Link

Social

Embed

Download

Download
Download Transcript

[Items 1 & 2]

[00:00:07]

>> CHAIRMAN: HISTORIC DISTRICT COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING VIRTUALLY AND IN PERSON JULY 16TH.

LET'S STAND FOR THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.

THANK YOU. YOU WANT TO DO THE ROLL CALL?

>> YES, SIR. MEMBER HARRISON?

>> HERE. >> MEMBER CONWAY?

>> HERE. >> MEMBER POZZETTA?

>> HERE. >> MEMBER MORRISON?

>> HERE. >> MEMBER KOSACK?

>> HERE. >> CHAIR SPINO?

>> HERE. >> MEMBER ROBINSON IS ABSENT.

>> CHAIRMAN: THANK YOU. AND I WOULD LIKE TO ASK THE BOARD MEMBERS TO SEAT MS. TAMMY KOSACK FOR THE CASE NUMBER 2020-06. BOARD MEMBERS--

>> SO MOVED. >> MOVED.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. >> AYE.

>>. >> MR. CHAIR?

>> YES, SIR? >> I HAVE TO RECUSE MYSELF FROM ITEM 4.2 BECAUSE I WORKED ON THAT PROJECT.

>> CHAIRMAN: 4.2? OKAY.

YOU DID GOOD WORK. HOLD ON ONE SECOND, I NEED TO MAKE A NOTE HERE. YEAH, WE SEATD THE ALTERNATE EX PARTE. SO, BENJAMIN YOU HAVE DISCLOSED.

AND SO TAMMY WILL ALSO BE SEATED TO ARE THAT CASE.

ANYBODY ELSE HAVE ANY EX PARTE COMMUNICATIONS?

MR. POZZETTA? >> YES I DID SPEAK WITH MR. MIRANDA WHO ASKED ME WHAT MY OPINION OF WHAT KIND OF ADDITIONAL INFORMATION MIGHT BE A GOOD IDEA TO PRESENT TO THE HDC TO INFORM BOARD MEMBERS THE KIND OF THINGS WE MIGHT LIKE TO SEE FOR THAT CASE WHICH I UNDERSTAND HAS BEEN DELAYED.

>> CHAIRMAN: CONTINUED. I'VE HAD A SIMILAR CONVERSATION WITH JOSE AND MS. DORNER ABOUT THAT CASE.

ANYBODY ELSE? BENJAMIN ANY EX PARTE? OBVIOUSLY YOU'VE GOT THE MOELLER CASE.

MS. KOSACK? >>

>> CHAIRMAN: NOT YET BUT IT WILL BE HOPEFULLY.

IT TAKES AN ACTION BY THE BOARD TO DO THAT.

>> I HAD TO TWO CITIZENS CONTACT ME REGARDING THAT.

I THINK EVERYBODY WAS COPIED ON THE EMAIL.

>> CHAIRMAN: THANK YOU. MR. HARRISON?

>> NONE. >> CHAIRMAN: MS. CONWAY? DO YOU HAVE ANY EX PARTE COMMUNICATIONS?

IS MS. CONWAY FROZE UP? >> I DID SPEAK TO GENE MANN.

THAT WOULD BE THE ST. MICHAEL'S CASE.

VERY GOOD. COUNCILLOR, WOULD YOU BE WILLING TO REVIEW THE QUASI JUDICIAL PROCEDURES.

>> COUNCILMEMBER: FOR ALL THE CASES APPEARING TONIGHT THEY'LL BE GOVERNED BY QUASI-JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS.

THAT MEANS ANY DECISION HAS TO BE SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE. AND THAT EVIDENCE WILL BE PRESENTED BY THE APPLICANT, BY THE STAFF AND AFFECTED PARTY AND CAN BE THROUGH THE FORM OF EXHIBITS SUCH AS DOCUMENTS OR PHOTOGRAPHS OR BY TESTIMONY. SO, ANYONE THAT'S TESTIFYING WILL NEED TO BE SWORN IN. ANY AFFECTED PARTY THAT DISAGREES WITH THE DECISION WILL HAVE 30 DAYS TO FILE AN APPEAL AND THAT WILL BE TO THE CITY COMMISSION.

>> CHAIRMAN: COUNCIL WE'VE BEEN A LITTLE AT SEA ON THE OATH ISSUE. AND I WOULD LIKE TO COMPRESS THAT. INSTEAD OF DOING IT FOR EVERY CASE, COULD WE AT LEAST SWEAR EVERYBODY WHO IS HERE IN THE ROOM AT THIS TIME, INCLUDING STAFF IF NEED BE, AND THEN I GUESS WE'LL DO FOLKS WHO ARE PARTICIPATING BY ZOOM ONE AT A TIME. IS THAT RIGHT?

>> YOU CAN DO EVERYBODY AT THE SAME TIME.

>> CHAIRMAN: OKAY. >> I MADE IT SO EVERYONE CAN

TALK. >> CHAIRMAN: VERY GOOD.

SO, ANYONE WHO WISHES TO TESTIFY TONIGHT, PLEASE STAND.

AND MISS SILL VI WILL ADMINISTER THE OATH.

[00:05:07]

. >> RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND.

DO YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM THE ORAL OR WRITTEN TESTIMONY YOU ARE ABOUT TO GIVE WILL BE THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH. ?

>> YES. >> THANK YOU.

>> CHAIRMAN: VERY GOOD. I DON'T HAVE MINUTES TO APPROVE YET DO I? ?

>> NO. >> CHAIRMAN: THANK YOU VERY MUCH. MR. MART INHAS ASKED ME TO CONVEY A STATEMENT REGARDING OUR PERFORMANCE HERE.

LET ME START THE HISTORIC DISTRICT COUNCIL REPRESENTS ALL THE PEOPLE OF FEERN BEACH. WE WILL EXHIBIT PROFESSIONALISM, RESPECT AND COURTESY AMONGST OURSELVES MORE IMPORTANTLY THE PARTIES THAT APPEAR BEFORE US AND OTHERS THAT WATCH US.

WHAT CAN SOMETIMES BE INTENDED AS FRAY VOLTE AMONG PEERS CAN BE PERCEIVED AS MEAN OR DISRESPECTFUL TO SOME.

IF ANY CONDUCT OF THIS BOARD HAS BEEN OFFENSIVE I APOLOGIZE ON BEHALF OF THE BOARD. WE WANT TO CONTINUE OUR EFFORTS TO MAINTAIN AND ENHANCE THE HISTORIC CHARACTER OF OUR WONDERFUL PLACE. I WANT TO THANK OUR CITY COMMISSIONERS AND THE LEADERSHIP OF THE COUNTY FOR THE MASK ORDINANCE. MANY OF US WOULD NOT BE HERE TONIGHT TO PARTICIPATE IF YOU HADN'T DONE THAT.

SO, THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR TAKING CARE OF US AND HELPING

[4.1 HDCV 2020-0002: JOSE MIRANDA, AGENT FOR ST. MICHAEL CATHOLIC CHURCH/DIOCESE OF ST. AUGUSTINE, 228 N. 4TH STREET]

MAKE US ALL SAFE. OLD BUSINESS.

BENJAMIN YOU ARE GOING TO HELP ME OFF-- NOT BENJAMIN.

JACOB YOU ARE GOING TO HELP ME IF I GET OFF TRACK.

I UNDERSTAND HDC20-0002 ST. MICHAEL'S HAS ASKED FOR

CONTINUATION? >> THAT'S CORRECT.

>> CHAIRMAN: DO WE NEED TO DISCUSS THAT BOARD MEMBERS OR ARE WE COMFORTABLE CONTINUING THAT? I THINK THERE'S BEEN SOME QUESTION ABOUT TITLE SOME QUESTION ABOUT DEEDS. IT'S BEYOND MY PAY GRADE.

I THINK WE OUGHT TO LET THE FOLKS AT THE DIOCESE FIGURE IT OUT BEFORE WE TAKE THIS CASE ON. IS THAT OKAY FOR EVERYBODY?

>> YES. >> YEAH.

MS. CONWAY ARE YOU ALL RIGHT WITH THAT?

>> I AM. I HOPE THAT MEMBERS HAVE READ SOME OF THE THINGS SENT TO US. IT'S FASCINATING.

>> CHAIRMAN: YES, IT IS FASCINATING.

WHEN YOU LIVE IN A HISTORIC PLACE SOMETIMES THINGS LIKE THIS HAPPEN. RIGHT COUNCILLOR?

>> THAT'S RIGHT. >> CHAIRMAN: CAN I GET A MOTION

TO CONTINUE 2020-0002? >> THAT WILL BE A TIME CERTAIN

DATE OF THE AUGUST 20TH MEETING. >> CHAIRMAN: DID YOU HEAR THAT? CONTINUED UNTIL THE AUGUST 20TH MEETING.

HOPEFULLY THEY'LL HAVE THEIR STUFF-- THEIR DIE OZ ASIN NEEDS MET BY THEN. CAN I GET A MOTION?

>> COUNCILMEMBER: YES. >> CHAIRMAN: IS THERE A SECOND

>> COUNCILMEMBER: I'LL SECOND IT.

>> CHAIRMAN: I DON'T THINK THERE'S ANY NEED FOR DISCUSSION.

PLEASE CALL THE ROLE. >> MEMBER HARRISON?

>> YES. >> MEMBER CONWAY?

>> YES. >> MEMBER POZZETTA?

>> YES. >> MEMBER MORRISON?

>> YES. >> CHAIR SPINO?

>> YES. >> CHAIRMAN: MOVING ON.

[4.2 HDCA 2020-0016: GEORGE MOELLER, 416 N. 3RD STREET]

2020-0016 MOELLER 416 NORTH THIRD STREET.

BENJAMIN IS RECUSED ON THIS CASE SINCE HE HAS WORKED ON IT.

SO, TAMMI YOU ARE SEATED AS A VOTING MEMBER ON THIS CASE.

IS MR. MOELLER HERE? NO? IS HE ON? I JUST WANTED TO--

>> IS HE THE PHONE CALL? >> CHAIRMAN: THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION. THE CALLER WITH PHONE NUMBER ENDING IN 2478, IS THAT MORE MOELLER?

>> CHAIRMAN: THAT'S OKAY. I'M NOT CERTAIN HE IS HERE.

I JUST WANTED TO SAY WHAT A GREAT JOB HE HAD DONE ON THAT HOUSE. THAT PLACE HAS COME A LONG WAY SINCE YOU GUYS TOOK THAT ON BACK IN--

>> HE'S DONE A REALLY GOOD JOB AND THE OWNER DESERVES THE

CREDIT FOR IT. >> CHAIRMAN: THAT PLACE WAS LITERALLY CLOSE TO FALLING DOWN. WE'RE REALLY PLEASED THAT COME THE WAY IT HAS. MR. PLATT DO YOU HAVE

INFORMATION ON THIS CASE? >> YES, SIR.

GOOD EVENING BOARD MEMBERS, MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC.

KELLY, AM I GOING TO SHARE-- ARE YOU GOING TO MAKE ME THE HOST TO SHARE? PLEASE.

[00:10:07]

TONIGHT'S CASE HDCS FOR AMENDMENT 2020-0016 IS AMENDMENT TO A PREVIOUS COA2018-26 CHANGING SHAKE SIDING ON A REAR GABLE AND REVISING THE LATTICE DESIGN AS WELL AS CHANGING ONE WINDOW OPENING. THE APPLICANT HAS MADE SLIGHT MODIFICATIONS TO THE REAR OF THE STRUCTURE AS I INDICATED CHANGING THE GABLE SIDING MATERIALS TO LAP SIDING.

CHANGING TWO WINDOW OPENINGS TO ONE SINGLE ENCASEMENT WINDOW AND CHANGING THE LATTICE OR INFILL BETWEEN THE BRICK PILLARS FROM A LATTICE MATERIAL TO A PLANK MATERIAL THAT YOU CAN SEE IN THE REVISED PLANS. WITH THE REVISED PLANS I ALSO HAVE A PICTURE OF THE UNPAINTED REAR PORTION OF THE PROJECT.

THE ONE COMPONENT THAT I WAS GOING TO ASK FOR THE BOARD'S DIRECTION WAS HOW LONG THE APPLICANT WAS WANTING TO EXTEND OR ALLOW FOR THE REAR TO BE LEFT UNPAINTED.

THEY'VE RUN INTO SOME PROJECT DIFFICULTIES AND LOOKING TO GET THEIR BUILDING PERMIT CLOSED OUT SO THEY CAN FINALIZE A LOAN.

SO, SIMPLE ANALYSIS, LIKE MR. SPINO HAS REFERENCED, A VERY NICE PROJECT. CHANGING GABLE SIDING MATERIALS CONSISTENT WITH THE FRAME VERNACULAR STYLE.

CHANGE IN WINDOW OPENINGS ON THE REAR ADDITION APPROVED WITH COA2018-26. WHILE THE DESIGN GUIDELINES ENCOURAGE THE USE OF LATTICE PANELS BETWEEN PIER FOUNDATION WOOD SKIRT HAS BEEN ADDED. WITH THE PROPOSED CHANGES, STAFF MINDS THAT THE PROJECT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, SECRETARY OF INTERIOR STANDARDS AND DOWNTOWN HISTORIC DISTRICT GUIDELINES AND STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF

HDCA-2020-0016. >> CHAIRMAN: QUESTIONS FOR

MR. PLATT? >> COUNCILMEMBER: I HAVE ONE.

>> COUNCILMEMBER: I HAVE A QUESTION, TOO.

>> CHAIRMAN: GO AHEAD, TAMMI. WE'LL GET TO JIM HERE SINCE HE

IS HERE NEXT. >> COUNCILMEMBER: THE QUESTION AS TO WHY THEY WANTED THE APPROVAL FIRST.

THAT MAKES SENSE. AND THESE GUYS ARE MY NEIGHBORS AND THEY DO IMPECCABLE WORK. SO, YOU KNOW, I'M THRILLED TO SEE THIS HOUSE COME ALIVE LIKE TIS.

ONE QUESTION IS, DOES THE RAILING THEY'RE USING IN THE BACK INSTEAD OF THE LATTICE DOES THAT EXTEND AROUND THE ENTIRE

HOUSE OR JUST ON THE BACK? >> IT EXTENDS AROUND THE ENTIRE

HOUSE. >> COUNCILMEMBER: SO THAT WHOLE DETAIL. THEN THE NEXT ONE IS, IF WE APPROVE IT PRIOR TO THE PAINT, DO WE HAVE THE ORIGINAL PAINT THAT WAS APPROVED AND IS THERE-- I'M NOT QUESTIONING THESE PEOPLE BUT I'M THINKING GOING FORWARD IF SOMEBODY WANTED TO DO THIS IS THERE A TRIGGER MECHANISM TO SEE IF AN APPLICANT DOES DO THE

APPROVED PAINT SCHEME? >> SO WE WOULD BE LOOKING FOR THAT APPROVE PAINT ON HDC FILE INSPECTION.

HE HAS INDICATED THEY STILL PLAN TO PAINT THE ENTIRE STRUCTURE.

I DON'T REMEMBER EXACTLY THE PAINT COLOR BUT THE ENTIRE STRUCTURE IS GOING TO BE PAINTED TO MATCH.

>> COUNCILMEMBER: I GUESS MY QUESTION IS, YOU KNOW, IF THEY GET THE APPROVAL WHAT TRIGGERS-- SOME KIND OF CHECK.

BECAUSE WE'RE GIVING THEM THE FINAL NOW IS THAT RIGHT.

>> CORRECT. IF WE ALLOWED THAT TO HAPPEN I WOULD SET A REMINDER AND NOTE IN THE INNER-GOV FILE TO CHECK IT AT THAT LENGTH OF TIME OR WHENEVER HE REQUESTS AND LET US

KNOW THAT IT WAS COMPLETED. >> COUNCILMEMBER: YEAH.

OKAY. THAT'S IT.

>> CHAIRMAN: THE ANSWER TO YOUR FIRST QUESTION WAS HOW DO WE KNOW IT GETS CHECKED? BECAUSE IT GETS CHECK AS PART OF THE FILE REVIEW. WHAT WAS THE PAINT COLOR?

>> I DON'T-- >> CHAIRMAN: I DON'T EITHER.

IT WOULD HAVE BEEN APPROVED BY THIS BODY.

WHEN WAS THIS PROJECT DONE? >> THE ORIGINAL COA WAS 2018.

>> CHAIRMAN: I SEEM TO RECALL IT.

MR. POZZETTA DO YOU HAVE A QUESTION?

>> COUNCILMEMBER: YEAH. IS THE REQUEST TO DELAY THE VERIFICATION OF THE PAINT BECAUSE THEY WON'T ALLOW THE PRESSURE TREATED WOOD TO CURE PROPERLY BEFORE IT'S PAINTED? OR IS IT MAYBE A DIFFERENT REASON.

>> I THINK IT'S FINANCIAL. >> MR. MOELLER DIDN'T INDICATE THAT. THEY'RE WORKING ON CLOSING OUT A LOAN AND THERE'S SOME PROJECT DIFFICULTIES THEY'VE HAD OR ARE

WORKING TO RESOLVE. >> CHAIRMAN: WE'RE ALL SURPRISED TO HEAR A HISTORIC HOME HAS

[00:15:02]

BUT WE DON'T KNOW HOW MUCH TIME THEY WANT RIGHT.

THEY DIDN'T INDICATE A TIMEFRAME FOR US?

>> HE DIDN'T. I WAS LOOKING FOR THE BOARD TO-- AND THAT'S SOMETHING I SHOULD HAVE CLARIFIED WITH MR. MOELLER.

I WAS EXPECTING HIM TO BE HERE TONIGHT TO MAKE THAT REQUEST.

SO, I'M ASKING FOR THE BOARD TO PROVIDE A REASONABLE AMOUNT OF

TIME. >> CHAIRMAN: THAT MAKES SENSE.

OKAY. SO WE DON'T HAVE ANYBODY HERE.

LET ME JUST MAKE SURE. IS THERE ANYBODY HERE REPRESENTING CASE 2020-0016 MOELLER FOR 16 NORTH THIRD STREET. SEEING NO ONE, I AM INCLINED TO GO TO THE PUBLIC HEARING.

IS THERE ANYBODY FROM THE PUBLIC WHO WISHES TO SPEAK WITH REGARDS TO 2020-0016? SEEING NO ONE WE'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC MEETING. BOARD DISCUSSION?

BOARD MEMBERS, WHAT'S YOUR PLEASURE? >> COUNCILMEMBER: I DON'T SEE

ANYTHING TO OBJECT TO HERE. >> CHAIRMAN: TAMMI? >> COUNCILMEMBER: I AGREE.

>> COUNCILMEMBER: I MOVE TO APPROVE. >> CHAIRMAN: CAN YOU HOLD ON FOR ONE SECOND BECAUSE WE NEED TO HAVE A LITTLE DISCUSSION ABOUT THE--

>> TIMEFRAME, I THINK PROBABLY SIX MONTHS MAY BE A GOOD TIMEFRAME.

BECAUSE I KNOW THAT THAT WOOD TAKES A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF TIME TO CURE BEFORE IT CAN BE

PROPERLY PAINTED ANYWAY. >> CHAIRMAN: SO I HEAR SIX MONTHS.

IF THERE'S SOMEBODY WHO WOULD LIKE TO MOVE THIS CASE FOR APPROVAL WITH A SIX-MONTH WINDOW OR SIX-MONTH TIMELINE ON THE PAINTING, PLEASE DO SO, AT THIS TIME.

>> COUNCILMEMBER: I'LL DO IT. >> CHAIRMAN: THANK YOU. >> COUNCILMEMBER: I MOVE TO APPROVE HDC CASE NUMBER 2020-0016 WITH THE CONDITION THAT THE APPROVED PAINT SCHEME FROM THE ORIGINAL COA IS COMPLETED WITHIN SIX MONTHS. AND I MOVE THAT THE HDC MAKE THE FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS PART OF THE RECORD THAT HDC2020-0016 IS COMPLIANT WITH THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, THE SECRETARY OF INTERIOR STANDARDS AND DOWNTOWN HISTORIC GUIDELINES

FOR APPROVAL AT THIS TIME. >> COUNCILMEMBER: SECOND. >> CHAIRMAN: MOVED.

SECONDED POZZETTA. ANY DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE, MS. SILL VIE

PLEASE CALL THE ROLE. >> MEMBER CONWAY? >> YES.

>> MEMBER POZZETTA >> COUNCILMEMBER: YES. >> MEMBER HARRISON?

>> COUNCILMEMBER: YES. >> MEMBER KOSACK? >> COUNCILMEMBER: YES.

>> CHAIR SPINO? >> CHAIRMAN: YES. MOVING ON.

EXCUSE ME ONE SECOND. 2020-0011-- >> COUNCILMEMBER: YOU SKIPPED.

[5.1 HDC 2020-0006: JAMES POZZETTA, ARCHITECT, AGENT FOR PAMELA REA & PAUL GRIFFIN, 602 DATE STREET]

>> CHAIRMAN: I'M SORRY JIMMY. 2020-006 PAM AND PAUL REA 602 DATE STREET.

STAY HERE PLEASE. WE'VE GOT ENOUGH GOING ON I DON'T NEED TO BE MANAGING THAT TOO. I DON'T EVEN KNOW WHAT CASE I'M ON JIM HDC CASE 2020-0006 FOR MR. AND MRS. GRIFFIN. REPRESENTED TONIGHT BY MR. JAMES POZZETTA. PROPERTY'S AT 602 DATE STREET. LOOKING FOR A COA TO EXPAND A DETACHED GARAGE AND CONSTRUCT A SECOND STORY ADDITION. THE PRIMARY STRUCTURE IS CONTRIBUTING STRUCTURE. AND SO JUST TO RUN THROUGH THE SITE PLAN.

THE PROPOSED OR EXCUSE ME THE EXISTING GARAGE IS NON-CONFORMING WITH REGARD TO THE REAR YARD AS IT'S RIGHT UP ON THE PROPERTY LINE. SO THE PROPOSED ADDITION BUMPS OVER TO ACCOMMODATE THE THREE FOOT SIDE YARD SET BACK REQUIREMENTS AND THERE IS A SMALL ADDITION TO THE REAR OF THE EXISTING GARAGE BRINGING THE TOTAL SQUARE FOOTAGE TO THE MAXIMUM ALLOWED THROUGH THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE WITH A REAR DECK PROPOSED AS WELL.

THE STRUCTURE COMPLIES WITH THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT REQUIREMENTS. THIS IS THE LEFT ELEVATION WHICH IS THE ELEVATION FROM THE STREET. THE MATERIALS ARE GOING TO BE MODERN MATERIALS. THEY REPRESENT TRADITIONAL MATERIALS YOU FIND THROUGHOUT DOWNTOWN. AND THIS IS THE NORTH ELEVATION WHICH SHOWS THE NORTHERN EXTERIOR STAIR TO THE SECOND FLOOR AS WELL AS THE UNCOVERED DECK THAT WILL HAVE A RETRACTABLE AWNING TO BE USED FROM TIME TO TIME AS WELL AS SCREEN ENCLOSURE BELOW THAT

[00:20:06]

SECOND LEVEL DECK. THIS WOULD BE THE EAST ELEVATION.

>> COUNCILMEMBER: JACOB, I'M NOT SEEING YOUR SCREEN. >> I AM SORRY.

THAT IS KIND OF HELPFUL IF I'M SHOWING YOU ELEVATIONS. .

>> WE TRUST YOU BUT NOT THAT MUCH

>> THANK YOU. THANK YOU. >> COUNCILMEMBER: THERE WE GO.

>> I APOLOGIZE. THIS IS THE SITE PLAN THAT I RAN THROUGH.

WEST ELEVATION WHICH IS THE STREET SIDE ELEVATION. THE NORTHERN ELEVATION WITH THE EXTERIOR THERE ON THE SECOND FLOOR. THE EAST ELEVATION.

AND SOUTH ELEVATION WHICH IS THE ADJOINING PROPERTY ELEVATION. THIS IS A CONTEXT SHOWING THE PROPOSED SECOND STORY ADDITION IN RELATIONSHIP TO THE EXISTING PRIMARY-- CONTRIBUTING PRIMARY STRUCTURE. STAFF FOUND THE PROPOSED FIRST FLOOR EXPANSION AND SECOND STORY ADDITION TO THE DETACHED ACCESSORY STRUCTURE COMPLIES WITH THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE REQUIREMENTS. IT WILL UTILIZE MODERN MATERIALS TO REPLICATE TRADITIONAL MATERIALS COMMONLY SEEN IN THE DISTRICT. THE STAFF FINDS THE REQUESTED ACTION IS CONSISTENT WITH THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, THE SECRETARY OF INTERIOR STANDARDS AND THE DOWNTOWN HISTORIC DISTRICT GUIDELINES AND I RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF HDC2020-0006. I AM HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS AND MR. POZZETTA IS

OBVIOUSLY HERE WITH US TONIGHT. >> CHAIRMAN: OKAY. LET'S GO TO OUR VIRTUAL FRIENDS AND DO YOU HAVE QUESTIONS FOR MR. PLATT? TAMMI? NO? NONE? MR. HARRISON?

MS. CONWAY? >> COUNCILMEMBER: IT LOOKS GOOD. >> CHAIRMAN: YOU CAN'T ASK QUESTIONS. LET'S SEE. I WANTED TO MAKE SURE I UNDERSTOOD SOMETHING. AND BENJAMIN MIGHT BE ABLE TO HELP ME OUT.

WHERE IS BENJAMIN? DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ON THIS CASE FOR JACOB?

>> COUNCILMEMBER: NO. I THINK HE DID A GREAT JOB. >> CHAIRMAN: OKAY.

SO, THERE'S A NON-CONFORMITY OF EXISTING GARAGE, IS THAT CORRECT?

>> YES, SIR. >> CHAIRMAN: IF I RECALL FROM 2005 WHEN WE DID THIS ON SIXTH STREET AS LONG AS YOU ARE NOT EXTENDING THE NON-CONFORMITY YOU ARE NOT MAKING IT ANY WORSE IT'S

OKAY TO CONTINUE TO WORK WITH THAT STRUCTURE? >> THAT'S CORRECT.

AND THAT'S WHY THE ADDITION BUMPS OVER TO ACCOMMODATE THE SETBACK REQUIREMENT.

>> CHAIRMAN: SO WE'RE COMPLETELY CONSISTENT WITH WHAT WE SAID WE WERE GOING TO DO ALL ALONG.

OKAY VERY GOOD. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR MR. PLATT.

IF NOT WE'LL MOVE ON TO MR. POZZETTA AS THE AGENT. WE'RE LEAVING MR. POZZETTA AT THE TABLE TONIGHT BECAUSE MANAGING IN A VIRTUAL ENVIRONMENT MAKES IT A LITTLE MORE DIFFICULT. NORMALLY WE WOULD INSIST HE STEP DOWN BUT I'M NOT LETTING HIM GET THAT FAR AWAY. SO, JIM WHAT DO YOU WANT TO TELL US?

>> COUNCILMEMBER: I'LL JUST SAY A FEW WORDS ABOUT THE PROJECT. I ACTUALLY USED TO-- WHEN I FIRST MOVED HERE I USED TO LIVE IN THE SECOND FLOOR OF THE MAIN HOUSE AS A RENTER.

SO I WAS VERY FAMILIAR WITH THAT GARAGE AND IT ALWAYS WAS KIND OF AN AB ARENT OUTBUILDING IN THAT IT DIDN'T MATCH THE SCALE, THE DETAILING, THE MATERIALS DIDN'T RELATE TO THE MAIN HOUSE.

THE ROOF DIDN'T RELATE. THIS NEW PROJECT I FEEL LIKE IS REALLY GOING TO BRING THE WHOLE STRUCTURE TO JOIN THE FAMILY OF BUILDINGS ON THAT CORNER. WE'RE CHANGING THE EXTERIOR SIDING TO REFLECT AND BE SIMILAR TO THE MAIN HOUSE. THE WINDOWS ARE IN SCALE AND PROPORTION ARE GOING TO RELATE TO THE MAIN HOUSE AS WELL AS THE NEW ROOF PITCH.

SO, IT'S REALLY GOING TO BRING A WHOLE-- THAT SQUAT LITTLE GARAGE IS GOING TO GROW UP AND JOIN THE FAMILY ON THAT CORNER. AND I THINK UNLESS ANYONE HAS ANY QUESTIONS FOR ME THAT'S

REALLY ALL I HAVE TO SAY. >> CHAIRMAN: QUESTIONS FOR MORE POZZETTA.

WE'LL GET TO THE PUBLIC IN A MINUTE. JUST HOLD

[00:25:04]

JUST HOLD JUST HOLD MICHAEL? AGIE? BENJAMIN? NO? I SINCE WE MOVED HERE I'VE ALWAYS WONDERED IF THAT GARAGE ACTUALLY WENT WITH THAT HOUSE.

IT JUST DOESN'T-- IT'S LIKE DOES IT BELONG TO THE NEIGHBORS. DO YOU KNOW WHAT VINTAGE THAT

GARAGE IS? >> COUNCILMEMBER: SO I THINK THE GARAGE CERTAINLY COMES AFTER THE MAIN HOUSE. THE MATERIALS, THE CONSTRUCTION, EVERYTHING ABOUT IT IS DIFFERENT. AS FAR AS THE EXACT DATE OF ITS CONSTRUCTION I DON'T KNOW.

>> CHAIRMAN: DOES IT HAVE ASBESTOS SIDING? >> COUNCILMEMBER: I THINK SO.

>> CHAIRMAN: IT'S UNUSUAL. LET'S JUST SAY THAT. THIS IS A GREAT IMPROVEMENT F.

THAT'S A BEAUTIFUL CORNER. YOU HAVE DONE SUCH A NICE JOB THERE OVER TIME.

IF WE DON'T HAVE ANY MORE QUESTIONS FOR MR. POZZETTA WE'LL MOVE ON TO THE PUBLIC HEARING.

MR. OL AFAN DO YOU HAVE COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS? COME UP.

>> PUBLIC SPEAKER: FOR THE RECORD MY NAME IS BRIAN AL AFAN AT 509 CEDAR STREET.

FIRST THING I'D LIKE TO SAY IS THIS IS NOT BASICALLY YOU GOT IT RIGHT BECAUSE THERE'S A LOT OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION OF NEW STRUCTURES THAT ARE BUILT TO, QUOTE, MATCH THE OLD. AND WHAT'S THE FIRST THING THAT YOU SEE THAT THEY GOT WRONG IS THE ROOF LINE. YOU CARRIED IT ALL THE WAY THROUGH AND THAT'S ONE OF THE REASONS I'M HERE ABOUT ROOF LINES. NUMBER TWO IS MY PET PEEVE IS CHEESE BALL GARAGE DOORS. AND WHAT I AM TALKING ABOUT, THESE HOUSINGS ALL HAD CARRIAGE DOORS AND THEY WEREN'T SIX OR HIGH THEY WERE SEVEN TO EIGHT FEET.

YOU SEE RIGHT NEXT TO THE FOUR SISTERS ON SEVENTH STREET THAT TWO HOUSES THAT WERE PUT TOGETHER ALL RIGHT, CRAPOLA. FAKE HINGES EVERYTHING ELSE. THIS HIGH I CAN BARELY GET THROUGH THEM. SO WHAT IS THE POINT OF GOING THROUGH ALL THIS EFFORT ON A LOT OF THESE HOUSES FOR THE HDC OR WHOEVER IS IN CHARGE AROUND HERE TO LET A LOUSY, LOUSY, PLASTIC, FIBERGLASS DOORS. THEY CAN'T EVEN GET DECENT-- LIKE THERE ARE PLENTY OF SOURCES. IF SOMEBODY CAN PAY THIS KIND OF MONEY TO DO THAT KIND OF FINISH WORK THEN THEY CAN GO OUT AND I CAN TELL YOU, YOU KNOW, WHERE YOU CAN GET YOUR HINGES, WHERE YOU CAN GET DOORS THAT SWING, WHERE YOU CAN GET THE WHOLE DARN THING.

BECAUSE THIS PROJECT RIGHT HERE IS A QUARTER OF A MILLION DOLLARS, I MEAN, IF IT'S FINISHED OFF RIGHT. AND YOU'VE GONE AND BUY PERFECTLY GOOD PLATES AND HINGES FOR $100 A PAIR. SO THE TWO POINTS RIGHT HERE I AM IN A SITUATION WHERE I'VE GOT REAL BARN DOORS. REAL BARN DOORS ALL RIGHT. I'M LUCKY ENOUGH I HAD A FRIEND MAKE THEM AND I'M LUCKY ENOUGH WHERE I KNOW WHERE TO GET THE HINGES AND DO THINGS LIKE THIS.

BUT TO WALK AROUND THE STREET AND SAY MAN THIS IS REALLY GREAT.

AND THE ONE THING I'M LOOKING AT IS YOUR CRUMMY GARAGE DOORS OKAY.

I'VE SAID MY PIECE. I'LL SAY IT AGAIN A SECOND TIME. BUT I REALLY HATE BAD GARAGE

DOORS. >> CHAIRMAN: ANYBODY ELSE WISHING TO SPEAK WITH REGARDS TO CASE 2020-0006? ANYBODY ONLINE? NO.

ALL RIGHT. WE'RE GOING TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC MEETING.

MOVE INTO BOARD DISCUSSION. BOARD MEMBERS WHAT'S YOUR PLEASURE?

>> COUNCILMEMBER: I THINK THIS IS AN AMAZING ADDITION. JIM, I THINK YOU'VE DONE A FABULOUS JOB AND IT SHOULD DEFINITELY BE APPROVED IN MY OPINION.

>> COUNCILMEMBER: MY ONLY COMMENT IS THAT I JUST WANT TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I APPRECIATE THE APPLICANT PROVIDING THIS CONTEXT DRAWING THAT SHOWS THE GARAGE ADDITION IN CONTEXT WITH THE MAIN HOUSE BECAUSE THAT'S REALLY THE MOST HELPFUL DIAGRAM THAT WE HAVE TO WORK OFF OF.

AND WE ENCOURAGE PEOPLE TO DO THIS ALL THE TIME AND THEY DON'T ALWAYS DO IT.

SO I JUST WANTED TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT. I APPRECIATE IT.

>> COUNCILMEMBER: THE OTHER THING THAT WAS ORIGINALLY IED WITH QUESTIONS ABOUT WHEN I SAW THE PARACHUTE AWNINGS, I THOUGHT WHERE IS THAT AWNING GOING TO BE.

IT WAS VERY HELPFUL IT WAS NOT ONLY POINTED OUT ON THE BACK OF THE GARAGE BUT IT WAS CLOSED OR PARTIALLY OPEN THEN A FULLY OPENED POSITION TOO. SO, ALL THE QUESTIONS THAT MAY

HAVE ARISEN WERE ANSWERED IN THE MATERIALS PROVIDED. >> COUNCILMEMBER: I'D LIKE TO

MAKE A MOTION UNLESS ANYBODY OBJECTS? >> CHAIRMAN: HOLD ON.

ANYBODY ELSE HAVE ANY COMMENTS? IF NOT, THEN WE'LL GO THERE. >> COUNCILMEMBER: LET'S GO

THERE. >> CHAIRMAN: LET'S DO IT. >> COUNCILMEMBER: I MOVE TO

[00:30:05]

APPROVE HDC-2020-006 WITHOUT CONDITIONS. AND MAKE THE FINDING FINDINGS OF FACT PART OF THE RECORD THAT AS PRESENTED IS SUBSTANTIALLY COMPLIANT WITH THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, THE SECRETARY OF INTERIOR'S STANDARDS AND THE HISTORIC DISTRICT.

>> COUNCILMEMBER: SECOND. >> CHAIRMAN: MOVED MORRISON. SECOND KOSACK.

THE ONLY DISCUSSION I HAVE IF HE DIDN'T BRING US GOOD DRAWINGS THERE WOULD BE-- WE WOULD BE HAVING SOME SERIOUS DISCUSSION. MS. SYLVIE YOU WANT TO CALL THE ROLL?

>> COUNCILMEMBER: MEMBER CON WAY YES. >> MEMBER HARRISON?

>> COUNCILMEMBER: YES. >> COUNCILMEMBER: YES. >> COUNCILMEMBER: YES.

[5.2 2020-0011: ROBERT & LISA SALA, 1130 WHITE STREET]

>> CHAIRMAN: YES. 2020-0011. STAFF IS WORKING ON TECHNICAL ISSUES. WE'VE SEEN THIS BEFORE, RIGHT. MS. KELLY?

>> YEAH. YES YOU HAVE. THE BOARD ACTUALLY CONSIDERED THE PROPOSED PROJECT LOCATED HERE AT THE SALA RESIDENCE. PART OF THE CONCEPTUAL APPROVAL FOR THE INITIAL RESIDENCE. AT THAT TIME THERE WASN'T ENOUGH DETAILS WHEN THE APPLICANT CAME IN FOR FINAL APPROVAL. SO THE APPROVAL WAS WAITING UNTIL THE DETAILS COULD BE DETERMINED AND THEN PRESENTED BACK BEFORE THE BOARD. AND SO THIS EVENING THE BOARD IS BEING ASKED TO TAKE A LOOK AT AN IN-GROUND SWIMMING POOL FOR PROPERTY LOCATED IN OLD TOWN OFF OF WHITE STREET. AND THERE'S VERY LITTLE GUIDANCE IF ANY AS PART OF THE OLD TOWN DESIGN GUIDELINES ASSOCIATED WITH THIS TYPE OF IMPROVEMENT. SO, REALLY THIS EVENING YOU ARE LOOKING AT THE IMPROVEMENT BECAUSE IT IS A REQUIREMENT THAT IT GO BEFORE YOU FOR REVIEW AS PART OF THE MATRIX PROVIDED IN OUR LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE. THE ONLY REAL CRITERIA THAT WE HAVE TO REVIEW THIS EVENING IS CONSISTENCY WITH LOT COVERAGE AS WELL AS MECHANICAL SCREENING AND DESIGN ADDITIONALLY WANT TO MAKE SURE THERE IS CONSISTENCY WITH THE FIVE FOOT REQUIREMENTS FOR SETBACKS IN OLD TOWN. HOWEVER THAT'S IN KEEPING WITH THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE REQUIREMENT. THEREFORE, THE APPLICANT HAS INDICATED IN THEIR APPLICATION MATERIALS THEY WILL HAVE AN ARCHEOLOGIST AVAILABLE ON SITE DURING ALL EXCAVATION ACTIVITIES DUE TO THE SENSITIVE NATURE THAT EXISTS WITHIN OLD TOWN AND THE HIGHER LIKELIHOOD OF FINDING ANY ARCHAEOLOGICAL ARTIFACTS. STAFF HAS ISSUED A RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL IS AS CONSISTENT WITH THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AS WELL AS THE HISTORIC DISTRICT GOAL PROVIDED IN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. AND IN KEEPING WITH THE DESIGN STANDARDS PROVIDED BY THE

SECRETARY OF INTERIOR AND OLD TOWN DESIGN GUIDELINES. >> CHAIRMAN: QUESTIONS FOR DIRECTOR GIBSON? WE'LL GO THE ZOOM PANEL FIRST. PLEASE GO AHEAD.

>> COUNCILMEMBER: ONE THING FOR KELLY. IT'S VERY HARD TO HEAR YOU, KELLY. AND WE GOT A COMMENT FROM A CITIZEN ALSO THEY'RE HAVING

DIFFICULTY HEARING. >> OKAY. I'LL TAKE OFF MY MASK.

>> CHAIRMAN: AND SHE IS AT THE FAR END OF THE COUNTER. THE REST OF THE CASES ARE YOURS

RIGHT. >> YES, SIR. >> CHAIRMAN: WAS THAT IT?

ANYTHING ELSE, TAMMI? >> COUNCILMEMBER: I'VE GONE THROUGH THE MATERIALS AND I COULDN'T HEAR EVERYTHING. DOES THE PLAN PROVIDE FOR QUALIFYING FOR ALL SETBACKS?

DO WE HAVE ANY ISSUES WITH SETBACKS AT ALL? >> ALL REQUIREMENTS HAVE BEEN

MET. >> CHAIRMAN: INCLUDING THE SCREENING.

>> COUNCILMEMBER: AND THEN WHAT ABOUT IMPERVIOUS SURFACE. HAS THAT BEEN ADDRESSED?

>> THERE'S NOT AN ISSUE WITH IMPERVIOUS SURFACE ON THIS PROPERTY.

>> COUNCILMEMBER: OKAY. >> CHAIRMAN: MR. HARRISON? >> COUNCILMEMBER: NO QUESTIONS.

>> CHAIRMAN: MS. ANGIE? >> COUNCILMEMBER: NOPE. >> CHAIRMAN: BENJAMIN? WAIT A MINUTE, BENJAMIN, WASN'T THIS YOUR HOUSE? NO? I THOUGHT KELLY DID THIS THIS ONE. THIS IS JOHN DODD OKAY.

SMALL FAMILY. MR. POZZETTA QUESTIONS? >> COUNCILMEMBER: I DON'T KNOW

THAT I SAW THE SCREENING ELEMENT FOR THE POOL EQUIPMENT. >> CHAIRMAN: CAN WE PULL THAT

[00:35:05]

UP? >> COUNCILMEMBER: THERE IT IS. NEVER MIND.

>> CHAIRMAN: THANK YOU. THAT'S CONSISTENT WITH THE REST OF THE FENCING RIGHT?

>> YES IT IS. >> CHAIRMAN: I GO BY THERE LIKE FIVE TIMES A WEEK.

OKAY. MR. SALA DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING YOU WANT TO ADD?

I THINK YOU'RE IN PRETTY GOOD SHAPE HERE. >> OKAY.

NOTHING TO ADD. >> CHAIRMAN: TAKE YES FOR AN ANSWER.

FIRST RULE THEY TEACH YOU. >> WE HAVE NOTHING TO ADD. >> CHAIRMAN: FIRST RULE IN LEGISLATIVE SCHOOL TAKE YES FOR AN ANSWER. AND THEN WE'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC MEETING AND SEE IF THERE'S ANYONE WHO WISHES TO TESTIFY WITH REGARDS TO THE CASE 2020-0011 ONLINE. NO? OKAY.

WE'RE GOING TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC MEETING AND MOVE INTO BOARD DISCUSSION.

BOARD MEMBERS, WHAT'S YOUR PLEASURE? WE ALL WANT POOL PASSES?

>> COUNCILMEMBER: ONE THING TO ASK A QUESTION OR DISCUSS. AND THIS MIGHT BE FOR THE APPLICANT I'M NOT SURE. BUT UNDER THE POOL DECK THERE IS AN INDICATION FOR MULTI-COLORED L.E.D. LIGHTS. THE PEOPLE THAT BEHIND ME THAT PUT IN THEIR POOL IN THE HISTORIC DISTRICT THEY HAVE SOME OF THE LIGHTS AND IT REALLY-- THE WHOLE POOL IS LIT IN EITHER THE BLUE OR WHATEVER COLOR THEY CHOOSE. IT EMITS THIS INCREDIBLE GLOW.

I'M WITHINERING IN THIS PARTICULAR LOTION, IT'S THE EN -- LOCATION THERE'S A LOT OF WHITE BUILDINGS AROUND SO THERE'S A GOOD BIT OF REFLECTIVITY.

IS THIS KIND OF LEANING TOWARDS A NEON SIGN FEEL WHEN WE'RE GOING TO HAVE A LOT OF THAT SHINING IN THE NIGHT. I'M NOT SURE WHAT THE APPLICANT'S INTENT IS WITH THAT.

IF YOU LOOK AT THE PRODUCT, YOU KNOW, I SET THOSE FOR CLIENTS AND IT IS INTENSE LIGHT.

IT REALLY DOES GLOW A LOT. SO THAT WAS A CONCERN I HAVE AS A NEIGHBOR AND WOULD HAVE IN THE

ENTRANCE TO OLD TOWN. >> CHAIRMAN: I WOULD TOO. LET'S GO AHEAD AND CALL MR. SALA

UP TO TALK TO THAT IF THAT'S OKAY WITH EVERYONE. >> PUBLIC SPEAKER: ROBERT SALA

1130 WHITE STREET. >> CHAIRMAN: WHAT CAN YOU TELL US.

>> PUBLIC SPEAKER: THAT'S THE POOL PACKAGE. THERE'S AN ITEM THAT COMES WITH IT IS THERE SOMETHING ABOUT CODE WE HAVE TO HAVE A CERTAIN TYPE OF LIGHT? THAT'S NOT SOMETHING I READ IN ANY OF THE GUIDELINES THAT I HAD TO MATCH OR FIGURE OUT.

I DON'T REALLY SEE THAT AS PART OF THE DISCUSSION. >> CHAIRMAN: YEAH EXCEPT THE COUNCIL MEMBER HAS MADE IT PART OF THE DISCUSSION AND I THINK IT IS A LEGITIMATE QUESTION SO.

>> PUBLIC SPEAKER: TO BE HONEST WITH YOU, I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT SHE IS EVEN TALKING ABOUT.

I AM ASSUMING THERE'S POOL LIGHTS FOR SAFETY. >> CHAIRMAN: SO YOU CAN'T PROVIDE US ANY REASSURANCES THIS IS NOT GOING TO BECOME A NUISANCE TO THE NEIGHBORS.

>> PUBLIC SPEAKER: THANK YOU MS. SALA. >> PUBLIC SPEAKER: 1130 WHITE STREET LISA SALA. WE ACTUALLY JUST GOT A NEW PUPPY EIGHT MONTHS AGO AND WE'RE IN BED BY PRETTY MUCH 9:00 AFTER WE'VE GONE TO SAND BAR FOR A COUPLE DRINKS.

SO I HONESTLY DON'T THINK THE LIGHTS ARE GOING TO BE AN ISSUE. >> CHAIRMAN: YOU ARE SAYING YOU

ARE GOING TO CONTROL THEM. >> PUBLIC SPEAKER: THE LIGHTS WILL BE UNDER CONTROL.

WE HAVE A STREET LIGHT IN FRONT OF US ON 14TH STREET THAT'S LIT UNALL THE TIME.

THAT LIGHTS UP THE NEIGHBORHOOD. SO I REALLY-- HONESTLY, WE'RE NOT, YOU KNOW, IT'S NOT GOING TO

BE A PROBLEM. >> CHAIRMAN: THANK YOU MRS. SALA.

>> PUBLIC SPEAKER: AND WE HAVE A PRETTY GOOD RELATIONSHIP WITH THE PEOPLE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD IF IT IS SOMEBODY WILL SAY TURN OFF THE LIGHTS OR YOU KNOW. NO BIGGY.

>> CHAIRMAN: THANK YOU. I'VE MET THE DOG. HE IS DELIGHTFUL.

ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? BENJAMIN, MR. CONWAY, HARRISON? >> COUNCILMEMBER: WELL, I MEAN, I THINK THAT I AGREE WITH WHAT TAMMI SAID AND I THINK WHAT YOU KIND OF AGREED WITH THERE ABOUT THE LIGHTS. I'M JUST NOT SURE WHAT WE CAN REALLY DO ABOUT IT.

YOU KNOW, I MEAN, UNLESS AS A BOARD WE JUST DECIDE THAT MOVING FORWARD WE'RE GOING TO MANDATE THAT EVERY POOL THAT COMES IN FRONT OF US WE REQUIRE THEM TO PUT IN ONLY A WHITE LIGHT OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT, YOU KNOW, AND WE ARE CONSISTENT WITH THAT AND, YOU KNOW, BUT I DON'T EVEN

KNOW IF LEGALLY THAT'S AN OPTION FOR US. >> COUNCILMEMBER: WE DON'T HAVE

[00:40:01]

ANY TEETH AT THIS POINT. SO, THAT COULD BE SOMETHING THAT WE THINK ABOUT MOVING FORWARD.

I WANTED TO JUST ASK THE APPLICANT WHAT THEIR INTENT WAS AND BRING IT TO THEIR ATTENTION

TOO FOR THE NEIGHBOR'S SAKE. >> CHAIRMAN: MR. HARRISON? >> COUNCILMEMBER: I THINK WHAT MR. AND MRS. SALA SAID IN TERMS OF HOW THEY WOULD REACT IF THERE'S A PROBLEM IS SUFFICIENT.

>> CHAIRMAN: MR. POZZETTA. >> COUNCILMEMBER: I AGREE. >> CHAIRMAN: MUCH OF WHAT WE DO WHETHER IT'S CUTTING THE GRASS TOO EARLY IN THE MORNING OR WEARING A MASK WHEN YOU ARE SUPPOSED TO IS DEPENDENT UPON US DOING THE RIGHT THING FOR OUR COMMUNITY AND NEIGHBORS.

I THINK WE HEARD THE SALAS THEY'RE GOING TO DO THE RIGHT THING.

SO I WOULD BE SUPPORTIVE OF THIS PROPOSAL. WOULD SOMEBODY LIKE TO MOVE?

>> COUNCILMEMBER: I'LL MAKE A MOTION. I MOVE TO APPROVE HDC CASE NUMBER 2020-0011 WITHOUT CONDITIONS AND I MOVE THAT HDC MAKE THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW PART OF THE RECORD. THAT HDC CASE 2020-0011 AS PRESENTED IS SUBSTANTIALLY COMPLIANT WITH THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, SECRETARY OF INTERIOR'S STANDARDS, AND THE OLD TOWN PRESERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT GUIDELINES TO

WARRANT APPROVAL AT THIS TIME. >> COUNCILMEMBER: SECOND. >> CHAIRMAN: MOVED POZZETTA.

SECOND MORRISON. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE, PLEASE CALL THE

ROLL. >> MEMBER MORRISON? >> COUNCILMEMBER: YES.

>> MEMBER POZZETTA? >> COUNCILMEMBER: YES. >> MEMBER HARRISON?

>> COUNCILMEMBER: YES. >> MEMBER CONWAY? >> COUNCILMEMBER: YES.

>> CHAIR SPINO >> CHAIRMAN: YES. MOVING ON.

THANKS GUYS. 2020-0012 MIRANDA FOR KAUFMAN AND TORRE 116 SOUTH 10TH STREET.

[5.3 HDC 2020-0012: JOSE MIRANDA, ARCHITECT, AGENT FOR ADAM KAUFMAN & LINDA TORRE, 116 S. 10TH STREET]

SO THIS IS THREE LOTS UP FROM STEAMBOAT HOUSE IS THAT RIGHT. YOU WEREN'T THE ARCHITECT ON THAT WERE YOU? YOU'RE NOT? WE NEED TO GET YOU AND THAT HOUSE IS SO CUTE. I THINK IT'S NEXT TO STEAMBOAT HOUSE EMPTY LOT.

I'M CONFUSED. THE LITTLE ONE STORY. ADAM SEARS WAS THE CARPENTER ON IT. IT'S NOT THAT I AM PAYING ATTENTION TO ANY OF THE DETAILS.

KAUFMAN AND D. TORRE. 2020-0012 TONIGHT REPRESENTED BY MR. JOSE MIRANDA FOR A PROPERTY LOCATED AT 116 SOUTH 10TH STREET. SEEKING CERTIFICATE OF APPROVAL FOR ADDITIONS TO THE KITCHEN AND SUN ROOM ON THE SOUTHWESTERN PORTION OF THE PROPERTY AND CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW FREE STANDING GARAGE AND NEW DRIVEWAY.

THE PRIMARY STRUCTURE IS A CONTRIBUTING STRUCTURE. THE PROPOSAL TONIGHT WILL DEMOLISH THE EXISTING NON-CONTRIBUTING GARAGE ON THE SOUTHERN PORTION OF THE PARCEL AND THE CONNECTING BREEZEWAY AND REPLACE IT WITH A NEW GARAGED-- REPLACE THE EXISTING GARAGE WITH A NEW DETACHED ACCESSORIES STRUCTURE AND NEW DRIVEWAY. THIS IS AN AS-BUILT SHOWING THE CONTRIBUTING PRIMARY STRUCTURE AND BREEZEWAY CONNECTION TO A ONE-STORY DETACHED GARAGE.

SITE PLAN SHOWING THE LOCATION ON THE PROPERTY CENTERING ADDITIONS ON THE SOUTHWESTERN EXCUSE ME SOUTHEASTERN PORTION OF THE PRIMARY CONTRIBUTING STRUCTURE AS WELL AS THE KITCHEN ADDITION ATTACHED HERE. JOSE PROVIDED SOME UPDATED PLANS THIS MORNING AND SO THE NEXT FEW DRAWINGS THERE'S GOING TO BE A COUPLE OF SITE MODIFICATIONS THAT I'LL LET JOSE SPEAK TO.

ONE BEING THE HATCHING AND THE PIER DESIGN WHICH YOU WILL SEE IN THE NEXT ELEVATION.

THIS IS THE PROPOSED EAST AND WEST ELEVATION SHOWING THE RELATIONSHIP OF THE PRIMARY STRUCTURE AS WELL AS THE DETACHED GARAGE AND KITCHEN ADDITION FROM THE FRONT AND CENTERING ADDITION ON THE REAR. THESE ARE THE SIDE ELEVATIONS OF BOTH THE ACCESSORY STRUCTURE AND PRIMARY STRUCTURE WITH THE PROPOSED ADDITIONS. STAFF FOUND THAT THE SUNROOM

[00:45:05]

ADDITION ON THE SIDE AND REAR OF THE STRUCTURE AND PROPOSED BUILDING COMPLIES WITH THE LAND REQUIREMENTS. TRADITIONAL MATERIALS. AND THE DETACH GARAGE WILL BE SHIFTED FURTHER TOWARDS THE REAR OF THE PROPERTY AND DESIGNED TO BE COMPATIBLE WITH THE PRIMARY RESIDENCE. BASED ON THE EVIDENCE THAT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT STAFF FOUND IT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, THE SECRETARY OF INTERIOR STANDARDS, AND DOWNTOWN HISTORIC DISTRICT GUIDELINES AND RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF 2020-0012.

>> CHAIRMAN: QUESTIONS FOR JACOB? TAMMI?

>> COUNCILMEMBER: JAKE, DO WE KNOW THE AGE OF THE EXISTING GARAGE STRUCTURE?

>> NO. I LOOKED FOR IT. I EVEN CALLED JOSE AT THE LAST MINUTE SAYING HOLD ON THIS ISN'T A CONTRIBUTING STRUCTURE WHICH IT'S NOT.

I THINK IT'S FROM THE 50'S OR 60'S FROM WHAT I CAN TELL. I THINK JOSE CAN REAFFIRM THAT.

>> CHAIRMAN: DID SOME DNA TESTING?

MR. HARRISTON, QUESTIONS? >> COUNCILMEMBER: YEAH. I HOPE THAT ADAM IS NOT GOING TO BE ASKED FOR A DEMOLITION PERMIT FOR THE GARAGE. IS THAT ALL BEING SWEPT UP

WITHIN THIS APPLICATION? >> CHAIRMAN: THAT'S A VERY GOOD QUESTION.

>> IT'S PART OF THE APP, YES. SO IT'S NOT A SEPARATE DEMOLITION CASE.

IT'S ALL INCLUDED IN THE COA. >> CHAIRMAN: DID YOU CATCH THAT? >> COUNCILMEMBER: OKAY GOOD.

THANK YOU. >> CHAIRMAN: MISS CONWAY DO YOU HAVE QUESTIONS?

>> COUNCILMEMBER: NO. >> CHAIRMAN: BENJAMIN? >> COUNCILMEMBER:

HEAD ] I'M GOOD. >> CHAIRMAN: THANK YOU.

MR. POZZETTA QUESTIONS? >> COUNCILMEMBER: NO. >> CHAIRMAN: I HAD THE SAME THOUGHT WHEN I WENT BY THE OTHER DAY TO LOOK AT IT SOMEBODY DID A PRETTY NICE JOB MATCHING THE TRIM. YOU CAN TELL BY THE SCALE THAT IT'S NOT-- IT'S MUCH BIGGER THAN A HISTORIC BUILDING WOULD HAVE BEEN HAD IT BEEN BUILT FOR A CARRIAGE OR WHATEVER.

SO I FELT GOOD ABOUT THAT. WHERE ARE WE? OKAY.

COME ON UP, JOSE. IDENTIFY YOURSELF FOR THE RECORD PLEASE

>> PUBLIC SPEAKER: JOSE MIRANDA ARCHITECT. OBVIOUSLY I CONCUR WITH EVERYTHING STAFF HAS SAID. THE NEW GARAGE IS STEEPER IN PITCH WITH A ROOF TO MATCH THE MAIN HOUSE. THAT ACTUALLY GAVE US A LITTLE MORE STORAGE ROOM ON THE SECOND FLOOR WHICH IS DESPERATELY NEEDED. THE HISTORIC HOME IS CIRCA 1,900. THE GARAGE WE THINK IS 50'S/60'S.

IT'S ALL CLAD AND ALUMINUM SIDING. SO, OUR NEW GARAGE WILL BE CLAD AND HARDY SIDING MATCHING THE FOUR INCH SPACING OF THE ALUMINUM SIDING THAT'S CURRENTLY THERE. SAME WITH THE ADDITIONS ON THE SIDE AND BACK.

WE'LL BE GOING BACK WITH HARDY SIDING. WINDOWS ARE ANDERSON WINDOWS MATCHING THE PATTERN OF THE EXISTING TWO WINDOWS. AND I'M HERE TO ANSWER ANY MORE QUESTIONS. YES WE ARE PLANNING TO DEMOLISH THE OLD GARAGE.

IT IS A LITTLE TOO CLOSE TO THE SIDE OF THE HOUSE AND THEY WANT A LITTLE MORE BREATHING ROOM AS

THEY VIEW OUT THE KITCHEN AND SUN ROOM. >> CHAIRMAN: QUESTIONS FOR JOSE?

I'LL START AT THE BOTTOM NOW. BENJAMIN? >> COUNCILMEMBER: WHAT'S THE

SIDING MATERIAL ON THE EXISTING HOUSE? >> PUBLIC SPEAKER: ALUMINUM

SIDING. >> COUNCILMEMBER: SO YOU ARE GOING TO LEAVE THE ALUMINUM SIDING EVERYWHERE EXCEPT FOR WHERE YOU ARE ADDING ON TO IT AND MODIFYING YOU ARE GOING TO

USE HARDY BOARD? >> THAT'S CORRECT. >> COUNCILMEMBER: OKAY.

BUT IT'S GOING TO BE EXPOSURE AND STUFF LIKE THAT? >> YEAH THAT'S WHY WE'RE DOING HARDY INITIALLY I THINK THE OWNER WOULD HAVE LOVED TO SALVAGE MATERIALS BUT WE CAN'T SALVAGE ALUMINUM SIDING OR EVEN OLD WINDOWS IN NEW CONSTRUCTION. IT HAS TO MEET THE CURRENT CODE.

SO, WE'RE GUY WITH HARDY. AND HARDY IS NOW AVAILABLE IN A FOUR INCH EXPOSURE WHICH IS CLOSER TO THE SPACING EXPOSURE THAT WE HAVE WITH THE ALUMINUM SIDING.

>> COUNCILMEMBER: GOTCHA. THANKS. >> CHAIRMAN: MS. CONWAY?

>> COUNCILMEMBER: I THINK IT LOOKS LIKE IT'S GOING TO BE A NICE ADDITION.

>> CHAIRMAN: MR. HARRISON? >> COUNCILMEMBER: I AGREE. >> CHAIRMAN: MS. TAMMY?

>> COUNCILMEMBER: YEAH WITH THE WIDE EXPOSURE OF THE HARDY, WHAT IS IT FIVE-AND-A-HALF IS TYPICAL

[00:50:04]

HARDY? >> TYPICALLY. BUT WE'RE GOING TO GO WITH FOUR INCH. NOW IT'S AVAILABLE IN FOUR INCH SPACING WHICH IS, WE THINK, I MEAN, WE HAVEN'T GONE POKING AROUND UNDERNEATH THE ALUMINUM BICE DON'T WANT TO OPEN UP THAT PANDORA'S BOX ON THE MAIN HOUSE BUT WE SUSPECT THE ORIGINAL WAS TIGHT SPACING.

SO, WE'RE GOING BACK WITH A TIGHT SPACING FOR ALL THE NEW SIDING.

>> COUNCILMEMBER: YOU KNOW, I MEAN, FOR ALL INTENTS AND PURPOSES WE KNOW THEN THIS WITH THE NEW MATERIALS WAS BUILT AS A NEW STRUCTURE EVEN THOUGH IT'S MADE TO LOOK LIKE A HISTORIC STRUCTURE. WE KNOW IT'S NOT HISTORIC BECAUSE IT IS HARDY.

AND IT FITS WELL. IT LOOKS NICE. >> THANK YOU.

>> COUNCILMEMBER: I'VE GOT A QUESTION FOR YOU, JOSE. I REALLY LIKE THE DETAIL IN THE EVES THAT -- EAVES THAT YOU'VE CARRIED FORWARD ON THE WEST ELEVATION FROM THE HOUSE TO THE GARAGE. SO I SEE THAT YOU TRANSFERRED IT TO THE EAST ELEVATION.

THE OTHER SIDE OF THE GARAGE AS WELL WHERE THE HOUSE DOES NOT HAVE THAT DETAIL.

>> NO WE JUST WANTED TO BE CONSISTENT AND WE KIND OF STRIPPED IT DOWN AS WELL AS, YOU KNOW, THE GINGERBREAD ON THE BARGE BOARD ON THE MAIN HOUSE IS VERY DECORATIVE AND WE BASICALLY MADE IT VERY STREAMLINED. SO WE WANTED TO MATCH THAT DETAIL ON BOTH GABLE ENDS OF THE

GARAGE. >> COUNCILMEMBER: YEAH I'M JUST-- BUT, OF COURSE, THEN YOU'RE INCONSISTENT WITH THE EXISTING HOUSE DESIGN. I HAVE A BELIEF THAT THE PEOPLE WHO BUILT THE HOUSE ORIGINALLY WOULD PROBABLY PUT THEIR MONEY INTO SOMETHING THAT WAS ACTUALLY BEING SEEN SO THEY WOULD PUT IT ON THE FRONT AND PROBABLY WOULDN'T ON THE BACK.

>> WELL I DON'T DISAGREE BUT WE ARE LOOKING AT IT'S GOING TO BE A CIRCA 2020 GARAGE.

WE'RE NOT TRYING TO MAKE IT LOOK LIKE A VICTORIAN GARAGE WHICH TECHNICALLY THERE WEREN'T ANY OTHER THAN CARRIAGE HOUSES. SO WE THOUGHT THAT WE HAD A LITTLE MORE ARCHITECTURAL LICENSE TO MATCH WITHOUT REPLICATING EXACTLY THE MAIN HOUSE.

>> COUNCILMEMBER: OKAY. ON THE QUESTION OF THE ALUMINUM SIDING ON THE HOUSE, I ASSUME THAT THE ALUMINUM SIDING IS PLACED OVER PROBABLY SOME CYPRUS SIDING?

>> WE ASSUME THAT. WE HAVE NOT DONE ANY RESEARCH INTO THAT.

I'M SURE AS WE START TO DO THE ADDITIONS WE WILL BE REMOVING SOME OF THE SIDING OVER THE EXISTING SUNROOM AND KITCHEN TO ACCOMMODATE THE EXPANSION. SO, WE'LL DISCOVER WHAT KIND OF SIDING IT WAS AND WHAT KIND OF CONDITION IT'S IN. THEY JUST COULDN'T AFFORD TO

RE-SIDE THE ENTIRE HOUSE. >> COUNCILMEMBER: MANY HOUSES IN THE HISTORIC DISTRICT HAVE ALUMINUM SIDING. IF THAT WERE REMOVED I THINK WE'D GET A PLEASANT SURPRISE

WHAT REMAINS UNDERNEATH IT. >> IT'S ALL BUDGET DRIVEN. WHEN WE DID THE STEAMBOAT HOUSE THEY WORRIED TO REMOVE THE ALUMINUM SIDING BUT THAT'S NOT ALWAYS THE CASE.

>> AND NEWMAN'S HOUSE. >> EXACTLY. >> CHAIRMAN: I THINK WE'VE SEEN

THIS MOVIE >> COUNCILMEMBER: ON THAT POINT OF HISTORIC MATERIALS, I KNOW TYPICALLY THE REPORT MIGHT INCLUDE LANGUAGE THAT IF YOU DISCOVER HISTORIC ELEMENTS THAT ARE WORTHY OF BEING PRESERVED THAT YOU PRESERVE THEM. I THINK THAT SHOULD BE KIND AF

NORMAL COMMITMENT AROUND HERE. >> YES IT IS. >> COUNCILMEMBER: THAT'S MY

STATEMENT THAT'S ALL. >> CHAIRMAN: DEFINITELY WORTH STATING.

>> COUNCILMEMBER: I'D LIKE TO MOVE FOR APPROVAL. >> CHAIRMAN: COULD THE CHAIR HAVE A COMMENT? WOULD THAT BE ALL RIGHT? SO JOSE I HAVE A LITTLE BIT OF A CONCERN THAT WHEN YOU GET ALUMINUM OFF THE HOUSE THAT YOU MIGHT FIND SOMETHING THAT YOU WEREN'T EXPECTING. WHICH YOU HAVE MANY TIMES. WE'VE SEEN THIS MOVIE BEFORE.

SO THAT MIGHT CHANGE WHAT YOU WANT TO DO ON THIS ADDITION, THIS GARAGE, THIS OUTBUILDING.

IT MIGHT CHANGE THE SIDING PATTERN. AND I WOULD LIKE TO GET THAT SORTED OUT-- I'D LIKE TO SET IT UP IN SUCH A WAY THAT YOU DON'T END UP BACK HERE HAVING A CONVERSATION WITH US ABOUT THIS AGAIN. BUT I'M NOT EXACTLY SURE HOW WE DO THAT BUT I'VE SEEN ENOUGH JOBS THAT YOU HAVE WORKED ON WHERE YOU HAVE TAKEN ALUMINUM SIDING, VINYL SIDING OFF TO A BUILDING AND WE DIDN'T REALLY EXPECT WHAT WE FOUND.

SO, YOU HAVE NO SENSE OF WHAT'S ON THE MAIN HOUSE UNDERNEATH THAT?

>> NO WOULD WE DID NOT DO DISCOVERY. WE WILL BE DOING THAT AS WE STUDY THE ADDITION ON THE SIDES. BECAUSE WE WILL HAVE TO REMOVE THAT WALL ASSEMBLY AND THE

[00:55:01]

STARTING POINT IS-- SO WE'LL DO DISCOVERY RIGHT OFF THE BAT AND THAT WILL TELL US WHICH WAY IT'S

GOING. >> CHAIRMAN: WHAT I SENSE IS LONG AFTER WE'RE GONE SOMEONE IS GOING TO COME ALONG AND SAYING WE'RE TAKING ALUMINUM OFF THIS MAIN HOUSE AND $50,000 PAINT JOB LATER THEY'VE RESTORED IT SO WHATEVER IT IS. AND WHILE IT'S INTERESTING ON THE HOUSE ON THIRD STREET TO HAVE THREE OR FOUR KINDS OF SIDING, THIS IS NOT A HOUSE WHERE WE WOULD LIKE TO HAVE THAT HAPPEN. SO, ARE THERE ACCOMMODATIONS THAT WE CAN MAKE IN THE MOTIONS THAT WE DO TONIGHT THAT WOULD ALLOW US TO GIVE THEM SOME FLEXIBILITY ABOUT THE SIDING THEY USE WHEN THAT TIME COMES? SAYING I'D LIKE TO FIGURE OUT A WAY TO GET HIM SO HE DOESN'T HAVE TO COME BACK. HE PULLS THE SIDING OFF AND HOUSE AND FINDS IT'S SIX INCH. WE THOUGHT IT WAS FOUR. WHAT WHETHER OR NOT WOULD ARER WE GOING TO DO WE WERE ONLY APPROVED FOR A FOUR ON THE ADDITION.

WE DON'T WANT TO DRAG HIM BACK HERE. >> COUNCILMEMBER: THAT MAKES

SENSE TO ME. I'D LIKE TO DO THAT AS WELL. >> IS THAT FEEL SOMETHING YOU

FEEL COMFORTABLE STAFF APPROVALING. >> CHAIRMAN: WE'LL GET INTO THE BOARD DISCUSSION AND SEE WHAT FELLOW MEMBERS THINK. BUT I WANT TO GIVE FLEXIBILITY AS LONG AS IT'S CONSISTENT WITH THE ORIGINAL STRUCTURE, THE HISTORIC DISTRICT GUIDELINES I THINK WE WANT TO BE SOMEWHAT FLEXIBLE AROUND IT. WHAT WAS THE HOUSE YOU DID ACROSS THE STREET NEXT TO

>> NO, THAT'S CORRECT. THE BROWN RESIDENCE. >> CHAIRMAN: I REMEMBER THAT

PLACE WAS CHALLENGING SHALL WE SAY. >> YES.

>> CHAIRMAN: CHALLENGED. AND YOU PULLED THE SIDING OFF AND WHAT DID YOU END UP DOING?

YOU ENDED UP USING THE ORIGINAL ON THE FRONT? >> CORRECT.

>> CHAIRMAN: THE REST-- >> THERE WAS QUITE A BIT OF DAMAGE.

>> CHAIRMAN: HARDLY ANYBODY WOULD KNOW THAT EXCEPT FOR YOU AND I.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR MR. MIRANDA. IF NOT WE'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC

HEARING 2020-012. >> COUNCILMEMBER: CAN I. >> CHAIRMAN: IF YOU LET ME FINISH WHAT I AM SAYING. LET ME TRY ONE MORE TIME. WE'RE GOING OPEN THE PUBLIC MEETING ON 2020-0012 MIRANDA FOR 116 116 SOUTH 10TH STREET.

>> YOU ARE WORRIED ABOUT WHAT YOU ARE GOING TO FIND. WE'VE ALL BEEN THROUGH IT.

I'VE BEEN THROUGH IT. EVERYBODY'S BEEN THROUGH IT. NOW YOU GUYS WERE SAYING ON THIS PROJECT RIGHT HERE, NUMBER ONE, THERE'S A MONEY CONSIDERATION. ME MYSELF AND I, I WOULDN'T BE BUILDING A GARAGE BEFORE I DID THAT ADDITION ON THE HOUSE, RIGHT.

DID YOU TEAR OFF PART OF THE HOUSE TO PUT WHEREVER THE KITCHEN IS.

WHY DON'T THESE GUYS-- I MEAN, JUST CONSIDER THIS. YOU ARE GOING TO BE HAVING TO DO SOME DEMOLITION WORK. WHEN YOU DO THAT DEMOLITION WORK YOU ARE GOING TO FIND OUT WHETHER IT'S FOUR INCH, THREE INCH OR WHATEVER THEY'VE GOT UNDERNEATH THAT OR EVEN ASBESTOS SHINGLES. I DON'T SEE ANY PROBLEM WITH PROVISIONAL GO AHEAD AND DO WHAT YOU WANT TO DO WHICH IS TERRIFIC IF WE FIND SIX INCH ON -- YOU KNOW THE FIRST DAY YOU GO IN THERE WITH A CLAW HAMMER AND TAKE A FEW THINGS OFF YOU ARE GOING TO FIND OUT AND THAT MATCHES WHATEVER YOU FIND UNDERNEATH THAT THAT WOULD BE YOUR SIDING AND THAT'S THE

ANSWER TO IT AND YOU NEVER HAVE TO COME BACK. >> LET'S HOPE SO.

THANK YOU. >> CHAIRMAN: ANYBODY ELSE WISHING TO TESTIFY ON 2020-0012? ANYBODY ONLINE? ALL RIGHT. WE'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.

BOARD MEMBERS? WHAT'S YOUR PLEASURE? >> COUNCILMEMBER: I HAVE A PROCEDURAL QUESTION FOR YOU. HOW DOES THIS CALL IT WITH THE NEW DEMO ORDINANCE THAT WAS

PASSED? >> I DON'T KNOW. THE DEMO ORDINANCE? OH THE DEMO ORDINANCE THAT WE JUST DID IN THE LAST FEW MONTHS. THAT'S A VERY GOOD QUESTION.

I DON'T KNOW. >> COUNCILMEMBER: THE COMMISSION DID APPROVE THAT.

THEY HAD A SECOND READING AND IT WAS APPROVED. DOES THAT AFFECT THIS AS FAR AS

A DELAY? >> CHAIRMAN: THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION.

THAT WOULD DEPEND UPON ITS AGE RIGHT? 90 DAYS IF IT'S MORE THAN 50 YEARS OLD? KELLY, DOES THAT SOUND RIGHT. JACOB IS LOOKING IT UP.

60 DAYS IF IT'S 50? IT POTENTIALLY COULD AFFECT IT BUT, YOU KNOW, THINKING HERE

THAT BY THE TIME YOU GET THROUGH BUILDING-- >> THERE WAS NO WAY THAT IS A

HISTORIC GARAGE BY ANY STRETCH OF THE IMAGINATION. >> CHAIRMAN: BUT THE PROVISIONS

WERE-- WAS IT 50 YEARS? >> COUNCILMEMBER: 50 YEARS OLD OR MORE.

[01:00:03]

>> CHAIRMAN: AND IT COULD BE. NOT THAT IT'S HISTORIC IN ANY SUBSTANTIVE WAY BUT I'M ALSO THINKING THAT IT'S UNLIKELY THAT EVEN IF IT'S 60 DAYS YOU ARE GOING TO BE READY TO PUT SHOVELS IN THE GROUND ANYWAY. YOU GOT TO GET THROUGH THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT.

THAT PROBABLY TAKES 30 DAYS. >> COUNCILMEMBER: MAKE SURE THEY'RE IN COMPLIANCE.

>> CHAIRMAN: I THINK YOU ARE RIGHT. WE NEED TO HOLD OURSELVES TO OUR

OWN STANDARDS. >> THAT PROVISION ONLY APPLIES TO WHEN WE DEEM IT A

CONTRIBUTING-- >> CHAIRMAN: CAN YOU SPEAK UP PLEASE.

IT'S DEEMED TO BE A CONTRIBUTING STRUCTURE IN THE HISTORIC DISTRICT.

>> OR EVEN OUTSIDE THE HISTORIC DISTRICT. IT'S GOT POTENTIAL FOR BEING

DESIGNATED. >> IT'S PRETTY NARROW. >> CHAIRMAN: SAL WORKED ON THAT.

HE DIDN'T WANT TO STRIKE OUT A CONTRIBUTING STRUCTURE JUST OUTSIDE THE HISTORIC DISTRICT

WITHOUT THINKING ABOUT IT FOR A MINUTE. >> COUNCILMEMBER: BUT CHAIR SPINO, HOW DOES THIS DELAY PROVISION AFFECT OUR APPROVAL OF THE DESIGN?

>> CHAIRMAN: IT DOESN'T. IT JUST FORCES THE BUILDER TO PAY ATTENTION AND MAKE SURE THAT

THEY'VE DONE DUE DILIGENCE THROUGH THEIR PROCESS. >> COUNCILMEMBER: OKAY.

>> CHAIRMAN: IF I UNDERSTAND IT CORRECTLY. DOES THAT SOUND RIGHT TO YOU?

YES BENJAMIN? >> COUNCILMEMBER: I KIND OF LOST YOU A LITTLE BIT EARLIER IN YOUR DISCUSSION WHEN YOU STARTED TALKING ABOUT TRYING TO FORESEE ISSUES WITH THE EXISTING SIDING THAT MIGHT COME UP OR SOMETHING. ARE WE TALKING ABOUT MAKING ANY CHANGES TO WHAT THE APPLICANT IS

ASKING FOR? >> CHAIRMAN: YES I THINK WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IN THE APPROVAL IS SO LET'S SAY THEY PULL THE SIDING OFF THE MAIN HOUSE TO DO THE ADDITION AND WE ALL THINK THIS IS A FOUR INCH REVEAL. AND WHAT THEY FIND IT IS A SIX INCH REVEAL OR IT'S NOVELTY OR SOMETHING WE WEREN'T EXPECTING. I DON'T WANT TO MAKE THEM COME BACK. WHAT WE WANT IS FOR THEM TO BE APPROVED TO MATCH THE SIDING ON

THE EXISTING HOME. DID I SAY THAT RIGHT? >> COUNCILMEMBER: THE ORIGINAL

SIDING? >> CHAIRMAN: NOT THE 1950S OR 60S GARAGE BUT THE HOME.

WE THINK IT IS A FOUR INCH REVEAL. BUT WE'RE NOT CERTAIN OF THAT

UNTIL SOMEBODY PULLS SOME ALUMINUM OFF THE ORIGINAL HOME. >> COUNCILMEMBER: THE ONLY QUESTION THAT I HAD AND I SHOULD PROBABLY KNOW THE ANSWER BUT I'LL ASK I GUESS JAKE OR KELLY FOR CLARIFICATION. BUT IN THE HISTORIC DISTRICT IS IT DIRECT YOU ARE ALLOWED TO USE HARDY BOARD PRODUCTS FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION BUT NOT ON STRUCTURES WHEN REMODELING THEM?

>> CHAIRMAN: ACTUALLY I THINK YOU CAN GO-- IF I RECALL, YOU CAN REPLACE EXISTING WOOD WITH

HARDY ON A HISTORIC STRUCTURE. >> THAT'S CORRECT. >> COUNCILMEMBER: YOU CAN?

>> COUNCILMEMBER: NOT ON THE BUILDING. ONLY ON THE SIDES AND THE BACK.

>> CHAIRMAN: I DON'T THINK THAT'S TRUE, TAMMI. I DON'T THINK THAT'S TRUE.

I THINK WE ENCOURAGE FOLKS TO RECYCLE MATERIALS SO THE FRONT BECOMES-- RETAINS THE HISTORIC MATERIAL BUT IN FACT-- SO LET'S SAY YOU WERE RENOVATING A PROPERTY, YOU MIGHT END UP WITH

100 PERCENT HARDI BOARD. >> DOES THAT SOUND RIGHT ARCHITECTS?

>> YEAH. >> CHAIRMAN: DENIED

>> I JUST WANT TO SPEAK TO THE DELAY PERIOD. THAT IS UP TO THE BOARD TO GRANT A DEMOLITION DELAY PERIOD FOR ONE OF THESE STRUCTURES BASED ON THE RELATIVE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STRUCTURE AND THE PROBABLE TIME TRYING TO ARRANGE POSSIBLE ALTERNATIVES TO DEMOLITION.

SO THAT'S SOMETHING THAT IS AT THE PURVIEW OF THE BOARD. >> CHAIRMAN: SO IF WE JUST

IGNORED IT. >> IT WOULD BE SAYING YOU ARE NOT GOING TO INVOKE IT.

>> CHAIRMAN: SO BOARD WE'RE AT THE POINT WHERE WE CAN APPROVE OR DENY THIS REQUEST AND WITH CONDITIONS. IF WE IGNORE THE DEMO REQUIREMENT, THEN WE'VE IGNORED THE DEMO REQUIREMENT. IF WE WANT TO PROVIDE THEM SOME FLEXIBILITY ON THE SIDING PATTERN, ON THE ACTUALSIDING, WE CAN PROVIDE THEM SOME OF THAT, EITHERWISE IT'S THE FOUR INCH THEY'VE IDENTIFIED IN THEIR APPLICATION. MR. POZZETTA IS GOING TO MAKE A

MOTION. >> COUNCILMEMBER: I MOVE TO APPROVE HDC CASE NUMBER 2020-0012 WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITION. THAT THE NEW SIDING CONFIGURATION BE CONTINGENT UPON DISCOVERY OF THE EXISTING MAIN HOUSE SIDING TYPE AND THAT STAFF BE ALLOWED TO APPROVE OR DENY THAT POTENTIAL CHANGE. AND I MOVE THAT THE HDC MAKE THE

[01:05:07]

FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT IN CONCLUSIONS OF LAW PART OF THE RECORD.

THAT THE HDC CASE 2020-0012 AS PRESENTED IS SUBSTANTIALLY COMPLIANT WITH THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, THE SECRETARY OF INTERIOR'S STANDARDS AND THE DOWNTOWN HISTORIC DISTRICT

GUIDELINES TO WARRANT APPROVAL AT THIS TIME. >> CHAIRMAN: IS THERE A SECOND?

>> COUNCILMEMBER: I SECOND. >> CHAIRMAN: MOVE POZZETTA. SECOND HARRISON.

DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE, PLEASE CALL THE ROLL.

>> MEMBER POZZETTA? >> COUNCILMEMBER: YES. >> MEMBER CONWAY?

>> COUNCILMEMBER: YES. >> MEMBER HARRISON? >> COUNCILMEMBER: YES.

>> MEMBER MORRISON? >> COUNCILMEMBER: YES. >> CHAIR SPINO?

>> CHAIRMAN: YES. MOVING ON. YOU ARE NOT DONE YET.

[5.4 HDCV 2020-0004: LANCE JONES, AGENT FOR MARY JULIA LITTLE, 115 S. 6TH STREET]

THIS IS A LITTLE PROPERTY. WHICH IS NOT LITTLE AT ALL. IS THIS ON YOU JACOB?

>> YES, CHAIR SPINO. I'LL PULL UP THE PRESENTATION AND GO THROUGH THIS VARIANCE

REQUEST WITH THE BOARDEN TONIGHT. >> CHAIRMAN: THERE'S A VARIANCE REQUEST TO ALLOW TO DIVIDE THE PROPERTY THEN THERE'S THE CONCEPTUAL REVIEW OF THE PROPOSED STRUCTURE ON THIS DIVIDED PROPERTY. THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU, MR. SPINO. HDCV2020-004 IS FOR A PROPERTY LOCATED AT 115 SOUTH SIXTH STREET. THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE SECTION SPEAKING THE VARIANCE

TONIGHT IS 1.0. >> COUNCILMEMBER: LET ME SEE THE SCREEN JACOB.

>> THANK YOU AGAIN.

KEEPING ME STRAIGHT. THANK YOU. >> COUNCILMEMBER: THANK YOU.

>> 115 SOUTH 6TH STREET CONTAINS A CONTRIBUTING STRUCTURE THAT FRONTS SOUTH 6TH STREET.

THE PROPERTY IS UNIQUE IN THAT IT HAS FRONTAGE ON SOUTH 5TH AND SOUTH 6TH STREET CONTAINING MULTIPLE UNDERLYING LOTS OF RECORD. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A VARIANCE FROM THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE SECTION TO ALLOW FOR THE WESTERN PORTION OF THE PROPERTY TO BE SEPARATED FROM THE COMBINED LOTS OF RECORD AND ALLOW FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING ON THE WESTERN PORTION OF THE EXISTING PARCEL.

LDC11.03 STATES WHERE YOU HAVE STRUCTURES INCLUDING ANCILLARY BUILDINGS ON MULTIPLE LOTS OF RECORDS SUCH LOTS SHALL CONSTITUTE ONE BUILDING SITE. THE DEMOLITION OF THE WOOD SHED ON LOT 3 WHICH WAS APPROVED THROUGH COA HDC STAFF APPROVAL 2020-0030 DOES NOT RELIEVE THE PROPERTY OWNER OF REQUIREMENTS OF 3.0 CONSTRUCTION OR DEMOLITION OF STRUCTURES ON COMBINED LOTS. IF THE VARIANCE IS REQUESTED CONCEPTUAL APPROVAL FOR A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND ACCESSORY STRUCTURE WILL FOLLOW THIS REQUEST.

SUBSEQUENTLY ADMINISTRATIVE APPLICATIONS FOR MINOR SUBDIVISION WILL ESTABLISH A NEW LOT AND PROVIDE THE REQUIRED 20 FOOT IS REAR YARD SETBACK FROM THE CONTRIBUTING STRUCTURE ON SOUTH 6TH STREET. ANOTHER ADMINISTRATIVE APPLICATION THAT WILL BE PROCESSED IS A CONTACT SENSITIVE REVIEW WHICH WILL ALLOW FOR THE REDUCTION OF THE FRONT YARD SAIDBACK AND ALLOW FOR THE PROPOSED SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE TO BETTER ALIGN WITH THE HISTORIC STRUCTURES ON THE BLOCK. THIS IS A SURVEY OF THE PARCEL AS IT EXISTS TODAY. YOU CAN SEE YOU HAVE FRONTAGE ON BOTH SOUTH 6TH AND SOUTH 5TH.

THE WOOD SHED ON LOT 3 WAS DEMOLISHED RECENTLY. AND THAT IS THE STRUCTURE THAT COMBINED THESE LOTS AS A LOT OF RECORD FOR 1.03.05. SO THERE'S SIX CRITERIA THAT STAFF HAS TO ANALYZE FOR GRANTING A VARIANCE. I AM GOING TO MOVE QUICKLY THROUGH. STAFF FINDS THE PARCEL IS UNIQUE IN THAT IT SPOPS THE ENTIRE WIDTH OF THE BLOCK FRONTING 5TH AND OFTH STREET. NO OTHER SINGLE FAMILY PARCELS EXIST WITHIN THE HISTORIC DISTRICT ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF CENTER WEST OF 8TH WITH THE

[01:10:03]

EXCEPTION OF THE FAIR BANKS HOUSE WHICH IS OBVIOUSLY A BED AND BREAKFAST AT THIS TIME.

GRANTING THE VARIANCE DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A SPECIAL PRIVILEGE IN THAT IT WILL ALLOW FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE MORE IN KEEPING WITH THE DEVELOPMENT PATTERN OF THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD. HAD THE WOODSHED NOT BE LOCATED ON LOT 3 THE TWO 50X100 FOOT LOTS COULD EACH CONTAIN A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE. INTERPRETATION OF PROVISIONS THIS OF THE CITY'S LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE DEPRIVE THE OWNER OF TWO UNDERLYING LOTS OF RECORD ABSENCE THE VARIANCE. THE VARIANCE WILL ALLOW FOR THE REASONABLE USE OF UNIQUE PARCEL BY ALLOWING FOR A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE AND ACCESSORY STRUCTURE.

THIS IS THE ONLY VARIANCE SOUGHT. GRANTING THE VARIANCE WILL ALLOW FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE AND ACCESSORY STRUCTURE AND KEEPING WITH THE HARMONY OF SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING THE GENERAL PURPOSE AND INTENT OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE. STAFF FINDS THE REQUEST WOULD NOT CAUSE INJURY TO PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY OR WELFARE OR ENVIRONMENT AND IS COMPATIBLE WITH SURROUNDING PROPERTIES.

OF THOSE SIX CRITERIA STAFF WAS ABLE TO FIND THAT ALL SIX CRITERIA HAVE BEEN MET IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE AND AS SUCH STAFF IS ABLE TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF HDCV2020-0004.

I'M SURE THERE ARE QUESTIONS AND I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS AT THIS TIME.

>> CHAIRMAN: I HAVE A QUESTION FOR FORMER CHAIR HARRISON. HAVE WE EVER HAD ONE BEFORE

WHERE THEY MET ALL SIX CRITERIA? >> COUNCILMEMBER: THAT'S WHAT I WAS GOING TO SAY.

I'VE NEVER SEEN IT. >> CHAIRMAN: MIKE HAVE YOU SEEN IT?

>> COUNCILMEMBER: NO. >> CHAIRMAN: FASCINATING. QUESTIONS FOR JACOB?

>> COUNCILMEMBER: YES PLEASE. >> CHAIRMAN: GO AHEAD. >> COUNCILMEMBER: JACOB, CAN YOU GO BACK TO THE SUMMARY PAGE PLEASE. I'D APPRECIATE SOME CLARIFICATION OF WHAT YOU MEAN ABOUT THE DEMOLITION OF THE WOODSHED DOES NOT RELIEVE THE

REQUIREMENT OF 103.5. WHAT DOES THAT MEAN? >> WHAT I AM REFERRING IS IS THIS SECTION OF CODE SAYS EVEN WHEN YOU DEMOLISH A STRUCTURE AND THEY COULD GET A SURVEY THAT'S UPDATED THAT SHOWS THAT STRUCTURE'S GONE, WHERE YOU HAVE ANY BUILDING OR AUXILIARY STRUCTURE IT IS COMBINED AS THE LOT OF RECORD FROM THAT POINT FORWARD AND AT NO POINT CAN THEY

SEPARATE THOSE LOTS AND BUILD ON THEM ABSENCE A VARIANCE. >> COUNCILMEMBER: SO THAT IS THE

REASON THAT THE VARIANCE REQUEST IS REQUIRED? >> YES, SIR.

>> COUNCILMEMBER: OKAY. THANK YOU. >> CHAIRMAN: NORMALLY YOU WOULD THINK A SIMPLE SUBDIVISION IF THERE'S NOTHING BUILT ON IT WHY IS IT COMING TO US?

OTHER QUESTIONS FOR MR. PLATT? OKAY. >> COUNCILMEMBER: CAN I ASK ONE QUESTION. SO IF THERE WAS NOT A STRUCTURE ON LOT 3 THEN THIS WOULD NOT BE A VARIANCE REQUEST THAT IS RIGHT? OR WOULD IT STILL BE JUST TO SUB-DIVIDE?

>> IF THE WOODSHED HAD NOT EXISTED ON LOT 3, THEY COULD HAVE PROCESSED A MINOR SUBDIVISION APPLICATION WHICH THEY STILL DO TO ESTABLISH THE 20 FOOT REAR YARD SETBACK.

THAT'S JUST A MINOR ADMINISTRATIVE APPLICATION AS I MENTIONED.

AND ALLOW FOR THIS PARCEL ON THE WESTERN SIDE ABSENT A VARIANCE TO HAVE A SINGLE FAMILY HOME ON.

>> COUNCILMEMBER: AND IF THERE WAS NEVER A WOODSHED ON THERE? >> THAT'S CORRECT.

IT WOULD JUST BE THE ADMINISTRATIVE APPLICATION TO ESTABLISH THE NEW REAR YARD FOR

115TH SOUTH 6TH STREET. >> COUNCILMEMBER: SO THE ISSUE IS THAT AN AUXILIARY BUILDING

WAS ON ONE OF THE LOTS. >> CHAIRMAN: THE ANSWER TO THE QUESTION IS YES.

JUST TO BE VERY SIMPLE. ALL RIGHT. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS?

HEARING NONE WE'LL-- >> COUNCILMEMBER: JACOB WOULD ALSO TELL YOU THAT THIS IS A FAMILY THAT'S OWNED THAT PROPERTY FOR A LONG, LONG TIME. AND I THINK THAT THEY COME TO A NICE ACCOMMODATION HERE. I KNOW YOU HAVE SEEN THAT HOUSE MANY TIMES WITH THE BROWN SHINGLE HOUSE THERE ON 6TH. AND IT IS A GORGEOUS LOT THAT GOES ALL THE WAY THROUGH TO 5TH

OF COURSE. >> CHAIRMAN: YES. >> COUNCILMEMBER: I THINK KEEPING IT IN THE FAMILY IS IMPORTANT. AND THE FACT THAT THEY WANT TO

[01:15:07]

PRESERVE TREES. >> COUNCILMEMBER: WHAT IS THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE SHADED AREA?

THAT HAS THE BLOCK THAT SAYS SEE DETAIL. >> SO I'VE GOT A SNIP OF THE SURVEY ON THE SCREEN. THAT SHADED AREA ON THE LARGER SURVEY HAS MORE DETAIL SURVEY OF

THE GARAGE BUILDING ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THE PROPERTY. >> COUNCILMEMBER: OKAY.

IT'S SIMILARLY MORE DETAIL IT'S NOT THERE TO INDICATE THAT THERE'S SOME NON-CONFORMANCE

>> CHAIRMAN: OTHER THAN THE APPARENT NON-CONFORMITY, YEAH.

I'VE BEEN IN THE BACKYARD OF THE ADJACENT HOUSE. IT'S INTERESTING.

IF WE HAVE NO FURTHER QUESTIONS FOR JACOB I AM GOING TO MOVE ON TO THE AGENT FOR A MARY.

JULIA LITTLE. YOU ARE THE ONLY PERSON IN THE ROOM I DON'T THINK I REMEMBER

THEIR NAMES. THANK YOU MR. JONES. >> WES JONES 115TH SOUTH 6TH STREET. SO I KNOW THE SURVEY WAS PROVIDED THAT SHOWS THE EXISTING WOODSHED. WE HAVE AN UPDATED SURVEY AS WELL WITH THE PROPOSED SETBACK AS WELL. BUT LONG/SHORT WITH THIS PROCESS THAT HAS BEEN LENGTHY.

I THINK WITH A STAFF RECOMMEND ADDITION DATION TO APPROVE AND I WAS HAPPY TO HEAR IT WAS THE

FIRST ONE TO GO THROUGH WITH ALL SIX APPROVALS. >> CHAIRMAN: IN MEMORY.

>> ANY WAY WE ARE KEEPING IT IN THE FAMILY AND WE'VE DONE OUR BEST TO RETAIN ALL FOUR OF THE HERITAGE TREES IN THE BACKYARD. WHAT HAS BEEN SUGGESTED TO B&-PT IS VERY PREVALENT.

THAT CONSIDERATION HAS BEEN TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT FOR THIS TO BE APPROVED AS WELL AS THE

CONCEPT REVIEW THAT WILL FOLLOW ASSUMING APPROVAL. >> CHAIRMAN: QUESTIONS FOR

MR. JONES? WELL THERE YOU GO. >> THANK YOU.

>> CHAIRMAN: TAKE YES FOR AN ANSWER. IS THERE ANYBODY WHO WISHES TO TESTIFY WITH REGARDS TO CASE 2020-0004? THIS IS 115 SOUTH 6TH STREET? ANYBODY ONLINE? HEARING NONE WE'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.

MOVE INTO BOARD DISCUSSION. BOARD MEMBERS? >> COUNCILMEMBER: I THINK THAT I

HAVE NO OBJECTIONS TO THIS VARIANCE REQUEST AT ALL. >> COUNCILMEMBER: AGREED.

>> COUNCILMEMBER: AGREE. >> COUNCILMEMBER: I AGREE TOO. >> CHAIRMAN: I KNOW THIS NEIGHBORHOOD PRETTY WELL. AND I TALKED TO NEIGHBORS TODAY AND I THINK THE CONCERN IS REALLY ABOUT THE TREES. THERE'S NOT REALLY A CONCERN ABOUT PUTTING ANOTHER HOME THERE. IT'S ENTIRELY CONSISTENT WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

SHOULDN'T BE A PROBLEM IF THEY CAN PUT IT IN. MS. CONWAY'S COMMENTS ON RIGHT ON POINT. CAN WE GET A MOTION AND I'LL REMIND YOU THAT WE NEED FOUR

VOTES FOR THIS TO PASS. >> COUNCILMEMBER: I'LL MAKE A MOTION IF I CAN ASK A QUESTION

FIRST. >> CHAIRMAN: ABSOLUTELY. >> COUNCILMEMBER: IN EVERY OTHER VARIANCE REQUEST MOTION THAT I HAD TO MAKE OVER THE YEARS OR WHATEVER WE'VE HAD TO LIST THE REASONS WHY WE FELT LIKE THE CONDITIONS WERE MET CONTRARY TO WHAT STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION WAS.

BUT SINCE STAFF IS RECOMMENDING THAT ALL CONDITIONS WERE MET AND THIS ONE CAN I JUST SIMPLY MAKE

THIS CLEAN AND SIMPLE? >> CHAIRMAN: I THINK SO. THAT'S WHAT I AM HEARING.

>> COUNCILMEMBER: OKAY. I MOVE TO APPROVE HDC2020-0004 WITHOUT CONDITIONS AND I MOVE THAT THE HDC MAKE THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT PART OF THE RECORD.

THAT 2020-0004 AS PRESENTED IS SUBSTANTIALLY COMPLYING WITH THE CITY DEVELOPMENT CODE AND

COUNCIL PLAN TO WARRANT APPROVAL AT THIS TIME. >> COUNCILMEMBER: I'LL SECOND.

>> CHAIRMAN: MOVED MORRISON. SECOND CONWAY. ANY DISCUSSION?

PLEASE CALL THE ROLL. >> MEMBER CONWAY? >> COUNCILMEMBER: YES.

>> MEMBER POZZETTA? >> COUNCILMEMBER: YES. >> MEMBER HARRISON?

>> COUNCILMEMBER: YES. >> MEMBER MORRISON? >> COUNCILMEMBER: YES.

>> CHAIR SPINO? >> CHAIRMAN: YES. MOVING ON.

[5.5 HDC 2020-0004: MARK JOHNS, AGENT FOR MARY JULIA LITTLE, 115 S. 6TH STREET]

2020-0004. 115TH SOUTH 6TH STREET. THIS IS A CON SENT ULE REVIEW FOR THE CONCEPTUAL REVIEW FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW TWO STORY SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE

[01:20:02]

THAT WE JUST DIVIDED. ALLOWED TO BE DIVIDED. >> SO THIS IS CON SENT ULE APPROVAL FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A TWO STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING TOGETHER WITH THE TWO STORY ACCESSORY STRUCTURE. MINOR SUBDIVISION APPLICATION WILL BE PROCESSED TO CREATE THE LOT OF RECORD AS WELL AS A CONTENT REVIEW APPLICATION TO REDUCE THE 25 FOOT FRONT YARD

SETBACK TO THE AVERAGE OF THE STRUCTURES ON THE BLOCK. >> COUNCILMEMBER: SCREEN PLEASE,

JACOB. >> GEES.

ONCE MORE I APOLOGIZE. THE 100 BY 90 FOOT LOT THAT WILL BE ESTABLISHED THROUGH THE MINOR SUBDIVISION APPLICATION. IT SHOWS THE PRIMARY STRUCTURE ON THE SOUTHERN HALF OF THE LOT AS WELL AS THE DETACHED ACCESSORY BUILDING ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THE LOT NESTLED IN BETWEEN THE FOUR LARGE TREES ON THE PROPERTY. THREE LIVE OAKS AND ONE LARGE MAGNOLIA TREE. THE PROPOSED FRONT ELEVATION WITH A TWO-STORY BUILDING HEIGHT JUST UNDER 31 FEET. I'VE GOT A REAR ELEVATION I'M SHOWING YOU.

AND BOTH THE LEFT AND RIGHT ELEVATIONS. THIS IS ALL FOUR ELEVATIONS OF THE PROPOSED ACCESSORY STRUCTURE. ONE OF THE ITEMS STAFF HAS REQUESTED IS BUILDING HEIGHT TO BE CLEARLY INDICATED ON THESE PLANS.

SO, WITH THAT ANALYSIS SPECIFICALLY THE DOWNTOWN HISTORIC DISTRICT GUIDELINES CALL FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION TO HAVE RAISED ELEVATION. 16 FOOT MINIMUM FINISH FLOOR HEIGHT ABOVE GRADE. SIDE AND REAR ELEVATIONS DO NOT DEPICT A RAISED FOUNDATION AS I JUST INDICATED WE NEED THE ACCESSORY STRUCTURE HEIGHT. NOTING THAT SMOOTH HARDY LAP SIDING IS A REQUIREMENT. RAISED MUTTONS ARE A REQUIREMENT.

AND WE'RE LOOKING FOR THE DRIVEWAY MATERIAL. STAFF REQUEST ADDITIONAL FEEDBACK FROM THE BOARD. THE ACCESSORY BUILDING IS PROPOSED WITHIN A GROUP OF SIGNIFICANT OAK AND MAGNOLIA TREES. STAFF REQUEST AN ARBORIST EVALUATE THE PROPOSED PLACEMENT WITH ALONG WITH THE CITY'S URBAN FORESTER AND ARBORIST.

BASED ON STAFF'S ANALYSIS WE FIND CONCEPTUAL APPROVAL CAN MOVE FORWARD WITH THE CONDITIONS ABOVE AND PROVIDED BOARD FEEDBACK. I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY

QUESTIONS AT THIS TIME. >> CHAIRMAN: QUESTIONS FOR JACOB?

>> COUNCILMEMBER: ARE THOSE TREES-- I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE RIGHT TREE IS.

BUT ARE THEY REGISTERED AS HERITAGE TREES IN THE CITY? >> THEY ARE NOT DESIGNATED

PRIVATE HERITAGE TREES ON PRIVATE PROPERTY NO THEY'RE NOT. >> COUNCILMEMBER: OKAY.

WHAT'S THE PROCESS FOR DOING THAT? DOES THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY

HAVE TO REQUEST IT? >> THAT'S CORRECT. >> CHAIRMAN: OTHER QUESTIONS FOR

JACOB? >> COUNCILMEMBER: YEAH I'M PUZZLED.

THIS ONE WE'RE LOOKING AT APPEARS TO BE TURNED AROUND 90 DEGREES FROM WHAT WE WERE

LOOKING AT WITH THE PREVIOUS CASE. >> COUNCILMEMBER: THAT'S TRUE.

>> IT'S TRUE. AND I DIDN'T-- >> COUNCILMEMBER: BUT THE HOUSE

SEEMS TO BE IN THE SAME POSITION. >> SO THIS PROPOSED STRUCTURE IS CATTY-CORNER TO THE STRUCTURE ON 5TH STREET. 6TH STREET, EXCUSE ME.

>> COUNCILMEMBER: OKAY. >> CHAIRMAN: WHAT YOU SAW WAS THE EXISTING.

WHAT YOU ARE SEEING IS THE PROPOSED. WHAT WE SAW WAS THE HOUSE ON 6TH. THIS HOUSE WILL BE ON 5TH. AM I GETTING THAT RIGHT?

>> YES, SIR. >> COUNCILMEMBER: OKAY. UNDERSTAND.

>> CHAIRMAN: YEAH IT IS A LITTLE CONFUSING. >> COUNCILMEMBER: I DON'T SEE-- I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE TOPOGRAPHY OF THE LOT IS BUT I HEAR THAT THE HOUSE BE ON RAISED

[01:25:11]

AS TO WHAT THAT SHOULD BE? >> I THINK WE CAN PROVIDE GUIDANCE FOR THAT.

>> CHAIRMAN: OTHER QUESTIONS? >> COUNCILMEMBER: CAN I? >> CHAIRMAN: ABSOLUTELY.

>> COUNCILMEMBER: THE EXISTING HOUSE IN FRONT OF IT IT'S NOT RAISED.

AND I THINK IF THIS IS THE DESIGN THAT GETS APPROVED IT'S ALREADY PUSHING THE LIMITS OF HEIGHT IN CONTACT WITH THE NEIGHBORS. WE REQUIRE THEM TO GO HIGHER I

THINK IT'S GOING TO LOOK PRETTY OUT OF POINT. >> COUNCILMEMBER: OKAY.

>> CHAIRMAN: LET ME ARGUE A LITTLE ABOUT YOU THERE, TAMMI. THAT THE TREES PROVIDE SUCH A NATURAL BARRIER FROM THE 6TH AND 5TH STREET YOU ARE NOT EVEN GOING TO SEE THE COTTAGE THAT'S ON THE 6TH STREET SIDE. IT'S JUST NOT GOING TO BE VISIBLE.

THE BIGGER ISSUE IS WHAT YOU JUST SAID ABOUT SCALE FOR THE BLOCK.

AND I BELIEVE THE HOUSE IMMEDIATELY TO THE SOUTH IS A TWO-STORY.

YEAH, THE HOUSE IMMEDIATELY SOUTH IS A TWO-STORY. THERE'S A STORY-AND-A-HALF HOUSE

TO THE NORTH. AM I GETTING THIS RIGHT? >> COUNCILMEMBER: AND A

STORY-AND-A-HALF TO THE SOUTH. >> CHAIRMAN: IS IT A STORY-AND-A-HALF TO THE SOUTH? OKAY. BUT GIVEN IT'S STILL NOT INCONSISTENT WITH WHAT THEY'RE ASKING FOR. IT'S CONSISTENT WITH HDC GUIDELINES.

IT'S NOT OUT OF LINE IN OTHER WORDS. OTHER QUESTIONS?

>> COUNCILMEMBER: YEAH. I ACCEPT THIS IS A

CONTEXT DOCUMENTS BE POSTED IN THE FINAL APPLICATION. >> CHAIRMAN: OKAY.

>> COUNCILMEMBER: IN OTHER WORDS SHOWING THE HEIGHT AND THE STYLE.

>> CHAIRMAN: DID YOU GET THAT? THANK YOU. JUST FOR YOUR EDIFICATION, MIKE, THEIR JONES IS THEIR AGENT ON THIS AND HE IS SAYING HE'LL TAKE CARE OF THAT.

>> COUNCILMEMBER: THANK YOU, MR. JONES. >> WE'LL SUBMIT IT PRIOR TO

THIS. >> CHAIRMAN: THEY WANT TO SEE THE BUILDINGS ON EACH SIDE.

>> NOT THE CONTACT SENSITIVE REVIEW FOR THE FRONT YARD SETBACK.

A CONTEXT IN RELATIONSHIP TO THE HOMES ON THAT SIDE OF THE BLOCK? >> CHAIRMAN: RIGHT.

>> AND THAT CAN BE A PRETTY SIMPLE SKETCH AS LONG AS IT'S FAIRLY TO SCALE.

FOLKS JUST WANT TO SEE IT BECAUSE IT'S GOING TO BE BIGGER THAN WHAT'S IMMEDIATELY AROUND.

>> CHAIRMAN: THAT'S A TWO STORY TO THE SOUTH? >> YEP.

>> CHAIRMAN: THAT'S A TWO STORY TO THE SOUTH, TAMMI. >> COUNCILMEMBER: I THOUGHT THAT

MARK JONES WAS THE AGENT? >> CHAIRMAN: I THINK HE IS COVERING BOTH TONIGHT.

>> IS HE ON THE PHONE? >> YEAH I'M HERE. THIS IS MARK JONES.

>> CHAIRMAN: CAN YOU IDENTIFY YOURSELF FOR THE RECORD. >> PATRICK ARCHITECTURAL MANAGER FOR THE COMPANY. 2023 OLD TIME AVENUE

ST. AUGUSTINE FLORIDA. >> CHAIRMAN: MR. MAGNUS. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR JACOB

BEFORE WE MOVE ON TO THE FOLKS? >> COUNCILMEMBER: A QUESTION FOR JACOB.

YOU MENTIONED SOMETHING THAT THE STAFF OR CITY REQUIRES THIRD PARTY ARBORIST FOR THAT TREE.

WAS THAT OBTAINED FOR CUTTING THAT ONE LIMB OFF OF THE TREE? >> SO THEY'RE GOING TO-- WE'RE GOING TO WORK WITH DAVE OUR CITY ARBORIST ON COORDINATING THAT. I DON'T BELIEVE THERE'S BEEN ANY COMMUNICATION OR NO THERE HASN'T BETWEEN HIM AND THE APPLICANT AND KIND OF WHAT WORK NEEDS TO BE DONE ON THE TREES AT THIS POINT. SO I WAS WANTING THE THIRD PARTY ARBORIST TO MAKE SURE TO LOOK AT THE ROOT STRUCTURE AND THE PROPOSED FOUNDATION AND EVERYTHING ELSE IN RELATIONSHIP TO WHAT LIMBS MAY NEED TO BE TRIMMED AND DO THAT IN CONJUNCTION WITH MR. IMPORTANT BECAUSE THAT'S A PRETTY MAJOR LIMB THAT'S ON THAT TREE.

AND WE JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE-- I MEAN, THAT'S SUCH A BEAUTIFUL OLD TREE.

THAT COULD BE PRETTY DEVASTATING. AND I THINK WE PROBABLY SHOULD HAVE SOMETHING IN THE APPROVAL IF THIS GETS APPROVED THEY HAVE TO FOLLOW THE 405-14 FOR

[01:30:10]

PROTECTION OF TREES DURING CONSTRUCTION. BECAUSE THAT TREE IS GOING BE

REALLY STRESSED. >> CHAIRMAN: I THINK THAT RESONATES.

OTHER QUESTIONS FOR JACOB BEFORE WE MOVE ON? OKAY.

MR. MAGNUS? WHAT WOULD YOU LIKE TO TELL US ABOUT THIS PROJECT?

>> I'M HERE JUST TO TAKE NOTES FOR MR. JONES. >> CHAIRMAN: MR. JONES, DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING YOU WANT TO ADD IN THIS TIME? OR JUST TAKE QUESTIONS PERHAPS.

COME ON UP HERE PLEASE. OVER YOURSELF FOR THE RECORD. BOARD MEMBERS DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR MR. JONES BEFORE WE MOVE ON? ALL RIGHT.

THAT WAS EASY. >> COUNCILMEMBER: I WAS JUST WAITING.

I THINK FOR A BOARD TO REALLY HELP US GET US TO WHERE WE CAN SAY YES IT WOULD BE VERY NICE TO HAVE A LOOK AT THE CONTEXT. SO, FOR ME, THE BIGGEST ISSUE FOR ME IS LOOKING AT THE GARAGE AS NEXT TO MAYBE THE NEIGHBOR'S HOUSE. SO, EVEN JUST A NICE LITTLE ELEVATION THAT SHOWS US THE CONTEXT OF THIS IN SIGHT. THEN ALSO LOOKING AT IT ON THE SITE PLAN TO SEE THE RELATION OF THE NEIGHBORING HOUSES TO THE STREET AND THEN YOURS, HOW YOURS IS GOING TO ADDRESS THE STREET. SO I THINK THOSE WILL BE KEY ELEMENTS TO REALLY HELP THE BOARD GET TO UNDERSTAND WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT AND WHAT WE'RE BEING ASKED TO APPROVE.

IT WOULD BE HELPFUL. >> WE CAN DO THAT. >> CHAIRMAN: OKAY.

THANK YOU. AND WE'LL MOVE ON TO THE PUBLIC HEARING.

IF THERE'S ANYONE WHO WISHES TO SPEAK WITH REGARD TO CASE 2020-0004 115 SOUTH 6TH STREET, THIS WOULD BE THE TIME. ANYBODY ONLINE? MR. OLIPHANT.

>> I LOVE THE CARRIAGE HOUSE DOORS. >> CHAIRMAN: WHO ARE YOU? DOORS. NICE DRAWING. AS CONCEPTUALIZED.

I SEE IT THOUGH YOU KNOW. >> CHAIRMAN: I FEEL YOU. WE'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING

AND BOARD MEMBERS WHAT ARE WE THINKING? >> COUNCILMEMBER: CAN I JUST KIND OF MAKE SOME GENERAL COMMENTS AS FAR AS AESTHETICS TO GIVE FEEDBACK TO THE APPLICANT

BEFORE THEY COME BACK FOR THEIR FINAL? >> CHAIRMAN: ABSOLUTELY.

THE FIRST THING THAT I WANT TO MENTION IS THAT I PERSONALLY THINK THAT RAISING THE PRIMARY STRUCTURE OFF GRADE MORE IS PRETTY IMPORTANT AESTHETICALLY TO FIT IN WITH THE CHARACTER OF THE HISTORIC DISTRICT. I WOULD SAY AT A MINIMUM WE WANT TO SEE THE FINISH FLOOR ELEVATION BE TWO FEET ABOVE THE GRADE AROUND THE HOUSE. I THINK TWO FEET IS A GOOD MINIMUM PERSONALLY. THAT'S WHAT I WOULD RECOMMEND. THE SECOND COMMENT THAT I HAD IS AS FAR AS THE GARAGE APARTMENT IS CONCERNED, I WOULD JUST RECOMMEND THEY LOOK AT CARRYING THE GABLE ROOF ALL THE WAY THROUGH INSTEAD OF DOING THAT DIP IN THE BACK.

THAT JUST DOESN'T SEEM HISTORICALLY CONSISTENT TO ME WITH WHAT WE SEE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD. BUT THAT'S JUST A PERSONAL PREFERENCE THING THAT I WOULD RECOMMEND. AND THE LAST COMMENT THAT I WOULD MAKE IS JUST ON THE MAIN BODY OF THE PRIMARY RESIDENCE. I THINK THAT DOUBLE LARGE BAND DETAIL MIGHT BE A LITTLE HEAVY.

I THINK MAYBE JUST DOING A SINGLE BAND OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT WOULD PROBABLY BE A LITTLE BIT MORE CONSISTENT WITH WHAT WE TYPICALLY SEE. THAT'S IT.

>> CHAIRMAN: I WONDER IF THE HIP ON THE BACK OF THE GARAGE IS INTENTIONAL BECAUSE OF THE TREE

COVERAGE THERE? ANY THOUGHTS ON THAT? >> YEAH WE DID MEASURE THAT AND

I THINK BASED ON THE DESIGNS-- >> CHAIRMAN: IT'S EASY TO CONCEPTUALLY SAY WE SHOULD BRING IT AROUND AND THEN YOU ARE LIKE WAIT A MINUTE THAT'S A BIG TREE RIGHT THERE.

>> WE CAN DEFINITELY TAKE A LOOK AT IT. >> COUNCILMEMBER: IF THAT'S THE

CASE OBVIOUSLY THE TREE IS THE MOST IMPORTANT THING. >> COUNCILMEMBER:

[01:35:03]

>> CHAIRMAN: I DIDN'T CATCH THAT. >> REFLECTS THE HOUSE.

>> CHAIRMAN: OKAY. VERY GOOD. OTHER GENERAL COMMENTS BY THE

BOARD BEFORE WE PROCEED TO A MOTION. >> COUNCILMEMBER: I'D LIKE TO ECHO SOME OF WHAT BENJAMIN WAS SPEAKING TOWARDS. I DO AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE PRESENCE OF THE HOUSE AND FITTING THE STYLING WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF THE COMMUNTY WOULD BE SIGNIFICANTLY ENHANCED BY ADDING A LITTLE MORE HEIGHT TO THE FOUNDATION.

BRINGING IT UP WOULD REALLY HELP IT FIT IN WITH THE CONTEXT AROUND IT.

LOOKING AT THE DETAILING OF THE FRONT PORCH WHEREAS RIGHT NOW IT'S JUST A FLAT SLAB, I THINK YOU CAN FIND THAT SOME OF THE MORE SUCCESSFUL NEIGHBORING HOUSES HAVE LIKE PIER CONSTRUCTION PORCHES AND SUCH THAT IT BRINGS AN EXTRA LEVEL OF DETAIL TO IT THAT IT WOULD CERTAINLY BEHOOVE THEM TO CONSIDER SOME DETAILING OF THAT NATURE.

AND THE DOUBLE BAND BOARD AT THE SECOND FLOOR OF THE HOUSE. I TOTALLY AGREE WITH BENJAMIN THAT THAT SEEMS TO BE OUT OF SCALE AND PROPORTION FOR THE OTHER DETAILING ON THE HOUSE.

AND I WOULD STRONGLY URGE THEM TO REVISIT THAT DETAILING TO KIND OF PULL IT IN AND BRING IT INTO THE CONTEXT OF THE REST OF THE HOUSE BY REDUCING IT FROM THAT BIG DOUBLE BAND ELEMENT.

I THINK THAT WOULD HELP THE PROPORTION AND SCALING OF ALL THE DETAILING ON THE HOUSE JUST

LOOKING AT THAT ONE LITTLE ELEMENT. >> CHAIRMAN: WHAT WAS THE SIDING

MATERIAL AS IDENTIFIED IN THE APPLICATION? >> IT SAYS HARDI LAP.

>> CHAIRMAN: OKAY. JUST LOOKING AT YOUR NOTES HERE, JACOB.

>> I THINK IT WASN'T CLEAR WHETHER IT WAS SMOOTH AND I JUST WANTED TO REITERATE--

>> CHAIRMAN: SMOOTH IS THE PREFERENCE. OTHER COMMENTS, CONCERNS, QUESTIONS BEFORE WE GO ON TO A MOTION? I WOULD ASK THAT WHATEVER MOTION GETS MADE INCLUDES THE REQUIREMENT THAT STAFF HAVE RECOMMENDED THAT A THIRD PARTY ARBORIST BE ENGAGED. ACTUALLY MS. TAMMI I THINK YOU OUTLINED A NUMBER OF REQUIREMENTS THAT MIGHT MAKE A REALLY GREAT MOTION IF YOU DON'T MIND.

>> COUNCILMEMBER: OH NO. I'M NOT VOTING. >> CHAIRMAN: DARN YOU.

I FORGOT. >> COUNCILMEMBER: TREE PROTECTION SECTION E--

>> CHAIRMAN: HOLD ON. CAN YOU REPEAT THAT PLEASE. >> COUNCILMEMBER: 4-05.14 TREE PROTECTION SECTION E AND SECTIONS 1-6 ARE TREE PROTECTION DORM CONSTRUCTION.

>> CHAIRMAN: SOMEBODY GET THAT? MAYBE JACOB'S GOT IT. HE IS GOING WHAT.

I THINK THAT'S LDC. THAT WOULD BE GOOD AS PART OF THE MOTION.

TO CONTEXT THE HEIGHT OF THE FOUNDATION. I'M NOT SURE THE BAND ISSUE GETS INTO THE MOTION BUT I THINK THE CONTEXT DRAWINGS, FOUNDATION AND LDC REQUIREMENTSES MIGHT MAKE A

GOOD MOTION. AND THE ARBORIST. >> COUNCILMEMBER: I'D ALSO LIKE TO ASK IN THE FINAL MOTION THAT THE HOUSE BE SHOWN IN CONTEXT WITH THE UNDER CANOPY OF THE

TREES THAT ARE ON THE LOT. >> CHAIRMAN: OKAY THAT'S NOT A BAD THOUGHT CONSIDERING WE'RE

DEALING WITH THESE MAGNIFICENT TREES. >> COUNCILMEMBER: YEAH.

AND PARTICULARLY IF WE'RE ASKING TO PUSH THE HEIGHT UP. >> CHAIRMAN: I THINK JIM'S GOING TO HELP US HERE WITH A MOTION IF YOU GIVE HIM A MINUTE TO MAKE SOME NOTES.

TAMMI HAVE YOU BEEN IN TOWN LATELY. THE POTTERY BARN IS LOOKING

PRETTY GOOD ACROSS THE STREET. >> COUNCILMEMBER: I'M COMING TOMORROW SOME ADD SOME LIGHTS.

[01:40:07]

I CAN'T IMAGINE. >> CHAIRMAN: IT'S GOING TO BE WHITE.

>> COUNCILMEMBER: I'LL GIVE IT A SHOT. I MOVE TO APPROVE HDC CASE 2020-0004 WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS. THAT AN ARBORIST BE ENGAGED TO CONSULT ON THE CONDITION AND WORKING AROUND THE EXISTING TREES, THAT LDC TREE PROTECTION GUIDELINES BE FOLLOWED THROUGH THIS PROJECT, THAT THE FINAL DESIGN TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION HDC COMMENTS REGARDING THE FOUNDATION HEIGHT, THAT THE APPLICANT PROVIDE CONTEXT DRAWINGS SHOWING THE NEIGHBORING HOUSES IN RELATION TO THE PROPOSED NEW STRUCTURES, BOTH ELEVATION AND SITE PLAN. WE ALSO ASK THEY PROVIDE SOME INDICATION OF THE TREE CANOPY AND HOW THESE HOUSES MAY IMPACT THE EXISTING TREE CANOPY. AND ALSO TO REVISIT THE TRIM DETAILING SHOWN ON THE PRELIMINARY DRAWING AND BRING IT INTO CONTEXT WITH SURROUNDING NEIGHBORING HOMES. AND I MOVE THAT HDC MAKE THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW PART OF THE RECORD. THAT HDC CASE 2020-0004 AS PRESENTED IS SUBSTANTIALLY COMPLIANT WITH THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, THE SECRETARY OF INTERIOR'S STANDARDS, AND THE DOWNTOWN HISTORIC DISTRICT GUIDELINE TO WARRANT CONCEPTUAL

APPROVAL AT THIS TIME. >> COUNCILMEMBER: JIM, DID I HEAR THE WORD CONCEPTUAL IN YOUR

MOTION? >> COUNCILMEMBER: YES. >> COUNCILMEMBER: IN THAT CASE I

SECOND. >> CHAIRMAN: MOVE POZZETTA. SECOND HARRISON.

ANY DISCUSSION? JIM THANK YOU FOR ALL THE DETAIL.

IT'S EXACTLY WHAT WE WANTED. I KNOW IT WAS A LITTLE BIT OF WORK TO DO SO I APPRECIATE IT.

MOVING ON, MS. SYLVIE PLEASE CALL ROLL. >> MEMBER HARRISON?

>> COUNCILMEMBER: YES. >> MEMBER MOORE ISSON? >> COUNCILMEMBER: YES.

>> MEMBER CONWAY? >> COUNCILMEMBER: YES. >> MEMBER POZZETTA?

>> COUNCILMEMBER: YES. >> CHAIR SPINO? >> CHAIRMAN: YES.

MOVING ON. HDCV2020-0005 MIRANDA FOR DORNER.

[5.6 HDCV 2020-0005: JOSE MIRANDA, ARCHITECT, AGENT FOR SUSAN DORNER, 606 CEDAR STREET]

606 CEDAR STREET. WE'LL FOLLOW THAT UP WITH 13 FOR THAT SAME PROPERTY.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR PATIENCE TONIGHT. WE REALIZE IT'S BEEN A WHILE.

WHO'S GOT THIS ONE? IS THIS JAKE? >> THANK YOU, CHAIR SPINO.

HDCV2020-0005 REPRESENTED TONIGHT BY MR. JOSE MIRANDA. PROPERTY LOCATED AT 606 CEDAR STREET SEEKING A VARIANCE FROM TWO SECTIONS OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 5.01.03K AND 4.02.03E. THIS IS A CONTRIBUTING-- THERE'S A CONTRIBUTING PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE ON THE PROPERTY. IT'S R2 AND MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL.

THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING VARIANCE FROM 5.0.103 TO ALLOW FOR A BREEZEWAY CONNECTION TO THE GARAGE BUILDING THAT WAS PREVIOUSLY APPROVED THROUGH HDC2019-33.

CONNECTION OF AN ACCESSORY BUILDING TO PRINCIPAL STRUCTURES ARE PERMISSIBLE WHEN THE CONNECTION MEETS ALL PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE SETBACKS REQUIREMENTS. HOWEVER THE PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE'S FLOOR PLAN, AND ORIENTATION ON THE LOT MAKE THE BREEZEWAY CONNECTION IMPRACTICAL TO MEET THAT 20 FOOT REAR YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENT. THE SECOND PART OF THEIR REQUEST IS TO ALLOW FOR A KITCHEN ADDITION ON THE REAR OF THE PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE.

REDUCING THE 20 FOOT SETBACK REQUIREMENT TO 7'10" MATCHING THE EXISTING SETBACK FOR THE CONTRIBUTING STRUCTURE. THE ORIGINAL STRUCTURE WAS BUILT FRONTING CEDAR STREET PERPENDICULAR TO THE PLATTED LOT OF RECORDS MAKING IT NON-CONFORMING FOR THE SETBACK

[01:45:04]

REQUIREMENTS OF THE R2 ZONING DISTRICT. I'VE GOT A SITE PLAN SHOWING THE EXISTING STRUCTURE, THE NEW GARAGE THAT WAS APPROVED IN 2019.

WE'VE GOT THE KITCHEN ADDITION ON THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE PRIMARY STRUCTURE AS WELL AS THE BREEZEWAY CONNECTION ON THE SOUTHERLY SIDE OF THE PROPERTY. RUNNING THROUGH THE SIX CRITERIA. STAFF FINDS THERE ARE SPECIAL CONDITIONS THAT APPLICABLE TO THIS PARCEL. THE HISTORIC STRUCTURE WAS BUILT FRONTING CEDAR STREET.

PERMISSIBLE BREEZEWAY CONNECTION IS NOT FEASIBLE. THE KITCHEN ADDITION DOES EXPAND. HOWEVER IT DOES NOT ENCROACH FARTHER SOUTH.

GRANTING THE VARIANCE DOES CONSTITUTE A SPECIAL PRIVILEGE THAT IS DENIED BY THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE TO OTHER BUILDINGS IN THE ZONING DISTRICT.

VARIANCE ALLOWS FOR EXPANSION OF EXISTING NON-CONFORMING SITUATION.

HOWEVER THE HDC SHOULD CONSIDER THE ORIENTATION OF THE CONTRIBUTING STRUCTURE AS A UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCE. INTERPRETATION OF THE PROVISIONS OF OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE WOULD NOT DEPRIVE THE APPLICANT OF RIGHTS. HOWEVER IT WOULD REQUIRE ALTERCATION OF AN EXISTING STRUCTURE TO MAKE A CONNECTION WITH THAT ACCESSORY STRUCTURE VIA PERMISSIBLE BREEZEWAY. THE REQUESTED VARIANCE WILL FOR ALLOW FOR THE REASONABLE EXPANSION OF THE KITCHEN AND BREEDSWAY CONNECTION WITH THE ACCESSORY STRUCTURE.

DOING SO IN A MANNER THAT DOES NOT NEGATIVELY IMPACT THE ARCHITECTURE AND HISTORIC INTEGRITY OF THE PRIMARY STRUCTURE. IT WILL BE IN HARMONY WITH THE PURPOSE OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE. DOING SO IN RECOGNIZING THE CONTRIBUTING STRUCTURES ORIENTATION ON THE LOT AND ALLOWING FOR PERMISSIBLE BREEDSWAY CONNECTION. STAFF FINDS THE REQUEST WOULD NOT CAUSE INJURY TO PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY OR WELFARE ENVIRONMENT AND IS COMPATIBLE WITH SURROUNDING PROPERTIES.

THE APPLICANT PROVIDES AS THE BOARD KNOWS ADDITIONALIE TEAR YEAH THAT THE HISTORIC COUNCIL CAN CONSIDER AS PART OF VARIANCE REQUESTS. THE APPLICANT IS DATED FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION. THE PROPOSED BREEZEWAY CONNECTION AND KITCHEN ADDITION PRESERVES THE ARCHITECTURAL AND HISTORIC CHARACTER OF THE BUILDING BY LOCATING IT TOWARD THE SOUTH END OF THE HISTORIC WEST FACING FACADE. NEITHER BREEZEWAY OR KITCHEN ADDITION WILL BE VISIBLE FROM SOUTH 6 STREET. A NEW GUEST HOUSE WILL BLOCK THE VIEW. THE APPLICANT MEETS FOUR OF THE SIX CRITERIA.

AND AS SUCH NOT MEETING THE ALL SIX STAFF HAS TO RECOMMEND DENIAL OF HDCV-2020-0005.

>> CHAIRMAN: QUESTIONS FOR JACOB? >> COUNCILMEMBER: QUESTION FOR JAKE. WHEN WE APPROVED THIS GARAGE ORIGINALLY WHERE WAS IT SITED ON THE PLAN? OR WAS IT WHERE IT IS AND THE ONLY ADDITION WAS THE BREEZEWAY?

>> THE GARAGE IS IN THE ORIGINALLY APPROVED LOCATION. THE ONLY CHANGE OR THE BREEZEWAY IS THE ADDITION. THE LOCATION OF THE GARAGE HAS NOT CHANGED.

>> COUNCILMEMBER: OKAY. THANK YOU. >> CHAIRMAN: OKAY.

MR. POZZETTA? >> COUNCILMEMBER: NO QUESTIONS. >> CHAIRMAN: WONDERFUL.

OKAY. I'LL REMIND EVERYONE THAT IF COUNCIL WILL REMIND US THAT WE NEED TO IDENTIFY IF WE CHOOSE TO APPROVE THIS WE NEED TO IDENTIFY WHY WE DISAGREE WITH THE STAFF REPORT AND WHAT OUR RATIONALE FOR THE TWO CRITERIA THAT WE HAVEN'T-- THAT WE'RE GOING TO

SAY ARE MET. RIGHT, COUNSEL? >> THAT'S CORRECT

>> CHAIRMAN: AND THAT CAN BE SOMETHING AS SIMPLE AS THE EXISTING NON-CONFORMITY OF THE STRUCTURES ON THE PROPERTY LEADS TO A GOOD REASON WHY TO VOTE FOR IT.

WHAT WAS THE OTHER CRITERIA THAT WE DIDN'T MAKE? >> SPECIAL PRIVILEGE AND LITERAL INTERPRETATION. OKAY. ARE WE READY TO MOVER ON TO

JOSE? JOSE, COME ON UP. >> JOSE MIRANDA.

[01:50:11]

MIRANDA ARCHITECTS. OBVIOUSLY WE'VE GOT A DIFFICULT PROJECT.

WE'VE GOT A LATE 1,800'S HOUSE THAT VIOLATES ALL SETBACKS. SO, ANY ADDITION TO A HOUSE THAT'S SO SITUATED WOULD REQUIRE A VARIANCE. SO, WE'RE BETWEEN A ROCK AND A HARD PLACE. WE MADE THE VARIANCE KIND OF A TWO-PART.

IN OTHER WORDS, WE INCLUDED THE BREEZEWAY VARIANCE AND THE KITCHEN EXPANSION VARIANCE.

TO GIVER YOU GUYS AN OPPORTUNITY IF WE CAN'T GET THE BREEZEWAY SETBACK WE DEFINITELY NEED THE KITCHEN EXPANSION BECAUSE THERE'S NO WAY TO PHYSICALLY ADD ON TO THE HOUSE IN THAT AREA.

SO, IDEALLY WE WANT BOTH VARIANCES, THE BREEZEWAY CONNECTION GIVES A COVERED CONNECTION FROM THE GARAGE TO THE MAIN HOUSE COMING IN TO WHAT IS GOING TO BE THE REAR KITCHEN ENTRY DOOR. LIKE I SAID ON THE APPLICATION IT'S NOT GOING TO BE VISIBLE FROM 6TH STREET ONCE THE GARAGE GUEST BUILDING IS BUILT. WE KNOW THAT THE NEIGHBOR MOST IMMEDIATELY IMPACTED TO THE SOUTH HAS NO OBJECTION TO IT. ESPECIALLY SINCE HER HOUSE IS ACTUALLY SITUATED QUITE A DISTANCE AWAY SOUTHERLY ON HER PROPERTY VERSUS TO THIS SIDE.

SO, THERE'S NO VISUAL IMPACTED FROM HER SIDE. I AM HERE TO ANSWER ANY

QUESTIONS YOU MIGHT HAVE. >> CHAIRMAN: QUESTIONS FOR-- AND THAT'S THE NEIGHBORS TERRY OLIVER. I SAW AN EMAIL FROM HER AND I KNOW THAT'S NOT EVIDENCE PER SE BECAUSE IT'S HEARSAY BUT I KNOW HER WELL ENOUGH TO KNOW IT'S LIKELY SHE WOULD HAVE SAID THAT.

QUESTIONS FOR JOSE? >> COUNCILMEMBER: I GUESS THE ONLY QUESTION THAT I HAVE TO BE ABLE TO ASK JOSE TO HEAR YOUR TAKE ON IT OR WHATEVER SO I UNDERSTAND YOUR THOUGHT PROCESS HERE, BUT AS FAR AS THE EXPANSION OF THE KITCHEN IS CONCERNED, I MEAN, IT IS POSSIBLE THAT YOU COULD HAVE EXPANDED THE KITCHEN TO THE WEST SIDE OF THE HOUSE OFF OF WHERE THE EXISTING KITCHEN IS NOW WITHOUT REQUIRING A VARIANCE AT ALL RIGHT?

>> YEAH, WE COULD HAVE PHYSICALLY ADDED ON TO THE WEST SIDE OF THE MAIN HOUSE.

BUT GIVEN YOUR GUIDELINES WHERE ADDITIONS ARE PREFERRED ON THE REAR PORTION OF THE HOUSE WE FOCUSED OUR EFFORTS ON BASICALLY FILLING IN THAT BACK PORTION. STILL KEEPING THE ORIGINAL SHAPE OF THE ROOF LINE ALONG THAT BACK PORTION VERSUS PHYSICALLY ATTACHING TO WHAT WOULD BE THE

WEST SIDE OF THE LIVING AREA. >> CHAIRMAN: WHERE WOULD THEY GO?

>> YOU WOULD HAVE TO BE WITHIN THAT ROUGHLY 15 FEET OF WIDTH BETWEEN THE SETBACK LINES TO

PHYSICALLY ADD ON. >> COUNCILMEMBER: WHERE IT SAYS PATIO.

>> YEAH. THAT'S THE ONLY PHYSICAL AREA WHERE NO VARIANCE WOULD BE REQUIRED. JUST BASED ON THE SHAPE OF THE HOUSE AND WHERE THE ADDITION MADE SENSE WE CHOSE THE PATH OF LEAST EINVOICENCE. -- RESISTANCE.

>> COUNCILMEMBER: WELL, I MEAN, THE REASON THAT I ASKED YOU THAT QUESTION IS JUST BECAUSE YOU MADE THE COMMENT EARLIER WHY YOU WERE TALKING YOU SAID THAT THE ONLY WAY THAT YOU COULD ADD-- IT WAS IMPOSSIBLE TO ADD ON TO THE HOUSE AND MEET THE SETBACK REQUIREMENT AND I DON'T THINK

THAT'S THE CASE. >> CORRECT THAT WOULD BE AN OVERSTATEMENT.

YOU COULD IT JUST DOESN'T MAKE SENSE. >> COUNCILMEMBER: THE OTHER THING THAT I WOULD ADD IS THAT, YOU KNOW, I DON'T KNOW THAT IT WOULD MAKE ANY DIFFERENCE AS FAR AS IF YOU WERE LOOKING AT AN ALTERNATIVE. I MEAN, IT'S PROBABLY FEASIBLE YOU COULD GET A CONTACT SENSITIVE SETBACK VARIANCE ON THE FRONT YARD SETBACK HERE

RIGHT? >> CHAIRMAN: THERE'S NO FRONT YARD SETBACK.

>> WELL THE FRONT YARD OF THE HOUSE-- OBVIOUSLY THE HOUSE VIOLATES THE FRONT YARD SETBACK.

I DO NOT KNOW THE CONTEXT IMMEDIATELY TO THE RIGHT. >> THAT HOUSE FACES ON 7TH STREET. OF COURSE, MY HOUSE ON 6TH STREET FACES ON 6TH STREET.

>> SO IF ARE ONLY LOOKING AT THE IMMEDIATE BLOCK THERE IS NO CONTEXT.

>> CHAIRMAN: THERE'S JUST TWO HOUSES ON THE BLOCK. >> AND THAT'S THE STRANGE PART ABOUT THIS HOUSE BECAUSE IT'S ORIENTED KIND OF CONTRARY TO THE LOT SHAPE.

AND THAT'S WHAT MAKES IT DIFFICULT-- >> CHAIRMAN: WHAT YEAR IS THIS

HOUSE? >> WE THINK IT'S LATE 18 HUNDREDS BECAUSE OF THE STYLE

AND VERTICALITY OF THE WINDOWS. >> CHAIRMAN: OTHER QUESTIONS FOR JOSE? SO JUST TO-- I'M SORRY, JIM. JUST TO GET BACK TO BENJAMIN'S POINT, YES THEY COULD COME OUT

[01:55:04]

TO THE WEST ON THAT KITCHEN BUT, YOU KNOW, I KNOW THIS PROPERTY PRETTY WELL.

IT WOULD LOOK WRONG TO COME OUT INTO THAT LESS YARD WITH A KITCHEN ADDITION.

BY KEEPING IT WITHIN THE FOOTPRINT OF THE EXISTING NON-CONFORMITY OR EXISTING CONSTRUCTION IT'S GOING LOOK A LOT BETTER FROM THE CEDAR STREET SIDE.

LET ME ASK YOU A PHASED CONSTRUCTION. IS IT YOUR INTENTION TO DO THE

KITCHEN AND GARAGE AND BREEZEWAY AT THE SAME TIME? >> NO THE GARAGE WAS PERMITTED AND SHOULD BE STARTING CONSTRUCTION SOON. THE BREEZEWAY AND KITCHEN IS

PHASE 2. >> CHAIRMAN: SO THERE'S NO CHANCE THE BREEZEWAY ENDS UP,

YOU KNOW, OUT THERE EXPOSED. >> NO CHANCE. >> CHAIRMAN: SEEN FROM 6TH

STREET BECAUSE YOU WILL ALREADY HAVE THE GARAGE UP. >> YES.

>> CHAIRMAN: THAT'S HELPFUL. BOARD MEMBERS ANY MORE QUESTIONS? IF NOT WE'LL MOVE INTO THE PUBLIC MEETING FOR CASE HDCV-2020-0005 MIRANDA DORNER 606 CEDAR STREET. IS THERE ANYBODY ON THE PHONE? NO.

THEN WE'LL GO TO MR. OL AFAN. >> PUBLIC SPEAKER: 509 CEDAR STREET.

I'M BEATING THIS ONE TO DEATH. LAST MEETING WE HAD ON THAT GARAGE WAS THAT SEPTEMBER CORRECT? THE ONLY THING I AM ASKING RIGHT NOW IS THE LAST MEETING I REMEMBERED I WAS HERE THAT THE PLAN WAS GREAT, FANTASTIC, AND I BITCHED OVER THE WALL OF AGAIN PLASTIC GARAGE DOORS. THE WHOLE BOARD UP HERE SAID YOU GOT TO CHANGE IT.

AND I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S BEEN CHANGED TO SORT OF LIKE YOU FAKE IT WHEN YOU MAKE A PAIR OF

CARRIAGE DOORS. >> CHAIRMAN: I THINK I REMEMBERED THAT DISCUSSION.

WE HELD THEM TO THAT STANDARD. >> PUBLIC SPEAKER: I MEAN, THAT IS A BIG EXPANSION.

YOU CAN SEE IT LEFT AND RIGHT. AS FAR AS I AM CONCERNED I THINK IT IS A GREAT IDEA AND THERE'S AS THE CYNICS SAY THE ONLY REASON FOR AN UP AND DOWN GARAGE DOOR IS SO YOU CAN GET OUT OF THE RAIN WITHOUT GETTING WET. AND NOW THEY'VE GOT A BREEZEWAY SO THE ANSWER TO THE QUESTION, BUILD THE THING. GREAT. I SUPPORT IT.

>> CHAIRMAN: THANK YOU VERY MUCH. CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.

BOARD MEMBERS WHAT'S YOUR PLEASURE? THIS IS THE VARIANCE DISCUSSION.

>> COUNCILMEMBER: GO AHEAD, TAMMI. >> COUNCILMEMBER: ONE OF THE SPECIAL CONDITIONS IS THAT IS NON-CONFORMING BECAUSE IT WAS BUILT PERPENDICULAR TO THE PLATTING. DO WE KNOW IF THERE ARE OTHER SITUATIONS LIKE THIS WHERE IT

WAS BUILT TURNED? >> THERE ARE. I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY AND HOW OFTEN IN THIS AREA OF DOWNTOWN. BUT THERE ARE EXAMPLES OF IT. BUT IT'S NOT COMMON.

>> CHAIRMAN: IT'S HAPPENED. I CAN'T THINK OF ANYTHING OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD.

BUT IF WE WENT FOR A WALK I'M SURE WE COULD SEE TWO OR THREE. IT'S UNUSUAL.

IT'S REALLY QUITE UNUSUAL. >> COUNCILMEMBER: WELL I'LL TELL YOU MY THOUGHTS ON THIS.

I'M PRETTY CONFLICTED ON IT. BECAUSE ON ONE HAND I COMPLETELY APPRECIATE WHAT JOSE IS SAYING IN REGARDS TO THE FACT THAT IF YOU ARE GOING TO PUT AN ADDITION ON TO THIS BUILDING WHERE IT'S BEING PROPOSED IS THE LEAST OBTRUSIVE AS FAR AS WHAT THE IMPACT IS ON, YOU KNOW, THE EXISTING HISTORICAL STRUCTURE. BUT, YOU KNOW, ON THE FLIP SIDE OF THAT, YOU KNOW, A COUPLE OF THINGS. ONE IS THAT I LISTEN TO 12340E WHAT PEOPLE IN THE COMMUNITY SAY AND I'LL TELL YOU I'VE HEARD A LOT OF FEEDBACK RECENTLY FROM PEOPLE IN THE COMMUNITY THAT FEEL LIKE THAT VARIANCES ARE BEING GRANTED, YOU KNOW, MORE THAN PROBABLY WE SHOULD BE GRANTING THEM. AND, YOU KNOW, THAT'S ONLY WORTH WHAT IT'S WORTH OR WHATEVER BUT I DO LISTEN WHEN I HEAR THAT FROM THE COMMUNITY. THE SECOND THING IS JUST TONIGHT THE CASE THAT MEMBER POZZETTA PRESENTED EARLIER IN THE MEETING, YOU KNOW, IS AN EXAMPLE OF ANOTHER HOMEOWNER IN THE HISTORIC DISTRICT WHO IS INCURRING, YOU KNOW, QUITE FRANKLY A PRETTY SUBSTANTIAL ADDITIONAL COST TO PUT AN ADDITION ON THEIR STRUCTURE IN A WAY THAT DOESN'T MEET NON-CONFORMITY AND WE APPROVED IT BECAUSE THEY WENT THROUGH THE EXTRA EFFORT TO BE ABLE TO COME UP WITH A CREATIVE SOLUTION THAT ALLOWED THEM TO GET WHAT THEY

[02:00:03]

WANTED WITHOUT HAVING TO EXTEND A NON-CONFORMITY. SO, THEN TURN AROUND AND LOOK AT ANOTHER PROJECT WHERE THEY'RE NOT EVEN, YOU KNOW, AS FAR AS WHAT WE'RE SEEING TONIGHT TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE IDEA OF LOOKING AT AN ALTERNATE SOLUTION THAT DOESN'T EXTEND THE NON-CONFORMITY, I HAVE A LITTLE BIT OF AN ISSUE WITH IT. AND BASED ON WHAT I'VE SEEN, YOU KNOW, MY GUT INSTINCT HERE IS THAT I FEEL LIKE THERE IS, YOU KNOW, THAT NOBODY IS ENTITLED TO THE ABILITY TO EXPAND THEIR HOUSE. SECONDLY, YOU KNOW, JUST IN MY PROFESSIONAL OPINION, I DO THINK THERE'S PROBABLY A CREATIVE WAY THIS CAN BE DONE WITHOUT HAVING TO EXTEND A NON-CONFORMITY. MY GUT INSTINCT HERE IS TO VOTE AGAINST IT.

>> CHAIRMAN: BOARD MEMBERS? >> CUNCILMEMBER: I AM GOING TO JUMP IN ON THAT BECAUSE I WAS IN A VERY SIMILAR SITUATION IN MY HOUSE. MY HOUSE IS NON-CONFORMING.

ON THE SIDE I'M 22 INCHES OFF MY PROPERTY LINE. WHEN I PUT MY BACK PORCH ON IT I HAD TO GET VERY CREATIVE IN THE ROOF LINES AND THE OVERHANG AND HOW THAT DID BECAUSE THAT WAS A SLIGHT EXTENSION ON THE HOUSE. I THINK WHAT BENJAMIN IS EXACTLY RIGHT WITH VARIANCES.

THIS ADDITION ISN'T NECESSARY. IT'S NOT A NECESSARY ADDITION FOR THE UPKEEP AND THE MAINTENANCE OF THE HOUSE. SO I THINK WE HAVE TO BE REAL CAREFUL.

FRANKLY, WE MIGHT NOT SEE THAT BREEZEWAY FROM 6TH STREET BUT WE SEE IT FROM CEDAR STREET.

AND IT'S VERY NON-HISTORIC. BECAUSE THEY WOULD NOT HAVE THAT.

WE HARP ON HAVING TWO SEPARATE STRUCTURES. I DO HAVE AN ISSUE OF THE BREEZEWAY CONNECTING THAT IN A NON-CONFORMING AREA THAT REQUIRES A VARIANCE.

>> CHAIRMAN: THOUGHTS? >> COUNCILMEMBER: I AM NOT HAPPY WITH IT.

>> CHAIRMAN: WITH WHAT? THE VARIANCE IN TOTAL, THE BREEZEWAY, THE KITCHEN?

>> COUNCILMEMBER: BOTH OF THEM. >> CHAIRMAN: MS. CONWAY? >> COUNCILMEMBER: YEAH I THINK THAT MAYBE THEY COULD BE A LITTLE BIT MORE CREATIVE AND COME BACK WITH SOMETHING THAT IS

NOT AS INCONSISTENT REALLY WITH THE REST OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. >> CHAIRMAN: MR. POZZETTA?

>> COUNCILMEMBER: I UNDERSTAND WHAT THE OTHER BOARD MEMBERS OF THE OTHER BOARD MEMBERS.TION- I THINK PERHAPS WE COULD GIVE THE APPLICANT A CHANCE TO RECONSIDER MAYBE AND MODIFY IF

THEY'RE WILLING TO COME BACK AND TALK TO US. >> CHAIRMAN: THANK YOU.

I THINK THE KITCHEN ADDITION IS ENTIRELY REASONABLE BECAUSE IT PROTECTS THE FACADE AND THE SIDE OF THE HOUSE FROM THE CEDAR STREET PERSPECTIVE. I CAN UNDERSTAND THE CONCERN ABOUT THE BREEZEWAY BEING-- IT'S NOT CONSISTENT WITH WHAT WE'VE SEEN IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD, TO BE HONEST WITH YOU. THE KITCHEN ADDITION IS COMPLETELY CONSISTENT WITH A LOT OF THINGS WEAVE 'SEEN IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD ALL OVER THE HISTORIC DISTRICT.

SO IF THEY WERE WILLING TO SEVER THE BREEZEWAY IN ORDER TO GET THE VARIANCE ON THE KITCHEN,

WOULD THAT SOLVE OUR PROBLEMS? >> COUNCILMEMBER: IT WOULD. >> COUNCILMEMBER: I DON'T FEEL LIKE IT SOLVES THE PROBLEM BECAUSE I, I MEAN, AGREE WHEN YOU SAY THE ADDITION TO THE KITCHEN IS CONSISTENT WITH WHAT WE WOULD HOPE TO SEE IN OTHER PROPERTIES IN THE HISTORIC DISTRICT. BUT THE DIFFERENCE IS THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE KITCHENS THAT WE SEE DON'T EXTEND NON-CONFORMANCE. WE'RE NOT LOOKING AT IS IN TERMS OF IS IT ARCHITECTURALLY SENSITIVE. THAT'S THE NEXT ISSUE.

>> COUNCILMEMBER: BUT YOU CAN'T GET TO ONE WITHOUT THE OTHER. >> COUNCILMEMBER: I THINK WE SHOULD ENCOURAGE THEM TO LOOK AT OTHER OPTIONS AND COME BACK AND SEE WHAT THEY CAN COME UP WITH.

>> CHAIRMAN: I DISAGREE. MR. MIRANDA, DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING YOU WANT TO ADD?

>> WE'RE ABOUT TO PULL UP THE 6TH STREET VIEW OF THE SIDE OF THE HOUSE.

IF ANYBODY'S BEEN INSIDE THIS HOUSE, THE KITCHEN IS ROUGHLY 8X10.

YOU SEE THE ONE WEST FACING WINDOW? CAN YOU ZOOM IN ON THAT? YOU SEE THE SHORT WINDOW? THERE'S TWO TALL WINDOWS AND THE SHORT WINDOW.

THAT'S WHERE THE CURRENT KITCHEN IS. IF I'M SUPPOSED TO DESIGN

[02:05:05]

SOMETHING THAT MEETS THE SETBACKS I'M GOING TO BE LIMITED TO 12 FEET OF WIDTH COMING OUT TOWARDS US WHICH WON'T LOOK RIGHT. I CAN BE AS CREATIVES AWE WANT BUT IT'S RIDICULOUS TO ADD ON TO A HOUSE ON THAT SIDE JUST TO COMPLY WITH THE SETBACK.

THIS WHOLE IDEA YOU SHOULDN'T BE ALLOWED VARIANCE IN THE HISTORIC DISTRICT IS, THE WHOLE HISTORIC DISTRICT IS A VARIANCE FOR GOD SAKE. IT DOES NOT COMPLY WITH CURRENT ZONING REQUIREMENTS. THIS IS WHY WE'RE HERE BEFORE YOU.

I THINK SPEAKING WITH SUSAN, WE HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH NOT DOING THE BREEZEWAY IF THAT GIVES YOU HEARTBURN BUT WE HAVE TO PUT THE KITCHEN ON THAT SIDE. WE CAN COME BACK HERE AND STUDY ALL KINDS OF OTHER DESIGNS BUT IT DOESN'T MEET HER NEEDS. AND I DON'T THINK IT IMPROVES THE ARCHITECTURE OF THE BUILDING BY PUT AB ADDITION ON ONE OF THE MAIN VISIBLE SIDES.

WE WANT TO TUCK IT AROUND TO THE BACK. PLEASE CONSIDER THAT.

>> CHAIRMAN: THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >> COUNCILMEMBER: MY RESPONSE TO THAT IS JUST THAT NOBODY IS ENTITLED TO BE ABLE TO PUT AN ADDITION ON TO THEIR HOUSE.

I MEAN, I MEAN, YOU KNOW, MIGHT BE THE HISTORIC DISTRICT BUT IT DOESN'T MAKE IT ANY DIFFERENCE THAN ANYWHERE ELSE IN THE CITY. UNLESS THERE'S A SUBSTANTIATED HARDSHIP OR COMPELLING REASON WHY THIS HAS TO HAPPEN I JUST DON'T SEE THE JUSTIFICATION FOR

EXTENDING A NON-CONFORMITY. >> WE'RE HERE AS A BOARD TO DECIDE YARNSS JUST FOR THAT REASON. QUITE HONESTLY YOUR COMMENT THAT YOU'VE GOTTEN PUSHBACK FROM PEOPLE WHO ARE UNHAPPY WE'VE GRANTED TOO IN VARIANCES, HOW MANY VARIANCES HAVE WE GRANTED? A HANDFUL IN THE LAST YEAR. FOR THE MOST PART THEY'RE UNUSUAL SITUATIONS WHERE PEOPLE BUY HISTORIC PROPERTY AND THEY'VE GOT WEIRD SITING ON THE LOT AND THEY HAVE LITTLE CHOICES WHAT DO THEY DO. I ALSO TAKE ISSUE WITH YOUR NOTION PEOPLE AREN'T ENTITLED TO AFTERNOON ADDITION. THEY GREAT TO ENJOY THEIR PROPERTY.

THEY'RE MAINTAINING AT GREAT COST A HISTORIC STRUCTURE. AND THEY'RE TRYING TO USE IT TO ITS FULL VALUE. I TAKE ISSUE. AND I WOULD ARGUE THAT WE NEED TO PROVIDE THE VARIANCE FOR THE KITCHEN, LOSE THE BREEZEWAY AND MOVE ON TO THE COA.

CAN I GET A MOTION? >> COUNCILMEMBER: I'LL MAKE A MOTION.

HOLD ON. I CAN'T FIND THE LANGUAGE FOR THIS ONE.

HERE IT IS. ALL RIGHT. HOLD ON.

I MOVE TO DENY HDC2020-004 WITHOUT CONDITIONS AND I MOVE THAT HDC MAKE THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACTS AND CONCLUSION OF LAW FOR THE RECORD THAT 2020-0004 AS PRESENTED IS NOT SUBSTANTIALLY COMPLIANT WITH THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, THE SECRETARY INTERIOR STANDARDS AND

THE OLD TOWN-- >> CHAIRMAN: THAT'S A MISTAKE. SHOULD SAY DOWNTOWN.

>> COUNCILMEMBER: OKAY. I DON'T SEE IT ON THE SHARED SCREEN.

WELL WITH THE-- >> CHAIRMAN: WE UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU ARE SAYING.

>> CHAIRMAN: WITH THE HISTORIC -- >> COUNCILMEMBER: WITH THE

HISTORIC DISTRICT GUIDELINES TO WARRANT APPROVAL AT THIS TIME. >> CHAIRMAN: IS THERE A SECOND?

>> COUNCILMEMBER: MOTION FAILS FOR A SECOND. DID I GET THAT RIGHT, COUNSEL? I'VE NEVER DONE THAT BEFORE. ALL RIGHT. IS THERE A MOTION TO APPROVE?

>> COUNCILMEMBER: I MIGHT PUT TOGETHER A MOTION. I NEED TO LOOK AT THE COMMENT TOWARDS-- BECAUSE WE DO NEED TO ISSUE SOME KIND OF COMMENTARY REGARDING SPECIAL PRIVILEGE--

>> CHAIRMAN: MAYBE COUNSEL CAN HELP BY REMINDING US SPECIAL PRIVILEGE AND LITERAL

INTERPRETATION. >> RIGHT. I MEAN, IF YOU WANT TO-- YOU CAN GETS A SPECIFIC AS YOU WANT BUT AT THE VERY LEAST YOU NEED TO HAVE SOMETHING IN YOUR MOTION THAT THE GRANTING OF THIS VARIANCE DOES NOT CONFER A SPECIAL PRIVILEGE TO OTHER PROPERTY OWNERS IN THAT DISTRICT AND THE LITERAL INTERPRETATION OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE

PROVISIONS WOULD DEPRIVE THE APPLICANT OF RIGHTS. >> COUNCILMEMBER: OKAY.

THANK YOU. >> COUNCILMEMBER: I THINK THE KEY TO THIS IS THE ACCOMMODATION IS BEING MADE BECAUSE OF THE CONTRIBUTING NATURE OF THE PROPERTY.

[02:10:11]

SO IT'S PERHAPS NOT A SPECIAL PRIVILEGE TO THE CONTRIBUTING PROPERTY.

>> COUNCILMEMBER: ALL RIGHT. APPRECIATE THE PATIENCE. I'M GOING TO GIVE IT A SHOT.

>> CHAIRMAN: POZZETTA IS GOING TO TRY A MOTION. >> COUNCILMEMBER: I MOVE TO APPROVE HDC CASE -- HDCV 2020-0005 WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS.

THAT THE BREEZEWAY ELEMENT BE OMITTED FROM THE PROJECT, THAT THE KITCHEN ELEMENT, I FIND THAT THE WITH THE REMOVAL OF THE BREEZEWAY THE SPECIAL PRIVILEGE CONSIDERATION REGARDING THE KITCHEN IS A MINIMAL EXPANSION WITHIN THE EXISTING ARCHITECTURE OF A CONTRIBUTING STRUCTURE THAT DOES NOT HAVE A VISIBLE IMPACT FROM THE FRONT OF THE TRADITIONAL FRONT OF THE HOME AND WILL BE TUCKED IN BEHIND THE NEW GARAGE. THEREFORE I FEEL LIKE THAT PROVISION SHOULD BE ALLOWED. AND I MOVE THAT HDC MAKE THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS PART OF THE RECORD. THAT HDCV 2020-0005 AS PRESENTED IS SUBSTANTIALLY COMPLIANT WITH THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, SECRETARY OF INTERIOR'S STANDARDS AND OLD TOWN FERNANDINA PRESERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT GUIDELINES TO WARRANT APPROVAL AT THIS TIME.

>> CHAIRMAN: CAN I GET A SECOND? >> COUNCILMEMBER: YES. >> CHAIRMAN: MOVED POZZETTA.

SECOND HARRISON. IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION? I WILL REMIND YOU THIS VARIANCE

REQUIRES FOUR VOTES. PLEASE CALL ROLL. >> MEMBER CONWAY?

>> COUNCILMEMBER: YES. >> MEMBER HARRISON? >> COUNCILMEMBER: YES.

>> MEMBER MORRISON? >> COUNCILMEMBER: NO. >> MEMBER POZZETTA?

>> COUNCILMEMBER: YES. >> CHAIR SPINO? >> CHAIRMAN: YES.

[5.7 HDC 2020-0013: JOSE MIRANDA, ARCHITECT, AGENT FOR SUSAN DORNER, 606 CEDAR STREET]

MOVING ON TO THE ACTUAL CERTIFICATE OF APPROVAL 2020-0013.

MIRANDA DORNER 606 CEDAR STREET WHICH I THINK THAT DOES NOT HAVE A BREEZEWAY.

NO LONGER HAS A BREEZEWAY. ALL RIGHT. I CAN'T THINK OF ANY BREEZEWAY I'LL VOID THAT ISSUE. THIS REQUEST TONIGHT IS FOR THE EXPANSION OF THE KITCHEN ON THE SOUTHWEST SIDE OF THE CONTRIBUTING PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE.

REDUCE THE REAR YARD SETBACK TO ALLOW FOR THE ADDITION TO MATCH THE 7'10" REAR YARD SETBACK ON THE SOUTHERN SIDE. THESE ARE THE EXISTING ELEVATIONS.

ALL FOUR SIDES. ELIMINATE THAT BREEZEWAY THAT SHOULDN'T BE THERE.

SHOWING THAT THE PROPOSED ELEVATIONS FROM BOTH THE NORTH SIDE AND THE SOUTHERN SIDE.

THE BOARD HAS JUST APPROVED HDVC2020-0005 ELIMINATING THE BREEZEWAY PORTION OR NOT ALLOWING FOR THE BREEZEWAY CONNECTION AND THE REAR YARD SETBACK.

THE PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE WILL BE CLAD IN WOOD SIDING TO MATCH THE EXISTING STRUCTURE AND HAVE MINIMAL VISIBILITY FROM THE PRIMARY STREET. FORGET THAT I SAID THAT LAST SENTENCE THERE. AND I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.

>> CHAIRMAN: RECOMMENDING APPROVAL. >> YES, SIR.

>> CHAIRMAN: QUESTIONS FOR JACOB? >> COUNCILMEMBER: THE NEW DOORS

AND WINDOWS, ARE THOSE ALL FROM OUR APPROVED LIST? >> YES, THEY SHOULD BE.

>> YES. ANDERSON. >> OKAY.

>> CHAIRMAN: ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR JACOB? QUESTIONS FOR JOSE?

[02:15:07]

>> COUNCILMEMBER: THE ONLY QUESTION I WOULD HAVE IS NOW THAT WE'RE NOT GOING TO DO THE BREEZEWAY CONNECTOR SO WHEN YOU COME OUT THE BACK DOOR IT'S JUST AN OPEN STOOP RIGHT?

>> CHAIRMAN: HE SAYS YES. THAT'S IT. STAIRS DOWN TO THE GROUND.

OTHER QUESTIONS FOR JOSE? >> COUNCILMEMBER: I AM HAVING DIFFICULTY SEEING THE SIDE ELEVATION OF THE-- PERHAPS I'M NOT. CAN YOU GO BACK, JAKE.

AM I MISSING AN ELEVATION HERE? HOLD ON ONE SECOND. >> YOU SHOULD HAVE ALL FOUR

ELEVATIONS OF THE ADDITION WITHOUT THE GARAGE IN FRONT. >> COUNCILMEMBER: I CAN FIGURE OUT THE PROPOSED SOUTH ELEVATION BUT I GUESS IT'S THE WEST ELEVATION I'M LOOKING FOR.

>> THERE IT IS. MY APOLOGIES. >> COUNCILMEMBER: 242.

. >> CAN YOU ALL SEE MY SCREEN? >> COUNCILMEMBER: YEAH.

>> SORRY HAD THE WRONG SCREEN SHARE ON. >> COUNCILMEMBER: OKAY.

>> THANK YOU. >> CHAIRMAN: OTHER QUESTIONS? ALL RIGHT.

I'LL GO TO THE PUBLIC HEARING. IF THERE'S ANYONE WHO WISHES TO SPEAK WITH REGARDS TO 2020-0013 MIRANDA DORNER 606 CEDAR STREET THIS WOULD BE THE TIME. ANYBODY ON THE LINE? WE'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND GO TO BOARD DISCUSSION. FOLKS, WHAT WOULD YOU LIKE TO

DO? >> COUNCILMEMBER: MY FEELING IS ONCE THE VARIANCE HAS BEEN GRANTED AND YOU SAY WE'RE GOING TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS MY OPINION IS I THINK IT'S AN

APPROPRIATE SOLUTION. >> CHAIRMAN: OKAY. THAT'S HELPFUL.

>> COUNCILMEMBER: I CONCUR. >> CHAIRMAN: YOU WANT TO MOVE IT?

>> COUNCILMEMBER: I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION UNLESS THERE'S ANYTHING ELSE.

ALL RIGHT. I MOVE TO APPROVE HDC CASE NUMBER--

>> COUNCILMEMBER: I HAVE ONE. CLAIM TAMMI WE'LL MAKE THE MOTION THEN YOU CAN CHIME IN

OKAY. THANKS. >> COUNCILMEMBER: I MOVE TO APPROVE HDC CASE NUMBER 2020-0013 WITH THE CONDITION THAT THE BREEZEWAY BE OMITTED FROM THE PROJECT AND I MOVE THAT HDC MAKE THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW PART OF THE RECORD. THAT HDC CASE 2020-0013 IS COMPLIANT WITH THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, SECRETARY OF INTERIOR'S STANDARD ANDS AND THE DOWNTOWN HISTORIC DISTRICT GUIDELINES TO WARRANT

APPROVAL AT THIS TIME. >> CHAIRMAN: IS THERE A SECOND? >> COUNCILMEMBER: I'LL SECOND.

>> CHAIRMAN: MOVED POZZETTA. SECOND CONWAY. TAMMI, YOU HAD SOME QUESTIONS,

DISCUSSION? >> COUNCILMEMBER: YEAH. SO THIS IS A GENERAL QUESTION.

I KNOW THAT OUR GUIDELINES AND THE HISTORIC NATIONAL PRESERVATION FOR HISTORIC TRUST GUIDELINES SAYS IF THERE ARE ADDITIONS TO HISTORIC STRUCTURES THEY ARE COMPATIBLE IN DESIGN, SCALE AND MATERIAL BUT THEY'RE DISTINGUISHABLE. SO, YOU KNOW, MANY OF THESE WE'RE WANTING THEM TO USE THE SAME BASE AND MATCH EVERYTHING THAT'S THERE.

SO, ARE WE GOING AGAINST THAT REQUIREMENT THAT REALLY WANTS, YOU KNOW, FUTURE GENERATIONS TO

UNDERSTAND THE INFILL WAS ADDED. >> I THINK I AM-- I THINK YOU ARE EXACTLY RIGHT AND YOUR CONCERN IS VALID. BUT I THINK IN CASES LIKE THIS SOMETIMES IT'S THINGS THAT SUBTLE IS THE WAY THAT THE EXISTING CORNER BOARDS ARE LEFT IN THE ELEVATIONS THAT ARE SHOWN THAT GIVES A BREAK BETWEEN THE EXISTING STRUCTURE AND THE NEW STRUCTURE.

[02:20:03]

I THINK SOME THINGS LIKE THAT ACCOMPLISH EXACTLY WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT.

>> COUNCILMEMBER: OKAY. >> COUNCILMEMBER: IT LOOKS LIKE THE WINDOWS ON THE NEW PART ARE SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT SCALE AND PROPORTION. THE TRIM IS A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT THAN THE MAIN HOUSE. SO, THERE ARE SOME SUBTLE LITTLE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE NEW AND

THE OLD. >> COUNCILMEMBER: AND I LIKE THAT.

I LIKE EVEN IT LOOKS LIKE A FIVE INCH REVEAL VERSUS THE SMALLER SIDING SO YOU DO SEE SOMETHING DIFFERENT. BACK ON ADAMS HOUSE I WAS THINKING THAT AND I DIDN'T VOICE IT. BUT, YOU KNOW, FOR TOO MUCH OF A PLACE FOR DUPLICATING THE ORIGINAL THEN WE'RE ELIMINATING THE SLIGHT DISTINGUISHING FEATURES.

>> CHAIRMAN: I AGREE. IT'S INTERESTING WHEN YOU WALK AROUND DOWNTOWN TO PLAY THAT GAME. YOU KNOW, WHEN YOU LOOK AT TOUGH STUFF, HOW DID I DISTINGUISH BETWEEN THE HISTORIC AND THE NEW. I THINK THERE'S ENOUGH DETAIL

HERE IT WILL ACCOMPLISH THAT. ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? >> COUNCILMEMBER: I HAVE A

QUESTION FOR JOSE. >> CHAIRMAN: GO AHEAD. >> COUNCILMEMBER: IS IT SIMPLY A MATTER OF REMOVING THE BREEZEWAY OR DO YOU NEED TO COME UP WITH SOME ADDITIONAL FEATURES TO MAKE

THE ADDITION COMPLETE OF ITSELF? >> CHAIRMAN: THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION.

>> NO. THE REMOVAL OF THE BREEZEWAY CAN HAPPEN WITHOUT AFFECTING THE ACTUAL KITCHEN ADDITION. OBVIOUSLY, THERE WON'T BE A COVER OVER THAT SIDE DOOR OR SOUTH FACING DOOR. THERE WILL JUST BE A STOOP AND STAIRS GOING DOWN WHICH IS ROUGHLY WHAT IT IS NOW. I THINK THERE'S A DOOR THAT COMES OFF THAT SIDE.

SO, NOW IT'S FACING A LITTLE DIFFERENT. BUT THERE SHOULDN'T BE ANY

AFFECT WITH THE BREEZEWAY BEING REMOVED. >> CHAIRMAN: GOOD QUESTION

BECAUSE WE DON'T WANT HIM COMING BACK IN SIX MONTHS. >> COUNCILMEMBER: SO THIS IS VERY MUCH A PRACTICAL ISSUE FOR ME. IF YOU DO GET APPROVAL AT THIS POINT, THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT IS GOING TO NEED A SET OF PLANS TO PERMIT AND CHECK AGAINST.

SO I THINK THAT YOU WILL NEED TO COME UP WITH ANOTHER SET OF PLANS FOR THAT PARTICULAR AREA

OF THE ADDITION. >> YEAH MY GUT-- THE DRAWINGS YOU ARE SEEING ARE PRELIMINARY EVEN THOUGH WE'RE SEEKING FINAL APPROVAL. WE STILL HAVE TO DO CONSTRUCTION DRAWINGS. AND ALL THOSE WILL REFLECT THE DECISIONS YOU GUYS HAVE MADE

HERE TONIGHT. >> COUNCILMEMBER: OKAY. >> CHAIRMAN: ANYTHING ELSE?

IF NOT, I'LL CALL THE ROLL. PLEASE CALL ROLL. >> MEMBER POZZETTA?

>> COUNCILMEMBER: YES. >> MEMBER MORRISON? >> COUNCILMEMBER: YES.

>> MEMBER CONWAY? >> COUNCILMEMBER:

>> MEMBER HARRISON? >> COUNCILMEMBER: YES. >> CHAIR SPINO?

>> CHAIRMAN: YES. MS. CONWAY COMES BACK WE'LL REGISTER HER VOTE OTHERWISE JUST MOVE ON. THANK YOU STAFF FOR THAT WORK. MOVING ON TO THE STAFF

[6. STAFF CERTIFICATES OF APPROVAL]

CERTIFICATES OF APPROVAL PORTION OF THE AGENDA. WHAT DO YOU WANT TO TELL US?

>> THAT'S JUST A GENERA REPORT ON THE STAFF COAS. NOTHING IN PARTICULAR.

>> CHAIRMAN: I DID NOT REVIEW IT. I WILL TOMORROW.

ANYBODY HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF ABOUT COA? >> COUNCILMEMBER: I OF COURSE

HAVE ONE QUESTION. >> CHAIRMAN: GO AHEAD PLEASE. >> COUNCILMEMBER: JAKE, I THINK IT IS THE FIFTH ONE IN FOR CHERYL DE-BRO FOR A FENCE. DO WE KNOW WHAT SIZE IS THE FENCE. IS IT ALL THREE SIDES OF THE PROPERTY OR DO WE KNOW WHERE THE

FENCE GOES? >> THE SHORT ANSWER IS YES. I'M NOT RECALLING OFF THE TOP OF

MY HEAD THAT PROJECT. >> COUNCILMEMBER: THE TINY HOUSE.

>> ON NORTH 4TH STREET YOU SAID? OR 3RD? >> COUNCILMEMBER: FOURTH.

HER ADDRESS LISTED ON HERE IS SOUTH FRONT STREET, 3 SOUTH FRONT.

AND SHE GOT APPROVAL FOR A 75 FOOT WOOD ON BOARD FENCE WITH TWO FOUR FOOT GATES.

IS IT ALL SIDES OF THE PROPERTY OR WHERE IS THE FENCE GOING? >> GOTCHA.

NORTH 57TH. CHAIR SPINO I SEE MEMBER CONWAY IS BACK.

>> CHAIRMAN: MS. CONWAY YOU DID NOT GET TO WEIGH IN ON THE VOTE ON THE DORNER CERTIFICATE OF

[02:25:11]

APPROVAL. WOULD YOU LIKE TO CAST YOUR VOTE NOW?

>> COUNCILMEMBER: OH YES. I'M SORRY. YES I DID STEP AWAY FOR A

MINUTE. >> CHAIRMAN: THAT'S ALL RIGHT. DID YOU CATCH THAT SYLVIA? THAT'S GOING TO BE A YES. AND WE'LL COME BACK TO MS. TAMMI'S QUESTION ABOUT HDC2020-0057. THIS IS THE RATHER LONG FENCE. 75 FEET.

>> IF IT'S SIX FEET IT'S GOING TO HAVE TO BE IN THE REAR YARD. WITHIN THE FRONT YARD YOU CAN ONLY HAVE A FOUR FOOT FENCE. SO, AS INDICATED 75 LINEAR FEET BOARD ON BOARD FENCE AT SIX FEET

HEIGHT WOULD HAVE TO BE IN THE SIDE AND REAR YARDS. >> COUNCILMEMBER: BECAUSE IT SAYS THAT'S A 25 FOOT SIDE LOT. SO I GUESS 25 ACROSS THE BACK THEN THEY'RE COMING UP 20 ON

EITHER SIDE. OKAY. >> CHAIRMAN: OTHER QUESTIONS ABOUT THE STAFF CERTIFICATES OF APPROVAL? OKAY.

[7. BOARD BUSINESS]

WE'LL MOVE ON TO BOARD BUSINESS. BOARD MEMBERS WE HAVE TWO ITEMS BEFORE US TODAY FOR YOUR REVIEW AND DISCUSSION. JACOB, KELLY, DID THE BOARD MEMBERS GET TO SEE THIS PACKAGE

FROM THE POSTAL SERVICE? >> YES. >> CHAIRMAN: THEY DID? SO AND WHAT'S OUR DISPOSITION ON IT. WHAT SHOULD WE BE DOING WITH

THIS? >> SO THERE'S A COMMENT PERIOD THAT'S PROVIDED.

OUR UNDERSTANDING IS THEY ARE NOT REQUIRED TO RECEIVE CERTIFICATE OF APPROVAL MAKE THIS WORK. IF THE BOARD WISHES TO PROVIDE A STATEMENT THEN WE'D BE ABLE TO

SEND THAT DURING THAT COMMENT PERIOD. >> CHAIRMAN: THIS IS FORCE THE REPLACEMENT OF ENTRY LIGHT FIXTURES ON THE CENTER STREET SIDE AND ON THE FOURTH STREET SIDE. AND I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE THE BOARD MEMBERS KNEW YOU HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO COMMENT IF YOU WISH TO. ONE OF OUR MOST IMPORTANT BUILDINGS IN TOWN. JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE EVERYBODY IS ON BOARD WITH WHAT THEY'RE PROPOSING. IT LOOKED REASONABLE TO ME BUT I SURE WOULD LIKE TO MAKE SURE

THAT THE HDC HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW AND COMMENT IF NEEDED. >> COUNCILMEMBER: WHERE DO WE

COMMENT? DO WE COMMENT IN THIS FORM. >> CHAIRMAN: YOU WOULD YOU WOULD PROBABLY DIRECT STAFF TO PUT IT IN A LETTER. WHO WOULD IT GO TO?

>> THERE IS AN ADDRESS. INDIVIDUAL BOARD MEMBERS ARE WELCOME TO PROVIDE COMMENTS INDIVIDUALLY. BUT IF THE BOARD COLLECTIVELY WISHES TO TAKE A POSITION WE'RE

HAPPY TO PROVIDE THAT AND FORWARD IT ALONG. >> CHAIRMAN: I THINK GENERALLY SPEAKING SINCE THEY SENT IT TO THE HDC WE WOULD LIKE TO HAVE THE HDC RESPOND AS OPPOSED TO HAVING INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS RESPOND. BUT I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU ARE SAYING. DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANY COMMENTS OR CONCERNS?

DO WE NEED TO WEIGH IN? >> COUNCILMEMBER: I'LL JUMP IN WITH ONE THING THAT, YOU KNOW, WHEN I AM DOING A LOT OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION HERE IN ATLANTA IS WE ARE NOW FOLLOWING THE INTERNATIONAL DARK SKIES PROVISIONS EVEN ON HISTORIC LIGHTING.

IN THIS CASE WE'VE GOT THE BIG BALLOON GLOBE ON THE TOP. TYPICALLY THE COMPANIES THAT DO THE RESTORATION DO NOT PROVIDE THE BALLS THAT GO INSIDE. SO I THINK WE COULD HAVE SOME SAY OVER THE COLOR RENDERING OF THE L.E.D. AND THE CR RATING.

YOU'VE GOT A 5,000 KL.E.D. WHICH SOME OF OUR LIGHTS HAVE AND IT'S THAT REALLY HARSH BLUE LIGHT THEN YOU CAN PULL IT DOWN TO A WARMER LIKE A 2,700 OR 3,000 K WHICH IS MORE IN KEEPING WITH HISTORIC. AND EVEN ON THE BUBBLE LAMPS THEY HAVE THESE EXPANDIBLE SHIELDS THAT GO IN AND THEY OPEN UP ON THE TOP SO YOU DON'T HAVE THE LIGHT THAT SHOOTS UP TO THE SKY. AND I THINK THAT'S IMPORTANT ESPECIALLY IN THE HISTORIC DISTRICT AND AS WE MOVE TOWARDS REPLACING OUR LAMPPOSTS AND WE WANT SOME CONSISTENCY DOWN THERE THAT WE SHOULD PUT THAT IN TO ELIMINATE THE GLARE. THE OTHER THING IS IN A LOT OF HISTORIC DISTRICTS THEY'RE GOING THROUGH A TIMER PERIOD WHERE EITHER THESE LIGHTS ON HISTORIC

[02:30:01]

STRUCTURES DIM OVERNIGHT OR THEY GO OUT COMPLETELY OVERNIGHT. SO, YOU ARE NOT JUST BURNING ALL THESE FOOT CANDLES ALL NIGHT LONG. SO THOSE WOULD BE MY THOUGHTS ON

THAT. >> CHAIRMAN: THAT'S USEFUL. DO BOARD MEMBERS HAVE ANYTHING ELSE THEY WANT TO BRING TO THIS DISCUSSION? IF NOT, TAMMI WOULD YOU BE WILLING TO WRITE AN EMAIL TO STAFF THEY CAN TURN IN FOR MY SIGNATURE.

THAT WAS REALLY INSIGHTFUL. SOMETHING I DIDN'T EVEN THINK ABOUT.

SO I REALLY WOULD LIKE TO GET ON BOARD WITH THAT. IF THE BOARD AGREES WE'LL TURN THAT INTO A LETTER AND GET IT OUT TO THEM. THAT MAY BE ONE OF THE THINGS IF YOU ARE NOT POINTING IT OUT TO THEM THEY'RE NOT PAYING ATTENTION.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH, TAMMI. THEN WE'LL MOVE ON TO THE LETTER FROM OR EMAIL FROM THE CHAIR OF THE PLANNING-- WHAT'S IT CALLED? PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD. THAT WENT OUT RIGHT?

TO EVERYBODY? >> IT DID. >> CHAIRMAN: SO JANIECE MINCHU IS ASKING US A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS. AND THIS IS LANGUAGE-- BENJAMIN YOU WORKED ON THIS LANGUAGE RIGHT? DID THIS COME FROM YOU?

>> YEAH. I CAN GIVE YOU A LITTLE BACKGROUND.

>> CHAIRMAN: PLEASE DO. >> COUNCILMEMBER: SO, BASICALLY, YOU KNOW, WHEN WE MET LAST ON I THINK IT WAS LAST TIME, YOU KNOW, WHEN WE TALKED ABOUT AN ISSUE CAME UP ON A PARTICULAR PROJECT WE WERE LOOKING AT THIS. AT THE END OF THE MEETING WE TALKED ABOUT IT AND I FELT LIKE THERE WAS PRETTY CONSENSUS AMONG ALMOST EVERYBODY THAT WAS PRESENT THAT WE THOUGHT THAT THE IDEA THAT WE DIDN'T HAVE ANY CONTROL OVER TELEVISIONS IN THE HISTORIC DISTRICT WAS SOMETHING THAT WE SAW AS BEING PROBLEMATIC. SO, CHAIR SPINO AT THE END OF THE MEETING I THINK YOUR GUIDANCE TO THE BOARD MEMBERS WAS YOU SAID LET'S NOT WAIT ON, YOU KNOW, CITY STAFF OR ON ANYBODY ELSE TO TAKE ACTION, WHY DON'T WE GO AHEAD AND CONTACT CITY COMMISSIONERS AND TALK TO THEM DIRECTLY. SO I TOOK IT UPON MYSELF TO DO EXACTLY WHAT YOU SAID AND I CONTACTED SEVERAL OF THE CITY COMMISSIONERS AND JUST BROUGHT THE ISSUE TO THEIR ATTENTION WHICH LED TO A RECOMMENDATION THAT WE ADDRESS-- THAT I BRING IT UP TO PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD BECAUSE THEY ARE THE ONES WHO HAVE THE ABILITY TO BRING ACTION TO THE ISSUE. AND IN MY CONVERSATIONS THAT I HAD WITH SOME PEOPLE IN THE COMMUNITY, THEY RAISED SOME ISSUES OF SOME OTHER ITEMS THAT ARE SORT OF APEN ATOURS TO THE BUILDINGS DOWNTOWN AND ALSO AREN'T UNDER THE PURVIEW OF THE HISTORIC DISTRICT RIGHT NOW WHICH RESULTED IN SORT OF A LIST OF SEVERAL DIFFERENT ITEMS THAT I PUT IN MY EMAIL THAT I THOUGHT WOULD BE INTERESTING TO AT LEAST CONSIDER. YOU KNOW, PERSONALLY, I THINK THAT THE MOST IMPORTANT THING TO ME IS THE TELEVISION ISSUE. BUT I CAN SEE VALIDITY IN THE OTHER ITEMS THAT WERE LISTED AS WELL. BUT THAT'S UP TO YOU GUYS, WHETHER OR NOT YOU THINK IT'S WORTH GOING DOWN THAT ROAD OR WHETHER YOU JUST WANT TO STICK TO THE TELEVISIONS AT THIS TIME. BUT ANYWAY MY ACTION-- AND I UNDERSTAND THAT THE PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD WAS PROBABLY KIND OF LIKE WELL WHAT'S THE, YOU KNOW, IS THIS THE CONSENSUS OF EVERYBODY ON THE BOARD OR IS THIS JUST ONE KIND OF ROGUE MEMBER THAT IS MAKING THIS COMMENT. AND I THINK WHAT I HOPED IS THE RESULT OF THIS CONVERSATION TONIGHT IS FOR US TO BE ABLE TO WRITE BACK TO MINCHU AND SAY THIS IS THE CONSENSUS OF ALL OF US AND WE WOULD LIKE FOR THEM TO PURSUE CHANGES TO THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE TO ALLOW US TO

HAVE THE JURISDICTION. >> CHAIRMAN: I REALLY DO SEE THE WORK THAT YOU DID BENJAMIN.

IT'S MOST HELPFUL TO GET THIS CONVERSATION STARTED. IN ADDITION THE QUESTION IS HOW QUICKLY DO WE WANT TO MAKE THIS HAPPEN. YOU MANAGED WITH THE WORK THAT YOU DID TO GET IT ON THE PAB AAGENDA. THEY'RE CONSIDERING IT.

THEY WANT TO KNOW IF THIS SHOULD BE DONE NOW OR WITH THE REVISION OF THE LDC IN 2021.

THAT'S WHY I ASK BOARD MEMBERS-- TWO QUESTIONS FOR THE BOARD NOW. DO YOU AGREE WITH BENJAMIN'S COMPREHENSIVE LIST OF THINGS THAT WE SHOULD BE LOOKING AT. SECONDLY, DO YOU WISH TO HAVE THIS MOVE FORWARD IMMEDIATELY IN WHICH CASE WE TAKE A VOTE TONIGHT TO MOVE IT TO THE PAB FOR THEIR CONSIDERATION. BOARD MEMBERS, WHAT DO YOU THINK?

>> COUNCILMEMBER: CAN I JUST MAKE ONE MORE COMMENT REAL QUICK.

>> CHAIRMAN: SURE. CAN I STOP YOU. >> COUNCILMEMBER: JUST AS TO THE SECOND PART OF WHAT YOU SAID. MY ONLY FEEDBACK THERE WOULD BE AND I HAD THIS CONVERSATION I

[02:35:05]

THINK WITH COMMISSIONER LEDNOVICH OVER THE PHONE COUPLE WEEKS AGO.

HE ASKED A SIMILAR QUESTION. HE SAID ON A SCALE OF PRIORITIES YOU KNOW WHAT SORT OF THE LEVEL HERE AS FAR AS HOW QUICKLY WE SHOULD ACT ON IT. MY COMMENT TO HIM AND THE COMMENT TO YOU GUYS TOO I THINK IF THIS IS SOMETHING THAT WE THINK IS IMPORTANT I THINK THAT THE WAY THAT BUSINESS WORKS IN THE CITY IF IT ISN'T AN EMERGENCY IT'S NOT GOING TO GET DONE. SO IF YOU REALLY DO WANT TO TAKE IT SERIOUSLY AND THINK IT IS A PROBLEM MY RECOMMENDATION IS THAT WE THINK IT'S IMPORTANT AND THEY SHOULD ADDRESS IT NOW.

>> COUNCILMEMBER: I COMPLETELY AGREE. SPINO, IF YOU RECALL YOU SAID THERE'S TIMES THAT YOU HAVE TO PULL THE FIRE ALARM. AND BENJAMIN THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR PUTTING ALL THIS IN THERE. AND I THINK IT IS A CRITICAL NATURE.

BECAUSE THERE'S SO MUCH DEVELOPMENT GOING ON. AND ONE THING I HAVE ISSUE WITH I THINK IT'S LISTED THAT EVALUATION OF PROPOSED NEW CONSTRUCTION I THINK SHOULD BE RETROACTIVE OR NOT RETROACTIVE NECESSARILY BUT NOT JUST NEW CONSTRUCTION.

BECAUSE IF SOMEBODY BUYS AN OLD BUILDING AND THEY PUT A BAR INTO IT AND THEY WANT TO PUT IN A TV

IT SHOULD BE ANY STRUCTURE. >> CHAIRMAN: ANGIE? >> COUNCILMEMBER: ANY NEW

DEVELOPMENT. >> COUNCILMEMBER: BUT WHAT IF SOMEBODY BUYS LIKE--

>> CHAIRMAN: DID WE FREEZE? I THINK WHAT COMES TO MIND FOR ME IS SECOND STREET.

YOU KNOW, THE MARINE BUILDING. WOULD COULD I END UP WITH GIGANTIC TELEVISION SCREENS POINTING OUT FROM SOME SPORTS BAR THAT GOT BUILT OVER IN THE CRA.

AND I THINK YOU GUYS ARE RIGHT ON POINT HERE TO SAY THIS IS SOMETHING WE WANT TO MOVE FORWARD WITH NOW. SO IF THAT-- IF THERE'S CONSENSUS ON THIS LIST OF ITEMS AND JUST LET ME READ THEM. SATELLITE DISHES, HVAC, TELEVISIONS, TELEVISION ANTENNAS, SOLAR PANELS AND TRASH COLLECTION FACILITIES. I THINK WE'VE BEEN DANCING AROUND ALL OF THESE THINGS IN THE LAST COUPLE YEARS. AND I THINK IT'S TO OUR BEST ADVANTAGE TO GO AHEAD AND BE COMPREHENSIVE IN THIS LIST. WE CAN CHOOSE TO NOT DEAL WITH THEM ON A CASE-BY-CASE BASIS. OR WE CAN CHOOSE TO DEAL WITH THEM BUT WE DON'T HAVE ANY OVERSIGHT RIGHT NOW IF I UNDERSTAND DIRECT ALREADY GIBSON'S INTERPRETATION OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE. SO IF IT'S OKAY WITH EVERYONE I WOULD LIKE TO ASK FOR A VOTE FOR CONSENSUS ON THIS LANGUAGE AND WE WANT TO SEE IT MOVE FORWARD AS QUICKLY AS REASONABLY POSSIBLE. JANIECE ALSO ASKED WHETHER OR NOT IT WOULD BE RETROACTIVE AND WOULD ITEMS BE GRAND FATHERED. THIS SECTION OF THE CODE ONLY APPLIES TO NEW CONSTRUCTION.

SO IT WOULD NOT APPLY TO PABLO'S. WE COULDN'T SAY GET THOSE TV'S OFF CENTER STREET. BUT WHEN SOMEBODY WANTED TO RENOVATE AND ACROSS THE STREET, FOR EXAMPLE, IT WOULD BE UNDER OUR PURVIEW. DO WE HAVE CONSENSUS AROUND

THIS? >> COUNCILMEMBER: BUT, MIKE, SAY FOR INSTANCE SOMEBODY BUYS CARE ABOW AND THEY'RE NOT DOING A MAJOR RENOVATION BUT DECIDE TO MAKE THE SIDE COURT YARD THE

SPORTS BAR AREA. >> CHAIRMAN: WE WOULDN'T SEE THAT ANYWAY.

THAT WOULD HAVE TO GO TO BUILDING DEPARTMENT AND POTENTIALLY TRC.

AND THEY WOULD POINT BACK TO THESE PROVISIONS AND SAY WELL HOLD ON A SECOND.

WELL I'LL ASK DIRECTOR GIBSON IF YOU HAVE ANY THOUGHTS ON THAT? >> SO BECAUSE THE SPECIFIC SECTIONS DOES POINT OUT TO-- AND I'M TRYING TO SPEAK LOUDLY. SO, BECAUSE THE SPECIFIC SECTION DOES POINT OUT TO THE EVALUATION PROPOSED IN NEW CONSTRUCTION IT WOULD ONLY BE THAT IMPROVEMENT IS GOING TO TRIGGER YOUR EVALUATION FOR THAT PARTICULAR ITEM.

>> CHAIRMAN: LET'S MAKE TAMMI'S POINT. IF THEY SAY WE'RE GOING ON TURN

THE COURT YARD INTO A SPORTS BAR. >> AND THERE'S NO OTHER IMPROVEMENT FOR WHICH THEY WOULD HAVE TO COME BEFORE YOU, IT'S JUST CHANGING TO A TYPE OF RESTAURANT, THAT WOULD WANT TO HAVE TVS THAT THEY CAN PLUG INTO A WALL AND NOW IT'S IN THERE, THERE'S NOTHING IN THIS SECTION THAT IS GOING TO TRIGGER THEM TO APPEAR BEFORE THIS BODY IN ORDER

TO GET APPROVAL FOR THAT. >> CHAIRMAN: SO I THINK WHAT I AM HEARING IS WE'RE GOING TO

NEED CHANGES TO ANOTHER SECTION. >> AND I'VE GIVEN THAT THOUGHT. THERE ARE OTHER AREAS, OTHER PIECES OF THE PUZZLE HERE THAT I THINK THAT WE CAN START TO GET AT THE CONCERNS WHICH THIS BOARD HAS BROUGHT UP HERE. BUT IT MAY NOT BE IN THIS SECTION EXCLUSIVELY.

I THINK THIS SECTION GETS TO A POINT WHICH HAS BEEN OF CONCERN WITHIN THE DIFFERENT ITEMS FOR A

[02:40:04]

NUMBER OF YEARS. BUT THERE ARE OTHER PIECES OF THE PUZZLE THAT NEED TO BE ADDRESSED TO FULLY GET AT WHAT THIS BOARD'S CONCERNED RELATIVE TO EXTERIOR MOUNTED OR INTERIOR

MOUNTED TVS. >> CHAIRMAN: BOARD MEMBERS IF IT'S OKAY WITH YOU WE'RE GOING TO DO A MOTION AND A SECOND AND A VOTE ON THIS SO THAT IT'S FORMALIZED FOR THE RECORD THAT WE AGREE TO THIS AND WE'RE PUSHING IT ON TO THE PAB AND HOPEFULLY THE CITY COMMISSION

FOR THEIR CONSIDERATION. >> COUNCILMEMBER: I GUESS THE CAVEAT THAT WE'LL LET CITY STAFF USE THEIR-- WHAT'S THE WORD I'M LOOKING FOR. WE'LL LET CITY STAFF MAKE A RECOMMENDATION AS FAR AS WHERE THE APPROPRIATE PLACE FOR THIS TO OCCUR IS.

>> AND I'LL BE HAPPY TO BRIEF YOU IN THE NEXT MEETING. THERE ARE ADDITIONAL PIECES THAT THIS I THINK WE NEED TO LOOK AT TO FULLY ADDRESS THIS BOARD'S CONCERNS.

>> COUNCILMEMBER: THAT SOUNDS RIGHT. >> CHAIRMAN: THANK YOU DIRECTOR.

WE'LL MOVE THIS-- MIKE? >> COUNCILMEMBER: I WANT TO MAKE IT CLEAR THAT WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT TELEVISIONS WE'RE TALKING ABOUT PROBABLY L.E.D. MOVIE SCREENS THAT ARE VISIBLE OFF THE

PREMISES. >> CHAIRMAN: OKAY. >> COUNCILMEMBER: I THINK IT'S REALLY DIFFICULT-- I DON'T KNOW HOW YOU START TO DRAW THE LINE IN THE LANGUAGE AND THAT'S WHAT THE CHALLENGE IS WITH THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE IN GENERAL. I MEAN, LIKE I THOUGHT ABOUT THE FACT THAT OKAY SO YOU SAY THIS ABOUT DIVISIONS BUT WHAT ABOUT IF SOMEBODY PUTS A GIANT

PROJECTOR SCREEN UP RIGHT. >> CHAIRMAN: YOU ARE MAKING THE SAME POINT.

>> COUNCILMEMBER: YEAH. SO, I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE SOLUTION THERE IS BUT I THINK THAT BETWEEN THE CITY STAFF AND THE PLANNING REPORT THEY SHOULD PROBABLY MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS TO

TRY TO GET IT FIGURED OUT. >> CHAIRMAN: YOU ARE RIGHT. LET'S DO THAT.

JIM'S GOING TO MAKE A MOTION. >> COUNCILMEMBER: I MOVE THAT HDC PRESENT NEW LANGUAGE PROPOSAL FOR SECTION D ITEM 12 STATING PLACEMENT AND SCREENING OF SATELLITE DISHES, HVAC, HEATING, VENTILATING AND AIR CONDITIONING UNITS AND COMPRESSORS, TELEVISIONS, TELEVISION ANTENNAS, SOLAR PANELS, AND TRASH COLLECTION FACILITIES BE ADDED LANGUAGE TO

THE LDC. >> CHAIRMAN: CAN I GET A SECOND? >> COUNCILMEMBER: I SECOND.

>> CHAIRMAN: ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE.

>> COUNCILMEMBER:

YEAR OR-- >> CHAIRMAN: WE WANT IT TO GO FORWARD AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE.

WE'RE NOT-- AND I WILL COMMUNICATE THAT TO HER MYSELF. SHE ASKED ME TO CALL HER ABOUT

THIS AFTERWARDS. >> COUNCILMEMBER: DID THE MOTION SAY THAT?

>> CHAIRMAN: IT DOES NOT. BUT WE'LL COMMUNICATE THAT AS PART OF THE RECORD.

>> COUNCILMEMBER: THANK YOU. >> IN ADDRESSING OTHER SECTIONS OF CODE WHICH WE MAY WANT TO INVESTIGATE AS PART OF THIS OVERALL CONSIDERATION, THE POINT ABOUT OTHER AREAS WHERE IT MIGHT BE APPLIED RETROACTIVELY, IS THAT SOMETHING THAT THIS BOARD WISHES TO OFFER COMMENT ON?

>> COUNCILMEMBER: I DON'T THINK IT SHOULD BE RETROACTIVE. >> COUNCILMEMBER: HOW WOULD THAT EVEN ADDRESSED, KELLY? WHERE DOES THAT COME FROM? HOW DOES THAT HAPPEN?

>> WELL IF YOU WERE TO DENY THE PLACEMENT OF TELEVISIONS-- I AM NOT ENTIRELY SURE.

IT WOULD DEPEND ON HOW YOU CRAFT THE LANGUAGE WHETHER THAT IS SOMETHING ONLY ON THE OUTSIDE FACADE OR SOMETHING THAT'S INSIDE. THAT'S GOING TO BECOME MORE OF A PROBLEM IN ORDER TO REGULATE AM IF BUT I DON'T KNOW AT THIS POINT.

JUST BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW THE SECTIONS OF CODE THAT WOULD REQUIRE AMENDING.

BUT I DO KNOW THIS PARTICULAR SECTION IS NOT THE LAST STOP. >> CHAIRMAN: LET'S PUSH THIS--

>> COUNCILMEMBER: I FEEL LIKE LONG TERM THE IDEA OF PUTTING LANGUAGE SOMEWHERE THAT TALKS ABOUT WHERE IT IS AND ISN'T APPROPRIATE FOR TELEVISIONS TO BE PLACED OR THINGS LIKE THAT IS PROBABLY IN THE HISTORIC DISTRICT GUIDELINES BUT WE KNOW THAT'S SOMETHING THAT CAN'T

[02:45:02]

HAPPEN FOR A WHILE. SO, AT LEAST WE'RE DEALING WITH SOMETHING IMMEDIATELY AND MAYBE LONG TERM WHEN THE DESIGN GUIDELINES GET MODIFIED WE CAN ADDRESS IT THERE TOO.

>> CHAIRMAN: YES. LET'S CALL A VOTE. >> MEMBER POZZETTA?

>> COUNCILMEMBER: YES. >> MEMBER CONWAY? >> COUNCILMEMBER: YES.

>> MEMBER MORRISON? >> COUNCILMEMBER: YES. >> MEMBER HARRISON?

>> COUNCILMEMBER: YES. >> CHAIR SPINO? >> CHAIRMAN: YES.

MOVE ON TO PUBLIC COMMENT. IF THERE IS-- DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING TO ADD TONIGHT.

BRIAN YOU HAD YOUR--

>> PUBLIC SPEAKER: I THINK IT'S GREAT. STICK IT TO THEM.

THEY DESERVE IT. >> CHAIRMAN: THANK YOU. SO WE WILL MOVE ON TO ADJOURN.

THANK YOU COUNCIL FOR SUBBING. STAFF FOR YOUR USUAL GREAT WORK. THANK YOU EVERYONE.

APPRECIATE YOUR ATTENTION TONIGHT.

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.