Link

Social

Embed

Download

Download
Download Transcript

[00:00:08]

>> CHAIRMAN: CALLING TO PRESIDENT THE JUNE 18, 2020,

HISTORIC DISTRICT COUNCIL. >> WHAT ABOUT MIKE? HE IS THE MASKED GUY IN THE ROOM.

>> WHY CAN'T WE HEAR THEM? >> BECAUSE THEY'RE MUTED.

>> WE HAVEN'T STARTED THE MEETING YET.

LET'S CALL ROLL. JACOB, PLEASE?

>> AMBER HARRISON? >> HERE.

>> MEMBER CONWAY? >> HERE.

>> MEMBER SPINO? >> HERE.

>> MEMBER POZZETTA? >> HERE.

>> MEMBER MORRISON? >> HERE.

>> MEMBER ROBINSON. >> SAY HEY.

>> LOOKS LIKE SHE'S MUTED. WE CAN SEE HER.

DOES THAT COUNT. WE HAVE VISUAL OF IT

>> HERE >> CHAIRMAN: DO I NEED TO SEAT ANYBODY. NO ALABAMATORY NATS ARE SEATED.

THANK YOU. >>

>> YES WE WILL. WHAT'S YOUR NAME AGAIN, BENJAMIN. YES WE WILL SEAT TAMMY FOR THE HARRISON CASE. AND THAT'S 3.2.

SO, LET'S GO AHEAD AND DISCLOSE-- WAIT A MINUTE.

BENJAMIN, YOU MAKE A GOOD POINT. WE SHOULD VOTE ON THAT NOW,

RIGHT? >> YEAH.

>> CHAIRMAN: SO I NEED A MOTION? I CAN'T REMEMBER.

>> NO YOU CAN JUST SEAT THEM. >> CHAIRMAN: WE'RE GOING TO SEAT TAMMY KOSACK FOR THE HARRISON CASE TONIGHT.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. >> AYE.

>> CHAIRMAN: THANK YOU. TAMMY, YOU ARE UP WHEN WE GET TO THAT CASE. WE'RE GOING TO MOVE ON TO EX-PARTE COMMUNICATIONS. STARTING WITH POZZETTA.

JIM? >> BOARD MEMBER: I HAVE NONE

>> CHAIRMAN: BENJAMIN? >> BOARD MEMBER: I HAVE NON-.

>> CHAIRMAN: MS. COLLIN? >> NONE.

>> CHAIRMAN: I HAVE NONE EITHER. MOVING ON.

CITY ATTORNEY'S GOING TO PRESENT THE QUASI JUDICIAL PROCEDURES.

ARE YOU GOING TO SWEAR IN PEOPLE?

>> I CAN. YEAH.

>> CHAIRMAN: COULD WE DO IT ONCE.

>> ABSOLUTELY. ARE ALL OF OUR APPLICANTS

PRESENT? >> CHAIRMAN: PROBABLY SOME OF THE FOLKS ONLINE ARE NOT. SO, WE'LL HAVE TO SWEAR THEM IN.

BUT YOU'VE GOT-- WE HAVE AT LEAST ONE PERSON HERE.

PLUS YOU COULD SWEAR THE STAFF IN.

>> WE HAVE THE APPLICANTS PRESENT VIRTUALLY ONLINE.

THEY'RE NOT SHOWING UP IN THE VIDEO UNTIL THEIR CASES ARE

CALLED BUT THEY ARE AVAILABLE. >> CHAIRMAN: I THINK WE'RE GOING TO NEED TO CALL THEM INDIVIDUALLY FOR SWEARING IN JUST FOR THE RECORD WOULD BE MY GUESS

>> YES. >> CHAIRMAN: SO WOULD YOU PLEASE EXPLAIN QUASI JUDICIAL PROCEDURES.

>> SURE. CAN YOU ALL HEAR ME.

YOU CAN'T SEE ME ON THE VIDEO BUT I'M TO THE RIGHT OF CHAIR SPINO. CAN YOU HEAR ME CLEARLY.

ALL RIGHT. SO WE DON'T HAVE-- WE HAVE ONE MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC, TWO CITY COMMISSIONERS HERE, I.T. STAFF, PLANNING STAFF, MR. POZZETTA, MR. SPINO, AND MYSELF.

SO, YOU KNOW WHO IS IN THE CHAMBERS.

WE HAVE ALL OF THE APPLICANTS OR THEIR AGENTS ARE PRESENT VIA THIS ZOOM CALL. AND ANY SPEAKERS OR MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC THAT WISH TO SPEAK OR AFFECTED PARTIES THAT WISH TO PRESENT EVIDENCE. THERE WE GO.

THE CAMERA MOVED. HI! ANYWAY, THESE ARE ALL QUASI JUDICIAL HEARINGS ALL OF OUR CASES UNDER OLD AND NEW BUSINESS.

WHAT THAT MEANS IS WE WILL BE CONDUCTING THESE HEARS IN ACCORDANCE WITH FLORIDA STATUTES AND CITY COMMISSION APPROVED PROCEDURES. FIRST, CITY STAFF, KELLY GIBSON OR JACKSON PLAT, WILL MAKE A PRESENTATION, INTRODUCE EVIDENCE

[00:05:03]

INTO THE RECORD. THEY MAY CALL WITNESSES.

NEXT THE APPLICANT AND OR THEIR AGENT WILL MAKE A PRESENTATION, INTRODUCE EVIDENCE INTO THE RECORD, THEY MAY CALL WITNESSES IF THEY HAVE THEM. IF YOU DO HAVE THEM ANY OF THE APPLICANTS OR AGENTS OUT THERE, PLEASE MAKE SURE TO DISCLOSE THAT RIGHT AFTER YOU TAKE THE OATH SO THAT WE KNOW AND CAN MAKE SURE THE WITNESSES ARE SWORN AND ACCOUNTED FOR.

AFTER THE APPLICANT AND AGENT MAKES THEIR PRESENTATION, INTRODUCES EVIDENCE INTO THE RECORD, AFFECTED PARTIES, WHICH MEANS THAT YOU ARE A RESIDENT OF THE CITY, YOU ARE NOT LIMITED BY THE AMOUNT OF TIME THAT YOU GET TO SPEAK AND YOU WILL BE PRESENTING TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE INTO THE RECORD IF YOU WISH. ANY OF THE PARTIES, WHICH MEANS THE CITY AND THE APPLICANT, ARE THE PARTIES, THEY MAY CROSS-EXAMINE EACH OTHER AND THEY MAY ALSO QUESTION OR CROSS-EXAMINE EFFECTED PARTIES. SAME THING WITH EVENINGED PARTIES, YOU ARE PERMITTED TO CROSS-EXAMINE OR QUESTION CITY STAFF, THE APPLICANT OR THEIR AGENT.

IF THERE'S AN APPEAL OF ANY OF THE DECISIONS MADE BY THE HDC THAT APPEAL IS FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE TO GO TO THE CITY COMMISSION AND THAT APPEAL MUST BE FILED WITHIN 30 DAYS OF THIS BOARD'S WRITTEN FINDINGS OF FACT.

THOSE ARE USUALLY SIGNED BY THE CHAIR ABOUT THREE TO FIVE BUSINESS DAYS AFTER THIS MEETING.

THAT'S ALL I HAVE, MR. CHAIR. IF THERE ARE ANY QUESTIONS, I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER THEM FROM THOSE IN THE ROOM HERE OR ON THE ZOOM

CALL. >> CHAIRMAN: THANK YOU.

AND I THINK WE'LL WAIT TO SWEAR BECAUSE WE REALLY NEED TO SEE THEM ON THE ZOOM CALL BEFORE WE CAN SWEAR IN EACH OF THE WITNESSES. I DON'T THINK IT'S APPROPRIATE TO DO OTHERWISE. UNFORTUNATELY WE'LL JUST HAVE TO DO THAT. ALTHOUGH, IF LAUREN KELLY IS REPRESENTING THREE CASES TONIGHT, THAT'S A WINNER.

WE CAN GET THREE WITH ONE. AND WHEN WE SWEAR STAFF THEY'LL

BE SWEARING FOR ALL CASES. >> YES.

>> CHAIRMAN: THANK YOU. OKAY.

BOARD MEMBERS, HAVE YOU HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW THE

[Item 2]

MINUTES OF THE PREVIOUS MEETING AND DO YOU HAVE ANY CHANGES,

QUESTIONS, CONCERNS? >> BOARD MEMBER: I'VE GOT A

QUESTION. >> CHAIRMAN: GO FOR IT, TAMMY.

>> ITEM 2 IT SAYS THAT THE MINUTES FROM THE WORKSHOP IN 2019 WOULD BE AMENDED AND WOULD BE MOVED TO THIS MEETING FOR APPROVAL AND I DIDN'T SEE IT ON THE AGENDA.

SO I DIDN'T KNOW IF THAT WAS A TYPO IN THE MINUTES.

WAS IT JUST APPROVED AS AMENDED OR DO WE NEED TO SEE IT AGAIN? NUMBER 2 WAS ITEM 5, BOARD BUSINESS WHEN WE DISCUSSED UPDATING THE DESIGN GUIDELINES MEMBER MORRISON BROUGHT UP VERY SPECIFICALLY THE TVS. I KNOW WE HAD A ROBUST CONVERSATION ABOUT THAT. AND I THINK THE MINUTES SHOULD REFLECT THAT WE HAD DISCUSSION OF DESIGN GUIDELINES REGARDING

TB IN THE HISTORIC DISTRICT. >> BOARD MEMBER: I AGREE.

>> CHAIRMAN: STAFF ANYTHING TO OFFER.

>> WE CAN MAKE THE CHANGE AND RETURN THE MEETING MINUTES BACK

FOR THE WORKSHOP. >> CHAIRMAN: OKAY.

THAT'S GREAT. SO WHAT ACTION SHOULD WE TAKE

THEN AT THIS TIME? >> JUST TO DEFER IT.

>> CHAIRMAN: I'M GOING TO CONTINUE THESE MINUTES TILL NEXT MONTH TO GET EVERYTHING LINED UP FOR TAMI'S INSTRUCTIONS, IF THAT'S OKAY. WE'RE GOING TO START WITH JOHN

[Item 3.1]

AND PENNY'S PROJECT ON NORTH THIRD STREET.

THIS IS THE CORNER OF THIRD AND BROOM RIGHT?

>> IT IS. >> CHAIRMAN: PLEASE GO AHEAD.

WE'RE GOING TO SWEAR YOU-- WE'RE GOING TO SWEAR BOTH STAFF

MEMBERS RIGHT NOW. >> SOUNDS GOOD.

PLEASE STAND AND RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND.

>> I BELIEVE MR. BANGALORE IS AVAILABLE.

>> CHAIRMAN: CAN WE GET A PICTURE, JOHN.

WE'RE GOING TO GET YOUR PICTURE UP AND WE'RE GOING TO ASK YOU TO SWEAR THE TELL THE TRUTH WHICH I KNOW YOU WOULD.

>> I PROMISE. >> WE'RE MOVING THE TILES AROUND SO WE CAN SEE HIS PICTURE. KA THERE'S TWO JOHNS ON THE PHONE SO WE'RE GOING TO TRY BOTH OF THEM. ONCE YOU ARE PROMOTED IN YOU WILL REJOIN AS A PANELIST THEN YOU CAN ADD YOUR VIDEO.

YOU WILL HAVE TO SELECT THE ICON WITH THE VIDEO AND IT WILL HAVE A STRIKE THROUGH IT. SECT THAT THEN YOU WILL BE ABLE

[00:10:04]

TO BE VIEWED.

>> CHAIRMAN: WHEN WE WERE GROWING UP THEY TOLD US TECHNOLOGY WOULD MAKE THINGS EASIER.

SELECT THE VIDEO ICON. IT SHOULD BE RED WITH A SLASH

THROUGH IT. >> I GOT IT!

GOT IT! >> GREAT.

THERE HE IS. THANK YOU.

>> ALIVE AND SOMEWHAT WELL. >> GO AHEAD YOU ARE UP.

>> PLEASE STAND, STAFF, AND RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND, SIR.

DO YOU SWEAR TO TELL THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH AND NOTHING BUT

THE TRUTH? >> I DO.

>> YES >> YES I DO.

>> THANK YOU. >> CHAIRMAN: JACOB, PLEASE GO AHEAD. HE'S GOT SO MUCH WORK TONIGHT.

HE'S GOT ONE CASE. >> GIVE ME ONE SECOND.

GOOD EVENING BOARD MEMBERS HDC CASE 2020-02 FOR A PROPERTY LOCATED AT 131 NORTH THIRD STREET FOR A CERTIFICATE OF APPROVAL TO CONSTRUCT A ONE STORY DWELLING WITH A TWO STORY ACCESSORY DWELLING. THE PROPERTY IS R2 ZONED MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL. IT'S CURRENTLY A VACANT LOT.

REITERATING THE APPLICANT IS SEEKING TO EXPAND A ONE STORY ON THIS 50 BY 100 FOOT LOT OF RECORD.

ADMINISTRATIVE APPLICATION FOR CONTACT SENSITIVE REVIEW WAS APPROVED AND ADJUSTED THE FRONT YARD SETBACK ON THIS PROPERTY PREVIOUSLY. SO THAT'S WHY YOU WILL SEE A REDUCED FRONT YARD SETBACK. I'VE GOT THE ELEVATIONS FOR EVERYBODY TO SEE. BASICALLY AS FAR AS THE ANALYSIS GO, THE HOME IS IN KEEPING WITH THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND DOWNTOWN HISTORIC DISTRICT AS A WHOLE AND WE UTILIZE MODERN MATERIALS TO REPLICATE TRADITIONAL TERMS COMMONLY SEEN IN THE DISTRICT. A COUPLE OF ITEMS TO NOTE.

I'VE TALKED WITH THE APPLICANT ABOUT THESE.

THE HDAV SYSTEM IS LOCATED TO THE PROPERTY LINE AND THAT WILL NEED TO BE ADJUST. THE BOARD ON BOARD FENCE ON THE SOUTHERN SIDE OF THE PROPERTY NEEDS TO HAVE A HEIGHT NOTED.

WE CAN ALSO ACCOUNT FOR THAT. THE FENCE STATE WILL BE LEFT NATURE BUT DOWNTOWN HISTORIC GUIDELINES SAY IT SHOULD BE PAINTED, STAINED OR SEALED AND THE APPLICANT CAN SUBMIT THE CHOICE OF THE FINISH TO STAFF. AND THE DRIVEWAY IS NOTED AS CRUSH STONE. PART OF OUR DRIVEWAY STANDARDS REQUIRE CONCRETE WITHIN THE RIGHT-OF-WAY PORTION.

THAT AGAIN WILL BE SOMETHING THAT IS CONFIRMED AND REVIEWED IN BUILDING PERMIT. BASED ON EVERYTHING ELSE ON THE APPLICATION DETAILS THAT WERE SUBMITTED STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF HDC2020-02 WITH THOSE TWO CONDITIONS NOTED.

>> CHAIRMAN: MR. PLATT, MY COMPUTER SHOWS ME A CERTIFICATE OF APPROVAL BUT OUR ACTION TONIGHT IS CONCEPTUAL? NO. IT'S A CERTIFICATE OF APPROVAL.

I'M SORRY. NEVER MIND.

IGNORE ME. WE'RE GOING FOR FINAL, FINAL

TONIGHT? >> YES, SIR.

>> CHAIRMAN: OKAY GREAT. BOARD MEMBERS, DO YOU HAVE ANY

QUESTIONS FOR MR. PLATT? >> BOARD MEMBER: I THINK I HAVE ONE QUESTION. JAKE, THE SECOND FLOOR CANTILEVER BALCONY AT THE REAR, I NOTICE THAT WILL PROJECT INTO THAT SETBACK THERE. THE AMOUNT OF PROJECTION, IS THAT ALLOWED FOR THAT? HOW MUCH IT ENCROACHES.

[00:15:07]

I THINK IT'S OFF THE GARAGE. >> OFF THE NORTH SIDE OF THE

GARAGE. >> AND WHAT'S YOUR FIRST VERTICAL SURFACE, IS THAT THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE LIMITATION? MIGHT WANT TO JUST ASK JOHN.

>> IT'S-- IT LOOKS TO ME ON THE PLANS LIKE A CANTILEVER TWO FEET BUT IT'S SET FIVE FEET OFF THE PROPERTY LINE SO THAT WOULD MEAN IT WOULD BE THREE FEET WHICH IS WHAT THE MINIMUM IS I THINK.

>> IS THAT RIGHT, THREE FEET? >> THAT'S CORRECT.

>> HEY JOHN WOULD YOU IDENTIFY YOURSELF FOR THE RECORD PLEASE?

>> YES. JOHN, 806 AMELIA DRIVE.

>> CHAIRMAN: THANK YOU. DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING?

>> SORRY. >> CHAIRMAN: WHAT WOULD YOU LIKE TO ADD? GO AHEAD.

>> THE IDEA THERE, JIM, WAS TO CANTILEVER A COUPLE OF FEET AND MAKE THE DECK A LITTLE BIT BIGGER STILL KEEPING THREE FEET AWAY FROM AN ACCESSORY BUILDING. THAT'S THE ONLY REASON.

AND IT HELPS WITH-- IT FORMS LIKE MY INTENT IS TO SLOPE IT THAT WAY SO THAT THE WATER, IT WOULD BE SORT OF LIKE AN EVE SO THE WATER COULD DRAIN WITHOUT SHEETING DOWN THE WALL.

>> CHAIRMAN: JOHN, DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING ELSE YOU WANT TO TELL

US? >> NOT REALLY.

>> CHAIRMAN: SO YOU WILL BE OKAY WITH SIDING THE HVAC APPROPRIATELY AND GIVING US A STAIN/PAINT COLOR FOR THE FENCE,

FENCE HEIGHT AND ALL THAT STUFF? >> YES.

THE FENCE HEIGHT IS SIX FEET. I'LL STAIN IT NATURAL.

IN MY SUBMITTAL THERE WAS A PICTURE OF A FENCE THAT I'D LIKE TO USE THAT'S BEEN USED ACROSS FROM THE TENNIS COURTS.

IT'S BEEN USED A LOT OF OTHER PLACES, TOO.

>> CHAIRMAN: QUESTIONS FOR MR. BONVOULOIR?

ANY QUESTIONS, BOARD MEMBERS? >> I HAVE ONE QUESTION THOUGH.

>> CHAIRMAN: BENJAMIN, TAMMI, ANGELA, ANYBODY?

>> I'M GOOD. >> CHAIRMAN: YOU GUYS ARE GOOD.

WHOM AM I FORGETTING? MR. HARRISON ANY QUESTIONS?

>> BOARD MEMBER: NO QUESTIONS BUT I THINK JOHN HAS ONE.

>> WELL THIS IS ALL THE BUILDERS WHO HAVE BEEN HERE A WHILE KNOW THAT THEY PUT IN THE AIR CONDITIONING UNIT IN THE SETBACK HAS BEEN APPROVED, DISAPPROVED, APPROVED, DISAPPROVED, IT GOES WAY BACK TO THEY WERE ALWAYS APPROVED THEN A FELLOW CAME ABOUT 15 YEARS AGO AND HE DISAPPROVED THEM.

BUT HE GOT RUN OUT OF TOWN BECAUSE HE TRIED TO HIT ON A--

>> CHAIRMAN: OKAY JOHN THAT'S GOOD.

>>-- INSPECTOR.

ANYWAY, THERE ARE A LOT OF PLACES, A LOT OF HOUSES, ACTUALLY MAYBE YOUR OLD HOUSE TOO, MIKE, WHERE WE PUT THE AIR CONDITIONERS IN THE SETBACK. I'D LIKE TO.

I HAVE AN ALTERNATE ON MY SITE PLAN I HAVE AN ALTERNATE PLACE TO PUT IT. JUST SAYING IT WOULD MAKE LIFE A LOT EASIER WHICH IS A REASON WHY EVERYBODY HAS DONE IT IN THE

PAST. >> CHAIRMAN: WE'LL FIND OUT IF THAT'S A VERY IMPORTANT POINT FOR OUR BOARD MEMBERS OR NOT.

MR. POZZETTA HAD A FOLLOW-UP QUESTION.

>> BOARD MEMBER: ACTUALLY I AM GOING TO SPEAK TO THE A.C. UNIT.

I THINK ONE ISSUE WITH THE A.C. UNIT BEING WHERE IT'S CURRENTLY SHOWN MAY BE BECAUSE IT WILL INFLUENCE THE DRAINAGE THAT YOU ARE SHOWING THE INTENT OF THE DRAINAGE TO RUN DOWN THAT SIDE YARD. BUT IF YOU'VE GOT A CONCRETE PAD FOR YOUR A.C. UNIT OCCUPYING MOST OF THAT SPACE HOW IS THE WATER GOING TO GET AROUND IT? THAT MIGHT BE AN ISSUE TO FACTOR IN. MY OTHER QUESTION WAS FOR JAKE JUST REGARDING, I NOTICED IT WAS PGT WINDOWS.

ARE THOSE ALREADY PRE-APPROVED FOR USE IN THE HDC?

>> YES. TO MY UNDERSTANDING, YES.

>> BOARD MEMBER: OKAY. >> CHAIRMAN: OTHER QUESTIONS FOR MR. BONVOULOIR? JOHN, I GOT TO TELL YOU, I'M LOOKING AT THIS OUTBUILDING AND I SEE YOUR HANDIWORK FROM WORK YOU DID IN 2005 AT OUR HOUSE ON SIXTH STREET.

[00:20:03]

I THINK I'VE SEEN THIS DETAIL BEFORE.

I THINK THIS HOUSE WILL BE A GREAT ADDITION TO THAT BLOCK.

AND I REALLY LIKE THE CONTACT SENSITIVITY SETBACK BECAUSE IT PUTS IT IN THE RIGHT PLACE. I THINK THE DETAILS ARE APPROPRIATE. THE SCALE IS APPROPRIATE.

I THINK IT'S JUST GREAT. LET'S MOVE ON TO-- LET'S OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AND SEE IF THERE'S ANYONE THAT WISHES TO SPEAK ON THIS CASE. MS. KELLY YOU SAID YOU HAD NO EMAIL FROM ANYBODY ON ANY OF THE ITEMS THAT WE'RE DEALING WITH

TONIGHT? >> THAT'S CORRECT.

>> CHAIRMAN: SO I DON'T SEE ANYONE RISING AND THERE'S NO ONE ON THE LINE TO SPEAK TO US TONIGHT?

>> IF THEY ARE ON THE LINE THEY'RE ABLE TO SPEAK.

>> CHAIRMAN: IS THERE ANYBODY ON THE LINE WHO WISHES TO SPEAK TO CASE HDC 2020-02? IF NOT, I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND MOVE INTO BOARD DISCUSSION.

BOARD MEMBERS, WHAT DO WE WANT TO DO?

>> BOARD MEMBER: I HAVE A QUESTION FOR THE BOARD REGARDING THE SOLID FOUNDATION WALL. SO, THAT'S ONE AREA.

THEN THE OTHER MATERIALS I'M JUST WONDERING IF THE HOUSE OF THE SKYLIGHT FACING BROOM STREET AS WELL AS THE FIXED GLASS LIGHTS IN THE GABLE SIDE, YOU KNOW, THOSE ARE JUST VERY MODERN MATERIALS. AND I'M WONDERING HOW THAT WILL COME ACROSS WHEN THAT IS SUCH A VISIBLE SIDE OF THE BUILDING.

>> CHAIRMAN: BOARD MEMBERS? I'M FINE WITH THESE DETAILS AND I'LL TELL YOU WHY. BECAUSE IT'S NOT A HISTORIC HOME. AND BECAUSE IT'S NOT A HISTORIC HOME-- IF YOU WERE BRINGING ME A RENOVATION AND YOU WERE DOING THAT-- OF A HISTORIC PROPERTY-- I'D HAVE A PROBLEM.

BUT I'M NOT GOING TO HAVE ANY HEARTBURN OVER IT.

>> BOARD MEMBER: AGREE. >> I AGREE TOO.

>> CHAIRMAN: HVAC? >> BOARD MEMBER: I THINK THAT AS FAR AS THE HVAC UNIT IS CONCERNED, I MEAN, THAT'S REALLY A LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE THING. I DON'T THINK THAT ANYBODY-- WHAT'S THE APPLICANT IS SAYING IS RIGHT.

YOU CAN DRIVE AROUND THE CITY AND SEE EXAMPLES OF PEOPLE THAT HAVE PUT THEM IN THE SIDE YARDS AND THEY SHOULDN'T.

WHETHER THEY SHOULD OR SHOULDN'T BE THAT IS NOT OUR JURISDICTION.

ALL WE CAN DO IS ENFORCE THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AND IT IS PRETTY CLEAR THAT SAYS YOU CAN'T DO IT.

IF HE WANTS TO TRY TO NEGOTIATE WITH THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT, HAVE AT IT. BUT I DON'T THINK THAT'S SOMETHING WE HAVE THE JURISDICTION TO SAY ONE WAY OR

THE OTHER ON. >> CHAIRMAN: WHAT DO YOU THINK

ABOUT THAT DIRECTOR GIBSON? >> IT IS A LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE REQUIREMENT THAT HVAC BE LOCATED FIVE FEET FROM THE PROPERTY LINE AND BE APPROPRIATELY LANDSCAPED AND GENED FROM THE -- SCREENED

FROM THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY? >> CHAIRMAN: OF COURSE IT WOULD BE SCREENED GIVEN ITS LOCATION. AND BEHIND THE FENCE.

BUT THE QUESTION I WAS REALLY TRYING TO GET AT THERE, DIRECTOR, WAS IS IT THE PURVIEW OF THIS BOARD OR IS THIS REALLY NOT SO MUCH A PLANNING QUESTION BUT A BUILDING DEPARTMENT

QUESTION? >> TO DEVIATE FROM A SETBACK WOULD REQUIRE A VARIANCE. SO IF THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING SOMETHING THAT IS LESS THAN THE MINIMUM THAT WOULD REQUIRE A VARIANCE OF THIS BOARD.

HOWEVER IF IT IS JUST A CONCERN ABOUT THE AESTHETICS DUE TO THE LOCATION OF IT THEN THAT WOULD BE THE PURVIEW OF THIS BOARD.

>> CHAIRMAN: WELL I DON'T THINK WE WANT TO GO DOWN THE VARIANCE

PATH. >> I DON'T THINK THE--

>> THE APPLICANT SAID HE IS OKAY WITH MOVING IT IT'S JUST NOT HIS PREFERENCE. THAT'S A LOT OF THINGS THAT AREN'T PEOPLE'S PREFERENCE BUT, YOU KNOW,

>> CHAIRMAN: OKAY IS THERE ANY OTHER COMMENT FROM THE BOARD BEFORE WE MOVE ON TO A MOTION? TAMMI, DID YOU HAVE A FOLLOW-UP? NO? OKAY.

I'M SORRY. I GOT TO TELL YOU, DOING THIS THIS WAY IS REALLY DIFFICULT BECAUSE WE SPEND SO MUCH TIME IN EYE CONTACT WHEN WE ARE IN THIS ROOM TOGETHER THAT I KNOW WHAT YOU WANT. DOING IT THIS WAY.

>> YOU ARE DOING A VERY GOOD JOB.

>> CHAIRMAN: JUST BUY ME A BEER LATER.

>> I'LL MAKE A MOTION. >> CHAIRMAN: POZZETTA'S GOT A

QUESTION. >> BOARD MEMBER: I HAVE ONE LAST COMMENT REGARDING THE FRONT PORCH.

I THINK IF YOU LOOK AT THE PLAN AND THE ELEVATIONS YOU SEE IT HAS RAILING ON THE SIDE BUT NO RAILING ON THE FRONT.

AND I JUST WANTED TO POINT THAT OUT TO OTHER BOARD MEMBERS AND

[00:25:01]

SEE IF ANY OF THEM HAD ANY KIND OF ISSUE THAT THE FRONT PORCH

ONLY HAS RAILING ON ONE SIDE. >> CAN WE ASK THE APPLICANT IF

THERE'S A RATIONALE BEHIND THAT? >> CHAIRMAN: SURE.

I SEE WHY YOU ARE DOING IT. LEAVES THE FRONT OF THE HOUSE OPEN. JOHN, DO YOU HAVE A COMMENT ON

THAT? >> THAT'S CORRECT.

THE IDEA WAS TO LEAVE THE FRONT OF THE HOUSE OPEN.

THE RAILING ON THE SIDE IS SORT OF TO MATCH THE RAILINGS AT THE

BACK OF THE HOUSE. >> ISN'T THAT A CODE ISSUE THOUGH? IF YOU ARE ABOVE A CERTAIN

HEIGHT YOU GOT TO HAVE RAILINGS? >> IT'S 30 INCHES.

IT'S A LITTLE LESS THAN THAT. >> CHAIRMAN: HE'S ON IT.

THANK YOU, JOHN. BOARD MEMBERS, DOES SOMEBODY

WANT TO MAKE A MOTION? >> BOARD MEMBER: I WILL.

I MOVE TO APPROVE HDC2020-02 WITHOUT CONDITIONS AND MAKES THE FINDINGS OF FACT PART OF THE RECORD.

THAT AS PRESENTED IT IS SUBSTANTIALLY COMPLIANT WITH THE DEVELOPMENT CODE, THE HISTORIC DISTRICT GUIDELINES TO WARRANT

APPROVAL AT THIS TIME. >> BOARD MEMBER: I SECOND.

>> CHAIRMAN: AND SO IN BOARD DISCUSSION AND NO CONDITIONS ON THAT. JOHN TOLD US ABOUT THE FENCE HEIGHT, THE FENCE COLOR. AND WE'RE GOING TO LET-- WHAT

DOES THIS MEAN FOR THE HVAC? >> BOARD MEMBER: I THINK IN THE STAFF REPORT IT SAYS THAT IT NEEDS TO BE MOVE AND THE STAFF HAS DISCUSSED THAT WITH THE APPLICANT.

SO I THINK EVERYBODY UNDERSTANDS.

>> I'LL MOVE IT. >> CHAIRMAN: THANK YOU.

THANK YOU BENJAMIN FOR ARTICULATEING THAT FOR THE RECORD. THANKS, JOHN.

ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE, CALL ROLL.

THANK YOU. >> MEMBER HARRISON?

>> YES. >> MEMBER CONWAY?

>> YES. >> MEMBER SPINO?

>> YES. >> MEMBER POZZETTA?

>> YES. >> MEMBER MORRISON?

>> YES. >>

>> CHAIRMAN: THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

MOVING ON. NOW TO THE OLD TOWN PORTION OF

[Item 3.2]

THE AGENDA. >> THANK YOU.

>> CHAIRMAN: THANK YOU. KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK.

2020-0007. HARRISON 800 SOMERUELUS STREET.

FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS CASE TAMMI KOSACK IS SITTING.

AND DO WE NEED TO SWEAR THEM IN. DO WE NEED TO SWEAR ANYONE ELSE?

>> RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND, MIKE. DO YOU PROMISE OR SWEAR TO TELL THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH?

>> I DO. >> THANK YOU.

>> CHAIRMAN: DIRECTOR OLDTOWN GIBSON.

>> YES. JUST ONE MOMENT I'LL BE ABLE TO PULL UP AMENDMENT. THE BOARD IS CONSIDERING AN AMENDMENT TO A PREVIOUS APPROVED APPLICATION.

AND THIS IS FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 800 SOMERUELUS STREET.

AND THIS IS FOR THE ADDITION OF A FIVE BY SEVEN DECK WHICH WOULD EXTEND THE EXISTING DECKING OUT THAT LENGTH AND WIDTH ON BOTH THE UPPER AND LOWER PORCH. THIS WOULD BE AN ADDITION THAT IS NOT VISIBLE FROM THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY, IS CONSISTENT WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF OLD TOWN. WOULD OTHERWISE LIKELY HAVE BEEN APPROVED IF IT ORIGINALLY PROVIDED AS PART OF THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION. HOWEVER IT WAS REQUESTED TO BE MADE FOLLOWING THE APPROVAL. THE APPLICANT HAS PROVIDED DETAILS WHICH CLOUD A REVISION FOR YOU ON THE SITE PLAN TO DENOTE THE LOCATION OF THE UPPER AND LOWER DECKING THAT WILL BE PROPOSED TO BE ADDED AS WELL AS THE ORIGINAL MATERIALS WHICH SHOW THE IMPROVEMENTS FOR THAT PROPERTY.

I DID NOT PROVIDE A FORMAL STAFF ANALYSIS AS PART OF THIS DUE TO THE DEGREE OF AMENDMENT WHICH IS BEING CONTEMPLATED.

I WILL RELY ON THE APPLICATION PROVIDED, THE AMENDMENTS THAT WERE PROVIDED, AS WELL AS THE OLD TOWN GUIDELINES WHICH DIRECT THIS WOULD OTHERWISE BE CONSISTENT WITH THE GUIDELINES

AND LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE. >> CHAIRMAN: QUESTIONS FOR DIRECTOR GIBSON? I LOVE THAT.

MR. HARRISON, DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING TO ADD? THIS LOOKS LIKE A ROUTINE PROFORMO.

>> I THINK IT IS. WE'VE BEEN SITTING DOWN WITH THE BUILDER AND GOING OVER THE PLANS WHEN IT SUDDENLY APPEARED TO US

[00:30:03]

IT WAS THE PIECE OF DECK MISSING.

DESIGNED WITH A 7 BY 5 FOOT SECTION THAT COULD BE INCLUDED.

IF THE PROPORTION OF THE HOUSE WITHIN THE ENVELOPE.

APPARENT FROM THE STREET. I GUESS IF WE DIDN'T HAVE AN EXISTING CRA IN PROCESS I HOPE THAT YOU GUYS CAN GO FOR THIS AND WE CAN INCLUDE IT IN

THE HOUSE WE BUILD. >> CHAIRMAN: I REALLY APPRECIATE YOUR TIMING. YOU KNOW WHAT DID WE DO LAST MEETING WE HAD FIVE OR SIX OR EIGHT AFTER THE FACT CHANGES.

AND THEY WERE ALL IN GOOD FAITH BUT IN THE END IT IS A LOT BETTER TO DO IT NOW THAN LATER. ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT?

>> BOARD MEMBER: I'D JUST LIKE TO SAY THAT I APPRECIATE GETTING FULL DRAWINGS THAT PRESENT BOTH THE BEFORE AND THE AFTER SO IT'S EASY FOR US TO SEE WHAT THE CHANGE ENCOMPASSES ON THE HOUSE.

SO, THANK YOU FOR THAT. >> CHAIRMAN: ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR MR. HARRISON? HEARING NONE, I'M GOING TO GO TO THE PUBLIC MEETING. IS THERE ANYBODY ON THE LINE WHO WISHES TO SPEAK TO THIS CASE? THAT'S HDC 2020-0007.

I DON'T HEAR ANYONE. ANYONE HERE WHO WISHES TO SPEAK TO THE CASE? I AM GOING TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC MEETING. AND MOVE ON TO BOARD DISCUSSION.

BOARD MEMBERS, WHAT'S YOUR PLEASURE?

>> BOARD MEMBER: I THINK IT'S PRETTY BENIGN CHANGE AND I DON'T SEE ANY REASON WHY WE SHOULDN'T ALLOW IT TO HAPPEN YOU KNOW.

HOPEFULLY WON'T GET ACCUSED BY ANY OF YOUR NEIGHBORS FOR CONSPIRING, YOU KNOW, BEHIND THE SCENES--

>> CHAIRMAN: OKAY THANKS BENJAMIN.

THAT'S REALLY HELPFUL. WOULD SOMEONE LIKE TO MAKE A

MOTION. >> BOARD MEMBER: I WOULD LIKE TO CLARIFY WITH MEMBER HARRISON THE PROPOSED CHANGE KEEPS THE ROOF

BELOW 45 FEET. >> IT HAS NO AFFECT AT ALL ON

THE ROOF HEIGHT. >> CHAIRMAN: WHERE'S MY MUTE BUTTON? YOU PROMISED ME A MUTE BUTTON.

AND IT'S GOT TAMMI'S PICTURE-- NO IT DOES NOT.

MOVING ON. TAMMI WOULD YOU LIKE TO MAKE A

MOTION ON THIS ONE? >> BOARD MEMBER: I NEED SOME GUIDANCE. GIVE ME SOMETHING TO SAY.

I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION THAT WE APPROVE CASE NUMBER HDC 2020-0007 AS APPROVED BY STAFF. IS THAT GOOD?

>> CHAIRMAN: I THINK WE MIGHT NEED A LITTLE BIT MORE THAN THAT FOR THE RECORD. THAT IS IT'S CONSISTENT WITH THE INTERIOR-- SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR'S STANDARDS AND THE OLDTOWN GUIDELINES TO MERIT APPROVAL AT THIS TIME SNAPPLE

HOW IS THAT COUNCIL? >> FINE.

>> CHAIRMAN: ANY DISCUSSION? OR WAS THERE A SECOND?

>> BOARD MEMBER: I'LL SECOND. >> CHAIRMAN: MS. CONWAY SECOND.

ANY DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE, WE WILL TAKE THE

ROLL. >> MEMBER CONWAY?

>> YES. >> MEMBER SPINO?

>> YES. >> MEMBER POZZETTA?

>> YES. >> MEMBER MORRISON?

>> YES. >> MEMBER KOSACK?

>> YES. >> CHAIRMAN: FOR PURPOSES OF DISCUSSION HARRISON IS RESEATED AS A VOTING MEMBER.

[Item 4.1]

MOVING ON TO CASE HDC 2020-0008. THIS IS THE, AGAIN,S PROPERTY ON WHITE STREET. THIS IS LITERALLY NEXT DOOR TO SCOTT AND JULIE JOHNSON'S HOUSE RIGHT?

MIKE? >> YES.

>> CHAIRMAN: AND I JUST WANT TO START BY COMMENDING DIRECTOR GIBSON. THESE DRAWINGS ARE-- THEY FULFILL ALL THE THINGS WE'VE BEEN ASKING FOR IN DRAWINGS ESPECIALLY IN OLD TOWN. BUILDING HEIGHTS, ELEVATIONS.

THE DISTINCTIONS THEY'VE MANAGED TO BRING TOGETHER IN THESE DRAWINGS IS EXTRAORDINARY. I'M SAYING FOR ALL FOUR OF THE

[00:35:04]

ONES WE'RE GETTING READY TO POCESS.

SO, CONGRATULATIONS TO THE STAFF FOR DOING SUCH GREAT WORK.

MS. GIBSON WOULD YOU LIKE TO GO AHEAD?

>> YES. THANK YOU.

THIS EVENING YOU ARE CONSIDERING A FINAL APPROVAL FOR A PROPERTY LOCATED ON WHITE STREET ON LOTS 11 AND 12 IN OLD TOWN.

AND I'VE PROVIDED THEM HERE ON THE MAP FOR YOU TO SEE.

THIS CONTAINS TWO MEDIA PAEONIAS AND THIS EVENING THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING FINAL APPROVAL OF A TWO STORY PRIMARY STRUCTURE A WELL AS A ONE STORY DETACHED ACCESSORY STRUCTURE WHICH INCLUDES ENCLOSED SPACES AS A GARAGE AS WELL AS A CARPORT EXTENSION. THE APPLICANT HAS COMPLIED WITH THE SECRETARY OF INTERIOR STANDARDS.

I REALIZE THAT IN THE APPLICATION IT DOES SAY REHABILITATION. THIS IS NEW CONSTRUCTION.

I WANTED TO CLARIFY THAT PIECE OF IT.

IN TERMS OF THE ANALYSIS. I PROVIDED YOU WITH ALL OF THE PROPOSED MATERIALS. THEY'VE BEEN CONVEYED GRAPHICALLY AS PART OF THE APPLICATION MATERIALS THEN AGAIN EVALUATED SPECIFICALLY IN THE ANALYSIS FOR YOUR REVIEW.

THEY ARE CONSISTENT WITH WHAT WE WOULD TYPICALLY FIND IN THE OLD TOWN AREA AND ARE VERY MUCH IN KEEPING WITH PRIOR MATERIALS WHICH HAVE BEEN APPROVED FOR OTHER RESIDENCES IN OLD TOWN.

THE HOUSING TYPE IS CONSISTENT WITH THE DISTRICT.

THAT PROPERTY DOES COMPLY WITH THE VISIBILITY TRIANGLE.

IT DOES MEET THE LOT DENSITY IN THAT IT IS UNDER THE 45 PERCENT LOT COVERAGE MAXIMUM. THE APPLICANT'S PROVIDED DETAILS ABOUT THE LOCATION OF THE MECKAL EQUIPMENT CONSISTENT WITH OUR DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS. IT DOES MEET ALL OF THE VISIBILITY CORRIDORS. AND ANY ENCROACHMENTS ARE PERMISSIBLE SUBJECT TO THE APPLICABLE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE POLICY. THE DRIVEWAY IS GOING TO BE ACCESSED AND PARKING WILL BE ACCESSED FROM AMELIA STREET AND THE DRIVEWAY MATERIAL IS INDICATED TO BE A BRICK MATERIAL WHICH WILL MATCH THE FOUNDATION THAT IS PROPOSED.

THE PROPERTY WILL FACE WHITE STREET WHICH IS CONSISTENT WITH WHAT YOU WOULD SEE FOR THAT SPACE AS IT'S DEVELOPED AT THIS POINT. THE SCALE AND HEIGHT ARE APPROPRIATE FOR EXISTING DEVELOPMENT WITHIN OLD TOWN AND ARE WITHIN THE LIMITATIONS OF DEVELOPMENT CODE REQUIREMENTS.

AGAIN, THE MATERIALS ARE SIMILAR TO THOSE WHICH YOU HAVE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED IN THAT THEY REPLICATE TRADITIONAL MATERIAL.

THE FOUNDATION IS PROPOSED TO BE AN ELEVATED FOUNDATION WITH PIER DETAILING IN BRICK. AND I'VE GONE THROUGH THE WINDOWS AND THE MATERIALS. THE ACCESSORY STRUCTURE IS APPROXIMATELY 544 SQUARE FEET GARAGE BUILDING.

OF THAT THE ACTUAL ENCLOSED SPACE IS, I BELIEVE, 383 SQUARE FEET. THE ADDITION OF THE CARPORT ADJACENT TO IT DOES MAKE IT THE 544 LIMITATION.

IT'S PROPOSED TO BE CONSTRUCTED AT THE REAR OF THE LOT AND WILL MATCH THE PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE AND MATERIALS.

AS ALWAYS, STAFF NOTES THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL SENSITIVITY OF OLD TOWN IN THAT IF THERE ARE ANY ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES DISCOVERED AT ANY POINT WHILE SITE CONSTRUCTION IS TAKING PLACE THE APPLICANT SHOULD CONSULT WITH THE APPROPRIATE ORGANIZATIONS TO ASSIST IN IDENTIFYING A MITIGATION STRATEGY. AND STAFF HAS FOUND THAT THE APPLICANTS REQUEST FOR FINAL APPROVAL IS CONSISTENT WITH THE LAND DEVELOP CODE, SECRETARY OF INTERIOR STANDARDS AND OLD TOWN PRESERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT GUIDELINES.

>> CHAIRMAN: QUESTIONS FOR THE DIRECTOR GIBSON?

>> BOARD MEMBER: I HAVE TWO. >> BOARD MEMBER: I HAVE ONE.

>> CHAIRMAN: LET'S LET MR. POZZETTA GET FIRST DIBS.

>> BOARD MEMBER: KELLY, I'M PRETTY SURE THE M.I. WINDOWS WERE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED FOR USE IN THE HISTORIC DISTRICT.

I DO WANT TO NOT NECESSARILY FOR THIS PARTICULAR PROJECT BUT GOING FORWARD I'D LIKE TO POSE IT TO THE BOARD BASED ON THAT PHOTOGRAPH THAT WAS PROVIDED I THINK OF THE M.I. WINDOW THAT IT REALLY DOES NOT FIT THE CRITERIA THAT WE HAVE BEEN LOOKING FOR FOR A HISTORIC DISTRICT WINDOW. IT'S VERY FLAT AND THE DETAIL ON IT IS NOWHERE NEAR WHAT THE HISTORIC WINDOW WOULD BE AT ALL.

AND I THINK THAT THAT SHOULD BE REVISITED GOING FORWARD FOR FUTURE THINGS PERHAPS CONSIDER THAT COMING OFF THE LIST.

[00:40:03]

YOU KNOW, M.I. MIGHT HAVE ANOTHER MODEL THAT MORE CLOSELY MATCHES THE KIND OF DEPTH AND CHARACTER OF THE HISTORIC WINDOW THAT COULD BE PUT ON THE LIST BUT THE ONE THAT IS PRESENTED I DON'T THINK REALLY MEETS THAT CRITERIA.

AND MY SECOND IS AN ACTUAL QUESTION IS REGARDING THE CHIMNEY AND THE CLADDING MATERIAL.

RIGHT NOW IT'S SHOWN AS HARDY. I JUST FELT, IS THERE A SECTION IN THE GUIDELINES THAT TALKS ABOUT CHIMNEYS BEING CLAD AND A MASONRY TYPE MATERIAL? I MEAN, THEY'VE GOT NICE BRICK DETAILING ON THE FOUNDATION AND THEY'VE GOT NICE BRICK WALKWAYS AND DRIVEWAYS. IT SEEMS LIKE THE CHIMNEY WOULD BE A PERFECT PLACE FOR BRICK TO BE USED AS WELL.

AND CERTAINLY HISTORICALLY ACCURATE.

>> CHAIRMAN: OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF OR COMMENTS FOR STAFF AT

THIS TIME? >> BOARD MEMBER: I WANT TO MAKE A COMMENT. NOT TO CONTRADICT WHAT YOU SAID EARLIER, MIKE, BUT UNLESS I'M MISSING SOMETHING, THE DRAWINGS ACTUALLY DON'T TELL US WHAT THE HEIGHT OF THE ROOF IS FOR THE

MAIN HOUSE OR THE GARAGE. >> CHAIRMAN: KELLY THINKS THEY DO. BUT WE'RE GOING TO SEE WHAT WE CAN FIND OUT, BENJAMIN. AND IF I AM MISTAKEN I

APOLOGIZE. >> BOARD MEMBER: I THINK IT TELLS US WHAT THE HEIGHT OF THE CHIMNEY IS WHICH ISN'T HOW IT'S

>> AND I MAY HAVE SCALED THAT OUT.

>> BOARD MEMBER: I'M SURE IT'S FINE--

>> THE TOOLS WE HAVE AVAILABLE HERE TO SCALE IT JUST TO CONFIRM THAT THE HEIGHT WAS CONSISTENT. HOWEVER IF IT'S NOT NOTED IT IS CERTAINLY SOMETHING THAT WE WILL REQUEST FOR THE FINAL BUILDING

PLAN SET. >> CHAIRMAN: OKAY.

>> BOARD MEMBER: BACK TO THE

>> JUST ONE MOMENT. >> BOARD MEMBER: AT THE BEGINNING OF THE REPORT. A BIT MORE.

MORE. THERE WE GO.

ALL RIGHT. IT'S SIMPLY HOUSEKEEPING BUT, YOU KNOW, WITH PART OF THE ADDRESS PART OF 25 BLOCK 11 AND 12 IN OLD TOWN.

THE BLOCK NEEDS TO BE. IN THIS CASE, IT'S BLOCK NINE.

I HAVE NOTICED IN OTHER PRESENTATIONS ARCHITECT'S PRESENTATION STAFF THAT THE SITE IS SIMPLY DESCRIBED BY THE LOT NUMBER. IT DOES NOT INCLUDE THE BLOCK.

SO, REQUEST THAT THE BLOCK NUMBER BE INCLUDED.

>> CHAIRMAN: WHICH BLOCK NUMBER IS THAT, MIKE?

>> BOARD MEMBER: NINE. >> CHAIRMAN: THANK YOU.

FOR THE RECORD. OTHER QUESTIONS, MIKE?

>> BOARD MEMBER: NO. >> CHAIRMAN: NOT AT THIS TIME? OKAY. ANYBODY ELSE FOR DIRECTOR GIBSON? TAMMI, GO AHEAD.

>> I JUST PULLED OUR MOST RECENT WINDOW LIST THAT WE UPDATED AND THOSE WINDOWS ARE NOT ON OUR MOST CURRENT LIST AS APPROVED.

>> CHAIRMAN: CAN I ASK A-- HOPEFULLY NOT COMPLETELY STUPID QUESTION. OLD TOWN AND HISTORIC DISTRICT

HAVE THE SAME WINDOW LIST? >> BOARD MEMBER: THERE'S A NEW CONSTRUCTION LIST THEN AN

>> CHAIRMAN: AND THERE'S THE SAME LIST FOR OLD TOWN AND

HISTORIC DISTRICT? >> BOARD MEMBER: CORRECT.

>> CHAIRMAN: LEARN SOMETHING NEW EVERY DAY.

THANK YOU. >> I'M LOOKING FOR THE WINDOWS

LIST. >> CHAIRMAN: THANK YOU.

>> AND I DID WANT TO NOTE TO MEMBER POZZETTA'S POINT REGARDING THE CHIMNEY. THERE IS A GUIDELINE THAT IS PROVIDED FOR IN OLD TOWN THAT SPEAKS TO CHIMNEYS AND IT DOES SPEAK TO MAINTENANCE-- MAINTAIN AND REPAIR CHIMNEYS IN KEEPING WITH THE GUIDELINES FOR MASONRY. AND IT SPEAKS TO RETAINING CHIMNEY PODS OF TERRA COTTA OR BRICK REPLACE IN KIND.

I DON'T SEE THIS SPECIFIC TO NEW CONSTRUCTION.

[00:45:04]

AND SO THAT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT I WOULD HAVE NECESSARILY LOOKED FOR. BUT CERTAINLY SOMETHING THAT'S UP TO THE BOARD'S PURVIEW TO PROVIDE COMMENTS AND FEEDBACK

ON. >> CHAIRMAN: ANY OTHER QUESTIONS

FOR DIRECTOR GIBSON? >> AND I'M STILL EVALUATING THE WINDOWS QUESTION. BECAUSE I CERTAINLY LOOKED AT THE WINDOWS LIST AND I THOUGHT THAT I HAD NOTED WHERE THAT WAS A CONSISTENT WINDOW TYPE. SO, I'M GOING TO DOUBLE CHECK

THAT FOR YOU. >> CHAIRMAN: OKAY.

YOU CAN DO THAT WHILE WE'RE ASKING-- WHO IS ON THE LINE OR WHO IS COMING UP FOR-- DO WE HAVE SOMEBODY TO SPEAK TO THIS

CASE? >> YOU DO.

AND I HAVE-- >> CHAIRMAN: IS IT LAUREN KELLY?

>> IT'S DALE COLE. >> CHAIRMAN: I'M SORRY WRONG CASE. DALE COLE?

>> AND HE NEEDS TO BE SWORN. >> CHAIRMAN: YEP.

>> SO YOU HAVE THE PROPERTY OWNER AS WELL AS--

>> CHAIRMAN: IS MR. OR MRS. GAINES ON?

>> YES. >> SWEEPINGS A REPRESENTATIVE

FROM COLE BUILDER. >> CHAIRMAN: WONDERFUL.

IS THAT-- >> LOOKS LIKE THE PROPERTY OWNER

MAYBE? >> OR NO THAT'S COLE.

BECAUSE YOU SEE THE LOGO BEHIND HIM.

AND THERE'S THE PROPERTY OWNERS. >> CHAIRMAN: MR. AND MRS. GAINES. WELCOME.

YOU ARE GOING TO MOVE TO FER IDINA.

>> YES, SIR. >> THAT'S OUR DREAM.

>> CAN YOU PLEASE ALL RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND FOR ME.

YOU ARE NOT THINK-- THERE WE GO. DO YOU SWEAR TO TELL THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH?

>> I DO. >> I DO.

>> THANKS. >> CHAIRMAN: AND CAN EACH OF YOU IDENTIFY YOURSELVES BY NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD, PLEASE.

>> ELISE GAINES, 1110 CONSERVANCY DRIVE WEST,

TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA. >> JEROME GAINES.

>> AGATHI 2998 FIRST AVE. >> CHAIRMAN: VERY GOOD.

THANK YOU. WHAT WOULD YOU LIKE TO OFFER US TONIGHT IN ADDITION TO WHAT THE STAFF HAS ALREADY TOLD US?

>> WELL GO AHEAD. >> I HEARD THE COMMENTS REGARDING THE CHIMNEY, THE WINDOW SELECTION, AND THE HEIGHT. SO I DID LOOK VERY QUICKLY ON THE DRAWING AND I SAW THE TITLE HEIGHT FOR THE BUILDING WAS 33.8 INCHES. BUT I DON'T SEE THE HEIGHT FOR THE GARAGE. SO WE CAN DEFINITELY FIX THAT.

AND HOW DO WE FIND OUT ABOUT THE MASONRY? I'M NOT SURE, YOU KNOW, THAT'S DEFINITELY EXPLORABLE, RIGHT.

AND THE WINDOWS ARE COMPLETELY EXPLORABLE, TOO.

THOSE ARE THE ONLY THINGS I HEARD THAT WERE OPEN ISSUES.

>> CHAIRMAN: GREAT. WE NEED TO LET YOU KNOW THAT IF I RECALL CORRECTLY THIS PROPERTY IS ADJACENT TO SCOTT AND JULIE JONES. AND WHEN MR. AND MRS. JONES BUILT THEIR ACCESSORY STRUCTURE THEY BUILT IT IN EXCESS OF 24 FEET. AND IT IS, YOU KNOW, A HOLDING PATTERN UNTIL THEY FIGURE OUT HOW TO GET IT DOWN TO 24 FEET.

BECAUSE THIS BOARD DENIED THEM A VARIANCE.

SO, LET'S JUST GET IT CLEAR RIGHT NOW FOR EVERYBODY IN THE ROOM THAT THIS ACCESSORY STRUCTURE WILL NOT EXCEED 24 FEET. IS THAT FAIR?

>> 100 PERCENT. >> OH YEAH

>> I MEAN, BASED ON THE DRAWINGS IT LOOKS LIKE IT'S

MAYBE 15. >> CHAIRMAN: IS THIS SINGLE

STORY. >> IT IS A SINGLE STORY.

>> AND I HAD MEASURED IT PREVIOUSLY THE DAY MENTION AND I'M SORRY TO INTERRUPT. I MEASURED THAT STRUCTURE TO BE 17 FEET 5 INCHES. I DIMENSIONED THE ACCESSORY STRUCTURE TO BE 17 FEET 5 INCHES.

>> CHAIRMAN: THERE YOU GO. THIS IS A GOOD MOMENT FOR US HERE AT THE HDC. QUESTIONS-- ANYTHING ELSE.

QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT AND THEIR BUILDER?

>> BOARD MEMBER: I JUST WANTED TO COMMENT AND PRAISE THEM ON THE DESIGN AND HOW THEY ADDRESSED THE PAEONIA LINE.

I THINK IT'S AN EXAMPLE OF A GOOD SOLUTION FOR THAT.

>> THANK YOU. >> CHAIRMAN: ANYBODY ELSE?

>> WE WORKED HARD ON THOSE PLANS.

WE WOULD LIKE TO KEEP THE TRADITION-- THE HISTORIC TRADITION, WE'D LIKE TO MAINTAIN THAT.

WE UNDERSTAND AND APPRECIATE WHAT YOU ARE TRYING TO DO.

SO WE DID WORK HARD ON THOSE PLANS TO MAKE SURE THAT WE

[00:50:01]

STAYED TRUE TO THAT. PREACHILY AND FOR WHAT IT'S WORTH, WHETHER OR NOT IT'S IN THE GUIDELINES THAT YOU CAN SUPPORT FOR THE CHIMNEY MATERIAL I HOPE YOU ALL WILL CONSIDER THE IDEA OF USING BRICK OR MASONRY. I KEEPING WITH THE HISTORIC ASPECT OF THE COMMUNITY, YOU KNOW, HISTORICALLY YOU WOULD NEVER SEE A CHIMNEY THAT WAS CLAD AND WOOD SIDING SO IT SEEMS OUT OF CONTEXT. THAT'S WHY WE'RE BRINGING IT UP.

>> I UNDERSTAND. >> THE ONLY THING I WOULD SAY OF THIS IS THAT WHEN WE FOUND THAT PROPERTY HONESTLY I WASN'T SOLD ON IT. IT WAS MY WIFE THAT FELT A CONNECTION THERE. I LIVE IN TALLAHASSEE.

I AM THE FIRE CHIEF OVER HERE. AND THE WHOLE POINT OF THIS IS I NEED TO MAKE HER HAPPY BECAUSE I'M NOT READY TO RETIRE YET.

SO, WHATEVER WE NEED TO DO, TRUST ME IT WILL GET DONE.

IN FOR A LONG MARRIAGE.

>> CHAIRMAN: OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE BUILDER OR FOR MR. AND

MRS. GAINES? >> BOARD MEMBER: A QUICK QUESTION. I WANTED TO WELCOME YOU GUYS AND THANK YOU FOR DOING SUCH A GREAT JOB WITH DEALING WITH PAEONIAS AND THE DESIGN IS REALLY GOOD LOOKING.

I DID HAVE A QUESTION FOR I THINKAGATHI.

ON SHEET 3 THERE'S A SMALL ROOF PLAN AND THERE'S NOTES FOR OFF RIDGE VENT. COULD YOU DESCRIBE WHAT THOSE ARE? ARE THOSE OPEN VENTS IN THE

ROOF? >> IT DOES LOOK LIKE THAT DOESN'T IT. HOLD ON.

>> BOARD MEMBER: I'VE NEVER COME ACROSS THAT BEFORE SO I DON'T WHAT THAT WILL LOOK LIKE FOM THE STREET.

IS THAT ACTUALLY PENETRATING THE SEAM OF THE MIDDLE OF THE ROOF?

>> YEAH THAT DOES-- IT'S A METAL ROOF RIGHT.

-- >> BOARD MEMBER: IF YOU DRIVE AROUND AND LOOK AT THE HOUSES IN FERNANDINA YOU WILL SEE ROOF VENTS ALL OVER THE PLACE. YOU JUST DON'T NOTICE THEM.

>> BOARD MEMBER: IS THAT A COMMON THING.

>> BOARD MEMBER: A LOT OF THING USE ICE A19 INSULATION SO YOU DON'T HAVE TO VENT IT. TRADITIONAL VENTILATION CODE MANDATES YOU USE THE VENTS. IT'S A CODE MANDATED THING.

THEY DON'T STICK OUT LIKE YOU SEE ON THE PLAN.

>> BOARD MEMBER: OKAY THAT'S HELPFUL.

I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO ECHO THE TWO OPINIONS SO FAR.

I THINK A BRICK WOULD BE THE FIST CHOICE FOR THAT CHIMNEY I THINK WOULD LOOK BEAUTIFUL ON THIS HOME.

AND SECOND CHOICE IN MY OPINION WOULD BE STONE.

I THINK THAT WOULD BE THE ICING ON THE CAKE FOR THIS.

AND IF YOU DID REVISIT THE WINDOWS I THINK THAT WOULD REALLY BE A NICE GESTURE. IT LOOKS GOOD.

THANK YOU. >> WHERE DO WE GET A LIST OF THE WINDOWS THAT ARE APPROVED SO WE CAN TAKE A LOOK AT THEM?

>> CHAIRMAN: WE'RE HAVING A DISCUSSION ABOUT THAT RIGHT NOW.

IF YOU COULD HOLD ON THAT QUESTION FOR A MINUTE WE'RE

GOING ON GET YOU AN ANSWER. >> PERFECT.

>> CHAIRMAN: AND A LITTLE BIT AT SEA HERE ON SOME OF THESE ISSUES GIVEN OUR HISTORIC PRESERVATION PLANNER WENT SOUTH AND SO WE'RE ALL KIND OF PITCHING IN HERE TO MAKE IT HAPPEN.

OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FOR THE BUILDER OR THE OWNERS?

>> BOARD MEMBER: I'D JUST LIKE TO SAY THAT I AGREE WITH THE OTHER BOARD MEMBERS THAT THIS IS A REALLY NICE SET OF PLANS.

AND I WANTED TO THANK THE OWNERS FOR PRODUCING A VERY DETAILED AND ARCTIC LOT HOUSE DESIGN. AND MY COMMENTS ABOUT THE CHIMNEY AND THE WINDOWS NOT WITHSTANDING I REALLY WANT TO

COMPLIMENT THEM ON THAT. >> THANK YOU

>> CHAIRMAN: IT'S A GOOD THING. PREVIOUS BOARD MEMBER IS NOT HERE TO TALK ABOUT SHUTTERS. OKAY.

WE'RE GOING TO MOVE INTO THE PUBLIC DISCUSSION.

IS THERE ANYBODY HERE WHO WISHES TO SPEAK WITH REGARDS TO CASE HDC 2020-0008? ANYBODY ON THE LINE? HEARING NO ONE WE'RE GOING TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC MEETING.

BOARD MEMBERS, WHEN I READ THE HISTORIC DISTRICT MANUAL AND OLD TOWN GUIDELINES I DID NOT HAVE IT IN MY HEAD THAT WE HAD A SPECIFIC SET OF WINDOW REQUIREMENTS FOR OLD TOWN THAT WAS CONSISTENT WITH THE LIST FOR THE HISTORIC DISTRICT.

I'M HAPPY TO BE WRONG ABOUT THAT IF THAT'S NOT TRUE.

BUT THE OVERALL GUIDANCE FOR THE OLD TOWN GUIDELINES IS VERY

[00:55:01]

DIFFERENT THAN THE GUIDANCE THAT WE WORK WITH IN THE HISTORIC DISTRICT. SO, SOMEBODY HELP ME OUT HERE.

SOMEBODY THAT'S BEEN AROUND LONGER THAN I HAVE, HELP ME THINK THAT THROUGH A LITTLE BIT. MR. HARRISON WHAT'S YOUR

RECOLLECTION ON THAT QUESTION? >> BOARD MEMBER: MY RECOLLECTION I DON'T THINK IT APPLIES TO ALL OF THE HISTORIC DISTRICT.

>> CHAIRMAN: THAT WOULDN'T INCLUDE THE CRA THOUGH WOULD IT?

>> BOARD MEMBER: IS THAT A HISTORIC BUILDING.

>> CHAIRMAN: IT'S UNDER OUR PURVIEW AND CONSIDERED HISTORIC DISTRICT BROADLY BUT I DON'T THINK IT IS SPECIFICALLY.

I'M GOING TO ASK STAFF IF THEY'VE GOT ANY--

>> BOARD MEMBER:

>> CHAIRMAN: SO IS STAFF THINKING ABOUT THAT QUESTION?

>> SO I'VE DISPLAYED FOR-- FOR EVERYONE HERE THE EXISTING DOCUMENT I HAVE PROVIDED ONLINE TO PROVIDE GUIDANCE FOR APPLICANTS AND HOMEOWNERS ABOUT WHAT HAS BEEN APPROVED.

THE MOST RECENT UPDATE IS FROM JANUARY OF 2018.

I WILL SAY THAT IN THE STAFF ANALYSIS I LOOKED AT M.I. AND I INTERPRETED THAT TO BE THE MARVIN INTEGRITY WHICH IS LOCATED HERE ON THE LIST. I DID TAKE A BIT OF A LEAP MAYBE NOT FULLY UNDERSTANDING WHAT I WAS LOOKING FOR IN THAT THAT'S WHAT THEY WERE COMMUNICATING AS BEING THE WINDOW TYPE AND THAT WAS SOMETHING THAT WAS ON THE APPROVED LIST.

BUT BEING THAT I AM NOT A HISTORIC PRESERVATIONIST THIS IS NOT MY AREA OF EXPERTISE, MAY HAVE READ THAT INCORRECTLY.

SO I APOLOGIZE. >> BOARD MEMBER: THE KEY POINT IS THAT

>> BOARD MEMBER: I THINK THE KEY POINT HERE IS THAT WE NEED REVEAL AND ARTICULATION OF THE WINDOW.

WOULD WE DIRECT THEM TO PICK OUT A WINDOW THAT'S CONSISTENT WITH-- FIRST COMES OFF OUR LIST AND IS CONSISTENT WITH THOSE DESIGN GUIDELINES. CAN THE STAFF APPROVE THAT? I WOULD THINK WE CAN LEAVE THAT TO STAFF.

WE DON'T WANT TO BRING THEM BACK IF WE DON'T HAVE TO.

ALSO I HEARD MASONRY OR BRICK ON THE CHIMNEY? IS THAT IT? I THINK THAT'S WHAT I HEARD.

ANYBODY ELSE HAVE ANY DISCUSSION?

>> BOARD MEMBER: I THINK THERE'S A LITTLE CONFUSION OVER M.I.

WINDOWS WHICH MAY HAVE BEEN INTERPRETED AS MARVIN INTEGRITY.

AND I THINK MARVIN HAS ACTUALLY CHANGED THEIR INTEGRITY LINE TO BE THIS MARVIN ELEVATE NOW. AND M.I. WINDOWS IS A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT COMPANY. THAT MAY BE WHY THEY CHANGED THE NAME. SO, I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM IF THE OWNERS WERE TO PICK A WINDOW FROM THE APPROVED LIST AND CHANGE IT TO ALLOW STAFF TO APPROVE THAT MODIFICATION.

>> CHAIRMAN: DID I HEAR A MOTION THERE TOO?

>> BOARD MEMBER: YEAH. >> CHAIRMAN: IN THE INTEREST OF MOVING RIGHT ALONG. THEN NEXT ON DECK JUST SO, SO FOLKS ON THE LINE CAN PAY ATTENTION IS CASE 09, CASE 14 AND CASE 10. AND THIS IS ALL WITH LAUREN KELLY AGENT FOR OLD TOWN PROPERTIES.

>> BOARD MEMBER: LET ME JUST ASK THE REST OF THE BOARD MEMBERS WOULD THEY BE ALL RIGHT IF STAFF WAS TO REVIEW A CHANGE IN THE CLADDING MATERIAL OF THE CHIMNEY? IS THAT SOMETHING WE WANT TO PUT AS A CONDITION?

>> BOARD MEMBER: YES THAT MAKES SENSE.

>> BOARD MEMBER: WELL MY ONLY CONCERN, I GUESS I WOULD SAY, IS THAT I DON'T KNOW THAT IT'S CLEAR WHETHER OR NOT THE GUIDELINES ACTUALLY SPECIFY WHAT'S AN APPROPRIATE MATERIAL OR NOT AND, I MEAN, IT'S NOT OUT OF THE REALM OF POSSIBILITY THAT YOU CAN DRIVE AROUND OLD TOWN AND EVEN LOOK AT PROJECTS THAT WE MAY APPROVE THAT HAVE CLAD CHIMNEYS.

I'M CONCERNED ABOUT MAKING THAT A REQUIREMENT FOR THESE APPLICANTS WITHOUT BEING CERTAIN WE'VE BEEN CONSISTENT WITH THAT FOR OTHER APPLICANTS IN THE PAST, YOU KNOW,

>> CHAIRMAN:, YOU KNOW BENJAMIN IN THE FEW YEARS I'VE BEEN ON THIS BOARD I DON'T REMEMBER DISCUSSING IT.

BUT I THINK THAT'S BECAUSE EVERYBODY ELSE HAS BEEN MASONRY.

SO WE REALLY HAVEN'T TALKED ABOUT IT.

DOES ANYBODY ELSE-- >> BOARD MEMBER: THE APPLICANT EXPRESSED THEY WOULD LOOK INTO THAT AND ALSO SAID THEY WOULD

[01:00:06]

OPEN TO LOOKING AT THAT. IF WE HAVE TO DO EVERYTHING ON A CASE-BY-CASE BASIS AND THOSE ARE OUR RECOMMENDATIONS AND THEY'RE WILLING TO DO IT IT DOESN'T FEEL LIKE IT IS A POINT OF

CONTENTION. >> CHAIRMAN: LET'S JUST MAKE IT A CONDITION AND LET THEM FIGURE IT OUT.

JUST SAY MASONRY AND THEY CAN FIGURE THAT CAN BE BRICK OR WHATEVER THEY WANT AS LONG AS IT'S MASONRY.

>> THIS IS MY FIRST MEETING WITH YOU ALL, CAN I CHAT?

>> CHAIRMAN: GO AHEAD. >> I WANT TO BE PART OF THIS CLUB. YOU GUYS ARE SO MUCH FUN.

BUT I DEFINITELY THINK THAT WE'RE DEFINITELY OPEN TO BRICK, MASONRY, STONE OPTIONS FOR THAT. WE ALL AGREE IN THE PRESERVATION. AND WE'RE DEFINITELY OPEN TO THAT. SO I THINK WE'RE COMFORTABLE WITH, YOU KNOW, THE CONDITIONS BEING THAT WE UPDATE THAT MATERIAL CHOICE AND ALSO, YOU KNOW, AS FAR AS THE WINDOW SELECTION, THAT'S NOT A PROBLEM AT ALL EITHER.

WE'RE JUST-- M.I. IS KIND OF OUR GO-TO BUT WE DEAL IN ANDERSON AND MARVIN AS WELL. AND SO WE'LL FIND SOMETHING THAT MEETS THOSE-- I THINK THE ONLY CONTENTION IS-- WHICH I JUST READ THERE WAS THE MULL YUMS. THEY NEED TO BE EXTERIOR.

THAT'S REALLY THE LOOK THAT THEY'RE EXTERIOR NOT INTERIOR.

BECAUSE THAT WOULD BE TOO MODERN.

>> CHAIRMAN: THAT'S GREAT. I THINK WE HAVE CONSENSUS.

TAMMI, DID YOU HAVE A QUESTION? >> BOARD MEMBER: I WOULD LIKE TO JUST ADD ONE THING ON THE CHIMNEY.

I THINK BRICK OR STUCCO IS APPROPRIATE.

I WOULD SAY NO STONE. >> BOARD MEMBER: I AGREE.

AND NO STONE CLADDING. >> CHAIRMAN: PUT THAT IN THE MOTION THEN IF THAT'S OKAY. ANYBODY ELSE? KATES ANYTHING? NO.

OKAY. ANGELA, YOUR PHONE MOUNT, YOUR COMPUTER MOUNT IS BLOCKING OUR VIEW OF YOU.

>> BOARD MEMBER: I MOVED IT BECAUSE I WAS NIBBLING.

>> CHAIRMAN: DID YOU BRING SOME FOR EVERYBODY ELSE.

YOU KNOW THAT'S THE RULE. >> BOARD MEMBER: SESAME STICKS

THAT ARE SO GOOD. >> CHAIRMAN: IF YOU DON'T BRING THEM FOR EVERYBODY YOU CAN'T HAVE THEM YOURSELF.

JIM IS GOING TO MAKE A MOTION. >> BOARD MEMBER: I MOVE TO APPROVE HDC CASE 2020-09 WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS THAT THE CHIMNEY CLADDING MATERIAL BE CHANGED TO A MASONRY TYPE CLADDING, WHETHER THAT BE BRICK OR STUCCO.

AND THAT THE WINDOWS SELECTED FOR THE PROJECT BE MODIFIED TO ONE SELECTED FROM THE PRE-APPROVED WINDOW LIST.

AND I MOVE THAT HDC MAKE THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW PART OF THE RECORD THAT CASE 2020-0009 IS COMPLIANT WITH THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR STANDARDS AND THE OLD TOWN PRESERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT GUIDELINES TO WARRANT CONCEPTUAL APPROVAL AT THIS TIME. I'LL CHANGE THAT TO STATEMENT TO FINAL APPROVAL AS THAT IS WHAT WE'RE REVIEWING FOR.

>> BOARD MEMBER: JUST-- I THINK MAYBE WE WANT TO SAY WINDOWS AND

DOORS NOT JUST WINDOWS. >> CHAIRMAN: IS THAT AMENDMENT

ACCEPTABLE? >> BOARD MEMBER: WELL I THINK THE DOORS WERE CALLED OUT AS THERMA TRUE WHICH CERTAINLY HAS PLENTY OF DOORS THAT WILL MEET THE GUIDELINES.

>> CHAIRMAN: OKAY. SO, WE'LL LEAVE IT AS IS.

THE SECOND IS HARRISON. TO MOVE POZZETTA.

HARRISON SECOND. ANY DISCUSSION OTHER THAN BENJAMIN'S QUESTION. HEARING NONE, PLEASE CALL ROLL.

>> MEMBER HARRISON? >> YES.

>> MEMBER CONWAY? >> YES.

>> MEMBER SPINO? >> YES.

>> MEMBER POZZETTA? >> YES.

>> MEMBER MORRISON? >> YES.

>> CHAIRMAN: WOW LOOK AT THAT 6:05 AND THREE CASES DOWN.

WAHOO! >> YEA!

THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >> THANK YOU.

YOU MADE MY WIFE HAPPY.

>> CHAIRMAN: THAT'S WHAT WE'RE HERE FOR MR., AGAIN,S TO MAKE

YOUR WIFE HAPPY. >> THANK YOU SO MUCH.

KEEP DOING WHAT YOU GUYS ARE DOING.

WE APPRECIATE IT. >> THANK YOU.

>> CHAIRMAN: SINCE THIS IS YOUR FIRST GO AROUND WITH THIS BODY IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS, CONCERNS OR CHANGES GO SEE THE STAFF BEFORE YOU DO ANYTHING SO WE DON'T END UP BACK HERE HAVING A HARD TIME ABOUT IT. WE CAN BE FLEXIBLE BUT WE NEED

TO KNOW UP FRONT. >> WELL TRUST ME KELLY IS ON

[01:05:02]

SPEED DIAL. I TALK TO HER QUITE A BIT.

>> CHAIRMAN: VERY NICE TO MEET YOU.

WELCOME TO FERNANDINA. I THINK YOU ARE GOING TO HAVE A GREAT PROJECT. MOVING ON.

>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >> BOARD MEMBER: A SEMINOLE IN

OLD TOWN. >> I'M NOT A SEMINOLE FAN.

I'M A USC TROJANS FAN.

>> CHAIRMAN: UT-OH. OH NO.

THAT'S AWKWARD

>> YOU HAVE A GOOD EVENING. THANK YOU.

>> CHAIRMAN: THANK YOU. MOVING ON.

[Item 4.2]

2020-009. DIRECTOR GIBSON AND MR. PLATT, HAVE YOU GOT OUR NEXT-- NOT VICTIM-- OUR NEXT--

>> CONGRATULATIONS! >> THANKS!

DON'T KNOW. >> YOU CAN MUTE THEM THOUGH.

>> I WILL. I'M ON IT.

>> CHAIRMAN: WATCH FOR THEM TO SAY CAN YOU BELIEVE THAT THAT CHAIRPERSON IS TERRIBLE

>> JUST A MOMENT. >> CHAIRMAN: LOOKS LIKE WE HAD THE MOSER DESIGN GROUP UP THERE. LAUREN, KELLY, DINE.

WHO IS ON THE RIGHT? MY RIGHT.

>> ERIC MOSER. >> CHAIRMAN: WOULD YOU PLEASE

RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND. >> PLEASE RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND TO TAKE AN OATH. DO YOU SWEAR TO TELL THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH?

>> I DO. >> I DO.

>> THANK YOU. >> CHAIRMAN: THANK YOU.

FOR THE RECORD, PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS.

WE'LL DO THAT NOW WHILE KELLY IS STILL GETTING STUFF TOGETHER.

>> LAUREN KELLY 178 MARKET NUMBER 2, SOUTH CAROLINA.

>> ERIC MOSER 17 MARKET NUMBER 2, BEAUFORT, SOUTH CAROLINA.

>> WE'VE SEEN YOUR DRAWINGS BEFORE ON OTHER PROPERTIES IN OLD TOWN? QUITE A BIT IN FACT RIGHT?

>> CHAIRMAN: OKAY. GOOD.

>> WE LOVE OLD TOWN AND FERNANDINA BEACH.

>> CHAIRMAN: ARE YOU READY TO GO.

>> YES, SIR. PULLING UP THE STAFF REPORT HERE. THE BOARD IS CONSIDERING A CONCEPTUAL APPROVAL FOR LOTS LOCATED IN BLOCK 18 LOTS 3 AND 4 OF OLD TOWN. THESE ARE TWO MEDIA PAEONIAS WHEREBY A TWO STORY PRIMARY STRUCTURE IS CONSIDERED AND A ONE STORY DETACHED ACCESSORY STRUCTURE IS CONSIDERED.

THIS IS WITHIN THE OT-2 ZONING DISTRICT.

STAFF DOES FIND THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST TO BE CONSISTENT WITH SECRETARY OF NAIR STANDARDS ATHEY MAY BE APPLICABLE FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION. THE PROPOSED MATERIALS YOU WILL FIND AT THIS POINT ARE STILL LEFT TO BE DETERMINED AND CERTAINLY SUBJECT TO THE BOARD FOR CONSIDERATION THIS EVENING AND IN INPUT. ON WHOLE THE SITE PLAN HAS BEEN FOUND TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE OLD TOWN DESIGN GUIDELINES AND REQUIREMENTS AS WELL AS THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE REQUIREMENTS FOR CONSTRUCTION WITHIN THE OT2 ZONING DISTRICT.

THE SCALE AND PROPORTION OF THE PROPERTIES PROPOSED ARE CERTAINLY WITHIN THE ALLOWABLE RANGE FOR WHAT WOULD BE DEEMED CONSISTENT WITHIN OLD TOWN AND WITHIN THE SURROUNDING AREA.

AND, AGAIN, AS WE ALWAYS NOTE, THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL SENSITIVITY OF OLD TOWN AND IF PROPERTY OWNER AND CONTRACTOR FINDS ANYTHING ON SITE DURING SITE CONSTRUCTION HANDLING IT APPROPRIATELY WITH THE REVIEWING AGENCIES TO IDENTIFY MITIGATION STRATEGY. FOR PURPOSES OF CONCEPTUAL APPROVAL AT THIS TIME STAFF DOES RECOMMEND APPROVAL AS CONSISTENT WITH THE SECRETARY OF INTERIOR STANDARDS, OLD TOWN PRESERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT GUIDELINES AND LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE.

>> CHAIRMAN: I KNOW WE HAVE TO CONSIDER AND VOTE ON THESE CASES SEPARATELY. CONCEPTUAL APPROVAL ON THIS CASE AND THE NEXT CASE THEN FINAL APPROVAL ON THE NEXT CASE.

QUESTIONS FROM DIRECTOR GIBSON FROM THE BOARD?

>> BOARD MEMBER: I GUESS THE ONLY QUESTION I WOULD HAVE IS EVEN THOUGH THE SECOND ESTABLISH IS A GUEST COTTAGE FOR THE SAKE

[01:10:01]

OF WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT WE'RE REALLY CONSIDERING IT TO BE A PRIMARY RESIDENCE JUST AS IF IT WAS THE MAIN HOUSE AND A

SEPARATE LOT RIGHT? >> THE GUEST HOUSE WILL BE A SEPARATE PRIMARY RESIDENCE. SO IT WILL BE PERMITTED INDEPENDENTLY OF THE CASE THAT YOU ARE FIRST LOOKING AT.

AND THE APPLICANT HAS PROVIDED FOR PURPOSES OF CONTEXT BOTH OF THE STRUCTURES THERE FOR YOUR REVIEW.

BUT YOU'RE ABSOLUTELY CORRECT IN THAT IT WILL BE PERMITTED COMPLETELY INDEPENDENTLY AS A SEPARATE PRIMARY STRUCTURE.

DID THAT ANSWER YOUR QUESTION? >> BOARD MEMBER: YES.

>> OKAY. >> CHAIRMAN: I GET WHAT YOU ARE THINKING THERE. MR. POZZETTA DO YOU HAVE A

QUESTION? >> BOARD MEMBER: I HAVE A

QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT. >> CHAIRMAN: ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? OKAY.

NOT HEARING ANY WE'LL MOVE ON TO KELLY AND MOSER.

CAN WE GET THEM UP ON OUR SCREEN.

THANK YOU, DIRECTOR. >> DO YOU WANT TO SEE THEM?

>> CHAIRMAN: YEAH BECAUSE THEY'RE GOING TO TELL US WHAT WE

DON'T KNOW. >> THERE YOU GO I.

>> CHAIRMAN: LAUREN AND-- I APOLOGIZE

>> ERIC. >> CHAIRMAN: ERIC.

WHAT DO YOU WANT TO OFFER? WHAT DO YOU WANT TO TELL US

TONIGHT? >> WELL, FIRST OF ALL, THANK YOU FOR HAVING US AND FOR REVIEWING THE PROJECTS THAT WE HAVE BEFORE THE BOARD. WE'RE EXCITED TO BE DOING SOME MORE WORK BACK HERE AGAIN. WE'VE DONE A BUNCH IF THE PAST AND WE HOPE TO DO MORE IN THE NEXT FEW MONTHS.

THESE ARE TWO SEPARATE PROJECTS THOUGH THEY WERE CONSIDERED THE WHOLE DESIGN WAS CONSIDERED TOGETHER BECAUSE THE OWNER ON BOTH LOTS AND THEY'RE ALL KIND OF POSITIONED TO ORIENT TOWARD A SIDE COURT YARD AND THEN A VIEW AND KIND OF THE PREVAILING BREEZES AND THE WATER IS LOCATED IN THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THIS PROPERTY. SO THAT WAS PROVIDED IN THE APPLICATION. THE ONLY THING WE WANTED TO KIND OF BRING TO YOU AS A QUESTION IS ON THE ELEVATION OF THE MAIN STRUCTURE FOR THE FIRST ONE THAT WE'RE DOING RIGHT NOW ON THE CORNER, WE WOULD REALLY LIKE TO USE A MORE SUBSTANTIAL KIND OF MASONRY BASE WITH SOME PUNCHED VENTED OPENINGS AS OPPOSED TO HAVING THE STRUCTURE ON PIERS. THE WHOLE BASE OF THE HOUSE, THE FIRST FLOOR IS STUCCO. AND SO WE JUST FELT LIKE IT SHOULD SIT MORE ON A SOLID BASE. AND WE WERE KIND OF LED IN THIS DIRECTION BY THE PREVIOUS PRESERVATION PLANNER WHICH I THINK MAKES A LOT OF SENSE IF THE HOUSE IS COMPLETELY WOOD CLAD FEEL LIKE IT'S CONSISTENT WITH THE GUIDELINES TO HAVE IT AS A FOUNDATION. THAT'S ONE THINK I WOULD LIKE TO GET CONSIDERED. THEN ON 57 THE BUILDING THROUGHOUT OLD TOWN REST ON MASONRY FOUNDATION CONTINUOUS OR

WITH PIERS. >> BOARD MEMBER: SO THAT WAS EXACTLY THE QUESTION THAT I WANTED TO ASK YOU.

AND I THINK YOU HIT THE NAIL ON THE HEAD AT LEAST FROM MY STAND .. THAT THE DESIGN WITH STUCCO AT THE GROUND FLOOR, IT REALLY WOULD BE APPROPRIATE TO HAVE A MORE SOLID BASE AS OPPOSED TO STUCCO OVER PIER CONSTRUCTION.

SO I CONCUR THAT WOULD BE A VERY WORTHWHILE CHANGE TO THE DESIGN.

TO GIVE IT A SOLID BASE AT THE STUCCO PORTIONS OF THE

STRUCTURE. >> CHAIRMAN: OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM BOARD MEMBERS? MR. HARRISON?

>> BOARD MEMBER: NO. >> CHAIRMAN: TAMMI? ANGIE? BENJAMIN? KATES? SEE I REMEMBERED EVERYBODY.

THAT'S A PRETTY IMPRESSIVE PROJECT.

BOTH PROPERTIES. IT'S PRETTY COOL.

ALTHOUGH WE'VE SEEN A LOT OF GREAT DESIGNS FROM MOSER BEFORE SO THIS IS NOT SURPRISING. MR. HARRISON, HELP ME OUT HERE WITH A QUESTION. MY SENSE LIVING DOWNTOWN IS THE PREVAILING BREEZE IS ESPECIALLY IN THE AFTERNOON FROM THE EAST TO WEST. IT'S AN ONSHORE BREEZE.

SO, I'M LOOKING AT OLD TOWN IT SEEMS LIKE THE SPANISH KNEW THAT

[01:15:03]

AND THAT'S WHY THEY LAID THE STREETS OUT THE WAY THEY DID.

SO, WHEN LAURA MENTIONED CATCHING THE BREEZE THERE, IS THAT GOING TO WORK BASED ON THIS SORT OF NORTH-SOUTH ORIENTATION?

>> BOARD MEMBER: I AM TOTALLY IGNORANT.

>> BOARD MEMBER: I'VE LOOKED AT THAT QUITE A LOT AND THE PREVAILING BREEZES ARE GOING TO BE FROM THE SOUTHEAST OR THE SOUTHWEST. SO THE NICE THING IN THIS PARTICULAR LOT IT WAS-- IF WE ORIENTED THE SIDE COURT TO THE EAST IT WOULD COMPLETELY GIVE UP THE OPPORTUNITY TO SEE THE CREEK. WHAT'S THE NAME OF THAT CREEK?

>> CHAIRMAN: EGANS CREEK. >> SO IT HAS A REALLY NICE OPPORTUNITY TO TAKE IN THAT VIEW.

SO, BY VIRTUE OF KEEPING THE GUEST HOUSE ON LOT 6 A LITTLE SHALLOW WE STILL WILL BE ABLE TO GET QUITE A LOT FROM THE SOUTH BOTH OF SUN AND BREEZE FROM THE SOUTHWEST.

>> CHAIRMAN: ERIC, I'LL TELL YOU YOUR ORIENTATION IS GREAT.

I REALLY DO APPRECIATE WHAT YOU ARE TRYING TO CAPTURE THERE.

BUT SOMEONE WHO HAS LIVED HERE FOR 27 YEARS, THE AFTERNOON BREEZE ONSHORE FROM THE EAST UNLESS IT'S COMING FROM THE NORTHEAST. SO, JUST SO YOU KNOW THAT.

I WOULDN'T CHANGE ANYTHING JUST BECAUSE OF THAT BUT YEAH THIS LOOKS GREAT. OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE CASE?

>> BOARD MEMBER: LOOKS LIKE A VERY NICE PROJECT.

>> CHAIRMAN: YEAH ANOTHER GREAT MOSER PROJECT.

THEN WE'LL MOVE INTO-- WE'LL ASK IF THERE'S ANYONE ON THE LINE OR HERE THAT WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS THIS PROJECT 2020-0009.

HEARING NONE, BOARD MEMBERS, MOVING INTO BOARD DISCUSSION,

WHAT'S YOUR PLEASURE? >> BOARD MEMBER: I'D SAY THAT THE CHANGE OF THE FOUNDATION AT THE STUCCO PORTION WOULD REALLY BE MY ONLY COMMENT. AND I THINK IT'S RIGHT IN LINE WITH WHAT THE APPLICANT ALREADY HAS IN MIND.

>> CHAIRMAN: RIGHT. SO, PERHAPS WE CAN GET A MOTION FOR CONCEPTUAL APPROVAL FOR 2019-0008 WITH THAT ONE

CONDITION? >> BOARD MEMBER: I THINK THIS IS

0009. >> CHAIRMAN: I'M SORRY.

>> BOARD MEMBER: I'M GLAD YOU POINTED THAT OUT, CHAIR SPINO.

BECAUSE I BELIEVE IN THE PREVIOUS MOTION THAT I MADE I STATED IT AS 0009 AND IT'S ACTUALLY 08 AND I DON'T KNOW IF WE NEED TO CORRECT THE RECORD ON THAT AND STATE THAT IT'S

ACTUALLY 08 INSTEAD OF 09. >> CHAIRMAN: WE CAN DO THAT.

>> THE GAINES PROPERTY. SO, CORRECT THE RECORD AND THE MINUTES TO REFLECT THAT. AND JUST TO BE REALLY PRECISE

IT'S 0008. >> BOARD MEMBER: THANK YOU.

>> AND THIS CASE IS 2020-0009. >> CHAIRMAN: I FEEL LIKE I'M ON "SESAME STREET." IT'S GREAT.

IT'S REALLY GOOD. WHO IS GOING TO MAKE A MOTION ON

THIS ONE? >> BOARD MEMBER: I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION. BUT I CAN'T READ IT AT THE MOMENT. IT'S TAKING TOO LONG TO LOAD.

>> CHAIRMAN: JUST KEEP THEM IN THE GAME.

IT'S LIKE THE D.L. >> BOARD MEMBER: MIGHT I SUGGEST THAT WE ASK-- I WILL SAY I APPROVE THAT MOTION OR OPPOSE THAT MOTION.

IT'S GOTTEN QUIET. >> CHAIRMAN: IT LOOKS LIKE YOU WANT JIM TO MOVE IT. JIM WILL MOVE IT.

>> BOARD MEMBER: OKAY THAT'S GOOD.

I'LL SECOND. >> BOARD MEMBER: I MOVE TO APPROVE HDC CASE NUMBER 2020-0009 WITH THE CONDITION

[01:20:01]

THAT THE FOUNDATION SYSTEM AT THE STUCCO PORTIONS OF THE RESIDENCE BE MODIFIED TO BE SOLID STUCCO OR MORE SUBSTANTIAL. AND I MOVE THAT THE HDC MEET THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW PART OF THE RECORD THAT HDC CASE 2020-0009 AS PRESENTED IS SUBSTANTIALLY COMPLIANT WITH THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR STANDARDS AND OLD TOWN PRESERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT GUIDELINES TO WARRANT AND I BELIEVE WE'RE DOING CONCEPTUAL APPROVAL AT THIS TIME.

>> BOARD MEMBER: WHY IS IT CONCEPTUAL?

>> CHAIRMAN: BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT THEY ASKED FOR AND THAT'S WHAT

WE POSTED PUBLICLY. >> BOARD MEMBER: AND THEY DON'T HAVE SUPPORTING DETAILS AND ALL THAT FOR ALL THE ELEMENTS ON THERE THAT WOULD BE NEEDED FOR FINAL.

>> BOARD MEMBER: GOOD ANSWER. THANK YOU.

I SECOND. >> CHAIRMAN: MOVED.

POZZETTA. SECOND HARRISON.

ANY BOARD DISCUSSION. KATES YOU GOT SOMETHING THERE? NO JUST A LITTLE COUGH. OKAY.

>> MEMBER CONWAY? >> YES.

>> MEMBER HARRISON? >> YES.

>> MEMBER SPINO? >> YES.

>> MEMBER PO POZZETTA? >> YES.

>> MEMBER MORRISON? DID WE LOSE BENJAMIN?

>> LOOKS LIKE IT. >> CHAIRMAN: BENJAMIN ARE YOU

OUT THERE SOMEWHERE? >> HE IS HERE.

I NEED TO PROMOTE HIM BACK. >> CHAIRMAN: I WOULD NEVER PROMOTE HIM BACK.

CAN YOU ALL SEE ME NOW? >> CHAIRMAN: WE CAN.

INTERNET CONNECTION SO I DROPPED OFF FOR A MINUTE.

BUT I WOULD VOTE YES. >> CHAIRMAN: THANK YOU.

AND T-MOBILE ALL OVER. LET'S MOVE ON TO CASE HDC

[Item 4.3]

2020-0014 KELLY AND MOSER FOR VIA.

THIS IS BLOCK 18, LOT 6 LADY STREET.

DIRECTOR GIBSON? >> AND SIMILAR TO THE PRIOR CASE THIS IS REQUESTING A CONCEPTUAL APPROVAL FOR PROPERTY ADJACENT TO LOTS THREE AND FOUR OF BLOCK 18.

THIS IS LOT 6 OF BLOCK 18. AND THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING TO CONSTRUCT A ONE-STORY PRIMARY STRUCTURE AND A POOL ON THE PARCEL WHICH CONTAINS ONE FULL PAEONIA.

AGAIN THIS PROPERTY IS LOCATED WITHIN THE OT2 ZONING DISTRICT AND DOES GENERALLY APPLY WITH THE APPLICABLE STANDARDS FROM THE SECRETARY OF INTERIOR. THE PROPOSED MATERIALS ARE LEFT TO BE DETERMINED AT THIS TIME AS THIS IS CONCEPTUAL APPROVAL.

BUT DOES OTHERWISE MEET THE CITY'S REQUIREMENTS UNDER THE OLD TOWN DESIGN GUIDELINES AS WELL AS THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE. AND STAFF HAS ISSUED A RECOMMENDATION FOR CONCEPTUAL APPROVAL OF THE CASE AS CONSISTENT WITH THE SECRETARY OF INTERIOR STANDARDS, OLD TOWN PRESERVATION DEVELOPMENT GUIDELINES AND THE LAND

DEVELOPMENT CODE. >> CHAIRMAN: QUESTIONS FOR DIRECTOR GIBSON? HEARING NONE, ERIC, LAUREN?

ANYTHING TO OFFER? >> THE ONLY THING I WOULD SAY IS THAT THIS IS DESIGNED IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE OTHER BUILDING AND IT ACTUALLY A PORTION OF IT IS TO TWO STORY

AND THEN A PORTION IS ONE STORY. >> I APOLOGIZE.

YEP, IT IS TWO STORIES. >> CHAIRMAN: I COMPLETELY MISSED YOU SAYING THAT SO IT'S OKAY. QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANTS? SINCE WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT CHIMNEYS AND CHIM TCMI CLADDING IS YOUR INTENT TO DO STUCCO ON THE CHIMNEY AT THIS DESIGN?

>> YEAH. THE ONLY PLACE THAT WE HAVE A CHIMNEY IS ON THE REAR ELEVATION.

THERE'S FIREPLACE THE SCREEN PORCH.

BUT THAT WAS ON THE PREVIOUS BUILDING THAT YOU JUST DISCUSSED. THERE'S NO

BUILDING. >> BOARD MEMBER: THE STUCCO WOULD BE CONSISTENT WITH ALL THE FOUNDATIONS FOR BOTH PROJECTS.

>> CHAIRMAN: OH GREAT. THAT'S HELPFUL.

THANK YOU ERIC. >> BOARD MEMBER: THE ONLY COMMENT I WAS GOING TO MAKE BEFORE I GOT CUT OFF OR WHATEVER AND I THINK IT'S STILL KIND OF RELEVANT TO MENTION IF NOBODY HAS SAID THIS BEFORE APOLOGIZE. SINCE THERE IS A POOL ON THE PROPERTY THERE'S CERTAINLY GOING TO BE LIKE SOME FENCING AND SOME

[01:25:03]

GATES ESPECIALLY LIKE A COMPOUND TYPE OF APPROACH.

WHEN IT COMES BACK FOR FINAL I THINK IT WOULD BE HELPFUL TO INDICATE THE GEE OM RATRY OF WHERE THE FENCING IS GOING TO

AND THE STYLING SO WE KNOW. >> CHAIRMAN: MATERIALS, COLOR.

RIGHT. >> ABSOLUTELY.

THAT WILL BE WORKED OUT WITH THE NEXT SET OF DRAWINGS.

>> CHAIRMAN: EXCELLENT. THANK YOU.

I'M MOVE TO PUBLIC MEETING THEN. IS THERE ANYBODY WHO WISHES TO SPEAK WITH REGARD TO CASE 2020-0014? THIS WOULD BE THE TIME. ANYBODY ON THE LINE.

HEARING NO ONE CLOSING THE PUBLIC MEETING.

MOVING INTO BOARD DISCUSSION. >> BOARD MEMBER: KELLY CAN YOU PULL UP THE SITE PLAN AGAIN PLEASE.

YEAH THIS DRAWING IS LABELED "LOTS 3 AND 4" BUT IN FACT WE'RE

LOOKING AT LOT 6 AREN'T WE? >> YES.

>> THE REASON IT'S LABELED THAT IS BECAUSE THIS WAS THE SITE PLAN THAT WAS ASSOCIATED WITH THE FIRST PROJECT.

THAT'S WHY THE RED IS AROUND THAT LOT.

THEN THE NEXT PROJECT HAS LOT 6. >> BOARD MEMBER: SO THE SITE

PLAN SAY LOT 6? >> ON THE NEXT SLIDE I THINK SO.

>> I'M SORRY. >> FOR FINAL THAT WILL BE VERY CLEAR. WE'LL HAVE TWO INDEPENDENT SITE

PLANS. >> YOU ARE RIGHT IT DOES SAY THAT. MY MISTAKE.

>> BOARD MEMBER: I AM NOT CALLING FOR SEPARATE SITE PLAN I'M SIMPLY ASKING THAT THE LOTS-- THAT LOT 6 BE IDENTIFIED.

>> WILL DO. THANK YOU.

>> CHAIRMAN: THAT'S A NICE LOCATION.

I WAS UP THERE LAST WEEK AND IT'S A WONDERFUL SPOT.

ALL RIGHT. BOARD MEMBERS, WOULD SOMEONE

LIKE TO MOVE THIS? >> BOARD MEMBER: CAN KELLY PUT THE VERBIAGE UP THERE. IT WAS UP THERE FOR A WHILE.

>> YES. >> CHAIRMAN: THANK YOU.

SHOULD DO LITTLE LAMINATED CARDS.

>> BOARD MEMBER: ALL RIGHT. I WILL MOVE TO APPROVE--

>> CHAIRMAN: THIS IS CONCEPTUAL. >> BOARD MEMBER: YES, IT IS CONCEPTUAL. THAT'S ALL RIGHT I CAN SEE IT.

WELL NOW IT'S GONE

>> I'M TRYING TO GET TOO FANCY HERE.

JUST A MINUTE. >> CHAIRMAN: DON'T LET PERFECT

BE THE ENEMY. >> AND NOW I LOST IT.

JUST A SECOND. >> CHAIRMAN: WE CAN'T EVEN SAY THIS NEVER HAPPENED WHEN SAL WAS HERE BECAUSE IT HAPPENED WHEN

SAL WAS HERE. >> BOARD MEMBER: ANGELA CAN I

HELP OUT HERE BY PROPOSING? >> BOARD MEMBER: GO AHEAD.

>> BOARD MEMBER: OKAY. I MOVE TO APPROVE HDC-2020-14 WITHOUT CONDITIONS BY MOVING THE HDC FINDS THE FACTS AND CONCLUSION SUPPORT FOR THE RECORD.

CASE 2020-14 AS PRESENTED IS SUBSTANTIALLY COMPLIANT WITH THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR'S STANDARDS AND THE OLD TOWN PRESERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT GUIDELINES TO WARRANT CONCEPTUAL APPROVAL AT THIS TIME.

>> BOARD MEMBER: I'LL SECOND THE MOTION.

>> CHAIRMAN: MOVED HARRISON AND SECONDED CONWAY.

ANY DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE, CALL THE ROLL.

>> MEMBER MORRISON? >> YES.

>> MEMBER POZZETTA? >> YES.

>> MR. SPINO? >> YES.

>> MEMBER CONWAY? >> YES.

>> MEMBER HARRISON? >> YES.

>> CHAIRMAN: ALL RIGHT. MOVING ON.

[Item 4.4]

2020-0010. KELLY AND MOSER DESIGN GROUP BLOCK 13 LOTS 3, 4 AND 6. THIS IS ADJACENT TO THE L SHAPE PROPERTY WE'RE GOING TO TALK ABOUT LATER ISN'T IT? VERY GOOD. OKAY.

GO AHEAD GIBSON. >> ALL RIGHT.

I'M GOING TO TALK ABOUT-- OKAY. THIS EVENING THE BOARD IS ASKED

[01:30:08]

TO CONSIDER A FINAL APPROVAL FOR A PRIMARY RESIDENCE AND ACCESSORY STRUCTURE LOCATED ON BLOCK 13, LOTS 3, 4 AND 6 OF OLD TOWN LOCATED AT THE CORNER OF SAN FERNANDO STREET AND NEW STREET. THIS PROPERTY IS LOCATED IN THE OT1 ZONING DISTRICT. STAFF HAS FOUND THE PROPOSED DESIGN TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE APPLICABLE SECRETARY OF INTERIOR STANDARDS. THE APPLICATIONS PROPOSED ARE CONSISTENT WITH WHAT WOULD BE MATERIALS THAT ARE COMMONLY REVIEWED AND CONSIDERED FOR APPROVAL WITHIN THE OLD TOWN AREA. THE SITE PLAN IN TERMS OF THE HOUSING TYPE, VISIBILITY TRIANGLE, THE LOT DENSITY REMAINING WELL UNDER 45 PERCENT LOT COVERAGE AS WELL AS MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT LOCATION, VISIBILITY CORRIDORS, ENCROACHMENTS, PARKING, AND IT'S ORIENTATION IN TERMS OF BEING SITED TO FRONT NOT LADIES STREET.

IT WILL BE ON SAN FERNANDO. I APOLOGIZE FOR THAT.

I WAS READING THROUGH THIS AT THE SAME TIME.

THE ELEVATION IN TERMS OF THE SCALE AND HEIGHT ARE CERTAINLY CONSISTENT WITH THE ALLOWABLE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AS WELL AS THE OLD TOWN DESIGN GUIDELINES AND THE MATERIALS AS PROVIDED ARE INTENDED TO REPLICATE TRADITIONAL MATERIALS.

THE HOME DOES FEATURE A SMOOTH HARDY SIDING, METAL ROOF AND WOOD ELEMENTS FOR THE PORCH RAILINGS.

THE FOUNDATION WILL BE CONSTRUCTED ON AN ELEVATED FOUNDATION. WINDOWS ARE SENT TO BE FOUR OVER ONE ON THE PRIMARY STRUCTURE, TWO OVER TWO ON THE ACCESSORY STRUCTURE. THE FRONT DOOR I BELIEVE IT IS ACTUALLY INCLUDED WITHIN THE MATERIALS PROVIDED AND ANALYZED HERE. AS MARVIN ELEVATE.

BOTH IN MAHOGANY AND WHITE. AND THE ACCESSORY STRUCTURE IS APPROXIMATELY 496 SQUARE FEET. IT IS A TWO-STORY GARAGE BUILDING CONSTRUCTED AT THE REAR OF THE LOT AND WILL MATCH THE PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE IN ITS MATERIALS.

AGAIN WE ALWAYS NOTE THE ARC LONG CAL SENSE ACTIVITY AND IF ANYTHING IS DISCOVERED AT ANY POINT ON THE PROJECT THE APPLICANT WILL CONSULT WITH AN APPROPRIATE ORGANIZATION TO ASSIST IN IDENTIFYING MITIGATION STRATEGY.

AND WITH THESE CONSIDERATIONS STAFF HAS FOUND THAT THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST FOR FINAL APPROVAL IS CONSISTENT WITH THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, SECRETARY OF INTERIOR STANDARDS AND OLD TOWN PRESERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT GUIDELINES TO

AUTHORIZE APPROVAL AT THIS TIME. >> CHAIRMAN: QUESTIONS FOR

DIRECTOR GIBSON? >> BOARD MEMBER: I HAVE A QUESTION. WELL YOU REFERRED TO AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE HERE BUT MY QUESTION IS AREN'T THESE TWO

COMPLETELY SEPARATE LOTS? >> YOU HAVE-- THEY ARE SEPARATE

LOTS, YES. >> BOARD MEMBER: SO IT'S NOT

REALLY AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE? >> IT IS INTENDED TO BE AN

ACCESSORY STRUCTURE. >> BOARD MEMBER: I THINK IF THE

LOTS ARE COMBINED IT IS. >> IT WILL NOT BE-- UNLIKE THE PREVIOUS CASE THEY'RE NOT GOING TO CONSTRUCT A SEPARATE PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE ON THESE LOTS.

THIS WILL LOOK AS THOUGH IT'S A SINGLE LOT OF RECORD.

UNLIKE THE PRIOR CASE WHERE THEY WILL FUNCTIONALLY BE TWO SEPARATE LOTS OF RECORD AND OPERATE THAT WAY FOR THE FORESEEABLE FUTURE. THIS LOT WILL BE ONE AND HAVE A PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE AND ACCESSORY STRUCTURE.

>> BOARD MEMBER: THE LOTS ARE COMBINED NOW?

>> YES. >> BOARD MEMBER: THEY WILL BE BY

THIS ACTION. >> BOARD MEMBER: OKAY.

>> CHAIRMAN: OTHER QUESTIONS FOR DIRECTOR GIBSON? OKAY. LAUREN, ERIC, ANYTHING TO OFFER?

>> NOT TOO MUCH ASIDE FROM WHAT KELLY'S ALREADY SAID AND WHAT WAS SUBMITTED. WE'RE JUST EXCITED TO DESIGN ANOTHER HOUSE THAT WE FEEL IS CONSISTENT WITH THE ARCHITECTURAL CHARACTER OF THE AREA.

AND WE CONTINUE TO BE FOCUSED ON THE PRESENCE ON THE STREET

[01:35:02]

ESPECIALLY SINCE THIS IS ON A CORNER AND BEING SENSITIVE TO

ALL THE DIFFERENT ANGLES. >> CHAIRMAN: WELL DONE.

>> ONE THING WE ALSO WILL BE DOING IF IT'S OKAY WITH THE BOARD IS CHANGING THE WINDOWS AND THE OUT BUILDING TO MATCH THE HOUSE SO THEY WILL ALL BE ONE.

IF THAT'S OKAY. >> CHAIRMAN: I DON'T THINK YOU WILL GET AN ARGUMENT ON CONSISTENCY.

QUESTIONS FOR ERIC AND LAUREN? >> BOARD MEMBER: NOT TO HARP ON IT BUT JUST ANOTHER QUESTION FOR KELLY.

SO IF YOU OWN TWO CONTIGUOUS LOTS AND DEVELOP THEM AT THE SAME TIME IT MAKES THEM COMBINED IN THE EYES OF THE CITY?

>> CHAIRMAN: IT'S NOT THE CITY THAT MATTERS.

>> I MEAN, IT WILL NOW SERVE AS A SINGLE DEVELOPMENT SITE.

AND SO THEY WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO COME BACK IN AND-- I GUESS TECHNICALLY YOU COULD IN THE FUTURE.

THERE'S NOTHING THAT WOULD PROHIBIT THAT.

BECAUSE YOU ARE NOT CROSSING LOT LINES HERE WITH THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT. SO, AT SOME POINT THE PROPERTY OWNER COULD DO THAT AND SEPARATE THESE.

AND THEN IN THAT CASE THEY WOULD HAVE AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE AND ANOTHER PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE. THAT'S NOT WHAT THE APPLICANTS REQUESTING TO DO BUT IT IS CONCEIVABLE YOU COULD DO THAT IN

THE FUTURE. >> BOARD MEMBER: IF YOU OWN AN INDEPENDENT LOT CAN YOU JUST GO AND BUILD AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE ON IT WITHOUT BUILDING A PRIMARY RESIDENCE?

>> CHAIRMAN: NO. >> I BELIEVE THEIR INTENT IS TO HAVE THESE AS COMBINED SO THAT IT WOULD SERVE AS A SINGLE

DEVELOPMENT SITE. >> BOARD MEMBER: OKAY.

>> BOARD MEMBER: SO MAYBE A DIFFERENT WAY OF ASKING THE SAME QUESTION BENJAMIN JUST ASKED IS HYPOTHETICALLY WERE THE OWNERS TO DECIDE FOR BUDGETARY REASONS THEY COULDN'T BUILD BOTH OF THEM AT THE SAME TIME IN FACT THEY'RE GOING TO BUILD WHAT IS DEEMED THE ACCESSORY STRUCTURE FIRST, WOULD THEY BE ALLOWED TO DO THAT OR WOULD THEY BE DENIED THAT BECAUSE IT IS AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE NOT A PRIMARY RESIDENCE?

>> THAT'S CORRECT. THEY WOULD HAVE TO HAVE A PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE TO THEN HAVE AN ACCESSORY TO IT.

SO THEY WOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO BUILD THAT ACCESSORY BY ITSELF.

>> CHAIRMAN: HONESTLY ONCE YOU PAY THE ARCHITECTS AND THE BUILDING IMPACT FEES, THE IMPACT FEES ON THAT MAIN BUILDING, IT'S GOING TO BE A BIG NUMBER. AND YOU DON'T GET YOUR PERMIT UNTIL YOU PAY YOUR IMPACT FEES. SO I WOULD BE STUNNED IF SOMEBODY WHO SPENT 20, $30,000 ON IMPACT FEES THEN DIDN'T GO

FORWARD WITH THE CONSTRUCTION. >> BOARD MEMBER: BUT WE'VE SEEN IT BEFORE IN OLD TOWN. THAT'S THE REASON IT CAME UP I

THINK. >> CHAIRMAN: YES.

>> BOARD MEMBER: THIS HAS COME UP BEFORE.

>> CHAIRMAN: I DON'T THINK IT'S GOING TO HAPPEN HERE BUT I CERTAINLY UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU ARE SAYING.

OTHER QUESTIONS? OKAY LET'S MOVE INTO THE PUBLIC HEARING. ANYBODY ON THE PHONE? THERE'S NOBODY HERE. NO ONE IS HERE.

SO, LET'S MOVE INTO BOARD DISCUSSION.

BOARD MEMBERS, WHAT DO WE THINK? >> BOARD MEMBER: I THINK I LOVE THE MID-LOT VISIBILITY CORRIDOR AND THE CHANGE OF MATERIALS THEY PUT FORTH. AND I THINK IT'S FABULOUS.

>> CHAIRMAN: IT'S PRETTY COOL. TOO BAD WE CAN'T GET YOU TO MOVE IT. IS THERE A BOARD MEMBER THERE WHO WOULD LIKE TO MOVE THIS 2020-00010?

>> BOARD MEMBER: I'LL MAKE A MOTION.

>> BOARD MEMBER: I'M READY. GO AHEAD MR. HARRISON.

THERE YOU GO, JIM. DID JIM BEAT ME TO IT

>> CHAIRMAN: NO YOU ARE GOOD TO GO.

GO AHEAD. >> BOARD MEMBER: OKAY.

I MOVE TO APPROVE HDC CASE 2020-10 WITHOUT CONDITIONS AND I MOVE THE HDC MAKE A POINT OF FINDING THE RECORD THAT HDC CASE 2020-10 AS PRESENTED IS SUBSTANTIALLY COMPLIANCE WITH THIS LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AND SECRETARY OF INTERIOR STANDARDS AND THE OLD TOWN PRESERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT GUIDELINES TO WARRANT FINAL APPROVAL AT THIS

TIME. >> BOARD MEMBER: SECOND.

>> CHAIRMAN: MOVED HARRISON. SECOND POZZETTA.

ANY DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE, JACOB, PLEASE CALL

THE ROLL. >> MEMBER MORRISON?

>> YES. >> MEMBER POZZETTA?

>> YES. >> MEMBER SPINO?

>> YES. >> MEMBER CONWAY?

>> YES. >> MEMBER HARRISON?

>> YES. >> CHAIRMAN: VERY GOOD.

THAT CONCLUDES OUR REGULAR AGENDA.

[01:40:02]

WE'RE MOVING INTO BOARD BUSINESS.

[Item 5.1]

WE'RE GOING TO TALK ABOUT A REQUEST FOR BOARD DIRECTION FROM KAVANAUGH REGARDING AN L-SHAPED LOT.

MS. KELLY IF YOU COULD BRING A MAP OF THAT IF YOU HAVE ONE.

IT WAS ACTUALLY-- MAYBE UP DO MAYBE YOU DON'T?

>> HAPPY TO. YES.

>> CHAIRMAN: THANK YOU. AND WOULD YOU LEAD OUR DISCUSSION PLEASE. CAN YOU DO TWO THINGS AT THE

SAME TIME. >> I'M GOING TO ATTEMPT TO.

AND I'LL START-- I'LL PROBABLY ALLOW THE MOSER GROUP HERE TO

REALLY LEAVE THE DISCUSSION-- >> CHAIRMAN: IS THIS A MOSER

PROJECT? >> THEY'RE SEEKING BOARD DIRECTION. SO THIS CASE INVOLVES LOTS THAT ARE COMBINED FOR PURPOSES OF DEVELOPMENT AT THIS POINT.

AT LEAST IN TERMS OF THEIR OWNERSHIP IT'S COMBINED.

AND IT FORMS AN UNUSUAL SCENARIO IN THAT YOU HAVE PARTIAL LOTS HERE. DRESSES NOT ABILITY TO OBTAIN ADDITIONAL LAND IN ORDER TO DEVELOP IN A DIFFERENT WAY WHICH WOULD BE KEEPING IN WHAT WE TYPICALLY SEE.

SO THE DESIGN IS DELAYING HAVING A -- CONTEMPLATING HAVING A PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE WHICH WOULD STRADDLE TWO LOTS NOT LIKE WE WOULD TYPICALLY SEE WITH THE MID-LOT CORRIDORS BUT, AGAIN, THE TWO SIDE LOTS WHERE YOU WOULD NORMALLY HAVE THAT VISIBILITY CORRIDOR. HOW ARE WE GOING TO ADDRESS SETBACKS GIVEN WHAT IS THE REQUIREMENT IN OLD TOWN FOR FIVE FEET ON SIDE OF LOT LINES. WITH THAT I WILL PULL UP THE DESIGN UNLESS LAUREN OR ERIC IF YOU HAVE ANYTHING THAT YOU WOULD LIKE TO ADD BEFORE I PUT THAT DESIGN UP ON THE SCREEN?

>> NOT AT THIS TIME. THANK YOU.

>> CHAIRMAN: WHO IS THE OWNER? >> BILL KAVANAUGH.

>> SO THIS YOU WILL SEE IS-- AND I APOLOGIZE.

I'M NOT SURE WHICH BLOCK THIS IS RIGHT OFF HAND.

BUT IT IS LOTS-- >> 9 AND 7.

>> THAT'S RIGHT. WHERE 10 IS NOT OWNED BY THEM.

AND THIS IS LOCATED ON LADIES STREET.

SO, WILL PULL UP THE MAP FOR YOU TO BE ABLE TO SEE THAT.

>> I BELIEVE IT'S LOT 13. >> CHAIRMAN: LOTS 7 AND 9.

>> BOARD MEMBER: CORRECT. IT IS SHOWING.

GREAT. >> CHAIRMAN: THAT'S GREAT RIGHT

THERE. >> CHAIRMAN: SO WHAT'S THE GOAL TO CONSTRUCT THE MAIN STRUCTURE ON 7 AND ACCESSORY STRUCTURE ON

9? >> ACTUALLY REVERSE.

MAIN STRUCTURE ON 9 AND ACCESSORY STRUCTURE ON 7.

>> DOESN'T THE MAIN STRUCTURE STRADDLE 9 AND 7?

>> YES. >> IF YOU'D LIKE WE'D LOVE TO EXPLAIN THE STRATEGY IF YOU ARE INTERESTED.

>> CHAIRMAN: PLEASE DO. GO AHEAD, ERIC.

>> OKAY GREAT. SO, ONE OF THE THINGS ABOUT OLD TOWN IS THAT THE URBAN CHARACTER IS SO WONDERFUL AND WHEN YOU HAVE A MINI-LOT THAT'S KIND OF SET APART WE FEEL LIKE IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT TO MAKE SURE IT DOES ITS CIVIC DUTY FOR OLD TOWN. AND THAT IS, IN THIS CASE, WE ARE SUGGESTING THAT THE PRIMARY BUILDING, THE TWO STORY STRUCTURE, BE ON THAT CORNER LOT AND THEN THE SECONDARY STRUCTURE BE ON THE INTERIOR LOT AND ALSO ACCOMMODATE PARKING.

OUR HOPE IS THAT, YOU KNOW, BY FOLDING THE CORNER OF EACH LOT IT GIVES THE-- IT FURTHERS THE CHARACTER THAT IT WAS MEANT FOR AND WRITTEN ABOUT AND KIND OF SET UP IN THE GUIDELINES.

SO, YOU KNOW, THAT'S PART OF ONE OF THE MAIN CHARACTERISTICS OF THIS PROPOSAL. AND ACTUALLY FURTHER THAN THAT WE HAVE IN THIS PROPOSAL RESPECTED THE ABSOLUTE FIVE FOOT SETBACK FROM EACH ELEMENT, EACH, YOU KNOW, THE SUBORDINATE ELEMENT ON THE NORTH SOUTH PROPERTY LINE. AND WE'D LOVE TO BE ABLE TO ADD A FEW MORE FEET TO THAT SEPARATION TO MAKE THAT

[01:45:03]

TEN FEET INSTEAD OF TEN FEET WIDE MAYBE 14 FEET WIDE TO MAKE THAT SPACE A LITTLE MORE USABLE, A.

AND, B, TO GET THE MAIN STRUCTURE CLOSER TO THE CORNER AND ONCE AGAIN HELP ANCHOR THAT PARTICULAR CORNER.

>> CHAIRMAN: AND AS I UNDERSTAND IT THE-- UNDER THE CURRENT LDC, TO BUILD THIS YOU'D NEED A VARIANCE?

IS THAT RIGHT DIRECTOR? >> YES.

ABSOLUTELY. THIS AS PROPOSED WOULD DEFINITELY NEED TO SEEK A VARIANCE FROM THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE TO HAVE THIS IMPROVEMENT.

>> CHAIRMAN: SO BOARD MEMBERS, A COUPLE OF THINGS FOR BACKGROUND.

I THINK WHAT MOSER WOULD LIKE TO KNOW IS, IF THEY CAME TO US FOR A VARIANCE, WOULD THEY HAVE A SHOT.

AND THEN, SECONDLY-- >> BOARD MEMBER: WHAT IS THE

VARIANCE FOR. >> CHAIRMAN: THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION. DIRECTOR?

>> THE SIDE YARD CORRIDOR WHICH REQUIRES THAT YOU HAVE THAT

OPENING. >> THIS IS A CONNECTOR.

A CONNECTION. >> SO YOU ARE ALLOWING CONSTRUCTION ACROSS YOUR OPEN CONNECTION BETWEEN THE TWO PAEONIAS. .

>> MAY I INTERJECT SOMETHING. >> CHAIRMAN: GO AHEAD THIS IS

DISCUSSION TIME. >> OKAY.

AS THE GUIDELINES OR THE ZONING CODE I SHOULDSAY IS CURRENTLY WRITTEN IT ESSENTIALLY DISALLOWS THE DEVELOPMENT OF ANY MEDIA, SINGLE MEDIA. SO, ESSENTIALLY IF WE AREN'T ALLOWED TO CONNECT THESE TWO PROPERTIES IT MAKES THE LOT 6 UNBUILDABLE. LOT 9, EXCUSE ME.

I'M UPSIDE DOWN. >> CHAIRMAN: CAN I INTERRUPT FOR

JUST A SECOND. >> SO THAT'S WHERE I THINK THE VARIANCE COMES IN. IN FACT WE CAN MAKE LOTS NINE CONTIGUOUS WITH LOT SEVEN THAT WOULD ALLOW US TO DO, AGAIN, MUCH MORE-- A MUCH GREATER-- BE A MUCH GREATER BENEFIT TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD AS A WHOLE. AND YOU KNOW WHAT WOULD OTHERWISE MAKE LOT NINE ESSENTIALLY A PARK, YOU KNOW, AND ALMOST A VACANT. BECAUSE WITHOUT THE VARIANCE THERE IS A GRAVE PENALTY FOR THE OWNER OF LOT 9 BY VIRTUE OF THE

CONTROL AT THIS POINT. >> CHAIRMAN: DIRECTOR--

>> BOARD MEMBER: KELLY YOU SAID IN YOUR INTRODUCTION NO FURTHER LAND WAS AVAILABLE. WHICH I ASSUME MEANS THAT LOT 10 IS NOT AVAILABLE. HAS THE EXISTING OWNER OF LOT 10

BEEN APPROACHED? >> MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT YES IT HAS BEEN EXPLORED TO TRY TO OBTAIN ADDITIONAL PROPERTY.

>> BOARD MEMBER: BECAUSE LOT 10 IS ATTACHED TO TWO OTHER MEDIA PLATS. THE EXISTING DEVELOPMENT DOES

NOT STRETCH INTO LOT 10. >> RIGHT.

I THINK THAT THE OWNERS ARE NOT WILLING TO SELL AT THIS POINT

AND TIME. >> BOARD MEMBER: WELL IF THEY'RE NOT WILLING THAT'S ONE POINT. BUT THERE ARE THREE PEOPLE WHO I KNOW THAT REFUSED MONEY. THIS COULD BE A USEFUL BIT OF INCOME FOR THEM. THE OWNER OF LOT 7-- WELL IF THEY DON'T WANT TO DO IT, THEY DON'T WANT TO DO IT.

AND, YOU KNOW, I SUPPORT WHAT ERIC IS SAYING FINDING AVAILABLE THIS IS A GOOD SOLUTION AND I CERTAINLY BE PREPARED TO EXCEPT A WIDER CORRIDOR.

TO PROVIDE MORE USEFUL SPACE ON THE OTHER LOT.

I DON'T KNOW WHAT WOULD HAPPEN TO LOT 10.

IT APPEARS IT IS NOW PERMANENTLY TIED TO LOTS 11 AND 12.

>> CHAIRMAN: GOOD QUESTION. >> BOARD MEMBER: SEEMS TO ME.

SO THE PROPERTY ON LOT 11 AND 12 HAS MORE LAND THAN IT NEEDS IS

MY POINT. >> CHAIRMAN: DIRECTOR, IS IT MY UNDERSTANDING THAT BY THE LDC, IF I OWN A SINGLE MEDIA PEONY I

CAN'T BUILD ON IT? >> YOU DO NOT HAVE DENSITY TO BUILD A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING UNIT.

[01:50:02]

>> CHAIRMAN: AND THAT WAS A DECISION MADE PROBABLY A WHILE BACK RIGHT WHEN LAND CODE WAS DEALING WITH OLDTOWN GUIDELINES.

>> I BELIEVE IT WAS IN THE EARLY 2000S WHEN THE CITY WAS CONTEMPLATING APPROPRIATE LAND USE AND ZONING FOR THIS AREA.

AND AT THAT POINT IT WAS STRICTLY DENIED THE ABILITY TO DEVELOP ON A SINGLE MEDIA PAEONIA

>> CHAIRMAN: MIKE, DO YOU THINK THAT'S STILL CONSISTENT WITH WHAT PEOPLE THINK UP THERE. YOU SHOULDN'T BE ABLE TO BUILD

ON A SINGLE MEDIA PAEONIA? >> BOARD MEMBER: I DO.

THE DENSITY IN OLD TOWN IS BREAKING UP ] ONE 10TH OF AN ACRE.

>> CHAIRMAN: AND HONESTLY ONE FULL PAY NIA IS VERY CLOSE TO WHAT A STANDARD LOT IS IN THE CITY.

SO, THERE'S CONSISTENCY THERE. IF I OWN HALF A BUILDING LOT IN

THE CITY CAN I BUILD ON IT. >> LOTS OF THINGS COME INTO THAT QUESTION. THE ZONING DISTRICT.

AND I ASSUMING WE'RE SPEAK TOCK THE CREATION OF A NEW DWELLING UNIT. BECAUSE THE REMAINING PORTION OF LOTS 10, 11 AND 12 YOU COULD HAVE ACCESSORY STRUCTURES.

YOU ARE NOT PREVENTED FROM DEVELOPING THAT.

>> CHAIRMAN: RIGHT. WHAT WE JUST SAW.

OKAY. >> BOARD MEMBER: MY ISSUE HERE ISN'T WITH WHAT'S NECESSARILY BEING PROPOSED BUT I KIND OF HAVE AN ISSUE WITH THE PROCESS THAT'S GOING ON.

I MEAN, YOU KNOW, PEOPLE-- RESIDENTS COME TO US AND THEY PAY A FEE AND THEY SEEK A VARIANCE AND WE CONSIDER THE VARIANCE BASED ON THEM GOING THROUGH THAT PROCESS.

THE IDEA OF US HAVING THIS SORT OF DISCUSSION OF SAYING MAYBE YOU HAVE A SHOT, MAYBE YOU DON'T, HERE'S AN IDEA WHAT YOU SHOULD DO. I JUST DON'T THINK IT'S APPROPRIATE. I DON'T THINK THERE'S PRECEDENT FOR IT. I THINK IT'S A STRANGE.

>> I CAN SPEAK TO THAT. I HAD A LENGTHY DISCUSSION WITH THE PROPERTY OWNER ABOUT THIS TOPIC AND I REALLY DIDN'T KNOW HOW TO APPROACH IT. BECAUSE IT WAS-- IT'S AN UNUSUAL CIRCUMSTANCE. THIS IS I THINK ONE OF ONLY TWO LOTS THAT HAVE THE OWNERSHIP CONFIGURATION SUCH AS THIS THAT EXISTS AT LEAST REMAINING IN OLD TOWN.

AND SO BECAUSE I DIDN'T REALLY KNOW HOW TO DIRECT IT AND I KNOW THAT THE APPLICANT IS LOOKING TO ENSURE THEY'RE PROVIDING THE BOARD WITH INFORMATION TO WEIGH, CONSIDER AS THEY GO THROUGH THIS PROCESS, I HAD INSTRUCTED THAT THEY BRING THIS TO YOU EARLY IN THEIR DESIGN CONSIDERATION SO THEY COULD GET SOME INITIAL FEEDBACK. AND SO IF THAT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT THE BOARD IS ACCUSTOMED TO SEEING, THAT'S ON ME.

BUT ALSO I FELT THAT GIVEN THE UNIQUE NATURE OF THIS OWNERSHIP CONFIGURATION AND REALLY UNCERTAINTY ABOUT HOW TO TREAT IT THAT IT WAS APPROPRIATE TO MOVE IT HERE AT LEAST INITIALLY

TO GET SOME FEEDBACK. >> CHAIRMAN: I AGREE.

I THINK IT IS A GREAT OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE A PUBLIC POLICY DISCUSSION IN PUBLIC IN FULL VIEW OF THE SUNSHINE.

THERE'S NOTHING GOING ON HERE THAT'S INAPPROPRIATE.

YOU KNOW, KAVANAUGH COULD HAVE COME AROUND AND TALKED TO US INDIVIDUALLY. HE CHOSE NOT TO.

HE CHOSE TO BRING IT THIS WAY. I THINK THIS IS A GREAT WAY TO HAVE THIS DISCUSSION. IT DOES LEAD US TO THIS--

>> BOARD MEMBER: HAVING IT AS PART OF A VARIANCE APPLICATION.

>> IT'S NOT AN APPLICATION. >> CHAIRMAN: BECAUSE WHAT IF THE BOARD IS GOING TO SAY NO TO THIS THING, WHY DO WE NEED TO DRAG THEM THROUGH THAT WHOLE PROCESS IF WE KNOW UP FRONT WE'RE GOING

TO SAY NO. >> BOARD MEMBER: THAT'S NOT SOMETHING WE OFFER TO OTHER APPLICANTS.

COME IN FRONT OF US AND SEE WHAT OUR OPINION IS GOING TO BE

BEFORE YOU PAY THE MONEY TO COME >> CHAIRMAN: BUT IT'S AN UNUSUAL SITUATION BECAUSE IT IS AN L SHAPED LOT IN OLD TOWN.

MOST VARIANCES ARE HONESTLY MUCH MORE STANDARDIZED FOR WANT OF A

BETTER WORD. >> BOARD MEMBER: I JUST DISAGREE

WITH THE PROCESS. >> CHAIRMAN: THAT'S ALL RIGHT.

WE'RE NOT TAKING ANY ACTION SO YOU KNOW.

BOARD MEMBERS, TAMMI WHAT DO YOU THINK?

>> BOARD MEMBER: I'VE GOT A DESIGN QUESTION.

IS THE USE OF THE HEIGHT THAT THEY HAD THERE THAT'S COVERING THE LOT, AMID THE SIDE YARD CORRIDOR DOESN'T THAT BECOME A CONNECTING ELEMENT THAT WOULD MEET OUR GUIDELINE?

>> CHAIRMAN: NO. IT'S THE OPPOSITE.

WELL, JIM? >> BOARD MEMBER: NOT IF IT'S

BEEN CLOSED. >> BOARD MEMBER: SO WOULD IT

NEED TO BE OPEN OR JUST-- >> CHAIRMAN: YEAH.

TECHNICALLY. >> BOARD MEMBER: THE MOST IMPORTANT QUESTIONS FOR US IS ACTUALLY JUST DETERMINING IF LOT

[01:55:08]

9 IS BUILDABLE AT THIS POINT. >> CHAIRMAN: I GUESS WE COULD AVOID THE WHOLE PROBLEM IF YOU PUT THE MAIN STRUCTURE ON 7 AND THE ACCESSORY STRUCTURE 10 FEET OVER ON 9.

YOU WOULDN'T NEED A VARIANCE RIGHT.

I AM ASSUMING THERE'S A DESIGN REASON WHY YOU'VE DONE IT THIS

WAY? >> WELL WE FEEL LIKE IT'S MUCH MORE IMPORTANT TO OLD TOWN AND THE NEIGHBORHOOD STRUCTURE TO SEND IT TO HOLD THAT CORNER WITH THE PRIMARY STRUCTURE.

I THINK IT WOULD BE UNFORTUNATELY TO HAVE THAT REVERSE AND HAVE AN OUT BUILDING, A GARAGE BUILDING ON

THAT PRIME CORNER. >> CHAIRMAN: YOU WOULD AGREE

THAT'S AN ARGUABLE POINT RIGHT. >> IT SAYS IN THE GUIDELINES THAT WE CAN'T HAVE ACCESSORY STRUCTURES ON CORNER.

>> THAT'S RIGHT >> CHAIRMAN: IS THAT IN THE

GUIDELINES OR THE LDC? >> WE CAN FIND IT.

BUT I KNOW I CAME ACROSS IT. >> CHAIRMAN: WELL THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ANYBODY ELSE WANT TO WEIGH IN ON

THIS? >> BOARD MEMBER: SO I THINK I WOULD JUST WEIGH IN ARCHITECT TULLELY THAT I TEND TO AGREE WITH THE APPLICANT THAT PUTTING THE PRIMARY STRUCTURE ON THE CORNER HELPS KIND OF SOLIDIFY AND PAY HOMAGE TO THE COMMUNITY AT LARGE. I WOULD WANT TO SEE THE SIDE ELEVATION GOING DOWN COMMANDANT STREET JUST TO SEE AND I WOULD ENCOURAGE THEM TO GIVE SOME KIND OF SECONDARY PRESENCE ALONG THAT STREET AND CONSIDER THAT AS THEY MOVE FORWARD SO IT TRULY HAS THAT CORNER LOT VISION THAT ADDRESSES BOTH STREETS-- THE MAIN STREET AND THE SECONDARY ADDRESSING OF COMMANDANT.

BUT I TOTALLY GET THEIR PRESENTATION HERE BECAUSE COMMUNITY WIDE IT MAKES SENSE TO ME TO ANCHOR THE CORNER THE WAY THEY'VE CHOSEN TO. THE CONNECTING ELEMENT THAT GOES BETWEEN I THINK IT WOULD NEED TO BE MINIMIZED AS THEY HAVE DONE IN THIS VERSION BUT, YOU KNOW, STRETCHING IT, MAKING IT WIDER.

YOU KNOW, THE ROOF AND EVERYTHING.

RIGHT NOW IT READS AS SECONDARY AND IT NEEDS TO CONTINUE TO READ AS SECONDARY NO MATTER WHAT GETS DONE TO IT.

I THINK THAT WOULD BE THE ONLY WAY FOR US TO MOVE FORWARD AND SAY YES. BUT I CAN SEE HOW PEOPLE MIGHT COME IN AND ARGUE WHY CAN'T YOU BUILD A PRIMARY ON 7.

THAT'S A TOUGH ONE. >> CHAIRMAN: YOU MAKE A GOOD POINT THOUGH. I THINK WE'RE ACTUALLY MORE CONSISTENT BY EMBRACING THE INCONSISTENCY BECAUSE IT BRINGS THE MAIN STRUCTURE ON TO THE CORNER AND PROVIDES THE APPROPRIATE STREETSCAPE. DID YOU HAVE ANY COMMENTS ON THIS OR KATES ROBINSON? HAVE WE LOST THEM?

>> NO. THEY'RE HERE.

>> BOARD MEMBER: SORRY I'M HERE I'M JUST TRYING NOT TO COUGH.

>> CHAIRMAN: I HEAR YOU. DO YOU HAVE ANY COMMENTS?

>> BOARD MEMBER: NO. >> CHAIRMAN: OKAY.

MS. CONWAY? >> WE MAY HAVE LOST HER.

>> CHAIRMAN: OKAY. >> BUT I KNOW JACOB HAS SOME

DETAILS. >> CHAIRMAN: OKAY.

JACOB? >> MOSER FOLKS POINTED OUT BUILDINGS SHALL NOT BE LOCATED ON CORNER MEDIA PEONY THOUGHTS.

>> CHAIRMAN: SO THEY'RE SCREWED. I'M SORRY.

THEY HAVE PROBLEMS EITHER WAY. AND THE OUTCOME COULD BE THAT THE MEDIA PEE PONY IS NOT -- PAEONIA IS NOT BUILDABLE WITHOUT A VARIANCE. I TALKED TO TILSON AND HE-- AT THIS TIME WE WANTED TO DO ANYTHING HE BELIEVES YOU ARE GOING TO NEED A VARIANCE. HE WOULD LIKELY THINK ABOUT THIS AS PART OF THE STUDY HE IS SCHEDULED TO DO THIS SUMMER ON OLD TOWN GUIDELINES. BUT I WILL TELL YOU THAT IF I WAS THE GOVERNOR I WOULD BE VERY SURPRISED IF THE PRESERVATION GRANT PASSED WITHOUT A VETO AT THIS TIME.

BECAUSE THEY'VE GOT A BILLION DOLLAR HOLE THEY'VE GOT TO FIX AND I'D BE LOOKING AT EVERYTHING THAT WASN'T ESSENTIAL ON LINE ITEM VETO. AND I'LL SAY THAT BECAUSE I USED TO ACTUALLY WRITE LINE ITEM VETOES. SO, MY SENSE IS THAT THERE'S A PRETTY GOOD CHANCE TILSON IS NOT GOING TO BE WORKING ON THIS THIS SUMMER. BUT I WOULD BE SUPPORTIVE I

[02:00:03]

THINK OF THE VARIANCE AS IT IS. >> AS WE'RE DISCUSSING THIS, IF I COULD JUST REMIND EVERYBODY AND I KNOW THAT THE MOSER GROUP UNDERSTANDS THIS AND SO DOES THE PROPERTY OWNER.

THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THIS IN GENERALITIES.

YOU KNOW, IS THIS COMPLETELY A TURN OFF OR NOT.

WE HAVE CRITERIA THAT HAVE TO BE MET AND ARTICULATED AND EVIDENCE AND TESTIMONY THAT SOU 30R9S THAT THOSE -- SUPPORTS THOSE

CRITERIA ARE MET. >> CHAIRMAN: THANK YOU, COUNSEL.

AND SO I AM GOING TO CLOSE OUT THIS DISCUSSION UNLESS ANYBODY HAS ANYTHING ELSE THEY WANT TO OFFER AND SAY I THINK IF YOU BROUGHT IT I THINK IT WOULD BE CONSIDERED.

I DON'T THINK IT WOULD BE REJECTED OUT OF HAND.

I THINK THAT WOULD BE SOMETHING THAT YOU SHOULD THINK ABOUT FOR THE REASONS THAT YOU'VE ARGUED. ANYTHING ELSE?

>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THAT'S ALL WE WERE ASKING TODAY.

THANK YOU. >> CHAIRMAN: GOOD WORK TODAY.

[Items 6 & 8]

ANYBODY ELSE HAVE ANYTHING? KELLY, STAFF REPORT?

>> I REALLY-- AND MS. CONWAY HAS REJOINED US.

I REALLY DO NOT HAVE A LOT TO CONTRIBUTE AND APOLOGIZE I DID NOT PROVIDE TO YOU THE MATERIALS THAT I DID LAST MONTH.

I DO HAVE AN UPDATE THAT I'D BE HAPPY TO SEND TO YOU WITH THE BOARD TRACKER SO THAT YOU CAN SEE WHAT OTHER BOARDS ARE WORKING ON THIS MONTH. BUT I DID NOT HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO ATTACH IT TO THE AGENDA LAST WEEK.

WE DO NOT HAVE A PRESERVATION PLANNER ON BOARD AT THIS TIME AND SO JAKE AND I CONTINUE TO JUGGLE THE DUTIES ASSOCIATED WITH THIS BOARD UNTIL WE ARE ABLE TO FIND SOMEBODY WHO IS THE RIGHT FIT. SO IF YOU HAPPEN TO KNOW ANYONE WHO HAS A PASSION FOR PRESERVATION AND WOULD LIKE TO-- AND ALSO PLANNING BACKGROUND, AND WOULD LIKE TO WORK FOR THE C CIT CITY OF FERNANDINA BEACH THE APPLICATION IS ONLINE.

>> CHAIRMAN: PLANNERS WOULD HAVE AN UNDERGRADUATE DEGREE FROM A

HIGHER INSTITUTION? >> PLANNING HISTORIC PRESERVATION, DESIGN. THERE ARE MANY COLLEGES THAT OFFER PROGRAMS THAT WOULD BE CERTAINLY ABLE TO FIT THIS ROLE.

>> CHAIRMAN: GREAT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

ANYTHING? NO YOU'RE GOOD.

BOARD MEMBERS

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.