LAST YEAR'S LIST. >> YEAH.

>> WE TALK ABOUT OUTFITS AND THINGS

LIKE THAT. >> IMPORTANT VERNACULAR. THE REASON IT IS ON THE LIST IS BECAUSE IT IS NOT PROTECTED AT ALL. IT IS NOT IN THE CRA OR THE HISTORIC DISTRICT? ARE THE HOUSES ON THE FOURTH STREET SIDE

HISTORIC? >> THEY'RE FROM THE 1930S AND 40S BUT NOT IN THE CR DISTRICT.

OBVIOUSLY IT IS PROBABLY WAY MORE VALUABLE THAN THE TWO STRUCTURES.

>> IT IS A HIGH DEVELOPMENT PRESSURE ON THIS PROPERTY. AN ACROSS THE STREET.

[00:10:02]

>> AND -- IT PROBABLY NESTED BETWEEN THE STARS AND CRA. I MEAN THAT -- THAT -- IT WOULD AFFORD A FEW MORE PROTECTIONAL DEVICES BUT IS THERE A WAY TO ADD TO ONE OR

THE OTHER? >> THAT'S -- I'M -- I'M ON THE AGENDA TO TALK ABOUT THEM AT THE

[Item 4.3]

SAME TIME. WERE POSSIBLE BOUNDARY EXPANSIONS, SOME OF THESE PROPERTIES MAY BE GOOD CANDIDATES FOR THAT.

>> BANK BUILDING. >> OTHERS.

>> OTHER PREDICAMENT REASONS.

ALL WORTHY OF PROTECTION.

>> DID YOU HAVE ANYTHING YOU RECOMMEND TO US REGARDING THE COULDN'T DO DEMOS OR ANYTHING?

>> NO. >> NOT ON THE RADAR.

>> WHAT IS THE PROCESS TO SECURE THE CRA, WE HAVE TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COMMISSION AND -- AND --

>> CORRECT. >> THE CITY COMMISSION WOULD HAVE TO PASS AN ORDINANCE.

>> CORRECT. >> SO IT WOULD BE A LONGER PROCESS THAN A NORMAL COA APPLICATION BUT WE WENT THROUGH THE PROCESS FOR THE PLEASE SEEM. SO IT IS VERY SIMILAR TO THAT. WE WOULD IDENTIFY THE PROPERTIES. THERE WOULD BE A VOTE OF THE OWNERS. THE OWNERS GET A VOTE AS TO WHETHER THEY WANT TO BE IN THE HISTORIC DISTRICT OR NOT.

WE WOULD HAVE OUR MEETING AND DISCUSS WHAT REGULATIONS THE HISTORIC DISTRICT WOULD PUT ON THE PROPERTY.

WE WOULD USE OUR GUIDELINES THAT WE HAVE NOW. SAME RULES WOULD

APPLY. >> DOES THAT MEAN IF THEY DON'T WANT TO BE IN THE HISTORIC DISTRICT IT TAKES IT OFF THE REALM OF POSSIBILITY OR IT WEIGHS INTO THE

DECISION? >> IT WEIGHS INTO THE DECISION. WE NEED A PERCENTAGE OF THIS BOARD TO VOTE FOR IT AND THERE ALSO NEED TO BE A MAJORITY OF THE CITY COMMISSION THAT -- THAT VOTES TO APPROVE IT.

IF 50 PERCENT OF THE OWNERS CHOOSE IN THE

TO BE INCLUDED. >>

>> CORRECT. >> WE MAKE A BIGGER DISTRICT. WHAT IS THE STREET

ADJACENT? >>

>> IT WOULD BE ABOUT ONE OF PROPERTY OR PROPERTY OR PUSHING OUT OF THE BOUNDARY.

>> IT WOULD BE TAKING IN THOSE ADJACENT PROPERTI PROPERTIES.

>> HOW MANY LOTS? >> WE LOOK AT IT.

THE WAY THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE IS WRITTEN YOU CAN'T HAVE MORE THAN 50 PERCENT NONCONFORMERING PROPERTIES WENT IN.

THOSE WOULD BE NONCONATTRIBUTING.

SO WE ONLY WOULD BE ABLE TO BRING THE PARCEL IN THAT THE HOUSE IS ON.

>>

>> YEAH. >> OKAY.

>> THAT ANSWER THE CRA TOO?

>> CRA HAS DIFFERENT RULES.

TO AN EXTENT THEY HAVE A PROCESS.

>> GIVEN THE TITLE, KEEP ROLLING HERE.

WOULD THIS BE A HOUSE THAT -- THAT -- I DON'T KNOW -- I KNOW IT IS A DELICATE SITUATION THAT COULD BE RECOMMENDED TO THE FLORIDA 11 TO WATCH? TO ME IT IS A CULTURAL -- IT IS -- IT IS THE LAST BIT OF THE

SHRINKING HISTORY. >> UH-HUH.

>> THAT'S ONE OF THE -- IT IS AN UNDERREPRESENTED -- REPRESENTED PART OF OUR HISTORIC DISTRICT, I FEEL.

>> YES. >> WOULD THAT BE SOMETHING -- I KNOW THEY GO THROUGH THE RECOMMENDATIONS AND NOMINATIONS IN MAY.

IS THAT SOMETHING THAT --

>> WE COULD. MY EXPERIENCE IS THE WATCH TO LIST IN CASES LIKE THIS, REALLY DON'T HAVE A LOT OF EFFECT BECAUSE IT REALLY JUST BRINGS AWARENESS TO IT, TO A WIDER AUDIENCE AND NOT CHANGING THE FACT IT HAS NO PROTECTIONS AND NOT IN THE HISTORIC DISTRICT. THE OWNER IS PROBABY NOT GOING TO SEE IT ON THEIR WEBSITE OR SEE

THEIR PRESENTATIONS. >> MAYBE JUST FOR LOCAL AWARENESS. THROUGH THE -- THROUGH THE STATE AWARENESS AND THEN THE LOCAL

AWARENESS. >> IT IS A CONSIDERATION. I CAN BRING BACK THAT NOMINATION AT ONE OF OUR BOARD MEETINGS TO SHOW YOU WHAT THE REQUIREMENTS ARE TO

GET IT ON THE LIST. >> ANYBODY COULD NOMINATE. A CITIZEN COULD NOMINATE. IT DOESN' HAVE TO BE THROUGH. IF ONE OF US NOMINATED WOULD WE NOMINATE AS ANY BOARD MEMBER OR WOULD IT HAVE TO BE AS CITIZEN OR IT DOESN'T

MATTER? >> I DON'T BELIEVE SO. WE HAVE TO CHECK.

>> OKAY. >> NEXT.

HERE JUST SHOWING THAT -- WHY THAT BLOCK IS -- HAS MEANT SUCH HIGH PRESSURE FOR DEVELOPMENT. THIS ARE MULTIPLE

[00:15:02]

UNDERLYING LOTS UNDER THAT HISTORIC HOUSE.

>> ANOTHER PROPERTY IS -- IS -- IS READY TO BE PUBLIC SCHOOL NUMBER ONE WHICH IS CURRENTLY OWNED BY THE SCHOOL BOARD.

IT IS THE THEIR HEADQUARTERS.

IT WAS BUILT IN 1957. IT IS A HISTORIC PROPERTY. THIS IS NOT IN THE HISTORIC DISTRICT OR THE CRA.

IT HAS NO PROTECTIONS FROM DEVELOPMENT PRESSURE OR ALTERATIONS.

IT IS A VERY LARGE SITE, OBVIOUSLY.

MICHELLE IN CODE ENFORCEMENT CAN TALK ABOUT THAT. A COUPLE OF OTHERS.

TALK ABOUT CONDITIONS. THE OTHER BUILDING IS THE 1882 BUILDING. THE STANDARD MARINE BUILDING. I THINK WE'RE FAMILIAR WITH THE SITUATION THERE.

AS YOU CAN SEE, I DON'T KNOW IF YOU COULD SEE IN THE PHOTOS, I MEAN, THERE ARE HOLES IN THE ROOF. THOSE ARE THE NONCONTRIBUTING WAREHOUSE PARTS OF IT AND EVEN THAT PART OF THE BUILDING IS FLOODING. THAT HAS -- THAT -- THAT HAS PROBLEMS WITH THE ROOF.

>> PLAIN OR RAIN? >> RAIN.

IT IS VERY WET ON THE INSIDE OF THAT BUILDING WHEN IT RAINS.

>> YOU MEAN RECENT RUNOFF.

>> I BELIEVE THAT SOMEBODY LOOKING AT PURCHASING THAT PROPERTY TO DO A

DEVELOPMENT THERE. >> WRAPPING AROUND IT. BUT AGAIN THIS THIS IS NOT A HISTORIC BUILDING, IT IS IN THE E.R.L. SO IT HAS TO COME BACK TO THE

HISTORIC. >> DID YOU GIVE THE OPTION TO THE OWNER TO --

>> WE DID. WE DROPPED EVERYTHING AND SHOWED THEM EVERYTHING.

THEY'RE IN THE INTERESTED AT THIS POINT OF PUTTING IN A HISTORIC DISTRICT.

>> IS THAT HARD NOW OR --

>> I CAN'T SAY. >> ALL RIGHT.

>> ONE LAST QUESTION. YOU CONSULT THE PLANS FOR WHEN THEY HAVE GOING INTO THAT SITE.

THEY -- THEIR INTENT IS TO PRESERVE THE -- THE HISTORIC STRUCTURE.

THEIR INTENT IS TO PRESERVE IT.

HOW DO WE INSURE THAT INTENTIONS CARRY THROUGH. IT IS NOT AN OOPS, IT

WAS TOO -- >> WE GOT TO KEEP, THE CRA GUIDELINES ARE DIFFERENT THAN THE HISTORIC GUIDELINES. SO AS FAR AS THAT HISTORIC BUILDING, THEY WOULDN'T REALLY ADDRESS THAT AS IN DEPTH AS THE HISTORIC DISTRICT GUIDELINES TO.

>> OKAY. WE HAVE QUESTIONS.

WE GET HERE THROUGH THE MEDIA THAT THE INTENT OF THE BUYERS WAS FOR PRESERVE AND RESTORE THE EXISTING STRUCTURE AND THEN WRAP AROUND IT WOULD BE THAT -- I DON'T SEE THIS -- THIS IMPROVING.

ANY WILL INVOLVE DEMOLITION OR THE SUBSTANTIVE CHANGE TO THE BUILDING, WHETHER IN AN HDC OR CRA, I DON'T -- SINCE THIS -- I DON'T THINK THIS BOARD HAS ANY INCLINATION EXCEPT IF A RENOVATION OF THE EXISTING STRUCTURE. THE QUESTION IS HOW CLOSE WILL THE PYLONS BE? WHEN YOU THINK ABOUT WHAT THAT BLOCK LOOKED LIKE IN THE PICTURES YOU PROVIDED US, AT TIMES OTHER STRUCTURES ARE RIGHT UP TO IT.

THE QUESTION FOR THE DEVELOPER.

THERE WAS TEN FEET. THAT ALLOWS US TO SEE IT SEPARATE AND BY ITSELF AND IT IS

PROBABLY A GOOD THING. >> NOTHING EVER ATTACHED TO IT. IT WAS ALWAYS

SEPARATE. >> ALWAYS THERE.

>> AND THE WAREHOUSE WAS

>> THAT WOULD BE SOMETHING WE WOULD

LIKE TO SEE. >> THE NEXT PROPERTY IS THE PROPERTY KNOWN AS HYLAND BANK.

IT IS UNIQUE IN THAT -- IT IS ON THE LIST, NOT BECAUSE OF THE BUILDING.

THE BUILDING WAS BUILT IN 1979 BUT AS THE SITE OF THE KEYSTONE HOTEL, IT IS THE ENTRANCE TO THE HISTORIC DISTRICT AND THE HISTORIC DISTRICT WRAPS AROUND THIS SITE. THE CHURCH ON THE CORNER IS IN THE DISTRICT.

THE PROPERTY BEHIND IT IS IN THE DISTRICT AND NEXT TO IT IS IN THE DISTRICT.

THIS WRAPS THE DISTRICT AROUND IT.

IT IS A NEW DEVELOPMENT.

I DON'T THINK ANYBODY REALLY CONCERNED WITH THE BUILDING THAT IS THERE NOW.

IF THERE WERE TO BE REDEVELOPMENT ON THAT SITE, THEY -- THIS IS AN IMPORTANT ONE TO BE IN THE DESTRUCT FOR -- FOR THAT REVIEW OF THE NEW DEVELOPMENT ON THAT PROMINENT CORNER AS THE ENTRANCE TO THE HISTORIC DISTRICT.

[00:20:08]

>> QUESTIONS? >> ANY INTEREST IN BEING IN THE HISTORIC DISTRICT?

>> I DON'T KNOW. >> IT WOULD BE

SUBJECT TO RULES. >> THEY WOULD BE SUBJECT TO THE SAME RULES AS OTHER NONCONTRIBUTING. IT WOULD BE A NONCONTRIBUTING BUILDING TO THE HISTORIC DISTRICT. THEY WOULD HAVE TO COME IN FOR APPROVALS. NOT BEING PART OF IT, THERE'S NO DESIGN REVIEW.

SO IT IS -- IT COULD BE A SEALED BUILDING

THERE. >> COULD BE A LOT OF THINGS. OKAY.

>> I WONDER -- WOULD THERE BE A BIG HOLE TO PUT IN PLACE, IF THEY DIDN'T WANT TO BE IN THE DISTRICT BECAUSE THAT MAY PUT LIMITATIONS ON IF, IF THEY WANT TO DO ANYTHING, THEY DON'T WANT TO JUMP THROUGH THOSE HOOPS. WOULD THERE BE SOMETHING THAT DRAFTED THAT SAID WE HAVE FIRST RIGHT OF REFUSAL IF THEY SELL THIS PROPERTY TO THEN PUT IT IN THE HISTORIC

DISTRICT. >> THAT'S THE WAY TO

GO TOO. >> YOU CHANGED.

>> OR -- OR -- OR -- AND SOMEBODY ELSE, THEN THAT'S WHAT TRIGGERS IS IT -- TO GET IT INTO THE HISTORIC DISTRICT.

>> WHEN YOU SAY MEAN JUST

>> CORRECT. THE DESIGNATION.

WHOEVER PURCHASES IT HAS TO FOLLOW THE

HISTORIC GUIDELINES. >> INTERESTING.

>> YEAH. >> WE KNOW WHERE THAT

IS. >> MASSIVE HOUSE.

THOMPSON HOUSE IS ON THE LIST BECAUSE IT IS ONE OF OUR CONT CONTRIBUTING STRUCTURES TO THE HISTORIC DISTRICT THAT IS CURRENTLY SUFFERING A GREAT DEAL OF NEGLECT. IT IS VACANT AND IT IS RAPIDLY SHOWING SIGNS OF DETERIORATION.

ADDRESS WHERE THAT IS AS FAR AS BOARD

ACTION. >> IT IS FALLING DOWN. YOU -- YOU -- YOU TAKE YOUR LIFE IN YOUR HAND WHEN YOU WALK UP AND AROUND IT. THE INSIDE DINING ROOM CEILING THAT DROPPED. THE PLASTER DOWN.

YOU COULD BARELY WALK ON THE FRONT STEPS.

IT IS FALLEN DOWN. >> THE FLOOR IN THE DINING ROOM APPARENTLY HAS BEEN SOLD.

>> IT IS STRIPPED. >> ON THE INSIDE.

>> SHE'LL COME TELL US ABOUT IT.

>> MICHELLE FORESTRUM.

THIS IS -- THIS IS ALREADY BEFORE THE BOARD. THEY ARE -- THEY ARE ACCRUING FINES AS WE SPEAK.

I TALKED TO THE CITY ATTORNEY.

I WOULD VERY MUCH LIKE TO AT THE NEXT HEARING

WHICH IS MARCH -- >> 5TH.

>> BRING UP THE IDEA OF FORECLOSURE.

NOW THERE'S RUMORS GOING AROUND SO I'M -- I DON'T HAVE ACCESS TO -- TO -- TO WHAT THE LEGAL DEPARTMENT HAS ACCESS TO AS FAR AS GETTING ONLINE. I'M HEARING FORECLOSURE ALREADY. I'M HEARING BANKRUPTCY. SO -- SO I'M IN THE REALLY SURE WHERE THAT IS.

BUT IF WE CAN GET DIRECTIONS FROM THE CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD TO DIRECT LEGAL TO GO AHEAD AND DO A TITLE SEARCH AND START THE PROCESS GOING. I -- I HAVE ALSO -- ALSO BEEN WATCHING THIS PROPERTY FROM -- FROM -- AND IT IS BREAKING MY HEART.

WE'RE DOING EVERYTHING WE CAN.

I DON'T KNOW IF THIS IS SOMETHING THAT THE BUILDING OFFICIAL WOULD GET INVOLVED WITH AS FAR AS AN UNSAFE STRUCTURE.

DON'T KNOW. HAVEN'T DISCUSSED IT WITH THEM. I DON'T KNOW THAT IT IS GOING TO DO -- GOING TO DO ANY GOOD.

I THINK THAT IF THE CITY CAN GET A HOLD OF THE PROPERTY AND MAYBE TURN IT AROUND AND SELL IT TO SOMEBODY WHO -- WHO CARES AND THAT WILL GIVE ■IT-- THE TLC THAT IT DESERVES, I THINK THAT'S A BETTER WAY TO GO. PERSONAL.

>> AGAIN, AGAIN, WHAT -- WHAT IF ANYTHING THE BOARD CAN DO WITH YOUR WORK.

PLEASE FEEL FREE TO CALL UPON US.

I HAVE AN OFFICE INTERESTING PLACE TO BE.

QUEST QUESTIONS?

>> I'VE BEEN TO THE OTHER PROPERTIES.

I'VE BEEN TO THE BANK AS WELL.

IF THERE'S ANYTHING YOU WANT TO ASK ME ABOUT ANY OF THE OTHER PROPERTIES, I'M MORE THAN HAPPY TO ANSWER THEM.

>> WE WANT YOU TO WAVE YOUR WAND AND

MAKE IT COME BACK. >> I WISH I COULD.

>> I HAVE A QUESTION ON THE TRUE VALLEY

[00:25:03]

PROPERTY, YOU MEAN THE OUTBUILDINGS AS WELL? I COULD ONLY GO AS FAR AS THE RATTLE BITE.

>> INSIDE. >> NO MA'AM.

I DID GO OUT AND WE'RE HOPING THAT A -- THAT HE WOULD KIND OF TAKE CARE OF IT ON HIS OWN WITH SOME HELP FROM -- FROM -- FROM -- FROM ANOTHER PARTY BUT HE'S NOT GOING TO.

SO, I SENT A LETTER YESTERDAY ACTUALLY.

HE'LL HAVE 30 DAYS TO APPLY AND BE ISSUED A PERMIT FOR EVERYTHING THAT NEEDS A PERMIT.

>> THE ENTIRE STRUCTURE OR THE

OUTBUILDINGS. >> THAT BUILDING BEHIND IS FALLING APART SO I DIDN'T INCLUDE THAT PART. I JUST INCLUDED WHAT

WAS ON THAT PROPERTY. >> THANK YOU.

THANK YOU. >> WE'RE -- WE'RE -- WE'RE OUT OF HERE? 4:30.

CITY HALL. THAT'S RIGHT? THE ONLY REASON THAT -- THAT ONE IS ON THE LIST IS BECAUSE -- I ACCEPT OUT THAT REPORT EARLIER THIS YEAR, CITY HALL -- HALL HAS BEEN -- HAS BEEN SEVERELY -- OR INC INSENSITIVELY CHANGED. IT LOST ITS CONTRIBUTING STATUS THANKS TO THE ARCHITECTURE, 1955. IT IS STILL A HISTORIC STRUCTURE. IT ISN'T BORN CULTURALLY TO THE CITY.

PEOPLE DON'T REALIZE IT IS THE SAME BUILDING THAT STOOD HERE IN 1904 WHEN IT WAS BUILT. IT JUST COVERED IN IT IS VERY MUCH THE SAME BUILDING.

THAT'S WHY THIS IS ON THE LIST.

>> AND IN OUR CASE IT IS ISSUED TO DO WHAT?

>> EVALUATE THE STRUCTURE AND THE SPACE NEED OF THE CITY, EVALUATE A REHAB OF THIS BUILDING AND POSSIBILITY OF EXPANDING TO A NEW BUILDING ACROSS THE

STREET. >> ON THE ASH STREET

PARKING LOT. >> YES, CORRECT.

>> A METAL LAP THAT WAS APPLIED.

>> CAN IT COME OFF? >> STUCCO IS NEVER

EASY TO GET OFF. >> IT IS COMING OUT

OF THE COFFEE SHOP. >> YOU COULD PEEL THAT LIKE AN EGG. THIS COULD BE RESTORED. THERE'S A LOT OF DAMAGE DONE TO THE BUILDING IN MODERNIZING IT. THE DETAIL WAS CHISELLED OFF AND THERE'S A LOT OF BRICKWORK THAT WOULD NEED TO BE DONE.

IT CAN BE DONE. IT HAS BEEN DONE LOTS OF OTHER PLACES. IT IS NOT A QUICK EASY

THING. >> IT IS STRUCTURALLY SOUND?

>> IT IS BEING ADDED ON TO.

THE ADDITIONS ARE NOT THE SAME QUALITY AS THE ORIGINAL STRUCTURE.

THE FOUR WALLS -- THE FIREHOUSE WALLS ARE VERY THICK BRICK WALLS, SO PROBABLY REALLY STRUCTURALLY SOUND.

SOME OF THESE ADDITION RESPECT IFFY.

>> CAN YOU POINT THAT OUT?

>> SURE. >> THIS IS THE BUILDING, YOU COULD SEE ITS THE MAIN BODY OF THE BUILDING. THE FIRE BAYS ARE -- ARE WHERE THE CHAMBERS ARE NOW.

THESE WINDOWS WE'RE LOOKING OUT HERE.

IN THE 50S THIS WING WAS ADDED ON THAT SIDE OF THE BUILDING. THIS ADDITION WAS ADDED OVER THE FIRE BAYS.

IN THE 70S THIS WING WAS ADDED IN THE 70S.

>> SO WHAT -- ONE THING I THINK IS COOL IN THIS ROOM WHERE THEY PUT THESE BOOKSHELVES. DID YOU SEE THE ARCHES? THEY DID THAT SO IT COULD BE REMOVED WITH THE ORIGINAL BUILDING.

>> YES. >> THAT'S A

SENSITIVE. >> YEAH.

>> REMODEL. >>

>> THE ORIGINAL CEILING AND THEN THE SECOND FLOOR THAT WAS -- THAT WAS -- THAT

WAS -- THAT WAS -- >> SO SHOULD THE BOARD BE CONSIDERING RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE CITY COMMISSION WOULD BE RELATIVE TO THE STRUCTURE OR -- OR WAIT FOR THE RPS TO

COME BACK? >> EITHER WAY.

>> SINCE I READ THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE I'M IT MAKES CLEAR THAT IT -- IT

[00:30:02]

COMMISSION OF MATTERS. THE CITY IN THE DISCUSSION. THANK YOU FOR BRINGING IT TO OUR ATTENTION. IT IS ON OUR RADAR.

PAY ATTENTION. WE'LL SEE HOW WE PROCEED. IS THAT FAIR?

>> THANK YOU. STRUCTURES.

>> BEFORE -- BEFORE --

>> DO WE HAVE SPECIFICALLY AS FAR AS THEIR TRINGALE PROPERTY AND THE HYLAND BANK PROPERTY ARE CONCERNED THAT WE WANT TO DIRECT SAL TO TAKE THE INITIATIVE AND TAKE THE STEPS TO LOOK AT HOW THOSE COULD BE INCORPORATED?

>> THAT'S WHAT YOU MENTION.

WHAT ARE FOLKS THINKING?

>> I THINK IT IS IMPORTANT, YEAH.

>> I HEAR YES'S. >> WE'RE INTERESTED IN BRINGING IN THE TRINGALE PROPERTY AND THE SCHOOL. GOING DOWN THIS PATH, WE UNDERSTAND THERE'S A JOINT MEETING TOMORROW WHERE THESE DISCUSSIONS MAY COME UP AS WELL AS A THEY MADE THEIR OLD SCHOOL CITY HALL.

ALMOST THE SAME STYLE. THEY GOT LEAD STATUS FOR IT FOR THE ARE ELI-- FOR THE RELEASE OF THAT BUILDING.

IT CAN BE DONE. >> SOME OF THESE THINGS WON'T BE ON THE LIST UNTIL NEXT YEAR.

>> ON THE SCHOOL BUILDING, HOW MUCH LIME DID THEY TAKE -- WHAT WAS TAKEN FROM CENTRAL THAT BUILDING BECAME WHAT IT IS NOW?

>> SO ORIGINALLY THE ENTIRE SITE WAS PLATTED AS CENTRAL PARK.

ATLANTA AVENUE DIDN'T RUN THROUGH THE CENTER. IT WAS ALL CENTRAL

PARK. >> I THINK I READ

ABOUT THAT SOMEWHERE. >> WITH NO BUILDINGS

ON IT. >> NO.

GIVEN, TAKEN, WHAT PROCESS WAS THAT? IT SEEMS SO HARD TO EVER GET IT BACK.

>> IF I KNEW IT I WOULD

[Item 4.4]

>> OKAY. CONTRIBUTING STRUCTURES. YOU HAVE IT.

I HAVE LOOKED AT IT. IT IS LENGTHY.

SO JUST BRIEFLY, THE REASON WE'RE LOOKING AT THIS IS THE WAY OUR LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE READS, IT PERTAINS TO CONTRIBUTING STATUS COMPARED TO OUR MOST RECENT SURVEY.

WE DID A SURVEY IN 2005 AND LAST UPDATE IN 2018. IF THINGS CHANGE, BECOMES CONTRIBUTING. THEY HAVE NO LATITUDE TO AMEND THE LIST. BASED ON THE CURRENT SURVEY WE WAIT FOR THE NEXT SURVEY.

CREATING AN OFFICIAL LIST GIVES THE BOARD THAT LATITUDE TO REVISIT THE LIST WHENEVER NEEDED. IT DOES REQUIRE ADOPTING THE LIST, MAKING SURE IT IS CORRECT AND MAKING CHANGES TO IT ONCE WE ADOPT IT. WE HAVE TO BECAUSE I KNOW THERE'S THINGS MISSING ON HERE.

CHANGING THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE TO REFERENCE THE ADOPTIVE LIST AND IN THE THE SURVEY AND THEN LIKE I SAID THE -- THE BOARD CAN REVISIT THE LIST WHENEVER IT IS NEEDED.

>> ARE CONTRIBUTING OR NONCONTRIBUTING.

IS THERE A CRITERIA THAT HAS TO BE MET FOR

THAT? >> WHAT THEY LOOK AT IN THE SURVEYS AND THEY WERE ALL DONE BY INDEPENDENT CONTRACTORS IS -- IS -- SO THE FIRST THING YOU'RE LOOKING AT, DOES IT FALL WITHIN THE PERIOD OF SIGNIFICANCE FOR THE DISTRICT? THE SECOND THING IS HISTORIC INTEGRITY.

DOES IT MAINTAIN ENOUGH ORIGINAL HISTORIC FABRIC THAT IT TELLS THE STER OF THE TIME PERIOD OR IS IT SO OBSCURED IT IS NOW NONCONTRIBUTING. THINGS HAVE BEEN COVERED UP AND HAD ASBESTOS PUT ON THEM AND WERE NONCONFORMING AND THEY REVEALED THE ORIGINAL WOOD SIDING AND THE ORIGINAL FORM OF THE BUILDING AND NOW CAN BE CONSIDERED CONTRIBUTING. IN THE PAST THEY HAD TO WAIT IF THE SURVEY TO CHANGE STATUS.

THEY CAN LOOK AT THAT ON CASE BY CASE BASIS.

>> EACH PROPERTY IS SURVEYED AND RECOMMENDED CONTRIBUTING.

IS IT CONTRIBUTING TO THE LOCAL DISTRICT AND ALSO IS IT -- IS IT -- WORTHY TO BE NOMINATED ON THE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES. THERE'S A NUMBER OF BUILDINGS WE HAVE IN THE DISTRICT WHICH ARE

[00:35:01]

IN THE DISTRICT THAT IS CONTRIBUTING AND INDIVIDUALLY LISTED ON THE NATIONAL REGISTER.

>> THERE'S A LITTLE SUBJECT TO THE I HAD QUESTIONS, THE TURTLE.

THE TURTLE HAND CHANGED ANYTHING OVER THE YEARS. NOW IT IS LOCKED IN

STEP. >> IT IS A MATERIAL ISSUE WITH THE TURTLE. THE USE OF THE SIDING AND THEN THE WINDOWS AND THERE'S NOT ENOUGH HISTORIC FABRIC LEFT FOR IT TO BE CONTRIBUTING SO IT DID LOSE CONTRIBUTE.

>> IF SOMEONE LOSES CONTRIBUTING STATUS, IT SEEMS LIKE THEN THEY'RE HELD TO A LESSER STANDARD. IT IS ALMOST LIKE THE BEGINNING OF A DOWNWARD.

EVEN IN OUR REFERENCES, IF IT IS A CONTRIBUTING STRUCTURE. SO IF SOMEBODY LOST THEIR CONTRIBUTING STATUS AND THEY'RE IN THE CONTRIBUTING, WE DON'T EVEN ADDRESS THAT. SO IT SEEMS LIKE THAT'S COUNTER INTUITIVE TO SAVE THE

STRUCTURES. >> THE GOAL IS NOT TO HAVE THINGS CHANGING FROM WHAT COULD BE A CONTRIBUTING STRUCTURE TO NONCONTRIBUTING

STRUCTURE. >> HOW DOES IT DO

THAT? >> LOOKING AT BUILDINGS AND THAT TYPE OF STUFF.

THERE'S SOME THAT LOST CONTRIBUTING STATUS THAT -- THAT DID COME THROUGH THE HDC AND HAD WORK DONE ON THEM BUT NOW MAKES THEM

NONCONTRIBUTING. >> THAT IS IN THE MATERIALS AND FORMS AND -- SCALE.

RIGHT? >> UH-HUH.

THOSE ARE ALL THINGS THAT ARE CONSIDERED.

>> DO A BETTER JOB OF KEEPING US IN LINE.

>> FULL-TIME JOB. >> YEAH.

>> TO CHANGE SOMETHING ON THIS LIST, WE HAVE TO -- WE HAVE TO APPROVE IT FIRST AND THEN GO BACK AND MAKE THE

CORRECTION? >> WE COULD DO THAT OR HOLD OFF ON VOTING ON APPROVING THIS TODAY. I WOULD LIKE TO SEE US APPROVE IT AND THEN MAKE THE CORRECTIONS JUST BECAUSE WE HAVE THAT NEW GRANT PROGRAM THAT IS OUT. IT IS TIED TO YOUR STATUS, ONLY CONTRIBUTING PROPERTIES ARE ELIGIBLE.

I LIKE TO GET THIS LIST SQUARED AWAY AS SOON AS POSSIBLE AND THEN MAKE THOSE

CHANGES. >> OFF THE LIST.

>> THE DISCUSSION? >> MOVED AND

SECONDED. >> ALL RIGHT.

COUPLE OF STRUCTURES BROUGHT TO MY ATTENTION THAT -- THAT AREN'T ON THE LIST.

IF YOU WANT TO DISCUSS THOSE.

>> GO AHEAD. >> MY HOUSE IS THE BEECH STREET. THERE'S NO 512, 510.

I ASK FOR THE CORRECTION.

>> WE'LL LOOK AT THAT FOR A FUTURE MEETING.

>> SOME HAD A NAME ATTACHED TO IT.

WHERE DOES THAT COME FROM?

>> THOSE ARE BASED ON THE SURVEYS.

MOST OF THEM ARE WHAT THEY WERE IN 1985 WHEN THEY WERE FIRST SURVEY ADD THAT MEANS STILL APPEARS WHETHER THAT BUSINESS OR OWNER IS

STILL ASSOCIATED. >> SO -- SO TO START THE RECORD FOR THE FIRST OWNERS.

>> NO. IN SOME CASES THEY ARE. OTHER CASES THEY ARE NOT. WHAT BUSINESS IS THERE AT THE TIME AND WHO THE CURRENT OWNER WAS AT THAT TIME. THROUGH THE YEARS THOSE NAMES TEND IT STICK AND STAY WITH

THE NEW SURVEYS. >> DO WE KNOW HOW MANY BUILDINGS AND STRUCTURES ARE ON OUR LIST IN THE HISTORIC DISTRICT?

THE TOTAL NUMBER? >> YES, I DON'T HAVE THE LIST NUMBERED THOUGH.

I COULD GET THAT TO YOU.

>> THIS IS A POINT OF REFERENCE AND I'M JUST -- THIS IS -- THIS IS NOT FROM OUR BOARD, THIS IS FROM PREVIOUS BOARD.

WHAT I WENT THROUGH AND DID A QUICK TALLY, THERE WAS 492 LISTED ON THAT SHEET THAT WE HAD THAT YOU PROVIDED US.

SEVEN PROPERTIES GAINED STATUS AND 20 LOST STATUS. WE'LL GO SOUTH.

I THINK IT IS IMPORTANT THAT WE'RE STRICT WITH GUIDELINES AND PLACES FOLLOWING

THEM. >> I AGREE.

THAT'S FROM 2007 TO 2018.

IT IS IN THE LIKE A 50-YEAR TIME FRAME.

THAT'S IMPORTANT TO NOTE.

>> WOULD IT BE POSSIBLE TO LET US KNOW IN GENERAL WHAT THE -- WHAT THE -- WHAT THE MAIN REASONS IF LOSING CONTRIBUTING STATUS ARE? IF IT IS US APPROVING

[00:40:05]

HARVEY SIDING AND NONHISTORIC WINDOWS, IT WOULD BE GOOD TO KNOW THAT AHEAD.

>> I PULLED THEM OUT OF THE REPORTS AND BRING -- AT ONE OF THE FUTURE MEETING AND S SHOW YOU WHAT THE REASONS ARE.

>> WHAT TO DO. >> AND I'M SURE YOU -- YOU -- THEY APPLY. A HANDFUL OF THINGS THAT WILL DRIVE US. STOP.

YOU FOCUS ON THIS. >> AND ALSO VERY INTERESTED TO KNOW WHETHER THE -- THE HDC HAS PLAYED A PART IN THIS CONVERSION.

>> UNFORTUNATELY

IF YOU COULD GO BACK. >> AND ONE QUESTION ON THE THE CUSTOMS PORT LOST CONTRIBUTING STATUS AND -- THERE'S BEEN NO CHANGE TO THAT? AND THAT -- THAT MAKES ME A LITTLE NERVOUS BECAUSE I KNOW THEY WANT TO DO CHANGES OVER THERE. IF THEY LOST CONT CONTRIBUTING ON THAT

BUILDING. >> I KNOW THE REASON ON THAT ONE. THE REASON ON THAT ONE WAS THE -- THE ADDITION THAT WAS DONE. THE SCALE AND PROPORTION OF THE ADDITION TO THE

HISTORIC STRUCTURE. >> YOU CAN'T SEE IT FROM THE STREET. THE PORT.

>> LIKE I SAID, THOSE ARE THINGS THAT THE BOARD COULD CONSIDER THAT THE SURVEYOR MAY HAVE FELT THAT WAS A REASON TO LOSE CONTRIBUTING STATUS. IF THE BOARD FEELS SOMETHING LIKE THAT OR THAT PARTICULAR CASE ISN'T, IT CAN CONSIDER THOSE THINGS.

OR IT CAN SAY FUTURE AND GO BACK TO THE ORIGINAL FOOTPRINT. THOSE WOULD CHANGE THE

STATUS. >> ARE WE GOOD? UNFORTUNATE OUR TIME FRAME IS LIMITED.

[Item 4.5]

WE PROBABLY GOT THE GIST OF IT.

MOVING ON. CHANGE RELATED TO CELLULAR AND THE DESIGNATION OF CONTRIBUTING STRUCTURES.

>> OKAY. >> I'LL START WITH WHAT I GAVE YOU IN THE PACKET AND THE CHANGES WE LOOKED AT PREVIOUSLY AND APPROVED ALL BUT THE CONTRIBUTING STRUCTURES LIST AND THE -- AND THE --

>> THE FIRST ONE IS THE CONTRIBUTING STRUCTURES LIST. THAT'S THAT CHANGE THAT I MENTIONED THAT RIGHT NOW IT REFERENCES STRUCTURES, CONTRIBUTING AND NONCONTRIBUTING BASED ON MOST RECENT HISTORIC SURVEY RECEIVED BY THE CITY AND CHANGE THAT TO REFLECT THE ADOPTION OF THE LIST, INVENTORY INCLUDING STRUCTURE STATUS, CONTRIBUTING OR NONCONTRIBUTING.

THIS LIST WILL BE BASED ON THE MOST RECENT LIST OF THE SURVEY COMPLETED BY THE SURVEY AND AMENDED BY THE HISTORIC DISTRICT COUNCIL. THAT BASIC INFORMATION WOULD BE FROM THE LATEST SURVEY AND THEN THE BOARD CAN START TO AMEND IT AS NEEDED.

WE LIKE TO MOVE THAT FORWARD.

WE VOTED ON THAT? >> NO.

>> DO YOU WANT SEPARATE VOTE?

>> YEAH. >> COULD QUESTION BGET SOMEBODY TO MOVE THAT? GET THE CHANGE.

DO YOU WANT THE CHANGE IN THE LDC AND ADOPTED BY THIS SO THAT THEY COULD GO TO THE

OF CHANGES. >> WE VOTED ON ALL EXCEPT THESE TWO PREVIOUSLY.

TWO OUTSTANDING FOR US ARE ORDERS AND

STRUCTURES. >> I'LL TAKE IT.

OKAY. ANY DISCUSSION.

HEARING NONE.

SECOND ONE IS THE CORRIDOR CHANGE.

THE RECOMMENDATION WAS TO STRIKE THE LINE THAT SAYS WITHOUT USE OF OPEN SPACE AND CONNECTING ELEMENT THAT MAINTAINS THE DIMENSIONS OF THE SIDE-YARD CORRIDOR.

WE TALKED ABOUT INCONSISTENCY WITHIN THE LDC AND THAT FOLLOWS OVER INTO THE GUIDELINES AND SAME INCONSISTENCY THAT FOLLOWS THROUGH IT. THIS IS THE MOST CONSERVATIVE APPROACH TO TAKE TO LOOK AT THAT AND MAKE THAT CHANGE RIGHT NOW KEEPING IN MIND THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT HAVING -- WE DID RECEIVE A GRANT TO DO A STUDY OF THE OLD-TOWN GUIDELINES AND THAT BEGINS IN AUGUST AND WE WRAP UP THE FOLLOWING AUGUST WITH THE OPTION OF A NEW DOCUMENT THAT SERVES AS THE OLD TOWN GUIDELINES. WE REPORT THE DIFFERENT PARTS AND THE CORRIDORS AND HOW THE GUIDELINES HAVE FUNCTIONED UP UNTIL NOW AND WHETHER THEY'RE ACHIEVING.

THERE'S A CHANCE THIS COMES BACK WORDED A LITTLE BETTER BUT COMES BACK TO ALLOW

[00:45:02]

THIS IN THE NEW VERSION.

THIS REALLY CORRECTION THAT INCONSISTENCY AND KIND OF -- IS THE MOST CONSERVATIVE WAY TO APPROACH IT RIGHT NOW. YOU SEE THOSE AND WHAT

THEY LOOK LIKE. >> I SPOKE WITH PROFESSOR CHILLSON ABOUT THIS ISSUE.

I APPRECIATE GOING FORWARD, IT IS MY UNDERSTANDING -- MY UNDERSTANDING THE FLORIDA LEGISLATIVE PROCESS IS DIFFERENT THAN IT MIGHT BE IN OTHER PLACES.

WHILE THE GRANT HAS BEEN EFFECTIVELY GRANTED, THE FUNDS ARE NOT YET THERE.

THEY WON'T BE THERE UNTIL JULY 1, ASSUMING THE CURRENT BUDGET GOES THROUGH.

SO WE -- WE HAVE A VERY HIGH CONFIDENCE THAT IT WILL BE FUNDED BUT THE MONEY IS NOT THERE YET. JUST BASED ON MY UNDERSTANDING OF HOW FLORIDA WORKS.

THEN I TALKED TO CHILLSON ABOUT WHAT IS THE LIKELIHOOD THAT THESE PROVISIONS WOULD BE SUBSTANTIALLY CHANGED OR REILLUMINATED AS A RESULT OF THE STUDY.

HE SAID NO, THE SIDE YARD, IT MAY GET ADJUSTED TO PROVIDE SOME BETTER EXAMPLES OF -- OF WHAT -- OF WHAT -- OF WHAT WE WOULD LIKE TO SEE IN THE OLD TOWN PLAZA.

IT IS NOT ON HIS -- IT IS NOT HIS UNDERSTANDING THAT NIECE PROVISIONS WOULD BE ELIMINATED. SO I WOULD ARGUE -- I ARGUE AND I THINK THE LANGUAGE IS HERE SOMEWHERE THAT -- THAT BY ELIMINATING THE INCONSISTENCY IN THE LDC, WE WOULD ALLOW FOR AN INTERPRETATION TO PREVENT THE POTENTIAL FOR CONFLICT FOR APPLICATIONS WE ASSUME WE'LL BE RECEIVING VERY SOON.

IN ORDER TO HELP THE CITY COMMISSION, IN ORDER TO REDUCE THE AMOUNT OF CONFLICT OVER THOSE ISSUES, I THINK BY BRINGING CONSISTENCY BETWEEN THE LDC AND THE -- THE GUIDELINES, YOU MAY BE ABLE TO CALM THINGS DOWN A LITTLE BIT. WHAT IS YOUR PLEASURE?

>> I MOVE TO -- >> HOLD ON.

LET'S GET THE DISCUSSION FIRST.

I APPRECIATE THAT. >> I WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK IN FAVOR OF CONNECTING HOMES ACROSS I'VE GOT A NOTE HERE THAT I SENT THAT I THINK NEEDS TO BE READ INTO THE RECORD.

DON'T HAVE -- DON'T HAVE

>> PROBABLY ONE. >>

>> MY ARGUMENTS ARE IN HERE ARE PRETTY SIMPLE. THE GUIDELINES TALK EXTENSIVELY OF THE -- OF THE NEED TO -- TO HAVE A CONNECTION BETWEEN -- BETWEEN -- BETWEEN THE BUILDING AND THE -- AND THE OUTDOOR SPACE. THE POSSIBILITY OF THE CORRIDOR ONLY EXISTS IF ONE OWNER OWNS BOTH

ADJACENT. >> RIGHT.

>> OTHER THAN THAT THERE'S NO WAY TO CROSS THEM. TRUE THE GUIDELINES AND THE LDCS APPEAR TO HAVE A CONFLICT WITHIN THEMSELVES AND THAT CONFLICT IS FOR -- BETWEEN SECTION K2 AND SECTION K4.

CAN YOU PULL THOSE UP, PLEASE.

SO THE SENTENCE IN K2 IS THE ONE THAT STAFF PROPOSES TO STRIKE. THAT ONE WHICH SAYS THERE SHALL BE NO CROSSING OF SIDE YARD CORRIDORS. IT DOES DEAL WITH SIDE YARD CORRIDORS AND THE FACT THAT TWO OR MORE ADJACENT PROPERTIES ARE OWNED.

PRIMARY AND OUTBUILDINGS SHALL NOT CROSS LOT LINES WITHOUT -- WITHOUT THE USE OF A SPACE WHILE CONDUCTING ELEMENT THAT MAINTAINS THE SIDE YARD CORRIDOR.

THAT'S CLEAR UNTIL YOU GET DOWN TO CLAUSE FOUR WHICH SAYS EVERY POINT OF THE REQUIRED CORRIDOR SHALL BE OPEN FROM ITS LOWEST POINT IN THE SKY UNOBSTRUCTED.

HOW COULD YOU HAVE THAT IF YOU HAVE A CONNECTING ELEMENT AND FURTHER, HOW COULD HAVE A TEN-FOOT CONNECTING ELEMENT WHICH IS WHAT K2 REQUIRES THAT DOES NOT

[00:50:05]

PROTRUDE ANYMORE 34 IN INCHES. THERE'S CONFLICTS HERE. ONE HAS TO ASK WHY.

MY CONTENTION IS CLAUSE FOUR IS WRITTEN FOR INDIVIDUALS AND WE DON'T HAVE A SET OF INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE DIMENSIONS IF ANY OF THE CONNECTING HOME. I BELIEVE THAT THERE WAS OTHER PRESSURES ON YOU AND THE CITY, I THINK THAT STRIKING THAT LAST LINE ITEM OF CLAUSE TWO IS IN THAT WE SHOULD IN FACT ADD AN EXCEPTION FOR CONNECTING ELEMENTS THAT COMPLIED WITH K2 TO BE ADDED TO NUMBER FOUR.

I HAVE TO OTHER ISSUES THAT GO AROUND THIS.

THE FIRST ONE YOU ALLUDED TO, IF WE CHOOSE THESE WE HAVE A CONFLICT BETWEEN THE GUIDELINES AND THE LDCS I DON'T KNOW HOW YOU PLAN TO ADDRESS THAT.

>> I AGREE. WE WERE TRYING TO MAKE

IT CONSISTENT. >> BETWEEN THE TWO,

THOSE IN SECTION FOUR. >> IF YOU CHANGE THIS AND DON'T CHANGE THE GUIDELINES, YOU HAVE A

CONFLICT. >> ADDITIONAL

CONFLICT. >> YES.

>> THE REGULATION CODE AND GUIDELINES ARE ADOPTED GUIDELINES, EVEN THOUGH THE LANGUAGE MAY NOT BE THERE, WE CAN'T CHANGE THE GUIDELINES NOW WITHOUT ADOPTING WHOLE NEW SET OF GUIDELINES WHICH WE'RE IN THE PROCESS OF DOING.

CHANGING THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE WHICH ARE THE REGULATIONS, AS I SAID, IT IS THE MOST CONSERVATIVE WAY TO ADDRESS THIS ISSUE, THIS TAKES PRECEDENCE OVER THE GUIDELINES WHICH ARE ADOPTED GUIDELINES.

>> THIS SUPERSEDES THE GUIDELINES.

EVEN IF THERE'S A CONFLICT THAT STEP IS

IN PLACE. >> WITHOUT THE BENEFIT OF A LAW DEGREE, MY INSTINCTS TELL ME THAT THEY ARE GOING TO DROP US.

IF SOMEBODY LITIGATED OVER THAT THEY WOULD PROBABLY WIN, WITHOUT --

>> GOING BACK SOME YEARS THE LDC ARE NOT TO CONTAIN THE GUIDELINES BUT REFERENCES THEM AND RECOMMENDS THEY BE CONSIDERED. AND I REMEMBER PEOPLE SAID I WANT TO DO THIS, BUT THE GUIDELINES DON'T ALLOW IT.

BUT THEN, THEY'RE ONLY GUIDELINES.

SHORTLY AFTER THAT THE OLD TOWN GUIDELINES WERE LIFTED ON THIS AND PUT IN THE LDC AS

WE SEE NOW. >> WHAT IS YOUR OPINION OF SECTION FOUR? IS THAT TO INDIVIDUAL COUNTIES OR MULTIPLE

COUNTIES? >> THE WAY I INTERPRET IT, THE WAY IT IS WRITTEN, IT

APPLIES TO EVERYTHING. >> TO EVERYTHING.

>> ALL CORRIDORS. >> WHAT IF YOU FIX TWO, YOU STILL HAVE

>> WHAT DO YOU MEAN? >> IF YOU TRY TO ELIMINATE INCONSISTENCIES BETWEEN LDC AND THE OLD TOWN GUIDELINES YOU COULD PICK PART OF IT WITH TWO.

>> I DON'T UNDERSTAND.

IF YOU DELETE THE LAST SENTENCE OF SECTION TWO RATHER THAN CREATING A DIFFERENCE

BETWEEN THE TWO. >> IS THAT YOUR BETWEEN THE

>> THIS OCCURS IN THE GUIDELINES AND THE

LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE. >> WE CAN'T CHANGE

THE GUIDELINES. >> WE'RE IN THE

PROCESS. >> THEN -- THEN -- WHAT STRIKES ME ABOUT FOUR, THE LAST SENTENCE THERE, IT ADDRESSES SPECIFICALLY CONNECTING ELEMENTS AND BAY WINDOWS AND OTHER PROJECTIONS, PORCHES.

SO IT IS ADDRESSING -- THOSE -- THOSE CONNECTING ELEMENTS AND ENCROTCHMENTS AND SAYING THAT EVERY POINT OF THOSE REQUIRED CORRIDORS SHALL BE OPEN EXCEPT FOR THIS DIMENSIONAL STANDARD.

[00:55:01]

IT IS GIVING HER THE VERY -- THE VERY DEFINITE MEASUREMENTS FOR THAT ENCROACHMENT

EAST OF THE CORRIDOR. >> I WOULD ARGUE THAT THE GUIDELINES AND THEREFORE THE LDCS ARE SOME -- SOMETIMES LIBERAL IN THEIR CHOICE OF TERMS. THE DIFFERENCES IN THE VIEW CORRIDOR AND DISABILITY CORRIDOR, WHERE THEY APPEAR TO BE ENTERED INTERCHANGEABLY. I'M NOT SATISFIED WITH THAT, NOT HAVING CAPITAL E ON ELEMENTS IF IT WAS REFERRING TO -- TO THE K2 ITEM.

I DON'T KNOW IF WE BRING THEM FORWARD.

THERE'S A DOUBLE LOT AND DOUBLE PANELS IN OLD TOWN TO WHICH THIS WOULD APPLY. I DON'T KNOW IF WE HAVE A PROBLEM HERE AT THE

MOMENT. >> RESOLVE IT. PROMISE ME WE WON'T SEE THIS PROBLEM AGAIN REAL SOON?

>> NOT FROM ME. FOR YOU NOW, UP TO THE

BOARD. >> I THINK THERE'S ENOUGH CONFLICTS IT IS DIFFICULT TO IDENTIFY

THEM ALL. >> I THINK IT IS DANGEROUS TO TAKE WORDS OUT OF THE DOCUMENT, IF YOU DON'T KNOW EXACTLY WHAT THEY MEAN. IT IS THE ROAD TO UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES.

>> I THINK WE KNOW THE CONSEQUENCE OF REMOVING THIS LINE. IT IS -- IT IS A DEFINITE INTERPRETATION OF LINE FOUR. WE CAN DO THE ANALYSIS BUT WON'T SEE IT RIGHT NOW TO SEE HOW THIS

ISSUE EFFECTS -- >>

>> CORRECT. THIS RECOMMENDATION IS THE MOST CONSERVATIVE VIEW OF THIS.

IT DOESN'T WAIT FOR ANY INTERPRETATION BETWEEN THE TWO. IT IS VERY CLEAR THAT GOING FORWARD AT LEAST UNTIL WE REEVALUATE THE GUIDELINES, YOU HAVE 24 ENCROACHMENT ALLOWANCE. IT TAKES A LITTLE GRAY

OUT OF IT. >> I'M INCLINED TO GO WITH THE MORE CONSERVATIVE OLDTOWN

GUIDELINES. >> I WANT THE CLEARANCE WHICH IS THE 24 INCH ENCROACHMENT.

>> I THINK THEY'LL HELP WITH DEFINITIONS GOING FORWARD, ESPECIALLY IF THEY

WELL THEM TO. >> HOW MUCH INTERACTION WILL THIS BOARD HAVE WITH TILSON AND HIS CREW TO REALLY DRIVE HOME HOW IMPORTANT WE THINK IT IS TO GET THE LANGUAGE

AND -- >> I WILL SAY AS MUCH AS WE CAN AFFORD. YOU WORK WITH TILLSON PERSONALLY. I'M STRONGLY RECOMMENDING YOU DO THAT.

>> PREPARE A LIST OF -- OF -- OF -- OF POINTS OF -- OF -- WHERE CLARITY IS

LACKING. >> ABSOLUTELY.

WE HAD

>> IN MARCH OF 2019. >> CIRCLE BACK WITH THEM AND REITERATE AND REVIEW WHAT THEY ALREADY WORKED ON SO

ADDITIONAL INPUT. >> MISS CONNOLLY.

>> WHEN YOU HAVE TALKS, TELL US ABOUT THIS. I'M SURE HE'LL PAY

ATTENTION. >> YEAH.

IT IS ALL THE TIME. I WAS HOPING TO RESOLVE THE POTENTIAL FOR CONFLICTS.

>> I THINK IT IS UNREALISTIC TO THINK WE'RE GOING TO CREATE A SITUATION WHERE

[01:00:01]

WE'RE IN THE GOING TO HAVE

>> TRADITION. >> BUT YOU KNOW, I THINK MEMBER HARRISON'S POINTS ARE TAKEN. YOU KNOW.

>> IT IS MESSY. >> WE'LL CONTINUE TO WORK ON THIS. WE NEED TO GET -- SAL, I KNOW YOU COULD TALK ABOUT TAX CREDIT AND ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES.

IF YOU COULD DO THAT. >> YES.

>> THOSE ARE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES AND THOSE ARE RECOMMENDED

CHANGES. >> WE HAD THIS

PREVIOUSLY? >> NO 2013 ADOPTED.

>> I THINK I NEED ONE MORE.

I THINK I WAS LOOKING AT THE OLD ONE.

>> AND THIS ONE. >> AND WE RUN THROUGH AND GO THROUGH WHAT SOME OF THE CHANGES THAT I'M RECOMMENDING ARE.

THEY'RE VERY MINOR. ON PAGE 2, JUST TO CHANGE THE WORD APPROPRIATENESS TO APPROVAL TO REFLECT THE C.O.A. AND ALSO CHANGE IN CITATION WHERE THE LDC CHANGED AND IT DIDN'T CHANGE IN THIS DOCUMENT.

ON PAGE THREE, BOARD APPROVAL.

PAGE FOUR, EXPECTATION OF MEMBERS.

WRITE A NOTIFICATION TO THE CHAIR AND THEY NOTIFY THE STAFF LIAISON OF THEIR ABSENCE. CITY STAFF WILL TREAT EACH OTHER WITH FAIRNESS AND RESPECT.

THE INTERACTIONS BETWEEN THE MEMBER CITIZENS AND THE CITY STAFF, NOT MEETING THE STANDARD SHOULD BE BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF THE CITY MANAGER IMMEDIATELY.

ON PAGE 7 CHANGE TAPE TO RECORDED.

NO ONE IS REALLY ON TAPE ANYMORE.

>> DON'T KNOW ABOUT THE VIDEO, WE HAVE THE VIDEO ONLINE. THE RECORDS ARE RETAINED, WE KEEP THE HARD COPIES.

ITEM NOT SURE ABOUT THE VIDEO RECORDINGS.

>> I AGREE WITH THE CHANGE.

>> PAGE NINE HOW IS HOW WE DO THE APPROVAL. IT IS ACTUALLIER MAILED TO THE APPLICANT.

AGAIN ON PAGE 10, DELETING COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND CHANGING TO DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND CONSERVATION.

ON PAGE 12, LAST YEAR IT WOULD BE -- IT WOULD BE -- THE LANGUAGE WAS CHANGED FOR -- FOR REMOVAL -- OF AND VACANCIES.

WE HAVE ALWAYS HAD THREE STRIKES RULE IN -- ON EACH ONE IN OUR GUIDELINES BUT IT CHANGED LANGUAGE FOR ALL OF THE BOARDS.

THAT BRINGS THAT INTO COMPLIANCE WITH WHAT

ALL THE BOARDS SAY. >> IT DIDN'T

UNEXCUSED ABSENCES. >> UH-HUH.

KROO WHICH >> WHICH IS IN

CONFLICT WITH PAGE FIVE, SECTION 7A.>> WHICH CONFLICT WITH PAGE FIVE, SECTION 7A.

UNLESS YOU READ IN THE WORD MAY THERE'S A POSSIBILITY THAT THERE COULD BE CONFUSION.

PAGE 5. THOSE ACTIONS RELATE TO ABSENCE FROM THE BOARD.

I SUGGEST WE ONLY HAVE ONE.

>> DIDN'T WE REMOVE THE LANGUAGE THAT SAID UNEXCUSED? I BELIEVE THERE WAS.

THAT'S NOT APPEARING IN THE NEW LANGUAGE.

WE COULD LOOK AT THAT. IF YOU -- IF YOU -- IF YOU WANT TO CONSOLIDATE SO THAT WE'RE NOT HAVING ATTENDANCE IN ANY ONE SPOT IN THE DOCUMENT, WE COULD DO THAT TOO.

WE COULD APPROVE THIS AT AN UPCOMING

[01:05:04]

MEETING. >> OKAY .

YOU HAVE THIS FOR GOOD GOVERNMENT.

DO YOU HAVE A SECTION THAT YOU WERE

IDENTIFYING? >> ONLY THAT.

>> YEAH. WE TAKE IT AND BRING IT BACK TO THE MARCH HDC MEETING AND WE COULD LOOK AT A CHANGE THAT ADDRESSES THOSE

TO ISSUES. >> YEAH.

WE GET IT IN FRONT OF OUR --

>> THOSE WERE THE LAST SENTENCE ON PAGE 5, SECTION 7A, I THINK IS -- IS -- IT IS -- THE CITY MAY TREAT SUCH ABSENCES SUCH AS THREE ABSENCES AS THE MEMBERS RESIGNATION.

>> THAT SHOULD MATCH THE LANGUAGE IN THE OTHER SECTION MORE CLOSELY.

WHETHER THIS IS THE BEST WAY TO GO.

>> I THINK THE COMMISSIONER ROSS'S ORDINANCE WAS FAIRLY SHARP.

>> I HAD A QUESTION ON THE APPROVAL MATRIX. I KNOW WE HAD -- WE GRABBED HOT TUBS AND SHUTTERS.

WASN'T THERE OTHERS? >> WE DIDN'T OFFICIALLY ADD THEM. THE P.A.D. AND THE COMMISSION APPROVED. THEY HAVEN'T BEEN UPDATED IN THIS DOCUMENT.

WE STILL NEED TO BRING BACK THAT DISCUSSION AT SOME POINT FOR GUTTERS.

>> OKAY. YOU'RE GOING TO FIX THAT SECTION. AND

[Item 4.6]

>> YEP. >> AND THAT BRINGS US TO -- DID I SKIP A SECTION, SAL, I

APOLOGIZE IF I DIDN'T. >> TAX CREDIT.

>> TAX CREDIT. >> SO THIS IS -- THIS IS -- THIS IS -- THIS IS A PROPOSED ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 4 OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES. THIS IS FOR A TAX CREDIT. SOME ARE THE LANGUAGE HERE WHERE APPROPRIATE AND GET APPROVAL AND REMOVING THE WORD COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. THE SUBSTANTIAL CHANGE IN THIS IS CHANGING THE -- THE -- THE -- THE TIME FRAME FOR THE IMPROVEMENTS.

IT IS CURRENTLY AT TWO YEARS.

I'M RECOMMENDING INCREASING IT TO FIVE

YEARS. >> WHY?

>> WHAT WE'VE SEEN IS THAT WHOLE LARGE SCALE REHABILITATION PROJECTS COULD EASILY TAKE MORE THAN THE TWO YEARS.

>> OH, YEAH. >> SENIORS.

>> I THINK FIVE SEEMS REASONABLE.

YOU MAY GET YOUR PHONE CALL RETURNED WITHIN

THE FIRST YEAR. >> 15.

>> STILL PUSHING FOR 15.

>> I THINK FIVE, 15 SEEMS LIKE A

>> SEVEN. >> SEVEN.

>> 7.5. >> PERHAPS THAT'S

REASONABLE. >> FIVE.

>>

>>

>> WE'RE NOT VOTING HERE TONIGHT.

AND

>> WE MOVE IT ON. >> HARRISON IS MOVING, SECOND. I'LL SECOND THAT.

REHABILITATE. 4.6, REHABILITATION TAX CREDIT, CHAPTER 7-4 AND 5 OF THE CODE.

IN HARRISON HAS MOVED. >> SECOND.

>> MR. MORRISON HAS SECONDED.

DISCUSSION. PLEASE CALL ROLL.

[Item 4.8 & 8]

>> WE CAN SKIP CITY HALL.

THAT WAS THE BACKUP. >> I LIKE TO GET ON THE RECORD I'M IN THE A HIS WORK AND THIS HISTORY, IT MAKES FASCINATING READING. I THINK AT SOME POINT, HE COULD PROBABLY PUSH IT THE REPORTS HE MADE HERE. GOOD JOB.

THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU.

>> GET YOUR COPIES. THE OTHER ITEM, STAFF

[Items 5 - 8]

REPORT. PUBLIC COMMENT AND

ADJOURN. >> DO YOU HAVE ADDITIONAL BOARD BUSINESS? I KNOW THAT WE NEED TO RESET THE ROOM FOR OUR NEXT MEETING. SAL?

>> NOTHING. THROW US ON THURSDAY.

[01:10:06]

IS THAT RIGHT? >> YEP.

>> I LIKE TO OPEN IT UP TO PUBLIC COMMENT, IF WE DO THAT, WE'RE NOT GOING TO HAVE MUCH

TIME. >> IT IS LIMITED TO

THREE MINUTES. >> YOU CAN LIMIT IT

TO THREE MINUTES. >> ANYBODY HAS A NEED TO SPEAK TO US AT THIS TIME.

NO? OKAY.

>> NORMALLY, I OPEN THAT UP AND -- A -- LEAVE IT OPEN AS LONG AS POSSIBLE, I PROMISE ON THURSDAY WE'LL BE OPEN.

>> KIM IS ON THE DAIS AND SHE WANTS

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.