Link

Social

Embed

Download

Download
Download Transcript

[Item 1]

[00:00:12]

>> YES. >> MEMBER MORRISON. >> HERE.

>> MEMBER CONWAY. >> HERE. >> MEMBER KOSAC.

>> HERE. >> MEMBER ROBINSON. >> SHE IS MUTED BUT SHE IS

HERE. >> OKAY. >> CHAIR SPINO.

>> HERE. >> IF WE COULD STAND FOR PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.

>> THOSE OF YOU AT HOME, THE WAY WE'VE BEEN DOING IT, IS YOU CAN PUT YOUR HAND ON YOUR CHEST, YOU DON'T HAVE TO STAND. WE MAY SEE SOMETHING ON THE CA

CAMERA WE MIGHT NOT WANT TO SEE. >> WHY ARE WE BREAKING WITH

TRADITION AND DOING THE PLEDGE. >> WE'LL EXPLAIN LATER. FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IS STANDS, 1 NATION, UNDER GOD, INDIVISIBLE, WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL.WI ALL.WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL. NR GOD, INDIVISIBLE, WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL.O NATION, UNDER GOD, INDIVISIBLE, WITH LIBERTY AND JN NATION, UNDER GOD, INDIVISIBLE, WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL.E

UNDER GOD, INDIVISIBLE, WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL. >> MR. HARRISON, THE CITY MANAGER HAS ASKED ALL BOARDS TO OPEN UP WITH THE PLEDGE AND WE WERE THE LAST ONE TO GET THAT

MEMO. >> AT THIS TIME WE NEED TO SEAT MS. TAMMY KOSAC IN THE

ALTERNATE SPOT. >> SO MOVED. >> SECOND.

>> MOVED HARRISON. SECOND MORRISON. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.

MS. TAMMY IS NOW VOTING. MOVING ON. >> I THINK KATE NEEDS TO UNMUTE

HERSELF. >> IS SHE HERE? >> YOU BOARD MEMBERS, WHAT I'M LOOKING AT IS THE FULL BOARD AND THERESA PRINCE, MS. ARNETTE, TAMMY, HARRISON, MORRISON. I DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU GUYS ARE SEEING AT HOME.

WE'LL GO TO OLD BUSINESS. AND STAFF, AS USUAL. BECAUSE IT'S LITTLE DIFFERENT, YOU NEED TO INTERRUPT ME IF I GET OFF THE PATH AND HELP ME OUT.

I'VE ONLY EVER GOT AHEAD BY MAKING MISTAKES. SO TODAY PROBABLY WON'T BE ANY O SAY I WANT TO THANK B AND TROY FROM THE IT DEPARTMENT. JACOB, KELLY, TAMMY, ALL OF YOU FOR YOUR EXTRAORDINARY WORK TO KEEP MOVING FORWARD IN THIS DIFFICULT ENVIRONMENT. I'M HAPPY TO BE HERE, ACTUALLY.

I HOPE Y'ALL ARE TOO. I THINK THE PUBLIC AND WITNESSES, APPLICANTS FOR THEIR FLEXIBILITY AND THEIR KINDNESS AS WE MOVE FORWARDTHE PUBLIC A WITNESSES, APPLICANTS FOR THEIR FLEXIBILITY AND THEIR KINDNESS AS WE MOV KINDNESSAS WE MOVE FORWARD APP FLEXIBILITY AND THEIR KINDNESSAS WE MOVE FORWARD WITR FLEXIBILITY AND THEIR

[Item 2]

KINDNESSAS WE MOVE FORWARD APP FLEXIBILITY AND THEIR KINDNESSAS WE MOVE FORWARD WITR FLEXIBILITY AND THEIR KINDNESSAS WE MOVE FORWARD TODAY.

>> CAN WE APPROVE THE MINUTES? >> BOARD MEMBERS, HAVE YOU HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW THE

MINUTES? >> I MOVE TO APPROVE. >> ANY CHANGES?

>> I HAVE SUGGESTED CHANGES WHICH I UNDERSTAND THAT ANGIE MAY HAVE EFFECTED.

>> YES. >> YES. WE HAVE AMENDED THOSE.

>> THAT'S WHAT I'M BEING TOLD, MR. HARRISON. I DON'T HAVE THEM IN FRONT OF

ME. >> CAN WE SEE THE AGENDA AGAIN JACOB.

>> YEAH. THE MINUTES HAVE NOT BEEN UPLOADED BECAUSE IT WAS LAST MINUTE. BUT THEY WERE AMENDED FROM WHAT IS POSTED ON THE AGENDA.

>> AND WHAT MEETING WAS THIS? >> THAT WAS THE >> THIS IS THE MARCH 27, 2019,

WORKSHOP. >> THE OLD TOWN WORKSHOP. I REMEMBER IT LIKE IT WAS

YESTERDAY. >> I HAVE SUGGESTED SOME CHANGES, WHICH I UNDERSTAND ANGIE HAS IMPLEMENTED, BUT I CAN'T TELL IF THAT IS WHAT WE'RE VOTING ON HERE OR NOT.

>> LET'S WAIT UNTIL THE NEXT MEETING TO APPROVE THEM AFTER YOU'VE HAD A CHANCE TO LOOK AT

THEM. >> IS THAT GOING TO BE A PROBLEM?

>> YEAH. LET'S BE SURE THEY'RE ABSOLUTELY RIGHT.

WE'RE GOING TO CONTINUE THAT. WHO MADE THE MOTION? MR. MORRISON, CAN YOU WITHDRAW

[00:05:05]

THAT? >> I WITHDRAW. >> THANK YOU.

AND WE'LL GET THAT, YOU KNOW, I DO LIKE TO BE CORRECT. >> YEAH.

>> SOMEBODY GAVE ME THE PROCEDURES FOR A PAB MEETING. >> SORRY.

>> KELLY. >> THAT IS WHY WE'RE HERE. >> SO LET'S GO TO MS. TAMMY AT THIS TIME. AND COUNSELOR WOULD YOU REVIEW THE QUASI JUDICIAL PROCEDURE.

>> I WILL. TONIGHT WE HAVE SEVERAL CASES ON THE AGENDA, ALL OF THEM WILL BE CONDUCTED AS QUASI JUDICIAL HEARINGS. WHAT THAT MEANS IS FIRST MEMBER OF CITY STAFF, MR. PLATT OR MRS. GIBSON WILL MAKE A PRESENTATION AND INTRODUCE EVIDENCE INTO THE RECORD AND THEN THE APPLICANT AND/OR THEIR AGENT WILL BE ABLE TO MAKE A PRESENTATION AND INTRODUCE EVIDENCE INTO THE RECORD. IF THERE ARE ANY AFFECTED PARTIES THAT WISH TO INTRODUCE EVIDENCE INTO THE RECORD, THEN WE'RE GOING TO SWEAR EVERYBODY IN FOR EACH CASE WHEN WE ARE NORMALLY ALL HERE IN THE CHAMBERS, WE ALL STAND UP AT ONE TIME AND DO THE OATH, DO IT BEFORE EACH CASE. I REMIND ANY ATTORNEYS THAT ARE PRESENT THAT YOU ALSO NEED TO BE SWORN UNDER FLORIDA LAW. PLEASE STAND AND TAKE THE OATH WHEN IT'S YOUR TURN. IF THERE IS AN APPEAL, THAT APPEAL IS TO BE FILED WITH CITY COMMISSION WITHIN 30 DAYS OF THE WRITTEN FINDINGS OF FACT. EVERYBODY WILL TAKE AN OATH AND I WILL GIVE THAT OATH BEFORE EACH CASE BEGIN. ANYBODY THAT IS HERE VIRTUALLY, OR IN PERSON, ANY QUESTIONS? IF YOU'RE GOING TO SPEAK ON THIS FIRST CASE.

[Items 3.1 - 3.3]

2017-03, IF YOU'RE SPEAKING ON THIS CASE, INCLUDING ATTORNEYS, PLEASE STAND AND RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND AND REPEAT AFTER ME. COKO (WITNESSES SWORN)

>> MS. GIBSON, THIS IS YOUR CASE. >> IT'S JACOB'S CASE.

>> OKAY. JACOB, THIS IS YOUR CASE. ARE YOU GOING TO PRESENT ALL THREE COMPONENTS OF THIS CASE AT ONCE OR DO YOU WANT TO DO THEM ONE AT A TIME?

>> SO WE'VE BROKEN THE AMENDMENTS INTO THREE SEPARATE AGENDA ITEMS. THERE ARE SLIGHT DIFFERENCES IN ALL THREE. I CAN RUN THROUGH THE

PRESENTATION OF EACH ONE. >> I WOULD PREFER IF YOU DID, UNLESS THERE IS AN OBJECTION.

IF YOU WOULD PLEASE PROCEED WITH YOUR REPORT. >> ABSOLUTELY.

FIRST AMENDMENT, 117 SOUTH 3RD STREET. THIS IS AMENDING PREVIOUS APPROVAL FOR HDC FOR REDESIGNING AND RELOCATION OF EXIT CORRIDOR TO ACCOMMODATE AN ELEVATOR, CHANGE IN WINDOW LOCATION AND REVERSAL OF THE FRONT FACADES.

STAFF FINDS THAT THE REDESIGN AND RELOCATED CORRIDOR AND CHANGE IN WINDOW LOCATION WILL HAVE VERY LITTLE IMPACT ON THE OVERALL APPEARANCE OF STRUCTURES AND RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF AGENDA ITEM 3.1. AGENDA ITEM 3.2 IS FOR 135 AND 141 SOUTH 3RD STREET.

ALSO AN AMENDMENT TO CHANGE WINDOW SIZES AND LOCATIONS. REDESIGN, RELOCATE EXIT CORRIDOR TO REAR OF THE ROOFTOP TO ACCOMMODATE REAR ELEVATOR AND ADD AN OVERHANG OVER THE

[00:10:06]

REAR DOOR. STAFF FINDS THE REDESIGNED EXIT CORRIDOR WILL HAVE VERY LITTLE IMPACT ON THE OVERALL APPEARANCE OF THE STRUCTURE AND RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THESE CHANGES AS WELL. ITEM 3.3 IS FOR PROPERTIES 147 AND 153 SOUTH 3RD STREET.

THE REQUEST IS FOR CHANGE IN WINDOW SIZE AND LOCATION. REDESIGN AND RELOCATE CORRIDOR TO REAR OF ROOFTOP TO ACCOMMODATE ELEVATOR. CHANGE THE REAR DOOR TO FULL VIEW GLASS. STAFF FINDS THE REDESIGN WILL HAVE VERY LITTLE IMPACT ON THE OVERALL APPEARANCE AND RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THESE CHANGES AS WELL.

>> >> (INAUDIBLE) >> IT'S UP TO THE BOARD'S PLEASURE. BOARD MEMBERS, DO YOU HAVE QUESTIONS FOR MR. PLATT BEFORE

WE GO TO THE APPLICANT? >> I JUST HAVE A COMMENT PROCEDURALLY, AS WE GO THROUGH THESE CASES, FOR WHATEVER REASON I'M HAVING A HARD TIME BEING ABLE TO KIND OF GO BACK AND FORTH BETWEEN THE ZOOM MEETING SCREEN AND THE AGENDA WITH ALL OF THE DIFFERENT IMAGES THAT ARE ON THE APPLICATION. SO IF STAFF ACTUALLY KIND OF SCROLL THROUGH THE APPLICATION AND SHOW US THE DRAWINGS AND STUFF AS THEY'RE TALKING, IT

WOULD BE HELPFUL. >> I CAN'T OPEN MY PACKET HERE, JACOB.

IF YOU WOULDN'T MIND, GO TO THE APPROPRIATE PAGES AND WALK US THROUGH THE CHANGES AS YOU SAW

THEM, PLEASE. >> SURE. >> AND EITHER YOU'RE GOING TO DO IT OR THEY'RE GOING TO DO IT SO YOU MIGHT AS WELL GO AHEAD. AS I RECALL, JACOB, THIS WAS IN RESPONSE TO OUR REQUEST. I KNOW IT'S BEEN A FEW MONTHS NOW.

BUT AT LEAST THE ELEVATOR CHANGES WERE IN RESPONSE FOR OUR REQUEST FOR CHANGES.

>> THAT'S CORRECT. THE REDESIGN AND RELOCATION WAS BASED ON BOARD DIRECTION.

WHAT I'VE GOT UP ON THE SCREEN IS FOR PROPERTY ADDRESSES 117 AND 111 SOUTH 3RD STREET.

AS I INDICATED IN THE POWERPOINT, THE CHANGES THAT WERE PROPOSED STAFF DOES FIND THEM CONSISTENT AND THE OVERALL IMPACT OF DESIGN CONSISTENT WITH DESIGN GUIDELINES AND

RECOMMENDS APPROVAL. ARE THERE ANY PARTICULAR -- >> IF YOU COULD IDENTIFY EACH OF THE ITEMS THAT THEY'VE PROVIDED AS YOU GO THROUGH THE DRAWINGS THERE.

IF YOU CAN. IF NOT, WE CAN LEAVE IT TO THE APPLICANT.

I APOLOGIZE FOR KIND OF MUDDLING THROUGH THIS. IT'S A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT

THAN WHAT I'M USED TO DOING. SO BEAR WITH ME. >> WE UNDERSTAND.

>> WELL, LET ME REPHRASE THAT QUESTION. I HEARD A COMMENT ABOUT SOME CHANGE IN MATERIALS FOR THE GABLES. WHAT WAS THAT ABOUT?

I DON'T SEE THAT IN THE DRAWING. >> THAT IS FOR ITEM 3.3, THE CORNER LOT. SO EACH OF THESE AMENDMENTS ARE BROKEN INTO THREE SEPARATE AGENDA ITEMS AND EACH HAS ITS OWN APPLICATION AND STAFF REPORT.

>> OH, OKAY. ALL RIGHT. OKAY.

I'M SORT OF GOING THROUGH IT RIGHT NOW. I WAS ABLE TO SWITCH SCREENS SO

I'M KIND OF FIGURING IT OUT. >> JACOB. >> I'M OKAY WITH MOVING ON TO

LETTING THE APPLICANT SPEAK, IF EVERYBODY ELSE IS. >> LET'S DO THAT.

>> OKAY. LET'S BRING MS. PRINCE IN. MR. DENNIS, IS THAT RIGHT?

TO THE TABLE. >> YES, SIR, I'M HERE. >> THERESA.

>> HEY, THERESA. COUNSEL, THANKS FOR HELPING US OUT TONIGHT.

[00:15:03]

COULD YOU GUYS WALK US THROUGH THE SPECIFIC CHANGES IN ALL THREE OF THESE APPLICATIONS

STARTING WITH 117 SOUTH 3RD STREET, PLEASE. >> YES, WE CAN.

FOR THE RECORD, IT'S THERESA PRINCE, 406 ASH STREET, FERNANDINA BEACH, FLORIDA, COUNSEL FOR HARBOR VIEW ARTISAN HOMES AND WE DO HAVE SCOTT DENNIS, WHO IS THE MANAGING PARTNER OF HARBOR VIEW ARTISAN HOMES WITH US. SCOTT, FOR THE RECORD COULD YOU

ENTER YOUR ADDRESS, PLEASE. >> HOME ADDRESS OR OFFICE? >> OFFICE.

>> 10365 PIT ROAD SOUTH, SUITE 208, JACKSONVILLE, FLORIDA, 32257.

>> THANK YOU. >> AND MR. CHAIR, JACOB, ARE YOU GOING TO OPERATE SCROLLING

FOR ME? >> I WILL. >> OKAY.

WILL YOU JUST GO DOWN TO THE FIRST PICTURE. OKAY.

SO IF YOU'LL STOP THERE, THIS IS WHAT THE FRONT VIEW IS GOING TO SHOW.

WE'RE NOT REALLY CHANGING ANYTHING HERE. YOU'LL SEE AS WE GO THROUGH THE PACKET THAT YOU ORIGINALLY APPROVED THIS FRONT VIEW AND SOMEHOW IT GOT REVERSED IN WHAT WE SUBMITTED AND SO NOW THIS IS THE VIEW, THE FRONT VIEW AND WE'VE ADDED IT TO THIS APPLICATION ON THESE TWO LINES, 117 AND 111, SO YOU'LL SEE ON THE RIGHT UNIT WE'RE GOING TO HAVE THE SHUDDERS. YOU ORIGINALLY ASKED FOR THIS BECAUSE YOU WANTED IT TO BE OFFSET. IF YOU GO DOWN TO THE NEXT PICTURE, JACOB.

THIS IS AGAIN, JUST REFLECTING THAT WE HAD YOU KNOW, IN ONE OF OUR PACKETS, WE HAVE THE WRONG ND SO GO DOWN ONE MORE, JACOB. TONIGHT WE JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT YOU UNDERSTOOD AS PART OF THIS AGENDA FOR THESE 117 AND 111 SOUTH 3RD THAT THIS WILL BE THE FRONT VIEW AND IT'S THE FRONT VIEW THAT YOU APPROVED, HOWEVER, IN PREVIOUS SUBMITTALS, WE HAD IT REVERSED. IF YOU'LL SCROLL DOWN AGAIN. AND THIS IS WHERE WE'RE REFLECTING THE WINDOW LOCATION CHANGE ON THE SIDE-VIEW, WHICH IS IMPACTED BY THE ELEVATOR CORRIDOR, AT THE LAST MEETING, THE CHAIR WAS RIGHT WHEN HE MENTIONED EARLIER THIS YEAR, BEFORE COVID VISITED US, SARA WAS REPRESENTING HARBOR VIEW AND STAFF AND THE BOARD ALSO SUGGESTED THAT WE MOVE THE ELEVATOR SHAFT CLOSER TO THE EXISTING, THERE WAS ALREADY AN EXIT ON THE ROOF. SO THIS PAGE SHOWS THAT REDESIGN AND RELOCATION ON THE EXIT CORRIDOR TO ACCOMMODATE THE ELEVATOR AND THEN THE WINDOW IMPACT CHANGE, YOU'RE GOING TO SEE IT'S VERY SLIGHT WINDOW MOVEMENT ON THAT. AND THEN IF YOU GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE, JACOB. AND THIS IS SHOWING IT AS WELL FOR LOT 22.

AND JUST SHOWING THE MINOR MOVEMENT OF THOSE WINDOWS. YOU SEE THEY'VE BEEN MOVED JUST EVER SO SLIGHTLY. AND THEN SCROLL DOWN AGAIN. THANK YOU, JACOB.

AND THEN HERE IS YOUR ROOFTOP VIEW. AND YOU SEE HOW IT'S BEEN MOVED TO THE REAR TO HELP WITH THE IMPACT OF VISUAL FROM THE STREET.

WHICH WAS DEFINITELY, IT WAS A RECOMMENDATION OF SAL AT THE LAST MEETING AND THE BOARD CONCURRED AND ASKED THAT WE COME BACK WITH BETTER PLANS TO SHOW YOU THIS AND BETTER VIEWS OF THE ROOFTOP. JACOB, AGAIN, IF YOU DON'T MIND.

AGAIN, THIS IS A WINDOW LOCATION CHANGE AND RELOCATION. THIS IS SHOWING YOU THE BACK VIEW OF HOW ADDING THE ELEVATOR SHAFT WILL IMPACT. NEXT ONE, JACOB.

THIS IS GETTING BACK INTO THAT, WHEN WE MET WITH YOU PREVIOUSLY, YOU WANTED US TO REVERSE THIS. AND WE NEVER DID. IF YOU GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE, JACOB. YOU'LL SEE WHERE ON TOP IS WHAT WE PUT IN THE PACKET, BUT YOU HAD ASKED US TO DO WITH ON THE BOTTOM OF THIS PAGE. THE SHUDDERS WERE ON THE RIGHT.

AND THEN NEXT SCREEN. AND AGAIN, WE'RE SHOWING THE CHANGES IN THE WINDOWS AND SO THAT YOU'LL SEE THE SHUDDERS WILL BE ON ACTUAL 22 INSTEAD OF ACTUAL 21, AND AGAIN, THIS WAS

[00:20:05]

WHAT WAS REQUESTED OF THE HDC. SOMEHOW WE HAD SUBMITTED IT WITHOUT THE REVERSAL.

AND THEN SCROLL DOWN. THIS PRETTY MAP WAS TO HELP YOU, BECAUSE THROUGHOUT THE PACKET WE REFER TO IT AS 117 AND 111 SOUTH 3RD, SO YOU SEE WHERE IT IS AND THEN SOMETIMES IT'S REFERRED TO AS UNIT 21 AND 22. THIS WAS JUST A MAP TO SHOW YOU ALL OF THE VARIOUS NUMBERS. THAT IS THE END OF THE CHANGES. THE MAP IS MORE TO HELP YOU UNDERSTAND THE AGENDA ITEMS YOU'RE LOOKING AT. 117 SOUTH 3RD AND 111 SOUTH 3RD. STAFF SEPARATED IT OUT SO THAT WHEN IT WAS ADVERTISED AND NOTED, THAT THE PUBLIC AND THE BOARD AND EVERYONE WOULD UNDERSTAND THE SPECIFIC

CHANGES. >> DO YOU WANT TO WAIT UNTIL MS. PRINCE HAS FINISHED?

>> CAN I MAKE ONE COMMENT REAL QUICK. I THOUGHT THE WAY THE ZOOM MEETING WAS GOING TO WORK, ONLY THE APPLICANTS THAT WERE ON THE CASE THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT

WERE GOING TO BE ON OUR SCREEN. >> I CAN SPEAK TO THAT. YOU CAN CHANGE THAT VIEW THROUGH YOUR GALLERY VIEW TO SEE THOSE APPLICANTS RIGHT NOW. OR I CAN MOVE PEOPLE OUT OF THE MEETING, IF IT'S DISTRACTING TO YOU TO HAVE THEM AND THEN PUT THEM IN WAITING ROOMS.

I JUST DIDN'T DO THAT. >> IT'S KIND OF DISTRACTING. >> TOO MANY THINGS ON THE SCREEN. WHILE THE STAFF IS WORKING THROUGH THE TECHNICAL PROBLEMS, THE REST OF THE COUNCIL MEMBERS, DO YOU WANT TO HEAR THE REST OF MRS. PRINCE'S

PRESENTATION? >> I SAY GO AHEAD AND DO ALL OF THEM.

>> THAT IS THE WAY I FELT ABOUT IT. AND THEN WHAT WE'LL DO IS, PLENTY OF TIME FOR QUESTIONS. WHEN WE GET TO THE END OF THERESA'S PRESENTATION.

BUT SHE IS DOING A SOLID JOB FOR US LAYING THIS OUT FOR US. WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT ARE THESE SIX UNITS ON THE 3RD STREET SIDE, GARDEN STREET BISTRO, HEADING DOWN, DOWN 3RD STREET, 2, 2, EXISTING BUILDING AND TWO MORE IF I READ THAT RIGHT.

>> CORRECT. YOU ARE CORRECT, CHAIR. IF YOU WERE POINTING TO THE LEFT, YOU'RE POINTING TO 153 AND 147. AND THEN 145.

SKIP, YOU SAY A BUILDING THAT WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT. AND THEN 117 AND 111, THE

PRESENTATION I JUST DID. >> WE APPRECIATE YOU LAYING THAT OUT FOR US.

ARE WE READY TO MOVE FORWARD AT THIS TIME? PROCEED THROUGH THE NEXT TWO

ITEMS, PLEASE. >> CERTAINLY. >> I THOUGHT YOU MIGHT BE HAPPY THAT I WOULD HAVE TO RAISE MY HAND TO TALK. YOU'RE HAVING TO WAIT PATIENTLY. JACOB, WOULD YOU MIND PUTTING YOUR 3.2 PRESENTATION UP SO I

CAN SCROLL THROUGH IT. >> YES. I'M BRINGING THAT UP NOW.

>> OKAY. HERE IT IS. THIS IS 135 AND 141 SOUTH 3RD.

AND IT IS SCABSOLUTELY DIFFERE. IF YOU DON'T MIND SCROLLING TO THE FIRST PICTURE.

AS STAFF REPORTED THE CHANGES ON THIS, AND SCROLL DOWN, THANK YOU, JACOB.

THE CHANGES ON THIS ONE ARE WINDOW SIZE AND LOCATION CHANGE, WHICH WE'LL GO THROUGH, REDESIGN AND RELOCATE THE EXIT CORRIDOR, LIKE YOU SAW ON THE LAST AGENDA ITEM AND THEN FRONT ELEVATION, WITH PREVIOUSLY APPROVED WRITTEN DETAIL. SO IF YOU'LL SCROLL, THIS IS OBVIOUSLY THE FRONT ELEVATION. HERE WE HAVE A STREET VIEW. IF YOU GO TO THE NEXT VIEW.

[00:25:06]

HERE IS THE FRONT ELEVATION, 17 AND 18, PREVIOUSLY APPROVED BRICK DETAIL CHANGES ON 18.

AND IF YOU GO DOWN ONE MORE, JACOB. I PRINTED MINE. BECAUSE IT IS HARD TO GO BACK AND FORTH, AS BOARD MEMBER MORRISON POINTED OUT.

THIS IS THE WINDOW LOCATION SIZE CHANGE AGAIN, DUE TO THE ROOFTOP THAT WE'RE DOING, EXIT CORRIDOR, YOU CAN SEE NOTE ONE IS NEW WINDOW LOCATION AS OPPOSED TO THE TOP VIEW ON LOT 17. AND LOT 17 IS 141 SOUTH 3RD. AND THEN YOU ALSO SEE THE CHANGE IN THE SIDES OF THE WINDOW, THE LOCATION OF THE WINDOW AND EXTEND THE ROOFTOP EXIT CORRIDOR. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE, JACOB. AND THEN THIS IS 18, SHOWING THE CHANGES ON THE SEIDAL VACATION OF LOT 18 TO ACCOMMODATE THE ELEVATOR.

NEXT SLIDE, JACOB. AND THEN YOUR NEW DESIGN OF THE TO THE REAR OF THE BUILDING, G- AGAIN, AS YOU SAW IN THE PREVIOUS AGENDA ITEM. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE.

AND THEN THE WINDOW LOCATION, SIZE OF THE OVERHANG CHANGED. YOU SEE IN THE UPPER CORNER IS THE OLD DESIGN AND WE'RE ADDING THE OVERHANG AND CHANGING THE WINDOW DESIGN.

AND LOCATION AND SIZES. NEXT SLIDE, JACOB, PLEASE. AND THEN THAT IS THE END OF THIS PRESENTATION. THE MAP WAS TO HELP WITH SWITCHING BETWEEN LOT NUMBERS

AND THAT WAS 141 AND 135. >> QUESTIONS. >> GO AHEAD.

I'M SORRY. >> I JUMPED THE GUN. GO AHEAD.

>> THE NEXT ITEM IS AGENDA ITEM 3.3, WHICH IS 147 SOUTH 3RD STREET.

WHILE JACOB IS BRINGING THAT UP. AND THEN 153 SOUTH 3RD STREET.

AND ALL OF THESE AS WERE STATED, YOU SAW EARLIER IN THE YEAR, I THINK IT WAS FEBRUARY, WE WERE SUPPOSED TO COME BACK IN MARCH BEFORE COVID-19. AND THE COMMENTS MAINLY THAT WE GOT WEREN'T REALLY ABOUT THE WINDOWS OR ANYTHING. WE DID GET ON THIS PARTICULAR ITEM, WE GOT THE COMMENT ABOUT THE HARDY SIDING THAT YOU'RE GOING TO SEE AND THEN AGAIN, THE MOVEMENT OF THE ELEVATOR, SO THAT IT CONNECTED TO THE ALREADY EXISTING STRUCTURE THAT WAS COMING OUT OF THE ROOFTOP. AND THIS WILL BE THE V FOR 1533RD STREET AND 1473RD STREET. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. AGAIN, YOU HAVE THE OLD STREET SCAPE VIEW. IF YOU'LL TAKE THE NEXT SLIDE. NO CHANGES TO THE FRONT ELEVATION. NEXT SLIDE. ROOFTOP HAS AFFECTED WHERE THE WINDOWS WILL GO. NEXT SLIDE. WE'RE POINTING OUT THE CHANGES, YOU CAN SEE CLEARLY THE CHANGES ON THIS ONE OF THE LOCATION OF THE WINDOWS AND THE SIZE CHANGE AND THEN THE EXTENSION OF THE ROOFTOP EXIT CORRIDOR. NEXT SLIDE.

AND THIS IS THE ROOFTOP VIEW AGAIN, TO SHOW THAT WE PUSHED IT TO THE REAR IN ORDER TO HELP WITH THE STREET VIEW. AND NEXT SLIDE. I THINK THAT SHOULD BE IT.

NO. WE HAVE ONE MORE. OH, YES, ADDING THE OVERHANG. SO ON THIS ONE, NUMBER 3 ADDS THE OVERHANG ON LOT 15, OR UNIT 15, I'M SORRY, WHICH IS 153 SOUTH 3RD STREET.

AND THEN THE DOOR HERE WILL HAVE A FULL VIEW GLASS DOOR, AS INDICATED IN NOTE 2 AND THEN YOU SEE THE WINDOW LOCATION SIZE CHANGE IN NOTE ONE. AND HE LABELED THEM 15 AND 16.

THEY'RE 147 SOUTH 3RD AND 153 SOUTH 3RD. NEXT SLIDE, THANK YOU, JACOB.

AND THAT IS THE SIDE-VIEW. LET'S SEE WHAT THAT IS. YES.

AND THEN THE NEXT SLIDE IS THE MAP. MR. CHAIRMAN, DO YOU MIND IF I

ASK MR. DENNIS IF HE WANTS TO ADD ANYTHING? >> GO AHEAD.

[00:30:03]

>> OKAY. SCOTT, MR. DENNIS, DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING TO ADD TO THE

PRESENTATION? >> YOU HIT IT PRETTY WELL. THAT LAST SLIDE WAS JUST SHOWING THAT THAT IS AN END UNIT THAT ABUTTS WHERE WE ENTER INTO THE ALLEY BEHIND THE UNIT,

INTO THAT SIDE WOULD BE FULL BRICK LIKE ORIGINALLY APPROVED. >> THAT'S RIGHT.

IF YOU SCROLL BACK UP, JACOB. THANK YOU FOR CATCHING THAT. THAT IS IN THE APPLICATION, THE

FULL BRICK ON THAT SIDE-VIEW. >> VISIBLE FROM THE 3RD STREET SIDE.

QUESTIONS FOR MS. PRINCE AND MR. DENNIS? TAMMY, WOULD YOU GO AHEAD,

PLEASE. >> THANK YOU. HI, THERESA.

>> HELLO. >> I DON'T KNOW IF THIS SHOULD BE DIRECTED TO YOU OR TO MR. DENNIS. SO WHOEVER ANSWERS THAT IS FINE.

WITH THE ELEVATOR SHAFT, THE NEW DESIGN AND PUSHING IT TO THE REAR OF THE BUILDING, DOES IT CHANGE THE OVERALL HEIGHT OF THE STRUCTURE, OR THE HEIGHT OF THE SHAFT?

>> NO, MA'AM, IT DOESN'T. WE SIMPLY INCORPORATED IT INTO THE ORIGINAL ROOFTOPS STAIRWELL EXIT CORRIDOR. BUT IT DOES NOT CHANGE THE HEIGHT.

WE REDUCED THAT EXTRA PENETRATION ON THE ROOF AND INCORPORATED ALL THOSE TOGETHER AGAINST THE CENTER LINE TO MINIMIZE THE VISUAL IMPACT. WE PUSH IT TO THE REAR SO IT ACTUALLY REDUCES BEING ABLE TO SEE IT FROM THE FRONT OF THE HOMES

>> OKAY. >> ON THE WINDOWS, IT SEEMS LIKE ONE OF THE ELEVATIONS THAT WAS DONE, IT LOOKED AS IF THE STYLE OF THE INSTALLATION OF THE WINDOW WAS CHANGED.

IT MAY BE JUST A RENDERING. BUT IT WAS GOING FROM A FULL WINDOW TO ALMOST A FLAT TREND WINDOW. IS THAT THE RENDERING OR IS THERE A CHANGE IN THE

INSTALLATION OF THE WINDOW? >> THE WINDOWS AND THE GRID PATTERN AND MATERIAL WILL ALL BE THE SAME. SOME SIZES MIGHT CHANGE AND A LITTLE BIT OF VARIATION OF

LOCATION. >> OKAY. OKAY.

THANK YOU. >> YES, MA'AM. >> OTHER QUESTIONS FOR MR.

DENNIS OR MS. PRINCE? >> I HAVE QUESTIONS. >> GO AHEAD.

>> SO A COUPLE, SO MY FIRST QUESTION IS, WHY ON ANY OF THE DRAWINGS DOES IT NOT SAY WHAT THE MATERIAL FOR THE ELEVATOR SHAFT FOR THE STAIRCASE IS GOING TO BE?

>> IT WILL BE FOR THE ORIGINAL APPROVED. WE DID NOT PUT THAT ON THERE.

>> THAT IS A PRETTY IMPORTANT THING TO KNOW. SO WHAT IS IT?

>> IT WILL BE HARDIE. >> OKAY. MY SECOND QUESTION IS SO WITH THE SITUATION WITH THE STAIRS AND THE ELEVATORS ON THE TOP OR WHATEVER, TELL ME IF THIS IS CORRECT, IT APPEARS TO ME THAT IN 3.1 THE STAIRCASE AND THE ELEVATOR IS BEING PUSHED TOWARDS THE REAR LIKE YOU ALL SAY, BUT IN 3.2 AND 3.3, IT'S NOT BEING PUSHED TOWARDS THE REAR LIKE IN 3.1. THE SIZE IS JUST INCREASING. SO IT'S EXTENDING CONSIDERABLY

FURTHER TOWARDS THE REAR. >> ADDITION IS ALL THAT ON THE REAR SIDE AND NOT ON THE FRONT

SIDE. >> BUT THE STAIRS NOT BEING PUSHED LIKE 3.1.

>> CORRECT. THE ELEVATOR WAS ON THE FRONT SO WE PUSHED ALL THOSE TO THE REAR. SO IT WOULDN'T COME BACK THE FRONT OF THE ORIGINAL APPROVED

DESIGN. >> WHEN WE CAME BEFORE YOU IN FEBRUARY, THAT WAS STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION. AND YOU ARE CORRECT, IN 3.2 AND 3.3, WE PUSHED THE ELEVATOR TO THE REAR, BUT WE DID NOT PUSH IT BACK FURTHER, AS YOU SAY IN 3.1.

IT HAS BEEN MOVED FURTHER BACK. >> OKAY. THOSE ARE MY QUESTIONS.

>> WHO ELSE HAS A HAND UP? I CAN'T TELL FROM HERE. >> NOBODY ELSE HAS HANDS UP.

>> OKAY. I'M TRYING TO THINK WHAT MY QUESTIONS WERE.

I THINK THEY MAY HAVE ALL BEEN ANSWERED. SO WE WILL MOVE ON TO PUBLIC COMMENT, I THINK. JUST MAKE SURE NOW. I DON'T WANT TO SHUT DOWN MS. PRINCE AND MR. DENNIS UNTIL I'M SURE ALL MY BOARD MEMBERS HAVE HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO ASK QUESTIONS. EVERYBODY IS COMFORTABLE WHERE WE ARE RIGHT NOW.

OKAY. I DON'T SEE ANYBODY STEPPING UP.

SO I WILL GO AHEAD AND OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. IS THERE ANYONE WHO WISHES TO SPEAK WITH REGARD TO CASES HDC 2017-03 AND THAT IS 117, 111, 141, 145, 153, AND 147 SOUTH 3RD STREET. WE WILL ASK MS. TAMMY AND MS. GIBSON.

[00:35:02]

DO YOU HAVE COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC THAT WE NEED TO REVEAL AND GET ON THE RECORD AT THIS

TIME REGARDING THIS CASE? >> NO. I HAVE TWO MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC WHO ARE PARTICIPATING IN THE ZOOM MEETING. I DON'T THINK EITHER ARE HERE TO SPEAK TO THAT. BUT YOU MAY WANT TO ASK. THEY CAN HEAR ALL OF THIS

AUDIO. >> ARE THERE MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC ON ZOOM WHO ARE HERE

VIRTUALLY WHO WOULD LIKE TO COMMENT ON THESE CASES? >> HEARING NOTHING.

WE WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND MOVE ON TO -- I'M NOT GOING TO ASK FOR ANY FURTHER COMMENTS FROM THE APPLICANT OR CITY STAFF AT THIS TIME.

I DON'T THINK WE NEED TO. PUBLIC HEARING IS CLOSED. WE'LL MOVE INTO BOARD DISCUSSIONS. YOU'RE GOING TO KEEP ME STRAIGHT ON THIS, RIGHT?

>> DOING GREAT. >> OKAY. BOARD MEMBERS, WHAT IS YOUR PLEASURE? REMEMBER WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO MOVE THESE ONE AT A TIME.

BUT WE CAN TALK ABOUT THEM TOGETHER. WOW.

>> WELL, PERSONALLY, OKAY, PERSONALLY, I THINK IT'S REALLY FRUSTRATING THAT THIS IS ABOUT THE 12TH CASE THAT WE HAD TO LOOK AT CHANGES FOR THIS PROJECT ON.

BUT WITH THAT ASIDE, I HAVE TO GIVE YOU KNOW, CREDIT TO THE APPLICANT THAT YOU KNOW, THEY DID LISTEN TO WHAT WE SAID THE LAST TIME THAT THEY CAME FORWARD.

AND THE LOCATIONS FOR THE ELEVATOR SHAFTS ARE GREATLY IMPROVED AESTHETICALLY AND VISUALLY FROM WHAT THEY WERE BEFORE. I'M GOING TO PUT MY FRUSTRATIONS TO HOW MUCH TIME WE SPENT IN MAKING CHANGES TO THIS PROJECT ASIDE AND SAY THAT GENERALLY SPEAKING, I THINK I WOULD BE IN FAVOR OF RECOMMENDING APPROVAL.

>> SECOND THAT. >> I HAVE A QUESTION. MY HAND WAS UP.

I DON'T THINK YOU CAN SEE IT. MY QUESTION, I AGREE WITH A LOT OF THE STUFF THAT BENJAMIN JUST SAID. MY QUESTION IS ON BUILDINGS 21 AND 22.

INCREASING THE LENGTH OF THAT ELEVATOR SHAFT TOWARDS THE BACK OF THE BUILDING, WHICH IS TOWARDS 2ND STREET, IF I'M CORRECT, THAT KIND OF JUTS OUT SO WE HAVE FULL VIEW OF THAT FROM CITY HALL PARKING LOT AND ALSO FROM 2ND STREET. AND I'M WONDERING WAS THAT PUSHED ALL THE WAY BACK AND EXTENDED CLOSER TO THAT, THAT ALMOST BECOMES LIKE NOT THE FRONT OF THE BUILDING, BUT IT'S A MUCH MORE VISUAL ON TOP OF THAT BUILDING AND HOW WILL THAT LOOK DRIVING DOWN 2ND OR PULLING INTO CITY HALL PARKING LOT?

>> I'M NOT SURE I FOLLOW. I THOUGHT THEY WERE ALL PUSHED TO THE REAR OF THE BUILDING.

>> YEAH. LOOK AT THE SITE PLAN. THAT IS MY SCREEN.

JACOB, CAN YOU PUT UP THE SITE PLAN OR THE PLAN VIEW. SO THE SITE PLAN FOR ALL OF THE

SITE? >> YEAH. THE LAST BUILDING.

>> YOU'RE CONCERNED ABOUT THE REAR OF THAT FROM THE PARKING LOT SIDE BACK HERE BEHIND CITY HALL. EXTENDING OUT INTO 2ND STREET. I HEAR YOU.

>> CORRECT. >> DOES ANYBODY ELSE HAVE CONCERNS ABOUT THIS?

>> IN THE GRAND SCHEME OF THINGS, I DON'T KNOW IF SIX FEET IS GOING TO MAKE A

DIFFERENCE AS TO WHETHER OR NOT IT'S ACCEPTABLE OR NOT. >> OTHER BOARD MEMBERS.

THIS IS A CRA PROJECT. I AM PERHAPS MORE GENEROUS WITH REGARD TO CRA PROJECTS, BECAUSE THEY ARE IN AN INDUSTRIAL AREA. I DON'T GET A WHOLE LOT OF HEARTBURN OVER HARDIE BOARD AND

[00:40:06]

STUCCO ON TOP OF A BUILDING. I AM SENSITIVE THAT YOU'RE GOING TO SEE THIS FROM THE 2ND STREET SIDE. BUT YOU'RE ALSO GOING TO SEE, THESE BUILDINGS ARE GREAT.

I LIKE THE WAY THIS DEVELOPMENT HAS GONE. I THINK IT'S BEEN GREAT HOUSING FOR DOWNTOWN. IT COULD HAVE BEEN A WHOLE BUNCH OF DIFFERENT THINGS, AND IN FACT, IT'S RESIDENTIAL. A LOT OF BRICK RESIDENTIAL THAT WE TALKED ABOUT, IT SEEMS LIKE 20 YEARS AGO NOW. BUT IT WAS JUST 2017. I THINK MS. ARNETTE MAKES A POINT THAT IT LOOKS LIKE FEDERALIST ARCHITECTURE, LIKE GEORGETOWN.

I THINK IN FACT IT'S BEEN REINFORCED BY ITS IMPROVED DETAIL.

I'M A LITTLE LESS CONCERNED ABOUT THE EXTENSION OF THE ELEVATOR SHAFT TO THE 2ND

STREET SIDE. >> OTHER BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS? WOULD SOMEONE LIKE TO MOVE THESE. REMEMBER WE'RE MOVING THESE ONE AT A TIME.

STAFF, AM I ON TRACK HERE? IT'S AN UNUSUAL FORMAT. WE'VE BEEN IN BOARD DISCUSSION.

WOULD ANYONE LIKE TO MOVE AND SECOND, I WOULD ASK YOU TO IDENTIFY IT AS THE STREET

ADDRESS. >> THAT'S COMPLICATED. >> I'VE SEEN YOU DO THINGS MORE

COMPLEX THAN THAT. >> WE CAN'T DO IT AS THE AGENDA ITEM.

>> CASE NUMBER. >> 3.1. >> I MOVE TO APPROVE HDC CASE

NUMBER, LOOK I HAVE THE WRONG ONE UP. >> ITEM 3.1 AS PRESENTED IS SUBSTANTIALLY COMPLIANT WITH THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE TO WARRANT APPROVAL AT THIS TIME.

>> SECOND. >> SO MOVED. MORRISON SECOND HARRISON.

IS THERE ANY BOARD DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE, PLEASE CALL THE ROLL.

>> MEMBER KOSACK. >> AGREED. >> MEMBER HARRISON.

>> YES. >> MEMBER CONWAY. >> YES.

>> MEMBER MORRISON. >> YES. >> CHAIR SPINO.

>> YES. >> MOVING ON 2017-03.2. YOU'RE ON A ROLL.

>> I MOVE TO APPROVE THIS AMENDMENT 2017-03, ITEM 3.2 WITHOUT CONDITION.

I MOVE THAT HDC MAKE THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, ITEM 3.2 AS PRESENTED IS SUBSTANTIALLY COMPLIANT WITH THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AREA GUIDELINES AND THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR STANDARDS TO WARRANT

APPROVAL AT THIS TIME. >> SECOND. >> MOVED MORRISON.

SECONDED HARRISON. ANY DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE, PLEASE CALL THE

ROLL. >> MEMBER CONWAY. >> YES.

>> MEMBER KOSACK. >> YES. >> MEMBER MORRISON.

>> YES. >> MEMBER HARRISON. >> YES.

>> CHAIR SPINO. >> YES. >> 2017-03, ITEM 3.3.

>> BEFORE I DO THE FINAL ONE, CAN WE ASK IF THIS IS GOING TO BE THE LAST TIME WE HAVE TO MAKE AN AMENDMENT TO IT. I GUESS THAT WOULDN'T BE APPROPRIATE, WOULD IT?

>> YOU KNOW >> I MOVE THAT WE ACCEPT THE AS BUILT DESIGN.

>> I MOVE TO APPROVE THIS AMENDMENT, 2017-03, ITEM 3.3 WITHOUT CONDITIONS AND I MOVE THAT THE HDC MAKE THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW PART OF THE RECORD, THIS AMENDMENT TO HDC 2017-03, ITEM 3.3, AS PRESENTED IS SUBSTANTIALLY COMPLIANT WITH THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AREA GUIDELINES AND THE SECRETARY OF

THE INTERIOR STANDARD TO WARRANT APPROVAL AT THIS TIME. >> MOVE

[00:45:08]

>> MORRISON. HARRISON. >> I WOULD ADD, THERE'S 22 UNITS, IF WE HAD 22 SEPARATE APPLICATIONS, WE PROBABLY WOULDN'T HAVE THOUGHT ABOUT IT

BEING A BURDEN. SO I THINK I'M OKAY WITH THAT. >> OKAY.

>> PLEASE CALL THE ROLL. >> MEMBER HARRISON. >> YES.

>> MEMBER CONWAY. >> YES. >> MEMBER MORRISON.

>> YES. >> MEMBER KOSACK. >> YES.

>> CHAIR SPINO. >> YES. MOVING ON.

[Item 3.4]

HDC 2019-10, AGENT FOR THE BOATHOUSE 30 SOUTH 2ND STREET. WE CAN SEE YOU.

WHO HAS GOT THIS ONE? DIRECTOR GIBSON, CAN YOU FILL US IN.

>> GIVE ME JUST ONE MOMENT. >> YOU HAVE TO SPEAK REALLY LOUDLY BECAUSE MRS. PRINCE SENT

ME A MESSAGE AND COULDN'T REALLY HEAR KELLY. >> WELL, SHE IS NOT HERE ANYMORE. PRINCE IS OUT. HER CASE IS DONE.

WE CUT HER LOOSE. >> REAL QUICKLY, PUTTING EVERYONE WHO IS NOT INVOLVED

WITH THIS IN THE WAITING ROOM. >> KATES, CAN WE HEAR YOU? >> NO. SHE'S MUTED.

>> SHE IS ON MUTE. >> SHE IS WORKING. THERE SHE IS.

>> CAN YOU GUYS HEAR ME? >> NOW WE CAN, YEAH. >> I HAVE JUST BEEN MUTING OVER

MY DOGS BARKING. >> WE GET THAT. >> SO I BELIEVE WE HAVE EVERYONE IN HERE APPLICANT-WISE TO PARTICIPATE ON THIS NEXT CASE.

HDC 2019-10, AND THIS IS AN AMENDMENT TO PROPERTY LOCATED AT 30 SOUTH 2ND STREET.

PREVIOUSLY PROVIDED A CERTIFICATE OF APPROVAL FOR AN EXTERIOR REMODEL, TO ALLOW FOR AN ADAPTIVE REUSE OF A NON-CONTRIBUTING STRUCTURE, AS A RESTAURANT.

THE APPLICANT AT THIS TIME IS SEEKING AMENDMENTS TO ALTER THE FRONT ENTRANCE RAMP, ELIMINATE THE WALL ALONG ASH STREET. AND LOWER THE PROPOSED RAILING WITH PLANTINGS.

THEY'RE LOOKING TO ALTER THE RAMP AND STAIRS ON THE SOUTH ELEVATION.

CHANGE THE WINDOW AND DOOR OPENINGS TO AN OUTDOOR BAR ON THE SOUTH ELEVATION.

AND IN TERMS OF ANALYSIS, WE'VE LOOKED AT THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS.

WE FIND THEM TO BE FURTHER ENHANCEMENT OF THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED DESIGN.

AND ADAPTING THIS BUILDING TO ITS NEW USE AS A RESTAURANT WHILE STAYING TRUE TO ITS ORIGINAL ARCHITECTURE AS ORIGINALLY PROVIDED, AND WE HAVE RECOMMENDED APPROVAL.

AND IF YOU GIVE ME ONE MOMENT, I WILL PULL UP THE CASE SO THAT I CAN SHARE THAT ON THE SCREEN FOR YOU. WE CAN GO THROUGH THE INDIVIDUAL ITEMS TOGETHER.

>> CRA OR HDC? >> I BELIEVE THIS IS HDC. >> HDC

>> THANK YOU. IT MAY BE EASIER BUT I THINK I'VE GOT EVERYTHING PULLED UP

FOR YOU TO GO HERE. >> AND THEN IF YOU WANT TO USE THAT TO GO THROUGH YOUR PRESENTATION OR IF YOU WANT TO PRESENT AT THAT TIME, WE'LL ALLOW FOR THE SCREEN SHARE TO OCCUR THEN. IT IS PULLING UP THE ITEM. BUT IT SHOULD BE AVAILABLE HERE IN JUST A MOMENT. BEFORE THE MODIFICATIONS BEGAN. YOU CAN SEE ARCHITECTURE IS A

[00:50:10]

FORMER BOAT MARINE REPAIR SHOP. LET'S SEE HERE. IT'S JUST A LITTLE SLOW.

I'M TRYING TO MAKE IT SO YOU CAN VISUALIZE THE DIFFERENT IMPROVEMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN

PROVIDED. >> IF YOU LET ME SHARE MY SCREEN.

I DON'T KNOW IF THIS WAS BURIED IN A PDF. BUT THE PACKET WAS HUGE.

>> THERE IS SOMETHING ABOUT THESE DRAWINGS THAT SLOW MY COMPUTER DOWN A LOT TOO.

I DON'T KNOW WHAT IT IS ABOUT IT. >> THERE'S TOO MANY DETAILS.

>> WOULD YOU LIKE ME TO SHARE IT SO I CAN SHOW IT? >> I THINK YOU CAN DO THAT NOW.

>> BEFORE WE TAKE ANY TESTIMONY OR EVIDENCE, STEVEN, YOU AND KELLY NEED TO BE SWORN IN.

MR. RICHARDSON, YOU AS WELL, PLEASE. PLEASE RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND.

DO YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM THAT THE ORAL AND/OR WRITTEN TESTIMONY YOU ARE ABOUT TO GIVE WILL BE

THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH? >> YES.

>> MR. RICHARDSON. HE SAID YES. >> HIS FIRST ZOOM MEETING.

>> OKAY. SO WHERE IS THAT DRAWING? >> YOU HAVE PARTICIPANT SCREEN SHARING BLOCK, IF YOU CAN LET ME DO THAT, I'LL TAKE OVER REAL QUICK.

>> THANK YOU. >> PAPKE IS GOING TO SHOW IT AND KELLY IS GOING TO TALK

ABOUT IT. >> WE CAN STILL HEAR HIM EVEN IF HE SHARES HIS SCREEN.

>> I DON'T THINK THAT IS GOING TO WORK HERE. WHATEVER THAT WAS.

>> DENIED. >> STEVEN, BEFORE WE GO ANY FURTHER, ARE THESE THE SAME DRAWINGS THAT MRS. GIBSON HAS SEEN? THERE IS NO OBJECTIONS?

>> THEY'RE THE EXACT SAME DRAWINGS THAT WERE PROVIDED WITHIN THE STAFF REPORT AND

MATERIALS THAT WERE PROVIDED ONLINE. >> I WILL SAY THAT I AM GOING TO ADD SOMETHING TO THE PRESENTATION THAT WAS NOT PROVIDED AS JUST SIMPLE

GRAPHICS. SO IT WILL BE A SUPPLEMENT. >> JUST CALL IT OUT.

YOU WILL BE FINE. >> BEFORE WE MOVE FORWARD, GIVEN THAT MR. PAPKE IS SHARING HIS SCREEN, TO CONVEY THE DIFFERENT GRAPHICS, ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS THAT THE BOARD HAS OF ME OR DO WE WANT TO ALLOW FOR HIM TO GO THROUGH THE PRESENTATION AND GO THROUGH THE

FINER DETAILS OF THE CHANGES? >> BOARD MEMBERS, DO WE HAVE QUESTIONS FOR MR. GIBSON OR

SHOULD WE GO AHEAD TO MR. PAPKE AT THIS TIME. >> LET'S DO IT STEVEN.

>> THANK YOU. SO TONIGHT WE'RE -- AGAIN, MY NAME IS STEVEN PAPKE, 2657 LONG BOAT DRIVE, FOR THE RECORD. COMING TO YOU TONIGHT TO PRESENT SOME OF THE THINGS THAT HAVE DEVELOPED SINCE WE'VE LAST MET. SOME OF THESE WERE ACTUALLY SUBMITTED PRE-COVID-19. BUT UNFORTUNATELY, THAT HAS GOTTEN PASSED.

CHANGES INCLUDED A MEETING WITH THE BUILDING OFFICIAL, MR. BEKMAN ABOUT THE FRONT ENTRYWAY. WE HAD A HICCUP WITH THE ACCESSIBILITY RAMP AT THE FRONT STEPS. THERE WASN'T ENOUGH HEIGHT CLEARANCE TO MAKE IT ADA RAMP COMPLIANT. AND BECAUSE IT WAS AN EXISTING BUILDING, WE WERE GRANDFATHERED ELIMINATING THAT. WE STILL HAVE AN ACCESS, WHICH IS OVER HERE, ON THE SCREEN.

IF YOU GUYS CAN SEE MY CURSOR. AND I WILL DEMONSTRATE THIS HERE IN A SECOND, A LITTLE BIT MORE ARTICULATELY. CHANGES ALSO INCLUDED THIS ASH STREET SIDE, WE ARE GETTING RID

[00:55:03]

OF THE LOW WALL AND HAVING IT A GREEN FENCE. THE CLIENT DECIDED THAT HAVING THIS AS A SCREENED ENCLOSURE WASN'T AS APPEALING AS HAVING IT GREEN.

WE HAVE A NICE GREEN EDGE ON THIS CORNER WITH THE EXISTING PALMS WHICH WE'RE MAINTAINING.

WE ADDED A COUPLE OF LIGHTS FOR VISIBILITY AND THAT IS ABOUT IT IN THIS AREA.

THERE IS NO QUESTIONS, I'LL MOVE FORWARD. >> STEVEN, I HAVE A QUESTION AND I THINK OTHER BOARD MEMBERS MAY AS WELL. BOARD MEMBERS, DO YOU HAVE

QUESTIONS FOR MR. PAPKE ON THESE CHANGES? >> I HAVE QUESTIONS.

STEVEN THANKS FOR YOUR RENDERINGS, IT WAS GREAT TO LOOK AT AND VERY EASILY READ.

ON WHERE YOU'RE SAYING THE GREEN FENCE, ON THAT SIDE, IT LOOKS THAT IS AN ACTUAL FENCE.

ARE YOU PROPOSING THAT THERE IS NO FENCING MATERIAL AT ALL, IT'S JUST LANDSCAPING MATERIAL?

>> NO. IT'S ACTUALLY A COMBINATION. AND I'LL HAVE A GRAPHIC THAT WILL SHOW YOU THAT. THE FENCE, THE DIFFERENCE WAS, IT'S A LITTLE BIT HARD TO SEE.

WE HAD A LOW WALL PREVIOUSLY UNDERNEATH ALL OF THIS OVER HERE.

AND IT PUT THE RAILING FROM ABOUT TWO FEET TO FIVE FEET. WHICH KIND OF SEEMED LIKE IT WAS MORE OF AN ENCLOSED AND IT WASN'T TRYING TO BE THAT. WE DROPPED THE FENCE, ELIMINATED THE LOW WALL AND GREEN SCAPING, BASICALLY PLANTING ALONG THE EDGE.

SO IT'S GOING TO GROW INSIDE OF THE RAIL. IT WILL BE A NICE EDGE, I PROMISE.

YOU'LL SEE THE GRAPHIC IN A SECOND. >> STEVEN, IF I MAY INTERRUPT, DID YOU RUN THAT BY THE TRC? ARE YOU CONSISTENT WITH THE BUILDING CODE? MY UNDERSTANDING IS YOU GOT AN OUTDOOR BAR, YOU'RE GOING TO NEED LIMITS ON ACCESS.

>> 100 PERCENT CORRECT. THAT IS WHY WE MAINTAINED THE RAIL ALL THE WAY AROUND.

SECURED ACCESS TO THE SITE. >> EXCELLENT. THANK YOU.

>> YES, SIR. >> ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS? >> LET'S MOVE ON.

>> ALL RIGHT. MOVING FORWARD. ALL RIGHT.

ONE MORE TIME. ONE CLICK. SORRY.

FINGER CLICKING. SO AGAIN, THE CHANGES IN THIS AREA WERE THE RAMP DISAPPEARED AND I HAVE SOME AREAS CLOUDED HERE THAT INDICATE SOME OF THE AREAS ALSO THAT HAD NOT CHANGED BUT THE MATERIAL HAD CHANGED. THE OWNER IS ASKING FOR FLEXIBILITY TO BE ABLE TO CONSIDER USING A COMPOSITE WOOD SO THAT IT'S NOT JUST CONCRETE EVERYWHERE.

WE'VE GOT CONCRETE, I MEAN, IF Y'ALL RECALL THIS BUILDING WAS AN OLD EMISSIONS TESTING FACILITY. SO IT HAD A DRIVE AISLE RIGHT HERE, WENT AROUND THE BUILDING, LOOPED AROUND, THROUGH THE OUTSIDE. THIS WHOLE SITE HAS BEEN NOTHING BUT CONCRETE. WE TRIED TO REDUCE THE AMOUNT OF CONCRETE, GIVE IT A LITTLE MORE AESTHETIC QUALITY TO IT. SO WHAT YOU'RE NOTING IN SOME OF THESE AREAS IS TEXTURE TO CHANGE THE CONCRETE. THAT IS REALLY THE ONLY COMMENT THAT IS CHANGING ON THIS SHEET.

AGAIN, THIS IS THE NEW GREENED AREA. ANY COMMENTS ON THIS?

>> ELEVATIONS? >> YES. ELEVATIONS WILL FOLLOW THIS.

>> OKAY. THESE ARE THE DRAWINGS THAT WENT TO THE CITY FOR PERMIT REVIEW. SO THIS IS NOT, THIS IS NOT NECESSARILY PRESENTATION STYLE DRAWINGS. THESE ARE THE ACTUAL DRAWINGS THAT WENT TO THE BUILDING OFFICIALS FOR CONSTRUCTION. SO HEARING NO OTHER QUESTIONS, I'LL KEEP GOING.

>> PLEASE. >> ALL RIGHT. THE NEXT PLAN IS ANOTHER, BASICALLY DIMENSIONAL CONTROL PLAN. BASICALLY ELIMINATING THIS RAMP AND THESE ARE THE CHANGES THAT ARE IDENTIFIED HERE. AGAIN, I'M GOING TO HAVE A PRESENTATION GRAPHIC THAT WILL DEMONSTRATE ALL THIS MORE CLEARLY HERE MOMENTARILY.

I'M GOING TO GO THROUGH THE DRAWING. >> YOU HAD A RISE OF A RUN PROBLEM ON THE FRONT, IS THAT WHY YOU HAD TO TAKE THE RAMP OUT?

>> CORRECT. WE FELL 32 INCHES FROM THE TOP OF THE FINISHED ELEVATION THAT WE RAISED TO GET ABOVE THE FLOODPLAIN. WE DROPPED 32 INCHES TO GET DOWN TO SIDEWALK LEVEL. THIS IS 25 FEET. WE COULDN'T MAKE THE 1 AND 12

REQUIREMENT. >> GOT IT. >> I'M SORRY.

SO THE OTHER CHANGES THAT YOU'RE NOTING ON THIS ARE THE GOOSE NECK THAT WE'VE ADDED.

THERE'S ACTUALLY THREE ON THE FRONT ELEVATION HERE. YOU'LL SEE THEM ON THE

[01:00:03]

ELEVATION. NO OTHER CHANGES IN THE INTERIOR.

MOVING FORWARD TO THE ELEVATIONS. THESE ARE KIND OF A LITTLE BIT MORE DENSE TO READ. BUT THERE IS THE THREE SIGNS, THE THREE LIGHTS.

THE CHANGE IN THE RAMP. THE ADDITIONAL LIGHTS ON THE SIDE.

AND THEN THE FENCED AREA, HERE, THAT CHANGED AND THEN THE THREE GOOSE NECKS ADDED ON THAT SIDE.

YOU CAN SEE HOW HIGH THIS IS UP HERE. FINALLY, THE LAST DRAWING WILL BE THE SIDE ELEVATION. THE SCREEN WALL THAT WAS PROTECTING THE VISIBILITY OF THE DUMPSTER ENCLOSURE. THERE WAS A COMMENT ABOUT THE VISIBILITY ON THE EAST SIDE OF SCREENING. SO WE COULDN'T SEE THE MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT.

THAT HAS ALL BEEN ADDRESSED. >> SO THAT WRAPS AROUND? IT'S AN UNUSUAL SITE.

BECAUSE YOU CAN SEE THIS FROM THE CORNER OF 3RD. AND SO WE JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT IF YOU'RE SCREENING MECHANICAL, IS IT SCREENED ALL THE WAY?

>> IT DID. >> EXCELLENT. THANK YOU.

>> I'M GOING TO JUMP FROM THE DRAWINGS, IF THERE ARE NO MORE QUESTIONS.

>> ANY QUESTIONS FOR MR. PAPKE AT THIS TIME? YOU'LL HAVE ANOTHER CHANCE BUT

GO AHEAD. >> OKAY. YES.

I CAN GO BACK TO ANY OF THESE THAT YOU WANT. BUT THESE ARE EASIER TO READ.

THIS IS THE GRAPHIC YOU SAW A SECOND AGO, JUST ISOLATED. THIS WAS THE EXISTING CONDITION, AGAIN, THE BUILDING WAS 25 FEET FROM THE EDGE OF THE SIDEWALK.

YOU CAN SEE WE HAD A CURB CUT. WE ADDED THE SIDEWALK BACK. WE MAINTAINED THIS CURB CUT.

LOOKING FORWARD. THIS IS THE GREENED EDGE. I'LL GIVE YOU A BETTER IMAGE OF THIS. WE WANTED TO PRESENT TO YOU WHAT THE CONCEPT WAS.

A COUPLE OF PALM TREES IN THIS. ALIGNING THIS ENTIRE EDGE WITH PALM TREES.

PUT SHADING ON THIS TO GIVE YOU A GRAPHIC TO SEE THE INTENT FOR POTENTIALLY CHANGING THE MATERIAL ON THESE SURFACES. SO A COMPOSITE WOOD. IT MAY CHANGE TO A PAINTED CONCRETE. WE'RE EXPLORING SOME IDEAS HERE.

BUT THIS WAS A CONCEPT. AGAIN, MOVING FORWARD. THIS WILL ADDRESS THE RAMP ISSUE. ADA ACCESSIBLE ROUTE NOW. SO THE GREEN FOLLOWS THROUGH AND THEN THERE IS AN ENTRYWAY RIGHT HERE. ACCESSIBLE RAMP THAT IS RIGHT HERE. GREEN PLANTED EDGE ALONG THIS SIDE, THE 15-FOOT TRIANGLE THAT WE HAVE TO MAINTAIN BETWEEN ASH AND 2ND. THE ENCLOSURE OF THE 4TH SIDE THAT WAS REQUESTED DURING THE LAST MEETING. WE HAVE A COMPLETE ENCLOSURE OF THIS. AND THEN OUR GATED VIEW. SO Y'ALL CAN SEE THIS VIEW FROM THIS, THIS IS ME STANDING AT THE EDGE OF THE SITE. YOU CAN'T SEE ANYTHING UP THERE RIGHT NOW. MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT IS THERE. THOSE OF YOU WHO ARE ACTUALLY IN CHAMBER, YOU CAN LOOK ACROSS THE STREET AND YOU CAN'T SEE IT.

ALL RIGHT. SO KEEP GOING. SOME SNAZ NOW.

THIS IS WHAT THE BUILDING IS PROPOSED TO LOOK LIKE. WE'RE TRYING TO GIVE YOU GUYS A MUCH BETTER VISUAL, MUCH BETTER GRAPHIC TO KIND OF GIVE YOU COMMUNICATION OF WHAT THE DESIGN IS GOING TO BE. THIS IS THE LOW WALL THAT WE WERE SPEAKING OF BEFORE.

AND THIS IS HOW HIGH THIS WAS. ALL WE'VE DONE WAS TAKEN THIS CONCEPT, WE'VE GREENED THIS EDGE. WE'VE BASICALLY DROPPED THE LOW ALL OUT, PUT MULCH DOWN.

PLANTING DOWN LOW. YES, WE HAVE A SECURED ACCESS ALL THE WAY AROUND THE PERIMETER. THESE ARE THE ADDITIONAL GOOSE NECKS.

THESE ARE THE ADDITIONAL GOOSE NECKS. AND THIS IS THE REVISED CURB-CUT AND THE REVISED RAMP AREA. AND THAT CONCLUDES EVERYTHING I

HAVE TO PRESENT TO YOU ALL. IS THERE ANY QUESTIONS? >> QUESTIONS FOR MR. PAPKE OR

MR. RICHARDSON? >> STEVEN, THE STEP AT THE PROPOSED MATERIAL CHANGES FROM

THE CONCRETE TO A COMPOSITE? >> IT'S BEING THROWN OUT AS AN IDEA.

WE DON'T HAVE A MATERIAL SELECTED YET. IF I WERE GOING TO SUGGEST ANYTHING, IT WOULD BE IN A WOOD, OUR THEME IS A BLACK AND WHITE WITH THE SILVERY GRAY.

SO I WOULDN'T SAY IT'S ONLY BROWN. THIS WAS A MATERIAL KIND OF A

PLACEHOLDER. >> SO WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IS THE PROPOSED NEW STEP UNDERNEATH THE SIGN. AND THEN THE STEPS AND THE RAMP AROUND THE OTHER SIDE ARE THE

PLATFORMS? >> CORRECT. HERE.

HERE. AND THERE. AND THEN THE TOP OF THE DECK,

OF THE PERFORMANCE AREA. >> ORIGINALLY, WHAT WAS THE FRONT STEPS THAT DIDN'T WORK

[01:05:05]

OUT WITH THE RISE AND THE RUN, WERE THOSE TO BE CONCRETE ORIGINALLY?

>> JUST STRAIGHT CONCRETE. YES. >> SECOND QUESTION, THE GREENING OF THE FENCE, IT LOOKS AS IF THE LANDSCAPE MATERIAL IS PLANTED ON THE INSIDE OF THE

FENCE LINE, IS THAT CORRECT? >> CORRECT. >> OKAY.

THE SIGNAGE, AT ONE POINT THE PAINTED BOATHOUSE SIGNAGE WAS APPROVED OR REQUESTED TO STAY.

AND IT WAS GRANTED BECAUSE IT WAS SO LARGE. AM I MAKING THAT UP? IS THAT NOT A PART OF THE CONDITIONS OF THE ORIGINAL APPROVAL?

>> I DON'T RECALL. I KNOW THAT WE IDENTIFIED THE SIGNAGE THAT IS OVER HERE CURRENTLY. BUT IT'S BEEN, FOR LACK OF A BETTER WORD, IT'S BEEN BEATEN UP BY CONSTRUCTION AND PART OF IT GOT DEMOED FOR THESE OVERHEAD DOORS.

THE LOGIC WAS I DOCUMENTED IT SO THAT WE HAD IT AS AN ARCHIVED.

SO IT GOT REPLICATED OVER HERE. >> AND LASTLY, THE ENTRY, I KNOW THAT WAS DESTROYED, IS IT

GONE? >> THE INTENT IS TO REBUILD IT. >> OTHER QUESTIONS FOR MR.

PAPKE. >> IS IT TRUE THAT THE GREENING OF THAT FENCE LINE THAT YOU'RE

TALKING ABOUT IS ONLY PROPOSED TO HAPPEN IN THE SOUTH SIDE? >> YES.

SOUTH SIDE ONLY. >> OKAY. SIDE FACING CITY HALL.

>> YEAH. ASH STREET. >> CORRECT.

>> STEVEN, WE JUST LOOKED OUT THE WINDOW AND YOUR PILLARS THERE ALONG THE PROPERTY LINE ARE AT THE SIDEWALK. SO I DON'T THINK YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE GRASS BETWEEN YOUR

GREEN FENCE AND THE SIDEWALK THERE. >> I MAY HAVE MODELLED THE

SIDEWALK IN THE WRONG LOCATION. >> IT'S OKAY. >> I APOLOGIZE.

>> WE GET YOUR POINT. WE GET YOUR POINT OF WHAT YOU'RE TRYING TO ACCOMPLISH THERE. OTHER QUESTIONS FOR MR. PAPKE? YOU HAVE THE UNIQUE ADVANTAGE AND DISADVANTAGE OF WE CAN LITERALLY LOOK OUT THE WINDOW AND SEE WHAT YOU'RE DOING HERE.

OTHER QUESTIONS FOR MR. PAPKE? WE TALKED ABOUT THE SCREENING, WE TALKED ABOUT THE GREEN FENCE. WE TALKED ABOUT WOOD, WE TALKED ABOUT THE NEW RAMP.

>> ONE THING I DIDN'T IDENTIFY WAS THE ADDITION I THINK IT ACTUALLY WAS ADDITION OF THE SERVER WINDOW, THAT IS BEHIND HERE. I APOLOGIZE.

GO BACK A COUPLE OF IMAGES HERE. >> IT WAS IN YOUR APPLICATION, AS I RECALL. AND YOU'RE POINTING YOUR STAGE AT YOUR BUILDING NOT AT THE

RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD THAT IS ADJACENT, CORRECT? >> CORRECT.

>> CORRECT. >> I WANT THAT ON THE RECORD. BECAUSE 6 MONTHS FROM NOW, YOU START BLASTING MUSIC UP ASH STREET, I'M COMING AFTER YOU. WITH A LAWYER.

SO MAKE SURE THAT YOU'RE POINTING THAT STAGE AT YOUR BUSINESS AND AT THE BUSINESS

DISTRICT, OKAY. >> UNDERSTOOD. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? >> I DO HAVE ONE MORE QUESTION, SINCE YOU RAISED THAT POINT, MIKE. MAYBE THIS GOES TO, IS IT MR. RICHARDSON? ARE THERE TV, SCREENS, ANYTHING OF THAT NATURE THAT WILL BE DISPLAYED FACING OUTWARD FROM

THE BUILDING? >> CAN YOU HEAR ME? >> THERE YOU GO.

YES. >> OKAY. THERE WILL BE TWO TVS IN THE OUTDOOR BAR AND IT WILL BE A COUPLE OF TVS UNDERNEATH THE LEAN TO OVER HERE.

BUT I'M NOT SURE IF YOU'LL BE ABLE TO SEE THEM VERY WELL FROM THE OUTSIDE.

THEY WILL BE UP IN THE CORNER. >> CAN YOU SHOW US? >> THERE MIGHT BE A TV UP HERE.

BUT AGAIN, OR A TV IN HERE. CORRECT? >> THAT'S CORRECT.

>> THAT IS FACING CITY HALL. >> THAT IS FACING CITY HALL BASICALLY, RIGHT?

>> RIGHT. >> YEAH. OKAY.

OTHER QUESTIONS. GOOD QUESTION. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

WE'LL MOVE ON TO THE PUBLIC HEARING. >> CAN I MAKE ONE COMMENT.

>> ABSOLUTELY. >> OKAY. THE SERVERS WINDOW THAT CAME UP

[01:10:05]

EARLIER, I KNOW THIS WAS NOT IN THE APPLICATION, CAN YOU SEE THIS? THIS IS A CANOPY. WE'RE THINKING AT SOME POINT WE MAY WANT TO ADD THIS TO THE SERVERS WINDOW. WE WANTED TO SEE WHAT THE LANE TWO WAS GOING TO LOOK LIKE FIRST LEAN TO WAS GOING TO LOOK BACK FIRST. IF WE DECIDE TO DO THAT, DO WE NEED TO COME BACK WITH AN APPLICATION OR MEET WITH SOMEBODY IN THE FIELD TO SHOW IT TO YOU. IT'S JUST A SMALL -- RIGHT THERE.

COVERING THE SERVERS AREA. >> WITHOUT THE AWNING, WITHOUT THE COVERING, I'M THINKING STAFF IS GOING TO HAVE HEARTBURN HERE THINKING THAT THEY DON'T HAVE THE LATITUDE TO

S. KELLY. >> I WOULD DEFER TO THE BOARD ON THIS. GIVEN IN TERMS OF AWNINGS, WE DO PERMIT AWNINGS AT THE STAFF LEVEL, ESPECIALLY WHERE THERE IS SIGNAGE INVOLVED. BUT IF IT'S SOMETHING THAT THE BOARD COULD CONTEMPLATE AT THIS POINT, IF THEY ARE TRULY CONSIDERING IT, AND MAYBE MAKE IT CONDITIONAL TO ALLOW FOR STAFF TO REVIEW THAT ITEM WHEN AND IF IT COMES UP, I WOULD ASK

THAT YOU MAKE THAT PART OF YOUR MOTION. >> ABSOLUTELY.

IS THAT A METAL OR CLOTH AWNING? >> IT WOULD BE A METAL, IS THAT RIGHT, STEVEN? JUST LIKE THE FRONT OF THE BUILDING.

>> MORE OF THE BLACK ALUMINUM. >> RIGHT. AND WE JUST WANTED O SEE, WE DIDN'T WANT TO CRAM ANYTHING IN THERE AND MAKE IT LOOK BAD. WE WANTED TO SEE WHAT IT WAS GOING TO LOOK LIKE IN THE FRONT OF THE BUILDING. IF IT LOOKED GOOD, WE WOULD

MAKE A FIELD DECISION TO ADD THE SECOND ONE. >> WE WILL COVER THAT IN BOARD DISCUSSION, POTENTIALLY IN THE MOTION. BOARD MEMBERS, ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS? IF NOT, I'M GOING TO OPEN THE PUBLIC MEETING.

ANYONE WHO WISHES TO SPEAK ON CASE HDC 2019-10 30 SOUTH 2ND STREET.

IS THERE ANYBODY ONLINE? >> THERE IS. IS THERE ANYBODY WHO WISHES TO SPEAK ON THIS CASE? THERE ARE TWO MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC ONLINE.

>> PLEASE BRING THEM ON BOARD. >> I HAVE TO GIVE YOU CONTROL BACK KELLY.

>> THEY'RE AVAILABLE BY AUDIO, IF THEY WOULD LIKE TO INTRODUCE THEIR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE

RECORD. >> DO THEY NEED TO BE SWORN? >> WELL, IT DEPENDS.

MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC OUT THERE WHO WISH TO SPEAK, WE CAN HEAR YOU RIGHT AWAY.

PLEASE IDENTIFY YOURSELF BY NAME AND ADDRESS. AND ■IF YOUWISHTOINTRODUCE EVIDENCE AND TESTIMONY, PLEASE LET US KNOW RIGHT AWAY SO I CAN ADMINISTER THE OATH.

IS THERE ANYBODY OUT THERE WISHING TO SPEAK? GUESS NOT.

>> KELLY, YOU HAD INDICATIONS THAT THERE WERE A COUPLE OF PEOPLE WHO WANTED TO

PARTICIPATE TONIGHT? >> THEY'RE JUST THERE. >> IT DOESN'T APPEAR THEY'RE

HERE TO SPEAK ON THIS SPECIFIC CASE. >> ALL RIGHT THEN.

HEARING THAT THERE IS NO ONE WHO WISHES TO SPEAK ON THIS CASE, WE WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND MOVE INTO BOARD DISCUSSION. BOARD MEMBERS, WHAT IS YOUR

PLEASURE? >> AND I MAY START CALLING ON YOU SINCE IT'S A LITTLE UNUSUAL

ENVIRONMENT HERE. MR. HARRISON. >> YEAH.

I'M CONCERNED ABOUT THE TELEVISIONS. IT SEEMS THAT WE WERE TOLD THERE WOULD BE AT LEAST TWO SCREENS VISIBLE FROM THE SCREEN.

>> I THINK I HEARD ACTUALLY FOUR, MR. HARRISON. TWO AND TWO.

>> OKAY. >> TWO FACING THIS WAY. TWO FACING THE HAMPTON INN

SIDE. >> I BEG YOUR PARDON? >> I THINK WHAT I HEARD WAS TWO FACING CITY HALL AND TWO FACING THE HAMPTON INN. TWO TO THE SOUTH AND TWO TO THE WEST. JUST SO YOU KNOW. WE DIDN'T ASK HOW BIG THOSE WERE. THAT COULD BE, WELL, YOU KNOW, THAT THEY COULD BE BIG.

>> YEAH. THE LIGHTS FROM THESE SCREENS ARE VERY VISIBLE FROM A LONG WAY AWAY. AND I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THEM NOT VISIBLE FROM THE STREET.

>> OTHER THOUGHTS? >> I AGREE WITH MEMBER HARRISON ABOUT THE SCREENS.

WE SEEM TO BE GETTING MORE AND MORE SCREENS IN THE HISTORIC DISTRICT.

IT'S IN MY OPINION CHANGING THE FACE OF SEVERAL AREAS. MY OTHER CONCERN, IS THIS THE

[01:15:08]

HISTORIC DISTRICT, IS THAT RIGHT? >> THAT'S RIGHT.

>> SO I'VE GOT I LIKE THE DESIGN BUT I'VE GOT A PROBLEM FROM THE GUIDELINE STANDPOINT WITH THE FENCE BECAUSE IT IS SO NON-TRADITIONAL AND WE'RE HAVING FENCES THAT ARE CREEPING IN WITH A LOT OF RESIDENT COMPLAINT IN THE HISTORIC DISTRICT.

IT DOESN'T MATCH ANYTHING IN OUR GUIDELINES. AND IT'S IN THE GUIDELINES, THERE IS A LITTLE BIT OF LEEWAY THAT CALLS OUT A NON-TRADITIONAL FENCE THAT NEEDS TO BE PLACED IN THE REAR OF PROPERTY. SO I'VE GOT A PROBLEM WITH THE

TVS AND THE FENCE. >> WHAT DO YOU THINK IS NON-TRADITIONAL ABOUT THE

FENCE? >> HORIZONTAL CABLE RAILING. >> IT WAS APPROVED BEFORE.

>> WAS THAT APPROVED, THE CABLE RAILING? >> YEAH.

>> OKAY. >> MS. ARNETTE, ANY COMMENTS? >> CERTAINLY IT'S GOING TO BE A

BIG CHANGE FROM WHAT WAS THERE. ENORMOUS CHANGE. >> KELLY, IS THERE ANY LANGUAGE IN THE CURRENT HISTORIC DISTRICT GUIDELINES OR THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE THAT ADDRESSES LIMITATIONS AND TELEVISIONS VISIBLE IN THE HISTORIC DISTRICT?

>> I DON'T BELIEVE THERE IS. >> LET ME DOUBLE CHECK ON THAT, THOUGH.

IF YOU DON'T MIND. >> KELLY IS GOING TO LOOK AT THAT.

I'M GOING TO ASK KATES IF SHE HAS ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS AT THIS TIME.

>> I DISAGREE WITH THE TELEVISIONS. I THINK IT SEEMS MORE LIKE A

SPORTS BAR. >> YEAH. AND I'M CONCERNED ABOUT WE HAVE RESIDENTIAL CATTY-CORNER. DO WE? YEAH.

WELL, YES AND NO. NO. >> YOU HAVE A PARKING LOT CATTY-CORNER.

CITY HALL ACROSS THE STREET. HAMPTON ON THE OTHER SIDE. >> THE FENCE ISSUE, I GUESS I'VE ALWAYS THOUGHT ABOUT THIS BUILDING AS BEING AN OLD INDUSTRIAL BUILDING.

IT WAS THE BOATHOUSE. SO I HAVE LESS HEARTBURN ABOUT A NON-TRADITIONAL HISTORIC FENCE IN AN INDUSTRIAL TYPE SETTING. AND I THOUGHT THE CABLE RAILING WAS CONSISTENT WITH THAT BOATHOUSE AESTHETIC. WHEN WE APPROVED IT BACK IN 2019. BUT I HEAR WHAT YOU'RE SAYING, TAMMY.

IT'S SOMETHING THAT WE DIDN'T CATCH AT THAT TIME. IT'S GOING TO BE DIFFICULT TO GO BACK NOW AND SAY WELL, Y'ALL NEED TO CHANGE THAT BECAUSE WE DIDN'T CATCH THAT LAST YEAR.

>> THERE ARE OTHER EXAMPLES OF MORE KIND OF CON CONTEMPORARY INDUSTRIAL, CAFE KARABU, IS AN EXAMPLE. I'M TRYING TO THINK, THE SALTY PELICAN MIGHT HAVE A METAL

RAILING. >> I THINK THE DIFFERENCE, I MEAN, IT'S A MOOT POINT AT THIS JUNCTURE, BUT THE DIFFERENCE IS CAFE HAS THAT ON THE SIDE ELEVATION.

AND THE FRONT IS JUST LANDSCAPED. AND THE SECOND ONE THAT YOU

MENTIONED? WHAT WAS THE SECOND ONE? >> SALTY PELICAN.

I CAN'T SWEAR BY THAT. >> I'M MISSING THE OLD BOATHOUSE.

I WAS EXCITED FOR THE ADAPTIVE REUSE OF THE OLD BOATHOUSE. NOW IT'S LOOKING LIKE A

BEAUTIFUL POTTERY BARN. IT'S A MOOT POINT. >> IT'S LESS RUSTIC.

I THINK I TEND TO AGREE WITH YOU. IT'S GOTTEN MUCH MORE FINISHED

OVER TIME. >> UH-HUH. >> OKAY.

>> YOU KNOW, MY VIEWING ON THE TVS IS THAT FROM A PERSONAL STANDPOINT, I AGREE WITH EVERYBODY THAT I THINK YOU KNOW, THE BEST EXAMPLE I CAN THINK OF IS PEPPERS, WAS THE FIRST SORT OF INSTANCE WHEN WE HAD A TV ON CENTER STREET THAT WAS BOTHERSOME TO PEOPLE.

I THINK THERE'S EXAMPLES THAT HAPPENED SINCE THEN THAT PEOPLE COULD REFERENCE AND I DON'T PERSONALLY LIKE THE IDEA OF TAKING A BUNCH OF TVS IN THE HISTORIC DISTRICT.

[01:20:01]

ESPECIALLY WHEN THERE IS SIGNAGE ORDINANCES THAT ADDRESS COLOR MOVING SIGNS AND STUFF LIKE THAT THAT HAVE BEEN CONTROVERSIAL. I THINK THAT WE NEED TO BE CONSISTENT. SO IF THERE IS A GUIDELINE THAT IS IN PLACE, LET'S ENFORCE IT.

IF THERE IS NOT, I DON'T KNOW THAT WE HAVE THE JURISDICTION TO BE ABLE TO SAY YOU KNOW, OKAY RIGHT NOW WE'RE GOING TO ALL OF A SUDDEN DECIDE THAT THESE PEOPLE ARE GOING TO BE

HELD TO A DIFFERENT STANDARD. >> YEAH. I THINK KELLY IS SIGNALLING US.

>> I'LL BE ABLE TO SPEAK TO THAT. I CHECKED THE DOWNTOWN DESIGN GUIDELINES AND DID A GENERAL SEARCH ON TELEVISION OR TV. I LOOKED FOR MONITOR.

NOTHING APPEARS WITHIN THE DOWNTOWN DESIGN GUIDELINES. THERE IS NO REFERENCE IN THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE WHICH WOULD RESTRICT PLACEMENT OF TELEVISIONS WITHIN THIS AREA.

>> SO WE'RE GOING TO BE WORKING ON THAT GOING FORWARD. >> THAT IS SOMETHING THAT WE

NEED TO DO. >> KATES, DID YOU HAVE ANY COMMENTS?

>> NO. I MEAN, I DO AGREE WITH BEN THAT IT HAS TO BE CONSISTENT.

I JUST THINK IT TAKES AWAY FROM THE AESTHETICS OF THE HISTORIC DISTRICT TO HAVE A BUNCH OF

BUSINESSES AND RESTAURANTS AND TVS FACING THE STREET. >> I AGREE.

>> I KNOW THAT THE ARCHITECTS AND THE APPLICANT BOTH YOU KNOW, ARE PRETTY SENSITIVE AND I THINK HAVE MADE A PRETTY GOOD EFFORT HERE TO DO THE RIGHT THING AND TO SHOW THAT THEY YOU KNOW, ARE CONSIDERATE NEIGHBORS AND RESPECTFUL OF THE HISTORIC DISTRICT. LET'S ASK THEM TO DO WHATEVER THEY CAN TO TRY AND MINIMIZE THE VISUAL IMPACTS THAT THESE TVS MIGHT HAVE.

LET'S HOPE THAT THEY'RE GOING TO TAKE THAT TO HEART AND TRY TO DO THE BEST THAT THEY CAN.

>> I'M NOT THAT FLEXIBLE. >> I MEAN, WHAT ELSE CAN WE DO? >> WHAT ABOUT THE GUIDELINE THAT SAYS NO LED LIGHTING, LIT SCREENS? I MEAN, THAT IS AN LED SCREEN.

>> YOU CAN APPLY IT TO THAT. >> I BELIEVE THAT APPLIES TO SIGNAGE.

LET ME LOOK AT THAT SECTION OF CODE. I BELIEVE IT'S IN CHAPTER FIVE.

IT IS SPECIFIC TO SIGNAGE. I WILL REFERENCE THAT AS WELL. >> I WOULD BE COMFORTABLE WITH SAYING NO TO THAT PROVISION. BECAUSE OF THE INTRUSIVE NATURE WITHIN THE HISTORIC DISTRICT.

>> IT'S NOT ACTUALLY PART OF THEIR APPLICATION. >> THAT'S TRUE.

THEY BROUGHT IT UP. >> WE DON'T ASK APPLICANTS TO TELL US WHERE TVS ARE GOING TO

BE. >> STEVEN, WAS IT YOUR INTENTION TO HAVE THIS TO BE

PART OF YOUR APPLICATION APPROVAL TONIGHT? >> NO, SIR.

>> I'M SORRY? >> NO, SIR. >> NO.

>> NO, SIR. >> I'M LOSING MY HEARING. I'M GETTING OLD.

SO THAT IS NOT ON OUR PURVIEW ANYWAY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

BUT YOU'VE HEARD OUR COMMENTS, MR. RICHARDSON AND MR. PAPKE WITH REGARD TO THE TVS AND

STAGE. SO BOARD MEMBERS. >> I CAN QUICKLY SPEAK TOO.

THERE IS A PROHIBITIVE SIGNAGE FOR INTERNALLY LIT ADJACENT TO RESIDENTIAL AREAS.

BUT IT IS SPECIFIC TO SIGNS. AND THEN WITHIN THE DOWNTOWN DESIGN GUIDELINES, UNDER SIGNAGE, SPECIFICALLY IT SPEAKS TO INTERNALLY LIT SIGNS NOT BEING APPROPRIATE.

OTHERWISE, I'M NOT SEEING A REFERENCE THAT WOULD CREATE A RESTRICTION ON A TV.

>> OKAY. >> SO DOES THE TV CONTAIN ADVERTISING?

IS THAT CONSIDERED A SIGN? >> IF THEY WERE TO HAVE A STATIC IMAGE THAT REPRESENTED THE BRANDING OF THAT SPECIFIC RESTAURANT THAT WAS ALWAYS ON DISPLAY, THEN YES, IT COULD BE CONSIDERED ADVERTISING FOR THAT BUSINESS. I MEAN, THAT WOULD BE SOMETHING THAT THE APPLICANT COULD ADDRESS, WITH THEIR INTENT HERE WITH THESE TELEVISIONS.

>> STEVEN, DO YOU HAVE A COMMENT WITH REGARD TO HOW YOU'RE GOING TO USE THESE

TELEVISIONS? SPORTS VENUE THEN? >> SIMILAR TO THE SALTY PELICAN. I MEAN, IF THERE IS A BIG GAME ON OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT, I'M

SURE WE WILL BE BROADCASTING IT. >> THEY'RE ALL FACING INTERNALLY. SAME WAY WITH THE TAVERN. THEIR TELEVISIONS ALL FACE INTERNALLY, AS DOES AMELIA TAVERN. BUT WE APPRECIATE YOU BRINGING

[01:25:02]

THAT TO OUR ATTENTION. BOARD MEMBERS, SOMEBODY LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION ON THIS.

AND I WOULD SUGGEST THAT WE GIVE THEM FLEXIBILITY AROUND THE SERVER WINDOW AWNING.

GIVEN THAT THEY BROUGHT IT TO OUR ATTENTION, I REALLY WOULD RATHER NOT HAVE THEM COME BACK FOR IT. ONE WAY OR THE OTHER. BUT IT MAKES SENSE.

IT'S EXTERIOR. YOU WANT TO HAVE COVER OVER THAT WINDOW.

>> YES, I AGREE. >> I GUESS I'LL DO THIS ONE AGAIN, I DID THE LAST ONE TOO.

I'M TRYING TO PULL UP THE LANGUAGE. THE MOTION THAT IS ON THE AGENDA SAYS TO APPROVE OR DENY 2019-10, IS THAT REALLY WHAT WE'RE DOING, OR ARE WE

APPROVING AN AMENDMENT? >> IT IS ONLY THE AMENDMENT. >> SO THE LANGUAGE ISN'T RIGHT?

>> THAT IS POSSIBLE. >> I MOVE TO APPROVE THIS AMENDMENT 2019-10, WITH THE CONDITION THAT STAFF SHALL HAVE THE PURVIEW TO BE ABLE TO DO A STAFF APPROVAL LEVEL REVIEW OF A POSSIBLE AWNING ROOF OVER A SOUTH SERVER WINDOW. AND I MOVE THAT THE HDC MAKE THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT, HDC CASE 2019-10 AS PRESENTED IS SUBSTANTIALLY COMPLIANT WITH LAND DEVELOPMENT CODES, DOWNTOWN HISTORIC DISTRICT GUIDELINES TO WARRANT APPROVAL

AT THIS TIME. >> IS THERE A SECOND? >> I'LL SECOND.

>> MS. CONWAY HAS SECONDED. IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION? >> I WILL APPROVE AND

>> MEMBER CONWAY. >> YES. >> MEMBER HARRISON.

>> YES. BUT WITH THE SAME REQUEST ABOUT THE TVS.

>> MEMBER MORRISON. >> YES. >> CHAIR SPINO.

>> YES. >> MOVING ON. >> THESE ARE AMENDMENTS TO

[Item 3.5]

PREVIOUSLY APPROVED COA. WE CHANGED A PORCH. MOVED A WINDOW.

WHO IS DOING THIS ONE? >> I'VE GOT THIS ONE. GIVE ME ONE MOMENT.

S PART OF THE MEETING TO SPEAK TO THIS AS WELL.

I WILL UNMUTE HIM. >> ALL RIGHT. WE'RE GOING TO GO AHEAD AND DO THE OATH HERE. DO YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM THAT THE TESTIMONY YOU'RE ABOUT TO GIVE WILL BE THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH?

>> I DO. >> I'M GOING TO GO AHEAD AND SHARE MY SCREEN HERE.

THIS EVENING, THE BOARD IS BEING ASKED TO CONSIDER AMENDMENTS TO PREVIOUSLY APPROVED CERTIFICATE OF APPROVAL FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 908 LADIES STREET.

AND THE APPLICANT SEEKS TO MAKE THE FOLLOWING AMENDMENTS, CHANGE THE DEPTH OF THE FRONT PORCH FROM NINE FEET TO EIGHT FEET. CHANGE THE STAIR RAILING DETAIL, THE PORCH LANTERNS HAVE BEEN ADDED TO THE FIRST AND SECOND FLOOR PORCHES.

AND CHANGE THE CHIMNEY MATERIAL FROM BRICK TO STUCCO. STAFF FINDS THAT THE PROPOSED

[01:30:01]

AMENDMENTS MEET AND ARE APPROPRIATE TO THE ARCHITECTURE OF THE HOME AND THE NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTER. AND MEET ALL OF THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE OLD TOWN DESIGN GUIDELINES AND RECOMMENDS APPROVAL. AND ALLOW YOU TO SEE THE APPLICATION IN GREATER DETAIL. THESE ARE THE PLANS FOR THE RESIDENCE, AS PREVIOUSLY

APPROVED. >> KELLY. >> YES.

>> A NUMBER OF US ARE HAVING DIFFICULTY HEARING YOU. >> OKAY.

I WILL DO A BETTER JOB OF PROJECTING. IS THAT BETTER?

>> THANK YOU. >> THAT'S BETTER. SO RIGHT NOW I'M JUST SHOWING YOU THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST FOR CHANGES. WITH THE DEPTH CHANGING ON THE FRONT PORCH HERE. AND THE DETAILS I BELIEVE ARE PROVIDED IN THE ELEVATIONS.

THE RAILINGS AND THE PORCH LAMPS WHICH MAY HAVE PASSED. THERE IS A DETAIL PROVIDED OF WHAT THEY WILL BE. I'M HAPPY TO NARROW IN ON ANY SPECIFIC DETAILS THAT THE BOARD

WISHES TO EXAMINE FURTHER. >> QUESTIONS FOR DIRECTOR GIBSON?

>> WELL, I THINK THAT THIS MIGHT ALL BE PERFECTLY GREAT AND FINE, BUT IT'S REALLY DIFFICULT TO BE ABLE TO TELL BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T SHOW US WHAT IT LOOKED LIKE BEFORE.

>> YOU MEAN IN THE ORIGINAL APPROVED APPLICATION. >> THEY DID PROVIDE AN UPDATE IN THEIR DESIGNS, THEY DID NOT HOWEVER CLOUD THEM I THINK IN A WAY THAT WOULD PROVIDE GREATER

CLARITY. >> MAYBE THE APPLICANT CAN WALK US THROUGH THE CHANGES AND WE

CAN BE ABLE TO VISUALIZE IT BETTER THAT WAY. >> OTHER QUESTIONS FOR DIRECTOR GIBSON? HEARING NONE, WE'LL GO RIGHT ON TO ALEX.

ALEX, ARE YOU THERE? >> I AM. CAN YOU HEAR ME OKAY?

>> YEAH. HOW ARE YOU DOING? BENJAMIN WOULD LIKE YOU TO WALK

US THROUGH THE CHANGES. >> BE HAPPY TO DO THAT. AND MY APOLOGIES FOR NOT SUBMITTING A BEFORE AND AFTER. I JUST KIND OF WENT THROUGH THE FORM AND IT DIDN'T INDICATE THAT THAT WAS REQUIRED, BUT I WILL BE HAPPY TO WALK YOU THROUGH.

THESE ARE A NUMBER OF VERY MINOR CHANGES. BUT THEY DID SHIFT WINDOWS AND BECAUSE OF THAT, SAL FELT THAT I NEEDED TO COME BACK. I GUESS SINCE WE'RE ON THIS ELEVATION, I'LL START HERE. IN THE ORIGINAL RENDERING, THE CHIMNEY, THIS IS THE REAR OF THE BUILDING, THE CHIMNEY WAS CLAD IN BRICK. WE'VE CHANGED THAT TO STUCCO.

SO THAT NO OTHER CHANGES THERE. CHANGED IT TO STUCCO. YEAH.

IF YOU GO, YEAH, LET'S SAY THERE. AGAIN, THAT IS A RENDERING OF THE CHIMNEY NOW YOU SEE, BEFORE WE'RE LOOKING THROUGH THE SCREEN PORCH TO SEE THE CHIMNEY. THIS IS THE REAR OF THE BUILDING.

AND I DON'T THINK THERE WERE ANY OTHER CHANGES ON THAT. ON THE SIDE ELEVATIONS, OKAY, THIS IS A LITTLE BIT IMPORTANT. ON THE SIDE ELEVATIONS, FOR COMPLETENESS, WE ADDED A RENDERING OF THE LANTERNS, BECAUSE THEY WERE NOT ON THE ORIGINAL SUBMITTAL.

PROBABLY THE LARGEST OR THE BIGGEST REASON FOR REQUIRING THIS, REQUIRING ME TO COME HERE TODAY, I THINK WAS FROM SAL. AS MY WIFE AND I LOOKED AT THE PLANS FROM THE ORIGINAL DESIGN, WE HAD A VERY NICE NINE FOOT PORCH ON THE FRONT. BUT SOME OF THE ROOMS INSIDE, WE WERE FEELING WERE TOO SMALL. AND SO WE DIDN'T WANT TO MOVE THE BACK WALL OF THE BUILDING

[01:35:01]

FARTHER INTO THE PROPERTY BECAUSE THAT WOULD HAVE PRECLUDED US FROM BEING ABLE TO BUILD A GARAGE OUT-BUILDING IN THE FUTURE AND BEING ABLE TO NAVIGATE INTO THE GARAGE.

SO OUR ONLY OPTION FOR EXPANDING THE LIVING SPACE WAS TO SHORTEN THE FRONT PORCHES FROM NINE FEET IN-DEPTH TO EIGHT FEET IN-DEPTH. SO THAT WAS DONE.

AND THEN THE WINDOWS ON THE BOTH OF THE SIDE ELEVATIONS WERE REBALANCED ACCORDINGLY.

EACH OF THESE WINDOWS MOVED A FEW INCHES ONE WAY OR ANOTHER. THERE WERE CHANGES TO THE RIGHT SIDE ELEVATION AND THE LEFT SIDE ELEVATION. BUT AGAIN, WE'RE ONLY TALKING ABOUT WE ADDED ONE FOOT OF WALL DEPTH AND THEN JUST REBALANCED THE WINDOWS.

LET'S SEE. WHEN I ORIGINALLY BRIEFED THIS, THE ARCHITECT HAD DRAWN A RAILING ON THE STAIRS, ON THE FRONT STAIRS, WHICH YOU CAN SEE THERE.

IT WAS ORIGINALLY JUST DRAWN. YOU MAY RECALL IT WAS AN UPSIDE DOWN U SHAPE.

BASED ON THOSE COMMENTS, THIS WAS BROUGHT INTO HARMONY WITH THE RAILINGS ON THE TOP DECK AS WAS REQUESTED BY THE BOARD. SIMILARLY, THOSE RAILINGS WERE REFLECTED ON THE BACK, AS YOU CAN SEE ON THE BACK PORCH. LET'S SEE. LET'S SEE.

THERE WAS THE FRONT PORCH DEPTH. THE WINDOW LOCATIONS WERE ADJUSTED. THE STAIR RAILINGS. THE PORCH LANTERNS AND WE CHANGED THE CHIMNEY FROM BRICK ANYBODY ON THE PUBLIC ON THE LINE WHO WISH TO ADDRESS THIS CASE, 908 LADIES STREET? HEARING NONE, WE'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. BOARD MEMBERS, WHAT ARE YOU

THINKING? >> I'VE GOT ONE COMMENT. THIS MIGHT BE A STAFF QUESTION FOR KELLY. THIS WAS AUGUST 15TH AND IT WAS A CONDITION THAT THE SIDING BE VERTICAL BOARD. AND I DIDN'T SEE THAT REFLECTED IN THE IMAGES.

>> WOULD IT BE OKAY FOR ME TO ADDRESS THAT? >> I'M NOT SURE ABOUT THE CASE NUMBER. ONE IS FOR THE RESIDENCE WHICH YOU'RE SEEING NOW, AND THE OTHER IS FOR THE ACCESSORY BUILDING. SAL HAD RECOMMENDED THAT THERE WAS TWO SEPARATE. SO THE COMMENTS THAT YOU'RE MAKING WAS RELATED TO THE

GARAGE, NOT TO THE HOUSE. >> OKAY. THANK YOU.

>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, DISCUSSION? >> YEAH.

I THINK IT'S GOOD. >> YEAH. I THINK SAL WAS DOING DUE DILIGENCE HERE. ALEX AS USUAL WAS TELLING THE TRUTH.

I THINK THAT IS WHY WE'RE HERE. PERHAPS WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION.

>> WAIT. DO WE ALLOW STUCCO CHIMNEYS, IS THAT SOMETHING THAT IS DONE?

>> IN OLD TOWN? >> YES. >> PRETTY BROAD FLEXIBILITY IN

OLD TOWN WHEN IT COMES TO FINISH MATERIALS. >> OKAY.

>> I'M READY TO MAKE A MOTION. >> PLEASE DO. >> OKAY.

I MOVE TO APPROVE THIS AMENDMENT TO HDC CASE NUMBER 2019-29, WITHOUT CONDITIONS.

AND I MOVE THAT THE HDC MAKE THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT PART OF THE RECORD, THAT THIS AMENDMENT TO HDC 2019 AS PRESENTED IS SUBSTANTIALLY COMPLIANT WITH THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, THE INTERIOR STANDARD AND THE OLD TOWN PRESERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT

GUIDELINES. >> IS THERE A SECOND? >> SECOND.

>> MOVED HARRISON SECOND. MORRISON. SEEMS TO BE A THEME THERE.

ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE, WE'LL MOVE TO THE ROLL CALL.

>> MEMBER MORRISON. >> YES. >> MEMBER CONWAY.

[01:40:07]

>> SHE'S MUTED. >> ANGELA, ARE YOU GOOD? >> MEMBER CONWAY.

>> YES. >> MEMBER HARRISON. >> YES.

>> MEMBER KOSACK. >> YES. >> CHAIR SPINO.

[Item 3.6]

>> YES. MOVING ON. 2020-01.

DIRECTOR GIBSON. >> HE WANTS TO CONTINUE IT? >> THIS IS NOT MY CASE.

HE IS PRESENT >> OKAY. I'M HERE.

>> ALL RIGHT. >> WE'RE GOING TO DO THE OATH NOW.

PLEASE RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND. DO YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM THAT THE ORAL AND/OR WRITTEN TESTIMONY YOU'RE ABOUT TO GIVE WILL BE THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH

>> THIS IS A CASE WE HEARD IN FEBRUARY. >> THAT IS CORRECT.

>> IF ONLY WE KNEW THEN WHAT WE KNOW NOW. >> YES.

IN FEBRUARY, THE BOARD CONTINUED THIS CASE UNTIL THE NEXT AVAILABLE MEETING, PROVIDING THE APPLICANT SOME TIME TO CONSIDER THE DIRECTION PROVIDED TO THEM FROM THAT ORIGINAL MEETING. THIS IS REHABILITATION AND CONSTRUCTION OF AN ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT. WE FIND THAT THE SCALE AND DESIGN OF IT IS COMPATIBLE AND RESPECTFUL OF ALL OF THE CORRIDORS REQUIRED IN OLD TOWN. CONSTRUCTION OF THE NEW ADU WILL BE AS WELL AS THE SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIALS THAT HAVE BEEN PROVIDED DO DEMONSTRATE THAT SCALE AND MASSING THAT THE BOARD INDICATED IT WANTED TO HAVE CONVEYED IN A REVISION, AND THEN IT PROVIDES FOR AN OPTION TO BETTER REFLECT THE MID-LOCK CORRIDOR DIMENSION, WITH RESPECT THAT THIS IS AN EXISTING NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE. TO THE EXTENT IT'S FEASIBLE, TO BE ABLE TO HONOR THAT.

THAT THEIR PROPOSAL IS IN KEEPING WITH, FIT WITH THE ARCHITECTURE OF SURROUNDING HOMES. WITHIN THE APPLICANT'S MATERIALS, THEY PROVIDED FOR A PRESENTATION THAT REALLY NICE GOES THROUGH THE BOARD'S DIRECTION AND THEIR INTENT TO ADDRESS WHAT'S BEEN REQUIRED AND ASKED OF THEM FROM THE PREVIOUS FEBRUARY MEETING.

AND I KNOW THAT THAT WAS PROVIDED AS PART OF THE BOARD PACKAGE FOR YOU TO TAKE A LOOK AT. BUT I WOULD DEFER TO THE APPLICANT TO REALLY WALK

THROUGH THOSE CHANGES. >> QUESTIONS FOR MS. KELLY AT THIS TIME?

ARE WE GOING TO MOVE RIGHT TO MR. HELLMAN. >> YOU CAN MOVE ON.

>> THANK YOU. >> LET'S GO AHEAD, JOHN. COME ON UP.

>> I CAN BRING UP THAT PRESENTATION. >> THAT WOULD BE GREAT.

>> GOOD AFTERNOON. I'M JOHN HELLMAN ON BEHALF OF MY FAMILY.

I WANTED TO ADDRESS THOSE FROM EVERY ANGLE. I WANTED TO TALK ABOUT THE NEIGHBOR. BY THAT SHEER PICTURE THERE, YOU CAN SEE THERE IS AN

ENORMOUS CANOPY. I WANTED TO SHOW >> YOU HAVE TO PROJECT YOURSELF

VOICE. >> WHAT I WAS TRYING TO SHOW IS WITHOUT THE TREES, HERE -- WHAT

[01:45:15]

TIME IS DINNER? >> CAN WE MUTE WHOEVER IS IN THE BACKGROUND?

WHAT TIME IS DINNER? >> THE NEXT SLIDE DID TRACING PICTURE.

>> THAT IS HER. YOU'RE DOING FINE. >> YOU'RE UNMUTED.

>> LET'S GO TO THE NEXT ONE. SO WE HAD A LITTLE ARTS AND CRAFTS PROJECT HERE.

SO TOOK THE TREE, OVERLAID IT ON THE HOUSE. HERE IS WHAT IS INTERESTING.

IF YOU GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE, LOOK AT MY NEIGHBOR'S HOUSE, WE KNOW THAT THAT NEIGHBOR HAS A TWO-STORY GARAGE. AN OLD HISTORIC HOME THAT GOT MOVED.

I'M SIX-ONE. WHEN I STAND IN FRONT OF THAT HOUSE LOOKING AT IT, GUESS WHAT, YOU DON'T SEE THE GARAGE. APPLY THAT TO MY HOUSE. KEEP GOING.

I DIDN'T HAVE THE TECHNOLOGY TO EMBED THE HOUSE. WE'RE GOING TO DO ENOUGH TRIMMING OF THE TREE TO GET THE HOUSE IN THERE. BUT I WANT TO KEEP THAT OAK TREE IN THE FRONT AND I WANT TO KEEP THE CEDAR TREE TO THE LEFT OF IT.

IT'S GOING TO FEEL LIKE THAT HOUSE GOT WEDGED IN. WHEN YOU'RE IN THAT SPACE, YOU'RE GOING TO FEEL LIKE YOU LIVE IN A TREE HOUSE, WHICH WE THINK WILL BE NICE FOR GUESTS.

SO THIS WOULD BE WITHOUT THE ARTICULATION. AND THEN THIS ONE IS WITH.

SO WHAT WE WOULD DO THERE IS MOVE, YOU WOULD MOVE THE STAIRS OVER TO BE LINED UP WITH THAT.

AND YOU WOULD HAVE THIS ANNOUNCEMENT OF THE SIDE ENTRY OF THE PORCH.

TEN FEET WIDE. >> FOLLOW THE LINE. >> YEAH.

>> AND THEN THE NEW CONSTRUCTION PLANS ADDRESS THAT ACCORDINGLY.

>> AND YOU KNOW, CANDIDLY, I CAN STOP THERE. THE REST OF THIS IS JUST A

LITTLE BIT OF ME DESCRIBING THINGS. >> QUESTIONS FOR MR. HELLMAN AT

THIS TIME. >> I HAVE A QUESTION ON THE HEIGHT OF THE BUILDING.

>> YES. >> HOW TALL IS THE RENOVATED STRUCTURE, HOW TALL IS THE

GUESS HOUSE? >> 23 AND CHANGE. IT'S IN THE CONSTRUCTION

DRAWINGS. >> MY QUESTION REALLY RELATES TO THE DATUM THAT YOU CHOSE FOR SHOWING THAT HEIGHT. YOUR DRAWING SAYS THE BUILDING IS 23 FOOT 9 AND 13/16 HIGH, BUT IT DOES NOT SHOW FROM WHERE. I THINK YOU'VE GOT TWO DATUMS

ON YOUR DRAWING. >> I'M GOING TO HAVE TO PULL UP THE DRAWING.

I DON'T HAVE IT RIGHT HERE IN FRONT OF ME. SO IT'S PROBABLY AT ZERO.

SO LET'S ASSUME THAT IT'S AT WHATEVER THE GRADE IS THERE GOING UP.

KELLY, WHAT IS THE MEASUREMENT OF BUILDING HEIGHT IN OLD TOWN? >> 24

>> FROM THE EXISTING GRADE TO THE PEAK OF THE ROOF AND IT'S LIMITED FOR THIS PARTICULAR

STRUCTURE, 24 FEET. >> SO AM I COMPLIANT? >> AT 23-9, YES.

>> MY QUESTION IS, ONE DATUM IS GRAYED AND THE NEXT ONE IS FINISHED FLOOR.

SO MY QUESTION IS, THE NUMBER UP TO TOP OF ROOF, WHERE IS THAT TAKEN? SO THE FINISHED FLOOR IS FOR THE CONCRETE FLOORING INSIDE THE GARAGE.

[01:50:03]

I CAN HAVE BILL SHIELDS GIVE US FURTHER DATA ON THAT. BUT IT SHOULD BE FROM THE

BOTTOM TO THE TOP. >> HERE ON THIS SLIDE, I'M NOT SURE WHAT NUMBER I'M ON.

11 OF 38. I SEE 23-10 TOP OF ROOF FOR THE GUEST HOUSE AND 14-4 TOP OF ROOF FOR THE -- I'M SORRY. STILL 14-4. AM I RIGHT, KELLY?

>> THE 14-4 IS ON THE PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE? >> YEAH.

>> 23-10. JOHN, WE'VE HAD ISSUES IN OLD TOWN.

SO YOU UNDERSTAND WHY WE'RE -- >> I'M TRYING TO PLAY BY THE RULES

>> WE APPRECIATE THAT. MR. HARRISON, DID THAT ANSWER YOUR QUESTION?

>> I THINK SO, YEAH. >> OTHER QUESTIONS FOR MR. HELLMAN?

>> MS. KOSACK? >> ONE QUESTION, JOHN, I HAVE A NOTE FROM LAST TIME THAT WE WERE HERE, AC PAD WAS EITHER OVER A SETBACK OR SOMETHING. WAS THERE AN AC PAD THAT WAS

MOVED? >> IF YOU GO TO THE SITE PLAN, THAT WAS IN THE BACK CORNER, WHICH WAS CONFLICTING WITH THE CODE SO WE MOVED IT BETWEEN THE BUILDINGS.

>> OKAY. >> OTHER QUESTIONS? MS. ROBINSON?

MS. CONWAY. MR. MORRISON. >> NO QUESTIONS FROM ME.

>> THANK YOU. >> MR. MORRISON. >> NO. I'M GOOD FOR RIGHT NOW.

>> OKAY. GREAT. THEN I'M GOING TO GO AHEAD AND

MOVE TO THE PUBLIC HEARING. UNLESS THERE IS AN OBJECTION. >> I'LL GO AHEAD AND UNMUTE

EVERYONE WHO IS VIRTUALLY. >> SPEAK TO THE SPEAKER. ANYBODY WHO WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A PUBLIC COMMENT OR PRESENT EVIDENCE AND TESTIMONY FOR THE RECORD ON THIS CASE.

>> NOW IS YOUR TIME. >> ANYBODY HERE IN THE ROOM? NO ONE IN THE ROOM? NO ONE IN THE ROOM. ANYBODY ONLINE? GOING ONCE.

TWICE. ALL RIGHT. I'M GOING TO GO AHEAD AND CLOSE

THE PUBLIC HEARING. >> YOU ARE MUTED. >> YOU ARE MY WITNESS.

>> BOARD MEMBERS, WHAT IS YOUR PLEASURE? WHAT ARE WE THINKING HERE?

>> I HEARD POZZETTA THE LAST TIME WE LOOKED AT THIS. AND SEVERAL OF US WERE CONCERNED ABOUT THE SCALE. I WENT OUT TO THE SITE. MR. HELLMAN HAS MADE A FAIR PRESENTATION OF THE TREE OUT THERE. LARGE CEDAR, GOOD SIZE OAK WHICH WILL BASICALLY BE BETWEEN THE SIGHT LINES OF THE TWO STRUCTURES, WHICH AMELIORATES MUCH OF THE DISTINCTION ABOUT THE TEN-FOOT HEIGHT DIFFERENTIAL.

IT'S TALL, BUT IT'S NARROW. SO IT DOESN'T OVERWHELM THE SCALE OF THE SITE.

WHAT ELSE DID I NOTICE WHEN I WAS OUT THERE BESIDES THE SNAKE? THE PEONA DISTINCTION IS ENTIRELY APPROPRIATE AND IT LOOKS LIKE A GOOD WAY TO HANDLE

THIS. >> I THINK THE DETAIL. I THINK IT WAS A GOOD CONCESSION AND IT LOOKED GOOD. I THINK OUR STICKY WICKET IS THE GARAGE HEIGHT.

FULL STORY DIFFERENCE IN WHAT HOULD BE AN ANCILLARY STRUCTURE.

EVEN WITH A TREE THERE, THAT IS A BIG DIFFERENCE. ONE ELEVATION THAT THEY SHOWED FROM I THINK IT WAS FROM WHITE STREET, WHEN YOU SAW THE GARAGE BEHIND IT, YOU KNOW, IT APPEARS AS A TWO-STORY STRUCTURE BECAUSE THE GARAGE DOMINATES FROM THAT VIEWPOINT.

I KNOW FROM THE DRIVEWAY SIDE, IT GETS A LITTLE BIT WITH THE TREE, BUT I THINK THAT IS A

TOUGH ONE FOR ME. >> I AGREE WITH YOU, TAMMY. I JUST FEEL LIKE WHEN YOU READ THE GUIDELINES, IT TALKS ABOUT THE OUT-BUILDINGS BEING ANCILLARY IN SIZE AND FUNCTION OR WHATEVER, TO THE PRIMARY RESIDENCE. AND YOU KNOW, I THINK IT'S INTERESTING TO THINK ABOUT WHAT YOU KNOW, WHEN WE TALK ABOUT THE TERM SIZE, IT'S KIND OF UP TO INTERPRETATION. I MEAN, IF YOU LOOK AT THIS ON THE SITE PLAN VIEW, THERE IS NO QUESTION THAT IT'S DRAMATICALLY SECONDARY AS FAR AS SIZE IS CONCERNED.

IT'S WHEN WE START LOOKING AT IT IN CERTAIN VERTICAL VIEWS, YOU KNOW, PROBABLY PRIMARILY

[01:55:04]

FROM ONE SIDE, YOU KNOW, THAT BECOMES MORE INTO QUESTION. AND I THINK YOU KNOW, PERSONALLY, I THOUGHT ABOUT THIS QUITE A BIT. COME BACK THROUGH OUR AGENDA OR WHATEVER A WEEK OR SO AGO, I'VE SORT OF GONE BACK AND FORTH ON IT.

AT THE END OF THE DAY, WHERE I ENDED UP IS THAT IN REALITY, WITH THE CONDITIONS THAT EXIST ON THE SITE, AND DUE TO THE ACTUAL GEOMETRY OF THIS STRUCTURE, I DON'T THINK THERE IS GOING TO BE A QUESTION AS TO WHETHER OR NOT THIS IS SIGNIFICANTLY SECONDARY TO THE PRIMARY RESIDENCE AND I THINK THAT WAS THE INTENT OF THE GUIDELINES.

SO I FEEL LIKE YOU KNOW, WITH AN IN-FILL PROPERTY BEING REHAB.

THIS ISN'T A NEW CONSTRUCTION PROJECT. I FEEL LIKE IT'S APPROPRIATE.

>> OTHERS? >> YEAH. I WOULD LIKE TO SECOND BEN'S ARGUMENT AND CONCLUSIONS THERE. IT SEEMS TO ME THAT IF MR. HELLMAN IS REQUIRED TO MAKE THE GARAGE SUBORDINATE TO THE MAIN HOUSE, HE IS GOING TO BUILD A DOG KENNEL.

ON THE OTHER HAND, THE SOLUTION, I THINK WE WOULD BE FULLY HAPPY TO SEE A HOUSE THAT IS LARGER THAN THE GARAGE APARTMENT. SO HE COULD WELL ADD A SECOND FLOOR TO HIS EXISTING STRUCTURE, THAT WOULD BE ANOTHER SOLUTION.

BUT I'M HAPPY TO SEE IT GO THROUGH AS IT IS. >> MS. CONWAY, MS. ROBINSON.

ANYTHING TO ADD? >> I AGREE WITH BEN'S COMMENTS, THAT SINCE HE'S TAKING EXISTING STRUCTURE, A HOME AND ADDING ON TO IT. AND THE GARAGE BEHIND THE CANOPY SETTING, I THINK IT WILL DEFINITELY LOOK LIKE A SECONDARY STRUCTURE TO THE

HOME. >> I GUESS OUR SAVING GRACE IS THAT EACH CASE IS ANALYZED IN ITSELF. SO IF WE'RE LOOKING AT THIS SPECIFIC SITE SETTING AND THEY'VE DONE A GOOD JOB WITH THE OVERALL PLACEMENT OF EVERYTHING.

SO IF THIS ISN'T SETTING A PRECEDENT THEN WE SHOULD BE GOOD AND MOVING FORWARD WE'LL

BE OKAY. >> I THINK COUNCIL WOULD AGREE WITH YOU THERE.

IT'S NOT PRECEDENT SETTING. I'LL SAY THIS. IT'S AN UNUSUAL, OLD TOWN IS UNUSUAL. AND THE EXISTING STRUCTURE FILLS UP QUITE A BIT OF THE LOT. SO IF YOU'RE GOING TO WORK WITH WHAT IS BACK THERE, THERE IS NOT MUCH LEFT. SO THE GARAGE IS GOING TO BE FAIRLY SMALL IN WIDTH.

ANYBODY ELSE OR SHOULD WE GO AHEAD AND MOVE THIS. >> I'LL MAKE A MOTION.

>> PLEASE DO. >> I MOVE TO APPROVE CASE NUMBER ACC 2020-01 WITHOUT CONDITIONS AND I MOVE THAT THE HDC MAKE THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACTS AND CONCLUSION OF LAW AS PART OF THE RECORD, SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANT WITH THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR STANDARDS AND OLD TOWN PRESERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT

GUIDELINES TO WARRANT APPROVAL AT THIS TIME. >> SECOND.

>> WE HAVE A MOTION. ANY DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE PLEASE CALL ROLL.

>> MEMBER KOSACK. >> YES. >> MEMBER HARRISON.

>> YES. >> MEMBER MORRISON. >> YES.

>> MEMBER CONWAY. >> YES. >> CHAIR SPINO.

>> YES. MOVING ON. 2019-02, 1122 ST. FERNANDO

[Item 3.7]

STREET. AMENDMENT TO PREVIOUSLY APPROVE CERTIFICATE OF APPROVAL.

>> SHE'S EASING HIM INTO IT. >> I THINK THEY'RE GOING BACK TO THEIR NON-PRESERVATION JOBS

AS SOON AS THEY CAN. THAT IS MY SENSE. >> I'M ENJOYING OLD TOWN.

>> BE CAREFUL. WE'LL GIVE IT TO YOU. >> GOOD EVENING.

THIS IS A REQUEST FOR AN AMENDMENT TO PREVIOUS APPROVED CERTIFICATE OF APPROVAL LABEL 2019-02. AND I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT FOR THE RECORD WHAT YOU RECEIVED INED TERMS OF THE APPLICANT'S MATERIALS, THE APPLICANT HAD ALSO PROVIDED SOME PHOTOGRAPHS FOR THE BOARD TO REVIEW AND THERE WAS A FORMAL STAFF REPORT THAT FELL SHORT AND I GUESS GOT CUT OFF OF THE APPLICATION AND SO I DON'T THINK THAT IT WAS PROVIDED IN THE MATERIALS. I WOULD SUBMIT THAT IN FOR THE RECORD AND I'LL PROVIDE THAT AS

[02:00:01]

PART OF MY PRESENTATION THIS EVENING AND BE ABLE TO SPEAK TO SOME OF THESE CHANGES THAT THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING. THE APPLICANT IS IN PERSON TO SPEAK TO THESE CHANGES.

THESE ARE MINOR AMENDMENTS IN NATURE. JUST FINISHING OUT THEIR HOME AT THIS TIME. AND HAD MADE SOME SMALL CHANGES THAT BEFORE WE COULD COMPLETE A FINAL INSPECTION ON, WE NEEDED TO BRING THIS FORWARD TO THE BOARD FOR REVIEW.

AND THEY INCLUDE A CHANGE TO THE WINDOW PROPORTION ON THE WEST SIDE OF THE HOUSE, CHANGE TO THE FOUNDATION DUE TO THE NATURE OF THE GRADE OF THE LOT. SIDING CHANGE AT THE WEST ELEVATION OF THE GARAGE TO CREATE A DOOR ACCESS TO THE LOFT SPACE.

SCREENING THE SECOND FLOOR PORCH AND ADDING A WOODEN DECK, OR WALKING PATH BETWEEN THE STRUCTURES. IN TERMS OF ANALYSIS, THESE CHANGES SERVE TO IMPROVE THE HOME AND ARE NOT IN ANY WAY DETRIMENTAL TO THE OVERALL CHARACTER.

STAFF DOES ISSUE RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL. ONE MOMENT.

I'M GOING TO SWITCH SCREENS. >> THAT IS NOT FAIR, BENJAMIN. >> OH, MAN.

PUPPY. >> NOT FAIR. >> SO THESE ARE THE PHOTOGRAPHS THAT APPLICANT DID PROVIDE THAT WERE NOT INCLUDED IN THE UPLOADED MATERIALS.

I BELIEVE THAT THEY SERVE TO ADDRESS SOME OF THE BOARD MEMBERS QUESTIONS ABOUT WHAT HAD BEEN PREVIOUSLY APPROVED AND WHAT THIS CHANGE IS REQUESTING.

YOU'LL SEE THE SCREEN ENCLOSURE OF THE SECOND FLOOR. SOME OF GRADING OF THE FOUNDATION. AGAIN, MORE IMAGES HERE FOR YOU TO TAKE A LOOK AT.

THE APPLICANT DID PROVIDE TO THE BOARD TO REVIEW HANDWRITTEN NOTES THAT WERE AVAILABLE PREVIOUSLY ONLINE. WITH THAT, I WILL DEFER TO THE APPLICANT ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.

>> BOARD MEMBERS, DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR DIRECTOR GIBSON AT THIS TIME OR MOVE RIGHT TO THE APPLICANT? COME ON UP AND INTRODUCE YOURSELF.

>> HE IS SWORN, RIGHT? >> NO, SIR. >> LET'S SWEAR HIM.

>> I KEEP GETTING HER. SHE IS SWORN. DO YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM THAT THE ORAL AND/OR WRITTEN TESTIMONY THAT YOU'RE ABOUT TO GIVE WILL BE THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH

AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH. >> YES. YES.

>> THANK YOU. APPRECIATE YOUR PATIENCE AND I KNOW IT'S A LONG AGENDA

TONIGHT. WHAT CAN YOU TELL US? >> WELL, 1122 SAN FERNANDO STREET. AS YOU CAN SEE THAT DOOR RIGHT THERE.

YOU GOT ALL THAT SPACE UP THERE, I COULDN'T ACCESS IT HARDLY FROM THE INSIDE.

IT IS AN HARDIE BOARD. IT GETS TOO HEAVY AND STARTS TO SAG.

SO THAT WAS SIMPLE ENOUGH. >> OKAY. QUESTIONS FOR MR. BOARDMAN?

>> MR. BOARDMAN, I HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT YOUR FOUNDATION REQUEST.

IT LOOKS LIKE THIS IS STEM WALL AND IN THE REQUEST IT SAYS CHANGE THE FOUNDATION IN-FILL.

>> NO. THE GRADE OF THE PROPERTY GOT SO HIGH IN THE BACK BECAUSE AS YOU SEE, LATTICE IS WHAT IT WAS, LATTICE AROUND THE FRONT AND SIDE. YOU COULDN'T PUT IT BACK HERE

UNLESS I WANT TERMITES. I OPTED NOT TO DO IT. >> SO YOU CHANGED FROM HAVING LATTICE BACK THERE TO NOT HAVING LATTICE, IS THAT WHAT THE REQUEST IS?

>> THAT IS WHAT SAL AND I TALKED ABOUT, YES. YOU SEE IN THE FRONT, YOU SEE IT DOWN THE SIDE. YOU DON'T SEE IT ON THIS SIDE OF THE HOUSE.

BECAUSE OF THE LAY OF THE LAND IS SO HIGH, AS IT COMES DOWN. YOU SEE RIGHT THERE, THE FRONT.

AND YOU SEE IT THERE AROUND THE SIDE. BUT IN THE BACK, IT WASN'T

POSSIBLE TO DO UNLESS YOU WANT, LIKE I SAID TERMITES. >> EXCAVATE.

>> YEAH. >> OTHER QUESTIONS? >> NO THANKS.

[02:05:02]

>> OKAY. BOARD MEMBERS, HARRISON, MORRISON, CONWAY, ROBINSON.

>> NO QUESTIONS HERE. >> PLEASE GO AHEAD. >> ANYONE? OKAY. THANK YOU MR. BOARDMAN. WE WILL NOW GO AHEAD AND OPEN THE PUBLIC MEETING. IS THERE ANYONE WHO WISHES TO TESTIFY ON CASE 2019-02, ITEM

3.7. >> ANOTHER PUPPY IN THE WINDOW. >> YOU ARE KILLING US WITH

THESE DOGS, YOU KNOW THAT, RIGHT? >> IS THERE ANYBODY FROM THE PUBLIC THAT IS ON THE PHONE THAT WISHES TO SPEAK ON THIS AGENDA ITEM?

>> PLENTY OF TIME TO UNMUTE. NOPE. ALL RIGHT.

WE'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC MEETING. BOARD MEMBERS. WHAT IS YOUR PLEASURE?

>> I'LL PICK ON SOMEBODY. >> I THINK WITH THE CHANGE TO THE FOUNDATION, YOU KNOW, IT LOOKS LIKE TO ME THAT THEY STILL HAVE THAT SIMULATED TIER KIND KIND OF LOOK ON THE FRONT PORCH, WHICH IS PRIMARILY WHERE WE ASKED APPLICANTS TO FOCUS ON IN THE PAST.

WHILE I DON'T NECESSARILY LOVE THE IDEA AFTER THE FACT APPROVAL FOR CHANGES FOR THINGS LIKE THAT, I THINK IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE IT PROBABLY NOT HURTING ANYBODY.

>> OR CHANGING OUR STANDARD. >> WE'RE NOT BEING INCONSISTENT BY DOING THAT I DON'T THINK.

>> NOT CHANGING OUR STANDARD IN ANY SUBSTANTIVE WAY. OKAY.

ANYBODY ELSE? >> ANYBODY WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION?

>> THIS IS ALL YOU TAMMY. KATES CAN'T DO IT. I CAN'T DO IT.

>> I MOVE TO APPROVE HDC CASE NUMBER 2019-02, I MOVE TO APPROVE THESE AMENDMENTS TO HDC CASE NUMBER 2019-02 WITHOUT CONDITIONS. AND I MOVE THAT THE HDC MAKE THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT, PART OF THE RECORD, HDC CASE AS PRESENTED IS SUBSTANTIALLY COMPLIANT WITH THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, SECRETARY OF INTERIOR STANDARDS AND DOWNTOWN

HISTORIC DISTRICT GUIDELINES TO WARRANT APPROVAL AT THIS TIME. >> I'LL SECOND.

>> JUST FOR BOARD MEMBERS, THE CASE WE'RE DISCUSSING RIGHT NOW IS 2019-02.

JUST A YEAR EARLIER. IS THAT OKAY TO AMEND YOUR MOTION FOR THAT ONE?

>> THAT WAS THE INTENTION. >> AMEND MY MOTION TO AMENDMENT HDC CASE NUMBER 2019-02.

>> THAT AMENDMENT IS ACCEPTABLE TO EVERYONE. >> SHOULD PROBABLY REFLECT THE

OLD TOWN GUIDELINES NOTED DOWNTOWN. >> OKAY.

I HEARD DOWNTOWN. SORRY. >> IT WAS OLD TOWN.

>> HEARING NO DISCUSSION, WE WILL CALL THE ROLL. >> MEMBER CONWAY.

>> YES. >> MEMBER HARRISON. >> YES.

>> MEMBER MORRISON. >> YES. >> MEMBER KOSACK.

>> YES. >> CHAIR. >> YES.

MOVING ON. I UNDERSTAND MR. BONVOULOIR. >> HE HAS ASKED FOR A

[Item 4.1]

POSTPONEMENT TO THE NEXT AVAILABLE MEETING IN JUNE FOR CONSIDERATION.

>> DO WE NEED A MOTION? >> WILL THAT WORK? >> I THINK SO.

>> REALLY? OKAY. SO MS. KOSACK, WILL YOU MOVE TO

CONTINUE HDC 2020-02 UNTIL THE JUNE MEETING? >> SURE.

>> SECOND. >> THANK YOU. >> ALL THOSE -- DO I NEED A

ROLL CALL? >> YOU CAN JUST SAY ALL THOSE IN FAVOR AGAIN.

>> ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. >> ANY OPPOSED? HEARING NONE, MOVING ON.

[Item 4.2]

[02:10:04]

2020-02, MIRANDA ST. MIKE ELSE, 505 BROOME STREET. MR. PRATT.

>> YES, SIR. >> I'VE MADE YOU THE HOST SO YOU CAN SCREEN SHARE.

>> THANK YOU. IS THIS A VARIANCE? >> OH, MY.

WE HAVE AN EXTRA RULE. >> WHAT IS THAT EXTRA RULE, COUNSEL?

>> THE EXTRA RULE FOR VARIANCE CASES IN ADDITION TO THE QUASI JUDICIAL PROCEDURES THAT I BRIEFLY DESCRIBED IS THAT IN ORDER TO APPROVE A VARIANCE FOUR OUT OF THE FIVE VOTING MEMBERS TONIGHT ON THE HISTORIC DISTRICT COUNCIL MUST VOTE TO APPROVE.

SO THE MOTION WOULD BE MOTION TO APPROVE, HDC CASE AND THERE WOULD HAVE TO BE FOUR OUT OF THE FIVE MEMBERS, SUPERMAJORITY VOTE. TO DENY A VARIANCE, THE MOTION WOULD BE TO DENY THE VARIANCE AND THAT REQUIRES A SIMPLE MAJORITY OF THREE OUT OF THE FIVE TO VOTE YES TO THAT MOTION. ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS? WE DO HAVE FIVE VOTING MEMBERS HERE. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR.

>> COUNSEL, I JUST RECALLED THAT BECAUSE I WAS GIVEN THE WRONG PROCEDURES, WE DID NOT DISCLOSE EX PARTE COMMUNICATIONS AT THE BEGINNING OF THE MEETING.

AND I WANTED TO KNOW IF YOU THINK WE NEED TO REVISIT THAT. >> WE CAN'T GO BACK.

>> YOU CAN'T GO BACK. >> WE CAN'T GO BACK. >> WE CAN DO IT FOR THIS CASE.

>> YES. SO MEMBERS, I DON'T KNOW IF YOU HEARD ME THERE, WHAT I WAS SAYING WAS WE DIDN'T TALK ABOUT EX PARTE COMMUNICATIONS BEFORE. IF YOU HAVE ANY WITH REGARD TO ST. MICHAELS OR THE 321 SOUTH 6TH STREET CASE, LET US KNOW RIGHT NOW.

I HAD A RESIDENT ASK ME HOW TO PARTICIPATE TONIGHT REGARDING THIS.

I REFERRED THEM TO THE VIRTUAL GUIDELINES. >> I GOT AN E-MAIL FROM GOLDMAN

TODAY REGARDING THE FENCE VARIANCE. >> WE ALL DID.

>> REMIND YOU, COMMUNICATION WITH THE PARTIES IN THIS CASE, THE PARTIES ARE THE CITY, E-MAILS WITH CITY STAFF, QUESTIONS OR WITH THE PARTY, ST. MICHAELS CHURCH, ANYBODY HAVING TO DO WITH ST. MICHAELS CHURCH ABOUT THIS CASE OR THEIR AGENT, MR. MIRANDA.

IF YOU SPOKE TO NEIGHBORS, E-MAILS FROM CITIZENS, THAT IS NOT AN EX PARTE COMMUNICATION.

YOU DON'T HAVE TO DISCLOSE THAT. JUST THE PARTIES.

>> THANK YOU, COUNSEL. >> I SENT AN E-MAIL TO KELLY WITH QUESTIONS. I DID NOT SEE

HER AS BEING A PARTY HERE. >> YES, SIR. TONIGHT'S HDC VARIANCE CASE 2020-02, REPRESENTED TONIGHT BY MR. JOSE MIRANDA, MIRANDA ARCHITECTS WHO IS THE AGENT FOR ST. MICHAELS CATHOLIC CHURCH. VARIANCE FROM LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE SECTION 5.01.10 FOR FENCES AND WALLS. THIS PROPERTY HAS AN R2 ZONING DISTRICT, MEDIUM DENSITY, FUTURE LAND USE. AND IT IS A CONTRIBUTING STRUCTURE TO THE CITY'S DOWNTOWN HISTORIC DISTRICT. I'LL GET INTO THE ANALYSIS AND GO THROUGH THE CRITERIA MORE SPECIFICALLY IN THE STAFF REPORT. BASICALLY, STAFF FINDS THAT THE REQUESTED VARIANCE DOES NOT MEET CRITERIA TWO FOR SPECIAL PRIVILEGE AND CRITERIA THREE FOR LITERAL INTERPRETATION. HOWEVER THE BOARD MAY WISH TO CONSIDER ADDITIONAL CRITERIA FOR GRANTING VARIANCE IN THE HISTORIC DISTRICT. ULTIMATELY, BECAUSE STAFF COULD NOT RECOMMEND OR SAY YES TO ALL SIX CRITERIA, STAFF HAD TO RECOMMEND DENIAL OF THE CASE.

I'LL GO MORE SPECIFICALLY INTO THE REQUEST HERE. SAL HAD PROVIDED THIS NICE LONG SUMMARY AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION ABOUT THE CEMETERY. I AM NOT GOING TO GET INTO THAT. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A VARIANCE TO ALLOW FOR NORTHERN PORTION OF THE PROPERTY TO BE FENCED WITH A SIX-FOOT FENCE. LDC SECTION 5.01.10 ALLOWS FOR

[02:15:10]

SIX FOOT SENSES IN THE SIDING REAR YARDS, MAXIMUM FOUR FEET IN THE FRONT YARDS.

THIS WOULD DISALLOW A SIX-FOOT FENCE FOR A PORTION OF THE REQUEST.

STAFF ANALYSIS FOR SPECIAL CONDITIONS, STAFF AGREES THAT THERE ARE UNIQUE SITING AND AGE WHICH CREATES A SPECIAL CONDITION FOR THE SITE AND MEETS THAT CRITERIA.

SPECIAL PRIVILEGE, GRANTING THE VARIANCE DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A SPECIAL PRIVILEGE THAT IS DENIED BY THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE TO OTHER PROPERTIES LOCATED IN THE DOWNTOWN HISTORIC DISTRICT, WHICH ARE LIMITED TO FOUR FOOT WITHIN THE FRONT YARD AND DOES NOT MEET THAT CRITERIA. LITERAL INTERPRETATION OF FENCING HEIGHT REQUIREMENTS WOULD NOT DEPRIVE THE APPLICANT OF RIGHTS BY OTHER PROPERTIES IN THE SAME ZONING DISTRICT.

THEY DO NOT MEET THAT PARTICULAR CRITERIA. ITEM FOUR, VARIANCE, GIVEN THE FACT THAT THE SITE IS A SCHOOL PLAYGROUND, VARIANCE REQUEST IS THE MINIMUM REQUIRED TO SECURE THE SITE APPROPRIATELY FOR ITS USE. STAFF FOUND THAT THAT CRITERIA IS MET. PROPOSED FENCING DESIGN IS IN HARMONY WITH THE GENERAL INTENT OF PURPOSE OF LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, MEETS THE GOALS OF MAINTAINING OPENNESS FROM THE STREET. LASTLY, ITEM 6, PUBLIC INTEREST, STAFF FINDS THAT THE REQUEST WOULD NOT CAUSE INJURY TO THE PUBLIC, HEALTH, SAFETY OR WELFARE.

THAT CRITERIA IS MET AS WELL. AS OUTLINED IN THE BRIEF INITIAL PRESENTATION, STAFF ASKED THE BOARD TO CONSIDER THE ADDITIONAL CRITERIA THAT THE HDC CAN CONSIDER FOR GRANTING VARIANCE. AND WE HAVE OUTLINED FOR ITEM NUMBER ONE PUBLIC INTEREST, GRANTING THE VARIANCE IS NOT CONTRARY TO PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY OR WELFARE, CREATING A SAFE ENVIRONMENT FOR STUDENTS AND TEACHERS AT THE ST. MICHAELS ACADEMY IS INDEED THE PUBLIC INTEREST. SPECIAL CONDITIONS EXIST FOR THIS PROJECT AS TO SITE, LOCATED IN DOWNTOWN. ST. MICHAELS IS THE ONLY SCHOOL LOCATED IN DOWNTOWN HISTORIC DISTRICT. VARIANCE REQUEST INCREASE ALLOWABLE FENCE HEIGHT FROM FOUR FEET TO SIX FEET. EXISTING HISTORIC ST. MICHAELS ACADEMY BUILDING IS SITUATED IN SITE. IN CONTRARY TO THE CURRENT FRONT YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENTS PER THE CITY'S LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE. LITERAL INTERPRETATION OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE PROVISIONS WOULD NOT ALTER HISTORIC CHARACTER OF THE SITE.

MINIMUM VARIANCE. MINIMUM REQUIRED TO PROVIDE AN ADEQUATE SECURE PLAYGROUND FOR THE ST. MICHAELS ACADEMY. AS FAR AS ALTERATION, CONSTRUCTION, THOSE SECTIONS ARE NOT APPLICABLE. AS I MENTIONED IN THE BEGINNING, DOES NOT MEET ALL SIX CRITERIA, STAFF MUST RECOMMEND DENIAL. AND I WOULD ASK THE BOARD IF

THEY HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OF ME AT THIS TIME. >> QUESTIONS FOR MR. PLATT.

>> YES, JACOB. >> I HAVE A QUESTION HERE. I'VE GOT THREE QUESTIONS.

FIRST, WHAT IS THE ARGUMENT THAT FOUR-FOOT RAILINGS ARE INSUFFICIENT AND YET SIX-FOOT RAILINGS ARE SUFFICIENT? I'M NOT QUITE SURE WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO.

>> I WOULD DEFER TO THE APPLICANT ON THAT PARTICULAR ITEM, MR. HARRISON.

>> OKAY. >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? >> YEAH.

I'VE GOT TWO MORE, WHICH MAY BE BETTER ANSWERED BY THE APPLICANT.

BUT LET'S TRY THEM HERE. ARE THE RAILINGS INTENDED TO KEEP THE KIDS IN OR THE PUBLIC

OUT? >> YES. >> IF THE VARIANCE IS REQUIRED ON THE NORTH 4TH STREET SIDE, I THINK IT SHOULD BE REQUIRED ON THE NORTH 5TH STREET SIDE.

WHICH I THINK IS BEING DESCRIBED HERE AS THE REAR OF THE LOT AND THEREFORE, SIX-FOOT FENCE CAN BE APPLIED. YET, REALLY THE NORTH 5TH STREET SIDE IS IN FRONT AS

WELL. >> I KNOW THE APPLICANT CAN SPEAK TO THAT AS WELL.

BUT I WOULD ADD THAT THE PROPERTY IN THE PRIMARY ENTRANCE IS OFF NORTH 4TH

[02:20:02]

STREET FOR THE ACADEMY. THE ADDRESS IS OFF NORTH 4TH STREET AND THAT IS HOW WE'RE APPLYING THAT FRONT YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENT, WHERE THE NORTH 5TH STREET SIDE WOULD

TECHNICALLY QUALIFY AS THE REAR YARD. >> BUT IN FACT, IT'S A DOUBLE LOT, ISN'T IT? IT'S GOT TWO FRONTAGES, ONE ON 4TH AND ONE ON 5TH?

>> IT CERTAINLY DOES. IT DOES HAVE TWO FRONTAGES. WHERE WE HAVE DOUBLE FRONTAGE LOTS, ONE SIDE IS STILL CONSIDERED THE FRONT AND ONE SIDE IS STILL CONSIDERED THE REAR. CODE ACTUALLY DEFERS TO CITY STAFF ON DETERMINING THAT.

>> OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF BEFORE WE GET MIRANDA UP HERE? WE'LL SWEAR HIM IN.

>> OH, YEAH. >> COME ON UP, JOSE AND WE'LL SWEAR AT YOU.

>> YOU TOO, JACOB. >> OKAY. DO YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM THAT THE ORAL AND/OR WRITTEN TESTIMONY YOU'RE ABOUT TO GIVE WILL BE THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH AND

NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH. >> I DO. I DO.

>> COME ON UP. >> YOU'RE SPEAKING TO THIS MACHINE HERE.

AND BEFORE WE GET STARTED, IS IT FERNANDEZ CEMETERY RESERVE PARK THAT WAS ESTABLISHED IN

1833. >> CORRECT. >> GO AHEAD.

WHAT CAN YOU TELL US? >> WELL, AS YOU KNOW WITH VARIANCES IN THE HISTORIC DISTRICT, IN MY 29 YEARS, I THINK WE'VE HAD ONE VARIANCE THAT MET ALL OF THE CRITERIA, RELOCATION OF THE LIBERTY HOUSE TO THE NEW SITE. SO IT DOES NOT SURPRISE ME THAT STAFF IS REQUIRED TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION FOR DENIAL. AS YOU KNOW, THIS BUILDING IS HISTORIC. IT VIOLATES ALL SETBACKS, ALL HEIGHTS, PRETTY MUCH EVERYTHING FOR THE R2 ZONING. THE CONCERN THE SCHOOL HAD WAS AS YOU KNOW, SCHOOLS HAVE BECOME A TARGET OF OPPORTUNITY, GIVEN OUR, WITH THE ADVENT OF SCHOOL SHOOTINGS.

A LOT OF PUBLIC SCHOOLS HAVE STARTED TO SECURE THEIR CAMPUSES.

ST. MICHAEL IS THE ONLY SCHOOL LOCALLY AND PART OF THE DIOCESE THAT DOES NOT HAVE A SECURE CAMPUS, ESPECIALLY FOR THEIR PLAY AREA. THE RECOMMENDATIONS FOR SCHOOL FENCING INCLUDE SIX-FOOT HEIGHT MINIMUM, USE OF METAL SO YOU CAN ACTUALLY SEE PEOPLE APPROACHING AND VICE VERSA. SO IN ANSWER TO MR. HARRISON'S QUESTION, YES, IT IS TO KEEP THE PUBLIC OUT, KEEP THE KIDS IN. RIGHT NOW, THE PLAY AREAS, SOME OF THE BALLS, AS THEY'RE PLAYING GET INTO THE STREETS AND THAT IS AN AREA OF CONCERN.

THE SIX-FOOT HEIGHT IS THE MINIMUM WE NEED TO SECURE THE CAMPUS AND GIVE US CONTROLLED POINTS OF ENTRY TO THE ACADEMY CAMPUS. THE SIX-FOOT FENCE, THE STYLE AND THE HEIGHT MATCH AN EXISTING SIX-FOOT FENCE THAT IS ALREADY LOCATED ON THE NORTH 5TH STREET SIDE OF THE ACADEMY THAT ENCLOSES THE SIDE COURT YARD.

THIS IS ALL IN KEEPING WITH THE CHARACTER OF A FENCING THAT HAS BEEN APPROVED FOR THAT SITE.

SO I'M HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. AND I KNOW THAT SUSAN, PRINCIPAL OF THE ACADEMY ALSO WANTED TO SPEAK ABOUT HER AND HER PARENTS'S CONCERN ABOUT SECURITY. BUT IF I COULD ANSWER ANY ARCHITECTURE QUESTIONS, FEEL

FREE. >> BOARD MEMBERS, I LOOKED AROUND.

AND REMEMBERED YOU'RE NOT HERE. MR. HARRISON, MS. CONWAY, MS. ROBINSON, MR. MORRISON,

QUESTIONS? >> DO WE HAVE A SLIDE OF THE FENCE AND WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE.

>> JACOB IS BRINGING IT UP. >> HERE IT IS. >> WHAT NUMBER IS THAT?

>> I GOT 17. >> 16 OF 19. >> 16 OF 19.

>> DO WE HAVE IT IN RELATION TO THE BUILDING? >> NO

>> WE HAVE THE SITE PLAN SHOWING WHERE THE LAYOUT IS PROPOSED.

>> BUT NOT AN ELEVATION, IF THAT IS YOUR QUESTION. >> NO. THERE WAS NO ELEVATION

[02:25:03]

REQUIRED AS PART OF THE VARIANCE OR PART OF OUR SUBMITTAL PACKAGE.

I DON'T KNOW IF A STREET VIEW WILL HELP, BECAUSE THERE IS THAT FENCE ALONG THE NORTH 5TH STREET SIDE. THAT GIVES IT AT LEAST SOME DEGREE OF CONTEXT.

WHICH MAY BE HELPFUL. >> THERE IS AN EXISTING VINYL FENCE THAT ENCLOSES AC EQUIPMENT THAT WAS DONE AS PART OF THE ADDITION IN 2005. AND THEN THERE IS THE OTHER

FENCING THAT TURNS THE CORNER. ALL IN THAT SIX-FOOT HEIGHT. >> I DON'T FIND THAT TOO

INTRUSIVE. QUESTIONS FOR MR. MIRANDA. >> SO THE WAY WHERE THE NEW FENCE IS GOING, THEY LEAVE THE SCHOOL AND THEY WALK THROUGH THE OPEN NON-FENCED AREA TO GO IN THROUGH WHAT MIGHT BE A LOCKED FENCE AND A PLAY AREA, CORRECT?

>> WELL, THE CENTRAL ENTRY TO THE SCHOOL, THE PRIMARY ENTRANCE IS ON NORTH 4TH STREET. THAT IS THE ENTRY POINT AND THE EXIT POINT FOR THE ACADEMY.

THE FENCING IS ESSENTIALLY ENCLOSING THE SIDE AND REAR, WHICH IS THE PLAY AREAS,

BECAUSE RIGHT NOW ALL OF THAT IS OPEN TO THE PUBLIC. >> OKAY.

GOT IT. I SEE WHAT YOU'RE SAYING NOW, THANK YOU.

>> QUESTIONS FOR MR. MIRANDA. LEAVE THAT SLIDE UP FOR A SECOND.

MR. MIRANDA, I'M GOING TO WALK OVER HERE AND POINT AT THIS THING IF YOU DON'T MIND.

ON MY SITE VISIT, I WONDERED ABOUT DISTURBING THE PATTERN OF THE LANDSCAPE THAT IS CURRENTLY THERE. THIS IS THE HISTORIC CEMETERY. AND WE HAVE THIS CIRCULAR SITE ADDED AT SOME POINT IN TIME. WE DON'T KNOW WHEN. NOW WE'RE GOING TO BASICALLY CUT OFF THIS EDGE OF THIS HISTORIC CEMETERY WITH THIS. I UNDERSTAND WHY.

COULD YOU TELL US ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT YOU THOUGHT ABOUT DOING ANY ACCOMMODATION TO THE

EXISTING LANDSCAPE. >> WE DIDN'T WORRY ABOUT THE LANDSCAPE SO MUCH AS TO TRY TO MAKE SURE THAT THE CEMETERY WAS STILL ACCESSIBLE TO HEIRS OF THE ESTATE.

WE KEPT THAT CERTAINLY OUTSIDE OF THE PERIPHERY. WE DIDN'T FEEL THAT THE WALKWAYS, BECAUSE THEY'RE REPLACEMENT WALKWAYS, NOT HISTORIC, THAT IT WAS IMPORTANT TO TRY TO FOLLOW THAT CURVE, SO TO SPEAK. IF WE NEED TO, TO MAKE MORE PALATABLE, WE CAN DISCUSS THAT. WE WANTED TO RECTANGULAR SHAPE, TYING INTO THE CORNERS OF THE BUILDING AND GOING TO THE SOUTH TO CAPTURE BOTH OF THOSE EXISTING PLAY

AREAS THAT ARE MULCHED. >> BUILD ON THAT QUESTION A LITTLE BIT.

SO YOU'RE NOT GOING OVER ANYTHING HISTORIC WITH THE NEW FENCE?

>> THAT'S CORRECT. THAT IS WHY THE LAYOUT IS THE WAY IT WAS.

WE'VE TRIED VARIOUS OTHER LAYOUTS, THIS WAS THE MOST APPROPRIATE.

>> I KNOW IF SAL WERE HERE, HE WOULD SAY THAT IN THE PROCESS OF DOING THIS WORK, IF YOU FIND ANYTHING HISTORIC, YOU'RE GOING TO RESPECT THAT AND DO WHAT YOU NEED TO DO FROM AN

ARCHEOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVE. >> THAT IS CORRECT. >> THERE YOU GO.

THAT IS WHAT I WANTED TO HEAR. OTHER QUESTIONS FOR MR. MIRANDA.

>> YEAH. I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHAT I'M SEEING ON THE DRAWING.

IT APPEARS TO BE A CIRCULAR PATHWAY AROUND THE CEMETERY AND YET THE FENCE GOES OVER IT?

>> YES. >> YEAH. THERE IS CURRENTLY A BRICK ON CONCRETE WALKWAY THAT CIRCLES AROUND THE CEMETERY. AND IN ORDER TO FACILITATE CREATING A STRAIGHT EDGE AND A SIMPLE WAY TO GET IN AND OUT, WE WENT RIGHT OVER THAT BECAUSE IT WAS NOT HISTORIC. IN DOING OUR RESEARCH FOR THIS PROJECT, WE LOOKED AT WHAT WAS THE HISTORIC FENCING FOR THIS AREA. IT WAS TYPICALLY A WOOD FENCE.

IT PEAKED AT FOUR FEET AND SWEPT DOWN TO 3 FEET. THERE IS NO WAY THAT WE WERE GOING TO BE ABLE TO DO OR REPLICATE THAT AND STILL SECURE THE CAMPUS.

SO WE WENT TO THE SIX FOOT HIGH TO BE ABLE TO MAKE IT LOOK TRANSPARENT.

WE WANT TO BE ABLE TO SEE THROUGH IT. >> AND SEE THE HISTORIC

STRUCTURES. >> YEAH. >> OTHER QUESTIONS MR.

HARRISON? >> BUT SOME ARCHITECT PROBABLY LONG BEFORE YOUR DAYS DESIGNED

[02:30:03]

A LAYOUT FOR THIS CAMPUS THAT APPEARS TO BE FAIRLY SYMMETRICAL AND YET YOU'RE

LITERALLY DRIVING A FENCE ACROSS IT. >> I DON'T KNOW ABOUT THE WALKWAYS BECAUSE SOME OF THEM ARE CONTEMPORARY. I KNOW HISTORIC PHOTOGRAPHS INDICATE THAT THERE WERE VERY FEW PAVED AREAS. IN FACT, THIS ENTIRE PARK WAS HEAVILY LANDSCAPED. AND TOTALLY SURROUNDED BY FENCING AND HEAVY SHRUBBERY.

SO IT'S HARD TO TELL FROM MY RESEARCH WHAT WAS ORIGINAL. BECAUSE IT HAS BEEN REPAIRED,

IMPROVED, REPLACED, OVER DECADES. >> OTHER QUESTIONS FOR MR.

MIRANDA? >> WAS THERE A REASON WHY OR IS IT JUST A SPACE FACTOR THAT YOU COULDN'T PULL THE FENCE IN CLOSER TOWARDS THE SCHOOL TO KEEP THE CIRCLE AROUND THE

CEMETERY ON THE SIDE OF IT? >> WELL, IF YOU'LL NOTICE IN THE AERIAL VIEW THAT JAKE HAS SHOWN, THERE IS EXISTING MULCH AREA THAT IS THE PLAY AREA FOR THE ACADEMY.

LIKE I MENTIONED TO CHAIR SPINO, IF IT IS INCUMBENT ON US TO TRY TO STUDY THAT, IT DOESN'T HURT THE PLAY AREA. THE MULCH FOLLOWS THAT CURVE ANYWAY.

OBVIOUSLY STRAIGHT LINES ARE CHEAPER THAN CURVED. YOU CAN'T CURVE THE FENCE.

YOU DO IT IN STRAIGHT SEGMENTS AND KIND OF FACET THE CORNERS TO GO AROUND.

I HOPE THAT ANSWERS YOUR QUESTION. >> YES.

I SEE IT BETTER NOW ON THIS VIEW. >> OKAY.

OTHER QUESTIONS? IF NOT, WE'LL GO TO THE PUBLIC HEARING.

ARE YOU SWORN? >> I AM NOT SWORN. PLEASE RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND.

(WITNESS WAS SWORN) MY NAME IS SUSAN, I AM THE PRINCIPAL AT ST. MICHAELS ACADEMY.

YOU KNOW THAT ST. MICHAELS IS A GEM IN OUR COMMUNITY. THE ST. JOSEPH SISTERS CAME OVER AND BUILT THE BUILDING TO BE A CONVENT AND HERE WE ARE. IT'S 150 YEARS OLD.

WHAT MR. MIRANDA SAID WHEN THE GOVERNOR OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA DECLARED THAT ALL PUBLIC SCHOOLS WOULD BE MADE HARD TARGETS, WHAT HAPPENED WAS IT MADE ALL PRIVATE SCHOOLS SOFT TARGETS. AND WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO REITERATE IS THIS FENCING IS ENCLOSING A PLAY YARD BUT IT'S ALSO GIVING ONE POINT OF ENTRY INTO THE SCHOOL BUILDING WHICH IS MANNED BY MY ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT AND PEOPLE HAVE TO RING THE BUZZARD, SHE HAS TO ACKNOWLEDGE THE PEOPLE AND THEY COME IN. WHAT YOU'RE NOT SEEING ON THE RENDITION THAT YOU'RE LOOKING AT ARE THERE ARE TWO BACK DOORS THAT STUDENTS CAN GO IN AND OUT OF THE BUILDING. ST. MICHAELS ONE OF 37 SCHOOLS IN THE ST. AUGUSTINE DIOCESE.

WE ARE THE ONLY SCHOOL OUT OF 37 THAT DOES NOT HAVE A SECURITY FENCE THAT ALLOWS ONE POINT OF ENTRY. THE CITY OF ST. AUGUSTINE ITSELF IS A LITTLE MORE WELL KNOWN AS HISTORIC TOWN IN THIS STATE, THE CATHOLICS SCHOOLS THERE HAVE SECURITY FENCES THAT RESTRICT THEIR SCHOOL SITES. IN FACT, YOU CAN'T EVEN PULL INTO THE PARKING LOT AT CATHEDRAL PARISH WITHOUT BEING BUZZED IN. THEY WERE STARTED BY THE SISTERS OF ST. JOSEPH. OUR FENCE WILL NOT BE CHANGING THE LOOK OF OUR EXISTING STRUCTURE. IT'S AN ROT IRON FENCE THAT YOU LOOK AT MULCH AND SO LITERALLY WE GET TOURISTS THAT WALK THROUGH OUR GROUNDS. WHILE CHILDREN ARE AT LUNCH.

[02:35:05]

WE GET THEM AT RECESS. WE GET THEM DURING PE. WHICH IS KIND OF WHY WE WANT TO KEEP THE SQUARE FENCE. FOOTBALL, SOCCER, SEEMED TO BE PLAYED ON RECTANGLES WITHOUT SEMI CIRCLES IN THE MIDDLE. THERE IS NO WAY FOR MY TEACHERS TO KNOW IF ANYBODY WALKING THROUGH THE MIDDLE OF PE IS THERE WITH NEFARIOS INTENT. THE GREATER ISSUE IS MY STUDENTS PLAY HARD AND THEY KEEP GOING RIGHT INTO THE STREET OR THEY GET TAGGED AND IN A GAME OF AFFECTION, THEY'RE LOOKING BACK AT SOMEBODY, THEY'RE CHILDREN.

AND SO I HAVE TO MENTION THAT WE HAVE A FANTASTIC WORKING RELATIONSHIP WITH THE CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT OF FERNANDINA BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT. THEY'RE OFTEN AT MY SCHOOL AT DISMISSAL. WE HAD SOMEBODY THAT WALKED THROUGH THREE LINES OF STUDENTS, MY TEACHERS IS LIKE WHAT. ALL CONFUSED.

WHAT IS GOING ON? HE WAS LOOKING FOR THE PIPY LONG STOCKING SCHOOL.

HE FOUND IT WALKING RIGHT THROUGH. I MEAN, IT PUTS US ALL ON EDGE.

>> I THINK WE GET YOUR MESSAGE. I THINK YOU'RE GOING TO FIND SUPPORT HERE TONIGHT IF YOU

MIGHT MOVE ON. >> OKAY. THAT IS THE WORDS I WANTED TO HEAR. I WOULD APPRECIATE A YES VOTE FOR THE SAFETY OF OUR STUDENTS

WHO ATTEND OUR SCHOOL. AND I APPRECIATE IT. >> IS THERE ANYBODY ELSE WHO WISHES TO TESTIFY ON BEHALF OF 2020-02 ST. MICHAELS 505 BROOME STREET?

IF NOT, I'LL GO TO THE PUBLIC HEARING. >> I WOULD LIKE TO TALK ABOUT

IT. >> GO AHEAD. >> I'M SORRY.

>> CAN YOU HOLD ON THE PHONE THERE FOR A SECOND. SIR, CAN YOU COME UP AND INTRODUCE YOURSELF PLEASE. YOU'LL NEED TO BE SWORN. AND OKAY.

ANYBODY ELSE WHO IS GOING TO TESTIFY TONIGHT ON THIS CASE, NEEDS TO GET UP AND GET SWORN

NOW. >> IF THERE IS ANYBODY ON THE PHONE THAT WISHES TO SPEAK AND

TESTIFY, YOU'LL HAVE TO REPEAT THE OATH AS WELL. >> THAT'S FINE.

>> THANK YOU. DO YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM THAT THE ORAL AND/OR WRITTEN TESTIMONY YOU'RE ABOUT TO GIVE WILL BE THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH.

>> YES, I DO. >> THANK YOU. >> NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE

RECORD, SIR. >> MY NAME IS CHARLIE, I DON'T LIVE IN THE CITY, BUT I AM A

MEMBER. >> YOUR ADDRESS, SIR? >> 1255 MISSION CARLOS DRIVE IN

FERNANDINA BEACH. >> YOU'RE WELCOME TO SIT OR STAND.

>> IF YOU DON'T MIND, I'LL SIT. I HAVE SOMETHING THAT I HAVE PREPARED TO READ.

>> GO AHEAD. >> I APPRECIATE THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK BEFORE YOU ALL TONIGHT. I'M A MEMBER OF ST. MICHAELS CHURCH, RETIRED SPECIAL AGENT OF THE FBI. I SERVED FOR OVER 26 YEARS. I BEGAN MY CAREER IN SCHOOLS, CHURCHES WERE RELATIVELY SAFE HAVENS. NOW THEY'RE TARGETS.

BACK THEN SCHOOLS WERE NOT DESIGNED TO PREVENT INTRUSIONS BY INDIVIDUALS, WHOSE SOLE PURPOSE WAS TO KILL AS MANY STUDENT AND TEACHERS AS POSSIBLE.

NOT CARING IF THEY LIVE AT THE END. APPROXIMATELY TWO YEARS AGO, OUR PASTOR HAS ASKED ME TO MAKE SUGGESTIONS REGARDING IMPROVING THE PHYSICAL SECURITY OF ST.

MICHAEL CAMPUS. THIS INCLUDED OUR ACADEMY. AS AN EXPERIENCED LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER WILL TELL YOU, YOU HAVE TO THINK LIKE A CRIMINAL.

WE HAVE TO THINK LIKE THE GOOD PEOPLE AS YOU ARE, I DON'T HAVE TO.

I RECOGNIZE THAT OUR COUNTY SCHOOLS HAD ESTABLISHED POLICIES AND EMPLOYED CHANGES TO MAKE OUR SCHOOLS SAFE. I SPOKE WITH CHIEF EARLY, CAPTAIN DAVE BISHOP, BRIAN IS RESOURCE OFFICER AT THE FERNANDINA HIGH SCHOOL AND TO SAY THAT I HAD THEIR COMPLETE SUPPORT AND GUIDANCE WOULD BE AN UNDERESTIMATE. WE AGREED THAT ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT ELEMENTS OF A SECURE FACILITY IS LIMITING ACCESS TO THE BUILDING.

BY CONTROLLING ACCESS TO A LOCATION, WE HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO SELECT WHO COULD ENTER INTO THE MOST VULNERABLE PARTS OF THE BUILDING. ST. MICHAELS ACADEMY IS NOT ONLY OUR SCHOOL BUT AN HISTORICAL SITE IN THIS COMMUNITY.

BOARDED BY THREE PUBLIC STREETS. THIS IS ONE OF MY BIGGEST CONCERNS. AS PART OF MY TRAINING, I ATTENDED THE FBI CRIMINAL

[02:40:04]

PROFILING AT THE FBI ACADEMY. WE LEARNED ABOUT SEXUAL PREDATORS.

WE HAVE NO CURE FOR WHAT THEY DO. THEY ARE CRIMINAL PSYCHO PATHS.

THEY WILL ALWAYS REOFFEND. WE HAVE A LONG SEXUAL PREDATORS LIST IN OUR COUNTY.

WHEN I LAST REVIEWED THE LIST, FOUR OF THE MEN ON THAT LIST LIVED WITHIN WALKING DISTANCE OF OUR SCHOOL. BY COURT ORDER, THEY ARE NOT ALLOWED TO COME ANYWHERE NEAR OUR SCHOOLS. COURT ORDERS DO NOT MEAN A THING TO THESE OFFENDERS.

OUR SCHOOL IS VULNERABLE. ACTIVE SHOOTERS ARE KNOWN TO SURVEIL THE LOCATIONS THAT THEY ARE NOT FAMILIAR WITH PRIOR TO THE ASSAULT. I COULD GO ON AND PROVIDE ADDITIONAL SCARY SCENARIOS. PLEASE BELIEVE ME 26 YEARS OF EXPERIENCE WITH CRIMINALS KEEPS ME UP AT NIGHT AS TO WHAT THEY ARE CAPABLE OF DOING. FENCE, WILL IT SOLVE ALL OF OUR SECURITY PROBLEMS, OF COURSE NOT? THE OFFENDERS MAY BE CRAZY BUT THEY ARE NOT STUPID. WE AS A COMMUNITY OF LAW ABIDING CITIZENS HAVE TO MAKE IT HARDER FOR THEM TO COMMIT THEIR ACTS OF VIOLENCE AGAINST PEOPLE.

WE HAD A SAYING WHEN I INVESTIGATED BOTH DOMESTIC AND INTERNATIONAL TERRORISM, THAT TERRORIST HAD TO BE RIGHT ONLY ONCE. WE HAD TO BE RIGHT EVERY TIME.

I BELIEVE THIS SAYING APPLIES TO PROTECTING OUR TEACHERS AND STUDENTS AND SCHOOL.

I ASK THAT YOU TAKE THE INFORMATION I PROVIDED YOU UNDER CONSIDERATION.

AND ALLOW OUR ACADEMY TO BUILD A FENCE. >> THANK YOU, SIR.

WE APPRECIATE THAT. IS THERE ANYONE ELSE WHO WISHES TO TESTIFY AT THIS TIME?

LOU, ARE YOU ON THE PHONE? >> CAN YOU HEAR ME? >> COME ON DOWN.

>> ARE YOU READY? >> GO FOR IT. >> IDENTIFY YOUR NAME.

>> LEWIS GOLDMAN. I LIVE AT 23 SOUTH 6TH STREET. >> GO AHEAD.

>> I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH THE FENCE AROUND THE SCHOOL. I WOULD LIKE TO FIND OUT FROM JOSE IF YOU HAVE A VARIANCE, YOU NEED TO HAVE A HARDSHIP. WHAT IS THE HARDSHIP?

>> MR. MIRANDA, IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO RESPOND, PLEASE DO. >> THE HARDSHIP IS WE'VE GOT AN

UNSECURED SCHOOL CAMPUS. THAT IS OUR HARDSHIP. >> THAT IS NOT A HARDSHIP BY LDC. WHAT IS YOUR HARDSHIP? YOU CAN PUT A FOUR-FOOT FENCE UP. IF YOU WANT IT TALLER, YOU LOSE LANDSCAPING.

HOW MANY SIX-FOOT FENCES ARE THERE IN THE HISTORIC DISTRICT ON STREET FRONTS IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS? EVERY TIME YOU DO SOMETHING LIKE THIS, YOU'RE DESTROYING THE INTEGRITY OF OUR HISTORIC DISTRICT. I UNDERSTAND ABOUT THE SCHOOL.

MY GRANDDAUGHTER WENT ALL THROUGH THE SCHOOL. FROM KINDERGARTEN TO 8TH GRADE.

I LOVE THAT SCHOOL. BUT I'M OPPOSED TO A SIX-FOOT FENCE.

I THINK IT TENDS TO DESTROY THE INTEGRITY OF OUR HISTORIC DISTRICT.

AND I HOPE YOU WILL VOTE AGAINST THAT. THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU, LOU. I APPRECIATE YOUR PATIENCE AS WELL.

IS THERE ANYONE ELSE WHO WISHES TO TESTIFY WITH REGARDS TO HDC VARIANCE 2020-02?

>> YES. HI, MY NAME IS ANDY. >> GO AHEAD.

>> ANDY, 86029. I'VE GOT THREE CHILDREN AT THE SCHOOL.

AND WHILE I APPRECIATE THE CONCERNS OF THE LAST PERSON WHO SPOKE, WHO LIVES NEAR THE SCHOOL, I AM SURE THAT HIS GRAND KIDS OR KIDS ATTENDED THE SCHOOL AT A DIFFERENT TIME.

I THINK THAT NOW WHAT IS GOING ON WITH OUR SOCIETY AND THE SCHOOL BEING THE ONLY SCHOOL IN THE DISTRICT THAT IS NOT SECURE, AND THE ONLY SCHOOL OBVIOUSLY RESIDING IN THE

[02:45:01]

HISTORIC DISTRICT, I'VE GOT A LOT OF CONCERNS OF THE SAFETY OF MY THREE KIDS, AS THE PRESIDENT OF THE SCHOOL PARENT ASSOCIATION THAT WORKS WITH THE TEACHERS, I KNOW THAT A LOT OF THE PARENTS HAVE THE SAME CONCERNS. I WANTED TO BRING THAT TO THIS GROUP. WE APPRECIATE ALL THAT YOU DO. WE LOVE HOW THE SCHOOL LOOKS IN THE COMMUNITY AS FAR AS NOT TOUCHING THE HISTORY AND HISTORICAL NATURE OF THE SCHOOL. BUT REALLY WHEN IT COMES DOWN TO US, FOR SAFETY OF THE CHILDREN AND I URGE THAT YOU GUYS CONSIDER THAT TONIGHT AND I THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME.

>> IS THAT IT? ANYBODY ELSE? >> I WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK.

>> GO AHEAD. >> NAME AND ADDRESS, PLEASE. >> HELLO.

>> YES. NAME AND ADDRESS, PLEASE. >> CAN YOU HEAR ME?

>> CAN YOU HEAR ME? >> YES. >> SHE NEEDS TO STATE HER NAME

AGAIN. >> CAN YOU HEAR ME? >> YES.

WE NEED YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD. >> MARLA MCDANIELS.

12 SOUTH 6TH STREET, FERNANDINA BEACH. >> YES, GO AHEAD PLEASE.

>> I DID SEND IN -- HELLO. >> YOU'RE BREAKING UP. DID YOU SEND COMMENTS IN?

>> SHE DID. >> CAN WE READ THEM INTO THE RECORD.

>> PERHAPS WE CAN HAVE COUNSEL READ YOUR COMMENTS INTO THE RECORD.

WOULD THAT BE ACCEPTABLE? >> IT IS ACCEPTABLE AS LONG AS >> IT WOULD BE.

>> SHE NEEDS TO BE PRESENT FOR CROSS-EXAMINATION IN CASE ANYBODY WANTS TO ASK HER

QUESTIONS ABOUT WHAT IS IN HER COMMENTS. >> THE PROBLEM IS YOU'RE

BREAKING UP. WE CAN'T HEAR YOU. >> SHE MAY BE ON A CELL PHONE.

>> YOU CANNOT HEAR ME NOW. >> THERE YOU GO. THAT IS BETTER.

>> IS THAT BETTER? MY CONCERN IS WITH THE HEIGHT OF THE FENCE.

EACH TIME WE HAVE DIVERTED FROM THE GUIDELINES, IT'S NOT GOOD. AND IN ADDITION TO THE LDC LANGUAGE, THE HISTORIC DISTRICT GUIDELINES ARE CLEAR THAT ALL FENCES SUCH AS THIS WOULD BE FOUR FEET IN THE FRONTAGE. HERE ON 6TH STREET, WE'VE HAD AN UNFORTUNATE SITUATION, THAT DOES NOT COMPLY WITH THE GUIDELINES OVER ON 7TH STREET, ANOTHER PROJECT IS JUST AN UGLY FENCE PROJECT. IT CAUSED GREAT STRESS TO THE RESIDENTS ON THAT STREET.

IT'S DISTRACTING IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD. AS IT IS HERE ON 6TH STREET.

SO MY ISSUE IS WITH THE HEIGHT. THANK YOU >> THANK YOU.

ANYBODY ELSE? >> DIRECTOR, DO WE HAVE ANYBODY ELSE HANGING OUT THERE? NO. OKAY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. WE'RE GOING TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AND MOVE INTO BOARD DISCUSSION. I KIND OF LIKE THAT PICTURE.

YEAH. THAT IS GOOD. SO BOARD MEMBERS, WHAT ARE WE

THINKING? >> WELL, I HAVE A QUESTION FIRST.

>> YES. >> WITH THE VARIANCE BEING REQUESTED, IS TO ALLOW A

SIX-FOOT RAILING INSTEAD OF A FOUR-FOOT RAILING. >> THAT IS MY UNDERSTANDING,

YES. >> OKAY. THE HEARTBURN THAT I HAVE IS NOT SO MUCH ABOUT THE HEIGHT OF THE RAILING, BUT WHERE IT'S RUNNING.

I DON'T FIND THE ARGUMENTS THAT WERE PRESENTED BY THE SCHOOL RELATED TO SECURITY TO BE PARTICULARLY COMPELLING, I THINK THE PROBLEM IS THAT WE HAVE A SCHOOL THAT IS NOT AT THE MOMENT ABLE TO PROVIDE THE SECURITY THAT IT WANTS TO PROVIDE.

BUT I DON'T THINK THAT THAT MEANS THAT THEY HAVE TO DO IT WITHIN THE HISTORIC DISTRICT.

SO MY QUESTION IS, IS THE SCHOOL AT THE MOMENT ALLOWED TO ERECT A FOUR-FOOT FENCE IN THE

AREA THAT IS SHOWN IN THE RED RECTANGLE? >> THE SCHOOL COULD INSTALL A FOUR-FOOT FENCE IN THAT AREA ALONG NORTH 4TH STREET, WHICH IS CONSIDERED THE FRONT YARD.

>> IT COULD DO THAT. >> BUT IT COULD GO HIGHER ON THE OUTSIDE.

>> THEY COULD DO THAT. >> YEAH. SO THE ONLY QUESTION TO

[02:50:01]

CONSIDER IS WHETHER WE'RE HAPPY TO MAKE THAT SIX FOOT RATHER THAN FOUR FOOT, IS THAT RIGHT?

>> THAT'S CORRECT. >> THAT IS EFFECTIVELY IT, YEAH.

>> WE DON'T HAVE ANY OTHER CONTROL OVER THIS FENCE? >> OUTSIDE OF THE DESIGN GUIDELINES, BUT THE ACTUAL HEIGHT ITSELF ALLOWING FOR A SIX-FOOT FENCE VERSUS A

FOUR-FOOT FENCE IS WHAT THE VARIANCE REQUEST IS >> I'M TALKING MORE ABOUT THE

LOCATION OF THE FENCE JACOB. >> SO FENCES DO NOT HAVE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS LIKE BUILDINGS. FENCES CAN BE INSTALLED UP TO THE PROPERTY LINE.

THE PROVISIONS FOR HEIGHT ARE BASED ONSETBACKS TO THE PROPERTY LINE BUT YES, THEY ARE

WITHIN THE RIGHT TO INSTALL RIGHT UP TO THE PROPERTY LINE. >> OKAY.

THANK YOU. >> OTHER QUESTIONS? >> I HAVE CONCERNS ABOUT THE HEIGHT AS WELL. IT JUST LOOKS LIKE IT'S GOING TO RUIN THAT PIECE OF PROPERTY.

I UNDERSTAND THE CONCERN ABOUT THE CHILDREN'S SAFETY. BUT I'M GOING TO OPPOSE THE

SIX-FOOT. >> I WOULD ARGUE MS. CONWAY, THAT IF YOU LOOK AT THE CORNER WHERE WE HAVE AN EXISTING SIX FOOT, THAT IT'S FAIRLY TRANSPARENT, JACOB I DON'T KNOW IF YOU CAN GET ME A VIEW OF THAT. I'LL BE HONEST WITH YOU, I CAME TO THIS DISCUSSION WITH A SIMILAR CONCERN. I WAS CONCERNED ABOUT HOW MASSIVE THIS MIGHT BE. BUT THEN WHEN YOU GO UP TO THE CORNER OF BROOME RIGHT THERE, I DON'T KNOW IF ALL OF YOU CAN SEE THIS VIEW, I DON'T SEE THE FENCE.

I SEE THE BUILDING. AND I THINK IT WILL BE SIMILAR ON THE 4TH STREET, 5TH STREET SIDE. DID I GET MY STREETS RIGHT? I DON'T THINK FOUR VERSUS SIX IS GOING TO MEAN MUCH AESTHETICALLY, BUT I DO THINK IT WILL MEAN SOMETHING SUBSTANTIAL IN TERMS OF SECURITY. WHEN SCHOOL AND SECURITY PEOPLE TELL ME THEY THINK SOMETHING IS WORTH DOING, I TEND TO TAKE THEM AT THEIR WORD.

OTHER CONCERNS? >> CAN I CLARIFY SOMETHING THAT MEMBER HARRISON JUST SAID?

>> ABSOLUTELY. >> JACOB, IF YOU COULD GO BACK TO THE AERIAL WE JUST HAD WITH THE RED BOX. SO THE RED BOX DOES NOT DENOTE WHERE THEY WANT TO PUT THE FENCE. THE FENCE WAS SHORTENED AND THAT CIRCULAR PART OF THE

CEMETERY, IS THAT RIGHT? >> THAT'S CORRECT. THAT IS THE PARCEL ITSELF.

>> I MISSPOKE ON THAT I'M SORRY. >> I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE WE'RE CLEAR ON THAT. JOSE, I LIKE YOU'RE WILLING TO WORK WITH POSSIBLY, IF YOU COULD, IT WOULDN'T BE AROUND THE FENCE, IT WOULD BE REALLY POLYGONAL.

I MEAN, I HAVE SEVERAL THOUGHTS ABOUT IT, WE'RE CROSSING SEVERAL SIDEWALKS.

I THINK IT WILL LOOK AD HOC REGARDLESS OF THE HEIGHT. SO IF YOU CAN WORK WITH AN EXISTING FEATURE AND MAKE IT LOOK MORE INTEGRATED, I THINK THAT WOULD HELP TREMENDOUSLY.

I SHARE THE CONCERNS ABOUT THE HEIGHT. AND EVEN THOUGH IT IS FAIRLY TRANSPARENT, IF PART OF THE ARGUMENT WAS GIVEN TO KEEP THE KIDS AND THE BALLS IN A FOUR-FOOT FENCE, YES, WE'LL DO THAT. THE OTHER PART OF THE ARGUMENT WAS TO HARDEN THE SCHOOL BETTER. IF SOMEBODY WANTS TO JUMP A FENCE AND GET IN THERE, THAT TWO FOOT DIFFERENCE WON'T MAKE A DIFFERENCE.

I'VE JUMPED FENCES LIKE THAT. I'M NOT SURE THAT THAT PRESENTS A HARDSHIP CASE FOR THIS PARTICULAR SITUATION. AND A FOUR-FOOT FENCE THAT RUNS AROUND IT WOULD LOOK MORE

INTEGRATED. >> OTHER QUESTIONS, CONCERNS? >> OTHER DISCUSSION?

>> TAMMY, THE INTERPRETATION AT THE MOMENT SAYS THAT THEY CAN HAVE SIX FOOT AROUND THREE

SIDES OF IT. >> RIGHT. >> SO WE'RE REALLY TALKING

ABOUT ONE SIDE. >> KATES, WHAT DO YOU THINK? >> I GUESS FOUR FOOT TO THE SIX FOOT DOESN'T BOTHER ME AS MUCH BECAUSE OF THE SIX FOOT ON THE CORNER, LIKE YOU SAID, YOU STILL CAN SEE THE BUILDING, YOU CAN STILL HAVE THE VIEW OF THAT COURT YARD AREA.

BUT MY CONCERN IS YES, IT'S IMPORTANT TO PROTECT THE CHILDREN, BUT I THINK IT'S ALSO IMPORTANT TO PROTECT THE AESTHETICS OF THIS HISTORIC DISTRICT AND THIS AREA,

[02:55:06]

ESPECIALLY THE CEMETERY. AND THE FENCE CUTTING THROUGH THAT SEMI CIRCLE AND CUTTING THROUGH ALL OF THAT SIDEWALK IS GOING TO LOOK, IT'S JUST GOING TO LOOK REALLY AWKWARD.

SO IF THERE IS ANY WAY YOU KNOW, JOSE CAN REWORK SOME OF THAT LANDSCAPE OR SIDEWALK TO MAKE IT LOOK MORE PURPOSEFUL THAN JUST THROWN UP ACROSS ALL OF THAT SIDEWALK, I THINK THAT WOULD MAKE A HUGE DIFFERENCE, TO MAKE IT LOOK MORE LIKE TWO SEPARATE YARDS.

THE YARD THAT BELONGS TO THE SCHOOL AND THEN AN OPEN COURT YARD WITH THE CHURCH AND THE

HISTORIC CEMETERY. >> ANY OTHER THOUGHTS? >> BOARD MEMBERS.

>> CAN I MAKE A COMMENT? >> ABSOLUTELY. >> I TEND TO AGREE WITH SOME OF THE OTHER MEMBERS'S COMMENTS IN REGARDS TO YOU KNOW, THE GEOMETRY OF THE FENCE.

I MEAN, MY GUT INSTINCT IS THAT YOU KNOW, THERE IS SOMETHING TO BE SAID VISUALLY ABOUT THE SYMMETRY OF THAT ACCESS WHEN YOU'RE DRIVING BY, I FEEL LIKE VISUALLY IT'S KIND OF IMPORTANT. BUT I ALSO WANT TO RECOGNIZE THE FACT THAT I DON'T THINK THAT FROM A TECHNICAL STANDPOINT THAT IS UNDER OUR JURISDICTION AS FAR AS WHAT WE'RE BEING ASKED TO DO. SO I THINK WE CAN RELAY OUR COMMENTS TO JOSE AND TO THE APPLICANT SAYING THAT WE FEEL LIKE YOU KNOW, IN OUR OPINION WE WOULD LIKE TO SEE THEM TAKE THAT INTO CONSIDERATION WHEN THEY APPLY FOR THEIR PERMIT FOR THE FENCE, BUT ULTIMATELY, AND JAKE CAN CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG HERE, BUT UNLESS IF WHAT THEY'RE DOING IS INTERFERING WITH SOMETHING THAT WOULD BE CONSIDERED TO BE HISTORICALLY SIGNIFICANT, I DON'T THINK THE APPLICANT, OR THE CITY REALLY HAS A SAY IN THE GEOMETRY OF THE FENCE ITSELF.

>> WHAT DO YOU THINK ABOUT THAT? >> I WOULD AGREE WITH THAT

STATEMENT. >> OKAY. I DON'T THINK I HEAR FOUR YESES HERE. IS THAT FAIR? IT'S HARD TO DO THAT WHEN I CAN'T SEE YOU. CAN WE PUT SOME FACES UP THERE. I DON'T THINK I HEAR FOUR YESES HERE. BUT I HAVE HEARD SOME SUGGESTIONS FOR IMPROVEMENTS, CHANGES THAT MIGHT MAKE IT PALATABLE, IS THAT A FAIR ASSESSMENT COUNCIL MEMBERS?

>> YOU WOULD HAVE A YES FROM ME. >> I'M OPPOSED.

>> MIKE. >> I WOULD HAVE TO VOTE IN FAVOR BUT I WOULD RATHER NOT

SEE THE FENCE AT ALL. >> I AGREE. >> TAMMY

>> I'M OPPOSED. >> OKAY. >> SO NO FOUR VOTES.

>> MY SUGGESTION WOULD BE INSTEAD OF TURNING IT DOWN, I THINK WE WANT TO TAKE THE SERIOUS CONCERNS THAT WE'VE HEARD TO HEART, IN THIS DISCUSSION, THAT WE WOULD ASK FOR A CONTINUATION AND ASK JOSE TO SEE WHAT ELSE HE COULD DO AND COME BACK AND SEE US AT

SOME FUTURE DATE. IS THAT ACCEPTABLE TO EVERYONE? >> WELL, I THINK THE TWO MEMBERS THAT ARE MAKING IT PRETTY EVIDENT THAT THEY WOULD VOTE AGAINST IT ARE FUNDAMENTALLY OPPOSED TO THE IDEA OF IT BEING SIX FEET SO I DON'T SEE WHAT WE'RE GOING TO COME BACK. THE ONLY THING THAT IS GOING TO CHANGE IS WHO THE MEMBERS ARE

VOTING ON IT. >> WHAT I LEARNED IN MY LONG CAREER IN GOVERNMENT, THE LONGER THE ISSUE STAYED OPEN THE MORE OPPORTUNITY THERE WAS FOR COMPROMISE AND A YES CONSENSUS. I'M RELUCTANT TO SAY NO TONIGHT.

IN FACT, I THINK YOU WOULD HAVE A HARD TIME GETTING THREE VOTES FOR NO TONIGHT.

THAT IS HOW THAT WOULD HAVE TO GO. THREE FOR A NO. MY SUGGESTION

WOULD BE THAT SOMEBODY VOTE TO CONTINUE THIS THING. >> CAN I ALSO ADD PLEASE THAT A SIX-FOOT FENCE OR A FOUR-FOOT FENCE DOES NOT PROVIDE THE SORT OF SECURITY THAT THE SCHOOL SAYS THAT THEY NEED. THAT IS WHAT I MEANT WHEN I DON'T FIND THESE ARGUMENTS COMPELLING. I'M CERTAINLY IN FAVOR OF SCHOOL SECURITY AND PROTECTING THE KIDS. BUT I DON'T THINK THE ARGUMENTS HOLD WATER HERE.

>> OKAY. >> MR. MIRANDA. I'M GOING TO ALLOW MR. MIRANDA

[03:00:05]

TO COME FORWARD. >> BEFORE YOU GUYS MAKE A DECISION, I JUST NEED SOME DIRECTION FROM STAFF AND I HATE TO PUT YOU GUYS ON THE SPOT, AM I CORRECT IN ASSUMING THE FENCES ARE REVIEWED BY STAFF AND IF THEY ARE COMPATIBLE WITH THE GUIDELINES, THEY'RE

APPROVED? >> FOR EXAMPLE, THE ONLY REASON WE'RE HERE IS WE WANT TO INCREASE THE HEIGHT ONLY FOR THE FRONT YARD FENCE. THE SETBACK IS WHAT, 25 FEET?

>> IT IS. >> SO WE COULD BUILD A SIX-FOOT FENCE FROM THAT 25-FOOT LINE ACROSS THAT ENTIRE PROPERTY, GET STAFF APPROVAL AND NOT HAVE A VARIANCE, WE WOULD LOSE A PORTION OF THE PARK AREA. BUT IT WOULD NOT REQUIRE HDC APPROVAL OTHER THAN STAFF REVIEW OF THE DESIGN OF THE FENCE. AM I CORRECT?

>> THAT'S CORRECT FOR CONTRIBUTING AND NON-CONTRIBUTING STRUCTURES,

FENCES AND WALLS ARE REVIEWED AT THE STAFF LEVEL. >> OKAY.

BECAUSE PRE-COVID, WHEN WE FIRST APPROACHED STAFF AT THE TIME, WHICH WAS SAL, HE DIDN'T HAVE AN ISSUE WITH THE STYLE OF THE FENCE. HE HAD AN ISSUE WITH THE HEIGHT IN RELATION TO THE SETBACK, BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY IT IS NOT IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE R2 ZONING.

SO AS OF TODAY, WE COULD SUBMIT FOR A REVISED LAYOUT WITH A SIX-FOOT FENCE, STOPPING AT THAT FRONT SETBACK BOUNDING THAT PARK ON THREE SIDES AND IT WOULD BE STAFF APPROVAL, IT WOULDN'T COME BACK TO THIS BODY? CORRECT?

I WANT TO MAKE SURE I'M ON THE RIGHT TRACK. >> PERHAPS YOUR VARIANCE APPLICATION SHOULD BE TO CHANGE THE SETBACK, NOT THE HEIGHT OF THE FENCE.

>> IT'S HALF DOZEN THE OTHER. SPECIFICALLY THE FENCE HEIGHT IS RELATED TO SETBACK.

AND STAFF HAS ALREADY TOLD YOU EXACTLY WHICH PART OF THE CODE WE'RE ASKING FOR RELIEF FROM.

SO WE WANT TO WORK WITH YOU TO FIND AN EQUITABLE SOLUTION. BUT I NEED TIME TO TALK TO MY CLIENT TO SEE WHAT THE PROS AND CONS ARE GOING FORWARD. A FOUR FOOT FENCE AT THE PROPERTY LINE DOES NOTHING FOR THEM. OTHER THAN MAYBE KEEP SOME BALLS FROM GOING OUT INTO THE STREET. SO I GOT TO, I THINK SEEING THAT WE DON'T HAVE VOTES TO APPROVE NOR VOTES TO DENY, I THINK I HAVE TO RECOMMEND THAT

WE CONTINUE. >> SO YOU'RE ASKING US TO CONTINUE THIS ITEM?

>> I DON'T THINK WE HAVE MUCH OF A CHOICE. >> THANK YOU.

CAN I GET A MOTION TO CONTINUE THIS ITEM? >> TO A DATE CERTAIN.

>> I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO CONTINUE IT TO WHAT JULY MEETING?

>> DOES THAT WORK FOR YOU? >> YEAH. CAN YOU GIVE ME A DATE CERTAIN?

THIRD THURSDAY OF JULY. >> THE DATE CERTAIN IS THE THIRD THURSDAY OF JULY.

>> I CAN GIVE YOU THAT DATE, SIR. >> 16TH.

>> HOW ABOUT JULY 17TH. >> JULY 16TH. >> THAT IS THE THIRD THURSDAY.

>> 16TH? >> YEAH. >> THAT IS A MOTION.

>> I'LL BE HERE. >> THAT IS A MOTION. IS THERE A SECOND?

>> THAT MOTION FAILS. >> SO YOU UNDERSTAND HERE, WITHOUT A MOTION TO CONTINUE THIS ITEM, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO VOTE ON EITHER TO APPROVE OR DISAPPROVE THIS ITEM.

SO TAMMY, AM I CORRECT, THAT MOTION FAILS FOR A SECOND. I'VE GOT NO VICE CHAIR TO HAND

OFF THE GAVEL TO TO SECOND THAT CONTINUATION. >> YOU CAN HAND IT OFF.

I MEAN >> MR. HARRISON, WOULD YOU BE WILLING TO TAKE THE CHAIR FOR A

MOMENT? >> I WOULD BE WILLING TO BUT I DON'T KNOW HOW TO.

>> JUST SIT THERE AND BE APPROPRIATE. MR. HARRISON, I WILL SECOND THE MOTION TO CONTINUE THIS DISCUSSION TO THE JULY 16TH MEETING AND NOW MR. HARRISON,

COULD YOU PLEASE CALL THE ROLL. >> MEMBER CONWAY. >> I GUESS YES.

[03:05:02]

>> MR. MORRISON. >> YES. >> MEMBER KOSACK.

>> YES. >> CHAIR HARRISON. >> NO.

>> MEMBER SPINO. >> YES. THANK YOU, MIKE.

I WILL TAKE THE CHAIR. THANK YOU FOR YOUR THOUGHTFUL COMMENTS.

SIR, THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMENTS. WE HOPE TO GET SOMEWHERE WHERE

EVERYBODY IS HAPPY. JOSE. >> WHEN ARE WE MOVING THAT

LIBERTY BILLINGS HOUSE? >> WE CAN TALK ABOUT THAT LATER MAYBE.

>> WE'RE PRICING THE PROJECT RIGHT NOW. IT'S SUPPOSED TO HAPPEN THIS

SUMMER. >> OKAY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR THAT.

MOVING ON. HDC 2020-03, THIS IS DEE DEE BARTELS OLD HOUSE, TWO FRONT

[Item 4.3]

DOORS. AND WE HAVE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED THIS ITEM, MS. KELLY.

>> SOUNDS AWFUL FAMILIAR. >> LONG DISCUSSION. >> YOU HAVE TO STOP SCREEN

SHARING FIRST. >> WASN'T THIS JOSE? >> I THOUGHT.

>> HE LEFT THE ROOM. >> I THINK WE WORE HIM OUT. WE'LL HAVE STAFF.

DIRECTOR GIBSON. TELL US. >> GOOD EVENING.

THIS EVENING WE HAVE THIS IS A NEW APPLICATION 2020-03. THE APPLICANT IS SEEKING APPROVAL TO REHABIT A CONTR CONTRIBUTING DUPLEX FOR USE AS A SINGLE FAMILY HOME. IN DOING SO, LOOKING TO REPLACE WINDOWS, RESTORE THE RESTORATION OF THE SLEEPING PORCH, ADDING NEW FRONT STEPS, RAILINGS, ADDITION OF A WOODEN DECK. CONSTRUCTION I'M SORRY, NOT THE CONSTRUCTION OF A ONE-STORY ACCESSORY BUILDING. THAT IS NOT HAPPENING AT THIS TIME.

AND IT IS NOT BELIEVED TO BE ORIGINAL TO THIS HOME. THIS IS EVIDENCE IN THE CONSTRUCTION LAYOUT OF THE INTERIOR OF THIS, OF THE HOME ITSELF.

SO THE APPLICANT IS SEEKING TO REPLACE THE SECOND FRONT DOOR WITH AN ORIGINAL WINDOW FROM THE REAR PORCH OF THE HOME THAT MATCHES THE FRONT WINDOWS. STAFF HAD REVIEWED THE APPLICANT'S REQUESTS AND FIND THEM TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE DOWNTOWN DESIGN GUIDELINES AS WELL AS SECRETARY OF INTERIOR STANDARDS AND ISSUES A RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL.

I DO HAVE THE APPLICATION AND BACK-UP MATERIALS PROVIDED THAT I CAN PULL UP AND REFERENCE AS ANY BOARD MEMBERS HAVE QUESTIONS RELATED TO THIS CASE. AND THE APPLICANT IS PRESENT

HERE TO SPEAK TO ANY QUESTIONS THAT THE BOARD HAS AS WELL. >> VERY GOOD.

>> AND WE'RE GOING TO DO THE OATH. MRS. GIBSON WAS BASICALLY SUMMARIZING THE STAFF REPORT. WITH A RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL.

PLEASE RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND. DO YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM THAT THE ORAL AND/OR WRITTEN TESTIMONY YOU'RE ABOUT TO GIVE WILL BE THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH

>> YES. >> THANK YOU. >> I HAVE A QUESTION.

>> GO AHEAD. >> IN ALL SERIOUSNESS, HAVEN'T WE ALREADY DONE THIS?

>> YES. >> I GUESS I HAVE A COUPLE QUESTIONS.

WAS THAT BENJAMIN? >> YEAH. MS. GIBSON, DIRECTOR GIBSON, I REMEMBER THE DISCUSSION ON THE FRONT DOOR. I DON'T REMEMBER APPROVING NEW

STEPS OR WINDOWS. BUT DID WE? >> IT WAS ON THIS PLAN.

>> SO WE THINK THAT WE'VE DONE THIS BEFORE. >> AT LEAST A PORTION OF THE IMPROVEMENTS BEING REQUESTED THIS EVENING HAVE BEEN REVIEWED BY THE HISTORIC DISTRICT

COUNCIL PREVIOUSLY AND APPROVED. >> DO YOU REMEMBER IF THAT

INCLUDED THE REPLACEMENT OF THE WINDOWS? >> I BELIEVE IT DID.

>> AND STEPS? >> I DON'T REMEMBER. >> I DON'T REMEMBER THE STEPS.

>> I CAN CERTAINLY PULL UP THE PRIOR PLANS TO REFERENCE. BUT I KNOW THAT MS. YOUNG IS

WELL PREPARED TO ANSWER MORE QUESTIONS. >> DO YOU HAVE ANY OTHER

QUESTIONS FOR MS. GIBSON BEFORE I MOVE ON TO THE APPLICANT? >> HEARING NONE, MS. YOUNG.

WELCOME. >> WELCOME. >> HOW ARE YOU?

[03:10:02]

>> STEPS. >> FIRST PAGE. >> I DON'T REMEMBER IT.

WHAT WAS THE DATE OF THAT APPROVAL? >> THIS IS TWO YEARS OLD.

>> WE MAY HAVE SEEN A COUPLE OF CASES SINCE THEN? >> HUH?

>> WE MAY HAVE SEEN A COUPLE OF CASES SINCE THEN. WHAT CAN YOU TELL US?

>> WELL, I KNOW FOR A FACT THAT THE DOORS WERE INSTALLED INDEPENDENTLY.

ONE ORIGINALLY AND THE OTHER ONE CAME AFTERWARDS. THEY'RE TOTALLY DIFFERENT.

THE CONSTRUCTION IS DIFFERENT. THEY'RE DATED THAT WAY. AND I DID A LITTLE BIT OF RESEARCH, LOOKING THROUGH SOME CENSUS RECORDS. AND THE 1930 CENSUS IS THE ONLY ONE, WELL, IT'S THE EARLIEST ONE THAT HAS A HOUSE NUMBER ON IT.

AND THAT BEING 321 SOUTH 6TH STREET, THERE WAS A FAMILY MONROE FINK AND HIS WIFE AND THREE OTHER MEMBERS. THE CHILDREN. AND THEN 1940, THERE WAS ANOTHER SINGLE FAMILY OWNER. AND THAT WAS BABY T OH O'BRIAN AND HE HAD TWO CHILDREN AND A WIFE. HE WAS LISTED IN THE HOUSE IN 1935.

I'VE GOT THE NEXT DOOR NEIGHBOR. HE RECALLS THE O'BRIANS LIVING IN THE HOUSE AND THAT WAS IN THE '60S. WHEN MR. O'BRIAN DIED, THAT WAS IN 1964. MRS. O'BRIAN TOOK IN A ROOMMATE NAMED EUGENE MCCARTHY.

AND EUGENE INHERITED THE HOUSE IN 1991, WHEN MRS. JOINER DIED. AND HE WAS THE ONE THAT WE

THINK THE DOOR WAS PUT IN FOR. >> FOR A SEPARATE ENTRANCE. >> WE HAD THIS DISCUSSION I REMEMBER TWO YEARS AGO. I THINK THERE WAS A GENERAL CONSENSUS THAT RESTORING THE ONE DOOR MADE SENSE FOR EVERYONE. THE QUESTION THAT COMES UP FOR ME IS SO YOU'RE BASICALLY POINTING BACK TO THE MIRANDA DRAWINGS FROM TWO YEARS AGO AS

WHAT YOU WOULD LIKE TO GET DONE? >> I'M NOT DOING THE INTERIOR

LIKE THIS. THIS WAS A FULL RENOVATION. >> YOU JUST WANT TO DO, YOU WANT TO MOVE THE DOOR, YOU WANT TO MOVE THE DOOR, PUT A WINDOW THERE.

REDO THE FRONT STEPS AND? >> I'M JUST DOING CLOSETS. AND REDOING THE KITCHEN.

>> WHICH IS NOT UNDER OUR REVIEW. >> NO.

>> I WANT TO MAKE SURE I UNDERSTAND HERE BECAUSE THE APPLICATION SAYS FOUR WINDOWS BEING REPLACED. DIRECTOR, HELP ME OUT HERE. I'M CONFUSED.

>> THAT IS THE WINDOWS ACROSS THE FRONT. >> RESULTING EFFECT WOULD BE FOUR WINDOWS ACROSS THE FRONT. THAT IS WHAT THE APPLICATION WAS INTENDED TO CONVEY.

THE RESULTING EFFECT WOULD BE ONE FRONT DOOR WITH FOUR WINDOWS ON THAT FRONT SIDE.

>> OKAY. >> SO YOU'RE JUST ASKING US TO REPLACE THE SECOND FRONT DOOR

WITH THE ORIGINAL WINDOW FROM THE REAR PORCH AND >> AND THE FRONT STEPS.

>> NEED TO BE RELOCATED? >> THEY FOLLOW THE SAME DETAIL. >> THAT'S GREAT.

[03:15:01]

>> THANK YOU FOR CLARIFYING. I THINK WE UNDERSTAND NOW. JUST SO YOU KNOW, MA'AM, I'VE BEEN IN THE HOUSE WHEN DEE DEE LIVED THERE. I SUPPORTED THE ORIGINAL ACTION TO CREATE A SINGLE ENTRANCE BECAUSE THAT BIG BEAM THAT RUNS RIGHT THROUGH THE FRONT OF THE HOUSE, IT OBVIOUSLY WASN'T SUPPOSED TO BE DIVIDED UP. BOARD MEMBERS, DO YOU HAVE

QUESTIONS FOR MS. YOUNG REGARDING THIS CASE? >> NO. I REMEMBER THE DISCUSSION FROM THE LAST TIME. AND IT MADE A LOT OF SENSE LAST TIME.

>> ANYBODY ELSE? >> OKAY. WE'LL GO AHEAD AND IF IT'S ALL RIGHT, WE'LL MOVE ON. THERE IS NO ONE HERE. ANYBODY ON THE PHONE?

>> MS. MCDANIEL IS ON THE PHONE. I'LL UNMUTE HER.

>> MARLA, DID YOU WANT TO WEIGH IN ON THIS CASE? >>

>> I'M GOING TO TAKE THAT AS A NO. ANYBODY ELSE OUT THERE? I FEEL LIKE I'M TALKING INTO

THE VOID. >> YOU ARE. >> YOU ARE.

>> WE'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. MOVE INTO DISCUSSION.

BOARD MEMBERS, WHAT IS YOUR PLEASURE? >> I THINK IT LOOKS GOOD.

>> MAKE A MOTION. >> I MOVE TO APPROVE CASE NUMBER 2020-03 WITHOUT CONDITIONS. I MOVE THAT THE HDC MAKE THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, PART OF THE RECORD, HDC CASE 2020-03 AS PRESENTED IS SUBSTANTIALLY COMPLIANT WITH THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, DOWNTOWN HISTORIC DISTRICT GUIDELINES TO

WARRANT APPROVAL AT THIS TIME. >> SECOND. >> SECONDED HARRISON.

ANY DISCUSSION? THANK YOU FOR YOUR PATIENCE. LONG AGENDA TONIGHT.

CALL THE ROLL. >> MEMBER CONWAY. >> YES.

>> MEMBER HARRISON. >> YES. >> MEMBER MORRISON.

>> YES. >> MEMBER KOSACK. >> YES.

>> CHAIR SPINO. >> YES. I WANT SOME OF THOSE DOG KISSES. KATES IS UP THERE GETTING DOG KISSES.

I WANT SOME OF THOSE. ALL RIGHT. MOVING ON. THANK YOU, MA'AM.

[Item 5]

BOARD BUSINESS. BOARD MEMBERS, WHAT ITEMS WOULD YOU LIKE TO DISCUSS?

>> I WOULD JUST LIKE TO BRING UP, YOU KNOW, THE WAY THAT THESE GUIDELINES AND REGULATIONS IN THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE WORK IS THAT A LOT OF TIMES WE DON'T REALIZE THAT THERE IS A PROBLEM UNTIL WE REALIZE THAT THERE IS A PROBLEM.

AND I THINK THAT THERE IS PROBABLY CONSENSUS TONIGHT THAT WE PROBABLY REALIZE THERE IS A PROBLEM WHEN IT COMES TO THE BOATHOUSE PROJECT AND I REALLY HOPE THAT CITY STAFF WILL MAKE IT A PRIORITY THAT WE PROBABLY NEED TO ADDRESS THE TELEVISION THING.

IT IS 2020. SO I THINK THAT THEY'RE HERE TO STAY.

>> REALLY? >> YES. >> GOOD GUESS.

>> ADDRESS IT FROM AN HISTORIC STANDPOINT. BECAUSE IT'S BECOMING A PROBLEM.

>> AND OUR HANDS ARE TIED UNLESS THERE IS SOMETHING THAT GIVES US ABILITY TO BE ABLE TO

HOLD PEOPLE'S FEET TO THE FIRE. >> SO MAYBE WE COME TOGETHER AND MOVE THAT FORWARD, MOVE IT UP THE CHAIN, IF WE COME UP WITH SOMETHING AND MOVE IT UP THE CHAIN.

>> THAT IS WHAT I'M ASKING THE CITY STAFF TO DO TO TRY TO MAKE A PRIORITY.

>> WHAT DO YOU THINK, KELLY? >> I THINK THAT THERE WILL BE AN OPPORTUNITY TO ADDRESS IT IN THE GUIDELINES ITSELF. I BUDGETED AND HOPE WE WILL SEE CONSENSUS OF APPROVAL OF OUR REQUESTED BUDGET THAT WILL INCLUDE A REVISION OF THE DOWNTOWN DESIGN GUIDELINES.

IT WOULD BE MOST APPROPRIATE TO ADDRESS IT AT THAT TIME. YOUR OTHER AVENUE TO TRY TO PURSUE THAT WOULD BE WITHIN THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE. ALTHOUGH I'M STRUGGLING TO DETERMINE EXACTLY WHERE WE WOULD PLACE THAT IN THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE.

I THINK THAT THE GUIDELINES ARE MORE APPROPRIATE FOR PROVIDING THAT DIRECTION.

BUT I DO EXPECT THAT WE'LL RECEIVE THE APPROVAL. I HOPE THAT WE WILL RECEIVE THE APPROVAL TO HAVE THOSE DESIGN GUIDELINES UPDATED. AND I KNOW THAT THE BOARD HAS DISCUSSED A NUMBER OF REVISIONS THAT YOU WOULD LIKE TO SEE WITHIN THE DOWNTOWN DISTRICT DESIGN GUIDELINES. SO THIS WOULD GET CAPTURED AS PART OF THOSE REVISIONS.

>> DIRECTOR, WOULD THERE BE ANYTHING TO STOP THE FLORIDA HOUSE, GREEN TURTLE, CAFE, OR NSTALLING GIGANTIC BIG SCREEN TELEVISIONS OUTSIDE?

>> NO. >> NO. >> WELL, I'M GOING TO GO OUT ON

[03:20:05]

A LIMB HERE AND SAY GENERALLY SPEAKING, TOURISTS WILL PROBABLY SAY WHAT HAPPENED TO THE HISTORIC DISTRICT IF THAT HAPPENED AND WE HAVE LITERALLY NOTHING TO STOP IT.

GOD LOVE SPURGON AND HIS BAR OVER HERE, BUT CAN YOU IMAGINE SITTING HERE AND LOOKING AT

THAT. >> HAVE YOU DRIVEN PAST THE PUTT PUTT AT NIGHT? DOUBLE HUGE BIG SCREEN TVS, IT'S A BAR. WHAT DO WE WANT TO BECOME? ARE WE GOING TO BECOME DUVAL STREET IN KEY WEST? I THINK THAT IS WHAT WE'RE --

>> CAN I MAKE A COMMENT HERE? >> YES, PLEASE. >> SO I KNOW THAT WE, I'M TRYING TO THINK OUTSIDE THE BOX HERE. I KNOW THAT WE CAN'T CHANGE, OR IT'S DIFFICULT AND TIME-CONSUMING AND NOT GOING TO HAPPEN ANY TIME SOON THAT WE CAN CHANGE THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE OR THE DESIGN GUIDELINES, HOWEVER, THE PROBLEM IS THAT IT'S NOT UNDER OUR REVIEW BECAUSE IT DOESN'T SHOW UP ANYWHERE AS BEING PART OF SOMETHING WE'RE ASKING PEOPLE TO PROVIDE TO US. COULD WE CHANGE THE APPLICATION FOR THE HISTORIC DISTRICT REVIEW PROCESS TO SAY THAT WE WANT TO REQUIRE PEOPLE TO SHOW US ANY LOCATIONS WHERE THEY'RE PLANNING ON PUTTING TELEVISIONS OR OTHER MEDIA DEVICES ON THE EXTERIOR OF THE BUILDING. AND THEN IT BECOMES PART OF OUR REVIEW.

>> I THINK THAT IS A REALLY CREATIVE APPROACH. BUT YOU HAVE NO AUTHORITY TO SAY WHERE THAT CAN GO AT THIS POINT IN TIME. AND SO YOU NEED TO BE ABLE TO REALLY CODIFY IT SOMEWHERE TO GIVE YOU DIRECTION ON HOW TO REGULATE THE PLACEMENT OF THE

SIGN, OR THE SIGNS, EXCUSE ME. THE TVS. >> IS IT POSSIBLE THAT THE SIGN

ORDINANCE COULD BE EXPANDED TO INCLUDE THIS SORT OF NUISANCE? >> I DON'T KNOW THAT THAT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE EITHER BASED ON THE DEFINITIONAL REQUIREMENTS OF A SIGN.

>> IT WOULD STILL TAKE JUST AS LONG AND BE JUST AS COMPLICATED.

>> SO WHAT I'M HEARING, THOUGH, IN TERMS OF DIRECTION THAT YOU WOULD LIKE TO SEE RELATED TO THIS IS WHERE THERE IS AN AWARENESS. LET'S FACE IT, MOST OFTEN, ANY ESTABLISHMENT CAN GO AND INSTALL A TV OR MONITOR OF SOME TYPE.

IT REQUIRES NO PERMITTING WHATSOEVER. AND WOULD HAPPEN AND CAN BE UP AND DOWN WITHIN A DAY OR TWO. AND WE WOULD HAVE NO AWARENESS OF IT AND REALLY NO CATCH FOR IT AT THIS POINT IN TIME. YOUR ONLY LIKE REAL ABILITY TO SEE IT WOULD BE THROUGH NEW CONSTRUCTION BECAUSE YOU'VE ASKED TO SEE IT AT THAT POINT. SO I REALLY NEED TO THINK ABOUT HOW YOU MIGHT APPROACH THIS TOPIC. I DO THINK THAT THE DESIGN GUIDELINES ARE GOING TO PROVIDE YOU THE BEST AVENUE TO PROVIDE DIRECTION IN IT.

AND WHAT I'M HEARING, THOUGH IS YOU WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY'RE NOT OUTWARD FACING, OR SO THAT YOU CAN SEE THEM FROM THE STREET, THAT IF THEY WERE INWARD FACING TO A PARTICULAR BAR AREA WHERE SOMEONE IS TURNING AROUND AND LOOKING AT THEM, THAT THAT MIGHT BE ACCEPTABLE, BUT WHERE THE LIGHT IS GOING OUT INTO THE STREET, THAT IS SOMETHING THAT WE WANT TO AVOID. AND CERTAINLY, WE CAN WORK WITH APPLICANTS FOR THE TIME BEING BUT I THINK THAT ONCE WE GET TO THOSE DESIGN GUIDELINE UPDATES, THAT IS WHERE WE REALLY HONE IN ON THAT

DIRECTION. >> RECENTLY WE UPDATED THE WINDOW LIST SO THAT WAS A SINGULAR CHANGE RATHER CHANGING THE WHOLE GUIDELINES. IS THERE A WAY THAT WE CAN MAKE AN AMENDMENT TO THE GUIDELINES OR YOU KNOW, HAVE THIS AS ANOTHER CHANGE THAT IS INCORPORATED RATHER THAN WAITING FOR THE ENTIRE GUIDELINES TO BE REDONE?

>> MAYBE. IT COULD BE A FUNCTION OF ME NOT BEING AWARE OF HOW OFTEN WE UPDATE THE DESIGN GUIDELINES. MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THAT IS NOT TAKEN ON IN A PIECE MEAL FASHION, THAT IT'S REVIEWED SOMEWHAT CONSISTENTLY. IN ORDER TO PROVIDE OVERALL

REVISIONS TO THAT DOCUMENT. >> SO IS IT FAIR TO ASK THAT WHEN WE RECONVENE IN JUNE, YOU CAN GIVE US AN UPDATE AFTER YOU'VE HAD A LITTLE BIT OF TIME TO THINK ABOUT IT AND MAYBE LET US KNOW WHAT YOU THINK IS THE BEST SORT OF PATH FORWARD FOR US TO BE ABLE TO -- YOU KNOW WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO. JUST THINK ABOUT HOW YOU THINK THE BEST WAY TO GET FROM POINT

A TO POINT B IS. >> YES. ABSOLUTELY.

>> THANK YOU ALL. THAT IS VERY THOUGHTFUL. I WILL TELL YOU FROM MY EXPERIENCE IN GOVERNMENT, THAT SOMETIMES YOU HAVE TO DECLARE AN EMERGENCY IN ORDER TO GET

[03:25:02]

WORK DONE. SOMETIMES YOU JUST GOT TO GET REALLY UGLY.

AND I THINK THE DIRECTOR'S POINTING US IN THE APPROPRIATE DIRECTION FOR HOW THINGS ARE DONE IN A LOGICAL MANNER. SOMETIMES YOU GOT TO PULL THE FIRE ALARM.

AND THIS MIGHT BE ONE OF THOSE TIMES. AND I WOULD ARGUE THAT WHEN YOU TALK TO CITY COMMISSIONERS, YOU TELL THEM THAT WE HAVE NEW CONSTRUCTION COMING INTO DOWNTOWN AND IT MAY YIELD GIGANTIC TELEVISION SCREENS POINTING INTO THE HISTORIC DISTRICT AT NIGHT. AND THEY WILL FIND A WAY TO HELP COUNCIL AND THE DIRECTOR GET IT FIXED. BECAUSE HONESTLY, I THINK WE'RE LOOKING AT A PRETTY BAD SITUATION HERE RIGHT ACROSS THE STREET. AND WE HAVE NO CONTROL OVER IT.

SO DON'T BE AFRAID TO PULL THE FIRE ALARM WHEN YOU SEE CITY COMMISSIONERS.

AND YES, THAT IS ME LOBBYING. I'M NOT SUPPOSED TO DO THAT PROBABLY.

WE'RE MAKING PUBLIC POLICY ONE LITTLE BED AT A TIME. AND SOMETIMES YOU GOT TO PULL

THE FIRE ALARM. >> GOOD FOR YOU, MICHAEL. >> YOU KNOW WHERE I LEARNED THAT FROM? RICHARD NIXON. NEVER WASTE A GOOD CRISIS.

>> MOVING ON. I WOULD LIKE TO ENCOURAGE YOU IF YOU HAVEN'T DONE IT ALREADY, TO GO UP TO 314 NORTH 5TH STREET AND SEE THE EXCELLENT RESTORATION THAT IS GOING ON, ROB'S HOUSE OF CONCERN THAT WE TALKED ABOUT A FEW MONTHS AGO. ROB AS YOU KNOW, IS A PRESERVATION AWARD WINNER. DOING NICE WORK UP THERE. I ALSO WANTED TO BRING TO YOUR ATTENTION THAT IT LOOKS TO ME LIKE, I THINK I'VE BEEN TOLD THIS DIRECTOR GIBSON THAT THE PROPERTY ON NORTH 2ND STREET THAT WAS NEXT TO PABLOS THAT WE SPENT ALL THOSE MONTHS ON IS FOR SALE. SO CHIZZUM DEVELOPMENT IS NOT GOING TO HAPPEN THERE.

SEE THE CONTRACTOR AT THE BOATHOUSE. HE TOOK OVER THAT PROJECT IN THE LAST FEW MONTHS. JUST FOR YOUR INFORMATION. AND FROM THERE -- I'M SORRY.

>> THE NEW POTTERY BARN. >> I WAS THINKING GAP. MS. GIBSON, STAFF REPORT.

[Items 6 & 8]

>> YES. SO A LOT OF THESE ITEMS THIS EVENING ARE REALLY CARRY-OVERS, I KNOW THAT ALL OF THE BOARD MEMBERS ARE CERTAINLY WELL AWARE THAT WE HAVE HAD A TREMENDOUS LOSS IN OUR PRESERVATION PLANNER, SAL HAS MOVED TO GAINESVILLE TO WORK ON THEIR PRESERVATION TEAM THERE. AND WE ARE HOPING TO BACKFILL THAT POSITION WITH A PRESERVATION PLANNER THAT WILL BE JUST AS WONDERFUL AS SAL WAS.

I HOPE. AND SO WE'RE AGGRESSIVELY LOOKING FOR PEOPLE TO FILL THAT POSITION AND HAVE POTENTIAL CANDIDATE THAT WE'RE HOPING TO WORK WITH AS WELL.

WITH THAT, WE HAVE THE DOCUME I BELIEVE IN FEBRUARY TO THE BOARD, AND GIVEN THE LENGTH OF THAT MEETING, WE DIDN'T DISCUSS IN ANY DETAIL, I DON'T KNOW THAT WE NEED TO. THESE ARE SIMPLY ITEMS THAT I'M PROVIDING TO YOU AND WE'LL SEE IN FUTURE STAFF REPORTS, JUST AS TRACKING, SO THAT YOU CAN BE AWARE OF THE OTHER BOARD ACTIVITIES TAKING PLACE, PLANNING BOARD, AS WELL AS TECHNICAL REVIEW.

IT WILL AFFORD AN OPPORTUNITY TO BETTER SEE WHERE STAFF APPROVALS ARE BEING ISSUED.

SO YOUR STAFF APPROVALS WILL BE CONTAINED WITHIN THAT REPORT. UPDATED MONTHLY.

AND AS WELL AS CONTACT SENSITIVE REVIEWS, MINOR SUBDIVISIONS, THAT TYPE OF THING. YOU'VE GOT OUR ANNUAL REPORT FROM 2019.

A LITTLE MENU CARD OF OUR GOALS THAT I WOULD LIKE TO BE ABLE TO EASILY REFLECT ON TO SEE HOW OUR ACTION PLAN AND GOALS COINCIDE WITH THE COMMISSION DRIVEN GOALS THAT HAVE BEEN DIRECTED OF US IN THEIR JANUARY MEETING. AND CERTAINLY WE HAVE UPDATES TO THE ACTION PLAN THAT SERVES TO ADDRESS THOSE GOALS, BASED ON THE STAFFING CHANGES AT THIS TIME. SO YOU'LL SEE UPDATES AT EACH MONTH AS WE GET THEM PREPARED

FOR YOU. >> SUPER. ALSO IN OUR PACKET, YOUR ACTION

PLAN. >> YES. >> LIKE I SAID, THAT IS SOMETHING THAT IS A WORK IN PROGRESS, GIVEN THE CHANGES TO STAFFING.

>> YOU'VE HIRED A PLANNER ONE, IS THAT RIGHT? >> WE DID.

THANK YOU FOR THE REMINDER. WE HAVE MS. DAPHNE FOREHAND WHO STARTED AS A PLANNER ONE FOR US. WE WILL BE WORKING TO HAVE HER SERVE AS STAFF FOR BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT. WE HIRED A NEW PLANNING TECHNICIAN, WHO WILL FILL SAM'S

[03:30:05]

POSITION PREVIOUSLY. AND WORK TO TAKE ON ALL OF OUR BOARD MANAGEMENT TASKS AS WELL AS INTAKE AND PLANNING APPLICATION AND BE THE FRONT FACE THAT YOU SEE.

>> DID YOU SAY YOU HIRED THAT PERSON? >> YES.

>> WHEN DO THEY START? >> THEY STARTED TUESDAY. THEY WERE HERE THIS EVENING.

YOU MAY HAVE MISSED HER. >> GOOD. >> KELLY, WE'RE HAVING TROUBLE

HEARING YOU. AT LEAST I AM. >> YEAH.

>> I'M SORRY. >> IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE, DIRECTOR?

>> NO. IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE THAT I SHOULD BE DOING, STAFF? >>

>> I HAVE A QUESTION KELLY. >> OKAY. >> WHAT IS THE STATUS OF THE

SCOTTS JONES GARAGE APARTMENT ON WHITE STREET? >> YES.

HE IS WORKING WITH HIS ENGINEER TO UPDATE THE DOCUMENTS AND WOULD LIKE TO BE BACK IN JULY.

>> DO WHAT I'M SORRY? >> HE IS WORKING WITH AN ENGINEER FIRM IN JACKSONVILLE TO UPDATE THE DOCUMENTS AND INTENDS TO BE BACK AT YOUR JULY MEETING.

>> JUST TO RECAP, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE SAME THING, HIS GARAGE APARTMENT TURNED OUT TO

BE TOO HIGH. >> RIGHT. >> HE REQUESTED A VARIANCE AND

IT WAS DENIED. AND HE WAS WORKING WITH SAL. >> RIGHT.

HE HAD PROVIDED CONTINUOUS UPDATES TO SAL ABOUT HIS EFFORTS TO OBTAIN A SOLUTION FOR THAT. AND HAS CONTRACTED WITH A COMPANY I BELIEVE IN JACKSONVILLE, WHO WAS WORKING ON A DESIGN SOLUTION. AND ALL OF THAT HAPPENED OF COURSE, RIGHT BEFORE THE PANDEMIC. AND SO HE STILL IS CONTINUING TO WORK WITH THEM. BUT THEY SLOWED DOWN IN THEIR SERVICES.

SO HE'S HOPING TO RETURN IN JULY. >> OKAY.

THANK YOU. >> ANYBODY ELSE? >> THANK YOU ALL VERY MUCH FOR YOUR PATIENCE. IT'S MOST APPRECIATED AND THANK YOU BRIAN, THANK YOU TROY.

THANK YOU STAFF. >> ONE MORE QUESTION. >> ONE FINAL QUESTION.

>> I PULLED THE ALARM. GO AHEAD. >> DO WE THINK THAT THE

JUNE 18TH HDC MEETING IS GOING TO BE VIRTUAL AS WELL? >> I THINK YOU ALL NEED TO DECIDE THAT AS A BOARD. WE ARE PREPARED TO DO ALL OF THE CITY COMMISSION, I'LL TELL YOU IS COMING BACK, ALL CITY COMMISSIONERS ON JUNE 2ND. AND IT WILL BE A FULLY LIVE MUST BE IN THE CITY COMMISSION CHAMBERS MEETING. THERE WON'T BE ANY ZOOMING FOR OTHER VIDEO CONFERENCING. I HAVE SAID THAT THE BOARDS THAT I REPRESENT HERE, IF YOU WISH, THE GOVERNOR OF FLORIDA SAYS WE CAN MEET UNTIL JULY 7TH, IN THIS MANNER.

AND I'M INCLINED TO SAY THAT WE HAVE THEM IN JUNE. BUT IF YOU WISH, OR MAJORITY OF YOU WISH TO GO AHEAD AND BE HERE, WE CAN DO IT THAT WAY TOO.

AND HAVE EVERYTHING HERE IN THE CHAMBERS WITH SOCIAL DISTANCING.

YOU JUST SEE THE TABLE UP THERE BUT BEHIND THE TABLE THERE IS SIX CHAIRS.

AND THAT IS IT. ALL THE REST OF THE CHAIRS ARE PUT UP AND THAT IS ALL THAT WE'RE ALLOWING IN THE CHAMBERS. OTHER FOLKS FOR THE COMMISSION MEETING, FOR EXAMPLE, ON TUESDAY WILL COME IN AND MAKE THEIR COMMENTS, AND LEAVE THE CHAMBERS.

SO YOU HAVE TO LET US KNOW, FOLKS. >> WHAT IS THE DROP DEAD DATE

FOR THAT DECISION? >> KELLY? >> YOU'LL LET US KNOW THE DROP

DEAD DATE FOR THAT DECISION? >> BY NEXT WEEK. >> FRIDAY NEXT WEEK?

>> MY VOTE IS IN FAVOR OF ANOTHER ZOOM MEETING FOR JUNE. >> I AGREE.

>> I PREFER VIRTUAL. >> OKAY. >> I JUST WANT TO TELL YOU ALL THAT I THOUGHT WE WERE NOT AT ALL NERVOUS ABOUT HOW YOU ALL WOULD DO AND HANDLE THE TECHNOLOGY. BUT I THOUGHT THAT, I MEAN, I'VE HAD JUST SOCIAL HOURS GO YOU KNOW, REALLY AWRY ON ZOOM. YOU DID A GREAT JOB, REALLY REALLY GOOD JOB TONIGHT.

>> THANKS EVERYBODY. >> SEE YOU IN JUNE. >> DID YOU SAY THAT BECAUSE I

WAS DRINKING, TAMMY? >> NONE OF US WERE DRINKING. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

YOU ALL DID GREAT. >> I WANT DOG KISSES.

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.